Skip to main content

Full text of "Industrial relations : final report and testimony submitted to Congress by the Commission on Industrial Relations created by the act of August 23, 1912"

See other formats 


From  the  collection  of  the 


oPrelinger  h 
library 
t        p 


San  Francisco,  California 
2007 


64-TH  CONGRESS  \  ^FMATF  (DOCUMENT 

1st  Session      }  SENATE  j     No>  415 


INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS 


FINAL  REPORT  AND  TESTIMONY 

SUBMITTED  TO  CONGRESS  BY  THE 

COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS 

CREATED  BY  THE  ACT  OF 
AUGUST  23, 1912 


VOL.  I 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1916 


AUTHORITY  TO  PRINT. 

[Public  Resolution  No.  15,  Sixty-fourth  Congress,  first  session.] 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  final  report  of  the  United  States  Commission  on  Industrial 
Relations,  including  the  report  of  Basil  M.  Manly,  director  of  research  and  investiga- 
tion, and  the  individual  reports  and  statements  of  the  several  commissioners,  together 
with  all  the  testimony  taken  at  its  hearings,  except  exhibits  submitted  in  printed 
form,  which  shall  be  appropriately  referred  to  in  said  testimony,  be  printed  as  a  Senate 
document  under  the  direction  of  the  Joint  Committee  on  Printing;  and  that  ten  thou- 
sand additional  copies  be  printed  and  bound  in  cloth,  of  which  two  thousand  five 
hundred  copies  shall  be  for  the  use  of  the  Senate  and  seven  thousand  five  hundred 
copies  for  the  use  of  the  House  of  Representatives;  and  that  of  the  final  report  of  said 
commission  one  hundred  thousand  additional  copies  be  printed,  of  which  thirty  thou- 
sand copies  shall  be  for  the  use  of  the  Senate  and  seventy  thousand  copies  for  the 
use  of  the  House  of  Representatives:  Provided,  That  the  superintendent  of  documents 
is  hereby  authorized  to  reprint  copies  of  the  same  for  sale  or  distribution  as  provided 
by  law. 

Approved,  April  28,  1916. 


CONTEXTS  OF  VOLUME  L 


Page. 

Final  report  of  commission  (see  special  table  of  contents,  pp.  7-8) 5-269 

Testimony  taken  .at  hearings 271-1024 

Suggestions  of  expert  witnesses 273-398 

J.  D.  Beck,  member,  Wisconsin  Industrial  Commission 278 

C.  W.  Price,  assistant  to  the  Industrial  Commission  of  Wiscon- 
sin  : 285 

R.  W.  Campbell,  chairman,  central  safety  -committee,  Illinois 

Steel  Co.,  Chicago 294 

W.  H.  Cameron,  secretary,  National  Council  of  Safety 307 

Mrs.    Raymond    Bobbins,    president,    National    Women's    Trade- 
Union,  League : 309 

John  B.   Andrews,   secretary,   American   Association  for   Labor 

Legislation 319 

Herbert  Quick,  author  and  farmer 320 

Charles  W.  Holman,  University  of  Texas 333 

John  A.  Fitch,  industrial  editor,  "The  .Survey" 334 

William  M.  Leiserson,  deputy,  Industrial  Commission  of  Wis- 
consin         344 

F.  C.  Croxton,  president,  American  Association  of  Free  Public 

Employment  Offices 357,  392 

Edward  T.  Devine,  Columbia  University _ :_       358 

L.  A.  Halbert,  superintendent,  Kansas  City  Board  of  Public  Wel- 
fare   360,  364 

James  H.  Boyd,  ex-chairman,  Employers'  Liability  Commission 

of   Ohio 370 

Charles  McCarthy,  Legislative  Reference  Bureau  of  Wisconsin 377 

Meyer  Bloomfield,  director,  Vocational  Bureau  of  Boston 390 

Trade  agreements  in  collective  bargaining 399-761 

John   Mitchell,   member,   New   York    State  Workingmen's   Com- 
pensation Commission.'; 401 

Francis  S.  Peabody,  coal  operator 428 

Frank  J.  Hayes,  international  vice  president.  United  Miae  Work- 
ers of  America 449 

O.  P.  Briggs,  ex-president,  National  Founders'  Association-  - 456,550 

Joseph  F.  Valentine,  president,  International  Molders'  Union 481 

Thomas  J.  Hogan,  secretary  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense 

Association 510 

John  P.  Frey,  executive  officer  and  editor,  International  Mold- 
ers' Union 524 

Joseph   Schaffner,   secretary   and   treasurer,   Hart,    Schaffner   & 

Marx,   Chicago 564,  574 

Sidney  Hillman,  president,  Cloak  and  Skirt  Makers'  Union,  New 

York 1 566 

Earl  Dean  Howard,  manager,  labor  department,  Hart,  Schaffner 

&  Marx,  Chicago 571,  592 

Julius  Henry  Cohen,  counsel,  Cloak,.  Suit,  and  Skirt  Manufac- 
turers' Protective  Association 575,  587 

A.  Bisno,  chairman,  educational  committee,  Cloak  Makers'  Union, 

New  York 579 

James  M.  Lynch,  commissioner  of  labor,  State  of  New  York 594 

Albert  W.  Finlay,   chairman,   executive  committee,   United  Ty- 

pothetse  of  America —      609 

George  L.  Berry,  president,  International  Printing  Pressmen  and 

Assistants'  Union 620 

Otto  M.  Eidlitz.  general  contractor,  New  York 644 

3 


4  CONTENTS    OF    VOLUME    1. 

Testimony  taken  at  hearings— Continued. 

Trade  agreements  in  collective  bargaining — Continued.  Page. 

W.  J.  Spencer,  building-trades  department,  American  Federation 

of   Labor 659 

Henry  Struble,  secretary,  National  Cut  Stone  Contractors'  As- 
sociation           665 

Thomas  J.  Williams,  president,   building  trades   department, 

American    Federation    of    Labor .. 675 

Edward   A.   Crane,  architect,   Philadelphia 681 

Charles  Francis  president,  Printers'  League  of  America 683 

J.   E.   Williams,   mediator  of  labor   disputes 697 

W.  L.  Mackenzie  King,  former  minister  of  labor,  Ottawa,  Can- 
ada    713,  732 

Samuel  Gompers,  president,  American  Federation  of  Labor___  718,  738 
James   A.    Emery,   counsel,   National   Association   of   Manufac- 
turers     724,  745 

Exhibits,  printing  trades 748 

Exhibits,   building   trades    760 

Efficiency  systems  and  labor 763-1024 

Frederick  W.  Taylor,  consulting  engineer,  Philadelphia 765,  795 

John  F.  Tobin,  president,  Boot  and  Shoe  Workers'  Union,  Boston-      810 
Harrington  Emerson,  standard  of  practice  and  efficiency  engi- 
neer     822, 1021 

Charles  W.  Mixter,  time-study  man  Sentinel  Automatic  Gas  Ap- 
pliance  Co.,   New   Haven   835 

Robert  G.  Valentine,  industrial  counselor 852 

James  M.  Dodge,  chairman,  Link  Belt  Co.,  Philadelphia 862 

P.  J.  Conlon,  vice  president,  International  Association  of  Ma- 
chinists          873 

David  Van  Alstyne,  assistant  to  president,  New  York,  New  Haven 

&  Hartford  Railroad 883 

Carl  G.  Earth,  consulting  engineer,  Philadelphia 886 

A.  J.  Berres,  secretary-treasurer,  metal-trades  department,  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor 899 

Sanford  E.  Thompson,  consulting  engineer,  Boston 913,  928 

N.  P.  Alifas,  president,  district  No.  44,  International  Association 

of   Machinists    940 

Henry  Lawrence  Gantt,  consulting  engineer,  Montclair,  N.  J 955 

James  Duncan,  president,  Granite  Cutters'  International  Associa- 
tion of  America  965 

John  Golden,  president,  United  Textile  Workers  of  America..  985, 1012 
Louis  D.  Brandeis,  counselor  at  law,  Boston 991 


FINAL  REPORT  OF  THE 
COMMISSION  ON 
INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS 

INCLUDING  THE 

REPORT  OF  BASIL  M.  MANLY,  DIRECTOR 
OF  RESEARCH  AND  INVESTIGATION 

AND  THE 

INDIVIDUAL  REPORTS  AND  STATEMENTS 
OF  THE  SEVERAL  COMMISSIONERS 


THE  COMMISSION  -OK  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

FRANK  P.  WALSH,  Missouri,  Chairman. 

JOHN  R.  COMMONS,  Wisconsin.  S.  THRUSTON  BALLARD,  Kentucky. 

FLORENCE  J.  HARRIMAN,  New  York.  JOHN  B.  LENNON,  Illinois. 

RICHARD  H.  AISHTON,  Illinois.!  JAMES  O'CONNELL,  District  of  Columbia. 

HARRIS  WEINSTOCK,  California.  AUSTIN  B.  GARRETSON,  Iowa. 

LEWIS  K.  BROWN,  Secretary' 

WILLIAM  O.  THOMPSON,  Counsel. 

BASIL  M.  MANLY,  Director  of  Research  and  Investigation. 

EXTRACT  FROM  ACT  OF  CONGRESS  OF  AUGUST  23,  1912,  CREATING  AND  DEFINING 

THE  DUTIES  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

That  a  commission  is  hereby  created  to  be  called  the  Commission  on  Industrial 
Relations.  Said  commission  shall  be  composed  of  nine  persons,  to  be  appointed 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  not  less  than  three  of  whom  shall  be  employers  of  labor  and  not  less  than 
three  of  whom  shall  be  representatives  of  organized  labor. 

#  *  *  #  *          .          *  * 

SEC.  4.  That  the  commission  shall  inquire  into  the  general  condition  of  labor  in  the 
principal  industries  of  the  United  States,  including  agriculture,  and  especially  in  those 
which  are  carried  on  in  corporate  forms;  into  existing  relations  between  employers 
and  employees;  into  the  effect  of  industrial  conditions  on  public  welfare  and  into 
the  rights  and  powers  of  the  community  to  deal  therewith;  into  the  conditions  of 
sanitation  and  safety  of  employees  and  the  provisions  for  protecting  the  life,  limb, 
and  health  of  the  employees;  into  the  growth  of  associations  of  employers  and  of  wage 
earners  and  the  effect  of  such  associations  upon  the  relations  between  employers  and 
employees;  into  the  extent  and  results  of  methods  of  collective  bargaining;  into  any 
methods  which  have  been  tried  in  any  State  or  in  foreign  countries  for  maintaining 
mutually  satisfactory  relations  between  employees  and  employers;  into  methods  for 
avoiding  or  adjusting  labor  disputes  through  peaceful  and  conciliatory  mediation  and 
negotiations;  into  the  scope,  methods,  and  resources  of  existing  bureaus  of  labor  and 
into  possible  ways  of  increasing  their  usefulness;  into  the  question  of  smuggling  or 
other  illegal  entry  of  Asiatics  into  the  United  States  or  its  insular  possessions,  and  of 
the  methods  by  which  such  Asiatics  have  gained  and  are  gaining  such  admission,  and 
shall  report  to  Congress  as  speedily  as  possible,  with  such  recommendation  as  said 
commission  may  think  proper  to  prevent  such  smuggling  and  illegal  entry.  The  com- 
mission shall  seek  to  discover  the  underlying  causes  of  dissatisfaction  in  the  industrial 
situation  and  report  its  conclusions  thereon. 

i  Appointed  commissioner  Mar.  17, 1915,  to  serve  the  unexpired  term  of  Hon.  F.  A.  Delano,  resigned. 
6 


CONTENTS  OF  FINAL  REPORT. 

Page. 


Letter  of  transmittal 9 

I. 

REPORT  OF  BASIL  M.  MANLY,  DIRECTOR  OF  RESEARCH  AND  INVESTIGATION,  SIGNED  BY  COMMIS- 
SIONERS WALSH,  LENNON,  O'CONNELL,  AND  GARRETSON 11-15  2 

Letter  of  submittaL 

Introduction 17 

Method  and  character  of  investigation 19 

Classification  of  witnesses  upon  industrial  subjects 20 

Summary  of  conclusions  and  recommendations 21-68 

Labor  conditions  in  the  principal  industries,  including  agriculture 21 

Existing  relations  between  employers  and  employees 25 

Causes  of  industrial  unrest 29 

Unjust  distribution  of  wealth  and  income 30 

Unemployment  and  denial  of  opportunity  to  earn  a  living 

Denial  of  justice 38 

Denial  of  the  right  of  organization 61 

Conclusions  and  recommendations 68-152 

I.  Industrial  conditions  of  adult  workmen  in  general  industries 68 

Wages 68 

Hours  of  labor 69 

Safety  and  sanitation 69 

Housing 70 

II.  Women  and  children  in  industry 71 

III.  Industrial  conditions  and  relations  on  public  utilities 73 

General 73 

Telegraph 74 

Telephone 75 

The  Pullman  Co 76 

Eailroads , 77 

IV.  Industrial  conditions  in  isolated  communities 78 

V.  The  concentration  of  wealth  and  influence 80 

VI.  The  land  question  and  the  condition  of  agricultural  labor 86 

VII.  Judicial  settlement  of  labor  claims  and  complaints 89 

VIII.  The  law  relating  to  trade  unions  and  industrial  disputes 90 

IX.  The  policing  ofindustry 92 

The  origin  of  industrial  violence 92 

State  constabulary 97 

Free  speech 98 

X.  The  conditions  and  problems  of  migratory  laborers 101 

XI.  Unemployment 103 

Extent  and  character  of  unemployment 103 

Existing  conditions  of  employment 106 

Existing  agencies  for  employment 108 

Public  employment  agencies 112 

XII.  Organization,  methods  and  policies  of  trade  unions 115 

XIII.  Organization,  methods  and  policies  of  employers'  associations 117 

XIV.  Joint  agreements 119 

XV.  Agencies  of  mediation,  investigation,  and  arbitration 120 

Proposed  plan  of  a  national  system 121 

Organization 121 

Powers,  duties,  and  jurisdiction 123 

Cooperation 124 

XVI.  Industrial  conditions  and  the  public  health— Sickness  insurance 124 

XVII   Education  in  relation  to  industry.    (See  Report  of  Commissioner  John  B.  Lennon 

on  Industrial  Education,  p.  253) 127 

XVIII.  Scientific  management 127 

Possible  benefits  to  labor  and  society 128 

Diversities  and  defects 129 

General  labor  problems 139 

Conclusions 143 

XIX.  Prison  labor -. 143 

XX.  Immigration : 144 

XXI.  Labor  conditions  in  American  colonial  possessions 145 

XXII.  Chinese  exclusion '- 147 

Constructive  suggestions: 

Changes  in  thelaw 147 

United  States  commissioners 149 

The  judicial  system 

General  administration 149 

Selection  of  inspectors \ 

Chinese  interpreters 150 

Staff  organization  at  Washington -  -  -  150 

Salary  plan 151 

Restricting 152 

7 


8  CONTENTS  OF  FINAL  REPORT. 

Page. 

SUPPLEMENTAL  STATEMENT  OF  CHAIRMAN  FRANK  P.  WALSH 153 

SUPPLEMENTAL  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  AUSTIN  B.  GARRETSON 158 

SUPPLEMENTAL  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONERS  JOHN  B .  LENNON  AND  JAMES  O  'CONNELL 161 

Criticisms  not  justified 161 

Strong  organizations  the  cure 162 

The  evidence 162 

Extent  of  unrest 163 

New  governmental  machinery  unwise 164 

The  one  true  remedy 165 

The  public's  duty 166 

II. 

REPORT  OF  COMMISSIONERS  JOHNR.  COMMONS  AND  FLORENCE  J.  HARRIMAN,  SIGNED  BY  COMMIS- 
SIONERS COMMONS,  HARRIMAN,  WEINSTOCK,  B ALLARD,  AND  AISHTON 169-230 

Enactment,  interpretation,  and  enforcement  of  labor  law 171 

Industrial  commissions 173 

Advisory  representative  council 176 

Civil  service  and  comments  on  preceding  paragraphs 180 

Commissions  and  class  conflicts 182 

Investigations 191 

Rules  and  regulations 195 

Review  by  commission 198 

Court  review 199 

Testimony 200 

Continuous  industry,  employment  and  insurance 200 

Police  and  military 201 

Legal  aid 202 

Legislation 203 

Supreme  courts 204 

Mediation  and  minimum  wage 206 

Trade  disputes 214 

Foundations 220 

Subsidies 221 

Federalfund  for  social  welfare 221 

Immigration 225 

Farmers  and  farm  laborers 226 

Corporation  eontrol 228 

Dissenting  opinion  of  Commissioner  Harris  Weinstock 230 

REPORT  .OF  COMMISSIONERS  WEINSTOCK,  BALLARD,  AND  AISHTON: 

Points  of  dissent 231 

Employers'  objection  to  organized  labor,  fear  of— 

Sympathetic  strikes 235 

Jurisdictional  disputes 236 

Labor  union  politics 237 

Contract  breaking 237 

Restriction  of  output 238 

Prohibition  of  use  of  nonunion-made  tools  and  material 240 

Closed  shop 240 

Contests  for  supremacy  between  rival  unions 242 

Acts  of  violence 242 

Apprenticeship  rules .• 246 

SUPPLEMENTAL  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  S.  THRUSTON  BALLARD 249 

III. 

REPORT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JOHN  B.  LENNON  ON  INDUSTRIAL  EDUCATION,  SIGNED  BY  COMMISSIONERS 

LENNON,  O 'CONNELL,  GARRETSON,  BALLARD,  AND  WALSH 253-261 

Demand  for  industrial  education 255 

Control  of  vocational  schools 257 

General  recommendations 258 

Continuation  of  part-time  schools 259 

Teachers 260 

Conclusions 260 

IV. 
ADDITIONAL  FINDINGS  OF  FACT,  CONCLUSIONS,  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS 263-26') 


LETTEE  OF  TEANSMITTAL. 


COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS, 

Chicago,  III.,  August  23,  1915. 
To  the  Sixty -fourth  Congress: 

On  behalf  of  the  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations,  I  have  the 
honor  to  transmit  herewith  its  final  report. 

The  assembling  of  facts  in  the  report  of  the  staff  from  the  records 
of  our  public  hearings  and  the  reports  of  investigators,  under  the 
direction  of  Mr.  Basil  M.  Manly,  might  well  be  taken,  in  my  opinion, 
as  a  model  of  efficiency  and  scientific  treatment  by  governmental 
departments. 

The  plan  of  submitting  none  but  undisputed  facts  in  the  final 
report  of  the  commission  has  been  faithfully  adhered  to. 

No  statement  or  conclusion  of  fact  adverse  to  the  attitude  or  in- 
terest of  any  person  or  group  of  persons  is  submitted,  except  as  de- 
clared or  assented  to  by  the  person  or  by  the  individuals  comprising 
the  group  affected.  Thus,  for  perhaps  the  first  time  in  the  history 
of  our  Government,  the  facts  in  relation  to  conditions  in  the  indus- 
tries examined  and  the  relations  inquired  into  are  placed  beyond 
the  realm  of  controversy  and  established  upon  the  solid  and  scientific 
basis  of  ascertained  and  indisputable  fact. 

It  is  believed  that  the  work  of  the  commission  has  been  conducted 
in  a  spirit  of  social  justice  and  an  earnest  desire  to  serve  the  public 
by  bringing  into  the  light  the  facts  regarding  the  industrial  relations 
of  the  country.  For  the  creation  of  this  spirit,  as  well  as  for  an 
earnest  insistence  that  the  education  of  the  public  should  be  the  key- 
note, I  feel  that  full  credit  should  be  accorded  Mr.  George  P.  West, 
and  that  in  addition  thereto  he  should  be  credited  with  the  inspira- 
tion and  planning  of  many  of  the  most  effective  public  hearings  of 
the  commission. 

Respectfully, 

FRANK  P.  WALSH,  Chairman. 


I. 


Report  of  Basil  M.  Manly 

Director  of  Research  and  Investigation 

Embodying  the  Findings  of  Fact,  Conclusions,  and  Recommendations 

of  the  Staff,  based  upon  their  Investigations  and  the 

Testimony  of  Public  Hearings 

SIGNED  BY 

Commissioners  Walsh,  Lennon,  O'Connell,  and  Garretson 

TOGETHER  WITH 

Supplemental  Statements  by  Chairman  Walsh,  Commission- 
ers Garretson,  Lennon,  and  O'Connell 


11 


LETTER  OF  SUBMITTAL. 


CHICAGO,  ILL.,  August  9,  1915. 

To  the  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS  : 

I  have  the  honor  to  submit  herewith  my  report,  which  has  been 
prepared  by  direction  of  the  commission  as  a  summary  and  interpre- 
tation of  the  evidence  contained  in  the  public  hearings  of  the  com- 
mission and  the  reports  of  the  staff,  together  with  suggestions  for 
action  designed  to  remedy  such  evils  and  abuses  as  have  been  de- 
veloped by  investigation. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  report  I  have  directed  my  attention 
primarily  to  the  most  important  question  placed  before  the  commis- 
sion by  Congress,  namely,  "  the  underlying  causes  of  dissatisfaction 
in  the  industrial  situation."  I  have,  however,  attempted  to  cover  as 
adequately  as  possible  all  the  questions  embodied  in  section  4  of 
the  act. 

A  few  words  with  regard  to  the  method  of  preparation  may  be  of 
value :  The  policy  of  the  commission  in  intrusting  certain  important 
subjects  to  the  members  of  the  staff  for  investigation  under  the  gen- 
eral supervision  of  the  director  has  been  continued  throughout.  The 
members  of  the  staff  who  had  charge  of  definite  subjects  have  made 
their  final  reports  embodying  the  results  of  their  investigations  and 
the  pertinent  parts  of  the  testimony  before  the  commission.  These 
reports  have,  as  far  as  possible,  been  accepted  as  the  basis  for  the 
statements  and  recommendations  contained  in  this  report.  It  is  only 
fair,  however,  to  state  that  in  certain  respects  they  have  been  modi- 
fied, largely  as  a  result  of  the  discussion  which  took  place  when  these 
reports  were  presented  to  the  commission  in  tentative  form.  Never- 
theless, in  every  case  the  substance  and  essential  ideas  of  each  in- 
vestigator's report  have  been  retained. 

The  enormous  mass  of  testimony  heard  by  the  commission  has 
been  drawn  upon  freely.  In  using  this  testimony  I  have  iDeen  guided 
by  the  principle  of  quoting  only  statements  made  by  the  party  to 
whom  such  evidence  would  be  unfavorable  or  by  persons  who  were 
clearly  nonpartisan.  For  example,  in  the  criticism  of  the  attitude 
and  actions  of  employers  only  the  testimony  given  by  employers  or 
their  agents  has  been  quoted ;  the  testimony  of  labor  representatives 
being  used  only  to  show  the  attitude  of  the  workers. 

In  addition,  I  have  utilized  to  a  very  large  extent  the  reports  of 
other  governmental  agencies,  not  only  as  sources  of  original  informa- 
tion but  as  a  check  upon  the  statements  and  conclusions  contained 
herein.  In  relation  to  a  few  subjects,  indeed,  the  information  al- 
ready collected  made  it  unnecessary  for  the  commission  to  conduct 
investigations  of  its  own. 

13 


14  EEPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

This  report  should  properly  be  known  as  the  report  of  the  staff, 
except  that,  as  noted  above,  I  feel  it  necessary  to  assume  personal 
responsibility  for  certain  modifications  which  have  been  made  from 
the  original  reports.  I  wish  to  state,  however,  that  I  have  drawn 
most  largely  upon  the  following  reports,  which  are  submitted  here- 
with, with  the  suggestion  that  Congress  be  requested  to  print  them 
as  supplements  to  this  report : x 

W.  JETT  LAUCK: 

Analysis  of  Economic  Causes  of  Unrest. 
EDGAR  SYDENSTRICKER  : 

Labor  Conditions  in  American  Industry. 
CHRISTOPHER  T.  CHENERY: 

The  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Industry. 

Labor  Conditions  in  Porto  Rico, 
MARIE  L.  OBENAUER: 

Women  in  Industry. 

Interstate  Competition. 
GERTRUDE  BARNUM  : 

Enforcement  of  Laws  Regulating  Working  Hours  of  Women  In  Wisconsin. 
GEORGE  P.  WEST: 

Labor  Conditions  in  Colorado. 
WILLIAM  P.  HARVEY  : 

Labor  Conditions  in  the  Black  Hills. 

Labor  Conditions  in  Los  Angeles. 
CHARLES  W.  HOLMAN: 

Preliminary  Report  on  the  Land  Question. 
JOHN  L.  COULTER: 

Agricultural  Labor  and  Tenancy. 
WILLIAM  M.  LEISERSON  : 

Unemployment. 
PETER  A.  SPEEK  : 

Conditions  in  Labor  Camps. 

Labor  Complaints  and  -Claims. 

Migratory  Workers. 
GEORGE  E.  BARNETT: 

Joint  Agreements. 
GEORGE  E.  BASNETT  and  D.  A.  McCABE: 

Mediation  and  Arbitration. 
LEO  WOLMAN: 

Extent  and  Growth  of  Labor  Organizations. 
J.  WALLACE  BRYAN  : 

Trade-Union  Law, 
EDWIN  E.  WITTE: 

Injunctions  in  Labor  Disputes. 
ROBERT  F.  HOXIE  : 

Scientific  Management  and  Labor. 
B.  S.  WARREN: 

Industrial  Conditions  and  the  Public  Health. 
LUKE  GRANT: 

Violence  in  Labor  Disputes  aod  the  Policing  of  Industry. 

The  National   Erectors'  Association  and  the  International  Association  of 

Bridge  and  Structural  Iron  Workers. 
REDMOND  S.  BRENNAN  and  PATRICK  F,  GHX: 

The  Inferior  Courts  and  Police  of  Paterson,  N.  J. 
EDWARD  A.  FITZPATRICK: 

Chinese  Exclusion. 

In  addition  to  those  named  above,  the  following  members  of  the 
staff,  who  have  performed  exceptional  service  and  whose  reports 
have  to  some  extent  been  used  directly,  should  be  mentioned :  Henry 
Wiiithrop  Ballantine,  Charles  B.  Barnes,  Francis  H.  Bird,  E.  H. 

1  These  reports  have  not  heen  printed  with  this  document,  on  the  recommendation  of 
Chairman  Frank  P.  Walsh,  as  stated  in  his  letter  in  Senate  Report  No.  143,  Sixty-fourth 
Congress.  The  reports  on  Labor  Conditions  in  Colorado  and  the  National  Erectors'  Asso- 
ciation were  printed  by  the  commission  itself  in  1915. 


LETTER    OF    SUBMITTAL.  15 

Busiek,  W.  J.  Coyne,  Nelle  B.  Curry,  Alexander  M.  Daly,  F.  S. 
Deibler,  Noel  T.  Dowling,  H.  E.  Hoagland,  Carl  Hookstadt,  B.  F. 
Moore,  Daniel  T.  O'Regan,  M.  O'Sullivan,  Selig  Perlman,  Sumner 
Slichter,  George  L.  Sprague,  and  Inis  Weed. 

Special  mention  should  be  made  also  of  Charles  J.  Stowell  and 
Elizabeth  A.  Hyde,  whose  work  in  research  and  in  the  digesting  of 
testimony  has  been  invaluable. 

—  The  success  of  the  public  hearings  was  due  in  large  measure  to  the 
courage,  tact,  and  good  humor  of  Thomas  J.  Egan,  who  performed 
the  difficult  duties  of  sergeant  at  arms  for  the  commission. 
/  •'  I  wish  to  express  my  appreciation  of  the  generous  cooperation  of 
the  secretary,  Mr.  Lewis  K.  Brown,  upon  whose  executive  ability  and 
tactful  administration  of  the  commission's  affairs  the  work  of  the 
1  staff  in  large  measure  depended.     I  wish  also  to  express  to  the  com- 
,  mission  my  acknowledgment  and  appreciation  of  the  unusual  free- 
dom which  has  been  accorded  me  in  the  administration  of  the  work 
of  research  and  investigation,  and  in  the  conduct   of  the  public 
hearings. 

Respectfully,* 

BASH,  M.  MANLY,  Director. 


FINAL  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL 
RELATIONS. 


REPORT  OF  BASIL  M.  MANLY,  DIRECTOR  OF  RESEARCH  AND 

INVESTIGATION. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  question  of  industrial  relations  assigned  by  Congress  to  the 
commission  for  investigation  is  more  fundamental  and  of  greater 
importance  to  the  welfare  of  the  Nation  than  any  other  question  ex- 
cept the  form  of  our  government.  The  only  hope  for  the  solution 
of  the  tremendous  problems  created  by  industrial  relationship  lies 
in  the  effective  use  of  our  democratic  institutions  and  in  the  rapid 
extension  of  the  principles  of  democracy  to  industry. 

The  immediate  effects  of  the  form  and  character  of  industrial  or- 
ganization are,  however,  greater  and  closer  to  the  lives  and  happi- 
ness of  all  classes  of  citizens  than  even  the  form  and  character  of 
our  political  institutions.  The  ordinary  man,  whether  employer 
or  worker,  has  relatively  little  contact  with  the  Government.  If  he 
and  his  family  are  well  fed,  well  housed,  and  well  clothed,  and  if  he 
can  pay  for  the  education  of  his  children,  he  can  exist  even  under 
an  autocratic  monarchy  with  little  concern,  until  some  critical  situa- 
tion develops  in  which  his  own  liberty  is  interfered  with  or  until  he 
is  deprived  of  life  or  property  by  the  overwhelming  power  of  his 
tyrannical  ruler.  But  his  industrial  relations  determine  every  day 
what  he  and  his  family  shall  eat,  what  they  shall  wear,  how  many 
hours  of  his  life  he  shall  labor  and  in  what  surroundings.  Under 
certain  conditions  where  his  individual  or  corporate  employer  owns 
or  controls  the  community  in  which  he  lives,  the  education  of  his 
children,  the  character  and  prices  of  his  food,  clothing,  and  house, 
his  own  actions,  speech,  and  opinions,  and  in  some  cases  even  his 
religion,  are  controlled  and  determined,  in  so  far  as  the  interests  of 
the  employer  make  it  desirable  for  him  to  exercise  such  control. 
Such  conditions  are  established  and  maintained  not  only  through  the 
dictation  of  all  working  conditions  by  the  employer,  but  by  his 
usurpation  or  control  of  the  functions  and  machinery  of  political 
government  in  such  communities. 

In  the  available  time  it  has  been  impossible  to  ascertain  how  gen- 
eral such  conditions  are,  but  it  is  clearly  indicated  by  the  investiga- 
tions that  in  isolated  industrial,  mining,  or  agricultural  communi- 
ties, which  are  owned  or  controlled  by  single  individuals  or  corpora- 
tions, and  in  which  the  employees  are  unorganized,  industrial  feu- 
dalism is  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception. 

38819°— 16 2  17 


18  KEPORT  OP   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

In  such  communities  democratic  government  does  not,  as  a  rule, 
exist,  except  in  name  or  form,  and  as  a  consequence  there  now  exist 
within  the  body  of  our  Republic  industrial  communities  which  are 
virtually  principalities,  oppressive  to  those  dependent  upon  them 
for  a  livelihood  and  a  dreadful  menace  to  the  peace  and  welfare  of 
the  Nation. 

Such  conditions  as  these  are  the  direct  and  inevitable  consequence 
of  the  industrial  relations  which  exist  in  such  communities.  Politi- 
cal freedom  can  exist  only  where  there  is  industrial  freedom ;  politi- 
cal democracy  only  where  there  is  industrial  democracy. 

Such  industrial  democracy  has  been  established  in  a  greater  or 
less  degree  in  certain  American  industries  or  for  certain  classes  of 
employees.  But  .between  conditions  of  industrial  democracy  and 
industrial  feudalism  there  are  almost  infinite  gradations  marking 
the  stages  of  evolution  which  have  been  reached.  In  every  case, 
however,  investigation  has  shown  that  the  degree  of  political  free- 
dom and  democracy  which  exists  is  conditioned  by  the  industrial 
status  of  the  citizens  who  form  the  majority  of  the  community. 

The  problems  of  industrial  relations,  therefore,  demand  the  atten- 
tion of  Congress,  not  only  because  they'  determine  the  life,  security, 
and  happiness  of  the  25,000,000  citizens  of  the  United  States  who 
occupy  the  position  of  wage  earners  but  because  they  affect  for  good 
or  evil  the  government  of  localities  and  States  and  to  a  smaller  de- 
gree that  of  the  Nation  itself.  What  each  of  these  wage  earners  shall 
eat,  what  he  shall  wear,  where  he  shall  live,  and  how  long  and  under 
what  conditions  he  shall  labor  are  determined  by  his  industrial 
status  and  by  his  relation,  individually  or  collectively,  to  the  person 
or  corporation  employing  him.  Similarly  and  almost  as  directly, 
this  relationship  determines  whether  the  machinery  of  government 
shall  be  used  for  or  against  his  welfare ;  whether  his  vote  shall  count 
for  or  against  his  own  interest ;  whether  he  shall  be  tried  by  a  jury 
of  his  peers  or  a  jury  selected  in  collusion  with  the  employing  com- 
pany, or,  under  conditions  of  so-called  martial  law,  by  no  jury  what- 
ever ;  whether,  in  fact,  he  shall  be  a  free  man  or  be  deprived  of  every 
right  guaranteed  by  Federal  and  State  constitutions,  imprisoned 
without  warrant  for  the  commission  of  crimes  of  which  he  may  be 
innocent  or  forcibly  deported  from  the  community  or  State  in  which 
he  has  made  his  home.  For  these  reasons  it  seems  desirable  at  the 
outset  to  suggest  a  recommendation  to  Congress  that  these  problems 
of  industrial  relationship  should  occupy  their  due  prominence  in  the 
deliberations  of  that  honorable  body,  and  that  the  entire  machinery 
of  the  Federal  Government  should  be  utilized  to  the  greatest  possible 
degree  for  the  correction  of  such  deplorable  conditions  as  have  been 
found  to  exist. 

The  lack  of  a  proper  industrial  relationship  and  the  existence  of 
bad  labor  conditions  is  a  matter  of  the  most  serious  moment  during 
times  of  peace,  but  the  events  of  the  past  year  have  demonstrated 
how  enormously  their  menace  to  the  welfare  of  a  nation  is  increased 
during  a  period  of  war.  The  present  European  war  is  being  fought 
on  the  farms  and  in  the  factories  as  much  as  in  the  trenches.  The 
effective  mobilization  of  our  industrial  resources  is  as  important, 
simply  from  the  standpoint  of  war,  as  is  the  mobilization  of  our  mil- 
itary and  naval  forces. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  19 

It  is  equally  important  that  action  should  be  taken  now,  and  not 
after  war  is  a  reality. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  in  the  succeeding  pages  of  this  report 
to  suggest  some  of  the  measures  which  should  be  adopted,  with  a  full 
realization,  however,  that  no  action  will  be  effective  which  does  not 
come  through  an  understanding  by  the  American  people  of  the  essen- 
tial facts  regarding  industrial  conditions.  Practically  there  are  only 
two  alternatives  for  effective  action:  First,  the  creation  of  a  huge 
system  of  bureaucratic  paternalism  such  as  has  been  developed  in 
Germany ;  second,  action  which  removes  the  many  existing  obstacles 
which  prevent  effective  organization  and  cooperation,  reserving  for 
performance  by  the  Government  only  those  services  which  can  not  be 
effectively  conducted  by  voluntary  organizations  and  those  which 
are  of  such  vital  importance  to  the  entire  Nation  that  they  should 
not  be  left  to  the  hazard  of  private  enterprise. 

In  closing  this  introductory  statement  it  is  proper  to  append  a 
quotation  from  Carlyle,  the  great  Scotch  historian,  which  contains 
in  a  few  eloquent  sentences  the  very  heart  of  the  situation  in  Ameri- 
can industry : 

With  the  working  people,  again,  it  is  not  so  well.  Unlucky !  For  there  are 
from  twenty  to  twenty-five  millions  of  them.  Whom,  however,  we  lump  together 
into  a  kind  of  dim  compendious  unity,  *  *  *,  as  "  the  masses."  Masses 
indeed;  and  yet,  singular  to  say,  the  masses  consist  of  units,  *  *  *,  every 
unit  of  whom  has  his  own  heart  and  sorrows ;  stands  covered  there  with  his  own 
skin,  and  if  you  prick  him  he  will  bleed.  Every  unit  of  these  masses  is  a  mirac- 
ulous man,  even  as  thou  thyself  art ;  struggling  with  vision  or  with  blindness  for 
his  infinite  kingdom  (this  life  which  he  has  got  once  only  in  the  middle  of 
eternities)  ;  with  a  spark  of  the  divinity,  what  thou  callest  an  immortal  soul, 
in  him! 

Clearly  a  difficult  "  point "  for  government,  that  of  dealing  with  these  masses ; 
if  indeed  it  be  not  rather  the  sole  point  and  problem  of  government,  and  all 
other  points  mere  accidental  crotchets,  superficialities,  and  beatings  of  the 
wind !  For  let  charter  chests,  use  and  wont,  law  common  and  special,  say  what 
they  will,  the  masses  count  to  so  many  millions  of  units,  made,  to  all  appear- 
ance, by  God,  whose  earth  this  is  declared  to  be. 

METHOD  AND  CHARACTER  OF  INVESTIGATION. 

In  the  investigation  of  questions  so  intimately  affecting  the  lives 
of  a  large  part  of  the  American  people  the  ordinary  methods  of 
compiling  facts  and  drawing  deductions  would  have  been  utterly 
insufficient,  not  only  because  the  ground  to  be  covered  was  too  ex- 
tensive, but  because  the  situation  was  too  largely  the  result  of  the 
opinions,  beliefs,  and  convictions  of  employers  and  employees  to  be 
susceptible  of  ascertainment  by  such  a  method.  Furthermore,  it 
became  clear  very  early  in  the  investigation  that  the  problems  which 
were  presented  could  be  solved  only  by  the  will  arid  conscience  of 
the  American  people  acting  either  directly  or  through  their  repre- 
sentatives in  the  State  and  Federal  Governments. 

The  commission  has  therefore  called  before  it  witnesses  represent- 
ing persons  drawn  from  almost  every  walk  of  life,  whose  knowledge 
and  opinions  were  believed  to  be  of  value.  In  order  that  the  informa- 
tion developed  by  these  hearings  should  reach  the  people  they  were 
not  only  held  in  public,  but,  through  the  newspapers,  the  facts  de- 
veloped by  them  have  been  carried  throughout  the  Nation. 

These  hearings  have  occupied  in  all  154  days,  or  rather  more  than 
the  equivalent  of  6  months  of  the  commission's  time.  One  or  more 


20  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

hearings  were  held  in  each  of  the  following  cities:  Washington, 
New  York,  Paterson,  Philadelphia,  Boston,  Chicago,  Lead  (S.  Dak.)? 
Butte,  Seattle,  Portland,  San  Francisco,  Los  Angeles,  Denver,  and 
Dallas.  The  witnesses,  however,  were  by  no  means  limited  to  these 
localities,  but  in  every  case  the  best-informed  persons  were  brought 
to  the  centers  at  which  the  hearings  were  held. 

The  representative  character  of  the  witnesses  may  best  be  shown  by 
the  statement  on  the  following  page. 

Classification  of  ivitnesses  upon  industrial  subjects. 

Affiliated  with  employers : 

Employers,  managers,  foremen,  etc 

Representatives  of  employers'  organizations — 

Attorneys 15 

Efficiency  engineers 10 

Employment  agents 

Capitalists,  bankers,  directors,  etc 20 

230 

Affiliated  with  labor : 

Trades-union  officials 135 

Workingmen  and  working  women 90 

Attorneys 6 

Industrial  Workers  of  the  World 8 

Representatives  of  the  Socialist  Party G 

245 

Not  affiliated  with  either  group: 

Agriculturists 22 

Attorneys 15 

Public  officials 69 

Representatives  of  civic  organizations 

Educators 22 

Economists  and  sociologists 20 

Investigators 11 

Representatives  of  the  press 14 

Clergy 10 

Physicians 7 

Unclassified 17 

On  Chinese  exclusion 84 

265 

Total 740 

These  witnesses  were  not  arbitrarily  selected  by  the  commission, 
but  were  chosen  only  after  careful  investigation  by  agents  of  the  com- 
mission, who  consulted  the  persons  best  informed  regarding  the 
industry,  locality,  or  question  under  consideration.  Every  oppor- 
tunity was  given  employers  and  employees  to  suggest  the  names  of 
witnesses  who  could  best  present  their  side  of  the  case,  and  the  per- 
sons thus  suggested  were  without  exception  heard  with  absolute  free- 
dom not  only  as  regards  time,  but  without  regard  to  the  technical 
rules  of  evidence. 

It  seems  desirable  also  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  this 
report,  except  for  citations  from  admittedly  nonpartisan  official 
bodies,  there  are  no  statements  of  fact  affecting  any  person  or  group 
of  persons  which  have  not  been  submitted  to  the  parties  directly 
concerned,  or  which  have  not  been  quoted  from  documents  submitted 
by  them  or  from  their  public  testimony.  The  submission  of  the  facts 
developed  by  preliminary  investigation  to  the  parties  affected  for 
verification  or  correction  at  public  hearings  is  believed  to  be  the  best 
means  of  ascertaining  the  truth  and  avoiding  evasion.  The  same  is 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  21 

true  of  the  recommendations  and  conclusions  contained  in  the  report, 
a  very  large  number  of  which  were  submitted  for  criticism  at  public 
hearings  or  by  correspondence. 

SUMMARY  OF  CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS. 

In  the  act  of  Congress  creating  the  commission,  section  4  named 
11  questions  into  which  inquiry  was  specifically  directed.  Of  these 
questions  three,  relating  to  industrial  conditions,  industrial  relations, 
and  the  causes  of  industrial  unrest,  were  fundamental  in  character 
and  of  broad  scope,  while  eight  were  specific  and  dealt  more  largely 
with  matters  of  detail.  Leaving  these  eight  specific  questions  for 
detailed  consideration  in  the  body  of  the  report,  it  seems  desirable 
to  present  briefly  at  this  point  the  findings  and  conclusions  with  re- 
gard to  these  general  questions. 

LABOR  CONDITIONS  IN  THE  PRINCIPAL  INDUSTRIES,  INCLUDING 

AGRICULTURE. 

In  considering  the  conditions  of  labor  in  American  industries,  it 
has  seemed  that  they  could  be  judged  or  appraised  only  by  com- 
paring conditions  as  they  actually  exist  with  what  knowledge  and 
experience  shows  that  they  might  easily  be  made  during  the  im-> 
mediate  future  if  proper  action  were  taken  to  utilize  the  resources 
of  our  Nation  efficiently  and  distribute  the  products  equitably. 

As  against  this  view  there  has  been  an  attempt  by  some  persons 
to  urge  the  judgment  of  all  things  by  comparison  with  the  past. 
Much  stress  has  been  laid  by  certain  witnesses  upon  the  alleged  im- 
provement of  the  condition  of  the  workers  during  the  past  quarter 
century. 

This  point,  however,  is  regarded  as  generally  immaterial.  The 
crux  of  the  question  rather  is,  Have  the  workers  received  a  fair 
share  of  the  enormous  increase  in  wealth  which  has  taken  place  in 
this  country,  during  the  period,  as  a  result  largely  of  their  labors? 
The  answer  is  emphatically,  No  ! 

The  wealth  of  the  country  between  1890  and  1912  increased  from 
sixty-five  to  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven  billions,  or  188  per  cent, 
whereas  the  aggregate  income  of  wage  earners  in  manufacturing, 
mining,  and  transportation  has  risen  between  1889  and  1909  only  95 
per  cent,  from  two  thousand  five  hundred  and  sixteen  millions  in 
1889  to  four  thousand  nine  hundred  and  sixteen  millions  in  1909. 
Furthermore,  the  wage  earners'  share  of  the  net  product1  of  in- 
dustry in  the  case  of  manufactures  was  only  40.2  per  cent  in  1909, 
as  compared  with  44.9  per  cent  in  1889. 

Similarly,  the  attempt  to  dismiss  deplorable  labor  conditions  in 
the  United  States  by  arguments  that  they  are  better  than  in  Euro- 
pean countries  is  repugnant.  To  say  that  conditions  are  better  than 
in  Great  Britain,  for  example,  is  simply  to  say  that  somewhat  less 
than  one-third  of  the  population  is  in  a  state  of  absolute  poverty, 
for  that  was  the  condition  reported  by  the  latest  British  commission 
It  should  be  a  matter  of  shame  also  to  boast  that  the  condition  of 

1  The  net  product  is  the  value  that  remains  after  subtracting  the  cost  of  materials  from 
the  total  value. 


22  REPORT  OP   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

American  laborers  is  better  than  that  of  laborers  in  the  "  black  bread 
belt "  of  Germany. 

That  conditions  are,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  but  little  better  is  proved 
conclusively  by  the  almost  complete  cessation  of  immigration  from 
Germany,  England,  and  France.  No  better  proof  of  the  miserable 
condition  of  the  mass  of  American  workers  need  be  sought  than  the 
fact  that  in  recent  years  laborers  in  large  numbers  have  come  to 
this  country  only  from  Russia,  Italy,  Austria-Hungary,  and  the 
backward  and  impoverished  nations  of  southern  and  eastern  Europe* 

With  the  inexhaustible  natural  resources  of  the  United  States,  her 
tremendous  mechanical  achievements,  and  the  genius  of  her  people 
for  organization  and  industry,  there  can  be  no  natural  reason  to  pre- 
vent every  able-bodied  man  of  our  present  population  from  being 
well  fed,  well  housed,  comfortably  clothed,  and  from  rearing  a 
family  of  moderate  size  in  comfort,  health,  and  security.  How  far 
this  ideal  is  actually  achieved  is  discussed  in  some  detail  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages. 

It  is  evident  both  from  the  investigations  of  this  commission  and 
from  the  reports  of  all  recent  governmental  bodies  that  a  large  part 
of  our  industrial  population  are,  as  a  result  of  the  combination  of  low 
wages  and  unemployment,  living  in  a  condition  of  actual  poverty. 
How  large  this  proportion  is  can  not  be  exactly  determined,  but  it 
is  certain  that  at  least  one-third  and  possibly  one-half  of  the  families 
of  wage  earners  employed  in  manufacturing  and  mining  earn  in  the 
course  of  the  year  less  than  enough  to  support  them  in  anything  like 
a  comfortable  and  decent  condition.  The  detailed  evidence  is  pre- 
sented in  a  separate  report  which  is  submitted  for  transmittal  to 
Congress.1  At  this  point  it  is  sufficient  to  call  attention  to  the  results 
of  the  most  exhaustive  and  sweeping  official  investigation  of  recent 
years,  that  of  the  Immigration  Commission,  which  reported  to  Con- 
gress in  1909,  This  investigation  secured  detailed  information  re- 
garding the  daily  or  weekly  earnings  of  619,595  employees  of  all 
classes  in  our  basic  manufacturing  industries  and  in  coal  mining, 
and  information  regarding  income  and  living  conditions  for  15,726 
families. 

It  was  found  that  the  incomes  of  almost  two-thirds  of  these  fam- 
ilies (64  per  cent)  were  less  than  $750  per  year  and  of  almost  one- 
third  (31  per  cent)  were  less  than  $500,  the  average  for  all  being 
$721.  The  average  size  of  these  families  was  5.6  members.  Elab- 
orate studies  of  the  cost  of  living  made  in  all  parts  of  the  country 
at  the  same  time  have  shown  that  the  very  least  that  a  family  of  five 
persons  can  live  upon  in  anything  approaching  decency  is  $700.  It  is 
probable  that,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  families  investigated  by  the 
Immigration  Commission  were,  to  a  large  extent,  foreign  born,  the 
incomes  reported  are  lower  than  the  average  for  the  entire  working 
population ;  nevertheless,  even  when  every  allowance  is  made  for  that 
fact,  the  figures  show  conclusively  that  between  one-half  and  two- 
thirds  of  these  families  were  living  below  the  standards  of  decent 
subsistence,  while  about  one-third  were  living  in  a  state  which  can 
be  described  only  as  abject  poverty. 

American  society  was  founded  and  for  a  long  period  existed  upon 
the  theory  that  the  family  should  derive  its  support  from  the  earn- 

1  Report  of  Edgar  Sydenstricker  :  Labor  Conditions  in  American  Industries. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  23 

ings  of  the  father.  How  far  we  have  departed  from  this  condition 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  79  per  cent  of  the  fathers  of  these  families 
earned  less  than  $700  per  year.  In  brief,  only  one-fourth  of  these 
fathers  could  have  supported  their  families  on  the  barest  subsist- 
ence level  without  the  earnings  of  other  members  of  the  family  or 
income  from  outside  sources. 

Other  facts  collected  in  this  investigation  show  conclusively  Jbhat 
a  very  large  proportion  of  these  families  did  not  live  in  decency 
and  comfort.  Thirty  per  cent  kept  boarders  and  lodgers,  a  condition 
repugnant  to  every  ideal  of  American  family  life,  especially  in  the 
crowded  tenements  or  tiny  cottages  in  which  the  wage  earners  of 
America  characteristically  live.  Furthermore,  in  77  per  cent  of  the 
families  two  or  more  persons  occupied  each  sleeping  room,  in  37  per 
cent  three  or  more  persons,  and  in  15  per  cent  four  or  more  persons. 

The  most  striking  evidence  of  poverty  is  the  proportion  of  pauper 
burials.  Th  repugnance  of  all  classes  of  wage  earners  of  all  races 
to  pauper  burial  is  such  that  everything  will  be  sacrificed  and  heavy 
debts  incurred  rather  than  permit  any  member  of  the  family  to  lie 
in  the  "  potter's  field  " ;  nevertheless  in  New  York  City  1  out  of  every 
12  corpses  is  buried  at  the  expense  of  the  city  or  turned  over  to 
physicians  for  dissection.1 

The  terrible  effects  of  such  poverty  may  be  outlined  in  a  few  para- 
graphs, but  their  far-reaching  consequences  could  not  be  adequately 
shown  in  a  volume. 

Children  are  the  basis  of  the  State;  as  they  live  or  die,  as  they 
thrive  or  are  ill  nourished,  as  they  are  intelligent  or  ignorant,  so 
fares  the  State.  How  do  the  children  of  American  workers  fare  ? 

It  has  been  proved  by  studies  here  and  abroad  that  there  is  a 
direct  relation  between  poverty  and  the  death  rate  of  babies;  but 
the  frightful  rate  at  which  poverty  kills  was  not  known,  at  least  for 
this  country,  until  very  recently,"  when  through  a  study  made  in 
Johnstown,  Pa.,  by  the  Federal  Children's  Bureau,  it  was  shown  that 
the  babies  whose  fathers  earned  less  than  $10  per  week  died  during 
the  first  year  at  the  appalling  rate  of  256  per  1,000.  On  the  other 
hand,  those  whose  fathers  earned  $25  per  week  or  more  died  at  the 
rate  of  only  84  per  1,000.  The  babies  of  the  poor  died  at  three  times 
the  rate  of  those  who  were  in  fairly  well-to-do  families.  The  tremen- 
dous significance  of  these  figures  will  be  appreciated  when  it  is  known 
that  one- third  of  all  the  adult  workmen  reported  by  the  Immigration 
Commission  earned  less  than  $10  per  week,  even  exclusive  of  time 
lost.  On  the  showing  of  Johnstown  these  workmen  may  expect  one 
out  of  four  of  their  babies  to  die  during  the  first  year  of  life. 

The  last  of  the  family  to  go  hungry  are  the  children,  yet  statistics 
show  that  in  six  of  our  largest  cities  from  12  to  20  per  cent  of  the 
children  are  noticeably  underfed  and  ill  nourished. 

The  minimum  amount  of  education  which  any  child  should  receive 
is  certainly  the  grammar  school  course,  yet  statistics  show  that  only 
one-third  of  the  children  in  our  public  schools  complete  the  grammar 
school  course,  and  less  than  10  per  cent  finish  high  school.2  Those 

1  Statistics  for  New  York  are  the  only  ones  available  which  are  reasonably  complete. 
Even  there  not  all  are  included  who  die  in  a  state  of  extreme  poverty,  as  it  is  well  known 
that  national  societies  and  sympathetic  individuals  claim  a  large  number  of  bodies  of 
persons  absolutely  unknown  to  them. 

8  Elimination  of  Pupils  from  School.  Edward  L.  Thorndike.  Bull.  379,  TJ.  S.  Bureau  of 
Education. 


24  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON"   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

who  leave  are  almost  entirely  the  children  of  the  workers,  who,  as 
soon  as  they  reach  working  age,  are  thrown,  immature,  ill  trained, 
and  with  no  practical  knowledge,  into  the  complexities  of  industrial 
life.  In  each  of  four  industrial  towns  studied  by  the  Bureau  of 
Labor  Statistics,  more  than  75  per  cent  of  the  children  quit  school 
before  reaching  the  seventh  grade.1 

Tlje  great  seriousness  of  this  condition  is  even  more  acutely  realized 
when  it  is  known  that  in  the  families  of  the  workers  37  per  cent  of 
the  mothers  are  at  work2  and  consequently  unable  to  give  the  chil- 
dren more  than  scant  attention.  Of  these  mothers  30  per  cent  keep 
boarders  and  lodgers  and  7  per  cent  work  outside  the  home. 

As  a  final  statement  of  the  far-reaching  effects  of  the  economic 
condition  of  American  wage  earners,  it  seems  proper  to  quote  the 
following  statement  of  the  Chicago  Commission  on  Crime,  which 
after  thorough  investigation,  has  reported  during  the  past  year : 

The  pressure  of  economic  conditions  has  an  enormous  influence  in  producing 
certain  types  of  crime.  Insanitary  housing  and  working  conditions,  unemploy- 
ment, wages  inadequate  to  maintain  a  human  standard  of  living,  inevitably 
produce  the  crushed  or  distorted  bodies  and  minds  from  which  the  army  of 
crime  is  recruited.  The  crime  problem  is  not  merely  a  question  of  police  and 
courts;  it  leads  to  the  broader  problems  of  public  sanitation,  education,  home 
care,  a  living  wage,  and  industrial  democracy.8 

The  other  factors  in  the  conditions  under  which  labor  is  employed 
in  American  industry,  such  as  working  hours,  regularity  of  employ- 
ment, safety,  and  sanitation,  are  left  for  later  discussion.  Suffice 
it  to  say  in  this  connection  that  while  in  certain  fields  great  improve- 
ments have  been  made,  the  general  situation  is  such  that  they  accen- 
tuate rather  than  relieve  the  deplorable  effects  of  inadequate  income 
which  have  been  pointed  out. 

As  a  picture  of  American  industry,  this  presentation  is  undeniably 
gloomy  and  depressing,  but  as  a  diagnosis  of  what  is  wrong  with 
American  labor  conditions,  it  is  true  and  exact.  There  are,  of  course, 
many  bright  spots  in  American  industry,  where  workmen  are  well 
paid  and  regularly  employed  under  good  working  conditions  in 
the  determination  of  which  they  have  some  share.  But,  even  as  the 
physician  pays  little  attention  to  the  good  eyes  and  sound  teeth  of 
a  patient  whose  vital  organs  are  diseased,  so  impressive  is  the  urgent 
need  for  attention  to  the  diseased  spots  in  industry,  it  is  felt  to  be 
unnecessary  to  waste  time  in  word  pictures  of  conditions  which  are 
all  right  or  which  may  be  depended  upon  to  right  themselves. 

In  agriculture  there  is  no  array  of  exact  figures  which  can  be  quoted 
to  show  the  condition  of  labor.  But,  speaking  generally, 'the  available 
evidence  indicates  clearly  that  while  in  some  sections  agricultural 
laborers  are  well  paid  and  fairly  treated,  the  condition  of  the  mass  is 
very  much  like  that  of  the  industrial  workers. 

Moreover,  there  is  a  peculiar  condition  in  agriculture  which  merits 
a  brief  but  strong  statement  at  this  point  as  a  preface  to  a  more  de- 
tailed discussion  later.  The  most  alarming  fact  in  American  agri- 
culture is  the  rapid  growth  of  tenancy.  In  1910  there  were  37  tenant - 

1  Conditions  Under  Which  Children  Leave  School  to  Go  to  Work.     Vol.  VII  of  Report  on 
Conditions  of  Woman  and  Child  Wage  Earners  in  the  United  States.     S.  Doc.  No.  645,  61st 
Cong.,  2d  sess. 

2  Summary  Report  on  Immigrants  in  Manufacturing  and  Mining.     Vols.  19  and  20  of 
Reports  of  the  Immigration  Commission.     S.  Doc.  No.  633,  61st  Cong.,  2d  sess. 

»  Report  of  the  City  Council  Committee  on  Crime,  Chicago,  Summary  of  Findings,  sec.  14, 
p.  12. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  25 

operated  farms  in  each  100  farms  in  the  United  States,  as  compared 
with  28  in  1890,  an  increase  of  32  per  cent  during  20  years.  No 
nation-wide  investigation  of  the  condition  of  tenant  farmers  has  ever 
been  made,  but  in  Texas,  where  the  investigations  of  this  commission 
were  thorough  and  conclusive,  it  was  found  not  only  that  the  economic 
condition  of  the  tenant  was  extremely  bad  but  that  he  was  far  from 
being  free,  while  his  future  was  regarded  as  hopeless.  Badly  housed, 
ill  nourished,  uneducated,  and  hopeless,  these  tenants  continue  year 
after  year  to  eke  out  a  bare  living,  moving  frequently  from  one  farm 
to  another  in  the  hope  that  something  will  turn  up.  Without  a  large 
family  the  tenant  can  not^hope  to  succeed  or  break  even,  so  in  each 
tenant  family  numerous  children  are  being  reared  to  a  future  which 
under  present  conditions  will  be  no  better  than  that  of  their  parents, 
if  as  good.  The  wife  of  a  typical  tenant  farmer,  the  mother  of  11 
children,  stated  in  her  testimony  before  the  commission  that  in  addi- 
tion to  the  rearing  of  children,  making  their  clothes,  and  doing  the 
work  of  the  house,  she  always  helped  with  the  crops,  working  up  to 
within  three  or  four  months  before  children  were  born,  and  that 
during  all  the  years  of  her  married  life  she  had  had  no  ready-made 
dresses  and  only  three  hats.  The  investigations  of  this  commission 
in  that  rich  and  generally  prosperous  section  of  the  country  only  con- 
firm and  accentuate  the  statements  of  the  Federal  Industrial  Com- 
mission which  reported  in  1902 : 

The  result  of  this  system  [share  tenancy]  is  that  the  renters  rarely  if  ever 
succeed  in  laying  by  a  surplus.  On  the  contrary,  their  experiences  are  so  dis- 
couraging that  they  seldom  remain  on  the  same  farm  for  more  than  a  year. 
They  are  not  only  unable  to  lay  by  any  money,  but  their  children  remain  un- 
educated and  half  clothed.  The  system  is  apparently  one  of  the  most  undesira- 
ble, so  far  as  its  effect  on  the  community  is  concerned.1 

Similarly,  the  Public  Lands  Commission  reported  in  1905 : 

There  exists  and  is  spreading  in  the  West  a  tenant  or  hired  labor  system 
which  not  only  represents  a  relatively  low  industrial  development,  but  whose 
further  development  carries  with  it  a  most  serious  threat.  Politically,  socially, 
and  economically  this  system  is  indefensible. 

The  condition  of  agricultural  laborers  can  not,  however,  be  dis- 
missed without  referring  to  the  development  of  huge  estates  which 
are  operated  by  managers  with  hired  labor  on  what  may  properly 
be  called  a  "  factory  system."  The  conditions  upon  such  estates  are 
deplorable,  not  only  because  of  the  extremely  low  wages  paid  (80 
cents  per  day  in  the  case  of  one  which  was  carefully  investigated), 
but  even  more  because  these  estates,  embracing  within  their  bound- 
aries entire  counties  and  towns,  are  a  law  unto  themselves  and  the 
absolute  dictators  of  the  lives,  liberties,  and  happiness  of  their  em- 
ployees. It  is  industrial  feudalism  in  an  extreme  form.  Such  estates 
are,  as  a  rule,  the  property  of  absentee  landlords,  who  are  for  the 
most  part  millionaires,  resident  in  the  eastern  States  or  in  Europe. 

EXISTING  RELATIONS  BETWEEN  EMPLOYERS  AND  EMPLOYEES. 

Considering  the  whole  field  of  American  industry,  there  are  almost 
infinite  variations  of  relationship  between  employers  and  employees, 
ranging  from  the  individual  worker  hired  by  a  single  employer,  as 

1  Reports  of  the  Industrial  Commission,  Vol.  XIX,  1902,  p.  98. 


26  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

in  domestic  service  and  agriculture,  to  the  huge  corporation  with 
a  hundred  thousand  stockholders  and  a  quarter  of  a  million  em- 
ployees. Relationship  varies  from  that  of  direct  contact  to  a  situa- 
tion where  the  employee,  together  with  thousands  of  his  fellow 
workers,  is  separated  by  hundreds  of  miles  from  the  individuals 
who  finally  control  his  employment  and  of  whose  existence  he  is 
usually  entirely  ignorant. 

A  thorough  discussion  of  the  relationships  which  exist  under  these 
various  forms  of  industrial  organization  would  be  not  only  tedious, 
but  useless  for  all  practical  purposes.  The  typical  form  of  industrial 
organization  is  the  corporation.  In  transportation  approximately 
100  per  cent  of  the  wage  earners  are  employed  by  corporations;  in 
mining,  90  per  cent;  and  in  manufacturing,  75  per  cent.  Moreover, 
it  is  under  this  form  that  the  great  problems  of  industrial  relations 
have  developed. 

The  actual  relationship  which  exists  between  employers  and  em- 
ployees under  the  artificial  conditions  which  characterize  the  cor- 
porate form  of  organization  can  not  be  understood  without  an 
analysis  of  the  powers,  functions,  and  responsibilities  of  the  different 
elements  which  go  to  make  up  the  typical  corporation.  The  actual 
ownership  of  a  corporation  is  vested  in  the  stockholders  and  bond- 
holders, whose  only  interest  in  the  industry  is  represented  by  cer- 
tificates upon  the  basis  of  which  they  expect  the  payment  of  interest 
or  dividends  at  stated  intervals. 

The  control  of  the  property,  as  far  as  operation  is  concerned,  rests 
finally  with  the  stockholders,  or  with  some  particular  class  of 
stockholders  whose  shares  entitle  them  to  vote.  The  stockholders, 
however,  act  through  the  board  of  directors,  who  are  usually  elected 
in  such  a  way  that  they  represent  only  the  dominant  interest.1  As 
far  as  the  organization  of  the  corporation  is  concerned,  the  prin- 
cipal function  of  the  board  of  directors  is  to  select  the  executive 
officials.  These  executive  officials,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  select 
the  numerous  superintendents,  foremen,  and  petty  bosses  by  whom 
the  direct  operation  of  the  enterprise  is  managed  and  through  whom 
all  the  workers  are  hired,  discharged,  and  disciplined. 

This  is  a  skeleton  of  corporate  organization.  To  understand  its 
operations  it  is  necessary  to  examine  the  functions  and  responsibili- 
ties of  the  different  parts  of  the  organization. 

Theoretically  and  legally,  the  final  control  and  responsibility  rests 
with  the  stockholders,  but  in  actual  practice  a  very  different  situa- 
tion is  found.  The  relationship  of  stockholders  to  a  corporation  is 
anything  but  permanent :  in  a  busy  week  on  Wall  Street  the  number 
of  shares  bought  and  sold  in  one  of  the  great  corporations  will 
greatly  exceed  the  total  number  of  shares  that  are  in  existence.  The 
stockholders  as  a  class,  therefore,  have  no  guiding  interests  in  the 
permanent  efficiency  of  the  corporation  as  regards  either  the  preser- 
vation of  its  physical  property  or  the  maintenance  of  an  efficient 
productive  organization.  Stocks  are  bought  either  as  a  speculation 
or  as  an  investment,  and  in  case  either  the  physical  property  deteri- 
orates or  the  productive  organization  tends  to  become  inefficient,  the 
well-informed  stockholder  generally  takes  no  steps  to  correct  the 

1  See  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Jacob  H.  Schiff,  Mr.  Samuel  Untermyer,  and  others  upon  thU 
point. 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  27 

condition,  but  merely  throws  his  stock  upon  the  market.  This  marks 
a  very  real  and  definite  distinction  from  the  actual  ownership  of  a 
property  or  business  which  must  be  kept  in  good  condition  by  its 
owner  as  regards  b8th  plant  and  organization.  If  all  industries  were 
owned  and  operated  by  individuals,  there  might  be  some  reason  to 
hope  that  generally  satisfactory  wages  and  physical  conditions  might 
be  attained  through  the  education  of  the  owner  to  a  realization 
th#t  permanent  success  depended  absolutely  upon  the  maintenance 
of  the  plant  in  the  best  condition  and  the  permanent  satisfaction  of 
the  legitimate  demands  of  the  workers,  but  with  the  impersonal,  re- 
mote, and  irresponsible  status  of  control  by  stock  ownership,  such 
a  hope  must  be  purely  illusory.  The  ordinary  stockholder  in  a 
large  corporation  actually  occupies  a  less  direct  relationship  to  the 
corporation  in  which  he  is  interested,  has  less  knowledge  of  its  actual 
operations,  and  less  control  over  its  management  than  the  ordinary 
citizen  has  over  local,  State,  and  National  Governments. 

Boards  of  directors  in  theory  are  responsible  for  and  would  natur- 
ally be  expected  to  maintain  supervision  over  every  phase  of  the 
corporation's  management,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  know  that 
such  supervision  is  maintained  only  over  the  financial  phase  of  the 
business,  controlling  the  acquisition  of  money  to  operate  the  busi- 
ness and  distributing  the  profits.  Actual  direction  generally  exists 
only  through  the  removal  of  executive  officials  who  fail  to  deliver  the 
expected  profits,  and  through  the  appointment  of  their  successors.1 

Upon  the  testimony  of  financiers  representing,  as  directors,  hun- 
dreds of  corporations,  the  typical  director  of  large  corporations  is  not 
only  totally  ignorant  of  the  actual  operations  of  such  corporations, 
whose  properties  he  seldom,  if  ever,  visits,  but  feels  and  exercises  no 
responsibility  for  anything  beyond  the  financial  condition  and  the 
selection  of  executive  officials.  Upon  their  own  statements,  these 
directors  know  nothing  and  care  nothing  about  the  quality  of  the 
product,  the  condition  and  treatment  of  the  workers  from  whose 
labor  they  derive  their  income,  nor  the  general  management  of  the 
business.2 

As  far  as  operation  and  actual  management  are  concerned,  the 
executive  officials  are  practically  supreme.  Upon  their  orders  pro- 
duction is  increased  or  decreased,  plants  are  operated  or  shut  down, 
and  upon  their  recommendations  wages  are  raised  or  lowered.  But 
even  they  have  little  direct  contact  with  the  actual  establishment  of 
working  conditions,  and  no  relation  at  all  with  the  rank  and  file  of 
the  workers.  They  act  upon  the  recommendations  of  superintend- 
ents, whose  information  comes  from  their  assistants  and  foremen,  and 
from  the  elaborate  statistics  of  modern  business,  which  account  for 
every  piece  of  material  and  product,  show  the  disposition  of  every 
penny  that  comes  and  goes,  but  ignore  as  though  they  did  not  exist 
the  men  and  women  whose  labor  drives  the  whole  mechanism  of 
business. 

Here,  then,  is  the  field  of  industrial  relations:  Masses  of  workers 
on  the  one  side  dealing  in  some  manner  with  foremen  and  super- 
intendents on  the  other,  behind  whom  is  an  organization  of  execu- 

1  See  especially  the  testimony  of  Messrs.  J.  P.  Morgan,  John  D.  Rockefeller,  jr.,  and 
August  Belinont  upon  this  point. 

*  See  the  testimony  of  Messrs.  Jacob  H.  Schiff,  Daniel  Guggenheim,  Roger  W.  Babson, 
and  John  D.  Rockefeller,  jr. 


28  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

tive  officials,  representing  in  turn  the  board  of  directors,  who  are  the 
chosen  representatives  of  the  stockholders. 

The  crux  of  the  whole  question  of  industrial  relations  is:  Shall 
the  workers  for  the  protection  of  their  interests  be  organized  and 
represented  collectively  by  their  chosen  delegates,  even  as  the  stock- 
holders are  represented  by  their  directors  and  by  the  various  grades 
of  executive  officials  and  bosses? 

In  considering  this  issue  the  first  question  that  presents  itself  is, 
Why  should  such  representation  be  demanded  as  a  necessity?  Not 
only  are  the  executive  officials,  superintendents  and  bosses,  some  wit- 
nesses have  urged  before  the  commission,  for  the  most  part  humane 
and  well-intentioned  men,  but  they  know  that  the  interests  of  the 
business  depend  upon  the  welfare  of  the  workers  and,  if  unhindered, 
will  pay  the  best  wages  and  create  the  best  working  conditions  that 
the  business  can  afford.  Organization  and  representation  are  there- 
fore argued  to  be  unnecessary  and  tending  only  to  promote  friction 
and  interfere  with  the  management  of  the  business. 

Let  us  grant  the  high  character  and  good  intentions  of  officials 
and  consider  the  statement  of  the  workers  in  reply. 

They  say  that  in  modern  corporate  business  the  actions  of  officials 
are  governed  not  by  their  personal  intentions,  but  by  the  inexorable 
demands  for  interest  and  dividends,  and  are  driven  not  by  their  de- 
sire to  create  a  permanently  successful  business  with  a  contented 
labor  force,  but  by  the  never-relaxed  spur  of  the  comparative  cost 
sheet.  The  constant  demand  is  for  high  production  at  low  cost,  not 
through  improvements  and  good  conditions  which  might  give  them 
next  year,  but  this  very  month.  In  the  high  pressure  of  business 
every  superintendent  knows  that  if  his  plant  is  at  the  bottom  of  the 
comparative  scale  for  two  months  his  position  topples,  and  if  for 
three  months  it  is  virtually  gone.  He  can  not  afford  to  experiment 
with  changes  that  will  not  give  immediate  results.  If  he  were  his 
own  master  he  might  take  a  chance,  knowing  that  the  loss  of  this 
year  would  be  compensated  by  gains  under  better  conditions  next 
year,  but  the  monthly  cost  sheet  does  not  wait  for  next  year;  it  de- 
mands results  now. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  if  he  can  not  improve  conditions  himself 
he  can  at  least  recommend  them  to  his  superiors,  to  be  transmitted 
to  the  board  of  directors  for  approval.  This  might  indeed  be  done, 
and  with  the  extension  of  an  understanding  among  managers  that  low- 
production  costs  may  be  secured  with  high  wages,  probably  would  be  to 
an  increasing  extent,  except  that  boards  of  directors  scorn  such  ab- 
stractions as  the  high-wage-low-cost  theory  and  habitually  insist  that 
managers  shall  buy  labor,  as  they  buy  material,  in  the  cheapest  mar- 
ket. Moreover,  raising  wages  is  traditionally  unpopular  among 
stockholders  and  directors,  and  recommendations  for  better  condi- 
tions, particularly  if  they  involve  new  capital,  are  frowned  upon.1 
Neither  the  stockholders  nor  the  directors  have  to  live  on  wages  or 
work  in  the  existing  surroundings,  and  profits  deferred  are  con- 
sidered profits  lost. 

The  workers,  therefore,  deny  the  potency  of  even  good  intentions 
on  the  part  of  managers  and  point  to  labor  history,  which  they 

1  See  the  discussion  in  the  1915  stockholders'  meeting  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corpo- 
ration which  was  devoted  almost  exclusively  to  the  question  whether  the  corporation,  at  an 
expense  of  a  few  thousand  dollars,  should  continue  to  send  a  copy  of  the  annual  report  to 
each  stockholder  of  record. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  29 

allege  shows  that  at  best  only  isolated  cases  can  be  pointed  out 
where  marked  improvements  have  taken  place  except  in  response  to 
repeated  demands  from  the  workers  or  to  forestall  the  growth  of 
threatened  organization.  They  point  also  to  such  facts  as  that  chil- 
dren of  12  years  or  younger  were  not  only  employed  in  the  factories 
(as  they  still  are  in  some  States  where  there  has  been  little  aggressive 
agitation),  but  almost  without  exception  were  insisted  upon  by  the 
employers  as  a  necessity. 

The  evidence  of  this  character,  which  is  summarized  elsewhere, 
seems  to  be  conclusive  of  the  necessity  for  organization  and  repre- 
sentation under  modern  business  conditions.  But  even  if  it  were  not 
necessary  it  is  difficult  to  see  any  reason  why  what  is  demanded  and 
required  by  stockholders  should  be  denied  to  workers.  It  would  be 
as  illogical  for  stockholders  individually  to  attempt  to  deal  with  the 
representatives  of  the  unions  as  it  is  for  the  individual  worker  to 
attempt  to  deal  with  executive  officials  representing  the  organized 
stockholders. 

CAUSES  OF  INDUSTRIAL  UNREST. 

It  is  presumed  that  Congress  had  in  mind,  in  directing  the  commis- 
sion to  inquire  into  the  "causes  of  dissatisfaction  in  the  industrial 
situation,"  something  far  different  from  that  "  dissatisfaction  with 
the  present  which  is  the  hope  of  the  future,"  that  desire  for  better 
things  which  drives  men  forever  forward.  Such  dissatisfaction  is 
the  mainspring  of  all  progress  and  is  to  be  desired  in  every  nation 
in  all  walks  of  life. 

It  is  believed  that  Congress  intended  the  inquiry  to  be  directed  to 
that  unrest  and  dissatisfaction  which  grows  out  of  the  existence  of 
intolerable  industrial  conditions  and  which,  if  unrelieved,  will  in  the 
natural  course  of  events  rise  into  active  revolt  or,  if  forcibly  sup- 
pressed, sink  into  sullen  hatred. 

Of  the  existence  of  such  unrest  ample  evidence  has  been  found. 
It  is  the  basis  of  the  establishment  and  growth  of  the  I.  W.  W.,  whose 
card-carrying  members  number  only  a  few  thousands,  but  which  as 
"  a  spirit  and  a  vocabulary  "  permeates  to  a  large  extent  enormous 
masses  of  workers,  particularly  among  the  unskilled  and  migratory 
laborers.  But  entirely  apart  from  those  who  accept  its  philosophy 
and  creed,  there  are  numberless  thousands  of  workers,  skilled  and 
unskilled,  organized  and  unorganized,  who  feel  bitterly  that  they 
and  their  fellows  are  being  denied  justice,  economically,  politically, 
and  legally.  Just  how  widespread  this  feeling  is  or  whether  there 
is  imminent  danger  of  a  quickening  into  active,  nation-wide  revolt, 
none  can  say.  But  no  one  who  reads  the  papers  from  which  the 
workers  get  their  ideas  and  inspiration ;  no  one  who  has  studied  with 
care  the  history  of  such  strikes  as  those  at  Lawrence  and  Paterson, 
in  West  Virginia  and  Colorado,  and  has  understood  the  temper  of 
the  strikers ;  no  one  who  has  associated  with  large  numbers  of  work- 
ers in  any  part  of  the  country,  can  fail  to  be  impressed  by  the  gravity 
of  the  situation. , 

This  sense  of  tension  and  impending  danger  has  been  expressed  by 
numerous  witnesses  before  the  commission,  but  by  none  more  forcibly 
than  by  Mr.  Daniel  Guggenheim,  a  capitalist  whose  interests  in  mines 
and  industrial  plants  extend  to  every  part  of  the  country. 


30  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

Chairman  WALSH.  What  do  you  think  has  been  accomplished  by  the  philan- 
thropic activities  of  the  country  in  reducing  suffering  and  want  among  the 
people? 

Mr.  GUGGENHEIM.  There  has  a  great  deal  been  done.  If  it  were  not  for  what 
has  been  done  and  what  is  being  done,  we  would  have  revolution  in  this 
country. 

The  sources  from  which  this  unrest  springs  are,  when  stated  in  full 
detail,  almost  numberless.  But  upon  careful  analysis  of  their  real 
character  they  will  be  found  to  group  themselves  almost  without 
exception  under  four  main  sources  which  include  all  the  others. 
The  four  are : 

1.  Unjust  distribution  of  wealth  and  income. 

2.  Unemployment  and  denial  of  an  opportunity  to  earn  a  living. 

3.  Denial  of  justice  in  the  creation,  in  the  adjudication,  and  in 
the  administration  of  law. 

4.  Denial  of  the  right  and  opportunity  to  form  effective  organi- 
zations. 

1.    UNJUST  DISTRIBUTION    OF  WEALTH   AND   INCOME. 

The  conviction  that  the  wealth  of  the  country  and  the  income 
which  is  produced  through  the  toil  of  the  workers  is  distributed 
without  regard  to  any  standard  of  justice  is  as  widespread  as  it  is 
deep-seated.  It  is  found  among  all  classes  of  workers  and  takes  every 
form  from  the  dumb  resentment  of  the  day  laborer,  who,  at  the  end  of 
a  week's  back-breaking  toil  finds  that  he  has  less  than  enough  to  feed 
his  family  while  others  who  have  done  nothing  live  in  ease,  to  the 
elaborate  philosophy  of  the  "  soap-box  orator,"  who  can  quote  statistics 
unendingly  to  demonstrate  his  contentions.  At  bottom,  though, 
there  is  the  one  fundamental,  controlling  idea  that  income  should  be 
received  for  service  and  for  service  only,  whereas,  in  fact,  it  bears 
no  such  relation,  rand  he  who  serves  least,  or  not  at  all,  may  receive 
most. 

This  idea  has  never  been  expressed  more  clearly  than  in  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  John  H.  Walker,  president  of  the  Illinois  State  Fed- 
eration of  Labor : 

-  A  workingman  is  not  supposed  to  ask  anything  more  than  a  fair  day's  wage 
for  a  fair  day's  work ;  he  is  supposed  to  work  until  he  is  pretty  fairly  tuckered 
out,  say  eight  hours,  and  when  he  does  a  fair  day's  work  he  is  not  supposed 
to  ask  for  any  more  wages  than  enough  to  support  his  family,  while  with  the 
business  man  the  amount  of  labor  furnishes  no  criterion  for  the  amount  they 
receive.  People  accept  it  as  all  right  if  they  do  not  do  any  work  at  all,  and 
accept  it  as  all  right  that  they  get  as  much  money  as  they  can;  in  fact,  they 
are  given  credit  for  getting  the  greatest  amount  of  money  with  the  least 
amount  of  work;  and  those  things  that  are  being  accepted  by  the  other  side 
as  the  things  that  govern  in  every-day  life,  and  as  being  right,  have  brought 
about  this  condition,  this  being  in  my  judgment  absolutely  unfair;  that  is, 
on  the  merits  of  the  proposition  in  dealing  with  the  workers. 

The  workers  feel  this,  some  unconsciously  and  some  consciously,  but  all  of 
them  feel  it,  and  it  makes  for  unrest,  in  my  judgment,  and  there  can  be  no  peace 
while  that  condition  obtains. 

In  the  highest  paid  occupations  among  wage  earners,  such  as 
railroad  engineers  and  conductors,  glass  blowers,  certain  steel-mill 
employees,  and  a  few  of  the  building  trades,  the  incomes  will  range 
from  $1,500  to  $2,000  at  best,  ignoring  a  few  exceptional  men  who 
are  paid  for  personal  qualities.  Such  an  income  means,  under  pres- 
ent-day conditions,  a  fair  living  for  a  family  of  moderate  size,  edu- 
cation of  the  children  through  high  school,  a  small  insurance  policy, 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  31 

a  bit  put  by  for  a  rainy  day — and  nothing  more.  With  unusual  re- 
sponsibilities or  misfortunes,  it  is  too  little,  and  the  pinch  of  neces- 
sity is  keenly  felt.  To  attain  such  wages,  moreover,  means  that  the 
worker  must  be  far  above  the  average,  either  in  skill,  physical 
strength,  or  reliability.  He  must  also  have  served  an  apprenticeship 
equal  in  length  to  a  professional  course.  Finally,  and  most  im- 
portant, he  or  his  predecessors  in  the  trade  must  have  waged  a  long, 
aggressive  fight  for  better  wages,  for  there  are  other  occupations 
whose  demand  for  skill,  strength,  and  reliability  are  almost  as  great 
as  those  mentioned,  where  the  wages  are  very  much  less. 

These  occupations,  however,  include  but  a  handful  compared  to 
the  mass  of  the  workers.  What  do  the  millions  get  for  their  toil, 
for  their  skill,  for  the  risk  of  life  and  limb?  That  is  the  question 
to  be  faced  in  an  industrial  nation,  for  these  millions  are  the  back- 
bone and  sinew  of  the  State,  in  peace  or  in  war. 

First,  with  regard  to  the  adult  workmen,  the  fathers  and  potential 
fathers,  from  whose  earnings,  according  to  the  "  American  standard," 
the  support  of  the  family  is  supposed  to  be  derived. 

Between  one-fourth  and  one-third  of  the  male  workers  18  years 
of  age  and  over,  in  factories  and  mines,  earn  less  than  $10  per  week ; 
from  two-thirds  to  three-fourths  earn  less  than  $15,  and  only  about 
one-tenth  earn  more  than  $20  a  week.  This  does  not  take  into  con- 
sideration lost  working  time  for  any  cause. 

Next  are  the  women,  the  most  portentously  growing  factor  in  the 
labor  force,  whose  wages  are  important,  not  only  for  their  own  sup- 
port or  as  the  supplement  of  the  meager  earnings  of  their  fathers 
und  husbands,  but  because,  through  the  force  of  competition  in  a 
rapidly  extending  field,  they  threaten  the  whole  basis  of  the  wage 
scale.  From  two-thirds  to  three-fourths  of  the  women  workers  in 
factories,  stores  and  laundries,  and  in  industrial  occupations  gen- 
erally, work  at  wages  of  less  than  $8  a  week.  Approximately  one- 
fifth  earn  less  than  $4  and  nearly  one-half  earn  less  than  $6  a  week. 

Six  dollars  a  week — what  does  it  mean  to  many?  Three  theater 
ticketSj  gasoline  for  the  week,  or  the  price  of  a  dinner  for  two;  a 
pair  of  shoes,  three  pairs  of  gloves,  or  the  cost  of  an  evening  at 
bridge.  To  the  girl  it  means  that  every  penny  must  be  counted, 
every  normal  desire  stifled,  and  each  basic  necessity  of  life  barely 
satisfied  by  the  sacrifice  of  some  other  necessity.  If  more  food  must 
be  had  than  is  given  with  15-cent  dinners,  it  must  be  bought  with 
what  should  go  for  clothes ;  if  there  is  need  for  a  new  waist  to  replace 
the  old  one  at  which  the  forewoman  has  glanced  reproachfully  or  at 
which  the  girls  have  giggled,  there  can  be  no  lunches  for  a  week  and 
dinners  must  cost  5  cents  less  each  day.  Always  too  the  room  must 
be  paid  for,  and  back  of  it  lies  the  certainty  that  with  slack  seasons 
will  come  lay-offs  and  discharges.  If  the  breaking  point  has  come, 
and  she  must  have  some  amusement,  where  can  it  come  from?  Surely 
not  out  of  $6  a  week. 

Last  of  all  are  the  children,  for  whose  petty  addition  to  the  stream 
of  production  the  Nation  is  paying  a  heavy  toll  in  ignorance,  deformity 
of  body  or  mind,  and  premature  old  age.  After  all,  does  it  matter 
much  what  they  are  paid?  For  all  experience  has  shown  that  in 
the  end  the  father's  wages  are  reduced  by  about  the  amount  that 
the  children  earn.  This  is  the  so-called  "  family  wage,"  and  examin- 
ation of  the  wages  in  different  industries  corroborates  the  theory 


32  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

that  in  those  industries,  such  as  textiles,  where  women  and  children 
can  be  largely  utilized,  the  wages  of  men  are  extremely  low. 

The  competitive  effect  of  the  employment  of  women  and  children 
upon  the  wages  of  men,  can  scarcely  be  overestimated.  Surely  it  is 
hard  enough  to  be  forced  to  put  children  to  work,  without  having 
to  see  the  wages  of  men  held  down  by  their  employment. 

This  is  the  condition  at  one  end  of  the  social  scale.  What  is  at 
the  other? 

Massed  in  millions,  at  the  other  end  of  the  social  scale,  are  fortunes 
of  a  size  never  before  dreamed  of,  whose  very  owners  do  not  know  the 
extent  nor,  without  the  aid  of  an  intelligent  clerk,  even  the  sources  of 
their  incomes.  Incapable  of  being  spent  in  any  legitimate  manner, 
these  fortunes  are  burdens,  which  can  only  be  squandered,  hoarded, 
put  into  so-called  "  benefactions  "  which,  for  the  most  part,  constitute 
a  menace  to  the  State,  or  put  back  into  the  industrial  machine  to  pile 
up  ever-increasing  mountains  of  gold. 

In  many  cases,  no  doubt,  these  huge  fortunes  have  come,  in  whole 
or  in  part,  as  the  rich  reward  of  exceptional  service.  None  would 
deny  or  envy  him  who  has  performed  such  service  the  richest  of  re- 
wards, although  one  may  question  the  ideals  of  a  Nation  which  re- 
wards exceptional  service  only  by  burdensome  fortunes.  But  such 
reward  can  be  claimed  as  a  right  only  by  those  who  have  per- 
formed service,  not  by  those  who  through  relationship  or  mere  para- 
sitism chance  to  be  designated  as  heirs.  Legal  right,  of  course,  they 
have  by  virtue  of  the  law  of  inheritance,  which,  however,  runs  counter 
to  the  whole  theory  of  American  society,  and  which  was  adopted, 
with  important  variations,  from  the  English  law,  without  any  con- 
ception of  its  ultimate  results  and  apparently  with  the  idea  that  it 
would  prevent  exactly  the  condition  which  has  arisen.  In  effect  the 
American  law  of  inheritance  is  as  efficient  for  the  establishment  and 
maintenance  of  families  as  is  the  English  law,  which  has  bulwarked 
the  British  aristocracy  through  the  centuries.  Every  year,  indeed, 
sees  this  tendency  increase,  as  the  creation  of  "  estates  in  trust " 
secures  the  ends  which  might  be  more  simply  reached  if  there  were 
no  prohibition  of  "  entail."  According  to  the  income-tax  returns  for 
10  months  of  1914,  there  are  in  the  United  States  1,598  fortunes  yield- 
ing an  income  of  $100,000  or  more  per  year.  Practically  all  of  these 
fortunes  are  so  invested  and  hedged  about  with  restrictions  upon 
expenditure  that  they  are,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  perpetuities. 

An  analysis  of  50  of  the  largest  American  fortunes  shows  that 
nearly  one-half  have  already  passed  to  the  control  of  heirs  or  to 
trustees  (their  vice  regents)  and  that  the  remainder  will  pass  to  the 
control  of  heirs  within  20  years,  upon  the  deaths  of  the  "  founders." 
Already,  indeed,  these  founders  have  almost  without  exception  re- 
tired from  active  service,  leaving  the  management  ostensibly  to  their 
heirs  but  actually  to  executive  officials  upon  salary. 

We  have,  according  to  the  income-tax  returns,  44  families  with 
incomes  of  $1,000,000  or  more,1  whose  members  perform  little  or  no 
useful  service,  but  whose  aggregate  incomes,  totaling  at  the  very 
least  $50,000,000  per  year,  are  equivalent  to  the  earnings  of  100,000 
wage  earners  at  the  average  rate  of  $500. 

The  ownership  of  wealth  in  the  United  States  has  become  concen- 
trated to  a  degree  which  is  difficult  to  grasp.  The  recently  published 

1  The  income  tax  statistics,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  cover  only  a  period  of  10  months  in  1914. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  33 

researches  of  a  statistician  of  conservative  views1  have  shown  that 
as  nearly  as  can  be  estimated  the  distribution  of  wealth  in  the  United 
States  is  as  follows: 

The  "  rich,"  2  per  cent  of  the  people,  own  60  per  cent  of  the  wealth. 

The  "  middle  class,"  33  per  cent  of  the  people,  own  35  per  cent  of 
the  wealth. 

The  "poor,"  65  per  cent  of  the  people,  own  5  per  cent  of  the  wealth. 

This  means  in  brief  that  a  little  less  than  2,000,000  people,  who 
would  make  up  a  city  smaller  than  Chicago,  own  20  per  cent  more 
of  the  Nation's  wealth  than  all  the  other  90,000,000. 

The  figures  also  show  that  with  a  reasonably  equitable  division  of 
wealth,  the  entire  population  should  occupy  the  position'  of  comfort 
and  security  which  we  characterize  as  middle  class. 

The  actual  concentration  has,  however,  been  carried  very  much 
further  than  these  figures  indicate.  The  largest  private  fortune  in 
the  United  States,  estimated  at  $1,000,000,000,  is  equivalent  to  the 
aggregate  wealth  of  2,500,000 ^ of  those  who  are  classed  as  "poor," 
who  are  shown  in  the  studies  cited  to  own  on  the  average  about  $400 
each. 

Between  the  two  extremes  of  superfluity'  and  poverty  is  the  large 
middle  class — farmers,  manufacturers,  merchants,  professional  men, 
skilled  artisans,  and  salaried  officials — whose  incomes  are  more  or 
less  adequate  for  their  legitimate  needs  and  desires,  and  who  are 
rewarded  more  or  less  exactly  in  proportion  to  service.  They  have 
problems  to  meet  in  adjusting  expenses  to  income,  but  the  pinch  of 
want  and  hunger  is  not  felt,  nor  is  there  the  deadening,  devitalizing 
effect  of  superfluous,  unearned  wealth. 

From  top  to  bottom  of  society,  however,  in  all  grades  of  incomes, 
are  innumerable  number  of  parasites  of  every  conceivable  type. 
They  perform  no  useful  service,  but  drain  off  from  the  income  of  the 
producers  a  sum  whose  total  can  not  be  estimated. 

This  whole  situation  has  never  been  more  accurately  described 
than  by  Hon.  David  Lloyd-George  in  an  address  on  "  Social  waste  " : 

I  have  recently  had  to  pay  some  attention  to  the  affairs  of  the  Sudan,  in 
connection  with  some  projects  that  have  been  mooted  for  irrigation  and  develop- 
ment in  that  wonderful  country.  I  will  tell  you  what  the  problem  is — you  may 
know  it  already.  Here  you  have  a  great,  broad,  rich  river  upon  which  both  the 
Sudan  and  Egypt  depend  for  their  fertility.  There  is  enough  water  in  it  to 
fertilize  every  part  of  both  countries;  but  if,  for  some  reason  or  other,  the 
water  is  wasted  in  the  upper  regions,  the  whole  land  suffers  sterility  and 
famine.  There  is  a  large  region  in  the  upper  Sudan  where  the  water  has  been 
absorbed  by  one  tract  of  country,  which,  by  this  process,  has  been  converted 
into  a  morass,  breeding  nothing  but  pestilence.  Properly  and  fairly  husbanded, 
distributed,  and  used,  there  is  enough  to  fertilize  the  most  barren  valley  arid 
make  the  whole  wilderness  blossom  like  the  rose. 

That  represents  the  problem  of  civilization,  not  merely  in  this  country  but  in 
all  lands.  Some  men  get  their  fair  share  of  wealth  in  a  land  and  no  more — 
sometimes  even  the  streams  of  wealth  overflow  to  waste  over  some  favored 
regions,  often  producing  a  morass,  which  poisons  the  social  atmosphere.  Many 
have  to  depend  on  a  little  trickling  runlet,  which  quickly  evaporates  with  every 
commercial  or  industrial  drought;  sometimes  you  have  masses  of  men  and 
women  whom  the  flood  at  its  height  barely  reaches,  and  then  you  witness 
parched  specimens  of  humanity,  withered,  hardened  in  misery,  living  in  a  desert 
where  even  the  well  of  tears  has  long  ago  run  dry. 

1  Prof.  Willard  I.  King,  The  Wealth  and  Income  of  the  People  of  the  United  States. 
38819°— 16 3* 


34  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

Besides  the  economic  significance  of  these  great  inequalities  of 
wealth  and  income,  there  is  a  social  aspect  which  equally  merits  the 
attention  of  Congress.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  great  fortunes  of 
those  who  have  profited  by  the  enormous  expansion  of  American  in- 
dustry have  already  passed,  or  will  pass  in  a  few  years,  by  right  of 
inheritance  to  the  control  of  heirs  or  to  trustees  who  act  as  their 
"  vice  regents."  They  are  frequently  styled  by  our  newspapers 
"monarchs  of  industry,"  and  indeed  occupy  within  our  Eepublic  a 
position  almost  exactly  analogous  to  that  of  feudal  lords. 

These  heirs,  owners  only  by  virtue  of  the  accident  of  birth,  control 
the  livelihood  and  have  the  power  to  dictate  the  happiness  of  more 
human  beings  than  populated  England  in  the  Middle  Ages.  Their 
principalities,  it  is  true,  are  scattered  and,  through  the  medium  of 
stock  ownership,  shared  in  part  with  others;  but  they  are  none  the 
less  real.  In  fact,  such  scattered  invisible  industrial  principalities 
are  a  greater  menace  to  the  welfare  of  the  Nation  than  would  be  equal 
power  consolidated  into  numerous  petty  kingdoms  in  different  parts 
of  the  country.  They  might  then  be  visualized  and  guarded  against ; 
now  their  influence  invisibly  permeates  and  controls  every  phase  of 
life  and  industry. 

"  The  king  can  do  no  wrong,"  not  only  because  he  is  above  the  law 
but  because  every  function  is  performed  or  responsibility  assumed  by 
his  ministers  and  agents.  Similarly  our  Rockefellers,  Morgans, 
Fricks,  Vanderbilts,  and  Astors  can  dp  no  industrial  wrong,  because 
all  effective  action  and  direct  responsibility  is  shifted  from  them  to 
the  executive  officials  who  manage  American  industry.  As  a  basis 
for  this  conclusion  we  have  the  testimony  of  many,  among  which, 
however,  the  following  statements  stand  out  most  clearly : 

Mr.  John  D.  Rockefeller,  jr.:1 

*  *  *  Those  of  us  who  are  in  charge  there  elect  the  ablest  and  most 
upright  and  competent  men  whom  we  can  find,  in  so  far  as  our  interests  give 
us  the  opportunity  to  select,  to  have  the  responsibility  for  the  conduct  of  the 
business  in  which  we  are  interested  as  investors.  We  can  not  pretend  to  follow 
the  business  ourselves. 

Mr.  J.  Pierpont  Morgan : 

Chairman  WALSH.  In  your  opinion,  to  what  extent  are  the  directors  of  cor- 
porations responsible  for  the  labor  conditions  existing  in  the  industries  in  which 
they  are  the  directing  power? 

Mr.  MOBGAN.  Not  at  all  I  should  say. 

The  similitude,  indeed,  runs  even  to  mental  attitude  and  phrase. 
Compare  these  two  statements: 
Mr.  John  D.  Rockefeller,  jr. : 

My  appreciation  of  the  conditions  surrounding  wage  earners  and  my  sympathy 
with  every  endeavor  to  better  these  conditions  are  as  strong  as  those  of  any 
man. 

Louis  XVI: 

There  is  none  but  you  and  me  that  has  the  people's  interest  at  heart.  ("  II 
n'y  a  que  vous  et  moi  aimions  le  peuple.") 

The  families  of  these  industrial  princes  are  already  well  estab- 
lished and  are  knit  together  not  only  by  commercial  alliances  but  by 
a  network  of  intermarriages  which  assures  harmonious  action  when- 
ever their  common  interest  is  threatened. 

1  Before  congressional  investigating  committee. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  35 

Effective  action  by  Congress  is  required,  therefore,  not  only  to 
readjust  on  a  basis  of  compensation  approximating  the  service  actu- 
ally performed,  the  existing  inequalities  in  the  distribution  of 
wealth  and  income,  but  to  check  the  growth  of  an  hereditary  aris- 
tocracy, which  is  foreign  to  every  conception  of  American  Govern- 
ment and  menacing  to  the  welfare  of  the  people  and  the  existence  of 
the  Nation  as  a  democracy. 

The  objects  to  be  attained  in  making  this  readjustment  are:  To 
reduce  the  swollen,  unearned  fortunes  of  those  who  have  a  super- 
fluity ;  to  raise  the  underpaid  masses  to  a  level  of  decent  and  comfort- 
able living ;  and  at  the  same  time  to  accomplish  this  on  a  basis  which 
will,  in  some  measure,  approximate  the  just  standard  of  income  pro- 
portional to  service. 

The  discussion  of  how  this  can  best  be  accomplished  forms  the 
greater  part  of  the  remainder  of  this  report,  but  at  this  point  it 
seems  proper  to  indicate  one  of  the  most  immediate  steps  which 
need  to  be  taken. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend  to  Congress  the 
enactment  of  an  inheritance  tax,  so  graded  that,  while  making  gen- 
erous provision  for  the  support  of  dependents  and  the  education  of 
minor  children,  it  shall  leave  no  large  accumulation  of  wealth  to  pass 
into  hands  which  had  no  share  in  its  production.1  The  revenue 
from  this  tax,  which  we  are  informed  would  be  very  great,  should 
be  reserve.d  by  the  Federal  Government  for  three  principal  purposes : 

1.  The  extension  of  education. 

2.  The   development   of   other   important   social   services   which, 
should  properly  be  performed  by  the  Nation,  which  are  discussed  in 
detail  elsewhere. 

3.  The  development,  in  cooperation  wivh  States  and  municipali- 
ties, of  great  constructive  works,  such  as  road  building,  irrigation, 
and  reforestation,  which  would  materially  increase  the  efficiency  and 
welfare  of  the  entire  Nation. 

We  are  informed  by  counsel  not  only  that  such  a  tax  is  clearly 
within  the  power  of  Congress,  but  that  upon  two  occasions,  namely, 
during  the  Civil  War  and  in  1898,  such  graded  inheritance  taxes 
were  enacted  with  scarcely  any  opposition  and  were  sustained  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  which  held  that  the  inheritance  tax  was  not  a  direct 
tax  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution.  We  are  aware  that 
similar  taxes  are  levied  in  the  various  States,  but  the  conflict  with 
such  State  taxes  seems  to  have  presented  little  difficulty  during  the 
period  in  which  the  tax  of  1898  was  in  effect.  Under  any  circum- 
stances this  need  cause  no  great  complication,  as  the  matter  could  be 
readily  adjusted  by  having  the  Federal  Government  collect  the  en- 
tire tax  and  refund  a  part  to  the  States  on  an  equitable  basis. 

There  is  no  legislation  which  could  be  passed  by  Congress  the 
immediate  and  ultimate  efforts  of  which  would  be  more  salutary  or 
would  more  greatly  assist  in  tempering  the  existing  spirit  of  unrest. 

2.  UNEMPLOYMENT  AND  DENIAL  OF  OPPORTUNITY  TO  EARN  A  LIVING. 

As  a  prime  cause  of  a  burning  resentment  and  a  rising  feeling  of 
unrest  among  the  workers,  unemployment  and  the  denial  of  an  op- 

1  It  is  suggested  that  the  rates  be  so  graded  that  not  more  than  $1,000,000  shall  pass  to 
the  heirs.  This  can  be  equitably  accomplished  by  several  different  gradations  of  taxation. 


36  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

portunity  to  earn  a  living  is  on  a  parity  with  the  unjust  distribution 
of  wealth.  They  may  on  final  analysis  prove  to  be  simply  the  two 
sides  of  the  same  shield,  but  that  is  a  matter  which  need  not  be  dis- 
cussed at  this  point.  They  differ  in  this,  however,  that  while  un- 
just distribution  of  wealth  is  a  matter  of  degree,  unemployment  is 
an  absolute  actuality,  from  which  there  is  no  relief  but  soul-killing 
crime  and  soul-killing  charity. 

To  be  forced  to  accept  employment  on  conditions  which  are  insuffi- 
cient to  maintain  a  decent  livelihood  is  indeed  a  hardship,  but  to  be 
unable  to  get  work  on  any  terms  whatever  is  a  position  of  black 
despair. 

A  careful  analysis  of  all  available  statistics  shows  that  in  our  great 
basic  industries  the  workers  are  unemployed  for  an  average  of  at 
least  one-fifth  of  the  year,  and  that  at  airtimes  during  any  normal 
year  there  is  an  army  of  men,  who  can  be  numbered  only  by  hundreds 
of  thousands,  who  are  unable  to  find  work  or  who  have  so  far  degen- 
erated that  they  can  not  or  will  not  work.  Can  any  nation  boast  of 
industrial  efficiency  when  the  workers,  the  source  of  her  productive 
wealth,  are  employed  to  so  small  a  fraction  of  their  total  capacity  ? 

Fundamentally,  this  unemployment  seems  to  rise  from  two  great 
causes,  although  many  others  are  contributory.  First,  the  inequality 
of  the  distribution  of  income  which  leaves  the  great  masses  of  the 
population  (the  true  ultimate  consumers)  unable  to  purchase  the 
products  of  industry  which  they  create,  wrhile  a  few  have  such  a  super- 
fluity that  it  can  not  be  normally  consumed  but  must  be  invested  in 
new  machinery  for  production  or  in  the  further  monopolization  of 
land  and  natural  resources.  The  result  is  that  in  mining  and  other 
basic  industries  we  have  an  equipment  in  plant  and  developed  prop- 
erty far  in  excess  of  the  demands  of  any  normal  year,  the  excess  being, 
in  all  probability,  at  least  25  per  cent.  Each  of  these  mines  and 
industrial  plants  keeps  around  it  a  labor  force  which,  on  the  average, 
can  get  work  for  only  four-fifths  of  the  year,  while  at  the  same  time 
the  people  have  never  had  enough  of  the  products  of  those  very  indus- 
tries— have  never  been  adequately  fed,  clothed,  housed,  nor  warmed — 
for  the  very  simple  reason  that  they  have  never  been  paid  enough  to 
permit  their  purchase. 

The  second  principal  cause  lies  in  the  denial  of  access  to  land  and 
natural  resources  even  when  they  are  unused  and  unproductive,  ex- 
cept at  a  price  and  under  conditions  which  are  practically  prohibi- 
tive. This  situation,  while  bound  up  with  the  land  and  taxation 
policies  of  our  States  and  Nation,  also  rests  fundamentally  upon  the 
unjust  distribution  of  wealth.  Land  or  mineral  resources  in  the 
hands  of  persons  of  average  income  must  and  will  be  used  either  by 
their  original  owners  or  by  some  more  enterprising  person.  By  the 
overwhelming  forces  of  economic  pressure,  taxation,  and  competi- 
tion they  can  not  be  permitted  to  lie  idle  if  they  will  produce  any- 
thing which  the  people  need.  Only  in  the  hands  of  large  owners — 
free  from  economic  pressure,  able  to  evade  or  minimize  the  effects 
of  taxation  and  to  awrait  the  ripening  of  the  fruits  of  unearned  in- 
crement— can  land  be  held  out  of  use  if  its  products  are  needed. 

There  can  be  no  more  complete  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this  state- 
ment than  the  condition  of  the  farms  of  1,000  acres  and  over,  which, 
valued  at  two  and  one-third  billion  dollars,  comprise  19  per  cent  of 
all  the  farm  land  of  the  country  and  are  held  by  less  than  1  per  cent 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  37 

* 

of  the  farm  owners.  The  United  States  census  returns  show  that 
in  these  1,000-acre  farms  only  18.7  per  cent  of  the  land  is  cultivated 
as  compared  with  60  to  70  per  cent  in  farms  of  from  50  to  499  acres. 
Furthermore,  it  is  well  known  that  the  greater  part  of  these  smaller 
farms  which  are  left  uncultivated  are  held  by  real  estate  men,  bank- 
ers, and  others  wrho  have  independent  sources  of  income.  More  than 
four-fifths  of  the  area  of  the  large  holdings  is  being  held  out  of  active 
use  by  their  50,000  owners,  while  2,250,000  farmers  are  struggling 
for  a  bare  existence  on  farms  of  less  than  50  acres,  and  an  untold 
number  who  would  willingly  work  these  lands  are  swelling  the 
armies  of  the  unemployed  in  the  cities  and  towns. 

A  basic  theory  of  our  Government,  which  found  expression  in  the 
homestead  acts,  was  that  every  man  should  have  opportunity  to  secure 
land  enough  to  support  a  family.  If  this  theory  had  been  carried 
out  and  homesteads  had  either  gone  to  those  who  would  use  them 
productively  or  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  Government,  we  should 
not  yet  have  a  problem  of  such  a  character.  But  these  acts  were 
evaded;  land  was  stolen  outright  by  wholesale^ and  fraudulent  en- 
tries were  consolidated  into  enormous  tracts  which  are  now  held  by 
wealthy  individuals  and  corporations. 

The  Public  Lands  Commission,  after  an  exhaustive  inquiry,  re- 
ported in  1905 : 

Detailed  study  of  the  practical  operation  of  the  present  land  laws  shows  that 
their  tendency  far  too  often  is  to  bring  about  land  monopoly  rather  than  to 
multiply  small  holdings  by  actual  settlers. 

*  *  *  Not  infrequently  their  effect  is  to  put  a  premium  on  perjury  and 
dishonest  methods  in  the  acquisition  of  land.  It  is  apparent,  in  consequence, 
that  in  very  many  localities,  and  perhaps  in  general,  a  larger  proportion  of  the 
public  land  is  passing  into  the  hands  of  speculators  than  into  those  of  actual 
settlers  making  homes.  *  *  *  Nearly  everywhere  the  large  landowner 
has  succeeded  in  monopolizing  the  best  tracts,  whether  of  timber  or  agricul- 
tural lands. 

To  one  who  has  not  read  the  preceding  statements  carefully  there 
may  seem  to  be  a  contradiction  in  proposing  to  prevent  great  capi- 
talists from  creating  an  excess  of  productive  machinery  and  over- 
developing mineral  resources  while  pointing  out  the  necessity  of 
forcing  land  and  other  natural  resources  into  full  and  effective  use 
by  the  people.  The  two  propositions  are,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  as 
fundamentally  distinct  as  monopoly  and  freedom.  The  capitalist 
increases  his  holdings  in  productive  machinery  and  resources  only 
because  through  monopolization  and  maintenance  of  prices  he  hopes 
to  reap  rewards  for  himself  or  increase  his  power,  while  the  aim 
in  desiring  the  full  development  of  land  and  other  resources  by  the 
people  is  that  they,  producing  for  themselves,  may  enjoy  a  sufficiency 
of  good  things  and  exchange  them  for  the  products  of  others,  and 
thus  reduce  to  a  minimum  the  condition  of  unemployment. 

There  are,  of  course,  many  other  causes  of  unemployment  than  the 
inequality  of  wealth  and  the  monopolization  of  land  which  there  is 
no  desire  to  minimize.  Chief  among  these  are  immigration,  the  inade- 
quate organization  of  the  labor  market,  the  seasonal  character  of 
many  industries,  and  the  personal  deficiencies  of  a  very  large  num- 
ber of  the  unemployed.  It  can  not  be  denied  that  a  considerable 
proportion  of  the  men  who  fill  the  city  lodging  houses  in  winter  are 
virtually  unemployables  as  a  result  of  weakness  of  character,  lack 

1  S.  Doc.  154,  58th  Cong.,  3d  sess.,  p.  14. 


38  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

of  training,  the  debasing  effects  of  lodging-house  living  and  city 
dissipation,  and,  last  but  not  least,  the  conditions  under  which  they 
are  forced  to  work  in  the  harvest  fields  and  lumber,  railroad,  and 
construction  camps.  The  seasonal  fluctuations  of  our  industries  are 
enormous,  employing  hundreds  of  thousands  during  the  busy  season 
and  throwing  them  out  on  the  community  during  the  dull  season, 
and  almost  nothing  has  been  done  to  remedy  this  condition.  It  would 
be  difficult  to  imagine  anything  more  chaotic  and  demoralizing  than 
the  existing  methods  of  bringing  workmen  and  jobs  together.  Cer- 
tain measures  for  dealing  with  these  conditions,  which  are  discussed 
elsewhere  in  the  report,  need  to  be  pushed  forward  with  all  possible 
vigor.  But  it  may  be  confidently  predicted  that  the  unemployment 
situation  will  not  be  appreciably  relieved  until  great  advances  have 
been  made  in  the  removal  of  the  two  prime  causes — unjust  distribu- 
tion of  wealth  and  monopolization  of  land  and  natural  resources. 

The  most  direct  methods  of  dealing  with  the  inequality  of  wealth 
have  already  been  briefly  discussed  and  will  be  considered  elsewhere 
in  the  report.  With  respect  to  the  land  question,  however,  the  fol- 
lowing basic  suggestions  are  submitted : 

1.  Vigorous  and  unrelenting  prosecutions  to  regain  all  land,  water 
power,  and  mineral  rights  secured  from  the  Government  by  fraud. 

2.  A  general  revision  of  our  land  laws,  so  as  to  apply  to  all  future 
land  grants  the  doctrine  of  "superior  use,"  as  in  the  case  of  water 
rights  in  California,  and  provision  for  forfeiture  in  case  of  actual 
nonuse.     In  its  simplest  form  the  doctrine  of  "  superior  use  "  implies 
merely  that  at  the  time  of  making  the  lease  the  purpose  for  which 
the  land  will  be  used  must  be  taken  into  consideration,  and  the  use 
which  is  of  greatest  social  value  shall  be  given  preference. 

3.  The  forcing  of  all  unused  land  into  use  by  making  the  tax  on 
nonproductive  land  the  same  as  on  productive  land  of  the  same 
kind  and  exempting  all  improvements. 

Other  measures  for  dealing  with  unemployment  are  discussed 
under  that  head  on  pages  103-115. 

The  unemployed  have  aptly  been  called  "the  shifting  sands  be- 
neath the  State."  Surely  there  is  no  condition  which  more  immedi- 
ately demands  the  attention  of  Congress  than  that  of  unemploy- 
ment, which  is  annually  driving  hundreds  of  thousands  of  other- 
wise productive  citizens  into  poverty  and  bitter  despair,  sapping  the 
very  basis  of  our  national  efficiency,  and  germinating  the  seeds  of 
revolution. 


3.    DENIAL  OF   JUSTICE. 


No  testimony  presented  to  the  commission  has  left  a  deeper  im- 
pression than  the  evidence  that  there  exists  among  the  workers  an 
almost  universal  conviction  that  they,  both  as  individuals  and  as  a 
class,  are  denied  justice  in  the  enactment,  adjudication,  and  adminis- 
tration of  law,  that  the  very  instruments  of  democracy  are  often 
used  to  oppress  them  and  to  place  obstacles  in  the  way  of  their 
movement  toward  economic,  industrial,  and  political  freedom  and 
justice.  Many  witnesses,  speaking  for  millions  of  workers  as  well 
as  for  themselves,  have  asserted  with  the  greatest  earnestness  that 
the  mass  of  the  workers  are  convinced  that  laws  necessary  for  their 
protection  against  the  most  grievous  wrongs  can  not  be  passed  ex- 
cept after  long  and  exhausting  struggles ;  that  such  beneficent  meas- 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   OX   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  39 

ures  as  become  laws  are  largely  nullified  by  the  unwarranted  deci- 
sions of  the  courts ;  that  the  laws  which  stand  upon  the  statute  books 
are  not  equally  enforced;  and  that  the  whole  machinery  of  Gov- 
ernment has  frequently  been  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  employers 
for  the  oppression  of  the  workers;  that  the  Constitution  itself  has 
been  ignored  in  the  interests  of  the  employers;  and  that  constitu- 
tional guaranties  erected  primarily  for  the  protection  of  the  workers 
have  been  denied  to  them  and  used  as  a  cloak  for  the  misdeeds  of 
corporations. 

If  it  be  true  that  these  statements  represent  the  opinions  of  the 
mass  of  American  workers,  there  is  reason  for  grave  concern,  for 
there  are  25,000,000  of  them,  of  whom  3,000,000  are  welded  together 
into  compact  organizations. 

But  if  it  be  true  that  these  charges  are  justified;  if,  in  fact,  our 
legislators,  our  judges,  and  executives,  do  not  afford  equal  considera- 
tion to  the  workers  and  are  concerned  with  protecting  the  rights  of 
property  rather  than  the  rights  of  men,  and  at  times  even  become 
the  instruments  for  the  oppression  of  the  poor  and  humble,  then  the 
situation  demands  and  must  receive  the  prompt  and  decisive  action 
of  every  right-thinking  man  in  order  that  these  evils  may  be  eradi- 
cated and  justice  and  liberty  established  in  the  place  of  injustice 
and  oppression. 

Before  examining  the  evidence,  it  should  be  understood  that  it  is 
not  charged  that  such  acts  of  injustice  are  universal,  but  that  they 
occur  so  frequently  and  in  such  diverse  parts  of  the  country  that 
any  man  may  reasonably  fear  that  he  himself  or  those  with  whom 
he  is  associated  may  at  any  time  be  the  victim  of  injustice  or  dis- 
crimination. It  has  been  urged,  and  perhaps  properly,  that  the 
charges  would  be  sustained  if  it  were  found  that  such  acts  of  injus- 
tice had  been  committed  only  upon  rare  occasions,  if  it  should  also 
be  established  that  such  injustices  were  allowed  to  stand  without 
redress,  and  if  those  who  were  guilty  of  their  commission  were  left 
unimpeached  and  unpunished. 

An  enormous  mass  of  evidence  bearing  upon  these  charges  has 
been  presented  to  the  commission  by  witnesses  or  collected  by  its 
staff.  This  material  is  presented  in  some  detail  in  another  part  of 
the  report,  but  the  summary  which  follows  may  be  regarded  as  rea- 
sonably full  and  exact. 

First,  with  regard  to  the  enactment  of  laws,  it  is  charged  that  the 
workers  have  been  unable  to  secure  legislation  to  protect  them  against 
griev.ous  wrongs,  except  after  exhausting  struggles  against  over- 
whelming odds  and  against  insidious  influences. 

The  evidence  bearing  upon  this  question  has  dealt  with  the  his- 
tory of  three  principal  lines  of  legislation  in  which  the  evils  sought 
to  be  remedies  are  now  universally  admitted  to  have  been  Very  great, 
involving  wanton  destruction  of  life,  the  exploitation  of  women 
and  children,  and  the  practical  enslavement  of  American  seamen. 
A  careful  examination  has  been  made  of  the  history  of  attempts  to 
secure  adequate  legislation  to  prevent  child  labor,  to  protect  women 
against  extreme  hours  of  labor  and  night  work,  to  secure  the  safety 
of  factories,  railroads,  and  mines,  and  to  provide  for  the  safety,  com- 
fort, and  liberty  of  seamen. 

The  history  of  child-labor  legislation  shows  that  although  agita- 
tion for  the  protection  and  education  of  children  began  during  the 


40  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  in  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island, 
Connecticut,  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania,  no  adequate  legislation 
was  obtained  until  nearly  the  end  of  the  century.  Time  after  time 
in  each  of  these  industrial  States  the  sentiment  of  the  public  was 
aroused,  organization  was  effected,  and  well-drafted  bills  were  intro- 
duced only  to  be  killed  in  committee,  emasculated  or  killed  on  the 
floor  of  the  legislature,  or  passed  with  exceptions  which  rendered 
them  entirely  ineffective.  Even  the  attempt  to  reduce  the  hours  of 
children  below  12  per  day  was  bitterly  contested  and  met  by  every 
known  trick  of  legislative  chicanery.  The  wThole  history  of  the  con- 
test for  adequate  child-labor  legislation  is  even  now  being  repeated 
in  some  of  the  Southern  States,  where  laws  prohibiting  the  employ- 
ment of  children  are  bitterly  contested  and  beaten  session  after  ses- 
sion by  legislators,  unsympathetic  or  controlled  by  the  cotton-mill 
interests. 

Similarly,  although  the  movement  to  restrict  the  working  hours 
of  women  and  to  prohibit  night  work  began  in  Massachusetts'  and 
Pennsylvania  as  early  as  1840,  the  first  legislation  limiting  the  hours 
was  the  10-hour  bill  passed  in  Massachusetts  in  1874,  and  night  work 
went  unregulated  until  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1899  in  Nebraska.1 

The  movement  for  safety  of  life  and  limb  in  the  factories  and 
workshops,  although  pushed  with  great  vigor  in  almost  every  session 
of  the  State  legislatures  after  1880,  secured  only  a  few  acts  providing 
for  such  obvious  matters  as  the  guarding  of  set  screws  and  gears, 
but  made  practically  no  provision  for  their  enforcement.  No  really 
effective  -action  to  promote  safety  took  place  until,  after  many  years 
of  hard  fighting,  the  first  workmen's  compensation  acts  were  passed 
between  1900  and  1910,  which  for  the  first  time  made  the  unsafe  con- 
dition of  factories  directly  expensive. 

Even  upon  the  railroads,  where  the  safety  of  the  public  as  well  as 
of  the  workers  was  involved,  at  least  10  years  of  constant  agitation 
on  the  part  of  the  railroad  brotherhoods  and  various  interested  citi- 
zens was  necessary  before  the  first  Federal  act  providing  for  safety 
appliances  was  passed  in  1893. 

In  the  case  of  the  movement  to  secure  the  safety,  comfort,  and 
liberty  of  seamen,  it  is  a  matter  of  record  that  Andrew  Furuseth, 
president  of  the  seamen's  union,  backed  not  only  by  all  the  members 
of  his  own  organization  but  by  the  entire  American  labor  move- 
ment, attended  each  session  of  Congress  and  devoted  his  whole  ener- 
gies to  securing  legislation  upon  this  subject  for  the  entire  period  of 
22  years  from  1893  to  1915,  when  the  seamen's  bill  finally  became  a 
law. 

Other  evidence  has  been  presented  covering  the  long  fights  to 
secure  legislation  to  remove  the  evils  of  company  stores,  payment  in 
scrip,  prison  labor,  arbitrary  deductions  from  wages,  "  sweating," 
tenement  houses,  and  a  number  of  other  matters  upon  which  ade- 

1  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  although  the  decision  on  the  Massachusetts  law  was  favorable 
and  thus  established  a  precedent  (Commonwealth  v.  Hamilton  Mfg.  Co.,  120  Mass.,  ::8:;».  it 
was  thrown  aside  by  the  Illinois  court  in  1895  in  holding  unconstitutional  a  law  of  that 
State  prescribing  an  8-hour  day  for  women  (Ritchie  v.  People,  155  111.,  98),  and  it  was  not 
until  1910  that  the  same  court  accepted  a  10-hour  law  as  constitutional  (Ritchie  v. 
Wyman,  244  111.,  509).  The  Nebraska  statute  limited  the  hours  of  women  to  10  a  day  and 
prohibited  night  work  between  the  hours  of  10  p.  m.  and  6  a.  m.,  but  the  first  case  did  not 
raise  the  question  of  night  work  (Wenham  v.  State,  65  Neb.,  394).  In  New  York,  however, 
a  statute  regulating  night  work  was  held  unconstitutional  in  1907  (People  v.  Williams,  189 
N.  Y.,  131  ,  and  it  was  not  until  the  present  year  that  a  similar  law  was  sustained  (People 
v.  Schweinler  Press,  214  N.  Y.,  395). 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION    ON  INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  41 

quate  legislation  has  not  yet  been  secured,  except  perhaps  in  a  few 
States,  although  there  has  been  unremitting  agitation  upon  these 
questions  for  more  than  half  a  century.  This  evidence  shows  clearly 
that  the  workers  have  just  grounds  for  the  charge  that  the  legisla- 
tures have  been  criminally  slow  in  acting  for  the  relief  of  grievous 
wrongs  and  have  used  every  subterfuge  to  escape  adequate  and 
aggressive  action,  even  while  thousands  of  men,  women,  and  children 
were  being  killed,  maimed,  or  deformed  as  a  result  of  their  negli- 
gence. 

Evidence  has  further  been  presented  to  show  that  such  a  condition 
has  not  been  the  result  entirely  of  the  complacency  or  slothfulness 
of  legislators,  but  that  powerful  influences  have  been  at  work  to 
prevent  such  remedial  legislation.  The  most  convincing  evidence 
presented  upon  this  phase  of  the  question  is  the  record  of  the  Na- 
tional Association  of  Manufacturers  and  its  allied  organizations,  as 
contained  in  the  testimony  and  findings  before  congressional  com- 
mittees,1 in  the  printed  reports  of  that  association  and  in  the  testi- 
mony before  the  commission  of  the  representatives  of  various  State 
employers'  associations.  The  substance  of  this  evidence  is  so  well 
known  to  Congress  and  to  the  public  that  it  is  necessary  here  to  call 
attention  only  to  the  fact  that  the  efforts  of  such  associations  in 
preventing  the  enactment  of  practically  all  legislation  intended  to 
improve  the  condition  or  advance  the  interests  of  workers  were  not 
confined  to  Congress,  but  were  even  more  effective  in  the  State 
legislatures. 

The  persistent  and  bitter  manner  in  which  the  railroads  fought 
the  laws  providing  for  safety  appliances,  although  the  measures  were 
moderate  and  necessary,  not  only  for  the  safety  of  the  traveling 
public,  but  for  the  efficient  operation  of  the  roads,  is  well  known  to 
Congress. 

Perhaps  the  most  significant  statement  regarding  the  insidious 
influences  of  this  character  is  contained  in  a  letter  from  Mr.  L.  M. 
Bowers,  chairman  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Colorado  Fuel  & 
Iron  Co.,  to  the  Secretary  of  Mr.  John  D.  Rockefeller,  jr.,  under  date 
of  May  13,  1913 : 

The  Colorado  Fuel  £  Iron  Co.  for  many  years  were  accused  of  being  the 
political  dictator  of  southern  Colorado,  and,  in  fact,  were  a  mighty  power  in 
the  entire  State.  When  I  came  here  it  was  said  that  the  C.  F.  &  I.  Co.  voted 
every  man  and  woman  in  their  employ  without  any  regard  to  their  being  nat- 
uralized or  not,  and  even  their  mules,  it  used  to  be  remarked,  were  registered 
if  they  were  fortunate  enough  to  possess  names.  Anyhow,  a  political  depart- 
ment was  maintained  at  a  heavy  expense.  I  had  before  me  the  contributions 
of  the  C.  F.  &  I.  Co.  for  the  campaign  of  1904,  amounting  to  $80,605,  paid  out 
personally  by  President  Hearne.  All  the  vouchers  and  checks  I  have  examined 
personally,  all  of  which  were  payable  to  Albert  A.  Miller,  upon  which  he  drew 
the  currency  and,  it  is  said,  handed  the  money  over  to  Mr.  Hearne,  who  paid 
it  out.  So  far  as  I  can  discover,  not  one  particle  of  good  was  accomplished  for 
the  company,  but  Mr.  Hearne  was  an  aspirant  for  the  position  of  United  Spates 
Senator  and  devoted  a  vast  amount  of  time  and  money  with  this  end  in  view,  I 
have  no  doubt. 

The  company  became  notorious  in  many  sections  for  their  support  of  the 
liquor  interests.  They  established  saloons  everywhere  they  possibly  could. 

1  U.  S.  Senate  Committee  on  Judiciary.  Maintenance  of  a  Lobby  to  Influence  Legisla- 
tion. Hearings  before  a  subcommittee  pursuant  to  S.  Res.  92,  63d  Cong.,  1st  sess. 

Charges  Against  Members  of  the  House  and  Lobby  Activities  of  the  National  Association 
of  Manufacturers  of  the  United  States  and  Others.  Hearings  before  select  committee  of 
House  of  Representatives  appointed  under  H.  Res.  198,  63d  Cong.,  1st  sess. 


42  EEPOKT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTKIAL  RELATIONS. 

This  department  was  managed  by  one  John  Kebler,  a  brother  of  the  one-time 
president  of  the  company,  who  died  about  the  time  I  came  here,  a  victim  of  hia 
own  intemperate  habits.  A  sheriff,  elected  by  the  votes  of  the  G.  P.  &  I.  Co. 
employees,  and  who  has  been  kept  in  office  a  great  many  years,  established  him- 
self or  became  a  partner  in  16  liquor  stores  in  our  coal  mines.  To  clean  up  the 
saloons  and  with  them  the  gambling  hells  and  houses  of  prostitution  has  been 
one  of  the  things  that  Mr.  Welborn  and  I  have  devoted  an  enormous  amount  of 
time  to  during  the  past  five  years.  The  decent  newspapers  everlastingly  lam- 
pooned the  C.  F.  &  I.  Co.  at  every  election,  and  I  am  forced  to  say  the  company 
merited,  from  a  moral  standpoint,  every  shot  that  was  fired  into  their  camp. 
Since  I  came  here  1  not  a  nickel  has  been  paid  to  any  politician  or  political 
party.  We  have  fought  the  saloons  with  all  the  power  we  possess.  We  have 
forbidden  any  politician  from  going  into  our  camps,  and  every  subordinate  offi- 
cial connected  with  the  company  has  been  forbidden  to  influence  our  men  to 
vote  for  any  particular  candidate.  We  have  not  lobbied  in  the  legislature,  but 
have  gone  directly  to  the  governor  and  other  able  men  and  have  demanded  fair 
treatment. 

Second,  it  is  charged  by  the  workers  that  after  wholesome  and 
necessary  laws  are  passed  they  are  in  large  part  nullified  by  the  courts 
either  upon  technicalities  of  a  character  which  would  not  be  held  to 
invalidate  legislation  favorable  to  the  interests  of  manufacturers, 
merchants,  bankers,  and  other  property  owners,  or  thrown  out  on  the 
broad  ground  of  unconstitutionally,  through  strained  or  illogical 
construction  of  constitutional  provisions.  It  is  argued  that  such 
action  is  doubly  evil,  because  the  power  to  declare  legislative  acts 
unconstitutional  has  been  assumed  by  the  courts  in  the  face  of  a 
complete  absence  of  legal  sanction,  in  complete  disregard  of  early 
decisions  denying  the  possession  of  such  power,  and  in  complete  con- 
trast to  the  practices  of  the  courts  in  every  other  country  of  the 
civilized  world.  It  is  not  within  our  province  to  decide  whether  or 
not  this  assumption  of  power  by  the  courts  was  justified.  It  is  suffi- 
cient here  merely  to  examine  the  evidence  bearing  upon  the  allega- 
tions that  laws  necessary  for  the  correction  of  grave  industrial  abuses 
are  nullified  by  strained  interpretations  or  for  reasons  which  would 
be  insufficient  in  other  cases,  and  that  they  are  held  unconstitutional 
upon  pretexts  which  in  reality  are  the  outgrowth  of  economic  bias 
on  the  part  of  the  judges. 

A  large  number  of  decisions  illustrating  these  points  have  been 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  commission,  but  only  a  few  need  be 
cited  here.  It  has  been  held,  for  example,  even  that  statutes  requiring 
dangerous  machinery  to  be  guarded  may  be  disobeyed  by  the  em- 
ployer, and  children  employed  about  such  unguarded  machinery 
are  held  to  have  assumed  the  risk.2  The  same  has  been  held  regarding 
the  employment  of  women.3 

Many  other  cases  might  be  cited  on  the  question  of  strained  in- 
terpretation,4 bearing  out  the  assertion  made  by  Justice  Lurton,  of 

1  This  statement  of  Mr.  Bowers  should  be  considered  in  conjunction  with  his  testimony 
that  the  evil  influences  created  by  the  Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  were  still  in  power  and  his 
admission  that  the  company  was  deeply  interested  in  the  last  State  election  and  that  150 
men  were  put  into  the  field  from  his  office  alone  to  work  for  the  candidates  favored  by  the 
company,  which  was  deeply  interested  in  the  election  of  officials  who  would  vigorously 

Srosecute  the  strikers.     His  letters  narrating  how  the  governor  of  Colorado  was  whipped 
ato  line  should  also  be  considered,  as  well  as  the  testimony  of  Dr.  B.  S.  Gaddis,  former 
head  of  the  sociological  department  of  the  Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.,  that  officials  openly 
influenced   elections. 

2  Higgins  v.  O'Keefe,  79  Fed.,  900 ;  White  v.  Wittemann  Lith.  Co.,  131  N.  ¥.,  631. 

3  Knisley  v.  Pratt,  148  N.  Y.,  372. 

*  Nappa  v.  Erie  Ry.  Co.,  195  N.  Y,,  176,  184  ;  Gallagher  v.  Newman,  190  N.  Y.,  444, 
447-448  ;  Cashman  v.  Chase,  156  Mass.,  342  ;  Quinlan  v.  Lackawanna  Steel  Co.,  107  A.  D. 
176,  affirmed  191  N.  Y./329  ;  Finnigan  v.  N,  Y.  Contracting  Co.,  194  N.  Y.,  244. 


BEPOKT  OF   COMMISSION-   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  43 

the  Federal  Supreme  Court,  when,  in  a  case  not  involving  industrial 
relations,  he  says: 

The  judgment  just  rendered  will  have,  as  I  think,  the  effect  to  defeat  the 
clearly  expressed  will  of  the  legislature  by  a  construction  of  its  words  that 
can  not  be  reconciled  with  their  ordinary  meaning.1 

Probably  there  are  no  other  cases  which  have  created  so  much 
bitterness  as  those  of  personal  injury  in  which  the  plaintiffs  have 
been  denied  recovery  of  damages  on  the  principles  of  "  fellow  serv- 
ant," "  assumption  of  risk,"  and  "  contributory  negligence,"  and  the 
obstacles  which  have  been  created  by  the  courts  to  prevent  the  re- 
moval of  these  defenses  for  the  employer  have  served  only  to  in- 
tensify the  feeling.  The  contrast  in  attitude  of  the  judges  can  not 
better  be  shown  than  by  considering  that  while  they  have  held  each 
employee  of  a  corporation  responsible  under  these  three  principles 
not  only  for  his  own  involuntary  acts  but  for  the  physical  condition 
of  the  entire  property  and  the  conduct  of  each  of  his  fellow  workers, 
they  have  repeatedly  absolved  officials,  directors,  and  stockholders 
from  responsibility  for  accidents,  even  when  the  unsafe  condition  of 
the  property  had  been  published,  or  when  orders  had  been  issued 
which  were  directly  responsible  for  the  accidents.  It  would  hardly 
be  an  exaggeration  to  say  that,  if  the  courts  had  held  officials  and 
directors  to  as  great  a  degree  of  responsibility  as  employees  for  the 
condition  of  the  property  and  the  actions  of  their  agents,  there  is 
hardly  one  who  would  have  escaped  punishment  for  criminal  negli- 
gence. According  to  the  best  estimates,  approximately  35,000  per- 
sons were  killed  last  year  in  American  industry,  and  at  least  one- 
half  of  these  deaths  were  preventable.2  What  would  be  the  situation 
if  the  courts,  following  the  clear  logic  of  their  own  decisions,  should 
hold  the  stockholders,  directors,  and  officials  criminally  responsible 
for  each  of  the  17,500  preventable  deaths  to  which  attention  has  time 
after  time  been  directed?  > 

That  the  courts,  including  even  the  highest  tribunal  of  the  Nation, 
do  allow  their  economic  bias  to  influence  them  in  holding  laws' uncon- 
stitutional is  nowhere  more  clearly  expressed  than  in  the  dissenting 
opinion  of  Mr.  Justice  Holmes  in  the  case  of  Lochner  v.  New  York,3 
wherein  the  right  of  the  Legislature  of  New  York  to  limit  the  hours 
of  work  in  bakeries  was  involved.  He  said : 

This  case  is  decided  upon  an  economic  theory  which  a  large  part  of  the 
country  does  not  entertain.  If  it  were  a  question  whether  I  agree  with  that 
theory  [limiting  the  consecutive  hours  of  labor  in  bakeries  which  may  be  re- 
quired of  an  employee],  I  should  desire  to  study  it  further  and  long  before 
making  up  my  mind.  But  I  do  not  conceive  that  to  be  my  duty,  because  I 
strongly  believe  that  my  agreement  or  disagreement  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
right  of  a  majority  to  embody  their  opinions  in  law. 

*  *  *  Some  of  these  laws  [referring  to  several  which  he  has  discussed] 
embody  convictions  or  prejudices  which  judges  are  likely  to  share.  Some  may 
not,  but  a  constitution  is  not  intended  to  embody  a  particular  economic  theory, 
whether  of  paternalism  and  the  organic  relation  of  the  citizen  to  the  State,  or 
of  laissez  faire.  It  is  made  for  people  of  fundamentally  differing  views,  and 
the  accident  of  our  finding  certain  opinions  natural  and  familiar  or  novel,  and 
even  shocking,  ought  not  to  conclude  our  judgment  upon  the  question  whether 
statutes  embodying  them  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

1  Thompson  v.  Thompson,  218  U.  S.,  611. 

2  Industrial  Accident  Statistics,  Bui.  Whole  No.  157,  U,  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics, 
1915. 

3  Lochner  v.  N.  Y.,  198  TJ.  S.,  45. 


44  BEPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

This  statute  of  the  State  of  New  York,  which  had  been  sustained 
by  the  courts  of  New  York,  was  thus  held  unconstitutional,  we  are 
assured  by  the  highest  possible  authority,  on  the  economic  theories 
of  five  judges,  whose  bias  is  clearly  reflected  in  the  majority  opinion. 
By  that  action  not  only  were  the  bakers  of  New  York  deprived  of  all 
legal  relief  from  the  hardships  of  working  long  hours  in  under- 
ground bakeries,  but  the  entire  movement  for  relieving  the  condition 
of  other  workmen  in  similarly  unhealthful  occupations  throughout 
the  country  was  effectually  checked  for  a  decade.  Can  these  judges, 
the  workers  ask,  absolve  themselves  from  responsibility  for  the 
thousands  of  lives  wrhich  have  been  shortened  as  a  result  of  their 
decisions,  the  ill  health  and  suffering  of  other  thousands  who  con- 
tracted disease  as  a  result  of  unduly  long  exposure  to  bad  conditions 
and  a  lack  of  sufficient  fresh  air  and  leisure  ?  The  provision  of  the 
Constitution  which  was  held  to  be  violated  by  this  act  was  the  four- 
teenth amendment,  designed  solely  to  protect  the  emancipated 
negroes. 

The  wide  range  of  the  labor  laws  declared  unconstitutional  may  be 
seen  from  the  following  list,  which  includes  only  those  cases  which 
may  be  clearly  understood  from  their  titles : 

LABOR  LAWS  DECLARED  UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

Requiring  statement  of  cause  of  discharge.1 

Prohibiting  blacklisting.2 

Protecting  workmen  as  members  of  labor  unions.3 

Restricting  power  of  courts  to  grant  injunctions,  etc.4 

Protecting  employees  as  voters  (Federal).5 

Forbidding  public  employment  office  to  furnish  names  of  applicants  to  em- 
ployers whose  workmen  were  on  strike.6 

Fixing  rates  of  wages  on  public  works.7 

Regulating  weighing  of  coal  at  mines  (four  States).8 

Providing  for  small  attorneys'  fees  in  successful  actions  to  recover  wage 
claims.' 

Fixing  the  time  of  payment  of  wages.10 

Prohibiting  use  of  "  scrip."  1 

Prohibiting  or  regulating  company  stores." 

Fixing  hours  of  labor  in  private  employment.13 

Defining  liability  of  employers  for  injuries." 

It  is  difficult  to  find  parallel  cases  to  illustrate  the  difference  in 
the  point  of  view  assumed  by  the  courts  upon  the  same  constitutional 
question  according  to  economic  or  social  results  of  the  decisions  in 

1  Wallace  <v.  G.  C.  &  N.  R.  Co.,  94  Ga.,  732. 

2  Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Young,  162  Ind.,  102. 


State 

' 4  Pierce  v  'stablemen's  Union,  156  Cal.,  70  ;  State  v.  Shepherd,  177  MoM  234  ;  Cheadle  v. 
State,  110  Ind.,  301. 

6  United  States  7\  Amsden,  1  Bissell,  283. 

6  Mathews  v.  People.  202  111.,  389. 

7  Street  v.  Varney  Electrical  Supply  Co.,  160  Ind.,  338. 

8  Harding  v.  People,  160  111.,  459  ;  in  re  Preston,  63  Ohio  St.,  428  ;  Com.  v.  Brown,  8  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.,  339  ;  In  re  House  Bill  No.  203,  21  Colo.,  27. 

»  Randolph  v.  Builders'  and  Painters'  Supply  Co.,  106  Ala.,  501  ;  Builders'  Supply  Depot 
v.  O'Connor,  150  Cal.,  265;  Davidson  v.  Jennings,  27  Colo.,  187;  Manowsky  v.  Stephan, 
233  111.,  409. 

10  Republic  Iron  &  Steel  Co.  v.  State,  160  Ind.,  379 ;  Braceville  Coal  Co.  17.  People,  147  111., 
66  ;  Johnson  v.  Goodyear  Mining  Co.,  127  Cal.,  4. 

11  Godcharles  v.  Wigeman,  113  Pa.  Si.,  431  ;  Jordan  v.  State,  51  Texas  Cr.  App.,  531. 

12  Frorer  v.  People.  141  111.,  171  ;  State  v.  Fire  Creek  Coal  &  Coke  Co.,  33  W.  Va.,  188. 

13  In  re  Morgan,  26  Colo.,  415  ;  Lochner  v.  New  York,  198  U.  S.,  45  ;  Low  u.  Rees  Printing 
Co..  41  Nebr.,  127  ;  Ritchie  v.  People,  155  111.,  98  ;  People  v.  Williams,  189  N.  Y.,  131. 

14  B:illard  v.  Mississippi  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  81  Miss.,  507  ;  Baltimore  &  O.  S.  W.  R.  Co.  v. 
Read,  158  lud.,  L'5. 


KEPOBT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  45 

different  cases.  There  are  a  few  clear-cut  cases,  however,  in  which 
the  contrast  is  plainly  shown,  as,  for  example,  in  the  inconsistency 
between  the  decisions  in  the  Debs  case,1  wherein  it  is  held  that  the 
control  of  Congress  over  interstate  commerce  is  so  complete  that  it 
may  regulate  the  conduct  of  the  employees  engaged  therein  to  the 
extent  of  enjoining  them  from  going  on  a  sympathetic  strike,  and  the 
decision  in  the  Adair  case,2  wherein  it  is  held  that  Congress  has  so 
little  power  over  the  conduct  of  those  engaged  in  interstate  commerce 
that  it  can  not  constitutionally  forbid  employers  engaged  therein 
discharging  their  employees  merely  because  of  membership  in  a 
labor  union. 

In  this  same  connection  it  is  proper  to  contrast  the  almost  uniform 
prohibition  by  the  State  and  Federal  courts  of  secondary  boycotts 
in  labor  cases  even  to  the  extent  of  enjoining  the  publication  of  "  un- 
fair lists,"  with  the  decision  in  the  case  of  Park  Co.  v.  Druggists' 
Association  (175  N.  Y.).  In  this  case  the  Park  Co.  charged  that  the 
Druggists'  Association  fixed  prices  of  proprietary  medicines;  that 
they  refused  to  sell  to  anyone  who  did  not  abide  by  the  prices  thus 
fixed ;  that  the  druggists  combined  in  this  association  refused  to  sell 
to  the  Park  Co. ;  and  that  they  used  spies  to  ascertain  with  whom  the 
Park  Co.  did  business  with  intent  to  compel  such  customers  to  cease 
doing  business  with  the  Park  Co.  The  facts  were  admitted  on  de- 
murrer, but  the  court  refused  to  issue  an  injunction,  holding  that  the 
bo}Tcott  was  caused  by  plaintiff  himself  and  could  be  removed  when- 
ever he  saw  fit  to  abide  by  the  association's  rules ;  and,  further,  that 
there  was  no  conspiracy.  If  the  same  line  of  reasoning  were  fol- 
lowed in  labor  cases,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  any  kind  of  boycott 
which  would  be  illegal. 

Finally,  reference  should  be  made  to  the  history  of  the  fight  for 
the  enactment  of  eight-hour  legislation  in  Colorado,  which  illustrates 
the  grounds  upon  which  the  workers  not  only  of  that  State,  but 
throughout  the  Nation,  distrust  legislatures,  courts,  and  executive 
officials. 

Although  the  8-hour  day  was  established  in  Colorado  gold  mines 
by  agreement  among  the  operators  after  the  Cripple  Creek  strike 
of  1894,  in  the  coal-mining  industry  a  20-year  struggle  followed  the 
miners'  first  attempt  at  legislation. 

The  eight-hour  bill  presented  to  the  general  assembly  in  1895, 
though  supported  by  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America,  and  labor  organizations  in  general,  was, 
upon  reference  to  the  Supreme  Court  for  an  advance  opinion,  re- 
ported as  unconstitutional  and  failed  of  enactment. 

A  bill  brought  successfully  to  enactment  in  1899,  and  which  was 
substantially  a  copy  of  the  Utah  law  upheld  by  State  and  Federal 
Supreme  Courts,  was  declared  by  the  Colorado  Supreme  Court  to  be 
unconstitutional.3 

In  1901  the  people  adopted  by  an  overwhelming  vote  an  amend- 
ment to  the  constitution  which  provided  for  eight-hour  legislation. 
This  was  followed  by  the  introduction  in  the  next  general  assembly 
(1903)  of  several  bills,  and  by  the  inauguration  of  active  opposition 
thereto  on  the  part  of  corporations.  No  fewer  than  11  anonymous 
bulletins  were  attributed  to  one  officer  of  a  smelting  company. 

1 158  TJ.  S.,  564.  2  208  U.   S.,  161.  3  In  re  Morgan,  26  Colo.,  415. 


46  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   OK   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

On  account  of  disagreements  in  conference,  none  of  the  several 
bills  passed ;  and  so  great  was  the  public  outcry  that  at  the  extra  ses- 
sion in  July,  1903,  each  house  passed  resolutions  blaming  the  other 
for  the  failure. 

In  the  session  of  1904-5  a  bill  substantially  the  same  as  the  present 
law,  and  favored  by  all  political  parties,  was  so  amended  by  Mr. 
Guggenheim  as  to  be  "  absolutely  worthless."  It  remained  on  the 
statute  books,  a  dead  letter,  until  1911. 

In  1911,  house  bill  No.  46  was  passed.  The  operators  succeeded 
in  having  it  submitted  to  a  referendum  vote,  and  at  the  last  moment 
they  initiated  a  smelterman's  eight-hour  bill,  the  two  came  up  on 
the  same  ballot,  and  in  the  succeeding  confusion  both  were  adopted 
by  the  people,  because  of  their  genuine  interest  in  the  passage  of  an 
eight-hour  law. 

The  legislature  of  1913  repealed  both  the  laws  so  enacted  in  1911, 
and  reenacted  house  bill  No.  46,  the  present  law.  By  a  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  allowing  a  "safety  clutch,"  this  law  may  not 
be  referred. 

The  essential  injustice  and  stupidity  of  this  long  fight  of  the  em- 
ployers against  eight-hour  legislation  is  strikingly  shown  by  a  letter 
from  Mr.  L.  M.  Bowers,  chairman  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the 
Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.,  to  Mr.  J.  D.  Rockefeller,  jr..  stating  that 
after  they  saw  that  such  legislation  was  inevitable,  they  tried  out 
the  eight-hour  day  in  their  mines  and  found  that  it  was  economically 
profitable.  The  Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  thereby  is  shown  to  have 
stubbornly  resisted  by  every  conceivable  device,  for  a  period  of  20 
years,  a  just  law  which  was  not  only  necessary  for  the  health  and 
welfare  of  its  12,000  miners  but  was  actually  profitable  for  the  com- 
pany itself. 

The  reason  for  the  effectiveness  of  the  opposition  of  the  Colorado 
Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  is  also  shown  in  the  letter  quoted  on  page  41  from 
Mr.  Bowers  to  the  secretary  of  Mr.  Rockefeller,  describing  the  com- 
plete and  corrupt  control  which  the  company  exercised  over  the 
State  government  during  this  period. 

Third,  it  is  alleged  by  the  workers  that  in  the  administration  of 
law,  both  common  and  statute,  there  is  discrimination  by  the  courts 
against  the  poor  and  in  favor  of  the  wealthy  and  powerful.  It  is 
further  stated  that  this  discrimination  arises  not  only  from  the  eco- 
nomic disabilities  of  the  poor,  which  render  them  unable  to  employ 
equally  skillful  lawyers,  to  endure  the  law's  delay,  and  to  stand  the 
expense  of  repeated  appeals,  but  out  of  an  actual  bias  on  the  part 
of  the  judges  in  favor  of  the  wealthy  and  influential.  It  should 
arouse  great  concern  if  it  be  true  that  the  courts  do  not  resolve  their 
doubts  in  favor  of  the  poor  and  humble;  how  much  graver  then  is 
the  injustice  if  the  judges  do  in  fact  lean  toward  the  rich  and 
mighty  ? 

To  establish  this  claim  by  the  presentation  of  a  sufficient  number 
of  cases  would  be  a  tedious  task.  Many  such  have  been  presented  to 
the  commission  but  can  not  be  considered  fully  here.  Instead,  it 
would  seem  that  in  such  cases  we  may  safely  rely  upon  the  uncon- 
tra dieted  opinion  of  weighty  authorities  whose  position  removes 
from  them  any  suspicion  of  bias. 


BEPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  47 

Ex-President  William  H.  Taft  has  said: 

We  must  make  it  so  that  the  poor  man  will  have  as  nearly  as  possible  an 
equal  opportunity  in  litigating  as  the  rich  man;  and  under  present  conditions, 
ashamed  as  we  may  be  of  it,  this  is  not  the  fact. 

Prof.  Henry  E.  Seager,  of  Columbia  University,  testified  before 
the  commission: 

I  don't  see  how  any  fair-minded  person  can  question  but  what  our  judges 
have  shown  a  decided  bias  in  favor  of  the  employers.  I  would  not  be  inclined 
to  ascribe  this  so  much  to  a  class  bias,  although  I  think  this  is  a  factor,  as  to 
the  antecedent  training  of  judges.  Under  our  legal  system  the  principal  task 
of  the  lawyer  is  to  protect  property  rights,  and  the  property  rights  have  come 
to  be  concentrated  more  and  more  into  the  hands  of  corporations,  so  that  the 
successful  lawyer  of  to-day,  in  a  great  majority  of  cases,  is  the  corporation 
lawyer.  His  business  is  to  protect  the  rights  of  employers  and  corporations. 
It  is  from  the  ranks  of  successful  lawyers,  for  the  most  part,  that  our  judges 
are  selected,  and  from  that  results  inevitably  a  certain  angle  on  the  part  of  a 
majority  of  our  judges. 

The  bias  of  the  courts  is  nowhere  more  clearly  shown  than  in  cases 
involving  persons  and  organizations  with  whose  economic  and  social 
views  the  court  does  not  agree.  An  interesting  example  may  be  cited 
in  the  case  of  Warren  v.  United  States,  183  Fed.,  718,  where  the 
editor  of  Appeal  to  Reason,  Fred  D.  Warren,  was  sentenced  by  the 
Federal  district  court  to  six  months'  imprisonment  and  a  fine  of  $1,500 
for  the  circulation  through  the  mails  of  matter  offering  a  reward  to 
anyone  who  would  kidnap  a  certain  governor  for  whom  extradition 
had  been  refused.1 

The  sentence  was  commuted  by  President  Taft,  against  the  protest 
of  Warren,  to  a  fine  of  $100  to  be  collected  in  a  civil  suit.  In  com- 
menting on  the  sentence,  President  Taft  is  reported  to  have  said : 

The  district  court  evidently  looked  beyond  the  record  of  the  evidence  in  this 
case  and  found  that  Warren  was  the  editor  and  publisher  of  a  newspaper  en- 
gaged in  a  crusade  against  society  and  government. 

Moreover,  this  is  not  a  prosecution  for  criminal  libel ;  it  is  a  prosecution  for 
what  at  best  is  the  violation  of  a  regulation  as  to  the  use  of  the  mails.  To 
visit  such  an  offense  with  a  severe  punishment  is  likely  to  appear  to  the  public 
to  be  an  effort  to  punish  the  defendant  for  something  that  could  not  be  charged 
in  the  indictment. 

This  obviously  was  not  intended  as  a  reflection  upon  the  court, 
but  the  attitude  of  a  large  part  of  the  workers  is  that  if  President 
Taft  was  justified  in  making  such  an  assertion  it  was  a  case  demand- 
ing impeachment  of  the  judges  involved  rather  than  a  commutation 
of  sentence  for  Warren. 

Fourth,  it  is  charged  by  the  representatives  of  labor  not  only  that 
courts  have  neglected  or  refused  to  protect  workers  in  the  rights 
guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
several  States,  but  that  sections  of  the  Constitution  framed  primarily 
to  protect  human  rights  have  been  perverted  to  protect  property 
rights  only  and  to  deprive  workers  of  the  protection  of  rights  se- 
cured to  them  by  statutes. 

First,  with  regard  to  the  Federal  courts,  it  is  startling  and  alarm- 
ing to  citizens  generally,  and  particularly  to  workers,  to  learn  that 
the  concensus  of  Federal  decisions  is  to  the  effect  that  the  sections 
of  the  Constitution  defining  the  rights  of  citizens  to  trial  by  jury, 

1  It  was  alleged  by  Warren  that  this  was  done  to  call  attention  to  the  gross  dis- 
crimination in  the  case  of  Haywood  and  Moyer,  who  were  kidnaped  aud  transported  from 
one  State  to  another. 


48  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

security  from  unwarranted  arrest  and  search,  free  speech,  free 
assembly,  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  bearing  of  arms,  and  protection 
from  excessive  bail  and  cruel  and  unusual  punishments,  apply  only 
to  Federal  jurisdiction  and  in  reality  protect  the  citizen  only  against 
the  action  of  the  Federal  Government.  The  only  sections  protect- 
ing the  personal  rights  of  citizens  under  ordinary  circumstances 
are  the  thirteenth  amendment,  prohibiting  involuntary  servitude, 
the  fifteenth,  protecting  the  right  to  vote,  and  the  fourteenth,  pro- 
viding that  "  No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall 
abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States ; 
nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property, 
without  due  process  of  law,  nor  deny  any  person  within  its  juris- 
diction the  equal  protection  of  the  laws." 

We  are,  however,  informed  by  counsel  who  has  examined  the  cases 
involved  that  the  fourteenth  amendment  has  had  no  appreciable 
effect  in  protecting  personal  rights.  According  to  the  existing  de- 
cisions, the  due-process  clause  does  not  guarantee  the  right  of  trial 
by  jury,1  nor  does  it  necessitate  indictment  by  grand  juries,2  nor 
has  it  restrained  arbitrary  arrests  and  imprisonment  on  the  part  of 
State  governments  when  men  are  kidnaped  in  one  State  and  carried 
to  another.3 

Up  to  1911  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  intervened  in  55  cases 
in  which  the  fourteenth  amendment  was  invoked.  In  39  of  these 
cases  .private  corporations  were  the  principal  parties.  Thirty-two 
statutes  were  affected  by  these  decisions,  and  in  only  three,  concern- 
ing the  civil  rights  of  negroes,  were  the  personal  rights  of  individual 
citizens  involved.  With  the  exceptions  involving  the  rights  of 
negroes  in  jury  cases  (e.  g.,  Strauder  v.  West  Virginia,  100  U.  S., 
303),  the  fourteenth  amendment  has  not  acted  to  secure  or  protect 
personal  rights  from  State  encroachment,4  but  only  to  prevent  en- 
croachment on  property  rights.5  In  all  the  other  numerous  cases  in 
which  the  fourteenth  amendment  was  invoked  to  protect  personal 
rights,  the  attempt  failed. 

On  the  other  hand  there  is  abundant  evidence  of  the  great  protec- 
tion which  it  affords  corporations  and  other  forms  of  organized 
capital.  On  that  point  we  may  quote  the  statements  of  Mr.  C.  W. 
Collins,  of  the  Alabama  bar,  who  analyzed  the  decisions  of  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  through  the  October,  1910,  term.6 

Private  corporations  are  using  it  as  a  means  to  prevent  the  enforcement  of 
State  laws.  Since  1891  a  majority  of  cases  under  the  amendment  have  involved 
a  corporation  as  the  principal  party.  *  *  *  The  increase  of  this  kind  of 
litigation  runs  parallel  to  the  rise  of  the  trust  movement  in  America.  At  the 
1909-10  term  of  the  court,  out  of  a  total  of  26  opinions  rendered  under  the 
amendment  20  involved  a  corporation  as  the  principal  party. 

*  *     *     The  fourteenth  amendment  is  the  easiest  of  all  constitutional  meas- 
ures to  invoke.     In  a  country  where  economic  activity  is  so  intense  and  time 
so  vital  an  element,  it  has  been  grasped  as  a  sure  measure  of  delay,  with  always 
the  possibility   of  obtaining  affirmative   relief.     The   amendment,   though    in- 
tended primarily  as  a  protection  to  the  negro  race,  has  in  these  latter  days  be- 

1  Maxwell  v.  Dow,  176  TL  S.,  581  ;  Walker  v.  Sauvinet,  92  U.  S.,  90. 

2  Hurtaclo  v.  California,  119  U.  S.,  516. 

s  He  Pettibone,  12  Idaho,  264  ;  203  U.  S.,  192  ;  Re  Moyer,  35  Colo.,  150  ;  140  F.  R., 
870  ;  203  U.  S.,  221 ;  Re  Boyle,  6  Idaho,  609. 

*  See  for  illustration  :  Virginia  v.  Rives.  100  TJ.  S.,  313  ;  Plessy  v.  Ferguson,  163  U.  S., 
537  ;  Twining  v.  New  Jersey,  211  U.  S.,  78  ;  Brown  v.  N6w  Jersey,  175  U.  S.,  172. 

6  See  for  illustration:  C.   M.  &   St.   P.  Ry.   v.   Minnesota,   134   11.    S.,   418;   Cotting  v. 
K.  C.  Stockyards  Co.,  183  TJ.  S.,  79  ;  G.  C.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  v.  Ellis,  168  U.  S.,  150. 
6  The  Fourteenth  Amendment  and  the  States,  C.  W.  Collins. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  49 

come  a  constitutional  guaranty  to  the  corporations  that  no  State  action  to- 
ward them  can  become  effective  until  after  years  of  litigation  through  the 
State  and  Federal  courts  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  The 
course  of  the  amendment  is  running  away  from  its  originally  intended  channel 
(p.  145). 

The  fourteenth  amendment,  although  a  humanitarian  measure  in  origin  and 
purpose,  has  been  within  recent  years  practically  appropriated  by  the  corpora- 
tions. It  was  aimed  at  restraining  and  checking  the  powers  of  wealth  and 
privilege.  It  was  to  be  a  charter  of  liberty  for  human  rights  against  property 
rights.  The  transformation  has  been  rapid  and  complete.  It  operates  to-day 
to  protect  the  rights  of  property  to  the  detriment  of  the  rights  of  man.  It  has 
become  the  Magna  Charta  of  accumulated  and  organized  capital  (p.  137). 

It  is  thus  quite  clear  that  the  fourteenth  amendment  not  only  nas 
failed  to  operate  to  protect  personal  rights  but  has  operated  almost 
wholly  for  the  protection  of  the  property  rights  of  corporations. 
These  facts  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  many  decisions,  such  as 
the  Lochner  case,1  in  which  the  fourteenth  amendment  has  been 
invoked  to  annul  statutes  designed  to  better  conditions  of  life  and 
work,  must  constitute  just  ground  for  grave  concern  not  only  to  the 
workers  but  to  every  citizen  who  values  his  liberty. 

With  the  "bills  of  rights"  contained  in  the  constitutions  of  the 
several  States,  the  situation,  as  far  as  the  workers  are  concerned,  is 
somewhat  different,  since  in  many  jurisdictions  these  have  been  used 
upon  numerous  occasions  to  afford  substantial  protection  to  them  in 
their  personal  rights.  The  workers  call  attention  particularly,  how- 
ever, to  the  long  list  of  statutes,  city  ordinances,  and  military  orders 
abridging  freedom  of  speech  and  press,  which  not  only  have  not 
been  interfered  with  by  the  courts  but  whenever  tested  have  almost 
uniformly  been  upheld  by  the  State  and  Federal  courts.2  They 
point  also  to  the  grave  injuries  done  to  workers  individually  and 
collectively  by  the  thousands  of  arrests  which  have  been  made  with- 
out just  cause  in  labor  disputes,  without  relief  from  either  the  courts 
or  the  executive;  to  the  denial  of  the  right  to  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  upon  numerous  occasions;  to  the  fact  that  where,  as  for  ex- 
ample, in  Los  Angeles,  San  Diego,  and  Fresno  (Cal.),  Spokane 
(Wash.),  Minot  (N.  Dak.),  Paterson  (N.  J.),  Little  Falls  (N.  Y.), 
Lawrence  (Mass.),  Idaho,  Colorado,  and  West  Virginia,  workers 
have  been  grievously  injured,  brutally  treated,  or  interfered  with  in 
the  pursuit  of  their  guaranteed  rights  by  other  classes  of  citizens  or 
by  officials,  the  courts  have  not  interfered  and  the  perpetrators  have 
gone  unpunished. 

On  the  general  question  of  martial  law  and  habeas  corpus  a  mem- 
ber of  the  staff  has  made  an  elaborate  comparison  of  the  cases  aris- 
ing- from  nonlabor  disturbances  with  the  cases  arising  from  labor 
disturbances.  It  is  not  necessary,  and  would  require  too  much  space, 
to  recite  these  cases  in  full,  but  among  the  former  may  be  mentioned 
the  Milligan  case,  and  other  cases  arising  in  the  State  courts  of  Indi- 
ana, Illinois,  Kentucky,  North  Carolina,  and  Wisconsin 3  (all  during 
or  immediately  following  the  Civil  War),  and  three  cases  in  the 
courts  of  Kentucky,  Ohio,  and  Oklahoma  since  that  time ; 4  among 

1  Lochner  v.  N.  Y.,  198  U.  S.,  45. 

2  Fox  v.  Washington,  236  U.  S..  273  ;  Fitts  v.  Atlanta,  121  Ga.,  267  ;  Ex  parte  Thomas, 
102  Pacific,  19. 

3  In   re   Milligan,   4   Wall.    (U.    S.),   2;    Skeen    v.   Monkeimer,   21    Ind.,    1;   Johnson   v. 
Jones,   44   111.,    142 ;    Corbin   v.   Marsh,   2   Dur.,    193 ;    Ex   parte   Moore,   64   N.   C.f    802 ; 
In  re  Kemp,  16  Wis.,  382. 

4  Franks  v.  Smith,  142  Ky.,  232  ;  Ohio  v.  Coit,  8  Ohio,  62  ;  Fluke  v.  Canton,  31  Okla.,  718. 

38819°— 16 4* 


50  BEPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

the  latter,  i.  e.,  those  arising  from  labor  disturbances,  are  included 
the  cases  from  Colorado,  Idaho,  Montana,  Pennsylvania,  and  West 
Virginia.1  The  results  of  such  comparison  are  summarized  in  part 
as  follows: 

Although  uniformly  held  that  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  can  only  be  sus- 
pended by  the  legislature,  in  these  labor  disturbances  the  executive  has  in  fact 
suspended  or  disregarded  the  writ.  In  the  labor  cases  the  judiciary  either 
disregards  the  fact  that  the  writ  has  been  suspended  by  the  executive  or  evades 
the  issue.  In  nonlabor  cases  the  courts  have  protested  emphatically  when  the 
executive  attempted  to  interfere  with  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 

In  many  instances  in  which  the  military  has  been  in  active  operation  be- 
cause of  nonlabor  disturbances,  the  judiciary  has  almost  without  exception  pro- 
tested against  the  exercise  of  any  arbitrary  power  and  has  almost  uniformly 
attempted  to  limit  that  power. 

In  cases  arising  from  labor  agitations,  the  judiciary  has  uniformly  upheld 
the  power  exercised  by  the  military,  and  in  no  case  has  there  been  any  pro- 
test against  the  use  of  such  power  or  any  attempt  to  curtail  it,  except  in  Mon- 
tana, where  the  conviction  of  a  civilian  by  military  commission  was  annulled. 

Finally,  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  a  more  complete  mockery  of 
justice  and  travesty  upon  every  conception  of  fair  dealing  than  the 
innumerable  decisions  holding  unconstitutional  wise  and  salutary 
laws  for  the  protection  of  workers,  upon  the  ground  that  they  vio- 
late the  right  of  contract,  even  while  the  workers,  whose  rights  are 
supposed  to  be  affected,  clamor  for  the  maintenance  of  the  statute. 
The  appeal  for  the  protection  of  the  workers'  rights  in  such  cases 
comes  invariably  from  the  employers,  and  is  urged  against  the  pro- 
test of  the  workers,  yet  in  almost  unbroken  succession  the  judges  sol- 
emnly nullify  the  wisest  acts  of  legislatures  on  just  such  specious, 
self-serving  pleas.  There  are  notable  cases  in  which  the  judges  have 
unmasked  the  mummery,  as,  for  example,  in  Holden  v.  Hardy,2  where 
it  was  said: 

Although  the  prosecution  in  this  case  was  against  the  employer  of  labor,  who, 
apparently,  under  the  statute,  is  the  only  one  liable,  his  defense  is  not  so  much 
that  his  right  to  contract  has  been  infringed  upon,  but  that  the  act  works  a 
peculiar  hardship  to  his  employees,  whose  right  to  labor  as  long  as  they  please 
is  alleged  to  be  thereby  violated.  The  argument  would  certainly  come  with 
better  grace  and  greater  cogency  from  the  latter  class. 

There  appear  to  be  no  reported  cases  in  which  the  workers  have 
urged  that  their  rights  are  violated  by  such  restrictive  legislation, 
which  in  fact  invariably  originates  with  them;  but  the  courts  con- 
tinue to  hand  down  decisions  "  protecting  the  sacred  right  of  con- 
tract of  the  worker,"  when  the  only  person  benefited  is  the  employer, 
who  is  thus  able  to  "  turn  the  very  Constitution  itself  into  an  instru- 
ment of  inequality." 

This  entire  situation  is  fraught  with  such  grave  dangers  not  only 
to  the  workers  but  to  all  citizens  who  value  their  individual  liberty, 
that  the  Nation  can  not  be  entirely  secure  until  those  fundamental 
rights  are  affirmatively  guaranteed  to  every  citizen  of  the  United 
States  by  the  Federal  Government.  It  is  therefore  earnestly  recom- 
mended that  Congress  forthwith  initiate  an  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution securing  these  rights  against  encroachment  by  Federal, 
State,  or  local  governments  or  by  private  persons  and  corporations. 

Fifth.  It  is  charged  that  the  ordinary  legal  machinery  provides 
no  adequate  means  whereby  laborers  and  other  poor  men  can  secure 

1  In  re  Moyer,  35  Colo..  159  ;  in  re  Boyle,  6  Idaho,  609  ;  In  re  McDonald.  49  Mont., 
455;   Com.  v.   Shortall,  206  Pa.,   165;   Mays  and  Nance  v.   Brown,  71   W.  Va.,   519;   Ex 
parte  Jones,  71   W.  Va.,  567. 

2  169  U,  S.,  366. 


BEPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  51 

redress  for  wrongs  inflicted  upon  them  through  the  nonpayment  of 
wages,  through  overcharges  at  company  stores,  through  exorbitant 
hospital  and  other  fees,  fines,  and  deductions  through  fraud  on  the 

Eart  of  private  employment  offices,  loan  offices,  and  installment 
ouses,  and  through  the  "  grafting  "  of  foremen  and  superintendents. 
The  losses  to  wage  earners  from  these  sources  are  stated  to  amount 
each  year  to  millions  of  dollars  and  to  work  untold  hardship  on  a 
class  of  men  who  can  ill  afford  to  lose  even  a  penny  of  their  hard- 
won  earnings. 

These  charges  were  thoroughly  investigated  in  all  parts  of  the 
country  by  an  experienced  member  of  the  commission's  staff. 

He  cites,  for  example,  that  in  California,  where  the  situation  has 
been  more  completely  uncovered  than  elsewhere  and  where  remedies 
are  beginning  to  be  applied,  during  the  year  ending  June,  1914, 
9.621  claims  were  presented  to  the  commissioner  of  labor  alone.  Of 
these,  7,330  were  for  nonpayment  of  wages,  of  which  4,904  were  suc- 
cessfully settled  and  $110.912  of  unpaid  wages  was  collected.  This  is 
believed  to  have  been  only  a  small  proportion  of  the  total  claims  of 
laborers  throughout  the  State,  inasmuch  as  the  number  of  claims  was 
growing  rapidly  as  the  work  of  the  bureau  became  better  known, 
and  because,  during  a  period  of  only  10  months,  over  2,200  claims 
were  presented  to  the  State  commission  on  immigration  and  hous- 
ing. The  work  of  handling  these  claims  and  making  its  existence 
known  to  laborers  throughout  the  State  was  just  getting  well  under 
way,  although  with  a  small  appropriation  and  inadequate  force, 
when  the  collection  of  wage  claims  was  suddenly  checked  by  a  de- 
cision of 'the  State  court  of  appeals1  that  the  payment-of- wages  law 
was  unconstitutional  on  the  ground  that  since  it  provided  for  fine 
or  imprisonment  where  the  wages  of  laborers  were  illegally  retained, 
it  was  in  effect  a  provision  for  imprisonment  for  debt. 

The  investigation  in  other  States  revealed  equally  bad  or  worse 
conditions,  while  in  all  except  a  few  no  efficient  means  existed  by 
which  these  claims  could  be  prosecuted.  In  conclusion,  our  investi- 
gator reported : 

(a)  The  existing  labor  and  life  conditions  of  common  laborers  in 
this  country  produce  immense  numbers  of  justified  labor  complaints 
and  claims,  involving  not  only  great  sums  of  money  in  the  aggre- 
gate but  untold  personal  hardship  and  suffering. 

(Z>)  The  existing  public  and  private  legal  institutions  are  utterly 
inadequate  to  secure  justice  to  the  laborers  in  the  matter  of  these 
complaints  and  claims. 

(c)  This  situation  has  already  created  in  the  laborers  distrust  of 
the  Government,  of  employers,  and  of  the  well-to-do  classes  gener- 
ally, and  is  one  of  the  contributory  causes  of  the  existing  industrial 
unrest. 

The  measures  recommended,  which  have  to  do  largely  with  State 
and  local  administrations,  are  discussed  on  page  89.  It  is  sug- 
gested, however,  that  the  commission  recommend  to  Congress  that, 
inasmuch  as  the  immigrant  laborers,  who  suffer  most  largely  from 
these  injustices,  are  ethically  and  legally  wards  of  the  Nation  until 
they  become  citizens,  the  Bureau  of  Immigration  of  the  Federal 
Department  of  Labor  should  be  given  the  authority  and  necessary 

!Nov.   23,    1914. 


52  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  EELATIONS. 

appropriations  to  establish,  wherever  it  may  seem  necessary,  in  con- 
nection with  its  existing  offices  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  legal  aid 
divisions  which  would  freely  and  aggressively  prosecute  these  claims 
and  complaints  on  behalf  of  the  immigrant  laborers,  and,  if  there 
are  no  constitutional  or  statutory  barriers,  on  behalf  also  of  Ameri- 
can citizens. 

Sixth.  It  is  charged  by  the  workers  that  the  courts,  by  the  unwar- 
ranted extension  of  their  powers  in  the  issuance  of  injunctions,  have 
not  only  grievously  injured  the  workers  individually  and  collectively 
upon  innumerable  occasions  but  have,  by  the  contempt  procedure 
consequent  upon  disobedience  to  such  injunctions,  deprived  the  work- 
ers of  the  right,  fundamental  to  Anglo-Saxon  institutions,  to  be  tried 
by  jury. 

This  charge  is  not  limited  to  members  of  trades-unions,  nor  to  work- 
ers, but  is  voiced  also  by  many  who  have  no  reason  for  partisanship. 
For  example,  Mr.  S.  S.  Gregory,  former  president  of  the  American 
Bar  Association,  testified  before  the  commission : 

These  injunctions  are  based  upon  the  theory  that  the  man  carrying  on  a  busi- 
ness has  a  certain  sort  of  property  right  in  the  good  will  or  the  successful  con- 
duct of  that  business;  and  that  when  several  hundred  or  several  thousand 
excited  men  gather  around  his  premises  where  he  carries  his  business  on  and 
threaten  everybody  that  comes  in  there  to  work,  and  possibly  use  violence,  that 
that  is  such  an  unlawful  interference  with  property  right  as  may  be  the  subject 
of  protection  in  equity.  And  that  view  of  the  law  has  been  sustained  by  the 
courts  of  practically  all  the  States. 

But  the  great  difficulty  about  this  was  this,  that  having  enjoined  defendants, 
namely,  striking  workmen,  perhaps  from  unlawful  interference  with  the  busi- 
ness of  the  employer,  where  that  unlawful  interference  consisted  in  an  attack 
or  an  assault  and  battery  upon  another  man,  to  wit,  perhaps  a  strikebreaker 
so-called,  or  one  who  was  hired  to  take  the  place  of  one  of  the  striking  work- 
men, that  thereafter  the  judge  who  had  ordered  the  injunction  and  whose 
authority  had  been  thus  defied,  was  permitted  to  put  the  person  charged  with 
the  breach  of  that  injunction  upon  trial  upon  a  charge  of  contempt,  really  for 
having  committed  an  unlawful  and  criminal  act. 

Now  the  Constitution  has  thrown  around  the  prosecution  of  criminals  (the 
Constitutions,  State  and  Federal)  a  number  of  securities.  They  are  entitled 
to  trial  by  jury ;  they  are  entitled  to  be  confronted  by  the  witnesses  who  are  to 
testify  against  them ;  they  are  entitled  to  be  heard  by  counsel. 

But  none  of  those  guaranties  except  perhaps  the  right  to  be  heard  by  counsel 
is  secured  in  contempt  proceedings ;  and  the  obvious  wisdom  of  permitting  12 
men  drawn  from  the  body  of  the  people  to  pass  on  questions  of  fact — men  who 
are  supposed  to  be  prejudiced  neither  for  nor  against  the  parties,  who  know 
nothing  about  the  case  until  they  are  sworn  in  the  jury  box — has  so  far  com- 
mended itself  to  the  wisdom  of  legislators  and  jurists  to  such  a  degree  that  it 
has  become  a  permanent  feature  of  our  jurisprudence ;  and  to  provide  that  the 
court  may  proceed  against  parties  for  contempt,  where  the  conduct  charged 
against  them  is  criminal,  is  really  an  evasion  of  the  constitutional  guaranties 
and  a  plain  attempt  to  commit  to  equity  jurisdiction  over  matters  which  it  has 
been  decided  over  and  over  again  by  all  the  courts  that  it  has  no  jurisdiction 
with  respect  to,  namely,  the  administration  of  the  criminal  law. 

For  instance,  I  might  receive,  as  I  leave  the  room  of  this  tribunal  to-day,  a 
threatening  letter  from  somebody  saying  they  were  going  to  kill  me  for  some- 
thing I  had  said,  or  had  not  said,  before  the  commission.  Now,  that  involves 
personal  loss  possibly  to  my  wife  or  those  dependent  upon  me ;  but  no  court  of 
equity  would  listen  for  a  moment  to  a  bill  I  should  file  saying  "A  B  "  or  some 
other  blackhand  gentleman  had  threatened  to  kill  me,  or  if  filed  by  anybody 
dependent  upon  me,  and  therefore  there  should  be  an  injunction  to  prevent  him 
from  killing  me.  That  would  be  an  absurdity — a  legal  absurdity ;  and  none  the 
less  is  it  so  where  a  man  is  enjoined  from  committing  acts  of  violence  in  a 
strike  to  try  him  for  contempt,  without  a  trial  by  jury.  And  that  has  been  an 
injustice  that  has  rankled  in  the  minds  of  everybody  that  has  been  a  victim 
of  it,  and  justly  so. 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  53 

Sir  Charles  Napier  says,  "People  talk  about  agitators,  but  the  only  real 
agitator  is  injustice ;  and  the  only  way  is  to  correct  the  injustice  and  allay  the 
agitation." 

Judge  Walter  Clark,  chief  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  North 
Carolina,  also  testified  before  the  commission  as  follows: 

Chairman  WALSH.  Have  you  studied  the  effect  of  the  use  of  injunctions  in 
labor  disputes  generally  in  the  United  States,  as  a  student  of  economics  and 
the  law? 

Judge  CLAKK.  I  do  not  think  they  can  be  justified,  sir,  *  *  *  [Their 
effect]  has  been,  of  course,  to  irritate  the  men,  because  they  feel  that  in  an 
Anglo-Saxon  community  every  man  has  a  right  to  a  trial  by  jury,  and  that  to 
take  him  up  and  compel  him  to  be  tried  by  a  judge  is  not  in  accordance  with 
the  principles  of  equality,  liberty,  and  justice. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Do  you  think  that  has  been  one  of  the  causes  of  social 
unrest  in  the  United  States? 

Judge  CLAKK.  Yes,  sir ;  and  undoubtedly  will  be  more  so,  unless  it  is  remedied. 

It  is  not  within  the  province  of  the  commission  to  attempt  to  decide 
the  question  of  whether  or  not  the  issuance  of  such  injunctions  is  an 
unwarranted  extension  upon  the  part  of  the  courts ;  but  the  weighty 
opinions  cited  above  are  very  impressive  and  are  convincing  that  the 
workers  have  great  reason  for  their  attitude.  It  is  known,  however, 
from  the  evidence  of  witnesses  and  from  the  information  collected  by 
the  staff,  that  such  injunctions  have  in  many  cases  inflicted  grievous 
injury  upon  workmen  engaged  in  disputes  with  their  employers,  and 
that  their  interests  have  been  seriously  prejudiced  by  the  denial  of 
jury  trial,  which  every  criminal  is  afforded,  and  by  trial  before  the 
judge  against  whom  the  contempt  was  alleged. 

It  is  felt  to  be  a  duty,  therefore,  to  register  a  solemn  protest  against 
this  condition,  being  convinced  of  its  injustice  not  only  by  reason  of 
the  evil  effects  which  have  resulted  from  this  procedure,  but  by 
virtue  of  a  conviction  that  no  person's  liberty  can  safely  be  decided 
by  any  one  man,  particularly  when  that  man  is  the  object  of  the 
alleged  contempt. 

The  Clayton  Act  undoubtedly  contains  many  features  which  will 
relieve  this  situation  as  far  as  the  Federal  courts  are  concerned,  but 
it  seems  clear  that  it  does  not  contain  anything  like  a  complete  solu- 
tion of  the  existing  injustices,  even  for  the  limited  field  of  Federal 
jurisdiction. 

Seventh,  it  is  charged  by  the  representatives  of  labor  that  laws  de- 
signed for  the  protection  of  labor  in  workshops  and  mines  and  on 
railroads  are  not  effectively  enforced,  except  in  a  few  States.  This 
is  a  matter  of  considerable  moment  to  labor,  but  it  is,  after  all,  re- 
garded by  the  workers,  since  it  concerns  chiefly  only  their  safety  and 
comfort,  as  ranking  far  below  the  other  matters  discussed,  which  in- 
volve primarily  their  liberty  and  rights  as  freemen  and,  secondarily, 
their  only  means  of  bettering  their  condition.  Moreover,  it  is  almost 
entirely  a  matter  of  administration,  which  is  discussed  in  detail  else- 
where in  the  report.  With  the  great  attention  which  the  method  of 
administration  is  now  receiving,  not  only  from  labor  organizations 
but  from  civic  organizations,  and  lately  even  from  employers'  asso- 
ciations, it  is  likely  to  reach  a  satisfactory  stage  before  very  long. 

Eighth,  it  is  charged  that  in  cases  involving  industrial  questions, 
the  workers  are  liable  to  great  injustice  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  in 
many  localities  they  are  excluded  from  juries  either  by  the  qualifica- 
tions prescribed  (usually  payment  of  property  tax)  or  by  the  method 
of  selection. 


54  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

In  California,  for  example,  it  was  testified  that  grave  injustice 
had  heen  done  in  many  cases  because  the  juries  (composed  only  of 
property  owners,  for  the  most  part  employers)  were  greatly  prej- 
udiced against  the  defendants,  whose  program,  if  successful,  would 
directly  or  indirectly  affect  the  interests  of  the  jurors. 

Similarly,  in  Cook  County,  111.,  which  includes  Chicago,  it  was 
found  by  a  committee  of  the  Lawyers'  Association  of  Illinois  that 
although  the  system  of  selection  by  commissioners  was  intended  to 
produce  an  impartial  selection  from  all  classes  of  the  community, 
out  of  probably  1,000  different  occupations  in  Cook  County  the 
commissioners  confine  the  selection  of  the  great  bulk  of  the  jurors 
to  the  following  10  occupations:  Managers,  superintendents,  fore- 
men, presidents  and  owners  of  companies,  secretaries  of  companies, 
merchants,  agents,  salesmen,  clerks,  and  bookkeepers. 

To  quote  from  the  report : 

There  are  76,000  mechanics  affiliated  with  the  Building  Trades  Council  in 
Chicago,  yet  in  the  3,440  jurors  investigated  by  your  committee  there  are  only 
200  mechanics  drawn  from  the  76,000  in  the  Building  Trades  Council. 

There  are  about  200,000  mechanics  belonging  to  the  different  labor  organiza- 
tions in  Chicago,  yet  there  are  only  about  350  mechanics  drawn  as  jurors  by 
the  commissions  in  the  3,440  investigated,  or  about  10  per  cent,  when  the  per- 
centage ought  to  be  about  70  per  cent. 

The  report  of  the  committee  adds: 

Another  comparison  will  show  that  out  of  these  3,440  jurors  the  commission 
took  only  314  jurors  from  130  different  occupations,  or  an  average  of  less  than  3 
jurors  from  each  occupation,  while  from  the  10  favored  occupations  mentioned 
above,  1,723  jurors  were  picked,  or  the  grossly  excessive  average  of  172  from 
each  of  said  10  occupations.1 

A  similar  situation  was  disclosed  by  the  investigations  of  members 
of  the  staff  in  Paterson,  N.  J. 

Finally,  there  is  the  very  grave  situation  where,  by  putting  aside 
the  legal  and  customary  methods,  the  jury  is  chosen  by  the  sheriff 
or  other  officers,  who  may  be  unduly  influenced  by  either  party  to 
the  case.  Such  a  situation,  inimical  in  the  extreme  to  the  interests 
of  the  workers,  has  been  conclusively  proved  to  have  existed  in  Colo- 
rado and  in  other  mining  districts. 

In  the  belief  that  the  right  to  trial  by  an  impartial  jury  is  neces- 
sary for  the  maintenance  of  justice,  and  that  such  impartiality  can 
be  secured  only  by  including  all  classes  of  citizens,  it  is  suggested 
that  the  commission  recommend  that  Federal  and  States  statutes 
should  be  passed  providing  for  the  creation  of  juries  by  drawing 
the  names  from  a  wheel,  or  other  like  device,  which  shall  contain  the 
name  of  every  qualified  voter  in  the  district  from  which  the  jury  is 
to  be  selected.  The  adoption  of  this  method  in  Missouri  and  other 
States  has  resulted  uniformly  in  securing  impartial  juries  of  much 
higher  grade,  and  has  also  eliminated  almost  entirely  the  sources  of 
corruption  attending  the  selection  of  juries. 

Ninth,  it  is  charged  by  the  workers  that,  during  strikes,  innocent 
men  are  in  many  cases  arrested  without  just  cause,  charged  with 
fictitious  crimes,  held  under  excessive  bail,  and  treated  frequently 
with  unexampled  brutality  for  the  purpose  of  injuring  the  strikers 
and  breaking  the  strike. 

In  support  of  this  charge,  the  commission  has  been  furnished  with 
evidence  showing  that  in  a  number  of  recent  strikes  large  numbers 

1  Eternal  Vigilance  is  the  Price  of  Liberty.  Report  of  committee  to  the  Lawyers' 
Association  of  Illinois,  1914. 


KEPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  55 

of  strikers  were  arrested,  but  that  only  a  small  number  were  brought 
to  trial  and  relatively  few  were  convicted  of  any  serious  offense; 
that  those  arrested  were,  as  a  rule,  required  to  give  heavy  bail,  far 
beyond  their  means,  or  were  detained  without  trial  until  their  effec- 
tiveness as  strikers  was  destroyed;  and  that  in  many  cases  strikers 
were  brutally  treated  by  the  police  or  by  special  deputies  in  the  pay 
of  the  companies.  A  number  of  these  strikes  have  been  investigated 
by  public  hearings  of  the  commission,  by  members  of  its  staff,  or  by 
other  departments  of  the  Federal  Government.  In  each  of  the  strikes 
investigated  the  charges  as  made  were  in  essentials  substantiated. 

In  Paterson,  N".  J.,  which  was  investigated  with  unusual  thorough- 
ness and  which,  because  of  its  size  and  its  location  in  the  most 
densely  populated  section,  might  be  considered  likely  to  be  free  from 
such  abuses,  it  was  found  that  during  the  strike  of  the  silk  workers 
2,238  arrests,  charging  unlawful  assembly  or  disorderly  conduct, 
were  made,  and  that  in  all  there  were  300  convictions  in  the  lower 
courts.  Men  arrested  for  unlawful  assembly  were  held  in  bail  of 
$500  to  $5,000.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury  was  generally  denied. 
Men  were  arrested  for  ridiculous  reasons,  as,  for  example,  for  stand- 
ing on  the  opposite  side  of  the  street  and  beckoning  to  men  in  the 
mills  to  come  out.  This  was  the  allegation  on  which  the  charge  of 
unlawful  assembly  was  placed  against  four  men,  and  for  which  they 
were  sent  to  jail  in  default  of  $500  bail,  and,  although  never  indicted, 
the  charges  still  stand  against  them  as  a  bar  to  their  rights  as  citizens 
and  voters.  Men  were  fined  arbitrarily,  as  in  the  case  of  one  who 
was  fined  $10  for  permitting  strikers  to  sit  on  a  bench  in  front  of  his 
house.  Not  more  than  $25  worth  of  damage  was  done  during  the 
entire  strike,  involving  25,000  workers,  and  there  was  no  actual 
violence  or  attempt  at  violence  on  the  part  of  the  strikers  during  the 
entire  strike.  Under  such  conditions  the  editor  of  a  local  paper  was 
arrested,  charged  with  criminal  libel,  for  comparing  the  conditions 
in  Paterson  with  the  rule  of  Cossacks;  and  four  men  who  sold  the 
paper  on  the  streets  also  were  arrested.  The  editor  was  tried  and 
convicted  in  the  lower  court,  but  the  verdict  was  set  aside  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  while  the  four  men,  after  being  held  several  days 
in  default  of  bail,  were  released  without  trial. 

It  is  impossible  to  summarize  the  activities  of  the  police  and  au- 
thorities during  this  strike  better  than  by  referring  to  the  testimony 
of  two  of  the  leading  citizens  of  Paterson,  who  said  that  they  had 
resolved  to  get  rid  of  the  "  agitators "  and  were  ready  to  go  beyond 
the  law  to  accomplish  their  purpose.1  A  full  appreciation  of  the 

1  In  a  letter  recently  received  from  one  of  these  witnesses  his  position  is  reiterated 
with  a  striking  illustration  of  inability  to  comprehend  the  fundamental  principles  of 
American  Government  and  the  limitations  imposed  upon  the  power  of  one  class  to 
oppress  another  : 

"  Another  point  which  is  only  partially  covered  in  my  testimony  is  in  regard  to  what 
Chairman  Walsh  endeavored  to  get  me  and  various  other  citizens  to  admit  would  be  an 
infraction  of  free  speech  and  personal  liberty  if  the  agitators  were  prevented  from  coming 
into  Paterson  or  not  permitted  to  hold  their  meetings  here.  The  United  States  Govern- 
ment puts  up  the  bars  at  Ellis  Island  against  certain  classes  of  '  undesirable  citizens,' 
and  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn  the  Government's  action  in  debarring  from  this 
country  the  immoral  and  criminal  class  and  those  who  would  become  a  charge  on  the 
country  meets  with  the  approval  of  the  Americans  generally.  If  it  is  proper  and  right  for 
the  United  States  Government  to  say  who  shall  and  who  shall  not  enter  this  country  I 
think  it  is  equally  proper  for  the  city  of  Paterson  to  debar  undesirable  citizens  who  are 
coming  here  to  sow  discontent  and  cause  trouble  in  the  city.  New  York  City  has  had  a 
dead  line  at  Fulton  Street  for  a  great  many  years  and  the  police  authorities  have  pre- 
vented certain  persons  from  crossing  that  line,  and  this  has  been  considered  a  proper 
exercise  of  the  police  powers  of  the  city.  I  can  see  no  difference  between  this  action  on 
the  part  of  the  New  York  authorities  and  similar  action  which  was  desired  by  many  of 
our  citizens  in  Paterson  in  regard  to  the  I.  W.  W.  agitators." 


56  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

injustice  committed  during  this  strike  can  be  secured  only  by  read- 
ing the  testimony  taken  at  Paterson  and  the  reports  of  the  com- 
mission's investigators  based  upon  the  records  of  the  police  and  the 
courts. 

In  Los  Angeles  and  Indianapolis  essentially  the  same  conditions 
were  found  by  the  commission,  while  in  McKees  Rocks,  Bethlehem, 
and  Westmoreland  County,  Pa.,  Lawrence,  Mass.,  and  Calumet, 
Mich.,  investigated  by  the  Federal  Department  of  Labor,  essentially 
the  same  conditions  of  injustice  were  found  to  prevail.  The  condi- 
tions in  West  Virginia  and  Colorado,  which  were  almost  beyond 
belief  and  had  the  additional  feature  of  military  rule,  will  be  dis- 
cussed elsewhere.  > 

An  examination  of  the  entire  mass  of  evidence  is  convincing  that 
such  conditions  are  in  fact  typical  of  strikes  which  are  serious  enough 
to  arouse  the  authorities,  especially  where  the  workers  are  unor- 
ganized before  the  strike  and  therefore  lacking  in  influence  in  the 
community. 

Tenth,  it  is  asserted  by  the  workers  that  in  many  localities  during 
strikes  not  only  is  one  of  the  greatest  functions  of  the  State,  that  of 
policing,  virtually  turned  over  to  employers  or  arrogantly  assumed 
by  them,  but  criminals  employed  by  detective  agencies  and  strike- 
breaking agencies  are  clothed,  by  the  process  of  deputization,  with 
arbitrary  power  and  relieved  of  criminal  liability  for  their  acts. 

Only  three  such  cases  are  cited  here,  though  the  commission  has  in 
its  records  evidence  regarding  a  considerable  number.  At  Roosevelt, 
N.  J.,  it  was  found  by  the  commission's  investigators  and  later  con- 
firmed in  court  that  the  office  of  sheriff  was  virtually  turned  over  to 
one  Jerry  O'Brien,  the  proprietor  of  a  so-called  detective  agency; 
that  he  imported  a  number  of  men  of  bad  reputation  and  clothed 
them  with  the  authority  of  deputies;  and  that  on  January  19,  1915, 
these  criminals,  without  provocation,  wantonly  shot  and  killed  2 
men  and  wounded  17  others  who  were  on  strike  against  the  American 
Agricultural  Chemical  Co.,  which  paid  and  armed  the  deputies. 

Similarly,  during  the  Calumet,  Mich.,  strike,  about  230  men  were 
imported  from  detective  agencies  in  eastern  cities,  52  under  pay  from 
the  county  board  of  supervisors,  which  was  made  up  almost  entirely  of 
copper  company  officials.  The  actions  of  these  men  were  so  wantonly 
brutal  that  they  were  censured  by  the  local  judge,  but  they  went 
unchecked  in  their  career  of  arrogant  brutality,  which  culminated  in 
their  shooting,  without  provocation,  into  a  house  in  which  women 
and  children  were,  killing  two  persons  and  wounding  two  others. 

The  recent  strike  in  Bayonne,  N.  J.,  threw  more  light  on  these 
armed  guards.  During  this  strike  one  of  the  New  York  detective 
agencies  furnished  for  the  protection  of  the  Tidewater  Oil  Co.'s 
plant  men  who  were  so  vicious  and  unreliable  that  the  officials  of 
the  company  themselves  say  that  their  presence  was  sufficient  to  incite 
a  riot.  These  men  shot  without  provocation  at  anyone  or  everyone 
who  came  within  sight,  and  the  killing  of  at  least  three  strikers  in 
Bayonne  and  the  wounding  of  many  more  is  directly  chargeable  to 
these  guards. 

The  character  of  the  men  who  make  a  specialty  of  this  kind  of 
employment  has  never  been  more  frankly  described  than  in  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  L.  M.  Bowers,  chairman  of  the  board  of  directors  of 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  57 

the  Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.,  who  repeatedly  referred  to  those  in 
the  employ  of  that  company  as  "  cutthroats,"  against  whose  charac- 
ter, he  stated,  he  had  frequently  protested. 

According  to  the  statement  of  Berghoff  Bros.  &  Waddell,  who 
style  themselves  "labor  adjusters"  and  who  do  a  business  of  strike 
breaking  and  strike  policing,  there  are  countless  men  who  follow  this 
business  at  all  times.  They  say  they  can  put  10,000  armed  men  into 
the  field  inside  of  72  hours.  The  fact  that  these  men  may  have  a 
criminal  record  is  no  deterrent  to  their  being  employed,  and  no  check 
can  be  made  on  the  men  sent  out  by  these  companies  on  hurry  calls. 

When  the  question  of  providing  the  bail  for  these  men  arose  as  a 
result  of  the  killing  of  the  strikers  at  Bayonne,  the  company  attor- 
ney actually  declined  to  furnish  bail  for  them  on  the  ground  that 
they  were  thugs  of  whom  the  company  knew  nothing  and  that  it 
would  not  be  responsible  for  their  appearance. 

In  view  of  the  endless  crimes x  committed  by  the  employees  of  the 
so-called  detective  agencies,  who  have  been  permitted  to  usurp  a  func- 
tion that  should  belong  only  to  the  State,  it  is  suggested  that  the  com- 
mission recommend  to  Congress  either  that  such  of  these  agencies  as 
may  operate  in  more  than  one  State,  or  may  be  employed  by  cor- 
porations engaged  in  interstate  commerce,  or  may  use  the  mails,  shall 
be  compelled  to  take  out  a  Federal  license,  with  regulations  to  insure 
the  character  of  their  employees  and  the  limitation  of  their  activities 
to  the  bona  fide  business  of  detecting  crime,  or  that  such  agencies 
shall  be  utterly  abolished  through  the  operation  of  the  taxing  power 
or  through  denying  them  the  use  of  the  mails. 

Eleventh.  It  is  charged  that  in  many  localities  the  entire  system 
of  civil  government  is  suspended  during  strikes  and  there  is  set  up 
in  its  place  a  military  despotism  under  so-called  martial  law. 

In  West  Virginia,  for  example,  during  the  strike  of  coal  miners 
in  1912  martial  law  was  declared  and  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
denied,  in  the  face  of  a  direct  prohibition  by  the  constitution  of  the 
State,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  courts  were  open  and  unobstructed, 
and  without  reference  to  the  protests  of  the  strikers.  Persons  out- 
side the  military  zone  were  arrested,  dragged  before  military  courts, 
tried  and  sentenced  under  so-called  martial  law.  Upon  appeal  to 
the  civil  courts  of  the  State  the  actions  of  the  military  authorities 
were  upheld,  in  spite  of  the  oath  of  the  judges  to  support  the  consti- 
tution, which  in  terms  provided  "  that  no  citizen,  unless  engaged  in 
the  military  service  of  the  State,  shall  be  tried  or  punished  by  any 
military  court  for  any  offense  that  is  cognizable  by  the  civil  courts 
of  the  State,"  and,  further,  "  The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  shall  not  be  suspended." 

The  decisions  of  the  court  stirred  Hon.  Edgar  M.  Cullen,  a  former 
chief  judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  New  York — a  witness  before 
this  commission  and  recognized  as  unusually  conservative  and  care- 
ful in  his  utterances — to  make  the  following  statements: 

Tinder  these  decisions  the  life  and  liberty  of  every  man  within  the  State 
would  seem  to  be  at  the  mercy  of  the  governor.  He  may  declare  a  state  of  war, 
whether  the  facts  justify  such  a  declaration  or  not,  and  that  declaration  is  con- 
clusive upon  the  courts. 

1  See  the  reports  of  congressional  committees  which  investigated  the  Homestead  strike, 
the  Pullman  strike,  and  the  recent  strikes  in  Colorado  and  West  Virginia. 


58  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

If  he  declares  only  a  portion  of  the  State  to  be  in  a  state  of  war,  under  the 
decision  in  the  second  case  a  person  in  any  other  part  of  the  State,  however 
distant,  may  be  arrested  and  delivered  to  the  military  authorities  in  the 
martial  zone,  and  his  fate,  whether  liberty  or  life,  depends  on  the  action  of  a 
military  commission,  for  I  know  of  no  principle  which  authorizes  a  military 
commission  to  impose  the  punishment  of  imprisonment  that  would  not  equally 
authorize  the  imposition  of  the  punishment  of  death.  Under  that  doctrine, 
should  armed  resistance  to  the  Federal  authority  justifying  a  suspension  of 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  occur  in  Arizona  a  citizen  could,  on  a  charge  of 
aiding  the  insurrection,  be  dragged  from  his  home  in  Maine  and  delivered  to 
the  military  authorities  in  Arizona  for  trial  and  punishment. 

The  remedy  suggested  by  the  learned  court,  of  impeachment  by  the  legisla- 
ture, would  hardly  seem  of  much  efficacy.  By  impeachment  the  governor 
could  only  be  removed  from  office.  He  could  not  be  further  punished,  however 
flagrant  his  opposition  may  have  been,  except  by  a  perversion  of  the  criminal 
law,  for  if  the  doctrine  of  the  courts  is  correct  he  would  not  have  exceeded  his 
legal  power. 

The  governor  might  imprison  or  execute  the  members  of  the  legislature,  or 
even  the  learned  judges  of  the  supreme  court  themselves.1 

The  attention  of  the  commission  has  also  been  directed  by  wit- 
nesses to  the  repeated  occurrence  of  similar  or,  if  possible,  more  ex- 
treme conditions  in  Colorado  and  Idaho,  which  testimony  has  been 
confirmed  either  by  the  investigations  and  hearings  of  the  commis- 
sion or  by  the  reports  of  responsible  officials  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment. In  Colorado  martial  law  has  been  in  effect  ten  times  since 
1894.  Similarly  in  Idaho  martial  law  has  been  in  effect  on  several 
occasions.  In  both  of  these  States  not  only  have  strikers  been  impris- 
oned by  military  courts,  but  thousands  have  been  held  for  long 
periods  in  u  bull  pens,"  hundreds  have  been  forcibly  deported  from 
the  State,  and  so  arrogant  have  the  troops  become  upon  occasions 
that  they  have  refused  to  obey  the  mandates  of  the  civil  courts, 
although  the  constitutions  of  both  States  provide  that  the  military 
shall  always  be  in  strict  subordination  to  the  civil  power.2  In  fact, 
on  one  occasion  at  least^  when  orders  of  the  court  for  the  production 
of  prisoners  had  been  ignored  and  the  military  officers  were  sum- 
moned before  the  court,  they  surrounded  the  courthouse  with  in- 
fantry and  cavalry,  came  into  court  accompanied  by  soldiers  with 
fixed  "bayonets,  and  stationed  a  gatling  gun  in  a  position  command- 
ing the  courthouse.2  During  the  recent  strike  in  Colorado  the  mili- 
tary was  supreme  and  wielded  its  arbitrary  power  despotically  and  at 
times  brutally. 

i  .  Twelfth,  it  is  charged  by  the  workers  that  in  some  localities  the 
control  by  the  employers  of  the  entire  machinery  of  government  is 
so  great  that  lawless  acts  on  the  part  of  agents  of  the  employers  go 
imheeded  and  unpunished,  while  vindictive  action  against  the 
leaders  of  the  strike  is  accomplished  by  methods  unparalleled  in 
civilized  countries.  It  is  seldom  that  evidence  sufficient  to  substan- 
tiate such  sweeping  charges  can  be  secured,  even  if  the  charges  are 
true;  but  in  the  testimony  and  documents  which  have  been  gathered 
by  the  commission  there  seems  to  be  conclusive  proof  that  in  one 
State  at  least,  Colorado,  such  a  condition  of  complete  domination  of 
the  State  government  has  prevailed  and,  it  would  seem,  does  still 
prevail. 

1  Address  before  New  York  State  Bar  Association,  1014. 
*  Constitution  of  Colorado  I,  .">::.     Constitution  of  Idaho  I,  12. 

8  See  report  of  U.'S.  Commissioner  of  Labor,  Carroll  1).  \Vright,  on  Labor  Disturbances 
in  Colorado  for  a  detailed  history  of  events  up  to  and  including  1904. 


KEPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  59 

First,  Hon.  Frederick  Farrar,  attorney  general  of  Colorado,  tes- 
tified in  substance  as  follows: 

As  a  result  of  a  personal  investigation  into  conditions  in  Las  Animas  and 
Huerfano  Counties,  Colo.,  in  the  summer  of  1913,  a  very  perfect  political 
machine  was  found  to  exist.  The  head  of  this  political  machine  is  the  sheriff, 
and  it  is  conducted  along  lines  very  similar  to  those  maintained  by  corrupt 
political  organizations.  It  has  a  system  of  relief  in  case  of  need,  and  a  system 
of  giving  rewards  to  its  people.  It  was  difficult  to  determine  which  was  cause 
and  which  effect,  but  there  was  undoubtedly  some  relationship  between  the 
political  machine  and  the  coal  companies.  Witness  believes  the  machine  ex- 
isted through  its  power  as  a  machine  over  the  coal  companies,  but  has  no 
knowledge  of  any  money  being  used.  His  investigation  did  not  lead  into 
question  of  whether  the  machine  controlled  coroners'  juries  in  cases  of  death 
from  accidents  in  mines,  etc.,  or  of  whether  mining  laws  were  obeyed. 

Second,  Hon.  Thomas  M.  Patterson,  formerly  United  States  Sen- 
ator, testified : 

The  men  employed  by  the  large  mining  companies  have  been  used  to  gain 
political  power.  There  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  the  deliberate  purpose  of  these 
companies  to  control  the  officials  of  the  counties  in  which  they  are  operating, 
and  to  have  a  great  influence  in  the  selection  of  judges  and  in  the  constitution 
of  the  courts.  In  this  purpose  they  have  been  successful.  Election  returns 
from  the  two  or  three  counties  in  which  the  large  companies  operate  show 
that  in  the  precincts  in  which  the  mining  camps  are  located  the  returns  are 
nearly  unanimous  in  favor  of  the  men  or  measures  approved  by  the  companies, 
regardless  of  party.  The  companies  know  whom  they  want  elected,  and  do  not 
hesitate,  judging  from  the  results,  to  make  it  known. 

Third,  State  Senator  Helen  Ring  Robinson  testified  in  substance 
as  follows; 

As  a  member  of  the  committee  of  privileges  and  elections,  which  investi- 
gated conditions  in  Las  Animas  County,  she  listened  for  three  weeks  to  the 
story  of  political  conditions  there.  Long  before  the  strike  was  ordered  she 
realized  that  the  industrial  situation  was  hopeless  because  the  political  situ- 
ation appeared  hopeless. 

"  I  found  that  while  the  counties  of  Las  Animas  and  Huerfano  are  geographi- 
cally a  part  of  Colorado,  yet  industrially  and  politically  they  are  a  barony  or  a 
principality  of  the  Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  Such  situations,  of  course,  must 
mean  a  knitting  together  of  the  industrial  and  political  situation,  and  I  don't 
wish  to  say  that  the  Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  have  limited  their  efforts  to  Las 
Animas  and  Huerfano  Counties.  If  that  were  so,  the  situation  in  the  State 
itself  would  not  be  so  seriously  affected  by  them;  but  they  have  in  time  past 
reached  out  beyond  the  boundaries  of  their  principality  and  made  and  unmade 
governors;  men  who  desire  positions  of  high  place  in  Colorado  would  be  very 
loath  to  antagonize  them  whether  they  lived  in  Las  Animas  or  Routt  County,  or 
in  Denver,  and  it  would  not  matter  in  that  case  to  which  political  party  they 
belonged." 

Attention  should  be  called  to  another  aspect  of  the  control  of  the 
machinery  of  government  by  one  class  for  the  oppression  of  another. 
The  scales  of  justice  have  in  the  past  swung  far  in  one  direction- 
legislatures,  courts,  and  administrative  officers  under  the  domination 
of  corporations  have  grievously  wronged  the  workers.  There  is 
grave  danger  that,  if  the  workers  assert  their  collective  power  and 
secure  the  control  of  government  by  the  massing  of  their  numbers, 
the  scales  may  swing  equally  far  in  the  other  direction  and  every  act 
of  injustice,  every  drop  of  blood,  every  moment  of  anguish,  be  repaid 
in  full,  not  upon  some  obscure  and  humble  worker,  but  upon  those 
who  now  glory  in  the  sense  of  boundless  power  and  security. 

In  the  few  cases  in  which  the  workers  have  momentarily  secured 
control  of  local  situations,  they  have  followed  the  examples  that 


60  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

have  been  set  and  have  in  many  instances  used  their  power  unjustly 
and  oppressively.  In  Colorado,  for  example,  during  the  strikes  in 
the  metal  mines,  where  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  controlled 
a  camp,  they  followed  the  example  of  the  operators  and  deported 
persons  whom  they  deemed  to  be  obnoxious.  Similarly,  during  the 
fight  between  two  factions  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  in 
Butte,  Mont.,  the  dominant  faction  forced  several  persons  to  leave, 
the  city  and  set  aside  the  ordinary  processes  of  law.  It  is  inevitable 
that  this  should  be  the  case,  and  it  is  remarkable  only  that  the  masses 
of  workers,  even  when  acting  as  mobs,  show  greater  self-restraint 
than  do  organizations  made  up  of  business  men  ordinarily  regarded 
as  upright,  respectable,  and  admirable  citizens. 

For  the  security  and  honor  of  the  Nation  the  scales  of  justice 
must  be  brought  to  a  stable  equilibrium.  This  can  be  accomplished 
only  by  a  realization  by  every  citizen  that  every  act  of  injustice, 
whether  done  in  far-off  States  or  at  one's  very  door,  whether  affect- 
ing a  friend  or  an  enemy,  is  in  its  consequences  an  invasion  of  one's 
own  security  and  a  menace  to  one's  liberty. 

There  is  reason,  however,  to  expect  that  no  sober  and  well-consid- 
ered action  for  the  removal  of  these  abuses  will  be  taken,  and  one 
may,  without  being  an  alarmist,  share  the  fears  expressed  by  Judge 
Seymour  D.  Thompson  :x 

The  dangerous  tendencies  and  extravagant  pretensions  of  the  courts  which 
I  have  pointed  out  ought  not  to  be  minimized,  but  ought  to  be  resisted.  Their 
resistance  ought  not  to  take  place  as  advised  by  Jefferson,  by  "  meeting  the 
invaders  foot  to  foot,"  but  it  ought  to  take  place  under  the  wise  and  moderate 
guidance  of  the  legal  profession,  but  the  danger  is  that  the  people  do  not 
always  so  act.  In  popular  governments  evils  are  often  borne  with  stolid 
patience  until  a  culminating  point  is  reached,  when  the  people  burst  into  sudden 
frenzy  and  redress  their  grievances  by  violent  and  extreme  measures,  and  even 
tear  down  the  fabric  of  government  itself.  There  is  danger,  real  danger,  that 
the  people  will  see  at  one  sweeping  glance  that  all  the  powers  of  their  Govern- 
ment, Federal  and  State,  lie  at  the  feet  of  us  lawyers,  that  is  to  say,  at  the  feet 
of  a  judicial  oligarchy ;  that  those  powers  are  being  steadily  exercised  in  behalf 
of  the  wealthy  and  powerful  classes,  and  to  the  prejudice  of  the  scattered  and 
segregated  people;  that  the  power  thus  seized  includes  the  power  of  amend- 
ing the  Constitution;  the  power  of  superintending  the  action,  not  merely  of 
Congress,  but  also  of  the  State  legislatures ;  the  power  of  degrading  the  powers 
of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress,  in  making  those  investigations  which  they  may 
deem  accessory  to  wise  legislation,  to  the  powers  which  an  English  court  has 
ascribed  to  British  colonial  legislatures;  *  *  holding  that  a  venal  legis- 
lature, temporarily  vested  with  power,  may  corruptly  bargain  away  those 
essential  attributes  of  sovereignty  and  for  all  time;  that  corporate  franchises 
bought  from  corrupt  legislatures  are  sanctified  and  placed  forever  beyond 
recall  by  the  people ;  that  great  trusts  and  combinations  may  place  their  yokes 
upon  the  necks  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  who  must  groan  forever 
under  the  weight,  without  remedy  and  without  hope ;  that  trial  by  jury  and  the 
ordinary  criminal  justice  of  the  States,  which  ought  to  be  kept  near  the  people, 
are  to  be  set  aside,  and  Federal  court  injunctions  substituted  therefor;  that 
those  injunctions  extend  to  preventing  laboring  men  quitting  their  employ- 
ment, although  they  are  liable  to  be  discharged  by  their  employers  at  any  time, 
thus  creating  and  perpetuating  a  state  of  slavery.  There  is  danger  that  the 
people  will  see  these  things  all  at  once;  see  their  enrobed  judges  doing  their 
thinking  on  the  side  of  the  rich  and  powerful;  see  them  look  with  solemn 
cynicism  iipon  the  sufferings  of  the  masses,  nor  heed  the  earthquake  when  it 
begins  to  rock  beneath  their  feet ;  see  them  present  a  spectacle  not  unlike  that 
of  Nero  fiddling  while  Rome  burns.  There  is  danger  that  the  people  will  see 
all  this  at  one  sudden  glance,  and  that  the  furies  will  then  break  loose  and  that 
all  hell  will  ride  on  their  wings. 

1  Address  before  State  Bar  Association  of  Texas,   1896. 


EEPOET  OF   COMMISSION"   ON"   INDUSTEIAL  KELATIONS.  61 

It  is  true  that  Judge  Thompson  spoke  19  years  ago,  but  the  real 
clanger  lies  in  the  fact  that  during  that  period  we  have  done  little  to 
remove  the  evils  cited  by  him,  and  that  there  is  even  reason  to  fear 
that  we  have  simply  moved  nearer  to  the  danger  line  instead  of  away 
from  it. 

In  considering  the  action  which  needs  to  be  taken  it  has  been  urged 
by  some  that  the  end  to  be  achieved  is  to  place  personal  rights  on  a 
parity  w^ith  property  rights.  It  is  necessary  to  render  a  firm  protest 
and  warning  against  the  acceptance  of  such  an  ideal.  The  establish- 
ment of  property  rights  and  personal  rights  on  the  same  level  can 
leave  only  a  constant  and  ever-growing  menace  to  our  popular  insti- 
tutions. With  the  acceptance  of  such  an  ideal  our  democracy  is 
doomed  to  ultimate  destruction.  Personal  rights  must  be  recognized 
as  supreme  and  of  unalterable  ascendency  over  property  rights. 

Relief  from  these  grave  evils  can  not  be  secured  by  petty  reforms. 
The  action  must  be  drastic  and  directed  at  the  roots  from  which  these 
evils  spring. 

With  full  recognition  of  the  gravity  of  the  suggestions,  it  seems 
necessary  to  urge  the  commission  to  make  the  following  recom- 
mendations : 

1.  That  Congress  forthwith  initiate  an  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution providing  in  specific  terms  for  the  protection  of  the  personal 
rights  of  every  person  in  the  United  States  from  encroachment  by 
the  Federal  and  State  Governments  and  by  private  individuals,  asso- 
ciations, and  corporations.     The  principal  rights  which  should  be 
thus  specifically  protected  by  the' power  of  the  Federal  Government 
are  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  the  right  to  jury  trial, 
to  free  speech,  to  peaceful  assemblage,  to  keep  and  bear  arms,  to  be 
free  from  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures,  to  speedy  public  trial, 
and  to  freedom  from  excessive  bail  and  from  cruel  and  unusual  pun- 
ishments. 

2.  That  Congress  immediately  enact  a  statute  or,  if  deemed  neces- 
sary, initiate  a  constitutional  amendment,  specifically  prohibiting  the 
courts  from  declaring  legislative  acts  unconstitutional. 

3.  That  Congress  enact  that  in  all  Federal  cases  where  the  trial  is 
by  jury,  all  qualified  voters  in  the  district  shall  be  included  in  the 
list  from  which  jurors  are  selected,  and  that  they  shall  be  drawn  by 
the  use  of  a  wheel  or  other  device  designed  to  promote  absolute  im- 
partiality. 

4.  That  Congress  drastically  regulate  or  prohibit  private  detective 
agencies  doing  business  in  more  than  one  State,  employed  by  a  com- 
pany doing  an  interstate  business,  or  using  the  mails  in  connection 
with  their  business.     Such  regulation,  if  it  is  feasible,  should  include 
particularly  the  limitation  of  their  activities  to  the  bona  fide  func- 
tions of  detecting  crime,  and  adequate  provision  should  be  made  for 
the  rigid  supervision  of  their  organization  and  personnel. 

4.     DENIAL,  OF  THE  RIGHT  OF  ORGANIZATION. 

The  previous  discussion  of  the'causes  of  industrial  unrest  has  dealt 
with  the  denial  of  certain  fundamentals  to  which  the  workers  believe 
they  have  natural  and  inalienable  rights,  namely,  a  fair  distribution 
of  the  products  of  industry,  the  opportunity  to  earn  a  living,  free 
access  to  unused  land  and  natural  resources,  and  just  treatment  by 


62  EEPOET  OF   COMMISSION   OX  INDUSTRIAL  KELATIONS. 

legislators,  courts,  and  executive  officials.  A  more  serious  and  funda- 
mental charge  is,  however,  contained  in  the  allegation  by  the  workers 
that  in  spite  of  the  nominal  legal  right  which  has  been  established  by 
a  century-long  struggle,  almost  insurmountable  obstacles  are  placed 
in  the  way  of  their  using  the  only  means  by  which  economic  and 
political  justice  can  be  secured,  namely,  combineo^  action  through  vol- 
untary organization.  The  workers  insist  that  this  right  of  organiza- 
tion is  fundamental  and  necessary  for  their  freedom,  and  that  it  is 
inherent  in  the  general  rights  guaranteed  every  citizen  of  a  democ- 
racy. They  insist  that  "  people  can  free  themselves  from  oppression 
only  by  organized  force.  No  people  could  gain  or  maintain  their 
rights  or  liberties  acting  singly,  and  any  class  of  citizens  in  the  State 
subject  to  unjust  burdens  or  oppression  can  gain  relief  only  by 
combined  action." 

The  demand  for  organization  and  collective  action  has  been  mis- 
understood, it  is  claimed,  because  of  the  belief  among  a  large  number 
of  citizens  that  its  purpose  was  simply  to  secure  better  wages  and 
better  physical  conditions.  It  has  been  urged.,  however,  by  a  large 
number  of  witnesses  before  the  commission  that  this  is  a  complete 
misconception  of  the  purposes  for  which  workers  desire  to  form 
organizations.  It  has  been  pointed  out  with  great  force  and  logic 
that  the  struggle  of  labor  for  organization  is  not  merely  an  attempt 
to  secure  an  increased  measure  of  the  material  comforts  of  life,  but  is 
a  part  of  the  age-long  struggle  for  liberty;  that  this  struggle  is 
sharpened  by  the  pinch  of  hunger  and  the  exhaustion  of  body  and 
mind  by  long  hours  and  improper  working  conditions ;  but  that  even 
if  men  were  well  fed  they  would  still  struggle  to  be  free.  It  is  not 
denied  that  the  exceptional  individual  can  secure  an  economic  suffi- 
ciency either  by  the  sale  of  his  unusual  ability  or  talent  or  by  syco- 
phantic subservience  to  some  person  in  authority,  but  it  is  insisted 
that  no  individual  can  achieve  freedom  by  his  own  efforts.  Simi- 
larly, while  it  is  admitted  that  in  some  cases  exceptional  employers 
treat  their  employees  with  the  greatest  justice  and  liberality,  it  is 
held  to  be  a  social  axiom  that  no  group  of  workers  can  become  free 
except  by  combined  action,  nor  can  the  mass  hope  to  achieve  any 
material  advance  in  their  condition  except  by  collective  effort. 

Furthermore,  it  is  urged  by  the  representatives  of  labor  that  the 
efforts  of  individuals  who  are  bent  upon  bettering  their  own  condi- 
tion without  reference  to  their  health  or  to  the  interests  of  others 
directly  injure  each  of  their  fellow  workers  and  indirectly  weaken  the 
whole  fabric  of  society. 

It  is  also  pointed  out  that  the  evolution  of  modern  industry  has 
greatly  increased  the  necessity  for  organization  on  the  part  of  wage 
earners.  While  it  is  not  admitted  that  the  employer  who  has  only 
one  employee  is  on  an  economic  equality  with  the  person  who  is 
employed  by  him,  because  of  the  fact  that  the  employer  controls  the 
means  of  livelihood,  which  gives  him  an  almost  incalculable  advan- 
tage in  an}'  bargain,  nevertheless  this  condition  of  inequality  is  held 
to  have  been  enormously  increased  by  the  development  of  corpora- 
tions controlling  the  livelihood  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  em- 
ployees and  by  the  growth  of  employers'  associations  whose  members 
act  as  a  unit  in  questions  affecting  their  relations  with  employees. 

There  have  been  many  able  and  convincing  expositions  of  this 
belief  by  witnesses  before  the  commission,  but  there  is  no  other  which 


BEPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  63 

seems  to  have  so  completely  covered  the  entire  field  as  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Louis  D.  Brandeis,  who,  as  he  stated,  has  studied  this  problem 
from  the  standpoint  both  of  employers  and  of  employees : 

My  observation  leads  me  to  believe  that  while  there  are  many  single  things — 
single  causes — contributing  causes  to  unrest,  that  there  is  one  cause  which  is 
fundamental,  and  it  is  the  necessary  conflict  between — the  contrast  between — 
our  political  liberty  and  the  industrial  absolutism. 

We  are  as  free  politically,  perhaps,  as  it  is  possible  for  us  to  be.  Every  man 
has  his  voice  and  his  vote,  and  the  law  has  endeavored  to  enable,  and  has  suc- 
ceeded practically  in  enabling,  him  to  exercise  his  political  franchise  without 
fear.  He,  therefore,  has  his  part,  and  he  certainly  can  secure  an  adequate  part 
of  the  government  of  the  country  in  all  of  its  political  relations — in  all  rela- 
tions which  are  determined  by  legislation  or  governmental  administration. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  dealing  with  industrial  problems  the  position  of  the 
ordinary  worker  is  exactly  the  reverse.  And  the  main  objection,  as  I  see  it,  to 
the  large  corporation  is  that  it  makes  possible— and  in  many  cases  makes  in- 
evitable— the  exercise  of  industrial  absolutism.  It  is  not  merely  the  case  of 
the  individual  worker  against  employer,  which,  even  if  he  is  a  reasonably 
sized  employer,  presents  a  serious  situation  calling  for  the  interposition  of 
a  union  to  protect  the  individual.  But  we  have  the  situation  of  an  employer 
so  potent,  so  \vell  organized,  with  such  concentrated  forces  and  with  such  ex- 
traordinary powers  of  reserve  and  the  ability  to  endure  against  strikes  and 
other  efforts  of  a  union,  that  the  relatively  loosely  organized  masses  of  even 
strong  unions  are  unable  to  cope  with  the  situation. 

We  are  dealing  here  with  a  question  not  of  motive,  but  of  condition.  Now, 
the  large  corporations  and  the  managers  of  the  large  corporations — of  the 
powerful  corporations — are  probably,  in  a  large  part,  actuated  by  motives  just 
the  same  as  an  employer  of  one-tenth  of  their  size.  Neither  of  them,  as  a 
rule,  wishes  to  have  his  liberty  abridged ;  but  the  smaller  concern  usually  comes 
to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  necessary  that  it  should  be  where  there  is  an  im- 
portant union  found.  But  when  you  have  created  a  great  power,  when  there 
exist  these  powerful  organizations  who  can  afford — not  only  can  successfully 
summon  forces  from  all  parts  of  the  country — to  use  tremendous  amounts  of 
money  in  any  conflict  to  carry  out  what  they  deem  to  be  their  business  prin- 
ciples, you  have  necessarily  a  condition  of  inequality  between  the  two  con- 
tending forces.  The  result  is  that  contests,  doubtless  undertaken  with  the  best 
of  motives  and  with  strong  convictions  of  what  is  for  the  best  interests  not 
only  of  the  company  but  of  the  community,  leads  to  absolutism.  In  all  cases 
of  these  large  corporations  the  result  has  been  to  develop  a  benevolent  abso- 
lutism— an  absolutism  all  the  same ;  and  it  is  that  which  makes  the  great  corpo- 
ration so  dangerous.  It  is  because  you  have  created  within  the  State  a  state 
so  powerful  that  the  ordinary  forces  existing  are  insufficient  to  meet  it. 

Now,  to  my  mind  the  situation  of  the  worker  that  is  involved — and  I  noted, 
Mr.  Chairman,  that  when  you  put  the  question  you  put  the  question  of  physical 
condition — unrest,  in  my  mind,  never  can  be  removed,  and,  fortunately  never 
can  be  removed  by  the  mere  improvement  of  the  physical  and  material  con- 
ditions of  the  working  man.  If  it  were  we  should  run  great  risk  of  improving 
their  material  conditions  and  reducing  their  manhood.  We  must  bear  in  mind 
all  the  time  that  however  much  we  may  desire  material  improvement  and 
must  desire  it  for  the  comfort  of  the  individual,  we  are  a  democracy ;  and  that 
we  must  have  above  all  things  men ;  and  it  is  the  development  of  manhood  to 
which  any  industrial  and  social  system  must  be  directed.  We  are  committed 
not  only  to  social  justice  in  the  sense  of  avoiding  things  which  bring  suffering 
and  harm  and  unequal  distribution  of  wealth,  but  we  are  committed  primarily 
to  democracy,  and  the  social  justice  to  which  we  are  headed  is  an  incident  of 
our  democracy,  not  an  end  itself.  It  is  the  result  of  democracy,  but  de- 
mocracy we  must  have.  And,  therefore,  the  end  to  which  we  must  move  is  a 
recognition  of  industrial  democracy  as  the  end  to  which  we  are  to  work,  and 
that  means  this:  It  means  that  the  problems  are  not  any  longer,  or  to  be 
any  longer,  the  problems  of  the  employer.  The  problems  of  his  business — it  is 
not  the  employer's  business.  The  union  can  not  shift  upon  the  employer  the 
responsibility  for  the  conditions,  nor  can  the  employer  insist  upon  solving, 
according  to  his  will,  the  conditions  which  shall  exist ;  but  the  problems  which 
exist  are  the  problems  of  the  trade ;  they  are  the  problems  of  the  employer  and 
the  employee.  No  possible  degree  of  profit  sharing,  however  liberal,  can  meet 


64  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

the  situation.  That  would  be  again  merely  dividing  the  proceeds  of  business. 
That  might  do  harm  or  it  might  do  good,  dependent  on  how  it  is  applied. 

No  mere  liberality  in  the  division  of  the  proceeds  of  industry  can  meet  this 
situation.  There  must  be  a  division  not  only  of  the  profits,  but  a  division  of 
the  responsibilities;  and  the  men  must  have  the  opportunity  of  deciding,  in 
part,  what  shall  be  their  condition  and  how  the  business  shall  be  run.  They 
also,  as  a  part  of  that  responsibility,  must  learn  that  they  must  bear  the  results, 
the  fatal  results,  of  grave  mistakes,  just  as  the  employer.  But  the  right  to 
assist  in  producing  the  results,  the  right,  if  need  be,  the  privilege  of  making 
mistakes,  is  a  privilege  which  can  not  be  denied  to  labor,  just  as  we  must  insist 
on  their  sharing  the  responsibilities  for  the  result  of  the  business. 

Now,  to  a  certain  extent  we  get  that  result — are  gradually  getting  it — in 
smaller  businesses.  The  grave  objection  to  the  large  business  is  that  almost 
inevitably,  from  its  organization,  through  its  absentee  stockholdership,  through 
its  remote  directorship,  through  the  creation  practically  of  stewards  to  take 
charge  of  the  details  of  the  operation  of  the  business  and  coming  into  direct 
relation  with  labor,  we  lose  that  necessary  cooperation  which  our  own  aspira- 
tions— American  aspirations — of  democracy  demand.  And  it  is  in  that,  in  my 
opinion,  that  we  will  find  the  very  foundation  of  the  unrest;  and  no  matter 
what  is  done  with  the  superstructure,  no  matter  how  it  may  be  improved  one 
way  or  the  other,  unless  we  reach  that  fundamental  difficulty,  the  unrest  will 
not  only  continue,  but  in  my  opinion  will  grow  worse. 

It  is  very  significant  that  out  of  230  representatives  of  the  interests 
of  employers,  chosen  largely  on  the  recommendations  of  their  own 
organizations,  less  than  half  a  dozen  have  denied  the  propriety  of 
collective  action  on  the  part  of  employees.  A  considerable  number 
of  these  witnesses  have,  however,  testified  that  they  denied  in  prac- 
tice what  they  admitted  to  be  right  in  theory.  A  majority  of  such 
witnesses  were  employers  who  in  the  operation  of  their  business 
maintained  what  they,  in  accordance  with  common  terminology, 
called  the  "  open  shop."  The  theory  of  the  "  open  shop,"  according 
to  these  witnesses,  is  that  workers  are  employed  without  any  refer- 
ence to  their  membership  or  nonmembership  in  trade  unions;  while, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  found  upon  investigation  that  these  em- 
ployers did  not,  as  a  rule,  willingly  or  knowingly  employ  union 
men.  Nevertheless,  this  is  deemed  by  the  commission  to  be  a  minor 
point.  The  "  open  shop,"  even  if  union  men  are  not  discriminated 
against,  is  as  much  a  denial  of  the  right  of  collective  action  as  is  the 
"  anti union  shop."  In  neither  is  the  collective  action  of  employees 
permitted  for  the  purpose  of  negotiating  with  reference  to  labor  con- 
ditions. Both  in  theory  and  in  practice,  in  the  absence  of  legisla- 
tive regulation,  the  working  conditions  are  fixed  by  the  employer. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  there  can  be  at  best  only  a  benevolent 
despotism  where  collective  action  on  the  part  of  the  employees  does 
not  exist. 

A  great  deal  of  testimony  has  been  introduced  to  show  that  em- 
ployers who  refuse  to  deal  collectively  with  their  workmen  do  in  fact 
grant  audiences  at  which  the  grievances  of  their  workmen  may  be 
presented.  One  is  repelled  rather  than  impressed  by  the  insistence 
with  which  this  idea  has  been  presented.  Every  tyrant  in  history 
has  on  stated  days  granted  audiences  to  which  his  faithful  subjects 
might  bring  their  complaints  against  his  officers  and  agents.  At 
these  audiences,  in  theory  at  least,  even  the  poorest  widow  might  be 
heard  by  her  sovereign  in  her  search  for  justice.  That  justice  was 
never  secured  under  such  conditions,  except  at  the  whim  of  the 
tyrant,  is  sure.  It  is  equally  sure  that  in  industry  justice  can  never 
be  attained  by  such  a  method. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  65 


The  last  point  which  needs  to  be  considered  in  this  connection  is 
the  attitude  frequently  assumed  by  employers  that  they  are  per- 
fectly willing  to  deal  with  their  own  employees  collectively,  but  will 
resist  to  the  end  dealing  with  any  national  organization,  and  resent 
the  intrusion  of  any  persons  acting  for  their  employees  who  are  not 
members  of  their  own  labor  force.  In  practice  these  statements  have 
been  generally  found  to  be  specious.  Such  employers  as  a  rule  op- 
pose any  effective  form  of  organization  among  their  own  employees 
as  bitterly  as  they  fight  the  national  unions.  The  underlying  motive 
of  such  statements  seems  to  be  that  as  long  as  organizations  are  un- 
supported from  outside  they  are  ineffective  and  capable  of  being 
crushed  with  ease  and  impunity  by  discharging  the  ringleaders. 
Similarly,  the  opposition  to  the  representation  of  their  employees 
by  persons  outside  their  labor  force  seems  to  arise  wholly  from  the 
knowledge  that  as  long  as  the  workers'  representatives  are  on  the 
pay  roll  they  can  be  controlled,  or,  if  they  prove  intractable  they 
can  be  effectually  disposed  of  by  summary  dismissal. 

To  suggest  that  labor  unions  can  be  effective  if  organized  on  less 
than  a  national  scale  seems  to  ignore  entirely  the  facts  and  trend 
of  present-day  American  business.  There  is  no  line  of  organized  in- 
dustry in  which  individual  establishments  can  act  independently. 
Ignoring  for  the  time  the  centralization  of  control  and  ownership, 
and  also  the  almost  universal  existence  of  employers'  associations, 
the  mere  fact  of  competition  would  render  totally  ineffective  any  or- 
ganization of  employees  which  was  limited  to  a  single  establishment. 
Advance  in  labor  conditions  must  proceed  with  a  fair  degree  of  uni- 
formity throughout  any  line  of  industry.  This  does  not  indeed  re- 
quire that  all  employees  in  an  industry  must  belong  to  a  national 
organization,  for  experience  has  shown  that  wherever  even  a  con- 
siderable part  are  union  members,  the  advances  which  they  secure 
are  almost  invariably  granted  by  competitors,  even  if  they  do  not 
employ  union  men,  in  order  to  prevent  their  own  employees  from 
organizing. 

The  conclusions  upon  this  question,  however,  are  not  based  upon 
theory,  but  upon  a  thorough  investigation  of  typical  situations  in 
which  the  contrast  between  organization  and  the  denial  of  the  right 
of  organization  could  best  be  studied.  The  commission  has  held 
public  hearings  and  has  made  thorough  investigations  in  such  in- 
dustrial communities  as  Paterson,  N.  J.,  Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  Lead, 
S.  Dak.,  and  Colorado,  where  the  right  of  collective  action  on  the 
part  of  employees  is  denied.  These  investigations  have  shown  that 
under  the  best  possible  conditions,  and  granting  the  most  excellent 
motives  on  the  part  of  employers,  freedom  does  not  exist  either 
politically,  industrially,  or  socially,  and  that  the  fiber  of  manhood 
will  inevitably  be  destroyed  by  the  continuance  of  the  existing  situ- 
ation. Investigations  have  proved  that  although  the  physical  and 
material  conditions  may  be  unusually  good,  as,  for  example,  in 
Lead,  S.  Dak.,  they  are  the  price  paid  for  the  absolute  submission 

I  of  the  employees  to  the  will  of  the  employing  corporation.  Such 
conditions  are,  moreover,  shown  by  the  hearings  of  the  commission 
and  by  the  investigations  of  its  staff  to  be  unusual.  Los  Angeles, 
for  example,  although  exceptionally  endowed  in  location,  climate, 
and  natural  resources,  was  sharply  criticized  for  the  labor  conditions 
38819°— 16 5* 


66          HEPOET  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

which  had  developed  during  its  "  open  shop  "  regime  even  by  Mr. 
Walter  Drew,  representing  several  of  the  largest  associations  which 
contend  for  the  "open  shop."  It  is  significant  that  the  only  claim 
ordinarily  made  for  the  conditions  in  such  establishments  or  locali- 
ties is  that  "  they  are  as  good  as  are  secured  by  the  union."  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  there  are  few  establishments  which  make  this  boast, 
and  in  the  majority  the  conditions  were  found  to  be  far  below  any 
acceptable  standards. 

The  commission  has  also,  through  public  hearings  and  the  inves- 
tigations of  its  staff,  made  a  thorough  and  searching  investigation  of 
the  conditions  in  those  industries  and  establishments  where  collective 
action,  through  the  medium  of  trade  unions  and  joint  agreements, 
exists.  It  has  not  been  found  that  the  conditions  in  such  industries 
are  ideal,  nor  that  friction  between  employers  and  the  unions  is  un- 
known ;  nor  has  it  been  found  that  the  employees  in  such  industries 
have  entirely  achieved  economic,  political,  and  industrial  freedom,  for 
these  ideals  can  not  be  gained  until  the  fundamental  changes  in  our 
political  and  economic  structure,  which  have  already  been  referred  to, 
have  in  some  way  been  accomplished.  It  has  been  found,  however, 
that  the  material  conditions  of  the  workers  in  such  industries  and 
establishments  are  on  a  generally  higher  plane  than  where  workers 
are  unorganized;  that  important  improvements  in  such  conditions 
have  been  achieved  as  the  direct  result  of  organization ;  that  the  friction 
which  exists  in  such  industries  and  establishments  has  been  reduced 
rather  than  increased  by  organization ;  and  that  the  workers  at  least 
have  secured  a  basis  upon  which  their  political  and  economic  freedom 
may  ultimately  be  established. 

The  evils  of  graft,  "  machine  politics,"  factional  fights,  and  false 
leadership,  which  have  been  found  sometimes  to  exist  in  such  organ- 
ized industries,  are  those  which  are  inevitable  in  any  democratic  form, 
of  organization.  They  are  the  same  evils  which  have  accompanied 
the  development  of  the  American  Nation,  and  of  its  States  and 
municipalities.  Such  evils  as  we  have  found  to  exist  are  indeed 
to  be  condemned,  but  a  study  of  the  history  of  these  organizations 
seems  to  show  clearly  that  there  is  a  tendency  to  eradicate  them  as 
the  organizations  become  stronger  and  as  the  membership  becomes 
more  familiar  with  the  responsibilities  and  methods  of  democratic 
action.  Furthermore,  there  is  a  fundamental  principle  which  applies 
in  this  field  as  in  all  other  lines  of  human  activity.  This  principle 
is  contained  in  the  following  contrast:  In  democratic  organizations 
such  evils  and  excesses  as  may  arise  tend  to  disrupt  and  destroy  the 
organization  and  are  therefore  self -eradicating;  while  in  an  au- 
tocracy, evils  and  excesses  tend  inevitably  to  strengthen  the  existing 
autocrat  and  can  be  eradicated  only  in  the  event  of  a  revolt  on  the 
part  of  those  who  suffer  from  such  evils.  This  is  the  history  not 
only  of  every  form  of  artificial  association,  but  of  nations. 

The  fundamental  question  for  the  Nation  to  decide,  for  in  the  end 
public  opinion  will  control  here  as  elsewhere,  is  whether  the  workers 
shall  have  an  effective  means  of  adjusting  their  grievances,  improv- 
ing their  condition,  and  securing  their  liberty,  through  negotiation 
with  their  employers,  or  whether  they  shall  be  driven  by  necessity 
and  oppression  to  the  extreme  of  revolt.  Where  men  are  well  or- 
ganized, and  the  power  of  employers  and  employees  is  fairly  well 
balanced,  agreements  are  nearly  always  reached  by  negotiation;  but, 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  67 

even  if  this  fails,  the  strikes  or  lockouts  which  follow  are  as  a  rule 
merely  cessations  of  work  until  economic  necessity  forces  the  parties 
together  again  to  adopt  some  form  of  compromise.  With  the  unor- 
ganized there  is  no  hope  of  achieving  anything  except  by  spon- 
taneous revolt.  Too  often  has  it  been  found  that  during  the  delay 
of  attempted  negotiations  the  leaders  are  discharged  and  new  men 
are  found  ready  to  take  the  place  of  those  who  protest  against  condi- 
tions. Without  strike  funds  or  other  financial  support  the  unor- 
ganized must  achieve  results  at  once ;  they  can  not  afford  to  wait  for 
reason  and  compromise  to  come  into  play.  Lacking  strong  leaders 
and  definite  organization,  such  revolts  can  only  be  expected  to  change 
to  mob  action  on  the  slightest  provocation. 

Looking  back  over  the  industrial  history  of  the  last  quarter  cen- 
tury, the  industrial  disputes  which  have  attracted  the  attention  of 
the  country  and  which  have  been  accompanied  by  bloodshed  and 
violence  have  been  revolutions  against  industrial  oppression,  and 
not  mere  strikes  for  the  improvement  of  working  conditions.^  Such 
revolutions  in  fact  wrere  the  railway  strikes  of  the  late  eighties,  the 
Homestead  strike,  the  bituminous  coal  strike  of  1897,  the  anthracite 
strikes  of  1900  and  1903,  the  strike  at  McKees  Rocks  in  1909,  the 
Bethlehem  strike  of  1910,  the  strikes  in  the  textile  mills  at  Lawrence, 
Paterson,  and  Little  Falls,  many  of  the  strikes  in  the  mining  camps 
of  Idaho  and  Colorado,  the  garment  workers'  strikes  in  New  York 
and  other  cities,  and  the  recent  strikes  in  the  mining  districts  of  West 
Virginia,  Westmoreland  County,  Pa.,  and  Calumet,  Mich. 

As  a  result,  therefore,  not  only  of  fundamental  considerations  but 
of  practical  investigations,  the  results  of  which  are  described  in  detail 
hereinafter,  it  would  appear  that  every  means  should  be  used  to 
extend  and  strengthen  organizations  throughout  the  entire  industrial 
field.  Much  attention  has  been  devoted  to  the  means  by  which  this 
can  best  be  accomplished,  and  a  large  number  of  suggestions  have 
been  received.  As  a  result  of  careful  consideration,  it  is  suggested 
that  the  commission  recommend  the  following  action : 

1.  Incorporation  among  the  rights  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  unlimited  right  of  individuals  to  form  associations,  not  for  the 
sake  of  profit  but  for  the  advancement  of  their  individual  and  col- 
lective interests. 

2.  Enactment  of  statutes  specifically  protecting  this  right  and  pro- 
hibiting the  discharge  of  any  person  because  of  his  membership  in  a 
labor  organization. 

3.  Enactment  of  a  statute  providing  that  action  on  the  part  of  an 
association  of  individuals  not  organized  for  profit  shall  not  be  held  to 
be  unlawful  where  such  action  would  not  be  unlawful  in  the  case  of 
an  individual. 

4.  That  the  Federal  Trade  Commission  be  specifically  empowered 
and  directed  by  Congress,  in  determining  unfair  methods  of  compe- 
tition to  take  into  account  and  specially  investigate  the  unfair  treat- 
ment of  labor  in  all  respects,  with  particular  reference  to  the  follow- 
ing points : 

(a)  Refusal  to  permit  employees  to  become  members  of  labor  or- 
ganizations. 

(?>}  Refusal  to  meet  or  confer  with  the  authorized  representatives 
of  employees. 


68  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

5.  That  the  Department  of  Labor,  through  the  Secretary  of  Labor 
or  any  other  authorized  official,  be  empowered  and  directed  to  present 
to  the  Federal  Trade  Commission,  and  to  prosecute  before  that  body 
all  cases  of  unfair  competition  arising  out  of  the  treatment  of  labor 
"which  may  come  to  its  attention. 

6.  That  such  cases,  affecting  as  they  do  the  lives  of  citizens  in  the 
humblest  circumstances,  as  well  as  the  profits  of  competitors  and  the 
peace  of  the  community,  be  directed  by  Congress  to  have  precedence 
over  all  other  cases  before  the  Federal  Trade  Commission. 

CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS. 

The  remainder  of  the  report  is  devoted  largely  to  the  conclusions 
and  recommendations  with  respect  to  specific  questions  propounded 
by  Congress.  The  facts  upon  which  these  conclusions  and  recom- 
mendations are  based  are  contained  in  the  testimony  taken  by  the 
commission  and  in  the  reports  of  its  investigators.  The  complete 
corrected  testimony  is  transmitted  to  Congress,  as  well  as  a  carefully 
prepared  digest  or  the  evidence.  The  reports  of  the  investigators 
have  likewise  been  placed  in  the  possession  of  Congress.1 

I.  INDUSTRIAL  CONDITIONS  or  ADULT  WORKMEN  IN  GENERAL 

INDUSTRIES. 

In  this  section  only  the  conditions  of  adult  workmen  are  consid- 
ered, leaving  the  questions  affecting  women  and  children  for  separate 
consideration  later.  The  problems  involved  are  essentially  different, 
and  the  position  of  women  and  children  in  relation  to  the  State  may 
be  clearly  distinguished  from  the  position  of  adult  workmen. 

WAGES. 

As  a  result  of  the  investigations  which  have  been  made  the  follow- 
ing conclusions  are  justified : 

1.  The  welfare  of  the  State  demands  that  the  useful  labor  of  every 
able-bodied  workman  should,  as  a  minimum,  be  compensated  by  suf- 
ficient income  to  support  in  comfort  himself,  a  wife,  and  at  least  three 
minor  children,  and  in  addition  to  provide  for  sickness,  old  age,  and 
disability.  Under  no  other  conditions  can  a  strong,  contented,  and 
efficient  citizenship  be  developed. 

'2.  Under  existing  conditions  such  an  income  is  not  received  by 
fully  one-half  of  the  wage  earners  employed  in  industry. 

3.  The  natural  resources  of  the  United  States  are  such  that  an 
industrial  population  properly  educated  and  efficiently  organized  can 
produce  enough  to  achieve  this  standard  of  living. 

4.  It  is  probable  that  even  at  present  the  national  agricultural  and 
industrial  output  is  sufficient  to  permit  the  establishment  of  such  a 
standard. 

5.  The  problem  is  therefore  essentially  one  of  distribution. 

6.  The  fixing  of  the  wages  of  adult  workmen  by  legal  enactment  is 
not  practicable  nor  desirable  as  a  general  policy,  except  for  public 
employees. 

7.  A  just  standard  of  wages  in  any  industry  or  occupation  can  best 
be  reached  by  collective  bargaining  between  employers  and  employees 

1  These  reports  have  not  been  printed  with  this  document,  on  the  recommendation  of 
Chairman  Frank  P.  Walsh,  as  stated  in  his  letter  in  Senate  Report  No.  143,  Sixty-fourth 
Congress. 


EEPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  69 

for  the  purpose  of  forming  voluntary  joint  agreements.  The  success 
and  justice  of  such  joint  agreements  is,  however,  dependent  upon  the 
essential  equality  of  the  two  parties  and  can  not  be  attained  unless 
effective  organization  exists. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  make  the  following  recom- 
mendations : 

1.  In  order  that  the  public  may  be  kept  fully  informed  with  regard 
to  labor  conditions,  and  that  a  proper  basis  of  facts  should  exist  for 
negotiation  and  arbitration,  the  Federal  Government  should  enact 
the  necessary  legislation  to  provide  for  the  collection,  through  the 
Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  or  otherwise,  of  the  full  and  exact  facts 
regarding  wages,  hours  of  labor,  and  extent  of  unemployment  for 
every  industry.     Every  employer  should  be  required  by  law  to  file 
with  the  proper  authority  a  sworn  statement  of  these  facts  according 
to  a  prescribed  form.     These  statistics  should  be  published  annually, 
and  the  full  data  regarding  any  industry  or  plant  should  be  accessible 
to  any  mediator  or  any  other  responsible  citizen. 

2.  Uniform  statutes  should  be  passed  by  the  legislatures  of  all 
States  requiring  that  wages  be  paid  at  least  semimonthly  and  in  cash, 
except  where  by  joint  agreement  other  methods  are  agreed  upon. 

HOURS  OF  LABOR. 

As  a  result  of  investigation  the  following  conclusions  are  justified: 

1.  The  physical  well-being,  mental  development,  and  recreational 
needs  of  every  class  of  population  demand  that  under  normal  circum- 
stances the  working  day  should  not  exceed  eight  hours. 

2.  A   very  large   percentage  of   the   workmen   in   manufactures, 
transportation,  and  mining  work  more  than  eight  hours  per  day. 

3.  This  is  in  marked  contrast  to  the  condition  of  those  whose 
economic  position  enables  them  to  define  the  length  of  their  own 
working  day. 

4.  Practical  experience  has  shown  that  the  reduction  of  working 
hours  is  in  the  interest  not  only  of  the  worker  and  the  community 
generally,  but  of  the  employer. 

5.  The  regulation  by  legal  enactment  of  working  hours  of  adult 
workmen  is  not  generally  practicable  nor  desirable,  except  for  public 
employees. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  That  in  the  so-called  continuous  occupations,  other  than  the 
movement  of  trains,  requiring  work  during  both  the  day  and  the 
night  for  six  or  seven  days  per  week,  the  State  and  Federal  Govern- 
ments should  directly  intervene,  so  that  the  working  hours  should  not 
exceed  eight  per  day  nor  extend  to  more  than  six  days  per  week. 

SAFETY  AND   SANITATION. 

The  investigations  which  have  been  made  warrant  the  following 
conclusions : 

1.  Great  progress  has  been  made  during  recent  years  in  promoting 
safety  and  sanitation  in  manufacturing,  mining,  and  transportation. 

2.  The  progress  has  been  most  rapid  in  the  direction  of  safeguard- 
ing workers  from  industrial  accidents. 


70  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

3.  Progress  in  safety  has  been  in  part  the  result  of  continued 
agitation  and  education,  but  has  proceeded  most  rapidly  and  satis- 
factorily since  the  enactment  of  workmen's  compensation  laws,  which 
render  unsafe  working  conditions  expensive  to  the  employer. 

4.  The  movement  has  also  been  largely  promoted  by  the  forma- 
tion of  safety  committees  composed  of  officials  and  workmen,  and 
by  the  creation  of  joint  conferences  of  employers  and  employees  to 
assist  and  advise  State  officials  in  the  administration  of  the  law  and 
in  the  formulation  of  safety  rules. 

5.  The  campaign  for  safety   needs,  however,   to  be  greatly  ex- 
tended as  rapidly  as  possible.     The  annual  list  of  accidents,  approxi- 
mately 35,000  fatalities  and  700,000  injuries  involving  disability  of 
over  four  weeks,  can  not  be  regarded  complacently.     From  one-third 
to  one-half  of  these  accidents  have  been  estimated  by  competent  au- 
thorities to  be  preventable  by  proper  safeguards,  inspection,  and 
control. 

6.  The  advance  in  the  sanitation  of  workshops  has  been  less  rapid, 
because  not  only  are  the  dangers  less  obvious,  but  there  is  no  financial 
liability  for  diseases  or  deaths  occurring  as  the  result  of  improper 
sanitation.     Future  progress  in  sanitation  demands  attention   not 
only  to  cleanliness  and  ventilation  but  to  occupational  diseases. 

7.  The  most  direct  incentive  for  the  promotion  of  sanitation  would 
be  the  adoption  of  a  proper  system  of  sickness  insurance. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  creation  of  a  bureau  of  industrial  safety  (except  that  the 
section  providing  a  museum  of  safety  is  not  indorsed).    Proper  steps 
should  be  taken  to  provide  for  the  coordination  of  the  work  of  all 
Federal  bureaus  whose  work  is  concerned  with  industrial  safety. 

2.  The  appropriations  of  the  Public  Health  Service  for  the  investi- 
gation and  promotion  of  industrial  sanitation  should  be  increased. 

HOUSING. 

It  has  been  found  in  the  course  of  the  commission's  investigations : 

1.  The  present  provisions  for  the  housing  of  workmen  are  gen- 
erally bad,  not  only  in  the  large  cities  but  in  industrial  communities 
of  every  size  and  in  rural  districts. 

2.  Xot  only  are  the  houses  and  tenements  which  are  available  for 
workers  largely  insanitary  and  unfit  for  habitation  but  they  are  in- 
adequate, resulting  in  high  renjs,  overcrowding,  and  congestion. 

3.  Such  conditions  make  not  only  for  discomfort  and  unhappiness, 
but  for  disease  and  degeneration. 

4.  The  ordinary  method  of  supplying  houses  through  their  erec- 
tion by  private  capitalists  for  investment  and  speculation  has  rarely, 
if  ever,  been  adequate. 

5.  Excellent  plans  for  the  housing  of  workmen  have  been  put  into 
effect  by  a  number  of  firms  and  corporations,  but  such  measures  have 
not  at  all  affected  the  general  situation,  and  being  dependent  upon 
the  volition  of  individuals  can  not  be  regarded  as  likely  to  greatly 
influence  progress. 

6.  The  tenement-house  acts,  as  well  as  the  health  ordinances  and 
building  regulations  of  municipalities,  while  generally  productive 
of  good  effects,  are  at  best  surface  remedies  and  can  never  cure  the 
evils  of  the  present  housing  situation. 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  71 

7.  In  every   important   European   country   Government   aid   and 
direct  intervention  to  curb  speculation  have  proved  to  be  necessary 
for  the  promotion  of  any  real  progress. 

8.  Governmental  action  in  Europe  has  chiefly  taken  the  following 
forms : 

(a)  Extension  of  credit  to  voluntary  nonprofit-making  associa- 
tions. 

(&)  Construction  by  the  Government  of  buildings  which  are 
leased  for  long  periods  on  easy  terms. 

(c)  Exemption  from  taxation  and  other  subsidies  for  homes  con- 
structed for  occupancy  by  their  owners. 

(d)  Legislation  designed  to  prevent  the  holding  of  land  out  of 
use  and  to  secure  for  the  Government  a  part  of  the  "  unearned  in- 
crement." 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  Federal  and  State  Governments  should  institute  investiga- 
tions directed  not  so  much  to  ascertaining  existing  housing  condi- 
tions as  to  formulating  constructive  methods  by  which  direct  sup- 
port and  encouragement  to  the  promotion  of  improved  housing  can 
be  given.     Actual  experiment  in  the  promotion  of  housing  should 
proceed  as  rapidly  as  proper  plans  can  be  drafted. 

2.  Special  attention  should  be  given  to  taxation,  in  order  that  land 
should  as  far  as  possible  be  forced  into  use  and  the  burden  of  taxa- 
tion be  removed  from  home  owners. 

3.  The  municipalities  should  be  relieved  from  all  State  restrictions 
which  now  prevent  them  from  undertaking  the  operation  of  adequate 
housing  schemes  and  from  engaging  in  other  necessary  municipal 
enterprises. 

II.  WOMEN  AND  CHILDREN  IN  INDUSTRY. 

The  investigations  and  hearings  of  the  commission  justify  the 
conclusions : 

1.  As  a  result  of  their  unprotected  condition,  women  and  children 
are  exploited  in  industry,  trade,  domestic  service,  and  agriculture 
to  an  extent  which  threatens  their  health  and  welfare  and  menaces 
the  well-being  of  future  generations. 

2.  The  competition  of  women  and  children  is  a  direct  menace  to 
the  wage  and  salary  standards  of  men. 

3.  Under  present  conditions,  children  are  permitted  by  their  par- 
ents to  go  to  work  largely  because  their  earnings  are  necessary  for 
the  support  of  the  rest  of  the  family.    The  restrictive  legislation  of 
the  past  quarter  century,  although  admirable  in  purpose  and  ultimate 
results,  has  thrown  a  heavy  burden  upon  the  fathers  and  mothers, 
who,  at  existing  wages,  have  been  barely  able  to  support  their  fami- 
lies.   The  evidence  shows  that  the  burden  of  child-labor  legislation 
has  rested  upon  the  wage  earners  rather  than  upon  employers.     It 
is  the  testimony  of  enlightened  employers  that  the  employment  of 
children  is  unprofitable,  and  that  the  effect  of  excluding  children 
from  factories  has  been  to  increase  rather  than   decrease  profits. 
In  the  interests  of  society  as  a  whole:  further  restrictions  on  the  em- 
ployment of  immature  children  are  necessary,  but  it  is  important  that 
they  should  be  made  with  an  understanding  that  the  burden  will  rest 
primarily  upon  the  wage  earners,  whose  self-sacrifice  should  be  fully 
recognized. 


72  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

4.  The  increasing  employment  of  women  has  been  due  to  two  pri- 
mary causes :  First,  the  low  wages  of  men,  which  have  made  the  earn- 
ings of  women  necessary  for  the  support  of  the  family,  and,  second, 
the  inducement  to  employers  to  substitute  women  for  men  because 
they  will  accept  lower  wages  and  are  less  likely  to  protest  against 
conditions.     The  substitution  of  women  for  men  has  been  greatly 
assisted  by  the  introduction  of  improved  machinery,  which  makes 
strength  and  technical  skill  unnecessary. 

5.  The  increased  employment  of  women  under  present  working 
conditions  is  a  serious  menace  to  their  own  health  and  well-being, 
to  the  wages  of  their  husbands  and  brothers,  and  to  the  ideals  of 
family  life  upon  which  American  civilization  has  been  established. 

6.  The  conditions  under  which  women  are  employed  in  domestic 
service  and  in  agriculture  merit  the  attention  of  the  Nation  no  less 
than  does  their  employment  in  manufacturing  and  trade.    Not  only 
is  the  economic  condition  of  women  employed  in  agriculture  and 
domestic  service  a  matter  of  grave  concern,  but  they  are  subject  to 
overwork,  unreasonable  hours,  and  personal  abuse  of  various  kinds, 
from  which  they  have  been  largely  relieved  in  factories  and  stores 
through  agitation  and  legislation. 

7.  The  position  of  women  in  industry  has  been  rendered  doubly 
hard  by  reason  of  their  lack  of  training  for  industrial  work,  by  the 
oversupply  of  such  labor  and  the  consequent  competition,  by  their 
traditional  position  of  dependence,  and  by  their  disfranchisement. 

8.  A  very  thorough  investigation  in  the 'New  England  States  failed 
to  show  a  single  manufacturer  who  had  left  a  State  as  a  result  of 
restrictive  factory  legislation.     On  the  contrary,  the  majority  of 
manufacturers  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  legislation  regulat- 
ing conditions  for  women  and  children  had  been  advantageous  to 
the  industry  as  a  whole,  particularly  because  it  placed  all  competi- 
tors upon  the   same   footing.     Similarly   an   investigation  of   the 
effects  of  minimum-wage  legislation  failed  to  show  any  calculable 
effects  upon  the  cost  of  production  or  upon  the  employment  of  women 
after  a  sufficient  period  had  elapsed  to  allow  the  necessary  readjust- 
ments to  be  made. 

9.  Nevertheless,  there  is  a  strong  and  increasing  demand  on  the 
part  of  manufacturers  in  the  more  progressive  States  that  regula- 
tion of  factory  conditions  should  be  undertaken  by  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, in  order  that  competitors  in  all  parts  of  the  country  should 
be  placed  upon  an  equal  footing  in  this  respect.    The  same  demand 
comes  also  from  the  representatives  of  labor  not  only  because  the 
argument  of  "  interstate  competition  "  is  creating  strong  opposition 
to  progressive  legislation,  but  because  of  the  great  economy  of  effort 
which  would  result  from  having  to  make  the  fight  for  better  legisla- 
tion only  at  the  National  Capital  instead  of  in  45  States. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  recognition  both  by  public  opinion  and  in  such  legislation 
as  may  be  enacted  of  the  principle  that  women  should  receive  the 
same  compensation  as  men  for  the  same  terms. 

2.  Until  this  principle  is  recognized  and  women  are  accorded  equal 
political  rights,  the  extension  of  State  protection  of  women,  through 
legislation   regulating   working   conditions,   hours  of   service,    and 
minimum  wages,  is  highly  desirable. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  73 

3.  The  increased  organization  of  working  women  for  self -protec- 
tion and  the  improvement  of  their  industrial  conditions. 

4.  The  inclusion  of  all  women  wrorking  for  wages,  whether  in  in- 
dustry, trade,  domestic  service,  or  agriculture,  under  future  legisla- 
tion regulating  their  wages,  hours,  or  working  conditions. 

5.  The  extension  of  the  principle  of  State  protection  of  children 
and  the  rapid  increase  of  facilities  for  their  education  as  outlined 
elsewhere. 

6.  The  enactment  by  Congress  of  legislation  embodying  the  prin- 
ciples contained  in  the  so-called  Palmer-Owen  bill,  which  was  before 
Congress  at  the  last  session. 

III.  INDUSTRIAL  CONDITIONS  AND  RELATIONS  ON  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

GENERAL. 

The  investigations  of  the  commission  show : 

1.  The  scope  of  the  Newlands  Act,  which  applies  only  to  employees 
engaged  in  the  operation  of  interstate  railroads,  is  top  narrow  and 
leaves  the  public  service  in  the  transmission  of  intelligence  and  in 
the  handling  of  interstate  commerce  likely  to  be  interrupted  by 
labor   disputes   without   any   adequate    legal   provision   either   for 
mediation  and  conciliation  or  for  making  the  facts  involved  in  the 
dispute  known  to  the  public. 

2.  Even  as  applied  to  train-service  employees,  the  Newlands  Act 
provides  no  means  of  bringing  the  facts  before  the  public,  except 
when  both  sides  agree  to  arbitration. 

3.  The  selection  of  impartial  members  of  arbitration  boards  has 
almost  without  exception  devolved  upon  the  Board  of  Mediation 
and  Conciliation,  owing  to  the  inability  of  the  parties  to  agree.     This 
not  only  imposes  an  unpleasant  and  burdensome  task  upon  the  Board 
of  Mediation  and  Conciliation,  but  tends  greatly  to  weaken  its  in- 
fluence.    The  experience  in  Great  Britain  shows  that  agreement  can 
be  reached  by  joint  conference  of  employers  and  employees  during 
a  period  of  industrial  peace  for  the  selection  of  a  panel  of  impartial 
persons  from  which  arbitrators  can  be  selected  when  they  are  needed, 
and  seems  to  indicate  that  in  the  United  States  the  inability  of  the 
parties  to  agree  upon  impartial  arbitrators  is  due  in  part  at  least  to 
the  fact  that  they  are  always  selected  during  the  heat  of  the  conflict. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  extension  of  the  Newlands  Act  to  cover  not  only  all  classes 
of  railroad  employees,  but  all  employees  of  public-service  corpora- 
tions which  are  engaged  in  interstate  commerce. 

2.  The   functions   of  the   Board   of  Mediation   and   Conciliation 
under  the  Newlands  Act  should  be  extended  to  provide  for  the 
creation  of  boards  of  investigation,  to  be  formed  only  by  consent  of 
both  parties  and  to  make  a  report  of  facts  and  recommendations 
which  will  not  be  binding  upon  either  side. 

3.  The  Board  of  Mediation  and  Conciliation  should  be  authorized 
by  Congress  to  create  an  advisory  council,  composed  of  equal  num- 
bers of  employers  and  employees,  for  the  purpose  of  creating  a  panel 
of  names  from  which  impartial  arbitrators  may  be  chosen  by  the 
Board  of  Mediation  and  Conciliation. 


74  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

TELEGRAPH. 

The  investigations  and  hearings  of  the  commission  justify  the 
following  conclusions : 

1.  The  workers  employed  by  the  two  principal  telegraph  com- 
panies (the  Western  Union  Telegraph  and  the  Postal  Telegraph- 
Cable)  are  not  only  underpaid,  as  admitted  by  the  highest  officials 
in  their  testimony  before  the  commission,  but  subject  to  many  abuses, 
such  as  the  denial  of  proper  periods  of  relief  while  on  duty;  the 
establishment  of  arbitrary  speed  rates,  which  frequently  result  in 
overstrain;  the  arbitrary  discharge  of  employees  without  notice  for 
any  cause  or  no  cause ;  the  employment  of  young  boys  for  messenger 
service  under  conditions  which  can  result  only  in  their  moral  cor- 
ruption; and  the  employment  of  women  for  telegraph  service  at 
night. 

2.  Such  conditions  have  existed  practically  without  change  at  least 
since  1884,  in  spite  of  the  facts  having  been  made  public  by  three 
Government  investigations. 

3.  The  workers  are  practically  unable  to  improve  their  condition 
because  these  two  companies,  which  control  practically  the  entire 
industry,  deny  them  the  right  of  organization.    The  suppression  of 
organization  is  effectively  carried  out  by  the  discharge  of  all  known 
to  be  union  men  or  union  sympathizers,  by  the  use  of  spies  who 
fraudulently  secure  the  confidence  of  employees  and  report  all  known 
to  be  union  members  or  sympathizers,  by  the  use  of  an  effective  sys- 
tem of  blacklisting,  and  by  the  control  even  of  the  personnel  of  the 
operators  upon  leased  wires  in  the  offices  of  brokers  and  other  private 
individuals. 

4.  The  two  companies  have  a  monopoly  of  the  transmission  of  tele- 
grams, and  no  effective  competition  exists  between  them.    These  com- 
panies are  performing  a  service  in  the  transmission  of  intelligence 
which  has  been  held  by  the  Federal  Supreme  Court  to  have  been 
reserved  by  the  Constitution  specifically  to  the  Federal  Government. 

5.  The  telegraph  companies  are  enormously  overcapitalized,  and 
their  rates,  which  are  graded  to  pay  dividends  upon  large  amounts 
of  stock  which  do  not  represent  the  investment  of  cash,  are  very  much 
higher  than  the  cost  of  service  warrants. 

6.  Owing  to  the  duplication  of  offices  on  the  part  of  the  two  com- 
panies and  the  maintenance  of  branch  offices  which  are  idle  for  a 
large  part  of  the  time,  this  service  is  being  performed  inefficiently 
and  at  an  unusually  high  cost  in  spite  of  the  low  wages  paid  the 
operators. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  property  of  the  telegraph  companies  or  such  part  of  their 
equipment  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  efficient  operation  of  a  na- 
tional telegraph  system  should  be  purchased  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment after  proper  valuation  and  placed  under  the  general  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Post  Office  Department  for  operation.1  In  transferring 
the  service  to  the  Federal  Government  all  employees,  including  offi- 
cials and  other  persons,  necessary  for  successful  operation  should  be 
retained,  and  those  whom  the  elimination  of  the  duplicate  service 
of  'the  two  companies  renders  unnecessary  for  the  national  system 

1  The  economic  argument  for  the  postalization  of  telegraphs  and  telephones  is  pre- 
sented in  the  testimony  of  Hon.  David  J.  Lewis  before  the  commission. 


EEPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS,  75 

should  be  absorbed  into  other  branches  of  the  Federal  service  as  far 
as  practicable. 

2.  At  the  time  of  the  transfer  to  the  Federal  service  a  special  com- 
mission should  be  appointed  to  revise  the  salary  ratings  and  other 
working  conditions  and  place  them  upon  a  proper  basis. 

TELEPHONE. 

The  investigations  of  the  commission  are  the  basis  for  the  follow- 
ing statements: 

1.  The  condition  of  the  telephone  operators  in  both  interstate  and 
local  service  is  subject  to  grave  criticism.     The  wages  paid  even  in 
the  cities  having  the  highest  standards  are  insufficient  to  provide 
decently  for  women  who  have  no  other  means  of  support.    The  re- 
quirements and  nervous  strain  incident  to  the  service  are  so  very 
severe   that   experienced   physicians   have   testified   that   operators 
should  work  not  more  than  five  hours  per  day,  whereas  the  regular 
working  hours  are  from  seven  to  nine  per  day.    The  operators,  who 
are  principally  girls  and  young  women,  are  required  to  work  at  night, 
going  to  and  returning  from  their  work  at  hours  when  they  are 
subject  to  grave  menace.     The  policy  of  the  companies  in  general 
provides  for  sanitary  and  reasonably  comfortable  working  places 
and  for  attention  to  the  recreation  and  physical  needs  of  the  oper- 
ators, but  in  a  number  of  cities  the  conditions  even  in  these  respects 
are  subject  to  severe  criticism. 

2.  The  telephone  operators  are  unable  to  secure  reasonable  condi- 
tions for  themselves  because  of  their  youth  and  the  fact  that  they 
ordinarily  remain  in  the  service  only  a  short  time. 

3.  The  organization  of  employees  for  their  own  protection  is  effec- 
tively resisted  by  the  employing  companies. 

4.  The  American  Telephone  &  Telegraph  Co.,  with  its  subsidiary 
and  affiliated  corporations,  controls  more  than  70  per  cent  of  the 
total  telephone  business  of  the  country.    The  American  Telephone  & 
Telegraph  Co.  has  been  enormously  profitable  and  is  well  able  to 
afford   the  necessary   improvements   in  working   conditions.     The 
American  Telephone  &  Telegraph  Co.  has  increased  its  capitaliza- 
tion enormously  without  the  investment  of  new  capital. 

5.  The  transaction  by  which  the  American  Telephone  &  Telegraph 
Co.,  which  had  been  a  subsidiary  of  the  American  Bell  Telephone 
Co.,  absorbed  the  parent  company  in  1899  was  not  only  designed  to 
evade  the  legal  limitations  contained  in  the  Massachusetts  charter  of 
the  American  Bell  Telephone  Co.,  but  resulted  in  the  increase  of  the 
capitalization  of  the  combination  from  $25,886,300  to  $75,276,600 
without  the  addition  of  any  new  capital. 

6.  The  transmission  of  intelligence  is  a  function  which  is  spe- 
cifically reserved  by  the  Constitution  to  the  Federal  Government, 
but  which  in  the  telephone  field  has  been  permitted  to  become  the 
practical  monopoly  of  a  single  corporation. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  purchase  by  the  Federal  Government,  after  proper  valua- 
tion, of  the  property  of  the  interstate  and  local  telephone  companies, 
or  such  part  of  their  equipment  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  efficient 
operation  of  a  national  telephone  system. 


76  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

2.  The  transfer  of  all  employees,  including  officials,  necessary  for 
the  efficient  operation  of  the  national  telephone  system  to  the  Federal 
service,  as  far  as  possible,  and  the  absorption,  as  far  as  practicable, 
of  all  employees  who  are  not  necessary  for  the  telephone  system  into 
other  branches  of  the  Federal  service. 

3.  When  such  employees  are  transferred  to  the  Federal  service,  the 
creation  of  a  special  commission  to  establish  salary  ratings  and  other 
working  conditions  on  a  proper  basis. 

4.  In  the  meantime  provision  should  be  made  by  Congress  for  the 
creation  of  a  minimum  wage  board  to  fix  minimum  wage  standards 
for  women  employees  who  are  engaged  in  the  transmission  of  mes- 
sages in  interstate  commerce.     The  board  should  be  authorized  to 
differentiate  between  localities  in  fixing  minima,  if  on  due  considera- 
tion such  differential  rates  should  be  deemed  advisable. 

5.  The  creation  of  minimum  wTage  boards  in  the  several  States  to 
fix  minimum  wages  for  all  women  employees  engaged  in  service 
within  the  State. 

THE  PULLMAN  CO. 

The  investigations  and  hearings  of  the  commission  developed  the 
following  facts: 

1.  The  conductors  and  porters  employed  in  the  car  service  of  the 
Pullman  Co.  are  employed  under  conditions  which  seem  to  require 
radical  readjustment.     Both  classes  of  employees  are  admitted  by 
officials  of  the  company  to  be  underpaid. 

The  standard  salary  of  the  porters  ($27.50  per  month)  is  such  that 
the  porters  are  obliged  to  secure  tips  from  the  public  in  order  to  live. 
The  Pullman  Co.  is  admitted  by  the  chairman  of  the  board  of  direc- 
tors to  be  the  direct  beneficiary  of  the  tips  from  the  public  to  the 
extent  of  the  difference  between  a  fair  wage  and  that  which  is  now 
paid. 

The  hours  of  service  are  extremely  long,  the  regulations  of  the 
company  allowing  porters  and  conductors  when  in  service  only  four 
hours'  sleep  per  night  and  penalizing  them  severely  if  they  sleep 
W7hile  on  duty.  Employees  of  the  Pullman  Co.  are  subject  to  many 
other  abuses,  among  which  may  be  mentioned  the  arbitrary  deduc- 
tion from  their  salaries  for  such  time  as  they  may  not  be  needed 
for  the  actual  service  of  the  company,  although  they  are  required  to 
report  at  the  office  each  morning  and  are  sometimes  compelled  to 
wait  the  greater  part  of  the  day  without  compensation ;  the  require- 
ment that  porters  shall  furnish  "blacking,  although  they  are  not  per- 
mitted to  charge  passengers  for  the  service  of  shoe  cleaning;  the 
system  of  arbitrary  penalties  for  the  infraction  of  multitudinous 
rules;  the  requirement  that  all  employees  shall  purchase  their  uni- 
forms from  one  mercantile  establishment,  the  owners  of  which  are 
largely  interested  in  the  Pullman  Co.;  and  the  lack  of  proper  pro- 
vision of  sleeping  quarters  for  employees  when  away  from  their  home 
stations. 

2.  The  Pullman  Co.  has  a  bonus  system  by  which  employees  who 
have  a  "  clean  record  "  for  the  year  receive  an  extra  month's  salary. 
This  system  serves  to  increase  the  earnings  of  those  who  receive  the 
bonus,  and  is  unquestionably  appreciated  by  them.     Nevertheless  it 
is  inequitable  in  penalizing  with  extra  severity  any  infractions  of 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  77 

rules  which  occur  during  the  latter  half  of  the  year,  and  puts  into 
the  hands  of  officials  and  inspectors  a  means  of  discrimination  which 
can  be  arbitrarily  exercised. 

3.  The  effect  of  the  tipping  system  is  not  only  to  degrade  those 
who  are  obliged  by  their  economic  conditions  to  accept  tips  but  to 
promote  discrimination  in  the  service  of  the  public. 

4.  The  employees  of  the  Pullman  Co.  are  unable  to  improve  their 
condition  through  organization,  as  employees  known  to  be  members 
of  labor  unions  are  discharged,  and  through  the  means  of  an  effective 
system  of  espionage  employees^  are  deterred  from  affiliating  with 
labor  unions. 

5.  The  company  is  tremendously  overcapitalized,  having  increased 
its  capitalization  from  $36,000,000  in  1893  to  $120,000,000  in  1915, 
without  the  investment  of  a  single  dollar  on  the  part  of  the  stock- 
holders.   Upon  the  basis  of  actual  cash  paid  in,  the  annual  dividends 
of  the  company  are  not  less  than  29  per  cent.     During  the  history 
of  the  company  the  stockholders    have    received    cash    dividends 
amounting  to  at  least  $167,000,000  and  special  stock  dividends  of 
$64,000,000,  making  a  total  of  $231,000,000  on  an  actual  investment  of 
$32,601,238. 

6.  The  company  enjoys  a  practical  monopoly  of  the  sleeping-car 
service. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  enactment  by  Congress  of  a  statute  prohibiting  the  tipping 
of  any  employee  of  a  public-service  corporation  engaged  in  interstate 
commerce  and  providing  a  proper  fine  for  both  the  giver  and  the 
recipient  of  the  tip. 

2.  The  amendment  of  the  existing  law  regulating  the  hours  of 
service  of  train  employees  to  include  the  employees  engaged  in  the 
Pullman  service. 

3.  The  extension  of  the  Newlands  Act,  as  already  suggested,  to 
cover  the  Pullman  Co. 

RAILROADS. 

The  investigations  of  the  commission  with  regard  to  railroads 
have  been  too  limited  to  permit  of  general  findings  or  recommen- 
dations. Enough  evidence  has,  however,  come  before  the  commission 
with  regard  to  three  points  to  warrant  attention. 

1.  The  railroad  construction  camps  are  largely  insanitary,  over- 
crowded, and  improperly  equipped  for  the  health  and  comfort  of 
the  employees.     In  addition,  there  are  many  abuses,  such  as  over- 
charging at  the  commissary  and  grafting  by  foremen. 

2.  The  so-called  voluntary  benefit  associations  of  a  number  of  the 
railroads  constitute,  under  the  present  system  of  management,  a  great 
injustice  to  employees.     These  funds,  which  are  contributed  almost 
entirely  by  the  employees,  the  management  as  a  rule  paying  only  the 
cost  of  administration,  until  recently  were  generally  used  to  relieve 
the  companies  from  liability  for  accident,  employees  being  required 
to  sign  a  release  in  favor  of  the  company  at  the  time  that  they  became 
members  of  the  benefit  association.     In  some  cases,  even,  the  member- 
ship is  compulsory.     Nevertheless,  the  employees  have  no  voice  in 
the  management  and  receive  no  equity  when  they  are  discharged. 
Finally,  such  associations,  under  their  present  management,  serve  to 


78  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

exert  an  undue  influence  over  employees,  since  the  members,  if  they 
quit  the  service  for  any  period  or  for  any  cause,  sacrifice  to  the  com- 
pany all  that  has  been  paid  in. 

3.  Under  the  authority  granted  by  the  several  States  the  railroads 
maintain  a  force  of  police,  and  some,  at  least,  have  established  large 
arsenals  of  arms  and  ammunition.  This  armed  force,  when  aug- 
mented by  recruits  from  detective  agencies  and  employment  agencies, 
as  seems  to  be  the  general  practice  during  industrial  disputes,  consti- 
tutes a  private  army  clothed  with  a  degree  of  authority  which  should 
be  exercised  only  by  public  officials ;  these  armed  bodies,  usurping  the 
supreme  functions  of  the  State  and  oftentimes  encroaching  on  the 
rights  of  the  citizens,  are  a  distinct  menace  to  public  welfare. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  Thorough  investigation  by  the  Public  Health  Service  of  rail- 
road construction  camps  as  well  as  other  labor  camps,  and  the  prepa- 
ration of  definite  plans  for  such  camps  and  a  standard  code  of  sani- 
tary regulations. 

2.  The  enactment  by  Congress  of  a  statute  expressly  prohibiting 
corporations  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  from  inducing  or  com- 
pelling their  employees  to  sign  releases  of  liability  for  accidents. 

3.  Congress  should  enact  a  statute  prohibiting  interstate  employ- 
ers from  requiring  their  employees  to  contribute  to  benefit  funds, 
and  providing  for  the  participation  of  employees  engaged  in  inter- 
state commerce  in  the  management  of  all  benefit  funds  and  other 
funds  to  which  they  contribute. 

4.  The  regulation  by  Federal  statute  of  the  employment  of  police 
on  interstate  railroads.    The  statute  should  not  only  provide  for  the 
organization,  personnel,  and  powers  of  such  police,  but  should  defi- 
nitely provide  that  during  labor  disputes  such  police  should  be  sub- 
ject to  the  proper  civil  authorities  and  paid  out  of  the  public  treas- 
ury.    The  statute  should  also  provide  that  such  corporations  should 
be  permitted  to  have  firearms  only  under  license,  requiring  that  a 
definite  record  be  maintained  showing  the  character  of  each  firearm 
and  to  whom  it  is  issued. 

5.  The  assumption  by  the  States  of  full  responsibility  and  definite 
provision  not  only  for  protecting  the  property  of  railroads,  but  for 
preventing  trespass  upon  their  property. 

IY.  INDUSTRIAL,  CONDITIONS  IN  ISOLATED  COMMUNITIES. 

The  investigations  and  hearings  of  the  commission  are  the  basis 
for  the  following  statements : 

1.  The  conditions  existing  in  typical  industrial  communities  which 
are  either  wholly  or  in  large  part  owned  or  controlled  by  a  single 
corporation  or  individual  employer,  present  every  aspect  of  a  state 
of  feudalism  except  the  recognition  of  specific  duties  on  the  part  of 
the  emplo37er.     The  employees  in  such  communities  are  dependent  on 
a  single  corporation,  or  employer,  for  their  livelihood.     Furthermore, 
the  employer  in  many  cases  controls  the  social  and  political  life  or 
such  communities,  either  by  the  complete  absorption  of  local  political 
powers  or  by  domination  of  the  local  authorities. 

2.  The  fundamental  rights  of  citizens  in  such  communities  are,  as 
a  general  rule,  seriously  abridged,  if  not  actually  denied.     Among 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  79 

the  rights  most  seriously  violated  are  the  right  of  free  speech  and 
assemblage  and  the  right  of  public  highways. 

In  some  cases.  as,  for  example,  in  Colorado,  employers  in  such  com- 
munities have  assumed  to  usurp  the  functions  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment itself  in  the  issuance  of  money  orders,  and  have  not  only 
denied  emploj^ees  access  to  the  post  office  when  located  in  their  com- 
pany stores  but  have  opened  and  otherwise  interfered  with  the  mail 
directed  to  the  employees. 

Such  feudalistic  conditions  tend  to  develop  principally  in  connec- 
tion with  the  private  exploitation  of  natural  resources,  being  most 
frequently  found  in  mining  camps,  lumber  camps  (including  turpen- 
tine camps),  and  large  plantations.  There  are,  however,  striking 
examples  even  in  the  case  of  manufactures,  as,  for  examples,  the  tex- 
tile towns  and  steel  towns. 

3.  The  most  extreme  form  of  domination  and  control  exists  in 
what  are  known  as  "  closed  camps,"  where  the  employer  owns  all  the 
land  upon  which  such  camps  are  located  and,  because  of  this  private 
ownership,  not  only  exercises  control  over  the  local  government  but 
dictates  arbitrarily  who  shall  be  permitted  to  come  into  or  pass 
through  such  communities.  It  has  frequently  been  argued  that  such 
communities  are  simply  the  inevitable  accompaniment  of  the  develop- 
ment of  new  country  and  will  be  eliminated  with  time.  This  is  not 
true,  however,  as  the  commission's  investigations  have  disclosed  a 
large  number  of  "  closed  camps "  which  have  been  in  existence  for 
more  than  a  generation. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  enactment  of  appropriate  State  legislation  providing  that 
where  communities  develop,  even  upon  privately  owned  land,  the 
powers  of  the  civil  government  shall  not  be  interfered  with,  nor 
shall  the  rights  of  access  to  the  residence  of  any  person  be  restricted, 
nor  shall  the  rights  of  persons  to  come  and  go  unmolested,  to  speak 
freely  and  to  assemble  peacefully,  be  interfered  with  or  considered 
to  stand  upon  a  different  basis  from  the  rights  of  persons  in  other 
communities. 

2.  In  the  case  of  public  lands  containing  timber  or  minerals,  which 
are  now  or  may  hereafter  come  into  the  possession  of  the  Federal 
Government,  it  should  be  provided  by  statute  that  neither  the  lands 
nor  the  mineral  rights  should  under  any  circumstances  be  sold,  but 
should  be  used  only  upon  lease  for  a  limited  term,  such  lease  to 
contain  as  a  part  of  the  contract  the  conditions  with  regard  to  the 
rights  of  inhabitants  as  recited  above  and  such  lease  to  be  f orfeitable 
without  recourse  in  case  of  the  infraction  of  said  conditions. 

3.  The  Post  Office  Department  should  be  directed  to  report  to 
Congress  all  communities  in  which  the  post  office  is  in  any  company's 
store  or  other  building  operated  by  an  employer  or  in  which  the  post- 
master is  a  private  employer  or  the  agent  of  an  employer.     The 
report  should  show  the  facts  separately  for  those  communities  in 
which  the  employer  or  corporation  operates  an  industry  upon  which 
any  large  number  of  inhabitants  are  dependent. 

4.  Congress  and  the  State  legislatures  should  enact  statutes  pro- 
viding that  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  an  employer  to  influence  his 
employees,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  in  connection  with  any  Fed- 
eral election,  either  for  or  against  any  particular  candidate,  shall 


80  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

constitute  intimidation;  and  further  specifying  that  it  shall  con- 
stitute intimidation  for  any  employer  to  give  notice  to  his  workmen 
that  in  the  event  of  the  election  of  any  particular  candidate  the 
establishment  will  not  be  operated. 

V.  THE  CONCENTRATION  OF  WEALTH  AND  INFLUENCE. 

The  evidence  developed  by  the  hearings  and  investigations  of  the 
commission  is  the  basis  for  the  following  statements : 

1.  The  control  of  manufacturing,  mining,  and  transportation  in- 
dustries is  to  an  increasing  degree  passing  into  the  hands  of  great 
corporations  through  stock  ownership,  and  control  of  credit  is  cen- 
tralized in  a  comparatively  small  number  of  enormously  powerful 
financial  institutions.     These  financial  institutions  are  in  turn  dom- 
inated by  a  very  small  number  of  powerful  financiers. 

2.  The  final  control  of  American  industry  rests,  therefore,  in  the 
hands  of  a  small  number  of  wealthy  and  powerful  financiers. 

3.  The  concentration  of  ownership  and  control  is  greatest  in  the 
basic  industries  upon  which  the  welfare  of  the  country  must  finally 
rest. 

4.  With  few  exceptions  each  of  the  great  basic  industries  is  dom- 
inated by  a  single  large  corporation,  and  where  this  is  not  true  the 
control  of  the  industry  through  stock  ownership  in  supposedly  inde- 
pendent corporations  and  through  credit  is  almost,  if  not  quite,  as 
potent. 

5.  In  such  corporations,  in  spite  of  the  large  number  of  stock- 
holders, the  control  through  actual  stock  ownership  rests  with  a  very 
small  number  of  persons.     For  example,  in  the  United  States  Steel 
Corporation,  which  had  in  1911  approximately  100,000  shareholders, 
1.5  per  cent  of  the  stockholders  held  57  per  cent  of  the  stock,  while 
the  final  control  rested  with  a  single  private  banking  house. 

Similarly,  in  the  American  Tobacco  Co.,  before  the  dissolution,  10 
stockholders  owned  60  per  cent  of  the  stock. 

6.  Almost  without  exception  the  employees  of  the  large  corpora- 
tions  are  unorganized,   as   a   result   of  the   active   and   aggressive 
"  nonunion  "  policy  of  the  corporation  managements. 

Furthermore,  the  labor  policy  of  the  large  corporations  almost  in- 
evitably determines  the  labor  policy  of  the  entire  industry. 

7.  A  careful  and  conservative  study  shows  that  the  corporations 
controlled  by  six  financial  groups  and   affiliated  interests  employ 
2,6ol,684  wage  earners  and  have  a  total  capitalization  of  $19,875,- 
200,000.    These  six  financial  groups  control  28  per  cent  of  the  total 
number  of  wage  earners  engaged  in  the  industries  covered  by  the 
report  of  our  investigation.    The  Morgan-First  National  Bank  group 
alone  controls  corporations  employing  785,499  wage  earners.     That 
this  control  is  effective  is  shown  by  the  following  telegram  from 
J.  P.  Morgan  to  E.  H.  Gary : 

Aix  LES  BAINS. 
E.  H.  GARY,  New  York: 

Have  received  yo;ir  cable  of  yesterday.  My  own  views  are  in  accordance 
with  those  of  the  financial  committee  in  New  York.  Certainly  until  question  of 
wages  has  been  settled  by  the  coal  and  railroads,  which  still  in  abeyance,  but 
settlement  seems  imminent.  Whole  question  wages  should  be  settled  simul- 
taneously by  all  interests  if  possible.  Going  Paris  Wednesday.  Will  see  there 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  81 


EL  C.  Fv  P.  A.  B.  W.,  *  and  will  cable  you  result  of  interview.  If  possible  and 
meets  your  approval,  think  better  wait  until  after  interview.  Perfectly  delight- 
ful here.  Weather  superb. 

J.  P.  M.2 

8.  The  lives  of  millions  of  wage  earners  are  therefore  subject  to  the 
dictation  of  a  relatively  small  number  of  men. 

9.  These  industrial  dictators  for  the  most  part  are  totally  ignorant 
of  every  aspect  of  the  industries  which  they  control  except  the  fin- 
ances, and  are  totally  unconcerned  with  regard  to  the  wrorking  and 
living  conditions  of  the  employees  in  those  industries.    Even  if  they 
were   deeply   concerned,   the   position    of   the  employees   would   be 
merely  that  of  the  subjects  of  benevolent  industrial  despots. 

10.  Except,  perhaps,  for  improvements  in  safety -and  sanitation, 
the  labor  conditions  of  these  corporation-controlled  industries  are  sub- 
ject to  grave  criticism  and  are  a  menace  to  the  welfare  of  the  Nation. 

11.  In  order  to  prevent  the  organization  of  employees  for  the 
improvement  of  working  conditions,  elaborate  systems  of  espionage 
are  maintained  by  the  large  corporations  which  refuse  to  deal  with 
^abor  unions,  and  employees  suspected  of  union  affiliation  are  dis- 
charged. 

12.  The  domination  by  the  men  in  whose  hands  the  final  control  of 
a  large  part  of  American  industry  rests  is  not  limited  to  their  em- 
ployees, but  is  being  rapidly  extended  to  control  the  education  and 
u  social  service  "  of  the  Nation. 

13.  This  control  is  being  extended  largely  through  the  creation  of 
enormous  privately  managed  funds  for  indefinite  purposes,  herein- 
after designated  "  foundations,"  by  the  endowment  of  colleges  and 
universities,  by  the  creation  of  funds  for  the  pensioning  of  teachers, 
by  contributions  to  private  charities,  as  well  as  through  controlling 
or  influencing  the  public  press. 

14.  Two  groups  of  the  "  foundations,"  namely,  the  Rockefeller  and 
Carnegie  foundations,  together  have  funds  amounting  to  at  least 
$250,000,000,  yielding  an  annual   revenue   of   at  least  $13,500,000, 
which  is  at  least  twice  as  great  as  the  appropriations  of  the  Federal 
Government    for   similar    purposes,    namely,    education    and    social 
service. 

15.  The  funds  of  these  foundations  are  exempt  from  taxation,  yet 
during  the  lives  of  the  founders  are  subject  to  their  dictation  for  any 
purpose  other  than  commercial  profit.    In  the  case  of  the  Rockefeller 
group  of  foundations,  the  absolute  control  of  the  funds  and  of  the 
activities  of  the  institutions  now  and  in  perpetuity  rests  with  Mr. 
Rockefeller,  his  son,  and  whomsoever  they  may  appoint  as  their 
successors. 

16.  The  control  of  these  funds  has  been  widely  published  as  being 
in  the  hands  of  eminent  educators  and  public-spirited  citizens.     In 
the  case  of  the  Rockefeller  foundations,  however,  not  only  is  the  con- 
trol in  the  hands  of  Mr.  John  D.  Rockefeller,  jr.,  and  two  of  the 
members  of  the  personal  staff  of  Mr.  John  D.  Rockefeller,  sr..  who 
constitute  the  finance  committee,  but  the  majority  of  the  trustees  of 
the  funds  are  salaried  employees  of  Mr.  Rockefeller  or  the  founda- 

i  H.  C.  Frick  and  P.  A.  B.  Widener. 

-Read   at   meeting   of   finance   committee,   United   States    Steel    Corporation,    April   27, 
1909. 

38819°— 16 6* 


82  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

tions,  who  are  subject  to  personal  dictation  and  may  be  removed  at 
any  moment. 

17.  The  funds  of  these  foundations  are  largely  invested  in  se- 
curities of  corporations  dominant  in  American  industry,  whose  posi- 
tion has  been  analyzed  under  the  early  headings  of  this  section.    The 
policies  of  these  foundations  must  inevitably  be  colored,  if  not  con- 
trolled, to  conform  to  the  policies  of  such  corporations. 

18.  The  funds  of  the  foundations  represent  largely  the  results 
either  of  the  exploitation  of  American  workers  through  the  payment 
of  low  wages  or  of  the  exploitation  of  the  American  public  through 
the  exaction  of  high  prices.    The  funds,  therefore,  by  every  right  be- 
long to  the  American  people. 

19.  The  powers  of  these  foundations  are  practically  unlimited,  ex- 
cept that  they  may  not  directly  engage  in  business  for  profit.     In 
the  words  of  President  Schurman,  of  Cornell,  himself  a  trustee  of 
the  Carnegie  foundation. 

Under  the  terms  of  this  broad  charter  .there  is  scarcely  anything 
which  concerns  the  life  and  work  of  individuals  or  nations  in 
which  the  Eockefeller  foundation  would  not  be  authorized  to  par- 
ticipate. As  the  safety  of  the  State  is  the  supreme  condition  of 
national  civilization  the  foundation  might  in  time  of  war  use  its 
income  or  its  entire  principal  for  the  defense  of  the  Republic.  In 
time  of  peace  it  might  use  its  funds  to  effect  economic  and  political 
reforms  which  the  trustees  deem  essential  to  the  vitality  and  effi- 
ciency of  the  Republic.  The  foundation  might  become  the  champion 
of  free  trade  or  protection,  of  trusts,  or  of  the  competing  concerns 
out  of  which  they  grow,  of  socialism  or  individualism,  of  the  pro- 
gram of  the  Republican  Party  or  the  program  of  the  Democratic 
Party.  It  might  endow  the  clergy  of  all  religious  denominations,  or 
it  might  subsidize  any  existing  or  any  new  religous  denomination. 
To-morrow  it  might  be  the  champion  of  the  Christian  religion,  and 
a  hundred  years  hence  furnish  an  endowment  for  the  introduction  of 
Buddhism  into  the  United  States.  It  might  build  tenement  houses 
for  the  poor  in  New  York  City,  or  carry  the  results  of  science  to 
enrich  the  exhausted  soils  of  the  East  or  the  arid  tracts  of  the  West 
It  might  set  up  an  art  gallery  in  every  State  of  the  United  States 
or  endow  universities  which  would  rival  the  great  State  universities 
of  the  West.  With  the  consent  of  the  legislature  it  might  relieve 
any  State  of  the  care  of  its  insane,  pauper,  and  dependent  classes  or 
construct  roads  for  the  benefit  of  farmers  and  motorists.  These  may 
not  be  likely  objects  for  the  application  of  the  funds  of  the  Rocke- 
feller foundation.  I  am  hot,  however,  attempting  to  forecast  its 
work  but  to  understand  its  charter. 

And,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  the  proposed  charter  would  authorize  all 
these  and  a  multitude  of  similar  activities.  If  the  object  of  the 
Rockefeller  Foundation  is  to  be  coextensive  with  human  civilization, 
then  it  may  do  anything  and  everything  which  its  trustees  think 
likely  to  effect  reform  or  improvement  in  the  material,  economic, 
intellectual,  artistic,  religious,  moral,  and  political  conditions  of  the 
American  people  or  of  mankind. 

20.  The  charters  of  these  foundations,  with  their  almost  unlimited 
powers,  were  granted  under  conditions  of  such  laxity  that  it  has  been 
testified  by  an  eminent  legal  authority  who  made  an  extensive  investi- 
gation that  those  granted  by  New  York  State  are  legally  defective 


BEPOBT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  83 

and  unconstitutional.  Furthermore,  evidence  developed  by  the  hear- 
ings of  the  commission  showed  that  in  increasing  the  number  of  its 
trustees  without  complying  with  the  requirements  of  the  law  govern- 
ing corporations  the  Rockefeller  Foundation  has  already  been  guilty 
of  a  breach  of  the  law. 

21.  These  foundations  are  subject  to  no  public  control,  and  their 
powers  can  be  curbed  only  by  the  difficult  process  of  amending  or 
revoking  their  charters.     Past  experience,  as,  for  example,  in  the 
case  of  the  insurance  companies,  indicates  that  the  public  can  be 
aroused  only  when  the  abuses  have  become  so  great  as  to  constitute  a 
scandal. 

22.  The  entrance  of  the  foundations  into  the  field  of  industrial 
relations,  through  the  creation  of  a  special  division  by  the  Rocke- 
feller Foundation,  constitutes  a  menace  to  the  national  welfare  to 
which  the  attention  not  only  of  Congress  but  of  the  entire  country 
should  be  directed.     Backed  by  the  $100,000,000  of  the  Rockefeller 
Foundation,  this  movement  has  the  power  to  influence  the  entire 
country  in  the  determination  of  its  most  vital  policy. 

23.  The  documentary  evidence  in  the  possession  of  the  commission 
indicates : 

(a)  That  the  so-called  "  investigation  of  industrial  relations  "  has 
not,  as  is  claimed,  either  a  scientific  or  a  social  basis,  but  originated 
to  promote  the  industrial  interests  of  Mr.  Rockefeller.     The  original 
letter  inviting  Mr.  W.  L.  Mackenzie  King  to  associate  himself  with 
the  Rockefellers  stated  that  Mr.  Rockefeller  and  Mr.  Greene  in  "  their 
purely   corporate   capacity   as  owners   and   directors  of   large  in- 
dustries "  desired  his  aid. 

(b)  That  the  investigation  forms  part  of  what  Mr.  Rockefeller, 
in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Ivy  L.  Lee  (the  press  agent  of  the  Colorado  opera- 
tors) ,  called  the  "  union  educational  campaign,"  which  is  referred  to 
by  Mr.  Bowers  as  "  the  fight  for  the  open  shop,"  the  results  of  which 
are  clearly  manifested  in  the  conditions  existing  in  the  camps  of  the 
Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.,  conducted  on  the  "  open-shop  "  principle. 

(<?)  That  Mr.  Rockefeller  planned  to  utilize  in  this  campaign 
literature  containing  statements  which  were  known  to  him  at  the  time 
to  be  untrue  and  misleading  (as,  for  example,  the  numerous  misstate- 
ments  in  the  "  Sermon  to  young  men  "  of  Dr.  Newall  Dwight  Hillis, 
including  the  statement  that  the  Colorado  operators  offered  to  recog- 
nize the  miners'  union),  and  also  literature  containing  statements 
which  constituted  a  malicious  libel  upon  a  large  body  of  American 
citizens — for  example,  the  following  statement  of  f*rof.  John  J. 
Stevenson : 

Labor  unions  defy  the  law,  but  are  ever  ready  to  demand  its  protection; 
their  principles  are  no  better  than  those  of  the  India  thugs,  who  practiced 
robbery  and  murder  in  the  name  of  the  goddess  Cali. 

(d)  That  the  investigation  of  industrial  relations  is  not  being  made 
in  good  faith,  inasmuch  as  its  director  states  that  he  will  not  now  nor 
hereafter  make  public  his  findings  regarding  a  most  important  part 
of  his  investigation,  namely,  the  investigation  in  Colorado. 

24.  The  purpose  of  Mr.  Rockefeller  to  influence  the  public  press 
is  clearly  shown  by  the  employment  of  an  experienced  publicity 
expert  as  a  member  of  his  personal  staff,  and  is  indicated  by  his 
evident  interest  in  the  ownership  or  control  of  a  number  of  publica- 
tions, of  which  we  have  records  dating  from  the  inquiry  of  his 


84  BEPOBT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

secretary  regarding  the  Pueblo  Star  Journal  in  May,  1913,  to  the 
extensive  conferences  regarding  a  loan  of  $125,000  to  finance  the 
Nation's  Business,  the  organ  of  the  National  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
which  was  established  and  given  a  semiofficial  status  through  the 
instrumentalities  of  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  with  the 
sanction  of  a  former  President  of  the  United  States. 

25.  The  extent  of  the  possible  influence  of  these  foundations  and 
private  endowments  of  institutions  for  education  and  public  service 
is  shown  by  a  large  amount  of  evidence  in  the  possession  of  the  com- 
mission.    The  following  examples  may  be  cited : 

(a)  The  adoption  of  a  definite  line  of  policy  by  the  Bureau  of 
Municipal  -Research  of  New  York  to  meet  the  conditions  imposed  by 
Mr.  Rockefeller  in  connection  with  proposed  contributions. 

(5)  The  abandonment  by  several  colleges  and  universities  of  sec- 
tarian affiliations  and  charter  clauses  relating  to  religion  in  order  to 
secure  endowments  from  the  Carnegie  Corporation  and  pensions  for 
professors  from  the  Carnegie  Foundation  for  the  Advancement  of 
Teaching.  It  would  seem  conclusive  that  if  an  institution  will  will- 
ingly abandon  its  religious  affiliations  through  the  influence  of  these 
foundations,  it  will  even  more  easily  conform  to  their  will  any  other 
part  of  its  organization  or  teaching. 

26.  Apart  from  these  foundations  there  is  developing  a  degree  of 
control  over  the  teachings  of  professors  in  our  colleges  and  univer- 
sities which  constitutes  a  most  serious  menace.    In  June  of  this  year 
two  professors,  know  throughout  their  professions  as  men  of  great 
talent  and  high  character,  were  dropped  from  the  positions  they 
had  occupied  and  no  valid  reason  for  such  action  was  made  public. 
Both  were  witnesses  before  the  commission,  and  made  statements 
based  upon  their  own  expert  knowledge  and  experience  which  were 
given  wide  publicity.    One  was  a  professor  of  law  in  a  State  univer- 
sity, who  had  acted  as  counsel  for  the  strikers  in  Colorado;  the  other 
a  professor  of  economics,  who  had  not  only  been  active  in  fights  in 
behalf  of  child-labor  legislation  and  other  progressive  measures,  but 
had  recently  published  a  work  comparing  the  income  paid  for  prop- 
erty ownership  with  the  income  paid  for  all  classes  of  service. 

In  the  case  of  the  State  university  we  know  that  the  coal  operators 
in  conjunction  with  other  business  interests  had  gained  the  ascend- 
ancy and  exercised  a  great  degree  of  control  over  the  former  governor 
of  the  State,  that  the  coal  operators  were  bitterly  opposed  to  the 
professor  in  question,  and  that  the  dismissal  of  the  professor  had  been 
publicly  urged  by  the  operators  upon  numerous  occasions,  and  we 
nave  the  uncontroverted  statement  of  the  professor  that  he  had  been 
warned  that  if  he  testified  before  the  commission  he  would  not  be 
reappointed.  In  the  case  of  the  professor  in  the  other  university 
(which,  though  privately  endowed,  receives  large  appropriations 
from  the  State)  we  know  that  its  trustees  are  interested  in  corpora- 
tions which  have  bitterly  opposed  progressive  legislation,  and  are 
men  whose  incomes  are  derived  from  property  ownership  and  not 
from  service. 

In  the  face  of  such  an  enormous  problem  one  can  only  frankly 
confess  inability  to  suggest  measures  which  will  protect  the  Nation 
from  the  grave  dangers  described.  It  is  believed,  however,  that  if 
Congress  will  enact  the  measures  already  recommended,  providing 
for  a  heavy  tax  on  large  inheritances  with  a  rigid  limitation  on  the 


KEPORT  OF   COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  85 

total  amount  of  the  bequest,  for  the  reclamation  by  the  Federal 
Government  of  all  parts  of  the  public  domain  (including  mineral 
rights)  which  have  been  secured  by  fraud,  and  for  a  tax  on  non- 
productive land  and  natural  resources,  a  great  step  in  the  right 
direction  will  have  been  taken. 

As  regards  the  "  foundations  "  created  for  unlimited  general  pur- 
poses and  endowed  with  enormous  resources,  their  ultimate  possi- 
bilities are  so  grave  a  menace,  not  only  as  regards  their  own  activities 
and  influence  but  also  the  benumbing  effect1  which  they  have  on 
private  citizens  and  public  bodies,  that  if  they  could  be  clearly  dif- 
ferentiated from  other  forms  of  voluntary  altrustic  effort  it  would 
be  desirable  to  recommend  their  abolition.  It  is  not  possible,  how- 
ever, at  this  time  to  devise  any  clear-cut  definition  upon  which  they 
can  be  differentiated. 

As  the  basis  for  effective  action,  it  is  suggested  that  the  commission 
recommend : 

1.  The  enactment  by  Congress  of  a  statute  providing  that   all 
incorporated  nonprofit-making  bodies  whose  present  charters  em- 
power them  to  perform  more  than  a  single  specific  function  and 
whose  funds  exceed  $1,000,000  shall  be  required  to  secure  a  Federal 
charter. 

The  Federal  charter  should  contain  the  following  provisions : 

(a)  Definite  limitation  of  the  funds  to  be  held  by  any  organiza- 
tion, at  least  not  to  exceed  the  largest  amount  held  by  any  at  the 
time  of  the  passage  of  the  act. 

(b)  Definite  and  exact  specifications  of  the  powers  and  functions 
which  the  organization  is  empowered  to  exercise,  with  provision  for 
heavy  penalties  if  its  corporate  powers  are  exceeded. 

(c)  Specific  provision  against  the  accumulation  of  funds  by  the 
compounding  of  unexpended  income  and  against  the  expenditure  in 
any  one  year  of  more  than  10  per  cent  of  the  principal. 

(d)  Rigid  inspection  of  the  finances  as  regards  both  investment 
and  expenditure  of  funds. 

(e)  Complete  publicity  through  open  reports  to  the  proper  Gov- 
ernment officials, 

(/)  Provision  that  no  line  of  work  which  is  not  specifically  and 
directly  mentioned  in  the  articles  of  incorporation  shall  be  entered 
upon  without  the  unanimous  consent  and  approval  of  the  board  of 
trustees,  nor  unless  Congress  is  directly  informed  of  such  intention 
through  communication  to  the  Clerk  of  the  House  and  the  Clerk  of 
the  Senate,  which  shall  be  duly  published  in  the  Congressional 
Record,  nor  until  six  months  after  such  intention  has  been  declared, 

2.  Provision  by  Congress  for  the  thorough  investigation,  by  a 
special  committee  or  commission,  of  all  endowed  institutions,  both 
secular  and  religious,  whose  property  holdings  or  income  exceeds  a 
moderate  amount.     The  committee  or  commission  should  be  given 
full  power  to  compel  the  production  of  books  and  papers  and  the 
attendance  and  testimony  of  witnesses.    It  should  be  authorized  and 
directed  to  investigate  not  only  the  finances  of  such  institutions  but 
all  their  activities  and  affiliations. 

1  A  striking  illustration  of  the  benumbing  effect  of  such  foundations  was  revealed  by 
the  almost  complete  cessation  of  private  activity  for  the  relief  of  the  Belgians  as  soon 
as  the  Rockefeller  Foundation  issued  to  the  press  a  statement  of  its  intention  to  under- 
take such  relief. 


86  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

3.  As  the  only  effective  means  of  counteracting  the  influence  of  the 
foundations,  as  long  as  they  are  permitted  to  exist,  consists  in  the 
activities  of  governmental  agencies  along  similar  lines,  the  appro- 
priations of  the  Federal  Government  for  education  and  social  service 
should  be  correspondingly  increased. 

VI.  THE  LAND  QUESTION  AND  THE  CONDITION  OF  AGRICULTURAL  LABOR. 

It  was  obviously  impossible  for  the  commission  to  attempt  a  de- 
tailed investigation  of  agricultural  condition,  but  because  of  the 
very  immediate  bearing  of  the  land  question  on  industrial  unrest,  it 
was  felt  necessary  to  make  as  thorough  investigation  as  possible  of 
the  phases  which  seemed  to  have  the  most  direct  bearing  on  our  gen- 
eral problem.  The  phases  selected  for  discussion  were,  first,  the  con- 
centration of  land  ownership  as  shown  by  existing  statistics ;  second, 
the  problem  of  seasonal  and  casual  agricultural  labor;  third,  the  in- 
crease and  change  in  the  character  of  farm  tenancy ;  and,  fourth,  the 
introduction  of  industrial  methods  into  agriculture  through  the  de- 
velopment of  corporations  operating  large  tracts  of  land.  The  find- 
ings and  recommendations  with  reference  to  the  concentration  of 
ownership  and  the  problems  of  seasonal  labor  are  set  forth  elsewhere. 
At  this  point  it  is  desired  to  present  the  results  of  the  investigations 
of  tenancy  and  agricultural  corporations. 

The  investigation  of  these  problems  was  confined  practically  to  the 
Southwest,  because  it  is  in  this  region  that  the  systems  have  become 
most  fully  developed  and  their  results  in  the  form  of  the  acute  unrest 
of  a  militant  tenant  movement  are  most  easily  studied.  The  investi- 
gations in  this  region,  however,  were  very  thorough,  consisting  of  de- 
tailed studies  and  reports  by  field  investigators,  which  were  later 
confirmed  by  a  public  hearing. 

As  a  result  of  these  investigations  the  following  conclusions  are 
fully  justified: 

1.  Tenancy  in  the  Southwestern  States  is  already  the  prevailing 
method  of  cultivation  and  is  increasing  at  a  very  rapid  rate.    In  1880 
Texas  had  65,468  tenant  families,  comprising  37.6  per  cent  of  all 
farms  in  the  State.    In  1910  tenant  farmers  had  increased  to  219.571 
and  operated  53  per  cent  of  all  farms  in  the  State.     Reckoning  on 
the  same  ratio  of  increase  that  was  maintained  between  1900  and 
1910,  there  should  be  in  Texas  in  the  present  year  (1915)  at  least 
236,000  tenant  farmers.    A  more  intensive  study  of  the  field,  however, 
shows  that  in  the  82  counties  of  the  State  where  tenancy  is  highest 
the  average  percentage  of  tenants  will  approximate  60. 

For  Oklahoma  we  have  not  adequate  census  figures  so  far  back, 
but  at  the  present  time  the  percentage  of  farm  tenancy  in  the  State 
is  54.8,  and  for  the  47  counties  where  the  tenancy  is  highest  the  per- 
centage of  tenancy  is  68.13. 

2.  Tenancy,  while  inferior  in  every  way  to  farm  ownership  from 
a  social  standpoint,  is  not  necessarily  an  evil  if  conducted  under  a 
system  which  protects  the  tenants  and  assures  cultivation  of  the  soil 
under  proper  and  economical  methods,  but  where  tenancy  exists 
under  such  conditions  as  are  prevalent  in  the  Southwest,  its  increase 
can  be  regarded  only  as  a  menace  to  the  Nation. 

3.  The  prevailing  system  of  tenancy  in  the  Southwest  is  share 
tenancy,  under  which  the  tenant  furnishes  his  own  seed,  tools,  and 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  87 

teams  and  pays  the  landlord  one-third  of  the  grain  and  one-fourth 
of  the  cotton.  There  is,  however,  a  constant  tendency  to  increase  the 
landlord's  share  through  the  payment  either  of  cash  bonuses  or  of  a 
higher  percentage  of  the  product.  Under  this  system  tenants  as  a 
class  earn  only  a  bare  living  through  the  work  of  themselves  and  their 
entire  families.  Few  of  the  tenants  ever  succeed  in  laying  by  a  sur- 
plus. On  the  contrary,  their  experiences  are  so  discouraging  that 
they  seldom  remain  on  the  same  farm  for  more  than  a  year,  and 
they  move  from  one  farm  to  the  next,  in  the  constant  hope  of  being 
able  to  better  their  condition.  Without  the  labor  of  the  entire  family 
the  tenant  farmer  is  helpless.  As  a  result,  not  only  is  his  wife  prema- 
turely broken  down,  but  the  children  remain  uneducated  and  without 
the  hope  of  any  condition  better  than  that  of  their  parents.  The 
tenants  having  no  interest  in  the  results  beyond  the  crops  of  a  single 
year,  the  soil  is  being  rapidly  exhausted  and  the  conditions,  there- 
fore, tend  to  become  steadily  worse.  Even  at  present  a  very  large 
proportion  of  the  tenants'  families  are  insufficiently  clothed,  badly 
housed,  and  underfed.  Practically  all  of  the  white  tenants  are  native 
born.  As  a  result  of  these  conditions,  however,  they  are  deteriorating 
rapidly,  each  generation  being  less  efficient  and  more  hopeless  than 
the  one  proceeding. 

4.  A  very  large  proportion  of  the  tenants  are  hopelessly  in  debt 
and  are  charged  exorbitant  rates  of  interest.     Over  95  per  cent  of 
the  tenants  borrow  from  some  source,  and  about  75  per  cent  borrow 
regularly  year  after  year.     The  average  interest  rate  on  all  farm 
loans  is  10  per  cent,  while  small  tenants  in  Texas  pay  15  per  cent  or 
more.     In  Oklahoma  the  conditions  are  even  worse,  in  spite  of  the 
enactment  of  laws  against  usury.     Furthermore,  over  80  per  cent  of 
the  tenants  are  regularly  in  debt  to  the  stores  from  which  they  secure 
their  supplies,  and  pay  exorbitantly  for  this  credit.     The  average 
rate  of  interest  on  store  credit  is  conservatively  put  at  20  per  cent 
and  in  many  cases  ranges  as  high  as  60  per  cent. 

5.  The  leases  are  largely  in  the  form  of  oral  contracts  which  run 
for  only  one  year  and  which  make  no  provision  for  compensation 
to  the  tenant  for  any  improvements  which  may  be  made  upon  the 
property.     As  a  result,  tenants  are  restrained  from  making  improve- 
ments, and  in  many  cases  do  not  properly  provide  for  the  upkeep  of 
the  property. 

6.  Furthermore,  the  tenants  are  in  some  instances  the  victims  of 
oppression  on  the  part  of  landlords.    This  oppression  takes  the  form 
of  dictation  of  character  and  amount  of  crops,  eviction  without  due 
notice,  and  discrimination  because  of  personal  and  political  convic- 
tions.   The  existing  law  provides  no  recourse  against  such  abuses. 

7.  As  a  result  both  of  the  evils  inherent  in  the  tenant  system  and 
of  the  occasional  oppression  by  landlords,  a  state  of  acute  unrest  is 
developing  among  the  tenants  and  there  are,  clear  indications  of  the 
beginning  of  organized  resistance  which  may  result  in  civil  dis- 
turbances of  a  serious  character. 

8.  The  situation  is  being  accentuated  by  the  increasing  tendency 
of  the  landlords  to  move  to  the  towns  and  cities,  relieving  themselves 
not  only  from  all  productive  labor,  but  from  direct  responsibility  for 
the  conditions  which  develop.     Furthermore,  as  a  result  of  the  in- 
creasing expenses  incident  to  urban  life  there  is  a  marked  tendency 


88  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

to  demand  from  the  tenant  a  greater  share  of  the  products  of  his 
labor. 

9.  The  responsibility  for  the  existing  conditions  rests  not  upon  the 
landlords,  but  upon  the  system  itself.     The  principal  causes  are  to 
be  found  in  the  system  of  short  leases,  the  system  of  private  credit 
at  exorbitant  rates,  the  lack  of  a  proper  system  of  marketing,  the  ab- 
sence of  educational  facilities,  and  last  but  not  least  the  prevalence 
of  land  speculation. 

10.  A  new  factor  is  being  introduced  into  the  agricultural  situa- 
tion through  the  development  of  huge  estates  owned  by  corporations 
and  operated  by  salaried  managers  upon  a  purely  industrial  system. 
The  labor  conditions  on  such  estates  are  subject  to  grave  criticism. 
The  wages  are  extremely  low,  80  cents  per  day  being  the  prevailing 
rate  on  one  large  estate  which  was  thoroughly  investigated ;  arbitrary 
deductions  from  wages  are  made  for  various  purposes;  and  a  con- 
siderable part  of  the  wages  themselves  are  paid  in  the  form  of 
coupons,  which  are  in  all  essential  particulars  the  same  as  the  "  scrip  " 
which  has  been  the  source  of  such  great  abuse.     Furthermore,  the 
communities  existing  on  these  large  estates  are  subject  to  the  com- 
plete control  of  the  land-owning  corporation,  which  may  regulate 
the  lives  of  citizens  to  almost  any  extent.     There  is  an  apparent  tend- 
ency toward  the  increase  of  these  large  estates,  and  the  greatest 
abuses  may  be  expected  if  they  are  allowed  to  develop  unchecked. 

11.  Prompt  and  effective  action  on  the  part  of  the  States  and 
Nation  is  necessary  if  any  alleviation  of  the  conditions  which  have 
been  described  is  to  be  achieved. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The    development   through   legislation    of   longer   time    farm 
leases  that  will  make  for  fair  rents,  security  of  tenure,  and  protection 
of  the  interests  of  the  tenant  in  the  matter  of  such  improvements  as 
he  may  make  on  a  leasehold  in  his  possession.     Such  legislation 
should  look  forward  to  leasing  systems  that  will  increase  tillage, 
improve  the  yielding  powers  of  the  soil  and  maintain  a  greater  popu- 
lation. 

In  order  to  secure  this  desired  end  it  is  suggested  that  the  commis- 
sion further  recommend  the  creation  of : 

2.  National  and  State  land  commissions  with  powers — 

(a)  To  act  as  land  courts  with  powers  to  hear  evidence  given  by 
landlord  and  tenants  as  to  questions  that  have  to  do  with  fair  rents, 
fixity  of  tenure  and  improvements  made  by  tenants  on  landlords' 
property ;  to  gather  evidence,  independently  of  both  parties,  that  will 
the  better  enable  such  land  courts  to  arrive  at  the  true  facts  in  each 
case ;  and  to  render  judgment  that  will  be  mandatory  for  such  time 
as  the  contractual  relationship  may  be  determined  to  hold. 

(b)  To  operate  farm  bureaus  for  the  following  purposes: 

First.  To  act  as  an  agent  between  landlords  and  tenants  in  the 
distribution  of  tenant  labor. 

Second.  To  act  as  an  agent  between  landlords  and  tenants  in  the 
preparation  of  equitable  contracts. 

Third.  To  act  as  an  information  agency  to  assist  home-seeking 
farmers. 

Fourth.  To  assist  in  the  distribution  of  seasonal  labor. 


EEPOBT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  89 


3.  The  development  of  better  credit  facilities  through  the  assist- 
ance of  the  Government  and  cooperative  organization  of  farmers 
and  tenants.     No  single  measure  can  be  recommended;  the  results 
must  be  achieved  through  the  development  of  a  sound  rural-credit 
system,  the  development  of  land  banks,  mortgage  associations  and 
credit  unions.     Foreign  experience  shows  that  through  these  means 
the  rate  of  interest  can  be  greatly  reduced  and  the  security  of  both 
the  borrower  and  the  lender  can  be  increased. 

4.  The  general  introduction  of  modernized  rural  schools  and  com- 
pulsory education  of  children.    The  functions  of  the  school  system 
shoulol  extend  beyond  education  to  the  social  service  of  the  entire 
rural  community,  assisting  in  the  organization  of  farmers  and  ten- 
ants for  cooperative  purposes,  and  promoting  other  measures  looking 
to  the  community's  welfare. 

5.  The  revision  of  the  taxation  system  so  as  to  exempt  from  taxa- 
tion all  improvements  and  tax  unused  land  at  its  full  rental  value. 

VII.    JUDICIAL  SETTLEMENT  OF  LABOR  CLAIMS  AND  COMPLAINTS. 

The  investigations  of  the  commission  are  the  basis  for  the  follow- 
ing statements: 

1.  Among  workers  of  every  class  there  are  constantly  arising  va- 
rious questions  for  judicial  settlement  wyhich  under  present  condi- 
tions can  not  be  speedily  or  satisfactorily  adjusted. 

2.  These  claims  are  of  a  very  diverse  character  and  include  not 
only  cases  of  actual  injustice  through  the  retention  of  wages,  but 
questions  of  interpretation   of   contract  and   the  establishment   of 
justice  in  cases  in  which  contracts  are  lacking. 

3.  The  ordinary  courts  are  unfitted  to  decide  such  questions,  not 
only  because  of  the  method  of  procedure  but  because  of  the  unf  amili- 
arity  of  ordinary  magistrates  and  judges  with  the  conditions  in- 
volved in  such  claims. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  establishment  either  by  the  States  or  by  municipalities  of 
industrial  courts  similar  to  those  which  have  proved  to  be  successful 
in  European  countries.    The  organization  and  method  of  procedure 
of  such  courts  are  described  in  detail  in  Bulletin  No.  98  of  the 
United  States  Bureau  of  Labor  and  need  not  be  discussed  here. 

2.  The  Commissioners  of  Labor  or  the  industrial  commissions  of 
the  several  States  should  be  authorized  and  directed,  where  such 
powers  do  not  now  exist,  to  receive  the  legal  complaints  of  all  classes 
of  workmen,  and,  where  they  are  found  to  have  a  proper  basis,  to 
prosecute  such  claims  vigorously,  with  a  view  to  securing  either  a 
voluntary  settlement  or  the  award  of  adequate  recompense  by  the 
proper  tribunal.    The  commissioners  of  labor  or  the  industrial  com- 
missions should  be  given  adequate  legal  assistance  to  enable  them  to 
prosecute  such  claims  promptly  and  vigorously.    Proper  steps  should 
be  taken  to  provide  for  cooperation  with  the  Federal  Immigration 
Bureau,  if  the  recommendation  on  page  51  is  adopted. 

3.  The  States  and  municipalities  should  consider  the  desirability 
of  creating  an  office  similar  to  that  of  the  public  defender  in  Los 
Angeles  tot  act  in  civil  claims  of  small  size. 


90  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

VIII.  THE  LAW  RELATING  TO  TRADE-UNIONS  AND  INDUSTRIAL 

DISPUTES. 

The  commission  has  conducted  through  its  agents  extensive  investi- 
gations and  has  held  hearings  at  which  the  persons  who  have  devoted 
great  study  to  the  question  of  trade-union  law  testified  at  length. 
The  investigations  were  directed  both  to  establishing  the  present 
status  of  the  law  governing  trade-unions  and  industrial  disputes  and 
to  ascertaining  the  practical  effects  of  certain  classes  of  laws  and 
court  decisions.  The  results  of  the  investigations  are  largely  em- 
bodied in  the  reports  of  Mr.  J.  Wallace  Bryan,  of  the  Maryland  bar, 
and  Mr.  Edwin  E.  Witte. 

Because  of  the  necessity  for  exactness  in  dealing  with  questions 
which  are  so  involved  and  which  have  to  so  large  an  extent  been 
clouded  by  contradictory  court  decisions,  it  is  impossible  to  present  a 
satisfactory  summary  of  the  conclusions  which  have  been  reached 
upon  this  subject.  It  may,  however,  be  said  that  in  substance  the 
situation  revealed  by  these  investigations  is  as  follows : 

1.  The  greatest  uncertainty  exists  regarding  the  legal  status  of 
almost  every  act  which  may  be  done  in  connection  with  an  industrial 
dispute.    In  fact,  it  may  be  said  that  it  depends  almost  entirely  upon 
the  personal  opinion  and  social  ideas  of  the  court  in  whose  jurisdic- 
tion the  acts  may  occur. 

2.  The  general  effect  of  the  decisions  of  American  courts,  however, 
has  been  to  restrict  the  activities  of  labor  organizations  and  deprive 
them  of  their  most  effective  weapons,  namely,  the  boycott  and  the 
power  of  picketing,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  weapons  of  em- 
ployers, namely,  the  power  of  arbitrary  discharge,  of  blacklisting,  and 
of  bringing  in  strike  breakers,  have  been  maintained,  and  legislative 
attempts  to  restrict  the  employers'  powers  have  generally  been  de- 
clared unconstitutional  by  the  courts.     Furthermore,  an  additional 
weapon  has  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  employers  by  many 
courts  in  the  form  of  sweeping  injunctions,  which  render  punishable 
acts  which  would  otherwise  be  legal,  and  also-  result  in  effect  in  de- 
priving the  workers  of  the  right  to  jury  trial. 

3.  Important  steps  have  been  taken  to  deal  with  this  situation  by 
the  enactment  of  the  Clayton  Act,  applying  to  the  Federal  jurisdic- 
tion, and  by  the  passage  of  laws  in  Massachusetts  and  New  York 
which  define  the  rights  of  parties  engaged  in  industrial  disputes. 
The  actual  effect  of  the  Clayton  Act  can  not  be  ascertained  until  it 
has  been  tested  in  the  courts,  but  eminent  legal  authorities  have 
expressed  grave  doubts  that  it  will  accomplish  the  desired  results. 
At  any  rate,  it  does  not  seem  to  remove  the  root  of  the  existing 
injustice,  and,  furthermore,  in  all  the  States  except  New  York  and 
Massachusetts  the  grave  and  uncertain  situation  already  described 
exists.    This  situation  must  be  corrected. 

4.  There  are,  apparently,  only  two  lines  of  action  possible:  First, 
to  restrict  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  employers  to  correspond  in 
substance  to  the  powers  and  rights  now  allowed  to  trade.-unions,  and 
second,  to  remove  all  restrictions  which  now  prevent  the  freedom  of 
action  of  both  parties  to  industrial  disputes,  retaining  only  the  ordi- 
nary civil  and  criminal  restraints  for  the  preservation  of  life,  prop- 
erty, and  the  public  peace.     The  first  method  has  been  tried  re- 
peatedly and  has  failed  absolutely,  not  only  because  of  the  interven- 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  91 


1 


tion  of  the  courts  but  because  the  very  nature  of  the  acts  complained 
of  on  the  part  of  employers  (blacklisting  and  arbitrary  discharge) 
makes  it  impossible  to  prevent  them  effectively  by  any  form  of  legis- 
lation or  administration.  The  only  method,  therefore,  seems  to  be 
the  removal  of  all  restrictions  upon  both  parties,  thus  legalizing  the 
strike,  the  lockout,  the  boycott,  the  blacklist,  the  bringing  in  of 
strike  breakers,  and  peaceful  picketing.  This  has  been  most  suc- 
cessfully accomplished  by  the  British  trades  disputes  act,  which  is 
the  result  of  50  years  of  legal  evolution,  and  in  its  present  form 
seems  to  work  as  successfully  as  could  possibly  be  expected. 

It  is  suggested,  therefore,  that  the  commission  "recommend : 

1.  The  enactment  by  Congress  and  the  States  of  legislation  em- 
bodying the  principles  contained  in  the  British  trades  disputes  act, 
the  text  of  which  is  as  follows  r 

An  agreement  or  combination  of  two  or  more  persons  to  do  or  pro- 
cure to  be  done  any  act  in  contemplation  or  furtherance  of  a  trade 
dispute  between  employers  and  workmen  shall  not  be  indictable  as  a 
conspiracy  if  such  an  act  committed  by  one  person  wrould  not  be 
punishable  as  a  crime.  An  act  done  in  pursuance  of  an  agreement 
or  combination  by  two  or  more  persons  shall,  if  done  in  contempla- 
tion or  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute,  not  be  actionable  unless  the 
act,  if  done  without  any  such  agreement  or  combination,  would  be 
actionable. 

An  action  against  a  trade-union,  whether  of  workmen  or  masters, 
or  against  any  members  or  officials  thereof  on  behalf  of  themselves 
and  all  other  members  of  the  trade-union  in  respect  of  any  tortious 
act  alleged  to  have  been  committed  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  trade- 
union,  shall  not  be  entertained  by  any  court. 

An  act  done  by  a  person  in  contemplation  or  furtherance  of  a 
trade  dispute  shall  not  be  actionable  on  the  ground  only  that  it 
induces  some  other  person  to  break  a  contract  of  employment  or 
that  it  is  an  interference  with  the  trade,  business,  or  employment  of 
some  other  person,  or  with  the  right  of  some  other  person  to  dispose 
of  his  capital  or  his  labor  as  he  wills. 

It  shall  be  lawful  for  one  or  more  persons,  acting  either  on  their 
own  behalf  or  on  behalf  of  a  trade-union,  or  of  an  individual  em- 
ployer or  firm  in  contemplation  or  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute  to 
attend  at  or  near  a  house  or  place  where  a  person  resides  or  works 
or  carries  on  business  or  happens  to  be,  if  they  so  attend  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  peacefully  obtaining  or  communicating  information, 
or  of  peacefully  persuading  any  person  to  work  or  abstain  from 
working. 

Every  person  who,  with  a  view  to  compel  any  other  person  to 
abstain  from  doing  or  to  dp  any  act  which  such  other  person  has  a 
legal  right  to  do  or  abstain  from  doing,  wrongfully  and  without 
"egal  authority — 

1.  Uses  violence  to  or  intimidates  such  other  person  or  his  wife  or 
children,  or  injures  his  property;  or 

2.  Persistently   follows  such  other  person  about  from  place  to 
place;  or 

3.  Hides  any  tools,  clothes,  or  other  property  owned  or  used  by 
the  other  person,  or  deprives  him  of  or  hinders  him  in  the  use  there- 
of;  or 


92  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

4.  Watches  or  besets  the  house  or  other  place  where  such  other 
person  resides  or  works  or  carries  on  business  or  happens  to  be, 
or  the  approach  to  such  a  house  or  place :  or 

5.  Follows  such  other  person  with  twjo  or  more  other  persons  in  a 
disorderly  manner  in  or  through  any  street  or  road,  shall  on  con- 
viction thereof  by  a  court  of  summary  jurisdiction,  or  an  indictment 
as  hereinafter  mentioned,  be  liable  either  to  pay  a  penalty  not  ex- 
ceeding £20,  or  to  be  imprisoned  for  a  term  not  exceeding  three 
months,  with  or  without  hard  labor. 

IX.  THE  POLICING  OF  INDUSTRY. 

The  commission  has  made  extensive  investigations  and  has  heard 
many  witnesses  upon  this  subject,  and  as  a  result  the  following  con- 
clusions are  justified: 

1.  The  problem  of  policing  industry  is  generally  conceived  to  lie 
in  the  suppression  of  violence  and  the  protection  of  life  and  prop- 
erty; but  in  reality  consists  in  the  more  fundamental  problem  of 
protecting  the  rights  of  employers  and  employees  as  well  as  pre- 
serving the  peace. 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  INDUSTRIAL  VIOLENCE. 

2.  Violence  is  seldom,  if  ever,  spontaneous,  but  arises  from  a  con- 
viction that  fundamental  rights  are  denied  and  that  peaceful  methods 
of  adjustment  can  not  be  used.    The  sole  exception  seems  to  lie  in  the 
situation  where,  intoxicated  with  power,  the  stronger  party  to  the 
dispute  relies 'upon  force  to  suppress  the  wreaker. 

3.  The  arbitrary  suppression  of  violence  by  force  produces  only 
resentment,  which  will  rekindle  into  greater  violence  when  oppor- 
tunity offers.    Violence  can  be  prevented  only  by  removing  the  causes 
of  violence;  industrial  peace  can  rest  only  upon  industrial  justice. 

4.  The  origin  of  violence  in  connection  with  industrial  disputes 
can  usually  be  traced  to  the  conditions  prevailing  in  the  particular 
industry  in  times  of  peace  or  to  arbitrary  action  on  the  part  of 
governmental  officials  w^hich  infringes  on  what  are  conceived  to  be 
fundamental  rights.    Violence  and  disorder  during  actual  outbreaks 
usually  result  from  oppressive  conditions  that  have  obtained  in  a 
particular  shop  or  factory  or  in  a  particular  industry.    Throughout 
history  where  a  people  or  a  group  have  been  arbitrarily  denied  rights 
which  they  conceived  to  be  theirs,  reaction  has  been  inevitable.    Vio- 
lence is  a  natural  form  of  protest  against  injustice. 

5.  Violence  in  industrial  disputes  is  not  immediately  the  product 
of  industrial  conditions,  but  of  the  attitude  of  the  parties  to  the  dis- 
pute after  grievances  or  demands  have  been  presented.     The  prin- 
cipal sources  of  an  attitude  leading  to  violence  are : 

(a)  Arrogance  on  the  part  of  the  stronger  party.  This  may 
result  immediately  in  violence  through  the  use  of  force  for  the  sup- 
pression of  the  weaker  party.  The  force  used  may  be  physical  or 
industrial.  Physical  force  may  be  and  is  used  by  both  employers 
and  employees,  through  intimidation,  assaults,  or  attacks  on  prop- 
erty. Such  physical  aggression  is  seldom  used  by  employees,  as  they 
are  strategically  the  weaker  party  and  the  results  are  negative ;  only 


EEPOET  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  EELATIONS.  93 

under  exceptional  circumstances  can  an  employer  be  coerced  by  the 
use  of  force  or  intimidation.  The  exceptions  seem  to  lie  in  the  use 
of  secret  means,  such  as  dynamite,  with  the  object  of  weakening  the 
employer's  resistance. 

The  use  of  force  by  workers  is  normally  directed  not  against  the 
person  or  property  of  the  employer,  but  against  strike  breakers  and 
guards.  Many  instances  of  the  use  of  physical  force  by  the  agents 
of  employers  have,  however,  come  before  the  commission,  indicating 
a  relatively  wide  use,  particularly  in  isolated  communities."  Such 
acts  of  violence  usually  take  the  form  of  assaults  upon  the  leaders 
of  the  workers  or  upon  organizers. 

The  instruments  of  industrial  force  belong  chiefly  to  the  employer, 
because  of  his  control  of  the  job  of  the  worker.  Their  use  is  more 
common  and  more  effective  than  any  other  form  of  violence  at  the 
command  of  the  employer.  The  most  powerful  weapon  is  the  power 
of  discharge,  which  may  be  used  indiscriminately  upon  mere  sus- 
picion, which  under  certain  conditions  may  be  almost  as  potent, 
either  in  use  or  threat,  as  the  power  of  life  and  death.  It  is  the 
avowed  policy  of  many  employers  to  discharge  any  man  who  gives 
any  sign  of  dissatisfaction  on  the  theory  that  he  may  become  a 
trouble  maker  or  agitator. 

The  only  corresponding  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  workers  is 
sabotage,  in  the  form  either  of  malicious  destruction  of  property  or 
of  interference  with  production.  The  field  of  its  use  is  much  more 
restricted  in  practice  than  in  theory,  and  its  results  at  best  are  nega- 
tive and  produce  in  the  employer  only  a  blind  resentment  and  un- 
discriminating  hate.  Sabotage  as  a  policy  shows  no  signs  of  devel- 
oping in  American  industry. 

(&)  Equally  productive  of  an  attitude  leading  to  violence  is  the 
denial  of  the  use  of  peaceful  methods  of  adjusting  grievances,  or  the 
creation  of  a  situation  in  which  their  use  becomes  impossible. 

On  the  part  of  the  employer  the  arbitrary  acts  which  may  be 
classed  under  this  general  head  are :  Denial  of  the  right  to  organize ; 
refusal  to  consider  the  complaints  of  workers;  refusal  to  meet  the 
authorized  representatives  of  workers. 

Under  modern  industrial  conditions  any  one  of  these  acts  makes 
peaceful  negotiation  and  settlement  impossible.  Without  organiza- 
tion of  the  workers  their  collective  claims  can  not  be  considered; 
without  the  right  to  appoint  such  representatives  as  they  choose, 
workers  are  at  the  mercy  of  the  employer's  power  of  discharge,  and 
are  usually  unequal  to  the  task  of  presenting  and  arguing  their 
claims ;  while  the  refusal  to  consider  grievances  leaves  only  the  alter- 
native of  the  strike. 

On  the  part  of  the  workers,  the  possibility  of  peaceful  settlement 
may  be  destroyed  by  refusal  to  discuss  claims,  by  internal  dissensions 
which  render  collective  and  definite  action  looking  to  a  settlement  im- 
possible, and  by  the  issuance  of  ultimata  which  allow  no  time  for  con- 
sideration and  negotiaton.  In  any  one  of  these  situations  the  em- 
ployer has  only  the  choice  between  tame  submission  or  absolute  re- 
sistance to  the  demands  of  the  workers. 

(c)  The  immediate  cause  of  violence  in  connection  with  industrial 
disputes  is  almost  without  exception  the  attempt  to  introduce  strike 
breakers  to  take  the  place  of  the  workers  who  have  struck  or  who  are 


94  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  OIST  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

locked  out.  The  entire  problem  of  policing  industrial  disputes  grows 
out  of  the  problem  of  the  strike  breaker  and  the  attitude  of  the 
State  toward  him. 

All  experience  shows  that  if  no  attempt  is  made  to  operate  the 
plant,  violence  and  disturbances  requiring  the  police  are  practically 
unknown,  whereas  the  attempt  of  strike  breakers  to  reach  the  plant, 
particularly  where  strikers  are  enjoined  or  prevented  from  using 
reasonable  means  to  inform  them  of  the  existence  of  the  strike  and 
to  use  persuasive  methods  to  keep  them  from  entering  the  plant,  is 
invariably  accompanied  by  disorder  and  sometimes  by  active  violence. 

The  existing  attitude  of  the  courts  and  of  governmental  officials 
generally  is  that  the  entire  machinery  of  the  State  should  be  put  be- 
hind the  strike  breaker.  This  attitude  is  based  upon  the  theory  that 
two  important  rights  are  involved — first,  "the  right  of  the  strike 
breaker  to  work,"  and,  second,  "  the  right  of  the  employer  to  do 
business.''  During  earlier  years,  the  right  of  the  strike  breaker  was 
stressed  by  the  courts,  but  since  the  decision  of  Vice  Chancellor 
Stevenson  in  1902  (Jersey  City  Ptg.  Co.  v.  Cassidy,  53  Atl.,  230),  in 
which  the  doctrine  was  announced  as  "  recently  recognized,"  the 
right  of  the  employer  to  do  business  has  been  in  favor  apparently 
because  of  its  wider  application  and  the  fact  that  being  denominated 
a  property  right,  injunctions  could  regularly  be  issued  for  its  protec- 
tion. Regardless,  however,  of  their  origin,  both  of  these  so-called 
rights  seem  to  have  been  based  upon  misconceptions  by  the  courts. 
The  "  right  to  work  "  guaranteed  to  the  strike  breaker  seems  to  be 
based  upon  the  conception  that  the  strike  breaker  is  normally  a  work- 
ingman,  who  seeks  work  and  desires  to  take  the  place  of  the  striker. 
The  fact  is,  practically  without  exception,  either  that  the  strike 
breaker  is  not  a  genuine  workingman  but  is  a  professional  who  merely 
fills  the  place  of  the  worker  and  is  unable  or  unwilling  to  do  steady 
work,  or,  if  he  is  a  bona  fide  workingman,  that  he  is  ignorant  of  con- 
ditions or  compelled  to  work  under  duress.  The  nonworking  char- 
acter of  the  strike  breaker  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  very  few  are 
ever  retained  as  workers  after  the  termination  of  a  strike,  while  the 
attitude  of  genuine  workingmen  toward  strike  breaking  is  shown  by 
the  significant  fact  that  in  the  bids  of  employment  agencies  and 
detective  agencies  to  furnish  strike  breakers  it  is  provided  that 
guards  will  be  furnished  with  each  car  "  to  prevent  escape  in  transit," 
and  by  the  fact  that  when  men  are  candidly  informed  in  the  public 
employment  offices  of  the  existence  of  a  strike,  workers  practically 
never  apply  for  such  positions,  even  though  they  may  be  in  dire 
want. 

The  second  misconception  is  contained  in  the  idea  that  the  "  right 
to  do  business  "  is  an  absolute  right.  Besides  the  fact  that  it  has  only 
been  insisted  upon  by  the  courts  within  the  past  20  years  and  has  no 
express  legislative  or  constitutional  sanction  whatever,  this  right  is 
subject  to  the  most  severe  limitation  and  infringement  even  without 
due  process  of  law.  Not  only  can  the  legislature  limit  the  right  to 
do  business  in  almost  every  conceivable  way,  but  health  authorities 
are  given  power  to  suspend  it  entirely  if  the  public  safety  demands, 
as  in  the  case  of  either  a  human  or  an  animal  epidemic.  Further- 
more, the  courts  can  not  and  will  not  guarantee  in  any  way  the  "  good 
will"  which  is  supposed  to  be  the  property  aspect  of  the  right  to 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  95 

do  business,  nor  will  they  assess  damages  on  account  of  any  alleged 
injury  based  upon  the  "  probable  expectancy  "  of  the  business. 

The  right  to  do  business  is  in  fact  permitted  only  so  far  as  its  ex- 
ercise is  in  the  public  interest,  and  it  may  be  restricted  or  prohibited 
through  the  police  power  whenever  it  is  dangerous  or  in  any  way 
deleterious  to  the  public.  This  is  the  reason  underlying  not  only 
quarantine  but  every  form  of  regulation  and  prohibition. 

The  plea  of  the  workers  for  the  assumption  of  a  new  attitude  in 
relation  to  strike  breakers  is,  however,  based  not  only  upon  the  nega- 
tive character  of  the  rights  of  the  employer  and  the  strike  breaker, 
but  upon  a  positive  though  somewhat  undefinable  demand  for  recog- 
nition that  strikers  have  a  right  to  the  jobs  which  they  have  left  until 
their  grievances  are  in  some  way  adjusted.  The  argument  is  not 
only  that  when  workers  are  willing  to  strike  and  sacrifice  their  liveli- 
hood, the  conditions  against  which  they  protest  must  be  assumed 
to  be  socially  injurious,  but,  even  more,  that  the  worker  who  has 
struck  in  support  of  his  demand  for  better  conditions  has  not  aban- 
doned his  job,  but,  in  fact,  has  a  keener  interest  in  it  than  when 
quietly  submitting  to  distasteful  conditions. 

At  the  very  basis  of  the  workers'  contentions,  however,  lies  the 
realization  that  working  conditions  can  be  improved  only  by  strikes 
and  that  no  strike  can  be  won  if  the  employer  can  operate  his  plant 
without  difficulty.  This  is  becoming  increasingly  true  with  every 
step  in  the  Nation's  industrial  development.  During  more  primi- 
tive periods,  if  workers  struck  their  places  could  not  be  filled  except 
through  the  existence  of  a  surplus  of  qualified  labor  in  the  commu- 
nity or  by  enticing  workers  from  other  employers.  Now,  the  devel- 
opment of  transportation,  the  establishment  of  specialized  agencies 
for  supplying  strikebreakers,  and  the  growth  of  large  corporations, 
which  can  shift  employees  from  one  plant  to  another,  have  given 
each  employer  a  command  of  the  labor  market  of  the  entire  country. 
There  are  agencies  in  every  large  city  which  will  contract  to  supply 
any  kind  of  labor  on  short  notice,  while  almost  any  of  the  large  in- 
dustrial corporations  can  either  supply  the  normal  demand  with  one- 
half  or  three-quarters  of  their  plants,  or  recruit  from  the  surplus 
labor  around  their  various  plants  a  skeleton  organization  which  can 
resume  operations  in  a  short  time. 

The  respective  rights  of  employer,  striker,  and  strikebreaker  are 
matters  which  can  not  be  solved  by  any  method  of  cold  reasoning, 
and  should  not  be  solved  except  by  the  force  of  public  opinion  acting 
either  directly  or  through  the  medium  of  their  representatives.  In 
such  matters  we  feel  that  our  action  can  extend  no  further  than  the 
analysis  of  the  issues,  the  presentation  of  the  pertinent  facts,  and  the 
expression  of  such  general  opinions  as  we  may  have  reached. 

We  are  convinced,  however,  that  a  modification  of  the  legislative 
and  judicial  attitude  on  this  question  is  necessary,  and  also  that  in 
the  minds  of  the  public  a  more  general  appreciation  of  the  conten- 
tions of  the  workers  is  already  taking  place. 

A  general  exception  to  this  may  perhaps  exist  in  the  case  of  public 
utilities,  including  not  only  the  services  which  are  commonly  in- 
cluded, but  the  supply  of  milk,  ice,  and  other  similar  necessities. 
The  absolute  dependence  of  the  population  of  modern  cities  upon 
the  noninterruption  of  such  services  has  created  a  widespread  public 


96  BEPOBT  OF   COMMISSION   OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

demand  for  action  which  will  insure  them  under  all  conditions.  The 
public  may  good-humoredly  walk  during  a  street-car  strike,  but  the 
interruption  of  the  supply  of  food,  fuel,  and  ice  produces  an  atti- 
tude of  public  desperation.  We  confess  that,  under  present  condi- 
tions, no  absolute  insurance  against  its  interruption  by  industrial 
disputes  seems  practicable.  As  long,  certainly,  as  these  services 
are  performed  by  private  corporations,  the  right  of  employees  to 
strike  should  not  and  can  not  constitutionally  be  abrogated  or 
abridged.  Even  under  Government  ownership  and  operation  the 
problem  is  only  slightly  altered  by  the  removal  of  the  incentive  of 
private  profit  for  the  maintenance  of  improper  labor  conditions, 
while  cooperative  operation  is  too  vague  even  for  analysis.  At  pres- 
ent proper  action  seems  to  consist  in  providing,  first,  for  the  most 
effective  possible  means  for  conciliation,  investigation,  and  arbitra- 
tion ;  second,  for  the  use  of  ail  the  leverage  of  public  opinion  to  pro- 
mote reasonableness  on  the  part  of  those  involved  in  the  dispute; 
and,  finally,  for  the  plan  as  outlined  elsewhere  for  defining  clearly 
the  rights  of  the  parties  to  the  dispute  and  the  impartial  but  firm 
enforcement  of  such  rights. 

(d)  The  greatest  disorders  and  most  acute  outbreaks  of  violence 
in  connection  with  industrial  disputes  arise  from  the  violation  of 
what  are  considered  to  be  fundamental  rights,  and  from  the  perver- 
sion or  subversion  of  governmental  institutions. 

This -source  of  acute  unrest  has  been  discussed  at  length  in.  a  pre- 
ceding section,  so  that  at  this  point  it  is  necessary  only  to  summarize 
briefly  its  commonest  manifestations,  and  to  state  that  even  the  lim- 
ited investigations  which  the  commission  has  been  able  to  make  show 
that  practically  every  industrial  State  has  at  some  relatively  recent 
time  permitted  its  institutions  to  be  used  by  one  party  or  the  other 
to  an  industrial  dispute  (almost  without  exception  the  employers)  in 
such  a  way  that  the  rights  of  the  other  party  were  either  nullified  or 
seriously  transgressed. 

It  may  be  said  that  every  governmental  institution  and  function 
has  been  at  some  time  utilized  by  the  stronger  industrial  factor  for 
the  oppression  and  suppression  of  the  weaker,  but  those  which  are 
most  commonly  utilized  are,  first,  the  police,  including  not  only  the 
municipal  police,  the  sheriffs  and  deputies,  the  State  police  and  con- 
stabulary, and  the  militia,  but  the  private  guards,  detectives,  and 
vigilante  organizations,  which  usurp  and  exercise  the  functions  of  the 
police.  The  biased  action  of  the  State  and  municipal  police  seldom 
extends  beyond  the  making  of  unwarranted  arrests,  the  enforcement 
of  unreasonable  rules  regarding  such  matters  as  picketing  and  public 
assemblage,  and  the  use  of  excessive  brutality.  The  State  and 
municipal  police  are  uniformly  paid  by  the  public  and  such  control 
over  their  action  as  exists  is  generally  indirect.  In  the  case  of  the 
other  bodies  mentioned  the  control  is  frequently  direct  and  their 
action  frankly  and  bitterly  partisan.  The  sheriffs  in  many  counties 
deputize  guards  in  the  employment  and  pay  of  corporations,  without 
any  qualifications  and  sometimes  even  without  knowing  their  names. 
Similarly  the  militia  are  at  times  recruited  from  the  guards  and  other 
employees  of  corporations.  The  private  guards,  detectives,  and  vigi- 
lantes are  openly  partisan  and  can  have  no  other  purpose  in  con- 
nection with  a  strike  than  to  break  it  with  such  means  as  they  can 
command. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  IlNDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  97 

The  police  would,  however,  be  much  less  effective  if  their  control 
in  a  given  locality  did  not  usually  imply  also  control  of  all  or  part 
of  the  local  courts  to  give  a  legal  sanction  to  lawlessness,  to  protect 
these  who  are  criminally  liable,  and  to  exercise  their  full  rigor  in 
the  prosecution  of  the  strikers.  Such  controlled  courts  have  not  only 
found  it  possible  through  the  use  of  blanket  injunctions  to  make 
illegal  acts  which  would  otherwise  be  legal,  but,  resting  upon  their 
protection,  the  police,  the  deputies,  the  militia,  and  the  private 
guards  have  in  many  cases  felt  free  to  go  to  unbelievable  lengths  in 
order  to  carry  out  their  plans. 

The  subserviency  of  the  courts  in  many  parts  of  the  country  can 
not  be  more  clearly  shown  than  by  the  fact  that  they  have  time  and 
again  permitted  the  militia,  under  color  of  so-called  martial  law, 
to  usurp  their  functions  and  to  defy  their  associations  who  resisted 
the  encroachment.  The  situation  is  accentuated  also  by  the  fact  that 
the  decisions  of  such  corrupt  and  subservient  courts  become  the  basis 
upon  which  later  honest  "record  worshipping"  judges  form  their 
own  opinions.1 

When  governmental  institutions  are  thus  corrupted  and  used  as  in- 
struments of  oppression  men  can  only  resist  with  such  power  as  they 
have,  not  alone  for  the  protection  of  themselves  and  their  families 
but  for  the  preservation  of  the  fundamental  rights  of  themselves 
and  their  fellow  citizens.  Resistance  to  the  usurpers  of  governmental 
power  and  to  those  who  pervert  to  base  uses  the  official  power  with 
which  they  are  clothed  was  made  the  keystone  of  the  American 
Nation,  and  Abraham  Lincoln,  on  a  most  solemn  occasion,  said: 

If  by  the  mere  force  of  numbers  a  majority  should  deprive  a  minority  of  any 
clearly  written  constitutional  right,  it  might,  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  justify 
revolution — certainly  would  if  such  a  right  were  a  vital  one.2 

The  grave  danger  in  the  United  States  is  that  on  account  of  the 
enormous  area  and  the  sense  of  isolation  of  each  section  as  regards 
the  others,  the  encroachment  upon  fundamental  rights  and 'the  sub- 
version of  local  governments  will  be  permitted  to  gain  ground  with- 
out the  effective  protest  of  the  entire  Nation  until  the  liberties  of  all 
itizens  are  hanging  in  the  balance. 


STATE  CONSTABULARY. 


6.  The  commission  devoted  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  the  ques- 
tion of  a  State  constabulary  as  a  method  of  policing  industry.  Ex- 
tensive investigations  of  the  "organization,  personnel,  and  activities 
of  the,  Pennsylvania  State  Constabulary  were  made  and  a  number  of 
witnesses  were  heard  at  length.  The  findings  with  regard  to  this 
particular  police  organization  may  be  briefly  stated:  It  is  an  ex- 
tremely efficient  force  for  crushing  strikes,  but  it  is  not  successful  in 
preventing  violence  in  connection  with  strikes,  in  maintaining  the 
legal  and  civil  rights  of  the  parties  to  the  dispute,  nor  in  protecting 
the  public.  On  the  contrary,  violence  seems  to  increase  rather  tham 
diminish  when  the  constabulary  is  brought  into  an  industrial  dis- 

1  See   report   of  B.   F.   Moore :  Application   of   Writ   of   Habeas    Corpus   in   Labor   and 
fonlabor  Cases. 

2  Inaugural  address,  Mar.  4,  18G1. 

38810°— 16 7 


98  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

pute;  the  legal  and  civil  rights  of  the  workers  have  on  numerous 
occasions  been  violated  by  the  constabulary ;  and  citizens  not  in  any 
way  connected  with  the  dispute  and  innocent  of  any  interference  with 
the  constabulary  have  been  brutally  treated,  and  in  one  case  shot 
down  by  members  of  the  constabulary,  who  have  escaped  punishment 
for  their  acts.  Organized  upon  a  strictly  military  basis,  it  appears 
to  assume  in  taking  the  field  in  connection  with  a  strike  that  the 
strikers  are  its  enemies  and  the  enemies  of  the  State,  and  that  a  cam- 
paign should  be  waged  against  them  as  such. 

There  are  certain  features  of  the  State  police  system,  however, 
which  seem  to  be  preferable  to  the  present  haphazard  methods  of 
policing  strikes.  It  is  desirable,  first,  that  all  kinds  of  police  should 
receive  their  entire  compensation  from  the  State;  second,  an  or- 
ganized force,  whose  records  are  known,  is  preferable  both  to  the 
private  police  of  corporations  and  to  the  deputies  ordinarily  sworn  in 
by  sheriffs ;  third,  it  is  desirable  that  the  force  should  be  strictly  dis- 
ciplined and  subject  to  definite  orders;  fourth,  it  is  desirable  that 
those  in  command  of  any  police  force  should  have  a  reasonable  secure 
tenure  of  office  and  should  have  had  previous  experience  under  similar 
circumstances,  as  an  inexperienced  person  is  likely  to  become  panic 
stricken  by  the  mere  presence  of  crowds,  regardless  of  their  actions. 

If  these  desirable  features  could  be  combined  with  other  features 
which  would  insure  their  impartiality  during  industrial  disputes,  and 
raise  their  ideals  from  the  present  militaristic  basis  to  the  police 
basis  of  preserving  the  peace  and  protecting  the  rights  of  both  parties 
and  the  public,  the  establishment  of  State  police  systems  for  use  in 
connection  with  industrial  disputes  might  be  recommended.  But 
under  present  conditions,  it  seems  desirable  rather  to  leave  the  State 
policing  of  industrial  disputes  to  the  sheriffs  and  the  militia  if  the 
restrictions  hereinafter  suggested  are  rigidly  enforced  so  as  to  pro- 
tect both  the  organization  and  the  personnel  from  partisanship. 

FREE  SPEECH. 

7.  One  of  the  greatest  sources  of  social  unrest  and  bitterness  has 
been  the  attitude  of  the  police  toward  public  speaking.  On  numer- 
ous occasions  in  every  part  of  the  country  the  police  of  cities  and 
towns  have,  either  arbitrarily  or  under  the  -cloak  of  a  traffic  ordi- 
nance, interfered  with  or  prohibited  public  speaking,  both  in  the 
open  and  in  halls,  by  persons  connected  with  organizations  of  which 
the  police  or  those  from  whom  they  receive  their  orders  did  not  ap- 
prove. In  many  instances  such  interference  has  been  carried  out 
with  a  degree  or  brutality  which  would  be  incredible  if  it  were  not 
vouched  for  by  reliable  witnesses.  Bloody  riots  frequently  have 
accompanied  such  interference,  and  large  numbers  of  persons  have 
been  arrested  for  acts  of  which  they  w^ere  innocent  or  which  were 
committed  under  the  extreme  provocation  of  brutal  treatment  of 
police  or  private  citizens. 

In  some  cases  this  suppression  of  free  speech  seems  to  have  been 
the  result  of  sheer  brutality  and  wanton  mischief,  but  in  the  majority 
of  cases  it  undoubtedly  is  the  result  of  a  belief  by  the  police  or  their 
superiors  that  they  were  "  supporting  and  defending  the  Govern- 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  99 


ment"  by  such  an  invasion  of  personal  rights.  There  could  be  no 
greater  error.  Such  action  strikes  at  the  very  foundation  of  govern- 
ment. It  is  axiomatic  that  a  government  which  can  be  maintained 
only  by  the  suppression  of  criticism  should  not  be  maintained.  Fur- 
thermore, it  is  the  lesson  of  history  that  attempts  to  suppress  ideas 
result  only  in  their  more  rapid  propagation. 

•  Not  only  should  every  barrier  to  the  freedom  of  speech  be  removed, 
as  long  as  it  is  kept  within  the  bounds  of  decency  and  as  long  as  the 
penalties  for  libel  can  be  invoked,  but  every  reasonable  opportunity 
should  be  afforded  for  the  expression  of  ideas  and  the  public  criti- 
cism of  social  institutions.  The  experience  of  Police  Commissioner 
Woods,  of  New  York  City,  as  contained  in  his  testimony  before  this 
commission,  is  convincing  evidence  of  the  good  results  which  follow 
such  a  policy.  Mr.  Woods  testified  that  when  he  became  commis- 
sioner of  police  he  found  in  force  a  policy  of  rigid  suppression  of 
radical  street  meetings,  with  the  result  that  riots  were  frequent  and 
bitter  hatred  of  the  police  was  widespread.  He  adopted  a  policy  of 
not  only  permitting  public  meetings  at  all  places  where  traffic  and 
the  public  convenience  would  not  be  interfered  with,  but  instructing 
the  police  to  protect  speakers  from  molestation ;  as  a  result,  the  riot- 
ing entirely  ceased,  the  street  meetings  became  more  orderly,  and  the 
speakers  were  more  restrained  in  their  utterances. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend  as  measures  de- 
signed not  only  to  remove  the  causes  which  lead  to  violence  but  to 
promote  the  impartial  and  effective  action  of  police  during  disputes : 

1.  The  enactment  by '  Congress  of  a  statute  prohibiting,   under 
severe  penalties,  the  transportation  of  men  from  State  to  State,  either 
under  arms  or  for  the  purpose  of  arming  them,  as  guards  or  as  agents 
either  of  employers  or  of  employees. 

2.  The  enactment  by  Congress  of  a  statute  prohibiting  the  ship- 
ment in  interstate  commerce  of  cannon,  gatling  guns,  and  other  guns 
of  similar  character,  which  are  not  capable  of  personal  use,  when 
consigned  to  anyone  except  military  agencies  of  the  State  or  Federal 
Governments. 

3.  The  regulation  or  prohibition  of  private  detective  agencies  and 
private  employment  agencies  as  hereinbefore  suggested. 

4.  The  strict  enforcement  in  all  public  and  private  employment 
offices  of  the  rules  requiring  full  notice  of  the  existence  of  a  strike. 

5.  The  complete  assumption  by  the  States  and  municipalities  of  the 
responsibility  for  policing,  and  the  prohibition  of  the  maintenance 
of  any  private  police  (except  a  limited  number  of  watchmen  without 
police  power  except  on  premises). 

6.  The  definition  by  statute,  by  the  States,  of  the  conditions  under 

k  which  sheriffs  may  deputize,  such  regulations  to  include  provisions 
that  a  deputy  must  be  a  bona  fide  resident  of  the  State,  that  a  sworn 
statement  of  the  complete  activities  of  each  deputy  covering  a  period 
of  10  years  immediately  preceding  his  deputization  shall  be  filed  with 

I  the  secretary  of  state,  that  no  person  who  shall  have  been  convicted  of 
any  misdemeanor  or  who  shall  have  been  imprisoned  in  any  State 
shall  be  deputized,  and  that  no  deputy  shall  receive  any  money  or  any 
other  thing  of  value  from  any  person  connected  with  an  industrial 
dispute  during  his  period  of  service  or  in  connection  therewith. 


100  EEPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

7.  The  enactment  of  statutes,  by  the  States,  providing  a  uniform 
code  governing  the  militia  and  embodying  the  following  principles : 

(a)  A  proclamation  of  martial  law  or  a  state  of  war,  insurrec- 
tion, or  rebellion,  by  the  governor  of  a  State,  as  the  result  of  an  in- 
dustrial dispute,  shall  have  no  effect  upon  the  continuance  of  consti- 
tutional guaranties  of  the  State  and  Federal  Constitutions,  nor  upon 
the  law  and  statutes,  nor  upon  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts,  nor  upon 
other  civil  authorities. 

(6)  The  writ  of  habeas  corpus  or  other  process  of  the  courts  can 
not  be  suspended,  interfered  with,  nor  disregarded  by  the  military. 
It  is  part  of  the  duty  of  the  military  to  assist  in  enforcing  the  process 
and  decrees  of  the  civil  courts. 

(c)  The  ordinary  courts  shall  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  for  the 
punishment  of  crime,  and  in  all  cases  where  the  same  act  constitutes 
an  indictable  offense  under  both  military  and  criminal  law,  court- 
martials  shall  have  no  jurisdiction  nor  authority  to  try  officers  or 
soldiers  accused  thereof,  but  the  offender  shall  be  turned  over  to  the 
civil  magistrate  for  trial. 

(d)  The  military  may  not  hold,   detain,   nor  imprison  persons 
arrested  by  them  any  longer  than  is  necessary  to  hand  them  over  to 
the  civil  authorities.    No  person  arrested  by  the  militia  shall  be  de- 
tained after  noon  of  the  following  day  without  being  brought  before 
a  committing  magistrate. 

(e)  The  military  may  not  forcibly  enter  nor  search  a  private  house 
in  order  to  -seize  arms  or  other  property  concealed  therein  without 
a  search  warrant. 

(/)  The  military  shall  have  no  authority  to  establish  a  censorship 
over  the  press  nor  to  interfere  with  the  publication  of  newspapers, 
pamphlets,  handbills,  or  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  free  speech, 
except  under  process  of  the  courts. 

(g)  The  military  shall  not  limit,  restrict,  nor  interfere  with  the 
freedom  of  movement  of  peaceable  citizens  or  the  rights  of  public 
meeting,  assemblage,  or  parades  in  streets  and  public  highways  or 
elsewhere,  except  under  due  process  of  law. 

(Ji)  Every  military  officer  under  whose  orders  a  civilian  is  ar- 
rested shall  within  24  hours  thereafter  report  in  writing  to  the  com- 
manding officer  the  name  of  the  prisoner,  the  offense  with  which  he  is 
charged,  and  what  disposition  has  been  made  of  him.  Failing,  he 
shall  be  liable  to  such  punishment  as  a  court-martial  may  direct. 

(i)  In  times  of  industrial  disputes  no  private  guards,  detectives, 
nor  employees  of  either  of  the  contending  parties  shall  be  enlisted 
or  employed  as  members  of  the  militia,  and*  all  persons  found  by  the 
commanding  officer  to  be  in  the  employment  of  either  party  to  a 
dispute  or  actuated  by  animosity  or  personal  ill  will  toward  either  of 
the  contending  parties  shall  be  forthwith  released  from  active  service. 

(j)  The  governor  may,  in  times  of  disturbance,  by  proclamation 
forbid  the  sale  or  transportation  of  firearms,  ammunition,  and  in- 
toxicating liquors,  and  may  require  all  firearms  and  other  weapons 
to  be  deposited  with  the  military  at  certain  places,  receipts  being 
given  therefor.  Proper  search  warrants  may  be  issued  to  discover 
concealed  weapons. 

8.  That  the  States  and  municipalities  should  provide  by  law  for 
the  fullest  use  of  schools  and  other  public  buildings  for  public  meet- 
ings and  lectures  and  for  other  similar  purposes. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  101 

X.  THE  CONDITIONS  AND  PROBLEMS  OF  MIGRATORY  LABORERS. 

It  has  been  found  as  a  result  of  the  commission's  investigations, 
which  were  made  chiefly  by  Mr.  P.  A.  Speek : 

1.  There  are  large  numbers  of  American  workers,  in  all  prob- 
ability several  millions,  who  are  not  definitely  attached  either  to  any 
particular  locality  or  to  any  line  of  industry.    These  migratory  work- 
ers are  continually  moving  from  one  part  of  the  country  to  another 
as  opportunity  for  employment  is  presented. 

The  great  movements  of  these  workers  are  seasonal  in  character, 
as,  for  example,  the  movement  of  harvest  hands  during  the  summer 
and  autumn,  the  movement  to  the  lumber  and  ice  camps  in  the 
winter,  and  the  movement  to  the  construction  camps  in  the  spring 
and  summer.  In  addition  there  are  large,  irregular  movements  of 
laborers  W7hich  are  produced  by  the  depression  in  different  trades 
and  localities,  and  movements  due  to  false  rumors  about  opportuni- 
ties and  to  the  men's  acquired  habits  of  migration. 

2.  The  number  of  these  migratory  workers  seems  to  be  increasing 
not  only  absolutely  but  relatively.    'There  are  no  available  figures  to 
show  this  conclusively,  but  it  is  the  general  opinion  of  students  of 
the  subject  and  of  the  migratory  workers  themselves  that  a  rapid  in- 
crease in  their  number  is  taking  place. 

3.  A   considerable   proportion   of  these   migratory   workers    are, 
unquestionably^  led  to  adopt  this  kind  of  a  life  by  reason  of  per- 
sonal characteristics  or  weaknesses,  and  these  personal  weaknesses 
are   accentuated  rather  than   diminished   by  the  conditions  under 
which  they  live  and  work.     Nevertheless,  even  if  the  migratory 
workers  wrere  all  men  of  the  highest  character  and  reliability,  there 
would  still  be  a  demand  from  our  industries  for  the  movement  of 
the  population  in  almost  as  great  numbers  as  at  present,  in  order 
to  supply  seasonal  demands  and  to  take  care  of  the  fluctuations  of 
business. 

4.  An  increasingly  large  number  of  laborers  go  downward  instead 
cf  upward.     Young  men,  full  of  ambition  and  high  hopes  for  the 
future,  start  their  life  as  workers,  but  meeting  failure  after  failure  in 
establishing  themselves  in  some  trade  or  calling,  their  ambitions  and 
hopes  go  to  pieces,  and  they  gradually  sink  into  the  ranks  of  migra- 
tory and  casual  workers.    Continuing  their  existence  in  these  ranks, 
they  begin  to  lose  self-respect  and  become  "hoboes."     Afterwards, 
acquiring  certain  negative  habits,  as  those  of  drinking  and  begging, 
and  losing  all  self-control,  self-respect,  and  desire  to  work,  they  be- 
come "  down-and-outs  " — tramps,  bums,  vagabonds,  gamblers,  pick- 
pockets, yeggmeu,  and  other  petty  criminals — in  short,  public  para- 
sites, the  number  of  whom  seems  to  be  growing  faster  than  the  gen- 
eral population. 

5.  The  movement  of  these  migratory  workers,  at  the  present  time, 
is  practically  unorganized  and  unregulated.    Workmen  in  large  num- 
bers go  long  distances  in  the  hope  of  finding  employment  on  the  basis 
of  a  mere  rumor,  and  frequently  find  that  there  is' either  no  work  or 
work  for  only  a  few.    At  the  same  time  the  demand  for  labor  in  a 

f~:ven  locality  or  industry  remains  unfilled,  because  the  workers  have 
iled  to  hear  of  the  opportunity.  In  fact,  a  large  part  of  the  move- 
ent  of  migratory  workers  at  present  is  determined  not  by  the  de- 
ands  of  industry  for  labor,  but  by  the  necessity  to  search  for  work. 


vs 

i 


102  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

To  illustrate:  A  man  finds  himself  out  of  work  in  a  given  locality 
because  of  the  termination  of  the  busy  season,  because  of  business 
depression,  or  because  of  his  personal  discharge;  he  is  unable  to  se- 
cure employment  in  the  locality,  and  he  has  no  information  regard- 
ing opportunity  for  work  elsewhere.  If  he  remains  in  the  locality- 
he  is  almost  certain  to  be  arrested  as  a  vagrant.  His  only  recourse 
is  to  start  moving,  and  the  direction  of  the  movement  is  usually  de- 
termined by  chance. 

6.  The  attempts  to  regulate  the  movements  of  migratory  workers 
by   local   organizations   have,   without   exception,   proved    failures. 
This  must  necessarily  be  true  no  matter  how  well  planned  or  well 
managed  such  local  organizations  may  be. 

7.  The  problem  can  not  be  handled  except  on  a  national  scale  and 
by  methods  and  machinery  which  are  proportioned  to  the  enormous 
size  and  complexity  of  the  problem. 

The  basic  industries  of  the  county,  including  agriculture  and 
railroad  construction  work,  are  absolutely  dependent  upon  these 
migratory  workers. 

8.  The  conditions  under  which  migratory  workers  live,  both  in  the 
cities  and  at  their  places  of  employment,  are  such  as  to  inevitably 
weaken  their  character  and  physique,  to  make  them  carriers  of  dis- 
ease, and  to  create  in  them  a  habit  of  unsteadiness  and  migration. 

The  provisions  for  housing  and  feeding  workers  in  the  labor 
camps  are  subject  to  severe  criticism,  while  the  lodging  houses  in 
the  large  cities  are  even  worse,  especially  from  the  viewpoint  of 
morals.  One  season  spent  in  a  city  lodging  house  is  generally  suffi- 
cient to  weaken  the  physique  and  destroy  the  moral  fiber  of  even 
the  strongest  man.  Numerous  instances  of  the  spread  of  dangerous 
diseases  by  migratory  workers  also  have  been  brought  to  the  notice 
of  the  commission. 

9.  The  available  information  indicates  clearly  that  even  the  most 
perfect  distribution  of  workers,  in  accordance  with  the  opportunities 
afforded  at  present  by  American  industries,  will  still  leave  enormous 
numbers  unemployed  during  certain  seasons  of  the  year  and  during 
periods  of  industrial  depression. 

10.  The  congregation  of  large  numbers  of  migratory  workers  in 
large  cities  during  the  winter  should  be  avoided,  if  possible,  not  only 
because  they  are  an  unjust  burden  upon  the  cities  but  because  of  the 
degenerating  effects  of  city  life  during  long  periods  of  idleness. 

11.  The  movement  of  migratory  and  seasonal  workers  is  caused 
chiefly  by  the  seasonal  demand  of  industries  and  by  the  men's  search 
for  work,  and,  to  a  degree,  by  their  aimless  desire  to  move  about. 
The  conditions  of  their  transportation  have  become  grave.    Millions 
of  men  annually  have  to,  and  are  allowed  to,  resort  to  such  a  method 
of  movement  as  stealing  rides  on  the  railways.     This  method  of 
transportation  results  in  the  demoralization  and  casualization  of 
workers,  in  their  congestion  in  industrial  and  railway  centers,  in 
waste  of  their  time  and  energy,  in  frequent  bodily  injuries  and 
numerous  fatal  accidents  and  homicides  annually,  while,  at  the  same 
time,  it  serves  but  poorly  the  industrial  demand  for  help. 

12.  When  the  workers  return  to  the  city,  from  labor  camps,  for 
instance,  either  to  rest  or  to  spend  the  time  between  seasons,  they  not 
only  meet  the  unhealthy  and  demoralizing  influence  of  cheap  lodging 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  103 

houses,  saloons,  houses  of  prostitution,  and  other  similar  establish- 
ments in  the  slums,  but  they  fall  easy  prey  to  gamblers,  small  private 
bankers,  and  all  sorts  of  parasites.  As  a  result,  what  earnings  they 
have  left  after  deduction  of  their  living  expenses  at  work  places 
rapidly  disappear,  no  matter  how  large  these  earnings  may  be. 

The  principal  recommendations  for  dealing  with  the  problem  of 
migratory  workers  are  outlined  under  the  head  of  unemployment. 
In  this  immediate  connection,  however,  it  seems  desirable  to  suggest 
three  necessary  measures: 

1.  The  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  should  be  directed  by 
Congress  to  investigate  and  report  the  most  feasible  plan  of  pro- 
viding for  the  transportation  of  workers  at  the  lowest  reasonable 
rates  and,  at  the  same  time,  measures  necessary  to  eliminate  the 
stealing  of  rides  on  railways. 

If  special  transportation  rates  for  workers  are  provided,  tickets 
may  be  issued  only  to  those  who  secure  employment  through  public 
employment  exchanges. 

2.  The  establishment  by  States,  municipalities  and,  through  the 
Department  of  Labor,  the  Federal  Government,  of  sanitary  work- 
ingmen's  hotels  in  which  the  prices  for  accommodation  shall  be  ad- 
justed to  the  cost  of  operation.     If  such  workingmen's  hotels  are 
established,   the   Post   Office   Department   should   establish   branch 
postal  savings  banks  in  connection  therewith. 

3.  The  establishment  by  the  municipal,  State,  and  Federal  Gov- 
ernments of  colonies  or  farms  for  "  down  and  outs,"  in  order  to 
rehabilitate  them  by  means  of  proper  food,  regular  habits  of  living, 
and  regular  work  that  will  train  them  for  lives  of  usefulness.    Such 
colonies  should  provide  for  hospital  treatment  of  cases  which  re- 
quire it. 

XI.  UNEMPLOYMENT. 

The  extent  and  character  of  unemployment  has  been  briefly  pre- 
sented in  a  previous  section,  but  the  discussion  there  dealt  only 
with  the  larger  aspects  of  the  situation  in  general  terms.  It  re- 
mains to  present  at  this  point,  in  summary  fashion,  the  ^  findings 
which  have  resulted  from  the  extensive  investigations  which  have 
been  conducted  for  the  commission,  principally  under  the  direction 
of  Dr.  William  M.  Leiserson,  together  with  certain  specific  recom- 
mendations relating  to  the  organization  of  the  labor  market  and  the 
regularization  of  employment. 

EXTENT  AND   CHARACTER   OF  UNEMPLOYMENT. 

1.  Wage  earners  in  the  principal  manufacturing  and  mining  in- 
dustries in  the  United  States  lose  on  the  average  from  one-fifth  to 
one-fourth  of  the  working  time  during  the  normal  year. 

This  is  the  conclusion  indicated  by  an  examination  of  practically 
all  of  the  published  material,  and  of  the  hearings  of  the  commission, 
relating  to  loss  of  time,  irregularity  of  employment,  and  unem- 
ployment. 

2.  Excluding  the  extremely  seasonal  industries,  such  as  canning, 
harvesting,   lumber   cutting   and   logging,   which   operate   normally 
only  a  part  of  the  year,  the  amount  of  lost  working  time  varies 


104  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

greatly  for  workers  in  different  industries  and  in  different  occu- 
pations and  trades.  Loss  of  time  appears  to  be  greatest  in  bitumin- 
ous coal  mining,  iron  and  steel  manufacturing,  leather,  woolen  and 
worsted  clothing,  slaughtering  and  meat  packing,  and  in  other  in- 
dustries where  the  proportion  of  unskilled  labor  is  large. 

3.  It  has  been  found  that  the  lowest-paid  worker  is  subject  to  the 
greatest  loss  in  working  time,  not  simply  because  he  is  unskilled  but 
also  because  he  is  poorly  nourished  and  weakened  by  the  effects  of 
unfavorable  conditions  of  living  and,  in  many  instances,  by  unbear- 
ably severe  conditions  of  work. 

The  tendency  in  the  evolution  of  modern  industry  toward  the  em- 
ployment of  a  larger  proportion  of  unskilled  labor,  as  well  as  the 
fact  that  many  industries  have  come  into  existence  because  of  the 
availability  of  a  supply  of  casual  laborers  and  of  woman  and  child 
workers  who  are  willing  to  work  for  less  than  subsistence  wages, 
points  to  a  greater  degree  of  irregularity  of  employment,  unemploy- 
ment, and  less  of  working  time,  than  ever  before. 

4-.  The  actual  number  or  proportion  of  workers  at  any  given  time 
who  are  unable  to  work  can  not  be  estimated,  because  of  the  lack  of 
adequate  data  in  this  country.  Recent  investigations  by  Federal 
authorities  and  the  statements  of  competent  authorities  before  the 
commission,  however,  prove  beyond  doubt  that  the  number  of  unem- 
ployed persons  even  in  normal  times  is  appallingly  great.  The  sta- 
tistics of  highly  organized  trades  show  that  even  in  times  of  greatest 
industrial  activity  there  is  a  considerable  percentage,  ranging  from, 
7  to  15  per  cent  of  all  of  the  members  of  unions  in  different  trades 
and  industries,  of  workers  who  are  unemployed  during  the  year.  In 
any  }rear  the  unemployed  who  congregate  in  the  large  cities  alone 
during  the  winter  months  number  several  hundred  thousand,  while 
in  years  of  industrial  depression  the  number  of  unemployed  in  the 
entire  country  is  at  least  three  million. 

5.  The  loss  in  working  time  is  of  two  principal  classes:  Lack  of 
work  and  sickness.    Lack  of  work,  which  may  mean  the  inability  of 
the  worker  to  find  employment  as  well  as  the  absence  of  a  demand 
for  labor  of  any  particular  kind  or  even  of  all  kinds,  either  in  a 
locality  or  section  or  in  the  country  as  a  whole,  accounts  for  approxi- 
mately two-thirds  of  the  average  worker's  loss  of  time  at  work, 
according  to  the  available  data  on  this  point ;  ill  health,  according  to 
several  intensive  investigations  of  wage  wrorkers  and  their  families 
and  the  examination  of  the  sick  records  of  nearly  a  million  wage 
earners  in  this  country,  accounts  for  approximately  one-fourth  of 
the  loss  in  working  time.    Strikes  appear  to  be  the  cause  of  less  than 
two  per  cent  of  the  loss  in  working  time,  and  accidents  are  the  cause 
in  about  the  same  proportion. 

6.  In  addition  to  the  two  basic  causes  of  unemployment — unjust 
distribution  of  income  and  land  monopolization — which  were  ana- 
lyzed in  detail  in  an  earlier  section  of  the  report,  the  following 
causes  demand  attention: 

(a)  Evolutionary  changes  in  industry  and  in  social  habits  and 
movements  which  affect  the  character  and  the  extent  of  the  demand 
for  labor  as  well  as  the  character  and  the  quantity  of  the  supply  of 
labor.  These  include  changes  in  industrial  structure  and  methods — 
such  as  the  increase  or  decrease  in  the  demand  for  labor  in  certain 
industries  and  localities,  the  introduction  of  machinery  and  new 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  105 

processes,  and  the  changes  in  the  character  of  the  demand  for  labor — 
and  changes  in  the  organization  of  industry.  The  character  and 
quantity  of  the  supply  of  labor  have  been  affected  by  immigration 
and  by  the  entrance  into  industry  of  women  workers,  both  of  which 
factors  have  caused  an  increase  in  the  supply  of  cheap  and  unskilled 
labor.  To  some  extent,  however,  the  labor  supply  is  fluid  because 
of  the  ease  with  which  considerable  proportions  of  immigrants  can 
withdraw  from  the  labor  market  by  returning  to  their  homes  in 
times  of  industrial  inactivity. 

(b)  Variations  in  the  demand  for  labor  due  to  fluctuations  and 
irregularities  in  industry.    Industrial  fluctuations  may  be  classed  as 
cyclical  and  seasonal.    Cyclical  fluctuations  result  from  business  de- 
pressions and  at  times  double  the  amount  of  loss  of  time  during  a 
year,  which  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  the  railroads  employed 
236,000  fewer  men  in  1908  than  in  1907.    Seasonal  fluctuations  may 
either  be  inappreciable,  as  in  municipal  utilities,  or  may  displace 
nearly  the  entire  labor  force.    The  seasonal  fluctuations  in  the  can- 
ning industry  in  California,  for  example,  involve  nearly  nine-tenths 
of  all  the  workers;  in  logging  camps,  which  depend  upon  the  snow, 
operations  are  practically  suspended  in  summer;  while  in  the  brick 
and  tile  industry  only  36.5  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  employees 
are  retained  during  the  dull  season.    Irregularities  in  the  conduct  of 
industry  and  in  the  method  of  employing  labor  are  evident  in  dock 
work,  in  the  unskilled  work  in  iron  and  steel,  and  in  slaughtering 
and  meat  packing;  in  the  competitive  conditions  in  industries  which 
force  employers  to  cut  labor  cost  down  to  the  utmost  and  to  close 
down  in  order  to  save  operating  expenses;  in  speculative  practices 
which  result  in  the  piling  up  of  orders  and  alternate  periods  of  rush 
production  and  inactivity ;  in  loss  of  time  due  to  inefficient  manage- 
ment within  plants.     In  some  cases  it  has  been  charged  although 
without  definite  proof,  that  irregularity  of  employment  is  due  to  a 
deliberate  policy  of  employers  in  order  to  lessen  the  chance  of  organ- 
ized movement,  as  well  as  to  keep  the  level  of  wages  down  in  un- 
skilled occupations  by  continually  hiring  new  individuals, 

(c)  Conditions  determining  the  worker's  ability  to  grasp  or  retain 
the  opportunity  to  be  employed  which  industry  offers.    Among  these 
conditions  are  ill  health,  old  age,  deficiencies  in  industrial  training, 
lack  of  facilities  by  which  the  worker  and  the  job  can  be  brought 
together,  factors  causing  immobility  in  the  labor  supply  and  its  in- 
ability to  adjust  itself  to  changes  in  the  character  of  the  demand  for 
labor,  and  those  personal  factors,  such  as  dishonesty,  laziness,  intem- 
perance, irregularity,  shiftlessness  and  stupidity,  which   are  com- 
monly included  under  the  term  "  deficiencies  of  character."    By  no 
means  are  all  of  these  conditions  under  the  control  of  the  worker; 
in  fact,  the  further  investigation  goes  the  greater  appears  the  re- 
sponsibility which  society  and  the  employer  bear  for  the  conditions 
that  determine  the  worker's  ability  to  retain  whatever  employment 
industry  is  able  to  offer  regularly. 

7.  The  effects  of  the  loss  in  working  time  and  the  attendant 
irregularity  of  employment  may  be  summed  up  in  the  term  "the 
workers'  economic  insecurity."  Specifically  the  effects,  as  shown  by 
study  of  the  results  of  various  investigations  and  by  testimony 
jfore  the  commission,  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 


106  KEPOET  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

(a)  Actual  loss  of  earnings,  which  in  turn  results  in  the  necessity 
for  the  supplementing  of  family  income  by  the  earnings  of  women 
and  children,  and  by  payments  from  boarders  and  lodgers  whose 
presence  is  inimical  to  family  life. 

(b)  The  depression  of  the  wage  level,  in  some  instances,  and  the 
preventing  of  higher  wages. 

(c)  Waste  in  expenditure,  due  to  irregularity  of  family  income. 

(d)  Deleterious  effects  upon  the  worker,  such  as  demoralization, 
worry,  loss  of  skill,  irregularity  of  habits,  etc. 

(e)  The  gradual  loss  of  economic  status  by   workers  who   are 
thrown  out  of  employment  and  the  inevitable  drift  of  a  large  propor- 
tion into  the  class  ordinarily  known  as  "  casual  laborers,"  the  con- 
stant recruiting  of  the  large  army  of  dependents  and  delinquents 
who  compose  the  unemployables,  and  the  general  loss  of  national 
efficiency  that  so  great  a  number  of  incapable  citizens  must  entail. 

{/)  The  existence  of  a  supply  of  casual  laborers  and  irregularly 
employed  women  and  children,  upon  which  parasitic  industries,  un- 
able to  exist  unless  they  pay  wages  below  the  standard  of  decent 
subsistence,  are  called  into  being. 

EXISTING  CONDITIONS  OF  EMPLOYMENT. 

8.  In  addition  to  the  large  variations  which  affect  entire  indus- 
tries, there  is  an  ever  present  and  equally  difficult  problem  in  the 
unsteadiness  of  employment.  The  existing  methods  of  hiring  and 
discharging  employees,  and  the  constant  changing  of  positions  by 
th«  workers  themselves,  divide  the  work  among  a  much  larger  num- 
ber of  employees  than  are  actually  needed.  Instead  of  one  person 
being  employed  where  there  is  work  for  but  one,  several  are  hired 
during  the  course  of  the  year  to  occupy  the  same  position.  Thus  an 
investigation  of  the  cloak  and  suit  industry  of  New  York  showed 
that  the  maximum  number  of  employees  in  16  occupations  during 
any  week  of  the  year  was  1,952.  Actually,  however,  the  pay  rolls 
showed  that  4,000  people  were  employed  in  these  occupations.  This 
"  turnover  "  of  the  labor  force,  the  constant  shifting  from  job  to  job, 
the  dropping  and  hiring  of  men,  is  peculiar  to  no  industry.  It  is 
found  everywhere,  among  women  as  well  as  men,  and  it  is  a  kind  of 
irregularity  of  employment  that  is  a  constant  factor.  A  large  mail- 
order house  which  began  the  year  with  about  10,500  employees  and 
ended  with  about  the  same  number,  engaged  during  that  year  8,841 
people  in  order  to  maintain  their  force.  A  manufacturing  estab- 
lishment employing  in  1913  an  average  of  7,200  people,  hired  6,980 
during  that  year.  An  automobile  factory  was  reported  in  1912  to 
have  hired  21,000  employees  in  order  to  maintain  an  operating  force 
of  10,000.  A  large  steel  plant  employing  about  15,000  men  hires 
normally  an  equal  number  to  maintain  that  force.  During  the  years 
when  it  wanted  to  increase  the  force  three  and  one-half  times  as  many 
were  hired  as  were  actually  needed  to  make  up  the  increase.  In 
some  lumber  camps  and  sawmills  on  the  Pacific  coast  all  men  are 
discharged  twice  a  year,  in  July  and  December,  and  complete  new 
forces  are  hired  when  work  is  resumed.  In  the  logging  camps  it  is 
customary  to  hire  five  men  in  the  course  of  the  season  to  keep  one 
job  filled. 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  107 

A  manager  of  a  large  electrical  works  made  a  study  of  a  group  of 
representative  factories  (large,  small,  and  medium)  in  the  mechan- 
ical industries  and  found  that  to  increase  their  working  force  by 
8,128  people  in  the  year  1912,  they  actually  hired  44,365  people ;  that 
is  to  say,  five  and  one-half  times  the  number  actually  needed  to  make 
up  the  increase  were  hired  and  36,237  were  dropped  from  the  rolls 
for  one  reason  or  another. 

9.  Detailed  investigations  show  that  a  majority  of  the  employees 
dropped  from  the  pay  rolls  leave  of  their  own  accord.    But  there  is 
no  doubt  that  many  of  them  leave  because  they  were  hired  to  do  work 
for  which  they  were  unfitted;  arid  many  others,  without  actually 
being  discharged,  leave  because  work  is  slack  or  threatens  to  become 
slack.    In  the  lower  paid  and  more  disagreeable  jobs  there  is  almost  a 
constant  shifting  of  employees  because  no  one  works  at  these  jobs 
except  during  those  periods  when  he  is  helpless  and  can  get  no  other 
work.    Whatever  the  reason  is  for  the  men  quitting,  there  is  no  doubt 
that  conditions  of  employment  and  methods  of  hiring  and  discharg- 
ing employees  have  very  much  to  do  with  causing  a  large  "  turnover  " 
of  the  labor  forces.     Those  employers  who  have  given  attention  to 
this  question  of  hiring  and  discharge  have  been  able  to  reduce  the 
"  turnover  "  very  greatly,  and  thus  make  employment  more  steady. 

10.  The  problem  of  unemployment  has  never  received  adequate 
attention,  apparently  because  it  has  been  believed  generally  that  it 
affected  only  a  small  part  of  the  working  population.    Such  a  belief 
is  absolutely  false.  Not  only  is  practically  every  wage  earner  in  con- 
stant dread  of  unemployment,  but  there  are  few  who  do  not  suffer 
bitterly  many  times  in  their  career  because  they  are  unable  to  get 
work.    Every  year  from  15,000  to  18,000  business  enterprises  fail  and 
turn  their  employees  out;  every  year  new  machinery  and  improved 
processes  displace  thousands ;  cold  weather  and  wet  weather  and  hot 
weather  stop  operations  and  force  wage-earners  into  idleness;  and 
where  there  are  not  these  natural  causes  there  are  the  customs  and 
habits  and  holiday  rushes  which  result  in  overwork  followed  by 
underemployment.     Employers  change  the  locations  of  their  plants 
and  conditions  of  credit  and  currency  cause  depressions  and  shut- 
downs and  short-time  and  part-time  work.    Constantly  the  methods 
of  hiring  and  discharging  employees  are  causing  people  to  be  dropped 
from  the  pay  rolls.    All  these  facts  in  connection  with  the  conserva- 
tive figures  of  fluctuation  in  the  amount  of  employment  prove  that 
"  the  unemployed  "  eventually  include  practically  every  wage-earner, 
and  not  alone  a  surplus  portion. 

11.  Practically  all  wage-earners  are  affected  by  the  fluctuations  of 
industry.    To  count  the  number  of  the  unemployed  at  any  given  time 
becomes  almost  impossible,  since  the  number  is  changing  from  day  to 
day.    The  unemployed  of  to-day  are  the  workers  of  to-morrow,  and 
vice  versa. 

The  permanently  unemployed  are  really  people  who  have  dropped 
out  of  the  ranks  of  industry,  broken  down  by  the  unsteadiness  of 
employment  or  other  causes.  Some  are  mentally  defective  or  physi- 
cally incapable  or  both.  Others  are  "  down  and  outs,"  who  have 
lost  the  habit  of  working.  Still  others  live  by  their  wits,  by  begging, 
or  by  crime.  During  the  most  prosperous  times,  when  labor  is  in 
great  demand,  these  same  people  do  not  work.  They  are  "unem- 


108  REPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

ployed"  in  the  same  sense  that  young  children,  the  old,  and  the  sick, 
and  those  who  live  on  incomes  from  investments,  are  unemployed. 
No  amount  of  work  that  might  be  provided  by  public  or  private 
enterprise  would  have  any  appreciable  effect  on  these  unemployables. 
They  need  hospital  or  corrective  treatment.  In  prosperous  times 
they  are  considered  the  subjects  of  such  treatment,  but  in  every 
period  of  industrial  depression  they  stand  out  as  the  most  conspicuous 
element  in  the  "  army  of  the  unemployed." 

The  failure  to  distinguish  these  unemployables  from  those  who  are 
temporarily  out  of  work  on  account  of  a  slack  season  or  the  failure 
of  a  firm  and  those  casual  workers  who  are  employed  for  part  of 
every  week  or  month,  leads  to  hopeless  confusion. 

12.  The  fluctuations  in  business  affect  capital  as  well  as  labor,  but 
the  result  is  entirely  different.    Capital  suffers  the  same  fluctuations 
and  every  industry  has  its  "peak  loads."     The  essential  differences 
are,  first,  that  a  fair  return  on  investments  is  estimated  by  the  year, 
while  for  labor  it  has  become  more  and  more  customary  to  hire  and 
pay  and  discharge  by  the  week,  day,  or  hour,  or  by  the  piece,  and, 
second,  that  wrhile  capital  can  offset  the  fat  years  against  the  lean, 
the  human  beings  who  are  unemployed  can  not,  but  must  starATe  or 
suffer  a  rapid  physical  and  moral  deterioration.    The  result  is  that 
unless  the  wage  earners  are  very  strongly  organized — and  the  vast 
majority  are  not — they  must  bear  the  whole  burden  of  the  waiting 
period  when  they  must  act  as  a  reserve  force  ready  to  meet  the  maxi- 
mum demand  of  the  busy  season.     We  dp  not  consider  policemen 
unemployed  when  they  are  not  arresting  violators  of  the  peace,  and 
we  do  not  consider  firemen  out  of  work  when  they  sit  in  the  fire- 
houses  prepared  to  do  their  duty.     But  for  most  working  people 
industry  is  still  conducted  on  a  sort  of  volunteer  fire  department 
basis.     In  the  busy  seasons  and  prosperous  years  all  are  desirable 
and  useful  citizens.    At  other  times  they  are  useless  and  worthless, 
so  far  as  our  industries  are  concerned.     They  are  turned  adrift  to 
take  care  of  themselves  and  those  dependent  on  them  as  best  they  can. 

EXISTING  AGENCIES  FOR  EMPLOYMENT. 

13.  The  first  step  in  any  intelligent  attempt  to  deal  with  the  prob- 
lem is  the  organization  of  the  labor  market  on  a  systematic  business- 
like and  efficient  basis. 

14.  Labor  exchanges  can  not  create  work  nor  make  the  existing 
irregular  demand  for  labor  steady  the  year  through,  but  they  can, 
if  properly  managed,  remove  the  unnecessary  loss  of  time  which 
workers  now  suffer  in  passing  from  one  job  to  the  next;  they  can 
eliminate  the  numberless  evils  which  now  characterize  private  em- 
ployment offices ;  and  they  can  provide  the  information  and  adminis- 
trative machinery  which  is  essential  to  every  other  step  in  dealing 
with  the  problem. 

15.  The  absurdity  and  waste  wrhich  characterizes  the  existing  sys- 
tem of  marketing  labor  can  best  be  appreciated  by  imagining  the 
condition   which   would  be  produced  if   every   manufacturer   who 
needed  lathes,  drill  presses,  planers,  and  milling  machines  advertised 
for  them  in  the  papers,  and  many  machines  were  sent  to  him,  out 
of  which  he  could  pick  the  few 'he  wanted.     Yet  that  is  exactly 
what  happens   when   machine   hands,   human  beings,   are   wanted; 


a  r» 


TV   J 

£ 


\  0 

: 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  109 

when  the  calls  go  out  for  harvest  hands  or  when  any  other  class  of 
labor  is  advertised  for.  No  one  knows 'how  many  will  answer  the 
advertisement.  Many  more  than  the  number  needed  respond  to  the 
calls.  The  waste  of  time,  energy,  car  fare,  and  railroad  fare  to  get 
to  the  places  is  enormous.  Often  men  quit  positions  in  the  hope  of 
getting  the  alluringly  advertised  work.  Many  employers  do  not  even 
advertise.  They  simply  hang  the  "  Help  wanted  "  sign  at  the  door 
and  depend  on  people  to  walk  the  streets  and  watch  for  these  signs. 

16.  Wherever  systematic  methods  and  intelligent  organization  and 
direction  are  lacking,  there  evils  creep  in  to  add  to  the  chaos.    That 
is  exactly  what  we  find  has  happened  in  the  labor  market.     The 
saloon  becomes  one  of  the  most  important  places  in  the  country  to  get 
information  about  jobs.     Pool  rooms,  cafes,  grocery  stores,  lodging 
houses,   even  street  corners   and   public   parks   become   improvised 
labor  markets.     In  these  places  many  and  strange  abuses  are  met 
with.     Groundless  rumors  send  people  scurrying  over  the  city  and 
the  country  on  a  wild-goose  chase.    One  job  seeker  sells  information 
to  another,  and  quite  often  it  is  false  or  misleading.     Foremen  sell 
real  or  bogus  jobs  under  their  control.     Fees  for  jobs  are  paid  by 
buying  drinks,  and  "  man  catchers  "  pick  up  victims  to  rob  or  abuse. 

17.  Of  all  the  evils,  the  wild  rumors  regarding  available  jobs  are 
the  greatest.    These  evils  are  increased  by  fake  "  want  ads "  in  the 
newspapers,  untruthful  or  innocently  misleading  advertisements  for 
help,  and  new  stories  intended  to  boost  towns  or  industries  or  to 
attract  large  supplies  of  labor.    Investigators  and  men  who  were  sent 
to  answer  "  want  ads  "  found  many  of  these  inserted  by  employment 
agents  who  had  no  jobs  to  offer  but  who  wanted  to  collect  registra- 
tion fees.    Other  advertisements  were  pure  fakes,  inserted  by  "  white 
slavers,"  bogus  real  estate  and  stock  brokers,  selling  agents  of  "  new 
propositions,"  padrones,  and  other  swindlers.    A  study  of  newspaper 
want  advertisements  made  a  few  years  ago  revealed  that  when  times 
are  good  one-fourth  or  more  are  "  fake  ads,"  while  in  hard  times 
more  than  one-half  are  in  this  class, 

18.  Private  enterprise  has  attempted  to  deal  with  the  situation 
through  the  establishment  of  employment  agencies  which  gather 
information  regarding  opportunities  for  employment  and  sell  the 
information  to  work  seekers  and,  under  certain  conditions,  collect 
fees  also  from  employers.    The  number  of  private  employment  agents 
varies  greatly  from  year  to  year,  but  there  must  be  from  3,000  to 

,000  of  these  labor  middlemen  in  the  country. 

Investigations  show,  however,  that  instead  of  relieving  unemploy- 

ent  and  reducing  irregularity,  these  employment  agencies  actually 
serve  to  congest  the  labor  market  and  to  increase  idleness  and  irregu- 
arity  of  employment.  They  are  interested  primarily  in  the  fees  they 

n  earn,  and  if  they  can  earn  more  by  bringing  workers  to  an  already 
vercrowded  city,  they  do  so.  Again,  it  is  an  almost  universal  custom 
mong  private  employment  agents  to  fill  vacancies  by  putting  in  them 

ople  who  are  working  at  other  places.  In  this  way  new  vacancies 
re  created  and  more  fees  can  be  earned. 

19.  They  also  fail  to  meet  the  problem  because  they  are  so  numerous 
and  are  necessarily  competitive.     With  few  exceptions,  there  is  no 
cooperation  among  them.     This  difficulty  is  further  emphasized  by 

he   necessity   of   paying  the   registration   fees   required  by   many 


110  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   OIST  INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

agencies;  obviously  the  laborer  can  not  apply  to  very  many  if  he 
has  to  pay  a  dollar  at  each  one. 

20.  The  fees  which  private  employment  offices  must  charge  are 
barriers  which  prevent  the  proper  flow  of  labor  into  the  channels 
where  it  is  needed  and  are  a  direct  influence  in  keeping  men  idle. 
In  the  summer,  when  employment  is  plentiful,  the  fees  are  as  low 
as  25  cents,  and  men  are  even  referred  to  work  free  of  charge.     But 
this  must  necessarily  be  made  up  in  the  winter,  when  work  is  scarce. 
At  such  times,  when  men  need  work  most  badly,  the  private  em- 
ployment offices  put  up  their  fees  and  keep  the  unemployed  from 
going  to  work  until  they  can  pay  $2,  $3,  $5,  and  even  $10  and  more 
for  their  jobs.     This  necessity  of  paying  for  the  privilege  of  going 
to  work,  and  paying  more  the  more  urgently  the  job  is  needed,  not 
only  keeps  people  unnecessarily  unemployed,  but  seems  foreign  to 
the  spirit  of  American  freedom  and  opportunity. 

21.  An    additional    injustice    inevitably    connected    with    labor 
agencies  which  charge  fees  is  that  they  must  place  the  entire  cost 
of  the  service  upon  those  least  able  to  bear  it.    Employment  agents 
say  that  employers  will  not  pay  the  fees ;  hence  they  must  charge  the 
employees.     Among  the  wage  earners,  too,  however,  those  who  are 
least  in  need  and  can  wait  for  work,  pay  the  least  for  jobs  and  even 
get  them  free,  while  those  who  are  most  in  need  make  up  for  all  the 
rest  and  pay  the  highest  fees.    The  weakest  and  poorest  classes  of 
wage  earners  are  therefore  made  to  pay  the  largest  share  for  a  serv- 
ice rendered  to  employers,  to  workers,  and  to  the  public  as  well. 

22.  The  fees  paid  private  employment  agents  in  California  in  the 
license  year  ending  March  31,  1912,  amounted  to  $403,000.     Using 
these  figures  as  a  rough  basis,  the  fees  for  the  country  as  a  whole 
amount  annually  to  $15,000,000.     This  enormous  sum   of   money, 
which  is  being  paid  chiefly  out  of  the  meager  earnings  of  domestic 
servants,  clerks,  and  unskilled  laborers,  would  be  enough  to  support 
a  system  of  public  exchanges  which  would  bring  order  out  of  the 
existing  chaos. 

23.  There  are  many  private  employment  agents  who  try  to  con- 
duct their  business  honestly,  but  they  are  the  exception  rather  than 
the  rule.    The  business  as  a  whole  reeks  with  fraud,  extortion,  and 
flagrant  abuses  of  every  kind.     The  most  common  evils  are  as  fol- 
lows: 

Fees  are  often  charged  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  service  ren- 
dered. We  know  of  cases  where  $5,  $9,  $10,  and  even  $16  apiece 
has  been  paid  for  jobs  at  common  labor.  In  one  city  the  fees  paid 
by  scrubwomen  is  at  the  rate  of  $24  a  year  for  their  poorly  paid 
work.  Then  there  is  discrimination  in  the  charges  made  for  the 
same  jobs.  Often,  too,  men  are  sent  a  long  distance,  made  to  pay 
fees  and  transportation,  only  to  find  that  no  one  at  that  place  or- 
dered men  from  the  employment  agent.  A  most  pernicious  prac- 
tice is  the  collusion  with  foremen  or  superintendents  by  which  the 
employment  agent  "splits  fees"  with  them.  That  is,  the  foreman 
agrees  to  hire  men  of  a  certain  employment  agent  on  condition  that 
one- fourth  or  one-half  of  every  lee  collected  from  men  whom  he 
hires  be  given  to  him.  This  leads  the  foreman  to  discharge  men 
constantly  in  order  to  have  more  men  hired  through  the  agent  and 
more  fees  collected.  It  develops  the"  "  three-gang "  method  so  uni- 
versally complained  of  by  railroad  and  construction  laborers, 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  Ill 


namely,  one  gang  working,  another  coming  to  work  from  the  em- 
ployment agent,  and  a  third  going  back  to  the  city. 

Finally,  there  is  the  most  frequent  abuse — misrepresentation  of 
terms  and  condition  of  employment.  Men  are  told  that  they  will  get 
more  wages  than  are  actually  paid,  or  that  the  work  will  last  longer 
than  it  actually  will,  or  that  there  is  a  boarding  house  when  there 
really  is  an  insanitary  camp,  or  that  the  cost  of  transportation  will 
be  paid,  when  it  is  to  be  deducted  from  the  wages.  They  are  not  told 
of  other  deductions  that  will  be  made  from  wages;  they  are  not 
informed  about  strikes  that  may  be  on  at  the  places  to  which  they 
are  sent,  nor  about  other  important  facts  which  they  ought  to  know. 
These  misrepresentations,  it  must  be  said,  are  often  as  much  the  fault 
of  the  employer  as  of  the  labor  agent.  Also  the  employer  will  place 
his  call  for  help  with  several  agents,  and  each  will  send  enough  to 
fill  the  whole  order,  causing  many  to  find  no  jobs.  Labor  agents  and 
laborers  alike  are  guilty  of  the  misuse  of  free  transportation  fur- 
nished by  employers  to  prospective  help.  And  it  is  true  also  that 
many  applicants  perpetrate  frauds  on  the  labor  agents  themselves, 
as,  for  example,  causing  them  to  return  fees  when  positions  actually 
were  secured.  This  is  the  result  of  the  general  feeling  that  the  whole 
system  of  paying  fees  for  jobs  is  unjust;  and  if  they  must  pay  in 
order  to  get  work,  then  any  attempt  to  get  the  fee  back  is  justifiable. 

24.  Attempts  to  remove  these  abuses  by  regulation  have  been  made 
in  31  States,  but  with  few  exceptions  they  have  proved  futile,  and  at 
most  they  have  served  only  to  promote  a  higher  standard  of  honesty 
in  the  business  and  have  not  removed  the  other  abuses  which  are 
inherent  in  the  system.    Where  the  States  and  cities  have  spent  much 
money  for  inspectors  and  complaint  adjusters  there  has  been  con- 
siderable improvement  in  the  methods  of  private  employment  agen- 
cies, but  most  of  the  officers  in  charge  of  this  regulation  testify  that 
the  abuses  are  in  "  the  nature  of  the  business "  and  never  can  be 
entirely   eliminated.     They  therefore   favor   the  total   abolition   of 
private  labor  agencies.     This  is  also  the  common  opinion  among 
working  people,  and  in  several  States  attempts  have  already  been 
made  to  accomplish  this  by  law. 

25.  It  is  significant  that  trade  union  members  are  practically  never 
found  among  the  applicants  for  charity  during  periods  of  unemploy- 
ment.   They  may  be  unemployed,  but  they  are  in  some  way  cared  for, 
either  by  having  work  found  for  them  or  by  systematic  or  voluntary 
relief.     Within  each  strongly  organized  trade,  it  may  be  said,  the 
problem  of  connecting  man  and  job  is  cared  for  fairly  well.     The 
union  headquarters  is  the  most  common  labor  market  for  organized 
workers.    Ordinarily,  no  systematic  employment  business  is  done,  but 
many  unions  have  out-of-work  books  in  which  the  unemployed  write 
their  names,  and  it  is  part  of  the  duties  of  the  business  agent  of  every 
union  to  be  on  the  lookout  for  vacancies  and  to  notify  members  seek- 
ing employment  of  the  opportunities.    Many  unions  also  have  travel- 
ing benefits  to  assist  members  in  going  from  place  to  place.     But 
when  it  comes  to  placing  men  outside  of  their  own  trades  the  unions 
are  not  successful  as  employment  offices. 

Partly  for  this  reason  and  partly  for  the  reason  that  only  a  small 
part  of  the  wage  earners  are  in  strongly  organized  trades,  the  trade 
unions  occupy  a  minor  place  in  the  general  labor  market. 


112  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

26.  Within  recent  years  associations  of  employers  have  established 
employment  offices  in  all  the  important  cities  of  the  country.     The 
movement  is  spreading  very  rapidly,  and  there  is  hardly  an  important 
industrial  center  in  the  country  that  has  not  a  bureau  of  this  kind. 
These  offices  are  supported  out  of  the  funds  of  the  employers'  associa- 
tions, and  their  services  are  free  to  working  people.    Most  of  them, 
however,  do  a  very  small  employment  business. 

Almost  all  of  these  offices  owe  their  origin  to  the  movement  among 
employers  to  establish  and  maintain  the  so-called  "  open  shop  "  or 
the  "  antiunion  shop."  Since  their  establishment,  employers  have 
discovered  that  such  offices  are  very  useful  also  in  creating  central 
clearing  houses  for  labor,  "  constituting  the  shortest  cut  between 
supply  and  demand."  This,  however,  is  not  their  primary  purpose, 
for  nowhere  have  they  extended  their  operations  to  include  common 
laborers,  who  suffer  most  from  disorganization  of  the  labor  market. 
These  bureaus  are  merely  divisions  of  the  regular  business  of  the 
employers'  associations,  and  one  of  the  main  purposes  of  these  as- 
sociations is  to  prevent  the  organization  of  their  shops  by  trade- 
unions.  The  employment  bureaus  are  established  and  -maintained  to 
further  this  purpose. 

The  empk^ment  bureaus  maintained  by  employers'  associations, 
therefore,  not  only  are  of  no  practical  value  as  a  means  of  solving 
the  problem  of  unemployment,  but,  on  the  contrary,  because  they  are 
organized  primarily  to  prevent  the  employment  of  skilled  workmen 
who  are  distasteful  to  their  members,  are  actual  barriers  to  the  free 
movement  of  labor. 

27.  In  every  city  there  are  religious  and  charitable  organizations 
which  attempt  to  find  work  for  destitute  persons.     In  connection 
with  the  charity  societies  of  the  larger  cities,  regular  employment 
agencies  are  maintained,  but  very  little  business,  comparatively,  is 
done  by  these  officers.    Working  people  do  not  go  to  them,  and  em- 
ployers do  not  call  for  employees  at  such  offices,  except  occasionally 
for  men  to  do  odd  jobs,  or  when  they  agree  to  place  someone  as  a 
favor  to  the  charity  workers.    The  main  work  of  the  charitable  em- 
ployment offices  is  to  find  odd  jobs  for  the  unemployed  who  can  not 
hold  ordinary  positions.    They  also  help  people  handicapped  by  age, 
illness,  or  other  physical  or  mental  defect.    Their  primary  purpose  is 
charity.    They  may  be  said  to  have  no  effect  whatever  on  employ- 
ment conditions  for  able-bodied  workers. 

Until  the  State  is  ready  and  able  to  take  proper  care  of  its  handi- 
capped, diseased,  and  subnormal  members,  the  charitable  employ- 
ment agencies  and  institutions  will  continue  to  be  necessary,  because 
labor  exchanges  properly  organized  on  a  business  basis,  whether  by 
public  or  by  private  enterprise,  can  not  deal  with  the  handicapped 
classes  of  labor.  Those  who  are  physically  or  mentally  unfit  to  hold 
positions  should  be  sent  to  the  places  where  they  will  get  the  relief 
they  need  and  not  to  work  which  they  would  quit  or  from  which  they 
would  be  dismissed  in  a  few  days. 

PUBLIC   EMPLOYMENT  AGENCIES. 

28.  In  1890  Ohio  created  the  first  public  employment  offices  in  this 
country.     Since  that  time,  such  offices  have  been  established  in  23 
other  States,  and  they  are  now  in  operation  in  about  80  cities.    Most 


I 


EEPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   EELATIONS.  113 


of  them  were  created  by  State  laws ;  a  few  are  municipal  enterprises. 
They  represent  an  expense  to -the  States  and  cities  of  about  $300,000 
annually,  and,  according  to  their  reports,  they  fill  about  500,000  posi- 
tions a  year. 

29.  As  a  result  of  a  very  extensive  investigation  it  has  been  found 
that  the  public  employment  offices  of  the  United  States,  as  a  whole, 
are  issuing  inaccurate  statistics.    They  are  slipshod  in  recording  in- 
formation about  employers  and  employees.    They  cater  too  much  to 
casual  laborers  and  "  down-and-outs,"  thus  driving  away  the  better 
class  of  workers.     Too  many  are  poorly  housed,  with  insufficient 
lighting  and  ventilation.    They  fail  to  supplant  private  agencies  or 
to  lessen  their  exploitation  of  workers.     They  do  not  exchange  in- 
formation even  when  closely  located.    They  fail  to  bring  themselves 
to  public  attention,  either  by  advertising  or  otherwise,  and  they  have 
failed  to  arouse  public  interest  in  their  work.    This  is  true  of  public 
employment  offices  taken  as  a  whole,  but  there  are  some  very  bright 
exceptions.     During  the  last  few  years,  also,  the  labor  departments 
have  been  devoting  more  attention  to  the  work  of  public  employment 
offices,  and  many  improvements  have  resulted  which  show  that  the 
principles  underlying  the  offices  are  sound,  but  that  they  have  not 
been  properly  carried  out. 

30.  The  reasons  for  the  failure  of  most  of  the  public  employment 
offices  are: 

First.  The  inefficiency  and  lack  of  training  of  the  officials  and 
clerks  who  operate  the  agencies.  A  public  employment  office  must 
build  up  its  work  by  soliciting  business  and  giving  service  that  is  felt 
to  be  valuable ;  otherwise  little  attention  will  be  paid  to  it.  For  this 
purpose  men  of  judgment  and  experience  are  necessary  to  carry  on 
the  work.  It  is  a  technical  business  requiring  not  a  mere  shuffling  of 
applications  but  careful  selection  of  applicants  and  thorough  under- 
standing of  the  requirements  of  positions  to  which  they  are  to  be  sent. 

Second.  The  offices  have  generally  .been  regarded  as  political  spoilsf 
with  a  consequent  change  of  personnel  after  each  election. 

Third.  The  salaries  have  been  inadequate  to  attract  competent  men. 

Fourth.  The  public  employment  offices  have  been  the  objects  of 
suspicion,  if  not  of  actual  opposition,  by  employers  and  organized 
labor  as  well.  Union  men  have  feared  that  the  offices  might  be  used 
as  strike-breaking  agencies,  or  to  lower  wage  rates.  Employers,  on 
the  other  hand,  have  feared  that  the  offices  might  be  used  to  fill  their 
shops  with  union  men  and  labor  agitators. 

The  activities  of  the  Federal  Department  of  Labor  in  connection 
with  unemployment  have  been  chiefly  attempts  to  utilize  the  exist- 
ing machinery  of  the  Bureau  of  Immigration  and  the  Post  Office 
Department  for  receiving  the  applications  of  men  out  of  work,  col- 
lecting information  regarding  opportunities  for  employment,  and  as 
far  as  possible  referring  idle  men  to  opportunities  for  work.  For  this 
purpose  the  country  has  been  divided  into  18  zones,  with  a  central 
office  in  each,  which  is  in  charge  of  an  immigrant  inspector.  Appli- 
cations from  employers  and  employees  are  received  either  directly 
or  through  a  special  arrangement  with  the  Post  Office  Department. 

The  statutory  authority  for  the  establishment  of  the  system  is 
contained  in  the  act  of  1907,  creating  a  division  of  information  in 
the  Bureau  of  Immigration,  broadened  in  scope  by  the  act  creating 

38819°— 16 8 


114  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

the  Department  of  Labor.  The  opportunity  to  establish  the  system 
arose  through  the  great  decrease  in  immigration,  which  left  a  large 
part  of  the  resources  of  the  Bureau  of  Immigration  available  for 
this  purpose.  The  system  was  established  only  in  March,  1915,  and 
it  can  not  properly  be  judged  on  the  results  of  this  very  limited 
experience.  The  most  promising  feature  of  the  entire  system  is  the 
arrangement  which  has  been  made  for  close  cooperation  with  the 
National  Farm  Labor  Exchange,  which  has  been  organized  by  the 
labor  commissioners  of  the  States  in  the  wheat  belt.  No  such  close 
cooperation  has  yet  been  established  with  any  other  public  employ- 
ment system  and  no  effort  has  been  made  to  regulate  the  abuses  of 
the  private  exchanges  which  do  business  in  two  or  more  States. 

The  following  observations  regarding  the  present  scheme  of  the 
Department  of  Labor  seem  to  be  proper : 

(a)  The  system  of  zones  and  central  offices  is  sound  and  affords  a 
suitable  framework  for  the  development  of  the  system. 

( b )  The  operation  of  the  system  directly  by  the  Bureau  of  Immi- 
gration is  likely  to  deter  a  great  many  workmen  from  utilizing  it, 
through  a  belief  that  it  is  intended  only  for  immigrants. 

(c)  The  employers  have  generally  assumed  an  attitude  of  suspi- 
cion toward  the  Department  of  Labor,  which  forms  a  great  handicap. 

(d)  The  system  does  not  yet  provide  for  sufficiently  close  coopera- 
tion with  the  State  and  municipal  employment  offices. 

(e)  The  system  of  registering  applications  does  not  provide  for 
the  close  personal  contact  which  is  necessary  to  ascertain  the  require- 
ments of  the  employer  or  to  select  the  workman  who  is  capable  of 
filling  such  requirements.     The  success  of  every  employment  office 
depends  upon  this  personal  contact. 

(/)  The  qualifications  demanded  in  the  examination  of  immigrant 
inspectors  are  not  designed  to  secure  men  who  are  properly  qualified 
to  operate  public  employment  offices. 

(g)  A.  national  employment  .system  should  not  have  to  depend 
upon  the  exigencies  of  the  general  immigration  service. 

(h)  The  system  can  not  attain  efficiency  until  provision  is  made 
for  the  regulation  of  private  agencies  which  operate  in  two  or  more 
States. 

(*)  The  successful  operation  of  a  national  employment  system  can 
not  be  attained  until  provision  is  made  for  some  form  of  cheap  trans- 
portation, which  will  assure  the  prompt  arrival  of  workers  at  points 
where  they  are  needed  and  eliminate  the  present  wasteful,  dangerous, 
and  demoralizing  practice  of  workers  riding  on  freight  trains. 

(j)  In  order  to  secure  the  confidence  of  both  capital  and  labor,  the 
creation  of  national  and  local  advisory  committees  consisting  of 
employers  and  employees  is  advisable.  Such  committees  would  also 
be  of  great  assistance  through  their  knowledge  of  the  local  industrial 
conditions. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  enactment  of  appropriate  legislation  modifying  the  title 
of  the  Bureau  of  Immigration  to  "  Bureau  of  Immigration  and 
Employment "  and  providing  the  statutory  authority  and  appropri- 
ations necessary  for — 

(a)  The  establishment  of  a  national  employment  system,  under 
the  Department  of  Labor,  with  a  staff  of  well  paid  and  specially 
qualified  officials  in  the  main  offices  at  least. 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  115 

(b)  The  licensing,  regulation,  and  supervision  of  all  private  em- 
ployment agencies  doing  an  interstate  business. 

(c)  The  investigation  and  preparation  of  plans  for  the  regulariza- 
tion  of  employment,  the  decasualization  of  labor,  the  utilization  of 
public  work  to  fill  in  periods  of  business  depression,  insurance  against 
unemployment  in  such  trades  and  industries  as  may  seem  desirable, 
and  other  measures  designed  to  promote  regularity  and  steadiness  of 
employment. 

2.  The  immediate  creation  of  a  special  board  made  up  of  the  prop- 
erly qualified  officials  from  the  Departments  of  Agriculture,  Com- 
merce, Interior,  and  Labor  and  from  the  Board  of  Army  Engineers 
to  prepare  plans  for  performing  the  largest  possible  amount  of 
public  work  during  the  winter,  and  to  devise  a  program  for  the 
future  for  performing  during  periods  of  depression  such  public  work 
as  road  building,  construction  of  public  buildings,  reforestation,  irri- 
gation, and  drainage  of  swamps.  The  success  attending  the  construc- 
tion of  the  Panama  Canal  indicates  the  enormous  national  construc- 
tion works  which  might  be  done  to  the  advantage  of  the  entire 
Nation  during  such  periods  of  depression.  Similar  boards  or  com- 
missions should  be  established  in  the  various  States  and  munici- 
palities. 

XII.    ORGANIZATION,  METHODS,  AND  POLICIES  OF  TRADE  UNIONS. 

The  investigations  of  the  commission  conducted  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Dr.  George  E.  Barnett,  are  the  basis  of  the  following  conclu- 
sions : 

1.  The  number  of  trade  unionists  relative  to  the  working  popula- 
tion is  steadily  increasing,  although  in  certain  industries,  on  account 
of  the  opposition  of  the  great  corporations  and  hostile  employers' 
associations,  trade  unionism  is  practically  nonexistent.     At  present 
it  may  be  roughly  estimated  that  in  manufacturing,  mining,  trans- 
portation, and  the  building  industries,  if  the  proprietary,   super- 
visory, official,  and  clerical  classes  are  excluded,  25  per  cent  of  the 
workers  21  years  of  age  and  over  are  trade  unionists. 

2.  The  effects  of  trade  unionism  on  wages  are  undoubted.     With- 
out some  form  of  combination  the  wageworkers  can  not  bargain  on 
equal  terms  with  their  employers.    During  the  past  15  years,  a  period 
of  rapidly  rising  prices,  wages  in  well-organized  trades  have  kept 
pace  with  the  rising  cost  of  living,  in  contrast  to  the  relative  decline 
of  the  purchasing  power  of  the  wages  received  by  labor  generally. 

3.  In  the  well-organized  trades  the  hours  of  labor  have  been  stead- 
ily reduced  until  at  present  eight  hours  is  the  normal  working  day 
for  at  least  one-half  of  American  trade  unionists.     It  is  significant 
of  the  influence  of  trade  unionism  on  the  length  of  the  working  day 
that  it  is  exactly  in  those  trades  in  which  the  trade  unionists  are  a 
relatively  small  part  of  the  total  working  force  that  they  work  long 
hours  relatively  to  other  trade  unionists. 

4.  As  the  unit  of  industry  grows  larger  and  the  natural  relation 
which  exists  between  the  small  employer  and  his  workmen  disap- 
pears, the  opportunity  for  unjustifiable  discharges  and  petty  tyran* 
nies  enlarges.    The  result  is  distrust  and  enmity  among  the  employees. 
The  effective  remedy  is  the  organization  of  the  workers  and^  the 


116  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

establishment  of  a  system  of  trade  boards  in  which  the  workers  are 
equally  represented  with  power  to  deal  with  such  questions. 

5.  By  means  of  mutual  insurance  in  case  of  death,  sickness,  acci- 
dent, old  age,  and  unemployment  many  trade  unions  have  greatly 
improved  the  conditions  of  their  members.    The  extension  of  such 
systems  appears  to  be  highly  desirable. 

6.  The  trade  union  is  a  democratic  institution  and  faces  the  same 
problems  in  securing  efficient  government  that  other  democratic  insti- 
tutions face.     The  theory  of  government  which  the  American  trade 
unions  have  adopted  is  the  centralization  of  power  in  the  national 
trade  union  as  against  the  local  unions.    The  successful  carrying  out 
of  this  plan  of  organization  will  eliminate  the  chief  defects  in  trade 
union  government.    The  control  by  the  national  union  over  strikes 
and  the  system  of  mutual  insurance  is  already  thoroughly  established 
in  the  more  important  unions;  it  should  be  established  in  all  other 
unions. 

7.  Unwarranted  sympathetic  strikes  have  undoubtedly  been  the 
cause  of  great  annoyance  and  considerable  economic  loss  to  employers. 
The  annoyance  in  such  cases  is  particularly  great,  because  no  direct 
action  by  the  employer  can  be  taken;  at  best  he  can  only  use  his 
influence  with  his  associates  or  competitors.     With  the  increasing 
control  of  the  national  officers  over  the  local  unions,  this  kind  of 
strike  seems  to  be  decreasing  both  in  extent  and  frequency.     Such 
sympathetic  action  is  deep-rooted  in  the  sense  of  brotherhood  which 
to  a  greater  or  less  degree  pervades  and  will  not  be  completely 
eliminated  until  substantial  justice  exists  throughout  industry. 

8.  A  few  trade  unions  exclude  qualified  persons  from  membership 
by  high  initiation  fees  or  other  devices.    This  policy  is  condemned 
by  the  more  important  unions  and  is  prohibited  by  their  rules.    The 
evidence  presented  to  the  commission  shows  clearly  that  the  policy 
of  exclusion  is  antisocial  and  monopolistic  and  should  be  given  up  by 
those  unions  which  practice  it. 

9.  In  many  trades  the  efficiency  of  the  union  depends  upon  the 
maintenance  of  the  rule  that  all  those  working  at  the  trade  shall 
become  members  of  the  union.    Where  the  union  admits  all  qualified 
workers  to  membership,  under  reasonable  conditions,  such   a  rule 
can  not  become  the  basis  of  monopoly,  and  neither  the  rights  of  the 
individual  nor  the  public  interest  are  infringed  by  its  enforcement. 

10.  In  some  trades  there  are  a  considerable  number  of  union  rules 
which  restrict  the  productivity  of  the  worker.     Some  of  these  rules 
can  be  justified  on  the  ground  that  they  are  necessary  to  the  protec- 
tion of  the  health  of  the  worker.     There  are  some,  however,  which 
can  not  be  defended;  these  rules  are. antisocial  and  should  be  given 
up.    Experience  has  shown  that  where  industry  is  regulated  by  well- 
organized  systems  of  joint  agreements,  such  rules  either  disappear  or 
greatly  decrease  in  number  and  importance.     These  limitations  of 
output  should  not,  however,  be  considered  as  standing  alone.     The 
limitations  of  output  by  associations  of  employers  and  by  individual 
corporations   are   equally   antisocial   and   have   far  greater   conse- 
quence. 

11.  Jurisdictional  disputes  are  the  occasion  of  frequent  and  costly 
strikes.    The  disputes  of  this  character  which  have  caused  most  in- 
jury are  in  the  building  trades.     Up  to  the  present,  the  efforts  to 
lessen  these  disputes  by -action  of  the  national  unions  involved  have 


til 

: 

Df 


KEPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  117 

argely  failed.     It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend  to 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  to  the  national  unions  that 
newed  and  more  effective  eiforts  be  made  to  prevent  such  disputes. 
12.  The  essential  condition  for  trade-union  graft  is  the  placing  of 

rhe  authority  to  call  strikes  or  to  levy  boycotts  in  the  hands  of  one 
person  without  adequate  provision  for  supervision.  This  condition 
does  not  exist  in  many  unions.  There  is  abundant  evidence  to  show 
that  in  very  many  cases  it  originates  with  employers  who  desire  to 
secure  an  advantage  over  their  competitors.  The  reason  that  graft 
is  more  prevalent  in  the  building  trades  is  that  power  is  conferred  on 
the  business  agent  to  call  strikes  without  reference  either  to  the  rank 
and  file  or  to  the  national  officers.  It  has  been  testified  by  employers 
who  have  given  much  attention  to  this  problem  that  any  well-organ- 
ized association  of  employers  can  eliminate  graft  whenever  its  mem- 
bers desire  to  do  so.  As  far  as  the  unions  are  concerned  the  solution 
seems  to  lie  in  the  increased  participation  of  the  rank  and  file  in  the 
activities  of  the  organization  and  increased  provisions  for  fixing 
responsibility  upon  their  business  agents. 


• 


XIII.  ORGANIZATION,  METHODS,  AND  POLICIES  OF  EMPLOYERS' 

ASSOCIATIONS. 


1.  The  commission  finds  that  in  the  past  10  years  there  has  been  a 
rapid  growth  in  employers'  associations.    These  associations,  exclud- 
ing those  general  associations  which  have  been  formed  for  the  purpose 
of  advancing  the  political,  commercial,  or  legal  interests  of  the  em- 
ployers, may  be  divided  into  two  classes,  bargaining  associations  and 
hostile   associations.     The   bargaining   associations   deal   with   the 
unions ;  the  hostile  associations  oppose  collective  bargaining. 

2.  The  formation  of  bargaining  associations  is  essential  to  the 
existence  of  a  satisfactory  system  of  joint  agreements.    A  consider- 
able number  of  employers,  although  accepting  the  results  of  the 
joint  conferences  in  their  trades,  do  not  belong  to  the  associations  of 
employers.    It  is  highly  desirable  that  all  employers  whose  establish- 
ments are  run  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  a  joint  agreement 
should  be  represented  in  making  that  agreement.    In  many  bargain- 
ing associations  the  control  over  the  members  is  very  weak.     The 
association  has  no  power  of  discipline  except  expulsion,  and  where 
participation  in  the  making  of  the  agreement  is  regarded  as  of  little 
importance  expulsion  is  an  inadequate  remedy. 

3.  The  hostile  employers'  association  is  a  comparatively  recent 
development.    In  many  cases  these  associations  were  formed  for  the 
purpose  of  negotiating  joint  agreements  with  the  unions,  but  after 
the  failure  of  negotiations  or  the  breakdown  of  an  agreement  they 
assumed  their  present  form.    In  some  cases  associations  which  have 
been  hostile  have  resumed  relations  with  the  unions.     There  is  a 
strong  tendency,  however,  for  a  hostile  association  after  a  few  years 
to  develop  principles  and  policies  which  make  any  agreement  with  the 
unions  impossible.    The  hostile  association  may  be  regarded,  there- 
fore, as  a  distinct  species  with  definitely  fixed  characteristics. 

t4.  In  the  majority  of  hostile  employers'  associations,  the  basic 
rinciple  is  that  the  conditions  of  employment  shall  be  determined 
^lely  by  the  individual  employer  and  the  individual  workman,  but 
i  actual  practice  this  results  uniformly  in  the  dictation  of  conditions 


118  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

solely  by  the  employer.  The  "  declarations  of  principles  "  adopted 
by  these  associations  declare,  for  example,  that  the  "number  of 
•apprentices,  helpers,  and  handy  men  to  be  employed  will  be  deter- 
mined solely  by  the  employer;"  "employees  will  be  paid  by  the 
hourly  rate,  by  premium  system,  by  piecework,  or  contract,  as  the 
employers  may  elect;"  "since  we,  as  employers,  are  responsible  for 
the  work  turned  out  by  our  workmen,  we  must  have  full  power  to 
designate  the  men  we  consider  competent  to  perform  the  work  and 
to  determine  the  conditions  under  which  that  work  will  be  prose- 
cuted." Even  as  to  wages  these  associations  are  unwilling  to  bargain 
collectively,  since  they  refuse  to  recognize  a  minimum  wage  or  any 
other  standard  form  of  wage,  without  which  a  collective  agreement 
is  impossible. 

5.  In  a  few  of  the  more  highly  centralized  employers'  associations 
wage  rates  are  set  by  the  association,  although  other  conditions  may 
be  left  to  the  individual  employer.    In  these  associations  the  principle 
of  individual  bargaining  is  modified  to  the  extent  that  certain  mini- 
mum conditions  of  employment  are  set  by  the  association. 

6.  The  prime  function  of  the  hostile  associations  is  to  aid  their 
members  in  opposing  the  introduction  of  collective  bargaining.    The 
most  important  device  used  by  the  members  of  the  associations  in 
resisting  the  attempts  of  the  union  to  replace  individual  bargaining 
by  joint  agreement  is  discrimination  against  members  of  the  union. 
Many  of  the  associations  have  in  their  "  declarations  of  principles  " 
the  statement  that  no  discrimination  will  be  made  against  any  man 
because  of  his  membership  in  any  organization,  but  this  rule  is  not 
enforced.     Ordinarily  members  of  the  union  are  not  discriminated 
against,  but  if  the  number  of  unionists  increases  in  any  shop  until  it 
becomes  large,  the  employer  is  advised  or  decides  on  his  own  volition 
to  hire  no  more  members  of  the  union.    Moreover,  any  workman  who 
is  prominent  in  urging  the  others  to  form  a  union  is  likely  to  be 
dismissed.    The  aim  of  the  association  is  to  prevent  in  ordinary  times 
such  an  increase  in  the  number  of  unionists  as  will  lead  to  a  collective 
demand.     The  proposition  is  effective  against  collective  action,  as 
membership  of  an  individual  workman  in  a  union  constitutes  no 
menace  to  the  employer's  power  to  control  his  business  unless  the 
individual  can  persuade  others  to  act  with  him. 

7.  Nearly  all  of  the  important  associations  maintain  employment 
agencies.     These  bureaus  enable  the  members  of  the  association  to 
select  nonunionists  for  employment. 

8.  Practically   all   of  the   associations   maintain   a   secret-service 
department  through  which  they  are  able  to  ascertain  the  increase 
in  the  number  of  the  trade  unionists  and  the  feeling  of  the  men. 
Through  this  information  the  association  is  able  to  forestall  threat- 
ened strikes  and  any  other  attempt  to  secure  collective  action  on  the 
part  of  the  workers. 

9.  In  some  of  the  associations  an  attempt  is  made  to  induce  the 
individual  employer  to  change  conditions  when  there  is  evidence 
that  dissatisfaction  exists  among  his  workmen.     Similarly  some  of 
the  associations  have  been  active  in  promoting  safety  systems  and 
welfare  systems. 

10.  Inasmuch  as  the  right  of  workers  to  organize  in  any  manner 
that  they  see  fit  is  fully  recognized  by  society  and  has  repeatedly 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  119 

been  given  a  legal  status  in  the  decisions  of  even  the.  most  conserva- 
tive courts,  there  is  strong  reason  for  holding  that  these  hostile 
employers'  associations,  which  are  organized  primarily  for  the  pre- 
vention of  organization,  are  not  only  antisocial  but  even  perhaps 
illegal. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  strongly  recommend: 
1.  The  formation  of  strong  and  stable  associations  of  employers 
for  the  purpose  of  negotiating  joint  agreements  and  otherwise  deter- 
mining, upon  a  democratic  and  equitable  basis,  the  fundamental 
problems  of  the  trade. 

XIV.  JOINT  AGREEMENTS. 

The  investigations  of  the  commission,  conducted  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Dr.  George  E.  Barnett,  as  well  as  the  evidence  presented  at 
the  public  hearings,  warrant  the  following  conclusions: 

1.  The  conditions  of  employment  can  be  most  satisfactorily  fixed 
by  joint  agreements  between  associations  of  employers  and  trade 
unions. 

2.  Where  the  association  of  employers  and  the  union  participating 
in   the   joint   agreement  cover  the   entire  competitive   district,   it 
becomes  possible  to  regulate  the  trade  or  the  industry,  not  merely 
with  reference  to  wages  and  hours,  but  with  reference  to  unemploy- 
ment, the  recruiting  of  the  trade,  and  the  introduction  of  machinery 
and  new  processes.     The  method  of  regulation  by  joint  agreement 
is  superior  to  the  method  of  legislative  enactment,  since  it  is  more 
comprehensive,  is  more  elastic,  and  more  nearly  achieves  the  ideal 
of  fundamental  democracy  that  government  should  to  the  greatest 
possible  extent  consist  of  agreements  and  understandings  voluntarily 
made.    The  method  of  legislative  enactment  is  inapplicable  to  many 
trade  problems,  and  even  where  it  is  supplemented  by  administra- 
tive regulation  it  is  cumbersome. 

3.  The  essential  element  in  a  system  of  joint  agreements  is  that 
all  action  shall  be  preceded  by  discussion  and  deliberation.    If  either 
party  through  lack  of  organization  is  unable  to  participate  effectively 
in  the  discussion  and  deliberation,  to  that  extent  the  system  falls 
short  of  the  ideal.     Where  a  union  or  an  employers'  association 
delivers  its  demands  in  the  form  of  an  ultimatum  and  denies  the  other 
party  an  opportunity  collectively  to  discuss  the  demands,  a  funda- 
mental condition  of  the  joint  agreement  is  lacking. 

4.  The  thorough  and  effective  organization  of  the  employers  is 
lacking  in  many  trades  in  which  the  workmen  are  well  organized. 
It  is  highly  desirable  that  such  organization  should  be  brought  about. 

5.  In  a  few  trades  agreements  have  been  made  which  provide  that 
the  members  of  the  union  will  not  be  allowed  to  work  for  any  em- 
ployers who  are  not  members  of  the  employers'  association.     The 
usual  result  is  that  the  employers'  association  restricts  its  member- 
ship or  in  some  other  manner  artificially  raises  prices  to  the  con- 
sumer.    Such  agreements  are  against  the  public  interest  and  should 
not  be  tolerated. 

6.  Joint  agreements,  on  the  whole,  are  well  kept.     There  is  a  con- 
stant increase  in  the  sense  of  moral  obligation  on  the  part  of  both 
employers  and  unions.     Violations  of  agreements  on  the  part  of  a 


120  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

small  number  of  men  or  of  a  single  employer  occasionally  occur.  It 
is  found  that  the  unions  tend  more  and  more  to  punish  by  fines  or 
other  disciplinary  measure  such  infraction  on  the  part  of  their  mem- 
bers. The  great  difficulty  in  the  rapid  solution  of  this  problem  is 
that  even  graver  evils  than  contract  breaking  are  apt  to  result  from 
giving  officials  the  power  which  they  must  have  in  order  to  punish 
properly  individuals  or  local  unions  for  illegal  strikes.  The  em- 
ployers' associations,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  have  less  power 
over  their  members,  but  in  practically  all  cases  they  exercise  in  good 
faith  what  power  they  have.  Furthermore,  since  the  employer  in 
the  first  instance  has  the  power  to  interpret  the  contract,  which  he 
may  do  unjustly,  he  may  actually  be  guilty  of  the  breach  of  contract 
when  the  employees  who  strike  against  such  unjust  interpretation 
are  apparently  the  guilty  parties. 

7.  In  certain  agreements  a  specified  money  guaranty  is  made  by 
each  party,  and  in  any  breach  of  the  agreement  the  guaranty  is  for- 
feited to  the  other  side.     On  the  whole,  such  guaranties  do  not  serve 
a  desirable  purpose,  since  there  is  danger  that  the  parties  may  come 
to  regard  the  forfeiture  of  the  guaranty  as  a  compensation  for  the 
breach  of  the  agreement.1     The  sense  of  moral  obligation  is  thus 
seriously  impaired. 

8.  It  does  not  seem,  nor  has  it  been  urged  by  any  careful  student 
of  the  problem,  whether  employer  or  worker,  that  any  good  end 
would  be  served  by  giving  legal  validity  to  joint  agreements.     The 
agreements  are  formulated  by  parties  acting  without  legal  advice, 
and  it  not  infrequently  happens  that  the  form  of  words  adopted  is 
capable  of  several  constructions.     In  some  cases  the  language  is  in- 
tentionally general,  though  its  purpose  may  be  fully  understood  by 
the  different  parties.     It  is  not  desirable  that  such  agreements,  the 
only  ones  possible  under  the  circumstances,  should  be  construed  by 
the  rigid  rules  customarily  used  in  the  courts. 

9.  Every  joint  agreement  should  contain  a  clause  providing  for 
arbitration  in  the  event  that  the  interpretation  of  the  agreement  is 
in  dispute.    Under  such  provision  the  arbitrator  would  approach 
the  question  unhampered  by  strict  rules  of  construction.     The  re- 
sponsibility for  breaking  an  agreement  would  under  such  a  plan  be 
definitely  located. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  extension  of  joint  agreements  as  regards  not  only  the  field 
of  industry  which  they  cover  and  the  class  of  labor  included  but  the 
subjects  which  are  taken  up  for  negotiation  and  settlement.  Greater 
responsibility  for  the  character,  skill,  and  conduct  of  their  members 
should  accompany  the  greater  participation  of  trade-unions  in  the 
governing  of  industry. 

XV.  AGENCIES  OF  MEDIATION,  INVESTIGATION,  AND  ARBITRATION. 

The  result  of  the  very  extensive  investigations  which  have  been 
made  regarding  the  agencies  for  mediation  and  arbitration  in  this 
country  and  abroad  have  been  embodied  in  the  plan  for  legislation, 
which  is  attached  hereto.  The  plan  as  presented  is  limited  to  a 
national  system,  but  it  is  recommended  that  the  State  legislatures 

1  This  statement  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  finding  of  Dr.  Barnett,  but  is  formed 
after  consideration  of  the  evidence  and  opinion  of  the  British  Industrial  Council. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  121 


• 


should  enact  legislation  along  the  same  general  lines.     The  general 
principles  which  have  governed  in  drawing  up  this  plan  may  be 
tated  as  follows: 

1.  The  Mediation  Commission  should  be  independent  of  and  defi- 
nitely divorced  from  every  other  department  of  the  State  or  Federal 
Government.    Its  only  power  grows  out  of  its  impartiality,  and  this 
can  not  be  secured  if  it  is  subordinate  to  any  other  body  whose 
sympathies  either  with  labor  or  with  capital  can  be  questioned. 

2.  Mediation  should  be  entrusted  to  a  person  as  far  as  possible 
distinct  from  those  who  act  as  arbitrators  or  appoint  arbitrators. 

3.  The  office  of  mediator  should  be  placed  beyond  the  suspicion 
that  the  office  is  being  used  as  a  reward  for  party  services. 

4.  The  mediator  should  appoint  his  own  subordinates, 

5.  It  is  desirable  in  the  event  of  the  failure  of  mediation  by  an 
official  mediator  that  the  parties  should  be  asked  to  consent  to  the 
appointment  of  a  board  of  mediation  and  investigation  consisting 
of  three  persons,  one  selected  by  each  party  and  the  third  by  these 
(wo.     Such  a  board,  it  appears,  would  be  able  to  secure  an  agree- 
ment in  many  cases  where  the  mediator  fails.    These  boards  should 
have  power  to  summon  witnesses  and  compel  the  production  of 
papers.    In  the  event  that  the  board  could  not  secure  an  agreement 
during  the  investigation,  it  should  be  empowered  to  make  a  public 
report  stating  the  terms  on  which,  in  its  judgment,  the  parties  should 
settle. 

6.  In  those  cases  in  which  the  parties  are  unable  to  agree  on  the 
third  member  of  the  board  of  mediation  and  investigation,  he  should 
be  appointed  in  the  State  systems  by  the  State  board  of  arbitration, 
and  in  the  national  system  by  the  mediators,  from  a  list  prepared 
in  advance  by  an  advisory  board  consisting  of  10  representatives  of 
employers'  associations  and  10  representatives  of  trade  unions. 

7.  National  boards  of  mediation  and  investigation  are  to  be  formed 
nly  in  disputes  involving  interstate  commerce  and  in  those  cases 

in  which  the  legislature  or  the  executive  of  a  State  has  requested 
the  intervention  of  the  Federal  Government. 

8.  The  Secretary  of  Labor,  or  in  the  States  the  official  bureau  or 
commission,  which  is  created   for  the  protection   of  the  workers, 
should  be  employed  to  appear  before  the  board  of  mediation  and 
investigation,  when  it  is  holding  public  hearings,  either  at  the  request 
of  the  board  as  amicus  curiae  in  the  ascertainment  of  facts  regard- 
ing labor  conditions,  or,  if  appealed  to,  as  the  spokesman  for  the 
employees  in  the  presentation  of  their  case. 

PROPOSED  PLAN  OF  A  NATIONAL  SYSTEM  OF  MEDIATION,  INVESTIGATION, 

AND  ARBITRATION. 

ORGANIZATION. 

1.  Scope  of  authority. — The  National  Mediation  Commission 
should  be  given  exclusive  authority  to  intervene,  under  the  conditions 
hereinafter  defined,  in  all  industrial  disputes  involving  any  corpora- 
tion, firm,  or  establishment,  except  public  service  establishments, 
which  is  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  or  whose  products  enter  into 
interstate  or  foreign  commerce. 


122  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

This  provision  differentiates  its  functions  from  those  of  the  media- 
tion commission  existing  at  present  under  the  Newlands  Act.  It  is 
considered  desirable  for  the  present  to  provide  for  the  existence  of 
the  two  commissions,  at  least  until  the  proposed  commission  has  been 
thoroughly  tested.  It  is  believed  to  be  wise,  however,  to  provide  for 
their  close  cooperation  from  the  very  beginning,  with  the  idea  that 
they  will  ultimately  be  consolidated. 

It  will  be  noted  that  this  provision  also  will  have  the  effect  of  sup- 
planting the  mediation  powers  which  are  now  vested  in  the  Depart- 
ment of  Labor.  There  is  no  desire  to  criticise  or  belittle  the  past 
activities  of  the  mediators  operating  under  the  Department  of  Labor, 
for  such  criticism  is  absolutely  unwarranted.  It  is  also  freely-  ad- 
mitted that  the  Department  of  Labor  has  not  had  either  the  time  or 
the  resources  necessary  for  the  proper  development  of  .this  function. 
The  proposal  is  made,  however,  primarily  upon  three  grounds  which 
seem  to  be  sound  and,  in  fact,  compelling:  First,  the  function  of 
mediation  depends  absolutely  upon  the  permanent  assurance  of  im- 
partiality. The  Department  of  Labor  was  created  to  represent  the 
interests  of  labor,  and  it  seems  not  only  inevitable  but  desirable  and 
proper  that  the  Secretary  of  Labor  should  always  be  drawn  from  the 
ranks  of  organized  labor.  The  function  of  mediation  may  be  admin- 
istered with  absolute  impartiality  under  any  particular  Secretary, 
or  even  under  every  Secretary,  and  yet  it  seems  impossible,  even 
under  such  conditions,  to  create  that  absolute  assurance  of  impar- 
tiality which  is  the  prime  essential.  Second,  it  is  the  prerogative  and 
duty  of  the  Department  of  Labor  to  act,  aggressively  if  need  be,  for 
the  protection  of  the  workers  at  all  times,  and  to  utilize  every  resource 
at  its  command  to  giye  them  that  protection.  The  Department  must 
necessarily  be  greatly  impeded  in  such  frankly  partisan  action,  it 
would  seem,  if  it  must  at  the  same  time  preserve  either  the  substance 
or  the  shadow  of  impartiality  in  carrying  out  its  function  of  media- 
tion. Third,  in  the  bitterest  disputes,  where  the  public  interest 
most  strongly  demands  intervention,  mediation  is  seldom  successful, 
and  a  stage  is  quickly  reached  where  the  most  vital  necessity  is  for 
the  full  and  exact  facts  regarding  the  dispute,  in  order  that  public 
opinion  may  be  intelligently  formed  and  directed.  Experience  has 
shown  that  such  facts  can  best  be  secured  fully,  quickly,  and  effec- 
tively through  the  medium  of  public  inquiry.  This  means  that  the 
inquiring  body  must  have  power  to  summon  witnesses,  compel  the 
production  of  books  and  papers,  and  compel  testimony,  or  the  pro- 
ceeding is  worse  than  a  farce.  It  may  be  regarded  as  certain  that 
such  powers  will  never  be  entrusted  to  the  Department  of  Labor. 

2.  Membership. — The    members    of    the    Mediation    Commission 
should  be  appointed  by  the  President,  with  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  Senate.    The  members  should  represent  in  proper  balance  the 
interests  of  employers,  employees,  and  the  public.     The  members 
should  serve  for  terms  of  six  years. 

3.  Advisory  board. — The  President  of  the  United  States  should 
designate  an  equal  number  of  leading  organizations  of  employers 
and  leading  organizations  of  employees  to  appoint  representatives 
to  act  as  an  advisory  body  to  the  President,  to  Congress,  and  to  the 
Mediation  Commission.     This  body,  designated  hereinafter  the  ad- 
visory board,  should  give  advice  regarding  the  duties  of  the  commis- 
sion, the  administration  of  its  affairs  and  the  selection  of  mediators, 


REPORT  OP   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  123 

and  be  empowered  to  make  recommendations  regarding  legislation. 
The  advisory  board  should  also  prepare  lists  of  persons  who  may  be 
called  upon  to  serve  on  boards  of  arbitration  and  on  boards  of  media- 
tion and  investigation.  The  advisory  board  should  be  called  together 
at  least  once  a  year  by  the  chairman  of  the  Mediation  Commission; 
it  should  have  an  organization  independent  of  the  commission  and 
elect  its  own  chairman  and  secretary. 

The  members  of  the  advisory  board  should  be  paid  traveling  and 
other  necessary  expenses  and  such  compensation  as  may  be  determined 
upon.  Provision  should  be  made  for  the  removal  of  members  by  the 
organizations  which  they  represent. 

4.  Subordinate  officers  and  assistants. — The  Mediation  Commission 
should  have  power  to  appoint,  remove  at  pleasure,  and  fix  the  com- 
pensation of  a  secretary  (and  a  limited  number  of  clerks).  The 
appointment  of  other  officers  and  assistants,  such  as  mediators,  exam- 
iners, investigators,  technical  assessors,  experts,  disbursing  officer, 
clerks,  and  other  employees,  should  be  subject  to  the  civil-service 
rules.  But  arrangements  should  be  made  to  have  the  examination 
include  experience  and  other  proper  qualifications,  and  to  give  the 
Mediation  Commission  power  to  examine  all  candidates  orally. 


POWERS,   DUTIES   AND    JURISDICTION. 


5.  In  interstate  commerce. —  (a)  Mediation:  Whenever  a  contro- 
versy concerning  conditions  of  employment  arises  between  employer 
and  employees  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  .other  than  public 
service  corporations,  either  party  should  be  able  to  apply  to  the 
chairman  of  the  Mediation  Commission  for  its  services  in  the  bring- 
ing about  of  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the  controversy.  Or,  the 
chairman  of  the  commission  should  be  authorized  to  offer,  on  his  own 
initiative,  the  services  of  the  mediators  of  the  commission.  If  efforts 
to  bring  about  an  amicable  adjustment  through  mediation  should  be 
unsuccessful,  the  commission  should  at  once,  if  possible,  induce  the 
parties  to  submit  their  differences  to  arbitration. 

(b)  Arbitration:  Procedure  should   be   similar  to   that   outlined 
in  the  Newlands  Act.    If  it  is  necessary  for  the  Mediation  Commis- 
sion to  appoint  arbitrators,  they  should  Ibe  taken  from  a  list  prepared 
by  the  advisory  board. 

(c)  Boards  of  mediation  and  investigation:  If  the  parties  to  the 
controversy  can  not  be  induced  to  arbitrate,  and  if  the  controversy 
should  threaten  to  interrupt  the  business  of  employers  and  employees 
to  the  detriment  of  the  public  interest,  the  commission  should  be 
authorized  to  request  the  two  parties  to  consent  to  the  creation  of  a 
board  of  mediation  and  investigation.    If  the  consent  of  the  parties 
to  the  controversy  is  secured,  the  commission  shall  form  such  a  board. 
Of  the  three  members  of  the  board,  one  should  be  selected  by  the 
employers,  one  by  the  employees  and  a  third  on  the  recommendation 
of  the  members  so  chosen.    If  either  side  fails  to  recommend  a  mem- 
ber, he  should  be  appointed  by  the  commission.     If  after  a  stated 
time  the  third  member  is  not  recommended,  the  commission  should 
select  him.    Appointments  to  boards  of  mediation  arid  investigation 
shall  be  made  by  the  commission  from  a  list  prepared  for  fills  pur- 
pose by  the  advisory  board.    The  board  of  mediation  and  investiga- 
tion should  offer  its  friendly  offices  in  bringing  about  a  settlement  of 


124  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

the  dispute  through  mediation.  If  mediation  should  not  be  success- 
ful and  if  the  parties  to  the  controversy  refuse  to  arbitrate,  this 
board  should  have  power  to  make  an  investigation  of  the  contro- 
versy, and  should  be  required  to  submit  to  the  commission  a  full 
report  thereon,  including  recommendations  for  its  settlement.  The 
commission  should  be  empowered  to  give  this  report  and  recommen- 
dations adequate  publicity. 

(d)  Powers  to  secure  evidence:  A  board  of  mediation  and  inves- 
tigation should  have  power  to  administer  oaths,  to  subpoena  and 
compel  the  attendance  and  testimony  of  witnesses  and  the  produc- 
tion of  books,  papers,  documents,  etc.,  and  to  conduct  hearings  and 
investigations,  and  to  exercise  such  other  similar  powers  as  might  be 
necessary.  It  should  not  have  power  to  prohibit  or  to  impose  pen- 
alties for  strikes  or  lockouts. 

6.  Not  in  interstate  commerce. — It  should  be  provided  that  the 
commission,  or  a  board  of  mediation  and  investigation  created  by  it, 
may  exercise  the  foregoing  powers  except  the  compulsory  powers 
under  subdivision  "  d "  of  proposal  5,  for  settling  industrial  con- 
troversies between  parties  not  engaged  in  interstate  commerce,  if 
they  are  requested  to  do  so  by  the  governor  or  legislature  of  a  State, 
or  by   the  mayor,  council,  or  commission  of  a  municipality. 

7.  The  Secretary  of  Labor  and  the  Secretary  of  Commerce  should 
be  authorized  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  commission  any  dispute 
in  which  the  intervention  of  the  commission  seems  desirable.     The 
Secretary  of  Labor,  or  such  officer  as  he  may  designate,  should  also 
be  authorized  to  appear  before  any  board  of  mediation  and  investi- 
gation, either  at  the  request  of  the  board  as  amicus  curiae  for  the 
ascertainment  of  facts  regarding  labor  conditions,  or,  if  appealed  to, 
as  a  spokesman  for  the  employees  in  the  presentation  of  their  case. 

COOPERATION. 

8.  Cooperation  with  State  and  local  authorities. — The  commission 
should  be  authorized  and  directed  to  cooperate  with  State,  local  and 
territorial  authorities  and  similar  departments  of  foreign  countries 
which  deal  with  the  adjustment  of  industrial  disputes. 

9.  Cooperation   with    other   Federal    agencies. — The    commission 
should,  as  far  as  practicable,  coordinate  its  activities  and  cooperate 
with  other  Federal  departments  in  the  performance  of  their  duties. 

XVI.  INDUSTRIAL  CONDITIONS  AND  THE  PUBLIC  HEALTH — SICKNESS 

INSURANCE. 

The  investigations  which  have  been  conducted  by  the  commission 
under  the  direction  of  Dr.  B.  S.  Warren,  of  the  Public  Health 
Service,  are  the  basis  for  the  following  conclusions : 

1.  Each  of  the  thirty-odd  million  wage  earners  in  the  United 
States  loses  an  average  of  nine  days  a  year  through  sickness.     At 
an  average  of  $2  per  day,  the  wage  loss  from  this  source  is  over 
$500,000,000.  .At  the  average  cost  of  ircdical  expenses  ($6  per  capita 
per  year)  there  is  added  to  this  at  the  very  least  $180,000,000. 

2.  Much  attention  is  now  given  to  accident  prevention,  yet  acci- 
dents cause  only  one-seventh  as  much  destitution  as  does  sickness 
and  one-fifteenth  as  much  as  does  unemployment.    A  great  deal  of 
unemployment  is  directly  due  to  sickness,  and  sickness,  in  turn,  fol- 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  125 


Ivvs   unemployment.     The   commission's  recent   study  in   Indiana 
owed  that  17.9  per  cent  of  unemployment  among  women  in  stores 
that  State  was  due  to  illness.     In  1901,  a  Federal  investigation 
25,440  workmen's  families  showed  that  11.2  per  cent  of  heads  of 
milies  were  idle  during  the  year  on  account  of  sickness,  and  that 
the  average  period  of  such  unemployment  was  7.71  weeks.     Other 
investigations  show  that  30  to  40  per  cent  of  cases  requiring  charit- 
able relief  are  immediately  due  to  sickness. 

3.  Sickness  among  wage  earners  is  primarily  the  direct  result  of 
poverty,  which  manifests  itself  in  insufficient  diet,  bad  housing, 
inadequate  clothing,  and  generally  unfavorable  surroundings  in  the 
home.     The  surroundings  at  the  place  of  work  and  the  personal 
habits  of  the  worker  are  important  but  secondary  factors. 

4.  There  are  three  general  groups  of  disease-causing  conditions: 
(1)   Those  for  which  the  employer  and  character  of  the  industry 
and   occupation   are  responsible;    (2)    those  for  which  the  public, 

rough  regulatory  and  relief  agencies,  is  responsible;  and  (3)  those 
r  which  the  individual  worker  and  his  family  are  responsible. 

5.  The  employers'  responsibility  includes,  besides  conditions  caus- 
ig  so-called  occupational  diseases,  low  wages,  excessive  hours,  meth- 
ds  causing  nervous  strain,  and  general  insanitary  conditions.    Many 

employers  already  partly  recognize  their  responsibility;  aside  from 
"  welfare  work,"  many  contribute  liberally  to  employees'  sick  bene- 
fit funds  or  provide  for  the  entire  amount. 

6.  The  public  has  in  part  recognized  its  responsibility  in  such  mat- 
ters as  housing,  water  supply,  foods,  drugs,  and  sanitation.    But  the 
recognition  of  responsibility  has  not  been  thoroughgoing,  and  in 
the  case  of  local  health  officers  the  tendency  has  been  too  frequently 
to  provide  for  the  better  residential  sections  and  neglect  the  slums. 

7.  The  greatest  share  of  responsibility  rests  upon  the  individual, 
and  under  present  conditions  he  is  unable  to  meet  it.    This  inability 
exists  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  majority  of  wage  earners  do  not 
receive  sufficient  wages  to  provide  for  proper  living  conditions,  and 
because  the  present  methods  of  disease  prevention  and  cure  are  ex- 
pensive and  sickness  is  most  prevalent  among  those  who  are  least 
able  to  purchase  health.     The  worker  is  expected  to  provide  for 
almost  certain  contingencies  in  the  future  when  he  lacks  means  of 
existing  adequately  in  the  present. 

8.  If  we  might  reasonably  expect  a  rapid  increase  in  the  wages  of 
all  classes  of  workers  to  a  standard  which  would  permit  proper  living 
conditions  and  adequate  medical  attention,  it  would  perhaps  be  inad- 
visable to  recommend  any  governmental  action.     But  we  feel  as- 
sured that  no  such  condition  is  to  be  expected  in  the  near  future  and 
believe  that  new  methods  of  dealing  with  the  existing  evils  must 
be  adopted. 

9.  The  remedial  measures  for  existing  conditions  must  be  based  on 
the  cooperative  action  of  those  responsible  for  conditions;  must  be 
democratic  in  maintenance,  control,  and  administration;  must  dis- 
tribute costs  practicably  and  justly;  and  must  provide  a  powerful 
incentive  for  sickness  prevention. 

10.  A  system  of  sickness  insurance  is  the  most  feasible  single  meas- 
ure.    This  conclusion  is  based  on  the  following: 

(a)  The  losses   occasioned  by  the   wage   earner's  sickness  affect 
employee,  employer,  and  community,  all  of  whom  share  in  the  re- 


126  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

sponsibility.     Insurance  is  the  recognized   method   of   distributing 
loss  so  as  to  reduce  individual  risk  to  a  minimum. 

(b)  The  strongest  of  incentives — that  of  lessening  cost — is  given 
to  efforts  to  diminish  frequency  and  seriousness  of  losses;  sickness 
insurance  in  this  respect  is  a  preventive  measure  of  a  positive  and 
direct  kind.     The  lower  the  morbidity  and  mortality  rates,  the  less 
the  amount  necessary  for  benefits  and  the  lower  the  insurance  rate. 

(c)  Sickness  insurance  is  no  longer  experimental,  but  is  rapidly 
becoming  universal.     It  is  not  a  novelty  even  in  the  United  States. 
Although  not  provided  for  nor  subsidized  by  Government  here,  it  is 
most  widely  used,  there  being  several  million  workers  so  insured. 

(d)  The  cost  would  be  no  greater  than  at  present.     The  conclusion 
appears  sound  that  medical  benefits  and  minimum  cash  benefits  of 
$7  per  week  for  a  period  not  exceeding  26  weeks  in  one  year,  and 
death  benefits  of  $200,  can  be  provided  at  a  total  cost  of  50  cents 
per  week  per  insured  person.     Budgetary  studies  of  large  numbers 
of  workingmen's  families  show  that  under  present  conditions  from 
25  and  50  cents  a  week  up  to  TO  cents  and  even  $1.86  is  spent  for 
little  more  than  burial  insurance.     Workers  would  thus  receive  im- 
measurably greater  benefits  for  much  less  than  they  now  pay. 

11.  A  governmental  system   of  sickness  insurance  is  preferable 
because — 

(a)  More  democratic;  the  benefits  would  be  regarded  as  rights, 
not  charity. 

(b)  Compulsory    features,    obnoxious    under    private    insurance, 
would  be  no  longer  objectionable. 

(c)  On  account  of  the  reduction  in  overhead  charges  and  dupli- 
cation, higher  efficiency  in  administration  would  be  secured  at  less 
cost. 

(d)  Cooperation  with  other  public  agencies  is  impracticable  other- 
wise. 

(e)  European  experience  has  proved  the  superiority  of  Govern- 
ment systems  to  private  insurance. 

(/)  Taxation  of  industry  by  Federal  Government  in  sickness- 
insurance  system  is  thoroughly  established  by  the  Marine- Hospital 
Service.  Law  taxing  vessels  for  such  fund  was  passed  in  1798,  and 
its  constitutionality  has  never  been  questioned. 

12.  The  conclusion  seems  warranted  that  a  sickness-insurance  sys- 
tem for  the  United  States  or  the  several  States  similar  in  general 
principles  and  methods  to  the  best  European  systems  will  be  less  diffi- 
cult and  radical  than  has  been  foreboded.     It  will  not  so  much  intro- 
duce new  ideas  and  practices  as  it  will  organize  existing  plans  and 
principles  into  more  effective  accomplishment.     Existing  agencies, 
in.  trade-unions,  mutual  benefit  societies,  and  establishment  funds, 
can  be  utilized  just  as  they  have  been  in  Europe.     The  real  problem 
becomes  one  of  constructive  organization. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend  a  Federal  system 
of  sickness  insurance,  constructed  along  the  lines  here  briefly  sum- 
marized. 

1.  Membership. — The  membership  shall  comprise  all  employees  of 
persons,  firms,  companies,  and  corporations  engaged  in  interstate 
commerce,  or  whose  products  are  transported  in  interstate  commerce, 
or  which  may  do  business  in  two  or  more  States.  The  employees  of 
intrastate  establishments  to  be  permitted  to  be  insured,  if  they  so 
elect,  under  regulations  to  be  prescribed  by  the  commission. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  127 


2.  Fund. — The  fund  is  to  be  created  by  joint  contributions  by 
employees,  employers,  and  the  Government,  the  last  named  sufficient 
for  expenses  of  administration.    Such  contributions  should  probably 
be  in  the  proportion  of  50  per  cent  from  workers,  40  per  cent  from 
employers,  and  10  per  cent  from  the  Government.     Individuals  or 
groups  desiring  larger  benefits  may  arrange  to  make  larger  pay- 
ments, and  the  rate  in  any  trade,  industry,  or  locality  may  be  reduced 
where  conditions  so  improve  as  to  make  a  lower  rate  adequate.    The 
contributions  are  to  be  secured  through  taxing  each  interstate  em- 
ployer a  certain  amount  weekly  for  each  employee,  the  part  con- 
tributed by  workers  to  be  deducted  from  their  wages,  thus  using  the 
regular  revenue  machinery  of  the  Government. 

3.  Benefits. — Benefits  to  be  available  for  a  limited  period  in  the 
form  of  cash  and  medical  benefits  during  sickness,  nonindustrial 
accidents,  and  child  bearing ;  death  benefits  to  be  of  limited  size  and 

ayable  on  presentation  of  proper  evidence. 

4.  Administration. — The  administration  of  the  insurance  funds  is 
be  carried  out  by  a  national  sickness  insurance  commission.    The 

_ational  commission  should  be  composed,  by  presidential  appoint- 
ment with  Senate  confirmation,  of  a  director  (who  would  be  chair- 
man), representatives  of  employers  and  representatives  of  employees 
in  equal  ratio,  and,  as  ex  officio  nonvoting  members,  tlie  Federal 
Commissioner  of  Labor  Statistics  and  the  Surgeon  General  of  the 
Public  Health  Service.  The  commission  should  be  empowered  to 
supervise  all  funds  and  determine  their  character  and  limits  of 
jurisdiction ;  promulgate  all  regulations  necessary  to  enforce  the  act ; 
establish  and  maintain  hospitals;  maintain  staffs  of  medical  exam- 
iners, specialists,  dentists,  and  visiting  nurses ;  provide  for  medicines 
and  appliances;  make  contracts  with  local  physicians;  cooperate 
with  local  funds  and  health  authorities  in  disease  prevention;  and 
provide  for  collecting  actuarial  data. 

Correlation  of  the  insurance  system  with  the  medical  profession, 
the  lack  of  which  has  been  a-  serious  defect  in  German  and  British 
systems,  is  absolutely  necessary.  Contracts  with  physicians  should 
allow  to  each  a  per  capita  payment  for  the  insured  persons  under  his 
care,  the  right  of  selection  of  physician  to  be  retained  by  the  insured. 
For  the  signing  of  certificates  entitling  the  insured  to  benefits,  and 
for  treating  the  insured  in  hospitals,  the  Surgeon  General  should 
detail  physicians  from  the  Public  Health  Service,  their  entire  time 
to  be  given  to  these  and  other  duties  (consulting  with  local  physi- 
cians, enforcing  Federal  laws  and  regulations,  and  cooperating  with 
local  authorities). 


XVII.    EDUCATION  IN  RELATION  TO  INDUSTRY. 

The  report  dealing  with  this  question  has  been  presented  by  Com- 
missioner Lennon,  and  is  printed  on  pages  253-261. 

XVIII.     SCIENTIFIC  MANAGEMENT. 


The  investigation  of  scientific  management  was  conducted  by 
Prof.  Robert  F.  Hoxie,  with  the  expert  assistance  and  advice  of  Mr. 
Robert  G.  Valentine,  representing  the  employer's  interest  in  manage- 
ment, and  Mr.  John  P.  Frey,  representing  the  interests  of  labor.  The 
investigation  grew  out  of  public  hearings  held  by  the  commission 


128  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

during  the  spring  of  1914,  at  which  the  almost  unqualified  opposition 
of  labor  to  scientific  management  was  manifested.  The  purpose  of 
the  investigation  was  to  test  by  the  results  of  actual  practice  the 
claims  of  scientific  management  and  the  charges  of  the  representatives 
of  organized  labor. 

The  investigation,  which  covered  a  period  of  more  than  a  year, 
was  made  with  the  greatest  care  and  thoroughness.  Thirty-five 
shops  and  systematizing  concerns  were  examined  and  interviews 
were  had  with  a  large  number  of  scientific  management  leaders, 
experts,  and  employers.  The  shops  visited  w^ere,  almost  without 
exception,  those  designated  by  authorities  on  scientific  management, 
such  as  Messrs.  Taylor,  Gantt,  and  Emerson,  as  the  best  representa- 
tives of  the  actual  results  of  scientific  management.  In  other  words, 
the  examination  was  practically  confined  to  the  very  best  examples 
of  scientific  management.  The  defects  and  shortcomings  pointed  out 
hereinafter  are,  therefore,  characteristic  of  the  system  under  the  most 
favorable  conditions. 

As  a  result  of  their  investigations,  Prof.  Hoxie,  Mr.  Valentine,  and 
Mr.  Frey  submitted  a  report,  agreed  upon  without  exceptions,  in 
which  the  statements  and  recommendations  which  follow  are  em- 
bodied. These  statements  constitute  a  very  brief  summary  of  the 
entire  report,  wThich  should  be  read  as  a  whole  if  a  complete  under- 
standing of  their  results  and  findings  is  desired. 

Throughout  the  report  the  term  "  scientific  management "  is  under- 
stood to  mean  the  system  devised  and  applied  by  Frederick  W. 
Taylor,  H.  L.  Gantt,  Harrington  Emerson  and  their  followers,  with 
the  object  of  promoting  efficiency  in  shop  management  and  operation. 

The  report,  unanimously  agreed  upon  by  the  commission's  inves- 
tigator and  his  advisory  experts,  is  the  basis  for  the  following 
statements. 

POSSIBLE  BENEFITS  OF  SCIENTIFIC   MANAGEMENT  TO  LABOR  AND   SOCIETY. 

1.  As  a  system,  scientific  management  presents  certain  possible 
benefits  to  labor  and  to  society : 

(a)  A  close  casual  relation  exists  between  productive  efficiency  and 
possible  wages.     Greater  efficiency  and  output  make  possible  higher 
wages  in  general  and  better  conditions  of  employment  and  labor. 

In  so  far,  then,  as  scientific  management  affords  opportunities  for 
lower  costs  and  increased  production  without  adding  to  the  burden 
of  the  workers  in  exhaustive  effort,  long  hours,  or  inferior  working 
conditions,  it  creates  the  possibility  of  very  real  and  substantial 
benefits  to  labor  and  to  society. 

(b)  It  is  the  policy  of  scientific  management,  as  a  preliminary  to 
strictly  labor  changes,  to  bring  about  improvement  and  standardiza- 
tion of  the  material  equipment  and  productive  organization  of  the 
plant,  particularly : 

Machinery:  Installation,  repair,  operation. 

Tools:  Storage,  care,  delivery. 

Material  equipment :  Rearrangement  to  avoid  delays,  etc. 

Product:  Devices  for  economical  and  expeditious  handling  and 
routing. 

Processes  and  methods:  Elimination  of  Avaste  motions,  improve- 
ment of  accessories,  etc. 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  129 


Reorganization  of  managerial  staff  and  improvement  of  managerial 
efficiency. 

Reorganization  of  sales  and  purchasing  departments  with  a  view  to 
broadening  and  stabilizing  the  market. 

Improvements  in  methods  of  storekeeping  and  regulation  of  deliv- 
ery, surplus  stock,  etc. 

All  such  improvements  are  to  be  commended,  and  investigation 
shows  that  they  are  not  only  accepted  by  labor  without  opposition 
but  are,  in  fact,  welcomed. 

2.  Scientific  management  in  its  direct  relation  to  labor  is  not  devoid 
of  beneficial  aspects,  inasmuch  as  it  is  to  a  large  extent  an  attempt  at 
immediate  standardization  of  labor  conditions  and  relations.    It  may 
also  serve  labor  by  calling  the  attention  of  the  employer  to  the  fact 
that  there  are  other  and  more  effective  ways  to  meet  severe  com- 
petition than  by  "  taking  it  out  of  labor." 

It  is  true  that  scientific  management  and  organized  labor  are  not 
altogether  in  harmony  in  their  attitude  toward  standardization  of 
labor  conditions  and  relations.  While  both  seek  to  have  the  con- 
ditions of  work  and  pay  clearly  defined  and  definitely  maintained  at 
any  given  moment,  they  differ  fundamentally  as  to  the  circumstances 
which  may  justly  cause  the  substitution  of  new  standards  for  old 
ones.  Trade-unionism  tends  to  hold  to  the  idea  that  standards  must 
not  be  changed  in  any  way  to  the  detriment  of  the  workers.  Scien- 
tific management,  on  the  other  hand,  regards  changes  as  justified  and 
desirable  if  they  result  in  increase  of  efficiency,  and  has  provided 
methods,  such  as  time  study,  for  the  constant  suggestion  of  such 
changes. 

3.  The  same  may  be  said  of  many  other  major  claims  of  scientific 
management.    Whether  the  ideals  advocated  are  attained  or  at  pres- 
ent attainable,  and  whether  scientific  managers  are  to  be  found  who 
purposely  violate  them,  scientific  management  has  in  these  claims 
and  in  the  methods  upon  which  they  are  based  shown  the  way  along 
which  we  may  proceed  to  more  advantageous  economic  results  for 
labor  and  for  society.    It  may  not  have  succeeded  in  establishing  a 
practical  system  of  vocational  selection  and  adaptation,  but  it  has 
emphasized  the  desirability  of  it;  it  may  not  set  the  task  with  due 
and  scientific  allowance  for  fatigue  so  that  the  worker  is  guarded 
against  overspeeding  and  overexertion,  but  it  has  undoubtedly  de- 
veloped methods  which  make  it  possible  to  better  prevailing  condi- 
tions in  this  respect;  it  has  called  attention  most  forcibly  to  the  evils 
of  favoritism  and  the  rough  and  arbitrary  decisions  of  foremen  and 
others  in  authority.    If  scientific  management  be  shown  to  have  posi- 
tive objectionable  features,  from  both  the  standpoint  of  labor  and 
the  welfare  of  society,  this  constitutes  no  denial  of  these  beneficial 
features,  but  calls  rather  for  intelligent  social  action  to  eliminate 
that  which  is  detrimental  and  to  supplement  and  control  that  which 

beneficial  to  all. 


is  oenen< 

SCIENTIF 

4.  Cor 
systei 
demo 
inpn 


1C    MANAGEMENT    IN    PRACTICE — ITS    DIVERSITIES    AND    DEFECTS, 


4.  Conditions  in  actual  shops  do  not  conform  to  the  ideals  of  the 
stem,  and  show  no  general  uniformity.    Actual  field  investigations 
emonstrated  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  scientific  management 
practice  is  characterized  by  striking  incompleteness  and  manifold 
38819°— 16 9 


130  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

diversity  as  compared  with  the  theoretical  exposition  of  its  advo- 
cates. This  incompleteness  and  diversity  in  practice  apply  not  only 
to  matters  of  detail  but  cover  many  of  the  essential  features  of 
scientific  management  even  among  those  shops  designated  by  Taylor, 
Gantt,  and  Emerson  as  representative  of  their  work  and  influence. 
The  following  particular  defects  were  observed: 

(a)  Failure  to  carry  into  effect  ^vith  any  degree  of  thoroughness 
the  general  elements  involved  in  the  system. — This  may  take  the 
form  of  ignoring  either  ^the  mechanical  equipment  and  managerial 
organization,  adopting  simply  a  few  routine  features,  such  as  time 
study  and  bonus  payment,  or  the  adoption  of  all  mechanical  features 
with  a  complete  disregard  of  the  spirit  in  which  they  are  supposed 
to  be  applied. 

(5)  Failure  to  adopt  the  full  system  of  "functional  foreman- 
ship" — The  results  of  prevailing  practices  do  not  support  the  claim 
that  scientific  management  treats  each  workman  as  an  independent 
personality  and  that  it  substitutes  joint  obedience  to  fact  and  law  for 
obedience  to  personal  authority. 

(c)  Lack  of  uniformity  in  the  method  of  selecting  and  hiring 
help. — Upon  the  whole  the  range  of  excellence  in  methods  of  selec- 
tion and  hiring  in  "  scientific  "  shops  was  the  same  as  in  other  shops. 
The  workers  in  scientific-management  shops  seem  to  be  a  select  class 
when  compared  with  the  same  classes  of  workers  outside,  but  this 
result  seems  to  be  due  to  the  weeding  out  of  the  less  satisfactory 
material  rather  than  to  initial  methods  of  selection. 

(d)  Failure  to  substantiate  claims  of  scientific  management  with 
reference  to  the  adaptation,  instruction,  and  training  of  workers. — 
Scientific-management  shops  in  general  depend  upon  nothing  in  the 
way  of  occupational  adaptation  of  the  workers  except  the  ordinary 
trial  and  error  method.    Investigation  reveals  little  to  substantiate  the 
sweeping  claims  of  scientific  managers  made  in  this  connection,  except 
that  in  the  better  scientific-management  shops  many  workmen  are 
receiving  more  careful  instruction  and  a  higher  degree  of  training 
than  is  at  present  possible  for  them  elsewhere.    The  most  that  can 
be  said  is  that  scientific  management,  as  such,  furthers  a  tendency 
to  narrow  the  scope  of  the  workers'  industrial  activity,  and  that  it 
falls  far  short  of  a  compensatory  equivalent  in  its  ideals  and  actual 
methods  of  instruction  and  training. 

e)  Lack  of  scientific  accuracy,  uniformity,  and  justice  in  time 
study  and  task  setting. — Far  from  being  the  invariable  and  purely 
objective  matters  that  they  are  pictured,  the  methods  and  results  of 
time  study  and  task  setting  are  in  practice  the  special  sport  of  indi- 
vidual judgment  and  opinion,  subject  to  all  the  possibilities  of  diver- 
sity, inaccuracy,  and  injustice  that  arise  from  human  ignorance  and 
prejudice. 

The  objects  of  time  study  are:  (1)  Improvement  and  standardiza- 
tion of  the  methods  of  doing  the  work,  without  reference  to  a  stand- 
ard time  for  its  accomplishment,  and  (2)  fixing  of  a  definite  task 
time  of  efficiency  scale. 

Possibilities  of  great  advantage  exist  in  the  use  of  time  study  for 
the  first  purpose.  However,  in  a  large  number  of  shops,  time  study 
for  this  purpose  is  practically  neglected. 

In  connection  with  the  second  purpose,  setting  of  task  time  or 
efficiency  scale,  great  variations  are  noted,  and  especially  the  part 


pr 
ge: 
re* 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  131 

which  fallible  individual  judgment  and  individual  prejudice  may 
and  do  play. 

Detailed  observations  of  the  practice  of  making  time  studies  and 
setting  tasks  showed  great  variations  in  methods  and  results.  Seven- 
teen separate  sources  of  variation  are  pointed  out,  any  one  of  which 
is  sufficient  to  and  in  practice  does  greatly  influence  the  results  of 
time  studies. 

In  face  of  such  evidence  it  is  obviously  absurd  to  talk  of  time  study 
as  an  accurate  scientific  method  in  practice  or  of  the  tasks  set  by 
means  of  it  as  objective  scientific  facts  which  are  not  possible  or 
proper  subjects  of  dispute  and  bargaining. 

Furthermore,  the  time-study  men  upon  whom  the  entire  results 
depend  were  found  to  be  prevailingly  of  the  narrow-minded  mechani- 
cal type,  poorly  paid,  and  occupying  the  lowest  positions  in  the  man- 
agerial organization,  if  they  could  be  said  to  belong  at  all  to  the 
managerial  group.  Nor  does  the  situation  seem  to  promise  much  im- 
rovement,  for  the  position  and  pay  accorded  to  time-study  men 

nerally  are  such  as  to  preclude  the  drawing  into  this  work  of 
really  competent  men  in  the  broader  sense.  Aside  from  a  few 
notable  exceptions  in  the  shops  and  some  men  who  make  a  general 
profession  of  time  study  in  connection  with  the  installation  of  scien- 
tific management,  this  theoretically  important  functionary,  as  a  rule, 
receives  little  more  than  good  mechanic's  wages  and  has  little  voice 
in  determining  shop  policies.  In  fact,  the  time-study  man,  who,  if 
scientific  management  is  to  make  good  the  most  important  of  its 
labor  claims,  should  be  among  the  most  highly  trained  and  influential 
officials  in  the  shop,  a  scientist  in  viewpoint,  a  wise  arbitrator  be- 
tween employer  and  workman,  is  in  general  a  petty  functionary,  a 
specialist  workman,  a  sort  of  clerk  who  has  no  voice  in  the  counsels 
of  the  higher  officials. 

However,  the  method  of  time  study  is  not  necessarily  impracticable 
or  unjust  to  the  workers.  Under  proper  direction  time  study  prom- 
ises much  more  equitable  results  than  can  be  secured  by  the  ordinary 
methods.  The  greatest  essential  is  a  time-study  man  of  exceptional 
knowledge,  judgment,  and  tact.  The  average  time-study  man  does 
not  fulfill  these  requirements  at  present. 

Finally,  it  is  only  in  connection  with  standard  products,  requiring 
only  moderate  skill  and  judgment  in  layout  and  work,  that  economy 
seems  to  allow  adequate  application  of  the  time-study  method.  Its 
natural  sphere  seems  to  be  routine  and  repetitive  work.  As  long  as 
industry  continues  to  be  as  complex  and  diversified  as  it  is,  this  ele- 
ment of  economy  will  without  doubt  continue  to  operate  in  a  way 
to  limit  the  legitimate  scope  of  time  study  and  task  setting.  Task 
setting  as  at  present  conducted  is  not  satisfactory  to  workmen  and 
creates  dissatisfaction  and  jealousy. 

(f)  ^Failure  to  substantiate  the  claim  of  having  established  a 
scientific  and  equitable  method  of  determining  wage  rates. — In 
analyzing  the  wage-fixing  problem  in  connection  with  scientific 
management  two  matters  are  considered:  (1)  The  "base  rate,5'  some- 
times called  the  day  wage,  which  constitutes  for  any  group  of  work- 
ers the  minimum  earnings  or  indicates  the  general  wage  level  for 
that  group,  and  (2)  added  "efficiency  payments,"  which  are  sup- 
posed to  represent  special  additional  rewards  for  special  attainments. 


132  KEPOST  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  KELATIONS. 


^  investigators  sought  in  vain  for  any  scientific  methods  de- 

vised or  employed  by  scientific  management  for  the  determination 
of  the  base  rate,  either  as  a  matter  of  justice  between  the  conflicting 
claims  of  capital  and  labor,  or  between  the  relative  claims  of  in- 
dividuals and  occupational  groups. 

Kates  for  women  with  reference  to  men  are,  as  a  rule,  on  the  same 
basis  in  scientific-management  shops  as  in  other  shops.  One  leader 
said,  "There  is  to  be  no  nonsense  about  scientific  management.  If 
by  better  organization  and  administration  what  is  now  regarded  as 
man's  work  can  be  done  by  women,  women  will  be  employed  and 
women's  wages  will  be  paid." 

Scientific-management  shops  seem  as  ready  as  others  to  raise  the 
rates  as  the  wage  level  generally  advances. 

"  Bewildering  diversity  "  prevails  in  relation  to  the  "  efficiency 
payment"  or  reward  for  special  effort.  After  a  careful  and  ex- 
tended analysis  and  investigation  of  the  different  ways  of  reward- 
ing individual  increases  in  output,  it  was  concluded: 

All  of  these  systems  definitely  belie  the  claim  that  scientific  man- 
agement pays  workers  in  proportion  to  their  efficiency.  One  of  them 
has  the  obvious  intent  of  weeding  out  the  lower  grade  of  workers, 
while  the  other  two  are  so  constituted  as  to  make  such  workers  very 
unprofitable  to  the  employers.  Two  of  them,  lend  themselves  easily  to 
the  exploitation  of  mediocre  workers  —  those  who  can  deliver  a  medium 
output  but  can  not  attain  to  a  standard  task  set  high.  All  of  them 
furnish  a  strong  stimulus  to  high  efficiency  and  output,  but  in  them- 
selves furnish  no  visible  check  on  overspeeding  and  exhaustion.  All 
of  them  are  capable  of  being  liberally  applied,  but  all  can  also  be  used 
as  instruments  of  oppression  through  the  undue  severity  of  task  set- 
ting or  efficiency  rating. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  under  scientific  management  rates  are 
cut.  But  to  say  positively  that  scientific  management,  on  the  whole, 
furthers  the  cutting  of  rates  is  quite  another  matter.  The  fact  seems 
clear  that  at  this  point  there  is  a  conflict  of  tendencies  within  the  thing 
itself.  There  is  a  strong  inducement  for  scientific  managers  to  main- 
tain rates  strictly,  and  the  honest  efforts  of  those  who  deserve  the 
name  to  so  maintain  them  can  hardly  be  impugned.  At  the  sanio 
time,  however,  the  greatest  advance  toward  efficiency,  for  which 
scientific  management  stands,  is  obtained  by  the  constant  alteration 
of  conditions  and  tasks  through  time  study.  Such  alterations  almost 
of  necessity  mean  constant  rate  cutting.  Were  industry  once  stand- 
ardized for  good  and  all,  scientific  management  would  undoubtedly 
operate  as  an  unequivocal  force  tending  to  the  maintenance  of  rates. 
As  it  is  with  industry  in  flux,  what  amounts  to  rate  cutting  seems  to 
be  almost  of  necessity  an  essential  part  of  its  very  nature. 

Finally,  all  of  the  systems  of  payment  tend  to  center  the  attention 
of  the  worker  on  his  individual  interest  and  gain  and  to  repress  the 
development  of  group  consciousness  and  interest.  Where  the  work 
of  one  man  is  independent  of  another,  the  individual  has  no  motive 
to  consider  his  fellow,  since  his  work  and  pay  in  no  wise  depend  on 
the  other  man.  What  either  does  will  not  affect  the  other's  task  or 
rates.  Where  work  is  independent,  the  leader  can  not  afford  to  slow 
down  to  accommodate  his  successor. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  these  systems  are  admirably  suited  to 
stimulate  the  workers,  but  in  so  far  as  there  may  be  virtue  in  the 


EEPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  133 


5 


union  principles  of  group  solidarity  and  uniformity,  and  in  so  far 
as  they  lay  claim  to  scientific  accuracy  or  a  special  conformity  to 
justice  in  reward,  they  must  be  judged  adversely. 

(g)  Failure  to  protect  the  workers  from  overexertion  and  exhaus- 
tion.— It  is  claimed  by  scientific  management  that  protection  to 
orkers  is  afforded  by  such  devices  as:  Standardization  of  equip- 
ient  and  performance ;  substitution  of  exact  knowledge  of  men  and 
f  machines  for  guesswork  in  the  setting  of  the  task  and  the  deter- 
mination of  -the  hours  and  other  conditions  of  work ;  careful  studies 
of  fatigue;  elimination  of  the  need  for  pace  setters;  transformation 
of  speeders  into  instructors,  and  transfer  of  responsibility  from  the 
workers  to  the  management  for  contriving  the  best  methods  of  work ; 
maintenance  of  the  best  conditions  for  performing  work  through  fur- 
nishing the  best  tools  and  materials  at  the  proper  time  and  place; 
instruction  of  the  wrorkers  in  the  most  economical  and  easiest  methods 
of  performing  operations;  institution  of  rational  rest  periods  and 
modes  of  recreation  during  working  hours;  and  surrounding  the 
workers  with  the  safest  and  most  sanitary  shop  conditions. 

Investigation  indicates  that  scientific  management,  in  practice,  fur- 
nishes no  reasonable  basis  for  the  majority  of  these  specific  claims 
in  the  present,  and  little  hope  for  their  realization  in  the  near  future. 
In  these  matters,  indeed,  the  utmost  variation  prevails  in  scientific 
management  as  in  other  shops.  Several  admirable  cases  were  found 
with  respect  to  all  these  matters,  but  shops  were  not  wanting  where 
the  management  exhibited  the  utmost  suspicion  of  the  workers,  refer- 
ring continually  to  their  disposition  to  "beat  the  time-study  man," 
although  the  time  study  in  such  shops  was  obviously  based  on  the 
work  of  speeders  and  all  sorts  of  inducements  were  offered  for  pace 
setting,  where  instruction  and  training  of  the  workers  w^ere  empha- 
sized by  their  absence,  and  where  the  general  conditions  of  the  work 
w^ere  much  in  need  of  improvement. 

The  investigation  seems  to  show  clearly  that  practical  scientific 
management  has  not  materially  affected  the  length  of  the  working 
day.  Aside  from  shops  where  the  management  was  evidently  imbued 
with  a  strong  moral  sense,  the  hours  of;  labor  in  these  shops  were 
those  common  to  the  industry  and  the  locality. 

When  we  come  to  the  matter  of  fatigue  studies  and  their  connec- 
tion with  speeding  and  exhaustion,  the  claims  of  scientific  manage- 
ment seem  to  break  down  completely.  No  actual  fatigue  studies 
were  found  taking  place  in  the  shops,  and  the  time-study  men,  who 
should  be  charged  with  such  studies,  seemed  in  general  to  be  quite 
indifferent  or  quite  ignorant  in  regard  to  this  whole  matter.  This 
does  not  mean  that  no  attention  to  fatigue  is  given  in  scientific  man- 
agement shops.  Cases  were  found  where  the  health  and  energy  of 
the  workers  wTere  carefully  observed  and  attempts  were  made  to 
adopt  the  work  to  their  condition,  but  the  methods  employed  were 
the  rough-and-ready  ones  of  common-sense  observation.  Best  periods 
and  modes  of  recreation  during  the  working  hours  are  a  regular 
institution  on  an  extended  scale  in  but  one  shop  visited  by  the  inves- 
tigators. Isolated  instances  were  encountered  elsewhere,  but  man- 
agers in  general  apparently  do  not  even  entertain  the  idea  of  their 
institution. 

Scientific  management  does  not  always  surround  the  workers  with 
the  safest  and  most  sanitary  shop  conditions.  In  general,  scientific 


134  BEPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

management  shops  seem  to  be  good  shops  as  shops  go.  The  introduc- 
tion of  the  system  has  the  tendency  without  doubt  to  clean  the  shop 
up  and  to  improve  the  condition  of  belting,  machinery,  and  arrange- 
ment of  material  equipment  generally.  All  this  is  in  the  direct 
line  of  efficiency  and  safety.  Several  very  notable  examples  of 
excellence  in  safety  and  sanitation  were  found.  On  the  other  hand, 
several  shops  visited  were  below  good  standards  in  these  respects, 
and  flagrant  specific  violations  of  safety  rules  were  encountered. 

As  a  wrhole,  the  facts  in  nowise  justify  the  assumption  that  scien- 
tific management  offers  any  effective  guaranty  against  overspeeding 
and  exhaustion  of  workers.  The  investigation  left  a  strong  impres- 
sion that  scientific  management  workers  in  general  are  not  over- 
speeded,  but  the  challenge  to  show  any  overspeeded  or  overworked 
men  in  scientific  management  shops  in  very  easily  met.  The  situa- 
tion in  this  respect  varies  much  wdth  the  industry.  Some  instances 
of  undoubted  overspeeding  were  found,  particularly  in  the  case  of 
girls  and  women.  But  these  instances  do  not  warrant  a  general 
charge.  On  the  other  hand,  there  appears  to  be  nothing  in  the  special 
methods  of  scientific  management  to  prevent  speeding  up  where  the 
technical  conditions  make  it  possible  and  profitable,  and  there  is 
much  in  these  methods  to  induce  it  in  the  hands  of  unscrupulous 
employers. 

(A)  Failure  to  substantiate  the  claim  that  scientific  management 
offers  exceptional  opportunities  for  advancement  and  promotion  on 
a  basis  of  individual  merit. — While  scientific  management  undoubt- 
edly separates  the  efficient  from  the  inefficient  more  surely  and 
speedily  than  ordinary  methods,  it  was  shown  by  the  investigation 
that  scientific  management  often  fails  in  the  development  of  func- 
tional foremanship  and  in  the  elimination  of  favoritism.  It  tends 
to  create  a  multitude  of  new  tasks  on  which  less  skill  is  required  and 
lower  rates  can  be  paid.  It  has  developed  no  efficient  system  for  the 
placing  or  adaptation  of  the  workers.  It  is  inclined  in  practice  to 
regard  a  worker  as  adapted  to  his  work  and  rightly  placed  when  he 
succeeds  in  making  the  task.  It  tends  to  confine  the  mass  of  work- 
men to  one  or  two  tasks,  and  offers  little  opportunity,  therefore,  for 
the  discovery  and  development  of  special  aptitudes  among  the  masses. 
It  tends  to  divide  the  workers  into  two  unequal  classes — the  few 
who  rise  to  managerial  positions  and  the  many  who  seem  bound  to 
remain  task  workers  within  a  narrow  field.  In  the  ideal  it  offers 
opportunity  for  promotion  from  the  ranks,  and  this  works  out  to  a 
certain  extent  in  practice,  but  not  universally. 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  exaggeration,  too,  in  statements  made  con- 
cerning special  rewards  for  usable  suggestions.  Few  of  the  shops 
make  any  systematic  rewards  of  this  kind,  and  where  this  is  the  case 
the  rewards  are  usually  trivial.  In  one  shop  the  investigator  was 
shown  an  automatic  machine  invented  by  a  workman,  which  did  the 
work  of  several  hand  workers.  "Did  he  receive  a  reward?  "  was 
asked.  "  Oh,  yes,"  came  the  answer,  "  his  rate  of  pay  was  increased 
from  17  to  22  cents  per  hour." 

(i)  With  reference  to  the  alleged  methods  and  severity  of  dis- 
cipline under  scientific  management  the  "  acrimonious  criticism " 
from  trade  unions  does  not  seem  to  be  warranted. — In  theory,  the 
scientific  managers  appear  to  have  the  best  of  the  argument,  and  in 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   OS"  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  135 

practice  the  investigation  showed  an  agreeable  absence  of  rough 
and  arbitrary  disciplinary  authority.  When  the  tasks  were  liberally 
set,  the  workers  were  found  generally  operating  without  special 
supervision  except  where  instructions  or  assistance  were  needed. 
Deductions  were  indeed  made  for  poor  work  and  destruction  of  ma- 
terials, but  in  the  better  class  of  shops  apparently  with  no  greater 
and  perhaps  with  less  than  ordinary  severity. 

While  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  shops  selected  represented 
probably  the  best  of  the  shops  operating  under  this  system,  in  gen- 
eral, it  would  seem  that  scientific  management  does  lessen  the  rigors 
of  discipline  as  compared  with  other  shops  where  the  management  is 
autocratic  and  the  workers  have  no  organization, 

(/')  Failure  to  substantiate  the  claim  that  workers  are  discharged 
only  on  just  grounds  and  have  an  effective  appeal  to  the  highest 
managerial  authority. — This  whole  matter  is  one  in  which  neither 
management  claims  nor  union  complaints  seem  susceptible  of  proof, 
but  the  investigation  indicates  that  the  unions  have  legitimate  basis 
for  charging  that  discharge  is  generally  a  matter  of  arbitrary 
managerial  authority. 

(k)  Lack  of  democracy  under  scientific  management. — As  a  result 
of  the  investigation,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  scientific  manage- 
ment tends  in  practice  to  weaken  the  power  of  the  individual  worker 
as  against  the  employer,  setting  aside  all  questions  of  personal  atti- 
tude and  the  particular  opportunities  and  methods  for  voicing  com- 
plaints and  enforcing  demands.  It  gathers  up  and  transfers  to  the 
management  the  traditional  craft  knowledge  and^  transmits  this 
again  to  the  workers  only  piecemeal  as  it  is  needed  in  the  perform- 
ance of  the  particular  job  or  task.  It  tends  in  practice  to  confine 
each  worker  to  a  particular  task  or  small  cycle  of  tasks.  It  thus 
narrows  his  outlook  and  skill  to  the  experience  and  training  which 
are  necessary  to  do  the  work.  He  is  therefore  easier  of  displacement. 
Moreover,  the  changing  of  methods  and  conditions  of  work  and  the 
setting  of  tasks  by  time  study  with  its  assumption  always  of  scientific 
accuracy  puts  the  individual  worker  at  a,  disadvantage  in  any  attempt 
to  question  the  justice  of  the  demands  made  upon  him.  The  onus 
of  proof  is  upon  him  and  the  standards  of  judgment  are  set  up  by 
the  employer,  covered  by  the  mantle  of  scientific  accuracy. 

It  would  seem  also  that  scientific  management  tends,  on  the  whole, 
to  prevent  the  formation  of  groups  of  workers  within  the  shop  with 
recognized  common  interests,  and  to  weaken  the  solidarity  of  those 
which  exist.  Almost  everything  points  to  the  strengthening  of  the 
individualistic  motive  and  the  weakening  of  group  solidarity.  Each 
worker  is  bent  on  the  attainment  of  his  individual  task.  He  can  not 
combine  with  his  fellows  to  determine  how  much  that  task  shall  be, 
If  the  individual  slows  down  he  merely  lessens  his  wages  and  preju- 
dices his  standing  without  helping  his  neighbor.  If  he  can  beat 
the  other  fellow,  he  helps  himself  without  directly  affecting  the 
other's  task  or  pay.  Assistance,  unless  the  man  is  a  paid  instructor, 
is  at  personal  cost.  Special  rewards,  where  offered,  are  for  the  indi- 
vidual. Rules  of  seniority  are  not  recognized.  Sometimes  personal 
rivalry  is  stimulated  by  the  posting  of  individual  records  or  classifi- 
cation of  the  workers  by  name  into  "  excellent,"  "  good,"  "  poor,"  etc. 
Potential  groups  are  broken  up  by  the  constant  changes  in  methods 
and  reclassification  of  workers  which  are  the  mission  of  time  study. 


136  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

The  whole  gospel  of  scientific  management  to  the  worker  is  to  the 
individual,  telling  him  how,  by  special  efficiency,  he  can  cut  loose 
from  the  mass,  and  rise  in  wages  or  position. 

With  the  power  of  the  individual  weakened  and  the  chances 
lessened  for  the  development  of  groups  and  group  solidarity,  the 
democratic  possibility  of  scientific  management,  barring  the  presence 
of  unionism,  would  seem  to  be  scant.  The  individual  is  manifestly  in 
no  position  to  cope  with  the  employer  on  a  basis  of  equality.  The 
claim  to  democracy  based  on  the  close  association  of  the  management 
and  the  men  and  the  opportunities  allowed  for  the  voicing  of  com- 
plaints is  not  borne  out  by  the  facts ;  and  in  the  general  run  of  scien- 
tific-management shops,  barring  the  presence  of  unionism  and  col- 
lective bargaining,  the  unionists  are  justified  in  the  charge  that  the 
workers  have  no  real  voice  in  hiring  and  discharging,  the  setting  of 
the  task,  the  determination  of  the  wage  rates,  or  the  general  condi- 
tions of  employment.  This  charge  is  true  even  where  the  employers 
have  no  special  autocratic  tendencies,  much  more  so  therefore  where, 
as  in  many  cases,  they  are  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  autocratic 
spirit.  With  rare  exceptions,  then,  democracy  under  scientific  man- 
agement can  not  and  does  not  exist  apart  from  unionism  and  collec- 
tive bargaining. 

Does  the  scientific  manager,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  welcome  the  coop- 
eration of  unionism?  Here,  again,  the  facts  should  decide  the  con- 
tention. The  fact  is  that  while  in  numbers  of  scientific-management 
shops  some  unionists  are  employed,  they  are  not  generally  employed 
as  union  men,  and  the  union  is  rarely  recognized  and  dealt  with  as 
such.  The  fact  is  that  those  who  declare  the  willingness  of  scientific 
management  to  welcome  the  cooperation  of  unionism  in  general  either 
know  nothing  about  unionism  and  its  rules  and  regulations  or 
are  thinking  of  a  different  kind  of  unionism  from  that  to  which  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  stands  committed  and  a  kind  of  co- 
operation foreign  to  its  ideals  and  practices. 

To  sum  up,  scientific  management  in  practice  generally  tends  to 
weaken  the  competitive  power  of  the  individual  worker  and  thwarts 
the  formation  of  shop  groups  and  weakens  group  solidarity;  more- 
over, generally  scientific  management  is  lacking  in  the  arrangements 
and  machinery  necessary  for  the  actual  voicing  of  the  workers'  ideas 
and  complaints  and  for  the  democratic  consideration  and  adjustment 
of  grievances.  Collective  bargaining  has  ordinarily  no  place  in  the 
determination  of  matters  vital  to  the  workers,  and  the  attitude 
toward  it  is  usually  tolerant  only  when  it  is  not  understood.  Finally 
unionism,  where  it  means  a  vigorous  attempt  to  enforce  the  viewpoint 
and  claims  of  the  workers,  is  in  general  looked  upon  with  abhorrence, 
and  unions  which  are  looked  upon  with  complacency  are  not  the 
kind  which  organized  labor  in  general  wants,  while  the  union  cooper- 
ation which  is  invited  is  altogether  different  from  that  which  they 
stand  ready  to  give.  In  practice  scientific  management  must,  there- 
fore be  declared  autocratic  in  tendency — a  reversion  to  industrial 
autocracy,  which  forces  the  workers  to  depend  on  the  employers'  con- 
ception of  fairness  and  limits  the  democratic  safeguards  of  the 
workers. 

5.  Scientific  management  is  still  in  its  infancy  or  early  trial  stages, 
and  immaturity  and  failure  to  attain  ideals  in  practice  are  necessary 
accompaniments  to  the  development  of  any  new  industrial  or  social 


EEPOET  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  EELATIONS.  137 


movement.    Doubtless  many  of  its  diversities  and  shortcomings  will, 
therefore,  be  cured  by  time. 

Before  this  can  be  brought  about,  however,  certain  potent  causes  of 
resent  evil  must  be  eradicated: 

(a)  The  first  of  these  is  a  persistent  attempt  on  the  part  of  experts 
nd  managers  to  apply  scientific  management  and  its  methods  outside 
their  natural  sphere. 

(&)  A  second  chief  source  of  danger  and  evil  to  labor  in  the 
application  of  scientific  management  is  that  it  offers  its  wares  in  the 

en  market,  but  it  has  developed  no  means  by  which  it  can  control 
,  use  of  these  by  the  purchaser.  In  large  part  the  practical  de- 
.arture  of  scientific  management  from  its  ideals  is^  the  result  of 
pecial  managerial  or  proprietorial  aims  and  impatience  of  delay 
n  their  fulfillment.  The  expert  is  frequently  called  in  because  the 
.stablishment  is  in  financial  or  industrial  straits,  and  the  chief  con- 
cern of  the  management  is  quick  increase  of  production  and  profits. 
It  must  meet  its  competitors  here  and  now,  and  can  not  afford  to 
expend  more  than  is  necessary  to  do  this,  or  to  forego  immediate 
returns  while  the  foundations  are  being  laid  for  a  larger  but  later 
success,  and  with  careful  regard  to  immediate  justice  and  the  long- 
time welfare  of  its  working  force.  The  outcome  frequently  is  con- 
flict between  the  systematizer  and  the  management,  resulting  in  the 
abandonment  of  the  scheme  only  partially  worked  out  on  the  retire- 
ment of  the  expert,  leaving  the  management  to  apply  crudely  the 
methods  partially  installed,  sometimes  to  the  detriment  of  the  work- 
ers and  their  interests. 

It  is  true  that  the  situation  thus  outlined  is  not  of  universal  appli- 
cation. But  bitter  complaints  were  frequently  heard  from  members 
of  the  small  ^roup  of  experts  who  represent  the  highest  ideals  and 
intelligence  of  the  movement,  in  regard  to  the  managerial  opposition 
which  they  have  encountered,  and  frequent  apologies  were  offered 
for  the  conditions  and  results  of  their  work,  accompanied  by  the 
statement  that  they  could  go  no  further  than  the  management  would 
allow,  or  that  things  had  been  done  by  the  management  against  their 
judgment  and  for  which  they  could  not  stand.  Moreover,  scientific 
management  is  closely  interlocked  with  the  mechanism  of  production 
for  profit  and  the  law  of  economy  rules.  Many  things  which  would 
be  desirable  from  the  ideal  standpoint,  and  which  are  a  practical 
necessity  if  the  interests  of  the  workers  are  to  be  fully  protected, 
are  not  always  or  usually  economical.  This  is  specially  true  of  time 
study,  task  setting,  and  rate  making. 

The  arbitrary  will  of  the  employer  and  the  law  of  economy  are 
two  potent  special  forces  which  contribute  to  the  existing  diversity, 
incompleteness,  and  crudity  of  scientific  management  as  it  is  prac- 
ticed, even  where  the  systematizer  is  possessed  of  the  highest  intelli- 
gence and  imbued  with  the  best  motives  of  his  group. 

(<?)  But  to  explain  the  situation  as  it  exists  at  present,  two  other 
important  factors  must  be  taken  into  consideration.  The  first  of 
these  is  the  existence  and  practice  of  self-styled  scientific  management 
systematizers  and  time  study  experts  who  lack  in  most  respects  the 
ideals  and  the  training  essential  to  fit  them  for  the  work  which  they 
claim  to  be  able  to  do.  Scientific  management  as  a  movement  is 
cursed  with  fakirs.  The  great  rewards  which  a  few  leaders  in  the 
movement  have  secured  for  their  services  have  brought  into  the  field 


138  EEPOET  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  KELATIONS. 

a  crowd  of  industrial  "  patent  medicine  men."  The  way  is  open  to 
all.  No  standards  or  requirements,  private  or  public,  have  been 
developed  by  the  application  of  which  the  goats  can  be  separated 
from  the  sheep.  Employers  have  thus  far  proved  credulous.  Almost 
anyone  can  show  the  average  manufacturing  concern  where  it  can 
make  some  improvements  in  its  methods.  So  the  scientific  manage- 
ment shingles  have  gone  up  all  over  the  country,  the  fakirs  have  gone 
into  the  shops,  and  in  the  name  of  scientific  management  have  reaped 
temporary  gains  to  the  detriment  of  both  the  employers  and  the 
workers. 

(d)  Fake  scientific  management  experts,  however,  are  not  alone 
responsible  for  the  lack  of  training  and  intelligence  which  contributes 
to  the  diversity  and  immaturity  of  scientific  management  in  practice 
and  its  failure  to  make  good  the  labor  claims  of  its  most  distinguished 
leaders.  The  fact  is  that  on  the  whole,  and  barring  some  notable 
exceptions,  the  sponsors  and  adherents  of  scientific  management — 
experts  and  employers  alike — are  profundly  ignorant  of  very  much 
that  concerns  the  broader  humanitarian  and  social  problems  which 
it  creates  and  involves,  especially  as  these  touch  the  character  and 
welfare  of  labor. 

It  is  because  of  this  ignorance  and  unwarranted  assurance  that 
there  is  a  strong  tendency  on  the  part  of  scientific  management 
experts  to  look  upon  the  labor  end  of  their  work  as  the  least  difficult 
and  requiring  the  least  careful  consideration.  To  their  minds  the 
delicate  and  difficult  part  of  the  task  of  installation  is  the  solution 
of  the  material,  mechanical,  and  organic  problems  involved.  They 
tend  to  look  upon  the  labor  end  of  their  work  as  a  simple  technical 
matter  of  so  setting  tasks  and  making  rates  that  the  workers  will 
give  the  fullest  productive  cooperation.  They  tend  naively  to  assume 
that  when  the  productivity  of  the  concern  is  increased  and  the  la- 
borers are  induced  to  do  their  full  part  toward  this  end,  the  labor 
problem  in  connection  with  scientific  management  is  satisfactorily 
solved.  In  short,  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  labor  problem  appears 
to  be  looked  at  as  one  aspect  of  the  general  problem  of  production 
in  the  shop,  and  it  is  truthfully  assumed  that  if  it  is  solved  with 
reference  to  this  problem  it  must  also  be  solved  with  due  regard 
to  labor's  well-being  and  its  just  demands.  This  seems  to  have 
been  the  characteristic  attitude  of  scientific  management  from  the 
beginning.  Labor  was  simply  looked  upon  as  one  of  the  factors 
entering  into  production,  like  machinery,  tools,  stores,  and  other 
elements  of  equipment.  The  problem  was  simply  how  to  secure  an 
efficient  coordination  and  functioning  of  these  elements.  It  was 
only  after  the  opposition  of  labor  had  been  expressed  that  scientific 
management  began  to  be  conscious  of  any  other  aspect  of  the  labor 
matter.  And  with  some  notable  exceptions  scientific  management  ex- 
perts and  employers  still  look  upon  the  labor  matter  almost  solely 
as  an  aspect  of  the  general  production  problem,  and  have  little  posi- 
tive interest  or  concern  in  regard  to  it  otherwise. 

It  is  probable  that  scientific  managers  will  object  to  these  state- 
ments, pleading  that  they  are  mainly  variations  and  conditions  due 
to  the  time  element  or  to  the  necessity  imposed  by  the  law  of  costs. 
They  will  say,  for  example,  that  when  a  new  and  unusual  job  comes 
in,  neither  time  nor  economy  will  allow  of  careful  time  studies,  and 
if  careful  studies  were  made  of  all  the  variations  of  a  complicated 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  139 


a 

s 


task,  the  expense  of  such  studies  would  wipe  out  the  profit;  that,  in 
general,  they  are  proceeding  toward  the  full  realization  of  the  ideal 
of  scientific  management  as  fast  as  economy  will  allow.  But  such 
pleas  would  serve  only  to  confirm  the  main  contention  that  scientific 
managers  and  scientific  management  employers  generally  are  neces- 
sarily ruled,  like  all  members  of  the  employing  group,  by  the  forces 
of  cost  and  profits;  that  to  them  the  labor  problem  is  primarily  an 
aspect  of  the  problem  of  production,  and  that  in  the  ends  the  needs 
and  welfare  of  labor  must  be  subordinated  to  these  things.  Beneath 
all  other  causes  or  shortcomings  of  scientific  management,  therefore, 
in  its  relation  to  labor,  there  seems1  to  be  the  practical  fact  of  an 
opposition  of  interests  between  the  profit-taking  and  the  labor  group, 
which  makes  extremely  doubtful  the  possibility  that  its  shortcomings 
from  the  standpoint  of  labor  are  capable  of  elimination. 

GENERAL   LABOR   PROBLEMS. 

6.  (a)  Scientific  management  at  its  best  furthers  the  modern  ten- 
dency toward  the  specialization  of  the  workers.  Its  most  essential 
features — functional  foremanship,  time  study,  task  setting,  and  effi- 
ciency payment — all  have  this  inherent  effect. 

Under  the  scientific  management  system  fully  developed,  the  ordi- 
nary mechanic  is  intended  to  be  and  is,  in  fact,  a  machine  feeder  and 
a  machine  feeder  only,  with  the  possibility  of  auxiliary  operations 
clearly  cut  off  and  with  means  applied  to  discourage  experimentation. 
And  what  applies  to  the  machine  feeder  applies  with  more  or  less 
thoroughness  to  machine  and  hand  operatives  generally. 

But  it  is  not  merely  in  stripping  from  the  job  its  auxiliary  opera- 
tions that  scientific  management  tends  to  specialize  the  work  and  the 
workmen.  Time  study,  the  chief  cornerstone  of  all  systems  of 
scientific  management,  tends  inherently  to  the  narrowing  of  the  job 
or  task  itself.  As  the  final  object  of  time  study,  so  far  as  it  directly 
touches  the  workers,  is  to  make  possible  the  setting  of  tasks  so  simple 
and  uniform  and  so  free  from  possible  causes  of  interruption  and 
variation  that  definite  and  invariable  time  limits  can  be  placed  upon 
them,  and  that  the  worker  may  be  unimpeded  in  his  efficient  per- 
formance of  them  by  the  necessity  for  questioning  and  deliberation, 
the  preponderating  tendency  of  time  study  is  to  split  up  the  work 
into  smaller  and  simpler  operations  and  tasks.  Decidedly,  then, 
time  study  tends  to  further  the  modern  tendency  toward  specializa- 
tion of  the  job  and  the  task. 

With  functional  foremanship  lopping  off  from  the  job  auxiliary 
operations,  and  time  study  tending  to  a  narrowing  of  the  task  itself, 
task  setting  and  efficiency  methods  of  payment  come  into  play  as 
forces  tending  to  confine  the  worker  to  a  single  task  or  a  narrow 
range  of  operations.  The  worker  is  put  upon  the  special  task  for 
which  he  seems  best  adapted,  and  he  is  stimulated  by  the  methods  of 
payment  employed  to  make  himself  as  proficient  as  possible  at  it. 
When  he  succeeds  in  this,  to  shift  him  to  another  task  ordinarily  in- 
volves an  immediate  and  distinct  loss  to  the  employer,  and  the  worker 
himself  naturally  resents  being  shifted  to  a  new  task  since  this  in- 
volves an  immediate  loss  in  his  earnings.  Here  worker  and  em- 
ployer are  as  one  in  their  immediate  interest  to  have  the  job  so 


140  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

simple  that  the  operation  can  be  quickly  learned,  and  the  task  made, 
and,  that  shifting  of  tasks  be  eliminated  as  far  as  possible.  The 
employer  besides  has  another  motive  for  this,  in  that  the  shifting  of 
the  workers  multiplies  the  records  and  renders  more  complex  the 
system  of  wage  accounting.  It  is  true  that  the  scientific  manage- 
ment employer,  like  any  other,  must  have  a  certain  number  of  workers 
in  the  shop  who  are  capable  of  performing  a  plurality  of  tasks.  But 
the  tendency  is  to  have  as  few  all-round  workers  as  are  necessary  to 
meet  these  emergencies.  The  methods  of  scientific  management 
operate  most  effectively  when  they  break  up  and  narrow  the  work  of 
the  individual,  and  'the  ends  of  scientific  management  are  best  served 
when  the  rank  and  file  of  the  workers  are  specialists. 

This  inherent  tendency  of  scientific  management  to  specialization 
is  buttressed,  broadened  in  its  scope  and  perpetuated  by  the  pro- 
gressive gathering  up  and  systematizing  in  the  hands  of  the  employ- 
ers of  all  the  traditional  craft  knowledge  in  the  possession  of  the 
workers.  With  this  information  in  hand  and  functional  foreman- 
ship  to  direct  its  use,  scientific  management  claims  to  have  no  need 
of  craftsmen,  in  the  old  sense  of  the  term,  and,  therefore,  no  need  for 
an  apprenticeship  system  except  for  the  training  of  functional  fore- 
men. It  therefore  tends  to  neglect  apprenticeship  except  for  the 
training  of  the  few.  And  as  this  body  of  systematized  knowledge  in 
the  hands  of  the  employer  grows,  it  is  enabled  to  broaden  the  scope 
of  its  operation,  to  attack  and  specialize  new  operations,  new  crafts 
and  new  industries,  so  that  the  tendency  is  to  reduce  more  and  more 
to  simple,  specialized  operations,  and  more  and  more  workers  to  the 
positions  of  narrow  specialists.  Nor  does  scientific  management 
afford  anything  in  itself  to  check  or  offset  this  specialization  ten- 
dency. The  instruction  and  training  offered  is  for  specialist  work- 
men. Selection  and  adaptation  are  specializing  in  their  tendencies. 
Promotion  is  for  the  relatively  few.  The  whole  system,  in  its  con- 
ception and  operation,  is  pointed  toward  a  universally  specialized 
industrial  regime. 

(&)  But  scientific  management  is  not  only  inherently  specializing; 
it  also  tends  to  break  down  existing  standards  and  uniformities  set 
up  by  the  workmen,  and  to  prevent  the  establishment  of  stable  con- 
ditions of  work  and  pay.  Time  study  means  constant  and  endless 
change  in  the  method  of  operation.  No  sooner  is  a  new  and  better 
method  discovered  and  established  and  the  condition  of  work  and 
pay  adapted  to  it  than  an  improvement  is  discovered  involving  per- 
haps new  machinery,  new  tools  and  materials,  a  new  way  of  doing 
things,  and  a  consequent  alteration  of  the  essential  conditions  of 
work  and  pay,  and  perhaps  a  reclassification  of  the  workers. 

(c)  Ample  evidence  to  support  this  analysis  was  afforded  by  the 
investigation.  Where  the  system  was  found  relatively  completely 
applied,  the  mass  of  the  workers  were  engaged  in  specialized  tasks, 
there  was  little  variation  in  the  operations  except  in  emergencies, 
apprenticeship  for  the  many  was  abandoned  or  was  looked  upon  as 
an  investment  which  brought  no  adequate  returns  and  was  slated 
for  abandonment;  almost  everywhere  scientific  management  em- 
ployers expressed  a  strong  preference  for  specialist  workmen,  old 
crafts  wrere  being  broken  up  and  the  craftsmen  given  the  choice  of 
retirement  or  of  entering  the  ranks  of  specialized  workmen;  in  the 
most  progressive  shops,  the  time  study  men  were  preparing  the  way 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  141 


__r  a  broader  application  of  the  system  by  the  analytical  study  of 
the  operations  and  crafts  not  yet  systematized.  Changes  in  methods 
and  classification  of  workers  were  seen  even  during  the  short  course 
of  the  investigation. 

(d)  What  does  this  mean  from  the  standpoint  of  labor  and  labor 
elf  are  ?    Certain  conclusions  are  inevitable.    Scientific  management, 

fully  and  properly  applied,  inevitably  tends  to  the  constant  break- 
down of  the  established  crafts  and  craftsmanship  and  the  constant 
elimination  of  skill  in  the  sense  of  narrowing  craft  knowledge  and 
workmanship  except  for  the  lower  orders  of  workmen.  Some  scien- 
tific management  employers  have  asserted  belief  in  their  ability  to 
get  on  a  paying  basis  within  three  months,  should  they  lose  their 
whole  working  force  except  the  managerial  staff  and  enough  others 
>  maintain  the  organization,  if  they  had  to  begin  all  over  again 
"th  green  hands.  What  this  means  in  increased  competition  of 
rkmen  with  workmen  can  be  imagined.  Were  the  scientific  man- 
ment  ideal  fully  realized,  any  man  who  walks  the  street  would  be 
a  practical  competitor  for  almost  any  workman's  job. 

Such  a  situation  would  inevitably  break  clown  the  basis  of  present- 
day  unionism  and  render  collective  bargaining  impossible  in  any  ef- 
fective sense  in  regard  to  the  matters  considered  by  the  unions  most 
essential.  It  has  been  proved  by  experience  that  unskilled  workers 
generally  find  it  most  difficult  to  maintain  effective  and  continuous 
organization  for  dealing  with  complicated  industrial  situations.  Ef- 
fective collective  bargaining  can  not  exist  without  effective  organi- 
zation. Moreover,  we  have  already  seen  how  scientific  management, 
apart  from  the  matter  of  skill,  tends  to  prevent  the  formation  and 

Jeakens  the  solidarity  of  groups  within  the  shops. 
But,  beyond  all  this,  time  study  strikes  at  the  heart  and  core  of  the 
principles  and  conditions  which  make  effective  unionism  and  collec- 
tive bargaining  possible  with  respect  to  certain  most  essential  mat- 
ters. When  the  employer  can  constantly  initiate  new  methods  and 
conditions  and  reclassify  the  work  and  the  workmen,  he  can  evade 
all  efforts  of  the  union  to  establish  and  maintain  definite  and  con- 
tinuous standards  of  work  and  pay.  Time  study  is  in  definite  oppo- 
sition to  uniformity  and  stable  classification.  It  enables  the  employer 
constantly  to  lop  off  portions  of  the  work  from  a  certain  class  and 
then  to  create  new  classifications  of  workers,  with  new  conditions  of 
work  and  pay.  Add  to  all  of -this  the  advantage  gained  by  the  em- 
ployers in  the  progressive  gathering  up  and  systematization  of  craft 
knowledge  for  their  own  uses,  and  the  destruction  of  apprenticeship, 
which  cuts  the  workers  off  from  the  perpetuation  among  them  of 
craftsmanship,  and  the  destructive  tendencies  of ^  scientific^  manage- 
ment as  far. as  present-day  unionism  and  collective  bargaining  are 
concerned,  seems  inevitable. 

(e)  Under  these  circumstances  the  progressive  degeneration  of 
craftsmanship  and  the  progressive  degradation  of  skilled  craftsmen 
also  seems  inevitable. 

(/)  The  ultimate  effects  of  scientific  management,  should  it  be- 
come universal,  upon  wages,  employment,  and  industrial  peace,  are 
matters  of  pure  speculation.  During  the  period  of  transition,  how- 
ever, there  can  be  little  doubt  of  the  results.  The  tendency  will  be 
first  toward  a  realignment  of  wage  rates.  The  craftsmen,  the  highly 
trained  workers,  can  not  hope  to  maintain  their  wage  advantage  over 


142  KEPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

the  semiskilled  and  less  skilled  workers.  There  will  be  a  leveling 
tendency.  Whether  this  leveling  will  be  up  or  down,  it  is  impossible 
to  say.  At  present  scientific  management  seems  to  be  making  the 
relatively  unskilled  more  efficient  than  ever  before,  and  they  are  in 
general  receiving  under  it  greater  earnings  than  ever  before.  It  is 
evident,  however,  that  the  native  efficiency  of  the  working  class  must 
suffer  from  the  neglect  of  apprenticeship.  Scientific  managers  have 
themselves  complained  bitterly  of  the  poor  material  from  which  they 
must  recruit  their  workers,  compared  with  the  efficient  and  self- 
respecting  craftsman  who  applied  for  employment  20  years  ago. 

Moreover,  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  the  whole  scheme  of 
scientific  management,  and  especially  the  gathering  up  and  systema- 
tizing of  the  knowledge  formerly  the  possession  of  the  workmen, 
tends  enormously  to  add  to  the  strength  of  capitalism.  This  fact, 
together  with  the  greater  ease  of  displacement  shown  above,  must 
make  the  security  and  continuity  of  employment  inherently  more 
uncertain. 

If  generally  increased  efficiency  is  the  result  of  scientific  manage- 
ment, unemployment  w^ould  in  the  end  seem  to  become  less  of  a 
menace.  But  during  the  period  of  transition  its  increase  should  be 
expected.  Not  only  must  the  old  craftsmen  suffer  as  the  result  of 
the  destruction  of  their  crafts,  but  until  scientific  management  finds 
itself  able  to  control  markets  its  increased  efficiency  must  result  in 
gluts  in  special  lines,  with  resulting  unemployment  in  particular 
trades  and  occupations.  A  leading  scientific-management  expert 
has  stated  that  one  shop  of  six  in  a  certain  industry  systematized  by 
him  could  turn  out  all  the  product  that  the  market  would  carry. 
The  result  to  the  workers,  if  the  statement  be  true,  needs  no  explana- 
tion. Scientific  management  would  seem  to  offer  possibilities  ulti- 
mately of  better  market  control  or  better  adaptation  to  market  condi- 
tions, but  the  experience  of  the  past  year  of  depression  indicates  that 
at  present  no  such  possibilities  generally  exist. 

Finally,  until  unionism  as  it  exists  has  been  done  away  with  or 
has  undergone  essential  modification,  scientific  management  can  not 
be  said  to  make  for  the  avoidance  of  strikes  and  the  establishment 
of  industrial  peace.  The  investigation,  has  shown  several  well-authen- 
ticated cases  of  strikes  which  have  occurred  in  scientific-management 
shops.  They  are  perhaps  less  frequent  in  this  class  of  shop  than 
elsewhere  in  similar  establishments,  owing  largely  to  the  fact  that 
organized  workmen  are  on  the  whole  little  employed.  In  its  exten- 
sion, however,  it  is  certain  that  scientific  management  is  a  constant 
menace  to  industrial  peace.  So  long  as  present-day  unionism  exists 
and  unionists  continue  to  believe,  as  they  seem  warranted  in  doing, 
that  scientific  management  means  the  destruction  of  their  organiza- 
tions or  their  present  rules  and  regulations,  unionism  will  continue 
to  oppose  it  energetically  and  whenever  and  wherever  opportunity 
affords. 

It  has  been  said  with  much  truth  that  scientific  management  is 
like  the  invention  of  machinery  in  its  effect  upon  workers  and  social 
conditions  and  welfare  generally — that  it  gives  a  new  impulse  to 
the  industrial  revolution  which  characterized  the  latter  part  of  the 
eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries  and  strengthens  its  general 
effects  and  tendencies.  A  chief  characterization  of  this  revolution 
has  been  the  breakdown  of  craftsmanship,  the  destruction  of  crafts, 


BEPOBT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  143 


and  the  carrying  of  the  modern  industrial  world  toward  an  era  of 
specialized  workmanship  and  generally  semiskilled  or  unskilled 
workmen.  Scientific  management  seems  to  be  another  force  urging 
us  forward  toward  this  era. 


CONCLUSIONS. 


1\  Our  industries  should  adopt  all  methods  which  replace  inac- 
•acy  with  accurate  knowledge  and  which  systematically  operate  to 
ninate  economic  waste.  Scientific  management  at  its  best  has  suc- 
ded  in  creating  an  organic  whole  of  the  several  departments  of 
institution,  establishing  a  coordination  of  their  functions  which 
lias  previously  been  impossible,  and,  in  this  respect,  it  has  conferred 
great  benefits  on  industry. 

The  social  problem  created  by  scientific  management,  however, 
does  not  lie  in  this  field.  As  regards  its  social  consequences  neither 
organized  nor  unorganized  labor  finds  in  scientific  management  any 
adequate  protection  to  its  standards  of  living,  any  progressive  means 
for  industrial  education,  any  opportunity  for  industrial  democracy 
by  which  labor  may  create  for  itself  a  progressively  efficient  share 
in  management.  Therefore,  as  unorganized  labor  is  totally  un- 
equipped to  work  for  these  human  rights,  it  becomes  doubly  the  duty 
of  organized  labor  to  work  unceasingly  and  unswervingly  for  them, 
and,  if  necessary,  to  combat  an  industrial  development  which  not  only 
does  not  contain  conditions  favorable  to"  their  growth,  but,  in  many 
respects,  is  hostile  soil. 

XIX.     PRISON  LABOR. 

The  evidence  which  has  come  before  the  commission  is  the  basis 
for  the  following  statements : 

1.  The  practice  of  using  convicts  in  penitentiaries  and  prisons 
generally  for  the  manufacture  of  articles  for  general  commerce  has 
been  productive  of  evil  results  as  regards  not  only  the  convicts  but 
the  general  public. 

2.  The  competition  of  prison-made  articles  has  resulted  in  the 
existence  of  a  low  wage  scale  in  many  industries  and  has  subjected 
the  manufacturers  to  a  kind  of  competition  which  should  not  exist 
in  any  civilized  community. 

3.  The  only  beneficiaries  of  the  convict  labor  system  are  the  con- 
tractors who  are  permitted  by  the  State  to  exploit  the  inmates  of 
prisons. 

4.  The  individual  States  are  powerless  to  deal  adequately  with 
this  situation  because  of  the  interstate  shipment  of  convict-made 
goods. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  abolition  as  far  as  possible  of  indoor  manufacture,  and  the 
substitution  of  such  outdoor  work  as  that  upon  State  farms  and 
State   roads,   providing  that  where   prisoners   are  employed   they 
should  be  compensated  and  that  the  products  which  they  manufac- 
ture should  not  be  sold  in  competition  with  the  products  of  free 
labor. 

2.  The  enactment  by  Congress  of  a  bill  providing  that  all  convict- 
made  goods  when  transported  into  any  State  or  Territory  of  the 
United  States  shall  be  subject  to  the  operation  of  the  laws  of  such 


144  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

State  or  Territory  to  the  same  extent  and  in  the  same  manner  as 
though  such  goods  had  been  produced  therein. 

XX.     IMMIGRATION. 

The  evidence  presented  to  the  commission  is  the  basis  for  the  fol- 
lowing statements : 

1.  The  immigration  policy  of  the  United  States  has  created  a 
number  of  our  most  difficult  and  serious  industrial  problems  and  has 
been  responsible  in  a  considerable  measure  for  the  existing  state  of 
industrial  unrest. 

2.  The  enormous  influx  of  immigrants  during  the  past  25  years 
has  already  undermined  the  American  standard  of  living  for  all 
workmen  except  those  in  the  skilled  trades,  and  has  been  the  largest 
single  factor  in  preventing  the  wage  scale  from  rising  as  rapidly  as 
food  prices. 

3.  The  great  mass  of  non-English-speaking  workers,  who  form 
about  one-half  of  the  labor  force  in  the  basic  industries,  has  done 
much  to  prevent  the  development  of  better  relations  between  em- 
ployers and  employees. 

4.  The  presence  of  such  a  large  proportion  of  immigrants  has 
greatly  hampered  the  formation  of  trade-unions  and  has  tremen- 
dously increased  the  problem  of  securing  effective  and  responsible 
organizations. 

5.  The  unreasonable  prejudice  of  almost  every  class  of  Americans 
toward  the  immigrants,  who  form  such  a  large  proportion  of  the 
labor  force  of  our  industries,  has  been  largely  responsible  for  the 
failure  of  our  Nation  to  reach  a  correct  understanding  of  the  labor 
problem  and  has  promoted  the  harshness  and  brutality  which  has  so 
often  been  manifested  in  connection  with  industrial  disturbances. 
It  has  been  and  to  a  large  measure  still  is  felt  possible  to  dismiss  the 
most  revolting  working  conditions,  the  most  brutal  treatment,  or 
the  most  criminal  invasions  of  personal  rights,  by  saying,  "  Oh,  well, 
they  are  just  ignorant  foreigners." 

6.  If  immigration  had  continued  at  the  average  rate  of  the  past 
10  years  it  would  have  proved  almost,  if  not  quite,  impossible  to  have 
brought  industrial  conditions  and  relations  to  any  proper  basis,  in 
spite  of  the  most  extreme  efforts  of  civic  organizations,  trades-unions, 
and  governmental  machinery.    The  great  diminution  of  immigration 
as  a  result  of  the  European  war  has  already  begun  to  show  its 
salutary  effects. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend : 

1.  The  enactment  of  legislation  providing  for  the  restriction  of  im- 
migration based  upon  the  general  provisions  contained  in  the  so- 
called  Burnett-Dillingham  bill,  which  has  received  the  approval  of 
two  successive  Congresses.  With  a  full  realization  of  the  many 
theoretical  objections  which  have  been  urged  against  the  literacy 
test,  the  consensus  of  evidence  is  so  strong  that  its  practical  work- 
ings would  be  to  restrict  immigration  to  those  who  are  likely  to 
make  the  most  desirable  citizens,  to  regulate  immigration  in  some 
degree  in  proportion  to  the  actual  needs  of  American  industry,  and 
finally  to  promote  education  in  Europe,  that  it  seems  necessary  at 
least  to  urge  that  this  plan  be  given  a  practical  test. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  145 


12.  The  enactment  of  legislation  providing  that  within  six  months 
om  the  time  of  entry   all  immigrants  shall  be  required,  under 
penalty  of  deportation,  either  to  declare  their  intention  to  become 

C*  'izens  by  taking  out  their  first  papers  or  to  definitely  register  them- 
ves  with  the  proper  authority  as  alien  tourists,  and  further  pro- 
ling  that  all  immigrants  wyho  have  failed  to  take  out  their  first 
pers  at  the  end  of  two  years  shall  be  deported,  as  shall  all  who 
il  to  take  out  their  second  papers  when  they  become  eligible,  de- 
portation in  each  case  to  act  as  a  bar  to  future  entry. 

3.  The  provision  by  the  States  and  municipalities,  with  the  assist- 
ance of  the  Federal  Government,  if  necessary,  for  the  education  of 
all  adult  persons  who  are  unable  to  speak,  read,  or  write  the  English 

tnguage.  In  order  to  accomplish  this  it  may  be  necessary  to  pro- 
de  that  employers  shall  grant  certain  definite  periods  of  leisure 
r  such  instruction. 


XXI.  LABOR  CONDITIONS  IN  AMERICAN  COLONIAL  POSSESSIONS. 


The  attention  of  the  commission  was  directed  to  the  labor  condi- 
tions in  American  colonies  by  the  strike  of  some  20,000  agricultural 
laborers  in  the  island  of  Porto  Rico,  and  by  the  appeal  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Free  Federation  of  Labor  of  Porto  Rico  for  a  hear- 
ing at  which  they  might  present  their  statement  of  the  labor  condi- 
tions, relations  between  laborers  and  employers,  and  the  attitude 
assumed  by  the  local  Government  during  the  strike.  The  commission 
granted  the  hearing  and,  in  order  that  a  full  and  fair  presentation 
of  the  conditions  should  be  made,  invited  the  Government  of  Porto 
Rico  to  appoint  representatives  who  were  fully  acquainted  with  the 
situation.  As  a  result  of  the  hearing  of  the  testimony  of  these  wit- 
nesses, a  situation,  was  found  which  demands  immediate  attention 
in  order  that  widespread  and  deep-rooted  evils  should  be  eliminated. 
These  conditions  are  in  large  measure  an  inheritance  from  centuries 
of  despotic  Spanish  rule,  and  it  is  undeniable  that  great  improve- 
ments in  certain  lines  have  been  accomplished  under  American  ad- 
ministration. Nevertheless,  a  peculiar  responsibility  rests  upon  the 
American  Nation  for  the  conditions  of  the  people  in  our  colonial 
possessions  who  occupy  the  position  morally  and  legally  of  wrards  of 
the  Nation. 

The  investigations  were  confined  to  the  conditions  in  Porto  Rico, 
but  through  the  petitions  filed  with  the  commission  by  the  inhabi- 
tants of  other  islands  and  through  the  information  contained  in  re- 
ports of  governmental  officials,  it  seems  certain  that  the  labor  condi- 
tions in  all  American  colonies  are  generally  similar  to  those  in  Porto 
Rico,  and  demand  the  attention  of  Congress. 

As  a  result  of  the  investigations  and  a  careful  analysis  of  the 
extensive  documentary  evidence  filed,  the  following  statements  with 
regard  to  industrial  and  social  conditions  in  Porto  Rico  are  war- 
ranted : 

1.  Laborers  in  Porto  Rico,  including  men,  women,  and  children, 
are  employed  at  wages  which  are  inadequate  to  furnish  proper  food 
and  clothing.  The  wages  of  men  in  agricultural  districts  range  from 
35  to  60  cents  a  day,  when  employed,  and  those  of  the  women  and 
"  ildren  are  about  one-half  this  amount. 


38819°— 16 10 


146  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

2.  As  a  result  largely  of  the  low-wage  standard,  the  diet  of  the 
laborers,  consisting  chiefly  of  rice,  beans,  codfish,  and  plantains,  is 
so  miserably  inadequate  that  the  worker  not  only  is  rendered  ineffi- 
cient but  is  to  a  large  extent  undernourished. 

3.  The  laborers  are  further  exploited  on  the  large  plantations, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Government  representatives,  by 
exorbitant  prices  for  food  and  other  supplies,  by  deliberate  cheating 
as  regards  weights  and  measures,  and  by  unwarranted  deductions 
from  their  wages  for  goods  that  were  never  purchased. 

4.  The  educational  facilities  of  Porto  Rico  are  so  totally  inade- 
quate that  there  are  nearly  200,000  children  for  whose  education  no 
provision  has  been  made. 

The  representatives  of  the  colonial  Government  give  a  lack  of 
ability  to  finance  the  educational  system  as  the  reason  for  the  present 
conditions. 

5.  Many  thousand  people  yearly,  located  in  the  rural  districts,  far 
from  medical  attendance  and  unable  to  afford  the  high  charges  of 
the  physicians,  die  without  medical  attendance. 

6.  The  labor  laws  of  Porto  Rico  are  inadequate,  and  the  Bureau 
of  Labor  is  not  provided  with  sufficient  funds  to  enforce  the  existing 
laws.    The  laws  supposed  to  regulate  the  labor  of  women  and  chil- 
dren are  generally  violated.     The  provisions  of  the  law  restraining 
child  labor  are  largely  nullified  by  the  insertion  of  a  clause  which 
permits  this  labor  if  the  child  is  accompanied  by  a  parent  or  other 
relative. 

The  employers'  liability  law  of  the  island  has  the  archaic  fellow - 
servant  clause  in  it  and  therefore  is  noneffective. 

7.  The  great  majority  of  the  Porto  Ricans  are  landless,  the  land 
of  Porto  Rico  being  largely  owned  by  the  corporations,  wealthy 
landlords,  and  the  colonial  Government  and  municipalities.     Very 
little  land  is  for  sale. 

8.  As  a  result,  the  land  rents  are  inordinately  high  and  tend  very 
strongly  to  retard  the  development  of  a  middle  class. 

9.  The  housing  conditions  of  the  workers  are  extremely  bad.    The 
majority  of  the  rural  workers  live  in  huts  which  do  not  cost  more 
than  $10  to  build,  and  these  huts  are  occupied,  on  an  average,  by  five 
people  each,  although  at  best  there  are  only  semipartitions  dividing 
the  huts  into  two  rooms.    The  existing  conditions  are  a  menace  not 
only  to  health  but  to  morality  and  every  sense  of  decency. 

10.  The  laborers  may  be  ejected  from  the  huts  provided  by  the 
employers  at  any  time  that  the  owner  sees  fit,  and,  while  they  pay  no 
rent,  they  must  and  do  work  for  the  owner  at  his  pleasure. 

11.  In  the  cities  the  conditions  are  almost  equally  bad.     The  city 
laborers  rent  apartments  or  build  little  houses  on  rented  land.     As 
an  illustration  of  this  condition :  There  were,  in  1912,  10,936  people 
in  Puerto  de  Tierra.    These  people  lived  in  1,144  houses,  and  practi- 
cally 98  per  cent  of  them  were  renters,  as  the  occupants  of  only  30 
houses  owned  both  house  and  land.    The  land  of  one  owner,  which 
was  assessed  at  $6,340,  brought  in  a  total  rent  of  $2,580,  or  37.4  per 
cent.    That  of  another,  assessed  at  $29,460,  yielded  $7,821  in  rent,  or 
23.9  per  cent. 

12.  Unemployment  is  very  prevalent  in  the  island,  and  it  has  been 
testified  that,  largely  as  the  result  of  stimulated  immigration,  there 
are  between  200,000  and  300,000  more  workers  than  jobs. 


I 


EEPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  147 


:; 


13.  The  immigrants  from  the  English-speaking  islands  or  from 
the  mainland  are  given  preference  over  the  native  Porto  Ricans,  who 
speak  Spanish.  This  has  resulted  in  much  hardship  to  the  natives. 
11.  The  strike  of  agricultural  laborers  and  other  workers  which 
;-an  in  January,  1915,  was  not  only  justified  but  was  in  the  interests 
the  progress  of  the  island.  The  long  hours,  low  wages,  and  ex- 
oitation  of  the  laborers  .could  not  have  been  relieved  except  by  their 
ganized  action.  This  is  in  accord  with  the  testimony  of  the  Govern- 
nt  representatives. 

15.  These  laborers,  hitherto  unorganized,  excitable,  and  filled  with 
sense  of  the  grievous  wrongs  which  they  and  their  families  had 
ffered,  were  poorly  disciplined  and  may  have  been  guilty  of  excesses 
speech  and  action,  although  there  is  much  evidence  to  indicate  that 

ey  were  peaceful  and  law-abiding  until  provoked  by  the  agents  of 
e  employers  or  by  the  police. 

16.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  actions  of  the  strikers,  however, 
there  can  be  no  excuse  for  the  actions  of  the  police  and  municipal 
authorities,  who  violated  the  personal  rights  of  the  strikers,  treated 

em  in  many  cases  with  wanton  brutality,  resulting  in  the  death  of 

rge  numbers,  held  them  in  excessive  bail,  denied  them  access  to  the 
ordinary  processes  of  the  courts,  and  inflicted  excessive  and  unwar- 
ranted punishments  upon  them. 

IT.  The  blame  for  such  conditions  appears  to  rest  primarily  upon 

e  rural  police  and  local  magistrates. 

18.  The  demands  for  legislation  made  by  the  representatives  of  the 

ree  Federation  of  Labor  of  Porto  Rico  appear  to  be  wise  and 
reasonable,  but  without  an  opportunity  for  full  local  investigation  it 
is  impossible  to  fully  indorse  them. 

It  is  suggested  that  the  commission  recommend  provision  by  Con- 
gress for  early  and  thorough  investigation  of  the  industrial  and 

ial  conditions  in  Porto  Rico  and  all  other  American  colonies. 


soc 


XXII.  CHINESE  EXCLUSION. 


The  investigations  with  reference  to  that  section  of  the  act  which 
directed  the  commission  to  inquire  "  into  the  question  of  smuggling 
or  other  illegal  entry  of  Asiatics  into  the  United  States  or  its  insular 
possessions "  were  made  largely  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  E.  A. 
Fitzpatrick  and  Mr.  E.  H.  Busiek.  The  extensive  evidence  collected 
regarding  this  entire  question  is  contained  in  the  report  of  Mr.  Fitz- 
patrick, which  is  submitted  herewith. 

The  constructive  suggestions  and  recommendations  which  have 
been  approved  by  the  special  subcommittee  on  Chinese  exclusion,  con- 
sisting of  Chairman  Frank  P.  Walsh  and  Commissioners  Harris 
Weinstock  and  James  O'Connell,  and  accepted  by  the  entire  commis- 
sion, with  reservations  as  to  the  agency  of  administration,  are  as 
follows : 

CONSTRUCTIVE  SUGGESTIONS. 

CHANGES  IN  THE  £AW. 

The  following  changes  should  be  made  in  the  law  in  the  interest  of 
administrative  efficiency : 

1.  That  the  many  laws  relating  to  the  exclusion  of  Chinese  be 
codified  into  a  comprehensive  statute. 


148  EEPOKT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

2.  That  Chinese  alleged  to  have  entered  the  United  States  sur- 
reptitiously shall  be  tried  by  administrative  process,  i.  e.,  on  Secre- 
tary of  Labor's  warrant — in  all  cases  irrespective  of  time  of  entry 
or  defense  of  citizenship.1    At  the  present  time  only  Chinese  alleged 
to  have  entered  within  three  years  may  be  tried  on  Secretary's  war- 
rant. 

3.  That  immigration  officers  be  specifically  given  the  power  of 
arrest  or  taking  into  custody. 

4.  That  immigration  officers  be  given  the  right  to  administer  bind- 
ing oaths  in  all  cases  arising  under  the  immigration  law. 

5.  That  immigration  officials  be  given  the  power  to  compel  attend- 
ance of  witnesses  and  the  production  of  documentary  or  other  evi- 
dence in  all  cases  providing  for  punishment  for  contempt. 

6.  That  the  attacking  of  an  immigration  official  or  interference 
with  him  in  the  performance  of  his  duties,  or  any  maltreatment  of 
him  growling  out  of  the  performance  of  his  duties,  should  be  made 
a  penal  offense. 

7.  That  the  place  of  deportation  to  which  contraband  Chinamen 
shall  be  sent  may  be,  in  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  the 
country  whence  he  came,  or  the  country  of  his  citizenship,  or  the 
trans- Atlantic  or  trans-Pacific  port  from  which  he  embarked  for  this 
continent 

8.  That  there  be  a  clearer  and  more  definite  legislative  definition 
of  the  exempt  and  of  the  admitted  classes. 

9.  That  there  be  a  clearer  definition  of  legislative  policy  as  to  the 
status  under  the  immigration  and  Chinese-exclusion  law  of  China- 
men admitted  as  exempts  and  subsequently  assuming  a  nonexempt 
status. 

10.  That  the  pecuniary  and  family  conditions  for  the  return  of 
Chinese  laborers  in  the  United  States  to  China  be  repealed. 

11.  That  the  recommendation  of  a  new  registration  because  it  is 
needed  to  enforce  the  ^resent  law  be  rejected.     This  must  not  be 
understood  to  mean  a  rejection  of  a  new  registration  law  as  a  part  of 
legislative  policy,  but  solely  when  it  is  urged  for  administrative 
reasons. 

12.  That  masters  of  vessels  be  responsible  for  every  Chinese  mem- 
ber of  their  crew  who  was  on  board  the  vessel  when  it  enters  and  is 
not  on  board  when  it  is  ready  for  clearance. 

1  The  anomalous  citizenship  situation. — A  Chinese  person  can  not  become  a  citizen  by 
naturalization.  The  child  of  a  Chinese  alien  man  and  woman,  who  themselves  could 
never  become  citizens,  would  be,  if  born  in  the  United  States,  an  American  citizen.  The 
fact  that  the  parents  never  intend  that  the  child  should  be  an  American  citizen,  and  the 
child  itself  even  when  grown  up  never  regards  himself  as  an  American  citizen  except  for 
purposes  of  the  Chinese  exclusion  law,  does  not  enter  into  the  matter.  The  child  of  an 
American  citizen  born  on  foreign  soil — China  or  elsewhere — is  an  American  citizen. 

Chinese  arrested  for  being  unlawfully  in  the  United  States  set  up  the  claim  of  nativity. 
This  claim  is  in  many  cases  fraudulent.  The  matter  is  easy.  A  Chinaman,  when  ar- 
rested, is  told  to  stand  mute,  or,  if  the  story  has  been  concocted,  he  tells  a  story  like 
this  :  "  I  was  born  in  San  Francisco  [or  in  some  rural  place,  where  there  are  no  records  of 
birth].  My  father  and  mother  returned  to  China  when  I  was  four  years  old.  I  remained 
with  my  clansman,  Mr.  Y-M-G,  who  has  since  returned  to  China  or  died.  For  the  past 
four  years  I  have  remained  with  my  uncle,  who  was  at  the  baptismal — shaving — feast, 
and  can  testify  to  these  facts."  Uncle  testifies.  United  States  commissioner  discharges 
the  Chinaman,  and  if  nativity  was  the  defense  the  citizenship  of  the  Chinaman  is  res 
judicata.  Thus  are  citizens  made.  ' 

A  rather  dangerous  situation  is  developing  in  this  connection.  In  one  large  city  of 
the  country  definite  efforts  are  being  made  to  vote  the  Chinaman  and  have  his  citizen- 
ship established  that  way.  This  of  ^necessity  brings  the  question  into  local  politics  and 
complicates  further  an  already  awkward  situation.  This  situation  ought  to  be  cleared 
up.  The  fundamental  change  required  is  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  149 

UNITED   STATES    COMMISSIONERS. 


11.  That  the  jurisdiction  of  United  States  commissioners  in  Chi- 
ese-exclusion  cases  be  abolished,  or,  what  is  less  desirable.1 
2.  That  the  following  changes  in  the  system  be  made:   United 
Jtates  commissioners  should  receive  adequate  compensation  for  the 
service   rendered.      United    States   commissioners  should   be  "made 
courts  of  record  and  stenographic  and  other  expenses  provided  for. 
The  Government  should  be  given  right  of  appeal  in  Chinese  cases. 

THE   JUDICIAL    SYSTEM. 

1.  That  the  handling  of  cases  of  contraband  Chinamen  should  be 
andled  by  administrative  rather  than  by  judicial  procedure. 

2.  That  the  present  administrative  procedure  be  continued  prac- 
ically  without  modification,  except  for  the  improved  handling  of 
ppeals  as  recommended  elsewhere  in  these  suggestions. 

3.  That  writs  of  habeas  corpus  should  be  issued  only  on  the  basis 
of  a  prima  facie  case. 

4.  That  in  criminal  cases   (smuggling)    full  sentences  should  be 
imposed  instead  of  light  sentences  as  at  present. 

5.  That,  if  advisable,  the  cases  of  contraband  Chinamen  might  be 
held  under  the  board  of  special  inquiry  procedure  provided  for  in 
cases  of  immigrants  not  passed  upon  primary  inspection  for  admis- 
sion.   The  adoption  of  this  suggestion  would  necessitate  the  employ- 
ment of  a  considerable  number  of  additional  men,  and  for  this  reason 
ought  not  to  be  adopted  immediately. 


GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION. 


1.  Definitely  withdraw  the  order  of  1905. 

2.  By  conference  with   Treasury   Department  provide   for  more 
careful  sealing  and  supervision  of  sealed  freight  cars  crossing  the 
border — 

(a)  By  placing  seal  number  and  place  of  each  car  on  the  manifest. 

(b)  By  taking  number  and  place  of  each  seal  of  each  car  independ- 
ently and  testing  seal. 

I(c)   By  comparing  local  record  with  manifest  immediately. 
(d)  By  examination  of  contents  of  each  car  where  there  is  the 
east  discrepancy  or  suspicion. 


THE  SELECTION  OF  INSPECTORS. 


-- 


1.  That  the  position  of  Chinese  inspector  be  revived. 

2.  That  the  selection  of  Chinese  inspectors  by  civil-service  exami- 
nation for  general  immigrant  inspectors  be  continued. 

3.  That  the  present  examination  be  changed  in  scope  as  follows : 
(a)  That  all  papers  now  required  be  omitted  ercept  "  practical 

uestions." 


1  All  interests  would  be  best  served  by  an  administrative  rather  than  a  judicial  pro- 
cedure in  cases  of  contraband  Chinese.  As  usual,  writs  of  habeas  corpus  would  be  issued 
by  the  courts  in  case  of  arbitrary  action  or  of  jurisdiction  in  these  cases. 


150  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

(b)  That  greater  credit — larger  proportion  of  examination — be 
given  for  practical  experience  in  handling  the  public. 

(c)  That  new  examination  in  report  writing  be  given  to  include 
a  practical  test  in  condensation — material  to  relate  to  immigration, 
formulation  of  a  report  on  a  given  statement  of  fact,  letter  writing. 

(d)  That  the  examination  include  a  test  on  Canadian  immigration 
laws.  * 

(e)  That  it  include  a  test  of  knowledge  of  our  National  Govern- 
ment, particularly  of  those  departments  that  are  related  to  the  work 
of  immigration — 

Treasury  Department. 

Congress. 

The  judicial  system. 

Department  of  State. 

(/)  That,  if  possible,  an  oral  examination  be  included. 

(g)  That  the  examination  include  somewhere  questions  on  the 
relation  of  immigration  and  emigration  to  a  national  policy,  on 
immigration  as  an  internal  policy,  and  a  general  history  of  immi- 
gration. 

4.  That  the  examination  have  specific  reference  in  its  questions  to 
immigration  work  and  not  be  mere  general  tests. 

5.  That  Chinese  inspectors  be  selected  from  the  more  experienced 
immigrant  inspectors  who  show  an  inclination  and  ability  in  the 
special  requirements  of  this  end  of  the  service. 

6.  That  the  probationary  period  of  an  immigrant  inspector  be  one 
year. 

CHINESE  INTERPRETERS. 

1.  That  in  the  selection  of  interpreters  the  present  examination  be 
continued  except  that,  in  testing  ability  to  translate  or  interpret, 
actual  cases  be  taken  in  course  of  routine  work  rather  than  the  pres- 
ent moot  examination. 

2.  That  in  securing  candidates  for  positions  as  interpreters  the 
Immigration  Service  should  look  to  the  large  number  of  Chinese 
students  in  our  universities,  particularly  those  who  are  here  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  United  States  Go  vernment  (the  Boxer  indemnity  money). 

3.  That  the  position  of  Chinese  interpreter  be  graded  into  two 
grades  at  least,  as  follows : 

(a)  Those  who  can  interpret  the  spoken  Chinese  of  one  or  more 
dialects. 

(&)  Those  who  can  in  addition  read  the  written  language. 

4.  That  the  salary  program  outlined  for  inspectors  be  adapted  to 
the  interpreters. 

5.  That  a  conference  be  arranged  by  the  various  departments  of 
Government  who  use  interpreters  of  Chinese  to  work  out  some  plan 
of  securing  honest,  capable  interpreters — perhaps  in  cooperation  with 
the  universities. 

A  STAFF  ORGANIZATION   AT  WASHINGTON. 

1.  That  there  be  established  at  Washington  a  staff  organization 
including  at  least — 

(a)  Another  Assistant  Secretary  of  Labor  to  handle  Chinese  ap- 
peal cases,  etc. 


EEPOKT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  151 


(b)  A  central  law  organization  providing  for  the  continuous  study 
of  the  legal  aspects  of  immigration. 

(c)  A  central  Chinese  smuggling  bureau,  reenforcing  district  ad- 
ministration in  its  attempt  to  deal  with  smuggling  gangs  and  other 
organized  smuggling. 

(d)  A  central  agency  of  training  and  inspection,  providing  for  the 
continuous  supervision  and  training  of  the  men  in  the  service. 

(e)  A  central  clearing  house  of  information  and  records. 

2.  That  it  be  specifically  made  a  function  of  the  division  of  super- 
vision and  training  to  keep  district  officers  informed  as  to — 

(a)  Significant  court  decisions  in  all  districts. 

(b)  Significant  discoveries  of  district  offices,  e.  g.,  the  Japanese 
(Korean)  passport  case. 

(c)  Effective  methods  of  handling  particular  situations,  e.  g.,  of 
commissioner  who  refuses  to  give  full  credence  to  preliminary  hear- 
ings before  immigrant  inspectors  by  bringing  contraband   China- 
men immediately  before  commissioner. 

(d)  Chinese  refused  papers  in  any  place. 

3.  That  this  organization  should  keep  field  officers  informed  as  to 
forward  steps  and  other  significant  developments. 


SALARY    PLAN. 


1.  That  the  service  be  regarded  for  salary  purposes  as  a  unit  rather 
than  as  23  individual  units. 

2.  That  the  administrative  officers  work  out  a  detailed  plan  of 
graded  salary  increases. 

3.  That  there  be  an  annual  increase  in  salary  of  a  definite  amount 
for  a  definite  number  of  years  of  service  upon  certification  of  meri- 
torious  service   during  the   preceding  year.     On   the  basis   of   an 
initial  salary  of  $1,380,  it  seems  to  us  there  ought  to  be  an  annual 
increase  of  at  least  $36  per  year  for  15  years,  making  a  maximum 
salary  of  $1,920.    The  specific  amounts  named  are  offered  as  sugges- 
tions. 

4.  That  positions  in  the  service  ought  to  be  graded  and  correspond- 
ingly higher  initial  salaries  provided  for  the  higher  grades.     The 
system  of  annual  increases,  perhaps  of  the  same  amount,  ought  to  bo 

Erovided  here.  A  larger  increase  for  a  less  number  of  years  might 
e  advisable.  It  should  be  provided  in  this  connection  that  a  man 
promoted  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  position,  if  he  is  receiving  a 
higher  salary  than  the  initial  salary  of  the  higher  position,  should 
receive  the  next  higher  salary  to  the  salary  he  is  receiving  in  the 
lower  position.  A  person  standing  in  a  little  house  watching  those 
who  come  across  an  international  bridge  in  Suspension  Falls,  another 
doing  primary  inspection  work  or  board  of  inquiry  work  at  Ellis 
Island,  another  working  "  under  cover  "  among  the  thugs  of  Buffalo 
and  being  beaten  into  insensibility,  another  doing  train  inspection 
work — would  receive  no  pay  because  of  differences  of  duties.  It  is 
submitted  that  some  recognition  of  this  difference  in  duties  ought  to 
find  expression  in  the  salary  schedule. 

5.  Superior  service  should  be  rewarded  both  by  formal  commenda- 
tion and  by  salary  increases.    Two  provisions  might  be  included : 

(a)  The  reward  for  a  single  brilliant  piece  of  work,  such  as  work- 
ing under  cover  with  smugglers,  risking  one's  life,  and  landing  the 
gang  in  jail. 


152  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

(5)   The  provision  of  a  higher  annual  increase  for  men  giving 
continuous  superior  service. 

REDISTRICTIXG. 

1.  That  there  be  a  redistricting  of  the  United  States  for  immigra- 
tion purposes  with  more  regard  to  geographical  facts  and  to  the 
efficiency  of  the  service. 

2.  That  district  offices  take  a  periodic  census  in  cooperation  with 
the  State  or  National  Census  or  ,both,  or,  if  necessary,  independent 
of  each.     (This  would  help  local  offices  to  really  see  their  problems. 
It  would  acquaint  them  with  their  constituency.) 

3.  That  this  census  be  kept  up  to  date  and  supplemented  by  coop- 
eration with  municipal  and  State  boards  of  health  and  bureaus  of 
vital  statistics  by  recording  currently — 

(a)  Chinese  births. 

(b)  Chinese  deaths. 

(c)  Chinese  marriages. 

4.  That  this  census  be  kept  up  to  date  and  supplemented  by  making 
part  of  the  record  all  the  examinations  of  Chinese  in  connection  with 
routine  and  other  investigations.    A  system  of  cross  reference  cards 
should  be  on  file  in  Washington.    It  should  be  kept  up  to  date  and 
supplemented  by  listing  removals  and  advising  as  far  as  possible  the 
district  to  which  the  Chinaman  moved. 

5.  That  the  force  should  be  increased  and  the  whole  group  of  in- 
spectors be  organized  for  regular  field  work.    This  should  take  the 
place  of  any  system  of  national  arrest  crews. 

6.  That  the  system  of  rewards  of  conductors,  trainmen,  and  police- 
men who  supply  information  leading  to  arrests  of  contraband  Chi- 
nese or  smugglers,  which  seems  now  in  abeyance,  be  revived  and  be 
provided  for  in  an  emergency  fund  for  each  district.     (Approval 
of  Washington  perhaps  should  be  required  in  each  case.) 

7.  That  a  business  and  occupation  census  of  each  district  accom- 
pany the  census  of  persons. 

8.  That  the  force  of  immigrant  inspectors  assigned  to  Chinese 
work  be  increased. 

9.  That  the  equipment  to  be  used  in  the  work  of  administering  the 
Chinese  exclusion  law  be  adequate  to  cope  with  the  smugglers. 

FRANK  P.  WALSH.* 
JOHN  B.  LENNON.* 
JAMES  O'CoNNELL.1 

AUSTIN   B.    GARRETSON.1 

1  See  supplemental  statement. 


! 


merit 
life^ 

T^ 


SUPPLEMENTAL  STATEMENT  OF  CHAIRMAN  FRANK  P.  WALSH. 

Charged  by  your  honorable  body  with  an  investigation  to  discover 
e  underlying  causes  of  dissatisfaction  in  the  industrial  situation, 
we  herewith  present  the  following  findings  and  conclusions,  and  we 
urge  for  them  the  most  earnest  consideration,  not  only  by  the  Con- 
ress,  but  by  the  people  of  the  Nation,  to  the  end  that  evils  which 
reaten  to  defeat  American  ideals  and  to  destroy  the  well-being  of 
e  Nation  may  be  generally  recognized  and  effectively  attacked. 

WE  FIND  THE  BASIC  CAUSE  OF  INDUSTRIAL  DISSATISFACTION  TO  BE  LOW 

WAGES  ;  OR,  STATED  IN  ANOTHER  WAY,  THE  FACT  THAT  THE  WORKERS  OF 
THE  NATION,  THROUGH  COMPULSORY  A.ND  OPPRESSIVE  METHODS,  LEGAL 
AND  ILLEGAL,  ARE  DENIED  THE  FULL  PRODUCT  OF  THEIR  TOIL. 

We  further  find,  that  unrest  among  the  workers  in  industry  has 
grown  to  proportions  that  already  menace  the  social  good  will  and 
the  peace  of  the  Nation.  Citizens  numbering  millions  smart  under  a 

Tnse  of  injustice  and  of  oppression,  born  of  the  conviction  that  the 
)portunity  is  denied  them   to  acquire   for  themselves   and  their 
families  that  degree  of  economic  well-being  necessary  for  the  en  joy - 

^  of  those  material  and  spiritual  satisfactions  which  alone  make 
fe  worth  living. 

Bitterness,  bred  of  unfilled  need  for  sufficient  food,  clothing,  and 
shelter  for  themselves  and  their  wives  and  children,  has  been  further 
nourished  in  the  hearts  of  these  millions  by  resentment  against  the 
arbitrary  power  that  enables  the  employer,  under  our  present  indus- 
trial system,  to  control  not  only  the  workman's  opportunity  to  earn 
his  bread,  but  ofttirnes,  through  the  exercise  of  this  power,  to  dictate 
his  social,  political,  and  moral  environments  By  thwarting  the 
human  passion  for  liberty  and  the  solicitude  of  the  husband  and 
father  for  his  own,  modern  industry  has  kindled  a  spirit  in  these  dis- 
satisfied millions  that  lies  deeper  and  springs  from  nobler  impulses 
than  physical  need  and  human  selfishness. 

Among  these  millions  and  their  leaders  we  have  encountered  a 
spirit  religious  in  its  fervor  and  in  its  willingness  to  sacrifice  for  a 
cause  held  sacred.  And  we  earnestly  submit  that  only  in  the  light  of 
this  spirit  can  the  aggressive  propaganda  of  the  discontented  be 
understood  and  judged. 

The  extent  and  depth  of  industrial  unrest  can  hardly  be  exag- 
gerated. State  and  national  conventions  of  labor  organizations, 
numbering  many  thousands  of  members,  have  cheered  the  names  of 
leaders  imprisoned  for  participation  in  a  campaign  of  violence,  con- 
ducted as  one  phase  of  a  conflict  with  organized  employers.  Thirty 
thousand  workers  in  a  single  strike  have  followed  the  leadership  of 
men  who  denounced  government  and  called  for  relentless  warfare 
on  organized  society.  Employers  from  coast  to  coast  have  created 
and  maintained  small  private  armies  of  armed  men  and  have  used 
these  forces  to  intimidate  and  suppress  their  striking  employees  by 

153 


154  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

deporting,  imprisoning,  assaulting,  or  killing  their  leaders.  Elabo- 
rate spy  systems  are  maintained  to  discover  and  forestall  the  move- 
ments of  the  enemy.  The  use  of  State  troops  in  policing  strikes  has 
bred  a  bitter  hostility  to  the  militia  system  among  members  of  labor 
organizations,  and  States  have  been  unable  to  enlist  wage  earners 
for  this  second  line  of  the  Nation's  defense.  Courts,  legislatures, 
and  governors  have  been  rightfully  accused  of  serving  employers  to 
the  defeat  of  justice,  and,  while  counter  charges  come  from  em- 
ployers and  their  agents,  with  almost  negligible  exceptions  it  is  the 
wage  earners  who  believe,  assert,  and  prove  that  the  very  institu- 
tions of  their  country  have  been  perverted  by  the  power  of  the  em- 
ployer. Prison  records  for  labor  leaders  have  become  badges  of 
honor  in  the  eyes  of  many  of  their  people,  and  great  mass  meetings 
throughout  the  Nation  cheer  denunciations  of  courts  and  court  de- 
cisions. 

To  the  support  of  the  militant  and  aggressive  propaganda  of  or- 
ganized labor  has  come,  within  recent  years,  a  small  but  rapidly  in- 
creasing host  of  ministers  of  the  gospel,  college  professors,  writers, 
journalists,  and  others  of  the  professional  classes,  distinguished  in 
many  instances  by  exceptional  talent  which  they  devote  to  agitation, 
with  no  hope  of  material  reward,  and  a  devotion  that  can  be  ex- 
plained only  in  the  light  of  the  fervid  religious  spirit  which  animates 
the  organized  industrial  unrest. 

We  find  the  unrest  here  described  to  be  but  the  latest  manifestation 
of  the  age-long  struggle  of  the  race  for  freedom  of  opportunity  for 
every  individual  to  live  his  life  to  its  highest  ends.  As  the  nobles 
of  England  wrung  their  independence  from  King  John,  and  as  the 
tradesmen  of  France  broke  through  the  ring  of  privilege  inclosing 
the  Three  Estates,  so  to-day  the  millions  who  serve  society  in  arduous 
labor  on  the  highways,  and  aloft  on  scaffoldings,  and  by  the  sides  of 
whirring  machines,  are  demanding  that  they,  too,  and  their  children 
shall  enjoy  all  of  the  blessings  that  justify  and  make  beautiful  this 
life. 

The  unrest  of  the  wage  earners  has  been  augmented  by  recent 
changes  and  developments  in  industry.  Chief  of  these  are  the  rapid 
and  universal  introduction  and  extension  of  machinery  of  production, 
by  which  unskilled  workers  may  be  substituted  for  the  skilled,  and 
an  equally  rapid  development  of  means  of  rapid  transportation  and 
communication,  by  which  private  capital  has  been  enabled  to  organize 
in  great  corporations  possessing  enormous  economic  power.  This 
tendency  toward  huge  corporations  and  large  factories  has  been  fur- 
thered by  the  necessity  of  employing  large  sums  of  capital  in  order 
to  purchase  and  install  expensive  machinery,  the  use  of  which  is 
practicable  only  when  production  is  conducted  on  a  large  scale. 
Work  formerly  done  at  home  or  in  small  neighborhood  shops  has 
been  transferred  to  great  factories  where  the  individual  worker  be- 
comes an  impersonal  element  under  the  control  of  impersonal  cor- 
porations, without  voice  in  determining  the  conditions  under  which 
he  works,  and  largely  without  interest  in  the  success  of  the  enterprise 
or  the  disposal  of  the  product.  Women  in  increasing  numbers  have 
followed  their  work  from  the  home  to  the  factory,  and  even  children 
have  been  enlisted. 

Now,  more  than  ever,  the  profits  of  great  industries  under  central- 
ized control  pour  into  the  coffers  of  stockholders  and  directors  who 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  155 


Iver  have  so  muck  as  visited  the  plants,  and  who  perform  no 
rvdce  in  return.  And  while  vast  inherited  fortunes,  representing 
zero  in  social  service  to  the  credit  of  their  possessors,  automatically 
treble  and  multiply  in  volume,  two-thirds  of  those  who  toil  from 

Kto  12  hours  a  day  receive  less  than  enough  to  support  themselves 
nd  their  families  in  decency  and  comfort.  From  childhood  to  the 
grave  they  dwell  in  the  shadow  of  a  fear  that  their  only  resource — 
their  opportunity  to  toil — will  be  taken  from  them,  through  acci- 
dent, illness,  the  caprice  of  a  foreman,  or  the  fortunes  of  industry. 
The  lives  of  their  babies  are  snuffed  out  by  bad  air  in  cheap  lodgings, 
and  the  lack  of  nourishment  and  care  which  they  can  not  buy. 
Fathers  and  husbands  die  or  are  maimed  in  accidents,  and  their 
families  receive  a  pittance,  or  succumb  in  mid-life  and  they  receive 

rthing. 

And  when  these  unfortunates  seek,  by  the  only  means  within  reach, 

better  their  lot  by  organizing  to  lift  themselves  from  helplessness 
some  measure  of  collective  power,  with  which  to  wring  living 
wages  from  their  employers,  they  find  too  often  arrayed  against 
them  not  only  the  massed  power  of  capital,  but  every  arm  of  the 
Government  that  was  created  to  enforce  guaranties  of  equality  and 
justice. 

We  find  that  many  entire  communities  exist  under  the  arbitrary 
economic  control  of  corporation  officials  charged  with  the  manage- 
ment of  an  industry  or  group  of  industries,  and  we  find  that  in  such 
communities  political  liberty  does  not  exist,  and  its  forms  are  hollow 
mockeries.  Give  to  the  employer  power  to  discharge  without  cause, 
to  grant  to  or  withhold  from  thousands  the  opportunity  to  earn 
bread,  and  the  liberties  of  such  a  community  lie  in  the  hollow  of  the 
employer's  hand.  Free  speech,  free  assembly,  and  a  free  press  may 
be  denied,  as  they  have  been  denied  time  and  again,  and  the  employ- 
er's agents  may  be  placed  in  public  office  to  do  his  bidding. 

In  larger  communities  where  espionage  becomes  impossible  the 
wage  earner  who  is  unsupported  by  a  collective  organization  may 
enjoy  freedom  of  expression  outside  the  workshop,  but  there  his 
freedom  ends.  And  it  is  a  freedom  more  apparent  than  real.  For 
the  house  he  lives  in,  the  food  he  eats,  the  clothing  he  wears,  the  en- 
vironment of  his  wife  and  children,  and  his  own  health  and  safety 
are  in  the  hands  of  the  employer,  through  the  arbitrary  power  which 
he  exercises  in  fixing  his  wages  and  working  conditions. 

The  social  responsibility  for  these  unfortunate  conditions  may  be 
fixed  with  reasonable  certainty.  The  responsibility,  and  such  blame 
as  attaches  thereto,  can  not  be  held  to  rest  upon  employers,  since  in 
the  maintenance  of  the  evils  of  low  wages,  long  hours,  and  bad 
factory  conditions,  and  in  their  attempts  to  gain  control  of  economic 
and  political  advantages  which  would  promote  their  interests,  they 
have  merely  followed  the  natural  bent  of  men  involved  in  the 
struggle  of  competitive  industry.  The  responsibility  for  the  condi- 
tions which  have  been  described  above  we  declare  rests  primarily 
upon  the  workers  who,  blind  to  their  collective  strength  and  often- 
times deaf  to  the  cries  of  their  fellows,  have  suffered  exploitation 
and  the  invasion  of  their  most  sacred  rights  without  resistance.  A 
large  measure  of  responsibility  must,  however,  attach  to  the  great 
mass  of  citizens  who,  though  not  directly  involved  in  the  struggle 


156  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   OX   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

between  capital  and  labor,  have  failed  to  realize  that  their  own  pros- 
perity is  dependent  upon  the  welfare  of  all  classes  of  the  community, 
and  that  their  rights  are  bound  up  with  the  rights  of  every  other 
individual.  But,  until  the  workers  themselves  realize  their  respon- 
sibility and  utilize  to  the  full  their  collective  power,  no  action, 
whether  governmental  or  altruistic,  can  work  any  genuine  and  last- 
ing improvement. 

Fourteen  years  before  Abraham  Lincoln  was  called  to  the  high 
office  where  he  immortalized  his  name,  he  uttered  these  great  truths : 

Inasmuch  as  most  good  things  are  produced  by  labor,  it  follows  that  all 
such  things  of  right  belong  to  those  whose  labor  has  produced  them.  But  it  has 
so  happened  in  all  ages  of  the  world  that  some  have  labored  and  others  have 
without  labor  enjoyed  a  large  proportion  of  the  fruits.  This  is  wrong  and 
should  not  continue.  To  secure  to  each  laborer  the  whole  product  of  his  labor, 
or  as  nearly  as  possible,  is  a  worthy  subject  of  any  good  Government. 

With  this  lofty  ideal  for  a  goal,  under  the  sublime  leadership  of 
the  deathless  Lincoln,  we  call  upon  our  citizenship,  regardless  of 
politics  or  economic  conditions,  to  use  every  means  of  agitation,  all 
avenues  of  education,  and  every  department  and  function  of  the 
Government,  to  eliminate  the  injustices  exposed  by  this  commission, 
to  the  end  that  each  laborer  may  "  secure  the  whole  product  of  his 
labor." 

FRANK  P.  WALSH. 

NOTE. — Chairman  Frank  P.  Walsh  also  presented  the  following 
dissenting  opinion: 

Although  I  have  signed  the  report  prepared  by  Mr.  Basil  M. 
Manly,  director  of  research  and  investigation,  because  I  believe 
it  represents  an  unassailable  statement  of  the  existing  industrial  sit- 
uation, because  it  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of  the  act  of 
Congress  creating  the  commission,  and  because  the  recommendations 
are  as  a  whole  wise  and  necessary  for  the  welfare  of  the  Nation,  I, 
nevertheless,  desire  to  record  my  dissent  on  the  following  points :  ^ 

1.  The   recommendation   for   new    administrative   machinery   for 
mediation  and  arbitration  in  the  form  of  a  special  commission.     I 
believe  that  the  commission  created  by  the  Newlands  Act,  and  the 
Department  of  Labor,  if  their  powers  are  enlarged  and  they  are 
adequately  supported,  will  be  fully  able  to  deal  with  the  situation. 

2.  The  recommendations  for  a  literacy  test  as  a  method  of  restrict- 
ing immigration.     I  wish  to  record  my  opposition,  as  a  matter  of 
principle,  to  all  restrictions  upon  immigration. 

3.  The    recommendations    regarding    civil    government    in    such 
isolated  communities  as  coal  camps,  which  I  believe  can  not  be  ade- 
quately dealt  with  except  by  the  Government  taking  over  all  coal  lands 
and  leasing  them  upon  terms  which  will  make  possible  their  operation 
upon  a  cooperative  basis  by  the  workers. 

Notwithstanding  many  meritorious  statements  contained  in  the 
report  of  Commissioners  John  R.  Commons  and  Florence  J.  Harri- 
jnan,  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  dissent  from  the  same  in  toto,  for  the 
reasons  following: 

1.  It  wholly  fails  to  comply  with  the  law  creating  the  commission, 
in  that  it  does  not  set  forth  the  facts  regarding  the  condition  of  labor 
in  the  leading  industries  of  the  United  States  and  the  underlying 
causes  of  industrial  dissatisfaction. 


|V« 
S 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  157 

2.  The  whole  scheme  of  the  control  of  labor,  and  the  laws  govern- 
g  the  same,  is  undemocratic  and  not  in  accord  with  the  established 

rinciples  of  representative  government. 

3.  The  entire  plan  suggested  is  opposed  to  the  habits,  customs,  and 
aditions  of  the  American  people. 

4.  The  suggestions  in  the  main  are  impractical  and  impossible  of 
performance. 

5.  It  opens  up  unlimited  opportunities  for  graft  and  corruption. 

6.  If  the  ponderous  legal  machinery  provided  for  in  this  report 
could  be  put  in  operation  throughout  our  Nation,  it  would  mean — 
(a)  that  the  economic  condition  of  the  workers  of  the  country  would 

absolutely  subjected  to  the  whim  or  caprice  of  an  army  of  officials, 
eputies,  and  Government  employees,  and  ( b )  the  establishment  of  an 
autocratic  control  over  the  business  operations  of  manufacturers, 
merchants,  and  other  employers,  repugnant  to  American  standards  of 
freedom  in  manufacture  and  commerce. 


SUPPLEMENTAL    STATEMENT    OF    COMMISSIONER    AUSTIN   B. 

GARRETSON. 

My  signature  is  appended  to  the  report  of  Mr.  Basil  M.  Manly, 
director  of  research  and  investigation  of  the  United  States  Commis- 
sion on  Industrial  Relations,  submitted  to  the  commission  and  trans- 
mitted herewith,  as  to  the  findings  of  fact  contained  therein. 

I  am  in  general  agreement  with  the  recommendations  contained  in 
that  report  except  as  to  the  formation  of  the  system  of  State  and 
Federal  commissions  and  a  Federal  industrial  council. 

On  this  recommendation  I  neither  approve  nor  condemn.  But  out 
of  regard  for  the  opinion  of  the  great  body  of  intrastate  labor  most 
directly  affected,  I  dissent. 

I  am  also  in  accord  with  the  statement  of  fact  contained  in  the 
report  of  George  P.  West  on  the  Colorado  situation. 

I  am  favorable  to  the  extension  of  the  provisions  of  the  Newlands 
Act  to  all  classes  of  interstate  employees  who  can  constitutionally  be 
brought  under  its  provisions  and  would  favor  the  enlargement  of  the 
body  administering  it  to  meet  the  added  responsibilities  which  would 
thereby  be  placed  upon  it,  but  limiting  the  powers  thereof  to  the 
settlement  of  industrial  disagreements  and  to  the  gathering  of  infor- 
mation germane  to  their  mission. 

I  favor  the  creation  of  State  commissions,  similarly  constituted  and 
acting  in  corelation  and  understanding  with  the  Federal  board. 

I  heartily  concur  with  the  report  of  Commissioners  Lennon  and 
O'Connell  except  on  those  points  where  disagreement  is  herein  noted. 
I  dissent  in  whole  from  report  rendered  by  Commissioner  J.  E. 
Commons.  I  render  individual  opinion  and  suggestion  only  on — 

CAUSES    UNDERLYING    INDUSTRIAL    UNREST. 

Any  student  who  accepts  and  applies  the  belief  that  the  "proper 
study  of  mankind  is  man  "  can  not  fail  to  trace  certain  fundamental 
causes,  general  in  their  character,  which  underlie  industrial  unrest 
which  will  continue  to  grow  until  either  the  causes  are  peacefully 
removed  or  revolution  ensues. 

To  me  there  appear  to  be  four  of  these  basic  causes. 

The  first  lies  in  the  inequitable  distribution  of  the  fruits  of 
industry.. 

Our  industrial  system  makes  it  possible  for  one  man,  in  only  a 
portion  of  the  span  of  human  productive  life,  to  take  unto  himself 
and  claim  as  his  own  a  fortune  of  a  hundred  millon  dollars  or  more, 
while  millions  of  deserving  men,  availing  themselves  of  every  oppor- 
tunity for  unremitting  toil,  are  only  able  to  secure  a  grave  in  the 
potters'  field  or  else  burden  their  families  with  an  installment  debt 
for  the  cost  of  interment. 

158 


REPORT  OP  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  159 


The  creation  of  such,  colossal  fortune  naturally  breeds  in  the  mind 
of  the  possessor  the  sentiment,  belief,  and  practice  that  he  is  superior 
to  society  and  not  subject  to  the  law.  The  possession  thereof  makes 
him  unregardful  of  the  opinions  of  society  or  of  the  mandates  of 
the  law,  incites  him  to  disregard  and  hold  himself  independent  of 
the  moral  precepts  and  beliefs  of  society  and  tends  toward  the  effort 
to  prostitute  the  administration  of  justice,  and  under  the  present 
system  renders  him  practically  immune  from  the  penalties  prescribed 
by  the  law. 

The  transmission  to  heirs  or  trustees,  degenerate  or  otherwise,  of 
fortunes  so  vast  or  of  business  interests  so  far-reaching  makes  them 
the  virtual  arbiters  of  the  destiny  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  their 
fellow  beings  in  regard  to  whom  they  have  neither  sympathetic 
feeling,  intelligent  interest,  nor  humanitarian  desire,  and  the  testi- 
mony before  this  commission  has  made  it  evident  that  in  some 
instances  these  heirs  or  representatives  even  resent  the  imputation 
that  any  obligation  whatever  can  rest  upon  them  for  the  welfare  of 
the  said  fellow  beings  or  that  even  intelligent  knowledge  as  to  what 
would  constitute  well-being  should  be  required  of  them. 

Second,  the  methods  of  the  formation  and  administration  of  law 
would  in  themselves  justify  undying,  righteous  unrest  from  the  fact 
that  they  create,  encourage,  and  demonstrate  knowledge  and  belief 
that  there  is  no  equality  before  the  law  as  between  the  man  who  has 
and  the  man  who  has  not. 

Primarily  there  is  the  trend  through  legislation  to  exalt  the  prop- 
erty right  at  the  expense  of  the  personal  right.  Next,  the  tendency 
of  a  great  majority  of  our  courts  to  extend  and  amplify  this  trend. 
This  appears  in  the  declaring  unconstitutional  of  a  great  portion  of 
the  legislation  that  in  later  years  is  appearing  if  it  in  any  way 
restricts  the  rights  of  property,  while  at  the  same  time  any  legisla- 
tive act  which  tends  to  make  effective  the  constitutional,  personal 
right  of  the  individual  is  nullified  upon  the  same  ground. 
In  other  words,  to  exalt  money  above  man. 

The  tendency  also  of  a  large  number  of  the  same  tribunals  is  to 
legalize  the  maintenance  of  armed  forces,  either  by  the  corporation 
or  the  large  individual  employer,  and  the  virtual  levying  of  war 
through  the  use  of  the  State  militia  as  a  private  guard  for  property 
interests,  or  as  an  economic  weapon  for  the  purpose  of  prejudicing 
the  interests  of  the  worker,  is  abetted  and  approved,  while  at  the 
same  time  rigorously  prosecuting  and  punishing  the  individual  for 
taking  any  similar  action,  individually  or  collectively,  in  defense  of 
his  person  or  his  family. 

Thus  the  man  who  uses  a  deadly  weapon  to  protect  himself  or  his 
home  against  the  aggression  of  hired  thugs  has  set  in  motion  against 
him  the  whole  machinery  of  the  State,  while  the  corporation  which 
enlisted,  equipped,  and  paid  a  private  armed  force,  formed  and 
used  not  for  the  maintenance  of  peace  or  the  protection  of  property 
but  solely  as  an  economic  weapon,  is  lauded  as  a  conservator  of  peace, 
law,  and  order. 

Our  laws  deal  strictly  and  effectively  with  those  who  contribute 
to  the  delinquency  of  an  individual,  but  the  hirelings  of  a  corpora- 
tion may  debauch  a  State  for  their  own  economic  gain  and  receive 
only  laudation  from  those  who  "  sit  in  the  seats  of  the  mighty." 


160  REPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

The  man  who,  on  account  of  hunger  of  himself  or  family,  steals  a 
loaf  is  held  up  to  public  view  as  a  "  horrible  example  "  of  the  in- 
crease of  crime  and  decadence  of  the  moral  sense,  while  he  who 
exploits  the  public  or  by  dishonest  or  fraudulent  representation  or 
manipulation  secures  millions  of  their  money  is  by  the  same  agencies 
held  up  to  the  youth  of  the  land  as  an  example  of  what  intelligent 
effort  and  devotion  to  business  may  accomplish. 

The  system  of  wholesale  arrests  during  industrial  disturbances  for 
acts  which,  committed  under  ordinary  conditions  and  when  no  indus- 
trial disturbances  prevailed,  would  not  constitute  ground  for  arrest, 
is  one  of  the  significant  indications  of  the  use  of  governmental 
agencies,  not  as  a  preserver  of  peace  but  as  a  purely  economic  weapon. 

The  intrusion  of  what  has  been  aptly  described  as  "  invisible  gov- 
ernment "  into  all  the  chanels  of  life — the  educational  system,  pri- 
mary, secondary,  and  higher,  the  church,  the  press,  the  legislative 
branch,  and  the  judicial  system — and  the  recognized  potency  of  its 
meretricious  efforts  contributes  its  elements  to  the  whole. 

Third,  irregularity  of  employment,  with  the  consequent  restriction 
of  opportunity  and  with  its  consequent  extension  of  belief  that  unre- 
mitting -toil  under  present  conditions  can  bring  no  fair  recompense, 
thus  stifling  healthy  incentive  to  labor,  is  creating  an  army  of  unem- 
ployed that  must,  in  the  last  analysis,  be  reckoned  with,  and  unless 
remedy  is  found  whereby  incentive  may  be  restored  and  recompense 
be  made  apparent,  society  itself  must  pay  the  forfeit. 

Fourth,  land  monopoly  with  resulting  prohibitive  price,  the  great- 
est influence  in  creating  congestion  in  the  cities,  bears  its  own  share 
of  the  responsibility  for  unrest. 

Tracing  the  history  of  every  vanished  civilization  makes  apparent 
the  fact  that  in  every  instance  decadence  was  preceded  by  urban 
congestion  and  by  immense  land  holdings  by  the  aristocrat  or  the 
capitalist. 

As  to  the  remedy  for  these  evils,  an  income  and  inheritance  tax 
that  would  be,  above  a  certain  figure,  absolutely  confiscatory  would 
make  impossible,  first,  the  creation,  and,  second,  the  transmission  of 
the  dominating  accumulation  of  wealth  in  the  hands  of  any  indi- 
vidual, group,  or  family.  When  the  unlimited  power  of  reward  or 
purchase  had  ceased  to  exist,  the  subconscious  tendency  of  legisla- 
tures and  of  those  who  interpret  and  administer  the  law  to  be  sub- 
servient to  property  interests  would  of  necessity  disappear. 

It  is  worth  consideration  as  to  whether  or  not  a  limitation  can 
properly  be  set  upon  profit  in  a  business  enterprise. 

Every  code,  ancient  and  modern,  prescribes  penalties  for  usury, 
and  modern  codes  define  the  rate  of  interest  permitted.  Therefore, 
if  a  man  loans  money,  he  can  only  demand  what  is  described  as  the 
legal  rate  for  the  use  thereof. 

Is  it,  or  is  not,  equally  consistent  for  the  Government  to  prescribe 
a  rate  beyond  which  profit  shall  not  extend  ? 

In  the  question  of  dealing  with  land,  should  not  the  same  doctrine 
be  applied  to  land  that  in  the  arid  States  is  applied  to  water,  i.  e., 
that  no  more  land  can  t>e  held  by  an  individual  than  he  can  put  to 
productive  "  use,"  thus  making  unused  land  revert  to  the  State  and 
acquirable  by  tho^e  who  would  utilize  it? 

A.  B.  GARRETSON. 


SUPPLEMENTAL  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONERS  JOHN  B. 
LENNON  AND  JAMES  O'CONNELL. 

Our  signatures  are  appended  to  the  report  of  Mr.  Basil  M.  Manly, 
director  of  research  and  investigation  of  the  United  States  Commis- 
sion on  Industrial  Relations,  submitted  to  the  commission  at  its 
session  held  in  Chicago  during  the  months  of  July  and  August,  1915, 
except  that  portion  of  the  report  recommending  a  system  of  media- 
tion, conciliation,  investigation,  and  arbitration,  applicable  to  both 
State  and  Nation,  which  proposes  to  create  a  commission  of  three 
members,  together  with  an  advisory  council  of  20  members,  10  repre- 
senting employers  and  10  representing  employees.  The  entire  plan 
is  set  forth  in  the  report  of  the  staff  as  submitted  to  the  Commission 
on  Industrial  Relations;  also  in  a  report  to  the  commission  by  Prof. 
George  E.  Barnett,  and  also  in  the  report  of  Commissioner  John  R. 
Commons.  From  these  recommendations  we  dissent  for  reasons 
assigned  in  this  statement. 

The  evidence  submitted  to  the  commission  at  public  hearings,  to- 
gether with  the  evidence  secured  by  special  investigators,  has  been 
fairly  set  forth  in  Mr.  Manly 's  report  and  with  even  justice  to  all, 
whether  employers,  employees,  or  the  public. 

CRITICISMS    NOT    JUSTIFIED. 

Our  fellow  commissioners  who  are  representatives  of  the  employers 
contend  in  their  statement  that  the  report  of  Mr.  Basil  M.  Manly 
for  the  staff  is  deficient  in  that  it  does  not  properly  present  an  in- 
dictment against  labor  on  the  grounds  of  fostering  and  promoting 
violence  in  trade  disputes,  jurisdictional  disputes  accompanied  by 
strikes,  limitation  of  output,  sympathetic  strikes,  contract  break- 
ing, apprenticeship  rules,  refusal  to  use  nonunion  materials, 
alleged  graft,  and  so  forth,  and  that  it  does  not  include  these 
things  among  the  fundamental  causes  of  industrial  unrest.  All 
the  evidence  submitted  to  the  commission,  as  we  understand  and 
interpret  it,  proves  that  these  things,  in  so  far  as  they  do  exist,  are 
in  no  sense  causes  of  industrial  unrest  but,  on  the  contrary,  are 
evidences  of  existing  industrial  unrest  and  are  evils  that  are  inci- 
dental to  a  situation  wherein  labor  has  at  times  been  forced  to  fight 
with  such  weapons  as  it  could  command  for  advantages  and  rights 
that  in  justice  should  be  freely  accorded  to  the  wage  earners.  So 
long  as  labor  organizations  are  forced  by  employers  to  fight  for  the 
mere  right  to  exist,  and  so  long  as  wages  paid  to  labor  are  so  low 
that  the  unorganized  wrage  earner  often  sees  no  choice  except  that  be- 
tween resorting  to  such  weapons  or  seeing  himself  and  his  family 
sink  below  the  poverty  line,  just  so  long  will  these  evils  at  times 
manifest  themselves  as  symptoms  of  the  worker's  desperation.  The 
union,  fighting  for  its  right  to  live,  is  sometimes  forced  to  tolerate 

38819°— 16 11*  161 


162  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

acts  that  would  not  be  countenanced  if  its  entity  were  secure  and  its 
energies  were  not  absorbed  in  fighting  for  existence. 

STRONG  ORGANIZATIONS  THE   CURE. 

Experience  shows  that  the  evils  complained  of  rapidly  disappear 
in  labor  organizations  as  soon  as  the  organization  prevails  over  the 
opposition  of  the  employers  and  establishes  its  right  to  organize. 
Strong  unions  mean  decent  wages,  and  decent  wages  raise  wrage 
earners  to  a  plane  of  thought  and  action  where  all  their  acts  and 
mental  processes  must  no  longer  be  directed  toward  a  desperate 
struggle  for  the  very  right  of  themselves  and  families  to  live. 

Organized  labor  fully  realizes  how  unfortunate  it  is  that  labor  in 
its  struggle  for  existence  has  occasionally  been  driven  to  consider  its 
immediate  advantage  at  the  expense  of  the  true  economic  principles 
that  must  govern  in  the  long  run.  All  the  energies  of  organized 
labor's  representatives  have  been  exerted  to  minimize  or  eliminate 
any  tendency  toward  limitation  of  output  or  jurisdictional  disputes, 
but,  at  the  same  time,  organized  labor  insists  that  these  tendencies 
where  they  exist  are  the  logical  and  inevitable  outgrowth  of  evils  in 
industry  that  can  be  removed  only  by  trade-union  action  by  the 
wage  earners.  We  could  cite  evidence  at  great  length  to  show  that 
the  tendencies  complained  of,  so  far  as  they  exist  at  all,  have  grown 
out  of  the  hard  necessities  with  which  labor  has  been  confronted. 
It  is  enough  here  to  quote  briefly  from  the  testimony  of  the  distin- 
guished economist,  Prof.  Jacob  H.  Hollander,  of  Johns  Hopkins 
University,  given  before  this  commission  in  New  York  City  on 
January  20,  1915.  Prof.  Hollander  in  discussing  the  limitation  of 
output  said : 

We  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  trade-unions  and  unionists  are  not  soldiering 
in  the  matter,  but  they  are  animated  by  a  very  high  degree  of  fraternity 
in  the  matter,  that  they  are  willing  to  adopt  the  same  principle  if  it  is  a  matter 
of  piecework  instead  of  time  work ;  that  the  endeavor  of  society  should  be  to 
bring  back  industrial  conditions  from  that  unwholesome  mess  into  which  they 
have  slumped  from  this  abnormal  disproportionate  allotment  of  wrorkers  to 
particular  fields  in  excess  of  the  requirements  in  those  fields.  We  must  without 
deviating  one  iota  from  the  proposition  which  you  have  stated  that  it  is  socially 
unsound  that  workmen  should  do  less  than  they  properly  could — society  should 
seek  to  bring  about  conditions  where  they  will  do  what  they  can  without  in- 
volving displacement  and  unemployment  on  the  part  of  their  fellow  workmen. 

We  hold  that  the  report  of  Mr.  Manly  contains  no  statement  that 
is  unworthy  of  credence,  and  that  will  not  bear  careful  investigation. 
The  conclusions  and  recommendations  are  warranted  by  the  state- 
ment of  facts  and  the  accumulated  evidence  in  the  hands  of  the 
commission. 

THE  EVIDENCE. 

All  evidence  accumulated,  whether  by  special  investigators  or  at 
public  hearings,  will  be  submitted  to  Congress,  and  we  trust  the  peo- 

Ele  of  our  country  will  demand  that  it  be  published  in  full,  particu- 
trly  the  following,  which  are  well  worth  the  most  careful  study  by 
all  persons  interested  in  human  welfare.     The  reports  cited  below 
have  been  prepared  by  competent  investigators  and  were  submitted 
to  the  commission  after  careful  investigation  and  verification  by 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  163 

Director  Basil  M.  Manly  and  by  members  of  the  commission,  and  are 
the  latest  information  upon  the  various  subjects  covered  by  them.1 

Evidence  Taken  at  All  Public  Hearings. 

Causes  of  Industrial  Unrest,  by  Mr.  W.  J.  Lauck. 

Violence  in  Labor  Disputes,  by  Mr.  Luke  Grant. 

Structural  Iron  Workers,  by  Mr.  Luke  Grant. 

Sickness  Prevention  and  Insurance,  by  Dr.  B.  S.  Warren. 

Mediation,  Arbitration,  and  Investigation,  by  Prof.  Geo.  E.  Barnett, 

Conditions  of  Labor  in  Principal  Industries,  by  Mr.  Edgar 
Sydenstricker. 

Efficiency  Systems  in  Industry,  by  Prof.  Robert  F.  Hoxie,  Mr. 
John  P.  Frey,  and  Mr.  Robert  G.  Valentine. 

Industrial  Education,  by  Commissioner  John  B.  Lennon. 

Labor  Complaints  and  Claims,  by  Mr.  P.  A.  Speek. 

Trade-Union  Law,  by  Mr.  J.  W.  Bryan. 

Colorado  Situation,  by  Mr.  George  P.  West. 

The  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Industry,  by  Mr.  Christopher  T. 
Chenery. 

Labor  Conditions  in  Porto  Rico,  by  Mr.  Christopher  T.  Chenery. 

Labor  Conditions  in  the  Black  Hills,  by  Mr.  William  P.  Harvey. 

Labor  Conditions  in  Los  Angeles,  by  Mr.  William  P.  Harvey. 

Preliminary  Report  on  the  Land  Question,  by  Mr.  Charles  W, 
Holman. 

Agricultural  Labor  and  Tenancy,  by  Mr.  John  L.  Coulter. 

Unemployment,  by  Mr.  William  M.  Leiserson. 

Extent  and  Growth  of  Labor  Organizations,  by  Mr.  Lee  Wolman. 

Injunctions  in  Labor  Disputes,  by  Mr.  Edwin  E.  Witte. 

The  Inferior  Courts  and  Police  of  Pater  son,  N.  J.,  by  Mr.  Red- 
mond S.  Brennan  and  Mr.  Patrick  F.  Gill. 

Chinese  Exclusion,  by  Mr.  Edward  A.  Fitzpatrick. 

EXTENT  OF  UNREST. 

The  principal  duty  imposed,  under  the  law  creating  the  commis- 
sion, was  to  seek  to  ascertain  the  causes  of  industrial  unrest  and  offer 
such  recommendations  as  we  believe  might  alleviate  that  unrest. 
There  can  be  no  question  but  that  unrest  exists,  in  some  instances,  to 
an  alarming  extent.  Thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  our  people 
feel  that  they  are  deprived,  under  existing  conditions  in  industry,  of 
an  opportunity  to  secure  for  themselves  and  their  families  a  standard 
of  living  commensurate  with  the  best  ideals  of  manhood,  womanhood, 
and  childhood.  They  resent  the  fact  that  the  existing  system  of  the 
distribution  of  wealth  creates  at  one  end  of  our  industrial  scale  a  few 
multi-millionaires  and  at  the  other  end  thousands  and  tens  of 
thousands  of  men,  women,  and  children  who  are  at  all  times  in  a 
situation  where  they  are  uncertain  as  to  where  their  next  meal  will 
come  from.  Hungry,  poorly  clothed,  and  without  the  opportunities 
that  a  fully  rounded  life  requires,  they  become  filled  with  a  sullen 
resentment  that  bodes  no  good  for  the  future  of  our  Republic. 

We  have  found  men  and  women  who  are  inclined  to  ascribe  this 
condition  to  the  fact  that  the  Government  exercises  no  power  of 
mandatory  character  to  prevent  strikes  and  lockouts.  Many  have 

1  These  reports  have  not  been  printed  with  this  document,  on  the  recommendation  of 
Chairman  Frank  P.  Walsh,  as  stated  in  his  letter  in  Senate  Report  No.  143,  Sixty-fourth 
Congress.  The  reports  on  Structural  Iron  Workers  and  the  Colorado  Situation  were 
printed  by  the  commission  itself  in  1915. 


164  EEPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

been  the  propositions  submitted  to  us  for  compulsory  arbitration  or, 
at  least,  compulsory  investigation  with  power  to  recommend  a  settle- 
ment. Some  have  proposed  an  elaborate  machinery,  to  be  set  up  by 
the  General  Government,  and  of  a  similar  character  by  the  States, 
providing  for  conciliation,  mediation,  arbitration,  and  investigation, 
all  of  which,  while  without  definite  compulsory  features,  establishes  a 
legal  machinery  that  must  of  necessity  exercise  an  influence  in  that 
direction. 

The  plan  for  the  creation  of  an  industrial  commission,  both  na- 
tional and  State,  proposes  to  assign  to  a  commission  of  three  mem- 
bers the  administration  of  all  labor  laws  of  either  State  or  Nation, 
giving  to  them  powers  far  in  excess  of  those  exercised  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  or  the  governor  of  any  State.  This  we 
believe  to  be  bureaucracy  run  mad,  and  a  subversion  of  democracy 
dangerous  to  the  civil  and  social  liberty  of  all  citizens.  We  hold  that 
all  power  should  be,  in  the  final  analysis,  with  the  people,  and  we, 
therefore,  dissent  from  any  such  plan. 

NEW    GOVERNMENTAL    MACHINERY    UNWISE. 

The  activities  of  such  a  commission,  supplemented  by  the  proposed 
advisory  committees  of  employers  and  labor  representatives,  would 
be  so  balanced  as  to  prevent  substantial  progress  and  tend  to  per- 
petuate present  conditions.  Such  a  plan  conceives  of  labor  and 
capital  as  static  forces  and  of  the  relations  between  them  as  always 
to  remain  unchanging. 

We  believe  that  the  work  now  being  done  by  the  Department  of 
•Labor  in  industry  generally,  and  by  the  Board  of  Mediation  and 
Conciliation,  dealing  with  interstate  public  utilities,  is  better  than 
any  that  could  be  expected  of  any  additional  board  that  has  been 
suggested  to  this  commission.  We  believe  that  the  Department  of 
Labor,  with  further  experience  and  larger  appropriations,  will  de- 
velop a  high  state  of  efficiency  in  adjusting  labor  disputes  that  are 
capable  of  being  adjusted  by  anyone  other  than  the  parties  directly 
interested  and  will  adequately  carry  on  the  work  provided  by  the 
law  creating  the  Department  of  Labor,  to  wit : 

SECTION  1.  The  purpose  of  the  Department  of  Labor  shall  be  to  foster,  pro- 
mote, and  develop  the  welfare  of  the  wage  earners  in  the  United  States,  to 
improve  their  working  conditions,  and  to  advance  their  opportunities  for 
profitable  employment. 

SEC.  8.  The  Secretary  of  Labor  shall  have  power  to  act  as  mediator  and  to 
appoint  commissioners  of  conciliation  in  labor  disputes  whenever  in  his  judg- 
ment the  interests  of  industrial  peace  require  it  to  be  done. 

We  favor  the  extension  of  the  Newlands  Act  to  cover  all  employees 
engaged  in  interstate  commerce,  such  as  the  railroad  telegraphers, 
the  shop  and  track  men  employed  by  railroads,  the  employees  of 
express  companies,  of  the  Pullman  Co.,  of  commercial  telegraph 
and  telephone  companies,  and  other  public  utilities  performing  inter- 
state service  that,  in  the  interest  of  the  Nation,  must  be  continuous. 

The  evidence  submitted  to  this  commission  is  substantially  to  the 
effect  that  where  trade-union  organization  exists  among  the  workers, 
there,  at  the  same  time,  exists  the  least  amount  of  industrial  unrest 
of  a  character  that  is  dangerous  to  the  peace  and  welfare  of  our 
Nation.  It  is  true  that  the  union  men  and  women  are  not  satisfied 
with  their  conditions;  they  are  not,  however,  despondent  as  to  the 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  165 

possibility  of  securing  better  conditions ;  they  know  what  the  unions 
have  accomplished,  and  they  have  an  abiding  faith  that  their  further 
desires  can  be  attained. 

Instead  of  any  elaborate  machinery  for  the  prevention  of  strikes 
or  lockouts  we  are  convinced,  from  the  testimony  gathered  by  this 
commission,  that  the  most  effectual  course  that  can  be  pursued  to 
bring  about  general  contentment  among  pur  people,  based  upon  a 
humane  standard  of  living,  is  the  promotion  of  labor  organization. 
The  most  casual  investigator  will  soon  discover  that  in  those  lines 
of  industry  where  organization  of  labor  is  the  strongest,  there  is  the 
least  danger  of  industrial  revolt  that  would  endanger  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  our  Government  and  the  maintenance  of  a 
nation  with  respect  for  law  and  order.  Where  organization  is  lack- 
ing dangerous  discontent  is  found  on  every  hand;  low  wages  and 
long  hours  prevail ;  exploitation  in  every  direction  is  practiced ;  the 
people  become  sullen,  have  no  regard  for  law  or  government,  and  are, 
in  reality,  a  latent  volcano,  as  dangerous  to  society  as  are  the  vol- 
canoes of  nature  to  the  landscape  surrounding  them. 

THE  ONE  TRUE  REMEDY. 

We  therefore  urge  as  the  great  remedy  for  such  unnecessary  in- 
dustrial unrest  as  we  have  found  more,  and  more,  and  still  more 
organization  of  labor  and  of  the  employers  in  each  industry  as  well. 
The  education  of  the  trade  unions  has  been  conducive  to  a  higher 
and  better  citizenship.  In  recent  years  there  have  come  to  our  assist- 
ance scores  and  hundreds  and  thousands  of  people  outside  the  ranks 
of  unionists — ministers,  professors,  journalists,  professional  men  of 
all  kinds — who  have  reached  the  conclusion  that  is  herein  stated,  that 
the  most  efficient  cure  for  such  industrial  unrest  as  should  be  cured, 
is  union  organization. 

We  hold  that  efforts  to  stay  the  organization  of  labor  or  to  restrict 
the  right  of  employees  to  organize  should  not  be  tolerated,  but  that 
the  opposite  policy  should  prevail,  and  the  organization  of  the  trade 
unions  and  of  the  employers'  organizations  should  be  promoted,  not, 
however,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  fighting  each  other,  but  for  the  com- 
mendable purpose  of  collective  bargaining  and  the  establishing  of 
industrial  good  will.  Organizations  of  employers  that  have  no 
object  in  view  except  to  prevent  labor  having  a  voice  in  fixing  the 
conditions  of  industry  under  which  it  is  employed  have  no  excuse 
for  existence,  as  they  are  a  bar  to  social  tranquillity  and  a  detriment 
to  the  economic  progress  of  our  country.  The  evidence  before  the 
commission  shows  that  organized  labor  has  no  desire,  nor  has  it 
attempted,  to  control  the  business  of  the  employer.  It  insists  that 
it  has  a  right  to  a  voice,  and  a  potent  voice,  in  determining  the  con- 
ditions under  which  it  shall  work.  This  attitude,  we  are  sure,  will 
be  continued  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  any  so-called  employers' 
organizations.  This  country  is  no  longer  a  field  for  slavery,  and 
where  men  and  women  are  compelled,  in  order  that  they  may  live, 
to  work  under  conditions  in  determining  which  they  have  no  voice, 
they  are  not  far  removed  from  a  condition  existing  under  feudalism 
or  slavery. 

In  emphasizing  with  all  the  force  at  our  command  the  necessity  of 
collective  action  by  wage  earners  through  strong  organizations,  if 


166  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

the  problem  of  industrial  unrest  is  to  be  solved,  we  wish  again  to 
quote  from  testimony  of  Prof.  Hollander.  He  undertook  to  sum 
up  for  this  commission  those  conclusions  regarding  the  solution  of 
this  problem  that  have  been  reached  not  only  by  himself,  but  by  the 
great  body  of  economists  in  this  country  and  abroad.  He  said : 

The  opinion  of  political  economists  in  so  far  as  I  can  voice  it  is 
that  social  unrest,  which  is  manifest  not  only  in  this  country  but  in 
every  industrial  country,  is  due  to  the  existence  of  economic  want  or 
poverty,  if  by  that  we  understand  not  on  the  one  hand  pauperism  or 
on  the  other  economic  inequality.  By  poverty  I  mean  the  existence 
of  large  areas  of  industrial  society  in  receipt  of  incomes  less  than 
enough  to  maintain  themselves  and  those  dependent  upon  them  in 
decent  existence.  We  believe  that  is  the  consequence,  not  of  any  abso- 
lute dearth — that  the  world  produces  enough  to  go  around;  that  it 
is,  therefore,  not  a  question  of  insufficient  production,  but  of  defects 
in  distribution.  *  *  *  There  is  a  view  among  economists  that 
there  is  nothing  in  any  current  theory  of  wages  that  precludes  the 
laborer  from  obtaining  a  sufficient  wage,  and  that  if  he  fails  it  must 
be  in  consequence  of  the  fact  that  he  enters  into  the  wage  contract 
on  a  plane  of  inequality.  The  wage  contract,  in  short,  is  the  result 
of  a  bargain  between  the  employer  and  the  employee,  and  if  the 
employer  is  in  a  superior  competitive  position  by  reason  of  combina- 
tion and  the  laborer  is  unorganized  he  is  at  a  bargaining  disadvan- 
tage which  is  certain  to  redound  to  his  hurt. 

I  think  political  economists  accordingly  then  are  in  agreement 
that  trade  unionism  is  essential  as  a  means  of  bringing  the  workmen 
into  industrial  bargaining  on  a  plane  of  equality. 

******* 

You  have  asked  specifically  what  the  remedy  [for  poverty]  is.  It 
means  a  very  decided  revulsion  of  opinion  as  to  trade  unionism.  The 
general  attitude  among  employers  of  labor  is  often  open  and  decided 
opposition  to  organized  labor.  Until  society  recognizes  the  unwis- 
dom of  that  attitude  and  demands  that  the  laborer  must  enter  into 
his  wage  bargain  on  a  plane  of  competitive  equality,  society  has  not 
lifted  its  finger  to  remedy  that  evil. 

THE  PUBLIC'S  DUTY. 

We  submit  the  report  of  Mr.  Basil  M.  Manly  as  our  report,  asking 
for  it  the  fullest  possible  consideration  by  the  men  and  women  of 
our  country  who  are  interested  in  the  social  and  moral  uplift  of 
humanity. 

Labor  must  work  out  its  own  salvation.  Wageworkers  can  attain 
that  degree  of  well-being  to  which  they  are  entitled  only  by  their  own 
efforts.  The  general  public  can  not  be  expected  to  do  for  them  what 
they  fail  to  do  for  themselves,  nor  would  it  be  desirable  that  those 
rights  and  benefits  to  which  they  are  entitled  should  be  handed  down 
to  them  by  the  Government  or  by  organized  society  as  grace  from 
above.  But  the  general  public  is  vitally  interested  'in  the  efforts  of 
wageworkers  to  win  for  themselves  equal  justice  and  such  a  degree 
of  material  well-being  as  will  enable  them  to  maintain  themselves 
and  their  families  in  comfort,  security,  and  health.  Society's  interest 
in  the  triumph  of  labor's  cause  should  spring  not  only  from  the  love 
of  justice  and  the  human  sympathy  that  animates  every  good  citizen, 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  167 

but  from  a  realization  that  industrial  and  social  evils  menacing  large 
groups  of  the  population  can  not  continue  without  eventually  bring- 
ing disaster  to  society  as  a  whole.  While  inviting  the  aid  of  every 
good  citizen,  we,  as  representatives  of  organized  labor,  urge  that  this 
aid  be  directed  not  solely  to  seeking  new  legislation  or  new  govern- 
mental machinery  designed  as  a  cure-all,  but  to  giving  moral  support 
to  labor's  own  efforts,  and  insisting  that  trade  unions  be  fostered  and 
encouraged  as  the  most  effective  agencies  making  for  the  wage- 
workers'  progress. 

We  concur  in,  and  adopt  as  a  part  of  our  report,  the  statement 
under  the  heading  "  Supplemental  statement  of  Chairman  Frank  P. 
Walsh." 

We  concur  in  the  dissenting  opinion  of  Chairman  Frank  P.  Walsh 
from  the  report  of  Commissioners  John  R.  Commons  and  Florence  J. 
Harriman. 

We  concur  in  that  part  of  the  report  of  Commissioner  Austin  B. 
Garretson  under  the  heading  "  Causes  underlying  industrial  unrest." 

We  concur  in  the  history  and  statement  of  facts  regarding  the 
Colorado  strike,  as  written  by  Mr.  George  P.  West,  which  is  printed 
as  an  addendum  to  this  report.1 

JOHN  B.  LENNOX. 
JAMES   O'CONNELL. 

1  The  report  by  Mr.  George  P.  West  has  not  been  printed  with  this  document,  on  the 
recommendation  of  Chairman  Frank  P,  Walsh,  as  it  was  printed  by  the  commission  .Itself 
In  1915.  See  his  letter  in  Senate  Report  No.  143,  Sixty-fourth  Congress. 


II. 


Report  of  Commissioners  John  R.  Commons 
and  Florence  J.  Harriman 


SIGNED  BY 


Commissioners  Commons,  Harriman,  Weinstock, 
Ballard,  and  Aishton 


TOGETHER  WITH 


The  Dissenting  Opinion  of  Commissioner  Weinstock,  the  Report  of 

Commissioners  Weinstock,  Ballard,  and  Aishton,  and  the 

Supplemental  Statement  of  Commissioner  Ballard 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSIONERS  JOHN  R.  COMMONS  AND  FLORENCE 

J.  HARRIMAN. 


ENACTMENT,   INTERPRETATION,   AND   ENFORCEMENT   OF  LABOR 

LAW. 

We  can  not  find  ourselves  able  to  agree  to  any  of  the  findings  or 
recommendations  of  the  staff  or  any  resolutions  based  upon  them, 
because  they  have  not  the  criticism  of  employers,  employees,  and 
others  affected  by  them,  which  we  consider  indispensable  in  order 
that  we  might  have  before  us  assurance  that  they  were  accurate  and 
not  chargeable  with  important  omissions.  These  reasons  are  stated 
more  fully  in  paragraph  4  following,  and  are  equally  appropriate 
for  those  who  refuse  to  sign  this  report.  We  find  ourselves  unable  to 
agree  with  other  recommendations  and  resolutions  for  legislation, 
because  they  contain  few  or  no  practicable  suggestions  for  legislation 
that  would  be  enforceable,  or  because  they  are  directed  to  making  a 
few  individuals  scapegoats,  where  what  is  needed  is  serious  attention 
to  the  system  that  produces  the  demand  for  scapegoats,  and  with  it 
the  breakdown  of  labor  legislation  in  this  country.  In  this  way  we 
interpret  the  act  of  Congress  which  requires  us  to  inquire  "  into  the 
scope,  methods,  and  resources  of  existing  bureaus  of  labor  and  into 
possible  ways  of  increasing  their  usefulness."  From  our  personal 
experience  we  agree  with  many  of  the  alleged  findings  and  with  the 
objects  intended  to  be  accomplished  by  the  enactment  of  proposed 
laws,  but  we  consider  that  it  is  not  worth  while  to  propose  any  more 
laws  until  we  have  provided  methods  of  investigation,  legislation, 
and  administration  which  can  make  laws  enforceable.  A  law  is 
really  a  law  only  to  the  extent  that  it  is  enforced,  and  our  statute 
books  are  encumbered  by  laws  that  are  conflicting,  ambiguous,  and 
unenforceable,  or  partly  enforced.  Here  is  probably  the  greatest 
cause  of  industrial  unrest,  for  as  soon  as  people  lose  confidence  in 
the  making  of  laws  by  the  legislature,  in  their  interpretation  by  the 
courts,  and  in  their  administration  by  officials,  they  take  the  law  into 
their  own  hands.  This  is  now  being  done  by  both  employers  and  em- 
ployees. Before  recommending  any  additional  much-needed  laws 
affecting  wages,  hours,  child  and  woman  labor,  unemployment,  or 
other  substantive  laws  to  improve  industrial  conditions,  we  must  call 
attention  to  the  widespread  breakdown  of  existing  laws  and  must 
devise  methods  of  revising  them  and  enacting  and  enforcing  new 
laws  so  that  they  will  fit  actual  conditions  and  be  enforceable  and  en- 
forced. With  the  widespread  demand  for  more  laws  to  remedy  wide- 
spread and  well-recognized  causes  of  industrial  unrest,  there  is  a 
curious  feeling  that,  if  only  more  laws  are  placed  on  the  statute 
books,  they  will,  in  some  unexplained  way,  get  themselves  enforced. 

171 


172  KEPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

While  recognizing  the  justice  of  much  of  this  demand  for  new  laws, 
we  are  not  placing  them  first  in  our  report,  but  rather  the  methods 
of  investigating  conditions,  of  enacting  legislation,  of  judicial  inter- 
pretation, and  administrative  enforcement  necessary  to  make  them 
worth  while  as  a  real  remedy. 

Other  industrial  nations  have  gone  far  ahead  of  the  United  btates 
in  adopting  labor  legislation,  much  of  which  is  also  needed  here; 
but  their  laws  are  drawn  up  so  as  to  be  enforceable,  and  their  machin- 
ery of  enforcement  is  such  that  the  people  are  willing  to  entrust  new 
laws  to  their  officials  for  enforcement.  Our  Government  is  different 
from  theirs  and  requires  different  methods,  but,  if  our  methods  and 
officials  can  not  be  made  as  effective  and  trustworthy  as  theirs,  then 
we  can  not  trust  more  laws  than  we  now  have  to  their  hands. 

One  of  the  most  important  facts  to  be  recognized  is  that  govern- 
ments, whether  State  or  Federal,  can  not  be  looked  to  alone  for 
remedying  evil  conditions.  As  soon  as  people  come  to  look  upon 
the  coercive  power  of  government  as  the  only  means  of  remedying 
abuses,  then  the  struggle  for  control  of  government  is  substituted 
for  the  private  initiative  through  private  associations,  from  which 
the  real  substantial  improvements  must  come.  We  must  look  for 
the  greatest  improvement  to  come  through  the  cooperation  with  gov- 
ernment of  the  many  voluntary  organizations  that  have  sprung  up 
to  promote  their  own  private  interests.  The  most  important  ones, 
for  our  purposes,  are  employers'  associations,  labor  unions,  and  farm- 
ers' organizations.  These  are  directly  affected  by  most  labor  legis- 
lation, and  they  have  much  more  powerful  influence  than  have  unor- 
ganized interests  upon  legislatures  and  administrative  officials. 

Furthermore,  the  struggle  between  capital  and  labor  must  be 
looked  upon,  so  far  as  we  can  now  see,  as  a  permanent  struggle  no 
matter  what  legislation  is  adopted.  If  this  is  not  recognized,  pro- 
posed remedies  will  miss  the  actual  facts.  But  there  are  certain 
points  where  the  interests  of  capital  and  labor  are  harmonious  or  can 
be  made  more  harmonious.  In  fact,  this  field  where  there  is  no  real 
conflict  between  employers  and  employees  is  much  wider  than  at 
first  might  be  imagined.  By  recognizing  these  two  facts  of  perma- 
nent opposition  and  progressive  cooperation,  it  may  be  possible  to 
devise  methods  of  legislation,  court  interpretation,  and  administra- 
tion which  will  reduce  antagonism  and  promote  cooperation.  For, 
while  we  can  not  look  to  government  alone  for  remedying  abuses, 
it  is  only  by  legislation  that  we  can  give  voluntary  organizations  a 
greater  share  in  working  out  their  own  remedies  and  in  cooperating 
with  government  toward  increasing  the  points  of  harmony. 

Some  progress  has  been  made  in  this  direction  in  the  past  few  years 
in  some  States,  through  the  enactment  of  laws  creating  industrial 
commissions,  but  none  of  these  laws  go  to  the  full  extent  required  in 
order  to  carry  out  the  foregoing  principles.  By  observing  the 
strong  and  weak  points  of  these  laws,  as  well  as  those  of  other  States 
and  the  Federal  Government  which  have  not  adopted  similar  laws, 
we  can  draw  certain  conclusions,  which  we  do  in  the  form  of  recom- 
mendations. A  draft  of  a  bill  embodying  most  of  these  recommenda- 
tions was  submitted  to  the  legislatures  of  Colorado  and  New  York 
during  the  legislative  sessions  of  1915  and  wTas  adopted  with  more 
or  less  serious  modifications  and  additions  by  those  legislatures.  The 


I 

I 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  173 

recommendations  below  contain  most  of  the  terms  of  the  foregoing 
draft  and  also  of  improvements  which  seem  essential  to  be  made  in 
the  industrial  commission  laws  of  the  States  and  of  proposed  laws 
for  State  or  Federal  Governments.  Some  of  the  recommendations 
are  based  on  personal  experience  in  the  administration  of  labor  laws. 

INDUSTRIAL  COMMISSIONS. 


1.  State  and  Federal  industrial  commissions  to  be  created  for  the 
administration  of  all  labor  laws.  All  bureaus  or  divisions  dealing 
with  conditions  of  labor,  including  industrial  safety  and  sanitation, 
workmen's  compensation,  employment  offices,  child  labor,  industrial 
education,  statistics,  immigration,  and  so  on,  to  be  placed  under  the 
direction  of  the  commission.  Each  commission  to  consist  of  three 
commissioners  to  be  appointed  by  the  governor  or  President,  as  the 
case  may  be,  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate.  Members  to  be  ap- 
pointed with  the  advice  of  the  advisory  representative  council. 
(See  par.  2.)  The  term  of  each  commissioner  to  be  six  years,  except 
that  the  terms  of  the  commissioners  first  appointed  shall  be  so  ar- 
ranged that  no  two  shall  expire  at  the  same  time.  The  Federal 
Department  of  Labor  to  be  retained  for  educational  and  political  pur- 
poses, and  a  similar  department  might  be  created  in  large  industrial 
States,  such  as  New  York  and  Pennsylvania. 

The  tendency  of  labor  legislation  in  the  States  which  have  given 
attention  to  this  matter  has  been  toward  a  complete  centralization  of 
the  administration  of  the  labor  laws  in  the  hands  of  a  single  depart- 
ment. Wisconsin  in  1911  established  an  industrial  commission  for 
the  administration  of  all  labor  laws,  and  Ohio,  after  one  year  of 
separate  administration  of  the  compensation  law,  created  in  1913  a 
similar  commission,  and  incorporated  the  compensation  commission 
into  an  industrial  commission.  In  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  the 
responsibility  for  the  administration  of  labor  laws  has  been  divided 
between  a  commissioner  of  labor,  who  is  responsible  for  their  en- 
forcement, and  an  industrial  board  of  five  members,  the  sole  duty  of 
which  is  to  make  necessary  rules  and  regulations  having  the  force  of 
law.  In  New  York  there  has  also  been  a  separate  commission  for  the 
administration  of  the  compensation  act.  The  tendency,  however,  is 
strongly  toward  the  industrial  commission  plan,  as  the  New  York 

Elan,  which  was  devised  at  the  time  of  the  reorganization  of  the 
ibor  department  of  that  State  in  1913  and  adopted  in  the  same  year 
by  Pennsylvania  in  an  act  largely  copied  from  the  New  York  law, 
has  already  (1915)  been  given  up  in  the  State  of  its  origin.  The 
New  York  commission  under  the  law  of  1915  consists  of  five  members, 
and  is  charged  with  the  administration  of  all  labor  laws  and  the 
workmen's  compensation  law,  and  also  with  the  duty  of  making  the 
rules  and  regulations  for  carrying  these  laws  into  effect.  In  Penn- 
sylvania a  compensation  act  has  this  year  (1915)  been  enacted,  and, 
while  no  change  has  been  made  in  the  organization  of  the  labor  de- 
partment, the  administration  of  the  compensation  act  has  been  in- 
trusted to  that  department. 

During  the  present  year  (1915)  at  least  five  States  have  enacted 
legislation  for  a  closer  union  of  the  administration  of  their  labor  and 
compensation  laws.  Colorado,  with  serious  modifications,  and  In- 
diana have  enacted  laws  creating  industrial  commissions  similar  to 


174  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

those  of  Wisconsin  and  Ohio.  Nevada  has  created  an  industrial 
commission  of  three  members  for  the  administration  of  its  com- 
pensation act  and  has  conferred  upon  one  of  the  commissioners,  to 
be  designated  as  commissioner  of  labor,  the  duty  of  enforcing  all 
laws  of  the  State  for  the  protection  of  the  working  classes.  In  New 
Jersey,  after  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  create  an  industrial  com- 
mission, provision  has  been  made  for  two  additional  employees  in 
the  department  of  labor  for  the  purpose  of  correlating  the  work  of 
that  department  with  the  administration  of  the  compensation  act. 

In  California  the  industrial  accident  commission  administers  the 
compensation  act  and  also  laws  dealing  with  safety  in  places  of  em- 
ployment, although  the  labor  bureau  also  has  the  latter  authority; 
and  in  Massachusetts,  while  there  are  still  separate  boards  in  charge 
of  the  labor  department  and  of  the  administration  of  the  compensa- 
tion law,  the  two  boards  sit  jointly  for  the  purpose  of  making  rules 
and  regulations  for  the  prevention  of  industrial  accidents  and  occu- 
pational diseases. 

In  several  States  bills  have  been  introduced  for  the  creation  of  an 
industrial  commission  for  the  administration  of  all  such  laws.  In 
New  Jersey  such  a  bill  was  introduced  by  the  president  of  the  State 
Federation  of  Labor,  who  is  also  a  member  of  the  assembly,  and  in 
Maryland  such  a  bill  was  prepared  and  introduced  at  the  instance  of 
the  State  labor  department.  In  Illinois  the  report  of  the  efficiency 
and  economy  committee  recommended  the  consolidation  of  the  vari- 
ous departments  dealing  with  labor  laws,  including  the  board  admin- 
istering the  compensation  act,  and  in  Missouri  a  legislative  com- 
mittee, after  a  careful  study  of  the  subject,  reported  in  December, 
1914,  in  favor  of  the  enactment  of  a  compensation  law  and  the  crea- 
tion of  an  industrial  commission  to  administer  both  it  and  the  other 
labor  laws  of  the  State.  This  latter  report  is  particularly  impor- 
tant, because  it  represents  the  result  of  a  recent  official  study  of  the 
problem  and  consideration  of  the  experience  of  the  States  which 
have  advanced  labor  laws. 

As  already  explained,  the  fundamental  principle  of  these  recom- 
mendations is  that  the  administration  of  all  the  labor  laws  of  a  State 
shall  be  centralized.  An  illustration  of  the  advantages  is  found  in 
uniting  the  administration  of  the  labor  laws  relating  to  safe  and 
sanitary  conditions  of  employment  with  the  administration  of  the 
workmen's  compensation  laws. 

It  is  probably  unnecessary  at  this  stage  of  the  development  of 
workmen's  compensation  legislation  to  consider  the  question  whether 
there  should  be  a  responsible  officer  or  officers  charged  with  the  ad- 
ministration of  such  laws,  01*  whether  their  administration  should 
be  left  to  individual  initiative  and  the  final  determination  of  courts 
of  law,  already  burdened  with  many  other  and  equally  important 
responsibilities.  That  question  is  settled,  and  the  only  point  is  as  to 
the  character  of  the  administrative  agency.  Both  the  nature  of  the 
compensation  laws  and  the  experience  which  has  been  gained  during 
their  operation  in  many  States  point  to  a  board  or  commission,  in- 
stead of  the  courts,  as  the  best  form  of  administration.  Economy  of 
administration  then  is  secured  if  the  administration  of  safety  laws  is 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  compensation  commission.  Fewer  highly 
paid  executive  officers  and  other  employees  are  required,  and  there 


I 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  175 


is  secured  avoidance  of  duplication  in  the  work  itself.  For  example, 
it  is  essential  to  the  administration  of  both  these  laws  that  em- 
ployers should  be  required  to  make  reports  of  accidents.  On  the 
one  hand  they  furnish  necessary  information  respecting  the  na- 
ture of  accidents  and  the  possibilities  of  prevention;  on  the  other, 
they  are  necessary  in  the  actuarial  work  involved  in  the  administra- 
tion of  compensation.  The  same  is  true  of  the  inspections  which  are 
frequently  necessary  in  the  course  of  the  administration  of  both  laws 
and  in  most  instances  one  inspection  would  serve  both  purposes. 
Furthermore,  the  information  derived  from  hearings  in  compensa- 
tion is  of  great  assistance  to  the  commissioners,  who  are  also  charged 
with  responsibility  of  the  labor  laws  generally,  in  giving  them  a 
broader  view  of  the  problems  with  which  they  are  dealing. 

The  same  kind  of  events  that  have  led  up  to  the  State  industrial 
commission  are  taking  place  in  Federal  legislation.  Already  two 
bills  on  workmen's  compensation  have  been  well  advanced  and  one 
of  them  creates  a  commission  separate  from  the  Department  of  La- 
bor. The  bill  for  compensation  of  employees  of  the  Government 
(63d  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  H.  R.  15222)  takes  the  place  of  the  present  law 
administered  by  the  Department  of  Labor,  and  provides  for  a 
"United  States  Employees'  Compensation  Commission"  consisting 
of  three  commissioners,  no  one  of  whom  shall  hold  any  other  Federal 
office  or  position.  The  other  (63d  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  S.  959),  providing 
for  employees  of  private  employers  in  interstate  commerce,  leaves 
the  administration  of  the  law  to  the  courts,  a  method  that  has  been 
effectually  discredited.  Whether  either  or  both  bills  on  workmen's 
compensation  are  adopted,  they  should  be  united,  as  already  shown 
in  the  case  of  the  States,  under  a  commission  that  administers  the 
safety  laws. 

When  the  Department  of  Labor  was  created  the  important  work 
of  safety  for  mine  workers  was  left  in  the  Department  of  Interior 
under  the  Bureau  of  Mines.  Safety  on  railroads  is  in  the  hands  of 
the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  The  Bureau  of  Standards,  of 
the  Department  of  Commerce,  develops  safety  standards  for  electric 
and  other  equipment.  The  Public  Health  Service,  of  the  Treasury 
Department,  investigates  industrial  diseases  and  factory  sanitation. 
The  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  in- 
vestigates and  publishes  bulletins  on  accidents  and  diseases  in  va- 
rious industries.  Lately  a  bill  has  passed  the  House  providing  for 
a  safety  bureau  in  the  Department  of  Labor,  with  power  to  investi- 
gate any  or  all  of  the  matters  of  safety  now  carried  on  either  in  that 
department  or  in  any  other  department.  The  seamen's  law  re- 
cently enacted  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Department  of  Commerce,  as- 
sisted by  the  Department  of  Labor.  The  Department  of  Agriculture 
has  a  division  on  rural  housing  and  social  conditions. 

This  overlapping  of  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  industrial  safety 
and  sanitation  has  grown  up  without  any  plan,  according  to  the 
accident  of  such  officials  as  happened  to  be  on  the  ground  or  to  get 
a  hearing  in  Congress;  or  on  account  of  objection  to  placing  authority 
in  one  department  or  another.  And  now,  with  the  prospect  of  Fed- 
eral legislation  for  compensation  for  accidents  and  occupational 
diseases,  one  or  two  more  bureaus  are  likely  to  be  created,  wdth  their 
most  important  object  the  prevention  of  accidents. 


176  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

At  the  same  time  three  great  private  associations  have  sprung  up 
which  are  doing  as  much  or  more  for  safety  than  all  the  State  and 
Federal  Governments  combined.  The  Conference  Board  of  National 
Allied  Safety  Organizations,  composed  of  representatives  from  the 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  the  National  Founders'  As- 
sociation, the  National  Metal  Trades  Association,  and  the  National 
Electric  Light  Association,  has  begun  the  standardization  of  safety 
devices  for  millions  of  employees,  regardless  of  any  standards  which 
State  or  Government  officials  may  set  up. 

The  National  Council  of  Safety,  composed  of  the  safety  experts  of 
most  of  the  large  corporations  of  the  country  and  of  representatives 
of  labor,  has  developed  an  extensive  campaign  of  accident  prevention. 
The  Workmen's  Compensation  Service  Bureau,  supported  by  the  lia- 
bility-insurance companies,  is  doing  expert  work  of  the  highest 
order  in  safety  devices  and  processes  for  the  assistance  of  such 
employers  as  are  policy  holders  in  those  companies. 

With  these  three  national  organizations  representing  the  employ- 
ing interests,  with  at  least  five,  and  the  prospect  of  seven,  bureaus 
representing  the  Federal  Government,  and  with  similar  agencies  more 
or  less  developed  in  the  States,  all  of  them  working  on  the  same  prob- 
lem of  compensation  for  accidents  and  prevention  of  accidents,  the 
time  is  ripening  for  some  kind  of  correlation  and  uniformity.  It 
can  not  be  expected  that  Congress  and  the  people  will  long  be  satis- 
fied with  this  expensive  and  wasteful  disorganization  of  the  national 
energies  that  are  directed  to  the  great  work  of  safety  and  compen- 
sation. Just  as  the  States  are  moving  toward  centralization  under 
industrial  commissions,  so  the  same  problem  must  force  the  Federal 
Government  toward  not  only  centralization  of  its  own  work  but  cor- 
relation with  the  States  and  with  private  organizations. 

It  does  not  follow  that  all  of  the  Federal  bureaus  dealing  with 
safety  and  health  should  be  bodily  taken  from  their  several  depart- 
ments and  transferred  to  an  industrial  commission.  There  may  be  cases 
where  their  work  on  industrial  safety  and  health  is  tied  up  with  their 
other  work.  It  is  only  necessary  that  the  several  departments  should 
be  required  by  law  to  discontinue  any  overlapping  or  conflict  of 
jurisdiction,  and  that  an  industrial  commission  should  have  authority 
to  bring  them  all  together  into  a  national  council  of  industrial  safety 
and  health  and  require  them  to  agree  on  a  definite  plan  of  dividing 
up  the  work  and  cooperating  with  each  other  and  with  private  asso- 
ciations organized  for  similar  work.  Other  comments  will  be  found 
under  paragraph  3. 

ADVISORY  REPRESENTATIVE  COUNCIL. 

2.  An  advisory  representative  council  consisting  of  the  Secretary 
of  Commerce  and  the  Secretary  of  Labor  and  of,  say,  10  employers 
(including  farmers)  and  10  representatives  of  labor  unions  (includ- 
ing women).  The  representatives  on  the  council  to  be  selected  from 
lists,  not  including  lawyers,  submitted  by  recognized  employers'  asso- 
ciations in  the  State  or  in  the  Nation,  as  the  case  may  be,  such,  for 
example,  as  State  associations  of  manufacturers,  the  National  Metal 
Trades  Association,  the  National  Founders'  Association,  associations 
of  coal  operators,  of  railroad  presidents,  of  brewers,  of  farmers' 


I 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   OX   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  177 


organizations,  etc.  The  representatives  of  employees  to  be  selected 
from  lists  submitted  by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  the  rail- 
road brotherhood,  the  Women's  Trade  Union  League,  and  independent 
organizations.  In  all  cases  either  the  associations  entitled  to  repre- 
sentation should  be  named  in  the  law,  or  provision  should  be  made 
rhereby  the  governor  or  President,  upon  investigation,  shall  name 
rgaiiizations  which  are  considered  representative  by  organized  em- 
ployer's and  organized  employees  themselves  and  permit  them  to  name 
their  representatives.  Similar  provision  in  case  an  organization 
ceases  to  exist  or  to  be  representative.  Any  organization  to  be  entitled 
to  recall  its  representative  on  notice.  The  representative  council 
to  be  appointed  by  the  governor  or  the  President  before  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  commission  and  the  governor  or  the  President  to  call  it 
together  and  to  consult  with  it  regarding  the  names  proposed  to  be 
nominated  for  commissioners.  The  Industrial  Commission  to  invite 
also  a  limited  number,  say,  10,  of  individuals  or  representatives  of 
organizations  including  persons  especially  interested  in  unorganized 
labor  arid  representatives  of  such  organizations  as  the  International 
Association  for  Labor  Legislation,  the  National  Child  Labor  Com- 
mittee, and  the  Consumers'  League  and  individual  employers  and 
employees,  as  may  be  advisable  for  their  assistance,  to  be  members 
of  the  advisory  council.  The  council  to  take  no  vote  on  any  subject 
except  procedure  and  to  have  no  veto  on  any  act  of  the  Industrial 
Commission.  Nominal  compensation  or  no  compensation  to  members, 
with  necessary  expenses.  The  representative  council  to  effect  its 
own  organization  and  call  meetings  independent  of  the  commission, 
to  be  provided  with  a  secretary  and  needed  clerical  assistance,  to  hold 
meetings  perhaps  quarterly  and  on  call,  to  keep  and  publish  records 
of  its  proceedings.  The  Industrial  Commission  to  be  required  to 
submit  all  proposed  rules,  regulations,  and  publications  to  the  repre- 
sentative council,  allowing  sufficient  time  for  examination  and  dis- 
cussion, and  to  publish  any  protest  or  criticism  filed  by  any  member 
of  the  council,  along  with  the  commission's  own  publication. 

This  recommendation  is  an  extension  of  a  principle  which  is  left- 
optional  in  several  State  commission  laws,  but  the  mandatory  feature 
has  been  partially  adopted  by  law  in  New  York.  The  recommenda- 
tion creates  a  body  similar  to  the  Superior  Councils  of  Labor  in 
France,  Belgium,  and  Italy,  the  Industrial  Council  in  England,  and 
many  councils  of  private  representative  citizens  wTho  assist  Govern- 
ment officials  in  Germany.  In  Wisconsin  the  appointment  of  a 
council  is  optional  with  the  commission,  but  it  has  been  appointed 
for  several  purposes,  and  this  policy  has  been  demonstrated  to  be  the 
most  effective  of  all  that  the  commission  has  adopted.  The  omission 
by  that  commission  to  adopt  it  at  times  has  been  a  source  of  severe 
and  just  criticism,  and  accounts  for  the  granting  of  permits  against 
which  objections  are  rightly  made.  In  New  York  the  representa- 
tive council  is  mandatory,  but  the  selections  are  made  by  the  gov- 
ernor, and  are  therefore  liable  to  be  political  and  nonrepresentative. 
For  these  reasons  it  is  recommended  that  the  council  not  only  be 
mandatory,  as  in  New  York,  but  that  no  action  of  the  commission, 
except  in  case  of  specified  emergencies,  shall  be  valid  and  no  pub- 
lication shall  be  issued  unless  previously  submitted  to  the  representa- 
tive council.  In  this  respect -the  advisory  representative  council 
38819°— 16 12 


178  REPORT  OE  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

would  have  powers  in  excess  of  those  of  similar  councils,  except  per- 
haps the  Superior  Council  of  Belgium. 

Appointment  by  the  governor,  President,  or  Industrial  Commis- 
sion is  required  in  order  that  members  may  receive  necessary  ex- 
penses. Lawyers  are  excluded  because  the  council  should  be  com- 
posed of  persons  with  practical  experience  in  industry. 

The  history  of  governmental  commissions  and  departments  has 
often  been  the  appointment  of  men  on  the  recommendation  of  poli- 
ticians or  special  interests  or  the  accident  of  personal  acquaintance. 
An  executive,  in  looking  around  for  competent  appointees,  is  often 
at  a  disadvantage  because  he  can  not  get  impartial  and  disinterested 
men  to  accept,  or  because  he  does  not  have  impartial  and  competent 
advice  in  his  selections.  To  the  proposed  Industrial  Commissions 
is  given  the  most  serious  problem  before  the  American  people.  Al- 
most everything  turns  on  the  kind  of  men  appointed.  They  must 
be  men  not  only  competent  but  having  the  respect  of  the  great  op- 
posing interests.  Their  position  is  that  of  a  kind  of  mediator  as 
well  as  of  administrator.  Such  appointments  should  not  be  made 
in  haste,  nor  in  the  secret  of  the  executive's  accidental  advisors. 
They  should  be  considered  publicly,  and  especially  by  the  opposing 
interests  whose  fortunes  will  be  committed  in  great  part  to  their 
hands.  The  governor  or  President  can  not,  of  course,  be  bound  by 
the  action  of  the  council,  but  he  can  be  required  to  get  their  advice 
on  names  proposed. 

It  is  intended  that  the  members  of  the  commission  itself  should 
not  be  representative  of  either  employers  or  employees,  but  that  they 
should  have  the  confidence  of  both  sides.  This  is  expected  to  follow 
from  the  requirement  that  the  governor  or  President  should  consult 
the  council  before  making  his  nominations  of  commissioners.  In 
this  way,  what  is  known  as  "the  public"  would  be  represented  in 
part  by  the  commission,  while  capital  and  labor  would  be  represented 
in  the  council. 

By  this  method  it  can  be  expected  that  capable  men  may  be  at- 
tracted from  their  private  occupations  into  public  service  as  mem- 
bers of  the  commission.  Usually  the  kind  of  men  required  for  such 
positions  dread  the  political  and  personal  attacks  that  are  connected 
with  public  office.  But  it  would  be  difficult  for  an  eminent  man  to 
resist  the  call  to  public  office  when  he  has  the  united  invitation  of 
the  President,  the  employers,  and  the  labor  unions  of  the  country. 

The  representative  council  has  no  veto  power,  but  is  intended 
merely  as  a  cooperative  body  representing  employers,  employees,  the 
public  as  it  is  represented  by  the  Secretaries  of  Commerce  and  Labor, 
and  individuals  selected  by  the  commission.  Its  duties  are  purely 
advisory.  Its  purpose  is  not  only  to  give  the  governor  or  President 
and  the  commission  the  benefit  of  advice  and  to  bring  together  for 
conference  representative  labor  men  and  employees,  but  to  guarantee 
as  far  as  possible  that  all  appointments  (par.  3),  all  investigations 
and  publications  (par.  4),  all  rules  and  regulations  (par.  5),  and 
other  acts  of  the  commission,  shall,  before  they  are  published  or  be- 
come valid,  be  under  the  continuous  supervision  of  the  recognized 
leaders  of  organized  capital  and  organized  labor,  and  public  repre- 
sentatives. 

No  requirement  is  made  for  the  appointment  of  advisory  experts, 
such  as  lawyers,  engineers,  and  physicians.  These  may  be  appointed 


I 


REPORT  OP   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  179 

by  the  Industrial  Commission  as  members  of  the  third  interest  on 
the  council,  but  it  is  found  in  practice  that  the  services  of  consulting 
experts  are  secured  without  expense  to  the  State  if  representative 
employers  and  employees  have  a  part  in  the  advisory  council.  This 
is  attended  to  because  the  employer  and  employee  representatives 
themselves  have  not  the  technical  knowledge  and  can  not  give  the 
time  necessary  to  consider  all  details,  but  must  consult  experts  in 
whom  they  have  confidence.  This  they  do,  and  are  thereby  prepared 
to  discuss  intelligently  the  acts  of  the  commission.  The  council  and 
the  commission  can,  of  course,  call  in  such  experts  to  thefr  con- 
ferences at  any  time. 

The  employer  and  employee  members  of  the  advisory  council 
should  be  strictly  representative  and  responsible  to  the  organizations 
represented.  For  this  reason  the  organizations  and  not  the  Govern- 
ment should  pay  the  salaries  of  the  members.  The  result  as  shown  in 
Wisconsin,  where  not  even  expenses  are  paid,  is  that  the  represen- 
tatives are  usually  business  agents  of  the  unions  and  large  employers 
selected  by  the  employers'  associations. 

The  council  should  organize  with  its  own  officers,  independent  of- 
the  commission,  but  should  hold  its  conferences  with  members  of  the 
commission  or  with  members  of  the  staff.  It  should  appoint  expert 
advisory  committees  as  needed  for  different  subjects,  such  as  safety, 
employment  offices,  etc.  It  should  be  provided  with  clerical  and 
other  help  from  the  staff  of  the  commission. 

Since  the  powers  of  the  council  are  only  advisory  it  is  not  essential 
that  it  should  vote  on  any  questions  except  procedure.  Hence  it  is 
not  necessary  to  have  equal  representation  of  any  interests  or  full 
attendance  at  all  meetings.  Each  member  should  be  furnished  by 
mail  with  all  proposals  and  proposed  publications  of  the  industrial 
commission. 

For  the  reasons  just  cited  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  commission 
itself  should  consist  of  more  than  three  members.  They  are  not 
expected  in  the  larger  States  or  in  the  Federal  Government  to  attend 
to  details  of  administration.  Their  duties  will  be  mainly  those  of 
consultation  and  conferences  with  the  council,  supervision  of  the 
executive  heads  of  divisions  (par.  3),  and  public  hearings. 
.  This  advisory  council  provides  effective  publicity  for  every  act  of 
the  commission.  The  ordinary  publicity  required  by  law  is  that  of  a 
public  hearing,  and  is  limited  to  rules  and  regulations  which  are  to 
have  the  effect  of  law.  Such  public  hearings  have  become  mere  legal 
formalities,  at  which  usually  lawyers  appear  for  each  side  and  little 
or  no  opportunity  is  given  for  the  two  sides  to  get  together  on  points 
where  they  can  agree.  The  commission  then  retires  and  issues  such 
rules  and  regulations  as  it  may  choose.  These  formal  public  hearings  - 
are  not  even  required  by  law  in  some  cases,  but  (par.  5)  the  recom- 
mendation provides  that  before  the  public  hearing  the  employers 
and  employees,  with  the  commission  and  its  staff,  shall  have  con- 
sidered and  drafted  the  proposed  rules  so  that  when  it  comes  to  the 
public  hearing  they  are  present  to  explain  and  defend  them.  If 
objections  are  raised  at  the  public  hearing  the  proposed  rules  are 
referred  back  to  the  advisory  council  and  the  staff  of  the  commission 
for  reconsideration  before  being  finally  approved  and  issued  as  the 
legal  act  of  the  commission.  If  no  public  hearing  is  required  by  law, 
rules  can  not  be  issued  except  on  advice  of  the  representative  council. 


180  REPORT  OF  .COMMISSION   OK   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

In  this  way  an  effective  publicity  is  secured  by  a  thorough  considera- 
tion of  the  rules,  because  both  those  who  are  to  be  compelled  by  law  to 
obey  the  rules  and  those  in  whose  interest  they  are  issued  have 
assisted  in  drafting  them. 

Additional  comments  will  be  found  under  paragraph  3. 

CIVIL  SERVICE  AND   COMMENTS  ON    PRECEDING   PARAGRAPHS. 

3.  The  commission  to  appoint  a  secretary,  bureau  chiefs,  or  chiefs 
of  divisions,  and  such  other  employees  as  may  be  necessary,  all  of 
them  to  be  under  civil-service  rules.  Provision  to  be  made  for  the 
advisory  representative  council  or  a  committee  named  by  it,  repre- 
senting both  employers  and  employees,  to  assist  the  civil  service  com- 
mission in  conducting  examinations,  except  for  clerical  positions, 
and  making  it  mandatory  011  the  civil  service  commission  to  appoint 
these  representatives  on  its  examining  boards.  Members  of  advisory 
council  while  serving  on  such  boards  to  receive  extra  compensation. 
If  there  is  no  civil  service  commission  in  the  State,  then  the  advisory 
council  shall  cooperate  with  the  industrial  commission  in  the  exami- 
nations. The  commission  afterwards  to  make  its  appointments  from 
the  eligible  list  of  those  who  pass  the  examinations.  A  graded  system 
of  salaries  and  promotions  to  be  adopted,  by  which  the  members  of 
the  staff  may  rise  to  the  position  of  heads  of  bureaus  or  divisions, 
where  they  would  receive  salaries  equivalent,  if  necessary,  to  those 
received  by  the  commissioners.  Any  proposed  removal  of  subordi- 
nates to  be  brought  before  the  advisory  council  before  action. 

Many  of  the  features  of  this  section  are  adopted  in  the  New  York 
act,  but  the  examination  by  employers  and  employees  is  not  manda- 
tory on  the  Civil  Service  Commission,  and  a  few  of  the  chief  posi- 
tions are  exempt  from  civil-service,  rules.  The  Civil  Service  and 
Industrial  Commissions  of  Wisconsin  have  practiced  this  method  of 
examination  and  appointment  for  employment  offices  and  for  chiefs 
of  divisions,  although  not  required  by  law. 

Objection  sometimes  is  made  to  civil-service  examinations  as  being 
impractical  and  theoretical.  Indeed,  civil-service  examinations  are 
likely  to  be  impractical  if  conducted  by  experts.  These  objections 
can  be  avoided  in  the  examinations  for  these  positions  by  requiring 
that  the  Civil  Service  Commission,  if  there  is  one,  shall  cooperate 
with  the  representative  council.  The  examinations  would  thus  be 
conducted  with  the  aid  of  men  thoroughly  acquainted  with  all  the 
practical  difficulties  involved  in  the  duties  of  the  positions  to  be  filled. 
By  making  use  of  oral  or  written,  assembled  or  nonassembled,  com- 
petitive or  noncompetitive  examinations,  as  best  suited  to  the  partic- 
ular purposes,  it  should  be  possible  to  obtain  all  the  advantages  of 
the  civil-service  system  with  few  of  its  disadvantages. 

Furthermore,  it  is  not  enough  that  examinations  for  positions 
under  the  Industrial  Commission  should  secure  efficiency  and  per- 
manency; it  is  even  more  important  that  they  should  secure  impar- 
tiality. The  Industrial  Commission  itself  and  its  entire  staff  are 
looked  upon  as  mediators  in  adjusting  the  administration  of  labor 
laws  to  the  actual  conditions  of  industry.  It  is  essential  that  both 
sides  should  have  confidence  in  the  staff  of  the  commission,  and  there- 
fore that  both  sides  should  have  a  voice  in  its  selection. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION    OX   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  181 

This  provision  for  representatives  of  employers  and  employees  on 
examining  boards  should  not  be  left  optional  with  Civil  Service  Com- 
missions or  the  Industrial  Commission,  but  should  be  mandatory. 
It  has  been  found  that  several  Civil  Service  Commissions  object  to 
this  provision,  because  they  wish  to  retain  unqualified  authority  for 
conducting  examinations  and  making  up  eligible  lists.  This  is  one 
of  the  features  of  bureaucracy  which  should  not  be  permitted  where 
such  vital  issues  as  the  contest  between  capital  and  labor  are  at  stake. 
The  provision  in  the  recommendation  does  not  prevent  Civil  Service 
Commissions  from  appointing  experts  on  their  examining  boards; 
it  merely  requires  them  also  to  appoint,  in  addition,  the  recognized 
representatives  of  the  interests  who  have  previously  been  nominated 
by  the  interests  themselves. 

At  the  present  time  secretaries  and  bureau  chiefs  in  the  Federal 
Government  are  exempt  from  civil-service  rules,  and  are  usually 
appointed  by  the  President  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate.  This  is  a 
serious  discouragement  to  competent  subordinates,  who  are  thereby 
prevented  from  rising  by  promotion  to  the  higher  positions  in  their 
bureaus,  and  who  see  less  competent  political  appointees  brought  in 
over  their  heads  as  well  as  frequently  changed. 

These  recommendations  are  intended  to  place  the  highest  positions 
under  the  Industrial  Commission  on  an  equivalent  with  the  com- 
missioners themselves.  It  would  be  unfortunate  and  impracticable, 
except  in  smaller  States,  if  the  commissioners  were  required  to  give 
their  entire  time  to  the  details  of  administration.  This  is  the  case 
where  a  commission  must  perform  as  many  functions  as  are  required 
in  the  large  State  and  Federal  Government  commissions.  This  they 
would  be  compelled  to  do  if  their  chiefs  of  divisions  were  frequently 
changed,  as  under  the  present  system.  The  chiefs  of  divisions  and 
bureaus,  both  under  Federal  and  under  State  commissions,  should 
be  as  competent  as  the  commissioners  to  deal  with  employers  and  em- 
ployees, and  much  more  competent  in  dealing  with  subordinates.  In 
foreign  countries  the  office  of  factory  inspector,  as  well  as  all  other 
offices  dealing  with  the  relations  of  employers  and  employees,  are 
considered  as  professions.  In  some  of  those  countries  the  universities 
provide  training  courses  and  lectures  on  the  subjects  for  which  the 
officials  are  preparing,  and  these  are  required  to  be  taken  as  a  part 
of  the  civil-service  rules.  The  appointee  then  serves  as  an  appren- 
tice in  the  department  and  by  promotion  may  reach  the  highest  po- 
sition. As  a  result  a  high  grade  of  inspector  is  obtained.  Only  when 
the  officers  and  employees  of  the  commissions  have  such  opportunities 
as  these  for  a  life  work,  provided  they  are  impartial  as  between  em- 
ployers and  employees,  can  officials  be  interested  in  preparing  them- 
selves for  the  work,  or  academies  like  those  at  West  Point  and 
Annapolis  be  adopted  for  the  training  of  civil  servants. 

The  advisory  representative  council,  proposed  in  paragraph  2, 
also  protects  the  administration  of  labor  laws  from  the  just  fear  of 
government  by  a  bureaucracy.  There  must  be  officials  if  labor  laws 
are  to  be  enforced.  The  courts  can  not  be  relied  upon  alone,  because 
prosecution  can  be  begun  only  by  private  individuals.  Consequently 
administrative  officers  and  inspectors  have  been  provided  to  initiate 
prosecutions.  These  officials  constitute  a  necessary  bureaucracy,  if 
the  laws  are  enforced.  But  it  can  not  be  asserted  that  the  present 


182  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON"  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

system  of  political  appointments  of  inspectors  avoids  the  evil  of 
bureaucracy.  The  essential  evil  of  bureaucracy  is  not  so-called  per- 
manency of  tenure,  but  the  refusal  of  the  official  to  take  advice  from 
laymen.  The  loudest  agitator  against  bureaucracy  becomes  at  once 
the  most  confirmed  bureaucrat  when  he  gets  into  office,  because  he 
determines  to  run  his  office  in  his  own  way,  regardless  of  the  advice 
of  those  who  are  compelled  to  obey  his  orders.  In  this  sense  the 
American  officeholder  is  much  more  of  a  bureaucrat  than  are  the 
European  officials,  who  are  compelled  to  consult  the  superior  councils 
of  labor  or  industrial  councils  of  representatives  of  interests.  It  is 
for  this  reason  that  the  legislatures  and  Congress  should  make  it 
mandatory  that  the  representative  advisory  councils  should  be 
created  and  that  the  industrial  commissions  and  their  staffs  should 
confer  with  them  before  any  act  of  the  commission  can  have  the 
validity  of  law.  It  is  also  necessary  that  the  Civil  Service  Com- 
mission should  appoint  representatives  from  the  council  on  its 
examining  boards  before  any  valid  eligible  list  for  appointment  of 
subordinates  can  be  made. 

Another  charge  against  civil-service  rilles  is  the  objection  to  per- 
manency of  tenure  and  the  inability  to  get  rid  of  an  official  who 
adheres  to  outworn  methods.  This  objection  often  has  force,  but  the 
remedy  is  not  that  of  returning  to  political  and  partisan  appoint- 
ments or  frequent  removals  when  changes  occur  in  the  political 
branch  of  Government.  Officials,  under  most  civil-service  laws,  can 
be  removed  at  any  time,  provided  reasons  be  given  and  no  civil 
service  commission  should  have  authority  to  reinstate  any  official,  as 
is  the  mistaken  policy  of  some  States.  Permanency  of  tenure  means 
only  permanency  on  "good  behavior."  The  principal  reason  why 
officials  adhere  to  old  methods  is  because  there  is  no  continuous 
supervising  authority  in  a  position  to  force  them  into  new  and  better 
methods.  The  provision  for  an  advisory  council  with  which  the 
officials  are  compelled  to  confer  has  been  found  to  be  the  most  effec- 
tive method  of  compelling  such  officials  to  keep  up  with  the  changing 
conditions  that  require  new  methods.  If,  then,  they  are  obstructive 
or  incompetent  to  do  this,  there  is  good  cause  for  removal. 

COMMISSIONS  AND   CLASS    CONFLICTS. 

There  are,  of  course,  criticisms  and  objections  raised  against  indus- 
trial and  other  commissions.  It  is  not  claimed  here  that  they  always 
work  well.  But  they  work  better  than  the  system  they  have  dis- 
placed, and  they  have  been  found  to  be  the  only  alternative  where 
legislation  attempts  to  regulate  the  relations  of  great  conflicting  and 
hostile  interests.  Many  States  and  Congress  have  been  forced  by 
actual  conditions  to  create  railroad  and  interstate  commerce  com- 
missions in  order  to  take  the  details  of  the  contest  between  railroads 
and  shippers  as  far  as  possible  out  of  the  legislatures  and  the  courts. 
Congress  has  been  compelled,  after  25  years  of  futile  antitrust 
legislation,  to  turn  over  the  contest  between  trusts  and  their  com- 
petitors or  customers,  to  a  Federal  trade  commission.  The  contest 
between^ban kers  and  the  commercial  and  business  classes  that  depend 
on  credit  for  their  existence  has  been  turned  over  to  the  Federal 
Reserve  Board. 


EEPOBT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  183 

The  contest  between  capital  and  labor  is  more  serious  than  any 
of  the  other  contests.  Since  the  year  1877  it  has  frequently  resulted 
practically  in  civil  war,  with  the  army  or  militia  called  in  to  sup- 
press one  side  or  the  other,  according  to  the  will  of  the  executive. 
It  is  claimed  by  some  that  this  contest  is  irrepressible  and  will  end 
in  revolution,  and  at  least  it  is  plain,  when  the  military  power  is 
called  upon  to  decide  a  contest,  that  the  ordinary  machinery  of 
government,  which  is  fairly  successful  in  other  contests,  has  broken 
down. 

It  is  not  a  solution  of  the  contest  to  claim  that  these  outbreaks 
are  caused  solely  by  agitators  and  have  no  foundation  in  conditions 
that  need  remedying.  Such  a  solution,  carried  to  its  limit,  means 
the  suppression  of  free  speech,  free  press,  and  free  assembly,  which 
can  be  accomplished  only  by  military  power.  That  there  are  con- 
ditions which  need  remedying  is  shown  by  the  enormous  amount  of 
labor  legislation  of  the  past  three  decades,  and  the  enormous  amount 
cf  new  legislation  proposed.  This  legislation  has  come  from  the 
free  discussion  and  investigation  of  actual  labor  conditions,  and  if 
there  is  no  effective  way  for  this  discussion  to  be  carried  on  and  the 
alleged  facts  to  be  verified  or  disproved,  then  the  result  must  be  an 
excess  of  unfounded  and  impractical  agitation  mixed  up  with  real 
grievances.  There  are  unbridled  agitators  of  this  kind  on  both  sides 
of  the  contest,  and  it  is  only  when  the  two  sides  are  brought  together, 
and  their  charges,  countercharges,  and  alleged  grievances  are  boiled 
down  by  investigation  to  the  residuum  of  facts,  that  mere  unfounded 
agitation  can  be  expected  to  give  way  to  deliberations  on  remedies  for 
recognized  evils. 

This  does  not  mean  that  both  sides  can  be  made  to  agree  on 
remedies  for  all  evils  and  grievances,  even  after  they  have  agreed 
on  the  facts.  It  means  only  that  there  is  found  to  be  a  much  larger 
field  than  was  supposed  where  they  can  agree,  and  it  is  worth  while 
for  legislation  to  provide  the  means  for  bringing  both  sides  together 
for  a  continuous  search  after  the  common  points  of  agreement.  When 
they  have  agreed  upon  and  disposed  of  less  disputatious  points,  they 
are  in  a  position  to  go  on  to  those  disputed  points  which  had  been 
thought  irreconcilable.  This  is  the  main  reason  for  creating  Indus- 
trial Commissions  with  adequate  powers  of  impartial  investigation, 
with  conferences  and  discussions  by  both  sides,  and  with  power  to 
decide  on  regulations  and  then  to  enforce  them.  (Par.  5.) 

While  some  of  the  functions  outlined  for  the  proposed  Industrial 
Commission  are  now  being  performed  by  the  Department  of  Labor 
through  its  bureaus,  it  is  not  proposed  that  the  department  be 
abolished.  (Par.  1.)  It  is  even  proposed  that  in  large  industrial 
States  a  similar  department  might  be  created  in  addition  to  the  In- 
dustrial Commission.  In  nonindustrial  States,  where  the  labor  de- 
partment is  mainly  educational  and  not  administrative,  there  would, 
of  course,  be  no  occasion  for  an  Industrial  Commission.  Such  occa- 
sion would  usually  first  arise  in  case  a  workmen's  compensation  law 
were  enacted. 

We  take  it  to  be  commonly  accepted  that  a  department,  with  its 
head  having  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet,  is  chiefly  designed  to  advise  and 
aid  the  administration  in  formulating  its  policy  toward  the  interests 
in  charge  of  that  department,  and  to  foster  and  promote  the  welfare 


184  JKKPORT  OF   COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

of  those  interests.  To  be  sure,  other  responsibilities  are  intrusted 
to  the  department,  but  the  foregoing  are  its  prime  duties. 

That  Congress  intended  it  to  be  so  is  manifested  in  the  statutes 
creating  the  different  departments.  Thus  the  law  establishing  the 
Department  of  Commerce  declares  that  it  should  foster,  promote,  and 
develop  the  foreign  and  domestic  commerce,  the  mining,  manufac- 
turing, shipping,  and  fishery  industries,  and  the  transportation  facili- 
ties of  the  United  States.  Likewise  in  creating  the  Department  of 
Labor  in  1885,  Congress  stated  its  purpose  to  be  the  diffusion  of 
"  useful  information  on  subjects  connected  with  labor,  in  the  most 
general  and  comprehensive  sense  of  that  word,  arid  especially  upon 
its  relation  to  capital,  the  hours  of  labor,  the  earnings  of  laboring 
men  and  women,  and  the  means  of  promoting  their  material,  social, 
intellectual,  and  moral  prosperity."  Congress  reiterated  its  position 
when  it  raised  the  Department  of  Labor  to  Cabinet  rank  in  declar- 
ing that  its  purpose  should  be  "to  foster,  promote,  and  develop  the 
welfare  of  the  wage  earners  of  the  United  States,  to  improve  their 
working  conditions,  and  to  advance  their  opportunities  for  profitable 
employment."  It  is  also  mandatory  upon  the  Secretary  "to  make 
such  special  investigations  and  reports  as  he  may  be  required  to  do 
by  the  President,  or  by  Congress,  or  which  he  himself  may  deem 
necessary." 

Congress  has  not  only  declared  that  it  regards  Cabinet  officers  or 
department  heads  as  the  personal  choice  of  the  President,  whom 
they  are  to  assist  in  formulating  his  executive  policy,  but  it  has  also 
accepted  it  in  practice.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  the  Senate, 
even  when  controlled  by  an  opposition  party,  usually  ratifies  the 
President's  nominations  promptly  and  without  objections. 

When  influential  economic  groups  feel  that  the  Government  can  be 
of  assistance  in  promoting  their  interests,  they  set  about  to  bring 
political  pressure  to  bear  upon  Congress  to  create  a  department 
that  will  concern  itself  with  their  welfare.  Thus  the  Department 
of  Agriculture  was  created  in  1880,  largely  through  the  efforts  of 
the  National  Grange  and  other  farmers'  organizations.  In  the  same 
way  the  Department  of  Commerce  was  created  on  the  petition  of  the 
business  and  manufacturing  interests. 

Of  course,  the  different  departments  have  also  been  intrusted  with 
administrative  duties.  The  Department  of  Agriculture  administers 
the  meat-inspection  service,  the  Department  of  Commerce  the  steam- 
ship-inspection service,  the  Department  of  Labor  the  immigration 
service,  and  so  on.  However,  whenever  an  acute  administrative 
problem  arises,  owing  to  an  intense  conflict  between  two  opposing 
economic  interests,  and  requiring  a  disinterested  enforcement  of  law, 
it  has  usually  not  been  intrusted  to  one  of  these  political  depart- 
ments. Hence,  when  Congress  turned  its  attention  to  the  dispute 
between  the  railroads  and  the  great  majority  of  shippers,  it  did  not 
create  a  Department  of  Commerce  to  administer  the  law,  but  instead 
intrusted  it  to  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  a  disinterested 
and  nonpolitical  body.  Again,  when  Congress  determined  upon 
legislation  to  deal  with  "  the  new  economic  problem  involved  in  the 
increased  tendency  toward  concentrated  ownership  of  the  large  in- 
dustries of  the  country,"  no  one  even  thought  of  suggesting  that  this 
mutter  be  turned  over  to  the  Department  of  Commerce.  On  the  con- 
trary, without  a  single  objection,  an  independent  administrative  com- 


I 
I 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   OX   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  185 


mission,  the  Federal  Trade  Commission,  was  created  to  enforce  the 
legislation.  The  same  is  true  with  the  Federal  Reserve  Board.  Con- 
gress has  also  applied  this  policy  to  the  labor  problem.  The  first 
important  administrative  act  directly  affecting  capital  and  labor  was 
not  assigned  to  the  Department  of  Labor  for  execution,  but  to  a  dis- 
interested and  nonpolitical  board.  We  refer  to  the  Newlands  Act  of 
1913,  and  preceding  acts  relating  to  arbitration  of  labor  disputes  on 
railroads.  When  an  effort  was  made  to  place  the  administration  of 
this  act  under  the  Department  of  Labor,  both  the  railroad  companies 
and  the  railroad  brotherhoods  opposed  and  prevented  the  change. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  if,  in  dealing  with  the  labor  problem, 
this  policy  is  carried  out  consistently,  considerable  of  the  industrial 
unrest  will  be  allayed.  We  believe  that  it  should  be  the  conscious 
policy  of  Congress  to  separate  the  policy-determining  functions  from 
the  administrative  functions.  The  Department  of  Labor  should  be 
intrusted  with  investigations  that  would  aid  the  President  and  his 
administration  in  determining  upon  a  labor  policy.  It  should  also 
be  the  educational  medium  through  which  the  country  is  to  be  in- 
formed on  the  various  labor  issues  that  need  solution  or  have  not  yet 
been  legislated  upon.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  has  been  the  depart- 
ment's chief  and  most  effective  activity.  A  glance  at  the  list. of  pub- 
lications of  the  department  shows  the  influence  it  has  had  as  a  pioneer 
in  labor  legislation  in  this  country.  The  present  unanimity  of 
opinion  in  favor  of  workmen's  compensation,  safety  and  sanitation, 
vocational  training  and  employment  bureaus,  is  largely  due  to  its 
having  concentrated  upon  educating  the  public  to  the  need  of  such 
legislation.  And  the  department  wisely  continues  to  fulfill  its  chief 
mission  by  pointing  the  way  to  future  improvement  of  the  conditions 
of  labor.  Its  recent  publications  aim  to  enlighten  and  crystallize 
public  opinion  on  such  mooted  but  vital  questions  as  sickness  and  unem- 
ployment insurance,  old-age  pensions, housing  of  workingmen,  coopera- 
tion, employers'  welfare  work,  home  and  factory  conditions  of  women 
and  children.  To  make  its  work  still  more  effective  the  department 
has  begun  issuing  a  monthly  review  which  will  supply  information 
on  all  questions  affecting  labor.  We  have  no  doubt  that  with  the  aid 
of  the  Department  of  Labor,  legislation  upon  these  subjects  will  be 
secured  sooner  than  otherwise. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  public  opinion,  through  legislation,  has 
determined  upon  a  policy,  it  is  vital  to  its  success  that  it  be  adminis- 
tered by  disinterested  persons  not  connected  with  a  political  depart- 
ment. This  is  necessary  in  order  to  obtain  the  mutual  and  voluntary 
cooperation  of  employers  and  employees,  and,  unless  they  are  assured 
of  a  disinterested  administration  of  the  law,  they  will  be  reluctant  to 
assist  in  its  successful  enforcement.  Naturally  a  department  which 
initiates  and  advocates  new  legislation  is  bound  to  antagonize  those 
who  are  not  in  accord  with  its  views.  It  is  futile  to  expect  the  De- 
partment of  Labor  to  get  the  good  will  and  cooperation  of  those 
whom  it  successfully  defeated  in  the  legislative  battle.  We  must  re- 
member that  the  department  is  constantly  advocating  new  legislation, 
even  while  it  is  administering  that  which  has  been  enacted.  Thus 
the  bitter  feeling  against  it  is  bound  to  be  permanently  at  high  pitch, 
and  those  who  differ  from  it  would  likely  have  no  confidence  in  its 
being  able  to  administer  the  law  disinterestedly.  Then,  too,  as  we 
shall  show,  if  a  law  is  administered  through  a  political  department, 


186  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

its  efficient  administration  may  be  subordinated  to  political  ex- 
pediency. 

It  is  in  order  to  avoid  these  difficulties  that  we  recommend  the 
method  already  adopted  in  several  States.  We  believe  that  an 
Industrial  Commission,  removed  from  the  heat  of  political  con- 
troversy, created  with  the  safeguards  proposed  herein,  would  have 
the  confidence  of  employers  and  employees.  Although  employers 
and  employees  may  have  hopelessly  divergent  opinions  on  policy,  yet 
when  the  policy  is  once  determined  upon  by  Congress  they  are  equally 
concerned  in  its  efficient  and  disinterested  administration.  If  assured 
of  this,  they  cooperate  in  its  successful  enforcement. 

Furthermore,  much  opposition  to  labor  legislation,  both  by  capital 
and  labor,  is  based  upon  the  fear  that  its  administration  will  be 
partial.  And  even  when  such  legislation  is  enacted,  unless  both  sides 
have  confidence  in  the  disinterestedness  of  the  administrators,  it  is 
doomed  to  remain  a  dead  letter  on  the  statute  books. 

In  recommending  that  tl^e  policy-determining  function  be  sepa- 
rated from  the  administrative  function,  we  wish  to  separate,  as  much 
as  possible,  the  problems  upon  which  capital  and  labor  disagree  from 
those  in  which  they  have  a  common  interest.  Legislation  is  a  matter 
of  opinion.  Men  may  honestly  differ  as  to  the  wisdom  of  a  certain 
law.  Difference  of  opinion  when  strongly  contested  invariably  en- 
genders suspicion  and  distrust.  Hence,  if  an  Industrial  Commission 
were  called  upon  to  initiate  and  advocate  new  legislation  it  would 
be  forced  to  antagonize  and  lose  the  good  will  of  either  capital  or 
labor,  or  of  both.  Such  an  outcome  must  inevitably  hamper  its  ad- 
ministrative duties,  which  it  can  not  carry  out  successfully  unless  it 
has  the  confidence  of  both  sides. 

But  it  is  highly  essential  that  the  conditions  of  labor  be  constantly 
improved  and  adjusted  to  new  industrial  developments.  This  func- 
tion of  studying  and  promulgating  the  best  policies  for  promoting 
the  welfare  of  labor  should  be  left  to  the  Department  of  Labor,  as 
originally  intended  when  created.  The  future  interest  of  our  country 
demands  that  a  department  devote  itself  exclusively  to  the  further- 
ance of  the  welfare  of  labor.  New  problems  must  constantly  be 
studied,  information  furnished,  and  remedies  suggested.  Consider- 
ing that  in  the  final  analysis  public  opinion,  as  expressed  through 
legislation,  determines  the  nature  of  the  remedy,  it  is  proper  that  a 
political  department  be  intrusted  with  the  duty  of  aiding  in  deter- 
mining that  policy.  It  is  with  this  idea  in  mind  that  we  make  the 
distinction  between  the  enactment  of  law  which  is  political  in  its 
nature  and  must  be  fought  out  in  the  Congress  and  in  the  Cabinet 
and  the  administration  law  which  is  nonpolitical  and  should  be  ad- 
ministered by  disinterested  parties  in  cooperation  with  representa- 
tives of  capital  and  labor. 

The  conclusion  is  that  all  subjects  upon  which  Congress  has  not 
legislated  so  as  to  require  an  administrative  department  should  be  in 
the  hands  of  the  Department  of  Labor.  Among  these  are  the  impor- 
tant subjects  of  sickness  insurance,  invalidity  insurance,  unemploy- 
ment insurance,  old-age  pensions,  occupational  disease,  child  and 
woman  labor,  and  so  on.  The  department  should  make  studies  of 
comparative  administration  of  labor  law  and  the  administration  of 
laws  in  the  States.  Other  subjects  might  be  mentioned.  In  fact 
there  should  be  no  limitation  on  its  field  of  investigation  and  the 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  187 

education  of  the  public  to  the-  evils  which  labor  suffers  and  the  reme- 
dies that  should  be  adopted. 

The  Industrial  Commission  is  purely  an  administrative  body  not 
intended  to  promote  new  legislation,  except  where  it  is  needed  in 
connection  with  its  administration  of  existing  laws.  Other  new 
legislation  gets  its  initiative  elsewhere.  The  proper  place  for  oppos- 
ing interests  to  make  their  fight  on  new  laws  is  in  the  State  legisla- 
tures and  in  Congress.  Each  side  necessarily  endeavors  to  elect  its 
representatives,  to  employ  its  lobby,  and  to  use  every  honorable 
method  in  its  power  to  defeat  the  other  side.  The  outcome  is  usually 
a  compromise  not  wholly  satisfactory  to  either.  But  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  fight  should  be  kept  up  in.  the  administration  of  the 
laws  that  are  enacted.  Whatever  they  are,  they  should  be  enforced 
exactly  as  they  stand,  and  neither  side  should  control  the  executive 
and  administrative  officers.  These  should  be  impartial.  It  is  because 
executive  officials  are  mainly  partisans  that  the  administration  of 
labor  laws  in  this  country  has  broken  down.  They  may  be  appointed 
by  political  parties,  but  back  of  the  politicians  are  the  employers  or 
the  trade-unions  that  make  secret  or  open  deals  with  the  politicians 
in  order  to  control  the  offices.  It  can  not  be  expected  that  employers 
will  readily  accept  investigation  or  obey  the  orders  of  officials  whom 
they  know  or  suspect  to  be  agents  of  unions  or  of  politicians,  intent 
on  strengthening  unionism  or  making  political  capital  out  of  their 
positions.  It  is  natural  that  employers  should  protect  themselves 
either  by  getting  their  own  agents  into  the  positions  or  by  getting  a 
weak  and  inefficient  trade-unionist  appointed.  In  any  case  the  laws 
are  not  enforced,  and  the  laboring  classes  in  turn  become  desperate 
and  defiant  of  Government.  An  illustration  is  found  in  the  recent 
industrial  troubles  in  Colorado.  Probably  no  State  of  its  size  in 
the  Union  has  had  upon  its  statute  books  more  labor  laws  than  Colo- 
rado, nor  more  trade-union  representatives  in  office  to  enforce  them, 
yet  the  nonenforcement  of  the  labor  laws  was  undoubtedly  one  of  the 
contributing  causes  of  the  recent  troubles.  The  history  of  many 
other  States  is  similar,  so  far  as  nonenforcement  is  concerned.  Labor 
representatives  alternate  with  employer  representatives  or  with 
labor  politicians,  who  make  a  show  of  enforcing  the  laws  while  the 
masses  of  labor  get  no  substantial  benefit. 

American  experience  has  shown  that  this  situation  can  be  met  only 
by  a  nonpartisan  commission,  removed  as  far  as  possible  from  poli- 
tics. In  other  countries,  and  in  British  colonies  having  parliamen- 
tary forms  of  government,  this  kind  of  separate  commission  is  not 
required,  for  the  good  reason  that  the  Cabinet  officer  who  enforces  the 
labor  laws  is  a  member  of  Parliament,  and  Parliament  must  be  dis- 
solved and  a  new  election  ordered  if  the  Cabinet  loses  control.  Hav- 
ing a  seat  on  the  floor  of  the  legislature  he  must  answer  questions 
put  by  the  opposition.  If  one  of  his  subordinates  is  inefficient  or 
takes  sides  against  employers  or  unions,  some  one  in  Parliament  is 
liable  to  rise  and  demand  explanations,  and  the  Cabinet  minister  is 
compelled  to  explain  and  to  stand  by  the  subordinate  or  to  repudiate 
him.  The  opposition  may  even  be  able  to  defeat  the  ministry  and 
get  a  new  election.  Consequently,  Cabinet  officers  are  responsible  to 
Parliament,  and,  although  they  are  partisans  and  politicians,  they 
are  careful  that  their  subordinates,  who  actually  administer  the  laws, 
shall  be  impartial  and  efficient.  In  no  other  country,  governed  by  a 


188  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

parliament,  would  such  important  boards  as  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Commission,  the  Federal  Trade  Commission,  the  Federal 
Reserve  Board,  or  the  State  railroad  and  public  utility  commissions, 
be  taken  out  from  under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  responsible  cabinet 
minister.  In  this  country  it  is  found  necessary  to  make  them  wholly 
or  partly  independent,  because  there  is  no  officer  directly  responsible 
to  the  legislature  or  the  people  who  can  be  given  control  over  them. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  labor  departments  of  parliamentary  coun- 
tries compared  with  such  departments  in  the  American  State  and 
Federal  Governments.  The  issues  in  this  country  are  too  vital  and 
menacing,  they  are  too  easily  turned  into  political  capital,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  the  politicians  in  charge  are  too  little  responsible  to 
the  legislatures,  to  Congress,  and  to  the  voters,  for  the  American 
people  to  leave  them  in  the  hands  of  partisan  or  political  officials. 
The  plan  of  an  industrial  commission  with  a  representative  council 
as  herein  recommended,  is  based  on  American  experience  and  fitted 
to  American  conditions  in  dealing  with  such  issues  of  opposing 
interests. 

But  the  commissions  created  to  deal  with  the  relations  between 
other  opposing  interests  can  not  be  accepted  as  models  for  dealing 
with  the  opposing  interests  of  capital  and  labor.  The  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  was  designed  to  reconcile  the  opposing  in- 
terests of  railroads  and  shippers,  the  Federal  Trade  Commission  of 
monopolies  and  competitors,  the  Federal  Reserve  Board  of  bankers 
and  borrowers,  but  in  none  of  these  ca-ses  were  the  opposing  interests 
strongly  organized  for  aggression  and  occasional  paralysis  of  busi- 
ness verging  on  civil  war.  It  was  not  so  necessary  then  that  the 
opposing  sides  should  be  strongly  represented,  as  is  recommended  in 
the  creation  of  the  Advisory  Representative  Council.  This  council  is 
a  kind  of  parliament  designed  to  hold  the  commission  continuously 
to  the  impartial  performance  of  its  duties  and  the  accuracy  of  inves- 
tigations upon  which  the  impartial  performance  of  duties  depends. 

The  Industrial  Commission,  as  here  proposed,  adopts  methods  in 
the  field  of  labor  laws  similar  to  those  that  collective  bargaining 
between  unions  and  emphwers  adopts  in  drawing  up  voluntary  joint 
agreements.  Modern  trade  agreements  are,  in  fact,  almost  complete 
codes  of  labor  law  for  a  particular  industry,  and,  if  voluntary  col- 
lective bargaining  could  become  universal  and  effective  for  all  em- 
ployers and  employees,  then  the  State  or  Government  might  not  need 
to  enact  many  labor  laws.  Something  like  this  is  actually  attempted 
in  those  countries  having  compulsory  arbitration.  They  provide 
easy  methods  for  organizing  and  perpetuating  unions  of  employers 
and  unions  of  employees.  They  try  to  induce  the  representatives 
of  these  unions  voluntarily  to  recognize  each  other,  to  get  together 
to  investigate  grievances  and  demands,  to  confer  and  to  draw  up  and 
enforce  a  joint  agreement  covering  all  alleged  evils  and  grievances. 
If  they  can  not  succeed  in  doing  this  they  provide  a  court  of  arbitra- 
tion with  substantially  all  the  powers  that  the  conferees  of  the  unions 
and  employers  would  have,  if  they  acted  without  compulsion. 

But  compulsory  arbitration  is  too  remote  to  be  considered,  or  even 
anything  which  would  logically  lead  to  compulsory  arbitration.  In 
paragraph  14  we  recommend  voluntary  collective  bargaining  with 
the  Government  acting  only  as  mediator  without  any  compulsory 
powers.  Our  alternative  proposed  for  compulsory  arbitration  is  in 


fa 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  189 

part  an  industrial  commission  with  a  council  of  employers  and 
employees. 

The  need  of  an  industrial  commission  becomes  more  pressing  in 
proportion  as  new  laws  are  enacted  and  new  executive  duties  are 
added.  It  was  the  introduction  of  workmen's  compensation  that 
forced  attention  to  the  situation.  Here  is  a  new  type  of  legislation 
which  is  so  evidently  a  matter  in  which  employers  are  as  much  con- 
cerned as  employees  that  it  was  not  considered  proper  to  intrust  its 
administration  to  a  department  controlled  solely  in  the  interests  of 
labor.  Consequently  separate  commissions  were  created  independent 
of  the  labor  bureau,  or  else  the  compensation  law  was  put  in  charge 
f  the  courts. 

-But  the  most  important  effect  of  the  compensation  laws  is  not  the 
compensation  to  workmen,  for  no  law  pretends  to  pay  the  workman 
anything  for  his  suffering  nor  even  to  pay  him  his  total  loss  in  wages. 
The  most  important  effect  is  the  universal  pressure  on  employers  to 
prevent  accidents  and  to  heal  the  injury  as  soon  as  possible. 

Wherever  this  object  of  the  law  was  understood  either  the  work 
of  factory  inspection  for  accident  prevention  was  taken  from  the 
labor  bureau  or  the  compensation  commission  and  the  labor  bureau 
were  consolidated.  One  reason  for  doing  this  is  that  employers  have 
become  as  much  interested  in  accident  prevention  as  have  workmen, 
for  it  becomes  a  matter  of  business  and  profits.  Another  reason  is 
that  the  compensation  commission  itself  may  not  be  tempted  to  exalt 
the  less  important  object  of  compensation  over  the  more  important 
one  of  accident  prevention  and  speedy  cure. 

The  employers  now  become  just  as  much  concerned  as  the  employ- 
ees in  having  an  efficient  factory  inspection.  They  must  do  their 
own  inspection,  anyhow,  for  the  sake  of  reducing  tlie  costs  of  com- 
pensation, and  they  do  not  need  to  be  prosecuted  as  they  did  before. 
What  they  need  in  factory  inspection  is  the  help  of  inspectors  who 
are  expert  in  showing  them  how  to  prevent  accidents  and  how  to 
organize  safety  committees  and  to  get  the  "safety  habit"  into  their 
employees.  Whatever  reason  may  formerly  have  existed  for  trade- 
unions  to  get  their  members  appointed  as  factory  inspectors  in  order 
to  drive  home  prosecutions  no  longer  exists.  Neither  do  employ- 
ers any  longer  have  reason  for  using  political  or  underhanded 
methods  in  order  to  get  weak  and  inefficient  inspectors  appointed. 
Employers  now  wish  to  cooperate  with  factory  inspectors,  and  the 
only  kind  they  can  cooperate  with  are  those  who  are  impartial  and 
efficient.  The  fact  that  employers  have  taken  the  lead  in  their  three 
great  safety  organizations  mentioned  under  paragraph  1,  instead  of 
being  led  by  State  and  Federal  labor  officials,  shows  unmistakably 
the  need  of  enlisting  employers  in  at  least  this  branch  of  labor  law. 

Another  subject,  unemployment,  the  most  serious  and  distressing 
of  all,  is  almost  universally  agreed  as  needing  a  comprehensive  plan 
of  employment  offices.  It  is  now  generally  admitted  that  it  must  be 
dealt  with  by  the  Federal  Government.  Both  England  and  Germany 
have  national  systems  of  public  employment  offices.  The  English 
system  is  operated  directly  by  the  National  Government;  the  German 
system  is  operated  by  the  city  and  State  governments  correlated 
and  supervised  by  the  Federal  Government.  A  combination  of  both 
methods  will,  perhaps,  be  necessary  in  this  country.  Bills  have  al- 


190  EEPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

ready  been  introduced  in  Congress,  and  the  Department  of  Labor 
has  begun  the  establishment  of  offices.  But,  in  the  contest  between 
employers  and  trade-unions,  the  control  of  employment  offices  is 
essential  to  either  side.  The  antiunion  employers'  associations  already 
have  sufficient  employment  offices,  and  many  local  trade-unions  have 
employment  agencies  of  their  own. 

Employers  control  the  jobs.  They  hire  whom  they  please.  Surely 
they  can"  not  be  expected  to  hire  workmen  sent  to  them  by  trade- 
unionists  or  politicians  who  happen  to  run  the  public  employment 
offices.  This  accounts  for  the  inefficiency  of  the  offices  in  almost 
every  place  where  they  have  been  tried.  They  sink  to  the  level  of 
charity,  finding  occasional  short  jobs  for  casuals,  but  do  not  become 
the  great  labor  exchanges  which  they  should  be  as  the  first  step  in 
dealing  with  the  most  serious  of  all  problems,  unemployment.  Ex- 
perience shows  that  employers  must  have  confidence  in  the  ability 
and  impartiality  of  the  officials  who  run  the  employment  offices  or 
they  will  not  patronize  them.  On  the  other  hand,  trade-unionists 
must  have  confidence  that  the  offices  will  not  be  used  to  furnish 
strike  breakers.  The  only  effective  solution  of  this  predicament  is 
the  management  of  these  offices  by  joint  committees  of  organized  em- 
ployers and  organized  employees  and  their  joint  civil-service  exami- 
nation of  the  officials  who  run  the  offices.  Under  the  Industrial  Com- 
mission plan  there  are  not  only  representative  councils  at  the  na- 
tional headquarters,  but  similar  councils  for  each  State  and  for  each 
local  office. 

Furthermore,  no  Federal  legislation  is  more  urgent  than  the  su- 
pervision of  private  commercial  offices  doing  an  interstate  business. 
If  this  country  expects  to  promote  public  offices  and  to  regulate  pri- 
vate offices,  the  only  effective  way  is  through  joint  control  by  the 
acknowledged  representatives  of  organized  employers  and  employees, 
cooperating  with  a  Federal  commission  that  is  impartial  and  non- 
political. 

The  subject  of  industrial  education  is  vital  to  the  Nation  as  a 
whole  and  immediately  critical  for  both  employers  and  employees. 
Yet,  when  a  bill  is  introduced  in  Congress  for  national  aid  to  in- 
dustrial education,  the  administration  is  not  placed  under  the  De- 
partment of  Labor,  where  it  would  naturally  belong  and  where  more 
has  been  done  than  in  all  other  departments  in  the  investigation  of 
the  subject.  It  is  proposed  to  place  the  administration  under  an  ex 
officio  board  of  cabinet  officers  with  an  officer  of  the  Bureau  of  Edu- 
cation acting  as  executive.  Furthermore,  no  standards  of  efficiency 
are  imposed  upon  the  States  as  a  condition  of  receiving  the  funds 
appropriated  out  of  the  Federal  Treasury.  (Par.  17.)  This  bill  com- 
bines the  features  of  political  control,  "  pork-barrel "  finance,  and  ex- 
clusion of  the  two  great  interests  of  employers  and  employees  who 
are  most  directly  concerned.  The  reasons  for  such  recommendations 
are  the  popular  demand  for  industrial  education,  and  the  lack  of 
any  effective  method  of  bringing  together  the  representatives  of  em- 
ployers (including  farmers)  and  employees.  Such  representatives 
are  the  ones  who  know  the  needs  of  industry  and  agriculture  and  are 
competent,  with  the  aid  of  qualified  educators,  provided  neither  side 
dominates  the  other,  to  set  up  the  standards  of  efficient  industrial 
training  which  should  be  made  the  essential  condition  of  receiving 
Federal  aid.  For  this  purpose  the  Industrial  Commission  should 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  191 


add  to  its  advisory  council  representatives  of  organizations  of  edu- 
cators, such  as  the  National  Education  Association,  and  the  Na- 
tional Society  for  Promotion  of  Industrial  Education.  The  Federal 
Industrial  Commission,  upon  the  advice  of  such  a  council,  includ- 
ing employers,  employees,  farmers,  and  educators,  could  then  de- 
termine the  standards  as  a  basis  for  receiving  subsidies,  which 
should  probably  require  the  States  to  provide  governing  boards  of 
employers,  employees,  farmers,  and  educators,  continuation  day 
schools  with  compulsory  attendance  on  the  employer's  time,  adequate 
training  of  teachers  with  practical  industrial  experience,  and  so  on. 

In  making  the  preceding  three  recommendations  no  reflection  is 
intended  on  any  particular  State  or  Federal  official  now  charged 
with  the  administration  of  labor  laws.  It  is  conceded,  that  many  of 
them  may  be  doing  the  best  work  possible  under  existing  laws.  But 
it  is  recognized  that  the  conditions  under  which  they  work  make  it 
impossible  either  to  administer  existing  laws  effectively  or  to  assume 
the  administration  of  additional  laws  urgently  required  to  meet  the 
increasingly  difficult  and  complex  problems  of  capital  and  labor. 

Instead  of  interfering  with  the  commendable  work  of  trade-unions 
the  recommendations  are  intended  to  strengthen  unionism  at  its 
weakest  point.  One  of  the  most  serious  obstacles  in  the  way  of  a 
harmonious  labor  movement  is  the  struggle  of  ambitious  unionists 
to  get  the  indorsement  and  control  of  their  unions  for  political  posi- 
tions. The  conflicts  within  unions  for  such  indorsement  and  support 
are  notorious  in  weakening  the  unions.  Furthermore,  in  order  to  get 
and  hold  a  political  position  the  unionist  must  make  alliance  or 
connivance  with  and  concessions  to  the  leaders  of  political  parties, 
and  therefore  is  not  free  to  support  consistently  the  demands  of 
labor.  He  must  also  often  support  or  even  appoint  other  politicians 
whose  influence  is  used  against  the  unions.  This  unquestionably 
weakens  or  destroys  the  confidence  of  laborers  generally  in  the  in- 
tegrity and  faithfulness  of  all  their  leaders  who  accept  political  posi- 
tions, or  are  suspected  of  trying  to  get  such  positions.  It  is  only 
when  the  union  representative  is  paid  from  his  union  treasury  in- 
stead of  the  public  treasury,  and  is  recalled  by  his  union,  that  he  is 
truly  representative  and  the  union  itself  has  a  sound  basis  for  per- 
manency and  growth. 

Our  recommendations  adopt  this  principle  and  counteract  this 
weakness  of  unionism  by  making  their  representatives  on  the  ad- 
visory council  dependent  solely  on  the  unions.  They  receive  no 
salaries  from  the  public  treasury,  and  can  be  recalled  at  any  time 
when  they  cease  to  be  representative.  The  result  is  that  the  unions 
usually  nominate  for  such  positions  their  regular  officers  or  business 
agents  who  receive  salaries  from  the  union  treasury  for  other  pur- 
poses. Under  such  circumstances  there  can  ordinarily  be  no  question 
of  the  union  representatives  "  selling  out "  to  employers  or  politicians. 

INVESTIGATIONS. 

4.  The  Industrial  Commissions  to  make  and  publish  investigations 
and  recommendations  on  all  subjects  whose  administration  is  in- 
trusted to  them.  Investigations  and  recommendations  on  other  sub- 
jects to  be  made  only  on  the  request  of  the  legislature,  Congress,  or 
the  court.  (Pars.  12,  13.)  Since  it  is  provided  (par.  14)  that  the 


192  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Federal  and  State  commissions  shall  cooperate  in  the  mediation  of 
labor  disputes,  the  Federal  commission  should  be  the  agency  to 
which  the  States  should  look  for  continuous  investigations  and  pub- 
lications for  the  entire  country  of  wages,  hours  of  labor,  cost  of 
living,  joint  trade  agreements,  and  all  subjects  involved  in  labor  dis- 
putes, but  the  names  of  establishments  or  individuals  should  be  kept 
confidential.  It  should  publish,  at  least  annually,  a  report  on  all 
strikes,  lockouts,  boycotts,  blacklists,  that  have  terminated  during  the 
year,  but  should  not  make  such  investigations  during  an  industrial 
dispute  unless  consented  to  by  both  parties  in  the  manner  elsewhere 
provided.  (Par.  14.)  In  making  such  reports  it  should  give  all 
material  facts,  including  demands,  negotiations,  picketing,  strike- 
breakers, conciliation,  the  acts  of  State  or  Federal  authorities,  as 
well  as  joint  agreements  reached  with  or  without  cessation  of  busi- 
ness. In  preparing  these  reports  the  commission  should  not  call  upon 
any  mediator,  but  should,  if  necessary,  use  its  powers  of  compulsory 
testimony. 

In  order  to  assist  State  minimum-wage  commissions  in  the  most 
difficult  part  of  their  work  the  Federal  commission  should  also  in- 
vestigate and  report  upon  interstate  competition  and  the  effect  of 
minimum-wage  laws.  Such  investigations  are  of  assistance  also  in 
determining  other  questions.  State  commissions  should  make  reports 
on  safety,  compensation  for  accidents,  minimum- wage  investigations, 
employment  offices,  child  labor,  etc. 

No  publication  of  any  investigations  to  be  made  or  any  rules  (par. 
5)  to  be  issued  without  previously  submitting  them  to  all  members  of 
the  representative  advisory  council,  with  opportunity  for  criticism, 
the  latter  to  be  published  by  the  commission  with  its  own  report. 
All  forms,  schedules,  and  instructions  for  investigators  likewise  to 
be  submitted  to  the  advisory  council. 

These  recommendations  regarding  investigations  are  the  most  im- 
portant of  all  the  recommendations  regarding  the  Industrial  Com- 
mission. All  of  the  other  recommendations  culminate  in  the  validity 
of  its  investigations.  Investigations  furnish  the  basis  for  drafting 
laws  by  the  legislature,  for  formulating  rules  and  regulations  by  the 
commission  (par.  5),  for  interpretation  of  laws  and  rules  by  the 
courts,  and  for  prosecutions  in  enforcing  the  laws.  The  recommenda- 
tions for  an  industrial  commission,  for  an  advisory  council,  for  civil- 
service  appointments,  for  subsidies  (par.  IT),  and  for  court  proce- 
dure (par.  7)  are  all  directed  toward  securing  reliability  and  confi- 
dence^  in  the  investigations  and  conclusions  of  the  commission. 

It  is  required  that  all  investigations  and  proposed  publications 
shall  be  submitted  to  the  representative  council  before  they  are  issued 
and  time  enough  given  for  consideration  and  criticism.  If,  then,  any 
rules  are  issued  (par.  5)  or  investigations  published  without  the 
approval  of  either  side,  their  validity  and  accuracy  are  at  once  con- 
demned and  the  commission  is  discredited.  Under  a  partisan  or 
political  department  of  labor,  it  is  unlikely  that  statistics  and  inves- 
tigations are  accepted,  either  by  the  public  or  by  both  employers  and 
employees,  at  their  face  value.  Nothing  more  serious  can  exist,  in  a 
country  which  depends  so  much  on  public  opinion,  than  this  distrust 
of  official  publications  and  statistics  which  purport  to  give  all  the 
facts  upon  which  public  opinion  forms  its  conclusions.  Employers, 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   OX   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  193 


.mployees,  and  the  general  public  should  be  able  to  rely  implicitly 
for  their  conclusions  on  official  statistics  on  wages,  hours  of  labor, 
health,  safety,  cost  of  living,  unemployment,  costs  of  production,  dis- 
tribution of  wealth,  strikes,  boycotts,  and  all  other  material  facts 
bearing  on  the  relations  of  capital  and  labor.  All  labor  legislation, 
all  administration  of  labor  lawrs,  all  efforts  at  mediation  and  arbitra- 
tion, all  recommendations  of  public  bodies,  go  back  for  their  justi- 
fication to  statistics  and  investigations.  The  money  of  the  Govern- 
ment is  worse  than  wasted,  and  the  officials  are  discredited  if  there 
remains  any  interested  body  of  citizens  who  do  not  place  confidence 
in  these  official  statistics  and  investigations.  The  temptation  is  so 
great,  in  view  of  the  struggle  between  capital  and  labor,  to  distort 
or  suppress  or  obliterate  facts  that  no  precautions  top  great  can  be 
taken  to  secure  thorough  criticism,  verification,  and  filling  in  of  omis- 
sions before  the  facts  are  published.  No  matter  whatever  else  may 
be  recommended,  no  recommendation  can  be  depended  upon  that 
does  not  provide  fully  for  the  integrity,  reliability,  and  complete 
inclusion  of  all  material  facts  in  every  publication  of  official  statis- 
tics and  investigations.  There  is  no  certain  method  of  doing  this 
except  in  the  recommendation  that  all  alleged  facts  of  statistics  and 
investigations  be  submitted  to  the  parties  directly  interested  and 
affected  by  the  conclusions.  The  proposed  advisory  council,  composed 
of  acknowledged  representatives  of  these  parties,  acting  independ- 
ently, without  intimidation  or  connivance,  and  watchful  against 
any  advantage  attempted  by  the  opposing  yet  cooperating  interest, 
consulting  their  constituents  on  any  matter,  can  be  trusted  to  see  to 
it  that  no  material  facts  or  conclusions  are  published  without  con- 
clusive proof  and  none  suppressed  without  disproof.  If  any  member 
of  the  council  objects  to  any  final  statement  or  conclusion,  he  is  enti- 
tled within  limits  to  have  his  protest  published  along  with  the  report 
of  the  commission.  In  fact,  the  entire  spirit  of  these  recommenda- 
tions is  the  utilization  by  Government  of  the  organizations  that  have 
both  common  and  hostile  interests,  in  order  to  protect  the  Govern- 
ment itself  against  partisanship  and  partiality  in  dealing  with  the 
serious  conflict  between  those  interests.  It  is  because  the  reports, 
findings,  and  recommendations  of  the  present  commission  were  not 
submitted  to  parties  affected  thereby  or  to  an  advisory  committee 
similar  to  the  one  proposed  for  a  permanent  commission  that  we  can 
not  accept  them  as  verified  or  criticized,  so  that  we  could  have  before 
us  when  finally  acting  upon  them  any  criticisms  or  assurance  that 
their  statements  were  accurate  or  that  important  omissions  had  not 
been  made.  An  advisory  committee  to  this  commission,  similar  to 
the  one  proposed,  was  approved  for  a  short  time  and,  after  making 
changes  in  the  proposals  of  the  staff  having  the  measures  in  charge, 
made  certain  unanimous  recommendations  as  bills  to  this  commis- 
sion, but  the  committee  was  discontinued  before  it  could  complete  its 
work.  No  staff  of  investigators,  however  careful,  can  be  expected 
to  have  such  complete  knowledge  of  their  subject  as  to  be  trusted 
without  the  scrutiny  and  criticism  of  the  interests  or  persons  affected 
by  their  reports.  Whenever  a  permanent  industrial  commission  is 
created  there  can  be  no  provision  more  essential  than  that  of  provid- 
ing the  representative  machinery  for  reliable  investigations,  find- 
ings, and  publicity. 

38819°— 16 13 


194  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

An  illustration  of  the  method  of  supervision  of  investigation  here 
advocated  is  afforded  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  The 
statistics  of  wages  and  hours  collected  by  that  commission  are  of 
importance  in  matters  of  mediation.  They  were  so  collected  and 
arranged  that  they  could  not  be  relied  upon  for  that  purpose.  Con- 
sequently a  conference  was  called,  consisting  of  the  railway  account- 
ants, the  railroad  brotherhoods  and  other  labor  organizations,  the 
statisticians  of  the  commission  and  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  to 
consider  the  statistics.  After  the  discussion,  which  failed  in  some 
respects  to  reach  agreement,  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission 
issued  new  rules  changing  several  features  of  the  statistics  in  order 
to  avoid  the  criticisms  advanced,  the  changes  to  go  into  effect  in  1915. 
It  is  this  method  of  statistical  investigation  that  is  recommended  to 
be  made  mandatory  on  Industrial  Commissions. 

The  Industrial  Commissions  herein  recommended  are  modeled  in 
part  upon  the  example  of  the  railroad  and  public  utilities  commis- 
sions, the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  the  Federal  Trade  Com- 
mission, and  the  Federal  Reserve  Board.  Their  powers  are  partly 
legislative,  partly  judicial,  and  partly  executive.  That  which  is  most 
important  is  their,  power  of  making  investigations  of  facts  and  condi- 
tions and  then  issuing  orders  (par.  5)  based  on  such  investigations. 
The  legislature  or  Congress  lays  down  a  general  policy  or  standard, 
but  does  not  go  into  all  of  the  minor  details  and  variations  that  are 
needed  to  fit  the  policy  to  actual  conditions.  In  the  case  of  rail- 
roads it  gives  up  the  attempt  to  enact  a  schedule  of  freight  and 
passenger  rates  and  merely  requires  of  railroad  corporations  that 
all  rates  and  services  shall  be  reasonable,  that  there  shall  be  no 
discriminations,  and  so  on.  The  commission  then  investigates 
each  case  as  it  comes  up  and  issues  a  detailed  order  intended 
to  carry  out  the  policy  and  enforce  the  standard  laid  down  by 
the  legislature  or  Congress.  In  the  case  of  labor  law  the  legisla- 
tive standards  differ  according  to  the  object  of  the  law.  In  matters 
of  safety  the  legislature  requires  employers  to  keep  their  work  places 
safe,  and  leaves  to  the  commission  the  investigation  of  conditions 
and  of  safety  devices  necessary  to  be  installed  in  each  industry  or 
shop,  with  power  to  order  them  installed.  In  compensation  for  ac- 
cidents the  legislature  requires  the  employer  to  pay  50  per  cent  or 
more  of  the  wages  lost  for  a  certain  time,  and  then  gives  the  com- 
mission power  to  investigate  each  case  if  necessary,  and  to  determine 
exactly  the  amount  arid  all  details,  and  to  order  the  employer  to 
pay  that  amount.  Other  standards  may  be  set  up  by  the  legislature, 
if  it  wishes  to  do  so,  for  hours  of  labor,  minimum  wages,  exclusion 
of  women  and  children  from  dangerous  employment,  regulation  of 
private  employment  offices,  and  so  on,  covering  the  entire  field  of 
labor  legislation. 

It  is  evident  that  the  legislature  can  not  itself  make  all  of  these 
investigations.  It  must  depend  upon  others.  In  practice,  too,  the 
legislature  and  Congress  are  not  willing  to  delegate  to  a  single  execu- 
tive official  the  power  of  issuing  rules  and  orders.  This  power  is 
quasi  judicial.  Consequently  the  legislature  and  Congress  create 
commissions  with  three  or  more  members,  in  order  to  require  delib- 
eration and  a  fair  representation  and  hearing  for  all  interests  that 
are  benefited  by  or  compelled  to  obey  the  rules.  A  single  executive 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  195 

official  is  liable  to  be  one-sided  and  partisan,  or  to  act  without  delib- 
eration, or  to  be  frequently  changed,  but  a  commission  can  be  organ- 
ized so  as  to  be  impartial,  deliberative,  and  continuous. 

In  the  administration  of  all  other  labor  laws,  such  as  those  on  in- 
dustrial education,  child  labor,  hours  of  labor,  minimum  wage,  and 
so  on,  there  are  points  of  antagonism  and  points  of  harmony  between 
capital  and  labor.  The  points  of  antagonism  are  enlarged  and  ex- 
aggerated when  one  side  or  the  other,  through  practical  politicians, 
controls  the  offices.  The  points  of  harmony  can  only  be  discovered 
by  investigation,  and  the  investigations  must  be  cooperative  between 
employers  and  unions,  else  neither  side  will  have  confidence  in  the 
results.  The  Industrial  Commission  and  its  subordinate  officials,  of 
course,  have  to  be  depended  on  to  make  the  actual  investigations, 
but  the  provision  in  the  foregoing  recommendation,  that  all  matters 
and  all  proposed  publications  shall  be  submitted  to  the  advisory 
council,  representing  the  opposing  interests,  for  their  advice  and 
criticism  but  not  their  veto,  goes  as  far  as  practicable  toward  secur- 
ing that  the  investigations,  conclusions,  and  rules  of  the  commission 
and  its  subordinates  will  have  the  confidence  of  both  sides. 

The  particular  recommendation  regarding  investigations  of  labor 
disputes  is  associated  with  a  later  recommendation  regarding  media- 
tion. (Par.  14.)  While  recommending  voluntary  mediation,  it  is 
recognized  that  strikes  and  lockouts  are  of  such  public  importance 
that  the  public  is  entitled  to  accurate  information  regarding  their 
causes  and  continuance.  In  connection  with  its  other  investigations 
the  investigation  of  strikes  and  lockouts  shows  underlying  causes  of 
industrial  unrest  and  the  failure  of  legislation  or  administration  to 
remedy  them.  Official  investigations  and  reports  on  those  subjects 
have  not  as  a  rule  been  accepted,  because  they  have  been  colorless 
for  fear  of  giving  offense,  or  because  they  are  conducted  under  the 
direction  of  partisans  of  one  side  or  the  other.  It  is  expected  that 
investigations  conducted  under  the  supervision  of  the  advisory 
council  will  avoid  the  defects  of  many  official  investigations. 

All  investigations  of  a  general  character,  such  as  those  on  safety 
devices,  wrages,  hours,  conditions  of  labor,  and  interstate  competition, 
should  be  made  by  the  Federal  commission,  relieving  the  State  com- 
missions or  bureaus  for  their  work  of  local  investigations,  administra- 
tion, and  inspection,  the  Federal  commission  to  be  the  central 
standardizing  agency,  leaving  the  State  free  to  adopt  or  reject  the 
standards.  (Par.  if.)  The  investigation  of  interstate  competition 
and  the  effect  of  minimum  wage  laws  will  be  of  use  in  the  most 
difficult  part  of  the  work  of  State  minimum  wage  commissions,  which 
we  indorse  in  so  far  as  women  and  children  are  concerned. 

RULES  AND  REGULATIONS. 

5.  The  commission  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  carrying  into 
effect  the  provisions  of  the  labor  laws  which  it  enforces.  This  may 
be  done  by  providing,  in  the  industrial  commission  law  or  otherAvise, 
for  certain  brief  standards  as  may  be  determined  by  the  legislature, 
for  example,  that  all  places  of  employment  shall  be  safe  and  sanitary, 
as  the  nature  of  the  industry  will  reasonably  permit,  that  no  person 
shall  be  allowed  to  work  for  such  hours  of  labor  or  at  such  times  as 


196  REPOBT  OF   COMMISSION   OX   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

are  dangerous  to  his  or  her  life,  health,  safety,  or  welfare,  that  em- 
ployment offices  shall  give  correct  information,  shall  not  split  fees, 
and  so  on.  Or,  less  preferably,  the  existing  labor  laws  may  be  re- 
tained or  new  ones  enacted  in  minute  detail,  and  the  Industrial  Com- 
mission may  be  given  power  merely  to  make  such  additional  rules 
and  regulations  or  variations  from  the  laws  as  are  necessary  to  give 
them  full  effect.  Rules  to  be  submitted  to  the  advisory  council  before 
issuing. 

The  method  of  brief  legislative  standards  above  mentioned  is 
adopted  by  most  of  the  States  having  Industrial  Commissions  and  it 
is  here  recommended,  but  the  latter  is  the  method  adopted  in  New 
York.  The  original  policy  of  American  labor  legislation  involved 
an  attempt  to  cover  in  detail  every  contingency  which  might  arise. 
This  method  has  proved  itself  impractical.  It  is  impossible  for  a 
legislature  charged  with  so  many  other  duties  and  having  but  little 
time  for  attention  to  any  of  them,  to  intelligently  provide  in  detail 
for  such  matters  as  the  safeguarding  of  machinery  or  the  regulation 
of  hours  of  labor  and  periods  of  rest  in  hundreds  of  different  em- 
ployments and. under  hundreds  of  different  circumstances.  Legisla- 
tion upon  these  subjects  has  to-day  reached  the  stage  long  ago 
reached  by  legislation  relating  to  public  health  and  public  utilities. 
The  legislature  can  provide  only  the  general  standards  and  must 
leave  to  administrative  officers  the  duty  of  "  filling  in  details." 

Whether  the  labor  laws  of  a  State  consist  onty  of  a  few  sections, 
as  in  Wisconsin,  or  are  a  bulky  law,  as  in  New  York,  there  still  exists 
the  necessity  for  the  further  filling  in  of  details,  and  if  the  labor  laws 
enacted  by  the  legislature  are  at  all  lengthy,  as  in  New  York,  there 
exists  the  additional  necessity  of  some  means  for  variations  in  deserv- 
ing cases,  either  by  express*  provision  of  the  law  or,  in  the  absence 
thereof,  by  the  tacit  overlooking  of  violations  by  the  officials  charged 
with  the  administration.  This  latter  practice  is  an  opportunity  for 
graft  or  favoritism.  A  factory  inspector  goes  into  an  establishment 
and  has  the  power  to  order  changes  amounting  to  several  thousand 
dollars.  He  finds  many  points  where  the  strict  letter  of  the  law  does 
not  apply.  Since  he  is  the  only  person  who  actually  interprets  the 
law  on  the  ground  he  can  readily  overlook  violations.  But  where  the 
laws  do  not  go  into  details,  but  an  Industrial  Commission  determines 
the  details  in  the  form  of  rules  fitted  to  conditions,  the  inspector  no 
longer  has  discretion  in  overlooking  violations.  He  must  report  all 
the  violations,  and  the  employer  has  another  remedy  besides  influ- 
encing the  inspector.  He  can  go  to  the  commission  with  a  petition 
that  a  different  rule  be  made  to  apply  to  his  case,  and  the  commission, 
after  a  public  hearing,  may  grant  or  reject  the  petition,  or  modify  its 
rule  for  that  particular  establishment.  Variations  must  be  made  in 
any  case.  The  difference  is,  that  where  there  is  no  commission  with 
power  to  make  rules,  the  variations  are  made  in  secret  by  the  different 
inspectors,  while  where  the  commission  has  this  power  they  are  made 
in  public.  (Par.  6.) 

In  the  recommendations  above,  the  briefest  kind  of  a  legislative 
standard  is  indicated.  Whatever  its  length,  however,  the  best  method 
of  filling  in  the  details  is  the  same.  It  is  not  unconstitutional  to  del- 
egate such  power  to  a  single  individual,  but  it  is  undesirable  and,  as 
already  pointed  out.  impracticable  to  confer  it  upon  one  person.  The 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   OX   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  197 

alternative  is  to  confer  it  upon  a  board  or  commission.  The  chief 
question  arising  here  is  whether  a  board  shall  be  created  especially 
for  this  purpose  or  whether  one  board  shall  perform  this  duty  to- 
gether with  that  of  administering  the  laws  and  the  rules  and  regula- 
tions made  by  it.  The  latter  is  the  Industrial  Commission  recom- 
mended. The  other  method  has  been  tried  in  the  two  greatest  indus- 
trial States  in  the  Union,  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  but  the 
former  State  abandoned  it  after  a  two-j^ears'  trial.  In  New  York  it 
was  adopted  two  years  ago  when  the  factory  investigating  commis- 
sion declined  to  take  the  administration  of  the  labor  department  away 
from  a  single  executive,  but  adopted  a  compromise  through  establish- 
ing an  industrial  board  of  four  members,  together  with  the  labor 
commissioner  as  chairman,  to  perform  the  rule-making  function 
whether  in  the  form  of  general  rules  or  variations.  While  the  board 
has  done  much  good  work,  there  remains  little  doubt  that  the  same 
work  can  be  performed  even  more  intelligently  and.  effectively  by  a 
commission  which  is  also  actively  engaged  in  administrative  work. 
In  both  cases,  the  aid  of  committees  representing  particular  industries 
or  interests  has  been  and  must  be  largely  relied  upon.  On  the  other 
hand,  an  industrial  board  such  as  formerly  existed  in  New  York,  and 
still  exists  in  Pennsylvania,  the  rule-making  duties  of  which  are 
solely  legislative  in  their  nature,  without  power  of  enforcement,  is 
not  much  better  equipped  to  make  such  rules  and  regulations  than 
the  legislature,  except  that  its  number  is  smaller  and  its  personnel 
chosen  particularly  for  this  one  duty. 

The  recommendations  provide  different  methods  of  securing  uni- 
formity of  State  and  Federal  legislation  on  various  subjects  (pars. 
17,  18).  This  uniformity  has  been  secured  in  the  case  of  railroads 
by  exactly  the  same  method  as  the  one  here  proposed  to  be  made  man- 
datory. When  Congress  enacted  a  law  requiring  safety  couplings 
there  were  a  large  number  of  manufacturers  of  couplings  in  the  mar- 
ket. Congress  gave  authority  to  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
sion to  decide  on  the  kind  of  couplings  that  wTould  accomplish  the 
object  of  securing  safety.  The  commission  called  in  the  representa- 
tives of  the  railroads  and  of  the  railroad  brotherhoods,  with  the 
manufacturers  of  couplings,  and  after  several  conferences  the  present 
standards  were  adopted.  Other  standards  applying  to  railroad  cars 
were  also  adopted  in  this  way. 

At  the  present  time  there  is  urgent  need  for  Federal  aid  in  secur- 
ing uniformity  of  safety  devices.  This  can  be  done  to  a  certain 
extent  through  voluntary  cooperation  with  the  States.  Various  States 
with  industrial  commissions  are  going  ahead  with  their  own  stand- 
ards, and  there  is  apparently  no  means  of  securing  uniformity  until 
a  Federal  commission  is  given  power  to  act.  This  could  be  done  if 
the  Federal  commission  Drought  together  representatives  of  State 
factory  inspectors,  along  with  its  advisory  council  of  employers  and 
employees,  and  the  private  national  safety  organizations  mentioned 
under  paragraph  2.  B}7  agreeing  on  standards,  these  could  be 
adopted  by  every  State  commission  which  has  power  to  make  rules. 
And  the  Federal  commission  would  be  merely  a  central  standardiz- 
ing agency,  leaving  to  the  States  the  voluntary  adoption  of  the  stand- 
ards. If  it  were  desired  to  go  further,  a  Federal  law  granting  to  the 
Federal  Industrial  Commission  power  to  set  standards  for  interstate 


198  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

shipment  of  machinery  not  equipped  with  the  standard  safety  devices 
might  be  adopted.  Each  method  would  require  a  Federal  commission 
to  set  standards. 

The  illustration  regarding  safety  is  taken  not  because  that  is  the 
most  important  problem,  but  as  furnishing  an  illustration  of  possible 
methods  applicable  in  other  lilies.  Similar  uniformity  might  be 
secured  in  the  regulation  of  private  employment  offices  and  other 
lines  of  labor  legislation,  as  the  States  or  Congress  may  determine. 
Of  course,  if  the  Congress  enacted  legislation  similar  to  the  Palmer- 
Owen  child-labor  bill,  the  extreme  step  would  be  taken  of  attempt- 
ing to  force  States  to  come  up  to  Federal  standards.  This  may  be 
necessary  in  some  cases,  but  the  Federal  Industrial  Commission 
affords  methods  of  securing  uniformity  in  some  branches  of  legisla- 
tion by  less  extreme  measures. 

The  courts  have  generally  denied  the  contention  that  this  delega- 
tion of  power  to  make  rules  and  issue  orders  is  unconstitutional  as  a 
delegation  of  legislative  or  judicial  power,  and  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  has  used  the  term  "  administrative  "  to  describe 
those  powers  which  are  partly  legislative  or  judicial,  but  are  not  so 
exclusively  one  or  the  other  that  they  may  not  be  properly  conferred 
upon  an  executive  or  administrative  body.  ( See  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission  v.  Humboldt  S.  S.  Co.,  224  IT.  S.,  474;  Pennsylvania 
Kailway  Co.  v.  International  Coal  Mining  Co.,  230  U.  S.,  184;  Mitch- 
ell Coal  &  Coke  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Railway  Co.,  230  U.  S.,  274.) 

REVIEW  BY  COMMISSION. 

6.  Any  person  in  interest  to  be  entitled  to  petition  the  commission 
for  a  hearing  on  the  legality  or  reasonableness  of  any  rule  or  regu- 
lation or  of  any  order  directing  compliance  with  any  provisions  of 
law  or  other  rule  or  regulation  or  for  a  special  order  applicable  to 
a  single  establishment.  The  commission  may  change  its  rule  or  regu- 
lation before  final  decision  by  a  court  on  its  legality. 

This  recommendation  is  embodied  in  one  form  or  another  in  all  of 
the  State  commission  laws.  Under  the  prevailing  system  of  adminis- 
tering labor  laws  a  person  affected  by  an  order  enforcing  an  act  of 
the  legislature  has  no  opportunity  to  object  to  its  constitutionality, 
reasonableness,  or  validity  except  by  awaiting  prosecution  and  sub- 
mitting his  objection  as  a  matter  of  defense.  Not  only  is  this  cum- 
bersome and  undesirable  as  a  matter  of  procedure,  but  it  is  open  to  a 
very  serious  objection  that  it  brings  this  matter  up  often  for  final 
decision  by  a  petty  court,  or  even  before  a  local  magistrate  or  justice 
of  the  peace. 

Not  only  does  a  provision  of  the  sort  here  recommended  give  the 
person  affected  opportunity  to  make  proper  objections,  but  it  gives 
the  commission  an  opportunity  to  reconsider  its  rules  and  orders 
from  the  point  of  view  of  their  actual  application  in  concrete  cases 
before  they  are  subjected  to  tests  in  the  courts.  Questions  arising  in 
the  application  of  rules  and  orders  to  concrete  cases  frequently  de- 
pend upon  facts  and  conditions  which  are  difficult  to  bring  out 
accurately  and  thoroughly  in  the  courts.  The  proceedings  before  the 
commission  will  develop  the  facts  and  conditions  which  are  alleged 
to  justify  the  provision  and  those  which  the  employer  depends  upon 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  199 

defeat  it  better  than  could  be  done  in  any  court.  It  is  frequently 
necessary  for  the  court  to  have  such  facts  available  in  order  to  ar- 
rive at  a  proper  decision  upon  the  constitutionality  of  such  a  rule 
or  order,  and  in  the  absence  of  such  a  proceeding  as  this,  an  appellate 
court  has  practically  no  means  of  obtaining  such  information.  This 
could  not  be  better  illustrated  than  in  the  recent  decision  of  the  New 
York  Court  of  Appeals  (People  v.  Schweinler  Press,  2M  N.  Y.,  395), 
upholding  the  constitutionality  of  the  section  of  the  labor  law  pro- 
hibiting night  work  for  women,  and,  in  effect,  overruling  its  own 
decision  of  eight  years  previous,  holding  a  similar  provision  un- 
constitutional. In  the  opinion  of  the  recent  case  the  court  frankly 
says  that  its  previous  decision  was  due  to  a  lack  of  proof  at  that 
time  that  the  prohibition  bore  some  direct  relation  to  the  public 
health  and  welfare,  and  that  subsequently  such  proof  had  been 
gathered  and  was  of  such  a  nature  as  to  warrant  a  different  de- 
cision. In  this  case  the  evidence  had  been  gathered  largely  through 
the  efforts  of  a  special  factory  investigating  commission,  but  the 
whole  incident  illustrates  the  necessity  for  a  thorough  consideration 
of  all  facts  involved  before  the  matter  is  taken  into  the  courts,  and 
making  the  results  of  such  consideration  available  for  the  use  of  the 
courts. 

The  special  order  applicable  to  a  single  establishment  is  necessary 
in  order  to  take  into  account  peculiar  conditions,  which,  if  rigidly 
applied,  might  render  the  entire  law  or  general  rule  unconstitutional. 

COURT    REVIEW. 

7.  Any  person  in  interest  to  be  entitled  to  bring  a  special  action 
in  court  to  test  the  legality  and  reasonableness  of  any  provision  of 
the  labor  laws,  of  any  rules  and  regulations  made  thereunder,  or  of 
any  order  directing  compliance  therewith.  (It  is  probably  advis- 
able, in  the  case  of  State  commissions,  to  limit  the  jurisdiction  of 
such  cases  to  a  court  sitting  at  the  State  capitol.)  Actions  involv- 
ing rules  and  regulations  and  orders  not  to  be  brought  until  final 
determination  of  the  petitions  for  review  (par.  6)  by  the  commis- 
sion. Provision  also  to  be  made  for  suspending  prosecutions  pend- 
ing determination  of  petitions  or  actions  for  review  in  court.  Mat- 
ters of  fact  which  had  not  been  before  the  commission  to  be  referred 
back  to  the  commission  and  opportunity  given  for  the  commission 
to  change  its  rules  or  regulations  before  final  decision  by  the  court. 
Rules  and  regulations  of  the  commission  to  be  made  prima  facie 
reasonable  in  all  court  proceedings. 

This  recommendation  is  provided  for  in  different  ways  in  the  dif- 
ferent State  commission  laws.  The  purpose  of  these  provisions,  to- 
gether with  those  relating  to  review  by  the  commission  (par.  6),  is 
to  secure  a  uniform  interpretation  of  the  labor  laws  and  the  rules 
and  regulations  for  carrying  them  into  effect ;  to  prevent  their  being 
held  unconstitutional  by  petty  courts  (which  often  results,  on  ac- 
count of  the  impossibility  of  appealing  such  a  decision,  in  an  abso- 
lute bar  to  further  enforcement  of  such  provisions  in  that  locality, 
even  though  the  provisions  may  eventually  be  upheld  by  a  higher 
court)  ;  and  to  protect  the  commission  from  ill-considered  action  by 
higher  courts  not  having  before  them  sufficient  information  to  enable 
them  to  arrive  at  an  intelligent  decision. 


200  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

TESTIMONY. 

8.  The  commission  to  have  the  incidental  powers  such  as  those  of 
subpoenaing  and  examining  witnesses  and  administering  oaths,  and 
so  on,  necessary  for  the  full  performance  of  duties  imposed  upon  it. 
These  powers,  however,  to  be  strictly  limited  to  those  branches  in 
which  the  commission,  on  the  basis  of  experience  or  the  constitutional 
rules  regarding  evidence,  finds  them  indispensable.     In  all  other 
work  the  commission  to  have  no  powers  of  compulsory  examination, 
and  so  on. 

The  powers  of  compulsory  investigation  and  public  hearings  are 
liable  to  serious  abuse  in  order  to  gain  some  temporary  publicity  or 
personal  advantage,  but  in  practice  it  is  found  that  competent  in- 
vestigators and  informal  conferences,  such  as  those  of  the  proposed 
advisory  councils,  can  secure  more  valuable  and  reliable  information 
than  when  individuals  are  placed  on  the  stand  and  required  to  talk 
to  the  stenographer. 

CONTINUOUS    INDUSTRY,    EMPLOYMENT,    AND    INSURANCE. 

9.  In  all  industries  or  occupations  operating  continuously  day  and 
night  and  seven  days  a  week  the  legislatures  or  Congress  should 
enact  laws  requiring  three  shifts  of  eight  hours  each  and  one  day  of 
rest  in  seven,  or  their  equivalent,  administered  under  rules  of  an  in- 
dustrial commission  laid  down  for  each  industry  or  establishment  as 
may  be  required. 

This  class  of  legislation  has  been  widely  adopted  in  European 
countries,  but  has  been  found  unenforceable  without  the  aid  of  an 
administrative  body  competent  to  take  into  account  the  many  dif- 
ferences of  different  establishments.  In  those  countries  hundreds  of 
different  rules  are  issued  for  different  industries.  For  example,  the 
rules  for  Pullman  employees  would  differ  materially  from  those  for 
steel  mills  or  hotels.  We  consider  such  laws  unenforceable  without 
this  provision,  and  their  enforcement  can  not  be  secured  without  a 
commission  under  the  supervision  of  a  representative  council  such  as 
we  recommend. 

The  Industrial  Commission,  with  its  advisory  council,  in  its  ad- 
ministration of  employment  bureaus  is  evidently  the  body  to  work 
out  improvements  not  only  in  the  bureaus  themselves  but  in  meas- 
ures designed  to  provide  for  the  unemployed  or  to  regularize  em- 
ployment, such  as  workmen's  hotels,  or  advice  to  Federal,  State,  and 
municipal  authorities  for  shifting  their  work  to  the  winter  months 
or  to  periods^  of  depression.  These  matters  have  been  remarkably 
provided  for  in  Germany,  where  the  employment  bureaus,  with  their 
advisory  councils,  have  become  the  most  effective  of  those  in  any 
country. 

Such  measures  as  sickness  insurance,  invalidity  insurance,  and 
unemployment  insurance  evidently  require  a  large  amount  of  investi- 
gation before  they  can  be  recommended.  Their  principal  object 
should  be  the  cooperation  of  employers  and  employees  in  the  preven- 
tion of  sickness,  invalidity,  and  unemployment.  Their  administra- 
tion and  the  drafting  of  laws  and  rules  will  evidently  have  to  be  in- 
trusted to  a  commission  with  such  an  advisory  council  as  is  pro- 
posed. 


EEPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  201 

POLICE    AND    MILITARY. 

10.  That  such  detective  agencies  may  operate  in  more  than  one 
State,  or  be  employed  by  industrial  corporations  engaged  in  inter- 
state commerce,  or  which  may  use  the  mails  shall  be  compelled  to 
take  out  a  Federal  license,  under  the  Industrial  Commission,  with 
regulations  that  will  insure  the  character  of  their  employees  and 
the  limitation  of  their  activities  to  the  bona  fide  business  of  detecting 
crime.  Similar  license  and  regulation  for  all  private  employment 
offices  engaged  in  interstate  business. 

That  all  enterprises  shall  be  forbidden  the  right  to  employ  private 
armed  guards,  except  as  wratchmen  on  the  premises,  or  to  have  such 
watchmen  deputized  as  police  except  where  such  is  found  necessary 
by  the  State  or  Federal  Industrial  Commission.  That  rules  adapted 
to  the  differences  required  by  various  industries  should  be  made  by 
the  Industrial  Commission,  in  order  to  carry  these  laws  into  effect. 

That  such  enterprises  shall  exercise  their  right  to  call  upon  the 
constituted  authorities  to  furnish  them  with  the  necessary  protection 
to  their  property,  and  to  the  lives  of  their  workers,  against  the  threat- 
ened attack  of  rioters  or  strikers;  and  that  it  shall  be  incumbent 
upon  the  constituted  authorities  to  furnish  such  protection  in  the 
way  of  police  or  deputy  sheriffs,  and  that  a  failure  on  their  part  to 
do  this  shall  lay  the  political  subdivision  in  which  such  damage  to 
life  or  property  may  take  place  liable  to  damages.  That  all  indi- 
viduals denied  their  constitutional  rights  of  habeas  corpus,  free 
access  to  public  highways,  free  speech,  etc.,  shall  have  similar  power 
of  action  in  damages  against  the  political  division  in  which  such 
denial  takes  place.  That  all  highways  now  claimed  as  private  prop- 
erty shall  be  made  public. 

That  the  militia  of  the  several  States  being  subject  to  regulation 
by  Congress,  carefully  drawn  rules  for  their  personal  organization 
and  conduct  in  the  field  shall  be  drawn  up  by  the  War  Department, 
after  conference  with  the  Industrial  Commission  and  advisory  coun- 
cil, and  that  all  parties  arrested  by  the  militia  during  the  time  of 
troubles  shall  be  turned  over  for  trial  to  the  civil  authorities.  Simi- 
lar rules  should  be  drawn  up  by  State  authorities,  with  the  coopera- 
tion of  the  State  industrial  commission  and  its  advisory  council,  for 
the  regulation  of  State  constabulary.  The  War  Department,  with 
the  aid  of  the  Industrial  Commission  and  advisory  council,  should 
investigate  and  recommend  legislation  regarding  the  shipment  of 
arms  and  guards  in  interstate  commerce. 

One  of  the  principal  reasons  why  corporations  are  compelled  to 
employ  private  guards  is  the  failure  of  the  taxpayers  to  provide 
them.  This  is  also  one  of  the  principal  reasons  why  laborers  and 
labor  organizers  are  denied  their  constitutional  rights.  Taxpayers 
take  little  part  in  the  elections  or  otherwise  to  provide  officials  com- 
petent to  and  willing  to  protect  the  rights  both  of  capital  and  labor, 
because  the  invasion  of  these  rights  does  not  affect  them.  This  would 
be  changed  if  the  political  subdivision  were  made  liable  in  damages. 
Yet  it  is  not  proper,  as  has  been  done  in  some  States,  to  provide  for 
protection  of  property  in  this  way  without  providing  also  for  pro- 
tection of  labor  in  the  same  way.  Laws  designed  to  regulate  deputy 
sheriffs  or  the  police  force  can  not  be  made  effective  under  our  sys- 
tem of  local  government  without  liability  of  taxpayers  for  violation. 


202  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

The  drafting  of  rules  for  the  conduct  of  militia  or  State  constabu- 
lary should  not  be  left  entirely  to  military  authorities  but  should  be 
drafted  with  the  joint  discussion  and  advice  of  employers  and  em- 
ployees, who  are  more  directly  affected  than  other  classes  in  the  com- 
munity. It  is  not  intended  that  the  Industrial  Commission  or  ad- 
visory council  shall  have  a  veto  on  any  regulations  issued  by  the 
military  or  police  authorities,  but  they  should  have  opportunity  for 
criticism  and  advice.  The  entire  subject  of  policing  industry  has  not 
been  sufficiently  investigated  from  all  points  of  view,  and  more  spe- 
cific recommendations  than  these  can  not  now  be  indorsed.  It  is 
therefore  recommended  above  that  further  investigations  from  all 
points  of  view  should  be  referred  to  the  proper  Federal  and  State 
authorities,  assisted  by  the  representatives  of  all  interests  affected. 


LEGAL  AID. 


11.  State  commissions  (and  perhaps  the  Federal  Commission) 
should  render  aid  and  assistance  to  deserving  workmen  in  the  adjust- 
ment of  disputes  other  than  collective  disputes,  and  the  recovery 
of  claims  arising  out  of  their  relations  with  their  employers,  and 
generally  take  such  action  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  protection  of 
employees  from  fraud,  extortion,  exploitation,  and  other  improper 
practices.  For  this  purpose  the  commission  to  be  authorized  to 
assign  members  of  its  staff  to  appear  in  justice  and  other  courts 
which  adjudicate  such  claims,  and  to  create  local  advisory  committees 
of  employers  and  employees  to  pass  upon  all  such  claims  in  coopera- 
tion with  the  deputy  of  the  commission  and  in  advance  of  court 
procedure. 

This  recommendation  has  been  partly  adopted  in  the  New  York 
act.  An  examination  of  the  reports  of  existing  public  agencies  of 
this  sort  and  of  the  legal  aid  societies  of  the  large  cities  of  this  coun- 
try shows  that  by  far  the  largest  single  class  of  cases  with  which  they 
are  called  upon  to  deal  is  the  adjustment  of  small  wage  claims.  In 
some  communities  there  already  exist  municipal  and  other  so-called 
"  poor  men's  courts  "  and  "  small  debtors'  courts,"  intended  especially 
for  the  speedy  settlement  of  small  claims  and  disputes ;  but  even  the 
best  of  these  courts  are  scarcely  sufficient  in  themselves  to  meet  the 
situation  which  confronts  many  employees.  In  some  of  them  a  very 
large  proportion  of  disputes  over  small  wage  claims,  in  some  in- 
stances as  high  as  90  per  cent,  can  be  settled  if  the  two  parties  can 
only  be  brought  together  under  conditions  which  make  it  certain 
that  if  a  settlement  is  not  made  there  is  some  one  standing  back  of 
deserving  claimants  ready  to  push  their  cases. 

Then,  too,  these  cases  frequently  involve  a  general  practice  from 
which  many  individuals  suffer,  and  yet  it  is  impractical  for  any  one 
of  them  to  take  the  necessary  action  to  secure  redress  or  put  an  end 
to  the  practice.  Members  of  a  given  class  are  often  made  the  victims 
of  exploitation  or  improper  practices  under  conditions  where  it  is 
not  practical  nor  worth  while  for  any  individual  to  fight  the  matter 
out.  and  yet  where  the  aggregate  loss  to  the  class  is  considerable. 
The  ordinary  shipper  is  generally  able  to  pay  for  necessary  legal 
services,  and  still  Congress  and  a  number  of  the  State  legislatures 
have  required  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  and  the  State 
commissions  to  render  just  such  aid  to  shippers  having  claims  against 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  203 

railroads,  because  of  the  economic  disadvantage  in  which  an  indi- 
vidual shipper  is  placed  in  a  contest  with  the  railroads.  That  em- 
ployees stand  in  need  of  such  protection  from  the  State  is  evidenced 
by  the  mass  of  labor  legislation  which  has  been  enacted  and  the 
agencies  which  have  been  created  for  its  administration. 

Nor  does  such  provision  lack  precedents  other  than  the  railroad 
legislation  already  referred  to.  For  some  years  the  bureau  of 
industry  and  immigration  of  the  New  York  Labor  Department  has, 
in  cooperation  with  the  New  York  Legal  Aid  Society,  extended  just 
such  assistance  to  immigrants,  and  almost  the  exact  provision  here 
recommended  has  been  included  in  the  industrial  commission  law 
just  enacted  in  New  York. 

Kansas  City  maintains  its  own  legal  aid  bureau  as  part  of  the 
city  government,  and  of  the  five  or  six  thousand  cases  a  year  han- 
dled by  it,  almost  half  are  wage  claims.  The  largest  class  of  cases 
handled  by  the  public  defender  of  Los  Angeles  is  wage  claims. 

The  above  recommendation  is  intended  to  establish  in  the  United 
States  a  system  analogous  to  the  industrial  courts  of  France,  Ger- 
many, and  other  European  countries.  But  it  can  not  be  expected 
that  many  localities  will  initiate  this  class  of  courts,  and  it  will 
require  a  State  commission  to  make  them  general.  If  municipalities 
were  given  authority  and  then  actually  established  such  courts,  the 
State  commission  would  withdraw. 


LEGISLATION. 


12.  The  Industrial  Commission,  upon  request  of  the  legislature  or 
Congress,  or  the  committee  on  relations  between  capital  and  labor, 
to  investigate  a  subject  and  draft  bills.  The  commission  to  make 
recommendations  regarding  legislation  affecting  subjects  under  its 
jurisdiction. 

It  is  not  proposed  that  the  Industrial  Commission  shall  initiate 
legislation  or  make  recommendations,  except  on  laws  previously 
assigned  to  it  for  administration.  Matters  outside  its  jurisdiction 
would  bring  it  into  the  political  and  controversial  field.  Yet  when 
Congress  or  the  legislature  is  considering  new  legislation,  such  as 
sickness  insurance,  unemployment  insurance,  and  so  on,  it  might 
refer  the  matter,  in  its  own  discretion,  for  further  investigation  and 
recommendation.  Advanced  legislation  is  fought  out  by  lobbies 
and  in  committees,  and  the  advantage  of  reference  to  the  Industrial 
Commission  would  be  the  cooperation  of  its  advisory  council  in  draft- 
ing a  workable  law,  eliminating  "  jokers,"  and  carrying  out  the  intent 
of  the  legislature.  At  present  there  is  no  definite  means  provided 
whereby  lobbyists  can  be  required  to  come  together  and  confer 
regarding  measures.  They  appear  usually  as  antagonists  or  lawyers 
before  legislative  committees,  and  not  as  the  conferees  of  an  advisory 
representative  council.  This  proposition  is  by  no  means  a  novel  or 
untried  one.  After  fruitless  administration  of  the  impractical  coal- 
mining laws,  which  had  been  placed  on  the  statute  books  mainly 
by  the  labor  unions  of  Illinois  and  Colorado,  the  legislature  turned 
the  matter  of  revising  the  mining  code  over  to  a  joint  committee 
selected  by  the  coal  operators  and  the  mine  workers'  union,  and 
then  enacted  into  law,  without  amendment,  the  code  which  the  two 


204  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION    OX   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

opposing  interests,  in  conference  with  the  legislative  committee, 
jointly  recommended.  The  advisory  committee  on  apprenticeship 
of  the  Wisconsin  commission  has  recently  agreed  upon  an  apprentice- 
ship law  satisfactory  to  employers,  trade  unions,  and  the  commission, 
and  this  was  adopted  by  the  legislature  without  change.  This 
method  of  legislation  can  be  indefinitely  extended  to  all  matters,  with 
the  result  that,  while  both  sides  protect  their  own  interests,  they 
:  often  eventually  reach  agreement  on  points  where  their  interests  and 
those  of  the  public  are  common. 

This,  of  course,  does  not  do  away  with  the  final  authority  of  Con- 
gress or  the  legislature,  nor  with  the  battle  of  opposing  interests  in 
the  legislative  branch  of  government  where  they  have  not  been  able 
to  agree,  nor  where  other  interests  are  affected.  Here  is  the  proper 
place  for  the  lobbyists  of  both  sides  to  endeavor  to  get  the  support 
of  representatives  of  the  people,  and  to  override  the  other  side. 
There  could  not  be  much  of  the  advanced  legislation  required  to  meet 
the  problems  of  capital  and  labor  without  a  struggle  in  the  legis- 
lature or  Congress  on  new  issues.  But  when  the  legislature  is  ready 
to  take  an  advanced  step,  it  is  an  advantage  to  require  the  com- 
batants to  confer  on  the  details  and  to  subject  their  differences  to 
investigation  by  an  impartial  body  on  which  they  have  representa- 
tion. This  advantage  is  intended  in  the  above  recommendation. 

SUPREME    COURTS. 

13.  At  the  request  of  the  Supreme  Court  (State  or  Federal)  the 
Industrial  Commission  shall  investigate  and  report  upon  any  ques- 
tions of  fact  referred  to  it  by  the  court  and  bearing  upon  the  con- 
stitutionality or  reasonableness  of  any  Federal  or  State  statute  or 
administrative  rule  on  the  relations  of  employer  and  employee. 
Amendment  of  the  judicature  act  so  as  to  permit  a  State  to  appeal 
from  its  own  supreme  court  to  the  Federal  Supreme  Court  on  a 
decision  against  a  State  based  on  conflict  with  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. 

While  the  principles  of  law  are  held  to  be  settled  and  unchange- 
able, their  applications  change  when  conditions  change.  Decisions  of 
the  courts  on  the  constitutionality  of  labor  laws  often  turn  on  the 
information  which  is  placed  before  the  court  as  to  the  necessity  of 
the  law.  The  Supreme  Court  declared  an  eight-hour  law  for  miners 
constitutional  and  a  ten-hour  law  for  bakers  unconstitutional  largely 
because  it  was  furnished  with  conclusive  information  on  conditions 
in  the  mines  but  not  in  the  bakeries.  (Holden  v.  Hardy,  1898,  169 
U.  S.  366;  Lochner  v.  New  York,  1907,  198  U.  S.  45.)  the  court  of 
New  York  in  1907  declared  (People  v.  Williams,  189  N.  Y.  131)  a 
law  prohibiting  night  work  for  women  unconstitutional,  but  held  a 
similar  law  constitutional  in  1915  (People  v.  Schweinler  Press,  214 
N.  Y.  395),  and  gave  as  the  reason  for  its  change  of  opinion  the 
evidence  placed  before  it  in  the  second  case.  The  court  said  in  1915  : 

1.  It  is  urged  that  whatever  might  be  our  original  views  concerning  this 
statute,  our  decision  in  People  v.  Williams  (1907)  is  an  adjudication  which 
ought  to  hind  us  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  unconstitutional.  While  it  may 
be  th.it  this  argument  is  not  without  an  apparent  and  superficial  foundation 
and  ought  to  be  fairly  met,  I  think  that  a  full  consideration  of  the  Williams 
case  and  of  the  present  one  will  show  that  they  may  be  renlly  and  substantially 
differentiated,  and  that  we  should  not  be  and  are  not  committed  bv  what  was 


, 

saW 


KEPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  205 


Ui. 

P'-1 


and  decided  in  the  former  to  the  view  that  the  legislature  had  no  power 
to  adopt  the  present  statute.     *     *     * 

While  theoretically  we  may  have  been  able  to  take  judicial  notice  of  some 
of  the  facts  and  some  of  the  legislation  now  called  to  our  attention  as  sustain- 
the belief  and  opinion  that  night  work  in  factories  is  widely  and  substan- 
ally  injurious  to  the  health  of  women,  actually  very  few  of  these  facts  were 
lied  to  our  attention,  and  the  argument  to  uphold  the  law  on  that  ground  was 
rief  and  inconsequential. 

Especially  and  necessarily  was  there  lacking  evidence  of  the  extent  to  which 
during  the  intervening  years  the  opinion  and  belief  have  spread  and  strength- 
ened that  such  night  work  is  injurious  to  women ;  of  the  laws,  as  indicating 
such  belief,  since  adopted  by  several  of  our  own  States  and  by  large  European 
countries,  and  the  report  made  to  the  legislature  by  its  own  agency,  the  factory 
investigating  commission,  based  on  investigation  of  actual  conditions  and  study 
of  scientific  and  medical  opinion  that  night  work  by  women  in  factories  is  gen- 
erally injurious  and  ought  to  be  prohibited. 

Other  illustrations  might  be  given  showing'  the  way  in  which 
courts  respond  to  the  needs  of  progressive  legislation  when  once  they 
have  before  them  ascertained  facts.  Investigations  by  attorneys  or 
interested  parties  may  have  a  certain  weight  in  court,  but  the  weight 
can  not  be  as  great  as  the  investigations  and  findings  of  an  impartial 
commission,  supervised  by  representatives  of  the  interests  affected 
by  the  decision.  Criticism  of  the  courts  for  decisions  overturning 
laws  designed  to  protect  labor,  and  the  demands  for  constitutional 
amendments  depriving  the  court  of  power  to  declare  laws  unconsti- 
tutional, or  providing  for  recall  of  decisions  or  recall  of  judges,  often 
fail  to  reach  the  real  difficulty.  The  difficulty  is  that  bureaus  or 
departments  of  labor  and  statistics  have  been  so  incompetently  man- 
aged or  their  investigations  so  remote  from  the  concrete  facts  that 
need  to  be  established  that  the  courts  have  had  no  reliable  informa- 
tion and  have  been  compelled  to  fall  back  on  their  own  meager 
information  or  "  common  knowledge."  If  the  court  had  at  hand  a 
reliable  and  well-equipped  referee  with  power  to  get  the  facts,  as  in 
the  Industrial  Commission,  it  is  probable  that  it  would  call  upon 
such  referee  instead  of  basing  its  judgment  on  the  doubtful  claims 
and  technical  arguments  of  attorneys. 

It  will  be  noted,  however,  that  this  recommendation  is  merely  sup- 
plementary to  those  in  paragraphs  G  and  7.  In  those  paragraphs 
the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  commission  itself  dealing  with  labor 
conditions  are  tested  before  the  court,  and  they  are  made  prima  f?.cie 
valid  and  reasonable  as  based  on  adequate  investigation.  The  present 
recommendation  is  optional  with  the  court  and  may  pertain  to  an 
act  of  the  legislature  or  the  rule  of  an  administrative  body  upon 
which  the  court  is  not  reliably  informed  as  to  the  facts. 

A  provision  similar  to  this  is  included  in  the  recent  Federal  Trade 
Commission  act  (sec.  7). 

The  recommendation  for  amendment  by  Congress  of  the  judicature 
act  is  based  on  the  fact  that  private  individuals  or  corporations  can 
now  appeal  to  the  Federal  courts  if  the  decision  of  the  State  court  is 
against  them,  on  the  ground  of  conflict  with  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion, but  the  State  itself  can  not  appeal  if  its  own  State  court  has 
decided  against  the  State  on  the  ground  that  the  State  law  conflicts 
with  the  Federal  Constitution.  It  is  sufficient  that  a  State  court 
should  decide  issues  under  the  State  Constitution,  but  the  Federal 
Supreme  Court  alone  should  decide  finally  all  issues  under  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution.  With  the  provision %  that  the  Supreme  Court 


206  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

should  require  the  Industrial  Commission  to  investigate  and  report 
upon  the  facts  which  are  alleged  to  justify  the  State  legislation  in 
question,  the  way  is  prepared  for  the  Supreme  Court  to  have  before 
it  the  economic  and  social  facts  necessary  to  pass  intelligently  upon 
these  questions  of  constitutionality. 

MEDIATION    AND    MINIMUM    WAGE. 

1-i.  The  Industrial  Commission  (State  or  Federal)  shall  appoint, 
remove,  and  fix  the  compensation  of  a  chief  mediator  of  industrial 
disputes,  the  chief  mediator  to  hold  his  position  until  removed  by 
the  Industrial  Commission  and  to  appoint  such  assistants  as  may  be 
needed,  and  to  fix  their  compensation  with  the  approval  of  the  Indus- 
trial Commission.  He  should  appoint  temporary  mediators  for  spe- 
cial cases,  without  requiring  them  to  give  up  their  private  business 
or  offices. 

The  chief  mediator  and  all  assistant  mediators  to  be  selected  from 
an  eligible  list  prepared  by  the  Civil  Service  Commission  on  a 
nonassembled  examination,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Industrial 
Commission  and  the  advisory  council. 

The  chief  mediator  and  his  staff  to  have  no  powers  whatever  of 
compulsory  testimony  and  to  be  prohibited  from  arbitrating  any 
dispute,  from  making  any  public  recommendation,  or  from  revealing 
in  any  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  any  information  which  they  may 
have  secured  from  any  parties  relative  to  an  industrial  dispute.  Any 
violation  to  be  sufficient  ground  for  immediate  removal  by  the  Indus- 
trial Commission.  The  powers  of  the  mediators  to«be  those  solely 
of  voluntary  mediation  or  conciliation,  but  the  chief  mediator  shall 
offer  his  services  in  confidence  to  both  sides  of  a  dispute  which,  in 
his  judgment,  is  of  public  importance. 

The  chief  mediator  and  his  staff  to  be  wholly  independent  of  the 
Industrial  Commission,  except  as  to  appointment  and  removal,  to 
the  extent  that  they  be  prohibited  from  reporting  any  facts  or  rec- 
ommendations whatever  to  the  Industrial  Commission  or  any  other 
authority  relative  to  the  merits  of  any  industrial  dispute. 

In  case  the  mediator  is  unable  to  secure  an  agreement  through  con- 
ciliation, he  shall  recommend  arbitration  to  both  parties,  and  if  both 
consent  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  arbitrators  he  shall  proceed  to 
assist  them  in  selecting  a  board  of  arbitration  in  any  w7ay  and  con- 
sisting of  any  number  of  members  that  both  sides  may  agree  upon. 
If  agreement  is  not  reached  within  a  specified  time  on  the  third 
party  to  the  board  of  mediation,  the  chief  mediator  shall  appoint  the 
same. 

In  case  both  parties  do  not  consent  to  arbitration  the  mediator 
shall  recommend  the  appointment  of  a  board  of  mediation  and  in- 
vestigation, which  shall  have  power  to  make  public  its  findings  and 
recommendations,  but  such  recommendations  shall  not  be  binding 
on  any  person.  If  both  parties  shall  consent  to  such  a  board,  the 
mediator  shall  assist  them  in  creating  the  same  and  shall  appoint  the 
third  member,  if  the  parties  can  not  agree  on  the  same  within  a 
specified  number  of  days. 

In  case  both  parties  accept  either  a  board  of  arbitration  or  a  board 
of  mediation  and  investigation,  such  board,  as  the  case  may  be,  shall 


EEPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  207 

ta ve  power  of  compelling  testimony.  The  Newlands  Act  and  the 
Department  of  Labor  act  should  be  so  amended  that  all  mediation 
and  conciliation,  whether  on  railways  or  in  other  industries,  shall 
be  consolidated  under  the  mediator  of  the  Federal  Industrial  Com- 
mission. The  Federal  commission  should  cooperate  with  State 
mediators. 

In  the  case  of  women  and  children,  minimum  wage  boards  should 
be  created  by  the  State  industrial  commissions. 

The  foregoing  recommendation  is  intended  to  provide  for  strictly 
"  voluntary  "  methods  of  mediation  and  arbitration.  When  engaged 
in  this  branch  of  its  work  the  commission  is  not  only  prohibited  from 
using  its  compulsory  powers,  but  its  mediation  work  is  so  rigidly 
separated  from  its  other  work  that  it  can  not  even  be  suspected  of 
using  the  coercive  power  of  Government  to  favor  either  side.  The 
mediator  and  his  staff  are  to  be  strictly  confidential  advisors  to  the 
opposing  interests,  without  the  power  of  Government,  or  even  the 
threat  of  using  that  power,  to  coerce  either  side  of  a  collective  dis- 
pute. If  coercion  is  used  in  the  form  of  "  compulsory  testimony  "  it 
is  only  with  the  previous  voluntary  consent  of  both  sides. 

The  reasons  for  reaching  this  conclusion,  and  for  recommending 
that  in  other  branches  of  its  work  the  proposed  commission  shall 
have  the  ordinary  coercive  powers  of  Government,  are  based  on  the 
fundamental  distinction  between  collective  bargaining  and  the  in- 
dividual labor  contract.  The  principle  in  general  is,  that  Govern- 
ment should  not  employ  its  coercive  powers  to  regulate  collective  bar- 
gaining, but  should,  in  certain  matters,  employ  the  force  of  law  and 
administration  to  regulate  the  individual  labor  contract.  It  does  the 
latter  through  laws  on  child  labor,  hours  of  labor,  safety  and  health, 
workmen's  compensation,  sickness  insurance,  minimum  wage,  and 
so  on. 

Collective  bargaining,  in  its  last  analysis,  is  based  upon  the  coer- 
cive power  of  antagonistic  classes  organized  for  aggression  and  de- 
fense. The  bargaining  power  of  either  side  is  the  power  to  use 
the  strike  against  the  lockout,  the  boycott  against  the  blacklist,  the 
picket  against  the  strikebreaker,  the  closed  union  shop  against  the 
closed  nonunion  shop,  and  so  on.  These  are  essential  weapons,  and  no 
plausible  verbiage  or  double  meaning  of  words  should  blind  us  to  the 
fact  that  these  weapons  are  coercive,  and  are  intended  to  be  coercive, 
and,  in  the  last  analysis,  will  be  used,  secretly  or  openly,  as  coercive, 
by  either  side.  Their  object  is  similar  to  legislation  regulating  the 
individual  labor  contract  except  that  they  regulate  it  through  joint 
agreement  backed  by  their  coercive  weapons,  instead  of  fines  and 
imprisonment. 

The  question  then  is,  Shall  the  coercive  power  of  Government  be 
used  to  deprive  one  side  or  the  other,  or  both  sides,  of  any  or  all  of 
their  coercive  weapons  designed  to  control  the  individual  labor  con- 
tract? 

The  most  extreme  use  of  this  power  is  known  as  compulsory  arbi- 
tration. Here  the  Government  attempts  to  deprive  both  sides  of  all 
coercive  weapons  by  completely  prohibiting  strikes,  lockouts,  boy- 
cotts, blacklists,  picketing,  and  strikebreaking,  and  by  preventing 
either  side  from  using  its  methods  of  strategy  designed  to  overcome 
the  other  side. 


208  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   OX   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

But  the  Government  may  use  its  coercive  power  to  deprive  either 
side  of  only  a  part  of  its  weapons  or  strategies.  Arbitration,  or  a 
joint  agreement,  consists  of  several  steps,  and  at  each  step  each  side 
either  employs  its  weapons  or  else  resorts  to  strategy  in  order  to 
play  for  position  and  to  gain  an  advantage  when  it  comes  to  using 
the  weapons. 

The  first  step  in  strategy  of  collective  bargaining  is  recognition  of 
the  union ;  that  is,  recognition  by  the  employer  of  the  representatives 
of  the  union  by  consenting  to  confer  with  them.  How  important  this 
preliminary  step  is  considered  by  both  sides  is  shown  by  the  mean- 
ing which  they  give  to  the  term  "  recognition."  To  "  recognize  a 
union  "  is  considered  to  be  not  to  merely  hold  a  conference  with  its 
agents,  but  also  to  investigate  grievances  and  demands,  to  negotiate 
concerning  the  terms  of  a  collective  agreement,  and  even  to  employ 
union  men  on  terms  consented  to  by  the  union.  Strictly  speaking, 
these  are  not  "  recognition,"  but  are  steps  in  collective  bargaining 
that  follow  recognition.  Recognition  in  the  ordinary  use  of  the  term 
(the  one  here  usecl)  would  be  merely  a  conference  in  which  the  em- 
ployer meets  certain  individuals,  not  as  individuals  but  as  recognized 
agents  of  the  union  authorized  to  speak  on  behalf  of  his  employees. 
But  it  is  so  well  understood  that  recognition,  even  in  this  limited 
sense,  will  be  followed  by  other  steps,  that  the  decisive  battle  is  often 
fought  out  at  this  point.  The  employer  knows  that,  if  he  meets  the 
leaders,  the  union  has  gained  an  advantage.  He  has  acknowledged 
to  all  nonunionists  and  timid  unionists  in  his  shop  that  the  union 
is  something  he  can  not  ignore,  and  this  is  a  flag  of  truce  and  a  con- 
cession for  his  employees  to  join  the  union  or  come  out  openly  on 
its  side.  By  just  so  much  he  has  weakened  his  bargaining  power 
against  the  union.  Consequently,  if  he  has  decided  not  to  have  a 
certain  union  in  his  shop  he  must  refuse  at  the  very  beginning  to 
confer  with  its  agents. 

If,  then,  the  Government  steps  in  and  compels  both  sides  to  confer, 
it  may  take  the  first  step  in  the  name  of  "  compulsory  investigation  " 
or  "compulsory  testimony,"  without  power  to  prevent  a  strike  or 
lockout.  If  the  Government  is  given  power  to  step  in  and  compel 
the  employer  and  employee  to  testify,  to  produce  papers  and  records, 
it  is  attempting  to  substitute  compulsion  for  voluntary  consent  at 
two  important  steps  of  collective  bargaining.  It  introduces  com- 
pulsory recognition  and  compulsory  negotiation1  under  the  guise  of 
"  compulsory  testimony."  The  mere  compulsion  on  employers, 
through  prosecutions,  as  proposed  by  our  colleagues,  to  compel  em- 
ployers to  confer  with  unions,  can  have  no  result,  unless  it  be  accom- 
panied by  compulsion  to  investigate,  as  in  the  Canadian  and  Colo- 
rado acts,  or  to  arbitrate,  as  in  Australia.  If  employers  are  com- 
pelled merely  to  confer  they  can,  of  course,  reject  all  propositions, 
and  the  nominal  recognition  of  the  union  thereby  secured  would  only 
be  a  further  opportunity  for  declaring  their  determination  not  to 

1  Those  forms  may  appear  ridiculous,  but  thoy  nro  not  more  ridiculous  than  tho  torm 
"compulsory  arbitration."  Arbitration,  strictly  speaking,  is  the  voluntary  consont  of 
both  parties  to  refer  a  dispute  to  a  third  person  and  to  accept  and  carry  out  his  decision. 
It  is  no  longer  "  arbitration  "  if  the  Government  coerces  the  parties  by  constituting  itself 
the  third  party  and  compelling  them  to  accept  and  carry  out  the  decision.  But  if,  in  com- 
mon xisaKo,  we  have  ajrn'od  to  forgot  the  absurdity  of  compulsory  arbitration,  we  can  also 
forget  the  same  absurdity  in  the  terms  "  compulsory  recognition'"  and  "  compulsory  nego- 
tiation." 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  209 


recognize  the  union.  If  such  a  law  is  intended  to  accomplish  any- 
thing it  should  go  further  and  compel  the  employers  to  submit  to 
compulsory  investigation  or  compulsory  arbitration,  and  this  would 
mean  compulsion  also  on  the  unions  to  confer  and  testify  or  to  arbi- 
trate. 

In  our  hearings  in  San  Francisco  we  found  unions  that  refused  to 
meet  the  employers  for  a  joint  agreement,  but  required  them  to  sign 
up  individually  the  demands  which  the  unions  had  already  decided 
upon.  This  can  not  properly  be  called  collective  bargaining  or  rec- 
ognition of  an  employers'  association  any  more  than  the  decision  of 
employers  not  to  deal  collectively  but  to  deal  with  their  employees 
individually.  A  law  requiring  employers  to  confer  with  and  recog- 
nize unions  should  also  require  unions  to  confer  with  and  recognize 
employers,  and  if  this  is  made  effective  it  would  result  in  something 
like  the  Canadian  or  Colorado  acts^  described  below.  Employers 
who  are  strongly  fortified  against  unions  object  to  compulsory  testi- 
mony because  it  weakens  their  bargaining  power,  but  employers 
dealing  with  strong  unions  desire  it  because  by  recognizing  the  union 
they  have  already  consented  to  investigation.  Their  next  step  is  to 
compel  the  unions  to  wait  for  the  investigation  before  striking. 

This  next  step  in  collective  bargaining  is  usually  a  provision  that 
both  sides  shall  continue  at  work  or  return  to  work  while  investiga- 
tion and  determination  is  in  progress.  This  is,  of  course,  the  great 
object  of  arbitration,  and  practically  all  voluntary  methods  provide 
that  work  shall  continue  while  arbitration  is  going  on.  This  provi- 
sion is  recognized  in  the  Canadian  industrial  disputes  investigation 
act,  latterly  adopted  by  New  Zealand  and  Colorado.  The  Govern- 
ment prohibits  either  side  from  a  strike  or  lockout  for  30  days, 
pending  compulsory  testimony  and  recommendation,  but  the  parties 
are  not  compelled  to  accept  the  recommendation.  After  the  30  days 
have  expired  they  may  start  their  strike  or  lockout  without  any 
legal  penalty.  The  Government  meanwhile  invites  each  side  to 
appoint  its  representatives  on  a  board  of  investigation  and  media- 
tion and  the  two  to  select  a  third  member.  If  either  side  refuses  to 
appoint  its  representative  the  Government  steps  in  and  names  the 
representative.  If  both  sides  are  unable  to  agree  on  the  third  mem- 
ber the  Government  again  steps  in  and  names  the  third  member.  In 
other  words,  the  Government  coerces  each  side  to  go  through  the 
same  forms  that  they  would  do  if  they  agreed  voluntarily  to  refer  a 
dispute  to  arbitration,  and  it  prohibits  them  from  strike  or  lockout 
pending  a  finding  and  recommendation.  This  is  compulsory  recog- 
nition, compulsory  negotiation,  compulsory  testimony,  and  compul- 
sory labor  pending  investigation,  but  without  compulsion  after  inves- 
tigation. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  weak  union  favors  compulsory  conference 
and  recognition  because  it  seems  to  give  it  an  advantage  in  bargain- 
ing. Both  strong  and  weak  unions  are  opposed  to  compulsory  testi- 
mony because  they  get  the  equivalent  by  recognition,  and  they  fear 
that  it  will  lead  to  the  compulsory  waiting  of  the  Canadian  act.  For 
these  reasons  the  Canadian  system  should  be  put  in  the  same  class 
as  compulsory  arbitration,  since  the  Government  interferes  to  weaken 
or  strengthen  the  collective  bargaining  power  of  either  side.  This 

38819°— 1C 14 


210  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION    OX   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

is  the  essential  point  of  Government  intervention.  The  term  "  arbi- 
tration" is  misleading  because  it  signifies  the  voluntary  agreement 
on  an  umpire  and  the  voluntary  acceptance  of  his  award.  But  arbi- 
tration can  not  be  voluntary  When  the  Government  throws  its  coer- 
cive power  to  one  side  or  the  other  by  appointing  a  representative 
of  either  side,  or  an  umpire,  on  the  arbitration  board  without  the 
consent  of  both  sides.  This  is  coercive  interference  with  collective 
bargaining  power,  which  is  the  essential  element  in  compulsory  arbi- 
tration. 

For  this  reason  it  can  not  be  claimed  that  the  Canadian  system  is 
"  voluntary  arbitration."  This  term  is  also  misleading.  Collective 
bargaining  is  not  voluntary  in  the  same  sense  that  individual  bar- 
gaining is  voluntary,  since  it  depends  on  certain  coercive  weapons 
such  as  strikes,  boycotts,  blacklists,  and  so  on,  together  with  strategy 
in  using  these  weapons,  and  these  are  not  instruments  in  individual 
bargaining.  All  that  is  meant  by  voluntary  arbitration  is  that  the 
Government  does  not  use  its  coercive  power  to  weaken  or  strengthen 
the  collective  coercion  of  either  side. 

The  first  object  of  the  Canadian  law  is  the  commendable  one  of 
bringing  both  parties  together  for  investigation  of  the  demands  and 
grievances,  with  the  hope  that,  by  delaying  hostilities  for  30  days, 
time  will  be  given  for  mediation,  conciliation,  and  a  voluntary  agree- 
ment. For  this  reason  the  boards  created  are  properly  called  boards 
of  "mediation  and  investigation."  It  often  occurs  that  within  the 
30  days  both  sides  reorh  such  a  voluntary  agreement  and,  if  so,  the 
board  is  dissolved  after  approving  the  agreement. 

The  second  object  is,  in  case  a  voluntary  agreement  is  not  reached 
by  this  kind  of  mediation  within  30  days,  that  the  publication  of  a 
set  of  recommendations  by  the  board  will  bring  to  bear  the  pressure 
of  public  opinion  on  both  sides  so  that  they  will  feel  obliged  to  accept 
the  recommendations  and  continue  at  work.  Compulsory  recogni- 
tion, negotiation,  and  testimony  are  used  as  the  means  of  coercion 
through  the  support  that  public  opinion  may  give  to  the  Government. 

But  mere  public  opinion  is  not  enough  to  accomplish  this  object. 
The  next  step  is  the  compulsory  arbitration  of  Australasia,  which 
brings  the  power  of  fine  and  imprisonment  to  enforce  an  award  made 
by  a  public  official. 

It  is  believed  that  any  of  these  compulsory  methods  are  unsuited 
to  American  conditions,  and  that  the  foregoing  recommendation  for 
a  voluntary  board  of  investigation,  adapted  from  the  Canadian  act 
but  without  its  compulsory  features,  will  prove  a  valuable  addition 
to  the  present  Newlands  Act,  which  goes  only  as  far  as  voluntary 
arbitration  in  interstate  railroad  disputes.  If  one  party  or  the  other 
refuses  to  accept  a  board  of  arbitration  with  power  to  make  a  bind- 
ing award,  it  is  proposed  that  the  mediator  shall  invite  both  to  create 
a  board  of  investigation  with  power  to  take  testimony  and  to  make 
recommendations  which  are  not  binding  as  an  award.  The  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Newlaads  Act  is  proposed  to  be  extended  tinder  the 
Federal  Commission  to  all  labor  disputes  in  all  industries  engaged 
in  interstate  commerce.  It  is  believed  that  in  many  cases  of  serious 
public  concern  neither  side  can  afford  to  reject  an  offer  on  the  part 
of  the  Government  to  use  its  powers  of  compulsory  testimony  to 
ascertain  the  facts  and  to  make  recommendations,  provided  the 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  211 

parties  retain  their  liberty  to  reject  the  recommendations.  The  value 
of  this  proposal  consists  in  the  probability  that  a  thorough  investi- 
gation, participated  in  by  both  sides,  may  lead  to  agreement,  as  it 
has  often  under  the  Canadian  act.  But  this  should  be  brought  about 
by  consent  of  both  parties  and  not  by  compulsory  representation  of 
either  side,  nor  compulsory  postponement  of  hostilities,  as  provided 
in  the  Canadian  act. 

The  intent  of  the  foregoing  recommendation  is  that  the  mediator 
shall  use  all  of  the  powers  of  persuasion  that  he  can  summon  but  is 
not  to  use,  nor  to  be  in  a  position  to  threaten  or  even  to  suggest  the 
use  of,  any  powers  of  coercion.  Even  compulsory  testimony  is  to 
be  used  only  in  case  he  can  persuade  both  parties  to  consent  to  its  use. 
The  mediator  is  not  even  permitted  to  make  public  any  information 
he  may  acquire  regarding  a  dispute,  or  to  give  that  information  to 
the  Industrial  Commission  or  to  any  other  public  authority  that  has 
the  power  of  governmental  coercion.  Mediation  and  arbitration  are 
to  be  voluntary  throughout,  as  far  as  government  is  concerned. 

The  case  is  different  with  individual  bargaining.  Here  it  is  recog- 
nized that  the  individual  worker  is  at  a  disadvantage  with  the  em- 
ployer. In  fact,  he  usually  makes  no  bargain  at  all.  He  merely 
accepts  or  rejects  the  terms  offered  by  the  employer.  Where  this  is 
so,  and  there  is  a  public  interest  to  be  gained,  Congress  or  the  legisla- 
tures and  the  industrial  commissions  should  exercise  adequate  com- 
pulsory powers  to  equalize  and  protect  the  bargaining  power  of  indi- 
vidual employees. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  the  labor  con- 
tract is  an  individual  contract — a  contract  between  an  individual 
workman  and  an  individual  employer.  Even  if  the  employer  is  a 
corporation  of  thousands  of  stockholders  and  bondholders,  they  are 
treated  as  a  single  individual  for  the  purposes  of  a  contract.  But 
the  law  does  not  usually  recognize  a  collective  or  joint  agreement 
between  a  union  and  an  employer  or  employers'  association  as  a  con- 
tract. The  courts  will  not  usually  enforce  it  as  they  enforce  indi- 
vidual contracts.  Such  a  contract,  so  called,  will  not  bind  anybody 
by  the  force  of  law.  A  contract  with  a  trade-union  is  not  a  contract 
in  law;  it  is  merely  an  understanding,  or  a  usage,  or  a  joint  agree- 
ment that,  when  the  real  labor  contract  is  made  between  individual 
employer  and  employee,  it  will  be  made  according  to  the  terms  of 
the  joint  agreement.  If  an  individual  employer  breaks  the  agree- 
ment by  hiring  a  workman  on  different  terms,  the  only  means  that 
the  union  has  of  enforcing  the  agreement  is  that  of  a  strike.  It  is 
not  a  breach  of  contract.  The  union  can  not  usually  get  an  injunc- 
tion or  damages  in  court  on  account  of  the  violation.  In  the  same 
way  the  employer's  only  practicable  remedy  is  the  lockout.  He 
probably  can  not  bring  a  suit  for  damages,  because  the  union  agree- 
ment was  not  a  contract.  The  legislature  might,  of  course,  change 
the  law  and  provide  for  the  legal  enforcement  of  the  collective  bar- 
gain. This  would  be  compulsory  arbitration.  But  as  it  now  stands 
a  joint  trade  agreement  is  a  kind  of  usage  or  understanding  agreed  to 
by  two  opposing  interests  and  generally  enforced  on  individuals  by 
the  coercive  weapons  of  strike,  lockout,  boycott,  or  blacklist.  It 
differs  from  a  statute  in  the  fact  that  its  enforcement  is  left  to  pri- 
vate organizations  or  individuals  while  the  enforcement  of  a  statute 


212  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   OX   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

or  order  of  a  commission  is  effected  by  the  penalties  of  imprisonment, 
fines,  or  damages.  A  minimum  wage  law,  for  example,  may  differ  in 
no  respect  from  a  joint  agreement  with  a  union,  except  that  the  one 
is  enforced  by  legal  penalties  or  the  threat  of  penalties,  and  the  other 
by  a  strike  or  the  threat  of  a  strike. 

The  practical  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  this  distinction  is  that, 
since  a  State  industrial  commission  may  be  both  a  mediator  and  a 
minimum  wage  commission,  it  should  act  only  as  a  voluntary  medi- 
ator where  a  union  is  actually  in  operation  and  securing  agreements. 
But  where  there  is  no  effective  union  there  the  minimum  wage  should 
apply.  This  is  the  condition  of  women  and  child  workers,  and  for 
them  the  State,  but  not  the  Federal  commission,  should  create  ad- 
visory minimum  wage  boards,  which,  acting  with  the  women  inspec- 
tors of  the  commission,  should  make  investigation  and  recommend 
the  minimum  wage  and  other  conditions  to  the  industrial  commis- 
sion. The  last  named  would  then  hold  public  hearings  and  the  rules 
of  law  would  apply  as  already  outlined  in  preceding  paragraphs. 

The  same  principle  applies  to  other  labor  legislation  which  regu- 
lates the  individual  labor  contract,  such  as  child  labor  laws,  work- 
men's compensation,  safety,  health,  employment  offices,  legal  aid, 
mechanics'  liens,  and  so  on.  These  are  matters  which  are  not  usually 
an  issue  in  collective  bargaining  even  of  unions  composed  of  men, 
and  do  not  usually  lead  to  strikes  or  lockouts.  Neither  is  the  indi- 
vidual workman,  in  making  his  contract  of  employment,  able  to 
protect  himself  in  these  matters.  When  government  here  comes  to 
the  aid  of  the  weaker  party  to  the  wage  bargain,  it  is  not  usually  inter- 
vening in  the  field  of  collective  bargaining.  The  situation  is  different 
in  matters  of  wages,  hours  of  labor,  and  shop  rules  which  govern  the 
manner  of  work,  dismissals,  promotions,  and  so  on.  Where  unions 
show  themselves  strong  enough  to  protect  individuals  in  these  matters 
the  function  of  government  should,  as  far  as  possible,  be  limited  to 
voluntary  mediation. 

It  doubtless  has  appealed  to  some  people  who  consider  the  em- 
ployer's position  more  powerful  than  that  of  the  union,  that  the 
employer  should  be  compelled  in  some  way  to  deal  with  unions,  or  at 
least  to  confer  with  their  representatives.  But,  if  the  State  recog- 
nizes any  particular  union  by  requiring  the  employer  to  recognize  it, 
the  State  must  necessarily  guarantee  the  union  to  the  extent  that  it 
must  strip  it  of  any  abuses  that  it  may  practice.  The  State  might 
be  compelled  to  regulate  its  initiation  fees  and  dues,  its  apprentice- 
ship ratio,  its  violation  of  agreements,  and  all  of  the  other  abuses  on 
account  of  which  the  employer  refuses  to  deal  with  it.  This  is  exactly 
what  is  done  through  compulsory  arbitration,  and  there  is  no  place 
where  the  State  can  stop  if  it  brings  compulsion  to  bear  on  the  em- 
ployers without  also  regulating  by  compulsion  the  unions.  If  so, 
the  whole  question  is  transferred  to  politics,  and  the  unions  which 
attempt  to  use  a  friendly  party  to  regulate  the  employer  may  find  a 
hostile  party  regulating  them.  We  believe  that  collective  bargaining 
and  joint  agreements  are  preferable  to  individual  bargaining,  and 
we  believe  that  the  general  public  should  support  the  unions  in  their 
efforts  to  secure  collective  agreements.  But  this  can  only  be  done 
through  the  influence  of  public  opinion  without  the  force  of  law. 
It  is  based  on  the  conclusion  that  twro  opposing  organizations,  equally 
strong,  are  able  to  drive  out  abuses  practiced  by  the  other.  This  is 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  213 

very  different  from  recommending  that  the  Government  should  step 
in  and  drive  out  the  abuses. 

This  conclusion  and  recommendation  in  favor  of  voluntary  media- 
tion is  based  also,  in  part,  as  already  stated,  on  the  distinction 
between  collective  bargaining  and  the  individual  labor  contract. 
While  Government  for  the  past  80  years  has  been  wisely  interfering 
more  and  more  with  the  individual  labor  contract,  through  child 
labor  laws,  wage  payment  laws,  mechanics'  liens,  workmen's  compen- 
sation, and  so  on,  for  the  benefit  of  the  weaker  party,  yet  in  matters 
of  governmental  interference  with  collective  bargaining,  we  have  to 
deal  with  great  organized,  hostile  interests  that  are  capable  of  using 
their  power  in  the  politics  of  the  country,  in  the  administration  of 
labor  laws,  and  even  in  the  courts  of  justice.  Any  interference  with 
their  collective  bargaining  power  forces  them  to  get  control,  if  possi- 
ble, of  the  political  parties  or  the  executive  and  administrative 
officials,  or  the  courts,  that  interfere.  The  result  is  more  far-reaching 
and  destructive  than  the  mere  decision  one  wTay  or  another  in  a 
particular  dispute.  It  tends  to  corrupt  or  to  discredit  or  to  make 
inefficient  the  Government  itself.  This  country  is  so  large,  with  such 
extremes  of  sectional  interests,  with  industrial  and  class  interests, 
with  nationality  and  race  interests,  and  with  such  extremes  of  wages 
and  costs  of  living,  that  it  is  an  easy  matter  for  these  powerful  organ- 
ized interests  to  make  alliances  with  others  for  the  appointment  or 
control  of  officials.  When  this  is  done,  neither  side  can  have  confi- 
dence in  the  mediators  or  arbitrators  who  are  chosen  without  their 
consent.  A  system,  even  though  compulsory  only  in  part,  is  likely  to 
break  down  after  a  few  decisions  which  are  resented  by  either  side. 
The  department  or  commission  responsible  for  the  decision  loses 
confidence  and  therefore  usefulness.  For  this  reason  the  weakest  part 
of  our  recommendation  is  that  the  mediator  shall  appoint  the  third 
party  to  a  voluntary  board  of  arbitration  or  a  voluntay  board  of 
investigation  in  case  the  two  parties  can  not  agree.  It  seems  neces- 
sary that  some  authority  be  given  that  power.  But  the  mediator  is 
likely  to  lose  the  confidence  of  the  side  that  loses  in  an  arbitration, 
since  he  will  be  held  responsible  for  the  arbitrator  whom  he  ap- 
pointed. This  might  incapacitate  him  for  future  mediation.  But  we 
can  think  of  no  other  agency  that  would  be  acceptable  to  both  sides. 
If  the  ma}7or,  or  the  governor  or  the  President  appoints  the  third 
man,  employers  would  object.  If  the  courts  were  to  appoint  him  the 
unions  would  object.  We  are  forced  to  recommend  that  this  authority 
be  given  to  the  mediator,  but  we  propose  that  he  should  not  be  tied 
down  to  any  procedure  that  would  prevent  him  from  devising  any 
system  that  his  ingenuity  might  suggest  rather  than  fall  back  on  his 
precarious  power  of  appointing  the  odd  man. 

After  considering  all  forms  of  governmental  compulsion  in  col- 
lective disputes  and  even  admitting  their  partial  success  in  other 
countries,  wre  conclude  that,  on  the  whole,  in  this  country  as  much  can 
be  accomplished  in  the  long  run  by  strictly  voluntary  methods  as  by 
compulsory  methods  of  avoiding  strikes  and  lockouts.  It  can  not  be 
expected  that  strikes  and  lockouts  can  be  abolished  altogether.  Even 
countries  with  compulsory  systems  have  not  succeeded  in  preventing 
all  of  them.  In  our  country,  the  voluntary  method  in  collective  bar- 
gaining avoids  the  much  more  serious  evil  of  discrediting  the  agencies 
of  Government  which  must  be  looked  to  for  impartial  enforcement  of 


214  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

laws  affecting  the  individual  labor  contract.  It  is  to  the  enactment 
and  enforcement  of  laws  protecting  laborers  as  individuals  that  we 
must  look  for  the  removal  of  underlying  causes  of  industrial  unrest 
and  for  the  eventual  reduction  of  strikes  that  now  spring  from  the 
cumulative  abuses  that  individuals  suffer  without  other  effective 
remedies.  But  the  removal  of  these  abuses  can  not  be  accomplished 
without  the  efficient  and  nonpartisan  administration  of  laws,  and  this 
is  the  main  purport  of  our  recommendation  for  industrial  commis- 
sions to  regulate  the  individual  labor  contract. 

TRADE  DISPUTES. 

15.  Congress  and  the  State  legislatures  to  enact  laws  similar  to  the 
British  trades  disputes  act  of  1906,  relieving  employers'  associations 
and  labor  unions,  as  well  as  their  members,  officers,  or  agents,  when 
acting  in  their  behalf,  of  criminal  suits,  damage  suits,  and  injunctions 
on  account  solely  of  combination  or  conspiracy  connected  with  a  labor 
dispute,  when  the  act  would  be  lawful  if  clone  by  one  person.  Such 
laws  would  permit  the  use  by  either  side  without  legal  penalty  of 
its  weapons  of  closed  union  shop  and  closed  nonunion  shop,  of  strike 
and  lockout,  boycott  and  blacklist,  peaceful  picketing  and  strike- 
breaking, peaceful  inducement  to  break  a  contract  to  work  or  to  break 
off  allegiance  with  a  union,  in  pursuance  of  an  effort  to  win  a  labor 
dispute.  The  law  would  not  prevent  prosecutions  for  conspiracy 
where  the  act  if  done  by  one  person  would  be  a  crime.  We  copy 
below  sections  of  the  British  trades  disputes  act  as  indicating  the 
kind  of  legislation  which  with  modifications  to  suit  American  laws 
would  probably  reach  these  objects: 

Conspiracy. — An  agreement  or  combination  by  two  or  more  persons  to  do  or 
procure  to  be  done  any  act  in  contemplation  or  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute 
between  employers  and  workmen  shall  not  be  indictable  as  a  conspiracy  if  such 
an  act  committed  by  one  person  would  not  be  punishable  as  a  crime.  *  * 
An  act  done  in  pursuance  of  an  agreement  or  combination  by  two  or  more  per- 
sons shall,  if  done  in  contemplation  or  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute,  not  be 
actionable  unless  the  act,  if  done  without  any  such  agreement  or  combination, 
would  be  actionable. 

Damages. — An  action  against  a  trade-union,  whether  of  workmen  or  masters, 
or  against  any  members  or  officials  thereof  on  behalf  of  themselves  and  all  other 
members  of  the  trade-union,  in  respect  of  any  tortious  act  alleged  to  have  been 
nmii'.iitUMl  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  trade-union,  shall  not  be  entertained  by  any 
court. 

lir<nt-ii  of  contract  and  interference  with  business. — An  act  done  by  a  person 
in  contemplation  or  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute  shall  not  be  actionable  on  the 
ground  only  that  it  induces  some  other  person  to  break  a  contract  of  employ- 
ment, or  that  it  is  an  interference  with  the  trade,  business,  or  employment  of 
some  other  person  or  with  the  right  of  some  other  person  to  dispose  of  his 
capital  or  his  labor  as  he  wills. 

Picketing  and  sabotage. — It  shall  be  lawful  for  one  or  more  persons,  acting 
either  on  their  own  behalf  or  on  behalf  of  a  trade-union  or  of  an  individual 
employer  or  firm  in  contemplation  or  furtherance  of  a  trade  dispute,  to  attend 
at  or  near  a  house  or  place  where  a  person  resides  or  works  or  carries  on  busi- 
noss  or  happens  to  be,  if  they  so  attend  merely  for  the  purpose  of  peacefully 
obtaining  or  communicating  information  or  of  peacefully  persuading  any  person 
to  work  or  nlistain  from  working. 

Every  person  who,  with  a  view  to  compel  any  other  person  to  abstain  from 
doing  or  to  do  any  act  which  such  other  person  has  a  legal  right  to  do  or  abstain 
from  doing,  wrongfully  and  without  legal  authority — 

1.  Uses  violence  to  or  intimidates  such  other  person  or  his  wife  or  children 
or  injures  his  property  ;  or, 

2.  Persistently  follows  such  other  person  about  from  place  to  place ;  or, 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   OX   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  215 

3.  Hides  any  tools,  clothes,  or  other  property  owned  or  used  by  the  other  per- 
son or  deprives  him  of  or  hinders  him  in  the  use  thereof ;  or, 

4.  Watches  or  besets  the  house  or  other  place  where  such  person  resides,  or 
works,  or  carries  on  business,  or  happens  to  be,  or  the  approach  to  such  house 
or  place;  or, 

5.  Follows  such  other  person  with  two  or  more  other  persons  in  a  disorderly 
manner  in  or  through  any  street  or  road, 

shall,  on  conviction  thereof  by  a  court  of  summary  jurisdiction,  or  an  indict- 
ment as  hereinafter  mentioned,  be  liable  either  to  pay  a  penalty  not  exceeding 
£20,  or  to  be  imprisoned  for  a  term  not  exceeding  three  months,  with  or  with- 
out hard  labor. 

It  is  apparent  from  all  the  preceding  recommendations  that  the 
creation  of  industrial  commissions  with  advisory  councils,  depends 
for  its  success  on  the  permanency  of  organizations  of  employers  and 
organizations  of  laborers.  It  is  only  as  we  have  organizations  that 
we  can  have  real  representation.  The  preceding  recommendations 
are  designed,  through  salaried  positions  for  civil  service  appointees 
and  unsalaried  positions  for  the  representatives  of  organizations, 
to  keep  the  latter  continuously  responsible  to  the  organizations  that 
elect  and  recall  them.  For  this  reason  any  policy  of  Government 
that  tends  to  destroy  the  organizations  or  to  compel  them  to  hide 
their  operations  in  secrecy  tends  to  weaken  the  basis  upon  which  im- 
provement in  the  enactment  and  administration  of  labor  law  must 
be  based.  Such  a  policy  is  that  which  permits  employers  to  collect 
damages,  and  in  a  lesser  degree  to  secure  injunctions  against  unions 
without  at  the  same  time  effectually  permitting  unions  to  bring 
similar  proceedings  against  employers'  associations.  The  decision 
in  the  case  of  the  hatters'  union  (208  U.  S.,  274)  awarding  heavy 
damages  for  boycotting  against  practically  all  members  of  the  local 
union,  will  make  it  possible  to  collect  damages  in  all  cases  where  an 
unlawful  conspiracy  is  shown.  Since  damages  arise  from  all  strikes 
and  boycotts,  there  is  no  conceivable  limit  to  which  suits  for  dam- 
ages can  be  brought.  The  result  must  be  the  weakening  or  destruc- 
tion of  unions  or  driving  them  into  secrecy  and  a  more  generally 
avowed  policy  of  violence. 

This  policy  also  brings  the  courts  into  the  field  of  collective  bar- 
gaining, and  necessarily  leads,  sooner  or  later,  to  the  efforts  of  both 
sides  to  control  the  judicial  as  well  as  the  administrative  and  legis- 
lative branches  of  Government.  Just  as  our  earlier  recommenda- 
tions were  intended,  in  part,  to  take  the  administration  of  labor  law 
out  of  the  hands  of  either  side  and  to  make  it  a  joint  affair,  so  this 
recommendation  is  intended,  in  part,  to  relieve  the  courts  of  similar 
partisanship  in  matters  of  collective  bargaining.  It  is  believed  that 
strong  organizations  of  employers  and  employees  are  much  more 
capable  than  the  courts  of  holding  each  other  in  check  and  prevent- 
ing abuses  on  either  side.  The  recommendation  is  intended  to 
recognize  the  collective  weapons  of  both  sides  as  the  means  of  secur- 
ing this  result,  and  yet,  through  the  Industrial  Commission  and  its 
advisory  council,  including  mediators  and  the  efficient  enforcement 
of  labor  laws,  to  minimize  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  these  weapons. 

The  so-called  Clayton  Act  of  1913  was  supposed  by  some  lawyers 
to  accomplish  the  result  intended  in  the  foregoing  recommendation, 
but  other  lawyers  contend  that  the  law  of  conspiracy  has  not  been 
changed  by  the  act.  At  any  rate,  the  law  does  not  apply  to  the 
States,  only  one  of  which,  California,  has  adopted  a  similar  law,  and 


216  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

another,  Massachusetts,  has  withheld  adoption  owing  to  an  unfavor- 
able reply  by  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  question  propounded  by  the 
legislature.  It  is  admitted  that  the  British  act  accomplishes  the 
intended  purpose,  and  consequently  we  take  it  as  the  model  in  case 
these  other  acts  are  found,  under  court  decisions,  not  to  do  so. 

The  recommendation  is,  as  already  said,  intended  to  prevent  the 
courts  from  interfering  with  the  collective  weapons,  provided  they 
are  peaceful,  that  either  side  uses  to  defeat  the  other  side.  It  is  rec- 
ognized, of  course,  that  these  weapons  are  coercive  and  are  intended 
to  be  coercive,  but  they  are  not  coercive  in  the  sense  of  physical 
violence.  They  are  coercive  only  in  the  sense  that  numbers  of  people 
acting  together  to  do  an  act  lawful  for  each  separately  have  more 
power  over  individuals  than  a  single  individual  acting  by  himself 
would  ordinarily  have.  But  even  an  individual  acting  alone  may 
have  the  same  kind  of  coercive  power,  which  in  his  case  would  be 
lawful,  as,  for  example,  when  an  employer  compels  a  union  man  to 
give  up  his  membership  in  a  union  by  threatening  to  discharge  him 
if  he  does  not.  This  kind  of  individual  coercion  is  held  to  be  entirely 
lawful,  and  any  State  or  Federal  statute  which  prevents  the  em- 
ployer from  using  such  coercion  is  unconstitutional.  This  is  so  even 
if  the  employer  is  a  corporation  with  thousands  of  stockholders  and 
bondholders,  for  the  corporation  is  held  to  be,  for  that  purpose,  not 
a  conspiracy,  but  a  single  person.  By  declaring  laws  unconstitu- 
tional which  attempt  to  deprive  the  employer  or  corporation  of  the 
right  to  discharge  a  man  on  account  of  his  unionism,  the  court  steps 
in  to  prohibit  the  State  from  depriving  the  employer  of  a  coercive 
weapon  used  to  defeat  the  union.  It  prohibits  a  State  from  depriv- 
ing an  employer  of  the  closed  nonunion  shop  as  a  coercive  weapon 
against  unions. 

A  counterweapon  which  the  union  has  is  the  closed  union  shop. 
If  the  employer  discharges  or  threatens  to  discharge  one  of  his 
employees  on  account  of  his  membership  in  a  union,  the  only  effective 
weapon  that  the  employee  may  have,  in  order  to  retain  his  member- 
ship, may  be  a  strike  or  the  threat  of  a  strike  by  his  union  to  compel 
the  employer  to  discharge  all  nonunion  men.  In  some  States  a  strike 
for  such  a  purpose,  under  the  decisions  of  the  courts,  is  unlawful, 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  a  conspiracy  to  compel  the  employer  to  give 
up  his  right  to  employ  whom  he  pleases,  or  a  conspiracy  to  deprive 
the  nonunion  man  of  his  right  to  work  for  whom  he  pleases.  The 
foregoing  recommendation  is  intended  to  make  it  plain  that  no 
employer  or  union  of  employers  shall  be  prevented  by  law  or  by  a 
court  from  running  a  closed  nonunion  shop  if  he  can,  and  no  union 
shall  be  prevented  from  compelling  him  to  run  a  closed  union  shop 
if  it  can,  so  long  as  the  method  would  be  lawful  for  a  person  not 
backed  by  a  union. 

In  a  similar  way  it  is  lawful  for  an  employer  to  furnish  other 
employers,  whether  members  of  his  association  or  not,  with  informa- 
tion as  to  whether  an  employee  is  a  member  of  a  union  or  a  union 
agitator,  and  to  file  such  information  in  the  employment  bureau  of 
an  employers'  association.  If  the  workman  can  not  prevent  his  em- 
ployer by  law  from  discharging  him  on  account  of  unionism,  much 
less  can  he  require  another  employer  to  hire  him.  It  is  lawful  also 
for  an  employers'  association  to  expel  a  member  who  refuses  to  com- 
ply with  a  nonunion  rule,  and,  except  in  case  of  a  public  utility,  to 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  217 

refuse  to  deal  with  him  or  to  discriminate  against  him.  Further-' 
more,  since  other  employers'  rights  of  furnishing  information  to 
fellow  employers  are  so  great,  it  is  practically  impossible  to  get  proof 
that  they  contain  the  malicious  purpose  which  constitutes  a  blacklist, 
and  statutes  preventing  employers  from  using  some  of  these  legal 
rights  have  been  held  unconstitutional.  But,  as  a  rule,  the  employers' 
blacklist  does  not  need  to  go  to  these  extreme  measures  permitted  by 
law,  because  it  is  effective  short  of  these  measures. 

The  case  is  different  with  the  union's  weapon,  the  boycott.  To 
carry  out  a  boycott  the  union  must  circulate  "  unfair  lists  "  and  must 
induce  as  many  persons  as  possible  to  withdraw  their  patronage. 
The  courts  distinguish  between  the  primary  boycott  and  the  sec- 
ondary boycott.  The  former  is  perhaps  legal  in  some  cases,  just  as 
a  strike  is  legal,  for  it  is  merely  the  refusal  to  patronize  an  em- 
ployer on  the  part  of  the  same  persons,  or  their  fellow  unionists, 
who  have  struck  against  the  employer,  or  who  are  locked  out  or 
blacklisted  by  him  or  his  association.  It  is  doubtful,  though, 
whether  this  primary  boycott  is  legal  if  it  extends  to  members  of 
unions  other  than  the  one  directly  injured.  The  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  for  example,  can  not  carry  out  a  primary  boycott  on 
goods  which  the  hatters'  union  has  boycotted,  since  it  is  prohibited 
from  publishing  the  information.  And  even  the  strike  and  the 
primary  boycott  are  sometimes  unlawful  if  the  court  holds  that  the 
purpose  or  the  means  are  unlawful.  The  courts  will  not  directly 
enjoin  either  a  strike  or  a  primary  boycott.  They  can  not  compel  a 
man  to  work  or  to  purchase.  But  they  can  make  the  unlawful  strike 
or  primary  boycott  ineffective  by  enjoining  even  peaceful  picketing 
or  persuasion,  or  the  circulation  of  "  unfair  lists  "  designed  to  notify 
others  that  the  boycott  is  on. 

But  the  secondary  boycott  is  generally  held  illegal  because  it  is 
an  additional  boycott  placed  upon  a  third  party,  usually  a  merchant, 
who  continues  to  sell  the  goods  of  the  boycotted  employer.  As  to 
this  third  party  the  boycott  is  primary,  and  he  can  secure  an  injunc- 
tion or  damages  on  the  ground  of  conspiracy  to  injure  him  without 
just  cause,  or  to  compel  him  to  break  a  contract,  if  he  considers  the 
damage  to  himself  worth  while.  But  boycott  suits  are  not  often 
brought  by  third  parties,  either  because  the  damage  to  them  is 
usually  slight,  since  they  only  need  to  patronize  other  manufac- 
turers whose  goods  the  boycotters  are  willing  to  buy,  or  because  the 
courts  protect  them  through  suits  brought  by  the  party  originally 
boycotted.  The  employer  originally  boycotted  would  not  secure 
protection  if  he  depended  on  a  hundred  or  a  thousand  boycotted 
merchants  not  seriously  concerned  to  bring  separate  suits.  Con- 
sequently the  vast  majority  of  boycott  cases  are  brought  by  the  per- 
son primarily  boycotted,  in  order  to  prevent  the  spread  of  boycotts  to 
other  persons  who  deal  with  him;  in  other  words,  to  prevent  a  sec- 
ondary boycott  against  himself.  The  boycotted  employer  hides  be- 
hind the  alleged  injury  done  to  third  parties  in  order  to  get  damages, 
not  for  them,  but  for  himself,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Loewe  Co.  against 
the  hatters'  union.  The  ground  of  action  is  not  injury  to  third  par- 
ties, but  interference  with  the  employers'  right  to  have  free  and 
uninterrupted  business  dealings  with  all  who  wish  to  deal  with  him. 
This  does  not  seem  to  be  equal  treatment  of  the  employers'  blacklist 
which  interferes  with  the  unionists'  right  to  have  uninterrupted 


218  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   0!ST  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

access  to  all  employers,  and  the  employees'  boycott  which  interferes 
with  the  employers'  right  of  access  to  the  commodity  market. 

The  arguments  now  used  to  declare  the  secondary  boycott  illegal 
are  those  formerly  used  to  declare  the  strike  and  the  primary  boycott 
illegal.  Our  recommendation  simply  carries  forward  another  step 
the  effort  to  secure  equality  between  organized  capital  and  organized 
labor. 

Of  the  other  weapons,  the  strike  and  lockout,  the  employers'  asso- 
ciation does  not  usually  employ  its  weapon,  because  it  can  force  the 
union  to  strike  or  yield,  but  the  strike  is  illegal  if  the  purpose  is 
illegal,  such  as  the  purpose  in  some  States  of  securing  a  closed  union 
shop.  The  recommendation  is  intended  to  remove  all  illegality  from 
the  strike. 

This  recommendation  is  intended  to  do  away  with  the  doctrine  of 
conspiracy  for  both  employers'  associations  and  labor  unions,  except 
in  so  far  as  the  conspiracy  is  one  to  commit  what  would  be  a  crime 
for  one  person,  and  to  do  away  with  all  suits  for  damages,  including 
injunctions  to  prevent  damage,  against  a  union  or  against  its  mem- 
bers when  acting  for  the  union,  except  suits  for  damages  against 
conspirators  to  commit  a  crime. 

The  doctrine  of  conspiracy  is  based  on  the  undoubted  fact  that, 
while  a  lawful  act  done  by  only  one  person  may  be  coercive  and  cause 
damage,  or  be  intended  to  cause  damage,  yet  the  coercion  and  damage 
are  ordinarily  so  small,  compared  with  the  social  advantage  of  liberty 
to  do  as  one  pleases,  that,  except  in  breach  of  contract,  the  court  does 
not  entertain  a  suit  at  law  for  damages  or  for  prevention  of  the  coer- 
cion that  causes  damages.  Yet  the  same  lawful  act,  if  done  by  agree- 
ment between  two  or  more  persons,  may  reach  a  point  of  coercion 
where  the  damage,  compared  with  the  social  advantage  of  liberty  to 
combine  with  others,  is  so  serious  that  the  agreement  becomes  un- 
lawful. Therefore,  those  who  enter  into  an  agreement  to  do  an  act 
which  would  be  lawful  without  the  agreement,  or  their  agents,  may 
be  prosecuted  for  damages  or  may  be  prevented  by  injunction  from 
using  the  coercive  power  of  numbers  to  cause  the  damage.  It  is  this 
doctrine  of  conspiracy,  or  coercion  through  mere  numbers,  that  is 
sought  to  be  removed  by  the  recommendation.  Individuals  and  the 
individual  members  of  unions  who  conspire  with  them  would  con- 
tinue to  be  arrested,  prosecuted,  and  punished  as  individuals  or  con- 
spirators for  all  acts  which  are  criminal  for  them  as  individuals,  but 
no  suit  for  damages  could  be  brought  against  the  union  for  acts 
committed  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  union. 

In  other  words,  the  recommendation  removes  completely  the  doc- 
trine of  civil  conspiracy  according  to  which  damages  may  be  col- 
lected or  injunctions  issued.  It,  however,  retains  the  doctrine  that 
all  conspirators  who  join  in  procuring  an  act  that  is  criminal  for 
one  person  to  do  are  likewise  guilty  with  the  person  who  does  it. 
This  might  include  all  the  members  of  a  union  if  all  were  proven 
actuary  to  have  joined  in  such  a  conspiracy.  Those  who  conspired 
could  still  be  prosecuted  and  sent  to  prison,  as  was  done  in  the  case 
of  the  officers  and  members  of  the  structural  iron  workers  for  trans- 
porting dynamite.  The  recommendation  is  not  intended  to  change 
the  law  in  this  respect.  It  would  change  the  law  in  the  hatters'  case. 

Employers  are  already  learning  the  ineffectiveness  of  the  injunc- 
tion and  the  danger  to  themselves  of  throwing  on  the  courts  the 


burden 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  219 


burden  of  protection  which  they  can  as  readily  secure  through  their 
own  organizations.  With  their  advantages  of  position,  both  as 
owners  of  the  means  of  livelihood  and  the  possessors  of  the  power  of 
discharge  and  of  blacklist  of  union  members  which  goes  with  the 
ownership  of  property,  they  have  a  superior  power  over  unions. 
Our  recommendations  do  not  grant  employers'  associations  rights 
additional  to  those  which  they  now  enjoy  in  fact;  they  merely  grant 
the  unions  corresponding  rights. 

The  British  act  also  defines  the  kind  of  picketing  that  is  criminal 
in  that  it  is  not  peaceful,  and  thereby  defines  what  is  peaceful  picket- 
ing. In  these  cases  of  illegal  or  criminal  picketing  and  in  the  de- 
struction or  damage  to  physical  property  those  who  have  done  the 
criminal  acts  and  those  who  have  conspired  to  have  them  done  may 
be  fined  and  imprisoned,  but  the  union  funds  or  the  property  of  its 
members  not  proven  to  have  joined  in  the  criminal  conspiracy  could 
not  be  taken  for  damages. 

Without  entering  into  further  details,  the  object  of  the  recom- 
mendation is  to  place  unions  and  employers'  associations  upon  an 
equal  basis  in  the  use  of  their  competitive  weapons. 

Regarding  the  constitutionality  of  this  recommendation  it  should 
be  noted  that  it  takes  both  employers'  associations  and  unions  from 
under  the  operation  of  the  antitrust  laws.  This  differs  from  the 
Clayton  and  other  acts  which  take  only  unions  from  under  the  anti- 
trust laws  or  common  law  and  might  be  good  ground  for  declaring 
these  laws  unconstitutional.  The  British  act  does  this  by  distinguish- 
ing between  employers  as  merchants  or  associations  of  manufac- 
turers, who  sell  commodities  to  the  public,  and  whose  bargain  may  j 
be  called  the  "  price  bargain,"  and  the  same  employers  in  the  differ- 
ent function  of  dealing  with  labor,  and  whose  bargain  is  the  "wage 
bargain."  The  employers,  in  their  function  of  merchants  and  manu- 
facturers, or  sellers  of  products  or  commodities  to  consumers  or  the 
Sublic,  continue  to  come  under  the  antitrust  laws,  and  the  Interstate 
ommerce  Commission,  the  Federal  Trade  Commission,  and  the  State 
public  utility  commissions  have  been  created  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
tecting the  public  against  them  as  such.  These  commissions  regulate 
price  bargains  for  commodities  or  products,  between  corporations 
and  consumers. 

But  it  does  not  follow  that  even  the  same  employers  when  organ- 
ized to  regulate  the  wage  bargain  with  employees  should  be  treated 
as  a  conspiracy  or  trust.  They  perform  a  very  different  function 
and  public  policy  is  very  different.  In  the  case  of  the  price  bargain 
the  public  is  interested  in  securing  low  prices,  but  in  the  case  of 
wage  bargain  it  is  interested  in  permitting  high  wages.  Yet  the 
public  needs  protection  against  abuses  of  labor  unions  as  it  does 
against  the  abuses  of  trusts.  The  employers'  association  stands  be- 
tween organized  labor  and  the  public  just  as  the  railroad  and  public 
utility  commissions  and  the  trade  commission  stand  between  mer- 
chants' or  manufacturers'  associations  and  the  unorganized  public. 
But  the  employers'  associations  are  a  better  protection  to  the  public 
against  the  abuses  of  unions  than  are  the  courts.  Labor  leaders  who 
wish  to  keep  discipline  in  tTieir  unions  and  the  observance  of  joint 
agreements  realize  that  they  can  not  do  so  unless  confronted  by  a 
strong  employers'  association.  They  realize  that  continued  abuses 
lead  eventually  to  the  destruction  of  their  unions.  An  employer  who 


220  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

stays  out  of  his  organization  is  as  culpable  as  a  laborer  who  stays  out 
of  "his  union.  Employers  should  organize  100  per  cent  just  as  the 
unions  endeavor  to  reach  that  mark. 

It  would,  therefore,  seem  to  be  proper  and  constitutional  classifi- 
cation in  the  interest  of  public  policy  to  treat  manufacturers  under 
a  law  prohibiting  or  regulating  trusts  and  public  utilities  and  to 
treat  the  same  persons  as  employers  under  different  laws,  like  those 
of  mediation  and  trade  disputes,  where  both  employers'  associations 
and  trade-unions  are  given  immunities  for  the  use  of  peaceful  coercive 
weapons  which  they  do  not  possess  under  the  antitrust  laws. 


FOUNDATIONS. 


16.  Considerable  attention  has  been  given  by  this  commission  to 
the  largest  foundations  or  endowments  now  in  the  hands  of  private 
trustees.  Any  proposed  legislation  on  this  subject  should  be  pre- 
ceded by  a  complete  investigation  of  all  foundations  and  endow- 
ments, else  the  law  would  have  effects  not  contemplated  by  the  legis- 
lature or  Congress.  Such  an  investigation  would  include  all  en- 
dowed charities,  endowments  of  religious  organizations  and  uni- 
versities and  colleges.  We  are  informed  that  such  investigations  have 
been  made  in  England  and  France,  resulting  in  legislation.  The  in- 
vestigation should  be  complete,  covering  all  aspects  of  the  question 
and  bringing  out  both  the  advantages  and  the  disadvantages  of  such 
foundations  and  endowments.  The  legislature  could  then  act  intelli- 
gently on  the  subject. 

We  are  convinced  that  many  of  these  endowments  in  private  hands 
have  a  beneficial  effect  on  the  work  of  State  and  governmental  insti- 
tutions. Large  private  universities  have  set  the  example  and  stimu- 
lated the  States  to  support  and  enlarge  their  State  universities. 
Some  of  the  investigations  and  reforms  started  by  recent  large  foun- 
dations have  already  induced  Congress  and  administrative  depart- 
ments to  enter  the  same  field  and  to  extend  it.  In  fact,  almost  every- 
thing that  Government  now  does  was  done  at  first  through  private 
initiative,  and  it  would  be  a  misfortune  if  private  endowments,  unless 
plainly  shown  to  have  committed  abuses,  should  be  prohibited.  Even 
their  abuses  can  be  rectified  by  the  legislature  through  its  control 
over  charters,  if  reasonable  ground  can  be  shown.  But  it  is  better, 
for  the  most  part,  that  they  should  go  on  at  their  own  initiative  in 
order  that  the  people  through  their  Government  may  see  the  value 
of  their  work  and  then  take  it  up  and  extend  it  more  widely  than 
the  private  foundations  are  able  to  do.  It  is  largely  for  this  reason 
that  we  recommend  a  "Federal  fund  for  social  welfare"  (par.  18), 
in  order  that  the  Nation  may  compete  with  or  displace  private 
foundations  in  this  vital  matter. 

However,  experience  has  abundantly  shown  that  there  should  be 
no  alliance  between  these  private  foundations  or  endowments  and 
the  Government.  The  State  or  Government  should  neither  subsidize 
them  nor  be  subsidized  by  them,  nor  cooperate  with  them.  Such  co- 
operation has  often  led  to  public  scandal.  Instead  of  subsidizing 
private  charity  the  State  should  use  its  money  to  displace  it  by  better 
and  more  universal  charity.  Instead  of  calling  upon  private  founda- 
tions for  help,  the  Government  should  treat  them  as  competitors. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  221 

No  effort  on  the  part  of  Government  officials  to  secure  financial  as- 
sistance from  them  should  be  allowed. 

SUBSIDIES. 

17.  The    Federal    commission    to    have   charge    of    all    subsidies 
granted  to  the  States  for  the  promotion  of  industrial  education, 
safety,  employment  offices,  and  other  matters,  as  Congress  may  de- 
termine.   The  commission  to  meet  the  expenses  of  State  officials  when 
called  together  for  conferences  on  standards  and  uniformity.     Sub- 
sidies to  be  granted  on  condition  that  the  standards  are  maintained. 

The  Public  Health  Service  now  has  authority  to  call  conferences 
of  State  health  officials  and  to  meet  their  expenses.  The  same  power 
should  be  given  to  the  proposed  industrial  commission.  A  large  part 
of  the  work  of  the  commission  will  be  the  field  work  of  advising 
State  officials  as  to  the  best  methods  of  administration.  This  kind  of 
work  is  now  done  by  the  Department  of  Agriculture  and  the  Public 
Health  Service. 

Subsidies  are  recommended  in  certain  cases  because  the  State 
governments  are  not  in  position  to  secure  adequate  funds  and  as  an 
inducement  to  bring  their  standards  up  to  the  standards  formulated 
by  the  Federal  commission. 

(Funds  for  this  purpose  are  recommended  in  paragraph  18.) 

FEDERAL  FUND  FOR  SOCIAL  WELFARE. 

18.  A  Federal  inheritance  tax  on  all  estates  above  $25,000,  begin- 
ning at  1  per  cent  on  the  excess  above  $25,000  and  rising  to  15  per 
cent  on  the  excess  above  $1,000,000  for  the  class  of  direct  heirs,  such 
as  wife,  children,  and  parents.    Higher  rates  for  more  remote  rela- 
tives and  strangers.    The  Federal  inheritance  tax  to  be  a  supertax, 
added  upon  the  existing  rates  assessed  by  the  States.     Provision, 
however,  to  be  made  that  any  State  which  repeals  all  inheritance  tax 
laws,  or  refrains  from  enacting  them,  shall  receive  from  the  Federal 
Government,  say,  50  cents  per  capita  of  its  population  per  year.     The 
administration  "and  collection  of  this  tax  to  be  placed  in  charge  of 
present  assessors  and  collectors  of  income  taxes,  who  already  collect 
income  taxes  on  estates  in  the  hands  of  executors.    Kevenues  derived 
from  inheritance  taxes  to  be  placed  in  trust  with  the  Federal  Reserve 
Board  for  investment  in  securities  approved  by  Congress.    The  fund 
to  be  known  as  "  Federal  fund  for  social  welfare."    Expenditures  of 
income  derived  from  such  securities  to  be  made  under  the  direction 
of  the  Federal  industrial  commission  for  such  purposes  of  industrial 
and  social  welfare  as  Congress  may  authorize.     Should  the  income 
from  investments  not  be  adequate  to  meet  the  authorized  expendi- 
tures, further  investments  to  be  withheld  and  the  principal  to  be 
expended.    Revenues  derived  from  activities  of  the  commission,  such 
as  head  tax  on  immigrants,  etc.,  to  belong  to  the  fund.    Also  unex- 
pended balance  to  be  held  in  the  fund  for  disposition  by  Congress. 

A  similar  fund  collected  from  immigrants  in  excess  of  the  ex- 
penses of  the  service  is  held  with  accruals  for  disposition  by  Con- 
gress. 


222  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

We  have  previously  shown  the  need  of  improved  administration 
in  providing  for  any  future  program  of  social  legislation.  We  have 
held  that  it  is  useless  to  undertake  any  additional  labor  legislation 
if  effective,  nonpartisan  machinery  of  administration  is  not  pro- 
vided, but  even  with  such  machinery  it  can  not  be  expected  that  the 
•expense  of  government  will  be  reduced.  In  fact,  the  expenses  will 
be  increased,  and  no  legislation  should  be  attempted  unless  the  possi- 
bilit}^  of  getting  these  revenues  is  fully  considered. 

Moreover,  these  revenues  must  be  continuous,  else  the  whole  pro- 
gram will  be  liable  to  sudden  breakdown  through  failure  of  funds. 
Hostility  to  labor  laws  is  just  as  effective  when  it  succeeds  in  killing 
appropriations,  on  the  ground  of  economy,  as  when  it  defeats  the 
law  itself. 

Already  the  increased  expense  of  administration  of  labor  laws  is 
bringing  active  and  effective  protest.  The  greatest  leap  in  this  ex- 
pense has  come  with  workmen's  compensation.  So  far  as  this  increase 
is  due  to  inefficiency  of  the  existing  political  and  partisan  methods 
of  administration  the  protest  is  valid.  The  remedy  consists  in  im- 
proving the  efficiency  and  eliminating  the  partisanship,  and  this  is 
the  purport  of  what  we  have  previously  said.  So  far,  also,  as  the 
increase  places  excessive  burdens  of  taxation  on  the  already  burden- 
some taxes  of  the  people,  the  protest  also  is  valid.  But  here  the 
remedy  consists  in  discovering  new  sources  of  revenue  that  will  not 
be  burdensome. 

A  Federal  inheritance  tax,  partly  distributed  to  the  States,  seems 
to  be  the  most  appropriate  method  of  securing  these  new  sources 
of  revenue.  The  principal  underlying  cause  of  social  unrest  is  the 
uncertainty  of  income  of  wage  earners  and  small  producers.  A 
steady,  continuous  income,  even  though  it  be  small  in  amount,  is  of 
more  importance  than  high  wages  or  earnings  at  certain  times  and 
no  earnings  at  other  times.  This  uncertainty  of  income  is  the  main 
cause  of  the  dependence,  inequality,  and  oppression  which  produce 
conflicts  between  capital  and  labor. 

The  great  majority  of  wage  earners  can  not  provide  in  advance 
for  future  contingencies  when  they  will  get  no  income.  These  con- 
tingencies come  from  accidents,  sickness,  invalidity,  old  age,  death, 
unemployment,  and  the  lack  of  industrial  education. 

There  are  two  main  reasons  for  this  inability  to  provide  for  con- 
tingencies: (1)  Inability  in  bargaining  for  wages  to  take  into  account 
future  contingencies  and  future  cost  of  living.  The  w^age  earner  may 
be  able  when  bargaining  to  get  enough  wages  for  current  cost  of  liv- 
ing, but  he  does  not  include  insurance  premiums  in  his  notion  of 
current  cost,  except  so-called  "  industrial  insurance  "  to  provide  for 
funeral  expense.  (2)  Lack  of  thrift  and  habits  of  saving,  owing  in 
part  to  their  own  fault  and  in  part  to  the  contingencies  which  eat 
up  their  savings  and  bring  discouragement.  In  either  case,  under 
competitive  industry,  the  condition  may  be  accepted  as  permanent. 

On  the  other  hand,  employers  and  investors  are  much  more  able  to 
provide  in  advance  for  a  future  continuous  income  against  contin- 
gencies. All  investments  are  made  with  reference  to  equalizing  the 
flow  of  income  over  a  future  period  of  time  in  the  form  of  interest  or 
dividends. 

Inheritances  are  the  principal  means  by  which  owners,  without 
effort  or  thrift  on  their  part,  secure  titles  to  wealth  and  its  future  con- 


tinu 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  223 


tinuous  income.  Consequently,  for  the  Government  to  take  a  part  of 
large  inheritances  which  provide  continuous  incomes  and  to  devote 
the  proceeds  to  the  purpose  of  making  incomes  more  nearly  continu- 
ous for  those  who  are  not  able,  under  existing  conditions,  to  do  it  for 
themselves  appeals  to  the  sense  of  justice.  It  may  be  accepted  in 
advance  that  men  of  wealth  will  approve  of  an  inheritance  tax  on  two 
conditions,  namely,  that  the  tax  will  be  devoted  to  a  great  public 
purpose,  and  that  the  funds  will  be  administered  economically  and 
efficiently  without  partisanship  or  practical  politics.  These  two  con- 
ditions are  essential  and  are  contemplated  in  our  recommendations 
for  a  Federal  industrial  commission  and  a  Federal  fund  for  social 
welfare. 

Some  of  the  purposes  for  which  this  fund  might  be  used,  in  order 
to  meet  the  object  of  social  welfare,  are,  in  addition  to  the  overhead 
expenses  of  the  commission,  the  safety  and  health  agencies  of  the 
Federal  Government  and,  perhaps,  subsidies  to  States  conforming  to 
standards ;  industrial  education  and  subsidies  to  States ;  Federal  em- 
plo3rment  offices  and  subsidies  to  States  which  adopt  an  approved 
plan  coordinating  with  the  Federal  plan;  Federal  supervision  of 
private  employment  offices  doing  interstate  business;  investigation 
and  statistics  of  labor  conditions;  mediation;  administration  of  im- 
migration laws ;  workmen's  compensation  and  subsidies  to  systems  of 
sickness,  unemployment,  and  other  forms  of  social  insurance  as  may 
be  approved  by  Congress.  Opportunities  for  investment  should  be 
considered,  such  as  workmen's  houses,  workmen's  hotels,  hospitals, 
rural-credit  associations,  and  similar  investments  made  by  Germany 
in  respect  of  its  various  insurance  funds. 

It  is  impossible  to  estimate  at  this  time  the  revenue  that  would  be 
derived  from  such  a  tax.  We  have  estimated  the  amounts  now  col- 
lected by  the  States  from  inheritance  taxes  at  $25,000,000,  as  against 
the  $50,000,000  that  they  would  receive  at  50  cents  per  capita,  The 
present  systems  in  vogue  in  32  States  yield  revenues  from  $1,096  in 
.Wyoming  to  $11,162,478  in  New  York.  The  amount  per  capita  of 
population  ranges  from  1  cent  per  capita  in  Texas  and  Wyoming  to 
59  cents  in  Connecticut,  66  cents  in  Illinois,  68  cents  in  Massachu- 
setts, and  $1.28  in  New  York.  The  latter  four  States  wrould  lose  if 
they  abolished  their  inheritance  tax  and  accepted  the  Federal  dis- 
tribution of  50  cents  per  capita.  Other  States  would  gain.  Yet  this 
can  not  be  considered  a  just  criticism  of  the  proposal,  for  the  States 
which  lose  are  those  in  which  wealthy  people  choose  to  reside  and 
yet  their  fortunes  arise  from  ownership  of  property  scattered 
throughout  the  country.  The  present  system  of  State  inheritance 
taxes  practically  permits  a  few  States  to  collect  taxes  on  property 
whose  value  is  created  by  many  of  the  States.  A  Federal  inheritance 
tax  is  the  only  method  by  which  the  entire  Nation,  which  contributes 
to  the  value  of  estates,  can  secure  revenues  from  the  values  which  it 
creates. 

The  recommendation  of  returning  50  cents  per  capita  to  the  States 
is  designed  to  induce  them  to  turn  over  to  the  Federal  Government 
the  sole  right  of  imposing  inheritance  taxes  and  yet  to  preserve  to 
the  States  at  least  a  part  of  such  preempted  claims  as  they  may  have 
acquired  by  getting  into  the  field  first. 

The  Federal  machinery  is  already  in  existence  for  collecting  in- 
come taxes,  and  the  same  officials,  without  any  appreciable  increase 


224  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

in  the  number,  can  assess  and  collect  inheritance  taxes.  Executors 
of  estates  whose  annual  incomes  amount  to  $2,500  or  more  per  year 
are  now  required  to  make  returns  to  collectors  of  internal  revenue, 
and  the  only  addition  required  for  an  inheritance  tax  is  that  executors 
of  estates  of  $25,000  should  make  returns  of  the  total  value  of  the 
estates.  This  can,  of  course,  be  done  at  the  same  time  when  they  fill 
cut  the  blanks  which  show  net  incomes.  Internal-revenue  officials 
also  investigate  all  cases  where  it  is  suspected  that  full  returns  of 
income  are  not  made.  No  additional  officials  are  therefore  required 
for  these  purposes.  The  only  addition  would  be  such  number  of 
officials  as  are  required  for  general  supervision.  The  machinery  is 
already  in  existence,  and  no  tax  can  be  so  cheaply  administered  as  a 
Federal  inheritance  tax. 

The  significant  feature  of  the  proposed  inheritance  tax  is  the 
high  rates  on  direct  heirs,  as  compared  with  the  very  low  rates  im- 
posed in  the  States.  The  estates  going  to  wife  and  lineal  heirs  in- 
clude probably  80  per  cent  to  90  per  cent  of  all  estates,  and  it  is 
therefore  from  such  estates  that  the  largest  revenues  are  expected. 
Such  estates  are  scarcely  touched  by  American  inheritance  tax  laws. 
The  sensationally  high  rates  imposed  in  some  States  on  estates  going 
to  strangers  and  remote  heirs  are  something  of  a  delusion,  for 
scarcely  5  per  cent  of  the  estates  go  to  such  beneficiaries.  The  rates 
on  estates  going  to  strangers  reach  their  highest  figure  at  35  per 
cent  in  California  on  the  excess  over  $1,000,000  and  fall  as  low  as  5 
per  cent  in  Pennsylvania  and  other  States.  But  the  rates  on  the  ex- 
cess over  $1,000,000  going  to  direct  heirs  is  only  10  per  cent  in  Cali- 
fornia and  falls  to  1,  2,  or  3  per  cent  in  most  of  the  States.  Our 
recommendation  affects  mainly  these  estates  going  to  direct  heirs, 
which  are  80  to  90  per  cent  of  all  estates,  and  the  highest  rate  on 
such  estates  is  15  per  cent  on  the  excess  over  $1,000,000.  This  con- 
forms more  nearly  to  the  inheritance  taxes  of  leading  European 
countries  which  would  yield  according  to  various  estimates  over 
$200,000,000  if  adopted  by  the  Federal  Government  of  this  country. 

The  following  administrative  reasons  for  making  the  inheritance 
tax  a  Federal  tax  are  submitted  by  Prof.  T.  S.  Adams,  of  the  Wis- 
consin tax  commission,  who  also  suggests  the  repayment  to  States 
as  a  method  of  inducing  them  to  yield  to  the  Federal  tax.  He  says : 

1.  The  present  system  gives  rise  to  a  large  amount  of  double  or  multiple 
taxation  and  if  the  existing  laws  were  enforced,  the  situation  would  be  un- 
bearable.   Most  State  laws  tax  the  transfer  of  all  securities  owned  by  resident 
decedents  and  yet  attempt  to  tax  the  transfer  of  some  securities  owned  by  non- 
resident decedents   when    they   represent   property   in   the    State   passing   the 
law.     I  have  known  one  block  of  railroad  stock  to  be  assessed   in  Wiscon- 
sin  (residence  of  decedent),  in  Illinois   (where  the  stock  was  deposited  in  a 
trust  company),  and  in  Utah,  where  the  railroad  was  incorporated,  and  it  is 
not  unlikely  that  other  States  through  which  the  railroad  passed  imposed  a 
tax  before  the  estate  was  finally  settled.     Four  different  and  conflicting  taxes 
are  thus  in  use  at  the  present  time. 

2.  At  present  administration  of  such  laws  is  costly,  ineffective,  unjust,  and 
capricious.     Wisconsin  attempts  to  tax  the  transfer  of  all  securities  represent- 
ing,   however    indirectly,    property    in    Wisconsin.      It    is    impossible    where 
holding  companies  hold  the  stock  in  the  companies  immediately  owning  the 
AVisconsin  property.     To  enforce  it,  particularly  where  bonds  are  concerned, 
agents  must  be  employed  outside  the  State.     We  keep  two — in  New  York  and 
Chicago.    We  should  have  an  agent  in  every  place  in  the  country  where  estates 
are  probated.    To  enforce  the  Wisconsin  interpretation  would  cost  an  enormous 
sum. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTKIAL   RELATIONS.  225 

3.  Yet  the  Western  States  are  insisting  on  the  Wisconsin  idea  in  inheritance 
taxation.    As  they  do  so,  double  taxation  and  cost  of  administration  must  in- 
crease greatly.     Cost  of  administration  has  not  been  excessive  in  the  past, 
merely  because  the  laws  have  not  been  enforced. 

4.  Except  in  a  few  States  the  yield  of  the  inheritance  tax  is  very  irregular. 
The  proposed  commutation  payment  by  the  Federal  Government  would  sub- 
stitute a  regular  for  an  irregular  State  revenue,  besides  greatly  decreasing  cost 
of  collection — or  prospective  cost  of  collection. 

5.  Rich  men  change  their  rendezvous  very  easily.     Rhode  Island  and  a  few 
other  States  do  not  tax  inheritances  at  present.    They  do  and  can  prevent  the 
proper  development  of  inheritance  taxes  in  other  States.     It  is  the  compulsion 
of  the  "  twentieth  man." 

6.  A  number  of  States  can  not  employ  progressive  rating  in  inheritance  tax- 
ation— an  essential  attribute  of  sound  inheritance  taxation. 

IMMIGRATION. 

19.  Underlying  the  entire  problem  of  self-government  in  this 
country,  and  placing  a  limit  on  the  ability  to  remedy  abuses  either 
through  politics  or  labor  unions,  is  the  great  variety  of  races,  nation- 
alities, and  languages.  We  know  how  the  Southern  States  have  dealt 
with  the  problem  and  how  constitutional  amendments  forced  upon 
them  by  the  Northern  States  have  been  treated.  Considering  this 
outcome,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  additional  proposed  amendments 
designed  to  protect  rights  of  individuals  in  those  or  other  States 
would  accomplish  the  ends  intended. 

A  similar  problem  is  forced  upon  us  by  the  large  immigration  of 
backward  races  or  of  classes  from  other  countries  with  no  experience 
in  self-government.  One  of  these  races,  the  Chinese,  has  been  actu- 
ally excluded  from  immigration.  Others  less  competent  are  admit- 
ted. The  doctrine  of  a  haven  for  the  oppressed  has  been  rejected 
in  the  case  of  the  Chinese  and  can  not  consistently  be  raised  against 
restriction  on  immigration  designed  to  accomplish  a  similar  purpose 
of  protection  to  Americans.  Especially  is  the  problem  of  the  Ameri- 
canized element  in  the  labor  unions  in  maintaining  discipline  almost 
insoluble  when  it  comes  to  dealing  with  10,  20,  or  30  races  or  lan- 
guages. The  right  of  employers  to  bring  aliens  into  their  establish- 
ments is  the  same  as  their  right  to  bring  in  naturalized  or  native 
Americans.  The  resulting  situation  is  the  great  strikes  recently  en- 
tered upon  without  previous  organizations  or  discipline  by  nation- 
alities that  have  suddenly  come  together,  notwithstanding  their 
racial  antipathies  and  language  impediments,  on  account  of  a  united 
antagonism  against  their  employers.  Such  strikes  receive  but  little 
consideration  from  American  police,  sheriffs,  and  militia  and  are 
usually  defeated.  On  account  of  their  incapacity  for  self-govern- 
ment, it  might  perhaps  be  shown  that  in  isolated  communities  the 
paternal  despotism  of  a  corporation  is  preferable  to  unionism  or 
political  control  by  these  backward  nationalities.  The  violation  of 
contracts  and  inability  of  their  leaders  to  maintain  discipline  and 
observe  contracts,  which  make  some  American  employers  so  deter- 
mined against  recognizing  unions,  may  often  be  traced  back  to  the 
unruly  mixture  of  races  and  nationalities  whom  they  have  employed. 
Other  problems,  such  as  those  of  the  political  franchise,  must  be 
taken  into  account  in  any  measure  designed  to  further  restrict  immi- 
gration, but  we  are  convinced  that  very  substantial  restrictions  on 
immigration,  in  addition  to  the  present  restrictions,  should  be 

38819°— 16 15 


226  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

adopted,  and  that  comprehensive  measures  should  be  taken  to  teach 
the  English  language  and  otherwise  "Americanize  "  the  immigrants. 
One  of  the  principal  services  of  American  trade-unions  is  their  work 
in  teaching  immigrants  the  practice  of  democratic  government.  They 
might  almost  be  named  as  the  principal  Americanizing  agency.  An- 
other promising  measure  is  the  so-called  social  center,  designed  to  use 
the  schoolhouses  and  public  buildings  for  instruction  and  discussion 
outside  school  hours.  Such  a  measure,  if  adopted  by  all  States,  as 
has  been  done  by  some,  wrould  be  of  advantage  also  to  native  Ameri- 
cans in  the  free  discussion  of  public  questions. 

Since  immigration  is  one  of  the  principal  issues  between  capital 
and  labor,  its  administration  should  be  turned  over  to  the  proposed 
Federal  industrial  commission,  where  capital  and  labor  will  have  an 
equal  voice.  This  would  place  all  administrative  positions  in  the 
service,  up  to  and  including  the  Commissioner  General,  under  the 
civil-service  rules  proposed  in  paragraph  3.  In  1905,  when  a  trade- 
union  man  was  Commissioner  General,  he  was  required  by  the  ad- 
ministration to  give  written  or  oral  instructions  to  inspectors  not 
to  make  any  arrests  of  Chinese  for  deportation  as  required  by  law. 
(Washington  file,  15427  1C.)  Instead  of  resigning  and  making 
public  protest  he  yielded  and  gave  the  required  instructions,  which 
practically  nullified  the  law  by  preventing  the  deportation  of  smug- 
gled Chinese.  Had  such  orders  been  required  to  be  submitted  to  the 
advisory  council,  as  proposed  in  these  recommendations,  a  public 
protest  would  have  been  made  by  the  labor  members  of  the  council, 
since  they  would  be  responsible  to  their  unions  and  not  to  the  Gov- 
ernment for  their  salaries.  Even  now,  with  the  many  charges  of 
Chinese  smuggling,  the  presence  of  unsalaried  labor  representatives 
on  an  advisory  council,  with  the  right  to  have  access  to  all  the  records 
and  to  have  all  orders  submitted  to  them  before  issuing,  would  place 
them  in  a  position  to  prevent  such  secret  violations  of  the  law.  In 
addition  they  would  receive  through  their  fellow-unionists  through- 
out the  country  complaints  or  evidence  against  inspectors  supposed 
to  be  in  conspiracy  with  Chinese  smugglers  and  would  be  in  position 
to  present  their  charges  and  to  require  investigation  and  removal 
if  necessary.  Various  outside  commissions,  including  this  commis- 
sion, have  been  required  to  investigate  the  matter  of  Chinese  smug- 
gling, but  they  are  baffled.  The  advisory  council  proposed  would  be 
a  continuous  commission  not  terrified  by  any  political  administration 
and  having  a  voice  in  the  appointment  and  removal  of  inspectors 
under  civil-service  rules.  (See  par.  3.)  Doubtless  appeals  from  the 
commission  to  the  Department  of  State  and  the  President  should  be 
allowed  in  cases  involving  political  refugees  and  the  interpretation 
of  treaties  with  foreign  countries.  These  are  substantially  pur  con- 
clusions derived  from  the  attempted  investigation  of  Asiatic  smug- 
gling. 

FARMERS  AND  FARM  LABORERS. 

^  20.  One  of  the  growing  evils  to  be  feared  is  the  increasing  conges- 
tion of  populated  centers  at  the  expense  of  the  rural  districts.  This 
is  true  not  only  of  America  but  also  of  Europe.  The  allurements  of 
the  city  tend  to  draw  annually  thousands  from  the  country  to  the 
city.  Congested  cities,  especially  in  hard  times,  mean  enlarged  ranks 
of  the  unemployed. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  227 

This  tendency  is  strengthened  where  the  struggle  of  the  small 
farmer  not  only  to  hold  on  to  his  land  but  to  make  a  living  becomes 
hopeless  and  where  the  conditions  are  such  that  the  farm  laborer  or 
the  farm  tenant  sees  little  or  no  possibility  of  becoming  a  future 
landowner. 

Not  least  among  the  causes  of  higher  cost  of  living  has  been  the 
tendency  to  increase  city  populations  at  the  expense  of  agricultural 
populations,  thus  decreasing  relatively  the  supply  and  increasing  the 
demand  and  thereby  inevitably  raising  the  cost  of  food. 

The  last  census  shows  that  we  are  becoming  the  victims  of  increas- 
ing absentee  landlordism  and  farm  tenancy.  It  points  out  that 
while  the  number  of  farm  owners  during  the  preceding  decade  in- 
creased 8  per  cent,  the  number  of  farm  tenants  increased  16  per  cent. 
If  this  ratio  should  continue  for  a  few  more  decades,  many  parts  of 
our  Republic  will  find  themselves  in  the  condition  from  which  Ire- 
land has  so  recently  emerged. 

>  For  many  generations  Ireland  was  one  of  the  most  distressed 
countries  in  the  world.  All  of  its  evils  wTere  due  primarily  to 
absentee  landlords  and  farm  tenants.  But  within  the  last  decade  a 
wonderful  change  has  taken  place  in  the  social  and  economic  condi- 
tion of  the  Irish  peasant,  brought  about  by  the  enactment  by  Parlia- 
ment of  what  has  since  become  known  as  the  Irish  land  bill.  This 
act  created  a  royal  commission,  with  power  to  appraise  the  large 
Irish  land  estates  owned  by  absentee  landlords,  at  their  real  and  not 
at  their  speculative  value,  to  buy  them  in  the  name  of  the  Govern- 
ment at  the  appraised  value,  plus  12  per  cent  bonus,  to  cut  them  up 
into  small  parcels,  to  sell  them  to  worthy  farm  tenants,  giving  some 
TO  years'  time  in  which  to  make  small  annual  payments  on  the  amor- 
tization plan,  the  deferred  payments  bearing  but  3  per  cent  interest. 
In  addition  to  this,  the  Government  made  personal  loans  to  peasants 
sufficient  to  cover  the  cost  of  stock  and  farm  implements,  also  pay- 
able in  small  annual  installments  bearing  a  minimum  rate  of  interest. 
The  Government  further  furnished  the  various  farm  districts  with 
farm  advisors,  trained  graduates  from  agricultural  colleges,  who  act 
as  friend,  adviser,  and  scientific  farm  instructor  to  the  peasants. 
Within  a  decade  the  wretched  and  more  or  less  law-breaking  farm 
tenant  has  been  converted  into  an  industrious,  progressive,  and  law- 
abiding  landed  proprietor;  in  fact,  he  has  become  so  law-abiding 
that  many  jails  in  the  farming  districts,  formerly  filled  with  agra- 
rian criminals,  have  been  converted  into  public  schools. 

In  Texas  this  commission  found  a  condition  of  farm  tenancy  like 
that  of  Ireland  and  seemingly  typical  of  growing  conditions  in 
various  parts  of  the  country.  We  therefore  recommend  to  Congress 
and  to  the  various  States  that  steps  shall  be  taken  to  lighten  the  bur- 
dens of  the  small  farmer,  and  make  it  more  possible  to  encourage 
the  tenant,  farm  laborer,  and  city  dweller  to  become  land  proprietors. 

Not  least  among  the  burdens  of  the  small  farmer  is  the  great  diffi- 
culty, as  a  rule,  on  his  part  in  obtaining  the  necessary  credit  with 
which  to  better  and  to  improve  his  land,  at  a  low  rate  of  interest 
and  under  terms  that  will  permit  him  to  make  payments  spread  over 
a  long  term  of  years. 

Under  the  rural  credits  system  of  Germany  a  small  farmer  can 
borrow  his  money  as  cheaply  as  can  a  great  banker.  Not  only  can 
he  do  this,  but  he  can  spread  the  payments  over  a  period  of  30  or 


228  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

more  years.  It  is  this  system  of  rural  credits,  among  other  things, 
that  has  made  it  possible  for  the  German  farmer,  despite  the  high 
price  of  his  land,  his  heavy  taxes,  and  his  small  acreage,  ^not  only 
to  successfully  compete  with  the  American  farmer,  but  to  enjoy  a  fair 
degree  of  prosperity;  so  much  so  that  in  more  recent  times  there 
have  been  comparatively  few  German  agriculturists  who  have  emi- 
grated to  this  country. 

We  therefore  recommend  that  Congress  and  the  various  States  pass 
rural  credit  acts  that  will  give  to  the  small  American  farmer  the  same 
privileges  and  benefits  that  for  so  long  a  time  have  been  enjoyed  by 
the  small  farmers  in  Germany  and  other  European  countries,  which, 
following  Germany,  have  adopted  rural  credit  systems.  We  recom- 
mend serious  consideration  to  adapting  the  Irish  land  bill  and  the 
Australian  system  of  State  colonization  to  our  American  conditions. 
It  is  not  our  intention  in  this  report  to  enter  into  minute  details  as 
to  how  this  should  be  carried  out  In  a  general  way,  however,  we 
believe  it  not  only  desirable  but  practicable  for  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, through  its  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  the  various  States, 
through  their  departments  of  agriculture,  to  secure  large  bodies  of 
land  at  appraised  actual  values,  that  have  been  thoroughly  tested  by 
experts  for  their  quality,  issuing  bonds  for  the  payment  for  same,  if 
need  be,  and  to  cut  them  up  into  small  parcels,  making  the  necessary 
improvements  and  selling  them  to  qualified  colonists  with  small  first 
payments,  making  the  balance  payable  in,  say,  30  years  on  the 
amortization  plan,  the  deferred  payments  bearing  only  the  same  rate 
of  interest  that  the  Government  itself  is  called  upon  to  pay,  plus  a 
small  addition  to  cover  the  cost  of  Government  administration.  We 
believe  in  this  way  the  most  effective  check  can  be  created,  on  the  one 
hand,  to  minimize  farm  tenancy  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  make  it 
possible  for  the  farm  laborer  and  the  farm  tenant  to  become  land 
proprietors.  We  believe  that  this,  if  carried  out  wisely  and  intelli- 
gently, will  have  a  large  share  in  minimizing  industrial  unrest  and 
in  adding  to  the  wealth  of  the  Nation,  both  materially  and  in  the 
quality  of  its  citizenship. 

CORPORATION   CONTROL. 

21.  Corporation  control  over  politics  and  labor  has  for  a  long  time 
been  a  well-known  matter  of  serious  concern  in  all  American  States. 
This  commission  has  held  hearings  on  the  subject  of  such  control  in 
isolated  communities  at  Lead,  S.  Dak.,  Butte,  Mont.,  and  in  Colorado, 
and  other  communities  were  partly  investigated  by  a  member  of 
the  staff. 

In  Lead  we  found  a  strong  union  had  recently  been  driven  out 
on  account  of  its  sudden  demand  for  the  closed  shop,  and  this  was 
followed  by  a  paternal  absolutism  that  controlled  labor,  business, 
and  politics.  In  Butte  we  found  a  strong  union  split  into  factions 
and  destroying  its  own  property,  followed  by  refusal  of  the  corpora- 
tion to  deal  with  either  faction.  In  Colorado  we  found  a  long  his- 
tory of  refusals  to  deal  with  unions,  accompanied  by  strikes  at  inter- 
vals of  9  or  10  years.  In  each  of  these  cases  the  ownership  and  con- 
trol of  the  property  was  in  the  hands  of  absentees,  who  left  the  oper- 
ating management  to  executives  on  the  ground. 

We  condemn  the  conditions  found  in  Colorado  which  show  the 
control  of  corporations  over  labor  and  politics,  and  we  find  there  a 


EEPOET  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  229 

system  that  has  taken  hold  throughout  the  country.  Here  the  serious 
problem  is  not  the  personality  of  any  individual  who  may  or  may  not 
be  responsible,  but  the  correction  of  a  system  which  has  grown  up 
mainly  under  absentee  ownership  and  which  determines  the  acts  of 
individuals  according  to  their  self-interest  within  the  terms  pre- 
scribed by  the  system.  Immediate  and  public  action  is  necessary  to 
see  that  courts  of  justice  are  not  prostituted  to  the  service  of  one 
class  against  another,  but  the  huge  system  of  corporate  control  re- 
quires more  far-reaching  remedies  before  attainment.  Absentee  own- 
ership can  not  be  brought  to  the  sense  of  its  responsibility  without 
the  enactment  and  adequate  enforcement  of  workmen's  compensa- 
tion for  accidents  and  occupational  diseases,  sickness,  invalidity,  and 
old-age  insurance.  Meanwhile  a  partial  method  of  meeting  its  re- 
sponsibility is  a  staff  of  safety,  health,  and  labor  commissioners, 
independent  of  the  local  executive  staff,  to  report  directly  to  the 
board  of  directors.  The  work  of  such  a  staff  is  directly  in  conflict 
with  that  of  the  executive  staff,  for  the  latter  must  get  out  "pro- 
duction '5  while  the  other  must  acquaint  the  directors  and  company 
with  the  oppression  of  labor  which  increased  production  and  lowei 
costs  often  bring.  The  labor  department  can  not  be  made  subordi- 
nate to  the  executive  department  if  the  corporation  really  intends  to 
safeguard  its  employees. 

We  are  not  in  favor  of  public  ownership  as  solely  a  matter  of 
improving  labor  conditions,  and  before  such  can  be  recommended 
there  should  be  a  more  complete  investigation  and  regulation  and  a 
clearing  up  of  the  values  that  will  be  paid  and  the  administrative 
control  that  will  follow.  More  immediate  and  necessary  is  a  series 
of  laws  that  will  take  the  control  of  politics  out  of  the  hands  of 
corporations  and  place  it  in  the  hands  of  the  people.  Several  of 
our  previous  recommendations  are  intended  to  accomplish  this  pur- 
pose in  so  far  as  labor  and  capital  are  concerned,  but  we  should  add 
effective  corrupt  practices  acts,  designed  to  protect  the  secret  ballot, 
to  limit  the  amount  of  money  and  number  of  paid  electioneered  in 
elections,  to  prevent  intimidation,  and  so  on,  as  far  as  elections  are 
menaced  by  political  machines  and  wealth.  Direct  primaries  for 
the  nomination  of  candidates,  protected  by  corrupt  practices  acts. 
Constitutional  and  legislative  initiative  for  State  and  Federal  Gov- 
ernments. The  initiative  would  permit  the  people  to  change  the 
Constitution  at  any  point  where  the  courts  had  depended  upon  it  for 
a  decision,  and  would  make  unnecessary  any  provision  for  recall  of 
Supreme  Court  judges  or  of  their  decisions,  or  of  taking  from  higher 
courts  their  power  to  declare  laws  unconstitutional.  The  recall  of 
elected  officials,  including  executives  and  judges  of  the  lower  courts, 
but  not  judges  of  the  supreme  courts  or  members  of  the  legislature. 
Proportional  representation,  as  adopted  in  Belgium,  South  Africa, 
Australia,  and  the  Irish  parliament,  by  which  all  parties  or  factions 
would  be  able  to  elect  their  own  representatives  in  the  legislatures 
or  Congress  in  proportion  to  their  numbers  and  without  making 
deals  with  other  parties.  This  would  permit  a  labor  party  to  have 
its  representatives,  as  well  as  other  minor  parties,  and  would  permit 
women,  who  we  consider  should  have  the  suffrage,  and  other  minor 
parties  to  elect  their  own  representatives  without  making  com- 
promises in  order  to  get  the  votes  of  the  major  parties.  These  minor 


230  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION"   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

parties,  containing  as  they  do  the  advanced  views  on  labor  and  social 
problems,  are  entitled  to  their  proportionate  share  of  influence  in  the 
legislatures  or  Congress.  It  can  be  seen  that  such  a  measure  would 
take  away  from  corporations  much  of  their  present  inducement  to 
control  the  great  parties.  It  would  furnish  a  legislature  which 
would  be  a  true  reflection  of  the  wishes  of  all  the  people.  This 
recommendation  applies  to  the  legislature  the  principle  of  repre- 
sentation of  interests,  which  we  advance  in  the  case  of  the  advisory 
council  to  the  Industrial  Commission. 

JOHN  R.  COMMONS. 
FLORENCE  J.  HARRIMAN. 
HARRIS  WEINSTOCK.1 
S.  THRUSTON  BALLARD.1 
RICHARD  H.  AisHTON.2 


.  —  Commissioner  Weinstock  also  presented  the  following  dis- 
senting opinion  : 

I  dissent  from  the  report  prepared  by  Commissioner  Commons  on 
the  question  of  immigration.  That  report  says  : 

We  are  convinced  that  very  substantial  restrictions  on  immigration,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  present  restrictions,  should  be  adopted. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  we  have  abundant  immigration  laws 
already  on  our  statute  books  which,  if  enforced,  will  keep  out  of  the 
country  unfit  immigrants.  In  normal  times  this  country  can  profit- 
ably employ  all  the  desirable  and  fit  occidental  immigrants  that 
knock  at  our  door,  thereby  adding  greatly  to  the  wealth  and  the 
strength  of  the  Nation. 

HARRIS  WEINSTOCK. 

1  See  supplementary  reports. 

3  See  supplementary  report.  Appointed  commissioner  Mar.  17,  1915,  to  serve  the  unei- 
pired  term  of  Hon.  F.  A.  Delano,  resigned. 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSIONERS  WEINSTOCK,  BALLARD,  AND 

AISHTON. 

We  concur  in  the  report  prepared  by  Commissioner  Commons, 
dissenting,  however,  on  the  two  following  points,  and  supplementing 
it  by  certain  other  findings  and  recommendations  following  herewith. 

First.  We  dissent  from  the  recommendation  that  the  secondary 
boycott  should  be  legalized.  We  regard  the  secondary  boycott  as 
unjust,  inequitable,  and  vicious,  in  that  it  subjects  third  and  inno- 
cent parties  to  injury  and,  at  times,  to  great  loss  if  not  ruin.  We 
are,  therefore,  as  much  opposed  to  it  as  we  are  to  the  blacklist. 
There  have  been  instances  where,  for  example,  a  strike  would  occur 
on  a  newspaper.  The  strikers  would  demand,  for  example,  that  a 
certain  business  house  advertising  in  such  paper  should,  despite  the 
fact  that  it  was  under  contract,  withdraw  its  patronage,  and  on  re- 
fusal of  the  advertiser  to  violate  its  contract  with  the  newspaper,  it 
became  the  victim  of  boycotts  at  the  hands  of  the  strikers  more  or 
less  injurious,  if  not  disastrous,  in  their  results  to  such  advertiser. 
The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has,  in  our  opinion,  wisely 
and  justly  declared  the  secondary  boycott  illegal,  and  we  regard  it 
as  an  injury  to  society  to  legalize  a  system  so  vicious. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that — 

*  *  *  the  boycott  is  the  chief  weapon  of  modern  unionism,  and  also 
characteristic  generally  of  its  spirit  and  methods.  A  discussion  of  a  boycott 
as  a  mere  withdrawal  of  patronage  is  idle  and  academic.  When  that  is  the 
extent  of  the  boycott  in  any  particular  case,  the  patronage  is  simply  with- 
drawn, and  nothing  more  is  heard  about  it.  From  that  simple  procedure  the 
modern  boycott  has  been  developed  into  a  very  different  thing,  and  what  has 
become  known  as  the  secondary  boycott,  dragging  in  third  parties  to  the  dis- 
pute and  penalizing  them  for  patronizing  one  of  the  parties  to  the  dispute,  has 
played  an  important  part. 

Dealing  with  this  phase  of  the  question,  Judge  William  H.  Taft, 
in  an  early  case  (1893),  said: 

The  boycott  is  a  combination  of  many  to  cause  a  loss  to  one  person  by 
coercing  others  against  their  will  to  withdraw  from  him  beneficial  business 
intercourse  by  threats  that  unless  those  others  do  so,  the  many  will  cause 
serious  loss  to  them. 

In  the  case  of  Moore  v.  The  Bricklayers'  Union,  Judge  'William 
H.  Taft  says : 

The  conflict  was  brought  about  by  the  effort  of  defendants  to  use  plaintiff's 
right  of  trade  to  injure  Parker  Bros.,  and,  upon  failure  of  this,  to  use  plain- 
tiff's customers'  rights  of  trade  to  injure  the  plaintiff.  Such  effort  can  not  be 
in  the  bona  fide  exercise  of  trade,  is  without  just  cause,  and  is  therefore  ma- 
licious. The  immediate  motive  of  defendants  here  was  to  show  to  the  build- 
ing world  what  punishment  and  disaster  necessarily  follows  a  defiance  of  their 
demands.  The  remote  motive  of  wishing  to  better  their  condition  by  the  power 
so  acquired  will  not,  as  we  think  we  have  shown,  make  any  legal  justification 
for  defendants'  acts.  We  are  of  the  opinion  that  even  if  acts  of  the  character 
and  with  the  intent  shown  in  this  case  are  not  actionable  when  done  by  in- 
dividuals, they  become  so  when  they  are  the  result  of  combination,  because  it 
is  clear  that  the  terrorizing  of  a  community  by  threats  of  exclusive  dealing  in 
order  to  deprive  one  obnoxious  member  of  means  of  sustenance,  will  become 
both  dangerous  and  oppressive. 

231 


232  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

The  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission,  in  its  report  in  touching 
upon  secondary  boycotts,  says: 

It  was  attempted  to  define  the  boycott  by  calling  the  contest  between  em- 
ployers and  employees  a  war  between  capital  and  labor,  and  pursuing  the 
analogies  of  the  word,  to  justify  thereby  the  cruelty  and  illegality  of  conduct 
on  the  part  of  those  conducting  the  strike.  The  analogy  is  not  apt,  and  the 
argument  founded  upon  it  is  fallacious. 

There  is  only  one  war-making  power  recognized  by  our  institutions,  and  that 
is  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  States  in  subordination 
thereto,  when  repelling  invasion  or  domestic  violence.  War  between  citizens 
is  not  to  be  tolerated,  and  can  not  in  the  proper  sense,  exist.  If  attempted 
it  is  unlawful,  and  is  to  be  put  down  by  the  sovereign  power  of  the  State  and 
Nation.  The  practices  which  we  are  condemning  would  be  outside  the  pale 
of  civilized  warfare.  In  civilized  warfare,  women  and  children,  and  the 
defenseless  are  safe  from  attack,  and  a  code  of  honor  controls  the  parties 
to  such  warfare,  which  cries  out  against  the  boycott  we  have  in  view.  Cruel 
and  cowardly  are  terms  not  too  severe  by  which  to  characterize  it. 

Second.  We  further  dissent  from  said  report  in  its  limitation  of 
public  inquiry  in  labor  disputes  only  to  cases  where  both  sides  invite 
such  inquiry.  We  believe  that  in  the  public  interest  there  are  times 
when  compulsion  in  labor  disputes  is  thoroughly  justified.  We  feel, 
with  organized  labor,  that  there  should  be  no  restriction  put  upon 
the  right  to  strike,  realizing  as  we  do,  that  the  strike  is  the  only 
weapon  which,  in  the  interest  of  labor,  can  be  effectively  and  legally 
used  to  aid  in  bettering  its  conditions.  We  feel,  also,  that  there 
should  be  no  restriction  placed  upon  the  employer  in  his  right  to 
declare  a  lockout  in  order  better  to  protect  what  he  regards  as  his 
interest,  and  we  therefore  would  not  favor  any  plan  that  would  inflict 
penalties  upon  the  worker  or  upon  the  employer  for  declaring  a 
strike  or  lockout. 

Where  the  two  sides  to  a  labor  controversy  are  fairly  well  bal- 
anced in  strength,  the  winning  side  must  depend,  in  the  last  analysis 
upon  the  support  of  public  opinion.  Public  opinion,  therefore,  be- 
comes a  most  important  factor  in  the  interest  of  industrial  peace. 
Such  public  opinion,  however,  to  be  of  value,  must  be  enlightened. 
Under  prevailing  conditions  this  is  almost  impossible.  All  that  the 
public  is  now  able  to  get,  as  a  rule,  are  garbled  and  ex  parte  state- 
ments, more  or  less  misleading  and  unreliable,  which  simply  tend  to 
confuse  the  public  mind. 

Where  strikes  and  lockouts  take  place  on  a  large  scale,  and  more 
especially  in  connection  with  public  utilities,  the  public  inevitably 
becomes  a  third  party  to  the  issue,  in  that  it  has  more  at  stake  than 
both  parties  to  the  dispute  combined.  For  example,  if  the  street 
railways  of  a  large  city  are  tied  up,  the  loss  to  the  railway  companies 
in  the  way  of  revenue,  and  to  the  workers  in  the  way  of  wages,  is 
great,  but  this  loss  becomes  insignificant  compared  with  the  loss 
inflicted  upon  the  rest  of  the  community,  to  say  nothing  of  the  an- 
noyance, inconvenience,  and  menace  to  life  and  property,  which  not 
infrequently  occur  in  such  industrial  disputes.  The  public,  therefore, 
as  the  third  party  to  the  issue,  is  justified  in  demanding  that  an 
investigation  take  place,  and  that  the  facts  be  ascertained  and  pre- 
sented in  an  impartial  spirit  to  the  general  public,  so  that  ways  and 
means  may  be  found  of  adjudicating  the  dispute  or  of  throwing  the 
influence  of  a  properly  informed  public  opinion  on  the  side  which  has 
the  right  in  its  favor. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  233 

We,  therefore,  earnestly  •  recommend  that  in  the  case  of  public 
utilities,  the  proposed  industrial  commission  shall  not  only  have 
power  to  mediate  and  conciliate,  but  also,  at  the  request  of  either 
side  to  a  dispute,  or  upon  the  initiative  of  the  commission  itself, 
should  have  the  power,  all  voluntary  methods  having  failed,  to 
undertake  a  compulsory  public  inquiry  when,  in  the  discretion  of 
the  commission,  public  interest  demands  it;  that  it  be  given  the 
fullest  powers  to  summon  witnesses,  place  them  under  oath,  demand 
books  and  documents,  all  with  a  view  of  ascertaining  the  under- 
lying causes  of  the  dispute  and  the  issues  involved,  to  the  end  of 
making  recommendations  that,  in  the  judgment  of  the  board  of  in- 
quiry, consisting  of  three  members,  one  to  be  chosen  by  each  side 
and  the  third  to  be  chosen  by  these  two,  would  be  a  fair  and  reason- 
able settlement  of  the  points  in  dispute.  It  being  understood,  how- 
ever, that  neither  side  is  obliged  to  accept  such  recommendations,  but 
may  continue  to  strike  or  lockout,  as  the  case  may  be.  Meanwhile, 
however,  the  public  will  have  ascertained  in  the  most  reliable  way 
the  issues  involved,  the  facts  as  they  have  been  found  by  the  board 
of  inquiry,  and  the  basis  upon  which  a  fair  settlement  can  be  estab- 
lished, thus  enabling  the  public  more  intelligently  to  throw  its  sup- 
port where  it  rightfully  belongs. 

With  the  two  foregoing  modifications,  we  heartily  concur  in  the 
report  prepared  by  Commissioner  Commons.  We  desire,  however, 
additionally,  to  report  as  follows: 

We  find  that  the  alleged  findings  of  fact  and,  in  a  general  way, 
the  comments  thereon  made  in  the  report  of  the  staff  of  this  commis- 
sion, under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Basil  M.  Manly,  which  has  ^been 
made  a  part  of  the  records  of  this  commission,  without  the  indorse- 
ment, however,  of  the  commission,  so  manifestly  partisan  and  unfair 
that  we  can  not  give  them  our  indorsement.  What  we  regard  as  the 
desirable  recommendations  in  the  report  of  Mr.  Manly  are  dealt  with 
to  our  satisfaction  in  the  Commons  report,  which  has  our  approval. 

We  find  that  Mr.  Manly's  report  places  practically  all  the  responsi- 
bility for  the  causes  of  industrial  unrest  at  the  doors  of  one  side, 
forgetting  that  both  sides  to  the  issues  are  human,  and,  being  human, 
are  guilty  of  their  fullest  share  of  wrongdoing,  and  are  alike  respon- 
sible in  greater  or  lesser  degree,  for  the  causes  of  industrial  unrest. 

We  are,  therefore,  prompted,  in  the  interest  of  fairness  and  justice, 
to  present  herewith  some  of  the  additional  causes  of  industrial 
unrest  that,  in  the  course  of  the  investigations  and  public  hearings 
of  the  commission,  have  forced  themselves  upon  our  attention. 

Despite  the  fact  that  we  have  been  appointed  to  represent,  on  this 
commission,  the  employers  of  the  Nation,  we  are  free  to  admit  that 
the  investigations  made  by  the  commission,  and  the  testimony 
brought  forth  at  our  public  hearings,  have  made  it  plain  that  em- 
ployers, some  of  them,  have  been  guilty  of  much  wrongdoing,  and 
have  caused  the  workers  to  have  their  fullest  share  of  grievances 
against  many  employers.  There  has  been  an  abundance  of  testimony 
submitted  to  prove  to  our  satisfaction  that  some  employers  have 
resorted  to  questionable  methods  to  prevent  their  workers  from  or- 
ganizing in  their  own  self-interest;  that  they  have  attempted  to 
defeat  democracy  by  more  or  less  successfully  controlling  courts  and 
legislatures;  that  some  of  them  have  exploited  women  and  children 
and  unorganized  workers;  that  some  have  resorted  to  all  sorts  of 


234  REPORT  OP   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

methods  to  prevent  the  enactment  of  remedial  industrial  legislation ; 
that  some  have  employed  gunmen  in  strikes,  who  were  disreputable 
characters,  and  who  assaulted  innocent  people  and  committed  other 
crimes  most  reprehensible  in  character;  that  some  have  paid  lower 
wages  than  competitive  conditions  warranted,  worked  their  people 
long  hours  and  under  insanitary  and  dangerous  conditions;  that 
some  have  exploited  prison  labor  at  the  expense  of  free  labor;  that 
some  have  been  contract  breakers  with  labor ;  that  some  have  at  times 
attempted,  through  the  authorities,  to  suppress  free  speech  and  the 
right  of  peaceful '  assembly ;  and  that  some  have  deliberately,  for 
selfish  ends,  bribed  representatives  of  labor.  All  these  things,  we 
find,  tend  to  produce  industrial  unrest,  with  all  its  consequent  and 
far-reaching  ills. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  gainsaying  the  fact  that  labor  has  had 
many  grievances,  and  that  it  is  thoroughly  justified  in  organizing 
and  in  spreading  organization  in  order  better  to  protect  itself  against 
exploitation  and  oppression. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  justice  to  employers  generally,  it  must  be 
said  that  there  has  been  much  evidence  to  show  that  there  is  an 
awakening  among  the  enlightened  employers  of  the  Nation,  who  have 
taken  a  deeper  personal  interest  in  the  welfare  of  their  workers  than 
ever  before  in  industrial  history;  that  such  enlightened  employers 
are  growing  in  number  and  are  more  and  more  realizing  that,  if  for 
no  other  reason,  it  is  in  their  own  self-interest  to  seek  the  welfare 
of  their  workers  and  earnestly  to  strive  to  better  their  conditions. 
Employers,  on  their  own  initiative,  have  created  sick  funds  and  pen- 
sion funds ;  have  expended  vast  sums  of  money  to  insure  greater 
safety  to  their  workers;  have,  as  compared  with  conditions  of  the 
past,  greatly  improved  their  methods  of  sanitation ;  have  done  much 
to  regularize  employment;  have  increased  wages;  and  in  every  way 
have  endeavored  to  lighten  the  burdens  of  their  workers. 

While  there  are  many  deplorable  conditions  yet  remaining  to  be 
rectified,  and  while  the  condition  of  the  worker  is  still  far  from  ideal, 
we  believe  that,  on  the  whole,  the  impartial  investigator  must  find 
that,  in  normal  times,  on  the  average,  the  hours  of  the  American 
worker  are  the  shortest,  his  wages  the  highest,  his  working  conditions 
the  most  favorable,  his  standard  of  living  the  highest,  and  his  gen- 
eral well-being  the  best  in  the  world's  industrial  history. 

Industrial  Commissioner  John  B.  Lennon,  who  is  also  a  member 
of  the  executive  council  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  in  the 
absence  of  official  figures  has  estimated  that  there  are  at  this  time 
about  20,000,000  wage  earners  in  the  United  States,  and  that  about 
3,250,000  of  these  are  members  of  various  labor  unions.  In  other 
words,  as  a  liberal  approximation,  about  16  per  cent  of  the  wage 
earners  of  America  are  members  of  trade  unions. 

Considering  that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  came  into 
life  in  1881,  some  34  years  ago,  and  considering  the  earnest  and 
zealous  efforts  that  have  been  made  by  its  representatives  and  the 
representatives  of  other  labor  organizations  to  agitate,  educate,  and 
organize,  and  considering  still  further  the  highly  commendable  ob- 
jects professed  by  organized  labor,  the  membership  results  are  dis- 
appointingly small. 

One  reason  given  for  the  comparatively  small  percentage  of  union- 
ists in  the  ranks  of  labor  is  the  hostility  against  unionism  on  the  part 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   O'N   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  235 

of  many  employers.  Organized  labor  points  out  that  there  are  many 
employers'  associations  that  are  organized  not  to  deal  with,  but  to 
fight,  unionism,  and  that  this,  in  many  instances,  and  more  especially 
in  the  larger  industrial  enterprises,  presents  a  very  serious  obstacle 
for  organized  labor  to  meet  and  to  overcome. 

Representing  as  we  do  on  this  commission  the  employers'  side,  we 
are  as  one  with  the  other  members  of  our  Federal  commission  who 
represent  the  general  public,  and  also  with  those  representing  or- 
ganized labor,  in  believing  that,  under  modern  industrial  conditions, 
collective  bargaining,  when  fairly  and  properly  conducted,  is  con- 
ducive to  the  best  good  of  the  employer,  the  worker,  and  society. 
We  find  that  there  are  many  enlightened  employers  who  concur  in 
this  view,  who  in  the  past  recognized  and  dealt  with  organized  labor, 
but  who  now  refuse  to  do  so,  and  who,  under  proper  conditions, 
would  willingly  continue  to  engage  in  collective  bargaining.  With 

food  cause,  in  our  opinion,  however,  they  place  the  responsibility 
or  their  refusing  to  do  so  at  the  door  of  organized  labor.  There  is 
an  abundance  of  available  testimony  in  our  records  to  show  that 
many  employers  are  frightened  off  fi«om  recognizing  or  dealing  with 
organized  labor  for  fear  that  to  do  so  means  to  put  their  heads  in 
the  noose  and  to  invite  the  probability  of  seriously  injuring,  if  not 
ruining,  their  business. 

The  prime  objection  that  such  employers  have  to  recognizing  and 
dealing  with  organized  labor  is  the  fear  of  (a)  sympathetic  strikes, 
(&)  jurisdictional  disputes,  (c)  labor  union  politics,  (d)  contract 
breaking,  (e)  restriction  of  output,  (/)  prohibition  of  the  use  of  non- 
union-made tools  and.  materials,  (g)  closed  shop,  (h)  contests  for 
supremacy  between  rival  unions,  (i)  acts  of  violence  against  non- 
union workers  and  the  properties  of  employers,  (j)  apprenticeship 
rules. 

While  we  have  found  many  sinners  among  the  ranks  of  the  em- 
ployers, the  result  of  our  investigation  and  inquiries  forces  upon  us 
the  fact  that  unionists  also  can  not  come  into  court  with  clean  hands ; 
that  this  is  not  a  case  where  the  saints  are  all  on  one  side  and  the 
sinners  all  on  the  other.  We  find  saints  and  sinners,  many  of  them, 
on  both  sides. 

The  hope  of  future  industrial  peace  must  lie  in  both  sides  using 
their  best  endeavors  to  minimize  the  causes  that  lead  to  the  growth 
of  sins  and  sinners  on  each  side  of  the  question. 

SYMPATHETIC   STRIKES. 

• 

Taking  up  seriatim  the  objections  offered  by  many  employers  to 
recognizing  and  dealing  with  organized  labor,  we  come  first  to  that 
of  the  sympathetic  strike.  The  employer  contends,  and  we  find  our- 
selves in  sympathy  with  his  contention,  that  it  is  a  rank  injustice  to 
subject  him  to  a  strike  of  his  employees  who  have  absolutely  no 
grievances,  to  stop  work  because  some  other  group  of  workers, 
possibly  at  a  remote  point,  have  a  real  or  fancied  grievance  against 
their  own  employer,  especially  when  such  stoppage  of  work  may 
not  only  inflict  a  very  serious  loss,  but  may  mean  ruin  to  the  enter- 
prise of  the  innocent  employer,  thus  making  it,  in  violation  of  all  the 


236  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

equities,  a  clear  case  of  punishing  the  many  innocent  for  the  one  or 
the  few  who  may  be  guilty,  who  were  party  to  the  original  dispute. 

JURISDICTIOXAL  DISPUTES. 

The  employer  further  points  out  that  not  only  is  his  business  liable 
to  be  ruined  by  the  S37mpathetic  strike,  but,  more  especially  in  the 
building  trades,  is  he  likely  to  become  an  innocent  victim  of  jurisdic- 
tional  disputes  for  which  he  is  in  no  wise  responsible  and  over  which 
he  has  absolutely  no  control. 

Sidney  and  Beatrice  Webb  point  out  that — 

It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  to  the  competition  between  overlapping 
unions  is  to  be  attributed  about  nine-tenths  of  the  ineffectiveness  of  the  trade- 
union  world.1 

Innumerable  instances  have  occurred  where  jurisdictional  strikes  have  lasted 
for  months  and  sometimes  for  years.2 

The  elevator  constructors  had  a  serious  and  costly  dispute  with  the  machinists 
in  Chicago  over  the  installation  of  pumps  connected  with  hydraulic  elevators. 
A  strike  resulted  for  more  than  two  years,  during  which  most  of  the  elevator 
men  in  the  city  were  out  of  work  while  members  of  the  machinists  and  other 
unions  supplied  their  places  with  the  Otis  Elevator  Co.2 

In  1910  the  secretary  of  the  bricklayers  said : 

Our  disputes  with  the  operative  plasters'  union  during  the  past  year  have 
taken  thousands  of  dollars  out  of  our  international  treasury  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting  our  interest.  The  loss  in  wages  to  our  members  has  amounted  to  at 
least  $300,000.  The  loss  to  our  employers  has  been  up  in  the  thousands,  also.2 

Prof.  Commons,  in  his  studies  of  the  New  York  building  trades, 
comments  on  the  jurisdictional  disputes  as  follows: 

Building  construction  was  continuously  interrupted,  not  on  account  of  lock- 
outs, low  wages,  or  even  employment  of  nonunion  men,  but  on  account  of 
fights  between  the  unions.  A  friendly  employer  who  hired  only  union  men,  along 
with  the  unfriendly  employer,  was  used  as  a  club  to  hit  the  opposing  union,  and 
the  friendly  employer  suffered  more  than  the  other.3 

The  Chicago  machinery  movers  caused  considerable  delay  in  the  construction 
of  the  Harris  Trust  Building,  and  in  a  period  of  less  than  a  year  were  re- 
sponsible for  no  less  than  50  separate  strikes,  during  which  the  work  of  the 
employers  was  delayed.4 

Jurisdictional  disputes  waste  both  labor  and  capital.  They  make  it  imprac- 
ticable in  many  cases  to  use  improved  appliances  and  cheaper  materials.  They 
are  responsible  for  hesitancy  in  undertaking  and  increasing  expense  in  prose- 
cuting buildings,  to  the  detriment  of  the  building  industry.4 

Finally,  where  the  disputes  are  long  continued,  they  are  responsible  for  that 
whole  train  of  evil  results  which  follows  upon  idleness  and  poverty.6 

Sidney  and  Beatrice  Webb  agnin  point  out  that  in  the  industries  of  Tyne- 
side,  within  a  space  of  35  months,  there  were  35  weeks  in  which  one  or  the 
other  of  the  four  most  important  sections  of  workmen  in  the  staple  industry  of 
the  district  absolutely  refused  to  wTork.  This  meant  compulsory  idleness  of 
tens  of  thousands  of  men,  the  selling  out  of  households,  and  the  semistarvation 
of  whole  families  totally  unconcerned  with  the  disputes,  while  it  left  the  unions 
in  a  state  of  weakness  from  which  it  will  take  years  to  recover.6 

That  wise  and  far-seeing  labor  leaders  keenly  appreciate  the  great 
wrongs  inflicted  not  only  upon  the  employers,  but  upon  the  workers 
themselves,  by  virtue  of  cessation  of  work  in  jurisdictional  disputes, 
is  emphasized  by  the  following  extracts  from  the  report  of  Mr. 

1  Industrial  Democracy,  vol.  1,  p.  121. 

2  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  February,  1911,  p.  127. 

3  Trade-Unionism  and  Labor  Problems. 

4  Interview,  secretary  of  Building  Employers'  Association,  Chicago,  July,  1912. 

5  Industrial  Democracy,  vol.   1,  p.  121. 
«  Ibid.,  vol.  2,  p.   513. 


EEPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  237 

Samuel  Gompers,  president  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  at 
its  convention  in  1902: 

Beyond  doubt,  the  greatest  problem,  the  danger  which  above  all  others  is 
threatening  not  only  the  success  but  the  very  existence  of  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  is  the  question  of  jurisdiction.  Unless  our  affiliated  national 
and  international  unions  radically  and  soon  change  their  course,  we  shall,  at  no 
distant  date,  be  in  the  midst  of  an  internecine  contest  unparalleled  in  any  era 
of  the  industrial  world,  aye,  not  even  when  workmen  of  different  trades  were 
arrayed  against  each  other  behind  barricades  over  the  question  of  trade  against 
trade.  They  naturally  regard  each  other  with  hatred,  and  treat  each  other  as 
mortal  enemies. 

There  is  scarcely  an  affiliated  organization  which  is  not  engaged  in  a  dispute 
with  another  organization  (and  in  some  cases,  with  several  organizations) 
upon  the  question  of  jurisdiction.  It  is  not  an  uncommon  occurrence  for  an 
organization,  and  several  have  done  so  quite  recently,  to  so  change  their  laws 
and  claims  to  jurisdiction  as  to  cover  trades  never  contemplated  by  the  or- 
ganizers, officers,  or  members;  never  comprehended  by  their  titles,  trades  of 
which  there  is  already  in  existence  a  national  union.  And  this  without  a  word 
of  advice,  counsel,  or  warning. 

I  submit  that  it  is  untenable  and  intolerable  for  an  organization  to  attempt 
to  ride  roughshod  over  and  trample  under  foot  rights  and  jurisdiction  of  a 
trade,  the  jurisdiction  of  which  is  already  covered  by  an  existing  organization. 
This  contention  for  jurisdiction  has  grown  into  such  proportions  and  is  fought 
with  such  an  intensity  as  to  arouse  many  bitter  feuds  and  trade  wars.  In 
many  instances  employers  fairly  inclined  for  organized  labor  are  made  inno- 
cently to  suffer  from  causes  entirely  beyond  their  control. 

As  proof  of  the  prophetic  and  far-sighted  utterances  of  President 
Gompers,  it  has  been  pointed  out  that  "  in  1911,  in  Chicago,  his 
grim  prophecy  was  actually  fulfilled  in  the  bitter  jurisdictional  wars 
fought  by  rival  unions  in  that  city  in  which  paid  thugs  and  gunmen 
turned  the  streets  of  Chicago  into  a  condition  of  anarchy,  and  in 
which,  as  a  mere  incident  from  the  union  standpoint,  millions  of 
dollars  of  construction  work  remained  idle,  with  a  resultant  loss  to 
owners,  contractors,  and  the  business  interest  of  the  city  beyond  pos- 
sibility of  calculation." 

We  ask,  what  sane  or  thoughtful  employer  would  willingly  put  his 
head  in  a  noose  such  as  this  by  recognizing  and  dealing  with  unions, 
and  thus  invite  possible  ruin  ? 

LABOR  UNIOtf   POLITICS. 

• 

The  third  objection  of  employers  to  recognizing  and  dealing  with 
organized  labor  is  the  risk  they  run,  especially  in  the  building  trades, 
where  power  to  declare  a  strike  is  concentrated  in  the  hands  of  a 
business  agent,  of  finding  themselves  at  the  mercy  of  either  a  cor- 
rupt business  agent  or  one  who,  for  the  sake  of  union  politics,  is 
endeavoring,  in  order  to  perpetuate  himself  in  office,  to  make  capital 
at  the  expense  of  the  innocent  employer  by  making  unwarranted  and 
unreasonable  demands  against  the  employer. 

CONTRACT  BREAKING. 

The  fourth  reason  offered  by  the  employers  for  refusing  to  recog- 
nize or  to  deal  with  organized  labor,  is  its  increasing  unreliability 
in  keeping  trade  agreements.  To  give  one  case  in  point,  our  record 
gives  the  story  in  undisputed  statement  published  in  the  United 
Mine  Workers'  Journal,  which  is  the  official  organ  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America,  written  by  Mr.  W.  O.  Smith,  ex-chair- 
man of  the  executive  committee  of  the  Kentucky  District  of  United 


238  KEPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

Mine  Workers  of  America,  in  which  Mr.  Smith,  among  other  things, 
says : 

Because  of  the  indifference  of  the  conservative  members  of  our  unions,  and 
the  activity  of  the  radical  element  which  is  responsible  for  the  greatest  menace 
which  has  ever  threatened  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  the  local 
strike,  during  the  past  two  or  three  years  the  international,  as  well  as  the 
district  and  subdistrict  officials,  have  been  confronted  with  many  perplexing 
problems,  some  of  which  seem  to  threaten  the  very  life  of  the  organization. 
But  I  believe  I  am  safe  in  saying  that  no  problem  has  given  them  so  much 
concern  as  the  problem  of  local  strikes  in  violation  of  agreements. 

Thousands  of  dollars  are  expended  every  year  in  an  effort  to  organize  the 
250,000  nonunion  miners  in  the  United  States,  while  hundreds  of  our  members 
go  on  strike  almost  every  day  in  absolute,  unexcusable  violation  of  existing 
agreements.1 

This  criticism  comes  not  from  an  e'mployer,  but  from  an  ardent, 
earnest  unionist,  in  high  standing  in  his  organization. 

Corroborating  the  statement  of  Mr.  Smith,  comes  a  statement  pub- 
lished in  Coal  Age  of  December  20,  1913,  issued  by  the  Association 
of  Bituminous  Coal  Operators  of  Central  Pennsylvania,  addressed  to 
Mr.  Patrick  Gilday,  president  of  District  No.  2,  U.  M.  W.  of  A., 
Morrisville  mines,  Pennsylvania,  dated  Philadelphia,  December  12^ 
1913,  in  w.hich,  among  other  things,  the  following  appears : 

Whereas,  Rules  12  and  13  of  said  agreement  provide,  "  that  should  differences 
arise  between  the  operators  and  mine  workers  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  pro- 
visions of  this  agreement  or  about  matters  not  specifically  mentioned  in  this 
agreement,  there  shall  be  no  suspension  of  work  on  account  of  such  difference, 
but  an  earnest  effort  be  made  to  settle  such  differences  immediately."  Whereas, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  Rule  15  provides  the  right  to  hire  and  discharge, 
the  management  of  the  mine  and  the  direction  of  the  working  forces  are  vested 
exclusively  in  the  operator,  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  have  abso- 
lutely disregarded  this  rule,  in  that  they  have  at  numerous  times  served  notices 
on  substantially  every  operator  belonging  to  our  association,  that  unless  all  the 
employees  working  for  such  operators  should  become  members  of  the  union  on 
or  before  certain  dates  mentioned  in  said  notices,  that  they,  the  Mine  Workers, 
would  close  or  shut  down  the  operators'  respective  mines,  and  in  many  instances 
did  close  the  mines  for  this  reason,  and  refused  to  return  to  work  unless  such 
nonunion  employees  were  discharged.  This  conduct  is  in  direct  violation  of 
the  contract,  and  specifically  interferes  writh  and  abridges  the  right  of  the  oper- 
ator to  hire  and  discharge ;  of  the  management  of  the  mine,  and  of  the  direction 
of  the  working  forces;  this  conduct  in -violation  of  contract  on  the  part  of  the 
Mine  Workers,  as  well  as  that  mentioned  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  has 
resulted  in  more  than  one  hundred  strikes  during  the  life  of  our  scale  agree- 
ment.2 

Numerous  other  illustrations  could  be  given  from  the  records  of 
the  commission,  showing  that  there  are  other  instances  where  unions 
did  not  observe  their  contracts,  tending  to  make,  in  the  minds  of 
many  employers,  a  character  for  all  unionism,  and  thus  increasing 
their  hesitancy  in  recognizing  and  dealing  with  unions. 

RESTRICTION  OF  OUTPUT. 

Not  least  among  the  reasons  given  by  fair-minded  employers  for 
refusing  to  recognize  or  deal  with  labor  unions,  is  the  fact  that  many 
unions  stand  for  a  limited  output,  thus  making  among  their  workers 
for  the  dead  level,  and  thereby  malting  it  impossible  for  the  union 
employer  successfully  to  compete  with  the  nonunion  employer,  who 
is  not  faced  with  such  handicap. 

1  New  York  hearings,  IT.  S.  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations,  pp.  2750-2751. 

2  Now  York  hearings,  U.  S.  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations,  pp.  2061-20G2. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  239 

British  industrial  conditions  are  cursed  with  the  practice  of  limited 
output,  as  compared  with  the  absence  of  this  practice  in  industrial 
Germany.  As  a  consequence,  Germany,  in  time  of  peace,  has  indus- 
trially outrun  Great  Britain  by  leaps  and  bounds. 

The  British  unionist,  by  practicing  limited  output,  has  thus  played 
directly  into  the  hands  of  his  keenest  industrial  competitor,  the 
German. 

The  records  of  the  commission  also  show  that  organized  labor, 
almost  as  a  unit,  is  very  strongly  opposed  to  the  introduction  in  in- 
dustry of  what  has  become  known  as  scientific  management,  or 
efficiency  methods.  In  relation  to  this  phase  of  the  problem,  we  find 
ourselves  as  one  with  the  statement  made  and  the  opinions  expressed 
by  Mr.  Louis  D.  Brandeis  before  the  commission  at  Washington,  in 
April,  1914,  who,  when  invited  to  express  his  opinion  on  the  question 
of  efficiency  standards,  scientific  management,  and  labor,  among  other 
things,  said: 

My  special  interest  in  this  subject  arises  from  the  conviction  that,  in  the 
first  place,  workingmen,  and  in  the  second  place,  members  of  the  community 
generally,  can  attain  the  ideals  of  our  American  democracy  only  through  an 
immediate  increase  and  perhaps  a  constant  increase,  in  the  productivity  of 
man.  *  *  *  Our  ideals  could  not  be  attained  unless  we  succeed  in  greatly 
increasing  the  productivity  of  man.  *  *  *  The  progress  that  we  have 
made  in  improving  the  conditions  of  the  workingman  during  the  last  century, 
and  particularly  during  the  last  50  years,  has  been  largely  due  to  the  fact  that 
intervention  or  the  introduction  of  machinery  has  gone  so  far  in  increasing  the 
productivity  of  the  individual  man.  With  the  advent  of  the  new  science  of 
management  has  come  the  next  great  opportunity  of  increasing  labor's  share 
in  the  production,  and  it  seems  to  me,  therefore,  of  the  utmost  importance,  not 
only  that  the  science  should  be  developed  and  should  be  applied  as  far  as 
possible,  but  that  it  should  be  applied  in  cooperation  with  the  representatives  of 
organized  labor,  in  order  that  labor  may  now,  in  this  new  movement,  get  its 
proper  share. 

I  take  it  that  the  whole  of  this  science  of  management  is  nothing  more  than 
an  organized  effort,  pursued  intensively,  to  eliminate  waste.  *  *  *  It  is  in 
the  process  of  eliminating  waste  and  increasing  the  productivity  of  man,  to 
adopt  those  methods  which  will  insure  the  social  and  industrial  essentials, 
fairness  in  development,  fairness  in  the  distribution  of  the  profits,  and  the 
encouragement  to  the  workingman  which  can  not  come  without  fairness. 

I  take  it  that  in  order  to  accomplish  this  result,  it  is  absolutely  essential  that 
the  unions  should  be  represented  in  the  process.  *  *  *  When  labor  is  given 
such  a  representation,  I  am  unable  to  find  anything  in  scientific  management 
which  is  not  strictly  in  accord  with  the  interests  of  labor,  because  it  is  nothing 
more  than  fair,  through  the  application  of  these  methods  which  have  been 
pursued  in  other  branches  of  science,  to  find  out  the  best  and  the  most  effective 
way  of  accomplishing  the  result.  It  is  not  making  men  work  harder — the  very 
effort  of  it  is  to  make  them  work  less  hard,  to  accomplish  more  by  what  they 
do,  and  to  eliminate  all  unnecessary  motion,  to  give  special  effort  and  special 
assistance  to  those  who,  at  the  time  of  the  commencement  of  their  work,  are 
mostly  in  need  of  the  assistance  because  they  are  less  competent. 

As  I  view  the  problem,  it  is  only  one  of  making  the  employer 
recognize  the  necessity  of  the  participation  of  representatives  of  labor  in  the 
introduction  and  carrying  forward  of  the  work,  and  on  the  other  hand,  bring- 
ing to  the  workingman  and  the  representatives  of  organized  labor,  the  recog- 
nition of  the  fact  that  there  is  nothing  in  scientific  management  itself  which  is 
inimical  to  the  interests  of  the  workingman,  but  merely  perhaps  the  practices 
of  certain  individuals,  of  certain  employers  or  concerns  who  have  engaged 
in  it. 

I  feel  that  this  presents  a  very  good  opportunity  for  organized  labor.  It 
seems  to  me  absolutely  clear,  as  scientific  management  rests  upon  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  advance  in  man's  productivity,  of  determining  what  the 
best  way  was  of  doing  a  thing,  instead  of  the  poor  way,  of  a  complete  coordi- 
nation and  organization  of  the  various  departments  of  business,  that  the  intro- 
duction of  scientific  management  in  our  businesses  was  certain  to  come;  that 


240  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

those  who  oppose  the  introduction  altogether  are  undertaking  a  perfectly  im- 
possible task ;  and  that  if  organized  labor  took  the  position  of  absolute  opposi- 
tion, instead  of  taking  the  position  of  insisting  upon  their  proper  part  in  the 
introduction  of  this  system,  and  the  conduct  of  the  business  under  it,  organized 
labor  would  lose  its  greatest  opportunity,  and  would  be  defeating  the  very  pur- 
pose for  which  it  exists. 

On  being  asked  the  question  what,  in  his  opinion,  would  be  the 
status  of  unionism  in  the  event  of  scientific  management  becoming 
a  common  industrial  condition,  Mr.  Brandeis  said: 

I  think  there  would  be  a  great  deal  left  for  unionism  to  do,  and  do  not  think 
the  time  will  come  when  there  will  not  be,  as  long  as  there  is  a  wage  system 
in  existence.  *  *  *  I  do  not  feel  that  we  have  reached  the  limit  of  the 
shorter  day,  certainly  not  in  some  employments,  nor  do  I  think  we  have 
reached  the  limit  of  the  higher  wage ;  certainly  we  have  not  reached  the  limit 
of  the  best  conditions  of  employment  in  many  industries. 

All  of  these  subjects  are  subjects  which  must  be  taken  up,  and  should  be 
taken  up  by  the  representatives  of  the  men  and  women  who  are  particularly 
interested.  There  will  be  work  for  unions  to  do  as  long  as  there  is  a  wage 
system. 

Mr.  Brandeis  further  stated  that  he  saw  no  menace  to  unionism  in 
scientific  management,  and  that  he  favored  labor  having  a  voice  in 
determining  all  the  factors  involved  in  scientific  management. 

In  answer  to  the  question  if  he  thought  the  fears  groundless  on  the 
part  of  organized  labor  in  looking  upon  scientific  management  as  a 
menace  to  unionism,  he  answered,  saying: 

Yes ;  groundless  except  for  this — I  think,  for  instance,  that  the  existence  of 
the  system  of  scientific  management,  unless  the  unions  choose  to  cooperate 
with  the  effort  to  install  it,  may  menace  unionism,  because  the  most  efficient 
and  advanced  employers  may  adopt  it,  whether  the  unions  like  it  or  not,  and  in 
that  way  these  establishments  may  become  successful,  and  be  so  buttressed 
by  their  success  as  to  be  able  to  exclude  unions  from  their  business.  That  is 
the  menace,  if  they  do  not  take  part,  but  if  they  cooperate  it  seems  to  me  it 
simply  advances  unionism. 

Mr.  Brandeis  confirmed  the  thought  that  if  unionism  is  wise  it 
will  make  the  most  of  its  opportunity  by  enlisting  its  cooperation  in 
the  movement,  and  will  endeavor  to  bring  scientific  management  to 
its  highest  possibility  at  the  earliest  day,  in  order  that  it  may  better 
share  the  increased  surplus  created  by  such  scientific  management, 
and  that  for  unions  to  work  against  it  is  in  the  nature  of  a  colossal 
error.  The  testimony  of  Miss  Ida  'Tarbell  on  this  point  was  in  full 
accord  with  that  of  Mr.  Brandeis. 

PROHIBITION    OF   USE    OF    NONUNION -MADE   TOOLS    AND    MATERIAL. 

The  sixth  reason  offered  by  employers  for  refusing  to  recognize  or 
to  deal  with  organized  labor  is  that  when  they  do  so  they  are  often 
not  permitted  to  use  nonunion-made  tools  or  materials,  thus  placing 
upon  themselves  a  burden  and  a  hardship  from  which  nonunion  em- 
ployers are  free,  and  thus  also  laying  themselves  liable  to  get  into  all 
sorts  of  controversies  with  the  union,  which  are  vexatious,  annoying, 
time-losing,  and,  frequently,  most  costly,  as  they  sometimes  lead  to 
grave  and  serious  strikes. 

CLOSED  SHOP. 

The  seventh  reason  why  many  employers  refuse  to  recognize  or  to 
deal  with  organized  labor  (and  among  these  may  be  mentioned  the 
employers  of  large  bodies  of  workers  who  have  previously  had  trade 
agreements  with  organized  labor)  is  the  matter*  of  the  closed  shop. 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  241 

Many  such  employers  are  quite  willing  to  recognize  and  to  deal 
with  unions  upon  a  tacit  or  written  open-shop  agreement,  but  they 
have  no  confidence,  based  on  their  previous  experience,  that  an  open- 
shop  agreement  will  be  respected  by  the  unions.  Such  employers 
labor  under  the  fear  that,  despite  an  open-shop  agreement  or  under- 
standing, the  union,  at  its  first  opportunity,  will  force  them  to  com- 
pel the  nonunion  worker  to  join  the  union.  Employers  such  as  these 
are  unwilling  to  place  themselves  in  the  position  where  the  union 
can  control  them  despite  an  open-shop  agreement  or  understanding 
and,  so  to  speak,  put  a  pistol  to  their  heads  and  command  them 
in  turn  to  command  a  nonunion  worker  on  pain  of  dismissal  to  join 
the  union.  Such  employers  feel  that,  having  an  open-shop  agree- 
ment or  understanding,  if  for  any  reason  a  worker  does  not  choose 
to  join  the  union,  they  as  employers  should  no  more  compel  him  to 
do  so  than  they  would  compel  him  to  join  any  particular  fraternal 
society  or  religious  body.  They  feel  that  if  they  are  working  under 
an  open-shop  agreement  or  understanding  and  such  nonunion  worker 
is  capable,  efficient,  and  has  rendered  long  and  faithful  service,  that 
they  are  doing  him  and  themselves  a  great  injustice  either  to  force 
him  into  a  union  or  to  discharge  him  because  he  will  not  join  a  union. 

Where  an  employer  enters  into  an  agreement  with  a  union  which 
does  not  stipulate  that  only  union  men  shall  be  employed  but  leaves 
the  employer  free  to  employ  exclusively  union  men  or  some  union  and 
some  nonunion  men  as  he  may  prefer,  so  long  as  he  maintains  for  all 
men  union  conditions,  that  in  such  an  event  the  union  has  no  right  to 
demand  that  the  nonunionist  should  be  compelled  by  the  employer  to 
join  the  union  or  a  strike  will  follow.  For  the  union,  under  such  con- 
ditions, to  strike,  as  it  has  done,  notably  in  the  Pennsylvania  coal 
fields,  and  as  pointed  out  also  by  W.  O.  Smith,  ex-chairman  of  the 
executive  committee  of  the  Kentucky  district  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America,  whose  statements  have  been  quoted  herein,  is 
a  violation,  on  the  part  of  the  union,  of  its  contract. 

It  may  be  held  that  unionists  working  under  an  open-shop  agree- 
ment or  understanding  always  reserve  to  themselves  the  right,  for 
any  reason  or  for  no  reason,  to  cease  to  work  alongside  of  nonunion 
men,  and  that  they  further  reserve  the  right  to  determine  the  psycho- 
logical moment  at  which  it  is  in  their  interest  to  cease  work  or  to  go 
on  a  strike  because  they  will  not  work  alongside  of  nonunion  men. 
It  is  the  fear  of  the  likelihood  of  their  doing  this  that  frightens 
off  many  employers  from  recognizing  or  dealing  with  organized 
labor.  They  feel  that  even  when  they  are  operating  under  an  open- 
shop  agreement  or  understanding  which  does  not  deny  them  the 
right  to  employ  nonunion  men  so  long  as  they  work  under  union 
conditions,  they  are  working  with  a  sword  suspended  over  their 
heads  by  a  slender  thread,  which  may  break  at  any  moment,  and  are 
liable  to  have  a  strike  on  their  hands  at  the  most  critical  time,  which 
may  spell  ruin  for  their  business.  Employers,  as  a  rule,  do  not  deem 
it  a  good  business  policy  to  invite  such  risks. 

An  impressive  example  of  this  policy  on  the  part  of  organized  labor 
was  brought  out  in  the  testimony  taken  by  the  commission  at  Lead, 
S.  Dak.  Supt.  Grier,  of  the  Homestake  IVIining  Co.,  Lead,  S.  Dak., 
at  the  hearing  held  by  the  commission  at  that  point  in  August,  1914, 
stated  that  he  had  recognized  and  dealt  with  the  Lead  City  Miners' 
38819°— 16 16 


242  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

Union  from  1877  to  1909,  with  the  understanding  that  they  were  at 
liberty  to  employ  union  or  nonunion  men  as  they  preferred.  Late  in 
October,  1909,  a  resolution  was  published  in  the  daily  papers  that 
on  and  after  the  25th  of  November,  1909,  members  of  the  federation 
would  not  work  with  those  working  for  the  Homestake  Mining  Co. 
who  failed  and  neglected  to  become  members  of  the  union  in  good 
standing;  and  in  consequence,  on  the  25th  of  November,  the  mine 
was  closed  down,  and  from  that  day  on  the  company  has  not  recog- 
nized nor  dealt  with  organized  labor. 

We  are,  however,  of  the  opinion  that  where  an  employer  enters 
into  an  agreement  with  a  union  which  stipulates  that  only  union 
men  shall  be  employed,  a  thing  which  he  has  both  a  moral  and  a  legal 
right  to  do,  the  nonunion  worker,  in  that  event,  can  have  no  more 
reason  to  find  fault  with  the  employer  in  declining  fo  employ  him 
than  a  certain  manufacturer  would  have  if  the  employer,  for  rea- 
sons satisfactory  to  himself,  should  confine  his  purchases  to  the 
product  of  some  other  manufacturer. 

CONTESTS   FOR   SUPREMACY  BETWEEN    RIVAL  UNIONS. 

Testimony  has  been  given  before  this  commission  indicating,  in 
more  than  one  instance,  that  contests  between  rival  unions,  or  fac- 
tions of  the  same  union,  have  led  to  strikes  causing  industrial  unrest 
from  which  the  worker  as  well  as  the  employer,  has  suffered  harm 
and  loss. 

ACTS  OF  VIOLENCE  AGAINST  NONUNION  WORKERS  AND  THE  PROPERTIES  OF 

EMPLOYERS. 

The  ninth  objection  raised  on  the  part  of  the  employers  against 
unionism,  which  has  been  substantiated  abundantly  by  investigation 
and  by  testimony  taken  by  the  commission,  is  the  resort  on  the  part 
of  unionists  to  violence  in  labor  troubles,  and  to  the  fact  that  union- 
ists condone  such  violence  when  committed  in  the  alleged  interest 
of  labor. 

The  most  notable  case,  of  course,  in  modern  industrial  history,  is 
that  of  the  structual  iron  workers,  which  resulted  in  the  plea  of 
guilty  on  the  part  of  the  McNamara  brothers,  for  the  blowing  up  of 
the  Los  Angeles  Times  Building,  killing  over  20  innocent  people,  and 
which  further  resulted  in  Frank  Ryan,  the  president  of  the  Struc- 
tural Iron  Workers'  National  Union,  and  a  group  of  other  labor 
union  officials,  being  convicted  and  sentenced  to  prison. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  bringing  into  life  of  this  United  States 
Commission  on  Industrial  Relations  was  due  primarily  to  the  long 
series  of  crimes  committed  at  the  instance  of  the  structural  iron 
workers'  union,  wrhich  culminated  in  the  blowing  up  of  the  Los 
Angeles  Times  Building,  with  its  attendant  loss  of  life  of  innocent 
citizens,  and  which  aroused  a  state  of  public  sentiment  demanding 
that  an  investigation  be  made  by  an  impartial  Federal  body,  to 
inquire  into  the  underlying  causes  of  industrial  unrest,  the  existence 
of  which  seemed  to  be  evidenced  by  the  violent  activities  on  the  part 
of  labor  in  various  parts  of  the  country. 

Vincent  St.  John,  secretary  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World,  in  his  testimony  before  the  Commission  on  Industrial  Rela- 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  243 

tions  at  a  public  hearing  in  New  York,  said  that  he  believed  in 
violence  when  it  was  necessary  to  win.  He  said  that  if  the  destruc- 
tion of  property  seemed  necessary  to  bring  results,  then  he  believed 
in  the  destruction  of  property. 

A.  Johannsen,  of  California,  State  organizer  for  the  building 
trades  of  California,  and  general  organizer  for  the  United  Brother- 
hood of  Carpenters,  in  his  testimony  before  the  United  States  Com- 
mission on  Industrial  Relations  at  Washington  in  May,  1915,  in 
speaking  of  the  reelection  of  Frank  Ryan,  president  of  the  National 
Structural  Iron  Workers'  Union,  among  other  things  thanked  the 
Lord  that  the  union  had  the  courage  to  reelect  him  president  after 
he  had  been  convicted  as  a  participant  in  the  dynamiting  crimes  of 
the  structural  iron  workers.  He  further  expressed  the  hope  that  it 
was  true  that  the  convicted  dynamiters,  after  being  reelected  to  office 
by  the  iron  workers,  were  met  by  a  procession  or  applause  at  Fort 
Leavenworth  while  on  their  way  to  prison,  and  that  President  Ryan 
performed  his  official  duties  while  there,  and  rendered  his  official 
reports  as  president  of  a  union  of  10,000  members  and  a  part  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor. 

In  contradistinction  to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Johannsen,  to  the  effect 
that  he  thanked  the  Lord  that  the  union  had  the  courage  to  reelect 
Frank  Ryan  president  after  he  had  been  convicted  as  a  participant 
in  the  dynamiting  crimes  of  the  structural  iron  workers,  we  have  the 
opinion  of  Dr.  Charles  W.  Eliot,  president  emeritus  of  Harvard 
University,  who,  in  his  testimony  before  the  United  States  Commis- 
sion on  Industrial  Relations  at  New  York,  January  29,  1915,  in 
referring  to  this  very  instance,  said,  in  answer  to  the  question  as  to 
how  he  regarded  the  action  of  the  structural  iron  workers'  union  in 
reelecting  Frank  R}Tan  president  after  his  conviction  of  crime,  "As 
a  serious  moral  offense  against  the  community  as  a  whole."  1 

Speaking  about  respecting  court  labor  injunctions,  Witness  Jo- 
hannsen said: 

I  don't  think  the  power  of  an  injunction  goes  much  beyond  the  courage  of 
those  who  are  enjoined.  I  think  that  if  a  person  is  convinced  in  his  own  mind 
and  his  own  feelings  that  his  case  is  just,  that  his  demands  for  an  increase  of 
wages,  or  whatever  the  fight  may  he — if  you  think  and  feel  you  are  right,  why, 
then  go  ahead.  Never  mind  about  those  pieces  of  paper.2 

On  being  asked  whether  he  (Johannsen)  believed  that  Frank 
Ryan,  president  of  the  Structural  Iron  Workers'  National  Union, 
and  his  associates,  were  innocent  men  railroaded  to  prison,  he  said 
that  he  did,  and  that  he  wTas  satisfied  they  never  committed  any 
crime  against  labor  or  a  better  society,  and  were  therefore  unjustly 
convicted.  This  was  his  attitude,  despite  his  attention  having  been 
called  to  the  opinion  and  decision  rendered  by  the  circuit  court  of 
appeals,  including  Judges  Baker,  Seaman,  and  Kohlsaat,  against 
whose  integrity  and  fairness  no  whisper  had  ever  been  heard,  and 
who  seemingly  went  into  the  evidence  in  the  dynamiting  cases  most 
exhaustively  and  carefully,  and  who,  among  other  things,  in  their 
decision,  said — 

The  facts  thus  recited,  as  proven  by  the  Government  on  the  trial,  may  be 
mentioned  in  part  as  follows :  Almost  100  explosions  thus  occurred,  damaging 
and  destroying  buildings  and  bridges  in  process  of  erection  where  the  work 

1  Now  York  hearings,  TT.  S.  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations,  p.  1007. 

2  Washington  hearings,  May,  1915,  U.  S.  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations,  p.  958. 


244  BEPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

was  being  done  by  open-shop  concerns,  and  no  explosions  took  place  in  connec- 
tion with  work  of  a  similar  character,  where  the  work  was  done  by  closed- 
shop  concerns.  *  *  *  In  connection  with  this  work  of  destruction,  dyna- 
mite and  nitroglycerine  was  purchased  and  stolen,  and  various  storage  places 
arranged  to  conveniently  store  such  explosives  which  were  to  be  used  in  the 
destruction  of  property  in  the  various  States  referred  to.  *  *  *  Large 
quantities  of  dynamite  and  nitroglycerine  were  at  various  times  stored  in  the 
vaults  of  the  association  at  Indianapolis,  and  also  in  the  basement  of  the  build- 
ing. *  *  *  Four  explosions  occurred  in  one  night  at  the  same  hour  in 
Indianapolis,  and  explosions  were  planned  to  take  place  on  the  same  night, 
two  hours  apart,  at  Omaha,  Nebr.,  and  Columbus,  Ind.,  and  the  explosions 
so  planned  did  occur  on  the  same  night,  at  about  the  same  time,  instead  of  two 
hours  apart,  owing  to  the  fact  that  one  clock  was  defective.  *  *  *  All  the 
dynamite  and  nitroglycerine  *  *  *  including  the  expenses  incident  to 
the  stealing  of  the  dynamite,  were  paid  out  of  the  funds  of  the  international 
association,  and  these  funds  \vere  drawn  from  the  association  upon  checks 
signed  by  the  secretary-treasurer,  John  J.  McNamara,  and  the  president, 
Frank  M.  Ryan,  plaintiff  in  error. 

The  written  correspondence  on  the  part  of  many  of  the  plaintiffs  in  error 

*  *     *     furnish  manifold  evidence  not   only   of  understanding  between  the 
correspondents  of  the  purposes  of  the  primary  conspiracy,  but  many  thereof 
convey  information  or  direction  for  the  use  of  the  explosives,  while  others 
advise  of  the  destruction  which  has  occurred,  and  each  points  unerringly  not 
only  to  the  understanding  that  the  agency  therein  was  that  of  the  conspirators, 
but  as  wrell  to  the  necessary   steps   in   its  performance  of  transporting   the 
explosives  held  for  such  use.    This  line  of  evidence  clearly  tends  to  prove, 
and  may  well  be  deemed  convincing  of  the  fact  on  the  part  of  many,  if  not  all, 
of  the  correspondents. 

Plaintiff  Frank  M.  Ryan  was  president  of  the  association  and  of  its  execu- 
tive board,  and  was  active  manager  and  leader  of  the  contest,  and  policies 
carried  on  throughout  the  years  of  the  strike  and  destructive  explosions  in 
evidence.  Letters  written  and  received  by  him  at  various  stages  of  the  contest 
clearly  tend  to  prove  his  familiarity  with  and  management  of  the  long  course 
of  destroying  open-shop  structures,  however  guarded  in  expression.  He  was 
at  the  headquarters  of  the  association  for  the  supervision  of  operations  periodi- 
cally, usually  two  or  three  days  each  month,  uniformly  attended  the  meetings 
there  of  the  executive  board,  and  made  frequent  visits  to  the  field  of  activities. 

*  *     *     He  signed  all  of  the  checks  in  evidence  for  payments  for  expenditures 
for  purchase,   storage,   and   conveyance   of  explosives.     *     *     *     Many   other 
letters  in  evidence,  both  from  and  to  him,  however  disguised  in  terms,  may  well 
authorize  an  inference  of  his  complete  understanding  of,  and  complicity  for, 
the  explosions,  both  in  plans  and  execution.1 

Masses  of  testimony  were  filed  with  the  commission  to  prove  that 
organized  labor  at  times  resorted  to  a  policy  of  lawlessness.  Among 
other  documents  may  be  cited  a  magazine  under  the  title  of  A 
Policy  of  Lawlessness,  a  partial  record  of  riot,  assault,  murder,  and 
intimidation,  occurring  in  strikes  of  the  iron  molders'  union,  during 
1904,  1905,  1906,  1907,  published  by  the  National  Founders'  Asso- 
ciation, in  which  are  given,  as  a  partial  list  taken  from  court  records, 
a  great  number  of  instances  of  violence  on  the  part  of  labor  unionists 
in  labor  disputes;  and  also  a  document  published  as  a  report,  sub- 
mitted by  the  committee  on  labor  disputes  of  the  Cleveland  Chamber 
of  Commerce,  entitled  "  Violence  in  Labor  Disputes, "  giving  hun- 
dreds of  instances  where  unionists  had  resorted  to  violence  in  labor 
troubles  in  that  community  alone. 

Mr.  Luke  Grant,  special  investigator  for  the  United  States  Com- 
mission on  Industrial  Relations,  in  his  report  to  the  commission  on 

1  Washington  hearings,  May,  1915,  TJ.  S.  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations,  pp.  1004- 
1013. 


KEPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  245 

the  National  Erectors'  Association  and  the  International  Association 
of  Bridge  and  Structural  Iron  Workers,  says : 

Do  they  [the  unions]  believe  in  violence?  They  did  not  destroy  property 
and  they  don't  know  who  did.  They  probably  adopted  resolutions  denouncing 
the  unknown  perpetrators,  and  offering  a  reward  for  their  arrest  and  con- 
viction. The  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  in  convention,  offered  a  reward 
for  the  arrest  of  the  men  who  blew  up  the  Independence  depot  in  June,  1904, 
killing  14  men.  Harry  Orchard  afterwards  confessed  that  he  and  Steve  Adams 
did  it,  acting  as  agents  for  the  officers  of  the  union. 

In  this  way  do  union  men  collectively  approve  of  violence,  that  few  if  any 
of  them  would  individually  permit  (p.  148). 

Referring  to  the  industrial  war  between  the  National  Erectors' 
Association  and  the  structural  iron  workers'  union,  Mr.  Grant  con- 
tinues to  say: 

When  the  hopelessness  of  the  situation  became  apparent  to  the  union  officials, 
resort  was  made  to  the  destruction  of  property.  Diplomacy  was  out  of  the 
question,  so  dynamite  was  tried  (p.  150). 

The  report  of  Luke  Grant  brings  out  the  fact  that  the  structural 
iron  workers  had  no  grievances  against  their  employers  in  the  matter 
of  wages,  hours,  or  working  conditions.  The  only  question  at  issue 
was  that  of  the  closed  shop.  To  enforce  the  closed  shop,  the  struc- 
tural iron  workers  seemed  to  feel  themselves  justified  in  dynamiting 
over  100  properties  and  destroying  many  innocent  lives. 

Police  Commissioner  Arthur  Woods,  of  the  city  of  New  York,  in 
his  testimony  before  the  United  States  Commission  on  Industrial 
Relations  in  May,  1915,  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  speaking  of  violence 
by  labor  unions,  among  other  things,  said : 

The  result  of  our  investigation  shows  a  course  of  procedure  like  this :  There 
would  be  a  strike  and  the  strikers  would  retain  some  gunmen  to  do  whatever 
forcible  or  violent  work  they  needed.  The  employer,  to  meet  this  violence, 
would  in  a  comparatively  small  percentage  of  cases,  and  not  as  many  cases  as 
the  gunmen  were  employed  on  the  other  side,  hire  a  private  detective  agency. 
The  function  that  the  gunmen  were  to  perform  was  to  intimidate  the  workers 
that  were  hired  to  take  the  place  of  the  strikers.  *  *  *  There  were  three 
indictments  for  murder  in  the  first  degree. 

The  question  was  asked  Police  Commissioner  Woods  in  how  far 
his  investigations  had  warranted  the  statement  that  appeared  in  the 
New  York  Herald  of  May  14,  1915,  reading  as  follows : 

Several  of  the  indictments  mentioned  assault  upon  members  of  the  union, 
and  in  this  connection  District  Attorney  Perkins  said  last  night  that  the  reign  of 
lawlessness  was  caused  by  union  leaders  who  wished  to  perpetuate  themselves 
in  power,  who  hired  assailants  to  assault  contenders  in  their  own  unions  for 
their  places,  and  who  used  their  union  offices  to  extort  blackmail  under  threats 
from  employers.  Seven  men  are  indicted  for  assault  in  a  riot  for  control  of 
the  union.  Four  men  are  indicted  for  hiring  Dopey  Benny's  men  to  go  to  a 
nonunion  factory  and  rough-house  the  employees  as  they  left,  and  wreck  the 
plant.  A  dozen  workers  were  wounded  in  that  fight. 

Six  union  men  are  accused  of  extortion  and  assault  in  using  violence  to 
collect  a  fine  of  $100  upon  an  employer.  Four  others  are  accused  of  hiring  the 
Dopey  Benny  band  to  shoot  up  a  nonunion  factory.  Many  shops  were  fired. 
The  factory  suffered  a  damage  of  $1,000  and  several  persons  were  injured. 
Other  indictments  mentioned  cases  where  the  band  was  employed  by  union 
leaders  to  attack  nonunion  workers,  to  wreck  factories,  and  even  to  assault 
nonunion  men  who  opposed  the  leaders  (pp.  964-5). 

To  all  of  the  foregoing,  Police  Commissioner  Woods  replied, 
"  That  is  the  general  line  of  things  that  we  found." 


246  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION"   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

One  of  the  ablest  and  clearest-headed  exponents  of  the  cause  of 
labor  that  testified  before  this  commission  was  Morris  Hillquit,  of 
New  York.  In  speaking  of  violence  in  labor  troubles,  he  is  quoted 
as  saying,1  that  the  resort  to  violence  and  lawbreaking  was  "  ethically 
unjustifiable  and  tactically  suicidal."  Mr.  Hillquit  pointed  out  that 
wherever  any  group  or  section  of  the  labor  movement  "  has  embarked 
upon  a  policy  of  '  breaking  the  law '  or  using  '  any  weapon  which  will 
win  a  fight,'  whether  such  policy  was  styled  '  terrorism,'  f  propaganda' 
<of  the  deed,  '  direct  action,'  '  sabotage,'  or  '  anarchism,'  it  has  in- 
variably served  to  destroy  the  movement  by  attracting  to  it  profes- 
sional criminals,  infesting  it  with  spies,  leading  the  workers  to  need- 
less and  senseless  slaughter,  and  ultimately  engendering  a  spirit  of 
disgust  and  reaction." 

Robert  Hunter,  commenting  on  the  foregoing  statement  made  by 
Morris  Hillquit,  says  (p.  viii)  : 

It  will,  I  think,  be  clear  to  the  reader  that  the  history  of  the  labor  movement 
during  the  last  half  century  fully  sustains  Mr.  Hillquit's  position. 

APPRENTICESHIP  RULES. 

The  question  of  apprenticeships  has  led  to  much  industrial  strife 
and  consequent  industrial  unrest,  where  unions  have  arbitrarily  de- 
termined the  number  of  apprentices  that  the  employer  may  take  on. 
'  Where  this  practice  has  prevailed  the  union  employer  has,  in  com- 
petition with  the  nonunion  employer,  been  seriously  handicapped, 
The  remedy  for  this  evil  lies  obviously  in  a  joint  agreement  under  the 
direction  of  the  proposed  State  industrial  commissions,  in  which  each 
side  has  an  equal  voice  in  determining  the  proper  quota  of  appren- 
tices to  be  employed. 

In  conclusion,  it  is  our  desire  to  point  out  that  organized  labor  is 
chargeable  with  its  fullest  share  of  creating  causes  of  industrial  un- 
rest, because  of  its  sympathetic  strikes,  its  jurisdictional  disputes,  its 
labor  union  politics,  its  contract  breaking,  its  resort  to  violence  in 
time  of  trouble,  its  policy  of  limited  output,  and  its  closed  shop 
policy.  There  is  an  abundance  of  evidence  in  the  records  of  the  com- 
mission to  show  that  organized  labor  is  also  guilty  of  intimidating 
courts,  more  especially  the  lower  criminal  courts,  to  deal  lightly  with 
labor  offenders  charged  with  criminal  assaults  in  labor  troubles ;  and 
that  some  judges,  more  especially  in  the  lower  courts,  toady  to 
organized  labor  for  vote-getting  purposes,  and  dismiss  union  labor 
men  guilty  of  lawbreaking,  or  impose  on  them  nominal  penalties  out 
of  all  proportion  to  the  crimes  committed. 

These  various  policies  have  brought  about  their  fullest  share  among 
the  workers,  to  say  nothing  of  the  injury  inflicted  011  employers  and 
on  society,  of  poverty,  suffering,  wretchedness,  misery,  discontent, 
and  crime.  Organized  labor  will  never  come  into  its  own,  and  will 
indefinitely  postpone  the  day  when  its  many  commendable  objects  will 
oe  achieved  in  the  broadest  sense,  until  it  will  cut  out  of  its  program 
sympathetic  strikes,  until  it  can  prevent  cessation  of  work  in  juris- 
dictional disputes,  until  it  can  more  successfully  prevent  labor  union 
politics,  until  it  can  teach  many  in  its  rank  and  file  to  regard  more 
sacredly  their  trade  agreements,  until  it  can  penalize  its  members  for 

1  Robert  Hunter,  Violence  and  the  Labor  Movement,  p.  viii. 


BEPORT  OF   COMMISSION"   OIST   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  247 

resorting  to  violence  in  labor  disputes,  and  until  it  can  make  it  a  labor 
union  offense  to  limit  output. 

Organized  labor  may  ask,  "If  we  cut  out  the  evil  policies  com- 
plained of  from  our  program,  what  offensive  and  defensive  weapons 
will  be  left  us  with  which  to  protect  ourselves  against  the  unfair 
employer?" 

The  answer  is  that  when  labor  is  effectively  organized  it  has  two 
most  powerful  weapons  at  its  command  that  the  employer,  as  a  rule, 
dreads  and  fears  because  of  the  great  damage  these  weapons  can 
inflict  on  him,  namely,  the  strike  and  the  primary  boycott,  both  of 
which  are  within  the  moral  and  legal  rights  of  the  worker  to  use. 

Generally  speaking,  the  evils  complained  of  have  been  eliminated 
from  the  program  of  the  railway  brotherhoods.  As  a  consequence, 
railway  managers  do  not  hesitate  to  recognize  and  to  deal  with  the 
railway  unions,  to  their  mutual  advantage  and  satisfaction,  with  the 
result  that  collective  bargaining  has  become  the  common  condition 
in  the  railway  wrorld.  Railway  strikes  and  lockouts  have  now  be- 
come most  infrequent,  and  industrial  unrest  due  to  these  causes  in 
this  sphere  of  activity  has  become  greatly  minimized. 

If  these  evils  are  eliminated  by  organized  labor  from  its  program, 
much  will  have  been  done  to  stimulate  collective  bargaining  and  to 
minimize  the  existing  causes  of  industrial  unrest.  The  remedies 
for  all  these  evils  do  not  lie  with  the  employer;  they  rest  wholly  and 
solely  with  unionists.  The  responsibility  for  the  growrth  of  these 
evils,  in  our  opinion,  rests  primarily  with  unionists  who  neglect  their 
union  duties  and  who  are  as  unmindful  of  their  duties  as  union  men 
as  are  many  voters  of  their  civic  duty  who  remain  at  home  on  elec- 
tion dsij. 

We  have  faith  in  the  honesty  of  purpose,  in  the  fairness  of  spirit, 
and  in  the  law-abiding  character  of  the  American  worker,  and  we 
do  not  believe  that  the  rank  and  file  of  American  wage  earners  are 
in  favor  of  many  of  the  practices  of  some  unions  which  have  sub- 
jected unionism  to  so  much  severe,  but  just,  criticism.  We  believe 
it  is  the  duty  of  each  unionist  regularly  to  attend  the  meetings  of  his 
union  in  order  that  democracy  shall  prevail  in  trade-unions  instead 
of  an  autocracy  or  despotism,  which  inevitably  follows  where  the 
best  membership  fails  to  attend  union  meetings  and  thus  permits  the 
affairs  of  the  organization  to  get  into  the  hands  of  incompetent,  ill- 
judging,  or  dishonest  officials,  who,  for  their  selfish  ends,  abuse  the 
power  and  authority  vested  in  them. 

Wherever  there  are  found  honest,  high-minded,  clear-headed  labor 
leaders — and  in  the  course  of  our  investigations  and  hearings  we 
have  come  into  close  personal  touch  with  many  such  as  these,  who 
have  commanded  our  esteem  and  respect — it  will  be  found  that,  as 
a  rule,  they  represent  unions  where  the  better  membership  takes  a 
lively  and  active  interest  in  the  welfare  of  the  association,  and  re- 
gards it  as  a  sacred  duty  to  regularly  attend  its  meetings. 

We  say  frankly  that  if  wre  were  wage  earners  we  would  be  union- 
ists, and  as  unionists  we  should  feel  the  keen  responsibility  of  giv- 
ing the  same  attention  to  our  trade-union  duties  as  to  our  civic 
duties. 

The  ideal  day  in  the  industrial  world  will  be  reached  when  all 
labor  disputes  will  be  settled  as  a  result  of  reason  and  not  as  a  result 
of  force.  This  ideal  day  can  be  hastened  if  the  employers,  on  the 


248  REPORT  OF  COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

one  hand,  will  earnestly  strive  to  place  themselves  in  the  position  of 
the  worker  and  look  at  the  conditions  not  only  through  the  eye  of 
the  employer  but  through  the  eye  of  the  worker;  and  if  the  worker 
will  strive  to  place  himself  in  the  position  of  the  employer,  and  look 
at  the  conditions  not  only  through  the  eye  of  the  worker  but  through 
the  eye  of  the  employer. 

This,  of  course,  means  the  strongest  kind  of  organization  on  both 
sides.  It  means  that  employers  must  drive  out  of  the  ranks  of  their 
associations  the  law  breaker,  the  labor-contract  breaker,  and  the  ex- 
ploiter of  labor.  It  also  means  that,  in  the  interests  of  fairness, 
every  board  of  directors  of  an  industrial  enterprise  should  have 
within  its  organization  a  committee  for  the  special  purpose  of  keep- 
ing the  board  of  directors  advised  as  to  the  condition  of  their  work- 
ers. And  it  finally  means  that  trade-unions  must,  in  order  to  mini- 
mize the  causes  of  industrial  unrest,  among  other  things  remove  the 
weak  spots  in  unionism  set  forth  herein,  thereby  hastening  the  day 
when  employers  will  no  longer  fear  to  recognize  and  deal  with 
unions,  and  when  collective  bargaining  shall  thus  become  the  com- 
mon condition  . 

Finally,  we  feel  that  employers,  individually  and  through  their 
associations,  in  common  with  thoughtful  representatives  of  labor, 
should  give  their  fullest  share  of  thought  and  lend  their  heartiest  co- 
operation in  aiding  to  solve,  through  constructive  legislation  and 
other  ways,  the  great  problems  of  vocational  education,  continuation 
schools,  woman  and  child  labor,  apprenticeship,  hours  of  labor,  hous- 
ing, sickness  insurance,  workmen's  compensation,  safety  measures, 
old-age  pensions,  and  unemployment.  The  hope  is  therefore  ex- 
pressed that  employers  will  strive  to  work  with  rather  than  against 
intelligent  labor  representatives  in  aiding,  through  these  various 
movements,  to  lessen  industrial  unrest  and  to  still  further  improve 
the  condition  of  wage  earners  and  their  dependents. 

HARRIS  WEINSTOCK. 
S.  THRUSTON  BALLARD. 
RICHARD  H. 


1  Appointed  commissioner  Mar.  17,  1915,  to  serve  unexpired  term  of  Hon.  F.  A.  Delano, 
resigned. 


SUPPLEMENTAL    STATEMENT    OF    COMMISSIONER    S.    THRUSTON 

BALLARD. 

The  law  creating  the  United  States  Commission  on  Industrial  Re- 
lations, in  additon  to  other  things,  says :  "  The  commission  shall  seek 
to  discover  the  underlying  causes  of  dissatisfaction  in  the  industrial 
situation  and  report  its  conclusions  thereon." 

The  causes  of  industrial  unrest  may  be  put  under  five  main  groups : 

First.  Low  wages. 

Second.  Unemployment,  through  seasonal  occupations,  periods  of 
depression,  accidents,  and  sickness. 

Third.  The  development  of  large  industries. 

Fourth.  Long  working  hours  and  insanitary  conditions. 

Fifth.  Unsatisfactory  rural  conditions. 

I  will  analyze  each  of  these  groups  separately. 

First.  Low  wages,  with  all  the  attendant  evils,  I  consider  the  prime 
cause  for  industrial  unrest. 

One  of  the  chief  factors  in  wage  depression  is  undoubtedly  the 
encouraged,  stimulated,  and  probably  assisted  immigration  which  has 
brought  to  our  shores  millions  of  unskilled  workers  in  the  last  few 
years.  These  immigrants,  coming  from  those  countries  where  vastly 
lower  wage  rates  prevail,  develop  in  America  a  wage  competition  of 
whch  the  employer  naturally  takes  advantage. 

The  European  war  will  probably  relieve  this  immigration  situation 
for  the  next  few  years,  but  it  is  a  question  to  which  our  Government 
must  give  serious  consideration  in  the  near  future. 

Inefficency  of  the  unskilled  worker  is  also  a  contributory  cause  of 
low  wages.  The  average  applicant  for  work  is  irresponsible  and 
untrained. 

With  all  our  vaunted  free-school  system,  our  industrial  education. 
is  deplorable.  In  our  large  cities  they  are  beginning  to  consider  the 
question  seriously,  but  our  rural  schools  are  lamentably  deficient. 
This  inefficiency,  which  tends  to  lower  the  whole  standard,  can  be 
corrected  only  through  improved  educational  facilities. 

Government  assistance  should  be  given  to  aid  in  the  establishment 
of  vocational,  trade,  and  continuation  schools  as  a  part  of  our 
public-school  system. 

The  gravitation  of  industries  into  large  units  has  caused  the 
skilled  worker  to  be  supplanted  by  the  unskilled,  who  becomes  merely 
a  cog  in  the  wheel  of  the  great  machine,  performing  the  monotonous 
duties  that  anyone  could  easily  do  after  a  few  weeks'  practice. 

The  wages  of  the  unskilled  laborer  are  so  pitifully  small  that  it  is 
almost  impossible  for  him  to  maintain  a  family,  even  with  the  most 
rigid  economy. 

I  suggest  as  the  only  remedy  for  low  wages,  due  to  these  conditions, 
the  enactment  of  a  national  minimum  wage  law. 

249 


250  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

Second.  Under  the  second  cause  of  industrial  unrest — unemploy- 
ment— we  have  seasonal  occupations,  as,  for  example,  ice  cutting  and 
logging  in  winter,  harvesting  and  fruit-picking  in  summer. 

This  problem  will  always  be  with  us,  and  should  be  dealt  with 
through  an  efficient  system  of  national  employment  agencies,  to  be 
administered  by  the  Federal  Government. 

Private  employment  agencies  have  proved  inadequate;  have  even 
in  many  cases  been  used  to  exploit  the  worker.  I  therefore  strongly 
recommend  that  all  employment  agencies  be  managed  by  the  Gov- 
ernment. 

We  have  also  unemployment  due  to  periods  of  depression.  The 
Federal  employment  agencies  would  take  care  of  these  cases,  bring- 
ing, when  possible,  the  man  and  the  job  together,  but  in  periods  of 
long  depression,  when  no  work  is  to  be  found,  Government,  State, 
and  municipal  work,  which  had  been  held  in  reserve  for  this  pur- 
pose, should  then  be  provided. 

Should  all  these  resources  be  exhausted  and  there  still  remain  un- 
employed workers,  there  should  be  Government  concentration  camps 
where  work  with  a  small  wage  would  be  provided,  supplemented  by 
agricultural  and  industrial  training. 

The  fear  of  unemployment  because  of  accident  or  illness  fosters  a 
feeling  of  discontent  which  tends  to  cause  industrial  unrest. 

Workmen's  compensation  laws  and  sickness  insurance,  with  proper 
restrictions,  would  be  the  proper  correctives  here. 

Workmen's  compensation  laws  thus  far  developed  protect  the  man 
only  when  accident  occurs  during  working  hours,  and  this  is  paid  for 
entirely  by  the  employer.  If  an  accident  occurs  causing  injury  to  a 
man  just  before  entering  his  work  place,  the  consequent  loss  to  his 
family  is  just  as  great  as  though  he  had  been  hurt  five  minutes  later 
within  the  factory  walls,  and  yet  he  receives  nothing. 

I  therefore  recommend  that  the  workmen's  compensation  law 
should  provide  insurance  against  accident  wherever  and  whenever 
caused.  This  insurance,  however,  should  be  paid  by  the  man  him- 
self, his  employer,  and  the  Government  jointly.  The  same  idea 
should  apply  also  to  sickness  insurance. 

The  worker  himself  should  feel  these  responsibilities  and  should 
always  share  the  expense  of  such  insurance. 

Third.  We  have,  as  the  third  cause  for  industrial  unrest,  the  de- 
velopment of  large  industries  with  their  absentee  ownership.  Large 
business,  properly  controlled,  is  an  economic  benefit,  but  the  very 
size  makes  coordination  betwreen  the  employers  and  workers  most 
difficult.  There  is  no  personal  contact,  hence  a  lack  of  sympathy 
and  understanding. 

Where  a  few  cents  per  day  in  the  wage  of  the  individual  workman 
means  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  annually  to  the  business, 
and  where  there  are  so  many  units  that  one  foreman  can  be  pitted 
against  another  to  maintain  the  cost  of  production  at  the  lowest 
possible  point,  the  natural  tendency  is  to  depress  the  wage. 

As  to  the  remedy,  I  would  suggest  that  all  corporations  doing 
interstate  business  be  required  to  take  out  a  national  charter  that 
will  entail  certain  responsibilities  and  possibly  grant  certain  im- 
munities from  State  control. 

This  charter  should  not  allow  overcapitalization.  Each  board  of 
directors,  in  addition  to  its  other  committees,  should  have  a  labor 


REPOBT  OF  COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  251 

committee  whose  duty  it  should  be  to  become  thoroughly  acquainted 
with  the  labor  conditions  of  the  business,  and  make  regular  reports 
thereon  to  the  board.  These  reports  should  be  published  with  the 
financial  and  other  reports,  and  thus  give  the  stockholders  a  thorough, 
understanding  of  the  business. 

Fourth.  Long  working  hours  and  insanitary  conditions  are  addi- 
tional factors  in  the  problem  of  industrial  unrest.  Nothing  affects 
the  man's  physical  well-being,  and  consequently  his  earning  power, 
more  than  these. 

The  remedy  will  be  found  in  publicity  and  legislation,  with  factory 
inspection  by  competent  Government  officers. 

Personal  experience  for  a  number  of  years  convinces  me  that  in 
continuous  occupation,  workmen  will  do  more  work  and  better  work 
on  an  8-hour  basis  than  on  12,  and  that  one  day  in  seven  for  rest 
must  be  allowed  if  the  man  is  to  develop  the  fullest  degree  of 
efficiency. 

I  therefore  favor  a  national  eight-hour  law  for  Continuous  labor. 

Sanitary  conditions  of  work  I  have  found  to  be  a  paying  proposi- 
tion to  the  employer,  as  well  as  just  and  beneficial  to  the  worker. 

Fifth.  With  regard  to  unsatisfactory  rural  conditions,  I  view  with 
real  concern  the  fact  that  our  small  landowners  are  becoming  ten- 
ants, while  the  small  farms  are  passing  into  the  hands  of  a  few. 

Everything  possible  should  be  done  to  aid  and  encourage  our 
farmers ;  the  United  States  Government  should  adopt  a  plan  for  the 
scientific  distribution  of  our  agricultural  products,  and  for  a  rural- 
credit  system,  as  it  is  practiced  to-day  in  some  foreign  countries. 

Unsatisfactory  rural  conditions  which  make  it  difficult  for  the 
small  farmer  to  earn  a  decent  livelihood  for  his  family  cause  many 
poorly  equipped  young  men  and  women  to  flock  to  the  cities.  As  a 
rule,  they  are  thoroughly  inefficient  and  lamentably  ignorant  of  the 
temptations  of  city  life,  and  are  rarely  able  to  earn  a  living  wage. 

Life  on  the  farm  should  be  made  sufficiently  attractive  and  lucra- 
tive to  induce  these  boys  and  girls  to  remain  there.  This  can  be 
done  only  through  our  rural  schools,  which  are  now  most  inadequate. 

The  education  of  country  children  must  fit  them  for  country  life. 
No  love  of  the  beautiful,  no  patriotic  gratitude  to  his  country  for 
his  education  can  be  felt  by  the  child  who  spends  weary  months  in 
uncomfortable  hovels,  where  he  receives  impractical  and  frequently 
useless  instruction. 

Our  Government  should  aid  the  States  in  establishing  comfortable 
rural  schools,  with  longer  terms  and  with  better-paid  and  better- 
equipped  teachers. 

In  every  rural  school  there  should  be  departments  of  household 
arts — that  is,  cooking,  sewing,  and  millinery — and  manual  training 
and  agriculture.  These  schools  should  be  open  for  agricultural  in- 
struction throughout  the  summer — in  fact,  each  one  should  become  an 
experiment  station  for  the  neighborhood.  The  schoolhouse  should 
be  the  social  center — the  meeting  ground  for  instruction  and  social 
pleasures. 

In  order  to  satisfactorily  carry  out  the  suggestions  contained  in 
this  report,  it  would  be  necessary  to  have  a  nonpartisan  commission 
in  charge  of  industrial  questions,  as  suggested  by  the  majority  report 
of  this  commission. 


252  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

This  would  require  large  additional  revenue,  which  must  be  de- 
rived by  some  form  of  taxation. 

The  fairest  of  all  taxes  are  the  income  and  inheritance  taxes.  This 
question,  however,  must  be  carefully  studied  and  weighed,  since  the 
tax  is  paid  by  one  class  while  the  benefits  are  largely  enjoyed  by 
another. 

Care  should  be  taken  that  it  does  not  become  confiscatory,  and  thus 
stifle  individual  incentive  and  effort. 

In  addition,  I  believe  that  every  individual  should  pay  his  propor- 
tion, no  matter  how  small  it  may  be.  It  will  inspire  in  him  a  feeling 
of  citizenship  and  make  him  an  integral  part  of  our  Nation. 

S.  THRUSTON  BALLARD. 


Ill 


Report  of  Commissioner  John  B.  Lennon 
on  Industrial  Education 


SIGNED  BY 


Commissioners  Lennon,  O'Connell,  Garretson, 
Ballard,  and  Walsh 


253 


REPORT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JOHN  B.   LENNON  ON  INDUSTRIAL 

EDUCATION. 


The  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations  gave  careful  study  and 
investigation  to  the  subject  of  industrial  or  vocational  education. 
We  found  the  general  subject  of  education,  whether  academic,  cul- 
tural or  industrial,  so  exceedingly  important  and  interesting  to  all 
classes  of  citizens  as  to  warrant  a  brief  statement  covering  especially 
the  subject  of  the  pressing  need  for  industrial  education  and  the 
bearing  that  such  education  would  have  upon  industrial  unrest. 

The  terms  "  vocational "  or  "  industrial "  education  are  used  to 
indicate  the  training  given  in  many  varieties  of  schools  and  by  many 
different  modes  of  teaching.  Our  attention  has  been  almost  entirely 
confined  to  a  study  of  that  kind  of  education  which  has  to  do  with 
the  preparation  of  boys  and  girls  for  useful  employment  in  industry, 
particularly  as  applied  to  mechanical  and  agricultural  employment. 

DEMAND  FOR  INDUSTRIAL  EDUCATION. 

The  great  importance  of  this  subject  appears  to  be  fairly  well 
appreciated  by  every  class  of  our  citizenship,  trade-unions,  employers' 
organizations,  educators,  merchants,  legislators,  etc.  The  universal 
interest  in  this  subject  warrants  the  conclusion  that  its  proper  solu- 
tion is  of  paramount  importance  to  the  welfare  of  the  Nation,  in 
order  to  establish  that  kind  of  education  that  will  enable  the  boys  and 
girls  of  the  United  States  to  enter  upon  their  industrial  life  properly 
equipped  to  make  their  lives  a  success.  Our  attention  has  been 
forcibly  called  to  the  fact  that  the  great  mass  of  the  wageworkers 
are  without  any  accumulated  means.  Their  children  are  therefore 
compelled  to  enter  gainful  pursuits  at  an  early  age.  Therefore  the 
great  need  that  our  system  of  education  should  be  so  constructed 
as  to  equip  these  boys  and  girls  with  vocational  and  industrial 
knowledge  that  would  make  them,  from  the  beginning,  useful  work- 
ers, enabling  them  to  earn  and  demand  a  living  wage  and  treatment 
that  will  not  be  injurious  to  their  future  welfare,  as  well  as  the 
opportunity  to  advance  from,  time  to  time  in  their  chosen  occu- 
pations. 

Among  the  tramps  and  hoboes,  also  in  the  ranks  of  those  who  are 
employed  only  when  labor  is  scarce,  we  have  found  thousands  of 
graduates  of  grammar  and  high  schools,  some  even  having  the  ad- 
vantage of  a  university  education,  indicating  that  however  cultural 
their  education  may  have  been  it  was  not  always  of  practical  value 
in  the  mill,  in  the  shop,  or  on  the  farm. 

Private  trade  schools  can  not  remedy  this.  They  are  operated 
generally  in  the  interest  of  employers  and  do  not  give  the  most  im- 
portant element  of  education — namely,  the  interest  of  the  workers 
themselves — the  consideration  it  deserves. 

255 


256  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

The  private  training  school  can  not  cover  this  problem.  All  boys 
and  girls  require  this  practical  equipment,  and  it  can  be  secured  only 
through  and  in  connection  with  our  system  of  public  schools.  To 
properly  perform  this  duty,  the  general  responsibility  rests  on  all 
our  people.  It  is  a  public  and  not  a  private  function,  and  the  State 
and  Nation  must  be  held  responsible  for  its  early  and  successful 
solution. 

The  needs  of  modern  industry  do  not  seem  to  be  met  by  any  exist- 
ing scheme  of  training  for  general  usefulness  in  the  crafts  or  for 
the  development  of  all-around  mechanics.  Therefore,  the  pressing  need 
is  for  a  general  educational  policy  that  will  make  possible  a  con- 
tinuous development  of  both  adults  and  minors  in  industry  who  are 
over  14  years  of  age.  Boys  or  girls  who  go  into  the  shop  at  14  or 
Jater  develop  into  specialists  but  not  mechanics.  If  for  any  reason 
they  lose  their  job  they  are  no  more  fit  for  another  place  than  they 
were  when  they  first  began.  The  work,  therefore,  that  must  be  done 
for  those  already  in  industry  is  to  train  them  to  fit  into  work  wher- 
ever help  is  required  in  the  shop. 

Our  public  schools  must  be  prepared  and  required  not  only  to  give 
some  vocational  consideration  to  pupils  over  14  years  of  age  who 
remain  in  the  schools,  but  to  provide  for  compulsory  continuation 
daytime  schools  on  the  time  and  at  the  expense  of  employers,  and 
voluntary  night  schools  for  both  academic  and  vocational  training 
for  boys  and  girls  who  are  at  work  and  for  adults  who  desire  further 
knowledge  which  will  be  of  use  in  their  vocation. 

We  hold  that  all  experience  shows  conclusively  that  public  instruc- 
tion privately  controlled  or  any  plan  that  fails  to  comprehend  the 
entire  number  of  pupils  in  the  United  States  is  dangerous  and 
unworthy  of  support. 

We  hold  that  the  advantages  of  vocational  education  should  be 
open  to  all  adults  or  minors  in  the  public  schools  if  they  remain  after 
14  years  of  age,  and  in  night  schools  and  continuation  schools  after 
they  enter  industry,  and  these  advantages  we  believe  should  be  pro- 
vided entirely  at  public  expense. 

There  seems  to  be  but  slight,  if  any,  advantage  to  be  obtained  by 
undertaking  vocational  training  of  pupils  before  they  reach  the  age 
of  14.  Their  entire  time  prior  to  that  age  is  required  to  lay  a  founda- 
tion for  what  may  be  termed  their  general  education.  This  'being 
true  beyond  any  question,  the  State  must  provide  for  education  after 
entrance  into  industrial  life  as  well  as  before.  Fairness  to  all  classes 
demands  the  opportunity  for  vocational  teaching  after  the  boy  or 
girl  of  14  or  over  has  entered  industry. 

The  children  of  the  well-to-do  parents  are  continued  at  school 
through  the  several  years  of  high-school  work  entirely  at  public 
expense,  in  order  to  fit  them  for  professions  and  business  life.  Is  it 
unreasonable  that  the  public  should  equally  provide  schooling  for 
those  who,  because  of  economic  pressure,  must  enter  industry  at 
from  14  to  16  years  of  age? 

This  the  working  class  demands  for  their  children,  and  it  must  be 
provided  if  our  public-school  system  is  to  continue  to  hold  a  high 
place  in  the  respect  and  esteem  of  all  classes  of  our  citizens.  In  a 
Republic  such  as  the  United  States,  the  school  system  should  be 
adapted  to  the  needs  of  all  classes,  rich  and  poor;  those  who  are  to 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  257 

enter  professions  and  those  who  are  to  go  into  the  shop,  the  factory, 
the  mill,  or  to  work  upon  the  land. 

We  believe  it  to  be  assured  that  if  all  our  schools  will  extend  prac- 
tical vocational  teaching  to  cover  instruction  after  14  years  of  age, 
a  very  large  number  of  pupils  will  remain  at  school  until  the  age  of 
16  or  even  later,  if  the  school  is  providing  for  their  future  usefulness 
and  success  as  well  as  or  better  than  can  be  done  in  the  factory.  This 
is  the  most  important  element  in  the  consideration  of  the  subject  of 
industrial  training.  Keep  the  children  at  school  as  long  as  possible, 
extending  their  vocational  knowledge,  widening  their  academic  train- 
ing, teaching  them  not  only  their  rights  but  their  duties  as  citizens 
of  our  Republic,  stirring  their  ambition  for  a  life  worth  living,  and 
making  of  them  dear  men  and  women  rather  than  cheap. 

It  can  not  be  denied  that  our  public  schools,  as  now  gener- 
ally conducted,  do  not  accomplish  as  much  work  that  is  substantially 
effective  in  fitting  their  pupils  for  productive  labor  with  their  hands 
as  should  be  the  case.  We  must  have  a  plan  of  education  in  the 
school  that  develops  both  the  power  to  think  and  the  power  to  do. 

We  find  that  as  a  rule  the  first  eight  years  of  the  school  life  of  a 
boy  or  girl  must  of  necessity  be  very  largely,  if  not  entirely,  devoted 
to  work  of  a  cultural  character,  for  the  reason  that  up  to  the  age  of 
14,  when  the  first  eight  years  of  school  life  are  completed,  neither 
boys  nor  girls  have  developed  any  clearly  defined  likes  or  dislikes 
as  to  what  their  life  work  shall  be,  nor  can  either  parents  or  teachers 
be  considered  safe  guides  as  to  the  careers  of  children  of  that  age. 
Justice,  as  well  as  the  best  interest  of  the  pupil,  demands  that  the 
desires  and  wishes  of  the  child  shall  have  primary  consideration  in 
the  determining  of  his  life  work,  and  to  assign  this  work  arbitrarily, 
either  by  the  school  board,  the  teacher,  or  even  the  parents,  is  not 
much  less  than  criminal. 

The  schools  should  provide  the  greatest  possible  variety  of  occupa- 
tions, making  the  opportunity  of  choice  as  varied  as  possible.  And 
this  vocational  training  should  be  in  the  same  building  as  that  where 
the  child  spends  his  first  eight  years  in  school,  in  order  that  by 
observation  of  the  vocational  work  and  by  contact  with  the  pupils 
and  vocational  teaching,  he  shall  have  every  possible  opportunity  to 
determine  what  he  wants  to  study  for  a  vocation. 

Industrial  education  in  the  United  States  is  on  trial.  It  will  and 
should  be  judged  by  practical  men  and  women,  and  that  course  should 
be  pursued  which  promises  the  best  possible  results. 

CONTROL  OF  VOCATIONAL  SCHOOLS. 

It  is  believed  that  all  vocational  schools  should  be  a  part  of  the 
public  school  system;  that  they  should  be  entirely  free,  supported 
by  the  National,  State,  county,  or  city  government ;  that  all  textbooks 
and  equipment  should  be  furnished  to  the  pupils  free;  and  that  a 
plan  of  management  of  such  schools  should  be  developed  which 
would  give  to  the  workers  and  employers  in  each  community,  in  the 
State,  and  in  the  Nation,  a  potent  voice  in  their  entire  control,  in 
conjunction  with  the  regular  boards  of  school  officials.  As  to  voca- 
tional school  work,  the  committee  in  control  should  consist  of  an 
equal  number  of  members  representing  organized  labor,  organized 
38819°— 16 17 


258  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

employers,  and  the  regularly  constituted  school  authorities,  a  ma- 
jority of  whom  would  be  required  to  finally  determine  practices  and 
methods.  Every  vocational  teacher  should  be  a  practical  man  or 
woman  from  the  trades  or  occupations  taught;  and  the  product,  if 
any,  of  such  schools,  should  not  be  sold  on  the  market  in  compe- 
tition with  regular  industry.  Ample  opportunity  exists  for  the  use 
of  any  possible  product  of  the  vocational  schools  by  the  city,  county 
or  State. 

GENERAL  RECOMMENDATIONS. 

The  establishment  of  vocational  schools  for  all  children  in  school 
over  14  years  of  age  is  advocated,  as  well  as  compulsory  continuation 
and  night  vocational  schools,  with  such  academic  work  as  may  be 
advisable  for  all  persons  over  14  years  of  age  in  industry  and  agri- 
culture. 

Education  vitally  interests  all  our  people  and  neither  money  nor 
time  should  be  spared  to  make  the  education  of  the  United  Statea 
the  most  thorough,  the  most  potent  for  human  uplift  and  progress, 
of  any  system  of  education  in  the  world.  To  lead  in  this  great 
work  is  our  proper  position,  not  to  follow.  Thoroughness  should  be 
the  aim  of  our  Nation  and  our  States.  Poorly  trained  workers  in 
industry  are  now  entirely  too  plentiful.  This  should  be  overcome  by 
excellent  vocational  training.  We  believe  there  are  now  too  many 
cheap  workmen.  This  Nation  should  work  for  men,  women,  and 
children  who  will  not  consent  to  cheapness,  either  in  wages,  condi- 
tions of  labor,  or  character. 

The  public  schools,  whether  academic  or  vocational,  should  be 
entirely  neutral  as  to  unions  and  their  control,  and  exactly  the  same 
should  be  true  as  to  the  exercise  of  any  control  for  class  interests 
by  employers  or  employers'  organizations.  And  surely  there  is  no 
room  in  our  schools  to  warrant  the  teaching  of  any  degree  of  hos- 
tility toward  trade  unions  or  employers'  organizations. 

The  general  recommendations  of  the  special  commission  on  na- 
tional aid  to  vocational  education  have  our  most  hearty  approval  and 
we  approve  of  the  passage  of  a  law  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  with  that  end  in  view.  The  need  of  the  States  for  such  assist- 
ance is  clearly  set  forth. 

It  is  recommended  that  Congress  authorize  by  law  the  creation 
of  a  Federal  board  to  administer  funds  appropriated  by  Congress 
to  the  several  States  for  vocational  education,  the  board  to  consist 
of  three  members,  one  educator,  one  representative  of  organized 
labor,  and  one  representative  of  organizations  of  employers,  to  be 
appointed  by  the  President  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  serve 
for  a  term  of  six  years,  the  first  appointments  to  be  for  two,  four,  and 
six  years ;  with  salaries  of  $8,000  each  per  annum ;  the  Federal  board 
so  constituted  to  establish  rules  and  standards  for  expenditure  of 
Government  funds  awarded  to  the  several  States. 

The  Federal  board  shall  require  of  each  State  asking  for  Govern- 
ment funds  the  adoption  of  the  following  standards  before  any 
awards  can  be  made  or  funds  be  appropriated  by  the  board : 

1.  Compulsory  daytime  continuation  schools  for  all  children  in  industry 
between  the  ages  of  14  and  18  years,  for  not  less  than  five  hours  per  week,  at 
the  expense  of  their  employers. 


REPORT  OP   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  259 

2.  Night  schools  for  all  persons  over  18  years  of  age  who  are  desirous  of 
further  educational  opportunities,  either  cultural  or  vocational. 

3.  Standards  of  efficiency  for  teachers. 

4.  Joint  State  control  in  administration  of  vocational  education  by  public- 
school  authorities,  organized  labor,  and  organized  employers,  with  equal  repre- 
sentation. 

5.  The  Federal  board  to  establish  some  model  schools  for  industrial  training 
in  agriculture  and  vocations,  as  examples  to  the  several  States. 

This  problem  of  vocational  education  not  only  is  important  mate- 
rially but  is  intimately  a  human  problem,  involving  as  it  does  the 
social  welfare  and  progress  of  all  the  people. 

The  boys  and  girls  of  the  farm,  if  assured  by  proper  education  of 
becoming  generally  successful  farmers,  will  remain  farmers,  rather 
than  undertake  to  compete  in  the  industries  with  properly  trained 
workers  of  the  cities.  This  will  help  to  solve  the  problems  that 
are  threatening  injury  to  our  great  agricultural  industries,  and  will 
eliminate  a  cause  of  industrial  unrest. 

In  the  farming  districts  the  country  school  remains  practically  as 
it  was  50  years  ago.  Pupils  are  not  taught  what  is  essential  to  de- 
velop them  into  excellent  farmers  and  farmers'  wives,  but  the  cultural 
education  of  days  gone  by  is  continued,  to  the  considerable  exclusion 
of  teaching  how  to  farm  and  how  to  manage  a  farmer's  home.  Surely 
the  Nation  has  here  a  mission  of  helpfulness  to  perform  that  which,  as 
a  great  nation,  it  can  not  longer  afford  to  leave  largely  neglected.  Its 
prosperity  as  a  nation  depends  upon  the  character  and  efficiency 
of  its  men  and  women  much  more  than  upon  its  geographical  position 
or  the  quality  of  its  soil,  and  to  build  character  and  effectiveness  we 
must  lay  the  foundations  well  by  a  proper  education  of  our  boys 
and  girls.  We  should  not  strive  merely  for  educating  them  into  cor- 
rectly working  automatic  machines.  The  human  side  must  be  upper- 
most and  receive  attention  of  the  most  careful  nature.  It  is  not 
worth  while  to  make  square  holes  and  then  try  to  fit  into  them  round 
men  and  women. 

Education  should  take  into  account,  at  erery  stage,  manhood  and 
womanhood,  and  where  and  how  the  life  is  to  be  surrounded,  and 
what  can  be  done  through  education  to  make  each  life  successful 
and  therefore  worth  while.  Dexteritv  is  worth  while,  but  good  char- 
acter is  more  vital  to  real  service  in  the  world  of  industry  and 
civilization.  At  present  our  schools  in  city  and  country  do  not  make 
good,  either  in  the  development  of  skill,  in  the  duties  of  service,  or 
in  a  clear  understanding  of  human  rights  and  consequent  human 
duties  toward  our  fellows.  Industrial  education  can  not  possibly 
take  the  place  of  industrial  experience.  All  that  can  be  hoped  for 
is  that  our  schools  will  make  their  teaching  a  real  preparatory 
process  for  entering  upon  industrial  life,  with  proper  conception  of 
life  work  instead  of  no  conception  at  all. 

CONTINUATION  OR  PART-TIME   SCHOOLS. 

All  minors  entering  industry  after  14  years  of  age  are  entitled  to 
further  aid  from  organized  society  in  order  to  enable  them  to  com- 
plete their  vocational  and  cultural  education.  This  is  possible  only 
through  the  establishment  of  compulsory  day  time  continuation 
schools  of  at  least  five  hours  per  week,  at  the  expense  of  employers, 
and  night  schools.  The  eagerness  with  which  minors  and  adults 


260  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

take  advantage  of  such  schools  is  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  legis- 
lation giving  these  opportunities  to  all  minors  and  to  such  adults  as 
may  care  to  take  advantage  of  them.  These  schools,  in  order  to  be 
of  value,  must  be  compulsory  upon  all  minors  in  industry  up  to  at 
least  18  years  of  age.  Schools  in  the  United  States  should  meet  fully 
the  needs  of  every  class  of  pupils,  those  who  expect  to  enter  colleges 
and  prepare  for  the  professions  as  well  as  the  much  larger  class  that 
is  to  enter  industrial  life.  The  parents  of  the  wageworking  class 
contend,  with  much  reason,  that  their  children  are  not  given  the  same 
vocational  consideration  under  our  present  school  systems  as  are  the 
children  of  the  well  to  do  who  expect  to  become  lawyers,  doctors,  etc. 
The  State  has  established  schools  to  train,  for  a  useful  industrial 
life,  the  mentally,  morally,  and  physically  deficient,  and  this  effort 
has  the  hearty  approval  of  every  good  citizen.  If  this  work  is  worth 
doing,  then  it  must  be  of  vastly  greater  importance  to  establish  one 
general  scheme  of  education  so  as  to  make  useful  men  and  women 
out  of  the  normal  boy  and  girl,  and  neither  expense  nor  investigation 
should  be  spared  to  accomplish  this  most  desirable  object. 

TEACHERS. 

It  seems  self-evident  that  no  one  can  successfully  teach  others  that 
of  which  he  has  no  knowledge  himself.  We  recommend,  therefore, 
in  the  selection  of  teachers  to  impart  trade  education  that  only  prac- 
tical workmen  shall  be  used.  They  should  be  selected  with  care  as 
to  character,  and,  as  far  as  possible,  craftsmen  should  be  selected  as 
trade  teachers  who  have  a  considerable  degree  of  cultural  education. 
The  opportunity  should  be  continually  extended  for  the  proper  edu- 
cation of  teachers  capable  of  teaching  vocations,  and,  in  so  far  as  it 
may  be  advantageous,  academic  education  also.  The  need  of  well- 
developed  brain  power  is  not  waning  in  the  least.  What  is  demanded 
is  the  educated  hand  to  apply  in  industry  the  ideas  and  knowledge 
of  the  brain.  Our  children  need  to  know  more  as  to  their  economic 
value  and  more  of  their  social  duties  and  responsibilities.  The 
schoolhouse  is  the  place  where  much  of  this  should  be  taught,  in 
order  that  the  duties  of  honorable  citizenship  shall  be  appreciated. 
Real  social  service  is  the  highest  attainment  the  individual  can 
aspire  to  reach.  All  education  is  of  value  in  life,  and  the  State 
should  properly  be  held  responsible  for  the  education  of  her  chil- 
dren, in  order  that  the  best  possible  use  shall  be  made  by  the  greatest 
possible  number  of  the  opportunities  of  life  as  they  present  them- 
selves from  year  to  year. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

The  existing  system  of  public  education  is  inadequate.  The  present 
specialization  of  shop  conditions  is  not  favorable  to  a  complete 
mastery  of  any  trade  or  calling  in  the  shop,  store,  or  industry.  This 
being  admittedly  true,  it  devolves  on  our  public-school  system  to 
meet  adequately  the  emergency  in  conjunction  and  cooperation  with 
industry.  The  temperamental  difference  in  children  must  have  con- 
sideration in  determining  their  life  work  and  preparation  therefor. 
The  boy  or  girl  must  not  become  merely  a  cog  in  the  great  wheel  of 
industry.  Therefore  the  urgent  need  of  vocational  education  in  con- 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  261 

junction  with  practice  in  the  shop  or  factory  that  makes  each  indi- 
vidual in  a  few  years  capable  to  fit  into  any  place  in  the  industry 
where  help  may  be  required.  We  now  have  too  many  handy  men 
and  specialists,  who  Imve  no  place  into  which  they  can  fit  when  for 
any  reason  their  particular  work  is  no  longer  required. 

Vocational  education,  on  account  of  the  wonderful  changes  in 
industrial  production,  must  take  the  place  of  apprenticeship.  To 
solve  this  problem  right  is  to  find  a  solution  for  much  of  the  unneces- 
sary social  unrest  of  our  day  and  generation. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  industrial  education  is  coming 
rapidly.  Prejudiced  opposition  will  be  futile.  The  necessity  is  great 
and  it  must  and  will  be  met.  The  National  Government  should 
properly  perform  its  full  share  of  the  responsibilities  of  meeting  this 
demand  for  the  best  and  fullest  education  of  pur  children. 

The  entire  subject  is  dealt  with  exhaustively  in  the  report  of 
the  Special  Commission  on  Vocational  Education,  which  submitted 
its  report  June  1,  1914. 

JOHN  B.  LENNON. 

JAMES  O'CONNELL. 

AUSTIN   B.   GAREETSON. 

S.  THRUSTON  BALLARD. 

FRANK  P.  WALSH. 


IV 


ADDITIONAL  FINDINGS  OF   FACT,  CONCLU 
SIGNS,  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS 


263 


ADDITIONAL  FINDINGS  OF  FACT,  CONCLUSIONS,  AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS. 


At  regular  sessions  of  the  commission  with  all  members  present, 
the  following  resolutions  were  offered  for  adoption  as  a  part  of  the 
commission's  report  to  Congress.  The  members  of  the  commission 
whose  names  appear  in  connection  with  the  various  resolutions  voted 
for  their  adoption  and  thereby  made  the  resolutions  a  part  of  their 
individual  reports  to  Congress. 

ADOPTED  BY  UNANIMOUS  VOTE. 

Whereas  the  commission  finds  that  the  terms  "  open  shop  "  and  "  closed 
shop  "  have  each  a  double  meaning,  and  should  never  be  used  with- 
out telling  which  meaning  is  intended,  the  double  meaning  consist- 
ing in  that  they  may  mean  either  union  or  nonunion:  Therefore, 
for  the  purposes  of  this  report,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations  will  not 
use  the  terms  "  open  shop  "  and  "  closed  shop,"  but  in  lieu  thereof 
will  use  "  union  shop  "  and  "  nonunion  shop." 

The  union  shop  is  a  shop  where  the  wages,  the  hours  of  labor,  and 
the  general  conditions  of  employment  are  fixed  by  a  joint  agreement 
between  the  employer  and  the  trade-union. 

The  nonunion  shop  is  one  where  no  joint  agreement  exists,  and 
where  the  wages,  the  hours  of  labor,  and  the  general  conditions  of 
employment  are  fixed  by  the  employer  without  cooperation  with  any 
trade-union. 

Wherever  the  terms  are  used  in  this  report,  they  bear  the  interpre- 
tation as  set  forth  above. 

ADOPTED  BY  MAJORITY  VOTE  OF  COMMISSIONERS  WALSH,  LENNON,  o'CON- 
NELL,  GARRETSON,  AND  WEINSTOCK. 

The  sources  from  w^hich  industrial  unrest  springs  are,  when  stated 
in  full  detail,  almost  numberless.  But,  upon  careful  analysis  of  their 
real  character,  they  will  be  found  to  group  themselves  almost  with- 
out exception  under  four  main  sources  which  include  all  the  others. 
These  four  are: 

1.  Unjust  distribution  of  w:ealth  and  income. 

2.  Unemployment  and  denial  of  an  opportunity  to  earn  a  living; 

3.  Denial  of  justice  in  the  creation,  in  the  adjudication,  and  in  the 
administration  of  law. 

4.  Denial  of  the  right  and  opportunity  to  form  effective  organiza- 
tions. 

We  recommend  that  private  ownership  of  public  utilities  be  abol- 
ished and  that  the  States  and  municipalities  take  over  the  same  under 

265 


266  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

just  terms  and  conditions,  so  that  they  may  be  operated  by  the  States 
or  municipalities. 

RECEIVED  APPROVAL  OF  COMMISSIONERS  WALSH,  LENNON,  O'CONNELL,  AND 

GARRETSON. 

We  find  that  the  limitation  of  the  right  of  suffrage  to  men  has  been 
a  most  serious  handicap  to  women  in  industry  in  their  long  and 
splendid  struggle  to  secure  compensation  for  their  labor,  humane 
working  conditions,  and  protective  laws. 

We  recommend  that  private  ownership  of  coal  mines  be  abolished ; 
and  that  the  National  and  State  Governments  take  over  the  same, 
under  just  terms  and  conditions,  and  that  all  coal  lands  shall  there- 
after be  leased  upon  such  terms  that  the  mines  may  be  cooperatively 
conducted  by  the  actual  workers  therein. 

All  religions,  the  family  life,  the  physical  well-being  of  the  worker, 
the  integrity  of  the  State,  and  the  comfort  and  happiness  of  man- 
kind require  that  no  human  being  shall  be  permitted  to  work  more 
than  six  days  in  each  week.  This  commission  refuses  to  recognize 
any  claim  of  so-called  business  expediency  or  alleged  domestic  or 
public  necessity  which  ignores  this  elemental  and  righteous  demand. 
We  therefore  suggest  that  stringent  laws  be  passed  by  State  and 
Nation  making  it  an  offense  punishable  by  fine  and  imprisonment  to 
permit  any  person  to  work  more  than  six  days  in  each  week. 

We  find  that  practically  nothing  has  been  done  toward  the  very 
necessary  development  of  organizations  of  women  engaged  in  do- 
mestic service,  and  that  no  standards  governing  the  toil  of  the  thou- 
sands thus  engaged  have  been  established. 

As  a  necessary  step  in  this  direction  we  recommend  that  the  hours 
of  such  workers  should  be  limited  to  eight  per  day;  that  no  such 
persons  be  permitted  to  work  over  six  days  in  each  week;  that  a 
minimum  wage  be  fixed  for  this  class  of  employees  which  will  insure 
them  a  comfortable  life  without  being  required  to  live  in  the  homes 
of  persons  employing  them,  where  they  may  be  subjected  to  objec- 
tionable or  uncomfortable  living  conditions. 

That  all  of  the  improvements  and  safeguards  recommended  for 
adoption  in  this  report  as  applying  to  women  in  other  lines  of  in- 
dustry shall  apply  with  equal  force  and  effect  to  women  engaged  in 
domestic  service. 

We  find  that  the  direct  and  proximate  cause  of  the  killing  of  men, 
women,  and  children,  destruction  of  property,  and  looting  of  the 
homes  of  the  striking  miners  in  the  southern  Colorado  coal  fields 
during  the  strike  therein  was  the  arbitrary  refusal  of  the  coal-mine 
operators  to  meet  and  confer  with  the  representatives  of  the  workers 
in  their  several  mines.  Inasmuch  as  the  officials  of  the  Colorado 
Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  admit  that  said  company  fixed  the  prices  and  con- 
ditions of  labor  in  the  State  of  Colorado  at  the  time  in  question, 
after  fully  considering  and  weighing  all  of  the  testimony  advanced 
at  the  public  hearings,  and  especially  the  admissions  and  declara- 
tions of  the  officers  and  directors  of  the  Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co., 
including  Mr.  John  D.  Rockefeller,  jr.,  we  find  that  the  final  and  full 
responsibility  for  the  refusal  to  confer  with  said  representatives,  and 
for  all  the  deplorable  results  which  followed  such  refusal,  must  be 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  267 

placed  upon  Mr.   John  D.   Rockefeller   and  Mr.   John  D.   Rocke- 
feller, jr. 

We  wish  to  report  to  your  honorable  body  that  Mr.  John  D.  Rocke- 
feller, jr.,  and  Mr.  W.  L.  Mackenzie  King,  witnesses  regularly  called 
before  this  commission,  refused  to  answer  questions  relevant  and 
material  to  the  inquiries  provided  for  in  the  act  of  Congress  creating 
this  commission,  as  shown  by  the  excerpts  from  the  official  transcript 
of  the  testimony  filed  herewith  and  attached  hereto,  and  we  therefore 
recommend  that  the  said  witnesses  be  summoned  by  the  House  of 
Representatives,  according  to  its  usual  procedure,  immediately  upon 
its  convening,  or  as  soon  thereafter  as  may  be  reasonably  convenient, 
and  that  said  questions  again  be  propounded  to  said  persons,  and  that 
they  be  compelled  to  answer  the  same. 

QUESTIONS  WHICH  ME.   W.   L.  MACKENZIE  KING  REFUSED  TO  ANSWER. 

Chairman  WALSH.  What  salary  do  they  pay  you? 

Mr.  KING.  That  is  a  matter  you  do  not  have  a  right  to  inquire  into.  I  was 
asked  if  I  would  undertake  this  work  for  a  period  of  years.  I  said  I  would 
not,  that  all  I  would  undertake  to  do  was  to  take  it  for  a  year ;  that  I  wanted 
to  be  perfectly  free  at  the  end  of  a  year  to  terminate  my  arrangement  with  the 
Rockefeller  Foundation  if  I  did  not  see  it  was  going  to  give  the  opportunity 
for  the  practical  results  I  wanted  to  get.  I  made  an  undertaking  with  them 
on  that  basis,  with  that  understanding,  and  they  asked  me  to  take  it  for  another 
period  of  time,  and  I  refused,  and  I  made  the  further  stipulation  that  if  by 
any  chance  an  election  should  be  brought  on  in  Canada,  I  should  resign  before 
that  time.  I  think  under  those  circumstances  the  public  would  hardly  expect 
me  to  answer  what  particular  remuneration  I  am  receiving. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Are  you  going  to  make  your  report  to  anybody?  Are  you 
going  to  give  anybody  these  facts  that  you  are  collecting,  the  result  of  these 
interviews? 

Mr.  KING.  No,  sir;  I  have  not  decided  that,  but  if  you  mean  am  I  going  to 
give  them  to  anybody  connected  with  the  Foundation  or  Mr.  Rockefeller,  I 
would  say  no. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Are  you  going  to  give  them  to  the  Government? 

Mr.  KING.  No. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Are  you  going  to  give  them  to  the  organizations  of 
workers? 

Mr.  KING.  I  will  give  them  the  results. 

Chairman  WALSH.  But  as  far  as  the  facts  are  concerned,  your  purpose  is  to 
keep  them  absolutely  secret? 

Mr.  KING.  No,  sir ;  I  would  not  be  telling  the  truth  to  say  that. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Who  are  you  going  to  tell  them  to? 

Mr.  KING.  On  that  I  shall  use  my  own  judgment. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Did  you  talk  to  the  president  or  secretary  or  treasurer 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  in  Denver? 

Mr.  KING.  I  have  said  already,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  desired  to  have  re- 
garded as  confidential  the  persons  that  I  saw. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Did  you  call  upon  the  president,  the  secretary,  or  the 
treasurer  of  the  State  Federation  of  Labor  of  Colorado? 

Mr.  KING.  I  have  already  stated  that  I  intend  to  regard  as  confidential 
the  interviews  that  I  had  in  Colorado.  That  is  my  position  in  regard  to 
that.  *  *  * 

Chairman  WALSH.  I  asked  if  you  saw  the  president,  the  secretary,  or  the 
treasurer  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  or  the  president,  the  secre- 
tary, or  the  treasurer  of  the  State  Federation  of  Labor  of  the  State  of  Colorado? 

Mr.  KING.  I  remain  just  exactly  where  I  put  myself  before. 

CHAIRMAN  WALSH.  You  refuse  to  answer  that  question? 

Mr.  KING.  I  refuse  to  disclose  any  of  the  interviews  I  had  in  Colorado ;  and 
let  me  make  this  perfectly  plain,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  saw  some  of  the  persons  you 
have  mentioned 

Chairman  WALSH  (interrupting),  Name  them. 


268  REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

Mr.  KING.  No ;  I  will  not.  I  do  not  intend  to  disclose  the  names,  and  I  do  not 
intend  to  let  the  impression  go  abroad  that  I  avoided  seeing  anyone,  not  for  one 
minute.  *  *  * 

Chairman  WALSH.  Did  you  find  it  [industrial  unrest]  very  bitter  in  Colorado? 

Mr.  KING.  I  prefer  not  to  discuss  the  Colorado  situation  at  all. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Please  outline  for  this  commission  the  policies  which  you 
consider  should  be  put  into  effect  in  Colorado  in  the  industry  of  the  Colorado 
Fuel  &  .Iron  Co. 

Mr.  KING.  No,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  have  said  I  do  not  desire  to  discuss  the 
Colorado  situation. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Do  you  consider  that  the  miners  in  Colorado  were  justified 
in  demanding  a  recognition  of  their  national  union? 

Mr.  KING.  I  have  already  said  I  don't  care  to  discuss  the  merits  of  that 
strike  one  way  or  the  other. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Where  do  you  keep  them  [referring  to  notes  Mr.  King 
testified  he  had  made  in  Colorado]  ? 

Mr.  KING.  I  am  not  going  any  further  in  my  answer. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Think  again,  and  maybe  you  will  go  further  ? 

Mr.  KING.  No ;  I  won't. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Are  they  in  charge  of  anyone  else  or  in  your  possession? 

Mr.  KING.  That  is  my  affair,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Are  they  kept  in  New  York  or  Washington  or  at  your 
home? 

Mr.  KING.  They  are  not  kept  either  in  New  York,  Colorado,  or  at  my  home  at 
this  moment. 

Chairman  WALSH.  In  Washington? 

Mr.  KING.  I  have  nothing  further  to  say. 

Chairman  WALSH.  It  is  a  dead  secret? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes;  a  dead  secret. 

QUESTIONS    WTHICH    MB.    JOHN    D.    ROCKEFELLER,    JR.,    REFUSED    TO    ANSWER. 

Chairman  WALSH.  It  is  not  in  a  letter.  It  was  in  a  newspaper  statement. 
Did  you  write  your  own  newspaper  statements,  or  were  they  dictated,  or  were 
they  written  by  some  one  else? 

Mr.  ROCKEFELLER.  I  assume  the  responsibility  for  everything  that  was  sent 
out  in  my  name.  *  *  * 

Chairman  WALSH.  Did  Mr.  Ivy  Lee  write  the  newspaper  interviews  purport- 
ing to  come  from  you? 

Mr.  ROCKEFELLER.  I  have  answered  the  question. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Do  you  assume  the  responsibility  for  that? 

Mr.  ROCKEFELLER.  For  everything  that  goes  out  in  my  name. 

Chairman  WALSH.  I  am  asking  for  the  fact.     Did  you  write  it? 

Mr.  ROCKEFELLER.  I  have  covered  the  situation,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Chairman  WALSH.  You  do  not  care  to  go  any  further? 

Mr.  ROCKEFELLER.  I  do  not.    I  do  not  think  it  necessary. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Did  you  write  that  answer?  [Referring  to  the  prepared 
•statement  which  Mr.  Rockefeller  read  upon  the  stand.] 

Mr.  ROCKEFELLER.  I  take  the  responsibility  for  that  entire  answer. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Did  you  write  it  or  did  somebody  else  write  it  for  you? 

Mr.  ROCKEFELLER.  It  is  not  a  matter  that  I  think  is  material. 

Chairman  WALSH.  Did  Mr.  Lee  write  it? 

Mr.  ROCKEFELLER.  I  have  no  further  answer  to  give. 

Question.  What  agreements  or  understanding,  verbal  or  written,  exist  be- 
tween the  Foundation  and  Mr.  King,  regarding  the  scope  of  the  work  which  is 
to  be  done  under  his  direction,  and  the  method  of  investigation  which  is  to  be 
pursued  ? 

(a)  By  whom  was  the  arrangement  with  Mr.  King  made? 

Answer.  Mr.  King  was  appointed  pursuant  to  a  resolution  adopted  at  the 
meeting  of  the  executive  committee  of  the  Rockefeller  Foundation  held  August 
13,  1914,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy : 

"  Resolved,  That  William  Lyon  Mackenzie  King  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  ap- 
pointed to  make  a  comprehensive  study  of  the  problem  of  industrial  relations 
at  a  salary  of  $ a  year  from  October  1,  1914. 

"  It  was,  on  motion,  further 

"  Resolved,  That  the  secretary  be  authorized  to  approve  all  bills  for  neces- 
sary traveling  expenses  and  all  other  expenses  incurred  by  Mr.  King  in  the 


REPORT  OF   COMMISSION   ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS.  269 

pursuance  of  his  work  under  the  direction  of  the  executive  committee.  The 
secretary  presented  a  recommendation  from  Mr.  King  for  the  employment  of 
Robert  F.  Foerster,  Ph.  D.,  to  prepare  a  catalogue,  etc." 

The  amounts  of  the  salaries  have  been  omitted  as  being  information  of  a 
confidential  nature  not  material  to  this  inquiry. 

RECEIVED  APPROVAL  OF  COMMISSIONERS  WALSH,  LENNON,  AND  o' CON  NELL. 

The  money  with  which  the  Rockefeller  Foundation  was  created 
and  is  maintained  consists  of  the  wages  of  workers  in  American  in- 
dustries. These  wages  were  withheld  by  means  of  economic  pressure, 
violation  of  law,  cunning,  and  violence  practiced  over  a  series  of 
years  by  the  founder  and  certain  of  his  business  associates. 

Under  the  law  as  it  now  exists,  it  is  impossible  to  recover  this 
money  and  pay  it  over  to  the  equitable  owners.  We  therefore  recom- 
mend that  appropriate  legislation  be  passed  by  Congress,  putting  an 
end  to  the  activities  of  this  foundation,  wherever  the  Federal  law  can 
be  made  effective,  and  that  the  charter  granted  by  the  State  be  re- 
voked, and  that  if  the  founders  have  parted  with  the  title  to  the 
money,  as  they  claim  they  have,  and  under  the  law  the  same  would 
revert  to  the  State,  it  be"  taken  over  and  used  by  the  State  for  the 
creation  and  maintenance  of  public  works  that  will  minimize  the 
deplorable  evil  of  unemployment,  for  the  establishment  of  employ- 
ment agencies  and  the  distribution  of  labor,  for  the  creation  of  sick- 
ness and  accident  funds  for  workers,  and  for  other  legitimate  pur- 
poses of  a  social  nature,  directly  beneficial  to  the  laborers  who  really 
contributed  the  funds. 


TESTIMONY  TAKEN  AT  HEARINGS 
HELD  BY  THE  COMMISSION  ON 
INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS 

INCLUDING  ALL  EXHIBITS,  EXCEPT  THOSE  IN  PRINTED 
FORM,  SUBMITTED  BY  WITNESSES  WITH  THEIR 
TESTIMONY 


(271) 


SUGGESTIONS  OF  EXPERT  WITNESSES 
REGARDING  INVESTIGATIONS 


38819°— 16 18  273 


COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  December  29,  1913. 

Present :  Frank  P.  Walsh,  chairman,  Missouri ;  John  R,  Commons,  Wiscon- 
sin ;  Mrs.  J.  Borden  Harriman,  New  York ;  Frederic  A.  Delano,  Illinois ;  Harris 
Weinstock,  California;  S.  Thruston  Ballard,  Kentucky;  John  B.  Lennon,  Illi- 
nois ;  James  O'Connell,  District  of  Columbia ;  Austin  B.  Garretson,  Iowa,  com- 
missioners. 

The  commission  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment  of  Saturday,  October  25, 
1913,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  There  are  two  corporations  which  have  recently 
been  formed  that  are  represented  here.  One  is  called  the  National  Council  of 
Industrial  Safety.  The  men  concerned  with  that  are  Mr.  J.  D.  Beck,  Mr.  W.  H. 
Cameron,  and  Mr.  R.  W.  Campbell,  president  of  that  council,  and  Mr.  C.  W. 
Price.  Those  four  men  represent  the  National  Council  of  Industrial  Safety. 
That  council  represents  the  expert  safety  men  of  the  largest  corporations  of 
the  country.  They  propose  to  tell  the  work  that  they  are  doing  and  how  their 
organization  is  effected,  what  its  purposes  are,  and  the  results  that  they  have 
accomplished,  and  to  offer  cooperation  of  some  kind  with  this  commission. 
The  other  organization  is  a  newly  created  one  of  the  State  and  Municipal 
Bureaus  of  Labor  Employment.  The  men  who  represent  that  are  Mr.  Croxton, 
who  was  formerly  in  the  Bureau  of  Labor  here  in  Washington,  and  is  now  at 
the  head  of  that  w^ork  in  Ohio. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Was  he  with  the  Labor  Bureau  of  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission 

Mr,  LAUCK.  The  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Was  he  not  detailed  for  service  with  the  com- 
mission just  before  leaving? 

Mr.  LATJCK.  That  was  just  in  an  advisory  capacity. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  may  have  been  so.  I  knew  the  man  as  an 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  man,  but  not  a  Department  of  Labor  man. 

Mr.  LAUCK.  No ;  he  was  from  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  and  was  over 
there  advising  about  railway  wage  statistics. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  is  his  name? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Croxton.  The  other  interested  party  is  L.  A.  Hal- 
bert,  who  has  charge  of  the  work  in  Kansas  City,  and  who  has  done  some  good 
wrork  in  connection  with  employment  offices.  The  third  man,  Mr.  William 
Leiserson,  has  charge  of  the  employment  offices  in  Wisconsin. 

These  people  have  recently  effected  a  national  organization  extending  from 
Massachusetts  to  Oregon,  of  an  organization  of  public  employment  offices,  and 
are  working  out  plans  of  uniformity  in  interchange,  and  are  thinking  of  a 
large  organization  to  develop  that  line  of  work  throughout  the  country. 

Those  two  organizations  are  here  as  organizations,  or  at  least  as  individuals 
in  an  executive  capacity  in  those  organizations,  and  they  have  definite  and 
specific  things  in  mind  to  bring  up. 

On  farm  labor  there  are  two  people  here,  Mr.  Charles  W.  Holman,  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Texas,  who  has  knowledge  of  the  Renters  Union,  of  the  I.  W.  W. 
organization  of  farm  laborers  in  Texas,  and  Mr.  Herbert  Quick,  representing 
one  of  the  agricultural  papers.  These  men  would  naturally  come  at  the  same 
time  when  the  consideration  of  other  employment  questions  come  in. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Who  is  that? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Charles  W.  Holman  and  Mr.  Quick,  a  newspaper 
man.  I  took  up  the  matter  of  inviting  these  people  and  talked  it  over  with 
Commissioner  Walsh,  with  the  idea  that  we  would  get  before  us  three  large 
movements  in  general  that  are  going  on,  that  we  would  have  to  take  account 
of,  and  those  who  are  urgent  in  getting  a  hearing  first  would  be  the  Council 

275 


276          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

of  Safety  men.  They  would  like  to  close  up  at  one  continuous  session  and 
then  get  away.  They  must  get  away  this  evening.  The  others  will  be  like 
Mrs.  Kelley.  Now,  if  there  are  any  other  individuals  like  Mrs.  Kelley  who 
wish  to  be  heard  to-day 

The  CHAIRMAN.  After  these  names  were  agreed  upon  by  Prof.  Commons  and 
myself  I  talked  to  Mrs.  Harriman,  and  she  thought  she  would  like  to  have  two 
who  would  pay  particular  attention  to  woman  and  child  labor,  and  at  Mrs. 
Harriman's  suggestion  I  invited  Mrs.  Florence  Kelley  and  Mrs.  Ilobins,  and 
they  are  here. 

Commissioner  HAEEIMAN.  You  might  speak  of  the  matter  of  the  advisory 
board. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.  Mrs.  Harriman  had  an  idea  that  it  might  be  a  good 
thing  to  have  an  advisory  board  of  women  throughout  the  country,  but  that 
will  come  up  later.  Are  they  going  to  make  some  suggestions  about  that? 

Commissioner  HAEKIMAN.  They  are  on  that  board,  and  they  are  going  to  make 
suggestions. 

The  CHAIEMAN.  Mrs.  Harriman,  you  asked  a  number  of  women  throughout 
the  country  to  cooperate  with  us  as  an  advisory  board? 

Commissioner  HAEEIMAN.  The  idea  of  that  was  that  we  would  try  to  get 
both  radicals  and  conservatives,  so  that  they  could  go  along  with  us  and  make 
suggestions  and  criticisms  on  the  question  of  woman  and  child  labor  rather 
than  oppose  us  and  tear  everything  to  pieces. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  have  succeeded,  as  far  as  those  two  are  con- 
cerned  

Commissioner  HAEEIMAN.  In  getting  radicals? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Yes. 

Commissioner  HAEEIMAN.  Do  you  not  think  it  is  a  good  idea  to  have  their 
suggestions  and  that  it  is  better  to  have  them  with  us  than  to  have  them  going 
after  us  and  tearing  everything  to  pieces? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  have  succeeded  at  the  start,  anyway. 

Commisssioner  COMMONS.  May  I  ask  the  members  of  this  National  Council 
of  Industrial  Safety  to  come  before  us  now? 

Commissioner  HABEIMAN.  I  had  a  letter  about  that  man  who  is  going  to 
Australia.  He  is  going  to  start  to-morrowr,  I  think.  Chairman  Walsh  has  the 
letter.  He  is  going  to  Australia  on  some  other  business  and  make  some  investi- 
gations for  us,  and  as  he  is  here  and  can  be  seen  to-day  it  might  be  a  good 
thing  to  invite  him  up. 

The  CHAIEMAN.  Mr.  Lauck  took  that  up  with  me  this  morning,  but  we  con- 
cluded we  did  not  have  time  to  hear  him  to-day. 

Commissioner  HAEEIMAN.  While  I  was  in  New  York  I  found  that  he  was 
considered  to  stand  very  high.  I  do  not  know  him  myself. 

The  CHAIEMAN.  Mr.  Lauck  thought  we  could  not  do  anything  worth  while 
in  the  time  he  had  if  he  had  to  go  to-morrow. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  He  could  not  make  anything  plain  in  that  time. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  was  going  to  ask  whether  \ve  shall  hold  an  evening 
session.  If  so,  we  might  ask  Mrs.  Kelley  and  Mrs.  Robins  to  appear  this  even- 
ing and  be  sure  of  finishing  the  hearing  with  these  other  people  this  morning 
and  this  afternoon. 

Commissioner  HAEEIMAN.  Anything  will  suit  me. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  If  they  are  going  away  to-night,  we  will  accommo- 
date them  in  any  way  we  can. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  This  Safety  Committee  are  going  away  this  afternoon. 

Commissoner  BALLAED.  Our  commission  has  employed  a  managing  expert  and, 
as  I  understand,  wre  propose  to  put  into  various  fields  experts  selected  by  our 
managing  expert,  and  probably  men  who  are  recommended  to  the  commission, 
and  finally  to  be  employed  by  the  commission  after  careful  examination  ;  and  I 
had  the  impression  that  these  experts  were  the  ones  on  whom  we  were  to  rely 
for  our  facts  and  for  our  work ;  and  the  mere  fact  that  a  very  good  man  is  going 
to  Australia  is  no  particular  reason  why  this  commission  should  employ  him  or 
even  be  in  particular  communication  with  him  to  make  any  investigation  on 
which  the  commission  is  to  rely.  I  should  imagine  that  before  our  commission 
expires  wre  will  probably  want  to  send  some  one,  possibly  to  Australia  or  else- 
where, to  make  such  investigations  as  we  feel  we  need ;  but  I  imagine  that  the 
investigators  that  this  commission  will  employ  will  be  persons  who  have  been 
very  carefully  recommended  and  very  carefully  considered,  to  be  sure  that  they 
will  make  such  investigations  as  we  need  absolutely  without  bias,  and  so  that  the 
commission  may  rely  upon  the  information  which  they  furnish  to  us.  I  am  sat- 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT    WITNESSES.  277 

isfied  that  a  great  number  of  reports  that  have  been  made  have  been  more  or 
less  biased,  and  therefore  the  commission  could  not  accept  their  conclusions  as 
final.  We  will  be  able  to  make  our  own  investigations,  and  I  am  inclined  to 
think  that  the  only  experts  this  commission  should  have  in. the  field  are  those 
who  have  been  carefully  considered,  carefully  investigated,  and  then  carefully 
approved. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Mr.  President,  it  seems  altogether  advisable  to  hear 
these  other  people  first.  The  matters  that  the  chairman  desires  to  submit, 
which  have  been  referred  to  by  Mr.  Lauck  and  Mrs.  Harriman  and  others  may 
take  considerable  time  for  discussion.  Suppose  we  get  rid  of  this  hearing  and 
then  have  our  executive  session,  when  we  can  spend  a  whole  day  at  it.  Is  it  a 
matter  that  can  not  lie  over? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No ;  not  at  all.  I  understood  we  had  got  past  that  point  and 
that  we  are  going  to  hear  these  Council  of  Safety  people. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Then  I  move  that  we  begin  the  hearings,  commencing 
with  these  safety  appliance  people,  followed  by  the  two  women,  and  then  the 
others  just  as  rapidly  as  we  can  reach  them. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  second  that  motion. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  it  not  be  well  to  fix  a  time  limit?  Other- 
wise some  of  these  gentlemen  may  keep  us  here  two  hours  at  a  stretch. 

The  CHAIKMAN.  I  think  they  have  all  been  warned  by  Commissioner  Com- 
mons. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  They  will  not  all  want  to  talk. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  There  will  be  no  reiteration. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Sometimes  when  you  get  an  enthusiast  before  you 
he  overlooks  his  good  stopping  points. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  His  brakes  get  out  of  order. 

Mr.  LAUCK.  How  about  the  two  women  ?  - 

The  CHAIKMAN.  Let  them  follow  immediately. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Before  they  come  may  I  say  a  word  in  explanation 
of  why  they  were  asked  and  what  the  idea  was? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  We  had  so  many  applications,  so  many  people 
writing  to  us  all  the  time,  asking  what  was  going  to  be  done  in  the  way  of 
woman's  work  especially,  that  we  thought  we  would  take  everything  relating 
to  women  and  children  and  put  them  in  one  column,  and  then  eventually  throw 
them  all  back  again  for  a  final  report,  and  that  we  would  consider  the  ques- 
tions as  to  the  policies  that  need  to  be  changed.  That  was  the  idea  Mr.  Lauck 
and  I  had,  and  then  we  thought  if  we  could  get  an  advisory  committee  of 
women  who  were  interested  in  that  question,  to  work  throughout  the  country, 
and  if  they  could  come  on  here  semioccasionally  if  there  was  any  necessity  for 
it,  and  hold  a  meeting,  and  also  if  we  could  send  them  reports  of  work  as  we 
went  along,  once  in  a  while,  and  get  their  criticisms  on  it,  it  would  in  the  end 
make  it  much  simpler  for  us  than  if  we  did  not  listen  to  them  and  they  were 
ready  to  tear  everything  to  pieces. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Most  of  the  women's  organizations  of  the  country 
have  written  to  me,  stating  that  because  I  have  worked  with  them  they  ex- 
pected me  to  look  after  the  interests  of  women  and  children  in  this  investiga- 
tion. I  have  worked  with  them  all  of  my  life,  and  have  always  worked  more 
with  wromen  than  with  men.  That  was  the  reason  they  expected  me  to  look 
after  their  interests.  I  told  them  we  had  a  woman  on  the  commission,  and  I 
turned  their  attention  toward  her  to  get  their  work  done,  telling  them  at  the 
same  time  that  I  would  help  if  I  could. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  That  is  probably  the  reason  why  so  many  of  them 
have  written  to  me.  We  can  work  together. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  All  right. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Would  you  like  to  know  the  names  of  the  women 
who  have  been  proposed  for  the  advisory  committee? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  get  at  that  later.  Is  there  any  further  discussion 
of  the  motion? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Has  the  advisory  committee  been  appointed,  or  only 
recommended  ? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  They  have  been  invited. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  am  interested  in  the  women,  of  course,  and 
believe  in  the  investigation  of  these  questions,  but  I  do  not  propose  to  let  the 
women  go  so  far  that  they  may  backfire  and  then  put  the  blame  on  somebody 
else. 


278          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  The  only  thing  that  occurs  to  me  is  that  if  we  ap- 
point an  advisory  committee  of  \vomen,  will  we  not  be  in  a  position  where  we 
can  not  decline  an  advisory  committee  of  miners,  an  advisory  committee  of  rail- 
road men,  and  advisory  committees  of  various  other  organizations  and  in- 
terests ? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  This  is  not  for  the  commission.  It  is  just  in  con- 
nection with  that  department,  to  sho\v  them  that  we  had  taken  up  the  question 
of  the  work  of  women  and  children.  It  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  commission 
proper. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  is  a  division  of  the  commission's  work,  though  ? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Yes ;  but  it  was  a  kind  of  informal  thing  and  they 
could  be  dropped  at  any  time  we  wanted  to  do  so. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  With  the  power  of  suggestion  only? 

Commissioner  HABBIMAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  all  we  have. 

Commissioner  HABBIMAN.  We  are  never  really  going  to  get  them  together. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  they  not  supposed  to  come  together  and  meet? 

Commissioner  HABBIMAN.  No.  We  said  if  necessary  we  would  call  them 
here. 

Mr.  LAUCK.  But  the  idea  was  never  to  get  them  together,  because  that  would 
be  an  impossible  situation. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  And  I  think  a  most  dangerous  situation. 

Commissioner  HABBIMAN.  Could  not  the  commission  dispose  of  the  question? 
I  can  easily  tell  them,  without  hurting  their  feelings. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  is  perfectly  right  for  whoever  has  charge  of 
that  department  to  advise  with  women  in  every  way  possible. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  want  to  raise  the  point  of  order  that  there  is 
a  motion  before  the  house. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  had  a  very  pleasant  interview  with  Miss  Adams  a 
week  ago,  and  she  said  she  had  had  a  very  cordial  invitation  to  pay  her  fare 
to  Washington  any  time  she  wants  to  make  any  suggestion,  but  that  she  did 
not  think  she  was  likely  to  come. 

Commissioner  HABBIMAN.  That  was  not  what  she  said.  She  said  if  they 
wanted  her,  if  they  felt  it  was  necessary,  she  would  pay  her  fare. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Miss  Adams  would  be  more  bashful  about  coming 
forward  than  some  of  them. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  These  safety  people  are  here,  and  we  can  give  them 
a  hearing.  They  are  here  on  the  ground,  and  I  renew  my  motion  that  we  give 
preference  first  to  the  safety  men,  and  then  to  the  ladies. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  has  been  moved  and  seconded  that  we  proceed  with  the 
business  of  hearing  those  who  have  been  mentioned  by  Commissioner  Commons 
and  Mrs.  Harriman,  hearing  first  the  gentlemen  on  safety  and  sanitation,  and 
next  the  ladies.  Are  there  any  remarks  on  the  motion? 

The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  hear  Mr.  Price  and  his  party  first. 

Commissioner  BALLABD.  This  hearing  is  entirely  open? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Is  there  any  particular  reason  why  the  gentlemen 
must  be  heard  first? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  The  only  reason  why  I  offered  that  motion  was 
because  of  the  seeming  necessity  for  •  them  to  get  away.  There  is  no  other 
reason. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  They  are  very  anxious  to  get  away. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Dr.  Price,  we  have  concluded  to  hear  you  gentlemen  first 
on  this  question  of  safety  and  sanitation,  and  we  thought  we  would  lot  you 
divide  it  to  suit  yourselves.  I  have  mentioned  you  by  name,  because  I  spoke 
to  you  before. 

Mr.  PRICE.  Mr.  Beck  will  make  the  first  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  J.  D.  Beck,  of  the  Wisconsin  Industrial  Commission, 
formerly  labor  commissioner,  will  first  address  the  commission. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  J.  D.  BECK. 

Mr.  BECK.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  commission,  I  happen  to  have 
been  labor  commissioner  for  six  years  prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  industrial- 
commission  law  in  our  State,  and,  as  such,  I  felt  that  we  had  done  some  things 
in  Wisconsin  and  were  doing  some  things ;  we  were  encouraged  in  that  belief  by 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  279 

investigations  that  were  made  of  the  work  of  the  department  by  various  philan- 
thropic societies  and  others  coining  into  the  State  and  looking  over  our  records 
and  the  work;  yet,  from  year  to  year,  we  could  discover  that  the  factory  and 
other  industrial  accidents  were  increasing,  and  the  prosecutions  for  violation 
of  our  laws  increased  from  a  few  per  year  up  to  365  a  year,  which  was  an 
average  of  one  a  day.  That  seemed  to  be  the  measure  by  which  our  work  was 
judged.  It  seemed  to  me  that  something  was  wrong.  We  were  having  a  great 
many  prosecutions,  it  is  true,  and  the  laws  were  being  enforced  as  well  as 
we  felt  that  the  laws  themselves  and  the  courts  of  our  State  would  permit 
them  to  be  enforced. 

In  1907  we  started  an  investigation  of  industrial  accidents  and  workmen's 
compensation.  That  investigation  was  made  by  the  deputy  of  the  department, 
Mr.  Lorenz,  who  was  assistant  professor  of  economics  in  the  University  of  Wis- 
consin at  the  time  he  was  appointed.  He  went  into  the  study  somewhat  ex- 
tensively, and  his  report  was  turned  over  to  a  legislative  committee,  appointed 
at  the  next  session  of  the  legislature,  who  thought  the  subject  was  of  sufficient 
importance  to  require  further  inquiry,  and  a  committee  of  that  legislature  was 
appointed  to  make  a  further  study  of  the  subject.  The  chairman  of  that  com- 
mittee was  Senator  Sanborn,  of  our  State.  He  began  holding  hearings  around 
at  various  industrial  centers,  taking  such  data  as  he  could  find  on  the  subject 
of  accidents,  employers'  liability,  and  what  the  courts  had  done  in  various 
cases  which  had  been  taken  up  through  the  courts,  and  so  forth  and  so  on. 
After  holding  a  few  hearings,  he  would  call  the  committee  together,  they  would 
go  over  the  data,  and  they  would  draft  a  tentative  bill  which  they  thought 
would  meet  such  problems  as  had  developed.  Those  tentative  bills  would  be 
sent  out  to  the  various  labor  organizations,  to  the  various  manufacturers'  as- 
sociations, and  to  the  various  individuals  who  might  be  interested  in  the  sub- 
ject, and  suggestions,  criticisms,  and  the  like  were  asked  for.  That  was  not 
only  confined  to  our  State,  but  it  was  sent  all  over  the  country ;  and,  when 
sufficient  information  had  been  gathered  to  warrant  a  further  hearing,  a  new 
bill  would  be  drafted,  and  so  on.  For  two  years  that  was  the  course  which 
the  tentative  bills  had  to  pursue.  The  result  was  the  workmen's  compensation 
act,  such  as  we  have  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 

Now,  in  the  meantime,  the  bureau  of  labor  had  endeavored  to  solve  the  acci- 
dent problem,  so  far  as  possible,  in  another  way.  We  called  a  meeting  of  the 
representatives  of  the  State  federation  of  labor,  representatives  of  the  State 
manufacturers'  association,  and  representatives  of  insurance  companies  doing 
business  in  Wisconsin,  who  were  inspecting  factories  and  insuring  employees 
against  liability  for  damages,  and  the  like.  We  drafted  something  like  *  300 
rules  of  safety  to  be  followed  which  we  thought  we  might  put  into  operation, 
b'ut  we  found  that  something  was  lacking.  In  the  first  place,  I  do  not  believe 
the  employers  of  our  State  realized  the  situation.  They  did  not  realize  the  num- 
ber of  accidents  that  \vere  happening;  and,  in  the  second  place,  the  old  law 
stood  in  our  way.  The  old  law,  or  the  theory  on  which  we  had  gone  in  legis- 
lating against  accidents,  was  the  enumeration  of  dangerous  points  and  places. 
For  instance,  we  started  out  with  a  law  on  safety.  It  ran  something  like  this, 
that  all  set  screws,  bull  wheels,  flywheels,  tumbling  rods,  belts,  etc.,  must  be 
securely  guarded.  The  legislature  would,  from  year  to  year,  add  some  other 
term  to  that  law,  and  finally,  I  presume,  it  gave  up  in  despair  of  keeping  up 
with  dangerous  points  that  were  being  brought  into  existence  by  our  modern 
industrial  developments,  so  it  added  the  phrase  "  and  all  other  dangerous 
machinery  "  to  cover  everything  that  might  be  considered  dangerous.  But  the 
courts  have  held  that  such  a  phrase  as  that  must  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of 
what  has  been  said  preceding  in  the  law,  and  in  two  or  three  States  I  think  it 
has  been  said  that  a  buzz  saw,  for  instance,  was  not  a  machine  similar  to  a 
bull  wheel,  flywheel,  or  tumbling  rod,  consequently  the  term  "  all  other  danger- 
ous machinery  "  did  not  apply  to  it.  So  we  started  out  in  the  year  1911  with 
a  different  theory  of  safety. 

We  did  not  repeal  all  our  safety  laws,  but  we  did  say  in  the  law  that  all 
places  of  employment  must  be  made  safe,  and  the  law  defined  the  word  safety 
as  meaning  such  freedom  from  danger  to  life,  health,  and  welfare  of  employees 
as  the  nature  of  the  business  would  reasonably  permit.  It  provided  that  the 
Industrial  Commission  should  make  an  inquiry  into  industrial  conditions  to 
determine  what  places  of  employment  were  not  safe,  and  to  issue  such  orders  as 
might  be  necessary  to  make  them  safe.  Jn  other  words,  it  provided  that  the 
Industrial  Commission  should  determine  the  fact  of  safety  and  order  that  con- 
ditions, be  made  as  safe  as  the  nature  of  the  business  would  permit.  It  also 


280          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

provided  that  we  might  appoint  advisory  committees  to  help  us  work  out  the 
problem  of  safety,  and  any  other  problem  that  came  under  the  law.  The  first 
thing  that  we  believed  to  be  necessary  was  to  secure  the  services  of  some  one 
who  had  done  a  great  work  in  the  line  of  safety.  We  searched  the  country 
over,  from  Maine  to  California,  to  find  out  what  some  large  institution  had 
done  in  promoting  the  welfare  and  safety  of  their  employees,  and  started  him 
out  on  our  inquiry.  We  did  this,  and  the  next  step  was  to  appoint  our  advisory 
committee.  We  asked  the  State  federation  of  labor  to  recommend  to  us  two 
persons  to  serve  on  that  committee;  we  asked  the  Manufacturers'  Association 
of  the  City  of  Milwaukee  to  recommend  two  of  their  members ;  we  asked  the 
State  manufacturers'  association  to  recommend  to  us  two  of  their  members  to 
serve  on  the  committee.  The  Industrial  Commission  then  took  two  men  that 
had  done  considerable  wTork  in  safety  lines  in  two  of  the  largest  factories  in 
Wisconsin  to  represent  it  on  the  committee.  In  the  meantime,  a  mutual  insur- 
ance company  under  the  workmen's  compensation  act  had  been  organized  in  the 
State,  and  we  placed  a  representative  of  that  company  on  this  committee,  and 
we  started  them  to  work  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee. 

The  first  meeting  they  had  they  did  not  get  very  far.  The  manufacturers 
would  sit  on  one  side  of  the  table  and  the  representatives  of  labor  on  the  other 
side,  and  anything  that  was  proposed  by  one  the  other  would  say  could  not 
be  done — "  You  can  not  do  this  "  or  "  You  can  not  do  that "  or  "  You  can  not 
do  anything."  The  second  meeting  they  did  not  get  any  further.  The  third 
meeting  they  got  down  to  discussing  one  or  two  concrete  rules,  but  nothing 
was  done  further  than  that.  At  the  fourth  meeting  I  believe  they  began  the 
adoption  of  rules,  and  perhaps  got  seven  or  eight  passed  unanimously  by  the 
committee;  and  I  remember  they  came  to  the  rule  requiring  a  safety  governor 
on  an  elevator  that  traveled  so  many  feet.  The  tentative  rule  as  worked  out 
by  the  secretary  of  that  committee  provided  that  a  governor  shall  be  on  all 
elevators  that  traveled  15  feet  or  more.  The  employers,  and  one  of  them  in 
particular,  began  to  object,  saying,  "  We  could  not  do  that ;  there  is  no 
necessity  for  it,  and  no  sense  in  it,"  etc.  The  question  was  raised  as  to 
what  other  States  were  doing,  and,  as  far  as  we  could  find  out,  other  States 
that  had  adopted  any  laws  on  that  subject  required  a  governor  on  all  ele- 
vators traveling  25  feet  or  more.  Well,  the  employers  felt  that  they  might 
adopt  that  rule,  inasmuch  as  other  States  had  established  a  25-foot  limit,  but 
they  did  not  think  Wisconsin  ought  to  go  any  further.  Some  one  said  Chicago 
had  adopted  a  rule  requiring  governors  on  elevators  which  traveled  20  feet, 
and  some  thought  they  ought  to  go  as  far  as  the  rest  had  gone.  One  of  the 
manufacturers  who  afterwards  confessed  to  the  commission  that  he  had  sought 
appointments  of  this  advisory  committee  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  that  noth- 
ing was  done,  weighed  about  300  pounds ;  and  he  sat  over  at  the  middle  of  the 
table,  and  he  had  not  taken  part  in  any  of  the  discussion  at  all ;  and  when 
they  were  about  to  vote  on  the  20-foot  limit  he  said,  "  Well,  boys,  if  you  are 
going  to  drop  me,  don't  let  it  be  over  15  feet."  And  from  that  time  on  the 
committee  never  had  any  further  trouble  in  adopting  rules.  In  fact,  the  em- 
ployers on  that  committee  we  had  to  hold  back  many  times  to  see  that  they 
did  not  go  too  far. 

When  I  say  too  far  I  mean  this:  I  had  been  at  the  head  of  the  department 
long  enough  so  that  I  knew  there  were  some  things  we  could  do  and  some 
things  we  could  not  do ;  and  there  was  not  any  sense  in  that  committee  adopt- 
ing rules  so  stringent  that  the  Industrial  Commission  could  not  enforce  them. 
So  we  had  more  trouble  in  holding  back  some  of  those  employers  on  that  com- 
mittee and  keeping  them  from  going  too  far  than  we  had  to  get  them  to  go 
far  enough.  There  was  never  any  question  from  that  time  on  as  to  what  that 
committee  would  do.  We  just  had  a  case  recently  where  the  First  National 
Bank  of  Milwaukee  had  appealed  to  the  commission  to  set  aside  an  order 
on  an  elevator.  The  bank  is  an  absolutely  fireproof  building;  I  do  not  be- 
lieve there  is  a  stick  of  wood  in  it  anywhere.  Our  rules  require  that  elevators 
built  after  a  certain  date  should  have  a  fireproof  inclosure  from  the  bottom 
to  the  top.  When  you  come  to  consider  that  it  is  a  national  bank,  the  largest, 
perhaps,  in  the  State,  composed  of  men  who  are  powerful,  measured  by  wealth, 
at  any  rate,  one  would  naturally  suppose  they  would  have  some  influence  on 
that  larger  committee  in  getting  that  order  set  aside;  but  they  insisted  that 
that  order  must  be  carried  out  regardless  of  influences  that  were  being  brought 
to  bear.  ,  • 

So  it  has  occurred  to  us  many  times  that  much  of  the  trouble  that  arises 
between  employers  and  employees  could  be  thrashed  out  and  settled  between 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  281 

the  employers  and  employees  could  they  sit  down  to  a  table  together  and  talk 
over  their  differences  and  look  over  one  another's  problems  as  they  are.  At 
least  that  is  what  we  have  found  to  be  true  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 

Now,  the  principal  trouble  with  the  old  law  was  its  inflexibility.  The  law 
required  a  fire  escape,  for  instance,  on  a  building  whether  it  was  absolutely 
fireproof  or  whether  it  was  a  frame  structure  that  would  catch  fire  and  burn 
up  in  15  minutes.  It  required  the  same  fire  escapes  on  a  building  which  had  10 
or  more  employees  that  it  required  on  a  building  which  had  10.000  employees. 
The  same  was  true  with  all  of  our  safety  legislation.  The  fact  that  a  set  screw 
killed  25  men  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  does  not  mean  that  all  set  screws  are 
dangerous,  for  instance.  I  remember  one  time  we  ordered  a  fire  escape  on  a 
building  which  contained  800  people,  a  frame  building.  There  was  a  building 
across  the  street  that  had  about  the  same  number  of  people  which  was  built 
as  nearly  fireproof  as  a  building  could  be  made.  We  were  not  inclined  to  order 
a  fire  escape  on  the  fireproof  building,  at  least  until  we  had  brought  those  frame 
buildings  up  to  a  higher  standing.  But  when  the  inspector  went  to  issue  the 
order  the  owner  said,  "All  right,  I  will  build  it,  but  you  will  have  to  order  one 
on  my  neighbor's  building  across  the  way."  The  inspector  replied,  "  But  that 
building  does  not  need  a  fire  escape."  "  I  do  not  care ;  the  law  says  it  must 
be  done,  and  if  you  do  not  do  it  I  will  have  you  up  for  malfeasance  in  office." 
And  so  the  only  thing  to  do  was  to  order  them  on  both  of  those  buildings.  That 
created  many  times  an  unnecessary  hardship.  Now,  our  law  as  it  is  to-day  is 
more  flexible.  If  we  find,  for  instance,  that  an  order  does  not  apply,  one  of 
our  rules  requires  the  counterweights  on  elevators  shall  be  securely  guarded, 
so  that  in  case  the  wire  should  break  and  the  counterweights  should  fall  and 
a  man  should  have  his  arm  or  something  in  such  a  position  that  the  counter- 
weight would  come  down  and  shear  his  arm  off,  the  instrument  would  be 
guarded.  But  we  find  many  times  that  there  is  not  enough  room  b'etween  the 
counterweight  and  the  elevator  in  order  to  guard  it.  So  the  commission  has  the 
power  on  appeal  to  it,  setting  forth  the  facts,  to  set  aside  that  order  as  not 
applying  to  such  and  such  elevator,  and  then  issue  a  new  order  which  will  make 
the  counterweights  safe.  Under  the  old  law,  and  under  most  safety  laws,  I 
think,  that  is  an  impossibility. 

Now,  a  few  days  ago  I  began  to  look  over  our  accident  records  to  see  what 
has  been  some  of  the  results  and  to  see  wrhether  we  were  getting  anywhere 
under  our  present  system  any  more  than  we  were  under  the  old.  We  were 
never  able  to  get  a  complete  list  of  accidents ;  \ve  do  not  know  how  many  acci- 
dents were  happening  in  the  State  prior  to  the  adoption  of  this  law,  nor  do 
we  know  to-day  exactly  how  many,  because  every  little  while  we  learn  of  an 
accident  that  has  not  been  reported.  But  under  the  system  a  few  years  ago 
we  had  reported  14,000  industrial  accidents  a  year  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin, 
14,000  industrial  accidents  for  the  year  1908.  Under  the  same  system  of  re- 
porting accidents  for  the  year  1912,  there  were  8,000  accidents,  which  seemed 
to  indicate  that  we  had  at  least  made  a  reduction  of  50  per  cent,  or  nearly  50 
per  cent.  There  were  271  fatal  accidents  in  the  year  1908,  and  under  the  same 
system  of  reporting  accidents  in  1912  there  were  112,  which  meant  more  than 
50  per  cent  reduction.  Since  the  year  1912,  or  during  the  last  16  or  17  months, 
the  accident  curve  seems  to  be  running  along  about  the  same,  which  would 
seem  to  show  that  we  had  made  about  as  great  a  reduction  in  accidents  by 
safeguarding  machinery  at  dangerous  places  as  it  is  possible  to  make. 

There  has  also  been  another  movement  started  in  the  State,  which  seems  to 
be  doing  more  toward  the  prevention  of  accidents  than  all  the  safeguarding  of 
dangerous  machines  and  appliances  that  we  have  been  able  to  do  in  Wisconsin. 
A  year  ago  there  were  five  large  companies  in  Wisconsin 

The  CHAIKMAN.  Excuse  me,  Mr.  Beck,  but  what  was  that  reduction  I  did 
not  get  it. 

Mr.  BECK.  From  14,000  to  8,000.  You  will  understand,  Mr.  Walsh,  that  we 
never  had  a  very  perfect  system  of  reporting  accidents;  but  under  the  same 
system  of  reporting  accidents  we  had  reduced  the  accidents  from  14,000  to  about 
8,000. 

About  a  year  and  a  half  ago  we  had  five  of  the  large  companies  organize 
safety  departments  in  their  establishments,  a  department  that  was  kept  as 
separate  and  distinct  a  department  as  the  purchasing  department  or  the  sales 
department.  They  put  the  best  men  they  could  find  at  the  head  of  those  de- 
partments, and  one  of  them  made  a  reduction  in  a  year  of  75  per  cent  in  their 
accidents.  The  five  reduced  the  time  lost  from  10,000  days  to  4,000  days.  Now, 
figuring  it  up  at  the  average  rate  of  wages  paid  in  th£  Stale  of  Wisconsin,  it 


282          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

meant  a  saving  of  $18,000  to  those  companies,  or  6  per  cent  interest  on  $300,000, 
which  perhaps  means  that  there  is  more  money,  when  you  come  to  figure  this 
matter  from  the  point  of  view  of  dollars  and  cents,  as  many  of  them  do,  and 
no  better  investment  could  be  made  than  was  made  in  that  line.  It  cost  those 
live  establishments  nearly  $12,000  to  do  the  safeguarding  which  they  did,  and 
during  the  first  year  they  saved  $18,000  in  the  loss  of  time  and  wages.  One  of 
those  five  establishments  made  an  increase,  and  we  began  to  make  inquiry  as 
to  why  that  had  occurred,  and  as  near  as  we  could  find  out,  we  do  know  that 
up  until  last  March  they  had  made  a  great  decrease  in  the  number  of  accidents, 
but  a  relative  of  the  chief  owner  of  the  establishment  wanted  a  job,  and  he  had 
no  other  way  of  getting  it,  so  the  little  doctor  who  was  at  the  head  of  the  safety 
department  of  that  establishment  was  turned  out  and  this  fellow  put  in  his 
place,  and  their  safety  organization  fell  to  pieces. 

Now,  I  believe  that  this  is  true  in  Wisconsin,  as  a  result  of  the  work  that 
has  been  done,  and  I  am  led  to  believe  that  that  is  true  from  a  great  many 
letters  that  we  get,  one  of  which  was  received  just  a  few  days  ago.  A  smoke- 
stack had  blown  down  in  an  establishment  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee  which 
employed  about  400  girls.  It  happened  at  the  dinner  hour.  This  employer 
wrote  to  the  commission  and  said :  "  I  think  the  Industrial  Commission  should 
adopt  an  order  on  the  safety  of  smokestacks.  Our  smokestack  blew  down  in 
the  high  wind  on  a  certain  date,  and  if  the  girls  had  not  happened  at  that  hour 
to  be  at  dinner  it  probably  would  have  killed  75  of  them."  There  were  75 
girls  working  at  the  string  of  machines  along  the  edge  of  the  factory,  and  the 
smokestack  blew  down  lengthwise  the  whole  length  of  that  string,  and  there 
were  about  140  girls  working  on  those  machines,  and  he  figured  from  the  dam- 
age that  it  did  that  it  would  have  killed  about  75.  That  is  something  we  never 
used  to  receive  under  the  old  system.  Employers  are  continually  calling  our 
attention  to  these  accidents,  and  saying,  "  You  should  adopt  a  rule ;  if  you  had 
adopted  a  rule  on  such  and  such  a  case  I  would  not  have  had  one  of  my  em- 
ployees lose  his  hand,"  or  something  of  that  nature.  And  it  occurs  to  me  we 
might  perhaps  get  along  very  well  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  without  any  safety 
laws  from  this  time  on.  I  am  pretty  sure  we  could  if  it  was  not  for  about 
5  per  cent  of  the  employers  of  the  State  who  do  not  yet  seein  to  understand 
the  problem  and  how  it  ought  to  be  worked  out. 

I  believe  Mr.  Price  will  go  over  the  educational  part  of  our  work,  but  if 
there  are  any  questions  you  would  like  to  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  which  I  can 
answer  before  yielding  the  floor  to  him,  I  would  be  glad  to  answer  them. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  have  you  to  suggest  to  this  commission? 
You  have  told  us  now  what  you  have  done  in  Wisconsin.  What  do  you  sug- 
gest to  this  commission? 

Mr.  BECK.  I  looked  over  your  law  coming  down  here.  I  think  any  problem 
that  you  are  trying  to  solve,  the  best  way  which  would  occur  to  nie  to  solve  it 
would  be  to  follow  something  along  the  line  that  we  have  done.  We  know  it 
has  worked  in  Wisconsin,  and  I  can  not  see  why  it  could  not  work  elsewhere. 
In  whatever  problems  you  take  up,  get  those  people  who  are  interested  in  them 
together  to  thrash  them  out  among  themselves  under  your  guidance. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  other  questions  that  the  commission  would 
like  to  ask  Mr.  Beck? 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Would  that  be  a  national  law?  Would  that  inter- 
fere with  the  State  law? 

Mr.  BECK.  Of  course,  a  national  law  would  supersede  any  State  law.  I  do 
not  know  that  I  would  favor  a  national  law  that  would  supersede  a  State  law, 
because  I  think  that  the  National  Government  ordinarily  is  a  little  too  far 
away  from  the  places  where  these  problems  ordinarily  arise. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  law  of  the  National  Government  would  only 
apply  to  the  District  or  to  the  Territories. 

Mr.  BECK.  I  think  this  commission  would  perform  a  considerable  service  by 
working  out  something  for  the  State  to  pattern  after. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Your  idea  would  be  that  this  commission  might 
work  out  a  law  to  put  into  effect  by  the  Government,  so  far  as  it  can,  as  a 
criterion  for  the  States  to  follow? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  In  this  phase  of  the  attitude  of  the  employment 
which  you  referred  to,  as  evidenced  by  what  took  place  after  the  falling  of 
the  stack,  as  your  experience  indicated  that  the  changed  attitude  of  the  em- 
ployers may  have  been  owing  to  the  enactment  of  other  laws,  like  compensa- 
tion laws,  that  have  shifted  the  economic  proposition  from  one  side  to  the  other. 

Mr.  BECK.  There  is  no  doubt  about  the  influence  Hint  that  has  had.  At  the 
same  time,  I  think  that  the  employer  has  largely  lost  sight  of  just  what  is  hap- 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  283 

pening  in  his  factory,  because  he  has  gone  clear  out  at  the  top,  and  he  deals 
with  his  superintendents,  and  the  superintendents  deal  with  the  foremen,  and 
the  foremen  with  the  men,  and  I  think  he  has  gotten  away  from  as  close  con- 
tact. The  natural  trend  of  industrial  development  tends  to  that  thing.  I  know 
we  have  one  employer  in  our  State  who  has  375  people  in  a  carriage  factory ;  he 
used  to  be  on  our  board  of  arbitration.  He  would  frequently  come  in  and  talk 
that  very  problem  with  me.  He  would  say,  "  I  do  not  know  that  I  should  follow 
up  my  present  action  if  I  had  eight  or  ten  thousand  people  working  under  me ; 
1  presume  not."  But  he  makes  it  a  business  to  know  his  men  personally,  and  he 
will  go  in  and  say,  "  Good  morning,  John,"  and  so-and-so,  and  "  How  is  the  baby 
to-day?"  and  he  keeps  in  close  touch.  So  he  knows  his  entire  problem.  I  do 
think  that  some  of  our  employers  have  got  beyond  that  so  far  that  they  lose 
sight  of  it,  and  when  their  attention  has  been  called  to  it  by  these  laws  I  do 
think,  in  most  of  them  there  is  a  humane  element  in  it  which  comes  into 
operation. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  In  other  words,  the  humane  element  always  enters 
in  where  the  personal  contact  comes  in  and  does  not  where  the  personal  contact 
does  not  exist. 

Mr.  BECK.   Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  To  many  employers,  then,  the  idea  is  that  they  are 
so  many  units,  instead  of  so  many  humans? 

Mr.  BECK.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  we  gather  from  what  you  have  said  that  in 
Wisconsin  the  Industrial  Commission  have  one  set  of  inspectors,  the  State 
another  set  of  inspectors,  and  the  manufacturers'  association  another  set? 

Mr.  BECK.  That  is  true  in  every  Etate. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  have  various  inspectors,  then,  representing 
different  elements? 

Mr.  BECK.    Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  there  not  friction  between  these  different  in- 
spectors ? 

Mr.  BECK.  There  is,  except  where  a  standard  has  been  established. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  see.  Has  the  State  power  to  enforce  the  stand- 
ards established? 

Mr.  BECK.   Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Can  your  industrial  board  have  a  manufacturer 
penalized  if  he  does  not  comply  with  the  standard? 

Mr.  BECK.   Oh,  yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  is  the  penalty? 

Mr.  BECK.  $10  a  day  forfeiture. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  that  can  only  be  done,  I  suppose,  by  bringing 
the  manufacturer  into  court? 

Mr.  BECK.   Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  the  Supreme  Court  decided  they  could  do  that?  Have 
they  decided  they  have  that  power  to  assess  that  penalty  ? 

Mr.  BECK.   Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  the  industrial  board  assesses  the  penalty? 

Mr.  BECK.  No ;  it  is  a  court  proceeding. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.    The  industrial  board  simply  has  the  delinquents 
brought  into  court,  and  the  court  passes  judgment? 
'  Mr.  BECK.   Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  gathered  from  the  experience  in  other  States, 
from  talking  with  insurance  men,  that  there  is  frequently  a  good  deal  of  diffi- 
culty where  they  have  two  or  more  sets  of  inspectors,  that  one  inspector  will 
give  instructions  along  certain  lines,  and  then  another  State  inspector,  perhaps, 
will  follow  him  and  give  a  contrary  instruction,  and  the  manufacturer  is  at  sea 
and  does  not  know  whom  to  obey. 

Mr.  BECK.  I  do  not  think  it  arises  so  much  out  of  giving  contrary  instruc- 
tions as  it  does  from  the  fact  that  the  State  has  never  been  able  to  cover  more 
than  a  small  percentage  of  the  danger  points  in  a  law.  Our  law  simply  pro- 
vided, as  I  enumerated  before,  and  I  think  this  is  the  exact  language  of  our 
safety  law  which  existed,  and  I  think  we  had  about  as  good  a  law  as  any  of 
the  States,  that  all  bull  wlieels,  flywheels,  tumbling  rods,  belts,  and  all  other 
dangerous  machinery  should  be  securely  guarded.  Now,  when  you  come  to 
consider  that  the  supreme  courts  have  held  that  "  all  other  dangerous  ma- 
chinery"  means  such  machinery  as  has  been  enumerated  in  the  law;  in  other 
wrords,  that  phrase  must  be  interpreted  by  taking  the  whole  section  into  con- 


284          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

sideration,  and  "  all  other  dangerous  machinery  ''  means  similar  machinery  to 
flywheels,  bull  wheels,  tumbling  rods,  and  so  forth. 

The  insurance  inspector  will  come  in  and  find  a  hundred  things  that  the 
law  does  not  touch,  and  he  will  insist  that  those  dangerous  points  must  be 
guarded,  because  it  is  to  the  advantage  of  the  insurance  company  to  have 
every  dangerous  point  guarded,  so  he  is  insisting  on  more  than  the  factory 
inspector  can  insist  upon.  I  think  there  is  where  the  chief  difficulty  has  arisen, 
but  that  has  been  eliminated  in  our  State,  and  I  will  say  that  we  are  prepar- 
ing now  to  accept — we  do  find  employers  objecting  to  so  much  inspection. 
They  say  here  comes  the  fire  inspector,  and  here  comes  the  insurance  in- 
spector, and  here  comes  the  city  inspector  and  the  State  inspector ;  we  are 
simply  inspected,  to  death.  They  are  coming,  I  think,  more  and  more  to  look 
at  it  from  the  point  of  view  that  the  more  inspection  they  have  the  better. 
It  costs  us  nothing  to  be  inspected,  they  say,  and  we  want  our  place  safe, 
and  it  is  all  right.  But  there  are  a  good  many  who  are.  objecting  to  it  still. 
We  had  a  meeting  on  the  4th  of  December  and  had  all  the  insurance  inspectors 
doing  business  in  the  State  brought  together,  and  a  second  meeting  wilt  be 
held  on  the  13th  of  January,  where  we  shall  accept  the  inspection  reports  of 
bona  fide  insurance  inspectors  and  use  our  inspectors  to  check  up  their  work 
very  largely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  you  advise  the  State,  as  the  result  of 
your  experience,  against  officially  appointing  the  inspectors  of  the  insurance 
companies  to  pass  upon  a  certain  standard? 

Mr.  BECK.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  would  not  advise  that? 

Mr.  BECK.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  would  be  the  objection? 

Mr.  BECK.  You  are  then  assuming  responsibility  for  the  acts  of  a  private 
individual,  and  I  do  not  think  you  can  do  that.  Our  experience  has  been 
such  that  we  would  not  do  that.  We  have  that  problem  up  there  now,  and  I 
think  we  can.  make  the  insurance  companies  see  that  it  is  not  a  thing  for  the 
State  officials  to  give  authority  to  a  private  individual,  something  that  does 
not  owe  any  official  relation  to  the  parties  interested. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Where  the  demands  of  the  insurance  inspector 
conflict  with  the  demands  of  the  State  inspector,  what  would  be  done? 

Mr.  BECK.  There  is  no  necessity  for  that,  if  the  State  establishes  the 
standard. 

Commissioner  WEINSTGCK.  How  does  the  State  establish  the  standard  in 
Wisconsin?  Arbitrarily,  or  do  you  bring  the  manufacturers  together  and  make 
the  standard? 

Mr.  BECK.  This  committee  of  laboring  men  and  employers  work  it  out. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  the  State  simply  enforces  it? 

Mr.  BECK.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Subject  to  approval? 

Mr.  BECK.  Of  course  it  is  really  law  when  we  adopt  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  the  State  of  Wisconsin  in  the  accident  insurance 
business — has  it  an  insurance  department? 

Mr.  BECK.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  All  the  casualty  insurance  or  industrial  insurance 
is  conducted  by  stock  companies? 

Mr.  BECK.  Or  mutual  companies. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  BECK.  We  have  two  very  large  mutual  companies.  We  have  not  gone 
into  the  State  insurance  proposition  yet,  because  we  have  so  many  instances 
where  employers  tell  us  that  never  before  have  they  been  able  to  keep  in  such 
close  touch  with  their  employees  as  they  have  since  the  enactment  of  this  law, 
where  they  can  sit  right  down  with  the  employees  and  figure  out  between  the 
two  just  what  is  coming  to  him,  and  pay  it  over.  But  it  used  to  be  a  great 
proposition. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  they  do  that  where  they  carry  insurance? 

Mr.  BECK.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Or  does  this  settlement  come  in  between  the  in- 
surance company  and  the  employer? 

Mr.  BECK.  No ;  the  most  of  the  insurance  companies  say  if  he  loses  so  much 
time  pay  it  over  to  him  and  we  will  reimburse  you. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  large  a  factory  have  you  in  Wisconsin? 


SUGGESTIONS  OF  EXPERT  WITNESSES.  285 

Mr.  BECK.  The  Allis-Chalmers  Co.  have  something  like  10,000  men — that  is, 
their  maximum — and  ordinarily  about  6,000. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  is  about  3,000  now? 

Mr.  BECK.  No ;  I  met  the  general  manager  the  other  clay,  and  they  have  about 
5,200. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  spoke  of  an  organization  of  Mr.  Price  and  others  being 
connected  with  this  work.  What  is  the  name  of  the  organization  on  safety 
and  sanitation  which  you  referred  to? 

Mr.  BECK.  That  relates  to  shop  organizations  for  safety.  We  are  now  carry- 
ing on  a  campaign  in  Wisconsin  in  which  we  are  bringing  the  employers  to 
adopt  safety  appliances  in  their  shops. 

The  CHAIKMAN.  But  what  is  the  name  of  that  general  organization? 

Mr.  BECK.  They  simply  call  it  a  safety  organization;  it  is  the  shop  matter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  is  there  not  some  general  organization  which  is  pro- 
moting that  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  and  elsewhere? 

Mr.  BECK.  That  is  our  industrial  commission  which  is  promoting  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  no  organization  outside  of  your  industrial  commis- 
sion? 

Mr.  BECK.  No. 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  And  that  safety  organization  only  exists  at  present 
in  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  BECK.  No. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Or  is  it  national  in  its  scope? 

Mr.  BECK.  So  far  as  the  State  of  Wisconsin  is  concerned,  it  only  exists  in  our 
State,  and  we  are  developing  that  by  the  industrial  commission. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  The  gentlemen  who  represent  that  here  are  all 
from  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  are  they? 

Mr.  BECK.  The  gentlemen  that  we  have  doing  that  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin 
for  the  industrial  commission  are  a  part  of  the  industrial  commission. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Does  the  Industrial  Commission  of  Wisconsin  have 
a  safety  department  provided  by  law? 

Mr.  BECK.  Surely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  With  a  proper  head  to  it  and  proper  officers? 

Mr.  BECK.  The  industrial  commission,  of  course,  has  the  workmen's  com- 
pensation to  administer ;  it  has  all  of  the  safety  laws  of  the  State  to  administer, 
and  then  there  are  certain  economic  investigations  that  are  required,  both  by 
the  legislature  and  by  the  commission,  in  order  to  perform  some  of  the  duties 
that  it  has  to  perform.  So  we  have  ordinarily  divided  the  work  up  among  the 
three  commissioners.  One  makes  it  his  special  duty  to  look  after  the  work- 
men's compensation  side  of  it,  and  another  the  economic  investigations  to  be 
made,  and  the  third  the  safety  work  of  the  State. 

I  was  down  to  Racine  just  a  while  ago  at  the  organization  of  one  of  these 
safety  meetings  for  the  G.  I.  Case  Thrashing  Machine  Co.  They  have  about 
8,000  employees.  At  a  banquet  the  various  foremen  of  the  various  departments 
were  there,  and  they  formed  their  safety  committee  that  evening,  and  this 
watch  charm  was  one  of  the  things  they  handed  out  to  each  one  of  the  250  or 
275  men  they  had  there,  and  they  handed  me  one,  and  I  put  it  on.  All  the 
employees  were  given  one  that  evening.  It  is  not  a  movement,  so  far  as  we 
are  concerned,  outside  of  the  industrial  commission. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  C.  W.  Price,  assistant  to  the  Industrial  Commission  of 
Wisconsin,  is  the  next  speaker. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  C.  W.  PRICE. 

Mr.  PRICE.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  commission,  my  superior,  Mr. 
Beck,  has  spoken  especially  of  the  powers  and  work  of  the  commission  along 
the  line  of  drafting  standards  covering  the  equipment  of  plants  with  safe- 
guards. I  am  to  speak  especially  of  another  duty  and  another  power  of  the 
commission,  which  means  this:  The  commission  is  not  only  empowered,  but  it 
is  obligated  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  manufacturers,  the  best  information 
that  it  can  gather  from  the  experience  of  the  companies  that  have  done  good 
work  along  the  line  of  preventing  accidents  and  making  their  plants  sanitary 
and  healthful. 

In  thinking  over  what  I  should  say  to-day,  I  have  been  afraid  of  talking  too 
much  and  burdening  you  with  too  many  details.  I  have  tried  to  get  the  chair- 
man to  tell  me  what  to  do,  but  he  will  not,  and  Prof.  Commons  will  not,  and 


286         EEPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

so  I  am  going  to  use  my  judgment,  and  I  am  going  to  try  to  put  myself  in 
your  place  and  suppose  I  had  heard  what  Mr.  Beck  had  said,  and  that  I  was 
not  familiar  with  the  details  in  Wisconsin,  and  supposing  I  had  heard  him  say 
here  is  a  unique  departure  from  what  other  States  have  done,  and  we  have 
accomplished  these  results  of  less  accidents  and  wonderful  cooperation  with 
manufacturers,  and  it  seems  to  me  I  would  go  out  of  the  room  entirely  un- 
satisfied and  unconvinced  if  some  of  the  more  important  factors  which  have 
entered  into  this  work  were  not  touched  upon,  which  would  explain  to  my 
mind  how  it  all  came  about  that  the  manufacturers  have  changed  their  at- 
titude, and  are  now  giving  us  cooperation.  That  is  one  of  the  first  questions 
which  people  put  to  us  when  they  come  over  to  Wisconsin  and  see  what  we  are 
doing:  "How  do  you  get  the  cooperation  of  manufacturers?" 

The  educational  work  is,  to  my  mind,  one  of  the  chief  factors  which  has 
entered  into  this  work.  About  two  years  ago  we  began  to  organize  an 
exhibit  including  1,200  photographs  gathered  from  the  companies  all  over 
the  United  States  who  had  done  the  very  best  work  in  reducing  accidents. 
We  had  three  of  those  exhibits  in  duplicate,  and  had  them  mounted  with 
the  cards  colored,  and  we  made  a  tour  of  the  State,  spending  a  week  in  each 
principal  manufacturing  town  where  over  1,000  men  were  employed  in  fac- 
tories. Our  deputies  were  expected  to  call  on  the  manufacturers  personally 
and  interest  them  in  having  their  superintendents  and  foremen  visit  the  ex- 
hibit, which  they  did  in  large  numbers,  and  in  some  towns  hundreds  of  people 
besides  the  representatives  of  the  manufacturers  visited  them,  and  they  made 
a  careful  study  of  this  exhibit  of  the  practical  results  of  the  companies  which 
had  delivered  the  goods.  This  is  no  theory,  but  here  are  the  facts  in  con- 
crete form  in  large  factories. 

We  not  only  did  that,  but  on  one  evening  of  the  week  one  of  the  commis- 
sioners and  myself  would  hold  a  meeting,  attended  by  the  superintendents 
and  foremen  and  manufacturers  themselves,  and  we  would  go  over  the  whole 
proposition  of  the  prevention  of  accidents,  placing  before  them  somewhat  in 
detail  just  how  these  large  companies  that  had  made  reductions  of  from  25 
to  75  per  cent  had  accomplished  it. 

I  remember  one  manufacturer  met  me  on  the  train  and  he  said  to  me, 
"  Price,  do  you  knowT  that  meeting  at  Janesville  did  more  to  convince  the 
manufacturers  at  Janesville  and  my  superintendents  and  foremen  that  you 
people  at  Madison  are  getting  down  to  hammer  and  tacks,  and  are  going 
to  work  this  out  along  the  line  of  experience  and  not  theory,  and  along  the 
line  of  good  business  organization  than  anything  else,  and  if  it  did  not  do 
anything  else,  it  certainly  did  do  that."  But  in  addition  to  that  it  gave  those 
superintendents  and  foremen,  probably  not  1  per  cent  of  whom  had  had  a  chance 
to  see  very  much  along  the  line  of  efficient  safety  work  before  that  time, 
just  what  could  be  accomplished. 

The  second  thing  we  are  now  doing,  and  I  think  it  is  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant things,  is  in  the  line  of  placing  practical  information  in  the  hands  of  manu- 
facturers and  their  men,  and  it  is  to  publish  each  month  what  we  call  a  shop 
bulletin,  which  I  consider  one  of  the  most  valuable  things  that  the  commission 
is  doing,  absolutely.  That  little  shop  bulletin  is  a  convenient  medium  which 
enables  the  commission  each  month  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  foremen  and 
superintendnets  and  owners  of  the  business,  not  what  the  commission  thinks, 
but  what  has  actually  been  the  experience  of  manufacturers  along  the  line 
of  preventing  accidents. 

Here,  for  instance,  is  one  of  them.  We  usually  have  a  special  subject,  and  this 
is  upon  eye  injuries.  On  this  page  we  give  some  figures  in  regard  to  what  the 
Fairbanks-Morse  people  have  done  in  reducing  accidents  72  per  cent.  Here  are 
six  accidents  that  might  have  been  prevented.  How  did  they  happen?  What 
was  the  disability?  \Vhat  might  have  been  done  to  prevent  them?  That 
always  interests  the  foreman.  I  found  in  talking  to  organizations  of  fore- 
men, and  I  have  talked  to  150  organizations  perhaps  in  the  last  year  and  a  half, 
what  they  are  especially  interested  in  is  what  the  other  fellow  is  doing,  not 
what  I  think,  but  what  the  other  fellow  is  doing.  What  they  want  is  experi- 
ence, and  I  have  found  the  thing  that  convinces  a  superintendent  or  foreman 
is  what  the  other  fellow  is  doing.  That  is  the  line  we  are  working  on.  Not 
only  do  we  include  those  accidents,  but  we  always  include  a  very  brief  study 
on  two  pages  of  some  particular  line  of  accidents.  For  instance,  this  hap- 
pens to  be  eye  injuries.  There  they  have  got  the  experience  of  5,000  plants 
in  Wisconsin  on  that  subject  boiled  down  in  a  nutshell,  not  only  as  to  how 
they  happened,  but  as  to  what  may  have  been  done  to  prevent  them.  Then 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  287 

we  include  cuts  of  guards,  the  most  efficient  that  have  been  worked  out, 
and  we  have  made  a  wide  study  of  that  and  searched  for  the  best,  not  what 
I  think  or  the  commission  thinks,  but  what  these  companies  have  found  to 
be  valuable.  We  are  sending  a  hundred  copies  of  this  to  some  factories. 

Commissioner  LENNOX.  Please  see  that  the  commission  is  put  on  the  mailing 
list  for  about  a  dozen  of  them. 

Mr.  PRICE.  Good ;  fine. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Will  you  put  the  California  Industrial  Commis- 
sion on  your  list? 

Mr.  PEICE.  They  are  already  on. 

About  a  year  ago  we  made  a  careful  study  of  shredder  accidents  especially, 
not  of  farm  machinery  accidents.  I  mention  this  in  passing,  because  we  do 
not  want  to  forget  the  farmers  here.  We  canvassed  the  whole  situation,  and 
I  personally  visited  19  men  who  had  their  hands  or  arms  off,  and  got  their 
stories,  and  we  published  a  little  farm  bulletin  telling  those  19  stories,  and 
then  giving  the  suggestions  of  a  number  of  farmers  of  great  experience,  and 
then  the  suggestions  of  the  shredder  companies  and  the  machinery  companies, 
as  to  how  those  accidents  may  be  prevented. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  the  farmers  in  Wisconsin  under  the  com- 
pensation law? 

Mr.  BECK.  No;  they  are  not;  but  there  is  a  special  law  on  the  subject 
of  shredders  and  some  other  farm  machinery  accidents. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  have  compulsory  compensation  in  Wiscon- 
sin, or  is  it  voluntary? 

Mr.  BECK.  Practically  compulsory. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  the  farmers  are  exempt? 

Mr.  BECK  Yes. 

Mr.  PRICE.  Speaking  of  bulletins,  I  do  not  want  to  forget  to  mention  another 
class  of  bulletins. 

Practically  all  of  the  factories  in  the  United  States  are  working  in  ttie  dark 
in  the  mornings  and  evenings  of  short  winter  days  and  on  cloudy  days.  Strange 
to  say  there  has  been  practically  no  information  stating  in  good  barnyard 
English,  so  that  an  ordinary  man  could  read  it  and  understand  it,  how  shops 
could  be  lighted.  There  has  been  no  standard  set.  Mr.  Schwartz,  who  is  con- 
nected with  a  company  that  has  done  the  best  piece  of  shop  lighting,  has  pre- 
pared a  bulletin  on  illumination;  not  a  technically  complete  one,  but  just  a 
practical  bulletin,  containing  a  statement  of  what  he  has  found  to  be  most 
efficient,  and,  of  course,  he  has  checked  his  own  experience  with  the  experience 
of  other  people.  That  bulletin  is  now  in  the  press  and  will  soon  be  issued.  It 
is  one  of  the  most  important  bulletins  that  the  commission  will  issue. 

We  are  also  going  to  prepare  a  bulletin  on  ventilation  and  exhaustion.  At 
the  present  time  there  is  practically  nothing  on  that  subject.  We  are  having 
these  bulletins  prepared  by  men  who  have  delivered  the  goods ;  not  by  men 
who  have  theories  on  the  subject,  but  by  men  who  have  produced  results, 
and  they  are  worded,  not  in  technical  language,  but  in  the  good  ordinary 
garden  variety  of  English,  so  that  anybody  can  understand  it ;  and  I  predict 
that  that  bulletin  will  do  more  to  put  light  into  the  factories  of  Wisconsin 
than  anything  else.  The  standard  that  is  recommended  there  is  in  line  with 
exactly  what  the  best  factories  are  now  doing.  Just  what  any  practical,  effi- 
cient man  to  whom  you  might  go  would  say  to  you  if  you  should  ask  him.  We 
have  had  so  many  demands  for  it  that  we  have  had  to  send  out  carbon  copies 
to  companies  that  wanted  it  before  we  could  get  it  printed. 

The  thing  I  want  to  point  out  especially  is  this,  which  Mr.  Beck  has  just 
hinted  at.  I  think  he  said  it,  or  at  least  he  ought  to  have  said,  that  a  large 
percentage  of  the  accidents  can  not  be  prevented  by  guards.  In  the  five  years' 
experience  we  have  had,  during  which  time  efficient  and  rigorous  work  has 
been  done  along  the  line  of  promoting  safety  in  a  businesslike  and  organized 
way — instead  of  the  sporadic  way  in  which  we  used  to  do  it — it  has  developed 
put  of  that  experience  that  at  least  some  50  to  75  per  cent  of  the  serious 
injuries  and  deaths  can  be  prevented.  Tluit  sounds  like  a  strange  statement, 
but  our  experience  in  Wisconsin  confirms  that,  and  I  think  that  every  man  in 
this  room  who  is  posted  on  safety  will  confirm  it.  I  know  that  the  best  safety 
men  do  confirm  it.  In  our  State  a  hundred  or  more  companies  have  demon- 
strated absolutely  that  at  least  50  per  cent  can  be  eliminated.  But  I  have  made 
a  careful  canvass  of  most  of  the  companies,  and  practically  all  of  them  agree  that 
two-thirds  of  the  accidents  can  not  be  reached  by  guards.  Practically  no  manu- 
facturer appreciates  that  when  he  starts  out.  I  think  most  of  the  laboring 


288          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    0!ST    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

people  have  no  conception  of  that  fact.  Let  me  ask  you  to  look  for  just  a 
moment  at  this  blue  print,  which  represents  7,908  accidents  in  13  months  in  the 
State  of  Wisconsin.  Here  you  have  5,000  plants,  and  if  you  will  draw  a  line 
down  through  there  you  will  find  that  there  were  only  2,511  accidents  that  hap- 
pened on  machines  and  machine  parts.  Out  of  the  7,908  accidents,  5,400  hap- 
pened through  falls,  slips,  stumblings,  handling  tools,  and  our  old  friend  the 
enemy  with  which  we  are  all  familiar.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  none  of  them 
could  be  reached  by  guards,  but  a  great  majority  can  not  be  touched  by  any 
mechanical  guard. 

The  commission  has  found  itself  squarely  face  to  face  with  that  situation. 
If  that  is  true,  then  the  commission  could  not  in  any  way  cover  the  situation 
if  it  confined  itself,  as  in  the  old  days,  to  the  simple  inspecting  of  factories,  the 
recommending  of  efficient  guards,  and  so  forth.  That  is,  when  the  commission 
had  gone  its  limit,  when  it  had  done  its  best  in  the  way  of  factory  inspection, 
the  recommending  of  guards,  and  so  forth,  then  two-thirds  of  the  evil  remained 
untouched.  In  covering  the  remaining  two-thirds  I  think  we  have  done  the 
most  interesting  and  most  important  thing  that  we  have  done  at  all.  We  are 
conducting  a  campaign  of  education.  We  have  our  deputies  thoroughly  trained 
along  the  line  of  safety  organization.  We  spent  a  year  in  educating  our  depu- 
ties in  the  very  best  work  that  had  been  done;  for  instance,  in  the  Illinois 
Steel  Co.,  which  will  be  represented  before  you  by  Mr.  Chandler,  and  the  work 
that  had  been  done  by  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  the  Harvester  Co., 
and  so  forth,  in  first-hand  observation  of  the  very  best  methods  which  have 
been  adopted.  The  commission  says  to  those  deputies,  "  You  can  go  into  a  plant, 
and  you  can  find  every  setscrew  and  recommend  every  possible  guard,  and  you 
can  make  an  absolutely  complete  report,  but  you  have  absolutely  failed  if 
you  leave  that  factory  without  giving  the  man  who  runs  that  factory  an  intelli- 
gent idea  of  safety,  so  that  he  appreciates  the  value  of  it  and  appreciates  the 
important  factors  in  it,  and  leave  him  with  a  good  taste  in  his  mouth,  so  that 
he  is  really  interested  in  the  subject  of  safety."  We  tell  them  that  if  they  fail 
in  that,  they  have  failed.  That  is  the  thing  that  Mr.  Beck  has  hammered  into 
them  over  and  over  again,  and  every  one  of  our  deputies  has  it  thoroughly  in 
mind  that  the  important  thing  is  to  get  that  manufacturer  intelligently  in- 
terested in  safety  and  intelligently  instructed  in  regard  to  how  accidents  have 
been  prevented. 

During  the  last  year  I  have  been  calling  personally  upon  the  large  companies. 
I  have  nearly  finished  that  work  in  Wisconsin.  In  telling  about  this  I  shall 
have  to  use  the  first  person,  because  that  is  the  only  wray  I  can  talk  about  it. 
I  have  usually  met  the  manager,  the  president  or  vice  president,  the  man  at 
the  top,  and  I  have  generally  placed  before  him  this  blue  print  and  a  state- 
ment of  the  experience  of  the  companies  that  have  made  the  largest  reductions 
in  accidents.  I  have  told  him  what  our  investigation  has  revealed.  I  show 
him  by  this  blue  print  how  accidents  happen  in  Wisconsin.  I  endeavor  to  con- 
vince him  that  not  more  than  one-third  of  them  can  be  prevented  by  guards, 
and  then  I  outline  to  him  what  we  mean  by  a  safety  organization,  which  Mr. 
Beck  has  spoken  of  here.  I  am  going  to  take  a  minute  to  outline  for  the  benefit 
of  this  commission  what  we  mean  by  safety  organization,  because  you  can  not 
appreciate  what  we  are  doing  unless  you  know  what  that  means.  I  can  state 
it  very  briefly. 

Let  me  say  in  the  first  place  that  at  the  beginning  practically  none  of  the 
plants  in  Wisconsin  had  any  systematic  way  of  taking  care  of  safety.  It  was 
nobody's  business,  and,  of  course,  nobody  did  it.  But  this  idea  of  safety  or- 
ganization is  not  new.  It  is  in  line  with  business  organizations  absolutely, 
and  it  is  simply  attending  to  safety  in  a  systematic,  thoroughgoing  way,  with 
some  backbone  and  pepper,  getting  things  done  in  the  same  way  as  production. 
Here  is  a  simple  outline  of  the  way  to  reach  results — I  mean  to  reach  the  work- 
men and  poor  men  in  such  a  way  as  to  keep  up  their  interest. 

First,  appoint  a  safety  committee  of  five  high-grade  men,  with  the  superin- 
tendent as  chairman,  and  one  man,  whom  you  might  call  the  safety  inspector, 
to  be  secretary,  to  attend  to  matters  of  detail. 

Second,  every  foreman  inspect  his  department,  say,  once  a  week  and  make 
a  written  report  to  the  committee,  in  which  he  says  "Everything  is  all  right," 
or  "  The  following  things  must  be  done." 

Third,  a  foremen's  meeting  place  once  a  month,  at  which  the  superintendent 
presides,  and  at  'which  meeting  the  accidents  that  have  happened  arc  discussed 
and  the  experience  of  other  companies  is  considered  and  the  problems  connected 
with  safety  are  talked  over.  Those  meetings  are  the  most  valuable  part  of 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT    WITNESSES.  289 

the  organization  in  keeping  your  foremen  interested  and  lined  up.  The  super- 
intendent can  do  more  in  30  minutes  by  getting  his  men  into  a  room  together 
than  he  can  do  in  a  month  visiting  them  separately.  Our  failure  has  been  that 
we  have  not  been  keeping  up  the  interest.  As  Mr.  Search  said  to  me  the  other 
day,  "  We  wake  up  for  a  few  days  and  build  a  few  guards,  and  then  sleep  for 
six  months,  and  then  wrake  up  again  when  the  inspector  comes." 

The  next  point  is  a  most  important  one,  and  practically  every  company  that 
has  made  large  reductions  in  its  accidents  has  adopted  this  plan.  In  each  de- 
partment where  there  is  hazard  they  appoint  three  rank-and-file  workmen, 
sometimes  the  humblest  men,  and  those  workmen  make  an  inspection  of  that 
department,  absolutely  untrammeled  and  \vith  perfect  freedom — in  fact,  being 
encouraged  to  present  every  possible  point  and  make  a  written  report  to  their 
foreman  once  a  month.  The  foreman  checks  off  the  things  which  he  himself  can 
remedy  and  only  the  important  things  go  up  to  the  central  committee.  Those 
workmen  at  once  take  a  new  interest.  They  learn  what  you  can  not  tell  them, 
what  that  blue  print  reveals,  but  you  can  not  tell  them,  which  they  think  is 
buncombe.  They  not  only  inspect,  but  they  investigate  accidents,  and  they 
become  the  best  instructors  in  that  plant.  The  J.  I.  Case  people  experienced  a 
most  remarkable  awakening  on  safety  in  their  organization  in  just  four  weeks' 
time,  and  they  had  been  running  on  dead  for  years.  Mr.  Montgomery  testified 
that  that  awakening  was  almost  wholly  due  to  the  fact  that  they  gave  their 
workmen  something  to  do,  whereas  heretofore  safety  had  been  the  boss's  job. 
That  has  been  our  failure,  gentlemen,  in  that  we  have  not  reached  the  work- 
man because  we  have  not  given  him  something  to  do.  We  have  not  recognized 
him.  We  have  really  placed  no  confidence  in  him  in  the  matter  of  safety.  The 
whole  policy  has  too  long  been  one  of  secrecy  and  therefore  of  failure  so  far 
as  safety  was  concerned.  The  thing  to  do  is  to  turn  over  a  new  leaf  and  take 
the  workman  into  your  confidence  on  the  deal  and  give  him  confidence  and 
responsibility.  This  is  a  very  radical  departure,  and  in  every  case  where  it 
has  been  tried  it  has  succeeded  remarkably  well. 

Mr.  Beck  has  indicated  one  or  two  results,  and  I  want  to  speak  of  just  a  few 
to  confirm  what  he  has  said.  This  is  so  new  that  I  can  only  give  you  tentative 
figures,  but  I  want  to  give  you  one  or  two.  We  took  15  companies  that  had 
organized,  most  of  them  recently,  and  we  added  up  the  days  they  had  reported 
lost  on  account  of  accidents  in  the  months  of  July  and  August,  1912,  and  the 
months  of  July  and  August,  1913,  and  to  our  amazement  it  showed  that  they 
had  lost  40  per  cent  less  days  in  1913  during  those  two  months  than  in  the 
corresponding  two  months  in  1912.  We  have  had  companies  that  reduced  their 
accidents  over  50  per  cent  in  the  first  month.  For  instance,  the  Kimberly  & 
Clark  Co.,  at  Neenah,  were  among  the  most  conservative  people  on  safety. 
They  would  not  build  guards.  They  have  now  got  an  organization  at  their 
Neenah  plant,  and  during  September,  October,  and  November  they  had  only  two 
accidents,  whereas  before  they  had  an  average  of  10  and  12.  It  so  happened 
that  5  out  of  the  6  plants  got  into  the  game  and  organized  safety  committees, 
but  the  Kimberly  plant,  which  was  the  most  perfectly  equipped  physically,  did 
not  appoint  a  safety  committee,  and  in  the  time  referred  to  the  Kimberly  plant 
had  more  accidents  than  all  the  other  plants  put  together.  That  company  has 
issued  one  of  the  finest  safety  bulletins  I  know  of,  which  goes  to  every  workman 
every  month. 

I  could  tell  dozens  of  stories  like  that.  Now,  a  plan  must  have  something  in 
it  when  it  appeals  to  manufacturers  and  to  workmen  in  the  way  this  does 
appeal  to  them  and  when  it  gets  those  results. 

We  have  simply  put  this  thing  to  them  as  a  business  proposition.  I  never 
tell  the  manager  of  a  company  that  it  is  wrong  to  kill  his  men.  I  would  not 
insult  him  by  such  a  statement  as  that.  I  put  it  up  to  him  as  a  fair  business 
proposition,  and  I  want  to  say  to  you  that  the  future  of  safety  is  absolutely  sure 
in  the  United  States.  Why?  Because  we  have  gone  far  enough  during  the 
last  five  years  to  have  demonstrated  absolutely,  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt, 
what  can  be  done,  and  we  have  demonstrated  the  fact  that  it  turns  out  to  be 
mighty  good  business  organization.  That  explains  the  very  marvelous  develop- 
ment of  the  safety  movement.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  thank  you. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Let  me  ask  you  right  there :  In  the  State  of  Wiscon- 
sin, where  you  possibly  have  gone  further  in  safety  than  anywhere  else,  would 
you  ever  have  attained  what  you  have  attained  without  the  compensation  act 
going  with  it? 

38819°— 16 19 


290          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  PRICE.  Pardon  me.  It  would  have  gone  slower;  but  I  have  seen  just  as 
good  results  in  States  where  they  had  no  such  help  at  all,  with  individual 
companies. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Ah,  yes. 

Mr.  PRICE.  When  they  once  get  the  idea 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  I  grant  you  that,  but  I  am  speaking  of  it  as  a 
general  proposition. 

Mr.  PRICE.  Unquestionably  that  has  helped  in  the  matter  of  time,  but  I  have 
such  confidence  in  this  thing  being  fundamentally  right  that  I  believe  it  would 
have  come  in  time  anyhow. 

Commissioner  GARKETSON.  I  noticed  in  the  statement  of  Mr.  Beck  that  the 
work  of  the  Wisconsin  commission  was  divided ;  that  one  commissioner  has 
charge  of  safety  and  another  commissioner  has  charge  of  compensation,  and  so 
on,  but  I  wish  you  would  tell,  if  you  can,  what  percentage  of  the  money  now 
paid  out  by  the  employers  under  the  Wisconsin  act  reaches  the  injured  man. 
If  you  can  not  state  it  exactly,  I  wish  you  would  state  it  approximately.  Can 
you  state  that? 

Mr.  BECK.  No ;  I  know  about  how  much  the  injured  men  are  getting,  and 
I  know  what  the  insurance  cost  in  1912. 

Commissioner  GAEKETSON.  I  did  not  know  but  you  were  able  to  give  some 
fairly  accurate  figures. 

Mr.  BECK.  The  employers  of  our  State  for  the  year  ending  December  31, 
1912,  paid  $1,025,000  to  insurance  companies  for  protection  against  accidents. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Can  you  tell  how  much  money  reached  the  men? 

Mr.  BECK.  I  will  have  to  illustrate  that  in  this  way :  We  know  how  many  acci- 
dents there  were  in  the  State  and  how  much  time  they  lost,  and  we  know  what 
they  would  have  received  had  they  all  been  under  the  act,  as  they  practically 
all  are  now.  You  see  our  liability  law  was  changed,  so  that  they  had  to  make 
the  election  to  stay  out  from  under  the  act  rather  than  elect  to  come  under 
the  act? 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  In  other  words,  if  they  stood  pat  they  were  under 
the  act? 

Mr.  BECK.  Yes.  Also  we  abolished  all  the  defenses  in  the  last  legislature, 
which  has  practically  put  all  the  industrial  workers  of  the  State  under  the  act. 
Now,  had  that  condition  existed  a  year  ago,  basing  the  calculation  upon  the 
average  amount  paid  to  each  employee  as  a  result  of  his  accidents  and  the  time 
lie  lost,  they  would  have  got  about  $750,000. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  About  75  per  cent? 

Mr.  BECK.  Yes;  something  like  that. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Whereas  under  the  old  liability  conditions  the 
proportion  would  have  been  just  about  reversed? 

Mr.  BECK.  Yes;  just  about. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  All  the  indications  have  shown  that  ordinarily 
about  34  per  cent  of  the  amount  got  to  the  injured  man? 

Mr.  BECK.  Our  investigation  of  that  subject  in  1908  indicated  that  only  about 
25  per  cent  of  the  amount  paid  out  by  the  employer  got  to  the  injured  man. 

Commissioner  GAREETSON.  I  was  giving  the  top  limit.  Thirty-four  per  cent 
is  the  maximum  that  any  tribunal  has  brought  out  as  the  number  of  cents 
out  of  a  dollar  reaching  the  injured  man.  I  did  not  know  but  that  your  expe- 
rience might  show  in  some  concrete  form  what  percentage  now  reaches  the 
man. 

Mr.  BECK.  I  think  it  does,  when  you  come  to  consider  it  for  all  of  them. 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  That  75  per  cent,  figured  in  a  rough  way,  brings  it 
almost  up  to  the  result  reached  under  the  German  Government  administration. 
I  thing  it  costs  about  32  per  cent  there. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Eighty-five  per  cent  goes  to  the  injured  man  in 
Germany. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  They  are  getting  better,  then.  The  last  time  I 
went  into  it  the  cost  was  something  like  32  per  cent. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  In  the  State  of  Washington  the  State  has  a  mo- 
nopoly of  accident  insurance.  Private  companies  have  been  driven  out. 

Commission  GARRETSON.  I   know   that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  One  hundred  per  cent  of  the  amount  paid  by  em- 
ployers goes  into  the  pockets  of  the  injured  workmen.  The  cost  of  operation 
is  paid  out  of  a  separate  fund  by  the  State  and  it  costs  about  8  per  cent. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  even  better  than  I  am  doing  under  our 
system,  where  the  injured  workman  gets  973  P^i'  cent. 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  291 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  From  your  knowledge  of  conditions  and  possi- 
bilities, Mr.  Price,  what  would  you  suggest  that  this  commission  do  along 
the  lines  of  safety?  What  can  we  do  that  will  be  effective  and  efficient,  and 
how  ought  we  to  do  it? 

Mr.  PEICE.  I  should  say  two  things:  First,  to  make  an  investigation  which 
will  enable  you  to  recommend  governmental  bodies  that  may  do  what  the  in- 
dustrial commission  has  done  for  the  working  people  and  manufacturers  of 
Wisconsin,  bodies  national  or  State. 

I  meant  to  say  this  further  thing,  and  I  forgot  it :  I  happened  to  be  con- 
nected with  the  Harvester  Co.  during  all  the  pioneer  days  of  our  safety  work, 
and  I  know  of  the  large  expenditure  of  money  and  time  to  which  we  were  put 
in  order  to  get  information.  It  was  a  very  difficult  thing  for  us  to  get  reliable 
information.  Do  you  not  see  the  need  of  some  way  of  placing  this  information 
in  the  hands  of  manufacturers  and  helping  them.  Most  of  them  can  not  afford 
them.  The  large  companies  can.  The  large  companies  have  been  the  first  in 
the  field.  The  small  companies  have  been  lagging  behind. 

Commissioner-  WEINSTOCK.  Let  me  see  if  I  catch  your  idea  clearly.  It  is 
that  this  commission  should  recommend  to  the  Federal  Government  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  sort  of  clearing  house  of  information. 

Mr.  PEICE.  That  would  be  one  thing.  You  possibly  might  recommend  ways 
and  means  by  which  the  State  Department  could  be  made  more  efficient,  and  so 
forth. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  we  had  a  separate  department  to  gather  that 
information  and  redistribute  it  to  all 

Mr.  PRICE.  Personally  I  should  be  in  favor  of  a  central  body. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  A  clearing  house. 

Mr.  PEICE.  To  put  it  in  a  general  way,  governmental  bodies  which  would  in 
some  practical  way  place  information  in  the  hands  of  manufacturers. 

Second,  I  think  it  will  serve  a  very  valuable  purpose,  and  I  hope  my  friend 
Campbell  will  bring  it  out  strongly.  I  think,  friends,  that  here  is  an  oppor- 
tunity to  place -before  the  people  the  facts  in  the  case.  Most  manufacturers 
and  workmen  do  not  know  the  facts  in  the  case.  They  do  not  know  what  has 
l>een  accomplished ;  and  they  do  not  know  how  it  has  been  accomplished.  I  go 
to  manufacturers  every  day  who  do  not  dream  of  what  has  been  accomplished, 
because  it  is  so  recent.  Think  of  the  service  this  commission  could  perform  if 
they  could  put  up  in  a  dignified  way  not  in  so  voluminous  a  form  as  to  hide  it 
away  in  a  great  big  black-bound  volume,  but  make  it  simple  so  that  it  will 
reach  the  foremen  and  superintendents  and  managers  so  that  they  will  read 
it,  a  statement  of  the  real  situation  with  regard  to  the  prevention  of  acci- 
dents; a  statement  gathered  from  the  experience  of  the  companies  that  have 
actually  delivered  the  goods.  If  that  can  be  done,  it  would  have  a  tremendous 
effect. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  powers  of  this 
commission  are  limited.  All  that  we  can  do  is  to  recommend  to  Congress.  We 
have  no  power  to  go  out  beyond  that. 

Mr.  PEICE.  I  grant  you  that;  but  you  could  report  the  situation.  You  could 
say,  "  This  is  the  situation  in  regard  to  accidents.  This  is  what  has  been  done. 
This  is  what  has  been  found  to  be  the  cause  of  accidents,  and  these  are  the 
methods  that  have  been  adopted  for  their  prevention."  A  dignified,  complete 
report,  putting  it  up  to  them,  just  as  we  have  had  to  put  it  up  to  each  manager 
in  Wisconsin,  showing  the  real  situation,  would  do  a  great  deal  of  good.  I  am 
going  to  say,  friends,  that  it  usually  takes  20  minutes  to  convince  a  manager  as 
a  business  proposition.  The  facts  are  so  convincing  that  I  can  say  that  inside 
of  a  year  practically  every  large  company  in  Wisconsin  will  have  a  safety  organ- 
ization, which  means  that  the  commission  will  be  out  of  business.  I  mean  that 
they  may  make  better  inspections  and  that  they  will  do  more  than  we  can  pos- 
sibly do  with  our  deputies ;  and  where  they  have  an  efficient  organization  they 
have  practically  eliminated  the  necessity  for  any  State  inspection.  Not  only  do 
they  inspect  the  guards  but  they  go  infinitely  further  and  interest  the  men  and 
get  everybody  lined  up.  That  includes  about  60  per  cent  of  the  manufacturers 
of  Wisconsin  who  are  now  organized.  That  includes  the  most  important  class  in 
the  State,  and  so  we  have  in  sight  that  degree  of  success  which  justifies  the 
statement  I  have  made.  We  have  been  able  to  show  them  that  there  is  some- 
thing tangible  in  that  thing  as  a  business  proposition. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  other  words,  it  will  follow  that  after  you  have 
completely  succeeded  you  will  have  eliminated  your  whole  department  ? 


292          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  PEICE.  It  will  go  out  of  business.  I  will  repeat  to  you  that  in  many  con- 
cerns in  Wisconsin  we  are  practically  out  of  business,  and  we  know  we  are  out. 
We  are  calling  off  our  deputies.  We  go  and  give  a  little  advice  now  and  then  on 
some  technical  point,  but  we  can  not  begin  to  do  the  inspection  that  they  do. 
AVe  could  not  do  one-fourth  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  that  you  are  out  of  business  to  the  extent  that 
a  system  of  complete  reports  would  show  that  the  accidents  are  nil  or  reduced 
to  a  minimum? 

Mr.  PRICE.  It  is  a  marvelous  reduction,  and  we  find  that  these  people  are 
attending  to  that  part  of  their  business  better  than  we  could. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  You  say  that  only  one-third  of  the  accidents  occur 
because  of  defective  machinery,  and  that  the  other  two-thirds  occur  probably 
because  of  the  workmen's  own  personal  carelessness?  Is  that  what  we  are  to 
understand  ? 

Mr.  PRICE.  Not  always  his  carelessness.  Many  times  his  ignorance,  and  many 
times  the  inevitable  hazard. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  How  do  you  reach  those  two- thirds?  Is  it  by  reach- 
ing the  men,  or  by  the  safety  organization? 

Mr.  PRICE.  It  is  through  that  safety  organization  that  the  man  is  reached. 
Why?  Because  he  is  given  an  opportunity  to  do  something,  and  is  given  an 
opportunity  to  learn. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  And  in  that  way  the  accidents  are  very  largely  elimi- 
nated, are  they? 

Mr.  PRICE.  It  is  the  only  way  to  reach  them.  I  do  not  want  to  go  too  far, 
Mr.  Chairman,  and  you  may  call  me  down  whenever  I  talk  too  much.  \Ve  find 
that  from  90  to  95  per  cent  of  the  suggestions  made  by  the  workmen  are 
adopted  by  the  company.  The  assistant  general  manager  of  the  Northwestern 
Railroad  told  me  the  other  day  that  they  had  received  over  6,000  suggestions 
from  the  workmen,  and  that  all  but  186  had  been  adopted  by  the  company. 
That  is  a  little  better  than  the  showing  of  most  of  the  companies,  but  the  show- 
ing is  that  90  to  95  per  cent  of  the  suggestions  offered  by  the  workmen  have  been 
adopted.  It  is  perfectly  surprising  what  those  workmen  will  suggest.  These 
suggestions  are  along  the  lines  of  the  careless  practice  of  piling  material,  or 
carelessness  in  regard  to  the  use  of  guards,  ragged  clothing,  boards  with  nails 
in  them  sticking  up  left  on  the  floor.  After  you  have  equipped  your  whole 
plant  to  the  limit,  after  everything  has  been  done  which  you  can  suggest,  you 
will  find  your  men  making  suggestions,  and  they  will  come  in  every  industry. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  You  may  have  touched  upon  it  before,  but  if  you 
have  it  has  slipped  my  mind.  When  you  go  to  a  plant  that  has  taken  no  steps 
in  the  direction  of  safety,  exactly  what  is  your  method  of  approaching  that 
plant  to  get  it  organized,  to  show  that  there  is  something  practical  about  it? 

Mr.  PRICE.  I  am  glad  you  asked  me  that  question,  because  it  gives  me  a 
chance  to  make  a  point  that  I  should  like  to  make.  We  have  in  mind  one  thing, 
that  unless  we  get  the  man  at  the  top,  the  man  with  the  money,  it  is  hopeless. 
We  have  seen  it  tried.  WTe  have  converted  the  superintendent,  and  he  tried  to 
organize,  and  he  failed;  why?  Every  foreman,  every  man  down  the  line,  knew 
that  the  boss  was  not  there.  We  tried  to  convert  him  to  the  economic  side  of  it 
first.  It  took  me  six  months  to  get  one  of  the  most  stubborn  men  in  Wis- 
consin, and  when  we  finally  got  him  he  broke  loose  and  there  was  no  limit  to 
it,  when  we  showed  him  the  economic  side. 

The  second  thing  is  to  have  a  meeting  of  foremen.  Mr.  Beck  has  spoken  of 
the  banquet  at  the  J.  I.  Case  Co.  We  have  had  banquets  all  over  the  State  at 
foremen's  meetings.  At  these  banquets  the  owner  of  the  business  many  times 
presides,  and  he  puts  himself  on  record  in  regard  to  what  he  wants  and  says, 
"  (icntlemen,  I  have  been  investigating  this  subject.  The  experience  of  others 
has  been  called  to  my  attention,  and  I  am  convinced  that  we  have  got  to  do 
thus  and  so  in  order  to  reduce  accidents.  I  am  convinced  that  we  have  not 
gone  far  enough.  We  have  got  to  go  beyond  guards."  Do  you  know  that  in 
every  case  where  the  boss  has  sa*  at  the  head  of  the  table,  when  he  has  said, 
"  Gentlemen,  this  is  what  we  are  going  to  do,"  the  result  has  been  manifested 
in  the  greater  interest  which  has  been  taken  by  everyone  connected  with  the 
enterprise.  I  remember  that  Mr.  Simmons,  of  the  Simmons  Manufacturing  Co., 
made  about  five  speeches  during  the  evening.  Finally  he  said,  "Boys,  to- 
morrow morning  at  7  o'clock  the  first  order  of  business  is  going  to  be  safety, 
and  the  second  is  going  to  be  production."  They  got  results  immediately,  and 
in  every  case  where  they  have  got  the  foremen  together,  and  the  man  at  the 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  293 

top. has  put  himself  on  record,  the  results  which  have  been  obtained  have  been 
surprisingly  good. 

Commissioner  GAEKETSON.  Let  me  ask  you  right  there :  You  have  just  made  a 
phrase  that  suggests  the  thought,  safety  first  and  productivity  afterwards. 
Have  you  had  any  opportunity  in  a  plant  where  it  has  been  minimized  prac- 
tically to  this  personal  equation  point,  to  the  point  of  human  error,  have  you 
had  any  opportunity  to  study  the  effect  of  speeding  up,  from  the  material 
standpoint? 

Mr.  PRICE.  My  judgment  would  be  that  with  the  increase  of  speed  you  in- 
crease the  hazard,  not  only  because  of  the  quick  motions 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  I  mean  whenever  you  pass  the  ordinary  limit  of 
speed. 

Mr.  PRICE.  Not  only  because  of  the  quick  motion,  which  admits  of  a  slip, 
but  because  of  a  certain  psychological  effect 

Commissioner  GAREETSON.  A  result  of  the  concentration  of  the  mind? 

Mr.  PRICE.  For  instance,  when  a  man  on  a  punch  press  puts  in  18,000  pieces 
a  day.  In  the  afternoon  about  3  o'clock  he  gets  so  dead  that  then  is  the  time 
when  he  makes  a  miss. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  He  becomes  merely  automatic  in  his  motions? 

Mr.  PRICE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Have  you  any  data  to  show  the  percentage  in 
establishments  where  efficiency  systems  have  been  put  in  operation  as  compared 
with  plants  where  they  have  not? 

Mr.  PRICE.  We  have  not. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  not  that  be  of  interest? 

Mr.  PRICE.  Very  great  interest. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  As  demonstrating  the  pros  and  cons? 

Mr.  PRICE.  Yes.  I  was  closely  associated  with  the  plants  of  the  Harvester 
Co.,  and  in  one  of  their  plants  that  employed  1,300  men  they  reduced  their 
accidents  over  50  per  cent  the  first  year,  and  at  once  it  resulted  in  a  cleaner 
and  more  orderly  factory.  At  once  it  resulted  in  a  more  efficient  manufactur- 
ing organization.  I  never  heard  of  a  plant  where  that  result  did  not  follow 
safety  organization.  I  never  heard  of  a  superintendent  who  did  not  believe 
that  he  had  a  better  manufacturing  organization  after  his  plant  was  or- 
ganized. It  always  results  in  the  foremen  cleaning  up  their  departments.  For 
instance,  in  the  Allis-Chalmers  plant  the  first  month  after  they  perfected  their 
safety  organization  they  cleaned  up  and  put  a  broad,  red  line  about  4  inches 
wide  to  define  the  aisles,  and  that  was  the  dead  line  over  which  they  must  not 
place  any  material.  In  the  Harvester  Co.,  in  the  Champion  works  especially, 
they  raised  the  standard  of  the  factory  inside  of  a  year,  and  it  was  noticeable 
in  the  increased  cleanliness  and  orderliness  of  everything.  It  had  that  result, 
in  addit'on  to  the  reduction  of  the  number  of  accidents. 

I  meant  to  say  one  another  thing  which  slipped  my  mind  entirely,  but  probably 
you  have  it  in  mind.  In  addition  to  the  inspection  and  investigation  of  acci- 
dents, and  thereby  getting  experience  and  information,  great  emphasis  has  been 
placed  on  the  value  of  instructing  the  workman  carefully  in  regard  to  the 
hazard  of  his  job,  especially  the  new  man,  and  particularly  the  non-English- 
speaking  man.  The  Steel  Corporation  has  had  that  problem  perhaps  as  much 
as  anyone,  and  there  they  have  emphasized  that  very  strongly.  I  think  the 
chairman  of  our  commission  will  give  details  in  regard  to  what  has  been  done 
there.  The  plan  has  been  adopted  of  personally  instructing  the  man  from  the 
very  first  five  minutes  in  regard  to  what  the  company  is  doing  and  getting  the 
workman  to  do,  and  in  showing  the  man  the  dangers  of  his  job. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  been  able  to  get  any  statistics  to  show  how  a 
safety  organization  affects  production  in  these  plants? 

Mr.  PRICE.  It  always  makes  for  efficiency. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  increased  production? 

Mr.  PRICE.  Yes;  I  mean  exactly  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  those  things  which  you  have  stated  the  only 
two  i lungs  which  are  essential  to  organize  a  plant:  First,  to  get  the  man  at 
the  top  converted  to  the  economic  side,  and,  secondly,  have  a  meeting  of 
foremen  and  a  banquet? 

Mr.  PRICE.  Outlining  what  I  have  called  safety  organization  in  my  experi- 
ence. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  copies  of  your  blue  print  which  you  can  give  to 
the  commission  V 


294          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  PRICE.  You  can  have  all  you  want.  I  think  we  sent  copies  to  you,  but  I 
am  not  sure.  We  are  going  to  place  in  the  possession  of  every  man  here  every- 
thing that  we  have  in  the  way  of  information. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  R.  W.  CAMPBELL. 

The  CHAIBMAN.  Mr.  Campbell,  we  will  be  glad  to  hear  from  you. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  do  not  know  how  much  time  you  propose  giving  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  placed  no  limit  on  it.  We  simply  depend  upon 
you  gentlemen,  each  one  of  you  having  heard  the  other,  not  to  duplicate,  but 
to  give  us  what  you  think  you  can  right  upon  the  question  as  to  what  this  com- 
mission can  do  under  the  law  on  the  question  of  safety  and  sanitation.  I  think 
that  is  the  idea. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  It  has  occurred  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the 
commission,  that  in  order  to  get  at  the  problem  that  confronts  the  commission 
it  might  be  advisable  for  some  of  us  who  have  had  something  to  do  with  the 
working  out  of  the  problem  in  recent  years  to  place  before  your  minds  and 
within  your  view  that  which  has  been  done,  the  development  that  has  taken 
place,  and  with  that  idea  in  view  I  have  aimed  to  frame  my  remarks.  If  that 
does  not  meet  the  pleasure  of  the  commission,  I  shall  be  glad  to  have  you  say 
so  now,  and  I  will  talk  along  other  lines  that  will  suit  your  pleasure  better. 
But  it  seems  to  me  that  you  gentlemen  who  probably  have  not  been  familiar 
with  the  work  of  the  movement  as  it  is  on  foot  to-day  that  you  probably  would 
like  to  have  a  little  analysis  of  it  put  before  you.  Therefore  in  order  properly 
to  understand  what  the  accident-prevention  problem  is  I  will  say  that  it  is 
first  essential  to  understand  what  the  kinds  of  accidents  are. 

In  speaking  of  accident-prevention  work  let  me  say,  by  way  of  parenthesis, 
that  I  think  we  who  are  dealing  with  the  problem — I  think  the  gentlemen  in 
Wisconsin  include  that — include  as  well  the  allied  subjects  of  sanitation  and 
general  matters  relating  to  betterment  of  conditions,  personal  conditions  of  the 
men,  you  might  say,  which  affect  their  working  ability.  In  other  words,  all  of 
the  interrelated  items,  such  as  sanitation  and  betterment  of  working  conditions 
of  all  kinds,  are  included. 

Accidents  divide  themselves  into  two  general  classes — the  nonpreventable  or 
the  so-called  trade  risks  and  the  preventable  accidents.  I  believe,  and  I  think 
others  agree  with  me,  that  the  nonpreventable  accidents  amount  to  about  10 
per  cent  of  the  number  of  accidents  in  the  most  hazardous  of  trades  and  run 
down  to  a  very  small  fraction  of  1  per  cent  in  the  less  hazardous  occupation, 
leaving  90  per  cent  of  the  accidents  that  occur  in  the  country  as  preventable 
accidents.  This  can  lead  to  but  one  conclusion — that  if  90  per  cent  of  the 
accidents  are  preventable  we  ought  to  get  busy  and  prevent  them.  I  venture  to 
quote  to  you  the  old  worn  out  figures  that  have  been  used  so  many  times  during 
the  past  few  months,  showing  the  number  of  accidents  that,  even  in  the  face 
of  what  has  been  done,  are  occurring  in  our  country  to-day.  Our  statistics 
are  not  reliable.  There  are  35,000  men  killed  in  the  industries  of  our  Nation 
to-day  and  2,000,000  injured  every  year.  I  will  not  make  the  divisions  and 
subdivisions  by  days  and  hours,  but  you  can  see  that  it  is  an  appalling  indict- 
ment upon  the  lethargy  and  indifference  of  the  powers  that  be  and  of  the  men 
themselves  to  find  that  awful  list  of  casualties  occurring  every  year,  and  it 
therefore  means  that  something  must  be  done.  Something  has  been  done,  but 
the  bark  has  only  been  scratched  as  yet. 

What  are  the  causes  of  these  2,000,000  injuries  and  35,000  deaths?  To  get 
at  the  problem  we  should  analyse  it  from  that  point  of  view  first. 

The  causes  are  first  the  failure  of  the  employer  to  provide  and  maintain 
proper  working  conditions,  proper  and  efficient  safeguards  on  dangerous  ma- 
chines or  appliances,  and,  secondly,  the  ignorance  or  carelessness  of  the  men 
themselves.  There  are  two  broad  divisions — the  duty  of  the  employer  and 
the  duty  of  the  employee. 

That  in  a  broad  way  presents  what  the  accident  prevention  problem  of  to-day 
is  and  how  it  should  be  mot.  The  first  duty  should  be  met  by  the  employer 
assuming  the  obligation  that  falls  to  him  naturally  of  providing  proper  working 
places  and  proper  and  efficient  safeguards  on  dangerous  machinery  and  ap- 
pliances ;  and  secondly,  the  duty  of  the  men  to  assume  their  obligations;  of 
carefulness  on  their  part.  And  in  this  second  element  there  is  a  further  duty 
on  the  part  of  the  employer  himself,  which  is  to  see  that  his  men  do  assumo 
that  obligation,  to  see  that  they  know  what  it  is,  and  to  see  that  it  is  properly 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  295 

pointed  out  to  them.  Bo  the  employer  has  two  duties  then — to  make  conditions 
safe  and  to  educate  his  men  and  to  inculcate  in  them  habits  of  caution. 

The  employee  has  one  duty — to  try  to  be  as  safe  for  himself  and  his  fellow 
workmen  as  he  can.  To  accomplish  all  of  this,  as  Mr.  Price  has  pointed  out 
and  as  Mr.  Beck  has  pointed  out,  the  men  engaged  in  all  those  industries  that 
have  made  any  study  of  the  matter  have  concluded  definitely  that  it  is  abso- 
lutely essential  to  have  a  definite  yet  comprehensive  organization  which  will 
make  out  and  carry  out  a  definite  and  comprehensive  plan. 

We  might  step  for  just  a  minute  and  consider  what  has  been  done  in  the 
meeting  of  this  problem  up  to  to-day,  and  I  will  draw  your  attention  to  the 
three  phases  of  the  work — that  which  has  been  done  by  the  industries,  that 
which  has  been  done  by  the  States,  and  that  which  is  being  done  in  the  matter 
of  public  safety,  so  called. 

First,  as  in  all  great  movements — and  I  believe  frankly,  gentlemen,  that 
to-day  there  is  no  greater  movement  afoot  than  the  accident  prevention  move- 
ment— as  in  all  great  movements,  the  initiative  has  been  taken  by  and  through 
individual  efforts,  and  to-day  the  work  which  has  been  accomplished  has  been 
that  of  the  individual  industrial  concern.  There  are  many  of  them  that  have 
been  for  a  great  many  years,  dating  back  nt  least  five  years,  actively  engaged 
in  coping  with  these  problems.  Among  these,  I  would  like  to  call  your  atten- 
tion to  a  few,  if  it  will  be  in  order,  Mr.  Chairman,  so  that  you  may  get  an  idea 
of  the  kind  of  concern  that  has  been  dealing  with  it : 

The  General  Electric  Co. 

The  National  Harvester  Co. 

The  Remington  Typewriter  Co. 

The  Eastman  Kodak  Co. 

American  Steel  Foundry. 

Inland  Steel  Co. 

United  States  Steel  Corporation  and  its  subsidiary  companies. 

The  Crane  Co. 

The  Cleveland  Clifts  Iron  Co. 

Pfister  Yogel  Co. 

Youngstown  Sheet  &  Tube  Co. 

Fairbanks-Morse  Co. 

Chicago  £  Nqrth  Western  Railway  Co. 

Elgin,  Joliet  &  Eastern  Railway  Co. 

New  York  Central  Lines. 

Pennsylvania  Railway  Co. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  Railroad  Co. 

Union  Pacific  and  Southern  Pacific  Railway  Cos. 

Santa  Fe  System. 

Frisco  Line. 

Chicago  City  Railways  Co. 

The  Brooklyn  Rapid  Transit  Co. 

The  Interborough  Rapid  Transit  Co.  and  many  others — a  long  list  of  them. 
I  would  not  venture  to  say  how  many  have  been  doing  work  more  or  less 
satisfactory  and  more  or  less  organized,  but  it  has  been  here  and  there  and 
sporadic,  some  in  Wisconsin,  some  in  Illinois,  some  in  New  York,  and  some  in 
Pennsylvania.  There  has  been  some  work  done,  too,  through  manufacturers  and 
trade  associations  through  discussions  of  safety  problems  at  their  annual  meet- 
ings, and  through  the  work  of  the  central  committees  on  safety  that  they  ap- 
point. There  has  been  a  good  deal  accomplished  and  a  good  deal  of  mission- 
ary work  done  through  the  activity  of  the  various  insurance  companies  through 
their  inspection  and  other  departments.  There  is  an  organization  in  the  city 
of  New  York  known  as  the  American  Museum  of  Safety,  which  is  providing  a 
safety  museum  in  that  city,  it  is  under  the  able  direction  of  Dr.  Tolman,  and 
it  is  providing  information  there  for  those  who  can  avail  themselves  of  it. 

If  I  may  take  just  a  minute  or  two,  it  might  interest  you  to  know  some  of 
the  details  of  the  manner  of  approaching  this  problem  of  some  one  of  the  large 
industrial  concerns.  It  has  been  my  privilege  to  have  been  connected  with  this 
work  in  the  Illinois  Steel  Co.,  one  of  the  subsidiaries  of  the  United  States 
Steel  Corporation,  for  the  past  five  years,  and  naturally  I  am  more  familiar 
with  that  phase  of  the  work  of  that  company  and  that  corporation  than  with 
others ;  and,  if  I  may  be  permitted,  I  would  like  to  briefly  outline  to  you  how 
:  that  company  and  that  corporation  have  attacked  the  problem. 

In  the  first  place,  for  over  20  years  the  different  plants  of  the  Illinois  Steel 
Co.,  of  which  there  are  five — three  of  which  are  employing  from  5,000  to  10,000 


296          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

men  annually,  and  the  other  two  are  employing  from  1,500  to  3,000  on  an 
average  each  year — have  each  had  what  we  call  safety  inspectors,  who  were 
members  of  a  little  side  department  that  was  clothed  with  two  functions — that 
of  inspecting  dangerous  conditions,  and  that  of  making  settlements  with  the 
men  when  injured.  Those  departments  ran  along  for  some,  15  years,  and  very 
little  was  accomplished.  We  had  safeguarded,  it  is  true,  but  we  have  not 
touched  the  problem  as  yet.  It  occurred  to  some  of  the  officers  of  the  com- 
pany about  five  years  ago,  that  we  might  do  something  by  getting  the  repre- 
sentatives from  our  different  plants  together  and  conferring  upon  this  problem, 
and,  as  a  result  of  that  thought,  a  central  committee  of  safety  was  organized 
which  is  composed  of  two  representatives  from  each  of  those  five  plants,  the 
assistant  general  superintendent,  the  man  in  direct  charge  of  the  operating 
details  of  the  plant;  the  safety  inspector  of  the  plant;  and  it  is  presided 
over  by  myself  as  the  executive  officer — not  being  connected  with  any  one  of 
the  plants — I  being  in  the  law  department  of  the  company  and  thus  being  the 
presiding  officer  over  our  committee.  That  committee  for  the  first  four  years 
met  every  two  weeks.  It  studied  every  accident  that  happened  at  any  one 
of  the  plants ;  it  undertook  the  task  of  standardizing  safety  appliances  and 
safeguards  in  the  various  plants  of  our  company.  It  undertook  the  preparation 
of  various  operating  rules  in  the  plants.  It  adopted  rules  regulating  the  use 
of  dangerous  explosives.  It  considered  ways  and  means  of  interesting  the  men, 
and  it  adopted  various  schemes  for  that  purpose,  most  of  which  have  been  put 
into  effect. 

Now  that  committee  has  working  under  it  and  as  a  part  of  its  organization 
at  each  of  the  plants,  and  we  will  just  take  up  one  plant — which  will  be  a  fair 
example  of  all — a  plant  safety  committee,  composed  of  the  assistant  general 
superintendent  as  chairman  and  the  safety  inspector  as  secretary,  and  from 
four  to  five  or  six  department  superintendents,  each  of  the  plants  having  a 
separate  department  such  as  blast  furnace,  rail  mill,  and  yard,  etc.,  and  taking 
superintendents  from  those  several  departments  and  putting  them  on  the 
plant  safety  committee. 

Under  and  still  going  out  fan  like,  under  that  committee  at  the  plants  are 
two  committees  of  workmen.  In  one  of  them  the  membership  is  changed  every 
two  or  three  months — three  months  I  think  it  is  now — and  the  plant  is  divided 
up  into  divisions,  four  or  five  divisions,  and  workmen  below  the  grade  of  fore- 
man are  selected  to  go  upon  that  safety  committee.  Once  a  week  that  com- 
mittee makes  an  inspection  of  the  departments  within  the  division  from  which 
they  are  taken,  and  makes  its  report  to  the  plant  safety  committee.  There  is 
contemporaneously  with  this  committee  what  we  call  a  department  or  perma- 
nent committee,  consisting  of  foremen  in  each  of  the  departments.  These  fore- 
men serve  continuously,  and  once  a  month  they  make  inspections  of  their  de- 
partments, reporting  to  the  plant  safety  committee. 

In  addition  to  this  duty  they  investigate  every  serious  accident  which  occurs 
in  their  department.  They  talk  to  the  witnesses  and  view  the  spot  where  the 
accident  occurred  and  make  a  thorough  investigation  of  it  and  report  to  the 
plant  committee  what  their  findings  are  with  respect  to  that  accident,  what  the 
cause  of  it  was,  who  was  to  blame,  and  if  they  can  recommend  anything  to 
prevent  the  recurrence  of  that  accident  or  a  similar  one  they  so  report.  If 
they  believe  anybody  was  guilty  of  negligence  they  find  him  guilty  and  recom- 
mend what  discipline  should  be  meted  out  to  him.  We  find  this  a  very  valu- 
able asset  to  us  in  the  safety  work  we  are  doing  in  the  company. 

In  addition  to  this  work  the  central  committee  is  served  by  what  we  might 
call  side  committees  or  special  committees.  If  there  is  a  special  electrical 
problem  which  comes  up  we  have  a  committee  of  the  electrical  engineers  of 
the  several  plants  which  meets  every  quarter  or  so,  or  on  the  call  of  the  chair- 
man of  the  central  committee  to  act  with  it,  and  there  are  submitted  any 
technical  electrical  problems.  If  there  is  any  technical  blast  furnace  problem 
it  is  likewise  submitted  to  them,  and  so  on.  In  that  wray  \ve  have  been  able 
to  get  from  each  plant  its  best  experience,  its  best  thought,  and  the  best  ideas, 
and  make  them  applicable  and  available  to  every  other  plant  through  our 
central  committee,  as  a  sort  of  clearing  house  and  standardizing  body.  Recom- 
mendations which  are  made  by  our  committee  are  never  considered  until  they 
have  been  reported  back  to  the  plants  and  the  plants  themselves  have  con- 
sidered them,  so  that  before  we  act  we  have  had  the  matter  reported  to  the 
experts  at  each  one  of  the  five  plants. 

Similarly,  that  same  form  of  organization  is  carried  into  the  Steel  Corpora- 
tion, in  that  about  simultaneously  with  the  creation  of  this  central  committee 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  297 

in  the  Illinois  Steel  Co.  a  similar  committee  was  organized  in  the  corporation, 
consisting  of  the  representatives  of  the  several  subsidiary  companies,  and  each 
of  these  companies  sends  in  to  it  similar  data  and  information,  which  is  by  that 
central  committee  disseminated  through  all  the  other  companies,  and  thus  the 
whole  corporation  gets  the  benefit  of  the  thought  and  advice  and  experience  of 
every  plant  of  every  company  that  composes  the  large  organization. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Does  your  company  publish  literature  which  tells 
the  story  you  are  telling  us? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  think  there  are  some  bulletins  out  now.  I  have  before  rne 
now  a  pamphlet  which  is  a  much  lengthier  statement  of  the  situation  which 
1  made  at  another  time  in  a  more  formal  address  than  I  have  made  to-day. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  Steel  Corporation  furnishes  them,  does  it  not? 
1  just  got  one  of  them  this  morning. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  had  thought  of  going  into  some  of  the  educational  features, 
among  which  is  this  bulletin.  Through  these  organizations  we  have  taken  up 
the  task  of  trying  to  educate  our  workmen  to  be  more  careful.  These  books 
of  rules  I  have  mentioned  have  been  printed  in  14  different  languages,  and  they 
are  placed  in  the  hands  of  every  workman  in  the  plant,  and  every  new  workman 
is  presumed,  I  will  say — though  of  course  there  are  times  it  is  not  done,  through 
carelessness  of  somebody — to  be  instructed  in  those  rules,  at  least  those  applica- 
ble to  the  particular  job  he  is  put  upon.  And  the  various  means  of  interesting 
the  men  and  educating  them  are  also  adopted.  We  have  bulletin  boards  around 
the  plants  and  we  have  mottoes  on  shop  slips,  and  so  forth,  and  moving  pictures 
are  shown  from  time  to  time  when  we  can  get  the  men  together,  and  each  of  the 
companies,  at  least  the  Illinois  Steel  Co.,  is  now  issuing  itself  a  monthly  bulle- 
tin ;  and  the  Steel  Corporation  is  issuing  a  quarterly  bulletin  in  which  all  sorts 
of  accident  information,  for  the  benefit  of  the  several  companies,  is  gathered  to- 
gether and  prizes  of  different  sorts  are  given  to  the  men  in  a  department  if 
they  are  able  to  keep  within  a  certain  limit  with  respect  to  the  number  of 
accidents. 

Foremen  are  examined  on  these  safety  rules,  and  if  they  are  able  to  pass  a 
thorough  examination  are  given  a  safety  button  with  "  Safety  first ;  boost  for 
safety,"  upon  it.  And  a  thousand  and  one  schemes  that  I  do  not  want  to  take 
your  time  to  enumerate  in  this  allotted  time,  which  I  feel  is  short  enough,  to 
tell  you  about.  But  we  are  going  at  the  educational  problem  in  a  hammer-and- 
tongs  way,  because  wre  believe,  as  Mr.  Price  has  said,  that  about  55  or  60  per 
cent  of  results  accomplished  are  due  to  the  interesting  of  the  workman  himself. 
It  is  a  hard  job  to  do  that.  He,  of  course,  must  interest  himself  somewhat, 
but  it  is  our  job,  as  his  employer,  to  make  him  realize  the  importance  of  it. 
So  we  are  going  at  that  phase  of  the  work  in  this  organized  way,  which  is  the 
real  purpose  of  the  organization,  to  interest  the  men  themselves  in  that  way  for 
that  very  purpose. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  other  words,  your  aim  is  to  bring  the  pressure 
to  bear  from  within  rather  than  from  without? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  We  are  trying  to  have  everything  start  from  the  bottom, 
because  we  believe  if  the  man  thinks  he  thought  out  a  thing  himself,  he  will 
do  it.  That  is  one  of  the  reasons  in  our  committee  that  \ve  pass  everything 
back.  All  this  work  in  the  Illinois  Steel  Co.  has  been  in  a  way  satisfactory. 
We  have  not  reached  the  goal  that  we  would  like  to,  but  this  concentrated  and 
organized  effort  has  resulted  in  a  reduction  of  66f  per  cent  of  our  accidents.  It 
has  resulted  in  one  plant  in  a  reduction  of  over  71  per  cent  in  the  number  of 
accidents.  And  all  that  makes  us  feel,  and  makes  us  feel  very  positively, 
that  organized  effort  along  educational  lines  is  the  sine  qua  non  in  accident 
prevention  work.  But  I  must  pass  on 

The  CHAIBMAN.  If  this  is  a  convenient  place  to  pause,  and  if  you  will  be 
good  enough  to  continue  your  remarks  after  luncheon,  we  will  adjourn. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  This  will  be  a  very  good  place  for  me  to  stop. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  suggested  that  we  adjourn  now  until  2  o'clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  12.50  p.  m.,  a  recess  was  taken  until  2  p.  m.) 

AFTER    RECESS. 

The  commission  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  at  2  p  .m. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  commission  will  come  to  order.  Mr.  Campbell,  will  you 
proceed. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  At  the  hour  of  adjournment  I  was  directing  your  attention 
to  the  work  of  the  Illinois  Steel  Co.  and  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation. 


298          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

I  find  that  there  are  one  or  two  other  things  in  connection  with  their  work 
that  might  be  of  interest,  which  I  have  neglected  to  state,  some  of  our  out- 
side work,  you  might  say,  in  this,  that  in  one  of  our  plants  we  have  aimed  to 
get  the  cooperation  of  the  community.  Where  this  is  feasible  in  the  smaller 
communities  it  would  seem,  from  the  results  we  have  attained,  that  that  might 
be  a  practicable  method  of  approaching  the  problem. 

Our  method  was  this.  We  called  together  the  clergy  and  the  newspaper  men 
of  the  community  at  a  dinner  and  we  laid  before  them  our  problem.  We  tried 
to  point  out  where  they  could  be  of  assistance  to  us  by  encouraging  coopera- 
tion through  the  members  of  their  parishes  who  might  be  in  our  employ  or 
in  the  employ  of  other  industries  in  the  community.  We  have  distributed 
safety  calendars  in  the  homes  of  the  families,  on  the  tabs  of  which  are 
different  safety  mottoes.  We  have  in  conjunction  with  the  street  railway 
company  of  that  particular  community  caused  safety  lectures  to  be  delivered 
to  all  of  the  school  children  in  the  community,  pointing  out  particularly  the 
danger  in  the  industry  and  in  the  use  of  the  public  streets  and  public  con- 
veyances, in  the  way  of  street  cars.  We  have  found  from  all  three  of  these 
outside  endeavors  very  satisfactory  echoes.  We  find  that  the  men,  where 
we  are  approaching  this  thing  in  a  continuous  and  organized  way,  are  really 
bearing  the  matter  in  mind. 

One  little  instance  may  evidence  that  fact.  A  couple  of  our  men  were  at- 
tending a  street  carnival  that  was  going  on  in  that  city,  and  there  was  one  of 
these  loosely-constructed  Ferris  wheels  in  oi>eration  at  that  street  carnival. 
One  of  the  men  suggested  to  the  other  "  Let  us  take  a  ride."  The  other  said, 
"Oh,  no;  safety  first,  Jim."  And  we  get  little  echoes  of  that  kind.  Men  have 
reported  to  us  what  their  children  have  said  to  them  at  home,  etc.,  showing 
there  is  no  limit  to  which  you  can  go  and  ought  to  go  in  the  organized  effort 
to  make  everybody  appreciate  the  importance  of  the  work. 

At  this  same  plant  and  at  some  of  our  other  plants,  we  are  also  trying  out 
another  plan.  We  have  what  we  call  a  plant  preacher,  wrho  is  a  man  who 
speaks  as  many  different  languages  as  we  can  find  in  any  man  that  may  be 
available,  and  this  man  spends  his  entire  time  going  around  the  plants  with 
names  obtained  from  the  timekeeper  of  new  men,  and  approaching  them  at 
their  work  and  talking  to  them  in  the  language  that  they  understand,  explain- 
ing to  them  the  company's  attitude  toward  safety,  and  discussing  with  them 
what  their  knowledge  is  of  the  hazards  peculiar  to  their  particualr  employment 
at  the  time.  If  he  finds  that  they  do  not  understand,  he  brings  the  foreman 
over  and  interprets  for  the  foreman,  and  lays  the  problems  of  that  particular 
individual  before  that  foreman  and  tries  to  see  that  that  man  is  thoroughly 
cognizant  of  the  hazards  of  his  job.  We  are  finding  that  that  is  a  very  helpful 
way  of  approaching  the  problem. 

So  much  in  the  individual  industrial  activity.  It  may  be  said,  and  I  think 
it  should  be  said,  that  there  are  a  large  number  of  other  companies  who  are 
approaching  the  problem  in  much  the  same  way,  with  possibly  some  differ- 
ences of  details.  I  do  not  mean  to  have  you  infer  that  I  think  the  Steel  Cor- 
poration or  its  subsidiary  companies  are  the  only  ones  who  have  done  any- 
thing. I  am  only  citing  those  as  the  ones  with  which  I  am  more  familiar  with 
the  work.  There  have  been  other  lines  of  activity  than  those  I  have  already 
mentioned,  notably  in  the  State  departments,  the  work  of  one  of  which  you 
have  had  explained  to  you  this  morning.  There  are  other  States  which  are 
approaching  the  problem  in  the  same  broad-minded,  comprehensive,  and  in- 
structive way  that  the  State  of  Wisconsin  has  approached  it.  Among  these 
States  you  will  find  that  Pennsylvania,  New  York.  Ohio,  California,  and 
Minnesota,  at  least,  are  at  work,  or  starting  at  work  along  these  comprehensive 
lines,  and  there  is  no  telling  what  the  result  of  that  increased  activity  in  the 
State  departments  may  bring  forth.  There  lias  been  very  recently  started  an 
additional  movement  which  you  might  call  the  public-safety  movement.  I 
think  it  had  its  initial  inception  in  the  action  taken  in  the  city  of  Chicago  by 
the  coroner  of  Cook  County,  who  appointed  a  commission  voluntarily,  which 
commission  has  undertaken  the  task  of  trying  to  correct  many  of  the  public 
dangers  and  evils  incident  to  the  use  of  the  public  streets.  They  have  done 
many  educational  things,  and  they  have  talked  to  the  school  children  and  dis- 
tributed leaflets  throughout  the  city ;  have  had  moving  pictures  exhibited 
showing  the  dangers  incident  to  the  use  of  street  cars  and  the  use  of  the 
streets,  and  are  entering  upon  rather  a  large  propaganda  of  education  as  to 
public  danger.  This  includes,  of  course,  the  allied  danger  in  the  home.  When 
you  stop  to  think  ^  it,  you  would  be  rather  appalled  at  the  large  number  of 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPEKT   WITNESSES.  299 

accidents  that  are  daily  occurring  in  the  homes.  We  trip  over  a  rug ;  we  wear 
high-heeled  shoes  and  tight  skirts  and  fall  downstairs ;  we  lean  against  an 
unsecured  railing  on  the  back  porch  and  go  over  on  the  back  of  our  neck ;  and 
in  the  kitchen  we  wear  a  flimsy  dress  in  front  of  the  gas  stove  and  catch 
on  fire ;  and  we  will  handle  some  hot  grease  and  get  some  water  on  it  and 
have  it  spattered  into  our  faces.  All  of  these  things  show  the  possibilities  of 
an  organized  educational  campaign;  and  that  is,  in  a  sense,  the  position  that 
we  find  ourselves  in  to-day  and  the  real  necessity  of  the  occasion. 

I  would  like  to  direct  your  attention,  having  now  briefly  outlined  to  you  the 
activities  that  are  at  work  and  what  has  been  done  in  a  way,  to  what  I  believe 
to  be  a  few  of  the  lessons  that  we  have  been  able  to  learn  from  the  experience 
we  have  had  in  the  past  five  years. 

I  would  first  again  remind  you  of  the  fact  that  accident-prevention  work  is 
practical  work.  The  fact  that  the  industries  that  have  engaged  in  it  have  been 
able  to  reduce  their  accidents  anywhere  from  33£  per  cent  up  to  72  or  75  per 
cent  shows  conclusively  and  beyond  peradventure  that  it  is  a  practical  work 
and  brings  results  and  saves  human  lives. 

Again,  we  have  the  proven  fact  that  it  results  in  economy.  The  saving  of 
the  cost  of  compensation  alone,  as  has  been  adverted  to  once  or  twice  here,  is 
B  great  economy  to  the  industry  which  would  have  to  pay  compensation  if  the 
man  were  injured.  How  much  more,  however,  of  an  economy  is  it  to  a  man  him- 
self who  is  able  fully  to  earn  his  daily  wage?  He  does  not  lose  anything;  he  is 
left  with  his  family ;  and  there  is  no  social  or  civic  loss  or  waste  when  that 
man  is  maintained  at  his  work.  Every  time  somebody  is  injured,  aside  from 
the  injury  and  loss  to  the  man  himself,  nine  times  out  of  ten  the  community  is 
also  called  upon  to  participate  in  that  loss,  to  help  support  the  family  if  the 
man  is  in  poor  circumstances,  as  nine  times  out  of  ten  he  is.  There  is  likewise 
another  economy  which  should  not  be  forgotten.  There  is  never  an  accident 
happens,  except  a  very  rare  one,  which  does  not  at  the  same  time  it  destroys 
human  life  or  injures  the  person  destroy  or  injure  the  property  of  the  employer ; 
the  machine  is  broken  at  the  time  the  injury  occurs ;  it  may  have  to  be  entirely 
replaced,  according  to  the  seriousness  of  the  accident,  resulting  in  great  waste 
and  lack  of  economy.  There  is  likewise  a  loss  of  product  that  follows  and  is 
entailed  by  the  injury  at  the  time  it  occurs.  Then,  in  the  broad  sense  as  affect- 
ing efficiency,  we  find  that  accident-prevention  work  is  an  adjunct  to  increased 
efficiency.  By  that  I  do  not  mean  by  speeding  up  a  man  to  the  highest  possible 
point  of  work,  but  I  mean  the  ordinary  average  working  out  of  the  day's  prod- 
uct in  the  plant.  A  man  is  injured  and  a  new  man  has  to  be  put  in  his  place, 
and  it  may  take  days  to  train  him  to  do  that  work  without  loss  to  the  particu- 
lar product.  At  the  time  the  injury  occurs  all  those  surrounding  the  men  are 
brought  to  the  scene  of  the  accident,  and  the  disintegration  of  the  working  force 
is  really  beyond  computation.  We  do  not  know,  we  can  never  compute  just 
how  much  of  a  loss  of  efficiency  arises  right  there.  If  the  accident  has  been  at 
all  gruesome  in  its  character  the  men  go  away  from  it  and  are  unnerved  for 
the  balance  of  the  day,  and  the  loss  of  product  to  the  plant  is  unmeasurable. 
And  in  some  industries  where  death  occurs  the  plant  shuts  down  for  the  balance 
of  the  day,  and  in  some  industries,  I  am  told,  the  men  do  not  go  back  to  work 
until  after  the  funeral. 

Now  all  of  that  undoubtedly  results  in  \vaste  economic  loss,  and  inefficiency, 
and  if  that  can  be  prevented,  the  reverse  is  true,  and  we  do  have  a  resulting 
economy  and  increased  efficiency  in  our  plants  every  time  we  prevent  an  acci- 
dent and  the  injury  or  death  of  a  man.  Now  all  of  that  points  inevitably  to  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Price  suggested  that  the  accident-prevention  work  has  come  to  stay. 
The  manufacturer,  the  industrial  plant  of  to-day  is  bound  ultimately  to  realize 
the  fact  that  accident-prevention  work  is  going  to  be  money  in  their  pockets. 
When  you  can  make  them  realize  that,  and  when  they  do  begin  to  realize  that, 
then  we  will  have  an  immense  wave  in  this  move. 

I  think  it  is  needless  to  suggest  to  thinking  people  or  to  more  than  suggest 
that  it  is,  of  course,  one  of  the  highest  forms  of  humanitarian  efforts  that  we 
can  make.  It  is  a  work  that  can  not  help  but  benefit  humanity  at  large  and  in 
particular.  And  any  work  that  is  humanitarian  is  a  work  that  is  really  worth 
while. 

Looking  at  the  problem  again  in  another  way,  we  find  that  there  is  an 
absolutely  essential  element  in  it,  and  that  is  cooperation.  This  is  in  a  way  a 
day  and  age  of  cooperation.  We  find  it  existing  to  the  right  and  left  of  us, 
but  nowhere  is  it  of  any  more  importance  than  it  is  in  accident-prevention 
work.  The  employer  and  the  employee  must  actually  and  actively  be  hand  in 


300          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

hand  in  the  work  and  the  employee  may  be  as  interested  as  he  can,  but  unless 
his  employer  is  vitally  interested  and  seriously  and  sincerely  so,  to  the  end 
that  he  will  provide  the  safeguards  and  permit  the  employee  to  think  of  safety, 
you  can  not  get  anywhere.  And  I  think  right  here  it  might  be  well  to  correct 
in  your  minds,  if  you  have  had  the  impression,  what  I  have  felt  has  been  a 
misapprehension  or  a  misdirection  of  argument,  if  that  may  be  a  way  to  ex- 
press it,  that  has  gotten  into  the  minds  of  many.  When  we  analyze  this 
problem  we  say  that  we  must  safeguard  and  we  must  overcome  the  careless- 
ness of  employees,  and  it  looks  as  though  we  were  throwing  a  large  burden 
and  making  an  accusation  against  the  employee.  Now,  I  say  and  I  believe,  it 
is  the  consensus  of  opinion  of  men  who  have  been  speaking  about  it,  that  we 
have  no  right  to  blame  a  man  in  a  plant  where  his  employer  will  not  turn  his 
liand  over.  Let  us  put  the  blame  where  it  belongs.  The  employer  must  first 
participate  in  this  movement,  he  must  first  be  interested,  and  his  cooperation  is 
the  first  and  the  essential  element.  After  you  have  that  then  all  of  this  work 
is  necessary,  and  the  cooperation  of  the  employee  is  a  necessity. 

Again,  all  this  has  led  to  another  conclusion  in  the  minds  of  those  who  have 
been  active  in  the  work,  and  that  is,  that  there  has  grown  up  the  need,  the 
absolute  need,  of  some  coordinating  or  federating  agency  which  could  properly 
direct  and  stimulate  all  of  this  scattered  effort  that  has  been  made  throughout 
the  country.  We  find  an  industry  here  and  an  industry  there,  one  State  and 
another  State  to  the  east  and  the  west  all  acting  independently  and  with  little 
relation  to  the  work  of  the  other.  There  has  been  felt  the  need  of  having  some 
organization  which  could  provide  information  respecting  what  has  been  done, 
what  may  be  necessary  to  be  done,  and  how  to  go  about  it  if  you  are  interested 
in  going  about  it.  Those  industries  that  have  been  engaged  in  the  work,  many 
of  them  have  almost  every  day  in  the  year  within  recent  years  been  receiving 
requests  for  information  and  data  from  other  concerns  that  were  feeling  their 
way  or  considering  going  into  the  problem.  And  we  have  found  that  aside 
from  those  who  have  asked  already  there  have  been  a  very  much  larger 
number  who  have  been  diffident  about  asking,  they  do  not  like  to  go  to  one  of 
their  competitors  and  ask  him  for  information  about  this  or  that,  or  to  go  to 
somebody  else  who  they  may  never  have  met  and  ask  what  have  you  done, 
will  you  turn  over  to  nie  all  the  experience  you  have  had  for  the  last  five  or 
six  years.  They  have  a  hesitancy  about  it,  and  so  much  so  that  there  is  a  story 
told  of  a  man  going  to  the  American  Museum  of  Safety,  where  there  was  a 
gear  guard  exhibited  as  a  model,  with  his  drawing  board  and  measuring  instru- 
ments, and  measuring  off  and  spending  four  or  five  hours  taking  down  the 
measurements  and  making  a  draft  of  this  guard  on  his  board,  and  when  asked 
why  he  was  doing  it  and  why  he  did  not  inquire  of  the  company  that  furnished 
the  device  to  the  museum,  he  replied  that  he  was  ashamed  to  do  it.  That  ought 
not  to  be.  But  in  face  of  that  and  in  face  of  the  need  of  some  organization  to 
do  that,  and  in  the  face  of  a  further  need  growing  out  of  the  fact  that  so  little 
has  really  been  done  by  many  large  industries  and  by  practically  all  of  the 
smaller  ones,  there  is  a  wide  need  for  a  campaign  of  publicity  or  an  educational 
propaganda. 

Therefore,  it  was  felt  at  some  agency  which  could  provide  all  of  this  and 
which  could  undertake  the  provision  of  standards  in  the  way  of  safeguards 
and  safety  rules  and  regulations  which  might  be  a  guide  to  the  industries  of 
the  country  and  to  such  State  departments  as  might  wish  to  and  thus  over- 
come a  good  deal  of  the  confusion  which  exists  and  which  has  been  suggested 
here  by  a  recommendation  of  one  side  being  made  by  one  inspector  and  another 
respecting  the  same  thing  by  another,  and  so  on,  which  could  undertake  the 
provision  of  standards  and  which  could  hold  under  its  auspices  annual  meetings 
for  the  purpose  of  discussing  prevention  customs  and  which  would  also  pro- 
mote local  activity  and  local  meetings  and  safety  promotion  in  the  different 
communities  and  geographical  districts — all  of  this  need,  I  say,  has  been  felt  for 
a  number  of  years.  It  found  expression  a  little  over  a  year  ago  in  an  action 
taken  at  a  meeting  of  the  Society  of  Iron  and  Steel  Electrical  Engineers  held 
at  Milwaukee,  which  organization  had  held  under  its  auspices  a  safety  congress 
which  lasted  three  or  four  days  and  which  was  very  widely  attended  by  all 
the  expert  safety  men  in  the  country,  and  at  that  meeting  a  committee  was 
appointed  to  consider  the  ways  and  means  of  devising  an  organization  which 
would  fill  this  need.  That  committee  during  the  year  hud  many  nuvtings,  and 
as  a  result  of  its  deliberations  the  National  Council  for  Industrial  Safety  was 
organized. 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  301 

The  formal  organization  of  it  took  effect  just  three  months  ago.  I  happen 
to  have  the  honor  of  having  been  elected  its  first  president,  and  it  is  partially 
in  that  capacity  that  I  am  before  you  to-day. 

The  organization  has  very  large  and  comprehensive  objects.  I  will  not  stop 
to  quote  them  to  you.  I  am  going  to  have  placed  in  your  hands  a  copy  of  this 
little  pamphlet  that  will  give  you  much  of  that  information,  if  you  care  to  look 
it  over  more  in  detail  later.  The  objects  are  sufficiently  wide  and  comprehen- 
sive to  permit  of  all  of  the  activities,  the  need  for  which  I  have  suggested. 

The  membership  in  the  organization  is  open  to  any  and  every  one  who  has 
any  interest  whatever  in  the  conservation  of  human  life  and  limb.  The  dues 
for  members  are  moderate,  and  for  industrial  concerns  have  been  placed  on  a 
sliding  scale  on  the.  number  of  men  employed,  so  that  the  smaller  industry 
that  wishes  to  take  advantage  of  such  benefits  as  may  accrue  from  membership 
in  it  can  do  so  on  a  properly  comparable  basis  with  the  larger  industries. 

So  that  you  may  know  a  little  something  of  the  character  of  the  organiza- 
tion and  the  real  strength  that  we  believe  is  in  it,  if  you  will  bear  with  me,  I 
would  like  to  read  to  you  a  few  of  the  names  of  some  of  the  members,  unless 
you  feel  that  you  prefer  not  to  have  me  take  your  time  to  do  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  that  was  what  Mr.  Garretson  wanted. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  will  say  in  general  that  all  of  the  large  manufacturing  con- 
cerns that  have  done  anything  in  this  work  are  members  of  this  organization, 
and  that  the  large  insurance  companies  and  public-spirited  men,  bureaus  of 
labor,  labor  leaders  interested  in  the  work,  etc.,  are  members  of  our  or- 
ganization. I  am  going  to  have  placed  before  you  a  complete  list  of  our 
directors  and  a  list  of  the  members  of  the  executive  committee,  which  is  in  the 
back  of  this  little  pamphlet. 

Mentioning  some  of  the  members,  first  we  have  a  great  number  of  organiza- 
tions like  the  American  Museum  of  Safety,  the  Illinois  Manufacturers'  Asso- 
ciation, and  a  number  of  the  other  trade  organizations.  Among  the  large  in- 
dustrial companies  we  have  the  Aetna  Life  Insurance  Co.,  Mr.  M.  W.  Alexan- 
der, of  the  General  Electric  Co.,  which  company  is  also  a  member  of  the  or- 
ganization; the  American  Mutual  Liability  Insurance  Co.,  the  American  Car 
&  Foundry  Co.,  the  American  Steel  Foundries,  the  Pullman  Co.,  through  one 
of  its  representatives ;  the  Avery  Co.,  of  Peoria,  111. ;  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Co., 
David  S.  Beyer,  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  the  manager  of  their  compen- 
sation department,  whose  exact  title  I  have  forgotten ;  the  J.  G.  Brill  Co.,  of 
Philadelphia,  the  Brooklyn  Rapid  Transit  Co.,  the  Brown  &  Sharp  Manufac- 
turing Co.,  of  Providence;  Mr.  John  Calder,  whom  some  of  you  may  know  as 
one  of  the  later  authorities  on  accident  prevention  work ;  the  J.  I.  Case  Thresh- 
ing Machine  Co.,  the  Chicago  &  North  Western  Railway  Co.,  the  Commonwealth 
Steel  Co.,  the  Dodge  Manufacturing  Co.,  the  Eastman  Kodak  Co.,  the  Fidelity 
&  Casualty  Co.,  of  New  York;  the  Ford  Motor  Co.,  the  General  Accident  Fire 
&  Life  Insurance  Corporation,  the  General  Chemical  Co.,  Harrison  Bros. 
&  Co.  (Inc.),  of  Philadelphia;  Dr.  Frederick  L.  Hoffman,  of  the  Pruden- 
tial Insurance  Co.;  Dr.  J.  H.  Holmes,  of  the  Bureau  of  Mines;  the  Inland 
Steel  Co.,  the  International  Harvester  Co.,  Dr.  John  Price  Jackson,  commis- 
sioner of  labor  and  industry  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania ;  James  A.  Kennedy, 
who,  I  believe,  is  commissioner  of  labor  of  the  State  of  Michigan ;  Hon.  Charles 
C.  McChord,  Interstate  Commerce  Commissioner;  the  New  York  Central  lines, 
Pennsylvania  Steel  Co.,  the  Pfister  &  Vogel  Leather  Co.,  the  Peoria  Railway  ( 
Co.,  the  Simmons  Manufacturing  Co.,  Swift  &  Co.,  the  packers ;  the  Union  Pa- ' 
cific  Railroad  Co. ;  the  Vulcanite  Portland  Cement  Co.,  the  subsidiary  com- 
panies of  the  United  Steel  Corporation  and  that  corporation ;  the  General  Elec- 
tric Co.,  the  Independent  Inspection  Bureau,  several  members  of  the  work- 
men's compensation  bill,  the  New  Jersey  Zinc  Co.,  the  National  Association  of 
Tanners,  Sears,  Roebuck  &  Co.,  the  Standard  Steel  Car  Co.,  and  a  large  num- 
ber of  others.  Our  membership  to-day  is  approaching  300. 

The  form  of  organization  is  simply  this:  The  general  direction  of  affairs  is 
in  the  hands  of  a  board  of  directors,  75  in  number,  which  meets  annually  and 
elects  an  executive  committee  of  15,  which  is  charged  with  the  direct  responsi- 
bility of  managing  the  affairs  of  the  national  council.  I  have  here  a  list  of 
our  directors,  which  is  as  follows: 

R.  W.  Campbell,  chairman,  central  safety  committee,  Illinois  Steel  Co.,  Chi- 
cago, 111. 

W.  F.  Houk.  commissioner  of  labor,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Edgar  T.  Davies,  Chicago,  111. 

O.  L.  Avery,  secretary  Avery  Co..  Peoria,  111. 


302          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Lewis  T.  Bryant,  commissioner  of  labor,  Trenton,  N.  J. 

J.  D.  M.  Hamilton,  claims  attorney  Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Railway 
Co.,  Topeka,  Kans. 

John  Kirby,  jr.,  president  Dayton  Manufacturing  Co.,  Dayton',  Ohio. 

Thomas  Lynch,  president  H.  C.  Frick  Coke  Co.,  Pittsburgh.  Pa. 

Dr.  F.  D.  Patterson,  director  of  safety,  Harrison  Bros.  &  Co.  ( Inc. ) ,  Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

Hon.  C.  P.  Neill.  American  Smelting  &  Manufacturing  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

David  Van  Schaack,  director  bureau  of  inspection  and  accident  prevention, 
Aetna  Life  Insurance  Co.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

L.  B.  Robertson,  Ford  Motor  Co.,  Detroit,  Mich. 

H.  H.  Laughliu.  Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  Co.,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

Hon.  C.  C.  MeChord,  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  Washington,  D.  C. 

William  F.  French,  member  Industrial  Accident  Board  of  California,  San 
Francisco,  Cal. 

W.  A.  Layman,  president  National  Metal  Trades  Association,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

George  W.  Simmons,  Simmons  Hardware  Co.,  St.  Louis.  Mo. 

F.  W.  McKee,  Fairbanks-Morse  Co.,  Beloit,  Wis. 

Robert  J.  Young,  manager  safety  and  relief  department,  Illinois  Steel  Co., 
Chicago,  111. 

Charles  Piez,  president  Link  Belt  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

W.  J.  Olcott,  president  Oliver  Iron  Mining  Co.,  Duluth,  Minn. 

Dr.  L.  W.  Chaney,  Bureau  of  Labor,  United  States  of  America,  Washington, 
D.  C. 

E.  H.  Carey,  president  American  Iron  &  Steel  Institute,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

W.  B.  Spalding,  chairman  central  safety  commission,  Frisco  Lines,  St.  Louis, 
Mo. 

J.  A.  Robinson,  chairman  central  safety  commission,  Eastman  Kodak  Co., 
Rochester,  N.  Y. 

Marcus  A.  Dow,  general  safety  agent,  New  York  Central  Lines,  New  York, 
N.  Y. 

Bison  S.  Lott,  president  United  States  Casualty  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

J.  F.  Robison,  assistant  secretary  American  Car  &  Foundry  Co.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

J.  H.  Patterson,  president  National  Cash  Register  Co.,  Dayton,  Ohio. 

John  Calder,  president  International  Motor  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Dr.  W.  H.  Tolman,  director  American  Museum  of  Safety,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

G.  G.  Crawford,  president  Tennessee  Coal  &  Iron  Railroad  Co.,  Birmingham, 
Ala.. 

Dr.  A.  M.  Harvey,  Crane  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

J.  W.  Mapel,  Pfister  £  Yogel  Leather  Co.,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Howell  Chaney,  Chaney  Bros.,  South  Manchester,  Conn. 

Claude  Taylor,  president  Michigan  Federation  of  Labor,  Grand  Rapids,  Mich. 

Dr.  J.  A.  Holmes,  Bureau  of  Mines,  United  States  of  America,  Washington, 
D.  C. 

G.  A.  Ranney,  secretary  International  Harvester,  Chicago,  111. 

H.  D.  Sharpe,  treasurer  Brown  &  Sharpe  Manufacturing  Co.,  Providence,  R.  I. 

S.  J.  Peterson,  acting  safety  agent,  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Co.,  Omaha,  Nebr. 

T.  E.  Gaty,  secretary  Fidelity  &  Casualty  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Ed.  E.  Adams,  Cleveland  Hardware  Co.,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

R.  C.  Richards,  chairman  central  safety  commission,  Chicago  &  Northwestern 
Railway  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

P.  C.  Schweltman,  vice  president  and  general  manager  Racine  Sattley  Co., 
Springfield,  111. 

H.  M.  Wilson,  Bureau  of  Mines,  United  States  of  America,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

L.  R.  Palmer,  chairman  safety  commission  association  of  Iron  &  Steel 
Electrical  Engineer,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

Z.  G.  Simmons,  president  Simmons  Manufacturing  Co.,  Kenosha,  Wis. 

Arthur  Williams,  president  Edison  Electric  Co.,  New  York.  N.  Y. 

E.  G.  Trimble,  manager  Employers  Indemnity  Exchange,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Arthur  T.  Moray,  assistant  to  president  Commonwealth  Steel  Co.,  St. 
Louis,  Mo. 

M.  W.  Alexander,  General  Electric  Co.,  West  Lynn,  Mass. 

C.  L.  Close,  manager  bureau  of  safety  relief  and  sanitation  and  welfare, 
United  States  Steel  Corporation,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

S.  W.  Taner,  manager  casualty  department,  American  Steel  &  Wire  Co., 
Cleveland,  Ohio. 

W.  T.  Moulton,  Cleveland-Cliffs  Iron  Co.,  Ishpeming,  Mich. 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  303 

Lancaster  Morgan,  treasurer  General  Chemical  Co.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

F.  L.  Hoffman,  statistician  Prudential  Life  Insurance  Co.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

T.  D.  Williams,  president  Brooklyn  Rapid  Transit  Co.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Melville  W.  Mix,  president  Dodge  Manufacturing  Co.,  Mishawaka,  Ind. 

J.  C.  Adderly,  secretary  Millers  Mutual  Casualty  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

J.  B.  Kennedy,  Industrial  Accident  Board,  Lansing,  Mich. 

David  S.  Beyer,  manager  accident  prevention  department,  Massachusetts 
Employees  Insurance  Co.,  Boston,  Mass. 

Rose  C.  Purely,  research  engineer,  Norton  Co.,  Worcester,  Mass. 

J.  B.  Douglass,  manager  claim  department,  United  Gas  Improvement  Co., 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

C.  W.  Price,  assistant  to  Industrial  Commission  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis. 

There  should  be  added  to  that  list,  although  their  names  have  been  omitted, 
the  name  of  Mr.  Julius  Kruttschnitt,  chairman  of  the  executive  committee  of  the 
Southern  Pacific  Railway  Co.;  Douglas  Fisk,  of  Minneapolis;  and  W.  H. 
Cameron,  our  secretary. 

Among  the  men  who  are  the  directors  of  the  council  you  will  find  practically 
all  the  men  in  the  country  who  have  been  interested  in  safety  work  and  who 
have  been  interested  in  public  movements  generally.  It  is  a  broad  and  com- 
prehensive list  of  able  men  who  have  been  willing  to  cast  their  lot  with  the 
organization  and  share  some  of  the  responsibilities  of  its  activity. 

The  executive  committee,  as  I  have  stated,  is  in  direct  and  responsible 
charge  of  the  activities  of  the  organization,  and  you  will  find  the  names  of 
that  executive  in  the  back  pages  of  this  pamphlet.  The  are  as  follows : 

Mr.  Robert  W.  Campbell,  chairman  central  committee  of  safety,  Illinois 
Steel  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

Mr.  Lew  R.  Palmer,  assistant  commissioner  labor  and  industry,  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  Harrisburg,  Pa. 

Mr.  Ralph  C.  Richards,  chairman  central  safety  committee,  Chicago  &  North 
Western  Railway  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

Mr.  Edwin  R.  Wright,  Chicago,  111. 

Mr.  G.  L.  Avery,  secretary  Avery  Co.,  Peoria,  111. 

Mr.  David  Van  Schaack,  director  bureau  of  inspection  and  accident  pre- 
vention, Aetna  Life  Insurance  Co.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Mr.  Robert  J.  Young,  manager  safety  and  relief  department,  Illinois  Steel 
Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

Mr.  Charles  Piez,  president  Link  Belt  Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

Mr.  Ferd.  C.  Schwedtman,  vice  president  and  general  manager  Racine-Sattley 
Co.,  Springfield,  111. 

Mr.  H.  M.  Wilson,  Bureau  of  Mines,  United  States  of  America,  Pitts- 
burgh, Pa. 

Mr.  E.  G.  Trimble,  manager  Employers'  Indemnity  Exchange,  706-708  Com- 
merce Building,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Mr.  Arthur  T.  Morey,  assistant  to  president  Commonwealth  Co.,  St. 
Louis,  Mo. 

Mr.  Charles  L.  Close,  manager  bureau  of  safety,  relief,  sanitation,  and  wel- 
fare, United  States  Steel  Corporation,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  Charles  W.  Price,  assistant  to  Industrial  Commission  of  Wisconsin,  Madi- 
son, Wis. 

If  you  will  examine  that  list  you  will  find  that,  with  the  possible  exception 
of  the  president,  they  are  all  men  who  have  been  actively  and  energetically 
engaged  in  some  form  or  other  of  accident-prevention  work  during  a  large 
number  of  years.  They  are  men  who  know  the  accident-prevention  problem 
as  it  is,  and  know  what  ought  to  be  done  in  connection  with  it,  as  we  believe. 
We  feel  that  we  have  gathered  together  here  in  this  executive  committee 
possibly  the  best  intelligence  and  the  best  ability  for  handling  the  problems  as 
they  may  be  presented  in  connection  with  accident-prevention  work  that  are 
available  in  the  country.  It  is  not  a  fancy  committee.  There  are  none  of  us 
who  have  fancy  names.  We  are  all  of  us  simply  hard-working  men  actively  In 
the  field,  doing  the  kind  of  work  that  the  council  is  trying  to  promote  and 
direct. 

It  is  a  satisfaction  to  me  to  be  able  to  state  that  at  nearly  every  one  of  the 
meetings  of  this  executive  committee  there  have  not  been  more  than  one  or  two 
members  of  the  committee  who  at  any  one  time  have  been  absent.  You  will 
see  that  they  are  gathered  from  all  over  the  country — some  from  Philadelphia, 
some  from  New  York,  some  from  Pennsylvania,  some  from  Wisconsin,  some 
from  southern  Illinois,  some  from  Missouri.  It  is  a  real  representative  body 


304          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

of  safety  men,  raid  we  feel  that  with  that  body  to  work  with  we  really  have  a 
great  opportunity. 

We  recognize  that  we  are  likely  to  make  mistakes.  It  is  only  human  for  us 
to  do  that;  but  we  feel  that  this  organization  ought  to  make  a  success  of  its 
endeavors.  If  it  does  not,  we  are  not  prepared  to  say  just  where  the  fault 
will  be. 

I  may  say  that  if  at  any  time  when  I  am  speaking  any  one  of  you  desires  to 
interrupt  me  with  a  question,  I  shall  be  glad  to  have  you  do  so. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  was  going  to  ask  you  this  question :  In  all  of  your 
talk  I  have  not  heard  a  word  regarding  educational  work  that  has  been  done 
by  organized  labor  in  connection  with  this,  and  they  have  been  at  it  at  least  as 
long  before  you  were  born  as  you  have  lived  in  the  world. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  am  omitting  that  because  I  believe  that  to-day  the  real 
man  to  reach  is  the  employer.  I  believe  he  is  the  man  whom  we  have  got  to 
hammer  at  and  make  him  appreciate  the  importance  of  it.  I  do  not  think  we 
deprecate  at  all  the  activities  of  organized  labor  and  all  the  work  it  has  done 
in  promoting  proper  and  efficient  legislation;  but  what  wTe  believe  to  be  the 
problem  before  us  is  to  get  the  employer  before  we  get  any  satisfactory  results. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  agree  with  you  on  that  proposition. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Consequently  we  are  trying  to  say  \vhat  we  believe  to  be  the 
problem  that  confronts  us  to-day,  and  feeling  that  as  strongly  as  I  do,  I  have 
omitted  to  say  anything  of  the  kind  suggested  in  your  question. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  heard  the  predecessor  of  Mr.  Garretson  make  an 
argument  before  a  committee  of  Congress  a  good  many  years  ago  on  this  ques- 
tion, and  Mr.  Clark  covered  not  only  the  railroad  phases  of  it  but  the  historical 
phases  of  it,  as  it  applied  to  other  industries.  I  do  not  know  how  long  ago 
that  was.  It  is  so  long  ago  that  I  have  forgotten  just  exactly  what  year  it 
was. 

Commissioner  GABKETSON.  That  was  in  1898. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Some  years  ago  I  was  myself  connected  with  that 
commission  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  do  not  mean  that  the  problem  is  a  new  one,  but  there  has 
been  new  activity  and  a  new  impetus  has  been  given  to  it  to-day,  and  I  am 
simply  trying  to  say  to  you  what  I  believe  to  be  the  present  situation  and  where 
we  really  have  to  start  to  meet  that  situation. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Tell  us  what  you  want  this  commission  to  do.  We 
are  all  in  sympathy  with  the  proposition.  Now,  what  would  you  have  this  com- 
mission do,  and  how  would  you  have  us  do  it? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  think  the  commission  should  do  practically  just  what  the 
act  asks  it  to  do.  I  believe  that  a  complete  investigation  of  the  different  phases 
of  the  work  should  be  made  under  the  direction  of  this  commission.  It  may  be 
that  there  is  this  remedy  or  that  remedy  or  the  other  remedy  for  existing  con- 
ditions. I  do  not  think  any  of  us  is  prepared  to  say  just  to-day  how  the  thing 
ought  really  to  be  handled. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  This  is  a  conciliation  committee. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  The  thing  that  seems  to  me  to  be  essential  is  that  we  really 
get  down,  as  Mr.  Price  has  said,  to  hammer  and  tacks  and  try  to  analyze  abso- 
lutely and  thoroughly  just  what  ought  to  be  done.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say 
just  exactly  how  the  thing  ought  to  be  worked  out.  It  is  a  time,  as  you  inti- 
mate, when  I  think  we  ought  not  stop  to  criticise  or  find  fault.  As  has  been 
aptly  said  by  some  one,  in  the  language  of  the  street,  "  It  is  time  to  sell  your 
hammer  and  buy  a  horn."  It  is  a  time  for  constructive  work  to  be  done,  and 
I  believe  this  commission  really  has  an  opportunity  to  promote  some.  I  believe 
it  would  be  unfair  for  any  of  us  to  try  to  say  to  you  to-day  just  what  you  ought 
to  do.  It  is  something  that  we  can  not  sit  down  at  this  table  and  state  in  half 
an  hour's  time  just  simply  by  thinking  about  the  problem  off  hand.  It  is  some- 
thing that  ought  to  have  thorough  consideration,  after  looking  over  the  whole 
field. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Is  your  organization  ready  and  willing  to  cooperate 
\vith  this  commission  to  any  extent  that  may  be  possible  and  feasible? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  was  coming  to  that. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  beg  your  pardon. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  am  authorized  to  say  to  you  that  our  organization  is  ready 
and  willing  to  cooperate  with  you  to  the  fullest  extent  possible,  in  any  way  that 
you  may  require  of  us.  Our  executive  committee  and  our  facilities  are  at  your 
disposal  in  any  way -you  may  see  fit  to  make  use  of  them.  We  would  be  very 
glad  indeed  to  cooperate  to  the  fullest  measure. 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  305 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Mr.  Campbell,  would  it  not  put  the  matter  in  a 
practical  shape  for  the  use  of  the  commission  or  for  their  investigation,  for  an 
association  like  your  own,  for  instance,  representing  the  interests  that  you  do, 
to  draw  into  concrete  form  an  act  which  meets  with  the  views  that  you  have 
expressed,  and  present  it  to  this  commission  for  their  consideration?  They  can 
thereafter  make  such  investigations  as  may  seem  to  them  to  be  desirable  and 
may  make  such  modifications  as  appear  likely  to  produce  the  desired  results. 
Bear  in  mind  that  I  am  making  this  suggestion  from  the  standpoint  of  a  man 
who  is  absolutely  in  sympathy  with  the  object  to  be  attained. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  understand. 

Commissioner  GAKRETSON.  Because — let  me  draw  your  attention  to  one  thing. 
If  you  have  followed  the  history  of  safety  enactments  on  this  continent,  all 
safety  enactments  have  started  right  at  the  point  to  which  you  referred  a  little 
while  ago.  You  desired  to  make  it  appear  that  it  should  come  from  the  bottom 
up.  All  the  safety  appliance  laws  that  there  are  in  existence  have  originated 
from  one  of  two  sources — either  laboring  men  or  academic  groups. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEBETSON.  But,  as  a  rule,  it  is  the  academic  group  which 
has  come  to  the  aid  of  the  laboring  man,  and  most  of  the  safety  legislation  in 
existence  has  been  secured  against  the  strong  opposition  of  the  very  elements 
that  now  see  the  desirability  of  safety  legislation.  It  seems  to  me  that  would 
be  the  quickest  way  to  get  into  practicable  working  shape  the  very  thing  you 
are  recommending. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  That  would  be  admitting  that  you  could  do  the  whole  thing 
by  legislation. 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  Has  this  commission  any  powers  whatever  except 
to  make  recommendations  presumably  for  legislation? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  That  would  be  one  of  its  functions;  but  I  can  see  a  broader 
function  that  this  commission  could  well  perform.  After  a  complete  investi- 
gation that  the  commission  might  make  in  such  a  way  as  it  should  determine 
to  find  out  where  the  trouble  is  the  difficulty  will  be  about  the  ways  of  meeting 
that  trouble,  as  I  take  it.  One  will  be  possibly  by  legislation.  The  other  will 
be  by  the  promulgation  or  the  promotion  rather  of  an  educational  campaign. 
Now,  if  your  commission  would  put  the  stamp  of  its  approval,  for  instance, 
upon  the  movement,  and  would  point  out  the  necessities  of  the  movement,  or 
make  some  such  report  as  would  bring  the  information  to  the  knowledge  of 
every  manufacturer  and  every  employer,  that  a  commission  of  the  character  of 
this  one  has  found  that  such  and  such  conditions  exist,  and  that  such  and 
such  conditoins  ought  not  to  exist,  and  that  something  ought  to  be  done,  and 
that  every  manufacturer  ought  to  get  into  the  game,  why,  if  you  did  nothing 
else,  your  report  made  in  that  form  would  be  of  inestimable  value  in  the  whole 
campaign. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Can  this  commission  put  the  seal  of  its  approval 
in  any  other  form  so  strongly  as  to  recommend  a  specific  act  for  legislative 
enactment  ? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  That,  if  it  was  worked  out,  would  be  of  very  great  value. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Therefore,  what  I  have  suggested  would  be  the 
preliminary  step  and  a  skeleton  upon  which  to  hang  that. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  That  would  have  to  be  very  carefully  thought  out ;  and  I  am 
still  of  the  opinion  that,  legislate  as  much  as  we  will,  get  as  much  legislation 
on  the  books  as  we  will,  we  still  have  not  solved  all  of  the  problems. 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  My  idea  is  to  make  you  do  a  part  of  the  thinking. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  On  behalf  of  my  organization  I  will  say  that  we  will  do 
anything  you  want  us  to  do.  We  would  feel  in  this  way,  however,  that  if  we 
were  going  to  undertake  anything  you  asked  us  to  undertake  we  would  be  at 
liberty  to  give  it  our  thought,  and  we  would  want  to  be  untrammeled.  The  day 
ol  partisanship  in  this  sort  of  thing  is  no  longer  here,  and  it  would  have  to  be 
absolutely  impartial,  unbiased,  and  without  strings  of  any  kind.  That  is  the 
sort  of  proposition  that  we  would  want  to  undertake. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  would  be  your  suggestion?  Would  you  suggest  that 
we  make  a  complete  investigation 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  am  not  absolutely  certain  that  I  have  given  the  matter  suffi- 
cient thought  to  make  any  valuable  suggestion.  I  will,  however,  give  you  the 
thought  that  is  in  my  mind.  My  experience  with  such  few  of  the  committees 
and  organizations  that  I  have  had  to  do  with  has  shown  me  that  the  greater 
value  and  best  results  can  be  obtained  first  by  the  appointment  of  subcommit- 

38819°— 16 20 


306          BEPOBT    OF    COMMISSION    ON"   INDUSTEIAL   RELATIONS.  • 

tees  within  the  organization.  I  do  not  know  what  your  form  is  here.  My  first 
suggestion  would  be  that  a  subcommittee  to  have  direct  charge  of  this  phase  of 
your  activity  be  appointed,  which  committee  could  take  up  and  work  out  the 
different  phases  of  the  problem.  I  should  say  that  that  committee  ought  to  get 
the  best  advice,  the  best  counsel  that  it  could.  It  is  possible  that  we  could  do 
this;  that  we  could  let  our  organization  be  an  advisory  body  to  your  subcom- 
mittee and  advise  that  committee  as  to  what  testimony  it  ought  to  take,  if  any 
testimony  should  be  necessary,  or  what  other  endeavor  or  effort  might  be  made 
to  get  such  data  together  as  would  enable  the  committee  to  consider  the  prob- 
lem properly  and  possibly  offer  suggestions  for  the  form  of  their  report  or  rec- 
ommendations to  be  made.  I  assume  that  that  could  be  done,  could  it  not,  Mr. 
Price  and  Mr.  Cameron? 

Mr.  PRICE.  Yes. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  If  it  should  meet  with  the  pleasure  of  the  commission  to 
adopt  some  such  suggestion,  I  am  very  well  satisfied  that  the  National  Council 
of  Industrial  Safety  will  be  pleased  to  form  itself  into,  an  advisory  board  for 
your  subcommittee. 

Mr.  PRICE.  We  will  do  the  hard  work  for  your  subcommittee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  you  be  willing  to  draw  up  in  writing  the  outline  of 
an  investigation  and  submit  it  to  our  expert,  Mr.  Lauck? 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  think  that  ought  to  be  the  result  of  a  conference.  If  you 
should  appoint  a  subcommittee,  it  seems  to  me  that  your  committee  knows  in 
a  way  what  you  are  aiming  at,  and  we  in  a  wray  know  what  the  broad  problem 
is,  and  it  would  be  far  better  if  we  would  simply  say  that  we  will  appoint  a 
committee  to  act  with  your  subcommittee,  and  with  such  experts  as  your  com- 
mittee has  here,  the  two  committees  to  get  together  and  thrash  out  a  line  of 
attack  on  the  problem.  That  would  be  the  very  first  thing  in  the  way  of  a 
suggestion  that  you  adopt  that  course. 

Commissioner  GABRETSON.  I  want  to  draw  your  attention  to  this  from  the 
standpoint  of  one  member  of  the  commission.  You  used  the  phrase  a  moment 
ago  that  the  commission  knew  what  it  wanted  to  do.  I  differ  with  you  abso- 
lutely on  that.  The  commission  do  not  know  what  they  want  to  do  in  any 
direction. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  see. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  And  the  commission  wants  the  intelligent,  honest 
suggestions  of  those  interested  in  the  subjects  on  which  this  commission  is 
expected  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion. 

As  to  the  advisory  board,  I  would  be  absolutely  at  variance  with  that  idea,  for 
this  reason:  On  this  safety  problem  there  are  probably  20  different  interests, 
each  of  whom  would  desire  to  be  heard,  and  each  would  want  to  be  a  portion  of 
that  advisory  board  if  there  was  one  formed.  I  think  you  will  recognize  that 
without  a  doubt,  and  the  consequence  would  be  that  for  one  interest  to  attempt 
to  resolve  itself  into  an  advisory  board  would  be  an  untenable  position.  But 
what  I  would  suggest  would  be  this :  That,  as  proposed  by  the  chairman,  you 
draw  an  outline  of  what  you  believe  to  be  the  true  course  of  action.  Possibly,  a 
dozen  other  parties  interested  in  the  subject  would  do  likewise.  Then  it  will 
become  the  mission  of  the  commission  to  reconcile  the  various  things  that  appear 
in  these  presentations  and  work  out  a  plan  of  procedure  from  the  whole  that 
they  will  be  ready  to  recommend.  I  do  not  know  whether  my  associates  on  the 
commission  would  agree  with  that  viewpoint  or  not,  but  it  is  the  viewpoint  of 
one  man.  As  far  as  any  suggestion  of  partisanship  is  concerned,  unless  the 
members  of  this  commission  are  citz-iens  first  and  partisans  afterwards  they 
might  as  well  stop  drawing  their  pay. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.   I  do  not  think  that  question  has  arisen  anywhere. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  do  not  think  it  has. 

Mr.  CAMPBEIX.  We  are  way  beyond  that. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  think  if  a  commission  constituted  like  this  eonld 
not  ri.se  above  its  partisanship  on  general  questions 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  had  no  reference  to  this  commission. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  am  aware  of  that. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  We  would  want  to  be  perfectly  free  to  make  suggestions  of 
what  we  thought  was  right,  irrespective  of  whether  it  Avas  going  to  be  detri- 
mental to  one  or  another. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  My  idea  was  that  the  commission  would  sit  above 
the  various  plans  suggested.  This  is  only  one  of  many  questions  that  will  be 
presented.  To  the  men  now  before  us  who  are  interested  in  this  matter  it  is 
naturally  the  largest  question. 


SUGGESTIONS  OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  307 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  have  reference  only  to  one  phase  of  your  work — the  safety 
and  sanitation  phase  of  it. 

Commissioner  GAKKETSON.  I  believe  it  is  within  the  province  of  the  men  who 
are  interested  in  that  question  to  draw  at  least  a  fair  presentation  of  what  they 
believe  would  produce  desirable  results. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  have  had  no  idea  of  suggesting  anything  for  our  organization 
to  touch  other  than  the  mere  question  of  safety. 

Commissioner  GAKKETSON.  I  so  interpreted  your  statement. 

The  CHAIKMAN.  May  I  be  permitted  to  make  a  suggestion?  We  have  already 
adopted  a  sort  of  tentative  plan  of  operation  which  includes  the  appointment 
of  a  managing  expert.  There  are  naturally  people  drawn  from  many  walks 
of  life,  some  with  much  knowledge,  some  with  little,  some  with  none. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  Speak  for  yourself  [laughter]. 

The  CHAIKMAN.  Mr.  Ballard  is  one  who  knows  a  great  deal  upon  all  sub- 
jects. I  was  going  to  say  that  we  are  going  to  try  to  work  out  these  things 
tentatively  at  least  through  our  managing  expert.  So  the  question  now  is, 
could  you  cooperate  with  us  along  that  line,  and  will  you  be  willing  to  make 
for  us  an  outline  of  an  investigation  and  submit  it  to  our  managing  expert  in 
writing?  Hereafter,  later  on,  we  are  going  to  take  up  the  question  as  to  just 
how  we  are  going  to  operate,  and  there  is  no  use  trying  to  figure  that  out  in 
advance  until  we  hear  what  all  the  members  of  the  commission  think  about  it. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  will  be  very  glad  to  do  anything  we  can. 

Mr.  PKICE.  May  I  ask  if  that  outline  which  you  have  in  inind  would  be  a 
preliminary  outline?  Then  let  us  suppose  that  you  decided  that  our  body  was 
the  proper  body  to  make  the  main  investigation  and  their  report  leading  to 
suggestions  for  legislation,  etc.,  that  would  follow,  or  that  you  should  decide 
on  some  other  organization  that  had  prsented  an  outline. 

The  CHAIKMAN.  I  do  not  know  what  the  rest  of  the  commission  think  about 
it,  but  we  are  seeking  the  cooperation  of  every  one  who  has  any  information 
or  who  has  a  plan  to  do  anything.  We  are  not  bound  to  follow  any  of  them,  as 
I  understand,  but  to  take  what  the  commission  thinks  is  of  significance  and 
the  vital  points  on  the  subject.  Now  we  want  to  know  whether  you  will  draw 
up  an  outline.  Suppose  you  were  going  to  do  this  yourself.  Suppose  you  were 
empowered  to  do  what  we  are  empowered  to  do,  and  you  were  going  to  make 
this  investigation,  how  \vould  you  do  it?  We  may  follow  your  entire  plan,  or 
a  part  of  it,  or  confer  with  you  and  adopt  none  of  it.  It  will  depend  on  its 
merits. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  I  want  to  say  that  we  will  do  anything  you  want  us  to  do. 
We  believe  there  is  so  much  possibility  in  what  you  may  do  here  that  it  will 
be  of  such  great  value  to  the  Nation  at  large  that  we  want  to  help  you  in 
any  way  that  we  possibly  can. 

There  was  one  thing,  if  I  might  be  permitted  to  suggest,  if  your  commission 
would  bear  with  us,  we  would  like  to  have  one  other  phase  of  our  work  laid 
before  you,  so  you  may  know  what  our  organization  is,  and  its  secretary,  Mr. 
Cameron,  had  planned  to  tell  you  a  little  bit  of  the  activities  that  we  are 
engaged  in  and  just  how  our  organization  is  doing  its  \vork,  and  I  believe,  if  I 
may  be  permitted  to  say  so,  it  might  be  better  for  you  to  get  the  full  view  of 
the  organization  before  you  give  further  consideration  to  the  other  matters  or 
to  this  matter.  I  will  say,  if  you  desire  us  to  act  one  way  or  another,  in  what- 
ever way  we  can  aid  you,  we  stand  ready  to  do  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Cameron,  the  secretary  of  the  National  Council  of 
Safety. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  H.  CAMERON. 

Mr.  CAMERON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  commission,  I  will  just 
take  one  minute  of  your  time.  There  is  just  one  thought  I  want  to  leave  with 
you,  and  that  is  that  it  is  the  entire  aim  of  the  national  council  to  make  its 
work  as  practical  as  possible.  One  of  the  principal  things  in  this  work  is  the 
organization  of  a  central  information  bureau.  As  Mr.  Campbell  has  said,  there 
has  been  a  good  deal  of  work  done  in  the  different  parts  of  the  country  by 
different  people,  but  there  has  been  no  agency  which  would  coordinate  the 
information  which  hos  been  published  on  the  subject  of  safety.  Now,  the 
information  bureau  of  the  national  council  hopes  to  get  together  all  the  blue 
prints  and  photographs  and  models  and  printed  literature  on  the  subject  of 
safety.  I  learned  very  soon  after  starting  our  work  that  organizations  like 
ours  are  in  the  habit  of  putting  information  they  receive  into  filing  cases  and 


308          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

vaults,  and  not  letting  anybody  see  it.  The  members  of  the  organizations  of 
this  kind  are  liable  to  pay  their  dues  and  not  ask  for  anything.  We  determined 
from  the  beginning  that  the  members  were  going  to  get  the  information.  I 
.started  five  weeks  ago  to  send  out  a  weekly  letter  to  every  member  of  -the 
organization,  and  send  out  from  three  to  five  pieces  of  safety  information.  We 
have  one  out  which  is  an  authoritative  standard  book  on  elevators ;  a  book 
on  standards  for  safety  on  scaffolds.  I  have  sent  out  a  bulletin  like  that 
[indicating]  on  the  subject  of  eyes,  for  instance,  telling  three  or  four  stories  of 
how  accidents  happened  to  eyes.  Here  is  a  bulletin  which  went  out  with  one 
letter  showing  how  this  man's  hand  was  cut  off  and  the  conditions  under  which 
the  accident  took  place,  making  recommendations  to  avoid  accidents  of  that 
kind.  We  have  sent  out  a  book  of  this  kind  on  the  standards  of  elevators  and 
how  to  reduce  accidents — boiled  down  information  how  to  get  at  the  subject. 

Here  is  another  book — an  investigation  on  the  subject  of  tuberculosis.  Here 
is  a  book  on  the  subject  of  examination  of  employees.  There  is  not  a  piece 
of  information  in  this  country  that  is  as  original  as  this.  It  is  a  compilation 
of  addresses  made  in  Chicago  under  the  auspices  of  the  Illinois  Manufacturers' 
Association,  and  has  been  distributed  broadcast  by  our  association. 

Here  is  a  pamphlet  reproducing  four  pictures  representing  standard  guards. 
Here  is  the  picture  of  a  man  who  lost  an  eye,  who  ought  to  have  worn  safety 
spectacles.  When  I  was  with  the  American  Steel  Foundries,  we  started,  I 
think,  the  principal  work  on  the  protection  of  the  eye.  That  company  was 
losing  from  12  to  15  eyes  per  year,  and  we  absolutely  cut  the  accidents  to 
eyes  out  of  our  work.  This  was  a  man  who  refused  to  wear  spectacles,  and  at 
the  end  of  two  years  he  lost  this  eye. 

You  can  see  this  is  very  valuable.  They  have  not,  perhaps,  the  time  or 
money  and  experience  to  spend  on  pictures  of  that  kind,  and  we  will  furnish 
any  number  of  those  to  our  members.  Here  are  three  little  pamphlets,  two  of 
them  addressed  to  workmen,  pointing  out  the  advantage  of  wearing  spectacles, 
and  one  to  foremen 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Excuse  me,  Mr.  Cameron,  but  if  you  have  a  copy  of  one  of 
those  to  submit  as  exhibits,  following  what  has  been  said,  you  might  leave  it 
with  us. 

Mr.  CAMERON.  I  will  be  very  glad  to  send  one  to  each  member  of  the  com- 
mission. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  will  send  it  to  Mr.  W.  ,T.  Lauck,  the  managing  expert, 
we  would  be  obliged.  Just  send  a  copy  of  each  one  to  him. 

Mr.  CAMERON.  I  will  be  glad  to  do  it.  Mr.  Price  has  also  spoken  of  them. 
WTe  are  also  doing  this  from  a  national  standpoint.  There  is  a  hunger  every- 
where for  tangible  information.  People  do  not  know  what  to  do,  and  they 
want  information  as  to  how  to  do  it,  and  they  want  to  educate  their  men 
and  want  bulletins  and  blue  prints  and  cartoons.  WTe  have  some  cartoons  on 
the  subject.  Then  we  have  lists  on  our  files  of  expert  safety  engineers  and 
lecturers  and  moving  pictures.  We  have  already  been  in  conference  with  the 
State  commissions  in  two  of  the  largest  States,  assisting  in  the  selection  of 
safety  experts,  and  we  hope  to  be  the  headquarters  along  that  line. 

Then,  I  think  perhaps  the  most  important  work  that  the  council  will  do  and 
is  doing  is  the  organization  of  local  councils  in  the  various  industrial  centers 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  together  the  people  that  are  interested  in  these 
various  communities  in  the  subject  of  safety.  There  never  has  been  up  to  this 
time,  particularly  in  the  smaller  cities,  any  agency  that  could  bring  together 
the  safety  engineers  and  experts  and  others  to  discuss  safety  questions.  Our 
form  of  local  councils  is  very  much  like  the  central  safety  committee  that  has 
been  described  by  Mr.  Price  and  Mr.  Campbell.  These  men  from  various 
places  get  together  around  a  table  and  not  only  discuss  the  general  questions 
of  safety,  but  their  own  experiences.  One  man  brings  to  this  round  table  a 
particular  accident  which  had  been  new  to  them,  and  they  discuss  it 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Cameron,  I  do  not  wish  to  interrupt  you,  but  I  am  going 
to  make  this  suggestion.  The  commission,  of  course,  by  law  is  required  to  look 
into  this  subject  of  safety  and  sanitation.  Now,  we  are  thoroughly  allied  to 
the  idea  that  it  is  desirable  to  bring  it  up  to  the  utmost  limit,  and  I  think  we 
are  also  satisfied  that  cooperation  is  a  splendid  thing,  and  perhaps  a  vitally 
necessary  thing.  It  is  to  my  mind,  of  course.  If  you  would  address  yourself 
to  what  you  think  we  could  do,  to  the  short  cuts  to  doing  this  within  the  scope 
of  this  law,  and  what  we  are  expected  to  do,  I  am  sure  the  commission  would 
be  obliged  to  you.  That  is,  if  you  have  a  suggestion  as  to  whether  we  shall 
confer  with  the  States  or  devise  laws  for  the  States  or  adopt  some  national 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPEKT    WITNESSES.  309 

policy  or  anything  that  you  might  suggest  this  commission  could  do  to  help  it 
along,  we  would  be  pleased  to  have  your  suggestion.  We  are  assuming  that 
every  organization  such  as  yours  is  doing  its  work  well,  and  that  it  is  well 
enough  worth  while  for  us  to  consider  your  whole  scheme,  and  cooperate  with 
you  if  possible.  But  the  question  we  would  like  you  to  address  yourself  to  is 
what  we  can  do  under  the  scope  of  this  law. 

Mr.  CAMERON.  There  has  been  so  much  practical  work  done  and  so  much 
criticism 

The  CHAIEMAN.  You  get  the  point.  The  details  of  how  you  secure  coopera- 
tion and  how  you  project  yourselves  into  the  communities,  of  course,  that  does 
not  affect  us.  The  only  way  we  could  project  it  is  by  having  public  hearings 
and  advising  Congress  as  to  laws.  We  assume,  and  I  think  the  commission  is 
thoroughly  alive  to  the  fact,  that  it  is  desirable  to  have  laws.  What  shall  we 
do  as  a  national  commission  under  the  scope  of  this  law  to  determine  the  con- 
ditions and  sanitation  and  safety  of  employees  and  the  provisions  for  protect- 
ing the  life,  limb,  and  health  of  the  employees. 

Mr.  CAMERON.  It  seems  to  me  the  President  has  answered  that  question,  and 
I  am  in  entire  sympathy  with  what  he  has  had  to  say.  Probably,  as  you  sug- 
gest, the  best  way  to  handle  the  subject  is  to  make  some  sort  of  a  report  to  your 
subcommittee  as  to  what  we  could  do  for  you.  I  think  I  can  stop  right  here. 
There  is  a  lot  more  to  say  about  our  practical  work,  but 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  not  that  I  want  to  interrupt  any  single  person  here, 
because  the  information  has  been  very  illuminating,  indeed. 

Mr.  CAMERON.  I  would  be  very  glad  to'  answer  any  questions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  just  one  question  which  you  can  answer,  and  briefly 
it  is  this,  Has  your  organization  made  any  detailed  study  of  the  question  of 
sanitation? 

Mr.  CAMERON.  No ;  it  has  not  yet,  but  that  is  one  of  the  subjects  we  hope  to 
take  up.  We  have  a  sectional  idea  which  I  did  not  touch  upon,  in  which  we 
hope  to  get  together  the  different  groups  of  people 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  have  not  done  anything  on  it  as  yet? 

Mr.  CAMERON.  No. 

Mr.  CAMPBELL.  There  has  been  a  great  deal  of  work  done,  and  that  is  avail- 
able in  our  service,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  I  believe  that  it  was  suggested  that  the  next  person 
we  would  like  to  hear  from  would  be  Mrs.  Robins,  if  she  is  ready  now. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  I  am. 

STATEMENT  OF  MRS,  RAYMOND  ROBINS. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mrs.  Harriman,  and  gentlemen  of  the  commis- 
sion, as  far  as  I  can  judge,  to  go  back  a  while,  this  commission  was  created  to 
find  out  the  underlying  causes  for  the  present  dissatisfaction.  That  is,  to  find 
out  what  was  in  the  minds  of  a  great  number  of  people  who  are  immensely 
interested,  to  see  if  we  can  come  to  some  understanding  of  what  is  happening 
in  our  great  American  land  and  yet  do  what  we  can  to  bring  about  improved 
conditions.  "  That  the  commission  shall  seek  to  discover  the  underlying  causes 
of  dissatisfaction  in  the  industrial  situation  and  report  its  conclusions  thereon," 
in  my  judgment,  therefore,  is  the  work  of  the  commission,  but  what  I  want  to 
bring  to  your  attention  this  afternoon  would  divide  itself  into  two  thoughts, 
some  of  the  fundamental  causes  and  then  some  of  the  contributory  causes. 
Representing  as  I  do  a  woman's  organization,  the  women's  trade  unions  of  the 
country  who  have  affiliated  themselves  with  the  National  Women's  Trades 
Union  League,  I  am  certain  that  we  feel  that  we  are  somewhat  a  contributory 
cause ;  that  is,  the  conditions  which  make  for  women's  work  are  somewhat  of  a 
contributory  cause  to  the  dissatisfaction.  But  if  I  might  for  the  moment  speak 
of  .what  seems  to  me  some  of  the  -underlying  causes  which  make  for  this  dis- 
satisfaction, I  feel,  to  put  it  very  briefly,  that  simply  means  the  denial  of  rights, 
the  denial  of  justice,  if  you  will,  or  rights  of  the  working  men  and  women  of 
our  country.  If  that  cause  is  an  element  which  acts  continuously,  not  just  here 
and  there,  but  every  single  day,  for  10  or  14  hours  of  work,  then  I  think  we 
perhaps  should  find  out  if  there  is  any  truth  in  the  statement  or  the  thought 
that  it  is  the  denial  of  right  which  is  causing  these  tremendous  upheavals  in 
America  to-day.  I  think  if  we  could  find  out  what  some  of  these  causes  are, 
we  might  be  able  to  get  nearer  a  solution. 

For  instance,  I  am  very  deeply  interested  in  this  matter  of  sanitation  and 
safety.  I  think  in  this  matter  of  sanitation  and  safety  we  ought  not  only  to 


310          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

see  that  safety  measures  are  introduced  for  machinery  but  that  we  ought  also 
to  see  that  the  machinery  at  which  girls,  at  any  rate,  are  made  to  work 
should  be  so  adjusted  to  the  make-up  of  women  that  we  do  not  at  the  very 
start  put  the  young  womanhood  and  the  possibility  of  motherhood  in  jeopardy. 
For  instance,  by  way  of  illustration,  we  might  find  out  >vhy  it  is  considered 
necessary  to  have  the  tread  in  many  of  our  laundry  machines  or  binding 
machines  7  or  8  inches  from  the  floor,  so  that  when  the  girl  has  to  put  the 
whole  weight  of  her  body  on  it,  say,  32;000  times  a  day,  she  has  to  lift  her  foot 
7  or  8  inches  from  the  floor.  That  is  one  of  the  smaller  matters  that  might  be 
looked  into  in  connection  with  this  question.  But  granted  that  we  have  the 
laws,  I  for  one  would  find  it  quite  impossible  to  leave  the  enforcement  of  that 
law  to  any  employer's  willingness  to  have  that  law  enforced.  I  would  be 
against  it,  because  when  it  depends  upon  one  man's  willingness  whether  it  is 
or  is  not  to  be  enforced,  it  is  not  likely  to  be  done,  and  because  one  of  the  big 
things  we  ought  to  do  is  to  get  the  definite  recognized  cooperation  of  the 
working  men  and  women  if  the  laws  which  are  enacted  for  their  benefit  are  to 
be  enforced. 

Now,  my  point  is  this:  \Ve  have,  for  instance,  laws  not  only  for  safety  and 
sanitation  but  we  have  laws  limiting  the  hours  of  work.  In  Chicago^— and 
Chicago  is  just  one  city,  and  it  is  happening  all  over — our  young  women  in  the 
department  stores  and  in  the  factories  and  workshops,  when  they  call  the  atten- 
tion of  their  foremen  or  their  employers  to  the  violation  of  the'  hours  of  work, 
are  dismissed.  They  are  simply  told  to  look  elsewhere  for  a  job.  Just  a  few 
days  ago  we  received  a  letter  from  a  y'oung  girl  who  called  our  attention  to  the 
fact  that  there  was  a  violation  of  the  10-hour  law  in  the  factory  where  she  was 
working.  She  refused  to  sign  the  letter,  as  all  of  them  do,  stating  she  knew  she 
would  lose  her  job  if  it  were  known  who  she  was.  We  reported  to  the  factory 
department  and  the  factory  was  found  guilty  of  violation  of  the  law  and  the 
employer  was  fined,  and  there  was  a  great  deal  of  inquiry  made  as  to  who  had 
given  the  information ;  and  this  particular  girl  was  summoned  to  the  employer's 
office  and  she  admitted  that  she  had  written  the  letter  of  information  and  she 
was  summarily  dismissed.  If  that  happens  only  once  or  twice,  well  and  good ; 
but  if  it  happens  all  the  time  and  forever  and  a  day,  then  that  situation  means 
a  denial  of  the  right  of  the  girl  to  her  rights  of  citizenship,  and  also  of  her 
rights  to  stand  with  her  fellow  workers. 

By  way  of  illustration,  I  feel  that  if  we  could  at  once  adjourn  to  Calumet, 
Mich.,  and  find  cut  what  is  the  reason  for  that  situation  to-day,  one  of  the  big 
things  would  be  begun  before  this  commission.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  are 
in  a  position  to  do  that  or  not,  or  whether  you  have  decided  to  take  any  action 
in  any  of  those  matters  which  are  occurring  at  the  present  moment.  But  by 
way  of  giving  you  a  sense  of  the  reaction  that  is  going  on  there  at  the  present 
moment,  when  that  Christmas  tragedy  occurred — and  the  women  in  Chicago 
had  sent  a  great  many  of  the  things  which  were  on  that  tree  when  that  ter- 
rible Christmas  tragedy  took  place — the  reaction  of  the  women  and  men  in  the 
labor  world  was  just  this:  If  that  Christmas  festival  had  been  a  festival  of 
the  rich  people's  children,  of  the  mine  owners',  and  not  of  the  mine  workers', 
everybody  who  could  possibly  be  accused  of  having  caused  that  tragedy  would 
have  been  arrested,  but  because  they  are  children  of  mine  workers  no  such 
attempt  is  made.  1  am  not  saying  that  that  is  a  fair  conclusion  to  reach,  but 
that  is  the  reaction  in  the  people's  minds. 

It  is  also  true,  I  think,  that  we  really  ought  to  understand  how  impossible 
it  is  for  us  to  tolerate  industrial  conditions  which  make  it  impossible  for  the 
women  to  feel  that  they  have  the  right  to  organize.  If  the  right  to  organize 
is  not  recognized  as  a  right  in  America,  it  ought  to  be  plainly  stated,  and  we 
will  know  where  we  are.  But  if  it  is  recognized,  then  the  courts  ought  not  to 
be  used  to  enjoin  us  from  organization,  and  woman  ought  not  to  be  deprived 
of  her  right  because  she  wants  to  join  an  organization.  In  the  capacity  of  the 
working  women  and  the  strength  they  have  within  the  four  walls  of  the  factory 
or  the  department  store  lies  the  only  chance  to  have  any  law  enforced  through- 
out the  land.  I  am  not  speaking  of  exceptions.  One  of  the  most  vivid  illus- 
trations is  the  terrible  Triangle  shirt  waist  fire  that  occurred,  as  you  will 
remember,  after  the  great  shirt-waist  strike  in  New  York.  I  believe  when 
that  strike  was  settled  something  like  90  factories  signed  up,  recognizing  the 
union.  The  Triangle  factory  Was  one  of  the  factories  that  refused  to  sign  up. 
Three  months  Inter  they  had  dismissed  every  one  of  the  girls  who  par- 
ticipated in  the  strike,  with  the  exception  of  two  of  the  newly  arrived  immi- 
grant girls  who  were  working  there.  Escape  was  made  practically  impossible 


SUGGESTIONS  OF  EXPERT  WITNESSES.  311 

because  of  the  locking  of  the  doors.  One  hundred  and  forty  seven  girls  lost 
their  lives,  as  we  know.  We  also  know  about  the  great  mass  meeting  in  Car- 
negie Hall  and  the  tremendous  demonstration  in  New  York.  A  few  months 
ago  that  same  factory  was  examined  before  one  of  the  municipal  courts  in 
New  York  City,  and  it  was  again  found  that  it  had  violated  the  fire  ordinance 
of  New  York  City  and  had  again  locked  its  doors  on  150  girls.  The  fine  of  the 
judge  was  $20.  It  is  that  sort  of  a  sense  of  never  being  able  to  get  back  at  a 
wrong  that  has  been  done  them  that  is  making  for  this  tremendous  upheaval 
in  American  industrial  life  to-day.  And  it  is  especially  necessary  that  we  stand 
for  the  right  of  organization  and  make  it  clear  that  it  is  a  right  to  be  guarded, 
as  one  of  the  liberties  to  be  guarded  by  the  courts  and  not  fought  by  the  courts 
step  by  step,  hour  after  hour,  and  day  after  day,  as  is  being  done  at  the  present 
time  in  our  industrial  world. 

After  that  Triangle  factory  fire  the  trade-union  girls  of  Chicago  got  together 
and  formed  themselves  into  a  Committee  of  the  Women's  Trade  League  of 
Chicago,  and  formed  a  fire-protective  committee,  and  called  upon  the  mayor 
and  the  city  council  and  demanded  the  enactment  of  a  fire-prevention  bureau, 
and  that  was  done.  We  wanted  very  much  to  get  information  from  the  working 
girls  and  we  had  125,000  leaflets  printed  in  five  different  languages  and  we 
asked  for  information  as  the  the  fire  protection  which  they  might  enjoy,  and 
out  of  those  125,000  leaflets  distributed  we  have  received  something  like  25,000 
answers  which,  I  think,  every  one  will  agree  is  a  pretty  big  proportion.  Of 
those  25,000  answers  which  were  sent  in  barely  1,000  had  the  names  of  any  of 
the  senders  signed  to  them  for  the  simple  reason  that  every  girl  knew  that  if 
she  gave  her  name  and  if  by  any  chance  her  name  was  known  to  her  employer, 
she  would  lose  her  job.  If  that  is  the  concensus  of  opinion  of  the  women  in  the 
second  greatest  industrial  city  in  the  world,  we  are  not  dealing  with  what  is 
just  happening  here  and  there,  but  with  a  very  great  and  important  fact,  which 
will  do  something. to  eliminate  the  condition. 

I  feel  if  it  were  possible  for  this  committee  to  look  into  the  question  of  the 
right  of  organization  and  into  the  question  of  the  courts  as  they  play  their  part, 
making  it  impossible  for  the  people  to  exercise  their  rights,  we  would  come  to  one 
of  the  underlying  causes  that  makes  for  the  dissatisfaction  in  American  life 
to-day.  And  I  think  also  that  whereas  surely  it  is  very  fine  to  be  able  to  work 
with  one  or  two  hands,  with  every  finger  protected,  and  not  have  to  work  as  a 
cripple,  minus  a  hand  or  a  leg  or  a  scalp — because  in  some  of  our  printing  estab- 
lishments at  Chicago  some  of  our  girls  have  been  scalped  because  the  machines 
were  put  so  close  together  that  the  hair  caught  in  the  machine  back  of  the 
girl — nevertheless,  it  is  not  that  sort  of  thing  that  is  going  to  eliminate  the 
difficulty.  We  are  pushing  further  away  from  the  root  of  the  matter,  unless  we 
can.  by  getting  at  the  root  of  the  matter,  see  wrhat  are  some  of  the  contributory 
causes. 

Among  some  of  the  other  contributory  causes  I  would  like  to  speak  of  the 
women's  work.  There  are  certain  things  that  have  made  it  very  difficult  for 
women  to  be  anything  but  the  underbidden  in  the  labor  market.  They  have 
come  into  the  labor  world  very  unexpectedly,  and  I  say  that,  even  though  it  is 
nearly  100  years  since  they  have  been  in  factory  life  in  America.  They  were 
untrained  to  team  work,  which  meant  they  were  untrained  to  organization. 
They  were  only  beginning  to  find  their  way  when  we  had  this  great  and  mighty 
Civil  War  in  our  midst,  which  created  a  hiatus  in  our  industrial  development 
and  industrial  life,  and  they  only  slowly  came  to  the  recognition  that  they  had 
to  translate  their  laboring  power  into  cash  value.  They  also  represent,  Mr. 
Chairman,  a  disenfranchised  group.  Every  disenfranchised  group  in  every 
country  in  the  world  is  the  more  easily  exploited.  You  only  have  to  compare 
the  exploitation  of  our  women  with  the  newly  landed  immigrant  men  and 
women  to  realize  what  is  denied  to  the  women  of  our  country  in  most  of  our 
cities  to-day.  And  being  disenfranchised  we  stand  as  the  more  readily  exploited 
group  of  labor.  There  is  a  great  attempt  very  wisely  being  made  to  introduce 
with  safety  appliances  industrial  training  into  our  public  schools.  Because  of 
the  fact  that  we  stand  disenfranchised  in  the  communities  that  trade  training 
is  being  given  to  boys  over  and  above  girls  time  and  again,  and  the  general 
thought  is  that  the  girl  is  only  a  potential  wife  and  mother.  She  is  a  potential 
wife  and  mother,  but  she  is  also  a  bread  winner,  and  I  think  it  is  exploded  as 
a  theory  that  she  is  only  in  the  industrial  world  for  seven  years  or  so.  We  are 
in  it,  most  of  us,  for  keeps.  At  any  rate,  the  last  investigation  made  by  the 
legislature  showed  that  women  stayed  10  or  15  years,  if  not  longer,  and  that 
the  great  percentage  of  them  do  that. 


312          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

I  feel  that  it  would  be  well,  if  it  is  possible — I  do  not  know  that  it  is  or 
whether  it  comes  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  commission,  but  simply  as  one 
of  the  contributory  causes,  and  I  do  want  to  make  it  clear  that  I  recognize  it 
is  not  an  underlying  cause,  that  equal  opportunity  for  training  is  given  to  the 
girls  and  boys,  and  that  the  girl  therefore  enters  the  trade  through  the  open 
door  and  not  as  an  underbidder  through  the  back  door.  Of  over  300  occupa- 
tions and  trades  listed  in  the  United  States  Government  reports,  women  are 
to  be  found  in  nearly  300,  and  therefore  to  try  to  train  women  in  300  trades 
simply  by  teaching  them  sewing  and  bookkeeping  is  making  them  more  difficult. 
We  also  know  in  our  various  city  halls  that  whatever  stenographic  positions 
are  to  be  won,  even  through  civil  service,  the  women  may  stand  first  on  the 
list,  but  they  are  displaced  by  the  men  simply  because  the  men  represent  the 
enfranchised  group. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Then  how  about  the  wages  of  the  women  that  they  are 
demanding? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Lennon,  I  am  very  glad  you  mentioned  that. 
When  women  are  taken,  the  reason  they  have  been  taken  in  such  large  measure 
is  because  they  were  taken  as  cheapening  labor,  and  the  struggle  between  the 
women  and  men  in  the  labor  movement  has  been  very  tragic  because  of  that 
fact,  that  the  men  have  recognized  her  coming  into  the  labor  world  as  an  un- 
trained group,  utterly  unknowing  the  conditions  under  which  they  are  asked 
to  work  and  underbidding  continuously.  And  yet  we  are  beginning  to  make 
the  women  understand  that  if  they  underbid  themselves  they  are  their  worst 
competitor,  because  somehow  or  other  she  may  marry  that  man  and  be  asked 
to  live  on  the  wage  she  has  cut  down.  So  one  of  the  things  we  have  to  do  is  to 
realize  we  have  got  to — I  think  I  may  say  this — our  women,  I  think,  must  stand 
more  than  the  men  as  the  group  in  the  sweated  industries.  Now,  we  have  to 
see  that  that  sweated  industry  in  which  we  find  ourselves  is  absolutely 
abolished. 

Of  course,  the  abolition  of  home  work,  I  suppose,  is  to  be  enacted  nationally, 
or  at  least  through  every  State,  as  far  as  we  can  make  the  people  understand  it. 
But  this  question  of  wage  we  feel  can  perhaps  be  thought  out  wisely  by  a 
creation  of  minimum-wage  boards  for  women  and  for  minors,  not  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  flat  rate  (I  am  now  speaking  for  the  delegates  of  the  National 
Women's  Trades  Union  League),  but  by  helping  to  establish  minimum  wage 
boards  for  every  industry,  and  to  get  the  collective  thoughts  of  the  men  and 
women  in  the  industry,  the  workers  to  select  their  representatives,  the  men  of 
the  firms  to  select,  if  they  will,  their  own  representatives,  and  let  the  public 
thrash  out  the  difficulties  and  come  to  an  understanding  that  the  minimum 
wage  can  be  established.  It  has  been  established  in  other  countries  and  even 
in  our  country.  It  does  not  necessarily  mean  the  breaking  up  of  industries. 
We  found  in  the  Massachusetts  investigation  that  in  the  candy  industry  there 
was  a  difference  of  56  per  cent  in  the  wages  paid  for  the  same  work  in  the 
same  city  with  the  same  transportation  facilities  and  all  other  industrial  facili- 
ties which  went  to  make  up  that  particular  manufacture.  And  the  competition 
that  the  employer  who  wishes  to  be  square  with  his  girls  has  to  meet  when  he 
meets  an  employer  paying  less  than  $5  a  week  in  the  same  industry  is  some 
of  the  unfair  competition  we  believe  the  minimum  wage  board  will  eliminate 
altogether. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  From  your  knowledge  and  experience  how  far  do 
you  think  the  fixing  of  a  minimum  wage  by  the  State  would  tend  to  make  that 
minimum  a  maximum? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  It  is  because  of  the  fear  of  making  the  minimum  a  maximum 
wage  that  we  do  not  wish  a  flat  rate  introduced.  I  have  been  speaking  of 
Chicago  because  I  am  more  familiar  with  conditions  there  than  I  am  with  con- 
ditions anywhere  else.  We  would  like  a  minimum  for  the  box-making  industry, 
but  we  would  like  to  have  it  established  in  this  way:  We  would  like  to  have 
the  workers  meet  with  the  manufacturers  and  thrash  out  the  minimum  wage. 
Then  we  would  feel  that  that  minimum  wage  could  not  be  permanently  estab- 
lished for  all  times.  It  must  be  a  fluctuating  minimum,  and  later  on  there 
ought  to  be  the  right  to  have  another  meeting  at  the  request  either  of  the 
workers  or  their  employers  for  the  establishment  of  another  wage. 

Commissioner   WEINSTOCK.  But   ultimately   it   would   mean   that   the   wage 
would  be  fixed  by  the  power  and  authority  of  the  State? 
Mrs.  ROBINS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Now,  having  been  fixed  by  the  power  and  author- 
ity of  the  State,  how  much  danger  is  there  of  the  minimum  becoming  the 
maximum? 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  313 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  None  at  all,  if  the  workers  are  franchisee!  and  if  there  is  the 
power  to  recall  the  minimum-wage  board. 

There  are  many  other  things  that  I  could  go  on  and  speak  to  you  about. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  On  this  question  of  safety,  in  addition  to  the 
question  of  safety  of  life  and  limb,  do  you  think  there  should  also  be  attention 
paid  to  the  physical  safety  and  welfare  of  the  employees? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Surely. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  that  safety  organizations,  in  addition  to 
seeing  that  safety  appliances  are  installed,  should  take  into  consideration  the 
correcting  of  machines  so  as  to  preserve  the  health  of  the  workers? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Surely ;  and  also  I  would  look  upon  the  shorter  workday  as 
one  of  the  most  important  things  connected  with  safety  and  sanitation.  It  is 
quite  idle  talk  about  safety  and  sanitation  unless  we  have  the  eight-hour  day, 
because  we  all  know  what  results  from  fatigue  caused  by  working  excessive 
hours. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  remarked  a  little  while  ago  that  one  of  the 
underlying  difficulties  is  the  fact  that  women,  especially,  are  not  given  oppor- 
tunities to  organize? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  would  you  remedy  that?  Of  course  you 
stand  for  unionism,  for  collective  bargaining? 

Mrs.   ROBINS.  Surely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  you  have  the  State  establish  a  preference 
for  union  workers,  as  it  does  in  New  Zealand,  for  example? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  I  think  I  would  leave  it  to  the  individual  worker.  Unless  we 
study  the  industrial  situation  very  intimately  I  do  not  think  we  can  under- 
stand how  continuously  the  powers  that  be  are  used  to  make  union  organiza- 
tion impossible.  We  girls  in  Chicago  had  a  meeting  at  which  Mrs.  Joseph  T. 
Bowen  spoke,  and  the  purpose  of  that  meeting  was  to  form  a  union  for  the 
bettering  of  conditions  in  department  stores. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Why  not  have  the  State  say  that  it  is  not  unlaw- 
ful to  organize? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  there  any  State  to-day  that  says  it  is  un- 
lawful to  organize? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Thousands  of  employers  make  their  own  laws  to-day,  and  make 
it  unlawful  for  the  girls  to  organize  by  discharging  them  for  organizing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  do  not  make  it  unlawful  to  organize. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  employer  creates  the  law,  makes  a  law  unto 
himself. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  exercises  his  individual  rights. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Yes ;  and  they  are  supported  by  the  courts. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  I  think  Mrs.  Robins  has  the  floor.  If  we  get  into  an 
argument  here,  we  will  never  get  out  of  it. 

The  CHAIHMAN.  Yes ;  Mrs.  Robins  has  the  floor. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  What  I  was  trying  to  say  was  that  if  we  had  a  State  law 
standing  for  the  right  to  organize,  then  we  ought  to  see  to  it  that  the  courts 
guaranteed  that  right,  so  that  we  should  not  talk  up  in  the  air.  We,  as  Ameri- 
can people,  are  standing  for  self-government  and  all  that.  We  know  that  we 
do  not  always  live  up  to  it,  but  still  it  stands  as  one  of  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  our  American  lives  and  thought.  If  we  could  make  self-government 
one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  industrial  life,  and  if  we  could  prevent 
the  courts  from  usurping  the  power  to  deny  the  rights  of  the  workers,  I  think 
we  would  get  at  one  of  the  underlying  causes  of  the  existing  conditions  of 
unrest. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Speaking  for  myself,  what  you  say  is  a  revela- 
tion to  me.  I  thought  I  was  reasonably  familiar  with  the  labor  laws  of  the 
country,  at  least  as  familiar  as  the  average  man,  but  this  is  the  first  time  I 
have  heard  that  it  is  made  unlawful — unless  I  misunderstood  you — that  any 
State  law  says  it  is  unlawful  for  men  to  organize  or  for  women  to  organize. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  The  whole  power  of  the  machinery  of  the  courts  and  the  police 
power  of  the  State  are  used  to  make  it  impossible  for  the  people  to  organize. 
The  right  is  simply  a  paper  right  and  has  no  vitality,  and  so  it  is  worthless. 
By  way  of  illustration,  about  400  young  women  came  to  this  department  store 
meeting.  They  came  from  the  department  stores  on  State  Street  in  Chicago, 
and  among  them  was  a  young  woman  who  had  been  working  for  15  years. 
We  did  not  form  an  organization  that  night.  Mrs.  Joseph  T.  Bowen,  of 
Chicago,  spoke.  This  particular  young  woman  and  many  another  were  at  once 


314          KEPOKT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

dismissed.  This  particular  young  woman  who  had  worked  for  15  years  was 
dismissed,  and  was  blacklisted  in  every  State  Street  store.  What  I  mean  is 
that  if  she  could  get  her  rights,  if  she  had  any  chance  of  getting  her  rights, 
it  would  be  so  that  that  particular  employer  would  be  told  that  he  was  not 
within  his  own  rights  in  doing  those  things,  and  then  we  would  not  have  the 
continuous  power  of  the  employer  used,  by  his  refusing  to  employ  people  who 
join  organizations,  and  we  would  not  have  the  employers  supported  by  the 
police  powers  and  the  courts. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  think  the  State  could  go  as  far  as  that? 
Do  you  think  this  board  could  recommend  anything  of  that  sort  that  would 
not  be  one-sided?  For  example,  the  worker  under  the  law  reserves  to  himself 
the  right  to  leave  the  service  of  liis  employer  for  any  reason  or  for  no  reason. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Now,  should  not  the  employer  then  have  the 
right  to  retire  any  of  his  people  for  any  reason  or  for  no  reason? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  That  is  begging  the  question,  isn't  it,  because  if  we  do  not  make 
it  possible  for  men  and  women  to  do  that  which  they  think  is  right  and  which 
the  law  of  the  State  tells  them  is  right,  if  they  can  not  act  upon  that  right, 
then  the  right  is  invalid. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  I  can  compel  my  employer  to  retain  me,  he 
ought  to  be  able  to  compel  me  to  remain  in  his  service,  and  if  he  can  not 
compel  me  to  remain  in  his  service  I  do  not  see  how  I  can  compel  him  to  keep 
me  when  he  does  not  want  me. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  You  would  not  think  an  employer  was  acting  within  his  rights, 
even  though  he  might  be  acting  within  his  power,  to  dismiss  an  employee 
because  he  was  a  Roman  Catholic  or  a  Mohammedan? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  would  have  a  perfect  right  to  do  it. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  But  you  would  not  feel  that  he  was  living  within  his  rights  to 
dismiss  people  because  they  were  members  of  a  particular  church?  You  would 
say  there  was  something  wrong  in  his  doing  that? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  long  as  the  workers  have  the  right  to  leave 
the  service  of  an  employer  who  is  a  Catholic,  a  Protestant,  a  Jew,  or  a  Christian 
because  he  is  one  of  those  things  the  employer  certainly  has  the  right  to  dismiss 
an  employee  for  the  same  reason,  and  I  do  not  see  how  the  law  can  compel 
him  to  do  otherwise. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  If  the  employer  does  not  care  whether  his  employee 
is  a  Roman  Catholic  or  an  Episcopalean,  a  Methodist  or  a  Baptist,  why  should 
the  employer  object  to  that  girl  becoming  a  member  of  a  trade-union? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Because  the  beginning  is  made  for  his  having  a  self-governing 
group  within  his  factory.  This  theory  of  industrial  autocracy  is  still  very 
much  with  us  in  our  midst.  Man  after  man  will  do  everything  under  heaven 
for  his  workers  except  give  them  the  right  to  decide  certain  questions  for 
themselves.  There  is  no  getting  away  from  that.  All  this  so-called  welfare 
work  is  but  the  expression  of  that.  It  says,  "  We  will  give  you  bread  or  we 
will  give  you  roses,  but  we  will  give  you  nothing  to  say  about  it."  We  are 
going  to  have  one  tremendous  volcanic  eruption  unless  the  workers  are  given 
that  right,  and  that  is  one  of  the  great  underlying  causes. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  Why  do  the  employers  refuse  that? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Some  of  them  do  it  because  they  are  living  in  the  conditions 
of  the  past.  I  remember  when  I  went  in  the  box-making  industry  in  New 
York  City  there  was  an  employer  who  was  employing  no  one  except  nonunion 
people,  and  he  was  employing  not  only  nonunion  people,  but  little  girls,  and 
he  was  asked  to  recognize  the  union.  He  said  with  a  great  deal  of  emphasis 
that  neither  his  father  nor  his  grandfather  had  recognized  the  union,  and 
neither  would  he.  I  suggested  that  probably  his  son  and  his  grandson  would 
recognize  the  union,  and  why  could  he  not  be  a  leader  in  the  family  instead  of 
a  follower.  I  think  there  are  a  great  many  more  who  are  living  in  the  past. 

It  is  not  only  in  industry  that  men  think  they  know  better  than  other  people. 
Our  present  political  upheavel  is  due  to  the  fact  that  certain  men  have  thought 
it  was  their  right  to  decide  certain  questions  for  others ;  and  this  democracy 
of  industry  is  just  a  later  development  of  political  and  religious  democracy. 
We  have  got  to  have  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  it  or  is  it  not  a  fact  that  in  certain  States  of 
the  Union  there  is  a  law  which  makes  it  illegal  to  blacklist  an  employee? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  it  does  not  make  it  illegal  to  dismiss  an 
employee,  but  does  make  it  illegal  to  blacklist  him?  • 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  315 

,     Mrs.  ROBINS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  not  that  a  protection  to  the  worker? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  No ;  because  if  you  do  not  have  at  your  command  the  highest 
legal  ability  or  great  legal  ability,  you  will  be  defeated  in  the  courts? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  A  case  has  never  been  sustained  or  proved. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  I  think  you  are  right  about  that.  We  had  a  case  against  the 
Illinois  Manufacturers'  Association,  a  case  of  the  garment  workers,  and  it  was 
proved  beyond  a  doubt  that  they  were  blacklisting  their  workers,  but  that  was 
the  end  of  the  story. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  gather  from  your  statement  that  in  your  opinion 
the  remedy  for.  industrial  unrest  would  be  to  penalize  the  employer  for  dis- 
missing a  worker  who  tried  to  organize? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  We  do  not  even  need  to  go  that  far,  if  you  will  deny  to  the 
employer  the  right  to  use  the  courts  and  the  police  power  to  work  out  his 
theory.  By  way  of  illustration,  in  a  glove  factory  in  Chicago — I  am  speaking  of 
Chicago  because  I  know  that  better  than  I  do  other  places ;  I  do  not  think 
Chicago  could  be  worse  than  other  cities,  but  I  know  more  about  it — last  sum- 
mer there  was  a  very  small  fight  of  men  and  women,  a  very  few  hundred  people 
in  the  factories  of  Chicago,  for  the  sake  of  having  some  chance  of  recognition 
of  the  union ;  that  is,  having  some  way  of  seeing  that  the  laws  were  enforced, 
that  the  fire  ordinances  were  enforced,  and  that  wages  were  up  to  the  neces- 
sities of  the  workers,  so  that  they  not  only  got  their  money  on  a  piece  of  paper, 
but  that  they  got  it.  The  police  power  of  the  city  of  Chicago  was  immediately 
put  at  the  disposal  of  those  employers,  and  they  denied  the  right  of  the  workers 
to  meet  in  an  open  field,  and  the  man  who  at  the  present  time  is  chief  of  police 
of  the  city  of  Chicago,  Mr.  Gleason,  was  at  that  time  captain  of  that  division 
of  the  police,  and  he  forbade  the  workers  to  meet  there  and  discuss  their 
grievances  in  that  open  field.  It  was  in  the  summer  time.  They  met  and 
there  was  a  scrimmage,  and  people  were  arrested  for  disorderly  conduct,  and 
they  had  the  whole  power  of  the  police  and  the  judges  and  the  courts  against 
the  workers. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  thing  works  both  ways,  because  any  number 
of  employers  in  the  city  of  San  Francisco  have  charged  that  the  courts  and  the 
police  were  utterly  failing  to  protect  their  workers  against  strikers.  There  are 
grievances  on  both  sides. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  proof  of  the  pudding  is  in  the  eating. 
The  condition  of  the  employers  and  the  condition  of  the  workers  is  the  best 
proof  of  where  the  power  lies  to-day. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  think  this  commission  would  appreciate  it  very 
much  if  you  could  accurately  point  out  how  far  you  would  have  the  law  go, 
and  how  far  you  would  have  this  commission  go  in  recommending  legislation 
along  the  lines  indicated. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  I  should  be  very  glad  to  do  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  may  not  be  able  to  do  it  offhand. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  I  will  do  it  gladly. 

Commissioner  GAKEETSON.  Do  not  a  number  of  States  now  make  it  an  un- 
lawful act  for  an  employer  to  discharge  an  employee  for  joining  the  union? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Certainly ;  and  that  is  all  we  ask. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Has  not  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  itself 
passed  at  least  one  such  act? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  that  is  the  case  then  what 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  You  might  ask  what  was  the  fate  of  that  act, 
what  the  lower  court  did  to  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Robins,  have  you  any  thought  at  the  present  time,  or 
would  you  be  willing  to  think  out  some  plans  by  which  you  could  submit  to 
us  what  you  believe  to  be  an  idea  that  will  bring  some  constructive  work  out 
of  this  thing? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Very  gladly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  thought  it  all  over,  and  have  knowledge  of  the 
laws  already  in  existence.  What  would  you  say  this  commission  could  do  now 
as  a  body  to  remedy  the  conditions  which  you  say  exist? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Of  course  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  difficulties  with  some  of 
our  laws  that  are  on  the  statute  books  is  that  public  opinion,  as  expressed  by 
the  powers  that  be,  is  not  backing  them  up  at  all.  I  should  think  one  of  the 
most  important  functions  of  this  commission  would  be  to  express  themselves 
distinctly  on  these  vital  questions,  so  that  they  would  give  force  to  public 
opinion  back  of  these  matters.  If  it  could  be  generally  admitted  as  a  law  in 


316          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

every  State  that  no  employer  has  the  right  to  dismiss  any  man  or  woman  for 
joining  a  union,  and  not  only  have  that  law  on  paper,  but  see  that  it  means 
.something  of  vital  significance  in  the  lives  of  the  workers,  I  would  think  that 
would  be  a  very  important  thing  to  do,  and  I  should  think  it  would  be  very 
important  for  this  commission  to  find  out  how  far-reaching  is  the  action  of  the 
courts  in  all  the  time  usurping  power  for  harassing  the  workers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  you  be  willing  to  give  us  an  outline  of  anything  that 
suggests  itself  to  you  as  fundamental  and  constructive  in  the  way  of  laws, 
and  also  the  most  direct  method  of  ascertaining  the  duties  of  the  courts  in  ad- 
ministering the  law  in  industrial  disputes? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Shall  I  give  it  in  writing? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  would  prefer  that  you  would  do  it  in  writing,  and 
address  it  to  Mr.  W.  J.  Lauck. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Is  it  not  the  purpose  of  this  commission  to  reach 
into  the  causes  of  the  great  industrial  unrest,  the  causes  of  the  great  industrial 
disturbances — not  some!  little  evil,  but  the  great  things  that  have  caused 
millions  of  people  to  suffer? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  I  never  can  forget  Westmoreland,  and  we  have  had  it  repeated 
in  West  Virginia,  and  now  we  are  having  it  repeated  in  Michigan.  It  seems 
impossible,  and  we  must  not  hesitate  to  try  to  find  out  where  we  are  at,  with 
these  tremendous  volcanic  eruptions  occurring  on  every  side. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  have  the  secretary  write  out  the  request  that  I 
made  of  you,  so  that  you  might  have  it. 

Mrs.  R*OBINS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  If  a  manufacturer's  plant  becomes  organized  and 
his  employees  join  a  trades-union  and  all  of  his  employees  are  members  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  would  you  consider  it  fair  on  the  part 
of  his  workmen  or  fair  on  the  part  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  if 
they  had  a  quarrel  with  some  other  concern,  perhaps  a  hundred  miles  away 
or  10  miles  away,  and  if  this  man's  plant  should  be  closed,  simply  in  order  to 
hurt  the  other  people? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  You  mean  the  sympathetic  strike-? 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Yes. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  I  think  the  sympathetic  strike  is  one  of  the  greatest  weapons 
in  the  hands  of  the  laboring  people. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Of  course  it  is,  but  is  it  right? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  you  think  it  morally  right  for  a  union 
to  go  on  a  sympathetic  strike  when  it  was  working  under  a  contract  with  an 
employer?  In  other  words,  would  you  think  it  morally  right  for  the  union  to 
violate  its  contract  in  order  to  go  out  on  a  sympathetic  strike? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  I  do  not  like  breaking  contracts,  but  sometimes  you  have  got 
to  break  them. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  justify  the  breaking  of  contracts,  do  you? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  That  depends  upon  conditions. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  not  justified  by  organized  labor. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  No.  Organized  labor  does  not  justify  sympathetic  strikes,  but 
I  was  speaking  from  my  own  individual  idea.  We  do  know  that  the  business 
of  our  lawyers  is  the  breaking  of  contracts,  because  conditions  have  changed 
and  because  of  the  necessity  to  break  contracts  between  people. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Do  you  not  think  that  the  Chicago  department  stores 
were  afraid  to  have  unions  organized  among  their  employees,  not  because  of 
objections  to  the  unions  but  because  they  feared  that  they  might  find  themselves 
closed  up  with  a  sympathetic  strike  in  their  busy  season? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  No ;  I  do  not  think  it  was  the  fear  of  a  sympathetic  strike.  I 
think  it  was  the  fear  of  having  some  of  the  conditions  in  the  department 
stores  made  public  by  people  who  could  speak  without  losing  their  jobs. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  May  I  ask,  if  it  is  permissible  to  ask,  what  branch 
of  organized  labor  you  are  affiliated  with,  or  what  branch  of  organized  labor 
you  represent? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  I  do  not  represent  any  particular  branch.  I  have  the  honor 
of  being  the  president  of  the  National  Women's  Trade  Union  League. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  that  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  No,  sir;  we  cnn  not  be  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  for  this  reason  :  We  represent  in  our  membership  men  and  women  who 
are  unionists,  men  and  women  who  believe  in  the  principle  of  trades-unionism, 
and  yet  who  are  not  trade  workers.  The  constitution  of  the  American  Federa- 


SUGGESTIONS  OF   EXPERT  WITNESSES.  317 

tion  of  Labor  does  not  make  it  possible  for  us  to  be  affiliated  as  an  organiza- 
tion with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  but  every  one  of  the  unions  be- 
longing to  the  National  Women's  Trade  Union  League  is  affiliated  with  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  You  are  speaking  for  your  association  then? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Yes,  sir ;  for  the  National  Women's  Trade  Union  League. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Of  course,  we  all  know  that  organized  labor  is 
represented  by  three  federations  or  three  elements — the  American  Federation 
of  Labor ;  the  Socialists,  pure  and  simple ;  and  the  I.  W.  W. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  do  not  mention  Mr.  Garretson's  organization. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  You  forget  Mr.  Garretson's  organization. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  I  suppose  he  thinks  that  Mr.  Garretson  can  speak 
for  himself. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  know  that  Mr.  Garretson  does  not  represent  the 
I.  W.  W. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Oh,  no. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  With  which  branch  is  your  organization  affiliated? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Our  constitution  makes  it  imperative  that  we  affiliate  with  only 
those  unions  that  are  affiliated  with  the  American  Federatoin  of  Labor,  either 
directly  or  through  the  international  union. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  On  this  question  of  breaking  contracts  I  want  to 
ask  you  one  question,  and  I  want  to  preface  that  question  with  a  certain  state- 
ment— that  in  the  40  years  of  the  existence  of  the  organization  of  which  I  am 
a  member  it  has  never  broken  a  contract.  But  what  I  want  to  ask  is  this: 
Is  it  not  true  that  the  court  itself  will  cancel  a  contract  or  forbid  the  making 
of  a  contract  that  is  against  public  policy? 

Mrs.  ROBINS).  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  And  has  not  the  court  of  conscience  as  much  right 
as  the  court  of  law? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  I  would  like  to  have  it  definitely  understood  that  I  am  not 
speaking  for  anybody  but  myself  when  I  say  that  I  for  one  believe  there  are 
times  when  the  breaking  of  a  contract  is  the  lesser  wrong,  and  I  do  think  we 
ought  to  recognize  that ;  but  I  would  also  like  to  say  that  at  the  present  time 
all  the  unions  with  which  I  have  had  any  dealings,  even  in  any  of  the  great 
fights,  have  stood  for  no  breaking  of  contracts,  nor  has  there  been  any  such 
record  in  our  history. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  order  to  straighten  out  this  idea  of  the  sympa- 
thetic strike,  if  the  women  of  one  of  the  organizations  affiliated  with  your 
organization  were  on  a  strike  against  a  reduction  of  25  cents  a  day  in  their 
wages,  and  they  were  making  dresses,  and  that  employer  took  those  dresses 
over  to  Clark  Street  to  be  made  in  another  factory  by  employees  in  that  factory, 
would  you  consider  it  justifiable  for  them  to  refuse  to  work? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Surely.    Now,  if  there  are  no  other  questions 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Suppose  they  have  a  strike  on  the  Illinois  Central 
Railway,  and  they  refused  to  allow  a  man  to  ship  freight  over  the  L.  &  N., 
would  that  be  a  justifiable  sympathetic  strike? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  I  will  let  the  Brotherhood  speak  for  itself. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  If  you  will  convince  us  that  the  L.  &  N.  is  getting 
the  money,  we  will  let  it  go;  but  the  L.  &  N.  can  not  haul  and  the  Illinois 
Central  get  the  money. 

Commissionier  BALLARD.  That  proposition  is  a  technical  point  of  railroading. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  It  is  not  technical  but  financial. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Nobody  ever  heard  of  it  until  you  suggested  it. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  If  the  Monon  got  it,  it  would  be  all  right. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  WTe  feel  the  need  of  organization  very  keenly,  because  we 
feel  that  charging  individuals  with  a  responsibility  is  the  only  way  of  obtaining 
our  rights.  If  we  have  industrial  conditions  that  simply  demand  that  a  girl 
be  an  attachment  to  a  machine,  that  means  the  turning  of  that  girl  into  a 
machine,  and  no  civilization  can  possibly  rest  upon  men  and  women  who  are 
machines  instead  of  men  and  wTomen.  Now,  we  stand  for  self-government  in 
our  American  population,  and  we  ought  to  stand  for  self-government  in  the 
workshop,  and  we  see  the  necessity  for  it  upon  every  hand.  This  need  for  self- 
protection  is  a  very  imminent  need  of  working  women.  It  it  not  a  matter  of 
small  concern,  but  it  is  a  concern  that  touches  us  immensely  and  deeply.  To 
show  you  how  vitally  it  touches  us,  quite  aside  from  protecting  our  work  and 
our  wages,  and  sanitary  appliances  and  safety  appliances,  let  me  tell  you  this 
story,  In  Newark  in  one  of  the  hat-trimming  factories,  where  the  labor  was 


318          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

unorganized,  there  was  a  young  Polish  girl  who  had  not  been  In  this  country 
very  long  and  she  was  insulted  by  one  of  the  foremen.  She  resented  the  insult 
and  the  man  said  he  would  dismiss  her.  She  was  so  startled  and  amazed  at 
the  idea  that  the  right  of  dismissal  was  in  the  hands  of  the  man  who  had  in- 
sulted her  womanhood  that  she  sat  down  and  wrote  a  letter  to  the  employer, 
put  on  a  special-delivery  stamp,  and  mailed  the  letter.  Of  course  we  do  not 
know  positively  that  the  letter  reached  her  employer,  but  we  do  know  that  the 
girl  was  dismissed,  that  for  two  weeks  she  was  looking  for  work,  a  stranger 
in  a  strange  city,  and  by  accident  she  was  found  by  some  of  my  sister's  friends 
and  given  work.  For  the  last  two  days  she  had  been  living  on  coffee  and 
rolls.  I  think  that  was  putting  it  up  pretty  stiff  to  a  working  woman  or  any- 
body else. 

Now,  in  the  same  city,  in  an  organized  factory,  there  was  also  a  foreman  who 
insulted  one  of  the  girls,  and  that  girl  resented  the  insult.  Again  the  foreman 
tried  to  dismiss  her.  She  spoke  in  very  broken  English,  but  she  pulled  out 
of  her  pocket  her  union  card  and  showed  the  words  which  say  that  you  must 
show  just  cause  for  dismissal.  She  was  wondering  what  she  could  do,  when 
a  young  English  American  girl  demanded  an  apology  of  the  foreman,  who  re- 
fused to  give  it.  She  called  a  shop  meeting  of  250  young  women  working  in 
that  factory,  and  asked  them  what  they  would  do.  They  had  a  contract,  but 
they  all  voted  then  and  there  to  go  on  a  strike  until  that  man  had  apologized. 
Now,  you  know  what  happened.  That  foreman  and  that  superintendent  were 
not  running  that  factory,  and  when  the  employer  heard  that  there  was  a 
strike,  they  had  to  tell  him  that  there  was  a  fight  on  in  his  factory ;  he  came 
down  from  one  of  his  other  places  of  business  and  asked  for  an  explanation. 
He  sent  for  Miss  Scott,  and  he  asked  her,  "  Will  your  young  women  come 
back  if  this  man  apologizes?"  She  said  "Certainly."  A  few  hours  later  the 
young  girls  were  all  back  at  work.  Then  this  employer  in  the  presence  of 
these  young  women  demanded  an  apology  from  this  man.  He  gave  it  and  then 
the  employer  turned  to  this  foreman  and  said,  "  I  stand  for  no  such  action 
toward  any  woman  in  my  employ." 

The  whole  point  is  just  this,  that  this  one  girl  was  able  to  reach  the  owner 
of  that  factory  through  the  regulated  and  established  machinery  of  the  workers' 
own  organization,  through  their  own  selected  representatives.  This  whole  ques- 
tion is  so  vital  that  we  can  not  very  well  discuss  academic  questions  in  re- 
gard to  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  May  I  invite  your  opinion  upon  one  other  ques- 
tion that  touches  upon  this  whole  matter? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  This,  of  course,  will  be  purely  an  opinion  on  your 
part.  Do  you  think  that  industrial  conditions  in  this  country  would  be  helped 
if  the  Australasian  system  was  followed  of  having  practically  closed  shops  but 
open  unions?  For  instance,  in  Australasia  the  State  deals  with  these  problems 
and,  as  a  rule,  the  judgment  of  the  industrial  court  is  that  the  employer  shall 
give  the  preference  to  unionists,  provided,  however,  that  the  union  is  an  open 
union;  that  only  a  trifling  fee  shall  be  charged  for  admission;  and  that  only  a 
trifling  weekly  fee  shall  be  paid  into  the  union ;  and  unless  the  union  is  pre- 
pared to  remain  an  open  union,  as  it  were,  then  the  unionist  is  not  given  the 
preference.  Now,  do  you  think  that  system  would  apply  in  this  country? 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Yes;  I  think  it  would  be  a  very  great  advantage.  I  am  not 
specially  or  deeply  concerned  with  giving  the  State  anything  more  to  say  upon 
these  matters  than  to  make  it  possible  for  men  and  women  to  bring  about 
their  own  united  action.  I,  of  course,  would  like  to  have  it  made  illegal  for 
any  employer  to  dismiss  a  man  or  a  woman  because  they  belong  to  an  organiza- 
tion, and  I  want  to  see  that  more  than  an  illegality  on  a  piece  of  paper.  I 
want  to  see  their  rights  protected. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Of  course  I  do  not  know  whether  you  are  aware 
of  it,  but  many  employers  in  this  country  take  the  ground  that  unionism  is 
unreasonable  because  it  demands  not  only  a  closed  shop,  but  a  closed  union  as 
well. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  I  do  not  believe  in  putting  up  barriers,  and  that  is  recognized 
as  being  just  as  wrong  within  the  labor  group  as  it  would  be  within  any  other 
group. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Ninety  per  cent  do  not  do  so. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  Yes ;  practically  90  per  cent  do  not.  I  also  know  that  when  wo 
tried  to  organize  a  group  of  workers  in  Chicago  the  girls  hesitated  for  a  long 
time,  because  they  said  if  it  was  known  that  they  were  joining  the  union  they 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  319 

would  lose  their  jobs ;  and  finally  one  young  Russian  girl  got  up  and  said, 
"We  have  had  our  fathers  and  our  mothers  willing  to  die  for  their  religion.  I 
do  not  see  but  we  might  be  willing  to  die  for  our  rights  " ;  and  my  thought  is 
that  unless  we  do  something  we  can  not  possibly  expect  to  stop  these  volcanic 
eruptions  that  are  going  on  around  us. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  One  word,  Mr.  Price.  Has  the  Wisconsin  commission  at- 
tempted to  establish  any  standards  for  the  conduct  of  industrial  plants  that 
would  conserve  the  health  of  the  employees,  as  suggested  by  Mr.  O'Connell 
here  and  by  Mrs.  Robins,  as  to  how  a  machine  should  be  operated,  the  length 
of  time  a  machine  should  be  operated  continuously,  etc.?  Have  they  done  any- 
thing of  that  kind? 

Mr.  PRICE.  It  has  not,  Mr.  Chairman;  but  it  lies  within  the  power  of  the 
industrial  commission,  and  we  have  now  in  mind,  if  it  is  not  actually  on  foot, 
the  investigation  of  just  that  condition;  and  it  lies  easily  within  the  power  of 
the  commission  to  act  upon  the  results  of  that  investigation.  We  can  not  only 
do  that,  but  we  can  go  into  the  plant  and  work  out  the  moral  well-being  of 
the  employees,  too. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  one  other  point 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  is  just  as  serious  to  break  down  a  man's  health 
as  to  take  off  his  hand  or  arm. 

Mr.  PRICE.  We  have  not  made  ourselves  clear.  When  we  say  safety  and 
sanitation,  we  mean  everything  that  concerns  the  welfare  of  the  man — mental, 
moral,  and  physical. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  O'Connell,  is  there  any  agency  that  has  made  any  sort  of 
definite  study  of  that  question,  that  you  know  of? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Of  the  physical  safety? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  know  it. 

Mr.  CAMERON.  The  laundry  workers  have  made  some  study  of  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  there  has  been  no  general  work  done  along  that  line 
by  any  public  or  private  agency?  We  are  leaving  out  safety  now  and  are 
getting  down  to  suggestions,  as,  for  instance,  the  instance  of  the  girl  who  has 
to  raise  her  foot  too  high  to  operate  the  machine  or  do  it  toovlong  every  day. 

Mr.  CAMERON.  I  think  if  you  had  Mr.  Taylor  before  you,  of  the  efficiency- 
management  bureau,  you  might  get  some  line  on  it,  because  he  is  working  along 
that  line. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  think  Mr.  Taylor  ever  figured  a  moment 
about  saving  anybody's  life.  I  think  he  has  figured  entirely  on  getting  rid 
of  life. 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  The  health  committee  of  the  Woman's  League  of  Chicago  has 
started  in  with  the  idea  of  helping  girls  after  they  are  broken  down,  and  they 
are  now  making  a  special  investigation  of  the  causes  which  make  for  the 
breaking  down  of  girls  in  the  binders'  trade  industry;  so  some  of  the  women's 
leagues  are  doing  that  at  the  present  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  John  B.  Andrews,  secretary  of  the  American  Association 
for  Labor  Legislation,  is  here,  and  as  his  association  is  about  to  meet  I  would 
like  to  call  him  now. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR,.  JOHN  B.  ANDREWS. 

Mr.  ANDREWS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  commission,  I  am  not  a 
safety  expert,  but  I  want  to  say  that  the  organiaztion  which  I  represent  takes 
a  little  different  view  perhaps  of  the  problem  that  is  before  this  commission 
than  has  been  presented  by  the  speakers  this  forenoon  or  by  Mrs.  Robins  in 
her  talk  this  afternoon.  WTe  approach  the  problem  from  the  standpoint  of 
legislation,  and  our  statement  on  the  very  subject  which  has  been  discussed 
so  much  here  to-day  is  to  this  effect,  that  the  business  of  factory  inspection, 
of  the  enforcement  of  the  labor  laws,  instead  of  being  based  upon  fear,  force, 
or  favor  should  become  a  cooperative  educational  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
employer  and  employees  and  the  experts  provided  by  the  State. 

In  1909  our  association  issued  a  pamphlet  which  attempted  to  give  to  the 
people  of  this  country  an  analysis  of  the  machinery  then  existing  for  the  en- 
forcement of  labor  laws.  On  the  back  of  that  pamphlet  we  printed  this  little 
motto :  "  Labor  legislation  for  the  most  part  fails  in  its  purpose  on  account  of 
defective  administration.  Administration  is  the  great  problem  of  the  future." 

Last  week  we  issued  an  enlarged  edition  of  that  pamphlet,  including  many 


320          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

observations  that  we  had  made  during  the  four  years,  and  we  print  tlie  same 
motto  on  the  back  of  this  revised  edition. 

Of  course,  one  of  the  greatest  movements  in  the  country  to-day  is  to  prevent 
accidents.  I  know  what  wonderful  work  is  being  done  by  many  of  the  large 
corporations  and  by  such  organiaztions  as  have  been  referred  to  here  to-day. 
But  the  suggestion  that  the  work  of  this  commission  should  be  to  publish  a 
volume  of  standards  for  safety  does  not  appeal  to  me,  because  we  all  know 
that  because  of  changing  industrial  conditions  standards  fixed  in  that  way  and 
published  very  quickly  get  out  of  date.  That  brings  me  to  the  one  point  that 
I  want  to  make  before  this  commission,  and  that  is  if  the  commission  after 
its  sessions  and  after  it  goes  out  of  existence  has  not  solved  many  of  these  other 
problems  which  come  up  for  discussion  in  the  regular  field,  if  it  leaves  behind 
it  an  efficient  machinery,  whether  State  or  National,  to  look  after  this  great 
problem  from  the  standpoint  of  the  employer  and  the  employee  and  the  State, 
it  will  have  done  the  greatest  permanent  thing  that  I  believe  it  can  do. 

Now,  shortly  after  issuing  that  little  pamphlet  in  1909  we  made  some  study 
of  the  system  that  existed  in  England  and  of  the  system  that  existed  in  Massa- 
chuetts — the  board  of  boiler  inspectors — which  was  a  little  in  advance  of  the 
establishment  of  the  principle  working  now  so  well  in  Wisconsin ;  and  we  rec- 
ommended in  Massachusetts  to  a  State  commission  studying  the  problem  as  you 
are  studying  it  now  a  different  form  of  organization  for  these  State  bureaus. 
Massachusetts  is  beginning  on  that  work  now  and  is  reorganizing.  Wisconsin 
during  the  same  year  took  the  same  steps.  During  the  present  year  five  States 
have  followed  with  a  somewhat  similar  plan.  To-day  almost  one-half  of  the 
industrial  workers  of  this  country  are  under  the  protection  of  this  new  form  of 
machinery. 

In  this  little  plan  that  we  have  revised  and  brought  out  we  attempt  to  show 
as  well  as  we  can  the  plan  which  seems  to  be  working,  and  this  chart  is  com- 
prehensive and  covers  this  labor  field  and  shows  the  outlines  for  the  ma- 
chinery that  we  think  is  probably  the  one  which  is  going  to  be  followed  all 
through  the  country  in  time.  In  addition  to  that  we  have  prepared  for  our 
thousands  of  members  throughout  the  country,  who  are  represented  in  every 
State  in  the  Union,  a  colored  map  which  shows  graphically  just  what  is  being 
clone  in  these  States  as  they  build  up  the  machinery  at  the  present  time.  We 
are  putting  this  out  before  our  membership  and  before  the  public  as  the 
strongest  kind  of  an  indirect  suggestion  that  we  can  make,  and  we  are  following 
it  up  with  very  direct  work  in  the  field. 

On  Christmas  Day,  for  instance,  we  mailed  to  one  of  the  States  the  first 
tentative  draft  of  a  bill  for  reorganization  of  these  departments  in  that  State. 
This  work  is  going  on.  It  is  just  as  important  as  any  other  phase  of  the 
development  in  this  field. 

What  I  want  to  say  in  conclusion  is  this:  That  I  believed  that  after  this 
commission  has  studied  and  gone  out  of  existence  we  are  still  going  to  have 
the  labor  problem,  and  that  even  if  you  do  investigate  present  happenings  in 
the  labor  world,  like  that  at  Calumet,  we  will  probably  have  repetitions  of 
those  disturbances.  This,  however,  provides  something  that  you  can  not  now 
provide  in  your  existing  organization.  It  provides  the  permanent  machinery 
before  which  the  people  can  come  and  work  out  in  an  intelligent,  scientific  way 
through  advisory  committees  and  through  the  State  machinery  the  solutions 
of  their  problems.  I  thank  you. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  going  to  adjourn  now  for  about  five  minutes  and 
will  reconvene  immediately  thereafter  and  will  hear  Mr.  Herbert  Quick. 

(Whereupon,  a  short  intermission  was  taken,  at  the  conclusion  of  which  the 
chairman  called  the  commission  to  order.) 

The  CHAIEMAX.  Mr.  Quick. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  HERBERT  QUICK. 

Mr.  QUICK.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  commission  and  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  when  I  was  asked  by  the  chairman  of  this  commission  to  appear 
and  talk  about  agricultural  labor  conditions,  I  felt  very  diffident  about  agreeing 
to  come;  and  since  I  have  been  listening  to  the  proceedings  here  and  have 
noted  the  questions  that  members  of  the  commission  have  addressed  to  people 
Avho  have  appeared,  my  original  diffidence  has  gradually  been  transformed  into 
something  like  panic.  I  trust  that  no  member  of  the  commission  will  call  upon 
me  to  tell  just  exactly  what  I  think  this  commission  ought  to  do  with  reference 
to  the  conditions  of  agricultural  labor.  And  I  will  say  now  in  anticipation  of 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  321 

the  repetition  of  the  suggestion  of  one  member  of  the  commission,  that  this 
commission  can  do  nothing  except  recommend  legislation,  that  if  that  is'  all 
you  can  do,  I  have  very  little  to  suggest  with  reference  to  agricultural  labor. 
I  do  not  believe,  however,  that  the  commission,  after  entering  into  their  great 
and  important  labors,  will  find  that  their  duties  and  feel  that  their  work  will 
be  entirely  confined  to  the  matter  of  recommending  legislation.  I  think  they 
will  discover  that  there  are  some  fields  of  the  industrial  life  of  this  country 
that  they  will  find  themselves  able  to  examine,  analyze,  describe,  map  out,  and 
place  before  the  people  of  the  country  in  such  a  way  that  it  will  at  least  be 
recognized  that  there  is  a  problem,  whether  there  is  any  solution  presented 
or  not. 

The  agricultural  industrial  conditions  are  very  difficult  of  approach.  The 
subject  comprises  the  largest  body  of  unorganized  laborers  and  unorganized 
employers  dealing  with  the  most  important  single  problem  in  the  life  of  the 
country.  There  are  about  5,000,000  agricultural  laborers  in  the  United  States, 
I  believe,  hired  laborers.  Their  relations  to  the  production  of  the  country,  their 
function  in  feeding  and  clothing  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
world,  is  tremendously  important.  They  have  no  organization.  We  have  no 
such  things  as  these  volcanic  disturbances  wThich  the  last  speaker  upon  this  floor 
described  to  you  in  this  great  group  of  laborers.  It  would  be  vastly  more  fortu- 
nate for  us,  I  am  persuaded,  if  we  did  have.  The  hopelessness  or  the  difficulty 
at  least — I  will  not  say  hopelessness — lies  in  the  fact  that  there  is  no  such 
community  of  thought,  no  such  union  of  action  on  their  part  as  to  lead  to  any 
disturbance  of  any  kind  anywhere.  And  we  have  this  great  sodden  mass,  very 
largely  of  casual  labor,  scattered  all  over  the  country,  and  we  are  asked  now  to 
take  up  the  question  of  looking  into  the  matter  and  seeing  whether  there  are  any 
things  writh  reference  to  this  great  body  of  labor  which  this  commission  can 
properly  concern  itself  with.  It  is  not  even  a  question  of  one  class  of  laborers. 
We  have  in  the  South  one  class  of  industrial  conditions ;  we  have  even  in  the 
South  decidedly  different  conditions  in  Texas  from  those  that  prevail  in  Vir- 
ginia; we  have  the  casual  labor  conditions  of  the  great  wheat  State;  we  have 
the  chronic  scarcity  of  farm  labor  in  the  Middle  West ;  we  have  the  alternations 
between  city  employment  and  country  employment,  through  which  the  problem 
of  farm  labor  touches,  and  touches  strongly,  the  whole  question  of  labor  in 
cities. 

I  was  reading  the  other  day  a  speech  made  by  the  chancellor  of  the  British 
exchequer  in  opening  the  great  land  campaign  in  England,  and  in  the  course  of 
his  remarks  he  made  the  statement  that  a  survey  of  the  various  industries  of 
England  and  of  Great  Britain  showed  that  the  labor  conditions  in  literally 
hundreds  of  occupations  were  profoundly  affected  by  the  conditions  of  agricul- 
tural labor.  In  other  words,  the  interchange  of  laborers  from  ordinary  city 
wage-earning  occupations  to  rural  occupations  and  the  interrelations  between 
the  great  fundamental  industry  of  agriculture  and  the  manufacturing  and  public 
utility  interests  are  such  that  the  consideration  of  agricultural  labor  in  Great 
Britain  is  regarded  as  an  essential  part  of  the  examination  of  the  whole  field 
of  British  labor. 

Anything  that  I  might  say  or  that  anybody  else  might  say  with  reference  to 
agricultural  labor  would  be,  in  very  large  measure,  inapplicable  to  agricultural 
labor  in  California.  Anything  that  might  be  said  about  agricultural  labor  in 
California  would  need  a  great  many  modifications  if  it  were  applied  to  agricul- 
tural labor  in  Alabama.  Nevertheless  there  are  some  fundamental  principles, 
fundamental  conditions,  running  through  the  whole  matter  of  farm  labor,  which 
are  at  least  of  very  widespread  application,  and  it  is  with  reference  to  these 
that  I  am  going  to  talk  to  you  a  little  while. 

The  problem  is  still  further  complicated  by  these  facts :  First,  the  employer  of 
labor  in  agriculture  is,  to  a  very  large  extent,  himself  a  laborer.  The  employer 
works  alongside  his  man ;  he  does  the  same  kind  of  work  that  his  man  does.  On 
thousands  of  American  farms  the  agricultural  laborer  actually  reaps  more  clear 
cash  from  his  labor  than  his  employer  gets  from  his.  The  thing  is  further  com- 
plicated by  the  enormous  increase  in  tenant  farming  in  the  United  States. 
I  was  born  on  a  farm  in  the  Middle  West  and  worked  upon  the  farm  until  I  was 
20  or  25  years  old,  and  I  am  able  to  understand  and  perhaps  to  recall  to  the 
minds  of  most  of  you  who  know  of  probably  the  same  fact  some  of  the  changes 
which  have  taken  place  in  the  last  25  or  35  or  40  years  in  rural  conditions  in 
the  United  States. 

When  I  was  a  boy  the  farm  hands  of  the  neighborhood  in  which  I  lived — and 
it  was  true  practically  all  over  the  United  States — were  recruited  from  the  boys 

38819°— 16 21 


322          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OK"    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

of  the  owners  of  farms  in  tli.it  neighborhood.  The  owner  of  160  acres  of  land 
who  had  a  family  of  four  or  live  or  three  or  four  boys  would  allow  these  young 
rnen  to  hire  out  to  the  neighbors,  and  the  farm  hand  of  that  day  was  a  member 
of  the  local  community,  a  thoroughly  prominent  member  of  society,  if  he  had 
the  ability  to  make  himself  such ;  associated  on  terms  of  perfect  equality  with 
his  employer  and  with  his  employer's  sons  and  daughters  and  entered  upon  the 
business  of  a  farm  laborer — a  field  hand — for  the  express  purpose  of  earning 
money  enough  so  that  he  might  buy  a  farm  and  become  a  farmer  on  his  owii 
account.  That  ambition  was  one  which  any  young  man  might  very  easily  and 
very  hopefully  harbor. 

To-day  the  situation  has  changed  to  an  enormous  extent,  and  is  changing 
with  an  accelerated  rapidity.  To-day  the  farm  hand  of  the  United  States  is  in 
most  cases  a  casual  laborer.  He  goes  from  farm  to  farm  seeking  such  labor  as 
he  can  do.  He  is  ordinarily  a  man  who  has  lost  hope ;  he  is  a  bit  of  human 
wreckage ;  he  has  no  idea  of  ever  owning  a  farm  or  anything  else,  except  the 
clothes  upon  his  back ;  he  is  in  Texas  to-day,  in  Kansas  next  month,  in  Minne- 
sota a  short  time  afterwards ;  he  starts  at  the  Gulf  and  he  follows  the  harvest 
fields  until  they  end  on  the  prairies  of  Saskatchewan ;  and  then  he  drifts  back 
to  Chicago  or  some  of  the  other  large  cities,  accumulates  disease,  habits  of  dis- 
sipation, and  gradually  loses  even  the  self-respect  which  causes  him  to  work, 
becomes  a  tramp,  and,  at  last,  what  becomes  of  him?  That  is  a  subject,  gentle- 
men, for  you  to  consider.  I  do  not  know  what  does  become  of  the  tramp  finally. 
You  know  we  hardly  ever  find  a  dead  bird  or  a  dead  wild  animal  of  any  kind ; 
somehow,  when  the  time  comes  for  them  to  die,  they  just  disappear.  Well,  it  is 
just  about  the  same  way  with  this  human  wreckage  which  drifts  around  across 
the  country  and  to  a  very  large  extent  mans  the  farms  of  the  United  State*.  In 
some  mysterious  way  they  disappear.  They  die,  just  how,  just  where,  we  do 
not  know.  Suicide,  death  under  the  trucks  of  the  railroad  train,  in  one  way  or 
another ;  murder,  assassination.  They  amount  to  nothing  in  society,  they  have 
no  ties  anywhere,  and  they  go,  and  nobody  cares  anything  about  it,  and  nobody 
knows  anything  about  it.  This  is  the  laborer,  in  very  large  measure,  whose 
relations  in  the  United  States  this  commission  if  it  investigates  the  agricul- 
tural relations  must  consider. 

Now,  the  field  hands — the  casual  labor,  the  local  labor — because  there  is  some 
localized  and  residence  agricultural  labor  in  most  neighborhoods,  is  only  part  of 
the  problem,  and  if  you  confine  your  investigations  purely  to  the  question  of 
wage  earners  you  will  have  hardly  reached  into  the  heart  of  the  question. 

In  the  State  of  Illinois  53  per  cent  of  the  farms  are  tilled  by  tenants,  so  that 
only  47  farms  out  of  100  are  under  the  control  of  their  owners.  Of  tin- 
men out  of  100,  they  hire  from  1  to  3  or  5  men  upon  their  farm,  so  that  the 
number  of  actual  farmers — actual  men  resident  upon  farms  who  own  their  own 
farms — is  reduced  to  a  very  small  percentage  of  the  actual  hands  engaged  upon 
farms.  The  other  53  per  cent  of  the  farms  are  operated  by  tenant  farmers. 
These  tenant  farmers  in  the  main  are  under  leases  which  terminate  from  year 
to  year,  so  that  53  per  cent  of  farm  families  in  the  State  of  Illinois — and  it  is 
only  a  little  bit  better  in  the  surrounding  States,  I  think  it  is  37  per  cent  in 
Nebraska,  and  there  are  some  States,  I  presume,  that  are  worse  in  this  respect 
than  Illinois — 53  per  cent  of  the  farm  families  in  the  State  of  Illinois  are  home- 
less on  the  1st  of  every  March.  These  men  who  are  engaged  in  tenant  farming, 
some  of  them,  are  prosperous,  but,  in  the  main,  if  you  will  talk  with  anybody 
who  understands  anything  about  a  rational,,  scientific,  and  humane  system  of 
farm  tenantry,  will  laugh  at  the  idea  of  a  man  making  money  on  a  farm,  or 
making  anything  except  a  mere  existence  on  the  farm  which  he  holds  merely 
from  year  to  year.  Considered  in  one  way,  the  American  system  of  farm  ten- 
ancy is  the  system  which  tends  to  rob  from  25  to  50  per  cent  of  the  far 
upon  the  farms  of  anything  better  than  they  are  now  engaged  in ;  and  considered 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  conservation  of  our  fundamental  resources,  the  Amer- 
ican farm  leases  constitute  a  criminal  conspiracy  between  the  owner  of  the  farm 
and  the  tenant  on  it  to  rob- the  farm  of  everything  which  can  make  it  usol'ul  to 
posterity.  These  tenant  farmers  are  not,  technically  speaking,  wage  wmiors. 
They  hire  wage  earners  to  do  the  work  which  they  can  not  do.  And  it  is  this 
class,  in  the  main,  who  make  less  out  of  their  farms  than  the  farm  laborers  do 
whom  they  hire,  considering  the  number  of  days'  work  they  put  in. 

The  lowest-paid  class  of  laborers  in  the  United  States.  I  think,  gentlemen,  all 
things  considered,  are  the  tenant  farmers  of  the  United  States.  I  do  not  b^.Mrve 
that  the  sweatshop  industry  of  the  country  can  show  as  low  a  scale  of  remuner- 
ation as  is  shown,  in  the  final  analysis  when  you  work  out  the  actual  number  of 


SUGGESTIONS  OF   EXPERT  WITNESSES.  323 

men,  women,  and  children,  upon  tlie  average  tenant's  farm  in  the  United  States. 
Tliis  is  a  labor  question,  an  industrial  question,  which  is  perfectly  enormous  in 
its  importance  and  very  crucial  in  its  import  to  the  United  States;  very  deter- 
minative of  the  production  of  our  fields ;  very  closely  related  to  the  question  of 
the  feeding  of  our  increasing  population. 

Farm  laborers  are  unorganized;  farm  tenants  are  unorganized;  employers  are 
unorganized  in  the  agricultural  field.  This  lack  of  organization  on  all  sides  is 
one  of  the  things  which  I  think  this  commission  should  study.  The  fact  that  in 
one  State  there  may  exist  a  plethora  of  labor  and  that  in  another  State  there 
may  exist  a  scarcity  or  labor,  and  that  there  are  now  in  existence  no  agencies  of 
any  consequence  for  directing  labor,  for  intelligently  distributing  it,  for  adver- 
tising the  fact  of  farm  opportunities,  for  protecting  the  people  who  seek  farm 
opportunities  from  the  exploitations  of  unscrupulous  people  who  are  always 
advertising  farm  opportunities,  is  a  matter  which,  it  seems  to  me,  this  commis- 
sion could  very  well  consider. 

In  the  main,  as  I  see  it,  the  change  which  has  taken  place  in  the  last  40  years 
in  American  farm  labor,  is  the  result  of  the  pressure  of  population,  and  the 
consequent  increase  in  the  price  of  farm  lands.  The  farm  upon  which  I  was 
born  a  little  over  50  years  ago  was  at  that  time  worth  $4  or  $5  an  acre,. 
It  is  now  worth  $250  an  acre.  The  price  of  land  in  the  Middle  West  has  risen, 
until  there  are  very  few  portions  of  the  agricultural  world  where  land  is  so 
high.  I  believe  that  the  average  price  of  farm  land  in  Iowa  is  considerably 
higher  than  it  is  in  England.  I  think  that  in  order  to  find  farm  land  higher 
in  price  than  that  of  Iowa,  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  some  of  our  richer  States, 
you  will  have  to  go  to  Holland,  Belgium,  and  some  parts  of  France  and 
Germany.  The  condition  is  getting  worse  instead  of  better.  It  may  seem 
rather  surprising  that  I  stand  here  speaking  of  the  high  price  of  farm  land 
as  an  evil.  Ordinarily,  writers  on  economics  are  constantly  referring  to  the 
increase  in  the  price  of  land  as  an  evidence  of  the  prosperity  of  the  community 
in  which  it  occurs.  There  is  no  doubt  that  it  is,  to  a  large  extent,  a  rejection 
of  the  ability  to  produce,  of  the  community ;  but  no  one,  I  think,  can  examine 
the  subject  carefully  without  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  farming  as  an 
occupation,  is  enormously  prejudiced  by  the  rapid  increase  in  the  price  of 
farm  lands ;  and  this  price  in  the  last  10  years  has  increased  on  an  average 
all  over  the  United  States  to  an  extent  equal  to  from  50  to  300  per  cent,  an 
increase  in  the  price  of  land  absolutely  unprecedented,  I  think,  in  the  history  of 
any  country  in  any  age.  This  is  an  industrial  problem  of  the  gra vest  *  im- 
portance. It  brings  industrial  disturbance  and  brings  the  necessity  for  in- 
dustrial readjustments  of  a  character  that  are  basic  and  of  tremendous 
importance. 

Three  or  four  years  ago  in  my  study  of  farming  conditions — and  this  is  a 
digression,  ladies  and  gentlemen — I  became  impressed  with  the  necessity  of 
farm  statistics,  the  great  lack  of  accurate  information  as  to  what  pays  and 
what  does  not  pay  on  farms.  We  are  always  talking  to  the  farmer  and  telling 
him  he  ought  to  keep  accounts.  In  the  course  of  some  years  of  examination 
I  found  he  could  not  keep  accounts,  and  no  one  of  us  could  keep  accounts,  if 
we  were  on  farms.  Nobody  can  keep  account  on  the  farm  if  he  is  going  to  do 
anything  else.  It  is  a  tremendously  complicated  problem.  So  with  all  the 
entlmsiam  of  faulty  information,  I  started  out  to  cure  this  evil,  and  so  I  made 
up  my  mind  I  would  organize  cooperative  organizations  for  the  purpose  of 
keeping  account.  It  was  a  perfectly  fine  scheme,  to  get  the  members  of  a 
farmers'  club  to  agree  that  they  would  have  a  man  who  would  keep  their 
accounts  and  keep  accurate  statistics,  so  that  every  man  would  know  just 
what  every  week's  operation  paid  on  his  farm,  exactly  as  Mr.  Delano  knows 
what  the  operation  on  his  railroad  pays. 

So  I  went  up  to  a  little  town  in  Wisconsin  and  made  a  speech  and  impressed 
those  farmers  to  such  an  extent  that  they  said  they  would  like  to  go  into  it.  I 
said  all  right,  it  will  be  good  copy  for  nie,  and  I  will  pay  a  part  of  this  thing, 
and  we  will  get  the  University  of  Wisconsin  to  delegate  a  man  to  do  the  other 
part,  and  you  can  pay  part  of  it,  and  we  will  have  a  man  who  will  act  as 
statistician  and  accountant  for  the  whole  neighborhood ;  and  they  said  all 
right,  we  will  do  it.  I  went  down  to  the  university  and  went  to  see  the 
agricultural  accountant  and  said,  "  I  want  you  to  get  me  up  a  system  of 
statistics  so  we  can  absolutely  figure  out  the  profits  of  farming."  He  put  me  off 
from  day  to  day  and  from  week  to  week  and  from  month  to  month,  and  said 
he  would  do  it,  and  finally  he  said,  "  Look  here,  I  can  not  give  you  any  such 
system  as  that."  I  asked  "Why"?  He  said  "I  don't  know  how."  I  said  "I 


324          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

will  go  to  Spillman  clown  here  at  Washington  and  he  will  give  me  a  system." 
He  said  "  I  had  something  to  do  with  getting  up  Spillman's  system.  It  isn't 
any  good." 

I  said,  "Where  is  there  a  system  that  we  can  use?"  And  he  said,  "Nobody 
knows  anything  about  it."  I  said,  "  We  have  been  roasting  the  farmer  for 
years  because  he  has  not  kept  accounts,  and  you  agricultural  economists  do 
not  know  how  to  do  it;  how  do  you  expect  the  farmer  to  do  it?"  He  said, 
"  Nobody  knows  how  to  do  it."  I  replied,  "  I  think  we  will  figure  out  a  scheme 
in  a  year  or  two."  But  he  said :  "  The  big  problem  is  this :  If  Wisconsin  land 
is  selling  for  $125  an  acre,  we  will  say,  and  it  rents  for  $3  a  year,  on  a  basis 
of  a  20-year  purchase,  that  land  is  economically  worth  $60  an  acre,  but  it 
will  sell  in  the  market  for  $125.  What  are  you  going  to  do  with  the  difference 
between  $60,  the  economic  value,  and  $125,  which  is  the  actual  selling  value  of 
it?  Are  you  going  to  charge  that  up  against  farming?  If  you  do,  it  is  unfair 
to  the  farm." 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  Charge  it  to  experience  is  what  I  do. 

Mr.  QUICK.  Well,  if  you  are  going  into  the  matter  on  this  commission,  you 
will  have  a  great  deal  more  than  you  can  charge  up  to  a  superior.  The  fact  of 
the  matter  is  that  the  difference  between  the  $60  and  the  $125  is  an  account 
which  ought  to  be  charged  to  land  speculation,  and  it  is  that  difference  between 
$60  and  $125  which  is  gradually  dividing  the  rural  population  of  the  United 
States  into  an  aristocracy  on  one  hand  owning  property  too  valuable  for  the 
laboring  man  ever  to  acquire  and  a  peasantry,  the  most  miserable  peasantry 
in  the  world,  engaged  in  the  work  of  doing  the  labor,  and  furnishing  this 
agricultural  labor  which  you  are  going  to  investigate  upon  these  farms. 

To-day  farm  land  is  going  through  the  process  which  a  handful  of  diamonds 
would  go  through,  if  you  were  to  scatter  a  handful  of  diamonds  about,  and 
they  were  picked  up  by  the  people  on  the  street.  It  might  be  said  anybody 
has  got  just  as  good  a  chance  to  get  a  diamond  as  anybody  else. 

Commissioner  GAREETSON.  Do  not  look  at  me  when  you  say  that. 

Mr.  QUICK.  I  will  try  to  refrain  from  it.  But  before  those  diamonds  had 
been  in  the  hands  of  the  people  who  scrambled  for  them  and  picked  them  up, 
before  the  episode  had  been  a  month  old,  who  would  have  the  diamonds?  The 
people  who  picked  them  up?  No ;  the  people  who  could  afford  to  have  diamonds 
would  have  them.  And  to-day  if  you  wrould  parcel  out  the  lands  of  the  United 
States,  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  for  instance,  where  Mr.  Garretson  and  myself 
were  both  born,  if  you  would  parcel  out  the  lands  of  the  United  States  into  the 
hands  of  the  poor  people  of  the  country,  they  would  gradually  gravitate  into 
the  hands  of  the  people  who  can  afford  to  hold  an  investment  of  $125  that 
will  only  pay  interest  on  $60.  That  is  the  thing  which  is  putting  the  lands 
of  the  country  into  the  hands  of  the  few  and  separating  the  poor  from  these 
lands. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  about  the  common  ownership? 

Mr.  QUICK.  The  common  ownership  of  land  is  not  recognized  in  this  country. 
Of  course,  you  do  not  mean  common  ownership.  You  mean  probably  the  asser- 
tion by  the  community  of  that  right  to  land  which  belongs  strictly  to  the  com- 
munity. I  might  talk  upon  that  and  be  very  glad  to.  I  think  that  is  a  ques- 
tion which  will  eventually  have  to  be  faced,  namely,  that  the  selling  price  of 
land,  exclusive  of  improvements,  is  in  no  sense  of  the  word  the  rightful  prop- 
erty of  any  man,  but  belongs  fundamentally  to  the  community  which  produces 
it,  and  must  be  returned  to  the  community  which  produces  it,  and  when  that 
is  done  this  enormous  selling  price  of  land  will  be  gone,  and  it  will  once  more 
be  within  the  power  of  the  man  who  labors  to  get  land  upon  which  to  labor. 

When  I  was  asked  to  appear  before  this  commission,  I  wrote  to  two  men 
asking  what,  in  their  opinion,  ought  to  be  done  by  this  commission  in  the 
matter  of  agricultural  labor.  One  man  to  whom  I  wrote  was  born  upon  a 
Wisconsin  farm  some  37  years  ago,  and  grew  up  on  a  farm,  and  never  did 
any  tiling  except  the  work  of  a  field  hand  until  about  a  year  ago,  whon  his 
ability  as  a  writer  was  recognized,  and  he  was  suddenly  lifted  out  of  this  farm, 
upon  which  he  never  had  earned  more  than  $250  or  $300  a  year  as  a  fiold  hand, 
and  removed  to  one  of  the  largest  cities  of  the  country  and  placed  in  an  edi- 
torial position,  whore  he  is  now  making  good  as  an  editor.  I  wrote  to  him  and 
told  him  I  wished  he  would  give  me  from  his  experience  as  a  farm  hand  some- 
thing of  his  views  as  to  what  this  commission  ought  to  do  in  the  matter  of 
agricultural  labor.  With  the  permission  of  the  commission,  I  will  read  his 
letter.  It  is  not  very  long.  . 


SUGGESTIONS  Of  (EXPERT   WITNESSES.  325 

This  young  man's  name  is  William  Johnson  and  he  is  assistant  editor  of  the 
Farm  Magazine,  of  Omaha,  Nebr.  He  says : 

"  I  confess  to  a  good  deal  of  scepticism  as  to  the  ability  of  any  commission  to 
cure  existing  difficulties.  All  the  trouble  arises  from  things  that  are  largely 
fundamental." 

I  will  state  that  this  boy  never  had  any  schooling  except  that  of  the  ordinary 
common  school,  and  I  regard  his  method  of  putting  things  as  a  fairly  good  re- 
futation of  some  things  that  I  myself  am  going  to  say  about  rural  schools.  He 
continues : 

"  What  Prof.  Laumann  calls  the  insurmountable  '  individualism '  of  the 
farmer  plays  a  big  part  in  the  situation.  And  you  can't  cure  that  unless  you 
make  farming  something  radically  different  from  what  it  is  now — different 
from  what  in  the  very  nature  of  things  it  must  be. 

"  The  farmer  is  more  independent  now  than  he  has  ever  been,  and  he  knows 
it,  subconsciously  at  least.  He  reflects  it  in  his  actions.  Machinery  multiplies 
the  result  of  his  efforts.  He  can  till  more  land,  and  it  doesn't  make  as  much 
difference  if  a  bird  man  quits  now  as  it  did  in  the  days  of  the  cradle  or  reaper. 

"  His  very  ability  to  till  more  land  grows  into  land  hunger.  This  means 
larger  farms,  busier  owners,  and  more  '  individualism.' 

"  It  all  works  out  to  produce  on  the  part  of  the  farmer  a  feeling  of  secure 
aloofness." 

It  seems  to  me  that  in  that  sentence  speaks  the  farmhand's  realization  of 
this  growing  social  chasm  between  the  farmhand  who  used  to  be  the  equal 
of  the  man  he  worked  for  and  very  frequently  was  the  son  of  a  richer  man  than 
the  man  he  worked  for  and  the  present  farmhand. 

"  He's  independent  of  any  set  wage.  A  good  year  or  a  bad  year,  he  still 
lives.  It's  being  borne  in  on  him  that  he  is  the  most  vital  unit  of  society. 
He  always  has  believed  this,  and  now  that  the  whole  world  is  telling  him  so 
he  has  reached  a  mental  secureness  as  to  the  verity  of  his  position  which 
makes  him  intellectually  chesty."  This  does  not  tend  to  make  him  democratic 
in  his  ideals.  The  hired  man  naturally  assumes  much  of  the  same  status  in 
his  intellectual  and  economic  scheme  as  his  land,  his  machinery,  or  his  live 
stock. 

"As  an  inevitable  result  of  this  sort  of  thinking,  into  which  the  farmer  has 
subconsciously  grown,  the  hired  man  is  made  to  feel  that  he  is  a  part  of  the 
farm  equipment  rather  than  a  part  of  the  human  element  in  the  scheme. 

•'There  are  other  reasons  for  this  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  farmer.  It  is 
claimed  with  some  justice  that  the  character  of  hired  help  has  materially 
changed  in  the  last  few  years.  This  is  true.  But  the  farmer  doesn't  realize 
that  his  help  has  changed  as  he  has  changed.  As  the  farmer  has  grown  to  be 
more  of  a  master  of  his  situation,  the  help  has  necessarily  grown  to  be  more 
of  a  servant." 

In  that  sentence  is  found  the  old  American  idea  of  the  difference  between  a 
bird  man  and  a  servant.  I  know  when  I  was  a  boy  a  good  Pennsylvania 
Dutch  girl  was  asked  by  the  village  doctor,  who  came  from  from  the  East,  if 
she  would  not  come  and  help  at  his  house,  that  his  wife  was  ill,  and  that  he 
had  nobody  to  help  in  the  house,  and  for  Heaven's  sake  would  she  not  come  up 
and  help.  She  was  a  magnificent  cook,  and  she  said,  Why,  yes,  that  she  would 
go.  She  went  up,  and  in  the  morning  she  got  them  a  magnificent  breakfast, 
set  the  table  with  a  plate  for  herself,  and  sat  down  to  breakfast  with  the  rest 
of  them.  The  daughter  of  the  family  said,  "  Mama,  are  we  going  to  eat  with 
the  servant?"  She  said,  "If  I  am  good  enough  to  get  your  breakfast  for 
you,  I  am  good  enough  to  eat  it  with  you,  and  after  I  have  washed  the  dishes 
you  may  take  me  home.  I  am  not  anybody's  servant."  She  was  help.  She 
was  not  a  servant,  and  this  boy  in  this  sentence  refers  to  one  of  the  few  relics 
of  American  independence  that  still  continues  to  creep  out  in  the  remote 
districts. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  It  is  quite  common  and  universal  in  Kentucky. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  the  remote  districts? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  Kansas  City. 

Mr.  QUICK.  This  letter  continues : 

"  Those  who  are  not  of  the  stuff  from  which  good  servants  are  made  have 
hunted  other  jobs.  They  have  become  land  owners,  renters,  or  have  gone  to  the 
city.  As  a  rule,  one  of  two  things  is  true  of  the  man  who  works  on  the  farm 
to-day.  He  lacks  the  initiative, which  makes  of  him  a  valuable  helper,  or  he  is 
in  a  tangle  of  circumstance  that  makes  of  him  a  hired  man  against  bis  will. 


326          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

And  that  tangle  of  circumstance  isn't  conducive  to  a  free  tendering  of  the  best 
service. 

"As  long  as  the  chance  of  owning  a  farm  was  open,  there  were  plenty  of 
good  men  willing  to  work  on  the  farm  until  they  could  save  enough  to  start. 
As  this  kind  of  opportunity  grows  less,  this  same  class — the  best  help  that  any 
farmer  ever  had — grows  less. 

"  If  a  man  has  ambition  and  energy,  the  qualities  which  makes  him  valuable, 
he  isn't  going  to  stay  in  a  position  that  shows  him  nothing  but  an  impassable 
barrier  to  anything  better.  It  isn't  human. 

"  I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  the  farmer  is  harsh  or  auto- 
cratic. As  a  rule,  I  haven't  found  him  so — assertively.  It  is  a  condition  which 
is  felt  rather  than  expressed.  The  hired  man  sees  his  employer  in  a  position 
of  independence.  This  independence  may  not  be  as  real  as  it  seems,  but  every- 
body has  told  the  farmer  that  he  is  the  most  independent  man  on  earth  until 
he  has  come  to  believe  it,  and  the  mentality  of  the  average  hired  man  is  not 
bullet  proof  against  this  very  contagious  and  flattering  doctrine. 

"  Perhaps  the  forced  convictions  of  his  own  narrow  sphere,  bounded  by  high- 
priced  land,  and  an  eight-months  job  on  the  farm,  or  the  somewhat  seductive  view 
of  the  part  played  by  a  human  atom  in  the  city  has  given  him  a  picture  of  the 
boss  as  being  worse  than  he  really  is. 

"  Of  course,  you  realize  that  long  hours  and  the  partial  isolation  of  farm  life 
have  something  to  do  with  the  scarcity  of  farm  help.  Man  is  a  social  animal — 
even  though  he  be  only  a  hired  man.  And  a  day's  work  overlong,  together  with 
an  impoverished  social  life,  turns  a  lot  of  men  toward  the  town.  Candidly, 
I  don't  think  that  this  fundamental  condition  will  be  materially  relieved  by 
scolding  about  the  deficiencies  of  the  hired  man. 

"As  to  the  conditions  of  sanitation  and  safety,  these  of  course  are  no  better 
for  the  hired  man  than  for  the  boss.  They  are  not  the  best  in  either  case.  But 
I  think  these  two  factors  have  little  effect  in  either  case.  They  are  a  part  of 
the  environment,  and  while  they  might  influence  a  man  who  had  come  from  the 
city  to  the  farm,  they  are  accepted  with  little  criticism  from  those  who  have 
grown  lip  tinder  them. 

"As  I  see  it,  the  cure  of  the  situation  is  more  and  better  hired  help  in 
which  the  farmer  can  put  more  confidence  and  with  which  he  can  cooperate. 
This  desirable  condition  can  not  be  accomplished  until  some  things  are  done 
differently.  You  can't  get  that  kind  of  help  until  you  provide  the  necessary 
conditions  to  attract  them.  That  means  a  steady  job,  better  wages,  and  being 
recognized  as  an  equal.  And  for  most  men  who  will  ever  be  worth  anything  in 
society,  it  means  the  hope  of  some  day  owning  a  farm. 

"  Going  deeper  this  means,  on  the  part  of  the  farmer,  diversified  farming  to 
provide  work  the  year  round;  system  to  divide  it  into  a  fair  day's  work,  and 
more  profit  to  the  farmer,  so  that  he  can  pay  bigger  wages.  Going  still  deeper 
and  getting  somewhere  down  to  bedrock,  it  means  that  the  average  farm  owner 
must  get  into  this  consciousness  that  he  possesses  a  larger  relation  to  society 
and  a  deeper  obligation  than  that  implied  by  the  mere  producing  of  food. 

"  In  other  words,  until  the  farmer  himself  quits  being  a  land  hog  and  trying 
to  corner  his  little  part  of  the  earth  to  the  exclusion  of  other  people,  he  won't 
be  able  to  materially  increase  the  hopefulness  of  the  hired  man  or  fill  his  soul 
to  overflowing  with  holy  and  patriotic  emotions.  To  those  who  have  studied 
the  laud  question,  it  isn't  necessary  to  amplify  this  part  of  the  theme. 

"  For  the  class  who  want  to  be  home  owners  it  means  that  some  of  the 
inflation  must  come  out  of  land  values  so  that  a  farm  and  the  stars  won't 
both  look  so  equally  out  of  reach.  There  is  undoubtedly  a  large  class  of  men 
who  would  make  the  best  kind  of  help  if  fairly  treated :  in  fact,  I  think  there  i 
a  large  percentage  of  men  who  are  good  for  nothing  else,  and  who,  under 
sanely  arranged  conditions,  would  remain  in  this  category  quite  to  their  own 
content  and  profit  and  contribute  very  largely  to  the  stability  of  the  rural 
communities.  Given  a  steady  job  at  fair  wages,  and  provided  with  a  house, 
garden,  cow,  and  chickens,  this  type  of  man  would  be  better  off  and  would  be 
a  more  valuable  element,  both  in  the  social  and  in  the  producing  scheme  than 
he  could  ever  hope  to  be  as  the  owner  of  a  farm.  This  may  sound  like  rank 
heresy,  but  it  is  true. 

"  But  the  renter  can't  provide  all  of  this ;  the  average  farmer  won't  either 
because  he  is  accursed  with  the  somewhat  doubtful  blessing  of  acquisitiveness 
or  because  his  natural  sense  of  humanity  has  not  been  quickened.  I  am  of 
the  opinion  that  a  lot  of  preaching  which  is  being  done  at  the  hired  man, 
and  which  usually  fails  to  reach  him  at  all,  would  be  more  profitably  expended 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPEET   WITNESSES.  327 

in  suggesting  this  idea  to  the  fellow  who  hires  the  hired  man.  As  I  said,  the 
renter  can't  provide  these  things,  and  the  farmer  is  rapidly  becoming  a 
renter,  either  from  choice  or  necessity.  So  there  you  face  the  other  horn  of 
the  dilemma,  and  it's  a  doggone  sharp  one.  What  the  solution  of  that  is  I 
haven't  the  slightest  idea,  and  furthermore,  I  haven't  the  slightest  doubt  that 
every  professor  of  agriculture  in  the  United  States  could  tell  us  all  about  it." 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Why  do  they  adopt  what  seems  to  me  to  be  an  un- 
economic system  of  renting  farms  only  from  year  to  year?  In  Kentucky  they 
rent  farms  as  a  rule  for  a  period  of  years,  and  a  man  has  a  feeling  of  stability, 
and  he  rotates  crops  to  the  best  advantage  of  the  farm  and  of  himself,  too. 

Mr.  QUICK.  It  is  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  American  landlord  is  ordinarily 
a  very  ignorant  person.  The  Kentucky  landlord  is  evidently  a  person  of  more 
intelligence. 

Commissioner  BALLABD.  I  did  not  know  that  the  landlords  were  usually  so 
shortsighted.  It  would  certainly  seem  that  where  there  is  a  gradual  annual 
increase  in  farming  land,  the  farmer  would  certainly  want  the  land  for  a 
period.  Seriously,  in  Kentucky  the  farmer  will  rent  a  tract  of  land  and  have 
the  same  farm  for  years,  and  he  gets  the  increment  which  comes  from  the 
increase  in  his  live  stock  and  in  his  fowls  and  such  things,  and  he  gets  a  good 
deal  more  out  of  the  farm  than  the  crop  that  he  appears  to  sell  from  it.  The 
land  is  perhaps  growing  in  value,  and  he  gets  that  benefit,  and  eventually  he  can 
buy  a  piece  of  land  and  become  a  renter  and  an  owner  combined. 

Mr.  QUICK.  I  hope  to  get  to  that  presently.  I  shall  talk  for  a  very  long 
time  yet. 

Commissioner  LENNOX.  We  have  an  engagement  for  dinner  very  soon. 

Mr.  QUICK.  That  will  have  to  be  postponed,  Mr.  Lennon. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  should  like  to  ask  some  questions  in  connec- 
tion with  this. 

Mr.  QUICK.  Presently  I  will  give  you  an  opportunity.  The  other  letter  that 
I  have  here  is  from  Prof.  H.  C.  Taylor  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  one  of 
the  greatest  agricultural  economists  in  the  United  States.  He  says: 

"  I  am  very  much  interested  to  know  that  the  commission  is  to  consider  the 
subject  of  farm  labor,  but  I  note  that  it  is  especially  labor  under  the  employ- 
ment of  corporations,  so  that  it  is  not  especially  the  agricultural-labor  ques- 
tion. Nevertheless,  there  are  about  5,000,000  agricultural  laborers  in  the 
United  States  who  should  receive  some  attention.  The  length  of  the  working 
clay,  the  conditions  under  which  the  laborers  live  and  work  from  the  stand- 
point of  health  and  safety  should  receive  attention.  The  wages  and  the  cost 
of  living  of  farm  laborers  should  be  studied  from  the  standpoint  of  the  rela- 
tive chances  of  saving  from  the  income  received  by  the  farm  laborer  when 
compared  with  the  city  laborer.  One  of  the  big  problems  connected  with  the 
agricultural  laborer  is  that  of  getting  the  right  man  in  the  position.  The 
people  interested  in  agriculture  are  so  scattered  that  there  is  great  difficulty 
in  getting  intelligence  into  the  movement  of  farm  labor  from  the  place  where 
it  is  to  the  place  where  it  is  most  needed.  One  of  the  things  of  first  im- 
portance is  the  establishment  of  agricultural-labor  bureaus  which  will  serve 
as  clearing  houses.  A  study  of  the  problem  from  the  standpoint  of  what  can 
be  effectively  done  in  this  line  should  certainly  be  taken  up.  We  are  hoping  in 
this  State  in  the  course  of  the  next  year  to  establish  a  system  of  employment 
agencies  which  will  serve  as  clearing  houses  for  agricultural  labor.  It  is  not 
simply  the  agricultural  laborer  who  receives  wages  but  also  the  tenant  farmers 
who  can  be  greatly  benefited  by  such  a  system. 

"A  system  of  this  kind  would  go  far  toward  stimulating  better  agriculture, 
for  the  reason  that  many  an  employer  continues  to  tolerate  inefficiency  on  the 
part  of  men  who  if  they  were  in  danger  of  being  dropped  would  pick  up  and 
do  very  much  better,  and  if  a  bureau  were  in  reach  which  could  provide 
another  man  the  change  would  at  least  be  threatened.  But  the  other  side  of 
the  proposition  is  equally  important.  Many  a  laborer  stays  with  a  farmer 
under  conditions  which  are  entirely  unsatisfactory  to  him,  receiving  less 
money  than  he  is  worth  simply  because  he  is  ignorant  of  other  opportunities. 
I  want  to  see  a  network  of  agricultural-labor  agencies,  which  will  bring  it 
about  that  the  efficient  farmers  who  treat  labor  well  and  pay  it  well  can 
secure  the  best  laborers,  and  this  I  believe  will  force  the  farmers  who  are  not 
inclined  to  treat  labor  well  to  act  in  a  more  intelligent  and  humane  way 
toward  their  hired  help.  I  believe  this  will  improve  the  help  and  improve  the 
conditions  of  farm  labor. 


328          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

"  The  farm-labor  problem  is  different  in  the  North  from  what  it  is  in  the 
South,  and  it  is  different  in  Massachusetts  from  what  it  is  in  the  Red  River 
Valley,  and  again  on  the  Pacific  coast.  A  study  needs  to  be  made  then  of 
the  farm-labor  problem  in  the  various  districts  in  order  to  get  a  basis  of 
action.  A  study  way  well  be  made  which  will  give  a  picture  of  the  present 
status,  the  trend  of  affairs,  and  the  needs  of  the  agricultural  laborers  and! 
their  employers  in  the  various  parts  of  the  United  States.  I  should  think 
that  it  is  entirely  feasible  to  undertake  such  an  investigation  in  cooperation 
with  the  economists  who  are  interested  in  such  problems  in  the  various  States. 
I  mention  the  question  of  the  hours  of  labor.  This  should  be  studied  from 
the  standpoint  of  variation  from  season  to  season  and  from  the  standpoint  of 
variety  of  employment." 

I  think  that  is  a  very  important  point  that  professor  Taylor  makes. 

"  The  question,  also,  of  the  cost  of  learning  agricultural  skill,  on  the  part 
of  adults  who  are  thinking  of  entering  agriculture  from  the  city,  should  be 
carefully  studied." 

You  could  do  nothing  better  on  this  commission  than  to  show  to  the  people 
who  are  engaged  in  this  back-to-the-land  mania,  that  a  man  can  not  work  on 
a  farm  merely  because  he  has  two  hands  and  a  pair  of  legs,  but  also  needs 
brains  and  skill. 

Commissioner  OJ'CONNELL.  He  wants  to  have  his  head  with  him. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  He  will  find  it  out  for  himself  very  soon. 

Mr.  QUICK.  Yes.    He  says: 

"  It  being  borne  in  mind  that  those  boys  who  grow  up  on  the  farm  learn 
this  skill  at  a  time  when  it  costs  nothing.  It  is  incidental  to  growing  up,  but 
the  city  man  going  into  the  country  has  much  to  learn  and  at  a  considerable 
expense. 

"  Yours,  very  truly, 

"  H.  C.  TAYLOR." 

I  agree  with  everything  Prof.  Taylor  says,  and  I  believe  that  along  tactical 
and  superficial  lines — it  is  quite  fashionable  to  oppose  superficial  things,  but 
while  the  professor  understands  fully  the  more  fundamental  principles  or 
recommendations  that  he  makes,  and,  of  course,  they  are  not  superficial  in 
the  sense  that  the  man  who  makes  them  is  a  superficial  man,  they  are  not 
intended  to  treat  the  disease  itself,  but  are  useful  studies  as  to  ameliorating 
conditions  which  can  be  ameliorated. 

Now,  a  word  or  two  more.  Two  or  three  or  four  weeks  ago  I  published 
an  article  in  my  paper,  Farm  and  Fireside,  telling  about  the  experiences  of 
several  people  who  wanted  men,  one  in  New  Orleans,  one  near  Harper's 
Ferry,  and  another  one  somewhere  else,  who  wrote  saying  they  would  like 
to  get  people  who  were  industrious,  energetic,  and  skillful,  and  that  they 
would  be  perfectly  willing  to  furnish  the  land  and  everything  else  as  against 
the  labor  of  those  people  if  they  were  given  a  chance.  Here  is  the  bundle 
of  letters  which  I  received  within  a  week  or  two  on  the  subject,  from  people 
all  over  the  United  States,  saying  "  For  heaven's  sake  let  us  know  where 
these  men  live,  so  we  can  write  to  them."  One  man  is  a  lockkeeper  in 
Kentucky,  getting  $50  a  month,  and  he  wants  to  get  onto  the  land. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  He  had  better  stay  in  his  business. 

Mr.  QUICK.  Another  man  is  one  of  a  group  of  mechanics,  Norwegians  or 
Swedes,  the  best  men  in  the  world  for  farming  purposes.  This  group  of 
people  wish  to  move  onto  farms.  I  brought  this  bunch  of  letters  down 
here  because  they  are  really  very  eloquent  in  the  light  they  throw  upon 
agricultural  conditions.  If  the  commission  desires  I  will  leave  the  bunch 
of  letters  here,  or  I  will  take  them  with  me  and  hold  them  at  the  disposal 
of  the  commission,  because  I  do  not  wish  to  lose  title  to  them.  The  letters 
themselves  are  very  much  more  important  than  copies  of  them  would  be, 
because  they  show  what  kind  of  people  wrote  them,  they  show  you  how 
they  wrote  and  how  they  spelled  and  what  the  language  is  and  their  evi- 
dent sincerity.  Would  the  commission  care  to  have  them? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  be  glad  to  have  them.  And  if  you  will  turn  thorn 
over  to  Mr.  Lauck,  we  will  take  care  of  them  and  return  them  to  you. 

Commissioner  O'COXNELL.  You  say  there  is  no  organization  either  among 
the  farm  owners  or  the  farm  laborers? 

Mr.  QUICK.  There  is  the  I.  W.  W. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  mean  that.  That  is  no  organization  at 
all.  What  has  become  of  the  organization  of  which  Mr.  Barry  is  at  the  head? 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  329 

Mr.  QUICK.  It  is  an  organization  of  farmers.  It  is  not  an  organization  of 
farm  laborers. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  said  there  was  no  organization  of  farmers. 

Mr.  QUICK.  It  is  not  an  organization  with  reference  to  this  matter  of  labor. 
It  is  largely  a  propaganda  organization. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  is  organized  in  the  interest  of  the  farmers. 

Mr.  QUICK.  Yes.  There  are  farm  organizations,  of  course — the  Grange  and 
the  Society  of  Equity  and  the  Farmers'  Union. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Should  not  all  these  organizations  be  consulted  on 
this  question? 

Mr.  QUICK.  I  think  so. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  They  are  large  organizations,  some  of  them  repre- 
sent as  many  as  a  hundred  thousand  people. 

Mr.  QUICK.  That  is  very  true.  They  are. very  excellent  organizations.  But 
I  mean  so  far  as  the  relations  of  labor  and  the  employer  are  concerned  there 
is  no  organization  on  that  point,  no  organization  that  is  comparable  to  the 
employers'  organizations  which  exist. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  commission  might  get  the  idea  that  there  was 
no  organization  among  the  farmers.  There  is  very  great  organization  amongst 
the  farmers. 

Mr.  QUICK.  Considerable  organization.  Of  course,  the  American  farmers  are 
the  worst  organized  body  of  farmers  in  the  world  except,  perhaps,  some  ori- 
ental farmers, 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Before  you  conclude,  I  wish  to  say  that  those 
two  letters  which  you  have  read  represent  an  unusually  high  degree  of  in- 
telligence. The  letters  speak  for  themselves.  Aside  from  the  suggestion  made 
by  the  writer  of  the  last  letter  about  establishing  clearing  houses  and  em- 
ployment agencies,  if  the  commission  had  to  depend  upon  the  information 
contained  in  those  letters  it  would  be  up  in  the  air.  It  would  not  know; 
what  to  do.  Now,  it  is  possible  that  this  problem  may  be  insoluble.  We  do 
not  know.  But  as  an  authority  on  the  subject,  and  one  who  doubtless  has 
familiarized  himself  with  conditions  abroad,  I  should  like  to  invite  an  ex- 
pression of  your  opinion  upon  this  as  a  possible  remedy.  Do  you  think  that 
laws  that  deal  with  the  problem  in  the  way  that  Great  Britain  deals  with 
it  in  Ireland  can  be  applied  to  this  country?  For  example,  you  pointed  out 
that  the  condition  of  the  tenants  is  almost  helpless,  and  that  the  condition 
of  farm  labor  is  almost  hopeless  so  far  as  becoming  a  farm  owner  is  con- 
cerned. You  say  further  that  land  is  held  at  a  very  high  valuation  in  cer- 
tain States. 

Mr.  QUICK.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  it  is  held  above  its  productive  power.  Would 
it  be  possible  for  the  States,  if  not  the  Federal  Government,  to  follow  the  Brit- 
ish plan  of  condemning  those  lauds  at  whatever  valuation  may  be  determined 
upon  in  accordance  with  law,  or  buying  the  land,  issuing  State  bonds  at  a  low 
rate  of  interest,  or  giving  a  bonus  as  they  do-  in  Great  Britain  to  the  Irish 
landowners,  and  then  cutting  up  those  lands  into  moderate  parcels,  enough  to 
support  a  family,  and  selling  the  land  to  the  farm  tenants  or  farm  laborers 
who  are  not  absolutely  penniless,  but  have  some  little  money,  selling  them  on 
the  amortization  plan,  that  is  spreading  the  payment  over,  say,  a  minimum 
of  30  years,  which  would  mean  the  payment  of  1  per  cent  only  on  the  principal 
annually,  with  a  very  low  rate  of  interest,  thus  enabling  these  farm  tenants 
and  farm  laborers  to  become  actual  farm  owners,  as  they  have  become  in  Ire- 
land, where  over  300,000  tenants  have  been  converted  into  300.000  farm  owners, 
making  Ireland  to-day  one  of  the  most  prosperous  countries  in  all  Europe.  Is 
that  practicable  here? 

Mr.  QUICK.  Given  the  development  of  public  opinion  necessary,  I  should  say 
yes.  Of  course,  before  we  get  to  that  point,  I  hope  we  will  be  able  to  do  better 
than  they  do  by  that  system.  The  housing  problem  in  the  country  is  very  im- 
portant. It  is  as  important  in  this  country  as  it  is  in  England,  and  Lloyd 
George  gave  a  great  part  of  his  speech  at  Bedford,  in  beginning  the  land  cam- 
paign there,  to  the  question  of  housing.  The  farm  hand  can  not  marry,  can 
not  support  a  family,  has  no  place  to  live.  A  farmer  will  not  ordinarily  take 
two  or  three  acres  from  his  farm  and  put  up  a  house  there  for  his  hired  help. 
The  housing  problem  in  this  country,  so  far  as  farm  help  is  concerned,  is  a 
tremendously  important  problem.  It  is  a  problem  the  solution  of  which  is  abso- 
lutely essential  to  the  farm  labor  question. 


330          EEPOKT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Then,  there  is  the  question  of  the  security  of  leasehold  tenures,  on  which 
one  of  the  members  of  the  commission  has  just  spoken.  I  think  you  might  well 
study  that.  I  suggest  that  you  study  the  question  of  housing  for  farm  labor- 
ers, so  that  laborers  may  have  families,  and  a  few  acres  of  land  upon  which 
they  can  grow  chickens,  and  have  a  garden  and  perhaps  support  themselves. 

I  think  perhaps  you  might  well  study  the  question  of  farm  leases.  It  is  a 
very  important  question.  We  ought  to  have  leaseholds  in  this  country  and 
we  ought  to  have  laws  that  would  require  the  landlord  to  give  a  good  reason 
before  he  dismissed  a  tenant  from  his  farm,  whether  or  not  the  lease  had  ex- 
pired, and  when  a  man  is  disturbed  in  the  possession  of  a  farm,  he  ought  to  be 
paid  every  cent  that  he  has  in  it  in  any  kind  of  improvements,  including  fer- 
tility and  the  condition  of  the  soil.  The  tenant  who  loses  the  farm,  whether 
or  not  his  lease  has  expired,  should  be  paid  every  cent  that  he  has  put  into 
it,  so  that  the  fertility  of  the  land  can  be  considered,  and  so  that  the  tenant 
can  reach  the  point  which  the  European  tenancy  has  reached,  a  condition  in 
which  the  man  who  is  a  tenant  upon  a  farm  is  expected  to  live  there,  and  his 
children  and  grandchildren  after  him ;  until  we  have  reached  that  point  our 
fields  are  going  to  decrease  constantly  in  fertility,  and  the  production  of  our 
acres  is  going  to  become  less  and  less.  I  can  take  you  all  over  the  country  to 
lands  that  have  not  been  under  cultivation  more  than  30  years,  upon  which 
they  never  again  will  grow  the  crops  that  they  grew  originally. 

That  condition  is  not  necessary.  They  could  be  restored  to  their  pristine 
fertility  by  a  few  years  only  of  good  husbandry. 

Our  whole  system  of  farm  labor  looks  as  though  it  had  been  devised  by  some 
diabolical  malice  for  the  ruin  of  our  farms.  That  is  a  very  important  matter 
industrially. 

And  then  I  think  this  commission  might  well  go  into  the  question  of  the  sys- 
tem of  taxation,  because  after  all  the  system  of  taxation  is  at  the  basis  of  this 
whole  thing.  These  enormous  land  values  which  have  accumulated  do  not  be- 
long in  justice,  in  equity,  in  morals,  in  common  sense,  or  in  any  other  point  of 
view,  except  in  law,  if  you  will  permit  me  to  express  the  opinion,  to  the  people 
who  own  the  farms.  They  are  the  creation  of  community  activities.  They  are 
collective  products.  They  ought  to  be  taken  in  the  form  of  taxation  before 
we  call  upon  people  to  pay  out  anything  which  they  themselves  have  individually 
produced,  for  the  support  of  the  Government.  If  this  commission  could  investi- 
gate the  matter  of  the  taxation  of  land  values,  which  is  the  coming  issue  in 
England,  New  Zealand,  Australia,  Denmark,  and  Eastern  Canada,  and  if  the 
commission  could  propound  to  the  country  a  method  by  which  the  water  in 
these  farm-land  values  could  be  squeezed  out,  so  that  this  charge  on  a  prime 
necessity  of  life  should  no  longer  continue,  I  think  it  would  do  the  country  a 
very  great  and  eminent  service. 

Commissioner  GARKETSON.  A  good  union  man  is  being  dominated  by  single 
taxes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Coming  back  to  that  suggestion,  you  say  that  in 
your  opinion  the  Irish  landlord  system  could  be  applied  to  this  country  pro- 
vided you  could  create  sufficient  public  sentiment  to  stand  behind  it.  Is  there 
any  good  reason  why  this  commission  should  not  endeavor  to  arouse  public 
opinion  along  those  lines? 

Mr.  QUICK.  I  see  no  reason  why  it  should  not.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  com- 
mission, in  dealing  with  rural  conditions,  can  not  avoid  this  land  question  in 
some  form. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Touching  upon  the  housing  problem  which  you 
have  spoken  of  in  connection  with  farm  hands,  do  you  think  that  the  French 
system  would  be  applied  here?  The  French  system  is  substantially  this  :  There 
is  in  France  a  great  contributory  pension  fund  that  the  workers  and  employers 
must  contribute  to.  The  Government  takes  that  fund  and  loans  it  under  State 
management  at  2  per  cent  a  year.  Plans  are  prepared  in  the  most  scientific 
manner  for  the  building  of  the  homes  of  farm  laborers.  Every  part  of  the 
building  is  standardized  so  that  it  can  be  manufactured  in  great  quantity  at 
the  lowest  possible  cost.  The  supervision  of  the  construction  is  by  the  State. 
The  house  is  sold  to  the  peasant  on  the  amortization  plan.  He  pays  1  per  cent 
a  year  on  the  principal,  with  a  graduated  scale  of  interest,  based  on  the  number 
of  his  children,  not  less  than  1J  and  not  over  2|  per  cent;  so  that  to-day  the 
farm  laborer  in  France  pays  less  for  a  modern,  scientifically  constructed  home 
than  he  formerly  paid  for  his  wretched,  miserable  hovel  that  led  to  a  higher 
degree  of  mortality  in  the  country  than  they  had  in  the  cities. 

Mr.  QUICK.  We  have  in  the  United  States  a  higher  rate  of  mortality  in  the 
country  than  we  have  in  cities. 


SUGGESTION'S   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  331 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Exactly.  Would  a  plan  like  that  be  a  wise  one 
for  this  country  to  follow? 

Mr.  QUICK.  I  think  it  would  probably  be  wise  to"  investigate  that  system 
very  carefully  before  recommending  it  to  this  country.  I  should  hate  to  see  a 
system  of  peasant  proprietorship  established  in  this  country,  of  small  holdings, 
not  large  enough  to  sustain  a  family  on  the  American  scale,  surrounded  by 
large  estates.  I  am  opposed  to  the  Government  entering  actively  into  the  real 
estate  market  and  booming  the  prices  of  land  still  higher  by  any  large  scheme 
for  purchase.  I  think  that  if  the  scheme  of  concentration  of  taxation  upon 
land  values  is  to  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  social  program  in  the  way 
of  better  schools — 1  wish  I  could  have  had  time  to  talk  to  you  upon  the  subject 
of  rural  schools. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  the  most  important  point  of  the  whole.  I  am 
a  farmer  myself. 

Mr.  QUICK.  But  that  does  not  come  under  the  subject  I  am  talking  about 
to-day.  But  if  their  social  program  were  adopted  that  would  absorb  a  sufficient 
amount  of  the  ground  rents  of  lands  exclusive  of  improvements  so  as  to  penalize 
monopoly  of  land  and  reward  the  improvement  of  it,  then  in  connection  with 
the  gradual  reduction  of  the  price  of  farm  lands  on  account  of  the  concentration 
that  a  gradual  pressure  of  taxation  in  favor  of  improvements  and  against 
monopoly  would  lead  to,  then  I  think  with  that  might  go  a  system  of  establish- 
ing freehold  estates  large  enough  for  the  support  of  a  family. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  would  tax  the  land  and  not  the  improve- 
ments? 

Mr.  QUICK.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  Government  of  France  does  not  buy  the  land. 
It  simply  buys  the  mortgages  on  it. 

Mr.  QUICK.  That  is  merely  another  way  of  accomplishing  the  same  thing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes.  The  mortgage  is  issued  and  the  Govern- 
ment invests  in  the  mortgage.  It  does  not  own  the  house. 

Mr.  QUICK.  There  ought  to  be  some  \vay  in  this  country  for  people  like  many 
of  those  who  have  written  these  letters,  people  wrho  have  integrity,  enthusiasm, 
desire,  and  skill,  to  be  placed  in  the  locations  that  are  waiting  for  just  such 
people,  and  there  ought  to  be  some  way  by  which  a  man  could  realize  on  his 
honesty,  integrity,  and  the  ability  of  his  hands.  That  is  a  very  important 
thing. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  minimum  size?  What  is 
your  idea  of  the  minimum  size? 

Mr.  QUICK.  Under  average  American  conditions  the  small  farm — you  have 
got  to  take  people  as  they  are,  and  I  do  not  believe  our  people  in  this  country 
could  make  a  living  under  ordinary  conditions  on  farms  the  size  of  those  that 
are  farmed  by  the  Hooseinen  of  Denmark.  Of  course,  we  could  not  do  it  on 
the  size  of  the  farms  in  China  and  Japan,  where  in  some  parts  of  China 
strictly  agricultural  lands  maintain  their  population  of  3,200  people  per  square 
mile.  Now,  somewhere  above  that,  it  depends  upon  the  economic  conditions, 
the  markets,  and  everything  of  that  kind  in  a  particular  location.  In  the  sand 
hills  of  Nebraska,  2  square  miles  ought  to  go  to  every  farmer,  and  that  would 
make  him  a  very  good  living.  In  the  trucking  districts  of  Florida  3  or  4  or  5 
acres  are  enough.  And  there  are  the  little  landers  around  in  southern  Cali- 
fornia who  are  making  a  living  on  still  smaller  areas  than  that.  But  in  the 
main  I  should  be  sorry  to  see  lodged  in  the  midst  of  large  farms,  small  holdings 
Avhieh  would  be  just  big  enough  to  anchor  a  man  to  the  spot,  not  being  big 
enough  to  furnish  him  a  living  and  force  his  daughters  and  sons  to  become 
servants  of  the  large  estates  with  which  he  was  surrounded.  I  hope  not  to  see 
that  condition  in  America.  And  that  would  probably  be  an  improvement  over 
the  present  condition,  where  men  simply  drift  from  farm  to  farm.  They  are 
hardly  considered  human  beings. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Has  that  been  brought  about  by  virtue  of  the 
tremendous  progress  which  has  been  made  in  agricultural  labor-saving  devices, 
so  that  the  farmer  no  longer  needs  his  laborers  the  year  around— it  has  become  a 
seasonal  occupation? 

Mr.  QUICK.  Mr.  Johnson  speaks  in  his  letter  about  the  necessity  of  diversify- 
ing his  work  so  as  to  provide  work  for  his  laborers  the  year  round.  You  are 
quite  right  in  that. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  One  question  for  niy  information.  What  is  the 
going  rate  for  rental  of  land  in  Iowa  now? 


332          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  QUICK.  I  do  not  know.  I  have  not  made  any  investigation  of  that  for 
some  years. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  did  not  know  but  maybe  yon  did  know. 

Mr.  QUICK.  I  know  one  man  in  eastern  Nebraska  who  claims  to  receive  $8 
an  acre. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Well,  the  going  rate  in  the  county  I  live  in  is 
about  $6,  but  I  did  not  know  what  it  was  in  the  rest  of  the  State. 

Mr.  QUICK.  I  suspect  it  is  about  the  same.  You  see,  the  western  part  of  the 
State  now  has  become,  if  anything,  richer  than  the  eastern  part  agriculturally. 
I  think  probably  you  could  take  that  as  the  going  rate. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  in  the  $200  belt? 

Mr.  QUICK.  Well,  there  is  nothing  else  in  Iowa  but  the  $200  belt. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  In  McLean  County,  111.,  now,  there  is  some  going  for 
$10,  but  I  think  it  will  average  $8. 

Mr.  QUICK.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  go  to  Engalnd  and  take  a  man  who  has 
a  200-acre  farm.  He  pays  £3,  or  $15,  a  year  rent.  He  dines  upon  silver  plate, 
has  a  coterie  of  servants,  and  makes  more  money  than  the  American  farmer 
does,  and  he  does  it  under  the  free  competition  of  all  the  world;  he  sells  his 
wool  against  free  wool  of  Australia;  he  sells  his  beef  against  the  free  beef 
of  Argentina  and  the  United  States ;  he  has  no  protection  of  any  kind  in  law, 
and  the  only  reason  why  he  can  do  it  is,  first,  because  he  has  a  good  soil,  and, 
second,  because  conditions  in  England  are  such  that  the  good  farmer  is  sure 
of  his  farm  from  generation  to  generation.  And  if  that  were  true  in  Iowa,  in 
40  years  from  now  Iowa  would  produce  twice  what  it  produces  now,  and  the 
men  who  were  renting  the  lands,  if  we  still  continued  to  tolerate  the  system  of 
private  monopoly  of  land,  would  be  getting  from  $10  to  $15  per  acre  for  their 
land  if  money  continues  to  be  worth  what  it  is  now,  and  the  tenants  on  the 
land  would  be  making  fortunes  and  their  leases  would  be  worth  fortunes,  and 
down  underneath  them  would  be  a  lower  peasantry. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  it  not  unusual  for  a  farmer  or  one  representing 
farmers  to  be  a*single-taxer? 

Mr.  QUICK.  Not  very. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  thought  the  agriculturists  were  bitterly  opposed 
to  single  tax. 

Mr.  QUICK.  A  very  intelligent  gentleman  in  Nebraska,  Mr.  Frank  B.  Odell, 
sent  out  a  question  to  several  thousand  farmers  in  Nebraska  asking  them  as 
to  the  rural  conditions,  how  efficient  they  were,  what  per  cent  efficient  are  your 
schools,  and  so  forth,  and  among  others  the  taxation  system.  Ten  per  "cent 
of  the  farmers  who  replied  were  openly  in  favor  of  the  single  tax ;  enough 
more  so  as  to  bring  the  amount  up  to  35  per  cent  answered  in  such  a  way  as 
to  indicate  that  their  thoughts  were  running  along  the  line  of  land-value 
taxation.  So,  of  course,  it  is  perfectly  easy  to  show  to  a  farmer  of  open  mind 
that  unless  he  is  the  owner  of  a  large  and  largely  unimproved  farm  he  would 
be  greatly  the  gainer  by  it.  He  would  lose  in  the  selling  value  of  his  farm,  but 
as  a  producer,  as  a  tool  of  production,  he  would  be  vastly  better  off  in  ordinary 
cases.  In  Clackamas  County,  Oreg.,  the  land-value  taxation  assessment  was 
made  to  show  how  it  would  work.  It  works  almost  automatically  against  the 
owner  of  large  areas.  The  owner  of  100  acres,  we  will  say,  would  pay  just 
about  the  same  amount  of  taxes  under  the  land-value  taxation  scheme  as  he 
does  now.  If  he  owns  200  acres  he  would  pay  very  much  more  than  he  does 
now.  If  he  owned  80,  60,  or  20  acres,  his  taxes  would  be  very  much  decreased 
on  account  of  the  very  large  proportion  which  would  go  to  improvements.  -Of 
course,  the  tenant  farmer  would  not  pay  anything  in  the  way  of  taxation.  I 
think  while  in  the  main  the  average  farmer  does  think  that  the  single  tax  is 
some  scheme  for  extracting  his  farm  from  the  surface  of  the  earth  like  a  de- 
cayed tooth,  and  leaving  him  in  the  bottom  of  the  hole,  that  the  number  of 
farmers  who  see  the  fallacy  of  that  is  getting  more  and  more  all  the  time. 

Commissioner  O'CO.\M:..L.  Are  we  making  any  progress  in  the  single-tax  way, 
do  you  think?  This  is  outside  the  regular  debate. 

Mr.  QUICK.  It  seems  to  me,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  answer  that  question, 
that  it  is  growing  faster  than  anything  else  has  ever  grown  in  the  way  of 
fundamental  reform.  The  influence  of  it  is  coming  faster  than  we  are  able  to 
take  care  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Quick.  Now,  Mr. 
Charles  W.  Holmau  is  licro  on  this  same  subject,  and  I  think  perhaps  we  can 
hear  him  before  we  adjourn. 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  333 

STATEMENT.  OF   MR.   CHARLES   W.    KOLMAET. 

Mr.  HOLMAN.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  commission,  it  is  very 
difficult  to  discuss  any  farm  questions  with  any  group  of  people,  because  every- 
body has  either  been  a  farmer,  is  a  farmer  now,  or  expects  to  be  a  farmer.  For 
that  reason  there  are  so  many  different  ideas  that  it  is  difficult  to  present  the 
question.  Mr.  Quick  has  covered  the  general  outline  of  this  question,  and  I 
shall  only  devote  a  few  minutes  to  discuss  a  few  phases  of  the  labor  and  capital 
relations  that  the  farm  movement  has  developed. 

In  the  first  place,  the  United  States  is  one  of  the  latest  countries  to  come  to 
a  realization  of  the  fact  that,  looked  at  from  the  point  of  view  of  labor  organi- 
zations or  of  the  labor  movement,  a  land  policy  of  a  national  and  a  State  char- 
acter must  be  adopted.  As  to  what  that  land  policy  is  remains  to  be  found  out. 

There  is  another  point  in  connection  with  this,  and  that  is  some  of  the 
fundamental  changes  which  have  been  taking  place  in  the  organization  of 
agriculture.  Among  these  the  two  greatest  are,  first,  the  tendency  toward  the 
factory  system  of  farming,  which  is  spreading  throughout  the  corn  belt,  which 
is  gaining  greatly  throughout  the  cotton  belt,  and  which  is  making  big  gains 
in  the  Pacific-coast  regions,  and  which  is  also  making  some  gains  in  the  Atlantic- 
seaboard  region.  The  second  is  the  cooperative  movement  of  marketing  of 
farm  products,  which  has  developed  into  a  series  of  business  organizations  and 
a  series  of  organizations  for  the  transformation  of  farm  products  before  they 
reach  the  market,  which  will  greatly  change  the  aspect  of  farm  labor  in  this 
country. 

There  is  another  element  which  we  must  consider  in  dealing  with  this  prob- 
lem, and  that  is  that  the  same  line  of  evolution  has  taken  place  in  agriculture 
that  is  taking  place  in  city  industries,  namely,  the  lines  of  demarkation  of 
labor  and  capital.  We  have  in  this  country  5,000,000  transient  laborers,  and 
we  have  also  a  great  many  more  people  represented  in  the  landlord  and  tenant 
movement.  In  both  the  landlord  and  tenant  problem  and  the  wage-labor  prob- 
lem we  have  the  growing  recognition  on  the  part  of  the  laboring  people  of  the 
fact  that  their  interests  are  not  in  touch,  from  their  point  of  view,  with  the 
employing  types  and  the  owning  and  renting  classes.  We  have  the  constant 
feeling  on  the  part  of  the  farm  laborers,  as  Mr.  Quick's  letters  show,  that  he 
is  an  outcast.  We  have  on  the  part  of  the  tenant  the  same  growing  feeling 
that  his  interests  lie  with  those  of  the  laboring  classes. 

Now,  there  are  lines  of  connection  between  the  farm  laborer,  and  by  the 
farm  laborer  now  I  mean  both  the  tenant  and  the  wages  laborer,  and  the  wages 
laborer  in  the  city.  We  are  to-day  confronted  with  an  enormous  problem — the 
surplus  labor  in  our  city — and,  looking  at  it  from  our  point  of  view,  we  should 
study  this  rural  problem  and  ascertain  whether  we  can  find  employment  for 
our  wages  labor  that  is  in  the  city,  and  if  it  develops  that  we  can  not  find 
employment  we  should  take  some  means  to  see  if  we  can  counteract  the  city- 
ward movement  of  the  farm  population.  Through  all  of  the  southwestern 
country  which  I  represent  and  through  which  I  have  lived  for  a  number  of 
years  there  is  the  same  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  farm  laborer  to  move  to 
the  city  that  you  have  throughout  the  Middle  West.  That,  of  course,  compli- 
cates the  problem  in  the  city,  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  before  this 
commission. 

Another  point  I  would  like  to  bring  up  is  this  fact,  that  most  of  the  people 
look  at  this  agricultural  problem  as  the  problem  of  the  individual  farmer  and 
individual  laborer.  That  is  changing  very  rapidly  in  this  country,  and  we  have 
constant  aggregation  of  ownership  on  the  part  of  a  growing  smaller  class ; 
we  have  the  development  of  the  bonanza  farm,  the  2,000-acre  farm  is  very 
common  in  the  South;  we  have  the  cotton  problem  down  there;  we  have  the 
changing  of  the  landlord  and  tenant  system  going  on  to  the  system  of  operating 
these  tenants  as  wages  laborers ;  and  we  have  those  conflicting  problems  which 
come  up  and  which  must  be  solved. 

Backing  that  up,  you  have  the  housing  question  which  Mr.  Quick  has  touched 
upon.  I  would  hate  to  describe  to  you  the  tenants'  homes  and  the  farm  labor- 
ers' homes  which  I  have  been  in  in  the  last  five  or  six  years  while  doing  field 
work  and  investigating  these  particular  problems. 

Then  with  that  tendency,  which  has  taken  place  with  the  rising  land  values, 
you  have  the  desire  on  the  part  of  the  landlords,  in  many  cases,  to  sell  their 
land.  We  have  the  immigation  movement  which  is  trying  also  to  locate  these 
farmers  upon  the  lands.  Now,  the  point  that  we  wish  to  find  out  is  whether 
these  tiring  can  be  done.  We  should  also  look  into  the  question  of  a  freehold 


334         REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 

as  against  a  leasehold,  as  against  possibly  the  purchasing  acts.  There  are  some 
very  interesting  data  that  could  be  gathered  and  presented  to  the  American 
people  along  that  line.  I  think  this  commission  should  take  some  action  in 
recommending  whether  there  should  be  a  national  policy  or  a  State  policy  in 
the  way  of  legislation  along  this  line.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say. 

Commissioner  WEIX  STOCK.  I  move  that  when  we  adjourn  we  adjourn  to 
meet  to-morrow  morning  at  9  o'clock. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  several  other  gentlemen  here;  but,  if  it  is  the 
idea  of  the  committee,  I  think  perhaps  it  might  be  well  to  adjourn  now  until 
to-morrow  at  9  o'clock.  It  is  6  o'clock,  and  we  have  had  a  long  day. 

Commissioner  BALLABD.  Before  you  adjourn,  I  would  like  to  ask  the  Wis- 
consin gentlemen  one  question  which  can  be  answered  "yea*'  or  "no,"  and  as 
they  are  not  to  be  with  us  to-morrow,  perhaps,  Mr.  Beck  can  answer  it.  Mr. 
Cameron  showed  us  a  picture  of  an  employee,  in  some  factory,  who  had  been 
cautioned  to  wear  -glasses,  for  two  years  he  had  refused  to  do  so,  and  subse- 
quently his  eyes  were  put  out  because  he  refused  to  wear  glasses 

Commissioner  GAKEETSON.  I  do  not  think  any  of  those  gentlemen  are  here, 
Mr.  Ballard. 

Commissioner  BALLABD.  Perhaps  Mr.  Commons  can  answer  the  question.  I 
will  ask  it  some  other  time,  however.  I  wanted  to  know  whether  the  man  is 
getting  insurance  under  your  State  law,  as  if  it  had  not  been  his  fault. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  They  do  not  look  into  causes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  There  is  no  contributory  negligence  clause  in  the  act. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  has  been  abolished. 

(Thereupon,  at  6  o'clock  p.  in.,  the  commission  adjourned  until  Tuesday,  De- 
cember 30,  1913,  at  9  o'clock  a.  m. ) 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  December  30,  1913. 

The  commission  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment,  at  9  o'clock  a.  m. 
Present:  All  the  members  of  the  commission. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  commission  will  come  to  order.  Mr.  John  A.  Fitch  is 
present,  and  he  is  in  a  hurry  to  get  to  some  other  place,  so  we  will  hear  him 
first. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JOHN  A.  FITCH. 

Mr.  FITCH.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  commission,  I  have  come 
clown  here  with  a  large  collection  of  suggestions ;  but  I  was  a  little  uncertain 
as  to  what  I  might  do  to  justify  the  commission  in  asking  me  to  come  down 
here.  If  I  were  to  try  to  suggest  a  line  of  inquiry  that  this  commission  might 
follow,  I  would  be  likely  to  mention  those  things  in  which  I  am  most  inter- 
ested, and  it  has  shaped  itself  in  my  mind  something  like  this :  The  commission 
was  asked  to  investigate  the  causes  of  industrial  unrest.  If  we  are  to  find 
out  that  situation  \ve  will  have  to  find  out  what  the  opportunities  are  which 
are  open  to  wage  earners  to  better  their  conditions,  because  I  take  it  that  the 
unrest  is  due  primarily,  without  going  into  details,  to  obstacles  that  stand  be- 
tween the  wage  earners  and  improvement  in  their  condition. 

Now  there  are  three  ways  that  are  commonly  spoken  of  through  which  wage 
earners  can  accomplish  that.  One  is  through  legislation,  the  public  insisting 
upon  improvement  in  hours  and  sanitary  arrangements,  and  so  on;  one  is 
through  voluntary  action  on  the  part  of  the  employer ;  and  one  is  through  col- 
lective activity  on  the  part  of  the  employees.  Now,  all  of  those  three  are  tre- 
mendously important.  My  work  has  been  such  as  to  familiarize  me  perhaps  a 
little  bit  "more  and  make  me  a  little  more  interested  in  the  third  manner  of 
improving  conditions  than  in  the  other  two,  although  I  do  not  detract  from  the 
importance  of  the  other  two.  I  take  it  that  other  people  will  speak  of  those 
things  and  that  they  will  be  fully  considered  by  the  commission. 

But  considering  the  opportunities  open  to  wage  earners  through  collective 
activity  to  improve  their  conditions,  what  are  those  opportunities?  I  was 
greatly  impressed  by  what  Mr.  Quick  said  yesterday,  my  experience  in  life  hav- 
ing been  so  similar  to  his,  without  having  nearly  so  much  of  it  and  in  so  varied 
a  way,  and  iny  memory  not  going  back  so  far  as  his,  still  I  have  seen  the  same 
things  happen  a  little  farther  west  than  Mr.  Quick's  experiences,  and  I  am 
sure  the  things  he  outlined  are  happening.  I  remember  when  it  was  possible 
for  a  young  man  to  begin  work  on  a  farm  and  after  a  while  to  own  a  farm; 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  335 

and,  although  I  am  a  younger  man  than  Mr.  Quick,  I  have  seen  that  happen  and 
have  seen  it  pass  away,  and  now  it  is  not  possible  for  that  to  be  done.  There 
was  a  time  when  there  was  that  opportunity  for  wage  earners  who  had  failed 
to  improve  their  condition  as  fast  as  they  would  like;  there  was  a  chance  for 
them  to  go  to  the  farms.  I  think  that  chance  has  been  largely  taken  away. 
The  biggest  opportunity  that  the  country  ever  held  for  improvement  through 
individual  activity  in  economic  conditions  has  been  taken  away.  We  must  then 
consider  what  the  opportunity  is  for  improvement  through  collective  action. 

I  assume  that  the  legal  right  to  organize  is  conceded.  It  is  not  always  con- 
coded,  and  there  are  legal  obstacles,  but  that  is  not  a  thing  that  I  wish  to  speak 
about.  Assuming  the  legal  right  to  organize,  there  are  three  tremendous  obsta- 
cles, as  I  see  it — or  perhaps  two — that  do  stand  in  the  way.  One  is  economic 
conditions,  the  change  in  the  character  of  our  industries,  the  change  in  the 
way  in  which  things  are  made  in  the  factories,  the  change  from  dependence 
upon  highly  skilled  craftsmen  working  with  their  hands  to  dependence  upon 
machinery  turning  things  out  automatically  at  a  speed  never  dreamed  of  by 
the  earlier  craftsmen.  That  thing  has  happened  in  practically  all  industries. 
It  has  lessened  the  dependence  upon  the  skilled  man  until  the  "unskilled  man 
is  coming  to  be  a  strategic  center  in  industry  instead  of  the  skilled  man.  The 
unskilled  man  is  coming  more  and  more  to  be  an  immigrant,  a  man  unac- 
quainted not  only  with  our  customs  and  laws  but  with  our  language.  We  have 
not  a  homogeneous  labor  population  even  to  the  extent,  as  was  once  the  case, 
when  our  common  laborers  were  Irish.  We  now  have  a  dozen  nationalities  not 
knowing  how  to  speak  each  other's  language;  therefore  common  activity  is 
extremely  difficult.  Not  only  that,  but  the  skilled  trades  which  were  once  in 
a  position  of  strength  and  were  able  to  organize  are  finding  that  their  oppor- 
tunity to  work  is  taken  away. 

For  example,  the  glass-bottle  blowers  still  have  an  organization,  a  good, 
lively  organization,  but  they  are  beginning  to  make  glass  bottles  by  machines 
instead  of  by  man  power.  The  end  of  the  glass-bottle  industry  seems  to  be  in 
sight,  so  far  as  the  individual  is  concerned.  These  old  men  will  still  live,  but 
their  sons  will  grow  up,  and  what  opportunity  lies  before  them  for  improving 
their  condition  as  craftsmen,  as  skilled  laborers,  through  collective  activity?  I 
reed  only  mention  that.  There  is  a  great  difficulty  that  needs  to  be  worked  out. 
The  possible  change  in  forms  of  organization,  the  entire  line  of  attack  of  or- 
ganized labor,  will  have  to  be  changed.  And  the  kind  of  organizers  they  get; 
no  longer  can  they  send  them  out  as  formerly  they  did,  but  they  need  a  dozen 
nationalities  of  organizers  in  order  to  reach  the  situation.  No  longer  will  the 
same  appeal  be  effective.  They  need  to  appeal  to  a  different  class  of  men,  and 
so  on. 

Now,  the  next  obstacle  that  I  am  impressed  with  is  the  objection  on  the  part 
of  the  employer;  that  is,  evidence  as  a  direct  opposition,  the  discharging  of 
employees  who  endeavor  to  organize,  the  blacklisting  of  employees  who  have 
been  discharged  for  that  reason ;  the  checking  of  organized  activity  through  the 
fear  of  those  things. 

Then  there  is  an  indirect  opposition  which  manifests  itself  in  a  hundred  ways. 
I  do  not  wish  to  speak  categorically  in  regard  to  these  things,  but  I  wish  to 
suggest  the  possibility  of  investigating  those  more  subtle  influences  which  tend 
to  prevent  organization. 

Mrs.  Robins  spoke  yesterday  of  what  has  been  called  welfare  work.  It  te 
difficult  to  say  what  welfare  work  is;  it  means  one  thing  in  one  place  and 
another  thing  in  another  place,  and  what  one  person  will  call  welfare  work 
another  will  indignantly  repudiate  and  say  that  is  not  welfare  work.  There 
are  a  large  number  of  activities,  however,  which  are  frequently  referred  to 
under  that  head.  A  very  great  many  of  them,  whether  they  exist  for  the 
purpose  of  preventing  organized  activity  or  not,  have  the  inevitable  tendency 
to  work  in  that  direction.  For  example,  pension  schemes.  Now,  we  have  not 
in  this  country  any  Government  system  of  pensions  for  taking  care  of  super- 
annuated workmen.  Something  must  be  done.  I  do  not  see  how  a  humani- 
tarian employer  who  has  a  large  number  of  employees  can  avoid  seeing  his 
responsibility  there  and  doing  something  about  it.  A  number  of  Inrge  cor- 
porations are  doing  it.  The  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  the  American 
Telegraph  &  Telephone  Co.,  and  the  railroads,  and  some  of  the  large  packing 
plants,  and  so  on,  have  adopted  pension  schemes.  So  they  say,  when  a  man 
has  been  in  the  employ  of  the  company  for  20  years  and  has  arrived  at  a  cer- 
tain age,  he  may  be  retired  and  for  the  rest  of  his  life  draw  a  pension  from  the 
company.  Those  things  must  be  taken  care  of,  it  seems  to  me. 


336          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Another  thing  is  profit  sharing.  That  has  been  worked  out  in  one  way  or 
another  in  dil'iVrent  communities.  Another  is  voluntary  saving.  All  of  those 
things  represent  a  certain  obligation  that  an  employer  has  to  his  employees, 
and  humanitarian  employers  have  tried  to  work  them  out,  but  in  working  them 
out  what  has  been  done? 

The  employer  must,  it  seems  to  me,  have  a  stable  labor  force.  He  needs  that 
as  badly  as  he  needs  anything  else,  I  judge,  from  such  slight  opportunity  as  I 
have  had  to  observe  conditions  and  observe  what  the  employer's  needs  are.  No 
one  can  object  to  the  employer's  desire  to  maintain  a  stable  force  and  keep 
his  men  in  his  employ.  The  employer  in  endeavoring  to  work  that  out  has 
taken  advantage  of  pension  schemes  and  profit-sharing  schemes,  and  com- 
pensation schemes,  etc.,  to  encourage  his  employees  to  stay  in  his  employ,  by 
offering  them  something  which  perhaps  others  do  not  offer.  So  in  the  pension 
scheme  they  say  if  you  stay  20  years  in  my  employ  you  may  draw  a  pension. 
In  profit-sharing  schemes,  take  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  for  in- 
stance, if  you  stay  with  us  five  years  you  will  draw  a  bonus  each  year,  and  at 
the  end  of  five  years  you  will  draw  an  additional  bonus,  if  you  are  still  there. 
In  the  compensation  scheme  of  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  if  you  are  in 
the  employ  of  the  corporation  one  year  and  are  hurt  you  will  draw  a  certain  com- 
pensation, and  after  five  years  your  compensation  will  be  more,  and  after  a 
certain  other  number  of  years  it  will  be  still  more.  So  a  man  who  has  been 
with  the  company  20  years  will  receive  a  still  higher  rate  than  a  man  who 
has  been  in  the  employ  of  the  company  only  1  year,  even  though  he  is  hurt 
in  the  identical  manner. 

Those  things  undoubtedly  are  done  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  a  stable  labor 
force,  a  perfectly  legitimate  desire  on  the  part  of  the  employer.  But  what  is 
the  effect  upon  the  mind  of  the  employee?  Most  of  these  plans  say  definitely 
that  the  employee  has  no  rights  in  the  thing  that  is  offered.  Not  only  has  he 
no  right  to  a  claim  on  the  company  for  fulfilling  what  it  has  offered  in  the 
way  of  a  pension  scheme,  for  example,  but  the  company  is  under  no  obligation 
to  maintain  that  system.  And  a  number  of  pension  systems  with  which  I 
am  familiar  say  definitely,  and  I  think  most  of  them  imply  without  saying  so 
definitely,  that  if  at  any  time  it  seems  desirable  to  the  employer  the  pension 
scheme  may  not  only  be  modified  but  it  may  be  entirely  done  away  with,  if  that 
seems  necessary. 

Now,  what  is  the  effect  of  all  that?  The  employer  has  offered  a  certain 
kind  of  employment  and  a  certain  wage.  In  addition  to  that  he  has  offered 
something  else,  a  pension  possibly,  or  a  right  to  participate  in  an  advantageous 
profit-sharing  scheme,  and  so  on,  all  of  which  is  dependent  upon  a  certain 
number  of  years'  service,  and  that  in  turn  is  dependent  upon  something  which 
the  employer  calls  loyalty.  All  of  those  things  I  do  not  begrudge  the  employer 
at  all ;  I  should  think  those  would  be  the  things  he  would  want  to  do,  but  I 
am  obliged  to  point  out  that  it  has  a  certain  effect  in  restricting  the  freedom 
of  activity  on  the  part  of  the  workers,  which  will  tend  to  enable  him  to  take 
voluntary  action  to  better  his  condition  through  his  own  efforts  instead  of  de- 
pending upon  some  outside  activity. 

What  is  loyalty,  for  example?  The  rules  say  the  employee'  has  no  right  to 
be  maintained  in  the  employ  of  the  company ;  therefore,  if  he  is  discharged  he 
lias  no  right  to  participate  in  his  employer's  offer.  The  employer  necessarily  is 
the  judge  as  to  whether  or  not  he  is  loyal.  Would  it  be  loyal  to  organize  a 
union?  Would  it  be  loyal  or  not  to  do  that,  but  just  organize  a  committee 
and  go  to  the  employer  and  ask  for  a  reduction  of  hours  of  labor  or  an  increase 
in  wages?  Well,  perhaps  that  would  be  perfectly  proper,  and  with  a  large 
number  of  employers  I  think  that  they  would  consider  that  not  incompatible 
with  a  proper  degree  of  loyalty;  but  the  employee  is  not  always  sure  of  that; 
and  not  only  that,  but  he  knows  very  well  that  in  many  industries  in  other 
sections  of  the  country,  perhaps  among  his  friends,  men  have  organized  com- 
mittees and  have  gone  to  the  employer  and  have  asked  collectively  for  an 
improvement  in  labor  conditions  and  they  have  been  discharged  for  doing  it. 
Can  we  afford,  they  must  say,  to  jeopardize  our  position  and  so  jeopardize  our 
right  to  participation  in  this  pension  fund,  by  trying  to  get  this  temporary 
improvement  in  conditions?  What  would  be  the  effect?  Some  of  thorn  may 
say  that  remote  opportunity  offered  for  improvement  is  so  much  more  remote 
than  the  opportunity  for  improving  conditions  right  now  that  it  will  have  no 
effect.  That  probably  would  be  true  with  an  employee  who  has  been  one  year 
in  the  employ  of  the  company  but  how  about  a  man  who  has  been  in  the 
employ  of  the  company  for  15  years,  and  who  in  5  years  more  will  be  eligible 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  337 

for  a  pension?  The  effect  upon  his  mind  will  be  to  make  him  much  more 
cautious  and  much  more  conservative  and  to  hesitate  a  great  deal  longer  about 
protesting  against  something  which  he  believes  is  bad  in  the  present  scheme 
of  employment,  but  which  he  thinks  perhaps  he  can  put  up  with  for  5  years 
and  then  get  the  pension  which  is  offered. 

Now  those  things  I  consider  some  of  the  most  subtle  influences  at  work 
against  organization,  against  the  opportunity  for  collective  action  looking  to 
the  betterment  of  conditions.  That  was  all  that  I  had  in  mind  to  say. 

Just  one  other  thing  I  would  like  to  add,  however.  The  question  was  raised 
yesterday,  and  it  was  suggested  that  the  employee  asked  for  protection  under 
the  law  that  the  employer  does  not  have.  That  having  laws  to  protect  him/ 
there  is  no  need  for  further  extension.  That  idea  was  suggested,  that  was  not 
said.  I  just  wanted  to  lay  before  you  three  concrete  things  that  have  come 
under  my  personal  notice  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  law  does  protect  an  em- 
ployee who  may  want  to  improve  his  condition  through  collective  activity. 

I  was  in  Alabama  about  three  years  ago  collecting  material  for  a  magazine 
article,  and  I  walked  about  in  some  of  the  coal-mining  camps  outside  of  Bir- 
mingham. I  was  met  at  the  edge  of  a  mining  camp  that  I  tried  to  go  into  and 
walk  through  and  observe  the  housing  conditions,  and  so  on,  by  a  man  who  was 
carrying  a  gun ;  and  he  wanted  to  know  what  I  wanted,  and  I  told  him  what 
I  was  doing.  He  explained  that  he  was  in  the  employ  of  the  coal  company 
as  a  guard,  and  when  I  had  told  him  I  was  a  magazine  writer  and  was  collect- 
ing" material  for  an  article,  he  said  I  could  not  come  into  the  camp,  and  I 
asked  him  why  not,  and  he  finally  told  me  that  he  was  employed  by  the 
company  to  keep  two  classes  of  people  out  of  that  camp,  and  he  was  to  keep 
out  labor  organizers,  and  people  who  might  be  trying  to  employ  labor  and  take 
them  away.  I  was  a  good  deal  impressed  with  that,  because  there  was  a  good 
deal  of  inactivity  in  that  region  at  that  time  and  a  lot  of  miners  were  out  of 
work.  He  said  that  what  I  said  might  be  true,  of  course,  he  did  not  deny 
that,  but  after  all,  I  might  be  a  labor  organizer  and  might  be  there  to  employ 
labor,  and  his  instructions  were  to  keep  people  from  doing  either  of  those 
things. 

I  am  not  saying  what  conditions  were  there,  but  if  they  had  been  bad  and 
I  had  come  there  to  tell  the  employees  of  some  way  in  which  they  could  im- 
prove their  condition  by  collective  activity,  I  would  have  been  prevented  from 
doing  it  by  this  man  with  the  gun.  There  were  men  out  of  work  there,  and 
if  I  had  come  to  offer  them  a  job  to  support  their  families,  I  would  have  been 
prevented.  The  Alabama  law  says  you  can  not  take  labor  out  of  the  State, 
but  the  law  does  say  that  you  may  organize,  and  so  this  man  with  a  gun,  who 
was  a  deputy  sheriff,  actually  would  have  prevented  the  doing  of  that  legal 
thing. 

A  year  or  so  before  that  I  was  an  employee  of  the  New  York  State  Depart- 
ment of  Labor,  and  I  investigated  a  paper  strike  in  northern  New  York.  At 
Corinth,  N.  Y.,  during  the  course  of  that  paper  strike,  a  large  number  of 
reputable  citizens  told  me  and  made  affidavit  to  the  fact  that  while  strike 
breakers  were  being  brought  into  that  paper  plant,  some  of  them  tried  to  get 
away  and  not  go  to  the  plant,  and  that  the  militia  who  were  on  duty  at  the  time 
guarded  them  and  compelled  them  to  walk  from  the  depot  to  the  mill,  and 
when  they  tried  to  get  away,  in  some  cases  attacked  them  and  beat  them  with 
their  guns. 

The  third  thing  that  I  wrish  to  mention  is  the  fact  that  in  Paterson,  N.  J., 
last  summer  two  men  were  arrested  who  were  engaged  in  leading  a  strike,  and 
they  were  sentenced  to  six  months  in  jail,  and  did  serve  about  two  weeks  in 
jail.  When  finally  the  case  was  reviewed  before  a  supreme  court  justice,  the 
justice  fouod  that  not  only  were  the  men  not  violating  any  law,  but  they  were 
cooperating  with  the  chief  of  police  in  carrying  out  his  orders  at  the  time  that 
they  were  arrested. 

Those  three  things  have  impressed  me  that  sometimes  the  law  does  not  work 
in  protecting  the  interests  of  employees,  and  something  needs  to  be  done  to  see 
that  the  la\v  does  work. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  With  your  permission,  I  would  like  to  bring  out 
some  further  points  in  connection  with  your  statement.  The  first  thing  which 
you  brought  out  on  which  I  would  like  to  have  further  information,  and  I  am 
sure  the -other  members  of  the  commission  would  also  like  to  know,  is  the 
point  you  made  that  the  unskilled  man  is  coming  to  be  the  strategic  point ;  and 
I  gathered,  practically,  from  what  you  said  that  labor-saving  devices  are  killing 
the  skilled  worker,  so  to  speak,  as  a  skilled  worker. 

38819°— 16 22 


338          BEPOET   OF    COMMISSION"    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Now,  I  have  read  many  economists  who  have 
taken  the  ground  that  labor-saving  devices  do  not  rob  men  of  work,  but  that 
they  create  work  for  men;  that  is,  they  have  such  a  potent  influence  in  re- 
ducing the  cost  of  production  that  they  increase  the  demand,  and  that  in  turn 
opens  out  new  avenues  for  labor. 

To  illustrate,  take  a  concrete  case,  the  typesetting  machine,  for  example.  It 
is  pointed  out  that  the  typesetting  machine  threw  many  compositors  out  of 
work,  and  to  them  it  was  in  the  nature  of  a  calamity  if  they  could  not  readily 
adapt  themselves^  to  the  new  condition,  because  it  made  of  them  unskilled 
workers.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  reduced  the  cost  of  printing  newspapers 
and  printing  magazines  so  materially  that  it  made  the  1-cent  paper  possible  on 
the  one  hand  and  the  10  or  15  cent  magazine  possible  on  the  other  hand.  That  in 
turn  created  a  very  greatly  increased  demand  for  such  publications  placing  them 
within  the  reach  of  millions  that  theretofore  were  unable  to  buy  them,  and  that 
in  turn  again  created  employment  for  untold  numbers. 

Now,  is  that  economic  claim  sound  or  unsound,  as  the  result  of  your  observa- 
tions and  investigations? 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  have  no  doubt  that  what  you  say  is  true;  that  that  claim  is 
sound ;  that  the  introduction  of  labor-saving  devices  does  decrease  cost  eventu- 
ally. It  may  not  at  once,  on  account  of  patent  laws,  and  so  on,  but  there  is 
no  question  it  will  eventually.  But  notwithstanding,  the  grade  of  labor  em- 
ployed has  been  permanently  lowered.  The  proportion  and  number  of  skilled 
employees  needed  has  permanenly  been  lowered  and  the  scale  of  wages  has 
permanently  gone  down  for  that  class  of  men.  There  is  no  longer  any  em- 
ployment for  them  in  their  skilled  trade.  They  have  gone  beyond  the  point 
where  they  can  learn  a  new  skilled  trade,  and  even  if  they  could,  they  would 
have  to  displace  other  skilled  men  to  get  jobs.  Therefore,  the  whole  tendency 
as  regards  labor  is  downward  when  you  invent  a  machine  which  throws  a  lot 
of  men  out  of  work.  That  is  good  for  society  from  the  standpoint  of  produc- 
tion, but  it  is  bad  for  the  men  who  work. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Assuming  that  is  correct,  the  question,  I  think, 
that  is  important  for  the  commission  to  consider  or,  for  me,  at  all  events,  to 
know  is  this:  Admitting  that  that  is  an  evil — that  is,  the  lowering  of  the 
standard  of  the  average — admitting  the  conditions  whereby  a  limited  num- 
ber of  skilled  employees  can  get  employment  at  a  high  wage  and  the  number 
of  unskilled  can  get  no  work ;  admitting  that  that  is  an  evil,  the  question  arises 
which  of  the  two  evils  is  the  lesser  evil,  from  the  standpoint  of  society  gener- 
ally? What  would  be  your  answer  to  that? 

Mr.  FITCH.  If  you  mean  do  I  believe  that  the  question  could  be  solved  by 
stopping  the  invention  of  labor-saving  devices,  I  do  not  think  that.  I  think  the 
saving  of  labor  must  eventually  work  to  the  good  of  the  workingman  whose 
labor  is  saved,  as  well  as  it  works  to  the  good  of  consumers.  But  what  we  need 
to-day  is  to  examine  what  happens  to  workingmen  who  are  thrown  out  of  jobs ; 
what  machinery  we  have,  if  any,  to  take  care  of  men  who  through  no  fault 
of  their  own  are  thrown  out  of  a  job,  who  represent  a  problem  of  unemploy- 
ment which,  you  might  say,  we  are  the  beneficiaries  of.  We  have  a  tremendous 
responsibility  to  an  unemployed  man  who  is  thrown  out  under  such  conditions 
as  that.  That  is  a  point  I  have  not  investigated  and  have  not  examined,  what- 
ever may  be  suggested  in  the  way  of  taking  care  of  that  situation,  and  I  do  not 
feel  like^  making  that  suggestion  myself  at  this  time. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Briefly,  of  course,  the  prime  object  of  this  com- 
mission is  to  pick  out  the  underlying  causes  for  industrial  unrest.  It  is  very 
important  for  us  to  be  guided  and  directed  by  experts  along  the  lines  of  discov- 
ering the  prime  causes  of  industrial  unrest;  and  I  feel  it  would  be  very  im- 
portant for  me  to  have  made  clear  in  my  own  mind  as  to  whether  the  invention 
of  labor-saving  devices  is  one  of  the  prime  causes  for  industrial  unrest  and 
whether  it  makes  conditions  on  the  whole  and  in  the  end  worse  that  they  were 
before.  I  have  been  led  to  believe,  as  the  result  of  my  reading  and  observations 
and  investigation,  that  on  the  whole  the  results  of  the  introduction  of  labor- 
saving  devices  are  beneficial,  but  I  have  an  open  mind. 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  agree  with  you  absolutely ;  they  are  beneficial. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  if  it  could  bo  shown  they  are  not  bene- 
ficial, I  would  be  quite  willing  to  accept  that  as  a  fact. 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  merely  want  to  suggest  the  incidental  damage  that  is  done  by 
them  and  to  ask  that  the  commission  will  inquire  as  to  the  extent  of  that  and 
as  to  the  possibility  of  repairing  that  damage. 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  339 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  minimizing  the  result? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes;  exactly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  take  it,  then,  that  you  are  in  accord  with  the 
idea  that  you  can  make  no  change  of  any  kind  without  somebody  being  hurt. 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  the  only  question  is,  what  is  the  greatest 
good  to  the  greatest  number,  and  that  that  should  prevail. 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WTEIN STOCK.  One  other  point.  You  touched  upon  the  fact  in 
your  statement  that  employers  are  voluntarily  endeavoring  to  establish  better 
conditions  for  their  workers,  with  a  view  of  binding  them  more  closely  to  their 
enterprises 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  beg  pardon,  I  did  not  say  they  did  it  with  a  view  to  binding 
them  more  closely  to  their  enterprises.  I  said  the  incidental  effect  of  many  of 
those  things,  whether  intended  by  the  employer  or  not,  is  in  that  direction. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Well,  we  must  of  course  assume  that  these  large 
business  enterprises  are  conducted  primarily  for  profit. 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  there  is  any  philanthropy  or  benevolence  con- 
nected with  it,  that  is  merely  incidental;  and  that  the  thought  that  animates 
action  in  large  industrial  enterprises  is  the  best  possible  result,  and  if  these 
welfare  efforts  have  been  made,  the  prime  thought  was  better  results  and 
better  profits.  In  fact,  you  will  find,  many  will  tell  you  they  are  doing  this 
on  business  principles  and  that  the  thought  of  philantrophy  and  benevolence  is 
only  a  mere  incident  with  them.  Very  well.  You  have  pointed  out  the  danger 
of  that  from  the  standpoint  of  the  worker,  that  it  minimizes  what  otherwise 
might  be  energetic  effort  on  his  part  to  better  his  condition  on  his  own  initia- 
tive. If  that  is  so,  what  would  you  advise?  Would  you  advise  that  employers 
be  discouraged  from  doing  the  things  that  you  have  touched  upon  and  letting 
the  burden  rest  entirely  upon  the  worker  to  better  his  condition,  or  would  you 
approve  of  the  efforts  of  employers  to  continue,  and  encourage  them,  if  you 
were  a  member  of  the  commission,  to  do  this  sort  of  welfare  work?  It  is 
important  for  us  to  have  that  point  clear  in  our  minds. 

Mr.  FITCH.  That  is  a  very  large  question  which  would  involve  a  very  long 
discussion  to  state  all  that  even  I  have  in  mind  in  regard  to  it,  although  I  do 
not  claim  to  have  gone  deeply  into  the  question.  Certainly  I  would  never  do 
anything  but  encourage  employers  in  improving  the  physical  conditions  of  their 
plant,  making  it  sanitary,  introducing  safety  devices,  and  organizing  their 
employees  along  safety  lines  as  was  suggested  yesterday.  I  want  to  indorse 
that  movement  with  all  the  strength  of  which  I  am  capable.  Anything  that  the 
employer  might  do  to  make  the  plant  a  healthy  place  and  a  safe  place  in  which 
to  work  I  would  indorse  and  encourage  in  every  way  possible.  That  is  sound 
business  policy,  and  it  is  a  part  of  the  moral  obligation  of  the  employer,  I 
think,  to  provide  that  sort  of  place  in  which  to  work. 

Now,  speaking  of  a  pension  plan,  for  example,  and  I  mention  that  as  one 
thing  without  going  into  the  other  things,  a  man  who  had  something  to  do  with 
the  work,  a  great  deal,  perhaps  one  of  the  prime  movers  in- working  out  one  of 
the  biggest  pension  plans  in  this  country,  told  me  last  week  that  undoubtedly 
the  effect  of  it  was  to  curtail  the  work  of  the  employee;  that  undoubtedly  it 
was  not  sound  public  policy  to  permit  a  pension  scheme  of  that  kind  to  be 
introduced  widely  and  to  continue.  He  told  me  finally  that  he  believed  the  only 
answer  was  Government  insurance  instead  of  private  pension  plans. 

Nevertheless,  we  agreed,  after  talking  it  over,  that  the  thing  could  be  worked 
out  even  in  advance  of  the  Government  taking  it  over  by  protecting  the  em- 
ployee at  every  point  in  some  such  way  as  this:  We  will  say  he  enters  the 
employ  of  the  company  and  is  offered  a  pension  system.  Establish  a  legal 
right  in  some  way,  I  can  not  say  what  would  be  necessary  for  that,  but 
establish  his  legal  right  to  the  pension.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  necessary, 
and  regardless  of  legal  advice  it  seems  to  me  it  is  very  much  better  from  the 
standpoint  of  society  for  the  employee  to  contribute  himself  to  his  old-age 
pension  fund,  just  as  is  done  in  Germany  under  the  control  of  the  State.  Then 
suppose  he  does  want  to  quit  the  employ  of  the  company  at  the  end  of  three 
or  five  years  or  any  other  period  in  advance  of  the  time  he  would  be  naturally 
retired ;  let  him  have  the  right  to  a  paid-up  policy  just  as  he  would  have  if  he 
stopped  his  payments  on  a  life  insurance  policy,  and  he  would  have  a  paid-up 
policy  at  any  time.  And  let  that  be  done  if  a  man  quits  his  job,  and  let  it 


340          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

operate  even  if  he  goes  on  a  strike,  and  let  it  be  understood  lie  has  a  paid-up 
right  in  that  policy. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Am  I  to  gather  from  what  you  say  that  you  would 
favor  a  national  pension  system,  a  workmen's  pension  system  something  along 
the  lines  of  the  German  system,  as  one  of  the  remedies  for  this  industrial 
unrest. 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  think  that  is  the  only  answer,  in  the  last  analysis. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  A  national  workmen's  pension  system? 

Mr.  FITCH.  There  are  undoubtedly  grave  legal  obstacles  to  making  it  a 
national  system.  I  am  speaking  of  what  I  would  like  to  see  rather  than  what 
I  may  conceive  to  be  possible. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  dealing  simply  with  the  ideal? 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  think  as  an  ideal  that  is  the  "only  final  and  complete  answer. 
Whether  we  are  ready  for  that  is  another  question  altogether. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Now  assuming  that  this  commission,  for  example, 
should  find  that  that  would  be  one  of  the  remedies,  not  the  only  remedy,  of 
course,  but  one  of  the  remedies  to  minimize  industrial  unrest,  and  assuming 
further  that  it  could  be  nationalized,  do  you  figure  that  the  contributory 
system,  where  the  worker  pays  toward  the  fund,  is  to  be  preferred? 

Mr.  FITCH.  As  an  old-age  pension ;  yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think  the  contributory  system  is  the  preferred 
system? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  was  incidentally  investigating  that  question 
v.'hile  abroad  some  years  ago,  and  I  happened  to  be  in  London  when  the  old-age 
pension  system  was  before  the  British  Parliament;  and  in  a  conference  with 
John  Burns  I  put  this  question  to  him:  I  said,  "I  notice  that  the  English  old- 
age  pension  system  does  not  contemplate  a  contributory  system  as  they  have 
it  in  Germany,  and  why  the  differentiation?"  His  answer  was:  "We  thor- 
oughly investigated  the  German  system,  and  we  reached  the  conclusion  that 
the  cost  of  collecting  the  fees  from  the  workers  was  almost  prohibitory,  and 
therefore  only  a  fraction  of  their  contributions  would  go  into  the  fund,  and 
the  greater  part  of  it  would  be  eaten  up  by  the  cost  of  collection,  and  we  there- 
fore decided  not  to  make  it."  What  have  your  observations  led  you  to  con- 
clude? 

Mr.  FITCH.  As  I  say,  I  have  not  made  a  deep  study  of  this  Government  plan, 
and  on  the  other  hand,  I  have  an  open  mind  on  it,  and  any  information,  as  to 
that  I  would  take  into  consideration  and  would  hope  the  commission  would  con- 
sider it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  I  take  it  you  would  recommend  to  the  seri- 
ous consideration  of  this  commission  that  we  look  into  the  question  of  work- 
men's pensions  as  one  of  the  possible  things  to  minimize  industrial  unrest? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Absolutely. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  understand  that  the  organizations  of  labor 
have  decided  by  almost  unanimous  vote  against  the  contributory  part  of  any 
such  law  that  might  be  enacted? 

Mr.  FITCH.  As  to  an  old-age  pension? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  FITCH.  No ;  I  did  not  know  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  workmen's  benefits,  etc. 

Mr.  FITCH.  No ;  I  did  not  know  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  They  are  absolutely  against  any  such  idea.  In 
speaking  of  the  displacement  of  labor  by  machines,  you  mentioned  the  bottle- 
making  men,  for  instance.  That  machine  not  only  displaces  the  skilled  men 
but  it  eliminates  the  unskilled  men  also.  It  simply  makes  the  bottles  auto- 
matically. 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  run  the  glass  into  the  machine  and  it  comes 
out  bottles,  and  all  that  is  required  is  some  little  girl  or  boy  to  go  around  and 
pour  oil  on  the  machine  once  in  a  while.  Could  not  the  skilled  man  who  is 
being  displaced  by  the  machine  enjoy  some  result  of  that  machine's  introduc- 
tion into  the  business  which  eliminates  practically  his  labor  altogether? 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  think  so. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Ought  not  he  at  least  to  be  the  attendant  upon  the 
machine,  where  it  shuts  him  out  of  work  or  reduces  his  skill?  Should  not  the 
man  be  taken  care  of  with  the  machine,  as  it  were? 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPEET   WITNESSES,  341 

Mr.  FITCH.  If  you  have  10  men  displaced  by  one  machine  and  only  one  attend- 
ant is  needed,  you  have  a  difficulty  there. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Well,  at  least  one  man  should  be  taken  care  of? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  will  find  at  the  present  time  that  is  not  the 
case ;  so  far  as  skill  is  concerned,  the  skill  is  lost  sight  of.  What  you  say  about 
the  introduction  of  a  machine  reducing  the  amount  of  skill  required,  there  is  no 
question  about  that  being  true.  But  the  cost  of  production  per  machine  or  per 
something  that  is  produced,  the  total  cost  of  that,  for  instance,  the  building  of  a 
locomotive,  say  it  requires  1,000  men  a  given  time  to  build  a  locomotive,  and 
by  the  introduction  of  a  machine  500  men  build  the  locomotive  in  half  the 
time,  the  cost  has  been  reduced  100  per  cent  and  the  number  of  men  has  been 
reduced  100  per  cent.  Something  should  be  done  whereby  that  number  of  men 
should  be  taken  care  of  in  that  production.  They  should  enjoy  some  result  of 
the  reduced  cost  of  that  production.  Do  you  get  the  idea? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes.  My  proposal  would  not  be,  however,  that  each  industry 
would  take  care  of  those  displaced,  because  it  would  leave  forever  ups  and 
downs  throughout  the  entire  industrial  field,  one  industry  being  able  to  take 
care  of  its  men  while  others  not  so  well.  So  if  it  were  worked  out  as  a  scheme 
of  insurance  and  taking  care  of  every  man  who  was  so  displaced,  by  unem- 
ployment insurance,  perhaps — I  am  not  here  to  advocate  all  forms  of  insur- 
ance, as  I  am  not  an  insurance  expert — but  to  take  care  of  the  unemployed 
man  and  tide  him  over  and  help  him  secure  a  better  job — those  things  would 
have  to  be  done  on  a  national,  or  at  any  rate  a  State,  scale,  rather  than  by 
industries. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Your  idea  being  that  the  State  should  take  care  of 
those  insurances  and  pensions  with  a  view  of  doing  away  with  the  bonus  sys- 
tems that,  in  your  way  of  thinking,  do  in  some  way  bind  men  or  obligate  them 
in  some  way  which  prevents  them  from  asserting  what  they  feel  to  be  their 
right? 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  think  the  States  could  do  it,  but  I  do  not  think  for  a  minute 
that  the  States  will  do  it  overnight,  and  I  think  it  can  be  handled  more  simply 
than  that  in  the  meantime.  I  see  no  objection  whatever  to  the  employers  in  a 
given  industry  combining  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  funds  that  will  take 
care  of  men  under  such  circumstances,  so  that  a  man  may  freely  go  from  one 
firm  to  another  in  the  same  industry  and  not  lose  his  skill  and  benefits  because 
he  left  the  employ  of  Jones  and  went  to  the  employ  of  Smith,  but  let  Smith  and 
Jones  cooperate  in  the  fund  instead  of  Jones  doing  it  alone  and  Smith  not 
doing  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  suppose  the  tax  should  be  general  or  upon 
the  entire  people  employing  these  men? 

Mr.  FITCH.  If  it  were  a  Government  proposition,  it  should  be  a  tax  upon  all 
systems,  supposing  it  were  on  the  basis  of  a  tax.  But  what  I  did  suggest  was 
a  contributory  system,  with  the  employer  and  the  employee  contributing  and  a 
certain  balance  by  the  Government,  which,  of  course,  would  mean  taxation  of  all 
citizens.  But  I  think  the  form  would  have  to  be  different  with  each  form  of 
insurance. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Fitch,  might  we  ask  you  to  make  a  little  written  outline 
of  a  proposed  investigation  into  these  subtleties  which  you  have  spoken  of,  or 
into  those  different  things  which  you  think  operate  to  take  away  freedom  in  the 
industrial  world  and  give  it  to  Mr.  Lauck? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes ;  I  would  be  very  glad  to. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  wanted  to  ask  you  one  other  question.  From  your  expe- 
rience can  you  suggest  here  briefly  what  the  trades-unions  have  done  or  are 
doing  to  make  the  employment  of  trades-union  men  desirable  economically  ? 

Mr.  FITCH.  You  mean  to  convince  the  employer? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No ;  to  make  it  more  desirable  economically,  using  that  term 
in  its  broadest  sense. 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  think  the  trade  agreement  has  had  a  very  great  deal  to  do  in 
that  direction  in  providing  stability  in  an  industry.  I  think  the  highly  organ- 
ized industries  are  not  subject  to  the  sudden  and  altogether  unexpected  interrup- 
tions such  as  took  place  in  Paterson  in  the  silk  industry,  where  a  very  large 
proportion  of  the  employees  were  unorganized  and  there  was  a  sudden  revolt, 
or  such  as  took  place  in  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Works,  where,  there  being  no  trade 
agreement  and  no  understanding  between  the  employer  and  the  employee,  there 
was  a  sudden  upheaval  which  took  place  in  the  middle  of  the  filling  of  contracts  by 
the  employer.  The  absence  of  contracts  between  the  employer  and  the  employee 


342          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

and  the  existence  of  a  contract  at  the  same  time  between  the  employer  and  the 
consumer  puts  the  employer  in  a  condition  of  great  jeopardy,  and  I  think  the 
trade  agreement  has  removed  that  jeopardy  in  many  industries. 

Commissioner  LENNOX.  How  does  it  strike  you  as  regards  the  fixing  of  a 
standard  of  uniform  wage  in  an  industry?  How  does  that  act  upon  the  success 
of  the  business,  to  fix  the  labor  cost  for  every  manufacturing  line  at  the  same 
point,  what  tendency  does  that  have? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Undoubtedly  that  enables  the  employer  to  estimate  his  cost  and 
to  put  in  his  bids  with  a  certainty  of  knowledge  as  to  what  his  costs  would  be 
that  he  would  not  have  otherwise. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  And  knowing  that  the  other  fellow  has  to  pay  the 
same  thing? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  refer,  Mr.  Lennon,  to  a  minimum  wage 
or  a  maximum  wage? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Whatever  the  agreed  wage  may  be. 

Commissioner  GAKRETSON.  Mr.  Fitch,  is  not  what  you  referred  to  as  being 
described  by  the  employer  as  loyalty  being  engendered  by  these  various  wel- 
fare devices,  in  reality  liability  on  the  part  of  the  employee?  Is  not  that  what 
it  guarantees? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Usually,  I  should  say;  yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Do  you  hold  that  any  system  of  pensions  con- 
tains within  it  the  principles  of  equity  if  its  benefits  are  terminable  at  the  will 
of  the  man  or  the  corporation  who  grants  it,  arbitrarily? 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  think  a  system  of  that  kind  is  inequitable,  essentially. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Let  us  go  back  to  that  print  shop  a  minute.  Is  it 
not  a  fact,  and  I  assume  that  you  are  somewhat  familiar  with  the  conditions 
in  the  printing  trade  from  what  you  have  said,  that  the  old  stick  space  type- 
setter is  relegated  to  the  country  office  at  the  present  time? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  And  that  only  such  men  as  have  been  able  to 
master  the  use  of  the  linotype  or  the  monotype  have  been  able  to  pursue  the 
calling  that  they  pursued  prior  to  its  introduction. 

Mr.  FITCH.  Very  true. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Has  there  been  any  reduction  to  the  average  con- 
sumer of  the  rates  of  printing  therefrom? 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  say  as  to  that.  I  am  not  familiar  with 
that. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  wanted  to  discover  that  fact  from  a  personal 
sense.  I  spend  $35,000  a  year  for  printing,  and  I  have  never  been  able  to 
find  that  reduction,  and  I  wanted  to  know  where  it  was.  Do  you  suppose  that 
out  of  the  large  number  of  men  who  have  been  displaced  as  printers  by  it, 
that  there  is  any  feeling  of  unrest,  or  that  those  men  are  readily  reconcilable 
to  the  present  industrial  conditions? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Without  having  made  any  inquiry,  I  should  naturally  assume 
that  there  would  be  a  feeling  of  unrest. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  It  would  be  rather  hard  for  them  to  treat  the 
public  good,  then? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  judged  that  is  the  case.  I  would  like  to  ask  one 
other  question:  Who  is  the  public? 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  trust  that  all  of  us  are. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Now,  I  am  asking  that  question  on  this  basis : 
What  portion  of  the  public  do  laboring  men  constitute? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Do  you  mean 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  When  we  talk  about  the  public,  what  proportion 
of  it  is  composed  of  individuals  who  are  subject  to  those  labor  conditions? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Oh,  a  very  large  proportion ;  I  could  not  say. 

Commissioner  GARKKTSOX.  A  very  large  majority,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  FITCH.  A  very  large  majority ;  yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNKLL.  The  much-abused  public  is  the  minority. 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  might  say  as  to  the  possibility  of  a  man  losing  his  rights,  I 
heard  the  other  day  of  a  man  drawing  a  salary  of  $5,000  in  a  company  which 
has  a  pension  system,  being  discharged  in  about  the  seventeenth  year  of  his 
time  of  employment  with  that  company,  and  making  way  for  a  younger  man 
who  started  to  work  at  $2,000. 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  343 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Let  me  ask  one  question  right  there  as  to  pen- 
sions, as  yon  have  spoken  of  that.  Do  you  consider  any  system  of  pension 
device  by  a  single  corporation  without  any  connection  or  affiliation  with  any 
other  pension  system,  contains  within  it  anything  but  the  elements  necessary 
to  coerce  the  men  who  are  receiving  it,  if  it  is  terminable  when  the  man's  con- 
nection with  that  corporation  or  employer  ceases,  or  should  it  stand  as  a  vested 
right  acquired  by  him,  regardless  of  the  period,  in  the  degree  that  it  has  accu- 
mulated to  him  in  that  service? 

Mr.  FITCH.  Oh,  yes ;  it  should  stand  as  a  vested  right  of  the  employee ;  that 
is  my  whole  point. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Take  the  whole  system  as  devised,  and  we  will  give 
them  full  credit,  philanthropic  employers;  my  friend  did  not  claim  for  them 
philanthropy,  but  business;  but  take  it  on  the  basis  of  philanthropy,  employers 
from  that  standpoint,  do  you  believe  that  the  whole  welfare  system  as  it  is  at 
present  paternally  administered,  is  taken  up  by  them  as  anything  else  than 
the  lesser  of  two  evils ;  to  defeat,  in  other  words,  activity  on  the  part  of  their 
employees  in  a  direction  that  they  could  not  control? 

Mr.  FITCH.  I  should  rather  not  go  into  the  question  of  motives,  because  I 
think  they  are  so  varied  and  complex.  It  is  a  good  deal  easier  to  say  what  is 
the  result. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Well,  express  your  opinion  as  to  the  result,  then. 

Mr.  FITCH.  That  is  what  I  tried  to  do.  The  result  is  to  prevent  activity  on 
the  part  of  the  employee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  are  a  couple  of  questions  which  the  commission  would 
like  to  have  answered,  and  I  will  hand  them  to  Mr.  Lauck  so  he  can  put  them 
in  the  record  directly. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  would  suggest  that  as  all  of  the  commission  may 
have  questions  to  ask,  that  it  would  be  very  desirable  if  they  could  be  trans- 
mitted to  the  chairman  and  embodied  in  a  list  of  questions  by  our  experts 
which  the  witness  or  expert  who  is  testifying  will  be  permitted  to  answer 
thoroughly  and  carefully. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  At  some  other  time  besides  at  the  hearing? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Yes.  I  think  if  we  do  not  adopt  that  practice,  that  we 
will  get  into  a  wrangle  where  we  will  not  accomplish  anything.  *> 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  justice  to  the  speaker  he  should  not  be  called  upon  offhand 
to  answer  some  of  these  complex  questions. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  think  the  time  when  the  thing  is  up  for  hearing  is 
the  time  to  thrash  it  out. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  mean  we  are  not  to  address  the  gentleman 
who  is  speaking  as  to  any  questions  which  may  arise? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  think  Mr.  Garretson's  questions  have  been  pretty 
fully  covered  by  the  witness,  and  we  can  spend  a  great  deal  of  time  unneces- 
sarily in  thrashing  these  things  out. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  fair,  if  some  gentle- 
man addressed  this  commission  and  made  statements  which  some  of  the  com- 
mission knew  to  be  incorrect,  making  them  perfectly  innocently,  I  think  it  would 
be  well  to  bring  that  fact  out  so  that  the  witness  may  have  the  opportunity 
to  straighten  out  his  mistake. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Speaking  for  myself  only,  I  am  here  to  be  edu- 
cated. These  are  all  very  great  and  complex  problems  that  not  any  of  us  are 
in  a  position  to  handle  intelligently  at  the  present  time,  and  one  of  the  great  ad- 
vantages in  having  these  ladies  and  gentlemen  come  before  us,  who  are  experts 
and  who  have  given  their  lives  to  the  study  of  these  subjects,  is  to  educate  us. 
And  the  only  wray  I  can  get  educated  is  by  asking  questions  and  getting  answers. 
If  we  reduce  it  to  cold  type  at  a  later  period,  that  will  not  answer  questions 
that  might  suggest  themselves  to  us,  and  I  do  not  know  of  any  better  way  than 
by  taking  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to  become  educated  from  a  man  who 
has  given  time  and  study  to  these  problems. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  draw  attention  to  this 
phase  of  it.  The  gentlemen  who  appear  before  this  commission  make  certain 
expressions  of  opinion.  If  my  friend  on  the  other  side  of  the  table  who  dis- 
agrees with  some  of  my  conclusions  wants  to  ask  a  question  to  bring  out  in 
concrete  form  the  implied  opinion  that  came  before,  I  shall  not  object  to  it, 
simply  because  I  disagree  with  the  idea  he  attempts  to  bring  out.  But  if  an 
expert  on  a  given  line  appears  before  this  commission  recommending  to  this 
commission  a  course  of  investigation  to  be  pursued,  it  is  my  intention  to  develop 
as  clearly  as  I  can,  what  his  beliefs  are ;  because  if  he  is  recommending  a  course 


344          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

of  action  to  the  commission  it  is  the  right  of  the  commission  to  know  in  as 
definite  a  form  ns  they  can  get  it,  what  it  is  that  he  desires  to  rectify,  and  upon 
what  grounds  it  is  safe. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr.  Chairman,  would  it  he  satisfactory  if  we  reserve 
this  discussion  to  an  executive  session? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  so. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  My  idea  would  be  that  the  gentlemen  should  ask 
such  questions  as  they  choose  until  the  commission  has  settled  its  policy  as  to 
conducting  the  investigations,  and  we  should  allow  it  to  go  on  in  this  fashion 
and  reserve  for  executive  session  the  discussion  .  of  any  questions  of  policy 
regarding  how  we  should  conduct  these  hearings. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.  Mr.  Leiserson,  would  you  be  kind  enough  now  to  sub- 
mit your  suggestions? 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  WILLIAM  M.  LEISERSON. 

Mr.   LEISERSON.  Mr.   Chairman   and   members   of   the   commission — 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  suggest  that  the  gentleman  be  asked  to  put  in 
the  record  what  his  position  is. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  present  work? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  I  am  a  deputy  of  the  Industrial  Commission  of  Wisconsin, 
in  charge  of  their  employment  department;  that  is,  on  that  part  of  the  work 
of  the  industrial  commission  that  relates  to  unemployment  and  employment 
offices  comes  under  my  jurisdicion. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  particular  specific  duty  with  reference  to  it? 
Are  you  the  head  of  the  free  employment  bureau  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  Yes ;  I  am  at  the  head  of  the  work  of  the  free  State  employ- 
ment offices  and  am  the  inspector  of  private  agencies  and  have  the  regulation 
of  private  employment  offices. 

The  subject  that  I  want  to  direct  your  attention  to  is  unemployment.  When 
you  come  to  that  subject,  you  are  getting  at  the  really  fundamental  thing  in 
industrial  relations;  the  things  that  Mr.  Quick  spoke  about  and  the  things 
that  the  Safety  Council  spoke  about  are  all  incidental.  The  bottom  of  every- 
thing is  unemployment.  It  is  unemployment  or  the  fear  of  unemployment  that 
keeps  us  from  regulating  trusts,  from  changing  our  currency  system,  and 
from  reducing  our  tariffs;  it  is  the  fear  of  the  unemployed  men  that  keeps 
the  trade-unions  from  organizing;  it  is  the  fear  of  losing  a  job  that  keeps  a 
man  from  voting  as  he  wants  to  vote;  it  is  the  fear  of  losing  a  job  that 
jeopardizes  a  man's  rights.  It  is  the  unemployment  problem,  I  think,  that 
is  basic  in  everything. 

Now,  the  unemployment  problem  has  two  sides  to  it.  It  is  basic  in  the 
sense  that  the  man  is  out  of  a  job  and  is  in  fear  of  losing  his  job,  and  therefore 
is  willing  to  give  up  all  his  rights,  or  he  can  not  protect  his  rights ;  but  on  the 
other  side  the  unemployment  problem  shows  itself  on  the  inside  that  the  man 
refuses  to  work.  That  is,  the  man  who  is  compelled  every  winter  to  spend 
his  winter  in  Chicago  in  the  lodging  houses  with  nothing  to  eat  except  what  he 
can  get  from  the  free-lunch  counter,  when  he  does  get  a  chance  to  work  in 
the  summer,  and  when  there  is  a  great  demand  for  labor,  then  he  has  acquired 
habits  of  idleness  and  he  refuses  to  work  at  that  time,  and  you  have  the  un- 
employment of  the  winter  balanced  by  unemployment  of  the  summer,  that  is 
voluntary  on  the  part  of  these  same  people,  so  that  it  is  a  problem  both  to 
the  employer  and  to  the  employee. 

Now,  I  want  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  question  of  the  fundamental 
causes  of  unemployment.  As  I  see,  what  your  commission  wants  to  get  at — it 
wants  from  us  who  come  before  you  some  definite  suggestions  as  to  what  you 
might  do  on  the  various  subjects  that  we  are  interested  in.  I  should  like  to 
begin  by  telling  you  what  not  to  do,  and  the  reason  that  I  can  stand  before 
you  and  tell  you  that  is  because  I  have  done  some  of  the  things  that  ought  not 
to  be  done. 

In  studying  unemployment,  yon  might  get  at  the  fundamental  problem,  you 
might  say  that  seasonal  fluctuations  of  industry  are  one  of  the  causes  of 
unemployment,  and  that  cyclical  fluctuations;  that  is,  fluctuations  over  years, 
introduction  of  machinery,  and  so  on,  are  fundamental  causes  of  unemploy- 
ment. Then  you  develop  remedies  for  those  fundamental  causes,  employment 
offices,  unemployment  insurance,  public  works  for  the  unemployed,  industrial 
training,  and  any  one  of  the  remedies  of  that  kind.  Now,  any  study  that  you 
might  make  into  the  question  of  unemployment  will  result  in  an  analysis  of 


SUGGESTIONS    OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  345 

the  question  that  has  already  been  made.  Books  have  been  written  on  the 
question  to  which  you  could  add  very  little,  as  to  explaining  the  fundamental 
causes  of  unemployment,  and  the  remedies  that  you  could  suggest  to  the 
United  States  Congress  would  be  remedies  that  have  already  been  suggested 
by  other  bodies  in  this  country  and  by  other  bodies  in  Europe.  They  would 
be,  as  I  mentioned,  unemployment  insurance,  public  work  for  the  unemployed, 
employment  offices,  and  so  forth.  You  recommend  fundamental  remedies,  but 
you  have  to  take  into  consideration  whether  you  can  get  those  fundamental 
remedies  across.  If  unemployment  insurance  and  public  work  for  the  unem- 
ployed and  other  fundamental  remedies  of  that  kind  mean  taking  money  out 
of  the  pockets  of  taxpayers  in  the  form  of  taxation  or  out  of  the  pockets  of 
employers  in  the  form  of  making  them  contribute  to  insurance  funds,  and  so  on, 
you  will  not  be  able  to  get  that  across  unless  the  employers  and  the  public  are 
educated  to  the  point  of  doing  that. 

Now,  at  the  present  time,  from  my  knowledge  of  the  question  of  unemploy- 
ment, if  I  were  to  confine  it  only  to  the  States  of  New  York  and  Wisconsin, 
where  I  have  had  experience,  I  should  say  it  would  be  absolutely  impossible 
to  get  an  unemployment  insurance  law  adopted  in  either  of  those  States,  and  I 
think  it  would  be  impossible  to  get  the  Federal  Government  to  do  anything 
along  that  line.  And  you  might  suggest  it  and  your  experience  would  be  what 
the  New  York  Commission  on  Unemployment  had.  I  was  connected  with  that 
commission,  and  we  made  a  thorough  study  of  the  question  and  went  to  Europe 
and  made  a  very  voluminous  report,  and  it  was  a  very  good  report,  as  good  as 
could  be  made,  and  I  know  it  because  I  wrote  it  myself.  But  the  result  of  it 
was  that  it  was  filed  away  and  not  a  single  thing  was  done. 

I  want  to  direct  your  attention  to  accomplishing  a  thing  that  is  fundamental, 
too,  in  a  way.  It  is  fundamental  because  you  can  get  something  done  right  now. 
When  I  became  connected  with  the  Industrial  Commission  of  Wisconsin  and 
we  wanted  to  take  up  the  same  question  of  unemployment,  instead  of  making  a 
general  study  of  the  question  and  having  to  report,  we  took  the  benefit  of  those 
reports  before  and  a  bill  was  passed  by  the  legislature  which  is  a  part  of  the 
industrial-commission  law,  which  I  should  like  to  read  to  you.  It  is  just  a 
short  statement,  and  it  gives  practically  the  fundamental  remedies  that  you 
might  have  for  unemployment: 

"  Powers  of  the  industrial  commission."  That  is  one  part  of  the  industrial- 
commission  law. 

"  To  establish  and  conduct  free  employment  agencies,  to  license  and  supervise 
the  work  of  private  employment  offices,  to  do  all  in  its  power  to  bring  together 
employeers  seeking  employees  and  working  people  seeking  employment,  to  make 
known  the  opportunities  for  self-employment  in  the  State,  to  aid  in  inducing 
minors  to  undertake  promising  skilled  employment,  to  provide  industrial  or 
agricultural  training  for  vagrants  and  other  persons  nnsuited  for  ordinary 
employments,  and  to  encourage  wage  earners  to  insure  themselves  against  dis- 
tress from  unemployment.  It  shall  investigate  the  extent  and  causes  of  unem- 
ployment in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  and  the  remedies  therefore  in  this  and 
other  countries  and  it  shall  device  and  adopt  the  most  efficient  means  within 
its  power  to  avoid  unemployment,  to  provide ,  employment,  and  to  prevent 
distress  from  involuntary  idleness." 

Now,  could  you  do  anything  better  than  get  a  bill  like  that  passed  now  You 
might  get  it  passed.  It  takes  in  all  the  things,  but  the  question  is,  Can  you  get 
anything  done?  Just  to  put  the  law  in  the  staute  books  will  not  do  you  any 
good.  So  I  come  to  the  way  something  might  be  done,  and  I  will  give  you  my 
own  experience  that  I  can  talk  about  with  knowledge  and  from  that  I  think 
you  can  draw  some  kind  of  a  conclusion  as  to  what  you  might  do. 

We  found  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  that  there  were  agencies  that  were  dealing 
with  unemployment.  We  had  public  employment  offices  in  the  State — we  had 
four  of  them — and  we  had  something  like  30  private  employment  agencies. 
There  was  something  to  begin  on.  Every  study  of  unemployment  that  has 
ever  been  made  that  I  know  anything  about  has  reported  that  the  first  step  in 
the  problem  in  dealing  with  unemployment  must  be  the  establishment  of  a  sys- 
tem of  employment  offices  to  bring  together  the  jobs  that  are  open  now  to  give 
the  unemployed  all  the  employment  there  is.  We  do  not  know  now,  although 
there  are  unemployed  people  in  one  part  of  the  country  or  in  the  State,  that 
there  are  plenty  of  jobs  in  another  part  of  the  country  or  another  part  of  the 
city  that  might  use  those  men,  and  the  first  step  must  be  to  bring  them  together. 
Now,  you  have  provided  a  public  agency  whose  business  it  is  to  do  that.  We 
have  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  four  of  those.  The  first  thing  the  industrial 


346          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

commission  ordered  was  a  study  of  those  four  agencies;  what  are  they  doing? 
Well,  we  found  that  those  four  were  not  doing  anything  really  to  help  the 
situation.  The  people  in  charge  of  them  did  not  know  the  employment  busi- 
ness. When  a  man  was  in  it  long  enough  to  learn  the  employment  business 
there  was  a  change  in  the  administration  of  the  State  and  a  Democrat  or  a 
Ilepublican  was  substituted  for  him  just  about  the  time  he  got  the  business 
learned  and  somebody  else  took  the  job.  Then  these  people 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.   To  the  victor  belongs  the  spoils. 

Mr.  LETSERSON.  Then,  these  people,  not  knowing  the  business,  have  not  worked 
out  policies  to  deal  with  the  problem  they  have  to  deal  writh.  A  public  employ- 
ment office,  in  the  minds  of  many  people,  gives  away  work.  Now,  there  is  the 
danger.  I  have  not  much  use  for  the  argument  about  pauperizing  people,  but 
however  much  you  may  not  place  stock  in  that  argument,  that  public  activity  or 
work  pauperizes  people,  there  is  a  danger  there,  and  when  an  employment  office 
is  run  on  the  idea  that  it  is  giving  people  jobs  and  makes  them  feel  that  any  time 
they  want  a  job  they  should  go  to  the  employment  office,  there  is  a  danger  of 
pauperizing  people,  and  I  have  seen  it,  and  the  people,  not  knowing  how  to 
handle  the  employment  office,  did  not  know  how  to  handle  the  people  in  order 
to  avoid  that  difficulty  and  other  things.  About  30  to  35  per  cent  of  the  demand 
for  labor  in  a  city  the  size  of  Milwaukee,  which  is  about  350,000,  is  for  short 
jobs — casual  labor.  Now,  there  is  a  very  great  danger  of  an  employment  office 
instead  of  minimizing  the  problem  of  casual  labor  intensifying  it  by  taking 
young  people  who  might  do  steady  work  and  showing  them  that  they  can  get  a 
short  job  for  three  or  four  hours  and  make  a  dollar  or  a  dollar  and  a  half  during 
the  day,  and  they  get  accustomed  to  doing  that,  and  you  are  making  the  employ- 
ment office  a  place  for  manufacturing  casual  labor.  And  in  some  States  that 
has  actually  happened.  And  I  might  go  through  other  things  of  that  kind  that 
happened  in  the  employment  office. 

Now,  when  you  get  to  the  private  agency  they  do  not  even  try  to  handle  the 
problem  from  the  social  point  of  view.  The  public  agencies  are  supposed,  at 
least,  to  help  in  the  solution  of  the  problems  of  unemployment.  The  private 
agencies  do  not  even  try  it.  What  they  are  after  is  the  profit  from  the  business, 
just  the  same  as  any  manufacturer  or  employer  goes  into  the  business  of  manu- 
facturing or  distributing  goods.  Now,  the  private  agent  intensified  the  evil  in 
this  way,  and  I  might  illustrate  with  a  few  cases. 

Just  at  the  present  time  everybody  knows  there  is  a  large  number  of  unem- 
ployed people  in  Chicago.  At  a  conference  that  I  attended  in  Chicago  a  few 
weeks  ago  the  fact  came  out  that  just  at  this  time  an  employer  in  Chicago 
orders  50  Polish  laborers  from  Detroit  to  be  shipped  to  Chicago.  That  shows 
one  of  the  evils  that  the  private  employment  agencies  accomplish  or  bring  about 
by  merely  looking  for  the  profit  that  they  can  get  in  placing  an  individual.  That 
is  the  theory,  that  if  you  leave  to  private  individuals  and  to  private  enterprise 
the  business  of  distributing  labor  in  the  country  it  works  out  not  to  distribute 
them  properly  is  to  congest  laborers,  as  in  this  case  in  Chicago. 

Another  thing:  At  the  present  time  private  agents  have  not  got  very  much 
business.  If  you  go  along  South  Canal  Street  in  Chicago  you  will  find  signs  up 
in  some  of  the  employment  offices,  "No  shipments."  They  have  not  got  any 
business.  Now,  an  ^enterprising  private  employment  agent  knows  how  to  get 
business,  and  one  of  them  told  me  how  he  does  it.  He  says,  "  When  I  have  very 
little  work  and  I  have  many  laborers,  I  go  to  a  manufacturer  and  tell  him, 
*  Now,  you  are  paying  20  cents  an  hour,  and  there  are  thousands  of  laborers 
coming  to  my  office  now,  and  I  can  get  you  100  or  200  or  500  who  will  work  for 
you  for  17£  cents  or  15  cents  an  hour,  and  I  will  supply  them  to  you.  and  you 
will  make  a  saving,  and  I  will  get  $1  or  $2  or  $3  from  each  of  the  men.'  "  That 
is  another  way  in  which  the  theory  of  leaving  to  private  enterprise  the  distri- 
bution of  labor  works  out  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  laboring  man  and  to  the 
creating  of  industrial  unrest,  as  you  may  call  it. 

To  come  to  the  more  concrete  suggestion  as  to  what  your  commission  might 
do  in  this  problem  I  think  you  might  follow  the  example  which  the  Industrial 
Commission  of  Wisconsin  followed  in  its  study.  There  are  in  the  United  States 
about  70  free  public  employment  offices.  Very  few  people  know  about  them. 
There  are  very  many  private  employment  agencies.  Everybody  is  agreed, 
at  least  theoretically,  because  it  has  taken  the  form  of  State  legislation,  that 
the  public,  the  State,  ought  to  do  something  in  distributing  labor.  You  can  get 
something  done  on  this  first  step  in  dealing  with  unemployment.  You  would 
not  have  the  difficulty  that  you  might  have  in  trying  to  get  a  scheme  of  un- 
employment insurance  across.  Now,  if  instead  of  making  an  investigation  of 


SUGGESTIONS    OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  347 

unemployment  in  general  and  then  recommending  that  the  first  step  must  be 
public  employment  offices  and  then  leaving  it  there,  and  then  perhaps  some 
States  will  go  on  and  create  some  more  of  the  same  public  employment  offices 
that  we  have  now,  which  do  not  accomplish  anything — if  instead  of  doing  that 
you  made  a  study  of  the  agencies  that  are  now  in  existence  for  distributing 
labor,  taking  care  of  that  first  step,  and  then  recommending  to  Congress  a 
scheme  for  an  efficient  distribution  of  labor  in  the  country  and  backing  that 
up  by  showing  how  inefficiently  the  present  method  works,  then  I  think  you 
can  get  something  done  immediately.  That  may  look  like  dealing  with  pallia- 
tives that  are  not  getting  at  the  fundamental  thing.  I  contend  that  it  is  the 
most  important  and  the  only  practical  way  in  getting  at  fundamentals,  and  I  will 
give  you  an  example  that  we  have  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee. 

In  the  city  of  Milwaukee  now  we  have  the  same  unemployment  problem  that 
exists  throughout  the  country,  whereas  in  other  cities  they  are  now  talking 
about  employment  offices  as  a  remedy  for  unemployment — and,  by  the  way,  in, 
Chicago  they  have  three  public  employment  offices,  and  they  have  a  mayor's 
commission  on  unemployment ;  and  this  mayor's  commission  on  unemployment, 
as  I  am  informed,  has  just  recommended  the  establishment  of  another  free 
employment  office 

Mrs.  ROBINS.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  Now,  if  those  three  could  not  do  anything,  what  is  the  use 
of  putting  another  one  in  there?  We  want  to  find  out  what  the  trouble  is.  In 
the  city  of  Milwaukee  we  do  not  talk  employment  offices  any  more.  We  have 
got  it,  and  the  thing  we  are  talking  now  is  the  regulation  of  the  labor  market 
by  means  of  public  work.  Everybody  in  Milwaukee  knows  if  there  is  any  work 
in  the  city  it  is  registered  at  the  employment  office,  and  the  people  in  charge 
of  the  employment  office  have  issued  an  appeal  to  the  public  to  do  work  that 
they  ordinarily  leave  to  the  spring  now.  They  have  issued  an  appeal  to  the 
people  to  do  repair  work  and  such  things  as  they  ordinarily  leave  for  the 
spring  now.  And  the  most  important  thing  they  have  done  is  to  appoint  a 
committee  to  go  to  every  department  of  the  city  and  find  out  if  those  depart- 
ments could  not  to  a  large  extent  do  most  of  their  work  in  the  winter,  when 
other  people  are  throwing  workmen  out  of  work.  Now,  the  answer  we  get  is 
that  we  can  not  do  it,  our  appropriations  are  not  arranged  that  way.  In  other 
words,  the  people  who  have  this  work  to  do  are  on  the  defensive;  they  have 
to  show  why  they  can  not  get  the  public  work  done  now.  And  the  reason 
they  have  to  show  it  is  because  we  have  already  thrown  this  problem  onto  the 
community  through  the  employment  offices. 

There  is  one  point  I  want  to  bring  out  as  to  the  kind  of  study  that  you 
might  make  as  to  why  these  offices  are  not  accomplishing  what  they  ought  to 
accomplish.  We  have  had  employment  offices  in  this  country  since  1890. 
Ohio  started  first.  During  all  that  time  there  has  not  been  worked  out  any- 
thing like  a  set  of  administrative  principles  of  technique  or  science  of  running 
an  employment  office.  Nobody  has  thought  of  working  that  out.  Nobody  has 
thought  of  learning  the  employment  agency  business.  In  any  private  busi- 
ness that  is  the  first  thing  a  man  has  to  do ;  to  succeed,  he  has  to  learn  the 
business.  Now,  what  are  the  things  which  make  an  employment  business 
successful?  If  you  make  a  study  of  this  question,  that  is  the  most  import- 
ant contribution  you  can  make.  If  you  can  recommend  to  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  a  system  of  public-employment  offices,  State  and  Federal, 
working  together,  if  you  can  recommend  in  that  system  what  the  administrative 
principle  shall  be  to  control  the  management  of  those  offices,  then,  I  think, 
you  will  have  taken  the  most  important  step  that  you  could  possibly  take  at 
this  time  to  remedy  the  problem  of  unemployment,  and  you  will  actually  make 
a  beginning  on  it.  For  I  really  feel  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  are 
ready  to  do  this  thing. 

What  are  the  things  that  make  for  a  successful  employment  office?  I  think 
the  most  important  thing  is  the  selection  of  the  force,  the  people  who  are 
going  to  do  it.  You  know  the  way  we  have  had  legislation  in  this  country, 
studies  have  been  made  on  the  fundamental  principles,  just  as  it  has  been 
suggested  you  should  do,  and  then  as  the  result  of  the  fundamental  principles 
you  agitate  and  get  up  a  lot  of  publicity,  and  you  pass  a  law;  and  then  all 
those  people  who  know  anything  about  the  law,  and  the  reasons  why  it  was 
passed,  forget  about  it  and  think  the  question  is  solved  and  say  we  have 
passed  a  law  which  will  remedy  this  situation. 

And  it  is  just  at  that  point  that  you  ought  to  begin.  In  other  words  you  are 
doing  what  the  novelists  and  dramatists  do.  They  end  a  story  at  the  time 


348          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

the  hero  and  heroine  get  married.  It  is  just  there  that  the  story  ought  to 
begin.  Every  one  of  these  reforms  that  have  been  worked  out  in  the  form  of 
legislation — that  is  rather  a  wild  statement ;  I  mean  with  regard  to  unem- 
ployment it  is  absolutely  so — every  reform  with  regard  to  unemployment, 
take  the  employment  officers,  the  law  has  been  passed,  and  then  it  has  been 
left  to  political  appointments,  to  people  who  knew  nothing  about  the  business 
or  about  the  reason  for  establishing  the  offices  to  administer  those  offices.  And 
of  course  they  could  not  be  successful.  Therefore  I  suggest  that  you  first  work 
out  the  kind  of  a  system  or  have  your  investigations  directed  toward  the  kind 
of  system  that  will  make  for  getting  the  best  people  that  know  how  to  run 
the  offices  actually  there.  That  means  some  form  of  civil  service,  some  form 
of  permanent  tenure  in  office.  That  is  the  most  important  thing.  I  might, 
by  way  of  suggestion,  tell  you  how  it  has  been  worked  out  in  Wisconsin.  I 
will  do  that  presently. 

Another  thing  is  when  you  get  a  public-employment  office,  laboring  men  are 
afraid  it  will  be  used  as  a  strike  breaking  agency  to  lower  wages.  Em- 
ployers are  afraid  it  will  be  used  to  fill  their  shops  with  union  men.  That  has 
been  one  of  the  most  fundamental  causes  for  the  failure  of  employment  offices. 
Laboring  men  have  tried  to  get  trade-union  men  in  charge  of  the  offices.  When 
they  have  done  that  what  has  happened?  They  have  refused  to  call  for  any 
help  at  all,  except  the  most  casual  kind  of  work.  On  the  other  side,  where 
the  employers  have  got  their  man  in  the  laboring  men  have  looked  with 
suspicion  upon  the  office. 

Now,  the  scheme  we  have  worked  out  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee  is  this :  That 
the  question  of  getting  the  job  is  the  question  which  must  be  left  outside  of  the 
struggle  between  capital  and  labor,  and  that  absolute  impartiality  must  be  the 
principle  which  guides  the  employment  office.  How  have  we  done  it?  We 
have  taken  five  members  of  the  Civic  Federation  of  Labor  in  Milwaukee  and 
have  taken  five  members  of  the  Merchants  &  Manufacturers'  Association,  and  we 
have  appointed  them  a  citizens'  committee  on  unemployment,  and  they  practically 
run  the  office.  They  see  that  absolute  impartiality  reigns  in  that  office. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  takes  those  10  men  to  do  the  work  of  1? 

Mr.  LEISEESON.  No;  they  do  not  work. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  They  watch  the  one? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  We  have  5  men  who  are  employed  in  the  office  and  they 
help  direct  those  5.  The  committee  has  also  members  of  the  city  council  on  it, 
but  these  men  are  sort  of  a  board  of  directors;  they  are  what  are  called  in 
Europe  the  advisory  committee  of  the  employment  office.  There  is  no  place 
in  the  country,  I  think,  where  the  class  conflict  is  keener  than  in  Milwaukee. 
Over  there  they  do  not  argue  any  more  at  all  about  public  ownership  or  things 
of  that  kind ;  the  question  over  there  is  this :  "  Shall  the  government  be  taken 
from  the  city  hall  and  be  put  in  Brisbane  Hall,  where  the  trade-unions  meet, 
or  in  the  Germania  Building,  where  the  Merchants  &  Manufacturers  meet?" 
That  is  the  question  over  there.  Now,  if  you  can  get  under  circumstances 
of  that  kind,  under  the  keenest  class  conflict,  both  sides  to  agree  and  work  on  a 
proposition  of  this  kind,  I  think  that  is  evidence  enough  that  that  is  a  practical 
idea. 

Now,  I  will  illustrate  that  a  little  further  by  showing  you  how  practical  it 
is.  The  industrial  commission,  which  has  charge  of  these  offices,  did  not  have 
money  enough  to  run  them.  The  same  thing  is  true  all  over  the  country,  there 
is  not  enough  money  appropriated  for  the  work.  So  the  industrial  commission 
went  to  the  city  council  and  county  board  and  said,  "  You  are  interested  in  this 
and  you  contribute  something,"  and  they  pay ;  altogether  they  have  contributed 
$5,000  for  the  work.  When  it  was  first  done  the  Socialists  were  in  control  both 
of  the  city  and  county.  Everything  that  the  Socialists  did,  the  good  things  and 
the  bad  things,  because  it  was  done  by  the  Socialists,  was  turned  out — the 
child-welfare  work,  the  tuberculosis  work,  and  practically  everything,  even 
Prof.  Commons  was  turned  out,  because  he  happens  to  be  with  the  Socialists. 
But  when  it  came  to  the  appropriation  for  the  free  employment  office  in  Mil- 
waukee we  had  Mr  Van  Schaick,  the  secretary  of  the  International  Harvester 
Co.,  who  is  the  chief  lobbyist  in  the  legislature  for  the  Merchants  £  Manufac- 
turers, go  together  with  Billy  Coleman,  a  Socialist  painter,  the  assistant  busi» 
ness  agent  of  the  trades  council,  and  together  they  went  before  the  finance 
committees  of  the  city  council  and  the  county  board  and  said,  "  We  want  this." 
Now,  no  politician  will  refuse  to  give  anything  to  a  combination  of  that  kind. 
So  wr  have  had  no  trouble  in  getting  the  appropriation  that  was  necessary  for 
that  work. 


SUGGESTIONS    OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  349 

Now,  here  I  come  to  the  question  of  choosing  the  board.  We  went  to  the 
State  civil-service  commission,  which  has  charge  of  choosing  the  people,  ami 
we  said,  "  We  want  to  get  the  best  men  that  know  this  business,  and  we  have 
got  a  committee  in  Milwaukee  which  is  made  up  of  employers  and  workmen, 
who  watch  and  see  that  the  business  is  properly  and  impartially  done.  We 
want  you  to  let  this  committee  have  something  to  do  with  choosing  this  force." 
They  were  perfectly  willing  to  do  it.  So  a  system  of  civil-service  examination 
has  been  worked  out  something  along  this  line.  The  chief  examiner  of  the 
State  civil-service  commission  is  there  and  I  represent  the  industrial  commis- 
sion, and  we  have  two  members  of  the  trades  council  and  two  members  of  the 
manufacturers,  and  we  are  the  examining  board  practically,  the  civil-service 
board,  for  picking  the  help  for  that  office.  The  way  it  is  done  is  this. 
There  is  a  minimum  requirement  with  regard  to  a  written  examination, 
to  see  that  the  man  has  the  minimum  amount  of  education,  but  that  only 
counts  three  points  out  of  ten.  The  seven  points,  the  main  thing  is  that  every 
candidate  comes  before  this  examining  committee,  and  the  first  thing  we  do, 
after  we  interview  the  man,  when  he  goes  out  we  decide  can  we  use  him  or  not ; 
and  if  we  can  not  use  him,  he  fails,  no  matter  how  he  comes  out  in  the  written 
examination.  And  after  discussing  the  men  we  grade  them,  one,  two,  three,  and 
in  every  case  we  have  graded  them  that  way,  with  perhaps  two  or  three  excep- 
tions, and  the  civil-service  commission  has  practically  acceded  to  our  request 
that  the  men  be  graded  that  way;  and  even  when  a  man  was  graded  one, 
two,  three,  and  this  committee  decided  that  the  first  man  is  not  the  man  and 
the  third  man  is  not  the  roan  but  the  fourth  or  fifth  man  is  the  man,  we  have 
got  the  fourth  or  fifth  man,  because  the  civil-service  commission  was  convinced 
that  we  were  anxious  to  get  the  right  man.  There  was  not  any  political  party 
there,  because  all  the  interests  were  represented  in  the  choosing  of  the  men. 

There  are  two  principles  I  have  already  illustrated,  civil  service  and  repre- 
sentation of  the  interests  involved,  and  the  impartiality  secured  by  this  kind 
of  a  committee.  Now,  the  third  thing  is  that  an  employment  office  is  not  a 
charity  proposition.  You  have  to  get  that  out  of  the  people's  heads.  A  lot  of 
people  still  think  if  a  man  is  out  of  work  for  any  reason  whatsoever  if  you 
take  him  to  the  employment  office  he  will  get  a  job.  If  a  man  can  not  hold 
a  job,  if  he  is  too  old  or  inefficient  or  can  not  talk  English,  it  does  not  do  any 
good  to  send  him  to  a  job,  because  he  can  not  help  it.  The  fundamental  thing 
is  to  make  of  the  employment  office  a  business  proposition  and  fit  the  man  to 
the  job.  You  have  to  do  that  first,  and  when  you  establish  the  employment 
office  on  a  business  proposition  you  get  the  employers  coming  to  that  office, 
because  they  know  they  can  get  the  best  men  they  want  for  the  business. 
Then,  after  you  have  established  your  reputation  for  that,  then,  when  a  deaf 
and  dumb  man  comes  into  the  office,  or  a  blind  man,  or  a  crippled  man,  you 
can  call  up  the  superintendent  whom  you  know  has  confidence  in  you  and  you 
can  tell  him,  "  I  have  a  handicapped  man  here ;  can't  you  find  a  place  for 
him?"  And  in  that  way  you  can  do  the  work  of  getting  the  handicapped  man 
employment.  But  the  essential  principle  must  be  that  it  is  a  business  proposi- 
tion. Every  big  employer  of  labor  knows  that  he  has  to  have  an  employment 
agent  in  his  establishment.  Now,  just  the  same  as  every  employer  knows  he 
has  to  have  that,  for  the  whole  city  there  ought  to  be  an  employment  agent  to 
take  care  of  all  the  work.  The  reason  an  employer  has  an  employment  agent ; 
for  instance  the  Allis-Chalmers  Co.,  or  the  International  Harvester  Co.,  have 
an  employment  department,  is  this:  Here  is  a  department  that  lays  off  men; 
when  those  are  laid  off  they  ought  not  to  leave  the  establishment,  they  ought  to 
go  into  another  department  in  the  establishment,  and  they  are  sent  immediately 
to  the  employment  department  to  find  that  out.  This  same  principle  should 
govern  in  a  city.  If  a  man  leaves  the  Allis-Chalmers  Co.  and  there  is  work  at 
the  International  Harvester  Co.  he  ought  to  be  sent  to  the  employment  office 
and  sent  there  to  get  that  work. 

Another  thing,  a  man  may  be  a  first-class  worker,  but  he  would  not  know  the 
first  thing  about  getting  a  job ;  just  the  same  as  a  manufacturer  may  be  a 
first-class  manufacturer  but  he  might  be  a  very  poor  merchant.  A  laborer 
has  two  things  to  do:  He  has  to  work  and  know  how  to  sell  his  work,  and 
most  of  them  do  not  know  how  to  sell  their  work.  On  the  other  hand  the 
small  employer  may  be  a  very  good  manufacturer,  but  he  does  not  know  the 
first  thing  about  hiring  men,  he  does  not  know  how  to  size  them  up  and  how  to 
get  the  right  man  for  the  place.  The  assumption  most  of  us  have  is  that  the 
private  employer,  unlike  the  Government,  picks  out  the  best  men.  As  a  matter 


350          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

of  fact  he  makes  the  most  foolhardy  picks,  and  the  idea  of  the  employment 
offices  is  to  develop  a  set  of  specialists  as  employment  agents,  who  can  sift  the 
men  and  who  know  only  the  employment  business  and  who  can  pick  out  the 
man  for  the  job.  That  is  the  third  thing,  the  employment  office,  a  business 
proposition,  to  fit  the  man  to  the  job. 

Now,  the  fourth  proposition,  which  is  absolutely  essential  in  this,  is  to  dis- 
tribute information  and  not  jobs.  If  you  give  a  man  work,  if  a  man  gets  the 
feeling  that  he  comes  here  and  can  get  work,  then  there  is  a  tendency  to  pauper- 
ize him.  If  a  man  comes  up  to  the  counter  in  one  of  our  employment  offices 
and  he  says,  "  I  have  been  here  three  months  and  can  not  get  a  job  yet,"  we 
tell  him  "  You  must  be  no  good,  if  you  can  not  get  a  job  in  three  months.  We 
have  had  jobs  up  every  day  on  the  board,  and  if  you  can  not  get  them,  there 
must  be  something  the  matter  with  you."  We  hand  out  information  where 
there  are  jobs.  We  never  give  a  man  a  job  but  tell  him  where  there  is  a  job  of- 
the  kind  that  he  can  do.  That  is  an  essential  principle  that  must  prevail  in 
an  employment  office. 

Now,  to  -come  to  a  concrete  suggestion,  there  has  just  been  organized  an 
American  Association  of  Public  Employment  Offices.  This  association  was 
started  by  the  mid-Western  States  with  several  purposes  in  view.  The  most 
important  one  was  to  have  uniform  methods  of  doing  business.  You  would  be 
surprised  at  the  number  of  methods  that  prevailed  in  these  TO  different  em- 
ployment offices  in  the  country.  There  are  probably  65  different  methods. 
Some  keep  records  and  some  do  not,  and  so  on.  The  idea  here  was  to  learn  from 
each  other,  if  one  employment  office  got  a  new  idea  as  to  how  to  handle  a  cer- 
tain kind  of  labor,  the  other  offices  ought  to  know  that  immediately.  And 
another  thing,  in  order  to  compare  the  work,  in  order  to  get  cooperation,  you 
have  to  have  uniform  methods.  Now,  when  you  speak  of  uniform  methods;  of 
bookkeeping,  say  in  an  employment  office,  the  ordinary  reaction  of  the  person 
to  that,  is,  well  the  business  of  an  employment  office  is  to  get  a  man  a  job; 
you  do  not  want  any  bookkeeping  methods  in  there.  That  is  what  has  hap- 
pened in  practically  all  our  offices.  We  have  had  very  few  records  kept.  Just 
as  it  is  important  in  any  business  to  have  a  bookkeei>er  to  know  where  you  are 
at,  it  is  important  to  have  bookkeeping  of  the  very  best  kind  in  an  employment 
office.  You  do  not  deal  in  dollars  and  cents,  you  deal  in  man  and  jobs ;  but 
you  have  to  have  a  bookkeeping  system  in  order  to  know  where,  you  are  coming 
out,  and  also  to  know  whether  you  are  getting  the  right  man  into  the  right 
place. 

One  object  of  this  association  is  to  have  all  the  employment  offices  adopt  a 
uniform  method  of  keeping  accounts.  Another  is  to  improve  the  efficiency  of 
the  office  in  the  sense  of  handling  different  classes  of  labor.  Another  is  to  get 
the  transfer  of  information  between  offices;  another  is  to  transfer  laborers 
themselves  between  the  States.  This  association  has  an  executive  committee, 
made  up  of  one  man  representing  the  employment  offices  in  each  State.  We 
have  nine  States  represented  and  three  Canadian  Provinces.  This  last  con- 
vention decided  to  have  an  investigation  made  of  all  the  different  methods  used 
in  running  employment  offices  in  other  countries  and  in  this  country  and  of  the 
policies  of  administration  which  prevail  and  to  recommend  at  the  next  con- 
vention some  uniform  system  for  discussion  and  approval  by  all  the  offices. 

Now  what  we  are  doing  with  this  association  is  what  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment ought  to  do.  It  is  because  the  Federal  Government  has  not  done  it  that 
we  have  organized  this  voluntary  association.  The  State  governments  even 
will  not  do  it,  and  to  show  the  need  for  it  and  the  earnestness  with  which  the 
people  have  gone  into  it  I  might  tell  you  that  the  people  who  have  organized 
the  association,  although  public  employees,  to  pay  the  expense  of  the  thing, 
had  to  go  down  into  their  own  pockets  to  make  it  go.  That  is  a  thing  that  the 
Federal  Government  ought  to  do. 

My  concrete  suggestion  to  your  commission  would  be  not  to  study  the  general 
problem  of  unemployment.  If  you  want  to  make  a  report  on  it,  get  Mr.  \V.  H. 
Beveridge's  book  or  get  my  report,  and  that  will  be  as  good  as  you  can  get, 
and  then  put  a  man  or  two  men  or  whatever  you  have  to  make  this  kind  of  a 
study  which  we  are  making  of  the  uniform  methods  in  the  office  and  how  the 
Federal  Government  can  cooperate  with  them  for  the  distribution  of  labor,  and 
taking  the  first  step  in  dealing  with  unemployment,  bringing  the  man  and  the 
job  that  is  open  together  and  when  you  have  done  that,  then  yon  will  be 
throwing  onto  the  community  the  next  problem,  and  the  next  commission  that 
follows  you  can  take  that  up. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  do  you  do  with  the  farm  hands? 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  351 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  I  am  glad  you  asked  that  question.  At  the  present  time  we 
do  not  specialize  with  the  farm  hand — that  is,  we  have  not  got  one  man  who 
does  no  other  business  except  with  farm  hands;  but  we  do  attempt  to  get 
the  farmer  help.  One  reason  that  the  farmer  can  not  get  help,  aside  from  the 
fundamental  causes  which  Mr.  Quick  spoke  of,  and  those  causes  are  funda- 
mental and  those  are  things  which  can  not  be  remedied  by  an  employment 
office;  do  not  mistake  me  on  that  point;  but  what  Mr.  Quick  said  in  regard 
to  the  floating  labor  on  the  farm  is  true,  not  only  of  the  farm  hand,  but  it  is 
true  also  of  the  railroad  laborer  and  the  lumber  jack  and  the  ice  laborer  and 
the  construction  worker,  and  even  in  the  factories  you  are  approximating  this 
hobo  migrating  type  of  wage  earner. 

I  think  that  is  one  of  the  most  important  things  that  reveals  itself  in  our 
industrial  life  at  the  present  time,  not  that  you  have  these  flare-ups  that  make 
strikes,  but  that  you  have  a  mass  of  five  or  six  or  ten  million  men  who  are  not 
working  steadily  and  who  are  hopeless,  roving  men,  going  from  place  to  place. 
And  if  I  may  be  allowed  by  way  of  digression  to  suggest  something,  the  reason 
these  laborers  migrate  is  because  they  have  not  got  any  incentive  to  work.  The 
thing  that  you  hurled  against  the  Socialists  was  that  under  socialism  there 
would  be  no  incentive  to  work.  That  very  thing  is  happening  right  now.  For 
a  large  mass  of  common  laborers  there  is  absolutely  no  incentive  to  work. 
They  work  a  month  and  then  they  get  back  to  the  city  to  spend  the  money, 
and  you  ask  them,  "Why  didn't  you  stay  on  the  job?"  And  they  will  reply, 
"  I  could  not  stand  it."  It  was  not  in  them.  There  was  not  any  reason  why 
they  should  do  that.  Now  what  is  happening  to  those  fellows?  They  have 
not  any  incentive.  What  does  that  mean?  It  means  what  we  are  so  often 
afraid  of  with  regard  to  capital.  Suppose  you  have  stringent  legislation  in 
the  way  of  insurance,  you  put  burdens  on  capital,  and  it  is  timid  and  will  be 
driven  away,  it  will  not  stay  there,  it  will  go  out  of  the  country.  That  is  ex- 
actly what  is  happening  to  your  labor,  it  is  getting  timid,  there  is  not  enough 
protection,  there  is  not  enough  return  on  their  labor  for  them  to  invest  their 
labor ;  so  the  laborer  refuses  to  invest  and  moves  on  and  keeps  moving  on. 
Employment  offices  will  not  remedy  that  situation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  not  the  fear  of  hunger  in  itself  a  sufficient  in- 
centive for  him  to  work? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  Yes ;  but  only  until  he  can  get  his  stomach  full  and  then  he 
will  stop. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  believe  then  that  the  solution  of  the  whole 
proposition  is  the  proper  organization  of  employment  offices? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  No ;  I  was  just  saying  I  do  not  believe  the  employment  office 
can  solve  the  proposition.  The  reason  I  do  not  want  you  to  go  into  solving 
that  is  because,  supposing  you  did  find  a  reason  for  this  thing 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  thing? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  That  the  laborer  refuses  to  invest ;  I  think  the  basic  problem 
is  that  the  laborer  at  one  time  refuses  to  work  and  at  another  time  can  not 
work. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  am  speaking  now  of  the  opportunity  to  work. 
Do  you  know  whether  he  wants  to  or  does  not  want  to?  Say  he  wants  a  job, 
what  is  your  remedy  for  that?  I  want  a  job  now  and  want  it  bad,  what  is  the 
way  to  remedy  that? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  The  way  to  remedy  the  unemployment  problem,  in  my  opinion, 
would  be  the  way  capital  gets  a  return  on  its  property  that  is  unemployed.  In 
other  words,  it  gets  profit  when  it  is  not  at  work.  An  electric-light  plant 
is  not  working  now  to  fill  those  lights,  but  the  plant  must  be  ready  at  any  time 
to  meet  the  demand,  and  the  theory  of  the  courts  is  that  you  have  got  to  give 
the  owner  of  that  electric-light  plant  a  profit  not  only  on  the  property  which 
is  actually  being  used  now  but  you  have  got  to  give  it  a  profit  on  that  capital 
which  is  idle.  And  the  same  way  you  can  get  that  in  the  public  service,  your 
fireman  and  policeman — the  fireman  who  is  waiting  for  a  fire  to  occur  is  not 
unemployed ;  he  is  waiting  and  ready  to  go  to  work,  and  you  do  not  consider 
him  unemployed.  You  pay  him  in  all  other  industry.  You  consider  the  man 
who  is  waiting  to  go  to  work  as  unemployed.  You  are  organized  like  the 
volunteer  fire  department;  that  is  the  way  you  treat  the  unemployment  prob- 
lem ;  that  he  is  only  working  when  he  is  actually  doing  the  job  by  the  hour  or 
by  the  day. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  are  we  going  to  get  him  work? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  If  you  want  to  know  how  to  remedy  that  proposition,  I  may 
state  that,  for  example,  all  the  industries  in  the  country  ought  to  be  owned 


352          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    KELATIONS. 

"by  the  Government,  and  everybody  ought  to  get  a  month's  vacation  the  way  I 
do.     I  have  a  month's  vacation  and  I  am  unemployed  and  do  not  worry  about 

it  at  all 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  agree  with  you  on  that  proposition. 
Mr.   LEISERSON.  Just   a   moment.     That   is   the   fundamental   remedy   in   my 
opinion.     If  you  recommended  that,   where  would  you  get?     You  would   get 
nowhere. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  We  would  get  it  in  the  neck. 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  Yes ;  that  is  why  I  say  you  have  got  to  get  down  to  the  prac- 
tical proposition  of  what  you  can  do  now,  and  public  employ ement  offices  are  a 
step  in  the  direction  of  accomplishing  the  thing  that  I  stand  for  or  the  thing 
that  you  stand  for.  Under  any  system  of  government  or  any  system  of  indus- 
trial society  or  organization,  you  will  have  to  have  agencies  for  distributing 
labor ;  and  so  I  say  do  this  thing  now,  because  it  is  the  most  important  thing 
that  you  can  do  now. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Would  there  not  be  another  side;  if  agencies  are 
successful  in  the  distribution  of  labor  from  the  employees'   standpoint,   how 
about  an  agency  to  distribute  the  jobs  from  the  employers'  standpoint? 
Mr.  LEISERSON.  It  is  the  same  thing. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Why  should  it  not  work  both  ways? 
Mr.  LEISERSON.  Distributing  labor  is  not  perhaps  the  best  term,  but  it  is  the 
term  that  is  generally  used.     What  I  would  rather  say  would  be  concentrating 
labor  and  demand,  demand  and  supply,  in  one  place,  making  a  labor  exchange. 
Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  A  clearing  house? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  That  is  the  most  important  part  of  it.  It  is  not  only  dis- 
tributing labor. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  believe  this  problem  of  the  unemployed  is  one 
of  the  great  problems,  if  not  the  greatest  problem? 
Mr.  LEISERSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  And  you  suggest  this  as  a  step  in  the  evolutionary 
process,  to  finally  get  rid  of  that  problem? 
Mr.  LEISERSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Do  these  public  agencies  charge  a  fee  to  the  laborer? 
Mr.  LEISERSON.  Not  now.  There  was  one  in  Los  Angeles  that  did.  That  is  a 
thing  which  should  be  investigated.  Some  people  believe  a  fee  should  be 
charged  in  order  to  keep  the  tramps  out.  My  experience  is  that  it  is  a  mistake. 
If  you  have  the  right  people  to  run  the  office,  who  can  maintain  discipline  in 
the  office,  you  do  not  need  it,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  fee  works  a  hard- 
ship. Sometimes  if  you  are  only  making  the  fee  pay  what  the  service  is  worth, 
you  will  keep  the  man  from  getting  the  job.  We  have  many  cases  where  the 
man  has  absolutely  nothing.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  a  man  does  not  go  to  work  as 
long  as  he  has  15  cents  in  his  pocket. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Another  thing,  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  are 
these  public  agencies  municipal  or  State? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  We  have  a  law  by  which  the  industrial  commission  adminis- 
ters them.  We  think  it  is  essential  to  have  a  State  system.  In  fact,  a  national 
system  would  be  better,  but  next  to  the  national  we  have  a  State  system,  and 
we  have  a  law  now  by  which  any  municipality  or  village  or  county  may  enter 
into  an  agreement  with  the  industrial  commission  of  Wisconsin  jointly  to  main- 
tain an  employment  office. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  other  words,  the  State  subsidizes  the  locality? 
Mr.  LEISERSON.  No;  the  way  it  is  usually  done,  the  locality  furnishes  the 
quarters  and  telephone  service  and  all  those  expenses,  and  the  State  pays  the 
salaries  and  the  administrative  expenses. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  you  have  to  have  State  legislation  to  begin 
with? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  Yes;  I  think  State  legislation  is  essential. 
Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  Of  course,  you  can  furnish  copies  of  your  bills 
that  have  been  passed? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  Yes;  and  I  have  a  number  of  things  here.  I  do  not  know 
how  far  you  want  to  go  with  it. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Would  you  be  willing  to  give  just  the  gist  of  what 
you  have  presented  in  writing,  and  send  it  to  our  expert? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  I  have  put  an  outline  before  your  commission. 
Commissioner  LENNON.  I  have  not  seen  it. 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  One  point  I  had  not  brought  out,  and  that  was  the  distribu- 
tion of  farm  laborers.  You  will  not  solve  the  problems  Mr.  Quick  has  spoken 
of  by  employment  agencies,  but  here  is  the  point  with  regard  to  getting  farm 


SUC4GESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  353 

hands  on  farms.  Railroad  camps  and  lumber  camps  are  farther  away  from 
civilization  than  farms  are. 

The  conditions  of  employment  in  railroad  camps  and  lumber  camps  are  worse 
than  on  the  farms,  and  yet  ordinarily  the  railroad  company  and  the  lumber 
company  have  all  the  help  they  want.  That  is,  they  can  not  keep  them  steadily, 
but  they  have  one  gang  coming  and  one  working  and  another  going,  and  they 
always  have  one  working  anyway.  Now,  why  can  they  get  it,  and  why  can  not 
the  farmer  get  it?  It  is  merely  a  question  of  organization.  The  lumber  com- 
pany when  it  wants  men  comes  to  our  employment  office  in  Milwaukee  or 
writes  to  us  there,  and  we  tell  them  the  best  way  is  to  send  a  man  down  and 
sit  here  a  day  and  you  can  get  50  or  100  men,  pick  them  out  yourself.  If  you 
can  not  send  a  man  down,  telegraph  transportation  to  the  office  and  we  will 
pick  out  the  men  and  see  that  every  man  has  enough  baggage  to  pay  for  the 
cost  of  transportation,  and  we  will  send  a  man  down  to  check  the  baggage  and 
send  you  the  checks,  so  you  will  be  sure  you  get  the  man  there,  and  then  you 
are  able  to  get  the  help.  Now,  railroad  companies  and  lumber  companies  are 
able,  through  employment  offices,  to  secure  labor.  Some  of  them  run  their  own, 
sometimes  railroad  companies  run  their  own  employment  agencies,  and  some- 
times make  contracts  with  private  agencies  to  supply  them  with  labor,  and 
these  men  know  when  they  want  a  job,  they  go  to  Chicago,  Duluth,  Detroit,  or 
Milwaukee,  where  the  labor  market  is,  and  they  are  shipped  out.  If  the  farmer 
could  go  in  the  same  way  and  get  his  men  from  an  employment  office,  he  could 
get  the  same  laborers  and  same  kind  of  men  to  go  out  on  the  farms. 

Now,  this  letter  which  Mr.  Quick  read  from  Mr.  Taylor  about  an  agricultural 
employment  bureau,  the  idea  of  that  would  be  to  have  county  agricultural 
agents  and  then  have  division  men  from  the  college  of  agriculture  at  different 
parts  of  the  State  and  have  them  gather  together  the  demands  for  farm  hands 
in  the  same  way  that  the  lumber  company  does,  and  then  send  it  to  the  em- 
ployment office  and  have  the  men  sent  to  the  farms  in  great  gangs,  just  the 
same  as  they  do  to  the  railroad  camps.  For  example,  if  the  farmers  in  one 
town  get  together  and  say  they  need  100  men,  and  if  they  send  an  agent  down 
to  the  city  of  Milwaukee  and  he  spends  two  or  three  days  there  he  could  pick 
up  100  farm  hands  and  take  them  all  back  if  he  would  advance  the  transporta- 
tion for  them.  You  asked  the  question  about  transportation.  I  have  some  data 
on  the  question  which  might  be  interesting.  Most  of  the  shipping  we  do  from 
the  Milwaukee  office  is  done  by  an  arrangement  with  the  railroad  companies, 
so  that  we  get  the  transportation  directly,  and  that  is  we  just  go  down  and 
tell  them  we  are  from  the  employment  office,  and  they  have  an  order  from 
the  firm  to  give  us  all  the  transportation  we  want,  and  we  check  the  baggage. 
That  part  I  do  not  count,  but  the  money  actually  handled  by  our  force  during 
the  year  ending  November  1,  1913,  was  $920,  close  to  $1,000  actually  handled, 
and  money  turned  over  to  our  superintendent  at  Milwaukee  by  employers  \vho 
advanced  transportation. 

Now,  in  a  comparatively  small  city  like  Milwaukee  that  is  quite  a  lot  of 
money,  especially  if  you  count  in  that  we  send  about  four  or  five  times  as  many 
men  on  transportation  that  is  advanced  directly  to  the  railroad  company  as 
the  amount  of  money  we  actually  handle. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Your  idea  would  be  the  extension  of  what  we 
might  refer  to  as  the  Wisconsin  idea  over  the  union,  so  that  Georgia  and 
Montana  might  bear  the  same  relation  to  each  other  that  Oshkosh  and  Ash- 
land do. 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  That  is  quite  correct. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What,-  if  anything,  has  Wisconsin  done  along  the 
line  of  furnishing  farm  labor? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  We  furnish  in  Wisconsin  about  2,000  agricultural  laborers,  as 
we  call  them.  That  includes  some  truck  gardners  and  some  hay-  hands  and 
some  people  who  do  sugar-beet  work.  But  ordinary  farm  hands — the  hired 
men — I  should  say  about  1,200  a  year,  so  far  when  we  have  made  no  special 
effort.  What  we  have  done  so  far  is  to  cover  within  a  radius  of  about  100 
miles  of  each  of  our  offices,  and  we  have  an  office  at  Oshkosh,  one  at  La  Crosse, 
one  at  Superior,  and  one  at  Milwaukee;  within  a  radius  of  about  100  miles 
we  do  quite  a  big  business  in  supplying  farm  hands.  We  encourage  the  farmer 
to  come  to  the  office,  and  we  have  a  room  for  him,  and  he  talks  to  the  men  one 
by  one  and  takes  them  with  him. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  is  your  experience  in  the  matter  of  getting 
the  same  person  a  job;  for  instance,  suppose  I  wanted  a  house  girl  and  I 
came  along  and  you  had  a  number  and  I  took  one  away  and  I  came  back  the 
38819°— 16 23 


354:          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

next  morning  and  found  the  same  girl,  and  the  next  morning  I  would  find  the 
same  girl,  how  many  times  do  you  give  the  same  girl  a  job? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  We  had  one  man  who  is  working  for  your  commission  here 
studying  the  problem  who  came  to  our  Milwaukee  office  and  copied  the  record, 
and  one  man  in  the  course  of  the  summer  had  84  jobs,  and  another  man  in  the 
course  of  about  a  year  and  a  half  had  72  jobs. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  How  many  of  those  were  really  casual  employ- 
ments ? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  Practically  all  of  them. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  would  like  to  hear  that  answered  as  to  the  man 
who  was  looking  for  a  steady  job  or  was  assigned  to  one. 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  I  should  say  that  more  than  half  of  the  people  with  whom 
the  employment  office  deals  are  men  who  come  back  over  and  over  again,  more 
than  half ;  in  fact,  we  expect  a  man  to  come  around  every  three  or  four  months. 
Now  that  is  plain,  if  you  know  anything  about  the  problems  of  unemployment. 
About  half  of  the  people  work  steady  from  year  to  year.  Out  of  every  100 
people  50  or  60  have  continuous  wrork. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Are  there  that  many? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  I  think  so.  The  rest  are  laid  off  from  time  to  time.  Now, 
the  men  wrho  are  laid  off  are  the  less  efficient. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Do  you  find  through  your  work  that  some  of  these 
casual  laborers  are  cured  of  that  habit  and  become  permanent  laborers  after  a 
while? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  I  should  say  a  very  small  proportion,  and  those  men  are 
mostly  foreigners  who  have  an  incentive  in  the  way  of  a  family  abroad,  and 
who  become  casual  laborers  because  they  did  not  know  the  language,  and  they 
have  knocked  around,  but  when  the  time  comes  and  they  have  acquired  the 
language  they  have  also  acquired  habits  of  casual  labor  that  makes  it  very 
difficult  for  them  to  stand  up  against,  but  some  of  them,  a  very  small  propor- 
tion of  them,  do. 

Commissioner  LENON.  Have  you  hopes  that  development  in  time  will  help 
the  matter? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  Yes ;  partly  in  this  way.  We  have  a  record  of  every  man  we 
send  out  of  the  office.  I  will  leave  with  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  a  list  of  our 
records.  We  have  just  one  card  for  a  man ;  this  is  an  application  for  employ- 
ment. Every  time  we  send  him  to  a  job  we  put  on  the  back  of  this  card  the 
employer  he  went  to,  the  occupation,  when  we  sent  the  man,  and  next  day  we 
telephone  or  write  the  employer  and  find  out  what  happened  to  the  man*  did 
he  go  to  work,  etc. 

Now,  if  there  are  men — and  there  are  a  large  number  of  them — who  want  to 
make  half  a  dollar,  their  incentive  is  to  get  the  next  meal ;  hunger  is  their  in- 
centive; we  send  them  out  and  tell  them  there  is  a  steady  job.  The  man  does 
not  say  he  does  not  want  a  steady  job.  The  men,  if  they  would  say  they  did 
not  want  a  steady  job,  we  would  know  that  they  were  casual  laborers,  but 
one  comes  along  and  says,  "Yes,  I  will  take  that  job,"  and, we  send  him  out 
and  he  works  three  hours  and  gets  75  cents  and  quits,  and  he  spoils  that  job 
for  a  man  who  wants  a  steady  job,  and  it  has  given  our  office  a  black  eye.  We 
get  that  report  and  verify  it.  Wre  take  no  employer's  word,  because  we  find 
that  the  employers  lie  and  the  workmen  lie,  and  we  verify  those  things. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  For  the  truth  they  go  to  your  office. 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  Then  when  a  man  comes  back  to  us  two  or  three  months 
later  he  does  not  know  about  this,  and  he  asks  us  for  a  job,  and  we  ask  him 
for  his  name,  and  we  keep  all  these  cards  and  we  take  it  out  and  there  we  see 
it,  and  if  he  does  that  once  we  tell  him,  "  You  spoiled  the  job ;  you  may  not 
have  known  about  it,  but  you  have  spoiled  the  job  for  another  man  and  given 
our  office  a  black  eye,  and  you  must  not  do  it  again.  If  you  do  not  want  a 
steady  job,  if  you  want  a  short  job,  we  will  give  it  to  you."  If  he  does  it  again 
we  tell  him,  "  You  need  not  come  here ;  there  are  plenty  of  men  who  want  these 
jobs  and  who  do  not  act  as  you  do,"  and  ordinarily  we  tell  him  we  will  not 
give  him  any  more  information  about  jobs  for  three  or  four  or  five  months,  and 
in  that  way  we  are  tending,  not  to  remedy  the  problem  of  the  hobo  and  the 
tramp,  but  to  throw  them  on  the  community  and  make  it  more  difficult  for 
those  fellows  to  make  a  living,  and  then  it  is  up  to  the  community  to  see  how 
they  can  handle  those  people.  But  the  people  who  actually  want  to  work,  no 
matter  for  how  short  a  period,  we  are  able  to  get  them  work  much  better  than 
they  caii  for  themselves. 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT  WITNESSES.  355 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Briefly,  then,  your  bureau  is  a  bureau  of  informa- 
tion and  not  of  reformation? 

Mr.  LEISEKSON.  Absolutely;  we  distribute  information. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  do  not  attempt  to  deal  with  the  unfit? 

Mr.  LEISEKSON.  Absolutely  not,  except  quite  incidentally.  Now,  on  that  ques- 
tion of  information  I  might  take  a  little  more  of  your  time.  Every  employment 
office  in  Wisconsin,  and  there  are  four  of  them,  makes  a  daily  report  to  our  cen- 
tral office  in  Madison  on  a  sheet  like  this.  This  is  a  classification  of  the  occu- 
pations and  industries,  following  the  United  States  census,  but  following  it 
down  to  the  business  we  do  in  Wisconsin.  That  comes  in  every  day  to  the 
central  office  by  industries  and  occupations  and  also  by  offices.  There  is  a 
white  one  like  this  for  the  women  and  a  yellow  one  for  the  men.  That  comes  to 
me  in  Madison,  and  I  see  that  Superior  has  a  big  demand  for  laborers  in  the 
woods  and  not  very  many  applicants  have  registered.  Immediately  I  see  that 
that  demand  from  Superior  is  brought  in  touch  with  the  supply  in  Milwaukee, 
and  I  get  in  touch  with  the  firm  and  tell  them  that  laborers  may  be  difficult  to 
get  in  Superior  now,  but  in  Milwaukee  we  have  a  certain  number  of  men  who 
can  do  this  work.  At  the  end  of  the  month  these  are  tabulated  by  a  statistical 
force  in  the  Madison  office  onto  a  sheet  of  this  kind,  which  summarizes  the 
business  for  the  whole  month.  It  gives  the  supply  and  the  demand  and  the 
number  of  positions  filled  by  cities  and  by  industries  and  by  occupations. 

Now,  that  can  not  be  used  for  general  distribution.  Most  people  would  not 
understand  it.  But  for  us  that  summarizes  the  whole  thing  very  nicely.  What 
we  do  is  to  take  that  and  write  a  labor-market  letter  summarizing  that  informa- 
tion. For  instance,  here  is  the  heading  for  October,  "  Labor-market  conditions. 
Slackening  demand  and  an  increasing  supply."  It  is  only  about  one  page  long, 
so  that  the  whole  of  it  can  get  into  the  newspapers.  That  is  an  attempt  to  dis- 
tribute accurate  information  about  the  labor  market.  The  ordinary  thing  that 
happens  is  that  when  a  farmer  needs  a  farmhand  or  an  employer  needs  some 
labor  he  tells  it  to  the  newspaper  man,  and  the  newspaper  man  says,  "  1,000 
men  wanted  in  this  place,  and  a  great  demand  for  labor,"  and  the  tendency  is 
for  people  to  come  there.  That  is  actually  what  happened  with  regard  to  the 
harvest  hands,  and  by  the  time  the  harvest  hands  got  out  there  there  was  an 
oversupply  of  harvest  hands.  % 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  they  have  feasts  and  famines? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  Yes.  WThat  we  attempt  to  do  is  to  distribute  accurate  infor- 
mation in  regard  to  the  labor  market 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  do  you  avoid  the  strike  business  in  case  an 
employer  comes  to  you  when  there  is  a  strike? 

Mr.  LEISEESON.  The  policy  of  impartiality  in  labor  disputes  was  decided  in 
this  way,  and  it  is  the  practice  that  employment  offices  in  Europe  have  had  to 
follow  after  years  of  experience.  When  there  is  a  strike  we  are  in  touch  with 
all  the  union  people,  and  we  tell  them  to  notify  the  office  immediately  when 
there  is  a  strike.  When  that  is  done  we  tell  the  employer  that  there  has  been 
a  strike  called  to  our  attention.  Very  often  wTe  do  not  get  word  from  the  union 
men,  but  suddenly  an  employer  calls  for  50  carpenters,  and  that  is  suspicious; 
so  we  ask  him  if  there  is  any  trouble  on,  and  they  know  us  now.  At  first  we 
had  difficulty  in  getting  the  information,  but  now  we  have  no  trouble  at  all,  and 
they  tell  us  that  there  is  a  strike. 

We  get  a  statement  from  the  employers  of  the  strike  and  of  the  workingmen, 
and  the  job  is  listed  the  same  as  any  other  job ;  it  is  put  upon  the  board, 
"  Wanted  50  carpenters,  strike  one."  Then  any  man  who  wants  to  go  there, 
we  tell  him  this  is  the  place,  and  they  are  striking  over  there.  As  a  matter 
of  experience  we  have  had  practically  none  who  would  go  once  they  were  told 
there  was  a  strike.  Perhaps  they  would  go  without  our  knowledge,  but  no 
one  would  ask  for  a  card  practically  to  go  to  a  strike-breaking  place.  I  think 
we  have  had  10  men  in  all  our  two  years'  experience,  and  we  handle  about 
40,000  men  a  year ;  so  you  can  see  how  much  of  a  problem  it  is. 

Now,  another  point  in  which  you  would  be  interested,  I  think:  When  these 
labor-market  letters  came  out  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee  last  summer,  there  was 
quite  a  lack  of  labor,  and  we  just  said  so  in  our  labor-market  letter,  and  some 
of  the  union  men  brought  it  before  the  Civic  Federation  of  Labor,  the  fact 
that  we  were  advertising  that  there  was  a  lack  of  labor  in  Milwaukee,  which 
tended  to  bring  a  lot  of  laborers  in,  and  which  would  put  wages  down,  and 
so  forth,  and  a  resolution  was  introduced  in  the  Federated  Trades  Council,  as 
they  call  it  there,  to  ask  the  Industrial  Commission  of  Wisconsin  to  suspend 
the  publication  of  this  labor-market  letter.  When  that  happened,  the  repre- 


356          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

sentatives  of  the  Federation  of  Labor  asked  me  about  this,  "  Is  not  that  the  fact, 
that  it  tends  to  bring  laborers  in?"  And  I  said,  "No,  by  no  means,"  and  I 
showed  them  our  letters,  the  way  they  go  out  to  the  press,  and  I  told  them  the 
question  is  not  between  having  our  labor-market  letter  and  no  labor-market 
letter. 

If  the  industrial  commission  has  no  labor-market  letter,  then  the  employers 
of  Milwaukee,  every  time  they  need  help,  or  the  Merchants  and  Manufacturers' 
Association,  would  get  out  a  letter  that  there  is  a  great  demand  for  labor  in 
Milwaukee.  What  actually  happened  in  Milwaukee  was  that  there  was  a 
great  dearth  of  foundry  laborers,  and  our  letter  said  foundry  laborers  in  Mil- 
waukee are  practically  impossible  to  get  at  19  cents  an  hour.  Now,  that  goes  in 
at  19  cents  an  hour.  No  foundry  laborer  from  Detroit  or  Chicago  will  come  to 
Milwaukee  because  there  is  a  great  demand  for  foundry  laborers  when  he 
knows  the  wages  are  19  cents  an  hour,  because  the  wages  are  higher  in 
other  places.  That  gives  him  the  accurate  information.  If  we  do  not  give 
that  out,  then  the  Metal  Trades  Association  would  get  out  an  advertisement, 
"  Foundry  laborers  wanted  in  Milwaukee,  good  wages  paid."  That  is  the  way 
the  ordinary  "  ad "  runs.  And  when  that  was  explained  to  these  men,  and 
the  copy  of  the  labor-market  letter  was  read  before  the  Federated  Trades 
Council,  the  resolution  was  withdrawn.  The  employers  with  whom  we  have 
had  to  deal  have  had  no  objection  to  our  publishing  letters  of  that  kind.  If 
they  had,  they  never  told  us  anything  about  it,  and  they  give  us  their  patronage, 
and  they  think  it  is  the  fair  thing  to  give  accurate  information  about  the 
employment  situation. 

•  Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  What  effect  do  these  public  employment  offices 
have  upon  the  private  agencies? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  I  am  glad  you  asked  that  question.  We  have  gradually  taken 
up  a  little  bit  of  the  business  of  the  private  agencies.  When  the  industrial 
commission  took  over  the  employment  offices,  that  was  in  1911,  when  we  began 
to  organize  these,  we  had  been  in  existence  for  nine  years  before  that,  and  an 
investigation  was  made  of  all  the  public  offices,  and  we  went  to  the  private 
agencies  to  see  how  they  were  running  their  business  and  we  asked  them  what 
they  thought  of  the  public  offices,  and  they  told  us,  "  We  don't  know  they  are 
in  existence,  we  do  not  feel  their  competition  at  all,  we  do  not  know  they  are 
existing."  After  we  reorganize  them  according  to  the  methods  I  have  spoken 
of  here,  about  eight  months  later  all  the  employment  offices  in  Milwaukee  got 
up  a  petition  and  signed  it  and  sent  it  to  the  secretary  of  state,  who  was  then 
issuing  the  licenses,  and  protested  against  taking  their  money  as  taxpayers,  a 
$100  license  fee  from  each  of  them  and  putting  that  into  an  employment  office 
which  was  competing  with  them  and  putting  them  out  of  business.  From  their 
point  of  view  that  is  a  very  fair  objection.  Their  point  of  view  is  that  the  dis- 
tribution of  information  about  labor  conditions  is  a  private  business,  and  they 
ought  to  be  able  to  make  a  living  at  that  particular  business.  But  that  showed 
what  the  effect  of  the  movement  was  under  the  reorganization,  it  was  taking 
their  business  away.  We  have  taken  awray  practically  all  of  the  business  in 
Milwaukee  of  the  man  that  handled  the  regular  floating  hobo  labor,  the  rail- 
road work.  We  have  not  touched  anything  with  regard  to  the  immigrant  labor, 
but  recently  we  have  hired  an  interpreter  that  speaks  all  the  languages,  and 
now  we  are  gradually  getting  away  that  business,  but  we  can  not  put  them 
out  of  business  by  competition.  I  think  that  is  settled. 

The  reason  is  this,  that  the  employment  office  business  is  a  peculiar  one.  A 
man  runs  a  little  candy  store  or  a  saloon ;  if  he  has  one  or  two  foremen  in  a 
big  factory  who  are  his  acquaintances,  with  whom  he  can  divvy  up,  he  can  make 
about  $3,000  a  year,  and  that  is  pretty  good  wages.  If  he  sends  out  not  more 
than  a  thousand  men  a  year,  and  that  is  a  very  small  number,  the  way  these 
gangs  work,  he  has  one  or  two  people  to  call  upon  him  for  help  and  who  dis- 
charge men  at  the  end  of  a  month  very  often  to  make  room  for  others,  and  he 
gets  out  of  these  men  a  commission,  during  the  summer  time,  from  unskilled 
immigrant  workers  about  $4,  and  $2  goes  to  the  man  who  hires  the  help  and 
$2  goes  to  the  employment  agent,  and  in  the  winter  they  pay  from  $9  to  $10 
for  their  jobs.  Now,  a  little  fellow  running  a  candy  store  or  a  saloon  runs 
that  on  the  side  and  makes  two  or  three  thousand  dollars  on  it.  So  no  matter 
how  much,  of  a  public  business  you  have  you  can  not  compete  them  out  of 
business,  and  so  you  must  have  go  with  the  public  agencies  a  regulation  of 
private  agencies  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  public  offices.  Now,  private 
office  men  will  tell  you  it  is  not  fair  to  compete  with  them  or  to  give  their 


SUGGESTIONS    OF    EXPERT    WITNESSES.  357 

competitors  control  over  them.  Prom  their  standpoint  that  is  true.  They 
look  upon  it  as  a  private  business  and  that  the  Government  is  invading  their 
field  of  private^  business  and  is  competing  with  them,  and  their  competitors 
should  not  be  given  control  over  them,  and  those  private  agencies  have  in  most 
States,  as,  for  example,  in  Illinois,  been  able  to  have  a  separate  department 
run  those  employment  offices  from  the  regulation  of  the  private  ones.  They 
say  it  takes  a  crook  to  catch  a  crook. 

Now,  it  takes  an  employment  agent  to  catch  an  employment  agent.  You  can 
not  find  out  the  abuses  in  the  employment-agency  business  unless  you  are  in  it 
yourself,  and  they  can  put  it  over  you  every  time;  and  that  is  why  it  is  im- 
portant that  the  people  engaged  in  employment-agency  business  shall  regulate 
the  private  agencies.  And  on  that  point  I  wish  to  submit  to  your  commission 
some  of  the  laws  that  have  been  passed  on  that  question  in  Wisconsin  and 
other  States;  and,  in  fact,  this  suggestion  that  I  made  about  putting  a  man 
on  the  subject  of  the  distribution  of  labor  includes  the  establishment  of  a  sys- 
tem of  public  employment  offices  and  the  regulation  of  private  agencies.  The 
two  have  to  go  together. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Do  the  manufacturers  know  that  their  foremen  are 
accepting  fees? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  In.  very  many  cases,  no.  In  fact,  there  have  been  cases 
where,  when  it  got  higher  up,  the  foreman  was  discharged.  In  some  cases  they 
do  know  and  do  not  care. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  the  public  offices  handle  domestic  servants 
also — family  labor? 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  Yes ;  we  have  a  woman's  department  and  a  man's  depart- 
ment; and  we  have  a  common  labor  unskilled  department  and  a  semiskilled 
and  a  skilled  department.  If  there  are  any  other  questions 

Commissioner  LEXNON.  If  you  would  come  in  every  day  we  would  all  be 
Socialists,  the  first  thing  you  know. 

Mr.  LEISERSON.  Well,  I  would  not  object. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  Mr.  F.  C.  Croxton  present,  the  president  of  the  associa- 
tion of  which  Mr.  Leiserson  is  secretary?  I  understand  he  has  some  sugges- 
tions or  information  to  offer  us. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  F.  C.  CROXTON. 

Mr.  CROXTON.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  commission,  I  am  going  to 
take  a  little  different  method  than  that  followed  by  most  of  the  speakers.  I 
am  going  to  start  out  by  saying  that  I  do  not  believe  the  commission  will  know 
just  how  far  they  will  want  to  go  in  recommending  machinery  for  the  distribu- 
tion for  labor  or  for  bringing  together  the  man  M*ho  wrants  a  job  and  the  man. 
who  wants  help  until  you  have  made  a  thorough  investigation.  And  I,  as 
president  of  the  American  Association  of  Free  Public  Employment  Offices,  ask 
that  you  make  such  an  investigation.  We  believe  that  unemployment  is  one  of 
the  big  problems  you  have  to  consider.  It  is  one  of  the  fundamental  causes  of 
industrial  unrest.  We  would  like  for  you  to  make  an  investigation  at  an  early 
date  covering  these  points — that  is,  looking  toward  increasing  the  efficiency  of 
public  employment  offices — if,  in  your  judgment,  they  are  found  to  be  one  of 
the  best  means  of  distributing  labor  and  increasing  the  efficiency  of  the  force, 
the  records,  and  the  methods  of  work.  Second,  cooperation  within  States  and 
between  States.  I  can  say  to  you  that  within  States  where  there  are  four  or 
five  employment  offices  at  the  present  time,  in  most  cases  we  kngw  nothing 
about  what  the  demand  is  in  any  particular  locality  until  the  end  of  the 
month,  when  it  is  merely  statistics  that  are  presented  and  nothing  else,  and 
they  are  not  useful  except  just  to  add  numbers  together.  Also  looking  toward 
the  regulation  of  private  agencies,  to  prevent  exploitation  of  workers.  That 
would  include  private  agencies  doing  an  interstate  business  and  private  agencies 
doing  an  intrastate  business  solely.  A  number  of  the  public  employment 
agencies  that  we  operate  at  the  present  time  are  very  efficient.  A  number  of 
them  are  efficient  in  varying  degree.  If  you  can  do  anything  to  help  us  in  the 
States  to  make  them  efficient  we  would  be  glad  of  your  assistance. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Dr.  Edward  T.  Devine,  whom  you  all  know  is  the  chairman 
of  the  committee  which  recommended  the  legislation  which  resulted  in  the 
appointment  of  this  commission  to  the  President,  and  wrho  afterwards  pro- 
moted it  in  Congress,  is  present,  and  we  would  be  glad  to  hear  from  him. 


358          REPORT    OP    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 
STATEMENT  OF  MR.  EDWARD  T.  DEVINE. 

Mr.  DEVINE.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  commission,  to  take  advantage 
of  this  introduction  I  should  address  you  as  my  children,  but  I  think  you  would 
take  that  as  a  very  absurd  liberty,  and  ask  me  to  stop,  before  going  further; 
but  yet  if  I  used  that  expression  I  would  not  be  expressing  more  strongly  than 
I  feel,  my  interest  in  the  commission,  which,  at  least,  if  not  parental,  is  sympa- 
thetic, and  if  I  can  be  of  any  use  it  will  be  for  a  couple  of  minutes  turning  the 
hands  of  the  clock  back  a  couple  of  years,  when,  this  very  week  to  a  day,  a 
petition  was  in  circulation  asking  the  President  to  recommend  to  Congress  the 
creation  of  such  a  commission.  The  atmosphere  was  thick  at  that  time  with 
interest  in  the  acute  industrial  situation.  Now,  those  who  took  the  initiative 
in  securing  the  creation  of  a  commission  of  this  kind,  as  a  thing  which  they 
believed  would  contribute  more  to  social  progress  than  anything  else  which 
could  be  gotten  out  of  the  widespread  public  interest,  saw  before  the  com- 
mission, if  it  was  established,  the  greatest  opportunity  which  could  be  given 
to  any  people,  and  I  think  that  some  of  them,  looking  at  it  with  interest  and 
sympathy  for  the  last  two  years,  are  now  a  little  afraid  that  the  one  danger 
of  not  realizing  fully  upon  that  opportunity  lies  in  the  virtues  and  the 
breadth  of  interest  in  the  members  of  the  commission  and  in  the  suggestions 
which  will  be  made  to  you  by  people  like  myself,  who  come  before  you  to  give 
advice.  I  myself  am  instructed  as  the  chairman  of  a  committee  on  social 
insurance  to  come  here  and  ask  you  to  spend  a  part  of  your  quota  of  time 
to  investigate  the  subject  of  social  insurance,  but  responding  as  an  individual 
to  your  invitation,  I  am  obliged  to  say  to  you  at  the  same  time,  if  you  accept 
that  suggestion,  I  shall  have  a  very  poor  opinion  of  your  judgment. 

One  danger  which  I  see  before  the  commission  is  that  under  the  pressure 
from  people  who  are  profoundly  interested  in  important  subjects,  the  idea 
will  go  abroad  and  may  even  possibly  to  some  extent  influence  the  commission 
itself,  that  it  is  a  commission  on  the  state  of  the  Nation,  instead  of  a  com- 
mission on  industrial  relations.  I,  for  one,  Mr.  Chairman,  do  not  believe  that 
"  Safety  first "  is  a  good  slogan  for  this  commission.  It  is  an  admirable 
slogan  for  a  committee  on  safety  or  a  national  council  on  industrial  safety 
or  for  anybody  who  is  primarily  concerned  with  the  prevention  of  accidents. 
It  is  so  important  a  subject  that  I  think  any  member  of  State  or  National-  com- 
missions might  easily  be  created  on  the  prevention  of  accidents,  and  there  are 
many  ways  in  which  that  subject  should  be  studied.  But  if  this  commission 
were  to  give  a  large  amount  of  its  time  and  energy  to  the  subject,  it  would, 
I  think,  be  misdirecting  the  commission  which  has  been  given  to  it.  It  should 
be  investigated  only  so  far  as  it  has  to  do  wyith  unrest,  with  strikes  and  lock- 
outs and  industrial  disputes;  and,  in  my  opinion,  \vhile  there  is  some  relation 
between  the  two,  it  is  not  so  direct  or  important  as  to  justify  a  large  part  of 
your  time  and  attention  being  given  to  that  subject. 

As  I  have  just  intimated,  I  am  directly  interested  in  the  subject  of  social 
insurance,  workmen's  compensation,  old-age  insurance,  and  every  kind  of  social 
insurance.  It  is  a  tremendously  important  subject  and  should  have  considera- 
tion by  a  commission  appointed  to  investigate  that  subject  and  do  nothing  else. 
But  for  this  commission  to  divert  its  attention  from  the  question  of  the  settle- 
ment and  prevention  of  industrial  disputes  to  a  broad  study  of  the  subject  of 
social  insurance  I  think  would  be  making  a  profound  mistake.  Of  course,  there 
is  a  relation  between  social  insurance  and  industrial  disputes,  and  that  needs 
to  be  pointed  out,  and  to  some  extent  to  be  studied ;  but  what  I  mean  is,  you 
should  not  accept  any  suggestion,  whether  it  comes  from  my  committee  or 
wherever  it  comes  from,  that  your  agents  should  spend  their  time  and  you 
should  exhaust  your  appropriation  in  making  a  very  profound  study  of  social 
insurance  in  all  its  phases  and  as  to  the  proper  legislation  to  be  enacted.  I 
feel  the  same  way  about  country  life  and  all  its  problems  and  T  feel  the  same 
way  about  unemployment.  I  do  not  think  this  commission  should  devote  much 
attention  to  that  subject,  for  two  very  good  reasons.  In  the  first  place  there 
was  a  report  published,  and  Mr.  Leiserson  gave  you  one  reason  why  he  thought 
it  was  a  good  report,  because  he  wrote  it.  I  may  say  in  the  same  way  that 
I  know  it  is  a  good  report  because,  as  a  member  of  the  faculty  of  Columbia 
University,  I  participated  in  giving  him  a  doctor's  degree  on  the  strength  of 
that  report,  thus  testifying  to  its  accuracy  and  soundness. 

The  subject  of  unemployment  should  be  studied  in  every  conceivable  way, 
find  all  of  the  available  experience  should  be  gathered  up  and  put  at  the  dis- 
posal of  the  people  who  are  especially  interested  in  that  subject  But  for  the 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  359 

other  reason  which  Mr.  Leiserson  has  mentioned,  it  seems  to  me  it  is  not  a 
fundamental  or  even  an  essential  part  of  the  work  of  this  commission.  In  ex- 
plaining the  adminitsrative  work  of  the  Wisconsin  commission,  Mr.  Leiserson 
pointed  out  that  it  was  regarded  as  fundamental  that  the  getting  of  the  job 
should  be  entirely  separate  from  the  conflict  between  labor  and  capital ;  it  is  a 
distinct  thing.  That  action  is  only  an  evidence  of  their  appreciation  of  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  distinct  problem.  So  it  seems  to  me  it  should  not  engage  a 
large  portion  of  your  attention. 

The  subject  of  welfare,  Mr.  Fitch  made  some  reference  to  it  and  some  ques- 
tions were  asked,  and  Mr.  Fitch's  opinion  was  asked  as  to  how  far  the  com- 
mission should  go  in  investigating  that  subject,  or  what  conclusion  it  should 
recommend.  My  advice  is,  cut  it  out  altogether.  It  is  not  so  important,  it  does 
not  have  so  direct  a  relation  to  the  question  of  strikes  and  lockouts  and  dis- 
putes and  misunderstandings  that  it  can  legitimately  claim  any  considerable 
part  of  your  attention.  It  is  irrelevant  in  my  opinion  to  your  discussion.  It 
is  exceedingly  important  to  the  employers,  and  it  is  exceedingly  important  to 
the  immediate  employees  concerned,  but  not  an  important  work  in  the  imme- 
diate program  which  is  put  before  this  commission. 

Now,  having  expressed  this  opinion  in  the  negative  on  some  propositions  which 
have  been  made  to  you,  and  the  same  line  of  reasoning  will  apply  to  many  other 
suggestions  wrhich  other  people  will  make,  it  is  but  fair  that  I  should,  perhaps, 
try  to  formulate,  in  a  wTord,  w^hat  the  specific  thing  is  that  it  seems  to  me  you 
were  appointed  to  investigate.  I  think  it  is  written  large  in  the  act  of  Congress 
by  which  the  commission  was  created.  Why  are  strikes?  How  settle  strikes? 
How  prevent  strikes?  How  make  strikes  unnecessary?  It  seems  to  me  in  those 
four  questions  you  have  an  outline  of  the  specific  task  which  lies  before  the 
commission.  Or  if  you  prefer  to  express  it  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  em- 
ployer: Why  discharges  and,  lockouts — how  may  those  be  prevented?  How 
may  greater  stability  of  employment  be  secured?  How  may  the  unnecessary 
loss  of  workmen  be  prevented,  when  the  quality  of  their  work  is  satisfactory, 
merely  because  of  some  labor  unrest,  because  of  some  participation  by  a  labor 
agitator,  or  whatever  it  is  that  is  causing  the  disturbance  of  the  relation  which 
the  employer  would  like  to  have  continue  to  exist?  Or  if  you  want  to  put  it 
from  the  point  of  view  of  public  order  which  was  so  forcefully  brought  to  the 
public  mind  just  after  the  McNamara  confessions  and  all  the  discussions  which 
arose  out  of  that:  Why  violence?  How  control  violence?  HowT  prevent 
violence?  I  do  not  like  to  add  the  fourth  question:  How  to  make  violence 
unnecessary? — because  as  a  law-abiding  citizen,  I  assume  it  is  never  necessary, 
but  to  put  it  this  way :  People  have  grievances,  and  how  to  cure  them,  and  what 
means  are  created  for  discovering  what  their  grievances  are,  or  bringing  them 
to  light;  in  other  words,  how  to  establish  and  maintain  industrial  justice? 

You  are  authorized  to  investigate  the  condition  of  labor.  Various  things 
were  added  to  the  act  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  commission  the  broadest 
possible  power  to  investigate  any  aspect  of  the  subject  into  which  in  your  own 
judgment  it  might  be  necessary  to  go.  But  the  crux  of  the  investigation  and 
the  questions  which  must  be  answered  by  this  commission,  if  you  are  to  satisfy 
the  legitimate  public  interest  which  led  to  the  creation  of  the  commission,  are 
these  questions  relating  to  the  acute  unrest,  the  violence,  the  disputes,  the 
strikes  and  lockouts,  and  why  those  occur,  ho^fr  to  settle  them  when  they  arise, 
how  to  prevent  them  and  maintain  mutually  advantageous  and  peaceful  rela- 
tions, and  how  to  insure  such  orderly  and  reasonable  progress,  such  just  and 
legitimate  sharing  of  the  product  of  industry  as  will  make  people  unwilling 
to  resort  to  those  extreme  measures — to  strikes  and  to  violence. 

Now,  in  the  running  down  of  these  questions  you  may  have  to  go  far  afield ; 
you  may  have  to  study  Karl  Marx  and  the  socialist  literature;  you  may  have 
to  study  the  labor  press;  you  may  have  to  study  Papal  encyclicals;  you  may 
have  to  go  to  the  Old  or  the  New  Testament.  I  do  not  think  any  man  would 
set  a  limit  to  the  places  where  you  should  go  statistically  or  in  the  form  of 
witnesses  whom  you  bring  before  you.  But  I  think  there  are  some  things 
which  are  obviously  and  necessarily  included  in  the  study.  I  think  the  func- 
tions of  the  trade  unions,  their  services,  their  actual  operation,  their  methods, 
their  finances,  all  of  their  internal  management  of  their  affairs,  and  the  results 
that  they  accomplish  are  a  necessary  part  of  your  inquiry.  And  I  think  that 
the  activity  of  the  Manufacturers'  Association,  its  finances,  its  methods,  the 
particular  things  that  it  does  in  connection  with  labor  disputes  and  has  done, 
should  all  be  carefully  and  thoroughly  investigated,  using  the  full  powers  con- 
ferred upon  you  to  send  for  witnesses  and  papers.  Citizens'  alliances  and  em- 


360         REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

ployers'  organizations  of  all  kinds,  as  well  as  labor  organizations,  should  be 
brought  before  you,  and  with  courage  and  thoroughness,  with  a  determination 
to  get  at  the  bottom  of  the  matter,  you  should  lay  bare  the  actual  industrial 
relations  of  the  present  day  and  the  relations  of  the  employers  and  employees. 

Why  disputes?  How  settle  disputes  quickly,  reasonably,  and  with  a  mini- 
mum of  hardship  and  suffering  and  disturbance?  How  prevent  disputes,  and 
how  insure  that  our  modern  legislation  and  State  administration  and  judicial 
acts  shall  all  be  so  shaped  as  to  insure  the  maximum  degree  of  justice  and 
progress  and  prosperity  to  all  the  people  concerned?  So  that  I  feel  that  on  the 
work  of  this  commision  my  mind  is  a  harp  with  a  single  string,  which  is  very 
much  broken  and  is  worn  by  frequent  repetition  of  it,  but  if  I  have  any  one 
piece  of  advice  or  message  to  give,  it  is- to  concentrate  upon  the  nature  of  in- 
dustrial disputes  and  to  go  wherever  it  is  necessary — to  Dublin,  if  necessary  at 
the  present  moment,  to  Calumet,  to  West  Virginia,  to  Colorado,  to  Patterson, 
to  places  that  have  recently  been  storm  centers  of  industrial  conflict,  even  if 
they  are  not  so  now;  Lawrence,  Little  Falls,  and  so  on.  I  think  that  this  com- 
mission at  the  present  moment  should  have  its  own  agents  investigating  the 
disputes  that  are  in  progress  at  the  places  where  they  are  in  progress,  and 
during  the  time  that  they  are  in  progress,  and  that  you  should  not  be  doing 
that  by  calling  witnesses  before  you  in  public  hearings,  but  with  the  most  expert 
service  under  the  control  of  your  own  commission  or  with  the  cooperation  of 
the  Department  of  Labor  you  should  be  getting  at  the  real  facts  of  these  con- 
troversies and  discover  what  their  nature  is. 

We  all  know  it  is  not  merely  a  question  of  wages.  I  happened  not  long  ago 
to  be  asked  to  act  as  an  abritrator  in  a  labor  dispute.  I  did  not  know  what 
it  was  until  I  arrived  at  the  place  of  meeting,  when  there  was  placed  before 
me  a  signed  agreement,  signed  by  the  employers'  association  to  which  the  em- 
ployer belonged,  and  their  union  to  which  the  employees  belonged,  in  which 
they  definitely  agreed  to  submit  to  me  and  abide  by  the  decision  as  to  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  employer  had  assaulted  one  of  the  workers,  and  if  so,  what 
damages  the  employee  should  receive  if  the  employer,  as  the  union  charged, 
had  disregarded  his  agreement  and  violated  it  and  continued  it  persistently  for 
a  number  of  weeks,  and  if  so,  what  damages  the  union  should  receive  for  such 
violation,  and  finally  what  changes  should  be  made  in  the  agreement  between 
the  employer  and  the  union  in  that  particular  case.  It  is  amazing  that  any 
employer  should  be  willing  to  submit  questions  of  that  kind  to  an  arbitrator. 
It  is  amazing  that  an  employer  or  union  which  felt  that  it  had  been  damaged 
should  be  willing  to  submit  such  a  question;  and  yet  there  was  laid  bare  the 
kind  of  things  which  are  causing  industrial  unrest,  and  which  are  causing  dis- 
turbances. There  was  even  some  little  violence  before  that  particular  arbi- 
tration was  concluded,  but  it  was  concluded  finally  to  the  satisfaction  of  both 
parties,  and  the  employer  paid  the  damages  assessed  against  him  and  put  him- 
self under  heavy  bonds  to  observe  the  terms  of  his  contract  in  the  future. 

If  that  and  a  few  other  experiences  I  have  had  are  at  all  typical,  they  indi- 
cate that  the  reasons  for  the  unrest  are  very  much  more  complicated — and  all  of 
those  reasons  of  course  will  be  very  well  known  to  the  gentlemen  who  have 
been  associated  with  the  labor  movement;  they  are  very  much  more  numerous 
than  the  general  public  at  all  understand.  And  if  this  commission  can  as  a 
result  of  its  labors  set  forth  the  r*eal  nature  of  those  causes  of  friction  and  can, 
from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  if  necessary,  or  out  of  your  own  brains,  devise 
means  by  which  they  can  be  settled  with  less  suffering  and  expense  and  trouble 
than  they  are  now,  I  think  the  commission  will  have  served  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  appointed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  L.  A.  Halbert  is  with  us.  Mr.  Halbert  is  superintendent 
of  the  Kansas  City  Hoard  of  Public  Welfare,  and  one  of  his  activities  is  un- 
employment, and  seasonal  employment,  and  he  has  some  suggestions  to  make 
to  the  commission. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  L.  A.  HALBERT. 

Mr.  HALBERT.  I  am  glad  to  follow  Dr.  Devine,  Mr.  Chairman  and  members 
of  the  commission,  who  has  set  forth  so  clearly  what  it  seems  to  me  is  the  cen- 
tral or  starting  point  from  which  the  work  of  the  commission  should  take  its 
impetus.  I  want  to  say  what  general  things  I  have  to  say  first,  and  leave  what 
I  have  to  say  with  regard  to  unemployment  for  the  last. 

You  are  here  because  there  is  strife,  and  an  indictment  or  complaint  has 
been  made  against  the  industrial  system.  It  would  start  in  an  address  urging 
the  appointment  of  this  commission  that  conditions  had  changed,  so  that  the 


SUGGESTIONS    OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  361 

Industrial  system  we  have  is  not  adequate  to  meet  all  the  exigencies  of  the 
present  time.  So  whether  we  say  the  industrial  system  is  defective  or  not,  we 
ought  to  ask  the  fundamental  question  what  it  is  expected  to  do.  We  have  a 
system  of  industry  controlled  by  private  individuals,  and  out  of  the  proceeds  of 
that  industry  is  supported  every  form  of  comfort  and  luxury  we  have  as  a 
people.  Out  of  the  proceeds  of  industry  comes  the  support  of  the  church  and 
the  school  and  from  it  comes  the  money  for  charity  and  every  kind  of  thing  that 
we  have.  We,  therefore,  depend  on  this  underpinning  of  industry ;  and 
especially  out  of  industry  comes  the  bread  and  butter  of  the  people.  And  the 
people  of  the  Nation  in  recognizing  this  industrial  system  have  cast  their  entire 
welfare,  their  entire  living  into  the  hands  of  an  industrial  system  operated  by 
certain  private  individuals.  We  therefore  have  to  ask  of  it  that  it  shall,  in 
the  process  of  its  operation,  supply  us  with  all  of  those  things.  If  there  is  a 
deficiency  in  any  of  those  things  we  must  ask  the  Industrial  Commission  why 
there  is  a  deficiency  in  those  things.  And  if  there  is  strife,  it  is  because  there 
is  a  complaint,  a  feeling  that  a  wrong  has  been  done,  or  that  injustice  exists, 
or  that  the  industrial  system  has  not  furnished  the  people  what  it  ought  to 
furnish.  And  where  there  is  a  strike  and  strife,  it  arises  largely  over  the 
question  of  bread  and  butter  or  wages. 

In  the  second  place,  the  next  thing  that  is  most  fundamental  as  a  cause  of 
strikes  and  strife  is  the  feeling  that  there  is  a  lack  of  justice,  or  that  rights 
have  been  denied,  or  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  getting  redress  for  griev- 
ances. And  it  seems  to  me  that  about  these  two  things  is  the  principal  inquiry 
to  be  made  about  the  wages,  distribution  of  wealth,  desire  for  support  on  the 
part  of  people  who  depend  upon  the  industrial  system,  and  the  desire  for  justice 
growing  out  of  the  industrial  system. 

Now,  let  us  find  out  whether  the  industrial  system  has  furnished  the  people 
with  a  living,  on  which  system  the  people  depend  for  a  living.  It  has  been  said 
by  our  Census  Bureau  that  the  average  earnings  of  wage  workers  is  $455  a 
year,  and  it  has  been  set  forth  by  social  workers  and  by  Prof.  Chapin  in  his  book 
on  the  cost  of  living  that  it  costs  from  $800  to  $1,000  to  maintain  a  decent 
standard  of  American  living  for  a  family.  Of  course,  the  gap  between  $450  and 
$800  to  $1,000  is  made  up  partly  by  the  employment  of  other  members  of  the 
family  than  the  single  breadwinner,  when  there  is  more  than  one,  so  we  can 
not  say  that  all  wage  earners  fall  that  far  short  of  a  decent  living.  But  it  1ms 
been  borne  in  upon  me  that  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  Nation  have  less  than 
a  decent  standard  of  living,  according  to  this  standard  which  has  been  set  down. 
Now,  I  tell  you  that  is  a  terrible  indictment  against  our  industrial  system. 
The  majority  of  the  people  have  less  than  a  decent  standard.  The  question  of 
whether  it  supplies  a  decent  amount  of  bread  and  butter  for  the  people  ought 
to  be  asked  and  answered,  and  if  it  does  not  we  should  find  out  why  not.  The 
question  of  the  efficiency  of  the  industrial  system  to  provide  the  things  we 
ought  to  have  to  eat  and  the  equitable  distribution  of  it  in  the  form  of  wages 
should  concern  this  commission. 

The  matter  of  a  desire  for  justice  is  the  next  question.  We  have  expected 
that  the  industrial  system,  when  there  were  grievances  and  difficulties  arising 
in  it,  would  be  able,  through  economic  forces  on  the  inside  of  it,  to  throw  off 
these  difficulties  and  would  be  able  to  solve  them  itself.  What  machinery  has 
grown  up  in  the  industrial  system  to  meet  these  demands  that  we  should  have 
a  reasonable  amount  of  support?  Wherever  there  is  a  grievance  the  machinery 
by  which  it  is  settled  at  the  present  time,  which  has  grown  up  inside,  is  the 
machinery  of  labor  unions,  trusts,  and  employers'  associations,  and  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  demands  of  these  organizations  is  by  means  of  strikes  and  lockouts 
and  blacklists  and  union  labels ;  and  where  these  measures  have  been  unsuc- 
cessful they  have  gone  on  with  further  penalties,  to  introduce  sabbotage  or 
introduce  violence  or  introduce  other  means  to  try  to  make  effective  what  they 
regard  to  be  the  product  of  these  organizations.  This  is  the  machinery  which 
has  grown  up  of  itself.  Is  this  a  satisfactory  machinery  for  dealing  out  justice 
and  settling  the  problems?  Is  it  adequate  to  give  the  people  justice  and  solve 
the  problem?  I  do  not  believe  myself  that  unions  and  industrial  organizations 
and  employers'  associations,  no  matter  how  much  freedom  to  organize  unions 
you  may  have,  are  a  sufficient  machinery  for  redress  of  the  grievances  which 
not  only  laborers  have  but  the  general  public  has  in  regard  to  the  shortcomings 
of  the  industrial  system. 

If  we  are  not  satisfied  with  these  measures — and  let  us  say  first  if  we  are — if 
we  are  going  to  put  our  faith  in  this  kind  of  machinery,  then  let  the  Government 
keep  its  hands  off  of  that  kind  of  machinery  and  say  we  will  trust  to  that  kind 


362          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

of  machinery.  If  some  one  by  the  operation  of  that  machinery  is  killed,  and 
there  is  violence,  that  belongs  to  the  regular  machinery  of  the  State,  and  people 
are  put  in  prison  and  killed  on  the  scaffold ;  and  if  that  is  necessary  in  order 
to  find  the  solution  of  these  problems,  may  be  that  will  have  to  happen.  If  we 
are  satisfied  with  the  machinery  which  metes  out  these  tremendous  penalties 
and  suffering,  and  let  that  be  in  the  hands  of  unions  and  employers'  associa- 
tions and  industrial  and  economic  machinery,  let  us  have  faith  and  depend  on  it. 
I  do  not  believe  in  it  or  that  it  is  sufficient.  If  it  is  not  sufficient  for  the  redress 
of  grievances,  what  other  machinery  can  we  have? 

Now,  that  theory  that  that  is  sufficient  has  gone  a  long  way  and  has  been 
embodied  in  our  whole  procedure,  so  that  the  courts  say  that  we  have  this 
machinery,  that  it  is  enough,  and  therefore  we  ought  not  to  interfere  wdth  it, 
and  therefore  that  legislation  to  control  industrial  difficulties  is  unconstitu- 
tional and  illegal,  etc.  Of  course,  I  do  not  think  this  commission  ought  to 
be  stopped  by  the  fact  that  there  are  great  legal  difficulties.  If  there  are 
great  legal  difficulties  you  should  go  behind  them  and  remove  the  legal  diffi- 
culty. 

You  should  not  allow  the  fact  that  a  legal  difficulty  is  in  the  way  to  stand 
in  the  way  of  saying  if  it  should  be  removed.  But  if  the  idea  has  come  to  be 
accepted  by  the  general  public,  and  I  think  it  has,  that  this  machinery  of  in- 
ternal and  economic  forces  is  not  sufficient,  and  wTe  must  have  government  and 
regulation  of  industry  to  a  certain  extent,  and  we  are  having  it  more  and  more ; 
if  you  could  in  some  way  sit  up  there  as  judges  and  put  on  some  ermine  and 
assume  an  air  of  antiquity,  if  necessary,  in  order  that  you  might  hand  down 
some  kind  of  an  opinion  that  the  courts  could  quote,  for  it  has  been  said  that 
the  courts  stop  these  things;  when  you  go  up  to  the  court  with  regard  to  the 
reforms  in  a  legislative  way,  if  they  could  quote  your  opinion  or  do  something 
which  would  add  dignity  to  the  opinion  that  the  time  has  come  w^hen  the  eco- 
nomic machine  is  not  sufficient,  but  that  we  need  to  have  Government  machinery 
in  this  thing,  so  that  you  could  explode  in  the  minds  of  the  judges  the  idea — 
and  I  think  that  is  about  the  only  place  it  still  remains — that  you  can  not  have 
Government  regulation,  but  should  have  economic  regulation,  you  strike  a  blow 
at  the  fundamental  difficulty.  We  have  not  enough  machines  or  means  for 
giving  redress  to  grievances.  As  long  as  people  feel  that  they  have  no  means 
of  redress  of  grievances  of  course  they  are  going  to  be  bitter,  and  that  is  the 
cause  of  the  bitterness,  because  they  feel  they  have  not  the  necessary  machinery. 
And  when  you  start  out  with  economic  machinery  you  can  say  it  is  unethical,  and 
when  you  say  we  will  provide  Government  machinery  the  courts  say  it  is  not 
constitutional.  If  you  could  explode  that  theory  so  you  could  get  a  free  hand 
whenever  Government  regulation  is  necessary  and  say  we  will  not  go  any 
further  than  is  necessary,  but  that  we  have  a  perfect  freedom  to  institute  any 
Government  regulation  that  is  necessary,  I  think  you  would  do  the  most 
fundamental  thing  you  are  here  to  do. 

If  you  accept  and  rely  on  Government  machinery,  the  question  might  arise, 
What  Government  machinery  would  I  recommend  that  we  should  have  to  settle 
these  disputes  which  are  not  adequately  settled  at  the  present  time?  I  \vill 
speak  of  two  lines.  With  regard  to  the  wide  extent  of  poverty  and  dissatisfac- 
tion and  distress  in  the  Nation,  I  think  that  is  one  of  the  things  to  which  you 
must  address  yourselves.  Now,  then,  the  conditions  on  which  business,  if  it 
is  going  to  be  run  by  private  individuals,  should  be  allowed  to  continue  to 
operate  is  that  you  should  fasten  on  it  definitely  the  support  of  the  people,  so 
that  that  would  be  a  condition  on  which  it  should  proceed.  How  can  you  fasten 
the  burden  of  caring  for  the  body  on  the  industrial  machinery  of  the  Nation? 
There  are  various  ways,  and  I  think  chiefly  through  industrial  insurance.  You 
may  not  be  able  to  devise  directly  the  forms  of  industrial  insurance.  I  was  in 
direct  sympathy  with  what  Dr.  Devine  said,  and  yet  I  think  you  must  look  to 
some  way  of  fastening  on  the  industrial  machinery  the  burden  of  supporting 
and  taking  care  of  the  people. 

Suppose  the  industrial  lords  and  systems  should  say  you  should  not  interfere 
with  them,  we  have  a  right  to  control  our  own  business.  Well,  we  have  the 
right ;  we  own  our  own  business.  What  should  we  as  a  people  say  to  a  business 
that  maintained  that  right  and  still  did  not  support  the  people?  We  might 
come  back  at  them  with  this  thought:  All  right;  you  have  your  particular 
property  and  business,  but  how  long  would  that  control  and  the  enjoyment  of 
that  right  last  if  it  were  not  for  the  policeman  recruited  from  the  ranks  of 
labor,  if  it  were  not  for  the  soldier  recruited  from  the  ranks  of  labor  mostly, 
or  if  it  was  not  for  the  citizen? 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  363 

Suppose  you  own  your  property,  you  do  not  want  it  taken  away  from  you. 
We  would  say,  you  take  it  and  we  will  withdraw  the  protection  you  have  for 
your  property,  and  you  con  sit  down  and  enjoy  it  yourself.  How  long  would 
that  property  last  ?  The  next  man  would  conie  along  and  say,  "  I  want  this 
property,"  and  you  would  say,  "  Well,  it  is  mine."  The  man  would  reply, 
"Who  said  so?"  "The  Government  said  so."  "No;  the  Government  has 
withdrawn  from  that  kind  of  an  agreement  with  you,  and  it  does  not  say  so 
any  longer."  "  I  believe  in  taking  turns  as  we  used  to  do  when  we  were 
children,  and  you  have  had  this  for  a  long  time,  and  now  it  is  my  turn,  and 
I  will  take  it."  Don't  you  see  where  a  man  owning  property  would  be?  The 
very  existence  of  his  business  depends  on  the  fact  that  we  are  willing  to 
guarantee  that  right  with  our  blood,  and  with  our  policemen,  etc. ;  so  it  is  not 
unfair,  in  an  arrangement  of  that  kind,  to  challenge  him  and  say,  so  long  as 
the  existing  of  your  power  depends  on  the  guaranty  we  furnish,  as  a  condition 
of  furnishing  the  guaranty,  we  have  a  right  to  ask  that  a  condition  be  imposed, 
and  that  is  that  ability  should  have  enough  to  support  itself. 

Dissatisfaction  and  poverty  come  through  low  wages  partly,  and  partly 
through  the  exigencies  of  old  age,  and  partly  through  the  results  of  accidents, 
and  partly  through  unemployment,  and  all  these  other  means.  Suppose  you 
say  to  an  employer  that  he  must,  out  of  the  proceeds  of  his  business,  provide 
insurance  against  unemployment,  and  that  he  must  furnish  funds  to  provide 
for  old-age  pensions,  and  must  furnish  accident  compensation,  and  that  he 
must  furnish  an  adequate  wage.  We  have  not  enough  machinery  to  decide 
what  wages  ought  to  be.  Of  course  the  minimum  wage  is  something,  but  the 
machinery  of  arbitration  by  which  you  could  determine  a  just  and  scientific 
wage  based  on  the  idea  of  cost  accounting  would  come  nearer  to  what  we  ought 
to  have,  ideally. 

Then  the  condition  of  what  is  a  just  wage,  what  compensation,  what  is 
necessary  for  the  support  of  people,  must  be  established.  How?  Well,  to 
begin  with,  you  must  have  publicity  of  accounts,  and  they  must  be  kept  in 
such  a  way  that  you  can  get  at  what  the  profit  of  the  business  is  and  what  the 
cost  of  this  and  that  and  the  other  thing  is,  and  this  thing  will  never  be 
settled  until  you  settle  that  distinctly.  How  can  you  settle  it  unless  you  have 
the  information,  and  how  can  you  get  the  information  unless  you  have  all 
the  facts  and  publicity  of  those  accounts?  After  you  have  done  that  you  have 
some  basis  for  deciding  wages.  After  you  have  provided,  through  minimum- 
wage  boards  and  arbitration  boards,  some  decision  as  to  what  is  a  just  wrage, 
then  enforce  it,  and  add  that  just  wage  to  the  unemployed  insurance  and  to 
the  old-age  insurance  and  the  sickness  isurance,  and  all  these  other  burdens 
which  are  necessary  for  the  prevention  of  dissatisfaction,  and  say,  now  this 
is  a  part  of  the  cost  of  operation  and  you  have  to  pay  that  or  you  can  not 
operate  a  business.  Suppose  a  man  should  say,  "  I  can  not  operate  a  business 
and  pay  all  of  those  charges."  Well,  if  he  can  not,  he  must  charge  more  to  the 
public,  "and  if  the  public  does  not  want  his  product  of  his  business  bad  enough 
to  help  support  the  workers  who  are  in  it,  they  do  not  need  it  very  badly, 
and  if  they  are  not  willing  to  support  the  people  who  produce  it,  lie  had 
better  get  out  of  that  business.  If  these  people  are  not  supported  directly 
out  of  industry,  what  is  going  to  happen?  As  a  matter  of  fact  they  die;  that 
is  what  happens. 

The  ordinary  wage  workers  and  unskilled  people  die  about  twice  as  fast  as 
other  people.  It  is  a  fact  that  it  takes  their  lives  graudally,  when  they  are  not 
adequately  supported.  What  kind  of  an  answer  are  you  going  to  give?  Are 
you  going"  to  make  this  indictment  against  the  industrial  system  which  allows 
that  condition  to  exist?  If  you  will  hold  out  to  the  community  that  it  is  not 
a  just  thing,  it  seems  to  me  you  would  be  doing  a  good  thing.  You  have  to  carry 
them  out  of  charity,  out  of  taxation,  and  so  on,  where  it  ultimately  comes  out 
of  the  business  just  the  same.  Why  not  charge  it  to  the  business  in  the  first 
place  rather  than  take  it  out  afterwards  by  taxation  and  so  forth,  to  take  care 
of  the  destitute?  Because  nobody  advocates  that  they  should  die.  I  have  said 
all  I  care  to  about  destitution. 

With  regard  to  the  machinery  for  providing  justice.  The  union  that  comes 
up  with  a  grievance  has  perhaps  some  chance  of  having  its  grievance  heard 
and  some  award  made  on  it  through  an  arbitration  board  or  any  other  way, 
and  yet  they  have  great  difficulty  in  organizing  unions,  and  securing  through  the 
organization  of  unions  what  they  claim  to  be  their  rights  or  justice.  But  what 
is  more  embarrassing  is  the  complaint  of  the  individual  worker  himself.  Sup- 
pose lie  comes  up  to  his  foreman  or  his  employer  with  a  complaint.  I  had  this 
brought  home  to  me  with  tremendous  force  one  time  when  I  was  in  settlement 


364          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

and  home  missionary  work.  I  went  to  the  home  of  a  poor  woman  who  had  lived 
on  a  sand  dune  in  a  shack  of  a  house  to  take  her  some  kind  of  help.  She  told 
me  she  had  a  grievance  about  a  mistake  in  her  time  at  the  factory  where  she 
worked  near-by.  She  talked  to  me  about  her  responsibility  in  trying  to  raise 
her  two  children ;  she  was  a  widow.  Then  she  asked  me,  and  I  had  not  proposed 
it,  although  I  was  willing  to  perform  that  kind  of  service  as  a  church  worker, 
if  we  could  not  have  prayer.  And  she  prayed  and  she  said,  "  Oh  God,  take  the 
bitterness  out  of  my  heart,  so  that  I  can  be  fit  to  be  a  member  of  society  in  the 
world  and  have  the  spirit  which  will  make  it  possible,"  or  some  such  language 
as  that. 

She  went  on  to  say,  "  Give  me  some  way  to  get  justice  where  I  have  this 
grievance,"  and  she  stopped  and  could  not  say  any  more.  And  afterwards  she 
.said  to  me  she  went  to  the  man  and  complained  about  her  time  and  said  that 
she  needed  this  money,  and  he  put  her  off  and  would  not  make  the  settlement, 
and  when  she  pressed  her  claim  he  said,  "  Well,  if  you  don't  like  it  get  on  out ; 
there  are  plenty  waiting  at  the  dock  who  would  like  your  job."  Her  grievance 
may  have  been  small,  but  she  felt  that  the  machinery  to  provide  a  redress 
was  not  there.  And  if  the  spirit  of  bitterness  remains,  it  is  awful.  It  has  been 
a  fact,  and  is  a  fact  throughout  the  country  in  general,  where  people  have  a 
small  grievance  they  do  not  have  adequate  machinery  for  redressing  it.  It  has 
been  evidenced  by  the  experience  we  have  had  in  establishing  a  legal  aid  bureau 
in  Kansas  City.  People  come  with  their  grievances  against  their  employ- 
ers; 20  came  the  first  day  it  was  opened,  and  sometimes  now  65  or  70  come 
in  a  single  day.  As  an  instance,  a  man  came  into  the  bureau  one  day  with 
this  grievance:  A  man  employed  certain  laborers  in  a  restaurant,  and  he  re- 
fused to  pay  this  man  and  other  men  at  the  end  of  a  day  or  two  of  work,  and 
he  said,  "  Your  \vork  has  been  unsatisfactory ;  you  have  been  in  the  way  around 
here.  I  don't  owe  you  anything.  You  have  had  your  food  and  that  is  more  than 
you  ought  to  have."  Those  men  went  back  to  take  it  out  of  his  hide,  as  they  say, 
and  he  brought  them  into  the  police  court  and  they  told  their  story  to  the  magis- 
trate, and  he  said  there  is  a  way  for  you  to  settle  this.  This  is  not  the  way— to 
disturb  my  peace.  And  what  was  the  way?  He  could  go  to  the  court  and  put 
up  $3  for  costs,  sue  the  man  and  lose  a  day's  time  and  have  his  friends  there 
and  have  them  lose  their  time,  and  thrash  it  out  at  a  cost  of  $30  or  $40  in 
order  to  get  one  day's  wages. 

When  you  come  to  realize  the  feeling  of  people  who  have  grievances  which 
they  can  not  have  settled  except  by  the  expensive  operation  of  law  you  begin  to 
have  some  idea  of  the  acute  sense  of  bitterness  in  their  minds  when  they 
would  have  absolutely  to  lose  money  or  have  it  settled  in  any  way  the  employer 
chooses.  Against  the  fact  that  the  employer  in  the  large  majority  of  cases 
would  do  the  thing  that  was  just  is  the  very  fact  that  he  is  at  the  mercy  of 
the  employer  and  does  not  have  anybody  to  say,  between  him  and  the  employer, 
what  should  be  right  is  one  of  the  causes  of  the  feeling  of  bitterness  and  social 
unrest,  and  we  must  establish  the  machinery  for  the  redress  of  grievances 
through  Government  agencies. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  has  been  suggested  that  \ve  adjourn  now  until  a  quarter 
after  2,  and  we  will  now  take  a  recess  until  that  time. 

(Whereupon,  at  1  p.  m.,  a  recess  was  taken  until  2.15  p.  m.) 

AFTER  RECESS. 

The  commission  met  pursuant  to  adjournment  at  2.15  p.  m.,  with  Commis- 
sioner Delano  as  the  acting  chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Commissioner  Walsh  has  been  detained  at  another 
meeting  and  asks  that  we  begin  the  hearing  and  asks  me  to  act  as  temporary 
chairman.  Mr.  Halbert  has  not  finished  what  he  was  saying. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  L.  A.  HALBERT— Continued. 

Mr.  HALBERT.  I  was  saying  that  the  principal  evil  or  failure  of  the  industrial 
system  was  the  faifure  to  provide  support  for  the  people  and  to  satisfy  their 
demands  for  justice  or  the  means  of  redress  of  their  grievances  and  that  the 
original  idea  was  that  the  industrial  system  would  supply  for  itself  the 
economic  organizations  and  forces  and  machinery  for  righting  these  wrongs 
and  that  this  machinery  had  proved  to  be  inadequate  and  that  it  seemed  to  me 
that  the  commission  would  thoroughly  establish  that,  so  that  the  starting  point  for 
regulating  these  evils  might  be  that  of  Government  regulation  rather  than 


SUGGESTIONS    OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  365 

internal  regulation ;  that  in  changing  the  point  of  view  of  the  base  from  which 
people  started  to  remedy  the  evils  of  the  industrial  situation,  that  would  be 
an  important  step  forward. 

I  suggested  then  that  if  we  were  to  have  government  machinery  for  this  pur- 
pose, to  begin  with,  to  remedy  destitution,  we  must  have  various  forms  of 
social  insurance,  and  we  must  have  arbitration  boards  to  fix  different  rates  of 
wages  in  some  cases,  and  wage  commissions  to  fix  the  minimum  wages  in  other 
cases.  All  these  things  having  been  fixed  as  a  burden  upon  industry,  they 
must  be  carried  by  industry  as  a  condition  of  its  existence.  Then  that  we 
should  remedy  the  hunger  and  supply  the  demand  for  justice,  by  supplying 
more  machinery  in  the  way  of  boards  of  arbitration  or  inexpensive  courts  for 
the  people  who  had  grievances,  so  that  they  might  bring  them  there  to  have 
their  grievances  righted,  without  having  to  spend  so  much  money  on  litigation 
before  they  could  get  their  grievances  aired,  and  that  that  would  satisfy  more 
or  less  their  desire  for  justice. 

With  regard  to  the  particular  problem  of  unemployment,  I  have  not  said 
anything,  and  I  shall  not  say  it,  because  Mr.  Leiserson  covered  that  so  com- 
pletely ;  but  I  want  to  call  attention  to  one  or  two  things. 

If  employment  bureaus  are  to  be  a  thorough-going  and  highly  effective 
remedy  for  unemployment,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  have  a  complete 
chain  of  employment  bureaus  throughout  the  nation.  It  was  estimated  by  the 
New  York  Industrial  Commission  in  1911,  that  there  were  60  public  free  em- 
ployment bureaus  in  the  United  States  and  they  secured  a  total  of  over  300,- 
000  jobs  in  a  year.  The  number  has  perhaps  increased  since  that  time  so  that 
we  may  estimate  that  various  public  employment  bureaus  secure  500,000  jobs 
per  year  at  the  present  time,  but  a  bulletin  on  the  statistics  of  unemployment 
and  the  work  of  employment  offices,  issued  by  the  National  Government,  Octo- 
ber 15,  1912,  shows  that  the  various  tests  which  they  applied  to  groups  of 
workers  in  the  United  States  indicated  that  from  10  to  50  per  cent  of  the 
laborers  in  different  parts  of  the  United  States  were  unemployed  part  of  the 
time  during  the  year. 

Perhaps  there  were  25  per  cent  of  all  the  people  engaged  in  gainful  occu- 
pations in  the  United  States  who  suffered  from  involuntary  unemployment  at 
some  time  during  the  year.  If  there  are  40,000,000  people  in  the  United 
States  engaged  in  gainful  occupations,  and  25  per  cent  of  them  are  in  the 
state  of  involuntary  unemployment  during  a  part  of  the  year,  then  there 
must  be  10,000,000  unemployed  people  in  the  course  of  the  year  who  should 
be  furnished  jobs,  while  the  total  number  of  jobs  secured  by  public  employ- 
ment agencies  is  only  half  of  1,000,000.  In  other  words,  only  one-twentieth  of 
the  unemployed  people  could  be  served  in  the  course  of  a  year  by  our  free 
public  employment  bureaus. 

When  you  consider  that  various  unemployed  people  get  several  jobs  through 
the  employment  bureaus  in  the  course  of  the  year,  and  that  the  other  people 
not  served  by  the  employment  bureaus  need  more  than  one  job  apiece  to  keep 
them  at  steady  occupation,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  less  then  5  per  cent  of  the  un- 
employment in  the  country  is  touched  in  any  way  by  our  employment  bureaus. 
From  all  this  it  can  easily  be  seen  that  the  number  of  employment  bureaus 
must  be  greatly  increased  and  the  volume  of  business  done  by  those  already  in 
existence  must  also  be  increased  until  we  have  a  complete  system  of  employ- 
ment agencies  throughout  the  nation. 

Employment  bureaus  offer  no  way  to  control  effectively  the  evil  of  unem- 
ployment until  they  can  secure  control  of  enough  of  the  total  opportunities  to 
work,  and  direct  the  movements  of  all  those  seeking  employment  to  such  an 
extent  that  they  may  be  said  to  control  the  labor  market  of  their  community 
or  of  the  country.  They  may  perhaps  be  extended  to  something  like  these 
proportions  by  the  methods  already  used  to  build  up  such  employment  agencies 
as  we  now  have,  but  their  ability  to  get  control  of  the  labor  market  would  be 
considerably  increased  if  they  could  become  the  agencies  for  administering 
some  form  of  unemployment  insurance.  This  feature  will  be  elaborated  under 
the  head  of  unemployment  insurance.  One  of  the  principles  which  it  is  neces- 
sary for  public  employment  agencies  to  observe  is  that  of  strict  neutrality  in 
case  of  labor  disputes  and  full  publicity  in  regard  to  the  existence  of  all  labor 
strikes  or  other  labor  troubles  in  any  proposed  place  of  employment. 

PRIVATE   EMPLOYMENT   AGENCIES. 

Having  discussed  public  employment  bureaus,  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  some 
facts  in  regard  to  private  employment  agencies.  Mr.  Walter  Sears,  superintend- 


366          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

ent  of  the  Boston  Public  Free  Employment  Bureau,  reported  at  the  Chicago  con- 
ference that  when  his  agency  began  to  operate  some  sis  years  ago,  there  were 
135  private  employment  bureaus  in  Boston,  and  since  that  time,  the  number  has 
been  reduced  to  90.  Kansas  City  has  49  employment  bureaus,  public  and  pri- 
vate, and  19  of  these  are  free  employment  agencies,  1  being  conducted  by  the 
State  and  another  by  the  city ;  several  by  philanthropic  agencies ;  and  some  by 
business  colleges  and  typewriter  agencies  which  make  no  charge  for  their 
services.  These  free  employment  agencies  get  about  two-thirds  of  all  the  jobs 
which  are  secured  through  employment  agencies.  All  of  the  agencies  of  Kansas 
City  get  a  total  of  over  99,000  jobs  per  year.  The  private  employment  agencies 
therefore  get  about  33,000  jobs. 

As  far  as  I  know,  there  are  no  available  statistics  which  show  the  extent  of 
the  operations  of  private  employment  bureaus  throughout  the  country,  but 
their  numbers  far  exceed  that  of  public  employment  agencies.  They  seem  to 
be  most  useful  in  handling  the  higher  priced  positions.  They  do  not  seem  likely 
to  have  any  very  important  effect  in  reducing  unemployment.  The  most 
fundamental  weakness  in  connection  with  them  is  the  fact  that  those  most  in 
need  of  employment  are  least  able  to  pay  the  fees  demanded  by  private  agencies. 
Besides  this,  they  are  subject  to  the  following  abuses : 

1.  Collusion  between  employment  agencies  and  labor  foremen  to  keep   the 
labor  force  shifting  and  thereby  increase  the  number  of  fees  collected  for  jobs; 
the  foremen  who  does  the  hiring  and  the  agency  sometimes  splitting  the  fees. 

2.  The  placing  of  people  already  employed  in  new  positions  of  the  same  or 
possibly  better  grade  so  as  to  fill  two  or  three  positions  by  the  shifting  process ; 
some  agencies  even  going  so  far  as  to  undermine  employees  and  offer  new 
ones  of  supposed  superior  quality,  all  for  the  sake  of  the  fee.     This  process 
works  injustice,  especially  where  the  agency  charges  a  per  cent  on  the  annual 
salary  of  those  placed,  wThether  they  hold  their  positions  permanently  or  not. 

3.  The  charging  of  excessive  fees  to  people  because  of  their  financial  dis- 
tress or  necessities. 

4.  Misrepresentation  in  regard  to  the  qualifications  of  applicants  and  of  the 
character  of  positions,  especially  as  to  the  permanency  of  positions,  sometimes 
excusing  themselves  by  saying  that  they  can  not  get  men  to  go  at  all  to  jobs  that 
last  only  two  or  three  days,  and  so  they  tell  them  that  the  job  is  permanent. 

Private  employment  agencies  therefore  need  to  be  supervised  by  the  public 
authorities;  and  in  Missouri,  Wisconsin,  Indiana,  and  perhaps  other  States, 
private  employment  agencies  are  supervised  by  the  labor  department.  Mr.  Duf- 
fin,  superintendent  of  the  public  free  employment  agency  in  Terre  Haute,  Ind., 
reported  at  the  conference  that  the  private  employment  agencies  of  Indiana  have 
to  make  monthly  reports  giving  in  detail  the  number  of  people  for  whom  they 
secured  employment  and  the  names  of  all  the  firms  who  gave  them  employment, 
together  with 'the  numbers  to  which  each  firm  gave  employment.  If  they  find 
that  a  certain  agency  furnishes  most  of  the  laborers  for  a  given  firm,  and  that 
they  furnish  a  considerable  number  month  after  month  to  that  firm,  then  they 
inquire  to  see  if  there  is  not  collusion  between  the  foreman  employing  men  for 
that  firm  and  the  labor  agency  which  furnishes  the  men.  If  they  find  that  there 
is,  the  license  of  the  employment  agency  is  revoked.  Mr.  Duflin  further  re- 
ported that  since  he  had  been  operating  the  public  free  employment  agency  in 
Terre  Haute  all  the  private  agencies  had  been  driven  out  of  business.  There 
seemed  to  be  a  general  feeling  that  if  private  agencies  were  effectively  regu- 
lated to  prevent  the  abuses  mentioned  above  ami  were  compelled  to  compete 
with  free  public  employment  agencies  they  could  not  long  continue  to  exist. 

V  NKMPLOY.MENT  INSURANCE. 

The  theory  of  unemployment  insurance  is  very  attractive,  but  it  represents 
a  line  of  reform  which  is  very  difficult  to  apply.  I  wish  to  make  the  following 
general  observations  : 

Full  indemnity  for  losses  which  occur  through  unemployment  is  impossible. 
Unemployment  benefits  can  only  be  paid  out  of  the  surplus  which  is  produced 
in  times  of  employment.  If  there  is.  no  such  surplus  there  can  be  no  indemnity. 
So  far  as  unemployment  insurance  lias  been  applied  it  lias  only  affected  a  com- 
paratively few  skilled  workers  and  has  been  universally  connected  with  organ- 
ized labor.  It  has  never  reached  the  mass  of  destitute  unemployed  in  any 
country. 

Funds!  for  supplying  out-of-work  benefits  are  raised  among  some  unions  in 
the  United  States  by  assessments  on  the  members.  Funds  of  this  kind  are  sup- 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  367 

plemented  by  public  subsidies  in  a  few  places  in  Europe.  Voluntary  unem- 
ployment insurance  by  organized  workers  might  be  encouraged  in  this  country 
by  a  supplemental  subsidy  from  the  Government,  or  the  Government  might  pos- 
sibly offer  to  all  patrons  of  public  employment  agencies  certain  additional  out- 
of-work  benefits,  provided  these  patrons  of  the  public  employment  agencies 
deposited  assessments  with  the  bureau  as  an  insurance  against  unemployment, 
and  all  employers  might  be  taxed  a  certain  amount  to  go  into  a  general  unem- 
ployment fund,  which  tax  could  be  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  employees 
belonging  to  that  firm ;  and  also  the  rate  might  be  based  partly  on  the  risks  of 
unemployment  which  were  involved  in  the  industry.  This  would  supply  some 
incentive  to  the  industries  to  try  to  wipe  out  the  rush  seasons  and  other  fluctu- 
ating elements  in  their  various  businesses  and  in  that  way  tend  to  reduce 
unemployment. 

A  certain  advantage  might  also  be  offered  to  all  employers  who  would  guaran- 
tee to  secure  all  their  help  through  the  public  employment  agency.  This  would 
then  enable  the  public  employment  agency  to  place  the  unemployed  whom  they 
were  attempting  to  insure  against  unemployment.  Of  course,  those  who  were 
insured  against  unemployment  should  be  required  to  ask  for  work  at  a  stated 
time  each  day  at  the  public  employment  agency  before  they  could  be  entitled  to 
any  benefits  from  the  insurance  fund,  and  if  commercial  employment  could  be 
furnished  them,  then  the  obligation  to  furnish  them  other  work  would  disappear. 
If  employers  would  have  their  assessments  for  unemployment  insurance  reduced 
by  agreeing  to  get  all  their  employees  from  the  public  employment  bureau,  and 
if  workingmen  could  only  secure  the  benefits  of  unemployment  insurance  by 
seeking  their  employment  through  the  channels  of  the  public  employment 
agency,  these  would  be  powerful  factors  in  enabling  the  public  employment  agency 
to  organize  and  control  the  labor  market.  By  thus  getting  control  of  the  labor 
market  they  could  measure  accurately  the  volume  of  unemployment  and  fur- 
nish the  data  on  which  further  action  to  provide  for  the  unemployed  could  be 
based. 

EMPLOYMENT    ON    PUBLIC    WORK. 

Unemployed  labor  is  an  absolute  waste  to  society  and  the  State  should  regard 
it  as  against  public  policy  to  support  people  in  idleness,  and  should  rather  uti- 
lize the  labor  of  the  unemployed  even  though  it  is  not  quite  productive  enough 
to  be  entirely  self-supporting.  The  payment  of  out-of-work  benefits  is  no  cure 
for  unemployment.  It  simply  recognizes  and  perpetuates  unemployment.  This 
not  only  wastes  human  resources  but  very  much  unemployment  tends  to  the 
deterioration  of  the  unemployed  so  that  they  may  eventually  become  unemploy- 
able. Instead  of  paying  "  out-of-work  benefits  "  in  cash,  the  State  could  truly 
conserve  our  human  resources  by  using  the  funds  collected  for  unemployment 
insurance  to  establish  industries  which  would  utilize  the  labor  of  these  men 
to  some  purpose,  even  though  the  industries  were  not  commercially  profitable, 
but  actually  had  to  be  subsidized  to  a  degree.  By  this  plan  the  State  would 
make  the  funds  raised  to  insure  people  employment  actually  insure  them  em- 
ployment, but  never  insure  them  support  in  idleness,  and  it  would  also  make 
the  insurance  funds  go  along  way  and  not  make  unemployment  insurance  seem 
a  great  burden  on  industry.  This  would  supply  a  certain  protection  against 
destitution  to  any  man  who  would  work;  but  the  State  would  not  guarantee 
any  man  work  at  his  trade  or  at  his  accustomed  wages.  This  might  seem  to 
some  to  be  a  meager  protection  after  all,  but  it  would  at  least  be  a  step  and 
would  protect  the  able-bodied  worker  from  the  necessity  for  charity  and  the 
public  from  any  demand  for  charity  from  them.  This  plan  is  morally  and  eco- 
nomically sound. 

If  skilled  and  organized  laborers  wished  to  have  a  voluntary  form  of  insur- 
ance which  would  furnish  them  out-of-work  benefits  without  compelling  them  to 
engage  in  some  crude  labor  outside  of  their  trade,  that  arrangement  might  be 
accepted  and  moderately  subsidized  in  lieu  of  any  insurance  guaranteeing  crude 
labor  in  industries  promoted  by  the  State,  and  the  State  could  establish  this 
form  of  insurance  for  those  who  did  not  carry  the  other  form  of  unemployment 
insurance. 

I  have  already  referred  to  the  possibility  of  bringing  some  pressure  to  bear 
on  our  industrial  system  so  as  to  cause  it  to  make  such  readjustments  as  would 
tend  to  reduce  the  risks  of  unemployment.  Besides  offering  to  reduce  the  rate 
of  unemployment  tax  to  those  who  would  reduce  the  risks  of  unemployment  in 
their  industries,  the  State  might,  instead  of  starting  new  businesses  to  utilize 


368          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

the  labor  of  unemployment,  subsidize  certain  existing  businesses  out  of  the 
insurance  funds  so  as  to  allow  them  to  pay  living  wages  and  operate  with  the 
usual  number  of  employees,  when  they  might  have  closed  if  it  were  not  for 
the  subsidy.  By  both  these  methods  employers  could  be  put  under  some  pres- 
sure to  link  up  more  seasonal  occupations,  such  as  coal  and  ice  businesses,  and 
give  their  workers  employment  summer  and  winter.  Such  adjustments  would 
tend  to  put  on  the  business  heads  of  the  Nation  the  task  of  reducing  unemploy- 
ment, and  they  are  the  people  most  able  to  solve  the  problem  if  we  can  offer 
them  an  incentive  to  do  so. 

COMPULSORY  UNEMPLOYMENT  INSURANCE. 

Possibly  compulsory  unemployment  insurance  for  casual  laborers  is  impossible, 
but  if  the  opportunity  for  unemployment  insurance  was  universal  to  casual 
laborers  it  would  create  a  rather  strong  moral  presumption  against  the  man 
who  refused  to  take  advantage  of  it,  and  a  certain  stigma,  such  as  belongs  to 
vagrants,  would  tend  to  attach  to  him,  and  people  who  did  not  carry  cards 
which  indicated  their  standing  in  this  regard  would  be  at  a  disadvantage  in 
getting  employment  both  from  employers  and  from  employment  bureaus,  and  if 
they  were  charged  with  vagrancy  or  with  any  form  of  misdemeanor  the  fact 
that  they  made  no  effort  to  insure  themselves  employment  would  also  operate 
against  them.  Those  who  would  not  avail  themselves  of  unemployment  insur- 
ance would  be  entitled  to  suffer  some  such  disadvantages.  Certain  fixed  fees 
or  assessments  could  be  collected  from  them  without  any  effort  being  made  to 
have  those  fees  based  on  the  amount  of  their  earnings,  and  then  there  would 
be  no  need  of  trying  to  keep  track  of  their  earnings.  If  these  men  moved  about 
from  place  to  place  over  the  country  they  could  have  their  standing  transferred 
from  the  bureau  where  they  were  last  registered  to  the  bureau  in  their  new 
location  if  we  had  a  national  chain  of  employment  bureaus. 

I  would  like  to  say  a  few  words  about  the  advisability  of  trying  to  bring 
some  pressure  upon  casual  laborers  to  practically  compel  them  to  fall  in  with 
such  a  system  as  this.  As  I  stood  watching  the  hundreds  of  men  who  applied 
for  free  meals  and  lodgings  at  the  municipal  lodging  house  of  Chicago  during 
the  conference,  I  noted  that  very  many  of  these  men  were  able-bodied  and 
intelligent  young  Americans,  and  I  inquired  from  the  officers  of  the  municipal 
lodging  house  whether  many  of  these  men  had  dependents  to  support,  or 
whether  most  of  them  were  unattached  single  men,  and  they  give  it  as  their 
impression  that  the  large  majority  of  them  were  unattached  single  men.  My 
own  observation  and  the  records  in  connection  with  our  free  lodgings  and  our 
employment  bureau  in  Kansas  City  indicate  that  a  large  majority  of  the  casual 
laborers  are  single,  unattached  men.  Out  of  2,008  unemployed  men  of  the 
casual-labor  class  who  were  personally  interviewed  in  February,  1911,  by  an 
investigator  of  the  board  of  public  welfare,  it  appeared  that  11.30  per  cent 
were  married  men  having  families,  75  per  cent  of  which  were  in  the  old  coun- 
try, leaving  only  2.8  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  unemployed  men  inter- 
viewed who  had  families  in  this  country  to  be  supported.  It  is  a  well-known 
fact  to  all  workers  who  deal  with  this  class  of  men  that  they  periodically 
drift  into  the  city  with  anywhere  from  $25  to  $200  in  their  pockets,  which  they 
"  blow  in  "  for  liquor  and  other  forms  of  dissipation  and  return  to  work  only 
when  their  funds  are  exhausted.  Crude  camp  life,  with  none  of  the  refining 
influences  of  home,  and  the  saloons  and  cheap  lodging  houses  of  the  city  are 
responsible  for  many  of  the  failings  of  these  men;  but  these  are  the  men  who 
constitute  the  really  pressing  problem  of  unemployment  in  the  cities,  and  I 
have  only  adcfiicecl  these  general  observations  about  them  to  prove  that  it 
would  not  work  any  undue  hardship  upon  them  to  place  as  much  pressure  as 
possible  upon  them  to  devote  some  of  their  earnings  to  making  a  provision  for 
seasons  of  unemployment. 

LABOR    COLONIES. 

Although  no  reference  was  made  to  the  commercially  unemployable  people 
at  the  Chicago  conference,  yet  until  we  reach  a  comparatively  ideal  state  of 
society  any  complete  scheme  for  dealing  with  unemployment  needs  some  ma- 
chinery for  dealing  with  the  backward  and  incompetent  people  who  are  really 
incapable  of  full  self-support,  especially  under  competitive  conditions,  and  the 
other  class  of  people  who  are  criminally  lazy  or  really  unwilling  to  work, 
although  this  class  is  comparatively  small.  For  the  incompetent  and  defective 
classes  there  should  be  voluntary  labor  colonies  or  colonies  with  only  a  mild 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPEET  WITNESSES.  369 

degree  of  restraint  and  supervision,  and  for  the  last  class  of  vagrants  or 
criminally  lazy  people  there  should  be  compulsory  labor  colonies.  This  is  not 
the  place  to  elaborate  upon  the  methods  and  uses  of  labor  colonies,  but  I  have 
merely  mentioned  them  to  complete  the  outline  of  a  set  of  measures  for  dealing 
with  unemployment. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  If  I  caught  your  idea,  it  is  virtually  a  plan 
whereby  an  agency,  either  governmental  or  otherwise,  is  required  to  furnish 
the  necessary  money  to  provide  a  living  if  the  earnings  do  not  do  it.  That  is 
the  plan  that  your  ideas  would  resolve  themselves  into  in  their  entirety,  would 
they  not? 

Mr.  HALBEKT.  But  instead  of  caring  for  these  people  by  charity,  they  should 
be  made  as  nearly  self-supporting  as  possible. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  But  assuming  for  the  moment  that  your  idea  would 
produce  an  ideal  state,  if  that  is  truly  good,  would  it  not  be  better  if  the  Gov- 
ernment assumed  all  forms  of  activity,  took  all  the  revenue  therefrom,  and 
returned  the  share  to  the  worker,  whether  in  wages  or  dividends,  than  to  go 
only  part  way? 

Mr.  HALBEET.  I  get  your  idea. 

Commissioner  GAFJIET SON.  If  we  are  going  to  assume  that  form  of  the  settle- 
ment of  these  questions,  we  might  just  as  well  take  hook,  line,  and  sinker. 
What  I  want  to  get  at  is,  if  what  you  have  suggested  is  good,  would  not  the 
other  be  better? 

Mr.  HALBEET.  I  would  not  advocate  the  proposition  that  we  should  junk  the 
present  industrial  system  and  establish  a  socialistic  system  without  trying  to 
see  first  whether  the  present  industrial  system  would  not  carry  the  burden 
that  belonged  to  it. 

Commisioner  GAEEETSON.  In  the  real  working  out  would  not  the  plan  you 
suggest  bear  precisely  the  same  relation  to  what  I  assume  you  describe  as  the 
socialistic  system,  as  a  minimum  wage  bears  to  a  full  wage?  In  other  words, 
this  is  a  step  in  the  other  direction? 

Mr.  HALBEET.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEBETSON.  And  if  it  worked  out  fairly  successfully,  would  it 
not  be  a  proof  that  the  whole  program  which  you  have  referred  to  as  social- 
istic would  be  still  more  desirable? 

Mr.  HALBEET.  I  think  so ;  but  in  saying  that  I  think  that  for  the  purpose,  at 
any  rate,  of  the  education  of  the  public  it  is  better  to  try  those  plans,  because 
the  public  will  not  believe  the  present  system  to  be  a  failure  on  those  things 
without  at  least  giving  it  a  trial. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  You  are  going  to  let  the  industrial  system  stand  in 
the  relation  that  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  or  congressional  action 
stands  with  reference  to  railway  labor  questions.  That  is,  they  are  the  dog  on 
which  to  try  new  things.  Bear  in  mind  I  am  speaking  from  experience. 

Mr.  HALBEET.  I  think  the  condition  of  labor,  especially  unskilled,  unemployed, 
and  destitute  labor,  would  be  improved  by  this  process.  I  do  not  think  it  would 
be  idle.  You  speak  about  making  them  a  dog  upon  which  to  experiment.  I  do 
not  see  how  they  would  be  injured.  If  they  would  be  injured  I  would  not  be  in 
favor  of  it. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  What  appealed  to  me  was  this:  The  remedies  all 
seem  to  me  to  savor  strongly  of  the  social  revolution  theory,  while  the  means  of 
carrying  it  out  was  reformatory,  in  a  sense.  If  the  laborer  is  entitled  to  the 
due  proportion  of  that  which  he  produces,  why  not  put  it  on  that  basis,  if  this  is 
only  a  step  in  that  direction ;  if  he  is  deprived  of  that  by  the  present  industrial 
system,  why  should  not  the  other  system  be  tried?  Bear  in  mind  that  I  am  not 
committing  myself  to  any  form  of  belief.  I  want  to  get  yours. 

Mr.  HALBEET.  Yes ;  I  understand. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  If  the  object  is  to  give  the  remedies  that  are  said 
to  exist  in  the  revolution  theory,  why  stop  halfway  with  the  reformatory 
measures? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  When  you  say  "  revolution  theory  "  do  you  mean 
socialism? 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  I  am  speaking  of  the  terms  that  are  ordinarily 
employed  as  a  means  to  blot  out  the  present  system,  by  revolution — the  social 
idea. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.    You  practically  have  reference  to  socialism? 

Commissioner  GAREETSON.  Yes.  I  am  simply  leaving  out  that  word.  Where 
1  used  it,  I  am  simply  borrowing  it  from  the  speaker.  It  appealed  to  me  that 

38819°— 16 24 


370          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

if  you  are  going  to  use  that  as  a  remedy  it  might  be  better  to  apply  it  in  larger 
closes. 

Mr.  HALBERT.  Even  if  I  agreed  to  that,  I  think  the  administrative  difficulties 
of  making  an  industrial  system  are  so  great  that  you  would  have  to  come  at 
ic  through  some  such  process  as  this,  by  which  you  acquire  both  the  experience 
and  the  data  on  which  you  can  do  anything  first.  I  do  not  believe  you  could 
frame  a  system  such  as  you  speak  of  without  some  such  intermediate  process, 
at  any  rate. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  that  this  is  simply  laying  the  pipes  in 
the  foundations  for  socialism? 

Mr.  HALBERT.  Not  necessarily.  I  believe  that  Government  regulation  is  a  dif- 
ferent thing  from  Government  ownership,  and  I  advocate  Government  regu- 
lation. We  have  at  the  present  time,  at  least  by  State  law,  attempted  economic 
regulation,  and  socialism  is  still  a  different  thing;  and  if  economic  regulation 
has  been  a  failure,  as  I  have  contended  before  you  that  it  is — and  that  is  for  you 
to  investigate  and  find  out — and  Government  regulation  might  be  better,  and  it 
would  offer  less  difficulty  of  realization  than  such  a  general  socialistic  move- 
ment as  you  speak  of,  although  I  do  not  think  the  commission  should  be  at  all 
afraid  to  ask  any  such  fundamental  question,  whether  they  want  to  have  an 
entirely  new  system  or  not. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  would  not  want  to  jump  out  of  the  present 
industrial  system  into  a  socialistic  system? 

Mr.  HALBEBT.  I  do  not  think  it  could  be  done. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  would  not  want  to  do  it  even  if  it  could  be 
done? 

Mr.   HALBERT.    No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  it  your  idea  that  socialism  is  all  you  have  out- 
lined, with  plus  of  ownership? 

Mr.  HALBERT.  Oh,  socialism  is  more  than  this. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  you  could  not  have  socialism  without  hav- 
ing this,  but  you  could  have  this  without  having  socialism? 

Mr.  HALBEBT.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  other  speakers  who  desire  to  be  heard? 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  JAMES  H.  BOYD. 

Mr.  BoYi>.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  commission,  I  wish  to  bring  to 
your  attention  a  matter  connected  with  legislation,  both  State  and  National, 
affecting  workmen's-compensation  acts. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  please  state  your  experience  in  connection 
with  these  matters? 

Mr.  BOYD.  I  am  ex-chairman  of  the  Employers'  Liability  Commission  of  Ohio 
and  a  member  of  the  committee  on  organization  of  the  International  Congress 
of  Social  Insurance. 

By  way  of  introduction  I  wish  to  describe  briefly  the  manner  in  which  perhaps 
the  most  extensive  legislation  which  has  been  put  in  operation,  which  involves 
compulsory  State  insurance — compulsory  social  insurance,  if  you  like — in  the 
line  of  workmen's  compensation,  is  being  carried  into  effect. 

In  1910  Gov.  Harmon  appointed  a  commission  to  investigate  the  matter  of 
compulsory  workmen's  compensation,  and  I,  as  chairman  of  that  commission, 
conducted  37  public  hearings  in  different  parts  of  the  State. 

Now,  the  reason  I  wish  to  discuss  this  subject  in  an  introductory  way  is  to 
illustrate  how,  to  a  limited  extent  at  any  rate,  it  has  been  worked  out  by  prac- 
tical legislation  and  has  produced  a  remedy  for  some  of  the  difficulties  which 
the  previous  speaker  has  spoken.  Then  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
it  is  in  consonance  with  the  evolution  of  society,  as  depicted  by  the  work  of 
Sunnier  on  the  Folkways,  Customs,  and  Laws  of  Organized  Society,  the  evolu- 
tion of  organized  society. 

We  can  neither  see  the  beginning  of  organized  society  nor  can  we  predict 
immediately  what  the  future  of  organized  society  will  be  in  respect  to  its 
regulation  of  the  social  and  economic  conditions  of  that  society.  So  in  attacking 
that  problem  in  our  State,  where  we  have  5,000,000  people  and  1,000,000  work- 
men to  consider,  4,000,000  people  who  are  either  workmen  01  dependents,  we 
conducted  37  public  hearings,  in  which  the  representatives  of  labor  unions  and 
the  employers'  associations  and  their  attorneys  took  part,  for  two  purposes. 
The  first  purpose  wns  to  educate  the  public  as  to  what  the  legislation  contem- 
plated, and  in  the  second  place  to  bring  out  the  precise  contention  of  the  em- 


SUGGESTIONS    OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  371 

players  on  the  one  hand  and  the  employees  and  their  representatives  on  the 
other  hand. 

After  we  had  conducted  the  37  hearings — at  Youngstown,  Dayton,  Cincinnati, 
Cleveland,  Columbus,  and  Toledo,  and  were  ready  to  report  the  law  to  the 
legislature,  there  were  left  two  contentions.  One  contention  was — and  that  was 
the  contention  of  the  labor  organizations — that  they  retain  the  right  to  accept 
the  compensation  provided  in  the  act  or  to  sue  the  employer,  as  had  been  done 
before. 

The  contention  of  the  employer  was  that  the  employee  should  contribute 
directly  to  this  fund  some  substantial  part,  possibly  one-fifth  or  one-sixth  or 
one-seventh,  but  some  substantial  part  of  the  fund,  in  order  that  he  might 
have  an  interest  in  the  fund  by  way  of  administration  and  protection  of  the 
integrity  of  the  fund. 

It  was  first  established  by  investigation  that  the  old  common-law  remedy 
must  be  abandoned ;  because  in  making  a  survey  of  the  economic  effect  of  the 
German  workingnien's  compensation  act  upon  society  and  of  our  liability  laws 
upon  society,  as  well  as  the  systems  in  other  foreign  countries,  we  learned 
that  the  natural  hazard  of  a  business,  no  matter  how  careful  the  State  has 
been,  no  matter  how  carefull  the  employer  has  been,  no  matter  how  careful  the 
employee  has  been,  is  such  that  54  per  cent  of  the  accidents  which  occur  are 
due  to  the  unavoidable  risks  of  the  business,  and  46  per  cent  of  the  accidents 
are  divided  between  direct  carelessness  of  the  employer  or  his  agents  or  super- 
intendents, and  the  negligence  of  the  employee  and  his  fellow  servants,  and 
the  acts  of  God.  That  was  demonstrated  with  sufficient  clearness  to  the  legis- 
lature so  that  they  took  the  position,  after  some  discussion  before  the  com- 
mittees, of  abandoning  the  common-law  action  and  are  enstituting  a  new  remedy, 
based  upon  the  natural  right  of  the  workingmen  and  their  dependents  to  have 
a  new  remedy  established  and  recognized  by  the  State,  for  their  mutual  pro- 
tection ;  not  that  the  employee  should  pay,  but  that  a  premium  should  be  col- 
lected from  the  employer,  as  import  duties  are  collected  and  charged  up  to 
the  cost  of  the  business  and  paid  by  the  consumers,  80  per  cent  of  whom  are 
employees  or  their  dependents. 

When  the  act  was  finally  completed  two  years  ago,  or  in  the  last  legislature, 
the  contention  of  the  employers  that  the  employees  should  contribute  was 
eliminated.  The  contention  that  the  employee  should  have  the  right  to  sue 
was  eliminated  to  such  an  extent  that  in  16,000  accident  cases  that  have  been  ad- 
justed there  have  been  three  suits,  in  only  one  of  which  the  workman  obtained  a 
judgment,  although  his  employer  had  paid  the  premium  into  the  firm.  But  that 
is  yet  subject  to  appeal  to  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals,  Cleveland 
circuit.  So  that  now,  beginning  with  the  1st  of  January,  we  shall  have  1,000,000 
workmen,  not  under  the  direct  protection  of  a  workmen's  compensation  act,  as  is 
the  case  where  you  have  an  optional  workmen's  compensation  act,  as  in 
Kansas  or  Wisconsin,  but  where  every  workman  where  five  or  more  are  em- 
ployed, it  makes  no  difference  whether  the  workman  is  employed  in  a  bank  or 
in  a  firm  or  in  a  factory,  will  get  the  compensation  for  an  injury  directly  from 
the  State  insurance  fund ;  and  in  one  week  25  employers  employing  50,000 
workmen,  with  a  pay  roll  of  $25,000,000,  including  the  National  Cash  Register 
Co.,  referred  to  by  Dr.  Devine,  the  Willis-Overland  Automobile  Co.,  of  Toledo, 
where  I  live,  with  6,700  employees,  went  in  under  the  terms  of  the  act. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Voluntarily? 

Mr.  Bo  YD.  The  act  has  always  been  compulsory  as  far  as  the  employer  was 
concerned,  except  in  very  limited  cases,  so  limited  that  in  16,000  accidents  there 
have  been  only  three  lawsuits. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  say  it  is  compulsory,  and  yet  you  say  these 
men  came  in  under  the  act.  Are  they  not  in  under  it  automatically? 

Mr.  BOYD.  They  are  automatically  under  the  act,  but  a  man  is  automatically 
under  the  act  not  to  break  into  a  house ;  yet  he  may  break  into  a  house  never- 
theless. WThat  I  mean  is  that  the  premiums  are  paid  into  the  fund,  so  that 
the  workman  who  may  be  injured  will  get  his  compensation  from  that  fund 
direct. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  The  situation  is  not  clear  to  me.  May  I  be 
permitted  to  ask  some  questions  so  that  I  may  get  a  clear  idea? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Surely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  the  first  place  I  should  like  to  understand 
whether  in  Ohio  you  have  compulsory  compensation  or  voluntary  compensation? 

Mr.  BOYD.  They  never  had  a  voluntary  compensation  act. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  compulsory? 


372          KEPOKT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BOYD.  It  is  only  a  question  as  to  the  degree  of  the  penalty  for  failure  to 
pay  the  premium. 

Commissioner  WEI  x  STOCK.  Does  the  State  monopolize  the  casualty-insurance 
field? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Private  casualty  insurance  companies  are  not  per- 
mitted to  operate  there? 

Mr.  BOYD.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then,  every  employer  pays  a  contribution  into 
this  fund,  I  presume,  and  out  of  this  fund  the  State  pays  compensation  to 
workmen  ? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes.  Let  us  suppose  the  employer  does  not  pay  the  premium. 
Then  suppose  a  workman  in  a  place  of  employment  where  five  or  more  are 
employed  is  injured.  He  makes  application  to  the  State  and  the  State  pays  him. 
The  statute  gives  a  judgment  for  the  amount  of  the  award  plus  50  per  cent, 
the  same  as  for  unpaid  taxes,  and  the  50  per  cent  is  added  in  the  case  of  the 
employer  who  has  not  paid  the  premium. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  The  judgment  is  against  the  employer? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  a  penalty  for  not  having  complied  with 
the  law  of  the  State.  Now,  the  compensation  there  is  based  on  66§  per  cent  of 
the  loss  of  earning  power  due  to  the  accident. 

Prof.  Sumner's  work  on  the  Folkways,  Customs,  and  Laws,  to  which  I  have 
already  referred,  represents  a  lifetime's  work,  and  his  observations  in  ethnology, 
sociology,  and  economics  and  this  legislation  is  based  upon  the  collective  sum 
of  human  knowledge  in  reference  to  this  subject.  This  work  of  Prof.  Sumner 
treats  of  insurance  against  accident,  insurance  against  sickness,  against  old 
age,  against  being  out  of  work,  mothers'  pensions,  as  all  being  on  the  same 
economic  and  legal  basis,  the  recognition  of  a  natural  right  on  the  part  of  the 
people  of  the  State  to  demand  that  the  State  give  them  a  permanent  scheme  of 
mutual  protection  for  which  they  themselves  pay  at  the  minimum  cost. 

The  report  of  the  State  of  Washington  shows  that  they  conduct  the  same 
kind  of  insurance  as  Ohio,  exclusive  of  compulsory  industrial  State  insurance. 
The  figures  there  are  that  they  can  conduct  their  business  at  a  cost  of  8.2  per 
cent  of  the  total  amount  paid  in,  and  the  best  that  liability  insurance  has  ever 
done  is  in  the  operation  of  the  British  act  during  the  year  1909,  where  the  38 
liability  insurance  companies  furnished  all  the  insurance  that  there  was  fur- 
nished in  the  protection  of  13,000,000  employees  at  32  £  per  cent.  Then  there 
was  left  the  administration,  the  doctor  bills,  hospital  bills,  funerals,  and  the 
litigation  left  under  the  British  act  of  which  there  is  none  left  under  the 
Ohio  act. 

If  the  board  denies  compensation  on  the  ground  that  the  workman  was  not 
in  the  due  course  of  his  employment  when  he  was  injured,  he  can  sue  the  board 
but  not  his  employers. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  What  is  the  cost  of  administration? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Twelve  and  one-half  per  cent. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  In  the  State  of  Washington  is  any  of  the  cost  paid 
by  the  State  itself  where  the  cost  is  8.2  per  cent? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Let  us  get  it  into  your  head  right.  We  will  write  down  all  the 
premiums  paid  by  the  employer.  We  will  write  down  all  the  funds  appro- 
priated by  the  State.  Then  we  will  give  a  statement  at  the  end  of  the  year, 
figuring  up  the  absolute  cost  of  administration,  and  that  is  8.2  per  cent  of  all 
the  funds  paid  in  both  by  the  State  and  by  the  employers. 

Here  is  another  fundamental  point  in  that  connection:  In  the  State  of  Ohio 
it  is  provided  in  the  act  that  the  State  pay  the  cost  of  administration  for  two 
reasons.  One  is  that  there  is  an  economic  base,  because  we  prevent  one-third 
of  the  litigation  of  the  State.  The  State  is  bound  to  provide  jurors  and  to 
provide  sheriffs  to  serve  subpcenaes  and  clerks  of  the  court.  We  reduce  that 
cost  one-third  and  substitute  in  the  place  of  it  the  cost  of  the  administration  of 
this  act. 

But  that  is  not  the  main  reason.  The  main  reason  why  the  State  should  pay 
the  cost  of  the  administration  is  so  that  the  cost  of  administering  that  fund 
can  never  become  mingled  with  the  cost  of  the  actual  compensation;  because 
it  is  something  that  might  be  abused,  and  if  it  is  abused,  then  the  cost  of  ad- 
ministration can  never  be  confused  with  any  other  fund.  It  will  always  be> 
possible  to  know  exactly  what  the  percentage  is,  and  the  outs  can  ask  why,  if 
the  State  of  Washington  can  administer  it  for  8.2  per  cent,  it  can  not  also  he 
done  in  Ohio  for  that? 


SUGGESTIONS    OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  373 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  there  not  another  reason,  which  is  that  the 
worker  shall  receive  100  cents  on  the  dollar? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Sure,  to  eliminate  the  waste.  That  is  a  fundamental  proposition. 
Now,  as  I  have  stated,  we  have  in  the  State  of  Ohio  a  million  workmen  who 
are  not  indirectly  under  the  protection  of  the  act  but  directly  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  act. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  the  women  and  children? 

Mr.  BOYD.  And  all  their  dependents,  of  course.  Of  course  industrial  insur- 
ance is  not  to  protect  me  for  losing  my  arm.  It  is  so  that  those  dependents 
on  the  workman's  arm  shall  not  suffer  by  virtue  of  that  accident,  or  be  pre- 
vented from  attaining  the  normal  ability  to  support  themselves,  and  so  that 
the  older  dependents  shall  not  become  a  charge  on  public  charity. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  the  compensation  act  furnishes  a  compensation 
equivalent  to  65  per  cent  of  the  injured  worker's  earnings,  is  not  the  injured 
worker  really  contributing  35  per  cent? 

Mr.  BOYD.  That  is  a  technical  way  of  stating  how  much  he  furnishes.  Of 
course,  here  is  a  carpenter  who  works  118  days  or  200  days,  or  possibly  300 
days,  but  he  gets  66f  per  cent  of  his  weekly  wage  for  six  years. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Sixty-six  and  two-thirds  per  cent  of  his  wages  for 
the  300  days? 

Mr.  BOYD.  No ;  it  is  like  this :  His  average  weekly  wage,  we  will  say,  is  $18. 
Two-thirds  of  that  is  $12.  He  gets  $12  a  week  for  six  times  52  weeks.  That 
will  be  six  years.  That  would  make  about  $3,750. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  He  gets  it  by  the  week,  not  in  a  lump  sum,  does  he 
not? 

Mr.  BOYD.  He  gets  it  by  the  week. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  it  is  shown  that  the  carpenter  has  averaged,  say, 
220  days'  work  a  year  for  the  past  two  years,  is  his  compensation  based  on  his 
earnings  for  200  days  or  for  300  days? 

Mr.  BOYD.  No ;  based  upon  his  average  weekly  earnings. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Fifty-two  weeks  in  the  year? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  His  unemployment  is  not  considered? 

Mr.  BOYD.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  there  not  a  limit  to  that?  Suppose  he  has  only 
worked  one  \veek  in  the  whole  year;  then  what? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Then  it  is  up  to  the  board  to  determine  what  his  average  weekly 
earnings  are. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  board  does  not  deal  at  all  with  a  man's  unem- 
ployment? 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  It  supposes  that  he  is  employed? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Based  on  his  rate  of  wages  if  he  had  worked? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  He  gets  this  compensation  only  if  he  gets  hurt  or- 
the  accident  occurs  while  he  is  at  work  in  the  employment? 

Mr.  BOYD.  In  the  due  course  of  his  employment. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  That  protects  him  if  he  gets  hurt  in  the  factory? 

Mr.  BOYD.  The  premium  that  the  employer  pays  is  based  upon  his  pay  roll. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  That  takes  care  of  the  man  for  six  years  if  he  is 
hurt  while  at  work ;  but  suppose  he  is  hurt  when  he  is  3  feet  outside  of  the 
fence  instead  of  3  feet  inside  of  the  fence? 

Mr.  BOYD.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with  it,  then. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  He  does  not  get  any  pension  at  all? 

Mr.  BOYD.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Ought  he  not  to  be  protected  in  one  case  as  well  as  in 
the  other? 

Mr.  BOYD.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Should  the  State  neglect  him  entirely  if  he  is  hurt 
while  helping  his  wife  put  up  a  curtain? 

Mr.  BOYD.  In  any  city  they  take  him  to  a  hospital  and  take  care  of  him  there 
until  he  is  straightened  out.  If  he  can  pay,  he  pays,  and  if  not,  then  he  does 
not  pay.  You  can  not  provide  for  a  case  like  that  in  an  act  of  this  sort — in  a 
scheme  of  workmen's  compensation  based  upon  placing  a  charge  upon  the  con- 
sumer who  buys  the  product  which  is  produced.  The  fundamental  point  is  that 
you  classify  your  employment  with  regard  to  the  degree  of  hazard. 

Commissioner  BALLABD.  The  different  employments  pay  different  rates? 


374          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes.  In  the  State  of  Washington  they  have  48  classes.  In  the 
State  of  Ohio  we  have  a  great  many  more  classes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  How  many  States  are  there  besides  Washington  and 
Ohio  that  have  workmen's  compensation  laws? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Twenty-three  States  now  have  workmen's  compensation  acts, 
including  the  State  of  New  York.  The  State  of  Washington  and  the  State  of 
Ohio  have  compulsory  State-insurance  acts,  which  are  exclusive.  The  States 
of  West  Virginia,  Oregon,  Massachusetts,  California,  and  one  or  two  others 
provide  a  State-insurance  fund,  but  the  acts  are  obsolete  in  various  ways. 
They  mark  a  transitory  stage  between  the  English  compensation  act  and  a  law 
like* the  Ohio  and  Washington  act.  In  my  opinion  they  will  all  be  compulsory, 
will  all  have  compulsory  insurance  acts  like  Washington  and  Ohio  inside  of 
five  or  six  years. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  Are  not  the  Washington  and  Ohio  acts  very  much 
alike? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes.  The  law  has  been  in  operation  two  years,  only  we  did  not 
make  it  absolutely  compulsory  on  the  employer  at  the  start,  because  we  took 
away  all  the  defenses  of  the  employer  gradually,  and  that  was  enough.  Then 
this  last  year  we  drove  in  the  last  wedge  and  took  them  all  away  to  the  extent 
of  his  property. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  You  smoked  him  in? 

Mr.  BOYD.  We  drove  him  in  and  then  we  shut  the  door.  That  is  the  only 
way  in  which  it  could  be  done. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  agree  with  you. 

Mr.  BOYD.  The  interesting  thing  about  it  is  that  999  employers  out  of  1,000 
in  Ohio  are  very  much  delighted  with  it,  whereas  six  months  ago  they  thought 
it  was  a  piece  of  penalism  and  revenge  against  the  employer. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  does  your  law  compare  with  New  York's? 

Mr.  BOYD.  I  have  just  got  it  and  have  it  in  my  pocket.  I  do  not  know  the 
details  of  it.  I  have  not  read  the  New  York  act. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Is  not  that  the  extreme  of  legislation  we  have 
had  so  far? 

Mr.  BOYD.  I  do  not  understand  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Extreme  in  favor  of  the  workman. 

Mr.  BOYD.  The  New  York  act  does  not  provide  so  large  compensation  as  the 
Ohio  act. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  not  always  an  essential.  The  principle 
involved  is  the  important  thing. 

Commissioner  GARBETSON.  How  does  the  time  compare? 

Mr.  BOYD.  I  have  not  read  the  act. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Time  and  amounts  may  be  in  opposition  to  each 
other  and  produce  a  more  desirable  result  with  a  low  rate  and  a  long  time 
than  a  high  rate  and  a  short  time. 

Mr.  BOYD.  I  could  not  give  you  the  details  of  the  New  York  act. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Has  Massachusetts  a  good  act? 

Mr.  BOYD.  I  would  not  say  it  is  a  good  act  or  a  bad  act.  It  is  a  magnificent 
act  for  the  insurance  companies.  It  provides  compensation  to  everybody,  but 
the  employer  must  furnish  it,  and  they  do  not  provide  a  definite  State  in- 
surance fund. 

The  employer  has  got  to  insure  himself.  He  must  go  to  a  liability  or  mutual 
insurance  company  and  insure. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  They  have  a  board? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  An  adjusting  board? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  board  must  determine  whether  the  settle- 
ment between  the  employer  and  the  employee  is  a  satisfactory  one? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  the  Massachusetts  board  has  turned  down 
thousands  of  cases  where  the  insurance  companies  have  made  full  settlement. 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes.  The  consumer  has  got  to  pay  for  that  expensive  way  of  ad- 
ministering. Some  of  the  gentlemen  down  in  Massachusetts  may  perhaps  claim 
that  is  the  best  way  to  do  it,  but  it  is  up  to  you  people  to  say  whether  it  is 
or  not. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  heard  a  Massachusetts  man  and  an  Ohio  man 
arguing  the  question,  and  the  Massachusetts  man  told  the  Ohio  man  he  had 
the  worst  failure  of  a  compensation  law  that  they  had  in  the  United  States. 


SUGGESTIONS    OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  375 

Mr.  BOYD.  That  is  all  right.  Mr.  Tecumseh  Sherman  has  gone  all  over  this 
country  saying  that  it  is  the  rottenest  act  in  the  world.  That  is  all  right. 
He  has  a  right  to  his  opinion,  but  as  long  as  it  pleases  most  of  the  employers 
and  5,000,000  people  in  the  State  who  are  employees  or  the  dependents  of 
employees,  we  do  not  care  what  Tecumseh  Sherman  says  about  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  see  why,  but  he  made  the  bald  statement. 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes ;  but  bald  statements  can  be  made  easily.  This  is  the  main 
thing  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to.  The  Federal  act  drafted  by  the 
Federal  Workmen's  Compensation  Commission,  of  which  Senator  Sutherland  is 
chairman,  passed  the  Senate  and  got  into  the  House,  and  it  is  in  the  com- 
mittee somewhere.  Now,  we  have  these  23  States  that  have  workmen  com- 
pensation acts  in  different  forms,  and  there  is  a  conflict  between  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  different  States,  and  they  are  waiting  for  what  this  Federal  act  is 
going  to  be,  because  the  interstate  carriers,  of  course,  do  not  care  to  come  in 
under  a  State  act  if  there  is  going  to  be  a  Federal  act.  It  will  not  require 
very  much  time  for  this  commission  to  devote  a  little  attention  to  this,  and 
appoint  one  or  two  men  as  a  committee  to  cooperate  with  the  President  and 
Senator  Sutherland  and  the  different  gentlemen  who  have  charge  of  this 
Federal  act  and  hasten  the  passage  of  it.  Where  a  man  gets  hurt  on  an  inter- 
state railroad,  he  wants  to  get  the  protection  of  the  State  act.  The  railroad 
companies  do  not  want  him  to  have  the  protection  of  the  State  act.  They 
would  have  it  under  a  Federal  act,  or  go  back  under  the  employers'  liability 
act  of  1908.  You  eliminate  all  that  expense  and  all  that  contention  the 
moment  that  act  goes  through.  Then  these  State  acts  will  all  work  out  much 
faster,  and  you  can  render  a  great  service  to  this  country  in  hastening  that, 
if  you  only  hasten  it  six  months. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Your  suggestion  would  be  that  this  commission  at 
its  earliest  opportunity  then  issue  a  recommendation  to  Congress  that  they 
shall  pass  a  Federal  compensation  act? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes ;  and  use  all  your  force  to  get  it  through  as  soon  as  possible, 
in  the  best  possible  shape,  whatever  that  is.  By  the  way,  I  think  that  act  ought 
to  cover  not  only  railroads,  but  interstate  traffic  on  the  lakes,  on  the  rivers,  and 
coastwise  traffic. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  about  the  employees  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment itself? 

Mr.  BOYD.  They  are  already  protected  by  a  bill. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  are  already  protected? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  news  to  me. 

Mr.  BOYD.  Under  a  separate  act. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Has  that  been  passed? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes ;  and  it  is  in  operation. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  It  is  not  considered  a  very  excellent  act. 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  It  is  not  an  exact  duplicate  of  this  act,  but  there 
is  a  workmen's  compensation  act  in  existence  as  applied  to  Federal  employees. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  was  told  by  a  gentleman  connected  with  one  of 
the  departments  that  if  he  should  be  injured  in  the  course  of  his  employment, 
injured  in  Government  service,  he  would  have  no  remedy. 

Mr.  BOYD.  He  is  mistaken. 

There  is  no  question  about  the  value  of  a  service  of  the  kind  I  have  indicated, 
in  doing  all  you  can  to  expedite  the  passage  of  a  Federal  workmen's  compen- 
sation act,  to  apply  to  interstate  railroad  and  other  interstate  employees. 
You  could  delegate  this  to  one  or  two  members  of  this  commission  to  watch 
it,  follow  it,  and  to  render  a  great  service  to  this  country. 

Of  course,  we  are  to  have  an  international  congress  on  social  insurance,  to 
which  will  be  invited,  under  the  authority  of  the  Government,  the  representa- 
tives of  Germany,  France,  England,  and  other  countries,  and  I  think  you 
ought  to.  devote  a  little  attention  to  the  nature  of  the  program  that  that  organi- 
zation will  get  up,  because  it  will  have  the  widest  influence  and  the  greatest 
effect  upon  all  this  kind  of  legislation. 

There  are  several  of  us  who  have  been  invited  over  into  Canada  to  assist 
in  advising — if  I  may  use  the  word — the  Ontario  Government  in  framing  their 
act.  Of  course,  there  are  no  constitutional  difficulties  involved  in  framing 
an  act  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada  or  in  any  foreign  countries.  The  difficulty 
in  this  country  should  be  brought  out  in  that  program — that  is,  that  in  these 
industrial  or  social  insurance  acts,  these  constitutional  questions  have  to  be 
met,  and  that  these  acts  must  be  so  drawn  as  to  come  within  the  constitutional 


376          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

limitation,  for  example,  the  taking  of  property  without  due  process  of  law, 
and  the  equal  protection  of  the  law.  For  example,  in  Montana  the  act  pro- 
vides that  after  the  employer  has  paid  his  taxes  on  the  coal  produced  and 
the  workmen  had  paid  their  1  per  cent  of  their  wages  into  the  fund,  that 
permitted  the  workmen  to  elect  to  take  the  compensation  or  to  sue  the  em- 
ployer as  heretofore.  That  insurance  act  was  held  to  be  constitutional  all  the 
way  through,  except  the  one  provision  that  permitted  the  workmen  to  elect  to 
sue,  and  the  court  held  that  that  was  not  equal  protection  of  the  law. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  gave  him  two  options? 

Mr.  BOYD.  They  gave  him  two  ways  of  getting  his  compensation.  That  sim- 
ply multiplied  the  liability  of  an  individual  employer. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  what  State  was  that? 

Mr.  BOYD.  That  was  in  Montana. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  California  the  law  gives  the  workman  the 
right  to  sue  if  the  employer  has  been  willfully  negligent? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  has  two  remedies  there. 

Mr.  BOYD.  That  is  another  difficult  proposition.  That  is  in  our  Ohio  act,  too, 
but  it  ought  to  be  out  of  the  act,  because  if  an  employer  willfully  injures  a 
person  it  is  either  a  misdemeanor  or  a  felony  ;  and,  if  he  violates  the  statute 
of  the  species  of  legislation  that  has  to  do  with  the  regulation  of  workshops 
and  factories,  that  is  a  matter  of  penalizing  under  that  provision.  It  should 
not  be  brought  into  a  workman's  compensation  act  to  complicate  the  adminis- 
tration of  that  act  and  to  vitiate  the  conception  of  the  act.  It  should  be  kept 
outside  of  the  act,  but  we  could  not  quite  keep  it  all  out. 

But  to  illustrate  the  way  it  actually  works,  there  are  5,000,000  people  in 
the. State  of  Ohio  who  are  getting  the  benefits  of  it,  and  that  is  the  reason 
why  I  have  recited  at  length,  as  I  have,  this  description  of  our  work  in 
Ohio.  We  got  all  the  contentions  that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  was 
fighting  for — Mr.  Gompers  and  all  the  rest  of  them.  Mr.  Gompers,  at  first, 
was  a  strong  advocate  of  retaining  the  right  to  sue  if  the  workman  desired  to 
sue,  but  he  has  ceased  to  fight  on  that  proposition.  That  proposition  made  a 
great  deal  of  trouble.  Then,  the  employers  said,  "  We  will  not  do  anything 
unless  you  workmen  contribute  to  the  fund."  We  got  rid  of  both  of  those 
contentions — with  that  slight  exception — and,  a  little  later,  we  will  just  pull 
that  out  and  stick  it  in  in  another  place. 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  You  made  a  recommendation  a  little  while  ago 
that  this  commission  should  use  its  very  best  influence  to  secure  the  passage 
of  the  workmen's  compensation  act. 

Mr.  BOYD.  That  is  the  interstate  act? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  In  Congress. 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Are  you  conversant  with  the  attitude  of  the  labor 
organizations  wrhose  sole  membership  comes  under  the  provision  of  that  act 
throughout  this  country? 

Mr.  BOYD.  If  it  is  represented  by  Mr.  Sabath,  I  do. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Does  Mr.  Sabath  hold  a  license  to  speak  for  any 
of  these  organizations? 

Mr.  BOYD.  No. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  am  speaking  of  the  four  railway  brotherhoods. 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  If  he  had  that  right,  it  is  canceled? 

Mr.  BOYD.  He  ought  to  cancel  it  right  away. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  will  say  this  to  you  for  these  four  brotherhoods. 
For  instance,  these  brotherhoods  have  representatives  in  Washington. 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  have  a  legislative  representative  here. 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSOX.  And  each  of  the  other  three  organizations  has  a 
representative. 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Mr.  O'Connell,  your  representative  is  commending 
the  act  as  it  stands,  is  he  not  ? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Not  now. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  One  of  them  commends  it  absolutely  as  it  is.  A 
second  one  demands  its  change  to  the  elective  plan,  with  the  power  of  elec- 
tion, and  will  back  it  in  that  form.  The  other  two  are  absolutely  opposed  to 


SUGGESTIONS   OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  377 

it.  Now,  would  not  we  three  be  in  an  inconsistent  position  here  to  commend 
the  passage  of  that  act,  as  members  of  this  commission,  and  then  as  individuals 
go  and  oppose  it  along  the  lines  that  I  have  named? 

Mr.  BOYD.  Of  course,  we  had  you  fellows  out  there  in  Ohio. 

Commissioner  GAREETSON.  I  am  speaking  for  the  gentlemen  on  this  side  of 
the  table,  Mr.  Lennon,  Mr.  O'Connell,  and  myself.  That  is  what  we  are  up 
against. 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes ;  we  had  them,  too. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  You  only  had  the  State  representatives  of  our 
organizations. 

Mr.  BOYD.  Yes ;  but  they  communicated  with  Mr.  Gompers  and  all  those  gen- 
tlemen. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  am  speaking  for  the  railway  brotherhoods.  Mr. 
Gompers  does  not  speak  for  them. 

Mr.  BOYD.  I  know  that ;  but  you  have  your  own  organization  in  Cleveland. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  the  engineers.  Our  State  organization  is 
entirely  separate  from  the  national. 

Mr.  BOYD.  But  are  not  your  State  organizations  members  of  the  national 
organization? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Yes ;  but  if  the  men  in  one  State  want  compen- 
sation and  the  men  in  another  State  want  liability,  it  is  nothing  uncommon 
to  find  a  committee  of  my  own  organization  fighting  for  liability  in  Arizona 
and  fighting  for  compensation  in  Ohio. 

Mr.  BOYD.  There  are  some  places  where  you  can  never  take  away  the  right 
to  sue  for  injury.  New  Mexico  put  that  provision  in  her  constitution. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Those  are  the  things  that  they  are  up  against. 

Mr.  BOYD.  In  my  opinion,  the  Federal  act  should  provide  that  every  rail- 
road should  be  in  a  class  by  itself,  and  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission 
can  determine  the  hazard  of  that  road  from  the  statistics  turned  in,  so  that  each 
road  will  pay  a  premium  based  on  its  experience,  the  same  as  we  have  different 
classes  of  employment  in  Ohio.  I  would  have  the  act  put  each  railroad  in 
a  class  by  itself.  Then  you  can  make  a  class  of  the  interstate  traffic  upon 
the  lakes.  In  just  one  storm  we  had  fourteen  vessels  that  went  to  the  bottom 
with  everybody  on  board. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  know;  and  the  railroads  themselves  are  in  a 
devil  of  a  storm.  There  are  some  that  slaughter  them  by  thousands,  and 
there  are  others  that  do  not. 

Mr.  BOYD.  The  fellow  that  is  paying  the  big  premium,  he  will  be  checked  by 
that,  will  he  not? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Yes;  I  guess  he  would  be. 

Mr.  BOYD.  I  guess  he  would ;  and  you  have  got  the  safety-appliance  act  be- 
hind them.  If  the  plan  that  I  am  suggesting  is  followed  out,  then  it  will 
appear  in  the  operating  expenses,  and  each  railroad  will  have  to  pay  in  accord- 
ance with  the  experience  of  the  road. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  We  will  all  agree  on  these  questions  by  and  by. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  commission  will  now  go  into  executive  session. 
(At  3.35  o'clock  p.  m.  the  commission  went  into  executive  session.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  CHARLES  MCCARTHY. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Prof.  Commons  has  told  us  that  we  may  hear  from  Mr. 
McCarthy,  and  I  will  ask  you,  Mr.  McCarthy,  to  state  in  what  way  you  have 
been  connected  with  this  work. 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  As  head  of  the  Legislative  Reference  Bureau  of  Wisconsin, 
and  I  have  been  connected  with  all  the  work  in  Wisconsin  in  one  way  or  an- 
other. 

I  have  been  for  13  years  in  charge  of  the  bureau  which  has  done  all  the 
drafting  for  Wisconsin.  All  the  constructive  work,  every  piece  of  it,  has  been 
under  my  charge  in  some  degree.  I  have  been  the  man  who  was  connected 
with  this  whole  thing  in  the  University  of  Wisconsin.  That  is  why  Prof. 
Commons  suggested  that  I  some  here  and  talk  to  you. 

It  is  only  a  question  of  methods  that  I  want  to  talk  about.  I  do  not  want 
to  go  into  all  the  subjects  you  have  here. 

We  had  this  situation  in  Wisconsin :  They  had  that  reform  movement  in  the 
State,  headed  by  Mr.  La  Follette.  It  was  a  question  of  what  should  be  done, 


378          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

just  the  thing  that  you  people  are  up  against,  and  a  question  how  they  could 
do  it,  and  we  hit  upon  a  way  of  working  that  thing,  which  might  be  useful 
to  you  here. 

As  you  observed  in  talking  to  Mr.  Leiserson,  he  is  a  trained  man.  He  was 
one  of  my  students  and  was  one  of  Prof.  Commons's  students.  We  began 
training  these  men  for  different  subjects.  It  is  a  long  process,  and  we  have 
trained  the  most  of  the  men  who  have  gone  into  that  kind  of  work. 

In  the  early  days  when  an  investigation  was  started  like  this  they  would 
bring  in  almost  all  kinds  of  testimony  to  get  at  the  facts,  and  then  that  testi- 
mony would  result  in  a  great  many  volumes.  You  would  not  have  anything 
left  afterwards.  You  would  not  have  any  administrative  work  left,  or  else 
it  would  result  in  somebody  drafting  some  law.  The  result  would  be  that 
there  would  be  nobody  to  carry  out  that  law,  and  there  would  be  books  full  of 
statutes,  but  no  practical  results. 

Now,  I  want  to  impress  upon  you  people  the  necessity  for  the  constructive 
portion  of  the  work.  What  Mr.  Leiserson  says  is  in  line  with  what  I  will  say. 
Mr.  Leiserson  told  you  not  to  begin  to  go  over  all  this  thing  again.  Get  the 
consensus  of  what  there  is  on  the  subject  first.  Get  the  reason  why  success 
has  come  in  certain  lines  and  why  success  has  not  come  in  other  lines.  Begin 
at  once  on  that  end,  and  begin  drafting  up  your  plans  at  once  for  your  con- 
structive work  that  is  to  come  along  in  the  future. 

I  believe  that  all  the  investigations  of  this  sort  in  the  past  have  made  the 
mistake  of  not  doing  that,  and  because  they  have  not  done  that  the  inevitable 
tendency  of  a  body  of  this  sort  is  to  go  off  on  this  line  and  that  one  and  that 
one,  and  then  they  begin  to  branch  off  each  into  other  lines.  They  are  all 
good,  but  you  can  not  do  them  all.  Can  you  not  tie  them  up? 

We  believe  in  taking  three,  or  four,  or  five,  very  fundamental  things  which 
will  lead  to  something  else  afterwards,  and  we  believe  in  tying  them  up  first. 
We  believe  that  the  outlines  should  be  pretty  well  worked  out,  that  there  should 
be  an  immediate  program,  a  thing  to  do  first,  and  a  thing  to  do  next,  and  then 
another  thing  beyond  that,  and  then  another  place  that  is  left  in  a  vague  stage 
of  investigation.  Now,  you  have  got  that  problem  before  you.  You  have  got 
to  pick  out  what  you  want  to  do  next.  Obviously,  there  will  have  to  be  con- 
siderable investigation,  but  I  believe  if  you  make  any  mistakes  it  will  be  in 
the  great  mass  of  the  investigation,  rather  than  in  tying  it  up  as  you  go  along, 
on  some  particular  subject.  For  instance,  on  a  workmen's  compensation  act 
in  Wisconsin,  if  we  draft  a  workmen's  compensation  act  we  never  sit  down  and 
draft  an  act  in  a  week  or  two  weeks,  nor  would  there  be  an  investigation 
which  would  never  end  in  an  act,  but  the  act  would  probably  be  constructed 
beginning  the  very  first  day  that  the  committee  would  come  together.  That  is, 
there  would  be  certain  general  lines  which  they  would  lay  down,  and  then 
ask  a  trained  body  of  draftsmen,  constructive  workers,  just  the  same  as  if  we 
were  going  to  build  this  building,  we  would  call  in  architects  to  show  us  plans 
of  some  kind  upon  which  you  can  work.  So  we  have  the  machinery  for  going 
at  that  work.  We  have  the  legislative  reference  department  at  Madison,  of 
which  I  have  control  and  that  has  five  attorneys  in  their  department.  Some 
of  those  men  have  -been  at  this  work  very  many  years  now.  They  are  all 
trained  under  me.  They  are  fellows  who  can  take  up  all  the  different  kinds  of 
•  legislation  upon  any  of  these  subjects,  and  make  a  rough  draft  and  put  it  into 
shape  so  that  you  will  have  before  you  just  exactly  what  comes  up. 

Now,  you  take  your  rough  draft,  distribute  it  around  among  your  friends,  or 
around  on  the  outside,  and  then  draft  it  over  again.  In  that  first  draft  there 
will  be  called  in  men  who  are  experts  in  these  particular  lines.  You  have  seen 
them  here,  like  Leiserson.  If  you  were  working  on  some  particular  line  of 
work,  you  would  bring  in  Leiserson,  and  when  he  would  come  there  he  would 
probably  have  all  the  different  kinds  of  acts  upon  that  subject,  and  would 
have  them  analyzed.  Then  after  you  get  Leiserson  you  get  other  fellows  of 
that  type.  Then  you  outline  it  in  a  rough  way.  You  say  "  I  would  like  to  see 
a  sketch  of  that  thing."  Then  the  draftsman  would  put  this  into  shape  and 
you  would  talk  it  all  over,  and  then  if  you  wanted  to  investigate  some  facts 
about  it,  you  would  want  some  more  experts.  For  instance,  at  the  University 
of  Wisconsin  there  may  be  an  attorney  who  knows  a  great  deal  about  some 
particular  phase  of  the  law,  from  the  law  school.  There  may  be  a  chemist, 
there  may  be  a  man  who  knows  tuberculosis  in  animals.  All  these  men  are 
brought  in  on  this  outline,  and  as  this  outline  is  made,  it  begins  to  expand  as 
you  go  along.  Then  all  the  investigation  you  may  be  making  will  be  heading 
toward  that.  If  you  come  to  a  place  where  you  determine  that  you  do  not 


SUGGESTIONS   OF  EXPERT  WITNESSES.  379 

want  to  do  it,  and  the  public  sentiment  of  the  country  is  against  it,  and  the 
committee  do  not  want  to  present  it,  you  can  throw  it  all  over,  but  meanwhile 
you  are  always  working  toward  the  plan  of  what  you  want  to  do. 

Now,  in  reference  to  the  different  things  that  have  gone  into  the  platforms 
of  our  different  political  parties,  I  want  to  say  that  I  do  not  belong  to  any 
political  party,  and  neither  do  any  of  my  colleagues.  We  do  not  join  political 
parties.  We  want  to  be  with  whatever  force  comes  along.  That  is  what  we 
want.  All  our  people  are  that  way. 

Now,  I  say  we  gather  that  sort  of  scientific  body  of  men  around,  and  they 
sit  down  and  they  know  just  about  what  is  coming  up  in  the  State,  they  know 
the  great  necessity  for  some  particular  piece  of  work,  and  they  survey  it  off 
to  get  the  proportions  of  it,  and  the  emphasis,  as  it  is  laid  out,  and  then  they 
take  up  the  particular  things  that  they  know  the  sentiment  is  going  to  con- 
centrate upon,  and  then  they  follow  that  up.  Or  they  lay  that  down  for  some 
other  thing  that  comes  along.  For  instance,  in  the  session  before  last,  one 
of  my  students  discovered  the  first  way  of  getting  around  the  Constitution  in 
the  workmen's  compensation  act.  We  were  eight  years  trying  to  do  that.  We 
were  the  first  people  who  started  in  on  that.  I  went  over  to  Europe  and  our 
people  went  over  and  made  an  investigation  of  the  industries  in  England  and 
in  Germany. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  speaking  of  the  constitution,  do  you  refer  to 
the  State  or  Federal  Constitution? 

Mr.  McCAETHY.  Both.  We  would  have  to  look  over  both.  We  have  a  planning 
department  right  in  the  State  government  itself,  and  that  planning  department 
acts  under  all  the  other  fellows.  They  do  not  interfere  with  the  committee  work 
on  any  particular  subject,  nor  do  they  interfere  with  the  legislature,  but  they 
are  in  just  the  same  position  as  an  architectural  body.  You  bring  in  a  body  of 
architects  and  say  "  We  think  of  putting  a  building  on  this  square,  and  we  have 
thought  it  out  in  an  informal  way,  and  we  think  it  ought  to  cost  $3,000,000,  and 
that  it  ought  to  be  so  and  so.  What  plans  have  you  got?"  We  take  the  plans 
and  look  them  over  and  say  "  That  will  not  do."  We  take  that  out,  and  then  we 
say,  "  This  little  thing,  you  modify  that."  And  then  you  begin  eliminating  and 
changing  and  do  it  over  again.  This  process  may  be  repeated  50  times.  All 
of  our  great  acts  in  our  State  have  been  worked  out  in  that  way.  Take  for 
instance  the  great  industrial-commission  act,  which  is  after  all  based  upon  the 
suggestion  of  the  German  act.  It  is  the  German  act.  It  came  from  Germany. 
We  have  searched  the  wide  world  for  these  things. 

There  is  a  new  kind  of  law  growing  up  in  America.  There  is  a  new  economic 
law,  based  upon  the  determination  of  economic  facts  rather  than  upon  the 
precedents  of  the  courts.  It  is  eating  its  way  gradually  into  our  legal  system 
in  America.  In  Wisconsin  all  our  great  commissions  are  based  upon  that,  but 
that  is  a  thing  that  has  been  worked  out  in  other  countries.  After  all,  where 
does  your  workmen's  compensation  act  come  from?  It  came  to  England  and 
from  Germany.  The  Wisconsin  act  has  as  much  German  stuff  in  it  as  it  has 
English.  These  things  are  coming  up  in  a  crowded  country  like  America.  In  this 
country  these  problems  are  coming  up.  The  problem  of  unrest  is  coming  up, 
because  men  are  not  able  to  get  out  on  the  land,  and  get  at  the  minerals,  and 
get  the  things  of  nature.  They  can  not  get  them  any  more.  They  are  crowded, 
and  then  comes  your  unrest.  Other  countries  have  been  crowded.  Other 
countries  have  had  unrest.  People  have  lived  in  cities,  and  have  been  on  the 
verge  of  starvation.  Other  great  countries  have  dealt  with  these  conditions. 
Germany  after  a  hundred  years  of  warfare  was  reduced  in  population  and  im- 
poverished in  resources.  Now  she  has  a  population  of  67,000,000,  and  you 
can  go  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other  and  you  will  see  very  good 
conditions  indeed.  Germany  is  a  wonderful  example  to  the  rest  of  the  world, 
as  showing  what  a  country  can  do.  She  is  a  country  that  is  now  importing 
foreign  labor. 

That  has  been  done  to  a  large  extent  by  good  planning.  Bismarck  did  a  great 
deal  of  that  planning,  and  the  men  around  him,  Wagner  and  other  university 
men  were  brought  in  by  him,  in  that  plan  that  he  made  at  that  time.  So 
England  at  the  present  time  is  just  simply  imitating  Germany.  Lloyd  George 
told  me  himself  that  he  had  constantly  gone  to  Germany,  that  he  had  spent 
his  summers  in  Frankfort,  that  he  went  there  and  studied  the  methods  of  the 
Gorman  Government.  So  from  Germany  these  things  are  reaching  out  around 
the  world. 

You  gentlemen  have  some  plans.  Much  of  it  is  perfectly  obvious  to  you,  such 
as  safety  and  sanitation.  You  know  the  American  sentiment,  and  the  sentiment 


380          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

of  the  manufacturers  lias  reached  that  point,  and  as  far  as  you  are  concerned, 
you  do  not  need  to  put  any  emphasis  on  that.  You  know  you  can  use  these 
fellows.  They  will  go  on  and  put  forth  plans.  So  in  the  university  school  of 
the  country  you  can  use  all  kinds  of  people.  You  can  use  associations,  and 
all  kinds  of  things  that  come  up.  I  have  not  got  your  budget  before  me,  but 
I  should  say  that  for  work  of  this  sort  fully  one-third  of  your  money  would  have 
to  be  expended  in  gathering  together  the  models  and  expedients,  administrative 
expedients  from  all  over  the  world.  How  many  things  there  are  that  Leiserson 
says  they  found  out  from  other  nations.  You  do  not  want  to  duplicate  work 
that  has  already  been  done.  You  have  not  got  the  time. 

Then  you  want  to  have  your  material  so  classified  that  you  can  get  at  it  at 
once.  You  can  not  do  it  conveniently  in  any  other  way7  The  problem  is  too 
big.  You  want  to  take  a  particular  subject  to  a  particular  man,  and  let  him 
begin  to  construct  something,  on  that  particular  thing.  You  want  men  who  will 
take  each  one  particular  piece  of  legislation,  and  go  to  him  and  say  "  Will  this 
work?"  Go  up  to  Mr.  Dawson  and  say  "Will  this  work?"  Mr.  Dawson  goes 
to  work,  and  by  and  by  you  have  something  that  has  been  put  in  the  shape  of 
a  law,  and  you  can  look  it  over  and  determine  whether  it  is  worth  while  or  not. 

You  people  have  heard  the  talk  about  the  courts  all  the  way  through.  If 
when  you  get  through  you  do  not  have  legislation  that  is  worth  while,  it  will 
simply  mean  that  the  people  will  get  behind  the  courts.  You  will  strengthen 
the  courts  in  the  long  run.  The  people  will  say,  "  Oh,  well,  the  industrial  com- 
mission investigated  that  thing,  and  they  did  not  find  anything,  and  there  is 
nothing  before  Congress,  or  there  is  nothing  worked  out."  Now,  you  can  work 
things  out  if  you  begin  that  way  from  the  beginning;  but  if  you  leave  it  all 
within  the  last  three  or  four  weeks  of  your  work  you  will  have  nothing  tied  up 
at  all. 

When  you  do  get  anything  into  shape,  get  it  out  through  the  press,  through 
the  magazines,  get  the  American  people  familiar  with  it,  get  them  behind  it. 
I  take  it  you  would  not  have  been  appointed  as  a  commission  upon  industrial 
relations  unless  you  were  expected  to  have  something  to  do  outside  of  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  or  outside  of  your  very  limited  Federal  authority.  You  have 
got  to  say  something  to  the  States  about  the  great  industrial  conditions  all 
around  the  country. 

Now,  there  are  expedients.  Legislation  is  now  getting  to  be  a  science.  I 
had  the  honor  of  starting  off  at  the  first  of  this  sort  of  thing  in  Wisconsin,  and 
organizing  this  general  plan  at  that  time. 

i  Now  we  are  getting  to  a  place  where  we  know  the  kind  of  legislation  that 
will  make  these  expedients  effective.  We  know  the  exact  status  of  that  sort 
of  thing.  When  we  drafted  the  industrial  commission  act,  we  knew  that  it  was 
going  to  be  successful.  We  knew  it  would  go.  Why?  We  knew  it  had  gone. 
We  knew  all  these  elements  in  every  part  of  the  world.  We  knew  that  thing 
was  going  to  be  of  great  importance  in  the  future,  just  the  same  as  we  have 
two  or  three  other  acts  now  under  way,  and  have  been  working  two  or  three 
years  on  them.  Sometimes  we  work  in  Wisconsin  five  or  six  or  seven  years 
before  it  conies  off.  That  does  not  mean  on  one  piece  of  work,  but  there  are 
different  stages  of  it  all  along  the  line.  I  had  a  man  on  this  land  problem 
working  a  year  and  a  half,  and  he  will  work  on  it  probably  a  couple  of  years 
before  he  will  get  it  into  shape,  but  when  it  comes  out  it  will  be  something 
that  you  can  talk  about. 

!  Take  the  public-utilities  act.  I  brought  out  the  first  public-utilities  act  there. 
We  brought  together  9,000  pieces  of  legislation  from  all  over  the  world,  which 
we  used  in  framing  that  public-utilities  act.  Our  people  went  everywhere,  and 
when  we  got  it  into  shape  it  was  based  upon  the  Sheffield  act  of  England.  It 
was  the  first  public-utilities  act  in  America.  That  was  worth  while  doing,  be- 
cause then  the  court  sustained  things  that  it  would  not  sustain  previously. 
The  business  man  has  no  kick  on  it,  because  it  works  in  an  elastic  way,  in 
harmony  with  the  conditions  of  the  times.  It  does  not  interfere  in  his  busi- 
ness in  a  way  that  is  burdensome  to  him.  He  feels  that  it  is  worth  while. 

We  have  done  an  awful  lot  of  radical  legislation  in  Wisconsin.  It  has  been 
a  very  original  place,  so  far  as  legislation  is  concerned.  It  has  been  a  ratlical 
place.  We  have  had  three  kinds  of  Republicans,  two  kinds  of  Democrats,  and 
two  big  Socialist  organizations.  We  have  had  bitter  war.  The  labor  unions 
up  there  have  been  Socialists  and  they  have  come  into  the  legislature;  and 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  we  have  had  some  very  severe,  harsh  men  at  the 
head  of  our  affairs  up  there,  among  the  politicians,  still  Wisconsin  has  gone 
right  on  and  it  has  been  building  up  something  which  has  not  destroyed  capi- 
tal, and  which  has  built  up  the  State.  Let  me  say  here  about  the  State  of 


SUGGESTIONS    OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  381 

Wisconsin,  yon  will  find  tliat  it  is  prosperous,  and  that  it  is  going  forward,  and 
that  nothing  has  been  destroyed,  and  that  something  has  been  done. 

You  can  have  the  same  planning  from  here,  and  if  you  have  a  little  reference 
department  similar  to  mine  for  the  legislative  expedients  that  have  been  suc- 
cessful ;  if  you  have  the  successful  ones  gathered  here  and  the  ones  that  have 
not  been  successful  gathered  here,  so  that  you  can  see  what  has  been  done  in 
various  parts  of  the  country,  then  you  can  choose  the  best  among  them,  and 
you  can  frame  something  that  will  be  worth  while.  We  get  all  these  bodies  to 
work  together.  You  can  do  the  same  thing.  You  can  submit  to  them  the 
different  portions  of  your  work  and  have  some  fellow  getting  that  out  day 
after  day,  drafting  and  putting  into  shape,  so  that  at  the  end  of  your  report 
you  will  not  have  19  or  20  volumes,  like  your  last  Industrial  Commission  had, 
but  you  will  have,  we  will  say,  five  or  six  neatly  drafted,  solid,  and  sound 
pieces  of  legislation.  Then  you  will  find  that  those  will  lead  to  other  things. 

In  a  great  work  like  that  which  is  before  you  you  are  liable  not  to  see  the 
forest  because  of  the  trees.  It  is  a  question  of  preparation,  a  question  of  think- 
ing it  out. 

In  sitting  and  listening  to  you  people  I  have  not  talked  on  this  thing  at  all 
except  to  talk  with  John  Commons  a  little  bit.  I  have  sat  here  and  been  listen- 
ing to  you  and  to  the  different  people  who  have  come  up  and  talked  before  you, 
and  I  have  put  down  here  some  things  that  I  suggest  to  you  now. 

I  am  very  sure  that  right  here  in  the  beginning  you  members  of  this  National 
Industrial  Commission  will  be  interested  in  something  about  the  Wisconsin 
Industrial  Commission.  What  is  the  Wisconsin  Industrial  Commission  when 
you  come  to  look  at  it?  The  Wisconsin  Industrial  Commission  is  a  new  kind 
of  court.  They  took  out  of  the  ordinary  court  all  these  things  that  the  people 
were  complaining  about.  It  is  a  court,  but  it  makes  its  findings  upon  economic 
facts  which  are  found  by  experts  who  come  there  and  who  go  on  and  examine 
the  thing  and  make  an  order,  and  those  facts  are  not  reviewable.  This  morning 
you  sat  in  the  chamber  of  the  United  States  Commerce  Court,  which  will  go  out 
of  existence  at  midnight  to-morrow  night.  When  President  Taft  advocated 
the  establishment  of  that  court  I  wrote  to  him  and  told  him  that  court  would 
not  last,  because  it  was  an  old  common-law  court ;  and  when  it  had  to  deal 
with  an  economic  fact  it  was  without  the  necessary  machinery  to  deal  with  it, 
and  the  day  for  that  kind  of  thing  is  gone  by.  You  can  not  deal  with  these 
economic  facts  by  legislation,  because  they  are  so  complex  that  the  ordinary 
legislative  body  can  not  tell  about  a  whole  lot  of  things,  because  they  do  not 
know  anything  about  it. 

I  am  not  talking  against  democracy ;  I  am  talking  for  democracy,  because 
it  is  not  democracy  for  a  crowd  of  us  to  gather  here  and  say,  "  Let  us  build 
this  building,  and  some  of  you  gentlemen  bring  some  stones  and  some 
timber,  and  some  of  you  bring  a  delegation  of  hod  carriers."  That  is  not 
democracy  at  all.  Democracy  is  a  lot  of  us  coming  together  and  determining. 
first  whether  a  building  should  be  put  up  here,  whether  the  representatives  of 
the  people  are  willing  that  it  should  be  here,  and  then  making  suggestions  in 
a  general  way  and  discussing  all  of  them,  and  then  getting  some  competent 
men  to  draw  a  set  of  plans,  and  sitting  down  and  fighting  over  them  and 
saying,  "  This  window  is  all  right,  but  that  one  will  not  do ;  and  we  want  this 
thing  this  way  and  we  want  that  thing  that  way."  Then,  perhaps  after  chang- 
ing the  plan  a  half  doezn  times,  finally  you  bring  out  a  structure  that  will  stand 
up,  and  then  your  building  inspector,  the  Supreme  Court,  at  the  other  end  of 
town,  can  not  kick  it  over.  Then  you  have  some  justice  in  your  law. 

Not  only  that,  but  this  commission  is  a  new  element  in  law.  It  is  a  strength- 
ening of  the  statute  law  of  the  people.  The  people's  will  is  carried  out.  No 
longer  is  a  man  coming  into  court  with  a  bleeding  stump  and  saying,  "  I  want 
justice;  I  want  my  day  in  court."  You  have  got  too  many  days  in  court.  In 
the  future  the  thing  is  not  going  to  work  that  way.  The  weaker  man  will  come 
before  the  commission  and  the  commission  will  say,  "  WTe  will  look  over  your 
case,  and  if  you  have  got  a  good  case  we  will  make  a  decision  on  it."  And  that 
decision  will  stand ;  and  the  burden  of  proof  will  be  on  the  fellow  opposed  to 
the  commission.  The  State  is  back  of  you  in  that.  We  have  got  to  make  deci- 
sions that  are  in  conformity  with  economic  facts.  We  have  got  to  take  account 
of  conditions  that  are  coming  up.  The  determination  must  be  reasonable, 
based  on  economic  facts.  If  it  is  a  fact  in  chemistry,  H2O  is  water;  if  it  is  a 
fact  in  mathematics,  2  and  2  make  4.  At  the  bottom  there  are  immutable 
facts,  and  the  gathering  of  all  these  facts  is  necessary. 


382          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Now,  to  suggest  something  just  for  the  purpose  of  talking  about  it — putting 
up  an  idea  just  for  the  sake  of  knocking  it  down — suppose  that  this  commission 
here,  after  discussing  the  thing  for  a  while,  should  wish  to  apply  this  Wisconsin 
Industrial  Commission  idea  to  the  Federal  Government?  You  would  say,  "Can 
we  do  it?  How  far  can  we  do  it?"  Then  you  would  bring  in  some  of  these 
experts  and  say  to  them,  "  See  if  you  people  can  draft  something  into  shape 
that  will  apply  the  idea  of  the  Industrial  Commission  of  Wisconsin  to  the  Fed- 
eral Government.  See  if  you  can  do  it."  I  do  not  know  whether  they  can  or 
not,  but  they  will  bring  their  plans  together.  They  will  get  trained'  men  to 
thinking  about  it.  Up  there  in  Wisconsin  they  had  John  Commons.  They  will 
ask  constitutional  lawyers  to  consider  the  constitutional  questions,  and  by  and 
by  they  will  present  to  you  a  plan.  You  will  look  over  the  plan  and  you  will 
probably  want  to  change  it  here  and  there.  You  will  want  to  go  ahead  and 
amend  it  and  fix  it  up.  If  you  do  not  want  it  at  all,  you  will  throw  it  out ;  but 
if  you  think  there  is  an  idea  in  it  that  can  be  applied  in  some  way,  you  are 
beginning  gradually  to  build  up  something  by  bringing  in  other  people  and 
going  over  it  again,  and  finally  you  can  present  to  the  American  people,  as  an 
orderly  law,  something  which  may  result  in  some  court  like  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  that  will  deal  with  great  industrial  questions ;  deal  with 
sanitation,  deal  with  all  these  questions  of  employment  and  things  of  that  sort, 
which  will  in  a  way  solve  a  hundred  things.  I  say  that  and  make  a  suggestion 
of  that  sort ;  I  am  just  simply  now  putting  it  up  to  you,  so  that  your  minds  are 
working  right  now  on  the  question  whether  you  want  that  or  not.  I  offer  it 
to  you,  and  out  of  it  there  may  grow  a  definite,  concrete  thing.  We  have  a 
thing  of  that  sort.  Then,  if  you  decide  you  want  it,  then  we  can  explain  it  a 
little  bit.  If,  by  and  by,  after  three  or  four  weeks  you  decide  that  you  do  not 
want  it  at  all,  then  throw  it  out  and  begin  on  something  else. 

Now,  see  the  advantage  of  that  for  a  minute.  Many  of  the  States  do  not 
want  to  lose  their  power  on  many  of  these  things,  and  one  State  that  goes 
ahead  is  often  penalized  because  it  is  going  ahead.  The  manufacturers  feel 
that  they  are  being  penalized.  WTe  feel  that  in  Wisconsin,  because  we  are  gen- 
erally ahead  there  on  these  matters.  Manufacturers  say,  "  This  is  unfair. 
You  are  passing  a  child's-labor  law  for  us,  while  over  in  Michigan  they  are 
canning  peas  with  the  labor  of  children  6  years  of  age,"  or  something  of  that 
sort.  Now,  supposing  that  uniformity  of  legislation  throughout  the  country 
might  be  a  thing  worth  while.  You  can  get  uniformity  by  having  this  industrial 
commission.  You  can  work  out  a  model  act.  If  you  think  the  Wisconsin  act 
is  worth  while  but  that  it  ought  to  be  modified,  then  you  can  do  that.  Get  some 
model  act  and  recommend  it  to  the  States.  Let  the  various  commissioners  get 
together  every  year  and  make  rules  which  all  the  States  can  adopt.  You  can 
not  make  uniform  legislation  for  all  the  country,  because  a  legislature  can  not 
take  a  great  big  long  act  and  go  over  it  in  relation  to  all  the  constitutional 
questions,  and  one  legislature  may  meet  in  a  couple  of  months  and  another 
legislature  may  not  meet  until  next  year.  You  can  not  get  uniformity  in  that 
way,  but  you  can  get  uniformity  by  rules  similar  to  those  rules  which  have 
been  suggested  by  John  Commons;  and  these  other  men  can  get  together  and 
they  will  make  up  rules,  and  then  they  are  adopted  throughout  the  country,  and 
the  business  man  gets  away  from  the  annoyance  of  that  thing;  and  while  you 
are  making  these  rules  and  you  are  getting  in  suggestions  from  the  manufac- 
turers and  from  the  laboring  people  and  from  the  people  in  the  street,  and 
finally  there  is  a  proposition  that  is  worth  while.  You  make  a  standard  for 
the  whole  country  through  organizations  of  that  sort.  It  is  not  a  hard  thing 
to  work  out;  it  is  not  a  hard  constitutional  thing  to  work  out.  Anyway,  it  is 
worth  while  to  discuss  the  question  whether  a  certain  thing  can  go  forward  ; 
and  you  get  your  men  together,  you  get  three  or  four  men  working  on  it  until 
they  see  if  you  can  work  that  out,  whether  it  is  an  improvement  or  not,  and 
talk  to  people  about  it. 

Now,  there  is  another  field  of  work  coming  on.  I  think  that  will  be  a  part 
of  an  immediate  program  to  be  thinking  of,  a  tentative  plan  for  the  future. 
For  instance,  let  us  take  this  thing  that  we  have  all  been  talking  of  and  thinking 
of.  That  is  the  workmen's  compensation  act.  Everyone  sees  from  the  talk 
that  the  workmen's  compensation  act  is  a  powerful  reaction.  The  by-products 
of  it  are  greater  than  the  act  itself.  It  has  already  started  these  people  to 
preventing  accidents.  Never  before  did  anything  do  so  much  to  prevent  acci- 
dents as  this  very  thing.  The  cost  of  it  made  somebody  sit  up  and  take  notice 
and  get  to  work  and  try  to  prevent  accidents.  It  has  had  a  powerful  effect. 
Everything  ought  to  be  judged  by  its  by-products.  Right  here  has  come  the 


SUGGESTIONS    OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  383 

vague  talk  about  men  who  have  been  sick,  about  occupational  diseases,  about 
a  man  who  is  hurt  after  he  gets  outdoors,  and  here  comes  the  wonderful  ques- 
tion of  sickness  insurance,  following  right  along.  A  man  may  be  killed  by  being 
hit  in  the  head  by  a  thief,  or  he  may  be  killed  by  lead  poisoning.  Either  way 
he  gets  killed  he  is  dead.  It  is  a  part  of  the  game,  the  same  thing.  Now,  let  us 
see.  There  is  a  fundamental  thing.  I  was  going  to  make  the  suggestion  to 
you.  We  are  doing  this  now,  because  I  am  trying  to  analyze  those  things 
which  seem  to  me  to  be  not  particular  pieces  of  legislation,  but  things  which 
follow  what  has  already  been  done,  and  things  which  have  in  them  potentiality 
of  other  things.  Now,  take  sickness  insurance.  There  is  a  thing  going  over 
the  old  countries  now,  going  over  all  the  world,  the  idea  that  with  ability  shall 
come  responsibility. 

Now,  here  is  a  situation  which  exists  in  some  cities  in  America,  where  up 
on  a  hill  there  will  be  a  fine  lot  of  residences,  and  right  down  below  somewhere 
there  are  a  lot  of  dirty  tenements  where  there  are  all  kinds  of  disease  and 
everything  else  that  is  undesirable.  The  sons  and  daughters  of  the  fellows 
on  the  hill  never  see  what  is  going  on  down  there,  and  there  is  typhoid  fever 
raging  there  or  something  of  that  sort.  When  you  get  sickness  insurance,  and 
the  manufacturer  pays  part  of  it,  he  is  the  powerful  man  in  the  community, 
and  the  State  pays  part  of  it  and  the  employee  pays  part  of  it,  and  when  that 
happens  do  you  know  what  is  going  to  occur?  The  manufacturer  is  going  to 
say,  "  That  is  a  nice  thing  to  make  me  pay,"  when  somebody  down  there  gets 
typhoid  fever  from  drinking  bad  water.  But  in  the  great  working  out  of  things, 
that  manufacturer  pretty  soon  gets  busy  to  stop  sickness  in  that  place.  You 
can  talk  sanitation,  you  can  talk  prevention,  you  can  talk  clean  tenements  and 
clean  water,  in  a  way  that  you  could  not  before;  and  when  he  gets  over  his 
grouch,  he  finds  that  it  is  a  great  asset  for  him.  Now,  the  State  and  city  gets 
lo  work;  and  the  duty  of  the  city  is  to  keep  Mary  Jones  from  being  sick,  in- 
stead of  letting  her  get  sick,  and  then  sending  a  lot  of  bum  doctors  around  to 
cure  people  after  they  are  sick.  I  am  talking  about  this  now  as  an  example 
of  the  kind  of  legislation  that  I  would  suggest  that  your  committee  take  up, 
in  working  out  a  program,  because  this  kind  of  legislation  is  loaded,  because 
there  are  other  things  coming  with  it,  and  it  follows  along,  and  it  is  the  next 
step  forward. 

Now,  there  is  the  question  of  sickness  insurance.  I  wrote  into  a  party  plat- 
form in  Wisconsin  a  sickness-insurance  proposition.  We  have  got  the  subject 
of  sickness  insurance  under  consideration,  and  are  working  on  it.  \Ve  put  a 
bill  into  the  last  legislature.  It  was  not  a  perfect  bill,  but  it  drew  the  fire  of 
those  who  criticized  the  proposition,  and  by  the  next  legislature  we  will  have 
something,  and  by  and  by  we  will  know  how  to  perfect  that. 

We  are  searching  throughout  the  world  for  those  things  which  will  be  effect- 
ive, and  for  ways  to  work  them  out  within  the  constitutions  of  the  State  and 
of  the  country,  and  by  and  by  we  will  have  a  piece  of  legislation  that  will  stand 
up  and  be  worth  while. 

Now,  if  you  people  have  the  patience,  I  am  coming  to  some  of  the  things. 
I  am  going  to  tie  them  up,  and  when  I  get  through  I  am  going  to  show  you 
what  I  think  is  a  part  of  the  philosophy.  I  am  saying  these  things,  and  while 
I  am  doing  it  you  are  criticizing  me  for  saying  them.  You  are  saying,  "  Ought 
we  to  do  this  or  ought  we  not  to  do  it?"  Anyway  you  are  getting  a  kind  of 
core  upon  which  your  minds  are  working.  You  are  thinking  one  way  or  the 
other  upon  this  thing,  and  it  is  necessary  in  the  consideration  of  these  things 
to  start  with  an  idea  and  then  put  your  critical  faculties  at  work  on  it,  and 
thinking  about  that  particular  proposition,  rather  than  spreading  all  over  the 
field. 

Now,  let  us  come  to  another  thing.  Take  housing.  You  have  your  existing 
conditions,  and  some  of  them  are  bad  conditions ;  but  do  you  know  that  in  other 
countries  there  is  a  scheme  by  which  a  city  will  go  out  and  buy  up  30,000  acres 
of  land  for  the  purpose  of  putting  houses  on  that  land  for  working  people.  The 
city  plans  the  houses,  and  puts  up  model  houses,  and  then  the  city  gives  the 
workman  a  chance  to  pay  for  a  house  in  small  payments — in  70  or  80  years,  if 
necessary — and  that  is  one  way  to  solve  the  question  of  housing  for  working 
people. 

Then  you  are  beginning  to  hit  disease.  There  is  a  great  thing  in  getting 
started  on  this  kind  of  a  proposition,  because  when  you  try  to  hit  tuberculosis 
you  will  hit  typhoid  fever  and  pneumonia  at  the  same  time.  When  you  are 
teaching  people  to  open  their  windows  and  let  in  the  sunlight  you  are  getting 
so  many  other  things  at  the  same  time,  and  with  sickness  insurance  and  hous- 


384          EEPOBT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

ing  you  are  hitting  a  lot  of  other  things.  On  this  question  of  housing  which 
comes  up,  what  shall  we  do  with  that?  Shall  there  be  model  housing  for  the 
District  of  Columbia?  Shall  there  be  a  model  housing  arrangement  for  the 
different  cities?  What  constitutional  provision  is  in  the  way  of  that  sort  of 
thing?  Well,  why  can  not  it  be  done?  What  kind  of  a  Constitution  have  we 
got,  as  Mr.  Wilson  said  some  time  ago,  unless  wre  can  go  ahead  and  work  things 
out  and  do  the  things  that  ought  to  be  done?  My  theory  is  that  the  Constitu- 
tion exists  for  some  particular  good,  and  it  was  not  put  there  by  the  fathers  for 
the  purpose  of  stopping  us  fro'm  doing  good  things.  If  it  were  put  there  by  the 
fathers  for  a  good  purpose,  then  we  ought  to  find  out  how  to  use  it  to  the 
limit.  It  is  inconceivable  that  it  shall  be  put  there  for  any  other  purpose. 

So  there,  you  see,  one  thing  follows  another.  There  are  these  conditions  of 
housing,  and  the  life  and  dealth  of  the  children  coming  up — questions  of  clean- 
liness— an  the  different  things.  The  fellow  that  owns  a  little  home  of  his  own, 
the  fellow  whose  children  have  a  chance  to  grow  up  in  health,  that  is  the  kind 
of  a  workman  who  is  going  to  be  content ;  and  no  civilization  can  be  based  upon 
any  other  thing  but  the  intelligence  of  the  people  in  the  long  run — in  content 
and  the  ideals  that  go  with  it.  I  had  a  conversation  with  a  manufacturer  in 
Cologne,  Germany.  He  was  talking  about  the  reasons  why  German  manufac- 
turers are  successful,  and  he  said,  "  The  reason  why  manufacturers  in  Germany 
are  now  successful  is  this :  We  have  a  village  here,  and  we  say  to  a  man,  *  Come 
over  into  our  village  and  we  will  give  you  10  per  cent  on  your  old-age  pension, 
10  per  cent  on  your  sickness  insurance,  the  city  will  put  up  a  nice  house  for  you, 
and  we  will  give  you  so  many  years  to  pay  for  your  house.  We  have  a  school 
here  which  will  give  you  the  best  opportunities  for  your  boy  or  girl  to  come 
up  the  line  so  that  they  can  come  to  the  top  of  the  business.  We  are  going  to 
give  you  the  opportunities  so  that  you  can  marry,  so  that  you  can  bring  your 
children  up  in  cleanliness,  so  that  you  may  have  a  home,  so  that  you  may  edu- 
cate your  children.' " 

Now,  in  that  condition  of  things  the  manufacturer  gets  intelligence.  He  gets 
the  opposite  thing  from  the  negro  slavery  that  used  to  exist  in  the  South.  He 
gets  the  opposite  thing  from  that  which  exists  in  crowded  tenements.  What  are 
the  things  that  he  gets  on  which  prosperity  is  based?  He  gets  prosperity  and 
hope  and  happiness. 

He  gets  skill  plus  intelligence,  and  that  high  grade  of  intelligence  is  the  thing 
which  puts  Germany  up  and  has  brought  it  up  all  along  the  line ;  and  no  real 
prosperity  can  be  on  any  other  basis  except  that. 

Now,  I  say  these  things  all  enter  into  the  questions  which  must  be  considered. 
They  are  coming  up  all  along  the  line.  I  was  going  to  bring  up  the  question 
of  education.  Gentlemen,  you  might  as  well  do  a  great  thing  in  this  country ; 
you  might  as  well  attack  this  great  problem,  because  the  whole  of  the  emphasis 
of  our  educational  system  in  America  is  wrong.  We  pile  up  the  money  for 
great  colleges  for  the  people  who  have  it,  \ve  pile  it  into  our  high  schools  for 
the  people  who  have  it,  and  we  do  not  put  the  money  down  there  in  the  weakest 
link  in  the  chain.  We  say  we  do  it,  and  we  put  this  money  into  it,  and  then  we 
give  it  to  guardians  and  trustees  who,  because  they  have  pompous  titles,  because 
they  are  doctors  of  something  or  other,  are  supposed  to  know  about  education ; 
and  they  do  not  know  anything  more  about  it  than  the  Chinese  mandarin  who 
did  the  same  thing  and  wrho  put  China  in  a  whole  long  ago.  Let  us  get  at  this 
question  of  legislation  in  its  relation  to  these  things. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Amen. 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  There  is  no  man  who  has  fought  for  that  more  than  I  have. 
I  organized  the  great  university-extension  department  in  Wisconsin,  and  I 
nearly  killed  myself  doing  it.  I  brought  the  first  compulsory  continuation 
schools  to  America.  That  is  a  system  which  they  have  in  Germany.  What  is 
the  system  of  the  continuation  school?  It  is  that  you  can  say  to  the  fathers 
and  mothers,  "  When  your  boy  goes  to  work  in  the  factory  the  manufacturer 
shall  then  give  10  hours  a  week  of  that  boys'  time  for  four  years  in  order  that 
the  boy  may  learn."  And  what  will  he  learn?  Will  he  learn  to  be  a  fast  man 
on  a  machine?  No,  sir.  If  you  have  a  man  who  is  merely  fast  on  a  machine, 
merely  skilled  on  a  machine  or  something  of  that  sort,  you  are  never  going  to 
attain  the  purpose  of  industrial  education.  What  is  industrial  education?  The 
purpose  of  it  is  the  social  factor,  the  things  which  open  the  door  wide  to  oppor- 
tunity. Now,  I  am  talking  about  the  most  powerful  influence  that  will  cure 
most^of  these  things.  I  came  dowTn  on  the  train  the  other  day  with  Mr.  Steyer 
who  owns  Steyerville,  out  in  Long  Island.  He  said,  "  I  came  to  this  country 
a  German  boy  12  years  of  age,  and  when  I  was  16  years  of  age  I  went  to  work 


SUGGESTIONS    OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  385 

at  the  brick  trade."  I  said,  "  Mr.  Steyer,  how  is  it  that  you  got  to  be  a  con- 
tractor and  made  all  this  money?  "  He  said,  "  When  I  was  a  mason  a  man  came 
to  me  and  said,  *  Say,  I  want  you  to  be  an  assistant  to  me  as  foreman.  I  will 
teach  you  the  blue-print  part  of  this  thing,'  and  he  was  as  good  as  his  word. 
He  spent  an  hour  every  day  teaching  the  use  of  the  blue  prints,  and  how  to 
use  the  blue  prints  on  a  job  " ;  and  Mr.  Steyer  said  to  me,  "  That  is  the  thing 
that  has  made  me  different  from  the  ordinary  bricklayer.  I  got  an  insight  into 
the  boss's  game."  Do  you  see?  That  is  how  he  had  a  chance  to  come  up  the 
line. 

Now,  there  is  a  thing  that  we  are  working  for  in  the  Wisconsin  apprentice- 
ship law,  so  that  every  boy  and  girl  will  be  given  an  insight  in  a  practical  way, 
11  ml  will  be  given  the  opportunity  to  learn  the  things  that  it  is  necessary  for 
them  to  know.  That  does  not  mean  the  establishment  of  some  big  trade  school. 
It  means  putting  the  whole  thing  into  a  system  controlled  by  the  manufacturers 
and  by  the  laboring  men,  as  they  do  in  Germany,  because  the  pedagogue  never 
has  done  it  and  can  not  do  it.  In  Chicago,  after  35  years  of  the  school  men 
trying  to  work  out  these  problems,  the  result  to-day  is  that  there  are  19,000 
children  in  private  commercial  schools  paying  annual  tuition  fees  of  $1,415,000. 
There  are  17,700  children  in  the  public  high  schools,  and  the  city  is  paying 
$1,114,000  .for  that  work.  That  is,  if  you  are  able  to  give  your  boy  Latin  and 
Greek  he  can  get  that  for  nothing,  but  if  your  boy  or  girl  has  got  to  take  hold 
and  help  out  and  get  into  industrial  life,  as  nine  out  of  ten  of  them  have  to  do, 
then  you  have  to  pay  an  extra  tax,  in  addition  to  paying  your  share  of  the 
taxes  for  the  support  of  the  public  schools,  and  the  other  taxes  that  come  up 
in  our  modern  life  to-day.  That  is  what  they  have  there.  Our  school  system, 
gentlemen,  is  the  wrong  thing.  You  talk  about  employment,  but  you  have  got 
to  get  down  to  the  question  of  the  kind  of  material  that  you  have  to  work  with. 
We  know  that  it  pays  to  invest  in  better  cattle  and  sheep,  because  the  farm  will 
pay  better.  We  know  that  the  manufacturer  has  to  keep  up  his  machinery,  or 
else  he  goes  back. 

Now,  if  we  to-day  were  standing  on  a  mountain  top  and  looking  down  over 
the  country,  and  if  we  owned  it  all,  if  each  one  of  us  was  a  Bismarck,  and  if 
we  were  trying  to  build  up  a  great  and  glorious  civilization,  we  would  begin  by 
making  every  one  of  those  human  beings  down  there  more  efficient.  Iron  and 
steel  do  not  do  it.  The  human  being  does  it.  The  prosperity  of  the  country 
does  it.  We  would  look  clown  there  and  say,  "  Every  one  of  those  people  shall 
have  a  better  place  to  live,  and  if  necessary  we  will  destroy  the  universities.** 
I  say  "  if  necessary."  It  will  not  be  necessary,  but  you  would  say,  "  We  will 
go  forward  and  develop  the  people,  their  strength  and  intelligence.  Civilization 
must  ultimately  depend  upon  the  growth  of  these  people  in  their  strength, 
upon  giving  them  the  opportunity  so  that  they  will  grow  in  their  strength  and 
grow  in  their  ideals,  and  so  that  their  sons  and  daughters  will  go  up  the  line. 
It  is  a  shame  to  us  that  Germany  can  say  that  54  per  cent  of  the  engineers  in 
their  country  came  up  from  the  continuation  schools,  came  up  from  below. 
In  America  our  engineers  come  from  the  top,  and  the  working  man  at  the 
present  time  is  on  a  dead  level,  and  we  have  this  problem  of  a  shifting  popula- 
tion, and  there  is  nobody  to  take  care  of  the  training  of  the  boys  and  girls  that 
come  along,  to  give  them  a  start  in  life  and  make  them  efficient.  That  is  one 
of  the  greatest  crimes  against  society,  and  it  is  one  of  the  things  that  we  have 
got  to  remedy.  I  went  up  and  talked  before  the  manufacturers  of  Wisconsin. 
They  said,  "  McCarthy,  we  stand  for  all  you  have  done,  but  when  you  teach 
citizenship  we  will  not  stand  for  that.  That  is  some  of  your  socialistic  ideas,, 
and  we  can  not  stand  for  that."  They  said,  "  When  you  talk  about  sanitation 
and  a  place  for  them  to  live  in  and  keeping  down  sickness  and  how  to  instruct 
the  men  in  the  factories  to  keep  down  accidents,  that  is  good  for  everybody,  that 
is  practical  stuff." 

Now,  the  teaching  of  citizenship  is  not  teaching  it  out  of  some  little  book, 
but  it  is  struggling  with  these  mighty  problems  that  are  before  us  and  building 
up  public  opinion  in  order  that  this  country  may  be  rightly  governed,  in  order 
that  the  children  coming  along  in  the  future  will  have  their  eyes  opened  to 
what  good  government  is,  so  that  they  will  not  be  fooled  by  demagogues.  Now, 
I  am  not  leading  you  astray  about  this,  because  this  industrial  commission 
has  the  opportunity  to  take  up  insurance  for  sickness,  housing,  industrial  edu- 
cation ;  all  these  things.  You  can  say,  "  Here  is  the  District  of  Columbia.  We 
can  try  it  out  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  We  will  put  these  things  before  the 
people  as  a  program,  which  will  bring  equality  of  opportunity,  health,  strength, 

38819°— 16 25 


386          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

and  life;  the  strength  to  fight,  the  ability  to  go  out  and  make  their  way,  the 
improving  of  the  stock  in  every  way,  and  the  opening  of  the  doors  of  oppor- 
tunity. Now,  Mr.  O'Connell,  we  talked  about  that  matter  of  efficiency  yesterday, 
and  I  made  some  statement  and  you  jumped  right  down  at  me.  When  I  talk 
about  this  matter  of  efficiency — I  worked  in  a  factory  when  I  was  young — I  am 
not  here  as  a  mere  theorist. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  worked  20  years  in  a  machine  shop. 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  I  am  not  here  to  prove  these  things,  but  I  am  here  to  ask 
you  people  to  study  them.  If  I  was  going  up  against  some  other  fellow,  and 
he  had  a  brief,  I  would  want  to  study  his  brief.  I  would  study  his  argument. 
You  want  to  study  the  arguments  about  this  efficiency  thing.  I  have  looked 
through  it.  I  looked  over  what  Taylor  was  doing.  I  talked  with  the  men 
there.  I  saw  infinite  possibilities  for  wrong  in  it,  but  I  also  saw  infinite  possi- 
bilities for  good,  and  think  the  working  people  are  not  studying  some  of  the 
things.  I  think  in  his  great  machinery  that  Taylor  is  working  out  there,  in  the 
plans  that  he  is  now  making  for  these  people  to  come  up  the  line,  there  are 
some  parts  of  that  thing  that  ought  to  be  studied,  because  the  country  is  going 
to  meet  it  very  soon,  and  if  there  are  parts  of  it  which  are  for  the  benefit  of 
the  laboring  classes  in  America,  then  it  is  something  that  everybody  ought  to 
know  about.  It  could  be  taught  in  your  industrial  education,  if  necessary. 

You  can  not  hide  your  head  in  the  sand  over  a  thing  like  that  which  is  coming 
along.  There  are  some  things  about  that  system,  as  I  say,  which  contains  great 
possibilities  for  wrong.  This  thing  of  introducing  a  system  that  makes  eight  or 
nine  times  as  much  product,  it  may  work  unfairly.  I  am  not  making  that 
statement.  It  may  be  possible  if  the  man  has  the  speed,  but  it  may  force  a 
man  beyond  the  point  where  he  ought  to  go.  There  may  be  a  possibility  of 
that,  but  there  are  other  things  in  there  that  are  well  worth  studying,  as  some- 
thing for  the  future.  I  am  convinced  that  there  are  a  great  many  things  of  that 
sort  approaching  us. 

Now,  these  things  are  not  cure-alls.  You  talk  about  industrial  unrest  here. 
Was  industrial  unrest  ever  solved  in  the  world  anywhere?  No.  We  are  nearer 
to-day  to  a  solution  of  it,  and  there  is  more  hope  to-day  than  there  ever  was 
in  the  history  of  the  world.  There  is  more  hope  from  the  very  men  now  work- 
ing in  Germany  on  these  things.  You  are  going  back  to  what  Mr.  Quick  was 
talking  about.  You  have  got  to  go  back  there.  You  know  that  the  question 
of  the  land  back  there  in  a  country  of  this  kind  is  a  question  that  has  got  to  be 
considered.  When  there  is  the  drifting  of  people  from  place  to  place,  because 
of  the  cost  of  living  and  all  that  sort  of  thing,  when  a  country  in  10  years  has 
increased  in  population  20,000,000  people,  and  the  food  supply  has  actually 
decreased  10  per  cent,  when  there  is  actually  that  much  less  to  feed  the  extra 
20,000,000  people,  that  means  there  is  something  wrong.  That  means  that 
back  yonder  there  was  an  enormous  waste.  It  means  that  at  the  present  time 
there  are  swamps  which  are  undrained.  It  means  that  the  Government  ought 
to  have  some  system  like  that  which  was  suggested  here  about  the  Irish  land 
system — a  system  to  be  used  in  taking  care  of  the  immigrants  coming  in  here. 
Shall  we  say  to  the  immigrant  that  he  shall  not  stay  in  the  cities?  Shall  we 
say  to  him,  "If  you  come  in,  you  shall  go  out  on  the  land"?  And  if  he  goes 
out  on  the  land,  shall  we  furnish  him  some  long  time  means  for  paying  for  it, 
some  means  for  making  improvements  in  order  that  he  may  be  a  producer  as 
well  as  a  consumer? 

Then  there  are  the  marketing  systems  such  as  they  have  in  Denmark  and 
in  various  parts  of  Germany  and  Belgium  and  Ireland — great  examples  of 
efficiency  in  the  marketing  of  produce.  Over  $1,000,000  a  week  of  the  produce 
of  Denmark  goes  directly  into  the  markets  of  England.  There  is  a  great  institu- 
tion, a  great  wholesale  society  in  England  that  does  a  business  of  $800,000,000 
a  year,  and  it  is  buying  food  supplies  directly  from  Denmark.  Do  you  not 
think  it  may  have  something  to  do  with  the  killing  of  industrial  unrest  if  we 
can  develop  some  of  these  things?  I  do  not  say  how  far  back  you  may  have  to 
go.  You  may  have  to  go  back  and  begin  with  the  child  eventually.  We  may 
be  doing  very  wrong  things  to-day  in  our  economic  policy.  We  may  have  over- 
flowed our  cities.  We  may  be  putting  our  hands  into  the  pockets  of  the  people 
in  the  cities  in  order  to  build  up  a  condition  of  things  that  we  thought  was 
desirable.  All  of  these  things  have  got  to  be  considered.  Then  look  against 
the  question  of  efficiency.  A  boy  comes  into  my  department.  There  is  some- 
thing the  matter  with  him,  but  I  do  not  know  what  is  the  matter.  He  is  sick. 
I  say,  "What  is  the  matter  with  you?"  He  says,  "When  I  was  14  or  15 
years  of  age  I  went  to  work  in  a  copper  mill,  and  there  is  something  the  matter 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT   WITNESSES.  387 

with  my  stomach.  They  had  to  operate  on  it.  I  can  not  work  inside  and  I 
don't  know  what  I  am  going  to  do.  I  have  two  sisters,  and  my  mother  is  a 
widow  and  we  have  to  struggle  along."  I  had  such  a  boy  as  that.  I  saw  that 
he  was  a  bright  boy,  and  he  told  me  he  had  passed  a  civil-service  examination 
or  something  of  that  sort.  What  are  we  going  to  do  with  a  boy  of  that  kind?  I 
know  what  ought  to  be  done  with  him.  I  ought  to  have  a  chance  to  put  him 
out  on  the  land,  in  order  that  he  may  be  of  some  service  in  the  future.  What 
means  is  there  for  doing  anything  like  that?  Australia  has  some  means. 
Belgium  has  tried  it.  There  are  private  industries  in  England,  outside  of  Lon- 
don, where  they  are  being  transferred  from  one  place  to  another,  until  the  proper 
place  is  found  for  them,  and  our  Government  ought  to  have  something  of  that 
sort.  Well,  there  is  something  that  you  can  consider. 

You  were  talking  about  the  glass-bottle  blowers  and  about  their  industry, 
which  was  being  driven  out  of  existence  by  machinery.  Do  you  not  think  it 
ought  to  be  the  duty  of  the  State  to  come  and  take  the  glass-bottle  blowers, 
whose  industry  has  been  destroyed,  and  give  them  some  other  opportunity? 
Do  you  not  think  that  where  an  industry  is  going  to  pieces  there  ought  to  be 
something  done  to  educate  the  people  in  that  industry,  so  that  they  may  meet 
the  changed  conditions?  You  know  how  the  linotype  put  the  printer  out  of 
business,  and  the  owners  of  printing  establishments  had  to  set  up  linotypes  to 
teach  their  men  the  use  of  them.  So  I  say  the  Government  ought  to  have  some 
system  of  industrial  education  to  take  care  of  these  men.  You  know  what 
happened  when  the  nigger  machine  came  along  and  put  the  lathers  out  of 
business.  Men  40  years  of  age  had  to  send  their  children  back  into  the  factories 
and  their  hopes  were  destroyed.  Now,  I  say  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State,  in  its 
industrial  education,  to  teach  those  people  the  use  of  new  machines  and  to  give 
them  new  opportunities.  I  say  that  all  comes  into  the  field  of  industrial  edu- 
cation— the  building  up  of  the  efficiency  strength  of  the  man  and  making  the 
most  of  him. 

They  talk  about  the  German  Army.  We  do  not  want  any  German  Army  here, 
but  there  is  one  thing  that  the  German  Army  does,  and  that  is  to  give  the  men 
in  it  the  splendid  physical  development  which  makes  them  famous  all  over  the 
world.  They  take  a  young  man  and  keep  him  in  the  army  two  or  three  years. 
He  is  a  tailor.  He  has  always  been  cramped  up  and  probably  underfed,  and 
they  take  him  and  give  him  plenty  to  eat  and  set  him  to  building  pontoon 
bridges,  and  he  lives  and  v\  orks  in  the  open  air,  and  in  three  years  he  comes  out 
splendidly  developed  and  filled  with  energy.  The  weight  of  taxation  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  German  Army  is  paid  for  in  the  splendid  physical  specimens 
they  turn  out  In  our  educational  system  every  boy  and  girl  who  goes  to  work 
between  14  and  18  years  of  age  ought  to  be  given  an  opportunity  to  develop 
some  of  that  physical  strength  and  ought  to  be  looked  after  all  along  the  line, 
in  order  that  they  may  attain  the  highest  efficiency  and  in  order  that  our 
products  in  the  future  will  be  of  some  good.  The  great  field  of  industrial  educa- 
tion is  to  make  your  human  product  better  in  the  future.  Understand,  there  are 
many  things  that  I  am  not  going  into.  I  am  only  putting  down  four  or  five 
propositions. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  are  not  letting  anything  get  away  from  you. 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  I  have  only  put  down  four  or  five  of  them;  immigration, 
land,  cost  of  living,  those  things  I  am  not  going  into,  because  there  are  some 
things  which  you  can  very  well  put  off.  There  is  the  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture and  there  are  other  departments  that  are  working  on  those  lines.  You 
can  touch  it  up  in  its  relation  to  these  other  things,  but  you  can  very  well  con- 
fine your  attention  to  a  few  things  and  not  go  into  these  others. 

Commissioner  GAREETSON.  Give  us  your  idea  of  the  spinal  column,  the  back- 
bone of  the  idea  out  of  which  all  the  others  lead. 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  The  backbone  here  is  that  the  State  must  invest  in  human 
beings  in  the  same  way  as  you  invest  in  cattle  on  a  farm,  in  the  same  way  you 
invest  in  a  factory.  You  have  got  to  have  better  human  beings.  To  get  better 
human  being  you  have  got  to  give  them  the  opportunity  to  live,  aspirations  to 
attain,  ideals  to  attain,  the  door  of  opportunity  opened  before  them,  health, 
and  strength.  I  am  pointing  out  a  few  things. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Your  idea  is  to  build  people  up  physically? 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  Yes ;  using  the  word  "  physical  "  in  a  big  sense ;  physically, 
mentally,  and  all  those  things.  A  man  will  produce  more,  and  the  employer  will 
get  more  for  his  money,  and  the  State  will  get  more  out  of  the  man,  and  my 
idea  is  that  the  State  ought  to  invest  in  the  health,  strength,  intelligence,  and 
ability  of  the  people  who  make  up  the  State.  Understand  that  I  am  not  speak- 


388          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON"   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

ing  in  a  physical  sense  only.  We  must  never  forget  that  a  man  is  not  a  horse. 
He  wants  to  see  the  child  that  he  dreams  about  attain  to  something  better 
than  he  attained  to.  He  wants  to  see  his  boy  and  girl  come  up.  We  hear  a 
great  deal  about  self-made  men,  the  Benjamin  Franklins,  the  Abraham  Lin- 
coins,  and  men  of  that  sort.  We  want  a  chance  for  every  fellow.  We  do  not 
want  and  lords  and  commons  here. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  If  you  do  not  want  any  Commons,  what  are  you  going 
to  do  with  the  professor?  [Laughter.] 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  We  will  take  Commons  even  if  he  is  a  professor. 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  I  have  a  project  before  the  political  science  association  for 
the  making  of  men  like  Commons.  I  have  been  making  a  lot  of  them.  John  is 
the  chairman  of  one  committee  of  the  economic  association  and  I  am  chairman 
of  another,  and  we  propose  to  take  these  young  professors  and  put  them  at 
work  on  actual  problems.  That  is,  we  put  six  or  eight  of  our  boys  into  actual 
work  somewhere,  and  we  tell  them,  "  You  can  spend  a  year  here,  and  the  time 
that  you  are  here  will  be  credited  on  your  work  in  the  University  of  Wisconsin." 
After  we  have  been  doing  that  for  a  while  we  are  going  to  make  a  new  kind 
of  professor  in  the  future.  The  way  the  boy  goes  to  college  now  he  listens  to 
a  lot  of  lectures,  just  as  they  do  in  China,  and  he  takes  these  things  down. 
The  professor  says,  "  Johnny,  learn  page  10."  The  next  day  he  says,  "  Johnny, 
recite  page  10."  If  he  can  remember  perfectly  what  he  has  read,  then  he  gets 
a  high  mark,  and  if  he  is  a  really  good  high-mark  man  he  becomes  a  professor, 
to  imitate  the  whole  thing  over  again.  In  the  University  of  Wisconsin  we  are 
trying  to  do  something  different  from  that,  because  we  want  to  turn  out  men 
like  John  Commons. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  agree  with  you  on  the  idea  of  the  practicability 
of  that. 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  In  Wisconsin  we  are  trying  to  do  that.  Leiserson  is  a  boy 
of  mine.  •  We  have  got  a  bunch  of  them.  Fitch  is  another.  Fitch  was  the 
sleepiest  fellow  I  ever  saw  until  John  took  hold  of  him  and  took  him  down  on 
a  survey  in  Pennsylvania,  and  he  waked  up,  and  we  could  do  something  with 
him  afterwards.  We  are  getting  people  to  see  how  we  can  enlist  the  con- 
structive forces  for  good  government  in  this  country,  in  a  way  that  never  ex- 
isted before,  by  simply  combining  the  practical  with  the  theoretical.  The  thing 
which  has  characterized  the  University  of  Wisconsin  has  been  attempts  of  that 
kind  to  bring  its  boys  and  girls  into  practical  things.  We  want  to  make  a  system 
out  of  it,  working  away  with  these  professors  in  the  political  science  department 
and  asking  them  to  indorse  it.  Now  we  ought  to  carry  out  the  same  idea  in 
industrial  education.  You  are  not  going  to  do  it  to  trade  schools. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  are  not  going  to  give  them  a  certificate  at  the 
end  of  six  months? 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  No.  Of  course  they  are  going  to  work  at  16,  17,  and  18 
years  of  age,  but  while  they  are  working  we  are  going  to  say  to  the  manu- 
facturer, "  You  have  got  to  give  them  something  out  of  your  time." 

Now,  I  have  told  you  about  what  will  be  the  backbone ;  and  I  have  put  down 
only  four  or  five  things.  If  you  start  that  sort  of  thing  and  you  work  it  out 
and  stick  right  to  it,  and  do  not  let  anybody  get  off  on  side  streets,  you  will 
have  something  a  year  from  now  or  two  years  from  now  that  you  can  lay  before 
the  American  people  and  put  it  up  to  the  President  and  to  Congress  and  put  out 
in  the  magazines.  It  will  be  presented  in  such  a  dignified  way,  it  will  be  full  of 
such  irresistible  logic  that  Congress  will  not  dare  refuse  to  take  it.  There 
would  be  a  program  which  would  bring  other  things  with  it,  all  making  for 
betterment,  and  when  you  take  one  of  these  things  here  you  will  find  it  wind- 
ing out  into  all  sorts  of  other  things. 

Now  that  is  only  a  small,  rough  outline.  I  shall  be~Vlad  to  answer  questions. 
I  can  not  join  your  organization,  because  I  have  got  too  much  work  to  do. 
You  could  not  hire  me  to  join  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  was  saying  while  you  were  talking  that  we 
ought  to  take  you  away  from  Wisconsin  and  get  you  with  us  somehow,  some- 
way. 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  You  can  not  do  it.  I  will  give  you  all  the  advice  I  have,  but 
most  of  the  men  of  my  kind  make  a  great  big  mistake  sometimes  through  get- 
ting into  politics,  and  then  they  are  no  good  after  that,  or  else  they  scatter 
their  remedies  all  over.  I  have  stuck  to  Wisconsin,  right  on  that  job  for  13 
years,  and  I  am  going  to  stick  there  until  they  fire  me  out.  If  they  should  ever 
say  to  me  that  I  could  stay  if  I  would  keep  quiet,  I  would  not  keep  quiet.  I  am 
going  to  keep  right  on  until  they  fire  me. 


SUGGESTIONS    OF    EXPERT    WITNESSES.  389 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  Have  you  got  in  your  list  there  tv,To  of  the  subjects 
that  Mr.  Leiserson  mentioned — child  labor  and  tuberculosis? 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  I  am  not  going  to  talk  about  that,  but  I  have  some  of  my 
boys  on  .those  things,  and  I  have  some  good  works  in  my  library. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Supposing  that  we  should  invite  you  to  do  exactly 
what  you  suggested  that  somebody  else  should  do;  that  is,  that  you  take  your 
corps  of  young  men  and  prepare  tentative  or  possible  legislative  measures  to  be 
submitted  to  us  to  be  pulled  to  pieces  and  "  kicked  to  death." 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  I  would  not  at  the  present  time  state  whether  I  would  do 
tli at  or  not,  because  I  would  have  to  think  of  the  crowd  I  could  get  together 
for  it.  Mind  you,  these  boys  are  all  employed  at  the  present  time  in  different 
things.  We  can  not  turn  them  out  fast  enough.  The  people  in  the  cities  want 
them.  I  have  turned  the  best  men  I  have  had  recently  into  agricultural 
organization  work  and  the  standardizing  of  our  produce.  We  never  can  get  our 
produce  into  the  cities  unless  we  can  standardize  it  among  the  farmers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Briefly,  what  are  they  doing  in  the  respect  of  standardizing 
products  ? 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  You  know  at  the  present  time  the  middle  man  can  not  be 
eliminated  unless  farm  products  are  standardized. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  not  that  affect  this  matter  of  industrial  unrest  so 
far  as  farm  labor  is  concerned?  Would  not  the  standardizing  of  farm  products 
bring  them  back  to  the  land  and  make  them  more  efficient? 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  Yes.  There  are  things  in  which  men  can  work  the  whole 
year  through,  if  you  can  arrange  it  properly.  If  you  can  make  it  profitable 
to  the  farmers  to  put  a  little  house  on  his  land  and  get  the  farm  labor  to  stay 
there,  and  to  see  that  it  is  worth  while  and  give  him  some  chance  that  will  be 
better  for  the  farm  laborer,  and  it  will  be  better  for  the  farmer. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  present  standardizing  scheme  in  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  It  is  so  new  a  thing  that  I  would  not  want  to  state  it  for  the 
record  here.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  state  it  confidentially. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  pointed  out  in  your  remarks  that  while  our 
population  has  increased  some  twenty  million  odd  people  in  the  last  decade 
our  agricultural  production  has  decreased  10  per  cent? 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Ought  not  that  in  itself  to  be  an  incentive  to  get 
back  to  the  land,  because  of  the  rise  in  the  value  of  agricultural  products,  giv- 
ing them  a  greater  profit  than  ever  before? 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  Yes.  There  are  some  very  interesting  facts  in  reference  to 
this.  Iowa  has  lost  in  population,  and  19  counties  in  Wisconsin,  in  the  most 
prosperous  sections,  have  lost  population.  They  have  gone  to  the  cities.  In 
some  of  those  places  there  are  actually  no  farms  out  there,  and  the  price  of 
food  products  is  continually  increasing.  Here  is  the  situation :  Our  land  has 
been  worked  out  to  a  large  extent.  The  farmers  do  not  get  as  much  out  of  it 
as  they  ought.  Take  the  year  1873.  Why  was  it  that  the  farmers  were  poor 
then?  They  Avere  selling  grain  in  Europe,  the  price  of  grain  was  away  down 
low,  and  the  farmers  were  simply  competing  against  one  another  at  that  time, 
and  they  were  mining  the  soil  and  selling  stuff  in  the  cities  at  80  cents  where 
they  ought  to  have  sold  it  for  a  dollar.  Now  that  the  tariff  wall  has  been  taken 
down  we  .are  allowing  Canada  to  sell  into  this  country  at  80  cents  what  ought 
to  sell  at  a  dollar,  and  that  is  coming  out  of  their  soil,  whereas  the  American 
soil  has  been  prematurely  worn  out. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Wasted. 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  Yes.  There  are  farmers  who  are  making  money.  Quite  a 
lot  of  them,  but  they  are  a  lot  of  the  2,500,000  renters  who  are  scratching 
along,  while  the  men  who  own  the  laud  are  making  money  out  of  it,  to  some 
extent.  There  are  all  kinds  of  poor  conditions  of  transportation,  and  all 
kinds  of  middlemen  stuck  in  between  them  and  the  consumers.  Take  the 
State  of  Georgia.  One  of  the  reports  issued  recently  showed  that  there  was 
as  much  cotton  produced  in  one  county  as  the  total  valuation  of  the  entire 
county.  Seventy-six  per  cent  of  the  cotton  farmers  in  that  county  were 
renters  who  were  being  carried  along  by  the  men  who  dealt  in  supplies, 
giving  them  bad  seed  and  bad  supplies,  and  charging  them  60  or  70  per  cent 
interest  for  it.  They  were  not  getting  ahead  any  more  than  the  Irish  people 
were,  or  any  more  than  the  people  in  any  other  country  have  gotten  along, 
where  the  renting  system  grew  up.  However  much  apparently  the  law  of 
supply  and  demand  raises  the  price  of  the  goods,  there  are  too  many  people 
getting  it,  and  the  farmer  does  not  get  as  much  of  it  as  he  ought  to. 


390          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Prof.  Commons  has  suggested  to  me  that  you  probably  are 
going  to  stay  over  for  a  few  days,  and  that  we  might  see  you  again? 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  My  whole  life  is  enlisted  in  this  kind  of  work.  If  I  can  be 
of  any  service  to  you,  I  will  do  it  at  any  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  will  be  here  a  few  days,  then? 

Mr.  MCCARTHY.  As  I  look  around  you  I  know  that  you  are  in  earnest; 
that  you  are  not  bum  politicians;  but  that  you  are  trying  to  do  right,  and  I 
will  work  with  you  heart  and  soul. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  want  to  say  to  you  that  we  are  profoundly  thankful  to 
you  for  your  suggestions,  and  for  the  splendid  spirit  in  which  you  have  gone 
at  this  thing.  We  will  expect  to  see  you  again. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  December  31,  1913. 

The  commission  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment  of  Tuesday,  December  30, 
1913,  at  9.30  a.  m. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  shall  this  commission  do  about  sitting  to- 
morrow, it  being  New  Year's? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  was  going  to  say  there  are  two  gentlemen  present  who 
have  some  very  definite  ideas  to  put  before  the  commission,  and  I  think  we  can 
hear  both  of  them  before  the  usual  hour  of  recess. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  To-day? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  was  speaking  about  to-morrow. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  move  that  we  meet  at  the  usual  time  to-morrow. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  should  much  prefer  to  work  to-morrow. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  I  am  ready  to  do  whatever  the  commission  sees  fit. 

(After  further  informal  discussion,  it  was  determined  to  continue  the  session 
of  the  commission  to-morrow,  January  1,  1914,  at  9.30  a.  m.) 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr.  Bloomfield  has  been  here  for  a  couple  of  days. 
He  is  connected  with  the  Educational  Bureau  of  Boston  and  is  on  an  investiga- 
tion growing  out  of  the  question  of  vocational  guidance,  as  to  the  subject  of  the 
hiring  and  firing  of  employees  by  corporations.  I  have  asked  him  to  come 
here,  as  it  seemed  to  grow  so  directly  out  of  these  questions  we  have  had 
before  us,  and  I  felt  that  Mr.  Bloomfield  would  add  to  the  information  of  the 
commission  at  least  and  let  us  know  of  the  important  investigation  he  has 
started. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  MEYEK  BLOOMFIELD. 

Mr.  BLOOMFIELD.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  commission,  I  shall 
make  a  very  brief  statement.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  will  get  just  what  you 
want  of  me,  but  I  know  you  will  cross-examine  me  and  ask  whatever  questions 
you  desire. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  present  occupation? 

Mr.  BLOOMFIELD.  I  am  a  director  of  the  Vocational  Bureau  of  Boston. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  your  connection  with  any  other  institution,  if  there  is 
any  at  the  present  time,  any  institution  or  public  or  private  body? 

Mr.  BLOOMFIELD.  I  am  at  the  head  of  a  settlement  house,  the  Civic  Service 
House  of  Boston,  and  I  am  connected  with  a  number  of  institutions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  connected  with  any  schools? 

Mr.  BLOOMFIELD.  I  am  supposed  to  be  the  lecturer  on  vocational  guidance 
at  Harvard,  and  I  have  university  appointments  with  the  University  of  Indiana, 
the  University  of  California,  and  the  State  Teachers'  College  of  Colorado. 
And  Mr.  Lennon's  presence  reminds  me  also  that  I  have  the  peculiar  position 
of  being  the  labor  member  on  the  board  of  arbitration  in  the  garment  trades 
in  Boston  under  the  protocol,  because  I  was  interested  in  the  New  York  situa- 
tion and  spent  a  good  deal  of  time  there  at  the  time  of  the  strike ;  and  in  our 
settlement  work  we  have  had  among  our  activities  of  the  garment  workers  and 
providing  headquarters  for  all  sorts  of  labor  matters. 

The  vocational  bureau  grew  out  of  the  settlement  work  we  have  had.  It  is 
an  attempt  to  organize  industrial  and  other  information  for  young  people  par- 
ticularly who  ought  to  be  planning  to  enter  life  intelligently.  In  that  connec- 
tion we  issue  a  series  of  studies  and  occupational  booklet,  which  are  in  use 
in  all  the  schools  of  Boston  and  throughout  the  country  in  many  schools  and  in 
a  number  of  colleges.  I  have  been  carrying  on  industrial  investigations  of 
that  sort  for  three  years.  In  connection  with  that  work  we  found  it  necessary 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT  WITNESSES.  391 

to  bring  the  employers  in  in  the  same  cooperative  scheme  that  we  brought  in 
the  teachers  and  social  workers;  and  in  saying  employers  I  soon  realized  we 
were  using  a  very  vague  term,  as  the  employer  is  generally  busy  and  does 
not  come  in  contact  with  these  young  people  we  are  trying  to  train  and  guide.  It 
occurred  to  us,  therefore,  that  the  employment  superintendents  ought  to  be 
brought  together  in  an  association  to  discuss  the  same  problem  that  we  in  our 
own  worlds  discuss  with  our  own  language,  and  which  the  employer  does  not  get 
a  chance  to  get  at,  and  then  often  wonders  why  things  break  once  in  a  while. 
So,  two  years  ago,  we  organized  an  employment  superintendents'  association 
and  it  has  been  growing,  and  there  are  40  members  representing  the  largest  em- 
ployers in  Greater  Boston,  establishments  like  the  John  Long  Co.,  Filene, 
Schrafts,  and  all  branches  of  industry. 

We  brought  them  together  because  we  thought  the  men  who  do  the  hiring 
of  men  and  who  handle  this  human  product  of  the  schools  ought  to  get  some 
idea  of  what  fitness  and  future  means  in  the  career  of  a  child  and  in  the  life 
of  the  worker.  They  were  men  who  had  never  been  organized  before.  It  was 
almost  the  only  thing  I  had  not  found  organized  in  a  number  of  establishments. 
The  credit  men  were  organized,  and  the  salesmen  and  the  janitors  and  sweepers, 
but  the  men  who  pump  the  lifeblood  into  an  establishment  had  never  come 
together  to  discuss  their  problem.  And  they  are  the  most  difficut  problems  in 
the  entire  establishment.  Furthermore,  we  found  that  the  employment  man  on 
the  whole  was  never  properly  appreciated  in  the  scheme  of  things.  He  was 
often  a  last  thought,  an  afterthought,  an  under  dog  in  the  establishment,  and  a 
necessary  evil.  He  ought  to  be  the  best  trained  and  most  important  man  in  the 
efficiency  scheme  of  an  establishment,  with  very  large  powers  of  supervision 
over  those  who  do  the  discharging,  with  a  very  definite  say  in  the  matters  of 
promotion.  Now,  because  the  employment  men  have  no  responsibility  we  found 
in  establishment  after  establishment  a  terrific  preventable  waste  of  turnover, 
of  injustice,  and  of  friction  and  favoritism. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Pardon  me,  but  will  you  be  good  enough  t(/ 
explain  what  is  meant  by  employment  man? 

Mr.  BLOOMFIELD.  A  man  in  charge  of  hiring  he  is  often  called. 
Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  Boston  one  man  hires  and  another  fires. 
Mr.  BLOOMFIELD.  Yes ;  in  a  great  many  instances. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Both  functions  are  not  performed  by  the  same 
man. 

Mr.  BLOOMFIELD.  Very  rarely  by  the  same  man.  Very  rarely  is  the  employ- 
ment man  supposed  to  exercise  any  intelligence.  He  is  kind  of  a  human  store- 
keeper. He  gets  a  request  for  50  of  this  and  50  of  that  and  goes  out  and 
fills  a  mechanical  order,  and  he  is  the  man  who  takes  the  first  guess,  and  then 
everybody  else  gets  a  chance  to  guess  all  along  the  line.  In  a  few  establish- 
ments they  have  rating  sheets.  In  some  establishments  they  try  to  organize 
the  promotion  scheme.  The  trouble  with  that  is  there  is  nobody  to  check  the 
checkers  and  to  judge  the  judges,  and  because  of  that  all  sorts  of  peculiar  things 
happen.  If  I  had  known  I  should  have  a  chance  to  come  before  you  on  this 
short  trip,  I  would  have  brought  illustrations  with  me,  but  you  know  from 
your  own  experience  that  the  general  scheme  of  hiring,  promotion,  and  dis- 
charge is  about  the  loosest  thing  in  an  industrial  establishment.  And  because 
of  that  not  only  is  all  kinds  of  injustice  possible  and  friction,  but  we  know  of 
strikes  and  outbreaks  provoked  by  that  situation.  And  that,  of  course,  is 
your  main  interest.  There  are  other  phases  of  this  waste  which  concern  the 
community  as  a  whole,  but  I  know  you  want  to  confine  yourself  to  the  causes  of 
irritation  and  the  sources  of  friction,  and  especially  the  preventable  sources  of 
friction,  and  there  is  one.  We  have  a  number  of  recommendations  which  I 
have  not  based  on  a  country-wide  investigation,  which  we  have  not  made,  but 
which  we  think  will  be  in  time,  because  we  want  to  undertake  it.  " 

We  have  some  establishments  who  have  been  pioneers  in  the  effort  of  intro- 
ducing some  kind  of  order  and  justice  into  this  situation,  and  they  have  an 
intelligent  scheme  of  selection.  They  expect  the  employment  manager  to  be 
a  real  staff  executive,  and  have  given  him  some  real  power,  and  his  judgment 
counts,  and  there  is  an  attempt  made  at  an  intelligent  record  of  what  the  em- 
ployees can  do  and  a  preliminary  try-out  of  their  capacity.  So  if  they  are 
placed  in  a  department  that  has  a  vacancy  and  happens  to  need  one  of  the 
talents  which  this  individual  represents,  that  individual  will  be  placed  tem- 
porarily. In  his  record  is  noted  what  he  can  do  very  well  in  other  departments, 
so  that  when  his  job  becomes  unnecessary  in  this  first  place,  he  is  not  dis- 
charged. There  is  a  record  kept  that  he  can  do  something  else,  so  he  is  trans- 


392          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

ferred.  The  last  thing  they  want  to  do  is  to  discharge  a  man,  and  naturally  in 
the  average  establishment  where  there  is  no  line  on  what  people  can  do  outside 
of  the  one  specific  thing,  discharge  is  the  only  thing  possible.  It  is  very  rarely 
that  anybody  would  think  of  going  to  another  department  for  this  type  of 
ability  when  this  brings  in  a  question  of  the  study  of  the  application  employ- 
ment blanks.  I  have  been  collecting  for  about  two  years  the  application  blanks 
and  questions  and  rule  books  and  whatever  meager  material  there  is  in  different 
stores  and  establishments.  Those  documents  also  show  why  there  must  be  a 
good  deal  of  unintelligent  waste.  We  have  found  in  our  studies  and  in  issuing 
these  small  booklets,  on  what  different  industries  require,  that  almost  no  em- 
ployment managers  have  sufficiently  analyzed  the  question  to  know  what  they 
want,  to  lay  down  intelligently  what  is  required.  When  you  give  them  often- 
times what  they  ought  to  have,  they  do  not  know  what  they  need.  These  appli- 
cation blanks,  if  you  will  cut  off  the  letterheads  of  the  individual  houses,  you 
could  shuffle  the  pack  of  them  and  you  would  not  know  whether  it  wTas  a 
department  store  or  a  shoe  factory  or  some  railroad,  with  all  due  respect  to  Mr. 
Delano;  you  would  not  know  what  industry  is  asking  the  question.  It  is  un- 
thinkable that  we  can  place  people  right  and  secure  permanence  and  efficiency 
and  contentment  for  which  one  has  in  a  job  which  he  should  be  doing,  while 
this  blindness  to  the  needs  of  the  situation  exists. 

Employers  realize  it  is  a  serious  problem,  just  as  do  the  working  people,  and 
they  realize  it  so  seriously  that  they  slop  over  sometimes  and  employ  phrenolo- 
gists and  mind  readers  and  all  sorts  of  things  to  get  some  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem. But  their  method  of  approach  is  absolutely  the  wrong  method.  This  is 
simply  to  indicate  that  there  is  a  real  problem  there,  and  it  is  felt  all  along 
the  line  from  every  viewpoint.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  You  have  not  found  any  astrologers,  have  you? 

Mr.  BLOOMFIELD.  I  suppose  they  will  come  out. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  questions  wrhich  the  commission  desires  to  ask 
Mr.  Bloomfield?  I  suppose  we  are  about  at  the  point  now  where  we  might  go 
into  our  executive  session. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  suggest  we  might  go  into  a  formal  executive  ses- 
sion before  we  adjourn. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  good.  There  is  just  one  suggestion  that  Mr.  Croxton 
had  to  offer,  which  I  think  is  very  valuable  and  which  I  believe  he  should  state 
now. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  F.  C.  CROXTON— Recalled. 

Mr.  CROXTON.  It  will  take  not  more  than  three  minutes ;  I  am  a  man  of  few 
words  and  many  figures.  My  new  work  involves  giving  considerable  attention 
to  accident  statistics.  I  am  speaking  now  as  chief  statistician  of  the  Ohio  In- 
dustrial Commission.  The  next  year  will  probably  see  80,000  accidents  in  the 
State  of  Ohio.  Just  recently  I  have  been  in  conference  with  some  of  the  acci- 
dent men  from  the  larger  industrial  organizations  there,  and  one  organization, 
one  industry,  may  report  accidents,  no  different  whether  they  involve  loss  of 
time  or  not,  and  another  may  not  call  an  accident  and  accident  unless  there  is 
a  loss  of  two  days'  time ;  or  in  other  cases  it  may  be  a  week's  time.  And  some 
confusion  exists  between  the  different  States.  Pennsylvania,  for  instance,  is 
asking  for  a  report  of  all  accidents  lasting  more  than  48  hours ;  that  is,  wThere 
the  employee  is  incapacitated  for  more  than  48  hours.  In  our  State  we  ask  for 
a  report  of  every  accident,  but  we  ask  for  it  only  from  employers  of  five  or 
more  employees  regularly. 

Now,  it  is  not  possible  for- us  to  change  the  State  laws,  but  it  is  possible  for 
us  to  get  our  accident  statistics  on  some  comparable  basis  so  that  one  State 
may  have  the  advantage  of  the  experience  of  another  State.  The  purpose  of 
accident-  statistics  is  not  to  compile  together  figures,  but  to  lead  right  up  to 
accident  prevention,  and  we  need  all  the  experience  that  \ve  can  get  from  the 
other  States  as  well  as  our  own. 

I  submitted  a  memorandum  to  our  own  Industrial  Commission  of  Ohio  about 
a  month  ago,  suggesting  that  we  call  a  conference  of  the  men  who  were  actually 
engaged  in  accident  prevention  and  in  the  compilation  of  accident  statistics, 
and  arranged  for  some  scheme  of  comparable  statistics.  And  I  said  that  the 
call  might  come  either  from  this  commission  or  the  Ohio  State  Commission,  or 
from  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Labor ;  and  they  authorized  me  to  proceed  either 
to  call  it  as  a  State  representative  or  to  bring  the  matter  to  your  attention, 
just  as  I  saw  fit.  And  it  seemed  a  better  method  to  bring  it  to  your  attention, 


SUGGESTIONS    OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  393 

Mr.  Chairman.  It  is  not  something  that  would  require  the  work  of  the  com- 
mission,  but  the  work  of  the  people  who  are  actively  engaged  in  this  sort  of 
thing  throughout  the  country. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  submitted  the  matter  to  Mr.  Lauck? 

Mr.  CROXTON.  I  have  in  writing,  and  if  you  want  I  can  get  Dr.  Meeker,  of  the 
Federal  bureau,  to  cooperate.  There  is  a  certain  advantage  in  having  the  Fed- 
eral Government  back  of  these  things,  as  there  is  a  certain  rivalry  between 
States.  And  I  can  get  him  to  join  in  the  call,  I  think.  We  can  have  a  meeting 
in  Columbus,  as  I  think  it  is  more  central  than  Washington. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  started  that  three  years  ago  in  Wisconsin,  and 
we  found  that  we  could  not  get  any  uniformity,  simply  because  every  State 
was  determined  to  go  its  own  way ;  and  if  your  scheme  is  a  method  of  bringing 
pressure  upon  States  that  will  bring  about  some  sort  of  uniformity  it  might 
be  something  this  commission  could  do.- 

The  CHAIEMAN.  Could  we  gather  the  information?  Could  a  Federal  labor 
bureau  gather  that  information  in  that  form,  irrespective  of  the  action  of  the 
State? 

Mr.  CROXTON.  I  might  say  this,  answering  both  questions,  that  we  must  fol- 
low our  State  law;  we  must  get  a  report  of  every  accident,  regardless  of 
whether  there  was  a  loss  of  time.  And  in  another  State  they  must  report  every 
accident  lasting  two  or  more  days.  There  are  certain  fundamentals  we  can 
bring  together.  For  instance,  we  can  tabulate  those  lasting  less  than  two  days, 
and  we  can  agree  on  something  of  that  kind.  I  would  feel  safe  in  saying  there 
would  not  be  an  ytrouble  in  sitting  down  with  you,  Prof.  Commons,  or  with 
your  statistician,  and  working  out  some  scheme  whereby  the  statistics  for 
your  State  can  be  made  comparable  with  the  statistics  for  our  State ;  not  fully, 
however,  as  we  have  to  show  more  than  you  do. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  you  want  to  go  further  and  make  a  recom- 
mendation that  the  States  adopt  uniform  requirements  for  the  statistics  of  acci- 
dents? 

Mr.  CROXTON.  I  would  like  to,  but  I  do  not  know  whether  we  are  quite  up 
to  that  or  not.  We  can  lead,  but  we  must  follow,  too.  I  am  afraid  we  could 
not  do  that  because  many  of  these  States  would  not  want  to  change. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  A  table  which  would  show  the  different  methods  of 
preparing  statistics  in  different  States  would  be  valuable. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Your  idea  would  be  to  standardize  the  States  and 
have  a  uniform  system? 

Mr.  CROXTON.  So  far  as  possible.  It  seems  to  me  we  can  standardize  the 
fundamentals.  For  instance,  I  can  eliminate  the  accidents  of  less  than  two 
days  from  our  reports  in  order  to  make  the  statistics  comparable  with  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  think  it  is  possible  to  do  that,  because  a  much 
more  heroic  task  than  that  has  been  done.  They  have  taken  the  countries  of 
the  world,  including  such  backward  countries  as  Russia  and  Egypt,  and  they 
have  standardized  their  crop  reports,  and  they  are  uniform  all  over  the  world. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  Government  itself  in  its 
statistics  on  accidents  needs  as  much  curing  as  any  place  else? 

Mr.  CROXTON.  It  does,  indeed.  If  you  will  allow  me  a  moment  more — I  am 
interested  in  a  good  many  things,  and  one  is  to  keep  from  everlastingly  bothering 
employers  and  trade  organizations  in  our  State  and  Federal  investigations.  I 
spent  half  the  forenoon  trying  to  arrange  to  help  work  out  a  plan  of  cooperative 
work  between  the  Federal  bureau  and  the  New  York  State  bureau  on  their 
price  work,  a  subject  I  have  been  very  closely  connected  with,  so  as  to  save 
going  back  to  the  merchants  and  employees  constantly.  First,  the  State  gov- 
ernment, and  then  the  Federal  Government,  and  then  somebody  else  comes  along. 
Let  us  do  everything  at  one  time  and  do  it  so  it  will  be  usable  and  show  results 
rather  than  have  each  man  work  for  himself  and  the  devil  take  the  hindermost, 
as  we  say.  Now,  of  course,  I  do  not  know  that  this  is  feasible,  but  I  believe  it 
is,  and  I believe  it  will  be  a  good  piece  of  work  for  the  commission  if  they  can 
do  just  such  things,  and  they  will  be  lasting. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Do  you  think  we  can  do  it  better  than  Mr.  Meeker's 
office  can? 

Mr.  CROXTON.  I  think  we  can  join  with  them.  I  am  authorized  to  take  it  up 
for  Ohio  or  I  would  ask  you  to  authorize  me  to  work  as  your  consulting  statis- 
tician and  take  it  up  as  the  man  you  might  want  to  introduce  it,  or  anyone  else. 
I  do  not  care.  I  am  not  asking  for  more  work,  but  I  will  take  up  with  you  or 
with  Dr.  Meeker  that  question  so  long  as  we  accomplish  results. 


394          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  GABBETSON.  Do  not  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  and  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  follow  two  dissimilar  plans  to  get  their 
information  ? 

Mr.  CROXTON.  Absolutely ;  and  I  have  been  working  hard  to  get  them  together 
there,  as  you  know. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  But  does  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  do  it  under  any 
existing  law  or  only  under  a  ruling  of  the  department? 

Mr.  CROXTON.  No ;  we  worked  out  our  best  plans  there. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Well,  that  is  true  of  the  commission,  also.  It  is 
nothing  but  the  commission's  regulation. 

Mr.  CROXTON.  But  it  is  under  the  law  there ;  that  is,  the  law  is  different.  For 
instance,  the  Federal  compensation  act- 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Oh,  with  you;  but  I  mean  with  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission,  they  can  change  their  requirements  at  any  time. 

Mr.  CROXTON.  Yes;  at  any  time.  Now,  you  can  leave  this  matter  for  me  to 
work  out  with  your  managing  expert  or  turn  it  down. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  take  it  up  with  the  other  matters  to  be  given  con- 
sideration. 

We  will  now  take  a  recess  until  2.15. 

(Whereupon,  at  1  p.  m.,  a  recess  was  taken  until  2  p.  m.) 

AFTER   RECESS. 

The  commission  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment,  at  2.35  o'clock  p.  m. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  suppose  every  member  of  the 
commission  here  has  been  battered — I  am  using  the  word  to  describe  my  own 
experience — by  those  who  have  appeared  here,  or  who  have  been  interested 
here,  to  know  what  we  are  going  to  do  along  this  line  or  the  other.  I  have 
said  to  these  men,  "  I  have  no  idea  what  the  commission  will  do  on  this,  that, 
or  the  other.  I  am  one  individual  member,  and  the  commission  has  not  found 
itself  yet."  Now,  we  wrill  never  find  ourselves  in  our  relation  to  each  other 
until  after  a  very  considerable  amount  of  discussion  of  these  problems,  and  I 
do  not  believe  we  will  ever  become  a  mosaic  until  we  have  occupied  a  con- 
siderable time  in  the  discussion  of  these  things  before  arriving  at  definite 
action.  Therefore,  whenever  we  start  in  discussing  a  program,  whatever  it 
may  be,  whether  the  one  submitted  or  modifications  thereof  that  may  be  sug- 
gested, we  are  going  to  put  in  a  good  many  hours  before  we  get  down  to  the 
proposition  of  the  path  we  are  going  to  travel. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  We  have  heard  several  phases  of  various  condi- 
tions from  the  people  who  have  come  before  us.  There  is  an  entire  interest 
from  whom  we  have  not  heard  at  all.  The  labor  interest  has  had  no  repre- 
sentative before  us  at  all.  They  are  intensely  interested  in  the  success  of  this 
commission,  and  we  have  not  heard  from  their  representatives,  who  are  behind 
the  legislation  that  created  this  commission.  They  were  the  men  who  forced 
the  legislation  through.  I  was  one  of  them.  I  spent  a  good  many  days  and 
nights  lobbying  for  the  enactment  of  this  law,  because  I  am  located  here  and 
have  had  charge  of  the  federation  legislative  affairs  in  Washington  as  one  of  the 
committee  of  three  who  have  conducted  the  campaign  here.  Now,  we  have 
had  doctors  of  almost  every  type  before  us,  but  there  are  men  who  have  given 
n  life  study  to  questions  which  we  ought  at  least  look  into.  For  instance, 
there  is  Mr.  Gompers,  a  man  who  has  traveled  all  over  the  world  and  knows 
the  history  of  all  these  things  that  Mr.  Cohen  talked  about  this  morning,  and 
he  knows  them  from  practical  experience.  Then,  there  is  Mr.  Mitchell,  who 
has  given  a  life  study  to  the  question  of  compensation  and  industrial  relations 
and  contractual  relations.  He  had  charge  of  those  matters  until  his  organi- 
zation forced  him  to  quit  the  federation.  My  own  organization  did  the  stimo 
thing  with  me.  I  am  one  of  the  originators  of  the  National  Civic  Federation. 
Before  we  came  to  New  York  we  were  located  in  one  room  in  Chicago. 

There  is  Mr.  Winslow,  who  has  given  study  to  these  questions,  not  only  in 
this  country  but  has  traveled  abroad  to  study  the  question  of  industrial  edu- 
cation, and  he  has  made  a  report  that  is  unequaled  by  any  other  report  that, 
has  been  made  in  the  United  States  by  anyone.  Then  there  is  Mr.  Duncan, 
for  instance,  who  is  the  head  of  one  of  the  oldest  organizations  in  the  country 
and  one  of  the  ablest  and  broadest  men  in  the  labor  movement  of  this  country, 
and  who  has  had  a  lifelong  experience  on  contractual  legislation  in  matters 
between  employers  and  employees. 


SUGGESTIONS    OF    EXPERT   WITNESSES.  395 

There  are  a  number  of  such  men.  The  opinions  and  advice  of  these  men 
ought  to  be  heard.  I  am  in  perfect  accord  with  what  Dr.  Devine  said  the 
other  day  as  to  what  the  commission  was  created  for  and  what  caused  its  crea- 
tion. I  helped  to  change  the  law  that  was  originally  drafted  providing  for 
the  creation  of  this  commission.  Mr.  Gompers  and  I  were  the  ones  who  drew 
lip  the  things  that  he  said  ought  to  be  put  in.  We  would  not  agree  to  the 
law  until  it  was  changed  in  that  way.  There  is  a  matter  which  I  should  like 
to  state  to  this  commission  in  confidence  and  not  for  the  record. 

Now,  as  conditions  are  similar  at  the  present  time  to  what  they  were  when 
the  commission  was  created,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  commission  can  not  do 
other  than  take  notice  of  these  things,  either  through  the  whole  commission 
or  through  a  subcommitee  or  by  direction  of  some  one  to  represent  the  com- 
mission in  the  matter. 

My  experience  for  25  years  in  an  executive  capacity  leads  me  to  believe  that 
you  can  not  shift  everything  to  the  shoulders  of  some  little  fellow.  When  I 
wanted  to  get  actual  results  in  our  organization,  when  they  wanted  to  hear 
the  boss  speak,  I  had  to  go  there  and  speak  for  myself,  and  then  they  did 
things,  and  I  think  that  applies  in  this  commission.  If  you  are  going  to 
delegate  all  these  things,  big  and  little,  to  big  and  little  fellows  to  go  out  and 
do,  I  have  my  doubt  as  to  the  result,  even  in  getting  the  necessary  information. 
If  some  little  kid  of  a  boy  comes  into  my  office  for  information,  wants  to  go 
through  my  records,  and  look  over  our  files,  I  give  that  fellow  three  or  four 
looks  to  see  whether  he  is  big  enough  for  that  job,  and  ask  him  what  he 
wants  and  all  about  it.  I  hesitate,  and  very  often  do  not  do  it.  If  we  want 
the  big  things,  it  takes  big  people  to  do  them  and  get  them,  and  I  am  of  the 
opinion  that  this  commission  has  got  to  busy  itself,  either  as  a  whle  or  by  a 
subcommittee,  to  get  at  some  of  the  real  underlying  causes  of  this  industrial 
unrest.  I  do  not  know  of  any  better  place  to  get  it  than  right  in  the  heat 
of  the  battle,  where  we  can  see  conditions  as  they  exist  now,  even  better  than 
after  the  conditions  have  quieted  down.  I  think  the  situation  in  Calumet  and 
in  Colorado  warrants  it,  and  other  situations  warrant  it. 

I  think  this  commission  ought  also  to  hear  some  laymen,  practical  men,  men 
who  have  been  up  against  the  proposition  of  getting  their  fingers  cut  off  and 
their  noses  ground  down  and  their  wages  cut  down  and  their  hours  of  wages 
kept  at  the  long  time,  and  all  that.  They  may  not  be  so  polished  in  the  way 
of  presenting  things,  but  they  will  present  ideas,  they  will  give  you  thoughts 
and  things  you  can  work  on ;  in  addition  to  which  you  can  get  men  here  who 
are  capable  of  presenting  those  things  in  just  as  intelligent  a  manner,  and  I 
believe  from  experience  you  will  lead  us  alon  gin  the  direction  of  avoiding 
unnecessary  things. 

I  believe  this  commission  ought,  if  it  is  possible,  to  have  a  subcommittee  of 
the  commission  actively  engaged  all  the  time  in  this  business.  The  job  is  so  big, 
and  it  has  got  to  be  done  in  such  a  short  time,  and  it  has  got  to  be  worked 
out  so  quickly  that  in  my  opinion  it  can  not  be  done  by  our  meeting  once  in 
three  months  and  probably  never  seeing  one  another  in  the  meantime,  and 
probably  not  even  exchanging  letters.  I  think  we  ought  to  have  a  sufficient 
active  force  in  our  commission,  actively  engaged  all  the  time,  every  hour,  in 
the  work,  either  by  a  subcommittee  or  some  other  method,  and  to  map  out  work 
and  avoid  unnecessary  accumulation  of  things  that  only  mean  a  piling  up  of 
work  for  stenographers  or  typewriters.  I  do  not  think  we  can  accomplish 
things  unless  we  do  that.  I  have  been  an  active  man  all  my  life,  and  every 
day  when  I  close  my  desk  I  like  to  feel  that  I  have  either  finished  something  or 
started  something.  It  seems  to  me  we  ought  to  get  ourselves  into  that  position. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  think  this  work  that  Mr.  O'Connell  is  telling  about 
is  the  first  and  most  pushing  work.  I  think  it  is  work  that  ought  to  be  done. 

Now,  there  is  a  personal  matter  which  I  may  as  well  state  at  this  time  as 
at  some  other  time.  When  I  was  asked  to  take  this  place,  I  said  if  I  was 
appointed  on  this  commission,  I  would  give  practically  my  whole  time  to  the 
work.  The  President  was  assured  of  that  when  friends  of  mine  went  to  see 
him,  and  I  am  going  to  do  it.  I  am  going  to  do  that.  I  am  going  to  give  my 
whole  time  to  the  work.  I  want  to  be  useful.  It  may  sound  egotistical,  but  I 
believe  I  am  capable  of  being  useful.  I  want  to  be  useful,  however,  just 
where  the  commission  wants  me,  and  not  anywhere  else.  I  do  not  want  to  be 
useful  where  I  myself  would  simply  be  satisfied,  but  I  want  to  be  useful 
where  the  commission  can  use  me.  I  believe  we  should  investigate  in  Colorado 
and  Calumet  and  Indianapolis  and  Lawrence.  That  is  not  too  far  gone  by ; 
and  above  all  the  McNamara  case.  There  is  a  lot  to  that  case  that,  close  *to 


396         EEPORT   OF   COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

it  as  I  was  in  many  respects,  I  do  not  know  about,  that  I  want  to  know  about, 
and  that  I  think  the  public  ought  to  know  about.  If  there  is  nothing  more  to 
know,  we  will  find  that  out.  If  there  are  some  things  to  know  that  reflect 
still  worse  on  that  organization  than  what  has  been  brought  out,  I  am  in 
favor  of  the  public  knowing  that,  and  if  there  are  things  to  be  found  out  that 
reflect  less  than  the  public  now  believe,  we  ought  to  know  that. 

There  is  the  Los  Angeles  situation,  where,  so  far  as  the  spirit  of  dissatisfac- 
tion and  the  straining  of  industrial  relations  is  concerned,  the  situation  is  actu- 
ally worse  than  in  any  city  in  the  world,  unless  it  be  the  places  where  the  con- 
test is  on  right  now.  There  is  no  city  where  there  is  comparatively  industrial 
peace  so  far  as  strikes  are  concerned,  where  the  relations  between  employers 
and  employees  are  so  strained  as  in  Los  Angeles,  and  I  believe  that  they  ought 
to  be  investigated. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  think  a  subcommittee  of  this  commission  ought  to 
be  appointed,  if  there  are  members  who  can  give  their  time  to  it.  I  am  not  look- 
ing for  a  job  at  all,  but  I  explained  to  my  organization  at  the  last  meeting  that 
it  must  be  understodd  that  I  could  take  all  the  time  I  wanted.  That  was  under- 
stood when  I  was  first  approached  on  the  matter  of  taking  a  position  on  this 
commission.  I  think  a  subcommittee  of  the  commission  should  be  delegated 
with  power  to  make  certain  investigations,  to  hold  certain  hearings,  and  that 
the  results  of  their  investigations  and  hearings  should  be  boiled  down  into  the 
actual  meat  of  them  and  copies  of  those  hearings  and  reports  sent  to  the  mem- 
bers who  have  not  been  in  attendance,  so  that  they  will  be  as  familiar  with  the 
matter  as  though  they  had  been  there,  while  any  other  work  that  we  may  have 
is  going  on. 

I  think  we  should  have  a  publicity  man — somebody  whose  business,  in  connec- 
tion with  some  other  work  that  may  be  assigned  to  him,  is  the  business  of  pub- 
licity. I  think  it  is  unfortunate  for  this  commission  that  the  delay  in  its  ap- 
pointment and  the  delay  in  securing  the  money  with  which  to  go  ahead  has 
rather  mitigated  against  its  success.  Had  the  commission  gone  right  on  after 
the  law  was  first  passed,  then  we  would  have  been  right  in  the  atmosphere  that 
created  the  commission,  but  a  year  afterwards  the  atmosphere  has  cleared  up 
somewhat. 

But  there  are  a  great  number  of  people  in  this  country  who  are  interested  in 
what  is  going  to  be  done.  I  do  not  refer  now  to  those  whom  I  have  mentioned, 
but  they  expect  to  be  called  before  this  commission.  They  expect  to  have  some- 
thing to  say  to  them  as  to  the  underlying  causes  of  industrial  unrest  in  this 
country.  I  think  the  sooner  we  get  at  that,  the  sooner  we  will  be  prepared  to 
sit  down  and  hear  their  ideas  and  then  go  on  and  get  further  information  as  to 
the  cause  of  unrest.  The  things  that  have  come  before  us  have  been  very  inter- 
esting and  striking,  but  I  do  not  feel  as  though  they  were  the  underlying 
causes  of  unrest.  The  things  that  make  people  hungry,  the  things  that  make 
people  savages,  are  the  things  that  appeal  to  me  as  the  causes  of  unrest.  Think 
of  the  factories,  workshops,  and  mines,  where  women  and  children  are  employed 
under  laborious  conditions.  Those  are  the  things  which  make  for  unrest.  I 
think  we  ought  to  interest  ourselves  quickly  in  the  matter  of  getting  at  the  basic 
causes.  I  think  we  ought  to  call  before  us  the  grouchiest,  meanest  employer  we 
can  find  and  let  him  pour  his  wrath  on  our  heads,  and  let  us  hackle  him  a  little 
bit,  and  we  will  find  out  what  is  the  real  trouble.  I  like  to  hear  those  men  talk. 
I  have  got  along  with  employers  for  25  years,  and  I  do  not  know  of  any  enemy 
that  I  have  among  employers. 

I  think  that  these  are  some  of  the  things  that  we  ought  to  do,  and  we  might 
have  a  kind  of  informal  conference  and  draw  out  some  of  the  plans  that  are  in 
one  another's  minds.  I  hate  to  sit  down  for  three  months  and  not  be  doing  any- 
thing. Mr.  Walsh  and  Mr.  Ballard  and  Mr.  Weinstock  and  I  have  had  a  job. 
Mr.  Weinstock  has  not  had  much  association  with  us  because  of  his  great  dis- 
tance from  us,  but  we  have  been  doing  some  work  on  the  sifte. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  I  think  it  might  be  of  interest  to  find  out  how 
many  members  of  the  commission  are  available  for  continuous  work,  if  con- 
tinuous work  should  be  needed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  My  understanding  is  that  this  is  exactly  what  we  are  going 
to  get  at  when  we  come  together.  Mr.  O'Connell  has  expressed  a  groat  deal  of 
it  here.  I  am  as  impatient  to  be  at  work  as  anybody  on  this  commission,  but 
we  must  lay  the  groundwork  for  it,  and  my  notion  is  that  you  ought  first  to  see 
what  Mr.  Lauck  and  Mrs.  Harriman  have  projected,  and  what  I  have  attempted 
to  assist  them  in.  They  have  covered  a  good  deal  of  ground  in  60  days,  and  they 
certainly  have  not  lost  any  time.  That  is  my  information  about  it.  If  we  had 


SUGGESTIONS   OF   EXPERT  WITNESSES.  397 

started  to  hold  investigations  any  sooner,  I  think  it  would  have  caused  a  waste 
of  money  and  efforts.  We  have  laid  the  groundwork,  and  it  may  be  that  every 
member  of  the  commission  will  be  of  one  mind  as  to  what  ought  to  be  done  in 
the  appointment  of  subcommittees  and  what  ought  to  be  done  about  making 
these  investigations  and  the  reasons  for  them.  There  may  be  a  difference  of 
opinion,  but  I  think  we  can  thrash  it  out  speedily.  I  do  not  understand  that 
those  who  have  appeared  before  us  have  appeared  as  witnesses. 

When  I  hear  a  witness  I  want  to  hear  all  sides.  If  I  were  getting  wit- 
nesses on  the  general  causes  of  industrial  unrest,  I  would  take  the  heads  of 
these  associations.  I  would  take  Mr.  Emery  who  has  been  around  here,  and 
I  would  ask  Mr.  O'Connell  to  get  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  people, 
and  I  would  get  some  of  the  people  who  were  in  touch  with  these  organiza- 
tions that  we  have  heard  so  much  about  as  to  coming  dangers.  We  would  hear 
all  sides  of  it.  'So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  know  that  this  meeting  has  done 
me  a  lot  of  good,  although  I  do  not  agree  by  any  means  with  all  that  has  been 
said,  and  although  I  have  tried  to  separate  the  theoretical  from  the  practical, 
and  although  I  have  noticed  that  the  theoretical  was  much  in  preponderance. 
I  suppose  the  rest  of  us  have  noticed  that  as  we  have  gone  along.  Still  we 
are  laying  the  groundwork  for  what  we  are  going  to  do,  as  I  understand  it, 
and  this  is  the  meeting  at  which  we  are  to  conclude  as  to  just  what  we  are 
going  to  do.  I  know  in  the  talks  I  have  had  with  various  members  of  the 
commission,  every  member  has  seemed  to  have  a  pretty  well-defined  idea,  and 
bring  these  things  out,  and  get  together  on  them  if  we  can.  If  we  can  not  do 
that,  we  will  get  a  majority  of  the  commission  to  define  their  policy  and  follow 
it  out. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Then  the  problem  is,  what  is  the  next  one  thing 
to  do? 

The  CHAIBMAN.  Mr.  Ballard  has  some  notions,  and  Mr.  Garretson  has  some 
notions,  and  they  are  both  temporarily  absent,  and  I  would  not  want  anyone 
else  to  express  their  views  for  them. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Oh,  no. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  know  Mrs.  Harriman's  views  reasonably  well.  I  know 
Mr.  Ballard's  views  quite  well,  and  I  know  Mr.  Garretson's  and  Mr.  Delano's 
views.  I  do  not  know  Prof.  Commons's  views  as  well.  I  have  had  less  talk 
with  him  than  with  anyone  else.  I  think  we  will  save  two  hours  by  waiting 
until  Mr.  Ballard  and  Mr.  Garretson  are  here. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  I  met  Representative  MacDonald,  of  Michigan,  at 
the  House  of  Representatives  the  other  day,  and  he  said  he  wanted  to  come 
here,  so  he  came  down  to  see  me,  and  he  saw  Mr.  Lauck  and  myself.  He  said 
he  went  to  see  the  President  and  asked  him  if  he  would  push  a  congressional 
investigation  of  conditions  in  Calumet.  The  President  did  not  give  him  any 
promise  one  way  or  the  other.  He  said  he  was  very  much  interested  and  very 
much  beset  by  the  condition  there,  but  he  said  to  him,  "  We  have  an  industrial 
commission  now  from  which  I  am  hoping  great  things,  and  I  think  in  all 
probability  we  are  going  to  throw  light  on  this  very  situation  that  you  are 
talking  about " ;  but  Mr.  MacDonald  does  not  want  us  to  do  that.  Did  you  not 
gather  that,  Mr.  Lauck? 

Mr.  LAUCK.  Yes. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  He  wants  a  congressional  investigation. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  have  talked  with  him  about  it.  I  think  the 
congressional  view  of  the  matter  would  be  largely  political. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  the  administration  looks  largely  to  this  commission 
to  do  some  real  work? 

Commissioner  HABBIMAN.  I  know  it  absolutely. 

(At  this  point  Commissioner  Ballard  returned  to  the  conference  room.) 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Representative  Lewis,  of  Maryland,  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Labor  in  the  House,  who  is  the  father  of  the  parcel-post  bill, 
and  who  is  interested  in  the  public  ownership  of  the  telegraphs  and  so  on,  was 
very  much  interested  in  this  bill,  and  was  a  member  of  the  committee  that  re- 
ported the  bill,  when  Secretary  Wilson,  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  was 
chairman  of  that  committee  in  the  House,  and  Mr.  Lewis,  who  is  a  very  bright 
man,  is  very  much  interested  in  coming  before  this  committee. 

Mr.  LAUCK.  We  tried  to  get  hold  of  him  for  this  meeting,  but  he  is  out  of 
town. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  He  spoke  to  me,  and  wanted  me  to  arrange  some 
time  for  him  to  have  a  chance  to  talk  to  a  subcommittee  with  regard  to  some 
matters  that  he  wanted  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  commission. 


398          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

(At  this  point  an  informal  recess  was  taken,  after  which  the  commission 
reassembled. ) 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  move  that  the  matter  of  furniture  for  the  offices  of 
this  commission  be  left  to  a  committee  to  be  appointed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Prof.  Commons  says  that  we  can  get  all  the  room  we  want  in 
the  Commerce  Building  for  60  cents  a  foot,  and  we  are  paying  $1.20  a  foot  here. 
Suppose  we  leave  that  in  the  hands  of  a  committee  to  do  what  is  best.  Mr. 
Delano  and  Mr.  Weinstock 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  think  you  had  better  leave  me  off  the  committee. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  would  not  be  practicable  for  me  to  act  on  that 
committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then,  how  about  this  suggestion,  that  the  committee  consist 
of  Mr.  O'Connell,  Mrs.  Harriman,  and  Mr.  Ballard? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  I  suggest  Mr.  Lennon  in  my  place.  • 

The  CHAIRMAN.   Inasmuch  as  you  are  the  resident  commissioner. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  I  have  so  many  things  to  catch  up  with  that  I 
would  rather  not  do  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  mean  the  matter  of  finding  new  offices? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  whole  question. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  These  quarters  are  scarcely  large  enough,  anyhow, 
and  we  can  get  twice  as  much  space  for  the  same  amount  of  money  in  the  Com- 
merce Building,  as  I  have  been  informed. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.   Is  that  the  Interstate  Commerce  Building? 

The  CHAIRMAN.   The  Department  of  Commerce  Building. 

Mr.  LATJCK.  There  is  another  point  in  that  connection.  We  might  get  quarters 
for  nothing,  so  a  committee  ought  to  be  empowered  to  look  into  that.  The  War 
Department  may  give  us  rooms  for  nothing. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  I  do  not  know  whether  Secretary  Garrison  was 
serious  or  joking,  but  he  said  he  did  not  know  why  we  did  not  come  to  the  War 
Department ;  that  the  Red  Cross  people  had  their  offices  there. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  move  that  a  committee  be  appointed  with  full 
power  to  act. 

Mr.  LAUCK.  The  old  Economy  and  Efficiency  Commission  had  11  rooms  in  a 
building  across  the  street  from  the  War  Department,  and  I  understand  those 
rooms  are  going  to  be  vacant. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Suppose  we  let  Mr.  O'Connell  and  Mr.  Ballard,  in  connection 
with  Mr.  Lauck,  go  ahead  and  do  the  thing.  I  will  add  Mr.  Lennon  to  that 
committee.  If  there  if  no  objection,  I  will  appoint  a  committee  of  three,  con- 
sisting of  Messrs.  O'Connell,  Ballard,  and  Lennon,  to  take  up  the  question  of 
quarters  and  furniture. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Are  we  empowered  to  go  ahead  and  do  what  is 
necessary  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.   Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Might  it  not  be  well  to  give  them  authority  to  get 
whatever  furniture  may  be  needed? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.  •  That  is  your  authority,  to  secure  furniture,  and  with 
full  power  to  act. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.   I  call  for  the  question. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  there  is  no  objection  that  will  be  agreed  to,  and  that  com- 
mittee is  appointed. 

Now,  what  is  the  pleasure  of  the  commission  with  reference  to  this  program? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  it  not  be  a  good  idea  for  us  to  go  into  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  and  not  have  anything  taken  down,  in  the  discussion  of  this 
program,  whether  we  are  going  to  take  up  the  question  of  strikes,  etc.,  so  that, 
if  we  wish,  all  of  us  may  change  our  minds? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Just  to  find  out  where  we  are  at. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  have  some  pretty  definite  ideas  on  the  subject. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  I  have  not. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  I  want  to  change  my  mind  if  necessary. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  moved  that  we  go  into  committee  of  the  whole,  without 
the  stenographer. 

(The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Whereupon,  at  4  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  commission  resolved  itself  into  committee 
of  the  whole,  in  executive  session.) 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  IN  COLLECTIVE 
BARGAINING 

(For  exhibits  under  this  subject,  see  pages  748  to  761.) 


399 


COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Monday,  April  6, 

The  commission  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  in  the  assembly  room  of  the  Shore- 
ham  Hotel. 

Present:  Commissioners  John  R.  Commons  (acting  chairman),  Mrs.  J. 
Borden  Harriman,  Frederick  A.  Delano,  Harris  Weinstock,  S.  Thruston  Bal- 
lard,  John  B.  Lennon,  and  James  O'Connell. 

Present  also  for  the  commission :  Mr.  W.  O.  Thompson,  counsel ;  Mr.  W.  Jett 
Lauck,  managing  expert;  Mr.  George  E.  Barnett,  special  investigator;  Mr. 
F.  H.  Bird,  superintendent  of  Division  of  Public  Agencies;  and  Mr.  B.  M. 
Manly,  superintendent  Division  of  Industrial  Investigations. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  commission  have  been  waiting  for  one  or  two 
witnesses,  but  as  they  have  not  appeared,  we  will  go  ahead  to  save  time. 

The  hearings  this  week  are  mainly  on  the  subject  of  trade  agreements  in  col- 
lective bargaining  with  reference  to  associations  which  have  had  a  practical  ex- 
perience in  that  matter  during  the  last  10  or  20  years. 

We  want  to  bring  out  such  things  as  the  personal  experience  which  these 
gentlemen  have  had  in  these  contracts  will  show — what  are  the  essentials  of 
the  different  agreements,  the  methods  of  negotiation,  how  they  are  brought 
together,  the  effects  on  the  profits  and  liberties  of  the  employers,  and  on  the 
wages  and  on  the  industry  generally ;  such  difficulties  as  might  arise  in  the 
way  of  carrying  out  agreements ;  if  arbitrators  or  odd  men  are  chosen,  in  what 
way  and  what  are  their  powers,  and  whether  a  system  works  well  with  arbitra- 
tors or  without  arbitrators,  and  what  questions  are  excluded  from  arbitration; 
the  question  of  the  extent  of  organization  on  both  sides  that  is  necessary  to  make 
it  successful,  and  then  suggestions  for  improvements,  whatever  the  witness 
from  his  own  knowledge  and  experience,  might  have  to  offer,  in  order  that  the 
commission,  in  its  final  report,  might  make  some  substantial  suggestions  or 
recommendations  on  this  subject  based  on  actual  experience  of  different  or- 
ganizations on  agreements  that  have  been  successful  and  on  agreements  that 
have  failed. 

The  adviser  of  the  commission,  Mr.  Thompson,  has  charge  of  the  hearings 
and  will  call  the  witnesses,  and  we  will  now  proceed  with  the  hearing. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  first  to  call  Mr.  Mitchell. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JOHN  MITCHELL. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Mitchell,  for  the  purpose  of  the  record,  will  you  kindly 
give  the  reporter  your  name  and  address,  your  present  business,  and  your  con- 
nection, past  and  present,  with  the  mining  field,  particularly  the  anthracite 
field,  or  both  the  anthracite  and  bituminous  fields? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  My  name  is  John  Mitchell.  I  am  now  a  member  of  the  State 
Working  Men's  Compensation  Commission  of  New  York.  By  the  way,  I  have 
only  held  that  position  for  the  past  few  days. 

From  1898  until  1908,  a  period  of  10  years,  I  was  president  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America,  and  for  the  past  15  years,  ending  with  the  1st  of 
January,  I  was  second  vice  president  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  please  give,  as  far  as  you  know  it,  the  history  of 
trade  agreements  in  the  anthracite  coal  fields,  and  your  own  connection  with 
such  agreements? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  May  I  preface  the  testimony  by  saying  that  the  anthracite 
coal  field  does  not  offer  the  best  field  for  the  discussion  of  trade  agreements. 
The  bituminous  field  is  the  best  example  of  the  working  of  trade  agreements 
in  the  coal  industry. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  We  had  intended  to  cover  both  fields,  Mr.  Mitchell,  with  you. 

38819°— 16 26  401 


402          EEPOKT    OF    COMMISSION    ON"    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  May  I  start  with  the  bituminous  field,  then? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  may  start  with  the  bituminous  field,  if  you  prefer. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  The  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  is  an  amalgamation  of 
two  rival  international  unions,  each  claiming  jurisdiction  over  men  employed  in 
the  coal-mining  industry. 

In  the  month  of  January,  1890,  the  National  Protective  Union  and  District 
Assembly  135  of  the  Knights  of  Labor,  both  organizations  claiming  and  exercis- 
ing jurisdiction  of  the  coal  industry,  were  amalgamated  into  what  is  now 
known  as  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 

I  am  not  familiar  with  all  the  efforts  that  were  made  prior  to  1886  to  nego- 
tiate trade  agreements  in  the  coal  industry,  but  from  1886  until  1890  there  were 
agreements  to  negotiate  between  mine  owners  and  mine  workers  in  various 
parts  of  the  country,  and  attempts  were  made  from  time  to  time  to  arrange 
conferences  for  the  purpose  of  making  agreements  covering  the  whole  field 
of  mining ;  that  is,  what  we  term  interstate  wage  conferences. 

However,  the  efforts  were  not  very  successful.  In  1897,  at  a  time  when  wages 
had  fallen  so  low  in  the  mining  industry  that  men  were  not  able  to  earn  a 
living,  and  when  mine  owners  were,  because  of  the  demoralization  of  the  trade, 
unable  to  make  profits  upon  their  investments,  and  at  a  time  when  it  seemed 
impossible  to  arrange  conferences  between  mine  owners  and  mine  workers  for 
the  purpose  of  negotiating  wage  conferences,  the  miners  decided  that  it  would 
be  necessary  to  inaugurate  a  strike  in  order  to  compel,  if  possible,  the  mine 
owners  to  meet  an  interstate  convention  for  the  purpose  of  negotiating  a  wage 
agreement,  and  on  the  4th  of  July,  1897,  a  national  strike  of  coal  miners  was 
ordered. 

May  I  say  at  this  point  that  at  that  time  there  were  but  9,000  organized  coal 
miners  in  the  United  States,  and  the  industry  at  that  time  employed  approxi- 
mately 400,000  men. 

The  miners  adopted  as  a  slogan  that  "  We  might  as  well  starve  idle  as  starve 
working  "  and  the  response  to  the  call  for  a  strike  was  general  throughout  what 
we  call  the  central  competitive  coal  field ;  that  is  to  say,  western  Pennsylvania, 
Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  some  States  west  of  the  Missouri  River. 

After  striking  for  some  two  months,  and  in  some  places  for  four  months,  a 
settlement  was  arranged,  and  an  advance  in  wages  secured. 

One  condition  of  that  settlement  of  that  strike  was  that  in  the  spring  of  1898 
the  mine  owners  of  western  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois  were  to 
meet  with  the  represetatives  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  in  inter- 
state convention  for  the  purpose  of  making  an  agreement. 

In  the  month  of  February,  1898,  there  convened  in  the  city  of  Chicago  the 
representatives  of  the  miners  and  mine  owners  of  the  four  States  just  men- 
tioned, and  at  that  conference  the  first  general  trade  agreement  between  the 
miners  and  mine  owners  was  made  and  effected. 

I  have  here,  and  can  furnish  for  the  record,  the  organization  of  that  conven- 
tion, and  I  think  perhaps  it  would  be  of  great  value  to  your  investigation  if 
the  record  were  to  show  just  how  a  wage  conference  is  organized. 

The  agreement  made  in  this  Chicago  conference  was  for  a  period  of  one  year, 
with  an  agreement  that  at  the  expiration  of  the  contract,  or  prior  to  its  expira- 
tion, there  was  to  be  another  conference  of  the  parties  to  the  contract  for  the 
purpose  of  considering  the  making  of  another  contract.  Those  conferences  have 
been  held  annually  or  biennially  from  that  time  until  now. 

It  is  true  that  upon  the  expiration  of  some  of  these  agreements  with'  the 
miners  and  mine  owners  they  have  failed  to  renew  their  contracts,  and  that 
their  interstate  joint  conferences  have  temporarily  dissolved,  making  it  neces- 
sary to  negotiate  the  agreements  by  districts — that  is,  by  States,  rather  than  by 
interstate  conferences — but  in  every  instance  a  year  later  or  two  years  later 
the  interstate  joint  conference  movement  has  been  rehabilitated  and  negotiations 
reopened  and  contracts  made. 

In  the  mining  industry,  which,  by  the  way,  is  perhaps  the  greatest  experiment 
that  has  ever  been  made  in  the  matter  of  trade  agreements — that  is  to  say,  the  con- 
tracts affect  more  men  than  in  any  other  industry  in  the  United  States ;  in  the 
States  of  Illinois,  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  western  Pennsylvania  there  are  employed 
approximately  200,000  men — these  contracts  that  are  made  in  interstate  conven- 
tion determine  the  wages  and  conditions  of  employment  for  all  these  men. 
Furthermore,  the  contracts  fixed  the  basis  upon  which  other  contracts  are  nego- 
tiated in  other  States  and  other  districts. 

In  1903,  following  the  negotiation  of  the  contract  between  the  miners  and 
mine  owners  of  the  central  competitive  field — that  is,  western  Pennsylvania, 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  403 

Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois — the  operators  and  miners  of  what  we  call  the 
southwest  district — that  is,  Arkansas,  Oklahoma  (then  Indian  Territory),  Mis- 
souri, and  Kansas — met  in  interstate  convention  and  formulated  an  agreement. 
That-  movement  in  the  Southwest  still  continues,  and  either  annually  or  bien- 
nially contracts  are  made  affecting  the  mines  of  all  those  districts. 

In  the  eastern  part  of  the  country,  central  Pennsylvania,  which  employs  ap- 
proximately 100,000  men,  they  have  entered  into  contractual  relations,  and 
agreements  are  made  annually  there. 

In  the  Southern  States  agreements  are  made  between  the  miners  a"nd  oper- 
ators of  separate  States.     There  is  no  interstate  movement  in  the  South. 
In  Michigan  and  the  North  they  have  interstate  agreements. 
In  later  years  this  process  of  making  wage  agreements  and  establishing  in- 
dustrial relations  has  been  carried  into  the  Northwestern  States.     At  the  pres- 
ent time  the  States  of  Wyoming  and  Montana  constitute  one  trade  or  scale 
district,  and  the  State  of  Washington  is  a  separate  district. 

The  process  has  been  carried  beyond  the  confines  of  the  United  States,  and 
applies  in  many  parts  of  Canada. 

So  that  in  the  United  States  at  the  present  time  there  are  approximately 
750,000  mine  workers  employed,  and  I  estimate — it  must  be  a  rough  estimate, 
because  we  have  no  means  of  getting  the  exact  figures — that  525,000  mine  work- 
ers have  their  wages  and  conditions  of  employment  determined  and  fixed  by 
agreement  with  mine  owners. 

In  the  organization  of  a  convention  of  this  kind  the  miners  are  represented 
by  delegates  from  their  local  unions.  If  I  may  picture  just  one  conference, 
for  instance,  it  is  customary  for  the  miners  and  mine  owners  in  the  central 
competitive  field  to  meet  in  the  city  of  Indianapolis.  The  miners  are  selected 
by  their  local  unions,  and  the  mine  owners  select  their  representatives  through 
their  associations,  or  they  may  appear  as  individual  owners  of  mines  where 
there  is  no  organization  of  mine  owners. 

The  mine  owners  are  seated  on  one  side  of  a  great  hall  and  the  mine  work- 
ers' delegates  are  seated  on  the  other  side.  By  agreement  each  State  and  party 
to  the  conference  is  entitled  to  four  votes ;  that  is  to  say,  the  miners  of  west- 
ern Pennsylvania  have  four  votes,  and  the  operators  of  western  Pennsylvania 
have  four  votes;  the  same  for  Ohio  and  the  same  for  Indiana  and  the  same 
for  Illinios. 

No  motion  may  be  declared  car.ried  unless  it  receives  the  unanimous  vote  of 
all  the  parties  to  the  conference.  That  is  to  say,  a  motion  to  fix  wages  or 
hours  of  labor  or  that  relates  to  any  main  or  principal  question  must  receive 
the  unanimous  vote  of  all  parties  to  the  conference;  otherwise  the  motion  is 
declared  lost. 

This  process,  as  you  will  readily  understand,  protects  the  interests  of  the 
miners  and  mine  owners,  because  no  combination  can  be  made  in  tf.e  conven- 
tion between  the  miners  and  mine  operators  of  one  State  that  would  impose 
a  wage  scale  upon  the  operators  and  mine  owners  of  another  State  that  they 
were  unwilling  to  accept. 

There  is  no  arrangement  made  for  the  arbitration  of  a  question  of  dispute, 
should  they  fail  to  reach  an  agreement;  and  that  feature,  of  placing  the  re- 
sponsibility squarely  upon  the  parties  to  the  dispute,  the  parties  to  the  confer- 
ence, is,  in  my  judgment,  the  most  important  feature  of  the  conference. 

It  is  often  suggested  that  provision  should  be  made  for  the  arbitration  of  a 
dispute  should  the  parties  to  the  dispute  be  unable  to  reach  an  agreement ;  but 
my  own  experience  has  satisfied  me  that  such  a  provision  would  lead,  inevita- 
bly, to  the  disruption  of  the  whole  movement.  When  men  have  the  responsi- 
bility upon  themselves,  and  they  can  not  escape  it  by  referring  it  to  some  other 
tribunal,  they  are  much  more  likely  to  exercise  their  responsibility  than  they 
would  be  if  they  could  escape  it  by  referring  the  matter  to  some  outside  party. 
The  practicability  of  this  method  of  doing  business  is  demonstrated  rather 
conclusively  by  the  fact  that  there  have  been  very  few  disagreements  in  any 
of  these  wage  conferences.  If  there  have  been  disagreements,  they  have  been 
only  temporary  suspensions  of  negotiations,  and  before  the  scale  actually  ex- 
pired, or  before  there  was  any  prolonged  suspension  of  work,  the  parties  have 
met  again  in  conference  and  have  succeeded  in  making  an  agreement. 

In  1902,  or,  rather,  in  1900,  an  attempt  was  made  to  extend  this  method  of 
regulating  trade  relations  with  employers  to  the  anthracite  coal  fields,  a  dis- 
trict which  at  that  time  had  147,000  men  employed.  We  were  unable  to  per- 
suade the  mine  owners  that  they  should  enter  into  contractual  relations  with 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  and  a  strike  ensued  that  lasted  for  six 


404          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

weeks  and  was  settled  by  the  owners  conceding  some  advances  in  wages  and 
improvements  in  conditions  of  employment,  but  no  agreement  was  made. 

In  1902  another  strike  occurred  in  the  anthracite  fields  which  resulted  in  a 
failure  to  negotiate  a  settlement,  and  that  strike  was  settled  by  the  intervention 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  the  appointment  of  a  tribunal  which 
was  known  as  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission,  which  after  a  very 
exhaustive  investigation  made  an  award  increasing  wages  and  reducing  the 
hours  of  labor  and  improving  the  general  conditions  of  the  employment  of  the 
miners. 

That  award  was  to  be  effective  for  a  period  of  three  years.  At  the  end  of 
that  time  negotiations  were  opened  with  the  anthracite  coal  mine  owners,  and 
from  that  time  until  this  the  wages  and  conditions  of  employment  in  the  anthra- 
cite coal  field  have  been  determined  by  agreement  with  the  representatives  of 
the  mine  workers. 

It  is  necessary  at  this  point  to  say  that  in  the  anthracite  field,  which  differ- 
entiates somewhat  from  the  bituminous  coal  field,  the  agreement  is  not  made 
officially  with  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America.  The  interestate  mine 
owners — that  is,  the  presidents  of  the  railroads  that  operate  the  mines  in  the 
anthracite  field — insist,  first,  that  the  agreement  shall  be  made,  but  they  will 
not  make  the  agreement  officially  with  that  organization.  They  make  it  with 
the  officers  of  the  organizations,  but  the  agreements  are  signed  individually ; 
for  instance,  in  signing  the  agreement  that  I  negotiated  with  them  in  1906  I 
signed  my  name  "  John  Mitchell  "  and  struck  out  "  President  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America."  That,  I  take  it,  is  done  in  order  to  save  the  dignity 
of  the  mine  owners. 

Perhaps  I  am  talking  without  following  your  scheme? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now  that  you  are  speaking  about  the  anthracite  field,  I  will 
ask  you  wrhat  changes  were  made  in  the  agreement  of  1902  by  the  agreements 
of  1906,  1909,  and  1912,  if  you  know? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  The  agreement  of  1903,  which  was  the  award  of  the  Anthra- 
cite Coal  Strike  Commission,  was  renewed  in  1906  with  only  slight  modifica- 
tions as  to  the  methods  of  adjusting  grievances.  There  was  no  change  made 
in  the  wages  or  hours  of  labor,  but  some  better  understanding  was  had  as  to 
the  recognition  of  committees  for  the  purpose  of  adjusting  local  grievances 
that  arose  from  time  to  time. 

The  agreement  of  1909  in  the  anthracite  coaj  field  was  practically  a  renewal 
of  the  agreement  of  1906.  The  agreement  of  1912,  about  which  Mr.  Hayes  will 
give  better  evidence  when  he  appears  on  the  stand,  provided  for  an  advance  in 
wages — in  figures  10  per  cent,  but  in  money,  in  actual  increase  in  wages,  about 
5.6  per  cent;  that  is  to  say,  under  agreements  that  had  been  negotiated  prior 
to  that  time,  or,  rather,  under  the  award  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Com- 
mission, a  sliding  scale  of  wages  was  established.  A  minimum  was  fixed,  and 
for  each  5  cents  a  ton  in  the  selling  price  of  coal  in  New  York  Harbor  or  at 
tidewater  the  miners  were  to  receive  1  per  cent  advance  in  their  wages,  and 
the  result  of  that  sliding  scale  aggregated  to  the  mine  workers  an  average  ad- 
vance of  4.4  per  cent,  or  4.6  per  cent,  I  believe,  so  that  the  advance  secured  by 
the  1912  increase  amounted  in  actual  gain  to  the  men  to  5.4  per  cent. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  know,  Mr.  Mitchell,  the  conditions  of  the  agreement 
of  1912  with  reference  to  the  grievance  committee,  or  shall  Mr.  Hayes  tell 
that? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  He  will  be  more  familiar  with  that,  Mr.  Thompson,  than  I  am. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  it  should  be  that  that  agreement  of  1912  provided  for  a  dif- 
ferent form  of  grievance  committee,  and  one  of  the  things  provided  for  in  that 
agreement  in  that  respect  was  an  umpire  finally  to  pass  upon  grievances  aris- 
ing thereunder,  would  that  mitigate  against  the  principle  which  you  have  an- 
nounced with  reference  to  the  method  of  arriving  at  interstate  agreements  be- 
tween the  bodies  of  miners  as  a  whole  and  the  operators  as  a  whole,  in  the 
bituminous  field,  where  the  responsibility  is  placed  directly  on  the  operators 
and  on  the  delegates  of  the  miners,  who  had  to  work  their  way  out  thereunder? 
This,  I  would  understand,  applies  to  purely  local  grievances  arising  at  the  dif- 
ferent mines. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes ;  the  provision  of  the  interstate  agreement  with  reference 
to  difficulties  or  questions  which  can  not  be  adjusted  by  conciliation  was  put 
in  the  agreement  by  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission.  That  is  not  a  new 
arrangement.  The  agreement  of  1912  is  supposed  to  be  an  improvement  on 
any  previous  agreement.  There  is  no  question  about  that.  It  was  a  decided 
improvement.  The  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission,  in  its  award,  provided 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  405 

that  any  grievance  growing  out  of  interpretation  of  the  award  and  confined 
exclusively  to  disputes  arising  out  of  interpretation  of  the  award,  should  be 
referred  first  to  a  board  of  conciliation,  a  board  composed  of  one  mine  worker 
from  each  of  the  districts  comprising  the  anthracite  coal  field — three  in  num- 
ber— and  one  mine  owner ;  and  if  they  failed  to  reach  an  agreement  as  to  a 
correct  interpretation  of  the  agreement  or  settlement  of  the  dispute,  then  it 
should  be  referred  to  an  umpire  to  be  selected  by  the  conciliation  board.  If 
they  failed  to  agree  upon  an  umpire,  then  Judge  Gray,  of  the  United  States 
district  court,  who  was  chairman  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission, 
was  authorized  to  appoint  an  umpire.  Originally  they  were  unable  to  agree; 
the  board  of  conciliation  was  unable  to  agree,  and  Judge  Gray  appointed 
Charles  P.  Neill,  then  Commissioner  of  Labor,  to  act  as  umpire ;  and  Mr.  Neill 
has  acted  as  umpire  in  other  disputes  from  time  to  time  until  the  present,  I 
believe.  But,  as  I  say,  the  function  of  this  umpire  was  not  to  settle  all  disputes 
between  mine  owners  and  mine  workers,  but  to  settle  only  such  disputes  as 
grew  out  of  the  interpretation  of  the  application  of  the  award  of  the  Anthracite 
Coal  Strike  Commission. 

That  situation  in  the  anthracite  coal  field  would  have  little  relation  to  what 
I  say  in  a  general  way  about  the  importance  of  requiring  the  parties  directly 
at  interest  to  settle  their  own  wage  scales,  because  the  umpire  provided  for  by 
the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission  does  not  have  authority  to  fix  wages, 
and  no  question  of  dispute  as  to  what  the  wage  scale  shall  be  is  referred  to 
him. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  regard  to  the  settlement  of  disputes  arising  in  individual 
mines — say,  for  instance,  in  the  anthracite  field,  where  arbitration  is  resorted 
to  upon  such  questions  as  the  discharge  of  a  man,  claims  of  discrimination,  and 
other  questions  of  the  kind  which  may  arise  as  to  any  employee — what  is  your 
opinion  as  to  the  advisability  of  having  an  umpire  finally  decide  matters  in  case 
the  parties  can  not  agree  on  the  basis  of  the  conciliation  program? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  in  the  anthracite  field  perhaps  that  is  advisable.  I 
would  question  the  advisability  of  adopting  that  system  in  the  bituminous  field. 
We  tried  that  in  some  of  our  bituminous  districts.  For  instance,  in  one  of  our 
southwestern  agreements  with  the  operators  of  Arkansas,  Oklahoma,  Kansas, 
and  Missouri,  we  did  provide  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  local  disputes, 
such  as  the  dismissal  or  the  discharge  of  men,  etc.  We  applied  it  in  this  way, 
that  if  the  board  of  conciliation,  or  reference  board,  as  we  termed  it,  could 
not  adjust  the  matter  themselves,  then  it  went  to  an  umpire  who  was  agreed 
upon  in  advance,  and  who  was  paid  an  annual  salary  jointly  by  the  miners  and 
mine  operators.  But  our  experience  there  seemed  to  discourage  a  continuance 
of  that  system.  But  it  was  found  that  the  mine  owners  and  miners  would  not 
agree  upon  a  settlement  of  a  dispute  if  agreeing  brought  some  censure  with  it. 

For  instance,  the  representatives  of  the  miners'  union  were  not  disposed  to 
settle  many  cases  that  they  could  settle,  because  they  could  shoulder  the  re- 
sponsibility off  onto  the  umpire.  The  representatives  of  the  mine  owners 
were  in  exactly  the  same  situation.  Rather  than  yield  at  times  a  point  when 
the  miners  \vere  right  in  their  demands  they  would  say,  "  We  will  send  it  to 
the  referee."  The  result  was  there  was  interminable  delay  in  securing  deci- 
sions from  the  referee.  The  situation  grew  so  serious  that  many  local  strikes 
resulted,  as  the  miners  became  impatient  waiting  for  a  decision  from  the 
referee.  The  mine  owners,  it  is  charged — though  I  can  not  say — sometimes 
closed  down  their  mines  as  a  means  of  enforcing  their  own  interpretation  of 
the  agreement,  because  they  could  not  wait  for  the  decision  of  the  referee. 

In  the  bituminous  field  I  question  the  wisdom  of  providing  for  the  reference 
of  local  disputes  to  boards  of  arbitration.  I  think  the  better  way  is  to  provide 
machinery  for  the  adjustment  of  grievances,  and  that  the  men  who  shall  act 
shall  be  the  representatives  of  the  mine  owners  and  the  mine  workers 
themselves. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  method  carried  on  in  Illinois  ?  Do  not  they  have 
an  arbitrator  there  finally  for  local  disputes? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  they  have  a  joint  grievance  committee  to  which  all  mat- 
ters in  dispute  may  be  referred.  In  fact,  in  Illinois  and  some  of  the  bituminous 
States  they  have  courts.  It  will  be  necessary  to  know  that  our  organization 
is  first  international,  and  then  we  have  district  organizations,  which  usually 
follow  the  lines  of  the  States,  and  then  within  those  we  have  subdistricts.  If 
a  grievance  arises  at  a  mine  within  one  of  those  subdistricts,  the  subdistrict 
officers  and  representatives  of  the  mine  owners  try  to  adjust  it.  If  they  fail, 
it  goes  on  up  to  the  district  organization.  If  they  fail  to  adjust  it,  then  it  is 


406          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

referred  to  a  man  who  is  called  a  commissioner  for  the  coal  operators'  associa- 
tion and  to  the  president  of  the  district  union.  If  they  fail  to  adjust  it,  it 
goes  to  a  joint  board  which  represents  the  executive  committee  of  the  mine 
owners'  association  and  the  executive  committee  of  the  mine  workers'  organi- 
zation. That  is  the  last  court,  the  final  court.  If  they  can  not  settle  it,  then 
the  parties  are  at  liberty  to  take  what  they  call  independent  action ;  that  is, 
the  mine  workers  may  give  up  their  jobs  if  they  go  on  strike  or  the  mine  owners 
may  close  the  mines.  It  rarely  occurs  that  it  is  necessary  to  close  the  mines  in 
that  way. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  many  grievances  arise  from  the  men  in  the  mines?  Is 
that  a  matter  which  is  constantly  being  brought  before  these  boards — indi- 
vidual grievances,  for  instance? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes;  a  great  many  grievances  arise.  That  is  to  say,  there 
are  a  great  many  questions  of  dispute  that  it  is  necessary  to  refer  either  to 
the  local  committees  or  to  the  State  committees  for  adjustment;  but  in  pro- 
portion to  the  total  number  of  men  employed  and  the  total  number  of  mines 
there  are  not  so  many.  I  mean  to  say,  if  you  speak  of  it  in  terms  of  proportion, 
there  are  not  so  many ;  but  if  you  speak  of  it  purely  as  to  the  number  of 
grievances  themselves  there  are  a  great  many — or  it  would  seem  that  there  are 
a  great  many. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion,  the  machinery  that  now  exists  in  the  bitu- 
minous coal  fields  for  the  settlement  of  differences  is  perfect,  in  your  mind? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No ;  I  would  not  say  it  is  perfect,  Mr.  Thompson.  It  is  really 
a  very  serious  problem.  It  is  a  question  that  has  caused  the  representatives 
of  the  miners'  union  the  greatest  possible  concern ;  it  is  a  question  that  has 
caused  the  mine  owners  the  most  serious  thought.  In  that  I  think  I  speak 
as  well  for  my  successors  as  for  myself,  that  the  question  of  finding  some 
method  by  which  local  disputes  may  be  adjusted  without  suspension  of  work 
is  about  the  most  serious  question  we  have  to  consider;  but  as  yet  I  have  not 
been  able,  and  I  never  was  able,  to  evolve  any  suggestion  that  was  an  improve- 
ment upon  our  present  method,  and  it  is  faulty.  It  is  faulty  for  the  reason 
that  it  sometimes  happens,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  mine  owners  and 
mine  workers  are  in  perfect  accord  on  all  questions  of  wrages  and  hours  of 
labor,  and  that  they  are  on  contractural  relations  with  each  other,  not  only  as 
regards  their  business  relations  but  also  regarding  their  personal  relations, 
that  they  are  fair  and  cordial,  it  sometimes  happens  that  a  local  dispute  arises 
that  could  not  have  been  provided  against ;  that  is  to  say,  some  question  comes 
into  dispute  which  was  not  provided  for  in  the  agreement  and  could  not  have 
been  foreseen  by  the  parties  in  the  making  of  the  agreement  when  it  was  made, 
and  it  may  lead  to  a  suspension  of  work. 

This,  of  course,  is  a  most  serious  thing.  I  have  always  believed  that  what 
was  needed  more  than  anything  else  was  education,  that  the  mine  owners  and 
mine  workers  equally  require  education  as  to  the  importance  of  keeping 
inviolate  these  agreements  that  they  enter  into,  and  I  think  the  mine  owners 
are  coming  more  and  more  to  understand  that  these  agreements,  wThich  are 
based  purely  upon  the  good  faith  of  the  parties,  must  be  kept  just  as  in- 
violate as  that  one  man  should  keep  his  word  when  he  gives  it  to  another, 
for,  after  all,  my  own  interpretation  of  the  contract  is  that  it  is  merely  a 
promise  of  one  man  to  another — "  we  are  going  to  wrorl$  under  these  condi- 
tions for  a  given  period."  Of  course,  there  is  no  recourse  in  the  courts  about 
it ;  it  is  purely  an  agreement  of  honor. 

But  I  think,  as  time  goes  by,  the  workingmen  and  employers  more  and  more 
will  become  to  understand  that  their  own  interests,  as  well  as  the  interests  of 
society,  demand,  first,  that  the  agreement  shall  be  made,  and,  second,  that  it 
shall  be  kept.  Then  we  will  have  a  less  number  of  local  strikes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  if  you  are  acquainted  with  the  pro- 
tocol arrangement  in  New  York  by  which  there  is  a  committee  that  is  ap- 
pointed to  take  up  for  immediate  action  these  matters  that  arise  from  day  to 
day  and  give  them  practically  immediate  hearing;  are  you  acquainted  with 
that  agreement? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes ;  I  know  in  a  general  way  about  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  that  machinery  would  work  with  reference  to  the  cloak 
industry,  and  provide  a  way  out,  would  that  be  serviceable  as  to  these  matters 
of  dispute  in  the  coal  fields  which  you  say  are  matters  of  grave  concern? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  not.  It  happens  in  the  cloak  industry  in  New  York, 
for  instance,  that  the  questions  that  arise  there  would  never  ariso  in  the  coal 
industry.  For  instance,  in  the  coal  industry  the  question  of  wages  is  abso- 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  407 

lutely  determined  during  the  life  of  the  contract.  In  the  bituminous  coal 
fields  there  can  be  no  change  in  the  wages ;  but  in  the  cloak  industry  every 
new  fashion  that  comes  in,  every  new  design  of  a  garment,  must  have  a  price 
fixed  upon  it,  and  that  may  be  a  question  of  dispute. 

Again,  under  the  protocol  the  question  of  whether  a  man  is  in  the  union  or 
not  is  or  may  be  a  matter  of  dispute.  In  the  coal  industry  no  such  question 
can  arise.  None  of  these  questions  can  arise  in  the  coal  fields,  because  all  the 
men  in  the  bituminous  coal  fields  are  in  the  union  under  contract,  and,  as  I 
say,  the  wages  are  absolutely  determined  in  the  agreement. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  tell  us  what  kind  of  questions  do  arise  that  cause 
local  strikes  and  are  the  sources  of  concern  to  operators  and  mine  owners? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Questions  of  this  kind:  Sometimes  the  miners  allege  that 
the  scales  upon  which  their  coal  is  weighed  are  out  of  order,  that  they  are 
not  recording  correctly  the  weight  of  coal.  There  is  a  question  that  has 
caused  a  number  of  local  strikes.  For  instance,  in  Illinois  the  State  provides 
for  a  man  whose  duty  it  is  to  test  scales.  It  may  be  possible  that  that  weigh- 
man,  that  tester,  can  not  come  into  the  mine  for  several  days,  and  the  miners 
allege  that  during  all  those  days  they  are  not  getting  credit  for  full  weight, 
and  they  stop  work. 

I  am  not  attempting  to  justify  their  stopping  work,  but  they  do  sometimes 
stop  work.  That  is  a  question  that  might  cause  a  strike  at  any  moment.  Then 
there  is  the  question  of  discharging  men.  Under  our  agreement  with  the 
mine  owners  the  question  as  to  the  working  force  is  left  exclusively  to  the 
mine  owner,  and  his  right  to  discharge  is  not  disputed ;  and  it  is  provided  in 
the  agreement  that  if  a  man  alleges  that  he  has  been  unjustly  discharged,  he 
may  ask  for  an  investigation,  and  if  it  is  determined  that  he  was  discharged 
without  cause,  the  mine  owner  is  required  to  pay  him  for  the  time  that  he 
has  been  idle,  pay  him  his  wages. 

:  Frequently  a  dispute  arises  as  to  whether  a  man  was  justly  or  unjustly  dis- 
charged. He  may  allege  that  he  was  discharged  without  cause,  and  some  of 
the  men,  feeling  that  he  was  correct  in  it,  may  go  out  at  once  and  strike,  and 
demand  his  reinstatement. 

Then,  again,  there  is  the  question  of  ventilation;  the  men  might  say  that 
the  mine  was  not  ventilated  according  to  law,  what  according  to  our  law  would 
be  considered  bad  air,  and  the  men  walk  out. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  system  that  is  maintained  in  the  mines  as  the 
result  of  the  agreement? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Using  Illinois  again,  in  order  to  be  typical,  provision  is  made 
for  fines;  if  the  men  go  on  strike  in  violation  of  the  agreement  they  may  be 
fined.  I  forget  what  the  fine  is,  but  I  think  the  amount  is  something  like  $1  a 
day  for  each  day  that  he  is  idle  in  violation  of  the  contract. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  those  fines  enforced? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Not  all  the  time.  Under  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  if  they 
are  remitted  it  must  be  with  the  consent  of  the  mine  owner,  and  very  fre- 
quently the  mine  owner  appeals  to  the  board  that  imposed  the  fine  and  asks 
that  it  be  remitted;  and  at  other  times  the  officers  of  the  miners'  union  find 
moral  justification  for  a  local  strike  and  persuade  the  mine  owners  that  the 
fine  should  be  remitted.  In  many  cases  it  is  not  collected.  I  do  not  know 
to  what  extent  it  is  collected;  nevertheless  there  are  collections  made,  and 
penalties  are  collected  from  time  to  time. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Where  awards  are  made  by  the  conference  board  in  regard  to 
any  dispute,  is  there  any  trouble  or  delay  about  getting  the  award  carried  out 
by  the  operator  or  by  the  men? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  I  think  not.  I  think  it  would  be  a  rare  exception,  if 
there  be  any,  where  the  decision  of  the  joint  board  would  not  be  immediately 
carried  into  effect. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  As  a  general  thing,  have  those  awards  been  satisfactory  to 
both  parties? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  I  think  not,  but  they  have  been  accepted.  I  suppose  the 
person  who  lost  his  case  perhaps  has  felt  that  he  should  have  won  it.  I  sup- 
pose it  is  very  much  like  a  decision  of  the  court — the  man  who  loses  thinks  he 
ought  to  have  won;  but  there  is  a  very  generous  acquiescence  in  the  decision. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Of  course  the  theory  of  conciliation  by  representation  of 
both  parties  and  having  an  umpire,  with  the  idea  that  we  will  get  awards 
which  offer  every  justice  to  the  miner,  that  is  not  like  decisions  of  the  court, 
but  they  are  such  as  to  command  the  respect  of  the  parties. 


408          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think,  generally  speaking,  they  do.  I  think  the  disposition 
of  the  mine  owners  and  the  mine  workers  would  be,  "  The  case  was  tried,  \ve 
were  fully  represented,  and  therefore  the  decision  must  be  accepted,"  although 
they  may  have  the  mental  reservation  that  they  think  the  decision  should  have 
been  the  other  way. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Referring  to  the  anthracite  field,  is  there  a  variation  in  the 
wages  for  the  miners — the  wages  paid  to  miners — changing  with  the  different 
mines ;  and  what,  if  any,  attempts  has  been  made  to  standardize  wages  in  that 
field? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  In  the  'anthracite  field  there  is,  of  course,  no  uniformity  of 
wages  at  all.  Originally,  when  the  change  in  wages  occurred — that  is,  at  the 
end  of  the  strike  of  1900— an  advance  of  10  per  cent  upon  the  wages  then  paid 
was  granted,  which  of  course  not  only  continued  the  inequalities  but  increased 
the  inequalities.  The  man  who  was  getting  $3  a  day  and  who  got  a  10  per  cent 
advance  in  his  wages  got  30  cents ;  the  man  who  was  getting  $2  a  day  and  got  10 
per  cent  advance  only  got  20  cents  a  day,  so  that  that  increased  rather  than 
lessened  the  difference  between  the  wages  paid  to  the  men.  That  has  continued 
up  to  the  present  time,  with  this  exception :  In  the  agreement  of  1912  the  pro- 
vision was  made  that  the  minimum  wage  should  be  $1.50  a  day.  Of  course, 
that  was  for  the  lowest  paid  men  ;  so  that  there  was  an  attempt,  and  a  successful 
attempt,  to  establish  uniformity,  or  rather  the  start  of  a  movement  for  uni- 
formity was  successful.  Outside  of  that  there  has  been  very  little  done  to  es- 
tablish uniformity  of  wages  for  the  men  working  in  the  anthracite  field ; 
whereas  in  the  bituminous  field  we  have  absolute  uniformity  of  wages  so  far  as 
each  district  is  concerned.  For  instance,  the  wages  in  the  Southwest  may  be 
higher  than  another  central  competitive  field  for  the  same  class  of  work,  but 
all  the  men  who  are  doing  the  same  class  of  work  in  the  Central  Western 
States  receive  the  same  wages  for  a  day's  labor.  Eighty  per  cent  of  the  men 
are  employed  at  tonnage  rates — piecework — and,  of  course,  there  is  no  uni- 
formity in  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  bituminous  field,  as  I  understand,  they  have  differ- 
entials there? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  For  the  purpose  of  equalizing  the  cost  to  the  operators? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  So  that  the  operator  will  pay  usually  the  same  price  per 
ton ;  how  does  that  work  against  the  miner  with  reference  to  his  wages ;  does 
it  give  him  the  same  day's  wage  or  does  that  vary  with  that  differential? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  it  gives  him  the  same  day's  wage.  The  day  wages  are 
the  same.  There  is  no  difference  where  a  man  is  employed  within  a  scale  dis- 
trict, but  the  miner's  wages  do  vary.  In  a  few  moments  I  could  explain  how 
these  day  wages  are  arrived  at.  We  take  the  Hocking  Valley  district  of  Ohio 
as  a  national  basing  point ;  that  is,  we  determine  what  wages  shall  be  paid 
in  the  Hocking  Valley  district,  and  from  that  we  fix  a  competitive  mining  scale 
in  all  the  other  districts  in  a  central  competitive  field,  the  Hocking  Valley  of 
Ohio,  the  Danville  district  of  Illinois,  the  bituminous  district  of  Indiana,  and 
the  thin  vein  in  the  Pittsburgh  district  of  Pennsylvania. 

For  instance,  in  western  Pennsylvania  there  are  two  veins  of  coal,  one  known 
as  the  thin  vein  and  one  known  as  the  thick  vein,  the  central  thick  vein.  We 
select  the  thin  as  the  basis  upon  which  the  base  scale  shall  be  made.  It  hap- 
pens that  they  have  the  same  scale  for  mining  in  the  thin  vein  of  western 
Pennsylvania,  the  Hocking  Valley  district  of  Ohio,  and  the  bituminous  district 
of  Indiana,  and  the  Danville  district  of  Illinois.  That  scale  is  uniform.  At 
the  present  time  $1  a  ton  is  paid  for  mining  screen  coal  in  the  Hocking  Valley 
district,  and  $1  for  the  thin  vein  in  the  Pittsburgh  district,  and  $1  for  the 
bituminous  district  of  Indiana,  and  60  cents  a  ton  for  the  Danville  of  Illinois, 
but  the  60  cents  paid  in  the  Danville  district  is  the  same  as  $1  a  ton  in  the 
Hocking  Valley,  for  the  coal  is  mine-run  coal.  In  the  Hocking  Valley  it  is 
screened  coal.  Now,  if  the  Danville  were  on  the  same  basis  it  would  be  $1 
a  day. 

Taking  Illinois  again,  in  the  Danville  it  is  60  cents  a  ton  for  mine-run  coal: 
Over  there  we  separate  Illinois  into  -scale  districts  and  we  fix  the  mine  prices 
at  every  one  of  these  scale  districts  so  as  to  enable  the  mine  owner  to  compete 
in  a  common  market  or  locality.  For  instance,  Chicago  is  the  great  market  for 
Illinois  coal.  The  mines  that  are  located  closest  to  Chicago,  which  are  the  long- 
haul  mines  section  of  Illinois,  pay  higher  rates  than  do  the  mines  300  miles 
from  Chicago.  There  are  two  reasons  for  that.  There  is  a  thin  vein,  and  its 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  409 

proximity  to  the  market  makes  it  necessary  to  have  a  higher  market  price  in 
order  that  the  miners  shall  earn  the  same  rates  of  wages,  and  it  is  necessary 
to  pay  more  in  order  that  they  may  not  exclude  the  other  mines  from  the 
Chicago  market.  I  think  at  the  present  time  there  is  no  northern  coal  in 
Chicago,  although  they  are  the  closest  to  the  Chicago  market.  The  market 
is  in  the  Northwest.  But  the  wages  of  the  miners  annually  work  out  at  about 
the  same,  at  least  all  the  thick-vein  mines  of  northern  Illinois.  There  the 
earnings  of  the  men  at  the  end  of  the  year  would  be  about  the  same.  The 
attempt  is  made  not  only  to  regulate,  but  prevent  unfair  advantages  in  the 
market.  The  mine  owner  can  have  an  unfair  advantage  in  the  market,  but  the 
attempt  is  made  to  regulate  matters  so  that  the  miners  may  earn  approxi- 
mately the  same  wages  a  day  in  a  year.  I  have  with  me  a  joint  interstate 
agreement,  which  shows  exactly  how  these  scales  are  made;  this  was  caused 
by  the  international  scale  for  that  year ;  then  it  takes  the  Illinois  scale  and  all 
these  subdistrict  scales.  I  think  that  explains  exactly  the  question  you  have 
asked. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  you  will,  I  would  like  to  have  you  file  that  with  the 
commission. 

(The  paper  referred  to  entitled  "The  Illinois  Coal  Operators'  Association; 
joint  interstate  agreement,  Illinois  State  agreement,  and  local  agreement  for 
the  scale  year  ending  March  31,  1902,"  was  filed  with  the  commission  by  Mr. 
Mitchell  and  marked  "Mitchell  Exhibit  No.  1.") 

(Mitchell  Exhibit  No.  1,  "The  Illinois  Coal  Operators'  Association  Joint 
Interstate  Agreement,  etc.,  issued  July  1,  1901,  by  the  commissioner's  office," 
was  submitted  in  printed  form. ) 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  have  also  a  table  which  I  had  compiled  before  I  retired 
from  the  presidency  of  the  United  Mine  Workers'  Union,  showing  the  effect  of 
each  agreement  upon  wage  scales.  It  is  divided  into  districts.  For  instance, 
this  would  indicate  that  in  district  No.  6,  which  is  Ohio,  the  wages  starting — • 
making  mining  prices,  for  instance,  for  mining  a  ton  of  screened  lump  coal  in 
the  Hocking  Valley  district  of  Ohio  in  1896  the  miner  received  45  cents ;  in  1907 
he  received  51  cents ;  the  next  year,  56  cents ;  the  next  year,  66  cents ;  then  80 
cents,  then  90  cents,  then  SO  cents,  then  90  cents ;  and  that  ends  my  own  record. 
At  the  present  time  he  receives  $1,  an  advance  of  10  cents  a  ton  paid  in  the 
last  six  years.  It  also  indicates  the  hours  of  labor,  starting  with  10  hours  for 
a  day's  work  in  1897,  and  now  8  hours.  It  gives  in  detail  the  day  wage  scale, 
as  well  as  the  mine  scale. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  we  to  get  that  Mr.  Mitchell?  * 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes,  I  will  be  very  glad  to  file  it. 

( The  paper  referred  to  by  Mr.  Mitchell,  entitled  "  Wage  statistics  referred  to 
by  John  Mitchell,  president  U.  M.  W.  of  A.,  in  report  to  convention,  January, 
1908,"  was  filed  with  the  commission  and  marked  "Exhibit  No.  2.") 

(Mitchell  Exhibit  No.  2,  "Wage  Statistics  referred  to  by  John  Mitchell,  presi- 
dent U.  M.  W.  of  A.,  in  report  to  convention,  January,  1908,"  was  submitted  in 
printed  form.) 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  You  wanted  me  to  file  with  you  also  a  copy  of  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  interstate  convention. 

(The  paper  referred  to  by  Mr.  Mitchell,  entitled  "  Rules  adopted  to  govern 
the  joint  interstate  convention  of  miners  and  operators,  Indianapolis,  1906," 
was  filed  with  the  commission  and  marked  "  Mitchell  Exhibit  No.  3,"  and  is  as 
follows : ) 

RULES  ADOPTED  TO  GOVERN  THE  JOINT  INTERSTATE  CONVENTION  OF  MINERS  AND 
OPERATORS,  INDIANAPOLIS,  1906. 

(Central  competitive  field — Illinois,  Indiana,  Ohio,  and  western  Pennsylvania.) 

1.  That  the  convention  meet  daily  at  9  a.  m.  and  2  p.  m.  and  adjourn  at  12  m. 
and  5  p.  m. 

2.  Special  meetings  may  be  held,  or  evening  session,  if  so  desired. 

3.  The  miners'  representatives  shall  occupy  the  right  of  the  hall  and  the 
operators'  the  left,  facing  the  stage. 

4.  That  each  State  be  allowed  the  same  number  of  votes  on  the  floor  of  the 
house — 4  votes  on  behalf  of  the  operators  and  4  votes  on  behalf  of  the  miners 
in  each  State. 

5.  That  no  vote  be  declared  carried  unless  upon  the  affirmative  vote  of  the 
miners  and  operators  of  each  State.    That  upon  all  questions  of  mere  procedure 


410          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

the  ordinary  rules  of  parliamentary  procedure,  as  stated  in  any  standard 
manual,  shall  be  the  rules  of  this  convention;  and  that  in  no  event  shall  the 
rule  requiring  unanimous  vote  on  all  main  and  principal  questions  be  suspended. 
Main  and  principal  questions  mean  all  questions  affecting  the  proposed  scale 
and  agreement. 

6.  That  each  State  represented  in  the  convention  have  four  operators  and 
four  miners  on  the  scale  committee,  to  be  appointed  with  the  understanding 
that  each  State  may  have  an  alternate  for  each  representative,  who  shall  have 
all  the  privileges  of  the  scale  committee,  but  shall  have  no  vote  except  in  the 
absence  of  his  principal. 

7.  That  sessions  of  the  joint  convention  be  open  to  the  public  except  when 
otherwise  ordered. 

8.  That  the  use  of  tobacco  be  prohibited  in  the  hall  during  the  convention. 

G.  W.  SAVAGE, 

Chairman. 
F.  S.  BROOKS, 
Secretary,  Committee  on  Rules. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  anything  that  would  throw  light  upon  this  matter  we 
would  be  very  much  pleased  to  have,  Mr.  Mitchell. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  This  is  a  statement  of  the  approximate  number  of  men 
working  under  trade  agreements  in  the  coal-mining  industry. 

(The  paper  referred  to  by  Mr.  Mitchell  is  entitled  "Approximate  number  of 
mine  workers  whose  wages  are  determined  by  collective  barganing,"  and  was 
filed  with  the  commission,  and  marked  "  Mitchell  Exhibit  No.  4,"  and  is  as 
follows : ) 

Approximate  number  o/  mine  workers  whose  waffes  are  determined  by  collec- 
tive bargaining. 


Arkansas 4,  000 

Illinois 80,  000 

Indiana 20,  000 

Iowa 16,  000 

Kansas 12,  000 

Kentucky 7,000 

Missouri 10,000 

Michigan '___  3,  000 

Montana 3,  500 

Ohio 45,  000 


Oklahoma 9,  000 

Pennsylvania,  bituminous 100,  000 

Pennsylvania,  anthracite 174,  000 

Tennessee 3,  000 

Texas 3,  000 

Washington 6,  000 

West  Virginia 20,  000 

Wyoming 8,  000 

Total__  _  523,500 


There  are  approximately  750,000  coal  miners  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  how  the  differentials  between  the 
central  field  and  the  other  fields  are  arrived  at,  generally — by  what  process 
or  method? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  It  would  be  difficult  to  explain  to  you  the  differentials  be- 
tween the  central  district  and  the  other  districts — how  they  are  determined; 
but,  if  I  understand  what  you  mean,  it  is  how  the  differentials  are  determined 
as  between  the  basing  points  in  the  central  field  and  the  other  districts.  If 
that  is  w-hat  you  mean,  it  is  this,  for  instance,  in  fixing  a  scale  at  Danville, 
which  is  the  basing  point  in  Illinois,  we  take  into  account  the  mining  price  in 
the  Hockng  Valley,  and,  as  I  have  heretofore  stated,  having  determined  the 
mining  price  in  the  Hocking  Valley  district  of  Ohio  and  the  thin-vein  district 
at  Pittsburgh,  the  Danville  of  Illinois,  and  the  bituminous  of  Indiana — we  enter 
the  field  of  Illinois  because  the  Danville  lies  on  the  eastern  border  of  Illinois 
and  is,  I  think,  something  like  three  hours'  run  from  Chicago — we  ascertain 
what  the  freight  rates  are  from  Danville  to  Chicago — Chicago  being  a  common 
market — what  the  cost  of  mining  a  ton  of  coal  in  Danville  is,  apart  from  the 
price  paid  for  mining,  because  there  are  very  many  things  which  enter  into 
the  cost  of  mining  a  ton  of  coal  besides  what  wages  are  paid  to  the  miners, 
such  as  the  character  of  the  roof,  the  amount  of  timber  required,  and  the  other 
fixed  expenses  of  operating  a  mine.  Having  determined,  approximately,  what 
it  costs  to  put  a  ton  of  coal  into  the  city  of  Chicago — that  is,  what  the  cost 
f.  o.  b.  mine,  Chicago,  would  be,  and  the  price  at  which  that  character  of 
coal  sold  for  in  Chicago — we  then  ascertain  what  would  be  approximately  the 
same  cost  to  a  man  who  was  located  at  Springfield,  111.,  or  at  Belleville,  111. — 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  411 

well,  Belleville,  111.,  would  not  be  a  good  type,  because  it  ships  to  another  mar- 
ket, but  at  Marion,  111.,  in  the  extreme  southern  part  of  the  State — having  de- 
termined 'these  costs  we  try  to  fix  a  price  that  would  give  the  mine  owner  an 
equal  competitive  opportunity  with  the  Chicago  mine  and  which,  at  the  same 
time,  would  take  into  account  the  earnings  of  the  men. 

As  I  say,  it  is  impossible  to  determine  the  cost  solely  upon  the  earnings  of 
the  men,  because  if  we  were  to  do  that,  if  we  were  to  say  that  a  man  could 
earn  $4  a  clay  at  Danville  he  ought  to  earn  $4  at  every  other  mine,  because  if 
the  board  fixed  entirely  upon  wages  some  of  the  mines  could  not  operate;  the 
physical  condition  of  the  mine  and  the  freight  rates  would  exclude  them  from 
the  market ;  so  that  if  there  be  some  natural  condition  in  the  mining  field  that 
makes  it  more  expensive  to  operate  these  mines  at  a  base  point,  we  have  to 
understand  what  the  mine  owners,  I  think,  all  recognize,  that  that  burden  should 
be  carried  in  part  by  the  mine  owner  by  reduced  profit,  and  part  by  the 
miners  in  less  wages;  so  that  in  a  rough  way  an  attempt  has  been  made  to 
establish  our  mining  scales,  based  upon  the  comparative  opportunities  of  the 
different  mining  fields  and  perhaps  upon  the  opportunities  of  the  miners  in  the 
different  fields  to  earn  their  wages.  - 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Does  this  difference  in  wages  of  the  miners  cause  any  drift- 
ing of  the  men  from  one  place  to  another? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes ;  there  is  considerable  moving  from  one  place  to  another. 
However,  that  is  rather  characteristic  of  miners  anyway ;  that  has  always  been 
so  in  this  country,  quite  apart  from  wages;  they  move  from  one  point  to  an- 
other, and,  of  course,  the  best  men  seek  employment  at  a  point  where  the  work 
is  most  regular  and  the  w^ages  paid  are  highest. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  With  reference  to  the  introduction  of  machinery  in  the  coal 
field,  is  there  any  differential  based  on  that  matter;  and  if  so,  what  is  the 
purpose  of  it,  and  does  that  have  any  effect  upon  the  introduction  of  machinery 
into  the  coal  field? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes;  in  the  bituminous  coal  industry  of  the  United  States 
approximately  30  per  cent  of  all  the  coal  is  mined  by  machinery;  perhaps  it 
is  more  than  that  now,  because  during  the  past  two  years  there  has  been  a 
tremendous  improvement  in  the  way  of  machinery  in  the  mining  industry.  We 
have  not  adopted  a  uniform  scale  of  mining  machinery,  although  in  the  State 
of  Illinois,  in  all  except  the  Danville  district,  there  is  a  differential  of  7  cents  a 
ton  between  pick  mining  and  machine  mining;  that  is  to  say,  the  mining  cost 
of  a  ton,  pick  mining,  would  be  60  cents  at  any  point,  and  the  price  for  machine 
mined  coal  would  be  53  cents  a  ton;  in  other  words,  there  is  7  cents  a  ton 
allowed  to  the  mine  owner  for  his  investment  in  machines. 

That  figure  does  not  represent  his  whole  gain  in  Illinois,  because  the  machine 
mines  more  lump  coal,  and  there  is  more  marketable  coal  than  can  be  obtained 
by  hand.  In  the  Danville  district,  which  is  a  basic  point,  the  differential  is  15 
cents  a  ton.  The  price  of  pick  mining  is  60  cents,  and  the  price  of  machine 
mining  would  be  50  cents.  That  is  the  differential.  This  difference  in  the 
State  of  Illinois  results  from  the  fact  that  in  Indiana  the  whole  State  has  a 
differential  of  10  cents  a  ton  on  one  type  of  machine,  and  12£  cents  a  ton  on 
another  type  of  machine,  on  mine  run  coal.  That  is  what  we  call  a  puncher 
machine,  an  old-type  machine.  There  is  a  differential  of  10  cents  on  one 
type  of  machine  and  of  12£  cents  a  ton  on  the  other.  The  fact  that  Indiana  is 
the  keenest  competitor  of  Danville  made  it  necessary.  In  the  State  of  Ohio 
the  differential  is  wider  than  that.  We  have  never  been  able  to  determine  a 
differential  for  machine  mining  except  in  Illinois. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  effect  has  that  had  on  the  introduction  of  machinery? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  That  has  increased  the  use  of  machinery,  where  they  have 
had  the  widest  differential.  In  Ohio  practically  all  the  coal  is  mined  by  ma- 
chine, because  there  is  a  great  advantage  to  the  miner  owner  in  the  use  of 
machines. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  understand  that  there  is  some  question  in  the  coal  fields 
in  reference  to  the  method  of  paying.  In  some  mines  they  pay  on  the  run-of- 
mine  ton  basis,  and  in  others  on  the  screened-ton  basis.  What  have  you  to  say 
in  reference  to  that? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  From  as  long  as  I  can  remember  there  has  been  a  desire  on 
the  part  of  the  mine  owners  that  all  coal  should  be  weighed  and  paid  for  on  a 
mine-run  basis.  The  question  has  caused,  perhaps,  more  strikes  than  any 
other  question  in  the  mining  industry.  At  the  present  time  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois pays  entirely  on  a  mine-run  basis.  That  matter  was  determined  by  a  strike 
in  1897,  the  strike  which  I  alluded  to  in  the  beginning  of  my  testimony.  When 


412          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

that  strike  had  come  to  a  close  we  miners  were  able  to  secure  an  agreement 
from  the  Illinois  operators  fixing  a  mine-run  scale.  In  Indiana  they  have  both 
systems.  They  have  what  they  call  the  double-standard.  The  mine  owner,  at 
his  own  option,  may  prefer  to  pay  either  on  the  screened-coal  basis  or  the  mine- 
run  basis.;  but  having  made  his  choice,  he  must  stick  to  it.  He  can  not  alternate 
day  by  day.  Of  course,  they  pay  what  are  considered  equivalent  prices. 

In  Ohio  the  miners  operate  on  a  screened-coal  basis. 

In  Michigan  they  have  an  option,  but  they  choose  to  operate  on  a  screened- 
coal  basis. 

In  nearly  all  the  other  fields  outside  of  this  central  competitive  field,  coal  is 
mined  and  paid  for  on  a  mine-run  basis.  In  Pennsylvania,  and  practically  all 
the  Southern  States  and  practically  all  the  Western  States,  the  coal  is  mined 
and  paid  for  on  a  mine-run  basis.  "  Mine  run  "  means  that  the  men  receive 
pay  for  all  the  coal  that  they  mine.  "  Screened  coal "  means  that  the  coal,  after 
it  is  mined,  passes  over  a  screen,  which,  by  agreement,  is  determined  to  be  12 
feet  long,  6  feet  wide,  with  a  mesh  between  the  bars  of  1£  inches,  and  then  the 
men  get  paid  for  what  passes  over  the  screen ;  but  they  are  paid  more,  of 
course,  for  that  screened  coal  than  they  are  for  the  mine-run  coal.  However, 
that  has  been  the  source  of  great  contention  between  the  miners  and  the  mine 
owners.  The  men  are  unanimous  in  their  opinion  that  all  coal  should  be 
bought  and  paid  for  on  the  mine-run  basis.  By  that  they  do  not  propose  to 
say  to  the  mine  owner  that  he  can  not  screen  the  coal,  but  they  do  mean  to 
say  that  he  must  weigh  and  pay  for  it  before  he  screens  it.  He  can  do  what 
he  pleases  with  it  afterwards. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  opinion  in  regard  to  that? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  am  strongly  in  favor  of  the  mine-run  basis.  I  think  that  it 
is  the  only  correct  method  of  weighing  and  paying  for  coal. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  not  that  the  trouble  in  the  Ohio  field  to-day? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes ;  that  i*  the  cause  of  the  suspension  of  50,000  men  there 
now. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Why  do  the  operators  object  to  that?    Do  you  know? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  They  say  that  the. men  are  not  so  careful  in  mining  their  coal; 
that,  for  instance,  say,  the  men  would  send  out  more  screenings  and  more  coal 
that  would  not  be  marketable,  or  coal  which,  if  marketable,  would  command  a 
less  price  if  paid  for  all  coal  that  they  mined.  They  say  if  they  mine  on  the 
screened-coal  basis  and  are  paid  only  for  that  part  that  goes  over  the  screen 
they  are  likely  to  send  out  better  coal  that  will  not  make  so  much  screenings. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Of  course,  you  have  given  your  opinion  with  regard  to  the 
main  question,  but  I  would  like  to  ask  you  in  regard  to  the  last  matter  you 
spoke  of:  What  is  your  opinion  in  regard  to  the  carefulness  of  mining  and  its 
effect  on  the  screened-coal  basis? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  To  be  perfectly  frank,  I  would  say  that  among  the  unskilled  em- 
ployees, who  are  being  employed  in  such  large  numbers  in  the  mines,  they  are 
likely  to  be  more  careless  on  a  mine-run  basis  than  on 'the  screened-coal  basis. 
However,  that  is  a  matter  that  can  be  easily  prevented.  The  mine  owners  have 
simply  filled  their  mines  with  unskilled  men.  Coal  mining  should  be  a  highly 
skilled  trade,  and  there  should  be  an  apprenticeship  system.  A  man  should  be 
trained  to  do  the  work  well,  just  as  he  was  when  I  learned  my  trade. 

But  now  the  mine  owners  employ  the  recently  arrived  immigrants,  and  it 
seems  choose  to  have  that  kind  of  labor  and  to  take  the  product  that  they  get 
from  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  There  is  some  controversy,  we  understand,  in  regard  to  what 
is  called  the  check-off  system  of  collecting  dues  from  the  miners.  Will  you 
explain  what  the  check  off  actually  is  in  the  mining  field  and  \vhat  the  con- 
troversy actually  is? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think,  Mr.  Thompson,  there  is  no  real  controversy  about  it. 
It  is  a  matter  that  occasionally  comes  up  in  wages  conferences  simply  as  a 
matter  of  policy  on  the  part  of  the  mine  owners.  The  check  off  means  this, 
that  the"  mine  owners  deduct  from  the  miners'  earnings  each  month  the  amount 
of  their  dues  that  the  men  are  to  pay  to  the  union.  That  is  to  say,  instead  of 
having  each  man  come  forward  and  pay  his  own  dues  the  mine  owners  deduct 
the  amount  of  their  dues  from  their  wages  and  turn  it  over.  That  is  the  rule 
in  the  bituminous  coal  field.  It  is  not  the  rule  in  the  anthracite  field.  That  ar- 
rangement was  one  that  grew  up  in  our  industry  as  the  result  of  circumstances. 
For  instance,  in  some  of  our  districts  the  men  opposed  that  arrangement  very 
much.  They  wanted  to  pay  their  own  dues,  they  said.  They  adopted  the  policy 
that  if  some  man  came  on  the  mine  that  had  not  paid  his  dues  the  1st  of  the 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS    IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  413 

month  they  said  to  him,  "  You  ought  to  pay  your  dues.  You  are  working 
under  conract,  and  you  ought  to  pay  your  dues.  If  you  do  not  pay  them,  you 
can  go  home ;  "  and  if  he  did  not  go  home,  all  the  rest  of  the  men  went  home. 
The  mine  owners  said,  "  We  want  to  obviate  these  disputes  that  grow  out  of 
differences  between  yourselves,  and  we  make  these  deductions  in  other  cases 
where  money  is  paid  to  the  organization,"  and  the  union  insisting  on  every 
man  living  up  to  the  contract,  that  inasmuch  as  the  union  was  responsible  for 
the  contract  every  one  must  comply  with  its  provisions,  they  asked  the  mine 
owners  to  assist  them  in  avoiding  the  disputes  by  making  these  deductions* 
from  the  pay  of  the  miners.  It  is  important  to  know  that  these  are  not  the 
only  deductions  that  are  made,  but,  for  insance,  if  a  man  buys  goods  in  a 
company  store  the  mine  owner  deducts  it  from  his  pay ;  or  every  miner  must 
contribute  to  a  blacksmith  who  is  employed  by  the  company ;  and  if  a  miner 
buys  powder  from  the  company,  as  he  must  do,  the  company  takes  it  out  of  the 
man's  pay.  So  that  the  miners  felt  that  it  was  not  unreasonable,  if  they  were 
going  to  take  out  of  his  pay  all  these  other  charges,  and  that  they  might 
as  well  take  this  charge  for  the  dues  to  the  union. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Has  that  anything  to  do  with  the  Colorado  trouble? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  not. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  general,  I  will  ask  you  to  state  what,  in  your  opinion, 
has  been  the  effect  of  the  agreements  in  both  these  fields  on  the  miners  and  the 
operators  and  on  the  industry  generally? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  To  state  that  it  would  be  necessary  for  me  to  explain  what  I 
regard  as  the  fundamental  question  involved  in  this  inquiry.  Of  course  I 
regard  that  trade  agreement — that  is,  the  collective  bargain  between  mine 
workers,  mine  workingmen  generally,  and  employers — as  the  most  positive 
evidence  of  the  interdependence  of  labor  and  capital ;  that  it  is  a  practical  appli- 
cation of  cooperation.  The  individual  bargain  leads  inevitably  to  the  demoral- 
ization of  the  workingmen,  because  the  condition  of  the  weakest  man — that 
is,  economically,  the  weakest  man  in  the  industry — is  that  which  the  average 
man  must  accept. 

In  my  judgment  there  can  be  no  permanent  prosperity  to  the  workingmen, 
there  can  be  no  permanent  industrial  peace,  until  the  principle  is  firmly  and 
fully  established  that  in  industrial  life  the  settlements  of  wages,  hours  of  labor, 
and  all  the  important  conditions  of  work,  are  made  between  the  employers 
and  the  workingmen  collectively  and  not  between  employers  and  workingmen 
individually.  The  individual  workmen  theoretically  bargains  with  his  em- 
ployer as  to  the  wages  to  be  paid  by  his  employer;  but  practically  there  is  no 
bargaining.  The  individual  workman  must  accept  the  wages  and  conditions 
of  employment  that  are  offered  to  him  by  his  employer.  It  is  a  matter  of 
no  concern  at  all  to  an  employer  if  one  workingman  refuses  employment. 
He  thinks  nothing  about  it,  because  there  is  another  workingman  ready  to 
take  the  job. 

As  a  consequence  of  this  system  of  individual  bargaining,  which  is  really 
nonunionism,  the  conditions  of  the  best  men  in  the  industry  are  brought  down, 
practically,  to  a  level  with  those  of  the  weakest  men  in  the  industry.  Collective 
bargaining,  of  course,  means  that  there  shall  be  a  uniform  and  minimum 
standard  of  wrages  and  that  there  shall  be  uniform  hours  of  labor.  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  effect  of  collective  bargaining  in  the  United  States  has  made 
for  righteous  industrial  peace.  I  think  that  of  course  every  one  in  the  country 
is  interested  in  industrial  peace,  and  they  should  be  interested  in  righteous 
industrial  peace.  But  I  should  say  that  it  would  be  a  misfortune  if  we  should 
ever  have  industrial  peace  in  America  that  was  based  upon  the  submission 
of  the  woorkmen ;  that  if  we  are  to  have  industrial  peace,  it  must  be  pre- 
dicated upon  industrial  righteousness.  The  workmen  can  not  hope  for  in- 
dustrial righteousness  except  as  they  secure  it  through  their  collective  action. 

I  know  that  in  the  industry  with  which  I  am  best  acquainted,  the  coal 
industry,  collective  bargaining  has  not  only  increased  tremendously  the  earn- 
ings of  the  mine  workers,  but  what  is  perhaps  of  more  importance  it  has 
given  the  whole  mining  population  a  different  and  a  better  view  of  life.  That 
is,  instead  of  being,  as  they  once  were,  a  hopeless,  despondent  people,  whose 
labor  brought  them  less  than  that  upon  which  they  could  live  decently,  they 
have  become  hopeful  people;  they  have  got  a  different  outlook;  they  regard 
this  as  "  our  country,"  a  country  in  which  they  feel  an  interest,  a  country  that 
means  something  to  them. 

Now,  it  has  given  them  that  feeling  of  justifiable  independence ;  it  has 
made  them  better  men,  better  citizens,  better  fathers,  given  them  better  homes ; 


414          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

it  has  meant  education  for  their  children,  and  it  has  meant,  in  most  cases,  a 
provision  for  their  old  age. 

As  to  the  mine  owner,  of  course,  for  him  I  hold  no  commission  to  speak, 
but  I  do  know  mine  owners,  and  my  own  relations  with  them  have  been 
cordial  and  pleasant,  and  I  accord  them  the  highest  regard.  Many  of  them 
are  my  personal  friends.  I  know  their  families,  and  they  visit  my  home  and 
know  my  family ;  so  that  I  know  enough  of  them,  my  relations  with  them 
have  been  so  pleasant  that  I  think  I  can  say  this  in  truth,  that  taken  all  to- 
gether, the  condition  of  the  mine  owners  is  better  now  than  it  was  prior 
to  the  advent  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America.  It  is  not  what  they 
would  like  it  to  be.  I  think  I  could  sympathize  with  the  desire  of  the  mine 
owners  to  be  permitted  to  organize.  I  think  they  should  be  permitted  to 
organize;  I  mean,  to  organize  so  that  they  might  control,  within  reason, 
the  selling  price  of  their  product.  I  think  that  it  would  be  an  advantage 
to  everyone  if  the  mine  owners  might  control,  by  agreement  among  them- 
selves, the  price  at  which  their  product  should  be  sold  in  the  market.  I 
do  not  mean  to  suggest  for  a  moment  that  they  should  be  given  absolute  free- 
dom to  do  as  they  please.  I  think  they  should  be  under  the  control  of  the 
Federal  Government  so  that  they  might  not  charge  extortionate  prices;  but 
it  happens  at  this  time — although  this  may  not  be  the  place  to  discuss  it — thai 
40  per  cent  of  all  the  coal  is  wasted;  it  is  left  in  the  mines,  and  that  40  per 
cent  of  coal  wTill  some  day  be  a  matter  of  most  extreme  importance  to  the 
people  of  the  generations  to  come;  and  yet  the  mine  owners  can  not  take  our 
that  coal  because  they  do  not  get  a  large  enough  price  on  the  market  to 
justify  them  in  doing  it.  They  mine  only  the  coal  that  can  be  mined  most 
cheaply. 

Now,  if  they  were  permitted  to  charge  better  prices,  they  could  pay  bet- 
ter wages  and  save  all  this  coal.  But  I  think,  nevertheless  and  notwitn- 
standing  that,  that  on  the  whole  the  condition  of  the  mine  owners  is  im- 
measurably better  now  than  it  was  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  collective- 
bargain  system  of  conducting  industry. 

In  the  anthracite  field  I  dare  say  that  the  miners  are  so  much  better  off 
that  they  would  not  care  to  return  to  the  old  system.  If  the  change  in  the 
market  price  at  which  the  anthracite  coal  be  sold  is  indicative,  I  would  say 
that  they  are  making  tremendous  profis;  and  if  the  newspaper  reports  of  their 
dividends  are  correct,  I  would  say  that  that  would  confirm  the  fact  that  they 
are  making  very  large  profits.  However,  the  anthracite  coal  is  very  much 
different  from  the  bituminous.  There  95  per  cent  of  the  entire  industry  is 
practically  in  one  control,  while  in  the  bituminous  coal  there  is  no  such  control. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion,  does  the  success  of  trade  agreements  in 
the  coal  fields  depend  upon  organization  on  both  sides? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  It  depends  absolutely  on  the  organization  of  the  workmen, 
and  I  think  it  would  be  helpful  to  it  if  there  was  organization  of  the  em- 
ployers. In  some  States  there  is  organization  of  the  coal  operators.  The 
Illinois  operators  have  two  associations,  rival  organizations;  and  in  Indiana 
they  have  one  organization.  In  Ohio  I  think  they  have  several  organizations. 
But  the  purpose  of  these  organizations  is  not  to  control  prices;  it  is  purely 
for  the  purpose  of  conducting  their  business  with  the  miners'  union. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  is  particularly  for  conducting  business  under  the  trade 
agreements? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  It  is  just  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  the  trade  agree- 
ments. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Keferring  to  the  method  of  settling  controversies  which  arise 
between,  say,  individual  miners  and  the  various  operators  that  we  spoke  about 
some  time  ago,  are  you  acquainted  with  the  English  method  of  settling  those 
differences? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Their  boards  of  conciliation? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  know  in  a  general  way  about  it.  I  have  studied  some  of 
them. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  does  that  differ,  and  in  what  respect  might  it  not  be 
an  improvement  on  the  system  in  vogue  here? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  do  not  think  that  there  is  any  essential  difference  in  the 
system  in  England.  I  have  looked  into  the  matter  in  the  north  of  England,  and 
they  have  just  what  we  have  here,  they  have  what  they  call  a  board  of  con- 
ciliation; but  I  do  not  know — I  can  not  recall  any  system  of  arbitration  that 
they  have  for  the  settlement  of  disputes  that  arise  from  time  to  time. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  415 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Mitchell,  they  did  have  a  system  of  apprenticeship,  did 
they  not,  in  the  coal  fields,  which  has  been  discontinued;  and  if  so,  why  was 
it  discontinued? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  There  never  was  any  system  in  regard  to  apprenticeship.  Of 
course,  in  the  early  days  the  mining  work  was  done  altogether  by  English- 
speaking  men,  who  had,  most  of  them,  been  trained  coal  miners  in  some 
foreign  country,  either  in  England  or  Scotland  or  Wales ;  and  they  would  not 
work  with  a  man  who  had  not  served  an  apprenticeship.  Unless  a  boy  started 
as  an  apprentice  with  them,  they  would  not  work  with  him.  It  was  not  be- 
cause there  was  any  union  to  regulate  it,  but  it  was  simply  the  practice  of 
the  miners  of  those  countries,  which  rather  was  accepted  in  this  country. 

But  now  in  some  States,  for  instance,  in  Illinois,  the  law  of  the  State  pro- 
vides that  no  one  shajl  be  actually  permitted  to  mine  coal  as  a  miner  unless  he 
has  had  two  years'  experience.  It  is  by  law,  therefore,  a  sort  of  apprentice- 
ship ;  that  is,  a  skilled  miner  may  take  an  unskilled  miner  with  him  and  teach 
him  the  trade.  In  the  anthracite  fields  of  Pennsylvania  that  also  is  the  law. 
No  one  is  permitted  to  work  there  under  contract  as  a  miner  unless  he  shall 
have  had  two  years'  experience.  But  those  are  regulations  made  not  by  the 
union  but  by  the  law. 

During  the  past  10  or  20  years,  and  especially  during  the  past  10  years, 
the  non-English-speaking  labor  has  entered  the  mines  to  such  an  extent  that 
practically  one-half  of  all  the  men  in  the  United  States  in  the  mining  industry 
are  non-English-speaking  men. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  think  that  these  learners — apprentices — should  be 
taught  anything  in  the  schools  in  regard  to  mining  in  addition  to  what  they 
learn  in  the  practical  work? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  it  would  be  a  practical  impossibility  to  give  a  teach- 
ing in  school,  except  as  they  may  learn  something  about  gases.  I  think  that 
that  would  be  about  the  only  thing  they  could  learn  in  a  school  about  mining. 
They  might  learn  the  nature  of  various  gases,  and,  after  all,  that  would  not 
be  so  important  to  them. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  the  conditions  which  exist  in  the  contract  field  exist  also 
in  the  fields  where  the  union  does  not  exist,  and  where  there  are  no  contracts ; 
or  what,  in  general,  is  the  difference  between  the  two  fields,  if  you  know? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  the  conditions  are  not  at  all  similar  in  the  districts 
and  States  where  the  union  is  not  established,  and  of  course  there  is  no  con- 
tractual relation ;  I  mean  there  is  no  collective  bargaining  in  the  nonunion 
fields.  For  instance,  in  nearly  all  the  State  of  West  Virginia,  which  is  now 
the  second  coal-producing  State  in  the  United  States,  the  men  work  under 
terms  that  are  fixed  by  the  mine  owners  absolutely,  and  that  is  true  of  a  great 
many  of  the  Southern  States — of  Alabama,  parts  of  Tennessee,  and  parts  of 
Kentucky — the  mine  owners  fix  the  terms  of  employment  as  they  do  in  most 
parts  of  Colorado  and  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  and  in  parts  of  Pennsylvania 
there  is  what  we  call  the  Westmoreland  County,  Pa.,  district,  and  in  western 
Maryland  the  terms  are  entirely  fixed  by  the  mine  owners.  The  wages  in  all 
of  these  districts  that  I  speak  of  are  much  lower  than  they  are  in  the  fields 
where  trade  agreements  are  made,  and  the  hours  of  labor  are  longer  in  the  non- 
union fields. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  think  that  if  the  National  Government  should  estab- 
lish an  impartial  industrial  council"  for  the  purpose  of  these  industrial  ques- 
tions that  arise  between  capital  and  labor,  a  council  to  which  both  laborers 
und  employers  could  appeal,  such  a  council  would  meet  with  the  approbation 
of  the  miners  as  a  means  that  could  help  them  settle  questions  which  they  are 
not  able  to  agree  upon  with  the  operators ;  this  is  not  to  be  a  compulsory  propo- 
sition, but  one  in  which  the  council  will  be  called  upon  to  act  as  a  mediator 
or  conciliator? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  am  not  at  all  sure  that  I  can  speak  for  the  miners  in  regard 
to  it.  I  do  not  know.  I  have  never  discussed  the  matter  with  them  at  any 
length,  or  with  many  of  them  at  all.  What  I  say  on  the  subject  shall  have  to 
be  my  own  view  as  to  the  advisability  of  such  a  tribunal,  and  I  will  say  at  the 
very  outlet  that  perhaps  my  view  is  not  at  all  in  accord  with  the  views  of  those 
who  have  been  active  in  the  trade-agreement  movement.  I  think  that  the  crea- 
tion by  the  Federal  Government  of  a  tribunal  having  authority  to  investigate 
the  causes  of  threatened  strikes  or  lockouts,  and  the  causes  of  strikes  and  lock- 
outs that  have  occurred  and  are  in  progress,  and  having  authority  to  give  an 
expression  of  its  opinion  as  to  the  merits  and  justification  of  the  dispute,  might 
be  of  great  value.  It  would  depend,  of  course,  very  largely  upon  the  type  of  the 


416          REPORT    OP    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

men  who  were  members  of  the  Federal  board.  If  it  were  such  a  board,  for  in- 
stance, as  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  I  mean  composed  of  men  who 
command  the  general  confidence  of  the  people  as  that  tribunal  does,  of  course 
upon  it  should  be  represented  the  workingmen — the  workingmen  should  be 
rally  represented — and  if  there  was  that  limitation  upon  their  authority ;  that  is, 
that  they  should  have  no  right  to  arbitrate  a  dispute  unless  called  upon  by 
both  sides  to  do  so,  I  .think  such  a  tribunal  would  be  of  value. 

Of  course  there  is  some  fear,  that  is  often  expressed,  that  if  such  a  tribunal 
were  created,  and  if  some  great  industrial  dispute  were  to  arise  and  an  investi- 
gation were  made  by  this  Federal  tribunal  and  their  conclusions  were  stated, 
were  announced  publicly,  and  if  then  it  did  not  result  in  the  settlement  of  the 
strike  or  lockout,  that  the  Federal  Government  might  go  further  and  try  to  co- 
erce the  parties  to  a  settlement,  then  that  they  might  go  as  far  as  compulsory 
arbitration  ;  and  while  I  think  there  is  perhaps  not  so  much  danger,  while  it 
is  not  consistent  with  our  Federal  Constitution,  I  do  know  that  among  the 
workmen  of  the  United  States  there  is  a  unanimous  sentiment  against  compul- 
sory arbitration,  and  I  think  perhaps  that  it  is  just  as  unanimous  among  the 
operators ;  that  neither  side  would  want  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  have  asked  all  the  questions  that  I  wish  to  ask  the  witness. 

Mr.  BALLARD.  Mr.  Mitchell,  why  was  the  sliding  scale  abolished  in  the  anthra- 
cite regions  of  the  United  States  in  1912? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  It  was,  I  think,  because  of  the  difficulty  of  increasing  wages 
and  maintaining  the  sliding  scale.  It  is  very  difficult  to  determine  what  the 
sliding  scale  should  be  if  wages  were  advanced.  For  instance,  when  coal  was 
$1.45  in  New  York  Harbor,  for  each  cent  which  is  added  at  tidewater,  I  think 
there  is  1  per  cent  advance  in  the  wages.  Now,  if  they  advanced  wages  10 
per  cent,  for  instance,  it  was  very  difficult  to  determine  how  the  sliding  scale 
should  be  based. 

I  think  the  men  feel  that  they  would  rather  have  a  definite  scale  than  a  scale 
based  upon  the  fluctuations  in  the  selling  price  of  coal.  While  there  was  only 
a  running  period  of  six  years  it  only  varied  4.6  per  cent,  indicating  that  in  the 
advance  in  wages  the  men  were  very  well  satisfied. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  had  any  experience  with  any  other  sliding  scales 
in  the  coal  regions? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  we  have  never  had  in  the  bituminous  field.  I  know  the 
history  of  it  in  the  anthracite  field  prior  to  my  taking  charge  of  the  miners' 
organization  there.  Of  course,  under  the  old  system  there  was  no  minimum, 
and  the  result  \vas  that  the  men  worked  for  very  much  less  than  the  base  price 
and  were  always  receiving  less  than  the  base  instead  of  more. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  So,  that  on  the  whole,  you  would  prefer  a  system  of  agree- 
ments for  a  definite  period  rather  than  a  sliding  scale?  Do  you  regard  that  as 
practicable? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes;  I  do. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  spoke  with  reference  to  the  movement  of  men  in  the  bitu- 
minous field;  that  was  some  movement  on  account  of  differences  in  wages? 
Is  there  any  recognized  drift  from  "one  part  of  the  field  to  the  other;  that  is, 
are  wages  so  high  in  one  part  of  the  field  that  the  men  move  to  that?  In  other 
words,  is  there  any  current,  aside  from  the  movement  from  mine  to  mine?  That 
is,  in  any  of  these  districts  are  the  wages  lower  than  the  other  districts? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes;  in  some  districts,  of  course,  the  wages  are  well  known 
to  be  less  and  the  possible  earnings,  because  of  thin  veins  and  the  expense  of 
mining.  But  this  movement  is  spasmodic.  For  instance,  one  district  may  have 
a  good  run  during  the  summer  months  and  another  might  not  be  doing  so  much, 
and  there  would  be  large  numbers  of  men  attracted  to  that  particular  field  on 
account  of  reports  of  high  earnings,  and  there  will  be  a  steady  movement  into 
that  district.  But,  as  I  say,  the  movement  is  characteristic  of  miners,  not  only 
of  coal  miners  but  metalliferous  miners,  they  move  more  frequently  than  men 
employed  in  other  industries. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Could  you  say  whether  men  move  from  Illinois  to  Indiana  or 
from  the  Pittsburgh  district  to  the  Illinois  district?  Is  there  any  definite 
current  or  drift? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  A  movement  back  and  forth? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  There  is  no  movement  in  one  direction,  a  movement  from 
Illinois  to  Indiana,  or  vice  versa? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  there  are  very  large  movements  from  northern  to  south- 
ern Illinois,  say;  that  is  because  the  wages  were  higher  than  in  the  northern 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  417 

district ;  and,  of  course,  where  there  is  a  new  coal  field  developed  there  is  a 
large  movement  of  the  men  to  that  new  camp. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  You  said  that  the  operators  preferred  to  hire  the  immigrants — 
"  unskilled  labor,"  I  think  was  your  expression — rather  than  skilled  men,  and 
that  the  loss  of  coal  was  due  to  that  practice,  if  I  understood  you ;  am  I  cor- 
rect in  that? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No ;  I  did  not  say  they  preferred  to  do  it ;  I  did  not  say  that 
they  preferred  unskilled  labor  in  preference  to  skilled  men.  I  did  say  that  they 
have  employed  and  are  employing  large  numbers  of  unskilled  immigrant 
workers,  but  I  do  not  know  that  they  have  refused  employment — in  fact,  I  am 
sure  that  they  have  not  refused  employment  to  skilled  workers;  but,  as  you 
know,  the  mines  of  the  United  States  operate  on  an  average  about  200  days  a 
year,  so  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  there  are  employed  in  the  coal  industry  one- 
third  more  workmen  than  are  required  to  produce  the  amount  of  coal  consumed 
in  the  United  States,  or  which  is  brought  in  in  any  one  year.  If  the  mines, 
with  one-third  less  force,  were  operated  every  day  in  the  year  they  would  get 
out  as  much  coal  as  they  do  now  operating  200  days  a  year  with  the  force  they 
have. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  Then  it  would  amount  to  this,  that  the  wages  paid,  according 
to  your  opinion,  in  the  mines  at  the  present  time,  considering  the  loss  in  days, 
is  not  sufficiently  attractive  to  induce  skilled  men,  the  class  of  men  that  would 
be  careful  in  mining,  to  enter  that  employment? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  not.  I  think  the  fact  of  the  irregular  work  and  the 
danger  of  work  in  mines  has  resulted  in  the  fact  that  the  sons  of  English- 
speaking  men  are  seeking  to  find  employment  in  other  fields,  they  are  giving  up 
mining,  and  many  of  these  English-speaking  miners  have  left  the  mines  and 
gone  to  other  fields,  partly  because  they  wanted  to  work  outside  in  the  fresh 
air  and  partly  because  mining  is  an  extremly  dangerous,  operation,  and  be- 
cause it  is  irregular.  The  best  they  can  expect  is  from  200  up  to  never  to  ex- 
ceed 220  days  average  employment  in  the  year,  and  sometimes  in  some  of  the 
States  very  much  less  than  that.  I  have  known  of  some  mines  in  Illinois  in 
which  there  have  been  only  175  days'  works  a  year. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  I  notice  that  the  ton  rate  in  the  Hocking  Valley  district  has 
increased  from  45  cents  in  1897  to  $1  at  the  present  time.  Has  that  increase 
in  the  rate  been  commensurate  with  the  increase  in  earnings?  Have  the 
earnings  doubled? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  I  think  not.  That  would  seem  to  be  the  case  that  the 
wages  have  increased  about  120  per  cent,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  machines 
have  been  introduced,  and,  of  course,  the  machine  rate  is  very  much  lower 
than  that,  so  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  has  been  a  very  large  increase  in 
the  earning  power  of  the  men  and  their  earnings,  but  it  has  not  been  the  differ- 
once  of  120  per  cent  in  earnings,  even  though  the  scale  for  pick  mining  has 
increased  120  per  cent. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  would  the  earnings  of  the  machine  miner  compare  with 
those  of  the  hand  man  or  the  pick  man? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Well  , about  the  same,  I  dare  say,  but  that  would  not  mean, 
of  course,  that  he  had  increased  his  wages  the  difference  between  45  cents  a 
ton  and  $1  a  ton,  because  the  machine-mining  scale  in  Ohio  originally,  I  think, 
was  five-sevenths  of  the  pick  mine  price,  and  as  the  machine  took  the  place  of 
the  pick  mining  that  probably  means  that  the  pick  miner — there  are  very  few 
pick  miners — but  it  probably  means  that  the  pick  miner  earns  about  the  same 
amount  of  wages. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  you  regard  the  differential  allowed  the  machine  as  based 
chiefly  on  the  difference  between  the  product  or  upon  the  cost  of  getting  it  out? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  In  Illinois,  where  they  have  an  arbitrary  differential  of  7 
cents  a  ton,  I  think  there  it  enables  the  mine  owner  to  produce  his  machine- 
mined  coal  at  a  little  better  price  than  the  pick  coal,  and  he  gets  a  better 
grade  of  coal.  In  other  States,  I  think,  the  mine  owner  has  an  undue  advan- 
tage. I  thing  the  difference  in  cost  between  pick  coal  and  machine-mined  coal 
is  not  equitable ;  I  think  there  should  be  a  less  differential.  I  think  the  Illinois 
differential  is  about  the  correct  one — 7  cents  on  the  run-of-mine  coal  or  screen 
coal. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  do  you  mean  by  saying  it  is  inequitable,  from  what 
standpoint?  That  the  man  can  make  about  the  same  earnings,  or  that  it  puts 
the  coal  on  the  same  basis? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Both.  I  think  it  enables  the  workman  to  make  about  the 
same  amount  of  wages  with  the  same  effort,  and  it  allows  the  mine  owner  a 

38819°— 16 27 


418          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

fair  return  on  his  investment.  I  think  it  is  a  profitable  in  vestment  at  7  cents 
a  ton.  For  instance,  I  do  know  mine  owners  who  on  their  own  account  operate 
machines  with  a  differential  of  only  4  cents  a  ton. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock,  any  questions? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  were  saying  that  you  do  not  regard  the  pres- 
ent system  of  settling  disputes  as  perfect ;  in  other  words,  it  is  not  the  best 
conceivable  system;  but  is  it  the  best  possible  system? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Well,  it  has  been  the  best  system  that  we  were  able  to  devise, 
and  in  practice  it  seems  to  do  better  than  anything  else  that  we  have  attempted. 
I  have,  as  I  have  already  stated,  tried  several  systems,  and  the  system  that  we 
now  have  seems  to  operate  better  than  those  that  I  have  experimented  with. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  I  presume  that  the  question  of  trade  agreements,  then,  is 
not  a  perfected  science,  but  simply  a  progressive  science? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes ;  I  think  that  is  quite  true. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  And  you  believe  it  is  possible  that  we  have  not  reached  the 
highest  possibility  yet,  that  it  will  be  possible  to  improve  the  system  of  entering 
into  agreements,  so  as  to  further  minimize  possible  friction? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  it  would  be  possible ;  and  it  is  probable  that  experi- 
ence will  demonstrate  the  advisability  of  new  machinery  for  the  operation  of 
agreements.  Of  course,  the  agreements  themselves  will  be  regarded  as  funda- 
mental. I  mean  the  principle  is  fundamental,  but  I  take  it  that  experience  will 
demonstrate  the  advisability  of  providing  agencies  through  which  the  agree- 
ments may  be  operated  with  less  friction. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  It  has  been  brought  out  in  the  discussion  here  that  since 
1897  wages  have  increased  about  122  per  cent,  or  that  the  cost  per  ton  has 
increased  122  per  cent,  and  that  the  working  hours  have  been  decreased  20 
per  cent. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  from  10  hours  to  8. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  How  has  that  been  equalized?  Has  that  come  out  of  the 
pockets  of  the  ow^ners  or  has  it  been  added  on  to  the  consumer? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  that  the  scale  would  not  justify  the  interpretation 
that  the  earnings  have  been  increased  122  per  cent. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  No ;  I  realize  that — that  the  earnings  have  not  been  increased 
122  per  cent — but  the  cost  of  producing  has  been  increased  122  per  cent— that 
is,  here  formerly  it  cost  45  cents  a  ton  to  mine,  it  now  costs  $1  a  ton  to  mine ; 
the  worker  may  not  get  the  full  difference  between  45  cents  and  a  dollar — but 
it  costs  that  much  more  to  produce  the  coal. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  not  necessarily.  For  instance,  the  introduction  of  ma- 
chinery has  taken  the  place  of  hand  labor ;  the  miners  have  been  equipped  in 
many  ways  to  reduce  costs,  equipment  has  been  put  in  for  protection.  For 
instance,  there  are  large  mines  which  formerly  produced  a  thousand  tons  of  coal 
that  now  produce  2,000  tons.  There  has  been  that  tremendous  saving  in  cost  there, 
but  the  mine  owners  have  not  received  122  per  cent  advance  on  the  selling 
price  of  the  coal.  They  have  received  a  considerable  advance,  but  whereas — the 
Hocking  Valley  in  1897 — there  the  mining  price,  as  I  show  on  our  scale,  was  45 
cents  in  1896,  but  the  selling  price  at  that  time  f .  o.  b.  cars,  mines,  was  85  cents 
a  ton.  That  means  all  kinds  of  coal,  mine-run  coal,  whereas  in  1912  the  mining 
price  was  $1  a  ton  and  the  selling  price  of  coal  f.  o.  b.  was  $1.15  a  ton. 

Now,  of  course,  that  wrould  seem  to  indicate  that  the  mine  owners  had 
tremendous  profit  when  they  got  85  cents  a  ton  and  paid  45  cents,  or  that  they 
must  receive  a  very  small  profit  now  when  they  pay  $1  a  ton  and  sell  coal  for 
.$1.15;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  was  a  screened-coal  scale;  they  really  do 
not  pay  $1  a  ton.  They  pay  $1  a  ton  for  screened  coal,  but  40  per  cent  of 
all  the  coal  may  pass  through  the  screens,  and  the  mine  owners  sell  this 
40  per  cent  as  well  as  the  60  per  cent ;  therefore,  in  order  to  get  at  the  facts 
about  it  you  would  have  to  reduce  this  screened-coal  price  to  the  mine-run 
basis,  which  would  be  probably  60  per  cent  of  the  screen-coal  price  would  be 
mine-run  price,  and  if  the  screen  coal  was  $1  a  ton  in  wages,  mine  run 
would  be  60  cents.  Now,  of  course,  if  they  pay  60  cents  for  mine-run  coal 
and  sell  that  for  $1.15  it  explains  in  part  what  seems  to  be  discrepancy. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Can  you  say  approximately  what  has  been  the  increase  in 
the  earnings  of  miners  since  1897? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  can  not  give  that  just  offhand;  I  have  no  statistics,  there 
are  none  available,  but  I  dare  say  in  many  of  the  districts  the  miners  now 
receive  75  per  cent  more  wages  than  they  received  in  1896  and  prior  to  that 
time. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  419 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  a  miner  that  earned  $1  a  day  in  1897  would  earn 
$1.75  to-day,  in  that  ratio? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  so ;  I  should  judge  that  the  average  wages  of  miners 
in  1896  did  not  exceed  $400. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  A  year? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  A  year. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  And  to-day  it  would  be  75  per  cent  more;  that  would  be 
about  $675  a  year. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes.  I  think  that  would  be  about  right.  I  would  like  to 
make  this  qualification — of  course,  I  could  give  you  the  figures  if  I  thought 
about  it — I  think  that  the  mines  in  1896  operated  ihore  days  in  the  year  than 
they  do  now,  and  there  must  be  some  allowance  for  my  estimate  in -regard  to 
that,  based  on  a  less  number  of  days. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Can  you  approximate  it  in  any  way?  At  the  present  time 
I  gather  that  the  average  is  about  200  working  days  in  the  year. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Will  you  state  approximately  what  they  operated  at  that 
period? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  but  I  could  supply  you  with  that.  I  see  the  statistician 
of  the  Geological  Survey  right  here,  and  he  can  probably  tell  you  right  offhand 
what  that  is. 

Mr.  PAKKER  (statistician  of  the  Geological  Survey).  No;  I  could  not  tell  that 
offhand. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Has  the  daily  output  per  diem  been  increased  since  1897? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Has  he  a  higher  efficiency? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes;  there  has  been  a  considerable  increase  in  the  output 
per  man  per  working  day ;  that  is  in  part  accounted  for  by  the  introduction  of 
the  machines,  and  in  part  accounted  for  by  greater  efficiency  due  to  higher 
wages. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Do  the  miners  object  to  the  introduction  of  labor-saving 
machines  in  the  mines? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  That  depends  entirely  upon  the  basis  upon  which  they  are 
introduced ;  in  the  district  where  the  differential  is  so  wide  that  it  is  a  disad- 
vantage to  the  miner,  they  would  prefer  not  to  have  it,  whereas  in  Illinois, 
with  a  differential  of  7  cents  a  ton,  a  good  many  would  prefer  to  have  the 
machines.  As  I  say,  in  the  last  10  years  the  unskilled  man  could  not  probably 
work  with  a  pick  anyhow,  and  if  he  works  behind  a  machine  he  simply  shovels 
the  coal,  and  the  skilled  man  runs  the  machine. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  How  seriously  has  the  introduction  of  machinery  reduced 
the  number  of  men  employed? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  You  can  not  estimate  it,  except  as  you  may  say,  how  much 
greater  would  have  been  the  increase  in  the  number  of  men.  There  has  been 
approximately  an  increase  of  20  per  cent  of  men  in  the  mines  of  the  United 
States  in  the  last  10  years,  it  has  been  an  increase  of  about  20,000  a  year. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Twenty  thousand  a  year? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  About  20,000. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Then  in  the  last  10  years  the  number  of  men  has  increased 
approximately  200,000? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  that  is  about  right.  I  may  be  mistaken  in  those  fig- 
ures. There  may  have  been  some  years  in  which  there  was  no  increase,  but  in 
looking  it  up  it  shows  an  increase  of  20  per  cent  in  various  years. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Is  that  due  to  increased  operation — opening  many  more  coal 
mines? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  There  has  been  a  great  many  mines  opened,  but  I  think  that 
has  been  due  to  the  fact  that  the  immigrant  laborers  come  into  the  mines  and 
write  letters  home  to  the  fellows  in  the  country  from  which  they  came  and 
induce  them  to  corne  here,  and  the  immigrants  have  been  attracted  to  the  min- 
ing industry.  I  think  it  is  by  their  fellow  immigrants  who  preceded  them  here. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Has  the  demand  for  coal  kept  pace  with  the  increased  pro- 
duction, and  has  not  the  use  of  oil  for  fuel  interfered? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  It  has  interfered  in  many  States.  For  instance,  many  of  the 
roads  running  from  Kansas  City  west  have  used  oil  for  fuel  instead  of  coal, 
notwithstanding  that  there  has  been  a  progressive  increase  in  the  production 
of  coal.  In  some  years  it  has  gone  back — in  years  of  great  industrial  activity 
the  consumption  of  coal  would  be  greater  than  in  following  years — but  in  any 


420          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

period  of  three  or  four  years  it  shows  a  very  large  increase;  the  per  capita 
production  of  coal  in  the  United  States  has  increased  tremendously. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  The  annual  increased  earnings  of  miners  have  been  material 
since  1897,  but  has  the  cost  of  living  increased  more  or  less  in  proportion  with 
these  increased  earnings,  so  far  as  you  know? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  There  is  not  any  doubt  in  my  mind  that  the  earnings  have  in- 
creased to  a  greater  extent  than  the  cost  of  living  has  increased;  I  mean,  if 
you  base  it  purely  on  what  his  money  would  buy.  I  do  not  mean  by  that  to 
say  that  miners  have  a  surplus  left  at  the  end  of  the  year,  because  their  desires 
have  increased  proportionately  with  their  wages ;  the  things  they  buy  now  are 
things  that  they  would  not  think  of  buying  10  years  ago. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  If  a  miner  had  precisely  the  same  standard  of  living  to-day 
that  he  had  in  1897,  I  presume  he  could  save  more  than  he  could  in  1897. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Oh,  yes;  of  course.  There  is  no  doubt  about  it.  There  can 
be  no  question  about  it.  The  miner  is  so  much  better  off  now  than  he  was  in 
1897  that  there  is  no  basis  of  comparison.  He  is  simply  beyond  calculation 
better  off;  better  off  in  every  way. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  That  increase  of  earning  power  has  increased  his  standard 
of  living? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  he  is  the  best  off,  for  he  is  not. 
Coal  miners  ought  to  be  among  the  highest  paid  workmen  in  America. 

Mr.    WEINSTOCK.  You    explained    that    under    existing    agreements    the   em- 
ployers deduct  from  the  wage  the  union  dues? 
Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Does  that  mean  that  all  mines  employing  union  men  are 
closed  shops? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes ;  that  is,  they  are  union  shops. 
Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Nonunion  men  are  not  employed  there? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Any  man  applying  for  employment  may  be  given  work  with- 
out a  protest,  but  he  afterwards  automatically  comes  into  the  union. 

Mr.  WIEN STOCK.  And  if  he  refuses  to  pay  his  dues  he  can  not  be  employed? 
Mr.  MITCHELL.  No. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  So  that  it  is  practically  a  closed  shop? 
Mr.  MITCHELL.  We  always  use  the  term  union  shop. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  In  California  we  speak  of  it  as  the  closed  and  the  open  shop. 
Now,  you  were  speaking  of  cutthroat  competition,  and  that  under  this  agree- 
ment arrangement  it  has  minimized  the  cutthroat  competition  between  mine 
owners  ? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  If  it  is  illegal  for  owners  to  agree  upon  prices  under  the 
Sherman  Act,  how  does  that  prevent  cutthroat  competition? 
Mr.  MITCHELL.  That  did  not  prevent  it ;  unfortunately  they  still  have  it. 
Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Cutthroat  competition? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Cutthroat  competition,  but  not  to  the  same  extent.  I  might 
illustrate :  Prior  to  the  advent  of  these  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  and 
prior  to  the  establishment  of  these  trade  agreements  it  was  not  unusual  for  a 
mine  owner  to  go  to  his  employees,  and  say,  "  Here,  I  can  get  a  contract  for,  say, 
a  thousand  tons  a  day,  and  that  would  operate  this  mine  every  day  in  the  year, 
but  I  will  have  to  take  it  at  10  cents  a  ton  less  than  is  paid  by  the  man  that 
has  it  now.  If  you  men  will  accept  10  cents  reduction  in  the  mining  price,  I 
will  take  the  contract."  The  men  sometimes  agree  to  do  that,  and  at  other 
times  they  are  compelled  to  do  it.  Then  the  mine  owner  will  go  out  and  take 
the  contract,  and  the  mine  owner  from  whom  he  took  the  contract  would  say 
to  his  men,  "  The  contract  is  gone,  and  I  can  not  operate  the  mine  at  all  unless 
I  have  a  corresponding  reduction  in  wages,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  if  I 
take  a  contract  like  that  I  must  have  a  greater  reduction." 

Now,  there  is  the  character  of  competition  that  has  been  entirely  eliminated 
by  the  trade  agreements.  All  competition  for  trade  now  is  not  based  upon  the 
payment  of  low  wages ;  that  is,  each  mine  owner  knows  at  any  rate  that  he  has 
a  certain  wage  cost,  and  if  he  is  able  to  take  a  contract  from  his  neighbor  now 
he  either  does  it  at  less  profit  or  no  profit,  or  because  of  superiority  of  manage- 
ment. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  In  other  words  formerly  a  cut  in  price  was  squeezed  out  of 
labor? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Now,  all  union  employees  start  out  on  an  even  basis  as  far 
as  wages  are  concerned? 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  421 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  And  the  unfair  employer  has  no  advantage  now  over  the  fair 
employer,  as  far  as  his  labor  cost  is  concerned? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  As  far  as  his  labor  cost  is  concerned,  no. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  So  that  while  the  trade  agreement  may  not  have  prevented 
cutthroat  competition  in  the  way  of  profits  it  has  prevented  it  in  the  way  of 
wages  to  labor? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  You  say  that  organized  labor  is  almost  united  as  being  op- 
posed to  compulsory  arbitration  in  America? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  What  about  compulsory  inquiries  like  they  have  in  Canada? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  I  should  look  with  disfavor  upon  it  simply  because  I 
regard  it  as  having  been  a  failure  in  Canada.  I  think  that  the  Canadian  system 
has  not  been  of  any  value  in  the  larger  industries.  I  know  what  is  said  about 
it,  and  they  point  to  hundreds  of  strikes  avoided,  agreements  made,  and  so  on, 
but  it  is  usually  in  the  small  industries. 

For  instance,  I  know  in  my  trade,  in  mining,  where  a  dispute  arose  in  the 
Crow's  Nest  Pass  district  of  Alberta,  in  which  several  thousand  men  were 
involved,  that  the  Canadian  Government  sent  out  representatives  there  to 
mediate,  and  failing,  said  that  the  law  should  be  obeyed,  and  that  the  men 
should  not  strike,  and  the  men  said,  "  We  will  not  strike."  Well,  it  would  be 
very  easy  for  the  Government  to  have  arrested  a  dozen  men  in  some  industry, 
but  a  question  of  putting  in  prison  or  fining  perhaps  2,000  men,  that  was  a 
different  proposition,  because  the  nonpayment  of  fines  would  mean  prison,  and 
the  Canadian  Government  decided  not  to  go  any  further  in  the  matter,  nor  to 
take  any  drastic  action. 

That  was  also  true  in  Nova  Scotia  and  true  in  "some  other  districts  in  Canada, 
so  that  I  think  the  Canadian  system  is  repulsive ;  there  is  a  compulsory  process 
to  the  Canadian  system  that  is  repulsive  to  the  workingmen. 

I  think  the  Lamoe  Act  of  Canada  has  not  been  a  success,  notwithstanding  all 
the  claims  that  have  been  made  for  it.  In  attempting  to  demonstrate  the  suc- 
cess of  that  system  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  we  in  America 
have  disputes  and  strikes,  and  that  they  have  avoided  them  in  Canada ;  but  if 
you  compare  in  the  United  States  the  number  of  disputes  that  were  avoided 
by  direct  negotiation  between  employers  and  workingmen,  if  you  compare  the 
number  of  trade  agreements  in  existence  in  the  United  States  as  against  the 
number  of  disputes  averted  in  Canada  through  the  intervention  of  the  Govern- 
ment, I  think  you  will  find  that  we  have  been  equally  as  successful  as  they  have 
been  in  Canada.  If  you  make  that  contrast — and  I  should  say  that  that  would 
be  the  only  proper  way  to  do  it — I  think  we  have  been  as  successful  as  they 
have  been,  and  we  have  not  had  the  disadvantages  that  they  have  labored 
under. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  As  I  understand  it,  the  Canadian  act  is  confined  to  public 
utilities.  Are  coal  mines  considered  in  Canada  as  public  utilities? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WTEiNsrrocK.  They  come  under  the  public-utilities  act? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  But  they  are  not  owned  by  the  Government? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes ;  I  think  the  ownership  of  all  the  coal  in  Canada  is  vested 
in  the  Government. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  The  Newlands  Act  of  the  United  States,  which  followed 
after  the  Erdman  Act  in  dealing  with  railroad  disputes,  as  I  understand  it,  is 
practically  the  Canadian  act,  except  that  it  is  not  compulsory? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes;  I  understand  so. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  regard  that  with  more  favor  than  the  Canadian  act? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Very  much  more;  because  the  element  of  compulsion  is  not 
there. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Under  the  Canadian  act,  as  I  understand  it,  labor  can  not 
strike  and  employers  can  not  lock  out  until  there  has  been  first  a  public  inquiry 
on  the  part  of  the  Government ;  and  the  inquiry  having  been  made  and  recom- 
mendations submitted,  they  are  part  of  the  inquiry  and  can  be  accepted  or 
rejected ;  and  if  rejected,  then  the  strike  can  legally  take  place,  and  a  lockout 
can  legally  take  place? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Now,  under  the  Newlands  Act,  as  I  understand  it,  the 
workers  are  at  liberty  to  strike  before  there  is  an  investigation? 


422          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  And  the  employers  are  at  liberty  to  lock  out  before  there  is 
an  investigation? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  The  difference  between  the  two  systems  is  this:  That  in 
Canada  the  inquiry  must  be  before  there  is  cessation  of  work,  and  in  the  United 
States  there  has  to  be  an  inquiry  either  before  or  after  the  cessation  of  work? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes ;  and,  of  course,  there  are  no  penalties  here,  and  there 
are  there. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  In  your  opinion  the  American  act  is  the  preferred  act? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  By  far.  As  soon  as  the  element  of  compulsion  enters,  that 
of  course  arouses  the  hostility  of  the  workman,  and  I  think  it  would  of  the 
employer,  too.  The  fact  that  in  Canada  men  may  be  fined  for  failure  to  observe 
the  act  and  may  be  sent  to  prison — because,  of  course,  if  the  men  refuse  to  pay 
their  fines  there  must  be  some  way  of  enforcing  it,  which  means  prison — and 
in  America  the  men  feel  that  there  should  be  no  direct  or  indirect  process  by 
which  a  penalty  could  be  imposed  on  the  man  who  gives  up  his  work ;  in  other 
words,  that  it  is  a  species  of  involuntary  servitude,  which  is  repugnant  to  the 
law  of  the  land,  and  that  the  right  to  quit  work  rests  with  himself,  except  this : 
Of  course  no  American  workingman  claims  that  he  has  the  right  to  violate  his 
contract,  and  he  regards  it  as  no  hardship  at  all  if  his  union  should  say,  "  You 
must  observe  the  terms  of  your  contract  and  remain  at  work." 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  In  other  words,  then,  the  union  man  is  placed  in  this  posi- 
tion :  That  there  are  times  when  he  may  want  to  work,  and  the  union  says, 
"  You  shall  not  work,"  and  he  must  refrain  from  working,  and  under  the 
Canadian  act  he  may  be  compelled  to  work  when  he  does  not  want  to  work; 
so  the  situation  is  reversed. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Well,  there  are  times,  of  course,  when  individual  working- 
men  may  disagree  with  the  decisions  of  their  unions,  and  when  the  union  has 
decided  to  strike ;  I  do  not  doubt  that  at  all,  but  I  think  they  make  a  contrast 
in  which  there  are  like  principles  involved.  For  instance,  in  a  case  in  Canada 
a  man  may  want  to  strike  because  he  may  believe  that  he  can  secure  better 
conditions  through  a  strike  than  he  could  through  the  mediation  of  the  Do- 
minion Government,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  strikes  sometimes  change  market 
conditions.  For  instance,  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  in  the  world  that  in 
1897  when  the  coal  miners  of  the  United  States  went  on  strike  that  they  struck 
for  wages  that  the  operators  could  not  afford  to  pay  them.  I  do  not  think 
the  operators  could  have  paid  them  more  wages  unless  they  had  created  a  new 
market.  In  other  words,  the  miners  struck  not  against  the  operators,  they 
struck  against  the  market;  they  struck  to  try  to  regulate  competition  suffi- 
ciently so  that  the  mine  owners  could  get  prices  for  their  products  that  would 
enable  they  to  pay  wages  to  the  men.  Now,  of  course,  in  taking  that  instance 
any  arbitration  undertaken  at  that  time  would  have  resulted  in  the  men  being 
defeated,  because  the  mine  operator  could  not  pay  wages  unless  he  made 
profit.  I  mean  the  wages  of  the  workingmen  and  the  dividends  of  the  employer 
must  come  out  of  the  earnings  of  the  industry. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  have  stated  that  one  of  the  results  of  these  trade 
agreements  in  the  coal  industry  has  been  to  bring  about  industrial  peace,  and 
that  is  one  of  the  objects  of  our  investigation,  the  investigation  by  this  com- 
mission. From  my  point  of  view,  as  representing  an  industry  that  has  to 
be  a  large  consumer  of  coal,  my  observation  is  that  we  have  a  strike  about 
every  two  years,  a  cessation  of  production  of  coal  which  puts  all  consumers 
to  very  large  expense.  We  are  looking  for  industrial  peace,  but  that  does  not 
seem  quite  to  conform  to  my  notion  of  what  industrial  peace  is,  if  we  are 
going  to  have  a  war  every  two  years ;  what  is  the  answer  to  that? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  you  are  mistaken  as  to  there  being  a  strike  every  two 
years.  Of  course  I  am  speaking  of  the  term  covered  by  trade  agreements. 
For  instance,  the  trade  agreements  in  the  bituminous-coal  industry — I  take  it 
you  refer  to  that? 

Mr.  DELANO.  Yes. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  The  first  one  was  made  in  January,  1898,  following  the  strike 
of  1897.  Now,  the  agreement  made  in  1898  at  the  Chicago  conference  con- 
tinued without  interruption  at  all,  and  I  think  without  stoppage  of  work.  In 
3900  the  agreement  was  made  without  suspension  of  work,  and  in  1901  again 
there  was  no  suspension  of  work.  I  think  the  first  suspension  of  work  occurred 
in  1904,  and  that  lasted  for  a  period  of  six  weeks,  when  the  agreement  was 
made,  In  1906  again  there  was  a  suspension  of  work  for  a  sliort  time.  It  is 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  423 

true  that  there  have  been  periods  during  the  la>..t  16  years  when  the  miners 
and  mine  owners  have  failed  to  reach  their  agreements  on  the  1st  of  April, 
when  they  expire.  There  have  been  short  suspensions,  but  usually  they  have 
got  together  shortly  thereafter. 

I  could  not  very  well  attempt  to  fix  the  responsibility  for  that,  but  there  is 
a  peculiar  situation  in  that  a  good  many  miners  have  previous  to  suspen- 
sions— for  instance,  if  a  man  were  a  dealer  in  coal  in  a  targe  city  he  might 
very  well  profit  immensely  from  a  suspension  of  work  on  the  1st  day  of  April, 
the  day  of  the  expiration  of  the  agreement,  for  if  he  had  many  thousands  of 
tons  in  stock  he  would  sell  it  at  a  much  higher  price  than  otherwise.  And  I 
know  that  the  railroads  have  been  disturbed  by  the  fact  that  they  fear  a 
suspension,  even  though  it  did  not  occur;  they  could  not  permit  themselves 
to  be  without  fuel,  and  they  have  probably  stocked  up  by  the  1st  of  April,  so 
that  if  the  suspension  occurred  they  still  would  have  enough  coal  to  run  the  rail- 
road. That  I  regard  as  a  serious  matter,  and  it  is  one  that  I  regret,  too. 

Mr.  DELANO.  And  that  would  apply  to  any  public-service  company,  such  as 
a  gas  company  or  an  electric  company  or  a  water  company  or  street  car  com- 
pany? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes;  I  think  that  those  of  1904  and  1906,  thought.  I  think 
those  are  the  only  times  during  my  connection  with  the  organization  that  there 
were  suspensions  on  the  1st  of  April. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Was  it  not  again  in  1908  and  1910? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  in  1908 — that  was  the  year  of  my  retirement — I  think 
there  was  for  about  three  days,  because  as  soon  as  I  got  out  of  office — and,  by 
the  way,  the  suspension  would  not  have  occurred,  had  it  not  been  for  the  fact 
of  an  agreement  to  let  my  successor  make  the  agreement — the  agreement  ex- 
pired on  the  1st  of  April,  and  the  conference  convened  at  Toledo  on  the  4th 
of  April,  and  the  agreement  was  immediately  made. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  do  not  want  you  to  think  that  my  question  is  in 
criticism. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  I  understand  that 

Commissioner  DELANO.  But  we  are  groping,  we  are  trying  to  find  some  scheme 
that  will  bring  about  industrial  peace.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  if  those  who 
are  dependent  upon  an  industry  do  not  know  that  there  is  industrial  peace,  or 
that  there  is  any  machinery  to  produce  industrial  peace,  those  who  are  de- 
pendent upon  that  industry  feel  that  very  seriously.  My  familiarity  with  this 
question  is  simply  from  that  standpoint.  Now,  take  the  1st  of  April,  just  a 
few  days  ago,  there  was  not  a  single  person  in  the  Middle  West  dependent  on 
the  coal  industry  that  knew  whether  the  coal  industry  would  continue  or 
whether  it  would  cease,  or  whether  it  would  cease  for  one  month  or  for  two 
months.  Everyone  who  is  absolutely  dependent  on  coal  to  continue  the  serv- 
ices that  they  are  rendering  had  to  be  forehanded  enough  to  buy  30  or  60  days' 
or  more,  according  to  how  his  judgment  directed.  That  seems  to  indicate  some 
policy  or  something  wrong  in  the  nature  of  the  trade  agreement. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Well,  of  course  one  way  to  provide  against  it  would  be  to  have 
trade  agreements  covering  a  longer  period ;  that  is  to  say,  it  would  lessen  that. 
Of  course,  in  the  mining  industry  we  have  attempted  to  make  the  agreement 
for  two  years  instead  of  one  as  formerly,  and  in  the  anthracite  four  years  in- 
stead of  two.  In  the  southwestern  district  we  attempted  to  meet  that  by  pro- 
viding that  if  the  agreement  is  not  negotiated  by  the  1st  of  April,  the  day,  that 
the  agreement  expires,  that  the  men  shall  continue  at  work  for  another  period 
of  30  days  while  further  attempts  are  being  made  to  negotiate  the  agreement. 

Now,  of  course  such  an  agreement  as  this  in  the  southwest  has  its  disad- 
vantages to  the  workingmen  and  they  do  not  like  it.  For  instance,  if  pro- 
vision is  made  for  workingmen,  coal  miners,  to  continue  after  the  expiration 
of  the  agreement  all  the  advantage  is  with  the  employers,  because  it  means 
that  they  can  pile  up  coal  and  defeat  the  men  in  a  strike  that  may  follow. 

I  recognize,  however,  the  merit  of  what  you  say  about  that,  that  the  rail- 
roads are  put  to  a  great  deal  of  inconvenience  on  the  approach  of  the  expira- 
tion of  each  agreement,  because  they  do  not  know  that  work  is  to  be  continued, 
and  yet  in  experience  and  in  practice  the  difficulty  has  not  been  so  serious  as 
was  feared;  for  instance.  I  dare  say  that  in  railroad  service  all  the  transpor- 
tation men  would  have  the  right  to  stop  work  at  the  end  of  their  agreement, 
and  yet  they  do  go  on  negotiating  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  have  the 
right  to  stop. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  In  that  respect  apparently  the  railroads,  in  their 
trade  agreements,  have  been  able  to  work  out  a  system  that  does  not  involve 


424          BEPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

cessation,  and,  of  course,  cessation  would  not  be  tolerated  by  the  public  in  the 
case  of  a  railroad. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  But  it  is  tolerated  in  the  case  of  operating  mines. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes.  I  presume  it  would  not  be  tolerated  in  the  mining  in- 
dustry either  if  it  were  not  possible  to  load  up  coal  to  meet  just  these  con- 
tingencies. Of  course,  with  the  capacity  of  the  mines  one-third  greater  than 
the  possible  consumption  of  coal  it  is  not  difficult  for  industries  to  provide  even 
for  three  or  six  months'  supply  of  coal,  and  I  think  the  railroads  have  some- 
times provided  for  as  much  as  six  months'  fuel. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Lennon,  any  questions? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Have  yon  in  your  general  experience  found  any  pos- 
sibility of  a  trade  agreement  without  organization  on  both  sides  to  some  ex- 
tent or  must  there  be  special  interest  on  the  side  of  the  workingmen? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  I  think  that  would  be  impossible.  In  other  words,  I 
think  the  trade  agreement  presupposes  the  organization  of  the  workers,  and  I 
think  the  trade  agreements  are  better  made  where  the  employers  are  also 
recognized. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  want  to  ask  a  qustion  or  two  on  a  subject  that  was 
started  by  our  friend  Mr.  Thompson,  as  to  the  matter  of  education,  the  possi- 
bility of  the  miners  receiving,  through  the  aid  of  the  State  or  through  voca- 
tional education,  a  better  knowledge  of  the  dangers  of  dust  and  gas  formation, 
and  necessarily  a  knowledge  of  the  composition  of  coal.  Is  there  not  a  possi- 
bility of  that  being  done  to  the  advantage  of  the  miners? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Well,  I  think  to  a  less  extent  than  any  other  industry  in  the 
United  States.  To  begin  with,  industrial  training  to  be  successful  must  have — 
I  think  we  must  be  able  to  get  some  practical  demonstration,  and  of  course 
that  is  impossible.  I  think,  however,  the  knowledge  of  gases  would  be  of 
value,  and  I  think  perhaps  the  knowledge  of  insanitation,  insanitary  condi- 
tions, or  ventilation,  that  knowledge  would  be  of  value  to  the  miner,  par- 
ticularly a  knowledge  of  ventilation;  but  I  do  not  think  there  is  much  value 
to  his  knowledge  of  the  composition  of  coal;  I  do  not  think  that  would  make 
him  a  better  miner  at  all. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  How  would  you  apply  the  matter  to  the  miner's 
children.  Suppose  the  boy,  under  the  law,  is  permitted  to  enter  the  mine  and 
is  brought  out  to  go  to  school,  would  that  be  likely  to  improve  the  men  ? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  that  would  be  of  very  great  value,  if  we  could  have 
the  advantages  of  academic  training  or  classical  training,  but  I  do  not  think 
the  workmen  would  get  a  trade  training  in  school. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Well,  neither  do  I.  What  has  been  your  observation 
among  the  miners  as  to  their  being  law-abiding  citizens  at  this  time  compared 
to  what  they  were  20  or  25  years  ago?  Do  you  see  any  difference? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes;  I  think  there  has  been  a  marked  improvement  in  the 
whole  moral  life  of  the  miners.  For  instance,  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is 
general  among  the  workingmen,  but  I  think  it  may  be  said  among  miners — for 
instance,  take  as  to  drink — it  was  quite  a  common  thing  in  my  day  that  a 
miner  who  did  not  drink  was  not  regarded  as  much  of  a  miner ;  you  were  not 
looked  upon  as  being  a  very  strong  man ;  but  now  there  is  very  little,  there  is 
comparatively  little  drinking  among  the  miners.  In  fact,  in  some  States — I 
know,  that  every  coal  county  in  Ohio  went  dry — where  the  miners  had  the 
majority  of  the  votes  the  saloons  were  voted  out  of  the  county.  Since  then 
some  of  the  saloons  have  been  allowed  to  come  back,  but  in  southwestern 
Illinois  every  mining  town  is  practically  a  dry  town,  and  in  some  cases  the 
miners  compose  90  per  cent  of  the  voting  population. 

I  do  not  care  to  discuss  the  question  of  wet  and  dry.  but  it  is  indicative  of 
the  sentiment  that  exists  among  the  men,  and  I  think  that  the  improvement 
in  the  morale  and  the  spiritual  life  of  the  miners  has  been  proportionate  with 
his  increase  in  wages  and  the  reduction  of  his  hours  of  labor.  When  he 
worked  a  minimum  of  10  hours  a  day  and  even  much  more  than  that — when 
I  was  a  boy  a  miner  went  in  at  3  o'clock  in  the  morning  and  quit  at  7  o'clock 
at  night — when  he  worked  tremendously  long  hours  for  very  low  wages,  he  had 
a  different  outlook  upon  life  altogether  from  what  he  has  now;  so  I  say  it  has 
made  a  wonderful  change  in  the  miners  themselves. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Do  you  know  whether  any  of  the  districts  could 
furnish  the  commission  with  accurate  data  as  to  the  cessation  of  work  under 
agreement,  and  as  to  the  number  of  cases  where  the  men  were  to  blame  and 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS    IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  425 

the  number  of  cases  where  the  operators  were  to  blame;  can  you  furnish  us 
with  any  information  on  that? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  should  say  in  Illinois,  and  perhaps  in  Indiana,  they  could 
furnish  you  absolutely  accurate  data  of  the  number  of  disputes  and  the  de- 
cisions in  regard  to  them,  for  they  have  a  joint  organization  for  that  very 
purpose,  and  it  might  include  not  only  the  number  of  disputes  but  the  responsi- 
bility for  them  that  caused  the  stoppages. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  said  that  the  men  formerly  worked  10  hours 
long,  and  now  they  work  8.  Is  it  your  experience  that  where  laborers  work 
continuously,  maintain  continuous  work,  that  they  can  handle  as  much  tonnage 
in  8  hours  as  they  formerly  did  in  10?  Did  the  men  make  as  large  an  output? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  There  is  no  question  about  that.  Reports  which  are  available 
of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey  on  coal  production  have  tabulated  in 
them  a  statement  of  the  output  per  man  per  working  day,  and  it  shows  clearly 
that  the  output  per  man  per  working  day  is  greater  now  than  it  was  when 
a  man  worked  10  hours  a  day.  I  explained  a  while  ago  that  it  is  in  part 
accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  machnes  have  been  introduced,  and  it  is  in 
part  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  men  can  actually  do  more  work  by 
working  8  hours  than  they  formerly  did  at  10.  That  is  particularly  true  with 
mining,  where,  of  course,  under  the  best  conditions,  the  ventilation  is  not 
what  it  is  outside ;  the  air  is  not  pure ;  it  is  vitiated. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  spoke  of  the  regular  work,  that  the  men  worked 
on  an  average  of  about  200  to  225  days  in  the  year,  and  formerly  they  made 
more  days  per  year.  Is  that  because  the  mines  themselves  closed  down,  or  be- 
cause the  working  men  receive  a  larger  percentage  and  have  not  the  same  in- 
centive to  work  that  they  formerly  had? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  No;  it  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  production  all  over  the 
United  States  is  far  beyond  the  possible  consumption  of  coal.  For  instance, 
the  mines  in  the  United  States  produce  now  about  200,000,000  tons  of  coal  a 
year,  I  think  something  like  that — I  am  sorry  I  can  not  give  you  the  figures 
right  off — whereas,  if  they  have  a  capacity  of  one-third  more  than  that,  I  do 
not  mean  to  say  that  if  they  worked  every  day  they  would  actually  get  one- 
third  more,  because  there  are  stops  that  must  be  made  for  repairs,  but  there 
are  so  many  mines  in  the  United  States  that  there  is  not  more  than  two- 
thirds 

Commissioner  LENNON.  So  that  the  mines  close  down? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes;  the  mine  owner  closes  down,  the  mine  only  having  an 
opportunity  to  work  two-thirds  of  the  time. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  said  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America 'have 
control  of  many  of  these  mines;  do  they  handle  only  union  made  goods,  or  do 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  as  union  men,  handle  goods  of  any  kind, 
or  of  any  quality? 

Do  they  say  to  the  mine  owners  that  they  must  buy  tools  and  machinery 
made  in  union  factories,  and  oil  and  powder,  and  materials  made  in  union 
factories,  or  do  they  use  whatever  is  given  to  them  to  use? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  They  have  no  system  as  to  what  they  say  to  the  mine  owner 
about  it.  The  mine  owners,  as  a  rule,  try  to  secure  in  the  stores  where  they 
make  their  purchases  union  made  goods,  and  if  they  see  union  made  goods 
with .  union  label  on  they  will  buy  them  and  no  others,  but  as  far  as  their 
relations  writh  the  mine  owners  are  concerned,  there  is  nothing  said  about  it. 
For  instance,  most  of  the  powder  is  bought  by  the  miners  and  is  made  by 
nonunion  men. 

It  so  happens  that  there  is  very  little  powder  made  by  union  men  in  the 
United  States,  and  what  little  there  is  manufactured,  they  ask  the  mine  owner 
to  sell  to  them,  and  under  an  agreement  with  the  mine  owner,  they  jointly 
determine  the  character  of  powder  to  be  used ;  it  is  determined  by  test,  as  to 
the-value  of  the  powder  itself,  and  the  men  agree  to  buy  it  from  the  company 
and  pay  $1.75  a  keg  for  it,  and  it  costs  the  company  something  like  $1.10,  so 
that  it  is  a  very  profitable  arrangement  for  the  mine  owner  to  have  his  miners 
buy  from  him  under  that  arrangement. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Then  the  mine  workers  do  not  do  as  some  other 
men  do — refuse  to  work  with  nonunion  tools? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Very  little  of  that  comes  to  the  mines.  Most  of  that  which 
is  used  is  union. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  They  do  not  discriminate? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  they  would  try  their  very  best  to  have  the  mine 
owners  buy  union  material.  Of  course,  the  miner  does  not  have  to  buy  that 


426          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

unless  he  wants  to;  he  can  go  and  buy  it  anywhere.  The  mine  owner  does  not 
furnish  the  tools.  Of  course,  that  is  true  as  to  these  great  mining  machines, 
and  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  of  them  made  by  union  labor,  so  that  there 
is  no  cause  for  dispute  there,  but  if  there  was  a  dispute  and  there  were 
machines  made  by  union  labor  I  suppose  the  miner  would  have  the  mine  owner 
buy  machines  made  by  union  men. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  effect  has  the  agreement  had  upon  the  pro- 
tection of  life  and  prevention  of  accidents? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  That  is  a  most  difficult  question  to  answer.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  ratio  of  accidents  in  mines  has  increased  progressively,  except  in  the 
last  few  years,  when  there  has  been  an  effort  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment to  increase  safety,  and  it  has  had  a  measure  of  success,  and  promises 
to  develop  largely  in  the  future.  But,  of  course,  these  unskilled  men  come  into 
the  mines,  and  most  of  them  never  have  heard  of  a  coal  mine,  let  alone  work 
in  one,  before  they  came  here,  and  that  has  increased,  of  course,  the  number 
of  accidents.  What  the  ratio  would  have  been  if  there  were  no  miners'  union 
we  can  only  conjecture,  but  I  think  it  would  be  safe  to  say  that  if  it  had  not 
been  for  the  efforts  of  the  miners'  union  the  ratio  of  accidents  would  have 
doubled  \vith  the  employment  of  unskilled  men.  Of  course,  with  mining  legisla- 
tion— and  in  most  of  the  States  there  is  very  good  legislation — and  I  think 
that  has  been  the  result  of  efforts  of  the  miners'  union;  the  States  have  re- 
sponded to  the  efforts  of  the  miners'  union,  and  they  have  enacted  pretty  good 
mining  laws.  That  is  not  true  in  the  States  where  the  men  are  not  organized. 
There  is  very  little  legislation  and  a  very  lax  enforcement  of  mining  laws 
in  States  where  there  are  no  miners'  unions. 

For  instance,  if  I  might  explain,  in  West  Virginia  for  a  number  of  years  I 
compiled  statistics  for  my  own  use — they  killed  an  average  of  six  men  per  thou- 
sand employed ;  in  Illinois  they  killed  an  average  of  less  than  three  per  thou- 
sand employed  annually.  West  Virginia  is  a  nonunion  State.  In  Colorado, 
where  they  are  nonunion,  they  killed  on  an  average  about  seven ;  in  Missouri, 
also  nonunion,  they  killed  less  than  one  employee  annually.  In  Alabama,  non- 
union, the  average  number  killed  in  one  year  went  up  to  12.  Of  course,  that 
was  caused  by  an  explosion,  and  was  not  typical,  but  the  average  for  Alabama 
is  from  five  to  six  per  thousand  employed,  whereas  the  average  of  the  union 
States  runs  about  two  per  thousand  employed.  Just  as  the  miners'  union  in- 
creased its  membership  there  was  a  diminution  in  the  proportion  of  accidents. 
You  can  follow  the  mining  industry ;  if  you  were  to  chart  it  and  take  the  thor- 
oughly union  States,  the  partially  union  organized  States,  and  the  wholly  unor- 
ganized States,  you  will  find  the  proportion  of  accidents  going  down  as  you 
go  from  nonunion  to  union  fields,  and  it  gets  tremendously  high  in  nonunion 
States  and  tremendously  low  in  the  union  States.  Unfortunately,  in  the  best 
organized  State  in  this  country  the  accident  rate  is  twice  as  much  as  it  is  in 
other  districts. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Then  it  would  be  fairly  good  insurance  for  a  man 
to  join  unions  in  nonunion  States? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  regard  to  suspension  of  work,  in  your  ex- 
perience was  the  suspension  greater  before  the  time  of  the  agreement  than  it 
has  been  under  the  present  system  of  agreement? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  do  not  know  what  the  local  situation  was,  in  the  absence  of 
documents  and  the  absence  of  any  information,  but  I  should  say  the  strikes 
were  confined  to  small  territories,  whereas  now  it  usually  involves  a  very  large 
number  of  men.  I  do  not  know  what  the  relative  number  of  local  strikes  would 
be,  but  I  would  say  that  it  would  be  less  than  without  the  trade  agreement. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  the  shortening  of  the  hours?  I  suppose  you 
have  heard  the  same  as  others ;  in  shortening  the  hours  men  are  likely  to  spend 
their  leisure  time  carelessly  or  indifferently,  and  not  for  their  own  best  inter- 
ests? What  experience  have  you  had  with  miners  as  to  the  reduction  of  their 
hours?  Do  you  find  that  the  time  is  ill  spent,  or  do  they  develop  it  accordingly? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  there  is  no  question  about  it.  I  think  when  a  man 
comes  from  a  mine  or  a  mill  or  a  factory  or  a  railroad,  having  exhausted  his 
physical  and  mental  energy,  he  is  much  more  likely  to  seek  recuperation  or  relax- 
ation in  unwise  or  unhealthful  pleasures  than  he  is  if  he  comes  from  his  work 
physically  and  mentally  strong. 

In  other  words,  a  man  physically  and  mentally  strong  is  more  likely  to  get 
hold  of  a  good  book  than  a  man  who  coinos  from  his  work  exhausted.  I  do 
not  think  there  is  any  question  about  it.  I  remember  Prof.  Irving  Fisher  niak- 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  427 

ing  a  statement  on  the  hours  of  labor,  in  which  he  said  that  as  the  result  of 
scientific  investigation  the  shorter  working  day  makes  a  constant  rise  in  the 
physical  and  mental  standard  of  the  workingman,  and  Prof.  Clark,  of  Columbia, 
has  even  worked  it  out  in  detail.  I  remember  reading  where  he  said  that  if 
he  wanted  to  get  the  most  work  out  of  a  man  for  a  day  he  would  work  him  24 
hours ;  if  he  wanted  to  get  the  most  work  out  of  a  man  for  a  week,  he  would 
work  him  18  hours ;  and  if  he  wanted  the  most  work  out  of  him  for  a  month, 
he  would  work  him  12  hours,  and  so  on ;  but  coming  down  to  the  final  statement 
he  said  that  if  he  wanted  to  get  the  best  work  out  of  a  man,  for  his  entire  life 
he  would  work  him  8  hours.  So,  purely  on  the  standpoint,  of  production  it 
seems  the  8-hour  day  would  be  best,  and  then  he  goes  on  to  speak  about  the 
effect  on  his  physical  and  mental  condition. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Shortening  the  hours  has  a  tendency  toward  tem- 
perance rather  than  the  other? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  There  is  no  doubt  about  it  at  all. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELE.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  English  disputes  act? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Generally. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Would  you  think  that  if  an  act  of  that  character 
should  be  introduced  in  this  country  it  would  be  practicable? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  I  shall  have  to  ask  you  to  describe  the  features  you 
mean. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  features  of  combination  along  the  lines  some- 
what of  the  Newlands  act,  with  the  exception  that  both  employers  and  em- 
ployees would  be  represented  on  the  commission  to  investigate  and  adjourn* 
without  powers. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  As  I  said  in  response  to  the  question  of  Mr.  Thompson,  my  own 
judgment  is  that  the  establishment  of  such  a  tribunal  would  be  of  value  in  the 
maintenance  of  industrial  peace  and  industrial  righteousness. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Harriman. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  I  would  like  to  ask  if  you  are  familiar  with  the 
English  industrial  council,  but  I  see  you  met  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  is  all  tied  up  in  the  same  proposition. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  As  I  understand  it,  the  industrial  council  in  Eng- 
land is  made  up  of  13  representatives  of  employers  and  13  representatives  of 
employees,  and  I  wondered  which  you  thought  would  work  the  best  in  this 
country.  The  question  is,  Which  would  be  better,  the  smaller  ones — that,  of 
course,  has  an  independent  term — the  small  one  made  up  of  six  or  seven? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  the  small  council  that  they  have  would  be  of  greatest 
value.  I  think  that  is  a  pretty  large  body. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  deals  with  the  mining  industry  and  trans- 
portation. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  With  great  big  questions. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  As  I  understand  it,  it  would  be  to  deal  with  the 
large  questions. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  perhaps  a  tribunal  made  up,  say,  of  seven  men,  seven 
representatives,  would  be  better,  if  they  had  authority  to  select  or  appoint,  in- 
dependent of  themselves,  tribunals  in  industries  where  disputes  arose.  That 
might  be  a  better  working  body  to  have  a  council  as  small  as  seven. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr.  Mitchell,  you  have  given  several  statistical  state- 
ments. What  authority  do  you  depend  upon  for  your  statistical  information, 
that  you  can  refer  this  body  to,  to  work  out  these  statistical  data  to  verify  your 
statements? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  The  statistics  I  have  employed  I  have  taken  either  from  my 
own  reports  to  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  or  those  compiled  by  the 
United  States  Government. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Those  are  collected  from  the  employers,  those  you 
refer  to  as  being  compiled  by  the  United  States  Government? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Yes ;  I  suppose  so.  The  reports  of  the  United  States  Geologi- 
cal Survey  on  coal  production  I  referred  to.  I  have  not  used  very  much  of 
them ;  I  am  sorry  I  did  not.  But  may  I  suggest  that  the  commission  will  find 
the  results  of  a  most  exhaustive  inquiry  and  study  made  recently  by  a  student 
and  professor  of  Columbia  University,  Mr.  Suffern?  His  book  is  devoted  to 
arbitration  and  conciliation  in  the  mining  industry.  ,  The  book  won  the  first 
prize  in  an  economic  contest,  and  a  copy  of  the  manuscript  is  now  in  the  hands 
of  the  Department  of  Labor  here.  Mr.  Stewart,  of  the  Department  of  Labor, 
has  one  copy  of  the  manuscript  of  it.  But  I  dare  say  that  the  book  will  be  of 
very  great  value. 


428          KEPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  For  example,  these  accident  statistics  that  you  gave ; 
what  is  the  authority  for  them? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  The  Geological  Survey.  I  spoke  from  memory.  I  would  not 
say  positively. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  the  differential  between  picked  and  screened 
coal? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  From  the  agreements  themselves. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  the  differential  between  rates  made  and  paid 
miners  by  the  tonnage? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  From  the  agreements. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  mean  to  get  at  the  earnings  rather  than  at  the 
rate. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  That  is  from  my  memory.  That  was  based  upon  my  judg- 
ment. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Is  there  any  way  of  us  getting  at  that,  except 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  It  is  practically  impossible  to  find  the  average  earnings  of 
miners.  You  can  get  the  average  earnings  of  the  day  men  in  the  mines,  be- 
cause you  find  their  daily  wage  set  down,  but  to  got  the  average  annual  earnings 
of  men  who  work  by  the  ton  is  a  practical  impossibility.  The  coal  companies 
in  some  instances  could  give  that,  but  there  is  no  place  that  they  do  report, 
where  they  report  it.  I  have  never  been  able  to  get  them. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  could  not,  then,  determine  what  has  been  the 
actual  increase  over  a  period  of  16  years? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  It  would  be  a  practical  impossibility.  You  might  by  deduc- 
tion. The  report  of  the  Geological  Survey  does  show  by  States  the  number  of 
days  that  the  mine  is  operated.  It  shows  the  production  of  coal  per  man  per 
working  day.  Now,  by  taking  those  figures  and  by  figuring  it  as  to  what  they 
received  per  ton  for  it,  you  might  there  get  approximately  the  amount  of  wages 
earned  in  any  one  year  and,  of  course,  increases  in  their  wages  from  year  to 
year — the  increase  in  the  annual  earnings  from  year  to  year — but  that,  of 
course,  would  only  be  approximate. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  The  commission  decided  to  adjourn  at  1  o'clock  and 
meet  promptly  at  2  o'clock.  This  afternoon  we  will  try  to  conduct  our  wit- 
nesses into  channels  where  they  either  differ  with  or  supply  omissions  in  Mr. 
Mitchell's  testimony. 

We  thank  you,  Mr.  Mitchell,  for  your  appearance. 

(At  1  o'clock  p.  m.  the  commission  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock  p.  m.) 

AFTER   EECESS — 2    O'CLOCK   P.    M. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  commission  will  come  to  order.  We  will  begin 
this  afternoon  with  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Francis  S.  Peabody.  You  may 
proceed,  Mr.  Thompson. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  FRANCIS  S.  PEABODY. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Peabody,  for  the  purposes  of  the  record  will  you  give  the 
reporter  your  name,  your  residence,  and  business? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Francis  S.  Peabody.  My  residence  is  Hinsdale,  111.  My  busi- 
ness is  that  of  coal  operator. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  what  field  do  you  operate? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  have  been  operating  in  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  Ohio.  I  have 
abandoned  my  Indiana  and  Ohio  properties. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  take  it  that  your  work  is  related  solely  to  the  bituminous 
fields? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  believe  you  heard  more  or  less  of  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Mitchell  this  morning? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  More  or  less  of  it.    I  did  not  hear  it  all. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Peabody,  in  addition  to  what  you  probably  heard,  at  the 
beginning  Mr.  Mitchell  gave  a  history  of  trade  agreements  in  the  bituminous 
fields,  their  origination,  dates,  and  in  a  general  way  what  they  contain  and 
how  they  were  arrived  at.  He  gave  somewhat  of  a  synopsis  of  the  conferences. 
I  will  assume,  unless  you  want  to  make  some  statement  in  regard  thereto, 
that  he  has  correctly  stated  those  matters,  and  I  shall  therefore  ask  you  now 
what,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  advantage  of  trade  agreements  in  the  bituminous 
fields? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  429 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  wish  I  had  heard  Mr.  Mitchell's  testimony,  because,  having 
been  brought  up  as  an  operator,  I  am  not  always  entirely  willing,  even  in  the 
best  faith,  to  admit  that  assumptions  made  by  a  man  on  the  other  side  are 
entirely  correct.  Therefore,  if  I  do  admit  Mr.  Mitchell's  statements  it  is  be- 
cause I  have  not  entirely  heard  them. 

My  experience  in  the  operation  of  mines  and  in  the  dealing  with  organized 
labor  began  in  1899.  Prior  to  that  time  I  operated  nonorganized  or  nonunion 
mines.  In  1899  the  mines  which  I  had  at  that  time  been  operating  were  or- 
ganized, and  since  that  time  I  have  been  operating  entirely  with  organized 
labor.  The  four-State  agreement,  to  which  Mr.  Mitchell  has  undoubtedly  re- 
ferred and  which  is  known  as  the  Central-States  agreement,  is  what  we  are  all 
operating  under  at  this  time. 

In  my  opinion  trade  agreements  are  wise.  I  think  that  the  method  of 
arriving  at  them  is  as  satisfactory  a  method  as  can  be  arrived  at.  I,  however, 
think  that  the  present  trade  agreement,  or  the  basis  of  the  present  trade  agree- 
ment, is  a  false  one.  The  present  trade  agreement  is  based  upon  an  artificial 
condition,  not  upon  natural  conditions.  In  the  endeavor  to  arrive  at  a  peaceful 
and  harmonious  settlement  of  the  differences  betwreen  the  miners  and  the  opera- 
tors it  was  determied  to  take  into  consideration  not  only  the  physical  condi- 
tions of  the  mines  that  were  being  operated,  but  their  geographical  location, 
their  freight  rates,  and  the  markets  to  which  they  were  tributary.  The  question 
of  the  earning  power  of  a  man  was  not  taken  into  consideration,  except  that  in 
the  finished  veins  of  coal  an  effort  was  made  to  have  the  earning  powers  of  a 
man  sufficient  to  give  a  living  wage. 

In  addition  to  that  basis,  however,  the  freight  rates  from  that  particular 
field  and  the  quality  of  the  coal  in  that  particular  field  were  taken  into  con- 
sideration in  arriving  at  a  cost  in  the  general  competitive  market,  and  from 
that  basis  all  the  different  wage  scales — for  example,  in  Illinois — were  arrived 
at  in  some  seven  or  eight  different  districts ;  so  that  the  third  vein  of  northern 
Illinois,  which  is  located  in  Will  County  and  La  Salle  County,  where  there  was 
a  freight  rate  of  50  cents  a  ton,  as  I  remember  it,  at  that  time  in  the  Chicago 
market  and  where  the  highest  cost  of  production  existed  at  that  time  on  ac- 
count of  the  thin  vein  and  the  poor  condition  of  the  mining,  thus  had  a  price 
that  was  arrived  at  in  the  Chicago  market  in  this  way :  We  will  say  that  the 
cost  of  the  thin  vein  lump  coal  at  that  time,  under  the  minimum  wage  scale  of 
mining,  was  $1.50  and  the  freight  rate  was  50  cents.  This  would  bring  the  cost 
of  coal  into  the  Chicago  market  to  $2  a  ton.  Then  they  tried  to  raise  the  wages 
of  all  the  thick-vein  operations  south  of  there,  so  that  those  thick  veins,  which 
normally  and  under  proper  economic  conditions  would  compete  and  put  that 
third-vein  field  out  of  business,  were  raised  so  that  they  could  not  compete  or 
could  simply  compete  and  hold  their  proportionate  share  of  the  market. 

The  consequent  result  of  basing  the  trade  agreement  on  artificial  conditions 
has  brought  about — I  will  not  say  it  has  been  the  only  thing  to  bring  about 
this  condition — practical  insolvency  of  the  operators  in  the  bituminous  field  in 
Illinois,  Indiana,  and  Ohio,  so  much  so  that  in  my  own  experience  within  the 
last  six  months  I  have  abandoned  working  the  mines  that  I  own  in  Ohio  on 
account  of  the  fact  that  the  61-cent-mine  run  basis,  or  the  dollar-lump-coal  basis, 
which  is  at  present  existing  in  Ohio,  together  with  the  arbitrary  charges  made 
locally  on  account  of  narrow  work,  etc. — the  items  are  so  numerous  it  is  not 
necessary  for  me  to  go  into  them — have  made  the  cost  of  my  coal  so  high  in 
Ohio  that  I  have  been  unable  to  continue  to  operate  that  mine.  I  am  at  present 
taking  the  rails  from  the  mine ;  I  am  selling  the  mules  and  the  motor  haulage 
and  oilers  and  dismantling  the  property. 

This  artificial  trade  agreement  has  resulted  in  that  particular  case  to  me  in  a 
loss  of  over  $400,000.  I  have  nothing  left  of  value  in  that  property.  I  have  the 
hills  and  I  have  the  surface  of  the  ground,  and  some  time  in  the  future  condi- 
tions may  become  such  that  someone  else  may  mine  the  balance  of  the  coal  that 
I  am  leaving  in  the  hills. 

That  comes  from  an  artificial  basis  for  trade  agreements.  I  do  not  want  the 
commission  to  understand  that  I  do  not  fully  believe  in  trade  agreements  and 
that  I  do  not  fully  believe  in  the  employees  uniting  to  negotiate  with  the 
employers,  because  I  do;  but  I  believe  the  basis  that  we  started  on  some  16 
years  ago,  being  entirely  based  upon  artificial  competitive  reasons  and  not  upon 
the  competitive  reasons  of  the  earning  power  of  a  man,  is  wrong.  I  believe  the 
survival  of  the  fittest — meaning  the  fittest  from  geological  conditions,  the  quality 
of  the  coal,  and  the  amount  of  money  that  a  man  can  earn  in  working  in  the 
thicker  veins — should  make  those  mines  having  the  geological,  geographical,  and 


430          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

the  economical  advantages — meaning  the  quality  of  the  coal — the  mines  that 
should  be  operated,  while  those  that  have  not  those  advantages  should  be 
abandoned  until  economic  conditions  have  either  so  increased  the  demand  for 
the  product  of  coal  that  then  can  be  worked  economically  or  that  the  thicker 
veins  have  been  exhausted. 

I  wanted  very  much  to  have  the  opportunity  of  saying  what  I  have  said, 
because  my  relations  with  Mr.  Mitchell,  who  is  one  of  my  very  dear  personal 
friends  and  with  the  miners,  have  been  very  warm  and  very  close,  and  I  am 
a  strong  and  ardent  believer  in  conciliation  and  agreements — while  I  think 
the  entire  basis  of  the  trade  agreements  under  which  we  are  now  working  is 
wrong. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Definitely,  Mr.  Peabody,  will  you  state,  so  as  to  perhaps  illus- 
trate more  clearly  what  you  mean  by  that,  in  wliat  respect  the  present  agree- 
ment affected  this  mine  of  which  you  spoke.  If  there  was  no  agreement  be- 
tween the  union  and  the  operators  which  was  made  on  the  basis  of  the  com- 
petitive operators'  standpoint,  but  solely  from  the  standpoint  of  preserving  to 
the  union  men  a  fair  return,  would  that  mine  of  yours  be  running  to-day? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No;  I  think  not.  I  think  I  made  a  mistake  in  making  my 
investment  at  that  particular  point.  I  do  not  think  that  in  the  Ohio  mine  to 
which  I  referred  the  trade  agreements  have  been  the  real  means  of  driving 
me  out  of  business  at  that  point.  I  have  had  in  Indiana  a  similar  experience, 
and  in  mines  along  the  road  of  which  Mr.  Delano  is  president  I  have  had 
similar  experiences,  where  the  property  has  been  compelled  to  be  abandoned 
on  account  of  roof  conditions  and  mining  conditions  that  simply  prevented 
their  being  competitive  mines,  even  to  the  adjacent  mine.  But  in  Illinois,  to 
which  I  am  referring  particularly,  Mr.  Thompson,  we  have  many  veins  of 
coal  that  we  work;  we  have  conditions  as  different  as  there  are  in  the  United 
States.  We  find  the  36-inch  vein  of  coal  and  we  find  the  9-foot  vein  of  coal. 
We  find  coal  with  thick  masses  of  dirt  in  the  center,  and  we  find  thick  veins 
of  coal  without  a  sign  of  dirt  in  them.  My  belief  is  that  wre  should  arrive 
at  what  a  minimum  wage  should  be,  and  base  none  of  our  scales  upon  any 
lower  rate  than  what  a  man  can  comfortably  live  on  and  bring  up  his  family. 

I  think  I  heard  Mr.  Mitchell's  testimony  in  regard  to  the  conditions  and  the 
personnel  of  the  miners,  and  I  think  their  conditions  have  improved  enormously 
in  the  last  16  years,  even  if  the  financial  condition  of  the  operators  has  de- 
teriorated during  that  period. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Apropos,  Mr.  Peabody,  of  what  you  say  with  reference  to 
the  present  competitive  basis  of  the  agreement,  did  you  hear  Mr.  Mitchell's 
testimony  that  he  considers  that  agreement  should  be  so  framed  that  all  the 
coal  would  be  mined,  whereas  to-day  only  about  60  per  cent  can  be  economically 
mined  ? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  is  absolutely  impossible,  under  present  competitive  condi- 
tions, to  mine  coal  more  economically  than  we  do.  That  is  one  of  the  notes 
that  I  wanted  to  refer  to  as  being  one  of  the  matters  covered  by  Mr.  Mitchell. 
The  conservation  of  the  resources  of  the  earth  can  not  be  successfully  carried 
on  when  the  owner  of  the  property  is  compelled  to  produce  his  product  as 
cheaply  as  it  can  be  produced.  The  proper  manner,  and,  in  the  end,  the 
economical  method  of  producing  coal  is  to  drive  your  entries  or  tunnels  and 
means  of  transportation  underground  to  the  extreme  limit  of  the  territory 
that  you  are  mining,  and  from  that  point  drive  your  lateral  entries  and  turn 
your  rooms  and  mine  out  all  the  coal,  allowing  the  surface  or,  rather,  the  top 
above  the  coal  to  fall  in  as  you  retreat.  In  that  method  an  entire  recovery 
can  be  made.  It  will  take,  however,  in  the  ordinary  mining  property,  8  or 
possibly  10  years,  to  drive  those  entries  to  reach  the  limits  of  the  territory, 
3  or  4  feet  a\  day,  or  3  or  4  feet  a  shift  being  the  maximum  distance  that 
you  can  drive  an  entry  during  8  hours.  In  the  interim  during  that  10  years 
you  will  be  producing  only  the  highest-priced  coal.  It  is  hour  work ;  you  pay 
the  highest  rates  of  wages  for  it ;  and  at  no  time  have  I  ever  driven  a  mine 
on  that  basis  where  I  was  able,  during  the  period  of  development,  to  secure 
from  the  public  the  amount  that  it  had  cost  me  to  produce  that  particular  ton 
of  coal.  Therefore,  it  takes  a  long  period  of  investment  of  capital  and  a 
long  wait  for  the  returns  to  mine  coal  along  the  proper  methods  of  conservation. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Peabody,  what  have  been  the  benefits  which  have  accrued 
to  the  operators  from  these  trade  agreements? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Perhaps  the  peaceful  mines.  I  have  been  trying  to  study  for 
a  good  many  years  the  benefits.  I  think  the  only  benefit  we  have  is  that  we  feel 
the  condition'  of  the  man  working  for  us  is  being  bettered,  and  then  there  is 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  431 

less  danger  of  our  being  shot  than  there  used  to  be  in  the  old  days.  That  is  the 
only  benefit  I  have  seen  so  far. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  They  give  you  more  or  less  immunity  from  strikes,  do  they 
not? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  They  are  assumed  to.  During  the  past  year  in  Illinois  there 
have  been,  I  think,  seven  independent  strikes  in  my  properties,  contrary  to  the 
agreements. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  they  been  of  long  duration  or  of  great  importance? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  the  longest  was  seven  weeks  at  one  mine,  and  cost  us 
something  like  $18,000  or  $20,000. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What,  in  your  opinion,  would  be  the  cause  of  those  strikes 
and  what  would  be  the  cure? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  The  cause  of  those  strikes  is  largely  the  refusal  of  the  men  to 
obey  the  officers  of  their  union,  and  also  the  unwillingness  of  the  officers  of 
their  union  to  justly  decide  a  question  around  election  time — I  mean  miners' 
election  time. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  any  change  in  the  present  method  of  arbitrating  and 
conciliating  the  disputes  help  in  preventing  and  adjusting  these  questions? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  There  is  no  method  of  settling  any  question  now.  If  a  dispute 
arises  between  a  miner  and  our  pit  boss,  who  is  the  local  superintendent  imme- 
diately in  charge  of  that  miner,  and  they  do  not  agree,  the  matter  is  referred 
to  the  pit  committee,  which  is  the  miner's  representatve,  and  to  our  pit  boss. 
If  they  do  not  agree,  the  matter  is  referred,  under  our  agreements,  to  the  super- 
intendent of  the  mine  and  the  executive  officer  of  the  district  organization  of 
the  miners.  If  they  do  not  agree,  it  is  referred  to  the  executive  committee  of 
the  operators  and  of  the  miners.  If  they  do  not  agree  there  is  no  method  by 
which  the  question  can  be  settled,  and  as  a  rule  it  results  in  this :  I  have  sev- 
eral notices  showing  the  way  in  which  they  usually  do  ask  us  to  agree,  by 
serving  a  notice  upon  us  that  unless  we  yield  within  a  given  time,  we  must  ex- 
pect certain  results.  I  think  the  last  notice  we  had  was  that  unless  we  yielded 
to  their  demands  within  five  days,  they  not  only  would  keep  that  particular 
mine  on  strike,  but  would  call  out  all  the  rest  of  the  mines  that  they  had  in 
that  district ;  and  I  have  no  recourse. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  any  suggestions  of  changes  in  the  machinery  of  ad- 
justing disputes  that  would  obviate  these  difficulties? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes ;  I  am  very  keen  to  see  a  board  of  arbitration  agreed  upon 
by  the  joint  associations  of  operators  and  miners.  I  believe  if  there  were  in 
our  agreement  a  definite  supreme  court  that  could  decide  questions  that  we 
seem  to  be  unable  to  decide  very  frequently,  it  would  add  greatly  to  our 
agreements  on  both  sides. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  considered  any  form  of  such  a  board  of  arbitrators? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  have  studied,  of  course,  the  Canadian  law  and  some  of  the 
laws  that  were  referred  to  this  morning.  I  have  never  gone  into  the  question 
from  a  governmental  standpoint.  I  believe  that  we  could  agree  locally  in  our 
various  States,  or  even  in  our  interstate  conventions,  on  some  method  that  would 
help  greatly  without  any  State  or  governmental  interference.  Neither  the 
operator  nor  the  miner  likes  governmental  interference.  We  feel,  of  course, 
very  keenly  that  if  the  Government  is  given  the  power  to  interfere,  they  should 
also  give  us  the  right  to  protect  ourselves  by  agreements  in  regard  to  prices. 
That,  of  course,  goes  without  saying. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Does  any  form  of  arbitration  which  you  have  in  mind  carry 
with  it  an  umpire? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  A  deciding  factor? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes;  it  would  have  to  carry  with  it  an  umpire,  and  Mr. 
Mitchell  and  myself  in  one  of  our  arguments  some  15  years  ago  agreed  to  refer 
the  question  of  differentiation  in  Illinois  to  arbitration.  Fifteen  years  have 
passed,  and  we  have  as  yet  been  unable  to  agree  upon  the  third  man. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Of  course,  I  assume  that  you  have  been  perfectly 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes ;  I  have  been  willing,  of  course,  to  take  advantage  of  that. 
The  first  man  he  proposed  was  an  ex-miner  running  a  store  down  in  Belleville, 
I  remember  very  well. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like  to  ask  you  what  was  the  reason  for  the  oper- 
ators of  the  State  of  Illinois  withdrawing  from  the  State  conference  in  1906. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  In  1910,  I  think  it  was,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 


4o2          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Because  there  was  absolutely  no  more  sense  in  Illinois  and  Ohio 
and  Pennsylvania  having  a  joint  conference  than  there  is  in  Illinois  and  Nova 
Scotia  and  Alaska.  The  conditions  are  different.  There  are  very  few  competi- 
tive conditions  to  be  discussed,  and  the  only  question  that  I  think  is  pertinent 
to  discuss  at  any  of  these  joint  State  conferences  is  simply  the  question  of  a 
uniform  advance  or  decline  in  wages.  In  other  words,  if  it  is  10  per  cent,  of 
course  it  should  be  a  10  per  cent  increase  all  over  the  country,  or  a  10  per  cent 
decrease.  But  outside  of  that,  I  have  always  been  very  strongly  opposed,  and 
was  one  of  those,  I  think,  who  brought  about  the  separation  of  the  States  at 
that  time.  After  that  they  joined  again.  Now  they  have,  I  hope,  had  a  final 
divorce  in  Chicago  10  days  ago. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  state  what  was  the  reason  for  going  back  to  the  old 
arrangement  after  1910? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Because  the  miners  would  not  negotiate  in  any  other  way,  and 
some  of  the  gentlemen  said  that  we  had  to.  It  was  not  ourselves. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  kind  of  an  organization  have  the  operators  of  the  State 
of  Illinois? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  About  as  poor  an  organization  as  you  can  imagine. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  About  how  many  members  has  it,  and  what  percentage  of 
the  Illinois  field  does  it  cover,  and  what  are  its  purposes? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  There  are  three  organizations  in  Illinois  at  the  present  time. 
There  is  the  Illinois  Coal  Operators'  Association,  which  originally,  I  suppose, 
covered  all  the  railroad  shipping  mines  in  the  State.  At  the  present  moment 
that  organization  has  been  broken  up  into  the  Illinois  Coal  Operators'  Associ- 
ation, as  it  is  called,  the  fifth  and  ninth  districts  of  Illinois,  which  composes  the 
mines  in  and  around  St.  Louis,  East  St.  Louis,  and  Belleville  and  north,  and 
immediately  in  that  section,  and  the  third  district  group,  which  consists  of  the 
operators  around  Springfield,  111.  The  third  group  broke  away  from  the  Illinois 
Operators'  Association  because  the  miners  were  clever  enough  to  make  a  trade 
with  them,  saying,  "  If  you  gentlemen  will  sign  up  the  ageement,  we  will  let  you 
work,  and  you  can  get  the  market  away  from  the  other  fellows  while  you  are 
working,  and,  of  course,  eventually  we  will  gain  in  that  we  will  force  the  Illi- 
nois operators  to  sign  the  agreement " ;  and  their  conclusion  was  correct.  The 
fifth  and  ninth  district  operators  took  the  bribe,  made  the  money,  and  we  lost 
out.  So  that  they  have  been  a  very  strong  organization  since,  because  they  got 
some  money  into  their  organization  at  that  time. 

The  third  district  group  has  been  formed  in  the  last  four  months  by  Spring- 
field operators  who  were  discontented  with  the  operations  of  the  Illinois  Oper- 
ators' Association. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  proportion  of  the  membership- — I  mean  what  propor- 
tion of  the  operators  operating  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  if  any,  are  included 
within  those  three  associations? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  should  think  80  per  cent ;  possibly  90  per  cent. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  these  associations  any  other  purposes  than  that  of 
dealing  with  the  union? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Dealing  with  the  union,  and  doing  the  worst  they  can  to  each 
other;  that  is  about  all.  We  are  utterly  unorganized.  We  have  been  taking 
lessons  for  16  years  or  so,  being  taught  by  practical  teachers  such  as  Mr. 
Mitchell  and  Mr.  White,  and  you  might  think  that  the  result  would  be  that  we 
would  have  an  organization  that  would  be  worth  something,  but  we  have  not, 
to-day. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  have  you  to  say  with  reference  to  the  machine  differ- 
ential? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  have  so  much  to  say  on  that  subject  that  I  do  not  think  you 
should,  perhaps,  get  me  started  on  it.  I  have  volumes  here  that  Mr.  Mitchell 
and  myself  have  said  on  the  machine  differential  in  Illinois  that  I  can  give  to 
you  to  peruse  at  your  convenience,  especially  on  the  arbitration  question. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Could  you  put  it  briefly  and  particularly  with  reference  to  its 
effect  on  the  trades  agreement? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  do  not  think  I  quite  clearly  understand  your  question.  I  do 
not  think  it  has  anything  to  do  with  the  trade  agreement. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  First,  the  differential  comes  as  a  result  of  the  trade  agree- 
ment, does  it  not?  Originally  it  was  made  under  it? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes ;  it  was  made  under  the  trade  agreements. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  how  did  it  affect  the  mine  operator  and  how  did  it  affect 
the  earnings  of  the  miner? 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IK    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  433 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Well,  I  personally,  of  course,  think  that  the  differential  on 
the  machine  is  entirely  inadequate  for  the  capital  invested  in  the  machine  and 
its  maintenance  and  repairs.  I  really  think  that  the  machine  enables  the  miner 
to  earn  more  money  than  he  would  in  the  old  method  of  pick  mining.  We 
all  of  us  put  them  in,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  there  is  a  very  small  per- 
centage of  gain  to  us,  on  account  of  the  fact  that  it  increases  the  tonnage  very 
largely  of  our  mines,  and  enables  us  to  reduce  proportionately  our  general  over- 
head expenses,  and  also  reduces  the  percentage  of  small  coal  or  screenings  in 
mining  the  coal. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  method  of  reaching  these  differentials?  What 
methods  of  agreement  have  you? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  was  an  arbitrary  method  that  the  miners  arrived  at.  There 
was  no  basis  in  justice  for  it  at  all. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  it  a  matter  of  conference  by  both  sides? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  yes ;  there  were  repeated  conferences,  but  conferences  that 
were — I  do  not  know  exactly  how  to  put  it.  The  mine  operators  at  that  time 
were  in  desperate  straits,  and  they  took  anything  that  the  miners  offered  them ; 
and  that  is  another  false  basis  on  which  our  agreement  was  started. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Generally,  what  has  been  the  effect,  if  any,  of  the  trade  agree- 
ments on  the  efficiency  of  the  miner,  with  reference  to  his  individual  work,  and 
with  reference  to  the  methods  with  which  he  mines  coal? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  it  has  been  disastrous  with  regard  to  the  efficiency  of 
his  work  and  his  methods.  I  think  that  the  lack  of  our  ability  to  discipline 
the  men  for  bad  mining,  the  almost  impossibility  of  our  having  jurisdiction 
over  them,  is  very  bad.  I  agree  with  Mr.  Mitchell  thoroughly  that  the  men 
should  be  paid  upon  the  mine-run  basis.  I  think  that  a  man  should  be  paid 
for  all  the  work  he  does ;  but  I  also  believe  that  the  employer  of  labor  should 
have  jurisdiction  over  that  labor  while  the  labor  is  in  his  service,  should  be  able 
to  tell  the  man  how  put  his  shot,  how  to  undercut  his  coal,  how  to  properly 
prop  his  room,  should  have  jurisdiction  over  him  not  only  from  the  point  of  con- 
servation of  the  coal  mine,  but  of  conservation  of  the  coal  in  its  being  taken  and 
mined,  and  also  of  conservation  of  the  body  of  the  man  from  safety  reasons. 
Now  we  practically  have  no  jurisdiction. 

We  are  assumed  to  have  the  power  to  hire  and  discharge.  We  are  assumed 
to  have  the  inherent  rights  of  the  owner  of  property.  We  bargain,  by  individual 
bargain,  many  of  those  rights  away,  and  when  we  do,  of  course,  we  have  to  give 
up  that  right.  Many  of  those  rights  we  have  not  given  away.  We  have  not 
given  away  the  right  to  discharge  or  hire  men,  but  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  we  have  not  given  it  way,  we  can  not  either  hire  or  discharge  a  man.  We 
are  limited  to  the  number  of  men — what  we  call  company  men — that  the  union1 
consents  to  our  having. 

For  example,  I  have  here  a  proposed  agreement.  I  have  just  come  from 
Peoria,  where  we  have  been  working  on  this  agreement  that  we  have  been  try- 
ing to  make  with  the  miners  in  Illinois,  where  they  try  to  limit  the  number 
of  men  in  the  employ  of  the  company  that  we  may  have  in  the  mines.  In  the 
largest  mines  in  the  State  they  classify  the  men,  A,  B,  C,  and  so  on,  and  they 
limit  the  number  to  three  men.  Now,  I  am  operating  a  mine  that  I  think  is 
probably  as  large  a  mine  as  there  is  in  the  world.  I  spent  eight  years  develop- 
ing it  before  we  began  to  turn  our  rooms,  and  the  mine  has  a  capacity  of  some 
8,000  tons  of  coal  in  eight  hours.  Now,  they  tell  us  that  we  can  only  have 
three  men  in  that  mine  to  take  jurisdiction  over  them  for  the  company.  It 
is  an  absolute  physical  impossibility  for  three  men  to  get  from  room  to  room, 
from  working  space  to  working  space,  in  the  mine,  to  see  whether  the  men  are 
drilling  their  holes  properly,  whether  they  are  properly  timbering  their  roof, 
and  so  on.  My  own  company  put  in  a  most  exhaustive  system  for  the  pre- 
vention of  accidents,  and  we  have  no  help  in  it. 

We  are  not  allowed  to  have  men  in  the  company's  service  to  call  attention  to 
the  mistakes  that  the  men  make.  They  do  not  allow  us  to  have  jurisdiction. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  there  in  the  contract  that  prevents  the  operator  from 
having  jurisdiction? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  I  saw  a  clause  here  last  night.  There  are  so  many 
demands  they  are  making  this  time  it  may  be  impossible  for  me  to  find  it  at 
the  moment.  [After  examining  document.]  I  do  not  think  I  will  take  your 
time  looking  for  it,  but  there  is  a  demand  that  we  shall  be  allowed  to  have  only 
three  subbosses  in  the  mine. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  not  the  present  condition? 

38819°— 16 28 


434          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes;  I  think  we  have  that  condition  now,  at  the  present  mo- 
ment, that  we  are  only  allowed  three  men. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  that  arrived  at  at  the  conference? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  That  was  arrived  at  arbitrarily. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  operators  were  at  the  conference  and  it  was  agreed  to? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes;  this  has  all  been  agreed  to.  Oh,  yes;  it  is  an  unhappy 
condition,  just  the  same. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  think,  then,  that  the  operators  should  have  somebody  to 
take  care  of  their  interests  and  make  their  agreements? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  seems  to  me  it  is  a  reasonable  request  for  us  to  make. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  anything  to  say,  Mr.  Peabody,  in  reference  to  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Mitchell  that  there  was  the  employment  of  a  great  many  un- 
skilled miners  by  the  operators,  and  that  as  a  result  of  these  unskilled  miners 
being  employed  there  were  more  accidents  and  that  there  was  more  destruction 
of  coal  in  the  mining  of  it? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  can  only  say  that  we  employ  only  the  men  whom  the  Mine 
Workers'  Union  furnish  to  us.  WTe  can  not  employ  anyone  else.  If  they  do  not 
furnish  us  as  good  material  as  we  want,  we  have  no  choice.  We  have  to  employ 
those  men. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  From  what  Mr.  Mitchell  has  stated  and  from  what  you  now 
say,  I  should  like  to  ask  this  further  question:  How  do  you  employ  additional 
miners?  What  is  the  method?  Where  do  you  send  for  them? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  We  are  not  allowed  to  send  out  of  the  State.  Mr.  Mitchell 
prevented  that  by  having  a  law  passed  which  is  called  the  Mitchell  bill.  I  held 
it  up  on  him  for  a  year,  I  am  proud  to  say.  That  law  prevents  men  from  being 
imported  from  any  other  State  to  go  into  the  mines.  In  fact,  a  man  has  to 
have  two  years'  actual  practical  experience  in  Illinois  coal  mines  before  he  is 
allowed  to  work  in  an  Illinois  coal  mine ;  at  least,  that  is  my  construction  of  the 
law  and  its  effect. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Of  course,  Mr.  Peabody,  the  time  is  open  for  you  to  explain 
that,  if  you  wish. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  There  is  no  explanation  at  all,  except  this,  that  the  miners  have 
local  boards  of  examiners  who  examine  a  man  as  to  his  qualifications.  These 
boards  do  not  nominally  consist  of  union  miners — I  mean  that  is  not  the  requi- 
site of  the  law — but  they  are  appointed  by  the  local  county  judge,  whom  the 
miners  elect,  and  the  result  is  that  it  is,  of  course,  extremely  difficult — I  think 
they  try  to  be  just,  and  I  assume  it  is  hard  to  find  a  practical  miner  that  has 
not  a  union  card,  but  it  makes  it  very  difficult  for  us  to  obtain  miners.  We 
practically  have  to  look  to  the  union  for  the  men. 

'    Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  do  not  men  come  in  from  other  fields,  like  Indiana,  and 
are  they  not  permitted  to  work  in  Illinois? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Not  without  passing  the  qualifications.  I  think  it  would  be  an 
interesting  matter  for  this  commission  to  have  that  particular  law  and  see  just 
what  it  is. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  a  copy  of  it  here? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  have  not;  no.  Mr.  Mitchell  could  probably  quote  it  to  you. 
It  prevents  competition,  Mr.  Thompson;  it  prevents  us  getting  any  other  labor 
except  the  labor  that  the  miners'  union  wants  us  to  have.  The  quality  of  the 
labor  has  degenerated  tremendously  in  the  last  16  years. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Does  this  objection  that  you  state  to  hiring  miners  relate  to 
union  miners  from  other  States? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  believe  a  man  has  to  have  a  county  certificate.  Really  Mr. 
Mitchell  could  help  me  answer  that  question,  because  I  do  not  remember. 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  it  only  relates  to  the  men  who  have  had  no  experience ; 
it  requires  a  man  to  have  had  two  years'  experience  in  a  mine  anywhere,  and 
if  he  has  had  that  experience  he  is  entitled  to  a  miner's  certificate. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Do  they  not  first  have  to  go  before  the  local  county  board  and 
be  examined? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  Not  as  to  their  efficiency.  They  take  with  them  their  cer- 
tificate of  efficiency  that  they  have  had  two  years'  experience  in  mining. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Does  that  statement  go  without  the  examination? 

Mr.  MITCHELL.  I  think  there  is  no  efficiency  examination.  I  think  the  only 
thing  the  law  does  is  to  prohibit  the  working  in  a  mine  of  men  who  have  never 
worked  within  a  mine ;  it  prevents  them  from  working  in  the  mines  of  Illinois. 
I  think  that  is  all  the  law  does. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  it  would  be  a  wise  thing  to  have  in  your  record  that 
particular  law.  It  is  a  very  remarkable  law  and,  I  think,  a  very  injurious  law. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  435 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like  to  ask  you  this  question:  Notwithstanding 
that  fact,  is  there  not  a  selection  of  workmen  in  Illinois  by  the  operators? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  We  are  allowed  to  refuse  to  give  a  man  work  without  any 
real  reason  for  refusing  to  give  him  work.  There  have  been  demands — there 
are  demands  in  this  new  proposed  agreement  that  we  are  considering  here — 
that  we  shall  give  men  work  in  the  order  of  their  applications,  whether  we 
want  them  or  do  not  want  them. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  that  has  not  been  agreed  to  as  yet?  That  is  not  a  part 
of  your  present  arrangement? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  is  a  demand  they  are  making  now,  and  it  will  probably 
become  a  part  of  the  present  arrangement.  I  do  not  know.  It  was  not  up  to 
the  time  I  left  Peoria. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  there  anything  else  you  would  like  to  say  with  reference 
to  the  operation  of  State  agreements  in  regard  to  conciliation  and  arbitration 
in  the  bituminous  coal-mining  industry? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  came  here  with  the  hope  and  the  feeling  that  the  work  that 
this  commission  was  doing — was  trying  to  do — would  help  wonderfully ;  I  do 
not  mean  only  in  the  operation  of  my  own  properties  and  coal  mines,  but 
it  is  a  great  power,  and  I  think  if  the  public  can  be  brought  to  realize  all 
the  difficulties  that  the  employers  and  employees  have,  and  if  this  commission 
will  investigate  and  see  the  troubles  that  there  are,  undoubtedly  a  recom- 
mendation by  this  commission,  after  studying  the  thing  from  all  sides,  would 
be  of  very  great  help  to  us  all.  I  really  and  honestly  think  that  I  am  anxious 
to  see  the  conditions  of  the  employees  of  this  country  bettered.  Perhaps  it 
is  because  I  have  reached  that  age  of  life  where  my  mind  begins  to  turn  to 
less  material  things  than  making  money,  but  in  any  event  I  think  I  am 
honest  in  that,  and  I  believe  that  some  solution  can  be  arrived  at.  Of  course, 
conciliation,  I  believe,  is  the  only  way. 

Now,  the  method,  whether  the  Canadian  method,  wThich  involves  publicity, 
and  which  I  think  has  accomplished  a  great  deal,  is  the  best  method ;  whether 
the  Australian  method  is  the  best  method ;  whether  the  method  proposed  by 
some  of  these  new  bills  is  the  best  method,  I  think  it  would  take  a  commission 
studying  those  questions  and  looking  at  it  from  all  standpoints,  to  determine. 
I  do  not  think  one  person  could  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  raised  some  serious  objections  to  the  trade  agree- 
ment in  the  Illinois  coal  fields. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Not  to  the  agreement,  at  all,  but  to  the  basis  on  which  the 
agreement  is  made.  I  believe  that  the  agreement  should  have  been  made, 
and  not  try  to  introduce  artificial  questions,  questions  that  have  nothing 
to  do  with  labor.  The  quality  of  the  coal  that  a  man  produces,  the  geo- 
logical seam,  has  nothing  to  do  with  what  he  should  be  paid  for  it.  The 
freight  rate  on  which  the  coal  is  shipped  from  that  particular  district  should 
have  nothing  to  do  with  what  you  should  pay  the  men  for  mining  that  coal.  We 
have  started  on  false  assumptions. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  that  on  behalf  of  the  operator,  or  at  the  instigation  of 
the  miner? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  it  was  a  combination  of  both.  I  am  not  blaming  the 
miner  or  the  operator  for  it.  I  was  a  nonunion  miner  at  that  time,  going 
along  happy  in  the  old  way,  cheerfully,  until  they  interfered  with  me. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  believe,  notwithstanding  the  objections  which  you  have 
made,  that  the  trade  agreements  which  exist  in  Illinois  coal  fields  are  good 
things,  are  beneficial  both  to  the  operator  and  to  the  worker? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  present  agreements  are.  I  believe 
trade  agreements  are  of  great  benefit.  I  think  our  present  trade  agreement, 
as  it  exists  in  Illinois,  is — I  know  it  is — a  bad  thing  financially ;  and  I  think 
members  of  your  commission  who  are  almost  as  familiar  with  the  situation  as 
I  am  would  verify  the  statement  that  75  per  cent — and  that  seems  a  tre- 
mendous per  cent — of  the  coal  operators  in  the  State  of  Illinois  are  insolvent. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Seventy-five  per  cent? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Seventy-five  per  cent  is  my  statement. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  do  you  mean  by  "  insolvent  "? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  mean  that  they  can  not  pay  their  bills. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  In  the  mining  industry? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  The  miners  also  feel  that  way,  because  one  of  the  latest  things 
that  they  have  demanded  is  that  they  will  not  sign  an  agreement,  and  it  is  one 
of  the  conditions  of  the  troubles  of  the  operator  that  they  will  not  sign  an 
agreement  to  work  for  an  operator  unless  the  operator  first  secures  a  surety 


436          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

bond  which  he  gives  to  the  union,  guaranteeing  that  the  two  weeks'  wages 
which  are  always  behind  will  be  paid.  Is  not  that  an  example  of  the  faith 
that  they  have  in  our  solvency?  But  that  demand  is  really  seriously  in  earnest. 
So  many  operators  have  failed  in  the  last  year  or  two  and  the  men  have  lost 
so  much  money  that  it  has  been  put  in  in  all  seriousness  as  a  proper  demand. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes;  but,  Mr.  Peabody,  is  this  condition  of  insolvency  a  result 
of  the  trade  agreements  of  the  union? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No ;  not  primarily  of  the  trade  agreement,  but  I  think  it  is  be- 
cause of  the  basis  on  which  the  agreements  \vere  originally  made.  I  do  not 
know  whether  I  make  myself  clear  to  you.  I  want  to  do  so. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  there  were  no  union  and  if  there  were  no  trade  agreement 
would  that  effect  the  solvency  or  insolvency  of  the  operators  in  Illinois? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Why,  yes.  If  there  had  been  no  trade  agreements,  the  mine 
that  was  able  to  produce  the  cheapest  coal  and  the  best  quality  of  coal  and  reach 
the  market  most  economically  would  first  be  filled  up  with  business.  Then  the 
next  mine  with  the  next  most  favorable  conditions  would  get  the  business,  and 
then  the  next  mine,  and  then  the  next  mine,  and  then  the  next  mine;  instead 
of  trying  to  support  380  to  400  different  mines  all  about,  and  trying  to  adjust 
all  their  prices,  their  freight  rates,  and  labor  rates,  and  quality  of  the  coal, 
and  putting  their  products  all  into  one  general  market  at  the  same  price.  It 
is  an  utterly  artificial  condition.  It  does  not  exist  in  any  other  trade  that  I 
know  of. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  any  of  these  mine  operators  that  have  possession  of  the 
best  class  of  mines  in  danger  of  insolvency? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  yes.  For  example,  the  O'Garrah  Coal  Co,  which  went  into 
the  hands  of  a  receiver  six  months  ago,  I  have  now  in  mind.  They  were  one 
of  the  largest  operators  in  the  country  in  one  of  the  best  veins  of  coal  in  the 
State,  and  what  brought  about  their  insolvency  I  do  not  know — whether  it  was 
incompetency,  or  agreements,  or  what. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  A  lot  of  these  mines  that  are  now  operating  and  are  perhaps 
in  a  condition  of  insolvency,  without  the  agreement  would  absolutely  die  out? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Why,  no.  Many  of  those  mines  are  in  a  condition  of  insol- 
vency now,  and  if  they  were  without  the  agreement  and  allowed  to  produce  and 
make  their  own  agreements  as  to  what  they  should  pay  the  men  and  allowed  to 
compete  they  would  get  very  rich  indeed. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  many  of  them,  perhaps  the  majority  of  the  mines  oper- 
ated of  these  three  or  four  hundred  that  you  mention,  would  have  to  close 
down? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Surely.  They  should.  They  can  not  mine  coal  economically ; 
they  have  not  the  quality  of  coal.  Their  costs  are  excessive.  Their  freight 
rates  are  excessive.  WThy  should  they  reach  the  market? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  all  I  wish  to  ask  this  witness. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Mr.  Mitchell  said,  Mr.  Peabody,  that  the  number  of  working 
days  was  about  200  at  the  present  time  in  the  year — the  average  number  of 
working  days.  Do  you  attribute  that  also  to  his  method  of  reaching  a  differ- 
ential so  as  to  keep  a  large  number  of  mines  in  operation? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  that  is  one  of  the  reasons. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Are  there  other  reasons  in  addition  to  that? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes.  The  principal  reason  is  the  reason  that  Mr.  Mitchell  gave : 
The  fact  that  the  capacity  of  OUT  mines  is  30  per  cent  greater  than  the  demand 
for  our  product. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  The  point  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  the  fact  that  the  capacity  is 
30  per  cent  greater  than  the  need,  due  to  the  different  basis  of  the  power  of  the 
mines  to  compete.  Is  that  30  per  cent  of  capacity  necessary  to  meet  demands 
for  coal,  or  is  it  artificial  and  produced  largely  artificially? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes;  I  think  it  is,  because  our  business  is  largely  a  season 
business,  a  weather  business.  In  the  winter  time  it  taxes  very  largely  the 
capacity  of  the  mines  to  take  care  of  the  peak  load  of  the  demand.  In  the 
summer  time,  of  course,  the  minimum  demand  is  so  much  smaller  than  the  peak 
demand  that  possibly  only  one-third  of  the  capacity  is  required ;  so  that  Illi- 
nois to-day,  producing  60,000,000  tons  a  year,  could  very  easily  produce  from 
90.000,000  to  100,000,000  tons  a  year,  while  the  peak  of  the  load  will  demand 
a  ratio  of  90,000,000  tons  in  the  three  months  of  the  wintertime,  while  the 
minimum  demand  will  run  down  to  forty  or  thirty-five  million  tons. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Is  there  a  difference  in  the  machine  differentials  in  the  different 
States? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  437 

Mr.  BABNETT.  What  is  that  difference?  Is  that  also  a  part  of  this  machine 
differential? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No ;  that  is  based  purely  on  might  and  not  right. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  It  does  enter  into  the  competing  power,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  does.  It  makes  a  tremendous  difference.  For  example,  we 
were  allowed  10  cents  to  Danville.  There  were  no  machines  in  Danville — no 
machines  operating  in  Danville — so  that  they  allowed  10  cents  in  Danville  and 
only  7  cents  in  the  rest  of  the  State — where  the  machines  were  operated — so 
that,  although  Illinois  nominally  has  a  10-cent  differential,  it  actually  has  a 
7-cent  differential.  The  differential  in  Indiana  is  10  to  12£  cents.  In  Ohio  it 
is  based  upon  the  lump-coal  price,  and  it  runs  up  from  21  to  27  cents.  I  have 
not  the  exact  figures,  but  there  is  a  great  variation  in  the  differentials  in 
each  State. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  spoke  of  the  fact  that  the  miners  were  required  to  give 
their  certificates  in  order  to  work  in  Illinois.  Is  there  any  other  legislation 
in  Illinois  \vhich  bears  upon  the  relations  of  the  operators  and  the  miners? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  very  excellent  legislation  which  has 
been  enacted  by  our  State,  particularly  along  the  lines  of  the  safety  of  the  prop- 
erty and  the  safety  of  the  men.  That  has  been  another  thing  that  has  been 
very  largely  instrumental  in  bringing  about  the  insolvency  of  the  Illinois  coal 
operators  and  for  this  reason,  that  these  burdens,  very  just  burdens,  very 
proper  laws,  and  very  just  rules  in  regard  to  fire  appliances,  fire  construction, 
and  the  innumerable  laws,  all  of  which  are  excellent,  have  not  been  adopted 
by,  for  example,  Indiana  or  by  Ohio.  These  laws  in  Illinois  have  added  to 
the  cost  of  production  in  Illinois,  I  should  say,  very  easily  6  or  7  cents  a  ton. 
They  are  proper  laws.  The  trouble  is  that  these  laws  should  have  been  enacted 
only  by  all  the  four  States,  if  they  choose  to  keep  up  this  artificial  competitive 
condition  jointly ;  but  the  operators,  apparently,  in  some  of  the  States  have 
had  better  luck — I  do  not  know  that  it  is  luck;  I  do  not  think  that  it  is — 
either  because,  I  think,  these  laws  are  probably 

Mr.  BABNETT.  Have  you  any  run-of-mine  legislation  in  Illinois? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  That  is  a  State  law. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  When  was  that  passed? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  was  passed  in  1897  or  in  1898.    It  was  in  1897. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Everything  was  on  the  screen  basis  before  that? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  that  led  to  the  passage  of  the  present  law  in  Illinois  ? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes.  I  will  give  you  an  example  in  southern  Illinois.  Prior 
to  my  becoming  a  well-organized  union  operator,  I  was  running  a  small  coal 
operation — cheerfully  and  happily — in  the  southern  end  of  the  State.  I  was 
paying  my  men  25  cents  a  box  for  hand  mining  and  for  loading  coal.  The  box 
contained  anywhere  from  2,000  to  2,500  or  2,600  pounds,  and,  I  assume,  as  I 
remember  my  costs  at  that  time,  my  mine-run  coal  cost  me — this  was  in 
1897 — approximately  30  cents  a  ton  on  the  railroad  cars.  That  was  in  1897 — 19 
years  ago.  The  least  cost  I  have  had  in  the  last  year  has  been  a  little  in 
excess  of  90  cents.  Now,  I  was  not  paying  the  men  a  proper  amount  of 
money,  and  I  was  not  paying  them  on  a  proper  basis.  They  would  load  the 
box,  but  they  would  not  get  paid  for  all  they  should  have  been  paid  for — there 
is  no  question  about  that.  But  to-day  they  are  being  paid  for  all  they  should 
be  paid  for;  but,  through  either  inefficient  mining,  and  I  think  many  times — 
I  will  not  say  many  times,  but  sometimes — with  deliberate  intent  they  put  in 
such  shots  that  they  wrould  break  down  the  slate  in  the  roof,  break  up  the 
blackjack  in  the  floor,  break  up  the  dirty  bands  in  the  coal,  and,  in  putting  the 
coal  in  the  cars,  they  will  throw  it  all  in  together  as  run-of-the-mine  coal.  If 
we  had  the  jurisdiction  of  the  men  they  would  not  do  that.  I  do  not  think 
to-day  there  is  a  miner  that  is  getting  too  much  money.  We  are  paying  the 
men  $2.62,  and  I  think  they  should  have  more  money — many  of  them.  But 
we  should  have  jurisdiction,  and  we  have  none. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  far  is  the  wrage  in  the  central  field  controlled  by  the  com- 
petition of  the  unorganized  districts — West  Virginia  and  Pittsburgh? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  is  not  at  all. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  There  is  no  competition  between  the  coal  there? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  yes;  they  can  put  their  coal  into  the  markets  very  much 
cheaper  than  the  organized  fields,  and  in  the  last  10  years  in  Chicago  the  smoke- 
less coals,  the  Pocahontas,  and  New  River  coals  have  increased  their  local  con- 
sumption in  Chicago  from  50,000  to  2,000,000  tons  in  the  10  years  and  put  out 
the  union  coals  of  Illinois  and  Indiana,  and  also  it  has  displaced  the  anthracite 
on  account  of  the  quality  of  the  coal  and  the  price  at  which  it  can  be. 


438          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  It  is,  then,  a  chief  factor  in  fixing  the  rate,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  have  said  that  the  basis  is  wrong. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  do  not  mean  the  differential,  but  I  mean  the  basis — rate — the 
Hocking  Valley  rate? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  originally ;  but  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  it  now. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  This  competition  of  the  unorganized  fields  is  increasing  all  the 
time,  is  it? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  is  increasing  all  the  time,  but  Illinois  has  increased  its 
product  20  per  cent  in  10  years. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  But  is  the  competition  of  the  unorganized  fields  increasing? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  it  is,  relatively.  I  do  not  know  that  their  production 
is  increasing  any  more  rapidly  than  it  would  have  naturally  increased  if  they 
were  unionized. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  If  you  have  taken  up  at  the  biennial  conference  the  question  of 
whether  the  increase  of  5  or  10  per  cent  should  be  made,  is  not  this  competition 
from  the  unorganized 'fields  the  chief  factor? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  That  is  the  chief  element  of  discussion. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  get  at.  Is  it  the  chief  factor,  or 
on  what  does  the  increased  rate  depend  primarily,  the  possibility  of  getting  an 
increase  or  decrease? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  We  have  never  had  a  decrease  but  once  in  our  rate,  and  Mr. 
Mitchell  gave  it  to  us.  He  was  very  brave  in  doing  it,  because  it  was  very 
much  against  what  his  men  thought  he  should  do.  He  did  it  because  the  general 
market  conditions  at  that  time  were  so  bad  and  the  financial  condition  of  the 
country  was  so  bad  that  he  thought  he  wras  doing  a  proper  and  just  thing.  It 
had  nothing  to  do  writh  the  nonunion  mine. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Suppose  the  question  were  the  increasing  of  the  rate  5  cents  a 
ton.  Would  the  determining  factor  be  whether  or  not  the  market  in  which  they 
were  then  in  control  would  consume  less  coal  or  would  it  be  the  possibility  of 
loading  those  markets  to  the  nonunion  operator? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  the  first  more  than  the  last. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Peabody,  as  I  understood  you  to  say,  the  mining 
scale  is  based  on  an  effort  to  equalize  what  you  might  call  the  advantages  or 
disabilities  of  one  field  writh  another  in  respect  to  geographical  location  in 
relation  to  the  market,  the  quality  of  the  coal,  and  all  that,  and  that  the  effect 
of  that  has  been  to  increase  the  competition  which  the  operators  have  had  to 
bear  rather  than  anything  else? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Is  that  a  correct  assumption? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  understood  you  also  to  say  that  a  trade  agree- 
ment, in  which  you  believe,  was  not  possible  or  satisfactory  unless  you  dealt 
with  organized  labor  or  unionized  labor. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Is  that  equally  true  with  respect  to  the  operators, 
that  in  order  to  make  a  trade  agreement  possible  and  workable  the  operators 
must  or  should  be  organized  ? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  is  absolutely  essential  that  the  operators  must  be  organized. 
We  could  only  deal  as  units  to  be  successful.  Our  weakness  to-day  is  the  fact 
we  have  three  organizations  in  our  State  not  in  harmony. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  what  I  want  to  get  at. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes;  that  is  true. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Whether  part  of  the  difficulty  that  Illinois  and  neigh- 
boring States  have  had  has  been  due  to  the  lack  of  organization  and  solidarity 
among  the  operators? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes ;  it  is  one  of  the  great  weaknesses. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  How  does  the  central  bituminous  region  compare 
with  the  anthracite  region  in  that  respect? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  The  anthracite  region,  as  I  understand  it,  is  controlled  by  a 
very  few  men  who  are  a  unit;  who  instead  of  sending,  as  we  do,  150  or  200 
delegates  to  a  convention  will  send  one  man  to  represent  the  anthracite  in- 
terests, or  perhaps  two  or  three  men ;  and  they  are  a  unit  as  to  what  they  will 
do  and  what  they  will  not  do.  The  miners  in  dealing  with  those  two  or  three 
men  know  they  have  the  power  to  say  yes  or  no  and  treat  them  on  an  entirely 
different  basis  from  the  way  they  treat  with  a  large  mass  of  operators  with 
diversified  interests  who  are  not  cohesive,  as  is  true  with  us  in  the  central 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  439 

district.  The  anthracite  operators,  I  assume,  can  control  their  prices  and 
conditions  better  than  we  can ;  I  do  not  know. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Peabody,  if  you  are  looking  toward  trade  agree- 
ments as  a  solution  of  the  problem  of  finding  industrial  peace,  would  you  say 
that  it  would  require  the  public  to  contemplate  the  organization  of  employers 
quite  as  much  as  the  organization  of  labor? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes ;  I  very  distinctly  think  so,  Mr.  Delano. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  want  to  ask  one  further  question  in  respect  to  this 
biennial  shutdown.  The  public  have  an  impression,  I  think,  that  that  is  in 
part  occasioned  by  coalition  between  the  operator  and  the  miner,  and  that, 
although  the  adjustment  could  be  made  before  the  time  of  shutting  down  comes, 
it  never  is  made  until  after.  Is  that  a  fair  statement? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  Mr.  White,  the  present  president  of  the  mine  workers' 
union,  has  been  very  honest  in  his  endeavor  to  satisfy  the  public  in  advance 
and  to  encourage  his  men  in  having  no  suspension.  I  think  he  believes,  and 
I  think  Mr.  Hayes  and  other  of  the  executive  officers  of  the  present  miners' 
organizations  are  sincere  in  their  desire  to  have  no  suspension.  We  practically 
have  none  now,  with  the  exception  of  Ohio  and  possibly  in  Pennsylvania.  Ohio 
is  up  against  a  peculiar  condition.  Mining  laws  have  been  passed  in  Ohio 
during  the  past  year  which  the  operators  have  refused  to  recognize.  I  think 
the  miners  have  the  right  on  their  side,  in  so  far  as  they  have  the  law  on  their 
side.  I  think  this  biennial  suspension  about  which  you  are  talking,  and  the  in- 
convenience and  the  danger  of  it,  come  largely  from  the  coal  speculator  more 
than  from  the  genuine  operator  or  the  miner.  The  coal  speculator  or  jobber — 
the  dealer  in  coal — tries  to  make  a  harvest  every  two  years  by  creating  a  scare 
in  your  mind,  Mr.  Delano,  to  get  you  to  put  60  days'  coal  on  the  ground,  and 
likewise  the  large  utility  corporations,  simply  to  create  an  artificial  price  on 
account  of  the  tremendous  demand.  If  you  will  look  over  the  past  number  of 
years  that  you  have  been  dealing  with  the  operators,  you  will  find  ordinarily 
that  that  coal  was  not  used,  but  you  carried  it  over  and  gradually  used  it  up 
during  the  ensuing  year,  and  that  you  had  paid  a  speculative  price  for  it.  I 
do  not  believe  the  ordinary  operator  and  ordinary  miner  have  any  desire  to 
mislead  the  public  or  any  desire  to  suspend  work. 

I  think  it  would  be  a  great  benefit  if  we  were  allowed  by  law  at  the  present 
time  to  suspend  work  for  a  month  and  shut  down  all  mines  for  a  month.  I 
think  it  would  make  the  market  conditions  very  much  better.  I  think  it  would 
be  less  destructive  of  results  to  the  operator,  and  I  think  it  would  be  resultant 
in  steadier  labor  for  the  balance  of  this  year  to  the  miner.  But  we  can  not  do 
that;  the  law  will  not  allow  us  to  restrict  our  output  or  to  raise  our  prices 
or  to  go  into  any  agreement  that  would  result  in  bringing  about  better  prices 
for  our  product. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Could  you,  as  an  operator,  or  could  any  other  operator, 
guarantee  to  those  who  are  large  consumers  of  coal  that  there  would  not  be  this 
cessation?  Could  you  on  the  1st  day  of  March  state  whether  or  not  there  was 
to  be  a  cessation? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No ;  we  could  not.  I  had  had  faith  in  what  the  miners'  officials 
said,  and  advised  my  customers  this  year  I  thought  that  there  would  be  no 
cessation  of  work.  I  felt  they  were  in  earnest  and  that  they  realized  how 
disastrous  it  was,  not  only  to  the  industry  from  the  operators'  standpoint  but 
from  the  miners'  standpoint.  I  do  believe,  Mr.  Delano,  that  the  railroads 
of  the  counrty  could  largely  help  out  this  question  of  carrying  such  a  great 
peak  load  as  we  have  to  carry,  if  the  railroads,  who  are  the  largest  consumers 
of  cars,  use  them  at  the  coal  mines  in  getting  a  supply  of  coal  on  the  ground 
during  the  summer  months  for  60  or  90  days'  consumption  during  the  winter 
months.  Of  course  it  would  cost  the  railroads  the  interest  on  the  capital 
invested  in  this  storage  coal,  and  it  would  cost  the  railroads  he  unloading  and 
reloading  charge,  and  also  the  depreciation  on  the  quality  which  would  neces- 
sarily depreciate  during  the  six  months'  storage.  But  it  would  take  away  from 
the  operator  his  peak  demand  in  the  winter ;  it  would  give  the  railroad  the  use 
of  the  cars  in  the  winter,  in  which  we  now  have  to  load  the  fuel  coal  in  the 
wintertime  for  the  railroad,  and  the  railroad  would  have  the  use  of  that  car 
for  commercial  purposes.  It  would  greatly  even  up  the  load  of  the  coal  operator 
and,  I  believe,  would  greatly  enhance  the  earnings  of  the  railroads.  I  think 
I  have  personally  discussed  this  question  with  you  before,  Mr.  Delano.  I 
think  it  would  result  in  the  operator  not  being  required  to  carry  such  a  tre- 
mendous investment  to  take  care  of  a  peak  load,  and  that  if  the  railroads  would 


440          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

put  in  a  two  or  three  months'  storage  every  summer  it  would  take  a  very  large 
percentage  off  that  peak  and  more  evenly  distribute  the  use  of  their  cars  and 
the  use  of  our  capital  through  the  summer  months  of  the  year. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  Mr.  Peabody,  as  an  operator  working  with  union 
miners,  have  you  had  any  trouble  from  the  union  miners  in  your  district  in 
the  way  of  refusing  to  use  powder  or  tools  or  machinery  that  was  nonunion? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  They  go  through  that  process  every  year,  but  it  is  largely  a 
matter  of  form  with  them. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  It  is  not  any  serious  inconvenience? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No.  We  sell  them  nothing  except  powder,  and  I  am  rather 
under  the  impression  that  I  made  at  one  time  the  only  union  powder  made, 
and  I  think  every  keg  of  it  was  objected  to  at  the  time  by  the  pit  committee, 
because  I  hink  they  did  not  at  that  moment  like  me  very  much ;  but  the  union 
labor  was  there.  I  do  not  think  it  has  any  influence  at  all.  The  best  selling 
tobaccos  in  mining  camps  are  Five  Brothers,  and  Miners'  &  Puddlers'  Delight, 
both  of  which  are  nonunion  tobaccos.  It  has  no  influence  on  them  at  all.  They 
have  the  privilege  of  buying  everything  they  choose.  They  can  go  out  and  buy 
their  bits,  caps,  oils,  picks,  and  everything  else  except  their  powder.  The 
powder  agreement  covers  six  pages,  showing  the  methods  of  testing  the  pow- 
ders, etc. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  That  is  all  I  desire  to  ask,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock,  do  you  care  to  ask  any  questions? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Peabody,  you  said  that  trade  agreements  do 
not  prevent  strikes  or  contract  breaking? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No ;  they  do  not. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  do  not  prevent  it? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  so,  what  is  the  advantage  of  collective  bar- 
gaining to  mine  owners? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  it  is  very  much  better  for  the  men  and,  in  the  end,  is  not 
injurious  to  the  mine  owners  if  the  collective  bargaining  is  done.  Mr.  Mitchell 
made  some  points,  and  I  remember  a  point  that  he  made  was  that  in  the  early 
day,  when  contracts  would  be  let,  we  have  gone  to  our  miners,  before  the  union 
was  in  existence,  and  said,  "  We  can  get  this  Burlington  contract  or  Wabash 
contract  or  this  contract  or  the  other  contract,  and  we  will  keep  you  working 
steadily  provided  you  will  stand  a  reduction  in  your  wages,"  and  it  was  always 
met  by  some  other  man  finally. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  it  ended  in  squeezing  labor? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes ;  it  ended  in  squeezing  labor,  and  if  you  squeeze  labor  too 
much  you  will  squeeze  capital. 

Commissioner  WTEIN  STOCK.  I  gather  from  what  you  said  that  the  men  are  very 
much  better  organized  than  the  owners. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  yes;  very  much. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  the  owners  were  as  well  organized  as  the  men, 
what  do  you  think  would  be  the  outcome? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  it  would  result  in  agreements  that  would  be  very  much 
more  beneficial  to  both  sides. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  is  it  that  prevents  the  owners  from  or- 
ganizing as  well  as  the  men  are  organized? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  As  a  rule,  financial  necessities;  a  lack  of  confidence  in  com- 
petitive capital ;  the  fear  that  one  man  will  get  the  better  of  another ;  the  lack 
of  any  law  allowing  us  to  even  confer  on  better  conditions ;  and  the  mistrust  of 
capital  for  other  capital. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  other  words,  the  workers  have  more  confidence 
in  each  other  than  the  owners  have? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  very  much  more. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  inferred  from  what  you  said  that  the  owners 
have  in  many  things  surrendered  to  the  unions.  Is  this  because  of  their  superior 
organization  and  thus  putting  them  in  the  saddle,  so  to  speak? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  There  are  many  reasons  why  they  have  secured  things.  Some 
of  the  things  they  have  secured  were  proper  and  they  should  have  secured  them. 
Many  of  the  things  they  should  not  have  secured.  They  secured  those  either  by 
striking  and  tying  us  out  or  by  getting  some  weak-kneed  chap  to  give  it  to 
them  and  letting  his  mine  start  up,  and  he,  beginning  to  get  the  market  away 
from  us,  and  rather  than  let  him  have  the  market,  we  would  yield  and  give  it 
to  them,  too.  They  are  very  clever.  I  can  not  tell  you  how  clever  they  are. 
They  work  every  possible  way. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  441 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  the  conditions  are  just  the  opposite  of  what 
they  were  when  the  owners  were  in  the  saddle? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  In  the  old  days  we  used  to  make  some  money  once  in  a  while, 
but  we  do  not  now. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  do  you  reconcile  that  statement  with  the 
statement  made  by  Mr.  Mitchell  this  morning  that  he  believed  the  condition  of 
the  mine  owners  is  much  better  than  before  the  introduction  of  collective 
bargaining? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  do  not  believe  Mr.  Mitchell  has  given  you  any  evidence  here 
that  he  is  competent  to  testify  from  that  standpoint. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  dispute  that  statement? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  very  distinctly ;  very  distinctly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  the  mine  owners  are  worse  off  than  they  were 
before  the  era  of  collective  bargaining,  do  you  think  that  is  due  to  the  organ- 
izing of  labor? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  no.  I  think  it  is  due,  particularly  in  the  bituminous  dis- 
tricts, to  a  rather  unusual  thing.  One  particular  reason  is  that  during  the  period 
of  the  anthracite  strike  bituminous  coal  was  in  very  great  demand.  Men  own- 
ing little  properties,  with  perhaps  $30,000  or  $40,000  or  $50,000  invested,  made 
during  the  four  or  five  months  the  anthracite  strike  continued  $40,000,  or 
$50,000  or  $60,000.  They  made  enormous  sums  of  money.  The  price  of  the 
bituminous  coal  went  away  up.  Screenings  \vent  from  25  or  50  cents  to  $2 
a  ton  at  the  mines,  and  lump  coal  went  from  $1  or  $1.25  to  $5  or  $6  at  the 
mines.  I  sold  coal  at  Chicago  to  the  railroads  at  $5  or  $6  a  ton  on  the  cars 
that  would  ordinarily  sell  at  $2  or  $2.25.  There  was  an  enormous  amount  of 
money  made  by  the  bituminous  operators.  Just  as  happens  in  every  boom,  the 
thing  is  overdone ;  so  that  the  money  that  was  made  at  that  time  induced  every 
operator — and  every  one  who  knew  what  money  they  had  made — to  sink  new 
coal  mines. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Stimulated  production? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Overstimulated  production.  The  only  way  they  will  ever  be 
reduced  to  the  demand  is  by  the  enforcement  of  these  mining  laws  such  as  they 
have,  for  instance,  in  Illinois.  To-day  it  costs  60  per  cent  more  to  sink  a  new 
coal  mine  than  it  did  three  years  ago  on  account  of  the  fireproof  character  of 
the  shaft  and  on  account  of  the  new  laws  that  are  going  into  effect.  That  will 
naturally  restrict  new  operations  and  the  old  ones  will  gradually  die  out.  If 
governmental  or  State  conservation  laws  could  be  passed,  I  think  the  supply 
and  demand  will  automatically  regulate  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  While,  I  take  it,  you  dispute  Mr.  Mitchell's  state- 
ment that  the  mine  owners  are  better  off  to-day  than  they  were  before  collective 
bargaining,  you  do  not  hold  organized  labor  responsible  for  the  declining  earning 
power  of  the  coal-mine  owners? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  do  not  hold  organized  labor  any  more  responsible  for  the 
present  bad  condition  of  the  coal  trade  than  I  do  the  employer  of  that  labor. 
Organized  labor  has  demanded  nothing  very  much  that  they  did  not  think  they 
were  entitled  to,  and  they  have  got  it  .from  us  by  hook  and  by  crook — and  I  do 
not  mean  that  in  an  improper  way ;  I  am  using  that  as  the  old  quotation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  they  have  done  what  you  and  I  and  the 
rest  of  u^  would  c!o  under  like  circumstances. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Exactly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  it  is  better,  as  you  point  out,  for  the  owners  in 
the  various  States  to  have  uniform  legislation  on  the  matter  of  working  condi- 
tions, why  is  it  not  wise  for  them  to  have  collective  conferences? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Because,  unless  it  be  Illinois  and  Indiana,  I  think  there  are 
very  small  competitive  conditions.  Ohio  coal  competes  practically  not  at  all 
with  the  Illinois  coal. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Still,  they  have  this  one  thing  in  common — the 
establishment  of  uniform  working  conditions. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  say,  outside  of  the  fact  that  I  believe  the  day  laborer  should 
be  paid  as  much  in  Ohio  as  he  is  in  Indiana  and  Illinois,  and  if  there  is  a  general 
percentage  raise  or  fall  in  conditions  in  one  State  I  think  they  should  auto- 
matically extend  over  the  territory  in  which  union  labor  works.  *But  outside  of 
that  there  is  nothing  to  bring  us  together. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  were  pointing  out  that  the  present  basis  of 
agreement,  in  your  judgment,  is  wrong? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  would  you  regard  as  a  right  basis? 


442          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  The  earning  power  of  a  man,  the  quality  of  the  product,  and 
the  ability,  from  the  geographical  situation,  of  that  party  to  reach  a  market. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  If  you  had  full  power  in  the  matter,  and,  with 
your  great  knowledge  and  experience  \vith  conditions,  were  asked  to  prepare 
an  agreement  that  would  be  fair  to  both  sides,  what  would  be  the  vital  points 
you  would  establish  that  are  different  from  the  present  arrangements? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Such  an  agreement  as  I  would  draw  would  put  most  of  my 
competitors  out  of  business  automatically  and  properly.  That  is  a  correct  state- 
ment, because  I  have  made  my  investments  in  the  thick  veins  of  the  State  where 
properly  coal  should  be  mined  first,  because  it  can  be  mined  more  economically 
and  living  wages  can  be  paid  in  its  mining  and  where  the  quality  of  the  coal  is 
superior  and  where  it  is  centrally  located  to  markets  north,  east,  south,  and 
west,  and  it  is  where  the  demand  should  go  first  and  should  be  supplied  first. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  I  suppose  you  would  have  a  hard  time  convincing 
your  competitors  that  that  was  a  wise  thing  to  do? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Many  of  my  competitors  probably  would  not  agree  with  me  at 
all  on  that  proposition,  but  they  could  not  logically  contend  against  it,  because 
when  you  consider  that  you  start  on  an  artificial  basis,  you  have  to  artificially 
hold  that  basis  up.  Anything  that  is  artificial  is  finally  bound  to  go  in  the  end. 
It  is  going  to  come  in  our  industry.  That  is  what  is  causing  insolvency  of  these 
properties  gradually. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Has  the  introduction  of  machinery  in  mining  re- 
duced the  percentage  of  skilled  workers  and  increased  the  percentage  of  un- 
skilled workers? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  very  materially. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  has  done  that? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  yes.     It  does  not  take  skill  now. 

Commissioner 'WEINSTOCK.  From  that  statement,  I  would  take  it  that  skilled 
labor  is  not  much  of  a  factor  in  your  industry? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  has  become  largely  a  manufacturing  proposition,  a  raw- 
material  loading  proposition  now.  There  are  expert  men  driving  our  machines. 
Our  timber  men  ought  to  be  experts.  Our  track  layers  and  our  mine  examiners 
are  experts.  But  it  does  not  take  an  expert  to  take  a  shovel  and  shovel  coal 
from  the  floor  of  a  room  into  a  car.  That  is  the  largest  cost  at  the  present 
time. 

Commissioner  WTEIN STOCK.  How  does  the  earning  capacity  of  the  unskilled 
laborer  of  to-day  compare  with  the  earning  capacity  of  the  skilled  laborer  of 
1897? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  The  unskilled  laborer  in  the  thick  veins  earns  much  more.  I 
have  not  brought  any  records  with  me,  but  we  frequently  find  a  man  earning 
$6  or  $8  a  day,  an  unskilled  laborer,  in  our  thick  veins,  while  in  the  thin 
veins  that  same  laborer  could  not  earn  to  exceed  $1.75  or  $2  a  day  right  at 
the  present  moment.  I  contend  that  that  man  should  not  work  in  that  thin  vein, 
but  he  should  come  and  work  in  the  thick  vein  until  the  thick  vein  is  exhausted. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Can  you  recall  approximately  what  the  skilled 
worker  in  1897  earned? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  In  1897  a  good  miner  at  25  cents  a  box,  working  10  hours, 
would  earn  $2.25  to  $2.75  a  day.  That  was  the  nonunion  man. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  unskilled  worker  to-day 
is  earning  as  much  as  the  skilled  worker  in  1897? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  In  eight  hours;  yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  that  while  there  is  less  demand  for  so-called 
skilled  labor,  the  unskilled  worker  is  better  off  to-day  than  the  skilled  worker 
was  at  that  time? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes.  We  used  to  pay  our  unskilled  laborer  a  dollar  a  day, 
and  now  they  can  earn  up  to  $6  or  $8  a  day. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  At  that  rate  the  machine  has  not  been  such  a 
calamity  after  all  to  society? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  no. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  has  lightened  the  burden  of  the  worker? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes ;  it  has  lightened  the  burden  of  the  worker. 

Commission  WEINSTOCK.  And  still  made  it  possible  for  him  to  increase  his 
earning  power? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  has.  I  do  not  think  the  miner  objects  to  the  machine.  He 
objects  to  saying  ho\v  much  of  the  earnings  of  the  machine  shall  go  to  him 
and  how  much  to  the  man  that  owns  the  machine. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  want  a  share  of  the  saving? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IX    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  443 

Mr.  PEABODY.  He  does  not  want  a  share. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  wants  it  all? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL,  What  is  the  annual  earning,  approximately,  of  a 
miner  at  this  time? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  That  is  an  extremely  difficult  question  to  answer. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  n%any  days  in  the  year  does  he  work?  Mr. 
Mitchell  said  200. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  From  155  to  210  or  215,  has  been  the  average  in  Illinois  of 
late  years. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Greater  than  it  was  formerly? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  no ;  not  in  the  number  of  days  of  work.  Up  to  the  time  of 
the  anthracite  strike,  I  think  the  percentage  of  days  was  less,  but  I  can  not 
speak  from  the  book. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  At  the  time  of  the  anthracite  coal  strike  did  you 
have  yearly  contracts  with  the  railroads  to  furnish  coal? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  If  I  had,  I  carried  them  out. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Did  you  keep  the  contracts? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  If  I  had,  I  carried  them  out.  With  some  of  the  railroads  I 
did  not  have  contracts,  however. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  to  those  the  price  was  raised? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  To  the  limit  that  I  could  take  from  them — and  with  pleasure, 
too. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  the  nonunion  days  you  speak  of,  before  you 
came  to  an  agreement,  what  was  the  standard  of  the  miner's  living  as  compared 
to  the  present  time? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  The  standard  of  the  work  is  very  much  better,  and  the  stand- 
ard of  his  living  very  much  better.  There  has  been  a  wonderful  improvement, 
and  I  am  very  thankful  of  it,  too. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  do  the  private  habits  of  the  mine  workers 
to-day  compare  with  the  private  habits  of  the  mine  wTorkers  of  1897? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  From  my  knowledge  of  them — and  I  am  with  them  a  great  deal ; 
I  have  been  building  mining  towns,  etc. — the  average  is  very  much  higher,  I 
think.  There  is  a  very  much  higher  class  of  men,  although,  as  Mr.  Mitchell  said, 
the  English-speaking  and  Anglo-Saxon  element  is  diminishing  very  rapidly, 
and  we  are  taking  our  miners  from  southern  Italy  and  northern  Italy,  the  Hun- 
garians, and  the  Slavs,  etc.,  a  very  large  percentage  of  them.  We  are  losing 
our  old  English  and  WTelsh  miners  very  largely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  There  is  a  higher  degree  of  sobriety  now  than 
there  was? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  also  a  higher  grade  of  morality? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  so.  I  think  the  whole  standard  of  the  miner  has  im- 
proved greatly.  I  have  been  very  much  interested  with  my  friend  Mitchell  in 
going  to  miners'  houses  to  see  his  picture  hanging  there  rather  enshrined.  He 
is  rather  typical  of  a  higher  being.  I  am  not  joking  in  this.  I  am  very  serious. 
I  am  very  fond  of  Mitchell,  and  I  think  his  work  and  the  work  that  has  been 
done  has  elevated  the  whole  standard  of  their  lives.  Mitchell  is  there  more  as 
an  ideal  than  as  a  person.  He  has  done  wonders  for  the  men  socially  and  in 
every  other  kind  of  way.  They  are  no  longer  beasts,  as  many  of  those  miners 
were,  but  they  are  becoming  intelligent,  argumentative,  distinct  human  beings. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Has  not  that  been  brought  about  also  largely 
through  the  increased  leisure  that  affords  them  opportunities  for  cultivating 
their  minds? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  that  is  very  largely  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  development  of  their  work  in  the  unions? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes.  These  debating  societies  and  the  unions  are  debating  so- 
cieties. Mr.  Mitchell  spoke  of  fewer  accidents  in  union  mines.  You  must  bear 
in  mind  that  a  man  has  less  chance  of  being  hurt  or  having  an  accident  in 
8  hours  than  he  does  in  10.  The  majority  of  accidents  come  from  the  falling  of 
slate  or  the  falling  of  coal  from  the  face.  Our  great  trouble  in  preventing  these 
accidents  is  lack  of  authority.  We  mark  a  place  unsafe  and  a  man  will  pay  no 
attention  to  it.  If  he  does  not  get  hurt  and  we  have  not  found  that  he  did  not 
get  a  timber  up  there,  nothing  is  done.  If  he  gets  killed,  we  can  not  discharge 
him.  The  consequence  is,  in  the  last  season,  although  wre  have  spent  more 
money  in  my  own  corporation  in  the  prevention  of  accidents,  we  are  having 
more  accidents  than  we  ever  have  had  before. 


444          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  is  that  explained? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  The  only  way  I  can  explain  it  is  there  may  be  some  luck  or 
there  may  be  some  series  of  accidents  coming  together,  as  they  sometimes  do, 
that  you  can  not  account  for.  But  I  explain  it  in  the  lack  of  jurisdiction  over 
the  men  to  prevent  them  getting  in  the  way  of  accidents.  In  other  words,  if 
we  mark  a  room  unsafe  and  say  they  must  not  go  into  it,  and  if  they  do  go 
into  it,  we  should  have  the  right  to  discharge  them,  and  there  should  be  suffi- 
cint  men  watching  them  when  they  go  in  such  places  that  their  discharge  would 
be  brought  about ;  and  if  they  are  seen  going  into  those  places  they  should  be 
discharged,  which  would  have  a  tendency  to  prevent  it.  But  they  will  not 
allow  us  to  do  that.  They  will  not  allow  us  to  put  protection  around  them 
that  should  be  put  there  for  their  lives.  We  say,  we  hope  it  is  for  humanity 
first,  and,  second,  the  financial  burden  put  upon  us  by  the  accidents. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Illinois  is  working  under  a  compensation  law? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes ;  and  our  company  is  under  that  act,  and  we  carry  our  own 
insurance. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  a  voluntary  system? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes;  it  is  voluntary. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Does  that  tend  to  minimize  the  causes  of  indus- 
trial friction? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  not  at  all. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think  not? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No.  I  think  it  is  a  very  just  act,  but  I  do  not  think  it  does 
away  with  any  causes  of  friction. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  the  event  of  an  accident,  can  you  settle  it  now 
more  speedily  and  with  less  friction  and  less  heat  than  under  the  old  employer's 
act? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  There  have  not  been  any  strikes  on  questions  of  that  kind.  To- 
day the  operator  pays  and  the  individual  gets  the  compensation,  and  it  is  not 
taken  by  the  lawyers.  It  is  a  very  just,  good  method. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Under  the  old  conditions,  where  the  miners  only 
got  a  fraction  of  what  they  were  justly  entitled  to,  the  greater  part  of  it  going 
into  the  hands  of  the  lawyers,  it  would  frequently  create  bitterness  and  ill  will? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  must  necessarily  have  done  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  obviated  now? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  so,  largely. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  spoke  of  the  miners  having  their  strikes  re- 
gardless of  the  contract  being  in  existence? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  the  operators  any  weaknesses  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Undoubtedly,  they  have  locked  men  out  when  they  ought  not 
to  have  done  so,  but  they  do  not  do  it  often. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Then  it  has  not  been  entirely  one  sided? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No ;  it  has  not  been  entirely  one  sided ;  there  have  been  many 
instances  where  operators  have  improperly  acted,  but  the  majority  of  the  cases 
are  from  the  miners'  standpoint.  The  operator  does  not  dare  to  do  it,  the  opera- 
tor would  have  no  jurisdiction  over  him  if  he  does  it.  They  have  the  jurisdic- 
tion, and  if  we  are  acting  improperly  in  calling  our  mine  out,  they  do  it  at 
once. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Then  you  do  not  care  to  go  back  to  the  old  condi- 
tions; you  prefer  to  rest  on  the  present  contractual  relations? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  prefer  to  rest  on  the  present  contractual  relations,  if  they 
are  based  on  sound  economic  theory  to  start  with. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  If  you  own  a  mine  within  20  miles  of  Chicago, 
and  I  own  a  mine  1,000  miles  from  Chicago,  you  think  I  ought  not  to  have  as 
reasonable  conditions  as  you  do? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  do  not  know  why  your  miners'  wages  should  be  cut  down  to 
enable  you  to  produce  coal  so  cheaply  that  you  can  overcome  by  the  cost  of 
your  production  the  difference  in  freight  rate  between  the  50-mile  haul  and 
the  1,000-mile  haul. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  think  that  there  should  not  be  something 
human  in  there  to  protect  me? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Not  the  slightest.     You  must  go  and  find  your  market. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  if  I  do  not  find  it? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Then  you  should  not  exist. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  suppose  that  is  a  very  serious  question  between 
you ;  I  do  not  see  why  it  should  not  be. 


; 


TKADE  AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  445 

Mr.  PEABODY.  The  miners  can  move.  There  are  not  too  many  miners ;  they 
could  move.  We  see  continually  all  over  the  world  abandoned  cities  and 
abaindoned  towns  and  abandoned  neighborhoods.  Political  economy  has  taught 
us  that  that  comes  from  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  I  mean  by  that  the  men 
that  can  produce  cheapest  and  best  must  take  the  market  first,  and  you  can 
not  artificially  maintain  any  other  condition  and  maintain  it  successfully. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  think  under  the  interstate  rule  of  the  long 
haul  and  short  haul  your  position  is  correct? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Absolutely.  The  railroad  should  be  paid  for  every  mile  that 
it  hauls  goods,  and  should  be  paid  more  the  greater  distance.  I  do  not  suppose 
we  want  to  become  involved  in  the  terminal  question,  but  that  has  largely  to 
do  with  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  care  what  I  become  involved  in. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  know,  but  I  am  looking  at  my  friend  Delano,  and  I  know  he 
is  a  past  master  on  that  question. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  about  the  cutting  out  of  the  middle  man  in 
the  coal  business,  and  delivering  the  coal  direct  from  your  mine  to  my  house? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  that  is  a  question  hardly  involved  in  this. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  No ;  I  think  it  is  involved  in  this. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  You  can  not  do  away  with  the  distributor.  We  could  not 
ship  a  carload  of  coal  to  your  house.  I  would  want  to  put  it  through  some 
man's  yard  that  could  break  up  that  carload  and  distribute  part  to  your  house 
and  distribute  part  to  some  other  man's  house. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  But  you  can  ship  a  carload  over  to  my  house. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  If  you  could  take  a  carload  of  coal ;  that  is,  if  you  were  able  to 
handle  it  when  it  came  here. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  If  I  purchased  the  coal  of  you,  would  you  deliver 
to  me  direct  at  the  same  rate  you  would  furnish  it  to  some  one  else,  the  same 
article  under  the  same  conditions? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  There  would  be  a  good  many  conditions  I  would  want  to  discuss 
with  you  before  I  answered  that  question. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  One  question :  What  effect  has  the  existence  of  this 
agreement  had  on  the  retail  selling  price  of  coal,  Chicago? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  do  not  quite  understand  that. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  What  effect  has  it  had?  How  has  the  existence -of 
this  agreement  between  the  operators  and  the  union  affected  the  general  selling 
price  of  coal  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  at  retail? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Well,  our  selling  price  has  increased,  but  not  as  much  as  our 
costs  have  advanced,  and  they  have  increased,  and  necessarily  the  retail  price 
has  increased. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  judge  from  what  you  said  about  the  improvement  of 
the  miners,  do  you  ascribe  any  of  that  to  the  existence  of  the  organization  and 
the  existence  of  the  agreement  that  the  organization  has  brought  about?  Have 
their  moral  standards  improved,  and  their  living  standards  improved? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  it  has  had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  improvement, 
their  officers,  and  talks  and  teachings  of  their  officers,  the  fact  that  they  were 
getting  better  wages ;  everything  has  added  to  that. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Did  you  hear  the  questions  that  were  asked  Mr. 
Mitchell  this  morning  regarding  the  matter  of  technical  education  through  voca- 
tional education  of  miners  or  miners'  children? 

Mr.  PEABODY.   Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Do  you  think  that  education  could  be  so  reorganized  as 
to  be  of  benefit  to  the  children  of  miners  if  they  were  going  to  be  miners  them- 
selves later  on? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No ;  I  can  not  see  where  we  could  get  the  miners'  children  into 
technical  schools  and  benefit  them  at  their  trade,  but  I  think  they  could  go  into 
technical  schools  and  into  the  public  schools,  as  they  are  going,  and  benefit  them 
greatly  for  their  future  life,  but  not  for  the  particular  trade  of  mining.  I  do  not 
see  where  you  could  teach  them  anything ;  the  question  of  gas  and  the  question 
of  all  these  things,  such  as  the  stratification  of  coal  and  the  rock  and  the  slate 
above  the  coal — I  do  not  believe  you  could  teach  them  those  things ;  they  have 
rot  to  find  that  out  from  actual  practical  experience. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  If  we  all  conclude  the  same  as  evidently  the  two 
miners  have  concluded,  then,  there  is  no  field  for  their  training  in  the  world, 
because  if  there  is  not  a  field  there,  there  is  not  anywhere.  I  have  been  digging 
at  this  thing  for  some  years. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Technical  training  in  mining  is  the  question  you  asked  me? 


446          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  DELANO.   Yes. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  there  is  a  field  for  technical  training  of  the  men  who 
are  superintendents  and  mine  engineers,  but  I  do  not  think  for  the  miner  him- 
self, unless  it  be  a  general  mechanical  training  that  would  benefit  anybody. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.   Mrs.  Harriman. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.   No  questions. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Peabody,  I  think  both  you  and  Mr.  Mitchell  seem 
to  agree  that  for  the  good  of  both  sides  the  employees  and  operators  should  be 
allowed  to  organize  an  association  that  might  have  some  control  over  prices. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  we  both  agree  on  that ;  yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  feel  that  that  would  be  quite  important,  say, 
in  the  Illinois  field,  to  enable  the  operators  to  recover  and  to  continue  paying 
these  wage  scales  that  you  agree  on? 

Mr.  PEABODY.   I  think  of  more  importance  would  be  the  changing  of  the  base. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  should  change  the  base  you  would  not  need  a 
combination  of  employers  to  fix  prices,  would  you? 

Mr.  PEABODY.   Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  not  your  southern  mines  be  able  to  drive  the 
others  out  of  business? 

Mr.  PEABODY.   Yes ;  but  there  are  many  southern  mines. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Why  should  you  need  to  go  into  combination,  if  the 
more  superior  mines  are  to  be  allowed  to  drive  the  inferior  ones  out  ? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Because  there  are  so  many  of  the  superior  mines. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  would  still  permit  them  to  combine? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  certainly  should. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  wrould  be  the  gain  for  either  the  miner  or  the 
public  or  the  conservation  of  coal? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  The  stability  of  the  industry. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  would  that  figure  out  on  the  conservation  end? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  It  would  not  figure  out  on  the  conservation  end,  because  the 
operator  would  still  continue  to  mine  as  cheaply  as  he  could.  The  conservation 
end  would  have  to  be  figured  out  in  combination  with  conservation  laws,  pos- 
sibly, which  the  operator  would  have  to  obey.  I  believe  such  laws — govern- 
mental or  State  laws — should  be  passed  as,  for  example,  that  not  to  exceed  10 
per  cent  of  the  coal  in  the  ground  should  be  left  in  the  ground. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  By  legislation? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  By  legislation;  and  if  those  laws  were  passed,  then  it  would 
be  entirely  essential  that  the  operator  would  have  some  method  of  securing  a 
price  for  his  coal  that  would  compensate  him? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  understand  that  your  interpretation  of  the  way  the 
miners  get  at  this  is  that  they  would  want  to  protect  the  mine  workers  in  the 
thin  districts ;  their  wages  have  been  raised  slightly,  and  in  your  district  they 
have  been  raised  three  or  four  times? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  not  the  Government  or  the  State  try  to  reg- 
ulate that  by  trying  to  protect  these  people? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  they  should  not.  I  think  they  should  say  to  these 
people,  "  Go  to  where  the  economy  of  production  and  quality  of  coal  will  be 
given  to  the  public  first."  If  they  protect  those  people  they  have  to  allow  the 
thick-vein  man  to  get  more  money  out  of  his  coal.  The  basis  should  be  the 
earning  power  of  the  man — of  the  laborer. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Your  idea  seems  to  be  that  a  new  equilibrium  would 
be  reached,  that  certain  proportions  of  the  thin  veins  would  be  abandoned  and 
the  labor  would  move  to  the  thick  vein? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  thick- vein  people  would  make  more  money ;  and 
the  Government  should  regulate  the  price  to  a  point  where  it  would  wipe  out 
a  certain  proportion  of  the  thin  veins  and  maintain  a  certain  proportion  of  the 
thick  veins? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes;  and  I  believe  the  market  should  go  to  a  point,  logically, 
where  it  can  buy  the  best  quality  at  the  lowest  price,  and  that  the  price  should 
be  sufficiently  high  to  allow  sufficient  remuneration  to  labor  to  allow  it  to  live 
comfortably. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  probably  thought  of  an  interstate  trade  com- 
mission? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  very  well  of  that. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  447 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  do  you  think  that  such  a  commission  for  the 
mining  industry  should  have  jurisdiction  over  wages — over  a  trade  agreement? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  you  would  have  great  difficulty  in  securing  that  juris- 
diction. It  would  be  a  very  admirable  thing  if  some  good  father,  whether  it 
be  the  United  States  or  the  State,  should  take  paternal  jurisdiction  of  us  in 
all  these  features,  including  guaranteeing  us  a  profit. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  favor  the  guaranteeing  of  a  profit,  evidently? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes ;  and  I  think  the  others  ought  to  go  with  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  also  in  being  protected  against  the  union?  You 
want  to  be  protected  against  the  union? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No;  they  should  protect  one  citizen  against  another  citizen. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  understood  you  to  take  the  ground  that  it  was  not 
right  to  determine  these  questions  between  you  and  a  labor  organization ;  that 
they  simply  have  might? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  have  stated  that ;  and  if  they  have  the  might,  they  have 
secured  what  they  have  got ;  if  we  should  organize  to  double  the  same  might, 
although  we  would  not,  we  have  not  got  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  if  the  State  or  the  Government  should  help  you 
in  fixing  a  price  combination  you  would  not  need  the  other? 

Mr,  PEABODY.  We  would  not  need  the  other. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  want  to  ask  about  the  changing  character  of  the 
miners.  Before  the  union  came  in,  were  there  many  of  these  foreign-speaking 
miners,  like  the  Italian  and  the  Polish,  and  people  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Not  as  many.     The  English,  Scotch,  and  Welsh  predominated. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Can  you  explain  why  it  is,  then,  that  the  miners' 
union,  controlled  by  the  English  and  Scotch,  should  import  Italians  and  Polish 
people  to  take  the  place  of  English-speaking  miners,  and  furnishing  only  Ital- 
ians and  Polish,  as  against  the  English  speaking? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  the  ordinary  English  and  Scotch  and  Welsh  miners,  see- 
ing the  manner  in  which  they  mine  coal  now,  naturally  refused  to  wrork  in  such 
a  condition. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  apparently  their  wages  have  at  least  doubled? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  That  is  true,  but  it  does  not  require  the  skill  of  the  old  miner. 
The  old  miner  was  a  craftsman,  and  a  wonderful  craftsman.  He  knew  the 
geological  conditions,  the  mining  conditions,  as  none  of  us  ever  will  know  them. 
He  sensed  them  in  some  way. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  He  placed  it  more  on  the  basis  of  pride  in  his  work? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Oh,  he  had  pride  in  his  work.  It  is  not  an  admirable  craft ;  it 
is  laborer's  work.  These  craftsmen  have  gone  into  other  work. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  had  occasion  to  observe — I  suppose  you 
never  have  had  occasion  to  observe  the  Italian  and  Polish  people  in  the  unor- 
ganized places,  as  to  how  they  compare  in  discipline,  and  so  on,  where  they  are 
not  organized. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes ;  I  have  been  in  unorganized,  nonunion  villages,  where  the 
standard  seems  to  be  lower  than  the  same  class  of  men  that  I  find  in  our  own 
districts — union  districts. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Standardized  to  what? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  The  apparent  cleanliness  of  living. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  spoke  of  the  union's  observance  of  discipline  and 
the  conducting  of  these  occasional  strikes — unorganized  strikes.  Have  you  had 
occasion  to  observe  that? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  you  would  not  know  how  the  strikes  of  the  un- 
organized Polish  and  Italians  would  compare  with  the  present  organized 
strikes? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No ;  I  would  not  know  how  they  compare  with  the  organized 
strikes;  I  haven't  had  that  experience. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Didn't  you  have,  in  your  system  in  Illinois,  Mr.  Wil- 
liams as  an  umpire?  Where  did  his  work  come  in? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Mr  Williams,  of  Streator?  I  think  he  arbitrated  some  ques- 
tions. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  understood  he  was  a  standing  arbitrator  or  umpire 
for  disputes. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  do  not  know  about  that. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  think  he  had  something  to  do  with  settling  the 
Cherry  mine  disaster. 


448          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  never  had  that? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No.  I  would  like  to  suggest  to  your  commission  that  I  brought 
with  me  a  number  of  instances,  which  I  do  not  want  to  leave,  but  I  will  leave 
them  with  the  Chair,  which  embraces  all  the  agreements  made  in  Illinois  since 
1897,  together  with  volumes  of  debates  between  the  miners  on  one  side  and 
the  operators  on  the  other,  as  to  the  reasons  pro  and  con  why  these  demands 
should  not  be  granted.  I  think  it  would  give  you  a  great  light,  better  than  any 
witness  could  give  you,  of  the  manner  in  which  our  present  trade  agreement  was 
brought  about,  and  I  should  be  only  too  glad  to  furnish  such  data  for  the  com- 
mission if  they  desire  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  would  be  very  glad  if  you  would. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  think  it  would  be  very  valuable. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Our  secretary  will  make  a  memorandum  of  that. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  You  will  find  all  through  the  debates  here  that  we  were  not 
debating  the  earning  power  of  the  men ;  the  earning  power  of  a  man  has  nothing 
to  do  with  it.  You  will  find  that  all  through  these  debates.  It  is  simply  com- 
petitive conditions. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  object  there  is  to  furnish  every  man  a  job? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Well,  they  could  furnish  them  the  jobs 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  To  give  every  man  a  job  in  the  place  where  he  is 
living? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  That  is  the  point ;  in  the  place  where  he  lives. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  evidently  the  object  of  the  union,  is  it  not? 
Would  you  not  say  that? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes ;  that  is  the  object  of  the  union. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  any  of  the  miners  own  their  own  homes — that 
is,  in  the  little  towns? 

Mr.    PEABODY.    Not   many;    but   we   are    gradually   beginning   to    build    up. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  if  they  had  to  leave,  what  would  become  of 
the  homes? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  The  home  would  be  abandoned ;  it  would  become  valueless.  But 
you  will  find  to-day  all  over  the  States  mining  villages  that  have  been  aban- 
doned. In  a  village  in  Ohio — we  had  a  village  there  of  about  a  hundred 
houses,  and  they  are  gone.  Oh,  of  course,  they  are  there. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  that  is  so  of  your  company? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes ;  in  that  case,  but  men  would  not  build  there.  It  would  be 
as  bad  in  my  case. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  But  the  miners,  if  they  have  homes,  they  attempt 
to  protect  them  by  obtaining  the  work? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes;  naturally. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  is  the  use  of  the  owners  entering  into  agree- 
ments with  the  workers?  I  mean,  what  is  the  good  of  making  a  contract  if 
they  will  not  keep  it? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Well,  a  contract  that  is  kept  80  per  cent  is  better  than  no  con- 
tract at  all. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  there  are  about  20  per  cent  of  slippages? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  do  not  think  I  could  say  that  fairly.  There  were  187  cases 
in  Illinois. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Strikes? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  No;  not  strikes,  but  where  they  could  not  reach  an  agreement. 
I  think  they  called  87  strikes  on  my  company. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  violation  of  your  contracts? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  In  violation  of  our  contracts.  So  much  so  that  in  one  case  the 
executive  officers  of  the  miners'  union  notified  the  men  that  they  must  go  to 
work,  and  they  refused  to  go  to  work,  and  they  finally  had  to  revoke  their 
charter.  That  mine  was  out  nine  weeks  in  that  case,  and  in  that  case  the  execu- 
tive officers  of  the  miners  did  the  best  they  could  to  live  up  to  their  contract 
with  me,  but  they  could  not  force  the  men  to  do  it,  and  that  has  been  repeatedly 
the  case.  Still  in  another  case,  I  have  a  letter  from  Duncan  McDonald,  sec- 
retary of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  Illinois,  notifying  me  that  unless  I 
granted  the  demand  which  they  were  making,  which  is  not  in  accordance  with 
the  contract,  he  would  give  notice  that  all  the  mines  that  I  controlled  in  that 
district  should  be  called  out  on  a  strike. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.   Despite  your  contract? 

Mr.  PEABODY.  Yes.    He  was  bluffing ;  he  did  not  do  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  this  tendency  toward  contract  breaking  increas- 
ing or  diminishing,  say,  as  compared  with  what  it  was  5  or  8  or  10  years  ago? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  449 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  it  is  increasing,  and  I  think  that  is  largely  on  account 
of  miners'  politics. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Thompson,  have  you  any  other  questions? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  I  have  one  more  question ;  that  comes  back  to  this  ques- 
tion of  vocational  training.  Is  there  any  provision  to  educate  the  young  boys, 
say,  from  14  to  18  years,  who  are  working  around  the  mine?  And  in  that  con- 
nection, this  further  question :  If  there  is  not,  would  it  not  be  a  good  thing  to 
have  these  young  boys,  these  sons  of  foreigners,  educated  so  that  they  can 
speak  the  English  language,  so  that  they  can  understand  the  institutions  of 
this  country,  some  general  knowledge  of  mining,  so  as  to  make  them  not  only 
better  workers  in  the  mines,  but  better  citizens  of  the  country. 

Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  that  is  being  done. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  has  been  done  in  that  regard? 

-  Mr.  PEABODY.  I  think  that  the  schools  are  developing  all  through  these  mining 
sections ;  I  think  that  the  additional  money  that  the  miners  are  earning  is 
enabling  them,  instead  of  trying  to  get  the  boys  to  work  in  the  mines — of 
course  they  are  not  allowed  to  work  in  the  mines  until  they  are  16,  I  think,  in 
our  State — I  think  the  educational  advantages  they  are  all  getting  are  really 
helping  the  next  generation  tremendously  now. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Peabody,  we  are  very  thankful  to  you. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  FRANK  J.  HAYES. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  give  your  residence  and  occupation?  I  think  you 
have  already  given  your  full  name. 

Mr.  HAYES.  Indianapolis,  Incl.,  at  this  time;  international  vice  president  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  heard  Mr.  Peabody's  testimony,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes ;  parts  of  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  reference  to  the  effect  of  union  rule  enforced  through  the 
agreement  on  the  economic  operation  of  mining? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  to  say,  of  definitely  established  periods  so  as  to  bring 
those  working  in  the  Illinois  field,  75  per  cent  of  the  operators,  on  the  very 
of  bankruptcy? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  have  you  to  say  in  that  regard? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Well,  I  will  say  this,  that  there  are  too  many  mines  and  too  many 
miners,  as  Mr.  Peabody  said,  due  to  the  anthracite  strike.  There  was  a  great 
demand  for  coal,  and  a  great  many  men  went  into  the  coal  business,  and  the 
trouble  the  operators  have  over  there  is  due  to  that  excess  of  competition 
among  themselves,  and  not  to  the  miners'  union. 

I  want  to  say  further  that  the  coal  production  of  Illinois  has  increased  more 
than  100  per  cent  in  the  past  10  years  under  this  so-called  union  domination. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  in  your  opinion  the  contract  agreement  made  between 
the  union  and  the  operators  in  Illinois  has  not  been  the  cause  of  this  insolvent 
condition  ? 

Mr.  HAYES.  No,  sir.- 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  the  operators  in  Illinois  should  wish  to  change  that  rule, 
do  you  think  the  union  would  oppose  it? 

Mr.  HAYES.  What  particular  rule  do  you  refer  to? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  differential.  Take  these  mines  that  have  large  veins  and 
can  be  worked  more  economically  than  the  thin-vein  mine;  if  those  operators 
should  ask  the  union  for  a  rate  based  on  the  earning  power  of  the  men,  and  that 
it  should  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  rates  paid  elsewhere,  would  the  union 
agree  to  it? 

Mr.  HAYES.  I  think  the  rates  now  are  based  largely  on  the  earning  power  of 
the  men;  we  would  not  agree  to  a  lower  rate  in  these  thin  coal  fields,  because 
if  we  did  the  miners  would  be  very  poverty  stricken,  and  they  are  pretty  bad 
off  the  way  it  is. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Peabody  said  that  in  no  case,  so  far  as  they  discussed  it 
with  the  miners'  union,  is  the  earning  power  of  the  miner  taken  into  considera- 
tion, but  rather,  the  establishment  of  differentials,  so  that  the  owners  of  the 
various  mines  can  operate  those  mines  instead  of  having  some  of  them  close 
down. 

Mr.  HAYES.  In  making  our  wage  scales  we  tried  to  give  each  operator  a  com- 
petitive rate.  Now,  we  have  different  rates  in  different  seams  in  Illinois. 

38819°— 16 -29 


450          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Ill  the  coal  fields  like  West  Virginia  we  have  a  much  lower  rate  than  we  have 
in  Ohio  or  Indiana  or  Illinois.  In  making  our  rates  we  try  to  make  them  so 
that  the  coal  operators  can  all  compete  upon  an  equitable  basis,  or  as  nearly 
so  as  possible.  Of  course,  we  have  not  attained  any  degree  of  perfection  as 
yet  on  that,  but  it  is  the  basis  of  our  wage  agreements. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Peabody  contends  that  as  a  result  of  that  there  is  an 
artificial  standard  forced  into  the  coal  industry,  and  that  as  a  result  of  that 
artificial  standard  15  per  cent  of  the  operators  in  Illinois  are  in  a  condition 
of  bankruptcy.  Now,  would  the  union  be  willing,  say,  to  establish  a  State  rate 
of  wages — a  uniform  standard  State  rate — which  would  permit  the  operation, 
perhaps,  of  favorably  located  and  easily  worked  veins  and  that  would  close 
down  thin  veins  and  veins  which  are  distant  from  the  demand  centers? 

Mr.  HAYES.  No;  we  could  not  make  a  rate  that  would  destroy  property  or 
put  any  coal  operator  out  of  business,  or  that  would  put  the  men  out  of  busi- 
ness in  the  mining  town  in  which  they  lived. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  Mr.  Peabody  says  if  a  standard  rate  should  be  made — 
he  did  not  name  a  standard  rate,  but  that  is  the  only  way  to  take  it — the 
miners  who  were  working  in  these  regions  where  the  conditions  are  unfavor- 
able and  there  are  getting  little  pay  would  be  able  to  come  to  the  thickly 
veined  and  favorably  located  mines  and  there  earn  better  wages  and  also 
have  work  to  do. 

Mr.  HAYES.  That  is  a  mistaken  impression,  because  these  mines  now  are 
employing  all  the  men  that  they  can  employ,  so  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible 
that  the  men  on  the  thin  veins  could  come  down  to  the  thick  veins  and  find 
employment,  because  the  thick  veins  have  at  present  all  the  men  they  can  em- 
ploy ;  so  that  that  is  not  practical ;  it  is  not  possible ;  it  is  a  theory  and  not  a 
condition. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  mean  that  none  of  the  thick-vein  mines  which  are 
now  open  in  the  thick-vein  country  could  employ  more  men  than  they  do 
to-day? 

Mr.  HAYES.  I  do  not  think  they  could. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Did  you  hear  what  Mr.  Peabody  said  with  reference  to  the 
tunneling  to  the  end  of  the  coal  field  in  any  particular  mine,  and  running 
their  laterals  from  that  tunnel,  and  if  that  method  were  pursued,  which  is  not 
pursued  to-day,  would  that  then  give  place  for  more  workers  in  the  mines? 

Mr.  HAYES.  I  did  not  hear  the  statement  that  he  made. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  He  stated  this,  that  to  economically  work  a  coal  mine  the 
main  tunnel  should  be  run  to  the  end  of  the  field  in  which  the  coal  lay. 

Mr.  HAYES.  To  the  boundary  line? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  To  the  boundary  line  of  the  mine  proper;  and  that  then 
they  could  operate  in  the  far  end  first,  and  let  the  ceiling  fall  and  come  right 
back,  and  it  would  eliminate  certain  mining  operations,  and  he  did  not  state 
what,  but  I  presume  timbering,  and  so  on,  and  also  that  it  would  develop  a 
larger  field,  in  which  more  men  could  work. 

Mr.  HAYES.  Well,  that  system  is  in  vogue  in  some  States,  and  I  think  it  is 
done  in  some  places  in  Illinois.  It  conserves  the  field  supply  and  makes  mining 
more  economical  where  it  is  practiced.  Of  course,  that  is  with  the  operator. 
The  union  has  nothing  to  do  with  that.  We  could  not  tell  him  how  he  is  to 
mine  his  coal.  If  the  operator  thought  that  would  be  the  best  system,  there 
is,  of  course,  nothing  to  prevent  them  from  adopting  that  at  the  present  time. 
The  union  does  not  prevent  them  from  adopting  any  system  of  mining  that 
they  want  to  adopt,  as  long  as  it  does  not  reduce  the  earning  power  of  the 
miner. 

Mr.  TPIOMPSON.  Yes;  but  if  you  say  that  the  objection  to  the  making  of  a 
State  standard  rate  of  wage  would  be  that  the  thick-vein  mines  are  now 
using  all  the  help  that  they  can,  this  other  method  would  perhaps  permit  you 
to  use  more  men,  and  then  you  could  abandon  this  method  which  you  now  have 
of  differentials  which  permits  a  thin  vein  to  t>e  worked  and  the  miner  to 
receive  a  low  rate  of  wages. 

Mr.  HAYES.  I  do  not  think  it  would  require  any  more  men  for  that  particular 
work  that  he  mentions.  It  might  require  a  few  more,  but  not  many. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  have  you  to  say  with  reference  to  Mr.  Peabody 's  state- 
ment that  notwithstanding  the  trade  agreements,  strikes  are  called,  and  that 
Ihoy  are  very  numerous  in  the  Illinois  fields?  AVhat  answer  have  you  to  give 
to  that  statement? 

Mr.  HAYES.  The  operators  viol  a  to  their  contracts  a  great  deal,  forcing  the 
employees,  ofttimes,  to  strike.  That  contract  is  just  us  obligatory  upon  the 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  451 

coal  operator  as  it  is  upon  the  coal  miner,  and  the  blame,  I  should  say,  from 
my  experience,  and  I  am  an  Illinois  miner  and  have  worked  in  the  mines  in 
Illinois,  is  generally  as  much  on  the  operator  as  it  is  on  the  coal  miner.  That 
is,  the  operator  agrees  in  the  contract  to  do  certain  things.  He  does  not  do 
them.  He  violates  the  contract.  The  miner,  after  exhausting  all  the  provi- 
sions laid  down  by  the  joint  agreement  and  not  getting  redress,  goes  on  strike, 
and  the  responsibility  is  largely  on  the  operator. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  understand  from  Mr.  Peabody's  statement,  and  I  think  it 
was  so  intended,  that  these  strikes  were  not  called  after  the  provisions  of  the 
agreement  for  mediation  and  conciliation  were  exhausted,  in  which  case  the 
strike,  of  course,  would  be  in  violation  of  the  agreement,  but  before  the 
machinery  for  settling  the  disputes  had  been  put  in  operation. 

Mr.  HATES.  I  want  to  say  that  in  the  Illinois  contract  we  have  a  provision 
fining  the  miners  for  a  violation  of  contract.  We  fine  them  $5,  and  we  collect 
the  fines.  We  have  collected  thousands  of  dollars  wrorth  of  fines  from  coal 
miners.  We  enforce  the  system,  and  unless  the  miner  carries  out  the  contract 
we  fine  him,  or  expel  him  in  some  cases,  if  he  is  particularly  obnoxious. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Hayes,  what  is  the  extent  of  the  union  organization  in 
the  coal-mining  field?  Take,  for  instance,  the  bituminous  fields? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Well,  we  have  about  300,000  bituminous  coal  miners,  and  about 
100.000  anthracite  coal  miners  organized. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  bituminous  fields,  what  States,  generally,  does  that 
cover  ? 

Mr.  HAYES.  We  have  a  100  per  cent  organization,  you  might  say,  in  Illinois, 
Indiana  and  Ohio,  Michigan,  Iowa,  Missouri,  Kansas,  Arkansas,  Oklahoma,  Wyo- 
ming, Montana,  and  Washington.  In  those  States  every  miner  is  a  member  of 
our  organization.  But  in  other  States,  like  Pennsylvania  and  West  Virginia, 
Tennesse  and  Alabama,  and  Kentucky  and  Colorado  they  are  only  partly 
organized. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion  howr  many  unorganized  miners  are  there? 

Mr.  HAYES.  About  350,000,  I  should  say. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Where  are  they  principally  located? 

Mr.  HAYES.  In  Pennsylvania,  the  central  portion ;  in  the  Irwin  fields  and  the 
Connellsville  fields,  in  Pennsylvania  ;  in  Maryland,  West  Virginia,  Virginia,  Ken- 
tucky, Tennessee,  Alabama,  and  Colorado,  and  New  Mexico,  and  Utah. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  difference,  if  you  know,  in  the  wrages  and  hours 
of  work  and  general  working  conditions  of  the  organized  miners  working  under 
trade  agreements  and  the  unorganized  miners? 

Mr.  HAYES.  The  organized  miners'  condition  is  much  superior.  The  wages 
nre  much  higher,  the  hours  of  labor  are  shorter,  mining  conditions  are  better, 
life  is  safer,  environments  are  better,  moral  standards  are  higher,  and  edu- 
cational standards  also. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Take  some  specific  field  of  nonunion  mining,  say  West  Vir- 
ginia. Do  you  know  what  the  difference  there  is  between  those  people  there, 
with  respect  to  these  conditions,  definitely? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Approximately. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  approximately  the  difference  in  wages  and  hours? 

Mr.  HAYES.  I  have  not  any  West  Virginia  contract  with  me.  Let  me  see; 
I  should  say  that  the  union  prices  are  about  100  per  cent  higher  than  the  prices 
that  obtain  in  West  Virginia.  The  hours  of  labor  are  all  the  way  from  one  to 
two  less  than  they  are  in  West  Virginia — in  the  organized  territory. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  has  been  the  difficulty  in  organizing  the  Connellsville 
coke  district  and  the  western  Pennsylvania  district,  if  you  know? 

Mr.  HAYES.  The  difficulty  has  been  due  to  the  murderous  system  employed 
by  the  operators  in  that  field.  That  is,  they  employ  a  large  army  of  gunmen, 
better  known  as  guards,  who  make  life  very  unsafe  for  any  union  organizer 
that  goes  into  that  field.  Not  only  that,  but  they  dominate  the  political  life 
of  those  counties,  and  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  successfully  organize  the  men, 
in  view  of  that  opposition.  The  men  themselves  want  to  join,  want  to  belong, 
want  to  be  members  of  the  miners'  organization,  but  they  are  afraid  of  those 
influences,  and  will  not  stand  up.  They  are  not  free;  they  are  not  free  men; 
they  are  not  free  Americans;  they  are  slaves. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Did  you  hear  what  Mr.  Peabody  had  to  say  with  reference  to 
the  organization  of  some  form  of  arbitration  body,  an  arbitration  board,  of 
which  there  should  be  an  umpire? 

Mr.  HAYES.  I  did  not  hear  that.     I  arrived  rather  late. 


452          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Feabody  said  that  he  thought  that  the  establishment  of 
a  board  of  arbitration  with  an  umpire  would  be  a  great  aid  in  settling  the  ques- 
tions and  disputes  which  arise  in  the  mining  fields  of  Illinois.  That  does  not 
exist  to-day.  What  have  you  to  say  with  regard  to  that? 

Mr.  HAYES.  It  all  depends  upon  who  the  umpire  is. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Well,  generally? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Our  organization  is  committed  to  arbitration  and  conciliation- 
mediation — so  that,  of  course,  our  view  would  be  determined  by  the  arbitra- 
tion outlined,  or  the  system  of  arbitration  that  would  be  used.  We  do  not 
fear,  and  never  have  feared,  to  present  our  case  to  any  body  of  fair-minded 
men,  or  to  any  fair-minded  man.  We  have  arbitrated  a  great  many  of  our 
difficulties.  President  Mitchell  arbitrated  the  anthracite  strike,  and  we  have 
offered  arbitration  in  other  strikes,  but  it  was  refused  by  the  operators.  We 
have  offered  arbitration  in  the  Colorado  strike,  in  which  I  have  been  engaged 
for  the  last  five  months,  and  it  has  been  refused  there;  so  that  there  is  more 
responsibility  resting  upon  the  coal  operators  in  their  disputes  with  the  coal 
miners  than  there  is  upon  the  miners. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  would  you  say  as  to  a  board  of  arbitration  in  the 
Illinois  field,  as  Mr.  Peabody  suggested ;  a  permanent  board,  which  would  take 
up  questions  arising  under  the  contract  and  decide  them? 

Mr.  HAYES.  As  I  said  a  while  ago,  it  would  all  depend  on  the  system  of  the 
arbitration. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Take  a  system  where  you  have  an  umpire  and  an  equal  num- 
ber representing  each  side,  and  then  the  third  man  or  the  fifth  man,  whichever 
it  might  be,  from  outside  to  decide  the  issue  in  case  the  two  sides  could  not 
get  together. 

Mr.  HAYES.  Personally,  I  would  have  no  objection  to  a  system  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  such  a  system  be  favored,  do  you  think,  by  the  body 
of  the  miners  in  the  State  of  Illinois? 

Mr.  HAYES.  That  would  depend  largely  on  the  arbitration  board  selected  and 
the  system  employed  in  taking  up  the  cases  and  disposing  of  the  cases. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Of  course,  assuming  that  the  board  had  an  odd  man  on  it, 
and  assuming  that  the  board  would  be  more  like  a  committee  on  immediate 
action,  it  would  deal  with  cases  almost  as  soon  as  they  would  arise,  and  deal 
with  them  without  delay. 

Mr.  HAYES.  That  would  obviate  one  more  objection  to  arbitration;  that  is, 
it  would  give  prompt  action.  If  we  could  have  a  quick  method  of  disposing 
of  disputes,  it  would  be  preferable  to  the  old  custom,  in  which  there  was  so 
much  delay.  However,  in  the  southwestern  district,  composed  of  Missouri, 
Kansas,  and  Oklahoma,  the  miners  and  operators  generally  agree  upon  a  per- 
manent arbitrator  and  jointly  pay  this  arbitrator ;  and  there  strikes  are  elimi- 
nated, in  those  three  States.  This  arbitrator  is  supreme. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  say  strikes  are  eliminated? 

Mr.  HAYES.  In  those  three  southwestern  district  States;  they  are  supposed 
to  be  eliminated.  Of  course,  once  in  a  while  the  processes  of  the  contracts  are 
not  gone  through  with,  sometimes  by  the  miners  and  sometimes  by  the  op- 
erators, and  strikes  have  occurred  even  under  that  system,  but  I  would  say 
that  they  are  almost  entirely  eliminated. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  has  been  an  advantage,  has  it  not? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Why  has  not  that  system  been  introduced  in  the  State  of 
Illinois? 

Mr.  HAYES.  I  could  not  say.  I  do  not  know  that  the  operators  are  so 
anxious  for  arbitration  as  they  appear  to  be.  There  are  many  things  over 
there  that  I  think,  if  they  were  arbitrated,  they  might  not  secure  all  that  they 
think  they  are  entitled  to. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion,  from  your  knowledge  of  the  effects  of  that 
principle  working  in  the  Southwest,  you  would  be  in  favor  of  it,  I  take  it? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes ;  I  am  in  favor  of  the  principle. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  you  think  that  the  miners  of  Illinois  would  be  in  favor 
of  it,  too,  changing  from  the  present  system? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes ;  they  have  attempted  it  on  numerous  occasions  rather  than 
strike,  so  that  it  is  nothing  new,  except  the  working  out  of  a  fair  system. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  know  of  no  reason  why  it  has  not  been  established  per- 
manently there,  as  it  has  in  the  Southwest,  do  you? 

Mr.  HAYES.  No ;  neither  side  has  taken  it  very  seriously.  That  is  the  reason 
why,  I  suppose.  It  has  not  been  made  an  issue. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  453 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  all  that  I  wish  to  ask,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Has  socialism  and  the  I.  W.  W.  established  very 
much  of  a  hold  in  the  miners'  union? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Well,  socialism  is  quite  strong  among  the  miners. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Has  it  the  dominating  influence  in  the  union? 

Mr.  HAYES.  I  do  not  think  it  has.  I  think  that  the  Socialists,  Democrats, 
Republicans,  and  Progressives  all  view  the  industrial  problem — that  is,  so 
far  as  taking  up  their  disputes  and  fighting  for  better  wages  and  better  con- 
ditions is  concerned — about  the  same;  that  is,  they  do  not  bring  their  politics 
into  the  trade-union  matters  and  the  general  conferences  with  the  operators. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  was  under  the  impression  that  the  Socialists 
primarily  joined  the  unions  to  get  control  of  them  and  to  have  their  doctrines 
prevail  in  unionism. 

Mr.  HAYES.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Now,  is  that  information  correct? 

Mr.  HAYES.  No ;  I  think  that  impression  is  wrong. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  it  or  is  it  not  the  fact,  from  what  you  may 
know  of  socialism,  that  socialism  is  not  in  favor  of  arbitration? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Socialism  is  a  future  state  of  society — a  state  of  society,  it  is 
supposed  to  be.  Of  course,  the  philosophy  of  the  Socialists  is  that  they  are 
entitled  to  the  full  social  value  of  their  toil. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAYES.  That  they  can  not  arbitrate  anything  that  would  mean  less  than 
their  securing  that  full  value  of  their  toil.  The  Socialists,  quite  a  number  of 
them,  are  broad  minded  enough  to  understand  this  competitive  system  well 
enough  to  know  that  we  are  not  in  socialism  now,  and  we  have  to  meet  a  con- 
dition, and  the  Socialists  in  the  miners'  union  are  trying  to  meet  that  condition 
as  best  they  can.  They  are  not  a  disturbing  factor  and  do  not  interfere  with 
the  working  out  of  trade  agreements. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  about  the  I.  W.  W.?  Are  there  many  of 
those  in  your  miners'  organization? 

Mr.  HAYES.  No ;  the  I.  W.  W.  is  rather  an  unknown  quantity  among  the 
coal  miners.  In  fact,  we  do  not  let  them  propagate  their  doctrines;  at  least, 
we  try  to  prevent  their  ideas  from  becoming  accepted  by  our  people. 

Commissioner  WTEIN  STOCK.  The  I.  W.  W.,  as  I  gather,  are  absoluetly  op- 
posed to  arbitration,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes;  they  are  opposed  to  arbitration.  There  is  nothing  con- 
structive about  their  philosophy^  it  is  all  destructive. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  were  saying  a  little  while  ago,  Mr.  Hayes, 
that  the  miners'  union  disciplined  its  members  and  penalized  those  who  vio- 
lated the  contract  under  which  the  union  might  be  operating. 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  penalizes  them  by  a  money  fine  of  $5,  I  gather? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes ;  $5,  I  think  they  fine  a  man  now. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  means  has  the  union  of  enforcing  payment? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Well,  we  collect  it  like  we  collect  the  dues. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  It  is  charged  up  to  their  account? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  if  they  do  not  pay  it? 

Mr.  HAYES.  If  they  do  not  pay  it  we  refuse  to  work  with  them. 

Commissioner  WTEIN  STOCK.  And  they  practically  ostracize  themselves,  auto- 
matically ? 

Mr.  HAYES.  We  refuse  to  work  with  them  unless  they  pay  all  fines  and  dues 
and  assessments. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Let  me  see  if  I  understand  your  procedure.  When 
an  employer,  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  union,  does  not  comply  with  the  provi- 
sions of  the  agreement  what  is  the  first  thing  that  is  done  on  the  part  of  the 
union  in  that  matter? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Say  a  dispute  arises  around  the  mine.  I  wrill  trace  the  case  up. 
The  pit  committee  and  the  mine  bosses  gather  to  adjust  it.  If  they  fail  to 
adjust  it  it  is  then  taken  up  by  the  district  officials  and  the  superintendent  or 
owrner  of  the  company.  Then,  if  they  fail  to  adjust  it  is  generally  referred  to  a 
joint  executive  board  meeting  of  the  two  associations,  the  coal  operators' 
union  and  the  coal  miners'  union,  and  in  the  joint  executive  session  the  dispute 
is  thrashed  out,  and  oftentimes  in  these  joint  conferences,  when  the  dispute  has 
gone  that  far,  they  decide  to  leave  the  case  to  some  outsider  to  decide  it  by 
arbitration ;  or,  if  the  miners  think  their  case  is  one  which  can  not  be  left  to 


454          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION"    OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

arbitration — that  is,  that  a  fundamental  is  involved — under  the  contract  they 
have  a  right  to  serve  notice  of  independent  action  upon  the  operators,  which 
means  a  strike.  That  is  the  system ;  that  is  the  policy  in  settling  our  disputes. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  I  gathered  from  the  testimony  that  was  submitted 
here  from  others — I  have  gotten  the  notion,  right  or  wrong,  that  despite  the 
existence  of  a  contract  the  unions  would  quit  at  the  drop  of  the  hat,  without 
going  through  all  this  process. 

Mr.  HAYES.  No ;  there  are  very  few  cases  I  ever  heard  of  like  that,  and  I 
was  secretary  and  treasurer  of  the  Illinois  State  miners  for  a  period  of  years. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  other  words,  then,  the- strike  is  the  last  resort? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Not  the  first  resort? 

Mr.  HAYES.  It  is  always  the  last  resort. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  only  resorted  to  \vhen  all  other  means  have 
been  exhausted? 

Mr.  HAYES.  When  all  other  means  fail — all  peaceful  means. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  was  going  to  ask  you  about  this  arrangement  of 
fixing  the  wages  in  different  lines  in  Illinois.  Does  that  same  condition  obtain 
in  the  southwestern  mines,  in  Oklahoma  and  Kansas  and  that  territory ;  and  do 
they  do  the  same  there,  or  are  the  wages  of  the  miners  uniform? 

Mr.  HAYES.  It  depends  largely  on  the  coal  seam,  the  distance  from  the  market, 
and  the  earning  power  of  the  mine. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  It  is  the  same  as  in  Illinois,  then? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes ;  it  is  practically  the  same ;  in  some  places  higher,  due  to  the 
thinness  of  the  veins.  There  are  some  veins  down  in  Kansas  where  the  miners 
are  paid  $1.05  and  $1.15  a  ton,  but  they  can  not  dig  more  than  about  2  tons  a 
day.  The  operator  can  not  pay  a  higher  rate  there. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  That  is  a  different  basis  from  that  in  Illinois,  be- 
cause where  the  vein  is  thick  the  miner  would  make  $5  or  $6  a  day,  and  where 
the  vein  is  thin  he  would  make  only  $2? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes;  and  yet  the  operator  pays  more  to  him  for  a  ton  of  coal 
and  yet  the  miner  does  not  make  as  much  wrages. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  That  condition  in  Illinois,  then,  is  the  same  as  in 
other  places? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes.  There  never  was,  and  never  will  be,  uniformity  in  the  coal- 
mining industry.  There  can  not  be.  The  veins  are  irregular,  conditions  are  not 
the  same  in  any  mine.  There  is  always  some  difference.  So  that  uniformity 
that  the  operators  talk  about  is  a  physical  impossibility. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  speak  of  sometimes  there  being  some  injustice 
to  the  labor  union,  and  sometimes  there  would  be  a  strike  where  there  should 
not  have  been.  Does  either  side  ever  attempt  to  arrive  at  the  amount  of  in- 
justice and  make  it  up  to  the  other  side  in  money  value? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  For  instance,  if  you  fine  th?t  man,  do  you  pay  that 
fine  to  the  operators? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Half  to  the  operators'  union  and  half  to  the  miners'  union.  I 
understand  that  when  these  strikes  occur  the  association  helps  the  company 
against  which  we  are  striking.  I  might  say  further  that  I  would  like  to  men- 
tion one  case  here  to  show  the  value  of  trade  agreements  and  the  discipline  we 
have.  Out  in  Oklahoma  a  few  years  ago  a  coal  company  violated  the  trade 
agreement  and  shut  down  the  mine  for  a  month  or  two — I  can  not  recall  the 
exact  time.  Anyway,  they  were  fined  an  amount  approximating  $11,000.  I 
think  they  were  fined  $100  for  every  day  they  were  idle.  They  paid  into  the 
association  that  $11,000  fine.  They  were  fined  under  the  joint  agreement. 
Both  sides  were  fined.  We  try  to  make  the  operators  live  up  to  their  contracts 
as  well  as  the  miners,  and  regardless  of  what  they  say  they  are  as  bad  in  the 
matter  of  violating  contracts  as  the  coal  miners. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Is  there  any  limitation  in  the  matter  of  apprentices 
in  the  organization? 

Mr.  HAYES.  No. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Each  miner  does  as  much  as  he  can  in  eight  hours? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes ;  and  the  apprentice  gets  as  much  as  the  miner ;  that  is,  the 
man  that  is  learning  the  trade  OT  work  in  the  place  with  the  miner.  Of  course, 
the  apprentice  does  all  the  heavy  work.  The  skilled  miner  sees  that  he  does 
the  hard  work  while  he  does  the  directing.  That  is  what  he  pays  for  his 
apprenticeship ;  but  he  shares  in  the  earnings  equally  with  the  skilled  miner. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  455 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  He  is  simply  an  assistant  laborer? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  There  are  no  recognized  apprentices  under  the 
contract  ? 

Mr.  HAYES.  No.  Of  course,  I  think  there  is  an  assistant  laborer  in  it,  but 
the  miner  is  a  skilled  man,  and  this  other  man  is  merely  learning  the  trade. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  this  question  which  Mr.  Peabody  was  raising 
about  closing  down  the  nonpaying  mines,  he  suggests  it  is  one  of  the  methods 
that  the  mine  owners  have  for  protecting  the  property,  but  it  is  an  absolute 
destruction  for  the  miner,  and  there  should  be  some  other  and  different  method 
for  arriving  at  a  conclusion  of  that  matter,  should  there  not? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes ;  of  course. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Is  not  that  one  of  the  reasons  that  is  taken  into 
consideration  in  the  way  of  purchase  of  the  property  of  the  individual  members 
of  the  organization  in  permitting  them  to  go  from  one  mine  to  another? 

Mr.  HAYES.  I  am  surprised  Mr.  Peabody  would  advance  that  sort  of  philoso- 
phy here.  I  do  not  understand  it  at  all.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  impossible. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  total  loss  of  earnings  and  savings  to  the 
miners  would  be  destroyed  by  carrying  out  that  principle? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Their  homes  and  the  towns  would  be  destroyed.  The  operators 
operating  in  these  little  seams  want  to  live  just  as  wrell  as  the  operators  in  the 
large  seams.  This  competitive  game  is  a  very  brutal  game  at  best.  I  have  my 
own  opinion  about  it.  As  long  as  it  exists,  you  will  find  these  inequalities. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  all. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Do  you  find,  Brother  Hayes,  there  is  any  considerable 
degree  of  industrial  unrest  among  the  miners? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes;  considerable. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  To  what  cause  do  you  think  it  can  be  properly 
ascribed  ? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Universal  desire  for  better  life;  more  of  the  things  that  labor 
creates. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  think  the  unrest  is  born  of  the  natural'  desire  of 
the  men  for  better  opportunities  in  life  and  better  conditions  in  life? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  There  is  nothing  special  as  regards  the  miners, 
differing  from  the  clothing  worker  or  workers  in  other  trades,  is  there? 

Mr.  HAYES.  I  would  say  this,  that  the  miner  of  to-day  is  reading  more  than 
the  miner  of  yesterday.  The  young  English-speaking  miner  of  to-day  is  better 
educated  than  the  miner  of  20  or  30  years  ago.  It  is  largely  due  to  this  union. 
Due  to  our  union,  we  will  not  allow  boys  to  go  into  the  mines  until  they  have 
attained  the  age  of  16  years.  I  had  to  go  into  coal  mines  when  I  wras  13 
years  old,  in  Illinois,  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  we  had  no  organization  and 
no  laws  to  protect  us.  When  the  union  became  strong  we  succeeded  in  im- 
proving the  lot  of  the  miner  in  many  ways,  and  especially  in  protecting  the 
boy  and  keeping  him  out  of  the  mines. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Mr.  Hayes,  what  spirit  seems  to  be  growing  most 
strongly  among  the  miners  as  to  the  cure  for  this  unrest?  Is  it  a  spirit  of  de- 
sire to  destroy  things  or  is  it  a  spirit  of  intent  to  build  up?  Is  the  anarchistic 
spirit — as  that  word  is  generally  used,  and  not  in  its  philosophic  sense — 
increasing  as  to  this  unrest? 

Mr.  HAYES.  No. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  He  has  much  ambition  for  better  things,  has  he? 

Mr.  HAYES.  I  would  say  it  is  ambition  for  better  things.  It  is  the  ideal; 
it  is  a  new  vision  that  the  labor  movement  has  brought  to  the  miner  of  to-day 
that  he  did  not  have  to  such  a  large  degree  20  or  30  years  ago.  It  is  due  to 
the  change  in  our  conditions.  It  is  due  to  the  evolution  of  the  race. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  do  not  believe  I  care  to  ask  anything  further. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Hayes,  can  you  give  us  now,  or  possibly  later, 
the  cases  of  what  you  mentioned  of  payments  being  made  to  the  employer  from 
the  guaranty  fund?  Can  you  give  us  instances  where  that  occurred? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes ;  lots  of  them.     Of  course,  I  could  not  give  you  the  names. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  furnish  that  information  from  your  office? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes ;  I  can  furnish  it  from  my  office. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  anthracite  field?  Have 
you  been  detailed  to  work  in  there? 

Mr.  HAYES.  No. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  not  familiar  with  that? 


456          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  HAYES.  No ;  Mr.  Mitchell  'has  been  in  there  very  much  more  than  I  have, 
zind  very  much  more,  I  think,  than  any  other  member  of  our  commission. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Harriman  wants  to  ask  a  question. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  I  want  to  ask  if  the  different  nationalities  wrork 
together? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Fairly  well. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Is  there  much  segregation  of  nationalities  as  there 
is  in  the  New  England  cotton  industries,  for  instance,  at  Lawrence? 

Mr.  HAYES.  No.     They  mingle  together  quite  freely. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  They  do? 

Mr.  HAYES.  Yes.  I  have  been  in  Colorado  all  year,  and  I  would  just  men- 
tion one  instance  about  nationalities  getting  together.  In  one  of  our  tent 
cities  out  there  we  have  25  nationalities.  There  is  a  big  strike  there  that  has 
been  on  for  a  number  of  months.  Th^re  are  25  nationalities  there,  and  wre 
have  not  had  one  single  disturbance  of  the  peace  in  a  strike  that  \vas  begun 
last  September.  They  get  along  very  nicely  and  very  friendly.  Of  course, 
that  might  be  due  to  the  fact  that  there  is  a  strike  on  where  they  forget  their 
racial  prejudices.  But,  on  the  whole,  I  think  they  get  along  very  nicely ;  they 
amalgamate  well. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  seems  to  be  all,  Mr.  Hayes;  thank  you  very 
much. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ME.  0.  P.  BRIGGS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Briggs,  will  you  give  us  your  full  name  and  address  and 
your  connection  with  the  National  Founders'  Association? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  My  name  is  O.  P.  Briggs.  I  live  at  Minneapolis.  For  two  years 
I  was  commissioner  of  the  National  Founders'  Association,  one  year  vice  presi- 
dent, and  seven  years  president.  My  term  of  office  expired  November  last. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  understand  in  1899  the  National  Founders'  Association 
made  an  agreement,  called  the  New  York  agreement,  with  the  union. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  They  did. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Tell  us  what  was  the  history  of  that  agreement  and  when  it 
was  terminated  and  why. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  That  agreement  was  the  outcome  of  about  a  j*ear  and  a  half  or 
two  years'  effort  on  behalf  of  the  foundrymen  of  this  country,  numbering  about 
500  shops,  in  an  effort  to  purchase  molders'  labor  in  a  collective  capacity.  A 
small  number  of  men  got  together  first.  I  think  it  was  about  a  year  and  a 
half  after  they  had  exchanged  ideas  in  regard  to  this  labor  problem  informally 
that  they  received  an  invitation  from  the  iron  molders'  union  for  a  joint  con- 
ference, which  they  granted  very  readily  indeed.  Every  member  of  this 
founders'  association  at  that  time  was  imbued  with  the  idea  that  they  should 
meet  these  workmen,  either  individually  or  collectively,  as  the  workmen  saw 
fit  themselves  to  elect,  and  make  a  good,  strong,  vigorous,  honest  effort  to  meet 
them  on  the  ground  of  collective  bargaining,  which  really  was  what  that  union 
at  that  time  desired  very  much,  as  they  presented  it  to  the  employers  from  time 
to  time.  This  year  and'  a  half  was  just  prior  to  1899,  as  you  have  stated,  Mr. 
Thompson ;  and  in  February,  I  think,  of  that  year  this  New  York  agreement,  to 
which  you  referred,  was  consummated. 

Perhaps,  as  a  matter  of  record  here,  if  you  would  like  it,  I  had  better  submit 
a  copy  of  that  agreement.  If  you  desire  that  I  go  into  this  agreement  to  some 
extent,  I  think  perhaps  I  had  better  read  it.  There  are  several  salient  points 
in  it.  It  reads  as  follows: 

"  NEW  YORK  AGREEMENT,  IN  FORCE  AND  RULING  BETWEEN  THE  IRON  MOLDERS' 
UNION  OF  NORTH  AMERICA  AND  THE  NATIONAL  FOUNDERS'  ASSOCIATION,  CON- 
FERENCE 1899. 

*  Whereas  the  past  experience  of  the  members  of  the  National  Founders'  Asso- 
ciation and  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North  America  justifies  them  in  the 
opinion  that  any  arrangement  entered  into  that  will  conduce  to  the  greater 
harmony  of  their  relations  as  employers  and  employees  will  be  to  their 
mutual  advantage:  Therefore  be  it 

"  Resolved,  That  this  committee  of  conference  indorse  the  principle  of  arbi- 
tration in  the  settlement  of  trade  disputes  and  recommend  the  same  for  adop- 
tion by  the  members  of  the  National  Founders'  Association  and  the  Iron  Mold- 
ers' Union  of  North  America  on  the  following  lines: 


TRADE   AGEEEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  457 

"  That  in  the  event  of  a  dispute  arising  between  members  of  the  respective 
organizations  a  reasonable  effort  shall  be  made  by  the  parties  directly  at  inter- 
est to  effect  a  satisfactory  adjustment  of  the  difficulty,  failing  to  do  which 
either  party  shall  have  the  right  to  ask  its  reference  to  a  committee  of  arbitra- 
tion, which  shall  consist  of  the  presidents  of  the  National  Founders'  Associa- 
tion and  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North  America,  or  their  representatives, 
and  two  other  representatives  from  each  association  appointed  by  the  respective 
presidents. 

"  The  finding  of  this  committee  of  arbitration  by  a  majority  vote  shall  be 
considered  final  in  so  far  as  the  future  action  of  the  respective  organizations 
is  concerned. 

"  Pending  adjudication  by  the  committee  on  arbitration  there  shall  be  no 
cessation  of  work  at  the  instance  of  either  party  to  the  dispute. 

"  The  committee  of  arbitration  shall  meet  within  two  weeks  after  reference 
of  the  dispute  to  them." 

In  discussing  this  agreement  I  will  call  your  attention  to  two  very  salient 
points. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  was  the  date  of  that  agreement? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  February,  1899.  The  agreement  was  enforced,  if  you  would  like 
this  record  now,  until  about  November  15,  1904,  when  it  was  abrogated,  and  at 
the  time  the  convention  of  foundrymen  abrogated  it  they  gave  the  molders' 
union  30  days'  notice  that  they  did  not  care  to  be  bound  by  its  provisions 
further,  and  it  was  abrogated,  and  they  so  notified  us. 

The  two  points  to  which  I  wish  to  direct  your  attention  in  regard  to  that 
agreement  now — and  I  sincerely  hope  you  will  keep  them  before  you  if  you 
feel  this  is  worth  following— are,  first,  that  while  the  word  "  arbitration  "  is 
used  in  this  agreement,  in  the  strict  sense  of  that  word  it  is  a  misnomer.  It 
is  not  an  arbitration.  It  is  a  means  of  conciliation. 

Point  No.  2.  It  is  provided  in  this  agreement  that  not  over  two  weeks  shall 
elapse  before  the  representatives  of  the  molders  and  the  representatives  of  the 
proprietors  shall  get  together.  I  think  the  members  of  the  iron  molders'  union 
and  the  members  of  the  founders'  association  brought  forth  when  that  agree- 
ment was  made  that  it  was  not  perfect,  but  that  in  all  probability  it  might 
possibly  serve  its  purpose  in  bringing  representatives  of  the  two  associations 
together  in  an  effort  at  conciliation.  We  all  hoped  it  would  be  a  step  in  that 
direction,  out  of  which  we  might  possibly  evolve  something  that  would  bring 
about  a  definite  and  distinct  and  complete  understanding  as  to  what  should 
prevail  in  the  relations  between  the  members  of  the  founders'  association  and 
their  employees,  the  molders.  A  vigorous  effort  was  made  to  proceed  under 
that  agreement.  From  the  time  the  association  was  organized  until  its  abroga- 
tion there  were  about  seven  years  elapsed,  and  during  that  time  I  dare  say 
there  was  no  better  body  of  men  ever  gotten  together  than  the  body  of  men  who 
composed  this  founders'  association,  numbering  in  that  time,  I  think,  about  500, 
though  they  may  possibly  run  as  high  as  560  shops  now.  In  effort  to  evolve 
something  from  this  agreement  there  were  held  at  least  2,500  conferences, 
safely  calculated,  either  national  as  committees  directly  from  the  founders' 
association  meeting  committees  directly  from  the  molders'  association,  or  local 
committees  from  the  founders  meeting  members  of  the  iron  molders'  union,  and 
always  directed  and  controlled  by  the  national. 

It  was  my  pleasure,  I  will  say — because  I  rather  enjoyed  it — and  my  duty 
to  sit  in  at  least  150  of  those  committees.  When  we  first  started  out  with  this 
agreement  for  a  little  while  I  thought  all  of  us  rather  felt  we  might  accomplish 
something  by  it,  that  an  exchange  of  ideas  between  us  was  helpful,  that  we 
saw  things  in  a  little  different  light,  that  both  were  benefited  thereby.  But 
after  a  while  that  condition  changed,  and  instead  of  it  being  a  means  to  pro- 
mote industrial  peace  it  proved  a  means  of  serious  conflict.  During  the  period 
of  its  existence  I  think  there  were  at  the  least  calculation  150  shops  struck. 
We  would  exhaust  every  means  at  our  command  to  agree  by  virtue  of  this 
conciliation,  and  then  we  would  deadlock.  Beyond  that  we  could  not  go.  This 
condition  became  so  strained,  the  foundrymen  feeling  that  at  the  expiration  of 
about  three  or  four  years  of  this  attempt  that  we  were  making  no  progress, 
that  we  decided  to  take  some  definite  action.  When  I  became  an  officer  of 
the  association,  which  by  the  way  was  in  1903,  my  directions  from  the  council 
were  to  use  every  effort  in  the  world  that  was  at  all  consistent  with  business 
conditions  to  arrive  at  some  method  of  settling  these  difficulties.  We  had  had 
two  many  of  them.  We  had  become  tired  of  chasing  each  other  around  the 
country  holding  conferences  by  virtue  of  that  agreement.  They  urged  that 


458          BEPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

wherever  I  had  an  opportunity  to  do  so  I  should  request  and  urge  to  the  best 
of  niy  ability  that  we  bring  in  the  odd  party  and  arbitrate. 

It  might  be  interesting  to  this  commission  to  perhaps  a  little  later  on  detail 
some  of  the  efforts  which  I  made  to  get  an  arbitration.  But  in  every  case, 
without  one  single  exception,  the  iron  molders'  union,  international  or  local, 
refused  arbitration,  refused  to  bring  in  the  odd  party.  I  believe  the  president 
of  the  iron  molders'  union  now  sitting  in  this  room  will  bear  me  out  in  that 
statement.  They  would  not  arbitrate,  for  reasons,  of  course,  which  they  thought 
wrere  proper ;  there  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

This  thing  ran  along  until  we  became  so  tired  of  it  and  it  \vas  so  apparent 
beyond  peradventure  that  there  was  nothing  to  be  gained  by  this  conciliation 
effort,  that  in  November,  1904,  we  abrogated  this  agreement. 

But  prior  to  that  abrogation  and  during  the  period  of  its  existence  there 
were  standing  committees  appointed  to  consider  a  permanent  agreement  which 
would  cover  all  of  the  many  little  differences  which  we  had  and  which  we 
could  not  settle.  That  committee  met  many  times.  The  last  committee  con- 
sisted of  two  men  from  the  molders'  union  and  two  men  from  our  association, 
who  had  been  very  instrumental  in  bringing  about  these  joint  conciliatory 
meetings,  and  had  been  very  prominent  in  them.  They  undertook,  as  a  sub- 
committee, to  frame  up  an  agreement  which  could  be  national  in  character, 
which  should  cover  as  many  of  the  points  which  we  had  been  discussing  by 
reason  of  this  committee  around  the  country.  The  committees  finally  agreed 
to  what  should  be  covered  in  a  national  joint  agreement,  first,  to  cover  .ma- 
chinery and  jobbing  foundries.  The  members  of  the  founders'  association, 
by  way  of  its  council,  approved  the  actions  of  that  committee.  The  committee 
of  molders,  for  some  reason  which  we  do  not  know,  of  course,  wrere  not  able 
to  get  its  approval,  and  the  agreement  never  went  into  effect.  The  last  con- 
ference that  was  held  to  attempt  to  secure  this  joint  agreement,  national  in  its 
character,  covering  all  the  points  of  dissension  between  the  two  bodies,  was 
held  in  Detroit  in  the  spring  of  1904.  It  lasted  four  days  and  four  nights. 
I  think  we  had  eight  members  of  the  Founders'  Association  there,  various  em- 
ployers of  laborers,  and  those  who  represented  smaller  foundries.  We  had 
also  there  an  equal  number  from  the  iron  molders'  union  as  delegates,  and 
also  28  business  delegates  of  that  union.  As  I  have  just  said,  we  devoted 
four  days  and  four  nights  to  an  effort  to  arrive  at  an  agreement,  but  after 
spending  the  two  days  of  it  we  referred  it  to  a  subcommittee.  That  subcom- 
mittee devoted  nearly  two  days  more  to  it  and  reported  they  could  not  agree. 

It  seemed  to  our  people  at  that  time  that  they  had  gone  about  far  enough  in 
this  effort  to  conciliate.  Arbitration  had  failed.  It  could  not  secure  the 
things  which  we  felt  were  our  rights  without  a  conflict ;  so  at  that  time  they 
adopted  an  outline  of  policy.  That  outline  of  policy  was  guided  almost  en- 
tirely by  the  provisions  of  the  joint  agreement  which  the  two  parties  had  at- 
tempted to  secure. 

If  you  please,  I  would  like  to  refer  to  two  provisions  of  this  association.  I 
will  endeavor  to  boil  it  down  as  short  as  possible.  This  is  the  constitution 
and  by-laws,  and  the  purposes  of  this  association  are  described  in  these  two 
paragraphs : 

"  The  objects  of  the  association  are,  first,  the  adoption  of  a  -uniform  basis 
for  just  and  equitable  dealings  betw^een  the  members  and  their  employers, 
whereby  the  interests  of  both  will  be  properly  protected. 

"  Second,  the  investigation  and  adjustment  by  the  proper  officers  of  the  asso- 
ciation of  any  question  arising  between  members  and  their  employees." 

That,  gentlemen,  was  the  object  of  this  association  as  originally  drafted  by 
the  first  committee  designated  for  that  purpose.  It  has  never  been  changed. 

The  outline  of  policy  of  the  association  was  changed  somewhat  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  failure  of  these  joint  committee  to  arrive  at  a  standard  national 
form  of  agreement ;  first,  it  refers  to  those  points  of  differnece  between  the  iron 
molders  and  the  National  Founders'  Association.  These  are  things  upon  which 
we  disagreed,  and  the  language  that  I  will  now  read  to  you,  covering  the  things 
we  could  not  agree  on  is  very  largely  the  language  of  the  contract  which  the 
committees  formally  agreed  to. 

The  first  item  is  "  Limitation  of  output," 

The  second  item  is  "  Limitation  of  man's  earning  capacity." 

The  third  item  is  "  Fines  and  restrictions." 

The  fourth  is  "  Method  of  employment." 

The  fifth  is  "  Freedom  of  employment." 

The  sixth  is  "  Relation  of  employees." 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  459 

The  next  is  "Apprentices." 

The  next  is  "Appliances." 

The  next  is  "  Strikes  and  lockouts,"  and  the  next  is  "Arbitration." 

The  last  reads  as  follows: 

"  The  above  principles  being  absolutely  essential  to  the  successful  conduct 
of  our  business,  they  are  not  subject  to  arbitration.  In  case  of  disagreement 
concerning  matters  not  covered  by  the  foregoing  announcement,  we  advise  our 
members  to  meet  their  employees  either  individually  or  collectively,  and  en- 
deavor to  adjust  the  difficulty  on  a  fair  and  equitable  basis." 

The  next  is  "  Method  of  arbitration." 

"  In  case  of  inability  to  reach  a  satisfactory  adjustment  we  recommend  that 
the  question  be  submitted  to  a  board  of  arbitration  consisting  of  two  of  tlie 
employees  and  two  persons  engaged  in  the  management  of  the  firm  or  corpo- 
ration involved,  and  in  case  they  fail  to  reach  a  satisfactory  agreement  within 
seven  working  days,  a  fifth  member  shall  be  chosen  by  the  four,  and  a  majority 
report  of  the  board  so  constituted  shall  be  final  and  binding." 

In  order  to  receive  the  benefits  of  arbitration  the  employees,  or  employee  must 
continue  in  the  service  and  under  the  orders  of  the  employer  pending  a  confer- 
ence and  decision. 

In  case  any  member  refuses  to  comply  with  this  recommendation  within 
thirty  days  after  the  dispute  arises,  he  shall  be  denied  the  support  of  this  asso- 
ciation, unless  it  shall  approve  the  action  of  said  member." 

The  next  is  "  Wages,"  as  follows  : 

"  Employers  shall  be  free  to  employ  foundry  operators  at  such  wages  as  may 
be  mutually  agreed  upon,  said  rate  to  be  governed  by  local  or  shop  conditions : 

"  The  operation  of  piece  work,  premium  plan  of  contract  system  now  in  force 
or  to  be  extended  or  established  in  the  future,  this  association  will  not  coun- 
tenance any  conditions  of  wages  which  are  not  just  or  which  will  not  allow  a 
workman  of  average  efficiency  to  earn  at  least  a  fair  wage." 

You  understand  from  that  that  this  question  of  wages  and  the  hours  of  labor 
are  the  two  things  which  we  attempted  to  get  arbitration  on.  There  is  nothing 
of  such  vital  interest  to  a  workingman  as  his  wage  scale;  that  outweighs  all 
others  to  him  by  90  to  1 ;  the  question  of  wages  outweighs  the  entire  list  of 
grievances  that  these  men  sometimes  place  before  us. 

Now,  in  order  for  this  association  to  again  commit  itself  to  arbitration,  they 
passed  this  resolution: 

Whereas  it  has  become  necessary  to  withdraw  from  the  positions  of  the  New 
York  agreement  for  the  reasons  announced  in  the  declaration  adopted  by 
this  convention,  and 

Whereas  the  outline  of  policy  adopted  by  this  convention  provides  means  for 
the  settlement  of  difficulties  which  may  arise  between  our  members  and 
their  employes  upon  subjects  other  than  those  which  we  believe  and  have 
announced  as  indisputable, 

Be  it  rcsolred,  That  we  hereby  announce  our  continued  beliefs  in  the  princi- 
ple of  arbitration  and  our  disapproval  of  strikes  or  lockouts,  and  instruct  our 
officers  and  administrative  council  to  favor  arbitration  with  our  employees, 
either  singly  or  collectively,  whenever  and  wherever  it  will  enable  them  to  estab- 
lish and  maintain  just  and  equitable  relations  between  our  members  and  their 
employees." 

Commissioner  DELANO.  WThat  was  the  clause  about  limitation  of  output? 
Will  you  read  that? 

Mr.  BRIGGR.  I  will  read  the  whole  thing  if  you  like  it. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  No.  I  don't  want  that,  but  I  would  like  to  have  that 
paragraph  read. 

Mr.  BEIGGS  (reading)  :  "The  limitation  of  output:  Arbitrary  limitations  of 
output  on  the  part  of  the  molders  or  arbitrary  demands  for  an  excessive  amount 
of  output  by  the  molders  on  the  part  of  the  foundrymen,  being  contrary  to  the 
spirit  of  equity  which  would  govern  the  relationship  of  employer  and  employee, 
all  attempts  in  that  direction  by  either  party — the  molder  or  foundryman,  are 
to  be  viewed  with  disfavor  and  will  not  receive  the  sanction  of  this  association." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  in  the  nature  of  an  agreement. 

Mr.  BIUGGS.  That  is  the  constitution  and  outline  of  policy  of  the  founders' 
association  ? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Does  it  not  bind  the  union  at  all? 

Mr.  BETGGS.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  file  that  with  the  commission? 


460          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

(The  document  from  .which  Mr.  Brings  read  the  foregoing  extracts  was  filed 
with  the  commission  and  marked  "  Briggs's  Exhibit  1.") 

(Here,  in  response  to  numerous  requests  on  the  part  of  the  commission,  sev- 
eral copied  of  Briggs's  Exhibit  No.  1  were  distributed  to  the  members  of  the 
commission. ) 

(Briggs  Exhibit  No.  1,  "Constitution  and  By-Lawrs  of  the  National  Founders' 
Association,  Detroit,  October,  1911,"  was  submitted  in  printed  form.) 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  There  is  a  statement  I  would  like  to  make  here  now,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, if  the  commission  please,  and  that  is  that  you  can  not  overestimate  the 
effort  that  we  put  forth  in  an  attempt  to  secure  arbitration,  just  at  the  time  that 
we  realized  that  our  attempt  at  conciliation  was  a  total  failure,  we  intensified 
that  effort  and  offered  to  arbitrate  anything  and  everything  to  avoid  a  strike. 
In  fact,  in  the  language  of  one  gentleman  who  sat  on  the  committee,  he  said: 
"  I  will  arbitrate  with  you  the  moving  of  a  slop  bucket  from  one  end  of  this 
shop  to  the  other ;  we  don't  want  a  strike ;  we  wTant  to  avoid  that,"  but  we  were 
turned  down  absolutely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  reference  to  your  attempt  to  get  together  with  the  molders' 
union,  what  were  the  main  points  of  difference  which  developed  between  you? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  will  endeavor  to  state  those  in  the  language  of  the  president 
of  the  iron  molders'  union  himself,  'the  apprentices  first.  I  think  it  is  conceded 
by  members  of  this  commission  here  that  the  difficulty  in  regard  to  apprentices 
outweighs  all  others  put  together ;  then  the  molding  machines,  there  was  oppo- 
sition to  those;  the  limitation  of  output,  the  different  wage  rates,  limitations 
of  output,  and  limitations  upon  a  man's  earning  capacity,  and,  last  but  not 
least,  the  question  of  the  open  shop. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  there  any  consideration  of  the  question,  so  far  as  wages 
were  concerned,  of  a  national  rate? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Much  consideration  of  it ;  it  was  discussed  at  these  conciliation 
meetings  to  the  very  greatest  extent. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  was  the  attitude  of  the  union  in  that  regard  and  the 
attitude  of  your  association? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Well,  answering  that  in  general  terms — and  I  will  attempt  to 
answer  it  specifically  if  you  would  like  to  have  me  do  that — there  never  was  a 
conference  but  that  if  other  difficulties  had  been  removed  we  would  have  agreed 
upon  a  wage  rate.  I  do  not  think  there  is  one  chance  in  a  thousand  but  that 
if  those  conditions  which  I  have  referred  to  here  which  we  wanted,  and  which 
we  believed  are  legal,  right,  and  just,  and  every  employer  has  a  right  to  them ; 
if  they  had  been  conceded  in  all  the  conferences  that  I  attended — and  in  many 
of  them  I  had  authority  to  act — there  was  not  one  at  which  we  could  not  have 
settled  the  wage  rate  without  any  difficulty  whatever,  and  in  fact  the  iron 
molders'  union,  in  one  of  their  publications,  in  May,  1906,  stated  that  of  all 
these  strikes  that  we  had  been  entering  into  it  wras  not  about  the  question  of 
wages  or  hours,  but  conditions,  and  if  you  would  like  that  journal  I  will  sub- 
mit it  to  you;  I  think  I  can  find  one  somewhere;  there  was  no  disagreement 
about  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  were  talking  about  the  question  of  local  wages  in  each 
shop? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  National,  if  you  please.  Of  course  we  had  local  meetings,  an 
enormous  number,  but  the  joint  committee  that  I  referred  to  handled  that  ques- 
tion in  a  national  wray. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  these  conferences  did  not  your  association  contend  that  the 
wages  should  be  different  in  different  communities,  lower  in,  say,  a  small  com- 
munity and  higher  in  a  larger  community,  that  the  master  founder  should 
have  the  right  to  take  advantage  of  the  local  conditions  of  the  labor  market  so 
far  as  his  industry  was  concerned? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Well,  as  the  result  of  our  national  agreement  which  I  referred  to, 
that  question  was  referred  to  the  committees  of  the  two  associations  to  settle. 
We  felt  that  that  should  be  a  question  that  should  become  probably  the  subject 
for  an  annual  conference,  instead  of  all  over  the  country  at  one  time. 

Now,  if  you  will  allow  me  a  moment  on  that  point — we  attempted  at  the 
outset  in  this  National  Founders'  Association  to  follow  the  lines  so  far  as 
possible  of  the  Stove  Founders'  Defense  Association.  That  association  had 
some  sort  of  conciliatory  agreement  which  some  people  thought  was  very  suc- 
cessful ;  but  the  conditions  obtaining  between  the  two  associations  were  so 
different,  wrere  so  dissimilar,  that  it  was  impossible  to  illustrate;  for  instance, 
the  Stove  Founders'  Defense  Association  had  something  like  05  members,  and 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  461 

their  products  were  confined  mainly  to  the  manufacture  of  stove  plates.  Of 
course  there  were  a  great  many  kinds  of  products,  such  as  coal  stoves,  hot- 
air  ranges,  or  something  of  that  kind,  and  the  amount  of  metal  and  the  handling 
of  that  metal,  and  the  skill  required  in  producing  the  product  was  practically 
the  same.  I  looked  into  that  thing  very  thoroughly  in  1904,  when  I  became 
commissioner,  and  I  found  at  that  time  that  there  were  some  65  members  of 
that  association,  and  they  had  about  5,600  employees,  and  that  by  reason  of  the 
simplicity  of  the  work  they  did  they  were  enabled  to  control  that  to  such  an 
extent  that  they  got  very  large  wages;  in  fact,  I  think  their  piecework  price 
at  that  time,  if  I  remember  correctly — I  have  some  papers  to  show  it — but  I 
think  their  prices  were  base  60  cents  plus  20  per  cent — 72  cents — and  subsequent 
to  that  time  I  think  they  have  added  to  that  until  it  amounts  to  91.  Besides 
that  the  union  permitted  piecework  in  all  its  shops;  they  did  not  oppose  it; 
perhaps  it  was  easier  to  produce  a  piece  of  work  in  that  shop  as  compared  with 
some  others. 

Contrasted  with  that  instead  of  65  shops  we  had  five  or  six  hundred,  and  we 
made  everything  from  a  door  key  or  a  watch  fob,  weighing  a  few  ounces,  up  to 
castings  weighing  hundreds  of  tons.  We  handled  gray  iron,  malleable  iron, 
steel  bars,  copper,  and  aluminum,  and  almost  anything  you  could  think  of; 
there  were  absolutely  no  combinations  in  any  shape,  manner,  or  form.  It  was 
impossible  to  control  the  price ;  it  was  simply  out  of  the  question ;  besides  which 
we  were  advised  that  combination  was  illegal  if  we  wanted  to  do  it — we  could 
not  even  if  we  had  wanted  it — so  that  the  matter  of  applying  that  principle 
of  conciliation  that  the  Stove  Founders'  Defense  had  followed  was  impossible; 
we  found  it  absolutely  hopeless. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  by-laws,  on  page  31,  in  the  paragraph  from  which  you 
read  on  wages,  it  says : 

"  Employers  shall  be  free  to  employ  foundry  operatives  at  such  wages  as  may 
be  mutually  agreed  upon,  said  rates  to  be  governed  by  local  or  shop  conditions." 

Being  a  part  of  your  constitution  and  by-laws  that  practically  amounts  to  a 
declaration  of  principle  on  behalf  of  your  association,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  You  must  read  with  that  our  resolutions  on  arbitration,  where  we 
say  that  we  will  arbitrate  that  question  if  we  can  not  agree. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Does  your  association  object  to  collective  bargaining  between 
the  foundry-man  and  his  men  with  reference  to  the  price  of  wages? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  do  not  insist,  or  rather,  then,  this  language  is  not  to  be 
understood  as  declaring  that  you  will  deal  with  the  individual  as  such  alone 
in  the  determination  of  his  wages,  and  that  in  the  agreement  with  reference  to 
wages  the  only  things  to  be  taken  into  consideration  are  the  local  and  shop 
conditions? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  find  that  question  is  a  little  complicated  to  answer,  but  I  would 
like  to  cover  the  substance  of  that  by  saying  that  we  stand  squarely  and  fairly 
and  always  have  stood,  and  the  spirit  in  the  very  first  paragraph  of  this  con- 
ciliation agreement  stipulates  that  the  first  thing  to  be  done  is  for  employer  and 
employee  to  attempt  to  agree,  and  if  they  do  not  agree  and  they  want  to  bring 
in  outsiders,  it  will  be  strictly  proper.  Our  suggestion  is,  if  they  can  not  agree, 
having  exhausted  all  efforts  at  conciliation  between  employer  and  employee — 
if  they  can  not  agree  rather  than  have  a  strike  or  a  lockout,  arbitrate. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And,  with  reference  to  the  question  of  wages,  is  it  to  be 
understood  that  this  provision  in  your  by-laws  requires  the  employee  first  to 
individually  agree  with  the  foundryman? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No ;  it  requires  him  to  try  to  agree. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  mean,  does  it  require  him  to  negotiate  individually  in  the 
first  place? 

Mr. 'BRIGGS.  Preferably;  but  he  is  free  to  do  as  he  pleases.  If  he  chooses  to 
leave  it  to  outsiders,  he  can  do  it.  This  is  a  voluntary  organization ;  there  is 
nothing  compulsory  about  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Under  this  provision  of  your  by-laws,  would  it  be  objection- 
able, so  far  as  the  members  of  your  association  are  concerned,  for  the  indi- 
vidual to  deal  with  you  through  a  union  representative? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  It  is  not  objectionable  for  a  firm,  a  member  of  this  association. 
If  he  wishes  to  settle  his  wages  through  the  medium  of  the  union  he  has  a 
perfect  right  to  do  so. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  this  provision  is  not  to  be  considered  as  preventing  the 
employer  from  exercising  the  right  to  deal  in  that  manner? 

Mr/ BRIGGS.  He  can  do  as  he  pleases. 


462          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Thompson,  may  I  be  permitted  to  interrupt? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Certainly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  understood  Mr.  Briggs  to  say  that  the  agreement 
under  which  they  operate  was  abrogated  in  1904.  These  by-laws  say  1911. 
These  by-laws,  I  presume,  apply  to  the  existing  conditions  and  not  to  the  con- 
ditions that  would  prevail  in  1899  or  1900  and  before? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  If  you  will  allow  me  to  explain,  so  as  to  clear  that  up  before 
this  commission.  The  outline  of  policy  says — mind  you  the  by-laws  themselves 
have  never  been  changed — these  first  provisions  have  never  been  changed. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  These  provisions  about  wages ;  did  they  read  just 
as  they  do  now  in  1904? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No;  I  will  clear  you  on  that.  In  the  spring  of  1904,  while  the 
New  York  agreement  was  still  in  force,  the  foundrymen  had  decided  it  was 
useless  to  proceed  further  in  regard  to  that  agreement;  they  had  become  tired 
of  it.  They  adopted  that  outline  of  policy  that  was  in  force  in  May,  prior  to 
the  abrogation  of  the  New  York  agreement  in  November  of  the  same  year,  and 
during  the  interim,  after  we  had  announced  this  outline  of  policy  up  to  the 
time  wre  abrogated  the  agreement,  we  continued  to  hold  conferences  whenever 
we  were  asked  to,  by  virtue  of  this  agreement. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  reason  I  asked  this  question  is  that  the  ordinary  con- 
struction of  the  language  here,  in  my  opinion,  would  preclude  a  member  of  this 
association  from  engaging  in  collective  bargaining  writh  his  employees. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  That  may  be  your  construction,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is 
not  correct. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  want  to  get  at  your  construction. 

Mr.  BEIGGS.  Yes ;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  not  correct. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  reads  here  that  the  said  rates  of  wages  are  to  be  governed 
by  local  or  shop  conditions;  what  is  to  be  understood  by  that  condition? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Well,  that  depends  very  largely,  you  know,  upon  the  shop  you  are 
in.  If  you  are  in  a  shop  making,  say,  a  coarse  kind  of  work,  \vork  that  does  not 
require  a  great  deal  of  skill,  perhaps  a  shop — and,  by  the  way,  many  of  these 
shops  are  very  small,  with  only  10  or  12  men,  sometimes  only  4  or  5,  and  in 
many  of  these  shops  the  men  in  these  shops  are  stockholders  of  the  shops; 
they  own  them;  but  they  may  be  working  on  a  very  simple  kind  of  work, 
building  plates,  perhaps  wrashers  and  sash  weights,  and  that  sort  of  thing,  re- 
quiring no  great  deal  of  skill.  Their  trade  may  be  confined  to  a  very  narrow 
radius ;  that  is  a  local  condition  and  it  should  be  governed  and  the  wages  paid 
under  those  conditions,  and  we  recommend  that  those  conditions  be  considered 
in  fixing  the  wages,  and  that  they  be  equitable,  as  required  by  those  conditions. 
Then  you  go  into  a  larger  shop,  in  a  larger  community,  where  workmen  have 
to  travel  a  great  distance,  and  have  to  pay  street-car  fare,  and  go  perhaps  half 
an  hour  or  an  hour,  and  the  work  is  difficult  and  intricate  and  arduous,  and 
there  you  have  an  entirely  different  set  of  conditions,  and  those  conditions 
should  be  taken  into  consideration  in  fixing  wages,  and  they  are  so  taken. 

Mr.  THOMPSON,  Do  you  believe  that  an  employee  has  a  fair  opportunity  to  get 
a  proper  wage  where  he  is  compelled  to  deal  individually  with  the  employer 
with  reference  to  the  wage  question? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  think  he  has  a  very  much  fairer  opportunity  on  the  average 
than  the  man  who  has  his  wages  fixed  by  the  union,  very  much  fairer;  and 
you  want  to  bear  in  your  mind — if  you  are  analyzing  that  situation — you  want 
to  bear  in  mind  when  you  are  dealing  with  this  question  of  union  labor  that 
you  are  dealing  with  a  very  small  percentage.  There  is  only  2.41  of  the  people 
in  the  United  States  that  are  unionized,  and  you  can  not  consistently  go  and 
legislate  and  conciliate,  or  anything  of  that  kind,  for  a  percentage  of  2.41.  You 
must  consider  the  rest  .of  them. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Very  true ;  but  you  mean,  in  regard  to  that  little  less  than  3 
per  cent — when  they  come  together  and  deal  collectively — that  they  get  lower 
wages  than  they  would  get  if  they  dealt  individually  with  their  employer? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Now,  we  must  understand  that  word  "  collective."  You  can  use 
that  word  very  broadly.  Collectively  may  mean  the  National  Founders'  Associa- 
tion dealing  with  the  iron-molders'  union,  and  using  the  word  "  collectively  " 
may  mean  a  proprietor  with  10  men  working  for  him  getting  those  10  men 
together  and  dealing  with  them  collectively.  Now,  taking  tho  latter  condition — • 
of  the  proprietor  being  allowed  to  get  together  with  the  10  men  and  settle 
wages  as  he  pleased — they  will  get  better  conditions  and  better  wages  than  by 
dealing  through  the  intervention  of  the  iron-molders'  union. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN"   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  463 

But  I  would  like  to  make  a  little  statement  that  our  people  believe,  and  I 
believe  it  intensely,  that  this  question  which  you  are  attempting  to  cope  with 
is  not  a  question  of  unionism  or  nonunionism,  absolutely  not.  You  can  not 
find  a  stockholder  in  our  association,  and  there  are  thousands  of  them,  that 
objects  to  unionism  just  because  they  are  unions.  The  question  is  good  and 
bad  unionism,  and  that  is  the  whole  question.  Nobody  objects  to  unionism, 
nobody  objects  to  a  man  coming  into  his  shop  if  they  will  come  in  and  allow 
the  shop  the  rights  that  the  proprietor  has  granted  him  by  the  Constitution  of 
these  United  States  to  run  that  shop  under  certain  conditions;  if  any  union 
man  wants  to  come  into  a  shop  on  that  basis,  he  is  not  an  intruder  at  all,  he 
is  welcome. 

But  the  difficulty  is  that  the  vast  majority  of  the  Federation  of  Labor  unions, 
of  which  the  iron  molders  is  one,  do  not  take  that  attitude.  They  demand  the 
limitation  of  apprentices,  and  they  say  "  you  shall  not  work  piecework,  you 
shall  not  use  improved  appliances,"  which  lessen  the  labor  of  the  workmen 
tremendously  and  increase  output.  They  demand  that  you  shall  not  use  those 
machines.  They  demand  that  you  shall  discharge  every  nonunion  man  or  they 
will  close  the  shop.  That  is  the  attitude  in  which  they  approach  you.  There 
is  a  great  big  line  of  demarkation  between  good  unions  and  bad,  and  I  myself 
characterize  them  as  open-shop  and  closed-shop  unions.  I  take  my  hat  off  to 
the  open-shop  unions  of  this  country,  headed  by  the  conductors  and  engineers, 
or  the  engineers  and  conductors,  just  as  you  please;  I  put  them  in  the  same 
class,  they  are  purely  open-shop  unions.  They  have  never  allowed  a  strike  to 
occur  in  this  country  since  1894,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  was  due  to  the 
present  management  of  the  unions ;  they  have  always  found  some  way  to  arbi- 
trate these  questions,  some  way  of  avoiding  this  turmoil  and  turning  things 
bottom  side  up,  and  they  have  got  at  the  arbitration  proposition.  The  majority 
of  labor  unions  I  class  as  bad — of  course,  there  are  some  good — but  I 
have  dealt  with  26  of  them,  and  I  have  never  found  one  that  did  not 
object  to  these  limitations  that  I  have  described,  which  in  the  eye  of  the  law 
is  illegal.  A  union  man  approaches  you  in  your  shop  and  demands  that  these 
things  be  complied  with  at  the  very  outset.  Now,  that  is  not  the  spirit  of 
harmony ;  that  is  not  industrial  peace ;  that  is  industrial  difference  of  opinion 
and  out  of  that  industrial  condition  has  come  about  this  turmoil. 

Believe  me,  it  is  not  a  question  of  laws  that  we  want,  not  a  question  of  more 
legislation ;  what  we  want  is  obedience  to  our  present  laws,  and  if  this  Gov- 
ernment would  enforce  obedience  to  our  present  laws,  I  assert  that  that  little 
conciliation  agreement  there  could  be  used  absolutely  to  the  greatest  advantage. 

Let  a  man  educate  all  the  apprentices  he  pleases.  In  that  strike  I  had  in  my 
own  shop,  the  cause  of  that  was  that  I  educated  my  apprentices  too  well.  The 
only  reason  was  that  I  educated  them  too  well.  I  dealt  with  the  president  of 
the  union  the  night  before  they  went  out 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  that  the  reason  you  went  out  of  business? 

Mr.  BRTGGS.  No ;  it  was  the  reason  we  had  a  strike,  I  talked  with  the  presi- 
dent of  the  union  before  they  went  out,  May  20,  1901,  and  I  asked  him  why 
he  was  going  to  order  the  strike,  and  he  said :  "  You  are  treating  your  ap- 
prentices too  well."  Now,  why  was  that?  My  apprentices  were  handled  in 
this  way:  First  I  had  an  instructor  over  them,  wrho  spent  all  his  time  with 
them.  I  gave  him  ten  apprentices  to  handle,-  and  he  taught  them  everything  he 
could ;  his  time  was  their  time,  and  it  worked  out  beautifully.  Now,  No.  2. 
Up  in  that  country,  in  Minneapolis,  we  had  difficulty  in  getting  high-grade 
machinists.  There  was  a  great  demand  for  them  at  that  time,  and  had  been 
for  years  before,  to  get  men  that  were  fully  up-to-date,  highly  educated,  and 
who  could  read  drawings,  for  example.  We  could  not  find  them,  so  we  insti- 
tuted a  system  of  educating  them,  and  we  provided  an  instructor,  and  as  a 
rule  they  were  indentured,  and  one  of  the  features  of  that  indenture  was  that 
they  spent  nine  months  out  of  twelve,  two  hours  of  the  evening  with  the  in- 
structor, and  we  taught  them  to  read  drawings,  and  they  worked  those  evenings 
on  work  that  was  constructed  in  the  shop,  and  they  enjoyed  it;  they  liked  it, 
and  they  became  proficient  and  made  good  men ;  and  the  unions  struck  my  shop 
May  20,  and  the  only  reason  that  they  struck  the  shop  was  that  I  was  educat- 
ing these  apprentices  too  well. 

Then  I  came  at  them  with  that  agreement  which  we  had  of  the  metal  trades, 
which  was  similar  to  that  New  York  agreement — copied  almost  word  for  word 
from  that.  I  said,  "Boys,  we  will  call  for  a  conference  under  this  agreement; 
let  us  submit  it  to  the  two  associations,"  but  they  said  they  didn't  think  they 
could  wait  for  a  conference,  and  the  next  day  I  was  without  any  men  except 


464          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

three  nonunion  men  that  stood  by  me.  That  was  the  result  of  attempting  to 
agree  hy  way  of  these  closed-shop  unions. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  stated  that  you  do  not  believe  that  an  employee' 
through  the  organization  could  better  his  wage  condition  in  shops  where,  say, 
HO  men  are  employed — I  think  that  was  the  number  you  used.  What  would  be 
your  opinion  with  reference  to  the  larger  shops,  running  all  the  way  from  10 
to  10,000? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Well,  the  modern  method  of  handling  these  large  shops  is  to  have 
most  competent  men  to  devote  all  their  time  and  attention  to  labor  conditions, 
and  my  observation  is  that  in  the  large  industries,  almost  without  exception — 
there  are  exceptions,  of  course,  to  all  these  rules,  but  the  exceptions  are  few — 
my  observation  is  that  by  reason  of  these  men  whose  sole  effort  is  going  to  be 
to  deal  with  these  men,  that  they  would  get  good  conditions  and  good  wages. 

I  want  to  state  right  there  the  thing  that  actuates  us  a  little  bit  is  that  the 
condition  of  the  wage  earner  in  these  United  States  is  the  best  of  any  place  on 
'earth,  and  conceded  to  be  so  by  everybody.  That  was  not  brought  about  by 
unionism ;  2.41  per  cent  can  not  accomplish  that.  That  is  brought  about  by 
people  studying  this  question;  by  people  inspired  with  the  idea  of  fair  play, 
the  same  as  the  people  were  who  drew  this  conciliation  agreement  and  held 
2,500  conferences  under  and  by  virtue  of  it  in  an  endeavor  to  meet  the  unions 
on  their  own  conditions  and  failed. 

I  believe  that  more  increased  wages  and  shorter  hours,  talking  about  me- 
chanical institutions,  are  obtained  by  way  of  the  employer  and  employee  get- 
ting together  than  by  virtue  of  any  union  interferences. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  in  your  opinion,  the  unions  which  are  associated  with 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  as  far  as  wages  are 
concerned,  are  of  no  benefit  to  their  members? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  think  they  are  a  curse. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  any  expense  they  are  put  to  in  maintaining  such  or- 
ganizations is  worse  than  lost  money? 

Mr.  BEIGGS.  That  is  my  opinion ;  but  I  want  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  if  they 
will  eliminate  a  portion  of  their  rules  that  have  been  declared  illegal,  and 
which  they  try  to  force  upon  us,  they  would  meet  the  proprietors  in  a  much 
more  friendly  spirit  and  wrould  be  received  more  kindly. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  idea  of  the  purpose  of  more  than  2,000,000 
people  who  belong  to  these  unions;  what  is  their  idea  in  joining  them? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  If  you  are  going  to  answer  that  question  intelligently,  you  must 
analyze  the  conditions  to  the  extent  of  finding  out  what  class  compose  these 
unions,  and  you  will  find  that  a  very  large  number  of  that  2,000,000,  if  I  under- 
stood Mr.  Mitchell  correctly  this  morning,  I  should  say  he  claimed  something 
like  GOO  or  600,000  were  coal  miners. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No;  400,000. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  stand  corrected,  if  that  is  correct. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Seven  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  now ;  there 
were  400,000  in  1897. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  There  is  over  one-third  of  all  the  kinds  they  have,  and  -they  want 
to  apply  conditions 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Here  are  the  facts :  In  1890  there  were  only  90,000 
organized  miners  out  of  400,000;  at  the  present  time  there  are  750,000,  and 
525,000  of  them  are  organized. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Very  well;  I  guess  we  have  it  correct  now.  There  is  over  a 
quarter  of  all  of  them.' 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  A  quarter  of  all  the  miners? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No;  a  quarter  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  miners  represent  a  quarter. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  am  taking  it  from  Mr.  Hayes;  I  thought  he  said  300,000 
anthracite  and  450,000  bituminous. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Now,  the  main  point :  It  is  absolutely  impossible  to  prescribe  a 
set  of  rules  that  will  apply  to  these  people  whose  labor  is  all  so  universal  and 
common,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing,  and  in  a  mechanical  institution  where  you 
have  all  varieties  of  labor,  from  unskilled  up  to  the  very  highest  skilled,  those 
principles  will  not  apply. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Let  me  put  this  proposition,  so  that  we  will  not  waste  time 
on  the  unintelligent  class.  Take  the  typographers,  the  typographical  union. 
It  is  composed  of  men  whom  I  assume  must  be  intelligent;  must  be  able  to  read, 
write,  and  punctuate  and  understand  English  thoroughly ;  what  would  be  your 
idea  of  their  reasons  for  maintaining  their  organization? 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  465 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  do  not  tliink  iny  opinion  on  that  proposition  would  amount  to 
very  much,  because  I  am  not  familiar  with  conditions  prevailing  in  their  trade. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  said  that  the  maintenance  of  these  institutions  is  a  mis- 
take by  people,  that  it  does  not  help  them? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  do. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  must  have  some  opinion  in  regard  to  why  such  a  body 
of  intelligent  men  would  maintain  an  organization. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Well,  a  man  can  give  his  opinion  on  these  things,  of  course.  This 
is  my  personal  opinion;  not  the  opinion  of  the  National  Founders'  Association 
which  I  was  called  here  to  represent.  I  think  at  the  present  time  the  greatest 
effort  of  these  men  is  to  hold  an  organization,  without  drifting  a  little  as  to 
the  purpose  of  the  organization. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Your  opinion  in  regard  to  the  unions,  which  are  part  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  does  not  apply  to  these  trainmen's  unions? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No;  I  have  the  greatest  admiration  for  the  way  that  the  con- 
ductors and  engineers  and  firemen  conduct  their  unions;  I  think  they  are 
ideal. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  think  it  is  an  advantage  to  have  that  organization? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  helps  their  wages? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  hours? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  conditions? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion,  then,  it  is  the  difference  in  operation  be- 
tween the  two  different  bodies  of  men? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  The  unions  we  are  talking  about  are  open  shop ;  they  will  arbi- 
trate anything.  They  will  not  strike  because  they  put  on  nonunion  men.  The 
labor  unions  that  I  have  had  experience  with,  and  I  have  had  experience  with 
26  of  them,  always  will,  because  they  are  a  closed  shop. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  think  the  closed  shop  is  a  detriment  to  the  unions  both 
in  regard  to  wages  and  hours  and  the  open  shop  helps  hours  and  the  working 
conditions  of  the  men? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  most  certainly  do;  that  is  nay  experience. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  authority  for  the  statement  of  about  2J, 
or  whatever  the  percentage  was,  being  organized  workers? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  The  commissioner  of  labor  of  Canada.  I  have  the  list  here, 
Where  he  has  recently  come  out.  I  will  admit  that  I  quoted  it  from  the  papers. 
It  is  headed :  "  Comparative  strength — an  interesting  statement  contained  in 
the  report  of  the  Canadian  Bureau  of  Labor  shows  the  relative  standing  in 
trades  unionism  of  the  chief  industrial  nations,  the  figures  indicating  the 
percentage  of  trade-union  memberships  to  population  in  the  case  of  each 
country  as  follows." 

Then  it  starts  off  with  Great  Britain  and  follows  with  Canada.  It  gives 
Great  Britain  about  6  per  cent  and  Canada  about  2  per  cent.  We  are  2.48  per 
cent,  France  is  2-plus.  Sweden  is  next  with  over  4  per  cent,  Germany  over  4 
per  cent.  They  are  about  the  same.  Austria  a  little  over  1  per  cent.  Then 
there  are  several  smaller  countries  where  they  are  only  a  very  small  fraction 
of  1  per  cent  unionized.  That  is  my  authority.  It  may  not  be  correct. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  to  the  total  population  of  the  United 
States,  that  2.48? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  percentage  of  the  people  who  are  engaged 
actively  in  industry? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Workmen,  you  mean? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Well,  that  would  figure  up  about  1\  or  7£,  I  think.  There  are 
about  30,000  employees  in  the  United  States,  and  it  would  be  about  one-third. 
Multiply  that  by  three  and  you  will  have  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  not  these  figures  misleading,  Mr.  Briggs?  I 
got  the  notion  that  the  statement  was  that  of  all  the  workers  in  the  country 
only  two  and  a  fraction  per  cent  were  organized,  but  I  see  here  that  it  is  two 
and  a  half  and  a  fraction  per  cent  of  the  population. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes;  of  the  population. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  takes  in  all  our  possessions. 

38819°— 16 30 


466          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BEIGGS.  It  takes  in  91,000,000. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  was  under  the  impression  that  of  all  the  work- 
ers of  the  country  it  was  25  per  cent. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No ;  I  think  it  is  less  than  8  per  cent 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Can  you  give  us  some  idea  where  we  can  find  that? 
Mr.  BBIGGS.  I  think  I  can  find  it.     I  can  not  give  you  the  number  of  the 
bulletin,  but  I  can  get  that  information. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  mean  you  can  get  it  from  some  publications  of  the 
United  States  Government? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  mean  the  information.  It  is  stated  frequently  that  it  is  less 
than  10  per  cent.  I  think  it  was  about  three  years  ago  that  I  looked  that  up, 
and  I  think  I  got  my  information  from  some  bulletin  that  the  Government 
published  that  showed  that  it  was  less  than  8  per  cent. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Could  you  tell  us  what  bureau  or  what  department  published 
that  information? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  The  Bureau  of  Labor  would  have  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  coming  back  to  that  association,  what  percentage  of  the 
industry  does  the  membership  of  your  association  cover,  and  how  is  your  associ- 
ation formed?  What  is  the  agreement  among  the  members?  What  is  the 
method  of  introducing  new  members,  and  how  do  you  carry  out  and  enforce 
any  of  your  agreements  with  reference  to  the  individual  members? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  That  is  a  pretty  big  question  to  cover  in  one  answer.  If  you  will 
split  that  question  up  it  will  probably  take  me  a  couple  of  hours  to  answer  it, 
but  I  shall  be  very  glad  to  go  to  any  length  you  please  in  answering  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  am  quite  willing  to  divide  it. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Will  you  please  just  divide  that  up? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  About  what  percentage  of  the  industry  does  the  membership 
of  your  association  cover  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  It  would  be  impossible  to  state.  We  cover  about  5GO  shops.  As  I 
have  explained  here  before,  that  covers  a  great  variety  of  trades.  It  is  really 
every  conceivable  thing  that  you  can  make  out  of  metal.  I  do  not  believe  it 
would  be  possible  to  state  what  proportion  it  is. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  any  idea  about  it  yourself? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Based  on  employees,  I  should  say  that  the  association  has  about 
30,000  employees  represented — molders — but  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  there 
are  about  150,000  molders  employed  in  the  United  States,  when  they  are  work- 
ing at  full  capacity.  That,  by  wray  of  comparison  by  way  of  employees. 

Now,  as  to  firms.  Of  course,  you  know  a  great  majority  of  the  firms,  in  fact, 
the  average  of  the  factories  in  the  United  States,  is  about  10  employees  to  the 
firm.  Many  of  these  people  are'  small  people.  My  memory  is  that  while  we 
have  about  560  shops,  there  are  about  60,000  foundries  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  With  reference  to  your  form  of  membership,  how  do  you  have 
your  association  carry  out  any  decision  that  you  make,  in  the  membership? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  do  not  quite  understand  your  question. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  are  the  decisions  of  your  association  enforced  against 
the  members?  Your  association,  as  I  understand,  deals  with  the  labor  propo- 
sition. That  is  one  of  the  reasons  for  its  existence. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  You  mean  the  method  of  our  treating,  directly,  a  labor  propo- 
sition? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No;  your  method  of  treating  one  of  your  members  with 
reference  to  a  labor  problem. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  You  mean  as  to  a  standing  member,  admitted,  or  a  prospective 
member? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  A  member?  Well,  now,  just  as  I  have  stated  before,  our  advice 
to  a  member  is  that  he  use  every  effort  to  settle  the  questions  between  him  and 
his  own  men.  If  he  fails  to  do  that,  the  next  thing  we  do  is  to  send  an  officer 
of  this  association  to  his  place  of  business.  He  looks  the  situation  over  care- 
fully, and  he  makes  a  report  back.  Usually  that  is  a  man  who  is  a  subordinate 
officer,  and  he  reports  to  his  superior  officer.  Then  the  form  prescribed  in  the 
constitution  and  by-laws  takes  place;  a  committee  of  five — a  district  commit- 
tee— is  appointed  to  go  to  that  man's  place  of  business  to  look  over  his  con- 
dition and  see  whether  he  is  really  justified  in  enforcing  what  he  wants— whnt 
he  requires.  If,  in  my  judment,  he  is  asking  for  something  that  is  eminently 
fair,  if  he  is  treating  his  men  right,  if  he  has  done  all  that  he  can  do  to  effect 
a  settlement,  he  asks  for  the  support  of  the  association ;  the  report  of  that 
committee  is  then  submitted  to  the  council  of  that  association,  which  is  made 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  467 

up  of  two  men  from  each  of  nine  districts — 18  men — and  the  president  and 
vice  president  of  the  association  as  ex-officio  members.  The  treasurer  is  also  a 
member  of  that  council,  in  the  event  of  an  individual  being  treasurer.  In  the 
event  of  a  banking  instituion  being  the  treasurer,  of  course,  that  is  eliminated, 
and  it  is  confined  then  to  20  men.  The  report  of  this  district  committee,  after 
having  made  this  investigation,  this  inspection,  is  then  transmitted  to  the  ad- 
ministrative council,  and  they  vote  whether  or  not  this  man  shall  have  support. 
If  the  case  is  one  involving  a  large  number  of  men,  a  meeting  is  called  of  this 
entire  council.  Years  ago  we  used  to  have  lots  of  them — four  and  five  a  year. 
They  take  that  up  and  adopt  it.  The  man  goes  before  the  council  and  presents 
his  case,  and  after  it  has  been  most  thoroughly  examined,  if  he  is  entitled  to  the 
support  asked,  it  is  voted  to  him. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  in  case  a  member  refuses  to  carry  out  some  decision 
of  your  council,  or  any  other  authorized  officer  or  body  of  your  association, 
how  is  he  disciplined,  or  how  is  he  forced  to  carry  it  out? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  He  is  refused  support. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  that  the  only  method  you  use  to  enforce  the  decisions  of 
your  officers? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  It  is  a  voluntary  association.  I  do  not  think,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  that  question  has  ever  come  up,  prior  to  difficulties.  We  have  on  many 
occasions  been  presented  with  a  petition  for  support  and  upon  investigation 
we  have  found  that  the  man  was  not  treating  his  men  right,  and  we  urged 
him  to  change  front,  and  we  would  not  support  him,  and  as  a  rule  after 
you  have  exhausted  your  means  that  way,  nearly  every  manufacturer,  you  can, 
by  working  with  him,  get  to  do  the  proper  thing.  That  is  what  we  try  to  do. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  if  he  does  not  do  it,  you  have  no  power  to  compel  him 
to  do  it? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Deny  him  support  or  expel  him.  We  can  expel  him  if  we 
wish  to. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  mean  denying  him  support  or  expelling  him ;  that  is  the 
only  power  you  have? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  method  of  handling  labor  associations  at 
present  ? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Do  you  refer  to  strikes? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  to  strikes. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  You  refer  to  a  time  when  all  these  preliminary  efforts  have 
been  exhausted,  and  we  can  not  make  a  settlement  and  a  strike  ensues? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  There  are  three  methods.  You  gentlemen  have  the  constitution, 
which  provides  them,  and  without  reading  the  entire  contents  of  it,  they  are 
briefly  these:  One  method  is  to  supply  the  men.  Another  method  is  to  secure 
work  in  some  other  shop  for  them.  Another  method  is  to  pay  them  a  certain 
stipulated  amount,  or  a  certain  amount  that  shall  be  agreed  upon,  rathec,  for 
idle  floors  while  they  are  shut  down,  and  the  association  members  club  to- 
gether and  put  up  a  little  bunch  of  money  and  help  them  in  that  way. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  am  a  little  confused  on  a  statement  that  has 
been  made  here,  and  I  should  like  you  to  set  me  straight. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  should  like  to  do  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  On  the  one  hand  I  was  led  to  believe,  from  what 
had  been  said  before,  that  in  1904  the  New  York  agreement  had  been  abrogated. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  gathered  from  that,  somehow,  that  you  were 
principally  operating  with  nonunion  help. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Oh,  no. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  are  operating  with  union  help? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  We  operate  an  open  shop,  strictly. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  They  are  operating  without  an  agreement. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  recognize  the  union,  do  you,  now? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  do  not  recognize  the  union? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No,  sir;  we  have  no  negotiations,  nationally,  you  understand. 
This  association  has  no  negotiations. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Locally,  have  you? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Occasionally  our  members  have.  We  do  not  deny  them  that 
right 


468          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  you  do  not  recognize  the  union,  how  can  you 
arbitrate  with  them  as  you  say  you  do? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  We  do  not  arbitrate.  They  will  not  arbitrate  with  us.  Abso- 
lutely, gentlemen,  they  will  not  arbitrate  with  us.  I  bear  witness  to  that,  and 
I  wish  that  I  was  under  oath. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  not  say  in  here  in  several  things  that  you 
will  not  arbitrate? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  do  now. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  not  say  in  here  that  in  several  things  you 
will  not  arbitrate? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  do  now;  but,  mind  you,  I  want  to  be  clear  on  that  point. 
Pending  this  seven  years  and  pending  this  conciliation  agreement  the  foundry- 
men  went  to  the  greatest  extreme  and  said,  "  Gentlemen,  we  will  arbitrate 
anything  and  see  if  we  can  not  get  some  sort  of  an  agreement  here,"  and,  abso- 
lutely, they  will  not  arbitrate.  Having  spent  seven  years  and  a  great  number 
of  conferences  in  attempting  to  do  that,  the  foundrymen  felt  that  it  was  about 
time  for  them  to  take  some  sort  of  a  position,  and  they  said,  "  These  condi- 
tions which  the  officers  of  the  association  agree  to  we  propose  to  support  our 
members  in.  They  are  strictly  legal  and  lawful — and  according  to  the  best 
attorneys  that  we  can  get  they  are — and  we  propose  to  support  them  so  long  as 
they  conform  to  the  State  laws."  Then  this  was  adopted  in  May,  and  when 
November  came  around — we  have  had  no  negotiations  since  November. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Since  last  November? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No ;  since  November,  1904,  we  have  had  no  negotiations. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Now,  you  have  had  what  is  called  an  open  shop. 
You  do  not  ask  questions  when  men  apply  to  you  for  work? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Supposing  the  men  in  your  shop  made  an  organ- 
ization as  a  unit  and  came  to  you  in  order  to  discuss  certain  grievances,  what 
would  happen? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Well,  that  is  entirely  optional  with  the  workman  himself.  The 
national  body  has  no  arbitrary  rule  about  that  at  all.  They  can  do  just  as  they 
please. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  As  a  rule,  what  has  been  the  practice?  Will  the 
founder  recognize  that  body? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Subsequent  to  1906  it  has  been  estimated  that  there  are  perhaps 
16  per  cent  of  our  people  that  do  negotiate  with  the  union,  and  the  balance  do 
not.  They  find  it  more  advantageous  to  both  the  employer  and  the  employee 
not  to  negotiate  with  them. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  not  to  recognize  them? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  that  the  85  per  cent,  if  a  committee  came  to 
them  representing  their  own  workers  wanting  to  discuss  matters,  would  not 
recognize  them  as  a  union? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  should  like  to  be  sure  I  understand  that  question.  You  say  a 
committee  from  their  own  workers? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  do  not  think  any  member  of  the  foundry  association  would 
object  to  meeting  a  committee  of  his  own  workers.  But,  mind  you,  the  union 
does  not  send  a  committee  of  that  kind.  They  send  a  man  that  is  an  outside 
man  in  there. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  those  you  do  not  recognize? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No ;  we  do  not  recognize  them  in  negotiations.  Some  of  the 
members  have  done  so. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Eighty-five  per  cent  do  not,  you  say? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Eighty-five  per  cent  do  not. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Thompson,  for  interrupting  you. 
Go  right  ahead. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  the  wages  and  conditions  in  shops  of  the  National 
Founders'  Association  better  or  worse  than  the  wages  and  conditions  of  work- 
ing in  shops  under  arrangement  with  the  union? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  That  is  a  mere  matter  of  opinion.  My  opinion  is  that  they  are 
much  better ;  and  if  you  would  allow  me  I  should  like  to  touch — pardon  my 
presumption  here — I  do  not  want  to  fail  to  touch  this  apprentice  question  most 
thoroughly,  and  the  question  of  the  molding  machine. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like,  first,  before  we  get  to  that,  Mr.  Briggs,  to  ask 
you  about  something  else.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  go  to  that,  but  I  want  to 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  469 

get  as  complete  a  statement  from  you  here  as  possible.  You  spoke  of  supplying 
men  to  the  foundrymen  in  cases  where  there  is  a  strike.  What  are  the  condi- 
tions and  arrangements  with  reference  to  the  supplying  of  those  men?  How 
are  they  supplied  and  where  are  they  gotten  from? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  We  have  continuously  employed  a  number,  varying  according  to 
the  conditions  of  business,  of  foundry  instructors,  molder  instructors,  and 
when  a  cessation  of  work  takes  place  in  a  shop  and  nobody  is  there  we  send  a 
certain  number  of  those  men  to  that  shop  and  bring  in  unskilled  men  and  train 
them  as  moklers.  Occasionally  we  pick  up  molders  in  one  part  of  the  country 
and  send  them  to  another  part. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  About  how  many  men  does  your  association  keep  in  that 
way  ? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  That  depends  entirely  upon  the  conditions  prevailing.  I  could 
not  tell  you  exactly  without  referring  to  the  records. 

Mind  you,  I  have  been  out  of  office  since  last  November,  and  I  have  not  re- 
viewed this,  and  I  could  not  answer  that  question  without  looking  it  up;  but 
if  you  would  like  to  have  it  answered,  we  will  supply  it  to  you  gentlemen. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  any  of  the  members  of  your  association  agreements 
with  the  unions? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  think  they  have;  some  of  them.  They  are  included  in  the 
15  per  cent  I  referred  to. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  There  is  nothing  in  your  association  that  would  prevent 
them  having  interviews  with  the  individuals  in  the  industry? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  agreements  that  a  member  of  your  association  makes 
with  the  union  must  he  insist  upon  any  of  these  conditions  that  are  set  forth 
in  your  by-laws? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  That  is  entirely  optional  with  the  man  who  makes  the  agreement. 
The  national  body  has  nothing  to  say  about  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  the  constitution  and  by-laws  of  your  association  is 
more  or  less  a  direction  as  to  the  wrise  thing  to  do  rather  than  a  compulsory 
rule  ? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  The  association  is  voluntary,  absolutely  and  in  every  particular. 
There  is  nothing  compulsory  about  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  not  a  man  be  expelled  if  he  did  not  carry  out  your 
by-laws? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Well,  in  some  regards,  of  course;  but  we  do  not  have  much 
difficulty  with  them.  We  are  very  careful  about  that.  If  a  man  is  unreasonable 
with  his  workmen,  we  do  not  take  him  in ;  we  will  not  have  him. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Suppose  a  man  made  a  closed-shop  agreement  with  the 
union,  would  that  be  such  a  violation  of  the  by-laws  as  would  lead  to  his 
expulsion  from  the  association? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  You  are  speaking  generally  now  from  the  general  principle  in- 
volved here? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No.  Would  there  be  a  power  in  the  association  to  expel 
him  ;  and,  next,  what  would  they  be  apt  to  do? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  There  is  a  power  to  do  it,  but  in  actual  conditions  we  do  not 
expel  a  man,  because  there  has  never  a  case  arisen  where  they  ought  to.  I 
assume  what  you  are  getting  at,  and  want  to  get  a  short  cut  to  it,  is  you  are 
referring  to  a  contract  that  is  entered  into  between  the  founders'  association  and 
a  man  whose  men  have  struck? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Xo ;  I  want  to  say  that  I  have  nothing  specific  in  view  at  all. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  was  just  asking  because  the  nature  of  your  questions  led  me 
to  believe  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No,  indeed ;  I  do  not  know  of  any  such  conditions  that  exist. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Where  a  man  wants  support,  and  we  go  out  and  investigate  and 
vote  him  support,  after  having  gone  through  all  that  I  have  stated  here,  one 
of  the  conditions  of  his  having  support  is  that  he  runs  an  open  shop  for  one 
year. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  When  you  say,  for  instance,  that  a  member  of  your  associa- 
tion has  the  privilege  of  contracting  now  with  the  molders'  union,  is  there 
any  understood  objection  among  the  members  of  your  association  to  so  con- 
tracting? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  The  general  impression  among  our  people  individually  is  that  to 
contract  with  the  iron  molders'  union  is  a  mistake.  They  would  not  advise  it. 
Eighty-five  per  cent  would  advise  against  it.  Eighty-five  per  cent  would  ad- 
vise against  it,  believing  that  they  get  better  results  otherwise;  but  in  some 


470          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

particular  locality  where  the  union  has  made  perhaps  special  agreements  with 
a  man  it  may  be  advisable,  if  he  gets  better  conditions,  and  if  he  wants  to,  it 
is  optional  with  him. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  When  a  member  of  this  association  has  made  such  an  agree- 
ment he  would  not  be  considered  as  breaking  the  faith? 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If,  in  your  opinion,  the  union  associated — I  am  only  using 
that  word  as  you  have  used  it  yourself — avails  to  get  the  best  wages  and  the 
best  hours  for  its  membership  and  the  best  working  conditions,  what  is  the 
objection  on  the  part  of  your  membership  to  dealing  with  the  union? 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  If  you  will  allow  me  now  to  touch  upon  that  apprentice  and 
molders'  machine  question,  in  the  language  of  the  iron-molder's  union,  and  in 
the  language  of  Mr.  Commons,  in  the  beautiful  book  that  you  published,  on 
the  part  of  the  Government,  the  apprentice  matter  has  caused  more  difficulty 
than  any  other  point.  I  think  that  is  the  exact  language  that  Mr.  Commons 
and  Mr.  Frey  used.  You  published  that  document,  and  I  agree  with  you  ex- 
actly, and  in  that  document  they  say  also  that  the  reason  for  the  ratio  of 
apprentices  has  never  been  discovered.  They  do  not  know.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  you  can  not  fix  a  ratio  of  apprentices,  so  many  to  a  certain  number  of 
workmen,  applying  uniformly  all  over  the  country  and  in  all  trades,  that  will 
be  fair.  You  can  not  do  that ;  and  in  my  judgment  it  is  not  necessary  to  have 
any  union  to  do  that,  because  that  is  a  question  that  is  fixed  by  law,  as  to  what 
you  can  do  with  an  apprentice,  and  there  are  natural  limitations  applying  in 
every  shop.  The  union  attempts  to  force  a  uniform  rule,  and  that  ratio  is 
based  upon  guess.  I  have  tried  several  times  to  find  out,  and  the  only  reason 
that  wras  ever  given  me  was  that  wrhen  the  people  were  considering  this  ques- 
tion they  felt,  and  the  union  felt,  that  they  ought  to  have  a  ratio  assured,  a 
limitation,  and  nobody  knew  what  it  was,  so  that  they  adjourned  from  the  con- 
vention and  shook  dice  and  that  the  result  of  the  dice  established  the  ratio 
of  apprentices.  That  is  the  only  reason  I  have  ever  heard.  I  do  not  know 
about  the  truth  or  falsity  of  that,  but  that  is  what  union  men  have  told  me 
wras  done. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  With  who  were  they  shaking  dice? 

Mr.  BEIGGS.  I  do  not  know.  That  is  the  way  it  was  given  to  me.  That  is 
the  only  reason  for  that  ratio  of  apprentices  that  I  have  every  heard.  There 
is  a  limit  of  the  ratio  of  apprentices  and  that  is  fixed  by  the  conditions  of  a 
shop.  Here  is  a  shop  here  which  has  a  certain  line  of  workmen,  and  has  cer- 
tain foremen  who  are  good  men,  but  they  have  not  got  ability  to  impart  their 
knowledge  to  a  student,  which  is  so  necessary  for  a  teacher.  The  same  problem 
is  before  our  schools ;  they  can  not  get  good  teachers,  not  because  the  teachers 
do  not  know  anything  about  the  subject,  but  because  they  can  not  impart  the 
information  that  they  have  to  anybody  else.  There  is  the  greatest  difficulty. 
The  men  in  that  shop,  and  the  shop  foremen,  will  not  educate  one  of  these  ap- 
prentices. They  do  not  want  to,  and  if  they  do  they  will  educate  him  strictly 
along  union  lines,  generally. 

Over  here  there  is  a  factory  where  they  say,  "  Here  is  a  good  foreman,  and 
he  likes  to  teach  boys,  and  he  will  teach  them,  and  he  has  a  gang  boss  and  an- 
other molder  here  who  likes  it  and  likes  boys,  and  we  will  make  proficient  men 
of  these."  In  this  shop  you  can  work  a  large  number  of  apprentices,  whereas 
in  the  first  shop  you  can  not.  Hence  the  absolute  futility  of  fixing  a  uniform 
ratio  of  apprentices.  You  can  not  do  that.  That  is  w7here  the  trouble  conies  in, 
and  in  a  great  strike  like  the  one  we  had  in  1906,  practically  the  only  question 
that  was  at  issue  in  the  main  center  of  the  difficulty,  Milwaukee,  was  over  that 
matter  of  apprentices.  The  union  ratio  had  been  enforced  to  such  an  extent 
that  there  was  a  dearth  of  molders.  It  has  been  estimated,  I  think,  from  the 
quotation  that  was  given,  that  I  have  just  referred  to,  and  from  actual  prac- 
tice, that  if  that  ratio  were  maintained  for,  say,  20  years,  the  molding  trade 
would  be  extinct ;  there  would  be  no  molders  to  perform  the  work.  They  were 
driven  to  extremities  at  that  time.  The  shops  were  all  struck,  and  they  turned 
them  all  into  training  schools,  and  they  broke  in  1,200  men  in  Milwaukee  alone 
as  the  result  of  that.  That  is  one  of  the  things  that,  as  has  already  been  said, 
outweighs  all  other  conditions  altogether. 

No.  2  is  the  molding  machine.  The  unions  have  always  opposed  the  molding 
machine.  Molding  machines  are  facilities  for  making  castings.  It  is  easier 
for  a  man  to  make  a  casting  with  a  molding  machine  than  it  is  without  it.  It 
does  not  require  so  much  hard  labor,  and  it  increases  the  capacity.  The  iron 
molders  have  fought  molding  machines  from  the  time  the  molding  machine 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  471 

* 

was  started  until  tlie  present  time.  If  you  put  an  iron  niolders'  union  man 
onto  a  molding  machine  lie  will  make  as  many  castings  on  that  machine  as 
he  can  make  without  it.  I  know  that  to  be  the  case,  first,  because  it  oc- 
curred in  my  shop,  and  second,  because  I  have  seen  it  in  hundreds  of  other 
shops.  He  will  not  do  more  than  that,  if  he  is  a  union  man.  If  you  get  a 
nonunion  man  and  put  him  on  it  he  strikes  your  shop.  What  could  the  pro- 
prietor do  ?  Absolutely  estopped  from  educating  more  men  at  that  time ; 
estopped  from  putting  in  more  approved  machinery  and  appliances  and  being 
able  to  supply  their  orders,  and  that  sort  of  thing.  The  next  thing,  the  union 
struck  those  shops — every  one  of  them.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  most  cases 
you  can  increase  your  output  with  the  molding  machine  anywhere  from  2 
to  40  times.  I  would  not  begin  to  tell  you  how  much  more  you  can  produce 
with  a  molding  machine,  but  it  is  a  tremendous  lot. 

Now,  a  man  in  this  country  ought  to  have  the  right  to  use  that  machine  if 
he  wants  to,  and  get  that  vast  result  out  of  it,  and  I  submit  it  to  you  gentle- 
men that  if  a  man  wants  to  do  that — in  the  case  I  am  referring  to  now  it  cost 
me  $5,000  to  fit  up  to  make  pulleys,  and  we  could  make  three  of  those  pulleys 
without  the  machine,  and  usually  we  could  make  eight  with  the  machine. 
I  tried  one  union  man  after  another,  until  I  had  had  seven  on  it,  and  my 
price  was  based  on  seven  pulleys — and  I  was  competing  with  people  who  had 
not  this  difficulty.  Finally,  I  had  a  little  bit  of  a  brush  about  it,  and  I  put 
a  nonunion  man  on  the  machine,  and  the  first  day  he  put  up  seven  pulleys, 
and  the  next  day  nine;  and  his  average  was  nine.  What  is  a  man  going  to 
do  under  those  circumstances?  I  think  a  proprietor  is  justified  in  asking  to 
be  permitted  to  run  an  open  shop. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  you  be  willing  to  furnish  the  commission  with  the 
number  of  strikes  in  the  shops,  members  of  your  association,  of  last  year,  and 
the  causes  of  those  supported  and  those  nonsupported ;  where  they  were  sup- 
ported, giving  the  reasons  for  the  support,  if  any. 

Mr.  BBIGGS.  Yes;  over  any  period  you  please.  If  you  want  to  extend  that 
over  the  entire  period  of  the  existence  of  the  association,  I  will  be  pleased.  I 
am  speaking  now  without  the  authority  of  the  association,  but  I  am  an  ex- 
president,  and  I  know  how  they  feel  about  it,  and  I  know  that  they  will  be 
glad  to  furnish  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  wish  you  would  furnish  it. 

Mr.  BEIGGS.  Mr.  Taylor,  will  you  make  a  note  of  that?  They  want  a  list  of 
all  these  strikes,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  Will  you  let  us  have  the  whole 
thing  for  this  commission? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  all. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Briggs,  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  tried 
to  work  under  the  trade  agreement  wTith  your  association  for  a  period  of 
seven  years,  and  finally  you  abandoned  it  in  1904,  and  since  then  you  have 
gone  on  for  10  years  without  any  trade  agreements.  Do  I  gather  from  that 
that  you  have  had  better  success  without  a  trade  agreement  than  you  had 
with  it? 

Mr.  BEIGGS.  Infinitely  better.  Perhaps  I  could  best  give  you  proof  of  that 
by  saying  that  that  question  has  come  up  for  three  years,  after  1906,  at  our 
national  convention;  and  the  same  outline  of  a*  policy  was  adopted,  without 
a  dissenting  vote,  and,  there  were  present  at  every  one  of  those  meetings 
about  200  of  our  members,  and  at  the  last  two  conventions  it  has  not  been 
even  mentioned.  There  is  not  a  dissenting  vote  in  our  association  on  that 
proposition. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  If  you  were  on  this  commission  and  trying  to  answer 
the  questions  that  we  are  expected  to  answer,  to  find  a  way  ,to  secure  in- 
dustrial peace,  you  would  not  suggest  the  trade  agreement  as  the  way? 

Mr.  BEIGGS.  I  should  not,  for  our  enterprises.  I  should  most  certainly  be 
opposed  to  it. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  And  yet  you  did  intimate  that  trade  agreements  with 
some  unions,  under  some  bases,  were  all  right. 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  I  do,  and  I  believe  that,  and  our  association  believes  it  sincerely 
and  honestly.  We  are  committed  to  it,  over  and  over  again.  Our  belief  is  that 
a  closed-shop  union  is  absolutely  illegal.  They  have  no  right  to  make  such  an 
agreement  in  the  first  place.  It  does  not  work  out  in  the  second  place. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  have  spoken  of  the  injustice  of  the  limitation 
of  apprentices ;  and  yet  I  understood  you  to  say  that  there  is  some  basis  of 
limitation  of  apprentices,  although  nobody  has  as  yet  discovered  what  that 
scientific  basis  is.  Did  I  get  that  correctly? 


472          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Not  exactly.  I  would  say  that  the  way  to  establish  a  limitation 
of  apprentices  is  not  by  the  way  these  unions  attempt  to  establish  it.  I  think 
you  will  agree  with  me,  Mr.  Delano,  that  nearly  every  State  in  the  Union  years 
ago  had  a  law  limiting  apprentices.  I  recall  one  which  says  that  if  a  master 
apprentices  a  boy  to  learn  a  trade — that  was  at  a  time  when  he  usually  took 
him  home  and  he  became  almost  a  father  to  him — he  must  give  that  boy  a  cer- 
tain education,  in  mathematics,  for  instance,  and  I  think  the  limit  of  that 
mathematical  education  was  up  to  the  rule  of  three  that  our  fathers  used  to 
talk  about ;  and  by  way  of  the  State  laws  those  limitations  are  regulated.  It 
is  not  the  prt  of  the  employer  or  the  employee  to  regulate  that.  It  is  regulated 
in  that  way.  But  I  have  made  proposition  after  proposition  to  these  gentlemen 
sitting  right  over  there,  that  if  they  would  draw  the  provision  for  the  education 
which  any  manufacturer  should  grant  these  apprentice  boys  just  as  strong  as 
they  pleased,  they  could  get  a  Philadelphia  lawyer — I  have  used  that  expression 
many  times — to  draw  those  limitations,  and  they  would  allow  the  employers 
to  educate  all  they  wanted,  and  under  that  agreement  we  would  accept  them. 
They  will  not  accept  them. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  But  suppose  two  of  your  members,  one  of  whom  was 
employing  that  10  or  15  per  cent  of  apprentices  and  the  other  employing  40 
or  50  per  cent,  would  they  be  able  to  compete  in  a  similar  class  of  work? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  That  is  a  question.  In  the  first  stages  of  those  apprentices  prob- 
ably they  would  not.  But  after  they  get  into  the  fourth  year  they  would,  and 
I  should  like  to  add  one  word  to  that,  Mr.  Delano,  I  am  bothered  over  this 
question  because  I  have  been  at  it  so  much,  but  do  you  not  know  that  all  this 
talk  about  a  vocational  education,  and  efficiency  and  scientific  management,  is 
the  result  of  the  inability  of  the  manufacturer  to  educate  apprentices? 

The  place  for  a  boy  to  learn  a  trade  is  in  a  shop.  You  can  not  teach  him  a 
trade  in  a  school — not  a  bright  boy.  You  can  not  do  it.  Manual  training  up  to 
a  certain  extent  and  vocational  training  up  to  a  certain  extent  will  classify 
these  boys.  It  will  sift  out  those  who  have  mechanical  ability.  Then  you  must 
turn  that  boy  into  the  shop.  That  is  the  place  for  him  to  learn  the  trade.  You 
can  not  teach  him  that  in  a  school. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  If  a  shop  had  a  number  of  apprentices,  might  it  not 
be  a  temptation  on  the  part  of  the  employer  to  lay  off  his  older,  tried  men,  who 
probably  would  have  families  to  support  and  must  get  larger  wages,  and  sup- 
plant them  with  those  apprentices  who  would  work  for  smaller  wages,  and  might 
not  that  injure  the  interests  of  the  older  men? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Possibly  it  might,  but  I  do  not  think  so.  I  do  not  think  it  is 
an  injury  to  any  boy  to  teach  him  a  trade,  and  I  do  not  think  it  is  objectionable 
for  any  manufacturer  to  spend  his  money  in  teaching  a  trade  in  his  own  shop, 
as  opposed  to  contributing  about  every  three  weeks,  as  we  are  now  asked  to 
contribute,  for  some  vocational  education.  For  my  own  part,  I  would  rather 
spend  that  money  in  my  own  shop  in  teaching  my  own  men  in  my  own  \vay. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Did  you  have  trouble  on  account  of  the  union  men 
refusing  to  handle  material  made  in  the  nonunion  shop,  refusing  to  handle 
material  or  tools,  or  anything  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  We  had  some  trouble.  The  greatest  trouble  was  when  they  were 
asked  to  make  castings  for  a  nonunion  or  other  struck  shop.  Occasionally 
when  we  asked  union  men  to  make  castings  for  a  nonunion  shop  where  there 
had  been  other  difficulties,  they  refused  to  make  them.  That  is  quite  a  common 
thing. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  speak  of  good  unions  and  bad  unions.  What 
two  or  three  things  do  you  feel  specifically  that  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  do  that  if  they  were  eliminated  you  would  feel  friendly  toward  their 
organization? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  First,  I  would  say  remove  limitations  on  and  opposition  to  ap- 
prentices. Second,  I  would  say  remove  their  opposition  to  molding  machines 
and  improved  appliances.  Third,  I  would  say  their  habit  of  fining  certain  of 
their  members  for  exceeding  their  limits,  which  they  themselves  have  set,  and 
limiting  the  output,  which  they  do  time  and  again.  Again,  I  would  say  where 
they  enforce  a  minimum  wage,  frequently  they  cause  the  proprietor  to  lay  a 
man  off  because  he  is  old,  and  although  he  is  a  good,  honest  man,  he  can  not 
earn  the  minimum  wage,  and  he  begs  to  be  taken  on,  and  the  union  says,  "  No ; 
you  have  got  to  earn  the  minimum,"  and  he  can  not.  Let  them  remove  that, 
which  does  great  injustice.  Talk  about  Christianity  and  justice  and  that  sort 
of  thing,  if  that  does  not  come  in  there,  I  do  not  know  where  it  does.  I  can 
cite  you  case  after  case,  if  you  \vtint  it  in  tht>  record,  where  that  has  been  done. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  473 

Then  there  is  a  fellow  that  is  not  fully  skilled ;  there  is  many  a  well-disposed 
boy,  a  splendid  boy,  a  boy  that  likes  to  work  and  do  the  best  he  can,  who  can- 
not rise  to  the  level  of  the  man  who  earns  this  minimum  wage;  and  that  boy 
would  not  be  kept  on  and  would  not  be  allowed  to  work  at  his  trade;  or  else 
the  proprietor  has  got  to  turn  a  good  man  down  so  as  to  break  even,  somewhere. 
Let  them  remove  that.  Let  them  remove  those  restrictions  It  is  really  illegal 
and  unlawful  to  make  those  restrictions.  All  we  ask  of  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  and  the  iron  molders'  union  especially  is  to  conform  to  the  law 
as  it  stands  to-day.  We  will  get  along  with  them  all  right.  The  brotherhoods 
do  that  every  time;  and  believe  me,  I  do  not  believe  there  has  been  a  minute 
for  the  last  15  months  but  what  there  have  been  bitter  strikes  on  somewhere 
with  the  International  Union  of  Iron  Molders,  or  the  machinists.  At  the  same 
time,  you  can  not  mention  a  strike  that  has  taken  place,  of  any  magnitude 
whatever,  with  those  brotherhoods.  They  have  the  best-paid  and  the  best- 
equipped  and  the  best-housed  men  that  there  are  in  any  industry  in  any  country 
in  the  world.  Why  can  not  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  adopt  those 
same  methods?  Why  could  they  not  come  to  us  and  say,  "Let  us  get  at  this 
thing  on  an  amicable  basis?"  Talk  about  industrial  peace.  That  is  the  thing 
for  them  to  do. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  During  the  existence  of  your  agreement,  Mr. 
Briggs,  did  you  work  on  the  closed-shop  basis? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  We  worked  upon  any  condition  we  could  get  with  this  union,  and 
the  biggest  part  of  them  were  closed  shop,  absolutely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  stated  you  had  a  great  deal  of  trouble  in 
getting  along  with  the  molders,  especially,  and  reaching  any  sort  of  a  satis- 
factory agreement;  that  they  make  demands  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
founders,  were  unreasonable,  in  the  way  of  minimum  wages,  apprentices,  and 
all  that  sort  of  thing. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Evidently  conditions  east  are  different  from  what 
they  are  in  my  country,  California.  Speaking  with  some  members  of  the 
Metal  Trades  Association  employers,  they  have  said  to  me,  in  relation  to  the 
molders  especially,  that  their  relations  with  them  are  very  friendly  and 
cordial  and  that  all  their  differences  are  amicably  adjusted  and  they  get  along 
splendidly  together. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Your  trade  out  there  has  pretty  nearly  all  left  you,  however. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  No ;  that  is  not  true. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Manufacturing? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  apologize,  if  that  is  the  case. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  McGregor,  president  of  the  Union  Iron  Works, 
told  me  less  than  a  week  ago  that  they  are  employing  more  men  than  they 
have  at  any  time  since  the  fire,  except  a  very  brief  period  after  the  fire;  that 
they  are  now  constructing  the  largest  vessel  on  the  Pacific  coast  that  was  ever 
constructed  there;  that  they  got  the  contract  in  competition  with  the  largest 
shipbuilding  concerns  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard  and  that  their  bid  was  from 
$30,000  to  $40,000  less ;  that  they  are  doing  it  in  record  time ;  and  only  a  few 
days  before  I  left  my  home  the  statement  was  made  public  that  the  Union  Iron 
Works  were  going  to  build  the  biggest  dry  dock  in  the  world  and  that  Mr. 
McGregor  further  made  the  statement  that  they  had  now  more  work  than  they 
can  possibly  take  care  of. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  would  not  question  a  portion  of  that  statement.  You  have  an 
unusual  amount  of  work  there,  due  to  the  Panama  Exposition. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Not  in  shipbuilding. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  A  member  of  your  chamber  of  commerce  has  issued  a  statement, 
only  about  a  year  or  a  year  and  a  half  ago — I  have  a  copy  of  it,  but  I  do  not 
think  I  have  it  here  now — in  which,  my  memory  is,  he  stated  the  manufacturing 
industries  of  San  Francisco  had  diminished ;  that  in  1908  San  Francisco  had 
4,000  manufacturers  and  in  1913  San  Francisco  had  only  1,400.  Most  of  them 
have  moved  to  Los  Angeles. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  happen  to  have  information  on  that,  Mr.  Briggs, 
that  I  think  will  be  of  val*»  in  the  record. 

I  was  chosen  a  member  of  a  board  of  conciliation  to  represent  the  employers 
in  a  question  that  arose  between  the  Metal  Trades  Association  and  the  Iron 
Trades  Council  on  the  matter  of  hours.  That  is,  the  Iron  Trades  Council 
wanted  an  eight-hour  day  and  the  employers  wanted  a  nine-hour  day.  The 
committee  of  tlie  employers  raised  the  point  that  because  of  the  eight-hour  day 


474          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

and  because  of  other  uuion  conditions,  San  Francisco  was  losing  its  metal-trade 
business.  The  representatives  of  the  Union  demanded  specific  instances  to  be 
presented  to  the  conciliation  board.  The  members  came  at  the  next  meeting 
with  alleged  specific  cases.  On  analysis  it  was  found  that  most  of  the  alleged 
losses — that  is,  employers  going  to  other  places — were  due  not  to  wages  and  not 
to  hours  but  to  conditions  beyond  control.  For  example,  some  went  over  to  the 
Oakland  and  Berkeley  side  of  the  bay  because  they  had  better  shipping  facilities 
and  railroad  charges  were  lessened.  They  could  get  trackage  there  that  they 
could  not  get  in  crowded  San  Francisco.  In  some  cases  they  could  get  much 
cheaper  land  and  much  larger  accommodations  than  they  could  in  a  crowded 
city  like  San  Francisco.  Some  had  dropped  out  because  of  mismanagement ; 
they  could  not  manage  their  business  successfully.  It  was  not  possible  for  the 
employers  to  show,  to  the  satisfaction  of  that  conciliation  board,  one  single  case 
where  the  employer  had  dropped  out  of  business  purely  because  of  unionism. 

It  was  shown  that  the  diminished  volume  of  metal  trades  in  San  Francisco 
was  also  due  to  these  conditions  that  had  nothing  to  do  with  labor:  Formerly, 
San  Francisco  was  the  center  of  the  Pacific  coast;  that  is,  it  produced  all  the 
mining  machinery.  There  were  very  small  shops  in  Seattle  and  Portland  and 
Los  Angeles,  and  nearly  all  of  that  work  was  centered  in  San  Francisco.  To-day 
Seattle,  Portland,  and  Los  Angeles  have  grown  to  be  great  cities,  filling  their 
own  local  requirements,  and. that  business  no  longer  comes  to  San  Francisco, 
and  its  sphere  of  usefulness  in  industrious  lines  has  been  very  much  minimized — 
that  is,  its  territory  has  been  minimized.  That  applies  not  only  to  the  industry, 
but  to  the  jobbing  business  of  San  Francisco  as  well.  For  example,  Mr.  Scott, 
the  president  of  the  Pacific  Hardware  Co.,  the  largest  hardware  company  on  the 
Pacific  coast,  made  the  public  statement  some  time  ago  that  formerly  he  had  250 
traveling  salesmen  going  out  of  the  city  of  San  Francisco,  but  the  conditions 
developed  so  that  they  had  to  open  a  branch  in  Portland  and  another  branch  in 
Los  Angeles,  and  now  he  only  had  one-third  that  number  going  out  of  San  Fran- 
cisco that  he  formerly  had ;  that  their  territory  had  been  minimized.  That,  of 
course,  had  nothing  to  do  with  labor,  because  jobbing  houses  do  not  deal,  as  a 
rule,  with  organized  labor.  Therefore  the  fact  of  the  industrial  office  of  San 
Francisco  having  been  reduced  as  it  has  been  is  not  due,  on  analysis,  to  the 
question  of  organized  labor. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  am  very  glad  to  hear  that  statement,  because  this  side  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  and  at  Seattle  and  Los  Angeles,  and  Portland,  at  the  very 
time  you  name,  it  is  not  only  currently  but  freely  reported  that  those  cities 
have  benefited  very,  very  materially  by  the  fact  that  a  lot  of  your  people  in  San 
Francisco  pulled  out  of  there  on  account  of  labor  conditions  and  went  where 
they  could  have  freedom.  I  have  been  told  that  by  many  men  in  all  the  towns 
you  have  named,  I  do  not  know  that  to  be  the  case ;  that  is  merely  an  opinion. 
I  am  glad  to  know  wrhat  you  have  stated,  because  that  is  not  so  understood 
exactly  by  people  on  this  side  of  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  A  question  was  raised  a  little  while  ago  about  the 
advantage  to  the  worker  of  individual  bargaining  as  compared  with  collective 
bargaining,  and  you  pointed  out  that,  in  your  judgment,  the  worker  was  better 
off  under  a  system  of  individual  bargaining  than  under  a  system  of  collective 
bargaining.  Does  not  that  depend  upon  the  law  of  supply  and  demand?  That 
is,  where  two  jobs  are  hunting  one  man,  that  one  man,  under  individual  bar- 
gaining, will  do  very  well ;  but  if  two  men  are  hunting  one  job,  will  those  two 
men  not  do  better  under  collective  bargaining  than  under  individual  bargaining? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  want  to  be  fair  on  that  collective  proposition.  You  mean  by 
way  of  collective  to  understand  the  national  union  to  intercede  for  them? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes;  that  is,  keeping  the  minimum  from  dropping 
below  the  living  wage. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  If  you  will  remove  the  illegal  restrictions  here,  so  that  when  the 
third  party  comes  to  the  men  involved  he  comes  in  a  friendly  spirit  and  they 
feel  friendly,  I  think  there  are  cases  where  that  statement  is  true.  Under  pres- 
ent conditions  I  do  not  think  they  could  meet  that,  myself.  That  is  a  matter 
of  opinion. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Evidently  your  experience  in  the  matter  of  organ- 
ized labor  differs  seemingly  from  the  experience  of  Mr.  Peabody,  who  test i lied 
before  us  this  morning.  That  is,  I  gather  from  what  you  said  that,  in  your 
judgment,  the  union  is  simply  a  burden  on  the  worker;  that  is,  it  taxes  him  for 
dues  and  gives  him  no  compensatory  benefits.  Mr.  Peabody  this  morning  made 
the  statement  that  the  chief  benefit  of  trade  agreement  is  that  the  men  HIV 
better  off.  He  said  that  as  an  employer.  He  said  further  that  the  private 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  475 

habits  and  moral  conditions  and  the  intellectual  developments  of  miners  have 
very  much  improved  over  old  conditions,  and  he  gives  the  labor  leaders  credit 
for  having  educated  and  raised  the  standards  of  the  workers.  Seemingly  the 
experience  in  the  mining  industry  is  very  different  from  the  experience  in  the 
metal  trades. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Quite  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  would  not  apply  to  the  metal  trades? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  My  observation  in  regard  to  the  way  these  unions  of  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  conduct  their  business  is  this — and  I  have  attended 
many  of  them  to  plead  on  the  part  of  the  employer.  I  am  on  most  friendly 
terms  with  a  tremendous  lot  of  union  men,  and  I  have  appeared  before  those 
men  many  times.  My  observation  is,  Mr.  Weinstock,  that  90  per  cent  of  their 
meetings  are  held  either  over  or  next  door  to  a  saloon,  and  you  will  find  more 
men  in  the  saloon  than  you  do  in  the  union  meeting  room  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  unions.  That  is  my  observation.  I  have  seen  a  tremen- 
dous lot  of  them,  and  when  you  go  to  Chicago,  gentlemen,  as  I  understand  you 
are  going  over  there,  if  you  will  look  up  the  statistics  in  Chicago  you  will  find 
a  tremendous  lot  of  these  unions  hold  their  meetings  in  that  sort  of  a  place,  and 
it  certainly  is  not  the.  best  place  for  any  body  of  men  to  gather. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Your  observations,  though,  lead  you  to  believe 
intemperance  has  increased  among  union  men  rather  than  diminished? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes,  sir;  I  should  give  that  as  my  opinion — among  the  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  unions. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  miners  are  also  members  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Certainly  they  are. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  that  branch  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  according  to  the  statements  of  Mr.  Mitchell  and  Mr.  Peabody,  is 
undergoing  a  different  process  from  the  metal  trades? 

Mr.  BIUGGS.  Quite  so ;  and  I  would  not  be  surprised  if  that  was  brought  about 
a  little  by  that  open-shop  decision  of  that  great  body  of  men  who  settled  that 
coal  strike. 

If  I  may  be  permitted  a  moment  about  that,  you  are  all  familiar  with  the 
anthracite  coal  strike;  and  I  want  to  say  I  do  not  believe  there  was  ever  a 
body  of  men  gotten  together  that  was  a  more  competent  body  of  men  to  settle 
sn  industrial  question  than  the  body  of  men  headed  by  Judge  Gray,  who  han- 
dled that  case.  The  employer  was  represented ;  the  employee  was  represented 
by  one  of  the. best  men  there  is  in  the  world,  Edgar  E.  Clark,  a  strong  union 
conductor ;  Bishop  Spalding  was  there  for  the  clergy ;  and  Carroll  D.  Wright 
was  there  for  the  public.  The  employer  and  the  employee  were  represented. 
That  decision  to  my  mind,  was  a  beautiful  decision — infinitely  better  than  you 
can  get  from  any  court,  even  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  because 
of  the  fact  that  the  Supreme  Court  can  not  go  into  all  those  conditions.  It  is 
impossible  to  get  all  those  conditions  before  the  court.  That  commission  went 
down  into  the  mines  and  spent  a  week  in  matters  of  that  sort.  Judge  Gray 
put  on  his  overalls  and  jacket  and  spent  a  week  down  there  getting  at  those 
conditions.  Those  are  matters  you  can  not  present  to  a  court.  Then  that  agree- 
ment, that  conclusion,  was  strictly  an  open-shop  proposition,  absolutely  an  open- 
shop  proposition.  I  know  some  of  those  men  that  went  into  that  agreement. 
The  miners  have  been  better  off,  according  to  Mr.  Mitchell's  own  arguments  here 
this  morning,  by  virtue  of  that  agreement. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Did  not  that  agreement  provide  for  a  minimum 
wage? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  think  the  biggest  part  of  that  is  piecework,  according  to  his 
testimony. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Did  not  they  provide  for  a  minimum  wage — the 
least  possible  wage  to  be  paid  the  miners? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  The  agreement  would  speak  better  than  any  recollection  of  mine. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Is  not  that  one  of  the  things  in  here  which  you 
say  you  will  not  arbitrate  or  agree  to? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Wages? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  minimum  wage. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  We  arbitrate  wages  every  time  they  ask  us  to  do  so. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  not  say  here,  in  your  "  Outline  of  policy," 
that  you  include  a  minimum  wage? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  To  what  article  are  you  referring? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  your  "  Outline  of  policy?  " 


476          KEPOET    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BEIGGS.  If  you  will  refer  to  the  article,  I  will  endeavor  to  answer  the 
question.  While  you  are  hunting  that  up  I  would  like  to  finish  this  one  thing : 

The  crisis  in  our  efforts  to  wrork  under  this  conciliatory  agreement  occurred 
in  1904.  Immediately  following  a  year's  experience,  I  think,  with  the  miners, 
under  the  decision  of  the  coal-strike  commission,  which,  as  you  know,  was  a 
purely  open-shop  decision  ,this  occurred.  I  want  to  read  one  clause  of  that  right 
into  this  record,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  do  so.  The  crisis  was  reached  at  that 
time.  We  had  had  2,500  conferences  and  could  not  agree  with  that  union,  and 
we  spent  all  of  three  weeks  trying  to  get  that  union  to  arbitrate  with  us. 

I  suggested  that  there  was  a  beautiful  illustration,  and  I  urged  that  union 
to  join  with  me,  or  if  they  would  not  join  with  me  I  myself  would  personally 
secure  on  behalf  of  our  association  either  President  Roosevelt,  Elihu  Root,  or 
any  other  member  of  the  Cabinet ;  and  if  we  could  not  get  them  we  would  go 
on  down  the  line  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  United  States  Senators  until 
we  secured  some  men  who  were  disinterested  to  come  in  and  settle  this  matter 
for  us.  There  was  a  question  of  an  eight-hour  day  involved,  but  I  did  not 
confine  myself  to  working  eight  hours  a  day  by  any  means.  I  \vorked  all  day 
and  a  good  many  nights  for  a  good  many  long  weeks.  I  never  worked  so  hard 
at  anything  in  my  life  as  I  did  to  get  these  fellows  to  adopt  that,  and  they 
would  not  do  it.  What  are  you  going  to  do  when  you  are  running  your  plants 
up  against  that  proposition?  They  will  not  arbitrate;  they  will  not  let  a  second 
man  come  in  here. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  spoke  about  the  association  supporting  a  mem- 
ber in  case  of  strike.  What  is  meant  by  "  supporting  a  member?  " 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Help  him  out  of  his  difficulty. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Financially? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes ;  we  help  him.  First,  we  pay  a  certain  portion  of  the  wages 
of  these  instructors  whom  I  have  defined  and  described ;  second,  if  that  method 
is  not  adopted,  frequently  we  help  him  secure  his  castings  at  some  other  shop 
and  pay  a  portion  of  the  extra  expenses  incurred  thereby ;  third,  while  the  shop 
is  empty  and  no  man  in  there  we  pay  an  agreed  amount  for  idle  floors.  Those 
are  the  three  methods  of  supports. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Sort  of  a  strike  insurance,  practically? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes,  sir ;  strike  assistance. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  also  stated  that  you  had  a  strike  because  you 
treated  your  apprentices  too  well.  Was  it  that,  or  was  it  because  you  had,  in 
the  judgment  of  the  unions,  too  many  apprentices? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  only  know  what  the  president  of  that  union  said  to  me — a  Mr. 
Anderson.  He  told  me  the  night  before  he  went  out.  If  you  would  like  to 
listen  to  that  controversy,  I  would  be  delighted  to  detail  it ;  but  I  do  not  want 
to  intrude  upon  you  too  much.  It  illustrates  a  case  that  occurred  in  150  or  200 
other  shops  at  that  time. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Have  the  technical  schools  relieved  the  situation 
in  any  way  so  far  as  apprentices  are  concerned? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  The  tendency  is  that  way,  and  they  will  relieve  it  up  to  a  certain 
point,  but  they  can  not  teach  the  trade  in  a  technical  school. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  They  simply  shorten  the  apprentices'  period? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  They  will  in  a  way.  It  is  just  as  Mr.  Peabody  said  on  the  stand 
here.  He  hit  the  nail  right  on  the  head.  There  are  a  tremendous  lot  of  work- 
ing men  that  do  not  get  to  the  point  of  applying  a  technical  education.  The 
technical  education  applies  very  pronouncedly  to  the  boy  who  has  ability  and 
ambition  and  the  opportunity  to  get  beyond  the  ordinary  journeyman,  but  not 
to  the  boy  who  is  satisfied  with  the  journeyman's  position.  To  illustrate,  take 
a  boy  who  has  been  a  helper  and  who  has  done  exceedingly  hard  work.  His 
ambition,  if  he  is  a  good  bright  boy,  is  to  advance;  he  wants  to  become  a 
journeyman.  That  is  the  goal  of  his  ambition  and  wrhen  he  gets  there  he  is 
satisfied.  To  that  boy  a  technical  education  does  not  appeal  very  much  ;  and 
there  are  lots  of  those  boys.  In  that  respect,  the  vocational  and  technical  both 
fall  a  little  short.  They  do  not  reach  the  mark. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  pointed  out  that  from  your  point  of  view  the 
railroad  brotherhoods  are  the  model  labor  organizations? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  they  were  all  modeled  after  them,  there  would 
be  little  or  no  difficulty  in  employers  dealing  with  organized  labor? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  believe  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  do  not  know  how  correct  my  information  is.  but 
I  was  informed  recently  that  95  per  cent  of  the  railroad  men — that  is,  the  brake- 
men  and  conductors  and  engineers — are  in  the  union? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  477 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  am  talking  about  four  unions,  the  conductors',  the  engineers', 
the  railway  trainmen,  and  the  firemen.  The  conductors  and  railway  trainmen 
are  represented  by  a  most  distinguished  man  on  your  commission  here,  repre- 
senting one  of  the  biggest  unions  in  the  country.  I  regret  he  is  not  here  to-day. 
I  would  like  to  shake  hands  with  him.  These  conductors  and  these  enginemen 
are  the  best  paid  men  in  the  world.  Why  not  copy  their  tactics? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Evidently  they  are  pretty  nearly  a  closed  shop. 
They  have  95  per  cent  in  the  union  unless  my  information  is  in  error.  Mr. 
Delano,  can  you  tell  us  whether  that  is  right  or  wrong? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  do  not  know  the  exact  figure.  It  is  very  large.  The 
railroads  do  not  inquire  whether  a  man  is  in  or  out. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  do  exact  the  minimum  wage,  to  which  you 
object? 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  If  you  get  into  the  class  of  people  interested  in  a  certain  line  of 
work, 'and  they  are  all  alike  and  their  ability  is  alike,  the  minimum  wage  is  not 
objectionable.  When  you  get  to  the  ability  and  character  of  the  man  behind 
whom  you  and  I  are  willing  to  risk  our  lives  on  these  fast  trains,  you  get  a  class 
that  are  entitled  to  the  same  pay.  Technically  applied,  it  is  the  minimum  wage. 
They  are  picked  men,  the  whole  bunch  of  them. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Oh,  they  go  up  according  to  their  age  and  employ- 
ment and  seniority. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  But  if  they  are  not  competent  men  and  not  men  of  good  charac- 
ter and  standing,  the  railroads  do  not  want  them.  That  is  one  of  the  provi- 
sions of  their  agreement,  that  a  man  must  not  be  drunkard.  They  will  not 
have  him  in  the  union  if  he  is  a  drunkard.  They  are  working  for  the  best 
interests  of  those  gentlemen. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  know ;  but  you  say  they  pick  all  the  men  running 
their  fast  passenger  trains ;  that  they  are  all  picked  men.  I  do  not  know  how 
many  have  not  gone  up  according  to  their  seniority,  but  I  will  venture  to  say 
95  per  cent  of  them  are  men  who  have  gone  right  up.  They  are  not  picked 
especially  for  that  work. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  When  were  they  picked?  When  did  they  go  to  work  for  the 
road? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  is  based  upon  that  time,  and  upon  seniority. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  But  they  are  picked  when  they  are  hired  by  the  road.  If  one  of 
those  men  back  at  that  time,  when  he  starts  in  for  that  road,  is  not  the  right 
kind  of  a  man  he  can  not  get  in  in  the  first  place.  He  can  not  get  into  the 
Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers  and  Enginemen  and  Firemen.  I  know  a 
tremendous  lot  of  those  men  personally  and  have  discussed  this  question  with 
them,  and  am  advised  by  them,  by  men  whom  I  believe  tell  the  truth  every 
time,  that  anywhere  along  the  line  that  they  enter  that  union,  if  they  become 
dissolute  and  do  not  attend  to  business  and  are  not  on  time  when  they  ought  to 
be  the  union  fires  them.  I  know  those  men  that  have  said  that,  but,  of  course,  I 
could  give  no  names. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  If  they  fired  all  the  men  on  a  railroad  not  on  time 
we  would  not  have  any  railroads  to-day. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  What  I  mean  by  saying  "  on  time  "  is  that  when  a  train  is  sched- 
uled to  leave  at  6.45,  that,  man  is  there  at  6.45.  I  am  not  talking  about  his 
arrival ;  I  am  talking  about  his  start.  The  conductors  and  enginemen  are  on 
the  job  to  a  greater  degree  than  any  other  bunch  of  men  in  the  world.  I  make 
that  statement  unqualifiedly,  and  I  can  prove  it  to  you  if  it  is  necessary. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Nobody  questions  that. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  I  can  see  now  why  you  object  to  a  minimum  wage. 
You  do  object  to  paying  a  minimum  wage  to  men  who  are  not  worth  a  minimum 
wage? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  That  is  the  point,  exactly. 

Commissioner  WEIXSTOCK.  Under  your  New  York  agreement  did  the  em- 
ployer reserve  the  right  to  discharge  an  employee  any  time  that  he  pleased,  or 
was  he  restricted  in  that?  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  nonunion  man,  but  the 
union  man. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  We  could  not  reserve  any  rights  about  anything  there. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  You  had  to  take  whatever  men  they  furnished  you, 
regardless  of  their  merit?  You  had  no  voice  in  the  selection  of  the  men? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  We  had  a  voice  to  this  extent:  If  there  was  the  least  disagree- 
ment occurred  between  a  member  of  the  foundry  association  and  a  molder 
which  those  two  men  could  not  settle,  then  the  National  flounders'  Association 
and  the  iron  molders'  union  would  come  in  and  attempt  to  settle  it.  We  had  no 
way  to  settle  that.  We  could  sit  around  a  table  and  discuss  it.  I  have  been 


478          EEPOET    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

around  the  world  several  times  discussing  those  questions.  We  would  discuss 
the  question  here,  and  then  in  Baltimore,  and  then  in  New  York,  and  then  in 
Philadelphia,  and  it  would  be  the  same  thing  right  over  and  over  again.  We 
could  not  settle  anything. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  you  employed  a  union  man  and  found  he  was 
unfit,  did  you  not  have  the  right  to  discharge  him? 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  We  claimed  to  have  the  right,  but  if  we  did  discharge  him  our 
shops  were  struck.  That  is  my  point,  exactly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  you  were  forced  to  keep  incompetent  men  and 
pay  them  the  minimum  wage? 

Mr.  BBIGGS.  Yes;  the  union  dictated  the  running  of  the  shop  under  those 
union  conditions.  If  I  had  time,  I  would  like  to  detail  a  lot  of  those  things. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  notice  in  this  "  Outline  of  policy,"  or  constitu- 
tion and  by-laws,  several  headings  here — limitation  of  output,  limitation  of  a 
man's  earning  capacity,  fines  and  restrictions,  methods  of  employment,  freedom 
of  employment,  relation  of  employee,  apprentices,  apprentices  again,  strikes 
and  lockouts,  arbitration,  method  of  arbitration,  and  down  here  we  come  to 
wages — all  of  these  several  headlings  here,  of  which  you  assume  your  associa- 
tion itself  to  be  the  absolute  judge  and  which  they  say  they  will  not  arbitrate 
and  will  not  submit  to  arbitration  with  the  employee.  All  other  things,  appar- 
ently, you  are  willing  to  submit  to  arbitration.  What  is  there  left  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  arbitration  after  those? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  About  95  per  cent  of  all  that  exists  in  relations  of  employer  and 
employee  is  wages  and  hours.  Every  honest  man  in  this  world  is  looking  for 
pay  day.  It  is  the  amount  of  money  he  gets  in  his  envelope  that  interests  him ; 
that  is  what  supports  his  family ;  that  is  what  he  is  working  for ;  that  is  what 
you  and  I  are  working  for.  Wre  are  ready  to  arbitrate  that  every  time.  But 
whether  I  have  a  right  to  employ  my  own  boy  in  my  shop  is  a  question  I  do  not 
think  any  man  ought  to  ask  me  to  arbitrate.  I  believe  the  Constitution  of  the 
Federal  Government  and  of  every  State  in  which  we  live  guarantees  me  that 
right.  I  can  cite  case  after  case  where  proprietors  have  absolutely  been  re- 
fused the  opportunity  of  putting  their  own  men  in  their  own  shops. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Can  you  cite  me  one  State — about  the  State  pro- 
tecting the  apprentice? 

Mr.  BBIGGS.  I  will.  Take  Indiana,  Massachusetts,  and  Alabama.  If  the  com- 
mission would  like  an  abstract  of  that,  I  would  be  very  glad  indeed  to  pro- 
duce it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Providing  for  the  protection  of  apprentices  and  the 
number  of  apprentices  employed? 

Mr.  BBIGGS.  Not  the  number,  but  the  manner  in  which  the  apprenticeship 
shall  be  conducted,  defined  specifically. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Speaking  of  the  number  of  apprentices,  you  say 
that,  in  your  opinion,  somebody  shook  dice  for  it? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  That  is  what  I  have  been  told.  I  did  not  give  that  as  my  opin- 
ion. I  am  quoting  somebody. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Would  you  mind  telling  us  who  that  was? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Mr.  Valentine  told  me  once,  and  Mr.  Keough  told  me  again,  and 
John  Campbell  told  me.  Three  members  of  the  Stove  Founders'  Defense  told 
me  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Has  the  founders'  association,  either  itself  or  in 
conjunction  with  any  other  association,  maintained  and  established  an  employ- 
ment agency  in  a  town  where  all  employees  of  their  factories  must  go  to  seek 
employment  ? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  they  at  any  time? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No,  sir ;  they  never  did. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  spoke  about  the  federation  organizations.  I 
suppose  when  you  mentioned  the  federation  organizations  you  meant  organiza- 
tions that  are  affiliated  to  the  federation  and  not  the  federation  ? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  mean  those  constituent  organizations  which  compose  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor,  which,  I  understand,  amount  to  119. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  spoke  of  the  unlawful  things  that  they  do — if 
they  would  live  within  the  law — and  apparently  conveyed  the  idea  that  they 
are  doing  something  unlawful.  Have  you  any  particular  thing  in  mind  that 
you  class  in  that  category  of  unlawful  things? 

Mr.  BBIGGS.  It  is  an  unlawful  thing  for  a  union  to  come  and  compel  me  to 
discharge  a  man  because  he  has  not  paid  his  dues.  It  is  an  unlawful  thing  for 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  479 

a  man  to  compel  me  to  discharge  an  apprentice  because  I  have  got  more  than 
the  union  ratio. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Where  is  there  any  such  law  as  that? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  am  talking  about  your  American  Federation  of  Labor  that  says 
that.  You  ask — if  I  understand  correctly ;  and  if  not,  I  beg  your  pardon — to 
state  cases  where  they  insisted  upon  things  that  were  unlawful.  My  answer  is 
that  it  is  unlawful  for  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  to  demand  of  me  the 
discharge  of  any  man 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Who  makes  it  unlawful?  Where  is  the  law  that 
says  it  is  unlawful  to  do  such  a  thing? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  The  Federal  Constitution  of  the  United  States  says  so.  It  guar- 
antees to  you  and  to  me  that  we  can  employ  anybody  we  please.  It  has  been 
decided  time  and  time  again,  and,  if  this  commission  would  like  to  have  me  do 
so,  I  shall  be  very  glad  to  furnish  them  with  a  number  of  cases  where  the  ques- 
tion of  the  closed  shop  has  been  decided  to  be  strictly  unlawful.  I  should  be 
glad  to  furnish  you  a  number  of  them,  if  you  would  like  to  have  them. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Understand,  gentlemen,  that  we  are  here  in  the  greatest  spirit 
of  friendship  to  this  commission.  We  have  been  invited  here,  and  we  have 
come  here  in  that  spirit  and  the  records  of  this  association  are  an  open  book 
from  start  to  finish.  Whatever  you  want  is  yours. 

There  is  one  point  here  which  I  want  to  touch  upon — or  two  points — before 
we  adjourn,  if  I  am  not  to  be  permitted  to  testify  hereafter. 

When  I  came  here,  the  invitation  which  was  extended  to  me  stated  that  the 
iron  molders'  union  would  go  on  first,  and  at  the  outset  was  just  a  trifle  discon- 
certed because  I  was  put  on  first.  I  expected  that  I  would  have  an  opportunity, 
probably,  to  confine  myself  more  directly  to  some  of  these  issues.  In  that 
respect  I  apologize,  because  I  have  wabbled  and  wandered  from  subject  to 
subject.  If  I  am  not  unjust  and  unfair  about  the  matter  I  would  like  an 
opportunity  for  our  association  to  be  represented  here  at  some  later  date.  I  do 
not  ask  to  have  that  hearing  immediately  after  the  iron  molders'  union  has  testi- 
fied, or  anything  like  that,  but  I  do  feel  that  this  great,  big  body  of  men — there 
are  some  550  in  this  association,  and  they  employ  at  least  450,000  men,  and  we 
have  30,000  molders  involved,  and  for  every  molder  in  the  country  there  are 
from  12  to  15  men  dependent  upon  getting  that  casting,  machinists,  pattern 
makers,  and  men  of  that  sort,  and  they  employ  at  least  450,000  men — I  do  feel 
that  we  have  had  considerable  valuable  experience,  and  that  we  would  like  to 
dish  it  up  to  you  if  you  would  like  to  hear  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  question  but  what  the 
commission  would  be  glad  to  hear  from  your  association  later,  at  any  time. 
I  think  there  is  no  question  about  that. 

You  were  speaking  about  the  very  small  percentage  of  organized  people,  or 
the  people  represented,  as  against  the  great  mass  of  unorganized  people;  in 
other  words,  the  smallness  of  the  right  of  the  organized  people  to  speak.  I  note 
from  your  own  statement  here  that  there  are,  you  say,  about  550  shops  repre- 
sented in  your  association  out  of  a  possible  6,000.  I  suppose  the  6,000  are 
somewhat  represented  in  the  expression  of  your  association — the  things  you 
speak  for — as  probably  the  nonunion  men  would  be  represented  in  the  same 
way  by  the  union  men.  What  is  the  difference  in  percentage,  to  the  totals,  as 
to  the  right  of  one  to  speak  for  the  other?  Is  there  a  great  discrepancy,  as 
compared  with  the  total  in  your  association,  for  the  number  that  your  associa- 
tion represents,  the  same  as  the  discrepancy  to  which  you  refer  concerning  the 
number  that  the  other  side  represents? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  am  not  entirely  sure  as  to  what  the  other  side  represents.  I 
would  hardly  be  competent  to  answer  that  question  directly.  It  would  be  a 
mere  matter  of  opinion,  you  know. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  want  to  carry  that  question  any  further. 
I  just  wanted  to  bring  it  out  in  the  record.  I  will  look  it  up  later  myself.  You 
said  something  that  interested  me  very  much  when  you  spoke  about  over- 
training your  apprentices.  If  there  is  anything  that  I  take  great  pleasure  in, 
and  have  taken  great  pleasure  in,  during  my  experience  of  many,  many  years,  it 
is  in  looking  out  for  the  apprentice  boys,  to  see  that  they  get  some  protection, 
and  that  the  contracts  provide  for  it.  I  am  intensely  interested  in  the  method 
you  must  have  adopted  to  overtrain  your  apprentices. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Nothing  would  please  me  so  much  in  this  world  as  to  have  the 
attention  of  this  commission  for  about  an  hour  and  a  half  to  detail  that  whole 


480          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

proposition  to  you  and  to  submit  it  to  you.  and  to  submit  to  you  what  I  believe 
to  be  the  ideal  contract.  It  would  give  me  a  great  deal  of  pleasure  to  do  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Following  that  you  said  a  strike  resulted — as  a 
result  of  that  overtraining? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  was  in  1901,  when  the  machinists'  strike 
took  place? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  mean  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  ma- 
chinists' strike  was  the  result  of  overtraining  apprentices? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  That  is  the  only  excuse  they  gave  me  for  striking  in  my  shop. 
I  would  love  to  detail  that,  too,  before  this  commission. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  No ;  it  is  not  necessary  at  this  time. 

That  is  all. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  There  are  two  points  here  that  I  do  want  to  touch  upon  before  you 
adjourn.  I  do  not  want  to  intrude  on  the  commission,  but  I  do  want  to  say  a 
few  words  on  the  question  of  hours. 

There  was  a  time  in  this  country  when  workmen  were  working  long  hours. 
There  is  no  question  about  that;  everybody  admits  that.  There  was  a  time 
when  men  worked  12  hours  and  14  hours  a  day,  and  16  hours  a  day,  and  all 
that  sort  of  thing.  That  was  wrong;  that  was  absolutely  wrong.  But  be  it 
said  to  the  credit  of  the  foundrymen,  whom  I  represent  at  this  time,  that  they 
were  among  the  very  first  to  reduce  the  number  of  hours,  and  I  believe  that 
the  hours  now  are  down  to  a  consistent  point. 

Judged  by  the  conversation  around  this  table  and  the  conversation  which 
you  hear  upon  this  subject,  there  seems  to  be  a  disposition  on  behalf  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  to  recommend,  and,  in  certain  cases,  to  insist 
upon  a  certain  schedule  of  hours  for  all  trades  and  all  industries.  Just  now 
the  number  of  hours  which  we  hear  of  mostly  is  eight  hours. 

My  observation  is,  and  I  think  I  have  had  a  considerable  opportunity  to 
observe  both  sides  of  this  question,  as  I  have  spent  about  half  of  my  life  as 
an  employer  and  about  half  as  an  employee.  I  have  worked  on  both  sides.  It 
has  been  my  business  since  I  was  17  years  old  to  deal  with  labor,  individually 
and  collectively,  all  the  way  from  three  or  four  men  to  very  large  quantities. 
Therefore  I  say  that  I  have  seen  both  sides  of  this  question,  and  I  want  to 
say  this,  that  I  think  it  is  a  great  injustice  for  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  or  any  other  organized  body  to  insist  upon  any  uniform  schedule  of 
hours  as  applying  to  all  trades  and  industries. 

For  example,  examine  any  of  our  big  factories  which  you  and  I  have  had 
to  do  with,  and  you  will  find  quite  a  large  number  of  classes  of  trade.  You 
go  into  the  office  and  you  find  bookkeepers  and  draftsmen,  who  are  working 
in  a  stooped  position  and  working  with  their  eyes  very  intently  all  day.  You 
go  into  the  machine  shop  and  you  find  men  working  at  a  lathe,  all  of  the 
laborious  work  of  which  is  done  by  power.  Even  the  old-fashioned  way  of 
running  a  crane  to  get  a  shaft  into  a  lathe  is  done  away  with  by  pneumatic 
power  and  electric  power. 

That  is  all  done  for  him,  and  it  is  the  best  thing  in  the  world  that  could 
happen.  He  stands  at  his  lathe,  and  he  watches  the  operation  of  that  tool, 
he  sees  that  the  tool  which  the  tool-shop  man  supplies  him  is  properly  adjusted 
and  that  it  is  doing  its  work  properly,  and  that  constitutes  his  day's  work. 

Now,  my  point :  Ten  hours'  work  on  that  machine  is  not  so  enervating,  does 
not  require  so  much  sacrifice  of  energy  and  health  as  eight  hours  in  the  draft- 
ing room.  I  have  taken  those  two  extremes  for  purposes  of  illustration.  I  do 
think  that  there  should  be  a  differentiation  here;  that  it  should  be  considered 
by  classes.  Take  the  cases  of  the  men  in  the  mines,  whom  we  have  been  hear- 
ing about  to-day.  The  man  who  works  in  one  of  those  mines,  improperly  ven- 
tilated, without  sufficient  fresh  air,  without  light,  works  in  a  condition  where 
it  is  infinitely  worse  for  him  to  work  8  hours  than  it  is  for  the  machinist  I 
have  described  to  work  10  hours.  I  do  think  that  there  ought  to  be  a  differ- 
entiation there. 

One  word  more  and  I  am  through. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  What  are  the  hours  at  present  in  the  metal 
trades? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  They  run,  for  the  different  classes,  from  8  to  10  hours. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  What  is  the  average? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  This  is  merely  my  opinion.  It  is  difficult  for  me  to  state  off- 
hand. I  think  there  are  some  Government  statistics  on  this  that  would  be 
very  much  more  reliable  than  any  statement  that  I  might  make. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  481 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  I  thought  perhaps  you  had  the  information  ut 
hand. 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  I  have  not  got  it  at  my  tongue's  end.  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  I 
have  not.  I  think  it  is  around  nine  hours. 

There  is  just  one  more  point,  gentlemen,  that  I  want  to  make  here  before 
I  stop  talking,  and  that  is :  I  want  to  bring  before  this  commission  the  fact 
that  you  are  considering  the  conditions,  the  well-being,  the  uplifting,  if  you 
please,  of  at  least  90  nonunion  men  when  you  are  considering  7  union  men.  I 
think  that  should  be  taken  into  consideration. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  This  commission  is  considering  the  welfare  and  the 
uplifting  of  all  the  people — not  union  or  nonunion  men. 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  Accepted.  And  do  not  forget  that;  do  not  forget  that  respon- 
sibility. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  This  commission  is  not  provided  for  union  or  for 
nonunion  purposes. 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  I  am  glad  to  hear  that  statement ;  I  am  exceeding  glad  to  hear 
that  statement.  I  hope  that  will  prevail. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Did  you  come  .here  with  the  idea  or  the  under- 
standing that  this  commission  was  appointed  on  the  question  of  union  or 
nonunion 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  did  not  come  here  with  that  understanding,  but  the  character 
of  the  discussion  has  been  such,  and  the  discussion  has  gone  to  such  an  extent 
that  I  really  thought  perhaps  that  entered  into  your  deliberations.  However, 
if  I  have  misunderstood,  I  apologize  heartily. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  want  you  to  apologize  to  me,  I  am  sure; 
but  I  think  your  peculiar  way  of  expressing  yourself  has  led  us,  or  at  least  has 
led  me,  to  believe  that  you  were  here  on  the  "  anti "  side  of  the  proposition. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  all,  Mr.  Briggs? 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  It  is  all,  barring  this :  That  I  would  love  to  have  an  opportunity 
to  be  permitted  to  come  before  this  commission  at  some  future  time,  at  your 
convenience,  and  at  any  time  and  place  you  may  name,  provided  our  association 
would  like  to  appear  before  you. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  commission  will  now  adjourn  until  to-morrow 
at  10  o'clock,  when  we  will  hear  Mr.  Valentine. 

(Whereupon  an  adjournment  was  taken  until  to-morrow,  Tuesday,  April  7, 
1914,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Tuesday,  April  7,  1914. 

The  commission  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.  in  the  assembly  room  of  the  Shoreham 
Hotel. 

Present:  Commissioners  John  R.  Commons  (acting  chairman),  Mrs.  J.  Borden 
Harriman,  Frederick  A.  Delano,  Harris  Weinstock,  S.  Thruston  Ballard,  John 
B.  Lennon,  and  James  O'Connell. 

Present  also  for  the  commission :  Mr.  W.  O.  Thompson,  counsel ;  Mr.  W.  Jett 
Lauck,  managing  expert ;  Mr.  George  E.  Barnett,  special  investigator ;  Mr. 
B.  M.  Manly,  superintendent  Division  of  Industrial  Investigations;  and  Mr. 
F.  H.  Bird,  superintendent  Division  of  Public  Agencies. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Barnett  will  conduct  the  interviewing  this  morn- 
ing. Whom  will  you  call  for  your  first  witness,  Mr.  Barnett? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  will  call  Mr.  Valentine. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JOSEPH  F.  VALENTINE. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Mr.  Valentine,  will  you  state  your  name,  address,  and  position? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Joseph  F.  Valentine ;  president  International  Molders'  Union ; 
Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  long  have  you  been  president  of  the  molders'  union? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Since  1904,  I  think ;  vice  president  since  1890. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  you  have  been  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  New  York 
agreement  of  1899? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Very  well. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  were  at  that  time  an  official  of  the  International  Molders' 
Union? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  was  first  vice  president  at  that  time. 

38819°— 16 31 


482          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Will  you  tell  the  commission,  Mr.  Valentine,  the  essential 
difference  in  the  character  of  the  agreement  with  the  National  Founders'  Asso- 
ciation, and  the  agreement  with  the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Asso- 
ciation? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  You  want  to  know  the  essential  difference? 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  In  the  form  of  the  agreement ;  yes. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  In  the  agreement  which  we  have  with  the  Stove  Founders' 
National  Defense  Association  we  adopted  different  tactics  entirely  in  approach- 
ing the  questions  which  have  caused  a  disagreement  between  the  representatives 
of  the  National  Founders'  Association  and  the  Iron  Molders'  International 
Union. 

In  1890  there  were  representatives  of  the  stove  manufacturers  and  representa- 
tives of  the  niolders'  union  got  together  for  the  purpose  of  formulating  an  agree- 
ment. A  discussion  on  the  various  matters  affecting  the  interests  of  each  was 
had ;  I  suppose  there  were  three  or  four  days  occupied  in  that  way.  At  tlmt 
conference  we  adopted  that  agreement,  or  an  agreement  which  we  call  a  con- 
ference agreement,  under  which  it  was  provided  that  in  case  of  dispute  in  a 
shop  we  would  approach  each  other  with  a  view  of  conciliating  the  differences 
between  us ;  and  with  that,  we  adjourned  for  that  year. 

The  next  year  we  met  again,  and  during  the  interim  both  sides,  of  course,  had 
had  something  to  say.  The  next  year  we  approached  questions  that  had  arisen 
during  that  year,  and  we  then  made  another  conference  agreement  covering 
the  different  points  that  had  arisen. 

We  have  met  continuously ;  I  think  I  am  safe  in  saying  wre  have  held  about 
20  meetings  in  the  24  years  we  have  had  an  agreement  with  that  association. 
There  have  been  differences  of  opinion,  but  both  sides  have,  in  adjourning  the 
conferences,  agreed  to  take  the  matters  under  consideration,  and  the  following 
year  we  usually  got  to  an  agrement  on  some  of  the  points.  In  some  instances, 
of  course,  we  did  not  accomplish  that.  But,  to  show  the  policy  of  the  two 
associations  in  approaching  these  questions,  we  have  gotten  along  for  24  years 
under  that  agreement  without  a  strike  in  a  stove  shop. 

There  have  been  as  great  differences  between  us  as  there  would  be  between 
the  National  Founders'  Association  and  the  representatives  of  the  molders' 
union.  The  only  trouble  with  the  National  Founders'  Association  is  that  they 
had  a  sort  of  "  outline  of  policy  "  that  they  wanted  to  cram  down  everybody's 
throat  forthwith,  without  any  discussion  whatever.  That  is  the  difference  be- 
tween the  two.  I  have  a  list  here  of  conference  agreements  that  have  been 
adoped  from  time  to  time  between  the  representatives  of  the  Stove  Founders' 
National  Defense  Association  and  the  molders'  union.  They  are  here,  and  can 
be  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  We  would  be  glad  to  have  that. 

(The  list  of  conference  agreements  referred  to  by  the  witness  was  filed  with 
the  commission  by  Mr.  Valentine,  marked  "Valentine  Exhibit  No.  1.") 

(Valentine  Exhibit  No.  1,  "Conference  Agreements  in  force  and  ruling  be- 
tween the  International  Molders'  Union  of  N.  A.,  and  The  Stove  Founders' 
N.  D.  A.,  January  1,  1913,"  was  submitted  in  printed  form. ) 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  is  the  name  of  that  defense  association 
which  you  mentioned? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Association. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  does  that  cover? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  covers  the  stove  and  heater  industry  exclusively. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  is  the  other  association? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  National  Founders'  Association. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  a  different  association? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  A  different  association  entirely. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  the  original  agreement  with  the  National  Founders'  Asso- 
ciation identical  with  that  of  the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Associa- 
tion? Was  it  identical,  or  substantially  so? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes.  I  might  say  substantially  so.  That  is  the  old  agree- 
ment. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  The  New  York  agreement  was  in  1890,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No;  1899. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  mean  the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Association 
agreement. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  1890,  yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  there  any  substantial  change  made  in  the  agreement  in 
1891  with  reference  to  the  settling  of  wage  rates? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  483 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No ;  just  simply  the  question  of 

Mr.  BARNETT  (interposing).  Suppose  I  put  it  this  way:  At  the  present  time 
how  are  wage  rates  fixed  between  the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Asso- 
ciation and  the  molders'  union? 

Mr.  VALENTHSTE.  It  is  almost  piecework  under  the  Stove  Founders'  National 
Defense  Association  agreement,  and  we  have  what  is  known  as  a  board  price; 
that  is,  the  base  price.  From  year  to  year  we  discuss  the  advisability  of  add- 
ing percentages  to  that  base  rate,  or  taking  from  it,  in  the  shape  of  a  10  per 
cent  advance  or  a  5  per  cent  advance,  or  vice  versa. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  So  every  piece  rate  in  the  United  States  in  the  union  stove 
shops  is  fixed  practically  at  the  annual  conference? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  percentages  are  fixed. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  The  percentage  is  fixed  ? 

Mr.  VALNETINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  Was  any  such  arrangement  for  the  fixing  of  the  national  rate 
made  with  the  founders'  association? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No;  not  at  that- time.  The  New  York  agreement  was 
patterned  much  after  the  agreement  with  the  stove  men,  and  it  was  thought 
the  we  could  eventually  reach  the  same  decision  as  we  had  with  the  defense 
people. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  That  is,  as  to  the  national  rate? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  And  you  reached  that  with  the  derense  people  in  1891? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  did  not  reach  it  in  that  way.  The  first  percentage  that 
we  asked  for  was  in  1898.  We  went  along  with  the  question  of  taking  up 
grievances  that  arose  in  the  shop,  and  then  in  1898  we  succeeded  in  getting  an 
advance  of  10  per  cent,  and  it  applied  all  over  the  country  to  all  members  of 
the  association,  and  the  independent  manufacturers  granted  the  same  rate, 
too.  Since  that  time  we  have  obtained  an  additional  20  per  cent  advance,  or  25 
per  cent,  I  believe  it  is. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  The  conference  had  power,  from  1891  on,  to  make  such  an  ad- 
vance, did  it  not?  This  annual  conference,  from  1891  on,  had  power  to  fix 
the  national  rate  of  wage? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  There  is  a  conference  committee.  Both  sides  are  represented 
by  six  men,  or  five  men,  as  the  case  may  be,  and  that  total  number  of  men 
comprising  that  committee  have  the  right  to  fix  rates  of  wTages  for  the  country. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Are  those  rates  substantially  identical  throughout  the  United 
States,  or*do  they  differ  in  different  parts  of  the  country? 

Mr,  VALENTINE.  They  are  practically  identical ;  that  is,  they  may  differ  in 
percentages,  but  the  base  rate,  when  that  is  taken  into  consideration,  is  the 
same.  For  instance,  in  the  stove  shops  of  Detroit  we  have  what  might  be 
termed  an  even  dollar.  That  is  the  base  rate.  The  percentage  in  summer, 
in  Detroit,  is  this :  If  a  man  ears  a  dollar,  he  gets  a  70-cent  bonus.  In  Cleve- 
land or  in  Cincinnati,  we  have  the  dollar  base  rate,  but  the  man  only  get  a 
35-cent  bonus.  The  reason  for  that  is  that  the  base  rate  is  lo\ver  in  one  place 
than  in  another. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  But  the  real  rate  of  wages  is  the  same? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Just  about  the  same. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  there  any  difference  between  the  Pacific-coast  rate  and  that 
in  the  East? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Not  any  in  the  rate.  We  have  the  35  per  cent,  and  they  are 
just  about  the  same  as  we  have  through  the  East. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  But  is  that  a  basic  rate?  Was  that  equalized  with  the  basic 
rate?  Is  that  practically  equal  with  the  basic  rate  in  the  East? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Just  about  the  same. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So,  that  there  is,  through  the  United  States  as  a  whole,  a  sub- 
stantially identical  rate  for  stove  molders? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  About  so;  yes. 

Mr.  BARNKTT.  And  that  kind  of  an  arrangement  was  never  worked  out  with 
the  National  Founders'  Association? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  there  any  attempt  to  work  out  a  national  rate — any 
discussion  of  it? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes ;  it  has  been  discussed  time  and  again,  but  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  National  Founders'  Association  take  a  positive  position  on 
some  questions  which  are  involved;  for  instance,  the  making  of  castings  by 
machines.  The  association's  position  on  that  question  was  this:  That  the  ina- 


484          REPOKT    OF    COMMISSION    ON!  RftmSfHML   RELATIONS. 

chine  was  the  product  of  the  machine  shop,  and  they  would  not  discuss  with  the 
representatives  of  the  molders'  union  any  price  on  those  castings.  They  wanted 
to  be  free  to  operate  the  machines  with  whomsoever  they  pleased.  With  the 
other  association  that  is  one  of  the  points  of  contention,  and  we  have  happily 
settled  the  question  and  priced  the  work  on  the  machines. 

Another  point  involved  was  the  apprentice  question.  The  National  Found- 
ers' Association's  position  on  that  question  is  that  they  have  the  right,  should 
have  the  right,  to  employ  as  many  apprentices  as  they  see  fit.  With  the  other 
association  the  question  was  under  discussion  for  a  number  of  years.  It  might 
have  been  5  or  6  or  7  or  10  years,  probably ;  and  after  10  years'  discussion  on 
the  part  of  both,  we  have  succeeded  in  agreeing  to  a  ratio  of  1  for  the  shop 
and  1  for  every  5  journeymen  employed  thereafter ;  and  we  make  mechanics 
out  of  the  boys.  With  the  other  associations  they  want  to  employ  whomsoever 
they  please,  and  they  employ  the  stoutest  kind  of  a  man,  and  in  many  instances 
he  can  not  say  yes  or  no  in  English ;  and  they  use  him  as  a  machine ;  they  do 
not  teach  him  the  trade  at  all,  but  just  make  him  a  little  better  than  the 
ordinary  laborer.  That  is  our  difference. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  Do  you  think  that  there  would  be  a  technical  difficulty  in 
settling  a  national  rate  of  wages  for  the  National  Pounders'  Association? 
You  have  discussed  this  in  many  of  your  conferences,  as  to  the  possibility  of 
settling  it? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  There  would,  at  this  time. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  I  mean,  would  there  have  been  at  the  outset,  when  these 
conferences  were  held?  What  was  the  particular  reason  which  prevented  it 
being  fixed — a  national  wage? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  For  the  reason  that  I  have  just  explained ;  there  were  a 
good  many  points  involved  that  the  association  felt  they  could  not  discuss 
with  us  at  all.  The  outline  of  policy  shows  it.  , 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  did  not  mean  with  reference  to  the  apprentices,  but  I  mean 
simply  with  reference  to  the  rate  of  wages. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Well,  their  refusal  to  recognize  the  right  of  the  molders  to 
establish  a  minimum  rate;  that  is  one  point. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  Will  you  explain  what  that  point  was?  What  is  the  policy 
of  the  molders'  union  with  reference  to  a  minimum  rate? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  established  the  minimum,  and  we  think  that  minimum 
ought  to  be  from  1  cent  up.  There  must  be  a  minimum.  The  principle  of  the 
minimum  we  believe  in.  The  other  side  do  not. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  Did  they  offer  any  substitute  for  the  minimum  rate? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  So,  then,  you  regard  the  breaking  down  of  that  agreement 
with  the  National  Molders'  Association  as  primarily  due  to  the  differences  of 
opinion  on  the  question  of  apprentices  and  the  question  of  the  operation  of 
machines,  and  not  to  the  form  of  the  agreement? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Well,  I  consider  the  question  from  this  point :  I  do  not  know 
that  that  was  the  trouble.  What  really  caused  the  abrogation  of  the  New 
York  agreement — we  have  never  been  advised  as  to  why  they  abrogated  the 
agreement — all  we  know  is  this,  that  we  received  word  that  the  agreement  had 
been  abrogated.  We  have  not  been  asked  for  any  conference  to  consider  the 
question  of  abrogating  the  New  York  agreement.  The  convention  of  the  asso- 
ciation simply  abrogated  it,  and  notified  us  to  that  effect.  That  was  after  a 
difference  of  opinion  that  arose  in  Utica,  N.  Y. 

Our  contention  is  that  the  New  York  agreement  provides  that  neither  side 
shall  attempt  to  put  into  effect  its  desires  or  demands  until  a  conference  has 
been  called  to  consider  these  desires  or  the  demands. 

In  this  instance  the  employers  in  Utica  asked  for  a  reduction  of  15  per  cent 
in  molding  prices.  We  refused  to  grant  it.  Then  we  felt  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  members  of  this  association  to  appeal  to  their  association  and  ask  for  a 
conference  to  discuss  the  matter;  and,  in  the  meantime,  the  question  would 
remain  in  statu  quo.  The  conference  would  determine  as  to  whether  there 
should  be  a  reduction  or  not.  The  opinion  of  the  association  was  this,  as  I 
understand  it — that  instead  of  doing  that,  so  the  employers  tell  us  in  Utica, 
that  they  were  advised  to  put  the  reduction  into  effect  forthwith,  and  then  it 
would  be  our  grievance.  They  did  so,  and  our  men  left  their  shop  because 
they  did  that. 

The  question  was  taken  up  time  and  again  with  a  view  of  trying  to  reach 
an  agreement,  but  we  felt  that  our  position  was  right,  that  they  would  have 
to  reinstate  the  men  in  their  former  positions  and  give  them  the  same  wages 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS  IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  485 

until  this  conference  was  held,  for  the  reason  that  had  we  agreed  to  that 
change  in  the  New  York  agreement  it  would  have  been  injurious  to  both  sides. 
Our  men  may  have  demanded  an  advance  of  a  dollar  a  day  or  two  dollars  a  day, 
and  if  the  policy  was  a  good  one  all  our  men  would  have  to  do  would  be  to  say, 
"  We  want  $2  a  day  advance,"  and  the  foundry  men  would  have  to  concede  it 
pending  the  conference.  We  felt  that  that  was  a  wrong  position.  If  our 
men  made  a -demand,  then  the  conference  would  determine  whether  they  would 
be  entitled  to  that  advance  or  not.  That,  in  itself,  has  really  caused  the  part- 
ing of  the  ways  between  the  two  associations.  That  is  the  main  point. 

Subsequently,  while  the  strike  was  on,  we  had  the  question  in  conference  as 
to  whose  position  was  correct,  and  the  officers  of  the  association  agreed  with 
the  officers  of  the  molders'  union  that  the  position  of  the  molders'  union  was 
correct;  and  that  is  in  writing. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  the  difference  between  the  National  Founders'  As- 
sociation and  the  molders'  union  with  reference  to  the  machines? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Our  position  is  that  if  any  improvement  is  brought  into  the 
shop  to  make  castings,  we  recognize  it  and  we  want  to  improve  upon  the  im- 
provement if  we  can.  We  want  our  men  to  operate  these  molding  machines 
under  a  day's  rate,  or  a  piece  rate,  whatever  it  might  be.  The  position  of  the 
association  is,  as  I  stated  before,  that  it  is  the  product  of  the  machine  shop 
and  we  have  no  right  to  discuss  it  with  them.  It  simplifies  and  takes  away 
some  of  the  skill,  and  it  may  deprive  a  number  of  our  men  of  employment; 
but  they  would  not  discuss  that  with  us  at  all. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  a  national  rule,  a  molders'  union  rule,  with  reference 
to  the  introduction  of  molding  machines? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Only  except  this,  sir.  We  say,  "This  piece,  the  price  of  it 
is  10  cents,  made  under  a  certain  condition."  A  machine  is  brought  in  to  make 
that  with,  and  we  say  to  the  employer,  "  That  is  10  cents,  the  base  price  is 
that."  "  That  machine  enables  the  molders  to  make  two  where  they  formerly 
made  one."  Our  position,  then,  is  that  it  is  5  cents ;  that  is  our  position,  that 
it  is  only  worth  5  cents ;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  would  mean,  then,  that  the  day  rate  or  the  remuneration 
for  the  molders  should  be  maintained  on  the  machine? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes;  if  we  made  100  by  hand  and  200  by  machine  I  think 
we  ought  to  get  the  same  rate  that  we  get  by  hand,  because  the  employer  gets 
a  great  big  output. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  the  constitution  of  the  molders'  union  with  you? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Can  you  read  that  clause  to  us? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  don't  believe  I  have  one  with  me. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Will  you  file  a  marked  copy  with  us? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  agreement  have  you  reached  with  the  Stove  Founders' 
National  Defense  Association?  You  spoke  of  reaching  an  agreement  with  them 
as  to  the  introduction  of  molding  machines.  What  is  the  substance  of  that 
agreement  ? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  have  not  really  reached  a  definite  agreement  with  the 
association,  but  at  our  last  meeting  at  Atlantic  City  last  December  we  dis- 
cussed the  question.  I  think  we  had  discussed  it  for  at  least  10  years,  and 
we  have  not  reached  any  agreement.  At  the  Atlantic  City  meeting  we  came 
very  near  to  an  agreement,  so  much  so  that  both  sides,  both  conferees,  said  this : 
"  You  think  the  molders  can  do  this  and  that ;  appoint  a  committee  of  molders 
and  let  them  go  into  our  shops  and  see  what  you  mean  by  your  promises,  etc., 
and  then  we  will  consider  it." 

Recently,  within  the  last  two  weeks,  we  have  reached  an  agreement  with  the 
stove  foundry  men  of  Taunton,  Mass.,  covering  probably  a  thousand  pieces  on 
the  molding  machine.  We  have  gone  into  it,  and  we  have  succeeded  in  12 
shops  in  settling  that  question,  and  the  next  time  we  meet  the  representatives 
of  the  defense  association,  as  we  call  it,  we  will  come  to  an  agreement,  and  it 
has  taken  us  10  years  to  do  it. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  the  meantime  how  have  these  machines,  the  operation  of 
these  machines  been  regulated,  under  what  rules?  -Have  the  stove  molders  been 
using  machines  during  those  10  years? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes ;  the  journeymen  or  the  apprentices  have  been  using 
them. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  No  handy  men  have  been  put  on  the  machines  in  the  stove- 
foundry  shops,  on  the  stove-molding  machines? 


486          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Does  the  association  desire  to  employ  handy  men? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No ;  we  have  an  agreement  with  the  association  that  journey- 
men molders  and  apprentices  shall  be  employed  on  the  machines. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  is  the  character  of  the  change  that  the  defense  associa- 
tion desires  in  the  rules  with  reference  to  machines?  You  say  the  matter  has 
been  under  discussion  for  10  years;  what  kind  of  an  agreement  does  this 
association  desire? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  question  is  as  to  output;  that  is  all  that  is  involved. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  As  to  output? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Output ;  that  is  all  there  is  to  it. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  What  is  the  contention  of  the  association  with  reference  to  the 
output  of  the  machines  at  the  present  time? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Well,  naturally  the  owner  of  the  shop  feels  that  the  skilled 
man  will  not  do  justice  to  it,  that  a  man  less  skilled,  who  has  never  had  the 
experience  or  any  opportunity  to  use  skill,  will  do  a  greater  output  than  the 
other  man.  That  is  the  point  of  difference,  but  we  have  happily  got  over  that. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  do  they  propose  to  remedy  that  in  that  agreement? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Well,  we  have  not  reached  the  point  yet  where  we  can  have 
an  agreement  on  it,  only  locally.  We  just  took,  as  I  stated  before,  the  basis, 
this  piece  being  10  cents,  and  we  find  that  a  man  by  the  use  of  this  machine 
could  double  the  output;  we  have  simply  cut  the  piece  price  down  one-half. 
Now,  I  want  to  say  this  for  your  benefit. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Yes. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Machines  in  a  foundry  are  not  like  machines  in  a  machine 
shop.  As  a  rule,  machines  in  a  foundry  add  to  the  burden  of  a  man;  it  does 
not  relieve  him  of  hard  work  at  all  but  it  adds  to  his  work.  It  eliminates  some 
of  the  skill  but  it  adds  to  his  labor.  Ordinarily  he  may  have  100  shovels  of 
sand  to  shovel  in  the  mold,  and  he  may  have  to  shovel  in  200  shovels  of  sand 
into  a  machine  mold.  It  adds  to  his  burden,  it  does  not  relieve  him  of  any  of 
the  hard  work  at  all. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  there  any  difficulty  in  getting  molders  to  go  on  the  machines? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  There  has  been,  and  I  think  there  are  some  molders  now 
who  hesitate  to  go  onto  molding  machines  if  they  can  get  other  employment. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  the  agreement  with  the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense 
Association  let  us  assume — as  has  been  the  case,  I  assume,  in  the  history  of 
the  agreement — that  there  is  a  national  rule  of  the  union  relating  to  condi- 
tions of  employment,  as,  for  example,  an  apprenticeship  rule,  and  I  suppose 
no  agreement  has  been  reached  in  the  conference.  Under  those  circumstancs, 
what  rule  is  applied  in  the  shops  of  the  members?  Is  the  rule  of  the  national 
union  enforced? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes ;  it  was  enforced  in  many  instances. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Let  me  put  it  more  concretely :  Suppose  at  this  convention  of 
the  molders'  union  the  shop  rule — that  is,  the  rule  regulating  the  use  of  mold- 
ing machines — should  be  passed  by  the  convention  and  should  go  through  to  the 
referendum,  would  that  rule  be  enforced  upon  the  members  of  the  defense  as- 
sociation in  advance  of  its  acceptance  by  the  conference? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  consider  that  an  agreement  reached  with  the  Stove 
Founders'  National  Defense  Association  is  above  any  decision  that  we  might 
reach  in  the  convention. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Above  any  rule  reached  in  the  convention? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes ;  in  fact  our  constitution  says  that  the  conference  agree- 
ment takes  precedence. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  When  was  that  clause  put  into  the  constitution? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Years  ago. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  At  the  beginning  of  the  conference? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No ;  perhaps  in  1895 — somewhere  along  there  or  a  few  years 
afterwards. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Suppose  the  matter  is  one  that  has  never  been  settled  in 
conference  agreement — about  which  there  is  no  clause  in  the  conference  agree- 
ments— then  the  rule  of  the  national  union  would  not  apply? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  It  would  not? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  the  difficulty  between  the  defense  association  and 
the  molders  with  reference  to  apprenticeships?  You  say  there  was  a  long  dis- 
cussion. 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  'IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  487 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  guess  10  years  or  more. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  was  that  worked  out ;  what  was  the  rule  of  the  national 
union?  Suppose  we  start  out  that  way. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  In  some  places  we  had  an  apprentice  ratio  of  1  for  the  shop 
and  1  for  every  8  journeymen  employed,  and  in  other  shops  there  was  only  1 
apprentice  to  every  2  journeymen  employed  or  maybe  3.  We  saw  that  con- 
dition, and  we  concluded  that  we  ought  to  have  some  agreement  upon  it,  so  that 
we  would  have  it  uniform ;  but  it  took  us  10  or  12  years  to  agree  upon  a 
ratio  of  1  for  the  shop  and  1  for  every  5  journeymen.  We  submitted  it  to 
our  membership,  and  the  membership  did  not  take  kindly  to  it  the  first  time, 
the  second  time,  or,  perhaps,  the  third  time,  but  after  a  while  they  gave  in; 
they  agreed  to  it,  and  it  is  now  one  of  the  conference  agreements  that  can  not 
be  changed.  None  of  these  conference  agreements  can  be  changed  except  by 
and  with  the  consent  of  both  parties  to  the  agreement. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  the  conference  agreement  is  the  constitution? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Of  the  trade? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  While  this  apprenticeship  agreement  was  under  consideration, 
I  understand  you,  there  was  no  national  rule  at  that  time? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  There  was  no  rule  of  the  national  union? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Now,  during  this  period,  were  these  local  apprenticeship  rules 
in  force  in  the  shops  of  the  stove  founders? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  the  local  rule,  then,  would  be  enforced  if  there  is  no 
conference  agreement  on  that  point? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No,  sir — that  is,  you  mean  to  say  that  the  local  unions 
make  some  changes  in  the  rules? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  No ;  I  mean  a  point  on  wliich  there  is  no  clause  in  the  con- 
ference agreement.  At  that  time  there  was  no  clause  in  the  conference  agree- 
ment relating  to  apprenticeships — the  ratio  had  not  been  fixed  by  the  confer- 
ence? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  As  I  understand  you,  a  local  .union  as,  for  example,  the  New 
York  Molders'  Union,  if  it  had  apprenticeship  ratio,  that  ratio  was  in  force 
in  the  shops  of  the  stove  founders — is  that  right? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes ;  up  to  the  time  of  the  agreement. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  if — at  the  present  time — a  local  union  had  made  a  shop 
rule  of  any  kind  that  would  be  enforced  on  the  stove  founders  if  there  was  no 
clause  in  the  conference  agreement  regulating  that  matter? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  quite  grasp  that. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  you  ever  have  any  trouble  with  the  local  union  rules  on 
this  agreement? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  A  local  union,  it  may  desire  to  make  some  changes  in  the 
conditions  in  the  shop,  and  so  forth.  It  makes  this  demand,  we  will  say;  then 
it  comes  up  to  the  national  union,  and  the  national  union  simply  gives  a  de- 
cision that  this  matter  shall  rest  until  the  next  conference,  and  when  the  next 
conference  takes  place  between  the  two  associations,  then  we  thrash  that  out 
and  come  to  an  agreement  upon  it. 

Of  course  there  may  be  differences  arise  between  the  molders  as  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  some  of  the  conference  agreements,  and  that  being  so,  there  is  a  rep- 
resentative of  the  two  associations  that  visits  the  locality  where  the  disagree- 
ment exists  and  takes  them  up  for  adjustment,  and  those  two  officers  have  the 
authority  to  adjust  it. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  there  any  appeal  from  their  decision? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Except  what  is  known  as  the  conference  committee,  consist- 
ing of  three  manufactures  and  three  representatives  of  the  union ;  we  have 
never  had  to  appeal  to  that  court  but  once,  and  when  we  did  appeal  the  con- 
ference agreed  that  the  employer  was  wrong. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  any  provision  for  arbitration  in  case  the  conference 
committee  can  not  reach  an  agreement? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No ;  we  have  simply  an  even  number,  conciliation. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  you  find  that  to  work  satisfactorily? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Very. 


488          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX   INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  provide  any  such  agreement 
for  arbitration,  as  Mr.  Mitchell  thinks — did  you  hear  Mr.  Mitchell's  testimony? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes.  I  will  say  in  addition  to  that  that  I  'do  not  believe  that 
a  doctor  or  a  lawyer  or  somebody  else  could  settle  our  troubles  in  this  foundry. 
It  usually  arises  that  there  is  a  little  difference  in  this  pattern  from  the  other. 
We  know  the  two  representatives  of  the  association  can  agree  upon  that.  They 
may  not  agree  this  year,  but  they  will  next.  If  there  is  a  difference  in  the 
piece,  there  may  be  a  difference  in  price.  We  have  this  piece,  10  cents.  A  new 
pattern  comes  in,  and  we  take  this  as  a  basis  and  put  a  price  on  that;  there 
may  be  a  difference  of  2  cents.  After  we  get  into  conference  and  reach  a  de- 
cision, if  the  molder  wins  the  decision  the  employer  gives  him  the  money  on 
his  next  pay  day.  If  we  lose  out,  we  have  to  pay  it  to  the  other  fellow;  the 
molder  never  loses  anything;  he  works  right  along. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  How  does  that  start  at  the  bottom  in  any  factory?  Suppose 
a  new  stove  comes  in,  who  makes  the  first  prices? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  committee  in  our  shop  and  the  foreman  of  the  shop. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  if  they  disagree? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Then  it  is  referred  to  the  two  associations. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  Mr.  Hogan  and  Mr.  Kehoe? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Some  of  us ;  there  are  six  or  seven  of  us. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  much  time  does  that  take,  Mr.  Valentine? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  don't  know ;  I  have  known  some  instances  where  it  took 
three  or  four  months  to  settle  the  price. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  No ;  I  mean  the  number  of  cases  going  up  to  the  secretary  of 
the  defense  association? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  could  not  say  just  how  many. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Does  it  take  a  great  deal  of  time? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  In  some  cases  it  does  not  take  a  great  deal  of  trouble  and 
does  not  take  much  time ;  it  depends  upon  the  employer  and  the  molder.  When 
you  get  two  men  together  and  both  of  them  very  pugnacious,  and  they  do  not 
agree  regularly,  we  have  to  give  them  time  to  cool  off,  and  eventually  they 
cool  off  and  we  get  down  to  facts.  We  have  not  had  any  strikes  in  the  shops 
in  24  years,  so  it  shows  that  everything  has  been  handled  pretty  well. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  reference  to  the  attitude  of  the  molders'  union  and  the  Na- 
tional Founders'  Defense  Association  since  1904 — since  the  break  in  1904 — what 
part  of  the  shops  in  the  National  Founders'  Defense  Association  were  union 
shops- — open  or  union  members? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  could  not  say. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Has  the  molders'  union  had  much  trouble  in  shops  of  the  Na- 
tional Founders'  Defense  Association  since  1904? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  In  some;  yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  some? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes;  we  to-day  have  verbal  understandings  or  agreements 
with  some  of  the  members  of  the  association  employing  the  largest  number  of 
molders.  We  go  along  on  the  even  tenor  of  our  \vay  and  meet  the  foundry  man 
and  he  sits  down  and  talks  to  us.  We  never  ask  the  question,  "  Are  you  a  mem- 
ber of  the  association  or  not?"  We  never  ask  that  question. 

And  I  might  say  right  here,  for  the  benefit  of  the  record,  at  least,  that  in  all 
of  our  negotiations  with  the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Association  the 
question  of  the  union  has  never  been  mentioned ;  there  is  nothing  in  the  agree- 
ment that  it  shall  be  an  open  shop  or  a  union  shop,  and  we  have  ninety-odd  per 
cent  of  the  stove  molders  of  this  union  organized,  and  the  word  "  union  "  has 
never  arisen  between  us  at  all. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  what  part  of  the  shops  of  the  Stove 
Founders'  National  Defense  Association  are  thoroughly  organized? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Well,  of  course  they  are  very  nearly  all  organized ;  there  may 
be  one  or  two  that  are  not,  but  that  is  due  to  local  conditions. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Are  there  some  nonunion  men  working  in  all  of  these  shops? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  Some  of  the  unions  enforce  the  closed  shop? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  know  what  you  mean  by  that. 

Mr,  BARNETT.  I  mean  they  will  not  work  with  men  who  do  not  belong  to  iho 
union. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  do  not  recognize  a  closed  shop.  We  refer  to  a  union  shop 
or  a  nonunion  shop. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  do  you  mean  by  a  union  shop  ? 


TRADE   AG&&EMENT &•  *1N   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  489 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  As  I  understand  it,  when  the  union  secures  a  benefit  for  the 
molders  who  work  in  that  shop  we  feel  that  the  men  working  in  that  shop  ought 
to  contribute  to  the  support  of  the  organization.  We  never  ask  for  the  discharge 
of  a  man,  but  we  might  say  we  will  not  work  with  him ;  that  is  our  right. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  That  is  what  the  National  Founders'  Defense  Association  would 
call  a  closed  shop? 

•  Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  suppose  so,  but  I  do  not  know  what  is  meant  by  a  closed 
shop.  I  never  object  to  a  man  coming  into  our  union  who  is  competent  and  who 
wants  to  join  with  us.  We  have  never  blackballed  anybody.  We  give  them  all 
a  chance  to  live,  but  we  feel  that  when  we  get  a  wage  rate  advanced  that  a  man 
wrho  works  there  with  us  should  help  to  support  the  union  that  gets  it  for  him. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  shops  in  a  particular 
locality  shall  be  open  shops  a  question  decided  by  the  local  union?  Is  that  in  the 
hands  of  the  local  union?  Can  a  local  union  waive  that  rule,  or  is  that  a  rule 
that  holds  in  the  union? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Our  local  union  can  enforce  a  strike,  or  call  a  strike,  without 
the  consent  of  the  national  union — the  executive  board  of  the  national  union. 
We  have  no  independent  strikes.  Oh,  we  might  for  a  week  or  two  or  three  days, 
and  perhaps  we  have  had  men  go  out  in  the  defense  association  for  two  or  three 
days,  but  when  we  tell  them  to  go  back  to  work  they  go  back  to  work. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  So  that  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  there  could  be  a 
strike  for  a  union  shop  would  be  a  question  which  would  have  to  come  up  to 
the  national  executive  board? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  there  are  some  localities  in  which  such  strikes  would  be 
authorized  and  others  in  which  they  would  not,  according  to  local  conditions? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  would  depend  entirely  upon  the  position  taken  by  the 
executive  board. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  That  finishes  my  examination,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  You  were  present  yesterday,  Mr.  Valentine,  when 
Mr.  Briggs  testified  here? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  I  have  jotted  down  here  quite  a  number  of  state- 
ments made  by  Mr.  Briggs,  and  I  am  sure  that  the  other  commissioners,  in  com- 
mon with  myself,  would  like  to  get  your  point  of  view  on  those  statements,  if 
you  care  to  make  answer. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Well,  there  are  one  or  two  that  I  think  I  would  like  to  say 
something  about,  because  I  think  Mr.  Briggs  has  made  a  mistake  in  one  or  two 
of  them.  I  think  so.  Perhaps  he  is  not  as  well  posted  as  I  was  on  them,  and 
I  would  like  to  make  a  correction  of  one  or  two;  and  I  think  Mr.  Briggs  will 
agree  writh  me. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  I  mistake  not,  your  document  here  reads  as 
follows.  This  is  a  printed  copy  of  the  conference  agreement  in  force  and  ruling 
between  the  International  Molders'  Union  and  the  Stove  Founders'  National 
Defense  Association.  That  is  not  the  association  that  Mr.  Briggs  represents? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  the  one  that  you  work  with? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  the  one  that  I  work  with. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Among  other  things,  I  see  that  clause  1  reads  as 
follows : 

"Resolved,  That  this  meeting  adopt  the  principle  of  arbitration  in  the  settle- 
ment of  any  dispute  between  the  members  of  the  I.  M.  U.  of  N.  A.  and  the  mem- 
bers of  the  S.  F.  N.  D.  A." 

I  gather  from  this,  then,  Mr.  Valentine,  that  your  union  stands  for  arbitra- 
tion. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  In  a  sense,  yes ;  we  do — conciliation.  We  have  never  had  any 
experience  with  arbitration. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK..  WTill  you  be  good  enough,  then,  to  explain,  for  the 
information  of  the  commission,  in  how  far  you  stand  for  arbitration? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Well,  it  is  a  question  of  the  umpire.  As  I  said  before,  I  do 
not  believe  that  a  doctor  or  a  lawyer,  or  anybody  else,  could  settle  our  aches. 
It  might  be  in  a  case  where  a  lot  of  laborers  or  unskilled  men  got  together  and 
asked  for  an  increase  of  wages  of  5  or  10  per  cent,  and  conditions  warranted, 
and  so  forth,  that  they  might  settle  it ;  but  they  could  not  settle  anything  in  our 
shops,  because  they  do  not  know  anything  about  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  what  does  that  mean,  that  this  meeting 
wlopts  the  principle  of  arbitration  in  the  settlement  of  any  disputes  between 
the  members? 


490          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON"    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  A  little  further  on  you  will  see  a  statement  about  concilia- 
tion. I  suppose  the  man  who  wrote  that  had  that  in  mind — arbitration  without 
the  umpire. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK  (reading)  :  "  That  a  conference  committee  be 
formed,  consisting  of  12  members,  6  of  whom  shall  be  iron  molders  appointed 
by  the  International  Molders'  Union  of  North  America  and  6  members  ap- 
pointed by  the  S.  F.  N.  D.  A.,  to  hold  office  from  January  1  to  December  31  of 
each  year. 

"  Clause  3.  Whenever  there  is  a  dispute  between  the  members  of  the  S.  F. 
N.  D.  A.  and  the  molders  in  its  employ,  and  the  majority  of  the  latter  are 
members  of  the  I.  M.  U.,  and  it  can  not  be  settled  amicably  between  them,  it  shall 
be  referred  to  the  presidents  of  the  two  associations  before  named,  who  shall 
themselves,  or  by  delegates,  give  it  due  consideration.  If  they  can  not  decide 
it  satisfactorily  to  themselves  they  may,  by  mutual  agreement,  summon  the  con- 
ference committee,  to  whom  the  dispute  shall  be  referred,  and  whose  decision, 
by  a  majority  vote,  shall  be  final  and  binding  upon  each  party  for  the  term  of 
12  months.  Feuding  adjudication  by  the  presidents  and  conference  committee, 
neither  party  to  the  dispute  shall  discontinue  operations,  but  shall  proceed  with 
business  in  the  ordinary  manner.  In  case  of  a  vacancy  in  the  committee  of 
conference,  it  shall  be  filled  by  the  association  originally  nominated.  No  vote 
shall  be  taken  except  by  a  full  committee  or  by  an  even  number  of  each  party." 

Well,  now,  what  happens,  Mr.  Valentine,  if  this  conference  is  a  "  hung  jury," 
and  can  not  agree? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  have  had  24  years'  experience,  and  we  have  never  dis- 
agreed. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Let  us  assume  that  a  case  may  arise  to-morrow 
where  you  absolutely  disagree.  What  would  follow? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  believe  it  is  possible.  You  will  notice  that  those 
agreements  that  you  have  read — one  is  made  in  1890  and  the  other  in  1891, 
and  another  in  1892  and  another  in  1893 ;  and  if  you  go  along  you  will  come  to 
1913. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  So  it  shows  that  these  matters  always  straighten  themselves 
out.  We  never  call  in  an  umpire,  because  he  can  not  do  any  good  for  us  at  all. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Evidently  your  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of 
the  word  "  arbitration  "  and  mine  must  differ,  because  you  interpret  the  word 
"  arbitration,"  I  gather,  to  mean  merely  conciliation,  and  I  interpret  it  to  mean 
that  where  conciliation  fails  an  umpire  shall  be  called  in. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  have  never  had  any  experience  with  that,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  My  reason  for  bringing  up  this  point  is  this:  I 
read  here  in  clause  1  that  you  stood  for  the  principle  of  arbitration  in  the  set- 
tlement of  any  dispute  between  the  members.  Mr.  Briggs  yesterday,  as  you  will 
remember,  made  the  statement  that  during  the  five  years  in  which  the  New 
York  agreement  was  in  force  they  could  never  get  the  molders'  union  to  con- 
sent to  arbitration.  I  wanted  to  reconcile  Mr.  Briggs's  staeuient  with  this  reso- 
lution. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  heard  Mr.  Briggs  make  that  statement,  but  if  we  gave  our 
consent  to  arbitration  there  were  only  a  few  things  we  could  arbitrate.  The 
isolation's  policy  is  that  these  seven  or  eight  things  which  affect  us  they 
would  not  arbitrate. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  There  were  certain  things  that  they  would  not 
arbitrate,  and  there  were  certain  other  things  that  you  would  not  arbitrate? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Certainly.     It  was  a  matter  of  principle  with  us. 

Commissioner  WKTXSTOCK.  Then,  evidently,  the  position  of  both  sides  was 
the  same — theoretically,  they  agreed  to  arbitrate;  practically,  both  sides  refused 
to  arbitrate;  they  on  certain  points,  and  you  on  certain  other  points? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  have  never  taken  up  for  decision  the  question  of  arbi- 
trating. I  am  speaking  as  an  organization.  We  fell  that  we  may  arbitrate,  but 
if  we  are  going  to  arbitrate  we  are  going  to  arbitrate  every  point  of  disagree- 
ment, and  not  one  of  them  or  two  of  them. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  see. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  If  we  are  to  arbitrate,  the  other  man  has  got  to  consent  to 
arbitrate  all  the  points,  and  not  one  or  two  of  them. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  there  any  copy  available  this  morning  of  the 
New  York  agreement?  Have  you  one,  Mr.  Briggs? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Here  is  one. 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  I  handed  mine  to  the  clerk. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  491 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  a  short  agreement.  Will  you  be  kind  enough 
to  read  it,  Mr.  Barnett?  Just  that  paragraph  that  relates  to  abitration. 

Mr.  BARNETT  -(reading):  "That  this  committee  of  conference  indorse  the 
principle  of  arbitration  in  the  settlement  of  trade  disputes  and  recommend  the 
same  for  adoption. by  members  of  the  National  Founders'  Association  and  the 
Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North  America  on  the  following  lines." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Now,  read  the  lines,  please. 

Mr.  BARNETT  (reading)  :  "  That  in  the  event  of  dispute  arising  between  mem- 
bers of  the  respective  organizations  reasonable  effort  shall  be  made  by  the 
parties  directly  at  interest  to  effect  a  satisfactory  adjustment  of  the  difficulty, 
and,  failing  to  do  which,  either  party  shall  have  the  right  to  ask  its  reference 
to  a  committee  of  arbitration,  which  shall  consist  of  the  presidents  of  the 
National  Founders'  Association  and  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North  America 
and  two  other  representatives  from  each  association  appointed  by  the  respective 
presidents." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  it  says  something  about  the  decision  being 
binding,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Yes.  [Reading:]  "The  findings  of  this  committee  of  arbitra- 
tion by  a  majority  vote  shall  be  considered  final  in  so  far  as  the  future  action 
of  the  respective  organizations  is  concerned." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  agreement  specifically  outlines  a  method  of 
settlement  of  all  disputes  by  arbitration.  It  does  so  without  any  qualification. 
It  does  not  say  that  certain  things  shall  be  submitted  to  arbitration  while  other 
things  shall  not  be  submitted  to  arbitration,  but  it  uses  a  blanket  statement 
there.  That  was  the  agreement ;  but,  seemingly,  from  the  statements  made  by 
yourself  and  by  Mr.  Briggs,  that  agreement  was  not  carried  out. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  only  provides  for  four.  There  is  no  umpire 
there. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  was  going  to  try  to  bring  that  out.  I  would  like  to  have 
an  opportunity  to  do  that. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  word  "  arbitration  "  there  used  was  used  very  vaguely 
at  that  time.  It  was  frequently  used  to  mean  what  we  now  understand  by 
"  conciliation."  The  science  of  the  discussion  of  trade  agreements  had  not 
gone  as  far  as  it  has  now,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  word  "  arbitration  "  was 
used  in  that  rather  broad  sense  to  include  any  peaceful  settlement.  You  will 
find  in  other  agreements  drawn  at  the  same  time  that  the  word  is  used  in 
that  broad  way. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  really  if  this  agreement  was  made  to-day, 
with  the  advanced  knowledge  that  we  have  of  handling  labor  disputes,  the  word 
"conciliation  would  have  been  used  where  the  word  "arbitration"  is  used? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Yes ;  I  think  that  is  so,  from  the  fact  that  no  methods  of  arbitra- 
tion are  provided.  I  think  that  is  what  they  had  in  view. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  see,  then,  that  wath  our  present  point  of  view 
this  thing  is  misleading. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Yes. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  wranted,  if  you  would  permit  me,  gentlemen,  to  make  that 
statement  which  has,  however,  been  made  clearly  enough  to  suit  me  now. 

I  want  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  commission  this  one  point :  That  we 
worked  peaceably  and  harmoniously  with  the  other  association  for  24  years 
with  that  exact  agreement,  without  being  changed  at  all ;  24  years.  Our  agree- 
ments do  not  provide  for  an  umpire.  It  is  conciliation ;  that  is  what  it  means. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  stated  yesterday  that  in  every  case 
of  a  dispute — I  think  that  was  his  exact  language — in  every  case  of  a  dispute 
the  unions  refused  to  arbitrate,  so  finally,  in  1904,  the  employers  abrogated 
the  agreement.  What  is  the  answer  to  that  statement? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  think  Mr.  Briggs  is  mistaken  in  that  statement.  We  have 
come  to  a  point  of  disagreement ;  that  may  be  true,  but  the  reason  is  that  there 
must  have  been  some  reasons  why  we  disagreed.  There  might  be  some  points 
that  I  can  not  recall  now.  I  hardly  think  he  can.  Perhaps  he  may  be  able  to 
do  it.  There  were,  however,  some  reasons  for  the  disagreement.  I  do  not  know 
what  they  were.  He  said  we  had  2,500  conferences.  I  did  not  know  that  I  had 
met  him  2,500  times  in  different  parts  of  this  country.  I  did  not  know  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  made  a  further  statement;  I  suppose, 
giving  it  as  his  individual  opinion  that  he  believes  that  individual  bargaining 
will  get  for  the  workers,  on  the  average,  a  better  wage  than  collective  bargaining. 
AVill  you  give  us  your  point  of  view  on  that,  as  a  result  of  your  experience  as 
an  organized-labor  man? 


492          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON  (INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  can  give  you  the  experience  of  the  organized  labor  in  that 
direction  by  citing  some  cases.  In  Cincinnati,  taking  our  own  home  city,  our 
wages  used  to  be  $2.25  a  day  when  we  only  had  17  members.  We  might  have 
now  a  thousand  members,  and  our  minimum  rate  of  wages  is  $3.50  a  day  with 
one  hour  less  per  day.  We  believe  we  got  that  through  coMective  bargaining. 
It  might  be  taken  all  down  along  the  line.  We  do  not  believe  that  an  individual 
can  get  any  advance  in  wages  or  better  shop  conditions  from  an  employer  ex- 
cept under  certain  conditions.  There  might  be  two  jobs  for  one  man  and  the 
employer  might  want  him  real  bad  and  he  would  do  a  thing  temporarily  that 
he  would  not  do  otherwise.  That  is  our  experience  in  the  labor  movement. 
If  we  wait  for  the  average  employer  to  give  us  shorter  hours  and  increase  our 
wages,  we  might  wait  until  we  come  to  the  time  when  we  have  to  shake  hands 
with  St.  Peter. 

Commissioner  WEIXSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  also  made  the  further  statement  that 
the  unions  do  not  come  to  the  employer  in  a  conciliatory  spirit,  but  they  come 
demanding  limitation  of  apprentices,  nonintroduction  of  machinery,  closed 
shop,  etc.  Will  you  be  good  enough  to  make  answer  to  that? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  may  have  made  demands  upon  the  foundrymen  for  in- 
crease of  wages  and  other  things.  Some  people  call  them  demands,  and  some  of 
them  call  them  requests.  I  think  Mr.  Briggs  is  right  when  he  uses  the  word 
"  demand,"  because  that  is  what  it  means.  But  as  to  the  things  which  he  has 
mentioned,  I  do  not  know  we  had  any  occasion  to  make  a  demand  for  an  ap- 
prentice ratio,  because  most  of  these  shops  that  we  struck  in  the  year  of  which 
he  speaks  were  union  shops  and  employed  the  ratio  of  apprentices,  and  no 
man  worked  in  those  shops  except  he  was  a  member  of  the  moulders'  union.  I 
do  not  see  why  we  have  any  occasion  to  make  a  demand  of  that  kind.  What 
we  did  make  demand  for  was  an  increase  of  wages.  That  was  refused  us. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  As  you  will  recall,  Mr.  Briggs  also  stated  that  he 
had  a  strike  in  his  shop  because  it  was  stated  by  union  men  that  he  had 
treated  his  apprentices  too  well. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  believe  he  meant  that  to  apply  to  the  molders.  I 
think  it  was  meant  to  apply  to  the  machinists.  A  union  that  would  strike  a 
shop  because  the  employer  treated  the  apprentices  too  well  ought  to  go  out  of 
existence.  I  think  we  are  all  trying  to  encourage  the  employer  to  teach  the 
apprentices  the  trade  and  use  them  very  \vell,  indeed.  The  better  he  uses 
them,  the  better  we  like  it.  That  is  the  policy  of  the  molders'  union,  and  I 
think  it  is  the  policy  of  the  machinists'  union.  In  fact,  I  know  it  is. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Another  statement  was  that  2,500  conferences  were 
held  under  the  New  York  agreement  from  1899  to  1904,  and  an  effort  to 
establish  arbitration  failed. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  As  I  said  before,  I  did  not  know  we  had  2,500  conferences. 
We  had  a  great  many,  of  course. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  I  gather  from  what  Mr.  Briggs  said  that  these 
2,500  conferences  include  all  the  local  conferences  during  that  period. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  what  I  say.  WTe  did  not  have  any  national  con- 
ferences. They  were  all  local  conferences.  The  question  that  was  involved  in 
the  greater  number  of  those  conferences  was  the  question  of  wages.  The  asso- 
ciation injected  into  those  conferences  the  proposition  that,  "  We  will  do  thus 
and  so."  In  other  words,  "We  will  give  you  an  advance  in  wages  if  you  will 
agree  to  let  us  operate  this  machine  with  handymen,  or  if  you  will  agree  to  in- 
crease the  number  of  apprentices."  That  is  the  reason  we  did  not  get  together 
in  these  conferences.  That  was  the  point  of  difference  between  us.  If  you  figure 
them  all  up,  or  if  Mr.  Briggs  figures  them,  you  will  find  the  great  majority  of 
those  conferences  were  held  on  the  questions  of  shorter  hours  of  labor  or  in- 
creasing the  pay. 

Another  thing  that  might  have  caused  the  difference  was  this :  We  recognize 
a  minimum  rate,  and  we  will  not  allow  any  one  of  us  to  work  under  that  rate, 
and  that  association  or  its  representatives  may  have  had  this  idea  at  the  con- 
ference, "  We  will  give  you  an  advance  in  wages  on  this  class  of  work  if  you 
will  reduce  to  a  minimum  on  this  class  of  work."  That  we  could  not  do.  That 
might  have  been  the  point  of  difference. 

To  figure  it  all  up,  you  will  find  that  the  demand  or  the  causes  which  led  to 
the  conferences  were  due  to  the  fact  that  we  wanted  an  advance  in  wages,  and 
it  was  that  year  that  we  could  not  find  molders  enough  for  the  foundries  of  this 
country.  The  molders  still  believe  that  if  we  had  not  had  any  negotiations 
with  the  representatives  of  the  National  Founders'  Association  we  could  have 
gotten  a  much  higher  rate  than  we  did;  and  I  think  Mr.  Brings  will  agree  with 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IX    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  493 

me  on  that  point.  We  compromised  many  of  these  demands  when  we  should 
have  had  all  of  them.  The  trade  conditions  were  such  as  to  justify  us  in  doing 
it.  I  think  the  foundrymen  of  the  country  fared  very  well  indeed  in  those 
conferences. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  was  stated  that  about  85  per  cent  of  the  found- 
ers' association  will  not,  since  1904,  recognize  organized  labor. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Who  makes  that  statement? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  think  he  has  'made  a  mistake  in  that — 85  per  cent.  I  \vill 
not  say  85  per  cent,  but  I  think  the  majority  of  his  membership  now  deal  with 
the  Molder's  Union.  I  am  not  sure  of  those  figures,  but  the  largest  corporations 
who  are  members  of  that  association  operate  union  foundries.  I  think  that 
statement  is  very  nearly  correct. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  you  were  to  make  an  approximate  estimate  of 
the  members  of  the  founders'  association  who  do  deal  with  and  recognize  or- 
ganized labor,  wThat  percentage  would  you  give? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  could  not  say;  but  I  will  say  this  to  you,  Mr.  Weinstock, 
and  to  the  commission :  The  members  of  their  association  are  not  prevented,  so 
Mr.  Briggs  stated  yesterday,  from  denling  with  us.  Perhaps  not  in  a  written 
contract,  but  a  verbal  contract ;  that  is  the  fact.  I  can  go  into  the  office  of  any 
member  of  the  association  that  employs  in  large  numbers  and  sit  down  and 
have  a  conference  with  him,  and  have  always  been  able  to  do  that.  We  never 
discuss  the  association.  The  foundrymen  themselves  abrogated  that  agreement, 
and  without  the  conference  with  us  and  without  telling  us  they  wanted  to  do  it. 
We  say,  "  You  have  made  your  own  bed ;  lie  in  it."  We  have  never  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  it ;  \ve  have  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

I  want  to  say,  in  addition,  that  we  are  ready  and  willing  to  meet  ihem  or 
anybody  else  on  some  fair  ground  where  we  can  talk  and  do  business.  That 
has  been  the  position  of  the  molders'  union. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  also  said  the  union  fixed  the  number 
of  apprentices  arbitrarily,  without  being  able  to  explain  their  ratio. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Mr.  Briggs  did  say  yesterday — and  I  was  rather  amused,  and 
perhaps  I  was  the  one  that  told  it  to  him ;  I  do  not  know — something  about  shak- 
ing dice.  In  some  of  our  conferences  he  did  ask  how  that  ratio  was  reached 
of  1  to  5,  and,  probably  in  a  joking  way,  I  did  say,  "  We  shook  dice  for  it, 
Briggs,  and  that  is  the  way  we  got  it."  Perhaps  he  is  right  in  that  statement ; 
maybe  we  did.  I  could  not  tell  you  how  we  get  that  ratio.  Our  organization 
was  born  in  1859,  and  it  has  been  in  existence  ever  since.  I  do  not  know  what 
we  did  that  many  years  ago.  I  am  well  up  in  years  myself,  but  I  do  not  go 
back  as  far  as  that. 

Commissioner  ^  EIN STOCK.  There  is  no  scientific  basis  upon  which  it  is  de- 
termined, is  there? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  At  that  time  it  was  1  to  10,  I  think,  or  1  to  12,  and  it  was 
modified  from  time  to  time  by  discussion  with  the  employers  until  it  got  down 
to  1  to  8.  The  representatives  of  the  Stove  Pounders'  National  Defense  Asso- 
ciation said  that  that  did  not  make  molders  fast  enough  to  take  the  place  of 
the  old  fellows  that  died  or  passed  out.  We  said,  "  Make  it  1  to  5,"  and  we 
will  try  to  reach  an  agreement  on  it,  and  we  did.  We  think  we  are  making 
molders  fast  enough.  Mr.  Hogan  might  be  able  to  tell  you  that.  He  will  be 
on  the  stand  in  a  little  while. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  say,  Mr.  Valentine,  the  ratio  was  reduced 
from  time  to  time,  from  1  to  10  in  the  beginning  to  1  to  5  ? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  think  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  yet  Mr.  Briggs  said  that  the  number  of 
apprentices  allowed  by  the  molders'  union  \vas  such  that  the  molders  would  be 
almost  an  extinct  species  in  20  years. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  know  where  he  gets  his  information.  You  may  as 
well  put  this  in  the  record,  gentlemen,  and  I  want  to  make  this  statement  in 
connection  with  this  apprentice  question:  It  is  not  the  apprentice  question  as 
such  that  is  disturbing  us  so  much.  It  is  the  abuse.  There  are  many  employers 
in  this  country  who  are  making  statements  that  we  prevent  the  employment  of 
the  American  boy  and  do  not  want  to  teach  him  the  trade.  They  are  not  honest 
when  they  make  that  statement.  What  they  want  is  a  good  husky  fellow  who 
has  not  been  born  in  this  country  and  who  does  not  understand  what  we  Ameri- 
cans want,  and  they  use  him  as  a  machine,  a  human  machine.  He  can  work  in 
the  foundry  for  20  years,  and  after  he  has  worked  20  years  he  will  know  no  more 
about  the  business  than  he  did  when  he  started  into  the  work.  That  is  what 


494          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

the  employers  want  as  apprentices,  and  that  is  the  kind  of  apprentices  they 
ask  for — a  great  majority  of  them. 

The  molders'  union  have  taken  the  boys  right  in  Cincinnati  at  the  trade,  and 
tried  to  get  with  the  employers  of  that  city  an  agreement  whereby  we  could 
send  the  apprentices  to  school  at  night,  and  we  did  do  that  for  a  number  of 
years,  until  the  employers  themselves  refused  to  contribute  any -more.  There 
are  many  cases  where  we  are  doing  it  to-day,  where  we  can  get  the  boys.  But 
they  want  apprentices  25  or  30  years  of  age,  when  a  man  is  at  his  best,  so  they 
can  rush  him  into  the  foundry,  and  then  we  have  to  compete  with  them.  That 
is  what  many  of  the  foundrymeu  in  this  country  want.  Many  of  those  foundry- 
men  are  organized  foundrymen,  too.  In  other  words,  they  want  to  organize 
among  themselves  for  their  own  protection,  but  they  do  not  want  to  recognize 
the  employee's  right  to  organize  for  his  own  protection.  That  is  the  truth. 

There  is  another  statement  I  want  to  write  into  the  record,  and  that  is  this : 
A  statement  was  made  yesterday  that  the  principle  involved  in  our  niinimiun- 
rate  question  was  wrong ;  that  in  many  instance.?  we  drive  out  a  man  who  has 
reached  an  age  where  you  might  call  him  going  down  the  hill.  He  can  not 
compete  with  the  younger  fellows,  and  we  drive  him  out,  it  is  said.  I  want  to 
make  this  correction :  I  think  Mr.  Briggs  was  not  informed  on  that  point.  The 
molderss'  union  may  establish  a  minimum  rate  here  in  Washington  of  three  or 
four  or  five  dollars  a  day,  whatever  it  might  be;  but  when  a  man  becomes 
aged  we  give  him  a  card  to  get  the  work  at  whatever  rate  he  can,  and  when 
lie  comes  into  our  foundry  I  myself,  as  a  molder,  have  helped  a  man  along 
during  my  noon  hour,  so  that  he  could  get  employment ;  and  we  look  after  him 
when  he  is  sick,  and  we  contribute  to  his  welfare.  We  do  not  desert  that  old 
man.  That  statement  made  yesterday  was  made  by  Mr.  Briggs  in  ignorance. 
I  do  not  think  he  is  well  informed  on  that. 

Commissioner  WTEIN  STOCK.  That  is,  you  maintain  that  the  older  men  are  not 
held  to  the  minimum.  You  allow  a  special  card,  I  suppose? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  For  those  who  can  not  earn  the  minimum,  you 
issue  them  a  card  to  allow  them  to  get  work  at  less  than  the  minimum? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  permit  them  to  work  for  whatever  rate  can  be  agreed 
upon  between  the  employer  and  the  man. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  you  differentiate  between  the  older  men  and 
men  who  are  fit? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes,  sir.  There  was  another  point  brought  up  yesterday, 
if  I  may  cover  this,  too. 

Commissioner"  WEINSTOCK.  Go  right  ahead. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  statement  was  made  that  we  did  not  allow  the  employers 
to  discharge  a  man 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK  (interposing).  I  was  coming  to  that  in  a  moment. 
Perhaps  you  had  better  permit  me  to  follow  the  points  as  I  jotted  them  down 
when  Mr.  Briggs  was  on  the  stand. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  All  right ;  I  just  took  a  note  of  them. 

Commissioner  WTEIN STOCK.  The  statement  was  made  by  Mr.  Briggs  that  the 
unions  oppose  the  introduction  of  molding  machines,  which  have  greatly  in- 
creased the  output. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  know  where  he  got  his  basis  for  making  that  state- 
ment. We  have  never  opposed  the  introduction  of  molding  machines.  Our 
rule  recognizes  them.  Our  very  organic  law  requires  that.  The  right  of  the 
foundryman  to  introduce  a  molding  machine  is  not  questioned.  As  to  who 
shall  operate  that  machine,  that  is  a  matter  of  discussion  between  the  two.  I 
think  Mr.  Briggs's  name  is  to  such  an  understanding.  I  think  we  have  your 
name  to  that,  Mr.  Briggs. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  point  was  also  made  by  Mr.  Briggs,  illustrat- 
ing a  certain  concrete  case,  that  the  union  men  made  three  pulleys  a  day  with 
a  certain  labor-saving  device,  and  that  the  nonunion  men  made  seven  a  day  at 
the  start,  and  later  averaged  nine  a  day. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  may  be  true.  I  would  not  dispute  that.  That  might 
have  occurred  right  in  his  own  shop,  but  it  might  have  been  because  the  man 
was  arbitrary  and  would  not  do  any  more.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  that 
he  did  not  have  the  facilities  for  handling  the  work  or  equipment.  But  Mr. 
Briggs,  if  he  felt  that  he  wanted  redress,  should  have  gone  directly  to  the 
representatives  of  the  molders'  union,  because  he  had  a  union  shop  at  one  time, 
and  we  could  have  discussed  it.  I  do  not  know  the  case  at  all. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  495 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  further  stated  that  he  does  not  believe 
trade  agreements  are  suited  to  industrial  peace  in  the  metal  trades. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  has  always  been  his  opinion.  He  has  always  had  that 
opinion.  I  have  known  him  for  a  great  many  years  and  he  has  never  failed  to 
express  his  opinions  emphatically  as  he  did  here  yesterday.  There  is  no  doubt 
about  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  are  the  facts? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  think  one  way  and  he  thinks  the  other.  That  is  all 
there  is  about  it.  We  think  trade  agreements  are  good  things.  Our  member- 
ship occasionally  feel  this  way — to  cite  an  instance  to  show  you  what  we  think 
of  agreements.  I  think  it  was  in  1904  that  we  had  the  big  strike  from  Maine 
to  California,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  1904  to  1906. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  know  we  spent  a  couple  million  dollars,  and  you  spent 
$6,000,000  in  the  same  time.  Our  bank  account  was  lessened  a  great  deal.  To 
show  you  \vhat  we  think  of  grievances,  we  had  a  strike  in  Milwaukee  on  the 
Allis-Chalmers  Corporation.  One  of  the  constituents  of  the  company  was  the 
Bullock  Electric  Co.,  of  Cincinnati.  We  had  no  agreement  with  the  Allis- 
Calmers,  but  we  did  with  Bullock,  and  the  agreement  was  in  existence  for 
probably  eight  or  nine  months  after  that.  The  molders  wrote  down  to  me 
and  said,  "  Strike  the  Bullock  shop."  I  said,  "  We  have  an  agreement  with 
that  shop."  The  manager  of  the  shop  came  to  the  office  to  see  me.  I  knew 
him  quite  well.  He  said,  "  Valentine,  are  you  going  to  live  up  to  the  agree- 
ment?" I  said,  "Yes;  if  it  kills  us."  The  shop  was  not  struck  and  went 
right  along  all  those  months,  and  we  lost  the  strike  at  Milwaukee,  because  of 
the  fact  we  did  not  strike  at  Cincinnati,  but  we  saved  our  reputation ;  we  saved 
our  reputation ;  we  did  not  strike. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  you  believe  in  strickly  observing  your  con- 
tracts? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do,  sir ;  and  the  average  employer  of  this  country  believes 
in  that  too — the  average. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Believes  what? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Believes  in  the  sacredness  of  contracts. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Believes  that  the  employer  should  observe  the 
sacredness  of  contracts? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  stated  as  his  opinion  that  the  union 
should  remove  the  limit  on  apprentices  to  the  use  of  machinery,  and  remove  the 
minimum  wage.  If  Mr.  Briggs's  idea  prevailed,  what  in  your  judgment  would 
be  the  result? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  would  have  no  reason  for  getting  together  in  trade 
unions.  We  would  simply  have  to  depend  upon  the  employer  all  the  time. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  that  would  take  out  the  vital  useful- 
ness of  unionism? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  all  there  is  to  it.  If  wre  removed  those  things,  we 
would  not  have  anything  else.  Mr.  Briggs  knows  that  as  well  as  I  do.  There 
is  no  question  about  that.  So  do  all  the  employers  know  that.  If  we  give 
them  all  they  want  there  would  not  be  any  chance  at  all.  I  do  not  think 
Briggs  would  take  advantage  of  us,  but  I  know  some  of  the  others  might. 
[Laughter.] 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  further  statement  was  made  by  Mr.  Briggs 
that  sometimes  the  founders  could  not  discharge  incompetent  men  without  the 
risk  of  a  strike. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Again  he  is  mistaken.  There  have  been  instances  where  we 
have  struck  shops  because  of  the  discharge  of  a  committeeman,  and  we  have 
hail  some  committeemen  that  ought  to  have  been  discharged ;  there  is  no  ques- 
tion about  that.  But  there  have  been  instances  where  we  have  done  that,  and 
our  law  says  this  on  that  question:  It  provides  that  when  a  committeeman  is 
discharged  and  the  president  approves  of  the  case — of  him  having  been  ostra- 
cised because  of  union  principles  or  the  carrying  out  of  orders  of  the  union — • 
he  shall  receive  a  benefit  of  $10.40  a  week  until  he  gets  another  job. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  shall  receive  it  from  whom? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  From  the  International  Molders'  Union.  And  if  you  would 
examine  our  records  at  the  office  you  would  be  surprised  to  see  how  many 
dollars  we  have  paid  out  and  pay  every  year.  Our  position  is  this  on  that 
question :  There  may  be,  as  I  said  before,  isolated  cases  or  aggravated  cases 
where  we  have  had  a  strike  to  force  an  employer  to  reinstate  that  man,  but 


496          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

that  is  because  of  the  employer's  position  on  it ;  he  has  been  nasty,  or  some- 
thing of  that  kind.  But  we  feel  this  way :  We  have  the  man's  interest  at  heart. 
Suppose  we  did  strike  the  shop  and  we  had  the  might  to  say  to  that  employer, 
4i  You  shall  put  that  man  back  to  work."  He  would  do  it.  If  I  was  foreman 
of  that  shop,  I  would  find  some  way  of  getting  rid  of  that  man.  I  would  find 
a  way  in  two  minutes  of  getting  rid  of  him.  He  would  make  some  mistake, 
and  he  would  be  discharged.  We  prefer  to  go  to  the  man  and  we  tell  him,  "  This 
employer  does  not  want  you ;  here  is  $10.40  a  week  to  take  care  of  you  until 
you  get  employment  somewhere,"  and  the  local  union  may  throw  him  a  few 
dollars  more  to  help  him  until  he  gets  employment. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  deny  the  statement  that  employers  can  not 
discharge  incompetent  men  without  risk  of  a  strike? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  deny — I  say  that  they  do  do  it;  and  we  do  not  interfere 
with  them  except  where  there  are  cases  where  it  is  absolutely  necessary  and 
something  ought  to  be  done.  It  is  not  always  the  employer's  fault.  It  is  not 
always  the  employer's  fault,  mind  you,  in  the  foundry.  We  are  a  little  different 
from  the  other  fellow.  The  foundry  may  be  at  125°  this  afternoon  and  to- 
morrow morning  it  will  be  at  65°.  We  have  got  different  temperatures  in  the 
foundry,  and  we  get  different  with  the  temperatures ;  we  go  up  and  down  with 
the  temperature,  occasionally,  and  sometimes  the  employer  is  the  best  man 
in  the  world ;  he  may  have  what  we  term  an  unfair  man  as  foreman,  and  that 
foreman  will  take  a  violent  dislike  to  John  Jones,  and  he  finds  some  way  of 
getting  rid  of  him.  In  a  case  of  that  kind  we  sometimes  say  to  that  foreman, 
"  Well,  you  are  as  bad  as  the  other  fellow ;  I  guess  you  will  have  to  go,  too, 
with  the  other  man."  Sometimes  we  are  able  to  enforce  it  and  sometimes  we 
are  not,  but  we  always  go  to  the  employer  and  tell  him  what  is  going  on,  and 
I  do  not  know  of  any  case  the  last  year  or  twro  or  three  years  where  we  have 
struck  any  shop  to  reinstate  a  man.  The  employers  have  sometimes  quietly 
dropped  the  foreman,  who  is  not  the  best  man  in  the  world.  We  investigate, 
through  one  of  the  national  officers,  cases  of  that  kind,  as  a  rule.  We  take 
time  to  do  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think,  then,  that  sometimes  friction  has 
arisen  from  the  fact  that  because  of  the  character  of  the  wrork  the  men  are 
more  or  less  mercurial  in  temperament? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  They  sometimes  approach  a  committeeman  when  it  is  a  hot  July 
day,  when  the  foundry  is  at  150°,  arid  it  is  hot  outside  and  a  man's  tongue  is 
hanging  out;  and  I  would  not  talk  to  him  under  those  circumstances,  because 
you  can  not  get  the  same  satisfaction  out  of  it. 

Commissioner  WTEIN STOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  further  said  that  he  does  not  believe 
that  unionism  has  made  for  higher  standards,  for  more  sobriety,  or  more  in- 
tellectual development  among  the  members.  What  is  your  experience  in  regard 
to  that  matter? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  To  the  contrary.  We  think  it  educates  people  and  gives 
them  better  opportunities  after  they  are  educated,  and  makes  them  feel  that 
they  want  to  be  good  citizens,  and  the  trades-union  movement  brings  that 
about,  in  our  opinion.  Of  course,  if  I  was  an  employer  and  I  wanted  to  invest 
a  dollar,  and  I  felt  as  though  I  should  have  a  dollar  and  10  cents  in  return 
for  the  investment,  I  might  take  it  out  of  labor,  if  they  would  let  me.  Some 
of  the  employers  will  get  it  that  way.  They  do  not  like  the  trades-union, 
because  the  trades-union  makes  them  pay  more  than  they  would  otherwise 
pay.  It  makes  them  give  a  man  a  chance  to  get  to  his  family  at  a  seasonable 
hour.  In  the  wintertime,  especially,  when  a  man  leaves  his  home  in  the  morn- 
ing it  is  dark  and  when  he  gets  home  it  is  dark,  and  sometimes  that  is  the 
way  in  the  summer  in  the  foundries.  We  feel  as  though  we  wanted  a  man  to 
get  acquainted  with  his  child  by  daylight,  so  as  to  know  him;  so  as  to  know 
him  on  Sunday,  when  he  has  got  his  face  washed. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  further  said  that  in  his  opinion  it  is 
an  injustice  for  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  to  insist  upon  a  uniform 
eight-hour  day  for  all  classes  of  labor;  that  in  liis  judgment,  for  example,  10 
hours  for  the  machinist  is  not  nearly  so  enervating  as  eight  hours  in  the  drafting 
room,  and  so  on,  and  that  therefore  there  ought  to  be  differentiation  of  hours 
among  the  different  classes  of  workers. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  There  might  be  some  merit  in  that.  I  have  never  given  that 
any  thought  on  that  phase  of  the  question  at  all.  I  heard  him  make  the  state- 
ment last  night  and  I  thought  that  it  was  well  put,  in  a  way.  Of  course  I 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  497 

would  want  to  know  just  what  he  meant  by  that,  generally.  He  made  a  gen- 
eral satement  here. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  also  called  the  attention  of  the  com- 
mission to  the  statement  that  this  commission  will  be  considering  the  welfare 
of  90  nonunion  men  as  against  7  union  men. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  might  be  due  to  many  causes.  I  heard  a  statement 
made  here  by  Mr.  Hayes,  I  think  it  was,  and  I  think  there  is  a  good  deal  of 
truth  in  it.  There  are  a  lot  of  men  that  want  to  be  organized,  but  the  condi- 
tion is  such  that  they  can  not  accept  organization  unless  they  accept  discharge 
with  it.  There  are  a  lot  of  men  who  would  like  to  be  organized,  but  it  means 
discharge.  I  have  in  mind  some  places  in  eastern  Pennsylvania  where  we  have 
been,  where  molders  were  told  that  if  they  joined  the  molders'  union  they 
would  be  discharged.  My  advice  to  those  men,  after  looking  over  the  situation, 
was  "  Do  not  join  the  molders'  union.  You  can  not  afford  to  throw  up  your 
home  now.  It  is  only  half  paid  for.  You  can  not  afford  to  sacrifice  your  wife 
and  children.  Stay  out  of  the  molders'  union  until  such  time  as  you  get  in  a 
position  to  join  it."  There  might  have  been  cases  of  that  kind;  I  know  lots 
of  them,  and  I  guess  that  applies  to  all  trades. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  I  was  going  to  ask  you  about  the  point  brought 
out  by  our  counsel,  about  a  uniform  base  rate,  and  the  statement  that  the  mold- 
ers throughout  the  United  States  make  about  the  same  wage  per  day.  Is  that 
what  you  mean  by  a  uniform  base  rate? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No ;  we  establish  a  minimum  wage  rate. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  Wage  per  day? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  \Vage  per  day.  To  illustrate  wrhat  I  mean:  At  Cincinnati 
we  have  a  $3.50  minimum  for  molders.  There  are  molders  in  Cincinnati 
getting  $4.75  a  day  on  their  merits,  who  are  paid  the  difference  between  $3.50 
and  $4.75  by  the  foundryrnen. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  The  last  question  he  asked  was  about  the  union  shop. 
I  understood  you  to.  say  that  the  union  shop  was  where  the  union  conditions 
prevail.  Is  that  always  enforced?  Where  you  have  a  union  shop,  are  the 
Avorkrnen  always  exclusively  union  men? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Wrhere  you  have  a  union  shop  that  is  so? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Do  the  molders'  unions  indulge  in  sympathetic 
strikes  at  all? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Not  to  any  great  extent.  In  fact,  I  can  not  say  that  we  do. 
There  are  reasons  why.  We  believe  in  the  principle  of  helping  one  another, 
though. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  about  when  a  contract  is  in  existence? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  keep  our  contract. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  do  not  go  on  sympathetic  strikes  when  you 
have  a  contract? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No,  sir ;  we  go  on  strike  to  save  ourselves — I  cited  the  case 
of  Cincinnati — as  much  as  anyone  else. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  We  are  confronted  by  the  situation  that  your  union 
has  been  successful  in  carrying  out  trade  agreements  with  one  association  and 
has  been  unsuccessful  with  another.  Will  you  explain  the  reason  for  that?  I 
infer  that  you  would  not  take  the  position  that  foundrymen  as  a  class  are  less 
fair  than  stove  manufacturers,  as  a  class? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  will  tell  you  how  I  view  that  thing.  I  have  studied  it  for 
several  years.  I  think  it  is  just  simply  the  impatience  of  the  foundrymen  or 
some  of  them,  to  reach  an  agreement  on  questions  that  it  has  taken  us  years 
to  educate  our  members  up  to,  or  years  to  have  them  educate  their  members. 
For  instance,  I  cited  the  Utica  case  here.  The  workmen  were  wrong  in  taking 
that  position.  They  subsequently  acknowledged  that  they  were  wrong.  That 
caused  bad  blood  between  the  two  associations.  There  was  not  any  need  for 
it.  But  very  often  we  try  to  do  something  in  a  month  that  ought  to  take  a  year 
to  do  it,  and  I  think  that  is  the  trouble  between  the  moulders'  union  and  the 
National  Foundrymen's  Association.  They  sit  down  and  talk,  and  somebody 
moves  to  adjourn  sine  die.  If  it  is  from  the  other  side,  we  have  got  to  second 
the  motion — can  not  help  it ;  but  I  do  not  believe  they  ought  to  adjourn  in  that 
way.  They  ought  to  adjourn  to  meet  again  when  they  are  in  better  humor.  I 

38819°— 16 32 


498          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

do  not  think  you  can  settle  these  things  in  a  minute.  I  think  that  is  the  trouble 
between  us. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  did  not  quite  answer  my  question ;  that  is,  is 
there  any  difference  either  in  the  trade  or  in  the  class  of  the  men  on  the 
employers'  side;  because  Mr.  Briggs,  as  I  understood,  made  the  point  that  the 
foundry  business  was  very  much  more  complex,  that  it  represented  very  much 
differentiated  classes  of  business  running  from  a  few  ounces  to  many  tons,  with 
very  small  factories  and  very  large  ones,  whereas  in  the  stove  business  it  was 
not  so  differentiated.  Is  that  the  explanation? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Well,  that  has  something  to  do  with  it.  I  think  Mr.  Briggs 
is  pretty  near  right  on  that  thing,  from  that  viewpoint.  There  is  a  great  deal 
of  difference  in  the  various  foundries  as  represented  through  his  organization. 
As  he  said,  there  are  some  that  make  an  ounce  and  some  that  make  20  tons, 
and  that  may  have  a  little  bit  to  do  with  these  things;  but  I  think  we  could 
overcome  those. 

I  would  like  to  make  one  little  statement  to  clear  up  something  said  yester- 
day, with  all  due  respect  to  Mr.  Briggs,  who  made  the  statement,  that  the  cause 
of  the  Milwaukee  strike  was  the  refusal  of  the  molders'  union  to  allow  more 
apprentices. 

I  do  not  know  whether  Mr.  Briggs  is  acquainted  with  the  causes  which  led 
to  the  strike  of  the  molders,  but  the  molders'  strike  in  Milwaukee  was  because 
we  wranted  the  same  wage  rate  for  core  makers  as  we  had  for  molders,  and  the 
employers  did  not  want  to  recognize  that.  The  question  of  the  employment  of 
apprentices  never  came  up>  not  in  any  argument  that  I  had,  it  never  was  dis- 
cussed. In  fact,  the  shops  in  Milwaukee,  many  of  them,  before  the  strike  were 
what  you  would  term,  many  of  them,  union  shops. 

There  is  another  thing  I  want  to  bring  up,  the  point  in  the  outline  of 
policy — have  you  got  that,  Mr.  Chairman — or  the  constitution?  I  haven't  got 
one  with  me. 

(Here  Commissioner  Weinstock  handed  the  paper  referred  to  to  Mr.  Valen- 
tine.) 

It  refers  to  the  limitation  of  output.     It  says : 

"Arbitrary  limitations  of  output  on  the  part  of  the  molders,  or  abitrary  de- 
mands for  an  excessive  amount  of  output  by  the  molders  on  the  part  of  the 
foundrymen,  being  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  equity  which  should  govern  the 
relationship  of  employer  and  employee,  all  attempts  in  that  direction  by  either 
party — the  molder  or  foundry  man — are  to  be  viewed  with  disfavor  and  will 
not  receive  the  sanction  of  this  association." 

I  want  to  say  for  the  benefit  of  this  commission  that  we  are  the  authors  of 
that ;  we  wrote  it ;  our  pens  wrote  it,  and  it  was  adopted  at  a  meeting  in  Cleve- 
land, at  which  the  Cleveland  strike  was  settled,  and  we  believe  in  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  claim  that  it  has  been  violated  in  this  respect :  It  says 
arbitrary  limitations  of  output  on  the  part  of  the  molders  and  arbitrary  de- 
mands for  excessive  amount  on  the  part  of  the  employer. 

Now,  the  foreman,  of  the  shop  takes  a  good,  strong,  husky  fellow,  and  he 
says,  "  John  " — sometimes  he  gives  him  a  few  extra  pennies — "  I  want  10  of 
these  to-day."  John  makes  10.  The  foreman  in  a  week  from  that  gives  that 
job  to  another  man;  he  is  not  so  strong,  but  he  says,  "Tom,  10  of  these  is  a 
day's  work ;  John  So-and-so  made  10." 

Now,  some  of  the  foundry  men  say  that  that  is  hot  an  arbitrary  demand  on 
their  part.  We  claim  it  is.  We  claim  that  all  men  are  not  physically  alike, 
mentally  of  mechanically,  and  consequently  they  can  not  do  as  much  as  the 
other  fellow.  Our  difference  on  that  thing,  where  we  divided,  was  that  the 
foundry  man  could  do  as  he  pleased,  through  his  foreman,  and  if  we  attempted 
to  say  to  our  men,  "  You  can  not  do  so  much  as  that,"  why,  we  were  violating 
this,  but  the  foundry  man  is  not  violating  it.  That  is  all. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr.  O'Connell? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  I  wanted  to  find  out  has  been  asked. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr.  Lennon? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Mr.  Valentine,  going  back  to  the  question  of  arbitra- 
tion as  it  appears  in  your  constitution  and  in  your  dealings  with  the  defense 
association,  if  you  met  in  conference  to  adjust  a  matter  is  it  not  a  fact  that  in 
that  instance  you  adjourn  that  conference  and  meet  again  at  some  future  day; 
that  is  not  the  final  show-down;  that  the  conference  continues  from  one  time  to 
another,  until,  perhaps,  in  10  years,  if  necessary,  you  have  reached  an  adjust- 
inent  without  bringing  in  an  umpire?  Is  not  that  the  situation  in  that  instance? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Absolutely  correct,  absolutely. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  499 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Now,  in  talking  about  the  union  shop  I  want  to  em- 
phasize here  for  the  benefit  of  all,  as  long  as  the  opportunity  presents  itself, 
that  organized  labor  does  not  accept,  and  absolutely  refuses  to  accept,  the  defini- 
tion of  the  open  and  the  closed  shop ;  it  is  a  misnomer  and  does  not  apply. 
Now,  Mr.  Valentine,  as  to  the  admission  of  members:  Suppose  in  some  of  the 
•shops  where  all  union  men  are  employed  the  foreman  employs  a  nonunion 
molder;  do  you  raise  a  row  about  it? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No;  we  let  him  go  to  work,  and  when  it  comes  pay  day  he 
goes  into  the  union,  and  in  very  many  instances  he  is  a  good  fellow  and  the 
molders  go  down  in  their  pockets  and  put  up  for  his  initiation  fee  and  he  pays 
them  back. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  It  is  a  fact,  then,  that  the  membership  of  the  molders' 
union  is  created  more  by  the  action  of  the  employer  in  hiring  men  than  it  is 
by  the  initiative  of  the  molders'  union? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Correct  you  are ;  that  is  right. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  talked  considerably,  and  others  have  talked  con- 
siderably, about  the  subject  matter  of  apprentices.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  de- 
velopment of  the  limitation  of  apprentices  of  the  extension  of  the  limitation  to 
allow  apprentices  has  grown  up  because  of  the  necessities  of  the  business,  be- 
cause of  the  expansion  of  trade  and  the  fundamental  view  of  the  organization 
is  not  to  from  time  to  time  make  an  apprenticeship  rule  to  conform  to  the  prob- 
able needs  of  business  in  the  future? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  What  do  you  find  the  causes  to  be,  if  there  be  any,  of 
industrial  unrest  among  the  molders  of  the  union? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Simply  a  desire  to  get  more  wages  and  better  shop  condi- 
tions, and  so  forth,  which  they  think  they  are  entitled  to.  Their  wives  go  to 
market  to-day  and  can  not  buy  for  a  dollar  what  they  used  to  buy  for  50 
cents,  so  she  goes  back  and  finds  fault,  and  he  finds  fault,  and  he  goes  to  the 
employer  and  he  says,  "  I  want  more  money,"  and  his  employer  says,  "  No ;  no. 
Business  is  bad;  I  can't  give  it  to  you,"  and  then  they  fight  about  it.  That  is 
the  way  it  is. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mrs.  Harriinan? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Does  your  union  oppose  the  introduction  of  mod- 
ern efficiency  methods? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No ;  not  at  all. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  What  effect  have  technical  schools  had  on  your 
industry  ? 

Mr.  VALENTINE,  None  to  any  great  extent. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  You  believe  in  that  training? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes;  I  will  say  the  reason  is  it  is  such  hard  work  that 
nobody  wants  to  work  at  it.  I  guess  that  is  the  reason. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Can  you  offer  any  information  of  why  less  than 
8  per  cent  of  labor  is  organized?  That  is  the  figure  that  was  given  here — less 
than  8  or  10  per  cent? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  know  whether  those  figures  are  correct. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Whatever  it  is,  it  is  a  small  percentage? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  haven't  given  it  any  thought. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  2.81  per  cent. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  No ;  that  is  of  all  the  90,000,000.  I  meant  of  labor, 
the  working  class ;  they  said  less  than  8  per  cent.  You  have  no  explanation  of 
why  there  is  such  a  small  number. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No ;  I  do  not  know  anything  about  the  figures. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  What,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  best  way  to  estab- 
lish and  maintain  industrial  peace?  What  would  be  the  best  way? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Through  trade  agreements  with  the  employer,  honestly  made, 
and  trade  agreements  that  are  broad  enough  to  permit  both  sides,  both/ parties 
to  it.  to  discuss  any  dispute  that  may  arise  under  it  threadbare,  honestly. 
That  is  all  there  is  to  it,  on  the  part  of  both. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  You  are  familiar  with  the  situation  in  San  Francisco,  of 
course? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  are  both  from  San  Franc' sco  originally.  You  know  the 
strike  there  for  the  eight-hour  day? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 


500          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  When  thousands  of  people  were  on  the  street,  everybody  was 
out,  the  street  car  men  were  on  strike,  you  could  not  talk  over  a  telephone. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  And  the  telegraphers? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  They  were  on  strike;  and  you  couldn't  get  a  shirt  washed, 
because  the  laundries  were  on  strike ;  all  the  iron  trades  were  on  strike ;  every- 
body was  on  strike;  everybody  was  strike  crazy.  The  iron  trades  wanted  an 
eight-hour  day  forthwith,  and  the  town  was  in  turmoil.  It  had  been  visited 
by  a  fire  and  an  earthquake,  and  it  was  all  turned  topsy-turvy  and  we  were  all 
out  of  work,  everybody  wanted  to  work  eight  hours.  You  remember  the  confer- 
ences which  were  held  with  reference  to  this  matter,  and  when  the  employer 
says,  "  We  believe  in  the  eight-hour  day,"  they  said  that  it  would  eventually 
come,  and  the  suggestion  was  made,  "  Let's  get  together  and  see  if  we  can  not 
settle  that  thing."  Well,  we  got  together,  and  we  said  that  the  eight-hour  day 
would  come  in  three  years,  and  when  we  got  through  with  it  the  representatives 
of  both  sides,  both  the  employers  and  the  molders'  union,  and  the  machinists' 
union  and  everybody  said  that  it  was  no  good;  that  one  had  sold  out  to  the 
other,  because  it  was  not  quite  the  right  way. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  that  the  workers  found  fault  with  the  two  repre- 
sentatives of  the  employers  and  the  workers  who  entered  into  that  graduated 
reaching  of  the  eight-hour  day? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  employers  found  fault  with  Mr.  James  Kerr. 

Commissioner  WETNSTOCK.  Who  represented  them? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes;  and  the  workers  found  fault  with  me  representing  the 
workers. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  the  power  had  been  concentrated  in  you 
two  men  to  adjust  that  difficulty? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes ;  they  gave  ns  power  to  do  it,  and  -we  drew  \ip  that  agree- 
ment making  an  eight-hour  day  in  San  Francisco. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  three  years? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

.    Commissioner   WEINSTOCK.  Dropping  off   a   quarter   of   an   hour   every    six 
months? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes.  All  the  unions,  some  of  them  that  I  addressed — one  of 
the  unions  in  particular — some  of  the  members  had  little  bits  of  tin  horns, 
and  they  had  dried  peas  with  them,  and  wThen  I  was  on  the  platform  they  blew 
them  at  me  and  hit  me  in  the  face;  but  we  eventually  got  organized  labor  to 
accept  this  agreement,  and  the  employers  virtually  accepted  it,  too,  and  to-day 
we  have  peace  in  San  Francisco,  and  we  do  not  have  any  umpire.  We  had  two 
men  to  take  hold  of  it  that  had  nerve  enough  to  settle  it,  and  they  settled  it, 
and  your  explanation  of  the  situation  in  San  Francisco  yesterday  was  a  very 
agreeable  one  to  me,  sir,  to  find  out  that  it  worked  out  so  nicely,  because  every- 
body said  the  town  was  going  to  the  bowwows,  and  it  did  not ;  it  is  one  of  the 
best  towns  on  earth  to-day. 

Commissioner  WEINS.TOCK.  For  the  benefit  of  the  record  I  want  to  add  this 
statement :  When  the  three-year  agreement  that  Mr.  Valentine  speaks  of  neared 
its  completion  the  employers  of  the  Metal  Trades  Association  took  the  ground 
that  when  they  had  signed  that  agreement  three  years  before,  the  one  that  Mr. 
Kerr  and  Mr.  Valentine  determined  upon,  they  were  led  to  feel,  although  it 
was  not  written  in  the  agreement,  that  at  the  expiration  of  the  said  three 
years  the  eight-hour  day  would  be  a  common  day  on  the  Pacific  coast;  that 
the  three  years  were  about  to  end,  and  the  eight-hour  day  had  not  become  a 
common  day  on  the  Pacific  coast;  and  that  if  the  employers  of  San  Francisco 
were  to  go  on  the  eight-hour  basis  it  would  place  them  under  a  very  serious 
disadvantage  with  competing  cities;  therefore,  since  the  eight-hour  day  had 
not  been  made  a  common  day,  they  felt  it  was  unjust  and  unfair  for  the  unions 
to  insist  upon  that  eight-hour  day  prevailing. 

A  conference  was  called  of  the  two  sides,  and  they  were  unable  to  come  to 
an  understanding,  so  the  matter  was  referred  to  a  conciliation  board — a  con- 
ciliation board  that  had  been  created  by  the  selection  of  12  men  from  the 
chamber  of  commerce  representing  the  employers  and  12  men  from  the  trade 
council  representing  the  workers,  and  out  of  this  panel  of  24  men  the  metal- 
trade  employers  selected  3  employers,  of  which  I  happened  to  be  one  and  the 
iron  trade  council  selected  3  workers,  constituting  a  jury  of  6  without  an 
umpire — to  determine  whether  the  eight  or  nine  hour  day  should  prevail. 

This  subcommittee  of  six  when  they  first  got  together  were  widely  apart, 
but  after  hearing  both  sides  to  the  controversy  they  reached  the  unanimous 
conclusion  that  the  eight-hour  day  should  be  given  a  year's  trial,  and  that  if 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  501 

at  the  end  of  the  year  the  conditions  were  not  satisfactory  the  matter  could 
be  taken  up  again.  That  recommendation  was  finally  accepted  by  both  sides, 
and  the  matter  went  on  for  a  year  on  the  eight-hour  basis.  At  the  end  of 
the  year  there  were  some  differences  arose,  and  the  matter  was  again  referred 
to  this  subcommittee.  The  subcommittee  rendered  its  judgment  on  the  matter. 
The  ultimate  result  was  that  the  eight-hour  day  continued  for  a  period  of  two 
years  longer ;  that  is,  this  conciliation  board  recommended  at  the  beginning  that 
a  new  three-year  contract  be  entered  into,  that  the  eight-hour  day  be  tried  for 
one  year,  and  that  if  at  the  end  of  the  year  the  conditions  were  not  satisfactory 
the  hours  could  be  changed  for  the  remaining  two  years  of  the  contract. 

The  outcome  of  it  was  that  the  eight-hour  day  prevailed  for  the  full  three 
years,  and  at  the  end  of  three  years,  while  the  contract  was  not  renewed,  the 
eight  hours  still  continued  and  are  in  force  in  San  Francisco  to-day. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  All  I  can  add  to  that,  Mr.  Weinstock,  is  that  your  decision, 
because  you  were  a  member  of  this  commission — you  did  not  have  any  umpire 
to  decide  whether  it  was  right  or  not ;  you  decided  it  yourself ;  there  was  no 
umpire;  there  was  arbitration  and  conciliation.  And  I  bring  that  up  for 
this  reason,  to  show  that  when  there  is  an  honest  difference  of  opinion  between 
two  parties,  if  they  will  sit  down  and  talk  it  over  right,  as  two  honest  people 
should  talk  it  over,  they  may  not  reach  an  agreement  to-day,  but  they  will  some 
day.  That  is  the  position.  It  is  honesty.  A  question  submitted  to  an  umpire 
means  compromise ;  that  is  what  it  means  as  a  rule,  and  I  believe  if  one  party 
is  right  they  should  have  it  all,  and  if  they  are  not  right  they  should  back 
away ;  that  is  all. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  take  it  that  the  thought  you  have  in  mind  is 
this,  that  where  two  parties  get  together,  and  one  party  tries  to  get  some  unfair 
advantage  over  the  other  party,  an  agreement  is  hopeless,  but  when  both  parties 
get  together  and  seek  only  equity  that  in  the  end  they  are  likely  to  come  to  an 
agreement. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  or  two  questions,  unless 
you  desire  to  ask  more,  Mrs.  Harriman. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  No. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Your  situation  has  already  been  suggested,  and 
your  situation  is  a  very  important  one  for  this  commission,  to  make  up  its 
mind  whether  it  wants  to  make  a  recommendation,  for  example,  that  in  all 
lines  of  industry  the  injunction  that  Congress  has  placed  upon  this  com- 
mission to  determine  the  underlying  causes  of  unrest,  and  to  recommend 
remedies  for  it — and  the  question  arises  at  once  whether  we  should  recom- 
mend the  adoption  of  a  trade  agreement  in  all  industries.  Now,  you  have  given 
your  situation,  and  it  ought  to  throw  a  great  deal  of  light  upon  that.  It 
might  make  it  possible  for  this  commission  to  recommend  that  for  some  in- 
dustries a  trade  agreement  would  never  work,  and  would  not  be  a  remedy, 
and  that  therefore  this  commission  would  have  to  classify  the  industries  into 
such  and  such  industries ;  and  that  in  this  or  that  industry  an  agreement  will 
work,  and  in  some  others  it  will  never  work.  Now,  if  that  is  true,  it  would 
be  necessary  for  us  to  analyze  the  question  somewhat  and  determine  some 
principles  of  classification  by  which  you  could  say  that  in  industries  which 
have  such  and  such  peculiarities  we  think  that  arbitration  or  conciliation  or 
a  trade  agrement  in  any  form  will  not  work.  Now,  as  it  strikes  me,  as  the 
question  has  been  raised  by  your  answer,  we  can  eliminate  the  question  of 
personality  of  the  employers  and  employees;  and,  apparently,  we  can  eliminate 
it  in  your  case,  so  far  as  the  employers  are  concerned,  because  I  take  it  that 
it  is  the  same  board,  the  same  executive  board  of  molders  that  deals  with  the 
S.  F.  N.  D.  A.  as  with  the  National  Founders'  Association. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  How  is  that? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  The  same  executive  committee  of  the  molders'  union 
dealing  with  the  founders'  association,  and  continues  to  deal. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  With  the  same  questions;  there  may  be  some  differences  by 
reason  of  the  fact  of  having  the  stove  molders  on  the  other,  and  the  fact  that 
is  dominated  by  the  same  spirit  and  the  same  officers. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  So  far  as  your  observation  goes,  there  were  no 
members  of  your  organization  dealing  with  the  National  Founders'  Association 
who  would  have  made  an  agreement  impossible  with  the  National  Founders 
v:here  they  would  have  made  it  possible  with  the  stove  founders? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  did  not  quite  catch  that,  Professor. 


502          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  to  say,  your  union  ca  le  to  the  National 
Founders  in  the  same  spirit  and  the  same  conciliatory  attitude  in  the  case  of 
the  National  Founders  as  they  did  in  the  case  of  the  stove  founders? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Absolutely  so. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  you  be  willing  to  say  that  the  National 
Founders'  representatives  were  less  honest  or  less  conciliatory  than  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  stove  founders? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No ;  I  would  not  say  that.  I  think  there  is  a  difference  in 
men,  in  temperament  and  nature,  and  so  on.  I  would  not  say  that.  There 
are  as  many  honest  men,  and  good,  fair  men,  who  are  members  of  the  asso- 
ciation as  there  are  among  the  others. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Did  you  find  any  temperamental  difference  between 
the  representatives  of  the  stove  founders  and  of  the  National  Founders? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  will  tell  you  what  we  found.  With  the  stove  founders 
we  had  to  meet  practical  men,  to  take  up  practical  questions.  In  the  other 
association  we  had  to  meet,  sometimes,  the  owners  of  foundries  or  superin- 
tendents that  did  not  know  anything  about  the  business;  and  we  had  to  meet 
men  who  were  employed  by  the  association  who  never  saw  the  inside  of  a 
molding  shop  until  they  became  employees  of  the  association. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What  profession  did  they  represent?  Were  they 
lawyers? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Some  were  lawyers,  some  were  stenographers,  and  some 
were  something  else. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Then,  according  to  that,  I  would  understand  that 
an  employers'  association,  in  order  to  be  successful,  must  have  as  representa- 
tives the  employers  themselves,  directly  owning  and  operating  establishments. 
Is  that  necessary? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  WThen  we  meet  men  to  settle  technical  disputes,  the  men  on 
both  sides  ought  to  know  what  they  are  talking  about,  otherwise  they  will  not 
agree.  The  representative  of  the  defense  association  is  here,  and  I  met  him  a 
couple  of  weeks  ago  and  I  took  off  my  coat  and  we  went  down  into  the  foundry 
and  we  got  at  the  root  of  the  thing.  It  only  took  us  a  few  hours  to  settle  it. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Was  he  an  employer  or  a  subordinate? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  He  is  the  secretary  of  the  association,  but  he  is  an  old-time 
molder,  and  we  can  not  fool  him  a  little  bit. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  He  is  employed  by  the  association? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  But  are  the  representatives  of  the  stove  founders 
that  deal  with  you  all  practical  foundry  men,  owners  of  establishments? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  only  have  one  or  two  to  deal  with.  We  have  the  secre- 
tary and  the  assistant;  that  is  the  only  appeal  we  have.  We  can  go  to  the 
president  of  the  association  occasionally,  but  our  rules  provide  that  if  the  com- 
mittee in  the  shops  can  not  adjust  whatever  grievance  may  arise  it  is  referred 
to  the  two  national  associations.  Representatives  of  those  associations,  or 
organizations,  are  the  officers  of  the  molders'  union  and  the  officers  of  the 
National  Founders'  Defense  Association,  and  their  officer  is  a  man  who  molded, 
himself ;  he  knows  how  to  make  a  mold. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  this :  Is  the  con- 
stitution of  the  National  Founders'  Association  such  that  it  can  not  be  hoped 
that  such  representatives  will  come  out  of  that  organization  as  would  be  com- 
petent to  meet  the  molders  in  such  a  way  as  the  stove  founders  meet  them? 
That  is,  have  they  some  method  of  selection,  some  method  of  organization, 
which  is  defective  for  the  purposes  of  trade 'agreements? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  know  that ;  I  do  not  know  anything  about  that. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  But  you  do  think  that,  whatever  it  is,  it  does  bring 
men  to  the  front  who  are  not  practical  men? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  my  feeling  in  the  matter. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  do  not  ascribe  that  to  Mr.  Briggs? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Not  at  all.  I  do  not  know  whether  Mr.  Briggs  ever  molded 
at  all.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  so  far  as  you  have  dealt  with  that  association, 
have  you  dealt  mainly  with  Mr.  Briggs? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  In  a  great  many  instances;  yes.  We  have  dealt  with  him. 
He  has  been  at  the  conferences. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  he  not  dominate  the  conferences,  naturally? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  know.     They  adjourned,  very  often,  and  went  into 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  503 

a  little  corner  among  themselves,  and  I  don't  know  who  dominated  the  con- 
ference. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  think  men  who  are  not  practical,  or,  we  will 
say,  stenographers  or  attorneys  who  had  to  make  out  a  case  whether  or  not, 
dominated  that  organization? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  mean  this,  Professor,  that  if  there  is  a  question  of  dis- 
pute as  to  the  making  of  the  price,  or  the  making  of  a  piece,  the  only  people 
who  can  adjust  that  are  the  two  people  who  understand  the  making  of  it. 
They  are  the  only  people  who  can  adjust  it.  No  one  outside  of  them  can  adjust 
it.  If  we  are  going  to  adjust  it  on  its  merits,  a  man  who  does  not  know  any- 
thing about  molding  can  not  tell  anything  about  it. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  National  Founders' 
Association  is  dominated  by  that  type  of  men  who  do  not  know  how  to  deal  with 
the  case  as  it  arises? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  will  say  this :  That  they  displayed  in  these  conferences,  a 
desire  to  wind  the  thing  up  quick ;  as  some  of  them  said  in  the  conference,  the 
only  way  to  deal  with  molders  is  to  cut  off  their  ears  quick.  That  was  said. 
That  was  the  spirit;  but  in  cutting  off  men's  ears  the  men  who  had  to  have 
their  ears  cut  off  were  there ;  that  was  the  trouble. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  was  meant  by  "  cutting  off  their  ears  quick  "? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  know  what  was  meant-  by  it. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  To  take  up  the  next  question  that  I  have  in  mind : 
There  are  certain  classes  of  issues  that  come  between  you ;  whether  or  not  the 
issues  are  such  that  they  can  not  be  settled  in  the  case  of  one  industry  and  can 
be  settled  in  the  case  of  another?  For  example,  in  the  Stove  Defense,  you 
seemed  able  to  equalize  piece  rates  throughout  the  country.  That  does  not 
equalize  earnings,  of  course.  But  in  the  National  Founders  you  are  not  able 
to  equalize  piece  rates,  because  there  is  such  an  enormous  variety,  and  they 
are  not  always  competing  with  each  other.  Does  that  bring  up  an  issue  that 
can  not  be  settled  by  a  trade  agreement?  Is  it  essential  hat  you  have  a  uni- 
form national  minimum  wage  in  order  that  you  may  deal  with  the  whole 
foundry  industry? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No,  sir.  If  both  sides,  say,  the  representatives  of  the  asso- 
ciations, the  National  Founders'  Association  and  the  molders'  union,  were  to 
meet  in  a  room  to-morrow,  and  both  would  agree  as  to  the  treatment  of  all  the 
points  of  difference  we  were  both  interested  in,  and  we  would  talk  them  all 
over,  we  could  possibly  reach  an  agreement,  but  if  one  side  says :  "  Here  is  an 
apprentice.  You  prevent  the  American  boy  from  being  taught  a  trade,  and  we 
will  not  arbitrate  that  with  you  " ;  we  can  not  get  along  with  that  association. 
We  have  some  say  in  that,  too,  as  well  as  he  does.  That  is  the  difference  be- 
tween us  and  that  association. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Pending  the  settlement  of  an  issue  of  this  kind,  one 
side  or  the  other  is  always  going  to  have  an  advantage,  is  it  not,  while  it  is 
unsettled?  If  you  retain  the  status  quo,  it  must  be  that  in  some  instances  the 
union  has  the  better  of  the  situation,  and  in  the  other  instances  the  employer 
has  the  advantage  of  the  situation.  Is  not  that  true  in  all  cases? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  true,  Professor;  yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  then,  whichever  side  is  at  a  disadvantage  wants 
an  immediate  settlement,  and  whichever  side  has  an  advantage  wants  a  delay 
in  settlement? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  true  in  a  sense,  too;  but  we  ought  to  strip  that  of 
those  possibilities,  to  prevent  those  things  arising.  Both  associations,  if  they 
want  to  come  together  to  deal,  must  say  this :  "  That  all  of  these  things  that 
arise  in  the  foundry  you  have  as  much  say  about  as  we  have.  Let  us  sit  down 
and  talk  it  over."  If  I  were  to  say  to  the  representatives  of  the  association, 
"  Here  is  a  thing  that  we  will  not  discuss  with  you,"  the  association  would  say, 
"  Well,  we  can  settle  everything  but  that,  and  that  will  be  the  point  of  disagree- 
ment." If  I  am  going  to  be  a  lion,  I  want  to  meet  a  lion ;  I  do  not  want  a  lamb 
to  meet  a  lion.  That  is  the  way  I  feel  about  that  thing. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Take  the  issues  that  came  up  during  these  four  or 
five  years.  I  take  it  that  from  the  period  from  1899  to  1903  or  1904  the  in- 
dustry was  quite  prosperous,  prices  were  going  up,  and  consequently  if  the 
employers  could  retain  the  status  quo,  then  the  molders  could  not  get  an  advance 
in  wages,  and  the  employers  would  gain,  during  that  period  of  rising  prices  and 
prosperity.  Is  not  that  the  situation? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes,  sir. 


504          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  After  1903  we  had  a  depression ;  prices  were  falling, 
and  if  there  was  no  settlement  made  now,  after  1903,  then  the  gain  would 
go  to  the  union,  because  the  employer  would  be  less  and  less  able  to  pay  the 
wages  ? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  brings  us  to  the  point. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  The  question  is :  Would  the  statistics  of  your  dis- 
putes show  a  difference  in  the  grievances?  They  were  mostly  for  raising  wages, 
as  I  understand,  and  for  limiting  hours.  Whas  that  true  throughout  the  whole 
period? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Altogether.  My  statement  was  this  in  the  beginning  of  this 
talk :  That  what  caused  the  abrogation  of  the  New  York  agreement  in  this  dull 
time,  was,  the  employers  said  they  wanted  a  15  per  cent  reduction  in  a  certain 
place,  and  we  refused  it;  but  we  did  not  refuse  them  a  conference.  We  felt 
that  the  ache  belonged  to  them,  and  it  was  their  duty  to  call  upon  their  asso- 
ciation and  call  a  conference  meeting;  but  they  did  not  do  that.  They  were 
advised  to  put  it  into  effect  at  once,  forthwith,  and  then  it  would  be  our  trouble. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Apparently  both  sides  had  strikes  or  lockouts,  be- 
cause of  the  delay  in  having  a  conference.  One  side  must  have  tried  to  force 
the  other  side  by  a  strike,  because  it  would  not  agree  to  a  conference;  or 
the  employers  would  occasion  a  lockout  because  the  union  would  not  agree 
to  a  conference.  The  difficulty  of  the  machinery  lay,  did  it  not,  in  the  fact 
that  you  could  not  brong  about  your  conferences  promptly  enough  to  settle 
the  dispute,  else  there  would  have  been  no  strikes  or  lockouts? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes ;  we  could  bring  about  the  conference.  I  do  not  know 
that  there  were  any  delays  in  these  conferences  to  speak  of,  but  when  we  did 
meet  in  conference  we  had  these  various  points  to  discuss  which  we  could  not 
agree  upon.  For  instance,  if  it  was  a  question  of  the  raise  of  a  wage,  or  a 
reduction  in  wage,  that  issue  was  not  alone  the  issue.  It  might  have  been 
with  us  in  the  start.  The  employer  would  say  "  Yes ;  but  we  want  this  and 
we  want  that " ;  and  they  grasped  after  something  that  they  could  not  have 
without  thrashing  us  to  get  it.  That  was  the  trouble  between  us.  You  will 
find  that  the  reason  why  we  held  a  number  of  these  conferences  was  the  ques* 
tion  of  wage  rates. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  same  machinery  exactly  is  in  force  for  the 
advantage  of  both  organizations — both  the  stove  founders  and  the  other? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  same  thing. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  same  machinery  is  there  with  which  you  have 
succeeded  for  24  years  in  getting  along  without  a  strike ;  that  same  machinery 
is  at  hand  for  the  other? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Exactly  the  same. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  It  seems,  in  the  case  of  the  stove  founders,  some 
issues  were  delayed  10  years  before  settlement  was  made.  How  could  you 
succeed  in  having  a  delay  of  10  years  on  those  questions  in  the  case  of  the 
stove  founders  and  yet  must  have  such  prompt  action  in  the  case  of  the 
founders? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Because  both  of  us  felt  it  would  be  better  to  take  10  years 
to  settle  it,  and  set  it  right,  rather  than  have  a  strike  and  have  a  "  might 
settle  it."  It  is  settled  right  now. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Meanwhile,  both  sides  were  for  10  years  going  on 
with  one  side  having  what  turned  out  eventually  to  be  an  unfair  advantage? 

Mr.   VALENTINE.  That  may  be. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So  under  this  system  we  must  have  people  who  may 
be  willing  to  accept  unfair  advantages  for  10  years? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  It  might  be.     Right  will  prevail  in  the  end. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  suppose  the  ability  of  an  employer  to  maintain  an 
unfair  disadvantage  of  this  kind  would  consist  in  his  power  to  fix  the  prices 
of  his  product,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  understand  your  point. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  competition  were  very  severe  among  employers 
in  that  line,  then  they  could  not  stand  10  years'  waiting  under  an  expensive 
disadvantage? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  know  that  that  case  would  arise  in  that  way.  We 
are  talking  about  a  different  proposition.  One  is  a  matter  of  principle,  and 
the  other  is  a  question  of  wage  rate.  For  instance,  it  costs  a  man  to  have  a 
reduction  in  wages  in  order  to  compete  with  the  other  fellow.  We  can  settle 
that  without  having  very  much  trouble  about  it. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  505 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is,  would  you  be  willing  to  place  the  National 
Founders  on  a  competitive  equality  with  their  competitors? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  will  say  what  we  have  done.  With  the  defense  associa- 
tion we  have  never  had  a  reduction  in  wages.  The  first  advance  in  wages 
that  we  got,  after  getting  together — and  we  were  both  about  tired  out  when 
we  did  get  together — was  agreed  to,  and  we  decided  we  would  go  along  those 
lines,  and  in  1899  we  got  the  first  advance  of  wages.  We  have  35  per  cent 
now  in  advance.  In  1893,  when  wre  had  the  panic,  the  employers  said  they 
wanted  a  reduction.  We  said  "  Wre  have  got  to  give  it  to  you."  Then  the 
employers  came  back  and  said  "  It  will  not  do  us  any  good,  or  you  any  good, 
and  we  do  not  need  it."  That  is  the  spirit  in  which  we  met.  They  would  not 
sell  them  another  stove. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  understand  why  they  agreed  to  that  was 
that  they  controlled  the  industry  pretty  fully  throughout  the  country,  and  that 
they  had  a  stove  manufacturers'  association,  \vhich  is  practically  the  same  as 
the  Stove  Defense  Association,  and  that  while  they  made  an  agreement  with 
you,  they  could  turn  around  and  maintain  prices  on  the  other  hand  that  would 
enable  them  to  pay  you  the  wages  which  they  consented  to  pay? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  You  may  think  that.  Mr.  Hogan  can  answer  that  on  the 
stand,  \vhen  you  put  him  on  the  stand.  Let  we  say  this  to  you,  that  there  is 
no  truth  in  that.  They  do  not  control  prices,  and  have  not  been  able  to  con- 
trol prices.  I  know  what  I  am  speaking  of.  I  know  in  certain  localities  there 
are  others  who  would  jump  in  and  take  the  trade  away  from  them.  Then  they 
have  to  alter  their  stoves  every  two  or  three  months  in  order  to  get  in  again. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  manufacturers  of  stoves  are  not  in  the 
Stove  Defense  Association? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  could  not  say  that;  I  do  not  know.  The  defense  associa- 
tion was  formed,  but  has  no  commercial  bearing.  We  do  not  know  anything 
about  their  commercial  business. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  speaking  about  it  from  your  viewpoint.  Do  you 
deal  with  the  stove  founders  who  are  not  in  the  defense  association? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes ;  we  deal  with  stove  founders  who  are  not  in  the  associa- 
tion, and  they  do  grant  the  advances  or  take  advantage  of  any  reductions,  just 
the  same.  Wre  do  not  deal  with  them  at  all  except  singly. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  deal  with  them  as  individuals? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  do  you  require  the  stove  founder  wrho  is  not  in 
the  defense  association  to  pay  the  same  prices  as  the  stove  founder  who  is  in 
the  defense  association? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  same  percentage. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  put  his  molders  on  competitive  equality  with 
the  stove-defense  molders? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  do  when  we  have  the  opportunity. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  it  would  follow  from  that  that  a  stove  founder 
who  is  not  a  member  of  the  defense  association  could  not  cut  prices,  so  far  as 
labor  cost  is  concerned.  He  would  have  to  maintain  prices? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  During  that  year. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  During  that  year? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So  there  would  be,  through  your  system  of  con- 
trolling all  of  the  stove  founders,  a  certain  power  in  the  stove  industry  to  main- 
tain prices? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  know  of  it.  I  never  heard  of  it.  I  do  not  know 
much  about  the  commercial  business,  but  I  know  that  the  competition  is  very 
keen. 

The  ACTING  -CHAIRMAN.  How  large  is  your  control  of  the  foundries  of  the 
country  outside  of  the  stove  foundries?  Can  you  figure  that?  You  apparently 
control  all  the  stove  foundries  in  the  country.  How  large  an  element  is  outside 
of  the  National  Pounders'  Association  that  employs  molders?  Some  figures 
were  given  here,  but  I  do  not  remember  them. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  could  not  answer  that.  I  have  not  the  data  with  me  and 
do  not  know  anything  about  it.  I  could  not  even  approximate  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Seeing  you  control  90  per  cent  of  the  stove  foundries, 
would  you  say  you  control  50  per  cent  of  the  general  machinery  foundries? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  could  not  give  you  any  percentage  at  all.  It  would  be  a 
very  bad  guess  if  I  did.  I  have  no  means  of  knowing  that. 


506          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  you  think  it  is  a  less  per  cent  than  .you  control 
in  the  stove  foundries? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  would  think  so,  but  I  do  not  know. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  know  how  much  less? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  one  other  line  about  which  I  would  like  to 
ask  some  questions.  In  the  stove  industries,  and  other  industries,  there  is  a 
large  element  of  common  labor,  or  foundry  laborers,  who  are  not  eligible  to  the 
molders'  union.  What  would  that  proportion  amount  to  in  a  typical  stove 
foundry? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  would  be  a  smaller  percentage  than  it  would  be  in  the 
other  foundries.  I  do  not  know  just  how  many  it  would  be.  We  do  not  admit 
anybody  except  a  molder. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Does  your  organization  have  any  sympathetic  coop- 
eration with  these  foundry  laborers  to  enable  them  to  maintain  wages  and 
conditions? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  do  wherever  we  can  be  of  assistance. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Could  yoii  give  any  examples  of  what  you  have  done? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  have  not  gone  on  strike  to  do  it.  I  have,  in  my  own 
personal  way — and  I  presume  other  officers  have  done  it,  too — assisted  them  in 
this  way:  In  discussing  matters  with  the  owner  of  the  shop,  I  have  been  ap- 
pealed to  by  representatives  of  other  people  that  were  not  organized  and  have 
got  a  change  in  conditions  for  them.  We  have  done  that. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  tried  to  organize  the  foundry  helpers  or 
foundry  laborers  in  any  way? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No ;  we  have  not  done  that. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  have  not  tried  to  promote  or  father  any 
organization  of  them? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  have  not  done  that.  We  are  members  of  the  metal-trades 
department. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Your  organization  is  a  member  of  that  department, 
is  it? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Is  it  a  part  of  the  policy  of  that  department  to  or- 
ganize all  the  laborers  in  a  foundry? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  It  is  the  policy  of  the  department  to  organize  in  their  respec- 
tive unions  every  one  that  works  in  the  metal  trades. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Where  would  the  foundry  laborers  come  in  in  that 
metal-trades  department  ? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  They  would  come  in  the  National  Organization  of  Foundry 
Employees.  There  is  a  national  organization,  and  they  would  come  in  under 
that. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  this  National  Organization  of  Foundry  Employees 
is  then  encouraged  by  the  molders'  union,  the  hope  is  that  every  employee  in  a 
foundry  will  be  organized? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes.  We  have  gone  so  far  with  them  as  to  adjust  their 
differences  for  them  with  the  owner  of  the  shop. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  this  metal-trades  department,  then,  controlling 
all  of  the  employees  in  the  establishment,  make  an  agreement  as  the  metal- 
trades  department  with  the  foundry  men? 

Mr.  ATALENTINE.  It  could,  with  the  consent  of  all  the  trades  affiliated  with  the 
department. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  so  organized  that  you  have  an  executive 
council  representing  all  the  trades  that  could  make  an  agreement? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  have;  but  we  are  not  up  to  that  perfection  yet  in  the 
metal  trades;  we  have  not  arrived  at  that  point. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  one  of  the  aims  that  you  have? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  aim  of  the  department,  in  my  judgment,  would  be  to 
bring  about  thorough  organization  among  the  employees  working  in  the  metal 
industry. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Which  means  organization  of  everybody  in  the 
establishment? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  In  their  respective  organizations;  not  in  one,  but  in  their 
respective  organizations — the  machinists  in  the  machinists'  organization  and 
the  laborers  in  the  foundry  employees'  organization. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Could  the  metal-trades  department  as  now  organized 
prevent  one  union  from  going  out  on  strike  if  the  others  did  not  consent? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  507 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  could  by  advice,  etc.  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any 
law  to  prevent  it,  but  we  could  advise  against  it,  and  have  done  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So  that  by  a  moral  effort  you  expect  to  keep  them 
altogether  in  one  union — in  one  large  federation? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  In  a  federation ;  yes.  There  have  been  instances  where  some 
of  the  unions  affiliated  with  the  department  have  gone  on  strike  and  we  have 
advised  and  the  department  itself  has  advised  against  it.  They  have  not  any 
law  that  prevents  them  doing  it ;  they  can  do  it  if  they  want  to. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  On  that  question  of  scientific  management  that  was 
referred  to,  I  should  like  to  ask  if  you  have  had  any  experience  with  any  estab- 
lishment in  which  the  so-called  more  modern  methods  of  scientific  management 
have  been  introduced? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  know  what  you  mean  by  "  scientific  management." 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  The  efficiency  system. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  A  foundry  is  different  from  any  other  place. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  trying  to  get  at  whether  the  foundry  has  been 
.scientifically  managed  in  the  past  or  if  this  new  issue  is  to  come  up  with  the 
foundries.  Do  you  understand  this  new  proposition?  It  involves  a  certain 
system  of  premium  payments,  bonuses,  and  a  reorganization  of  the  establish- 
ment generally,  writh  a  larger  overhead  or  inspection  force,  and  particularly  a 
stop  watch  for  measuring  the  motions  and  speeds  of  the  individual.  Have  you 
had  any  experience  with  that? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  average  molder,  if  you  put  a  stop  watch  on  him,  would 
go  out  of  the  foundry,  or  you  would  go  out.  He  would  not  permit  a  stop 
watch  over  him. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  feeling  against  the  stop  watch? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  consider  the  stop  watch  sort  of  a  slave-driving  proposi- 
tion. That  is  how  we  feel  toward  that. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  In  what    way? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Because  man  has  not  yet  become  a  machine.  He  is  human ; 
he  does  not  want  his  actions  gauged  by  a  stop  watch. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Suppose  the  union  business  agent  also  held  a  stop 
watch  along  with  the  boss? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  never  heard  of  such  a  thing.  I  never  heard  of  a  business 
agent  or  officer  holding  a  stop  watch. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  When  you  fix  the  board  prices  so  as  to  equalize  the 
price  of  a  new  piece  that  is  put  in,  you  and  the  officer  of  the  Stove  Defense 
Association  go  on  the  ground,  as  I  understand  it,  and  you  make  a  study  of  the 
amount  of  time  that  it  will  take  to  make  that  new  piece,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  do  you  fix  the  board  price? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Say  here  is  a  stove  bottom  paying  10  cents  for  the  molding 
of  it.  The  new  one  has  a  few  lugs  here,  or  a  few  strips  here  [indicating].  We 
feel  as  though  we  ought  to  be  paid  for  that,  because  it  takes  longer  to  make  it, 
and  there  is  more  chance  of  it  being  a  bad  one.  We  get  more  pay  for  it.  You 
must  remember,  in  the  foundry  when  we  wrork  piecework  there  are  a  lot  of  ele- 
ments that  enter  into  the  making  of  a  casting  that  do  not  have  to  be  consid- 
ered in  other  shops.  We  may  make  a  perfect  mold,  and  we  may  get  a  bad  core 
to  put  in  it.  The  sand  may  not  be  what  it  ought  to  be,  and  the  mold  is  lost 
and  then  the  man  does  not  get  paid  for  it.  If  all  those  things  that  went  into 
the  mold  were  controlled  by  the  molder,  it  would  be  a  different  proposition ;  but 
that  is  not  the  case. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Suppose  you  found  a  piece  here  where  there  was  no 

element  of  chance  about  it,  and  you  have  been  paying  10  cents  for  that  piece. 

.  We  now  find  that  the  additional  time  required  to  make  this  new  piece  would 

'  make  it  worth  15  cents.     The  element  of  time  would  make  a  difference  of 

5  cents.     Would  there  be  additional  elements  of  risk  or  chance  of  losing  the 

piece? 

Commissioner  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  do  you  add  for  that?  Do  you  take  care  of  that 
by  also  adding  in  another  cent — by  adding  not  merely  5  cents  to  the  board 
price  but  by  adding  another  cent  and  making  it  6  cents  or  7  cents? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  might  do  that. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So  that  you  would  take  two  things  into  account — • 
the  additional  time  required  and  the  additional  menace  or  risk  required.  Is 
not  that  so? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Oh,  yes ;  that  is  right. 


508          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  take  the  two  elements  into  consideration? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  There  may  be  more  than  two  elements. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  always  you  do  take  the  time  element,  do  you 
not? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  How  is  that? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  never  make  a  new  price  without  taking  the 
time  element  as  one  of  the  things? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Sometimes  we  do  it  in  one  way  and  sometimes  we  do  not. 
There  may  be  a  whole  lot  of  elements  that  go  into  that  thing.  A  man  may  take 
a  minute  longer  to  do  that,  because  we  do  not  believe  human  beings  can 
work  by  minutes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  find  that  time  is  a  factor,  you  willl  take  it 
into  account? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  it  is  not  a  factor,  you  disregard  it  in  the  price? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Oh,  yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  do  you  size  up  the  amount  of  time  where  you 
do  take  it  into  account? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  one  of  those  things  that  could  not  be  explained  in 
a  talk  of  this  kind.  That  is  the  reason  that  we  need  practical  men. 

When  we  go  into  a  factory  and  see  the  pieces  before  us  we  will  argue  from 
our  own  viewpoint  as  we  see  it.  There  may  be  a  whole  lot  of  reasons  why 
we  want  more  money,  and  there  may  be  a  lot  of  reasons  why  the  representatives 
of  the  association  do  not  want  to  pay  the  advance,  etc.  We  could  not  explain 
that  in  a  talk  of  this  kind. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  test  out  the  molder  on  the  floor?  Do  you 
spend  two  or  three  days  having  him  make  that  casting  on  the  floor  to  see  about 
the  amount  of  time  that  it  requires? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  may  do  that. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  When  you  do  that  the  officer  and  the  officer  of  the 
defense  association  observe  it  together,  do  they  not? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  the  only  difference  there  is  between  you  and 
scientific  management  is  that  neither  of  you  has  an  actual  standard  of  measure- 
ment as  shown  by  the  stop  watch? 

.  Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes.  You  could  say  yes  to  that,  but  of  course  in  saying  that 
I  want  to  be  understood  that  when  these  differences  are  taken  up  we  do  not 
work  by  minutes  or  half  minutes.  We  just  conclude  that  this  piece  is  a  little 
larger  than  that,  and  we  have  a  system  for  that.  It  may  be  a  quarter  of  an 
inch  larger,  or  it  may  be  a  half  an  inch  larger,  or  possibly  2  inches  larger. 
WTe  try  to  get  as  nearly  as  we  can  to  the  question  of  paying  an  additional,  say 
half  cent,  if  it  is  2  inches  larger.  If  it  is  2  inches  larger,  we  may  pay 
half  a  cent  more  for  that  casting.  We  at  once  increase  the  price  half  a  cent. 
There  may  be  another  element  that  enters  into  it,  and  it  may  be  increased  half 
a  cent  because  of  that  other  element. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  As  I  understand  it,  your  two  representatives  of  the 
two  associations  use  their  best  judgment  in  including  the  additional  time  by 
observation  of  the  men  showing  the  additional  time  required,  and  use  your 
best  judgment  as  to  whether  there  is  another  element,  but  you  do  not  resort 
to  actual  time  measurement? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  right. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  On  the  other  hand,  you  do  not  have  an  arbitrator 
or  third  man  to  decide  in  cases  of  difference? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  In  establishing  the  piece  rate? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Or  the  day  rate. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  assume  the  day  rate  has  been  made  by  national 
agreement? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  All  you  are  doing  now  is  to  fix  this  piece  rate  to 
conform  to  the  day  rate? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  right. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So  you  do  not  have  the  third  party?' 
Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  right. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  it  be  an  advantage,  in  your  experience,  to 
have  had  a  third  party  to  fix  on  that  time  study? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  509 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No.  He  would  not  be  of  any  advantage  to  us,  because  of 
the  fact,  as  I  say,  that  prices  in  the  stove  shop  are  fixed  by  comparison.  We 
have  those  to  compare  with.  This  bottom  piece  has  been  made  for  a  certain 
price.  The  new  bottom  has  some  changes  made  in  it.  All  that  is  necessary  is 
for  us  to  find  out  what  those  changes  are.  It  is  a  comparison  of  one  with  the 
other.  That  is  all  there  is  to  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  There  seems  to  be,  in  my  mind,  at  least,  brought 
out  a  situation  here  that  is  rather  confusing.  Prof.  Commons  asked  you  a  few 
minutes  ago  about  this  question  of  a  delay  of  ten  years  in  the  adjustment  of 
some  particular  thing  that  occurred.  That  might  convey — at  least  it  does  to 
me — that  one  firm  would  be  placed  at  a  very  great  disadvantage  with  another 
firm  because  of  some  delay  in  the  adjustment  of  something  for  ten  years. 
What  I  gather  from  your  statement,  Mr.  Valentine,  is  that  the  question  that 
you  did  not  settle  for  five  or  eight  or  ten  years  would  be  fundamental,  like 
the  question  whether  the  apprentice  ratio  should  be  changed  from  five  to  four, 
or  from  five  to  ten,  and  by  not  changing  it,  or  if  you  dealt  with  it  for  ten  years, 
no  employer  would  have  an  advantage  over  another  employer  in  that  time. 
They  would  be  working  under  the  same  ratio,  no  matter  what  is  was,  in  that 
period  of  time ;  or  if  the  question  is  whether  a  machine  should  be  operated  by 
a  handy  man  or  a  molder  or  an  apprentive,  and  if  that  question  took  a  number 
of  years  to  adjust,  there  would  be  no  advantage  to  one  employer,  and  the  one 
employer  would  have  no  advantage  over  another,  because  it  took  a  period  of 
years  for  them  to  adjust  that  question.  Is  not  that  a  fair  example  of  the  kind 
of  question  it  takes  so  long  to  adjust? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  what  I  thought. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  There  would  be  no  advantage  in  favor  of  any 
employer ;  one  employer  would  have  no  advantage  over  another,  because  it  took 
a  period  of  years  for  that  to  be  adjusted ;  is  that  not  the  position  with  you? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  what  I  thought. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  questions  of  wages  and  those  things  that 
occur  daily ;  the  question  of  settlement  with  a  man  as  to  whether  he  has  been 
discharged  unjustly  or  not;  those  questions  are  adjusted  as  you  go  along,  and 
it  does  not  take  any  great  time  to  adjust  them.  As  I  catch  your  idea,  that  is 
what  you  want  to  convey? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes ;  I  thought  that  was  understood ;  and  I  am  glad  you 
made  mention  of  it,  because  we  want  it  made  clear. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  think  the  record  will  probably  show  that  if 
there  was  a  question  of  wages  on,  or  something  that  affected  the  employer  to- 
day, if  it  took  10  years  to  adjust,  he  might  be  put  out  of  business  in  the 
meantime  because  of  the  unfair  position  with  regard  to  his  fellow  manufacturer. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  To  show  the  spirit  that  we  displayed,  there  is  to-day  an 
agreement  of  one  apprentice  to  the  shop  and  of  one  to  every  five  journeymen. 
Supposing  we  could  not  furnish  enough  moulders  and  the  foundrymen  would 
need  more  help,  our  agreement  provides  that  we  can  get  together  and  determine 
to  give  those  men  more  apprentices  despite  the  ratio. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  agreement  which  you  had  originally  with  the 
founders  did  not  provide  for  a  union  shop — a  closed  shop,  as  they  term  it? 
The  agreement  itself  had  no  provision  of  that  kind,  did  it? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  question  was  never  brought  up  at  all. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  statement  made  here  yesterday  by  the  repre- 
sentative would  convey  the  idea  that  that  was  one  of  the  questions  of  unionism. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  It  was  in  that  discussion. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  A  provision  of  that  kind  was  never  in  the  agree- 
ment at  all? 

Mr.  VALENTINE,  Not  in  any  of  the  contracts. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like  to  ask  Mr.  Valentine  a  question  or  two  on  the 
matter  of  arbitration  and  conciliation.  I  understand,  Mr.  Valentine,  from  what 
you  have  said  that  you  believe  in  the  settlement  of  questions  between  the  two 
parties  by  the  method  which  we  call  to-day  the  method  of  conciliation  rather 
than  that  of  arbitration,  which  required  the  introduction  of  an  umpire.  Am  I 
correct? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  in  discussing  that  question  the  matters  you  touched  on 
were  matters  which  apparently  could  be  delayed  in  their  settlement  from  year 
to  year,  even  going  as  far  as  10  years,  if  I  understood  you  correctly,  so  that 
they  might  be  settled  right  and  not  in  accordance  with  might. 


510          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  the  point  in  the  apprentice  matter — the  fundamental 
proposition. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes.  Now,  in  regard  to  questions  of  policy,  the  fundamental 
questions  that  both  parties  have  to  meet,  I  think  perhaps  all  men  would  agree 
with  you ;  but  there  are  questions,  are  there  not,  that  are  temporary  and  imme- 
diate in  their  nature,  and  which  would  require  immediate  consideration?  Take, 
i'or  instance,  a  shop  or  a  number  of  shops  of  different  manufacturers,  which  are 
operated  on  what  is  called  the  open-shop  principle,  or  the  preferential  shop 
principle,  where  the  question  of  discrimination  against  a  man  because  lie  is  a 
union  man  may  be  a  source  of  constant  need  of  attention.  A  man  is  dis- 
charged, and  he  claims  he  is  discharged  because  of  his  affiliation  with  the 
organization.  On  a  question  of  that  kind  could  you  meet  in  a  spirit  of  con- 
ciliation from  month  to  month  and  from  year  to  year,  and  while  the  man,  per- 
haps, we  will  say  theoretically  is  waiting  for  his  job?  There  you  would  have 
to  have  some  time  limit  on  the  adjustment  of  a  question  of  that  kind  in  those 
shops  and  under  those  conditions,  where  those  questions  arise  more  or  less  fre- 
quently, would  you  not? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  A  man  who  would  discharge  a  man  because  of  his  joining 
a  union  in  an  open  shop,  if  the  arbitrator  were  to  decide  that  he  did  wrong  and 
reinstate  the  man,  he  would  repeat  the  dose  the  following  week.  I  do  not 
believe  in  this  question  of  open  shop,  as  understood,  because  I  believe  that  these 
open  shops  mean  this  thing.  The  open  shop  means  open  to  whoever  the  employ- 
ers will  permit  to  work  in  it  under  such  conditions  as  the  employer  may 
e&tablish. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  have  not  given  you  the  right  idea  of  what  I  am  trying  to 
reach.  There  is  no  question  about  the  open  shop.  That  was  simply  an  illus- 
tration of  the  question  I  want  to  put  to  your  mind.  I  mean  that  where  there 
are  questions,  no  matter  what  they  are,  that  are  questions  that  need  immediate 
attention,  can  such  questions,  if  there  is  a  condition  in  any  trade  where  they 
arise  constantly,  be  left  to  an  adjustment  which  may  go  on  for  years;  but  in 
such  a  trade  as  that  and  in  such  cases  as  those,  do  you  not  think  it  would  be 
advisable  to  have  some  form  of  adjustment  which  would  provide  for  deciding 
the  question,  after  the  parties  had  endeavored  to  reach  an  adjustment  by  con- 
ciliation themselves? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  might  be,  sir ;  there  might  be  something  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  would  depend  entirely  on  what  the  condition  is. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  On  the  trade,  and  the  nature  of  it,  and 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  And  the  nature  of  the  agreement,  and  so  on. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Is  there  anything  else,  Mr.  Harriett,  that  you  wish 
to  ask? 

Mr.  BAENETT.  No. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Valentine. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then,  we  will  adjourn  now  until  2  o'clock. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  will  take  a  recess  until  2  o'clock.  Mr.  Hogan, 
we  regret,  of  course,  the  delay  on  the  part  of  witnesses  who  are  waiting,  and 
we  trust  that  you  appreciate  the  need. 

(At  1  o'clock  p.  m.  the  commission  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock  p.  ni.) 

AFTER  RECESS 2  O'CLOCK  P.   M. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  THOMAS  J.  HOGAN. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Your  address  and  business  position,  Mr.  Hogan? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Chicago ;  secretary  of  the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  As- 
sociation. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  When  was  the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Association 
organized? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  In  1886. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  And  you  had  your  first  agreement  with  the  molders'  union  in 
1890? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  1891. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  the  history  of  the  association  in  its  relation  to  the 
molders'  union  from  1886  to  1891? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  All  the  time  fighting. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  About  what  things;  what  were  the  difficulties? 


TKADE  AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  511 

Mr.  HOGAN.  All  kinds  of  questions  that  came  up,  and  very  often  on  the  wage 
question. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Did  your  association  aid  the  members  of  your  association  in 
strikes  ? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Oh,  yes;  always. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  And  in  any  other  way? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Well,  no. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  You  aided  them  by  paying  them  for  the  losses  in  strikes? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  And  by  assisting  them  with  men? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes ;  both  ways. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Did  you  help  them  by  placing  the  work  in  other  foundries? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Is  there  any  other  organization  of  the  manufacturers  in  the 
stove  trade? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Not  that  I  know  of.  I  mean,  in  dealing  with  organizations,  there 
is  another  organization. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  What  is  the  name  of  that  other  organization? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  The  National  Association  of  Stove  Manufacturers. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  Are  you  an  official  of  that  organization? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  not  now. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  You  were?  ' 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes ;  I  was  for  a  number  of  years.    I  was  secretary  of  it. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  What  are  the  functions  of  the  National  Stove  Manufacturers? 
How  did  they  differ  from  the  defense  association? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  They  look  altogether  after  the  commercial  side  of  the  business. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  In  what  way  do  you  mean — "  after  the  commercial  side  of  the 
business  "?  Explain  a  little  more  fully. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Any  question  that  comes  up  in  the  line  of  freights,  or  questions 
of  that  kind,  they  get  together  and  talk  them  over. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  They  talk  over  the  question  of  freights? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  That  is  one  of  the  principal  things. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Are  there  any  other  functions  of  the  association? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  They  also  talk  over  costs,  and  have  issued  a  national  associa- 
tion cost  book,  and  have  met  on  many  occasions;  sometimes  when  they  want 
to  get  a  change  in  prices,  and  so  on,  they  get  together  and  talk  it  over;  they 
never  agree  to  any  advance  in  price,  but  they  talk  it  over. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  They  get  together  and  talk  over  the  prices  of  the  manufactured 
product? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Do  they  have  any  officials  who  are  engaged  in  the  cost  sys- 
tems of  the  associations? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  They  have  now ;  what  they  call  their  cost  expert. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  What  are  his  functions? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  He  goes  around  to  see  the  different  people  and  looks  into  their 
costs,  and  very  often  has  to  show  them  how  to  get  at  it  and  how  to  work  it 
out. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  Are  those  associations  practically  coextensive  in  their  mem- 
bership, or  are  there  members  of  one  who  are  not  members  of  the  other? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  So  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  a  man  to  be  a  member  of  the 
manufacturers'  association  in  order  to  be  a  member  of  the  defense  association? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  How  largely  does  the  membership  overlap  of  the  defense  asso- 
ciation and  the  association  of  manufacturers? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  The  national  overlaps,  probably,  20  or  25 ;  maybe  more. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  How  do  you  mean?    Twenty  or  twenty-five  per  cent? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No  ;  20  or  25  members. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  How  many  members  are  there  of  the  defense  association? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  About  78  or  79. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  And  of  those  you  mean,  then,  how  many  are  members  of  the 
association  of  manufacturers? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  couldn't  tell  you  exactly,  but  pretty  nearly  all  of  them  are. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Pretty  nearly  all  of  them  are? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  What  do  you  mean  by  overlapping  25? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Twenty-five  are  members  of  the  association  of  manufacturers. 


512          REPORT    OP    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Air.  BARNETT.  And  are  not  members  of  the  defense  association? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Why  are  they  not  members  of  the  defense  association? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  The  defense  association  will  not  take  in  everybody ;  we  have 
never  solicited  membership,  and  if  a  man  makes  application,  it  is  looked  into 
pretty  thoroughly,  and  if  he  is  in  trouble  with  labor,  and  is  peculiarly  situated 
so,  they  will  not  take  him  in. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  If  he  is  at  that  time  in  trouble  with  labor? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  most  of  these  manufacturers  applied  for  membership  in 
that  association  and  been  rejected,  or  would  they  like  to  come  in? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  don't  know  whether  they  would  like  to  come  in,  but  two  or 
three  were  rejected  that  applied. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  On  the  ground  that  they  had  difficulties  with  labor  which 
would  make  their  presence  undesirable? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Are  members  of  the  association  bound  to  the  association  in  any 
way  by  a  bond?  You  know  that  in  certain  employers'  associations  it  is  cus- 
tomary for  the  members  to  give  a  bond? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  there  anything  of  that  sort  in  this  association? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  any  member  at  liberty  to  retire  when  he  sees  fit? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes ;  but  in  becoming  a  member  he  has  to  pay  into  an  emergency 
fund,  which  goes  on  for  years,  and  sometimes  it  costs  him  quite  a  lot  of  money. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  much  does  it  cost  a  man  to  get  in?  Does  it  depend  on 
the  number  of  molders? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  On  how  many  molders? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  $25  or  $90  a  molder. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Which  is  the  largest  shop  in  the  country — how  many  molders? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Three  hundred  and  fifty. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  he  would  have  to  pay  into  that  fund  twenty-five  times 
$350  to  come  in? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Besides  the  annual  dues,  and  also  an  initiation  fee,  which  is  $50, 
and  the  dues  are  $25. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  this  emergency  fund? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes;  this  $25  would  be  his  pro  rata  part  of  that. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  $25  would  be  his  pro  rata  part  of  the  present  emergency  fund? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Exactly. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  if  he  retires  from  the  association  he  does  not  get  any- 
thing refunded?  He  would  lose  all  claim  to  the  money? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  The  only  way  he  can  get  it  refunded  is  when  he  goes  out  of 
business. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  When  he  goes  out  of  business  he  gets  his  money  back? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  heard  Mr.  Valentine's  testimony  this  morning  as  to  the 
very  successful  work  the  conciliation  agreement  has  done  in  the  stove  trade? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  had  any  similar  agreement  with  other  trade  unions? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes ;  we  have 

Mr.  BARNETT.  With  what  unions? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  The  metal  polishers  and  the  stove  mounters. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Suppose  we  take  up  those  separately — the  metal  polishers. 
When  was  that  agreement  formed  or  made? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  do  not  know.     About  10  or  12  years  ago,  I  guess. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  With  the  polishers? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  1902;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  might  say  that,  but  I  am  not  sure. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  long  did  it  last? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Four  or  five  years. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  1909  right? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  it  similar  or  identical,  in  its  fundamental  parts,  with  the 
agreement  with  the  Stove  Pounders'  Defense  Association? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IX    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  513 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  did  it  terminate? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Why,  they  withdrew  from  the  agreement;  practically  abrogated 
that. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Abrogated  the  agreement? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  am  sorry  that  we  will  not  be  able  to  have  the  metal  polishers 
at  this  hearing,  but  will  you  tell  us  why,  as  you  understand  it,  they  abrogated 
that  agreement?  What  was  their  source  of  dissatisfaction? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Well,  I  guess  they  didn't  want  it — the  agreement.  They  thought 
they  would  get  more  outside. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Wages? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Different  things  that  came  up. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  kind  of  things? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Shop  rules  and  wages  and  various  things  that  would  come  up 
that  they  would  be  grunting  about. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  you  attribute  this  breakdown  of  the  metal  polishers'  agree- 
ment to  the  difference  in  personality  of  the  officers  who  had  it  in  charge  or  to 
inherent  difficulties  in  the  trade? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Almost  altogether  to  the  officials.  They  had  at  this  time  a  man 
:Who  was  president,  who  was — what  do  you  call  it — a  Socialist,  and  he  was 
opposed  to  unything  of  that  kind.  And  there  were  quite  a  number  of  others 
that  were  Socialists  in  the  organization,  and  they  thought  they  didn't  want  to 
be  bound  up  in  any  way. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  not  want  to  be  tied  up  permanently  with  agreements? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  they  want  to  have  sympathetic  strikes?  Was  that  the 
idea,  as  you  understand  it? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  We  never  had  anything  of  that  kind  with  any  of  them,  because 
we  would  not  make  any  agreements  with  them  if  there  was  any  sympathetic 
strikes ;  that  would  knock  out  the  whole  thing. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  there  any  clause  in  that  conference  agreement  that  pre- 
cludes a  sympathetic  strike? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  but  when  it  was  originally  started  that  was  understood,  that 
we  would  not  stand  for  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  About  the  mounters,  stove  mounters — the  stove  mounters' 
agreement  was  formed  at  that  time  with  your  association? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  About  the  same  time  as  the  metal  polishers. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  1908;  a  year  later? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  When  was  that  abrogated? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  After  four  or  five  years ;  four  years,  I  guess. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  was  in  1907? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  the  abrogation  of  this  agreement  follow  any  change  in 
policy  on  the  part  of  your  association  in  any  way? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  1908  your  association  formulated  a  statement  of  policy,  did 
it  not,  at  Atlantic  City? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  the  character  of  that  statement? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  We  never  paid  any  attention  to  that. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Will  you  tell  us  a  little  about  that? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  A  few  of  the  disgruntled  ones 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  A  few  of  the  disgruntled  ones  got  it  through. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Why  were  they  disgruntled,  if  you  do  not  mind  informing  us? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  They  thought  they  would  rather  be  away  from  the  molders' 
union,  and  have  strikes,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing,  and  run  their  business  just 
as  it  suited  them.  There  were  quite  a  number  of  them,  and  they  had  a  good 
deal  of  influence  at  that  time. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  it  on  account  of  this  declaration  of  policies  that  the  agree- 
ment with  the  mounters'  union  came  to  an  end? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  it  was  not. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  the  difficulty  with  the  mounters'  union? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Just  the  same  as  with  the  metal  polishers.  They  thought  they 
would  rather  be  outside  and  not  be  tied  by  agreements,  and  then  they  could 
strike  or  have  trouble  whenever  they  wanted  to. 

38819° — 16 33 


514          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  there  not  a  question  as  to  the  right  of  the  mounters'  union 
to  levy  a  boycott  on  the  members  of  the  Stove  Defense  Association  involved  in 
the  breakdown  of  that  agreement? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  the  metal  workers  did  attempt  to  establish  a  boycott,  but 
we  insisted  on  their  quitting  it,  and  they  did.  On  one  of  our  members  they 
undertook  to  establish  a  boycott. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  That  was  the  polishers'  union? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Was  that  the  reason  for  the  breakdown  of  the  polishers'  agree- 
ment? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  I  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  was  simply  an  understanding  in  the  matter? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  What  was  this  rule  about  a  boycott? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Do  you  mean  their  rule? 

Mr.  BABNETT.  No ;  your  rule  in  your  "  declaration  of  policy,"  or  whatever  it 
is  called. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  We  had  something  that  covered  that,  I  think.  [After  examining 
pamphlet.]  I  thought  we  had  something  in  regard  to  that,  but  I  do  not  see  it 
here  now. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  in  the  molders'  agreement. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  thought  there  was  another  one.  The  molders'  agreement  was 
in  1904. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Just  tell  us  the  substance  of  it. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  It  is  as  follows: 

"  The  International  Molders'  Union  of  North  America  shall  not  itself,  nor  by 
any  of  its  agents,  in  any  manner  discriminate  against  the  goods  manufactured 
or  sold  by  any  member  of  the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Association 
because  of  the  unwillingness  of  such  member  of  said  association  to  use  the 
union  label,  and  that  a  copy  of  this  resolution  be  duly  attested  by  the  presi- 
dents and  secretaries  of  the  respective  organizations,  with  the  seal  of  each 
organization  attached  thereto,  and  a  facsimile  be  furnished  each  member  of 
the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Association  and  each  local  of  the  Inter- 
national Molders'  Union  of  North  America." 

It  was  on  account  of  the  label. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  What  was  the  rule  about  the  boycott,  as  nearly  as  you  can  re- 
member? You  can  file  that  statement  of  that  declaration  of  policy  later. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  If  there  is  any  organization  that  introduces  a  boycott,  it  would 
have  to  be  taken  off  in  30  days,  or  else  we  would  discontinue  the  agreement  with 
them. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  that  mean  a  boycott  of  any  member  of  your  association 
who  was  in  agreement  with  the  union?  Some  of  the  members  of  your  associa- 
tion are  not  under  that  agreement,  as  I  understand  it.  Some  of  the  members 
of  the  National  Defense  Association  do  not  conduct  their  shops  under  the  agree- 
ment. Is  that  not  right? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Not  that  I  kno\v  of. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  it  not? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  There  are  two  nonunion  shops ;  that  is  all ;  but  they  are  subject 
to  our  agreements. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  They  are  subject  to  your  agreements  in  what  way,  Mr.  Hogan? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  The  same  as  any  other  members. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  is,  as  to  the  rate  of  wages  fixed? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  all  these  shop  rules  in  the  conference  agreement  are 
obeyed  by  them? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  If  they  are  called  up,  we  would  have  to  decide  they  would  have 
to  use  them. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  They  would  have  to  follow  them? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Suppose  there  is  a  disagreement  in  such  a  nonunion  shop ;  how 
is  it  settled? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  We  have  not  had  any  disagreements  there  that  we  had  to  take  up. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  not  a  clause  in  your  conference  agreement  which 
provides  for  the  settlement  of  disagreements  in  such  nonunion  shops? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  think  we  have;  yes.     Here  it  is.     It  says: 

"  Whenever  a  difficulty  arises  between  a  member  of  the  S.  F.  N.  D.  A.  whose 
foundry  does  not  come  under  the  provisions  of  clause  3,  1891  conference,  and 


: 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  515 

the  molders  employed  by  him,  and  said  difficulty  can  not  be  amicably  settled 
between  the  member  and  his  employees,  it  shall  be  submitted  for  adjudication 
to  the  presidents  of  the  two  organizations  or  their  representatives  without  preju- 
dice to  the  employees  presenting  said  grievance." 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Do  you  understand  that  to  provide  there  shall  be  no  suspension 
of  work  in  the  shop  of  such  a  member  pending  such  adjudication? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  There  never  is  and  never  has  been. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  There  has  been  no  disagreement? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  mean  there  has  never  been  any  time  wnen  we  went  out — that 
is,  in  a  nonunion  shop — that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  There  has  never  been  any  suspension  of  work  in  a  nonunion 
shop? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So,  to  sum  up,  Mr.  Hogan,  you  regard  the  breakdown  of  the 
polishers'  agreement  and  the  mounters'  agreement,  which  were  identical  in 
structure  with  that  of  the  molders,  to  the  failure  of  those  two  unions  to  secure 
higher  rates  of  wages? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Or  to  the  character  of  the 

Mr.  HOGAN.  The  character  of  the  people  that  run  it. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  did  not  secure  rates  of  wages? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  An  advance  in  rates  of  wages? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes,  sir;  they  did  receive  advances. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Did  they  receive  advances  of  as  much  as  the  molders  received? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  About  the  same. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Has  there  ever  been  any  difficulty,  Mr.  Hogan,  to  go  for  a 
moment  to  the  agreement  with  the  molders,  settling,  through  yourself  and 
through  the  representative  of  the  molders'  union,  differences  in  the  shops? 
Have  such  difficulties  been  delayed  iii  any  considerable  length  of  time  in  settle- 
ment? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  It  has  never  happened  more  than  twice  anyway,  and  only  once 
in  my  time. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  long  a  delay  intervened? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  It  was  referred  to  the  conference  committee  and  by  them  taken 
up,  and  it  was  decided  against  our  member  and  he  almost  immediately  re- 
signed. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  long  does  it  ordinarily  take  for  a  shop  difficulty  to  be 
settled  by  you  and  a  representative  of  the  molders'  union? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Just  as  soon  as  we  get  there. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  suppose  you  can  not  get  there  sometimes  for  some  little 
while? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Oh,  no.  Sometimes  it  takes  four  or  five  or  six  months  that 
might  go  by,  but  they  have  to  go  on  working,  and  when  it  is  settled  they  get  it 
from  the  time  it  was  first  applied  for. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  have  never  had  any  strike  during  this  time  on  account  of 
the  impatience  of  the  men? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Not  with  the  molders. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  you  have  with  the  mounters  or  polishers? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes;  we  did  with  the  mounters;  we  never  did  with  the  pol- 
ishers. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  During  the  time  when  the  grievance  was  filed  and  before  the 
settlement  could  be  made,  the  mounters  went  on  a  strike? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes.  But  that  was  after  they  had  determined  their  agreements. 
They  made  demands  and  our  people  would  not  accede  to  them,  and  then  they 
had  a  strike,  and  we  supported  the  members. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Are  there  many  machines  used  in  stove  foundries? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes;  quite  a  number. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  kind  of  machines? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Molding  machines. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  there  any  particular  type  of  machine  used  in  the  stove 
foundries? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes ;  but  I  can  not  call  the  names  of  them  now. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  many  of  those  machines  operated  at  the  present  time — 
by  molders? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  In  a  few  cases ;  that  is  all.  There  has  no  settlement  been  made 
in  the  way  of  pricing  this  kind  of  work,  and  most  of  them  are  operated  by  ap- 
prentices. 


516          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Are  any  of  them  operated  by  handymen? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Very  few,  I  think;  if  there  is  any.     I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Would  that  be  objected  to?  Has  there  ever  been  any  objec- 
tion to  that  on  the  part  of  the  molders'  union? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No.  The  only  thing  is,  of  course,  where  we  put  them  on  that 
way  we  call  them  apprentices. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  At  the  present  time  the  understanding  is  that  in  the  absence 
of  any  conference  agreement  on  any  particular  question,  the  matter  shall  be 
left  open — that  is,  the  employer  shall  be  allowed  to  use  his  own  discretion — 
until  such  time  as  an  agreement  is  reached,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  exactly  that  way.  There  is  no  change 
that  can  be  made  in  shop  rules,  without  both  parties  are  agreeable  to  it ;  that 
is,  the  firm  and  its  men. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  there  any  national  shop  rule  at  the  present  time  in  the 
molders'  union,  so  far  as  you  know,  with  reference  to  the  use  of  a  handy  man 
on  machinery? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Not  that  I  know  of ;  no. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  Are  there  rules  in  the  local  union? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  is,  there. is  no  objection  on  the  part  of  the  local  unions 
to  the  use  of  a  handy  man  on  a  machine? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  None;  if  they  are  ruled  as  apprentices  or  put  in  as  apprentices. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  at  the  present  time  practically  all  the  shop  rules — and 
I  mean  by  shop  rules  the  rules  which  affect  the  conduct  of  the  industry  in  any 
way — are  settled  entirely  by  joint  agreement  between  the  molders  and  the 
national  association? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No;  in  regard  to  the  shop  rules  or  conditions  in  the  shop,  that 
is  taken  up  between  the  firm's  own  men  and  themselves. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  did  not  men  shop  rules  in  that  sense.  I  am  using  the  term 
"  shop  rules  "  in  the  sense  of  any  rule  of  a  union  which  affects  the  conduct  of 
the  industry,  such,  for  example,  as  the  apprenticeship  rule,  the  rule  about  the 
use  of  machines,  or  any  rule  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  we  are  not  affected  in  that  way. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Do  you  have  any  difficulties  with  the  local  unions  imposing 
rules  which  are  at  variance  with  the  conference  agreements? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Sometimes;  yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  what  way?    Will  you  illustrate  that? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  They  want  something  done  that  is  in  opposition  to  the  conference 
agreement  and  they  go  out  of  their  own  accord.  We  immediately  notify  the 
president,  Mr.  Valentine,  and  he  looks  after  it  that  they  get  back  to  work.  If 
they  have  any  grievance  it  has  to  be  taken  up  in  regular  form. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  It  is  an  understood  thing  between  your  association  and  the 
officers  of  the  national  union  that  local  unions  can  not  impose  shop  rules  of 
their  own  origination?  That  power  of  legislation  is  taken  out  of  their  hands? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  They  certainly  can  not. 

Mr,  BARNETT.  What  are  the  kinds  of  grievances  which  you  and  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  molders'  union  take  up?  What  are  the  kinds  of  grievances 
which  you  have  to  settle  chiefly? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  You  might  say  most  all  kinds  of  grievances  come  up  during:  the 
year,  but  generally  settling  the  prices  for  new  work  going  in. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  is,  that  the  employer  and  the  committee  can  not  settle 
in  the  matter  of  price? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  never  have  questions  come  up  with  reference  to  whether 
or  not  a  man  is  a  union  man? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Very  seldom.  We  have  had  one  or  two  cases,  but  the  men  wore 
left  there  at  work. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  is  the  understanding  about  that? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  There  is  no  understanding. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  the  character  of  the  decision? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  It  was  simply  some  kind  of  work  that  was  needed  very  badly 
and  there  was  no  man  in  the  shop  that  could  do  it,  and  they  got  a  man  that 
could  make  it,  and  he  was  a  nonunion  man  and  he  was.  allowed  to  work. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Are  there  outstanding  issues  at  the  present  time  between  your 
organization  and  the  molders'  union? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No.  The  only  thing  is  the  settling  of  the  pricing  of  molding 
machines. 


TKADE   AGREEMENTS  IX   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  517 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  And  that  is,  as  Mr.  Valentine  described  it  tins  morning,  a 
question  as  to  the  number  that  shall  be  made? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  It  is  supposed  to  be  settled  that  way,  according  to  the  product 
or  the  amount  that  a  man  can  get  out  on  it.  But,  as  they  say,  a  man  has  to 
work  harder  if  they  urge  him  to  put  up  all  he  can,  and  of  course  it  makes  it 
harder  to  pour  it  off,  because,  as  he  says,  when  one  man  is  putting  up  100  and 
another  man  200,  the  200  takes  more  iron  than  the  100. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  Do  you  know  whether  the  use  of  machines  is  relatively  less  or 
greater  in  the  shops  of  the  members  of  your  association  or  in  the  shops  of  the 
National  Founders'  Association? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  think  they  are  more  in  the  National  Founders'  Association, 
because  they  have  a  greater  number  and  there  is  a  greater  variety  of  business. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  That  is  because  of  the  difference  in  the  character  of  the  work? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  Stove  molding  as  yet  has  not  become  much  of  a  machine  indus- 
try ;  it  is  chiefly  a  hand  industry  ? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  They  are  coming  to  it  more  and  more  all  the  time.  Our  members 
are  increasing  the  number  of  machines  they  are  putting  in. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  O'Connell,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  just  want  to  ask  about  the  polishers  and  mounters. 
They  are  still  employed  in  your  shop,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes ;  and  we  take  up  their  grievances  and  adjust  the  cases. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  take  up  their  grievances  and  adjust  them  as 
you  did  before  the  agreement  was  abrogated? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  understanding  is  just  the  same  as  it  was  before, 
except  their  general  agreement  has  been  abrogated? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  have  always  taken  it  up  with  them. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  you  meet  their  officers  just  as  you  did  before? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  recall  having  seen  you  and  the  president  of  the 
metal  polishers  in  St.  Louis  not  long  ago. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes ;  both  of  those  organizations  have  asked  us  to  renew  the  agree- 
ments again,  but  I  do  not  think  our  people  will  do  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Lennon? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  question  that  may  not  be  clear. 
In  the  matter  of  putting  apprentices  on  machines  you  are  limited  to  the  number 
of  apprentices  allowed  to  the  journeymen,  the  same  as  provided  by  the  rule  set 
forth  by  Mr.  Valentine? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  If  you  put  in  20  machines,  you  would  not  put  in  20 
apprentices  if  there  were  only  5  allowed  under  the  agreement? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Oh,  no. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Ballard? 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  said  you  had  no  suspension  of  work  in  nonunion 
shops.  Was  there  any  suspension  of  work  in  union  shops? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  except  in  a  few  cases  where  the  men  would  go  out  locally  and 
be  out  for  a  few  days ;  that  is  all.  That  has  been  kept  up  in  very  good  shape. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  said  sometimes  you  put  on  an  extra  man  or  two 
to  do  extra  work  the  men  in  your  shop  were  not  prepared  to  do.  Are  those  men 
required  to  take  out  union  cards? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  That  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Delano? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Hogan,  you  have  heard  the  testimony  yesterday 
and  to-day  on  this  question? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  A  good  deal  of  it,  I  guess. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  It  developed  in  that  testimony  that  as  between  the 
association  of  stove  makers  and  the  molders'  association  the  trade  agreement  had 
worked  out  satisfactorily,  whereas  as  between  the  general  foundry  men  and  the 
molders'  union  the  trade  agreement  has  not  worked  out.  Will  you  explain  the 
reason  for  that  or  give  your  own  reason? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  With  the  foundry  men's  association,  they  never  wanted  to  agree 
with  the  molders — that  is,  since  1904  or  1907,  I  do  not  remember  which  it  was, 


518          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

when  Mr.  Briggs  was  a  member.  I  never  knew  them  to  agree  to  anything 
after  that.  They  were  entirely  opposed  to  it. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Even  that  does  not  explain  why  the  trade  agreement 
has  worked  in  one  case  and  not  in  another,  because  there  was  a  trade  agree- 
ment between  the  foundry  men  and  the  union  which  had  been  in  effect  for  five 
years  or  seven  years  and  was  then  abrogated. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  When  they  originally  started  they  took  it  from  our  agreements, 
and  as  long  as  they  kept  that  up  they  seemed  to  get  along  all  right. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  think  you  testified  there  were  something  like  78 
manufacturers  in  your  association? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  As  I  recall  it,  testimony  was  given  yesterday  that 
there  are  something  like  6,000 — not  in  the  foundry  men's  association — but  6,000 
employers  in  the  general  foundry  business  of  the  country.  Is  that  approxi- 
mately correct? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  the  foundry  men.  In  the  stove 
industry  there  are  about  230  or  240.  Our  members  make  about  75  or  80  per 
cent  of  the  product — 75  per  cent  anyway. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  What  I  want  to  find  out,  if  you  can  tell  us,  is  why  the 
trade  agreement  was  successful  in  one  case  and  not  in  another.  I  assume — I 
do  not  know  whether  correctly  or  not — that  the  character  of  the  men  or  the 
employers  in  each  case  is  very  much  the  same.  I  do -not  imagine  the  men  that 
are  engaged  in  the  foundry  business  of  the  country  differ  materially  from  the 
men  engaged  in  stove  manufacturing. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  The  stove  manufacturers  have  been  educated  up  to  that  standard, 
that  is  to  try  to  get  along  with  their  men  and  try  to  reach  agreements  with 
them.  You  see,  we  were  about  the  first  manufacturers'  organization  to  treat 
with  organized  labor,  and  we  started  in  1886,  and  it  was  in  1891  that  we  first 
got  together  on  conference  agreements.  But,  as  Mr.  Valentine  stated  this  morn- 
ing, on  our  side  we  had  some  people  who  thoroughly  understood  all  the  parts 
of  the  molding,  and  all  that  kind  of  thing,  and  who  were  molders  themselvos, 
and  of  course  it  made  it  easier  for  them  to  understand  anything  the  molders 
were  driving  at  or  driving  for.  I  was  on  the  first  conference  that  they  ever 
held,  and  there  were  two  others  on  there  that  had  worked  at  molding.  I  have 
worked  at  molding ;  I  learned  the  trade. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Hogan,  was  the  fact  that  the  employers  were 
more  compact  and  better  organized  a  fact  that  had  anything  to  do  with  it? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No;  I  think  they  understood  the  situation  of  the  workingman  a 
good  deal  better.  In  the  other  organization  there  might  be  some  there  that 
had  started  in  on  the  floor,  but  still  they  were  not  connected  with  the  executive 
part  of  it.  Of  course,  I  do  not  know  much  about  the  other  association.  I  can 
not  say  anything  for  it  any  more  than  just  what  I  said — that  I  never  thought 
they  did  want  to  agree  with  them  after  the  first  five  years,  when  they  had  those 
agreements. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  think  that  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  have  explained,  Mr.  Hogan,  that  there  were 
two  unions,  I  think,  who  did  not  renew  their  agreements  with  your  associa- 
tion on  the  ground  that  they  could  do  better  without  agreements  than  with 
agreements. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  That  is  the  way  they  talked. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  that  indicate  then  that  trade  agreements 
are  not  always  mutually  advantageous? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  They  talked  that  way,  but  since  the  agreements  went  out,  they 
never  got  anything  unless  it  is  what  they  got  in  individual  cases.  They  never 
have  come  up  as  do  these  other  questions  annually,  and  we  never  get  any 
advance  from  them  except  a  demand  here  and  a  demand  there.  Those  we  have 
taken  up  with  them  and  straightened  out.  During  the  past  year  we  have  met 
with  both  those  organizations,  the  metal  workers  and  the  stove  mounters, 
probably  10  or  12  demands  from  each  one  of  them,  and  we  have  taken  them  up. 
They  demanded  an  advance  of  about  12i  or  15  per  cent.  None  of  them  got  it. 

We  took  it  up  with  them  and  satisfied  them  that  they  could  not  get  it,  and 
they  let  it  go  at  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  many  different  kinds  of  union  does  your 
association  deal  with? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Well,  we  deal  with  the  molders'  union  and  with  the  stove  mount- 
ers and  also  the  metal  polishers. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  519 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Three  unions? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  out  of  the  three  you  have  agreements  with 
one  and  have  no  agreement  with  the  remaining  two? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  We  did  have  agreements  with  the  other  two. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  many  strikes  have  your  people  had  in  the 
last  10  years  that  you  can  remember? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  With  the  molders,  none  in  24  years.  With  the  stove  mounters 
we  have  had  one ;  there  might  have  been  15  or  20  concerns  affected  by  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  WThat  was  the  duration  of  the  strike? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  The  men  have  never  come  back  to  work  since,  and  they  have 
other  men  working  there.  They  kept  right  along. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  lost  the  strike? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  They  lost  the  strike. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  was  the  cause  of  it? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  think  it  was  a  demand  for  more  wages  ;  I  think  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  other  unions  did  not  strike  in  sympathy? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  we  have  never  had  any  sympathy  strikes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Have  any  of  your  members  introduced  into  their 
plants  the  so-called  efficiency  system? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Not  any  of  them? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  do  not  know  of  any  of  them.  Maybe  one  or  two  of  them 
tried  it ;  but  I  don't  believe  it  ever  worked. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  WThat,  as  an  employer,  have  you  found  to  be  the 
advantages  and  disadvantages  of  dealing  with  organized  labor? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  W7ell,  I  have  found  it  very  advantageous  for  the  stove  manu- 
facturer. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  what  way?  Please  explain  what  the  nature 
of  the  advantages  is. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  In  the  first  place,  they  have  had,  since  they  started  making  these 
agreements,  they  have  had  no  strikes.  That  is  one  great  thing,  and  they  have 
always  managed  to  make  agreements  with  these  men  and  have  them  carried 
out.  I  might  say  that  we  have  had  demands  made  on  us  by  the  molders'  union 
for  from  15  to  20  different  things  there,  and  in  24  years  we  have  agreed  on  28 
propositions  out  of — well,  you  might  say  3,000 — I  should  say  about  3,000  de- 
mands that  were  made. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  say,  then,  that  the  chief  advantage  in  dealing 
with  unions  is  due  to  the  fact  that  you  have  had  industrial  peace? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Now,  what,  if  any,  have  been  the  disadvantages? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Well,  I  do  not  know.    I  would  not  say  there  were  any. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  No  disadvantages? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No;  because — well,  there  were  sometimes,  of  course,  when  men 
did  things  that  we  claim  are  in  violation  of  the  agreement;  but  they  are  all 
straightened  out  very  soon. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  As  a  matter  of  choice,  would  you  rather  see  the 
unions  remain  in  existence,  or  be  wiped  out? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  would  rather  see  them  in  existence ;  if  I  was  running  a  factory 
of  my  own,  I  would  not  have  anything  else ;  not  while  I  was  a  member  of  the 
defense  association. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  you  would  rather  do  collective  bargaining 
rather  than  do  individual  bargaining? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  get  higher  efficiency  from  members  of  the 
union  than  you  do  from  the  average  nonunion  man? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No  question  about  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  do  get  higher  efficiency? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  That  is,  the  union  men  as  a  rule  represent  the 
higher  skilled  workers? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes.  I  have  had  some  men  from  the  other  side,  and  I  have 
always  found  the  union  men  the  best  men.  Of  course  they  have  to  learn  the 
trade,  and  they  become  good  men.  Then,  of  course,  there  are  men  that  are  not 
good,  not  steady  workers,  or  drink,  and  one  thing  and  another,  but,  of  course, 
we  do  not  bother  with  them  very  much. 


520          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  It  will  be  interesting  for  the  records  of  the  com- 
mission, Mr.  Hogan,  if  you  would  tell  us  whether  your  association  has  met  with 
any  of  the  difficulties  that  seemingly  were  met  by  the  association  represented 
by*  Mr.  Briggs.  He  said  that  his  association  was  unable  to  get  the  unions  to 
arbitrate  with  him.  Have  you  had  any  difficulties  along  those  lines? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Well,  on  that  arbitration  question,  in  our  agreement  it  says  that 
all  matters  will  be  taken  up  by  arbitration.  I  was  on  that  first  conference  com- 
mittee when  that  first  question  was  brought  up,  and  at  that  time  we  did  not 
know  very  much  about  conciliation,  or  anything  of  that  kind,  and  it  was  dis- 
tinctly understood  at  that  time  that  the  arbitration  met,  and  there  would  be 
the  same  number  on  each  side,  and  they  had  to  get  together  and  agree,  and  if 
they  did  not,  there  would  be  trouble ;  and  there  has  been  not  more  than  two  or 
three  cases  where  it  has  been  brought  up  that  way. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  take  it,  then,  that  you  do  not  agree  with  Mr. 
Briggs  in  his  staement  that  he  believes  that  individual  bargaining  will  obtain 
more  for  the  worker  and  a  better  wage  than  collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  never  knew  it  to  happen ;  always  when  they  made  individual 
agreements  they  always  tried  to  get  them  just  as  low  as  they  could. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  statement  was  also  made  that  his  experience 
was  that  the  unions  did  not  come  to  the  employer  in  a  conciliatory  spirit,  but 
that  they  came  demanding  the  limitation  of  apprentices  and  the  nonintroduction 
of  machinery,  and  a  closed  shop,  etc. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  have  never  known  them  to  make  demands  of  that  kind ;  that  is, 
the  international  unions.  That  might  be  made  by  locals,  but  still  we  have  not 
had  anything  of  that  kind. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  has  been  the  spirit  of  the  unions  in  meeting 
you? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  With  us  it  has  always  been  friendly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  conciliatory? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes.  You  see,  we  started  with  them  in  1891,  and  they  never  got 
anything  much  out  of  us  until  1899.  That  was  when  we  made  the  first  advance 
to  them,  the  year  1899.  There  we  had  been  running  nine  years,  and  during 
that  time  we  had  taken  up  the  question  with  them  of  equalizing  the  prices 
throughout  the  country,  and  we  did  that  pretty  thoroughly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Equalizing  your  selling  prices? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Wages? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  The  base  price  of  the  wages;  wThat  they  call  the  board  prices. 
To-day  in  the  stove  business  there  is  very  little  difference  between  one  section 
and  another,  so  far  as  the  board  prices  are  concerned. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  have  been  equalized? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  are  the  present  relations  between  the 
workers  and  the  employers? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Excellent. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  the  relations  cordial  or  hostile? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Cordial. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  relations  between  the  two  are  cordial  and 
friendly? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  stated  that  he  found  that  the  most 
difficult  problem  to  solve  was  that  of  apprentices.  What  has  been  your  experi- 
ence in  that  connection? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Well,  you  know  when  we  started  the  agreement  with  the  molders 
the  ratio  was  1  to  8,  and  we  have  from  time  to  time  wanted  them  to  change 
that  to  1  to  4,  and  they  always  objected  to  it,  and  when  we  started  these  agree- 
ments there  were  quite  a  number  of  our  members  who  were  running  what  they 
called  open  shops ;  that  is,  a  good  many  of  their  workmen  were  nonunion  men, 
but  gradually  these  agreements  brought  them  out,  so  that  a  man  joined  the 
union,  and  up  to — well,  for  the  last  10  years,  we  have  only  two  concerns  that 
are  running  nonunion. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  If  you  were  here,  you  probably  heard  Mr.  Brigp 
say  that  with  the  number  of  apprentices  allowed  in  the  molders'   union,   the 
molders  would  be  almost  extinct ;  almost  an  extinct  species  in  20  years.     What 
is  your  opinion  of  that? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  do  not  believe  it,  in  any  sei^v. 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  521 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  You  think  you  are  recruiting  enough  to  replace  the 
men  that  drop  out? 

Mr.  HOG  AN.  The  1  to  5  brings  them  up  all  right,  I  think. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  You  have  no  fear,  then,  of  the  species  becoming 
extinct? 

IN Ir.  HOGAN.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  also  gave  it  as  his  experience  that  on 
the  introduction  of  a  machine  to  make  pulleys,  the  union  men  made  but  three 
a  day,  while  a  nonunion  man  made  seven  a  day  at  the  start,  and  averaged  later 
nine  a  day. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  think  that  may  be  true,  and  the  reason  for  that  is  this,  that  the 
moklers  were  very  much  opposed  to  the  machinery ;  in  fact,  as  I  say,  we  used 
mostly  apprentices  for  the  last  eight  years,  and  the  molders  were  very  much 
opposed  to  it;  and  not  only  that,  but  I  think  their  international  officers  were  a 
little  bit  against  it.  But  from  time  to  time  they  began  to  see  that  the  machines 
were  something  that  had  come  to  stay,  and  they  finally 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Reconciled  themselves? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes ;  they  thought  that  they  would  fall  in  line,  but  we  have  not 
settled  that  thing  yet. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Now,  does  the  molders'  union,  or  any  of  the  other 
unions  that  you  operate  with,  stand  for  a  diminishing  output? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Well,  yes ;  I  think  the  metal  workers  do.    That  is  about  all,  now. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  put  restrictions  on  the  output  of  each  man? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes ;  of  their  own  men. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  must  not  produce  more  than  a  certain  quan- 
tity in  a  day? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  They  say,  "  Here,  the  limit  here  is  four  hours,  and  the  limit 
there  is  four  and  a  half  hours,"  and  so  on ;  and  they  keep  that  up  pretty  well. 
1  was  talking  \vith  Mr.  Daley,  who  is  the  president 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  do  not  mean  a  minimum  wage,  but  the  output. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  That  is  the  way  they  make  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Where  they  are  operating  on  piecework? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes ;  pretty  nearly  everything  is  piecework. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  they  provide  that  they  must  not  aim  to  earn 
more  than  $4  a  day? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  he  exceeds  the  amount  what  do  they  do  to 
him? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  They  discipline  him,  I  suppose. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  discipline  him? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes ;  and  Avhere  they  run  over  that,  they  say  to  the  foreman, 
"  Keep  that  back  until  some  other  time,"  and  get  us  in  that  way. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  that  conducive  to  the  best  results? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  do  not  think  so? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No,  sir ;  I  am  opposed  to  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  offer  that  as  a  criticism  against  the  molders? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes,  sir ;  but  we  do  not  do  that  with  the  molders.  I  think  at  one 
time  they  had  it  with  the  molders,  but  it  was  dropped. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  This  is  only  the  metal  polishers  that  put  a  maxi- 
mum limit  on  the  output? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think  that  is  disadvantageous  to  the  man,  and 
disadvantageous  to  the  employer? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Very  much  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  feel  that  there  ought  to  be  no  bar  to  the 
amount  of  earnings  that  a  man  can  make? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  feel  that  way.     I  always  did. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  pointed  out  that  the  founders  in  his 
association  have  had  much  better  success  during  the  last  10  years,  since  the 
abrogation  of  the  New  York  agreement. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Of  course,  I  do  not  know  anything  about  that.  That  is  a  ques- 
tion. He  has  had  lots  of  strikes,  I  think,  that  he  never  had  before.  I  never 
saw  a  strike  that  would  help  anybody. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think  they  should  be  avoided  in  every  pos- 
sible way? 


522         REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes;  I  have  been  through  that.  I  was  for  26  years  a  manu- 
facturer myself. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs,  as  you  may  remember,  also  gave  it 
as  his  opinion  that  the  trade  agreement  is  not  conducive  to  industrial  peace  in 
the  metal  trades. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  It  depends  altogether  how  they  are  carried  out.  If  you  are 
looking  for  something  that  is  entirely  different,  and  that  is  against  the  ideas 
of  your  workmen,  of  course,  it  may  turn  out  bad.  The  way  we  do,  anything  we 
want,  any  change  we  want,  we  take  it  up  with  them  and  \ve  keep  going  at 
them  until  we  get  it  or  until  it  is  settled. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Apparently  the  experience  of  your  association, 
then,  has  been  diametrically  opposite  to  the  experience  of  Mr.  Briggs's  associa- 
tion? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  think  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  His  experience  has  been  that  agreements  led  to 
conflict,  and  were  not  conducive  to  the  best  results,  did  not  lead  to  bettering 
the  condition  of  the  workers,  and  hampered  the  employers. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Your  experience  has  been  exactly  the  opposite  of 
that? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Exactly  the  opposite. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  it  has  been  conducive  to  industrial  peace, 
that  it  has  raised  the  standard,  that  it  has  brought  about  a  more  cordial  and 
more  kindly  and  friendly  feeling  between  the  employees  and  employer? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes;  absolutely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  as  a  choice,  if  you  could  abrogate  the  unions, 
you  would  not  do  it? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  have  been  working  with  them  in  the  stove  business,  and  I 
have  been  in  it  47  years. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  spoke,  I  think,  about  one  or  two  local  strikes 
of  the  molders.  Is  that  all  that  occurred,  during  your  recollection,  in  the  24 
years — I  mean  shop  strikes  of  one  or  two  or  three  days? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  there  were  no  strikes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  There  were  no  strikes  at  all. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  think  possibly  you  called  them  cessations. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  it  was  practically  a  violation  of  our  agreement,  because  the 
agreement  says  they  shall  not  go  out,  no  matter  what  the  complaint  is, 
and  we  can  not  shut  up  the.  shop ;  but  once  in  a  while  the  men  get  hot-headed, 
and  they  think  they  are  asking  for  something  they  ought  to  get,  and  they  do 
not  get  it  and  they  go  out ;  but  it  does  not  last  more  than  a  fe\\  days,  because 
we  immediately  notify  Mr.  Valentine  and  he  looks  after  it  and  they  come  back 
to  work.  That  is  all.  It  just  makes  a  little  trouble  for  a  few  days. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Ordinarily  that  would  be  called  a  strike? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Not  a  violation  of  the  agreement? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  It  might  be  if  we  did  not  have  the  agreement ;  or  if  we  did  not 
have  the  association  it  might  be  called  a  strike. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Your  distinction,  then,  seems  to  be  that  as  long  as 
the  national  union  orders  them  back  it  is  not  a  strike. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  It  is  not  a  strike;  certainly  not. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Could  you  give  us  from  your  records,  or  are  your 
records  such  that  you  could  furnish  us,  a  list  of  these  strikes — these  cessa- 
tions— and  their  continuance? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  When  we  go  and  settle  them  we  always  write  out  just  what  they 
shall  do,  but  we  never  give  a  list  to  anybody. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Then  you  would  not,  on  request  from  this  commis- 
sion, feel  like  furnishing  it? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No.     It  would  not  do  you  any  good,  and  it  is  against  our  rules. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What  kind  of  statistics  might  we  expect  from  you  if 
we  requested  something  further  to  help  out  ou~  formulation? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  do  not  know  of  anything  I  could  give  you.  If  there  was  some- 
thing you  wanted  particularly,  and  you  would  write  me  about  it,  I  would  try  and 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  523 

see  if  I  could  get  it  for  you ;  but  we  do  not  give  out  any  of  our  statistics  at  all, 
not  even  to  our  members. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Is  there  any  particular  reason  for  that  policy? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Well,  yes ;  there  have  been  times  when  our  members  objected  very 
much.  If  they  happened  to  have  trouble  with  one  department,  or  anything  of 
that  kind,  and  it  was  reported  to  the  members,  they  immediately  sent  in  a  kick. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  A  kick  because  the  settlement  was  not 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  because  they  did  not  want  it  mentioned. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  The  member  who  had  the  trouble  did  not  want  it 
mentioned? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes.  In  fact,  there  was  one  case,  I  think,  where  the  member — 
quite  a  prominent  member — resigned.  They  afterwards  came  back,  but  they  re- 
signed at  the  time  it  was  published  that  they  had  trouble  with  one  of  their  de- 
partments. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  From  their  standpoint,  why  do  they  not  like  to  have 
that  published? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  That  is  one  of  the  reasons. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  They  do  not  want  it  known  that  they  have  trouble? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  They  do  not  want  it  known  that  they  have  got  trouble.  They 
know  that  it  will  be  fixed  up  very  soon,  and  there  is  no  need  of  publishing  it. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Did  the  molders'  union,  or  the  members  of  the  mold- 
ers'  union,  formerly  place  a  limit  on  the  amount  of  earnings  that  a  man  could 
make? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Did  they  what? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Did  they  formerly  have  a  limit  on  the  amount  of 
earnings  ? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  I  never  knew  it,  only  in  a  few  instances  where  they  claimed 
that  they  had  a  limit,  and  we  asked  to  have  it  taken  off,  and  it  was  taken  off 
right  away.  I  do  not  think  it  was  ever  done  by  the  international  union. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  It  was  done  by  local  unions? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  suppose  so. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  they  would  place  a  limit  on  what  a  man  might 
earn,  of  only  four  or  five  doll'ars — four  dollars? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What  reason  have  you  for  believing  that  such  local 
limits  are  not  maintained  at  the  present  time? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Well,  I  generally  hear  of  anything  of  that  kind. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  If  there  is  a  limit  anywhere,  I  hear  of  it. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Do  you  have  a  minimum  day  wage  on  the  basis  of 
piece  rates  at  all? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Well,  no ;  the  day  rates  are  different  in  different  places. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Suppose  a  man  is  altogether  on  a  piece  job ;  do  you 
guarantee  that  he  will  earn  a  minimum  wage  for  the  day? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is,  it  is  not  a  premium? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  We  may  take  a  man  that  is  on  piecework  and  put  him  on  day- 
work,  and  if  his  job  that  he  has  been  working  on  is  greater  than  the  day 
wage,  he  gets  the  price  that  he  earned  on  his  floor;  that  is,  for  a  few  days, 
just  temporarily. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  There  is  no  such  thing,  then,  as  a  guarantee  of  a 
man  getting  any  minimum  wage? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Each  man  earns  just  what  he  can? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Then  if  a  man  is  earning  less  than  what  you  con- 
sider a  competent  man  should  earn,  an  old  man,  or  a  slow  man,  or  anything 
of  that  kind,  do  you  discharge  him? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  have  the  right  to  discharge  him? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  We  have,  if  we  want  to ;  but  we  do  not.  A  man  that  is  that  way 
is  usually  a  man  that  has  been  working  in  the  shop  for  a  long  time.  They  do  not 
employ  any  old  men  when  they  want  men,  and  they  may  be  men  that'  get  old 
in  working  for  them.  There  have  been  cases  where  the  firm  has  put  those  men 
on  a  pension ;  just  simply  put  them  on  the  list  and  paid  them  about  what  they 
could  earn,  and  all  they  had  to  do  was  to  come  and  draw  their  pay.  That  has 
been  done. 


524          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  It  seems  that  the  molders'  union  has  no  limit  on 
the  earnings.  Will  you  state  how  much,  then,  molders  do  actually  earn  in  a 
day's  work,  of  eight  hours,  I  think  it  is? 

Mr.  HOG  AN.  No;  they  work  about  nine  hours? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Nine  hours? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Some  of  them  make  seven  and  eight  dollars  a  day. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What  would  you  say  is  the  lower  limit? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  The  average  taken  last  fall  was  $4.24,  in  the  whole  association. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Can  you  give  the  number  who  earn  less  than  the 
average  of  $4.24? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  I  could  not  do  that  now. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Could  you  furnish  that  kind  of  information  to  us 
if  we  requested  it? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  I  could  not.  I  will  tell  you  why.  That  information  wras 
got  up  just  for  our  conference,  and  after  that  it  was  done  away  with.  We 
can  not  keep  those  things,  only  just  for  the  time,  to  use  them.  We  get  this 
information  from  the  members,  and  they  do  not  want  it  given  away,  and  they 
do  not  want  it  to  be  on  record. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Suppose  we  should  simply  ask  it  in  such  a  way  that 
the  identity  of  the  individual  members  should  not  be  known ;  could  it  not  be 
given?  For  instance,  that  10  per  cent  are  earning  $2,  and  10  per  cent  are 
earning  $4,  and  so  on.  Could  we  get  such  information? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  do  not  think  you  could. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  How  does  the  union  assist  you  in  doing  away  with 
these  local  restrictions  on  output? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Well,  they  just  simply  order  them  that  they  should  not  do  it; 
that  is  all.  Where  it  was  done,  they  just  told  them  that  they  must  stop  it, 
and  they  did. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  They  follow  their  orders? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  believe  Mr.  Valentine  stated  that  the  union  would 
decline  to  work  with  a  man  who  refused  to  pay  the  union  dues. 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  never  knew  that  to  occur. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Have  you  known  of  any  strikes  by  local  unions 
to  force  a  man  to  quit  work? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Or  to  pay  the  dues? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No ;  I  never  knew  of  anything  of  that  kind. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Then,  so  far  as  you  know,  the  pressure  that  they 
bring  on  a  man  to  join  the  union  after  he  has  been  employed  is  simply  outside 
of  their  ability  to  strike  and  force  him  to  join?  It  is  simply  a  moral  force 
that  they  bring  to  bear? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  A  man  generally  pays;  that  is  all  there  is  about  it. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Have  you  any  reason  to  think  that  men  who  join 
under  those  circumstances,  who  have  been  taken  on  as  nonunion  men,  object 
to  joining  the  union? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  I  could  not  say.  We  have  never  had  anything  of  that  kind,  so 
I  could  not  say. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  have  no  knowledge  of  any  employer  coming  to 
you  and  trying  to  protect  one  of  his  nonunion  men  against  joining  the  union? 

Mr.  HOGAN.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Hogan. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JOHN  P.  FREY. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  please  give  the  reporter  your  name,  residence,  and 
occupation  ? 

Mr.  FKKY.  John  P.  Frey ;  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  I  am  one  of  the  executive  officers 
of  the  International  Molders'  Union,  and  I  am  editor  of  their  official  publica- 
tion in  addition. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  long  have  you  had  that  position? 

Mr.  FKEY.  I  have  been  editor  of  that  publication  since  1903;  from  the  be- 
ginning of  1900  to  1903  I  was  one  of  the  vice  presidents. 

Mr.  'THOMPSON.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  relations  which  the  union  has 
had  with  the  Stove  Polishers'  Association? 

Mr  FREY  Mr.  Thompson,  before  answering  that,  there  are  two  matters  that 
I  should  like  to  call  attention  to,  to  get  them  in  the  record,  for  fear  they  will  be 
passed  over. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  525 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Very  well. 

Mr.  FKEY.  May  I  proceed? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  FKEY.  This  morning  a  statement  was  made  relative  to  its  taking  10 
years  or  more  to  adjust  the  question  of  an  apprentice  ratio  with  the  defense 
association,  and  there  may  have  be,en  an  erroneous  impression  left,  as  a  result 
ef  the  reply.  It  is  true  that  it  took  over  10  years  to  reach  that  agreement,  but 
during  that  period  whenever  a  member  of  the  defense  association  found  that  he 
had  insufficient  apprentices  in  his  foundry  to  meet  his  demands,  the  question 
was  taken  up  by  one  of  our  officers,  and  by  Mr.  Hogan,  and  adjusted.  That  is, 
in  individual  cases  the  matter  received  attention,  but  it  required  over  10  years 
to  secure  a  national  agreement  on  the  question. 

The  other  matter  is  this:  In  the  hearing  yesterday  afternoon  I  understood 
that  a  request  was  made,  or  permission  was  granted,  to  the  National  Founders' 
Association  to  introduce  a  statement  covering  all  of  the  strikes  which  have 
occurred  on  the  part  of  our  members  in  the  foundries  operated  by  members  of 
the  defense  association,  and  giving  the  reasons.  I  feel  that  if,  for  the  informa- 
tion of  the  commission,  data  of  that  kind  are  supplied  by  the  National  Founders' 
Association,  a  copy,  as  soon  as  the  commission  receives  it,  should  be  forwarded 
to  the  International  Molders'  Union,  so  that  we  would  be  able  to  file  our  state- 
ment. I  say  that  for  this  reason :  I  have  seen  a  number  of  statements  relative 
to  the  causes  of  our  strikes  issued  by  the  National  Founders'  Association,  and 
through  lack  of  competent  investigation,  the  reasons  they  gave  for  our  striking 
were  at  variance  with  the  actual  reasons,  and  I  presume  that  the  commission 
will  recognize  the  fact  that  nobody  would  know  why  we  struck  better  than 
ourselves.  I  say  that  so  that  the  record  may  be  straight. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  general,  Mr.  Prey,  the  commission  would  be 
glad  if  you  would  furnish  a  record  of  all  these  strikes  from  your  own  records, 
and  then  the  commission  will  see  to  it,  of  course,  that  each  side  is  properly 
safeguarded. 

Mr.  FREY.  I  just  wanted  to  speak  of  that  first. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  would  like  to  have  yours,  independently  of 
whether  they  send  theirs  or  not. 

Mr.  FKEY.  It  would  be  a  difficult  matter,  because  we  have  had  strikes  in 
foundries  operated  by  manufacturers  who  were  members  of  the  defense  associa- 
tion, and  some  who  were  not  members  of  the  defense  association,  and  we 
would  have  trouble  to  know  which  of  these  the  commission  is  interested  in. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  All  this  commission  is  interested  in  is  strikes  in  the 
foundries  of  those  who  are  members  of  the  association.  If  you  will  give  us  a 
list  of  all  the  strikes  in  the  industry — possibly  it  is  a  matter  of  official  record 
already,  but  we  should  like  to  have  it,  if  it  is  not  too  much  work  for  you,  from 
your  office. 

Mr.  FKEY.  We  may  be  able  to  prepare  such  a  statement. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  make  the  request  of  you,  and  we  should  be  glad 
to  have  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  state  again  the  question  which  I  asked  you :  From 
your  official  position,  are  you  acquainted  with  the  relationships  that  existed  be- 
tween the  union  and  the  stove  founders'  association? 

Mr.  FREY.  To  a  certain  extent;  yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  you  also  acquainted  with  the  relationship  that  existed 
between  the  union  and  the  National  Founders'  Association? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  had  a  personal  contact  with  the  question  for  four  years. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  you  able  to  state  the  reasons  why  the  agreement  with 
the  one  is  maintained,  and  why  the  agreement  with  the  other  association  broke 
down  ? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  may  not  be  able  to  state  the  reason.    I  can  give  you  my  opinion. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like  to  have  your  opinion  with  reference  to  both  of 
those  questions. 

Mr.  FKEY.  In  a  general  way,  I  would  say  that  the  reason  was  not  in  the 
character  of  the  foundry  men,  members  of  both  associations,  but  rather  in 
their  policy ;  the  attitude  of  their  officers  and  their  members  toward  the  ques- 
tion of  unionism ;  the  willingness  of  one  to  allow  education  to  do  its  work  when 
problems  of  a  general  character  arose,  and  the  desire  of  the  other  to  enforce  the 
desire  of  their  members;  further,  the  willingness  of  the  members  of  one  asso- 
ciation to  assist  in  equalizing  wages  to  a  certain  extent  by  districts,  and  the 
hesitancy  or  the  unwillingness  of  the  other  to  assist  us  in  an  effort  to  bring 


526          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

wages  in  a  district  to  a  normally  equal  basis ;  the  indifference  of  the  members  of 
one  association  toward  the  question  of  unionism  in  their  foundries,  and  the 
active  opposition  of  a  number  of  the  members  of  the  other  association  to  any 
union  in  their  plant;  the  taking  up  of  questions  and  endeavoring  to  reach  a 
solution  through  a  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  principles  involved,  and  the 
efforts  of  the  other  organization  to  build  up  machinery  which  would  make  trade 
agreements  unnecessary,  because  the  machinery  of  their  organization  would 
have  to  put  the  International  Holders'  Union  and  its  local  unions  in  the 
discard. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  might  state,  Mr.  Frey,  more  in  detail  the  working  of  the 
two  associations  with  reference  to  the  question  of  wage  scales,  which  you  have 
mentioned  as  preventing  the  working  of  the  agreement. 

Mr.  FREY.  As  has  been  testified  to  by  Mr.  Hogan  and  Mr.  Valentine,  wages  in 
the  stove  foundries  depend  upon  what  you  call  the  board  price,  or  basic  price — 
the  price  of  the  pattern — which  is  presumed  to  be  the  same  in  the  same  dis- 
tricts, except  for  such  variations  as  there  may  be  in  the  form  of  the  patterns, 
and  then  the  percentage  in  wages,  which  is  reached  through  the  international 
conference,  that  percentage  being  equal  throughout  the  United  States.  At  the 
present  time  it  is  35  cents  on  the  dollar ;  that  is,  the  molders'  earnings  are  com- 
puted on  the  piece,  his  board  price  or  base  price,  and  35  per  cent  is  then  added 
to  the  base  price ;  it  means  that,  no  matter  where  the  stove  molder  goes,  he  is 
assured  of  practically  the  same  rate  of  wages. 

We  had  no  such  agreement  or  any  such  system  to  arrive  at  a  wage  rate  with 
the  National  Founders'  Association,  and  the  wages  in  the  jobbing  and  machin- 
ery foundries  varied  very  considerably  in  near  competitive  points.  Those  cities 
that  might  be  from  50  to  100  miles  apart  would  have  a  difference  of  rate,  in 
some  instances  50  to  75  cents  a  day  in  the  minimum.  It  was  our  effort  to  raise 
the  wages  in  what  we  call  these  low-wage  districts  more  rapidly  than  in  the 
centers  where  the  wrage  rate  was  higher,  but  we  experienced  considerable  diffi- 
culty, because  the  officers  of  the  National  Founders'  Association  opposed  our 
efforts  to  secure  an  advance  in  the  minimum  wage  rate  in  the  low-wrage  dis- 
tricts, seemingly,  to  us,  as  energetically  as  they  had  when  they  tried  to  secure 
an  advance  in  wages  in  the  districts  paying  higher  rates. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  opinion  as  to  the  varying  character  of  the  busi- 
nesses of  these  two  associations  as  affecting  this  question  of  settling  on  a  wrage 
scale? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  do  not  quite  get  that? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  understand  in  the  stove  business  it  is  principally  stove 
work,  of  course? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  with  reference  to  the  National  Founders'  Association, 
it  has  been  stated  here  that  they  have  work  all  the  way  from  casting  watch 
charms,  which  weigh  a  trifling  number  of  ounces,  to  pieces  that  weigh  over  20 
tons?  Does  the  character  of  that  business  interfere  with  or  prevent  the  making 
of  a  wage  scale  such  as  you  have  in  the  stove  business  ? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  believe  that  it  does ;  but  in  the  majority  of  the  jobbing  and  ma- 
chinery foundries  the  day  wage  scale  prevails.  Members  of  the  National 
Founders'  Association  contended  for  a  piece  wrage  system.  We  objected  to  it 
because  of  that  very  variety  of  \vork  and  the  fact  that  what  would  be  proper 
on  the  job  to-day,  when  it  came  in  next  week  might  be  entirely  improper,  and 
we  did  not  believe  that  the  piecework  system  is  advisable  and  advantageous  in 
stove  foundries;  that  it  is  not  advisable  or  fair  to  the  niolders  in  a  large  ma- 
jority of  the  jobbing  and  machinery  foundries,  although  in  some  of  those  job- 
bing and  machinery  foundries  we  do  have  a  piecework  system,  where  the  shop 
is  a  speciality  shop  and  .where  it  has  part  of  its  work  a  specialty.  There  we 
frequently  have  piecework  agreeable  to  us. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  effort,  if  any,  was  made  between  the  union  and  the 
National  Founders'  Association  to  see  if  they  could  establish  a  day  wage  in  the 
shops  of  the  association? 

Mr.  FREY.  That  was  our  continual  effort  from  the  time  that  the  New  York 
agreement  was  entered  into,  in  1899,  until  the  National  Founders'  Association 
abrogated  the  agreement  on  their  own  part  in  1904 ;  it  was  our  effort,  and  we 
succeeded  in  establishing  minimum  wage  rates  in  a  large  number  of  cities 
through  negotiating  with  representatives  of  that  association. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Locally? 

Mr.  FREY.  Locally, 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  527 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Did  the  association  raise  any  objection  to  the  establishment 
of  day  rates  locally  and  not  establishing  them  as  a  national  wage  scale  all  over 
the  country? 

Mr.  FKEY.  Well,  my  experience  was  that  they  always  objected  to  establishing 
any  wage  scale.  They  would  agree  to  a  minimum,  but  they  always  held  they 
were  opposed  to  the  recognition  of  such  a  thing  as  a  minimum  wage  rate  con- 
trary to  their  policy,  although  they  would  enter  into  an  agreement  establishing 
one. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  the  effort  of  your  association  devoted  solely  toward  the 
establishment  of  a  daily  wage  rate  for  the  membership  of  the  National  Found- 
ers' Association  or  did  you  differentiate  and  try  to  establish  a  day  wage  in 
some  shops  and  a  piecework  scale  in  other  shops? 

Mr.  FREY.  Our  efforts  were  always  to  establish  a  day  wage. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  all  of  their  foundries? 

Mr.  FREY.  In  all  of  their  foundries  except  specialty  foundries  that  were 
running  on  a  piece  basis,  and  then  we  did  not  disturb  them. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Did  they  ever  agree  to  meet  with  you,  or  did  they  ever  take 
up  seriously  the  question  of  establishing  any  collective  price  for  labor,  or  did 
they  insist  that  the  price  for  labor  should  be  left  to  each  individual  shop,  and 
that  they  should  do  business  solely  upon  the  individual  bargaining  of  the 
molder  with  a  firm? 

Mr.  FREY.  No ;  it  was  not  left  to  the  individual.  Our  wage  scales  were  gen- 
erally negotiated  for  a  city,  and  it  would  be  a  wage  rate  for  that  city.  There 
have  been  some  desultory  conversations  about  a  district  wage  scale,  but  we 
never  reached  the  point  where  we  ever  discussed  that  with  any  effort  to  arrive 
at  one;  it  was  merely  discussed  sometimes  as  a  condition  that  might  be  de- 
sired, but  nothing  more. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  questions  were  brought  up  between  your  union  and  the 
National  Founders'  Association  in  this  effort  to  determine  on  a  standard  or 
local  wage  scale? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  do  not  know  just  exactly  what  the  trend  of  that  question  is. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  it  brought  up  as  between  floor  and  bench  molders,  and 
did  the  National  Founders'  Association  wish  to  have  the  privilege  of  varying  in 
the  prices  paid  to  day  men? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes;  the  National  Founders'  Association  desired  to  have  several 
differentials,  as  they  termed  them ;  that  is,  if  a  minimum  of  $3  a  day  was  estab- 
lished they  desired  to  have  a  differential  between  the  bench  and  the  floor,  and 
that  differential  was  in  existence  in  a  number  of  localities.  They  also  desired 
to  have  a  differential  in  addition  to  that  for  men  that  they  would  hold  were  not 
fully  skilled  mechanics.  It  was  our  object  to  eliminate  these  differentials  be- 
cause changing  conditions  in  the  industry  made  the  bench  molders  as  valuable 
as  a  mechanic,  and  as  hard  a  worker  as  a  man  on  the  floor.  We  could  see  no 
difference  in  his  value  as  a  producer,  or  the  amount  of  labor  which  he  per- 
formed, or  the  skill  required,  and  we  endeavored  to  eliminate  the  differential 
during  the  years  that  we  were  dealing  with  the  National  Founders'  Association ; 
we  found  it  impossible  to  eliminate  these  differentials,  but  when  they  severed 
friendly  relations  with  us  we  then  started  out  to  eliminate  them  ourselves, 
and  I  am  pleased  to  state  that  we  have  succeeded. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  reason  did  they  give  for  their  opposition  in  that  re- 
gard? 

Mr.  FREY.  That  the  bench  molder  was  not  worth  as  much  as  the  floor  molder 
in  their  opinion. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  They  gave  no  facts?  Is  that  the  only  argument  they  used  to 
justify  the  position  they  took? 

Mr.  FREY.  That  was  the  only  argument;  there  were  no  facts  that  could  be 
advanced. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  position  was  taken,  if  yon  know,  with  reference  to  the 
privilege  of  varying  in  the  wages  paid  to  different  molders,  if  such  a  position 
was  taken? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  do  not  get  the  drift  of  that  question  either. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Did  the  founders  wish  to  have  the  privilege  of  paying  40 
per  cent  of  the  molders  10  per  cent  below  the  standard  wage? 

Mr.  FREY.  Oh,  yes ;  but  that  was  not  brought  on  prominently  until  within  a 
year  or  so  of  the  time  that  they  withdrew  their  friendly  attitude. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  think  that  had  any  material  effect  on  the  breakdown 

fthe  agreement? 
Mr.  FREY.  No. 


528          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  there  any  question  up  between  your  union  and  the 
National  Founders'  Association  with  reference  to  the  hours  of  work? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  was  that  question,  and  how  was  it  met? 

Mr.  FREY.  It  was  to  secure  a  nine-hour  day  prevailing  generally  in  1899. 
We  made  a  great  deal  of  progress  in  securing  the  shorter  workday  through 
conferences  with  the  commissioner  of  the  National  Founders'  Association  prior 
to  1903,  or  rather  prior  to  1904. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  the  attitude  of  your  union  on  that  question  to  take  it 
up  piecemeal  in  these  different  localities,  and  did  the  National  Founders'  As- 
sociation disagree  with  that  method  and  wish  to  establish  a  national  scheme? 

Mr.  FREY.  It  was  our  desire  and  our  policy,  and  we  carried  it  into  effect,  to 
secure  a  nine-hour  day  throughout  the  entire  district  at  one  time,  so  that  all 
employers  of  our  members  would  be  on  an  equal  footing  insofar  as  hours  of 
labor  were  concerned. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  mean  by  competitive  districts? 

Mr.  FREY.  No;  throughout  the  United  States  and  Canada.  That  was  our 
effort,  and  we  succeeded  in  establishing  a  nine-hour  day  during  a  period  of 
about  three  years,  but  we  were  forced  to  take  that  up  locally,  because  \vhere 
the  foundrymen  declined  to  grant  it  after  conference,  it  went  to  the  officers 
of  the  National  Founders'  Association,  we  met  them  in  conference,  and  ad- 
justed it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Did  they  raise  any  objection  in  regard  to  your  method  of 
bringing  it  up  locally,  in  local  districts,  rather  than  making  it  a  national 
question,  dealing  at  once  with  the  whole  country. 

Mr.  FREY.  Generally  where  we  requested  the  nine-hour  day  the  foundry  man 
wanted  us  to  get  it  from  all  his  competitors  first,  and  then  come  to  him  and 
and  he  would  be  willing  to  give  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  there  any  question  between  your  union  and  the 
National  Founders'  Association  with  reference  to  the  open  shop? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  do  not  know  how  to  answer  that  question,  in  order  to  give  the 
exact  conditions  that  existed. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  there  any  objection  to  shop  organization  or  union 
organization  in  shops? 

Mr.  FREY.  It  was  a  peculiar  condition;  some  members  of  the  National 
Founders'-  Association  were  operating  shops  where  none  but  our  members 
were  employed.  We  were  aware  of  that  and  took  it  as  something  that  could 
not  be  changed.  In  other  localities  the  members  of  the  founders  association 
were  actively  engaged  in  trying  to  prevent  our  securing  any  organization  in 
their  foundries,  while  in  other  foundries,  members  of  the  association,  the  mem- 
bers of  our  union  were  discriminated  against,  those  who  took  an  active  part 
were  discharged,  and  every  effort  was  made  to  wipe  out  the  degree  of  organiza- 
tion we  had  succeeded  in  securing. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  understand  from  what  Mr.  Valentine  has  said,  that  the  atti- 
tude of  mind  of  the  members  of  your  organization  on  the  question  of  arbitra- 
tion is  that  they  believe  in  the  conciliation  method;  that  is  to  say,  by  represen- 
tation on  any  board  of  an  equal  membership  of  both  sides,  in  the  absence  of 
an  umpire. 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes;  we  are  not  favorable  to  arbitration  as  it  is  understood  to- 
day, where  the  third  man  has  a  deciding  voice,  and  as  long  as  that  question 
has  been  asked  I  would  like  to  give  the  reason  why. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  more  question  on  this  other  thing, 
and  then  you  may ;  on  the  question  which  you  now  stated,  in  reference  to  the 
open  shop  and  discrimination  against  the  union  men,  'which  caused  friction  be- 
tween your  union  and  the  National  Founders'  Association. 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  you  had  a  system  of  arbitration  providing  for  an  um- 
pire to  whom  that  matter  could  have  been  referred  and  a  decision  brought 
about,  would  not  that  have  halped  in  a  solution  of  the  question  and  the  possible 
keeping  of  the  agreement  alive  between  the  two  associations? 

Mr.  FREY.  If  the  so-called  umpire  was  a  man  of  infallible  judgment,  who 
had  the  power  to  enforce  his  decision,  perhaps  so ;  otherwise  not. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  say  with  reference  to  enforcing  decisions;  have  you 
any  question  but  what  the  union  would  have  lived  up  to  the  decision  so  made? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  union  would,  and  I  am  quite  confident 
that  the  founders  would  not  in  some  instances,  because  that  has  been  my  ex- 
perience. 


TEADE  AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  529 

Now,  on  that  question  of  arbitration,  our  experience  is  this,  that  where  we 
have  a  point  in  dispute  and  we  meet  with  equal  members  on  each  side  and 
eventually  agree  to  something,  we  feel  that  agreement  is  a  bargain.  Each  side 
may  have  given  away  something  that  they  did  not  desire  to  give  away  in  order 
to  secure  some  other  condition,  but  whatever  agreement  is  reached  as  the  result 
of  a  bargain,  both  employers  and  workmen  would  feel  that  a  bargain  which 
they  themselves  have  entered  into  is  something  which  they  at  least  can  carry 
out,  whereas  the  findings  of  a  third  man  always  or  generally  bring  about  a 
condition  where  one  or  the  other  party  to  the  arbitration  is  forced  to  do  some- 
thing or  concede  something  which  is  distasteful ;  and  there  is  that  feeling,  "  This 
is  not  a  bargain  which  we  reached;  this  is  something  forced  on  me,"  and  the 
result  is  that  they  merely  wait  for  a  time  when  they  can  overturn  that  condition 
which  they  object  to,  and  my  personal  experience  would  lead  me  to  look  with 
disfavor  on  arbitration  except  as  a  last  resort,  and  between  men  who  were 
incompetent  to  sit  down  and  deliberately  talk  over  the  questions  which  they 
had  in  dispute. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Taking  the  very  situation  which  you  have  named,  in  regard 
to  the  difficulty  arising  from  the  open-shop  question — or,  as  it  has  been  called, 
the  open-shop  question — where  men  were  discriminated  against  or  discharged 
because  of  their  affiliation  with  your  union,  in  questions  of  that  character  don't 
you  believe  that  the  introduction  of  a  third  party,  an  umpire  working  with  the 
representatives  of  each  side,  endeavoring  to  bring  them  together  on  the  proposi- 
tion, would  have  assisted  you  in  settling  these  difficulties  without  the  friction 
which  you  had  in  the  method  which  you  have  adopted? 

Mr.  FEEY.  No ;  I  believe  that  it  would  have  been  of  no  value  whatever.  In 
fact,  in  one  large  city  in  Pennsylvania,  one  of  the  largest  manufacturing  cities 
in  Pennsylvania,  we  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  National  Founders' 
Association  in  1900  establishing  a  minimum  wage  rate.  The  mere  fact  that  our 
organization  had  been  recognized  to  the  extent  of  giving  it  or  its  members  a 
wage  rate  proved  very  distasteful  to  a  number  of  the  members  of  the  National 
Founders'  Association,  and  during  the  year  between  1900  and  1901  all  of  the 
official  influence  of  the  National  Founders'  Association  proved  insufficient  to 
force  their  own  members,  in  some  instances,  to  pay  the  rate  of  wages  to  which 
that  association  had  agreed.  So  if  all  the  official  strength  of  the  association 
was  insufficient  to  make  its  members  pay  a  wage  rate  that  we  had  agreed  to  and 
negotiated  with  them,  certainly  no  individual  acting  as  umpire  could  do  any- 
thing. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  was  referring  in  that  question  of  the  umpire,  Mr.  Frey, 
more  to  daily  questions  which  arise  in  the  shop,  including  that  question  of 
discrimination,  questions  of  discipline,  and  other  matters  of  more  or  less  an 
individual  character  between  an  individual  workingman  and  the  firm  by  which 
he  is  employed.  I  can  very  easily  see  that  an  attempt  to  force  on  the  stove 
manufacturers,  or  even  one  member,  a  minimum  wage,  in  which  he  does  not 
believe  from  a  business  standpoint,  would  be  resisted ;  and  on  such  fundamental 
questions  and  matters  of  policy  I  think  all  would  agree  you  can  not  force  those 
questions  over  by  the  decision  of  a  third  man.  But  in  regard  to  these  daily 
matters  that  come  up  in  the  shop  and  relate  to  the  individual,  such  as  the  very 
one  you  named,  discrimination  against  the  union  man,  do  you  still  think  the 
introduction  of  the  umpire  in  that  field,  who  would  act,  say,  first  as  a  conciliator 
to  bring  both  the  parties  together,  they  each  recognizing  that  he  has  no  power  to 
decide  the  thing  if  they  do  not  agree  thereto,  and  from  that  very  fact  having 
an  influence  on  both  of  them  to  get  them  together,  would  not  be  an  efficient  piece 
of  machinery  in  your  trade  and  in  the  very  matter  you  have  mentioned? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  of  value  to  any  trade.  We  have  a  law 
in  a  number  of  States  making  blacklisting  criminal.  The  courts  of  those  States 
have  held  the  law  constitutional,  but  they  can  not  reach  the  man  who  is  doing 
the  blacklisting.  You  can  not  get  after  him.  They  do  not  let  you  know  they 
are  blacklisting,  they  do  it  in  such  a  clever  way.  It  would  take  a  very  astute 
lawyer  to  discover  there  was  even  a  trail  to  start  to  follow  to  the  head,  and 
when  it  comes  to  discriminating  against  the  union  man  in  a  shop,  there  are  a 
thousand  and  one  excuses.  The  foreman  and  the  employer  would  assure  you 
"  I  would  not  discharge  that  man  for  anything  in  the  world ;  I  have  not  dis- 
charged him ;  I  have  only  laid  him  off  because  work  is  slack  in  his  line."  They 
used  to  do  that,  and  tell  them  boldly  "  It  is  because  you  are  too  active  in  the 
union";  but  as  time  passed  they  got  wiser  and  found  excuses  that  sounded 
better.  A  third  man  would  not  help  in  that  thing. 

38819°— 16 34 


530          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

* 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  I  should  tell  you  that  in  a  business — not  the  molder's 
business,  but  one  in  which  there  is  an  agreement  between  the  employees  and 
the  firm,  providing  pay  for  what  I  may  call  the  ordinary  open-shop  proposition, 
or,  as  it  is  called  to-day,  the  preferential  shop;  that  under  that  probably  400 
or  500  cases  of  discrimination  have  come  up,  most  of  them  cases  perhaps  that 
might  have  caused  strikes  and  disturbances,  at  least  in  local  shops,  and  that 
those  questions  of  discrimination  were  settled  by  a  board  of  arbitration,  and 
that  the  board  of  arbitration  consisted  of  three  members,  you  still  would  not 
think  that  would  be  a  wise  piece  of  machinery  for  that  purpose? 

Mr.  FREY.  Not  unless  that  piece  of  machinery  had  been  working  long  enough 
to  indicate  its  ability  to  do  this  work  year  after  year. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  three  years  be  a  sufficient  length  of  time? 

Mr.  FREY.  No.  I  would  want  to  know  all  the  circumstances.  I  presume 
you  refer  to  the  protocol  in  New  York? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No ;  I  am  referring  to  the  agreement  in  Chicago.  The  pro- 
tocol in  New  York  was  arranged  on  the  basis  you  mention,  of  an  equal  division 
of  employers  and  employees,  and  it  is  my  opinion,  after  investigating  that 
situation,  that  the  near  breakdown  was  caused  by  the  lack  of  an  umpire  to 
decide  just  such  questions,  trivial  in  offense  as  to  the  whole  organization,  but 
important  as  to  the  individual;  and  I  believe  by  the  introduction  of  a  third 
man,  the  umpire  proposition,  the  New  York  protocol  will  be  saved  and  the 
agreement  will  grow. 

But  that  is  going  outside  of  your  trade,  and  I  will  not  go  into  it. 

Is  there  anything  you  would  like  to  add  to  what  has  been  said  on  the 
machine  proposition,  and  on  the  question  of  the  limitation  of  output  of  the 
materials,  Mr.  Frey?  Would  you  like  to  add  anything  to  that  which  has 
already  been  stated  by  the  other  witnesses? 

Mr.,  FREY.  I  do  not  think  I  could  add  anything  to  it.  The  policy  of  the 
molders'  union  is  not  opposed  to  the  introduction  of  machinery.  It  has  not 
been  for  many  years.  The  question  does  not  arise  over  the  introduction  of  the 
machine,  but  as  to  whether  the  machine  will  be  operated  under  conditions  where 
our  union  will  have  a  chance  to  negotiate  for  the  wages  to  be  paid  to  the  men 
that  operate  it.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  prejudice  on  the  part  of  some  of  our 
men  against  the  molding  machine.  The  prejudice  arose  originally  for  prob- 
ably the  same  reason  that  workmen  have  always  objected  to  the  introduction 
of  a  machine.  They  saw  in  it  a  menace,  as  they  thought. 

The  particular  opposition  which  the  molders  have  had  against  the  molding 
machine — and  that  is  an  important  feature — is  the  fact  that  it  was  adopted, 
or  rather  it  was  taken  up,  by  many  members  of  the  National  Founders'  Asso- 
ciation as  an  instrument  to  disrupt  the  molders'  union. 

The  molding-machine  manufacturers  advertised  the  fact  that  "you  do  not 
need  strikes  if  your  plant  is  operated  by  molding  machines,"  and  the  National 
Founders'  Association,  from  the  time  that  Mr.  Briggs  became  commissioner  and 
while  he  was  president,  devoted  considerable  time  to  advising  their  members  to 
introduce  the  machine,  because  it  weakened  the  strength  of  our  union.  Their 
official  publication,  the  Review,  contained  many  articles  which  were  written 
with  the  object  of  convincing  foundry  men  and  molders  that  with  the  intro- 
duction of  the  molding  machine  the  neck  of  the  National  Molders'  Union  was 
being  wrung.  Under  those  circumstances  it  is  not  surprising  that  many  of  our 
members  acquired  a  very  bitter  prejudice  against  the  molding  machine. 
Nevertheless  it  has  been  our  constant  policy  to  raise  no  objection  to  the  intro- 
duction of  the  molding  machine. 

A  number  of  members  of  the  National  Founders'  Association,  who  do  not 
have  that  bitter  feeling  toward  our  organization,  which  is  the  official  attitude 
of  that  organization,  have  had  agreements  with  us  for  five  or  six  years  covering 
the  operation  of  the  molding  machines  in  their  plants.  Their  plants  are  very 
extensive,  and  the  two  which  I  have  in  mind  are  among  the  largest  in  the 
United  States  or  Canada. 

We  have  no  trouble  over  the  operation  of  these  molding  machines.  We 
have  no  trouble  in  securing  the  price  on  them,  but  we  have  never  received 
any  intimation  from  those  two  large  corporations  that  our  attitude  was  any 
more  unsatisfactory  to  them  than  our  attitude  toward  any  other  wage  question. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  you  are  willing  to  state,  Mr.  Frey,  will  you  tell  the  com- 
mission the  nature  of  the  agreements  you  have  in  Canada  with  reference  to  the 
use  of  the  molding  machines? 

Mr.  FBEY.  Where? 


TKADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  531 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  Canada.  I  understood  you  to  say  you  had  an  agreement 
in  Canada. 

Mr.  FKEY.  No;  I  said  these  corporations  were  as  large  as  any  in  the  United 
States  or  Canada.  The  two  firms  that  I  had  in  mind  are  in  the  United  States. 
I  do  not  care  to  mention  their  names. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  you  object  to  stating  the  general  nature  of  the  agree- 
ments with  those  firms  in  reference  to  the  use  of  the  machine? 

Mr.  FREY.  The  agreement  is  that  the  firm  will  take  up  the  pricing  of  the 
work  which  is  made  on  those  machines  with  the  committee  which  we  have  in 
effect,  and  that  in  case  they  fail  to  reach  a  price  President  Valentine  or  one  of 
his  deputies  will  go  there  and  fix  a  price.  That  is  the  only  agreement  we 
have — the  same  as  any  other  agreement  covering  day  men. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  you  have  any  objection  to  furnishing  this  commis- 
sion a  copy  of  those  contracts,  leaving  out  the  names  of  the  firms? 

Mr.  FBEY.  I  have  not  authority  over  the  documents  of  the  International 
Holders'  Union.  I  would  not  want  to  make  that  promise.  Perhaps  our  executive 
board  or  Mr.  Valentine  will  take  that  matter  up. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  recognize  you  may  not  want  to  furnish  the  names  of  the 
firms,  and  I  suggest  that  you  may  leave  those  names  out. 

Mr.  FEEY.  If  our  executive  board  is  agreeable,  -I  certainly  have  no  objection. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  As  I  understood  the  testimony  of  yesterday,  Mr.  Frey,  Mr. 
Briggs  stated  that  the  breakdown  of  the  agreement  between  your  union  and 
his  association  centered  principally  on  the  question  of  apprenticeship  and  the 
use  of  the  machines.  Mr.  Valentine,  in  his  testimony,  centered  it  principally  on 
the  unity  price.  What  have  you  to  say  with  reference  to  the  causes  which 
led  to  the  breakdown  of  the  agreement? 

Mr.  FEEY.  It  may  take  a  few  moments  to  cover  this  ground,  but  I  feel  this  is 
the  only  thing  of  value  to  that ;  that  is,  of  vital  value  that  can  be  brought  out 
so  far  as  these  three  associations  are  concerned.  I  would  like  to  take  a  few 
moments  to  cover  the  ground.  I  will  be  as  brief  as  possible. ' 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Frey. 

Mr.  FREY.  You  have  heard  the  policy  of  our  organization  explained  by  Presi- 
dent Valentine  and  by  Mr.  Hogan,  secretary  of  the  Stove  Defenders'  Association, 
as  to  our  relations.  I  can  only  add  that  that  was  our  policy  toward  the 
National  Founders'  Association.  We  had  an  earnest  desire  to  secure  a  peaceful 
method  of  adjusting  our  disputes  in  the  jobbing  and  machinery  foundries. 
We  welcomed  the  New  York  agreement —  that  is,  the  so-called  New  York  agree- 
ment. We  endeavored  to  work  under  that  agreement. 

The  period  from  1899  to  the  fall  of  1903  was  an  exceptionally  good  one,  so 
far  as  the  foundry  business  was  concerned.  Our  members  were  endeavoring  to 
secure  higher  wages.  It  was  the  policy  of  the  international  union,  however, 
to  endeavor  to  equalize  wages  and  bring  up  the  low-paid  districts,  so  that 
the  competition  between  those  and  the  foundry  centers  would  be  less  keen.  The 
commissioner  of  the  National  Founders'  Association  at  that  time,  Mr.  John  A. 
Fenton,  who  was  commissioner  from  the  beginning  until  December,  1903,  took 
up  most  of  those  wage  scales  with  us.  In  many  instances  we  agreed  to  much 
lower  wage  scales  than  we  were  confident  we  could  secure  if  we  simply  broke 
off  negotiations  and  struck,  because  trade  conditions  were  favorable  to  us. 

Our  members  protested  vigorously  during  this  period  and  accused  the  national 
officers  of  being  lax  in  their  duties,  and  not  as  energetic  as  they  should  be  to 
'assist  them  in  getting  higher  wages.  We  believed,  however,  that  it  was  to  the 
advantage  of  our  own  organization,  in  the  beginning  of  its  relations  with  the 
National  Founders'  Association,  to  go  easily  along,  hoping  to  accomplish  a 
similar  condition  to  that  which  existed  in  the  stove  industry ;  that  is,  a  gradual 
equalizing  of  wages  and  the  making  of  it  possible  to  take  up  wage  scales  by 
districts  in  the  future.  So  we  did  not  take  advantage  of  the  good  times  to  press 
our  claims  as  vigorously  as  we  otherwise  would. 

During  this  period — that  is,  from  1899  to  1903 — membership  in  our  organiza- 
tion grew  rather  rapidly,  and  the  membership  of  the  National  Founders'  Asso- 
ciation grew  rather  rapidly.  With  the  increased  growth  in  the  National 
Founders'  Association,  we  imagined  that  we  saw  a  growing  hostility  to  the  idea 
of  recognizing  our  union  to  the  extent  of  entering  into  agreements  with  it.  We 
felt  that  a  change  of  policy  might  possibly  come  about  so  far  as  the  National 
Founders'  Association  was  concerned,  and  so  it  did,  with  the  advent  of  Mr. 
Briggs. 

The  policy  of  the  association  changed,  and  I  presume  Mr.  Briggs  carried  out 
that  policy  as  best  he  could.  I  might  add  that  trade  began  to  fall  off  in  the  fall 
)03,  and  that  it  looked  as  though  business  would  not  be  as  good  for  some 


532          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

little  time.  We  have  thought,  perhaps  without  any  justification  whatever,  that 
the  falling  off  in  trade  was  an  inducement  to  the  National  Founders'  Association 
to  endeavor  to  establish  its  policy  at  the  time  that  it  did. 

We  found  that  the  National  Founders'  Association  were  suspicious  of  us; 
that  they  doubted  our  sincerity ;  and  found  it  necessary  to  build  up  a  machinery 
that  I  desire  to  refer  to  in  a  moment.  The  actual  break,  so  to  speak,  in  the 
New  York  agreement,  came  with  what  is  known  as  the  Utica  strike.  The 
foundrymen  of  that  city,  who  claimed  they  acted  under  the  advice  of  Commis- 
sioner Briggs,  enforced  a  reduction  of  wages.  They  said  if  we  objected  to  the 
reduction  in  wages  we  should  call  for  a  conference.  We  held  that  if  the  con- 
ditions were  to  be  changed  first  and  then  the  question  taken  up  later,  that 
method  could  not  bring  about  satisfactory  results.  We  held  that  the  New  York 
agreement  had  only  been  interpreted  one  way  during  the  years  that  it  had  been 
in  existence,  and  that  wras  that  when  a  question  arose  over  which  there  was  a 
dispute,  the  status  quo  would  be  maintained  until  the  question  wras  settled 
or  we  agreed  to  disagree. 

The  question  came  up  later,  and  in  the  fall  of  that  year  a  conference  was  held 
in  Cincinnati  that  settled  the  question  as  to  the  interpretation.  I  might  say 
that  our  opinion  as  to  the  interpretation  to  be  placed  upon  the  New  York  agree- 
men  arose  not  only  from  our  experience  but  from  the  official  statements  of  its 
first  president,  Mr.  Letchworth,  and  I  would  like  to  quote  from  a  letter  that  he 
wrote  on  April  4,  1900,  as  follows : 

"As  I  understand  the  New  York  agreement,  it  is  that  in  case  of  any  difference 
between  employees  and  their  employers  the  men  shall  not  strike  nor  the  em- 
ployers lock  them  out  until  there  has  been  an  arbitration ;  that  either  party,  in 
case  of  dissatisfaction,  has  the  right  to  ask  for  an  arbitration,  but  that  pending 
such  arbitration  there  shall  practically  be  no  change  in  the  existing  condition  in 
the  foundry." 

"Arbitration  "  here  being  used  in  the  original  sense  in  which  we  used  that 
word. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Conciliation? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes.  Mr.  Briggs  contended,  however,  that  his  association  or  his 
members  were  justified  in  enforcing  this  reduction  in  wages  in  Utica.  On 
October  13,  1904,  a  conference  was  held  in  Cincinnati  to  decide  what  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  New  York  agreement  should  be. 

That  conference  was  composed  of  Mr.  Fox,  or  rather  a  Mr.  Letchworth,  of 
Buffalo,  who  was  one  of  the  parties  to  the  signing  of  the  original  agreement; 
Mr.  Charles  L.  Newcomb,  of  Holyoke,  Mass. ;  and  Mr.  Briggs  and  myself. 

The  moulders  were  represented  by  Mr.  Fox,  who  was  then  president  of  our 
organization,  or  had  recently  resigned  and  was  still  able  to  act  somewhat,  who 
had  been  a  party  to  the  original  agreement,  our  first  vice  president,  myself. 
That  conference  passed  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  joint  committee  that  the  following  is 
the  proper  interpretation  of  the  New  York  agreement : 

" '  If  any  change,  whether  of  wage  rate,  shop  practice  or  conditions,  or  any 
other  change  affecting  the  relations  or  the  interests  of  the  members  of  the  parties 
to  the  New  York  agreement,  is  proposed  by  one  of  the  parties  thereto,  to  which 
objection  or  protest  is  raised  by  the  other  party,  it  is  understood  and  agreed 
that  the  status  then  existing;  that  is,  the  status  immediately  preceding  the 
proposed  change,  shall  not  be  disturbed  by  either  party  pending  reference  and 
decision,  as  provided  in  the  New  York  agreement.' " 

That  is  signed  by  Mr.  Fox  and  Mr.  Letchworth.  It  was  not,  however,  the 
New  York  agreement,  or  our  claim  that  the  New  York  agreement  was  violated, 
which  in  my  opinion  led  to  our  inability  to  continue  our  relations  with  the 
National  Founders'  Association.  It  was,  instead,  their  antagonistic  policy  to 
the  question  of  our  maintaining  an  organization,  with  the  system  they  built  up 
to  prevent  our  organization  from  maintaining  itself.  They  organized  a  rather 
extensive  machinery  for  dealing  with  us.  They  had,  first  of  all,  a  system 
of  espionage — we  termed  it  their  "  spy  system  " — and  through  that  they  main- 
tained traitors  in  each  one  of  our  local  unions  to  inform  them  as  to  what  was 
going  on,  but  we  sometimes  suspected  from  the  violent  language  of  some  of 
these  men  that  they  were  also  endeavoring  to  stir  up  trouble  at  the  wrong  time 
for  ourselves. 

They  also  built  up  a  corps  of  professional  strike  breakers.  Mr.  Briggs  termed 
them  instructors  the  other  day.  I  have  the  contract  made  with  one  of  those 
"  instructors,"  which  I  would  like  to  read  and  have  it  made  a  part  of  the 
record.  This  was  signed  October  22,  1904,  by  Mr.  Briggs  and  a  certain  foundry- 
man,  and  it  reads  as  follows: 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  533 

FREY  EXHIBIT  No.  1. 
NATIONAL  FOUNDERS'  ASSOCIATION — MOLDERS'  CONTRACT. 

CARL  GRANBUND,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  National  Founders'  Association  hereby  agrees  to  employ  you 
for  the  term  of  one  year  from  this  date  at  the  trade  of  molding  or  coremaking. 
You  are  to  work  faithfully  and  for  the  best  interests  of  the  association  in  all 
particulars;  you  are  to  work  in  such  shops  as  the  association  designates,  and 
when  transferred  from  one  shop  to  another  the  association  will  pay  the  rail- 
road fare  and  you  will  not  lose  the  time  consumed  in  travel.  You  are  to  be  at 
all  times  ready  to  move  from  place  to  place  as  the  association  directs,  and  when 
working  in  a  struck  shop  you  are  to  be  particularly  careful  to  work  for  the 
interests  of  the  shop  where  the  strike  is  in  force. 

Either  the  president  or  commissioner  of  this  association  shall  be  the  judge 
as  to  whether  or  not  you  have  been  or  are  faithful,  conscientious,  and  living 
up  to  the  terms  of  this  agreement. 

We  will  pay  you  nine  hundred  and  sixty  dollars  ($960)  per  year  in  equal 
monthly  installments  of  eighty  dollars  ($80). 

At  the  close  of  the  year,  if  in  the  opinion  of  either  the  president  or  com- 
missioner of  this  association  you  have  performed  faithful  and  conscientious 
work  as  herein  stated,  we  will  then  pay  you  the  further  sum  of  ninety  dollars 
($90)  as  a  bonus  for  the  year's  faithful  work. 

It  is  understood  that  to  receive  the  full  amount  of  ten  hundred  and  fifty 
dollars  ($1,050),  you  are  to  work  full  time  for  every  working  day  of  the  year 
and  that  time  lost  by  sickness  or  otherwise  will  be  deducted. 

Sickness  alone  will  be  the  only  excuse  for  your  failure  to  carry  out  the  terms 
of  this  agreement. 

NATIONAL  FOUNDERS'  ASSOCIATION, 
O.  P.  BRIGGS,  Commissioner. 

Dated  October  22,  1904. 

I  fully  understand  the  conditions  of  the  above  offer  and  hereby  accept  same 
and  agree  to  work  for  the  National  Founders'  Association  and  in  its  interests  to 
the  very  best  of  my  ability,  and  if  at  any  time  I  fail  to  carry  out  my  part  of 
the  agreement,  as  decided  by  the  president  or  commissioner,  who  shall  be  the  sole 
judge  as  to  whether  or  not  I  have  been  or  am  faithful  and  conscientious  in  living 
up  to  the  terms  of  this  agreement,  I  hereby  agree  to  the  cancellation  of  this  con- 
tract and  waive  all  claims  for  wages  or  salary  after  the  cancellation  and  also 
any  claim  to  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  bonus  to  be  paid  at  the  end  of  the  year. 

CARL  GRANBUND. 

In  the  presence  of — 
P.  T.  GOULD. 

It  is  signed  with  a  little  statement  below,  you  will  see,  that  the  man  has  read 
it  and  understands  what  it  means. 

We  felt  that  the  building  up  of  this  system  of  local  informers  and  the  gather- 
ing together  of  a  continually  growing  army  of  professional  strikebreakers  under 
contract  by  the  association  was  an  evidence,  at  least,  that  if  they  still  main- 
tained friendly  relations  toward  us,  it  was  to  be  prepared  for  war,  and  our  im- 
pressions were  rather  strengthened  when  we  read  the  reports  of  the  officers  of 
the  association  relative  to  these  two  features.  For  instance,  with  reference  to 
the  professional  strike  breakers,  in  the  report  for  1905  the  following  statement 
is  made: 

"  The  contract  with  molders  by  the  year  for  the  purpose  of  having  on  hand  at 
all  times  men  in  our  employ  was  undertaken  about  18  months  since.  At  the 
outset  it  was  an  experiment,  as  you  all  know.  I  can  assure  you  that  the  experi- 
ment has  been  very  successful.  We  have  encountered  such  difficulties  at  the 
beginning  as  are  usual  to  all  new  methods,  but  to-day  we  have  a  force  of  men  the 
equal  of  any  body  of  molders  you  can  select.  We  have  treated  these  men  right, 
for  which  they  are  duly  appreciative.  The  contract  we  enter  into  is  becoming 
more  popular  every  day  and  the  applications  for  it  are  so  numerous  that  we  have 
now  a  large  waiting  list  on  hand." 

About  this  time  the  association  was  also  endeavoring  to  build  up  an  organiza- 
tion of  foremen,  with  the  object  of  using  this  foremen's  organization  as  an  anti- 
union  machine,  and  in  the  same  report  to  the  convention  of  the  National 
Founders'  Association  this  statement  is  made.  I  believe  this  is  President  Briggs's 


534          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

report.  If  it  is  not,  it  i^  the  report  of  their  secretary.  It  is  the  official  pro- 
ceedings, anyway.  I  read  from  page  12,  as  follows-: 

"  I  have  had  brought  before  me  most  emphatically  in  our  work  of  the  past 
year  the  unquestioned  value  of  associations  composed  of  foundry  foremen.  In 
nearly  every  strike  where  the  association  has  been  called  upon  to  assist  its 
members  the  foreman  has  played  a  most  essential  and  important  part.  I 
believe  you  will,  therefore,  recognize  at  a  glance  the  importance  of  the  proper 
training  of  this  branch  of  our  industry.  The  experience  of  your  officers  and 
field  force  has  clearly  demonstrated  that  the  foremen  of  our  shops  are  in  a  large 
measure  responsible  for  the  success  of  the  shop,  as  in  reference  to  its  productive 
capacity,  and,  secondly,  its  peaceful  and  harmonious  conduct.  The  associating 
together  of  the  foundry  foremen  of  any  city  will  result  in  securing  these 
essentials. 

"  My  recommendation  to  this  convention  is  that  the  incoming  administrative 
council  be  instructed  to  use  every  possible  effort  to  establish  in  each  city  where 
the  association  has  any  membership,  strong  foremen's  clubs  or  associations, 
organized  upon  the  plan  of  that  which  is  now  accomplishing  so  much  in  the 
interest  of  the  foundrymen  of  Erie,  Pa." 

I  am  bringing  this  matter  out  to  show  the  reason  why  it  was  impossible  for 
us  to  get  along  peacefully.  This  association  of  foundry  foremen  was  a  matter 
of  reference  at  various  meetings  of  the  National  Founders'  Association,  and  the 
claim  is,  I  believe,  sworn  statements  were  made  in  the  official  publications  of  the 
Foundrymen's  Review  in  reference  to  this.  On  page  181  there  is  a  quotation 
from  the  report  of  Mr.  Pessano,  the  president  of  the  National  Founders'  Associa- 
tion, which  reads  as  follows : 

"  I  have  had  brought  before  me  most  emphatically  in  our  work  of  the  past 
year  the  unquestioned  value  of  associations  composed  of  foundry  foremen.  In 
nearly  every  strike  where  the  association  has  been  called  upon  to  assist  its 
members  the  foreman  has  played  a  most  essential  and  important  part." 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  date  of  that  report? 

Mr.  FEEY.  This  report  is  at  page  181  of  the  Iron  Moulders'  Journal.  That  is, 
I  reproduced  it,  and  I  am  using  this  because  I  did  not  bring  all  the  Reviews  with 
me.  There  is  no  question  as  to  its  accuracy. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  date  of  it,  is  \vhat  I  asked? 

Mr.  FEEY.  I  am  reading  from  page  181  of  the  issue  of  1902.  I  continue  read- 
ing, as  follows: 

"  I  believe  you  will  therefore  recognize  at  a  glance  the  importance  of  the 
proper  training  of  this  branch  of  our  industry.  The  experience  of  your  officers 
and  field  force  has  clearly  demonstrated  that  the  foremen  of  our  shops  are  in  a 
large  measure  responsible  for  the  success  of  the  shop,  as  in  reference  to  its 
productive  capacity  and,  secondly,  its  peaceful  and  harmonious  conduct.  The 
associating  together  of  the  foundry  foremen  of  any  city  will  result  in  securing 
these  essentials." 

The  article  then  goes  on  to  recommend  that  this  should  be  done,  and  Mr. 
Durban,  who  was  a  very  active  member  of  the  association,  follows  with  this 
address,  and  I  do  not  care  to  read  it  all,  but  the  commission  can  have  it  if  they 
want  to  use  it.  I  should  just  like  to  quote  a  few  sentences  from  the  address,  as 
it  will  indicate  to  you  that  this  foundry  foremen's  organization  was  in  use.  I 
am  reading  it  just  to  bring  out  this  point.  I  read  as  follows : 

"  The  proprietors  did  not  attend  the  meetings,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with 
them,  and  did  not  even  request  their  men  to  attend  the  meetings,  but  they  met 
about  twice  a  week  at  first  and  took  up  the  matters  of  the  troubles  in  the  shops. 
Each  man  " — 

That  is,  each  foreman — 

"  reported  a  particularly  offensive  union  man,  those  fellows  that  seemed  to  be 
coaching  the  thing  and  seemed  to  be  keeping  up  the  excitement  and  seemed  to 
be  the  head  centers,  and  the  result  was  those  men  were  let  go,  they  were  dis- 
missed from  time  to  time.  And  the  foundry  foremen  had  conceived  the  idea  that 
they  would  not  hire  a  man  in  any  of  the  foundries  unless  he  had  a  recom- 
mendation." 

So  that  in  foundry  terminology  when  the  foundry  foremen's  association  tied 
the  can  to  a  union  molder  he  did  not  have  another  chance  to  get  another  job 
in  that  territory. 

I  read  further,  as  follows : 

"  Of  course  there  was  a  great  deal  of  a  cry  about  that,  as  being  a  black  list, 
and  I  suppose  it  was  something  of  that  nature." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  say  that? 


TKADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  535 

Mr.  FKEY.  No;  I  am  quoting.    I  read  further: 

"  Of  course  there  was  a  great  deal  of  a  cry  about  that,  as  being  a  black  list, 
and  I  suppose  it  was  something  of  that  nature,  but  at  the  same  time,  if  a  man 
is  going  to  employ  any  one  in  his  office,  he  wants  some  sort  of  recommendation. 
And  when  it  became  known  that  a  man  was  particularly  offensive  and  making 
trouble  in  the  shops,  it  sort  of  tamed  him." 

Now,  going  down  a  few  paragraphs  further,  I  read  again : 

"  Of  course  \ve  are  very  strongly  in  favor  of  these  organizations  of  foremen 
as  an  assistance  to  the  National  Founders'  Association,  and  I  believe  that  the 
organization  of  the  foundry  foremen  in  Erie  has  saved  the  National  Founders' 
Association  ten  or  fifteen  thousand  dollars." 

Then  further  references  are  made,  and  I  read  further  as  follows : 

"  For  instance,  on  days'  work,  if  a  man  was  putting  in  a  fair  day's  work, 
some  of  those  members  would  go  over  and  say :  '  You  are  doing  so  much,  don't 
do  so  much.'  If  a  fellow  was  caught  at  that  by  his  foreman  he  was*  promptly 
dismissed. 

"  The  result  has  been  gratifying  in  another  way.  Erie  has  sent  out  a  great 
many  men  to  other  struck  shops." 

In  other  words,  the  foundry  foremen's  association  was  used  to  disrupt  our 
shops,  wherever  men  were  sent  out  to  use  these  tactics,  and  they  were  also  used 
as  strike  breakers  whenever  shipments  of  strike  breakers  were  desired  in  other 
localities. 

Now,  the  principle  of  the  New  York  agreement  was  that  whenever  a  dispute 
arose  that  could  not  be  taken  up  locally  and  that  could  not  be  settled  locally, 
it  would  be  taken  up  by  the  representatives  of  the  two  associations ;  but  about 
the  time  that  Mr.  Briggs  became  commissioner  the  policy  was  changed.  First 
of  all  the  National  Founders'  Association,  without  consultation  or  conference 
with  the  International  Molders'  Union,  adopted  an  interpretation  of  this  New 
York  agreement  and  gave  it  to  their  members.  In  other  words,  they  took  the 
responsibility  of  altering  the  meaning  of  that  agreement  to  some  extent  without 
consultation  with  us.  Then  it  was  determined  that  their  members  should  not 
sign  any  more  agreements  with  the  International  Molders'  Union  unless  those 
agreements  were  of  the  form  \vhich  the  National  Founders'  Association  desired. 
In  other  words,  they  endeavored  to  force  upon  us  the  so-called  outline  of  policy. 
They  instructed  their  members  not  to  sign  any  more  agreements  with  us  unless 
we  would  sign  the  peculiar  and  particular  form  of  agreement  that  they  had 
adopted,  and  in  an  article  in  their  official  publication,  the  Review,  dated  June, 
1904,  the  following  statement  is  made,  and  it  indicates  what,  to  our  mind,  is 
the  arbitrary  and  unyielding  attitude  of  the  National  Founders'  Association. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  was  that  date,  June,  1904? 

Mr.  FREY.  June,  1904.     This  reads  as  follows : 

"  The  membership  of  the  National  Founders'  Association  has  proven  itself 
*  true  blue '  thus  far  in  its  treatment  of  agreements  with  molders. 

"  Prior  to  the  holding  of  the  national  conference  in  April  members  of  the 
association  whose  agreements  with  the  molders  were  about  to  expire  or  had 
expired,  were  requested  to  await  action  of  this  conference  before  executing  new 
contracts. 

"  In  adhering  to  this  plan  our  members  have  exhibited  a  loyalty  which  can 
not  be  too  highly  commended. 

"After  the  adjournment  of  this  national  conference  and  the  failure  to  secure 
a  uniform  agreement  the  decision  was  reached  by  the  officers  of  the  association 
to  adopt  as  a  definite  policy  the  equitable  principles  which  should  obtain  in 
the  foundry  of  every  member  of  the  association  and  in  furtherance  of  this  plan 
all  members  are  now  giving  or  have  given  notice  of  an  unwillingness  to  con- 
tinue the  local  agreements  of  last  year.  In  no  case,  as  far  as  we  are  aware, 
has  one  of  these  agreements  been  renewed." 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  was  that  national  agreement  you  have  referred  to 
there? 

Mr.  FREY.  What  the  National  Founders'  Association  endeavored  to  have 
us  have  for  a  form  of  agreement  was  not  the  result  of  any  conference  we  had 
with  them,  but  I  presume  their  executive  council  met  with  our  executive 
board  and  drew  up  the  form  of  agreement  that  they  wanted,  and  after  this 
had  been  drafted,  probably  after  consulting  with  their  attorneys,  they  advised 
their  members  not  to  renew  any  of  the  existing  agreements  that  they  had 
then,  but  to  tell  us  "  Either  you  sign  this  form  of  agreement  which  we  have 
drawn  up,  or  there  will  be  no  more  agreements." 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  would  like  to  look  at  that  paper. 

Mr.  FREY.  I  had  not  got  through  with  it — some  of  it. 


536          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  pass  it  back  f after  examining  paper"].     Thank  you. 

Mr.  FKEY.  I  am  reading  rather  extensively,  perhaps,  but  it  brings  me  to  the 
nub  of  the  reasons  why  friendly  relations  were  severed,  not  on  our  part,  but 
they  refused  to  deal  with  us  any  further;  they  wanted  no  more  agreements 
with  us  that  did  not  give  them  all  they  wanted.  I  am  quoting  now. 

"And  here  lies  the  key  to  the  whole  situation.  The  system  of  local  agree- 
ments with  molders  is  really  of  comparatively  recent  origin. 

"  Before  the  year  1899,  in  which  the  New  York  agreement  was  made,  local 
agreements  were  almost  unknown.  In  that  year  a  few  were  signed.  As  the 
boom  of  prosperity  gathered  velocity  and  weight  the  union  seized  the  oppor- 
tunity to  compel  additional  recognition.  Many  foundrymen  actually  vied  with 
each  other  to  be  first  in  granting  this  recognition,  and  the  system  of  local 
agreements  became  '  crowned  with  the  cross  of  gold.' 

"  Once  established,  but  little  remained  to  be  done  by  the  national  officers  of 
the  molders'  union  to  afford  added  zest  to  local  proteges  in  efforts  to  hold 
the  vantage  point.  With  each  revolution,  like  a  snowball,  the  movement 
gathered  in  volume. 

"  The  National  Founders'  Association,  then  only  in  a  formative  state,  was 
called  upon  to  meet  the  accrued  benefits  of  a  labor  organization  already  in  the 
thirty-first  year  of  its  existence. 

"  The  members  of  this  union  were  mostly  possessed  of  the  spirit  of  Anglo- 
Saxon  enterprise,  and  for  over  a  quarter  of  a  century  had  not  been  met  by 
any  obstruction  in  their  path  of  perfecting  their  complete  and  unsurpassed 
organization." 

We  thank  you  for  the  compliment. 

"  Little  wonder  is  it  that  when  the  National  Founders'  Association  ap- 
peared on  the  scene,  with  officers  and  members  in  a  new  role,  and  commercial 
affairs  in  a  plethoric  state,  it  was  hardly  possible  to  promptly  check  the 
course  of  this  practice. 

"  There  were  many  foundrymen  at  that  time  who  possessed  a  firm  belief 
in  the  efficacy  of  local  governments.  Others  were  forced  to  sign  them.  All 
are  now  the  wiser  for  the  experience  and  united  in  opinion.  Simultaneously 
all  seem  to  have  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  present  is  the  opportune  time 
to  curb  the  onslaught." 

That  was  our  desire,  to  secure  more  agreements. 

"  No  one  is  entering  into  these  contracts  now,  but  for  the  future  the  way  must 
be  cleared. 

"  During  the  present  period  of  temporary  depression  let  us  not  neglect  the 
opportunity  to  study  the  possibilities  of  a  revival  of  business  and  increased 
requirements  of  our  customers. 

"  '  In  times  of  peace  prepare  for  war.' 

"  Let  this  sound  the  warning  to  members  of  the  National  Founders'  Associa- 
tion not  to  sleep  on  their  rights,  but  to  stand  firmly  at  the  helm  that  the  officers 
of  their  association  may  have  the  fullest  measure  of  support  in  their  determina- 
tion not  to  permit  the  rejuvenation  of  this  system  of  local  agreements  once  it  is 
removed  from  the  catalogue  of  things  extant." 

I  wanted  to  bring  out  the  fact  that  the  reason  we  are  not  enjoying  friendly 
relations  with  the  National  Founders'  Association  since  1904  is  not  because 
of  our  unwillingness  to  meet  them  in  conference  and  adjust  questions  as  we 
formerly  did,  but  because  of  their  unwillingness  to  have  any  official  or  friendly 
relations  with  us.  I  want  to  bring  that  point  out,  because  the  impression  has 
been  created  from  much  of  their  official  literature  during  recent  years  that  it 
was  the  molders  who  were  to  blame  for  the  severing  of  these  friendly  relations. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  were  continually  advising  their  members  not  to 
have  any  relations  with  us,  and  under  no  circumstances  to  settle  with  us  during 
a  strike  or  even  to  discuss  any  proposition  with  us  toward  settling  a  strike, 
and  in  connection  with  that  I  would  like  to  read  a  circular  issued  by  the  National 
Founders'  Association. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  is  the  date? 

Mr.  FKEY.  August  2,  1906.    I  will  turn  it  in  as  an  exhibit. 

"  WARNING. 

"  NATIONAL  FOLTNDETCS'  ASSOCIATION, 

"Detroit,  Midi,,  August  2,  1906. 
"To  the  foundrymen  of  the  United  States  and  Canada. 

"  GENTLEMEN  :  We  have  just  been  made  acquainted  with  several  attempts 
of  officials  of  the  molders'  union  to  secure  the  consent  of  the  proprietors  of 


TBADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  537 

foundries  which  have  lately  been  struck,  and  where  the  union  is  paying  strike 
benefits,  to  permit  the  striking  molders  and  coremakers  to  return  to  work  under 
almost  any  conditions,  the  only  proviso  being  that  negotiations  of  this  character 
should  be  entered  into  with  one  of  these  officials. 

"  We  desire  to  warn  the  proprietors  of  these  struck  foundries,  if  they  ever 
expect  to  conduct  their  plants  free  from  union  domination,  it  will  be  much  more 
to  their  interest  if  they  dismiss  from  their  minds  once  for  all  any  thought  of 
doing  business  with  these  walking  delegates  of  the  molders'  union. 

"  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  every  foundry  proprietor  now  engaged  in  combating 
a  strike  has  measured  the  cost  in  a  manner  befitting  the  successful  conduct  of 
any  enterprise,  and  once  the  old  employees  have  struck  the  plant  it  is  absolutely 
useless  to  think  of  negotiating  with  them  through  the  medium  of  their  repre- 
sentatives. 

"  Each  time  interviews  of  this  nature  are  granted  the  struggle  is  prolonged 
and  thousands  of  dollars  added  to  the  cost,  not  only  for  the  proprietor  granting 
the  interview  but  for  his  fellow  foundrymen  as  well,  for  an  interview  granted  in 
Nova  Scotia  may  be  used  by  these  union  emissaries  with  no  inconsiderable  effect 
to  brace  up  a  lost  cause  on  the  Pacific  coast  or  Gulf  of  Mexico. 

"  UNION    MUST   CUT   EXPENSES. 

"  The  efforts  now  being  made  by  the  molders'  union  to  get  its  men  back  to 
work  are  dictated  by  the  condition  of  its  treasury  and  the  manifest  necessity 
of  reducing  expenses.  Each  striker  who  is  given  employment  in  this  way  reduces 
the  expenses  to  the  union  by  $7  per  week." 

Evidently  they  desired  to  keep  us  out  on  strike  so  as  to  use  up  all  of  our 
money. 

"  Furthermore,  so  long  as  these  negotiations  are  conducted  through  the  chan- 
nel of  the  waiting  delegate  and  the  strikers  permitted  to  return  to  work  as 
union  men  the  foundrymen  may  expect  to  see  their  plants  unionized  again  with- 
in a  very  short  space  of  time,  and  the  expense  of  the  present  strike,  so  far  as 
the  proprietor  is  concerned,  will  be  entirely  wasted. 

"  There  seems  to  be  in  some  sections  an  inherent  desire  on  the  part  of  foun- 
drymen to  meet  and  *  discuss  the  situation '  with  these  union  agitators,  one 
foundryman  even  going  so  far  as  to  remark,  '  So-and-so  sent  for  me  and  I  went 
down  to  the  hotel.'  A  more  silly  and  abject  compliance  with  the  dictates  of  a 
labor  agitator  can  hardly  be  imagined,  yet  this  foundryman  at  one  time  expected 
to  conduct  an  *  open  shop.'  Unfortunately  for  him,  his  trip  '  down  to  the  hotel ' 
resulted  in  the  union  gaining  control  of  his  plant,  machines,  apprentices,  limita- 
tion of  output,  and  everything  else. 
"  Very  truly,  yours, 

"  F.  W.  HUTCHINGS,  Secretary."     . 

So  that  the  National  Founders'  Association,  as  far  as  we  were  able  to  dis- 
cover, do  not  believe  in  agreements  with  the  molders'  union ;  did  not  believe  in 
conferences  to  adjust  our  disputes  locally,  but  it  believes  in  establishing  a  spy 
system  and  a  corps  of  professional  strike  breakers  and  the  use  of  private  detect- 
ives employed  through  some  of  the  notorious  agencies  to  make  our  union  lose, 
first  of  all,  by  adopting  the  so-called  Erie  plan  of  running  every  active  union 
man  out  of  business  and  by  having  informers  in  the  local  union,  and  even  in 
our  office,  so  that  they  would  keep  informed  of  everything  that  was  going  on. 
So  far  as  we  could  see — we  may  be  mistaken  in  this,  but  so  far  as  our  observa- 
tions went,  so  far  as  we  could  gather  from  the  official  statements  of  the  officials 
of  the  National  Founders'  Association — it  was  not  the  agreement  that  they 
desired  or' were  then  organized  to  secure,  but  rather  the  extermination  of  the 
National  Molders'  Union.  That  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  I  believed  we  failed 
to  make  the  New  York  agreement  a  measure  for  the  peaceful  adjustment  of 
differences  that  arose  in  the  jobbing  and  machinery  foundries. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  To  what  do  you  ascribe  that  attitude  of  the  National  Found- 
ers' Association? 

Mr.  FKEY.  The  spirit  that  had  developed  among  some  of  the  employers  was 
almost  like  a  contagion — like  the  I.  W.  W. — and  caused  like  contagion  among 
some  workingmen,  but  the  idea  seemed  to  gain  ground  to  have  nothing  to  do 
with  unions.  "If  you  give  them  recognition  they  will  grow  stronger,  and  they 
will  run  your  business,  and  you  will  not  have  your  owrn  way,"  and  as  my  friend, 
Briggs,  stated,  "  Cut  the  union  off  behind  the  ears." 

To  show  their  policy,  I  would  like  to  read  just  one  more  circular  into  the 
record.  This  is  signed  by  Mr.  Briggs.  This  is  as  showing  their  attitude  as 
opposed  to  conferences  or  agreements. 


538          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Will  you  kindly  read  the  date? 

Mr.  FREY.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  read  the  date.  I  published  it  in  the  No- 
vember issue  of  our  1905  journal,  and  I  think  you  issued  this  in  October.  You 
will  recall  I  had  some  editorial  controversy  over  the  philosophy  of  the  circular. 
It  is  headed  "  Still  drifting  "  and  is  as  follows : 

"  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  tactics  at  present  being  pursued  by  the 
molders'  union  in  its  treatment  of  certain  districts : 

"At  a  meeting  of  the  officials  of  that  organization  lately  certain  requests  from 
various  local  unions  for  support  were  presented,  these  to  become  effective  in 
case  the  molders  found  it  necessary  to  strike  to  compel  compliance  with  their 
terms.  These  requests,  more  commonly  designated  as  '  grievances,'  were  sorted 
out  and  the  decision  reached  to  pay  more  particular  attention  to  what  these 
officials  called  '  low-rate  districts  '  when  granting  strike  support.'" 

Showing  that  we  were  continuing  our  policy  after  they  had  broken  off  nego- 
tiations with  us,  continuing  in  our  effort  to  raise  wages  in  the  lower  districts, 
rather  than  pay  attention  to  where  they  were  higher;  in  other  words,  to  hold 
the  higher  rate  man  down  in  our  effort  to  bring  the  lower  rate  man  up. 

"  The  intention  in  this  is  to  pursue  a  wrell-outlined  plan  of  campaign  in  the 
way  of  forcing  those  manufacturers  who  now  have  reasonable  conditions  in 
their  plants,  so  far  as  union  rules  are  concerned,  to  recognize  and  establish  in 
their  foundries  the  same  union  regulations  regarding  apprentices,  machines,  out- 
put, rates  of  pay,  hours,  etc.,  as  obtain  in  strong  union  shops. 

"  If  they  get  this  pile  of  wood  split  and  all  shops  upon  their  uniform  basis, 
and  the  9-hour  day  where  the  10-hour  is  now  the  rule,  these  officials  have  in  mind 
the  8-hour  goal  and  uniform  minimum  wages. 

"  I  know  you  will  say  this  is  quite  a  job,  and  I  think  so,  too,  bu!  that  don't 
make  any  difference  to  that  outfit,  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  must  be  kept 
busy. 

"  My  purpose  in  writing  is  merely  to  put  you  and  your  neighbor  on  your  guard, 
that  you  may  be  considering  how  to  deal  with  this  thing  when  it  comes  up.  In 
my  judgment,  the  best  plan  to  adopt  is  to  keep  your  capable  and  fair-minded  men 
well  paid  and  satisfied,  but  don't  increase  any  minimum  wage  rate.  Many  of 
these  requests  have  already  been  refused,  and  the  only  way  to  prevent  successful 
outcome  of  the  plan  of  this  union  is  to  chop  it  off  behind  the  ears  before  it  gets 
time  to  grow." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Who  wrote  that? 

Mr.  FBEY.  Mr.  Briggs.  Now,  I  do  not  care  to  read  any  more  documents  to 
prove  the  attitude  of  the  National  Founders'  Association  unless  you  care  to  hear 
them,  but  I  could  give  you  a  trunk  full  similar  in  character,  tone,  and  purpose. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  no  further  explanation  of  the  reason  that  the 
National  Founders'  Association  took  that  attitude  than  you  have  already  stated? 

Mr.  FREY.  No.  I  believe  it  was  the  disinclination  of  a  majority  of  the  members 
of  that  association  toward  collective  bargaining  with  the  members  of  the  union. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  do  you  account  for  the  attitude  of  the  majority  of  the 
membership  of  that  association  as  compared  with  the  attitude  of  the  stove 
makers'  association? 

Mr.  FREY.  Well,  the  only  way  I  can  account  for  it  is  this,  that  the  members 
of  the  Stove  Founders'  Defense  Association  had  had  relations  with  us  ever  since 
the  industry  began.  First  of  all  it  was  Kilkenny  cat  relations  for  a  period 
of  25  or  30  years,  but  it  was  none  the  less  relations.  After  this  Kilkenny  cat 
period  we  then  entered  into  a  conference  agreement,  and  then,  instead  of  fight- 
ing each  other  the  old  way,  we  fought  each  other  with  facts  and  arguments. 
There  have  been  no  organizations  of  this  kind  among  the  jobbing  and  machinery 
foundry  men. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  that  case  it  was  a  case  of  callow  youth  and  inexperience? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes ;  callow  youth.  The  best  proof  of  its  being  callow  youth,  so 
far  as  its  policy  is  concerned,  is  in  the  fact  that  a  large  number  of  their  members 
to-day  have  agreements  with  our  union  that  are  operating  union  foundries,  and 
we  have  no  trouble  whatever  with  them.  We  meet  them  as  cordially  as  we  meet 
the  members  of  the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Association;  in  fact,  a 
number  of  them  withdrew  from  the  National  Founders'  Association  so  that  with 
good  grace  they  could  renew  former  relations  with  our  organization. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  percentage  of  the  workers  employed  in  the  foundries  of 
the  National  Founders'  Association  are  members  of  your  organization,  if  you 
know  and  if  you  care  to  say? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  do  not  know  who  are  the  members  of  the  National  Founders' 
Association.  We  have  had  no  official  dealings  with  them  for  a  number  of 
years.  We  are  only  interested  in  past  history,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  539 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  When  did  the  first  evidence  come  to  you  of  the  employment 
of  spies  in  your  ranks  by  the  National  Founders'  Association? 

Mr.  FREY.  From  1900  we  knew  there  were  a  few  in  connection  with  a  local 
strike,  but  the  systematizing  of  the  matter  we  knew  nothing  of  until  Mr. 
Briggs  assumed  the  helm. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  When  was  that? 

Mr.  FREY.  In  the  latter  part  of  December,  1903,  or  the  first  part  of  January, 
1904. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  1903. 

Mr.  FREY.  December,  1903,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  At  that  time  did  the  members  of  the  National  Founders' 
Association  have  trouble  with  your  union  in  various  localities? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes;  there  had  been  strikes.  Where  a  conference  failed  to  secure 
an  adjustment  of  the  matter,  a  strike  would  result;  but  we  had  had  very  few 
strikes  comparatively  during  the  period  from  1899  to  December,  1903,  com- 
pared to  what  followed  when  the  new  policy  of  the  association  was  established. 
Then  it  was  warfare,  because  they  discharged  our  members  and  we  retaliated, 
and  we  went  back  to  the  Kilkenny  cat  situation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  was  war  to  the  knife? 

Mr.  FREY.  It  was,  and  that  is  the  reason  we  are  still  alive. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  there  a  strained  relation  between  the  association  and 
your  union,  although  your  contract  was  still  in  existence? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes.  We  recognized  the  different  atmosphere  immediately  after 
the  first  of  January,  1904. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  while  the  contract  was  still  in 
existence  at  that  time,  a  state  bordering  on  war  existed  between  the  two 
organizations? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes;  because  the  members  of  the  foundrymen's  association  re- 
fused to  enter  into  any  more  agreements  with  us,  and  the  conferences  that  we 
held  failed  in  reaching  any  agreement.  The  members  carried  out  the  instruc- 
tions as  indicated  in  the  report  I  just  read. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  that  is  so,  what  objection,  if  any,  does  your  union  have 
to  the  engagement  of  the  contract  men  or  niolders,  about  which  you  have  read, 
that  were  employed  by  the  National  Founders'  Association? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  presume  about  the  same  objection  as  an  American  revolutionist 
had  about  the  Hessians  coming  over  here.  I  do  not  think  there  is  much  differ- 
ence. It  is  about  the  same  thing — and  about  as  much  respect  for  them,  too. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  regard  to  the  question  of  spies,  what  evidence,  if  any, 
and  if  you  care  to  state  it,  have  you  obtained? 

Mr.  FREY.  Some  of  the  men  who  were  employed  in  that  capacity,  while  not 
having  the  grace  to  go  and  hang  themselves  after  taking  the  30  pieces  of 
silver,  did  have  the  grace  to  come  and  tell  us  all  about  it,  and  also  give  to 
us  a  list  of  names  of  some  of  the  others,  and  we  tried  now  and  then  to  weed 
out  some  of  those  men  that  we  were  sure  were  spies. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion,  Mr.  Frey,  does  the  existence  of  the  union 
help  the  worker,  and  does  the  use  of  a  collective  agreement  by  the  union  help 
him  also? 

Mr.  FREY.  May  I  introduce  a  further  statement  here? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  FREY.  A  statement  was  made  by  Mr.  Briggs  yesterday  as  to  the  rea- 
son of  our  quarrels,  that  it  was  not  a  matter  of  wages,  but  our  desire  to 
secure  other  conditions.  Those  statements  were  made,  and  as  a  result  President 
A'alentine  submitted  a  statement  as  to  the  issue  in  1906  to  the  editor  of  the 
Iron  Trade  Review,  and  it  was  published.  I  do  not  need  to  give  the  details, 
but  it  gives  what  we  consider  to  be  the  issue.  May  I  have  this  incorporated  in 
the  record? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

(The  statement  submitted  and  referred  to  by  Mr.  Frey  is  as  follows:) 

THE  ISSUE — As  STATED  BY  PRESIDENT  JOSEPH  F.  VALENTINE. 

[A  review  of  the  present  relations  of  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North  America  .and  the 
National  Founders'  Association.     Written  at  the  request  of  the  Iron  Trade  Review.] 

EDITOR  IRON  TRADE  REVIEW: 

In  response  to  the  very  kind  invitation  contained  in  your  letter  of  the  9th 
instant,  I  herewith  give,  as  briefly  as  I  can,  a  statement  of  the  present  differ- 


540         EEPOET    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

ences  between  the  Iron  Holders'  Union  of  North  America  and  the  National 
Founders'  Association,  and  the  causes  which,  in  my  opinion,  led  up  to  them. 

Those  who  have  been  readers  of  the  Iron  Trade  Review  have  been  made 
familiar  with  what  was  known  as  the  New  York  agreement.  It  was  nothing 
more  than  a  broad  recital  of  the  fact  that  the  members  of  the  National 
Founders'  Association,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  iron  molders'  union,  on  the 
other,  subscribed  to  the  policy  of  conciliatory  methods  when  disputes  arose 
between  them,  and  provided  such  machinery  as  the  contracting  parties  deemed 
best  suited  to  give  this  policy  effect. 

Let  it  be  known,  in  passing,  that  the  iron  molders'  union  for  the  past  15  years 
has  consistently  advocated  the  conciliatory  policy.  It  has  succeeded  in 
educating  its  members  to  recognize  the  good  to  be  derived  from  sitting  down 
with  their  employers  in  friendly  council,  to  discuss  all  subjects  of  mutual  inter- 
est and  to  thrash  out  and  effect  a  settlement  of  all  matters  which  threaten 
serious  differences.  It  has  recognized  rhe  fact  that,  amid  the  startling  indus- 
trial changes  of  the  past  quarter  of  a  century,  new  problems  have  arisen  that 
can  not  all  be  solved  by  the  rules  which  previously  did  good  service.  Prob- 
lems they  are  which  must  be  fearlessly  and  yet  fairly  discussed  with  their 
employers.  It  believed,  too,  that  just  as  these  problems  are  difficult  of  satis- 
factory solution  by  the  molders,  it  is  equally  difficult  for  the  foundrymen,  with 
due  regard  for  the  interests  of  the  molder,  to  suggest  the  answer.  But,  amid 
all  this  confusion  of  thought,  amid  all  the  conflict  of  selfish  interests  on  both 
sides,  it  has  held  firmly  to  its  faith  in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  heart-to-heart 
discussion  by  the  interested  parties.  And  it  has  held  firmly  to  the  belief,  too, 
that  until  final  solution  is  reached,  conflicting  interests  should  patiently 
strive,  by  prescribing  for  each  specific  case  of  difference  as  it  arose,  to  avoid 
conflict  which  can  but  postpone  solution  and  destroy  the  harmony  and  good 
will  which  would  promote  it. 

THE   NEW  YORK  AGREEMENT. 

From  March,  1899,  to  November,  1904,  the  members  of  the  National  Founders' 
Association  and  the  iron  molders'  union  met  together  frequently  under  the 
terms  of  the  New  York  agreement  to  discuss  their  differences.  This  agree- 
ment was  not  a  perfect  instrument  by  any  means,  nor  as  comprehensive  as 
either  side  might  desire.  And  yet,  when  we  review  the  history  of  that  period 
we  can  not  but  marvel  at  the  wonderful  influence  it  exerted  in  promoting  peace 
in  the  foundry  industry.  It  is  not  that  there  was  no  conflict  between  mem- 
bers of  the  subscribing  associations,  for  there  was.  But,  considering  the  period 
of  extraordinary  expansion  in  the  iron  trade  which  it  covered,  they  were 
remarkably  few. 

What  happened  in  November,  1904?  The  New  York  agreement  was  abro- 
gated, not  by  a  conference  representing  the  original  subscribers  to  its  pro- 
visions, but  by  one  of  them — the  National  Founders'  Association. 

Why  was  it  abrogated?  Because  the  iron  molders'  union  was  unwilling  to 
incorporate  provisions  which  its  members  were  not  convinced  were  a  proper 
solution  of  some  of  the  difficult  problems  which  had  arisen  in  the  foundry. 

But  we  have  not  space  to  discuss  this  abrogation  in  detail;  suffice  it  to  say 
that  during  1905  and  1906  it  left  that  branch  of  the  foundry  industry  repre- 
sented by  the  N.  F.  A.  just  as  it  was  before  March,  1899,  without  any  means  at 
its  disposal  to  calmly  discuss  the  differences  of  its  essential  interests.  Nor  was 
it  in  as  good  a  position  as  it  was  in  the  earlier  period,  for  peace  was  further 
jeopardized  by  the  advice  given  to  the  members  of  the  iron  molders'  union, 
which  did  not  include  in  their  provisions  all  of  the  clauses  of  the  "  outline  of 
policy  "  of  their  association.  Among  these  was  a  clause  which  enunciated  what 
is  now  popularly  known  as  the  "  open-shop  "  policy.  Mark  you,  the  N.  F.  A. 
insisted  that  all  agreements  should  embody  an  "  open-shop  "  clause.  It  does  not 
appear,  and  it  is  not  true,  that  the  iron  molders'  union  insisted  that  a  "  closed- 
shop  "  clause  should  be  embodied  or  that  no  agreement  would  be  entered  into. 

CHIEF    CAUSES    OF    STRIFE. 

The  iron  molders'  union  believes,  and  statistics  amply  justify  the  belief,  that 
wages  and  hours  of  labor  are  by  great  odds  the  chief  causes  of  industrial  strife ; 
and,  consistently  with  this  belief,  has  ever  been  willing  to  enter  into  agreements 
with  foundry  men  covering  and  settling  these  points  for  a  specific  period,  and 
covering  such  other  points  as  can  be  mutually  agreed  upon  by  those  directly 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  541 

interested.  Such  agreements,  I  firmly  believe,  have  eliminated  and  will  still 
eliminate  the  greater  percentage  of  strikes  in  our  trade. 

This  belief  is  not  shared  by  the  present  administration  of  the  National 
Founders'  Association.  No  better  proof  of  this  statement  can  be  given  than  a 
review  of  the  causes  which  have  led  up  to  the  strikes  now  in  progress.  I  do 
not  know  of  a  single  instance  among  those  in  which  the  "  closed  shop  "  has  been 
made  an  issue  by  the  union.  I  will  go  further  and  say  that  in  the  great  ma- 
jority of  instances  where  demands  have  been  made  and  conferences  have  been 
granted  by  the  foundry  men,  satisfactory  settlements  have  been  reached  and 
agreements  signed.  The  members  of  the  iron  molders'  union  have  not  signed 
agreements  with  an  "  open-shop  "  clause ;  nor  have  the  members  of  the  N.  F.  A. 
signed  agreements  with  the  "  closed-shop  "  provision.  Why  should  that  ques- 
tion be  raised  when  it  is  not  an  issue?  And  yet,  even  when  the  question  of  an 
increase  of  wages  has  arisen  during  the  present  year  in  a  low-priced  foundry 
community,  of  whose  competition  foundry  men  in  higher-priced  localities  bitterly 
complain,  the  "  open-shop  "  catch  cry  has  been  made  to  do  service. 

Before  proceeding  to  a  more  specific  reference  to  our  present  strikes,  permit 
me  to  say  that  we  are  not  so  egotistical  as  to  say  that  all  the  mistakes  in  these 
unfortunate  controversies  have  been  made  by  the  members  of  the  National 
Founders'  Association.  We  are  all  prone  to  err,  and  sometimes  when  fears  and 
passions  have  been  needlessly  aroused,  or  when  opportunity  has  not  been  af- 
forded for  the  play  of  the  judicial  mind,  strife  has  been  precipitated,  which, 
under  more  favorable  conditions,  might  have  been  avoided. 

PHILADELPHIA    STRIKE. 

Perhaps  none  of  our  present  strikes  has  been  so  well  advertised  as  that  now 
going  on  in  Philadelphia.  Let  us  trace  its  cause.  In  October,  1905,  the  core 
makers  of  that  city  sent  the  following  communication  to  the  foundry  men : 

"  GENTLEMEN  :  Owing  to  the  advance  in  the  cost  of  the  necessities  of  life, 
and  the  outlook  for  better  trade  in  general,  we  respectfully  petition  you  for  an 
advance  of  25  cents  a  day  to  all  the  journeymen  core  makers  in  your  employ, 
making  the  rate  to  core  makers  $2.75  a  day  and  upward.  We  respectfully  re- 
quest an  answer." 

No  definite  reply  having  been  received  from  this  notice,  a  committee  from  the 
union  waited  upon  each  firm,  and  in  each  instance  was  informed  that  the 
foundry  men  would  not  discuss  the  matter  with  them.  The  next  step  was  to 
have  the  core  makers'  committee  in  each  shop  interview  their  employer  relative 
to  the  desired  advance.  Again  the  core  makers  were  informed  that  the  foundry 
men  could  not  discuss  the  merits  of  the  proposition  with  them,  as  the  matter 
had  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  their  association  and  would  have  to  be  taken 
up  with  its  officers. 

After  having,  received  this  information,  efforts  were  made  by  both  the  local 
and  national  officers  to  secure  a  conference  at  which  the  sole  question  to  be  dis- 
cussed would  be  that  of  wages.  Personal  interviews  to  this  end  were  held  with 
both  the  officers  of  the  Philadelphia  Foundrymen's  Association  and  the  Na- 
tional Founders'  Association,  and  in  both  instances  the  officers  of  these  organi- 
zations refused  to  grant  a  conference  or  discuss  the  merits  of  the  question. 

The  result  was  inevitable,  for  can  any  fair-minded  man  say  that  the  core 
makers  of  Philadelphia  were  making  extravagant  demands  when  they  asked 
that  their  wages  be  advanced  from  $2.50  to  $2.75  per  day?  I  make  the  state- 
ment, and  make  it  advisedly,  that  fair  and  courteous  treatment  of  this  rea- 
sonable demand  would  have  prevented  the  serious  and  unprofitable  conflict 
that  has  followed. 

STRIKES    AND    CAUSES. 

Let  me  enumerate  a  few  of  the  strikes  involving  the  members  of  the  N.  F.  A., 
and  their  causes : 

Chicago,  an  increase  in  the  wage  rate. 

Boston,  an  increase  in  the  wage  rate. 

St.  Paul  and  Minneapolis,  an  increase  in  the  wage  rate. 

Buffalo,  an  increase  in  the  wage  rate. 

Anthracite  district  of  Pennsylvania,  nine-hour  day. 

Milwaukee,  nine-hour  day  and  increase  in  the  wage  rate. 

Missouri  Valley,  a  minimum  rate  and  a  nine-hour  day. 

Toledo,  an  increase  in  the  wage  rate  and  a  nine-hour  day. 


542          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

That  is  a  list  of  the  chief  centers  where  strikes  of  greater  or  lesser  magnitude 
exist.  Let  me  supplement  it  with  a  list  of  some  of  the  localities  where  similar 
demands  having  been  made,  a  conference  between  the  foundry  men  and  the 
iiioldors'  representatives  effected  a  peaceful  settlement: 

Cincinnati,  granted  the  nine-hour  day. 

Cleveland,  granted  the  nine-hour  day. 

Indianapolis,  granted  an  increase  in  wages. 

Central  New  York,  granted  in  some  instances  an  advance,  in  others  a  nine- 
hour  day,  or  both. 

New  York  district  (comprising  New  York  City,  Brooklyn,  Jersey  City,  New- 
ark, and  Plainfield),  granted  an  increase  in  wages. 

This  list  includes  the  most  important  centers  to  note  that  it  was  not  in  insig- 
nificant centers,  nor  where  inconsiderable  numbers  of  men  were  involved,  that 
conferences  established  peace.  It  is  true  conferences  were  not  so  successful  in 
Buffalo,  but  the  issues  were  confused  there.  Issues  were  injected  which  should 
not  have  been,  and  which,  I  firmly  believe,  were  thrust  to  the  front  for  the 
representative  of  National  Founders'  Association  for  the  purpose  of  precipitat- 
ing a  conflict. 

In  enumerating  the  causes  of  strikes  I  have  recited  what  the  molders  regard 
as  the  salient  feature  of  their  demands. 

Each  locality  had  questions  of  its  own  to  consider  and  to  embody  in  its  agree- 
ment. In  some  instances  they  touched  upon  vital  issues,  such,  for  example,  as 
piecework,  apprentices,  and  so  on.  These  same  questions  had  been  up  in  pre- 
vious years,  and  by  the  exercise  of  a  little  common  sense  by  both  parties  were 
successfully  overcome.  The  same  could  have  been  accomplished  in  1906  had  it 
not  been  that  the  policy  of  the  iron  molders'  union  of  treating  local  disorders  or 
conditions  with  local  specifics  was  repudiated  by  the  members  of  the  N.  F.  A., 
and  an  effort  was  made  to  force  upon  us  the  provisions  contained  in  the  "  Out- 
line of  policy,"  "  open  shop  "  included. 

THE   PRESENT    CONFLICT. 

To  sum  up,  I  believe  that  the  present  conflict  is  due  primarily  to  the  abroga- 
tion of  the  New  York  agreement,  and  the  subsequent  policy  of  the  administra- 
tion of  the  N.  F.  A.  to  force  down  the  throats  of  the  members  of  the  iron 
molders'  union  their  "  Outline  of  policy."  They  are  guilty  of  deliberate  misrepre- 
sentation and  falsehood  who  proclaim  that  the  issue  of  the  present  struggle  is 
the  "  open  shop."  That  issue  is  one  of  the  administration  of  the  N.  F.  A.  It 
is  a  cry  to  conjure  with  in  the  present  era.  It  has  been  made  to  do  service 
in  the  most  unholy  of  causes  and  has  come  to  be  looked  upon  by  the  members 
of  the  iron  molders'  union  as  a  "  shibboleth  "  designed  to  hide  the  real  purpose — 
the  destruction  of  their  organization.  Wages  and  hours  of  labor  have  consti- 
tuted the  chief  features  of  all  the  molders'  demands  this  year.  They  have 
asked  for  agreements  covering  these  points  for  a  stated  period,  believing  that 
thereby  the  material  interests  of  foundry  men  and  molder  can  be  best  subserved. 
And,  finally,  the  persistency  with  which  the  officers  of  the  N.  F.  A.  have  forced 
the  "  open-shop  "  question  to  the  front,  and  the  campaign  of  antagonism,  abuse, 
misrepresentation,  and  slander  they  have  inaugurated  have  convinced  the 
officers  and  members  of  the  iron  molders'  union  that  their  true  and  ulterior  pur- 
pose is  the  disrupting  of  their  organization. 

We  stand  ready  to-day,  as  ever,  to  meet  organized  individual  foundrymen  in 
fair  and  friendly  conference;  we  are  ready  to  lend  our  assistance  in  the  pro- 
motion and  maintenance  of  peace  in  the  foundry  industry  ;  but  we  would  be 
regarded  as  poor  types  of  men,  indeed,  were  we  to  submit  without  a  struggle  to 
the  issue  now  forced  upon  us. 

Jos.  F.  VALENTINE, 
President  I.  M.  U.  of  N.  A. 

Mr.  FREY.  Answering  your  question,  Mr.  Thompson,  I  believe  collective  bar- 
gaining is  greatly  to  the  workman's  advantage  arid  that  he  is  helpless  without  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  the  commission  please,  that  is  all  I  wish  to  a  sic. 

Commissioner  HAKKIMAN  (presiding).    Mr.  Lennon,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  No. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Mr.  Delano,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Frey,  wo  asked  Mr.  Briggs  to  put  in  evidence  a 
copy  of  the  constitution  and  by-laws  of  the  foundrymen's  association.  I  think 
it  would  be  of  interest  to  the  commission  to  have  a  copy  of  the  iron  molders' 
constitution  and  by-laws,  if  we  may. 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  543 

Mr.  FREY.  We  will  give  you  a  copy  ;  we  will  send  it  to  you  later. 

Mr.  DELANO.  Mr.  Frey,  you  have  objected — and  not  unnaturally,  I  think — to 
the  employment  of  spies  by  the  foundrymen's  association.  Do  you  keep  your 
union  free  from  criticism  in  doing  similar  things?  What  I  have  in  mind  is  that 
I  do  not  exactly  see  how  you  came  to  be  in  possession  of  these  private  docu- 
ments ? 

Mr.  FEET.  These  private  documents,  Mr.  Delano,  were  given  to  us  by  members 
of  the  National  Founders'  Association  who  were  not  in  harmony  with  the  policy 
of  their  organization  and  desired  that  we  should  know  just  what  was  going  on 
and  who  were  friendly  with  us,  but  forced  to  retain  their  membership  for  busi- 
ness reasons,  for  commercial  reasons. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Then  they  were  traitors,  and  you  dealt  with  them. 
They  were  traitors  to  their  organization  just  the  same. 

Mr.  FREY.  Some  people  might  consider  it  that  way. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  would  consider  one  of  your  men  who  went  back 
on  your  organization  a  traitor,  would  you  not? 

Mr.  FREY.  One  moment.  I  am  afraid  a  wrong  impression  is  going  to  gather 
here.  The  National  Founders'  Association  reproduced  many  of  these  documents 
from  which  I  have  quoted  in  the  Review,  and  to  convert  our  members 

Commissioner  DELANO  (interposing).  Is  that  generally  published  or  privately 
published  ? 

Mr.  FREY.  It  is  not  only  generally  published,  but  an  effort  was  made  to  see 
that  every  member  of  the  molders'  union  got  a  copy.  They  thought  they  would 
convert  our  members  to  their  idea,  and  I  have  been  reading  largely  from  the 
Review.  Whenever  I  read  from  our  journal  it  is  copied  from  the  Review.  They 
furnished  this  information  to  us.  They  thought  it  would  convert  our  members, 
and  did  it  as  missionary  work,  as  propaganda. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  When  you  say  "  your  members  "  you  mean  members 
of  the  molders'  union? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Not  members  of  the  Stove  Founders'  Association? 

Mr.  FREY.  No ;  the  members  of  our  union.  They  had  a  mailing  list.  I  am 
editor  of  the  Molders'  Journal,  and  their  mailing  list  was  almost  as  extensive 
as  mine.  They  still  send  them  to  some  of  the  molders.  Any  molder  can  get  it 
on  request. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  As  I  understand  you,  and  also  Mr.  Valentine,  one 
reason  for  the  difficulty  was  that  the  foundry  men's  association  had  certain  fixed 
conditions,  from  which  they  would  not  yield  and  which  they  would  not  arbitrate. 
Is  that  true? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Is  that  true  of  your  organization,  that  you  had  cer- 
tain fixed  conditions  which  you  would  not  arbitrate? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  do  not  know.  I  have  never  known  of  an  instance  where  we  de- 
clined to  take  up  any  question.  We  do  not  arbitrate.  In  the  conferences  we 
have  taken  up  every  question  that  has  ever  been  advanced  by  the  foundrymen, 
and  I  presume  we  would,  regardless  of  what  it  was,  and  discuss  it  on  its  merits. 
In  fact,  our  position  is  that  every  question  must  be  discussed  on  its  merits  and 
settled  on  its  merits,  if  it  is  going  to  be  settled  permanently,  and  we  believe 
it  is  because  of  that  policy  of  taking  up  every  question  and  settling  it  on  its 
merits  that  our  relations  with  the  Stove  Defenders'  Association  are  friendly, 
and,  what  is  important,  have  maintained  peace  for  22  years. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Is  it  not  a  fixed  policy  of  your  organization  not  to 
authorize  the  spread  of  piecework  in  nonpiecework  shops? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  would  not  arbitrate  a  question  like  that  when 
that  was  a  matter  of  policy,  would  you? 

Mr.  FREY.  We  have  taken  up  this  question  time  and  again  with  members  of 
the  National  Founders'  Association,  and  to-day  have  agreements  with  their 
members  not  only  providing  for  piecework  but  piecework  on  molding  machines. 
It  depends  on  the  condition  in  the  foundry,  the  kind  of  work  being  made, 
whether  we  feel  like  agreeing  to  piecework  or  feel  that  it  is  unfair. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Suppose  a  manufacturer  insisted  on  the  principle 
that  he  should  be  allowed  to  retain  in  his  service  men  who  declined  to  join  the 
union,  you  would  not  permit  him  to  do  that,  would  you?  Would  not  that  be 
contrary  to  your  principles? 

Mr.  FREY.  It  might  be  contrary  to  our  principles,  but  I  know  of  many  in- 
stances where  that  condition  has  prevailed — and  prevails,  I  know,  in  some  in- 


544          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

stances  now.  Our  position  on  that  would  be  different  if  the  firm  tried  to  intro- 
duce nonunion  molders  and  we  thought  it  was  with  the  object  of  destroying 
our  organization. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  think  that  is  all,  Madam  Chairman. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Mr.  O'Connell,  do  you  desire  to  ask  anything? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  have  no  questions. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Mr.  Ballard,  do  you  desire  to  ask  anything? 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  gather  there  are  between  5,000  and  6,000  founders 
in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  FREY.  I  think  the  last  report  showed  about  in  the  neighborhood  of  10,000 
founders  in  the  United  States  and  Canada. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Can  you  tell  me  how  many  men  work  in  those  foun- 
dries? 

Mr.  FREY.  No;  there  has  never  been  a  census.  We  have  tried  hard  to  get 
that,  but  it  is  impossible  to  secure  that  information. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  What  proportion  of  those  10,000  founders  are  known 
as  union  founders  and  what  as  nonunion? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  could  not  give  you  that  information.  If  I  could  give  you  that, 
it  would  not  indicate  much,  because  one  dozen  founders  might  not  have  as 
many  men  as  another  single  founder. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Is  there  a  large  percentage  of  the  union  men  in 
the  founders'  association? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  And  the  founders  themselves  are  largely  union  men? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Is  the  minimum  wage  in  all  the  foundries  practically 
the  same? 

Mr.  FREY.  In  a  city  or  district  it  is.  For  instance,  the  minimum  wage  rate 
in  Chicago  is  the  same  for  all  the  foundries  in  Chicago.  It  so  happens  we  have 
been  able  to  establish  what  we  originally  tried  to  do  in  the  Connecticut  Valley 
district,  up  and  down  the  river  there.  The  minimum  wage  rate  is  the  same 
in  the  different  cities  there. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  The  agreement  ofl  1899,  known  as  the  New  York 
agreement,  was,  you  told  me,  abrogated  in  about  1904? 

Mr.  FREY.  The  foundry  men  notified  us  in  November  of  that  year  they  had 
abrogated  it. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  And  then  they  wanted  you  to  adopt  a  form  of  agree- 
ment drawrn  up  by  them,  and  you  would  not  consent  to  that? 

Mr.  FREY.  They  wranted  us  to  adopt  the  form  in  the  spring  of  that  year. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  That  is  an  agreement  that  was  written  in  1899,  that 
has  been  in  force  for  three  or  four  years? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Who  got  up  that  form  of  agreement? 

Mr.  FREY.  That  agreement  was  entered  into  between  representatives  of  both 
associations. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  But  who  drew  it  up?     Was  it  a  joint  agreement? 

Mr.  FREY.  It  was  a  joint  agreement. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Was  it  jointly  drawn  up? 

Mr.  FREY.  It  was  jointly  entered  into.  It  was  drafted  as  the  result  of  con- 
ferences of  men  who  were  national  officers  of  their  respective  associations. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  If  the  conditions  in  union  foundries  seem  to  be  so 
much  better  than  before,  or  in  nonunion  foundries,  why  do  these  foundries 
seem  to  be  so  unwilling  to  have  their  shops  unionized?  What  reason  do  they- 
give  to  you  for  so  bitterly  opposing  it? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  presume  it  is  dislike  of  the  idea  of  having  to  deal  with  a  trade- 
union,  and  the  impression  that  if  they  do  so  they  will  not  be  able  to  operate 
their  plants  just  as  they  have  a  mind  to.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  desire  to 
enjoy  the  benefits  of  their  association,  an  organization  for  themselves,  and  not 
allow  their  workmen  to  have  the  same  opportunity  and  the  same  advantage. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  think  most  of  these  organizations  of  the  manufac- 
turers came  after  the  workmen  organized.  I  never  heard  of  an  employers'  as- 
sociation or  manufacturers'  association  until  after  the  workmen  organized. 

Mr.  FREY.  There  were  foundrymen's  organizations  before  the  national  mold- 
ers' union  organized. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Not  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  hours  of  labor  or 
wages? 

Mr.  FREY.  For  the  purpose  of  dealing  with  labor  questions. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  545 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  did  not  know  that. 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes.  In  fact,  there  was  a  strike  when  our  national  union  was  or- 
ganized in  1859,  forced  by  an  organization  of  employers  who  were  trying  to  put 
our  union  out  of  existence  at  that  early  date. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  That  is  all,  Madam  Chairman. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  are  the  hours  of  labor  now  among  the 
molders'  unions  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains? 

Mr.  FREY.  East  of  the  Rockies,  with  but  very  few  exceptions,  nine  hours. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  district  outside  of  San 
Francisco  that  has  an  eight-hour  day? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes ;  our  members  enjoy  the  eight-hour  day  in  some  of  the  plants 
in  Baltimore,  and  they  enjoy  the  eight-hour  day  in  some  of  the  plants  in  Plain- 
field,  N.  J.  Mr.  Valentine  could  help  me  out  on  that.  There  may  be  some 
others  than  Baltimore  and  Plainfield. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  There  are  others. 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes;  I  think  there  are  some  others. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  Plainfield,  N.  J.? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Those  are  the  only  two  places  you  can  think  of 
now  ? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes.  We  probably  have  small  foundries  where  they  have  it,  but 
I  mean  where  it  is  really  a  factory  deserving  of  mention. 

Commissioner   WEINSTOCK.  Otherwise   it   is  a   nine-hour  maximum? 

Mr.  FREY.  Nine  hours  maximum. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  gather  from  what  you  say  that  you  believe  the 
molders'  unions  are  greater  respecters  of  all  contracts  than  are  the  employers? 

Mr.  FREY.  No ;  we  are  no  greater  respecters  of  contracts  than  the  members  of 
the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Association. 
.Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  refer  to  the  other  employers. 

Mr.  FREY.  Oh,  yes ;  we  believe  we  consider  our  contracts  much  more  sacred 
than  they  do. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Your  point  is,  you  have  always  respected  your 
contracts,  but  the  employers  in  your  founders'  association  did  not  respect  their 
contracts? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  would  not  want  to  say  that  generally.  We  think  the  majority 
of  their  members  did — and  some  did  not.  In  some  cases  they  endeavored  to 
discipline  their  members  who  did  not.  In  other  cases,  where  members  are 
pretty  well  entrenched  and  were  drilling  something  as  they  have  done  in 
Ulster,  they  did  not  try  to  apply  discipline. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Were  there  any  instances  that  you  know  of 
whore  the  molders'  unions  violated  their  contracts? 

Mr.  FREY.  There  were  cases  where  our  members  went  out  on  strike  while  a 
contract  was  in  force,  but  in  every  one  of  those  instances  we  forced  our  mem- 
bers back  to  work.  In  fact,  the  first  strike  I  ever  became  involved  in  as  a 
irioMer  occurred  when  this  agreement  had  just  been  entered  into.  I  did  not 
know  that  it  existed;  and  in  that  town  we  forced  our  members  back  to  work 
in  this  one  shop  while  in  the  other  foundries  they  all  remained  out  on  strike. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Did  not  the  workers  in  the  other  foundries  also 
belong  to  the  molders'  union? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes;  but  the  foundry  men  did  not. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  foundry  men  did  not? 

Mr.  FREY.  All  the  foundry  men  were  not  members  of  the  association. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  did  remain  out  on  strike  where  there  was 
no  agreement? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  where  an  agreement  prevailed  you  were 
obliged  to  go  back? 

Mr.  FREY.  When  we  found  they  were  members  of  the  association  we  forced 
our  members  back  to  work. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  said  the  molders'  unions  do  not  believe  in 
arbitration  in  the  sense  that  we  now  use  the  word  "  arbitration,"  being  an 
umpire? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  want  to  qualify  that  and  say  we  do  not  believe  arbitration  is  as 
effective  as  the  practice  of  conciliation  and  conference. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Have  you  ever  been  willing,  and  would  you  be 
willing  to-day,  to  submit  to  arbitration,  to  an  umpire,  any  disputed  matter? 

38819°— 16 35 


546          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  FREY.  We  would  not  be  willing  to  submit  any  question  to  arbitration  until 
we  had  satisfied  ourselves  it  was  impossible  to  reach  any  agreement  through  the 
methods  with  which  we  have  become  familiar. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Assuming  all  other  methods  had  failed  and  it  was 
a  choice  between  arbitration  with  an  umpire  or  strike,  what  would  you  do? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  would  have  to  wait  until  I  reached  that  bridge.  I  do  not  know. 
It  would  depend  on  circumstances. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Have  not  such  instances  arisen  in  the  past? 

Mr.  FREY.  No ;  not  in  the  history  of  our  organization. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  There  have  been  strikes? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Was  there  an  attempt  made  to  arbitrate  before 
the  strike  was  declared? 

Mr.  FREY.  No.  WTe  have  always  tried  to  adjust  these  matters  first  through 
the  parties  directly  at  interest — molders  or  foundry  men — and  if  they  failed, 
then  through  representatives  of  the  molders  and  representatives  of  the  foun- 
dry men. 

Commissioner  WTEIN STOCK.  In  other  words,  you  have  gone  the  gamut  of 
conciliation? 

Mr.  FREY.  The  gamut  of  conciliation  and  negotiation. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  But  when  conciliation  has  failed,  then  you  have 
struck? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Without  arbitrating? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  you  have  practically  refused  to  arbitrate? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes;  we  do  not  believe  that  arbitration  would  settle;  but  if  we, 
as  practical  men  familiar  with  all  the  details  of  the  problems  involved,  can  not 
reach  a  satisfactory  basis,  certainly  no  outsiders  could  do  it  for  us.  It  might 
involve  an  arbitrary  ruling,  and  that  would  settle  nothing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  we  have  this  proposition  and  conclusion, 
that  you  do  believe  in  conciliation  but  you  do  not  believe  in  arbitration? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  think  that  that  statement  is  fairly  accurate. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Granting  that  conciliation  is  preferable  to  arbi- 
tration, is  not  arbitration  preferable  to  a  strike? 

Mr.  FREY.  Under  certain  circumstances  I  should  say  no.  There  are  many 
times  when  a  strike  is  better  than  arbitration,  because  the  atmosphere  needs 
cleaning  and  clearing  up,  and  a  strike  will  do  it  when  nothing  else  will.  For 
instance,  taking  the  situation  which  I  have  just  taken  as  an  illustration  of  the 
ground  to  be  covered,  would  an  arbitration,  directing  members  of  the  foundry- 
men's  association  to  enter  into  agreements  with  us  after  the  expressions  of  opin- 
ion I  have  just  read  result  in  bringing  about  a  condition  where  we  would  work 
together?  It  would  be  impossible. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  your  statement,  Mr.  Frey,  carries  out  the 
statement  made  by  Mr.  Briggs  when  he  was  on  the  witness  stand,  that  they  had 
endeavored  during  all  the  several  years  that  they  operated  under  the  agree- 
ment to  get  aribitration  and  had  utterly  failed. 

Mr.  FREY.  I  can  not  recall  a  single  instance  where  Mr.  Briggs  or  any  officer 
of  the  National  Founders'  Association  offered  to  submit  to  arbitration,  and  I 
was  very  much  surprised  to  hear  him  make  the  statement  that  he  did.  When 
the  time  came  for  them  to  build  up  their  machinery  they  might  then  say, 
"  Why  do  you  not  arbitrate  these  things?  "  But  they  never  made  a  straight-out 
proposition  for  arbitration.  In  fact,  while  we  had  friendly  relations  with  the 
association,  Mr.  Briggs  was  neither  its  president  nor  its  agent.  He  came  in  at 
the  time  that  the  breach  occurred. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  consider  that  the  weak  spot  in  arbitration, 
as  you  see  it ;  that  is,  arbitration  with  an  umpire,  when  the  pressure  comes  from 
without  rather  than  from  within? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  that,  therefore,  one  side  or  the  other  would 
risk  the  decision  of  the  arbitrator  because  it  would  apparently  be  against  their 
interest? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  that  therefore  they  would  not  submit? 

Mr.  FREY.  They  would  not  adopt — 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  decision  of  the  arbitrator? 

Mr.  FREY.  They  would  evade  it  as  far  as  possible. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  547 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Could  not  that  be  overcome  by  adopting  the  prac- 
tice that  is  followed  in  a  great  many  industries  here  and  abroad  by  both  sides 
agreeing  in  advance  that  the  decision  shall  be  enforced,  shall  be  binding  and 
final? 

Mr.  FKEY.  The  trouble  with  that — and  I  am  speaking  now  from  experience — 
is  that  where  two  parties  agree  that  if  they  fail  to  reach  an  agreement  upon 
a  question  it  shall  go  to  arbitration,  one  or  both  of  those  parties  fails  to  make 
a  sincere,  earnest  effort  to  settle  and  tries  to  get  more  through  the  award  of 
an  arbitrator  than  they  would  get  otherwise,  the  haggling  of  the  market. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  From  that  point  of  view,  then,  the  Newlands  Act 
is  not  a  wise  act? 

Mr.  FKEY.  In  my  opinion  it  is  not  a  wise  act. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  you  would  not  advise  broadening  that  act  or 
strengthening  it? 

Mr.  FKEY.  I  would  not  advise  unloading  any  "one's  responsibility  upon  a 
third  man. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then,  from  your  point  of  view,  the  protocol  of 
the  cloak  makers  in  New  York  is  an  unwise  agreement? 

Mr.  FREY.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Because  that  stipulates  that  in  the  last  analysis 
there  shall  be  arbitration,  and  that  arbitration  shall  be  binding  on  both  sides. 

Mr.  FKEY.  I  believe  that  provision  of  the  New  York  protocol  is  advisable 
because  the  two  groups  would  never  become  familiar  with  -each  other,  or 
familiar  with  the  methods  of  organization  of  each  other.  As  a  temporary 
measure  it  is  an  advisable  thing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  that  is  true,  it  must  be,  then,  that  the  protocol 
will  not  be  maintained? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  think  it  will  be  modified. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think  that  the  arbitration  part  of  it  will  be 
cut  out? 

Mr.  FREY.  There  will  be  less  arbitration  and  more  negotiation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  you  do  not  think,  for  example,  that  it  would 
be  wise  on  the  part  of  this  commission,  if,  as  the  result  of  its  investigations, 
it  should  decide  to  recommend  a  system  of  conciliation,  with  arbitration  as  the 
ultimate? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  think  it  would  be  a  mistake. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think  it  would  be  a  mistake? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  would  you  advise  this  commissioner  to 
recommend,  from  your  experience? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  would  recommend  that  wherever  workmen  are  organized,  that 
employers,  recognizing  their  natural  right  to  organize,  should  take  up  with 
their  representative  body  whatever  questions  may  arise,  and  endeavor  to  settle 
them ;  if  not  immediately,  continuing  until  finally  adjustments  are  reached. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  what  would  you  recommend  in  the  event 
of  these  evenly  balanced  bodies  being  utterly  unable  to  agree?  Would  you 
advise  a  strike  or  a  lockout? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  believe  that  if  two  large  organizations,  one  of  employers  and  one 
of  workmen,  reached  a  point  where  they  could  not  agree,  and  that  point  was  a 
vital  one,  no  arbitration  could  settle  it.  It  might  temporarily  prevent  an  out- 
break, but  the  outbreak  would  come,  and  nothing  could  stop  it.  You  might 
stop  it  temporarily  through  an  award,  but  if  the  parties  were  very  wide  apart, 
the  conflict  will  come  some  day  or  other. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  may  be  true,  but  because  there  may  be  a  con- 
flict, is  that  any  good  reason  for  hastening  it?  Is  it  not  good  policy  to  post- 
pone it  as  long  as  possible? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes ;  I  believe  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  your  theory  had  been  adopted  in  San  Francisco, 
we  would  have  had  war  three  years  ago. 

Mr.  FREY.  There  was  the  very  thing  that  I  am  recommending.  You  had  no 
arbitration;  you  had  negotiation  and  conciliation  there. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  was  not  outside  of  the  organization.  Both  or- 
ganizations had  conciliatory  bodies? 

Mr.  FREY.   Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  they  came  together? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 


548          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTBIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  they  discussed  the  matter  pro  and  con  for 
months? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  they  were  practically  unable  to  come  to  any 
agreement  ? 

Mr.   FREY.   Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  war  was  in  sight,  but  it  was  finally  sug- 
gested that  they  submit  their  differences  to  an  outside  body,  which  had  abso- 
lutely no  interest  in  their  industry,  either  as  employers  or  workers,  and  it  was 
this  outside  body  that  finally  made  recommendations  that  were  adopted  by 
both  parties? 

Mr.  FREY.  But  it  was  the  method  of  negotiation  and  conciliation  that  was 
followed,  rather  than  that  of  arbitration. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  FREY.  It  was  not  the  third  man  deciding  what  should  be  done  by  voting 
one  way  or  the  other? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  FREY.  And  that  is  what  I  am  referring  to  as  arbitration  now. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yet  the  metal  trades  of  San  Francisco  did  have 
an  agreement.  Of  course,  they  are  not  operating  under  an  agreement  to-day, 
but  they  did  have  an  agreement  that  they  must  provide  some  means  of  settle- 
ment, if  necessary,  by  arbitration,  before  a  strike  or  lockout  could  take  place, 
so  that  they  differ,  evidently,  from  your  point  of  vie\v. 

Mr.  FREY.  They  may,  somewhat;  yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Can  you  tell  us  what  is  the  membership  of  the 
Founders'  National  Defense  Association? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  have  seen  their  directory.  They  have  70  or  80  members,  I  think. 
I  will  ask  Mr.  Hogan  what  it  is.  It  is  70  or  80,  is  it  not? 

Commissioner  O'Connell.  It  is  78. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  is  the  membership  of  the  other  association? 

Mr.  FREY.  They  claim  to  have  560  members.  Mr.  Briggs  made  that  statement. 
I  do  not  know  how  many  they  have. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  were  speaking  about  these  contracts  that  had 
been  entered  into  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Briggs's  association  with  individual 
workers.  You  read  one  of  them  here. 

Mr.   FREY.   Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Were  those  contracts  entered  into  only  with  non- 
union men? 

Mr.  FREY.  Those  contracts  were  entered  into  only  with  men  who  hired  out  to 
act  as  professional  strike  breakers. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Therefore,  they,  in  all  likelihood,  would  be  non- 
union men? 

Mr.  FREY.  Some  of  them  were  our  members,  who  took  up  the  occupation  of 
strike  breakers  because  they  thought  they  could  make  more. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  they  could  not  remain  members  of  the  union? 

Mr.  FREY.  Oh,  no. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Their  relations  were  automatically  severed  with 
the  union? 

Mr.  FREY.  We  released  them  from  the  union. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  I  should  like  to  know  what  specific  steps,  if  any, 
the  molders'  union  has  taken,  since  1907,  to  bring  about  a  better  understanding 
with  the  National  Founders'  Association. 

Mr.  FREY.  Absolutely  none.  We  prefer  to  deal  with  their  members  as  we 
used  to  before  that  organization  was  created,  and  we  are  dealing  writh  them 
quite  successfully.  We  are  dealing  with  them,  but  possibly  not  with  a  very 
large  number  of  them. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  You  have  not  tried  in  any  way  to  bring  about  a 
better  feeling,  so  that  it  would  be  possible  for  you  to  work  together,  from  your 
side? 

Mr.  FREY.  We  have  done  everything  wre  could  to  bring  about  a  better  feeling 
with  the  members  individually. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  But  not  with  the  organization? 

Mr.  FREY.  Oh,  no;  we  have  no  desire  to,  unless  they  change  their  policy. 
Their  policy  is  one  of  annihilation,  and  we  do  not  want  to  make  friends  with 
people  who  are  trying  to  destroy  us. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Are  there  founders,  individual  shops,  that  you  pro- 
hibit your  members  from  working  in? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  549 

Mr.  FKEY.  Are  there  such  foundries? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Yes. 

Mr.  FREY.  Oh,  yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  There  are  certain  foundries  that  a  man  in  good 
standing  is  not  allowed  to  work  in? 

Mr.  FKEY.  A  man  in  good  standing  is  not  allowed  to  go  to  work  in  a  shop 
that  we  call  a  closed  shop — that  is,  closed  to  union  men. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  would  be  equivalent  to  an  unfair  shop? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes.     It  is  called  a  closed  shop. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  that  be  published  in  a  list? 

Mr.  FREY.  We  notify  our  members.  We  say,  "  The  White  shop  is  closed  to 
union  men,"  or,  "  The  Brown  shop  is  closed  to  union  men."  We  advise  our 
members  which  shops  are  closed  to  union  members. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Could  you  give  us  any  idea  as  to  the  number  of 
those  shops? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  would  not  want  to,  offhand. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Where  can  that  information  be  obtained? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  will  furnish  you  with  copies  of  our  Journal,  and  you  will  find  it 
there. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  The  object  is  simply  to  advise  your  members? 

Mr.  FREY.  To  advise  our  members. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  As  to  the  shops? 

Mr.  FREY.  That  they  should  stay  away  from. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  As  to  the  shops  that  they  should  stay  away  from? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  On  this  question  that  Mr.  Weinstock  asked,  with 
reference  to  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  national  body,  you  answered  it 
under  the  impression  that  he  meant  that  that  body  should  be  given  power  to 
arbitrate,  I  think.  Now,  supposing  that  body  was  given  power  only  of  media- 
tion or  using  conciliation  in  a  different  sense,  a  conciliatory  or  mediating  power, 
or  endeavoring  to  get 

Mr.  FREY.  I  would  be  heartily  in  favor  of  anything  that  would  increase  the 
application  of  mediation  and  conciliation,  because  in  my  opinion  it  is  not  the 
conciliation  of  the  labor  trouble,  but  it  is  the  only  thing  that  maintains  the 
largest  degree  of  peaceable  relations. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Does  your  organization  have  any  contact  with  the 
State  boards  of  arbitration  and  mediation  and  conciliation? 

Mr.  FREY.  We  have  had  the  members  of  such  boards  talk  to  us,  but  wherever 
they  have  offered  their  good  services  and  tried  to  do  something  we  have  never 
seen  any  practical  results,  or  many  practical  results.  We  have  not  found  them 
effective  in  our  trade. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Can  you  give  any  particular  reasons  \vhy  they  have 
not  been  effective? 

Mr.  FREY.  The  foundry  men  generally  decline  to  have  anything  to  do  with 
them. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  think  the  foundry  men  would  not  listen  to 
them  ? 

Mr.  FREY.  We  would  gladly  have  taken  advantage  of  anything  they  could 
do  to  assist  to  bring  about  a  settlement  of  the  question. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is,  if  they  could  have  arranged  a  conference 
with  the  foundry  men  you  would  have  accepted  it? 

Mr.  FREY.  Why,  yes ;  because  we  find  that  when  we  can  meet  the  foundry 
men  and  talk  matters  over  we  generally  reach  a  settlement,  and  as  I  read 
from  that  circular  the  members  of  the  National  Founders'  Association  were 
advised  not  to  meet  with  us  in  conference  because  of  the  danger  of  reaching 
a  settlement  of  their  strike.  They  were  afraid  to  talk  with  us  because  it  would 
lead  to  a  settlement  of  the  strike. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  arranging  such  a  conference,  should  there  exist 
such  an  opportunity,  naturally  that  board  would  be  represented  at  the  con- 
ference? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  But  only  in  a  mediating  capacity? 

Mr.  FREY.  Only  in  a  mediating  capacity. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Attempting  to  bring  them  together? 

Mr.  FREY.  Not  as  a  party  with  arbitrary  right  to  cast  a  third  vote  and  deter- 
mine what  should  be  done. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Is  there  any  other  point  you  wish  to  speak  of? 


550          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  FREY.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  has  been  suggested  that  in  order  that  there 
may  be  no  room  for  misunderstanding  as  to  the  meaning  of  words  that  you 
be  good  enough  to  define  what  you  mean  by  "  conciliation  "  and  what  you  mean 
by  "arbitration."  How  do  you  differentiate  between  the  two? 

Mr.  FREY.  By  "  conciliation  "  I  mean  friendly  negotiation  between  the  parties 
who  are  directly  at  interest  or  conferences  between  those  not  directly  interested, 
but  representing  the  same  sides.  By  "  arbitration  "  I  mean  a  condition  where 
a  question  is  submitted  to  outside  parties  not  directly  affected  and  where, 
through  the  odd  vote,  the  question  is  determined  one  way  or  the  other. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Can  there  not  be  arbitration  without  there  being 
an  odd  vote? 

Mr.  FREY.  Then  it  is  not  arbitration ;  it  is  negotiation  and  conciliation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  For  example,  supposing  there  were  three  men 
there  representing  the  labor,  and  three  men  representing  the  employers,  and 
four  out  of  the  six  should  reach  the  same  conclusion,  would  not  that  be 
arbitration? 

Mr.  FREY.  I  can  conceive  of  no  such  thing  as  arbitration  where  the  repre- 
sentatives of  each  side  are  equal  in  number. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yet  that  has  been  done? 

Mr.  FREY.  It  may  be  called  arbitration,  but  that  is  not  what  I  have  in  mind 
when  I  have  voiced  my  position  on  arbitration.  My  position  on  arbitration 
has  been  voiced  with  regard  to  having  a  third  man. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  An  odd  man? 

Mr.  FREY.  An  odd  man  to  determine  an  industrial  dispute,  particularly  be- 
tween workmen  and  employers,  who  know  more  or  less  about  getting  along 
as  organizations. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Just  one  more  question.  Can  you,  for  the  infor- 
mation of  the  commission,  give  an  approximate  estimate  of  the  collective  pay 
rolls  of  the  two  employers'  associations  that  we  have  been  discussing? 

Mr.  FREY.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Or  approximately  the  number  of  men,  workers, 
represented  by  the  different  employers'  associations? 

Mr.  FIIKY.  No;  because  I  have  made  no  effort  to  find  out  who  the  members 
of  the  National  Founders'  Association  were  for  a  number  of  years ;  it  has  been 
an  immaterial  factor  to  us. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Can  you  give  the  number  of  men  employed  by 
the  Stove  Founders'  Association? 

Mr.  FREY.  Mr.  Hogan  can  give  that  better,  I  think.  I  think  it  is  in  the 
neighborhood  of  nine  or  ten  or  eleven  thousand,  depending  upon  conditions  of 
trade. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Approximately  10,000? 

Mr.  FREY.  Of  course  when  trade  is  busy,  approximately,  you  can  say,  15,000. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  would  be  the  maximum? 

Mr.  FREY.  That  would  be  the  maximum  in  the  industry  as  a  whole. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Briggs  if  he  could  give  us 
some  idea  of  the  men  employed  by  his  association. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Around  30,000. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  At  this  time? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  the  maximum  molders? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  should  say  that  is  the  maximum  in  fairly  good  times. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr.  Briggs.  you  requested  an  opportunity  to  respond 
to  some  statements  made.  Will  you  take  the  stand? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Certainly. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  would  you  be  willing  that  Mr.  Frey  should 
question  you? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Quite  willing. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  0.  P.  BRIGGS— Recalled. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  thank  you  most  heartily  for  this  opportunity  to  respond.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  this  reminds  me  to  some  extent  of  the  conferences  we  used  to 
have  by  virtue  of  the  New  York  agreement,  which  we  have  been  discussing  here. 

I  have  jotted  down  a  few  subjects  as  I  have  listened  to  the  gentleman  who 
has  just  preceded  me,  and  I  will  take  them  up  in  order,  as  I  have  so  made 
memorandums  of  them. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  551 

Mr.  Valentine  referred  to  certain  statements  which  I  made  yesterday  in  which 
he  thought  perhaps  I  was  mistaken,  and  possibly  I  was.  I  wish  to  reverse  this 
position,  and  I  would  like  very  much,  indeed,  to  correct  one  or  two  statements 
which  Mr.  Valentine  made,  which  I  do  not  think  he  intended. 

First,  we  wrill  take  up  the  outline  of  policy  which  was  submitted  to  you  gentle- 
men yesterday.  Mr.  Valentine  in  one  of  his  statements,  if  I  remember  cor- 
rectly, gave  as  his  reason,  or  one  of  his  reasons,  for  the  failure  of  the  agreement 
between  the  two  associations  to  work  out  satisfactorily  the  fact  that  the  found- 
ers' association  had  attempted  to  jam  down  the  necks  of  the  molders  our  out- 
line of  policy.  Also,  if  I  remember  correctly,  he  referred  to  the  numerous  con- 
ferences which  we  had  held  by  virtue  of  this  New  York  agreement,  and  those 
statements  referred  to  this  conference. 

Now,  my  point :  The  outline  of  policy  which  the  founders'  association  adopted 
was  not  drawn  up  or  originated  until  May,  1904.  The  conciliation  agreement, 
or  Ne.w  York  agreement,  which  wre  have  referred  to,  was  abrogated  in  Novem- 
ber, 1904,  but  was  established  in  January,  1899 ;  so  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
would  have  been  impossible  to  have  that  outline  of  policy  before  the  conference 
and  conciliation  meetings  during  the  time  those  conferences  were  held.  This  is 
just  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  that  date. 

Mr.  FEEY.  What  will  be  the  practice,  Mr.  Chairman  ?  May  I  ask  Mr.  Briggs  a 
question,  or  shall  I  wait  until  Mr.  Briggs  has  finished  his  statement? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  As  Mr.  Briggs  wishes ;  whatever  he  says. 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  Whatever  you  desire. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Then,  you  may  ask  the  questions. 

Mr.  FREY.  In  view  of  your  statement  that  the  outline  of  policy  was  not  adopted 
until  May,  1904,  how  do  you  account  for  the  recommendations  which  were  made 
to  your  members  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  not  to  enter  into  any  further  agree- 
ments with  members  of  our  union  unless  they  contained  what  your  association 
had  demanded? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  That  is  wrhy  I  asked  you  to  give  the  date.  I  think  we  are  a 
little  mixed  on  the  date. 

Mr.  FREY.  No ;  I  am  not  mixed  on  the  date. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Please  establish  the  date. 

Mr.  FREY.  I  turned  it  over  to  the  reporter — if  the  reporter  can  get  it. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Yes;  I  think  it  wras  taken  out  by  the  reporter. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  thought  he  stated  that  this  document  referred  to  occurred  in 
1905. 

Mr.  FREY.  No ;  1904 ;  and  you  congratulated  your  members  on  having  carried 
cut  your  instructions  not  to  enter  into  any  further  agreement  with  us. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  think  it  is  best  to  have  that  clear,  and  I  would  like  to  have  the 
document  referred  to. 

(Here  the  reporter  left  the  room,  and  returned  with  the  documents  re- 
quested. ) 

Mr.  FREY.  In  connection  writh  that  matter,  I  find  by  the  documents  in  my  hand 
that  .my  statement  was  right.  This  is  the  copy  of  the  Review,  dated  June,  1914. 
and  relates  to  a  period  from  the  beginning  of  that  year,  \vhere  the  members 
were  instructed  not  to  enter  into  any  more  agreements,  and  congratulates  them 
on  having  carried  out  thati  policy. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  May  I  ask  what  date  was  the  treaty  or  agree- 
ment abrogated? 

Mr.  FREY.  In  November  of  that  same  year. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Several  months  after  the  publication  of  this 
article? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Mr.  Chairman,  please  bear  in  mind  that  at  this  time  I  was  not 
attempting  to  reply  to  Mr.  Frey.  I  was  replying  to  Mr.  Valentine,  and  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  we  have  sort  of  mixed  these  two  subjects  up,  I  want  to  suggest 
that,  if  you  will,  you  allow  me  to  go  through  with  my  little  list  of  answers  that  I 
have  here,  and  reply  to  them,  and  perhaps  many  of  these  things  which  the  gentle- 
men have  in  mind  will  be  brought  out,  and  if  they  present  these  questions  we 
will  make  better  time. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  All  right. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  My  reply  was  directed  to  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Valentine 
this  morning,  when  he  suggested  that  this  outline  of  policy  was  used  to  ram  down 
the  throats  of  the  conference  at  the  time  we  were  considering  these  questions, 
while  the  New  York  agreement  was  in  force. 


552          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

• 

The  next  subject  is  in  regard  to  molding  machines.  Mr.  Valentine  made  the 
statement  that  the  labor  of  the  molder  in  operating  these  molding  machines 
was  exceedingly  arduous.  I  wish  to  make  this  statement,  that  quite  the  con- 
trary is  true,  and  I  will  take,  for  example,  one  of  the  last  machines  that  has 
been  brought  out,  known  technically  as  the  jolt  machine,  and  I  think  I  am 
correct  in  making  the  statement  that  perhaps  no  more  arduous  labor  occurs 
in  the  life  of  a  molder  than  that  of  ramming  the  sand  for  an  extremely  large 
casting.  There  are  times  when  these  foundry  men  make  castings  that  go  far 
beyond  the  20  tons — which,  by  the  way,  is  a  mistake,  I  think  I  said  100  tons — 
because  we  have  several  foundries  that  make  castings  that  run  up  to  that. 

The  amount  of  labor  required  in  ramming  the  sand  for  one  of  these  castings 
is  very  hard  work;  it  is  enormous.  Within  the  last  few  years  there  has  been 
brought  out  a  machine  known  as  the  jolt  machine,  which  performs  that  arduous 
labor  and  removes  the  necessity  of  it,  or  displaces  it,  by  means  of  com- 
pressed air. 

The  molders  often  consumed  from  10  to  20  days,  sometimes  I  think  con- 
siderably more  than  that,  in  ramming  the  sand  for  one  of  these  large  castings. 
The  machine  treats  it  in  this  way :  The  pattern  is  put  in  the  flask,  and  the 
flask  is  placed  on  a  table,  as  if  this  is  the  table  [indicating].  Underneath  is  an 
air  cylinder,  where,  by  a  simple  turn  of  a  valve,  air  is  admitted  and  the  sand 
is  shaken  down,  and  all  this  arduous  labor  is  performed  in  5  or  10  minutes, 
and  the  casting  is  more  perfect  than  a  piece  by  a  skilled  mechanic,  more  per- 
fect than  a  skilled  mechanic  can  possibly  produce,  because  of  the  fact  that 
the  sand  in  this  jolt  machine  is  jolted  down,  and  uses  the  best  skill  that  a 
molder  can  use.  He  can  not  ram  that  sand  in  as  uniformly  as  the  jolt  machine. 
I  think  you  would  find,  upon  investigation,  that  that  same  result  follows  the 
introduction  of  molding  machines  and  improved  appliances  all  along  the  line; 
perhaps  not  in  so  great  a  degree,  but  in  some  degree. 

Again,  the  molders,  like  all  other  crafts,  have  for  a  number  of  years  been 
anxious  to  secure  shorter  hours.  Perfectly  commendable.  One  of  the  greatest 
means  within  their  reach  to  produce  shorter  hours  is  by  the  use  of  these 
machines,  which  eliminate  the  time,  and  which  render  it  possible  for  the 
output  of  the  foundry  to  be  produced  in  less  time.  Our  position  is  that  a 
molder  should  assist  with  these  machines,  that  he  should  have  taken  right 
hold  of  them  and  put  them  into  the  plants  and  made  the  most  out  of  them, 
and  assisted  the  foundry  men  in  being  able  to  produce  their  products,  and 
by  reason  of  which  they  could  have  performed  this  work  in  less  time. 

The  statement  was  made  here  in  regard  to  the  molding  machine,  also,  that 
they  had  no  objection  to  it;  that  they  allowed  it  to  be  introduced.  I  want 
briefly  to  touch  upon  the  manner  in  which  they  allowed  it  to  be  introduced, 
and  I  take  up  the  pulley  illustration  which.  I  took  up  yesterday,  commencing 
practically  where  I  left  off.  That  particular  case  will  illustrate  the  attitude 
of  the  iron  molders'  union  wherever  I  have  met  it,  and  I  have  met  it  in  a  great 
many  cases. 

Before  our  shop  was  unionized  I  had  two  sets  of  pulley  machines,  which 
cost  me  in  the  neighborhood  of  $5,000  with  the  equipment.  I  had  no  difficulty 
with  the  molders  themselves  producing  pulleys  on  these  machines  prior  to  the 
shop  being  unionized.  Subsequently  the  union  came  into  our  town,  and  they 
wanted  to  unionize  these  shops,  and  I  feel  that  Mr.  Valentine  will  agree  with 
me  that  he  found  no  opposition  in  my  shop.  At  the  time  Mr.  Kehough  intro- 
duced me  to  Mr.  Martin  Fox  in  Cleveland,  the  first  time  that  1  had  the  pleasure 
of  meeting  him,  he  did  me  the  great  favor  of  saying  that  when  he  came  to 
Minneapolis  Mr.  Briggs  was  a  man  that  gave  him  no  opposition  to  meet  what- 
ever, but  gave'.him  the  glad  hand.  I  appreciate  it. 

After  the  shop  was  so  unionized,  there  was  a  time  when  I  was  not  making 
many  pulleys  and  the  machines  were  set  aside.  Subsequently  I  had  an  order 
for  about  a  thousand  pulleys.  I  put  the  order  into  the  foundry,  and  the  first 
time  it  came  back  I  noticed  it  was  quite  excessive — three  pulleys.  The  next 
day,  three  pulleys.  So  I  called  in  the  foreman  and  I  said.  "  What  about  that?  " 
He  says,  "  Well,  these  men  are  making  these  pulleys  by  hand,  not  using  these 
machines,  and  really,  Mr.  Briggs,  I  doubt  very  much  if  you  can  get  them  to 
use  these  machines."  I  said,  "  Mr.  Fyfe,  I  don't  believe  that,  really ;  thoso 
men  in  this  shop  have  worked  for  me  and  with  me  before  I  was  an  employer 
for  many  years.  I  know  all  about  these  machines,  and  I  do  not  believe  that 
these  men  will  refuse  to  go  onto  these  machines."  I  said.  "You  try  it  again." 
So  he  tried  it  the  next  day,  and  back  came  the  same  report.  I  really  did  not 
know  what  it  all  meant,  but  I  was  going  to  give  that  thing  a  fair  trial,  so  I 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  553 

said  to  Fyfe,  "  You  select  the  six  best  men  there  are  in  that  shop  and  you  put 
them  on  these  machines  one  after  the  other  and  see  what  they  produce."  He 
said,  "  They  don't  want  to  go  onto  the  machines ;  they  don't  want  to  do  anything 
with  the  machines."  I  said,  "All  right,  try  them  on  the  floor  and  see  what 
that  will  do."  So  he  tried  them  on  the  floor,  and  they  produced  three  pulleys, 
no  more  and  no  less. 

Then  Mr.  Fyfe  said  to  me,  "  You  know  these  men  pretty  well ;  they  have 
worked  for  you  and  with  you  for  many  years.  You  go  and  talk  to  them."  So 
I  went  in  and  talked  to  them.  I  said,  "  Charlie,  what  is  the  matter  out  here, 
anyway?  I  don't  understand  this."  "Well,"  he  said,  "Mr.  Briggs,  I  will  tell 
you  what  the  matter  is.  Since  you  have  had  this  shop  unionized  they  have 
told  us  to  produce  no  more  on  these  machines  than  I  can  without  them."  I 
said,  "  You  don't  mean  to  tell  me  that  the  union  told  you  that?  "  And  he  said, 
"  I  certainly  do."  I  said,  "  You  used  to  produce  on  these  machines  well,"  and 
he  said,  "Yes";  and  I  said,  "Have  you  any  objection  to  it?"  And  he  said, 
';  No." 

So  I  went  down  the  line  with  these  men  that  worked  on  these  machines,  and 
I  got  the  same  reply  all  along.  So  I  thought  of  that  a  little  while,  and  then 
I  referred  to  this  New  York  agreement  under  which  we  were  operating,  and  I 
said  to  one  of  these  men,  who  I  subsequently  learned  was  the  chairman  of  the 
shop  committee,  "  Now,  George,  let  us  refer  this  to  these  two  national  organiza- 
tions and  see  what  they  are  good  for.  You  write  to  Mr.  Fox  and  I  will  write 
to  Mr.  Letchworth,  and  we  will  see  what  we  can  do  about  this." 

"  Well,"  George  said,  "Mr.  Briggs,  I  kind  of  hate  to  write  that  letter;  I  wish 
you  would  write  to  Mr.  Fox.  You  know  Mr.  Fox."  I  said,  "  Certainly,  I  know 
Mr.  Fox,  and  I  have  the  highest  regard  for  Mr.  Fox.  I  will  write  to  Mr.  Fox 
if  you  will  give  me  authority  to  say  to  him  that  I  am  writing  at  your  request ;" 
ond  he  said,  "All  right."  So  I  wrote  him,  and  Mr.  Fox  sent  up  Mr.  Kehough 
to  look  the  situation  over.  Mr.  Kehough  came  into  the  office,  and  I  was  very 
glad  to  see  him,  and  I  said,  "  Mr.  Kehough,  just  straighten  this  thing  out.  I 
have  these  machines  at  a  price  that  I  made  when  I  was  getting  six  or  eight  a 
day,  and  now  to  put  it  down  to  three  I  am  behind.  Really,  I  can  not  do  this ;  " 
and  I  said,  "  I  think  this  is  an  unfair  proposition  here." 

So  Kehough  went  into  the  shop  and  came  back  to  the  office  and  said,  "  Well, 
Mr.  Briggs,  I  think  you  had  better  abandon  that  idea."  He  said,  "  Telling  you 
the  plain  facts,  you  know  our  association  is  very  much  opposed  to  this  ma- 
chine, this  molding  machine ;  we  don't  like  it,  and  our  men  don't  like  to  work 
on  it,  and  I  think  you  had  better  drop  it." 

I  said,  "Well,  Mr.  Kehough,  that  is  pretty  hard.  If  I  drop  out  and  make 
these  pulleys  the  way  you  want  to  make  them,  that  will  cost  me  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  $700.  I  don't  believe  you  want  me  to  do  that ;  I  really  don't  believe 
you  want  that,  you  are  too  good  a  fellow  to  do  that."  And  he  said  he  would 
take  it  up  with  the  union  that  night. 

The  next  day  he  said  he  could  not  do  it;  the  men  were  very  obstinate  and 
would  not  work  on  that  machine,  and  if  they  did,  they  would  only  turn  out 
three,  and  they  urged  me  to  give  up  the  idea.  I  said,  "  I  don't  propose  to  do 
that.  I  made  no  objection  to  unionizing  this  shop,  but  I  did  not  suppose  for  a 
moment  that  that  meant  that  I  could  not  receive  the  benefits  of  the  improved 
appliances  that  I  might  put  in  my  shop  for  the  purpose  of  reducing  cost  and  for 
protection,  and  I  have  no  disposition  whatever  to  take  these  machines  away 
from  these  molders.  I  have  known  these  boys  all  my  life;  they  are  good  fel- 
lows ;  and  if  you  will  go  in  and  say  to  these  boys,  '  Go  ahead  and  make  these 
castings"  on  these  machines  as  they  ought  to  be  and  get  a  fair  day's  work  on 
these  machines,'  "  and  he  said,  "  We  will  try  once  more,"  and  the  result  was 
that  he  was  around  four  days,  and  then  he  came  to  me  and  said,  "  Mr.  Briggs, 
I  am  going  back  and  refer  this  to  Mr.  Fox." 

In  the  meantime  I  think  he  said,  "  We  had  better  hold  this  conference  open  a 
little  bit,"  he  says,  "  I  don't  think  we  had  better  make  an  arbitrary  ruling."  I 
thanked  him  for  that  and  I  said,  "  But  in  the  meantime  I  have  got  to  get  these 
pulleys  out.  This  thing  can  not  be  prolonged  here  a  long  time,"  and  I  told 
him  that  we  ought  to  have  an  announcement  the  very  next  morning,  which  we 
had,  but  I  had  quite  a  little  difficulty  with  these  men  to  hold  them  in;  but  I 
did  hold  them  in;  in  fact,  I  held  them  in — I  guess,  about  half  of  them — when 
one  day  they  all  quit,  and  I  said,  "  Now,  look  here,  boys,  you  can  not  quit  under 
this  New  York  agreement,"  and  I  took  the  agreement  and  read  it  to  them,  and 
dealing  with  these  men  personally — in  my  own  personal  way — and  by  the  time 
the  conference  was  held  the  pulleys  were  made;  in  fact,  I  do  not  think  I  had 
any  more  pulleys  after  that,  so  that  was  disposed  of  in  that  way. 


554          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  May  I  ask  a  question? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  would  prefer  that  you  wait  until  I  get  through  and  I  will 
answer.  I  know  what  question  you  are  going  to  ask. 

This  pulley  business  ran  along  for  about  a  year  and  the  foundry  was  sold  out 
to  another  firm  and  the  workmen  all  went  over,  and  the  same  question  came  up 
in  very  short  order.  That  shop  was  struck  and  they  had  a  bitter  time  about 
it — the  Minneapolis  Steel  &  Machinery  Co. — on  molding  machines. 

I  want  to  repeat  what  I  said  yesterday,  that  our  experience  all  along  the  line 
is  that  the  molders  will  not  operate  a  machine  and  that  the  reason  they  will 
not  operate  them  is  that  they  are  so  instructed  from  the  officers  of  the  Iron 
Molders'  Union  of  North  America.  Had  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North 
America  been  out  of  the  way,  I  would  have  liad  these  pulleys  made,  and  made 
with  molders  at  $3.50  a  day. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Are  they  operating  the  machines  to-day? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  In  that  foundry? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  molders. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  It  depends  upon  what  foundry  you  go  into. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  say  they  will  not  operate  them.  Are  they 
operating  them  at  all? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  didn't  say  that.  I  say  they  oppose  the  machine.  I  will  add  to 
that  that  whenever  they  are  strong  enough  to  strike  a  shop  where  they  are 
forced  to  go  on  with  these  machines  they  will  strike  it.  That  is  my  experience. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  they  would  not  oper- 
ate them,  and  now  you  say  that  they  are  opposed  to  it. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Then,  I  wrill  make  that  a  little  stronger.  I  did  not  understand 
your  question.  I  say  they  will  not  operate  these  machines  if  they  think  they 
are  strong  enough  to  force  their  hand.  That  has  been  my  experience.  Of 
course,  I  am  speaking  from  my  own  experience  about  that.  And,  again,  I 
want  to  say  that  in  that  same  respect  I  do  think  that  these  gentlemen  make 
an  awful  mistake ;  that  they  will  not  go  ahead  and  show  the  benefits  of  molding 
machines  to  get  shorter  hours. 

Now,  about  the  number  of  conferences  which  we  have  held. 

If  I  understood  Mr.  Valentine  correctly,  he  rather  discredited  my  statement 
that  we  had  held  2,500  national  conferences.  Have  you  the  minutes,  Mr. 
Chairman,  of  the  interview  of  yesterday?  My  memory  is  that  I  said  there 
had  not  been  2,500  conferences  held  nationally  and  locally,  but  when  locally  they 
were  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  national  association.  I  intended  to  say  that. 
If  I  did  not,  I  wish  to  correct  that  statement  to-day.  I  believe  that  125  of  those 
occurred  right  in  St.  Paul  and  Minneapolis.  We  used  to  have  conferences  you 
know.  The  boys  would  write  a  letter  in,  or  get  a  letter  from  you,  Mr.  Valentine, 
or  from  Mr.  Fox,  "  have  a  conference  together  and  do  so  and  so,"  strictly 
under  your  instructions.  I  calculate  that  as  a  national  conference.  It  is 
really  so  constituted,  and  it  is  those  conferences  that  are  included  in  the  2,500. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  If  the  chairman  of  the  committee  called  at  your 
office  and  said,  "  Hello,"  about  something  that  occurred  in  the  morning,  you 
would  call  that  a  conference? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No,  sir,  I  did  not.  I  call  it  a  conference  when  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  comes  in  and  says,  "  We  will  not  do  what  the  foreman  asks  us 
to  do.  Let  us  have  the  two  committees  get  together,  and  lay  off  for  a  couple 
of  days." 

Mr.  Valentine  made  the  statement  that  the  officers  of  the  National  Founders' 
Association  were  not  practical.  I  wish  to  correct  you  on  that,  Mr.  Valentine, 
and  I  believe  you  will  accept  the  correction.  If  you  will  remember  correctly, 
the  first  commissioner  of  this  association  and  the  man  who  was  commissioner 
up  to  the  time  I  succeeded  him,  was  Mr.  John  A.  Fenton,  a  man  who  served 
many  years  as  a  molder,  and  many  years  a  distinguished  member  of  the  Iron 
Molders'  Union  of  North  America.  This  same  molder,  Mr.  Fenton,  was  the 
man  who  did  the  greatest  amount  of  work  at  the  inception  of  this  association 
in  securing  an  organization  of  the  National  Founders'  Association,  and  he  was 
a  practical  molder.  Added  to  that,  I  want  to  say  that  wherever  it  was  possible 
for  this  practical  molder,  Mr.  Fenton,  to  attend  these  conferences,  he  always 
attended  them.  I  think  I  am  correct  about  that,  Mr.  Valentine. 

Again  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  these  national  con- 
ferences, which  has  been  in  discussion  here  so  much,  were  usually  attended  by 
such  men  as  Mr.  A.  C.  Persanno,  who  is  a  mechanic  by  trade  and  came  up  from 
the  ranks;  and  also  by  Mr.  Phaler — and  Mr.  Phaler,  by  the  way,  was  one  of 
the  originators  of  this  association,  I  think.  Mr.  Phaler  had  interests  in  shops 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  555 

which  were  members  of  the  National  Founders'  Association  as  well  as  the 
Stove  Founders'  Defense  Association,  and,  if  I  remember  correctly,  he  was 
quite  a  practical  man. 

We  always  aim  to  get  to  these  conferences  men  who  were  practical  and  who 
did  know  something  about  the  art  and  skill  and  trade  of  molding.  I  think, 
upon  reflection,  Mr.  Valentine,  you  might  perhaps  wish  to  change  that. 

Another  point  Mr.  Valentine  made  this  morning  was  that  the  foundry  men 
would  always  adjourn  the  meeting  too  promptly.  I  wish  to  call  attention  to 
the  provisions  of  this  New  York  agreement,  which  perhaps  we  have  not  before 
us,  but  which  provides  for  an  equal  number  on  each  side,  and  it  is  therefore 
impossible  to  adjourn  this  meeting,  strictly  impossible,  until  one  or  the  other 
shall  come  over.  We  deadlocked  time  and  time  again  and  could  not  adjourn. 
One  side  would  say,  "  I  guess  we  had  better  adjourn,"  and  the  other  side 
would  say,  "  No ;  let  us  go  on."  It  wTas  three  and  three  right  alone,  and  those 
conferences  were  prolonged  many  times  when  one  side  had  completely  exhausted 
their  efforts  and  the  other  side  would  insist  on  going  on.  I  believe  in  all  sin- 
cerity that  so  far  as  that  question  of  giving  these  matters  attention,  the  foundry 
men  themselves,  every  one  of  them  who  went  into  these  conferences — and  I  am 
going  to  submit  the  names  of  those  gentlemen  here  pretty  quickly,  if  the  com- 
mission will  permit  me — entered  into  these  conferences  in  a  spirit  of  fairness 
and  with  a  determination  to  reach  an  amicable  end.  I  want  to  say  in  behalf  of 
those  men,  every  one  of  them  that  sat  upon  these  conferences  in  the  years  that 
I  attended  them,  that  they  did  make  a  straightforward,  honest,  conscientious, 
and  sincere  effort  'to  meet  you  gentlemen  on  the  same  basis  of  conciliation, 
which  you,  Mr.  Valentine,  and  you,  Mr.  Frey,  have  so  beautifully  illustrated 
here. 

I  want  now  to  come  to  a  statement  here  in  regard  to  wages  and  hours  having 
constituted  the  differences  upon  which  we  broke  and  by  reason  of  which,  as  I 
understand  the  gentleman  who  preceded  me;  they  placed  greatest  stress. 

Mr.  Taylor,  will  you  give  me  a  couple  copies  of  the  Iron  Molders'  Journal? 

(Mr.  Taylor  handed  certain  papers  to  Mr.  Briggs.) 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  this  journal,  which  is  the  official 
organ  of  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North  America.  I  read  that  journal  years 
ago  with  a  great  deal  of  interest.  I  used  to  have  it  every  day  and  I  think 
Mr.  Valentine  was  the  man  \vho  sent  it  to  me.  I  do  not  know ;  I  asked  him  to 
do  so  once,  and  he  said  he  would. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Do  not  you  get  it  yet? 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  I  do  once  in  a  while ;  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  I  have  so  much 
else  to  attend  to  that  I  do  not  have  time  to  read  it. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  You  cut  me  off  your  list. 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  Do  you  want  it — do  you  want  the  Review? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  You  bet  I  do. 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  Mr.  Taylor,  will  you  see  that  Mr.  Valentine  has  the  Review?  I 
supposed  he  did  have  it.  The  Review  is  for  the  benefit  of  all  people  interested 
in  labor. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  want  to  be  educated. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  You  shall  have  all  you  want  of  them. 

Getting  back  to  this  Journal,  I  call  your  attention,  gentlemen,  to  the  fact 
that  this  Journal  is  of  May,  1906,  about  a  year  and  a  half  or  two  years  subse- 
quent to  the  abrogation  of  the  New  York  agreement.  In  1906  there  came  a 
show-down  in  this  struggle  we  have  been  talking  about.  It  went  all  over  the 
country.  They  struck  a  whole  lot  of  shops.  I  will  talk  about  them  a  little 
later,  but  this  journal  from  which  I  am  quoting  is  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
supporting  a  statement  I  made  here  yesterday  that  the  contentions  over  which 
we  were  laboring  and  on  which  we  could  not  agree  were  not  wages  and  hours. 
I  will  read  from  this  journal,  at  page  357,  as  follows : 

"  For  the  past  two  years  the  organization  as  a  whole  has  been  marking  time, 
and  the  large  and  costly  strikes  supported  had  not  been  entered  into  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  higher  wages  or  shorter  hours,  but  with  the  object  of  re- 
sisting the  foundry  men's  efforts  to  take  away  from  the  molders  a  portion  of 
the  conditions  they  had  already  secured." 

I  assume  that  is  from  your  pen,  Mr.  Frey  ? 

Mr.  FREY.  Read  it  all,  and  then  we  will  take  it  up. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Suppose  we  submit  the  whole  Journal?  I  am  willing  to  read  the 
whole  thing. 

Mr.  FREY.  Make  your  point,  and  I  will  reply. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  submit  the  Journal. 


556          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  FREY.  Let  me  have  that,  because  that  is  very  unfair. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Again,  I  want  to  refer  to  the  official  organ  of  the  iron  molders' 
union  for  September,  1907,  a  year  later,  in  which  Mr.  Valentine,  in  addressing 
his  convention  at  Philadelphia,  I  believe,  under  the  subject  of  "  Relations  with 
the  National  Founders'  Association,"  stated  as  follows: 

"Although  there  is  no  official  relationship  between  the  N.  F.  A.  and  the 
I.  M.  U.  of  N.  A.  at  the  present  time,  I  believe  that  reference  should  be  mado 
to  that  period  when  it  existed,  and  particularly  so  to  the  substance  of  the 
joint  conferences  held  with  the  object  of  providing  some  general  form  of  agree- 
ment that  would  regulate  the  relations  to  exist  between  the  foundry  men  and 
molders.  For  several  years  efforts  were  made  by  both  parties  at  interest  to 
reach  some  common  ground  on  which  could  be  established  a  general  form  of 
agreement.  The  far-reaching  value  of  such  an  instrument  to  botli  associations 
was  generally  recognized  and  conscientious  efforts  were  made  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  both  bodies  to  assist  in  drafting  an  agreement  which  would  con- 
form to  the  mutual  welfare  and  meet  with  the  sanction  of  a  majority  of  the 
membership  of  both  associations  and  that  \vould  also  provide  for  the  regulation 
of  many  of  those  questions  \vhich  previously  had  been  the  cause  of  misunder- 
standing and  contention. 

"  Several  national  conferences  were  held  with  this  object  in  view  between 
October,  1902,  and  April,  1904,  but  instead  of  tending  to  develop  a  common 
ground  on  which  the  foundation  for  a  general  form  of  agreement  could  be 
laid  they  developed  wider  differences  of  opinion,  until  at  the  conference  of 
April,  1904,  it  became  evident  after  several  days  of  discussion  that,  for  the 
time  at  least,  a  general  form  of  agreement  between  the  two  associations  was 
impossible. 

"  The  main  questions  that  had  been  at  issue,  and  which  were  finally  pre- 
sented in  concrete  form  by  the  N.  F.  A.,  applied  to  the  limitation  of  output, 
the  ratio  of  apprentices,  the  employment  of  handy  men,  the  operation  of  mold- 
ing machines,  and  the  minimum  wage  rate.  It  was  the  foundry  men's  desire 
that  if  a  general  or  national  form  of  agreement  was  consummated  it  should 
provide  for  the  unrestricted  employment  of  apprentices  and  handy  men,  and 
should  leave  the  method  of  operating  molding  machines  optional  with  the 
foundry  men,  and  should  further  provide  that  a  percentage  of  molders  em- 
ployed in  each  foundry  should  be  allowed  to  work  for  a  definite  rate  below 
the  minimum.  To  these  propositions  we  were  unable  to  agree,  though  there 
were  several  questions  in  addition  to  those  just  mentioned  upon  wThich  mutual 
understanding  had  been  reached,  and  it  was  my  belief  that  progress  would 
have  been  made  had  these  been  adopted  as  the  foundation  for  a  general  form 
of  agreement.  This  view  was  not  acceptable  to  the  representatives  of  the 
N.  F.  A.,  who  held  that  unless  an  agreement  could  be  reached  w^hich  would 
include  in  its  provisions  those  conditions  which  had  been  expressed  in  their 
propositions  as  submitted ;  it  \vould  be  of  no  avail  to  have  any  national  form 
of  agreement." 

Gentlemen,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  Mr.  Valentine's  report 
to  his  union  the  only  reference  that  is  made  in  there  to  wages  and  hours 
is  a  question  of  minimum  wage  rate,  and  I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the 
commission,  that  my  statement  of  yesterday  was  correct. 

I  would  like  to  take  up  violations  of  the  New  York  agreement  now.  Mr. 
Taylor,  have  you  the  list  of  some  of  those? 

(Mr.  Taylor  handed  a  paper  to  Mr.  Briggs.) 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  In  this  last  conference,  to  which  Mr.  Valentine  refers  in  that 
report,  and  to  which  I  have  referred  and  propose  to  refer  to  again,  we  were 
asked  to  submit  some  statements  of  why  the  iron  molders'  union  had  broken 
their  agreements,  both  the  New  York  agreement  and  the  agreement  locally, 
and  we  submitted  a  list  of  some  40  or  50,  among  which  was  a  reference  to  an 
agreement  attempted  between  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North  America  and 
our  members  in  Chicago  in  1901. 

An  agreement  was  made  between  the  National  Founders'  Association  and 
the  iron  molders'  union  for  Chicago  and  vicinity  at  $2.65  and  $2.85  for  floor 
and  bench.  The  local  union  refused  to  abide  by  this  contract  and  went  on 
strike  July  15,  1901.  The  international  union  apparently  made  every  effort 
to  discipline  the  Chicago  members,  but  it  availed  nothing  and  they  contiiuu-d 
on  strike  for  over  a  year.  In  July,  1902,  while  the  strike  was  in  progress,  the 
convention  of  the  iron  molders'  union  met  in  Toronto.  The  Chicago  union 
presented  a  bill  for  $5,000  for  expenses  incurred  in  conducting  this  illegal 
strike.  A  resolution  was  adopted  allowing  the  $5,000  and  agreeing  to  sanction 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  557 

their  grievance  if  the  Chicago  conference  board  would  declare  the  independent 
strike  off. 

That  is  a  sample,  gentlemen,  of  some  of  the  agreements  which  these  gentle- 
men can  not  live  up  to.  I  think  they  made  an  honest  effort  to  have  their  men 
live  up  to  this  agreement,  but  they  would  not  do  it.  The  point  to  which  I  wish 
to  call  your  attention  is  the  fact  they  did  not  discipline  them.  They  called  a 
convention  and  were  asked  for  $5,000,  and  the  iron  molders'  union  gave  it  to 
them. 

I  want  to  read  a  letter  in  regard  to  that.  I  read  it  for  two  purposes — first, 
its  bearing  upon  this  particular  case ;  and,  second,  because  it  was  written  by 
that  friend  of  your's  and  mine  and  the  whole  crowd,  Mr.  Valentine,  Mr.  H.  W. 
Hoyt,  when  he  was  president  of  this  association,  and  who  is  now  vice  president 
of  the  Great  Lakes  Engineering  Co.,  at  Detroit,  one  of  the  ex-presidents -of  this 
association,  a  man  who  devoted  an  enormous  amount  of  time  in  an  effort  to 
agree  with  these  gentlemen.  This  letter  was  dated  July  19,  1901,  and  reads 
as  follows: 

Mr.  MAKTIN  Fox, 

President  I.  M.  U.  of  N.  A.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

MY  DEAR  SIK  :  A  very  serious  question  regarding  the  extent  of  the  authority 
of  the  executive  board  of  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North  America  has  arisen 
in  my  office  this  afternoon. 

I  have  had  the  honor  and  the  pleasure  of  a  call  from  two  of  your  members 
in  this  city,  to  whom  I  have  read  your  letter  of  July  12,  accepting  on  behalf  of 
your  executive  board,  the  wage  scale  in  the  city  of  Chicago  of  $2.65  per  day  for 
bench  molders  and  $2.85  per  day  for  floor  molders. 

It  is  represented  to  me  that  the  understanding  of  the  molders  in  the  city  of 
Chicago  is  that  the  decision  of  your  executive  board  is  not  binding  upon  the 
organization  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  but  is,  as  they  understand  it,  simply  a 
recommendation  for  acceptance. 

I  am  also  informed  that  Mr.  Keough  has  not  made  your  position  clear  to  the 
molders  in  this  city,  and  that  he  has  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  insisted  that  the 
action  of  your  board  was  final  and  binding  upon  the  members  in  this  city,  in- 
stead of  merely  a  recommendation. 

I  have  discussed  this  matter  with  the  gentlemen  who  have  waited  upon  me, 
at  some  length,  and  have  stated  to  them  that  I  have  never  heard  the  authority 
of  your  executive  board  in  such  a  case  questioned. 

In  order  that  I  may  be  thoroughly  advised  myself,  I  respectfully  request 
that  at  your  earliest  convenience  (which  I  trust  will  be  by  return  mail)  you  will 
clearly  define  the  extent  of  the  authority  of  your  executive  board  in  such  a  case. 

I  will  also  ask  permission  to  read  your  letter  in  reply  to  this  to  the  gentle- 
men who  have  waited  upon  me  this  afternoon. 

Under  all  the  circumstances,  I  trust  you  will  pardon  me  if  I  offer  the  sug- 
gestion that  your  own  presence  is  needed  in  the  city  of  Chicago  to  fully  define 
the  authority  of  your  executive  board.  I  believe  that  if  the  molders  of  the  city 
of  Chicago  could  have  such  an  explanation  as  I  have  outlined  matters  would 
clear  up  immediately  in  this  troubled  district. 

The  gentlemen  who  waited  upon  me  presented  the  following  form  of  an  agree- 
ment which  they  claim  Mr.  Keough  recommended  and  advised,  should  be  pre- 
sented to  the  George  Pyott  Foundry  Co.  I  would  like  to  have  you  read  the  same 
and  give  me  your  opinion  of  it.  My  own  thought  about  is  it  that  Mr.  Keough 
lias  not  clearly  defined  the  situation,  and  by  such  a  letter  has  greatly  compli- 
cated existing  difficulties.  The  letter  which  I  have  had  copied  verbatim  is  as 
follows : 

"  CHICAGO,  July  19,  1901. 
"  To  committee  representing  the  molders  in  Geo.  PyoWs  Foundry  Co. 

"  GENTLEMEN  :  This  company   agrees  to  pay  the  molders  the  sum  of  three 
dollars  ($3)  per  each  day's  work  commencing  July  15,  and  until  a  fixed  rate  of 
wages  is  determined  which  is  now  in  dispute  amongst  the  molders  and  the 
manufacturers.    We  then  agree  to  pay  the  wages  thereupon  decided. 
"  Trusting  I  may  have  your  early  reply,  I  remain, 
"  Very  truly,  yours, 

"  (Signed)  H.  W.  HOYT, 

"  President,  N.  F.  A." 


558          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

As  I  have  already  stated,  undoubtedly  Mr.  Fox  did  everything  he  could  to 
cause  these  men  to  live  up  to  that  agreement ;  but  they  did  not  live  up  to  it.  If 
I  remember  correctly  there  were  some  dozen  or  fifteen  shops  involved,  and,  if 
you  will  remember,  that  strike  was  pretty  bitter.  That  is  the  case  which  we 
claim  was  very  vital  in  discouraging  our  people  very  much  in  attempting  to 
deal  with  this  union.  They  did  not  live  up  to  those  agreements. 

I  want  to  refer  to  the  Utica  case,  which  Mr.  Valentine  and  Mr.  Frey  and 
myself  have  referred  to.  I  would  like  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  this 
difficulty  over  the  Utica  situation  occurred  in  the  spring  of  1904.  The  difficulty 
began,  I  assume  from  what  I  found  out  later  on,  perhaps  years  before.  At  this 
particular  date,  when  this  was  on  in  the  spring  of  1904,  I  had  just  taken  the 
position  of  commissioner  of  the  National  Founders'  Association.  As  commis- 
sioner of  that  association  many  of  these  difficulties  that  had  arisen  prior  to 
that  date  did  not  come  before  me  as  an  officer  of  that  association,  although  I 
had  served  as  committee  man  many,  many  times.  I  want  to  detail  that  a  little 
bit. 

When  I  went  into  this  office  and  looked  matters  over  no  special  attention  was 
called  to  my  mind  about  the  Utica  situation,  until  one  day  Mr.  Keough  called 
me  up  and  told  me  that  the  Utica  molders  were  all  on  a  strike  and  I  had  better 
go  over  there.  I  said,  "  What  is  the  matter?  "  He  said,  "  Of  course,  there  has 
been  trouble  brewing  there  for  some  time,  and  the  molders  are  all  out,  and  you 
had  better  go  over."  Understand,  gentlemen,  this  was  after  \ve  had  conference 
after  conference  after  conference  over  a  period  of  practically  seven  years.  I 
was  just  coming  on.  We  had  tried,  as  I  have  stated  to  you,  honestly  and  con- 
scientiously to  pattern  the  methods  of  our  association  by  the  Stove  Founders' 
Defense  Association,  and  as  I  went  up  into  this  situation  I  could  see  clearly 
that  relations  were  getting  a  little  strained.  In  fact,  they  were  infinitely  more 
strained  than  I  had  had  any  idea  they  were  when  I  accepted  that  position.  Im- 
bued with  that  idea,  I  felt  I  should  handle  that  case  with  the  greatest  degree  of 
caution.  It  was  the  first  big  one  I  had  to  handle  by  virtue  of  the  office  I  held, 
and  I  wished  to  approach  it  with  extreme  care.  I  went  over  to  Utica  and  spent 
a  couple  of  days  there  in  investigating  the  matter.  Mr.  Keough  declined  to  go 
with  me,  which  was  quite  a  disappointment  to  me,  just  having  come  into  that 
officer;  but  it  was  all  right.  I  thought  I  would  go  over  and  look  that  situation 
over. 

At  this  point  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  this  New  York  agreement,  which 
provides : 

"  That  in  the  event  of  dispute  arising  between  members  of  respective  organiza- 
tions, reasonable  efforts  shall  be  made  by  the  parties  directly  at  interest  to 
effect  a  satisfactory  settlement  of  the  difficulty." 

Interpreted,  that  means  that  employer  and  employee  shall  use  their  best 
efforts  to  settle  that  difficulty  without  its  reference  to  either  of  these  organiza- 
tions. I  think  these  gentlemen  will  agree  with  me  that  is  a  correct  interpreta- 
tion of  that  clause. 

This  New  York  agreement  further  provides : 

"  Pending  adjudication  by  the  committee  of  arbitration,  there  shall  be  no 
cessation  of  work  at  the  instance  of  either  party  to  the  dispute." 

The  condition  as  I  found  it  when  I  got  over  there  was  this :  These  people  had 
settled  their  difficulties  some  time  before  that.  The  question  that  had  been  of 
considerable  moment  in  that  case  was  the  question  of  improved  appliances, 
usually  covered  under  the  head  of  "  molding  machines,"  by  reason  of  which 
they  thought  they  had  been  able  to  effect  a  reason  for  modification  in  the  piece- 
work prices  of  that  shop.  Their  character  of  work  in  that  shop  was  similar  to 
that  in  the  Stove  Founders'  Defense,  but  they  were  not  members  of  the  Stove 
Founders'  Defense. 

They  told  me  that  they  had  adjusted  the  difficulty,  and  the  men  told  me  the 
same  thing.  I  got  to  the  men  themselves.  I  did  not  take  the  proprietors'  word 
for  it.  I  always  like  to  get  out  and  get  acquainted  with  those  men.  There  is 
nothing  I  enjoy  more  than  getting  out  and  getting  with  my  men  and  settling 
these  questions.  Half  a  dozen  men  said,  "  That  is  all  settled  if  you  will  take 
the  '  national  '  out  of  it."  Then  I  go  back  to  the  proprietors,  and  I  look  over 
their  pay  roll,  and  they  exhibit  these  wages  for  a  month  or  six  weeks,  and  I 
said,  "  Here  is  certainly  a  difference  of  opinion.  Here  is  a  chance  to  apply  the 
New  York  agreement."  One  of  the  advantages  of  the  New  York  agreement  is 
that  the  men  shall  not  go  out.  Before  it  was  ever  referred  to  me  at  all  the 
men  went  out.  I  went  back  and  talked  this  over  with  my  board  and  talked  it 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  559 

over  with  Mr.  Keough  and  Mr.  Valentine,  and  said,  "  Here,  put  your  men  back 
and  comply  with  the  New  York  agreement,  and  we  will  have  a  conference." 
Believe  me,  gentlemen,  we  could  not  get  a  conference.  They  denied  it  abso- 
lutely. 

Subsequently  there  came  up  the  question  as  to  whether  I  had  the  right  inter- 
pretation of  that  New  York  agreement  or  not,  and,  it  being  one  of  my  first 
cases,  I  thought  that  I  would  just  refer  that  to  an  ex-president  of  that  associ- 
ation, one  of  whom  everybody  had  the  greatest  respect  for ;  and  it  pleased  me 
very  much  to  know  that  Mr.  Frey  and  Mr.  Valentine  had  quoted  them  here  to- 
day. You  will  recall  the  conference  that  Mr.  Frey  referred  to,  wherein  an  inter- 
pretation was  put  on  the  New  York  agreement ;  and  Mr.  O.  P.  Letchworth  was 
one  of  those  gentlemen — a  man  who  spent  an  enormous  amount  of  time  and 
energy  in  endeavoring  to  have  peace.  When  the  question  came  up  that  I  had 
not  done  the  proper  thing,  I  wanted  an  ex-president  on  this  thing,  and  so  I 
wrote  Mr.  Letchworth  a  letter  and  asked  him  if  he  would  give  me  his  opinion 
in  regard  to  this.  I  wanted  to  know  whether  I  was  right  or  wrong.  I  have 
here  the  correspondence  with  Mr.  Letchworth,  and  I  should  like  to  read  it.  It 
is  as  follows.  This  is  dated  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  October  18,  1904.  This  was  in 
October,  about  the  time  of  that  conference.  I  do  not  recall  the  date.  This 
letter  is  as  follows : 

PRATT  &  LETCH  WORTH  Co., 
Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  October  18,  190.',. 
O.  P.  BRIGGS, 

Commissioner  National  Founders'  Association,  Detroit,  Midi. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  BRIGGS  :  Referring  to  the  conversation  recently  had  with  you  in 
Cincinnati  relative  to  the  situation  in  Utica,  and  after  hearing  the  statements 
presented  at  that  time,  I  beg  to  say  that  I  do  not  see  how  there  can  be  any 
criticisms  made  on  the  part  of  the  molders'  union  that  the  officers  of  the  Na- 
tional Founders'  Association  in  any  way  violated  the  provisions  of  the  New 
York  agreement  in  that  case. 

The  purpose  of  the  New  York  agreement  is  to  prevent  strikes  and  lockouts, 
and  a  method  is  provided  whereby  either  party  who  perchance  may  be  dissatis- 
fied and  feel  that  they  have  cause  for  complaint,  can  ask  for  a  conference  to 
pass  upon  the  point  in  question,  which  conference  should  be  held  within  two 
weeks. 

The  New  York  agreement  was  not  framed  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  any 
fixed  policies,  nor  for  the  purpuose  of  preventing  the  introduction  of  such 
changes  as  in  the  judgment  of  the  employer  might  seem  proper,  but  was  created 
to  afford  opportunity  for  each  side  to  be  heard  upon  the  subject  in  dispute  and, 
if  possible,  reach  an  adjustment  of  the  issue  without  resort  to  strikes  or 
lockouts. 

In  Utica  the  men,  it  appeared,  were  not  satisfied  with  the  proposed  reduction 
in  their  pay,  but  continued  at  work  and  accepted  the  reduction  under  protest 
until  ordered  out  by  their  national  officers. 

This  was  clearly  a  dispute  between  employer  and  employee,  which  dispute, 
under  the  terms  of  the  New  York  agreement,  entitled  the  aggrieved  party  to 
ask  for  a  conference,  in  the  hope  of  reaching  an  amicable  settlement  before  the 
men  should  strike  or  the  employer  should  lock  them  out. 

I  am  informed  that  the  foundrymen  were  perfectly  willing  at  that  time  to 
submit  the  entire  matter  to  a  conference  and  abide  by  the  result. 

The  issue  here  was  clearly  defined,  but  the  New  York  agreement  was  entirely 
ignored  when  the  men  were  ordered  on  strike.  It  was  a  question  of  difference 
between  the  molders  and  their  employers,  and  had  the  former  carried  out  the 
provisions  of  the  New  York  agreement  their  duty  would  have  been  clearly  and 
specifically  defined,  i.  e.,  that  they  should  have  asked  the  president  of  the  Na- 
tional Founders'  Association  for  a  conference  to  consider  the  question,  and  it 
would  have  then  been  the  duty  of  the  president  to  appoint  such  a  conference. 

This  the  molders  did  not  do,  and  the  record  does  not  show  that  such  a  re- 
quest was  ever  made  to  our  association;  in  fact,  Mr.  Keough  admitted  this  to 
me  at  Cincinnati  last  week,  and  I  then  stated  to  him,  as  you  will  remember,  that 
this  was  where  he  made  his  fatal  mistake. 

In  my  opinion,  the  trouble  at  Utica  has  been  brought  about  entirely  because 
of  the  failure  of  the  officers  and  members  of  the  molders'  union  to  comply 
with  the  terms  of  the  New  York  agreement  and  call  for  a  conference  to  decide 
upon  the  conflicting  claims  before  the  men  should  be  called  out.  Both  sides 


560          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS, 

were  agreed  that  a  dispute  existed,  and  the  natural  sequence  was  a  conference 
as  provided  by  the  agreement. 

The  criticisms  made  by  the  union  of  the  action  of  the  National  Founders' 
Association  and  its  members  in  Utica,  it  seems  to  me,  are  not  sustained  by 
facts. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

O.  P.  LETCHWORTH. 

I  submit  that,  gentlemen. 

(Informal  conversation  between  members  of  the  commission  and  the  witness 
ensued  at  this  point.) 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  understand,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  you  want  to  stop  now? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  want  to  stop  in  half  an  hour. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Do  I  understand  that  I  am  refused  to  complete  my  reply  to 
statements  of  the  representatives  of  the  union?  I  do  not  think  I  can  do  it  in 
half  an  hour.  I  am  in  your  hands,  gentlemen.  There  have  been  some  very 
serious  charges  made  here,  and  I  feel,  on  behalf  of  the  men  that  I  represent, 
that  I  should  reply  to  these  statements.  I  have  said  several  times  that  I 
represent  350,000  men,  and  that  I  think  I  ought  to  be  heard. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  many  men  did  you  say  there,  that  last  time? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  say  the  members  of  this  founders'  association  must  comprise 
at  least  450,000  men. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  has  been  suggested  here  that  perhaps  it  might  be  satis- 
factory to  Mr.  Briggs  if  he  would  submit  what  we  call  in  the  law  a  brief,  a 
statement  of  facts,  to  this  commission,  either  in  typewriting  or  in  print,  and 
in  that  way  he  could  cover  the  entire  field,  and  could  do  it  at  his  leisure,  and 
we  could  still  make  our  dates  on  our  calendar.  We  have  already  taken  two 
days  for  one  day's  allotment. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  The  disposition  of  this  association  is  to  comply  with  your  wishes, 
to  the  letter. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  that  be  satisfactory  to  you? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  It  will  be  satisfactory  if,  after  we  submit  that  brief,  we  may 
have  a  little  opportunity  some  time  before  you  draw  your  conclusions,  to  have 
an  hour  of  argument  before  you.  I  do  not  think  I  should  be  representing  my 
people  as  I  should  represent  them,  if  I  did  not  file  that  request. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  We  will  have  meetings  in  various  cities.  Where  would  you 
like  to  present  that  argument? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Where  it  is  most  convenient  to  this  commission. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  According  to  your  suggestion,  then,  we  might  have 
briefs  from  both  sides,  and  rebuttals,  and  when  the  briefs  are  put  in  the  com- 
mission will  get  acquainted  with  them,  and  then  make  some  special  appoint- 
ment, in  the  West,  in  Cincinnati  or  St.  Paul,  or  somewhere  else,  where  the 
matter  could  be  thrashed  out. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Chicago  might  be  a  convenient  meeting  point. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  very  much  so;  but  I  will  make  that 
place  at  the  convenience  of  this  commission.  I  will  go  around  the  world,  if 
you  call  us  there. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like  to  go  around  with  you. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Thank  you. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Are  you  willing  to  pursue  that  course? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  have  always  been  willing  to  follow  the  members  of  the 
N.  F.  A.  wherever  they  went. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Except  in  the  open  shop. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  you  be  willing,  with  that  understanding,  to 
close  the  hearing  at  this  point? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  just  want  to  ask  him  three  questions. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  May  I  ask  him  three  more  afterwards? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  That  is  our  practice. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  do  not  like  to  break  up  a  friendly  conversation 
between  you  two. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  We  have  not  gotten  together  for  five  years.  This  is  the 
first  chance  we  have  had. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Well,  \ve  will  sacrifice  something  to  have  you  get 
together  a  little. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Mr.  Briggs  made  this  statement  about  this  molding  machine. 
What  kind  of  a  molding  machine  is  that? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  561 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Which  one? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  one  you  referred  to.     The  pulley  machine. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  It  is  a  Treadmore,  I  beiieve.    No ;  it  is  a  Delano  pulley  machine. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Is  it  run  by  hand? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  only  thing  about  it  is  that  it  draws  the  pattern? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  It  draws  the  pattern.  It  has  a  little  device  over  it  to  assist  in 
throwing  off  the  flash. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  And  you  said  that  the  men  would  not  work  on  that  machine? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  did. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  want  to  answer  what  you  said,  that,  if  all  that  you  said 
are  the  facts  in  the  case,  I  think  you  have  had  a  very  bad  deal  on  that  propo- 
sition. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  thank  you. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  If  that  is  all  true. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  can  prove  it. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  want  to  make  a  personal  investigation  of  that.  Will  you 
permit  me? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Certainly.    Start  in  with  Mr.  js.eough,  your  vice  president. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  And  I  want  to  report  the  results  of  that  investigation  to 
this  commission. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  will  assist  you  all  I  can. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  satisfactory. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Thoroughly. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Who  was  this  man  you  approached  that  you  called  Charlie 
a  while  ago? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Charlie  Peterson  was  one  of  the  men,  and  I  think  Anderson 
was  one  of  the  other  men's  name. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  just  wanted  to  know  who  Charlie  was. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  There  were  six  of  them.  I  do  not  know  whether  those  old  time 
books  are  intact  or  not.  The  Queen  City  Iron  Works  were  sold.  I  can  get 
you  the  names  of  everyone  of  those  men,  though. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  will  ask  you  a  question.  Are  you  still  a  member  of  the 
National  Founders'  Association? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Do  you  mind  telling  me  whether  the  policy  that  you  carried 
out  before,  to  investigate  grievances  before  you  sustain  your  members,  is  still 
the  policy  that  is  followed? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  It  was  so  long  as  this  agreement  was  in  force.  So  long  as  this 
New  York  agreement  was  in  force  I  think  we  lived  strictly  up  to  the  law. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Do  you  have  any  different  policy  now  when  a  grievance 
arises? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  do  not  quite  understand  that  question. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  mean,  if  a  member  has  a  dispute  now,  do  you  use  the 
same  policy  that  you  used  to  of  investigating  to  see  who  is  right? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  We  can  not  do  the  same  as  we  did  before,  because  our  official 
relations  with  the  founders'  association  and  the  International  Holders'  Union 
were  interrupted  in  1908. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Before  you  pay  these  men  any  money  do  you  try  to  find 
out  whether  they  are  justified  in  bringing  about  a  strike  in  their  shop  or 
whether  we  brought  it  about? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  do  not  quite  understand  that;  but  if  I  do  understand  it,  it  is 
this :  In  case  of  a  difficulty  in  a  foundry,  and  the  foundry  applies  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  National  Founders'  Association,  does  the  National  Founders'  Asso- 
ciation investigate  that  case? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  I  answer  that  "  yes  " ;  they  do  to  the  greatest  degree  possible. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Are  you  supporting  the  Flower  City  Ornamental  Works? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  The  Flower  City  Ornamental  Works  are  not  members  of  this 
association. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  They  are  not  members? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  VALNETINE.  They  used  to  be  very  prominent  members,  but  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Quite  so,  but  they  are  not  now. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Mr.  Tetroff  told  me  last  week  that  the  foundry  men  of  St. 
Louis  and  Minneapolis  were  behind  him  and  he  had  locked  out  our  men,  and 
they  were  going  to  lock  out  all  the  molders  in  St.  Paul. 

38819°— 16 36 


562          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BEIGGS.  I  can  not  answer  for  Mr.  Tetroff.  I  have  not  had  a  word  with 
him  in  any  way,  shape,  or  form.  That  company  is  not  a  member  of  the  asso- 
ciation, and  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  come  before  us. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No;  I  know  he  is  talking  through  his  hat.     That  is  all. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  When  you  had  that  trouble  about  making  pulleys, 
were  your  men  being  paid  day  work  or  piecework? 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  Piecework. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Using  the  word  "arbitration"  in  what  is  spoken 
of  as  the  New  York  agreement,  you  meant  by  that  conciliation,  and  not  the 
appointment  of  an  umpire? 

Mr.  BEIGGS.  Yes;  that  was  the  interpretation  in  the  New  York  agreement. 
They  would  never  consent  to  the  odd  man. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  do  not  mean  arbitration  in  the  sense  of  hav- 
ing the  odd  man? 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  many  molding  machines  have  been  intro- 
duced in  the  foundries? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Since  that  date? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  It  is  impossible  to  answer  that  question.  There  have  been  an 
enormous  number. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  believed  that  the  introduction  of  the  machines 
would  be  one  of  the  things  that  would  reduce  the  hours  of  labor  ? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Has  it  had  any  effect  in  that  direction? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  The  hours  of  labor  have  been  tending  downward  all  through 
that  entire  period.  I  do  not  know  what  hours  prevail  now  in  these  foundries, 
beyond  what  I  stated  yesterday.  I  stated  I  thought  the  average  was  about 
9  hours,  and  of  course  many  of  these  men  do  not  work  9  hours.  They  quit 
when  they  pour  off  their  heat,  and  perhaps  they  work  only  7  or  8  hours. 
There  is  considerable  latitude  about  a  man  getting  through,  and  if  the  heat  has 
to  be  taken  off  before  he  has  worked  quite  as  long  as  he  ought  to,  he  quits 
then. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  There  has  been  nothing  to  the  effect  that  the  hours 
were  going  to  be  reduced  one  hour  a  day  or  a  half  an  hour  a  day  as  the  result 
of  the  introduction  of  the  machine ;  no  notice  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  No;  we  do  not  post  that  kind  of  a  notice  in  our  shops. 

Mr.  FREY.  Before  we  adjourn,  I  want  to  have  the  floor  for  a  minute. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Is  there  something  that  you  want  to  state? 

Mr.  FREY.  No;  I  want  to  call  attention  to  statements  made  before  the  com- 
mission. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  It  has  reference  to  this  testimony? 

Mr.  FREY.  Yes ;  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Briggs. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Very  well. 

Mr.  FREY.  The  unfortunate  part  of  it  is  that  I  fear  the  discussion  has 
drifted  away  from  the  point  I  wanted  to  make,  of  the  cause  -of  the  inability 
of  the  molders'  union  to  maintain  friendly  relations  with  the  National  Founders' 
Association,  and  I  want  to  read  you  some  quotations.  These  quotations  are 
taken  from  the  journal.  A  few  lines  of  this  Mr.  Briggs  has  just  read : 

"  For  the  past  two  years  the  organization  as  a  whole  had  been  marking  tinio, 
and  the  large  and  costly  strikes  supported  had  not  been  entered  into  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  higher  wages  or  shorter  hours  "- 

That  is  used  for  the  purpose  of  creating  the  impression  that  these  strikes 
were  for  the  purpose  of  getting  something  else — of  getting  machines,  and  so  on. 
I  continue  reading — 

"  had  not  been  entered  into  for  the  purpose  of  securing  higher  wages  or 
shorter  hours,  but  with  the  object  of  assisting  the  foundry  man's  efforts  to 
take  away  from  the  molders  a  portion  of  the  conditions  they  had  already 
secured." 

This  was  written  in  1906,  two  years  after  the  strike. 

I  read  further: 

"  Since  the  abrogation  of  the  New  York  agreement  and  the  adoption  of  a 
hostile  policy  by  the  N.  F.  A.,  many  members  of  that  association,  counseled 
and  encouraged  by  their  officers,  had  endeavored  to  force  reductions  of  wages. 
and  the  '  open  shop '  upon  all  members." 

Had  the  whole  thing  been  read,  an  entirely  different  impression  would  have 
been  made. 


. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  563 

Mr.  BEIGGS.  May  I  ask  that  that  whole  Journal  be  presented.  There  are 
two  pages  of  that.  I  should  like  to  answer  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  do 
want  to  emphasize  the  point  that  our  relations  with  the  iron  molders'  union 
while  that  New  York  agreement  was  in  force  were  of  the  most  cordial,  and 
that  we  made  the  very  best  efforts  possible  for  all  those  years;  and  that  at 
the  end  of  that  time  our  patience  was  exhausted.  The  Stove  Founders'  Na- 
tional Defense  Association,  as  Mr.  Valentine  said,  has  trifled  with  that  propo- 
sition for  10  years,  and  has  not  got  a  decision  yet.  To  paraphrase  Mr.  Valen- 
tine-a  little,  if  he  had  waited  10  years  for  the  doctor  we  would  have  been  dead. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Briggs. 

Mr.  BRIGGS.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  FKEY.  I  want  to  make  another  correction  while  Mr.  Briggs  is  here. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  A  correction? 

Mr.  FKEY.  Yes;  so  that  the  record  will  be  accurate.  On  the  question  of  the 
molding  machine,  Mr.  Briggs  made  the  statement  that  he  believed  that  our 
officers  had  advised  the  members  not  to  operate  molding  machines.  Briefly, 
let  me  state  our  position  for  ourselves.  At  our  convention  in  1899  we  adopted 
a  new  law  which  provided  that  our  members  should  endeavor  to  secure  control 
of  the  molding  machine,  should  work  on  the  machine;  shortly  after  this  New 
York  agreement  was  entered  into,  so  that  that  was  the  official  policy.  Since 
that  date  we  have  continuously  made  efforts  not  only  to  have  our  members 
operate  those  molding  machines,  but  to  take  up  with  the  foundry  men  the 
question  of  what  the  prices  should  be.  I  want  to  say  that  emphatically,  and 
positively,  there  is  no  opportunity  for  making  any  contradiction  to  this,  that 
our  invariable  policy  since  1899  has  been  to  operate  this  molding  machine. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  a  minor  matter,  it  is  true,  that  there  is  one  type  of 
molding  machine  that  decreases  the  degree  of  manual  labor.  The  ordinary 
molding  machine  is  not  a  jarring  machine,  and  where  the  ordinary  molder 
made  75  by  hand,  he  now  makes  150,  but  he  shovels  twice  as  much  sand,  and 
has  twice  as  much  work  to  shake  out,  so  that  the  molding  machine  has  in- 
creased the  manual  labor. 

Mr.  BKIGGS.  In  most  cases  the  helpers  do  the  molding  and  shovel  the  sand 
and  the  molder  does  not. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  want  to  correct  an  impression  that  we  may  be 
getting  in  the  record,  there,  that  your  organization  not  only  furthers,  but  en- 
courages the  use  of  the  machine  in  preference  to  handmade  molds. 

Mr.  FEEY.  No;  no. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  should  not  think  so. 

Mr.  FEEY.  We  do  not  encourage  the  use  of  the  machine;  but  we  had  a 
number  of  agreements  entered  into  before  Mr.  Briggs  became  commissioner,  in 
which  we  agreed  that  the  molding  machine  should  be  introduced  into  the 
foundry  without  any  objection  on  our  part,  and  yet  the  commissioner  comes 
now  and  says  we  objected  to  it,  when  we  entered  into  those  agreements  with 
the  association.  We  can  submit  a  hundred  of  those  original  agreements  in 
which  we  agreed  that  we  would  not  make  any  objection  to  the  introduction 
of  molding  machines. 

Mr.  BEIGGS.  Then  when  the  machines  were  put  in,  they  would  not  do  the 
work. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  The  hearing  of  the  rest  of  the  witnesses  on  our 
calendar  will  be  proceeded  with  at  10  o'clock  to-morrow,  and  those  who  are 
down  for  Wednesday  have  been  telegraphed,  I  believe,  to  come  on  Thursday, 
instead,  so  that  we  will  devote  to-morrow  to  the  program  of  Tuesday. 

(Whereupon,  at  6.20  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  commission  adjourned  until  to-morrow, 
Wednesday,  April  8,  1914,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Wednesday,  April  8,  1914. 

The  commission  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.  in  the  assembly  room  of  the  Shoreham 

otel. 

Present:  Commissioners  John  R.  Commons  ( acting  chairman),  Mrs.  J. 
Borden  Harriman,  Frederic  A.  Delano.  Harris  Weinstock,  S.  Thruston  Bal- 
lard,  John  B.  Lennon,  and  James  O'Connell. 

Present  also  for  the  commission :  Mr.  W.  O.  Thompson,  counsel ;  Mr.  W.  Jett 
Lauck,  managing  expert ;  Mr.  George  E.  Barnett,  special  investigator ;  Mr.  B. 
M.  Manly,  superintendent  Division  of  Industrial  Investigation ;  and  Mr.  F.  H. 
Bird,  superintendent  Division  of  Public  Agencies. 


564          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  commission  will  come  to  order.  Mr.  Thompson, 
will  you  call  your  first  witness  on  the  clothing  question? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  nrst  put  on,  Mr.  Chairman,  witnesses  with  reference 
to  the  Chicago  proposition.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  taking  of  the  evidence 
in  regard  to  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx,  and  their  trade  agreement,  I 
have  prepared  a  list  of  questions  in  regard  to  that  matter,  and  those  questions 
have  been  furnished  to  Mr.  Schaffner,  and  he  will  answer  tho.se  questions 
specifically  in  order  to  come  right  to  the  point. 

Mr.  Schaffner,  will  you  please  take  the  stand? 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JOSEPH  SCHAFFNER. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  For  the  purposes  of  the  record,  will  you  please  state  your 
name,  residence,  and  business? 

.  Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  My  name  is  Joseph  Schaffner ;  residence,  Chicago.  I  am 
secretary  and  treasurer  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx,  a  corporation  in  the 
clothing  business. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  nature  of  the  business  of  Hart,  Schaffner  & 
Marx? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  We  employ  about  6,000  people  in  our  manufacturing  depart- 
ment, most  of  them  of  foreign  birth,  and  65  per  cent  female;  A  great  many 
of  them  are  recently  arrived  immigrants  of  all  nationalities.  The  most  numer- 
ous are  Jews,  next  Poles  and  Bohemians,  the  next  Italians. 

All  the  work  is  done  in  our  own  shops;  no  contracting  for  a  number  of 
years.  The  work  is  minutley  subdivided  into  sections,  there  being  about  150 
sections  of  work  on  a  suit  of  clothes.  Accordingly,  the  task  of  each  workman 
is  very  small.  Each  person's  work  on  a  garment  ranges  from  1  to  45  minutes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  were  the  conditions  prevailing  in  your  shops  prior 
to  1911? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  There  was  very  little  organization  among  the  employees, 
except  the  cutters.  We  had  had  an  unfortunate  experience  with  the  cutters' 
union,  due  to  what  we  thought  was  their  arbitrary  and  unreasonable  restric- 
tions several  years  before. 

The  description  of  the  situation  in  the  copper  industries  prior  to  the  strike, 
by  Mr.  Luke  Grant,  an  agent  of  this  commission,  an  advance  draft  of  which 
happens  to  have  come  to  my  attention,  fits  our  condition  at  that  time  so  well 
that  I  suspect  it  is  rather  a  common  situation.  I  will  quote  from  that  state- 
ment : 

"  Careful  study  of  the  situation  has  led  me  to  the  belief  that  the  fundamental 
cause  of  the  strike  is  that  the  workers  had  no  satisfactory  channel  through 
which  minor  grievances,  exactions,  and  petty  tyrannies  of  underbosses,  etc., 
could  be  taken  up  and  amicably  adjusted.  Taken  separately,  these  grievances 
appear  to  have  been  of  a  minor  character.  They  were,  however,  allowed  to 
accumulate — to  go  on  from  month  to  month  and  from  year  to  year — without 
any  intelligent  and  sympathetic  action  on  the  part  of  the  mine  owners  and 
superintendents  to  see  that  these  little  wrongs  were  righted.  The  result  was 
that  there  steadily  grew  up  in  the  minds  of  many  a  feeling  of  distrust  and 
enmity  toward  their  immediate  superiors  in  position,  because  they  felt  that 
justice  was  being  denied  them.  If  they  had  had  the  temerity  to  complain 
against  a  shift  boss,  they  incurred  his  displeasure,  and  his  word  was  taken  in 
preference  to  theirs.  In  some  instances  they  lost  their  jobs,  and  where  this 
was  not  the  case  they  seldom  received  any  satisfaction." 

Shortly  before  the  strike  I  was  so  badly  informed  of  the  conditions  that  I 
called  the  attention  of  a  friend  to  the  satisfactory  state  of  the  employees.  It 
was  only  a  few  days  before  the  great  strike  of  the  garment  workers  broke  out. 
When  I  found  out  later  of  the  conditions  that  had  prevailed,  I  concluded  that 
the  strike  should  have  occurred  much  sooner. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  effect  had  the  strike  upon  the  labor  policy  of  Hart, 
Schaffner  &  Marx? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  During  the  first  two  weeks  of  January,  before  tho  tirst 
agreement  to  arbitrate  was  signed,  we  had  approved  a  plan  for  future  handling 
of  labor  matters  which  anticipated  a  great  deal  of  what  has  actually  developed. 
I  have  a  copy  of  a  report  dated  December  24,  1910,  from  which  I  will  quote  as 
follows : 

"This  idea  (to  guarantee  to  employees  a  hearing  for  all  grievances  and 
justice  for  their  complaints)  suggests  something  in  the  form  of  a  court,  con- 
sisting of  the  representatives  of  the  workmen  and  of  the  firm.  They  should 


oft 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  565 

sit  at  regular  times  to  hear  all  complaints  and  redress  grievances.  In  case 
they  should  not  be  able  to  agree,  an  outside  third  man  or  a  board  of  arbitration 
should  act  as  a  sort  of  court  of  appeals,  whose  decision  should  be  binding  on 
all  parties.  To  reassure  any  who  might  fear  to  jeopardize  his  position  by 
appearing  as  complainant,  a  complaint  or  suggestion  box  might  be  provided. 

"  Unless  there  were  some  vital  objections,  it  might  be  wise  to  make  no  oppo- 
sition to  any  voluntary  efforts  of  employees  to  organize  or  join  unions,  and 
then  by  every  possible  means  to  render  such  organization  unnecessary. 

"  It  (the  plan  suggested  above)  might  make  shop  discipline  easier  and  lead  to 
improved  and  more  economical  methods,  because  of  the  increased  good  will  of 
the  employees." 

These  ideas  \vere  put  into  practical  effect  within  a  month  of  the  close  of  the 
strike  and  before  the  arbitrators  had  met.  We  created  a  grievance  department, 
with  instructions  to  work  out  a  detailed  plan  along  these  general  lines. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  were  the  developments  of  the  past  three  years  in 
adjusting  the  relations  between  the  company  and  its  employees? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNEE.  I  have  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  members  of  the  commis- 
sion a  booklet  describing  in  full  the  development  of  our  relations  with  our 
employees  from  the  close  of  the  strike  up  to  the  present  time. 

Prof.  Howard,  who  is  here,  is  thoroughly  acquainted  wTith  all  the  details  of 
this  development,  having  been  our  representative  for  three  years  in  dealing 
with  our  employees. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  are  the  most  important  factors  in  producing  the 
results  ? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  A  summary  of  the  essentials  of  the  system  which  has  pro- 
duced such  gratifying  results  in  our  institution  would  include  a  labor  depart- 
ment responsible  for  industrial  peace  and  good  will  of  the  employees,  thereby 
of  necessity  fully  informed  as  to  their  sentiments,  their  organizations,  and 
really  representing  their  interests  in  the  councils  of  the  company ;  a  means 
for  the  prompt  and  final  settlement  of  all  disputes;  a  conviction  in  the  minds 
of  the  employees  that  the  employer  is  fair  and  that  all  their  interests  are 
safeguarded ;  consequent  instruction  of  the  leaders  and  people  in  the  principles 
of  business  equity,  thus  gradually  evolving  a  code  accepted  by  all  parties  in 
interest,  serviceable  as  a  basis  for  adjustment  of  all  difficulties;  the  develop- 
ment of  efficient  representation  of  the  employees ;  honest,  painstaking,  dignified, 
reasonable,  eager  to  cooperate  in  maintaining  peace,  influential  with  their 
people,  and  truly  representative  of  their  real  interests;  a  friendly  policy 
toward  the  union  so  long  as  it  is  conducted  in  harmony  with  the  ethical  prin- 
ciples employed  in  the  business  and  an  uncompromising  opposition  to  all  at- 
tempts to  coerce  or  impose  upon  the  rights  of  any  group  or  to  gain  an  unfair 
advantage;  and  a  management  that  guarantees  every  man  full  compensation 
for  his  efficiency  and  prevents  any  one  receiving  anything  he  has  not  earned. 

Briefly  expressed,  it  is  simply  the  natural  and  healthy  relation  which  usually 
exists  between  the  small  employer  and  his  half  dozen  workmen  artificially 
restored  as  far  as  possible  in  a  large-scale  business  where  the  real  employer 
is  a  considerable  group  of  executives,  managing  thousands  of  workers  accord- 
ing to  certain  established  principles  and  policies. 

I  am  personally  much  concerned  that  it  become  very  clear  to  everybody 
that  the  successful  result  of  these  developments  has  depended  much  less  upon 
the  formal  and  external  features  than  upon  the  spirit  with  which  it  has  been 
worked  out.  I  am  not  able  to  say  how  far  the  success  is  dependent  upon  the 
men  who  have  been  instrumental  in  developing  it. 

I  wish  to  speak  in  the  very  highest  terms  of  the  arbitrators  and  the  chair- 
man of  our  trade  board,  and  also  of  Mr.  Hillman,  who  developed  wonderful 
influence  over  all  people  who  came  in  contact  with  him  on  account  of  his  high 
ideals,  his  patience  under  trying  circumstances,  and  his  indomitable  faith  in 
the  ultimate  success  of  right  methods. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Schaffner,  has  the  preferential  shop  been  satisfactory? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  So  long  as  the  unions  are  working  toward  the  ideal  we 
aim  at ;  that  is  to  say,  justice  toward  every  interest  connected  with  the  institu- 
tion and  the  highest  economic  efficiency,  which  is  the  same  as  saying  perform- 
ing duty  toward  everybody,  inside  and  outside  of  the  institution,  employees, 
stockholders,  customers,  and  the  general  public,  we  wish  to  see  them  strong. 
We  are  willing  that  our  board  of  arbitration  should  decide  just  what  justice 
is  and  are  willing  to  accept  their  interpretation. 

Because  there  is  no  guaranty  that  those  who  control  the  unions  (which  are 
often  not  representative  of  the  members)  will  hold  to  this  ideal  we  do  not 


566  REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

care  to  be  committed  to  the  "  closed  shop."  If  such  a  change  should  come,  we 
would  be  required  to  restrict  the  power  of  the  unions  as  far  as  we  could. 

The  preferential  shop,  as  we  understood  the  agreement  when  we  signed  it, 
would  not  compel  us  to  do  injustice  to  any  nonunion  employee,  nor  to  impair 
the  efficiency  of  the  shops.  We  believe  that  Mr.  Williams  has  shown  rare 
wisdom  and  has  usually  accomplished  justice  in  administering  this  agreement. 
The  tailor  shops  were  80  per  cent  organized.  The  weakest  point  is  the  trouser 
shops,  where  the  people  were  for  a  long  time  misrepresented,  and  hence  largely 
hostile  to  the  union.  The  shops  are  nearly  40  per  cent  nonunion. 

Inasmuch  as  the  unions  have  thus  far  shown  their  acceptance  of  the  idea 
of  fair  and  reasonable  dealing,  as  laid  down  by  the  board,  we  regard  the  agree- 
ment as  having  been  highly  successful. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  opinion  of  collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  I  believe  that  the  officers  of  a  corporation  are  trustees  of 
the  interests  of  all  connected  with  the  institution.  Decisions  affecting  the 
interests  of  any  group  should  not  be  made  until  such  interests  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  present  their  case.  Where  there  is  any  doubt  as  to  the  fairness  of  any 
decision  or  policy,  there  should  be  a  disinterested  tribunal  to  review  the 
decision. 

In  my  opinion  the  chief  cause  of  hostility  and  bad  feeling  between  the  em- 
ployer and  employee  is  the  usual  lack  of  any  means  for  determining  what  is 
right  or  what  is  wrong — that  is,  the  lack  of  a  common  code  or  disinterested 
authority  wrhose  judgment  is  respected  by  both  sides.  Disputes  once  settled, 
even  if  one  side  loses,  are  seldom  the  cause  of  trouble.  It  is  the  unsettled  dis- 
putes that  are  dangerous. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like  to  ask  you  a  further  question.  In  the  trade 
board  which  exists  under  the  contract  between  yourself  and  the  unions,  and 
also  the  board  of  arbitration,  which  exists  under  the  contract,  is  there  an  in- 
dependent umpire  or  third  man,  so  called? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  Yes ;  there  is. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  has  that  worked  out  in  practice? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  It  has  worked  out  very  well  indeed.  I  was  just  saying  a 
little  while  ago  that  the  third  man  of  the  arbitrators  has  worked  it  into  a 
conciliation  policy  more  than  it  is  an  arbitration  policy,  and  that  has  been 
the  form  of  it,  so  much  so,  that  since  last  August  I  do  not  think  the  arbitrators 
have  had  any  meeting  at  all.  You  ought  to  know,  Mr.  Thompson. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  I  know.     If  the  commission  please,  that  is  all. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Any  other  questions?  If  the  commissioners  have 
any  further  questions,  Mr.  Schaffner,  they  will  be  submitted  to  you  in  writing. 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  Thank  you. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  So  that  we  will  proceed  with  the  next  witness. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  SIDNEY  HILLMAN. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  give  your  name,  your  present  occupation,  and 
your  business  relationship  with  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  and  the 
employees  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Chief  president  of  the  Cloak  and  Skirt  Makers  Union  in  the 
city  of  New  York.  I  have  been  connected  with  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  and  the 
employees  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marz,  representing  them,  since  1910. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  what  position  do  you  represent  the  employees  of  Hart, 
Schaffner  &  Marx? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Practically  in  every  position  there  was;  first  as  business 
agent,  and  then  as  chief  deputy. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  other  words  you  are  the  main  or  chief  representative  of 
the  employees  there? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  That  is  what  they  call  me. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  At  Chicago  did  you  work  in  the  clothing  shops  of  Hart, 
Schaffner  &  Marx  prior  to  the  strike  of  1910^11  ? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  I  believe  I  worked  about  two  years  in  Hart,  Schaffner  & 
Marx  prior  to  1910. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  are  acquainted  with  the  conditions  that  existed  in 
the  shops  prior  to  that  strike? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  When  did  that  strike  occur,  what  was  the  cause  of  that 
strike,  and  how  was  it  settled?  Briefly,  if  you  please. 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  567 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Well,  if  I  may,  I  would  like  to  give  a  little  of  my  experience 
as  well,  working  not  for  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx,  in  what  we  call  the  closed 
shop  and  the  nonunion  shop.  I  believe  the  conditions  are  about  the  same.  I 
worked  for  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  before  the  strike  and  before  the  settle- 
ment of  the  strike.  I  also  worked  for  Sears-Roebuck  prior  to  that.  I  remem- 
ber working  at  Sears-Robuck's  shop.  We  had  been  working  about  8,000 
people  without  a  strike,  and  there  were  printers  \vorking,  and  it  always  came 
to  us,  comparing  conditions,  where  we  were  working  for  the  same  firm  in  the 
same  block,  and  the  printers,  I  believe,  worked  seven  or  eight  hours  a  day — I 
guess  eight  hours  a  day,  I  don't  remember — all  of  them  big,  healthy,  strong 
men.  In  our  place  \ve  were  \vorking  about  7,000  girls,  one  place,  our  place, 
10  hours  a  day,  and  before  the  10-hour  law  was  passed  they  used  to  work 
three  nights  a  week,  getting  for  remuneration  a  supper  that  was  paid  for  by 
the  company  in  their  own  restaurant.  I  believe  the  girls  used  to  work  much 
harder  than  the  men  there. 

I  especially  recall  the  feeling  of  fear  besides  the  wages.  I  believe  I  started 
in  with  $7  a  week,  and  during  three  years  I  worked  up  to  $11  or  $12,  but  what 
I  consider  more  important  is  this,  that  is  the  constant  fear  of  the  employee  of 
being  discharged  without  cause  at  all.  There  really  wa?  no  cause  at  all,  some- 
times. The  floor  boss,  as  we  called  him,  did  not  like  a  particular  girl  or  a  man, 
and  out  they  went.  I  remember  especially  the  panic  of  1907,  when  the  em- 
ployees were  in  constant  fear  of  "Who  will  be  thrown  out?" 

I  remember  we  tried,  all  of  us,  to  get  into  the  good  graces  of  the  floor  boss. 
When  I  worked  for  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  I  worked,  first,  two  months,  and  it 
was  understood  that  I  had  savings  enough  to  live  if  I  did  not  get  any  other 
remuneration.  I  believe  for  about  a  couple  of  months  I  worked  for  $6  or  $7 
a  wreek.  The  conditions  prevailing  were  about  practically  the  same,  the  man 
directly  in  charge  was  the  boss  and  everything  else.  I  remember  when  I  made 
the  first  complaint  I  packed  up  my  tools  and  I  went  out. 

So  these  are  really  the  reasons,  the  main  reasons,  that  led  to  the  strike,  the 
absolute  power  not  only  of  the  foreman — as  a  matter  of  fact,  in  most  instances, 
the  working  people  do  not  know  who  is  the  head  of  the  firm,  only  the  people 
who  are  directly  just  above  them — and  the  lowering  of  wages.  I  really  don't 
believe  there  is  any  limit  at  all  to  the  falling  down  of  the  wages  in  a  nonunion 
shop.  The  strike  occurred 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  are  speaking  now  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Yes ;  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx.  The  strike  occurred — I  believe 
it  started  some  time  in  October,  when  five  girls  walked  out — I  remember  we 
made  fun  of  it — five  girls  working  against  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx — but  some- 
how th«  girls  managed  to  take  out  the  men  after  a  while.  There  really  were  no 
definite  demands ;  the  demands  were  that  conditions  must  be  changed ;  nobody 
knew  really  exactly  what  they  wanted ;  they  wanted  something  better,  of  course, 
or  different ;  and  the  strike  kept  on  about  18  weeks,  and  it  involved  the  whole 
city  of  Chicago,  practically  over  50,000  men  and  women;  and  after  numerous 
conferences,  I  want  to  say,  from  the  start,  our  people  thought  that  the  closed 
shop  is  the  remedy  for  everything ;  and  I  daresay  99  people  out  of  100  never 
knew  what  a  closed  shop  meant. 

This  was  practically  the  first  demand ;  they  did  not  ask  for  increased  wages 
or  anything,  but  they  asked  for  the  closed  shop.  After  18  weeks  of  strike  we 
settled  an  agreement  submitting  everything  to  arbitration,  not  any  particular 
demands ;  and  the  board  of  arbitration  settled  all  the  grievances  that  there  were 
at  that  time  and  also  established  some  method  for  settling  grievances  in  the 
future.  This  was  the  first  agreement  agreed  to  by  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner 
&  Marx. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Hillman,  will  you  state  to  the  commission  how  that 
agreement  expanded  and  grew? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  I  have  here  the  first  agreement.  Practically  all  the  first  agree- 
ment states  is  this: 

"All  of  the  former  employees  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  who  are  now  on 
strike  shall  be  taken  back  and  shall  return  to  work  within  10  days  from  the 
date  hereof." 

The  other  is  with  reference  to  the  arbitration  committee  and  reads  as  follows : 

"An  arbitration  committee  consisting  of  three  members  shall  be  appointed. 
Within  three  days  from  the  date  hereof  the  employees  of  Hart,  Schaffner  & 
Marx  who  are  not  on  strike  shall  select  one  member  thereof ;  Hart,  Shcaffner  & 
Marx  shall  select  one  member  thereof  within  three  days  thereafter;  the  two 


568          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

members  thus  selected  shall  immediately  proceed  to  select  the  third  member  of 
such  committee." 

Practically  in  the  first  agreement  the  organization  was  not  recognized. 
Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  signed  the  agreement  with  their  employees,  not  through 
the  organization.  The  employees  signed  by  Rickert,  Harris,  Robins,  Fitzpat- 
rick,  and  then  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  signed.  At  that  time  a  board 
of  arbitration  was  appointed.  We  appointed  Mr.  Darrow  to  represent  us,  and 
the  firm  appointed  Mr.  Carl  Meyer  to  represent  them.  I  believe  there  was  dis- 
cussion about  getting  a  third  man,  that  discussion  lasting  about  10  weeks  or  so ; 
but  neither  side  could  suggest  nor  agree  to  a  man. 

After  discussion,  we  agreed  that  the  two  men  should  try  to  adjust  all  these 
matters. 

On  March  13  the  decisions  of  the  board  of  arbitration  on  questions  between 
Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  and  their  employees  were  issued.  There  were  some 
rules  issued,  which  we  call  the  original  agreement,  by  which  we  are  governed. 
Those  rules  have  given  a  10  per  cent  increase  to  the  tailors  and  a  5  per  cent 
increase  to  the  cutters. 

The  most  essential  part  in  the  agreement,  in  my  judgment,  is  the  last  para- 
graph, reading  as  follows : 

"As  to  any  future  grievances  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  shall  estab- 
lish some  method  of  handling  such  grievances  through  some  person  or  persons 
in  its  employ,  and  any  employee,  either  by  himself  or  by  an  individual  fellow 
worker,  shall  have  the  right  to  present  any  grievance  at  any  reasonable  time, 
and  such  grievance  shall  be  promptly  considered  by  the  person  or  persons  ap- 
pointed by  said  firm,  and  in  case  such  grievance  shall  not  be  adjusted,  the  per- 
son feeling  himself  so  aggrieved  shall  have  the  right  to  apply  to  some  member 
of  said  firm  for  the  adjustment  of  such  grievance,  and  in  case  the  same  shall 
not  then  be  adjusted,  such  grievance  may  be  presented  to  Clarence  Darrow 
and  Carl  Meyer,  who  shall  be  constituted  as  a  permanent  board  of  arbitration 
to  settle  any  questions  that  may  arise  between  any  of  the  employees  of  said 
firm  and  said  firm  for  the  term  of  two  years  from  April  1,  1911,  during  which 
time  these  findings  shall  be  in  full  force." 

I  consider  this  the  most  important  part  of  the  agreement,  because  it  pro- 
vided a  method  for  adjustment,  not  only  of  any  particular  grievances,  but  of 
all  grievances  that  may  arise  hereafter. 

In  the  development  of  the  situation,  we  found  soon  enough  there  were  as 
many  grievances  in  the  shop  as  there  were  employees.  We  found  grievances 
had  been  constantly  arising,  and  especially  as  this  agreement  was  an  open-shop 
agreement  and  most  of  the  foremen  had  started  a  discrimination,  what  is 
usually  known  as  a  discrimination  in  open  shops.  I  remember  one  shop  had 
about  30  discharges  in  one  week. 

According  to  this  agreement,  all  the  people  feeling  themselves  aggrieved  or 
discriminated  against  had  the  right  to  bring  up  their  grievances.  When  we 
tried  to  bring  up  our  grievances  there  were  so  many  of  them  that  Mr.  W.  O. 
Thompson,  who  was  after  a  while  the  arbitrator  for  the  employees,  and  Mr. 
Meyer,  stopped  practicing  law  and  went  to  adjusting  our  complaints.  I  remem- 
ber the  board  of  arbitration  used  to  meet  practically  every  day  for  a  while. 
What  it  did  lead  to  is  to  think  of  some  method  whereby  the  complaints  should 
be  adjusted.  It  is  certainly  impractical  that  the  arbitrators  should  go  into  each 
small  detail. 

After  a  year  and  a  half  I  believe  a  trade  board,  as  we  called  it,  was  created. 
The  trade  board  was  composed  of  five  men  representing  employees  directly  work- 
ing in  the  shops,  and  five  foremen.  The  impartial  chairman,  or  the  umpire,  as 
he  is  called,  was  Mr.  Howard.  Then  we  also  created  the  deputies,  who  have  been 
deputized  by  the  trade  board  nominally.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are  repre- 
senatives  of  the  employees  and  the  firm,  and  any  grievances  that  come  up  are 
first  investigated  by  the  deputies,  who  try  to  adjust  them,  and  if  they  can  not 
adjust  them,  they  bring  them  up  to  the  trade  board. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  You  say  the  particular  trade  board  consisted  of 
five  foremen  and  five  workers? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  foremen  represented  the  house? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  The  foremen  represented  the  house  and  the  workers  repre- 
ented  the  employees. 

This  trade  board  was  created  so  that  it  was  really  a  new  method  of  adjust- 
ing complaints — that  is,  the  new  method  suggested  to  us  by  that  plan — and  that 
is  an  adjustment  by  the  workers  themselves.  It  introduces  really  what  I  call 


st 
111 


TKADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  569 

the  new  principle  in  our  organization,  that  if  the  workers  are  to  be  disciplined 
for  any  violation,  they  themselves  partly  should  be  the  judges,  agreeing  them- 
selves to  a  certain  agreement. 

We  also  found  in  our  place — as  Mr.  Schaffner  explained,  there  are  probably 
150  or  160  divisions  of  labor,  and  there  was  constant  trouble,  it  all  being 
piecework. 

There  was  complaint  and  constant  misunderstanding  as  to  the  amount  of 
work  to  be  done  for  the  agreed  price.  In  some  instances  it  was  10  cents  a 
hundred  garments,  so  that  any  additional  work  affected  in  a  great  degree  the 
earnings  of  the  people.  We  have  also  agreed  that  no  changes  in  the  work  can 
be  made  unless  agreed  to  by  a  price  committee,  one  representing  the  organiza- 
tion or  the  employees,  and  one  representing  the  firm,  and  any  specification,  as 
we  call  it,  for  work  must  be  signed  by  the  two  representatives  before  it  can 
go  into  the  factory. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  they  disagree,  then  what? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  If  they  disagree,  it  goes  to  the  trade  board ;  but  I  wish  to  say 
they  have  never  disagreed,  practically.  This  is  in  a  matter  where  I  have  taken 
up  the  work  for  only  about  six  months,  and  there  were  350  new  prices  made, 
all  those  prices  affecting  in  the  earnings  paid  out  as  the  result  of  those  prices, 
perhaps  millions  of  dollars.  I  do  not  know.  To  our  people  it  means  practically 
settling  their  scale  of  wages.  It  also  was  shown  that  if  the  firm  wanted  to 
put  in  some  work,  and  the  people  felt  aggrieved,  they  would  complain. 
Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  the  work  all  done  by  piecework? 
Mr.  HILLMAN.  I  would  say  in  the  tailor  shops  I  suppose  about  98  per  cent  is 
done  by  piecework ;  maybe  95 ;  I  do  not  know  exactly.  The  new  method  is  that 
no  new  work  can  be  put  in  except  in  this  way.  It  is  not  a  rule  where  the  people, 
if  they  feel  aggrieved,  can  not  complain,  but  nothing  can  be  put  into  the  shop 
until  the  workers  agree,  or  until  their  representatives  agree. 

I  would  like  to  say  on  this  point  that  there  is  a  certain  notion  or  feeling  that 
may  be  justified  by  the  experience  of  most  people,  that  wherever  there  is  arbi- 
tration there  is  no  conciliation.  I  want  to  say  that  my  experience  is  just  the 
contrary.  As  long  as  we  had  only  two  men  on  the  board,  as  long  as  we  had  only 
one  man  representing  each  side,  while  nominally  they  were  arbitrators,  I  want 
to  say  that  as  far  as  fairness  is  concerned  I  do  not  believe  any  arbitration  board 
was  ever  created  that  had  more  fair  men.  Mr.  Carl  Meyer,  representing  the 
company,  is  about  one  of  the  fairest  men  I  ever  met.  Still,  that  feeling  in  the 
minds  of  the  people,  and  I  suppose  also  in  the  minds  of  the  company,  that  what- 
ever was  decided  was  a  concession  to  the  other  side,  simply  not  to  get  into 
trouble,  or  that  we  might  have  gained  the  case  if  there  would  have  been  an  im- 
partial man,  made  a  feeling  that  directly  we  had  more  cases  for  the  arbitration 
board  since  \ve  have  the  impartial  chairman.  We  find  it,  in  the  way  it  works 
out,  that  conciliation,  in  my  judgment,  is  mostly  applicable  where  there  is  a 
power  of  arbitration  somewhere.  I  know  that  two  sides  come  together,  and  they 
know  if  they  do  not  agree  someone  will  have  the  power  to  enforce  a  ruling.  In 
my  judgment  and  in  my  experience,  there  is  more  opportunity  for  them  to  agree. 
Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  the  arbitration  acts  as  sort  of  a  big 
stick? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Just  exactly.    I  know  before  I  left  Chicago  I  do  not  believe  we 
ad  a  trade  board  meeting  for  over  six  months  and  not  an  arbitration  board 
eeting.     The  trade  board  and  arbitration  board  is  really  a  possibility  for 
machinery  where  they  can  take  up,  not  only  the  grievances  of  the  workers,  that 
as  a  rule  are  presented  in  the  time  of  strike,  but  where  they  can  take  up  every- 
~ay  complaints  in  the  shop,  which,  in  my  judgment,  where  people  work  in  such 
hops,  are  apt  to  arise  to  a  certain  extent.     The  only  way  to  abolish  those  com- 
laints  is  not  to  go  to  the  board  and  complain.    In  a  way,  if  6,000  or  8,000  people 
re  working  together,  there  is  a  certain  community  of  interest,  but  certain  con- 
icts  will  arise,  and  what  I  call  the  trade  corps,  consisting  of  good  people,  not 
nly  hear  the  merits  of  the  matter,  but  as  the  cases  arise  they  lay  down  some 
recedent  and  establish  some  precedent,  which  creates  an  atmosphere  where  the 
pie  feel  they  are  not  merely  workers  in  the  shop. 

Going  further,  they  found  that  even  the  trade  board  was  not  sufficient  to  meet 
11  the  demands.     While  it  is  not  in  the  agreement,  we  have  put  what  we  call 
he  commission  form  of  government  in  effect.     Instead  of  having  a  body  of  ten 
sitting  and  arguing  cases,  we  have  given  that  right  to  deputies  from  both  sides, 
together  with  the  chairman  of  the  board  of  arbitration,  who  go  out  on  cases  and 
investigate  them  for  themselves  and  then  render  certain  decisions.     It  is  more 
efficient.     It  does  not  take  much  time. 


570          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Do  you  mean  that  the  trade  board  acts  as  a  sort 
of  appeal  court? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  No.  The  trade  board  is  supposed  to  be  a  court  of  first  in- 
stance, and  then  an  appeal  may  lie  to  the  board  of  arbitration;  but  \ve  have 
established  in  practice — it  is  not  a  part  of  the  agreement  yet — that  if  there  are 
a  certain  number  of  cases,  instead  of  having  the  cases  come  up  and  the  people 
come  there  and  argue  their  cases,  the  chief  deputies,  together  with  the  chairman 
of  the  arbitration  board,  will  go  right  to  the  place  in  the  shop,  look  over  the 
grivance  and  render  a  decision. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  You  mean  Mahomet  goes  to  the  mountain  instead 
of  waiting  for  the  mountain  the  come  to  Mahomet? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Yes.  We  believe  that  a  court  of  arbitration,  which  necessarily 
results  in  delay,  is  absolutely  objectionable,  to  workers  at  least.  You  can  not 
wait  for  a  certain  decision  to  be  handed  down  in  three  months,  when  the  com- 
plaint has  perhaps  adjusted  itself ;  and  if  the  arbitration  is  to  be  effective  it 
must  be  a  speedy  arbitration,  and  we  find  this  to  work  more  satisfactorily  even 
than  the  one  before.  That  is  as  far  as  the  agreement  has  worked  out  right 
there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Thompson,  have  you  any  further  questions? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  effect  have  these  trade  agreements,  in  your  opinion,  had 
on  the  position  of  the  employees,  briefly  stated,  with  reference  to  earnings, 
working  conditions,  and  treatment  in  the  shop? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  With  reference  to  earnings  I  have  not  got  all  the  figures  before 
me,  but  I  know  in  certain  branches,  especially  in  the  cutting  department,  where 
I  was  employed  before  the  strike,  I  believe  there  was  an  increase  of  50  per  cent 
all  through,  taking  the  whole  department.  I  believe  it  will  be  nearly  that.  As 
far  as  the  workers  are  concerned,  the  tailor  shop  being  piecework,  it  is  different 
in  certain  things,  because,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  prices  are  being  readjusted 
practically  every  other  week.  In  some  instances  they  get  more  and  in  some  in- 
stances less. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  want  to  get  one  point  a  little  more  clearly  in  my 
mind.  Let  me  make  sure  if  I  understand  you.  This  subcommittee,  consist- 
ing of  two  members  of  the  arbitration  board  and  two  from  each  side,  do  they 
go  in  advance,  before  the  matter  comes  up  before  the  trade  board,  or  after? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Before.  As  far  as  the  conditions  are  concerned,  I  believe  there 
is  such  a  change  that  really  it  can  not  be  explained.  The  people  really  feel 
themselves  a  little  more  like  men  and  women.  Before  that  there  wras  not  a 
feeling  like  that  in  any  shop,  and  there  is  not  in  any  nonunion  shop,  contrary 
to  any  statements  that  may  be  made  by  people  who  defend  the  open  shop.  I 
do  not  believe  it  is  possible  to  have  the  full  feeling  of  manhood. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  We  were  led  to  believe  from  what  Mr.  Schaffner 
said  that  you  had  not  a  closed  shop,  that  you  had  a  preferential  shop. 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Well,  I  do  not  know  what  you  call  a  closed  shop.  We  have 
no  closed  shop.  It  is  a  preferential  shop.  I  mean  a  place  where  the  people 
have  their  rights  protected  in  any  forum.  The  forum  does  not  make  so  much 
difference.  We  have  a  preferential  union  shop.  It  is  working  out  satis- 
factorily. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  do  you  believe  has  been  the  effect  of  the  introduction 
of  the  committee  on  immediate  action  in  New  York,  if  you  are  able  to  state 
at  this  time? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  It  is  perhaps  a  little  too  early  to  make  any  statement,  but  I 
do  believe 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  believe  it  has  been  the  correct  thing  to  do  or  not? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  If  this  is  not  correct  we  are  sure  that  the  experience  of  the 
past  was  assuredly  not  correct.  I  do  not  know  if  this  will  be  the  remedy.  My 
conviction  is  that  it  will,  but  there  is  no  question,  in  my  opinion,  that  the 
protocol  could  not  last  without  the  introduction  of  an  umpire.  I  do  not  be- 
lieve it  could  last. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Tell  me  how  many  new  prices  are  made  in  Hart,  Schaffner 
&  Marx  factories  every  week  or  month,  and  how  many  men  are  needed  on  the 
price  board? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Prof.  Howard  can  perhaps  give  you  figures,  but  I  believe 
during  the  season  about  500  prices  are  made,  at  least,  I  mean  if  there  are 
many  changes.  As  a  rule  the  adjusting  of  prices  was  done  by  one  man  from 
each  side,  and  these  men  do  not  give  all  of  their  time  to  that  particular  work. 


im 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  571 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  know  the  arrangement  committee  which  was  drawn  up. 
When  they  do  not  agree,  has  not  Mr.  Williams  been  called  on  to  bring  them 
together  ? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  It  was  supposed  to  go  to  the  trade  board.  It  may  be  there 
were  perhaps  four  or  five  cases  where  there  was  a  deadlock  on  it,  but  the 
minute  we  came  to  the  trade  board  we  agreed  right  there  without  getting  their 
decision. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  know  about  how  many  piece  prices  are  settled  in 
New  York,  or  do  you  not  know? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Any  agreement  made  is  practically  nearly  a  settlement.  The 
price  committees  are  called  every  week,  once  a  week,  to  settle  prices. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  are  not  familiar  with  the  number  that  are  settled  in 
New  York? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  I  do  not  believe  anybody  could  state  correctly. 

Mr.   THOMPSON.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Any  other  questions  that  the  commission  has  will  be  for- 
warded to  you. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  EARL  DEAN  HOWARD. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Prof.  Howard,  will  you  state  your  profession,  residence,  and 
connection  with  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx? 

Mr.  HOWAKD.  By  trade  I  am  a  teacher  in  the  Northwestern  University,  but 
for  the  last  three  years  I  have  given  part  of  my  time  to  the  firm  of  Hart, 
Schaffner  &  Marx  as  manager  of  their  labor  department.  I  live  in  Evans- 
ton,  111. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Prof.  Howard,  I  understand  you  have  prepared  certain 
information  in  regard  to  the  working  out  of  the  trade  agreement  at  Hart, 
Schaffner  &  Marx's.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  have  that  in  shape  to  present  to 
the  commission  in  written  form,  in  order  that  wre  may  save  the  time  of  going 
into  it.  I  will  direct  your  attention  to  the  question  of  collective  bargaining, 
conciliation,  and  arbitration  as  it  works  out  there,  and  your  opinion  in  regard 
thereto.  First  I  will  ask  you,  from  your  experience  do  you  believe  that  col- 
lective bargaining  is  the  proper  way  of  dealing  between  a  firm  and  its  em- 
ployees, and  why? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  I  undoubtedly  believe  it  is.  I  believe  it  is  the  only  possible 
foundation  for  an  experiment  such  as  we  have  had.  That  does  not  necessarily 
mean,  however,  that  the  employees  must  be  represented  by  a  national  union 
or  any  kind  of  a  union.  We  have  been  particularly  fortunate  in  having  our  own 
employees  in  a  rather  autonomous  organization,  very  little  influenced  by  out- 
side organizations.  I  think  that  has  been  quite  a  factor  in  progressing  in  the 
experiment,  because  they  were  rather  free  to  adopt  policies  and  to  harmonize 
their  policies  with  those  of  the  board  of  arbitration.  But  it  is  necessary  in 
any  experiment  of  this  kind  where  the  employees  must  be  represented,  or  at 
least  their  opinions  must  be  known  and  given  expression  to,  that  they  have 
their  representatives  and  they  be  able  to  choose  in  some  way,  so  that  they  will 
be  properly  representative.  That  implies,  I  think,  some  organization,  and,  of 
course,  the  dealing  with  employees  directly  in  any  form  whatsoever  implies  col- 
lective bargaining,  especially  with  reference  to  wages. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  believe  that  either  associated  with  the  international 
union,  or  just  simply  as  a  shop  itself,  that  dealing  with  the  company  and  people 
in  a  collective  way  leads  to  peace  and  to  less  friction  than  dealing  individually? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  That  has  been  our  experience,  undoubtedly.  Just  for  instance, 
when  I  first  came  after  the  strike  was  over — the  big  strike  of  three  years  ago — 
there  were  little  strikes,  shop  strikes,  and  section  strikes,  involving  from  a 
dozen  to  200  men ;  they  were  almost  a  daily  occurrence.  That  was  one  of  our 
problems.  I  am  led  to  the  belief — information  has  come  to  me  that  it  is  almost 
a  universal  condition  of  the  trade.  No  one  ever  dreamed  that  you  could  manu- 
facture clothing  or  any  garments  without  having  that  condition ;  and  that  was 
extremely  wasteful  and  was  detrimental  to  any  kind  of  efficiency,  detrimental 
to  the  people  themselves ;  and  that  was  one  of  the  first  things  we  did,  to  elimi- 
nate that  if  we  possibly  could,  and  it  took  nearly  two  years  to  do  it.  I  do  not 
think  there  has  been  a  shop  strike  or  a  section  strike  of  any  kind  for  a  year  in 
our  shops,  except  possibly  that  there  have  been  little  misunderstandings  of  half 
an  hour,  but  not  to  exceed  that,  and  just  as  soon  as  they  understood  it  they 
immediately  returned  to  work. 


572  REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion,  Prof.  Howard,  have  these  shop  strikes  been 
eliminated  by  the  fact  of  the  trade  agreement? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Absolutely.  I  think  it  would  have  been  quite  impossible,  if  we 
did  not  have  the  rest  of  the  machinery  described  in  this  experiment. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  benefit  and  has  been  the  benefit 
to  the  employees  coming  from  this  trade  agreement?  Has  it  helped  them  in 
adjusting  their  wages  and  bettering  their  condition  and  maintaining  their  man- 
hood, you  might  say,  in  the  shops? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Of  course,  Mr.  Hillman  is  very  much  more  competent  to  speak 
on  that  subject  than  myself,  although  I  have  come  in  contact  with  these  em- 
ployees. I  have  charge  of  the  so-called  welfare  department — welfare  work — 
wrhich  has  to  do  with  rendering  assistance  to  employees  who  have  misfortunes, 
and  my  assistants  go  to  their  homes  very  frequently  in  case  of  sickness,  and 
they  observe  them  and  make  a  report ;  and  my  observation  is  that  the  people 
feel  very  much  more  contented  and  that  any  grievances  they  may  have  will  be 
taken  up  and  any  difficulties  of  any  kind  will  be  heard  by  some  one,  and  they 
will  be  given  good  advice  and  perhaps  material  assistance,  and  they  feel  that 
they  are  members  of  the  body  itself  and  entitled  to  justice  and  that  they  will 
get  justice,  and  I  presume  that  the  feeling  which  Mr.  Hillman  describes,  that 
they  are  really  better  citizens  and  that  they  are  better  men  and  women  and 
have  a  fuller  life  and  means  of  expression  is  becoming  general,  and  that  they 
will  have  an  opportunity  to  express  themselves  and  their  opinions  and  have 
themselves  heard  and  considered  by  people  whom  they  respect  and  have  confi- 
dence in ;  I  consider  that  to  be  a  very  -great  factor. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  feel  that  the  employees  can  deal  as  satisfactorily 
with  the  firm,  individually,  with  reference  to  wages  and  working  hours  and 
working  conditions  as  they  can  collectively? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  I  have  never  had  any  experience  with  the  individual  bargain- 
ing. I  came  simultaneously  with,  or  at  the  close  of  the  strike,  when  we  began 
the  system  of  collectiATe  bargaining,  and,  of  course,  my  department  immediately 
established  a  form  of  collective  bargaining. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  cessation  of  work  that  occurred,  Prof.  Howard,  in  the 
first  year  or  so  of  the  agreement  was,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  a  technical  violation 
of  the  agreement,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  What  cessation  do  you  refer  to? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  these  shop  strikes  that  you  referred  to,  that  occurred? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  You  mean  the  fact  of  stoppage? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Certainly,  it  was  a  violation  of  the  agreement,  technical  viola- 
tion. Of  course,  I  used  to  go  about  in  the  shops  whenever  there  was  a  strike 
and  make  a  speech  to  them  and  describe  the  agreement.  They  were,  of  course, 
very  ignorant  of  the  meaning.  Mr.  Hillman  used  to  do  so,  too,  and  we  really 
had  to  instruct  all  the  people  that  this  meant  a  new  way  of  adjusting  griev- 
ances. The  old  way  was  the  only  way  they  knew.  For  instance,  if  it  was  a 
busy  season  and  the  foreman  had  to  get  out  the  stuff,  he  would  give  way ;  but 
if  it  wasn't  so  busy,  he  would  not,  and  he  knew  that  he  could  get  them  back, 
and  he  knew  that  they  would  take  advantage  of  it  if  he  had  to  get  out  the  stuff. 

Well,  we  introduced  the  new  system,  and  it  was  a  process  of  education;  it 
took  a  couple  of  years,  but  they  finally  came  to  understand  that  it  was  a  viola- 
tion of  the  agreement,  and  they  began  to  respect  the  agreement,  and,  of  course, 
a  better  state  of  things  immediately  began,  and  a  better  set  of  conditions,  and 
soon  the  better  element  prevailed,  and  now  we  think  they  all  understand  it  and 
know  perfectly  well  that  it  is  a  violation. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  many  different  nationalities  have  you  under  your  ob- 
servation? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  I  don't  know,  really.  As  Mr.  Schaffner  said,  the  largest  single 
nationality  is  the  Russian  Jew,  then  the  Poles  and  Bohemians,  and  the  next  are 
Italians.  Then  we  have  a  few  Scandinavians  and  Slavish  people,  and  even  a 
Greek,  and  a  Persian  came  in  the  other  day  looking  for  occupation.  We  have 
no  Chinamen,  or  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  There  has  been  something  said  while  you  have  been  here  at- 
tending the  sessions  regarding  the  question  of  conciliation  and  arbitration. 
From  your  experience  with  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx,  what  have  you 
to  say  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  This  is  the  way  I  have  always  looked  at  this  matter,  and  per- 
haps it  will  throw  light  on  this  question:  In  any  kind  of  society,  government 
must  be  established.  A  large  concern  and  its  employees  is  really  a  little  so- 


TKADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  573 

ciety,  and  the  interests  of  both  are  so  bound  up  in  that  industry,  that  business, 
such  a  large  percentage  of  all  their  interests,  that  it  is  really  a  small  society, 
and  it  must  have  a  government. 

Now,  every  government,  as  we  have  found,  must  have  a  constitution,  and  it 
not  only  must  have  a  constitution,  but  it  must  have  legislation,  to  deal  with 
new  conditions,  and  it  must  have  courts  to  interpret  the  constitution  and  the 
statutes. 

Furthermore,  as  we  are  all  familiar  with  the  growth  of  our  common  law, 
legislation  is  very  clumsy  and  inadequate,  and  there  must  be  some  method  by 
which  there  can  be  an  organic  growth  of  law,  such  as  our  common  law.  This 
grows  up  through  precedent  established  by  various  bodies  and  by  people  who 
have  an  opportunity  to  lay  down  policies.  These  precedents  become  law.  At 
first,  when  you  have  a  condition  of  no  government,  or  despotism,  and  you  are 
trying  to  change  over  to  a  republican  form  of  government,  which  this  is,  you 
must  have  all  these  things  worked  out,  you  must  have  the  constitution  worked 
out,  and  you  must  have  the  fundamental  law  laid  down,  and  you  must  have  in- 
terpretations of  it  and  legislation.  This  little  booklet  shows  that  development 
very  clearly.  We  regard  this  agreement  as  our  constitution.  And  then  we 
have  to  have  decisions.  At  first  everything  came  up  with  us,  all  sorts  of  ques- 
tions. Mr.  Hillman  and  I  would  try  to  settle  them  ourselves.  Of  course,  we 
could  not,  in  a  good  many  cases,  and  we  by  mutual  agreement  would  say,  "  Let 
us  have  this  thing  settled ;  let  us  have  this  precedent  established ;  let  us  have 
laws  and  legislation,"  and  we  would  refer  it  to  a  board  of  arbitration,  and  the 
board  of  arbitration  gradually  guided  us,  and  has  gradually  enacted  what  ex- 
presses to  a  large  number  the  ideas  of  the  principles  of  justice  in  this  industry, 
and  since  we  have  had  this  we  have  been  able  to  settle  practically  all  griev- 
ances. 

Mr.  Hillman  realizes  this  as  well  as  I  do.  And  we  take  a  great  deal  of  satis- 
faction in  the  fact  that  we  worked  it  out  together  and  seeing  how  much  effi- 
ciency we  had  established,  and,  although  there  were  differences,  we  would 
follow  them,  no  matter  where  they  led,  and  seeing  that  our  decisions  were  car- 
ried out,  so  that  it  gradually  came  about  that  we  accumulated  a  great  deal  of 
law ;  and  that  is  the  explanation  now  why  we  do  not  have  to  go  to  the  board  of 
arbitration  except  rarely,  and  we  have  been  to  the  trade  board  very  rarely. 
It  never  sits  now,  I  think,  on  any  question  where  there  is  a  principle  at  stake 
that  has  been  once  decided,  and  I  foresee  the  time  when  the  sittings  of  these 
boards  will  be  a  very  rare  occurrence,  indeed. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  do  you  think  of  the  utility  of  the  umpire  as  part  of 
the  machinery? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  In  our  government  of  this  country  there  must  be  some  authority 
to  settle  questions  at  issue.  Of  course,  one  of  our  great  questions  had  to  be 
settled  by  a  civil  war.  I  dp  not  think  we  would  like  to  settle  all  of  our  ques- 
tions in  this  country  by  a  civil  war,  but  in  the  courts,  although  there  is  a  great 
deal  of  criticism  of  their  decisions,  they  have  an  analogy  to  the  laws  in  our 
industry. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  you  think  a  third  man  is  necessary? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  At  first ;  and  he  ought  gradually  to  work  himself  out  of  a  job, 
as  you  have  done,  Mr.  Thompson. 

Mr.  COHEN.  And  into  another. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  stated  at  the  beginning  of  your  testimony  that  the  organi- 
zation of  the  employees  in  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  was  autonomous— these  em- 
ployees organized  in  local  unions  of  the  United  Garment  Workers. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Are  these  local  unions  practically  composed  exclusively  of  em- 
ployees of  Hart,  Schaffner  £  Marx,  or  are  there  other  employees  of  other  firms 
included  in  their  membership? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Not  exclusively.  Simply  because  there  is  not  enough  people 
employed  by  other  firms  to  organize  a  local  they  take  them  in,  but  they  have 
very  little,  because  there  is  a  little  problem  now  developing  on  that  account ; 
but  the  principle  to  decide,  after  all,  is  so  small  that  it  does  not  make  much 
difference,  and  I  think  that  it  will  gradually  work  out  that  the  unions  will 
consist  only  of  Hart,  Schaffner  £  Marx  employees.  I  hope  to  see  it  that  way. 
Of  course,  I  can  not  determine  their  policy. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  many  kinds  of  garment  workers? 

Mi\  HOWARD.  We  deal  with  these  local  unions,  but  they  are  really  working 
down  to  a  smaller  number.  You  see  there  are  three  divisions  of  the  work — the 
trousers,  vest,  and  coat  makers  have  a  local  and  the  pants  makers  have  a 


574          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

local ;  they  are  gradually  merging  into  the  cloak  makers ;  they  have  a  very 
close  identity  with  their  interests,  and  are  somewhat  in  cooperation  with  the 
vest  makers'  local. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  we  want  to  get  at  is  about  other  pants  makers  in  the  city 
of  Chicago.  Are  they  organized  in  a  local — local  unions — or  are  the  employees 
of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  the  only  union  garment  workers  in  Chicago? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  I  think  that  is  almost  true;  but  Mr.  Hillman  could  tell  you 
much  better  than  I  could  about  that. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  there  only  one  union  of  pants  makers  in  Chicago,  composed 
of  about  four-fifths  of  them? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  I  would  not  say  that.  Mr.  Hillman — you  had  better  ask  him 
that  question. 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  They  have  one  local  union  outside  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx 
pants  makers. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Prof.  Howard,  if  you  have  any  statistical  informa- 
tion that  you  think  would  assist  us,  we  would  be  very  glad  to  have  it. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Did  we  not  understand  that  he  had  a  brief  already 
prepared  that  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  commission? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No ;  I  understand  he  collected  data  and  information  about 
the  working  out  of  this  proposition.  I  thought  we  would  go  into  that,  but  ori 
account  of  the  need  for  speed  I  thought  we  would  eliminate  those  questions. 

Mr.  Schaffner,  would  you  mind  taking  the  stand  again?  I  would  like  to 
ask  you  a  few  questions. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JOSEPH  SCHAFFNER— Recalled. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  To  what  extent  was  the  willingness  of  the  firm  of  Hart, 
Schaffner  &  Marx  employees  to  accept  this  membership  agreement,  due  to  the 
fact  that  any  concession  by  an  employer  was  an  improvement  over  the  previous 
condition? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  I  do  not  know  as  I  exactly  understand  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Well,  was  the  getting  of  the  original  agreement  from  the 
firm,  which,  of  course,  was  made  solely  with  the  employees  of  the  firm,  and 
providing  for  no  closed  shop — was  that  an  improvement  over  the  condition  prior 
to  the  strike? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  Anything  was  an  improvement  over  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Has  the  firm  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  had  uniformly  satis- 
factory experience  with  the  labor  unions? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  Well,  I  said  in  my  statement  that  we  had  had  very  unfor- 
tunate experiences  with,  the  cutters'  union,  to  the  extent  that  they  tried  to 
restrict  the  output  and  hamper  us  in  almost  every  other  way. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  those  restrictions  been  removed?  Is  the  firm  working 
now  with  the  cutters? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  There  seems  to  be  perfect  harmony,  so  far  as  I  can  see.  I 
do  not  come  into  immediate  contact  with  them,  but  we  are  working  along  with 
them  all  right. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Does  the  cutters'  question  come  into  this? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  It  is  all  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Anything  first  has  to  be  passed  by  the  trade  board,  or  the 
board  of  arbitration? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  I  think  these  demands  are  very  few  now,  and  we  do  not 
have  very  much  arbitration,  and  very  little  conciliation. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  protection  can  an  employer  reasonably  ask  against 
unreasonable  demands  of  a  labor  union? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  I  really  do  not  know.  That  is  a  puzzle ;  I  do  not  know  what 
he  can  ask.  If  he  has  an  arbitration  arrangement,  he  can  ask  from  them,  as  ho 
can  from  any  of  his  other  employees,  because  they  are  all  bound  by  the  same 
conditions,  I  should  say — the  same  laws. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  in  the  absence  of  the  board  of  arbitration,  or  of  any 
agreement,  it  is  simply  a  test  of  strength? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  Of  course,  it  is  a  test  of  strength ;  it  generally  leads  to  strife 
and  strikes,  and  hostility  of  all  kinds. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Granting,  or  assuming  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  some 
employers  are  unreasonable,  and  exhibit  greed,  and  so  forth,  is  the  same  true  in 
respect  to  some  of  the  unions? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  Well,  I  might  say  that  I  am  not  so  well  posted  about  unions 
that  I  can  answer  that.  I  really  do  not  know  much  about  them.  I  can  not 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  575 

criticize  them,  because  our  relations  with  them,  or  dealings  with  them,  have 
been  confined  to  just  these  instances  that  I  have  criticized.  I  should  say  that 
generally  they  make  an  effort  to  be  reconciled  to  their  employees,  whether  they 
belong  to  a  union  or  do  not  belong  to  a  union. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  you  had  the  opportunity,  Mr.  Schaffner,  would  you  go  back 
to  the  old  way  of  dealing  with  employees  ? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNEB.  No ;  not  in  a  thousand  years.  If  we  did  not  have  an  agree- 
ment with  an  organization  such  as  we  now  have,  I  would  certainly  insist  upon 
having  our  employees  represented  so  that  they  would  have  an  organization 
among  themselves  that  would  dispense  the  same  kind  of  justice  as  we  have  now 
dispensed  by  the  arbitration  board  and  the  trade  board.  I  think  the  conditions 
such  as  we  had  before,  while  we  got  along  for  many  years,  and  got  along  very 
well — in  fact,  just  a  few  days  before  the  strike  one  of  my  friends  came  in  and 
congratulated  me  on  the  fine  business  that  we  had  and  the  achievement  we  had 
made,  and  I  told  him  I  was  very  proud  of  it,  but  I  was  prouder  still  of  the 
happy  and  contented  condition  of  our  employees.  That  was  just  two  days 
before  the  strike.  I  thought  they  were  just  as  happy  as  they  are  now.  I  did 
not  know  any  different. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  now  know  that  they  have  an  outlet? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  I  know  now  they  have  a  chance  to  maintain  their  self-respect. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  present  system  is  sort  of  a  safety  valve? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNER.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  it  reasonable  or  desirable  that  there  should  be  some  re- 
sponsibility or  publicity  of  methods  on  the  part  of  the  union  similar  in  some 
respects  to  the  duties,  obligations,  and  responsibilities  of  employers? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNEB.  I  think  the  union  should  make  the  same  effort  to  meet  the 
emergencies  that  the  employer  makes.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  am  answering 
you  as  you  desire. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  wanted,  Mr.  Schaffner,  is  this :  Do  you  believe  there 
should  be  some  responsibility  fixed  upon  the  union  by  the  general  publicity 
methods  such  as  now  are  fixed  on  corporations  with  reference  to  their  actions, 
in  order  to  control  their  actions  and  not  have  them  go  to  extremes? 

Mr.  SCHAFFNEB.  I  have  not  really  thought  that  out.  I  could  not  answer 
that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Schaffner ;  thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  desire  to  say  this  to  the  commission,  in  regard  to  thje 
New  York  situation,  which  I  am  about  to  take  up,  that  there  has  been  pre- 
pared by  the  Bureau  of  Labor  a  bulletin  of  the  cloak  protocol;  also  I  under- 
stand there  is  on  the  press  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  now  a  further  bulletin 
with  reference  to  the  clothing  situation  in  New  York.  The  tabulated  forms 
of  matter  that  has  been  prepared  by  the  Bureau  of  Labor  I  have  here,  one 
relating  to  men's  clothing  industry  and  the  other  to  ladies'  garments.  In 
addition  to  that,  this  commission  has  taken  about  500  pages  of  testimony  in 
New  York  City  relating  to  the  garment  industries,  and  it  is  our  intention  at  the 
present  time  to  give  a  further  hearing  to  that  industry  in  New  York  City. 
Therefore,  in  calling  further  witnesses  now,  I  will  try  to  confine  their  ques- 
tions now  to  the  matter  of  collective  bargaining,  conciliation,  and  arbitration. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Thompson,  I  should  like  to  suggest  that,  follow- 
ing the  program  you  have  laid  out  with  all  these  witnesses,  the  commission 
would  like  to  have  them  remain  and  ask  any  questions  that  may  occur  up  to 
the  time  of  the  recess  at  1  o'clock. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Very  well,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Will  you  please  take  the  stand,  Mr.  C6hen? 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JULIUS  HENRY  COHEN. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  please  state  your  name,  profession,  and  your  con- 
nection with  the  cloak-makers'  protocol  and  the  shirt-waist  protocol  in  New 
York  City,  and  any  other  protocol  with  which  you  may  have  had  connection. 

Mr.  COHEN.  My  name  is  Julius  Henry  Cohen ;  profession,  lawyer ;  counsel 
for  the  Cloak,  Suit,  and  Skirt  Manufacturers  Protective  Association;  the 
Dress  and  Waist  Manufacturers'  Protective  Association ;  in  1911,  the  Merchant 
Society  of  Ladies'  Tailors  and  Dress  Makers ;  in  1910,  clothing  contractors  and 
clothing  manufacturers. 

My  relations  with  the  protocol  or  method  of  collective  bargaining  in  New 
York  City  has  been  with  the  so-called  cloak  protocol,  the  dress  and  waist 
protocol,  and  the  agreement  which  could  hardly  be  called  a  protocol,  between 


576          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Local  No.  38,  International  Ladies'  Garment  Workers'  Union,  and  the  Mer- 
chants' Society  of  Ladies'  Tailors  and  Dressmakers. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Cohen,  from  your  experience  as  counsel  in  these  matters, 
have  you  formed  any  opinion  as  to  the  value  of  trade  agreements  in  the  rela- 
tion between  employers  and  employees? 

Mr.  COHEN.  I  have. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  believe  such  agreements  are  of  advantage  to  both 
the  parties  or  to  either  of  the  parties? 

Mr.  COHEN.  It  depends  upon  the  form  of  agreements,  and  the  people  who  are- 
going  to  execute  them. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Take  the  protocols  which  are  in  existence  in  New  York  City 
to-day ;  take  the  cloak  protocol,  for  instance,  of  which  this  commission  have  a 
copy.  In  your  opinion  has  that  been  a  useful  and  benficial  document? 

Mr.  COHEN.  On  the  whole  it  has  been. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  are  the  reasons  that  lead  you  to  that  opinion  with 
reference  to  its  benefits,  first  to  the  employers,  and  next  to  the  employees? 

Mr.  COHEN.  If  I  may  state  my  opinion  on  the  general  subject  of  collective 
bargaining,  I  can  refer  in  detail  to  our  experience  in  the  cloak,  and  the  dress 
and  waist,  and  the  ladies'  tailoring  situations. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  you  may. 

Mr.  COHEN.  Prof.  Howard  took  out  of  my  mouth  the  words  that  I  was  going 
to  use.  If  you  are  going  to  substitute  for  force  a  method  of  reasoning  for  de- 
termining controversies  between  working  people  and  employers,  you  have  to 
create  a  legal  method.  I  mean  by  "  legal,"  a  method  that  is  law  for  the  people 
who  are  concerned.  Your  collective  agreement,  if  it  is  to  be  a  permanent 
feature  of  industry,  is  in  the  nature  of  a  constitution  of  the  industry,  and  just 
like  any  constitution  of  a  political  form  of  government  which  can  not  exist 
unless  there  are  means  for  legislation  and  means  for  making  decisions  and 
means  for  creating  new  institutions  as  the  occasion  arises;  and,  just  like  the 
constitution  of  a  political  form  of  government,  it  wrorks  or  does  not  work,  ac- 
cording to  the  people  who  live  under  it.  An  American  constitution  in  Mexico 
does  not  work.  The  highest  kind  of  collective  agreement,  in  my  judgment, 
would  be  good  for  nothing  in  an  industry  where  the  employers  were  either 
selfish  or  unscrupulous  or  trying  to  take  advantage  of  collective  agreement  on 
the  whole,  or  where  the  working  people  were  in  their  nature  anarchistic  in 
their  tendencies  and  not  law-abiding.  It  seems  to  me  it  is  a  case  of  efficiency 
in  working  machinery,  and  in  the  character  and  temperament  of  the  men  who 
operate  the  machinery ;  and  so  far  as  the  principle  of  it  is  concerned,  there 
can  be  no  more  question  about  the  validity  of  the  principle  of  collective  bar- 
gaining in  industry  than  there  can  be  about  the  principle  of  constitutional 
government  in  a  democracy.  The  fact  is,  the  working  people  have  just  as  much 
right  to  have  their  grievances  heard,  and  heard  collectively,  as  the  great  mass 
of  people  have  the  right  to  vote  at  the  polls  upon  the  matters  that  affect  them, 
and  we  are  coming  to  recognize  that  fact  in  industry,  just  as  we  long  ago 
recognized  it  in  politics. 

All  the  protocol  does  is  to  create  the  machinery  for  working  out  in  the  in- 
dustry, involving  over  100,000  people,  the  problems  very  analagous  to  the  prob- 
lems we  have  in  political  life;  and  just  as  \ve  succeed  or  fail  according  to  the 
men  we  put  in  office,  so  it  has  been  my  experience  that  we  succeed  or  fail  in 
the  industries  according  to  the  men  we  put  in  office,  because,  as  Mr.  Schaffner 
said  in  his  testimony,  it  is  not  so  much  the  letter  of  the  agreement  as  it  is 
the  spirit,  and  the  spirit  is  expressed  by  the  human  individuals  in  charge. 

I  found  a  complete  failure  of  the  collective  agreement  in  the  ladies'  tailoring 
industry,  and  the  explanation  for  it  is  very  simple.  The  people  in  Local  No. 
38,  as  was  demonstrated  before  the  board  of  arbitration,  did  not  care  for  a 
collective  agreement.  They  preferred  to  have  the  warfare  continued ;  shops 
strike  whenever  they  felt  like  it ;  and  the  reason  for  it  \vas  because  there  were 
so  few  good  ladies'  tailors  that  they  had  the  balance  of  power  in  their  hands, 
and  the  making  of  a  collective  agreement  balanced  the  power  equally  between 
the  employer  and  the  employed. 

And  let  me  say,  by  way  of  passing,  that  any  kind  of  institution  that  gives 
one  of  the  two  parties  a  balance  of  power  can  not  last.  The  power  must  be 
balanced  equally  between  the  two,  and  if  it  is  not  balanced  equally  between  the 
two  by  the  institution,  it  is  bound  to  break  down;  the  agreement  is  bound  to 
break  down. 

We  have  had  failure  and  we  have  had  success  in  the  dress  and  waist  industry 
and  in  the  cloak  industry.  We  have  had  success  wherever  the  spirit  that  Mr. 
Schaffner  referred  to  prevails,  where  we  have  had  the  men  on  both  sides 


C! 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  577 

who  were  willing  to  sit  down  and  apply  the  test  of  reason  to  the  facts.  When 
that  was  done  the  institution  would  work,  and  when  it  was  not  done  it  would 
not  work.  The  great  value  of  the  protocol,  in  my  judgment,  is  that  even  where 
you  have  men  in  the  situation  who  do  not  carry  out  the  spirit  you  still  have 
a  safety  valve,  and  in  that  connection,  in  passing,  may  I  say  that  I  do  not 
at  all  agree  with  the  testimony  or  conclusions  of  Mr.  Prey  yesterday,  because 
in  the  very  situation  in  New  York  recently,  where  there  \vas  perhaps  as  serious 
a  crisis  as  has  existed  in  four  years,  the  existence  of  the  board  of  arbitration 
and  of  this  commission  made  possible  the  adjustment  of  that  difficulty,  because 
Mr.  Frey  overlooks  the  fact  that  the  opportunity  to  present  a  situation  in  the 
open,  where  it  can  be  discussed  upon  the  merits,  makes  for  the  final  ascertain- 
ment of  the  truth,  and  the  truth  is  the  thing  which  must  prevail  in  the  long 
run  whether  it  is  a  process  of  conciliation  or  arbitration.  And  what  every 
situation  needs  is  a  place  where  a  record  can  be  made  by  both  parties,  where 
in  the  open  they  can  meet  each  others'  contention,  and  that  clears  the  atmos- 
phere and  makes  for  the  possibility  of  peaceful  solution,  just  as  in  govern- 
ment, under  a  political  constitution,  the  legislature  and  the  courts  are  the 
safety  valves  for  the  people,  and  when  they  break  down  then  your  whole 
situation  breaks  down. 

Now,  I  want  also,  if  I  may,  Mr.  Thompson,  to  supplement  what  Prof.  Howard 
said.  The  moment  you  get  your  constitution  and  substitute  a  method  of  peace 
for  methods  of  war  you  have  got  to  have  two  forms  of  a  government  under 
that  constitution.  You  have  got  to  have  an  institution  for  legislation  and 
you  have  got  to  have  an  institution  for  interpretation,  the  making  of  what  is 
called  common  law,  the  making  of  precedents,  because  it  is  the  precedents  and 
the  code  thus  established  that  makes  the  government  of  the  industry.  In 
order  to  have  those  methods  of  legislation  the  so-called  conciliation  method 
or  conferential  method  is  undoubtedly  the  best.  In  the  cloak  industry  and 
in  the  dress  and  waist  industry  the  grievance  board,  as  you  know,  is  the  per- 
manent legislative  tribunal,  and  if  the  board  deadlocks  it  goes  to  the  board  of 
arbitration.  As  you  know,  recently  the  protocol  was  amended  by  increasing 
the  rate  of  pay  for  cutters  by  the  board  of  arbitration  to  such  an  extent  that 
it  increased  the  payment  to  pressers  by  about  $300,000  a  year  in  the  industry, 
and  that  was  done  peaceably,  without  any  strike,  after  careful  investigation 
statistically  by  the  department  of  statistics,  of  which  your  Mr.  Manly  was  one 
of  the  heads,  under  the  supervision  of  the  board  of  arbitration,  one  of  whom 
was  Dr.  Walter  Weyl,  a  trained  economist. 

In  addition  to  the  legislative  process  you  must  have  the  process  of  deciding 
cases.  You  can  not  entirely  take  the  system  of  deciding  cases  that  you  have 
developed  in  our  Anglo-Saxon  jurisprudence,  because  the  method  of  examining 
witnesses  and  arguing  in  court  is  too  complex  for  the  daily  activities  of  indus- 
trial life. 

That  results  in  the  creation  of  the  system  of  clerks  and  deputy  clerks  that 
you  have  for  a  large  industry  that  has  been  described  of  record  here,  and  as 
it  was  described  in  New  York,  where  the  people  go  to  the  factory  and  adjust 
their  disputes. 

You  will  have  presently  from  the  Department  of  Labor  statistics  of  intensive 
study  of  the  operations  of  the  protocol  in  both  industries  made  by  Mr.  Winslow 
of  that  department.  It  is  now  in  the  printer's  hands.  If  my  memory  is  cor- 
rect, of  the  7,556  grievances  in  the  cloak  industry  since  March,  1911,  all  but 
128  were  disposed  of  by  the  clerks  or  deputy  clerks,  and  of  those  123  all  were 
disposed  of  by  the  board  of  grievances  except  8,  and  those  8  involved  questions 
of  interpretation  of  the  protocol,  questions,  as  we  call  them  now,  of  protocol 
law  that  could  only  be  disposed  of  by  a  tribunal  having  the  power  of  ultimate 
decision.  And  that  tribunal  in  the  cloak  industry  and  in  the  dress  and  waist 
industry  is  the  board  of  arbitration. 

The  board  of  arbitration  is  made  up  of  people  who  are  not  in  the  industry — 
Mr.  Brandeis ;  Hamilton  Holt,  the  editor  of  the  Independent ;  and  Walter 
Weyl,  a  lawyer  and  editor  and  an  economist. 

The  process  of  determining  questions,  both  legislative  and  law,  in  a  general 
sense  is  exactly  the  same.  The  process  is  that  process  which  the  lawyers  of 
the  world  have  been  trying  to  carry  out  into  procedure  for  centuries,  namely, 
to  get  at  principles  and  to  get  at  facts  and  apply  the  principles  to  the  facts. 
So  that  the  whole  thing  is  a  method  of  getting  at  the  facts  and  finding  out 
what  principles  should  govern,  and  the  principles  can  only  be  ascertained  by 
discussion.  And  my  criticism  of  Mr.  Frey's  argument  yesterday  is  that  the 

38819°— 16 37 


578          REPORT  OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

eonferential  method  will  not  always  get  at  the  facts  or  get  at  the  right  prin- 
ciples. In  the  first  place,  although  the  man  on  the  job  knows  more  about 
the  technique  of  the  job,  he  does  not  always  know  as  much  about  the  general 
principles  as  a  lawyer  or  an  economist  or  a  doctor  who  is  called  in  from  the 
outside.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  protocol  itself  was  made  possible  by  an  out- 
sider. The  invention  of  the  preferential  union  shop  by  a  lawyer  in  that  situa- 
tion resulted  in  the  protocol.  The  very  institutions  that  now  make  for  peace 
in  the  industry  are  the  inventions  of  lawyers — the  board  of  sanitary  control, 
the  board  of  grievances,  the  clerks,  the  method  of  making  precedents.  This 
last  thing,  the  committee  on  immediate  action,  is  the  joint  invention  of  two 
lawyers. 

All  of  these  institutions  have  been  created  by  lawyers  from  the  outside  or 
economists  from  the  outside,  brought  into  the  situation.  And  it  is  because  the 
lawyer  is  trained  to  find  facts  and  to  find  principles  that  he  has  a  valuable 
contribution  to  make  to  this  problem,  and  because  the  method  employed  for 
centuries  of  getting  at  facts  is  the  right  method,  that  the  analogies  have  worked 
out  under  the  protocol,  because,  after  all,  the  board  of  arbitration  is  a  tribunal 
for  getting  at  facts,  listening  to  argument  upon  the  facts,  and  making  decisions 
upon  the  facts. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion,  is  the  introduction  of  the  umpire  on  the 
board  of  arbitration,  as  you  have  it,  a  good  thing? 

Mr.  COHEN.  I  do  not  call  him  an  umpire,  for  a  very  important  reason.  The 
committee  on  immediate  action  is  made  lip  of  three  people,  and  those  three 
people  make  the  decision.  Hence  one  of  the  difficulties  of  the  problem,  as  I 
see  it,  is  this,  that  under  the  machinery  developed  through  the  machinery  of 
the  protocol  the  man  who  represents  the  union  and  the  man  who  represents  the 
employers'  association  is  not  only  an  advocate,  but  he  is  a  judge  as  well,  and 
he  has  to  be  of  that  unique  type,  like  the  Howards  and  the  Hillmans ;  and  that 
is  why  we  have  to  go  to  Chicago  for  our  men  for  New  York.  He  has  to  be  of 
the  unique  type  that  can  be  both  advocate  and  judge  at  the  same  time. 

The  committee  on  immediate  action  is  a  judicial  body,  and  the  clerks  do  not 
sit  on  that  judicial  body,  each  fighting  for  something  in  favor  of  his  side,  but 
with  the  aid  of  the  third  man,  who  is  impartial,  they  come  to  a  unanimous 
decision,  and  have  come  to  unanimous  decisions  in  every  case.  Under  the  old 
system  the  two  clerks  did  constitute  a  committee  on  immediate  action,  and 
in  all  but  very  few  cases  where  it  involves  questions  of  interpretation  or  legis- 
lation they  did  come  together. 

I  do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Hillman  that  the  committee  on  immediate  action 
was  necessary  to  save  the  protocol.  I  do  agree  that  it  was  a  desirable  improve- 
ment, because  it  takes  off  the  shoulders  of  the  people  who  sit  on  that  grievance 
board  the  tremendous  strain  that  was  put  upon  them ;  and  as  a  committee  that 
decides  questions  of  fact  but  not  of  protocol  law  it  is  a  very  distinct  improve- 
ment upon  the  machinery.  I  would  have  the  same  feeling  with  regard  to  the 
umpire  that  Mr.  Hillman  has  with  regard  to  the  umpire.  If  you  are  going  to 
put  upon  the  shoulders  of  a  single  man  the  decision  of  great  questions  that 
affect  an  entire  industry  it  breaks  down,  because,  in  the  long  run,  the  very 
great  mass  of  working  people  or  very  great  number  of  employers  would  not  be 
satisfied  to  leave  the  destiny  of  their  interests  to  the  decision  of  a  single  man. 
In  our  board  of  arbitration  we  have  no  umpire.  We  have  three  arbitrators, 
and,  although  one  is  named  by  each  side  and  the  third  man  is  named  by  both, 
the  three  regard  themselves  as  representatives  of  the  public,  with  no  interest 
to  serve,  except  the  interest  of  finding  a  sound  decision  in  the  particular  case. 
And  one  of  the  curious  things  is  that  every  decision  by  the  board  of  arbitration 
has  been  a  unanimous  decision.  The  battle  in  the  councils  of  the  board  has 
always  been  a  battle  not  of  fighting  each  side  for  what  it  contends  from  the 
third  umpire  but  a  battle  to  find  out  what  the  truth  is  and  what  is  the  best 
decision  to  make  under  the  circumstances.  I  do  not  believe  at  all  in  any 
system  of  umpires ;  I  think  it  can  not  last ;  but  I  do  believe  in  the  creation  of 
tribunals  of  more  than  one  man  who  make  a  steady  study  of  the  industry. 
That  is  the  value  of  our  present  board  of  arbitration  under  the  protocol ;  that 
for  four  years  these  men  have  sat  with  us  and  know  the  peculiar  problems  of 
the  industry,  and  when  we  come  to  take  up  a  particular  situation  they  take  it 
up  in  the  light  of  their  knowledge  of  the  general  psychology  and  economics  of 
the  industry.  Bringing  in  people  strange  to  the  industry  to  decide  matters 
would  be  a  danger,  just  as  Mr.  Frey  pointed  out  that  it  would  be  in  the 
foundry. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  579 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Cohen,  I  will  ask  you  whether,  in  your  opinion,  the 
board  of  arbitration  which  you  have  under  the  cloak  protocol  and  the  committee 
on  immediate  action  which  exists  under  an  amendment  to  the  protocol  for 
taking  up  grievances  arising  in  the  industry  and  settling  them  right  away 
would  be  better  if  they  had  even  numbers  instead  of  odd  numbers  of  men? 

Mr.  COHEN.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  think  an  odd  number  preferable? 

•  Mr.  COHEN.  Yes;  because,  as  Mr.  Hillman  said,  the  fact  that  the  gentleman 
knows  that  ultimately  one  man  may  determine  is  an  incentive  for  them  to  get 
together,  and  they  get  together. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  if  the  umpire  is  simply  that  man  who  would  have 
that  power  which  the  parties  know  he  has  in  this  case,  you  have  no  objection 
to  the  umpire? 

Mr.  COHEN.  No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  all.    I  thank  you. 

Mr.  COHEN.  There  are  one  or  two  things  I  should  like  to  add,  if  I  may,  that 
I  made  some  notes  of. 

In  the  first  place,  I  want  to  state  that  the  condition  that  Mr.  Howard  referred 
to  as  existing  in  the  clothing  industry  by  the  trade  agreement  is  analagous  to 
the  condition  that  existed  in  the  New  York  women's  wear  industry  is  prior  to 
1910,  strikes  in  the  shops  on  every  provocation;  and  at  the  height  of  the 
season  strikes  successful  because  the  foreman  or  the  boss  had  to  give  in,  and 
then  retaliation  in  the  slack  season. 

I  also  want  to  refer  to  the  fact  that  there  are  very  serious  problems  in  the 
industry;  the  problem  arising-out  of  seasonal  employment;  the  problems  arising 
out  of  the  fact  that  prices  for  labor  are  not  fixed  by  any  standards  at  the  pres- 
ent time ;  piece  price  methods  of  adjusting  the  price  of  labor  on  each  garment. 
Over  80  per  cent  of  the  wages  are  not  fixed  in  accordance  to  any  standard.  In 
other  words,  there  is  no  collective  bargaining  upon  those  things. 

But  I  do  not  believe  that  problem  could  be  solved  by  a  general  strike.  I  be- 
lieve the  only  possibility  of  solving  that  problem  is  through  the  protocol,  by 
study  and  conference,  and  ultimately  by  legislation  in  methods  that  are  pro- 
vided. I  think  that  as  Mr.  Schaffner  has  just  said,  I  am  personally  much  con- 
cerned, it  becomes  very  clear  to  everybody  that  the  successful  result  of  this 
development  has  depended  much  less  upon  the  formal  or  external  features  than 
the  spirit  with  which  it  has  been  worked  out.  My  conviction  is  identical  with 
that  of  Mr.  Schaffner,  that  they  are  readily  moldable  if  you  have  the  right 
spirit  on  both  sides,  and  if  you  have  not  that  spirit  on  both  sides  the  thing 
breaks  down.  If  there  is  an  antiunion  spirit,  an  antiorganization  spirit,  the 
thing  breaks  down.  And  when  the  protocol  has  worked  successfully  it  has  been 
when  that  mutual  spirit  is  dominant,  and  where  it  has  not  worked  successfully 
it  has  been  when  that  mutual  spirit  is  not  dominant.  It  has  been  where  one 
side  or  the  other  has  not  shown  that  spirit.  In  that  Local  No.  38  situation,  the 
Merchant  Society  of  Ladies'  Tailors,  everything  went  completely  to  smash  be- 
cause there  was  not  that  spirit  of  mutual  respect  and  confidence  and  mutual 
respect  for  the  obligations  that  both  parties  had  assumed.  It  does  not  mean 
that  where  you  have  mutual  confidence  the  thing  works  perfectly ;  we  have 
some  strikes  in  the  cloak  industry  to-day,  and  we  have  officials  of  the  union 
who  violate  the  law,  subordinate  officials;  we  have  employers  who  violate  the 
law,  just  as  in  political  societies  you  have  lawbreakers,  but  you  have  the  ma- 
chinery for  bringing  those  people  to  book  and  correct  any  mistakes  that  they 
make,  and  that  is  the  value  in  the  system  of  collective  bargaining.  It  substi- 
tutes a  constitution  for  chaos,  it  substitutes  law  for  disorder,  and  it  substi- 
tutes reason  for  force;  it  makes  both  sides  learn  to  respect  each  other,  learn 
to  understand  the  protocol,  and  it  makes  them  feel  a  mutual  respect  for  the 
solution  of  problems,  and  sometimes  ultimately  for  their  solution. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  A.  BISNO. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Bisno,  will  you  state  your  name  and  your  connection  with 
the  New  York  protocol  in  the  cloak  industry? 

Mr.  BISNO.  2926  West  Twelfth  Street,  Chicago,  111. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  direct  your  attention — 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr.  Thompson,  he  has  not  yet  stated  his  connection 
with  the  protocol. 

Mr.  BISNO.  I  am  chairman  of  the  educational  committee  of  the  Cloak  Makers' 
Union  of  New  York. 


580          EEPOET    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  are  now? 

Mr.  BISNNO.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  position  have  you  had  with  the  union  other  than  that 
in  the  past? 

Mr.  BISNO.  I  have  been  its  general  manager. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Under  the  protocol? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Under  the  protocol. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Who  is  the  person  at  present  occupying  that  posi- 
tion? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Mr.  Hillman. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  the  place  Mr.  Hillman  now  has? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  Mr.  Horwitz  lately  occupied? 

Mr.  BISNO.  I  preceded  Horwitz. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  Mr.  Hillman  succeeded  Horwitz? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Mr.  Hillman  succeeded  Mr.  Horwitz. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  From  your  experience  with  the  protocol  will  you  state  what 
effect  it  had  in  regard  to  ttie  relations  of  the  employers  and  employees  in  the 
cloak  industry. 

Mr.  BISNO.  What  effect  it  had? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes.  Has  it  benefited  the  employees  in  their  working  hours, 
in  their  wages,  and  in  their  conditions  of  work? 

Mr.  BISNO.  I  believe  it  has  had  a  good  effect.  In  the  first  place  in  the  history 
of  the  industry  it  has  attained  for  the  first  time,  partially  at  least,  the  benefit  of 
a  strike.  Previous  to  this  agreement,  the  protocol  of  1910,  we  used  to  have  a 
great  many  strikes,  both  shop  strikes  and  general  strikes,  including  the  entire 
industry,  and  whatever  we  have  succeeded  in  winning  during  these  strikes  has 
petered  out  subsequently.  It  is  a  seasonal  trade.  During  slack  seasons  the 
people  do  not  attend  to  the  unions  and  the  unions  become  weaker.  There  are 
a  great  many  employers  in  the  industry,  and  there  was  a  good  deal  of  com- 
petition between  shop  and  shop,  and  a  so-called  victory  has  petered  out  after 
the  victory. 

So  that  it  did  not  take  very  long  after  a  victory  to  lose  all  we  had  gained 
during  each  strike,  and  this  protocol  was  an  instance  for  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  the  industry  that  I  know  of.  I  know  it  is  a  little  over  30  years 
where  the  benefit  was  retained  for  a  period  of  over  three  years,  very  nearly 
four ;  so  that  I  believe  very  much  in  the  sense  of  this  protocol  agreement. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  you  know  definitely,  or  as  definitely  as  you  do  know,  will 
you  state  what  effect  it  has  had  on  the  adjustment  of  wages  and  maintaining 
wages,  and  on  the  maintaining  of  the  dignity  of  the  worker  in  the  shop,  and 
as  to  improving  his  condition  in  the  shop,  not  only  with  reference  to  individual 
standing,  but  with  reference  to  sanitary  conditions. 

Mr.  BISNO.  The  main  improvement  of  the  conditions  was  gotten  by  a  strike, 
and  this  agreement  retains  those  improvements.  There  has  been  a  reduction 
of  hours  to  50  hours  per  week.  They  used  to  work  60,  and  more,  before  the 
strike.  There  was  practically  no  limit  in  the  smaller  shops  on  the  hours  of 
labor ;  they  worked  all  the  time,  and  when  they  were  busy  they  worked  more 
than  unlimited  time.  This  agreement  has  established  a  regular  working  day 
of  50  hours  a  week,  with  provisions  during  the  busy  season  for  some  hours 
overtime.  So  in  this  there  was  great  benefit.  Then  there  was  an  institution 
established  to  provide  for  maintaining  sanitary  conditions  in  the  shops,  which 
helps  materially  and  improves  the  sanitary  aspect  of  the  industry,  better  shops. 
There  were  some  rules  as  to  where  a  man  may  keep  a  shop  and  where  he 
may  not,  and  where  the  standard  is  not  perfect,  it  is  a  fair  standard,  much 
better  than  no  standard  at  all,  as  we  had  before. 

On  the  subject  of  wages,  about  20  per  cent  of  the  people  employed  are  week 
workers,  and  the  standard  has  been  established  for  cutters  and  pressers  and 
skirt  finishers  and  some  others,  I  think,  and  that  standard  has  been  maintained. 
In  fact,  in  the  case  of  the  pressers  the  arbitration  board  raised  that  standard 
last  year,  $2.50  for  a  presser,  $1.50  for  an  under  presser,  and  $1  for  a  helper. 

The  pieceworkers  have  not  been  able  to  keep  up  the  standard  that  they  have 
achieved  during  a  strike.  If  I  might  be  permitted,  I  will  explain  the  reason 
why.  So  that  I  think  that  we  are  deteriorating,  going  down  in  the  price  of 
labor  amongst  pieceworkers  under  the  agreement,  because  there  is  no  equitable 
method  established  or  maintained  as  to  price  for  piecework. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  that  not  due  to  the  fact  that  you  have  not  got  more  pro- 
tocol rather  than  less  protocol? 


TBADE  AGREEMENTS  IN  COLLECTIVE  BARGAIN  1^(.      581 

Mr.  BISNO.  If  you  want  to  word  it  that  way. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  know  what  was  the  method  of  dealing 
with  labor  in  the  cloak  industry  in  New  York  prior  to  the  strike  and  the  creat- 
ing of  the  protocol.  Do  you  know  what  the  method  was? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  they  have  such  things  as  contractors,  inside  shops,  and 
subcontractors,  and  if  so,  what  has  been  the  effect  of  the  protocol  on  those  in- 
stitutions? 

Mr.  BISNO.  I  can  not  help  but  always  think  of  the  strike  instead  of  the  proto- 
col. The  change  has  been  brought  about  not  by  any  protocol,  but  by  a  strike ; 
the  protocol  has  been  the  system  by  which  you  would  keep  what  you  got. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Has  it  been  a  good'  cup  or  bucket? 

Mr.  BISNO.  The  strike  has  abolished  the  outside  finisher,  which  was  quite  a 
bad  feature  in  the  industry.  Women  used  to  take  work  home  and  do  the  work 
at  home,  and  that  was  insanitary  and  contained  within  itself  the  probabilities  or 
chances  of  the  distributing  of  contagious  diseases  among  the  families  of  the  poor 
people.  The  strike  has  abolished  that — made  it  impossible — at  least,  the  agree- 
ment abolished  the  outside  finisher,  the  home  shop. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  would  like  you  to  make  it  clear.  I  think  there  are  two  im- 
pressions abroad  among  the  commission  and  the  audience  as  to  your  attitude  on 
the  strike  and  the  protocol.  As  I  understand  you,  you  say  in  the  beginning,  in 
the  past  when  the  people  got  any  benefits  as  a  result  of  a  strike,  they  were  lost, 
gradually  frittered  away,  and  passed  away,  but,  as  the  result  of  this  protocol 
that  now  exists,  the  benefits  derived  from  the  strike  of  1910  have  been  kept  and 
maintained. 

Mr.  BISNO.   Very  largely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now  you  may  go  ahead. 

Mr.  BISNO.  When  you  speak  of  the  benefits  of  the  protocol,  which  I  believe  in 
as  much  as  you,  the  implication  is  that  the  protocol  is  the  strength  of  the  thing — 
the  heart  and  soul  of  the  thing.  To  us  it  is  the  strike,  and  the  protocol  is  simply 
a  record  of  the  arrangements  and  agreements  which  we  have  made  or  what  is 
what.  The  strike  has  abolished — or  the  protocol,  if  you  prefer — the  home  shop, 
abolished  the  inside  contractor.  Manufacturers  used  to  give  a  man  several 
machines  and  tell  him,  "  Now,  you  have  in  the  shop  several  machines.  We  will 
give  you  so  much  per  piece,  and  you  can  hire  your  own  labor  and  make  that." 
The  same  was  true  in  regard  to  finishers  and  pressers.  One  man  would  get  an 
entire  job  of  pressing,  and  then  he  used  to  contract  in  the  shop  and  employ 
people,  some  by  contract,  some  by  piece,  as  he  saw  fit,  and  make  the  benefit  of 
the  difference  between  what  the  manufacturer  paid  and  what  he  could  get 
people  to  do  the  work  for.  That  the  strike  has  abolished,  or  the  agreement,  so 
that  there  is  no  inside  shop  contracting.  It  established  a  regular  working  day 
and  raised  the  wages  considerably  for  the  contract  worker,  and  also  for  the 
pieceworker,  and  it  has  maintained  them  since  for  contract  workers,  and  has 
partially  lost  them  for  pieceworkers. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Does  the  protocol,  as  it  now  exists  in  New  York,  and  as  it 
existed  in  the  past,  help  in  the  question  of  seasonal  work,  the  regularity  of 
employment? 

Mr.  BISNO.   No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  So  far  as  you  know,  has  the  protocol  been  lived  up  to  by  the 
parties  ? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes ;  largely  so,  where  they  could  not  evade  it  successfully. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  has  been  the  effect  of  the  machinery  in  the  adjustment 
of  difficulties  under  the  protocol? 

Mr.  BISNO.  As  has  been  said  before,  the  protocol  has  created  a  board  of 
arbitration  and  passed  upon  differences  between  the  unions  and  the  manufac- 
turers. It  has  created  a  board  of  business  agents  composed  of  men  of  the  manu- 
facturers' association  and  the  union.  These  business  agents  take  up  the  griev- 
ances that  come  up  and  pass  on  them.  They  are  called  clerks,  and  if  they  dis- 
agreed, then  it  came  before  the  grievance  committee  to  pass  upon  that  disagree- 
ment, and  if  that  grievance  committee  disagreed,  then  it  was  supposed  to  go  to 
the  arbitration  board.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  for  the  last  three  years  previous  to 
the  introduction  of  this  impartial  party  in  the  immediate  action  committee  this 
thing  did  not  work.  The  union  and  the  manufacturers  had  disagreed  on  almost 
every  vital  point,  and  the  disagreement  always  meant  that  the  union  lost,  be- 
cause it  has  been  the  union  that  has  been  making  demands  for  the  enforcement 
of  the  provisions  of  the  agreement,  and  if  the  boss  says  that  he  would  not  con- 
tinue to  have  it  enforced  in  the  way  the  union  thought  it  ought  to  be  enforced, 


582          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

and  there  was  nobody  to  answer,  it  simply  meant  that  the  union  had  lost  in  this 
disagreement ;  the  union  did  not  get  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion,  then,  this  immediate  action  committee  has 
helped  to  carry  out  the  protocol? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes ;  I  agree  with  Mr.  Hillman  that  that  has  helped  in  maintain- 
ing the  protocol ;  that  it  could  not  have  lived  unless  this  thing  was  introduced. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  do  you  know  of  the  comparative  condition  of  the  pro- 
tocol shops,  the  nonunion  shops  and  the  union  shops  in  New  York,  the  union 
shops  outside  the  protocol? 

Mr.  BTSNO.  There  are  not  any  nonunion  shops,  or  so  very  few  that  they  are 
insignificant;  there  are  some  of  them,  a  little  outside  of  New  York,  in  New 
Jersey,  where  they  are  taking  work  from  New  York  and  making  it  over  there. 

There  are  two  associations  in  New  York ;  one  is  called  the  protocol,  and  then 
there  was  an  agreement  or  understanding  with  another  manufacturers'  asso- 
ciation— smaller  manufacturers — with  a  large  number  of  members  in  it,  about 
the  same  number  as  the  larger  association;  the  union  has  an  agreement  with 
employers,  not  members  of  either  of  these  associations.  The  conditions  really 
depend  on  more  things  than  on  the  protocol.  For  instance,  the  size  of  the 
factories,  the  respectability  or  decency  of  the  employer  himself,  and  the  kind 
of  people  he  is  working.  On  the  whole  it  is  about  the  same  thing.  If  the 
condition  in  the  protocol  shops  becomes  worse  then  the  conditions  in  outside 
shops  become  worse,  and  if  the  conditions  in  the  outside  shops  become  worse, 
then  the  conditions  in  the  protocol  shops  become  worse.  It  all  depends  on  the 
strength  of  the  union  to  enforce  the  whole  business. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  there  are  other  union  shops ;  there  are  other  contracts 
that  the  union  has  with  the  cloak  manufacturers  in  New  York  outside  of  the 
protocol  ? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes ;  we  have  agreements  with  every  independent  employer  be- 
sides members  of  the  manufacturers'  association. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  So  that  there  are  many  agreements  in  the  cloak  industry  in 
New  York  City? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes ;  there  is  one  with  the  Manufacturers'  Protective  Society, 
and  with  the  Manufacturers'  United  Society,  and  there  are  other  agreements — 
there  are  over  a  thousand  agreements  with  individual  employers. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion  do  these  agreements,  so  far  as  you  know 
of  conditions  in  New  York,' work  for  the  benefit  of  the  men  in  the  shops? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes ;  very  much  so. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Does  the  existence  of  the  protocol  and  these  agreements  tend 
to  reduce  the  strikes  in  the  industry? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  you  know,  is  the  so-called  protocol  in  New  York  looked 
upon  favorably  by  all  the  workers? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  is? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes ;  in  fact  I  do  not  know  of  a  single  dissenting  voice  on  that 
proposition.  I  have  been  mostly  with  the  most  rebellious  crowd  in  the  move- 
ment, and  even  the  most  inflamed  minds  are  in  favor  of  the  improvement  of  the 
protocol,  giving  better  expression  to  their  needs;  and  I  have  not  heard  at  any 
meeting  or  any  private  conversation  amongst  the  men  an  assault  on  the  idea 
of  the  agreement;  it  was  always  an  assault  on  the  failure  by  the  officers  of 
the  association  to  fully  uphold  the  agreement,  and  also  suggestions  to  improve 
the  terms  of  the  agreement,  but  not  on  the  nature  of  this  agreement. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Something  has  been  said  with  reference  to  the  method,  the 
theory  of  conciliation  and  arbitration.  Some  have  favored  the  idea  of  equal 
representation  of  both  the  employers  and  the  men  on  boards  of  conciliation 
r.nd  arbitration.  Others  have  spoken  in  favor  of  the  idea  of  a  third  party, 
sometimes  called  an  umpire  on  such  boards.  From  your  experience  as  an  officer 
fsnd  member  of  the  union  what  form  do  you  favor,  and  why? 

Mr.  BISNO.  I  believe  in  the  umpire.  My  experience  is  that  where  there  is 
no  umpire  the  boss  gets  the  benefit ;  the  boss  has  had  the  advantage,  because 
it  practically  means  where  there  is  no  umpire  that  the  boss  has  had  his  way. 
When  they  say  conciliation,  .mediation,  and  so  forth,  he  has  got  plenty  of  time 
to  talk,  and  so  that  is  all  you  get.  If  you  have  no  power  to  enforce  what  you 
want,  and  have  agreed  not  to  strike  to  enforce  it,  you  get  talk.  There  is  plenty 
of  time,  so  you  have  got  to  have  somebody  to  delegate  that  power  and  to  enforce 
that,  and  this  umpire  in  my  experience  has  been  the  only  party  who  can  en- 
force that. 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  583 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  regard  to  matters  arising  with  the  individual  working 
in  the  shops,  the  grievance  is  generally  his;  he  has  either  lost  his  work,  or 
some  other  manner  of  discipline  is  applied  to  him  which  he  complains  of,  and 
in  case  they  are  unable  to  reach  an  agreement  by  the  conciliation  board  then 
he  suffers  and  the  employer  does  not? 

Mr.  BISNO.  That  is  the  idea. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  do  you  know  of  the  condition  in  New  York  with  ref- 
erence to  such  questions — that  is,  in  regard  to  introducing  this  immediate-action 
committee  with  a  third  party  on  it? 

Mr.  BISNO.  When  I  took  office  a  little  while  ago  I  found  there  was  quite  a 
complaint  on  the  part  of  the  men  that  the  active  members  of  the  union  were 
discriminated  against  in  the  shops,  that  if  a  man  tried  to  enforce  or  helped  to 
enforce  the  provisions  of  the  agreement  the  employer  either  discriminated 
against  him  by  way  of  giving  him  less  work,  or  poorer  work,  or  he  discharged 
him,  and  that  when  his  case  came  up  before  these  clerks  there  was  usually  a 
disagreement;  the  clerk  of  the  manufacturers'  society  held  that  this  man  was 
not  discriminated  against,  or  that  the  discrimination  was  warranted  because 
of  his  conduct,  or  that  he  was  discharged  because  he  deserved  to  be  discharged. 
The  clerk  of  the  union  always  held  that  it  was  discrimination  because  of  union 
activity,  or  protocol  activity,  or  activity  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  the  agree- 
ment, and  there  was  a  good  deal  of  unrest  and  dissatisfaction  among  the  men. 
I  have  had  large  numbers  of  men  that  had  no  work  because  of  their  con- 
scientiousness and  sense  of  loyalty  to  the  union.  When  I  took  the  position 
of  clerk  I  knew  that  there  was  this  dissatisfaction  and  I  tried — I  submitted 
to  the  manufacturers'  association  the  idea  that  we  introduce  an  impartial 
party  to  adjudicate  this,  and  they  have  not  agreed  with  me  on  that,  and  so 
during  my  regime,  too,  there  were  numbers  of  men  that  were  discharged  evi- 
dently because  of  their  activity  in  union  matters  in  the  enforcement  of  the 
provisions  of  the  agreement,  and  they  had  no  redress.  When  I  brought  these 
cases  to  the  grievance  committee  we  have  usually  disagreed,  so  that  for  the 
entire  period  I  was  there  on  the  vital  questions  we  disagreed  on  them  always. 

I  have  been  told  by  men  on  the  grievance  committee  previous  to  my  coming 
there  that  on  these  vital  questions  they  had  disagreed  for  months  and  months, 
they  used  to  get  together  and  sit  there  and  .talk  and  talk  and  talk,  and  the 
men  remained  outside;  so  that  it  was  quite  an  issue,  amongst  our  people,  of 
dissatisfaction,  and  this  introduction  of  an  impartial  party  in  the  immediate- 
action  committee,  in  my  opinion,  relieved  the  situation  materially.  It  was  very 
bad  before,  and  I  understand  it  is  much  better  now. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  all,  thank  you. 

Mr.  BISNO.  I  would  like  to  make  an  additional  statement. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Rosenberg  does  not  appear  to  be  here,  and  I  have  allowed 
time  to  examine  him.  I  will  now  turn  it  over  to  the  commission.  I  am  through 
with  this  witness. 

Mr.  COHEN.  I  want  to  correct  some  things  that  Mr.  Bisno  has  said.  I  would 
like  a  ^ew  minutes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr.  Bisno  wishes  to  make  a  statement  on  his  own 
account,  and  after  he  has  done  that  the  commissioners  will  ask  him  questions. 

Mr.  BISNO.  There  are  two  items  on  which  I  wish  to  say  something,  which 
appear  to  me  to  be  a  serious  risk  to  the  existence  of  this  agreement. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  When  you  say  "  agreement "  you  mean  the  pro- 
tocol ? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes;  the  protocol,  and  to  its  continuance  and  life;  and  I  should 
like  to  speak  of  those  two  items.  As  has  been  said  before,  there  are  about  80 
per  cent  of  the  people  working  by  piece,  and  there  is  no  standard  for  piece- 
workers, and  the  protocol  has  not  as  yet  worked  out  a  proper  machinery  for 
the  settlement  of  these  prices  for  labor.  The  protocol  provides  that  the  price 
for  labor  be  settled  by  a  committee  of  the  shop  and  the  employers.  Usually  the 
mimittee  of  that  shop  is  not  the  competent  party  to  settle  the  price  for  labor. 

In  the  first  place,  they  do  not  know  what  other  people  pay  in  other  shops 
for  the  same  kind  of  labor.  In  the  second  place,  they  are  afraid  that  if  they 
do  not  satisfy  the  boss  in  their  opinion  on  the  price  of  labor  the  boss  may 
discipline  them  by  discrimination.  Then  the  boss  has  an  immediate  advan- 
tage in  the  settlement  of  the  price  for  labor  in  this,  that  he  can  control  some 
of  them.  He  does  not  have  to  say  it  in  so  many  words,  but  in  substance  he 
can  say  to  a  member  of  that  committee,  at  least,  "  We  will  see  that  you  do  not 
get  the  class  of  work  that  the  price  is  bad  on,  so  that  you  give  me  the  advan- 


584          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

tage  in  the  settlement  of  the  price  for  work  and  I  will  give  you  a  chance  to 
make  some  money." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  An  indirect  bribe? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes,  an  indirect  bribe.  We  did  have  cases  where  the  bribe 
was  direct;  but  the  same  thing  runs  all  through  the  2,000  shops,  so  that  the 
price  for  pieceworkers  is  not  maintained  in  the  same  way  as  we  had  that  two 
years  ago;  so  that  I  would  suggest  that  the  union  and  the  manufacturers' 
society  establish  a  body  of  experts  whose  business  it  should  be  to  settle  the 
price  for  labor. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  A  sort  of  a  clearing  house  for  all  the  manu- 
facturers? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes,  for  all  the  manufacturers ;  and  that  these  experts  be  paid 
by  both  the  union  and  the  manufacturers'  association  together,  and  that  they  be 
officers  not  only  of  the  one  side  or  the  other  side  but  of  both  sides,  and  that 
they  settle  the  price  for  labor  on  a  given  basis.  I  think  that  the  union  would 
even  agree  to  assume  that  the  price  for  labor  as  it  is  now  is  all  right ;  take 
that  as  a  basis,  and  maintain  that  in  all  of  its  shops.  I  believe  that  the  manu- 
facturers' association,  as  it  is  constituted  to-day,  and  the  union  can  not  main- 
tain the  product  efficiently  enough  until  the  manufacturers'  association  them- 
selves will  increase  their  membership  by  taking  in  almost  everybody  in  the 
industry,  because,  as  is  stated  to-day,  it  is  the  nonmembers  of  the  manu- 
facturers' association  competing  against  the  manufacturer's  association  that 
forces  the  members  of  the  association  themselves  to  work,  if  necessary,  against 
the  union,  because,  possibly,  their  business  forces  them.  So  that  I  believe 
that  the  members  of  the  manufacturers'  association  ought  to  unite  the  two 
manufacturers'  associations  now  existing,  and  then  take  in  the  others.  I 
understand  that  they  do  not  take  in  members  as  willingly  as  the  union  takes 
in  members;  that  there  is  a  sort  of  privilege  over  that.  Unless  they  do  that, 
this  agreement  will  not  have  enough  strength  to  live. 

There  is  also  the  danger,  which  is  now  coming  in  vogue,  of  having  both  the 
manufacturers'  association  and  the  union  competed  out  of  business  by  those 
outside,  scab  shops,  so  to  say,  and  scab  unions  and  scab  men,  who  manufacture 
goods  cheaper  than  the  union  and  the  members  of  the  manufacturers'  associa- 
tion can,  and  therefore  defeat  the  whole  arrangement,  and  I  feel  that  there 
ought  to  be  made  an  effort  on  the  part  of  the  manufacturers'  association  and 
the  union  to  get  the  States  a  party  to  this  arrangement,  to  have  the  law  give 
preference  to  this  agreement,  to  establish  insurance,  out  of  work  benefits,  and 
sick  benefits,  and  have  the  State  be  a  party  to  these  agreements  and  pro- 
visions. As  it  is  now,  there  is  danger  of  it  being  competed  out  of  business, 
and  we  now  have  strikes  in  New  York  with  men  who  are  not  members  of 
the  manufacturers'  association  applying  to  the  manufacturers'  association, 
cheaper  than  the  members  of  the  manufacturers'  association,  working  with 
nonunion  men ;  and  you  can  get  members  of  the  union  to  become  nonunion  if 
a  man  is  starving  and  you  offer  him  a  job ;  so  that  there  is  a  serious  position 
established  by  that  situation  to  the  wrhole  arrangement,  to  the  protocol  agree- 
ment, the  manufacturers'  association,  and  the  union,  and  everything  else.  I 
feel  that  the  union  and  the  association  of  manufacturers  have  go  to  work 
hand  in  hand,  and  that  the  State  ought  to  help  them  on  that.  As  it  is,  the  only 
answer  on  this  is  violence,  so  far  as  I  can  see.  The  union  does  not  want  to 
see  these  other  men  take  their  jobs,  and  there  is  no  way  by  which  they  can 
stop  it,  except  violence,  and  they  fight,  and  the  condition  of  violence  and  the 
condition  of  peace  in  the  industry  do  not  seem  to  work  hand  in  hand ;  so 
that  I  am  in  favor  of  the  State  becoming  a  party  to  these  industrial  agree- 
ments. The  State  does  indorse  labor  unions. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Officially? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Well,  in  a  certain  sense  they  are  recognized.  It  is  not  of- 
ficially ;  no.  It  ought  to  be. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr.  Bisno,  I  will  ask  Mr.  Delano  to  ask  yon  any 
questions  that  he  wants  to  ask  you. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  think  you  have  pretty  nearly  answered  it.  but 
what  I  wanted  to  ask  you  was.  whether  in  your  judgment  it  was  necessary  in 
order  to  make  trade  agreements  effective  that  the  manufacturers  should  bo 
organized  so  that  they  would  act  in  cooperation? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes;  I  really  believe  that  the  manufacturer  ought  to  feel  as 
strongly  against  the  scab  manufacturer  as  the  union  men  feel  against  scab 
workers,  because  this  unlimited  competition  destroys  the  manufacturers. 


m< 

E1-" 
i 


TBADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  585 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Do  you  think  that  organization  ought  to  go  to  the 
extent,  even,  of  allowing  the  manufacturers'  organization  to  fix  prices  subject 
to  State  supervision? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Oh,  yes;  I  believe  that  within  reason  the  thing  ought  to  be 
controlled,  so  that  the  meanest  of  us  do  not  get  the  advantage. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  How  would  you  get  any  of  the  manufacturers 
into  the  association?  What  method  of  procedure  would  you  follow  to  bring 
that  end  about? 

Mr.  BISNO.  I  think  that  the  union  ought  to  be  made  to  see  that  it  is  for  the 
benefit  of  the  union  to  have  the  manufacturers'  association  increase  in  strength, 
and  the  union  can  help  with  that  materially. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Do  you  mean  by  the  union  men  refusing  to  work 
for  an  employer  who  is  not  a  member  of  the  association? 

Mr.  BISNO.  The  union  can  bring  the  same  sort  of  purpose  into  this.  You  see, 
you  could  not  enforce  it  offhand,  but  the  union  can  help  a  manufacturer  to  get 
out  of  business  if  he  is  not  a  member  of  the  manufacturers'  association. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  Let  me  understand  that.  What  percentage  of  the  workers 
are  organized  in  New  York? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Almost  all  of  them ;  about  95  per  cent  of  them. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  About  95  per  cent.  Then,  the  matter,  from  the  standpoint 
you  now  make,  is  really  in  the  hands  of  the  workers?  They  could  control? 

Mr.  BISNO.  The  manufacturers  themselves  have  a  little  clique  among  them- 
selves, and  they  do  not  want  the  other  fellows  to  get  in  and  get  the  benefit. 

Mr.  WEINSTOCK.  But  by  simply  saying  to  the  employers  that  they  will 
not  work  for  any  man  who  is  not  a  member  of  the  association,  just  as 
they  say  to  the  employers,  "  You  must  not  employ  men  who  are  not  members 
of  our  union  " — that  is,  they  must  join  at  a  certain  time — would  not  that  force 
the  manufacturers  into  the  association? 

Mr.  BISNO.  It  would  help  matters. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then,  it  is  up  to  the  union,  rather  than  up  to  the 
manufacturers? 

Mr.  BISNO.  It  is  up  to  a  mutual  understanding. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Were  you  here  yesterday  when  Mr.  Frey  testified? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  recall  what  he  said  about  arbitration — that 
he  did  not  think  that  arbitration,  in  the  sense  of  having  an  umpire,  was  wise 
or  desirable? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  agree  with  that? 

Mr.  BISNO.  No ;  I  do  not  agree  with  that.    I  do  not  agree  with  his  view. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  do  not? 

Mr.  BISNO.  No;  I  think  he  is  wrong. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think  he  is  in  error? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  that  it  is  essential  to  have  arbitration  with 
n  umpire  to  maintain  industrial  peace? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes.     I  think  at  least  that  power  ought  to  be  there.     I  feel  like 

r.  Brandeis  does,  that  that  power  ought  not  to  be  used  easily  or  indiscrimi- 

tely,  because  it  is  difficult  to  make  industrial  legislation.  It  is  a  new  field 
•of  human  endeavor,  and  we  are  very  much  inexperienced  in  that.  It  is  much 
more  complicated  than  social  legislation  or  civil  legislation.  But  each  side 
knows  that  there  is  somebody  who,  when  they  pass  a  certain  line  in  equity,  a 
ertain  line  in  thought,  has  the  power  to  act,  and  they  guide  their  own  conduct 
n  the  light  of  what  they  can  see  this  fellow  is  doing  and  is  saying  and  they 

n  agree.  But  if  they  feel  that  if  the  other  fellow  has  a  momentary  advantage, 
e  will  make  use  of  it — 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  These  two  arguments  have  been  offered,  pro  and 
con,  for  and  against  the  use  of  an  umpire.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  contended 
that  having  a  board  of  arbitrators  or  conciliators  will  shift  the  responsibility 
to  the  board  of  arbitrators,  and  will  therefore  delay  action ;  that  rather  than 
yield  a  point  which  might  make  them  unpopular  with  either  side,  they  would 
prefer  to  let  that  be  done  by  the  board  of  arbitrators,  so  that  they  will  be 
held  blameless  by  their  organization  or  the  bodies  that  they  represent.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  has  been  maintained  that  the  very  fact  of  there  being  a  board 
of  arbitration  would  tend  to  lead  the  conciliators  to  agree,  believing  that  they 
could  get  better  results  among  themselves,  and  that  they  might  not  fare  so  well 


ui  aruiira 
could  get 


586          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION"    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

at  the  hands  of  a  board  of  arbitration  as  if  they  had  adjusted  the  difficulties 
among  themselves. 

Mr.  BISNO.  The  first  argument  that  you  say  is  against  it,  in  my  opinion  is 
for  it.  Here  is  the  situation.  I  represent  the  workmen,  we  will  say,  and  you 
represent  the  employers. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  BISNO.  The  workmen  say,  "We  want  to  have  8  hours."  The  employers 
say,  "  We  want  to  have  10  hours."  If  I  should  say  to  you,  "  Let  us  split  it  in 
half  and  make  it  9  hours,"  I  lose  my  job.  If  you  say  to  me,  "  Let  us  split  it  in 
half  and  make  it  9  hours,"  you  lose  your  job.  The  result  of  it  is  that  I  say 
to  you,  "  I  will  stick  to  8  hours,"  and  you  say  to  me,  "  I  will  stick  to  10  hours," 
and  then  we  go  out  and  fight.  Then  we  put  in  the  third  man  to  pass  on  it. 
and  you  get  somebody  to  unload  your  troubles  on  and  I  get  somebody  to  unload 
my  troubles  on. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  The  responsibility  is  shifted. 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  And  the  third  man  becomes  the  goat,  as  the  say- 
ing is? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes;  and  the  shifting  of  the  responsibility  becomes,  in  the  very 
nature  of  things,  an  aid  instead  of  a  hindrance,  to  stop  us  from  fighting.  So 
that  when  they  say  they  find  fault  with  the  arbitrator,  because  we  unload  our 
troubles,  I  find  that  very  argument  in  favor  of  having  an  arbitrator. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  favor  of  having  an  umpire? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes ;  as  the  most  substantial  argument  in  favor  of  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  becomes  a  perfect  safety  valve  for  both  sides? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  prefer  to  submit  written  questions  to  all  these 
witnesses.  There  are  a  great  many  things  upon  which  I  desire  information, 
and  I  do  not  care  to  go  into  them  now. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  want  to  hear  Mr.  Cohen,  but  there  are  one  or 
two  questions  that  I  would  like  to  ask  you  with  reference  to  whether  the  union 
itself  does  not  scab  on  other  unionists  by  going  to  work  for  these  nonassociation 
shops  at  lower  prices  than  it  works  for  the  association  shops? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes;  as  to  the  standard  for  pieceworkers,  and  in  some  shops  in 
the  association  we  work  for  more  and  in  some  shops  out  of  the  association  we 
work  for  less,  and  vice  versa. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Apparently  your  recommendation  goes  no  further 
than  to  put  it  up  to  the  employers.  You  say  to  the  employers,  "All  of  you 
get  together  and  then  expel  a  man  who  does  not  live  up  to  the  association 
standards."  On  the  other  hand,  that  man  would  just  as  soon  be  expelled  on 
account  of  refusing  to  live  up  to  that  standard,  because  the  union  itself  has 
no  standards. 

Mr.  BISNO.  I  have  suggested  that  the  manufacturers'  association  and  the 
union  establish  a  system  of  experts  and  establish  those  standards,  and  that 
they  be  enforced  by  everybody,  members  of  the  association  and  nonmeinbers  of 
the  association. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  According  to  that,  then,  the  union  could  go  ahead 
and  enforce  it  on  nonassociation  members,  even  though  the  association  was 
not  strong  enough  to  bring  in  those  members? 

Mr.  BISNO.  That  is  it.  Yes;  that  is  exactly  how  we  did.  The  truth  is  thai- 
there  has  worked  out  a  condition  of  those  matters  where  the  members  of  the 
manufacturers'  association  themselves  helped  the  nonmembers  of  the  manu- 
facturers' association,  and  defeated  the  purposes  of  the  union,  by  way  of  sub- 
manufacturers,  and  so  forth. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  How  large  a  committee  would  this  price-fixing  com- 
mittee have  to  be? 

Mr.  BISNO.  We  have  figured  it  at  about  50  men. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  How  many  prices  do  you  have  to  fix  in  the  New 
York  protocol  each  year? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Hundreds  of  thousands.  We  figure  that  about  50  men  could  do 
the  work. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Twenty -five  on  each  side,  you  mean? 

Mr.  BISNO.  No ;  about  50  on  each  side. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  One  hundred  men  would  have  to  be  on  the  price- 
fixing  committee,  then? 

Mr.  BISNO.  I  think,  in  the  course  of  time  it  would  work  out  so  that  one 
man  on  each  side  could  do  it,  by  arranging  a  certain  standard.  The  expert 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  587 

should  be  a  man  who  would  be  able  to  say  how  long  it  \vould  take  to  make 
a  given  garment,  so  that  the  price  of  that  garment  could  be  determined  in 
accordance  with  the  rule  laid  down  on  the  earning  capacity. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Suppose  that  one  man  has  200,000  new  garments 
to  consider. 

Mr.  BISNO.  We  will  say,  then,  that  50  men  can  do  that  work,  or  100  men. 
I  figured  that  about  50  men  would  be  able  to  do  that  work. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  According  to  that,  they  would  have  to  increase  their 
dues  and  expenses  high  enough  to  pay  for  50  men  on  each  side? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  They  would  be  doing  productive  work,  however. 

Mr.  BISNO.  The  union  has  enough  money,  and  it  would  be  so  much  saving. 
To-day  we  have  in  every  shop  five  men  and  there  is  so  much  haggling  and 
bargaining  now  because  it  is  not  done  on  expert  knowledge,  and  it  costs  our 
men  probably  $5,  where  it  should  cost  us  5  cents,  in  making  the  price. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Does  the  union  pay  its  shop  committee  for  the  time 
lost*  in  this  price  fixing  at  present? 

Mr.  BISNO.  No.  Sometimes  it  does  and  sometimes  it  does  not.  It  depends 
upon  the  nature  of  the  shop. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Well,  it  is  a  loss,  anyway? 

Mr.  BISNO.  Yes;  it  is  a  loss,  whether  the  union  pays  the  committee  or  not. 
The  men  lose  the  time. 

Commissioner  HAKRIMAN.  There  is  one  question  I  wanted  to  ask,  although 
perhaps  you  have  answered  it  already :  What  is  being  done  about  the  members 
of  the  manufacturers'  association  who  go  and  buy  from  nonassociation  shops? 

Mr.  BISNO.  So  far  we  have  no  answer  to  that.  We  have  been  trying  to  solve 
that  question.  If  a  real  price  committee  is  established,  to  settle  all  these  prices, 
we  will  try  to  amend  the  agreement  with  the  manufacturers  to  consider  every 
place  they  buy  as  a  contractor,  and  hold  him  responsible  for  the  same  condi- 
tions that  prevail  in  his  shop.  To-day,  really,  every  manufacturer  has  it 
within  his  power  to,  and  does,  violate  the  provisions  of  the  agreement  by 
having  a  contractor  make  the  work  for  him  where  it  runs  less  than  what 
the  agreement  provides  for,  and  he  calls  that  buying,  submanufacturing,  and 
so  on ;  but  it  is  violating  the  provisions  of  the  agreement,  and  it  is  being  done 
very  extensively  in  this  form  of  buying. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JULIUS  HENRY  COHEN— Recalled. 

Mr.  COHEN.  I  am  very  sorry  that  the  commission  has  gone  into  matters  that 
are  clearly  debatable  and  involve  careful  inquiry  as  to  the  facts ;  first  of  all,  as 
to  this  matter  of  buying  merchandise.  Mr.  Bisno  has  made  a  contention,  and 
other  people  have  made  contentions,  and  those  contentions  are  now  being  con- 
sidered by  the  board  of  arbitration  in  the  industry,  and  I  regard  it  as  utterly 
.unfair  to  give  any  impressions  of  unfair  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  manufac- 
turers with  regard  to  it,  when  the  only  way  of  determining  the  facts  is  by 
careful  investigation  into  them. 

For  example,  Mr.  Bisno's  statements  with  regard  to  the  number  of  deadlocks 
was  a  chart  made  before  the  board  of  arbitration  over  a  year  ago,  as  a  result 
of  which  Mr.  Winslow,  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  was  directed  to  make  a 
complete  study  and  investigation,  and  his  report  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the 
printer,  and  I  assume  will  be  considered  by  you.  I  have  seen  the  reports  and 
the  facts  show  that  there  has  not  been  any  such  number  of  deadlocks,  nor  any 
such  difficulty  as  the  representatives  of  the  union  have  argued  before  the  board 
of  arbitration. 

By  way  of  illustration,  in  the  dress  and  waist  protocol,  which  I  know  all 
about,  they  have  no  committee  on  immediate  action  there.  Miss  Israels  is  in 
charge  of  the  labor  department  of  the  association,  and  Mr.  Pollocks  and 
Mr.  Zimmerman  for  the  union;  and  they  get  along  without  any  deadlocks  and 
without  any  committee  on  immediate  action  and  without  any  umpire,  at  the 
present  time.  Only  one  case  has  gone  to  the  board  of  arbitration. 

I  want,  upon  the  record,  to  deny  that  there  has  been  any  bribing  of  price 
committees  or  attempts  at  bribing  that  the  association  has  known  about.  There 
was  a  case  of  a  shop  chairman,  where  the  employer  tried  to  bribe  the  chairman, 
and  upon  a  disclosure  of  the  facts  he  was  expelled  from  the  association. 

Any  suggestion  that  there  is  any  chance  of  bribing  the  price  committees  in 
the  association  shops  is  a  slander  that  you  ought  not  to  permit  to  get  upon 
your  records — certainly  without  my  denial  being  made,  in  my  presence. 


588          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

In  the  next  place,  I  think  that  any  suggestion  made  to  this  commission  that 
the  only  alternative  to  a  peace  agreement,  a  collective  agreement,  is  the  use  of 
violence,  is  a  suggestion  that  should,  least  of  all,  be  made  by  a  representative 
of  a  labor  organization. 

Mr.  Bisno  has  stated  here  that  he  did  not  see  any  remedy  for  the  situation 
unless  the  association  took  in  everybody  except  for  the  union  to  use  violence. 

Certainly  I  can  not  listen  to  that  without  expressing  my  protest.  The  process 
is  a  process  of  education  of  the  working  people.  There  is  a  great  problem  in 
the  dress  and  waist  industry  to  get  the  girls  to  join  the  union.  The  girls  join 
the  union  reluctantly.  It  is  to  be  done  by  a  process  that  the  trade-unions  in 
this  country  have  followed  for  years,  of  educating  the  people  to  the  value  of 
trade-unions. 

As  to  the  proposition  that  the  association  has  some  kind  of  a  clique  or 
monopoly;  that  is  absurd.  There  has  never  been  a  single  manufacturer  who 
has  applied  for  membership  in  the  association  who  has  been  rejected,  so  far 
as  I  know. 

The  association  has  made  the  condition  that  he  must  have  a  sanitary  certifi- 
cate from  the  board  of  sanitary  control  to  show  that  he  maintains  the  sanitary 
standards  required ;  but,  as  has  already  been  observed  by  the  members  of  this 
commission,  membership  in  this  association  involves  an  expense.  It  costs 
money  to  keep  up  the  method  of  sanitary  control,  to  keep  up  the  board  of 
arbitration.  The  wage-scale  inquiry  in  the  dress  and  waist  industry  alone 
cost  $40,000,  of  which  the  association  contributed  one-half  and  the  union  one- 
half.  Every  one  of  these  statistical  investigations  costs  money.  No  man  can 
join  the  association  unless  he  is  ready  and  prepared  to  pay  his  dues,  to  pay 
has  share  of  the  dues.  In  the  dress  and  waist  association  there  is  an  endeavor 
made  to  equalize  the  obligations  according  to  the  amount  of  business  or  the 
number  of  machines  a  man  has.  I  have  never  yet,  until  it  was  suggested  here 
to-day,  heard  that  there  was  any  effort  on  the  part  of  any  of  the  employers'  asso- 
ciations in  New  York  to  monopolize  the  employers  or  to  keep  them  in  the  group. 
The  whole  effort  seems  to  be  on  the  part  of  gentlemen  who  think,  as  the 
previous  witness  does,  to  impose  upon  the  employers'  association  the  whole  duty 
of  establishing  conditions  throughout  the  industry.  In  other  words,  they  find 
the  collective  agreement  works  so  well  in  its  operation  upon  members  of  an 
employers'  association  that  they  want  every  employer  to  join  the  employers' 
association. 

The  reason  for  that  is  that  if  a  man  is  caught  not  observing  the  protocol  he 
is  disciplined  by  his  own  association.  It  is  a  great  deal  easier  to  discipline  a 
member  of  the  association  through  the  association  than  to  conduct  a  strike 
against  one  who  is  not  a  member  of  the  organization.  The  great  labor  which 
has  been  entailed  upon  the  officers  of  the  two  employers'  associations  has  been 
such  as  nearly  to  break  down. the  health  of  some  of  the  officers,  because  of  the 
immense  amount  of  time  they  have  had  to  put  in  on  committees  of  discipline 
and  the  like.  The  effort  is  now  to  see  to  it  that  the  machinery  provided  under 
the  protocol  takes  the  place  of  that. 

I  should  regret  very  much  to  see  any  impression  created  here  that  there  are 
great  violations  of  the  protocol  in  the  buying  of  merchandise.  Do  not  forget 
that  the  nonmember  of  the  association  can  buy  his  merchandise  as  he  pleases, 
and  the  jobber  can  buy  his  merchandise  as  he  pleases ;  and  any  restriction  upon 
the  members  of  our  association  in  buying  merchandise  will  simply  mean  that 
they  will,  resign  from  the  association  and  become  jobbers  of  merchandise.  If 
it  is  so  important  to  the  union  to  keep  up  our  association  by  increasing  its 
membership,  it  is  important  for  us  to  keep  our  present  members  in  the  asso- 
ciation. You  can  not  limit  a  manufacturer  to  buying  lines  which  he  does  not 
make  himself  in  order  to  fill  the  orders  of  his  customers.  However,  that  is  a 
matter  that  is  controversial,  and  is  now  pending  before  the  board  of  arbitra- 
tion ;  and,  in  my  judgment,  nothing  should  have  been  introduced  into  the 
records  of  this  commission  of  that  kind,  because  I  understand  that  we  are  here 
not  to  try  the  issues  that  may  have  arisen  under  the  protocol,  but  to  consider 
the  question  of  the  value  of  collective  bargaining,  mediation,  conciliation,  and 
arbitration. 

I  regret  very  much  that  it  becomes  necessary  for  me  to  take  up  these  con- 
troversial matters  and  record  my  protest  and  my  exception  to  some  of  the 
statements  of  fact  that  have  been  made  here. 

Commissioner  O'CONNKLL.  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question 

Mr.  COHEN.  Just  one  more  thing  first,  please. 


TKADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  589 

I  also  want  to  protest  against  the  proposition  advanced  by  the  previous  wit- 
ness, that  the  union  should  be  authorized  by  law,  or  approved  by  law,  to  tell 
a  manufacturer  to  get  out  of  business  if  he  does  not  join  the  employers'  asso- 
ciation. I  think  that  is  not  only  illegal,  as  involving  a  conspiracy,  but  that  it 
is  un-American.  It  is  just  as  un-American  as  compelling  a  worker  to  get  out 
of  the  industry  because  he  does  not  belong  to  his  association. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  For  the  benefit  of  the  record,  what  is  meant  in  the 
protocol,  or  in  the  arrangement  you  have  in  New  York,  with  a  preferential 
shop? 

Mr.  COHEN.  Exactly  what  is  stated  in  the  protocol.  The  words  were  care- 
fully devised  to  meet  a  situation.  I  can  not  quote  the  exact  words,  but 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Give  us  your  interpretation  of  them,  then. 

Mr.  COHEN.  I  do  not  want  to  give  you  my  interpretation  of  them;  I  want 
to  give  the  exact  words.-  As  nearly  as  I  can  recall  them,  they  are  that  in  hiring 
help  the  employer  gives  the  preference  to  union  men,  but  without  any  order 
among  union  men — not  obliged  to  follow  any  list — and  the  clause  expressly 
recognizes  that  there  are  differences  of  degree  of  skill.  It  respected  existing 
obligations  to  nonunion  men  at  the  time  of  the  signing  of  the  protocol,  and  it 
also  provides  that  the  employer  agrees  to  maintain  a  union  shop,  meaning 
thereby,  as  the  language  expressly  states,  a  shop  in  which  union  conditions 
of  hours  and  labor  prevail ;  and  the  employer  also  is  to  state  that  he  recognizes 
the  moral  obligation  on  the  part  of  his  workers  to  carry  the  burdens  for  the 
institutions  that  are  for  the  benefit  of  his  associates. 

In  actual  practice  that  means,  Mr.  O'Connell,  that  the  employer  assists  the 
union  in  unionizing  the  shop,  because  it  is  made  clear  to  the  union  employee 
that  the  employer  belongs  to  an  association  that  is  working  in  cooperation  with 
the  union,  and  that  the  employer  prefers  to  have  union  people  in  his  employ; 
but  it  means  that  the  shop  is  open  to  anybody  and  the  union  is  open  to  anybody 
who  wants  to  come  into  the  industry  and  is  competent  to  do  the  work;  and 
the  implication  of  it  is  that  the  union  must  maintain  reasonable  dues  and 
reasonable  initiation  fees,  so  that  they  can  not  keep  anybody  out.  There  has 
never  been  any  question  about  that  at  all,  because  this  union  has  always  been 
an  open  union  in  that  sense. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  case  of  a  reduction  of  force  the  union  man 
would  be  given  preference  as  to  retainment? 

Mr.  COHEN.  That  is  the  basis  in  a  great  many  shops,  but  I  do  not  understand 
that  that  is  the  necessary  interpretation  of  the  protocol. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And,  in  the  reinstatement  of  men,  with  the  picking 
up  of  business,  union  men  get  the  preference? 

Mr.  COHEN.  That  is  the  basis,  but  it  is  not  a  necessary  interpretation  of  the 
protocol. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  your  interpretation  of  what  is  commonly  known 
as  the  open  shop,  wrould  you  consider  that  an  open  shop? 

Mr.  COHEN.  No,  sir ;  that  is  not  an  open  shop.  An  open  shop  is  where  the 
employer  takes  in  anybody  that  comes  along,  regardless  of  his  affiliations  with 
the  union.  May  I  say  this,  in  further  amplification 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  just  wanted  to  get  that,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
record,  because  some  statements  have  been  made  here  in  regard  to  open  shops. 

Mr.  COHEN.  I  want  to  say,  in  amplification  of  the  record,  that  where  the 
protocol  works,  where  the  collective  agreement  works,  the  manufacturer  finds 
an  advantage  in  having  piactically  all  of  his  shop  unionized,  because  then  he 
has  the  discipline  of  the  union  to  enforce  against  its  members.  But  where 
the  union  is  arbitrary,  where  it  makes  unreasonable  demands  through  its  com- 
mittees upon  the  employers;  you  have  the  manufacturers  not  keen  about  get- 
ting their  men  to  join  the  union.  Where  the  union  operates  as  Mr.  Schaffner 
describes  it  did  operate  in  Chicago,  with  a  man  who  understood  the  spirit 
of  collective  agreement,  the  result  is  that  the  shops  become  practically  thor- 
oughly unionized,  with  a  very  candid  and  frank  cooperation  of  the  employer 
himself — not  by  collecting  dues  or  bringing  any  pressure  to  bear,  but  by  simply 
letting  it  be  known  that  he  actually  prefers  to  have  union  men  in  his  shop. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  But  in  the  case  of  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx,  they 
have  absolutely  union  men;  nobody  can  work  in  the  department  but  a  union 
man. 

Mr.  COHEN.  I  did  not  understand  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Perhaps  Mr.  Schaffner  will  answer  that  question, 
or  Prof.  Howard. 


590          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Prof.  HOWARD.  That  will  be  brought  out  later/ Mr.  Chairman. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Yes.     I  want  to  ask  a  question  about  that,  later. 

Mr.  COHEN.  There  is  one  other  thing  that  I  omitted,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  that 
is  with  regard  to  the  piece-price  experts. 

Mr.  Bisno  has  overlooked  the  fact  that  six  months  ago  there  was  created 
a  piece-price  division  of  the  board  of  grievances,  with  experts  to  settle  these 
questions,  controversies  in  the  shop.  That  is  in  operation;  and  in  the  dress 
and  waist  industry  we  have  a  wage  scale  board  now  in  operation  that  is  set- 
tling these  prices.  The  real  problem  is  not  in  getting  people  to  go  to  the  shops 
and  settle  piece  prices,  but  to  have  a  standard  by  which  anybody  settling  prices 
can  be  governed.  That  is  the  economic  problem ;  that  has  not  been  solved,  and 
can  not  be  by  the  creation  of  any  legal  institution.  What  has  been  done  is 
what  Dr.  Stone  is  doing  now  in  the  dress  and  waist  industry,  to  see  whether 
it  is  possible  to  standardize  the  prices  for  making  women's  garments,  in  the 
way  in  which  prices  have  been  standardized  by  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  in 
the  making  of  men's  garments. 

The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  standardizing  prices  for  women's  garments  are 
that  the  styles  vary,  and  vary  with  such  rapidity  that  that  constitutes  an  in- 
herent difficulty  in  this  industry.  The  real  problem  is  not  the  problem  of  find- 
ing the  experts,  because  that  is  under  way  now.  The  real  problem  is  to  find 
the  things  by  which  the  experts  shall  be  guided.  That  is  the  problem.  That 
is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  the  protocol,  and  is  not  caused  by  the  protocol  any 
more  than  slavery  was  caused  by  the  Federal  Constitution.  It  exists  in  the 
industry. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  that  a  problem?  Your  unit  is  a  question  of 
time;  is  it  not  easy  to  take  time  as  the  yardstick  and  determine  the  value? 

Mr.  COHEN.  That  means  the  time  basis  is  the  solution? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  COHEN.  Neither  the  union  nor  the  manufacturers  are  willing  to  put  the 
time  basis  in  operation.  Pieceworkers  making  $60  to  $75  in  the  height  of  the 
season  do  not  want  to  go  on  a  time  basis  of  $30  a  week. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  are  using  the  words  "  time  basis  "  in  a  differ- 
ent sense ;  not  in  the  sense  of  payment  by  the  week,  or  by  the  day,  but — 
.    Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  length  of  time  it  takes  to  do  the  piece  of 
work. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  By  the  time  clock  or  by  the  watch? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Do  you  measure  the  time  by  each  operation?  Do 
you  do  that  in  any  way? 

Mr.  COHEN.  You  can  not  do  that  because  of  this  reason:  The  moment  you 
work  on  a  time  operation — to  pay  so  much  per  hour  for  the  work,  which  is  what 
we  call  a  time  rate — they  want  to  introduce  the  time  rate.  Take,  for  example, 
in  the  dress  and  waist  industry ;  you  have  to-day  a  testing  system,  which  is 
based  upon  the  theory  of  the  estimated  number  of  hours  it  will  take  to  make  the 
garment  at  30  cents  per  hour.  In  other  words,  a  new  waist  comes  into  the  shop. 
You  are  the  boss  and  I  am  on  the  price  committee.  We  try  to  figure  out  how 
much  it  would  take  to  get  an  ordinary  operator  to  make  the  garment  and  we 
multiply  the  number  of  hours  by  30  cents,  and  that  is  the  price.  It  does  not 
work,  and  the  reason  it  does  not  work  is  because  neither  you  nor  I  can  esti- 
mate with  sufficient  accuracy  the  number  of  hours  to  be  used.  It  is  impossible 
to  make  a  guess  that  will  be  satisfactory.  It  is  an  illustration  of  what  was 
remarked  by  Mr.  Bisno  in  describing  conciliation  versus  arbitration;  you  lose 
your  job  if  you  are  too  high  for  the  boss  and  I  lose  my  job  if  I  am  too  low  for 
the  workers.  No ;  the  time  solution  is  not  the  solution.  The  solution  is,  in  my 
judgment — I  am  not  an  expert  on  it  at  all — along  the  lines  established  by  Hart, 
Schaffner  &  Marx  in  connection  with  their  manufacture  of  men's  clothing.  I 
think  they  have  gotten  down  to  the  point  where  there  are  500  operations  in 
the  making  of  some  of  their  garments. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  I  think  it  was  150  or  160. 

Mr.  COHEN.  That  is  enough ;  150  or  160  operations.  It  is  like  the  system  in 
England  in  the  men's  tailoring  industry,  which  is  on  the  same  general  principle. 
I  am  not  giving  accurate  figures,  but  it  is  estimated  that  a  good  operator  will 
take  an  hour  to  set  in  a  sleeve.  All  right ;  it  is  paid  on  the  basis  of  a  standard 
rate,  and  if  the  man  does  it  in  half  the  time  he  makes  a  profit  on  it,  and  if 
it  takes  twice  the  time  to  do  it  he  makes  less.  But  the  difficulty  is,  taking 
women's  garments,  with  the  changes  of  styles,  to  do  it  in  such  a  way  as  to 
make  a  proper  rate — and  that  is  a  job  for  the  economist  and  the  efficiency 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  591 

engineer — and  the  man  does  not  live  who  can  solve  that  problem ;  and  because 
of  that  we  have  the  constant  fight  to  find  the  basis  on  which  that  shall  be  done. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Just  a  question  on  the  definition.  According  to  the 
definition,  preferential  shops  may  be  either  union  shops  or  open  shops? 

Mr.  COHEN.  Well,  you  will  have  to  define  "  union "  and  you  will  have  to 
define  "  open." 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  A  union  shop  would  be  one  in  which,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  all  of  the  employees  are  members  of  the  union. 

Mr.  COHEN.  That  is  not  our  understanding  of  a  union  shop.  The  definition 
of  a  union  shop,  according  to  the  protocol,  is  one  where  union  conditions  and 
hours  and  conditions  of  labor  prevail  and  where  the  employer  gives  the  prefer- 
ence to  union  men.  That  is  the  definition  in  the  protocol  of  a  union  shop. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Yes ;  but  the  ordinary  meaning  of  "  union  shop " 
in  the  contest  between  employers  and  employees,  as  it  has  been  defined  to  us 
by  the  unions  here,  is  that  they  stand  for  a  union  shop,  namely,  that  a  man 
may  be  admitted  to  the  shop  as  a  nonunionist,  but  in  the  course  of  time  he  must 
recognize  his  obligation  to  pay  dues  and  support  the  organization. 

Now  that,  according  to  your  practice  there,  would  come  out  much  the  same 
as  the  preferential  shop ;  that  the  employer  would  let  it  be  known  that  he  pre- 
ferred to  have  union  men,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  would  all  come  into 
the  union? 

Mr.  COHEN.  The  effect  may  be  the  same,  but  the  difference  is  a  vital  differ- 
ence. It  is  a  difference  of  method.  In  one  case  the  union  man  says,  "  I  will 
not  work  by  the  side  of  a  nonunion  man  " ;  and  when  that  is  carried  out  as  a 
general  policy  in  an  industry,  as  it  was  sought  to  be  in  the  cloak  strike  of 
1910,  it  is  illegal,  and  it  should  be  illegal. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  not  that  be  properly  called  a  closed  shop, 
where  the  union  says  they  will  not  work  with  a  man  who  is  not  a  member  of 
the  union?  The  employer  then  must  make  his  choice  between  all  union  men  or 
all  nonunion  men.  Would  not  that  be  a  closed  shop? 

Mr.  COHEN.  I  think  what  you  described  before  is  a  closed  shop,  because  if 
it  is  only  a  question  of  an  hour  or  a  week  before  the  man  shall  become  a  union 
man,  the  result  is  exactly  the  same.  The  union  man  says,  "After  a  certain 
interval  of  time,  I  will  not  work  in  this  shop  with  a  nonunion  man."  In  the 
preferential  shop  the  nonunion  man  is  not  under  any  pressure  at  all.  The  union 
man  does  not  say,  "  I  will  not  work  in  the  shop  with  a  nonunion  man."  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  to-day  we  have  old  men  in  the  cloak  industry  who  have  not 
joined  the  union  since  the  strike  of  1910,  and  they  are  not  coerced  into  joining 
the  union,  and  nobody  forces  them  to  join  the  union,  and  the  union  leaders  do 
not  try  to  force  them  to  join  the  union.  They  say,  "We  do  not  want  to  join 
the  union,"  and  nobody  forces  them  to. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  understand  from  Mr.  Schaffner  that  in  some 
cases  about  40  per  cent  of  the  employees  were  not  members  of  the  union  and, 
yet,  that  is  a  preferential  shop.  Would  you  call  such  a  situation  as  that  an 
open  shop? 

Mr.  COHEN.  No;  not  an  open  shop.  It  is  an  open  shop  in  this  sense,  that 
anybody  can  come  in ;  but  it  is  not  an  open  shop  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
trade  unionists  use  the  term.  In  this  dress-waist  industry,  where  there  has 
been  some  difficulty  experienced  in  retaining  their  girls  in  the  union  and  in 
getting  them  to  join  the  union,  there  are  a  substantial  number  of  shops  where 
the  number  of  union  members  is  in  a  minority  instead  of  a  majority.  There  is 
all  the  difference  in  the  world  between  the  method  of  coercion  and  the  method 
of  education.  The  theory  of  the  protocol  is  that  a  man  joins  the  union  because 
he  is  made  to  believe  that  it  is  his  moral  duty  to  belong  to  the  union  and  help 
to  support  the  institution.  In  the  other  case  he  is  made  to  believe  that  he 
can  not  live  in  the  industry  unless  he  joins  the  union.  There  is  all  the  differ- 
ence in  the  world  there ;  and  there  is  the  difference  in  the  strike  of  1910 ;  and  if 
this  bridge  had  not  been  found,  there  never  would  have  been  this  agreement 
between  the  workers  and  the  manufacturers. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  If  a  nonunion  man  has  a  grievance  in  a  shop, 

can  he  get  that  adjusted  just  as  fairly  and  as  promptly  as  a  union  man  can? 

Mr.  COHEN.  He  can  not  get  it  adjusted  through  the  machinery  of  the  union; 

and  he  has  not  the  right  to  have  it  adjusted  in  that  'way.     He  has  got  to  go 

and  take  it  up  directly  with  his  employer. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  see.     Then,  he  is  at  a  disadvantage? 
Mr.  COHEN.  He  is ;  and  should  be. 


592          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  tendency  of  the  protocol,  then,  is  to  lead  the 
men  into  the  union? 

Mr.  COHEN.  It  is. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  whole  machinery  tends  to  bring  them  into 
the  union — employer  and  employee? 

Mr.  COHEN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  forming  that  protocol,  did  you  have  any  special 
assistance  from  the  international  union? 

Mr.  COHEN.  In  forming  the  protocol  the  international  officers  negotiated  it. 
In  the  dress-waist  industry  the  international  officers  united  in  forming  the 
protocol. 

While  I  am  upon  this  point,  may  I  say  that  there  is  always,  of  course,  the 
difficulty  of  harmonizing  the  interests  of  the  local  with  the  interests  of  the 
international ;  but  it  is  my  judgment,  right  or  wrong,  that  it  is  more  desirable 
to  have  a  collective  agreement  with  an  international  organization,  with  leaders 
of  national  responsibility,  than  it  is  to  have  one  with  a  local,  and,  so  far  as 
my  acting  as  counsel  is  concerned,  I  would  never  advise  an  employers'  associa- 
tion to  sign  an  agreement  with  a  local. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  Is  the  action  of  the  union  decisive  in  the  handling  of 
that  situation,  and  is  there  a  sympathetic  strike  if  there  is  trouble  elsewhere? 

Mr.  COHEN.  No,  sir;  nothing  of  that  sort,  and  that  never  has  been  thought 
of  by  anybody. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  are  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Cohen.  We  want 
to  hear  Mr.  Howard  for  five  minutes,  now. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  Just  one  more  question.  You  stated  this  a  little 
while  ago  and  there  was  a  conflicting  statement  there,  and  I  could  not  get  this 
clear  in  my  mind.  On  the  one  hand,  you  seemed  to  think  that  it  was  a  mistake 
to  have  partisans  on  the  arbitration  board,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  you  pointed 
out  that  an  outsider  would  not  be  familiar  with  the  conditions  involved,  and 
could  not  pass  judgment  intelligently. 

Cr.  COHEN.  I  said  that  in  ray  judgment  the  bringing  in  of  outsiders  for  a 
specific  controversy  that  involved  conditions  of  the  trade  would  not  result  in 
success,  because  those  people  would  deal  with  the  situation  superficially;  but 
bringing  in  outsiders  and  constituting  them  a  permanent  tribunal,  as  we  do 
under  the  protocol,  with  Mr.  Brandeis  and  Mr.  Holder (?),  they  became  edu- 
cated and  know  the  importance  of  the  interests,  involved. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  EARL  DEAN  HOWARD — Recalled. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr.  Howard,  will  you  kindly  answer  one  or  two 
other  questions? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Professor,  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  an  impres- 
sion I  got  this  morning,  you  there  gave  it  as  your  opinion  that  the  shop  of  Hart, 
Schaffner  &  Marx  was  an  open  shop. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  I  believe  that  I  said  it  was  a  preferential  shop.  I  understood 
that  it  was  a  preferential  shop. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Will  you  put  in  the  record  what  you  understand  a 
preferential  shop  to  mean? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Our  first  agreement  came  to  an  end  a  year  ago-  last  spring, 
after  two  years,  and  there  was  great  controversy  on  that  point.  In  fact,  that 
was  the  only  controversy  that  was  really  difficult  in  getting  a  new  agreement 
for  three  years.  The  preferential  shop  is  defined  in  the  agreement  we  finally 
reached.  The  firm  agreed  to  this  principle  of  preference,  which  is  on  page  10 
of  the  little  book. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Yes;  I  have  it  here.  Let  me  ask  you  some  ques- 
tions. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Very  well. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  the  employment  of  people  for  the  firm,  are  union 
men  given  the  preference? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  If  there  are  union  men  available,  they  have  the  preference  of 
employment. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  apply  to  their  representative  or  agent  to  fur- 
nish the  men  if  he  can? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Our  custom  is  to  make  requisitions. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  the  reduction  of  your  force,  are  union  men  given 
the  preference?  Nonunion  men  are  laid  off  first? 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS  IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  593 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Wherever  it  is  necessary  to  make  a  permanent  reduction  of  the 
forces  we  divide  the  reduction  equally  during  the  slack  time,  and  where  it  is 
necessary  to  make  a  permanent  reduction  of  the  force  that  is  a  matter  that 
must  be  decided  by  the  deputies.  The  great  beauty  of  our  whole  arrangement 
is  its  flexibility.  This  matter  of  these  divisions,  lettered  A,  B,  C,  D,  and  so  on, 
which  you  find  in  the  agreement,  was  a  device  which  we  worked  out  to  assist 
the  chairman  of  the  trade  board  in  deciding  whether  sections  were  overcrowded, 
and  how  to  handle  them  if  they  were.  You  will  find  that  these  are,  however, 
only  temporary,  because  if  it  should  occur  that  the  people  in  class  A,  who  are 
supposed  to  consist  of  union  people,  should  determine  that  they  prefer  to  be 
nonunion,  it  wTould  authentically  become  a  nonunion  section.  It  is  not  a  per- 
manent thing,  so  that  you  can  not  say  that  those  sections  are  closed. 

It  provides  here,  in  another  section  below,  that  if  another  class  becomes 
organized  it  then  assumes  the  same  position  in  the  arrangement  as  does  class 
A,  and  it  becomes  union  at  once,  and  only  union  men  can  be  employed  in  that 
section ;  that  is,  providing  that  any  new  men  augment  the  section. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Is  this  preference,  in  terms  of  employment  and 
so  on,  in  any  way  in  conflict  writh  the  well-known  definition  of  an  open  shop? 

Mr.  HOWABD.  We  have  always  been  an  open  shop.  Under  the  present  agree- 
ment about  80  per  cent  of  the  coat  shops  are  nonunion  and  20  per  cent  union. 
The  trousers  shops  are  about  60  per  cent  union  and  40  per  cent  nonunion. 

The  beauty  of  the  whole  thing  is  its  flexibility.  A  great  many  people  who 
have  been  educated  to  the  point  where  they  would  become  good  unionists  do  not 
care  to.  Especially  among  Catholics  there  is  opposition  to  the  union  and  there 
is  opposition  to  it  by  the  parents  of  the  younger  girls,  because  they  do  not  care 
to  have  them  go  to  meetings  at  night. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  you  had  an  experience  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Yes;  frequently.  Those  matters  are  taken  into  account  with 
the  deputies  and  the  deputies  have  been  very  fair  about  it.  We  have  usually 
considered  these  things  on  the  rule  of  justice,  the  rule  of  reason,  and  we  have 
departed  frequently  from  the  letter  of  the  law,  by  mutual  consent,  because,  as 
I  have  said,  Mr.  Hillman  has  developed  a  very  high  sense  of  justice,  and  if 
we  can  find  that  in  a  particular  controversy  there  is  a  rule  of  justice  and  rea- 
son that  is  apparent  to  both  of  us  we  follow  that,  notwithstanding  the  letter 
of  the  law;  and  Mr.  Hillman's  influence  is  so  high  with  his  own  people  that 
he  can  explain  it  to  them,  and  his  explanation  is  accepted. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  reason  that  induces  men  to  go  into  the  union 
is  because  of  the  preference  they  get  in  their  positions,  and  the  preference  in 
treatment  they  get,  in  the  laying  off  of  men,  and  so  on.  Is  not  that  true? 

Mr.  HOWAED.  In  a  great  many  sections  it  is  not  necessary  to  lay  them  off 
in  the  summer  time. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Well,  not  that.  If  I  can  obtain  a  job  by  joining 
the  union,  I  will  naturally  do  so.  There  must  be  a  purpose  in  a  man  joining  a 
union. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  I  think  the  majority  of  the  sections  containing  men  who  are 
fairly  permanent  and  who  are  fairly  skilled  in  their  trade  will  become  union, 
and  as  soon  as  they  are  educated  so  as  they  understand  the  agreement,  and 
will  then  have  a  sense  of  justice  to  abide  by  the  rules. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  purpose  in  having  a  protocol,  an  agreement, 
or  whatever  you  may  call  it,  is  that  there  must  be  some  inducement  for  it. 
What  they  had  in  mind  must  have  been  to  lead  men  in  in  order  that  they  may 
deal  with  them  generally,  on  .some  plan  of  incorporation,  rather  than  indi- 
vidually. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  You  see,  this  whole  thing  has  been  a  matter  of  education. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Yes;  that  is  all. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Do  you  deal  only  with  the  representatives  of 
your  own  workers,  or  do  you  deal  with  the  representatives  of  the  federation? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  It  happens  that  the  representatives  of  our  own  workers  are 
the  only  representatives  with  whom  we  have  to  deal. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  You  do  not  deal  with  the  representatives  of  the 
national  association? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Not  at  all.  The  national  association  is  very  much  in  disfavor. 
Indeed,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  antagonism  between  the  local  organizations 
and  the  national  in  our  city. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  differ  in  that  with  Mr.  Cohen,  who  said  that 
he  would  not  advise  an  employer  to  negotiate  with  a  local.  You  negotiate 
only  with  the  local? 

38819°— 16 38 


594          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  How  do  you  get  the  highest  efficiency  from  non- 
pieceworkers? 

Mr.  HOWAKD.  The  piecework  system  itself  takes  care  of  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  it  all  piecework  in  your  business? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Wherever  it  is  possible.  Practically  95  per  cent  of  it  in  all 
the  sections. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  do  not  have  that  other  problem  to  deal  with? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  No. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Is  the  local  with  which  you  deal  affiliated  with  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Mr.  Hillman  can  answer  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  is,  in  the  international  department. 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Yes ;  they  sign  themselves  "  International  Garment  Workers 
of  America." 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Do  your  trade  committees  settle  troubles  in  which 
these  nonunion  men  may  be  involved? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  No.  The  representatives  of  the  employees,  the  real  representa- 
tives who  represent  the  unions,  have  nothing  to  do  with  nonunion  people.  They 
are  taken  care  of  by  the  Labor  Department.  The  Labor  Department  hears  all 
grievances  first  and  makes  an  effort  to  correct  all  of  them,  wherever  they  exist. 
They  correct  any  union  complaints  and  nonunion  complaints,  and  they  are  dis- 
posed of  in  the  same  way,  of  course,  and  there  is  no  appeal  for  the  nonunion 
man,  whereas  there  is  for  the  union  man. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  spoke  of  Mr.  Hillman  accomplishing  a  great  deal 
by  his  sense  of  justice.  I  got  the  impression  that  he  helps  out  in  the  case  of 
nonunion  as  well  as  union  men.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  Of  course,  Mr.  Hillman  is  a  very  liberal-minded  man.  We  have 
discussed  problems  concerning  nonunion  men  together. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  But  the  benefits  secured  by  the  union  men  are  se- 
cured also  by  the  nonunion  men,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  No;  only  to  this  extent:  A  complaint  comes  to  a  deputy  on 
either  side,  then  it  is  brought  to  me,  and  I  have  the  first  judicial  settlement 
of  it,  but  that  is  as  far  as  the  nonunion  man  can  go.  If  he  union  man  objects 
to  my  decision  he  can  go  to  the  trade  board,  and  if  he  objects  to  the  decision 
there  he  can  go  to  arbitration. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Suppose  you  make  an  increase  in  wages  of  10  per 
cent.  Do  you  give  that  to  the  nonunion  men? 

Mr.  HOWARD.  We  have  never  had  a  case  of  that  kind ;  we  do  not  increase 
wages  in  that  way.  Generally,  when  the  first  increase  was  made,  we  had  a  10 
per  cent  increase  given,  and  that  10  per  cent  applies  to  everybody,  of  course. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  are  much  obliged  to  you,  Prof.  Howard. 

At  the  afternoon  session  the  commission  will  divide  into  two  sections.  In  this 
room  those  concerned  with  the  printing  trades  will  appear,  and  in  the  offices  of 
the  commission,  on  the  ninth  floor  of  the  Southern  Building,  across  Fifteenth 
Street,  those  concerned  with  the  building  trades  will  appear  at  2  o'clock. 

(At  1  o'clock  p.  m.  the  commission  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock  p.  m.) 

AFTER  RECESS 2   O'CLOCK  P.   M. 

PRINTING  TRADES. 

Pursuant  to  the  arrangement  announced  before  the  noon  recess,  that  portion 
of  the  commi.s.sion  to  consider  the  printing  trades  met  in  the  assembly  room  of 
the  Shoreham  Hotel  at  2  o'clock  p.  m. 

Present:  Commissioners  Commons  (presiding),  Weinstock,  and  O'Connell. 

Present  also  for  the  commission :  Mr.  George  E.  Barnett,  special  investi- 
gator, and  Mr.  F.  H.  Bird,  superintendent  Division  of  Public  Agencies. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ME.  JAMES  M.  LYNCH. 

Mr.  BARRETT.  Mr.  Lynch,  will  you  give  the  reporter  your  name  and  present 
address  and  official  position? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  James  M.  Lynch,  commissioner  of  labor  of  the  State  of  New 
York ;  Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  BAHNETT.  Will  you  also  state,  Mr.  Lynch,  what  official  connection  you 
have  had  with  the  International  Typographical  Union? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  595 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  was  its  president  for  more  than  13  years. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  What  dates? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  From  the  latter  part  of  1900  until  January,  1914. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Will  you  describe  the  original  form  of  the  arbitration  agree- 
ment between  the  International  Typographical  Union  and  the  American  News- 
paper Publishers'  Association? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  agreement,  in  its  original  form,  made  in  the  latter  part  of 
1900,  and  effective  for  one  year,  provided  for  the  arbitration  of  the  disputes 
arising  under  a  written  or  verbal  contract,  and  the  arbitration  was  to  be  a 
board  consisting  of  three  men,  the  president  of  the  International  Typographical 
Union,  the  commissioner  of  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association, 
and  a  local  man  chosen  by  them,  who  acted  as  chairman  of  the  board.  Shall 
I  go  on? 

Mr.  BAENETT.  I  would  like  to  have  you  state  at  this  point  what  the  substan- 
tial parts  of  the  arbitration  were.  What  did  they  secure  to  the  publishers  who 
had  such  arbitration  agreements? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Under  that  first  agreement,  under  a  written  or  verbal  contract, 
it  secured  the  continuation  of  work  and  the  appearance  of  his  paper  regularly. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  There  was  to  be  no  cessation  of  work  under  that  contract? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  No  cessation  of  work  under  that  contract ;  no. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  the  first  change  made  in  the  form  of  the  agreement? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  second  agreement  provided  for  arbitration  of  disputes  aris- 
ing in  the  making  of  new  labor  contracts,  and  also  for  the  arbitration  of  disputes 
arising  under  those  contracts. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  At  what  time  did  that  take  effect? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  That  was  in  1901,  I  think.  By  the  way,  I  have  those  agree- 
ments, or  I  expect  them  here.  I  had  hoped  they  would  be  here  this  morning, 
but  they  have  not  yet  arrived. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  We  will  be  glad  if  you  will  file  copies  of  them  with  the  com- 
mission. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  That  agreement  was  for  five  years,  and  retained  the  arbitration 
board  made  up  as  I  have  described  it,  and  with  the  addition  of  arbitration  of 
disputes  arising  under  the  making  of  new  contracts,  which  meant  arbitration 
of  wage  scales. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  agreement  was  to  extend  from  1902  to  1907? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  that  agreement  satisfactory?  Did  it  work  out  satisfac- 
torily? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  No;  it  did  not  work  out  satisfactorily  so  far  as  the  arbitration 
board  was  concerned.  It  was  not  satisfactory  so  far  as  the  selection  of  the 
third  man  was  concerned. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  the  difficulty? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  seemed  to  be  in  what  we  called  the  hit-and-miss  character  of 
the  third  man's  decisions,  the  impossibility  of  teaching  him  the  newspaper 
business  in  the  course  of  the  arbitration  of  the  dispute. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  heard  Mr.  Cohen  testify  this  morning  as  to  the  very  great 
•  advantages  which  have  accrued  under  the  New  York  protocol  from  having 
clergymen  and  university  professors  and  lawyers  decide  the  cases — although  I 
do  not  believe  clergymen  have  decided  the  protocol,  but  professors  and  lawyers. 
Was  your  experience  similar  to  that  of  Mr.  Cohen? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  That  is,  under  the  second  agreement? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  No;  the  first  agreement,  as  to  the  arbitrator? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  is  the  second  five-year  agreement.  Our  experience  with  the 
clergymen  and  others  was  not  satisfactory,  not  satisfactory  at  all.  In  very  few 
cases,  I  think,  was  the  third  man  able  to  grasp  the  issues  involved,  and  able 
to  understand  the  conditions  in  composing  rooms,  and  able  to  get  a  grasp  of 
the  newspaper  business  generally. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  any  change  made  in  the  agreement  between  1902  and  1907? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  There  was  no  change  made  that  I  remember  in  that  agreement, 
but  in  the  next  agreement  the  local  board  of  arbitration  was  changed  to  four 
men,  two  representing  the  publishers,  two  representing  the  union,  with  an 
appeal  to  the  international  board,  made  up  of  the  three  members  of  the  execu- 
tive council  of  the  International  Typographical  Union  and  the  three  members 
of  the  special  standing  committee  of  the  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association. 
That  agreement  worked  out  very  satisfactorily  so  far  as  the  settlement  of  dis- 
putes was  concerned,  except  that  there  were  very  few  occasions  when  the 
local  board  was  called  into  existence.  The  publishers  and  the  union  would 


596          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

attempt  to  make  selections  and  fail,  and  then  the  cases  would  be  referred, 
under  the  provisions  of  the  agreement,  to  the  international  board,  which  met 
at  Indianapolis ;  and  as  a  result  all  of  those  cases  were  coming  to  the  inter- 
national arbitration  board.  While  they  settled  them,  yet  it  was  not  satisfac- 
tory to  the  members  of  that  board.  But  they  did  settle  all  with  the  exception 
of  one  case. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Was  it  the  idea  that  those  four  men  in  the  local  board  should 
be  members  of  the  union  and  publishers,  or  was  it  the  idea  that  they  should 
select  independent  men? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  They  could  be  members  of  the  union.  They  were  selected  by  the 
union  with  perfect  freedom  and  the  publishers  with  perfect  freedom.  They 
could  be  outsiders,  but  the  practice  was  they  were  members  of  the  union. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  Those  boards  were  very  rarely  formed? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Very  rarely  formed. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  In  1912  you  formed  a  new  agreement  with  the  American  News- 
paper Publishers'  Association? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  that  is  to  run  until  1917? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  What  change  was  made  in  that  agreement  with  reference  to 
these  local  arbitration  boards? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  first  was  composed  of  five  members,  one  member  the  direct 
representative  of  the  publisher,  one  member  the  direct  representative  of  the 
union,  one  member  to  be  chosen  by  the  publishers  who  was  not  associated  with 
the  publishing  industry,  one  member  to  be  chosen  by  the  union  who  was  not 
associated  with  the  trade  unions,  and  they  to  select  the  fifth  member,  who  acts 
as  chairman  of  the  board.  The  full  board  hears  the  cases  presented,  and  then 
the  four  original  members  retire  in  executive  session  and  attempt  to  come  to  an 
agreement  on  all  questions  in  dispute,  and  if  they  are  unable  to  agree  on  all  of 
the  questions,  or  any  of  them,  they  then  call  in  the  chairman,  and  he  has  a 
vote  on  the  disputed  question.  They  have  tried  to  limit  the  activities  of  the 
local  chairman  as  much  as  possible. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  did  not  understand  how  that  second  employer  rep- 
resentative is  selected? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  He  is  to  be  an  employer  who  is  not  associated  with  the  news- 
paper industry. 

The  ACTING  CHAIKMAN.  Any  employer  outside  of  the  newspaper  industry? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes ;  any  employer  outside  of  the  newspaper  industry. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Anybody  but  the  particular  employer  whose  contract  is  being 
arbitrated? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  An  employer  or  association  of  employers. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Has  that  reduced  the  number  of  cases  coming  up  to  the  inter- 
national board? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  think  it  did.  It  was  in  operation  comparatively  a  short  time 
when  I  ceased  active  connection  with  the  organization  as  an  officer  and  it  has 
not  had  an  opportunity  to  work  out  yet.  I  think  it  has  reduced  the  number  of 
cases. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  kind  of  questions  do  the  local  board  and  the  national 
board  have  power  to  settle?  Have  they  power  to  settle  any  questions  and  all 
questions  relating  to  the  relations  of  employers  and  employees,  or  are  there 
reservations? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  They  can  pass  on  disputed  questions  as  to  wages,  hours,  and 
working  conditions ;  they  can  not  pass  on  the  international  law ;  they  can  not 
arbitrate  as  to  whether  the  office  shall  be  a  union  office  or  not;  nor  can  they 
pass  on  any  local  law  that  does  not  affect  wages,  hours,  and  working  conditions. 
Even  though  the  international  law  may  deal  with  them,  they  can  not  arbitrate 
them,  nor  can  the  employer,  because  he  accepts  them  when  he  signs. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Then  the  union  office  is  part  of  the  international  law — the 
union? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  the  international  agreement  is  only  made  with  union 
publishers? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  agreement  is  made  in  the  first  place  with  the  I.  T.  U.  and 
the  A.  N.  P.  A.,  and  it  is  optional  with  the  publishers'  association  and  the  local 
union  as  to  whether  they  will  make  this  agreement  effective  or  not.  ^The  two 
parties  provide  a  commissioner  for  arbitration,  and  it  is  then  conditional  for 
the  union  and  the  publishers  whether  they  will  accept  it  or  not,  but  in  this  new 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  597 

agreement  in  the  majority  of  instances  the  newspapers  and  unions  had  arbi- 
tration agreements  under  the  old  agreement  from  1907  to  1912,  and  they  ac- 
cepted the  new  agreement.  There  may  be  some  exceptions. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  are  the  shop  rules  embodying  the  international  law  of 
the  typographical  union ;  what  are  the  chief  rules  wrhich  would  concern  the 
publisher,  in  which  he  is  concerned,  which  are  laid  down  in  the  international 
law? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Well,  the  six-day  law  would  concern  him;  the  general  policy  of 
the  union  office  would  concern  him ;  the  laws  relative  to  apprentices  would  con- 
cern him  ;  the  law  relative  to  reproduction  of  previously  used  matter  also  would 
concern  him. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  And  the  priority  law? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  priority  law  also  would  concern  him,  and  there  are  several 
others. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  How  are  those  laws  enacted? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  general  laws  and  amendments  to  the  by-laws  are  enacted  by 
conventions,  except  where  they  concern  the  dues  of  the  membership.  What  con- 
stitutional changes  and  amendments  are  passed  upon  by  the  referendum  are 
enacted  in  the  first  place  by  the  convention  and  then  referred  to  the  referen- 
dum ;  or  they  may  be  initiated  by  a  certain  number  of  unions  and  then  referred 
to  the  referendum ;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  there  are  very  few  amendments 
initiated  by  the  local  unions ;  they  mainly  come  from  the  convention. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  the  publishers  objected  to  having  such  laws  enacted  with- 
out some  participation  on  their  part  in  the  consideration  of  those  rules? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  publishers'  association  under  the  International  Typographi- 
cal Union  law  is  entitled  to  be  heard  by  its  representative  in  connection  with 
any  law  that  affects  the  law  of  the  A.  N.  P.  A.  As  to  whether  they  object  to  the 
laws — I  think  they  do  object  to  them.  I  think  they  object  to  several  of  the  laws, 
but  they  take  out  these  arbitration  contracts  and  accept  them. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  do  no  know  whether  you  happened  to  be  here  yesterday  and 
heard  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Hogan  and  Mr.  Valentine  as  to  the  agreement  in 
the  Stove  Founders'  National  Defense  Association, 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  was  not  here. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  If  I  might  recapitulate  briefly  what  was  said,  it  wras  said  with 
reference  to  that  agreement  that  no  rule  of  the  molders'  union  is  binding  or 
considered  as  binding  on  the  stove  foundries  unless  that  rule  has  been  adopted 
by  the  national  conference,  composed  of  three  molders  and  three  founders. 
Would  you  regard  a  system  of  that  kind  as  preferable  to  the  system  now  in 
vogue  between  the  typographical  union  and  the  publishers,  or  would  you  regard 
the  present  system  by  wrhich  working  rules  can  be  set  by  the  union  alone  as  a 
preferable  system? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  working  rules  are  not  set  by  the  international  union. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  mean  the  working  rules — these  priority  laws,  and  so  on? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  international  union  agrees  to  initiate  general  principles 
which  they  feel  should  apply  to  the  trade,  and,  as  far  as  my  experience  goes, 
before  they  adopt  these  general  principles  they  are  considered  from  every  view- 
point. Whenever  the  convention  within  its  powers  adopts  a  general  principle 
it  refers  it  to  the  referendum  and  they  pass  or  reject.  And  I  prefer  that  sys- 
tem, because  it  gives  the  workingmen,  expressed  through  this  international  as- 
sociation, the  right,  which  I  think  they  should  have,  to  initiate  these  broad  gen- 
eral principles  which  should  apply  to  employment. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Suppose  you  explain  to  the  commission  the  rule  of  the  typo- 
graphical union  with  reference  to  priority. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  We  have  a  system  of  substitutes,  substitutes  in  a  union  office 
who  work  for  other  men  who  hold  regular  positions  when  they  are  off  for  a 
day  or  two,  or  whatever  length  of  time.  They  also  work  for  the  office  when 
there  is  extra  work  to  do.  Our  priority  law  requires  that  the  oldest  substitute 
on  the  floor  shall  be  given  the  first  regular  situation  that  he  is  competent  to 
handle,  and  that  reductions  in  the  force  shall  be  made  in  the  same  way ;  the  last 
man  on  shall  be  the  first  man  off,  the  requirements  of  the  office  being  taken 
into  consideration. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Does  that  rule  apply  to  the  local  unions  pretty  thoroughly 
throughout  the  United  States? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  it  enforced  in  such  a  way  as  to  raise  objections  on  the  part 
of  the  publishers  to-day  in  places? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  There  may  be  individual  objections;  but,  taking  the  field  as  a 
mass — the  North  American  Continent — the  objections  have  been  very  few. 


598          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  It  is  regarded  by  the.  publishers  as  a  whole  as  a  fair  rule,  you 
think? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  think  it  is. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  You  spoke  of  the  rules  with  reference  to  the  exchange  of 
matrices;  what  is  that  rule  at  the  present  time? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  rule  prohibits  the  use  of  previous  matter ;  that  is,  the  ex- 
change of  local  matter  or  news  matter  or  local  advertisements  between  local 
newspapers  without  their  being  reset  within  a  certain  time  specified  by  the 
local  union.  Well,  not  by  the  local  union,  but  in  the  local  contract  agreed  to 
by  the  publishers  as  to  the  time  these  previously  used  mats  shall  be  reproduced. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  Is  that  rule  satisfactory  to  the  publishers? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Some  of  the  publishers  object  to.  that  rule,  but  I  think  they 
do  it  more  as  a  matter  of  having  something  to  object  to  than  they  do  as  a 
matter  of  principle.  I  think  a  great  many  publishers  are  as  heartily  in  favor 
of  that  rule  as  is  the  union. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  To  a  layman  it  may  seem  rather  incomprehensible  why  they 
should  favor  it.  Will  you  explain  to  the  commission  why  you  think  so? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  think  it  is  a  matter  of  self-preservation  to  a  large  number 
of  newspapers.  Where  publishers  wrho  control  a  chain  of  newspapers  would 
be  able  to  publish  those  newspapers  at  greatly  decreased  cost,  and  competing 
at  the  same  time  with  some  local  newspaper  that  would  have  to  pay  the  full 
cost,  I  think  perhaps  one  local  newspaper  would  have  gone  out  of  business  in 
a  great  many  instances. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  It  is  an  old  rule,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  is  older  than  I  am. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  As  far  as  you  understand  the  reasons  for  not  abandoning  that 
rule,  are  they  partly  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  publishers  to  keep  in  existence 
these  papers  that  otherwise  would  be  driven  out  of  existence?  Is  that  it? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  No;  I  think  that  when  a  condition  will  arise  when  it  will  be 
possible  for  the  International  Typographical  Union  to  make  an  agreement 
with  the  A.  N.  P.  A.  under  which  this  rule  can  be  abolished  with  justice  to 
both  there  will  be  very  little  objection  to  abolishing  it.  I  think  the  sentiment 
is  working  that  way,  and  our  people  think  they  have  an  interest  in  the  publish- 
ing industry,  and  they  want  the  rule  conserved. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  what  way? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  In  the  same  spirit  in  which  the  machine  was  accepted — that  it 
should  tend  to  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  hours  of  labor  in  the  composing 
room. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  other  words,  in  the  exchange  for  the  abandonment  for  this 
old  rule,  in  existence  for  many  years,  the  union  should  receive  even  in  the 
form  of  hours  or  wages  or  some  other  amelioration  of  working  conditions  some 
advantage. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  think  they  prefer  it  in  the  form  of  hours. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  the  printers  object  to  the  use  of  nonunion  products  in  any 
way — type,  for  example? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Well,  the  use  of  mats  and  plates  of  foreign  advertisements  is 
permitted,  and  the  use  in  many  instances  of  mats  of  news  features,  syndicate 
features,  is  permitted,  and  the  source  of  the  news  features  is  so  well  known 
that  there  is  nothing  to  object  to ;  they  are  all  union  mats.  I  never  have  heard 
any  objection. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  about  photo-engraved  plates,  not  only  in  newspapers  but 
elsewhere?  Is  there  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Allied  Trades  Council  to 
require  the  use  of  union  plates  of  any  kind,  or  materials  of  that  sort,  and 
refuse  to  use  the  products  of  nonunion  photo-engravers? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  tendency  of  the  Allied  Trades  Council  is  toward  the  use  of 
the  union  products.  There  may  be  instances  where  they  object  to  the  use  of 
photo-engraved  plates  that  are  nonunion,  and  this  must  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion on  the  sanitary  question,  that  the  international  unions  operating  in  the 
printing  industry  are  so  thoroughly  organized  that  there  is  very  little  of  that 
to  object  to. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  There  is  very  little  nonunion  photo-engraved  product? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  think  very  few. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Would  you  regard  it  as  a  feasible  thing  in  the  printing  trade 
to  have  a  national  rate  of  wages  set  annually  by  the  Newspaper  Publishers' 
Association  and  the  conferees  of  the  two  associations,  this  mte  not  necessarily 
to  be  a  single  rate  for  the  entire  country,  but  to  be  differentiated  and  agreed 
on  tic-cording  to  the  sections  of  the  country? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  599 

Mr.  LYNCH.  You  mean  on  the  zone  system? 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Something  of  that  sort. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  don't  think  it  would  be  practicable. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Why  not? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Conditions  differ  very  much  in  different  localities.  You  will 
find  in  one  city,  a  small  city,  for  instance,  like  Muncie,  where  the  wage  scale 
is  very  high;  we  will  find  another  city  of  30,000  people,  like  Muncie,  where  it 
is  not  so  much,  \vhere  it  is  very  much  lower,  and  the  conditions  in  that  locality 
must  be  taken  into  consideration;  and  a  wage  scale  that  could  be  borne  by  a 
Muncie  newspaper  with  apparent  comfort  and  ease,  and  who  could  well  afford 
to  pay  it  and  was  willing  to  pay  it,  could  not  be  borne  by  another  city  of 
30,000  in  the  same  zone ;  and  that  is  so  of  the  book  and  job  industry,  too. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  So  that  you  do  not  regard  it  as  likely  to  come  about  in  the 
printing  trade  that  there  shall  be  a  single  national  rate  set,  as  in  the  stove 
founders'  association  or  the  glass  trade  or  the  pottery  trade,  where  the  rate 
is  set  for  the  United  States,  or  as  it  practically  is  in  the  coal-mining  industry? 
In  other  words,  I  want  to  bring  this  out :  Your  system  is  the  only  system  of 
collective  bargaining  that  we  have  heard  of  in  which  there  is  not  a  national 
wage  rate — the  only  successful  one. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  practicable  to  make  it  national. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  All  the  other  systems  of  collective  bargaining  which  we  have 
heard  about  which  did  not  have  a  national  rate,  as,  for  instance,  the  national 
founders,  have  gone  to  pieces.  Yours  is  the  only  one  of  its  kind  that  has  en- 
dured. Do  you  regard  it  as  essential  or  necessary  that  it  should  go  on  in  its 
present  form  by  having  these  wages  settled  by  the  local  board? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  can  not  understand  a  condition  by  which  a  national  wage 
scale  would  be  possible,  except  a  monopolistic  tendency  in  the  control  of  news- 
papers and  commercial  work.  If  we  ever  come  to  a  point  where  a  monopoly 
could  control  that  work,  either  in  Chicago,  Pittsburgh,  Boston,  New  York,  or 
San  Francisco,  or  where  newspapers  issued  at  a  certain  point  would  make  it 
unprofitable  to  issue  local  papers 

Mr.  BAENETT.  I  did  not  mean  by  a  national  wage  scale  the  same  rate  all 
over  the  United  States.  It  might  be  differentiated  according  to  the  sections  of 
the  country,  having  a  Pacific  coast  section,  or  according  to  the  size  of  the  city. 
You  do  not  think  that?  You  think  that  in  the  Middle  West,  like  Indiana,  for 
example,  in  a  State  like  Indiana  you  might  have  two  towns  of  25,000  people 
in  which  the  rate  of  remuneration  for  apprentices  is  so  different  that  it  would 
be  practically  impossible  for  those  rates  to  be  brought  up  to  an  equality  without 
deranging  the  trade? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  would  be  practically  impossible  in  making  a  wage  scale  in 
the  way  you  outline  it.  The  tendency  would  be  toward  equalization,  even  in 
the  making  of  a  wage  scale  locally,  as  conditions  justified  that.  The  wage 
scale  in  the  second  city  would  gradually  approach  the  wage  scale  in  the  first 
city;  and  I  would  not  regard  it  possible  to  make  the  wage  scale  by  zones  in 
the  way  that  you  indicate. 

We  made  an  examination  of  that  and  investigated  it  as  well  as  we  could, 
and  reported  to  the  convention  against  a  proposition  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Was  that  printed? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  In  the  proceedings. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Wrhen  was  that?   ' 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  think  two  years  ago. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  I  will  not  bother  about  that.    I  will  get  that  myself. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  think  you  will  find  it  in  the  Cleveland  proceedings. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Now,  about  these  local  rules;  that  is,  the  rules  of  the  local 
union.  You  say  that  when  the  publisher  has  a  contract — takes  one  of  these 
national  contracts — that  any  rule  the  local  union  may  adopt  which  is  not 
simply  an  interpretation  of  national  rules  can  be  arbitrated  under  the  contract? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Only  the  laws  that  it  adopts  that  affect  wages — hours  and  work- 
ing conditions.  Those  are  subject  to  arbitration. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  I  did  not  mean  the  internal  rules  of.  the  local  unions. 

In  other  words,  if  the  local  union  adopted  an  apprenticeship  ratio — there  is  no 
national  apprenticeship  ratio  in  the  typographical  union,  if  I  remember  cor- 
rectly? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  You  are  correct. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  If  the  Baltmore  local  union,  for  instance,  should  adopt  an 
apprenticeship  ratio,  that  apprenticeship  ratio  would  be  subject  to  arbitration? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes,  sir. 


600          REPORT   OP    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  And  it  would  not  go  into  force,  as  I  understand  it,  and  could  not 
go  into  effect  until  the  expiration  of  any  agreement  which  was  already  in 
force ;  that  is,  the  Baltimore  union  could  not  enact  an  apprenticeship  law  until 
1917  different  from  what  it  is  now? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  could  enact  a  new  apprenticeship  regulation  if  the  local  labor 
contract  \vas  about  to  expire.  Then  that  new  apprenticeship  ratio  would  be 
subject  to  arbitration  if  the  employers  objected  to  it. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  long  do  these  local  contracts  ordinarily  stand? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  popular  period  is  three  years.  They  are  made  for  one,  two, 
three,  and  five  years,  but  the  popular  period  is  three  years. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Has  there  been  any  difficulty  in  enforcing  the  awards  of 
arbitration  boards  on  publishers?  Has  there  been  any  difficulty  where  an 
award  was  given  by  the  national  board  in  getting  a  publisher  to  carry  that 
out  in  good  faith;  has  there  been  any  complaint  on  that  score? 
~  Mr.  LYNCH.  Not  any  great  difficulty.  There  have  been  minor  difficulties,  but 
the  publishers,  through  their  representatives  or  through  their  special  standing 
committee,  very  quickly  straightened  that  out. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  You  take  that  up  with  Mr.  Kellogg? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  We  take  that  up  with  Mr.  Kellogg,  and  he  takes  it  up  with  the 
publisher.  If  the  publisher  still  refuses  to  abide  by  the  award,  as  interpreted 
by  Mr.  Kellogg,  it  is  taken  up  with  the  special  standing  committee,  of  wrhich 
Mr.  Kellogg  is  a  member,  and  they  tell  the  publisher  he  has  to  abide  by  that 
award,  and  he  abides  by  it. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Has  there  been  any  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  publishers 
that  the  local  union  or  the  typographical  union  has  not  acted  in  accordance 
with  agreements  which  they  have  with  the  publishers? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Not  in  10  years.  One  of  the  chief  factors  of  the  entire  arbitra- 
tion history  of  the  International  Typographical  Union  has  been  the  opportunity 
afforded  the  president  of  the  International  Typographical  Union  and  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  publishers  to  settle  these  minor  disputes  as  they  come  up — 
disputes  that  formerly  caused  strikes,  starting  with  some  minor  thing  and 
growing  into  a  matter  of  principle,  and  strikes  resulting.  There  are  numberless 
questions  of  that  kind  that  are  adjusted  in  Indianapolis  by  the  president  of  the 
International  Typographical  Union  and  representative  of  the  American  News- 
paper Publishers'  Association.  Any  question  of  the  union  abiding  by  its  local 
contract  or  arbitration  award,  or  the  publisher  abiding  by  his  local  contract 
or  arbitration  award,  will  be  taken  up  in  that  way  in  the  first  instance  and 
adjusted — adjusted  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Does  the  contract  permit  unions  to  go  on  sympathetic  strikes? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  does  not. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  That  is  absolutely  binding? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  local  labor  contracts  contain  clauses  providing  for  sympa- 
thetic action  if  the  employer  has  refused  arbitration,  the  employer  who  has 
difficulty  with  some  other  union  or  sister  union  and  has  refused  arbitration. 
If  arbitration  has  been  refused  through  the  fault  of  the  employer,  then  the 
local  union  is  free  under  its  local  contracts. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  is,  it  inserts  that  into  the  national  contract? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Into  the  labor  contract  or  local  contract. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Has  there  been  any  difficulty  at  times  in  restraining  v  unions 
which  were  anxious  to  go  on  sympathetic  strikes,  but  which  were  forbidden 
to  do  so  by  the  agreements  which  they  had  with  the  publishers? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  all  depends  upon  the  definition  of  the  word  "  difficulty."  The 
fact  remains  that  they  have  not  gone  on  strike. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Can  you  give  the  commission  some  idea  of  the  kind  of  diffi- 
culties which  may  arise,  by  a  typical  case? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  difficulty,  if  it  would  be  termed  such,  is  in  explaining  to 
the  local  union  the  nature  of  the  local  contentions  and  its  obligations  under 
the  contract,  and  we  have  never  had  any  difficulty  with  one  of  our  local  unions 
abiding  by  its  local  contracts  and  its  international  law  when  the  situation  was 
fully  explained.  We  haye  that  opportunity  before  the  strike  occurs. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Is  there  any  power,  or  what  power  of  discipline  is  there  in  the 
national  union? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  executive  council  can  deprive  the  local  union  of  its  charter 
for  violation  of  contract  or  violation  of  international  law. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  ever  taken  a  charter  away  from  a  local  union 
because  of  violation  of  contract? 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS  IN    COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  601 

Mr.  LYNCH.  We  have  never  had  occasion  to  do  so.  We  have  had  violations 
of  contracts  in  rare  instances,  but  the  local  union  very  quickly  reinstated  the 
contract  when  its  attention  was  called  to  conditions. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  The  national  officers  have  threatened,  then,  on  occasion,  to 
discipline  local  unions  by  depriving  them  of  their  charter? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  What  would  be  entailed  upon  a  local  union  in  the  Interna- 
tional Typographical  Union  by  deprival  of  its  charter?  What  effect  would 
that  have  on  the  men? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  They  would  lose  their  continuous  membership  in  the  interna- 
tional organization.  The  process  would  be  that  we  would  immediately  organize 
from  within  the  membership  of  the  defunct  union  a  new  union  that  would 
abide  by  the  contract. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  I  mean  with  reference  to  the  men. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  people  who  were  formerly  members  of  the  old  union  would 
lose  their  continuous  membership  in  the  International  Typographical  Union 
and  would  lose  their  membership. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  What  would  that  involve? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Loss  of  continuous  membership  would  involve  mortuary  benefits 
and  pension  benefits.  From  the  international  standpoint  it  would  involve  the 
right  of  admission  to  the  Union  Printers'  Home,  and,  in  many  instances,  from 
the  local  standpoint  would  involve  the  sick  benefits,  which  would  be  totally  de- 
molished if  the  local  union  was  destroyed. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  you  think  the  discipline  of  the  typographical  union  has 
been  improved  by  the  institution  of  these  benefits?  Do  you  think  that  they 
have  been  a  valuable  addition  to  the  functions  of  the  typographical  union? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  think  they  have  been  of  value  in  the  way  of  discipline ;  but  I 
think  that  the  age  of  the  organization,  the  crises  through  which  it  has  passed, 
and  the  difficulties  and  obstacles  that  it  has  overcome  have  so  educated  the 
membership  that  there  is  that  feeling  of  loyalty  to  the  organization  that  brings 
compliance  with  its  laws,  as  has  been  demonstrated  on  the  occasions  when  it 
was  necessary  to  make  a  stand. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  you  regard,  Mr.  Lynch,  the  method  of  conciliation — that  is, 
the  method  of  having  three  or  four  people  on  each  side  settle  questions — as  a 
more  practical  method  of  settling  particular  matters  than  by  arbitration,  by 
the  bringing  in  of  the  odd  man? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  If  a  form  of  agreement  should  be  evolved  that  would  be  work- 
able. I  think  it  would  be  much  preferable.  As  I  explained  to  you,  the  present 
agreement  allows  a  fifth  man  locally  to  participate  only  under  certain  condi- 
tions defined  in  the  contract,  and,  internationally,  the  international  arbitration 
board  calls  in  the  seventh  man  only  on  rare  occasions,  and  then  only  by  unani- 
mous vote  of  the  board. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  there  been  occasions  when  the  international  board  has 
called  the  seventh  man? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  There  have  been  two  occasions. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  you  would  agree  in  general,  then,  with  the  molders  that  the 
ideal  method  of  settling  a  trade  dispute  is  by  equal  members  on  each  side,  if  it 
can  be  attained,  rather  than  by  arbitration? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  think  it  is  a  preferable  method.  I  say  that  with  the  reserva- 
tion that  we  have  not  had  sufficient  experience  under  this  new  agreement  to 
know  how  it  will  work  out,  but  I  think  from  my  knowledge  of  arbitration,  ex- 
tending over  more  than  a  dozen  years,  it  is  a  preferable  method. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Has  the  typographical  union  at  the  present  time  any  contract 
with  the  typothetse? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  We  have  no  general  contract  with  the  typothetse. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  you  ever  have  one? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  We  never  had  a  contract  during  my  time  with  the  typothetse. 
We  did  have  an  agreement  with  the  typothetse  at  one  time,  under  which  the 
nine-hour  day  became  effective.  That  is  the  only  general  contract  we  had,  and 
was  with  the  United  Typothetse  of  America;  that  is  the  only  general  contract 
with  them  that  I  have  any  knowledge  of. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  was  simply  an  agreement  for  a  particular  purpose? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  For  a  particular  purpose. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  For  the  purpose  of  putting  into  effect  a  9-hour  day  ? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  The  typothetse  is  an  organization  of  book  and  job  publishers? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  An  organization ;  yes. 


602          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  is  the  other  organization? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  Printers'  League  of  America  is  one  of  the  organizations,  and 
there  was  until  recently  the  Ben  Franklin  Clubs,  but  I  understand  the  Ben 
Franklin  Clubs  are  now  a  part  of  the  United  Typothetse. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  How  did  your  organization  deal  with  the  typothetse  and 
Printers'  League,  and  formerly  with  the  Ben  Franklin  Clubs? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  We  deal  with  them  as  between  the  local  unions  and  the  local 
organizations  of  master  printers. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  In  your  relations  with  them,  a  local  union  has  the  power  to 
make  an  agreement  as  to  what  matters? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  As  to  wages,  hours,  and  working  conditions. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Can  the  local  union  in  its  contract  waive  rules  of  the  inter- 
national union? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Not  the  international  law. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  the  same  rule  applies  in  book  and  job  offices  as  in  the  pub- 
lishing departments;  that  is,  that  the  laws  of  the  International  Typographical 
Union  are  in  force  in  every  union  shop?  That  is,  no  local  union  can  waive 
those  laws? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  No  local  union  can  waive  the  laws;  but  the  enforcement  of  the 
priority  law,  for  instance,  is  not  as  general  in  the  book  and  job  offices  as  it  is 
in  the  newspaper  offices,  because  conditions  are  different.  The  occasion  for  its 
enforcement  does  not  arise  so  frequently. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  you  remember  whether  this  question  of  the  enforcement  of 
the  international  law  in  book  and  job  offices  ever  came  up  between  your  organ- 
ization and  theirs?  Has  there  ever  been  any  provision  about  that? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  United  Typothetse  some  years  ago  as  an  organization 
refused  to  make  an  agreement  with  the  International  Typographical  Union — or 
you  can  put  it  the  other  way :  We  refused  to  make  an  agreement  with  the 
United  Typothetse  because  we  insisted  on  strictly  union  offices. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  The  particular  point  was  that  they  objected  to  having  all  the 
workmen  members  of  the  union? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  They  objected  to  making  a  general  union  contract. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  they  object  to  the  union  foremen,  specifically? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  do  not  remember  that  they  objected  to  the  union  foremen 
specifically.  The  general  objection  was  to  the  union  contract,  such  as  we  had 
with  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association.  At  that  time  the  nego- 
tiations were  broken  off,  and  then  a  few  years  afterwards  the  great  8-hour 
strike  occurred,  and  at  the  present  time  there  is  a  much  better  feeling  between 
the  United  Typothetse  of  America  and  the  majority  of  its  members,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  International  Typographical  Union  on  the  other  hand. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  is  the  rule, of  the  International  Typographical  Union  with 
reference  to  foremen? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  That  they  must  be  members  of  the  organization. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Has  there  been  any  objection  to  that  on  the  part  of  the  news- 
paper publishers? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  There  is  in  some  instances.  There  has  been  no  general  objection, 
which  is  made  largely,  I  think,  for  effect  in  certain  cases. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Are  there  any  reasons  for  this  objection? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  reasons  they  advance  are  that  he  should  be  a  free  agent. 
We  point  out  that  he  is  a  free  agent,  and  the  discussion  usually  ends  there. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Would  you  personally  regard  the  conciliation  of  a  contract, 
such  as  you  now  have  with  the  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association,  with  the 
United  Typothetse,  as  desirable?  In  other  words,  has  the  contract  of  the 
American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association  worked  so  well  that  you  would 
like  to  see  it  extended  to  every  branch  of  the  industry? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes,  sir ;  I  should  be  delighted  to  see  a  similar  contract  with  the 
United  Typothetse  of  America. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  infer  you  regard  the  contract  with  the  American  Newspaper 
Publishers'  Association  as  a  distinct  success? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  An  eminently  satisfactory  contract,  so  far  as  the  National  Typo- 
graphical Union  is  concerned. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Lynch  desires  to  leave  as  promptly  as  pos- 
sible, and  I  have  said  that  I  would  ask  you  in  his  case  not  to  take  up  more  of 
his  time  than  is  absolutely  necessary,  so  that  he  may  leave  at  the  earliest 
possible  moment.  Will  the  commission  now  ask  such  questions  as  they  have? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  O'Connell,  do  you  desire  to  ask  anything? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  603 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Mr.  Lynch,  have  you  time  to  just  answer  one  ques- 
tion as  to  your  experience  with  collective  bargaining  as  against  individual 
bargaining? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  only  kind  of  bargaining  we  have,  Mr.  O'Connell,  is  collective 
bargaining.  There  is  no  such  thing  in  the  International  Typographical  Union 
as  individual  bargaining,  with  possibly  the  exception  of  the  foremen. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  I  mean  to  convey  is  your  experience  as  to 
the  benefit  derived  by  the  men  in  the  printing  trade. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Collective  bargaining  has  been  in  effect  in  our  organization  for 
a  number  of  years,  and  it  has  had  its  growth  with  the  present  century,  and 
I  regard  it  as  one  of  the  best  things  we  have.  It  makes  conditions  stable. 
There  is  a  definite  understanding  between  employers  and  composing-room 
employees  as  to  just  what  the  conditions  shall  be  for  a  stated  period  of  time. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock,  do  you  wish  to  ask  anything? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Will  you  please  explain,  Mr.  Lynch,  what  is  the 
method  of  procedure  if  a  dispute  arises  locally  between  an  employer  and  his 
union  ? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Under  an  arbitration  contract? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes.  As  I  understand  it,  there  are  two  separate 
and  distinct  bodies  with  which  you  deal,  the  newspaper  publishers  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  book  and  bindery  people  on  the  other  hand. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  commercial  employer  on  the  other  hand. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  includes  what? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  commercial  employer  includes  any  printing  office  that  does 
book  and  job  work. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  a  separate  and  distinct  body  from  the 
newspaper  men? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  have  two  separate  agreements? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes.  Even  where  a  newspaper  conducts  a  book  and  job  office 
as  a  branch  of  it,  we  have  two  separate  contracts  with  those  offices. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  happens  in  a  dispute  arising  in  a  newspaper 
office  between  employer  and  workmen?  What  method  of  procedure  is  followed? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Under  the  arbitration  contract  they  must  make  an  effort  to  adjust 
it  locally. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  WThat  machinery  is  used? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  officers  of  the  union,  and  if  there  is  a  publishers'  association, 
the  officers  of  that  association.  In  the  absence  of  the  publishers'  association — 
and  there  are  numbers  of  instances  where  they  have  no  association  because 
they  can  not  always  agree — the  particular  paper  that  might  have  difficulty,  the 
proprietor  of  that  paper,  or  the  business  manager,  will  get  together  and  attempt 
to  adjust  this  difficulty. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  failing? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Failing,  they  can  proceed  to  local  arbitration;  but  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association  and  of  the 
International  Typographical  Union  handle  the  matter,  except  that  in  disputes 
arising  under  contract,  they  should  come  direct  to  the  officers  at  Indianapolis, 
and  if  those  two  representatives  are  unable  to  settle  it,  then  go  direct  to  the 
International  Board  of  Arbitration.  We  find  there  is  comparatively  little 
difficulty  in  adjusting  a  dispute  arising  under  contract.  If  we  can  get  it  to  this 
board  of  arbitration,  as  before  a  board  of  experts,  in  a  very  large  number  of 
instances  there  is  no  difficulty.  My  contention,  while  I  was  a  member  of  that 
international  board,  was  that  it  took  only  a  very  short  time  to  secure  a  unani- 
mous agreement  on  any  dispute  arising  under  a  written  contract. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  cessation  of  work  meanwhile  permissible? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  No;  work  must  be  continuous.  There  can  be  no  strike,  and  no 
lockout. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  the  work  is  discontinued,  the  local  union  then 
is  liable? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  If  the  work  should  be  discontinued.  The  work  is  not  discon- 
tinued. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  it  should  be  discontinued,  the  local  union  would 
be  liable  to  the  international? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  If  they  discontinued  that  work  they  would  be. 
Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  employers  generally  friendly  or  hostile  to  the 
unions? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  To  unions? 


604          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes.  Is  the  attitude  friendly  toward  the  union 
movement  among  the  newspaper  people,  or  are  they  hostile  to  it?  Do  they 
accept  it  as  an  unavoidable  evil,  or  do  they  look  upon  it  as  a  good  thing? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  think  in  great  measure,  in  a  majority  of  cases,  the  newspaper 
publisher  looks  upon  the  employment  of  union  labor  as  a  good  thing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  would  rather  have  it  than  not  have  it? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Will  the  same  condition  prevail  in  the  commercial 
printing? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  think  it  does,  in  the  instances  where  the  commercial  employer 
is  conducting  a  union  office.  I  think  there  is  no  great  objection  to  union  labor, 
if  the  proposition  is  systematized.  In  the  commercial  branch  of  the  industry, 
competitive  so  far  as  wages  are  concerned,  the  industry  is  on  the  same  basis. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  All  employers  start  out  on  an  even  basis,  so  far 
as  labor  is  concerned? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes;  so  far  as  labor  is  concerned. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  the  unions  object  to  the  bonus  system  for 
extra  efficiency? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  We  do  not  object  to  the  employer  paying  the  employee  any  wage 
he  sees  fit,  above  the  wage  scale. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Whether  in  the  form  of  a  bonus,  or  otherwise? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  If  it  is  a  bonus  for  a  stated  amount  of  work,  we  do  not  permit 
it  in  the  typographical  union. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  do  not  permit  it? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  You  put  a  limit  on  the  output  of  each  individual? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  No,  sir ;  we  do  not  put  a  limit  on  the  output,  but  we  do  not  permit 
the  payment  of  a  bonus  for  the  setting  of  so  much  extra  type.  A  man  can  set  all 
the  type  he  pleases,  and  get  paid  as  much  as  it  is  worth,  but  he  can  not  do 
that  in  any  private  contract.  His  bargaining  for  his  wage  is  done  by  his  union, 
and  is  not  a  matter  between  him  and  the  employer  as  to  the  certain  amount  of 
work  he  will  do. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  said  the  employer  could  pay  more  if  he  chose. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Pay  them  all  he  pleases  above  the  wage  scale. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  not  for  additional  work? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  He  can  not  make  a  separate  bargain  with  that  man. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  My  reason  for  asking  that  is  that  while  I  was  in 
Sydney,  Australia,  talking  with  a  newspaper  publisher,  he  said  he  offered  his 
men  a  certain  bonus  if  they  could  set  a  certain  thousand  ems,  and  that  his 
men  generally  were  very  much  pleased  with  it,  and  some  of  them  made  quite  a 
good  deal  in  the  way  of  bonus,  and  the  union  came  along  and  forbade  it. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  We  permit  the  bonus  if  it  is  expressed  in  the  wage  scale. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  it  is  made  a  part  of  the  contract? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  If  it  is  made  a  part  of  the  contract.  Then  every  man  has  the 
same  opportunity  to  be  paid  the  bonus,  if  he  can  earn  that  bonus.  We  permit 
that  bonus  if  it  is  expressed  in  the  contract. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  say  there  is  no  limit  fixed  as  to  the  output; 
that  the  men  are  at  liberty  to  earn  as  much  as  they  can? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  never  knew  the  limit.  I  saw  where  a  man  set  120,000  the 
other  day,  and  I  think  that  is  pretty  near  the  limit. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  charge  has  been  made  to  me  by  newspaper 
employers  that  the  union  compels  them  to  employ  more  pressmen,  for  example, 
than  actually  necessary. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  You  will  have  to  ask  that  question  of  Mr.  Berry,  who  is  presi- 
dent of  the  International  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union,  and  is  here  to  testify. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Were  you  present  here  yesterday  when  the  moklers 
were  testifying? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  No,  sir ;  I  was  not  here  yesterday. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  molders  object,  or  rather,  Mr.  Frey,  repre- 
senting the  molders,  objected  to  the  umpire  plan  in  the  settlement  of  labor  dis- 
putes. Do  your  people  object  to  that? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  seems  to  me  that  is  a  question  of  the  form  of  the  agreement. 
If  it  can  be  safeguarded,  if  the  umpire  system  can  be  safeguarded,  all  well  and 
good.  I  heard  Mr.  Cohen  this  morning  say  that  in  the  clothing  industry  there 
was  no  objection  to  lawyers ;  that  lawyers  drew  that  agreement  and  worked  it 
out ;  and  all  that.  In  our  industry  we  will  not  permit  a  lawyer  to  argue  a  case 
nor  sit  on  an  arbitration  board.  So,  as  I  say,  it  seems  to  me  largely  a  question 
of  conditions. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  605 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  The  representative  of  the  molders'  union  said  that 
if  it  was  a  choice  between  submitting  the  matter  to  an  umpire  or  going  on  a 
strike,  in  his  judgment,  the  strike  would  be  the  lesser  evil.  Would  you  go  to 
that  extreme  in  the  International  Typographical  Union? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  have  explained  the  present  arbitration  contract  provides  for 
the  fifth  man  for  the  local  board,  and  by  unanimous  vote  for  the  seventh  man 
for  the  international  board. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  So,  while  you  regard  the  method  of  conciliation 
as  the  preferred  method,  you  do  not  object,  as  a  final  resort,  to  the  umpire  plan? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  We  do  not  object  to  the  fifth  and  seventh  man,  if,  as  I  say,  the 
conciliation  can  be  safeguarded  in  the  way  we  have  safeguarded  it — that  is, 
the  organization  does  not.  It  does  not  object,  because  it  went  into  this  agree- 
ment, and  it  is  in  effect  and  provides  for  that  fifth  and  seventh  man.  I  said  I 
was  not  convinced  it  was  a  good  proposition.  When  the  agreement  was  made 
we  distinctly  reserved  the  right  to  change  that  if  it  did  not  work  out  well. 
The  agreement  can  be  changed  by  the  six  people  representing  the  two  organiza- 
tions. If  this  did  not  work  out  well,  we  reserved  the  right  to  change  it.  We 
tried  to  find  some  method  that  would  settle  these  disputes  and  settle  them  satis- 
factorily. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Under  the  rule,  is  it  allowable  for  the  odd  man  to 
be  a  layman? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  He  can  be  from  any  walk  of  life,  except  a  lawyer. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  suppose  that  serves  the  lawyers  right? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  There  is  nothing  expressed  in  the  agreement  to  that  effect,  but 
that  is  the  understanding  arrived  at,  that  we  should  advise  against  the  partici- 
pation of  lawyers  in  this  purely  internal  arrangement.  That  was  done  after  an 
experience  in  San  Francisco,  which  was  rather  disastrous. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  are  the  present  hours  of  labor  in  the  typo- 
graphical union? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Not  more  than  eight  hours  in  either  the  newspaper  or  commer- 
cial industry,  and  in  a  very  large  number  of  instances — the  newspaper  indus- 
try— seven  and  a  half  hours,  seven,  and  six,  and  in  one  instance  in  New  York 
four  hours  a  night. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  maximum  is  eight  hours? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  maximum  is  eight  hours. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Overtime  is  allowed? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Overtime  is  allowed;  yes. 

Commissioner  WETN STOCK.  At  what  increased  rate? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  varies.  The  general  rule  is  price  and  one-half  for  a  certain 
number  of  hours  and  then  double  price  thereafter ;  but  that  is  further  penalized 
by  the  requirement  that  the  member  who  works  more  than  a  certain  number  of 
hours  per  week — if  the  scale  provided  for  an  eight-hour  day,  more  than  48 
hours  per  week — if  he  works  a  day,  he  must  employ  the  first  available  sub- 
stitute. The  aim  is  to  confine  the  members  as  closely  as  possible  to  the  six-day 
week.  The  organization  does  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  to  distribute  the  W7ork  and  not  to  concen- 
trate it? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  is  not  so  much  to  distribute  the  work  as  it  is  a  health  measure. 
It  might  also  be  called  a  religious  measure — "  Six  days  shalt  thou  labor  " — and 
we  have  enforced  that  rule  since  1889. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  There  may  be  members,  newspaper  publishers,  who 
do  not  have  arbitration  agreements  with  you;  that  is  possible,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  About  what  proportion  of  their  membership  do  not 
have  agreements? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Well,  under  the  old  agreement  there  was  a  very  small  propor- 
tion; I  could  not  tell  the  exact  number.  I  think  the  number  of  arbitration 
agreements  ran  up  to  275  out  of  a  possible  membership  of  325.  That  can  be 
obtained  from  the  report  so  as  to  be  absolutely  reliable. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  case  a  newspaper  publisher  is  not  a  member 
of  the  publishers'  association,  you  may  still  have  agreements  with  him? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  We  may  have  agreements  with  them. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  would  be  an  individual  agreement? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Do  you  make  a  similar  agreement  in  that  case? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  agreement  with  the  publisher  not  a  member  of  the  A.  N. 
P.  A.  would  be  a  local  contract  with  the  typographical  union ;  and  the  practical 
working  out  of  the  proposition  is  this:  In. a  locality  where  there  are  five  news- 


606          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

papers  and  only  one  holding  membership  in  the  A.  N.  P.  A.,  and  they  are  all 
joining,  as  they  do,  in  resisting  the  wage  scale,  or  the  negotiation  of  a  wage 
scale,  and  they  can  not  agree  locally,  the  procedure  would  be  under  this  arbi- 
tration contract  held  by  this  one  newspaper,  the  other  four  agreeing  to  accept 
the  final  decision,  whatever  it  may  be ;  so  that  the  result  is  that  the  arbitration 
agreement  applies  to  all  the  newspapers  in  that  particular  town  in  an  adjust- 
ment of  the  wage  scale.  The  intent  is  that  the  publisher  who  is  not  a  member 
of  the  A.  N.  P.  A.  shall  have  just  as  fair  treatment  as  a  publisher  who  is. 
'  Mr.  COMMONS.  Now,  have  you  any  idea  what  proportion  of  the  daily  papers 
in  the  country  you  have  contracts  with,  both  in  and  out  of  the  A.  N.  P.  A.? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Daily  newspapers  published  in  towns  and  cities  in  which  we 
have  typographical  unions — I  should  say  we  had  agreements  with  at  least 
90  per  cent,  if  not  more  than  that ;  there  are  very  few  nonunion  newspapers, 
so  far  as  typographical  unions  are  concerned. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Dailies? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Dailies. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  How  would  you  figure  it  out  for  weeklies? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  weeklies  published  in  large  centers  are  generally  published 
by  commercial  offices  which  are  to  a  large  extent  union;  and  these  weeklies 
printed  in  towns  and  hamlets  where  there  are  not  enough  printers  to  form 
a  union  may  be  printed  by  members  of  the  International  Typographical  Union 
and  may  be  printed  by  nonmembers. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  But  you  do  not  class  them  as  commercial  offices. 
Now,  can  you  figure  out  what  you  call  the  commercial,  which,  I  take  it,  is  the 
book  and  job  offices  of  the  country ;  do  you  figure  out  what  proportion  of  them 
you  have  agreements  with? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  That  would  be  largely  guesswork;  but  we  have  either  written 
or  verbal  agreements.  In  the  verbal  agreements,  for  instance,  the  proprietor 
says,  "  We  will  pay  that  scale ;  that  scale  is  all  right,  and  we  will  pay  it  for 
one  or  two  or  three  years,"  but  he  does  not  enter  into  a  written  contract;  and 
we  have  verbal  or  written  agreements  with  the  great  majoriy  of  the  book  and 
job  concerns  throughout  the  country. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  that  case  they  do  not  accept  that  international 
law? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  With  reference  to  making  contracts? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Yes. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Oh,  yes ;  they  do — verbal  contracts. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What,  for  example,  would  be  done  in  a  verbal  con- 
tract? It  just  relates  to  wages  and  hours,  and  then  these  rules  about  the  closed 
shops,  and  apprentices,  exchange  plates,  and  priority? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  They  accept  them  all;  they  conduct  either  a  union  office  or 
a  nonunion  office,  so  far  as  the  typographical  union  is  concerned. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  But  you  make  no  agreement  with  them  unless  it 
is  a  union  office? 

Mr.   LYNCH.  You  could  not  make  an  agreement  with  them  unless  i 
union  office;  we  make  an  agreement  with  a  previously  nonunion  office  that  in 
a  reasonable  time  it  shall  become  a  union  office. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  there  is  no  agreement  except  it  becomes  a 
union  office? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  That  is  part  of  the  international  policy. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  carries  with  it  these  other  international  rules? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  carries  with  it  the  observance  of  international  law. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Can  these  laws  be  changed  between  agreements? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  No.  The  international  law  of  the  date  on  which  the  contract  is 
made  applies  for  the  term  of  that  agreement;  they  know  the  conditions  before- 
hand, the  conditions  that  apply. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  The  commercial  offices  probably  have  a  wider  range 
of  competition  than  the  daily  newspapers.  Its  competitors  are  only  in  the 
same  locality ;  that  is  usually  the  case,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Where  books  can  be  printed? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  So  that  this  difference  in  the  wage  rate  in  different 
localities  is  a  material  thing  with  a  commercial  house  more  than  it  is  with  the 
daily  newspapers? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  difference  in  wage  rates  as  between  specified  localities  and 
its  effect  on  the  work ;  I  presume  that  is  what  you  have  in  mind. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  607 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Yes. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  has  always  seemed  to  me  to  be  one  of  equipment  for  a  par- 
ticular kind  of  work  rather  than  the  difference  in  the  wage  scale,  which  would 
be  slight,  would  not  be  so  great;  but  I  have  known  of  New  York  proprietors 
to  go  up  into  Poughkeepsie  and  take  Poughkeepsie  work  out  of  Poughkeepsie, 
and  I  have  known  Poughkeepsie  proprietors  to  come  to  New  York  and  take 
work  out  of  that  city.  That  question  of  competition  is  a  complex  one  in  the 
newspaper  business. 

The  Denver  proprietors,  with  a  high  wage  scale,  take  work  out  of  Chicago,  at 
a  higher  wage  scale,  and  so  it  goes;  and  Chicago  may  take  work  out  of  San 
Francisco.  I  have  known  that  to  happen,  and  with  San  Francisco  working 
under  a  higher  wage  scale ;  so  that  in  the  end  it  seems  to  me  largely  a  question 
of  equipment  for  a  certain  class  of  work  which  one  office  may  produce  very 
much  cheaper  than  another  office  can  produce  the  same  job. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  class  of  work  is  centralized  in  a  few  large 
offices? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Not  a  few  large  offices,  because  there  are  a  large  number  of  large 
offices — large  offices  scattered  all  across  the  continent.  There  is  a  large  office 
in  Hammond,  Ind.,  which  is  not  a  large  place  as  large  places  go.  There  are 
large  offices  in  comparatively  small  towns;  one  at  Garden  City,  conducted  by 
Doubleday,  Page  &  Co.  Garden  City  is  not  a  large  place.  And  there  is  a  very 
large  office  in  Denver,  and  it  is  capable  of  doing  any  kind  of  work  there  is  in 
Chicago ;  so  these  large  offices  are  scattered  all  over  the  continent. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  If  some  of  these  offices  are  subject  to  union  rules, 
would  they  not  be  at  a  disadvantage  in  comparison  with  similarly  equipped 
offices  not  subject  to  union  rules? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  From  my  experience,  I  do  not  believe  that  is  the  situation.  I 
believe  that  a  union  office  has  an  advantage  over  a  nonunion  office,  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  as  to  labor  market,  standardization,  the  character  of  its  employees, 
and  the  skill  of  its  employees,  and  in  many  other  ways ;  and  we  have  in  the  case 
of  newspapers  that  have  changed  from  nonunion  to  union  offices — here  we  have 
been  permitted  to  make  an  investigation — it  has  been  demonstrated,  and  subse- 
quent figures  have  borne  out  our  investigation,  that  the  union  office  produces  a 
newspaper  cheaper  than  a  nonunion  office. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  the  preferential  shop,  as  was  described  to 
you  this  morning,  in  a  commercial  office — not  speaking  of  a  newspaper  office — 
would  that  seem  to  you  a  practical  proposition? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  If  I  were  president  of  the  International  Typographical  Union 
and  Mr.  Finlay  offered  to  make  a  contract  with  me  on  that  preferential  basis  I 
would  make  it  very  quickly,  because  I  know  that  it  would  be  very  quickly  a 
strictly  union  office.  I  make  that  statement  with  my  understanding  of  the 
preferential  office  as  described  here  this  morning  by  the  people  interested  in 
that  preferential  office. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  you  consider  the  Chicago  system  of  Hart, 
Schaffner  &  Marx  quite  the  same  as  in  New  York? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  There  seemed  to  be  a  difference  in  the  Chicago  system,  very 
different  in  the  thorough  understanding  that  Mr.  Cohen  had  of  the  New  York 
situation  and  the  other  gentleman  had  of  the  Chicago  situation,  but  I  am  talk- 
ing particularly  of  the  New  York  situation;  the  Chicago  situation  is  not  clear 
to  me  on  that  statement  of  those  autonomous  unions  that  work  in  Hart, 
Schaffner  &  Marx's  shop.  They  are  unions  that  I  never  heard  of  before,  autono- 
mous local  unions. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  general,  you  want  to  have  the  agreement  made 
with  the  international? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  Such  an  agreement  could  be  made  or  might  be  made  by  our  local 
union,  but  if  I  had  to  make  such  an  agreement  with  the  United  Typothetse  I 
would  want  to  make  it  with  their  international  organization,  because  then  I 
would  know  that  the  agreement  would  be  carried  out. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  such  case  would  you  think  it  feasible  to  arbi- 
trate either  the  rules  of  the  international  law  or  the  rules  that  might  be  pro- 
posed by  local  unions  and  submit  them  also  to  arbitration,  as  seems  to  be  the 
case  in  the  protocol  system,  everything  is  arbitrable,  and  as  seems  to  be  the 
case  in  the  stove  industry? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  do  not  think  any  association  employers  in  the  printing  in- 
dustry, that  I  know  of  anyway,  would  consent  to  arbitrate  the  proposition  as 
to  whether  an  office  should  be  a  union  or  a  nonunion  office,  union  or  interna- 


608          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

tional  union,  they  would  not  consent,  and  I  do  not  think  any  of  the  others 
in  the  industry  would  consent. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  should  exclude  that,  because  when  you  say  pref- 
erential shop  that  would  exclude  it,  but  as  to  these  other  rules,  apprenticeship, 
exchange  of  plates,  and  priority,  the  six-day  rule. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  I  do  not  think  there  would  be  any  necessity  of  arbitrating 
them.  I  do  not  think  any  association  employer  has  any  objection  to  those 
rules. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  that  is  the  thing  you  would  consider  if  you 
were  going  to  consider  also  a  preferential  shop;  you  could  logically  consider 
those? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  That  was  not  the  kind  of  preferential  shop  that  was  described 
this  morning,  unless  I  misunderstood  the  witnesses.  My  understanding  of  it 
was  a  shop  that  employed  union  men  in  preference  to  nonunion,  and  when  the 
work  was  slack  they  laid  off  the  nonunion  man  instead  of  the  union  man. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  when  they  took  them  back  they  took  back 
the  union  men  first? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  They  took  back  the  union  men  first;  I  do  not  think  under  that 
condition  the  international  union  would  get  much  the  worst  of  it,  nor  do  I 
think  anybody  in  the  international  union  would  get  much  the  worst  of  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  the  employers  make  separate  contracts  as  to 
each  department  or  is  there  one  contract  that  covers  all  departments  in  a 
printing  establishment? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  As  a  general  rule  the  proprietors  make  separate  contracts  with 
the  unions  operating  in  the  establishment,  but  there  are  instances  in  which 
what  we  call  blanket  contracts  are  made,  covering  all  the  unions  operating  in 
that  establishment. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  a  union  man  permitted  to  work  for  what 
would  be  called  an  unfair  employer? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  What  would  be  your  definition  of  an  unfair  employer? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  An  employer  that  had  been  turned  down  by 
organized  labor  as  being  unfair  for  all  sorts  of  reasons. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  If  we  have  contracts  with  an  employer,  we  fulfill  those  con- 
tracts, of  course.  I  do  not  just  understand  your  question. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Let  me  give  a  concrete  case.  In  my  own  city, 
San  Francisco,  there  is  a  strike  on  there  now — at  least  there  was  when  I  left 
there.  It  had  been  running  for  months — between  the  pressmen  and  the  com- 
mercial employers.  Yet  all  the  men  employed  in  alt  the  other  departments 
have  remained  on  the  job.  The  local  labor  council  has  declared  a  boycott  on 
those  employers  because  they  could  not  come  to  an  understanding  with  their 
pressmen.  Therefore  they  are  unfair  employers  from  the  union  standpoint, 
and  yet  these  other  men  continued  at  work. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  The  International  Typographical  Union,  and  I  think  that  is 
true  of  all  the  other  unions,  do  not  permit  the  local  labor  council  or  any  other 
body  to  interfere  with  its  contracts  or  wTith  its  control  over  conditions  that 
shall  obtain  in  the  composing  room  or  as  to  whether  the  members  shall  or 
shall  not  work  in  those  composing  rooms.  The  International  Typographical 
Union  has  complete  jurisdiction  so  far  as  the  union  is  concerned  over  the  com- 
posing room. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  yet  in  the  year  of  the  panic  at  San  Francisco 
these  printing  establishments  which  are  having  trouble  with  their  pressmen 
are  looked  upon  as  having  been  declared  unfair. 

Mr.  LYNCH.  One  of  the  things  that  the  International  Typographical  Union 
and  the  other  four  unions  of  the  printing  industry  were  attempting  to  work 
out  when  I  severed  my  connection  with  it  as  president  was  a  general  agreement 
under  which  the  unions  could  act  together  in  cases  of  the  kind  you  describe. 
I  have  no  knowledge  of  the  condition  that  agreement  is  in.  One  of  the  last 
things  I  did  was  to  draft  that  agreement,  and  we  considered  it  at  one  con- 
ference in  Indianapolis ;  then  the  conference  adjourned,  and  when  it  met  again 
I  was  not  president  of  it,  so  that  I  do  not  know  what  condition  it  is  in. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  the  idea  is  to  federate  the  unions  so  that  they 
would  act  together? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  To  create  a  course  of  conduct  in  the  event  of  trouble  in  any 
mechanical  department. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  matter  is  still  undetermined? 

Mr.  LYNCH.  It  is  still  in  charge  of  officers  of  the  international ;  but  I  am  net 
an  officer  of  the  international  union  now. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  that  is  all,  Mr.  Lynch.     Thank  you. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  609 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  ALBERT  W.  FINLAY. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  is  your  residence? 

Mr.  FINLAY.   Boston,  Mass. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Will  you  state  your  official  connection  with  the  United  Typoth- 
etse of  America? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Chairman  of  the  executive  committee  of  the  United  Typothetse 
cf  America,  and  the  Franklin  Clubs  of  America. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  long  have  you  been  connected  as  a  member  or  in  an 
official  position  with  the  United  Typothetse? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Our  firm  has  been  a  member  since  the  typothetse  was  organized. 
Mr.  Ellis,  my  partner,  was  president  of  it  for  some  years,  so  that  we  have  had 
active  membership  in  it  since  it  was  organized. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  represents  the  employers? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  are  called  the  commercial  employers? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes ;  but  it  does  have  members  who  run  papers. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  many  local  associations  make  up  a  department? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  could  not  tell  you.     We  have  a  membership  of  1,958  firms. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  the  membership  pretty  well  distributed  over  the  United 
States,  or  is  it  stronger  in  some  parts? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  It  is  pretty  well  distributed  in  the  United  States,  outside  of 
California ;  we  have  no  membership  in  San  Francisco. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  the  character  of  the  Ben  Franklin  Clubs  which  were 
amalgamated  with  the  typothetse? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  They  took  in  the  smaller  printers,  where  the  minimum  due  was 
50  cents  a  month ;  and  it  was  largely  an  educational  organization,  to  educate  the 
printer  in  ascertaining  the  cost  of  his  product. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  The  typothetse  wTas  organized,  you  said  when,  1889? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No.  We  had  our  twenty-seventh  convention  at  New  Orleans  in 
October. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  would  make  it  1886? 

Mr.  FINLAY.   Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  WThat  were  the  purposes  in  the  organization  at  that  time? 

Mr.  FINLAY.   It  was  first  organized,  I  think,  to  resist  the  nine-hour  day. 

Mr.  BARNETT.   The  nine-hour  day,  in  what  trade? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  In  the  book-and-job  branch. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  which  one  of  the  mechanical  trades;  in  all? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  The  composing  room  was  where  the  demand  came  from. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  part  of  the  employees  of  the  typothetse,  relatively,  are 
printers  and  pressmen?  In  other  words,  do  the  members  of  the  typothetse 
employ  more  pressmen  or  more  printers? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  You  mean  the  compositors? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Yes. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  That  would  depend  upon  the  plant ;  they  would  employ  both. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  know  you  do ;  but,  relatively,  in  large  jobbing  printing  plants, 
is  there  not  some  established  proportion  between  them?  Do  they  employ  more 
printers  or  pressmen? 

Mr.  FINLAY.   I  think  we  employ  more  compositors. 

Mr.  BARNETT.   More  compositors? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Through  the  membership  I  should  think  so ;  yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Has  the  typothetse  power  to  make  agreements  for  its  members? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Only  locally. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  The  United  Typothetse  has  no  power  to  bind  the  local  organi- 
zations? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Only  that  the  kind  of  contract  entered  into  shall  be  submitted 
to  the  executive  officers  for  inspection. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  the  local  contract? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes.     You  can  make  no  national  contracts. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  a  local  contract  is  made  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  executive  officers  nationally? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Not  subject  to  the  approval.  It  has  got  to  be  submitted  there; 
that  is  one  of  the  requirements. 

Commissioner  WTEIN STOCK.  What  is  the  purpose  of  submitting  it  unless  it  is 
to  be  approved? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  It  might  conflict  with  or  jeopardize  some  locality  that  had  a 
contract  that  would  be  right  in  close  connection  with  that. 

38819°— 16 39 


610          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  At  the  present  time  does  the  United  Typothetre  have  contracts 
with  any  trade-unions? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  The  United  Typothetae? 

Mr.  BABNETT.  Yes. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  It  has  no  contract  with  any  trade-union? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  Does  it  participate  in  trade-union  relations  of  its  members,  the 
labor  relations,  at  all?  Does  it  assist  its  members  in  time  of  strike,  for  ex- 
ample? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  It  will  assist  its  members,  any  of  its  members  in  time  of  trouble, 
to  conduct  their  business  in  any  way  they  see  fit. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  Were  you  here  at  the  examination  of  the  National  Founders' 
Association  yesterday,  and  did  you  hear  Mr.  Briggs? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  only  heard  him  in  rebuttal. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  I  thought  you  might  have  heard  him  describe  the  methods  in 
times  of  strike  of  assisting  members.  Is  there  any  method  of  assisting  members 
in  time  of  strike? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  The  particular  methods  of  treatment  of  the  struck  member 
would  be  determined  for  that  particular  case  by  the  executive  committee? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Would  the  executive  committee  pay  the  member  in  certain 
cases  damages? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  It  has  no  funds  to  do  it  with. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Would  it  assist  him  with  workmen? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  It  would  give  him  moral  support  and  assist  him  with  workmen 
if  they  could  get  them  for  him. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Would  it  only  give  him  moral  support,  or  would  it  spend 
money  ? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  It  has  no  funds. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  The  United  Typothetse  has  no  funds? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Not  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  the  only  support  it  gives  its  members  in  times  of 
strike  is  moral  support  and  the  sympathy  of  the  other  members? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  The  United  Typotlietse  formerly  had  agreements  with  trade- 
unions? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  With  the  pressmen's  union. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  also  with  the  compositors  you  had  an  agreement  with 
reference  to  the  introduction  of  the  nine-hour  day. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  When  was  the  agreement  with  the  pressmen's  union  made? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  In  1902. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  the  character  of  that  agreement?  What  were  the 
chief  features? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  consider  the  open-shop  agreement,  whoever  we  hire  we 
will  pay  him  the  same  scale  of  wages,  regardless  of  his  union  or  nonunion 
affiliations.  That  agreement  was  entered  into  in  1902. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  were  the  differences  arising  under  the  agreement  to  be 
determined? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  By  conference. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Suppose  there  is  a  local  condition? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  That  is  provided  for,  and  if  they  could  not  settle  it  locally  it 
was  decided  by  the  national  board  of  arbitration. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  was  that  constituted? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Two  members  from  the  typothetse  and  two  members  from  the 
union,  and  if  they  could  not  agree  they  selected  a  fifth  man,  who  was  the 
umpire,  you  might  say,  or  the  boss. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  kind  of  questions  were  to  be  submitted? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Only  the  questions  of  shop  practice.  This  is  a  very  short  agivo- 
ment,  if  you  want  to  read  it. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  We  shall  be  very  much  obliged  if  you  will  file  a  copy  with  the 
commission. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  This  agreement  reads  as  follows: 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  611 

"  THE  AGREEMENT  BETWEEN  THE  UNITED  TYPOTHET.E  OF  AMERICA  AND  THE 
INTERNATIONAL  PRINTING  PRESSMEN  AND  ASSISTANTS'  UNION  or  NORTH 
AMERICA. 

"  This  agreement,  made  and  entered  into  this  eighth  day  of  January,  1907,  by 
and  between  the  United  Typothetse  of  America  and  the  International  Printing 
Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  of  North  America,  for  the  purpose  of  establish- 
ing between  the  employing  printers  of  the  United  States  and  their  pressmen 
and  feeders  uniform  shop  practices  and  fair  scales  of  wages,  settlement  of  all 
questions  arising  between  them,  and  the  abolition  of  strikes,  sympathetic  or 
otherwise,  lockouts  and  boycotts: 

"  Witnesseth,  That  any  question  arising  between  a  local  typothetse  or  affili- 
ated association  of  employers  and  their  pressmen  or  feeders  in  regard  to 
wages  or  shop  practices  shall  be  referred  in  writing  to  the  local  conference 
committee,  made  up  equally  of  representatives  from  the  local  typothetse  and 
the  local  union.  During  such  conference,  and  until  final  settlement  of  the  ques- 
tion, the  conditions  obtaining  at  the  time  of  the  notice  shall  continue,  and  in 
the  meantime  there  shall  be  no  lockout  and  the  men  shall  remain  at  work. 
Should  either  party,  after  such  notice,  consider  itself  further  aggrieved,  such 
party  shall  immediately  present  a  written  protest  of  such  condition  to  an  officer 
of  the  other  party,  which  grievance  shall  be  acted  upon  by  the  conference  com- 
mittee within  five  days.  Neither  party  shall  have  the  right,  under  any  circum- 
stances, to  decide  that  the  other  party  has  broken  the  contract,  but  such  de- 
cision shall  remain  only  with  the  conference  committee.  Should  this  committee 
be  unable  to  agree,  or  should  one  of  the  parties  consider  itself  aggrieved  by  said 
committee's  findings,  either  party  to  the  conference  may  refer  the  question  at 
issue  to  the  national  conference  committee,  which  national  conference  commit- 
tee shall  act  as  hereinafter  set  forth. 

"  Both  local  and  national  conference  committees,  in  settling  questions  of  shop 
pratcice,  shall  aim  at  the  establishment  of  uniform  shop  practice  throughout 
the  United  States  and  Canada.  Unless  special  contracts  to  the  contrary  exist, 
any  finding  of  the  national  committee  in  regard  to  shop  practice  shall  be  bind- 
ing upon  local  organizations. 

"  A  ruling  upon  a  question  of  shop  practice  shall  be  made  within  three  months 
after  the  presentation  of  such  question  to  the  conference  committee  of  either 
side,  and  such  ruling,  when  once  established  by  said  committee,  shall  not  be 
reconsidered  writhin  two  years. 

"  Any  change  in  the  scade  of  wages  shall  be  settled  by  conference  or  arbitra- 
tion within  four  mouths  after  the  first  request  for  consideration,  but  shall  not 
go  into  effect  until  one  year  after  the  first  request  for  consideration,  and  no 
scale  of  wages  shall  be  changed  of tener  than  once  in  three  years  :  Provided,  how- 
ever, That  all  such  scales  of  wages  shall  terminate  with  the  expiration  of  this 
contract,  unless  specifically  agreed  to  the  contrary. 

"  All  present  contracts  between  the  local  typothetse  or  affiliated  organizations 
of  employers  and  their  pressmen  and  feeders  shall  continue  in  force  until  their 
natural  expiration. 

"  A  contract  accepting  a  particular  scale  of  wages  does  not  include  the  accept- 
ance of  any  rule  of  the  union  in  regard  to  shop  practice  not  specially  mentioned 
in  said  contract. 

"  The  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  shall  not  engage 
in  any  strike,  sympathetic  or  otherwise,  or  boycott,  unless  the  employer  fails  to 
live  up  to  this  contract,  it  being  understood  that  the  employer  fulfills  all  the 
terms  of  this  contract  by  paying  the  scale  of  wages  and  living  up  to  the  shop 
practices  as  settled  by  the  committee,  regardless  of  his  employee's  union  affilia- 
tions; no  employer  shall  engage  in  any  lockout  unless  the  union  or  members 
thereof  fail  to  live  up  to  this  contract,  the  conference  or  arbitration  committee 
to  be  the  final  judge  of  what  constitutes  a  failure  to  live  up  to  this  contract. 

"  Pending  investigation  or  arbitration,  the  men  shall  remain  at  work.  The 
conference  committee  shall  fix  the  date  when  any  decision  shall  take  effect, 
except  the  question  of  wages,  which  is  heretofore  provided  for. 

"  In  the  event  of  either  party  to  the  dispute  refusing  to  accept  and  comply 
with  the  decision  of  the  national  board  of  arbitration,  all  aid  and  support  to 
the  firm  or  employer  or  local  union  so  refusing  acceptance  and  compliance  shall 
be  withdrawn  by  both  parties  to  this  agreement.  The  acts  of  such  recalcitrant 
employer  or  union  shall  be  publicly  disavowed,  and  the  aggrieved  party  to  this 


612          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

agreement  shall  be  furnished  by  the  other  with  an  official  document  to  that 
pffect. 

"In  the  event  of  a  strike  in  a  nontypothetse  office,  if  it  proven  to  the 
local  conference  committee  that  such  office  is  not  complying  with  the  shop 
rules  and  practices  and  scale  of  wages  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  this 
contract,  no  assistance  shall  be  given  to  such  office  by  typotheta?  members. 

"  This  agreement  shall  continue  in  full  force  and  effect  until  May  1,  1912. 

"  It  is  expressly  agreed  that  until  January  1,  1909,  fifty-four  hours  shall  con- 
stitute a  week's  work ;  and  that  thereafter  during  the  life  of  this  contract  forty- 
eight  hours  of  eight  hours  a  day  shall  constitute  a  week's  work ;  arrange- 
ments, however,  can  be  made  locally  to  bring  the  forty-eight  hours  so  that  a 
Saturday  half  holiday  can  be  enjoyed  without  overtime  cost  to  the  employer, 
it  being  distinctly  understood  that  the  employer  is  entitled  to  the  forty-eight 
hour  week,  fifty-two  weeks  in  the  year,  except  where  legal  holidays  intervene. 

"  Notice  of  any  desired  changes  in  the  contract  must  be  given  in  writing  by 
either  party  to  the  contract  at  least  one  year  prior  to  the  expiration  thereof. 
.  "  Manner  of  arbitration :  Each  party  to  this  contract  shall  appoint  two  of 
its  members  who  shall  be  known  as  its  members  of  the  national  board  of 
conference  and  arbitration.  These  members  may  be  changed  at  the  will  of  the 
respective  parties  except  during  the  negotiation  of  any  particular  question, 
during  which  time  the  membership  of  such  board  shall  continue  the  same.  In 
case  of  the  death  of  any  member  of  such  board  during  the  consideration  of  a 
question,  the  place  of  such  deceased  member  shall  be  filled  by  his  party  and 
the  entire  proceeding  shall  thereupon  begin  again.  This  board  shall  meet  upon 
a  request  of  the  president  or  presiding  officer  of  either  party  at  some  point  to 
be  mutually  agreed  upon  within  one  month  of  such  request  and  shall  take 
such  evidence  as  it  may  consider  bears  upon  the  subject  in  hand.  A  majority 
of  votes  cast  upon  any  question  shall  be  binding  upon  both  parties  to  this 
agreement.  Should  the  vote  upon  any  question  result  in  a  tie,  this  board  shall 
select  a  fifth  person  to  act  as  arbitrator,  who  shall  for  this  particular  ques- 
tion act  as  a  member  of  such  board,  and  the  decision  of  such  constituted  board 
shall  be  binding  upon  the  parties  thereto. 

"  The  expenses  of  the  members  of  the  conference  committee  shall  be  borne 
by  their  respective  parties.  The  common  expenses  of  a  conference  shall  be 
equally  divided  between  the  two  parties." 

This  was  negotiated  in  1903. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  As  we  understand  that  it  provided  for  the  submission  to  these 
local  boards  and  to  the  national  board  of  all  shop  practices — that  is,  such 
things  as  apprenticeships,  and  the  number  of  men  on  each  press,  and  so  forth. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  That  could  be  brought  up. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  It  differed  then  from  the  contract  which  Mr.  Lynch  has  de- 
scribed with  the  A.  N.  P.  A.  in  that  the  international  laws  were  not  reserved 
from  the  adjudication  of  these  tribunals,  did  it  not? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  It  was  not  stated  that  there  was  anything  in  the  international 
laws 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Reserved? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Reserved. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  the  understanding  of  your  members  as  to  the  pro- 
vision as  to  the  open  shop,  or  the  provision  as  to  the  kind  of  shop,  in  the 
agreement;  will  you  read  the  words  again? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  It  says  that  a  man  lives  up  to  the  agreement  as  long  as  he  pays 
the  scale  of  wages,  regardless  of  whether  the  man  has  union  or  nonunion 
affiliations. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Your  understanding  is  that  under  that  clause  the  employer 
could  employ  anyone  he  saw  fit;  that  was  the  interpretation? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  So  long  as  he  paid  the  scale  of  wages. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  this  agreement  in  operation  now? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  the  old  agreement? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Well,  it  was  renewed. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Could  you  tell  the  commission  how  many  cases  were  settled 
under  this? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No  cases  were  ever  settled. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  No  wage  scale  was  ever  settled? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  No  local  arbitration  board  was  ever  formed? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  don't  know  of  any. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  613 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  long  was  the  agreement  in  force? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  It  was  in  force  one  year,  when  they  violated  the  agreement. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  One  year  only? 

Mr.  FIN  LAY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  there  not  discussion  in  1910  with  reference  to  a  renewal 
of  the  agreement? 

Mr.  FIN  LAY.  Yes ;  there  was  another  agreement  that  was  a  renewal. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  was  the  agreement  violated  at  the  end  of  the  first  year? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  am  sorry  Mr.  Lynch  is  not  in  the  room  when  I  make  this 
statement ;  I  told  him  I  was  going  to  make  it,  and  I  wish  he  was  present. 

That  agreement  was  violated  by  the  pressmen's  union  through  the  Inter- 
national Typographical  Union  locally  in  Boston.  I  want  to  exonerate  the  offi- 
cers of  the  International  Typographical  Union  from  having  any  hand  in  the 
thing  at  all  or  in  dealing  with  it.  It  was  purely  a  local  matter. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  after  that  no  effort  was  made  to  work  the  agreement  any- 
where? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Well,  we  had  a  strike,'  and  that  provides  for  no  strikes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  A  strike  in  Boston? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  done? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  In  1904  the  typographical  union  made  a  demand  upon  the  Ty- 
pothetse  officers  for  a  new  scale.  We  had  agreements  with  them ;  in  that  scale 
was  contained  a  clause  for  eight  hours  a  day,  and  we  told  them  we  could  not 
receive  the  communication  as  our  organization  had  a  contract  with  the  press- 
men's union  running  for  54  hours,  and  that  they  must  eliminate  that  or  we 
could  not  consider  the  scale.  We  broke  on  that  point.  We  did  not  receive 
the  scale.  Tiie  local  union  in  Boston  went  out  on  a  strike,  and  they  forged  a 
telegram  in  Mr.  Lynch's  name  authorizing  a  strike.  We  enjoined  them  from 
paying  strike  benefits  to  anybody  but  their  own  members,  through  Mr.  Bran- 
deis. Our  pressmen  and  feeders  went  out.  Mr.  Higgins  was  president  of  the 
pressmen's  union  at  that  time  and  residing  in  Boston.  We  took  the  matter 
up  with  him  and  he  told  us  that  it  was  nothing  he  had  anything  to  do  with, 
that  they  had  not  ordered  any  strike,  and  that  the  men  went  out  as  individuals, 
and  that  there  was  nothing  to  arbitrate.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  which  Mr.  Lynch 
would  bear  me  out  in,  after  being  enjoined  from  paying  any  strike  benefits  to 
jmybody  but  their  own  members,  and  after  we  settled  with  Mr.  Lynch  when 
he  was  brought  into  it,  Mr.  Brandeis  sent  to  me  and  produced  a  letter  signed 
by  Mr.  McMullen,  who  was  president  of  the  Boston  Typographical  Union, 
and  J.  Henry  Davis,  who  was  secretary,  and  was  a  member  of  our  school  board, 
where  they  had  given  our  employees  a  written  statement  that  if  they  would 
go  out  and  go  on  strike  they  would  pay  them  their  strike  benefits  while  the 
strike  lasted.  That  came  into  Mr.  Brandeis's  hands  because  they  did  not  live 
up  to  their  agreement  and  they  wanted  to  get  some  money  for^Mr.  Brandeis 
for  the  evidence. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  that  teiminate  all  relations  under  the  agreement? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No,  we  went  along ;  it  was  put  up  to  us  that  way,  that  these 
men  went  out  as  individuals,  and  that  they  had  a  right  to  quit  work  as  in- 
dividuals, and  when  we  had  our  Buffalo  convention  we  had  Mr.  Higgins  ad- 
dress us  and  we  had  him  prepare  an  agreement  for  an  eight-hour  day. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  When  was  that? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  In  1907. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  should  like  to  get  at  just  what  happened  between  the  Boston 
strike  of  1907 — you  say  there  were  no  cases  settled  under  this  agreement — you 
mean  that  although  it  was  in  existence  that  nowhere  in  the  country  were  any 
local  cases  or  shop  practices  settled? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  WThat  was  the  point  in  having  it? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  It  wras  supposed  to  carry  on  industrial  peace,  and  while  it  is 
peculiar  that  there  were  no  arbitrations,  the  employers  seemed  to  put  up  with 
anything  in  the  way  of  shop  practices,  and  the  employees  did  not  do  anything ; 
each  one  was  afraid  that  they  would  lose  some  advantage  they  had,  and  they 
let  it  go,  because  it  would  have  to  be  established  that  shop  practices  had  been 
changed  after  that  contract  was  negotiated,  because  they  accepted  the  prac- 
tices of  the  shop  as  they  were  when  it  was  negotiated. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  future  shop  practices. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  They  were  to  be  changed,  but  there  was  nothing  to  arbitrate. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  were  the  wages  settled  during  that  period,  locally  ? 


614          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  In  Boston  we  had  agreements,  always  had  agreements  with 
them;  we  have  agreements  now. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  This  agreement  for  arbitration  was  not  brought  into  force  be- 
cause there  were  no  local  disagreements? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No  local  shop  practices  that  we  considered  were  violated. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  about  wages? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  That  was  a  matter  of  local  negotiation?  It  says  there  that  they 
pay  the  scale  of  wages  to  union  and  nonunion,  and  that  was  a  fulfillment  of 
the  agreement. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Don't  you  understand  that  this  agreement  provided  that  if 
the  local  union  and  the  employer  could  not  agree  on  wages  it  could  be  taken 
up  by  the  national  board? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  didn't  so  understand  it.    It  says  when  they  pay  the  wages — 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Now,  there  was  a  termination  of  the  contract,  and  the  contract 
was  renewed  in  1907;  were  there  any  changes  made  in  the  contract  at  that 
time? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  There  was  a  change  made  for  a  nine-hour  day  January  1,  1909. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Were  there  any  other  changes  made  in  the  contract? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Essentially  none. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  long  did  the  agreement  exist  after  that ;  how  long  was 
it  in  force? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Well,  shortly  after  that  second  agreement  which  we  had  a 
special  convention  in  Pittsburgh  for  and  ratified,  Mr.  Higgins,  who  was  presi- 
dent of  the  union  was  removed — well,  he  was  not  reelected,  he  was  not  re- 
moved— and  Mr.  Berry,  who  is  here  in  the  room,  was  elected,  and  we  had  him  ar- 
rested down  in  Ohio  for  violation  of  the  contract,  and  the  decision  is  in  this 
book. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  did  the  decision  come  out? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  He  was  enjoined  in  the  court  down  in  Ohio  by  A.  C.  Thompson, 
judge,  the  southern  district  of  Ohio,  western  division. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  the  injunction  come  before  the  courts  at  all? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  The  injunction  came  before  the  court ;  yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  was  the  result? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  have  it  here.    It  is  as  follows : 

"  In  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  Southern  District  of  Ohio,  Western 
Division.     In  equity.    No.  6295. 

"A.  R.  Barnes  &  Co.,  etc.,  et  al.,  complainants,  v.  George  L.  Berry  and  Patrick  J. 

McMullen,  defendants. 

"  ORDER. 

"  This  cause  coming  on  to  be  heard  on  motion  of  A.  R.  Barnes  &  Co.,  etc.,  et 
al.,  complainants  herein,  for  a  temporary  injunction  on  behalf  of  the  com- 
plainants and  all  members  of  the  United  Typothetse  of  America,  who  are  not 
citizens  of  Ohio,  restraining  the  defendants,  their  agents,  and  confederates, 
and  each  of  them,  and  all  persons  now  or  hereafter  aiding  or  abetting,  com- 
bining, or  confederating  with  them,  or  any  of  them,  from  further  committing 
the  acts  charged  in  the  bill  of  complaint  filed  in  this  cause,  and  it  appearing  to 
the  court  from  the  allegations  in  the  said  bill  and  from  affidavits  filed  in  this 
cause,  that  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  said  defendants  have  been  guilty  of 
the  acts  set  forth  in  said  bill  and  affidavits,  and  have  conspired  and  are  con- 
spiring, as  charged  therein,  and  due  notice  of  this  motion  having  been  given, 
and  the  defendants,  Berry  and  McMullen,  being  represented  in  court  by  counsel, 
and  the  court  being  advised  in  the  premises,  it  is  therefore  ordered  that  the 
said  defendants,  George  L.  Berry  and  Patrick  J.  McMullen,  their  agents  and 
confederates,  and  each  of  them,  and  all  persons  now  or  hereafter  aiding  or 
abetting,  combining,  or  confederating  with  them,  or  any  of  them,  be,  and  they 
are  hereby,  restrained  until  the  further  order  of  the  court. 

"  From  calling  or  instituting  strikes,  or  advising,  aiding,  and  assisting  in  the 
calling  or  instituting  of  any  strike  against  the  business  of  the  said  members  of 
said  typotheta?,  or  any  of  them,  for  their  refusal  or  the  refusal  of  any  of  them 
to  institute  the  *  eight-hour  day '  in  their  respective  businesses  prior  to  January 
1,  1909,  or  the  'closed  shop'  in  their  respective  businesses  at  any  time; 

"  From  instituting  and  maintaining,  or  encouraging  the  members  or  any 
member  of  the  said  union  and  its  subordinate  branches  and  locals  to  institute 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  615 

or  maintain  strikes  against  the  business  of  any  of  the  said  members  of  said 
typothetse  for  refusal  or  failure  on  the  part  of  any  such  member  to  institute  the 
4  eight-hour  day '  in  said  members'  business  prior  to  January  1,  1909,  or  the 

*  closed  shop '  in  said  business  at  any  time ; 

"  From  in  any  manner  interfering  with,  hindering,  obstructing,  or  stopping 
the  business  of  the  said  members  of  said  typothetse,  or  any  of  them,  for  failure 
or  refusal  on  the  part  of  any  of  them  to  institute  or  maintain  the  *  eight-hour 
day '  in  their  respective  businesses  at  any  time  prior  to  January  1,  1909,  or  the 

*  closed  shop '  in  their  respective  businesses  at  any  time." 

Mr.  BARNETT.  We  will  not  trouble  you  to  read  anything  further,  Mr.  Finlay. 
It  follows  the  usual  form  of  labor  injunctions.  We  will  be  glad  if  you  wrill  file 
this  with  the  commission. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes,  sir;  certainly. 

(The  book  referred  to  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Finlay  and  from  which  the 
foregoing  extracts  were  read,  was  filed  with  the  commission  and  marked 
"Finlay  Exhibit  1,  April  8,  1914.") 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Were  there  any  proceedings  under  this?  This  was  a  prelimi- 
nary injunction.  Was  it  carried  any  further? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No ;  I  do  not  think  it  was. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  the  injunction  made  permanent? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  could  not  say  that. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Perhaps  Mr.  Berry  can  tell? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  He  can  tell  you. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  there  any  contention  on  the  part  of  the  union  as  to  this 
contract,  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  contract;  do  you  know? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No ;  not  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  On  what  ground  did  the  union  violate  it,  or  what  reason  did 
they  offer  for  violating  it? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  They  wanted  an  eight-hour  day  previous  to  the  contract. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  they  maintain  the  contract  was  not  entered  into  by  the 
union? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  They  did  not  maintain  it  was  not  a  rightful  contract? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No ;  we  had  a  general  strike  in  1906  with  the  International 
Typographical  Union  for  an  eight-hour  day,  and  it  was  going  on  at  that  time. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  judge  from  \vhat  you  say  that  you  feel  that  through  these 
means  what  might  have  been  the  beneficent  effects  of  the  agreement  were  pre- 
vented through  the  fact  that  the  union  would  not  keep  its  agreement. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  assumed  that  when  the  men  went  out  in  a  body  they  went 
on  a  strike.  We  found  out  afterwards  they  went  out  as  individuals. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  also  assumed  that  when  you  made  a  contract  in  1907  it 
would  be  lived  up  to? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  in  both  of  those  expectations  you  were  disappointed? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  have  no  contractual  agreement  with  the  International 
Typographical  Union? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Why  have  you  not  entered  into  contractual  relations  with  the 
typographical  union? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Locally  we  have  not  because  in  1904  we  had  this  unfortunate 
affair  and  negotiations  broke  off  at  that  time.  We  have  always  taken  this 
position,  that  we  will  always  meet  the  body  of  employees,  whether  they  are 
employees  of  an  individual  shop  or  their  representatives  through  their  organiza- 
tion— their  union.  We  have  had  several  meetings  with  Mr.  Brady,  who  repre- 
sents the  national  organization  in  New  England,  within  the  last  three  or  four 
months,  seeing  if  there  can  be  something  done  to  renew  contractual  relations. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Would  you  regard  a  contract  such  as  that  which  Mr.  Lynch 
described  as  existing  at  the  present  time  between  his  organization  and  the 
American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association  as  a  desirable  form  of  contract 
between  the  United  Typothetse  and  the  International  Typographical  Union? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Why  not? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Because  all  our  members  do  not  run  union  shops,  and  you-  have 
to  have  union  shops  to  have  that  contract. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Part  of  your  members  do  run  union  shops? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Some  of  them.    They  can  run  union  shops  or  open  shops. 


616          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  In  the  negotiations  with  the  International  Typographical 
Union  for  a  national  agreement,  has  the  question  of  an  open  shop  or  a  closed 
shop  been  the  chief  difficulty  in  the  way  of  reaching  some  kind  of  a  national 
agreement  ? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  That  agreement  which  we  negotiated  with  the  pressmen  in 
1903  was  offered  to  Mr.  Lynch  and  his  executive  board,  but  they  would  not 
accept  it.  They  wanted  the  closed  shop. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  you  feel  the  chief  difficulty  in  the  way  between  you 
and  having  a  national  agreement  with  the  International  Typographical  Union 
is  the  question  of  the  closed  shop? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  could  not  deliver  our  members. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  You  understand  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Associa- 
tion does  not  sign  up  for  all  its  members.  Any  member  of  the  newspaper 
association  who  sees  fit  to  take  advantage  of  a  contract  can  do  it,  but  there  are 
many  members  of  a  newspaper  association  who  do  not  run  nonunion  shops. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  But  they  do  not  get  any  protection. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  No ;  they  do  not  get  any  protection.  But  the  point  is,  would  it, 
in  your  opinion,  be  worth  while  for  the  United  Typothetse  to  make  a  contract 
which  could  be  accepted  by  any  of  its  members  who  at  the  present  run  union 
shops  which  is  a  form  of  contract? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  That  could  only  be  done  very  recently.  At  our  Denver  conven- 
tion we  admitted  to  our  membership  members  of  labor  organizations  who  were 
not  officers  of  unions.  When  we  had  this  conflict  the  people  that  ran  open 
shops  resigned  from  our  organization  to  conduct  shops  on  an  eight-hour  basis 
under  an  agreement  with  the  typographical  union. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  general,  then,  do  you  favor  the  establishment  of  trade  agree- 
ments between  employers  and  employees? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Locally,  I  believe  in  them ;  yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  do  not  regard  a  national  agreement  at  the  present  time 
as  feasible  in  your  trade? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  As  Mr.  Lynch  said,  it  is  pretty  -hard,  on  account  of  the  different 
localities,  to  have  a  wage  scale.  For  instance,  in  Boston  we  have  a  scale  of 
$21  a  week,  and  in  Worcester,  an  hour's  ride  from  there,  we  have  a  scale  of 
$16  a  week.  You  can  imagine  the  Worcester  people  would  not  be  very  enthusi- 
astic over  having  a  scale  with  the  International  Typographical  Union  that 
would  pay  them  $5  a  week  more.  It  might  be  a  good  thing  for  us. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association  they  could 
not  have  a  uniform  scale? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  They  do  in  localities. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  They  do  in  a  particular  locality? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  would  call  Worcester  a  zone. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  They  only  have  a  city  as  their  locality  or  their  unit? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes.  • 

Mr.  BARNETT.  If  the  commission  will  ask  such  questions  as  they  desire  now, 
I  shall  be  very  glad,  as  Mr.  Finlay  desires  to  leave. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  O'Connell,  do  you  desire  to  ask  anything? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  the  typothetse  organized  their  members  in 
your  city  or  in  any  city  into  a  local  organization? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  If  they  have  five  members,  they  have  to  have  a  local. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  you  a  local  in  Washington? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  If  I  were  to  ask  for  a  contract  for  the  publication 
of  a  magazine  involving  an  expenditure  of  $40,000  or  $50,000  a  year,  and  I 
would  submit  that  to  several  of  your  own  members,  is  there  involved  in  your 
local  organization  a  plan  whereby  those  bids  would  be  submitted  to  an  expert 
to  figure  out  for  them? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  In  the  typothetse ;  no,  sir. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  can  not  imagine  a  condition  of  contract  of  that 
kind? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  speak  from  personal  experience. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Not  with  the  typothetse. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  contract  involved  $40.000  a  yosir,  and  is  a 
contract  which  I  have  handled  for  many  years,  upon  which  I  am  supposed  to 
get  bids  every  year. 

Mr.  FT.NLAY.  I  would  like  to  present  you  with  a  copy  of  the  constitution  and 
by-laws,  which  prohibit  anything  of  that  kind. 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  617 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  imagine  a  condition  of  contract  of  that  kind 
could  not  exist  where  you  could  not  get  a  bid  that  would  vary  more  than  a 
sufficient  amount  to  pay  for  the  movage  for  your  plates  from  one  place  to 
another  ? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  can,  very  nicely,  imagine  such  a  condition.  Ninety-five  per 
cent  of  the  printing  business  was  conducted  without  any  union  system.  We 
have  been  spending  enormous  sums  of  money  to  establish  standard  cost  sys- 
tems. Our  association  has  a  standard  cost  system.  Dean  Gay,  of  Harvard 
College,  addressed  us  at  Somerset  in  January,  and  complimented  us  in  saying 
that  we  were  the  only  industry  he  had  investigated  that  had  a  uniform  system 
of  ascertaining  costs. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  think  under  your  system  there  would  be  com- 
petition for  a  contract  by  a  number  of  such  large  concerns  as  we  have  in 
Washington? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  do  not  think  you  have  any  very  large  concern  in  Washington. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  We  do  some  pretty  big  work  in  Washington. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Oh,  you  have  the  Government  Printing  Office  here,  of  course. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  We  publish  some  very  large  magazines  here.  We 
publish  sixty  or  seventy  thousand  of  one  every  month. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  That  is  a  small  edition  for  a  magazine  to-day. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  have  had  experience  in  having  seven  different 
men  bid  on  that  contract. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  do  not  think  we  have  seven  members  in  Washington,  so  that 
relieves  us  of  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  do  not  think  there  is  any  such  condition  exist- 
ing in  the  typothetae? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No,  sir ;  not  that  I  know  of.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  such 
condition. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  percentage  of  your  members  now  operate  on 
the  eight-hour  basis? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  All  of  them. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Finlay,  is  your  company  working  under  an 
agreement  with  the  union? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes,  sir ;  local  pressmen  and  feeders. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  deal  altogether  with  local  organizations? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  This  is  part  of  our  constitution  and  by-laws. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  in  the  event  of  a  dispute,  if  you  should  be 
unable  to  agree  with  the  locals 

Mr.  FINLAY  (interrupting).  We  are  unfortunate  in  that  in  our  pressmen  and 
feeders'  agreement.  Those  agreements — and  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  file 
them — do  not  have  the  signatures  of  the  international  officers,  nor  are  they 
sanctioned  by  them. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  you  should  be  unable  to  agree  locally,  what 
happens? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  have  no  recourse  through  the  national  organization  of  the 
printing  pressmen  and  assistants'  union. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  are  obliged  to  stand  subject  to  strikes  or 
lockouts  ? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes.    We  were  under  the  international. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  that  a  wise  or  an  unwise  condition? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  From  the  experience  we  have  had  we  can  not  be  any  worse  off. 
We  had  the  national  agreement. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  stated  a  while  ago  that  under  your  old  na- 
tional agreement  the  workmen  went  out  as  individuals? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Did  they  not  then  go  out  as  individuals  simply 
as  an  evasion  of  the  agreement? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Absolutely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  was  a  clear  case  of  evasion? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  that  was  so,  what  use  was  there  in  renewing 
the  agrement,  if  it  could  be  so  easily  evaded? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  had  in  this  1907  agreement  reached  the  time  when  we  were 
coming  to  the  eight-hour  day.  We  realized  that  in  the  first  strike  of  the  Inter- 
national Typographical  Union,  which  was  on  at  that  time  for  an  eight-hour 
day,  the  sympathy  naturally  of  the  pressmen  and  feeders  was  with  their  brother 


618          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

compositors,  and  that  is  why  the  agreement  was  violated  in  the  way  it  was. 
Then  we  negotiated  our  agreement,  and  Mr.  Berry  and  Mr.  McMamis  were 
elected  president  and.  secretary,  respectively,  and,  of  course,  after  that  we 
never  wanted  any  more  agreements. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  you  deal  altogether  with  the  locals? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Altogether  with  the  locals ;  yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  you  do  not  in  any  wray  recognize  the  national? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  your  body  has  a  national  conference,  has 
it  not? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  your  national  conference  will  not  deal  with 
tht  national  conference  of  the  printers? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  do  not  have  any  national  agreements  except  those  two  that 
I  know  about. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Under  your  local  agreement,  do  you  have  closed 
or  open  shops? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  have  absolutely  an  open  shop  in  Boston.  I  want  you  to 
understand  my  idea  and  explanation  of  an  open  shop  is  entirely  different  from 
the  wray  the  founders  stated  it  yesterday.  I  mean  by  "  open  shop  "  where  union 
and  nonunion  men  work  together,  and  all  of  them  receive  a  minimum  wage  or 
more.  That  is  what  I  consider  an  open  shop. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  are  at  liberty  to  hire  any  man  you  please? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Absolutely.  We  are  not  in  agreement  to  pay  them  the  scale, 
and  I  do  not  know  of  a  person  running  an  open  shop  who  can  run  an  open  shop 
successfully  and  pay  a  wage  scale.  I  have  no  sympathy  with  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Your  agreement  with  the  local  union  permits  you 
to  employ  nonunion  men,  so  long  as  you  pay  the  wrage? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Absolutely.  Our  negotiations  broke  off  with  the  feeders  in 
1904.  The  scale  of  wages  then  was  $16.50  a  week.  When  we  settled  the  eight- 
hour  day  the  scale  was  $18.  We  voluntarily  made  it  $20.  It  took  the  Inter- 
national Typographical  Union  three  years  to  get  it  up  to  that  point.  I  was 
chairman  of  the  scale  committee,  and  have  been  for  eight  years.  When  we 
negotiated  those  new  scales  in  June  with  the  pressmen  and  feeders'  unions,  we 
also  established  a  new  scale  for  compositors  at  the  same  advance  which  we 
gave  those  people,  and  we  have  b^an  in  the  peculiar  position  since  1904  of  the 
typographical  union  in  our  city  taking  our  scale  and  going  around  and  asking 
the  union  business  there  to  pay  it.  We  have  a  city  or  municipal  plant  there, 
and  they  go  to  them  and  say,  "  Here  is  the  typothetse  scale ;  we  guess  you  will 
have  to  pay  it."  That  is  the  scale  that  is  accepted  by  the  typographical  union. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  has  become  standard? 

Mi*:  FINLAY.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  A  little  while  ago  you  explained  that  in  the  city 
of  Worcester,  an  hour's  ride  from  Boston,  that  the  wage  rate  is  $16  a  week  in 
certain  departments  and  the  Boston  rate  is  $21? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  is  that  explained  that  there  is  such  a  wage 
difference?  There  is  a  difference  of  over  25  per  cent. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  They  have  a  typographical  union  up  there. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  does  it  come  there  should  be  that  wide  gap 
within  so  limited  an  area? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  can  not  explain  that.  It  has  bothered  us.  Within  an  hour's 
ride  there  is  a  difference  of  practically  $1  a  day  on  each  compositor. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  can  you  compete? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  can  not  compete. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  should  think  the  business  would  naturally  fall 
to  Worcester? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  It  does.  Permit  me  to  say  that  in  catalogues  and  even  grades 
of  halftone  work,  they  do  in  the  Commonwealth  Press  as  well  as  anybody  in 
this  country.  There  are  places  where  wage  scales  like  that  are  in  force  where 
they  can  not  turn  out  the  product,  but  there  is  a  case  where  they  can  get  just 
as  good  a  job  as  they  can  in  Boston. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  take  it  the  Worcester  printers  are  just  as  ambi- 
tious and  just  as  desirous  of  earning  as  much  money  as  possible  as  are  the 
Boston  printers.  How  does  it  come  that  they  do  not  jump  from  their  employ- 
ment there  and  go  to  Boston,  or  endeavor  to  raise  their  employers  there  to  the 
Boston  standard? 


TKADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  619 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Mr.  Brady,  who  is  the  national  organizer  for  New  England — • 
and  they  turn  all  kinds  of  work  in  New  England  over  to  the  international  organ- 
ization— under  sanction  of  the  international  organization,  in  talking  to  me 
and  trying  to  get  a  preferential-shop  agreement,  discussed  that  very  point. 
They  do  not  demand  the  closed  shop,  but  they  want  the  preferential  shop,  which 
ultimately,  to  my  mind,  is  going  to  be  a  closed  shop.  You  have  got  to  give 
preference.  I  have  negotiated  recently  for  the  J.  S.  Gushing  Co.  a  preferential- 
shop  agreement  on  account  of  the  pressure  that  has  been  brought  to  bear  by 
the  typographical  union  there  through  a  large  customer.  He  says  that  if  I 
will  make  an  agreement  for  the  Boston  Typothetse,  tying  them  up  to  the  pref- 
erential closed  shops,  they  can  get  together  and  will  go  to  Worcester  and 
Springfield,  where  the  wage  scale  is  low,  and  take  it  up  with  the  typographical 
union  there  and  put  them  up  where  they  belong. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  you  have  this  advantage,  have  you  not,  by 
virtue  of  your  paying  over  25  per  cent  over  the  Worcester  scale,  that  you  have 
the  pick  of  the  men? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  do. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  get  the  best  and  they  get  the  poorest? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Not  exactly  so.  A  young  man  learns  the  printing  business  and 
comes  up  in  Worcester  as  a  printer,  and  it  is  his  home,  and  he  is  quite  likely 
to  stay  there.  We  have  found  that  particularly  so  in  Cambridge,  where  the 
University  Press  has  been  in  existence  for  years  and  years,  and  where  the 
University  Press  is  with  families  going  right  along  and  rotating,  so  that  while 
they  have  a  good  deal  lower  scale,  you  can  not  get  them  to  come  to  Boston, 
though  they  can  get  there  in  seven  minutes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  there  that  much  difference  between  the  cost 
of  living  in  Worcester  and  the  cost  of  living  in  Boston,  in  the  way  of  rent,  etc.? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  think  the  only  difference  in  the  cost  of  living  there  would  be 
ia  the  rent. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Foodstuffs  and  raiment  are  just  the  same? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  think  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  difference  in  the  cost  of  rent  would  not  equal 
25  per  cent  of  the  wage? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Oh,  no. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  say  you  have  the  open  shop  principally  in 
Boston? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Absolutely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  are  at  liberty  to  employ  any  man  you  please 
so  long  as  you  pay  him  a  standard  wage,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact,  what  per- 
centage of  your  people  are  unionists  and  what  nonunionists? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  think  all  of  my  pressmen  and  feeders  are  union.  Mr.  Berry 
will  state  that.  I  think.  My  foreman  is  not. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  that  while  theoretically  you  have  an  open  shop, 
practically  you  have  a  closed  shop? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No;  I  do  not  agree  to  that,  because  I  do  not  have  to  ask  a 
man  whether  he  belongs  to  the  union  or  carries  a  card  or  whether  he  can 
come  there  or  not.  I  do  not  care  how  many  cards  he  carries  or  how  many 
he  does  not  carry.  If  he  can  perform  his  duties,  I  will  pay  the  wages. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Has  it  been  noticeable  in  your  shop,  which  comes 
under  your  personal  supervision,  that  union  men  made  things  uncomfortable 
for  the  nonunion  men  unless  they  joined  the  union? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  There  has  been  no  such  pressure  brought  to  bear? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Men  come  there  as  nonunion  men  and  become 
union  men  from  choice,  presumably  because  there  are  certain  advantages  gained 
by  being  union  men? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  To  them ;  yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  the  unions  make  it  attractive  for  the  men 
to  join 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes ;  generally ;  and  I  presume  they  make  it  attractive. 

If  I  may,  I  would  like  to  say  just  a  word  here  on  this  open-shop  question. 
There  are  certain  members  in  our  national  organization  who  do  not  believe 
that  we  run  open  shops  in  New  England.  They  do  not  believe  it  is  possible. 
They  think  they  are  being  hoodwinked  when  they  claim  a  union  man  will  work 
with  a  nonunion  man. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Who  believes  that? 


620          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Some  of  our  national  organizations. 

Commissioner    WEINSTOCK.  Employers? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes.    I  mean«f  rom  the  West ;  they  do  not  believe  it  is  possible. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  they  think  you  are  trying  to  deceive  them? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No ;  they  think  we  are  being  deceived. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  disadvantages,  if  any,  have  you  found 
developed  from  the  system  you  are  following  with  labor? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No  disadvantage. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  advantages  do  you  find? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  retain  my  self-respect.  I  believe  every  man  should  be  allowed 
to  earn  his  living.  I  believe  the  Constitution  guarantees  him  that,  and  I  am 
not  going  to  be  a  party  to  breaking  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  did  not  make  myself  clear.  I  mean  what  ad- 
vantage did  you  find  in  having  an  agreement  at  all  with  the  union? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  believe  in — no,  I  will  not  say  I  believe  in  a  uniform  wage, 
but  in  a  minimum  wage  and  uniform  hours  for  an  industry. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  for  that  reason  you  think  it  wise  to  deal 
with  the  union? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  On  that  basis. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  proportion  of  the  employers  in  Boston 
pursue  your  policy? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  The  typothetse  pursue  it,  and  the  unions  make  the  others  do 
likewise. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  represents  what  proportion  of  the  employers 
of  printers? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  In  the  city  office,  in  the  municipal  plant,  they  probably  have  in 
there  and  in  the  State  plant,  which  is  a  private  institution,  450  employees. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  WThat  proportion  of  those  employing  printers  in 
Boston  are  in  your  association? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Not  many ;  but  I  could  answer  that  question  this  way  better : 
Not  the  majority  of  the  printers,  but  the  majority  of  equipment. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  the  association  represents  the  larger  part 
of  the  printing  pay  roll  of  the  community? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  That  is  correct. 

Commssoner  WEINSTOCK.  What  disadvantages  do  the  employers  labor  under 
who  are  not  members  of  your  organization? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  make  the  scales,  and  they  do  not  participate  in  them  or 
have  anything  to  say  about  them. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  abide  by  them? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WTEIN STOCK.  They  accept  your  scale? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  The  union  passes  that  scale  on  to  them. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Finlay ;  thank  you  very  much. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  GEORGE  L.  BERRY. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Mr.  Berry,  will  you  give  your  full  name,  residence,  and  your 
official  position? 

Mr.  BEERY.  My  name  is  George  L.  Berry;  I  am  president  of  the  Interna- 
tional Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union ;  my  home  is  Rogersville,  Tenn. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  When  did  you  become  president  of  the  pressmen's  union? 

Mr.  BEKRY.  June,  1907. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  were  interested,  however,  before  that,  I  presumme,  in 
the  working  of  the  agreement  which  was  made  in  1903  with  the  typothetoe? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Not  as  an  international  official,  but  as  a  local  member  of  the 
organization,  I  was  familiar  with  its  application. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  you  know  anything  as  to  the  Boston  strike  of  which  Mr. 
Finlay  spoke  and  what  the  feeling  was  in  the  union  with  reference  to  that 
particular  matter? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Only  from  the  records  of  the  case  as  found  in  the  international 
headquarters,  through  correspondence,  etc.,  and  what  I  have  heard  through 
testimony  from  the  typothetse  and  from  the  union  representatives. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  State  what  the  difficulty  was  in  Boston  and  what  the  action 
of  the  union  was. 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  think,  in  substance,  from  information  that  I  received,  that  the 
position  taken  by  Mr.  Finlay  is  just  about  in  line  Avith  the  facts  as  regards 
that  difficulty. 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS  IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  621 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  is,  the  union  did  violate  the  agreement? 

Mr.  BERRY.  That  is,  that  union  or  its  members  individually,  acting  upon 
the  request,  indirectly  or  directly — I  do  not  know,  of  course — of  the  typo- 
graphical union,  who  were  in  difficulty,  did  individually  quit  their  positions  in 
order  to  assist  the  typographical  union.  As  I  say,  that  was  before  my 
administration. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Had  the  president  of  the  pressmen's  union  at  that  time  any 
power  to  force  those  members  back  to  work?  Would.it  have  been  possible  for 
him  to  do  that? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Under  the  laws  of  the  organization  I  \vould  say  that  the  presi- 
dent should  have  exercised  his  judgment  and  his  authority  in  endeavoring 
to  fulfill  his  agreement.  As  an  example,  during  a  number  of  occasions,  a 
balf  dozen  in  any  event,  during  my  administration  as  president,  I  have  had 
bimilar  difficultes  where  men  have  violated  local  agreements  and  awards  and 
taken  action,  and  we  have  forced  them  back  to  their  positions  or  filled  their 
places  by  other  union  men. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  ever  taken  away  the  charter  of  a  local  union? 
You  heard  Mr.  Lynch's  testimony,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  ever  taken  away  the  charter  of  a  local  union  on 
account  of  its  refusal  to  abide  by  an  agreement  or  an  award? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No ;  we  have  threatened  and  set  periods  whereby,  if  they  failed 
to  comply  with  the  order  of  the  board  or  of  the  president,  their  charter  would 
be  taken  away. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  have  threatened  them? 

Mr.  BERRY.  One  example,  if  I  may  be  permitted? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Yes. 

Mr.  BERRY.  Mr.  Weinstock  is  undoubtedly  familiar  with  this.  In  the  San 
Francisco  Bulletin  matter  of  1909,  an  arbitration  contract  existed.  An  award 
was  made  through  our  process  of  conciliation  and  arbitration.  The  newspaper 
pressmen,  after  the  earthquake,  decided  there  had  been  a  change  in  conditions, 
and  endeavored  to  establish  a  new  condition  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the 
jr.vard  and  the  procedure  of  mutual  conciliation,  etc.  They  struck  and  enforced 
the  employment  of  additional  people  and  the  changing  of  shop  practices.  The 
international  union  gave  them  a  certain  period  of  time  to  go  back  to  the  con- 
ditions provided  under  the  award,  and  failing  to  do  so,  that  we  would  take 
their  charter  away.  They  waited  until  the  last  moment,  and  then  complied 
with  the  award.  I  want  to  say,  as  a  matter  of  record,  that  the  International 
Printing  Pressmens'  Union  then  paid  voluntarily  to  the  San  Francisco  Bulletin 
the  exact  amount  of  damage  that  had  been  sustained  in  the  interim. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  Mr.  Finlay's  testimony,  Mr.  Berry,  he  made  reference  to 
an  injunction  issued  in  1907,  which  forbade  the  officers  of  the  international 
union,  yourself,  and  others,  to  expend  the  funds  of  the  union  in  a  strike  then 
pending.  Have  you  any  further  statement  to  make  \vith  reference  to  that 
injunction? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Mr.  Finlay  is  correct  in  the  matter — speaking  of  the  contract 
leading  up  to  that  point — in  saying  that  we  had  a  contract  that  expired  in 
May,  1907.  That  contract  had  been  in  vogue  for  five  years  previously  between 
the  United  Typothetse  of  America  and  the  International  Printing  Pressmen 
and  Assistants'  Union.  At  the  convention  at  Pittsburg  of  the  international 
union  in  1906,  the  board  of  directors,  made  up  of  five  men,  three  vice  presi- 
dents, the  president,  and  the  secretary-treasurer,  were  instructed  to  meet  with 
the  United  Typothetse  and  pursue  certain  lines  of  negotiations  looking  to  the 
establishment  of  another  contract  with  the  United  Typothetse.  The  board 
met  with  the  typothetse,  and  a  majority  of  the  board  entered  into,  as  they 
thought,  another  agreement.  At  the  convention  of  1907,  held  in  New  York,  the 
international  union,  by  an  overwhelming  majority  vote  decided  that  the  board 
of  directors  violated  their  instructions  in  making  this  agreement  with  the 
United  Typothetse ;  that  they  exceeded  their  authority  and  rights;  and  more- 
over that  in  the  alleged  agreement  there  was  no  feeling  of  the  mutuality  be- 
tween the  two  parties,  particularly  in  that  the  typothetse  had  reserved  the 
right  of  confirmation,  but  had  denied  the  right  to  the  pressmen  to  confirm  the 
agreement.  The  convention  took  the  position  that  if  the  so-called  open-shop 
clause,  which  has  been  touched  upon  by  Mr.  Finlay,  was  eliminated  the  or- 
ganization would  proceed  along  for  the  sake  of  harmony  and  peace,  under  the 
remaining  part  of  the  agreement,  for  its  natural  life.  The  new  board,  of 
which  I  was  the  chairman,  was  instructed  to  meet  with  the  typothetse  and 


622          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

endeavor  to  have  that  change  made.  We  felt  that  no  agreement  existed,  but 
in  that  the  typothetae  felt  there  was  an  agreement,  we  wanted  to  exercise  every 
precaution  to  prevent  a  rupture  between  the  two  organizations. 

We  met  with  the  typotheta?  in  September,  1907,  at  Niagara  Falls,  and  asked 
for  the  elimination  of  the  so-called  open-shop  provision.  The  typothetse  in 
convention  and  their  representatives  took  the  position  that  the  contract  had 
been  made  and  that  it  was  final,  and  that  there  was  nothing  further  to  discuss 
in  relation  to  it. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  May  I  interrupt  for  just  a  moment  at  that  point?  Were  the 
members  of  the  negotiation  committee  of  the  typothetse  under  the  impression 
that  the  committee  from  the  pressmens'  union  had  no  power  to  enter  into  such 
contracts? 

Mr.  BEEEY.  They  so  stated. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  Do  you  know  whether  the  members  of  the  pressmens'  union 
did  hold  out  to  the  typothetse  members  that  fact? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  do  not  know  as  to  the  board  of  directors  taking  that  position. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  I  mean  representatives  from  the  pressmens'  union? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  do  not  know,  of  course,  because  I  was  not  a  member  of  that 
board ;  but  it  is  rasonable  to  presume,  being  fair,  that  the  typothetse  thought 
there  was  some  indication  that  the  contract  would  stand.  I  am  rather  in- 
clined to  believe  that  our  representatives  advised  the  typothetse  that  they  could 
get  it  over,  but,  of  course,  they  failed  in  that  because  of  the  dissatisfaction  of 
the  membership  as  to  the  agreement. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  have  here  in  my  hand  the  report  of  the  conference  contain- 
ing one  of  the  proceedings  of  the  United  Typothetse,  and  desire  to  read  this 
statement : 

"  Mr.  HIGGINS.  I  will  tell  you  right  off  the  reel.  The  committee  have  got  un- 
limited power.  If,  in  the  judgment  of  the  committee,  they  think  they  have  got  a 
good  thing  they  will  close  it  up.  If  not,  they  will  submit  it  to  the  membership." 

Mr.  Higgins  was  chairman  of  that  committee? 

Mr.  BEERY.  He  was  president  of  the  international  organization  at  that  time. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  You  think  the  typothetse  members  thought  they  were  making  a 
contract  at  that  time? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  think  they  fully  understood  the  situation,  and  I  believe  they  all 
were  confident  Mr.  Higgins  would  be  able  to  get  the  contract  confirmed.  I  do 
not  think  there  was  any  misunderstanding  upon  the  part  of  the  typothetse 
about  it. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  You  think  Mr.  Higgins  thought  he  had  full  power  to  make  the 
contract  ? 

Mr.  BEEEY.  No;  I  do  not  think  that;  but  I  am  pretty  sure  he  thought  he 
would  have  it  confirmed  by  the  convention. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  Proceed,  Mr.  Berry. 

Mr.  BEBBY.  At  the  September  meeting  in  Niagara  with  the  typothetae  they 
disagreed,  or  refused,  rather,  to  make  that  change.  Then,  following  up  the 
instructions  of  the  convention  of  1907,  we  referred  the  entire  matter  to  our 
membership  for  a  vote  as  to  whether  they  would  place  a  10  per  cent  assess- 
ment upon  their  earnings  for  the  immediate  inauguration  of  the  eight-hour 
work  day  and  the  enforcement  of  the  eight-hour  work  day  on  January  1,  1908. 
That  was  placed  before  the  membership  and  was  carried — a  10-per-cent  assess- 
ment and  an  eight-hour  day — in  November,  1908. 

Immediately  the  attorneys  for  the  typothetae  sought  a  temporary  restraining 
order,  and  it  was  secured  from  Judge  Thompson,  of  the  Ohio  Federal  district 
court.  Judge  Thompson  succeeded  President  Taft  on  the  bench  in  that  district. 
They  secured  an  injunction.  We  were  enjoined  from  counting  the  votes,  en- 
joined from  collecting  moneys  or  paying  benefits,  and  enjoined  in  every  way, 
directly  or  indirectly,  in  the  enforcement  of  the  eight-hour  work  day  or  the 
union  shop. 

Of  course,  we  fought  the  case,  and  the  court — Judge  Thompson — decided  in 
the  final  hearing  upon  the  case  that  our  board  of  directors  had  exceeded  their 
authority  and  instructions  given  them  by  the  Pittsburgh  convention,  and  that  no 
contract  existed.  The  typothetse  then  took  the  case  to  the  United  States  court 
of  appeals,  and  the  United  States  court  of  appeals  sustained  Judge  Thompson  in 
his  decision,  deciding  that  there  was  no  contract,  that  the  board  had  exceeded 
their  authority,  had  no  right  whatever  to  make  a  final  and  binding  agreement, 
and,  of  course,  the  injunction  was  dissolved  and  we  proceeded  to  establish  the 
eight-hour  work  day  in  the  industry. 


l 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  623 

I  wanted  to  make  that  statement  while  Mr.  Finlay  was  here.  The  lower  court 
decided  specifically — and,  of  course,  I  have  the  documents,  which  I  will  be 
glad  to  serve  upon  this  commission,  and  I  think  Mr.  Finlay  will  agree  I  am 
correct  in  that  statement;  I  know  there  was  another  gentleman  present  who 
was  a  member  of  the  typothetee  board  at  the  time  who  will  substantiate  my 
position  in  this  matter.  The  injunction  was  dissolved,  and  we  won  in  the  lower 
Federal  court,  and  also  in  the  United  States  court  of  appeals. 

Does  Mr.  Finlay  want  to  ask  me  a  question? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  When  did  you  get  that  decision  from  the  court  of  appeals? 

Mr.  BEERY.  The  final  decision  was  rendered  in  February,  1908. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Did  you  establish  the  eight-hour  day  in  Boston  in  1908? 

Mr.  BEERY.  We  did ;  the  best  we  could. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Not  in  a  Typothetse  office.  We  lived  up  to  our  agreement  and 
established  the  day  in  January,  1909. 

Mr.  BERRY.  It  is  perfectly  true,  in  order  that  Mr.  Finley  may  not  misunder- 
stand the  position,  that  wherever  there  were  local  contracts  in  existence  at  the 
time  of  the  referendum  vote,  the  international  union  did  not  violate  or  break 
its  local  agreements.  I  am  quite  confident  Mr.  Finlay  had  a  local  agreement  in 
Boston  with  local  unions ;  otherwise  an  eight-hour  day  would  have  been  en- 
forced. 

As  further  proof,  which  he  can  verify  from  his  present  president,  Mr.  Courts, 
of  Galveston,  Tex.,  Mr.  Courts  employed  members  of  our  local  at  that  time, 
but  we  did  not  break  that  local  agreement  because  there  was  no  question  as 
to  its  validity.  Wherever  there  was  a  local  agreement  in  existence,  we  ob- 
served it  expressly,  but  we  did  not  observe  the  so-called  international  agreement 
for  the  very  fact  that  both  the  lower  court  and  the  court  of  appeals  sustained 
us  in  our  claim  that  it  was  illegal  and  did  not  exist.  That  is  possibly  the  rea- 
son why  Mr.  Finlay  did  not  have  trouble  in  Boston.  It  is  also  the  reason  why 
the  Curtis  Publishing  Co.,  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  Typothetse  members  there, 
did  not  have  any  trouble  for  the  fact  that  we  had  local  agreements  that  were 
absolute. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  Do  you  think  this  agreement,  drawn  up  in  1907,  was  a  good 
agreement  for  the  preservation  of  industrial  peace?  Would  you  favor  the 
making  of  such  an  agreement  now  on  the  part  of  your  union — that  is,  the 
agreement  of  1907  is  practically  the  same  as  renewed  or  supposed  to  be  re- 
newed in  1912? 

Mr.  BERRY.  It  was  supposed  to  be  renewed  in  1907. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Yes;  and  to  run  until  1912. 

Mr.  BERRY.  No ;  I  would  not  approve,  for  the  fact  that  in  the  agreement  that 
we  experienced,  which  was  identical  in  nature  for  five  years  previous  to  1907, 
it  wag  an  express  agreement  for  the  employers.  It  was  an  agreement  that 
carried  no  spirit  of  mutuality,  no  spirit  of  genuine  cooperation  between  the 
two  parties.  It  was  an  agreement  that  was  predicated,  in  my  opinion,  upon 
the  theory  of  destroying  the  trades-union  movement  rather  than  recognizing  it. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  do  you  mean  specifically  by  that? 

Mr.  BERRY.  In  that  it  recognized  the  right  and  in  that  it  established  the 
right  for  the  employer  to  discriminate  against  union  men  or  nonunion  men  as 
they  might  determine — and  by  that  I  mean  in  their  employment.  The  records 
show,  during  the  period  of  that  agreement,  that  we  actually  deteriorated  in  the 
matter  of  numerical  strength  rather  than  increased  in  comparison  to  the 
growth  of  the  commercial  industry.  That  was  borne  out  in  a  number  of  ex- 
amples, several  of  them  in  Boston  where  the  agreement  was  actually  in  ex- 
istence; the  employers  did  not  have  a  union  man  in  their  establishment. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  It  has  been  testified  that  in  Mr.  Finlay's  shop,  under  an  open 
shop,  all  the  pressmen  Mr.  Finlay  thinks  are  union  pressmen.  Do  you  feel  that 
certain  employers  have  dealt  differently  under  this  clause  with  their  employees 
from  the  way  in  which  Mr.  Finlay  deals  with  his? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Mr.  Finlay's  office,  or  the  office  with  which  he  is  connected,  I 
am  inclined  to  say,  is  rather  an  exception  to  the  rule  in  the  matter  of  working 
conditions,  in  so  far  as  our  experience  goes  with  the  United  Typothefoe  agree- 
ment. I  think  Mr.  Finlay's  explanation  of  the  conditions  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  Boston  proves  the  impracticability  completely  of  any  agreement  that 
does  not  specifically  recognize  organized  labor.  The  organized  labor,  with  its 
union  recognition,  is  the  best  and  most  practical  instrument  in  the  maintenance 
of  a  sane  and  fair  competition.  Wherever  the  union  is  the  strongest  in  this 
country  and  where  it  is  recognized  by  the  employers  as  such,  you  will  find  the 
industry  in  the  most  prosperous  condition.  Wherever  the  union  is  weakest, 


624          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

you  will  find  the  commercial  valuation  of  the  industry  at  the  lowest  ebb,  for 
the  very  fact  that  employers  working  nonunion  men  deal  with  their  people 
individually,  and  they  can  hire  and  discharge  them  and  impose  upon  them 
such  conditions  as  they,  the  employers,  may  dictate.  The  result  is  an  irregular 
and  unsound  competitive  condition.  Why?  Because  of  the  very  fact  that 
labor  is  the  chief  cost  of  production,  and  if  there  is  not  a  comparative  uni- 
formity in  that  cost,  giving  recognition  to  efficiency,  then  there  can  not  be 
uniformity  in  competition. 

Now,  if  Mr.  Finlay  and  his  Boston  friends  recognized  the  printing-trades 
unions  of  this  country  and  had  gone  along  with  them  on  the  theory  of  genuine 
cooperation  and  collective  bargaining  he  would  not  be  complaining  of  the  condi- 
tion in  Worcester  and  Lowell  and  their  competitive  irregularities,  and  for  that 
reason,  aside  from  the  fact  that  the  contract  was  destroying  our  union — aside 
from  that  very  important  fact — we  were  opposed  to  the  agreement,  because  it 
had  for  its  end,  in  my  opinion — and  I  think  we  can  bring  to  bear  sufficient 
proof  to  bear  out  this  fact — that  it  was  undermining  the  commercial  printing 
industry  of  this  country. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  ever  heard  of  a  printers'  board  of  trade — have  you 
ever  heard  that  expression? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  is  the  printers'  board  of  trade? 

Mr.  BERRY.  A  printers'  board  of  trade  is  an  organization  presumably  to  estab- 
lish prices  on  printers. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  It  has  no  connection  with  the  Typothetse? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  don't  know.    I  take  Mr.  Finlay's  word  for  it  that  it  has  not. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  a  desirable  thing  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  employees  of  your  union  to  have  a  printers'  board  of  trade  established 
generally  throughout  the  United  States,  so  that  the  cost  of  printing  could  be 
standardized — the  price  as  which  printing  could  be  sold?  You  spoke  in  favor 
of  standardization  of  competitive  conditions.  Would  you  like  to  see  that  state 
of  affairs  brought  about,  from  your  standpoint  as  a  union  president? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Our  organization  is  in  favor  of  any  system  within  the  industry 
that  will  promote  the  commercial  valuation  of  the  industry  for  its  union,  and  if 
the  board  of  trade  recognizes  the  organized-labor  movement  and  recognizes  its 
employees  as  essential  factors  in  the  industry,  under  contractural  relationship, 
I  am  prepared  to  say  that  our  organization  would  heartily  join  in  any  move- 
ment in  the  uplift  and  promotion  of  the  industry. 

We  believe — the  international  printing  pressmen  and  assistants — notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  it  is  known  as  a  militant  union,  and  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  it  has  been  classified  on  a  number  of  occasions  as  a  contract-breaking 
union,  we  nevertheless  are  of  opinion  that  the  success  of  the  printing  industry 
means  our  success,  and  we  can  not  expect  to  be  prosperous  unless  our  industry 
is  prosperous. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  you  would  agree  with  Mr.  Mitchell,  practically?  He 
said  the  other  day  he  thought  there  ought  to  be  some  arrangement  by  which  the 
coal  operators  would  be  allowed  to  agree  as  to  prices  and  he  thought  that  it 
would  be  a  good  thing  for  the  unions.  Now,  you  think  in  the  printing  trade 
locally  such  arrangements  would  be  desirable  from  the  standpoint  of  the  union? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  think,  in  my  experience  as  president  of  this  organization,  that 
the  most  stable  and  positive  and  essential  instrument  in  the  maintenance  of 
healthy,  equitable  competition  is  in  the  recognition  of  the  uniform-wage  scale  by 
and  through  organized  labor,  because  it  prevents  the  adventure  and  it  destroys 
all  the  possibility  of  the  employer  maintaining  his  business  on  a  low-wage  scale 
and  saving  losses  by  cutting  prices  when  he  finds  himself  in  difficulty. 

Now,  the  employer  with  organized  labor,  he  knows  what  it  costs  him,  com- 
paratively, to  produce  his  work.  If  his  competitor  is  employing  union  men,  he 
also  know7s  that  his  competitor  is  paying  a  certain  wage  for  his  labor,  which 
is  the  chief  cost,  giving  consideration  to  the  matter  of  increased  efficiency  of 
men,  etc.,  that  is  a  naturally  potent  feature.  He  knows  that  he  can  not  go 
below  a  certain  figure  and  that  if  he  does  that  he  has  to  lose,  and  not  the  men 
that  he  employs  are  to  lose.  In  a  nonunion  shop,  as  I  have  had  experience, 
where  nonunion  employers  to  save  their  losses  have  cut  wages  and  increased 
hours  and,  in  general,  changed  working  conditions  in  order  to  cover  up  their 
own  inefficient  business  capacity. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  at  the  present  time  what  part  of  the  shops  in  which  your 
members  work  are  composed  exclusively  of  unionists — how  far  do  your  members 
wrork  in  what  are  called  open  shops? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  625 

Mr.  BEERY.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  an  open  shop  in  our  organization ;  it  is 
either  union  or  nonunion. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Take  a  shop  where  the  employer  exercises  his  right  to  employ 
whom  he  will,  as  in  Mr.  Finlay's  case.  Do  you  call  Mr.  Finlay's  shop  a  union 
shop  or  a  nonunion  shop? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  think  a  union  shop.  I  think  he  has  exercised  very  wise  busi- 
ness judgment  in  employing,  as  it  would  happen,  all  union  people. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  do  you  account  for  the  fact  that  Mr.  Finlay  does  not 
know  that  his  shop  is  a  union  shop? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  really  don't  know;  maybe  he  does  not  look  in  that  direction; 
but  suffice  to  say  it  is  one  of  the  very  prosperous  concerns  of  Boston. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  at  the  present  time  any  agreement  with  the  American 
Newspaper  Publishers'  Association? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  When  was  the  first  agreement  with  the  publishers  made? 

Mr.  BERRY.  About  the  same  time  as  the  contract  with  the  typothetse. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  1903? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes;  that  was  the  second  agreement. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  it  made  as  early  as  the  agreement  of  the  typographical 
union  with  the  publishers  or  later? 

Mr.  BERRY.  About  the  same  time. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  it  substantially  identical  throughout  its  history,  or  were 
the  same  changes  made  in  your  agreement  as  Mr.  Lynch  has  described  in  regard 
to  the  International  Typographical  Union? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Our  agreement  with  the  newspaper  publishers  was  comparatively 
uniform  from  the  date  of  its  adoption  to  the  date  of  its  expiration,  and  the  only 
material  difference  between  the  contracts  was  in  the  matter  of  conciliation 
and  arbitration.  Ours  provided  for  an  odd  man,  whereas  the  typographical 
union  contract  provided  for  an  even  number. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  is,  throughout  its  history  yours  provided  for  the  odd  man? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  never  abandoned  that? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  The  other  organization  had  it  out  at  first — they  took  it  out  and 
then  put  it  back? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  this  contract  successful  in  avoiding  industrial  difficulties? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes ;  the  publishers'  contract  in  general,  or  as  a  general  proposi- 
tion, was  eminently  successful  and  satisfactory. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  you  have  any  strikes  under  it — any  strikes  in  shops  that 
had  contracts? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes ;  the  one  that  I  referred  to  in  the  San  Francisco  Bulletin 
office,  and  we  had  one  in  Denver  and  one  in  the  Inter-Ocean  in  Chicago.  The 
San  Francisco  incident  I  have  already  explained  to  you.  In  the  Denver  inci- 
dent we  have  compelled  our  men  to  return  to  work  and  adjusted  the  matter 
satisfactorily.  In  the  Inter-Ocean  controversy  in  Chicago  in  May,  1910,  we 
filled  the  places  of  our  men  who  struck  in  violation  of  the  contract  and  fulfilled 
the  contract  in  its  entirety,  at  an  expense  of  approximately  $7,000. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Will  you  explain  what  you  mean  by  filling  the  places  of  the 
men?  What  did  the  international  do? 

Mr.  BERRY.  As  soon  as  the  men  walked  out,  of  course  we  ordered  the  union 
to  place  them  back  and  proceed  under  the  provisions  of  the  contract.  The  men 
declined  to  return,  and  we  secured  men  from  other  organizations  and  published 
the  paper. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  did  not  take  away  the  charter  of  the  union? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  any  penalty  imposed  on  the  men  who  went  out? 

Mr.  BERRY.  The  international  board  of  directors — and  the  convention  sus- 
tained the  board  of  directors  in  that  position — decided  that  the  international 
would  bear  the  expense,  and  figured  that  the  union  had  been  sufficiently  dis- 
ciplined. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Through  the  men  losing  their  positions? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes ;  they  were  not  taken  back  to  their  positions. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  No  fine  was  imposed  on  either  the  men  or  the  union? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  When  did  your  agreement  come  to  an  end  with  the  publishers? 

38819°— 16 40 


626          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BERRY.  It  ended  May  1,  1912 ;  we  have  no  agreement  with  the  A.  N.  P.  A. 
at  this  time. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  did  it  end? 

Mr.  BERRY.  By  natural  limitation. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Why  was  it  not  renewed? 

Mr.  BERRY,  Our  membership  defeated  it  by  the  referendum  vote. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  any  idea  as  to  why  your  members  were  opposed  to  a 
continuance  of  it?  What  are  the  arguments? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Chief  were  the  difficulties  in  Chicago.  This  has  no  connection 
with  the  Inter-Ocean  situation  to  which  I  have  referred;  that  was  in  1910. 
Unfortunately,  I  think,  and  I  think  it  is  the  weakness  in  the  A.  N.  P.  A.  con- 
tract, but  it  exists,  that  the  other  three  international  unions  that  have  had 
contractual  relationship  with  the  publishers  do  not  require  their  members  to 
take  out  arbitration  agreements.  I  presume  Mr.  Lynch  in  his  explanation  of 
the  procedure  touched  that  phase  of  it. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Yes. 

Mr.  BERRY.  We  could  not  secure  from  the  publishers  any  other  change.  The 
agreement  was  made  with  them  as  a  general  proposition,  carrying  with  it  a 
clause  whereby  any  local  publisher  could  apply  for  a  local  agreement.  It  was 
not  a  compulsory  proposition.  I  feel  that  that  was  the  weakness  for  the  very 
fact  that  a  number  of  the  publishers  evaded  coming  under  that  agreement,  a 
number  of  publishers  ran  nonunion  shops,  and  yet  participated  in  the  making  of 
the  agreement. 

Now,  in  Chicago  there  was  only  one  paper  aside  from  the  Inter-Ocean  that 
held  an  international  arbitration  agreement.  All  the  other  newspapers  wrorked 
under  a  separate  and  distinct  agreement  locally,  having  no  association  whatever 
with  the  international  arbitration  agreement.  That  publishers'  association,  by 
virtue  of  lack  of  responsibility  to  this  national  organization,  constantly  evaded 
the  matter  of  considering  wage  scales  and  changes  in  shop  practices.  As  an 
example,  for  two  years  and  a  half  prior  to  May,  1912,  we  had  been  negotiating 
with  the  Chicago  Publishers'  Association  with  the  view  of  increasing  our  wages, 
a  wage  that  had  been  in  effect  there  for  approximately  eight  years,  the  pub- 
lishers holding  a  local  agreement  with  us  that  was  practically  perpetual,  yet 
providing  for  arbitration  and  the  opening  of  the  wrage  scale  after  a  certain  given 
time,  consistently  evaded  entering  into  arbitration  of  that  scale  of  wages. 

Our  membership  insisted  that  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Associa- 
tion should  compel  those  publishers  in  Chicago  to  enter  into  arbitration  and 
settle  the  matter.  We  could  not  do  it  for  the  very  fact  that  the  employers  there 
would  not  take  our  arbitration  agreements.  The  result  of  the  case  was  that 
when  it  came  up  for  readoption  the  membership  insisted  that  there  should  be  a 
clause  requiring  that  every  member  that  employed  our  members  throughout  this 
continent,  every  member  of  the  publishers,  should  be  compelled  to  take  out  an 
arbitration  agreement,  so  that  we  might  proceed  with  some  degree  of  uniformity. 
The  publishers  declined  to  accede  to  that  proposition,  and  for  that  reason,  the 
chief  reason,  the  membership  refused  to  renew  the  proposition. 

Another  very  important  reason  developed  in  the  lockout  that  was  precipi- 
tated in  Chicago  by  two  members  of  the  publishers'  association — one  member  of 
the  publishers'  association  who  owns  two  newspapers  in  Chicago.  This  pub- 
lisher, who  by  name  is  Mr.  William  Randolph  Hearst,  owning  the  American  and 
the  Examiner  in  Chicago,  held  with  our  union  a  national  arbitration  contract 
that  expired  automatically  with  the  international  agreement  of  May  1,  1913. 

Mr.  Hearst's  newspapers — I  \vant  to  cover  this  as  briefly  as  I  can,  but  I 
want  to  give  you  the  responsibility  there — I  am  sorry  that  the  publisher's  repre- 
sentative is  not  here,  incidentally,  so  that  he  could  listen  to  my  testimony — but 
prior  to  May,  about  one  year  prior  to  May,  1912,  Mr.  Hearst's  newspapers 
opened  arbitration  proceedings  with  us,  and  by  arbitration — it  may  sound  odd 
to  some  of  the  employers'  representatives  present,  but  by  arbitration,  wages 
were  decreased  and  hours  increased.  It  has  been  said  that  arbitration  has  but 
one  purpose,  and  that  is  to  decrease  hours  and  increase  wages,  but  in  this 
instance  arbitration  decreased  wages  in  Mr.  Hearst's  newspapers,  and  increased 
the  hours  in  the  Hearst  newspapers. 

The  basis  for  that  decision  of  the  international  arbitration  board  was  that 
Mr.  Hearst's  papers  were  not  being  treated  justly  by  the  union  in  the  matter 
of  the  competitive  cost  of  production.  That  difference  in  the  condition,  which 
was  true,  was  the  result  of  Mr.  Hearst's  entering  the  newspaper  field  and  volun- 
tarily establishing,  for  the  spectacular  purposes  for  which  he  is  so  well  known, 
a  wage  scale  and  a  condition  of  employment  that  exceeded  in  great  extent  any 


TKADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  627 

that  existed  in  all  the  other  newspapers  in  Chicago.  When  he  entered  the  field 
M-e  held  a  contract  with  the  local  association.  He  was  not  a  member  of  the 
A.  N.  P.  A. ;  he  was  not  a  member  of  the  local  association ;  he  was  an  inde- 
pendent publisher,  if  you  please,  and  he  gave  us  a  wage  scale  that  was  30  per 
cent  more  than  that  of  any  other  paper ;  he  employed  more  men ;  he  worked  less 
hours.  In  general,  he  gave  us  a  condition  that  was  exploited  among  the 
working  people  of  Chicago,  and  the  outcome  was  that  he  built  his  circulation 
and  his  business  upon  that  condition. 

Later,  however,  he  changed  his  mind,  and  he  became  an  associated  publisher 
with  the  A.  N.  P.  A.,  and  the  local  association  in  Chicago,  and  applied  for  an 
international  arbitration  agreement.  We  were  compelled  to  give  it  to  him,  and 
we  did  consent  to  it.  It  was  issued  to  him,  and  instantly  upon  the  expiration 
of  this  agreement  that  he  had  made,  giving  us  this  condition  that  had  been  in 
operation  for  approximately  10  years — wages,  hours,  and  conditions — then  he 
moved  for  a  reduction  in  wages,  an  increase  in  hours,  and  a  reduction  in  the 
number  of  men  to  that  existing  in  the  other  newspapers  in  Chicago;  and,  of 
course,  we  had  to  accede  to  the  proposition,  and  we  went  into  arbitration, 
and  we  lost  every  point  with  the  exception  of  the  matter  of  the  reduction  of 
the  number  of  men.  Mr.  Harry  A.  Wheeler,  a  very  well-known  gentleman  in 
Chicago,  and  whose  reputation  I  believe  was  beyond  question,  was  the  umpire 
in  this  arbitration.  He  visited  the  offices,  and  he  stated  that  in  view  of  Mr. 
Hearst's  association  there  was  no  alternative  possible  for  him  to  take  except 
to  bring  Mr.  Hearst  to  as  near  a  uniform  basis  of  cost  for  the  labor  as  it  was 
possible  to  do. 

As  I  say,  he  allowed  Hearst — that  is,  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  board — to 
decrease  wages.  The  number  of  men  he  refused  to  decrease,  for  these  four 
reasons  following,  which  are  very  concrete,  and  which  I  am  confident  will 
appeal  to  the  better  judgment  of  this  commission  as  practical. 

Mr.  Hearst's  newspapers,  printing  approximately  375,000  pages,  were  printing 
from  six  presses,  from  one  to  a  dozen  editions  in  the  afternoon,  each  meaning 
the  changing  of  plates  upon  the  presses,  the  running  of  color,  all  kinds  of  color 
appropriate  to  the  incident,  which  means  additional  work.  His  competitor,  the 
Chicago  Daily  News,  an  afternoon  paper,  ran  two  editions  printed  on  11 
presses,  with  a  much  less  circulation  in  the  afternoon  than  Mr.  Hearst's  after- 
noon paper,  and  the  11  presses  were  covered  by  every  scientific  modern  device 
for  the  operation. 

As  an  illustration,  these  large  newspaper  presses,  as  big  as  this  room;  in 
many  presses  nowadays  they  have  an  automatic  hoist,  where  you  attach  a 
chain  to  a  roll,  and  by  pushing  a  button  the  roll  is  carried  to  the  top  deck, 
higher  than  this  ceiling.  In  Mr.  Hearst's  pressroom  at  that  time  there  was 
not  one  of  these  presses  that  had  an  automatic  hoist;  they  were  old  presses, 
and  Mr.  Wheeler  decided  that  in  view  of  these  radical  differences,  which  really 
mad§  the  cost  of  operation  from  that  point  of  view  much  higher  on  the  Chicago 
Daily  News  than  it  was  on  Mr.  Hearst's  paper,  he  would  not  change  the  num- 
ber of  men,  and,, moreover,  that  inasmuch  as  37  per  cent  of  the  total  number 
of  men  employed  there  had  been  injured  at  different  times  in  the  operation  of 
those  presses,  it  would  be  the  height  of  folly  and  inhuman  to  reduce  the  num- 
ber of  men. 

Now,  that  is  Mr.  Wheeler's  version  and  the  reasons  that  actuated  him  in 
refusing  to  reduce  the  number  of  men.  We,  of  course,  accepted  the  decision  as 
it  was,  wages  and  everything.  That  continued  until  May  1,  1912.  At  midnight 
on  May  1,  1912,  the  national  arbitration  contract  expired  by  limitation,  the 
local  arbitration  award  expired  by  limitation,  and  on  that  night  Mr.  Hearst's 
manager  placed  in  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  pressroom  copies  of  this  docu- 
ment— and  of  all  documents  which  I  will  be  delighted  to  serve  on  this  com- 
mittee— a  notice  indicating  that  on  and  after  to-night  the  conditions  as  applied 
to  the  number  of  men  in  the  operation  of  these  presses  should  be  so  and  so ; 
in  other  words,  reducing  the  number  of  men  on  the  presses,  and  the  displace- 
ment of  approximately  22  mechanics  who  had  been  working  there  for  10  or  11 
years. 

Our  representatives  went  to  Mr.  Hearst's  manager 

Mr.  BARNETT.  This  was  in  1912? 

Mr.  BERRY.  This  was  May,  1912 — May  1st,  at  midnight. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  This  was  after  your  union  had  voted  not  to  renew  the  agree- 
ment? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Oh,  no. 


628          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  When  did  you  vote  not  to  agree  to  renew  the  agreement?  The 
agreement  expired  in  1912? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes;  May,  1912 — about  that  time. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  About  that  time  you  were  voting? 

Mr.  BERRY.  About  that  time  we  were  voting,  but  it  was  not  announced. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  thought  you  just  said  that  the  international  agreement  ex- 
pired that  night. 

Mr.  BERRY.  May  1,  1912,  and  we  were  then  considering  the  proposition  of  re- 
newing our  international  agreement. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Don't  you  consider  the  renewal  of  these  arbitration  agreements 
before  they  actually  expire? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes ;  we  had  been  negotiating  for  months  and  had  disagreed, 
chiefly  upon  the  fact  that  the  publishers  would  not  force  their  members  to  take 
up  arbitration  agreements. 

And,  let  me  say,  in  addition  to  that  the  reason  for  the  prolonged  negotiation 
was  this:  Our  organization  took  the  position  that  there  should  be  a  blanket 
agreement  covering  not  only  the  pressmen's  union  but  the  four  unions  of  the 
newspaper  industry,  so  that  there  might  be  genuine  peace  in  the  industry  in- 
stead of  constant  conflict,  one  union  being  out  and  the  other  being  in,  and  of 
course  the  publishers  would  not  accede  to  that  idea. 

Mr.  Hearst's  manager  directed  the  reduction  of  this  number  of  men,  and 
our  people,  over  their  signatures,  copies  of  which  we  will  produce  if  desired, 
requested  that  the  conditions  continue,  and  that  we  would  again  arbitrate  the 
question  if  they  were  dissatisfied  or  any  other  question  as  regarded  the  opera- 
tion of  that  pressroom,  in  order  to  maintain  industrial  peace  in  Chicago,  but 
the  manager  of  Mr.  Hearst's  paper  advised  that  that  was  their  ultimatum  and 
that  henceforth  the  number  of  men  should  be  so  and  so. 

Now,  just  let  me  say  one  or  two  words  on  the  question  of  the  reason  for  the 
stipulation  about  the  number  of  men. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Suppose  you  go  into  that  a  little  later,  because  Mr.  Weinstock 
asked  a  question  about  that,  and  if  you  will  condense  that  just  a  little  on  ac- 
count of  time 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  will  do  that,  but  I  think  this  is  of  the  utmost  importance,  as 
showing  why  the  agreement  broke  down. 

When  Mr.  Hearst  refused  and  locked  our  people  out  by  his  representative 
saying  practically,  "  If  you  don't  like  this  condition  you  can  get  out,"  we  got 
out.  He  was  then  in  contractural  relationship  with  the  other  publishers  of 
Chicago,  and  the  other  publishers  found  themselves  in  the  embarrassing  posi- 
tion of  either  breaking  the  contract  with  the  union  that  we  held,  which  was 
a  perpetual  sacred  contract,  or  breaking  a  contract  with  their  own  member,  Mr. 
Hearst,  and  the  result  was  that  upon  the  action  of  Mr.  Hearst  in  locking  our 
people  out,  forcing  the  fight  upon  us,  every  other  publisher  that  was  a  member 
of  the  association  in  Chicago  was  compelled  to  do  likewise,  in  order  to  live  up 
to  their  preferred  contract  with  Mr.  Hearst  and  not  live  up  to  the  contract 
with  our  union. 

Now,  the  action  of  the  publishers  in  that  degree  brought  about  the  fight 
that  followed,  and  the  antagonism  and  delay  and  the  unfair  attitude  that  had 
been  taken  by  these  publishers  in  Chicago  in  that  regard,  and  in  the  two  years' 
constant  refusal  to  arbitrate,  the  refusal  of  the  A.  N.  P.  A.  to  force  their  mem- 
bers to  do  the  just  thing  and  go  into  arbitraion  was  the  chief  cause  of  refusal 
of  the  membership  to  adopt  the  agreement. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  you  regard  this  action  on  the  part  of  the  membership  as 
wise? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  thought  the  agreement  was  a  good  thing,  did  you? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  think  it  would  have  been  wise  for  the  union  to  keep  on? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  much  was  the  majority  against  it? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Just  a  few  hundred. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  you  remember  about  how  many  votes  were  cast?  How 
many  members  has  your  union? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Thirty-one  thousand.  I  think  there  were  approximately  16,000 
votes  cast.  We  do  not  have  any  better  success  in  our  referendunis  than  the 
international  union. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  out  of  16,000  votes  just  a  few  hundred  defeated  it? 

Mr.  BEKRY.  Yes. 


TKADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  629 

Mr.  BAENETT.  So  that  the  matter  was  pretty  well  canvassed  by  the  union? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  after  10  years  of  the  agreement  they  decided  to  let  it  go? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  think  if  the  matter  had  not  been  voted  on  except  at  this 
particular  time  it  would  have  carried? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  think  so,  undoubtedly. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Has  your  association  taken  up  any  negotiations  for  a  renewal 
of  the  agreement? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No ;  it  has  not  taken  up  any  negotiations,  but  I  am  confident  that 
we  will  renew  negotiations. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  think  that  the  agreement  is  a  sound  agreement  in  all  par- 
ticulars except  in  that  particular  you  have  mentioned ;  that  is,  that  the  pub- 
lishers ought  to  require  their  members  to  run  union  shops  and  come  into  the 
agreement  ? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  think,  in  addition  to  the  weakness  that  I  have  pointed  out,  which 
applies  to  all — I  think  in  addition  to  that  is  the  question  of  the  matter  of  secur- 
ing the  odd  member. 

Now,  arbitration  in  the  newspaper  industry  is  not  a  tea  party  by  a  jugful, 
and  ever  since  the  organization  was  organized,  in  every  newspaper  on  this  con- 
tinent outside  of  Chicago,  with  the  exception  of  twelve,  there  are  only  twelve 
nonunion  newspapers  on  this  continent  outside  of  Chicago,  and  our  wages  as  a 
general  proposition  exceed  those  paid  in  the  newspaper  end  of  it  of  any  other 
organization,  and  our  hours  are  low ;  seven  and  a  half  hours  nights,  and  we  have 
an  absolute  universal  eight-hour  working  day,  by  day  \vork;  and  when  we  go 
into  arbitration  now  it  is  not  a  question  of  the  publishers  giving  us  something, 
or  we  give  the  publishers  something;  it  is  a  question  of  arbitration,  and  it  is 
a  case  of  fighting  every  point  in  connection  with  it ;  and,  of  course,  as  the  result 
of  that  condition  we  are  ofttimes  forced  to  select  a  third  man,  and  sometimes 
that  is  very  difficult. 

I  believe  we  recommended  in  our  proposition  to  the  publishers,  and  I  might 
say  that  we  have  agreed  a  number  of  times  in  advance  of  arbitrations,  that 
upon  the  raising  of  the  issue  between  the  publishers  and  the  union  and  the 
opening  of  arbitration  we  would  agree  that  the  condition  arrived  at,  whether 
it  was  within  one  month,  one  year  or  two  years,  should  date  back  to  the  time 
of  the  raising  of  the  issue.  We  have  agreed  upon  that  a  number  of  times,  but  it 
has  been  informal ;  it  was  not  required  in  the  agreement.  That  has  satisfied 
the  membership,  becauses  in  the  general  delay  of  arbitration  it  is  the  employees 
that  lose,  and  the  employer  gains,  and  in  that  way  the  membership  have  been 
satisfied. 

We  have  also  advocated  the  idea  that  was  expressed  here  by  Mr.  Weinstock 
yesterday  in  offering  to  select  the  third  man  in  advance  of  the  arising  of  the 
dispute,  but  the  publishers  were  not  willing  to  accede  to  that  point  of  view. 
Now  comes  this  point :  I  believe  that  upon  the  making  of  a  blanket  agreement 
between  the  publishers  and  the  four  unions  in  the  industry  that  increased  re- 
sponsibility will  follow,  that  upon  the  failure  of  any  individual  union  and 
employer  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion,  that  when  a  reviewing  board  from  these 
other  three  unions  affected,  with  the  employer,  should  step  in.  Then,  if  they 
fail,  I  think  it  is  entirely  a  competent  proposition,  and  I  believe  the  Govern- 
ment would  be  exercising  a  wise  and  intelligent  duty  in  extending  the  present 
Erdman  Act  and  make,  voluntarily  at  least,  the  right  and  possibility  of  the 
union  and  employer  to  appeal  in  advance  of  the  difficulty,  or  at  the  time  of 
the  difficulty,  for  advice  and  assistance  from  the  Government. 

I  disagree  with  Mr.  Frey  in  the  matter;  I  do  not  want  to  be  placed  in  the 
attitude  of  even  intimating  compulsory  arbitration,  but  I  believe  the  Govern- 
ment would  be  fulfilling  a  great  service,  out  of  this  commission  or  by  this  com- 
mission, or  from  your  recommendations,  if  it  would  establish  a  board  of  some 
character  that  would  at  all  times  be  willing  and  prepared  to  respond  to  indus- 
trial disputes ;  in  that  way  I  think  we  could  gradually  minimize  them  to  prac- 
tically nothing. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  the  newspaper  publishers  agree  with  you  that  the  laws  of 
your  national  union  become  effective  in  these  agreements? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Certain  laws. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  laws  of  the  national  union  did  they  specify ;  or  did  they 
agree,  as  they  did  with  the  typographical  union,  that  the  laws  of  the  national 
typographical  union  relating  to  working  conditions  would  be  regarded  as  parts 
of  the  contract? 


630          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  think  that  the  typographical  union — I  am  not  sure  about  that, 
but  I  think  our  union,  which  would  be  a  natural  thing  in  negotiating  a  contract 
with  publishers,  would  insist  that  our  fundamental  la\vs  should  be  a  part  of 
the  agreement.  If  there  was  any  great  opposition  to  any  specific  law,  we  discuss 
the  reasons  for  the  opposition  and  if  we  could  arrive  at  a  conclusion  then  we 
change  that  law  to  harmonize. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  You  did  discuss  those  laws? 

Mr.  BERSY.  Oh,  no  question  about  it;  certain  laws.  About  the  fundamental 
laws,  there  was  no  discussion  with  the  publishers  about  accepting  them. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  You  heard  Mr.  Lynch  say  that  they  did  not  have  any  discus- 
sion? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  did  not  hear  him  say  that. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  heard  him  say  that  it  was  the  object  to  have  these  rules 
decided  entirely  by  the  union,  and  not  as  the  stove  founders,  by  general  strikes? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Well,  of  course,  the  union  knows  best  what  it  wants,  and  it  knows 
best  the  application  of  the  laws  to  govern  its  organization.  I  agree  with  Mr. 
Lynch  on  that. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  a  rule  as  to  the  number  of  men  on  presses? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  is  a  local  rule? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No ;  it  is  not  a  local  rule.     We  have  no  local  rule. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Where  it  is  enforced,  it  is  a  local  rule? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No ;  we  have  no  local  rule ;  it  is  a  matter  settled  by  contractual 
relationship. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Suppose  you  have  no  contract — or  have  you  any  places  where 
you  have  no  contract? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Very  few. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  did  not  mean  only  in  newspapers,  but  in  the  book  and  job 
houses. 

Mr.  BERRY.  Very  rarely.    I  do  not  recall  one. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  the  rules  of  the  local  unions  do  not  contain  provisions 
as  to  the  number  of  men  required  on  different  sizes  and  varieties  of  presses? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No ;  only  in  this,  so  that  I  may  be  thoroughly  understood :  In  our 
negotiations,  when  negotiations  are  called  by  local  unions  and  publishers,  then 
that  negotiation  becomes  a  part  of  the  local  by-laws,  but  the  number  of  men 
are  subject  to  conciliation  and  arbitration. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  a  national  apprenticeship  ratio? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Mr.    BARNETT.  Is   that   a   part   of   your   agreement   with    the   publishers? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  was  understood  to  be  a  part  of  it? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Was  there  any  national  rule  of  yours  which  was  modified? 
Can  you  think  of  one  which  was  modified? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  really  can  not,  Professor,  but  I  know  there  was  consideration; 
I  know,  particularly  in  regard  to  the  Printers'  League  of  America,  a  contract 
which  I  think  is  the  broadest  in  existence;  I  know  we  modified  some  laws  to 
harmonize  with  their  views,  but  I  do  not  recall  the  publishers  exactly. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Mr.  Berry,  about  this  Boston  situation,  how  does 
Mr.  Finlay  settle  his  wage  and  hour  conditions  with  his  employees? 

Mr.  BERRY.  By  local  negotiations,  with  the  unions  there. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  With  the  pressmen's  local  unions? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Then  he  is  dealing  with  the  union? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  consider  that  is  an  open-shop  condition,  as 
Mr.  Finlay  puts  it? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Dealing  with  the  local  union  and  employing  union  men  is  cer- 
tainly not  an  open  shop. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  understood  he  was  running  an  open  shop,  and 
yet  I  understood  all  his  pressmen  are  union  men. 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  making  a  contract  or  getting  working  conditions 
from  them  it  is  natural  to  suppose  he  was  dealing  with  the  union? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  want  to  know  whether  these  union  men  in  the 
press  room  had  had  a  contract  made  with  your  local  union  as  "  Boston  Union 
No.  So-and-so." 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  631 

Mr.  BEERY.  That  is  the  relationship  exactly,  and  it  is  negotiated  by  their 
local  typothetae,  of  which  Mr.  Fiulay  is  a  member,  as  to  certain  wage  scales 
arid  conditions.  I  take  it  from  what  Mr.  Finlay  says — and  I  believe  it  is  so — 
that  members  of  our  organizations  are  exclusively  employed  in  his  olhce.  That 
is  not  the  case  in  all  the  offices. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  Mr.  Finlay's  office? 

Mr.  BEEEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Does  the  contract  Mr.  Finlay  holds  with  the  press- 
men's union  in  Boston  read,  "  This  agreement  is  between  the  blank  company," 
whatever  the  name  of  his  company  is,  "  and  the  pressmen  of  Local  Union  No. 
So-and-so  "? 

Mr.  BEEEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  is  not  an  arrangement  made  with  the  employees 
and  Mr.  Finlay? 

Mr.  BEKEY.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  is  made  with  the  local  union? 

Mr.  BEEEY.  Yes,  sir.  I  think  Mr.  Finlay  served  copies  of  that  contract  on  the 
commission. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  know  anything  of  the  printer  boards  of 
trade  and  their  methods  of  conducting  their  business? 

Mr.  BEEEY.  They  are  very  diversified.  I  have  known  some  of  them,  but  there 
is  no  comparative  uniformity  in  the  matter  of  procedure,  and  I  am  not  compe- 
tent to  answer  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  do  not  know  wThether  the  printers'  board  of 
trade  in  Boston  or  Washington  or  New  York  have  an  arrangement  whereby 
prices  are  set  by  them  for  particular  lines  of  work,  and  that  bids  submitted  to 
them  for  work  wrould  be  submitted  to  a  central  office  and  figured  out? 

Mr.  BEEEY.  With  a  great  many  buyers  of  printing  that  is  considered  as  being 
in  existence,  but  I  could  not  say  that  it  does  exist. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  WThat  would  you  think  of  the  idea  of  a  Federal 
board,  something  on  the  order  of  the  new  Erdinan  Act,  but  a  larger  board, 
with  a  larger  number  of  men — 12  or  15  men  to  be  appointed  as  a  board  for 
purposes  of  conciliation,  and  that  sort  of  thing,  with  a  view  to  bringing  em- 
ployees and  employers  together,  wTith  a  view  of  getting  between  them  when 
trouble  arises,  as  a  great  big  proposition  for  the  adjustment  of  disputes,  and 
not  on  one  particular  line,  as  the  act  now  provides  for  men  under  transporta- 
tion, but  for  the  entire  industrial  community? 

Mr.  BEEEY.  I  think,  as  a  voluntary  proposition,  that  it  would  be  one  of  the 
most  practical  things  the  Government  could  undertake.  I  think  it  is  perfectly 
sound,  and  it  is  absolutely  necessary. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Did  you  hear  the  statement  of  the  representative 
of  the  founders'  association  the  other  day,  who  said  he  believed  that  better 
results  would  come  to  the  workmen  by  not  being  members  of  the  union  and 
acting  in  their  individual  capacity  rather  than  collectively?  What  is  your  ex- 
j3erience  in  the  matter  of  collective  bargaining  and  collective  dealing? 

Mr.  BEBEY.  Our  experience  is,  as  I  have  indicated,  that  our  members  are  en- 
joying an  exclusive  eight-hour  day  and,  in  most  instances,  a  seven  and  a  half 
hour  night  and  with  an  average  wage  that  will  equal  any  in  this  country,  and 
that  we  have  made  for  our  membership  as  a  result  of  our  organization  a  stand- 
ard of  respectability  and  independence  and  citizenship  that,  in  my  opinion, 
could  not  be  accomplished  otherwise.  In  addition  to  that  we  have  established 
benefits  for  our  members  that  could  not  possibly  have  come  to  them  had  they 
been  nonunlonists.  For  instance,  our  home,  our  sanatorium,  our  trade  schools, 
our  death  benefits,  and  all  those  things  that  go  to  the  members  of  our  organiza- 
tion, conditions  they  could  not  possibly  have  gotten  had  they  acted  individually 
with  their  employers. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  think  it  is  not  possible  for  men  dealing  indi- 
vidually to  bring  about  the  same  results  they  would  obtain  by  dealing  collec- 
tively? 

Mr.  BEERY.  I  do  not  think  it  is  practicable  for  the  men  or  sound  business 
judgment  for  the  industry. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  all. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Can  a  local  union  strike,  Mr.  Berry,  without  ap- 
proval of  the  national  union? 

Mr.  BEEEY.  No,  sir ;  unless  they  take  arbitrary  action. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  strike  that  either  is  or 
was  going  on  in  San  Francisco? 


632          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Was  that  with  the  approval  of  the  national  union? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  What  apout  the  talk  that  has  been  made  to  me 
by  friends  of  mine  who  happen  to  be  in  the  newspaper  business,  that  the  press- 
men's union  are  demanding  more  men  to  be  put  on  than  is  really  necessary? 
What  are  the  facts  in  the  case? 

Mr.  BERRY.  It  is  absolutely  true.  We  demand  not  that  more  men  be  put 
on  than  are  necessary,  but  we  demand  that  the  number  of  men  be  stipulated.  It 
is  not  a  tight  or  fast  rule,  as  I  have  already  indicated  in  my  testimony.  The 
question  of  the  number  of  men  is  a  negotiable  point,  just  as  is  the  question 
of  wages.  We  take  the  position  that  the  manning  of  a  press  should  be  de- 
termined because  of  the  hazards  of  the  business.  We  base  our  claim  in  this 
regard  on  the  same  principle  that  the  Government  bases  its  claim  as  to  the 
number  of  men  operating  a  shift.  We.  say  the  employer  who  has  no  practical 
experience  in  the  operation  of  a  press  the  size  of  this  room,  should  not  have  the 
sum  total  right  of  determining  whether  these  men  are  risking  their  lives 
or  whether  they  are  properly  protected.  But  we  do  not  say  that  we  shall 
have  the  exclusive  right.  We  say  that  we  know  best  as  to  the  number  of 
men  that  should  operate  a  machine,  but  we  take  a  more  liberal  point  of  view 
and  say  we  will  negotiate  and  even  arbitrate  the  number  of  men  upon  presses. 

For  instance,  Mr.  WTeinstock,  going  back  to  the  San  Francisco  Bulletin 
controversy,  that  was  over  the  number  of  men.  The  men  struck  to  enforce 
an  increased  number  of  men,  against  an  arbitration  award  in  existence  and 
against  the  arbitration  contract  that  prevented  strikes.  We  forced  them  back, 
and  a  year  and  a  half  later  I  went  to  San  Francisco  and  took  the  matter  up 
through  the  general  form  of  procedure  under  the  contract,  and  we  selected 
Judge  James  G.  McGuire  as  umpire  in  the  matter  of  increasing  the  number 
of  men  on  those  presses,  and  we  won  our  contest,  and  the  men  were  in- 
creased on  the  presses.  That  was  our  procedure  in  that  regard. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Do  the  pressmen's  unions  go  out  on  sympathetic 
strikes,  regardless  of  agreements? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Oh,  no;  no,  sir.  I  want  to  say  on  that  phase  that,  except  as 
has  been  indicated  by  ex-President  Lynch,  of  the  International  Typographical 
Union,  many  of  our  local  unions  make  local  agreements  carrying  in  the  agree- 
ment a  provision  whereby,  if  the  dispute  arises  between  a  sister  union  of  the 
allied  trades,  and  the  employer  refuses  to  arbitrate,  then  the  contract  becomes 
null  and  void. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  a  matter  of  contract? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes.  I  want  to  add  one  more  word  on  that  for  Mr.  Lynch's 
protection.  In  the  matter  of  the  Chicago  situation,  the  local  typographical 
union  worked  when  we  had  our  lockout  there,  but  there  was  no  provision  in 
that  local  agreement  which  made  it  possible  for  them  to  discontinue  their 
work.  A  good  many  people,  and  Mr.  Lynch,  of  course,  took  the  position  that 
they  should  not  come  out,  and  he  maintained  them  in  their  position,  much 
to  our  dissatisfaction  and  to  our  people's  dissatisfaction.  I  throw  that  out  for 
his  benefit. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  take  it  you  approve  of  such  contracts  as  Mr. 
Finlay  has  with  his  local  unions? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No ;  I  do  not ;  for  the  very  fact,  as  Mr.  Finlay  has  indicated, 
the  International  Typographical  Union  has  declined  to  underwrite  the  agree- 
ment in  Boston,  for  the  very  fact  that  it  carries  with  it  an  open  shop  clause. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Can  a  local  union  enter  into  an  agreement  that 
is  not  ratified  by  the  International  Typographical  Union? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Not  under  our  laws,  but  contrary  to  the  general  understanding 
of  the  trade  unions,  there  are  a  few  of  them  who  do  not  precipitate  trouble, 
and  in  that  our  unions  have  progressed  reasonably  well  under  it,  I  am  will- 
ing to  acknowledge  that  we  have  shut  our  eyes  to  the  Boston  contract. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  you  have  worn  blinkers? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Something  like  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If,  by  virtue  of  that  contract,  your  local  union  in 
Boston  should  get  into  trouble  with  Mr.  Finlay 's  company  and  should  go  out 
on  a  strike,  would  they  look  for  support,  moral  or  financial,  at  the  hands  of 
your  union? 

Mr.  BERRY.  While  I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  possibility  of  trouble  in  Mr. 
Finlay's  office,  yet  I  would  not  like  to  answer  that  for  the  fact  Mr.  Finlay 
would  have  the  four  aces. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  633 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Under  Mr.  Finlay's  agreement,  as  I  understand  it, 
he  would  be  at  perfect  liberty  to-morrow,  without  violating  any  agreement, 
to  drop  out  every  union  man  in  Lis  service  and  replace  him  by  a  nonunion  man? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes,  sir;  as  long  as  he  paid  the  wages. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  do  not  approve  of  that  kind  of  contract? 

Mr.  BERRY.  No ;  it  is  impractical  and  can  not  stand. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  are  simply  tolerating  it? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Locally  we  have  been  advised  that  it  exists;  but  officially  we 
know  nothing  about  it. 

Commisioner  O'CoNNELL.  You  will  wake  up  some  day  and  find  out  it  does 
exist. 

Mr.  BERRY.  That  is  the  reason  I  did  not  want  to  answer  Mr.  Weinstock's 
question. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  have  always  understood  that  the  typographical 
union — that  is,  the  printers'  union — stood  in  the  front  rank  for  character, 
intellectuality,  and  standing  among  the  unions  of  the  country.  What  pro- 
tection under  these  circumstances,  has  an  employer  in  dealing  with  a  high-class 
organization  if — as  was  brought  out  here  in  the  testimony — its  duly  appointed 
representative — I  understood  Mr.  Higgins  was  president  of  the  pressmen's 
association? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes ;  he  was  my  predecessor. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  he  represented  the  highest  type  of  the  union 
men  in  .your  organization.  What  protection  would  an  employer  have  if,  in 
dealing  with  the  highest  representative,  who  also  is  supposed  to  represent 
the  highest  standard  in  the  organization,  in  entering  into  an  agreement  with 
such  a  representative  in  good  faith,  his  organization  throwrs  that  agreement 
down  ? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  think  it  was  a  display  of  bad  business  on  the  part  of  the 
typothetse  for  the  very  fact  that  the  typothetse  was  aware — there  is  no  ques- 
tion about  it,  because  it  was  a  matter  of  general  discussion  throughout  the 
continent — that  that  contract  was  unsatisfactory.  It  was  not  bringing  results ; 
it  was  not  meeting  the  expectations  of  the  membership,  and  they  were  dis- 
satisfied with  it.  It  was  published  generally,  circulars  were  issued  condemning 
it,  and  the  typothetse  knew,  beyond  any  question  of  doubt,  that  it  did  not 
meet  with  the  approval  of  the  membership — that  is,  a  certain  portion  of  the 
membership.  There  was  no  way  for  them  to  know  whether  it  met  with  the 
approval  of  the  majority  or  not.  The  typothetse's  position  should  have  been, 
in  making  the  contract  with  Mr.  Higgins,  to  have  said  to  that  representative 
of  the  union :  "  Here,  we  are  advised  as  to  the  dissatisfaction  of  this  member- 
ship. We  want  a  bona  fide  contract.  We  \vant  a  contract  that  carries  a  sense 
of  mutuality  between  the  parties  to  it.  We  are  going  to  take  this  contract," 
which  they  did,  "  to  our  convention  for  their  ratification.  When  we  take  it 
to  our  convention,"  which  they  did,  "  and  ratify  it,  we  will  know  our  mem- 
bership is  in  accord  with  it.  We  want  you  to  do  the  same  thing,  and  we  want 
you  to  bring  back  to  us  a  contract  that  we  know  will  be  acceptable  to  your 
organization  as  a  result  of  this  negotiation."  They  knew  of  the  dissatisfaction. 
Mr.  Higgins  unquestionably,  as  I  have  already  stated,  advised  them  that  he 
had  the  authority.  From  his  interpretation,  possibly  he  thought  he  had  the 
authority.  I  am  confident,  too,  that — from  his  experience  as  the  president  for 
years — he  thought  he  could  get  it  ratified.  But  that  was  taking  a  gambler's 
chance  for  the  very  fact,  in  addition,  the  courts  of  the  country  decided  that 
there  was  not  a  basis  for  authority,  and  in  addition  to  that  the  convention,  by 
an  overwhelming  majority  decided  that  he  could  not  get  it  ratified  and  that 
he  did  not  have  the  authority.  In  my  opinion  that  fault  was  just  as  much 
with  the  typothetre  as  it  was  with  the  union  representatives. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  might  be  so,  of  course.  When  was  that 
agreement  entered  into? 

Mr.  BERRY.  They  proceeded  to  negotiation  immediately  after  the  convention 
of  1906. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  was  the  date  of  that  agreement?  When 
was  it  signed  by  Mr.  Higgins? 

Mr.  BERRY.  It  was  to  go  into  operation  May  1,  1907. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  it  was  agreed  upon  when? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  do  not  remember  that.    I  did  not  negotiate  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  remember  the  date  of  the  agreement,  Mr. 
Finlay? 


634          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OK    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  think  it  shows  there  in  the  copy  of  the  agreement  which  you 
have,  Mr.  Weinstock. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  says,  "  made  and  entered  into  this  8th  day  of 
January,  1907." 

Mr.  BERRY.  That  is  right. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  was  to  go  into  operation  May  1,  1907? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes ;  and  to  extend  for  a  period  of  five  years. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Here  is  a  communication  from  Mr.  Higgins,  dated 
February  8,  evidently  several  weeks  after  the  time  of  the  entering  into  the 
agreement,  where  he  says,  addressing  the  secretary  of  the  typothetse :  • 

"  MY  DEAR  Mr.  MACINTYRE  :  Your  letter  informing  me  that  the  United  Ty- 
pothetae  of  America,  at  a  special  session  of  that  body  held  at  Pittsburgh,  Pa., 
on  Saturday,  February  2,  ratified  the  new  agreement  made  between  their  com- 
mittee and  our  board  of  directors  to  hand. 

"  I  have  attached  your  letter  to  the  original  agreement  made  between  both 
our  committees  at  Philadelphia  on  January  8  last,  as  the  action  of  your  special 
convention  in  ratifying  the  agreement. 

"  I  reecho  the  wish  expressed  by  you  in  your  letter  of  information  on  the 
matter,  and  trust  that  both  our  organizations  will  enjoy  a  long  experience  of 
friendly  relations  and  mutual  advancement  and  progress  under  its  provisions. 
With  regards,  I  am, 

"  Very  truly,  yours, 

"  MARTIN  P.  HIGGINS,  President." 

You  see,  the  thing  had  gone  so  far  that  the  employers  had  approved  the 
agreement  and  had  notified  your  president  and  he  had  acknowledged  it  and 
practically  led  them  to  feel  that  it  was  satisfactory  and  would  go  on.  This 
apparently  was  not  entered  into  by  Mr.  Higgins's  firm,  but  also  by  others  of 
your  officials,  John  G.  Warrington  and  Edward  W.  Gordon,  William  L.  Murphy 
and  William  J.  Webb. 

Mr.  BEERY.  But  there  was  one  of  the  board  that  refused  to  sign — the  first 
vice  president. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  would  seem  to  me  it  is  perhaps  well  to  have 
this  brought  out,  because  there  are  untold  numbers  of  employers  who  contend 
it  is  useless  to  enter  into  agreements  with  organized  labor  because  they  are  not 
dependable,  they  are  not  contract  keepers;  and  we  want  to  bring  that  out  as 
cleary  and  sharply  as  we  can,  for  their  information  and  for  ours. 

This  contract  having  been  entered  into,  seemingly  in  good  faith  on  both  sides, 
even  though  assuming  that  your  committee  had  exceeded  its  powers,  as  a 
matter  of  wise  policy  and  in  order  to  retain  the  confidence  of  the  employers  of 
the  country,  and  retain  the  confidence  of  the  public,  would  it  not  have  been 
wise  to  have  stood  by  the  contract,  good  or  bad? 

Mr.  BERRY.  You  can  not  make  a  contract  unless  there  is  a  mutuality  between 
the  parties  to  it.  It  is  not  a  contract.  I  can  not  make  you  take  a  contract; 
otherwise  it  would  not  hold  water. 

Following  up  the  broad  principle  that  you  lay  down,  I  am  free  to  say  to  you 
that  that  was  the  general  attitude  that  I  took,  provided — provided  that  the 
typothetse  was  willing  to  exercise  the  same  broad  conciliatory  position.  There 
was  no  question — it  was  clearly  proven,  and  there  is  not  a  doubt  in  the  world 
from  the  records  but  what  these  four  men  signed  the  agreement  for  20,000 
men  at  that  time  without  their  consent,  and  exceeded  their  authority  and 
right.  There  is  no  question  in  the  world  about  that.  That  has  been  determined 
beyond  all  question  of  possibility.  But  before  that  was  even  determined,  before 
we  even  assumed  the  arbitrary  position  of  deciding  whether  it  was  a  contract 
or  not,  before  the  courts  had  determined  whether  we  were  right  or  not,  what 
did  we  do?  By  action  of  our  convention  we  said,  "These  fellows  have  gotten 
us  into  a  bad  situation,  and  we  want  to  maintain  a  peaceful  relationship  with 
the  typothetse.  Wre  are  willing  to  forego  the  matter  of  the  eight-hour  day 
another  year  and  a  half  in  order  to  maintain  peaceful  relationships.  But  we 
can  not  accept  that  part  of  the  agreement  that  has  vitiated  and  undermined 
our  organization  in  the  past  five  years.  We  have  been  deteriorating  in  our 
organization.  We  have  been  losing  our  people  all  over  the  Continent.  If  the 
typothetfe  is  willing  to  meet  us  half  way  on  this  proposition,  we  will  imvt; 
them  half  way."  Our  convention  instructed  its  board  to  go  to  tne  typothetae 
and  say,  "  If  you  will  take  out  that  clause — we  do  not  ask  you  to  put  in  there 
specifically  that  you  shall  employ  nothing  but  union  men — but  if  you  will  simply 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  635 

take  out  that  clause  giving  you  the  right  to  employ  nonunion  men  to  our  detri- 
ment, we  will  get  along  with  you." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Querry :  Were  the  employers  in  any  way  informed 
as  to  the  limitations  of  power  given  to  that  committee? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Mr.  Weinstock,  the  United  Typothetse,  its  executive  officers — I 
think  Mr.  Finlay's  partner,  Mr.  George  H.  Ellis,  was  president  at  that  time — 
know  our  constitution  and  our  by-laws  and  our  American  pressmen  and  our 
general  affairs  just  as  well  as  I  do.  Of  course  they  knew.  They  know  all 
about  us,  because  everything  we  do  is  open. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Apparently  members  of  this  conference  did  not 
know  it,  because  here  is  a  question  put : 

"  The  PKESTDENT.  Gentlemen,  a  practical  question  was  asked  here  yesterday 
that  I  think  Mr.  Higgins  can  answer  better  than  anyone  else  and  to  the  satis- 
faction of  us  all,  and  it  would  settle  it  once  for  all ;  that  is,  What  power  is 
given  to  your  committee?  I  take  it  that  that  is  a  question  that  you  are  now 
perfectly  ready  to  answer.  If  there  is  any  hesitation,  I  will  not  ask  it. 

"  Mr.  HIGGINS.  I  will  tell  you  right  off  the  reel.  The  committee  have  got  un- 
limited power.  If  in  the  judgment  of  the  committee  they  think  they  have  got  a 
good  thing  they  will  close  it  up;  if  not,  we  will  submit  it  to  the  membership^ 
[Great  applause.] 

Mr.  BEKEY.  Certainly ;  why  not  ? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK  (continuing)  : 

"  The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Higgins  has  shown  his  ability  to  answer  a  question, 
directly.  Is  there  any  other  pertinent  question?  We  can  imagine  a  lot  of  im- 
pertinent ones  that  you  and  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Higgins.  We  will  refrain. 
Is  there  any  other  pertinent  question  that  would  help  us  in  our  deliberations 
that  you  gentlemen  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Higgins  that  he  would  feel  at  lib- 
erty to  answer  ?  " 

If  I  was  an  employer  and  you  came  representing  the  workers  and  I  had 
every  reason  to  have  every  confidence  in  your  statement  and  you  made  that 
statement  unqualifiedly,  I  surely  would  feel  that  your  organization  would  stand 
behind  you,  and  if  they  did  not  I  think  I  would  lose  all  confidence  in  you  and 
your  organization. 

Do  you  not  think  it  would  be  the  height  of  business  judgment,  however? 
You  know  what  you  want;  you  do  not  have  to  call  a  special  meeting  to  get 
your  idea  as  to  whether  you  will  pay  the  money  or  not  pay  it.  You  are  the 
other  half.  Mr.  Higgins  was  not  running  presses,  mind  you ;  Mr.  Higgins  was 
the  president  of  this  union  and  the  negotiating  factor ;  that  is  true ;  but  don't 
you  think  it  would  have  been  the  height  of  good  business  judgment  to  have  said, 
"  Now,  wre  will  agree  upon  this  plan,  but  you  do  what  I  am  going  to  do ;  you  do 
what  I  am  going  to  do.  I  am  going  to  get  the  consent  and  approval  on  this 
proposition  of  the  people  that  are  going  to  pay  the  money.  Now,  you  go  to  your 
convention  or  your  members  and  you  get  their  approval  of  this,  and  then  we 
will  know  where  we  are  at." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  would  be  right  if  you  said,  "  My  powers  are 
limited ;  I  can  only  enter  into  an  arrangement  with  you  subject  to  the  approval 
of  my  organization ;  "  but  if  you  go  forward  and  state,  "  I  have  unlimited 
power,"  unless  I  had  no  confidence  in  you  I  would  accept  your  statement. 

Mr.  BEKRY.  Let  me  tell  you  this :  The  labor  movement  on  this  continent 
and  the  pressman's  union  have  attained  that  point  where  they  will  not  accede 
to  any  one  man  or  a  dozen  men's  demands,  or  the  idea  of  a  man  presuming  to 
say,  "  We  will  take  a  good  thing  if  it  looks  good  and  go  the  whole  thing,  hook, 
line,  sinker,  and  all."  That  does  not  stand  with  the  dignity  and  stability  of 
the  International  Printing  Pressmen's  Union ;  that  don't  go ;  we  don't  do  busi- 
ness that  way  any  more. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  we  to  understand  that  the  representatives 
have  only  limited  powers? 

Mr.  BERRY.  We  understand  that  our  representative  has  to  follow  the  laws  and 
instructions,  and  he  did  not  follow  the  instructions. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Whatever  agreements  they  enter  into  are  subject 
to  the  approval  of  the  body? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Absolutely ;  and  the  instructions  of  the  convention  at  Pittsburgh 
were  specific,  and  they  disapproved — well,  not  disapproved,  but  failed  to  com- 
ply with  the  specific  instructions  of  the  convention.  What  do  you  think,  that 
20,000  people  are  going  to  live  up  to  things  that  three  men  sign  away  without 
their  consent  and  in  violation  of  their  orders?  That  would  be  a  pretty  easy 


636          KEPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

business  for  some  labor  skates,  if  they  could  arbitrarily  direct  the  affairs  of 
25,000  or  30,000  people. 

Commissioner  AVEIN  STOCK.  Did  I  read  this  right,  "  That  there  was  a  renewal 
of  a  contract  that  had  two  years,"  etc.? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  With  the  exception  that  we  provided  for  an  eight-hour  day,  and 
they  knew  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  the  new  contract  was  precisely  the  same 
as  the  preceding  contract,  with  the  exception  of  the  difference  in  hours? 

Mr.  FiNLAY._Yes;  but  it  was  not  a  new  contract;  it  was  not  a  new  proposi- 
tion to  put  up  to  them.  It  was  a  renewal  of  a  contract. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  With  a  change  in  the  working  hours? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  In  1909,  negotiating  for  an  eight-hour  day.  There  is  nothing 
new  to  it. 

Mr.  BERRY.  There  were  only  one  or  two  minor  changes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Did  that  provide  for  an  open  shop? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  did  the  Pittsburgh  convention  instruct  them 
to  do? 

Mr.  BERRY.  To  meet  with  them  under  certain  conditions  and  they  went  out 
and  renewed  this  whole  contract. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  For  instance,  not  to  include  the  open  shop? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Of  course.  That  was  the  basis  of  Judge  Thompson's  decision. 
That  convention  throughout  these  entire  proceedings  indicated  in  every  move 
and  utterance  that  they  would  not  tolerate  another  contract  with  that  clause 
in  it,  and  in  addition  to  that,  as  Mr.  Finlay  has  read,  it  specifically  states  that 
negotiations  shall  be  opened  and  the  wage  scale  shall  become  effective  one 
year  after  it  is  settled. 

My  goodness  alive !  We  did  not  get  a  dozen  increases  in  wages  in  the  whole 
of  the  five  years  of  its  existence,  across  this  continent. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  But  at  the  time  of  this  convention  they  knew  the 
action  of  your  Pittsburgh  convention,  that  it  should  not  enter  into  that  clause? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  presume  so.  I  do  not  know  that  they  were  officially  notified 
of  the  fact.  According  to  Mr.  Higgins's  statement,  they  were  not,  but  that 
certainly  was  the  basis  of  Judge  Thompson's  decision  to  the  court  of  appeals, 
and  Judge  Lurton,  associate  justice  here  at  the  present  time,  wrote  the  decision 
for  the  United  States  Court  of  Appeals,  and  decided  every  point  in  our  favor. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  I,  as  an  employer — as  a  merchant,  for  example — 
sent  out  a  salesman  to  represent  me  in  the  field,  and  that  salesman  exceeds  his 
authority  and  quotes  prices  and  enters  into  conditions  that  are  not  agreeable 
to  me,  I  will  punish  that  salesman  all  right,  probably  by  dismissal,  for  having 
exceeded  his  authority,  but  I  will  make  good  with  the  customer. 

Mr.  BERRY.  That  is  an  entirely  different  proposition,  sir,  the  question  of 
dollars  and  cents  in  the  sale  of  a  pair  of  pants,  to  the  question  of  bread  and 
butter  and  the  existence  of  an  organization  of  workingmen  and  working  women 
on  this  continent — quite  different. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  ought  to  penalize  a  salesman  that  will  not  obey 
orders,  and  the  union  should  penalize  a  representative  that  did  not  obey  v  their 
orders,  but  it  ought  not  to  penalize  the  other  fellow. 

Mr.  BERRY.  Well,  they  did  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Well,  Higgins  lost  his  job? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes;  Higgins  lost  his  job;  but  I  will  say  this — let  me  declare 
this  point  again:  We  were  not  prepared,  as  the  result  of  this  miscarriage  of 
instructions  and  justice,  in  fairness  to  swallow  it  hook,  line,  and  sinker,  in  the 
slang  of  the  street,  but  we  were  prepared,  and  the  records  show  that  we  were, 
to  swallow  the  hook  and  the  line,  if  the  other  fellow  would  swallow  the  sinker, 
but  he  would  not  do  it.  We  were  willing  to  go  along  five  years  under  that 
agreement  with  the  nine-hour  day,  and  continue  that  for  another  year,  and  go 
through  all  the  rigmaroles  that  we  had  before  the  wage  scale  should  become 
effective,  and  agree  not  to  apply  for  a  wage  scale  only  every  three  ^ears,  and  all 
that  tommyrot,  if  they  would  simply  say  "We  will  not  insist  upon  putting  a 
provision  in  here  giving  us  the  right  to  discriminate  against  your  people." 
Mr.  FINLAY.  May  I  ask  Mr.  Berry  one  or  two  questions? 
Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Certainly. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  As  I  understand  it,  a  union  shop  requires  u  union  foreman? 
Mr.  BERRY.  Every  man,  from  the  foreman  down. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Well,  I  want  to  make  a  donation  of  $10,000  to  your  home  if  you 
can  produce  that  foreman  in  my  shop. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  637 

Mr.  BEREY.  You  are  the  man  that  made  the  statement.  You  said,  "  I  employe 
the  other  people,  and  I  think  Mr.  Berry  will  say  so  when  he  is  on  the  stand." 

Mr.  FINLAY.  But"  you  said  in  testimony  here  that  I  ran  a  union  shop. 

Mr.  BERRY.  Well,  I  am  taking  your  word  for  it. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  want  to  ask  you  one  thing:  Do  the  membership  in  your 
organization,  or  did  they  in  the  three  years  of  that  contract,  decrease? 

Mr.  BERRY.  They  decreased,  as  I  stated  here  very  explicitly,  of  course,  in 
comparison  to  the  growth  of  the  industry. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Mr,  Higgins  made  a  report  to  our  committee  that  contrary  to 
the  expectation  of  a  good  many  of  the  active  members  of  your  association,  the 
increase  under  the  membership  agreement  for  the  three  years  that  it  was  in 
vogue  was  larger  than  any  other  three  years  in  the  history  of  the  pressmen's 
union. 

Mr.  BEERY.  Well,  now,  just  to  show  you,  if  it  won't  take  too  much  time 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  don't  want  to  take  your  time. 

Mr.  BEERY.  Mr.  Higgins  is  from  Boston,  too,  but  that  is  all  right.  Let  me  give 
you  a  comparison.  Here  are  the  figures,  and  you  and  Mr.  Weinstock  had 
better  understand  my  position,  possibly. 

During  the  five  years  of  the  typothetse  agreement — follow  me  closely, 
now • 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  From  what  year  to  what  year? 

Mr.  BEERY.  Up  to  May,  1907,  up  to  its  expiration;  five  years,  at  any  rate, 
under  Mr.  Higgins,  the  membership  in  this  international  union,  covering  the 
Dominion  of  Canada,  increased  1,682  members,  and  the  five  years  immediately 
following  1907,  after  the  repudiation  of  this  so-called  union-building  policy,  the 
international  union  gained  over  10,000  members  on  this  continent. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Now,  you  say  you  don't  believe  in  the  Boston  agreements,  or  the 
way  they  are  negotiated? 

Mr.  BERRY.  The  matter  of  the  negotiations  I  think  is  all  right ;  the  procedure 
is  in  accordance  with  my  ideas. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Don't  you  think  it  is  a  good  union  movement? 

Mr.  BERRY.  But  the  provision  for  an  open  shop,  the  nonunion  clause,  I  think 
is  absolutely  impracticable  from  that  point  of  view,  and  you  have  made  my  case 
here  by  comparing  Worcester. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  read  in  a  paper  the  other  day  that  Mr.  O'Hara  made  the  state- 
ment that  there  was  not  a  member  of  the  organization  out  of  work ;  that  every 
man  is  at  work.  Now,  you  said  that  the  contract  the  pressmen's  union  made 
they  made  with  my  company. 

Mr.  BEEEY.  I  said  your  local  typothetse. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  You  said  my  company,  did  you  not,  Mr.  O'Connell? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Yes. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  do  not  make  any  contracts  with  the  unions;  we  make  them 
with  the  typothetse. 

Mr.  BEERY.  Well,  I  want  to  correct  that  record. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Of  course  there  is  quite  a  difference. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes ;  it  is  quite  a  difference  with  a  person  who  contends  that 
e  is  running  an  open  shop,  and  makes  the  statement  that  he  is  making  a  con- 
ract  with  the  union. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  is  the  difference  if  I  make  a  contract  with 
them  or  with  you,  if  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  If  I  made  a  contract  with  you  individually — a  contract  with  a 
union — I  would  be  pretty  nearly  making  a  union  shop. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Are  you  not  running  under  a  contract  made  with 
the  union? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Only  as  to  hours  or  wages. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  But  are  you  not  running  under  a  contract  with  the 
union? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Only  as  to  hours  and  wages. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  No  matter  wrhat,  it  is  under  that  contract? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  am  running  the  press  department,  yes.  That  is  a  matter  of 
opinion  between  you  and  me,  which  we  disagree  on. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Another  point  of  information:  You  did  not  enter 
into  a  contract  as  a  company  with  the  union? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Absolutely  not. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  done  with  your  association? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  The  association. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  have  a  collective  contract? 


638          EEPOKT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  have  a  collective  contract. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  you  are  simply  a  party  to  that  collective 
contract? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  We  are  simply  a  party  to  that  contract.  I  happened  to  be  chair- 
man of  the  committee  that  negotiated  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  There  are  not  as  many  independent  contracts 
written  as  there  are  members  of  the  association,  are  there? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Just  one  contract  that  covers  them  all? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Yes;  and  these  printed  scales  are  in  here  as  exhibits,  showing 
how  they  are  made. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  With  reference  to  that  agreement,  it  seems  to  me, 
as  I  understand  it,  that  you  were  using  the  two  words  in  a  different  sense.  For 
example,  you  say  that  his  shop  is  a  union  shop,  and  yet  his  agreement  is  an 
open-shop  agreement.  Am  I  right;  is  that  the  distinction  you  make?  I  want 
to  get  at  this  definition. 

Mr.  BEERY.  No ;  he  said  he  had  an  open  shop,  employing  only  members  of  our 
union.  I  quoted  him. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  At  the  same  time,  in  commenting  on  that,  you  said 
that  is  what  you  would  call  a  union  shop. 

Mr.  BERRY.  A  union  shop  is  a  shop  that  employs  only  members  of  the  organ- 
.ization;  that  is  a  union  shop. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  But  at  the  same  time  you  declined  to  approve  of 
that  agreement  because  it  is  an  open-shop  agreement? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Exactly,  but  the  fact  that  Mr.  Finlay  may  be  employing,  as  he  is, 
only  members  of  our  organization,  does  not  mean  that  all  the  typothetse  of 
Boston  are  employing  members  of  our  organization,  and  it  does  not  mean 
that  Mr.  Finlay  has  to  employ  members  of  our  organization. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  The  only  difference  is  that  the  agreement  is  a 
typothetse  agreement,  whereas  his  shop  is  a  union  shop? 

Mr.  BERRY.  Yes;  as  it  would  happen  under  this  open-shop  agreement,  Mr. 
Finlay  has  a  union  shop. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  deny  that  absolutely.     I  deny  it,  absolutely. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What  is  your  point  of  denial? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  claim  that  we  have  not  got  a  union  shop.  I  hire  what  I  want 
to,  and  he  said  that  the  foreman  of  the  ship  is  a  union  man,  and  I  told  him 
that  I  would  make  a  donation  to  his  Tennessee  home,  when  he  said  a  union 
shop  has  to  have  a  union  man  for  a  foreman.  I  deny  that  absolutely. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Then  it  is  largely  a  matter  of  terminology,  and  I 
should  think  both  of  you  would  be  well  satisfied  with  the  situation.  He  has 
got  a  union  shop  and  you  have  got  an  open  shop,  and  you  both  ought  to  be 
satisfied. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  am  satisfied  if  you  understand  it  my  way,  but  I  am  not  if 
you  understand  it  his  way,  and  as  to  arbitration,  we  can  arbitrate  everything 
but  international  laws,  and  we  can  not  arbitrate  them. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  think  I  will  have  to  go  over  to  Boston  and  see 
the  shop. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Glad  to  have  you. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Do  you  desire  to  make  any  statement  further,  Mr. 
Finlay? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  would  like  to. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Just  one  more  point,  to  make  it  clear  in  my  own 
mind.  I  imagine  you  have  exactly  the  same  kind  of  contract  with  the  locals 
that  your  national  objected  to,  nationally. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  Absolutely  repudiated.     I  would  like  to  make  that  clear. 

Mr.  BERRY.  No;  not  repudiated. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  It  has  worked  out. 

Mr.  BERRY.  That  is  better.     We  do  not  repudiate  contracts. 

Mr.  FINLAY.  I  would  like  to  state  this  to  the  commission.  We  have  a  com- 
posing room  which  has  the  larger  part  of  our  members.  We  have  no  agnv- 
ment  with  the  typographical  union,  and  we  employ  men  and  women  in  that 
room  and  pay  the  union  scale  of  wages,  and  that  is  run  as  an  open  shop,  and 
that  every  member  of  the  Boston  Typothetse  runs  an  open  shop;  I  leavo  that 
to  the  commission. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  pay  the  women  the  same  price  in  the  shop? 

Mr.  FINLAY.  If  they  do  the  same  work  they  get  the  same  pay. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  they  set  type? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN"   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  639 

Mr.  FINLAY.  They  don't  set  type  nowadays,  only  by  machine;  they  do  not 
get  the  same  price  for  correcting,  but  they  get  the  scale  agreed  upon  by  the 
union  with  the  preferential  union  shop. 

Mr.  BEKKY.  I  just  want  to  make  this  statement :  I  hope  that  at  some  future 
time,  if  this  commission  desires,  I  will  be  privileged  to  take  up  with  you  the 
affairs  of  our  organization  in  the  matter  of  industrial  trade  education  and 
efficiency.  I  want  to  say,  for  the  record,  that  65  per  cent  at  least  of  our  mem- 
bership receives  a  compensation  in  excess  of  the  minimum  wage,  and  it  is  the 
result  of  our  active  interest  in  trade  education.  We  have  now  an  institution 
valued  at  $133,000,  a  trade  school  which  we  maintain,  and  I  am  going  to  ex- 
tend to  this  commission  an  invitation  to  visit  that  trade  school,  the  press  work ; 
and  in  general  line  with  what  I  have  said  here  in  the  matter  of  collective 
bargaining,  and  the  matter  of  the  extension  of  the  Erdman  Act  or  some  similar 
act,  I  have  prepared  a  paper  which  I  would  like  to  submit  in  connection  with 
my  testimony,  and  in  addition  to  that  I  want  to  say  that  if  there  is  anything, 
records,  contracts,  any  detail  whatsoever  as  regards  the  operation  of  our  union, 
a  request  from  this  commission  will  bring  it  forth  without  delay. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  accept  with  pleasure,  and  will  file  your  brief. 

(The  paper  referred  to  was  filed  by  Mr.  Berry  with  the  commission,  and  is  as 
follows : ) 

[Paper  submitted  by  George  L.  Berry,  president  International  Printing  Pressmen  and 
Assistants'  Union  of  North  America,  to  the  United  States  Commission  on  Industrial  Re- 
lations, Washington,  D.  C.,  on  the  question  of  collective  bargaining,  conciliation,  and 
arbitration  between  employers  and  the  organizations  of  working  men  and  women.] 

The  question  of  the  proper  relationship  between  employers  and  employees  is 
one  that  embraces  many  important  phases  of  industrial  activity.  It  would  be 
the  height  of  presumption  upon  my  part,  therefore,  to  attempt  to  burden  the 
United  States  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations  with  my  version  of  the  neces- 
sary responsibilities  of  employers  and  employees.  In  conformity  with  the  re- 
quest of  the  commission,  however,  I  prepared  and  submit  herewith  certain  con- 
crete views  which  I  trust  will  be  of  assistance  in  the  establishment  of  a  more 
cordial  and  cooperative  relationship  between  the  units  of  industry  in  the  United 
States. 

The  organized  labor  movement  has  for  its  basic  principle  the  purpose  of  col- 
lective bargaining.  It  is  apparent  to  all  without  minute  explanation  that  it  is 
decidedly  more  effective  for  all  of  the  workingmen  of  a  given  industry  to  act 
jointly  in  the  presentation  of  their  grievances  than  it  would  be  for  each  person 
to  act  individually  in  the  matter ;  hence  the  existence  of  organized  labor  and  its 
policy  of  economic  advancement. 

The  collective  interests  of  the  employees  bargaining  with  the  collective  inter- 
ests of  the  employers  is  more  desirable  than  the  collective  interests  of  the  em- 
ployees dealing  with  individual  employers.  This  is  so  not  only  because  .of  the 
prompt  facilities  that  would  follow  in  establishing  the  points  at  issue  but  it  is 
moreover  essential  because  of  the  uniformity  of  action  that  inevitably  follows 
through  joint  bargaining  relationship.  For  example,  if  a  peaceful  adjustment  is 
not  arrived  at,  a  uniform  cessation  of  relationship  is  followed ;  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  a  mutual  adjustment  is  made,  a  uniform  condition  is  established  and  main- 
tained during  the  period  of  relationship,  be  it  contractual  or  verbal,  and  this 
phase  of  the  situation  is  of  material  importance  to  the  units  of  the  industry. 
By  units  I  refer  to  employer,  employee,  and  those  dependent  upon  the  industry 
for  their  livelihood.  The  main  feature  of  importance,  as  I  see  it,  evolves  in  the 
natural  and  inevitable  competitive  conditions  that  will  follow. 

Labor  is  the  chief  cost  of  industry.  It  is,  of  course,  the  most  important  phase 
of  industry  over  and  above  its  importance  from  a  cost  point  of  view  and  the 
very  fact  that  labor  represents  human  effort,  responsibility,  and  assistance.  It 
is  reasonable  to  say,  therefore,  that  the  matter  of  competition  is  of  serious 
moment  to  the  well-being  of  the  employees  as  well  as  to  the  employers.  If 
employers  are  to  deal  with  their  individual  workingmen,  either  as  union  or  non- 
union mechanics,  then  the  condition  of  an  unhealthy  and  unnatural  competition 
must  follow,  for  the  characteristics  of  human  nature  have  proven  many  times  to 
be  irregular,  and  irregularity  in  this  sense  would  mean  a  diversified  wage  con- 
dition, which  would  further  precipitate  an  irregular  competitive  cost  for  labor, 
which  would  still  further  establish  an  irregular  base  cost  and  scale  of  com- 
petition. The  organized  labor  movement  therefore  endeavors  to  maintain  a 
living  minimum  wage  with  a  view  of  protecting  its  members  first,  and  second 


640          EEPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

protecting  its  industry  against  adventurers  therein,  or  that  class  of  employers 
who  make  their  profit  from  exploiting  labor  and  who  save  their  losses  through 
the  reduction  of  wages. 

The  question  of  the  minimum  wage  as  maintained  by  the  collective  action  of 
working  men  and  women  is  a  movement,  as  I  have  already  indicated,  that  has 
for  its  purpose  the  establishment  of  a  rate  of  compensation  that  would  maintain 
the  employees  in  an  environment  of  respectability,  and  further  that  every 
employer  might  at  least  be  in  possession  of  the  fact  that  his  competitor  could 
not  raise  the  cost  labor  below  the  minimum  figure  established.  Beyond  those 
two  points,  organized  labor  then  advances  its  cause  upon  the  principle  of 
increased  efficiency  and  business  cooperation. 

At  least  65  per  cent  of  the  membership  of  the  International  Printing  Pressmen 
and  Assistants'  Union  receive  a  compensation  in  excess  of  the  minimum  estab- 
lished throughout  their  organization.  This  additional  compensation  over  a«id 
above  the  minimum  represents  the  degree  of  effort  and  the  effect  of  the  organi- 
zation in  the  promotion  of  its  general  policies  of  increased  efficiency. 

For  the  foregoing  reasons,  primarily,  statistics  prove  that  in  the  commercial 
industry  of  this  country,  particularly  where  the  organizations  of  the  employees 
and  the  employers  are  jointly  the  strongest,  the  industry  is  more  prosperous 
and  the  profits  thereof  more  equitably  distributed.  On  the  other  hand,  where 
the  workers  are  poorly  organized  the  employers  are  also  disorganized,  and  the 
results  are  uniformly  unsatisfactory  from  a  business  point  of  view.  This  con- 
dition is  effective  because  of  the  small  likelihood  of  combinations  or  corporations, 
it  not  being  possible  for  a  trust  to  exist  in  the  commercial  printing  industry. 

In  harmony  with  the  general  principles  as  aforenoted,  the  best  mode  of  pro- 
cedure in  the  negotiation,  the  establishment,  and  the  maintenance  of  agree- 
ments finds  expression  through  international  organization  of  workingmen  and 
women  and  international  associations  of  employers  of  a  certain  given  industry. 
My  statement  in  this  regard  is  based  on  experiences  we  have  had  in  our  rela- 
tionship with  employers.  With  an  international  agreement  covering  a  local 
society  of  employers  and  a  local  organization  of  employees  there  is  a  double 
means  found  in  the  establishment  of  responsibility.  The  international  rela- 
tionship of  both  organizations  is  more  generally  inclined  to  an  adjustment  of 
differences  amicably  than  would  possibly  be  the  result  if  situations  were  left 
to  local  organizations  of  a  contesting  nature. 

The  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  has  at  various 
times  held  international  contracts  with  the  United  Typothetre  of  America,  the 
American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association,  and  the  Printers'  League  of 
America.  The  first  and  last  named  organizations  of  employers  exercise  organi- 
zation activities  in  the  commercial  printing  industry  alone,  the  American  News- 
paper Publishers'  Association  having  its  relationship  with  daily  and  weekly 
newspapers  alone. 

The  .contract  with  the  United  Typothetse  of  America  failed  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  the  commercial  industry — was  not  responsive  to  the  interests  of 
the  industry — because  the  contract,  in  the  first  instance,  was  predicated  upon 
a  theory  that  denied  the  principles  of  collective  bargaining  or  the  maintenance 
of  the  principle  of  a  community  of  interest.  As  has  already  been  indicated  by 
me,  it  is  my  opinion  that  there  can  be  no  equitable  or  amicable  relationship  or 
assurance  of  the  conservation  of  our  industry  except  through  the  assistance  of 
the  organized  workers  and  their  recognition  by  the  employers.  In  the  case  of 
the  United  Typothetse  of  America's  contract  the  employers  insisted — and  it  was 
acceded  to  by  the  union  for  a  number  of  years — that  the  contract  should  retain 
a  clause  in  it  that  would  give  to  the  employers  the  right  of  discriminating 
against  a  union  man  or  a  nonunion  man  as  he  might  determine.  If  the  organi- 
zations of  the  workers  closed  their  doors  against  the  nonunion  workers,  then 
there  would  be  some  justification  for  the  idea  as  offered  by  the  United  Typoth- 
etre,  but  the  facts  in  the  case  are  that  organized  labor  expends  more  of  its 
energy  and  income  endeavoring  to  bring  into  its  ranks  the  unorganized  worker 
than  through  any  of  its  business  operations.  Its  sum  total  purpose  is  to  advance 
the  principle  of  collective  bargaining,  community  of  interest,  the  increasing  of 
efficiency,  and  the  advancement  of  the  industry  as  a  whole. 

The  contract  of  the  United  Typothetre  failed  because  of  its  lack  of  community 
of  interest ;  it  failed  because  of  the  possiblities  arising  from  specific  provisions 
therein  which  made  it  optional  with  the  employer  to  retan  the  services  of 
union  men  or  nonunion  men  as  the  employer  might  determine.  In  other,  words, 
such  a  contract  could  have  but  one  effect,  that  of  systematically  destroying  the 
organizations  of  the  employees.  This  feature  vitiated  any  possibility  of  mu- 


: 


TKADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  641 

tuality  and  conciliation  or  arbitration  under  it  and  failed  as  result  of  that 
lack  of  confidence. 

The  Printers'  League  of  America,  which  has  succeeded  in  a  measure  the 
United  Typothetse  of  America  as  an  employers'  organization  in  the  commercial 
industry,  has  profited  by  the  experiences  of  the  United  Typothetse,  and  in  the 
very  first  section  of  the  agreement  the  broad  principles  of  community  of  interest 
are  set  forth,  and  it  reads : 

"  SECTION  1.  In  consideration  of  the  Printers'  League  of  America  agreeing  to 
employ  none  but  members  of  the  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assist- 
ants' Union  to  do  work  that  comes  under  the  jurisdiction  of  said  International 
Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union,  the  Printers'  League  of  America 
(and  its  branches)  shall  have  the  following  guaranties: 

"(a)  All  members  of  the  Printers'  League  shall  be  protected  under  this  con- 
tract by  the  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  against 
walkouts,  strikes,  boycotts,  or  any  other  form  of  concerted  interference  with 
the  peaceful  operation  of  the  departments  over  which  the  International  Print- 
ing Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  exercises  jurisdiction. 

"(&)  All  disputes  arising  over  scaie  provisions,  wages,  hours,  and  working 
conditions  or  renewing  or  extending  contracts  shall  be  subject  to  local  arbitra- 
tion under  the  provisions  of  this  agreement,  if  such  disputes  can  not  be  ad- 
justed through  conciliation. 

"(<?)  The  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  shall  at 
all  times  furnish  sufficient  competent  help  for  the  needs  of  the  members  of  the 
Printers'  League  of  America,  but  should  it  fail  to  do  so,  then,  and  then  only, 
until  such  time  as  the  help  required  by  the  member  or  members  of  the  Printers' 
League  of  America  shall  be  furnished  by  the  International  Printing  Pressmen 
and  Assistants'  Union,  said  member  or  members  of  the  Printers'  League  of 
America  shall  be  privileged  to  seek  the  necessary  help  elsewhere:  Provided, 
That  the  prevailing  scale  of  wages  is  paid. 

"(d)  The  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  further 
agrees  that  in  cities  where  branches  of  the  league  are  formed  it  will  not  permit 
its  members  to  do  the  same  class  of  work  in  nonunion  shops  except  by  mutual 
consent.  Nor  will  it  allow  its  members  to  work  for  a  less  wage  scale  or  for 
longer  hours  than  the  scale  and  hours  accepted  by  the  branch  league. 

"  SEC.  2.  If  conciliation  between  a  local  union  fails,  then  an  appeal  to  a  local 
board  of  arbitration  may  be  had,  as  provided  in  the  form  of  local  contract 
recommended  and  attached  hereto,  and  its  decision  shall  be  final  unless  appealed 
to  the  national  board  of  arbitration,  as  also  provided  in  said  local  form  of  con- 
tract. (Sec.  60.) 

"  SEC.  3.  The  national  board  of  arbitration  shall  consist  of  the  president  of 
the  Printers'  League  of  America,  or  his  proxy,  and  the  president  of  the  Inter- 
national Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union,  or  his  proxy.  In  the  event  of 
failure  of  the  above  board  as  constituted  to  agree  upon  an  adjustment,  they  are 
then  empowered  to  select  a  disinterested  person  who  shall  act  as  a  member  of 
the  board.  This  board  shall  then  proceed  to  render  a  decision  as  quickly  as  cir- 
cumstances will  permit,  and  the  decision  so  rendered  shall  in  all  cases  be  final 
and  binding  upon  both  parties  to  the  controversy. 

"  SEC.  4.  The  national  board  of  arbitration  shall  be  under  no  obligation  to  take 
evidence,  but  do  so  at  its  option,  but  both  parties  to  the  controversy  may  appear 
personally  or  may  submit  records  and  briefs  and  may  make  oral  or  written 
arguments  in  support  of  their  several  contentions.  They  may  submit  an  agreed 
statement  of  facts  or  a  transcript  of  testimony,  properly  certified  to  before  a 
notary  public,  by  the  stenographer  taking  the  original  evidence  or  depositions. 

"  SEC.  5.  Pending  final  decision  work  shall  be  continued  in  the  office  of  the 
member  of  the  printers'  league  party  to  the  case,  and  all  conditions  obtaining 
before  the  initiation  of  the  dispute  shall  remain  in  effect ;  and  the  award  of  the 
national  board  of  arbitration  shall  in  all  cases  include  a  determination  of  the 
issues  involved  covering  the  period  between  the  raising  of  the  issues  and  their 
final  settlement;  and  any  change  or  changes  in  the  wage  scale  of  employees 
may,  at  the  discretion  of  the  board,  be  made  effective  from  the  date  the  issues 
were  first  made. 

"  SEC.  6.  The  national  board  of  arbitration  must  act  when  its  services  are  de- 
sired by  either  party  to  an  appeal  as  above  and  shall  proceed  with  all  possible 
dispatch  in  rendering  such  services. 

"  SEC.  7.  All  expenses  attendant  upon  the  settlement  of  any  appeal  or  hearing 
before  the  board  shall  be  adjusted  in  each  case  in  accordance  with  the  direction 
of  the  national  board  of  arbitration. 

38819°— -16 41 


642          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

"  SEC.  8.  The  riPes  and  regulations,  in  addition  to  the  provisions  above  quoted, 
shall  be  identical  with  those  found  in  the  recommendations  for  the  form  of  local 
contract  for  the  proper  method  of  Drocedure  and  number  therein  under  section 
2,  as  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  and  8. 

"  SEC.  9.  In  the  event  of  either  party  to  the  dispute  refusing  to  accept  and 
comply  with  the  decision  of  the  national  board  of  arbitration,  all  aid  and  support 
to  the  firm  or  employer,  or  member  or  members  of  the  union,  refusing  acceptance 
and  compliance  shall  be  withdrawn  by  both  parties  to  this  agreement.  The 
acts  of  such  employer  or  member  of  the  union  shall  be  publicly  disavowed,  and 
the  aggrieved  party  to  this  agreement  shall  be  furnished  by  the  other  party 
thereto  with  an  official  document  to  such  facts." 

In  every  instance  where  controversies  have  arisen  between  locals  of  the  Inter- 
national Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  and  locals  of  the  Printers' 
League  of  America  amicable  adjustments  have  been  the  result.  There  is  but 
one  weakness  that  can  possibly  be  sighted  against  the  contract  of  the  Inter- 
national Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  with  the  Printers'  League  of 
America,  and  that  is  the  question  of  arriving  at  an  adjustment  in  the  event  of 
failure  to  agree  upon  the  third  man  of  the  national  board  of  arbitration.  I  shall 
touch  on  this  phase  of  the  situation  again  before  completion  of  this  paper. 

The  contract  of  the  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union 
with  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association,  which  has  expired,  met 
with  the  same  general  satisfaction  as  did  the  contractual  relationship  referred 
to  above  as  existing  between  the  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assist- 
ants' Union  and  the  Printers  League  of  America.  One  great  difficulty,  however, 
and  defect  existing  in  the  agreement  with  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers' 
Association  \vas  found  in  the  declination  of  many  of  the  members  of  the  Amer- 
ican Newspaper  Publishers'  Association  to  join  in  contractual  relationship.  In 
other  words,  they  retained  their  membership  in  the  American  Newspaper  Pub- 
lishers' Association  but  refused  to  become  parties  to  the  contract  in  so  far  as 
it  applied  to  relationship  with  the  unions,  and  further  maintained  their  right 
to  participate  in  its  construction.  This  fact  to  no  small  degree  minimized  the 
value  of  the  contract  between  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association 
and  the  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union.  I  am  credit- 
ably informed  that  this  defect  exists  in  the  relationship  of  the  publishers'  asso- 
ciation with  other  international  printing-trades  unions. 

The  effect  of  the  publishers'  attitude,  as  indicated  above,  finds  expression  in 
the  lockout  of  the  web  pressmen  in  the  city  of  Chicago  on  May  1,  1912.  This 
is  possibly  the  most  serious  difficulty  that  has  arisen  in  the  newspaper  industry 
for  a  great  many  years,  and  it  was  in  no  small  degree  due  to  the  failure  of  the 
American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association  to  compel  its  members — the  news- 
papers of  Chicago — to  act  in  harmony  and  come  under  the  provisions  of  the 
international  arbitration  agreement  with  the  International  Printing  Pressmen 
and  Assistants'  Union.  For  example,  the  local  publishers  of  Chicago,  holding  a 
local  agreement  providing  for  conciliation  and  arbitration,  for  over  two  years 
succeeded  in  evading  the  demand  of  the  union  to  go  to  arbitration  looking  to  the 
advancement  of  a  wage  scale  that  had  been  effective  for  about  seven  years. 
The  local  publishers  could  very  readily  assume  this  position  because  of  the  lack 
of  responsibility  exercised  over  the  local  publishers  by  their  national  associ- 
ation. In  other  words,  while  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association 
held  a  national  contract  with  the  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assist- 
ants' Union,  they  permitted  their  Chicago  membership  to  act  individually,  and 
at  the  same  time  the  Chicago  association  was  dealing  with  a  subordinate  body 
of  the  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union. 

The  matter  of  procedure  under  the  publishers'  contract  in  conciliation,  local 
arbitration,  and  national  arbitration  was,  in  the  main,  identical  with  that  of 
the  Printers'  League  of  America  contract  already  referred  to. 

The  labor  movement  in  general,  and  especially  the  printing-trades  unions  of 
America,  stand  committed  to  the  principle  of  the  adjustment  of  difficulties  by 
the  means  of  conciliation  and  arbitration.  It  is  not  the  inclination  or  desire  of 
the  printing-trades  artisans  of  this  continent  to  participate  or  precipitate  in 
a  strike  or  lockout  or  in  any  other  concentrated  movement  that  would  involve 
the  stability,  success,  and  prosperity  of  the  printing  industry,  and  I  am  confi- 
dent that  the  majority  of  the  strikes  and  lockouts  that  have  taken  place  in  re- 
cent years  in  the  printing  industry  have  been  more  as  the  result  of  a  misunder- 
standing than  from  any  practical  reason.  The  International  Printing  Pressmen 
and  Assistants'  Union  is  classified  as  being  the  most  militant  of  the  five  inter- 
national printing-trades  unions ;  the  records  show,  however,  that,  with  the  ex- 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  643 

ception  of  the  eight-hour-day  campaign  in  1007,  there  have  been  less  than  20 
strikes  called  throughout  the  entire  jurisdiction  of  North  America,  with  about 
400  subordinate  unions. 

The  best  indication  of  the  desire  of  the  printing  trades  unions  for  peaceful 
relationship  with  employers  of  the  printing  industry,  and  their  willingness  to 
embrace  the  principles  of  conciliation  and  arbitration  is  conclusively  evidenced 
in  the  recent  international  federated  agreement  entered  into  by  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  five  international  printing  trades  organizations.  This  agreement 
is  primarily  a  peace  compact  not  only  as  it  affects  the  relationship  of  the  unions 
with  each  other  but  particularly  as  it  affects  the  relationship  of  the  unions 
and  the  printing  industry.  The  fundamental  principle  of  the  federated  agree- 
ment is  predicated  upon  the  idea  of  conciliation  and  arbitration ;  for  example, 
the  five  international  unions  agree  that  where  a  dispute  arises  with  an  employer 
and  a  subordinate  union  of  any  of  the  five  international  bodies,  representatives 
of  those  international  unions  are  required  to  meet  with  the  employer  and  en- 
deavor to  adjust  the  difficulties  amicably  by  conciliation  and  arbitration.  It  has 
been  further  agreed  to  by  the  representatives  of  the  five  international  printing 
trades  unions  that  individual  contracts  made  shall  carry  a  clause  providing 
that  where  a  dispute  arises  between  any  of  the  subordinate  unions  of  the  five 
international  organizations  and  where  the  employer  refuses  conciliation  and 
arbitration,  that  then  under  such  conditions  the  contract  becomes  null  and  void. 
This  is  the  clearest  indication  of  the  real  purpose  of  the  proposed  printing 
trades  federated  contract,  and  it  is  apparent  to  all  that  it  rests  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  peaceful  relationship  by  and  through  the  measures  of  conciliation  and 
arbitration. 

Reference  has  already  been  made  in  this  paper  to  the  difficulties  that  have 
arisen  and  the  possibility  of  them  in  the  future  as  regards  the  question  of 
agreeing  upon  an  unbiased  odd  member  of  arbitration  boards.  The  possibility 
for  delay  in  arbitration  proceedings,  and  the  experiences  we  have  had  as  re- 
sult of  delays  in  the  past  have  dissipated  to  no  small  degree  the  employees' 
confidence  in  conciliation  and  arbitration.  This  has  been  overcome  somewhat, 
however,  by  advanced  agreement  that  upon  the  settlement  of  a  dispute  the 
conditions  arrived  at  should  become  effective  on  the  date  of  raising  the  dispute. 
This  arrangement,  as  I  have  already  indicated,  has  in  the  main  been  voluntary. 
]STo  specific  requirement  that  this  be  a  condition  has  ever  been  established  in 
the  printing  industry;  our  agreements  nave  only  contemplated  such  a  course 
if  the  arbitration  board  so  desired. 

From  the  result  of  international  relationship  with  employers'  associations  I 
feel  that  strikes  and  lockouts  and  general  disturbances  in  the  printing  and 
newspaper  industry  would  be  almost  entirely  eliminated  by  the  establishment 
of  an  agreement  that  would  contemplate  the  following: 

First.  An  agreement  jointly  embracing  all  of  the  organizations  of  the  industry 
and  employers  of  the  industry. 

Second.  The  agreement  to  provide  for  conciliation,  local  and  national  arbi- 
tration. 

Third.  The  agreement  to  carry  a  clause  requiring  that  upon  the  opening  of 
negotiations  for  an  increase  or  decrease  in  wages,  or  the  change  of  working 
conditions,  that  such  change  arrived  at  should  become  effective  from  date  of  the 
raising  of  the  issue  or  from  the  inception  of  negotiations. 

Fourth.  That  the  contract  carry  with  it  a  clause  requiring  the  five  interna- 
tional unions  and  the  employers  to  render  joint  assistance  in  the  maintenance 
of  technical  schools  for  the  advancement  of  the  industry  and  the  increasing 
of  efficiency  of  the  units  therein. 

Fifth.  That  the  contract  provide  a  board  of  general  review  representing  the 
organizations  and  the  employers  of  the  given  industry  whose  authority  it  will 
be  to  pass  upon  the  matter  of  differences  that  fail  of  adjustment  by  conciliation 
and  arbitration.  The  chief  purpose  of  this  provision  is  to  make  possible  a  fur- 
ther effort  to  arrive  at  an  amicable  settlement,  and  if  then  failure  results,  make 
possible  the  placing  of  the  responsibility  upon  the  party  guilty  of  an  unfair 
attitude. 

The  provisions  as  outlined  above,  in  my  opinion,  will  minimize  to  the  lowest 
possible  degree  difficulties  that  have  heretofore  brought  about  the  cessation 
of  business ;  it  would,  on  the  other  hand,  increase  the  community  of  feeling ; 
would  harmonize  cooperation  and  advance  the  commercial  possibilities  of  the 
industry  to  a  point  more  responsive  to  the  requirements  of  those  engaged  in  it. 
The  further  effect  of  such  an  arrangement  would  very  quickly  establish  the 
fact  that  the  success  of  the  industry  is  essential  to  the  employee  as  well  as  the 
employer. 


644          EEPOET    OF    COMMISSION    ON"    INDUSTRIAL   KELATIONS. 

There  is  but  one  additional  suggestion  that  I  could  make,  and  that  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  assumption  that  the  United  States  Commission  on  Industrial 
Relations  is  either  to  have  a  permanent  existence,  or  from  it  a  board  is  to  be 
established  as  result  of  its  investigations  that  will  have  for  its  purpose  the 
furtherance  of  industrial  peace  and  justice. 

It  is  not  compatible  with  the  interest  of  free  and  voluntary  organizations  to 
suggest  the  practicability  of  compulsory  arbitration ;  such  a  system  would  fail 
miserably,  as  has  been  the  result  in  practically  every  instance  where  it  has 
been  given  a  test.  It  is  my  opinion,  however,  that  if  the  duties  of  this  commis- 
sion were  broadened,  or  some  industrial  board  of  the  future  was  given  the 
authority  to  investigate  into  industrial  differences  before  or  after  a  dispute, 
and  preferably  before,  to  exert  efforts  to  prevent  difficulty  and  to  maintain  a 
voluntary  board  to  act  where  the  contesting  parties  have  failed  to  agree  in  the 
completion  of  an  arbitration  board,  you  would  find  that  not  only  would  the 
great  majority  of  such  disputes  be  presented  to  the  Government  board,  but 
you  would  see  in  this  future  arrangement  looking  to  peace  another  substantial 
reduction  in  wasteful  industrial  conflicts. 

The  organization  of  working  men  and  women  can  not  fail  in  its  efforts  to 
maintain  an  organization.  The  efforts  of  employers  to  destroy  organizations  of 
working  men  and  women  therefore  constitute  a  policy  of  destruction  rather 
than  construction.  Organized  labor's  willingness,  as  a  general  proposition,  and 
with  a  growing  tendency  toward  conciliation  and  arbitration,  is  manifestly 
sufficient  in  importance  to  justify  the  Government  offering  its  persistent  efforts 
and  influence  toward  industrial  peace  and  justice. 

GEO.  L.  BERRY, 
President  I.  P.  P.  d  A.  U. 

APRIL  7,  1914. 

(Whereupon,  at  6  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  commission  adjourned  until  to-morrow, 
Thursday,  April  9,  1914,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 

AFTER  RECESS 2   O'CLOCK   P.   M. 

BUILDING  TRADES. 

Pursuant  to  the  arrangement  announced  before  the  noon  recess,  the  members 
of  the  commission  selected  to  hear  witnesses  in  regard  to  the  building  trades 
met  at  the  rooms  of  the  commission  on  the  ninth  floor  of  the  Southern  Build- 
ing at  2  o'clock  p.  m. 

Present:  Commissioners  Harriman  (presiding),  Delano,  Ballard,  and  Lennon. 

Present  also  for  the  commission :  Mr.  W.  O.  Thompson,  counsel. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  OTTO  M.  EIDLITZ. 

• 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Eidlitz,  will  you  give  us  your  name  and  business  and  your 
place  of  residence? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Otto  Eidlitz,  New  York  .City ;  I  am  a  general  contractor  in  the 
building  business. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  business,  Mr.  Eidlitz? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Thirty-two  years. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you,  in  your  capacity  as  a  general  contractor,  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  collective  agreements  or  trade  agreements;  for  instance,  that 
is,  the  New  York  arbitration  plan? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  was  the  father  of  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Of  course,  we  have  the  document  here,  but  for  the  purpose  of 
the  present  hearing,  will  you  state  the  substance  of  the  agreement? 

(The  document  referred  to,  "  Decisions  of  the  General  Arbitration  Board  of 
the  New  York  Building  Trades,  1910,"  by  Ross  F.  Tucker,  was  submitted  in 
printed  form.) 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  You  mean  of  the  relation  between  employees  and  employers  in 
the  building  industry? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  substance  of  the  New  York  agreement,  what  trades  it  in- 
cluded, for  what  length  of  time  it  was  made,  what  was  the  general  purpose  and 
scope  of  the  agreement,  and  how  long  it  lasted. 

Mr.  ETDLJTZ.  Well,  suppose  we  hark  back,  just  for  a  minute.  In  1884  was 
the  first  collective  bargaining  in  the  building  industry,  and  that*  was  made 
between  the  bricklayers  and  the  mason  builders,  and  since  1884  that  board  has 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  645 

made  their  trade  agreement — has  had  their  trade-arbitration  board  ever  since 
that  time,  and  there  have  been  only  two  arbitrations  outside  of  the  trade  board, 
and  there  have  been  only  three  serious  differences  of  opinion. 

Commissioiner  DELANO.  In  1884? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes;  1884. 

Mr.  THOMPSON;  And  during  that  time,  Mr.  Eidlitz,  if  you  know,  about  how 
many  matters  were  adjusted  by  arbitration? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  By  conciliation  more  than  arbitration,  right  in  the  trade  board. 
Well,  of  course,  the  early  agreements  in  the  trade  conditions  were  made  each 
year,  and  all  the  various  disputes  that  you  have  heard  mentioned  that  happened 
in  trade  conditions  were  adjusted  in  that  way,  without  friction.  Now,  this 
applies,  of  course,  only  to  the  mason  builders.  That  was  from  1884  on.  I 
have  been  sitting  with  that  board  continuously  since  1887. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  was  the  form  of  conciliation  or  arbitration  which  was 
instituted  by  that  agreement  with  the  mason  builders? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Well,  it  provided,  first  of  all,  a  wage  scale ;  it  provided  that  the 
men  should  not  leave  the  works,  or  a  member  of  the  association,  without  the 
question  in  dispute  had  been  brought  to  the  board  first  for  settlement,  and 
then  various  other  trade  conditions  of  employment,  which  were  added  to  from 
time  to  time,  until  the  document  is  in  its  present  shape. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  particular  form  of  arbitration  or  conciliation  was  then 
under  discussion. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Well,  in  most  Cases  the  trade  board  consisted  of  an  equal  number 
from  each  side,  one  representative  from  each  union  of  the  bricklayers,  and  an 
equal  number  of  employers,  and  in  voting  one  had  to  vote  from  the  opposite 
side  in  order  to  make  the  vote  carry.  In  other  words,  you  had  to  get  some- 
body from  the  opposition  side  in  order  that  the  question  should  carry.  Now, 
when  we  come  to  the  question  of  the  actual  agreement — itself,  the  making  of 
the  annual  agreement,  or,  as  it  has  been  now,  a  four-year  agreement,  the  last 
time  we  met  it  was  tentatively  passed  in  the  meeting  of  the  trade  board,  and 
then  each  union  took  it  to  its  organization  and  voted  on  each  article. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  matters  which  came  up  before  this  board  of  arbitra- 
tion, from  1884  on,  were  there  many  instances  of  the  discharge  of  employees,  or 
allegations  of  discrimination  against  employees,  either  because  they  were" 
members  of  the  union,  or  the  giving  to  employees  of  poor  conditions  of  work — 
annual  employees,  discriminating  against  them  in  the  matter  of  the  kind  of 
work  or  place  of  work? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  There  was  very  little  of  that  because,  you  see,  we  don't  go  on 
the  piecework  system  at  all ;  we  do  so  much  an  hour ;  we  are  on  the  hour 
basis,  and  each  man,  who  is  a  union  man,  is  entitled  to  what  he  does,  whether 
he  is  laying  front  brick,  or  terra  cotta,  or  rough  brick,  whatever  he  is  doing. 
We  are  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with  it,  but  in  our  industry  it  is  impossible  to 
do  without  it.  Of  course,  you  might  want  to  start  with  five  men,  and  at  the 
end  of  the  week  you  might  want  to  build  it  up  to  150.  We  want  skilled 
mechanicts.  Now,  there  is  just  one  way  to  get  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But,  for  the  moment,  to  follow  out  this  arbitration  matter, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  in  the  building  trades,  when  an  employer  is  dissatisfied 
with  a  workman  he  simply  lets  him  go? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  employs  another  union  man? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  no  question,  as  a  rule,  is  raised  about  the  discharge. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  We  don't  allow  it.  A  man  gets  his  money,  and  he  has  got 
to  do  his  work,  and  you  can  fire  him  if  you  don't  like  the  way  he  wears  his 
collar. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  the  existing  rule  in  the  building  trades? 

Mr.  EDILITZ.  That  is  the  existing  rule  in  the  building  trades. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  building  trades  you  have  got  what  is  called  by  some 
people  a  "closed  shop,"  have  you  not? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  the  existence  of  the  closed  shop  may  be  the  reason  why 
the  other  rule  is  instituted,  that  the  employer  may  discharge  without  question? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  That  is  probably  so. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  because  of  such  conditions,  questions  of  discrimination 
which  arise  in  open  shops  and  in  factories,  such  as  you  heard  mentioned,  in 
reference  to  discriminations  in  regard  to  employers,  and  in  regard  to  kind  and 
character  of  work  given,  and  so  on,  do  not  arise  in  your  industries? 


646          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr,  EIDLITZ,  No;  very  rarely.  There  have  been  cases  brought  up,  but  not 
in  the  bricklaying  end  of  it ;  but  in  some  of  the  other  trades  where  that  question 
has  been  raised,  but  it  is  rare.. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  it  is  not  the  rule? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  It  is  not  the  rule ;  it  is  a  very  rare  occurrence. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  consequence  your  board  of  arbitration  has  not  been  called 
on  to  deal  with  this  class  of  cases  to  any  extent? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  there  has  been  no  need,  at  least  from  that  source,  of 
immediate  action? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  it  not  true,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  the  board  of  arbitra- 
tion or  conciliation  has  to  deal  with  larger  problems  and  more  large  questions? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Very  much  more. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Such,  for  instance,  that  if  a  decision  was  forced  on  either 
one  side  or  the  other  by  the  introduction  of  an  umpire,  it  would  lead  to  the 
breaking  down,  possibly,  of  the  arrangement? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Well,  the  idea  advanced  this  morning  by  several  of  those  who 
testified,  that  the  umpire  is  more  of  a  club,  so  that  the  contending  parties 
should  get  together,  that  is  true.  In  other  words,  when  the  employer  and 
employee  have  been  legislating  together  with  the  interest  of  the  craft,  they 
know  exactly  what  is  meant ;  they  talk  each  other's  language,  and  any  outsider 
that  comes  in  may  go  wrong  one  way  or  the  other,  with  the  best  intent  in  the 
world,  because  he  doesn't  really  grasp  the  problem ;  consequently  that  is  why 
I  tell  you  that  in  32  years,  as  far  as  the  bricklayers  are  concerned,  there  have 
been  o"nly  two  arbitrations,  because,  fearing  that  possibility,  either  one  side  or 
the  other  gave  way  rather  than  to  have  an  umpire  come  in. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  your  provision  provided  for  it? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Absolutely,  and  I  might  say  in  both  instances  where  the  em- 
ployers forced  the  issue  and  insisted  on  the  umpire,  in  both  cases  the  employers 
lost. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  your  statement  even  would  bear  out  also  the  proposition 
that  was  made  with  reference  to  factories  this  morning,  of  Hart,  Schaffner  & 
Marx,  that  when  the  machinery  gets  to  working  well,  and  the  people  under- 
stand each  other,  while  it  is  a  good  thing  to  have  the  umpire,  the  necessity  of 
calling  him  in  becomes  less  and  less  frequent? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  all  the  time  the  parties  are  aware  of  the  fact  that  there 
is  somebody  who  can  decide  if  they  do  not  agree? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Exactly. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Of  course,  you  are  only  speaking  now  of  this  one  industry— 
of  the  bricklaying  industry? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes.  Now,  you  understand,  there  are  about  30  trades  in  the 
building  industry,  and  I  \vould  like  to  explain  that  to  you  briefly. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  can  go  right  to  that  now. 

Mr,  EIDLITZ.  In  1903  all  the  trades  in  the  building  industry  were  organized ; 
they  are  closed  shops,  or  were  in  1903,  and,  due  to  the  strength  of  organized 
labor  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  certain  laxity  of  certain  employers'  associations 
on  the  other  hand,  and  a  natural  selfishness  and  cupidity  of  men  in  all  busi- 
ness relations,  a  mode  of  procedure  grew  up  there  of  grafting,  which  was  so — 
grew  to  such  an  extent  and  became  so  that  a  number  of  leading  employers  in 
all  the  various  industries  made  up  their  minds  that  they  would  never  maintain 
their  self-respect,  and  it  became  a  question  of  proceeding  in  other  ways,  and 
we  locked  out  the  whole  building  industry,  and  we  shut  down  absolutely  in 
the  city  of  New  York.  We  organized  in  three  weeks  an  employers'  association, 
composed  of  the  various  industries  in  the  building  industry — that  is,  granite 
men,  marble  men,  plumbers,  steam  fitters,  carpenters,  and  all  the  various 
classes  of  trades  that  go  to  make  up  a  building — and  inside  of  three  weeks  we 
had  1,000  firms  and  incorporations  in  our  organization. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Binding  each  one? 

Mr.  EIDLETZ.  Binding  each  contractor — each  firm. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  To  live  up  to  the  arrangement? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  To  live  up  to  the  dictates  of  the  board  of  governors.  That  board 
of  governors  was  formed,  and  bonds  were  placed,  and  contracts  were  placed  in- 
side of  four  months  and  inside  of  four  months  we  were  ready  to  do  business. 
We  took  every  one  of  these  organizations  and  wiped  them  off  of  the  face  of  the 


TBADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  647 

» 

map,  and  came  out  frankly  and  said  that  we  would  pay  union  wages,  but  that 
the  graft  proposition  in  New  York  had  to  stop,  and  we  stopped  it.  We  sent  eight 
men  up  the  river,  and  the  whole  proposition  was  handled  without  gloves. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  When  you  say  eight  men  were  sent  up  the  river  doubtless  you 
mean  the  River  Styx? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Well,  Sam  Parks  passed  over  while  he  was  there. 

We  then  organized  what  is  known  as  the  joint  arbitration  plan  and  com- 
pelled every  one  of  these  organizations  to  come  in.  It  took  us  six  months  to 
get  one  of  them,  but  we  got  it,  and  we  compelled  every  one  of  them  to  sign  an 
agreement  that  they  would  take  arbitration  first  and  not  strike  first.  It  was  a 
pretty  severe  fight,  and  it  strained  everybody  pretty  much,  but  since  that  time, 
although  there  have  been  discussions  about  striking  and  all  that  sort  of  thing, 
whenever  the  situation  got  really  serious,  whenever  all  remonstrances  were  un- 
availing, we  simply  did  the  other  thing,  we  used  a  club. 

You  wanted  to  know  what  the  situation  is,  and  the  relation  between  employer 
and  employee.  The  way  we  look  at  it  is  this,  that  both  sides  should  be  thor- 
oughly organized.  All  this  transition  period,  the  kindergarten  game  that  you 
are  going  through  in  the  garment  trade,  is  preparatory.  We  are  going  through 
the  first  initiation.  They  were  warned  years  ago  what  they  would  have  to 
come  to,  but  they  would  not  believe  it.  All  this  preferential  shop  business  is 
elementary.  There  is  only  one  way  to  do  it,  to  have  both  sides  thoroughly  or- 
ganized, absolutely  contractual  relation,  and  then  have  a  feeling  that  every  act 
of  one  against  the  other  must  be  tinged  with  apprehension.  That  is  the  relation 
between  employer  and  employee.  I  have  been  at  it  for  32  years,  and  that  is  our 
result. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  think  that  to-day,  without  organization,  the  attitude 
is  not  tinged  with  apprehension? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Do  I  think  so? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  think  to-day,  without  the  perfect  organization  you 
think  of  in  the  other  lines  of  trade,  that  the  relations  are  not  tinged  with  appre- 
hension? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Not  so  much;  and  you  must  not  forget,  that,  taking  the  build- 
ing industry  as  a  class,  they  are  about  the  highest  grade  of  skilled  men,  and  as 
individuals,  both  in  education  and  everything  else,  as  high  as  anybody  else  in 
the  mechanical  line ;  and  you  have  to  deal  with  that  business  sense  and  ability 
and  acumen,  and  with  a  war  chest. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  your  statement  amounts  to  this,  Mr.  Eidlitz,  that  where 
there  is  good  organization  there  are  greater  fears.  From  your  explanation  of 
that  I  would  understand  that  that  fear  is  simply  that  if  there  is  a  rupture  it  is 
more  serious. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  That  it  is  a  serious  thing.     That  it  is  not  gone  into  lightly. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  in  the  relations  from  day  to  day,  in  the  carrying  out  of 
their  respective  parts  of  production  or  industry,  the  greater  organization  holds 
a  greater  position,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  simply  wanted  to  get  that. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes.  You  see  an  awful  lot  about  the  relations  of  capital  and 
labor  and  what  they  are  going  to  do.  That  is  my  opinion  of  it,  after  having 
worked  with  them  for  that  length  of  time,  that  it  is  a  question  of  selfishness  on 
both  sides ;  many  times  the  employer  is  just  as  much  to  blame,  and  sometimes 
more,  than  the  workmen,  and  you  have  got  absolutely  to  take  an  organization 
that  takes  them  in  hand.  We  do  not  do  a  thing  to  some  of  these  employers; 
they  are  fined  good  and  plenty. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  enforce  your  rules? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes;  absolutely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  you  get  the  money? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  We  get  the  money. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  is  not  proper,  perhaps,  to  ask  what  becomes  of  that  money? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  The  money  goes  into  the  war  chest  of  the  Building  Trades  Em- 
ployers' Association. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Where  the  action  of  an  employer  has  resulted  in  injury  to 
an  employee,  does  any  of  that  go  to  the  employee? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No ;  we  never  give  anything  to  the  employee. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  We  have  had  instances  of  that  kind  in  the  molders'  trade. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  There  may  be  some  instances  of  that  in  other  trades,  but  that  is 
not  so  in  ours — that  is,  in  the  mason  builders'  trade. 


648          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  understand  the  agreement  practically  expired  as  a  matter 
of  definite  contract,  but  exists  as  a  matter  of  common-law  practice.  That  is 
true,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  was  the  form  of  the  arbitration  board  under  that 
agreement  ? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Under  the  arbitration  agreement  each  one  of  the  trades  had 
to  have  a  trade  agreement — definite  arrangement — but  that  exists  between  the 
employer  and  his  workmen.  Then,  there  was  a  trade  arbitration  board  for 
each  trade,  where  the  minor  troubles  were  brought  up.  But  where  the  real 
trouble  would  be  apt  to  arise  in  that  industry,  you  see,  would  be  where  one 
trade  would  claim  jurisdiction  over  something  that  another  trade  claimed — 
both  bona  fide  union  men  and  both  having  apparently  the  right  to  make  that 
portion.  That  led  to  what  we  call  the  sympathetic  strike,  and  there  we  were 
for  many  years  subject,  at  a  moment's  notice,  to  having  the  plumbers  pulled 
out  on  one  job,  or  the  steam  litters  pulled  out  on  another  job,  all  because  the 
steam  fitters  or  the  plumbers  claimed  that  the  work  to  be  performed  that  was 
in  their  jurisdiction  was  being  performed  by  the  other  people  and,  therefore, 
the  trouble  was  on. 

So  the  object  was  to  do  away  with  the  sympathetic  end  of  it.  That  is  where 
this  general  board  caine  into  force. 

Now,  each  trade  was  organized;  each  trade  had  its  own  arbitration  board. 
In  addition  to  that  each  trade  sent  two  representatives,  two  employees,  and 
two  journeymen  from  each  trade  into  the  larger  body,  which  was  known  as  the 
general  arbitration  board  which  was  composed  of  120  men.  Of  course,  with 
120  men  you  could  not  do  business,  so  there  was  an  emergency  committee 
created  composed  of  12  men,  who  sat  on  an  average  of  about  three  times  a 
week  from  8  to  12  in  the  evening.  They  handled  all  the  cases  that  came  up. 
That  was  a  joint  committee  composed  of  six  journeymen  and  six  employers. 
Whenever  a  case  came  up  which  involved  anybody  on  the  board,  he  had  to  get 
off  of  the  board  and  he  was  replaced,  so  that  nobody  was  trying  his  own  case 
or  the  case  of  his  own  trade. 

This  emergency  committee  made  the  absolute  ruling  in  the  interim  of  the 
meetings  of  the  board,  which  occurred  once  a  month.  If  a  ruling  was  felt 
to  be  very  onerous  on  the  loser,  he  had  a  right  to  appeal  to  the  general  body, 
and  a  vote  was  then  taken  in  the  general  body  as  to  whether  or  not  they  would 
order  that  motion  or  order  reviewed,  and  if  not,  why  that  was  the  final  order 
of  the  board  and  it  had  to  be  maintained  and  lived  up  to. 

That  went  along  for  seven  years.  Under  it  any  number  of  minor  troubles 
were  adjudicated  and  in  addition  about  90  contentious  questions  of  sympa- 
thetic trade  disputes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  ordinarily  are  called  jurisdictional  matters? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Jurisdictional  matters — 90  of  them.  They  are  right  in  this 
book. 

In  1910  the  steam  fitters  struck.  They  raised  the  wages.  They  were  ordered 
back  to  work  by  the  executive  committee.  They  did  not  go.  They  were  ordered 
back  by  the  general  body.  They  did  not  go.  We  gave  them  another  week — so 
as  not  to  make  the  fight — and  brought  them  up  again,  and  again  they  were 
ordered  by  the  general  body  of  120 — 60  on  each  side — to  go  back  to  work,  but 
they  did  not  go.  Then  the  arbitration  board  adjourned,  because  it  was  one 
of  the  articles  in  the  document  that  the  unions  as  a  whole  guaranteed  the  faithful 
performing  of  each  organization.  It  might  not  apply  to  a  single  man,  but 
when  it  came  to  the  organization,  the  unions  as  a  whole  guaranteed  the  faith- 
ful performance  in  carrying  out  the  edict  of  that  board.  That  gave  them  three 
chances,  but  they  did  not  do  it;  and,  then,  we  had  to  go  in  and  lick  them 
and  it  took  us  five  months  to  do  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  meantime  what  became  of  this  proposition? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  That  was  abrogated,  and  the  board  was  adjourned,  and  it  has 
never  come  together  again.  There  have  been  several  attempts  made  to  bring  it  to- 
gether, '  but  the  trouble  was  that — during  the  interim,  through  the  house  com- 
plications— there  are  really  one  or  two  organizations  there  who  are  not  in  a 
position  to  maintain  their  position;  in  other  words,  you  have  one  or  two 
trades  there  in  which  the  same  situation  obtains  that  was  manifest  in  these 
garment  trades — the  point  being  this:  Human  nature  is  a  gamble,  and — until 
one  makes  the  experience  that  the  gamble  is  not  worth  it — he  is  bound  to  try 
it  on,  and  there  are  a  number  of  new  men  coming  into  the  field  all  the  time 
that  are  willing  to  take  a  wildcat  chance  instead  of  being  conservative.  That 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  649 

this  the  reason  these  men  are  working  along  with  the  preferential  shop — some 
of  the  men  union  and  some  of  them  not  union. 

I  will  tell  you,  I  have  never  been  in  a  shop  of  the  garment  industry  and  I 
do  not  know  anything  about  such  a  shop;  but  I  will  tell  you,  from  my  knowl- 
edge of  union  conditions,  that  the  only  reason  why  an  employer  employs  a 
union  and  nonunion  man  is  that  he  wants  to  have  the  balance  of  power,  so  that 
if  the  situation  is  just  right  he  would  really  be  in  a  position  to  crowd  down 
the  union  as  well  as  the  nonunion.  The  man  who  has  a  brain  and  is  seek- 
ing to  improve  his  condition  is  absolutely  bound  to  go  into  the  union.  It  means 
bettering  his  condition  and  raising  his  wage,  and,  therefore,  if  he  has  any 
sense  at  all,  he  goes  into  it.  There  are  a  few  isolated  individuals  who  have 
still  got  the  idea  that  the  individual  is  the  sole  master  of  the  situation — that 
he  has  a  right  to  sell  his  labor  as  he  wishes,  and  so  on.  That  is  not  so  to-day. 
This  is  the  day  of  the  group. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Briggs,  the  molder,  in  the 
statement  he  made,  that  he  believed  that  the  workingman  could  better  his  con- 
dition quicker  and  could  do  better  individually  than  he  could  by  joining  an 
organization? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  know  very  well  he  could  not,  because  it  is  not  in  human  nature 
to  permit  him  to  do  it.  Any  man  who  starts  out  in  business,  any  young  man 
with  limited  capital  and  full  of  ginger,  thinks  he  is  going  to  show  the  older 
concerns  how  to  do  it,  and  the  way  he  does  it  is  by  trying  to  get  the  best  of  his 
neighbor.  An  organization  is  simply  the  defense  against  that  condition,  and 
all  this  talk  about  a  preferential  shop  is  bosh. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  are  not  at  all  on  the  fence  in  that  question? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  never  have  been — all  my  life. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  not  talked  with  Mr.  Brandeis  about  it,  I  take  it? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No ;  I  do  not  know  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  would  like  further  to  ask  you  about  what  machinery  has 
been  used  by  the  two  associations  since  the  abrogation  of  this  contract  to  adjust 
their  grievances  on  matters  between  them. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  want  to  make  quite  an  important  point  there,  as  long  as  you 
bring  it  up.  The  general  arbitration  board  provided  this.  The  main  cause  of 
friction  between  the  employer  and  the  union  is  the  walking  delegate  or  busi- 
ness agent.  Now,  if  he  is  an  honest  business  agent  he  is  a  great  help  to  both 
sides.  If  he  is  a  dishonest  agent,  and  is  looking  to  polish  his  halo  or  be  a  "  hell 
of  a  fellow  "  to  his  craft,  he  is  going  to  make  trouble  for  you ;  that  is  all. 

Now,  he  has  the  opportunity,  being  backed  up.     Pardon  me,  Mrs.  Harriman. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  That  is  all  right. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  want  to  make  any  additions  to  that"? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  forgot  for  the  moment;  you  will  pardon  me,  Mrs.  Harriman? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Certainly,  Mr.  Eidlitz. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  When  I  get  on  that  subject,  you  know,  I  feel  pretty  strongly 
on, it 

Well,  when  this  plan  was  started  it  was  really  the  revolt  of  the  employer 
against  the  nefarious  practices  of  the  business  agent.  It  was  stipulated  that 
the  members  of  the  general  board  should  be  members  who  are  at  work  at  the 
craft — not  business  agents,  not  business  officers.  In  other  words,  it  was  stipulated 
that  they  should  be  men  who  would  represent  their  organization.  Here  is  an  or- 
ganization with  four  or  five  thousand  men,  or  with  1,200  men  or  with  600  men,  or 
whatever  it  might  be.  They  certainly  ought  to  be  able  to  find  two  men  in  that 
body  who  could  adequately  represent  them  on  that  board,  without  taking  one 
of  their  business  agents  or  an  officer  or  some  one  of  that  sort.  Of  course,  in 
some  cases  they  did  select  a  man  who  had  been  a  business  agent,  and  of  course 
we  could  not  take  exception  to  that.  That  is  what  happened.  When  the  board 
ceased  operations,  of  course  those  who  had  been  appointed  to  represent  the 
unions  on  the  board  could  no  longer  act,  because  the  board  no  longer  existed, 
and  the  only  relation  between  the  employers  and  the  men,  outside  of  the  trade 
board,  because,  mark  you,  the  trade  board  was  in  existence  all  this  time 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  individual  trade  boards? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  The  individual  trade  boards  were  all  going  just  the  same, 
except  the  steam  fitters,  and  then  they  healed  up  and  they  started.  But  the 
general  board  did  not  start  again,  and  the  way  the  proposition  is  handled  is 
that  whenever  there  is  a  discussion  which  can  not  be  handled  with  the  trade 
board  a  committee  from  the  building  trades  council  appears  before  a  com- 
mittee of  building  trades  employers,  which  is  an  executive  committee,  and  we 
call  the  executive  committee,  and  a  decision  is  reached  right  there  as  to  what 


650          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON"    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

is  to  be  done  with  the  situation,  whether  we  say,  "  We  will  not  grant  it.  Do 
your  worst."  or  "  We  will  discuss  it."  or  "  We  will  do  this,"  or  "  do  that." 
But  it  is  handled  right  in  committee  now.  We  have  had  half  a  dozen  arbi- 
trations since  then.  The  whole  attitude  absolutely  is  to  do  the  right  thing 
and  to  be  conciliatory  up  to  the  point  where  the  demand  is  unreasonable,  and 
the  men  have  in  all  fairness  no  right  to  demand  what  they  do,  and  then  we 
sit  back  and  fight. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  there  been  since  the  strike  of  1910,  which  you  speak 
of.  many  sympathetic  or  jurisdictional  strikes? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Very  few.  I  want  to  say  that  one  of  the  things  that  I  think 
ought  to  go  very  far  to  convince  everybody  that  this  plan  has  done  a  very 
useful  work,  one  of  the  things  that  the  building  trades  counsel  did  within  a 
year  after  the  dissolution  of  the  board,  was  that  they  voted  that  this  was  the 
Bible  [indicating  book],  so  far  as  the  trades  were  concerned,  and  that  every 
trade  in  the  counsel  had  to  abide  by  these  decisions,  so  that  that  by  itself 
eliminated  90  per  cent  of  all  the  points  of  dispute  in  the  building  industry. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  So  far,  in  the  matters  which  have  come  up  since  1910,  then, 
you  have  had  no  difficulty  in  adjusting  them  to  the  satisfaction  of  both  sides 
and  without  any  unnecesssary  delay  and  waste  of  effort? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Reasonably ;  reasonably.  There  have  been  one  or  two  cases 
that  have  grown  serious,  but  reasonably  that  iias  been  done. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  any  opinion  as  to  the  advisability  of  reestablish- 
ing the  old  agreement  now  in  New  York? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  think  that  there  probably  will  be  some  way  of  reestablishing 
it,  whether  it  will  be  quite  in  this  way  or  not  I  am  not  prepared  at  this  time 
to  say.  I  think  it  could  have  been  reestablished  if  the  trades  had  not  made  the 
demand  that  certain  organizations  who  are  not  at  peace  with  their  employers 
had  to  come  in.  We  refused  to  establish  a  plant  in  which  the  employers  and 
employees  were  not  at  harmony  and  peace  with  themselves.  You  see  the  point? 
In  other  words,  if  the  employees  and  employers  of  that  particular  trade  are  not 
at  peace,  it  does  not  do  us  a  bit  of  good  to  have  a  trade  arbitration  board, 
because  it  simply  means  a  row,  with  sides  taken  one  way  or  the  other.  You 
can  not  get  away  from  it.  We  were  perfectly  ready  here  a  couple  of  years  ago 
to  take  all  of  those  trades  that  had  the  trade  agreement  with  their  employers 
and  start  the  board  over  again,  and  then  take  each  one  in  as  they  got  at  peace 
with  their  employers. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  contended  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  get  the 
different  factions,  even  though  there  was  a  lack  of  peace  prevailing,  together 
under  a  general  agreement  and  through  the  channel  and  form  of  the  agree- 
ment to  bring  about  peace  in  the  different  trades? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  There  has  been  a  difference  of  opinion  on  that.  I  personally 
would  be  in  favor  of  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  would  be? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes.  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  on  that,  but  there  is 
something  to  it.  I  want  to  say  right  here  that  of  course  the  main  bone  of 
contention  is  the  iron  industry. 

The  house  men  were  the  grossest  offenders,  and  they  made  it  very  difficult 
for  us,  and  at  the  same  time  I  personally  have  felt  that  if  a  boy  is  bad  there 
is  no  use  spanking  him  continuously.  He  has  been  bad  and  he  has  had  his 
punishment,  and  he  has  demonstrated  that  he  would  go  .to  all  the  lengths 
possible  in  the  way  of  being  a  bad  citizen,  but  it  is  supposed  that  he  has  seen 
the  error  of  his  way,  and  that  is  my  view  of  it.  But  that  is  not  shared  by 
the  iron  trades. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  think  that  if  a  trade  agreement  containing  the  ma- 
chinery for  conciliation  and  arbitration  generally  were  entered  into  in  the 
building  trades  it  would  be  of  advantage  to  the  industry,  or  would  you  be 
opposed  to  it? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  There  is  no  question  about  that.  We  have  done  it  all  these 
years  and  will  continue  to  do  it  in  one  form  or  another.  If  we  do  not  do  it 
by  that  plan,  we  will  do  it  as  it  is  now,  and  it  is  a  question  whether  or  not 
it  is  a  good  way  to  do  it  by  star-chamber  proceedings.  Twenty  men  get  together 
and  say  what  is  going  to  happen,  and  that  is  the  end  of  it.  They  can  get 
together  and  have  a  lot  of  discussion  and  say,  "  You  arbitrate  that,"  and  they 
will  do  it.  Sometimes  it  takes  them  a  little  while  to  do  it — feeling  their  oats 
again,  you  know 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  mean  the  builders? 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  651 

Ss,         .   :'\  ^ 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Both.  We  have  one  case  where  we  ordered  an  employers'  asso- 
ciation to  do  it,  and  they  backed  and  filled,  and  it  took  three  months  to  make 
them  do  it,  and  nobody  was  suffering  very  much  in  the  meantime;  but  they 
are  doing  it  now. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  still  that  would  leave,  would  it  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  decision  with  the  respective  parties  as  to  whether  or  not  they  would 
arbitrate? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  It  is  really  not  very  different  from  the  emergency  committee 
before.  The  emergency  committee  was  authorized  to  settle.  It  was  composed 
of  six  on  each  side,  taken  out  of  the  general  number. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  this  committee  consists  generally  of  the  general  em- 
ployers only? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No ;  it  is  composed  of  men  from  both  sides. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  misapprehended  that  fact. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No ;  it  is  from  both  sides. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  thought  that  a  member  of  the  building- trades  council  came 
over  to  this  committee  of  20  employers  and  said,  "  Here  is  the  trouble.  Now 
we  would  like  you  to  meet  about  it ; "  and  then  the  20  employers  met  behind 
closed  doors. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No;  the  whole  thing  is  thrashed  out  right  there,  and  the  whole 
tendency  and  drift  of  the  relation  has  been  so  completely  stipulated  and  indi- 
cated by  the  last  10  years'  work  that  everybody  understands  it;  and  if  any 
sort  of  a  fair  case  is  made  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  decision. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  we  might  say  that  there  is  now  a  common  law  existing 
in  the  custom  of  the  trade? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes ;  that  is  it  exactly. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Which  has  been  founded  on  the  agreement,  and  that  under 
this  custom  you  have  got  substantially  all  that  could  be  gotten  by  an  agreement, 
and  it  is  really  in  effect  a  tacit  agreement? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ., It  is  a  tacit  agreement;  but,  you  see,  it  has  all  been  built  up. 
The  only  questions  that  come  up  -are  questions  of  jurisdictional  disputes. 

While  I  have  the  privilege  of  being  before  you  I  should  like  to  give  vent  to 
one  thought  right  in  connection  with  that,  and  that  is  this :  I  am  satisfied  the 
way  the  whole  industrial  relation  is  trending  now  is  that  the  way  to  have  peace 
is  to  have  your  trade  relations,  the  family  legislating  for  itself,  and  to  have, 
if  you  like,  a  larger  body,  as  in  our  case,  or  as  in  many  other  industries,  to 
which  matters  are  referred;  but  beyond  that,  if  it  comes  to  a  case  of  lockout 
or  strike,  before  they  come  to  that  it  should  go  to  a  judicial  body  known  as 
the  industrial  court  of  that  State,  of  that  city,  and  there  should  be  an  appoint- 
ment of  one  industrial  court  of  three  or  five  or  whatever  number  may  develop 
to  be  necessary,  if  possible,  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Appointed  at  the  time,  or  a  standing  court? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  A  standing  court,  I  think,  should  be  in  every  State,  and  particu- 
larly in  some  of  the  big  cities.  We  have  a  night  court  for  family  relations. 
Now,  I  think  it  would  be  a  pretty  good  thing  to  have  a  night  court  about  once 
or  twice  a  month  for  industrial  relations. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Family  relations? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes;  certainly.  We  have  that  right  in  New  York.  Bring  up 
all  these  little  scrap  cases  in  the  family. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Not  living  in  New  York,  I  was  not  acquainted  with  what 
that  meant. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  What  would  be  the  idea,  then,  as  to  the  establish- 
ment of,  say,  some  form  of  special  council  for  the  consideration  of  industrial 
disputes  that  could  be  appealed  to  by  the  parties,  either  or  both  of  the  parties, 
in  such  cases  of  last  resort  as  you  have  named ;  perhaps  a  body  without  power 
to  enforce,  but  power  at  least  to  investigate? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  That  is  the  building-trades  department  of  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor,  and  I  do  not  believe  in  it. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  How  would  it  be  if  the  Federal  Government  did  it? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  It  would  be  very  fine  if  they  did  it. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Like  the  Industrial  Council  of  England? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Mind  you,  when  I  say  I  do  not  believe  in  this  building  trades 
department  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  I  do  not  want  to  me  mis- 
understood. I  absolutely  believe  in  their  end  of  it,  in  the  national  association 
to  handle  troubles  in  their  own  unions  as  between  unions;  but  for  the  building 
trades  department  to  set  itself  up  as  judges  of  what  is  happening  in  one 
locality  or  another,  when  as  a  matter  of  fact  they  have  great  difficulty  in  con- 


652          REPORT    OE    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

trolling  tlieir  own  organizations  in  different  localities,  and  then  for  them  to 
come  and  say  what  opinion  they  have  about  the  employers  in  that  industry,  is 
just  arrogating  to  themselves  a  power  that  they  can  not  maintain. 

I  have  very  good  friends  among  the  American  Federation  of-  Labor,  and  I 
know  them  very  well,  and  they  know  where  I  stand  on  it.  They  are  doing 
a  great  work,  and  I  am  with  them,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing,  but  you  can 
not  have  any  discussion  in  any  court  of  last  resort,  when  the  judges  there  are 
biased,  as  they  are  bound  to  be. 

Commissioner  HABBIMAN  (acting  chairman).  Mr.  Lennon,  do  you  want  to 
ask  any  questions? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  want  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Eidlitz,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  this  commission  is  going  to  meet  in  New  York  on  the  4th  of  May,  whether 
you  would  be  willing  to  submit  to  us  a  brief  at  that  time,  indicating  how  you 
believe  the  jurisdictional  problems  can  be  eliminated  from  the  building  trades? 

Mr.  EIDLSTZ.  I  wish  I  could,  Mr.  Lennon. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  have  been  up  against  it,  and  you  must  have  given 
some  study  to  the  matter. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  will  say  this,  that  I  think  you  are  starting  partially  in  the 
right  direction  now.  I  think  that  the  uniting  of  the  steamfitter  and  the 
plumber  now  is  a  good  thing. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Would  you  be  willing  to  undertake  to  do  that? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  The  only  point  about  it  is  that  you  see  you  may  go  pretty  far 
in  that.  You  propose  to  build  up  the  house  men  by  giving  them  the  metal  lather 
and  perhaps  the  pipe  coverer.  Now,  we  are  not  for  it. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Why? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Because  the  metal  lather  has  a  very  strong  organization  of  his 
own  there,  and  it  brings  up  all  sorts  of  pipes,  you  know,  and  you  are  getting 
pretty  close  to  the  quick  on  many  of  those  propositions. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  WThere  you  see  that  the  matter  is  going  to  work  out 
itself  for  you,  the  building  contractor,  your  are  for  it,  and  where  you  see  it  is 
going  to  make  you  more  trouble  you  do  not  care  to  be  pushed  just  at  the 
present  time. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Well,  I  will  put  it  that  way.  Then  there  is  another  point  that 
you  do  not  want  to  forget,  and  that  is  that  the  stronger  combination  is  not  with 
you  at  all,  and  that  is  the  bricklayers.  We  have  got  to  reckon  with  him. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Does  he  have  any  jurisdictional  fights? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Well,  some.  [Laughter.]  I  was  in  hopes  of  meeting  some  of 
my  friends  here  to-day. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Does  he  fight  with  the  plumber? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Oh,  no.  He  has  got  an  arrangement  now  with  the  plasterer. 
There  is  one  branch  of  the  bricklaying  industry  which  is  the  stonemasons.  I 
think  we  are  getting  a  little  too  intimate,  now,  on  this  thing.  I  do  not  think 
it  belongs  to  you. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  We  will  not  take  it  up  now. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  But  it  is  a  fact.  The  only  point  I  want  to  make  is  this.  I 
absolutely  believe  in  unionism.  I  absolutely  believe  in  collective  bargaining. 
I  absolutely  believe  in  the  relation  between  the  employer  and  the  employee  in 
the  trade  board  and  in  any  other  method  of  arbitration  that  you  can  devise 
for  taking  care  of  jnrisdictional  troubles,  I  do  not  care  where  they  come  from. 
But  I  do  not  think  that  I  want  to  say  at  this  time  that  I  want  to  do  anything 
that  is  going  to  inordinately  bolster  up  the  other  side  of  the  fence,  particularly 
when  they  are  not  in  a  position  to  maintain  the  stand  that  they  are  standing 
on,  and  I  know  it,  and  I  know  what  I  am  talking  about. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  say  that  our  idea  is  to  go  into  this  proposition  more 
fully  in  the  other  cities  in  the  country,  and  while  I  am  not  authorized  to  speak 
for  the  commission,  they  will  simply  take  the  question  as  it  comes  before 
them  and  consider  it. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Most  of  the  agreements  as  between  you  and  the  brick- 
layers, for  instance,  are  verbal  agreements.  They  are  understandings  reached 
by  men ;  they  are  not  written  agreements  ? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Absolutely,  every  agreement  is  a  written  agreement.  I  should 
say  so;  and  there  have  been  some  things  that  have  been  in  that  agreement, 
and  that  have  been  in  for  10  years,  and  then  we  finally  came  to  the  test  after 
10  years,  in  regard  to  the  necessity  for  an  interpretation  of  them,  and  we  had 
to  get  a  lawyer  in  there  to  interprel  them,  and  he  found  against  us. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Do  any  of  those  agreements  appear  in  your  book 
which  you  have  here? 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  653 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  They  do  not. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  want  to  say  right  now  to  you  gentlemen — I  think  after  what 
I  have  said  I  owe  that  to  you — of  course,  in  New  York  the  relation  between  the 
employer  and  his  employee  is  very  close,  and  for  that  reason  you  will  find  that 
it  is  not  so  easy  to  upset  conditions  there. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  is  far  more  easy  in  other  cities  than  it  is  in  that  city? 
What  do  you  mean  by  that? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  mean  to  say  this,  that  I  think  there  are  a  number  of  trades 
there  that  if  their  national  organization  were  to  tell  them,  "  It  is  for  the  best 
interests  of  our  organization  as  a  whole  that  you  shall  break  your  contract 
with  your  employer,"  they  would  say,  "  We  will  be  a  local,"  and  "  Good-by." 
They  would  say,  "We  will  take  our  chance  with  our  employers."  That 'is 
what  I  mean. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  was  referring  to  the  matter  of  local  conditions. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  mean  the  relations  between  employer  and  employee  in  New 
York.  They  have  scrapped  together,  hard,  and  they  have  a  good  deal  of  re- 
spect for  each  other,  and  the  employees  know  when  the  employer  tells  them 
lie  will  do  thus  and  so  he  will  come  pretty  near  doing  it.  If  they  can  get  the 
employer  to  enlist  with  them,  they  will  say  good-by  to  the  central  body. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  have  not  the  idea  that  Mr.  Cohen  had,  that  you 
should  look  to  the  international  union  rather  than  to  local  unions? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  You  threw  out  a  point  there  which  I  knew  all  about.  You  threw 
out  a  point  there  which  meant  that  on  these  jurisdictional  questions  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor,  or  the  building-trades  department  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  should  come  in  and  adjust  those  disputes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Oh,  no ;  I  had  not  that  thought. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  thought  that  was  what  you  were  driving  at.  I  beg  your  par- 
don, then. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No ;  I  was  asking  you  what  you  thought  about  a  federal 
body  created  by  the  United  States  Government. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  told  you  I  thought  that  would  be  a  fine  thing. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But,  although  I  am  acquainted  with  several  of  the  officers  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  I  did  not  know  that  they  had  such  a  thing 
RS  a  building-trades  council ;  or,  if  I  had  known  it,  it  had  absolutely  passed  out 
of  my  mind. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  They  are  doing  a  great  work. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  know  of  the  international  unions.  I  hear  of  them  in  Chi- 
cago a  great  deal ;  but  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  proposition  was  new 
to  me. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  absolutely  agree  with  yon,  in  that  I  think  it  would  be  a  won- 
derful thing  if  we  could  have  all  of  these  preliminary  difficulties  considered  in 
that  way ;  and  then  if  there  was  a  somewhat  higher  tribunal,  an  industrial 
court,  very  carefully  selected  and  appointed,  they  could  go  into  that  before  the 
strike  or  lockout  began ;  and  my  idea  is  that  the  United  States  should  form 
them  in  the  various  States. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  think  the  unions  would  agree  with  you  on  that? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  do  not  know.     I  do  not  see  why  they  would  not. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Would  not  such  a  trade  court  have  to  be  in  different 
brandies?  Would  not  there  have  to  be  a  branch  to  handle  the  building  trades, 
lor  instance,  and  nothing  else? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  do  not  think  so.  I  think  if  we  had  good  legal  minds  on  that 
court,  that  would  be  all  that  would  be  necessary ;  good  intelligent  minds ; 
that  is  all  that  would  be  necessary.  The  trouble  is  that  we  often  see  things 
the  wrong  way,  and  we  are  very  honest  in  our  viewpoint  of  the  thing,  and  we 
get  at  loggerheads,  whereas  it  might  be  different  if  some  dispassionate  out- 
sider should  say,  "  You  are  wrong."  On  two  occasions  we  have  felt  that  we 
were  absolutely  right,  and  we  would  have  fought  about  it,  but  our  document 
says  an  umpire  should  come  in,  and  the  umpire  has  said,  "  You  are  wrong," 
and  \ve  laid  down. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  have  been  dealing  with  jurisdictional  disputes  for 
ftbout  30  years. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  What  is  your  trade? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  am  a  tailor  by  trade.  I  have  dealt  with  all  of 
them ;  and  every  one  of  these  trades  I  have  had  to  do  with.  I  think  on  the 
disputes  between  the  steamfitters  and  the  plumbers  I  have  had  to  change  my 
mind,  as  I  got  more  light,  three  or  four  different  times  within  those  30  years. 


654:  REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

I  do  not  know  that  I  would  be  competent,  even  now,  to  deal  with  all  the  phases 
of  that  question  if  I  should  start  again,  for  instance. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  And  therefore  I  asked  the  question  whether  you 
thought  that  in  the  establishment  of  such  a  national  board  there  would  not  have 
to  be  subdivisions ;  for  instance,  one  for  the  building  trades  and  perhaps  another 
for  the  miscellaneous  trades,  and  so  one. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  have  not  given  that  sufficient  thought  to  have  an  opinion  on  it. 
I  have  simply  come  to  this  conclusion,  after  having  been  with  it  now  for  this 
length  of  time,  that  the  way  matters  are  going  now  it  should  not  be  left  any 
more  to  the  family  because  of  the  results  that  happen ;  the  outcome  of  the  hap- 
penings is  so  serious  that  it  should  not  be  allowed  any  more  to  happen. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  did  not  understand  what  you  said.  It  should  not  be 
left  to  what — the  family? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes.  You  see,  for  instance,  the  most  important  indication  of 
that  is  the  condition  of  the  railroads  to-day.  That  is  the  worst  type  of  it.  In 
other  words,  if  the  railroads  in  self-defense  should  take  the  old  stand  and  sit 
down  and  say,  "Now,  we  are  going  to  make  the  fight.  We  refuse  to  go  any 
further.  There  is  no  reason  why  we  should  allow  the  Government  to  put  us 
into  bankruptcy.  We  are  going  to  stop  " — that  would  mean  this.  That  would 
mean  such  an  unfortunate  situation  for  all  the  inhabitants  of  those  various 
States  which  are  supplied  by  the  railroads  that  it  would  be  a  crime.  It  would 
not  be  allowed  for  a  minute.  It  would  be  a  case  of  anarchy. 

Follow  that  down  from  that  conclusion.  Take  it  in  the  building  industry. 
That  means  a  great  financial  loss.  If  a  man  is  putting  up  a  building  that  costs 
a  million  or  a  million  and  a  half,  if  he  does  not  get  it  up  in  time  he  suffers  a 
great  financial  loss.  Still,  it  is  not  the  same  tiling  as  a  forwarder  or  a  carrier 
who  is  put  in  a  situation  through  labor  disputes.  Now,  I  say  formerly  they 
straightened  it  out  and  conciliated  and  then  put  the  price  on  the  public  and 
went  on  again.  But,  I  say,  if  they  are  going  to  have  Government  interference 
on  one  side,  it  should  interfere  all  the  way  through.  Let  the  family  have  their 
scraps  and  their  agreements,  but  when  they  come  to  the  point  where  they  are 
not  going  to  work  any  more  and  all  the  machinery  that  is  in  that  particular 
industry  has  been  exhausted  to  take  care  of  it,  and  it  becomes  a  case  of  a  shut- 
down, I  think  it  should  go  to  the  industrial  court  to  say  which  it  right  and 
which  is  wrong  and  what  ought  to  be  done  about  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  your  idea  is  to  make  that  a  sort  of  a  compulsory  court  ? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes ;  absolutely.  Stop  the  economic  waste.  We  have  had  enough 
of  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  followed  the  history  of  such  courts  carefully  in 
Australia  and  New  Zealand?  They  do  not  seem  to  have  succeeded  there. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  think  there  has  been  a  good  deal  said  on  the  floor  below  about 
education  and  about  the  thing  being  an  educational  matter,  and  it  is,  and  there 
is  no  doubt  about  it.  I  think  you  will  find  where  people1  have  been  making 
agreements  and  making  contracts,  if  they  agree  that  in  case  they  can  not  get 
together  they  will  submit  it  to  industrial  courts,  then  the  compulsory  part  of  it 
is  not  so  serious,  and  if  you  have  the  court  in  existence  you  will  find  plenty  of 
work  for  it  to  do. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Just  as  it  exists  in  the  railroad  machinery  to-day,  the  board 
of  mediation  and  conciliation  being  situated  right  here  in  this  building? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes ;  after  a  fashion. 

Commissioner  BALLABD.  The  bricklayers'  organization  is  a  part  of  the  inter- 
national organization — the  American  Federation  of  Labor? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes;  they  are  an  international,  but  they  do  not  belong  to  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  There  are  two  separate  things,  then,  the  international 
and  the  American  Federation  of  Labor? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  imagined  they  were  the  same. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No,  sir;  the  bricklayers  are  an  industry  which  is  not  affiliated 
with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor;  but  most  of  the  other  crafts  aiv. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Most  of  the  other  29  unions  that  work  for  you  niv? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes ;  most  of  them. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  What  proportion  of  these  29  are  affiliated  with  tho 
American  Federation  of  Labor. 

IUr.  EIDLITZ.   Probably  1)5  j»er  cent  of  them. 

Commissiiouer  BALLAKD.  There  are  only  two  or  three  that  are  not? 


! 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  655 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes.  The  unfortunate  part  of  it  is  timt  that  5  per  cent  can  do 
pretty  nearly  as  much  damage  as  the  other  95  per  cent. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Will  the  unions  in  New  York  work  for  any  con- 
tractors who  are  not  members  of  that  association? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Certainly;  but  the  contractor  has  got  to  pay  the  scale  and  live 
up  to  all  conditions.  In  other  words,  we  meet  and  make  the  trade  conditions  for 
the  city  of  New  York  in  the  various  departments,  and  everybody  else  is  sup- 
posed to  live  up  to  them,  as  we  have  to,  and  they  watch  us  a  good  deal  closer 
than  they  do  an  outsider. 

Commissioner  BALLABD.  Can  any  man  who  works  in  any  of  the  different 
crafts  work  for  anybody  in  the  union? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  think  there  are  some  exceptions.  There  have  been  some 
unions  which  have  taken  a  position  that  is  very  reprehensible ;  they  have  kept 
their  ranks  closed  and  have  charged  enormous  fees,  and  there  were  only  cer- 
tain times  of  the  year  when  they  would  take  accessions  to  their  ranks. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Is  it  as  easy  for  a  man  to  rise  from  the  position  of 
a  workman  to  that  of  an  employer  as  it  was  20,  30,  or  40  years  ago?  Do  you 
think  that  the  union  system  has  a  tendency  to  level  and  hold  men  down  and 
keep  them  back  from  becoming  contractors? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  do  not  think  so.  I  do  not  think  it  is  quite  as  easy  now.  The 
field  of  opportunity  is  not  as  great  now  in  any  part  of  life,  and  that  holds  in 
the  building  industry  as  well  as  in  any  other. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Does  your  association  with  the  unions  in  the  building 
trades  countenance  sympathetic  strikes?  For  instance,  if  there  is  a  strike  in 
any  other  town  among  the  teamsters  or  any  other  class  of  workmen  that  is  not 
affiliated,  would  they  call  a  strike  on  a  building  that  might  be  under  construc- 
tion or  undergoing  repairs? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  That  was  one  of  the  things  that  was  tried  in  former  years. 
That  was  eliminated  by  virtue  of  this  plan.  I  do  not  think  the  organizations 
consider  that  a  quite  legitimate  kind  of  warfare  any  more.  I  think  that  is 
rarely  done  any  more.  They  confine  the  troubles  of  a  given  trade  to  its  own 
city. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Then  they  would  not  have  a  sympathetic  strike  be- 
cause of  some  other  town  having  a  strike? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  They  could  not  do  it,  providing  the  agreement  of  the  town  you 
are  talking  about  prevented  them  from  doing  it.  In  other  words,  they  would 
not  bring  trouble  in  from  New  Haven  if  the  New  York  agreement  stated  that 
they  were  not  to  withdraw  the  men  from  the  shop ;  that  is,  unless  it  was  some- 
thing that  was  a  specific  violation  of  the  agreement.  That  is  a  good  question, 
though.  There  is  some  of  that  done. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  The  New  York  contractors  take  jobs  in  other  towns? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Does  your  firm  do  that? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  If  you  take  a  job  in  some  other  city  where  there  are 
these  labor  unions,  the  members  of  which  do  what  goes  into  that  particular 
uilding,  and  if  they  are  not  all  represented  in  that  particular  town,  how  do 
you  handle  it — let  the  nonunion  men  in  other  trades  go  on  and  fill  up  the  gap, 
or  is  it  necessarily  done  by  union  men? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  employ  union  men,  absolutely,  wherever  I  go. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  If  any  part  of  the  work  in  a  building  in  any  other 
city,  which  you  are  building,  is  done  by  nonunion  men,  then  the  whole  thing 
would  stop? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Oh,  no ;  thejr  know  where  the  New  York  contractor  stands,  and 
they  would  simply  tell  him  about  it,  and  he  would  correct  it.  This  business  of 
a  flash  in  the  pan  is  pretty  well  eradicated. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  That  is,  the  tendency  of  the  New  York  contractor 
who  contracts  to  work  union  men  only  would  not  be  to  utilize  in  other  towns,  in 
building  contracts,  nonunion  men,  because  when  you  go  to  those  other  towns 
you  insist  upon  having  union  men  only? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Will  union  men  work  on  all  kinds  of  products,  whether 
they  have  boon  made  by  union  or  nonunion  factories? 

Mr.  EIDLTTZ.  Some  trades  have  taken  that  up,  but  in  most  trades  it  does  not 
enter.  In  all  day  and  brick  products  and  all  pipe  products  they  are  all  union. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Will  the  steam  fitter  fit  pipes  from  a  nonunion  fac- 
tory? 


656          KEPORT    OP    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  ETDLITZ.  Yes ;  it  is  none  of  their  business. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  But  some  of  the  trades  do  discriminate? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes;  the  wood  trade. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  It  does? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes.     That  is  about  the  only  one. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Supposing  you  are  building  a  building  in  some  other 
town  and  the  architect  should  specify  some  other  character  of  material  or 
work,  like  frames  of  doors,  which  have  been  made  by  a  nonunion  shop ;  then, 
they  would  not  put  them  up? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  They  might,  but  it  would  depend  upon  where  it  was.  In  the 
city  of  New  York  they  probably  would  not,  and  if  the  architect  specified  it 
that  way,  the  contractor  would  not  order  it.  He  would  know  what  he  had 
to  do. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Do  men  do  as  much  work  now  as  formerly?  For 
instance,  do  bricklayers  and  others  do  as  much  work  as  they  used  to  do?  I 
have  heard  it  stated  that  they  do  not. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  It  varies  in  certain  crafts.  You  take  the  average  bricklayer 
to-day,  and  I  think  he  is  doing  as  much  work  per  hour  as  he  ever  did  in  his 
life  on  the  kind  of  work  we  do.  You  must  not  forget  that  the  entire  method 
of  construction  has  changed,  and  it  is  impossible  to  take  a  skeleton  building, 
where  a  man  is  putting  up  a  12  by  16  inch  wall  envelope,  and  in  passing  from 
one  to  another,  the  bricklayer  has  to  lie  down  and  do  his  work,  and  he  can  not 
do  as  much  as  he  used  to  do. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  You  do  not  find,  then,  that  the  tendency  is  for  men 
to  work  slower  and  for  all  the  men  to  stay  with  the  slowest  man  instead  of 
speeding  up  for  the  fastest? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No ;  that  is  a  talking  point,  but  one  of  the  reasons  why  some 
of  that  happens  is  not  so  much  from  the  desire,  as  possibly  on  general  prin- 
ciples, that  a  man  does  not  want  to  do  more  work  than  he  has  to,  and  due 
to  the  fact  that  many  of  the  men  masquerading  as  employers  ought  to  be  in  the 
ranks.  They  do  not  know  how  to  do  the  business. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  As  I  gather,  in  the  building  trades  now  the  work- 
ing day  is  nearly  always  eight  hours? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Do  you  find  that  the  men  do  about  as  much  work 
in  8  hours  under  continuous  work  as  they  used  to  do  in  9  and  10  hours? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  You  think  they  do  less  work? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  will  say  they  do  as  much  work  per  hour. 

Commissioiner  BALLAED.  But  not  as  much  per  day? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No.  Some  of  them  say  they  do,  but  I  know  they  do  not.  How 
can  they? 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  You  ask  me,  "How  can  they?"  I  think  it  is  prob- 
ably a  fact  that  in  fatiguing  and  laborious  trades  the  men  do  about  as  much 
work  in  8  hours  as  they  can  in  12.  You  have  not  found  that  so? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  would  not  like  to  say  as  to  that.  I  can  imagine  a  condition 
where  what  you  say  is  true. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  In  the  building" trades  you  do  not  think  that  is  so? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  should  not  think  so.  I  think  this,  that  the  character  of  the 
work  determines  that  so  much  that  I  do  not  think  that  I  would  like  to 
answer  that. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  You  were  speaking  a  while  ago  of  a  contractor  put- 
ting up  a  building  where  the  amount  involved  would  be  several  million  dollars, 
but  the  principle  would  be  the  same  in  any  sized  building,  and  some  dispute 
might  arise  and  the  building  be  partly  completed  and  remain  for  some  con- 
siderable time  at  the  expense  of  the  owner? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  There  has  been  no  way  found  of  settling  jurisdic- 
tional  disputes? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes ;  we  have  settled  90  of  them  right  here. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Yes ;  but  how  many  have  there  been  ? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  It  is  not  that  there  are  so  many  different  kinds,  but  there  are 
so  many  repetitions  of  the  same  thing.  You  might  have  20  strikes  going  on 
on  the  same  basis,  in  different  places.  Mr.  Plumber  says  that  he  wants  to  run 
this  piece  of  pipe,  and  the  steam  fitter  says  that  he  has  got  to  run  the  same 
piece.  Mr.  Steam  fitter  will  be  put  off  the  job,  and  Mr.  Plumber  will  run  the 
pipe.  Some  distance  away,  where  they  are  not  so  anxious  about  the  plumber, 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  657 

the  plumber  will  be  put  off  the  job  and  the  steam  fitter  will  do  the  work.  The 
point  is,  who  does  it.  We  do  not  do  it. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  That  has  not  been  settled? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes ;  a  lot  of  it  has  been  settled. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  In  New  York  does  that  come  up  to  this  board  that 
would  order  this  union  to  go  to  work? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Right  on  that  I  should  like  to  tell  you  why  I  made  the  state- 
ment that  I  did  before.  Before  this  proposition  was  inaugurated  at  all  and 
when  the  board  of  building  trades — that  is,  the  representatives  of  the  unions — 
were  in  full  force  in  New  York,  a  jurisdictional  case  of  this  kind  came  up,  and 
the  general  contractor  or  the  subcontractor  said,  "  We  do  not  care  who  does  it. 
The  board  of  building  grades  settles  who  is  to  do  it."  They  did  it.  They  ren- 
dered a  verdict.  What  happened?  The  organization  that  had  the  ruling 
made  against  them  immediately  resigned  from  the  building-trades  council  and 
went  out  as  a  free  lance,  you  see ;  and  that  is  the  same  thing  that  will  happen 
if  it  is  worked  from  higher  up,  that  is  all. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  have  no  more  questions  to  ask. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  You  can  not  get  an  adjustment  on  a  jurisdictional  trade  dis- 
pute, or  any  one  of  these  disputes,  unless  the  employer  and  the  employee  are 
parties  to  it,  and  unless  they  agree;  if  they  can  not  agree  who  is  to  settle  it 
and  that  it  shall  be  final,  if  they  both  feel  that  it  is  not  final,  and  it  is  not 
lived  up  to,  it  means  a  fight,  and  it  is  going  to  be  serious  for  both  sides. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Is  that  agreement  in  force  in  New  York  City? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  What  proportion  of  the  contractors  in  New  York  are 
in  your  organization? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  You  mean  of  all  the  contractors? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Yes ;  of  the  building  contractors. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  do  not  know  what  proportion. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Just  roughly? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  But  I  should  say  this,  that  in  some  of  the  trades  I  suppose 
there  are  95  rer  cent  of  the  business.  In  other  trades,  notably  the  plumbing 
trade,  due  partly  to  ths  situation,  we  do  not  control  more  than  60  per  cent. 

Commissioner  Delano.  I  want  to  get  some  idea  of  the  numbers,  so  as  to 
know  how  difficult  it  is.  Is  it  a  large  number?  Does  it  run  up  into  the 
thousands? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  No ;  I  say  there  are  about  a  thousand  in  the  building  trades. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  in  your  32  years  of 
experience  you  had  only  two  or  three  cases. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  In  the  disagreements  between  the  bricklaying  trade.  That  is 
only  one  branch. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  was  rather  afraid  I  had  misunderstood  that. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  In  those  32  years  how  many  serious  interruptions 
or  strikes  have  there  been;  many? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  An  infinite  number,  until  we  reorganized  the  whole  situation. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  dates  from  M^hat  time? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  That  dates  from  1903. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  But  in  1910  you  had  some  trouble,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes;  and  we  will  always  continue  to  have  trouble  as  long  as 
we  live. 

Commmissioner  DELANO.  But  I  mean  you  had  a  long  strike  in  1910,  did  you 
not? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  In  one  industry. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Of  course,  we  are  trying  to  discover  the  way  of  get- 

ng  industrial  peace,  and  in  some  industries,  notably  anything  connected  with 
public  service,  there  can  not  be  an  interruption  of  an  hour,  even.  The  thing 
must  go  on. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Certainly. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  gentlemen  are  willing  to  face  a  situation  where 
you  have  an  interruption  of  a  day  or  a  week,  or  even  longer,  but  in  some 
cases  nothing  of  that  kind  can  be  tolerated? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Exactly. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Then  your  idea  of  the  solution  in  that  case  is  to 

fve  some  court  that  shall  be  selected  in  advance  and  not  wait  until  the 
uble  comes  to  select  the  court? 
38819°— 16 42 


658          REPORT    OP    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  wanted  to  ask  you  what  you  referred  to,  about  the 
umpire.  Have  you  found  the  best  results  when  the  umpire  was  selected  in 
advance  or  from  waiting  until  the  parties  failed  to  agree  and  then  selecting 
him? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  think  that  until  the  case  is  ordered  to  a  real  arbitration,  the 
factor  of  there  being  no  umpire  does  not  hurt  the  case  at  all.  I  think  when 
you  come  to  the  umpire,  then  is  the  time  to  say,  "  Now,  we  have  got  to  go  to 
an  umpire,"  and  then  start  and  elect  him. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  What  provision  do  you  have 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  I  beg  your  pardon;  perhaps  I  have  given  you  the  wrong  im- 
pression. Where  the  case  has  been  absolutely  ordered  to  go  to  an  arbitration, 
then  of  course  before  you  go  to  an  arbitration  at  all  the  arbitrators  select  the 
umpire. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  But  suppose  you  can  not  agree?  Suppose  there  is  a 
deadlock  on  the  umpire?  I  have  known  such  cases. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  We  select  three  or  four,  naming  them  as  first,  second,  third,  and 
fourth  choice.  We  put  those  names  in  a  hat  and  whichever  one  comes  out,  he 
is  the  man,  and  we  go  and  see  him.  If  he  will  not  serve,  then  we  go  to  the 
second  one,  and  if  he  will  not  serve,  then  we  go  to  the  third  one,  and  so  on  until 
we  get  a  man. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Do  you  mean  each  party  goes? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes;  each  one. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  But  I  have  known  cases  where  10  or  15  men  selected 
by  one  side  were  rejected  by  the  other. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Do  you  not  ever  have  cases  like  that? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  We  have  had  quite  a  number,  of  course,  submitted;  but  I  am 
talking  about  when  we  get  to  the  point  where  they  say,  "  On  a  pinch,  we  will 
take  him/'  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  either  side  has  not  proposed  half  a 
dozen  names  which  the  other  side  would  not  agree  to. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Do  you  ever  have  such  a  thing  as  running  out  of 
umpires? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Oh,  yes ;  it  is  a  very  serious  proposition,  and  it  is  a  very  diffi- 
cult one. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  What  is  the  solution  of  that? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  We  have  not  got  quite  to  that  point. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  The  reason  I  ask  is  because  you  have  been  in  this 
game  a  long  while  and  have  studied  it. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  should  like  the  benefit  of  your  suggestions. 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  So  far  the  main  trouble  is,  of  course,  to  find  a  man  with  enough 
civic  interest  to  give  up  his  time  and  do  it.  Whether  New  York  is  specially 
favored  in  that  direction  or  not,  I  do  not  know,  but  so  far  we  have  found  men 
who  are  willing  to  do  it. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  have  got  a  good  many  to  draw  from  there? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes ;  we  have  a  good  m.iny  to  draw  from.  For  instance,  in  this 
book  you  will  find  Charles  Stewart  Smith  and  Mayor  Gaynor. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Do  you  find  that  a  man  who  has  rendered  a  decision 
favorable  to  one  side  is  satisfactory  a  second  time? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Oh,  he  never  gets  a  chance  again.  Whenever  a  man  has  made 
his  decision,  that  is  final. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  In  regard  to  this  vote  of  these  120  men  you  spoke  of, 
where  you  s;iid  that  was  the  third  appeal,  you  said  your  joint  committee  of 
120  men  turned  down  the  men  who  were  on  strike  and  ordered  them  back  to 
work  ? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  In  a  case  of  that  kind,  was  that  a  close  vote? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  There  had  to  be  a  majority  of  each  side  present  and  voting;  a 
majority 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Of  each  group? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Yes ;  of  each  group  of  60. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  know.  Whnt  has  been  the 
effect,  in  the  32  years  of  your  experience,  in  the  matter  of  wages?  How  much 
have  wages  gone  up  in  that  time? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  In  our  craft  they  have  gone  up  from  42  cents  to  70  cents  since 
1884. 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  659 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  more  than  wages  in  general  have  gone  up, 
is  it? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  Perhaps  a  little  more. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  A  little  more? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  You  do  not  want  to  forget  that  the  building  trade  is  a  hazardous 
industry,  and  that  it  is  an  industry  that  does  not  work  all  the  year  around. 
It  is  seasonal. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  presume  that  the  cost  of  building  has  been  advanced 
about  in  proportion,  or  fully  in  proportion,  to  the  wages  of  the  men  employed 
in  the  trades,  has  it  not?  You  have  been  able  to  charge  that  to  the 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  In  most  cases  that  is  true,  although 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  have  increased  your  efficiency,  have  you? 

Mr.  EIDLITZ.  We  have  overcome  some  of  it  in  that  way ;  and,  furthermore, 
materials  perhaps  that  formerly  cost  more  money  are  now  less,  in  some  in- 
stances. Of  course  that  does  not  apply  to  lumber.  That  is  where  there  has 
been  a  premium  in  changing  from  lumber  to  steel.  There  is  no  doubt  that  in 
that  respect  there  has  been  a  decrease  in  the  cost  of  material,  and  then  an 
increase  in  wages  all  the  way  down  the  line.  The  increase  in  wages  is  not 
reflected  in  the  cost  of  building  to-day  over  what  it  was  30  years  ago. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  all. 

Commissioner  HAKBIMAN.  That  is  all.    Thank  you,  Mr.  Eidlitz. 

q 
TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  W.  J.  SPENCER. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Where  are  you  located,  Mr.  Spencer? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  At  Washington. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  had  any  experience  with  the  New  York  arbitration 
plan  of  1903? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  None,  except  from  a  distance.  The  matter  in  New  York  is  a 
purely  local  concern  and  did  not  affect  the  internationals  or  the  organization 
that  I  at  present  represent. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  would  not  be  the  best  man  to  speak  on  behalf  of 
the  plumbers  in  regard  to  that  New  York  arbitration  plan? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Therefore  I  will  pass  that  by,  so  far  as  you  are  concerned. 

Has  there  been  any  system  of  settlement  of  jurisdictional  disputes  involved  in 
Washington  here  that  abrogates  a  previous  one? 

Mr.  SPENCEB.  First  let  me  explain  my  position.  I  represent  the  building- 
trades  department  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  it  in  its  scope 
takes  in  the  entire  country ;  that  is,  we  have  20  affiliated  organizations.  "All 
affiliated  unions  are  international,  and  only  internationals  may  affiliate.  After 
we  have  secured  the  affiliation  of  the  eligible  organizations,  then  we  establish 
local  councils  in  the  several  cities  throughout  the  country  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  out  the  law  and  the  decisions  of  the  department  in  general,  making 
the  claim  complete,  as  it  were. 

Now,  since  that  is  the  case,  we  have  had  no  special  duties  to  perform  in  the 
city  of  Washington,  nor  have  we  arranged  or  had  any  cognizance  of  local  agree- 
ments or  jurisdictional  disputes,  or  of  means  of  settling  them,  but  on  one  occa- 
sion we  did  propose  a  general  plan,  not  local,  because  we  look  upon  jurisdic- 
tional disputes  as  general  and  not  local  at  all.  We  proposed  to  the  employers' 
association,  of  which  Mr.  Eidlitz,  the  previous  witness,  is  a  very  active  member, 
a  plan  of  settlement  that  I  still  believe  to  be  very  meritorious.  We  proposed 
that  a  committee  of  seven,  for  want  of  a  better  illustration,  but  it  may  be  more 
or  less,  representing  the  employers  and  a  like  committee  representing  the  inter- 
national union  be  selected,  and  that  they  should  sit  down  and  mull  over  the 
different  troubles  that  arise  in  the  building  industry  and  try  to  reach  conclu- 
sions in  those  disputes  that  each  of  them  know  are  bound  to  arise  and  endeavor 
to  find  a  solution  of  these  disputes,  not  as  they  affected  us  in  Chicago  but  all 
over  the  country,  and  simultaneously. 

We  proposed  that  plan.  It  has  never  been  turned  down,  but  it  has  never 
been  accepted  by  the  employers.  I  imagine  it  is  largely  because  the  employers 
of  the  standing  of  Mr.  Eidlitz  are  somewhat  reluctant  to  handle  disputes  affect- 
ing the  building  trades,  or  any  kind  of  dispute,  as  a  matter  of  fact.  Their 
time  is  taken  up  with  their  own  affairs — building  affairs — and  that  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  building  disputes.  It  is  pretty  hard  to  get  Mr.  Eidlitz  or  his 
friends  interested  in  a  matter  of  this  kind,  although  Mr.  Eidlitz  goes  further 
than  any  of  the  rest  of  them. 


660          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  had  intended  to  ask  Mr.  Alpine  the  result  of  his  union 
dealing  with  the  Federal  association,  or  this  American  Federation  of  Labor 
body  that  you  speak  of. 

Mr.   SPENCEK.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Which  Mr.  Eidlitz  spoke  of. 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  you  feel  qualified  to  speak  for  him  in  that  regard? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Let  me  understand  you  correctly.  The  relationship  of  the 
United  States  Building  Trades  Association  with  the  building-trades  department 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  do  you  mean? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No;  I  do  not  mean  that.  What  experience,  if  any,  has  the 
plumbers'  union  had  with  the  building-trades  department  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor? 

Mr.  SPENCEB.  They  have  had  many  cases  up  there  for  adjustment  or  deci- 
sion. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  SPENCER.  They  have  had  one  dispute  being  carried  on — a  dispute  between 
the  plumbers  and  the  steam  fitters — that  has  been  before  the  building-trades 
department  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  every  other  body,  whether 
supreme  or  minor.  In  the  case  where  it  has  been  called  before  them  the 
plumbers'  association  got  the  decision  over  the  steam  fitters.  They  were  of 
the  opinion  that  the  steam  fitting  was  a  subdivision  of  one  general  trade  or 
craft,  and  that  as  a  subdivision  it  should  ally  itself  with  the  other  subdi- 
visions. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  the  steam  fitters  accepted  that? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Almost  generally;  yes.  There  are  so  very  few  cities  now  re- 
maining out  of  the  fold  that  I  do  not  remember  them.  I  do  not  know  who 
they  are. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  work  in  connection  with  the  building  trades  depart- 
ment of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  you  do  not  come  in  contact  directly 
with  the  question  of  collective  bargaining,  do  you? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  The  plan  of  collective  bargaining?  There  is  no  such  thing  in 
the  building  industry  as  individual  bargaining.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  an 
individual  agreement  there.  They  make  agreements  with  their  respective  con- 
tractors all  along  the  line. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  This  building  trades  department  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  is  a  body  of  men  named  beforehand  ? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Oh,  no;  it  is  an  organization  of  international  unions  that 
operate  in  the  building  industry  alone,  that  have  come  together  and  formed  a 
delegate  body,  constituted  by  delegates  from  each  international  organization, 
and  each  delegate  body  then  selects  its  officers  and  officials  and  executive 
council. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  a  dispute,  such  as  you  have  named,  between  the  plumbers 
and  the  steam  fitters,  to  whom  does  it  go?  Does  it  go  before  your  body,  and 
how  is  it  decided? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  It  is  usually  reported  to  the  building  trades  convention  of  the 
department.  The  constitution  of  the  building  trades  department  requires  that 
when  a  dispute  occurs  they  shall  endeavor  to  adjust  it  immediately,  and  if 
they  fail,  it  is  then  reported  to  the  convention  and  it  renders  a  decision. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  convention? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  The  next  succeeding  convention  of  the  building  trades  de- 
partment. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Of  what  does  that  consist? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  It  consists  of  a  delegate  body  of  approximately  Go  members. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Did  they  take  up,  for  instance,  this  dispute  between  the 
plumbers  and  the  steam  fitters,  in  that  body  of  65  people,  and  vote  upon  it,  or 
did  they  delegate  it  a  smaller  body? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  A  conference  was  first  held,  and  the  result  of  that  conference 
was  reported  to  the  convention,  and  the  conferees  had  failed  to  reach  a  de- 
cision. It  was  reported  to  the  convention  and  the  convention  thereupon  de- 
cided which  of  the  parties  was  right. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  convention  of  65  delegates  decided  that? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  other  words,  it  was  not  taken  up  by  a  smaller  body? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Of  course  that  largely  depends  on  circumstances.  If  there  is 
a  failure  to  understand  any  of  the  technical  features  of  the  dispute,  it  then 


IU 

: 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  IN"   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  661 

goes  to  the  council,  but  finally  it  is  decided  by  the  convention,  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  all  the  organizations. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  There  is  no  decision  made  by  any  subordinate  body  to  which 
you  can  refer  any  points  of  discussion? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  No;  that  is  impossible. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  the  building  trades  department  of  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  is  simply  some  officials  that  are  established  there  for  the 
purpose  of  keeping  track  of  things,  and  when  disputes  arise  referring  the 
matter  to  a  conference,  and  then  if  the  matter  is  not  adjusted  shortly  to  the 
convention? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  The  officials  of  the  body  are  charged  with  duties  of  endeavor- 
ing to  adjust  disputes  when  they  arise.  When  a  dispute  is  reported  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  officers  to  try  and  reach  an  adjustment,  a  settlement  of  it,  before 
it  reaches  the  strike  period.  If  the  thing  will  permit  of  its  standing  over  until 
it  can  be  reported  to  the  executive  council  or  the  next  higest  body  in  authority 
it  is  done  so ;  and  if  not,  it  goes  over  to  the  convention. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  success  of  the  building  trades  department? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  What  has  been  its  success? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes;  in  handling  these  disputes. 

Mr.  SPENCER.  It  has  had  varying  success.  In  some  instances  it  has  been 
markedly  successful,  in  other  respects  not  so  successful.  The  cause  for  its 
nonsnccess  is  largely  due  to  the  suspicion  of  the  employers  as  to  the  aims  and 
purposes  of  the  department  itself.  As  I  mentioned  a  moment  ago,  we  proposed 
a  perfectly  plain  and  certainly  well-balanced  scheme  to  the  employers'  associa- 
tion, but  they  were  reluctant  to  handle  it,  in  fear  that  there  was  a  "  nigger  in 
the  woodpile,"  so  to  speak.  That  is  the  great  danger  in  the  building  industry. 
We  find  that  a  proposition  proposed  by  the  employers  is  viewed  with  a  certain 
amount  of  suspicion  by  the  employees,  and  vice  versa.  The  parties  are  being 
brought  to  a  thorough  understanding  of  each  other's  views.  Hence  it  was  the 
suggestion  of  the  employers'  counsel  to  have  the  two  bodies  come  together  by  a 
subcommittee  and  have  it  presided  over,  if  necessary,  by  an  appointee  of  the 
Government  Labor  Department,  cr  the  President,  or  anybody  else,  so  as  to 
assure  impartiality  and  honesty. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion,  in  matters  of  that  kind,  is  it  advisable  to 
have  a  third  party  to  act,  if  need  be,  as  an  umpire,  with  deciding  power  on 
these  matters  in  case  the  parties  do  not  get  together  on  a  basis  of  conciliation? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Personally  I  favor  that  kind  of  a  plan. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  you  acquainted,  Mr.  Spencer,  with  the  contracts  which 
the  plumbers'  union  has  with  building  companies,  if  there  are  any? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  No ;  the  contracts  between  the  plumbers  and  the  other  affiliated 
organizations  are  made  by  local  unions  direct  with  the  local  contractors.  There 
are  very  few  of  them  that  are  negotiated  by  the  international  organization.  In 
case  of  the  plumbers,  for  instance,  they  may  make  an  agreement  with  a  concern 
that  is  nation-wide  in  its  character,  such  as  a  general  fire  extinguisher  company 
or  a  concern  of  that  character.  In  other  trades  they  make  direct  agreements, 
too,  with  certain  concerns;  but  for  the  most  part  they  are  made  between  the 
.ocal  organizations  and  the  local  contractors. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Take  the  case  of  a  national  fire  extinguisher  company,  what 

ould  be  the  language  of  the  contract  between  the  plumbers  and  that  company? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  I  would  rather  not  testify  to  that,  because  I  am  not  acquainted 
with  the  technical  relations  between  the  two  concerns.  Mr.  Alpine  would  be. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  There  are  some  other  questions  of  that  character  that  I  do 
not  believe  I  will  ask  you,  then.  That  is  all  I  wish  to  ask  this  witness. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Have  you  any  questions,  Mr.  Delano? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  did  not  understand  just  what  your  position  was. 

Mr.  SPENCER.  I  am  secretary-treasurer  of  the  building  trades  department  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  And  that  is  a  building  trades  department  of  how 
many?  How  many  men  have  you  in  it,  seven  or  eight? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  The  building  trades  department  is  a  group  of  the  organizations 
members  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Twenty-five  or  thirty  men? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  No;  it  is  composed  of  a  group  of  20  members — 19  members  at 
present.  That  is,  the  trades  are  represented  in  the  department  by  delegates 
selected  under  the  constitution  by  the  international  unions.  It  is  really  a  dele- 
gate body. 


662          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  what  you  referred  to  when  you  spoke  of  a 
council?  When  they  get  together  you  call  them  a  council? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  No,  sir;  the  council  is  the  local  organization  established  by  the 
department  in  any  city.  For  instance,  we  established  one  in  Washington  and 
one  in  Chicago  and  one  in  New  York,  and  so  on. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Then  the  council  takes  charge  of  local  things? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  And  appeals  to  the  central  body  if  they  can  not  agree? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Yes,  sir ;  the  council  takes  charge  of  local  matters  and  adjusts, 
if  possible,  the  disputes  that  may  arise  along  the  lines  of  the  decisions  reached 
by  the  department.  If  they  fail  to  reach  an  adjustment  or  settlement  they  are 
referred  to  the  department.  And  in  the  same  relationship,  all  the  affairs  relat- 
ing to  the  building  trades  in  America  are  referred  to  the  building-trades 
department  and  are  settled  by  the  general  body. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  In  Chicago  we  hear  a  good  deal — I  confess  I  know 
nothing  about  it — of  the  charge  that  there  is  a  limitation  of  output  in*  the 
building  trades.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  That  charge  was  made  quite  generally  and  has  always  been 
made,  as  a  matter  of  fact.  For  myself,  I  have  never  found  it. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  have  heard  it  spoken  of  very  largely  with  the 
plumber — that  a  plumber  is  not  allowed  to  wipe  more  than  a  certain  number  of 
joints  in  a  day. 

Mr.  SPENCER.  The  plumbers  presented  that  at  one  time,  but  it  fell  through. 
It  did  not  last.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  plumbers  are  doing  more  work  to-day 
than  they  ever  have  done. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Is  there  such  a  thing  as  piecework  in  any  of  the 
building  trades,  or  is  it  generally  day  work? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  It  is  generally  day  work.  In  some  of  the  smaller  towns  they 
may  adopt  a  lumping  system,  but  you  will  find  that  only  in  isolated  cases. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Is  there  any  such  thing  as  a  bonus? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Yes,  sir;  that  frequently  happens.  You  mean  where  a  man  is 
paid  more  than  the  scale  of  wages? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Yes. 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  mean  for  doing  more  than  a  certain  amount  of  work. 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Yes;  pacemakers. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Do  you  tolerate  that? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  No,  sir;  they  are  not  tolerated,  but  they  exist  just  the  same. 
Our  members  are  not  supposed  to  bleed  the  other  men — make  a  pace,  as  it 
were — but  they  do.  It  is  a  common  practice,  especially  in  speculation  \vork  in 
the  larger  cities. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  all  I  have  to  ask. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Can  anyone  man  belong  to  both  these  trades,  the 
steam  fitters'  and  plumbers'  unions,  if  he  wishes? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  He  can  not  very  well  do  it,  because  the  branches  are  separate. 
The  kind  of  work  is  quite  different,  and  if  a  man  selects  a  trade  like  steam 
fitting,  he  becomes  an  adept  at  it,  and  he  is  best  qualified  to  follow  that  trade. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  was  wrondering  how  it  was  in  the  smaller  towns. 

Mr.  SPENCER.  It  is  not  necessary  then  to  carry  two  cards  and  belong  to  two 
unions.  In  the  smaller  towns  the  plumber  and  the  steam  fitter  do  the  same 
work ;  that  is,  the  plumber  is  both  plumber  and  steam  fitter. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  The  plumbers  in  those  small  towns  do  steam  fitting 
also? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  spoke  of  jurisdictional  disputes.  The  gentleman 
who  was  on  the  stand  before  you  said  he  thought  they  were  local.  You  thing 
they  are  generally  not  local? 

Mr.  SPENCER.  No,  sir ;  it  is  impossible  to  consider  them  local.  Jurisdictional 
disputes  are  the  outcome  of  conflicts  between  the  same  class  of  unions,  so  tlmt  ;i 
jurisdictional  dispute  may  exist  in  Chicago ;  that  is  the  one  that  was  settled  in 
New  York  last  week. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  said  the  jurisdictional  disputes  were  largely 
because  of  the  employer's  rather  unfriendly  attitude.  I  wondered  what  the 
employer's  unfriendly  attitude  had  to  do  with  it. 

Mr.  SPENCER.  His  unfriendly  attitude  toward  the  plan  we  propose.  I  men- 
tioned a  plan  that  we  had  proposed  to  the  contractors  in  New  York,  and  they 
seem  to  be  unfriendly  to  the  proposition. 


TBADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  663 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  That  was  to  regulate  these  jurisdictional  disputes? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  Yes,  sir ;  in  a  general  way  rather  than  in  a  local  way.  The 
building  trades  department  and  the  unions  of  the  building  trades  department, 
not  in  one  trade  but  the  international  unions  generally,  took  exception  to  the 
plan  that  existed  in  New  York,  which  was  described  here  rather  in  detail  by 
Mr.  Eidlitz.  They  took  exception  to  that  plan  for  the  reason  that  all  the 
employers  have  their  organization,  and  then  they  are  organized  in  a  central 
body.  All  these  local  concerns  are  contractors,  and  the  central  body  have 
representation  on  the  board — the  arbitration  plan.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
local  unions  have  a  building  trades  council,  but  the  building  trades  council  as 
such  has  no  representation  in  the  arbitration  plan.  The  local  unions  do,  but 
the  central  body  has  not.  Consequently  the  thing  is  one-sided.  There  is  a 
greater  representation  on  one  side  than  on  the  other. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  I  thought  a  jurisdictional  dispute  was  as  to  whether 
the  plumber  or  the  steam  fitter  should  do  that  particular  work.  I  did  not 
see  what  the  employers  had  to  do  with  that  matter. 

Mr.  SPENCEB.  As  a  general  rule,  they  do  not  care.  That  is,  I  did  not  suppose 
they  cared  who  did  it. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  I  thought  it  was  decided  by  the  trades-union  men 
themselves. 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Yes ;  but  you  have  heard  Mr.  Eidlitz  say  that  he  took  exception 
to  the  plan  of  the  building  trades  department,  which  was  aimed  at  the  settling 
of  these  disputes. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  I  did  not  understand  that  he  objected  to  their  settle- 
ing  the  disputes,  but  it  was  tying  up  the  matter  until  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  or  the  local  union  came  in  and  settled  it. 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  Strikes  generally  follow,  and  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting the  stoppage  of  work  that  this  idea  was  formed. 

Commissioner  BALLABD.  I  do  not  understand  the  difference  between  the 
national  and  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  Are  the  building  trades  not 
all  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  Let  me  explain  it  to  you.  All  of  the  plumbers  and  all  of  the 
carpenters  and  all  of  the  bricklayers  and  the  other  trades  are  organized  into 
international  unions.  That  is,  I  mean  to  say  that  the  different  local  unions 
throughout  the  country  are  organized  into  the  international  union  of  carpenters, 
all  of  the  bricklayers  are  organized  into  an  international  union  of  bricklayers, 
and  all  the  plumbers  into  an  international  union  of  plumbers,  and  so  on  right 
down  the  line.  These  international  unions  affiliate  with  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  so  that  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  the  superior  body  in 
the  labor  movement. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  But  it  does  not  dictate  to  them  what  they  shall  do? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  It  is  a  purely  voluntary  organization. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  One  other  question  about  the  plumbers.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  perhaps  union  men  only  would  work  for  plumbers  who  em- 
ployed union  men  exclusively,  and  those  plumbing  establishments  would  be  the 
only  ones  that  would  be  allowed  to  buy  plumbing  materials  from  certain  of 
these  large  manufacturing  establishments.  Is  there  an  arrangement  of  that 
character? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  When  I  was  organizer  of  the  plumbing  association — the  national 
association — I  found  that  to  be  quite  general — that  is,  I  found  it  quite  fre- 
quently, not  generally.  I  found  it  where  a  number  of  unions  would  organize, 
that  those  unions  would  organize  with  the  employers'  associations,  and  they 
would  agree  that  they  would  not  hire  nonunion  men  on  the  one  hand,  or  they 
would  not  work  for  a  nonunion  employer  on  the  other  hand. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Does  that  condition  obtain  yet? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  I  do  not  know.  I  could  not  say  with  any  degree  of  certainty, 
because  I  have  not  been  identified  with  the  plumbers  officially  for  six  or  seven 
years. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  At  that  time,  then,  the  master  plumbers,  or  the  men 
who  had  plumbing  shops,  were  the  only  men  who  could  buy  plumbing  ma- 
terials from  certain  of  the  manufacturers? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  Yes.  I  remember  a  case  in  point  where,  while  I  was  organizer, 
we  had  a  strike  in  Dayton,  Ohio.  The  union,  in  order  to  defend  its  position, 
was  obliged  to  organize  a  plumbing  shop.  We  immediately  found  that  we  were 
unable  to  secure  supplies  unless  we  would  go  to  a  nonassociation  supply  shop, 
and  there,  of  course,  we  were  confronted  with  high  costs  and  poor  deliveries, 


664         REPORT   OP    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

and  sometimes  poor  stocks,  and  all  that  kind  of  thing.  We  found  it  was  abso- 
lutely impossible  to  buy  from  an  association  house. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  How  many  members  are  there  in  the  building- 
trades  council  now? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  In  the  department? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Yes. 

Mr.  SPENCEK.  Until  November — I  have  not  cleared  up  our  accounts  since 
then,  but  up  until  November  we  had  about  450,000  members. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  And  that,  with  two  or  three  exceptions,  includes  all 
of  the  building  trades  of  the  country? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  In  your  experience  as  a  building  trades  man,  have 
you  found  it  possible  to  reach  an  agreement  with  building  contractors  that  did 
not  also  provide  for  what  is  generally  termed  the  union  shop?  Were  you  ever 
able  to  negotiate  agreements  on  what  is  called  the  open-shop  proposition? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  No;  wTe  never  did.     I  have  never  known  a  case  of  that  kind. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Does  it  appear  to  you  to  be  absolutely  necessary  in 
the  building  trades,  if  you  want  joint  agreements,  that  organization  must  be 
backed  by  the  agreements  on  both  sides? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  I  do  not  understand  how  you  could  give  life  and  force  to  the 
agreement  unless  the  organization  was  behind  it. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Do  you  in  your  experience  find  what  is  termed  the 
sympathetic  strike — just  waiving,  now,  for  the  time  being,  the  jurisdiction 
matter — do  you  find  that  the  sympathetic  strikes  for  other  reasons  than  juris- 
dictional  reasons  are  as  numerous  as  they  were  10  or  15  years  ago? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  Oh,  my,  no;  by  no  means. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Does  there  appear  to  you  to  be  some  lessening  of  the 
sympathetic  strike  because  of  jurisdictional  causes,  or  are  those  strikes  grow- 
ing less  in  number? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  Yes;  I  think  they  are.  They  are  probably  not  so  noticeable. 
But  when  we  speak  of  the  number  of  agreements  that  have  been  negotiated 
between  international  unions  on  disputable  matters,  one  can  not  help  but 
realize  that  they  are  growing  less. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Could  you  tell  us  why  the  break-off  took  place  in 
New  York  between  that  organization  that  was  started  there  in  1903  by  the 
employers  and  ran  for  about  seven  years?  Do  you  know  of  your  own 
knowledge? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  No ;  I  think  Mr.  Eidlitz  explained  the  real  reason  of  that. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  are  satisfied  with  the  way  he  explained  it? 

Mr.  SPENCEB.  Yes ;  that  it  was  because  of  the  steam  fitters. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  all. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  have  one  other  question  that  I  forgot  to  ask.  This 
may  not  be  a  fair  question,  and  you  need  not  answer  it  if  you  do  not  want  to. 

One  of  the  things  that  one  hears  pretty  often,  especially  in  respect  to  plumbing 
supplies,  is  that  there  is  such  a  close  combination  between  the  dealer  in  plumb- 
ing supplies  and  the  plumber  that,  for  instance,  I  can  not  go  into  a  supply 
house  and  buy  the  most  ordinary  thing,  like  a  coupling,  and  apply  it,  although 
it  might  take  only  5  or  10  minutes  to  apply  it,  in  my  own  house.  I  have  got 
to  give  the  order  to  a  plumber  or  a  steam  fitter  and  have  him  do  it?  Is  that 
true? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  I  have  never  known  the  supply  houses  to  be  so  careful  as  to 
the  plumbing  end  of  it.  I  know  they  have  in  many  cases  refused  to  sell  to  local 
consumers,  but  I  do  not  believe  they  are  so  anxious  to  have  a  plumber  put  it  in. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  all. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  What  object  would  be  served,  except  that  they  had 
some  combination  with  the  operating  plumber?  What  end  would  they  attain 
by  refusing  to  supply  such  things?  For  instance,  if  Mr.  Delano  wanted  to  put 
in  a  faucet,  what  end  could  be  attained  by  the  plumbing  house  refusing  to  sell 
to  him  unless  it  was  of  some  benefit  to  be  gained  by  dealing  through  a  plumbing 
house? 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  All  the  reason  that  I  can  get  at — of  course  I  have  discussed 
this  with  representatives  of  supply  houses  and  with  the  head  officials  of  these 
houses  and  with  the  plumbers,  and  the  reason  they  advance  to  me  is — there 
are  so  many  absolutely  unworthy  people  in  the  plumbing  business  that  they 
are  compelled  to  seek  some  kind  of  combination  for  their  own  defense. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  All  right. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  665 

Mr.  SPENCER.  Now,  I  would  just  like  to  say  that  if  the  proposition  that  I  have 
already  mentioned  here  that  we  made  to  the  employers  is  of  any  value  to  the 
commissioner,  we  shall  gladly  furnish  copies  of  it,  of  course. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like  to  say,  if  you  should  care  to  submit  any  brief 
statement  or  document  to  the  commission  we  would  be  pleased  to  receive  it. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Do  you  not  think  the  employers  should  be  considered 
in  regard  to  that,  because  they  might  have  some  objection  to  it,  not  on  account 
of  what  it  sought  to  do  but  on  account  of  some  other  things  that  might  flow 
from  it?  I  do  not  imagine  that  Mr.  Eidlitz  would  have  anything  that  might 
settle  a  strike,  but  he  might  object  to  it  on  other  grounds. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  On  the  general  proposition  it  might  be  necessary  to  submit  it 
to  the  whole  country.  Of  course  we  are  going  around  to  the  various  cities, 
and  we  are  going  to  take  evidence  on  this  building  proposition  from  both  sides, 
and  from  the  public  in  many  places,  and,  of  course,  in  the  course  of  that  work 
we  will  gather  a  great  deal  of  information  here. 

Mr.  SPENCEE.  Let  me  explain  to  Mr.  Delano.  I  do  not  believe  Mr.  Eidlitz 
would  find  any  objection  to  the  plan.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  submitted  the 
plan  to  him  before  it  was  presented  at  a  time  when  he  was  just  leaving  on  a 
vacation,  and  he  necessarily  turned  it  over  to  others.  I  am  satisfied  if  a  man 
of  the  standing  of  Mr.  Eidlitz  will  handle  this,  there  will  be  more  chance  for 
the  proposition ;  but  it  is  killed  by  subcontractors. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  HENRY  STRTTBLE. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  please  state  to  the  stenographer  your  name, 
address,  and  occupation? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  My  business  is  cut  stone.  I  am  president  of  the  Henry  Struble 
Cut  Stone  Co.  I  have  a  side  line,  as  you  will  see  on  your  program.  I  am 
secretary  of  the  National  Cut  Stone  Contractors'  Association. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  describe  the  circumstances  which  led.  to  the 
formation  of  that  association? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  It  was  brought  about  by  the  strike  in  Chicago,  a  general  lock- 
out in  1900.  The  strike,  so  far  as  the  stone  part  particularly  was  concerned, 
was  on  account  of  the  refusal  of  the  stone-cutting  trade  to  work  in  connection 
with  machinery,  and  the  strike  brought  about  a  certain  number  of  stone  cutters 
who  were  members  of  'the  union  in  Chicago  at  that  time,  who  withdrew  and 
formed  another  independent  organization,  which  grew  to  be  the  National 
Society  of  Stone  Cutters.  I  guess  that  probably  at  one  time  "they  had  in  the 
neighborhood  of  3,000  members  in  that  organization,  which  included  New 
York  City,  Toronto,  Milwaukee,  Bedford,  Ind.,  Pittsburgh,  at  one  time  Cin- 
cinnati, and  there  was  an  organization  here  in  Washington.  It  was  the  con- 
test over  machinery  that  brought  about  the  organization  of  the  National 
Society  of  Stone  Cutters. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  are  the  policies  of  the  Stone  Cutters'  Union  with  refer- 
ence to  the  use  of  machinery  and  the  restriction  of  shipment? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  They  have  waived  their  objection  entirely  as  to  the  machine- 
finished  product,  and  as  to  the  shipment  of  stone. 

Mr.    THOMPSON.  Your   association   has,    or   the   stone   cutters'? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  The  stone  cutters'  union.  The  old  stone  cutters'  union  did  that, 
which  is  called  the  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters  of  North  America.  They  finally 
made  it  a  record  of  their  organization  that  they  would  waive  those  points, 
about  three  years  ago. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  a  copy  of  the  agreement  existing  between  your 
association  and  the  union? 

Mr.  STUBLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  you  object  to  giving  the  committee  a  copy  of  that 
agreement  ? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  No,  sir;  I  would  be  pleased  to  do  so.  You  understand,  this  is 
between  the  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters  of  North  America,  and  that  the  other 
organization  has  been  wiped  out  of  existence,  as  it  were.  That  is,  the  contest 
between  the  two  unions,  the  strife,  lasted  about  11  years,  and  finally  terminated 
in  a  contract  being  made  between  the  National  Stone  Cutters'  Society  of  the 
United  States  and  the  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters'  Association  of  North  America, 
and  the  National  Cut  Stone  Contractors'  Association,  although  the  principal 
parties  to  it  were  the  National  Stone  Cutters'  Society,  who  w-ere  all  willing  to 
abide  by  the  agreement. 


666          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  This  is  a  copy  of  the  agreement? 

Mr.  STRUBUE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  very  long.  There  is  nothing  on  the 
back  of  it. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  No,  sir ;  it  is  very  short.    It  is  right  to  the  point. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  might  read  it. 

(The  contract  referred  to  was  marked  "  Struble  Exhibit  No.  1,"  and  was  read 
aloud  by  Mr.  Struble,  as  follows : ) 

CONTRACT  BETWEEN  NATIONAL  CUT   STONE   CONTRACTORS'   ASSOCIATION    (INC.) 
AND  JOURNEYMEN  STONE  CUTTERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF  NORTH  AMERICA. 

NEW  YORK,  June  4,  1913. 

'The  following  agreement  entered  into  between  the  National  Stone  Cutters' 
Society  of  the  United  States  and  the  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters'  Association  of 
North  America  and  the  National  Cut  Stone  Contractors'  Associaion  of  the 
United  States  and  Canada,  to  be  kept  and  abided  by,  by  all  parties  for  a  term 
of  five  years. 

This  agreement  is  entered  into  with  the  understanding  that  the  Journeymen 
Stone  Cutters'  Association  of  North  America  waive  the  foremanships,  all 
stone-working  machinery,  shipping  of  stone,  penalizing  of  National  Society 
Cutters  in  any  manner. 

Said  Jorneymen  Stone  Cutters'  Association  of  North  America  and  all  other 
parties  to  this  agreement  hereby  agree  to  the  arbitration  of  all  questions  of 
dispute  which  may  arise  without  cessation  of  work  during  said  arbitration. 

They  further  agree  that  the  question  of  setting  of  cut  stone  and  the  jurisdic- 
tion over  this  work  shall  be  settled  and  determined  by  the  parties  interested. 

It  is  understood  by  all  parties  hereto  that  any  and  all  National  Society  Stone 
Cutters  presenting  their  working  cards  and  payment  of  dues  from  January  1, 
1913,  shall  be  received  into  full  membership  in  the  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters' 
Association  of  North  America  with  all  privileges  and  benefits  except  the  death 
benefit,  which  will  not  be  operative  until  six  months  after  becoming  members. 

It  is  hereby  understood  and  agreed  by  all  the  parties  hereto  that  further 
clauses  can  be  added  to  this  contract  to  provide  for  details  not  herein  set  forth. 

The  following  are  named  to  carry  out  the  details  of  this  contract : 

Journeymen  Stone  Cutters'  Association  of  North  America :  Sam  Griggs, 
W.  W.  Drayer,  and  one  executive  member. 

National  Stone  Cutters'  Society:  W.  A.  Guthrie,  William  Gray,  and  one 
executive  member. 

National  Cut  Stone  Contractors'  Association  (Inc.)  :  C.  G.  Fanning,  P.  B. 
Parker,  Henry  Struble. 

It  is  further  understood  and  agreed  that  all  the  contracts  now  existing  be- 
tween the  cut  stone  contractors  and  the  National  Society  of  Stone  Cutters  shall 
be  assumed  and  carried  out  by  the  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters'  Association  of 
North  America. 

The  parties  signing  this  agreement  hereby  declare  that  they  are  empowered 
to  sign  this  contract  under  the  constitution  and  by-laws  of  their  respective  or- 
ganizations. 

WM.  A.  GUTHRIE, 
President  National  Stone  Cutters'  Society  of  United  States  and  Canada. 

SAM  GRIGGS, 
President  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters'  Association  of  North  America. 

CHAS.  G.  FANNING, 
President  National  Cut  Stone  Contractors1  Association  (Inc.). 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Were  there  any  more  details  of  agreement  as  to  arbitrations 
under  this  contract? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Not  that  I  know  of,  although  there  is  a  call  now  for  a  meeting 
to  arrange  for  a  definite  board  on  arbitration.  - 

Mr.  THOMPSON-.  Then  at  the  present  time  there  is  no  means  of  arbitrating, 
no  special  machinery  provided  any  further  than  that? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  There  is  nothing  further  than  that.  This  is  to  stand  until  a 
definite  board  is  provided. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  They  are  to  act  as  a  board  of  arbitration? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  see  nine  people  are  named  here. 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  667 

Mr.  STRTJBLE.  Yes;  there  are  three  representing  the  Journeymen  Stone  Cut- 
ters' Association  of  North  America,  three  representing  the  National  Stone 
Cutters'  Society,  and  three  representing  the  National  Cut  Stone  Contractors' 
Association. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Whom  would  you  take  for  the  board  of  arbitrators,  the  last 
three  men  named? 

Mr.  STEUBLE.  Certainly,  because  the  others  are  gone  now. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  would  be  two  employers  and  one  employee, 
would  it  not? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  No;  you  misunderstand  me.  There  were  two  labor  organiza- 
tions and  one  organization  of  contractors. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Then  there  would  be  two  labor  representatives  and 
one  representative  of  the  employers? 

Mr.  STEUBLE.  No;  one  labor  organization  has  become  extinct  by  this  agree- 
ment. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  would  give  you,  at  the  present  time,  a  board  of  six 
men  to  decide  matters? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  kind  of  questions  are  apt  to  come  up  before  the 
organizations  for  adjustment  by  arbitration? 

Would  they  be  such  questions,  for  instance,  as  the  discharge  of  a  workman 
and  discriminating  against  a  workman  in  connection  with  the  kind  of  work 
given  him  or  any  question  of  that  character? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  think  that  anything  would  come  before  this 
general  arbitration  board  unless  it  was  the  question  of  wages  in  different  sec- 
tions of  the  country. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Concerning  a  wage  scale  for  either  a  district  or  the  whole 
country  ? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  opinion  with  reference  to  the  best  method  of 
arbitrating  differences  between  two  bodies  such  as  you  have  and  as  to  whether 
they  should  have  a  different  number,  or  whether  there  should  be  any  addition 
to  the  equal  representation  of  both  sides,  an  independent  umpire  or  third  party, 
who,  in  case  of  necessity,  could  act  in  bringing  the  parties  together  and  in 
deciding  matters  if  it  became  obligatory  to  do  so? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  My  personal  opinion  is  that  a  committee,  consisting  of  an 
equal  number  from  each  side  of  the  more  intelligent  people  in  both  the  con- 
tractors' organization  and  the  labor  organization,  will  bring  about  a  better 
result.  So  far  as  our  system  of  arbitration  is  concerned,  while  it  might  not 
apply  to  all  others,  I  do  not  believe  anyway  in  a  third  outside  party  as  an 
umpire  at  all. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  early  contracts  which  existed,  was  there  any  specific 
arbitration  board  provided  for? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  There  always  has  been,  locally. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  has  been  the  form  of  that? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  The  form  that  it  is  drawn  in  is  along  the  lines  that  I  have  ex- 
plained, but  with  the  choosing  of  an  outside  party,  should  the  parties  not  be 
able  to  agree. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  that  same  machinery  still  used  locally? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  think  so,  but  in  my  experience  of  32  years  it  has  never  been 
referred  to  in  the  stonecutting  trade.  The  third  party  has  never  been  called 
in  as  an  umpire.  If  you  were  in  the  business,  you  would  appreciate  that  more. 
It  is  generally  a  question  of  wages,  or  some  matters  that  seem  all  important 
to  those  two  parties  that  would  not  seem  so  to  others,  and  the  general  conclu- 
sion is,  in  our  business,  from  experience,  when  the  question  has  been  raised 
regarding  a  third  party,  that  it  is  very  easy  to  conclude  or  agree  on  a  party, 
and  more  often  than  it  is  for  the  party  to  agree.  The  first  thing  the  party 
wants  to  know  is  how  much  they  pay  for  umpiring  the  job  and  the  next  thing 
is  that  it  has  become  a  known  fact  in  our  business — and  that  is  why  it  has  not 
been  referred  to — that  it  is  a  split;  that  is  all  it  is.  For  instance,  if  the  men 
in  our  trade  in  any  city  in  the  country  will  go  under  that  arbitration  agree- 
ment, and  if  they  want  an  increase  of  wages  of  50  cents  a  day  it  might  be 
considered  by  an  outsider  that  they  were  entitled  to  that,  and  they  might  ask 
for  a  dollar  a  day  on  the  umpire  proposition,  if  it  goes  to  a  third  party,  and  the 
third  party  will  split  it.  He  will  say.  "What  is  your  difference?"  and  "What 
is  your  difference?  "  and  they  will  spUt  it  and  call  it  square.  So  that  I  do  not 


668          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

think  there  is  anything  in  that  principle  as  stated  the  other  clay,  that  the  um- 
pire is  the  "  goat "  and  I  unload  my  troubles  and  you  unload  your  troubles,  and 
it  is  hot  what  you  are  trying  to  arrive  at. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  do  not  believe  that  a  third  party  can  act  as  a  con- 
ciliator, always,  with  the  knowledge  that  both  parties  know  that  he  can  decide 
it  in  case  he  can  not  get  them  to  agree? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Your  question  always  is  good ;  but  I  think  it  would  be  an  iso- 
lated case  where  an  outside  man  could  come  in  and  arrive  at  what  you  want 
to  get. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  am  thinking  more,  now,  of  systems  in  regard  to  the  settle- 
ment of  disputes  in  factories,  cases  where  there  are  open  or  preferential  shops, 
which  you  have  not  got,  I  take  it? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  agree  with  that.    I  am  glad  of  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  now  taking  the  general  subject  of  arbitration,  would  you 
believe  that  it  would  be  improper  to  have  a  third  man  in  such  cases,  cases 
where  matters  of  discrimination, ,  discharging  a  man  because  it  is  claimed 
that  he  is  not  a  member  of  the  union,  or  giving  him  poorer  paid  work,  or  a 
worse  place  to  work  in,  and  all  that  kind  of  questions  which  need  immediate 
attention,  are  present,  would  you  believe  from  your  experience  of  that  kind  of 
a  case  that  it  would  be  better  to  have  an  equally  divided  court,  or  in  your 
opinion  would  it  be  better  to  have  a  third  party  who  would  sit  continuously, 
not  brought  in  for  a  special  arbitration,  but  to  arbitrate  for  a  year  or  a  term 
of  years  those  matters,  who  would  sit  with  the  two  representatives,  one  from 
each  side,  and  endeavor  to  bring  them  together  on  these  individual  cases 
quickly,  always  having  the  power  to  decide  it,  and  by  reason  of  that  power 
being  able  to  get  them  to  reach  an  agreement  which  they  otherwise  would  not? 
That  is  quite  a  long  question. 

Mr.  STKUBLE.  Yes;  it  is  quite  a  long  question,  but  it  means  the  same  thing 
in  the  end. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  can  see  where  it  is  necessary,  of  course,  to  have  a  decision  in 
some  of  these  things,  but  in  the  question  that  you  have  asked  there,  while  we 
do  not  cover  all  of  it  in  our  contract,  I  have  a  local  contract  here.  This 
general  contract  naturally  provides  for  local  contracts,  and  we  as  a  national 
organization  try  to  create  a  feeling  which  helps  the  stonecutters  and  contractors 
to  avoid  the  trouble  that  may  arise.  For  instance,  here  is  this  contract,  which 
I  will  be  pleased  to  leave  with  you  if  you  like.  It  is  now  in  existence  between 
the  Bedford  local,  of  Bedford,  Ind.,  and  the  new  organization  of  stonecutters 
with  whom  we  are  dealing.  This  contract  contains  this  clause : 

"  Eight.  There  shall  be  no  discrimination  on  the  part  of  the  party  of  the  first 
part  against  any  member  of  the  party  of  the  second  part  because  of  any  duties 
he  may  perform  as  a  member  of  a  committee  or  for  the  performance  of  his 
duties  as  a  shop  steward." 

That  means,  in  the  stonecutters'  parlance,  the  same  as  with  other  names 
of  business,  of  course.  I  will  tell  you  my  opinion,  and  what  I  am  asked  to 
come  here  for  is  to  tell  my  personal  opinion  and  answer  all  questions  as  hon- 
estly as  I  can.  Whatever  conclusion  you  arrive  at  in  connection  with  the 
third  party  in  any  of  these  labor  difficulties  is  only  a  temporary  arrange- 
ment. It  may  answer  for  this  year,  and  it  may  for  next  year,  but  it  is  not 
conclusive  in  my  mind.  It  is  to  put  off  the  evil  day.  I  am  going  to  tell 
you  what  that  is  before  we  get  through,  too,  if  I  am  allowed  to.  Some  of  these 
other  people  have  told  you  some  things  that  \vere  not 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  wish  you  would  develop  that  a  little  further. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  think  he  said,  and  I  think  you  heard  him,  that  he  thought 
it  was  a  good  idea  to  have  this  independent  man  in  the  background ;  that  his 
existence,  even  though  he  was  not  actually  called  on,  was  a  suggestion  to  both 
parties  that  they  had  better  try  and  conciliate  the  matter  between  themselves. 
I  think  in  the  bricklayer's  case  he  had  for  years  never  been  called  on  at  all, 
but  he  existed  as  a  matter  of  fact,  and  he  said  that  his  existence  was  a 
beneficial  influence.  What  would  you  say  as  to  that? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  think  it  may  be  necessary  to  keep  the  wheels  moving.  You 
notice  that  Mr.  Eidlitz  said  "  keep  him  in  the  background." 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  STKUBLE.  Well,  that  is  a  good  place. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  is  the  intangible  influence,  you  know. 

Mr.  STKUBLE.  Yes ;  I  see. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  669 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Were  you  at  the  Shoreham  this  morning? 

Mr.  STEUBLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  same  thing  was  said  in  regard  to  the  clothing  industry, 
that  they  considered  it  a  good  thing  to  have  him,  although  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
they  would  call  on  him  very  little. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Of  course  I  think  it  goes  without  saying,  from  what  you 
have  said  already,  that  you  believe  collective  bargaining  is  the  proper  means  of 
bringing  the  parties  together  in  industrial  matters  under  these  trade  contracts 
and  agreements? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  That  is  true.  I  believe  that  collective  bargaining,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  is  conciliation,  and  when  you  get  to  arbitration,  it  is  the  same  thing 
in  an  advanced  form. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  believe  Mr.  Delano  developed  the  line  of  thought 
that  I  was  working  on,  which  I  think  is  an  awfully  good  one.  Do  you  have 
an  eight-hour  day  in  your  trade,  or  a  longer  day? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  For  the  stonecutting  part  of  it ;  yes,  sir ;  absolutely. 

Commissioner  BALLABD.  It  used  to  be  longer? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Yes  ;  it  was  nine  hours  when  I  first  went  into  the  business.  The 
stonecutters'  business  was  one  of  the  early  eight-hour  boys. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Are  you  able,  from  your  experience,  to  form  a  con- 
clusion as  to  whether  the  eigh  hours  was  a  benefit  or  not? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Not  working  in  it  at  the  present  time,  I  could  not  give  you  that. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Who  sets  this  cut  stone  in  the  building — the  same 
union  that  made  the  stone — cut  the  stone? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  think  they  made  the  agreement  with  the  bricklayers.  Before 
that  it  was  set  both  by  the  bricklayers  and  the  stonecutters;  but  they  have 
fixed  up  an  agreement  so  that  it  is  now  done  by  the  bricklayers'  organization. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Will  they  set  stone  that  is  not  from  a  union  shop? 

Mr.  STEUBLE.  I  think  they  make  only  one  distinction,  and  that  is  against 
prison-made  materials. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  There  are  one  or  two  questions  I-  want  to  ask.  I 
understood  you  to  say  that  this  organization  that  we  are  particularly  speaking 
of  has  been  in  existence  something  like  11  years.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  The  one  that  was  formally  closed  last  year;  yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  And  you  are  speaking  from  something  like  32  years 
of  experience  in  the  business? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  In  32  years,  do  we  understand  that  this  method  of 
arbitration  that  you  are  speaking  of  here  has  been  successful,  or  was  that  a 
misunderstanding? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  No,  sir ;  that  is  the  32  years.  I  never  knew  any  case  of  arbitra- 
tion between  the  contractors  and  the  stone  cutters  to  go  to  any  outside  party 
in  that  time. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  How  many  cases  a  year  would  come  up  under  that? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Previous  to  the  strike  of  1900  there  were  not  very  many  weeks 
went  by  that  there  were  not  several. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Would  there  be  a  cessation  of  work  previous  to  the 
arbitration,  or  would  it  be  referred  to  arbitration  before  the  cessation? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Both  cases.  They  naturally  strike,  but  this  cessation  of  work 
until  the  arbitration  was  settled  is  something  of  recent  times,  you  must  under- 
stand. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Then,  I  am  to  understand  that  you  were  successful; 
there  was  practically  a  standing  court  appointed  in  advance? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  A  standing  arbitration  committee  from  either  side. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  And  that  you  were  successful  in  settling  this  large 
number  of  cases  without  having  a  hung  court — that  is,  evenly  divided? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  would  say  that  we  never  had ;  but  do  not  misunderstand  me 
to  say  that  many  things  were  not  settled  by  compulsion,  etc.,  although  there 
was  an  arbitration  board.  There  were  plenty  of  things  in  the  days  previous 
to  the  trouble  of  1910  where  the  contractors  had  to  come  across  and  take 
what  they  could  get,  although  there  wTas  an  arbitration  board  standing.  In 
other  words,  the  dictatorial  position  of  the  stonecutters  was  such  that  they 
handled  things  practically  to  suit  themselves.  That  is  putting  things  pretty 
strong,  but  nevertheless  it  is  a  fact. 


670          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Then,  your  arbitration  board  at  that  time  really  had 
a  great  deal  that  it  could  do,  because  in  vital  questions  the  men  would  take 
it.  in  their  own  hands ;  is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  STKUBLE.  Yes.  Of  course  it  worked  up  from  a  good  proposition  until  they 
handled  the  situation,  and  then  the  functions  of  the  board  ceased.  But  during 
the  last  11  years  there  has  not  been  a  dispute  that  was  not  settled  with  the 
members  from  either  side,  and  there  was  not  a  strike  during  that  time. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Was  the  work  entirely  day  work,  or  some  piecework? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  All  daywork. 

Commisioner  DELANO.  Have  wages  gone  up  a  great  deal? 

Mr.  STKUBLE.  Not  in  proportion  to  other  countries.  Hardly  in  proportion  to 
other  crafts  of  equal  ability. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  How  do  you  account  for  that? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  think  one  reason  that  would  account  for  it  was  the  contest 
that  was  on  during  the  last  10  years,  with  the  two  unions  in  the  field.  Nat- 
urally that  had  quite  an  influence  on  the  situation. 

Commissioner  HABBIMAN.  Are  there  any  other  questions? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  What  proportion  of  the  employers  does  your  asso- 
ciation represent,  just  roughly? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  In  numbers,  it  is  hard  to  give,  because  there  is  an  unlimited 
number;  but  in  the  amount  of  the  proportion  of  the  work,  the  last  time  we 
took  an  inventory  of  that  situation,  the  best  we  could,  a  year  ago,  we  figured 
that  there  was  80  per  cent  of  the  stonecutting  industry  in  the  national  asso- 
ciation— it  is  now  international ;  we  have  members  in  Canada  as  well. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  How  is  it  with  the  unions?  Do  they  represent  prac- 
tically all  of  the  stonecutters? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Practically  all ;  yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Along  the  line  of  thought  in  regard  to  this  arbitra- 
tion and  industrial  board,  if  there  were  an  industrial  board,  would  you  then 
feel  that  if  they  did  not  come  to  any  agreement  within  a  specified  time,  then 
this  matter  might  be  left  to  that  board  of  two  or  three  arbitrators  to  be  finally 
arbitrated  ? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Would  you  feel  that  way? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  That  it  should  go  to  the  industrial  board  and  after 
that  go  to  the  arbitration? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  You  are  speaking  of  an  industrial  board? 

Mr.  STEUBLE.  We  are  speaking  of  industrial  boards,  either  international  or 
State. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Would  you  advise  an  industrial  board  of  that 
character  ? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  would,  if  it  was  Federal. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  The  State  board  would  not  be  broad  enough? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  May  I  ask  about  what  you  spoke  of  as  the  "  evil 
day  "  that  was  coming  in  the  future  and  about  these  matters  being  temporary 
now  ? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  If  the  chairman  will  allow  me  to  ask  a  few  questions,  I  think 
I  will  explain  myself,  if  you  will  pardon  me. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  must  plead  ignorance,  as  far  as  the  board  is  concerned  and 
the  inception  of  it.  Was  it  appointed  in  some  way?  How  was  it  created? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  It  was  created  by  act  of  Congress  in  August,  1912. 
Do  you  want  me  to  tell  you  about  it?  It  was  created  to  inquire  into  the  causes 
of  industrial  unrest  and  to  report  to  Congress.  I  will  send  for  a  copy  of  the 
net  so  that  you  may  see  it.  There  were  nine  members — three  to  represent  the 
employers,  three  the  employees,  and  three  representing  the  public. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  That  is  more  than  I  knew  before  until  I  got  my  notice  to  come 
here.  Of  course,  I  do  not  keep  up  with  all  these  things  going  on  in  Washington, 
but  I  imagine  that  a  great  deal  will  come  before  the  board  that  will  not  be 
what  you  are  looking  for.  Of  course,  you  will  have  to  hear  them.  You  have 
my  sympathy.  There  are  some  things  that  appeal  to  me,  in  my  own  line,  ami 
from  what  Mr.  Delano  said  I  thought  you  were  after  some  plan  that  would 
better  the  employer  and  the  employee. 


TEADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  671 

N 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  That  is  it. 

Mr.  STKUBLE.  There  are  one  or  two  little  things  that  you  want  to  take  into 
consideration  when  you  come  to  a  summing  up.  We  have  labor  organizations, 
anil  there  is  one  question  that  must  appeal  to  you  to  start  with,  and  that  is, 
"Why  does  labor  need  to  organize?  The  answer  to  that,  in  my  experience,  is 
just  two  things :  That  it  is  a  lack  of  confidence  and  it  is  a  competition  among 
men  who  have  nothing  to  sell  but  their  labor. 

On  the  other  hand,  Why  does  the  capital  organize?  Exactly  for  the  same 
reason — a  lack  of  confidence,  one  with  another,  and  the  competition  that  is 
created  between  them.  There  is  no  difference,  in  my  way  of  looking  at  it, 
between  organized  labor  and  organized  capital. 

In  giving  this  matter  serious  consideration  it  is  going  to  apply  equally  to 
labor  and  capital.  You  have  to  concede  the  fact  that  you  are  always  going  to 
have  capital  and  labor.  I  expect  there  are  always  going  to  be  classes  in  this 
country.  We  have  grown  along  so  fast  and  labor  has  organized  and  capital 
has  organized,  and  there  are  just  two  things  now  that  the  Government  does 
that  interfere  with  those  two  organizations,  as  I  see  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
organization  of  contractors,  every  time  they  get  together  in  a  room  and  shut 
the  door  and  have  a  star-chamber  caucus  some  attorney  comes  along  and 
says,  "  We  have  the  Sherman  law  that  you  have  to  be  very  careful  about." 
That  part  of  it  the  Government  is  interested  in — up  to  that  point.  Now,  as  to 
the  labor  part  of  it,  the  labor,  we  will  concede — may  I  say  it  from  the  opposite 
side — anyhow,  has  least  interference  from  the  Government;  but  the  labor  has 
to  fear  the  matter  of  injunction,  which  has  been  tried  to  be  put  out  of  the 
way  here,  during  the  work  here  in  Washington. 

Now,  you  have  got  to  concede  that  the  labor  has  organized  for  certain  rea- 
sons, and  so  has  capital,  and  now  when  it  comes  to  the  contractor,  you  are 
being  interferred  with  by  the  acts  of  both.  The  labor  end  of  it  is  not  doing 
any  more  harm  probably  to  the  progress  of  the  country  and  going  along  without 
trouble  than  is  the  contractor  who,  in  his  overexertion  and  competition,  is 
making  things  ruinous  for  the  whole  country.  In  other  words,  there  are  two 
conditions  there.  In  other  words,  there  is  a  condition  of  lack  of  confidence 
bet\veen  everybody — a  man  and  his  wife  sometimes.  That  ought  not  to  be  so, 
but  it  is,  and  it  applies  all  along  the  line. 

The  condition  that  has  got  to  come  in  this  country,  in  my  mind,  borders  right 
on  the  line  of  your  talk  of  the  arbitrator;  and  if  this  is  going  to  come  wrhen  the 
Government  comes  in  and  says,  "  Thus  far  and  no  farther ;  you  may  make  your 
agreement,  Mr.  Struble,  with  your  stone  men  for  a  conciliatory  board  and  an 
arbitration  board,  but  there  has  got  to  be  a  place  where  the  arbitration  stops 
and  the  strike  stops  and  business  goes  on  " ;  and  that  is  where  this  third  party 
now  is  of  no  particular  account  except  as  a  temporary  arrangement.  This  has 
got  to  be  a  Federal  proposition.  In  Illinois  we  have  a  board.  I  do  not  know 
what  they  call  them,  but  every  time  there  is  a  labor  trouble  they  send  in  and 
want  to  know  if  they  can  be  of  service,  and  we  say,  "  No,"  and  then  they  come, 
anyhow.  [Laughter.]  They  hear  your  tale  of  woe,  and  then  they  sit  around 
and  look  wise.  What  is  the  name  of  that  board? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  The  committee  of  mediation,  I  believe. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  They  have  no  power  to  act. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  And  no  standing  there. 

Mr.  STEL~BLE.  No  power ;  and  this  is  another  makeshift ;  and,  I  believe,  in  niy 
short  experience  with  the  Government — and  I  have  thought  for  the  last  15 
years  that  the  Government  has  got  to  have — the  Federal  Government  has  got 
to  have — somebody  that  says  "  Good  night,"  as  the  case  may  be,  with  this 
matter  of  meetings. 

I  attended  a  meeting  in  Chicago  a  few  years  ago,  and  Mr.  Gompers  was  there, 
and  they  had  a  lot  of  leading  lawyers,  and  they  had  some  bright  fellow  from 
Australia  and  from  NewT  Zealand,  and  I  wore  myself  out  for  about  a  week, 
and  I  think  it  was  forgotten  by  the  time  they  got  home.  I  forgot  it,  anyway. 
I  am  saying  this  to  this  board  just  on  a  fe\v  remarks  that  Mr.  Delano  made 
when  Mr.  Eidlitz  was  on  here,  and  I  am  saying  these  things  as  I  see  them.  I 
came  from  Chicago  at  the  expense  of  this  committee.  I  suppose  they  con- 
tribute to  the  expense  of  those  people  they  are  bringing  here.  I  do  not  know 
how  they  are  going  to  settle  it. 

So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  \vill  welcome 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  You  are  not  the  only  man  who  is  up  against  that 
proposition. 


672  REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OK    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  know;  it  is  like  all  these  other  propositions — misery  loves 
company. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Do  you  not  think  you  might  say  to  Mr.  Struble,  Mrs. 
Harriman,  as  you  have  to  others,  that  you  would  be  glad  if  he  would  submit 
a  brief? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  How  do  you  feel  about  the  idea  of  an  industrial 
council  that  should  be  individually  appointed  by  the  Federal  Government — 
a  Federal  board ;  something  on  the  lines  of  the  one  they  have  in  England — 
that  will  settle  all  these  troubles  and  do  about  what  you  say  you  want  done? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  With  power  to  act? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  With  power  to  act. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  With  power  to  act,  I  think  it  would  be  welcomed  throughout  the 
world. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  not  so  with  the  English  board. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Then,  there  is  where  they  are  weak. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  believe,  from  the  world  experience  on  compulsory 
arbitration,  that  it  is  a  success?  Has  it  not  been  proved  to  be  a  failure 
wherever  it  was  inaugurated? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  do  not  believe  it  was  handled  by  as  bright  minds  as  we  have 
in  this  country. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  We  do  not  seem  to  have  gotten  along  any  further  than  any- 
body else  in  industrial  development,  according  to  all  contemporary  history. 
How  can  you  compel  a  man  to  work  if  he  does  not  want  to  work? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  That  is  impossible. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  how  can  you  compel,  by  power,  the  settlement  of  in- 
dustrial disputes? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  In  this  way :  If  there  are  those  who  do  not  want  to  work,  and 
you  can  not  compel  them  to  work,  there  are  those  who  do  want  to  work  if 
they  are  allowed  to  work.  There  never  was  a  time  in  the  history  of  the  world 
when  there  were  not  those  who  were  willing  to  work.  Why  could  they  not 
work?  Because  there  was  no  protection.  If  somebody  is  going  to  lie  down  and 
say,  "  We  will  not  do  it,"  then  the  industrial  board  wTill  come  in  and  say,  "  You 
take  this." 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  We  must  take  into  consideration  the  result  that  occurs,  must 
we  not? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  New  Zealand  I  understand  that  the  Government  made  a 
decision 'in  regard  to  an  industrial  matter,  and  it  undertook  to  compel  the 
observance  of  it ;  and  I  understand  to-day  in  that  far-advanced  colony  they  have 
gatling  guns  and  soldiers  and  all  that  trying  to  enforce  the  decision  of  a  board 
of  arbitration ;  and  I  think  the  decision  is  enforced,  and  they  have  soldiers  and 
guns  there,  and  nothing  is  doing ;  that  is  all  there  is  to  it. 

In  other  words,  have  you  not  got  to  emphasize  the  idea  of  deciding  a  thing 
justly  and  then  letting  the  force  of  public  opinion  stand  back  of  that?  And, 
after  all,  is  it  not  a  greater  power  in  the  settlement  of  industrial  matters? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  To  answer  you,  I  think  you  take  that  too  seriously  when  you 
speak  of  enforced  arbitration.  There  is  not  a  case  that  I  know  of  that  has 
come  to  arbitration  where  a  third  party  has  been  called  in,  but  what  it  has 
been  settled.  I  may  consider  that  it  was  unjustly  settled.  But  you  heard  Mr. 
Eidlitz  say  to-day  that  when  a  man  acted  as  umpire  here  in  New  York,  he 
served  only  once.  We  want  a  board  paid  by  the  Government  that  will  say : 
"  You  shall  serve  as  long  as  we  want  you."  The  action  of  this  board  would  be 
conciliatory,  in  a  way. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  regard  to  this  matter  of  conciliation  and  arbitration — 
and  we  have  gone  into  so  many  things  that  we  are  pressed  for  time — the  ques- 
tion of  arbitration,  even  the  question  of  a  third  man,  and  all  that,  depends,  like 
the  organization  proposition,  on  the  spirit  in  which  the  thing  is  done  as  much, 
if  not  more  than  on  the  machinery  involved.  Now,  if  either  party  to  a  dispute 
feels  that  the  third  man  is  ignorant  of  the  trade  conditions  and  is  simply  try- 
ing to  unburden  his  mind  and  get  rid  of  the  proposition,  and  has  made  a  sort  of 
a  toss-of-the-coin  decision,  when  he  feels  he  has  got  the  worst  of  it  he  is  nat- 
urally aggrieved,  and  is  dissatisfied  with  the  result.  But  there  is  a  new  theory 
growing  up,  as  I  understand  it,  with  regard  to  the  arbitration  of  matters  by  a 
third  party.  It  is  not  for  a  man  unacquainted  with  the  conditions  of  the  trade 
to  give  a  knockdown  decision,  so  that  the  side  that  is  the  victor  may  feel  that 
he  got  more  than  he  is  entitled  to  and  it  can  not  succeed,  but  in  that  whole 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  673 

thing  should  be  the  spirit  that  the  third  man  should  use  those  powers  to  per- 
suade the  two  sides  to  get  together,  and  be  resourceful  enough,  and  have  that 
spirit  of  trying  to  be  resourceful,  to  provide  ways  in  which  the  parties  can 
agree,  and  this  spirit  of  bringing  the  parties  together.  In  other  words,  the 
third  man  using  the  spirit  of  conciliation,  the  parties  will  get  so  close  together 
that  although  he  does  have  to  make  a  decision  the  difference  will  be  such  a 
small  matter  that  it  does  not  make  much  difference.  With  that  absolute  spirit 
of  conciliation  and  arbitration  is  it  not  likely  that  we  would  make  more  progress 
than  under  the  old  theory  of  the  board  deciding  it  with  a  club,  or  the  Govern- 
ment deciding  it  with  a  club? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  do  not  look  at  it  as  you  do,  as  to  the  club  part  of  it.  Now, 
if  we  got  into  an  argument  we  would  have  a  good  one.  I  am  not  much  on  the 
arguing,  but  I  will  say  this :  You  can  take  this  agreement  that  I  presented  to 
you  to-day,  and  you  can  take  any  other  agreement  that  \vill  be  brought  in  here 
between  labor  organizations,  such  as  this  New  York  protocol,  as  I  believe  they 
call  it.  That  name  does  not  fit  with  the  building  business. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  name  has  worked,  anyway. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  may  be  very  strong  in  my  opinions,  but  the  agreements  that 
you  are  working  under  to-day  with  labor  in  this  country  are  gentlemen's  agree- 
ments, and  that  is  all  they  are.  Then  as  soon  as  something  goes  wrong  Mr. 
Eidlitz  told  you  how  they  do  in  New  York,  and  that  is  not  the  fairest  example 
of  conditions  in  the  country.  Do  not  take  it  too  seriously.  There  is  not  a  city 
to-day  in  the  country  like  New  York.  I  am  not  going  to  tell  any  tales  out  of 
school,  but  you  want  to  understand  me  that  there  is  a  hole  there  that  you  can 
get  things  out  of,  but  you  can  not  get  anything  in.  In  other  words,  they  build  a 
fence  around  the  city  and  say  to  Mr.  Bricklayer  and  Mr.  Stonecutter,  and  so 
on,  "You  come  and  play  in  my  back  lot,  and  I  will  play  in  yours;"  but  they 
do  not  play  in  any  of  them.  They  do  not,  down  in  New  York.  That  is  not  a 
fair  criterion  for  the  rest  of  the  country.  I  wrill  tell  you  a  few  things  that  I 
know,  and  maybe  I  will  slip  a  few ;  but  that  is  the  situation. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Does  that  appear  in  there  [indicating  book]  ? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  If  you  try  to  sell  any  cut  stone  there  you  will  find  out.  I  know 
that  I  can  not  sell  any  there ;  but  I  can  go  up  to  New  Haven  and  build  a  lady  a 
nice  house  there.  They  have  the  labor  there  and  the  money  in  hand  to  do  it, 
just  as  Mr.  Spencer  does. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Why  did  you  not  slip  one  over  while  he  was  on  the  stand 
and  we  would  have  put  that  to  him? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  was  not  asking  him  questions. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  We  are  going  to  reach  New  York  anyway. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  You  are  going  to  get  there,  I  understand,  and  you  will  find  the 
situation  there  as  it  is,  even  though  it  is  not  as  I  say. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  think  you  are  right  about  that,  too. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  I  think  this  commission  ought  to  have  all  the  assistance  pos- 
sible in  what  they  are  trying  to  do,  because  they  are  going  to  bring  a  good 
result  out  of  it ;  but  you  have  got  to  get  a  fair  and  square  deal  wherever  you  go. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Have  you  any  other  suggestions?  You  said  that 
you  had  several  you  wanted  to  make. 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Everything  I  had  to  say  came  under  that  one  head.     That  is 

hat  it  was  leading  up  to,  that  it  has  got  to  be  an  industrial  board  with  power 
to  act,  and  it  has  got  to  be  a  Federal  Government  board,  too: 

Commissioner  DELANO.  If  I  understand  your  point,  you  mean  there  will  be 
an  industrial  board  that  will  have  the  same  conditions  in  industrial  affairs  as 
the  Supreme  Court  does  in  legal,  civil  difficulties? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  We  have  all  got  to  abide  by  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  law  suits. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Have  the  stonecutters  ever  objected  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  new  machinery  for  handling  and  cutting  stone? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  Certainly ;  that  was  what  the  trouble  first  arose  about,  the 
planer  and  the  lathe. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Has  that  all  been  adjusted? 

Mr.  STRUBLE.  They  agree  to  it  now ;  yes,  sir ;  as  this  contract  states.  That 
is  how  we  could  come  together.  We  have  waived  those  objections  to  the  stone- 
working  machinery  and  the  shipment  of  cut  stone.  There  were  only  three  or 
four  questions  that  hung  fire  for  11  years. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  If  that  is  all,  we  thank  you  very  much. 

38819°— 16 43 


674          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

(The  second  contract  presented  by  Mr.  Struble  was  marked  "  Struble  Exhibit 
No.  2,"  and  is  as  follows:) 

AGREEMENT  BETWEEN  THE  BEDFORD  STONE  CLUB  (MEMBERS  OF  THE  NATIONAL 
CUT  STONE  CONTRACTORS'  ASSOCIATION)  AND  THE  BEDFORD  BRANCH  OF  THE 
JOURNEYMEN  STONE  CUTTERS'  ASSOCIATION  OF  NORTH  AMERICA. 

First.  This  agreement  witnesseth  that  the  Bedford  Stone  Club  (designated 
as  the  party  of  the  first  part)  hereby  agrees  to  employ  as  stonecutters  and 
carvers  only  such  men  as  may  be  members  of  the  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters' 
Association  of  North  America  (party  of  the  second  part)  :  Provided,  however, 
The  said  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters'  Association  of  ]^Torth  America,  above  men- 
tioned, shall  at  all  times  furnish  and  provide  such  number  of  skilled  workmen 
as  shall  be  required  by  the  members  of  the  Bedford  Stone  Club.  Any  failure 
on  the  part  of  the  said  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters'  Association  of  North  America 
to  provide  a  sufficiency  of  men  after  two  weeks'  notice  shall  confer  the  right  to 
the  members  of  the  Bedford  Stone  Club  to  employ  such  stonecutters  and  carvers 
as  they  see  fit,  and  such  men  so  employed  shall  at  once  make  application  and  be 
permitted  to  join  the  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters'  Association  of  North  America 
upon  their  payment  of  the  initiation  fee  that  may  govern  similar  cases. 

Second.  The  wages  of  the  journeymen  stonecutters  shall  be  fifty-seven  and 
one-half  (57*)  cents  per  hour  from  January  12,  1914,  to  June  30,  1914,  and 
sixty  (60)  cents  per  hour  from  July  1,  1914,  to  January  12,  1915.  This  rate  of 
wages  shall  not  apply  to  superannuated  members,  for  whom  a  class  shall  be 
provided,  designated  as  exempt. 

Exempt  members  shall  be  at  liberty  to  make  the  best  terms  possible  with 
their  employers. 

Third.  Eight  (8)  hours  shall  constitute  a  day's  work,  and  no  more  than 
forty-eight  (48)  hours  shall  be  worked  by  any  stonecutter  or  carver  in  one  week. 
Full  time  on  Saturdays  the  same  as  other  week  days. 

Fourth.  The  party  of  the  second  part  shall  recognize  the  right  of  the  party 
of  the  first  part  to  subcontract  carving,  and  the  wages  of  carvers  shall  be  one 
(1)  dollar  per  day  in  excess  of  stonecutters'  wages. 

Fifth.  It  is  mutually  agreed  by  the  parties  hereto  that  no  labor  shall  be  per- 
formed on  the  following  holidays :  Thanksgiving,  Decoration  Day,  Fourth  of 
July,  Labor  Day,  and  Christmas  Day,  or  Sundays. 

Sixth.  All  pneumatic  hammers  and  tools  to  be  used  with  same  shall  be 
furnished  by  the  party  of  the  first  part. 

Seventh.  The  wages  of  the  party  of  the  second  part  shall  be  paid  alternate 
Saturdays,  in  cash  or  check,  at  the  mills  where  the  men  are  employed  before 
quitting  time.  The  week  shall  end  on  Friday. 

Eighth.  There  shall  be  no  discrimination  on  the  part  of  the  party  of  the  first 
part  against  any  member  of  the  party  of  the  second  part  because  of  any  duties 
he  may  perform  as  a  member  of  a  committee  or  for  the  performance  of  his 
duties  as  a  shop  steward. 

Ninth.  It  is  also  mutually  agreed  that  the  terms  of  the  agreement  entered 
into  between  the  National  Cut  Stone  Contractors'  Association  and  the  Journey- 
men Stone  Cutters'  Association  of  North  America  shall  be  recognized  as  part  of 
this  agreement.  * 

Tenth.  It  is  mutually  agreed  by  and  between  the  parties  hereto  that  this  con- 
tract shall  remain  in  force  and  effect  for  the  period  of  one  (1)  year  beginning 
on  the  12th  day  of  January,  1914 :  Provided,  hoivever,  That  no  changes  are  re- 
quested by  either  party  to  this  agreement  before  October  1,  1914,  said  agree- 
ment is  to  remain  in  full  force  and  effect  until  January  12,  1916. 

Eleventh.  Apprentices:  The  number  of  apprentices  to  be  employed  by  the 
party  of  the  first  part  shall  be  as  follows : 

One  (1)  apprentice  to  five  (5)  or  less  members  employed. 

Two  (2)  apprentices  to  over  five  (5)  and  less  than  fifteen  (15)  members 
employed. 

Three  (3)  apprentices  to  over  fifteen  (15)  and  less  than  twenty-one  (21) 
members  employed. 

Four  (4)  apprentices  to  over  twenty-one  members  (21)  employed. 

Apprentice  wages :  The  wages  of  apprentices  shall  be  optional  with  the  party 
of  the  first  part. 

Twelfth.  It  is  mutually  agreed  between  parties  hereto  that  this  agreement 
shall  be  submitted  to  the  executive  committee  of  the  National  Cut  Stone  Con- 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  675 

tractors'  Association  (Inc.)  and  the  executive  board  of  the  Journeymen  Stone 
Cutters'  Association  of  North  America  for  final  ratification  and  approval. 

In  witness  whereof  we,  the  duly  authorized  empowered  representatives  of 
our  respective  associations  and  societies,  hereunto  set  our  hands  and  seals  this 
7th  of  January,  1914. 
Bedford  Stone  Club: 

AETHTJR  MICHIE, 
A.  E.  DICKINSON, 
ROBT.  REED, 
CABL  FUBST, 
HENRY  STRUBLE, 

Committee. 

Bedford  branch  of  the  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters'  Association  of  North 
America : 

CHAS.  S.  AUSTIN, 
THOMAS  BRENNAN, 
ROBERT  E.  HOLT, 
ANDREW  LINDSAY, 
JOHN  McR.  MATHESON, 

Committee. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  THOMAS  J.  WILLIAMS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  please  give  your  name,  residence,  and  business? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Thomas  J.  Williams.  I  am  president  of  the  building  trades 
department  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  Residence  at  present  in 
Washington. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  trade  do  you  belong  to? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  My  own  particular  trade? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Encaustic  tile  laying. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Where  were  you  employed  in  that  trade? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  there  any  collective  agreements  or  trade  agreements 
between  that  union  and  firms? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  WTe  have  had  agreements  for,  possibly,  to  my  knowledge,  20 
years. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mention  one,  for  instance — a  typical  agreement. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  In  Pittsburgh? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  will  say  in  Pittsburgh  we  have  had  in  my  own  trade  agree- 
ments, to  my  knowledge,  for  about  20  years. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  a  general  way,  what  has  been  the  subject  of  those  agree- 
ments? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  There  is  an  association  of  manufacturers  in  the  particular 
line,  and,  of  course,  a  union,  and  they  have  yearly,  or  possibly  every  three  or 
four  years,  met  and  drawn  up  the  agreements. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  From  your  experience  of  20  years  under  such  agreements, 
are  you  of  opinion  that  they  are  good  things  for  the  labor  people? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  believe  that  the  labor  people,  dealing  collectively,  can 
better  protect  their  interests,  such  as  their  wages,  hours  of  labor,  and  condi- 
tions for  working? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  think,  then,  they  have  an  advantage  over  the  individual 
in  dealing  with  the  boss? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  According  to  our  present-day  condition — and  I  am  speaking 
of  the  building  industry — individual  bargaining  is  an  impossibility,  for  practical 
purposes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  connection  with  your  contracts  did  they  have  any  pro- 
vision for  the  settlement  of  disputes? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  were  those  provisions,  if  you  know? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Of  course,  this  pertains  to  one  trade  with  their  employers  in 
one  particular  city,  you  know.  This  is  not  a  general  proposition.  This  is  not 
factory  work.  This  is  all  on  the  buildings.  If  there  is  any  dispute  of  any  kind 


676          EEPOET    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

they  have  a  joint  executive  board,  an  executive  board  of  the  association  of  em- 
ployers, and  an  executive  board  of  the  union,  that  meets  at  stated  intervals,  even 
going  so  far  that  if  work  is  improperly  done  this  joint  executive  board  shall 
decide  whether  it  is  the  workmen's  fault  or  not. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  membership  of  that  board,  odd  or  even  ? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Generally  it  is  five  on  each  side. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  class  of  questions  generally  come  up  before  that  board, 
and  specifically,  do  they  involve  in  many  instances  the  grievance  of  an  indi- 
vidual workman? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes,  at  times ;  but  not  very  often. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Generally  they  are  larger  questions? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Matters  of  policy  and  trade  agreements? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  for  such  questions  you  think  that  the  even  board  is  the 
best  board? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes ;  I  think  so. 

Mr,  THOMPSON.  Have  you  any  opinion  and  any  experience  with  reference 
to  the  use  of  boards  of  arbitration  in  factories,  or  in  cases  where  there  are 
open-shop  arrangements? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  In  factories? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  must  confess  that  I  have  very  little  practical  knowledge  of 
the  working  conditions  in  factories. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  have  no  opinion  as  to  which  character  of  board,  a 
board  without  an  umpire,  or  a  board  with  an  umpire,  would  be  best  in  such 
cases? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  No,  sir;  I  would  not  like  to  advance  an  opinion,  because  my 
work  has  been  confined  to  buildings,  and  I  have  not  any  opinion  that  it  would 
be  of  use  to  this  commission  to  advance. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Of  course,  it  goes  without  saying  that  you  believe  in  the  set- 
tlement of  disputes  without  a  strike? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Absolutely,  and  it  applies  particularly  in  the  building  industry. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  all  that  I  care  to  ask. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Mr.  Williams,  you  have  some  general  knowledge  of 
the  conditions  existing  between  the  building  trades  contractors  and  most  of  the 
unions,  have  you  not,  in  most  of  the  trades? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS*  Yes,  I  have ;  I  suppose  I  ought  to  have,  and  I  have  a  general 
knowledge  of  those  conditions  throughout  the  country. 

Commissioner  LENNON,  And  in  Pittsburgh  you  were  usually  active  in  a  gen- 
eral way  in  connection  with  these  trade  matters,  were  you  not? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  was  president  of  the  building  trades  combination  in  Pitts- 
burgh for  about  10  years. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  What  did  you  find,  in  Pittsburgh,  during  the  term  of 
your  years  there,  to  be  the  conditions  as  to  the  possibility  of  decent  living  as 
between  employees  who  are  in  unions  in  building  trades,  and  in  some  instances 
where  employees  were  nonunion?  How  did  their  conditions  compare  as  to 
wages  and  hours  and  treatment  generally,  or  was  there  any  difference? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  is  rather  a  peculiar  condition  in  the  building  industry. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  know  it  is. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  In  this  respect,  that  the  nonunion  man  is  able  to  get  all  the 
fruits  of  the  labor  or  work  of  the  union  man,  and  apparently  is  able  to  get  the 
same  wages  as  the  union  man,  and  he  frequently  quotes  that  to  you,  using  the 
usual  term,  "  I  get  the  wages."  You  analyze  the  thing  and  you  will  find  that 
he  gets  the  wages  through  the  efforts  of  the  union  being  able  to  establish  the  rate 
of  wages.  Of  course  where  he  does  not  his  condition  is  not  as  good.  His  oppor- 
tunity for  getting  work  is  limited ;  he  is  more  under  the  orders  of  the  employer, 
and  he  has  to-day  in  his  work  longer  hours  than  he  would  have,  of  course,  if 
he  was  living  under  the  terms  of  a  written  agreement ;  and,  of  course,  his  condi- 
tions generally  will  not  compare  with  those  of  the  union  man. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Were  you  ever  up  at  Altoona,  for  instance? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes ;  and  have  worked  in  Altoona  quite  frequently. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Is  that  a  well-organized  city,  like  Pittsburgh,  in  the 
building  trades? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  No ;  it  is  poorly  organized. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  What  do  you  find  the  condition  there  as  compared 
to  Pittsburgh? 


TKADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  677 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  The  conditions  do  not  compare  at  all. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  What  does  a  bricklayer  get  in  Pittsburgh,  and  what 
does  he  get  in  Altoona,  if  you  know?  Or,  take  your  trade,  tile  laying? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  The  bricklayer  is  not  a  fair  criterion. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Yes,  I  know ;  that  is  true. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  The  other  trades  would  not,  in  the  building  industry,  get 
anything  like  as  much  in  Altoona  as  they  would  in  Pittsburgh. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Do  you  ascribe  this  to  the  fact  that  there  have  been 
contractual  relations  between  the  building  trades  in  Pittsburgh,  and  there 
have  not  been  such  relations  in  Altoona,  or  is  there  some  other  reason  for  it? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  The  reason  at  the  bottom  of  it  all  is  that  the  individual 
unions  are  not  as  well  organized,  and  therefore  they  can  not  be  as  well  organ- 
ized collectively.  You  see,  it  is  not  alone  in  the  building  industry  now,  the  fact 
that  the  individual  trade  may  be  well  organized  into  a  union,  but  the  fact  that 
they  are  collectively  as  unions  well  organized. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Have  you  come  considerable  in  contact  with  these 
vocational  disputes  that  exist  in  the  organizations — between  the  organizations? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  is  my  unfortunate  position,  to  have  occasionally  tried 
to  adjust  them. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Does  it  appear  to  you  as  though  the  tendency  was 
in  the  direction  of  their  elimination? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Of  course,  this  may  not  be  understood  or  appreciated  by  the 
members  of  the  commission,  but  if  the  different  trades  would  reasonably  live 
up  to  the  laws  as  laid  down  by  the  building  trades  department  we  would  elimi- 
nate 95  per  cent  of  the  disputes  in  the  building  industry  for  the  United  States 
and  Canada. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  What  seems  to  be  the  particular  object  with  these 
particular  trades  that  keeps  them  from  taking  hold  in  this  effort  of  the  build- 
ing trades  to  settle  these  matters?  What  is  it  that  they  see  that  stops  them? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  may  be  wrong  in  my  analysis  of  the  whole  subject,  but  I 
have  thought,  if  I  may  be  allowed  to  express  this  opinion,  that  if  a  body  of 
practical  men  sat  down  and  devoted  all  their  efforts  honestly  to  devise  laws  to 
govern — I  am  speaking  particularly  of  the  building  industry — the  building  in- 
dustry, and  they  did  finally  devise  a  set  of  laws  or  define  a  constitution  such 
that  finally  it  depends  on  the  individual  carrying  them  out,  with  this  restless 
feeling  that  is  engendered  in  nearly  everyone  of  us  in  this  country  at  the 
present  day,  a  feeling  that  they  will  not  abide  by  any  given  rules,  you  will 
find  that  regardless  of  what  is  clone  in  framing  the  law,  a  combination  of  in- 
dividuals will  say  "  Well,  we  have  power  enough  to  think  otherwise  or  do 
otherwise  " ;  and  the  result  is  that  the  laws  will  not  be  lived  up  to.  So  it  all 
depends  on  the  individual,  anyway. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  In  other  words,  you  seeni  to  think  that  where  a  cer- 
tain party  feels  strong  enough  to  resist  the  suggestions  made  by  the  building 
trades  department,  they  simply  resist,  that  is  all — do  not  "  come  across,"  as 
the  boys  say? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  It  is  too  bad. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  How  are  the  building  trades  organized  now,  as  com- 
pared to  when  you  started  to  work  in  this  part  of  the  country? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Oh,  much  better. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  They  are  much  better  organized? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Are  the  wages  increased? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Very  much. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  At  that  time  was  an  8-hour  day  in  existence  in 
any  of  the  trades? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  No ;  not  when  I  started.    It  was  a  9-hour  day. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Now,  it  is  generally,  is  it  not,  an  8-hour  day? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  In  the  building  industry,  with  the  possible  exception  of 
what  is  known  as  building  laborers — and  they  have  in  some  cases  9  and  10 
hours,  because  they  have  to  prepare  certain  materials  for  the  mechanics  to 
start  with  early  in  the  morning,  and  so  they  have  to  start  half  an  hour  or  an 
hour  earlier  than  the  mechanics. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  One  of  the  important  things  that  this  commission  is 
to  study  is  the  causes  of  industrial  unrest.  Of  course,  that  is  a  broad  proposi- 
tion, but  you  understand  what  it  is.  The  enactment  of  the  law  creating  this 
commission  grew  out  of  many  things,  but  perhaps  especially  out  of  troubles  in 
the  structural  iron  trades,  and  out  of  the  contest  that  was  on  in  Lawrence, 


678          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mass.  Perhaps  those  two  matters  particularly  brought  to  a  head  the  movement 
that  created  this  commission. 

What  do  you  consider  the  principal  causes  of  unrest  that  exist  among  the 
organized  workers  of  the  country,  as  far  as  you  know? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  How  would  you  desire  me  to  answer  that?  There  is  unrest, 
of  course,  in  regard  to  jurisdictional  matters. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Oh,  yes ;  of  course. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  And  then  there  is  an  unrest  in  regard  to  underlying  condi- 
tions which  have  nothing  to  do  with  jurisdictional  matters.  How  would  you 
have  me  answer? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  As  to  the  discontent  with  conditions  that  surround 
the  workingman. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  In  the  building  industry  at  the  present  day  I  believe  there  is 
less  unrest  than  formerly,  and  I  believe  there  is  less  unrest  in  the  building 
industry  than  in  any  other  line  of  work.  Of  course,  I  might  say  this,  that  owing 
to  the  fact  that  the  building  industry,  I  suppose,  is  as  well  organized  as  any  in 
the  country,  they  having  a  better  understanding  with  their  employers,  there  is 
less  cause  for  unrest;  because  I  believe  that  the  combinations  of  workingmen 
in  the  different  unions  in  the  building  industry  have  brought  to  a  higher  state 
of  perfection  the  principle  of  arbitration  and  conciliation  and  agreements  re- 
lating to  it  than  any  other  combination  of  unions. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  And  that  has  eliminated  unrest,  or  rather  that  has 
brought  about  conditions  that  make  the  unrest  less  noticeable  among  building- 
trades  people  than  among  factory  people,  say? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes.  You  find  in  the  country  that  it  is  less  noticeable,  that 
there  is  less  serious  disturbance  in  the  building  industry  than  you  will  find  in 
what  is  known  as  the  miscellaneous  trades. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  all  I  care  to  ask. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Williams,  you  have  given  the  impression,  from 
your  evidence,  that  there  is  less  trouble  in  the  building  trades  than  there  is  in 
other  trades.  I  have  gotten  the  impression,  as  a  resident  of  Chicago,  that  there 
is  more  trouble  in  the  building  trades,  and  that  we  have  more  strikes  and  more 
trouble  and  more  friction  than  we  have  in  most  other  trades.  Is  that  a  wrong 
impression? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  take  it  this  way,  that  I  believe  the  disturbances  in  other 
trades  more  seriously  affect  the  whole  community  and  the  country,  and  there- 
fore they  are  more  noticeable  than  those  in  the  building  industry,  because  a 
strike  in  the  building  industry  may  cover  just  one  building,  and  while  that  is 
of  course  important  to  the  city,  to  the  community,  yet  the  strike  in  that  one 
building  is  relatively  not  so  important  as  one  strike  in  one  large  factory 
would  be. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  so ;  but  yet  all  building  operations  stopped 
in  Chicago  entirely  last  summer  or  in  the  early  fall,  for  two  or  three  months. 
We  had  a  case  of  a  man — I  think  he  was  a  steamfitter — shooting  a  plumber, 
or  something  like  that,  the  trouble  growing  out  of  a  jurisdictional  fight.  We 
have  had  some  pretty  serious  matters  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Possibly,  but  that  was  not  so  recent  as  that? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  This  shooting  business  was  not  recent.  That  was  two 
or  three  years  ago,  I  know;  but  I  mean  the  cessation  was  last  summer,  was 
it  not? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes,  it  was;  and  as  the  result  of  that  there  was  an  agree- 
ment drawn  up  between  the  employers  and  the  local  council  there. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  do  not  think  there  has  been  more  trouble;  you 
still  think  there  has  been  less  trouble  in  the  building  trades? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  speak  nationally,  of  course. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Nationally? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Has  Chicago  been  particularly  unfortunate? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  In  Chicago  there  has  been  a  tremendous  rise  in  building  oper- 
ations for  the  last  five  or  six  years.  Prior  to  that  things  were  rather  dull.  In 
fact,  immediately  following  the  world's  fair  things  became  very  stagnant,  and 
as  they  grew  better,  that  of  course  brought  out  questions  that  while  things 
were  quiet,  were  lying  dormant,  and  when  they  saw  so  much  work  they  became 
a  little  ambitious  as  to  what  they  should  get,  and  as  a  result  I  believe  wages 
would  be  considered  higher  in  Chicago  than  in  almost  any  other  city  in  the 
United  States,  with  the  possible  exception  of  San  Francisco. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Ought  that  not  to  have  made  for  contentment  rather 
than  for  friction? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS  IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  679 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  It  will  do  so,  finally ;  but  it  is  in  the  process  of  making. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  In  the  case  of  a  jurisdictional  dispute,  as  for  in- 
stance, between  the  plumbers  and  the  steamfitters,  and  I  take  those  because 
they  have  been  used  by  way  of  illustration,  that  would  come  to  you  as  president 
of  the  building  trades  department  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  would 
it  not? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  It  would  under  ordinary  circumstances,  but  it  will  not  any 
more  because  it  is  all  settled. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  That  particular  dispute;  but  in  case  of  a  jurisdic- 
tional dispute  it  would  come  to  you. because  of  your  position? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes.  If  I  may  be  allowed  to  explain,  of  course,  a  jurisdic- 
tional dispute  generally  comes  up  in  a  given  city.  The  trades  involved  fre- 
quently apply  to  their  respective  international  unions.  In  the  event  that  all 
these  building  trades  are  affiliated  into  one  local  building  trades  council,  the 
matter  is  referred  to  that  local  building  trades  council.  Then  they  try  to  adjust 
it.  I  take  it  that  in  a  large  number  of  cases  they  try  to  adjust  it  on  the  na- 
tional laws  of  the  building  trades  department.  Failing  to  arrive  at  a  satisfac- 
tory conclusion  on  it  then  they  carry  it  to  the  headquarters  of  the  department, 
and  of  course  then  it  conies  to  me.  The  policy  pursued  is,  if  it  is  of  course  a 
very  flagrant  case,  the  president  of  the  department  decides  at  once  in  favor 
of  the  particular  trade  that  rightfully  owns  the  work.  If  there  is  some  little 
doubt  the  president  of  the  department  will  refer  the  matter  to  the  presidents 
of  the  two  international  unions,  and  tries  to  get  them  to  see  the  light  and  so 
instruct  their  respective  locals.  If  that  fails,  the  department  has  a  law  that 
the  president  of  the  department  has  the  right  to  appoint  an  arbitrator  who 
shall  visit  the  city  where  the  dispute  is  on,  and  the  two  unions — it  will  be 
usually  two  unions,  and  seldom  if  ever  three — would  have  their  representatives 
present  the  case.  Of  course  he  is  a  building  tradesman,  and  he,  after  thor- 
oughly investigating  the  case  will  render  a  decision.  That  decision  is  supposed 
to  be  lived  up  to,  and  the  union  having  the  decision  rendered  against  it  has 
the  right  to  appeal  at  the  next  convention  of  the  department. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  But  in  the  meantime  the  work  must  go  on. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  And  we  have  a  very  strong  and  specific  law  that  there  shall 
be  no  stoppage  of  work  in  any  place  or  at  any  time  on  a  jurisdictional  matter ; 
and  any  trade  that  does  stop  work  on  account  of  a  jurisdictional  dispute  is 
simply  violating  the  law.  And  that  comes  back  to  what  I  said,  that  no  matter 
how  you  devise  laws,  no  matter  how  good  they  are,  it  rests  with  the  individual, 
because  of  course  we  have  no  compelling  power  to  compel  a  compliance. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  There  is  no  machinery  to  compensate  the  owner  of 
the  building  for  losses  in  time? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  No;  but  I  have  known  cases  where  a  local  went  out,  not  on 
a  jurisdictional  matter,  but  went  out  in  violation  of  an  understanding  that  they 
had  with  the  local  council,  and  asked  for  more  wages  and  were  able  to  get 
them,  and  were  afterwards  compelled  to  come  back  again  at  the  old  wages  and 
to  return  the  money  they  had  gotten  over  and  above  the  former  wages. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Are  all  the  unions  in  the  building  trades  open?  At 
any  time  can  a  person  raised  in  that  trade,  not  a  member  of  the  union,  join 
the  union,  or  can  a  member  move  from  one  town  to  another  and  join  the  union 
in  the  place  to  which  he  moves? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  They  have  a  very  excellent  arrangement  with  the  different 
unions  who  control  their  own  autonomy,  of  course.  If  I  am  a  plumber  here 
in  Washington  and  I  find  that  trade  is  slack  here,  all  I  have  to  do  is  to  take 
a  clearance  card  or  a  traveling  card  and  go  to  Chicago,  and  without  the  pay- 
ment of  one  cent  of  money  I  can  become  a  member,  a  full-fledged  member  of 
the  local  there,  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  a  man  who  is  a  resident  of 
Chicago ;  and  that  applies  to  all  trades.  All  trades  have  what  is  called  a  clear- 
ance card  or  a  traveling  card,  and  all  the  members  have  to  do  is,  when  they 
go  into  another  city,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  another  local,  to  just  pay  the  same 
amount  of  monthly  dues,  and  that  would  be  known  as  a  home  card  for  the 
party. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  That  applies  to  all  the  building  trades  in  the  country 
and  in  all  the  cities  in  the  country? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  To  all  the  building  trades  and  in  all  the  cities.  In  my  own 
particular  trade  I  can  go  to  any  city  in  the  country  and  become  a  full-fledged 
member  with  all  privileges,  without  paying  one  additional  cent  of  money.  Then 
of  course  there  are  death  benefits  and  sick  benefits,  and  in  some  cases  the  loss 
of  tools  is  covered  by  benefits,  and  there  are  out-of-work  benefits. 


680         REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Have  all  the  unions  the  same  provisions  in  that  re- 
gard ? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes.  I  might  explain  to  the  commission  the  full  meaning  of 
that.  I  may  be  mistaken,  but  if  you  do  understand  it  will  not  hurt.  I  do  not 
think  you  understand  the  full  meaning  of  what  a  building-trades  union  means. 

Mr.  BALLARD.  No ;  we  would  be  glad  to  have  it  explained. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  The  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  the  basis,  of  course,  of 
all  trades.  There  are,  of  course,  a  few  organizations  outside  of  the  field  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  but  they  comprise  all  industries.  In  their  an- 
nual convention,  where  they  legislated  supposedly  for  the  benefit  of  the  differ- 
ent trades,  it  was  found  that  matters  pertaining  to  the  building  trades  could  not 
be  adequately  taken  up  and  covered,  and  therefore  it  was  decided  by  the  build- 
ing-trades men  themselves  that  in  order  to  more  thoroughly  cover  their  own 
industry  they  would  establish  themselves  in  a  department ;  but  it  practically  is 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  But  in  order  to  properly  carry  out  the  work 
particularly  covered  by  building  trades  they  determined  that  they  would  have 
a  department  of  building  trades. 

All  the  building  trades  in  this  country  are  affiliated,  with  the  exception  of  the 
bricklayer,  who  is  not  affiliated  with  any  organization  in  this  country.  Just  at 
present  the  large  organization  of  carpenters,  owing  to  an  internal  matter,  has 
seen  fit  to  withdraw,  but  they  of  course  are  still  members  of  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor.  Of  these  different  internationals  of  the  different  trades  there 
are  19.  There  would  be  20  building  trades  in  the  country  without  counting  the 
bricklayers.  Counting  the  bricklayers,  there  would  be  21,  but  we  are  not  count- 
ing the  bricklayers.  These  organizations  meet  in  convention  immediately  after 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  convention,  and,  of  course,  they  are  a  legis- 
lative body,  the  same  as  the  American  Federation  of  Labor;  they  are  repre- 
sented by  delegates  from  the  international  unions,  and  they  establish  laws  for 
the  benefit  of  the  building  trades,  you  see.  In  order  to  properly  carry  out  the 
full  meaning  of  this  in  the  different  cities  of  the  United  States  they  establish 
local  councils  of  unions  of  the  internationals.  For  instance,  in  Chicago  there 
would  be  unions  representing  every  one  of  these  internationals.  In  other  words, 
there  would  be  19  different  crafts  represented  in  the  Chicago  council;  but  in 
the  Pittsburgh  council,  you  see,  or  in  the  Washington  council,  in  this  city — and 
they  are  all  affiliated  with  the  department,  of  which  we  have  our  headquarters 
in  Washington — they  do  not  themselves  legislate.  It  is  the  international  unions 
that  meet  in  convention  that  legislate.  The  locals  of  the  councils  are  supposed 
to  carry  out  the  laws  that  are  enacted  at  the  convention,  and  the  department 
issues  a  universal  building-trades  card  to  all  these  different  local  councils. 

So  if  you  hear  the  term  "  local  council,"  it  must  not  be  confused  with  the  de- 
partment as  a  national  body,  although  they  are  all  affiliated. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  That  is  awfully  interesting,  but  I  think  all  of  us 
have  gotten  more  or  less  away  from  the  question  before  us,  which  is  arbitration 
and  conciliation,  and  the  time  is  getting  so  short  I  am  afraid  we  shall  have  to 
go  on  and  confine  ourselves  to  that. 

Commissioner  Delano  has  some  questions  he  wants  to  ask. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  want  to  be  sure  I  understood  Mr.  Williams  on  one 
question.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  the  bulk  of  the  difficulties  were  settled 
by  a  board  of  five  men  on  each  side. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  is,  in  a  locality. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  In  a  locality? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes ;  in  a  city.     That  does  not  apply  nationally. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  What  happens  if  that  board  is  deadlocked  or  is  even? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  The  argument  against  an  even  board,  of  course,  is  that  you 
may  get  a  deadlock. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Does  that  happen? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Not  very  often ;  but  when  it  does,  and  there  happens  to  be  a 
local  building-trades  council,  they  apply  to  that  council  to  appoint  a  committee. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Then  what  does  that  committee  do?  Do  you  mean  an 
odd-numbered  committee? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes;  possibly  a  committee  of  three.  But  it  seldom  or  never 
happens  just  in  a  local  affair  in  that  way.  Of  course,  when  they  do  not  agree, 
I  am  sorry  to  say,  then  there  is  a  strike. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  the  way  they  finally  adjust  it? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  is  where  the  strikes  start  from.  For  instance,  when  a 
scale  between  a  local  union  and  its  employers  expires  and  they  meet,  say,  a 
month  or  two  months  before  the  expiration  to  draw  up  a  new  one,  and  they 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  681 

finally  fail  to  agree,  unless  some  extraordinary  efforts  are  made  on  the  part  of 
the  local  council  there  is  a  strike  on  the  part  of  the  union. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Thompson  would  naturally  think  that  the  way  to 
solve  that  would  be  to  have  an  umpire.  Why  do  you  not  have  an  umpire? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  In  local  matters  covering  local  unions  they  have  not,  as  a  rule, 
reached  that  point  where  they  even  think  of  appointing  an  umpire.  It  is  too 
bad  that  they  should  have  to  resort  to  the  strike,  but  it  is  done. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  How  do  you  feel  about  it? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  It  all  depends  upon  who  your  umpire  would,  be ;  not  whether 
his  name  may  be  Mr.  Smith  or  Mr.  Brown — I  do  not  mean  it  in  that  way — but 
I  mean  whether  he  would  be  wrhat  would  be  considered  really  somewhat  com- 
petent to  judge  of  the  matters  in  dispute. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  heard  what  Mr.  Eidlitz  said  about  it.  He  ap- 
parently thought  that  it  was  necessary  to  have  on  odd  man. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Well,  I  am  applying  this  particularly  to  a  local  union,  not 
to  a  combination  of  unions  or  a  combination  of  employers,  where  the  problem 
would  be  a  little  harder  to  solve.  A  local  union  can  know  their  own  particular 
needs  so  well,  and  their  employers  in  that  particular  industry  also  know  their 
own  needs  so  well  that  they  are  generally  able  to  adjust  matters  without  the 
need  of  an  outside  man. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  What  do  you  mean  by  "generally;"  what  percentage 
of  the  time? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  should  say  85  per  cent.  Take  a  dispute  with  a  local  union 
in  drawing  up  a  scale.  There  is  where  the  principal  conflict  comes  in,  in  draw- 
ing up  the  terms  of  a  scale  or  agreement  for  that  particular  local  union.  I 
would  say  there  it  was  about  80  per  cent.  I  would  say  in  most  cases,  or  in  80 
per  cent  of  the  cases. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  We  have  had  very  contradictory  evidence  on  just  this 
point.  The  suggestion  has  been  made  that  if  you  had  in  the  background  an 
umpire  who  would  be  called  in  in  case  of  the  ten  men  failing  to  agree,  it  would 
cause  the  10  men  to  agree.  Others  have  said  that  if  you  had  a  man  in  the 
background,  it  would  cause  a  disagreement,  because  the  temptation  would  be 
to  pass  the  buck  to  him;  to  "  make  him  the  goat,"  was  the  actual  expression,  I 
think.  How  does  that  work  in  practice? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  As  it  would  apply  to  what  I  have  heretofore  called — and  I 
have  to  repeat  the  term — a  local  union  matter — I  have  had  very  little  experi- 
ence of  the  necessity  of  having  an  umpire.  It  is  all  right  in  general  matters, 
but  not  where  local  unions  are  concerned. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  If  that  is  all,  we  are  obliged  to  you. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ME.  EDWARD  A.  CRANE. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Crane,  will  you  state  your  name,  residence,  and  occupa- 
tion? 

Mr.  CRANE.  Edward  A.  Crane,  Philadelphia,  Pa. ;  an  architect. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Did  you  receive  a  communication  from  the  commission  stat- 
ing the  purposes  of  this  meeting,  or  not? 

Mr.  CRANE.  Yes ;  at  the  very  last  moment.  I  came  here  very  hurriedly.  I 
received  a  telephone  message  asking  me  if  I  would  come,  from  the  American 
Institute  of  Architects,  and  received  the  note  on  the  way  from  my  office  to  the 
train.  I  did  not  read  it  until  I  was  on  the  train. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  With  reference  to  the  question  of  collective  bargaining;  that 
is  to  say,  bargaining  between  the  employees  as  a  body  and  the  single  employer, 
or  the  employers  as  a  body,  have  you  had  any  experience? 

Mr.  CRANE.  I  can  not  say  that  I  have  had  any  particular  experience  in  that 
way.  An  architect  is  not  apt  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  employment  of 
labor. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes;  I  understand  that,  but  does  not  the  architect  have  a 
great  deal  to  do  with  that  question  in  the  building  trade  when  strikes  occur, 
where  there  is  a  possibility  of  trouble? 

Mr.  CRANE.  Well,  his  dealings  in  that  respect  are  with  the  general  contractor, 
who  is  the  man  who  is  having  the  trouble.  He  does  not  really  come  in  contact 
with  the  labor  side  of  the  thing.  That  is,  it  is  only  occasionally  with  some  one 
architect  who  may  be  tremendously  interested  in  that  thing,  but  he  might  go 
outside  of  the  straight  professional  practice  and  mix  in. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  is  not  the  architect  frequently  called  in,  in  connection 
with  the  supervision  of  building  work? 

Mr.  CRANE.  I  never  saw  such  a  case. 


682          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  lias  he  not  the  power,  under  the  contract,  in  case  there 
is  a  strike  on  the  building,  to  see  what  the  cause  is,  and  has  he  not  also  the 
authority  to  try  and  adjudicate  the  matter  and  bring  the  parties  together? 

Mr.  CRANE.  I  have  never  seen  a  contract  in  the  East,  on  a  big  building  opera- 
tion, drawn  in  that  way. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  in  your  practice  you  have  not  come  in  contact  with 
these  troubles  nor  have  you  seen  the  operation  of  the  trade  agreements? 

Mr.  CRANE.  I  never  have.  I  realized  that  I  would  be  a  very  poor  witness  for 
you  when  I  was  coming  down  on  the  train  and  read  the  letter,  because  I 
appreciated  that  I  knew  very  little  about  the  matters. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  observed  these  matters?  Have  you  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  observing  the  use  and  the  effect  of  contracts  between  bodies  of 
workers  and  an  employer  or  bodies  of  employers? 

Mr.  CRINE.  Not  enough  to  be  a  good  witness.    I  may  perhaps  have. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  experience  have  you  had  and  what  observations  have 
you  made? 

Mr.  CRANE.  I,  perhaps,  have  been  very  fortunate,  because  I  have  had  a  very 
broad  experience  in  very  large  building  operations  and  never  have  had  a  strike 
on  any  of  the  buildings  going  on,  except  in  minor  contracts. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  had  any  contracts  with  the  workmen? 

Mr.  CRANE.  No,  sir;  I  have  never  had  any  contracts  with  the  workingmen, 
nor  seen  them,  nor  had  anything  to  do  with  them. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Therefore  you  have  never  seen  them  operate,  and  you  do  not 
know  how  they  settled  disputes  and  prevented  them,  or  anything  else? 

Mr.  CRANE.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  doubt  if  it  would  be  possible  to  find  another  architect  that 
could  say  as  much. 

Mr.  CRANE.  Although  I  have  lived  in  Philadelphia,  my  work  has  been  very 
little  in  Philadelphia.  It  has  been  all  over  the  country. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  It  does  seem  to  me,  although  Mr.  Crane  seems  to  have 
had  a  very  fortunate  experience,  that  he  could  help  us  a  little  more  than  he  is 
willing  to  say.  He  is  perhaps  too  modest ;  but  he  certainly  has  had  opportuni- 
ties to  observe  many  of  these  things. 

Perhaps  your  freedom  from  strikes  has  been  due  to  the  fact  that  you  have 
dealt  with  certain  contractors  who  are  freer  from  labor  troubles  than  other 
contractors.  Have  you  avoided  contractors  who  are  notorious  in  any  way  for 
getting  in  trouble? 

Mr.  CRANE.  I  think,  perhaps,  that  my  freedom  from  that  sort  of  thing  is 
owing  to  the  fact  that  my  firm  have  done  a  great  deal  of  public  work  that  has 
been  rather  freer  from  strikes  than  commercial  work  would  be.  It  has  just 
happened  that  way.  My  work  has  been  scattered  over  the  country  and  luis 
been  of  a  public  character. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is,  neither  contractor  nor  union  would  be  very 
likely  to  have  any  trouble  with  any  of  Uncle  Sam's  wrork? 

Mr.  CRANE.  No ;  not  one  of  their  buildings,  for  instance. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  say  your  work  has  not  been  confined  to  Phila- 
delphia? 

Mr.  CRANE.  No,  sir ;  it  has  been  scattered  all  over  the  country,  pretty  widely. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Is  Philadelphia  pretty  free  from  building  strikes? 

Mr.  CRANE.  If  you  ask  me  that  question,  I  would  say  there  have  not  been 
any  strikes  which  have  come  to  my  attention,  of  any  importance,  for  several 
years.  Of  course,  there  must  be  strikes  going  on  there,  but  they  must  be  of 
minor  importance  as  far  as  tying  things  up  is  concerned. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Then,  you  have  not  had  much  trouble  with  jurisdic- 
tional  strikes  there,  which  are  so  injurious  in  other  cities? 

Mr.  CRANE.  No.  I  know  there  was  some  question  about  the  carpenters  there 
a  comparatively  short  time  ago,  but  it  was  not  a  matter  that  came  before  me 
in  any  way. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Has  it  come  to  your  attention  at  all  that  those  con- 
tractors who  have  had  contracts  with  their  laborers  along  the  lines  that  have 
been  outlined  have  had  less  trouble  than  others?  Would  that  come  to  your 
attention? 

Mr.  CRANE.  That  would  hardly  have  come  to  my  attention.  That  would  have 
been  just  the  one  particular  building  on  which  they  were  \vorking  at  the  time. 

Commissioner  HAERIMAN.  We  thank  you  very  much  for  coming,  Mr.  Crane. 
Is  there  any  one  else  to  be  heard? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No.    Mr.  Alpine  and  Mr.  Dobson  could  not  be  here. 

(At  5.30  o'clock  p.  m.  an  adjournment  was  taken.) 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  683 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Thursday,  April  9, 
The  commission  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  in  the  assembly  room  of  the  Shore- 

ham  Hotel. 

Present:  Commissioners  John  R.  Commons  (acting  chairman),  Mrs.  J.  Bor- 

den  Harriman,  Frederic  A.  Delano,  Harris  Weinstock,   S.  Thruston  Ballard, 

John  B.  Lennon,  and  James  O'Connell. 
Present  also  for  the  commission  :  Mr.  W.  O.  Thompson,  counsel  ;  Mr.  W.  Jett 

Lauck,   managing   expert;   Mr.   George  E.   Barnett,   special   investigator;   Mr. 

B.  M.  Manly,  superintendent  Division  of  Industrial  Investigations;   and  Mr. 

F.  H.  Bird,  superintendent  Division  of  Public  Agencies. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  CHARLES  FRANCIS. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Mr.  Francis,  please  state  your  name  and  address. 

Mr.  FKANCIS.  Charles  Francis,  Nyack,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  What  is  your  official  position  with  the  Printers'  League  of 
America  ? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  am  president  of  the  national,  and  also  of  the  New  York  local. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Will  you  tell  the  commission  when  the  Printers'  League  of 
America  was  organized,  and  what  are  its  purposes? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  It  was  organized  in  November,  1906. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  What  are  the  purposes  of  the  league? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  There  are  only  two  or  three  paragraphs,  which  will  best  ex- 
plain its  purposes.  The  purposes  of  this  league  is  to  abolish  —  in  the  printing 
and  allied  trades  —  the  system  of  making  individual  labor  contracts  and  to  in- 
troduce the  more  equitable  system  of  forming  collective  labor  contracts. 

The  special  object:  It  is  also  the  object  of  this  league  to  establish,  in  con- 
Junction  with  the  representatives  of  the  employees'  unions,  the  necessary  organ 
for  collective  negotiations,  and  to  defend  the  common  interests  of  the  em- 
ployers, members  thereof. 

Furthermore,  to  do  what  is  possible  to  establish  local  and  national  trade 
courts  for  the  adjustment  of  all  points  of  dispute  under  existing  contracts  ;  to 
prevent,  by  mutual  consultation  and  conciliation,  all  strikes  and  strife  between 
the  employer  and  the  employee,  and,  as  a  means  thereof,  to  use  the  methods 
embodied  in  sections  1  and  2,  and  to  make  agreements,  or,  if  impossible  to 
harmonize  any  matter,  it  shall  be  arbitrated  by  an  expert  or  experts  in  the 
business  who  is  not  —  or  are  not  at  the  time  —  interested,  the  decision  of  such 
arbitrator  or  arbitrators  to  be  binding  on  all  the  parties  thereto.  To  formu- 
late or  put  into  action  a  council  on  adjustment  and  redress  for  the  equitable 
and  intelligent  settling  of  all  grievances  of  whatsoever  nature  arising  between 
the  employers  and  the  employees,  or  between  the  employers  only  who  are 
members  of  the  Printers'  League  of  America;  such  council  to  be  known  as  a 
trade  court  or  as  a  court  of  honor  ;  the  manner  of  formation  to  be  determined 
by  the  local  branch  affected,  at  a  regular  or  special  meeting,  which  will  appoint 
a  committee  to  confer  with  the  employees,  unions,  who  are  parties  to  any 
agreement  made,  their  acts  to  be  sanctioned  by  their  respective  organizations 
to  which  the  committees  belong,  and  to  be  binding  upon  such  organization. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  State  briefly  about  what  you  regard  as  the  fundamental  and 
iliar  principles  of  the  printers'  league,  as  distinguished  from  other  similar 
organizations  of  the  printing-trade  employers. 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  The  fundamental  principle  of  the  Printers'  League  is  that  your 
employees  are  much  better  to  work  with  you  than  for  you.  In  other  words,  it  is 
a  question  of  friendly  relations  between  the  employer  and  the  employee  ;  and  to 
accomplish  that  we  go  down  into  the  unions'  rooms  and  consult  and  talk  with 
them  in  making  our  contracts.  I  will  make  allusion  to  one  special  contract  with 
what  they  call  the  Big  Six  in  New  York.  We  got  together  with  their  officers 
and  formulated  a  contract.  After  that  contract  was  formulated  we  asked  for 
an  open  meeting  with  their  union  to  put  that  contract  into  force.  When  they 
met  to  confirm  that  contract  there  were  between  1,500  and  2,000  members  of  the 
union  in  the  hall  and  7  of  us  employers  on  the  platform.  Naturally,  there  were 
some  very  strong  speeches  made  against  that  contract,  but  with  the  counteract- 
ing influence  of  the  employers  on  the  platform,  the  contract  was  finally  carried 
by  unanimous  consent,  not  a  single  vote  dissenting. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  How  many  branches  of  the  Printers'  League  of  America  are 
there  at  the  present  time? 

Mr.  FBANCIS.  There  are  two  in  New  York  —  a  Jewish  and  an  English;  and, 
then,  Cincinnati,  Toledo,  Cleveland,  Chicago,  St.  Louis,  and  Spokane. 


684          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  What  percentage  of  the  employing  printers  in  the  job  trade  in 
New  York  are  in  the  league? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  That  is  pretty  hard  to  state — except  you  mean  in  regard  to 
equipment  ? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Yes ;  I  mean  in  regard  to  the  number  of  men  employed  in  the 
book-and-job  branch.  What  part  of  the  men  employed  in  the  book-and-job 
branch  does  that  include? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  We  have  something  over  10,000  men  in  the  shops  that  are  in  the 
league. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  many  men  are  employed  in  the  book-and-job  trade  in  New 
York? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  should  say  nearly  twice  that  number. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  half  the  employing  printers  in  New  York  City — that  is, 
those  employing  half  the  men — are  members  of  the  league? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Employing  half  the  number  of  men  in  New  York;  yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Are  you  equally  strong  in  the  other  cities  in  which  you  have 
branches? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes ;  in  those  cities  where  they  are  organized. 

Mr.  BARNETT.   Where  you  have  branches? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Roughly,  in  the  cities  where  you  are  organized,  you  have  about 
half  of  the  employing  printers,  estimating  according  to  the  number  of  men 
employed  ? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.   In  Chicago  more. 

Mr.  BARNETT.   In  Chicago  more  than  that? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.   Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  is  the  character  of  the  local  agreements  which  your 
organization  makes  with  the  local  unions  of  the  printing  trade? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.   I  have  them  here. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  mean,  will  you  give  us  the  salient  features? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  The  salient  features  are  that  we  formulate  a  contract  with 
them  for  the  purpose  of  consultation  and  conciliation  and  final  arbitration  of 
any  question  that  may  come  up — any  kind  of  difference. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  have  a  contract  in  New  York  with  Big  Six? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.   Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Does  that  contract  exclude  from  the  scope  of  arbitration  the 
laws  of  the  International  Typographical  Union? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes ;  in  so  far  as  the  local  contract  is  concerned. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  any  rule  regulating  working  conditions  enacted  by  the 
convention  of  the  International  Typographical  Union  becomes  automatically 
binding  on  your  members  so  far  as  they  employ  printers  ? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  that  included  in  your  contract  with  the  pressmen? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.   It  is  not. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  is  your  arrangement  in  the  contracts  with  the  pressmen 
for  the  settlement  of  rules  relating  to  working  conditions? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  The  national  organization  can  take  up  such  matters  in  the  same 
manner  as  it  does  with  the  local. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  heard  Mr.  Lynch's  testimony  yesterday? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.   Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  heard  Mr.  Lynch  testify  that  in  his  opinion  it  was  better 
for  the  working  conditions  in  the  shop,  outside  of  hours  and  wages,  to  be 
settled  by  the  international  union  concerned  and  not  by  conference  writh  the 
employers.  He  thought  that  the  unions  are  ordinarily  fair  in  these  matters 
and  that  that  was  the  better  method  of  arranging.  Do  you  agree  with  Mir. 
Lynch  in  that  opinion? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  agree  with  him  in  the  fact  that  he  believes  that  they  are 
ordinarily  fair,  and  I  should  say  they  are,  but  I  do  not  agree  with  him  in  the 
fact  that  there  should  be  no  consultation  with  the  employers. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  the  members  of  your  league  have  any  complaint  to  make 
against  any  of  the  laws  or  rules  of  the  International  Typographical  Union  now 
in  force  in  their  shops? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes ;  on  some  matters  they  do. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  matters? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  should  have  to  go  into  a  great  deal  of  discussion  on  that 
proposition. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Does  the  priority  law  affect  the  book  and  job  shops? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  685 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  the  exchange  of  matrices  does  not  affect  them? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Very  little. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Does  the  rule  relating  to  the  discharge  of  men  affect  the  book 
and  job  shops? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  It  is  very  much  overlooked.  It  is  not  carried  out  to  any  ma- 
terial extent  at  all. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  at  the  present  time  these  rules  of  the  International 
Typographical  Union  are  chiefly  rules  intended  for  newspaper  offices,  are  they? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  That  is  so. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  the  fact  that  they  insist  on  compliance  with  those 
rules  without  conference  does  not  really  militate  very  much  against  your 
making  agreements  with  them? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  But  you  can  conceive  that  it  might  at  some  future  time  be 
a  matter  of  controversy? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes;  it  might  at  some  future  time. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  on  the  whole  you  would  feel  that  the  better  method 
was  the  method  which  you  have  adopted  in  your  agreement  with  the  pressmen? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Decidedly  so. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  have  also,  in  addition  to  those  local  contracts,  an  agree- 
ment with  the  pressmen's  international  union,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Will  you  describe  the  salient  features  of  that  agreement  ? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  It  is  exactly  the  same  as  the  objects  which  I  spoke  of  in 
regard  to  the  league.  It  is  the  settlement  of  all  questions  by  consultation, 
conciliation,  and  final  arbitration. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  is  this  specifically  done?  Suppose  there  is  a  dispute 
in  an  office  of  a  member  of  the  Printers'  League.  How  is  that  dispute  ar- 
ranged? What  is  the  first  step  under  your  agreement  with  the  international 
pressmen  ? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  think  I  should  like  to  go  into  a  little  explanation  of  that 
proposition,  because  it  will  give  some  information  on  the  whole  proposition. 

In  the  first  place,  in  our  contract  the  business  agent,  who  has  been  a  thorn 
in  the  side  of  the  employer  for  a  good  many  years,  is  not  allowed  to  go  into 
any  of  the  offices  without  permission  of  the  employer.  That  is  an  agreement. 
When  he  does  get  in  by  permission  and  he  finds  something  wrong  in  the  office — 
of  course  he  has  the  chairman  of  the  chaple  there  to  take  care  of  the  union 
side  exclusive  of  the  business  agent — when  he  gets  in  there  and  finds  some- 
thing wrong  his  proceeding  is  to  go  down  to  the  union  rooms  and  write  to  the 
executive  committee  of  the  local  printers'  league  making  his  complaint.  The 
executive  committee  immediately  takes  it  up,  and  if  they  decide  in  favor  of 
the  employers  and  he  still  thinks  he  has  a  grievance  it  is  then  referred  to  the 
conference  committee,  the  conference  committee  consisting  of  three  employers 
and  three  employees.  That  provides  for  an  arbitrator  should  it  be  necessary. 

We  have  been  in  existence  in  New  York  for  eight  years  with  four  unions, 
and  in  the  whole  of  that  time  we  have  only  found  it  necessary  to  go  to  arbitra- 
tion twice.  A  full  account  of  one  of  these  arbitrations  is  right  here. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  suggest  that  you  file  one  with  the  reporter. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Very  well. 

(A  report  of  the  arbitration  was  filed  with  the  official  reporter.) 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  there  any  provision  for  national  arbitration? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes;  but  so  far  it  has  not  been  necessary. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  The  provision  is  in  case  the  two  sides  are  not  able,  I  presume, 
to  select  a  local  arbitrator,  then  to  go  to  the  national  arbitrator? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  In  exactly  the  same  way. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Would  either  side  have  the  right  to  appeal  to  the  national 
board  of  arbitration  if  it  was  dissatisfied  with  the  findings  of  the  local 
arbitrator? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  have  had  two  arbitrations  in  New  York? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Two  local  arbitrations  in  New  York. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Did  either  side  appeal? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  No;  not  at  all.  They  were  both  well  satisfied  with  the  de- 
cisions. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  kind  of  persons  do  you  get  to  serve  as  arbitrators? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  think  that  is  the  secret  of  the  success  of  the  arbitration. 
We  aim  to  have  somebody  who  is  acquainted  with  the  conditions  in  the  busi- 


686          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

ness;  in  other  words,  some  one  who  is  practical  in  the  business.  This  is  the 
first  arbitration.  We  did  so  with  the  cylinder-press  feeders  of  New  York. 
The  man  unanimously  chosen  was  president  of  No.  6,  compositors'  union, 
Mr.  Murphy.  His  decision  was  eminently  satisfactory.  If  you  desire,  I  will 
describe  the  contest. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Yes;  I  wish  you  would. 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  The  contest  was  as  to  whether  one  man  or  two  men  should 
run  the  feeding  machines  on  two  cylinder  presses.  The  union  claimed  that 
there  should  be  one  man  to  each  press.  We  claimed  it  was  not  necessary  to 
have  more  than  one  man  to  two  presses.  The  decision  was  that  while  one 
man  could  run  two  presses  he  should  be  entitled  to  a  little  more  pay  for 
running  two  presses  than  for  running  one,  so  that  it  was  decided  that  while  he 
was  running  a  single  press  that  he  should  get  $16  a  week,  and  where  he  was 
running  two  he  should  get  $18  a  week.  That  decision  was  eminently  satis- 
factory to  both  sides. 

I  will  just  state,  incidentally,  that  one'  gentleman  who  was  on  the  outside, 
not  in  the  agreement,  tried  to  enforce  the  decision  of  our  arbitrator  in  his  own 
office.  He  had  some  32  cylinder  presses,  which  made  a  difference  of  16  men 
to  him.  The  union  would  not  allow  him  to  do  that.  They  said  their  rules  were 
one  man  to  a  cylinder  press.  He  very  soon  became  a  members  of  the  Printers' 
League  of  America  and  saved  $10,000  a  year. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Do  pressmen  continue  in  New  York  to  enforce  their  rule  on 
outside  printers? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  That  is  a  different  rule  from  that  enforced  with  the  Printers' 
League? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  Yes.  They  claim  they  go  to  an  arbitration  with  the  league 
as  an  idividual  contract  with  the  league;  that  is,  it  does  not  apply  to  anybody 
who  is  not  a  member  of  the  league. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Who  was  the  arbitrator  in  the  other  case? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  He  was  a  former  employer,  Mr.  Willett. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  What  was  the  case?    That  is,  with  what  trade  was  it? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  It  was  with  the  same  people. 

Mr.   BAENETT.  With   the   pressmen? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  This  was  the  arbitration  which  I  have  filed.  It  gives  the  whole 
question.  That  was  eminently  satisfactory — so  much  so  that  when  the  arbitra- 
tion was  through,  and  before  the  arbitrator  gave  his  word,  the  president  of 
the  union,  who  was  one  of  their  committee,  came  to  me  and  said,  "  Mr.  Francis, 
I  would  not  go  back  to  the  old  plan  for  anything;  you  could  not  get  me  to  go 
back."  He  said,  "This  is  so  much  superior  that  we  would  not  think  of  going 
back." 

Mr.  BAENETT.  So  that  you  do  not  feel  the  same  objection  to  the  employment 
of  arbitrators  which  some  of  the  witnesses  yesterday  expressed? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  Not  at  all.  Some  time  ago  Bishop  Potter  was  employed  in  that 
position,  with  the  printers,  and  made  what  to  him,  no  doubt,  was  a  good  de- 
cision, and  it  was  accepted,  but  it  had  to  be  corrected,  because  he  did  not  know 
the  technicalities  of  the  business.  They  had  to  get  together  afterwards  and 
correct  his  decision.  In  our  case  we  always  try  to  get  somebody  who  knows 
the  conditions,  and  who  will  not  make  technical  mistakes  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  BAENETT.  Have  you  been  equally  well  pleased  with  the  workings  of  the 
agreement  in  other  cities  outside  of  New  York ;  the  other  places  where  you  have 
branches  of  the  league? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  Yes.  But  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  this  is  perfection,  by 
any  manner  pf  means.  We  strike  difficulties  in  this,  as  well  as  in  anything 
else.  For  instance,  the  principal  difficulties  with  such  a  matter  as  this  are  the 
unions  themselves. 

Take,  for  instance,  the  internal  difficulties  in  the  unions.  Take,  for  instance, 
the  politics  in  the  unions.  That  has  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  arbitration 
difficulties  which  we  have.  When  they  are  coming  near  to  an  election,  it  is 
difficult  to  get  anything  through,  or,  if  it  does  go  through,  it  must  be  favorable 
to  the  union,  in  order  to  help  a  reelection. 

Then  they  have  jurisdictional  fights  between  themselves,  with  which  we 
ought  to  have  nothing  whatever  to  do.  Those  also  have  some  effect  on  the 
employer,  incidentally.  For  instance,  the  pressmen  claim  jurisdiction  over 
certain  apprentices,  and  the  press  feeders  authority  under  the  same  inter- 
national jurisdiction,  but  not  under  the  same  local  jurisdiction,  claiming  equal 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  687 

jurisdiction  over  some  particular  position.  In  those  instances  we  generally 
suffer. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  And  sometimes  have  a  strike? 

Mr.  FKANCIS.  No ;  the  only  thing  approaching  a  strike  since  the  Printers' 
League  has  been  in  existence  in  New  York  City  has  been  two  instances  in 
which  the  men  really  got  drunk  and  went  off,  and  their  places  were  supplied 
within  two  hours'  time  after  they  went  out,  by  the  union. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  So  that  you  have  no  complaint  to  make  on  the  score  that  the 
agreement  has  been  violated  through  strikes? 

Mr.  FKANCIS.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Or  cessation  of  work? 

Mr.  FKANCIS.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  The  agreement  provides  that  there  shall  be  no  cessation  of 
work? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  It  provides  that  there  shall  be  no  cessation  of  work,  pending 
the  decision — that  matters  shall  remain  in  status  quo. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  any  cases  been  taken  up  from  the  other  cities  under  the 
pressmen's  agreement,  to  the  international  board  of  arbitration? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  None  of  them. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Has  the  national  board  ever  been  convened? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  No. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  attempted  to  get  any  agreement  with  the  Inter- 
national Typographical  Union  similar  to  the  pressmen's  union? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Why  were  you  not  able  to  make  that  agreement? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  It  was  at  the  convention,  I  think,  in  Minneapolis  four  years 
ago,  but  for  some  reason  Mr.  Lynch  did  not  see  fit  to  put  it  through  at  that 
time.  It  was  put  up  to  him  and  his  executive  committee.  For  some  reason  he 
has  put  off  the  question,  up  to  the  present  time.  We  expect  to  have  that  go 
through  this  yean 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  you  expect  to  have  him  allow  claims  to  go  to  adjudication 
and  settlement  in  all  matters? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  That  is  what  we  expect  to  get  through? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  expect  then  to  get  the  International  Typographical  Union 
to  waive  this  rule  on  which  they  insist  in  other  relations  with  the  publishers? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  That  is  really  the  intimation  you  got  yesterday  from  Mr.  Berry- 
here,  when  Jie  said  they  made  some  difference  on  account  of  the  broad  princi- 
ples of  the  Printers'  League. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  hope  the  International  Typographical  Union  will  make  a 
similar  agreement? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Has  that  been  the  chief  difficulty  in  getting  through  this 
arrangement,  as  you  understand  it — the  reluctance  of  the  union? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  No;  I  think  the  chief  difficulty  came  from  the  fact  of  the  ex- 
planation which  Mr.  Lynch  gave  you  yesterday  about  the  difficulty  of  the  odd 
man.  He  wanted  to  get  that  settled  with  the  American  Newspaper  Associa- 
tion before  he  began  negotiations  with  us.  I  think  that  has  been  the  principal 
cause  of  the  delay. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  think  that  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Francis,  I  understood  you  to  say  that  your 
league  deals  with  four  different  classes  or  subtrades  of  the  general  printing 
trade? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  How  many  other  subtrades  are  there  in  the  general 
trade  with  which  you  do  not  deal? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  We  have  no  contract  with  the  engravers. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  the  only  one? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  There  is  the  contract  with  the  electrotypers,  but  not  connected 
with  the  league.  It  is  a  league  contract,  but  it  is  not  connected  with  our 
league. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Unfortunately  I  did  not  hear  all  of  the  testimony 
yesterday,  but  there  has  been  a  good  deal  of  testimony  before  the  commission 
for  and  against  this  proposition  of  an  odd  man.  That  is  what  we  call  the  um- 
pire or  referee.  Some  take  the  position  that  having  a  referee  in  the  back- 
ground tends  to  result  in  harmony  between  the  two  sides  of  the  faction,  because 
those  two  sides  realize  that  the  referee  will  come  in  if  they  do  not  settle  it. 


688          KEPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Others  take  just  the  reverse  position,  that  having  a  referee  in  the  background 
has  the  effect  of  postponing  harmony,  because  they  feel  that  the  matter  can 
be  referred  to  a  referee,  and  he  will  be  made  the  "  goat,"  as  was  the  expression 
used. 

I  would  like  to  have  an  explanation  from  you  as  to  how  you  think  that  works ; 
which  view  of  the  thing  is  correct. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  In  a  sense  I  think  they  are  both  correct,  but  I  think  that  the 
mistake  comes  in  not  having  the  right  man  as  the  referee. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  How  do  you  secure  the  right  man?  Do  you  secure 
him  in  advance  of  trouble ;  do  yon  name  him  at  the  beginning  of  the  year,  for 
instance,  not  knowing  just  what  is  coming  up,  or  do  you  wait  until  you  get  an 
acute  situation  and  select  the  referee? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  We  wait  until  we  find  that  we  can  not  agree  by  conciliation. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Supposing  one  side  insists  on  one  man  or  group  of 
men,  and  the  other  side  will  not  accept  that  man  or  group  of  men,  but  insists 
on  an  entirely  different  group  of  men ;  do  you  have  a  deadlock  on  that  question? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  We  have  not  deadlocked  so  far.  We  have  been  unanimous  in 
our  selection. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Unanimous? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  And  in  one  case  you  will  notice  it  was  a  union  man,  and  in  the 
other  case  an  employer. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Is  there  any  rule  for  the  selection?  Does  one  side 
or  the  other  agree  that  it  will  select  some  one  of  a  number  of  men  that  have 
been  chosen  or  named  by  the  other  side? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Both  sides  put  up  names,  until  we  can  agree  by  a  process  of 
elimination  to  decide  upon  some  one  man. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Do  you  find  that  when  a  man  has  once  decided  against 
either  side,  he  is  ever  acceptable  again  as  an  umpire  or  referee? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  We  have  not  had  such  a  decision. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  They  were  compromises,  were  they  not? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Satisfactory  to  both  sides? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Usually  compromises  are  unsatisfactory  to  both  sides. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  In  these  two  cases  they  were  perfectly  satisfactory  to  both 
sides. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Mr.  Francis,  is  there  any  agreement  on  the  part  of 
the  employers  or  employees  that  either  side  will  not  work  men  in  any  otiher 
association  who  are  not  members  of  either  of  those  two  associations?  Can 
the  union  men  work  for  anybody  who  is  not  a  member  of  either  association? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Oh,  yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Can  your  association  employ  anybody  it  pleases,  or 
must  it  employ  union  men? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  They  agree  to  employ  union  men. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Will  union  men  who  work  for  the  association  handle 
nonunion  material? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Just  let  me  finish  my  answer.  We  agree  to  employ  union  men, 
but  the  union  must  provide  us  writh  men  who  are  proficient  in  the  business.  • 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Will  they  handle  nonunion  material? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Were  you  here  yesterday,  Mr.  Francis,  when  Mr. 
Frey,  of  the  Molders'  Union,  testified? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  remember  the  attitude  he  took  toward  arbi- 
tration? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  thought  it  was  not  conducive  to  the  best  re- 
sults, and  that  the  wisest  plan  was  to  endeavor  to  adjust  difficulties  through 
conciliation,  and  that  if  conciliation  failed,  he  regarded  a  strike  as  a  lesser 
evil  than  arbitration.  Are  you  in  accord  with  that  view? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  am  entirely  against  it.  I  am  absolutely  opposed  to  strikes 
and  lockouts. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think  if  arbitration  is  an  evil,  it  is  a  lesser 
evil  than  strikes  or  lockouts? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Decidedly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  As  an  employer,  would  you,  if  you  could,  abolish 
the  unions? 


TRADE   AGKEEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  689 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  No. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Why  not?  Would  it  not  give  you  more  latitude? 
Would  you  not  be  freer?  With  unions  in  the  field,  are  you  not  more  or  less 
straight-jacketed? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  A  gentleman  once  said  to  me,  who  was  running  along  the  same 
vein  as  your  question,  when  there  was  a  strike  on  in  New  York,  "  You  ought 
to  be  very  well  satisfied."  He  said,  "  You  only  have  one  union  to  deal  with, 
whereas  I  have  a  union  in  every  man  that  is  in  the  shop." 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Is  it  not  easier  to  handle  the  one  man,  if  he  is  a 
union  unto  himself,  than  it  is  to  handle  a  multitude  of  men,  if  they  are  united? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  think  not.  The  principle  of  the  whole  proposition  is  the  ques- 
tion of  humanity,  the  question  of  making  these  men  understand  that  you  are 
doing  the  very  best  you  can  for  them  honestly  and  that  you  expect  them  to  do 
the  best  they  can  by  you.  In  other  words,  as  they  put  it,  they  want  a  square 
deal.  If  they  want  a  square  deal,  and  we  are  willing  to  give  it  to  them,  then 
they  should  give  the  employer  a  square  deal  also.  It  is  a  question  that  works 
both  ways. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  as  a  result  of  your  experience  you  believe 
that  from  the  standpoint  of  the  worker  and  the  standpoint  of  the  employer, 
collective  bargaining  is  conducive  to  the  best  results? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  do. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Rather  than  individual  bargaining? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  do. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Have  your  unions — that  is,  the  unions  with  which 
you  deal — always  observed  their  contracts? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  There  have  been  no  instances  of  contract  breaking? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  We  have  had  no  instance  of  contract  breaking. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  have  already  explained  that  the  conditions 
under  which  you  operate  in  New  York  are  different  from  those  in  Boston,  where 
the  employers  have  an  agreement  that  they  are  at  liberty  to  employ  nonunion 
as  well  as  union  men.  In  your  case  you  are  confined  to  union  men? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  As  long  as  the  union  can  supply  us  with  proper  material. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  are  the  relations  existing  between  the 
employers,  your  association,  and  the  unions?  Are  they  cordial  and  friendly, 
or  are  they  hostile? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Decidedly  friendly.  I  would  say  personally,  for  myself,  that  I 
have  been  down  to  the  union  rooms  about  a  hundred  times,  and  that  I  have 
always  been  received  with  the  greatest  cordiality,  and  I  have  been  listened  to 
with  respect,  and  in  many  instances  have  gained  not  only  confidence  and  esteem, 
but  the  points  I  went  to  gain. 

I  would  like  to  mention  one  matter  that  related  to  me  personally,  not  as  a 
member  of  the  league,  or  as  anything  except  an  employer  of  labor.  I  went 
down  to  the  Cylinder  Press  Feeders'  Union  on  one  occasion  where  they  had 
made  an  application  for  a  raise  in  wages,  with  the  intention  of  asking  them  to 
withdraw  their  application  voluntarily.  I  made  my  plea,  and  after  I  got 
through  I  learned  that  I  lost  that  proposition  by  a  majority  of  three,  which 
shows  that  the  employer  has  some  influence  upon  that  kind  of  a  proposition, 
because  from  what  I  knew  when  I  went  into  the  room,  there  was  not  a  man 
there  who  was  in  favor  of  withdrawing  that  application  for  a  raise. 

I  honestly  believe  that  if  I  had  had  two  or  three  other  employers  who 
would  have  backed  up  that  plea  to  them  we  would  have  won  out — that  would 
have  determined  it.  I  showed  them  in  what  condition  it  would  leave  them ;  it 
would  put  them  in  a  position  that  when  they  came  back,  showing  a  considera- 
tion for  the  employer,  it  would  be  very  hard  for  the  employer  to  refuse  them, 
if  they  came  back  in  a  proper  time.  I  will  say  that  they  respond  wonderfully 
to  a  talk  of  that  kind.  If  you  will  tell  them  the  conditions  that  you  have  and 
they  have  confidence  in  what  you  are  telling  them,  they  respond  very  readily.  I 
think  that  the  system  of  education  by  getting  closer  together  with  the  em- 
ployees wTould  have  a  wonderful  effect  on  the  whole  Nation  in  regard  to  its 
relations  between  employer  and  employee. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  take  it,  then,  that  you  have  found  it,  as  the  result 
of  your  experience,  that  far  better  results,  from  the  selfish  standpoint  of  the 
employer,  are  to  be  obtained  by  working  with  the  unions  rather  than  fighting 
the  unions? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Decidedly  so.    I  do  not  think  there  is  any  comparison. 

38819°— 16 44 


690          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  if  you  show  a  readiness  to  recognize  and  deal 
with  them  they  are  likely  to  be  in  a  more  reasonable  frame  of  mind  than  if 
you  show  hostility  and -lead  them  to  feel  that  you  want  to  wipe  them  out? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Decidedly  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Have  you  had  any  difficulty  about  the  problem  of 
limited  output? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Never. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  there  any  restriction  placed  upon  your  men  as 
to  output? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Not  that  I  know  of ;  and  I  really  believe  that  it  is  not  true,  so 
far  as  we  are  concerned. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  am  a  layman  in  the  printing  business,  and  so  I 
am  not  familiar  with  the  technicalities ;  but  are  your  people  paid  by  piecework 
or  by  day  wage? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  Almost  entirely  by  day  wage  at  the  present  time.  Piecework  is 
almost  abolished. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Have  you  any  means  of  measuring  a  man's  work, 
as  to  whether  he  is  earning  his  wage  or  not? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes ;  in  a  sense  we  have,  especially  in  the  pressrooms. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  you  can  easily  distinguish  the  fit  from  the 
unfit  by  results? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  In  my  place  I  have  a  report  from  each  press  three  times  a  day, 
so  that  I  know  pretty  nearly  what  is  being  accomplished  on  that  press;  and, 
naturally,  the  employee  is  the  one  to  look  to  for  results. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  your  union  men  show  loyalty  to  their  em- 
ployers? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  give  the  employer  the  best  they  have  to 
give? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Can  you  discharge  any  of  your  men  at  will,  for 
any  cause? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  I  should  say  yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  you  obliged  to  give  a  reason  for  the  discharge? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  If  the  man  complains  to  the  union,  yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  If,  in  the  judgment  of  the  union,  it  has  not  been 
a  fair  discharge — that  is,  if  there  has  not  been  any  cause  that  in  their  judgment 
would  be  sufficient  to  warrant  his  discharge — can  they  demand  a  reinstatement 
of  the  man? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  It  goes  through  the  usual  process  of  conciliation.  The  com- 
plaint goes  to  the  executive  committee  and  then  to  the  conference  committee. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  it  is  a  question  of  competency,  do  you  have  to 
prove  that  the  man  is  incompetent? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  Not  necessarily. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  it  not  rather  a  difficult  thing  to  do,  to  prove 
a  man's  iucompetency  ? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  Yes ;  it  is  a  difficult  thing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  that  if,  in  your  judgment,  the  man  is  in- 
competent, that  practically  ends  it,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Will  the  union  intervene  in  his  behalf  if  he  has 
been  dismissed  for  intoxication? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  Sometimes  they  will,  but  they  never  get  him  reinstated. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  never  do,  but  they  are  willing  to  intervene 
in  his  behalf? 

Mr.  FEANCIS.  If  it  is  a  question  whether  or  not  he  is  intoxicated. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  question,  sometimes,  as  to  when  a  man  is  in- 
toxicated, has  not  been  legally  decided. 

Commissioner  FRANCIS.  We  have  never  had  any  trouble  on  that  score.  I 
think  if  the  foreman  were  to  say  that  the  man  \vas  intoxicated,  his  word 
would  be  taken  for  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  We  had  quite  a  serious  question  in  the  District 
here,  under  our  new  law,  as  to  when  a  man  is  intoxicated. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes;  I  suppose  that  is  a  difficult  thing  to  de- 
termine, at  times.  I  remember  hearing  of  a  case  in  California  where  a  man 
was  charged  with  crime,  and  the  defense  being  that  he  was  under  the  influence 
of  liquor,  a  brewer  being  called  as  an  expert,  the  question  was  put  to  him,  how 
many  glasses  of  beer  a  man  could  drink  without  getting  drunk,  and  he  said 


TRADE  AGREEMENTS  IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  691 

that  lie  drank  25  or  30,  but  some  men  made. hogs  of  themselves  and  dr,ank  35 
or  40. 

On  the  whole,  Mr.  Francis,  then,  you  feel  that  the  relations  between  your 
association  and  the  unions  are  satisfactory  and  harmonious,  and  you  would  not 
change  the  conditions  if  you  could? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  There  are  some  things  we  would  like  to  change. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  But,  taking  the  situation  as  a  whole 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Taking  the  situation  as  a  whole,  it  is  a  hundred  per  cent  better 
than  it  was  before  the  institution  of  the  league. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Mr.  Francis,  are  the  members  of  the  league  also 
members  of  the  typothetae? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  In  some  instances.    I  am  a  member  of  the  typothetse. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  vice  versa? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  And  vice  versa. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  is  the  essential  difference  between  the  league 
and  the  typothetse? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  The  typothetse  is  an  organization  ostensibly  for  the  building 
up  of  the  printing  business  from  the  business  standpoint.  Originally  it  was 
.formed  for  the  purpose  of  fighting  the  unions.  After  the  strike  of  1906  it  lost 
its  occupation.  In  other  words,  it  was  beaten  out. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  typothetse  was  beaten  out? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  The  typothetse  was  beaten  out,  and  from  that  time  forward 
it  has  gone  into  the  cost  system,  introducing  cost  systems  into  the  different 
offices  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  the  employer  how  to  get  a  profit  out  of  his 
business.  They  have  a  union  and  a  nonunion  branch.  They  have  not  formu- 
lated their  union  branch  at  all,  but  they  have  formulated  their  nonunion 
branch,  and  that  is  in  existence  at  the  present  time.  I  should  say  that  the 
Printers'  League  and  the  typothetse  are  endeavoring  to  get  together,  so  as  to 
make  the  Printers'  League  practically  the  union  branch  of  the  typothetse,  if  we 
can  do  so  without  losing  members,  and  without  interfering  with  the  working 
of  the  league  proposition;  for  the  reason  that  the  typothetse  has  been  in  ex- 
istence for  a  very  much  longer  time  and  has  a  wider  scope  and  a  larger  mem- 
bership. We  have  done  no  organizing,  and  what  has  been  accomplished  by  the 
league  has  just  been  merely  the  natural  growth  from  city  to  city. 

I  have  been  invited  to  different  cities  at  different  times,  and  have  explained 
the  purpose  of  the  league;  and  the  result  has  been  that  the  league  has  been 
formed ;  but  there  has  been  no  general  effort.  I  could  not  give  the  time  to  it, 
because  I  have  business  to  attend  to.  I  have  300  employees  in  my  office. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  the  formation  of  these  two  sections  of  the 
typothetse,  one  portion  is  organized  with  a  view  to  cooperating  with  the  unions, 
and  the  other  is  anti? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  When  a  member  joins  is  he  permitted  to  join 
either  one  of  these  divisions  of  the  typothetse,  or  to  become  a  full  member? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  When  they  formulate  those  divisions.  While  the  constitution 
provides  for  the  formulation  of  a  union  committee,  there  has  been  no  union 
committee  formed  up  to  the  present  time.  There  was  a  change  made  in  the 
constitution  in  Denver,  I  think  it  was  three  years  ago.  Prior  to  that  there 
was  no  regulation  at  all  on  the  question  of  labor.  At  that  time  they  took  up 
this  union  and  nonunion  question  and  changed  their  constitution  so  as  to 
allow  their  members  to  form  an  independent  organization  of  nonunion  and- 
union  branches. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  the  organization  itself  there  is  within  it  a 
smaller  organization  composed  of  those  who  do  not  wish  to  contract  with 
unions. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  That  is  the  main  organization.  These  others  would  be  out- 
side of  that  main  organization. 

Commissioner   O'CONNELL.  But   all   holding  membership   in   the   original   or 
parent  organization? 
Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  should  like  to  ask,  Mr.  Francis,  whether  or  not  in 
so  far  as  labor  has  to  do  with  profits,  your  experience  is  that  friendly  rela- 
tions with  the  union  have  been  beneficial  to  you  as  a  business  man? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes;  especially  on  the  question  of  stability.  We  have  no  fear 
at  all  of  any  strike,  and  in  the  business  in  which  I  am  engaged,  which  is  very 
largely  publications,  that  is  a  very  necessary  proposition. 


692          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Then  from  your  experience  you  consider  it  a  profit- 
able proposition  financially. 

Mr.  FKANCIS.  I  certainly  do. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Francis,  I  may  have  missed  your  answer  to 
this  question:  Your  business  is  practically  entirely  distinct  from  that  of  the 
newspaper  publishers ;  that  is  to  say,  you  are  what  would  be  called  a  book  and 
job  office?. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  A  commercial  office;  yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  call  that  a  commercial  office? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  does  that  include  that  would  not  be  included 
under  the  term  of  "  book  and  job  "  ? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  A  book  and  job  office  generally  refers  to  what  you  might 
term  a  commercial  office,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  it  does  not  really  cover 
the  whole  question.  There  are  so  many  different  divisions  in  the  printing 
business  at  the  present  time  that  the  word  "  commercial "  covers  the  ground 
a  great  deal  better  than  "  book  and  job." 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  besides  book  and  job  would  be  an  illustration 
of  what  it  means? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  A  label  office  would  come  in  under  the  head  of  "  job."  At  the 
same  time  it  would  be  strictly  a  label  office,  printing  labels,  like  drug  labels, 
for  instance.  That  is  one  branch  of  the  business.  A  poster  office,  printing 
nothing  but  posters,  would  be  another.  It  is  divided  up  into  a  great  many 
things  at  the  present  time.  Take  the  stationery  business.  That  is  a  very 
large  majority,  and  it  comes  tinder  the  head  of  job,  but  it  differs,  and  I  think 
the  word  commercial  covers  it  a  little  better.  Then  take  my  own  office. 
Sixty  per  cent  of  my  business  is  publications. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is,  weeklies  and  monthlies? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Weeklies  and  monthlies. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  you  have  in  your  office  a  necessity  of  getting 
out  your  work  on  time? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes.  I  put  out  a  publication  every  day;  different  publica- 
tions, monthlies  and  weeklies,  etc. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  find  that  in  bidding  for  work  you  are  at  a 
disadvantage  with  typothetse  or  nonunion  commercial  houses — commercial 
printers? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  do  not.  I  find  the  competition  is  a  great  deal  stronger  from 
outside  places,  such  as  Mr.  Finlay  mentioned  yesterday,  where  the  rate  of 
wage  is  so  much  smaller  than  it  is  in  New  York  City.  New  York  City  pays 
the  highest  rate  of  wage  of  any  city  in  the  country. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  it  make  any  difference  whether  those  out- 
side cities  were  controlled  by  the  union  or  were  open  shop? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  It  does  not  make  any  difference.  The  rate  of  wages  there  is 
smaller,  and  the  consequence  is  the  expenses  are  less. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So  the  union  does  not  protect  you  against  the  com- 
petition of  smaller  localities? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Outside? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Outside  localities. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  It  does  not.     It  has  tried  to  in  some  instances. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  asked  them  to  do  it  in  any  way? 
•    Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes.     In  the  law  printing  they  made  a  strenuous  effort  in  Now 
York  to  counteract  the  effect  of  Middletown,  N.  Y.,  which  was  taking  a  large 
amount  of  the  work  out  of  New  York. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Could  you  state  the  difference  between  the  wages  you 
pay  and  the  wages  paid  at  Middletown  in  law  printing? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Middletown  was  run  on  a  nonunion  proposition  and  the  wages 
would  be  nearly  cut  in  half  as  compared  with  New  York  City. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  About  half  the  wages  are  paid  in  Middletown? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes;  mostly  girls  on  that  work.  Law  work  is  straight  work, 
and  it  is  comparatively  easy. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Take  any  other  outside  town  that  does  law  printing 
under  union  conditions,  can  you  recall  such  a  case? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  do  not  know  of  any  case,  specially.  You  might  take  it  in 
another  line,  the  book-printing  line.  The  Riverside  Press  takes  a  great  deal 
of  work  out  of  New  York. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Where  is  that  located? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  693 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Just  outside  of  Boston,  at  Cambridge,  I  think. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  a  nonunion  shop? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  No;  it  is  a  union  shop;  but  their  conditions  make  their  over- 
head charges  and  their  wages  very  much  less  than  ours. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  union,  then,  is  not  protecting  either  Boston  or 
New  York  against  book  printing  by  firms  outside? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  No. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  it  be  possible  for  them  to  do  it? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  think  it  would  be  a  very  difficult  thing  to  accomplish.  It 
would  be  the  expense  of  living  in  one  place,  and  the  expense  of  living  in  the 
other,  and  the  amount  of  time  necessary  to  go  to  and  from  work,  which  makes 
it  very  hard  to  regulate. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  no  advantage  in  having  a  printers'  league 
in  one  of  these  outside  towns  that  pays  lower  wages,  is  there? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Oh,  yes ;  there  would  be  an  advantage  in  the  Printers'  League 
there,  because  they  would  protect  themselves  against  trouble  with  the  union. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  they  would  also  desire  to  protect  themselves 
against  the  competition  of  you. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  We  do  not  compete  very  much  with  the  outside,  although  that 
was  spoken  of  yesterday ;  that  is,  that  they  go  out  and  get  it.  In  some  cases  we 
do,  because  of  the  very  much  more  complicated  machinery  that  we  can  use  in 
New  York  City  that  they  can  not  use  in  the  smaller  towns. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is,  you  can  get  large  operations? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Large  operations.  They  have  not  the  facilities  to  get  away 
with  some  things  that  we  have. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  On  another  point,  do  you  know  of  any  case  in  which, 
under  your  agreement,  you  have  actually  employed  a  nonunion  man  because 
the  union  was  not  in  a  position  to  furnish  you  with  a  man  who  could  do  the 
work? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  do  not  recall  any  such  case  at  the  present  time. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Whether  in  your  experience  or  any  other? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  The  only  one  that  I  remember  on  that  was  not  one  that  we  had 
any  contract  with.  That  was  a  machinist.  There  were  two  machinist  unions, 
and  I  hired  a  brotherhood  man,  and  he  remained  in  my  place  until  I  wanted  to 
get  rid  of  him,  although  they  made  some  objections  just  the  same. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  He  was  not  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  printers 
then? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  No ;  not  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  printers. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  option  of  taking  non- 
union men  is  of  no  particular  value  to  you? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes ;  it  is  in  some  respects.  I  would  explain  one  case.  The 
J.  J.  Little  &  Ives  Co.  needed  some  monotype  operators.  The  monotype  oper- 
ators had  all  been  confiscated  down  here  to  Washington  for  the  time  being. 
They  needed  them  down  here  and  had  drawn  from  New  York  until  New  York 
was  absolutely  dry.  They  had  to  have  them  at  a  certain  time.  Mr.  Little  was 
a  member  of  the  Printers'  League,  and  sent  down  to  the  unions  and  they  did 
not  supply  the  men,  and  he  put  an  advertisement  in  the  World  stating  that  he 
wanted  some  monotype  operators,  union  or  nonunion.  I  think  he  had  one  or 
two  applications,  as  far  as  nonunion  men  were  concerned,  but  the  union  imme- 
diately got  busy,  and  he  got  all  the  monotype  operators  he  wanted,  and  com- 
petent ones,  too. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So,  then,  according  to  that,  the  advantage  is  that  it 
puts  pressure  on  the  union  to  hunt  up  the  men  to  furnish? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Exactly. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Suppose  they  were  to  furnish  you  with  a  man,  not 
in  a  different  line  of  work  or  on  a  different  specialty,  but  in  ordinary  com- 
position, that  you  judged  wras  incompetent. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  It  is  up  to  us  as  to  whether  we  consider  him  competent  or  not. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  never  gone  outside  of  the  union  to  get  a 
man  in  a  case  like  that? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  No;  we  have  not  found  it  necessary. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  In  the  matter  of  the  exclusion  of  the  business  agents 
from  the  office,  on  what  grounds  have  you  had  trouble  with  the  business  agents 
as  distinguished  from  the  chairman  or  father  of  the  chapel? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  do  not  just  exactly  understand. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  said  that  you  had  had  a  great  deal  of  trouble 
with  the  business  agent;  that  is,  an  officer  of  the  union  who  was  not  one  of 
your  employees? 


694          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  is  it  that  you  do  not  have  similar  trouble  with 
the  man  representing  the  union  who  is  your  own  employee? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Why,  the  difficulty  has  been  that  in  most  instances  some  em- 
ployee who  has  been  temporarily  employed  goes  to  this  business  agent  and  makes 
some  kind  of  complaint  and  then  he  comes  up  to  the  office  with  the  intention  of 
getting  even  in  some  shape  or  another,  and  the  consequence  is  that  he  comes 
up  in  a  bad  spirit,  whereas  the  chairman  of  the  chapel,  if  he  is  any  kind  of  a 
reasonable  man — and  they  usually  are — gets  along  very  wrell  with  the  firm, 
and  he  knows  the  reasons  why  that  man  was  put  out,  or  what  his  trouble  is, 
and  he  usually  sanctions  it.  But  the  business  agent  is  sometimes  inclined  to 
show  a  little  authority,  and  he  will  come  down  and  threaten  the  office,  if 
there  is  no  Printers'  League  in  the  office,  that  he  will  take  the  men  out 
unless  they  reinstate  that  man.  The  is  no  reason  at  all;  it  is  just  despotic 
action. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So  far  as  your  experience  goes,  then,  you  think  that 
the  rule  should  provide  that  the  business  agent  could  not  go  on  the  job  without 
the  consent  of  the  employer? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  think  it  is  very  much  better.  I  do  not  see  any  reason  why 
a  man  from  the  outside  or  from  the  union  should  have  entrance  to  your  shop, 
when  they  are  already  represented  in  the  office  by  the  chairman  of  the  chapel, 
and  they  insist  upon  having  the  foreman  as  on  their  side,  also.  That  I  dis- 
agree with,  because  I  think  that  the  foreman  ought  to  represent  the  office  as 
opposed  to  the  chairman,  who  represents  the  union.  I  do  not  think  there  ought 
to  be  any  outside  interference. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  business  agents  should  restrict  their  dealings 
to  the  head  of  the  firm? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  should  not  be  allowed  to  deal  with  the  men  in 
the  office? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  No. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  In  the  case  of  the  discharge  of  a  union  man  on  the 
ground  that  he  is  inefficient,  the  objection  that  would  be  brought  up  by  the 
union  would  be  that  he  is  to  be  discharged  for  union  activity,  as  a  rule? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes;  I  presume  so. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  had  complications  arising  out  of  dis- 
charging a  man,  and  its  being  claimed  that  is  was  a  matter  of  discrimination 
rather  than  a  matter  of  inefficiency? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  never  heard  of  such  a  thing.  We  have  had  very  little 
trouble  with  anything  of  that  kind. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  When  you  discharge  a  man  it  is  usually  accepted  as 
a  matter  of  incompetency? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  To  do  your  work? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  the  union  does  not  bring  up  that  question? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  The  union  has  not  brought  up  that  question  at  all  with  the 
league,  that  I  know  of. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Mr.  Francis,  I  would  like  to  know  how  you  would 
suggest  bringing  about  a  better  understanding  between  the  unions  and  the 
average  employer.  How  would  you  bring  them  into  closer  touch? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Very  largely  on  the  humanity  principle. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  How  would  you  have  them  start?  Educate 
them  up? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  think  it  would  be  necessary  for  the  employer  to  make  the 
employee  understand  the  conditions  under  which  he  is  working.  We  have  kept 
too  much  aloof  from  the  employee,  and  he  has  gone  into  the  office  with  the 
idea  that  the  employer  is  just  merely  manufacturing  money  from  his  services, 
and  he  gets  that  idea  so  closely  woven  into  his  mind  that  he  thinks  he  ought 
to  have  some  of  it,  and  he  is.  going  to  get  it  some  way  or  other.  That  is  the 
impression  that  you  have  got  to  eliminate  from  the  mind  of  the  employee,  and 
the  only  way  that  I  know  to  eliminate  it  is  to  associate  with  them  and  get 
their  confidence,  and  when  you  tell  them  anything  tell  them  the  truth  straight, 
and  do  not  try  to  hide  anything,  which  has  been  done  by  the  employers  time 
and  again.  They  have  not  been  making  much  more  and  they  just  simply  say 
that  they  can  not  pay  these  wages,  but  they  do  not  show  the  conditions. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  695 

What  I  have  said  before  is  true.  At  any  time  I  have  gone  down  into  the 
union  rooms  personally,  myself,  I  have  been  treated  with  the  utmost  respect, 
and  I  honestly  believe  that  every  man  in  the  room  had  confidence  in  what  I 
said  to  him  about  the  matter.  What  I  have  told  them  time  and  again  is  this, 
that  it  is  impossible  for  them  to  take  out  of  the  employer's  pocket  any  more 
than  they  put  in.  It  is  absolutely  necessary  for  them  to  produce,  if  we  are 
going  to  have  any  business  at  all,  and  if  that  business  stops  it  stops  them  as  well 
as  it  stops  the  employer ;  that  they  are  half  partners  in  any  business,  because 
they  take  away  the  first  half  of  the  money  that  comes  in,  and  they  have  .to 
have  theirs,  whether  we  have  any  or  not.  Forty  per  cent  in  addition  to  that 
goes  to  the  overhead  charges,  and  there  is  left  only  10  per  cent,  as  a  general 
rule,  about  which  we  can  have  any  controversy,  and  the  question  comes  up, 
how  much  of  that  10  per  cent  we  are  going  to  quarrel  about,  and  if  so,  is  it 
worth  while;  and  I  think  education  along  those  lines,  which  shows  that  they 
are  absolutely  necessary  for  the  business  and  should  be  consulted  in  a  good 
many  cases,  would  be  a  very  efficient  manner  in  which  we  could  overcome  a 
great  many  of  the  difficulties. 

I  also  have  put  it  up  to  the  employees  in  the  printing  business  that  it  is  their 
duty,  as  being  the  most  intelligent  class  of  labor  in  the  United  States,  or  in 
any  other  country,  to  lead  the  way  under  those  conditions.  They  can  under- 
stand. 

You  know,  I  can  easily  understand,  in  regard  to  the  question  of  Mr.  Schaffner, 
where  he  has  a  number  of  foreigners,  that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  get  them 
to  understand  the  questions  that  we  can  make  our  men  understand.  You  can 
talk  as  intelligently  to  a  class  of  compositors  and  pressmen  and  make  them 
understand  the  conditions  of  business  as  well  as  you  can  any  business  man; 
and  if  you  are  straightforward  and  honest  in  your  convictions  and  can  show 
them  they  are  ready  to  be  shown,  and  they  are  ready  to  respond  to  almost 
anything  that  you  think  or  can  make  them  see  is  necessary  for  the  upbuilding 
of  the  whole  business,  because  directly  they  stop  work  they  stop  themselves. 
They  have  got  to  keep  on  producing.  I  have  told  them  this,  that  the  whole 
capital  of  this  country  would  not  pay  the  wages  for  any  length  of  time  if  they 
did  not  keep  on  producing.  It  is  absolutely  necessary  to  produce  in  order  to 
keep  the  machinery  moving,  in  order  to  obtain  food  and  clothing  for  their  fami- 
lies, and  if  they  do  not  do  that,  or  if  they  try  to  do  anything  in  an  antagonistic 
mood,  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  get  the  best  results.  In  other  words,  I 
have  told  them  this,  that  if  there  is  a  man  loafing  alongside  of  one  who  is 
working,  the  man  who  is  working  is  paying  that  man's  wages,  indirectly ;  that 
he  has  got  to  earn  enough  to  pay  the  man  that  is  loafing,  and  therefore  it  is 
up  to  him  to  see  that  the  man  does  not  loaf.  The  more  industry,  the  more 
chance  of  paying  wages. 

Commissioner  HAKRIMAN.  Do  you  believe  there  should  be  a  National  or  State 
board  of  arbitration? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  think  perhaps  it  might  be  a  pretty  good  thing,  in  a  good 
many  instances. 

Mr.  -BERRY.  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  a  question  that  you  would  like  to  ask? 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  would  like  to  ask  one  or  two  questions,  if  the  commission  will 
permit. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well. 

Mr.  BERRY.  In  following  up  this  question  of  fair  play  with  the  union  that 
you  speak  of,  it  is  a  fact  that  you  attend  the  conventions  of  the  various 
printing  trades  unions? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Always  at  their  invitation. 

Mr.  BERRY.  And  discuss  with  them  matters  of  law? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BERRY.  It  is  a  fact,  too,  that  you  have  suggested  a  certain  change  in  their 
fundamental  laws,  which  has  been  given  consideration  and  changed  upon  your 
request? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  BERRY.  In  carrying  out  the  general  idea  of  cooperation  and  better  un- 
derstanding? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Decidedly  so. 

Mr.  BERRY.  That  is  the  international  union  that  does  that.  Regarding  the 
matter  of  uniform  competition,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  five  international  printing- 
trades  unions  have  a  universal  eight-hour  work  day  wherever  they  have  their 
organization? 


696          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes;  that  is  true. 

Mr.  BERRY.  But  there  is  a  variance  as  to  compensation — as  to  wages? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BERRY.  Which  is  the  only  difference  in  New  York  and  the  outside  States. 
I  want  to  say  right  on  that  point  that  the  International  Printing  Pressmen's 
Union  is  endeavoring  to  establish,  and  is  on  record  as  favorable  to  the  estab- 
lishment of,  a  uniform  wage  scale  throughout  North  America.  I  am  quite  con- 
fident that  if  the  printers'  league  controlled  the  employing  printers  of  this 
country,  as  we  control  the  employees,  we  could  very  easily  establish  a  uniform 
wage  scale.  I  make  this  statement  in  order-  that  the  commission  may  under- 
stand that  our  union  is  desirous  of  giving  to  the  employer  every  protection 
which  is  a  fair  protection,  in  the  matter  of  competition;  every  protection 
that  it  is  within  our  power  to  give ;  and  one  of  the  chief  reasons  for  the  failure 
to  have  a  uniform  wage  scale  is  because  of  the  division  of  the  employers  among 
themselves. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  should  like  to  present  the  same  thought  that 
Mrs.  Harriman  presented,  from  a  little  different  angle.  I  should  like  to  ask 
you  what,  in  your  judgment  as  a  successful  employer  of  many  years'  ex- 
perience and  evidently  as  a  profound  student  of  the  labor  problem,  is  the 
missing  link  between  capital  and  labor. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  The  missing  link  is  the  fact  that  from  time  immemorial, 
since  the  unions  came  into  existence,  we  have  looked  upon  one  another  as 
enemies;  the  employer  as  the  natural  enemy  of  the  workingman,  and  the 
workingman  as  the  natural  enemy  of  the  employer,  and  it  is  just  about  time 
that  we  changed  that  proposition.  Whether  we  want  to  or  not,  our  aims  must 
be  the  same ;  otherwise,  we  can  not  get  the  necessary  results. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  not  the  Socialist  emphasizing  that  thought  in 
the  mind  of  the  worker,  that  the  capitalist  is  his  natural  enemy,  and  that  he  can 
only  get  rid  of  him  by  swallowing  him  up? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  think  that  is  true.  Still,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  a  very  large 
sentiment,  which  Mr.  Berry  spoke  of,  at  the  present  time.  I  find  they  are  very 
willing  to  listen  to  an  employer  if  he  will  go,  and  they  are  more  than  willing  to 
issue  invitations. 

Since  the  printers'  leage  came  into  existence  there  has  never  happened  one 
international  convention  that,  as  president,  I  have  not  been  asked  to  address 
them  and  go  and  consult  with  them  on  any  item  I  thought  would  be  beneficial  to 
the  general  working  conditions  in  the  printing  business. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  gather,  then,  Mr.  Francis,  that  your  judgment  is 
that  one  way  to  find  the  missing  link  is  along  the  lines  of  contact.  That  is,  for 
the  employer  and  the  worker  to  get  together  more  often  and  to  learn  to  know 
each  other  better. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  think  there  is  no  doubt  about  that,  and  I  think  it  is  up  to  an 
employer  to  educate  the  workingman  in  the  principles  that  are  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  success  in  business.  Those  principles  are  along  the  line  of  cooperation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  there  many  Socialists  in  the  ranks  of  the 
printers  ? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  We  run  across  them  sometimes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  they  dominate? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  No;  not  at  all. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Do  you  use  the  union  label  on  your  work? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Do  you  find  it  has  any  particular  advantage? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  When  I  find  it  is  of  no  advantage  I  throw  it  out. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Do  you  find  it  an  advantage? 

Mr.  FRANCISV  At  the  present  time ;  yes.  I  do  not  use  it  generally.  I  only  use 
it  when  it  is  requested. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  For  instance,  if  you  should  have  an  accident  or 
breakdown  in  your  shop,  and  you  wanted  to  pick  up  some  men  on  the  street 
to  make  the  repairs,  would  you  be  compelled  to  get  union  carpenters,  union 
machinists,  or  printers,  or  could  you  hire  anybody? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  have  never  had  any  trouble  with  anything  of  that  kind. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Do  you  mean  you  could  or  could  not  employ  a  non- 
union man? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  should  take  the  opportunity  of  repairing  that  break  as  quickly 
as  possible,  and  if  I  could  not  get  a  union  man  I  would  take  anyone  I  could  get. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Would  the  union  printers  complain? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  697 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  There  might  be  a  complaint  come  in,  but  I  have  never  known 
of  any  serious  complaint  coming  in. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Francis. 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  just  one  other  thing  that  I  would  like 
to  call  to  the  attention  of  the  committee,  if  I  may  be  permitted,  and  that  is  to 
call  attention  to  the  growth  of  unionism,  especially  in  our  own  particular  line.  I 
would  say  that  on  the  introduction  of  the  linotype  in  1886,  especially  where  it 
came  to  the  commercial  line,  the  International  Typographical  Union  practically 
comprised  all  of  the  branches  of  the  allied  printing  trades,  and  the  total  number 
of  members  at  that  time  was  about  20,000.  At  the  present  time  they  have  split 
up  into  five  different  organizations,  and  there  are  now  between  100,000  and 
125,000  persons  in  those  unions.  That  shows  that  the  growth  of  unionism  is 
greater  than  the  growth  of  the  printing  business;  in  other  words,  that  it  is 
increasing  all  the  time,  and  that  it  has  come  to  a  time  when  we  have  to  take 
care  of  that  matter. 

There  is  another  suggestion  I  should  like  to  make,  if  I  may  be  allowed,  and 
that  is  this :  There  has  been  some  statement  made  here  on  our  own  particular 
basis  about  compulsory  arbitration.  I  do  not  think  we  are  quite  ready  for 
that  at  the  present  time,  but  what  I  do  think  is  this :  That  there  ought  to  be 
some  law  which  would  be  binding  on  both  parties  to  fulfill  the  moral  contracts 
into  which  we  enter,  for  they  are  nothing  more  than  moral  contracts  at  the 
present  time. 

I  will  say,  in  respect  to  these  booklets  which  I  have  here,  I  think  they  might 
be  of  some  benefit  to  the  commission ;  and  then  there  is  this  other  book  which 
I  have  here,  which  contains  the  constitution  and  by-laws  of  the  Printers'  League 
of  America.  In  that  there  is  a  speech  by  the  Hon.  Joseph  J.  Little,  who  was 
a  Member  of  Congress,  and  was  also  president  of  the  board  of  education  of 
New  York  City.  He  recently  died.  That  speech  has  some  very  pertinent  re- 
marks upon  the  questions  that  the  Printers'  League  take  up,  and  I  will  leave 
that  for  the  benefit  of  the  commission. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  date  is  the  book? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  1909.    It  was  at  the  inception  of  the  National  Printers'  League. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  published  any  annual  report  since  that 
time? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  We  have  not. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  could  furnish  to  the  commission  all  of  your 
printed  matter? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  all  of  the  statistics  which  you  might  have? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  I  can  give  you  the  statistics  of  the  rates  of  wages  in  the  various 
towns  and  cities,  if  that  would  be  of  any  assistance. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  we  call  on  you  you  will  be  glad  to  furnish  these 
statistics? 

Mr.  FRANCIS.  Yes ;  I  will  be  very  much  pleased  to,  because  I  believe  it  is 
necessary  that  the  union  end  of  labor  and  the  employers  get  together,  and  I 
think  they  have  got  to  get  together  through  cooperation  one  with  the  other, 
and  not  through  strikes  or  lockouts. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all.     Thank  you,  Mr.  Francis. 

GENERAL. 
TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  J.  E.  WILLIAMS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Williams,  I  will  ask  you  to  give  your  name  and  present 
address  and  occupation  to  the  reporter. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Mr.  J.  E.  Williams.  I  am  the  mediator  of  labor  disputes, 
chiefly,  now.  My  home  address  is  Streator,  111.  My  business  address  is  No. 
1314,  200  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  believe  you  have  had  some  experience  in  the  field  of 
arbitration.  Will  you  state  what  your  experience  has  been? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  It  runs  back  quite  a  number  of  years.  I  was  a  coal  miner 
myself  about  15  years,  and  was  interested  in  labor  matters.  I  graduated  from 
that  business  into  the  newspaper  business,  and  into  the  amusement  and  in- 
surance fields.  I  kept  up  my  interest  in  the  labor  matters.  I  have  been  called 
upon  as  mediator  and  arbitrator  at  different  times.  Recently  I  prefer  to  call 
myself  a  mediator.  I  find  that  to  be  a  fitter  title  for  the  kind  of  work  that  I 


698          REPORT    OP    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

do.  In  Chicago  I  am  chairman  of  a  board  of  arbitration.  In  New  York  City 
my  title  is  chairman  of  the  committee  on  immediate  action.  I  have  been  an 
arbitrator  for  the  coal  miners  and  the  coal  operators  in  the  State  of  Illinois 
for  four  years,  and  there  I  have  been  called  an  arbitrator.  I  distinguish  very 
definitely  between  the  two  functions,  and  I  suppose  I  have,  in  the  early  part 
of  my  life  and  along  down,  been  functioning  as  an  arbitrator.  Latterly  I  am 
functioning  as  a  mediator,  with  power  to  act. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  With  power  to  arbitrate? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  With  power  to  enforce  my  decisions,  if  I  make  any. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  If  you  reach  what  you  consider  a  conclusion,  and 
either  side  does  not  agree  to  it,  you  simply  say  that  they  shall. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  agreed  to  in  advance  by  both  sides? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes.  If  I  may  be  permitted  to  explain,  let  me  say  that  I 
do  not  think  either  side  quite  understood  what  the  development  was  likely  to 
be.  I  was  taken  in  as  an  arbitrator. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  What  trades? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  In  Chicago  in  the  men's  clothing  trade  and  in  New  York 
City  in  the  cloak  and  suit  trades. 

The  ACTING  CHAIKMAN.  Also  in  the  coal  trade. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  My  function  there  was  more  like  that  of  an  arbitrator. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  ask  you  to  state,  so  that  the  matter  may  be  clear,  the 
machinery  which  you  operate  in.  For  instance,  in  Chicago,  in  the  men's  cloth- 
ing industry,  and  there  you  actually  are  the  chairman  of  the  board  of  arbitra- 
tion of  three  members? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  WThich  has  power  to  operate  in  the  old-fashioned  way  if  it 
wishes? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  in  New  York  you  are  the  third  man  on  a  board  of  three 
members,  which,  if  it  wishes,  can  operate  in  the  old  method? 

Mr.  WTILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  to  say.  both  sides  leave  it  up  to  you  and  put  the 
decision  on  your  shoulders? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  what  you  want  to  say,  or  what  you  have  said,  is  this: 
That  while  the  machinery  is  such  that  you  could  act  in  your  own  personal 
capacity,  your  own  method  of  acting  is  this,  to  bring  about  a  mediation  of  the 
parties,  always  having  in  your  hands  the  power  to  enforce  a  decision. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Taking  first  your  own  experience  in  the  coal  fields,  will  you 
give  us  a  brief  statement  of  the  matters  you  have  passed  on  as  an  arbitrator, 
and  the  arbitration  machinery  under  which  you  have  operated? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  My  first  experience  was  a  number  of  years  ago,  in  which  I 
had  to  pass  on  the  general  questions  growing  out  of  a  strike.  In  that  case  it 
was  a  question  of  advance  of  wages  and  involved  a  prolonged  investigation, 
and  the  finding  was  purely  that  of  an  arbitrator.  Later  I  became  the  arbi- 
trator under  the  present  trade  agreement  of  the  miners  in  my  State.  In  this 
case  there  were  questions  relating  to  individual  mines,  not  general  questions 
of  wages,  but  troubles  arising  in  the  mines  which  came  up  to  me  and  were 
adjusted  in  the  fashion  of  an  arbitrator,  I  should  say,  bringing  in  a  decision 
in  favor  of  one  side  or  the  other. 

The  thing  is  so  very  different  in  my  mind  that  I  almost  share  the  feeling 
that  has  been  expressed  here  by  some  of  the  employers  against  the  old  fashion. 
The  old  fashion  contemplated  that  the  person  should  act  as  if  he  were  a  su- 
preme court.  He  should  adopt  the  legal  method ;  he  should  appeal  to  some  kind 
of  precedent  or  some  abstract  principle  of  justice  or  some  view  he  might  have 
on  economic  practices,  and  he  would  hand  out  a  decision,  perhaps,  as  somebody 
has  said  here,  to  protect  himself  outside  of  that  compromise.  At  any  rate, 
it  was  pretty  certain  not  to  be  satisfactory ;  that  is  to  say,  if  you  gave  in  favor 
of  one  the  other  side  wrould  be  dissatisfied. 

Commissioner  -WEIN  STOCK.  You  are  speaking  now  of  an  arbitrator? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  An  arbitrator. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  old-school  arbitrator? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  The  old-school  arbitrator.  I  have  practiced  in  that  form,  and 
it  was  never  very  satisfactory.  I  would  say,  though,  that  it  might  be  capabla 
of  expansion  in  this  manner :  Suppose,  as  happens  at  a  time  of  wage  strike,  if 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN   COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  699 

the  worker  asked  for  more  wages,  the  employer  generally  says  he  can  not  afford 
it ;  that  the  business  will  not  stand  it.  That  is,  as  I  have  found,  .the  common 
plea — that  he  says  competition  will  not  permit  him  or  the  business  will  not 
warrant  it.  It  seems  to  me  that  arbitration  might  be  useful  in  that  case  if  it 
were  made  a  thorough-going  investigation  of  the  facts  as  to  whether  he  can 
stand  it  or  not.  It  seems  to  me  if  that  were  done  and  a  complete  expose  made 
of  the  facts,  that  such  exposition,  if  thoroughly  made,  might  be  convincing. 
It  might  satisfy  the  workers  that  perhaps  the  advance  was  not  justified.  But 
rarely  ever  is  that  opportunity  given.  That  means  if  the  employer  is  told  he 
must  show  us  his  books  and  accounts  and  entire  business  he  may  not  take  the 
attitude  he  has  heretofore  taken.  I  should  say  if  we  should  take  this  step 
that  perhaps  this  commission  is  designed  to  promote,  of  having  State  interfer- 
ence or  regulation  of  trade,  it  would  come  to  something  after  awhile  like  our 
practice  in  the  public  utility  business.  It  would  stand  here  to  make  an  investi- 
gation of  all  the  facts,  and  if  it  had. power  to  contemplate  what  was  a  fair 
reward  for  capital  at  this  time,  how  much  would  be  necessary  to  keep  it 
in  business  and  to  make  adjudication  based  upon  that  kind  of  showing,  it  might 
be  a  good  thing. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  May  I  be  permitted  at  this  point  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  A  question  of  definition  but  not  of  anything  else. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  I  do  not  know  whether  my  question  will  be  ex- 
actly a  question  of  definition;  but  the  statement  just  made  by  Mr.  Williams 
brings  up  this  thought  as  to  whether  in  his  opinion  the  wage  ought  to  be  based 
on  the  cost  of  living  of  the  worker  or  ought  to  be  based  upon  the  profits  of  the 
business  ? 

The  ACTING  CHAIBMAN.  Can  you  postpone  that  until  he  finishes  his  main 
statement? 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  This  is  mainly  for  the  purpose  of  trying  to  show  the  differ- 
ence between  the  old  practice  and  what  I  am  going  to  come  to  next. 

An  arbitration  of  the  old  fashion  might  even  be  possible  and  useful  where 
its  researches  would  be  of  a  kind  that  would  shed  light  upon  the  whole  ques- 
tion and  tend  to  produce  satisfaction  between  the  parties.  As  I  see  the  ordi- 
nary arbitration,  it  does  not  act  that  way,  and  the  result,  as  has  been  shown 
here  from  many  sides,  is  usually  rather  unsatisfactory. 

If  I  may  be  permitted  to  go  on  in  my  own  way  I  will  just  say  that  the  kind 
of  functions  that  are  possible  for  a  person  acting  between  the  parties  may  be 
perhaps  naturally  divided  into  two — the  kind  that  belong  to  a  business  which 
has  few  internal  changes  within  the  period  of  the  contract  and  those  which 
are  fluctuating  widely  from  day  to  day.  The  first  kind  may  include  a  trade 
such  as  the  mining  trade,  where  the  things  that  may  arise  are  so  completely 
covered  by  the  agreement  as  to  details  and  precedent  that  they  will  adjust 
themselves  with  the  machinery  they  already  have,  and  only  rarely  will  the 
arbitrators  need  to  be  called  in.  That  is  one  form.  The  other  type  is  an 
industry  where  there  are  constant  variations,  such  as  the  clothing  industry. 
I  have  been  in  New  York  now  just  one  month  trying  this  out.  In  that  time 
we  have  had  506  complaints.  Of  these,  29  came  up  to  this  committee  of  which  I 
am  the  head.  The  others  were  adjusted  by  the  deputies.  There,  you  see,  are 
constant  fluctuations.  The  price,  instead  of  being  made  for  a  year  or  two 
years,  is  made  for  a  day,  almost,  don't  you  know?  The  conditions  are  chang- 
ing constantly.  I  think  that  this  kind  of  industry  offers  in  some  respects  a 
very  much  more  favorable  position  for  the  mediators. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  You  mean  in  the  fluctuating? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  The  first  thing  the  mediator  needs  is  to  get  the  confidence 
of  the  people  he  is  working  with  and  for.  It  is  relatively  easy  to  satisfy  the 
employer,  because  he  has  immediate  access  to  it  and  he  knows  the  business 
and  there  are  few  of  him  in  number;  while  the  satisfaction  of  the  laborer  is 
much  more  difficult.  They  stand  at  quite  a  distance  removed  from  it,  they 
do  not  understand  the  business,  and  it  is  hard  to  get  their  confidence.  I  may 
say  here  that  it  is  my  judgment  that  nothing  is  worth  while  that  does  not  get 
the  moral  support  of  the  worker.  However  much  force  you  may  put  behind 
the  decision,  it  would  not  get  any  distance  in  establishing  peace  unless  you  have 
the  real  assent  of  the  people  to  whom  it  must  apply. 

The  one  in  which  the  mediator  comes  in  constantly  daily  contact  and 
is  passing  upon  the  grievances  of  these  people  is  the  one  that  gives  him  daily 
opportunity  to  get  acquainted  with  them.  If  he  happens  to  decide  against  the 


700          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

laborer  to-day  he  will  decide  for  him  to-morrow,  and  there  is  a  long  enough 
period  elapses  for  his  personality  to  penetrate  those  men,  so  they  may  be- 
come acquainted.  It  is,  therefore,  possible  for  such  an  arrangement  as  that  to 
work  out  what  both  sides  desire,  and  that  is  stability,  as  has  been  suggested 
here,  in  the  industry. 

As  has  been  testified  here  in  reference  to  the  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  matter, 
we  have  in  two  years  really  had  that  result  there.  The  people  are  working 
daily.  Where  there  was  a  strike  in  some  section  nearly  every  day  now  it  is 
very  rare,  a  very  rare  thing,  and  the  employers  are  able  to  count  on  steady 
production  which,  as  has  been  suggested  here,  is  of  great  value  to  them.  We 
are  just  beginning  in  New  York  City,  but  we  hope  to  have  some  such  result 
there.  There  the  sporadic  strike  is  still  a  rather  common  occurrence.  I  think 
there  were  nine  last  month. 

Commissioner  WTETNSTOCK.  That  is,  in  violation  of  their  agreements? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes.  The  union  has  not  yet — it  has  been  suggested  here,  and 
it  is  quite  true,  that  this  union,  however  desirous  they  may  be,  and  they  are, 
more  than  we  are,  of  enforcing  their  contract,  they  are  unable  to  control  these 
groups. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Why? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Because  there  is  not  sufficient  spirit  of  discipline,  and  there 
is  not  sufficient  confidence  that  justice  will  be  given  them  by  the  commissioner. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  there  is  too  much  individualism? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Too  much  individualism,  and  perhaps  too  much  ignorance  and 
lack  of  training  and  lack  of  knowledge. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  that  a  man  has  to  be  educated  to  become  a 
unionist,  as  well  as  anything  else? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Undoubtedly.  That  is  the  most  important  part  of  the  edu- 
cational scheme — getting  people  to  participate  in  the  business  of  self-govern- 
ment through  the  union,  and  these  people  have  a  great  deal  of  it  to  do,  instead 
of,  as  in  the  case  of  the  other  organizations,  where  there  are  a  few  people  who 
attend  the  meetings  and  run  the  whole  business.  It  has  a  more  beneficial  effect 
where  they  are  being  educated  constantly  through  their  problems. 

It  goes  without  saying,  of  course,  that  if  a  man  is  endeavoring  to  administer 
that  sort  of  proposal,  that  man  has  got  to  be  a  thorough  believer  in  unionism. 
He  is  not  disinterested  or  impartial  in  that  sense  at  all.  He  must  see  to  it  that 
his  decisions  and  the  measures  that  he  takes  are  calculated  to  strengthen  the 
organization  and  make  it  as  such  more  efficient.  They  must  believe  that  the 
mediator  is  going  to  further  their  purposes  by  giving  a  strong  union.  Without 
a  strong  union  the  whole  thing  will  amount  to  nothing,  because  we  need  a 
strong  union  to  get  the  decisions  enforced.  A  union — or  a  man  who  is  at  the 
head  of  a  lot  of  guerrillas,  undisciplined,  he  is  unable  to  make  them  do  what 
they  do  not  want  to  do ;  but  if  you  give  him  a  strong  union  he  can  always  bring 
the  small  group  to  terms ;  so  that  the  first  consideration  must  be  that  he  is  their 
friend,  and  he  will  see  that  their  union  is  protected  and  made  strong,  and  if  he 
is  there  long  enough  he  will  have  time  to  impress  them  that  way ;  but  if  he  just 
makes  a  decision  this  year  and  then  goes  away  and  does  not  come  back  until 
another  year,  or  maybe  doesn't  come  back  at  all,  he  is  not  likely  to  make  them 
believe  that  the  thing  they  do  not  like  is  a  good  thing  for  them. 

As  I  say,  this  has  been  largely  a  development ;  it  just  grew  out  of  the  genius 
of  the  situation.  We  started  in  to  arbitrate  in  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx,  per- 
haps in  the  usual  way,  and  we  developed  from  that  into  this  way  of  doing  it, 
until  now  frequently  we  do-  not  have  as  many  as  three  arbitrators  sit.  Most 
likely,  if  it  is  a  case  involving  an  investigation  in  the  factory,  a  motion  will  be 
made  that  the  chairman  will  make  a  personal  investigation  on  the  spot  and 
decide  it ;  and  with  two  clerks  he  goes  into  the  shop,  and  perhaps  he  will  hear 
testimony  right  there  and  decide  it  on  the  spot,  in  the  shop. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  still  operate  in  Chicago? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  swing  between  the  two  cities? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.   When  you  speak  of  the  clerks,  what  do  you  mean? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  The  clerk  is  the  name  given  to  them  in  New  York,  and  the 
working  head  of  the  union.  He  is  their  representative  to  adjust  difficulties, 
and  represents  the  union. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  He  has  practically  the  power  of  this  board  of 
arbitration? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes;  in  New  York. 


TBADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  701 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  is  what  they  call  in  Australia  a  "cessar?" 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  In  Chicago  they  give  him  the  name  of  chief  deputy,  but  it 
means  the  same  thing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  say  you  go  by  yourself? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  With  the  two  clerks. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  go  there  with  them? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  can  go  there  without  them,  without  the  other  two  members 
of  the  board  of  arbitration. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  the  clerks  in  that  case  that  you  take  there, 
would  be  what? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  In  New  York  they  call  them  a  committee  of  immediate  action, 
but  in  Chicago  they  go  as  two  deputies  with  the  chairman  of  the  board  of 
arbitration,  but,  any  name,  the  effect  is  the  same. 

The  ACTING  CHAIKMAN.  As  a  matter  of  fact  you,  as  chairman,  do  not  go 
by  yourself? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Not  in  that  sense;  no. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  are  the  only  one  that  has  a  voice? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  mean  the  other  two  members  of  the  board  do  not  go.  You 
know  in  Chicago  we  have  three  members  of  the  board  of  arbitration — myself 
and  a  member  chosen  to  represent  the  workers  and  one  chosen  to  represent 
the  employers. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  understand  that  it  is  the  case  in  New  York,  that 
you  call  these  members  clerks  instead  of  deputies? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  It  is  not  the  same,  because  in  Chicago,  for  example,  we 
have  three  men — Mr.  Thompson,  your  counsel  here;  Mr.  Carl  Meyer;  and 
myself.  We  are  the  board  of  arbitration.  When  we  sit  in  state,  we  sit  in  a 
sense  as  judges.  But,  as  I  say,  in  many  instances,  perhaps  the  majority  of 
instances,  Mr.  Thompson  and  Mr.  Meyer  will  say,  "  I  move  that  this  case  be 
taken  up  by  the  chairman  in  person  and  that  he  visit  the  factory  and  get 
evidence  and  settle  it."  Do  you  see?  They  two  do  not  go,  but  the  chief 
deputy  on  each  side  does  go. 

The  ACTING  CHAIBMAN.  Then  the  action  there  is  strictly  the  old  line  arbi- 
tration? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Theoretically,  it  was  intended  to  be  that  proposition,  but 
practically  it  is  not  that  at  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIKMAN.  You  do  not  act  as  mediator  to  get  the  two  sides 
together? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Surely  I  do. 

The  ACTING  CHAIKMAN.  No ;  they  delegate  it  to  you,  to  go  and  do  it  yourself? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  is  still  the  theory.  Let  me  say — here  is  Mr.  Howard 
here,  who  is  chief  deputy  for  the  employer,  and  Mr.  Hillman,  chief  deputy 
for  the  working  people.  We  go  there,  and  they  call  out  the  chairman  of  the 
shop  wThere  they  have  trouble.  Maybe  it  is  a  discharge  trouble,  or  maybe  it 
is  a  price  trouble,  or  some  other  question — some  discrimination  charge,  or 
unequal  distribution  of  work.  Well,  you  go  to  the  shop,  and  the  foreman  is 
brought  out,  and  the  foreman  of  the  shop  is  told  to  bring  out  the  workers,  and 
the  chairman  calls  .out  the  section  particularly  affected.  They  appear  before 
us,  and  they  testify.  Then  the  three  of  us  consult,  and  we  agree  about  what 
is  the  best  way  of  dealing  with  that  particular  situation,  having  regard  for 
all  issues  involved,  and  we  rarely  fail  to  agree.  You  understand,  we  try  to 
find  a  way  that  satisfies  the  interests  of  both  parties. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  As  a  matter  of  fact  they  do  not  leave  to  you  an 
independent  investigation;  you  have  two  people,  under  whatever  name  you 
call  them,  representing  the  two  sides,  going  along  with  you? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  those  two  people  agree,  and  their  agreement  is 
your  opinion,  too? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  supposing  you  differ  from  the  other  two. 
Then  what? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Well,  I  am  always  sure  of  a  majority,  because  I  shall  be 
for  one  or  the  other,  you  know,  and  you  can  always  get  two,  whichever  side 
it  will  be  on. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  But  suppose  they  are  both  alike? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  suppose  there  is  such  a  thing  as  two  of  them 
having  one  point  of  view  and  you  having  another?  Then  what  prevails? 


702          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Nothing  like  that  has  ever  happened ;  it  never  has  happened. 
I  do  not  know  just  what  we  would  do. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  ever  make  a  decision  in  which  one  side 
agreed  with  you  and  the  other  dissented? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  call  that? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  We  just  write  it  down  as  a  decision  and  it  goes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  other  two,  then,  do  agree  with  you? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  There  are  some  cases — there  are  some  of  our  decisions  in 
New  York  with  only  two  signatures. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  do  they  proceed  to  carry  out  your  decision 
in  that  case? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Therefore  they  agree  with  you? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  They  do.  It  has  been  known  that  they  filed  a  protest  and 
asked  for  a  rehearing. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Have  you  ever  been  overruled? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  You  see  I  am  the  ultimate  court  in  Chicago. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  A  supreme  court.  Have  you  ever  overruled 
yourself? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  do  not  know ;  I  have  reheard  cases,  but  I  do  not  remember 
that  we  have  changed  it  very  much. 

In  New  York  the  situation  is  different.  This  committee  on  immediate  action 
takes  up  cases  on  the  spot  and  passes  on  them.  It  would  be  possible  there 
for  them  to  be  appealed  to  the  board  of  arbitration,  of  which  Mr.  Brandeis  is 
chairman. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  you  are  not  the  final  court? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Not  there;  no,  sir. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Are  you  employed  by  both  sides? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Paid  by  both  sides? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Is  that  the  case  in  Chicago,  too? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes.  The  difference  is  this,  that  the  way  we  are  actually 
pursuing  it  is  more  like  a  commission;  the  other  way  is  more  like  a  court. 
The  commission  plan  takes  account  of  the  actual  situation;  it  does  not  much 
refer  to  abstract  principles  of  justice  or  statutes  or  any  laws  that  have  been 
made,  but  wre  find  that  actually  there  is  a  line  of  interests  that  are  common 
to  both;  the  action  is  rather  that  of  discovery,  of  contrivance  or  invention  to 
find  a  practice  which  will  serve  the  interests  of  both  sides.  Of  course  you 
have  the  faith  that  there  is  such  an  interest ;  then  your  ingeunity  and  all  that 
will  be  exercised  to  make  those  interests  run  parallel.  So  far  it  has  been 
possible — it  has  been  possible  in  many  cases  in  such  a  way  to  avoid  these 
recurring  strikes,  as  I  told  you,  to  find  that  there  is  an  interest  that  is  not 
antagonistic,  that  there  is  enough  to  be  gained  by  both  sides,  so  that  it  is 
worth  while  to  do  it. 

On  the  side  of  the  company  we  seek  to  find  a  line  that  will  give  them 
efficiency,  help  their  productiveness,  give  them  stability,  regularity  of  employ- 
ment, and  freedom  from  this  everlasting  danger  of  interruption  by  strikes.  That 
is  worth  a  good  deal  to  them,  and  they  are  willing  to  pay  for  it ;  they  are  willing, 
if  they  are  sure  of  getting  it,  and  they  are  able  to  grant  it,  because  they  are 
made  more  effective,  productively,  by  reason  of  this  steadiness  of  employment, 
and  they  are  ready  to  give  some  of  it  to  the  people  by  giving  them  advantages ; 
whereas,  if  they  were  in  a  hostile  state,  they  could  not  afford  to  do  it. 

So  that  it  is  possible  to  make  it  pay  on  both  sides.  I  do  not  say  that  the 
line  of  parallel  interests  will  continue  indefinitely;  there  will  come  a  time, 
probably,  when  the  general  question  of  how  to  divide  the  earnings  of  the 
business  will  come  up,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that,  if  the  employer  was 
making  10  per  cent,  the  workers  would  say  "That  is  too  much  for  you;  I 
think  8  per  cent  is  enough  for  you,  and  we  ought  to  get  the  rest."  That  is 
something  that  can  not  be  mediated,  if  they  hold  that  position  strongly.  Per- 
haps, it  could  by  arbitration;  but  only  in  the  way  that  I  have  indicated — by 
showing  what  there  is  to  divide.  A  strike  might  cost  the  company  $100,000, 
while  to  give  the  advance  might  cost  them  $700,000,  and  they  might  prefer 
to  do  it.  You  can  not  eliminate  that  ultimate  conflict  of  interests  at  that 
point,  even  by  this  method  I  propose,  but  those  cases  come  rarely,  while  these 
other  causes  of  trouble — grievances,  complaints,  and  interruptions — are  con- 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  703 

tinuous,  and  it  is  worth  everything  to  an  -employer  to  get  rid  of  those ;  and 
it  is  surely  as  profitable  to  the  workmen.  It  is  on  this  particular  line  that 
we  have  developed  within  the  last  few  years,  and  that  is  what  I  feel  myself 
most  competent  to  speak  on,  because  it  is  the  line  I  have  had  most  to  do  with. 
I  think  you  have  had  the  testimony  from  the  Chicago  firm — that  it  has  been 
very  successful.  In  New  York  it  has  yet  to  be  made  a  success. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  state,  so  that  the  commission  may  understand,  the 
machinery  which  is  now  in  existence  in  New  York  for  the  adjudication  of  dis- 
putes, starting  where  you  think  best,  to  explain  it? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  This,  too,  is  a  development.  I  think  about  two  years  ago 
there  was  a  great  strike  there.  After  that  the  protocol  was  formed,  which  is 
just  a  trade  agreement.  They  foresaw  this  continual  grievance,  and  they  tried 
to  provide  for  that,  so  they  appointed  a  grievance  committee — which  should  be 
a  court  of  first  jurisdiction — composed  of  a  number  of  persons  from  the  em- 
ployer and  the  employee.  If  they  should  fail  to  agree,  then  there  was  re- 
course to  this  board  of  arbitration  with  Mr.  Brandeis  as  chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Who  were  the  others? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Mr.  Hamilton  Holt  and  Mr.  Weyl  of  New  York. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Not  in  the  industry? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  No;  I  think  they  were  all  outside  of  the  industry.  I  am 
speaking  from  hearsay,  of  course,  because  it  happened  before  my  coming;  but 
I  am  told  that  the  board  of  grievances — the  commission — did  not  dispose  of 
the  cases  fast  enough,  and  it  was  charged,  on  the  part  of  the  union,  that  they 
were  allowed  to  accumulate. 

Nearly  all  of  the  complaints  arise  from  the  union,  so  that  the  failure  to 
adjust  a  complaint  was  like  deciding  against  the  union.  The  number  of  the 
cases  accumulated,  and  the  union  became  more  and  more  dissatisfied^  they 
demanded  that  there  should  be  an  umpire,  that  there  should  be  somebody  to 
cast  the  deciding  vote  on  that  board.  That  led  to  fierce  controversy  in  which 
several  good  men  went  down,  and  it  very  nearly  ruptured  the  protocol  and 
cause  a  general  strike;  but,  perhaps,  the  sacrifice  and  devotion  of  some  of 
the  members  in  it — they  resigned;  they  got  out  of  the  way — so  that  it  would 
be  possible  to  get  the  human  element  out  of  the  way  and  permit  the  protocol 
to  go  on. 

It  was  then  changed  to  this  plan  that  I  have  suggested,  and  the  employers 
consented  to  have  an  impartial  man,  but  with  this  change,  that  instead  of  this 
impartial  man  being  at  the  head  of  the  board  of  grievances  that  he  was  only 
to  be  one  of  three,  and  two  clerks  and  himself,  who  should  act  as  this  com- 
mittee, so  that  the  board  of  grievances  becomes  a  consultative  body  now  and 
is  now  in  active  use  for  the  adjustment  of  grievances. 

It  has  a  force  of  about  a  dozen  or  15  deputies,  who  go  out  into  the  factories 
and  first  hear  the  complaints,  and  then,  if  they  can  not  agree,  they  are  referred 
to  this  committee  of  three,  who  have  the  final  decision. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  That  is,  a  deputy  from  each  side? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Then,  do  you  go  to  the  two  chief  deputies  next  or  to 
this  committee  on  immediate  action? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  think  that  was  the  original  intention,  to  have  the  two  chief 
clerks  agree  on  it,  but  when  I  went  there  and  asked  how  to  do  it,  I  said,  "  I 
will  not  wait  until  you  disagree ;  I  will  go  right  with  you  into  the  factory,  and 
we  will  go  together  and  we  will  agree  together,"  and  this  is  the  way  I  have 
done  it;  and  thus  far,  permit  me  to  say  for  your  information,  there  has  been 
no  occasion  as  yet  for  the  chairman  to  cast  the  deciding  vote.  We  have  been 
able  to  agree  unanimously  in  every  case. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  regard  to  appeals,  where  do  they  lie  from  the  decision  of 
this  board? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  They  lie  to  the  board  of  arbitration. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  To  the  board  of  arbitration? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Where  do  the  chief  clerks  come  in? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  There  are  three  members  of  the  board  of  immediate  action, 
and  the  two  chief  clerks  and  myself  are  that  board. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  In  New  York  the  clerks  are  members  of  the  board. 
In  Chicago  they  are  not. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  quite  understand.  There  are  quite  a  num- 
ber of  clerks? 


704          EEPOKT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTKIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Deputy  clerks.  There  are  two  chief  clerks  and  there  are  12 
or  15  deputy  clerks. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  always  meet  with  the  chief  clerks? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes;  always. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  not  with  the  deputy  clerks? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  If  the  deputy  clerks  can  agree,  that  decides  it.  There  were 
550  complaints  last  month,  and  the  deputy  clerks  settled  all  but  19  of  them. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  took  up  those  19? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes;  as  I  say,  we  agreed  unanimously  on  those  19,  so  that 
we  have  had  no  conflict  of  opinion  there  yet. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  This  board  of  grievances  still  remains? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  It  still  remains.  There  will  be  use  for  it,  but  its  old  function 
has  passed. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  referred  anything  to  that  board  of 
grievances? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Let  me  see.  I  think  we  had  them  together  on  some  questions 
which  we  were  not  clear  had  been  decided  previously.  We  asked  them  to 
agree  on  some  plan  for  adjusting  certain  things. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  In  that  case  did  you  consult  with  the  board  of 
grievances? 

Mr.  WTILLIAMS.  I  think  we  will  find  a  use  of  that  kind  for  that  board. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  wrould  there  be  also  a  kind  of  mediator  with  the 
board  of  grievances? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  In  the  last  meeting  I  did  not  open  my  mouth.  They  did  all 
the  talking,  so  that  I  could  not  mediate  very  much. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  But  in  case  they  split,  or  there  was  a  deadlock,  you 
would,  be  called  on? 

Mr." WILLIAMS.  No;  I  do  not  fancy  that  I  would  have  a  deciding  vote  there. 
This  is  still  forming. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  might  say  for  the  information  of  the  commission  that  this 
board  of  grievances  in  New  York  has  not  been  changed  at  all.  It  still  consists 
of  just  10  members,  and  under  the  agreement  as  made,  under  the  protocol  Mr. 
Williams  only  sits  as  chairman  of  that  committee  of  immediate  action,  and  as 
Mr.  Cohen  said  yesterday  as  to  the  board  of  grievances,  at  the  time  we  made 
this  amendment  to  the  protocol,  it  was  understood  between  the  parties  practi- 
cally that  this  board  of  grievances  should  be  retained,  and  it  is  retained  by 
the  protocol,  and  that  ifo  would  do  actually  legislative  work.  For  instance,  if 
there  was  need  for  some  new  agreement.  Suppose  that  in  the  further  working 
out  of  the  protocol  it  is  necessary  to  make  some  provisions,  or  say  the  union 
people  insist  that  certain  provisions  ought  to  be  made;  they  could  not  bring 
it  up  to  the  board  of  immediate  action,  because  they  have  no  legislative  power, 
but  they  would  bring  it  up  to  the  board  of  grievances  because  they  have  power 
to  legislate,  and  when  that  decision  is  not  satisfactory  to  one  party  or  the 
other,  they  have  their  appeal  to  the  board  of  arbitration.  The  board  of  arbi- 
tration is  the  last  place,  the  last  resort  of  the  parties.  Suppose  the  business 
men  should  consider  that  the  board  of  grievances  and  the  board  of  arbitration 
had  saddled  on  them  a  thing  which  could  not  work  in  a  business  way,  which 
wTould  mean  destruction;  they  have  a  right  at  any  moment  to  terminate  the 
protocol  and  say,  "  We  do  not  wrant  it." 

Is  that  all  you  want  to  say  now,  Mr.  Williams? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  am  ready  to  answer  anything  you  want  to  ask  me.  I  have 
this  in  mind  that  I  would  like  to  emphasize :  what  my  experience  seems  to 
teach  me  is  that  it  is  not  a  question  of  machinery  so  much.  Yon  want  enough 
machinery  to  do  your  work,  but  it  does  not  so  much  matter  what  it  is.  What 
you  want  to  do  is  to  give  effect  to  the  human  spirit.  For  instance,  there  should 
be  some  influence,  some  purpose,  somewhere  in  the  relations  of  employer  and 
employee  to  serve  the  social  end.  Now,  neither  of  the  parties,  each  of  them 
having  their  keen,  pressing  conflicting  interests,  are  likely  to  regard  that.  AVe 
need  the  creation  of  some  new  force  or  institution  that  will  stand  there  to  say, 
"This  is  for  the  social  end,  something  to  represent  that  idea,  so  that  you  will 
not  be  able  to  make  ducks  and  drakes,  in  your  passion,  of  what  really  is  of 
public  concern,  of  public  interest."  The  thing  I  think  we  are  doing  is  that  we 
have  the  nucleus  of  that  sort  of  thing.  It  ought  to  grow  stronger.  I  feel  the 
necessity,  even  in  New  York,  there  now,  with  its  rather  scattering  and  frag- 
mentary and  conflicting  interests,  that  there  should  be  a  central  power,  a  suffi- 
cient body  of  influence,  of  moral  pressure,  so  that  if  they  became  keen  to 
rupture  this  thing  and  blow  it  up,  there  would  be  sufficient  power  to  say,  "  You 
can  not  do  it.  There  is  an  interest  that  is  different  from  your  interests.  There 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  705 

is  the  interest  of  the  protocol  itself  that  we  will  not  permit  you  to  wreck.  We 
will  not  let  you  make  this  experiment  fail,  if  we  can  help  it."  This  is  rather 
incoherent,  it  is  rather  formless,  but  it  is  a  thing  which  I  think  rather  needs 
to  be  built  up.  There  is  a  need  of  something  that  stands  to  represent  the  pub- 
lic interest  that  is  between  these  parties,  and  we  must  infuse  that  spirit  in 
them  from  time  to  time,  that  they  are  working  for  a  bigger  thing  than  an  in- 
crease in  wages,  or  an  increase  in  profits  to  employers;  and  this  is  a  new 
function,  and  therefore  I  am  laying  stress  upon  this  thing  as  the  beginning 
of  a  new  medium  here,  a  new  public  function. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  should  like  to  repeat  my  question  which  I  pre- 
sented a  little  while  ago.  In  your  judgment  should  the  wage  be  based  on  the 
profit  of  the  business  or  on  the  cost  of  living  to  the.  workers? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Of  course,  if  I  am  obliged  to  answer  and  say  one  thing  or 
the  other,  I  should  say  that  it  must  afford  the  American  standard  of  living 
to  the  worker,  that  is,  whatever  the  current  standard  may  be.  It  ought  to  do 
that.  If  it  can  not  do  that,  if  we  are  forced  to  that,  if  we  can  not  mediate 
and  help  to  bring  it  up  from  time  to  time,  it  might  involve  the  destruction  of 
the  industry,  or  that  particular  trade,  and  I  should  hesitate  about  making  a 
rash  application.  But  if  I  am  obliged  to  choose  between  those  alternatives,  I 
should  say  that  the  worker  must  live,  and  live  according  to  the  American 
standard. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then,  you  take  the  cost  of  living  as  the  basis 
rather  than  the  earnings  of  the  business? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  would  say,  as  between  the  two,  it  might  be  that  the  in- 
dustry would  not  be  able  to  yield  the  American  standard  of  living  to-day,  but 
if  you  nursed  it  along  a  little  while  it  might  do  so  next  year.  I  would  not 
want  to  adopt  any  rash  and  arbitrary  measure. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then,  you  would  say  as  a  rule  you  would  take 
the  cost  of  living? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes ;  and  we  would  modify  that  by  the  conditions. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Assuming  that  the  parties  had  taken  the  cost  of 
living  as  the  basis  and  had  fixed  the  wage  accordingly,  and  then  the  profit 
of  the  business  increased,  it  increased  in  prosperity  and  the  earnings  of  the 
business  increased,  would  it  be  equity,  in  your  judgment,  to  increase  the  wages 
proportionately  ? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  These  are  more  or  less  economic  questions.  I  do  not  know 
that  I  am  fully  clear  on  it.  I  should  be  generally  in  favor  of  any  arrangement 
that  would  make  the  workingman  a  partner  in  the  business.  I  mean  that  the 
ultimate  of  trades-unionism  is  copartnership. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  profit  sharing? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  It  might  be  by  agreement  and  it  might  be  they  would  say 
"  You  can  afford  to  pay  us  more  and  you  ought  to  pay  it."  At  the  same  time  it 
might  be  with  regard  to  the  conditions  of  the  business;  he  might  be  able  to 
pay  it  this  year,  and  it  might-be  that  he  would  lose  a  lot  next  year.  I  should 
think  we  might  meet  that  when  we  came  to  it. 

Another  thing  would  be  that  the  cost  was  put  on  the  consumer  and  the  con- 
sumer should  be  regarded. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  think  your  point  of  view  is  very  important  in 
this  thing,  because  this  is  really  a  basic  wage.  Summing  up,  then,  I  gather 
that  your  opinion  is,  again,  that  the  basis  for  wages  should  be  the  cost  of 
living  modified  by  the  conditions  existing  in  the  industry? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  If  a  business  can  not  be  conducted  in  this  country  to  yield 
the  basis  of  living  it  had  better  be  done  in  some  other  country  where  it  can. 

The  thing  that  I  wish  to  make  my  contribution,  however,  is  this.  It  is  not 
for  the  worth  of  my  opinion  about  any  ultimate  problem,  or  that  I  would  feel 
competent  to  describe  the  ultimate  solution.  This  is  merely  tentative,  and 
goes  to  the  next  step  of  the  industrial  problem.  That  next  step  must  be  by 
trying  to  establish  cooperative  relations  bet\veen  the  employer  and  the  em- 
ployed with  this  mediating  body,  whatever  you  choose  to  have  it,  so  that  you 
may  assure  to  the  workman  that  his  economic  rights  shall  be  maintained,  his 
human  rights  shall  be  regarded,  and  that  he  shall  be  put  in  a  position  of  such 
knowledge  as  will  let  him  know,  so  that  there  will  be  sufficient  publicity  so 
that  he  will  know,  what  share  he  is  getting. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  question  I  put  to  you  is  a  question  that  is 
perplexing  the  minds  of  the  greatest  authorities  on  labor  problems,  the  world 
over.  For  example,  in  Australia  the  basis  there  is  that  the  worker  must  be 

38819°— 16 45 


706          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

afforded  a  living  wage,  and  that  if  the  industry  can  not  pay  that  living  wage 
it  had  better  die. 

In  England,  talking  with  Lord  Asquith,  his  statement  was  that  while  we 
must  not  lose  sight  of  the  living  wage,  yet  on  the  whole  he  felt  that  it  was 
better  to  afford  to  many  people  half  a  living  than  none  whatever ;  it  was  better 
that  they  should  make  a  partial  existence  than  become  totally  dependent  upon 
society;  so  that  there  you  have  two  very  opposite  points  of  view  from  two 
great  authorities. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  should  say  that  is  very  easily  explained.  Lord  Asquith  is 
in  a  country  which  already  has  its  population  and  its  means  of  wealth  produc- 
tion, and  their  ability  to  produce  might  be  able  to  yield  there  three  or  four  hun- 
dred dollars  a  year,  when  it  might  not  yield  $1,000  dollars,  and  it  is  a  ques- 
tion of  how  much  they  should  be  allowed  to  get  out  of  industry.  He  takes 
the  political  view  of  it  and  he  feels  like  keeping  England  up  to  its  fighting 
strength ;  but  we  have  not  those  problems  here.  He  might  properly  take 
that  ground  as  a  statesman,  while  here  we  not  having  to  face  those  problems, 
might  more  easily  yield  to  the  other  view  of  it. 

The  main  thing  is  to  bridge  this  chasm  that  has  been  referred  to  in  this 
country  at  this  time,  and  establish  cooperative  relations  between  the  two 
parties,  and  interpret  them  to  each  other,  so  far  as  the  conflict  is  due  to  a  total 
misunderstanding — to  imagining.  Why,  the  most  prolific  cause  of  unrest  and 
discontent  among  the  working  people  is  vain  imagining.  They  think  that  the 
employer  is  making  a  lot  more  than  he  is,  often ;  they  think  that  he  is  bent  on 
oppressing  them,  crowding  them  down  and  out,  and  that  he  is  hostile  to  them — • 
and  he  is,  sometimes,  fearing  that  they  are  going  to  destroy  his  business.  Now, 
it  is  possible  to  remove  those  sources  of  unrest  and  friction,  and  the  machinery 
that  I  have  indicated  this  morning  and  the  spirit  that  I  have  tried  to  give  out  is 
thus  far  the  result  of  my  experience  in  just  that  little  province. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  May  I  put  the  same  question  to  you  that  I  put  to 
Mr.  Francis  a  while  ago:  What  do  you  think  is  the  missing  link  between 
capital  and  labor? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  You  imply  in  your  question  that  there  is  a  missing  link,  of 
course. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  fact  of  strikes  and  lockouts  is  the  proof  of  it. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  should  say  that  I  am  the  missing  link.     [Laughter.] 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  are  evidently  a  believer  in  the  Darwinian 
theory. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Not  retrospectively.  [Laughter.]  What  I  mean  is  that  you 
have  got  to  have  a  bridge,  a  nexus,  to  connect  the  interests  of  these  two  sides. 
Fundamentally,  while  not  identically  in  the  popular  sense,  there  is  there  a  com- 
munity of  interest  which  an  ingenious  mind,  an  inventive  mind  that  wishes  to 
find  it,  can  find;  he  can  discover  it,  and  he  can  so  display  it  and  make  it 
clear  to  both  sides  that  they  can  see  it,  and  many  of  these  things  that  cause 
most  of  the  trouble  can  be  eliminated  in  that  way ;  and  you  need  not  only  the 
conciliatory  link  that  you  see  before  you  now,  but  you  need  the  development 
of  that  idea  and  ideal  until  you  get  a  body  of  influence  working  in  the  direction 
of  correcting"  these  obvious  abuses  and  bringing  the  two  people  together,  finally 
resulting,  sometime,  in  a  clear  understanding  of  what  the  partnership  is  and 
what  share  each  is  to  get.  I  think  really  it  is  possible  in  a  degree  to  approach 
the  end  that  the  socialists  have  in  view  without  revolution.  I  think  you  can 
pass  right  through  the  stage  we  now  have  into  the  stage  whereby  the  workman 
will  know  what  state  the  business  is  in  and  will  know  whether  he  is  getting  a 
share  of  the  profit  comparable  wTith  what  is  ideal,  or  what  he  may  think  he 
ought  to  have. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  think,  then,  in  these  large  enterprises  it 
would  be  wise  and  expedient  for  labor  to  be  represented  on  the  board  of 
directors  by  voluntary  action  of  the  capitalists? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  would  not  say  what  form  it  should  take.  I  should  say  that 
result  should  be  secured ;  that  they  ought  to  know  about  the  business. 

I  think  there  is  another  very  important  addition  that  must  be  made,  and 
that  is,  that  the  workman  must  need  to  know  that  in  a  large  measure  his  wages 
come  out  of  the  wages  of  other  people ;  that  is  to  say,  a  man  in  the  clothing 
business,  if  he  is  able  to  force  up  the  price  of  a  suit  of  clothes  from  $20  to  $25, 
must  know  that  in  the  main  his  fellow  workmen  pay  for  it.  One  of  the  im- 
portant questions  to  be  settled,  as  we  proceed  in  this  line,  will  be  how  much 
ought  the  common  laborer  to  get  when  you  say  the  builder  gets  $5  a  day.  What 
is  the  relation  as  between  laborers  and  their  earning  power?  What  shall  the 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  707 

unskilled  laborer  have?  What  shall  the  skilled  laborer  have?  It  seems  to  me, 
when  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  comes  to  their  own,  it  will  be  a  court 
where  there  shall  be  an  adjudication  of  the  relative  scales  of  various  men  in  its 
employ,  and  it  will  say  to  somebody  who  simply  has  a  monopoly  of  the  power 
and  is  able  to  force  up  prices  to  $6  or  $7  or  $8  a  day,  and  strike  if  it  is  not 
done,  "No,  you  can  not  do  so.  You  are  getting  now  more  than  your  share." 
There  must  be  an  adjudication  as  between  wrorkers  of  their  share  of  the  com- 
mon earnings,  and  then  an  adjudication  as  between  employee  and  employer  as 
to  their  respective  shares. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Would  you  regard  this  as  a  fair  way  to  arrive  at 
these  differentiations  in  wages — that  is,  the  method  pursued  in  Australia?  In 
Australia  they  take  as  the  base  the  unskilled  laborer.  They  determine  what 
that  unskilled  laborer  can  live  for  in  decency,  and  from  that  they  build  up, 
paying  the  skilled  workers  the  usual  differences  as  shown  by  past  experience, 
between  the  unskilled  worker  and  the  skilled  worker ;  and  for  the  laborer  on 
a  building,  and  the  carpenter  and  brick  mason  on  that  building,  they  main- 
tain as  nearly  as  they  can  the  ratios  established  by  past  experience,  taking  the 
unskilled  laborer  as  the  basic  factor. 

Mr.  WTILLIAMS.  As  to  the  way  in  which  you  would  do  it,  I  have  no  right  to 
have  an  opinion,  but  that  it  should  be  done  I  have  none.  I  think  rather  that 
kind  of  a  division  should  be  administered  by  the  trades  themselves.  The 
should  stand  there  and  say  to  each  other,  "  You  must  be  fair,  and  because  you 
have  the  power  over  here,  and  because  you  have  a  strong  union  on  the  one 
hand,  and  these  poor  day  workers  have  not  any  union,  you  can  not  hog  it  all." 
That  is  to  say,  you  recognize  what  the  I.  W.  W.  is  clamoring  for — that  the 
aristocratic  unions  shall  not  take  the  cream  off  of  the  thing  and  disregard  the 
rights  of  the  workers  that  are  not  so  well  organized  and  have  not  so  much 
power  to  compel  their  rights. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  you  restrain  the  strong  unions  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  weaker  ones? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  would  rather  have  them  restrain  themselves.  I  think  it 
could  be  done  by  a  congress  of  labor,  managed  by  some  such  organization  as 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Were  you  here  the  other  day  when  Mr.  Briggs 
testified? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  No,  sir ;  I  was  not. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Briggs  represented  the  employers  in  the 
metal  trades.  He  took  the  ground  that  as  the  result  of  his  long  experience 
and  observation,  unions  were  not  desirable  for  the  workers  themselves ;  that  he 
thought  they  could  fare  very  much  better  under  a  system  of  individual  bar- 
gaining than  under  a  system  of  collective  bargaining.  What  is  your  judgment 
on  that  point? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  have  no  sympathy  whatever  with  that  view. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  have  not? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  None  whatever.  I  am  not  an  individualist,  and  I  do  not 
believe  they  would  fare  as  well  in  any  way.  Trade-unionism  is  the  greatest 
educative  force  that  we  have.  It  is  through  their  unions  the  men  become  intel- 
ligent in  the  things  they  need  to  know  most  about.  It  is  the  best  school  of 
ethics  we  have.  Even  at  its  wrorst,  it  compels  one  man  to  subordinate  his  in- 
dividual greed  to  the  interests  of  the  group.  Even  if  it  is  a  predatory  group,  at 
least  there  is  that  much  in  it.  In  the  main,  the  trades-union  affords  the  men 
the  most  practical  school  we  have  now  of  social  and  industrial  and  ethical 
principles. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  I  take  it  from  your  point  of  view,  if  unionism 
were  wiped  out  in  this  country  it  would  be  in  the  nature  of  a  calamity? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Undoubtedly.  What  we  want  is  more  unions  and  stronger 
unions.  They  gain  responsibility  in  number  and  power.  It  is  the  weak  union, 
the  one  in  wrhich  the  leader  must  fuse  his  people,  that  you  have  the  most  danger 
of,  and  the  most  trouble  from.  It  is  an  unfortunate  part  of  our  human  nature, 
applicable  to  unions  as  well  as  to  churches,  that  the  thing  that  will  enable 
men  to  fuse  into  a  body  or  group  is  the  jingo  spirit.  If  the  Protestant  Church 
goes  for  the  Catholic  Church,  it  is  done  by  a  feeling  of  hostility,  of  getting 
them  to  stand  for  their  rights.  If  a  union  starts  for  any  purpose,  the  easier 
thing  to  get  them  to  rely  on  is  that  idea  that  they  must  make  war  on  the  employer, 
which  has  been  unjust  and  unfair;  and  so  this  common  psychology  which  we 
have  makes  that  the  easy  way  to  get  this  thing  done;  that  is,  fuse  a  body 
together  for  any  one  purpose.  The  danger  is  they  will  never  get  past  that 


708          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Stage.  They  certainly  will  not  if  they  are  weak.  When  they  get  large  and 
strong,  they  get  a  sense  of  responsibility  to  other  people.  There  is  a  passing 
into  the  second  stage,  which  is  that  of  wanting  to  cooperate  in  production,  of 
having  the  one  got  rid  of,  and  of  developing  a  social  sentiment  and  ethical 
sense  of  justice. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  there  any  sympathy  between  organized  labor 
generally  that  is  represented  by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  the 
I.  W.  W.,  for  example? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  can  not  speak  with  any  authority  on  the  subject. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  there  any  I.  W.  W.s  in  the  organization  with 
which  you  have  been  brought  in  contact  as  mediator? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  do  not  know  whether  there  are  any  members  or  not.  Of 
course,  wherever  you  find  that  refractory  spirit,  that  unwillingness  to  submit 
to  discipline,  you  have  what  we  have  been  associating  with  the  I.  W.  W.  idea ; 
but  the  I.  W.  W.s  would  not  be  very  different  from  the  other  people  if  they 
had  a  proper  organ  of  expression.  It  is  just  that  sense  of  futility  of  their  lot, 
of  their  means  of  action,  that  makes  people  resort  to  these  measures  of  force. 
If  they  had  a  proper  organ  of  expression,  the  I.  W.  W.,  just  as  soon  as  they 
get  big  enough  and  strong  enough,  will  develop  conservatism. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  radical  of  to-day  would  become  the  conserva- 
tive of  to-morrowr? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  is  history. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Ballard,  do  you  desire  to  ask  any  questions? 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Mr.  Williams,  you  spoke  of  working  in  Chicago  and 
working  in  New  York.  You  said  you  are  also  connected  with  the  mines  of 
Illinois? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Have  these  systems  of  mediation  and  conciliation 
and  arbitration  been  as  fortunate  in  mining  as  in  other  places? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  The  mining  industry  is  one  of  those  trades  in  which  the  kind 
of  complaints  liable  to  arise  have  been  so  standardized,  have  been  so  much  the 
subject  of  regulation  and  rule,  that  the  kind  of  mediation  that  I  am  testifying 
about  is  not  applicable  there.  There  have  been  so  many  precedents  that  they 
are  able  to  adjust  them  without  difficulty  or  without  calling  in  an  outside  party, 
very  frequently. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  In  the  development  of  the  principle  of  conciliation 
and  mediation  which  might  be  national  in  its  character,  do  you  feel  that  if 
the  various  labor  organizations  should  appoint  a  committee,  and  the  various 
employers  should  appoint  a  committee,  they  might,  eventually,  together  draw 
up  a  declaration  of  principles  which  might  be  accepted  by  all  the  employers 
and  by  all  the  employees  as  fair  and  just  and  workable? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  You  are  asking  for  just  an  opinion,  and  my  opinion  would 
be  that  you  could  not  be  very  democratic  about  it.  You  would  have  to  get 
the  workers  to  believe  in  it.  You  might  get  such  as  the  I.  W.  W.  people  now, 
a  lot  of  people  hostile  and  rebellious,  and  they  would  not  want  to  help  make 
it  go.  They  would  rather  believe  in  fighting.  If  you  wanted  a  conference  of 
people  of  that  kind,  you  would  need  to  get  the  people  that  knew  about  it  and 
believed  in  it. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  think  if  they  did  formulate  a  declaration  of 
principles  which  might  appeal  to  the  good  sense  and  good  judgment  of  the 
public  generally,  that  would  have  some  influence? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  think  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  make  an  effort  to  get 
representation  in  any  conference  you  might  have  of  both  sides,  so  it  would  carry 
that  weight.  I  know  in  my  State  we  had  the  mining  laws  to  revise  last  year. 
The  governor  appointed  three  men  from  the  employers  and  three  men  from 
the  employees,  and  appointed  three  outsiders,  of  which  I  was  one.  It  turned 
out  we  were  about  the  only  ones  that  did  much.  We  codified  the  laws  of  the 
State  and  revised  them,  and  they  were  passed  without  discussion  by  the  legis- 
lature, and  they  are  now  the  laws  of  the  State. 

That  was  one  of  the  applications  of  that  idea  in  Illinois. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Delano,  do  you  desire  to  ask  anything? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Williams,  we  have  been  trying  to  find  out  in 
these  hearings  this  week  what  kind  of  collective  bargaining  is  successful  and 
what  kind  is  unsuccessful,  and  why ;  and  what  kinds  of  conciliation  and  arbitra- 
tion are  successful  and  what  kind  are  unsuccessful.  You  have  brought  out 
Borne  of  the  points.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  have  said  everything  you 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  709 

want  to  say  on  that  proposition.  I  particularly  want  to  get  your  idea  on  this 
matter  of  the  umpire  or  referee  to  cast  the  deciding  vote.  As  I  get  your  point 
it  is  that  the  longer  a  man  serves  in  that  capacity,  the  better  it  is  understood 
by  each  party,  and  the  more  willing  each  party  is  to  accept  the  casting  vote 
of  that  individual,  and  that  perhaps  the  reason  why  the  umpire  has  been 
unsuccessful  in  some  cases  is  that  he  has  only  acted  in  one  case  and  then 
dropped  out,  and  that  sort  of  arbitration  or  casting  a  vote  results  unsatis- 
factorily and  results  simply  in  a  compromise,  which  is  more  or  less  unsatis- 
factory. 

Do  I  understand  you  correctly  in  that? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  think  so.  I  would  say  that  the  work  is  actually  a  work 
of  construction.  When  these  three  people  get  together  and  find  a  problem 
before  them,  it  is  much  like  a  problem  a  scientist  might  have,  or  any  other 
problem  of  law  or  ethics.  It  is  a  question  of  what  is  the  best  solution,  taking 
Into  account  all  the  factors  in  it,  and  having  regard  to  all  the  interests  involved. 
The  employer  would  say,  "  I  would  like  to  do  that,  only  I  am  in  danger  of 
having  this  thing  follow:  There  will  be  less  discipline,  or  maybe  something 
else."  Then  they  say,  "  How  can  we  give  the  .men  what  they  want  and  yet 
protect  you  ?  What  kind  of  a  contrivance  can  we  make  ?  " 

When  you  get  all  the  factors  of  the  problem  and  get  three  fairly  good  heads 
together,  you  will  find  a  very  different  solution  of  the  problem  that  will  take 
care  of  the  interests  of  all  of  them  in  that  problem.  You  can  not  refer  to  any 
abstract  rule  or  decision,  or  anything  that  is  behind  you.  You  have  to  make  a 
construction.  That  is  especially  true  with  regard  to  these  industries  where 
difficulties  are  constantly  arising  and  conditions  are  varying  from  day  to  day. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  O'Connell,  do  you  desire  to  ask  anything? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Nothing. 

The  ACTING  CHAIKMAN.  Mr.  Lennon? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  want  to  ask  just  one  question,  I  believe.  I  under- 
stood you  to  say,  Mr.  Williams,  in  order  to  minimize  evils  of  industrial 
conflicts,  you  consider  it  necessary  for  a  new  force  to  come  in,  or  a  force  that 
we  are  just  beginning  to  think  about,  for  the  social  good.  Do  you  believe  it 
is  possible,  by  the  organized  State,  to  intervene  by  means  of  legislation  in 
such  way  as  to  promote  this  new  force  of  social  good  to  minimize  these  evils? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  should  say  yes;  although  I  would  not  be  able  to  describe 
just  the  way.  The  handicaps  at  the  source  are  of  course  obvious  to  you. 
With  our  present  political  situation,  you  would  readily  see  the  handicap  a 
man  might  be  under  who  came  there  even  with  the  best  intentions.  Let  us 
say  I  have  built  up  a  fair  reputation  and  want  to  serve  these  interests  where 
I  am.  If  I  go  into  a  strange  city  as  a  commissioner  from  the  Government  I 
would  be  met  with  the  thought  at  once:  Here  is  a  politician;  here  is  a  fellow 
that  has  a  pull  and  has  an  office.  I  think  that  would  be  impossible,  in  the 
main.  That  would  be,  as  I  conceive  it,  about  the  heaviest  handicap  he  might 
have. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  would  be  immediately  discounted? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  He  would  fail  to  get  his  confidence  which  is  indispensable  to 
success — that  belief  of  the  workman  that  he  is  going  to  get  a  fair  deal  is  an 
indispensable  condition  for  the  success  of  the  mediation. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Do  you  believe  that  would  be  within  the  province  and 
right  of  the  Government,  to  institute  a  council  or  commission,  no  matter  what 
it  is  called,  that  would  make  a  real,  intensive,  scientific  study  of  different 
industries  so  as  to  have  the  detailed  information  at  hand  upon  which  to  base 
wages  and  those  things? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  is  what  I  suggested  previously.  I  believe  that  what  the 
Government  might  do  would  be  to  institute  some  sort  of  commission  that  would 
have  the  right  and  have  the  power  to  go  in  and  remove  the  grounds  of  mis- 
understanding and  misinformation  that  men  might  have  as  to  the  profits  of  the 
employer;  that  they  could  go  in  and  make  a  complete  showing,  so-  that  the 
worker  would  not  be  thinking  all  the  time  that  the  employer  is  making  moun- 
tains of  money,  and  he  was  not  getting  his  share.  They  would  have  the  power 
to  do  that,  and  could  at  least  do  that  much.  That  would  stop  a  great  many 
strikes,  I  think. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  feel,  I  judge  from  the  expression  which  you 
made,  exactly  as  I  do — that  the  principal  cause  of  unrest,  and  I  mean  this  in  a 
general  sense,  is  because  people  do  not  understand  each  other? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  have  found  that  is  true  in  a  very  large  measure. 


710          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  And  if  men  want  to  serve  society  the  best  thing  they 
can  do  is  to  endeavor  to  get  the  people  closer  together  and  strengthen  the  human 
touch? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  the  reason  why  you  gave  expression  to  the 
idea  that  the  mediator  in  order  to  be  successful  must  get  the  union's  confidence, 
that  he  wants  to  serve  them,  not  only  as  to  decisions,  but  wants  to  serve  them  in 
order  to  strengthen  their  organization? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Yes,  sir ;  unquestionably.  I  do  not  believe  the  unions  would 
have  any  confidence  in  a  mediator  that  did  not  accept  that  as  a  fundamental 
thing — that  he  was  there  to  help  make  their  union  strong. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  wish  wTe  had  time,  because  I  would  like  to  ask 
something  about  the  Cherry  mine  disaster. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  is  another  case  of  mediation. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Yes ;  I  know  it  was. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  will  only  say  that  in  the  Cherry  mine  disaster  the  efforts  of 
mediation  resulted  in  preventing  a  lawsuit  involving  a  great  number  of  claims, 
and  the  company  recognizing  a  moral  liability  to  pay  out  half  a  million  dollars, 
which  they  did. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Harriman,  do  you  desire  to  ask  any  questions? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Mr.  Williams,  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you 
believe  unionism  is  the  greatest  moral  and  economic  educator  of  the  worker. 
I  wondered  if  you  had  any  explanation  why  unionism  is  spreading  so  slowly. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  No ;  I  have  never  thought  of  it. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  The  statement  has  been  made  here  that  less  than 
8  per  cent  of  the  workers  are  organized. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  would  not  have  supposed  it  was  so  small. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Some  one  else  said  it  was  less  than  10  per  cent, 
but  it  is  not  larger  than  that,  I  believe. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Of  course,  I  did  not  mean  it  with  reference  to  the  magnitude 
of  the  problem;  but  I  mean  that  for  those  who  go  into  the  unions  it  is  the 
greatest  educator  to-day ;  it  is  the  greatest  democratizer  that  we  have. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Granting  that  is  so,  I  wondered  if  you  had  any 
solution. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  should  think  that  this  publicity  that  we  get  through  this 
means  would  help  greatly.  There  are  many  large  employers  that  stand  against 
unions.  Some  of  the  largest  of  our  corporations  will  not  have  them.  They  say 
they  are  afraid  the  unions  will  destroy  their  business  or  injure  them.  They  will 
not  give  the  power  to  anybody  else  to  interfere  with  their  business,  if  they  can 
help  it.  Very  rarely  does  an  employer  come  forward  and  say,  "  I  want  a 
union,"  de  novo.  Then,  you  generate  this  heat  that  is  the  fusing  power  to  get 
organization.  We  have  a  case  in  the  copper  country,  and  it  has  been  suggested 
I  should  go  up  there.  I  declined  for  the  reason  that  from  my  information  and 
belief,  I  believed  the  employers  would  not  consent  to  it.  They  would  not  trans- 
fer their  power — and  that  is  what  it  means.  They  would  not  part  with  their 
power,  and  nothing  but  compulsion  would  make  them  do  it.  It  is  not  the  place 
for  a  mediator.  That  is  the  place  for  fighting.  Nothing  but  fighting  will  ever 
compel  those  people  to  do  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  side  that  has  the  biggest  stack  will  win  out? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Very  likely. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Why  should  they  be  so  opposed  to  it? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Because  unquestionably  unions  have  been  mismanaged  in 
the  past,  especially  young  unions.  They  fear  their  business  would  be  inter- 
fered with  and  injured,  and  perhaps  they  may  think  in  that  business  it  would 
cost  them  more,  and  their  profits  would  not  be  so  big.  I  do  not  know  the 
facts  in  the  case. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Some  question  was  asked  in  regard  to  your  idea  of 
what  either  the  State  or  the  Federal  Government  should  do  by  way  of  a  com- 
mission of  some  kind.  Would  you  give  that  commission  any  compulsory 
authority  or  power?  I  am  just  now  getting  at  the  general  view,  based  on  your 
knowledge,  as  to  what  appears  to  you  to  be  the  extent  to  which  we  could  go 
in  recommendation. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  have  not  earned  the  right  to  have  much  of  an  opinion  on 
that.  My  impression,  offhand,  is  that  with  my  feeling  of  the  reluctance  with 
which  the  workmen  would  accept  a  compulsory  decision  and  feeling  of  im- 
possibility of  enforcing  that  decision  upon  the  workman,  I  should  be  rather 
hesitant,  don't  you  know,  about  adopting  compulsory  power  for  decisions. 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  711 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  For  present  purposes,  at  the  present  stage  of  the 
game,  you  think  that  would  not  be  wise? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  As  I  say,  rny  opinion  is  not  worth  recording. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Suppose  you  take  the  ground  next  that  it  should 
have  only  advisory  or  only  mediating  power,  the  question  then  would  be — 
you  expressed  the  opinion  that  persons  on  such  a  body  having  the  reputation 
of  being  politicians  would  not  be  useful  as  mediators. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  is  the  handicap  we  suffer  under,  of  course,  for  being 
the  kind  of  politicians  we  are.  Perhaps  you  could  reform  it  so  as  to  put  the 
politician  into  good  repute,  but  at  present  it  is  more  or  less  discounted. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Have  you  any  idea  why  it  is  that  that  kind  of  people 
do  get  into  control  of  these  bodies? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  They  do  not  always ;  I  am  ready  to  admit  that  this  body 
here  is  not. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  This  body  is  not  what? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Composed  of  politicians. 

The  ACTING  CHAIBMAN.  This  body  is  a  temporary  body,  and  it  goes  out  of 
existence,  and  it  can  not  be  considered  a  mediating  body ;  but  why  is  it,  taking 
it  from  a  little  different  angle,  how  is  it  possible  to  select  this  missing  link, 
this  competent  mediator,  of  whom  we  have  as  yet  found  very  few?  I  think 
you  are  perhaps  the  first  witness  that  has  appeared  before  us  that  we  could 
identify. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Thank  you. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Now,  it  looks  as  though  he  has  had  to  go  through 
a  period  of  training,  he  has  to  change  his  own  views;  it  looks  next  as  though 
he  had  to  be  competent  to  get  the  confidence  of  both  sides;  it  looks  next 
as  though  he  ought  ultimately  to  have  the  power  to  decide  given  to  him  in 
order  that  his  functions  of  mediating 

Mr.  WILLIAMS  (interrupting).  That  is  indispensable,  I  think. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Yes.  How  can  we,  as  a  general  proposition — sup- 
pose we  consider  that  the  whole  question  of  unionism  will  very  largely  turn 
on  securing  that  type  of  man,  available  for  all  these  thousands  of  disputes  in 
all  these  unions.  How  can  you  suggest  any  recommendation  as  to  the  de- 
velopment of  a  business  of  that  type,  which  would  be  not  simply  the  accident 
of  one  man,  I  might  say,  who  is  particularly  qualified,  but  how  can  we  find 
such  men,  to  make  it  a  professional  business? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  think  the  first  thing  to  be  done,  if  such  a  thing  is  desirable 
or  practical — I  do  not  doubt  in  the  least  but  that  we  have  plenty  of  men  here 
that  would  fit  into  that  situation  admirably.  I  think  that  the  incentives  are 
the  greatest  anywhere.  I  do  not  know  of  any  political  position  that  I  would 
value  as  much  as  the  position  that  I  hold  now,  so  far  as  dignity  and  self- 
respect  are  concerned.  I  believe  the  rewards  in  a  profession  of  this  kind  are 
so  great  that  it  would  attract  men  as  soon  as  it  was  known  that  it  was  pos- 
sible to  have  it  institutionalized;  you  would  have  the  best  and  highest  type 
of  men,  to  whom  the  rewards  would  be  nothing,  and  they  would  come  from 
any  business  to  engage  in  it.  I  do  not  believe  there  ever  was  as  much  social 
spirit  in  the  world  as  there  is  right  now,  and  I  believe  there  are  many  indi- 
viduals who  could  be  found  that  would  possess  the  qualities  needed  to  make 
it  a  success,  because  their  success  would  be  in  inverse  ratio  to  the  number  of 
decisions  they  would  give  out;  it  would  be  according  to  the  number  of  agree- 
ments they  secured.  They  would  think  of  the  success  of  the  arbitration  and  of 
the  protocol  as  beyond  any  other  success,  and  they  would  make  it  work. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Then  you  think  if  we  would  make  this  sort  of  recom- 
mendation, that  conciliation  in  the  form  of  arbitration  should  be  recommended, 
that  that  would  have  weight  with  the  legislatures  and  with  the  industries  of 
the  country — you  think  the  type  of  men  needed  to  carry  it  out  would  be  forth- 
coming? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Oh,  unquestionably,  if  they  could  go  to  the  job ',  if  they  did 
not  have  to  go  through  politics  to  get  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Well,  then,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  find  some  scheme 
of  getting  them.  Have  you  considered  the  method  of  civil-service  examinations 
for  such  a  position? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  No ;  I  am  not  prepared.  As  you  see,  it  is  a  comparatively 
new  development.  I  have  not  thought  of  it  in  connection  with  the  Govern- 
ment; I  have  only  thought  of  making  good  myself,  so  as  to  show  that  it  can 
be  done,  and  that  other  employers  and  unions  will  be  influenced  to  try  it  out. 
Here  is  your  missing  link  that  has  been  spoken  of  so  much.  This  wide  chasni 


712          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

needs  to  be  bridged,  and  experience  lias  shown  me  that  the  best  bridge  possible 
is  that  of  the  human  spirit  as  a  mediating  force — a  man  who  will  not  be  dis- 
interested, but,  on  the  contrary,  will  be  tremendously  interested  to  have  both 
sides  succeed. 

The  ACTING  CHAIKMAN.  It  has  been  suggested  that  this  commission  should 
recommend  an  organization  similar  to  the  industrial  council  in  England.  Do 
you  know  what  that  is? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Only  vaguely. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  that  it  is  composed  of  equal  numbers 
of  representatives  from  organized  employers  and  an  equal  number  of  repre- 
sentatives from  organized  labor,  and  it  is  a  mediating  body?  Would  such  an 
organization  of  that  kind,  do  you  think,  be  able  to  pick  out  mediators  and 
arbitrators  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  It  might,  if  it  did  not  have  any  political  debts  to  pay. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Making  such  an  organization,  in  other  words,  a  civil- 
service  commission  for  that  purpose? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  have  no  opinion  on  that  worth  anything,  because  I  have  not 
thought  strongly  enough  on  it,  and  I  do  not  wish  my  opinion  to  be  any  more 
than  just  one  contribution  into  the  symposium  you  are  getting  at,  and  it  will 
be  placed  \vith  the  information  you  are  getting  from  other  sources ;  and  I  wish 
to  center  my  emphasis  upon  the  kind  of  thing  wre  need  and,  in  a  way,  counter 
the  objections  to  arbitration  that  have  been  offered  here. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  To  get  at  it  a  little  closer,  how  were  you  first  selected 
as  an  arbitrator  or  mediator  before  people  knew  you  had  the  qualities  that 
would  fit  you  for  it? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  am  afraid  that  a  recital  of  my  experience  would  be  dis- 
couraging, in  a  way,  as  to  qualifications.  I  had  to  live  40  years  in  one  town 
until  people  could  inquire  all  about  me  and  satisfy  themselves  that  I  was  on 
the  square.  Then,  my  early  mining  and  trade-union  experience  made  me  known 
to  the  miners;  and  then,  being  called  on  at  different  times — in  every  strike  I 
was  called  in  as  a  mediator,  or  as  a  volunteer  butted  in — and  they  got  to  know 
that  I  was  friendly.  That  is  what  I  had  to  go  through,  but  that  might  be 
shortened  for  somebody  else. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  had  to  be  selected  by  the  joint  action  of  oppos- 
ing interests? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Surely. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  So  that  you  would  say  that  it  is  indispensable  that 
the  representatives  of  the  two  interests  should  make  the.  decision?, 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  I  do  not  want  to  say  anything  that  will  bind  any  further  ac- 
tion. I  say  that  is  the  way  it  has  been  proposed,  so  that  the  Government  might 
acquire  the  confidence  of  the  people  to  such  an  extent  that  the  people  would 
accept  whom  they  might  ultimately  appoint.  I  do  not  wish  to  say  that  I  think 
that  that  is  coming  right  away,  but  ultimately  it  might  come  to  that.  I  inti- 
mated some  time  ago  that  it  would  result  in  a  body  with  authority  that  could 
settle  a  large  strike — for  instance,  a  strike  in  the  railroad  industry  or  a  strike 
in  the  coal  industry — in  such  a  way  that  it  would  have  the  power  of  one  of  our 
boards  of  public  utilities  now.  They  could  tell  a  corporation  now  what  is  a 
fair  profit,  and  an  ultimate  board  of  arbitration  might  come  to  that  some  time ; 
but  it  is  ultimate  and  not  proximate. 

Commissioner  WETN STOCK.  Would  it  be  so  difficult  to  find  these  men  if  they 
were  appointed  by  the  Government,  not  men  taken  out  of  private  life,  men 
who  are  not  widely  known,  and  who  wrould  be  looked  upon  with  more  or  less 
suspicion;  but  if  he  has  held  a  public  situation,  his  record,  and  character 
having  become  generally  known,  he  is  sized  up  quickly,  and  both  sides  have 
means  of  determining  whether  he  is  the  right  man  for  the  place  or  not  and 
entitled  to  their  confidence. 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  That  would  be  so  in  some  cases;  there  are  some  men  who 
have  been  in  public  life  and  conducted  themselves  in  such  a  way  as  to  cast 
luster  upon  themselves.  If  that  is  true,  that  would  help. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  the  Chicago  Hart,  Schaffner  &  Marx  conciliation  scheme 
do  the  underdeputies,  not  the  chief  deputies,  have  power  to  settle  any  case 
which  comes  before  them?  Are  there  any  restrictions  on  the  kind  of  cases 
they  may  settle? 

Mr.  WILLIAMS.  Mr.  Hillman  had  better  answer  that  question.  He  is  the 
head  of  the  organization,  and  I  will  leave  that  to  Mr.  Hillman. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Perhaps  Mr.  Hillman  can  tell  us. 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  713 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  There  really  was  no  definite  arrangement.  As  a  rule,  the 
deputies — not  the  chief  deputies — if  they  feel  that  this  case  is  a  little  too  big 
for  them,  they  would  just  give  it  to  the  chief  deputies.  As  a  rule,  everything 
they  decided  was  always  satisfactory ;  we  never  had  to  overrule  them ;  but 
on  principle  we  have  the  right  to  do  that,  the  chief  deputies. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  The  decisions  are  reported  to  the  chief  deputies? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  Yes;  every  detail  of  the  investigation  is  reported  to  the 
chief  deputies. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  if  those  decisions  do  not  conform  to  principles  which 
have  already  been  established,  or  precedents  already  established,  then  what? 

Mr.  HILLMAN.  I  would  like  to  say  that  we  do  not  follow  so  many  precedents. 
We  always  used  to  say,  "  We  will  face  the  situation  as  it  presents  itself,"  and 
if  we  found  that  we  had  made  a  foolish  decision  a  year  ago  we  did  not 
have  to  be  bound  this  year  by  the  same  decision. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Williams.  We  will  now 
take  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

(Whereupon  the  commission  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock  p.  m.) 

AFTER  RECESS. 

The  commission  resumed  its  session  pursuant  to  the  taking  of  recess. 
The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Thompson,  are  you  ready  to  proceed? 
Mr.   THOMPSON.  Yes.     If  the   chairman  please,   Mr.   King  is  here,   and   we 
would  like  to  call  him  first. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  W.  L.  MACKENZIE  KING. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  please  give  the  reporter  your  name,  address,  and 
occupation,  Mr.  King? 

Mr.  KING.  W.  L.  Mackenzie  King;  my  address  is  Ottawa,  Canada;  and  I 
am  a  journalist  at  present  and  take  an  interest  in  public  affairs. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  past  have  you  had  connection  with  the  administration 
of  the  Canadian  industrial  disputes  act? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes ;  I  had  a  good  deal  to  do  with  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  has  been  your  connection  with  it,  and  how  long  did 
it  continue? 

Mr.  KING.  I  drafted  the  act  to  begin  with,  and  administered  it  part  of  the 
time  as  deputy  minister,  and  part  of  the  time  as  minister  of  labor  in  Canada. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  practical  application  of  the  act? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  the  instances  in  which  it  was  applied? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes ;  I  was  with  most  of  them. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  you  are  able  to  speak  with  knowledge  of  the  facts? 

Mr.  KING.  I  think  so;  yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  tell  the  commission  the  reason  for  the  inauguration 
of  the  act,  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  intended,  and  in  what  instances  it 
has  been  applied,  and  how  it  worked,  if  you  please? 

Mr.  KING.  That  would  take  rather  a  long  answer,  Mr.  Thompson. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  is  the  desire  of  the  commission  to  allow  you  to  make 
your  statement  in  your  own  way,  Mr.  King,  if  you  would  like  to  do  that. 

Mr.  KING.  The  act  grew  out  of  the  experiences  in  the  settlement  of  indus- 
trial disputes.  When  the  department  of  labor  was  first  formed  in  Canada  the 
only  act  under  which  there  was  power  to  intervene  in  industrial  disputes  was  a 
conciliation  act  modeled  on  the  conciliation  act  of  Great  Britain.  That  gave 
to  the  Government  the  power  to  appoint  a  conciliator  when  an  industrial  dif- 
ference arose  and  to  use  his  good  offices  to  bring  about  a  settlement. 

I  happened  to  be  appointed  the  first  deputy  minister  of  the  department,  and 
one  of  the  first  strikes  that  came  up  after  the  department  had  been  formed  I 
was  sent  to  intervene  in  as  a  deputy  minister.  Having  had  some  good  luck  in 
that  strike  I  was  sent  to  intervene  in  others,  and  the  result  was  that  for  a 
number  of  years  I  was  intervening  as  a  conciliator  in  these  individual  strikes 
as  they  arose. 

In  1907  there  was  a  large  strike  that  took  place  in  the  Province  of  Alberta, 
in  the  coal  mines,  in  the  spring  of  the  year.  I  was  in  the  old  country  during 
the  year,  but  when  I  got  back  the  premier  asked  me  if  I  would  go  out  to  British 
Columbia  and  try  to  settle  the  difference.  I  went  out  and,  to  make  a  long 
story  short,  it  took  about  two  weeks  to  get  that  strike  settled.  The  serious 


stc 


714          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

part  of  it  was  that  the  prairie  Provinces  of  the  west  were  dependent  on  these 
mines  for  coal,  winter  was  setting  in,  and  the  people  in  that  district  were  fac- 
ing the  approach  of  winter  with  the  possibility  of  starvation  from  fuel.  Get- 
ting down  into  the  district  where  the  coal  mines  were,  however,  neither  of  the 
parties  to  the  dispute  seemed  to  consider  that  aspect  of  the  case  at  all.  They 
were  thinking  of  their  own  particular  grievances.  After  that  difference  was 
settled  and  I  came  back  to  Ottawa,  the  premier  said :  "  We  have  got  to  draft 
some  kind  of  a  measure  that  will  help  to  make  this  sort  of  thing  impossible,  if 
we  can." 

My  experience  there  and  in  connection  with  other  disputes  had  led  me  to 
believe  that  if  we  could  put  through  an  act  which  would  compel  the  parties  to 
a  dispute  to  act  together  and  provide  some  legislation  that  would  get  at  the 
facts  when  they  got  together,  that  a  large  percentage  of  the  industrial  disputes 
would  be  saved. 

I  mentioned  this  circumstance  to  Sir  Wilfrid  Laurier  at  the  time,  and  he 
said :  "  You  had  better  draft  a  measure  embodying  those  principles." 

The  industrial  disputes  investigation  act  is  simply  the  result  of  that  conver- 
sation. 

The  act  is  not  original;  it  is  based  on  legislation  in  other  countries.  The 
phraseology  of  it,  a  good  part  of  it,  is  from  legislation  in  New  Zealand,  and 
some  of  it  is  copied  from  State  laws  in  this  country.  The  feature  of  the 
act,  however,  is  that  it  compels  parties  to  an  industrial  difference  to  meet 
together  and  it  affords  the  machinery  whereby  they  can  get  at  the  facts  when 
they  are  seeking  to  arrive  at  a  settlement. 

There  is  nothing  compulsory  in  the  act  as  to  the  acceptance  of  a  finding  of  a 
board  established  under  its  provisions.  The  parties  are  expected  to  meet  in  this 
fashion  before  they  strike  or  lockout,  but  once  a  board  has  been  appointed 
under  the  act  the  parties  may  do  what  they  like  as  to  accepting  or  rejecting 
the  award. 

I  might  say  that  such  limited  experience  as  I  had  in  dealing  with  these  dis- 
putes showed  clearly  that  one  of  the  great  difficulties  in  every  strike  was  to  get 
the  parties  together.  That  same  thing  came  up  on  one  occasion  after  the  other. 
Employers  would  not  meet  so-and-so  because  they  were  belonging  to  a  union, 
because  they  had  become  obnoxious,  through  personalities  or  other  causes. 
Then  there  was  also  the  difficulty  that  even  when  we  got  them  together  a  ques- 
tion would  arise  as  to  some  point  of  fact,  and  there  was  no  way  of  compelling 
evidence — the  taking  of  evidence  under  oath ;  and  it  was  personal  experience, 
largely,  in  that  particular  that  made  me  believe  that  if  those  two  points  could 
be  properly  provided  for  the  settlement  of  the  industrial  differences  would  be 
easier. 

The  provisions  of  the  act  are  simply  these:  It  applies,  in  the  first  place,  to 
any  dispute  in  the  nature  of  public  utilities — all  transportation  companies, 
transportation  by  steam,  by  electricity,  to  public-service  corporations,  agencies 
of  communication  and  transportation. 

It  is  a  Federal  act,  administered  by  the  Federal  Government,  and  applies  to 
the  whole  of  the  Dominion.  It  does  not  include  all  industries.  The  reason  of 
its  being  limited  to  the  particular  industries  that  it  covers  is  that,  being  a  Fed- 
eral measure,  it  is  difficult  to  administer  over  so  vast  an  area,  and  the  industries 
to  which  it  applies  are  more  or  less  in  the  nature  of  industries  upon  which 
others  are  dependent,  and  the  public  in  particular  is  affected  by. 

Well,  in  regard  to  any  of  those,  where  the  difference  is  likely  to  result  in  a 
strike  or  lockout,  the  parties  are  by  law,  either  of  them,  required  to  ask  for  a 
board  of  investigation.  They  send  in  an  application  to  the  minister  of  labor, 
and  if  it  is  made  in  conformity  with  the  form  of  the  act  he  then  calls  upon  each 
of  the  parties  to  name  a  member  of  the  board.  They  may  name  any  person  they 
please,  provided  that  the  person  so  named  is  not  financially  interested,  and  those 
two  persons  are  given  three  or  five  days  within  which  to  agree  upon  a  third 
man  as  chairman  of  the  board. 

If  they  are  unable  to  agree  or  either  party  refuses  to  name  a  member  of  the 
board,  then  the  Government,  through  its  minister  of  labor,  appoints  a  party  in 
place  of  the  one  refusing,  and  that  party  acts  as  chairman. 

The  three  members  of  the  board  are  given  all  the  powers  of  the  court ;  they 
may  compel  the  production  of  documents,  take  evidence  under  oath,  or  subpoena 
witnesses.  They  are  paid  $20  a  day  each,  I  think,  and  expenses.  The  witnesses 
are  paid.  The  whole  expense  of  the  investigation  is  carried  on  at  the  expense 
of  the  State. 

This  board  uses  its  good  offices  to  try  to  effect  a  settlement.  If  they  are  un- 
successful in  the  matter  of  drafting  an  agreement  between  the  parties  they 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  715 

issue  a  report  stating  what  in  their  opinion  should  be  done  to  bring  about  a 
fair  settlement.  That  report  is  made  to  the  minister  and  given  out  by  the  min- 
ister to  the  press.  Once  it  is  given  out  the  parties  are  free  to  do  what  they 
please — either  strike,  lockout,  accept  it,  or  do  nothing. 

The  act  was  passed  in  1907.  It  has  been  on  the  statutes  now  for  seven  years. 
I  do  not  know  what  the  latest  figures  are,  but  I  think  the  last  report  of  the 
department  of  labor,  which  brings  it  up  to  March,  1913,  shows  something  like 
147,  and  that  out  of  the  147  all,  with  the  exception  of  20  resulted  in  the  strike 
being  prevented  and  the  differences  immediately  settled,  and  the  disputes  that 
the  board  have  had  to  do  with  have  been  the  most  important  of  the  disputes  we 
have  had  in  the  Dominion  in  that  time,  I  think.  That  is  about  all ;  I  think 
that  covers  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  was  done  with  reference  to  the  20  cases  that  were  not 
settled? 

Mr.  KING.  I  think  on  those  cases  there  were  strikes.  So  far  as  I  have  been 
able  to  see,  in  no  case  where  the  strike  followed  the  finding  of  the  board  was 
there  any  gain  beyond  what  was  recommended  by  the  board  itself.  I  do  not 
know  of  a  single  instance  where,  a  recommendation  of  the  board  not  having 
been  followed,  anything  better  was  obtained  as  a  result  of  the  strike. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  know  whether,  in  the  20  cases  that  went  to  strike  or 
lockout,  finally  they  were  adjudicated  by  arbitration  or  conciliation? 

Mr.  KING.  No;  in  every  case  the  matter  of  one  side  giving  in — no,  they 
scrapped  on  until  they  got  tired  of  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  know  whether  in  those  cases  the  side  that  won  would 
concede  the  findings  of  the  public  body,  or  would  they  insist  upon  their  own  con- 
tentions ? 

Mr.  KING.  Well,  my  impression,  speaking  roughly,  is  that  in  some  cases  set- 
tlement was  ultimately  made  on  the  basis  of  the  award  that  the  board  had  put 
out,  and  in  other  cases  terms  not  as  satisfactory  were  the  result. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  in  the  majority  of  instances  you  believe  that  the  terms 
found  by  the  public  board  were  adopted? 

Mr.  KING.  I  would  not  be  quite  sure  of  that.  I  am  not  so  sure  but  in  the 
majority  of  instances  the  settlement  was  less  favorable  to  the  party  that  refused 
to  accept  it  than  it  would  have  been  had  they  accepted  the  finding  of  the  board 
at  the  time. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  there  any  sections  in  the  act  which  make  a  dispute  or  a 
strike  or  a  lockout  an  illegal  strike  or  lockout,  and  what  are  those  sections? 

Mr.  KING.  There  is  a  section  in  the  act  which  makes  it  an  offense  for  a  strike 
to  take  place  or  a  lockout  to  be  declared  prior  to  an  investigation  by  the  board, 
or  pending  an  inquiry  by  the  board;  but  the  strike  or  lockout  is  not  made  an 
offense  per  se ;  it  is  only  providing  that  it  takes  place  prior  to  the  investigation. 
There  is  a  penalty — I  am  sorry  to  say  I  do  not  remember  the  exact  amount  of 
money — something  like  $10  a  day  for  individuals  and  a  thousand  dollars  a  day 
for  the  company  that  violates  that  provision.  I  have  got  copies  of  the  act  with 
me  that  I  could  give  to  the  commission  if  desired. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  think  we  have  copies  of  the  act.  Has  that  penalty,  so  far 
as  you  know,  ever  been  enforced,  either  against  employers  or  corporations  or 
companies? 

Mr.  KING.  There  are  one  or  two  instances  where  it  is  possible — one  case  I 
know  of  in  the  Cobalt  mines,  where  it  was  enforced  against  a  man.  There  was 
another  case  in  a  coal  company  in  Alberta,  where  it  was  enforced  against  a 
company.  There  are  other  cases  where  it  has  been  violated  and  nobody  has  pro- 
ceeded against  the  parties. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  Alberta  case  were  you  able  to  collect?  That  was 
against  the  company? 

Mr.  KING.  That  was  against  the  company  and  we  were  able  to  collect. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  in  the  other  case  it  was  against  a  man? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Were  you  able  to  enforce  that? 

Mr.  KING.  I  think  so,  if  I  remember  correctly.  There  was  an  appeal  from 
the  decision  of  the  court  that  made  the  finding,  and  that  appeal  was  sustained 
by  the  court,  and  I  think  I  am  correct  in  saying  that  the  fine  was  collected. 

But  I  would  like  to  say  this :  The  Government  has  never  laid  particular  stress 
upon  the  penalty  end  of  it ;  the  penalty  part  of  it  has  always  been  treated  much 
in  the  same  light  as  a  penalty  for  trespass.  If  the  party  affected  wishes  to 
enter  an  action  to  recover  damages,  they  may  do  so,  but  the  Government  of  its 
own  initiative  has  never  laid  an  information  against  any  of  the  parties  for 


716          REPORT    OP    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

violating  the  provisions  of  the  act.  What  has  been  felt  by  the  administration  is 
that  the  merits  of  the  act  lie  primarily  in  the  way  of  investigation  which  will 
appeal  to  the  parties  themselves,  and  it  has  not  been  found  necessary  to  take 
action  in  the  way  of  penalizing  the  parties  particularly. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Has  there  been  any  consensus  of  opinion  on  behalf  of  em- 
ployers against  that  penalty  section,  if  you  know,  or  any  general  opinion  held 
by  the  majority? 

Mr.  KING.  Well,  at  the  time  the  measure  was  being  introduced  in  Parliament 
there  was  some  objection,  I  think,  raised,  but  I  do  not  know  that  the  penalty 
end  of  it  has  attracted  a  great  deal  of  attention  one  way  or  the  other. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  would  you  say  in  reference  to  the  labor  unions?  Have 
they  evinced  any  antagonism  toward  that  section? 

Mr.  KING.  I  think  they  would  prefer  not  to  have  that  section ;  I  might  say  in 
regard  to  that  at  the  time  the  law  was  enacted,  we  were  pretty  much  in  this 
position,  that  each  party,  or  rather,  the  parties  in  whose  interests  it  was 
enacted,  had  to*  consider  whether  they  were  prepared  to  make  some  concession 
to  the  State,  or  the  State  make  some  concession  to  them. 

I  spoke  a  moment  ago  about  the  Alberta  strike.  I  remember  at  the  time 
dealing  with  that.  The  men  there  were  very  much  incensed  at  the  company, 
being  unwilling  to  meet  them,  and  they  were  equally  provoked  at  the  inability 
to  get  at  the  facts  when  we  were  working  on  them,  and  I  said  to  them,  when 
we  were  discussing  the  mattter,  that  if  we  could  not  get  this  information  that 
we  were  after  or  get  this  meeting  we  were  trying  to  bring  about  in  a  voluntary 
way  I  would  get  legislation  through  Parliament  to  compel  it  if  they  would 
back  me  up  on  it,  and  they  were  highly  agreeable  to  that  point  of  view  at  that 
time. 

I  took  the  matter  up  with  some  of  the  officers  of  the  Canadian  Federation 
of  Labor,  and  they  saw  clearly  that  we  were  practically  in  this  position — to 
get  an  act  through  Parliament  which  would  compel  employers  to  produce  their 
books  before  a  tribunal  on  which  labor  itself  was  represented ;  labor  had  to  be 
prepared  to  do  something  on  its  behalf  which  the  State  would  recognize  as  a 
concession  on  its  part,  and  the  compromise,  if  I  might  so  call  jt,  that  was 
made  was  this :  That  labor  agreed — I  am  speaking  now  in  general  terms — to 
postpone  the  time  at  which  they  would  disturb  the  general  commmunity 
through  a  strike  on  condition,  that  the  State  would  provide  them  another 
means  of  avoiding  the  strike  at  the  expense  of  the  State  itself,  and  the  bill 
in  that  way,  being  introduced  with  that  understanding,  did  not  meet  with  the 
opposition  of  the  labor  organizations  at  the  time,  with  the  exception,  I  think, 
of  some  of  the  miners'  unions,  but  the  leading  officers  in  the  labor  organizations 
at  that  time  were  not  opposed  to  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  incorporation  of  that  section 
into  the  act  was  at  the  instance  of  the  workingmen? 

Mr.  KING.  No;  not  the  incorporation  of  the  section  imposing  a  penalty. 
No ;  if  anything,  that  was  at  the  instance  of  the  Government,  looking  at  the 
problem  of  gettting  that  legislation  through  Parliament.  The  question  was 
this:  We  knew  that  as  soon  as  the  measure  was  brought  down  that  at  once 
the  employers  would  say  and  the  public  would  say,  "  You  are  setting  up  a 
tribunal  at  the  expense  of  the  State,  giving  rights  that  have  never  been  given 
to  labor  before,  namely,  the  right  to  have  their  own  member  on  a  board,  the 
right  to  choose  a  chairman,  the  right  to  call  witnesses  and  to  have  those 
witnesses  paid  for  by  the  State,  the  right  to  appear  for  themselves,  or  by 
their  own  representatives.  You  do  all  this  at  the  expense  of  the  State. 
What  is  the  State  getting  in  return  for  it?"  The  government  of  the  day 
did  not"  think  the  measure  could  be  put  through  unless  there  was  some 
answer  to  that  question.  The  answer  was  this :  "  What  you  get  in  return  is 
the  continuous  operation  of  the  utility  that  is  concerned,"  and  the  only  way 
that  could  be  put  in  words  before  the  public  was  to  impose  a  penalty  which 
would  be  collectible  in  the  event  a  violation  of  that  took  place.  That  is  the 
nature  of  the  understanding,  so  to  speak,  between  the  State  and  one  of  the 
parties  to  an  industrial  dispute. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  say,  in  the  first  instance,  labor  did  not  oppose  the  act? 

Mr.  KING.  No;  the  Trades'  Labor  Congress  of  the  Dominion  indorsed  it,  and 
think  they  have  indorsed  it  rightly. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  attitude,  if  any,  of  organized  labor  toward  that 
section  of  the  act  to-day? 

Mr.  KING.  I  think  organized  labor  would  prefer  to  have  the  act  as  it  is 
without  any  penalty  undoubtedly,  but  I  think  if  they  were  asked — particu- 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  717 

larly  the  unions  that  had  been  under  this  act — in  fact,  I  am  quite  sure 
when  I  speak  of  the  unions  under  the  act — whether  they  would  rather  have 
the  condition  as  it  existed  prior  to  this  measure,  namely,  where  they  had  to 
fight  with  each  other  and  had  no  means  of  holding  an  investigation  at  the 
public  expense  or  having  this  measure  with  the  penalties  attached  to  it  they 
would  say,  "  Give  us  the  measure  with  the  penalties  attached  to  it."  In  other 
words,  there  has  been  no  agitation  for  a  repeal  of  the  act  since  it  was  passed. 
Another  government  is  in  office  at  the  present  time,  and  I  think  if  they 
thought  it  was  desirable  to  have  the  act  repealed  or  changed  there  would 
probably  have  been  an  effort  to  repeal  or  change  it,  but  they  have  not  done  so. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  there  any  other  method  proposed  or  have  you  in  mind 
any  other  or  better  method  of  handling  that  phase  of  the  subject  than  the 
provisions  of  this  act? 

Mr.  KING.  That  is  the  best  method  I  know  of. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  think  it  has  worked  out  satisfactorily? 

Mr.  KING.  I  think  it  has  more  than  justified  itself ;  yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  advantage  has  been  taken  of  the  provisions  of  the  act 
with  reference  to  providing  for  conciliation  and  mediation  of  industrial  dis- 
putes which  do  not  come  within  the  exact  purview  of  the  act;  for  instance, 
public  utilities? 

Mr.  KING.  There  is  a  clause  in  the  act  which  provides  that  any  industry 
may,  upon  joint  application  of  the  parties,  come  under  this  measure  itself.  I 
think  the  men  in  the  boot  and  shoe  trade  in  Quebec,  at  least  a  company  and 
its  employes  there,  and  one  or  two  cotton  industries  in  Quebec,  have  taken 
advantage  of  that  section  and  have  had  an  adjustment  of  their  differences 
under  the  provision.  With  the  exception  of  that  there  has  not  been  advantage 
taken  of  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  From  your  experience  with  the  act,  as  it  has  worked  in  con- 
nection with  the  industries  covered,  have  you  any  opinion  as  to  the  advisa- 
bility of  extending  the  act  further  than  just  to  public  utilities  disputes? 

Mr.  KING.  It  is  a  matter  there  of  administration.  I  should  think  it  was  a 
desirable  thing,  if  the  act  were  to  be  extended,  that  it  should  be  extended  by 
the  provincial  governments  rather  than  by  the  Federal  Government,  because 
I  think  where  you  have  all  the  industries  of  the  country  to  deal  with  and  only 
the  one  central  Government,  it  would  be  very  difficult  of  administration  there. 
I  see  no  reason  why  the  individual  Provinces,  or  what  would  be  individual 
States  here,  might  not  enact  similar  measures  and  make  them  applicable  to 
all  industries  over  a  certain  number  of  men.  I  do  not  think  the  State  ought  to 
bother  about  anything  that  is  not  going  to  affect  it  particularly.  But  if  the 
industries  employ  enough  men  so  that  a  strike  or  lockout  of  that  particular 
industry  would  affect  others,  then  I  think  there  is  a  strong  reason  why  the 
State  should  take  some  measure  or  seek  to  take  some  measure  to  prevent  in- 
dustrial unrest,  if  it  is  possible  to  do  so. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  objection  to  that  act  being  a  Federal  act? 

Mr.  KING.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  present  measure  being  a  Federal  one. 
As  I  say,  it  is  simply  a  question  of  administration. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  mean,  what  is  your  objection  more  in  detail  as  to  a  further 
act  dealing  with  industrial  disputes  being  a  Federal  one  rather  than  a  State 
one? 

Mr.  KING.  It  is  just  a  matter  of  the  administration  of  the  law.  For  example, 
take  a  dispute  arising  in  the  Province  of  British  Columbia.  Where  it  is  a 
dispute  affecting  a  street  railway  or  some  large  industrial  concern,  the  Fed- 
eral Government  can  handle  it  quite  readily  at  that  long  range.  A  few  tele- 
grams back  and  forth  enable  the  choice  of  men  to  be  made  for  the  board,  the 
choice  o'f  a  chairman,  and  the  sending  of  documents  that  are  necessary,  and 
the  like.  But  if  you  extend  it  so  the  building  trades  are  under  it,  then  you 
would  have  disputes  in  some  little  town  for  instance,  and  it  would  be  very  dif- 
ficult for  the  Federal  Government  to  find  out  quickly  enough  whether  the  num- 
ber of  men  involved  was  such  as  to  bring  it  under  the  act,  or  to  get  the  neces- 
sary appointements  made,  and  the  like;  whereas  a  State  government,  with  its 
capital  right  within  a  few  miles  of  where  the  dispute  might  take  place,  could 
deal  very  readily  with  any  situation  in  that  area. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  saying  you  believe  it  could  be  better  handled  by  the  State 
government,  you  probably  assume  that  each  State  would  enact  the  same  kind 
of  legislation? 

Mr.  KING.  That  is  my  idea;  yes.  For  efficient  administration  in  regard  to 
industries  other  than  those  in  the  nature  of  public  utilities,  it  seems  to  me 


718          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

that  legislation  of  that  kind  can  be  more  efficiently  administered  by  a  smaller 
body  than  by  one  having  administration  over  a  great  area. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Has  there  been,  so  far  as  you  know,  much  legislation  by 
the  various  States  of  the  Dominion  along  this  line? 

Mr.  KING.  No ;  there  has  not. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  you  say  in  that  regard  is  based  really  upon  your  opin- 
ion as  to  the  administrative  disabilities  of  a  Federal  act? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  not  considered  the  matter  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  greater  weight  of  the  national  act  over,  perhaps,  the  weight  of  a  State  act, 
and  the  influence  on  the  minds  of  the  consenting  parties? 

Mr.  KING.  No;  I  was  thinking  of  it  purely  from  an  administrative  point  of 
view. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If,  in  your  opinion,  the  administration  of  a  State  act  lacks 
that  force  of  public  opinion  that  the  national  act  would  have,  then  would  that 
outweigh  the  administrative  objection? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes;  I  think  it  would,  and  I  think  an  extension  could  be  made 
by  the  Federal  Government  if  enough  care  were  taken  as  to  indicating  the 
extent  of  the  dispute  which  would  be  intervened  in.  For  example,  a  dis- 
pute of  the  building  trades  that  wrould  involve  a  thousand  men,  I  should  say 
was  something  that  possibly  the  Federal  Government  might  be  justified  in 
placing  within  the  act  which  it  is  bound  to  administer,  but  if  it  were  a  dis- 
pute affecting  100  men  I  think  it  would  be  too  small  an  affair  for  the  Federal 
Government. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Your  idea  is  that  there  should  be  limitation  with  reference 
to  the  magnitude  of  the  industrial  dispute? 

Mr.  KING.  Practically  in  the  effect  on  the  community,  or  its  lack  of  effect. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  the  present  machinery  adequate  for  carrying  out  the  act? 

Mr.  KING.  I  think  so;  yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  understand,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  have  some  questions  to 
ask.  I  have  nothing  further  at  this  time. 

The  ACTING  CHAIBMAN.  Have  you  any  questions,  Mr.  Barnett? 

Mr.  BAENETT.  No;  I  believe  not. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  King,  I  will  advise  you  and  the  other  gentle- 
men who  will  be  witnesses  that  you  will  be  asked  to  remain,  if  you  can,  and 
make  such  rebuttal  as  you  choose,  and  also  to  answer  questions  which  the 
commissioners  by  that  time  may  have  framed  up  for  you  and  the  other  gentle- 
men. We  thank  you  for  your  statement,  Mr.  King.  Unless  you  have  something 
further  to  state  at  this  point,  you  will  have  an  opportunity  later  if  you 
should  like  to  follow  it  out. 

Mr.  KING.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

TESTIMONY  OP  MR.  SAMUEL  GOMPERS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Not  for  our  information,  Mr.  Gompers,  but  for  the  informa- 
tion of  the  record,  I  would  like  to  have  you  state  your  name  and  position. 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  Samuel  Gompers;  president  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  occupied  that  position  for  a  number  of  years, 
Mr.  Gompers,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  I  have. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  state,  just  for  the  record,  how  long? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  About  28  years  or  29  years ;  that  is,  there  was  a  year  interven- 
ing when  I  wras  not  its  president.  That,  was  in  1894  and  1895. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  that  a  vacation  yea»r? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  No,  sir;  I  have  not  been  so  fortunate  as  to  enjoy  a  vacation. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  Federation  of  Labor,  Mr.  Gompers,  is  a  federation  of 
a  large  number  of  trade-unions  of  this  country? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  Yes,  sir;  that  is,  of  the  North  American  Continent.  That  in- 
cludes the  United  States,  Canada,  Porto  Rico,  and  part  of  the  Philippine 
Islands. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  membership  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
there  is  a  very  large  percentage,  is  there  not,  of  the  organized  labor  of  this 
country  ? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  about  what  the  percentage  is,  in 
a  general  way? 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  719 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  I  think  I  could  tell  you  better  in  figures  than  in  percentages. 
Of  course,  you  understand  that  the  membership  in  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  is  in  the  unit  of  organizations,  rather  than  of  individuals.  It  is  a 
federation  of  organizations  of  trade-unions,  and  the  organizations  pay  their 
per  capita  tax  for  their  respective  memberships  -to  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor ;  and,  in  round  numbers,  the  payments  within  this  past  few  months  have 
been  upon  2,100,000  members ;  that  is  the  paid  membership. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  there  any  concise  statement  you  would  like  to  make,  Mr. 
Gompers,  with  reference  to  the  purposes  of  the  organization  and  its  powers,  as 
introductory  to  the  general  subject  of  the  day? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  The  general  purpose  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  to 
improve  the  condition  of  the  working  people  materially,  economically,  politi- 
cally, socially ;  to  secure  better  industrial  conditions  for  all  the  workers,  better 
wages,  and  shorter  or  normal  workday;  better  working  conditions  for  safety, 
for  sanitation;  better  homes;  better  lives  for  the  workers  in  their  homes  and 
in  their  daily  life;  to  secure  for  the  children  safety  from  exploitation  from 
employers;  to  give  them  the  opportunity  for  the  development  of  a  fuller  life 
and  understanding ;  and  for  their  better  opportunities ;  and,  in  a  word,  to  make 
life  the  better  worth  living  after  all. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  position  as  president  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  Mr.  Gompers,  have  you  come  in  contact  with  the  subject  of  collective 
bargaining  or  trade  agreements  or  conciliation  and  arbitration? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  From  that  contact  do  you  believe  that  the  worker  can  fare 
better  by  individual  bargaining  than  by  collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  from  your  standpoint  and  from  your  experience,  if  it 
were  stated  here  that  a  man  could  fare  better  by  individual  bargaining  than  he 
could  by  collective  bargaining,  such  a  statement  was  a  mistake? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  It  is  at  variance  with  every  fact  in  the  history  of  industry  of 
three  decades,  at  least. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  regard  to  your  knowledge  in  that  respect,  Mr.  Gompers, 
do  you  draw  it  solely  from  the  experience  here,  or  have  you  a  general  knowl- 
edge of  the  subject  in  the  civilized  world  generally? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  I  have  it  from  my  own  experience  as  a  wage  earner  for  26 
years,  working  at  my  trade  as  a  wage  earner ;  it  is  the  result  of  my  observation 
and  close  contact  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  with  the  subject,  and  it  is 
the  result  of  information  obtained  at  first  hand  in  several  other  countries. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Gompers,  will  you  tell  us  your  views  of  the  advantage 
of  collective  bargaining  to  the  employees — in  your  own  way? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  To  give  anything  like  an  intelligent  answer  to  that  question 
it  is  necessary  to  call  attention  to  the  industrial  conditions,  the  industrial  de- 
velopment of  the  last  half  century.  I  need  not  enter  into  very  much  detail 
and  will  not ;  but,  if  I  may  be  permitted,  I  would  like  to  preface  my  answer 
by  saying  this:  For  many  years,  that  is  to  say,  the  last  50  years,  and  accen- 
tuated in  the  last  30  years,  there  has  been  going  on  a  great  development  in 
industry  and  a  concentration  of  industry  under  the  directions  of  partnerships 
and  companies  and  corporations  and  trusts,  so  that,  in  many  of  the  great  basic 
industries,  they  are  under  the  control  and  direction  of  a  few  persons  or  com- 
panies. Then,  in  addition,  the  development  of  the  industry  in  the  form  of 
newer  devices,  implements,  tools,  machines,  and  so  on,  has  caused  the  indus- 
tries to  become  divided  and  subdivided  and  specialized.  That  is,  the  division 
and  subdivision  and  the  specialization  of  many  of  these  large  basic  industries 
has  gone  on  to  the  extent  that  we  seldom  find  one  man  being  a  practical  me- 
chanic who  has  the  mastery  in  the  production  of  any  one  given  whole  article. 
That  is,  further,  that  the  division  and  subdivision  has  gone  on  to  such  an  ex- 
tent that  the  worker  does  one  particular  small,  comparatively  insignificant 
thing,  a  part  of  the  whole  article ;  he  does  nothing  but  that  a  thousand  times, 
five  thousand  times,  ten  thousand  times,  or  more  times,  over  and  over  again, 
and  does  nothing  else  and  knows  nothing  else  of  any  other  branch  or  of  the  many 
branches  in  that  industry,  and  each  making  the  individual  small  part  of  the 
given  whole  article,  has  lost  his  industrial  importance;  he  has  lost  his  indi- 
viduality. He  is  only  a  cog  in  the  industrial  wheel  of  a  modern  plant. 

As  a  consequence  of  these  two  things,  concentration  of  industry  and  the 
division  and  specialization  and  subdivision  and  specialization  of  the  trades, 
the  workman  now  no  longer  owns  the  tools  which  the  workman  of  old  pos- 
sessed and  with  which  the  worker  of  old  performed  his  labor.  He  has  nothing 


720          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

to  offer  but  his  power  to  labor,  and  is  bereft  of  the  tools,  the  means  with  which 
he  can  perform  that  labor,  except  in  the  modern  industrial  plant.  To  say  that 
an  individual  workman  can  make  a  better  bargain  in  such  an  industrial  plant 
is  to  beg  the  question  and  is  flying  in  the  face  of  obvious  facts.  We  might 
take  any  one  of  the  great  industrial  concerns  of  our  country,  and  I  do  not 
know  that  anyone  will  typify  the  condition  better  than  the  United  States 
Steel  Corporation.  To  say,  for  instance,  that  an  individual  workman  can  make 
a  bargain  for  his  labor  power,  for  his  employment,  with  the  United  States 
Steel  Corporation  better  than  can  an  organization  of  workmen — that  is,  work- 
men associated  and  in  agreement  making  an  effort  to  reach  a  collective  bargain 
for  the  labor  of  themselves  and  in  association — is  obviously  a  mistake.  I  am 
trying  to  put  it  mildly.  It  is  a  mistake,  if  it  is  not  prompted  by  ulterior  motives, 
to  exercise  the  full  power  which  wealth  gives  to  its  possessor  over  those  who 
have  nothing  and  own  nothing  but  their  power  to  work,  to  give  service. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  We  have  up  for  consideration  the  question  of  conciliation 
and  arbitration  in  the  settlement  of  industrial  disputes.  With  reference  to 
that  subject,  or  those  subjects,  what  opinion  have  you  and  what  do  you  wish  to 
say  to  the  commission? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  The  policy  of  conciliation  is  worthy  and  commendable.  The 
policy  of  mediation  is  good.  So  is  that  of  arbitration.  I  happen  to ,  count 
myself  rather  happy  in  my  own  frame  of  mind,  though  I  have  been  frequently 
placed  in  the  rather  unfortunate  position  of  combatting — of  feeling  myself 
necessarily  impelled  to  combat — various  theories  of  various  men  having  their 
own  notions  as  to  how  this  great  problem  of  the  relations  between  workmen 
and  employers  can  be  met  and  treated  and  solved. 

I  have  said — and  if  I  could  find  words  to  more  strongly  state  my  view  I 
would,  but  I  do  not  find  them  and  perhaps  do  not  know  them — that  speak- 
ing not  only  for  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  whom  I  have  the  honor  in 
part  to  represent,  but  speaking  for  myself,  I  stand  for  conciliation  and  for 
mediation  and  for  arbitration.  I  can  not  agree  with  all  forms  of  suggested 
methods  of  either  of  these  propositions. 

The  things  best  calculated  to  bring  about  most  practical  results  with  the 
least  injury,  the  least  permanent  injury,  to  fundamental  rights  and  principles, 
are  those  wrhich  come  from  the  organization  of  the  working  people.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  secure  by  voluntary  action  on  the  part  of  either  a  policy  of  con- 
ciliation or  mediation,  and  finally,  if  all  other  things  fail,  arbitration,  when 
workmen  are  fairly  well  organized,  and  the  better  they  are  organized  the  readier 
do  mediation,  conciliation,  and  arbitration  follow.  The  question  of  arbitration 
is  one  which  must,  of  course,  commend  itself  of  all  right-thinking  persons  who 
have  the  welfare  of  their  fellows  at  heart;  but  many  suggestions  have  been 
made  as  to  the  form  in  which  arbitration  shall  find  its  expression,  and  we  are 
so  prone  to  try  and  avoid  any  present  or  immediate  discomfort  or  unconvenience 
that  many  of  us  are  likely  to  resort  to  almost  any  device  that  seems  to  indi- 
cate a  way  out  of  that  immediate  inconvenience  or  discomfort,  and  that,  too, 
regardless  of  subsequent  consequences.  I  think  that  it  might  be  likened  to  the 
individual  who,  suffering  some  severe  pain,  locates  the  pain  and  would,  follow- 
ing the  bent  of  his  own  misunderstanding,  apply  something  radical  to  it  in  the 
hope  of  securing  immediate  relief,  regardless  of  the  physical  danger  and  vital 
danger  which  he  may  inflict  upon  himself. 

I  make  this  statement  with  the  fact  in  mind  that  we  saw  a  few  years  ago 
in  New  Zealand  an  effort  made  to  abolish  strikes,  and  a  man  of  the  finest 
type  and  caliber,  a  high-minded  man,  who  after  making  an  investigation  which 
was  as  he  thought  sufficient  to  warrant  him  to  write  a  book,  describing  New 
Zealand  as  the  country  without  strikes.  A  little  later  a  gentleman  came  from 
New  Zealand  to  convert  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  the  theory  of  com- 
pulsory arbitration,  to  recommend  to  us  the  adoption  of  the  principle  of  com- 
pulsory arbitration  as  it  obtained  in  New  Zealand,  and  I  have  the  unhappy 
faculty  of  at  times  saying  things  which  displease,  and  upon  the  occasion  of 
that  gentleman's  visit  to  the  United  States  I  did  so,  and  declared  that  the 
American  working  people  would  never,  if  I  read  their  character  correctly — 
and  I  thought  I  did  and  I  now  think  that  I  do — tolerate  such  a  thing  in  the 
United  States  as  compulsory  arbitration,  with  all  that  that  implies. 

The  book  of  the  late  Henry  D.  Lloyd,  A  Country  Without  Strikes,  and  the 
lectures  of  Mr.  Lusk,  the  gentleman  from  New  Zealand,  made  quite  an  impres- 
sion, so  much  so  that  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  in  special  legis- 
latures bills  were  introduced  providing  for  compulsory  arbitration  of  industrial 
disputes,  and  perhaps  for  a  few  years  the  men  and  women  engaged  in  our 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  721 

movement  were  as  busy  as  they  could  be,  engaged  in  an  effort  to  disclose  the 
real  meaning  of  compulsory  arbitration,  and  as  finally  succeeding  that  better 
understanding  among  employers  generally,  among  workingmen,  among  pub- 
licists and  among  our  legislators,  that  compulsory  arbitration,  no  matter  if  it 
might  be  good  in  another  country,  it  was  not  fit  for  the  conditions  and  insti- 
tutions of  the  United  States. 

It  was  somewhat  a  sort  of  regrettable  satisfaction  to  me  to  find  about  10 
years  later,  when  upon  the  second  visit  of  Mr.  Lusk  to  the  United  States,  he 
declared  that  the  law  of  New  Zealand  had  not  worked  out  as  satisfactorily 
as  he  and  others  who  favored  it  supposed  it  would,  and  that  he  did  not  feel 
that  such  a  law  would  be  applicable  in  the  United  States ;  that  we  were  not 
ready  for  it.  I  agreed  with  him,  and  I  agree  with  him  now,  that  we  were  not 
ready  for  it  and  are  not  ready  for  it,  and  if  my  opinion  is  worth  anything,  we 
shall  never  be  ready  for  any  system  of  legislation  which  confiscates  the  prop- 
erty and  enslaves  the  working  people. 

I  am  not  here  called  upon,  I  suppose,  to  defend  the  rights  of  property.  Those 
who  have  property  may  find  their  own  way  of  protecting  it.  I  am  speaking  for 
those  who  work,  the  great  mass  of  the  people  of  our  country,  and  I  speak  for 
some  perhaps  who  would  not  have  me  speak  for  them,  but  I  will  speak  for  them 
nevertheless. 

The  difference  between  a  freeman  and  a  slave  is  the  right  of  the  freeman 
to  dispose  of  himself,  his  personality,  his  labor,  his  power  to  work,  as  he  him- 
self may  determine ;  his  own  wish,  his  own  whim,  his  own  interest,  and  not  be 
subject  either  to  the  dominating  will  of  an  employer  on  the  one  hand  or  the 
Government  of  the  country  on  the  other;  or,  I  ought  to  have  said,  probably, 
his  own  will,  backed  up  by  the  power  of  Government. 

As  soon  as  the  Government  steps  in  and  says  to  the  workingman  or  the 
working  men  and  women  "  You  must  work  under  such  conditions  as  are  here 
stipulated ;  if  you  do  not  work  you  will  go  to  prison."  At  that  moment  slavery 
has  been  introduced.  A  system  of  compulsory  arbitration,  or  a  system  of  com- 
pulsory investigation,  as  it  obtains  in  Canada,  wherein  and  whereby  workers 
are  given  the  choice  of  continuing  to  labor,  enforced  compulsory  service  for  any 
given  period,  when  the  worker  regards  it  as  his  interests  and  his  rights  to  leave 
that  employment,  call  it  by  whatever  name  you  please,  compulsory  arbitration 
or  compulsory  investigation,  compulsory  work,  pending  the  final  determination 
of  that  investigation,  the  system  of  slavery  has  been  established,  and  I  doubt 
that  the  workingmen  of  the  United  States  will  ever  be  ready  to  accept  legis- 
lation of  that  character  without  a  protest. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  call  attention  to  a  feature  or  two  as  the  result 
of  the  compulsory  arbitration  act  of  New  Zealand.  The  popular  opinion  has 
it  that  it  favors  the  organization  of  the  working  people,  and  that  really  it  has 
encouraged  it;  that  the  awards  have  come  as  the  result  of  the  organization 
of  workers  and  employers  meeting  before  the  arbitration  boards  or  courts.  The 
fact  of  the  matter  is  that  a  new  device,  which  the  employers  of  New  Zealand 
have  gotten  up,  following  the  practice  of  our  own  sw^eet-scented  National 
Association  of  Manufacturers  of  the  United  States,  they  have  gotten  a  few 
of  their  satraps,  a  few  of  their  own  agents,  and  had  them  at  work  in  some 
industry  for  a  while — no  matter  how  little  they  did,  or  how  poorly  they  per- 
formed any  work — and  then  had  them  form  a  union,  and,  under  the  law,  as 
soon  as  there  were  enough  of  them,  which  was  15 — they  could  organize  a  union, 
and  between  that  union  or  such  a  union  and  the  employers — the  employers'  as- 
sociation— arbitrations,  investigations,  and  awards  were  conducted  and  ren- 
dered. In  one  instance,  a  large  body  of  workers  organized  in  a  bona  fide 
union,  having  an  existence  of  more  than  22  years,  finding  that  that  was  the 
method  which  the  employers  had  devised  to  have  the  court  of  arbitration 
give  an  award — binding  upon  all  in  the  trade — the  men  in  the  bona  fide  union 
just  simply  became  members  of  this  fake  concern,  and  then  endeavored  to 
appear  before  this  court,  but  they  were  denied  the  right. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  reference  to  the  exercise  of  governmental  authority  in 
industrial  disputes,  what  opinion  have  you  with  reference  to  the  establishment 
of  a  Government  body  that  would  have  the  right  to  investigate,  the  power-  to 
call  for  the  production  of  documents,  and  the  swearing  of  witnesses,  in  order 
that  the  truth  may  be  ascertained  in  the  dispute,  where  there  was  no  suspen- 
sion of  the  right  to  strike  or  the  right  to  lockout? 

Mr.  GOMPEKS.  The  question  is  of  its  practicability,  rather  than  its  effect. 
Always  bear  this  in  mind,  that  strikes,  in  the  largest  number  of  cases,  consist 
of  those  unorganized  or  the  newly  organized.  As  workmen  and  workwomen 

38819°— 16 46 


722          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

remain  organized  for  any  considerable  time,  strikes  diminish.  They  establish 
for  themselves  and  with  their  employers  means  and  methods  of  conciliation,  of 
arbitration,  and  it  is  only  when  those  absolutely  fail  that  there  is  a  stoppage 
and  break  in  their  relations.  After  all,  that  which  we  call  a  strike  is  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  an  interruption  of  the  former  relations  which  exist  be- 
tween the  workmen  and  the  employers  for  the  purpose  of  arriving  at  a  new 
working  agreement.  In  cases  where  the  workers  are  wrell  or  fairly  well  or- 
ganized, the  facts  are  known  to  the  employers  and  the  employees.  In  the  case 
of  an  unorganized  or  a  newly  organized  body,  they  know  nothing  of  each  other's 
conditions,  or  very  little,  are  no  respecters  of  each  other's  rights,  and  the 
methods  by  which  the  workers  could  establish  the  facts  are  exceedingly 
meager.  Investigations  authorized  by  the  State  could  establish  but  very  little 
in  so  far  as  the  relations  between  the  employers  and  the  employees  are  con- 
cerned. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  would  not  it  be  possible  for  such  a  body — with  that 
power  of  investigation — to  ascertain  the  facts  and  probably  be  able  to  help 
both  of  the  parties  to  arrive  at  a  remedy  where  the  dispute  involved  matters 
of  fact? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  Generally,  they  are  not  matters  of  fact.  They  are  matters  of 
mental  attitude,  the  mental  attitude  of  the  employers,  who  consider  that  the 
workmen  have  no  rights  that  they  as  employers  are  bound  to  respect,  and  the 
failure  on  the  part  of  the  workmen  to  demonstrate  that  they  have  some  power 
to  diminish  the  profits  of  the  employer  by  a  cessation  of  their  work.  It  is 
not  a  question  of  facts.  The  facts  are  these:  When  an  employer  has  a  mass 
of  unorganized  working  people  working  for  him  he  is  master  of  all  he  sur- 
veys, and  any  attempt  upon  the  part  of  the  workmen  to  petition  or  request 
a  change  is  looked  upon  by  him  as  a  rebellion.  It  is  an  insult  to  his  position 
and  to  his  dignity,  because  he,  in  his  mind,  has  furnished  them  with  work 
and  with  the  means  -by  which  they  live.  He  is  perturbed  at  the  idea  that 
his  position  as  their  benefactor  has  been  called  into  question.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  workmen,  who  have  been  docile  all  this  time,  who  have  regarded 
the  employer  as  omnipotent  and  all  powerful,  when  they  finally  revolt  in 
desperation  against  that  one-sided  arrangement,  when  they  are  for  a  while — 
possibly  a  short  while — out,  they  imagine  themselves  all  powerful,  and  the 
employer  as  having  no  power  at  all.  It  is  a  question  of  a  struggle — that  is,  a 
struggle  of  the  workers  to  still  remain  idle  without  doing  anything  and  to 
subsist.  If  these  working  people  remain  organized  at  the  the  end  of  the  con- 
troversy— whether  they  return  by  agreement  or  return  with  a  victory  or  re- 
turn with  a  defeat — if  they  retain  their  organization  thereafter  it  was  not 
a  defeat,  it  was  simply  a  retreat,  and  it  will  impress  itself  upon  the  employer 
in  the  very  near  future  thereafter  to  establish  better  relations  between  them, 
where  each  will  have  a  better  understanding  of  the  position  of  the  other,  and 
it  will  lead  to  an  arrangement  of  recognition,  understanding,  and  collective 
bargaining. 

As  to  the  investigation  conducted  by  the  State,  while  I  can  not  see  why  there 
would  be  any  objection  where  there  would  be  no  factors  connected  with  it  that 
would  be  of  a  compulsory  character  on  either,  my  apprehension  is  this,  Mr. 
Thompson,  that  once  you  place  in  the  hands  of  the  State  this  one  feature, 
then  you  will  have  laid  the  basis  for  a  continual  effort  which  leads  to  com- 
pulsory arbitration.  There  is  a  constant  effort  on  the  part  of  so  many  people — 
and  some  are  candid  enough  to  admit  that  there  is  a  constant  effort — to  tie 
the  working  people  to  their  task,  to  tie  them  to  their  labor,  to  rivet  them  to 
their  labor,  that  they  can  not  quit  and  stop.  I  am  in  happy  mental  companion- 
ship with  the  great  Lincoln  when  he  said  the  great  factor  of  American  life 
and  liberty  is  that  there  is  a  place  where  the  working  people  could  stop. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Gompers,  does  your  objection  to  compulsory  arbitration 
and  to  the  establishment  of  an  institution  for  the  purpose  of  investigation 
even,  extend  also  to  the  establishment  of  a  State  body  that  could  be  appealed 
to  for  the  purpose  of  mediation  and  conciliation? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  I  think  not.  The  chief  objection  I  may  have  is  that  of  ap- 
prehension as  to  the  future,  not  of  its  immediate  effect.  I  know  of  but  very 
few  instances  in  which  there  were  any  large  contests  between  employers  and 
employees  involving  public  comfort,  public  safety,  public  convenience,  where 
some  means  was  not  devised  immediately,  improvised,  by  which  the  parties 
were  brought  together  and  some  sort  of  agreement  reached. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  With  reference,  Mr.  Gompers,  to  the  forms  of  arbitration  and 
conciliation  which  are  voluntarily  entered  into  by  the  parties  under  their  trade 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  723 

agreement,  have  you  any  choice  as  between  those  boards  of  arbitration  which 
are  evenly  divided  between  the  two  contending  parties,  and  those  boards  which 
provide  for  the  selection,  either  immediately  of  an  umpire  or  third  party,  or 
which  make  provision  for  his  selection  in  the  end  in  case  the  parties  are  unable 
to  agree? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  My  preference  is  for  a  board  of  arbitration,  where  arbitration 
is  the  last  resort,  where  the  representatives  of  both  parties  are  evenly  divided. 
As  to  the  umpire  or  odd  man,  perhaps  it  would  be  just  as  well  if  the  contend- 
ing parties  decided  that  after  all  they  could  not  agree  and  they  would  toss  up 
a  coin. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Take  a  trade,  Mr.  Gompers,  in  which  disputes  of  necessity, 
you  might  say,  are  almost  constantly  arising,  arising  daily,  and  where  perhaps 
a  third  man  might  be  taken  on  more  or  less  for  a  stated  space  of  time,  where 
he  would  become  acquainted  perhaps  as  well,  in  so  far  as  the  question  of  arbi- 
tration is  concerned,  better  than  those  who  are  toiling  in  the  trades,  or  who  are 
operating  the  business ;  do  you  think  in  that  case  or  cases  of  that  kind  the  in- 
troduction of  such  an  umpire,  who  would  operate  perhaps  as  a  mediator,  would 
be  no  better  than  the  tossing  up  of  a  coin? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  Having  had  the  very  exceptional  pleasure  of  my  acquaintance 
with  you,  Mr.  Thompson,  if  you  or  men  of  your  type  were  umpires  I  should 
say  immediately,  Amen !  But  I  have  had  experience  with  other  men  who  are 
not  Thompsons.  The  difficulty  is  to  get  one  who  is  known  as  an  impartial 
man,  who  is  impartial  absolutely,  who  is  not  influenced  by  his  youth,  his  ex- 
perience, his  environment.  I  realize  that  it  is  the  accepted  best  thought  to 
leave  the  result  to  a  fifth  or  seventh  or  ninth  man,  but  after  all  there  is  a 
great  responsibility  upon  this  supposed  impartial  man  who  can  not  be  im- 
partial entirely.  I  know  I  have  been  called  in  as  umpire  or  arbitrator  in  dis- 
putes between  workmen  and  employers,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  my  life  has 
been  inclined  with  the  women  and  men  of  labor,  the  employer  feeling  his  con- 
tention was  so  just,  and  I  have  had  to  say  what  I  say  freely  now,  that  if  I 
acted  as  an  umpire  in  such  a  case  I  am  free  to  confess  in  advance  that  50  per 
cent  of  my  sympathy  goes  to  the  workmen  in  their  contention,  so  that  it  would 
have  to  be  a  pretty  strong  case  on  the  part  of  the  employer  before  I  could  give 
any  sort  of  an  award  for  him  or  offer  some  sort  of  compromise.  I  think  that 
if  the  workmen  and  employers,  organized  and  having  their  agreements,  their 
collective  bargaining,  knew  that  upon  themselves  depended  the  reaching  of  an 
agreement  or  the  breaking  of  an  agreement  with  all  that  that  involved,  they 
might  more  easily  come  to  an  understanding  and  reach  an  agreement  without 
the  umpire.  But  inasmuch  as  they  have  to  resort  to  the  umpire,  they  relieve 
themselves  from  the  responsibility  and  place  it  upon  this  third  or  fifth  or 
seventh  man. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  For  instance,  Mr.  Gompers,  take  it  in  a  trade  or  industry 
where  there  are  frequently  arising  questions  in  an  open  shop  or  preferential 
shop,  where  a  man  makes  claim  that  he  is  discriminated  against  or  discharged 
because  of  his  union  affiliation,  or  that  because  of  their  union  affiliations  they 
were  getting  a  poorer  class  of  work  to  do  and  a  poor  place  to  work  in  the  fac- 
tory, or  in  some  one  of  the  many  methods  of  discrimination  they  were  unfairly 
treated,  such  questions  require  more  or  less  of  an  immediate  consideration. 
Usually  those  complaints  come  from  the  employee  in  his  own  particular  instance, 
so  far  as  the  organization  is  concerned  a  small  matter.  In  such  cases  as  that, 
do  you  believe  that  a  resort  to  a  board  of  arbitration  of  a  committee  on  adjust- 
ment, providing  for  the  steady  employment  of  a  third  man,  is  practicable  and 
would  be  a  profitable  scheme? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  I  should  say  yes,  but  I  think  that  it  might  just  as  well  be  one 
man  chosen  to  do  that,  agreed  to  by  both  parties.  The  other  two  are  entirely 
superfluous  appendages. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  suppose  in  that  sort  of  a  case  the  main  effort  of  the  third 
party  is  to  make  suggestions  and  to  endeavor  primarily  to  bring  the  other  two 
together,  to  prevent  them  from  differing,  to  suggest  methods  of  abridging  their 
differences,  and  by  that  method  really  to  get  them  to  decide  by  far  the  larger 
proportion  of  the  cases — if  this  method  could  be  worked  in  spirit,  in  your 
opinion  would  that  make  a  machinery  still  better? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  It  would.  I  trust  you  will  pardon  me  when  I  say  that  I  have 
not  come  across  many  Thompsons.  That  is  all  there  is  to  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  had  a  Mr.  Williams  here  with  us  this  morning. 
Do  you  know  him?  Have  you  come  across  Mr.  Williams? 


724          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  I  have  not  seen  him.  I  have  heard  of  him,  but  I  do  not  know 
him.  I  may  be  well  acquainted  with  him,  but  have  the  misfortune  not  now  to 
recall  him. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  man  I  refer  to  was  in  the  Hart,  Schaffner  & 
Marx  matter. 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  Yes,  I  know  who  he  is,  but  I  do  not  recall  having  met  him. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  say  there  is  a  place  for  the  use  of  such  men,  and  that 
their  use  would  be  valuable  in  the  working  out  of  the  immediate  and  temporary 
troubles  that  arise  in  industrial  life? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  But  it  requires  a  man  so  deeply  in  sympathy  with  the  real, 
earnest,  honest  aspirations  of  the  working  people;  it  requires  a  man  who  has 
the  experience  and  the  knowledge  of  the  situation  of  the  employers ;  it  requires 
a  man  who  is  in  sympathy  with  the  honest,  earnest  organized  labor  movement, 
that  among  public  men  I  am  free  to  say  I  have  met  but  very  few  who  meet  those 
requirements. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion,  Mr.  Gompers,  in  the  making  of  collective 
bargains,  is  it  also  well,  in  addition  to  the  thorough  and  strong  organization  of 
the  employees,  that  the  employers  should  also  be  well  organized? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  Yes,  sir ;  to  make  the  most  effective  collective  bargain. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  the  commission  please,  that  is  all  I  care  to  ask. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Barnett? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  No  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Gompers,  if  you  will  retire  now,  we  will  hear 
from  Mr.  Emery,  and  then  hear  further  from  yourself  and  Mr.  King  afterwards. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JAMES  A.  EMERY. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Emery,  for  the  purpose  of  the  record,  will  you  please 
give  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation? 

Mr.  EMERY.  James  A.  Emery,  Washington,  D.  C.,  attorney  at  law. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  believe  you  are  connected  with  the  National  Association  of 
Manufacturers? 

Mr.  EMERY.  I  am. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  what  capacity? 

Mr.  EMERY.  I  am  counsel  for  them  and  also  for  a  number  of  other  industrial 
organizations. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  For  what  other  organizations,  Mr.  Emery? 

Mr.  EMERY.  I  can  not  enumerate  them  all — some  260. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  They  are  also  employers'  organizations? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Probably  not  in  the  sense  in  which  you  use  the  word.  I  assume 
you  use  that  word  as  meaning  an  organization  composed  of  employers  for  the 
purpose  of  defense,  or  whose  primary  object  is  the  interest  of  the  employer  in 
his  relation  with  labor. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Not  necessarily.     I  meant  it  in  the  broader  sense. 

Mr.  EMERY.  Yes ;  the  greater  number  are  employers  of  labor  in  both  instances. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  general  purpose  of  the  National  Association  of 
Manufacturers? 

Mr.  EMERY.  The  general  purpose  is  the  promotion  of  the  interests  of  the 
American  manufacturer.  Would  you  like  some  description  of  it? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  EMERY.  The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  was  organized  in 
1895  primarily  for  the  promotion  especially  of  foreign  trade,  and  as  it  grew 
in  years  it  developed  a  wider  range  of  interest  for  the  manufacturer,  and  it 
deals  to-day  with  practically  every  phase  of  social  and  industrial  activity  in 
which  the  manufacturer  as  such  is  interested. 

It  maintains  its  headquarters  in  New  York  and  carries  on  an  extensive 
foreign  department.  Those  who  might  have  more  interest  will  find  a  very 
interesting  account  of  it  in  the  Saturday  Evening  Post  of  two  weeks  ago  by 
Mr.  Forest  Crissey,  who  is  writing  a  series  of  articles  on  trade  organizations, 
and  in  that  he  speaks  of  this  as  the  largest  trade  organization  in  the  world, 
and  he  gives  a  most  interesting  account  of  trade  organizations. 

The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  provides  for  the  shipment  of 
freight  of  every  kind  for  its  members.  It  has  a  department  of  translations, 
in  which  the  foreign  correspondence  of  manufacturers  can  be  carried  on  in 
some  30  languages,  letters  being  received  and  translated  and  others  written. 
It  has  some  2,100  correspondents  in  all  the  chief  commercial  centers  of  the 


TEADE    AGREEMENTS    IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  725 

world,  who  keep  it  informed  as  to  trade  matters  for  the  benefit  of  its  members. 
It  has  a  foreign  collection  bureau  and  a  domestic  collection  bureau,  and  a 
shipping  and  transportation  bureau.  It  has  an  extensive  system  of  inspec- 
tion for  its  factories.  There  is  attached  to  it  as  a  subsidiary  organization  a 
mutual  fire  insurance  company,  for  the  benefit  of  its  members,  and  of  course  it 
informs  its  members  as  fully  as  it  can  on  all  questions  of  interest  to  the  manu- 
facturers. For  instance,  all  questions  which  would  develop  in  relation  to  the 
conditions  under  which  manufacturers  do  business  in  every  State  in  the  Union, 
as  well  as  in  every  foreign  country. 

The  legal  department  attends  to  all  the  questions  that  necessarily  arise 
under  those  circumstances.  It  keeps  track  of  all  legislation  of  the  States  and  in 
the  National  Legislature,  of  interest  to  manufacturers.  It  informs  them  fully 
as  to  their  terms  and  meaning.  It  represents  them  in  opposition  to  such  legis- 
lation as  they  oppose,  and  in  the  promotion  of  such  legislation  as  they  express 
formal  interest  in.  There  is  practically  no  matter  that  would  inform  a  manu- 
facturer concerning  conditions  in  the  trade  at  home  or  abroad,  and  practically 
no  questions  of  interest  to  the  manufacturer  of  which  it  does  not  undertake  to 
keep  abreast. 

In  the  last  five  years  it  has  carried  on  a  very  extensive  movement  for  acci- 
dent prevention  and  workmen's  compensation.  It  was  the  first  large  organiza- 
tion in  this  country  to  take  up  that  work,  and  it  made  extensive  foreign  investi- 
gations as  to  the  practical  operation  of  workmen's  compensation  laws  abroad 
and  methods  of  accident  prevention,  and  from  this  experience  it  has  undertaken 
to  apply  the  fruits  in  this  country,  subject  to  the  modifications  that  exist  in  our 
differing  forms  of  work.  We  have  a  standing  committee  in  charge  of  that  work, 
and  a  continuous  inspection  is  going  on  of  the  factories  of  all  our  members 
with  respect  to  increasing  the  facilities  for  the  prevention  of  accident,  and  the 
inculcation  of  those  habits  which  most  readily  and  powerfully  lead  to  accident 
prevention. 

In  addition  to  that,  there  is  a  very  wide  range  of  educational  work  carried 
on  in  connection  with  that  and  other  subjects.  Practically  every  shop  of  the 
members  of  the  national  association  has  been  visited  during  the  last  four 
years  by  lecturers,  wrho,  through  moving  pictures  and  a  form  of  address,  have 
undertaken  to  enlist  the  cooperation  of  both  employers  and  employees  in  the 
movement  for  accident  prevention  and  vocational  education.  We  have  spent 
very  large  sums  of  money  in  that  work,  and  have  a  very  large  staff  carrying 
it  on,  and  the  films  which  have  been  made  for  the  purpose  of  strikingly  depict- 
ing these  efforts  and  principles  to  the  eye  have  not  only  been  used  among  the 
employees  or  members  of  the  association,  but  they  have  been  generally  at  the 
service  of  public  bodies  of  any  kind  or  character  in  any  part  of  the  country 
that  were  interested  in  the  subject,  and  those  lectures  on  those  subjects  have 
been  carried  on  before  commercial  and  manufacturers'  associations  in  every 
part  of  the  country. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  presume  that  among  these  activities  you  mention  the  rela- 
tion of  employer  and  employee  have  received  the  attention  of  the  National 
Association  of  Manufacturers? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Very  decided  attention;  in  the  last  10  years,  notably.  Much 
attention  was  not  paid  to  that  at  first,  but  it  became  more  and  more  a  subject 
of  discussion  in  conventions  and  meetings,  and  from  1903  or  1904  it  may  be 
said  to  have  been  one  of  the  dominant  questions  in  the  life  of  the  national  asso- 
ciation, and  the  association  has  expressed  itself  very  vigorously  with  regard 
to  the  principles  which  it  believes  ought  to  underlie  the  relations  of  employer 
and  employee,  and  has  undertaken  by  every  legitimate  means  to  defend  those 
principles  against  attack. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  position  as  attorney  for  the  association,  have  you 
had  much  to  do  with  what  is  called  the  labor  problem? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Yes ;  I  have.  I  have  been,  I  hope,  a  very  constant  student  of  it. 
I  have  had  a  very  keen  interest  in  it,  and  I  have  endeavored,  so  far  as  I  could, 
to  study  every  feature  of  it  that  came  within  the  limits  of  my  observational 
experience. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Has  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  laid  down 
any  rules  writh  reference  to  the  subject  of  collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  EMERY.  No ;  it  has  not.  It  has  been  a  frequent  subject  of  discussions  in 
various  conventions,  and  on  various  occasions ;  but  the  National  Association 
of  Manufacturers  is  not  an  organization  for  the  purpose  of  representing  its 
members  in  their  dealings  with  labor,  organized  or  unorganized.  It  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  making  of  their  individual  relationships  with  their  employees,  but 


726          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATION'S. 

it  has  expressed  its  opinions  upon  those  subjects,  and  its  general  conclusions 
have  been  stated  in  the  form  of  certain  principles  which  were  adopted  in  1903, 
and  which  bear  upon  that  as  upon  all  other  features  of  the  relationship  between 
employer  and  employee.  If  you  should  like  it,  I  should  be  very  glad  to  read 
those  principles. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  be  pleased  to  have  you  do  so. 

Mr.  EMERY.  These  principles  were  adopted  at  New  Orleans  in  1903,  and 
have  been  reaffirmed  at  many  subsequent  conventions  of  the  National  Associa- 
tion of  Manufacturers,  and  fairly  express  the  general  opinion  of  the  association 
on  what  may  be  termed,  generally  speaking,  the  relations  of  employer  and  em- 
ployee, apart  from  merely  legal  questions. 

These  principles  are  as  follows : 

PRINCIPLES   AND   PLATFORM    ADOPTED   AT   THE   NEW    ORLEANS    CONVENTION    or 
THE  NATIONAL -ASSOCIATION  OF  MANUFACTURERS  IN  1903. 

1.  Fair  dealing  is  the  fundamental  and  basic  principle  on  which  relations 
between  employees  and  employers  should  rest. 

2.  The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  is  not  opposed  to  organizations 
of  labor,  as  such,  but  it  is  unalterably  opposed  to  boycotts,  blacklists,  and  other 
illegal  acts  of  interference  with  the  personal  liberty  of  employer  or  employee. 

3.  No  person  should  be  refused  employment  or  in  any  way  be  discriminated 
against  on  account  of  membership  or  nonmembership  in  any  labor  organization, 
and    there    should    be    no    discrimination    against    or    interference    with    any 
employee  who  is  not  a  member  of  a  labor  organization  by  members  of  such 
organization. 

4.  With  due  regard  to  contracts,  it  is  the  right  of  the  employee  to  leave  his 
employment  whenever  he  sees  fit,  and  it  is  the  right  of  the  employer  to  dis- 
charge any  employee  when  he  sees  fit. 

5.  Employers  must  be  free  to  employ  their  work  people  at  wages  mutually 
satisfactory  without  interference  or  dictation  on  the  part  of  individuals  or 
organizations  not  directly  parties  to  such  contracts. 

6.  Employers  must  be  unmolested  and  unhampered  in  the  management  of 
their  business,  in  determining  the  amount  and  quality  of  their  product,  and 
in  the  use  of  any  methods  or  systems  of  pay  which  are  just  and  equitable. 

7.  In  the  interest  of  the  employees  and  employers  of  the  country  no  limita- 
tion should  be  placed  upon  the  opportunities  of  any  person  to  learn  any  trade 
to  which  he  or  she  may  be  adapted. 

8.  The   National    Association   of   Manufacturers    disapproves    absolutely    of 
strikes  and  lockouts  and  favors  an  equitable  adjustment  of  all  differences  be- 
tween employers  and  employees  by  an  amicable  method  that  will  preserve  the 
rights  of  both  parties. 

9.  The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  pledges  itself  to  oppose  any 
and  all  legislation  not  in  accord  with  the  foregoing  declaration. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Referring  to  paragraph  5  of  this  declaration  of  principles 
by  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  which  says :  "  Employers  must 
be  free  to  employ  their  work  people  at  wages  mutually  satisfactory  without 
interference  or  dictation  on  the  part  of  individuals  or  organizations  not  di- 
rectly parties  to  such  contracts,"  what  is  intended  or  what  should  be  understood 
by  that  declaration  with  reference  to  "  organizations  not  directly  parties  to  such 
contracts"?  Would  that  eliminate  the  ordinary  trade-union 

Mr.  EMERY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON  (continuing).  From  a  part  in  the  making  of  a  contract  with 
the  individual? 

Mr.  EMERY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  to  be  understood,  then,  from  that  language? 

Mr.  EMERY.  I  assume  that  they  had  in  mind  especially  the  interference  of 
organizations  other  than  the  one  of  which  the  workman  dealing  with  the  par- 
ticular employer  was  a  member. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  under  that  declaration,  if  a  teamster  were  to  be  en- 
gaged by  a  member  of  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  and  lie 
belonged  to  an  organization  of  teamsters,  it  would  be  permissible  for  him  to 
deal  with  the  employer  through  his  organization? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Certainly ;  subject  to  the  principles  there  stated.  Those  prin- 
ciples are  to  be  taken  as  a  whole  and  not  separated  from  each  other. 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  727 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  misunderstood.  I  mean  by  that  that  there  is  no  oppo- 
sition, so  far  as  I  know,  among  members  of  the  National  Association  of 
Manufacturers,  to  the  principle  of  collective  bargaining.  There  are  many 
members  of  the  association  who  deal  with  their  employees  collectively,  and 
the  association  has  never  at  any  time  interfered  with  the  action  of  its  members 
in  that  regard,  but  it  has  opposed  the  making  of  an  exclusive  collective  bar- 
gain which  meant  the  establishment  of  what  we  term  a  closed  shop. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  otherwise  this  section  5  is  not  to  be  understood  or  read 
as  preventing  collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  EMEKY.  Not  as  expressing  an  opinion  in  opposition  to  it ;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  From  your  study  of  this  question  of  collective  bargaining 
and  from  the  experience  you  have  gained  in  your  position  as  counsel  for  the 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  do  you  believe  that  an  individual  can 
fare  as  well  with  reference  to  his  wages,  hours  of  labor,  conditions  of  work,  if 
he  deals  individually  with  the  employer  as  he  would  if  he  should  deal  collec- 
tively with  him? 

Mr.  EMERY.  It  depends  entirely  upon  the  size  of  the  employer  with  whom 
he  deals. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  mean  generally  speaking. 

Mr.  EMERY.  Generally  speaking,  it  depends  upon  the  quality  and  character 
of  the  employer  and  his  size.  To  illustrate  what  I  say,  I  heard  Mr.  Gompers's 
very  interesting  illustration  here,  which  he  presented  with  characteristic  ex- 
tremity. It  is  true,  what  he  said  as  to  the  individual  having  little  chance  in 
making  an  individual  bargain  with  the  United  States  Steel  Corporation,  but  it 
is  just  like  talking  about  a  plumber  over  on  F  Street  here  having  a  little  shop — 
a  small  employer,  who  employs  two  or  three  men — dealing  with  the  plumbers' 
union.  The  small  employer  is  at  the  same  disadvantage  in  dealing  with  the 
union.  I  assume  that  if  all  the  employers  of  men  in  this  country  were  taken 
together  it  would  be  found  that  the  average  employer  employs  between  5  and  10 
men.  I  merely  take  those  figures  from  estimates  that  I  have  heard  made  by 
many  manufacturers,  both  large  and  small.  While  it  seems  quite  true  that  the 
individual  laborers  would  be  at  a  decided  disadvantage  in  dealing  with  a  large 
manufacturer,  it  is  equally  true  that  the  small  employer  is  at  a  decided  disad- 
vantage in  dealing  with  a  large  union;  and  wrhile  it  is  true  that  the  individual 
wage  earner  may  be  both  poor  and  somewhat  weak,  it  is  equally  true  that 
collectively  he  is  rich  and  powerful,  which  is  illustrated  by  the  influence  exerted 
by  many  large  labor  organizations  and  by  the  very  fortunate  conditions  of  their 
treasuries;  and  it  is  equally  true  that  there  are  many  employers  of  labor  who 
are  as  much  enmeshed  by  the  situation  in  which  they  made  their  contracts  as 
any  individual  laborer  could  be.  Mr.  Bradstreet  tells  us  that  about  5  per  cent 
of  the  men  who  engage  in  manufacturing  industries  succeed.  The  remainder 
fail.  So  that  the  roadway  of  the  manufacturer  is  by  no  means  of  high  success 
and  certainty. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Emery,  if  it  is  true  that  the  small  employer  is  in  the 
aggregate  the  large  employer  of  the  country,  and  if  it  is  also  true  that  the  small 
employer  is  weak  in  dealing  with  the  workingmen  who  are  organized,  then  it 
would  naturally  follow,  would  it  not,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  workingman 
at  least,  that  for  him  to  deal  collectively  with  the  employer  would  better  his 
condition  ? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Yes ;  in  many  cases. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  mean  as  a  general  proposition? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Well,  that  is  an  abstract  question  that  would  have  to  be  divided 
probably  into  several  considerations  to  admit  of  a  positive  answer,  a  categori- 
cal answer,  at  least. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  you  mind  dividing  it? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Certainly.  I  think  there  are  a  great  number  of  workingmen  in 
this  country,  and  the  higher  you  go  in  the  scale  of  efficiency  the  more  you  find 
of  them  who  dislike  to  surrender  their  earning  power  to  an  organization  that 
makes  its  bargain  for  them.  I  think  your  inquiry  is  directed  to  this  question, 
because  the  market  for  labor,  particularly  in  skilled  trades,  is  always  under- 
supplied. 

So  far  as  I  know,  the  demand  for  men  highly  skilled,  men  capable  of 
filling  the  positions  of  foremen  and  superintendents — I  am  speaking  of  skilled 
labor- — is  never  satisfied,  and  I  know  personally  from  many  manufacturers 
that  I  have  come  into  contact  with  that  there  is  always  a  pressing  need  and 
demand  expressed  for  the  higher  forms  of  skill,  both  in  the  individual  work- 


728          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

men  and  for  men  capable  of  being  foremen  and  for  leadership  and  for  con- 
structive purposes,  and  especially  for  the  increase  of  efficiency  of  the  plant 
generally,  because  the  intelligent  and  progressive  employer  realizes  that  that 
is  the  way  to  secure  efficiency  in  competition,  not  only  within  the  surroundings 
of  our  own  Nation,  but  over  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  that  it  is  the  efficient 
nation  who  owns  the  markets  of  the  world.  So  the  desire  of  every  employer 
is  to  cultivate  by  every  means  in  his  power  the  efficiency  of  his  men,  and  I 
think  he  realizes  as  keenly  as  any  element  in  our  community  possibly  can  the 
enormous  opportunity  that  good  feeling  between  employer  and  employee  has 
in  producing  this  necessary  condition  of  success. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  as  I  understand  it,  if  you  were  an  employee  of  the 
ordinary  and  usual  industries  of  this  country,  looking  for  a  job  and  seeking 
to  do  the  best  for  yourself  that  you  could,  you  would  be  in  doubt  as  to  whether 
it  was  advisable,  in  order  to  accomplish  that  purpose,  to  join  a  union  or 
to  become  organized  or  not? 

Mr.  EMERY.  It  would  not  depend  upon  that  consideration  alone.  Peace  for 
myself  and  my  family  might  induce  me  to  do  many  things  that  my  industrial 
progress  would  require. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  taking  those  conditions,  without  any  other  considera- 
tions, that  would  be  your  idea? 

Mr.  EMERY.  It  would  depend  upon  the  trade  I  belonged  to. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  mean  eliminating  both  the  advantages  and  disadvantages 
that  would  come  to  you? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Eliminate  the  necessity  of  joining  a  union  in  order  to  get 
a  job. 

Mr.  EMERY.  Yes ;  and  I  think  I  would  be  supported  in  that  opinion  by 
many,  many  millions  of  my  intelligent  and  practical  fellow  citizens. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  take  it  that  you  mean  but  a  small  percentage  of  the 
workers  are  organized? 

Mr.  EMERY.  The  percentage  of  unorganized  is  much  greater  than  organized, 
and  in  view  of  the  active  missionary  campaign  of  organized  labor  there  must 
be  excellent  reasons  for  so  many  remaining  unorganized. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  rather  implies,  I  take  it,  that  you  consider  the  people 
unorganized  have  seriously  considered  the  question  of  organization  and  have 
the  means  of  forming  an  organization,  but,  having  that  door  open  to  them, 
have  decided  that  on  the  whole  it  is  best  not  to  do  so? 

Mr.  EMERY.  That  is  a  conclusion  I  naturally  form  from  the  conditions 
which  I  observe  all  about  me. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  we  are  to  understand,  as  I  said  before,  that  you  have 
no  opinion  as  to  the  merits  or  demerits  of  collective  bargaining  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  employee,  no  general  opinion? 

Mr.  EMERY.  On  the  contrary,  if  I  were  looking  at  the  matter  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  employee,  I  see  many  advantages  in  collective  bargaining, 
a  great  many  indeed,  and  I  should  certainly  be  guilty  at  least  of  having 
suffered  a  miscarriage  of  interpretation  if  I  permitted  you  to  believe  that  I 
was  personally  opposed  to  collective  bargaining  or  that  my  experience  was 
against  it  or  that  I  did  not  recognize  it  to  be  not  only  of  importance,  but  a 
very  essential  feature  of  our  modern  life  in  many  instances. 

I  would  say  that  it  is  very  difficult — collective  bargaining,  without  referring 
to  it  with  the  approval  or  disapproval  which  I  would  give  it — depends  entirely 
upon  the  principles  which  underlie  the  proposal.  If  you  say,  for  instance,  the 
form  of  collective  bargaining  that  is  presented  in  what  I  regard  the  best  state- 
ment ever  made  upon  that  subject,  in  the  report  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Com- 
mission of  1902,  I  would  say  not  only  for  myself,  but  the  great  body  of  manu- 
facturers I  personally  have  been  in  contact  with,  they  accept  practically  almost 
unreservedly  the  opinions  there  expressed  and  would  indorse  the  form  of 
collective  bargaining  with  the  principles  underlying  it  that  was  so  satisfactorily 
outlined  in  that  place. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Could  you  briefly  state  in  your  own  language  what  that 
form  is  and  what  are  the  commendable  features  of  it  which  you  indorse? 

Mr.  EMERY.  The  most  important,  to  my  mind,  is  that  found  under  the  ninth 
finding  of  the  commission.  You  will,  of  course,  recollect  that  both  employers 
and  employees  were  represented  on  this  commission,  unorganized  employers,  I 
believe,  and  organized  employees,  in  person  by  E.  E.  Clark,  now  of  the  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission.  The  most  important  principle  there  stated  is 
this: 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS    IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  729 

"  It  is  adjudged  and  awarded  that  no  person  shall  be  refused  employment, 
or  in  anyway  discriminated  against  on  account  of  membership  or  nonmember- 
ship  in  any  labor  organization;  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against 
or  interference  with  any  employee  who  is  not  a  member  of  any  labor  organi- 
zation by  members  of  such  organization." 

I  regard  that  as  the  most  important,  and  a  most  fundamentally  important 
principle.  Of  course,  there  are  no  such  questions  arising  here  as  to  the  re- 
striction of  product  or  restriction  of  apprentices;  no  issues  of  that  character 
were  presented. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  should  hesitate  very  much,  it  seems  to  me,  to  engage 
in  any  collective  bargaining  in  which  this  section  was  embraced  as  part  of  it, 
part  of  the  governing  law  that  was  to  rule.  I  read  from  the  constitution  and 
by-laws  of  the  Glass  Bottle  Blowers'  Association.  This  agreement  covers  the 
1913-14  blast : 

"  A  member  who  encourages  or  assists  in  any  manner,  either  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, any  foreign  glass  blower  to  come  to  the  country  shall,  upon  conviction, 
be  fined  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars  and  be  suspended  from  work  for 
one  year." 

"  Clause  25.  No  foreign  glass  blower  shall  be  admitted  into  the  association 
during  the  blast  of  1913-14.  But  the  national  president  and  executive  board 
shall  have  power  to  admit  such  when  deemed  necessary,  and  an  initiation  fee 
of  five  hundred  dollars  ($500)  imposed;  one  hundred  dollars  ($100)  to  be  paid 
down  at  initiation  and  50  per  cent  of  his  earnings  to  be  paid  into  the  associa- 
tion until  the  whole  amount  is  paid." 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  year  is  that? 

Mr.  EMERY.  1913.  The  blast  of  1913-14  is  now  in  force.  It  would  seem  to 
me,  since  you  have  asked  me  as  an  employee,  that  I  should  somewhat  hesitate 
to  become  a  member  of  the  typographical  union  if  I  were  required  to  take  this 
obligation,  part  of  which  reads  as  follows :  "  That  my  fidelity  to  the  union  and 
my  duty  to  the  members  thereof  shall  be  in  no  sense  interfered  with  by  any 
allegiance  that  I  may  now  or  may  hereafter  owe  to  any  other  organization, 
social,  political  or  religious,  secret  or  otherwise." 

I  am  reading  article  12,  section  1.  That  complete  clause  is  part  of  the  com- 
mon obligation  given  to  members. 

I  simply  speak  of  this  to  illustrate  my  answer  to  your  inquiry  as  to  whether 
I  would  be  a  member  of  this  or  that  organization,  and  I  would  say  that  it 
depends  entirely  on  the  conditions  attached  to  the  membership,  and  to  the  pros- 
pect of  employment.  I  would  not  be  misunderstood  for  a  minute  in  either 
questioning  the  necessity,  propriety,  and  the  enormous  social  and  individual 
value  of  the  organization  of  the  workingman.  What  I  discuss  now,  when  you 
ask  that  question,  is  perhaps  a  criticism  of  features  of  it  which  seem  to  be  in- 
tertwined with  the  movement  among  organizations,  which  seems  to  me  subject 
for  a  proper  criticism. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Let  me  see  if  I  can  state  your  position,  as  I  get  it  at  least, 
that  where  the  making  of  a  collective  bargain  with  the  employer  automatically 
incorporated  into  that  agreement  detrimental  conditions  or  clauses  such  as  those 
you  have  named,  naturally  being  in  your  opinion  a  bad  agreement,  you  would 
not  make  it? 

Mr.  EMERY.  No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  that  if  an  agreement  to  be  made  between  the  parties  had 
no  detrimental  features  such  as  those  you  have  named,  or  anything  similar,  you 
would  then  believe  in  collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  EMERY.  When  you  say  "  detrimental,"  that  may  either  be  a  question  of 
principle  or  of  policy.  A  question  of  policy,  of  course,  can  be  readily  corrected 
by  change ;  a  question  of  principle,  of  course 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  am  trying  first  to  get  at  the  pure  question  as  to  whether, 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  employer,  or  the  standpoint  of  the  employee,  col- 
lective bargaining  is  a  good  proposition  to  go  on. 

Mr.  EMERY.   Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  we  can  eliminate  from  that  such  cases  of  collective 
bargaining  that  we  would  not  agree  to.  Do  you  believe  in  a  general  principle  of 
collective  bargaining  between  employer  and  employee? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Yes ;  I  think  it  an  excellent  thing  in  many  cases.  I  think  the 
smaller  the  employer  the  more  difficult  position  he  is  in,  and  the  larger  the 
employer  the  more  difficult  position  the  individual  employee  would  be  without  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  read  from  the  glass  blowers'  constitution  and  by- 
laws. What  has  the  introduction  of  a  man  in  the  glass  blowers'  trade,  which 


730          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

has  made  that  more  or  less  an  automatic  proposition,  had  to  do — or,  change  the 
form  of  the  question,  Is  it  possible  that  the  introduction  of  such  a  man  had  the 
effect  of  throwing  or  tending  to  throw  a  great  many  men  out  of  employment  in 
the  glass  blowers'  trade? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Yes ;  I  have  heard  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Men  who  have  heretofore  been  recognized  as  highly  skilled 
men  and  who  have  devoted  their  lives  to  learning  their  trade  and  becoming 
skilled  at  it ;  that  therefore  under  such  conditions  it  was  necessary  for  the 
union  men  to  protect  the  livelihood  of  themselves  and  their  families  by  intro- 
ducing just  such  clauses  in  the  by-laws  so  as  to  take  into  consideration  the 
introduction  of  such  a  machine  to  the  world  all  at  once  wrould  seem  like 
restrictive  conditions  which  were  unbearable  and  unjust ;  if  the  introduction  of 
those  clauses  was  caused  by  the  introduction  of  such  a  machine,  would  that 
mitigate  your  view  of  such  clauses? 

Mr.  EMEEY.  It  would  not  mitigate  the  condition  of  a  person  who  did  not 
happen  to  be  a  member  of  the  union,  and  was  equally  under  the  necessity  of 
supporting  his  wife  and  children. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  know  of  any  union  in  which  the  system  of  collective 
bargaining  which  you  commend  has  been  enforced  ? 

Mr.  EMERY.  You  mean  in  which  the  right  of  nonmembers  of  the  organization 
to  belong  is  recognized? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  EMERY.  A  great  many.  Brotherhoods  are,  of  course,  the  most  striking 
examples,  and  there  are  many  others.  For  instance,  the  street  railways  of 
Boston  have  just  entered  into  arrangements,  or  have  just  made  a  collective 
bargain  with  the  Amalgamated  Association  of  Street  Railway  Employees,  which 
is  a  member  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  The  first  clause  in  that  col- 
lective agreement  provides  practically  for  a  principle  that  is  here  recognized  in 
the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission,  and,  of  course,  wrhen  I  read  you  from 
that,  I  brought  to  your  attention  by  that  fact  an  agreement  entered  into  which 
covered  all  the  coal  miners  whom  Mr.  Mitchell  so  ably  represented  here  the 
other  day. 

That  principle  is  still  recognized,  although  I  heard  Mr.  Mitchell  say  the  other 
day  that  a  man  was  expected  automatically  to  become  a  member  of  the  union. 
The  Amalgamated  Association  of  Street  Railway  Men  has  just  made  this 
arrangement  with  the  Boston  Elevated,  and  the  first  provision  of  the  agreement 
recognized  that  condition.  I  have  here  a  number  of  agreements  writh  stationary 
engineers  in  which  that  arrangement  was  made,  and  I  know  the  members  of 
our  own  association,  quite  a  few  of  them,  who  have  collective  bargains  in 
which  they  decline  to  exclusively  employ  the  members  of  the  union  with  which 
they  deal,  but  in  other  respects  recognize  them  as  to  hours,  wages,  and  work- 
ing conditions,  and  deal  with  their  representatives,  and  in  all  respects  treat 
them  as  the  agents  or  authorized  representatives  of  the  men,  but  not  as  the 
exclusive  source  for  their  labor  supply. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  referring  to  the  question  of  collective  bargaining,  I  have 
not  necessarily  inferred  that  it  must  be  with  the  union. 

Mr.  EMERY.  Sir? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  considering  the  question  of  collective  bargaining,  I  have 
not  implied  that  it  must  necessarily  be  with  organized  trade  or  craft,  but 
rather,  as  a  whole  of  the  employees  of  the  factory  or  employees  generally  in 
a  line  of  industry ;  following  that  out,  however,  and  your  answer 

Mr.  EMERY.  Your  question,  if  you  will  pardon  me,  was,  of  course,  whether 
or  not  I  knew  any  organization  maintaining  collective  bargaining  of  the  type 
to  which  I  have  alluded. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Following  out  the  last  answrer  which  you  gave,  or  at  least 
apropos  of  it,  if  you  were  a  miner  working  in  the  anthracite  coal  region, 
would  you  be  inclined  to  join  the  union  because  of  benefits  you  might  thereby 
derive — I  do  not  mean  to  escape  violence,  but  for  the  benefits  you  might  derive, 
would  you  be  apt  to  become  a  member  of  the  union? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Yes;  I  might. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  you  were  a  trainman,  Mr.  Emery,  on  some  of  the  rail- 
roads where  there  are  brotherhoods,  the  brotherhoods  you  spoke  of,  would  you 
be  inclined  to  join  those  organizations  and  deal  collectively  with  the  railroad 
company,  or  would  you  be  inclined  to  remain  an  individual  and  deal  indi- 
vidually? 

Mr.  EMERY.  It  is  very  difficult  to  answer  that  question  from  my  standpoint. 
I  might  and  I  might  not,  according  to  the  circumstances.  I  would  take  com- 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN"    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  731 

plete  personal  responsibility  for  what  I  did.  I  could  answer  you  very  fully 
in  the  terms  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission  if  you  would  like  to 
hear  it.  They  answered  that  question  very  completely  and  I  think  very  satis- 
factorily, and  that  report  was  signed  by  Mr.  Clark. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  be  pleased  to  have  it. 

Mr.  EMERY  (reading)  : 

"  The  union  must  not  undertake  to  assume  or  to  interfere  with  the  manage- 
ment of  the  business  of  the  employer.  It  should  strive  to  make  membership 
in  it  so  valuable  as  to  attract  all  who  are  eligible,  but  in  its  efforts  to  build 
itself  up  it  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  those  who  may  think  differently 
have  certain  rights  guaranteed  them  by  our  free  Government.  However  irri- 
tating it  may  be  to  see  a  man  enjoy  benefits  to  the  securing  of  which  he 
refuses  to  contribute,  either  morally  or  physically  or  financially,  the  fact  that 
he  has  a  right  to  dispose  of  his  personal  services  as  he  chooses  can  not  be 
ignored.  The  nonunion  man  assumes  the  whole  responsibility  which  results 
from  his  being  such,  but  his  right  and  privilege  of  being  a  nonunion  man  are 
sanctioned  in  law  and  morals.  The  rights  and  privileges  of  nonunion  men  are 
as  sacred  to  them  as  the  rights  and  privileges  of  unionists.  The  contention 
that  a  majority  of  the  employees  in  an  industry,  by  voluntarily  associating 
themselves  in  a  union,  acquire  authority  over  those  who  do  not  so  associate 
themselves  is  untenable." 

Of  course,  your  inquiry  is  naturally  predicated  upon  the  assumption  implied 
behind  your  question  that  I  might  find  it  valuable  to  join  the  union.  I  might 
and  I  might  not.  I  should  insist  upon  the  recognition  of  my  right  to  pursue 
my  own  happiness  and  to  make  my  living  for  myself  and  family  in  either 
case  as  I  saw  best,  and  I  regard  that  as  a  most  fundamental  principle  in  this 
whole  controversy. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  have  no  opinion  now  as  to  whether  it  would  be 
valuable  to  join  one  of  the  brotherhoods  on  the  railroads  or  not? 

Mr.  EMERY.  It  is  a  question  of  policy,  and  if  I  were  in  that  condition  I  should 
form  my  judgment  in  the  light  of  the  facts.  I  should  think,  under  all  the  cir- 
cumstances, I  would  be  very  strongly  tempted  to  do  it.  That  is  purely  hypo- 
thetical, like  your  questions. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Referring  to  the  question  of  conciliation  and  arbitration, 
have  you  given  that  subject  any  thought  and  consideration? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  opinion  regarding  it,  and  particularly  with 
regard  to  the  forms  of  arbitration.  You  have  heard  the  discussion  we  have 
had  here  in  the  last  several  days? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  have  you  to  say  about  it? 

Mr.  EMERY.  I  regard  mediation  and  conciliation,  of  course,  as  merely  various 
forms  of  preliminary  steps  for  getting  the  employer  and  the  employee  together ; 
in  other  words,  to  remove  the  many  irritating  causes  of  friction  and  to  get  them 
into  such  an  equable  state  of  mind  that  they  are  in  a  rational  condition  to 
understand  each  other's  proposals  and  to  deal  with  them.  I  think  that  arbitra- 
tion is  a  very  proper  thing  to  resort  to  on  all  questions  of  fact  and  on  all  ques- 
tions of  interpretation  of  agreements  where  such  exist.  Naturally,  I  do  not 
believe  you  can  arbitrate  principles  to  which  each  may  be  committed,  because  a 
principle  that  ought  to  be  defended  is  a  principle  that  can  not  be  arbitrated. 
That  is  true  between  individuals  under  our  form  of  government,  because,  I 
assume,  our  discussion  is  being  conducted  on  the  realization  that  we  are  citi- 
zens of  a  republic  in  which  certain  fundamental  rights  are  recognized  and 
ought  to  be  recognized,  since  they  represent  the  progressive  development  of  our 
race  through,  many  centuries. 

As  to  the  form  of  arbitration,  I  am  very  strongly  inclined  to  agree  with  Mr. 
Gompers  that  the  parties  outside  of  the  arbitrator  are  superfluous,  except  for 
this  reason:  That  I  think,  in  all  forms  of  arbitration  in  which  each  person 
chooses  one  and  the  two  chooses  a  third,  naturally  the  third  person  chosen 
would  have  to  be  satisfactory  to  those  two,  each  of  whom  are  really  attorneys 
for  an  interest.  They  represent  those  who  chose  them  and  they  are  generally 
possessed  of  special  information  that  will  correct  the  arbitrator  at  every  step  in 
the  course  of  his  opinion.  I  thoroughly  believe  in  the  establishment  of  an  arbi- 
trator, because,  while  I  heard  the  objections  previously  made  here,  it  seemed 
to  me  such  objections  run  to  the  establishment  of  a  judicial  system.  It  is  abso- 
lutely impossible — of  course,  abstractly  speaking — to  find  an  individual  who 
possesses  the  impartial  attitude  of  the  Divinity.  All  men  are  human,  subject 


732          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

to  prejudice,  error  and  bias,  and  "All  the  idols  of  the  tribe,"  as  Lord  Bacon 
called  them;  but  we  do  succeed  in  arbitrating  the  most  important  questions 
that  the  individuals  are  compelled  to  deal  with,  and  for  that  reason  we  have  a 
judicial  system,  however  it  may  be  criticized,  and  it  has  even  been  possible  for 
nations  to  arbitrate  their  great  difficulties;  so  it  seems  quite  possible  that, 
humanly  speaking,  we  can  find  an  individual  with  so  much  of  the  divine  spark 
in  him  that  he  can  possibly  pass  upon  questions  of  difference  between  indi- 
viduals, even  in  a  labor  controversy. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Apparently  you  and  Mr.  Gompers  agree  on  the  question  of 
arbitration,  not  only  on  the  compulsory  side  of  it  but  on  the  other  side  of  it. 

Mr.  EMEEY.  I  do  not  believe  in  compulsory  arbitration,  but  I  very  strongly 
believe  in  certain  forms  of  compulsory  investigation.  I  believe  it  would  be  a 
very  valuable  thing  if  we  had  in  this  country  a  .direct  organization,  of  the 
executive,  for  instance,  to  investigate  labor  controversies  which  interfere  with 
the  movement  of  the  mails,  with  the  movement  of  the  civil  or  military  forces 
of  the  United  States,  or  which  interfere  with  the  freedom  of  intercourse 
between  the  States.  There  could  be  no  question  of  jurisdiction  to  make  such 
an  inquiry,  and  when  controversies  assume  such  magnitude  that  they  do  inter- 
fere with  those  important  relationships,  they  are  touched  with  a  public  interest 
which  affects  the  life  of  the  Nation.  The  development  of  our  material  civiliza- 
tion has  made  our  communities  more  and  more  interdependent.  You  can  starve 
New  York  to  death  in  three  days.  You  can  shut  off  communication  with  any 
of  the  great  centers  of  population  in  this  country  and  reduce  them  to  a  state  of 
subjection  equal  to  the  result  of  a  prolonged  siege.  They  are  unprepared  for  it, 
because  the  development  of  large  cities,  and  the  specialization  of  our  industries 
have  led  to  communities  with  rapid  means  of  communication  and  transportation 
that  depend  upon  far  distant  points  for  their  daily  supply  of  food,  clothing, 
etc.,  and  for  all  their  raw  materials  upon  which  the  great  productive  industries 
are  dependent.  To  keep  these  going  is  essential  to  the  maintenance  of  the 
whole  civil  structure,  and  of  all  forms  of  material  production  upon  which  the 
whole  life  of  this  Nation  is  dependent.  When  any  controversy  assumes  a  mag- 
nitude that  it  interferes  with  these,  the  safety  of  the  public  demands  that  pro- 
tection should  be  given  to  the  maintenance  of  that  intercourse.  Of  course,  un- 
der the  laws  as  they  exist  we  have  perhaps  an  adequate  protection  against 
forms  of  assault  which  have  not  become  through,  I  think,  improper  considera- 
tion, more  or  less  privileged. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  Canadian  industrial  disputes 
act  of  1907? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Generally ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  you  be  in  favor  of  such  an  act  in  this  country? 

Mr.  EMEKY.  No ;  I  would  not.  There  is,  of  course,  a  difference  in  our  funda- 
mental organic  law  which  raises  objections  which  seem  to  me  insuperable  on 
the  one  hand,  and  I  do  not  think  the  Canadian  act  can  be  enforced  as  it  reads, 
and  I  think  those  who  administer  it  realize  it  most  keenly  of  all.  It  has  un- 
doubtedly, practically  speaking,  brought  about  many  good  results  in  Canada, 
because  it  has,  by  the  very  nature  of  the  penalties  which  it  imposes,  acted  as  a 
preventive,  inasmuch  as  it  excited  the  minds  of  both  employer  and  employee 
to  a  realization  of  the  high  value  put  upon  their  relationship  by  the  State.  But 
I  think  that  what  Burke  said  a  century  ago  applies  almost  equally  well  to-day. 
You  could  not  indict  the  Nation  then.  You  can  not  imprison  a  union  of  em- 
ployers or  employees. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  the  commission  please,  that  is  all  I  care  to  ask  Mr.  Emery. 

The  Acting  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Emery,  will  you  allow  us  to  call  Mr.  King  and 
Mr.  Gompers  again,  and  then  we  would  like  to  recall  you  for  further  questions 
which  the  commissioners  desire  to  ask? 

Mr.  EMERY.  Certainly. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  so  we  will  hear  from  Mr.  King  again  at  this  time. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  W.  L.  MACKENZIE  KING— Recalled. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  King,  there  were  doubtless  some  remarks  which 
you  would  like  to  either  criticize  or  rebut,  in  the  statement  of  either  Mr. 
Gompers  or  Mr.  Emery. 

Mr.  KING.  I  would  like  to  say,  first  of  all,  that  I  agree  wholly  with  Mr. 
Gompers,  and  I  think  also  with  Mr.  Emery,  in  saying  that  I  am  very  strongly 
opposed  to  compulsory  arbitration.  I  do  not  think  that  any  group  of  men,  either 
employers  or  employees,  should  be  compelled  under  penalties  to  continue  under 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  733 

a  certain  condition  of  employment  against  their  own  free  will,  and  what  they 
conceive  to  be  their  interests.  On  the  other  hand,  I  think  that  Mr.  Gompers, 
in  linking  compulsory  arbitration  and  compulsory  investigation  together,  if  he 
did  so — I  am  not  quite  sure  whether  he  did  or  not,  but  I  infer  from  his  remarks 
that  he  did — is  not  aware  that  such  a  linking  may  be  misleading. 

As  I  regard  compulsory  arbitration,  it  is  a  means  of  compelling  people  to 
continue  employment  under  certain  conditions  whether  they  wish  to  or  not. 
Compulsory  investigation,  as  proposed  by  the  Canadian  act,  does  not  do  any- 
think  of  the  kind,  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  see  it.  All  that  compulsory  investiga- 
tion does  under  the  Canadian  act  is  to  substitute  another  means  of  obtaining 
justice  than  that  of  the  strike.  If  I  am  right  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
motive  that  working  men  have  in  striking,  it  is  that  they  conceive  that  is  the 
last  resort  left  to  them  to  obtain  what  they  believe  to  be  justice.  Mr.  Gompers 
says  it  is  slavery  for  a  man  to  have  to  give  up  certain  rights.  It  seems  to  me 
it  is  slavery  for  any  body  of  men  to  be  compelled  to  give  up  the  right  of  earn- 
ing their  own  living  in  order  to  obtain  justice  if  the  State  can  find  any  means 
of  affording  them  justice  other  than  that  extreme  measure.  I  think  that  such  a 
means  has  been  found  in  compulsory  investigation. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  About  what  period  of  time  is  required  under  that 
act?  For  instance,  if  a  case  were  sent  to  the  proper  officer,  how  long  does  it 
take  to  select  the  board? 

Mr.  KING.  The  law  fixes  three  days  unless  special  cause  is  shown,  and  then 
it  may  be  extended  to  five  days. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  long  does  it  take  for  the  operation  of  the 
whole  proposition? 

Mr.  KING.  I  think,  taking  the  average  of  all  the  cases  that  we  have  had  in 
Canada,  it  would  be  found  the  boards  would  average  something  like  20  days 
from  the  time  the  application  was  put  in — 20  or  25  days.  I  do  not  know  of  any 
board,  except  by  consent  of  the  parties  themselves,  where  the  inquiry  has  run 
on  longer  than  a  month. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  decision  of  the  board  would  be  rendered 
within  that  time? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  you.  knowledge  of  an  affair  that  occurred  on 
the  Grand  Trunk  Railway  system  between  the  shop  men  and  the  company  some 
two  years  ago? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  you  any  idea  of  the  time  that  was  occupied 
there? 

Mr.  KING.  There,  I  think,  there  was  quite 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL  (interposing).  I  think  they  ran  along  over  the 
better  part  of  a  year. 

Mr.  KING.  It  ran  along  quite  a  time. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  real  cause  for  which  the  proposition  was 
brought  up  had  really  passed  away  by  the  time  the  report  of  the  commission 
was  made.  In  other  words,  it  died  at  the  start. 

Mr.  KING.  I  am  not  quite  sure  of  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Is  it  not  possible  that  under  the  plan  a  cause,  for 
Instance,  that  would  bring  up  an  investigation  might  be  such  that  there  would 
be  a  lapse  of  time  sufficient  for  the  cause  to  have  disappeared  entirely  by  the 
time  the  reports  have  been  made? 

Mr.  KING.  If  I  believed  a  thing  of  that  kind  were  likely  to  happen  I  would 
put  a  clause  in  the  act  in  a  moment  saying  any  inquiry  that  extended  over  a 
period  of  30  days  should  terminate  at  that  time. 

Speaking  of  the  particular  disputes  to  which  you  have  reference 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL  (interposing).  I  had  personal  intercourse  with  it, 
and  that  is  the  reason  I  know  it  had  passed  away. 

Mr.  KING.  I  may  be  wrong  in  the  view  I  hold  in  regard  to  it,  but  I  think 
there  were  motives  other  than  purely  economic  motives  in  connection  with  that 
desire  that  accounted  for  the  length  of  time  that  it  took.  I  do  not  know  that  I 
wish  to  say  more  than  that  about  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  quesions,  Mr.  Lennon? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  just  want  to  ask  one  question.  Under  the  act  is 
the  penalty  as  imposed,  say,  on  the  workingman,  of  a  $10  fine,  enforcible?  Sup- 
pose they  refuse  to  pay,  what  happens? 

Mr.  KING.  If  the  penalty  is  imposed  and  they  refuse  to  pay  it,  I  think  the 
State  will  take  such  means  as  it  has  at  its  disposal  to  collect  the  money. 


734          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  to  say,  they  may  be  subject  to  imprisonment? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  KING.  In  regard  to  that  feature,  speaking  of  the  imprisonment  feature, 
personally  I  have  as  little  love  for  that  meaning  of  dealing  with  any  question 
as  I  am  sure  Mr.  Gompers  has.  If  the  act  had  been  used  in  any  way,  or  if 
there  were  any  indication  it  was  likely  to  be  used  as  a  means  of  compelling 
or  insisting  upon  men  acting  contrary  to  what  were  their  own  interests,  I 
imagine  that  clause  would  have  been  repealed  long  before  this.  It  really  has 
worked  out  nominally  rather  -than  really,  inasmuch  as  the  penalty  is  put  on 
to  compel  a  man  to  do  a  thing  which  experience  has  shown  is  in  his  own  inter- 
est, namely,  to  have  a  grievance  investigated.  That  is  where  the  application 
of  the  penalty  comes  in — his  unwillingness  to  submit  to  investigation,  in  the 
investigating  of  which  they  themselves  have  the  choice  of  an  investigator, 
and  that  being  the  case,  and  the  award  not  being  binding  on  the  parties,  the 
penalty  end  of  the  act  is  a  very  small  affair.  It  hardly  enters  into  considera- 
tion. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Then  the  fine  was  really  imposed  because  they  struck 
contrary  to  the  law? 

Mr.  KING.  That  would  be  the  reason ;  yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  And  that  was  the  case  in  the  one  you  cited  when  you 
were  on  the  stand  before? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  contrary  to  the  law,  they  did  not  wait  for 
investigation,  and  they  were  fined  for  striking,  that  is,  they  were  fined  for 
quitting  work? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  King,  I  understand  from  your  point  of  view  on 
this  subject  that  you  recognize  that  the  public,  who  may  be  entirely  ignorant 
of  the  claims  of  the  contending  parties  in  an  industrial  dispute,  have  a  right 
to  demand  that  there  shall  be  a  cessation  of  any  hostilities  until  they  shall  have 
been  informed  of  the  facts? 

Mr.  KING.  That  is  the  basis  of  the  whole  act.  I  was  going  to  mention  that 
in  the  discussion  here  before,  as  I  have  listened  to  it,  the  entire  discussion 
seems  to  have  been  confined  to  the  two  parties  to  the  industrial  dispute.  Noth- 
ing has  been  said  about  the  rights  or  obligations  of  the  third  party,  which  is 
the  community  as  a  whole;  and  the  Canadian  act  proceeds  on  this  basis,  that 
neither  would  capital  be  able  to  gain  dividends  nor  would  labor  be  able  to 
gain  wages  unless  it  were  for  what  the  community,  organized  as  a  community, 
does  for  both.  In  other  words,  Government  maintains  law  and  order ;  it  makes 
possible  the  development  and  organization  both  in  labor  and  in  capital.  It 
enables  modern  industrial  society  to  be  carried  on  under  the  methods  in  which 
it  is  carried  on,  and  therefore  makes  possible  to  each  whatever  gains  are  made. 
Now,  if  that  is  true,  certainly  something  is  owing  to  society  in  return,  whereby 
the  community  shall  not  be  adversely  affected  where  it  is  not  in  fault  one  way 
or  another,  and  the  Canadian  act  proceeds  on  that  line,  that  the  public  are 
to  be  given  an  opportunity  to  know,  in  regard  to  something  which  affects  the 
public,  the  right  and  wrong  of  the  situation. 

There  is  this  further  feature.  Mr.  Emery,  I  think,  cited  Burke ;  I  should  like 
to  cite  Burke,  too.  Burke  said  somewhere  that  justice  was  the  common  con- 
cern of  mankind.  That  being  so,  an  act  of  this  kind  is  framed  with  the  view 
of  enabling  the  public,  which  is  mankind,  to  know  in  regard  to  the  justice  of 
the  situation,  and  bring  public  opinion  to  bear  on  the  side  of  the  party  that  is 
in  the  right.  That  is  the  underlying  motive  of  it. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  And  it  is  on  that  basis  that  you  do  not  think  that  it  is 
either  unfair  or  in  any  sense  slavery  either  to  the  employer  or  to  the  employee 
to  compel  him  to  hold  his  hand  for  30  days  while  the  investigation  is  being 
made? 

Mr.  KING.  Perhaps  I  should  put  it  in  this  way:  It  all  depends  on  what  the 
alternative  is  that  is  presented.  If  the  Canadian  act  said  "  We  will  prevent 
you  from  striking  and  locking  out,"  and  presented  no  alternative,  I  would 
agree  with  my  friend  Mr.  Gompers  that  that  was  taking  away  a  right  from 
people;  but  if  on  the  other  hand  they  say  "In  consideration  of  your  holding 
your  hand  we  will  give  you  an  alternative  method  which  we  think  will  enable 
you  to  obtain  justice  in  a  better  way  than  through  a  strike  or  a  lockout,  and 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  735 

you  are  not  to  strike  until  you  have  taken  advantage  of  it,"  then  it  seems  to  me 
you  have  substituted  a  wider  liberty  rather  than  helped  to  enslave  people. 

I  will  put  the  case  concretely.  Take  it  in  regard  to  the  strikes  on  street 
railways.  We  have  had,  since  this  act  went  into  force,  one  street  railway 
strike  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  in  all  the  cities  and  towns.  That  strike 
lasted  about  10  days,  in  Winnipeg.  But  before  the  act  went  into  effect  there 
were  strikes  on  all  the  street  railways  going  on  all  the  time  in  some  of  the 
cities  in  the  Dominion.  In  estimating  the  value  of  the  act  and  the  amount  of 
the  slavery  or  withholding  of  rights  that  was  involved,  one  has  to  ask  the 
question,  Are  the  workingmen  connected  with  the  industry  to-day  in  as  good 
a  position  or  in  a  better  position,  by  virtue  of  having  had  this  system  of  investi- 
gation, to  obtain  their  rights;  are  they  in  a  better  position  than  they  would 
have  been  under  the  old  system  of  simply  having  to  strike  for  them?  What  we 
do  is  this:  We  say  to  a  body  of  men,  assuming  there  was  a  strike  going  on 
in  the  city  of  Washington,  on  the  street  railways,  "  You  choose  anyone  you 
please,  Mr.  Gompers  or  anybody  else  you  wish  to  represent  you,  and  we  will 
give  Mr.  Gompers,  by  the  State  authority,  a  right  to  look  into  the  books  of  this 
company,  and  we  will  give  him  the  right  to  examine  any  witness  he  pleases, 
whether  the  manager  of  the  corporation  or  the  president  or  anybody  else,  and 
we  will  give  him  the  right  to  have  a  choice  as  to  the  chairman,  and  we  will 
give  you  the  right  to  appear  before  this  tribunal  by  anybody  you  wish  as  an 
advocate,  your  own  trade  representative  or  any  person  you  like,  and  you  can 
make  out  your  case  before  the  public  in  that  way,  and  if  after  all  that  has 
been  done,  the  board  is  unable  to  do  you  justice  in  the  situation,  then  you 
are  free  to  strike  or  lock  out ;  "  if  a  substitute  of  that  kind  is  provided,  I  fail 
to  see  where  we  are  introducing  anything  approaching  slavery  to  an  industrial 
worker.  What  you  give  as  an  alternative  must  be  considered  in  comparison 
with  what  you  take  away. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  all. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  From  the  statement  you  made,  Mr.  King,  13  per 
cent  of  the  disputed  issues  ended  in  strikes,  and  87  per  cent  were  settled  with- 
out cessation  of  work.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEISTOCK.  The  claim  is  made  that  the  percentage  of  amicable 
settlements  by  voluntary  conciliation  in  this  country  far  exceeds  the  percentage 
of  peaceful  Canadian  settlements  under  this  act.  Have  you  looked  into  that 
at  all. 

Mr.  KING.  The  settlements  by  voluntary  conciliation,  including  all  of  the 
trades  of  the  country? 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  KING.  I  can  not  believe  that  that  is  the  case. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Commissioner  O'Connell  was  my  authority  for 
that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  was  that?    I  did  not  hear  you. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  The  statement  is  that  the  percentage  of  peaceful 
settlements  by  voluntary  conciliation  in  this  country  far  exceeds  the  percentage 
of  peaceful  settlements  under  their  act. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  have  not  discussed  the  matter  with  you  at  all. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Perhaps  it  was  Mr.  Lennon,  then,  from  whom  I 
got  that. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  No ;  it  was  not. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Somebody  made  that  statement. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  statement  was  made  on  the  stand  by  some  wit- 
ness. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  had  forgotten  who  made  the  statement;  but  is 
that  in  harmony  with  your  knowledge  of  conditions,  Mr.  King? 

Mr.  KING.  I  could  not  say  how  many  settlements  have  been  effected  in  this 
country  by  voluntary  conciliation.  Without  knowing  the  exact  number  I  would 
hesitate  to  express  an  opinion. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  do  not  think  there  is  anyone  living  who  does 
know. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  am  willing  to  back  up  the  statement.  I  do  not  know 
who  made  it,  but  it  is  a  fact. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  your  judgment  it  is  a  fact? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Yes. 


736          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  KING.  Of  course,  there  is  this  to  be  considered  in  addition:  That  the 
settlements  tinder  the  Canadian  act  do  not  begin  to  represent  the  number  of 
settlements  that  may  have  been  made  by  voluntary  conciliation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Outside  of  the  act? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes;  and  the  fact  that  the  act  is  there  is  one  of  the  strongest 
•weapons  for  producing  voluntary  settlements.  I  may  mention  something  that 
was  told  me  by  one  of  the  largest  manufacturers  in  Canada  on  that  point.  He 
said,  "  But  for  the  existence  of  that  act  we  would  have  let  our  men  strike,  and 
we  would  have  fought  and  beaten  them,  but  knowing  that  under  the  act  we 
would  be  compelled  to  submit  to  an  examination  of  all  of  our  books,  and  that 
many  things  would  have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  others  that  we  did  not  wish 
to  be  known,  we  settled  with  the  men  voluntarily  instead  of  otherwise,"  and 
I  think  a  very  large  percentage  of  the  differences  may  be  voluntarily  settled  in 
Canada,  a  very  much  larger  percentage  than  are  settled  under  this  act.  In 
fact,  this  act  does  not  go  into  operation  at  all  until  one  of  the  parties  is  in 
position  to  make  his  affidavit  that  but  for  an  investigation  a  strike  will  take 
place.  This  figure  only  represents  the  cases  that  can  not  be  settled  voluntarily. 
Not  all  the  cases  that  may  come  up  are  settled  under  the  act. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  like  an  act  of  last  resort. 

Mr.  KING.  It  is  an  act  of  last  resort.  It  is  to  prevent  the  necessity  of  stop- 
ping men  from  working  and  earning  support  for  themselves  and  others.  They 
have  to  go  through  this  process,  and  then  after  that  they  may  strike  if  they 
wish,  but  it  gives  to  them  that  interval. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Some  one  has  said  that  you  can  not  imprison  a 
union.  If  a  trades-union  should  strike  and  violate  the  law  how  would  that 
condition  be  dealt  with  by  the  Government? 

Mr.  KING.  I  presume  that  individuals  would  be  proceeded  against  for  viola- 
tion of  the  act,  if  any  person  cared  to  lay  an  information. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  initiative  is  not  taken  by  the  Government? 

Mr.  KING.  No ;  that  is  a  feature  that  I  can  not  bring  out  too  strongly.  The 
opponents  of  this  measure  dwell  constantly  on  the  necessity  of  penalizing, 
whereas  in  the  experience  of  seven  years  it  has  been  shown  that  the  penalty 
end  of  it  is  hardly  a  consideration  with  the  public  or  anyone,  and  the  possible 
questions  of  difficulty  that  might  arise  do  not  arise  in  practice. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  To  the  best  of  your  knowledge  and  belief  if  a 
referendum  of  this  act  was  made  to  the  workers  of  Canada  how  do  you  think 
they  would  vote  on  it? 

Mr.  KING.  The  answer  I  might  give  to  that  would  be  one  that  was  recently 
made  by  Sir  George  Asquith  when  he  was  in  Canada.  He  came  over  from  the 
old  country,  and  he  met  the  employers  and  the  men  and  the  public  to  find  out 
how  they  viewed  the  act,  and  he  presented  his  report  to  the  British  Government, 
and,  as  I  recall  it,  it  was  very  strongly  an  indorsation  by  all  the  parties  who 
had  been  under  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  the  act,  in  your  judgment,  be  as  success- 
ful as  it  has  been  if  there  were  no  penalties  attached  to  the  act  and  if  the 
plan  outlined  in  the  Newlands  Act  was  followed,  which  does  not  provide  any 
penalties? 

Mr.  KING.  In  many  ways  I  would  prefer  to  see  an  act  without  penalties, 
because  I  really  think  they  are  misleading.  The  penalty  to  a  certain  group  of 
men  may  have  a  restraining  influence.  It  may  prevent  sudden  and  precipitate 
action,  which  if  developed  might  result  in  something  serious,  and  to  the  extent 
to  which  it  provides  that  kind  of  thing  it  is  helpful,  but  I  think  in  a  great 
many  cases  if  there  was  no  penalty  at  all,  really  if  a  body  of  workingmen  felt 
that  they  had  justice  on  their  side,  they  would  be  only  too  ready  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  that  kind  of  investigation  so  as  to  put  their  case  before  the 
public. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  we  to  understand  from  your  experience  of  the 
past  seven  years  that  you  would,  as  the  author  of  that  act,  having  to  rewrite 
it,  eliminate  penalties? 

Mr.  KING.  I  might  be  willing  to  do  it.  On  the  other  hand,  I  will  not  say 
that  I  could  get  Parliament  to  indorse  it.  The  question  came  up,  "  Can  you 
secure  for  workingmen  their  alternative  to  strike  and  the  opportunity 
having  a  board  partially  of  their  own  choice,  giving  them  the  power  of  securing 
after  the  inquiry,  the  right  to  strike  or  lock  out,  as  you  please — can  yoi 
secure  all  of  that  at  the  expense  of  the  State  without  doing  anything  for  th( 
State  in  exchange?"  When  it  came  to  considering  the  representation  that 
there  is  in  the  House  of  Commons,  a  body  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  whi(  * 


TKADE    AGREEMENTS    IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  737 

I  suppose,  are  from  rural  communities,  and  considering  the  representatives 
from  urban  districts  who  for  the  most  part  are  not  representatives  of  labor 
but  of  capital,  it  became  very  apparent  to  those  of  us  who  were  in  favor  of 
it  that  we  could  not  get  anything  unless  we  had  something  to  give  the  State 
in  return. 

That  is  the  whole  basis  of  that  law;  it  is  an  endeavor  to  secure  the  work- 
ingmen  the  right  to  have  their  grievances  fully  entered  into,  to  have  public 
opinion  focused  on  the  particular  wrong,  in  the  belief  that  if  you  can  focus 
public  opinion  on  a  wrong,  publicity  is  a  more  effective  remedy  for  certain 
classes  of  industrial  evils  than  any  penalty. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  With  a  knowledge  of  the  conditions  prevailing  in 
the  United  States,  eliminating  penalties,  how  do  you  think  that  act  would 
work  out  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  KING.  Well,  I  would  hesitate  to  speak  in  reference  to  any  one  country- 
I  would  speak  generally,  that  human  nature  is  pretty  much  the  same  the 
world  over,  and  I  can  not  see  why  a  measure  that  works  successfully  among 
one  particular  group  of  men  should  not  work  equally  successfully  among  other 
groups  similarly  placed. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  you  were  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  would 
you  advocate  the  adoption  of  the  plan  minus  penalty? 

Mr.  KING.  I  would  advocate  with  all  my  heart  any  measure  that  will  help 
to  gain  publicity. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  believe  that  it  does  gain  publicity? 

Mr.  KING.  I  do  not  know  of  any  more  effective  means. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  In  case  you  omit  the  penalty,  which  I  understand  is 
either  fine  or  imprisonment — is  that  true? 

Mr.  KING.  "  Fine  "  is  the  way  it  reads  in  the  act,  but  if  the  men  can  not  pay 
the  fine  the  men  are  imprisoned. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Would  not  this  act  resolve  itself  into  substantially 
what  several  of  our  American  States  have  already,  in  that  they  have  the  power 
of  compulsory  investigation  at  any  time  when  they  have  knowledge  that  a 
strike  is  impending  or  that  it  is  in  progress?  I  presume  you  know  that  we  have 
got  a  number  of  States  that  have  that  power? 

Mr.  KING.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  In  other  words,  it  was  not  the  result  of  what  you 
could  look  upon  as  legislative  bargaining ;  that  in  order  that  the  unions  might 
get  the  power  of  investigation,  the  unions  subjected  themselves  to  fines,  and  it 
came  about  in  those  various  States  under  the  simple  power  of  the  States  to 
make  an  investigation. 

Mr.  KING.  Excuse  me.  In  connection  with  the  States  you  are  speaking  of, 
are  there  any  in  which  the  workmen  themselves  have  the  appointment  of  the 
man  who  is  going  to  do  the  investigating,  or  is  this  investigation  done  at  the 
instance  of  an  official  already  appointed?  That  is  the  essence  of  the  difference 
in  the  form. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  a  memorandum  in  general  about  the  various 
States  and  the  initiation.  It  is,  of  course,  in  this  country  made  by  a  permanent 
board  of  meditators  or  arbitrators,  by  the  State  officially ;  investigation  can  be 
made  on  the  motion  of  either  party,  labor  or  the  other ;  it  is  supposed  to  be  aa 
impartial  investigation  by  the  State  of  all  the  facts,  with  power  to  bring  papers 
and  books  to  the  court.  I  do  not  think  it  is  true  that  the  laborer,  a  private 
citizen,  not  having  the  oath  of  office,  would  have  the  right  to  question  the 
witness.  I  think  there  is  that  difference. 

Mr.  KING.  That  is  the  essence,  really,  of  the  principles  underlying  justice  in 
our  measures,  as  we  see  it.  Confidence,  after  all,  is  the  thing  to  be  sought  in 
adjusting  industrial  differences,  and  by  allowing  workingmen  to  choose  their 
own  members  on  the  board,  and  endowing  them  \vith  power  that  the  judiciary 
has,  we  feel  we  are  going  much  further  than  has  ever  been  gone  in  any  country 
that  I  know  of  in  bringing  about  a  condition  of  democracy ;  it  brings  the 
judiciary  practically  down  to  the  people,  by  allowing  them  to  select  the  judge 
by  which  they  are  to  be  tried. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then  these  laws,  where  they  have  the  power  of  in- 
vestigation, would  come  out  about  the  same  as  yours,  if,  whenever  a  dispute 
arises,  the  State  could  ask  the  two  sides  to  appoint  their  representatives  to 
meet  with  it,  and  giving  them  also  the  power  of  questioning  witnesses. 

Mr.  KING.  What  I  have  thought  is  this,  in  regard  to  a  measure  of  that  kind : 
If  a  law  were  passed  which  would  say  to  the  parties,  "  In  the  event  of  your 
withholding  your  hand  until  investigation  has  been  made,  we  will  give  you 

38819°— 16 47 


738          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

the  right  to  name  your  own  members  on  the  board ;  if  you  do  not  withhold 
your  "hand  we  will  appoint  the  board  without  considering  you  one  way  or  the 
other,  and  simply  consider  the  public." 

I  believe  the  effect  of  such  a  law  would  be  that  in  a  large  percentage  of  the 
cases  the  parties  themselves  would  ask  for  the  board  to  give  them  their  own 
method  and  adopt  that  method  before  they  went  into  strike  or  lockout. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Of  course  the  other  side  might  take  immediate  action 
in  order  to  get  immediate  results;  that  is,  the  employer  can  fire  all  the  men  if 
he  thought  he  had  the  right,  or  the  employees  might  all  strike  at  once  if  they 
thought  the  employer  was  going  to  get  ready  to  bring  in  strike  breakers,  so 
that  we  would  not  have  that  compulsory  withholding  of  warfare  by  law,  so 
that  it  might  be  brought  about.  If  we  have  the  detail,  I  should  think  the 
question  is,  Would  it  have  that  power  to  investigate  now  in  very  many  States? 
In  some  of  them  it  operates  very  near  the  point  where  the  local  unofficial  or 
extemporaneous  representatives  have  the  power,  not  perhaps  the  actual  ques- 
tioning, but  the  power  of  suggesting  the  questions  which  the  commission  should 
ask.  If  the  penalty  is  going  in  desuetude  in  Canada,  then  it  might  be  that  we 
could  get  all  of  the  advantages  of  the  act  either  by  moving  in  this  direction  that 
many  of  our  States  have  moved  in,  without  penalty. 

Mr.  KING.  I  think  in  some  cases  it  would  be  quite  true  that  the  advantages 
obtained  would  be  just  as  great  without  them  as  with  them.  At  other  times 
extreme  men  are  prevented  from  taking  extreme  action  by  the  penalty,  and  an 
industrial  dispute  would  appear  to  be  much  more  easily  settled  if  the  issue 
can  be  confined  to  the  economic  question  and  is  not  complicated  by  a  number 
of  personal  differences  and  animosities,  which  are  certain  to  arise  when  the 
dispute  gets  into  the  strike  or  lockout.  That  is  the  advantage  of  the  penalty, 
the  withholding  of  a  strike  taking  place  before  inquiry. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Was  not  there  a  case  which  occurred  in  connection 
with  some  mines  where  the  men  were  fined  for  employing  men  to  go  into  the 
mine  for  the  purpose  of  striking,  or  something  of  that  sort,  in  some  mine  trouble 
in  Nova  Scotia  or  other  Provinces? 

Mr.  KING.  In  the  case  that  I  have  referred  to,  the  fine  was  imposed  on  the 
men;  that  was  in  connection  with  a  mining  strike,  and  it  was  for  going  out 
on  strike  before  the  board  was  appointed.  I  do  not  think  there  has  been  any 
other  case. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  men  wrere  not  fined  for  employing  men  to  go 
into  the  mines  and  then  striking? 

Mr.  KING.  I  do  not  think  there  has  been  such  a  case ;  I  don't  recall  it. 

(Here  Mr.  King  left  the  stand  and  again  returned.) 

Mr.  KING.  Mr.  Gompers  has  just  spoken  to  me,  reminding  me  of  something. 
It  may  be  the  same  strike  that  you  have  in  mind,  Mr.  O'Connell,  in  the  Cobalt 
district,  where  there  was  a  strike.  This  question  came  up,  as  to  who  should 
be  fined.  I  do  not  know  that  I  stated  directly,  but  the  principal  reasons  were 
that  they  were  fined,  and  as  I  remember  it,  it  was  the  officers  of  the  union 
that  were  fined.  Mr.  Gompers  has  reminded  me  that  the  officers  themselves 
were  not  actual  workers  in  the  mine,  and  that  consequently  they  were  fined  for 
something  somebody  else  had  done.  If  that  is  the  question  you  were  alluding 
to,  I  was  wrong  in  conveying  the  inference  that  no  such  cases  had  taken 
place.  The  officers  of  the  union  were  the  men  fined,  and  I  think  on  that  same 
matter  there  is  a  section  in  the  act  that  any  one  who  incites  men  to  strike 
in  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  act  are  liable  to  fine.  I  think  they  were 
fined  under  that  clause,  that  they  were  inciting  the  strike  prior  to  the  inquiry. 

(Here  Mr.  Gompers  resumed  the  stand.) 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  SAMUEL  GOMPERS— Recalled. 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  If  I  might,  I  would  like  to  supplement  this  statement  made 
by  Mr.  King.  It  was  suggested  by  the  question  asked  him  as  he  was  about 
to  leave  the  stand. 

The  facts  in  the  case,  as  they  came  to  me,  were  that  the  miners  themselves 
went  on  strike,  and  after  they  were  on  strike  they  made  application  to  the 
union  for  the  benefits  provided  by  the  laws  of  the  union  to  support  them  in 
the  event  of  their  being  on  strike,  and  the  officers  of  the  union  furnished  these 
miners  with  the  benefits  to  which  they  were  entitled,  and  for  so  doing  these 
officers  were  arrested  and  fined  for  aiding  and  abetting  a  strike  in  violation  of 
law. 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  739 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Ballard  has  a  question  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Gompers. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  In  taking  up  questions  of  conciliation,  arbitration, 
and  collective  bargaining,  which  we  are  trying  to  study,  to  be  on  any  large 
scale  they  can  exist  only  where  both  sides  are  well  organized?  It  requires 
organization  on  both  sides  to  have  this  collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  The  best  results  are  obtained  that  way. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  And  it  must  be  mutually  agreeable  to  both  sides? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Being  a  manufacturer  myself,  I  have,  naturally,  in  my 
life  heard  the  manufacturers'  arguments  against  the  organization  of  which  you 
are  president,  and  these  are  all  along  the  lines  of  limitation  of  output,  boycotts, 
coercion,  breaking  of  contracts,  and  industrial  strikes,  refusing  to  use  nonunion- 
made  materials.  All  these  things  have  come  up,  and  I  have  no  doubt  a  great 
many  other  things  have  come  up  on  the  other  side. 

It  has  occurred  to  me  that  if  a  commission — I  do  not  care  how  many,  but  we 
will  say  six — representing  the  workingmen  and  six  representing  the  employers, 
and  perhaps  with  or  without  some  of  the  public,  could  be  appointed,  they  could 
formulate  a  declaration  of  principles  which  might  establish  such  fundamental 
principles  that  they  could  be  agreed  to  on  both  sides,  as,  for  instance,  accepting 
the  principle  of  the  rights  of  property  and  an  acceptance  of  the  rights  of  the 
workingmen,  and  citations,  and  conditions,  and  all  that ;  could  not  that  com- 
mission, if  they  formulated  such  fundamental  bills  of  rights — don't  you  think 
that  would  put  the  case  in  such  a  condition  that  the  manufacturers  who  wanted 
what  was  right  and  the  workingmen  who  wanted  what  was  right  could  get  to- 
gether on  some  common  ground?  For  instance,  as  you  stated,  declare  the  right 
of  the  workman  to  quit  wage  slavery,  and  on  the  other  side,  the  right  of  the  em- 
ployers to  discharge  would  be  recognized,  remembering  always  that  the  em- 
ployer has  before  him  the  fear  of  loss  in  his  business ;  it  seems  to  me  if  some 
declaration  of  principles  could  be  agreed  to  by  both  sides  in  this  controversy, 
that  would  be  a  long  way  toward  having  some  common  ground  where  we  could 
all  stand. 

Now,  for  instance,  just  on  that  very  line  of  thought,  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  has  with  it,  I  understand,  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  and  in 
this  rather  spectacular  and  unfortunate  Calumet  copper  strike,  in  Michigan, 
it  has  come  to  my  attention,  the  declaration  of  principles  of  the  Western  Federa- 
tion of  Miners.  Let  me  read  them  to  you  as  a  fair  man,  and  in  a  fair  and  honest 
spirit  see  what  you  think  of  a  declaration  of  principles  on  the  part  of  the  em- 
ployees, if  you  were  running  a  factory  on  that  plan  yourself. 

Here  is  the  preamble: 

"  We  hold  that  there  is  a  class  struggle  in  society,  and  that  this  struggle  is 
caused  by  economic  conditions. 

"  2.  We  affirm  the  economic  condition  of  the  producer  to  be  that  he  is  ex- 
ploited of  the  wealth  which  he  produces,  being  allowed  to  retain  barely  sufficient 
for  his  elementary  necessities. 

"  3.  We  hold  that  the  class  struggle  will  continue  until  the  producer  is  recog- 
nized as  the  sole  master  of  his  product. 

"  4.  We  assert  that  the  working  class,  and  it  alone,  can  and  must  achieve  its 
own  emancipation. 

"  5.  We  hold,  finally,  that  an  industrial  union  and  the  concerted  political  ac- 
tion of  all  wageworkers  is  the  only  method  of  attaining  this  end. 

"  6.  Therefore  we,  the  wage  slaves  employed  in  and  around  the  mines,  mills, 
smelters,  tunnels,  open  pits,  and  open  cuts,  have  associated  in  the  Western 
Federation  of  Miners." 

I  can  not  help  thinking  that  there  must  be  some  common  ground  for  a  declara- 
tion of  principles  wrhich  all  men  in  the  country  will  recognize  as  fair,  and  then, 
if  we  could  agree  on  that  common  ground,  that  would  be  a  good  start  for 
conciliation,  arbitration,  and  mediation  ;  but  when  men  start  out  by  saying  that 
they  are  the  sole  owners  and  that  they  are  the  "  wage  slaves  "  it  seems  to  me 
they  can  hardly  expect  the  manufacturers  and  employers  to  be  willing  to  treat 
with  them. 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  Mr.  Commissioner,  I  think  you  will  agree  wTith  me  that  to 
give  anything  like  an  intelligent,  comprehensive  answer  to  all  the  matter 
which  you  have  presented,  will  require  not  only  a  book,  but  a  series  of 
volumes.  I  shall  endeavor  to  say  just  a  few  things  in  connection  writh  the 
?stion  you  asked  and  the  subject  you  have  mentioned.  I  can  not  think  of 
all.  My  memory  does  not  serve  me  that  well. 


740          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

First,  let  me  say  that  there  can  be  no  question  in  our  life  that  there  are 
rights  of  property,  and  in  any  declaration  of  principles  and  any  series  of 
principles  which  the  commission  may  formulate,  that  provision  may  be  con- 
tained ;  but  that  is  not  offset  nor  is  it  corollary  to  say  "  Proper  sanitation  for 
workingmen."  If  this  commission  or  if  any  body  of  men  should  undertake 
to  declare  a  series  of  principles  and  assert  as  one  of  them  the  rights  of  prop- 
erty, the  only  other  question  and  the  only  one  which  should  precede  it  is  the 
matter  of  the  rights  of  man,  the  mere  matter  of  an  incident,  nor  does  it  at 
all  compare  to  the  declaration  of  the  rights  of  property.  The  Declaration  of 
Independence  was  a  declaration  of  the  rights  of  man  politically  and  religiously. 
The  commission  is  dealing  with  a  new  question,  the  newer  question,  the  modern 
question,  the  rights  of  man  industrially — that  is,  to  help  by  all  means  within 
its  power  the  great  movements  of  men  and  women  of  labor,  of  sociologists,  of 
welfare  of  workers,  of  social  workers — to  establish  the  rightful  relations  or  the 
more  rightful  relations,  if  you  please,  between  the  workmen  and  the  employers. 

It  is,  perhaps,  not  quite  just  to  me  to  require  me  to  answer  the  question 
in  regard  to  the  preamble  of  the  declaration  of  the  Western  Federation  of 
Miners,  because  the  declared  policies  are  not  in  accordance  with  my  views. 
When  occasion  has  arisen,  I  have  had  no  hesitancy  in  saying  so.  There  is 
this  other  question  in  connection  with  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  which 
should  not  be  lost  sight  of.  The  policy  which  that  organization  has  pursued  in 
the  past  six  or  seven  years  has  been  of  the  most  conservative,  constructive 
character.  The  mere  fact  is  this,  Mr.  Ballard,  that  whether  deserved  or  un- 
deserved is  not  material  now,  but  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners  has  been 
given  a  bad  name  by  its  enemies  and  by  their  declarations,  giving  a  seeming 
cause  for  it,  and  it  seems  that  no  matter  what  the  organization  may  now  do 
or  propose  to  do  for  the  protection  of  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  metallifer- 
ous miners,  there  seems  to  be  a  concentrated  effort  on  the  part  of  the  enemies 
of  that  organization  to  defeat  it  in  its  very  honest,  honorable  efforts.  That 
is  the  point. 

I  am  at  variance  with  that  declaration.  The  American  Federation  of  Labor 
is  at  variance  with  that  declaration.  But  because  an  organization  in  its  youth, 
in  its  early  days,  has  made  mistakes — if  it  has  made  mistakes — is  no  reason 
why  it  should  not  be  given  an  opportunity  to  become  right.  That  organization 
has  not  been  given  that  opportunity  in  Calumet,  or  in  Minersville,  N.  Y.  I 
know  of  this  incident:  A  member  of  the  executive  council  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  was  requested  to  go  to  Calumet  and  make  an  investiga- 
tion of  the  conditions  there.  To  no  man  on  earth  will  I  more  readily  yield 
my  judgment  and  my  opinion  than  to  him,  and  in  no  man  have  I  greater  confi- 
dence in  his  good  judgment,  his  honor,  and  his  honesty.  He  made  the  report 
that  no  men  on  strike  were  ever  more  justified  than  our  miners  in  the  Calumet 
district,  and  no  men  have  conducted  themselves  more  peacefully,  more  con- 
servatively, and  more  within  the  law  than  have  these  men. 

If  I  may  be  permitted  to  take  the  time,  I  will  tell  you  the  story  of  the 
Quaker,  who  had  purchased  a  chunk  of  meat  for  himself  and  his  good  wife 
for  their  evening  meal,  and  had  it  wrapped  up  in  his  hand.  A  great  big  dog 
came  along,  and,  sniffing  the  meat,  grabbed  it  and  ran  away.  The  Quaker 
would  not  kill  the  dog  nor  would  he  hurt  the  dog — it  was  against  his  faith. 
But  he  said:  "I  will  give  thee  a  bad  name,  that  thou  art  a  mad  dog;  a  mad 
dog  art  thou,"  and  repeating  it  louder  and  louder,  he  ran  after  the  dog  until 
a  great  crowd  followed  and  then  led  him  in  the  chase  for  the  dog,  and  the 
crowd  killed  the  dog  and  his  conscience  was  free. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  I  will  say  I  was  for  some  time  president  of  the 
Employers'  Association,  of  Louisville,  Ky.  During  that  time  one  of  our  mem- 
bers got  up  an  organization,  and  I  did  not  consider  his  rules  of  organization  or 
his  methods  or  his  principles  were  correct.  I  sent  for  that  member.  I  told  him 
so ;  I  told  him  I  would  not  stand  for  it  and  that  our  association  would  not  stand 
for  it.  He  said,  "What  do  you  intend  to  do  about  it?"  I  told  him,  "Publish 
it  in  the  newspapers  and  expel  you." 

This  preamble  is  the  same  preamble  of  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners 
to-day,  and  this  report  from  which  I  have  read  it  is  report  No.  139  of  the 
United  States  Department  of  Labor,  February  5,  1914. 

I  am  not  doing  this  to  criticize,  but  only  to  bring  out  what  is  fair.  I  want  to 
say,  as  a  fair  man  myself,  if  I  were  called  into  an  arbitration  between  a  union, 
if  you  choose,  or  an  employee  or  association  of  employees,  and  an  employer  or 
association  of  employers,  and  I  was  met  at  the  beginning  with  a  declaration  of 
principles  like  that,  I  would  feel  compelled  to  say,  "Gentlemen,  you  must 


TEADE    AGREEMENTS    IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  741 

change  your  principles  before  I  can  either  arbitrate  or  act,  because  the  declara- 
tion of  principles  does  not  accord,  as  you  said,  with  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence of  this  country."  Therefore,  I  repeat  that  if  you  could  get  a  commis- 
sion or  a  committee  of  laboring  men  and  employers  who  would  formulate  some 
declaration  of  principles  which  was  mutually  agreeable,  I  do  believe  it  would  be 
quite  a  step  toward  bringing  forward  more  friendly  and  better  relations 
between  organized  labor  and  organized  capital. 

Mr.  GOMPEES.  As  to  whether  the  question  of  the  declaration  would  bring  that 
about,  I  am  not  quite  so  sure;  but  I  am  quite  in  accord  with  you  in  the  pur- 
pose of  coming  to  some  sort  of  mental  agreement,  the  creation  of  a  condition, 
that  a  few  fundamentals  may  be  the  basis  for  our  future  progress.  The  an- 
tagonists to  our  movement  charge  the  labor  movement  to-day  with  endeavoring 
to  limit  output.  That  is  quite  contrary  to  the  facts.  The  labor  organiza- 
tion of  decades  ago,  not  to-day,  did  that.  The  labor  movement  of  to-day  asks 
for  the  establishment  of  a  workday  of  not  more  than  eight  hours.  That  does 
not  mean  a  limitation  of  output.  It  means  a  limitation  of  the  day's  work,  a 
limitation  which  every  economist,  every  man  who  has  studied  the  human  charac- 
ter and  the  human  make-up,  and  the  difficulties  upon  the  worker  in  the  modern 
industry,  agrees  is  the  wisest,  industrially,  economically,  and  socially. 

If  I  may  be  permitted  I  should  like  to  submit  a  few  observations  upon  some- 
thing which  has  been  mentioned  here  with  regard,  for  instance,  to  the  com- 
parative small  number  of  organized  workmen  to  the  unorganized. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Before  you  do  that,  let  me  ask  this :  We  have  had 
two  or  three  estimates  here.  One  gentleman  who  appeared  before  us  gave  an 
estimate  of  2.80  per  cent  of  the  total  population  as  being  organized.  Others 
gave  it  all  the  way  up  to  about  80  per  cent. 

Mr.  GOMPEKS.  Of  course,  such  a  statement  is  not  only  ridiculous,  but  ludi- 
crous, when  you  come  to  compare,  even  if  the  figures  were  right;  for,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  counting  the  average  family  in  the  population  of  the  United 
States  as  five  to  a  family — that  is  the  generally  accepted  number — it  is  not  quite 
fair  to  consider  that  population  of  5  to  a  family  and  95,000,000  people  in  the 
United  States,  when  there  are  3,000,000  organized  adults.  There  are  not  5  of 
those  as  compared  to  the  population  in  the  family,  but  there  are  3,000,000  adults. 

The  question  must  also  be  considered  from  this  viewpoint,  or  this  fact  must 
enter  into  consideration.  The  farmers  are  not  counted  in  the  ranks  of  the 
organized  labor  movement,  of  the  organized  workers  in  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  and  in  the  brotherhoods.  The  farm  laborers  are  not,  as  a  rule, 
organized.  They  are  not  counted.  The  employers,  large  or  small,  are  not 
enumerated.  The  business  men  are  not  enumerated,  large  and  small.  The 
men  in  the  professions  of  law,  of  medicine,  of  engineering,  are  not  enumerated. 
The  men  office  workers,  in  clerical  work,  are  not  enumerated. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  the  civil  service? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  In  the  civil  service  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  several 
States  and  of  the  communities,  they  are  not  enumerated. 

In  a  trade  or  an  industry  in  which  there  are,  in  some  instances,  nearly  100 
per  cent  of  the  workers  organized,  sociologically  speaking,  when  there  is  one 
worker  affected,  all  are  affected ;  when  a  wrong  is  done  to  one,  it  affects  the 
whole  of  society's  conditions  and  its  members.  But,  in  so  far  as  relations 
between  employers  and  employees  are  concerned,  the  100  per  cent  organized 
have  the  right  to  speak  for  that  industry;  there  is  no  question  about  that. 
There  are  numbers  of  them  in  which  there  are  98  per  cent,  95  per  cent,  90  per 
cent,  85  per  cent,  80  per  cent,  60  per  cent,  50  per  cent,  40  per  cent  organized ; 
some  of  them  poorly  organized,  it  is  true.  Surely  those  who  are  well  organized 
have  the  right  to  speak  in  the  name  of  themselves  and  for  themselves  and  for 
each  other. 

I  think  I  understand. Mr.  Mackenzie  King's  fundamental  idea,  and  principally 
I  am  in  accord  with  him ;  but  he  has  told  the  commission  that  the  only  reason 
why  the  penal  clauses  were  adopted  in  the  Canadian  law  was  because  they 
could  not  get  a  law  through  Parliament  without  it;  and  that  because  the 
Parliament  was  made  up  of  a  larger  number  of  farmers  and  a  few  from  the 
r.rban  districts,  was  the  reason  that  was  put  in  there ;  in  other  words,  because 
they  could  not  get  a  law  through  the  Parliament  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
without  the  penal  clause  was  conceded,  and  the  liberty — I  do  not  care  what 
you  call  it,  you  may  call  it  by  any  other  name — but  the  liberty  of  the  workman 
was  frittered  away  and  bartered  away  because  of  the  make-up  of  the  Parlia* 
ment. 


742          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  May  I  at  that  point  ask  what  would  be  the  atti- 
tude of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  to  a  new  act  if  the  penalty  clause 
were  eliminated? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  I  have  already  stated  in  my  direct  statement  that  I  doubt 
if  there  would  be  much  of  an  agitation,  except  there  would  be  always  the 
apprehension  of  building  upon,  building  upon,  building  upon,  until  the  time  to 
attempt  to  urge  the  compulsory  arbitration  and  penal  features. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  that  act  were  submitted  without  the  penalty 
clause,  would  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  oppose  it  or  support  it,  so 
far  as  you  know? 

Mr.  GOMPEKS.  Mr.  Commissioner,  there  is  another  thing  I  want  to  say  in 
'connection  with  that,  and  if  you  will  kindly  permit  me  to  reserve  my  answer 
until  I  have  stated  that,  or  if  I  do  not  state  it,  I  will  be  thankful  if  you  will 
repeat  the  question  then,  and  I  will  answer  it. 

What  is  justice?  Talk  about  the  court  of  arbitration  or  the  court  of  in- 
vestigation finding  out  justice  and  declaring  it.  Whaifc  is  justice?  What  was 
justice  10  years  ago  is  regarded  as  a  great  injustice  to-day.  Justice  is  a-  con- 
cept, is  an  attitude  of  mind.  The  report  of  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commis- 
sion was  quoted  here  as  having  been  ideal.  Is  there  any  man  in  all  America 
who  imagines  that  an  award  of  the  character  made  by  the  Anthracite  Coal 
Strike  Commission  could  have  been  rendered  if  the  coal  miners'  strike  had  not 
occurred? 

In  1897  the  coal  miners  in  the  bituminous  and  the  anthracite  fields  were 
simply  impoverished  and  demoralized,  and  living  in  poverty  and  misery  while 
working — not  while  idle.  Their  committees,  committees  from  these  dstricts, 
would  come  into  the  cities  with  credentials  signed  by  the  mayors  of  the  town 
and  the  governor  of  the  State,  authenticating  that  these  men  were  making  a 
justified  appeal  for  the  poverty  of  miners  and  miners'  families,  and  they  came 
to  the  workingmen,  to  us,  to  appeal  for  contributions  while  they  were  working. 
It  was  the  strike  of  1897  of  the  miners  in  the  bituminous  fields  that  checked 
that  downward  tendency  of  more  than  15  years.  You  will  remember  during 
the  political  campaign  of  1884,  when  the  misery  of  the  miners  in  the  Hocking 
Valley  was  flaunted  before  the  people,  and  it  was  only  in  the  political  cam- 
paign, as  a  political  event,  that  is  was  used  as  political  material ;  but  when 
the  campaign  was  over  men  had  not  the  slightest  advantage  as  the  result  of 
that  campaign ;  not  a  thing.  They  were  pitied  but  that  is  all. 

But  in  1897,  when  the  remnant  of  the  miners'  organization  declared  for  a 
strike,  I  think  on  July  4,  1897,  and  the  men  responded  in  their  desperation, 
finally  after  about  16  or  17  weeks'  strike  an  agreement  was  reached  with  the 
operators,  and  there  was  the  establishment  of  a  scale.  Within  a  year  after- 
wards they  met  again  and  established  another  scale  with  an  increase  in  wages, 
and  established  for  the  1st  of  April  the  eight-hour  workday  and  in  all  the 
bituminous  coal  fields  improved  conditions,  brought  about  the  abolition  of 
the  "  pluck-me "  store,  the  company  store,  the  right  of  the  men  to  purchase 
their  things  and  necessities  wTherever  they  desired.  The  contagion  caught  the 
miners  in  the  anthracite  region,  and  they  went  out  on  strike,  with  the  result 
as  we  know.  The  second  strike  was  ended  by  the  coal  strike  commission  and 
the  award. 

It  is  true  that  that  commission  made  the  declaration  quoted  by  Mr.  Emery ; 
but  it  is  equally  true  that  that  commission  reduced  the  hours  of  labor  to  nine 
per  day,  and  it  also  granted  an  increase  of  wages  of  10  per  cent,  and  it  ac- 
corded to  the  miners  the  right  to  purchase  their  powder  wherever  they  chose, 
and  to  make  their  purchases  free  from  the  coercion  of  making  their  purchases 
in  the  companies'  stores,  which  meant,  all  told,  more  than  30  per  cent  increase 
in  their  wages  and  a  reduction  of  their  working  hours  and  the  establishment 
of  better  conditions. 

Since  then  have  come  still  greater  and  better  improvements  in  the  condi- 
tions of  these  men.  And  now,  instead  of  the  Fedreal  authorities  hearing  and 
investigating  and  adjusting  conditions  between  the  coal  operators  in  the  an- 
thracite coal  regions  and  the  coal  miners,  representatives  of  the  coal  operators 
and  the  representatives  of  the  union  miners  meet  and  adjust  their  differences 
and  endeavor  to  reach  an  agreement 

And  this  is  the  point  I  want  to  make:  Had  the  coal  miners  prior  to  1897 
in  the  bituminous  region  appealed  to  a  commission,  if  it  were  in  existence  in 
the  United  States,  such  as  obtains  under  the  act  in  Canada,  if  they  were  to 
ask  for  an  investigation,  an  investigation  would  have  come. 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  743 

What  justice  would  the  miners  have  gotten?  They  might  have  gotten  a 
cent  or  two  a  ton.  But  the  strike  of  the  miners  in  the  bituminous  regions 
and  the  strike  of  the  miners  in  the  anthracite  region  abolished  wrongs  and 
abolishd  misery  and  poverty  and  dependence  that  a  century  of  investigation 
of  a  commission  and  all  the  altruism  of  which  its  members  could  be  possessed 
would  not  have  abolished,  and  that  strike  established  justice  that  could  not 
have  been  established  in  any  other  way. 

In  the  garment  industry,  the  sweatshop  system  and  the  miserable  tenements 
and  homes,  where  bedrooms  were  made  workshops,  and  they  were  all  huddled 
together  and  living  in  misery  and  degradation  and  poverty,  where  they  were 
idle  at  certain  periods  and  employed  at  other  times,  suppose  they  had  asked 
for  an  investigation  at  the  hands  of  the  commission  in  the  State  of  New  York 
or  of  a  Federal  commission,  they  would  have  gotten  just  what  the  laundry 
workers  got  in  the  city  of  New  York  when  they  asked  the  Bureau  of  Labor 
to  make  an  investigation,  just  what  the  miners  in  Minerville,  N.  Y.,  got — 
nothing;  nothing  but  a  word  of  sympathy,  and  then  like-  the  Philistine  they 
walked  by  on  the  other  side. 

There  was  a  time,  you  remember,  just  during  the  anthracite  mining  strike, 
when  Mr.  George  Baer  declared  that  he  would  not  meet  with  the  representa- 
tives of  the  miners'  union ;  that  he  and  other  employers  of  labor  were  the 
trustees  appointed  by  God  to  handle  the  interests  of  those  members,  and  that 
they  were  to  administer  them  in  the  interest  of  their  working  people.  Well, 
I  know  that  Mr.  Baer  has  revised  his  industrial  policy  as  to  his  working  people. 
He  now  meets  with  them,  and  in  determining  as  to  his  trusteeship. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Mr.  Gompers,  we  would  like  to  adjourn  in  a  few 
minutes. 

Mr.  GOMPEB:.  Do  you  mean  now? 

The  ACTING  CHAIBMAN.  No ;  in  about  10  minutes. 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  I  can  finish  up,  I  think,  in  that  time.  I  want  to  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  members  in  no  industry  which  I  know  are  threatened  with 
such  calamity  or  total  extinction  as  are  the  men  engaged  in  the  glass  bottle 
industry.  An  automatic  machine  has  been  invented  which  does  not  require 
any  man's  attention.  It  simply  gathers  the  glass  and  blows  it  and  molds  it 
and  forms  it  and  makes  it  complete,  and  the  men,  the  employers  who  want  to 
continue  in  the  business  in  the  best  way  they  can,  meet  the  representatives 
of  the  workmen  and  try  to  devise  some  way  to  meet  this  condition  which 
confronts  us.  They  have  agreed  upon  reductions  in  wages,  have  agreed  so 
that  the  men  might  be  enabled  to  work;  to  find  some  work.  They  have  tried 
to  devise  some  means  in  their  rules  and  regulations  by  which  the  glass  work- 
ers who  are  still  here  may  not  be  totally  thrown  upon  the  streets,  and  the 
whole  trade  disappear;  and  that  is  a  subject  for  the  adverse  criticism  of  Mr. 
Emery,  criticism  of  such  a  condition  of  the  union  that  Mr.  Emery  would  not 
belong  to,  and  those  men  made  the  type  of  bad,  bad  men,  who  would  resolve 
upon  anything  of  that  character.  Well,  I  am  not  called  upon  to  make  any 
criticism  of  the  legal  profession,  but  I  do  think  that  the  members  of  the  legal 
profession  are  making  it  daily  and  hourly  and  yearly  more  difficult  for  a  young 
man  to  pass  the  legal  examinations,  and  making  the  requirements  of  gradua- 
tion and  practice  more  difficult.  Of  course,  that  is  on  the  hypothesis  of  making 
better  lawyers,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  the 
output  of  lawyers. 

I  want  to  say  a  word  with  regard  to  the  International  Typographical  Union, 
and  in  regard  to  that  declaration.  It  is  not  the  first  time  we  have  been  con- 
fronted with  that  declaration.  I  just  want  to  call  your  attention  to  what  it 
was,  and  the  cause  of  it  and  what  it  really  portends.  In  the  International  Typo- 
graphical Union  there  existed  or  it  was  alleged  that  there  existed,  a  body  of 
men  consisting  of  only  a  few  in  certain  local  organizations  throughout  the 
country  which  had  a  common  purpose,  a  common  policy,  to  control  the  legisla- 
tion of  that  organization.  Mr.  Frank  Morrison,  the  secretary  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  a  delegate  from  his  local  union  in  Chicago  to  the  Colorado 
Springs  convention  of  1896,  made  that  charge  in  the  convention  and  there  was 
a  committee  appointed  to  draft  a  declaration  which  every  member  was  expected 
to  subscribe  to,  particularly  every  delegate  and  every  ex-delegate  who  was  in 
attendance  was  invited  to  take  the  obligation,  that  he  would  belong  to  no  other 
organization  affecting  the  trade,  affecting  his  conduct  within  the  International 
Typographical  Union,  and  that  is  the  whole  sum  total  and  purpose  of  that 
declaration. 


744          KEPOKT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

It  has  been  made  to  appear  before  committees  of  Congress  making  investiga- 
tions, as  it  was  made  to  appear  here  this  afternoon,  as  if  that  declaration  was 
designed  as  an  obligation  of  treason  to  the  United  States. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  inner  wheel  was  known  as  the  Juniata,  was 
it  not? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  The  secret  organization  was  known  by  a  number  of  names, 
Indian  names,  Juniata,  and  several  other  titles.  I  am  not  so  sure  whether 
it  ever  existed  or  now  exists.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  one  of  the  prominent  men 
who  was  asked  the  question,  said  that  it  was  a  myth,  and  the  printers  always 
had  a  good  deal  of  fun  with  him  and  about  him.  They  said  that  he  said  it  was 
a  myth ;  that  it  was  a  very  tangible  myth,  and  all  that.  At  any  rate,  what  I 
want  to  advise  you  gentlemen  is  that  there  is  no  question  but  that  what  I  have 
mentioned  as  to  the  cause  and  purpose  of  this  declaration  is  true,  that  it  is 
exactly  what  I  have  told  you,  nothing  more  and  nothing  les's.  It  was  with  the 
idea  that  if  such  a  concern  existed,  the  organization  should  be  freed  of  it,  if 
such  a  concern  existed,  of  ridding  the  organization  of  a  small  coterie  of  men 
controlling  the  legislation  of  the  organization,  because  they  were  working  in 
concert  with  each  other. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  asked  me  to  remind  you  of  my  question? 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  Yes.  May  I  have  just  one  moment  more?  Mr.  Emery  said 
that  I  always  speak  in  extremes.  I  do  not.  I  speak  probably  emphatically, 
but  not  in  extremes.  What  I  said  as  to  the  steel  industry  applies  to  the  build- 
ing trades,  it  applies  to  the  textile  trades,  it  applies  to  the  iron  trades,  it  applies 
to  the  boot  and  shoe  industry,  it  applies  to  the  garment  industry,  and  many, 
many  others ;  the  great,  basic  industries  of  the  country. 

Just  one  more  word  on  the  question  of  the  street  railway  men  as  they  exist, 
and  the  organization  which  has  come  in  Canada,  without  strikes.  That  is  true, 
too.  There  is  more  justice  coming  to  the  miners,  now,  because  they  standard- 
ized their  strike.  They  standardized  somewhat  the  industry,  wages,  and  con- 
ditions and  hours  of  labor.  So  in  the  garment  trade ;  it  is  somewhat  standard- 
ized as  to  wages  and  hours  and  conditions,  and  sanitary  conditions.  And  it 
is  so  in  many  industries.  The  strike  in  Canada  on  the  street  railways  helped 
fo  establish  a  better  standard  of  wages,  and  it  is  easier  now  to  establish  or  to 
come  near  that  standard  without  strikes.  I  have  not  the  figures,  but  I  do 
know  that  in  nearly  every  industry  there  are  thousands  and  thousands  of 
agreements,  collective  bargains,  between  employers  and  unions,  between  work- 
men and  employers,  and  associations  of  employers.  Sometimes  they  have  been 
obtained,  in  the  early  stages,  by  strikes,  by  contests ;  later  by  the  policy  of  con- 
ciliation and  meeting  the  conditions  of  industry,  and  the  constantly  growing 
needs  of  the  workers,  and  the  demands  which  they  make  upon  society  for  a 
better  life  as  the  reward  for  the  service  which  they  give  to  society. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock,  I  suggest  that  if  there  are  other 
questions  which  you  want  Mr.  Gompers  to  answer,  you  had  better  formulate 
them  in  writing  and  have  him  answer  them  in  writing,  as  has  been  done  in 
other  cases. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Very  well,  I  will  do  that.  Mr.  Gompers,  among 
the  other  methods  that  will  be  submitted  to  this  commission  for  its  consideration 
when  it  comes  to  make  a  recommendation,  will  be  this  Canadian  act.  We 
have  here  this  afternoon  the  twTo  leading  exponents  of  that  matter,  Mr.  King, 
who  is  the  author  of  that  act,  and  you,  who  oppose  it,  representing  organized 
labor,  so  that  it  is  very  important  to  get  this  question  as  clear  in  our  minds 
as  we  can,  from  both  of  you.  We  have  Mr.  King's  opinion,  and  we  want 
yours. 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  I  promise  you  that  if  you  write  me  I  will  answer  you  fully. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  you  rather  have  me  submit  the  questions 
to  you  in  writing? 

Mr.   GOMPERS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Very  well ;  I  will  do  that. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Gompers.  We  are  much  obliged  to 
you.  Your  answers  to  those  questions  will  be  made  a  part  of  the  hearings. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  questions  and  answers  will  be  made  a  part 
of  the  hearings. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  want  to  ask  a  few  questions,  and  I  will  do  the 
same  thing. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Emery,  have  you  any  point  you  would  like  to 
make?  We  have  about  10  minutes,  and 'if  you  could  touch  up  what  you 
have  to  say  and  let  us  ask  in  writing  any  questions  that  can  be  better  han- 
dled that  way,  we  would  like  to  have  you  do  so. 


TEADE    AGREEMENTS    IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  745 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JAMES  A.  EMERY— Recalled. 

Mr.  EMEKY.  Of  course  I  am  at  the  service  of  the  commission.  I  realize  how 
impossible  it  is  in  the  space  of  time  we  have  to  touch  upon  so  many  questions 
as  are  necessarily  raised  in  a  discussion  like  this.  I  should  like  to  say  one 
word,  if  I  may,  about  one  phase  of  this  matter  in  which  I  think  many  em- 
ployers of  this  country  feel  a  very  deep  interest,  and  I  should  be  doing  a  very 
great  injustice  to  them  and  to  myself,  and  to  this  commission,  if  I  indicated 
by  the  tone  of  anything  that  I  have  said  or  by  any  undue  exaggeration  of 
the  employer  versus  employee,  which  of  course  is  the  topic  that  you  are 
perculiarly  addressing  yourselves  to,  any  belief  or  opinion  on  the  part  of 
those  for  whom  I  can  speak,  that  this  commission  is  to  put  its  mind  exclu- 
sively to  the  relation  of  employer  and  employee. 

We  conceive  that  there  is  a  far  more  fundamental  relation  at  the  root  of 
many  of  the  difficulties  in  the  whole  industrial  controversy.  It  is  a  common' 
sin  of  both  employer  and  employee  to  treat  this  whole  controversy  of  their 
relationship  as  though  they  were  the  parties  of  most  importance,  that  this 
matter  affected  only  them,  and  they  could  arrange  their  affairs  or  fight  them 
out  in  an  elementary  and  barbaric  way,  however  unfitting  that  would  be  to 
the  conditions  under  which  we  live.  But  they  affect  something  else.  They 
affect  this  country  and  all  the  people  in  it,  when  the  controversy  assumes 
such  magnitude  that  it  interferes  with  the  supply  of  their  needs  or  with  the 
movement  of  all  those  instrumentalities  which  must  be  kept  in  motion  to 
maintain  the  material  aspects  of  our  civilization;  because  every  day  that  our 
material  civilization  grows  more  greatly  it  develops  a  burden  upon  those  who 
sustain  it,  correspondingly.  The  great  difficulties  between  employers  and 
employees  in  the  making  of  collective  bargains  and  in  the  enforcing  of  them 
are  not  merely  in  those  questions  of  policy  which  will  always  be  acute  as 
long  as  men  have  their  labor  to  sell,  and  as  long  as  they  strive  to  get  the 
largest  return  for  it,  and  as  long  as  those  who  buy  it  are  producing  under 
competitive  conditions,  not  only  in  their  own  country  but  in  the  world,  and 
undertake  to  estimate  the  cost  of  their  labor  as  the  most  important  factor 
in  the  making  of  the  commodity  which  they  have  to  sell.  The  man  who  is 
making  something  to  sell  is  making  it  to  sell  in  a  given  market  in  competition 
with  some  one  else,  and  however  much  the  producer  of  any  commodity,  which 
he  must  sell  in  order  to  sustain  his  operation  of  production,  would  like  to 
consider  only  humanitarian  and  philanthropic  notions,  he  is  necessarily  face 
to  face  with  the  most  vital  and  material  problem,  how  to  continue  to  sell 
his  article  and  how  to  make  it  and  maintain  the  quality  for  the  price  for 
which  he  can  afford  to  sell  it  in  competition. 

Now,  all  those  questions  of  policy  and  concerning  the  hours  of  labor  and  effi- 
ciency of  methods  of  labor  are  to  be  considered.  They  are  immensely  impor- 
tant problems.  They  are  problems  that  will  always  be  with  us  as  long  as  men 
are  engaged  in  having  one  man  his  labor  to  sell  and  another  man  his  labor  to 
buy,  and  so  it  was  since  the  days  of  the  first  makers  of  brass.  But  the  essen- 
tial and  vital  thing  upon  which  we  can  not  afford  to  have  differences  in  this 
country  is  the  principle  which  is  to  underlie  the  collective  contract,  and  that 
principle  is  not  to  be  settled  by  employers  or  employees  or  by  any  commission 
for  them — not  while  we  live  in  this  Government.  It  is  to  be,  settled  by  the 
principles  of  the  Government  in  which  we  live,  or  we  make  an  agreement  out- 
side of  it  and  undertake  to  enforce  it  by  means  unknown  to  that  Government. 
The  vital  thing  in  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission  report,  to  which  I 
called  your  attention,  is  not  the  mere  increase  in  wages  and  shortening  of  hours, 
important  and  necessary  as  it  was,  but  it  was  the  recognition  of  certain  vital 
principles  that  ought  to  be  recognized  and  enforced  in  all  relations  between 
employers  and  employees,  and  those  principles  apply  not  merely  to  the  anthra- 
cite field,  but  they  apply  to  every  field  into  which  men  enter  for  the  purchase 
and  sale  of  labor.  That  vital  principle  is  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that  while 
the  organization  of  labor  is  an  important  and  vital  thing,  and  has  played 
a  big  part  in  the  betterment  of  the  wage  earner,  and  moral  and  physical  and 
social  aspects,  that  the  right  of  the  men  to  stay  outside  of  that  organization  and 
sell  his  labor  and  of  the  other  man  to  purchase  it,  and  of  the  man  who  stays 
outside  to  be  free  from  coercion  and  intimidation  is  just  as  much  as  the  right 
of  the  man  who  goes  into  it. 

I  add  a  third  phrase  to  Mr.  Gompers's  description  of  slavery.  It  would  be 
slavery  if  any  form  of  involuntary  servitude  could  continue  in  this  country  so 
that  a  man  was  compelled  to  labor  under  conditions  which  he  did  not  desire 


746          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

when  he  wished  to  quit.  It  would  be  slavery  if  a  man  was  compelled  by  an 
employer  to  work  under  conditions  that  did  not  suit  him. 

And  it  is  equally  slavery  when  a  man  may  not  sell  his  labor  without  securing 
a  license  from  another  to  do  so,  and  when  he  is  to  be  annoyed  or  intimidated  if  he 
undertakes  to  peacefully  pursue  the  calling  in  which  he  desires  to  earn  his 
living  for  himself  and  those  dependent  upon  him  if  others  undertake  to  annoy 
him — I  will  put  it  in  the  mildest  possible  form — unless  he  accepts  their  conclu- 
sions and  adopts  their  vehicle  for  the  standardization  of  it.  That  principle  is 
as  vital  as  anything  in  industry. 

And  when  you  survey  the  whole  field  of  industry  you  will  observe  in  many 
trades  of  the  very  highest  nature,  many  forms  of  production  in  which  this 
country  is  justly  famous  the  world  over.  That  production  is  being  carried  on 
by  men  both  in  unions  and  out  of  them,  and  the  fact  that  during  the  enormous 
periods  of  propoganda  they  have  stayed  out,  or  expressed  their  desire  to  stay 
out,  and  sell  their  labor  individually,  because  they  felt  that  they  get  their  re- 
ward best,  is  not  to  be  overlooked.  There  are  two  sides  of  the  scale  to  be 
looked  at ;  one  side  not  only  the  man  who  makes  the  best  bargain — not  only 
that,  but  the  man  who  does  not  want  to  make  it,  and  if  it  is  true  that  there 
is  an  enormous  danger  in  the  combination  of  great  producers  that  control  the 
sources  of  industry,  there  is  an  equal  liability  of  abuse  in  the  unregulated  and 
dominating  combination  that  controls  the  source  of  labor  supply.  They  both 
have  their  capacity  for  abuse,  and  while  we  recognize  the  use  of  each,  we 
can  not  close  our  eyes  to  the  abuses  of  either,  and  there  can  be  no  condition  in 
which  we  can  continue  industry  in  this  country  that  does  not  equally  recognize 
the  principles  and  rights  of  the  man  who  cares  to  sell  his  labor  individually  as 
well  as  he  who  cares  to  buy. 

For  20  years  wre  have  been  undertaking  now  to  enforce  the  right  of  the 
smallest  dealer  to  produce  and  sell  at  his  price  and  under  the  conditions  of 
sale  that  suit  him  best  without  the  interference  of  these  huge  combinations  of 
production  and  distribution  that  practically  control  these  conditions  of  produc- 
tion, who  have  undertaken  to  make  others  sell  at  their  price  and  under  their 
conditions  or  go  out  of  business,  and  we  have  written  over  the  statute  books 
of  many  States  and  in  the  decisions  of  many  courts  the  effort  of  this  people 
to  express  a  determination  to  secure  economic  freedom  for  the  smallest  pro- 
ducer, and  it  is  equally  as  important  and  essential  that  we  shall  endeavor  to 
secure  the  same  economic  freedom  for  the  smallest  laborer,  and  that  is  an 
essential,  vital,  and  fundamental  principle  in  this  country ;  and  those  whom  I 
have  the  honor  to  represent  believe  in  that  very  sincerely,  and  as  I  believe 
thousands  of  our  people  do,  and  that  principle  is  written  into  our  fundamental 
law,  and  it  is  there  the  choice  of  those  who  made  this  Government,  and  with 
God's  good  grace,  I  hope  it  will  remain  there  while  we  are  a  nation  of  free  men. 

Now,  with  respect  to  one  matter  in  which  I  am  accused  of  perhaps  making  a 
misrepresentation.  I  would  not  wittingly  misrepresent  any  one's  views,  but  I 
want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  Typographical  Union  oath  to  illustrate  why 
I  thought  that  was  an  obligation  he  ought  not  to  take.  I  read  you  the  plain 
words  of  the  phrase :  "  That  my  fidelity  to  the  union  and  my  duty  to  the  members 
thereof  shall  in  no  sense  be  interfered  with  by  any  allegiance  that  I  may  now 
or  hereafter  owe  to  any  other  organization,  social,  political,  or  religious,  secret 
or  otherwise." 

And  immediately  thereafter  occurs  this  phrase:  "That  I  will  belong  to  no 
society  or  combination  composed  wholly  or  partly  of  printers,  with  the  intent 
or  purpose  to  interfere  with  the  trade  regulations  or  influence  or  control  the 
legislation  of  this  union." 

That  would  apparently  cover  any  obligation  necessary  to  lay  upon  the  mem- 
bers as  relate  to  their  relationship  with  other  unions  of  printers,  and  which 
apparently  would  not  be  necessary  to  require  the  subordination  of  religious, 
political,  and  social  obligations  of  every  kind  and  character  in  order  to  secure 
protection  as  far  as  the  oath  could  give  it  against  the  machinations  of  an 
anonymous  organization  in  the  trade. 

That  appears  to  be  covered  by  the  others.  That  may  be  the  point  of  view  of 
the  gentlemen,  and  if  it  was,  and  they  gave  as  much  thought  as  they  ap- 
parently did  to  this  matter,  the  result  was  an  unhappy  combination  of  language. 

I  do  not  think  of  any  matter  with  relation  to  this  subject  about  which  I  could 
add  anything  to  this  inquiry  by  suggestion  of  my  own.  I  should  be  very  glad 
to  answer  any  questions,  in  writing  or  otherwise,  that  the  commission  may 
desire  to  ask,  but  I  beg  to  impress  the  commission  with  the  fact  that  so  far  as 
I  know  the  many  thousands  of  employees,  some  200,000,  that  are  in  associations 


TRADE   AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE   BARGAINING.  747 

of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be  counsel,  are  not  opposed  to  the  principle  of 
collective  bargaining.  When  I  say  that  they  are  not  opposed,  I  do  not  mean 
that  they  object  to  other  people  making  collective  bargains;  I  mean  that  they 
make  collective  bargains  themselves,  but  they  distinguish  in  all  collective  bar- 
gains two  things :  Questions  of  principle  and  questions  of  policy,  and  so  far  as 
the  questions  of  principle  are  concerned,  I  do  not  know  of  any  of  them  who  do 
not  believe  that  they  ought  not  to  make  a  collective  bargain  in  which  they  agree 
to  employ  exclusively  members  of  the  particular  craft  with  which  they  dealt 
who  are  members  of  the  union. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  consider  this  preferential  protocol  system  as 
in  violation  of  those  principles? 

Mr.  EMERY.  It  depends  upon  the  practical  enforcement  of  the  act,  because  in 
all  these  discussions  respecting  labor  matters  I  find  that  it  is  very  difficult  to 
walk  from  an  abstract  proposition  into  a  concrete  reality ;  most  of  our  errors  are 
in  making  the  passage. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  heard  the  discussions  here? 

Mr.  EMERY.  No ;  I  have  not. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  very  glad  to  have  heard  from  you,  and  if 
there  are  any  further  questions  that  the  commission  would  like  to  ask,~  whether 
in  writing  or  verbally,  we  will  take  pleasure  in  letting  you  know. 

(Whereupon  at  6  o'clock  the  commission  adjourned  until  Monday,  April  13, 
1914,  at  10  o'clock  a.  in.) 


EXHIBITS. 


PRINTING  TRADES. 

INTERNATIONAL    BROTHERHOOD    OF    BOOKBINDERS, 

February  6,  1013. 
E.  FLEMING  &  Co., 

Boston,  Mass. 

DEAR  SIR  :  Believing  in  cooperation  as  we  do  between  employer  and  employee, 
and  further  believing  that  only  through  such  mutual  understanding  can  the  best 
interests  for  all  concerned  be  subserved,  we  wish  to  call  to  your  attention  the 
fact  that  only  through  such  cooperation  as  stated  above  were  the  present  con- 
ditions now  existing  in  Cambridge  between  Ginn  &  Co.  and  their  employees 
brought  about  with  the  probability  of  the  other  Cambridge  master  bookbinders 
coming  to  a  like  agreement.  Therefore  we  take  the  liberty  on  behalf  of  Local 
No.  16,  International  Brotherhood  of  Bookbinders,  to  extend  to  you  an  invita- 
tion to  meet  a  committee  from  said  local  at  a  place  and  time  to  be  mutually 
agreed  upon  for  the  purpose  of  trying  to  establish  friendly  relations  between 
the  master  bookbinders  of  Boston  and  the  said  local,  which  result  can  only  be 
brought  about  by  such  joint  conference. 
Thanking  you  in  advance,  we  are, 
Respectfully,  yours, 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE. 
WM.  H.  MURPHY,  Secretary, 
23  Old  Harbor  Street,  South  Boston. 


INTERNATIONAL  BROTHERHOOD  OF  BOOKBINDERS, 

February  6,  1913. 
II.  M.  PLIMPTON  &  Co., 

Noncood,  Mass. 

DEAR  SIR  :  Believing  in  cooperation  as  we  do  between  employer  and  employee, 
and  further  believing  that  only  through  such  mutual  understanding  can  the  best 
interests  for  all  concerned  be  subserved,  we  wish  to  call  to  your  attention  the 
fact  that  only  through  such  cooperation  as  stated  above  were  the  present  con- 
ditions now  existing  in  Cambridge  between  Ginn  &  Co.  and  their  employees 
brought  about,  with  the  probability  of  the  other  Cambridge  master  bookbinders 
coming  to  a  like  agreement.  Therefore  we  take  the  liberty  on  behalf  of  Local 
No.  16,  International  Brotherhood  of  Bookbinders,  to  extend  to  you  an  invita- 
tion to  meet  a  committee  from  said  local  at  a  place  and  time  to  be  mutually 
agreed  upon  for  the  purpose  of  trying  to  establish  friendly  relations  between  the 
master  bookbinders  of  Boston  and  the  said  local,  which  result  can  only  be 
brought  about  by  such  joint  conference. 
Thanking  you  in  advance,  we  are, 
Respectfully,  yours, 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE. 
WM.  H.  MURPHY,  Secretary, 
23   Old  Harbor  Street,   South   Boston. 

FEBRUARY  12,  1913. 
Mr.  WILLIAM  H.  MURPHY, 

Secretary  International  Brotherhood  of  Bookbinders, 

23  Old  Harbor  Street,  South  Boston,  Mass. 

DEAR  SIR  :  You  have  addressed  letter  to  several  of  our  bookbinding  members 
in  Boston  asking  for  a  conference  with  a  committee  from  your  brotherhood. 

748 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS    IX    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  749 

I  wish  to  advise  that  these  letters  have  been  referred  to  the  typothetee  and 
that  a  committee  has  been  appointed  to  meet  you  at  our  headquarters,  176  Fed- 
eral Street,  room  504.     Please  suggest  a  date  after  this  week  upon  which  you 
would  like  this  meeting  to  be  held. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

,  Secretary. 


FEBRUARY  12,  1913. 
Mr.  D.  J.  MCDONALD, 

Secretary  Allied  Printing  Trades  Council, 

606  Old  South  Building,  Boston,  Mass. 

DEAR  SIR  :  You  have  recently  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Plimpton  Press  asking 
for  a  conference  with  a  committee  appointed  by  your  council.  This  letter  has 
been  referred  to  the  typothetse. 

As  the  subject  matter  is  substantially  the  same  as  one  received  from  Mr. 
William  H.  Murphy,  secretary  of  the  International  Brotherhood  of  Bookbinders, 
which  also  has  been  referred  to  the  Boston  Typothetse,  I  assume  that  the  in- 
closed reply,  which  has  been  addressed  to  Mr.  Murphy,  will  answer  your  com- 
munication. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

Secretary. 

ALLIED  PRINTING  TRADES  COUNCIL, 

Boston,  Mass.,  March  13,  1913. 
EDGAR  E.  NELSON, 

Secretary  Boston  Typotlieta;  Board  of  Trade, 

176  Federal  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 

DEAR   MR.   NELSON  :  A  committee  from   the   Boston  Allied   Printing  Trades 
Council  will  be  pleased  to  meet  a  committee  duly  authorized  by  your  board 
to  discuss  the  question  of  unionizing  the  Plimpton  Press. 
Any  day  of  next  week  after  Monday  will  be  agreeable  to  us. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

D.  J.  MCDONALD,  Secretary. 


MARCH  17,  1913. 
D.  J.  MCDONALD, 

Secretary  Allied  Printing  Trades  Council, 

606  Old  South  Building,  Boston,  Mass. 

DEAR  SIR:  Replying  to  your  letter  of  the  13th  instant,  our  committee  will 
meet  your  representatives  at  our  headquarters  Friday  afternoon,  March  21,  at 
2  o'clock. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

,  Secretary. 

LOCAL  No.  204,  INTERNATIONAL  BROTHERHOOD  OF  BOOKBINDERS, 

Cambridge,  Mass.,  April  15,  1913. 
MR.  NELSON. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  have  been  requested  by  the  local  unions  of  bookbinders,  of 
Boston  and  vicinity,  to  ask  your  committee  to  set  as  early  a  date  as  possible 
when  our  wage-scale  committee  can  meet  them. 

Trusting  you  will  give  this  your  immediate  attention,  I  am, 
Very  truly,  yours, 

H.  J.  STACKHOUSE, 
S  Rockingham  Street,  Cambridge. 

APRIL  17,  1913. 
Mr.  H.  J.  STACKHOUSE, 

8   Rockingham  Str,ect,   Cambridge,   Mass. 

DEAR  SIR:  Replying  to  your  letter  of  April  15,  I  wish  to  suggest  that  you 
take  the  subject  matter  up  with  the  Allied  Printing  Trades  Council,  with  whom 
we  have  had  one  meeting,  and  secure  representation  on  their  committee. 

Mr.   William   H.    Murphy,   who   represents   the   Boston   Bookbinders    Union, 
Local  No.  16,  was  notified  to  this  effect  on  March  22. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

,  Secretary. 


750          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

GEO.  H.  ELLIS  Co.,  PRINTERS  AND  PUBLISHERS, 

April  17,  1913. 
Mr.  E.  E.  NELSON, 

Secretary  Boston  Typothetw  Board  of  Trade. 

DEAR  MR.  NELSON  :  Stackhouse's  letter  of  the  International  Brotherhood  of 
Bookbinders  Union  at  hand  and  contents  carefully  noted. 

In  the  letter  that  we  received  from  Murphy,  who  represented  the  Boston 
Bookbinders  Union,  he  signed  as  secretary  of  Local  16.  We  have  also  had  a 
request  from  the  Allied  Printing  Trades  Council,  of  which  the  bookbinders  are 
part  of  the  membership. 

Now,  we  have  this  letter  of  Stackhouse's  of  the  International  Brotherhood  of 
Bookbinders  whose  headquarters  are  at  Philadelphia. 

I  am  going  to  maintain  my  previous  position ;  if  they  want  to  do  any  business 
they  must  do  it  through  the  Allied  Printing  Trades  Council,  as  the  scale  for 
Cambridge,  Boston,  and  Norwood  should  be  uniform,  and  as  these  three  bodies 
have  membership  in  the  Allied  Printing  Trades  Council  we  will  deal  with  them 
as  one  body  and  not  as  three  individuals. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

A.  W.  FINLAY. 

ALLIED  PRINTING  TRADES  COUNCIL, 

Boston,  April  25,  1913. 
EDGAR  E.  NELSON, 

Boston  Typothetw  Board  of  Trade, 

176  Federal  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  I  have  been  instructed  to  ask  the  Boston  Typothetse  Board 
of  Trade  to  meet  a  committee  from  this  council  representing  Bookbinders 
Union  No.  16,  Bookbinders  Union  No.  204,  Bookbinders  Union  No.  176,  Paper- 
rulers  Union  No.  12,  Bindery  Women's  Union  No.  56,  and  Bindery  Women's 
Union  No.  207,  to  discuss  wages,  hours,  and  working  conditions  for  these  crafts 
with  your  organization  in  greater  Boston. 

This  action  is  taken  as  per  agreement  reached  at  our  conference  held  March 
20,  1913. 

Thanking  you  in  advance  for  any  attention  you  may  give  this  communica- 
tion, I  am, 

Very  truly,  yours, 

D.  J.  MCDONALD,  Secretary. 

APRIL  29,  1913. 
D.  J.  MCDONALD, 

Secretary  Allied  Printing  Trades'  Council, 

606  Old  South  Building,  Boston,  Mass. 

DEAR  SIR  :  In  response  to  your  letter  of  April  25,  our  committee  instructs  me 
to  reply  by  saying  they  will  meet  your  representatives  at  our  headquarters 
Friday  afternoon,  May  2,  at  2  o'clock. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

,  Secretary. 


INTERNATIONAL  BROTHERHOOD  OF  BOOKBINDERS, 

606  OLD  SOUTH  BUILDING, 

Boston,  Mass.,  August  6,  1913. 
Mr.  EDGAR  E.  NELSON. 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  have  been  requested  by  the  members  of  my  organization  to  write 
you  in  reference  to  the  scale  as  presented  to  us  by  the  Boston  Typothetse,  parts 
of  same  not  being  quite  clear ;  for  instance,  the  assistant  on  lining,  etc. 

We  would  like  to  have  you  set  a  date  as  soon  as  possible  for  a  meeting  be- 
tween bookbinding  members  of  your  organization  and  our  committee  to  discuss 
the  matter  and  try  to  come  to  some  final  agreemont. 

Trusting  you  will  give  this  your  immediate  attention,  and  that  I  will  hear 
from  you  in  a  few  days,  I  am, 
Respectfully,  yours, 

A.  P.  WILLIAMS. 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS    IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  751 

AUGUST  11,  1913. 
Mr.  A.  P.  WILLIAMS, 

606  Old  South  Building,  Boston,  Mass. 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  have  your  letter  of  August  6,  and  have  conferred  with  the  chair- 
man of  the  bookbinders'  committee,  Mr.  Finlay,  who  wishes  to  confirm  his  con- 
versation over  the  phone  with  Mr.  Dallas,  that  you  state  in  writing  the  parts 
of  the  scale  that  are  not  clear  to  you.  Upon  receipt  of  same  our  committee  will 
endeavor  to  clear  up  all  these  points. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

,  Secretary. 


BOSTON  TYPOTHET.-E  BOAED  OF  TRADE, 

Boston,  Mass.,  April  6,  1914. 
Mr.  A.  W.  FINLAY, 

272  Congress  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  FINLAY:  I  am  sending  you  herewith  copies  of  the  agreements 
between  the  typothetse  and  the  pressmen  and  feeders'  union  back  to  1901. 

I  do  not  see  anything  back  of  these  dates.  If  you  recall  that  any  previous 
agreements  were  made  I  shall  make  a  more  careful  search.  The  records  back 
of  that  time  are  mostly  written  in  long  hand  and  it  will  take  a  little  longer  to 
determine  positively  whether  or  not  agreements  were  made. 

The  first  agreement  with  the  pressmen  seems  to  have  been  in  1901.  I  do  not 
find  anything  for  press  feeders  until  January  6,  1905. 

Perhaps  the  inclosed  will  give  you  the  information  you  require. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

E.  E.  NELSON,  Secretary. 

SCALE  OF  PRICES  FOR  PRESSMEN  AND  HOURS  OF  LABOR. 

BOSTON,  MASS.,  December  2,  1901. 

1.  Fifty-four  hours  shall  constitute  a  week's  work. 

2.  $19  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  all  cylinder  pressmen. 

3.  $14.50  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  job  pressmen. 

4.  Overwork,  until  12  p.  m.,  time  and  a  half;  after  midnight,  Sundays,  and 
legal  holidays,  double  time.     When  overtime  is  being  worked  until  9  p.  m.  or 
later,  one-half  hour  to  be  allowed  and  paid  for  as  supper  time;  any  part  of 
hour  after  30  minutes  to  be  paid  as  a  full  hour. 

5.  In  the  case  of  the  employment  of  a  night  force,  the  54  hours  shall  be  so 
made  up  as  to  complete  the  time  in  five  nights,  and  the  minimum  rate  for  such 
work   shall   be   $22   for    cylinder   and   Adams   pressmen    and   $16.50   for    job 
pressmen. 

6.  The  above  scale  of  prices  and  hours  for  labor  to  be  in  force  for  three 
years  beginning  December  1,  1901. 

For  Printing  Pressmen's  Union  No.  67 : 

JAMES  T.  ROCHE,  Secretary. 
JOHN  F.  SULLIVAN,  President. 

For  the  Boston  Typothetse : 

GEO.  H.  ELLIS, 

Louis  BART  A, 

SAMUEL  USHER, 

AVERY  L.  RAND, 

GEO.  W.  SIMMONDS, 

Committee  for  Boston  Typotlietw. 


SCALE  OF  PRICES  FOR  PRESSMEN  AND  HOURS  OF  LABOR  AS  AGREED  BY  THE  BOSTON 
TYPOTHETJE  AND  PRINTING  PRESSMEN'S  UNION,  No.  67,  DECEMBER  1,  1904. 

1.  Fifty-four  hours  shall  constitute  a  week's  work. 

2.  $20  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  all  cylinder  pressmen. 

3.  $15.50  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  job  pressmen. 

4.  Overwork,  until  12  p.  m.,  time  and  a  half;  after  midnight,  Sundays,  and 
legal   holidays,   double   time.     When  overtime   is  being  worked   until  9  p.   m. 
or  later,  one-half  hour  to  be  allowed  and  paid  for  as  supper  time;  any  part  of 
an  hour  after  30  minutes  to  be  paid  as  a  full  hour. 


752          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

5.  In  the  case  of  an  employment  of  a  night  force,  the  54  hours  shall  be- made 
up  so  as  to  complete  the  time  in  five  nights,  and  the  minimum  rate  for  such 
work    shall    be    $23    for    cylinder    and    Adams    pressmen    and    $17.50    for    job 
pressmen. 

6.  The  above  scale  of  prices  and  hours  for  labor  to  be  in  force  beginning 
December  5,  1904,  till  May  1,  1907. 

For  Printing  Pressmen's  Union  No.  G7 : 

CHARLES  W.  CLAYTON,  President. 

J.  FRANK  O'HARE,  Secretary. 
For  the  Boston  Typothetse : 

GEO.  H.  ELLIS, 

JAMES  BERWICK, 

Louis  BART  A, 

ASAPH  CHURCHILL, 

F.  H.  GILSON, 

J.  EVELETH  GRIFFITH, 

GEORGE  W.  SIMMONDS, 

Special  Committee. 


SCALE  OF  PRICES  FOR  PRESS  FEEDERS  AND  HOURS  OF  LABOR  AS  AGREED  BY  THE 
BOSTON  TYPOTHET.E  AND  FRANKLIN  ASSOCIATION,  No.  18,  JANUARY  6,  1905. 

1.  Fifty-four  hours  shall  constitute  a  week's  work. 

2.  $13  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  male  cylinder  press  feeders. 

3.  Overwork,  until  12  p.  m.,  time  and  a  half;  after  midnight,  Sundays,  and 
legal  holidays,  double  time.     When  overtime  is  being  worked  until  9  p.  in.  or 
later,  one-half  hour  to  be  allowed  and  paid  for  as  supper  time;  any  part  of  an 
hour  after  30  minutes  to  be  paid  as  a  full  hour. 

4.  In  the  case  of  an  employment  of  a  night  force,   the  54  hours  shall  be 
made  up  so  as  to  complete  the  time  in  five  nights,  and  the  minimum  rate  for 
such  work  shall  be  $15  per  week. 

5.  The  above  scale  of  prices  and  hours  for  labor  to  be  in  force  beginning 
May  1,  1905,  until  May  1,  1907. 

For  Franklin  Association,  No.  18 : 

DENNIS  F.  O'BRIEN. 
MICHAEL  S.  CONEY. 
JOHN  DONNELLY. 
CHAS.  H.  MEHEGAN. 
DANIEL  J.  MCDONALD. 

For  the  Boston  Typothetse: 

GEO.  H.  ELLIS, 
JAMES  BERWICK, 
Louis  BARTA, 
ASAPH  CHURCHILL, 
F.  H.  GILSON, 
J.  EVELETH  GRIFFITH, 
GEORGE  W.  SIMMONDS, 

Special  Committee. 

SCALE  OF  PRICES  FOR  PRESSMEN  AND  HOURS  FOR  LABOR  AS  AGREED  TO  BY  THE 
BOSTON  TYPOTHET/E  AND  PRINTING  PRESSMEN'S  UNION  No.  67,  MAY  18, 
1907. 

1.  Fifty-four  hours,  and  after  January  1,  1909,  forty-eight  hours,  shall  con- 
stitute a  week's  work. 

2.  $21  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  all  cylinder  pressmen. 

3.  $16.50  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  job  pressmen. 

4.  Overwork,  until  12  p.  m.,  time  and  a  half;  after  midnight,  Sundays,  and 
legal  holidays,  double  time.     When  overtime. is  being  worked  until  8  p.  in.,  or 
later,  one  half-hour  to  be  allowed  and  paid  for  as  supper  time,  any  part  of  an 
hour  after  30  minutes  to  be  paid  for  as  a  full  hour. 

5.  In  the  case  of  an  employment  of  a  night  force,  the  54  hours,  after  January 
1,  1909,  the  48  hours,  shall  be  made  up  so  as  to  complete  the  time  in  five  nights, 
and   the  minimum  rate,  for  such  work  shall  be  $23  for  cylinder  and  Adams 
pressmen,  and  $17.50  for  job  pressmen. 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  753 

6.  The  above  scale  of  prices  and  hours  for  labor  to  be  in  force  from  June  1, 
1907,  to  June  1,  1910. 

For  Printing  Pressmen's  Union,  No.  67: 

THOMAS  E.  LOONEY,  President. 

J.  FEANK  O'HARE,  Secretary. 
For  the  Boston  Typethetse: 

GEO.  H.  ELLIS. 

F.  H.  GILSON. 

GEORGE  W.  SIMMONDS. 

J.  EVELETH  GRIFFITH. 

R.  E.  SPARRELL. 

SAMUEL  USHER. 

ASAPH  CHURCHILL. 


SCALE  OF  PRICES  FOR  PRESS  FEEDERS  AND  HOURS  FOR  LABOR  AS  AGREED  TO  BY  THE 
BOSTON  TYPOTHETJE  AND  FRANKLIN  ASSOCIATION,  No.  18,  MAY  18,  1907. 

1.  Fifty-four  hours,  and  after  January  1,  1909,  forty-eight  hours,  shall  con- 
stitute a  week's  work. 

2.  $14  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  male  cylinder  press  feeders. 

3.  Overwork,  until  12  p.  m.,  time  and  a  half;  after  midnight,  Sundays,  and 
legal  holidays,  double  time.     When  overtime  is  being  worked  until  8  p.  m.,  or 
later,  one  half-hour  to  be  allowed  and  paid  for  as  supper  time,  any  part  of  an 
hour  after  30  minutes  to  be  paid  as  a  full  hour. 

4.  In  the  case  of  an  employment  of  a  night  force,  the  54  hours,  and  after 
January  1,  1909,  the  48  hours,  shall  be  made  up  so  as  to  complete  the  time  in 
five  nights,  and  the  minimum  rate  for  such  work  shall  be  $16  per  week. 

5.  The  above  scale  of  prices  for  hours  and  labor  to  be  in  force  from  June  1, 
1907,  to  June  1,  1910. 

For  Franklin  Association,  No.  18: 

JOSEPH  A.  DART. 

MICHAEL  S.  COONEY. 

DANIEL  J.  MCDONALD. 

CHAS.  H.  MEHEGAN. 

MICHAEL  H.  O'CONNOR. 
For  the  Boston  Typothetse : 

GEO.  H.  ELLIS, 

F.  H.  GILSON. 

GEORGE  W.  SIMMONDS. 

J.  EVELETH  GRIFFITH. 

R.  E.  SPARRELL. 

SAMUEL  USHER. 

ASAPH  CHURCHILL. 

SCALE  OF  PRICES  FOR  PRESSMEN  AND  HOURS  FOR  LABOR  AS  AGREED  TO  BY  BOSTON 
TYPOTHET.E  AND  BOSTON  PRINTING  PRESSMEN'S  UNION,  No.  67,  JUNE  4,  1910. 

1.  $22  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  all  cylinder  pressmen. 

2.  $17  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  job  pressmen. 

3.  Overwork,  until  12  p.  m.,  time  and  a  half;  after  midnight,  Sundays,  and 
legal  holidays,  double  time.     When  overtime  is  being  worked  until  8  p.  m.,  or 
later,  one-half  hour  to  be  allowed  and  paid  for  as  supper  time ;  any  part  of  an 
hour  after  30  minutes  to  be  paid  as  a  full  hour. 

4.  In  the  case  of  an  employment  of  a  night  force,  the  48  hours  shall  be  made 
up  so  as  to  complete  the  time  in  five  nights,  and  the  minimum  rate  for  such 
work  shall  be  $24  for  cylinder  and  Adams  pressmen  and  $18  for  job  pressmen. 

5.  The  above  scale  of  prices  for  hours  and  labor  to  be  in  force  from  June  1, 
1910,  to  June  1,  1913. 

For  Boston  Printing  Pressmen's  Union,  No.  67: 

JAMES  J.  REAGAN,  President. 
J.  FRANK  O'HARE,  Secretary. 
For  Boston  Typothetse : 

A.  W.   FINLAY, 
Chairman  Executive  Committee. 

A.    N.    MURRAY,    Secretary. 
38819°— 16 48 


754         KEPOBT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   EELATIONS. 

SCALE  OF  PBICES  FOB  PEESS  FEEDERS  AND  HOURS  FOR  LABOR  AS  AGREED  TO  BY  BOS- 
TON TYPOTHET.E  AND  FRANKLIN  ASSOCIATION,  No.  18,  JUNE  2,  1910. 

1.  $15  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  male  cylinder  press  feeders. 

2.  Overwork,  until  12  p.  m.,  time  and  a  half;  after  midnight,  Sundays,  and 
legal  holidays,  double  time.     When  overtime  is  being  worked  until  8  p.  m.,  or 
later,  one-half  hour  to  be  allowed  and  paid  for  as  supper  time ;  any  part  of  an 
hour  after  30  minutes  to  be  paid  as  a  full  hour. 

3.  In  the  case  of  an  employment  of  a  night  force,  the  48  hours  shall  be  made 
up  so  as  to  complete  the  time  in  five  nights,  and  the  minimum  rate  for  such 
work  shall  be  $17  per  week. 

4.  The  above  scale  of  prices  for  hours  and  labor  to  be  in  force  from  June  1, 
1910,  to  June  1,  1913. 

For  Franklin  Association,  No.  18 : 

MICHAEL  S.  COONEY. 

DANIEL  J.  MCDONALD. 

JOHN  J.  CONNELLY, 

ALFRED  J.  HARROLD. 
For  Boston  Typothetce : 

A.  W.  FINLAY. 

J.  M.  DUHIG. 

T.    A.    HOULLAHAN. 

H.  P.   PORTER. 

H.  M.  PLIMPTON   (O.  E.  B.). 

HARRY  A.  WHEELER. 


SCALE  OF  PRICES  FOR  PRESSMAN  AND  HOURS  FOR  LABOR  AS  AGREED  TO  BY  BOSTON 
TYPOTHETCE  AND  BOSTON  PRINTING  PRESSMEN'S  UNION,  No.  67. 

1.  Forty-eight  hours,  to  be  worked  between  7  a.  m.  and  6  p.  m.,  shall  con- 
stitute one  week's  work. 

2.  $23  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  cylinder  pressmen. 

3.  $18  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  job  pressmen. 

4.  $24  per  week  shall  be  the  scale  for  perfecting  and  two-color  presses. 

(It  is  the  understanding  of  the  Boston  Typothetae  scale  committee  and  the 
scale  committee  of  the  Boston  Printing  Pressmen's  Union,  No.  67,  that  an  Upham 
attachment  is  not  a  two-color  press.) 

5.  Overwork,  until  12  p.  m.,  time  and  a  half;  after  midnight,  Sundays,  and 
legal  holidays,  double  time.    When  overtime  is  being  worked  until  8  p.  m.,  or 
later,  one-half  hour  to  be  allowed  and  paid  for  as  supper  time ;  any  part  of  an 
hour  after  30  minutes  to  be  paid  as  a  full  hour. 

6.  In  the  case  of  an  employment  of  a  night  force,  the  48  hours  shall  be  made 
uf>  so  as  to  complete  the  time  in  five  nights,  and  the  minimum  rate  for  such 
work  shall  be  $25  for  cylinder  and  Adams  pressmen  and  $20  for  job  pressmen. 

7.  The  above  scale  of  prices  for  hours  and  labor  to  be  in  force  from  June  2, 
3913,  to  June  1,  1913. 

Boston  Printing  Pressmen's  Union,  No.  67: 

DANIEL  J.  SULLIVAN,  President. 

J.  FBANX  O'HABE,  Secretary. 
Boston  Typothetse: 

A.  W.  FINLAY,  Chairman. 

JOHN  M.  DUHIG. 

HENRY  P.  PORTER. 

H.  M.  PUMPTON  &  Co.  (A.  E.  B.). 

HARRY  A.  WHEELER. 


SCALE  OF  PRICES  FOR  PRESSFEEDERS  AND  HOURS  FOR  LABOR  AS  AGREED  TO  BY 
BOSTON  TYPOTHET^E  AND  FRANKLIN  ASSOCIATION,  No.  IS. 

1.  Forty-eight  hours,  to  be  worked  between  7  a.  m.  and  6  p.  m.,  shall  con- 
stitute one  week's  work. 

2.  $16  per  week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  male  cylinder  press  feeders. 

3.  Assistants  attending  one  automatic  feeding  machine,  $16  per  week.     As- 
sistants attending  two  automatic  feeding  machines,  $17  per  week. 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS    IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  755 

(The  scale  committee  of  the  Boston  Typothetse  and  of  the  Franklin  Associa- 
tion, No.  18,  understanding  of  an  assistant  on  an  automatic  feeding  machine. or 
machines  is  a  person  capable  of  setting  or  adjusting  an  automatic  feeder,  and 
feeding  a  cylinder  press  by  hand.) 

4.  $17  per   week  shall  be  the  minimum  scale  for  feeders  on  two-color  or 
perfecting  cylinder  machines.     Upham  attachment  not  to  be  considered  two- 
color   presses. 

5.  Assistants  on  rotary  and  magazine  presses,  $17  per  week. 

6.  Overwork,  until  12  p.  m.,  time  and  one-half;  after  midnight,  Sundays,  and 
legal  holidays,  double  time.     When  overtime  is  being  worked  until  8  p.  m  or 
later,  one-half  hour  to  be  allowed  and  paid  for  as  supper  time ;  any  part  of  an 
hour  after  30  minutes  to  be  paid  as  a  full  hour. 

7.  In  the  case  of  an  employment  of  a  night  force  of  feeders,  the  48  hours  shall 
be  made  up  so  as  to  complete  the  time  in  five  nights,  and  the  minimum  rate  for 
such  work  shall  be  $18  per  week. 

8.  The  above  scale  of  prices  for  hours  and  labor  to  be  in  force  from  June  2, 
1913,  to  January  1,  1918,  and  to  continue  for  six  months  thereafter,  until  a  new 
scale  has  been  arranged  to  take  effect  June  2,  1918. 

(Signed,  Boston,  May  19,  1913.) 
Franklin  Association  No.  18: 

ERNEST  J.  OLSEN,  President. 

THOMAS  P.  HENNESSEY. 

WILLIAM  C.  JONES. 

DANIEL  J.  MCDONALD. 

MICHAEL  S.  COONEY,  Secretary-Treasurer. 
Boston  Typothetse : 

A.  W.  FINLAY,  Chairman. 

JOHN  M.  DUHIG, 

HENRY  P.  PORTER. 

HARRY  A.  WHEELER. 

GEORGE  K.  BIRD. 


[Paper  submitted  by  George  L.  Berry,  president  International  Printing  Pressmen  and 
Assistants'  Union  of  North  America,  to  the  United  States  Commission  on  Industrial 
Relations,  Washington,  D.  C.,  on  the  question  of  collective  bargaining,  conciliation,  and 
arbitration  between  employers  and  the  organizations  of  working  men  and  women.] 

The  question  of  the  proper  relationship  between  employers  and  employees 
is  one  that  embraces  many  important  phases  of  industrial  activity.  It  would  be 
the  height  of  presumption  upon  my  part,  therefore,  to  attempt  to  burden  the 
United  States  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations  with  my  version  of  the 
necessary  responsibilities  of  employers  and  employees.  In  conformity  with  the 
request  of  the  commission,  however,  I  prepared  and  submit  herewith  certain 
concrete  views  which  I  trust  will  be  of  assistance  in  the  establishment  of  a 
more  cordial  and  cooperative  relationship  between  the  units  of  industry  in  the 
United  States. 

The  organized  labor  movement  has  for  its  basic  principle  the  purpose  of 
collective  bargaining.  It -is  apparent  to  all  without  minute  explanation  that 
it  is  decidedly  more  effective  for  all  of  the  workingmen  of  a  given  industry 
to  act  jointly  in  the  presentation  of  their  grievances  than  it  would  be  for  each 
person  to  act  individually  in  the  matter,  hence  the  existence  of  organized  labor 
and  its  policy  of  economic  advancement. 

The  collective  interests  of  the  employees  bargaining  with  the  collective  inter- 
ests of  the  employers  is  more  desirable  than  the  collective  interests  of  the 
employees  dealing  with  individual  employers.  This  is  so  not  only  because 
of  the  prompt  facilities  that  would  follow  in  establishing  the  points  at  issue, 
but  it  is  moreover  essential  because  of  the  uniformity  of  action  that  invariably 
follows  through  joint  bargaining  relationship.  For  example,  if  a  peaceful 
adjustment  is  not  arrived  at,  a  uniform  cessation  of  relationship  is  followed; 
if  on  the  other  hand  a  mutual  adjustment  is  made  a  uniform  condition  is  estab- 
lished and  maintained  dunng  the  period  of  relationship,  be  it  contractural  or 
verbal,  and  this  phase  of  the  situation  is  of  material  importance  to  the  units 
of  the  industry.  By  units  I  refer  to  employer,  employee,  and  those  dependent 
upon  the  industry  for  their  livelihood.  The  main  feature  of  importance,  as  I 
see  it,  evolves  in  the  natural  and  inevitable  competitive  conditions  that  will 
follow. 


756          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Labor  is  the  chief  cost  of  industry ;  it  is,  of  course,  the  most  important  phase 
of  industry  over  and  above  its  importance  from  a  cost  point  of  view,  for  the 
very  fact  that  kibor  represents  human  effort,  responsibility,  and  assistance.  It 
is  reasonable  to  say,  therefore,  that  the  matter  of  competition  is  of  serious 
moment  to  the  well  being  of  the  employees  as.  well  as  the  employers.  If  em- 
ployers are  to  deal  with  their  individual  workingmen  either  as  union  or  non- 
union mechanics,  then  the  condition  of  an  unhealthy  and  unnatural  competition 
must  follow,  for  the  characteristics  of  human  nature  have  proven  many  times 
to  be  irregular,  and  irregularity  in  this  sense  would  mean  a  diversified  wage 
condition,  which  would  further  precipitate  an  irregular  competitive  cost  for 
labor,  which  would  still  further  establish  an  irregular  "base  of  cost  and  scale 
of  competition.  The  organized  labor  movement  therefore  endeavors  to  main- 
tain a  living  minimum  wage  with  a  view  of  protecting  its  members  first,  and 
second,  protecting  its  industry  against  adventures  therein,  or  that  class  of 
employers  who  make  their  profit  from  exploiting  labor  and  who  save  their 
losses  through  the  reduction  of  wages. 

The  question  of  the  minimum  wage  as  maintained  by  the  collective  action 
of  working  men  and  women,  is  a  movement,  as  I  have  already  indicated,  that 
has  for  its  purpose  the  establishment  of  a  rate  of  compensation  that  would 
maintain  the  employees  in  an  environment  of  respectability,  and  further,  that 
every  employer  might  at  least  be  in  possession  of  the  fact  that  his  competitor 
could  not  reduce  the  cost,  labor,  below  the  minimum  figure  established.  Beyond 
those  two  points,  organized  labor  then  advances  its  cause  upon  the  principle  of 
increased  efficiency  and  business  cooperation.  At  least  65  per  cent  of  the  mem- 
bership of  the  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  receive 
a  compensation  in  excess  of  the  minimum  established  throughout  their  organi- 
zation. This  additional  compensation  over  and  above  the  minimum  represents 
the  degree  of  effort  and  the  effect  of  the  organization  in  the  promotion  of  its 
general  policies  of  increased  efficiency. 

For  the  foregoing  reasons,  primarily,  statistics  prove  that  in  the  commercial 
printing  industry  of  this  country  particularly,  where  the  organizations  of  the 
employees  and  the  employers  are  jointly  the  strongest,  the  industry  is  more 
prosperous  and  the  profits  thereof  more  equitably  distributed.  On  the  other 
hand,  where  the  workers  are  poorly  organized,  the  employers  are  also  disor- 
ganized, and  the  results  are  uniformly  unsatisfactory  from  a  business  point  of 
view.  This  condition  is  effective  because  of  the  small  likelihood  of  combina- 
tions or  corporations,  it  not  being  possible  for  a  trust  to  exist  in  the  commer- 
cial-printing industry. 

In  harmony  with  the  general  principles,  as  aforenoted,  the  best  mode  of  pro- 
cedure in  the  negotiation,  the  establishment,  and  the  maintenance  of  agreements 
finds  expression  through  international  organization  of  working  men  and  women 
and  international  associations  of  employers  of  a  certain  given  industry.  My 
statement  in  this  regard  is  based  on  experiences  we  have  had  in  our  relationship 
with  employers.  With  an  international  agreement  covering  a  local  society  of 
employers  and  a  local  organization  of  employees  there  is  a  double  means  found 
in  the  establishment  of  responsibility.  The  international  relationship  of  both 
organizations  is  more  generally  inclined  to  an  adjustment  of  difference  amicably 
than  would  possibly  be  the  result  if  situations  were  left  to  local  organizations 
of  a  contesting  nature. 

The  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  has  at  various 
times  held  international  contracts  with  the  United  Typothetre  of  America,  the 
American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association,  and  the  Printers'  League  of 
America,  The  first  and  last  named  organizations  of  employers  exercise  organ- 
ization activities  in  the  commercial-printing  industry  alone,  the  American 
Newspaper  Publishers' Association  having  its  relationship  with  daily  and  weekly 
newspapers  alone. 

The  contract  with  the  United  Typothetoe  of  America  failed  to  meet  the  require- 
ments of  the  commercial  industry — was  not  responsive  to  the  interest  of  the 
industry — because  the  contract  in  the  first  instance  was  predicated  upon  a 
theory  that  denied  the  principles  of  collective  bargaining  or  the  maintenance  of 
the  principle  of  a  community  of  interest.  As  has  already  been  indicated  by  me, 
it  is  my  opinion  that  there  can  be  no  equitable  or  amicable  relationship  or 
assurance  of  the  conservation  of  our  industry  except  through  the  assistance  of 
the  organized  workers  and  their  recognition  by  the  employers.  In  the  case  of 
the  United  Typothetse  of  America's  contract  the  employers  insisted,  and  it  was 
acceded  to  by*  the  union  for  a  number  of  years,  that  the  contract  should  retain  a 
clause  in  it  that  would  give  to  the  employers  the  right  of  discriminating  against 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS    IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  757 

a  union  man  or  a  nonunion  man  as  he  might  determine.  If  the  organizations  of 
the  workers  closed  their  doors  against  the  nonunion  workers,  then  there  would 
be  some  justification  for  the  idea  as  offered  by  the  United  Typothetse,  but  the 
facts  in  the  case  are  that  organized  labor  expends  more  of  its  energy  and  in- 
come endeavoring  to  bring  into  its  ranks  the  unorganized  worker  than  through 
any  other  of  its  business  operations.  Its  sum  total  purpose  is  to  advance  the 
principle  of  collective  bargaining,  community  of  interest,  the  increasing  of  effi- 
ciency, and  the  advancement  of  the  industry  as  a  whole. 

The  contract  of  the  United  Typothetse  failed  because  of  its  lack  of  com- 
munity "of  interest ;  it  failed  because  of  the  possibilities  arising  from  specific 
provisions  therein  which  made  it  optional  with  the  employer  to  retain  the  ser- 
vices of  union  men  or  nonunion  men  as  the  employer  might  determine.  In  other 
words,  such  a  contract  could  have  but  one  effect,  that  of  systematically  destroy- 
ing the  organizations  of  the  employees.  This  feature  vitiated  any  possibility 
of  mutuality  and  conciliation  or  arbitration  under  it  and  failed  as  result  of 
that  lack  of  confidence. 

The  Printers'  League  of  America,  which  has  succeeded  in  a  measure  the 
United  Typothetse  of  America  as  an  employers'  organization  in  the  commercial 
industry,  has  profited  by  the  experience  of  the  United  Typothetse,  and  in  the 
very  first  section  of  the  agreement  the  broad  principles  of  community  of  interest 
are  set  forth,  and  it  reads: 

"  SECTION  1.  In  consideration  of  the  Printers'  League  of  America  agreeing  to 
employ  none  but  members  of  the  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assist- 
ants' Union  to  do  work  that  comes  under  the  jurisdiction  of  said  International 
Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  the  Printers'  League  of  America  (and 
its  branches)  shall  have  the  following  guaranties: 

"(a)  All  members  of  the  Printers'  League  shall  be  protected  under  this  con- 
tract by  the  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  against 
walkouts,  strikes,  boycotts,  or  any  other  form  of  concerted  interference  with 
the  peaceful  operation  of  the  departments  over  which  the  International  Print- 
ing Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  exercises  jurisdiction. 

"(&)  All  disputes  arising  over  scale  provision,  wages,  hours  and  working 
conditions  or  renewing  or  extending  contracts  shall  be  subject  to  local  arbitra- 
tion under  the  provisions  of  this  agreement,  if  such  disputes  can  not  be  adjusted 
through  conciliation. 

"(c)  The  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  shall  at  all 
times  furnish  sufficient  competent  help  for  the  needs  of  the  members  of  the 
Printers'  League  of  America,  but  should  it  fail  to  do  so,  then,  and  then  only 
until  such  time  as  the  help  required  by  the  member  or  members  of  the  Printers' 
League  of  America  shall  be  furnished  by  the  International  Printing  Pressmen 
and  Assistants'  Union,  said  member  or  members  of  the  Printers'  League  of 
America  shall  be  privileged  to  seek  the  necessary  help  elsewhere,  provided  that 
the  prevailing  scale  of  wages  is  paid. 

"(d)  The  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  further 
agrees  that  in  cities  where  branches  of  the  league  are  formed  it  \vill  not  per- 
mit its  members  to  do  the  same  class  of  work  in  nonunion  shops  except  by 
mutual  consent.  Nor  will  it  allow  its  members  to  work  for  a  less  wage  scale 
or  for  longer  hours  than  the  scale  and  hours  accepted  by  the  branch  league. 

"  SEC.  2.  If  conciliation  between  a  local  branch  of  the  Printers'  League  and  a 
local  union  fails,  then  an  appeal  to  a  local  board  of  arbitration  may  be  had 
as  provided  in  the  form  of  local  contract  recommended  and  attached  hereto, 
and  its  decision  shall  be  final  unless  appealed  to  the  national  board  of  arbitra- 
tion, as  also  provided  in  said  local  form  of  contract.  (Sec.  6-C.) 

"  SEC.  3.  The  national  board  of  arbitration  shall  consist  of  the  president  of 
the  Printers'  League  of  America,  or  his  proxy,  and  the  president  of  the  Inter- 
national Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union,  or  his  proxy.  In  the  event 
of  failure  of  the  above  board  as  constituted  to  agree  upon  an  adjustment,  they 
sire  then  empowered  to  select  a  disinterested  person  who  shall  act  as  a  member 
of  the  board.  This  board  shall  then  proceed  to  render  a  decision  as  quickly 
as  circumstances  will  permit  and  the  decision  so  rendered  shall  in  all  cases  be 
final  and  binding  upon  both  parties  to  the  controversy. 

"  SEC.  4.  The  national  board  of  arbitration  shall  be  under  no  obligation  to 
take  evidence,  but  do  so  at  its  option,  but  both  parties  to  the  controversy  may 
appear  personally  or  may  submit  records  and  briefs  and  may  make  oral  or  writ- 
ten arguments  in  support  of  their  several  contentions.  They  may  submit  an 
agreed  statement  of  facts  or  a  transcript  of  testimony,  properly  certified  to 


758          KEPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

before  a  notary  public  by  the  stenographer  taking  the  original  evidence  or  dep- 
ositions. 

"  SEC.  5.  Pending  final  decision,  work  shall  be  continued  in  the  office  of  the 
member  of  the  Printers'  League,  party  to  the  case,  and  all  conditions  obtaining 
before  the  initiation  of  the  dispute  shall  remain  in  effect,  and  the  award  of  the 
national  board  of  arbitration  shall  in  all  cases  include  a  determination  of  the 
issues  involved,  covering  the  period  between  the  raising  of  the  issues  and  their 
final  settlement;  and  any  change  or  changes  in  the  wage  scale  of  employees 
may,  at  the  discretion  of  the  board,  be  made  effective  from  the  date  the  issues 
were  first  made. 

"  SEC.  6.  The  national  board  of  arbitration  must  act  when  its  services  are 
desired  by  either  party  to  an  appeal  as  above,  and  shall  proceed  with  all  pos- 
sible dispatch  in  rendering  such  services. 

"  SEC.  7.  All  expenses  attendant  upon  the  settlement  of  any  appeal  or  hear- 
ing before  the  board  shall  be  adjusted  in  each  case  in  accordance  with  the  direc- 
tions of  the  national  board  of  arbitration. 

SEC.  8.  The  rules  and  regulations  in  addition  to  the  provisions  above  quoted 
shall  be  identical  with  those  found  in  the  recommendation  for  the  form  of  local 
contract  for  the  proper  method  of  procedure  and  number  therein  under  section 
2,  as  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  and  8. 

SEC.  9.  In  the  event  of  either  party  to  the  dispute  refusing  to  accept  and 
comply  with  the  decision  of  the  national  board  of  arbitration,  all  aid  and  sup- 
port to  the  firm  or  employer,  or  member  or  members  of  the  union,  refusing  ac- 
ceptance and  compliance,  shall  be  withdrawn  by  both  parties  to  this  agreement. 
The  acts  of  such  employer  or  member  of  the  union  shall  be  publicly  disavowed, 
and  the  aggrieved  party  to  this  agreement  shall  be  furnished  by  the  other  party 
thereto  with  an  official  document  to  such  fact." 

In  every  instance  where  controversies  have  arisen  between  locals  of  the 
International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  and  locals  of  the 
Printers'  League  of  America  amicable  adjustments  have  been  the  result. 
There  is  but  one  weakness  that  can  possibly  be  cited  against  the  contract 
of  the  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  with  the 
Printers'  League  of  America,  and  that  is  the  question  of  arriving  at  an  adjust- 
ment in  the  event  of  failure  to  agree  upon  the  third  man  of  the  national  board 
of  arbitration.  I  shall  touch  on  this  phase  of  the  situation  again  before  com- 
pletion of  this  paper. 

The  contract  of  the  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union 
with  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association,  which  has  expired, 
met  with  the  same  general  satisfaction  as  did  the  contractual  relationship 
referred  to  above  as  existing  between  the  International  Printing  Pressmen 
and  Assistants'  Union  and  the  Printers'  League  of  America.  One  great  diffi- 
culty, however,  and  defect  existing  in  the  agreement  with  the  American  News- 
paper Publishers'  Association  was  found  in  the  declination  of  many  of  the 
members  of  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association  to  join  in  con- 
tractual relationship.  In  other  words,  they  retained  their  membership  in  the 
American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association,  but  refused  to  become  parties 
to  the  contract  in  so  far  as  it  applied  to  relationship  with  the  unions,  and 
further  maintained  their  right  to  participate  in  its  construcion.  This  fact  to 
no  small  degree  minimized  the  value  of  the  contract  between  the  American 
Newspaper  Publishers'  Association  and  the  International  Printing  Pressmen 
and  Assistants'  Union.  I  am  credibly  informed  that  this  defect  exists  in 
the  relationship  of  the  Publishers'  Association  with  other  international  print- 
ing trades-unions. 

The  effect  of  the  publishers'  attitude,  as  indicated  above,  finds  expression 
in  the  lockout  of  the  web  pressmen  in  the  city  of  Chicago  on  May  1,  1912. 
This  is  possibly  the  most  serious  difficulty  that  has  arisen  in  the  newspaper 
industry  for  a  great  many  years,  and  it  wras  in  no  small  degree  due  to  the 
failure  of  the  American  Newspaper  Publishers'  Association  to  compel  its  mem- 
bers, the  newspapers  of  Chicago,  to  act  in  harmony  and  come  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  international  arbitration  agreement  with  the  International 
Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union.  For  example,  the  local  publishers 
of  Chicago  holding  a  local  agreement  providing  for  conciliation  and  arbitra- 
tion for  over  two  years  succeeded  in  evading  the  demand  of  the  union  to  go 
to  arbitration  looking  to  the  advancement  of  a  wage  scale  that  had  been 
effective  for  about  seven  years.  The  local  publishers  could  very  readily  assume 
this  position  because  of  the  lack  of  responsibility  exercised  over  the  local 
publishers  by  their  national  association.  In  other  words,  while  the  American 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS    IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  759 

Newspaper  Publishers'  Association  held  a  national  contract  with  the  Inter- 
national Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  they  permitted  their  Chicago 
membership  to  act  individually,  and  at  the  same  time  the  Chicago  association 
was  dealing  with  a  subordinate  body  of  the  International  Printing  Pressmen 
and  Assistants'  Union. 

The  matter  of  procedure  under  the  publishers'  contract  in  conciliation,  local 
arbitration,  and  national  arbitration  was  in  the  main  identical  with  that  of 
the  Printers'  League  of  America  contract  already  referred  to. 

The  labor  movement  in  general,  and  especially  the  printing  trades-unions  of 
America,  stand  committed  to  the  principle  of  the  adjustment  of  difficulties  by 
the  means  of  conciliation  and  arbitration.  It  is  not  the  inclination  or  desire  of 
the  printing  trades  artisans  of  this  continent  to  participate  or  precipitate  in  a 
strike  or  a  lockout,  or  in  any  other  concentrated  movement  that  would  involve 
the  stability,  success,  and  prosperity  of  the  printing  industry,  and  I  am  con- 
fident that  the  majority  of  the  strikes  and  lockouts  that  have  taken  place  in 
recent  years  in  the  printing  industry  have  been  more  as  the  result  of  a  mis- 
understanding than  from  any  practical  reason.  The  International  Printing 
Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union  is  classified  as  being  the  most  militant  of  the 
live  international  printing  trades  unions ;  the  records  show,  however,  that  with 
the  exception  of  the  eight-hour-day  campaign  of  1907  there  has  been  less  than 
20  strikes  called  throughout  the  entire  jurisdiction  of  North  American,  with 
about  400  subordinate  unions. 

The  best  indication  of  the  desire  of  the  printing  trades-unions  for  peaceful 
relationship  with  employers  of  the  printing  industry,  and  their  willingness  to 
embrace  the  principles  of  conciliation  and  arbitration,  is  conclusively  evidenced 
in  the  recent  international  federated  agreement  entered  into  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  five  international  printing  trades  organizations.  This  agree- 
ment is  primarily  a  peace  compact  not  only  as  it  affects  the  relationship  of 
the  unions  with  each  other  but  particularly  as  it  affects  the  relationship  of  the 
unions  and  the  printing  industry.  The  fundamental  principle  of  the  federated 
agreement  is  predicated  upon  the  idea  of  conciliation  and  arbitration.  For  ex- 
ample, the  five  international  unions  agree  that  w^here  a  dispute  arises  with  an 
employer  and  a  subordinate  union  of  any  of  the  five  international  bodies,  repre- 
sentatives of  those  international  unions  are  required  to  meet  with  the  employer 
and  endeavor  to  adjust  the  difficulties  amicably  by  conciliation  and  arbitration. 
It  has  been  further  agreed  by  the  representatives  of  the  five  international 
printing  trades-unions  that  individual  contracts  made  shall  carry  a  clause  pro- 
viding that  where  a  dispute  arises  between  any  of  the  subordinate  unions  of 
the  five  international  organizations  and  where  the  employer  refuses  concilia- 
tion and  arbitration,  that  then  under  such  conditions  the  contract  becomes 
null  and  void.  This  is  the  clearest  indication  of  the  real  purpose  of  the  pro- 
posed printing  trades  federated  contract,  and  it  is  apparent  to  all  that  it  rests 
upon  the  principle  of  peaceful  relationship  by  and  through  the  measures  of 
conciliation  and  arbitration. 

Reference  has  already  been  made  in  this  paper  to  the  difficulties  that  have 
arisen  and  the  possibility  of  them  in  the  future  as  regards  the  question  of 
agreeing  upon  an  unbiased  odd  member  of  arbitration  boards.  The  possibility 
for  delay  in  arbitration  proceedings,  and  the  experiences  we  have  had  as  a 
result  of  delays  in  the  past,  have  dissipated  to  no  small  degree  the  employees' 
confidence  in  conciliation  and  arbitration.  This  has  been  overcome  somewhat, 
however,  by  advanced  agreement  that  upon  the  settlement  of  a  dispute  the 
conditions  arrived  at  should  become  effective  on  the  date  of  the  raising  of 
the  dispute.  This  arrangement,  as  I  have  already  indicated,  has  in  the  main 
been  voluntary.  No  specific  requirement  that  this  be  a  condition  has  ever 
been  established  in  the  printing  industry;  our  agreements  have  only  contem- 
plated such  a  course  if  the  arbitration  board  so  desired. 

From  the  result  of  international  relationship  with  employers'  associations 
I  feel  that  strikes  and  lockouts  and  general  disturbances  in  the  printing  and 
newspaper  industry  would  be  almost  entirely  eliminated  by  the  establishment 
of  an  agreement  that  would  contemplate  the  following: 

First.  An  agreement  jointly  embracing  all  of  the  organizations  of  the  in- 
dustry and  employers  of  the  industry. 

Second.  The  agreement  to  provide  for  conciliation,  local  and  national  arbi- 
tration. 

Third.  The  agreement  to  carry  a  clause  requiring  that  upon  the  opening  of 
negotiations  for  an  increase  or  decrease  in  wages,  or  the  change  of  working 


760          EEPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

conditions,  that  such  change  arrived  at  should  become  effective  from  the  date 
of  the  raising  of  the  issue  or  from  the  inception  of  negotiations. 

Fourth.  That  the  contract  carry  with  it  a  clause  requiring  the  five  interna- 
tional unions  and  the  employers  to  render  joint  assistance  in  the  maintenance 
of  technical  schools  for  the  advancement  of  the  industry  and  the  increasing  of 
efficiency  of  the  units  therein. 

Fifth.  That  the  contract  provide  a  board  of  general  review  representing  the 
organizations  and  the  employers  of  the  given  industry  whose  authority  it  will 
be  to  pass  upon  the  matter  of  differences  that  fail  of  adjustment  by  concilia- 
tion and  arbitration.  The  chief  purpose  of  this  provision  is  to  make  possible 
a  further  effort  to  arrive  at  an  amicable  settlement,  and  if  then  failure  results, 
make  possible  the  placing  of  the  responsibility  upon  the  party  guilty  of  an  un- 
fair attitude. 

The  provisions  as  outlined  abo\e,  in  my  opinion,  will  minimize  to  the  lowest 
possible  degree  difficulties  that  have  heretofore  brought  about  the  cessation 
of  business ;  it  would,  on  the  other  hand,  increase  the  community  of  feeling ; 
would  harmonize  cooperation  and  advance  the  commercial  possibilities  of  the 
industry  to  a  point  more  responsive  to  the  requirements  of  those  engaged  in 
it.  The  further  effect  of  such  an  arrangement  would  very  quickly  establish 
the  fact  that  the  success  of  the  industry  is  essential  to  the  employee  as  well 
as  the  employer. 

There  is  but  one  additional  suggestion  that  I  could  make,  and  that  is  in 
harmony  with  the  assumption  that  the  United  States  Commission  on  Industrial 
Relations  is  either  to  have  a  permanent  existence  or  from  it  a  board  is  to  be 
established  as  result  of  its  investigations  that  will  have  for  its  purposes  the 
furtherance  of  industrial  peace  and  justice. 

It  is  not  compatible  with  the  interest  of  free  and  voluntary  organizations 
to  suggest  the  practicability  of  compulsory  arbitration ;  such  a  system  would 
fail  miserably,  as  has  been  the  result  in  practically  every  instance  where  it 
has  been  given  a  test.  It  is  my  opinion,  however,  that  if  the  duties  of  this 
commission  were  broadened  or  some  industrial  board  of  the  future  was  given 
the  authority  to  investigate  into  industrial  differences  before  or  after  a  dis- 
pute, and  preferably  before,  to  exert  efforts  to  prevent  difficulty  and  to  main- 
tain a  voluntary  board  to  act  where  the  contesting  parties  have  failed  to  agree 
in  the  completion  of  an  arbitration  board,  you  would  find  that  not  only  would 
the  great  majority  of  such  disputes  be  presented  to  the  Government  board,  but 
you  would  see  in  this  further  arrangement  looking  to  peace,  another  substan- 
tial reduction  in  wasteful  industrial  conflicts. 

The  organization  of  working  men  and  women  can  not  fail  in  its  efforts  to 
maintain  an  organization.  The  efforts  of  employers  to  destroy  organizations 
of  working  men  and  women  therefore  constitutes  a  policy  of  destruction  rather 
than  construction.  Organized  labor's  willingness,  as  a  general  proposition,  and 
with  a  growing  tendency  toward  conciliation  and  arbitration,  is  manifestly 
sufficient  in  importance  to  justify  the  Government  offering  its  persistent  efforts 
and  influences  toward  industrial  peace  and  justice. 

GEO.  L.  BERRY, 
President  International  Printing  Pressmen  and  Assistants'  Union. 

APRIL  7,  1914. 


BUILDING  TRADES. 

PRINCIPLES  AND  PLATFORM  ADOPTED  AT  THE  NEW  ORLEANS  CONVENTION  OF  THE 
NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  MANUFACTURERS  IN  1903. 

(1)  Fair  dealing  is  the  fundamental  and  basic  principle  on  which  relations 
between  employees  and  employers  should  rest. 

(2)  The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  is  not  opposed  to  organiza- 
tions of  labor,  as  such,  but  it  is  unalterably  opposed  to  boycotts,  black  lists, 
and  other  illegal  acts  of  interference  with  the  personal  liberty  of  employer  or 
employee. 

(3)  No  person  should  be  refused  employment  or  in  any  way  be  discriminated 
against  on  account  of  membership  or  nonmembership  in  any  labor  organization, 
and  there  should  be  no  discrimination  against  or -interference  with  any  employee 
who  is  not  a  member  of  a  labor  organization  by  members  of  such  organization. 

(4)  With  due  regard  to  contracts,  it  is  the  right  of  the  employee  to  leave  his 
employment  whenever  he  sees  fit,  and  it  is  the  right  of  the  employer  to  discharge 
any  employee  when  he  sees  fit. 


TRADE    AGREEMENTS   IN    COLLECTIVE    BARGAINING.  761 

(5)  Employers  must  be  free  to  employ  their  work  people  at  wages  mutually 
satisfactory  without  interference  or  dictation   on  the  part  of  individuals   or 
organizations  not  directly  parties  to  such  contracts. 

(6)  Employers  must  be  unmolested  and  unhampered  in  the  management  of 
their  business  in  determining  the  amount  and  quality  of  their  product  and  in 
the  use  of  any  methods  or  systems  of  pay  which  are  just  and  equitable. 

(7)  In  the  interest  of  the  employees  and  employers  of  the  country  no  limita- 
tion should  be  placed  upon  the  opportunities  of  any  person  to  learn  any  trade 
to  which  he  or  she  may  be  adapted. 

(8)  The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  disapproves   absolutely   of 
strikes  and  lockouts,  and  favors  an  equitable  adjustment  of  all  differences  be- 
tween employers  and  employees  by  an  amicable  method  that  will  preserve  the 
rights  of  both  parties. 

(9)  The  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  pledges  itself  to  oppose  any 
and  all  legislation  not  in  accord  with  the  foregoing  declaration. 


REPORT  ON  DEFINITIONS  OF  METHODS  OF  PAYING  LABOR. 
[Sanford  E.  Thompson,  consulting  engineer,  Newton  Highlands,  Mass.] 

Piece  rate :  A  price  is  fixed  for  each  unit  quantity  of  work,  regardless  of  the 
time  it  takes  to  perform  it. 

Premium  and  bonus  are  used  in  a  broad  sense  to  denote  any  reward  above 
the  daily  wage. 

The  Halsey  premium  plan  establishes  a  time  for  doing  a  piece  of  work  based 
on  records  of  past  performance  or  fixed  by  estimate.  If  the  work  is  finished  in 
less  time  than  this  base  time,  the  saving  in  wages  is  divided  and  a  part,  usually 
one-half,  is  given  to  the  workman. 

Task  setting  consists  in  fixing  by  scientific  study  the  time  that  should  be 
necessary  to  do  a  piece  of  work  at  a  speed  not  injurious  to  the  workman  and 
v.'ith  a  reward  over  and  above  day  wages  offered  for  the  accomplishment  of  a 
piece  of  work  in  or  within  the  time  specified.  The  reward  may  be  figured  in 
various  ways,  as  follows : 

In  the  bonus  system  a  man  is  guaranteed  his  regular  day  rate,  but  earns 
nothing  in  excess  of  this  unless  he  accomplishes  the  job  in  the  task  time,  and 
in  this  case  he  receives  in  addition  to  his  day  wage  a  substantial  bonus,  figured 
as  a  percentage  (usually  at  least  30  per  cent)  of  this  wage.  If  he  finishes  his 
job  in  less  than  the  task  time,  he  receives  a  further  reward,  the  amount  of 
which  varies  with  different  plans  of  payment. 

When  the  premium  system  is  used  in  scientific  management,  as  at  the  Water- 
town  Arsenal,  the  premium  time  is  made,  say,  66§  per  cent  larger  than  the  task 
time  (as  defined  above)  and,  as  in  the  Halsey  plan,  if  the  job  is  finished  in  a 
shorter  time  than  this,  the  worker  receives  a  reward  equal  to  half  the  saving. 
It  differs  from  the  Halsey  plan  in  having  the  base  time  fixed  by  scientific  stand- 
ards instead  of  by  estimate. 

With  the  differential  piece  rate  a  man  receives  a  higher  price  per  piece  if  the 
work  is  done  in  the  standard  time  without  imperfections  than  is  paid  if  it  takes 
a  longer  time  or  if  the  product  is  imperfect.  Suppose,  for  example,  that  the 
standard  time  requires  a  man  to  do  20  pieces  in  a  day.  If  he  finishes  these  20 
pieces,  all  perfect,  he  receives,  say,  20  cents  per  piece,  or  $4.  If,  however,  he 
finishes  less  than  20  pieces,  instead  of  20  cents  per  piece,  he  may  receive  16 
cents  per  piece.  Thus,  for  19  pieces  he  wrould  receive  $3:04. 


EFFICIENCY  SYSTEMS  AND  LABOR. 


763 


COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Monday,  April  13,  191.ff. 

The  commission  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.  in  the  assembly  room  of  the  Shoreham 
Hotel. 

Present:  Commissioners  Frank  P.  Walsh  (chairman),  John  R.  Commons, 
Mrs.  J.  Borclen  Harriman,  Frederic  A.  Delano,  Harris  Weinstock,  S.  Thruston 
Ballard,  John  B.  Lennon,  James  O'Connell,  and  Austin  B.  Garretson. 

Present  also  for  the  commission :  Mr.  W.  O.  Thompson,  counsel ;  Mr.  W.  Jett 
Lauck,  managing  expert ;  Mr.  George  E.  Barnett,  special  investigator ;  Mr.  B.  M. 
Manly,  superintendent  Division  of  Industrial  Investigations ;  and  Mr.  F.  H. 
Bird,  superintendent  Division  of  Public  Agencies. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  commission  will  please  come  to  order.  On  the  hearing 
on  efficiency  systems  and  labor  I  have  but  one  general  suggestion  to  make,  and 
that  is  that  so  far  as  possible  the  subject  be  confined  to  the  question  of  the  rela- 
tions that  arise  naturally  between  employers  and  employees  in  the  application 
of  efficiency  systems  or  scientific  management. 

I  would  be  glad  to  have  the  witnesses  who  are  present  kindly  take  seats  on 
the  first-row  chairs  to  the  right  and  attend  as  far  as  possible  the  hearing,  so 
that  each  witness  as  he  testifies  may  be  heard  by  the  other  witnesses. 

The  first  witness  on  the  calendar  for  to-day  is  Mr.  Frederick  W.  Taylor,  of 
Philadelphia. 

Mr.  Thompson,  you  may  proceed  with  the  examination. 

TESTIMONY   OF   MR.    FREDERICK   W.    TAYLOR. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Taylor,  will  you  kindly  give  us  your  full  name  and 
address? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Frederick  W.  Taylor;  Chestnut  Hill,  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  business,  Mr.  Taylor? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Consulting  engineer.  I,  however,  have  given  up  all  work  for 
money,  for  pay.  For  the  past  12  years  all  the  work  I  have  been  doing  has 
been  done  not  for  pay,  but,  if  I  may  .say,  in  the  interest  of  scientific  manage- 
ment, trying  to  further  the  cause  of  scientific  management. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  may  state  briefly,  if  you  will,  what  your  experience  was 
before  that,  and  then  a  little  more  fully  as  to  what  you  are  doing  in  carrying 
out  this  work  for  which  you  receive  no  compensation. 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  I  received  my  preliminary  education  in  Germantown,  where 
I  was  born,  near  Philadelphia,  and  went  abroad  for  three  and  one-half  years, 
and  was  at  school  in  Paris  and  Berlin  and  Stuttgart  and  Italy,  and  returned 
and  went  to  Phillips-Exeter  Academy,  and  entered  Harvard  University.  My 
eyes  broke  down  and  I  was  obliged  to  work  for  seven  years  as  an  apprentice ; 
I  served  two  apprenticeships,  and  then  went  to  the  Midvale  Steel  Works  as  a 
laborer,  because  I  could  not  get  employment  as  a  mechanic,  and  went  up 
through  the  Midvale  Steel  Works  until  I  became  chief  engineer  and  manager 
of  the  works.  Then  I  left  the  steel  works,  because  I  believed  there  was  a 
larger  field  of  usefulness  in  introducing  the  principles  of  scientific  management 
into  other  establishments. 

From  that  time  until  I  retired  in  1901,  I  was  engaged  in  systematizing  and 
introducing  the  principles  of  scientific  management  into  various  industrial 
establishments.  Since  that  time  I  have  been  attempting  to  help  a  good  many 
of  my  friends  to  introduce  the  principles  of  scientific  management  in  indus- 
trial establishments,  helping  them  by  teaching  them,  and  by,  so  far  as  is  pos- 
sible, giving  men  the  opportunity  to  work  in  establishments  which  are  intro- 
ducing scientific  management.  That  has  been  my  work  since  then. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  maintain  an  office  and  a  force? 

765 


766          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  have  an  office  with  a  private  secretary,  but  I  have  no  money- 
making  establishment  of  any  sort,  and  no  affiliation  or  connection  with  any 
money-making  affair  of  any  kind. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  educate  other  people  in  your  system,  or  do  they 
educate  themselves  by  reading  your  books? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  For  a  good  many  years  past  there  have  been  quite  a  number 
of  men  who  were  very  competent,  men  who  showed  ability  in  this  direction, 
whom  I  have  been  teaching  and  helping  to  learn  scientific  management.  My 
part  consists  largely  in  securing  the  opportunity  for  them  to  \vork  in  various 
establishments,  and  where  they  can  not  afford  to  do  without  the  salary  I  have 
paid  the  salary  of  quite  a  number  of  them  for  several  years  while  they  are 
learning  the  introduction  of  scientific  management.  I  may  say  that  every  cent 
of  my  surplus  income,  and  a  little  more,  for  a  good  many  years  has  gone  into 
the  cause  of  scientific  management. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  your  work  in  that  matter  is  really  a  work  of  social 
welfare  and  advancement? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Well,  I  am  asked  continually  to  contribute  to  charities  of  va- 
rious sorts  and  my  universal  answer  is  that  I  do  not  conceive  there  is  any 
charity  to  which  I  could  devote  my  money  that  would  compare  in  any  \vay 
with  the  good  that  is  done  by  scientific  management.  My  reason  for  that  is 
that  as  many  as  a  thousand  or  two  thousand  men  annually  come  under  the  prin- 
ciples of  scientific  management,  who  automatically  receive  an  increase  of  from 
20  to  100  per  cent  in  wages,  and  who  become  the  best  friends  that  their  em- 
ployers can  have.  That  is  to  say,  instead  of  being  enemies  of  their  employers, 
they  become  their  wrarm,  firm  friends,  and  they  enter  upon  careers  of  pros- 
perity and  development  such  as  they  never  have  had  an  opportunity  to  have 
before.  That  is  largely  brought  about  by  the  effort  of  men  wrho  are  capable 
of  going  into  the  old  type  of  establishments  and  guiding  and  directing  them 
during  the  change  from  the  older  to  the  newer  type.  So  I  feel  that  every 
cent  and  every  minute  that  I  can  put  into  that,  wrhile  it  may  not  be  a  charity, 
is  certainly  accomplishing  more  for  my  friends,  the  workingmen,  than  any- 
thing else  I  could  do.  And  I  want  to  make  it  perfectly  clear,  because  I  do 
not  think  it  is  clear,  that  my  interest,  and  I  think  the  interest  of  every  man 
who  is  in  any  way  engaged  in  scientific  management,  in  the  introduction  of  the 
principles  of  scientific  management,  must  be  first  the  welfare  of  the  work- 
ingmen. That  must  be  the  object.  It  is  inconceivable  that  a  man  should 
devote  his  time  and  his  life  to  this  sort  of  thing  for  the  sake  of  making  more 
money  for  a  whole  lot  of  manufacturers.  Incidentally  it  is  impossible — anyone 
who  has  any  sense  and  who  has  lived  in  the  world  knows  that  it  is  impossible — 
to  do  the  one  without  doing  the  other.  You  must  make  their  interests  mutual. 
And  I  may  say  that  I  would  not  devote  5  minutes  of  my  time  to  this  if  it  were 
not  for  the  workingmen.  What  I  am  working  for  is  for  this  increase  in  pros- 
perity and  happiness  and  wages,  and  particularly  in  the  friendliness  of  the 
working  people  toward  their  employers.  That  is  my  chief  work. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  been  invited  to  come  here  and  present  your  ideas 
in  the  form  of  testimony  with  reference  to  efficiency  systems  and  labor,  teach- 
ing men  how  to  work  in  the  carrying  out  of  efficiency  systems.  What  have  you 
to  say  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  have  a  great  deal  to  say  if  the  commission  would  like  to  listen. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  good.     You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  would  suggest  that  if  I  may  be  allowed  to-do  so  I  be  given 
time  to  set  forth  the  general  principles  of  our  system  and  its  relation  to  the 
workmen  without  answering  any  questions  until  the  subject  is  rounded  out. 
If  the  gentlemen  will  kindly  make  notes  of  questions  they  would  like  to  ask, 
they  will  find  that  9  out  of  10  of  them  wrill  answer  themselves  automatically. 
So  it  will  save  a  lot  of  questioning  if  you  will  wrrite  down  the  questions  and 
ask  them  all  at  the  end.  I  do  not  want  to  dodge  questioning.  I  welcome  it, 
and  I  would  rather  have  the  questions  than  to  say  what  I  am  going  to  say, 
but  in  order  to  eliminate  a  very  large  number  of  questions,  I  would  suggest 
that  I  be  allowed  to  talk  without  interruption  until  I  have  told  the  story,  so 
to  speak. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well.    You  may  proceed  in  that  way. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  am  going  to  talk  about  workmen,  to  generalize  about  work- 
men, and  I  hope  I  can  make  myself  clear  at  the  start  that  in  wrhat  I  say 
of  workmen  I  have  in  mind  only  that  limited  class  of  workmen  who  are  en- 
gaged in  what  may  be  called  coordinated  industries,  not  the  workmen  who 
are  engaged  in  isolated  work;  because  it  is  very  important  to  make  that  dis- 


EFFICIENCY  SYSTEMS  AND   LABOB.  767 

tinction.  The  generalizations  which  apply  to  that  class  of  men  do  not  apply 
to  the  isolated  worker.  They  do  not  apply  to  the  gardener,  the  coachman,  or 
to  the  man  who  is  doing  work  for  his  own  account.  So  I  am  going  to  generalize 
about  workmen  a  good  deal;  and,  again,  let  me  say  that  in  talking  as  briefly 
as  I  am  about  to  talk,  I  have  to  state  broad  truths  which,  of  course,  are  subject 
to  a  vast  number  of  exceptions.  I  do  not  mean  to  be  dogmatic  and  to  neglect 
those  exceptions,  but  I  do  mean,  in  what  I  have  to  state,  to  state  broad  truths. 
Please  bear  that  in  mind,  because  otherwise  what  I  am  going  to  say  will 
sound  ridiculous  and,  in  some  cases,  preposterous,  because  there  are  so  many 
exceptions  to  the  rules. 

As  I  conceive  it  the  most  serious  fact  that  faces  the  industrial  wond  to-day — • 
not  only  in  this  country,  but  all  over  the  industrial  world — is  the  broad  fact 
that  the  average  workman  believes  it  is  for  his  interests  on  the  whole  to  go 
slow,  to  curtail  the  output  rather  than  to  turn  out  as  much  work  as  he  can 
each  day.  Workmen  throughout  the  civilized  world  are  firmly  convinced  that 
it  is  for  their  interest  to  go  slow  instead  of  going  fast.  That  is,  I  conceive, 
the  saddest,  the  most  unfortunate  fact  in  industry  to-day.  There  are  two 
great  causes  for  that  in  the  minds  of  the  workmen.  The  first  is,  that  if  you 
will  take  any  trade,  I  do  not  care  what  it  is,  and  suggest  to  any  set  of  work- 
men in  the  trade  that  it  would  be  a  good  thing  for  them  to  double  their  output 
in  that  trade,  they  will  say  right  away,  "  I  do  not  know  anything  about  other 
people's  trades,  but  I  do  know  that  in  my  own  trade  there  can  be  but  one 
result  from  doubling  the  output — that  is,  that  half  of  us  would  be  thrown 
out  of  a  job  inside  of  a  couple  of  years.  That  is  all  that  would  happen  in  our 
trade."  That  fact  is  so  self-apparent  to  the  average  workman  that  it  does 
not  admit  of  an  argument  and  you  can  not  reason  with  him  about  it.  He  says, 
"  My  dear  boy,  I  do  not  know  anything  about  other  trades,  but  in  my  trade 
half  of  us  would  be  out  of  a  job  if  we  were  to  double  our  output."  That  set- 
tles the  whole  question  as  far  as  that  man  is  concerned.  You  can  not  argue 
with  him. 

Not  only  that,  but  I  find  that  doctrine  is  very  largely  believed  in  by  my 
friends — the  leaders  of  the  labor  unions.  They  are  firmly  convinced  that  that 
is  true.  I  find  not  only  that,  but  that  a  great  majority  of  men  who 
are  well  read  with  relation  to  industrial  matters,  and  well  read  with 
relation  to  the  history  of  industry,  will  say  the  same  thing  and  will  reach 
the  same  conclusions.  They  will  say  it  is  almost  an  axiomatic  fact. 
And,  yet,  gentlemen,  I  ask  any  one  of  you  to  point  out  a  single  instance 
where  that  has  happened.  I  have  never  yet  been  able  to  find  out  a  single 
instance.  If  any  of  you  have  found  it,  I  wish  you  would  point  it  out.  I 
have  yet  to  find  a  single  instance  in  which  exactly  the  opposite  has  not  been 
true.  In  every  instance  the  introduction  of  labor-saving  machinery — never 
mind  if  it  could  result  in  turning  out  twenty  times  the  amount  of  work  that 
was  formerly  turned  out,  never  mind  what  has  come  in  which  has  increased 
the  output — I  would  be  glad  to  have  anyone  point  out  a  single  case  in  which 
the  result  of  that  increase  has  not  been  to  make  more  work  for  more  men  in 
that  trade.  It  has  never  thrown  men  out  of  work  except  temporarily — right 
in  the  first  three  or  four  months,  perhaps.  The  effect  has  invariably  been  to 
make  work  for  more  men  in  that  particular  trade  in  every  case.  I  have  never 
yet  had  a  case  pointed  out  in  which  that  was  not  true.  I  am  looking  for  a 
case,  and  I  am  hoping  that  some  one  will  point  out  such  a  case. 

That  sounds  like  an  extraordinary  fact.  How  can  the  introduction  of  labor- 
saving  machinery  keep  on  making  work  for  more  men  in  every  trade? 

There  is  one  trade  in  which  that  is  not  true,  if  you  choose  to  call  it  a  trade, 
or  one  occupation,  and  that  is  the  occupation  of  farming. 

One  hundred  years  ago  it  took  80  per  cent  of  the  world's  workers  to  feed 
the  world.  To-day  it  takes  36  per  cent  of  the  world's  workers  to  feed  the 
world.  It  is  from  this  great  farming  population  that  the  men  are  coming 
to  the  trades,  and  the  more  you  introduce  labor-saving  machinery,  the  more 
you  do  in  the  direction  of  increasing  it.  The  more  men  that  come  from  the 
farms  to  the  industries — the  more  men  devote  themselves  to  that  side  of  the 
work.  That  is  the  history  of  industry,  and  it  is  a  very  significant  fact.  It  is 
such  a  vital  fact  that  I  think  that  every  man  who  has  a  knowledge  of  the 
matter,  who  has  any  interest  in  the  working  people  of  the  world,  ought  to 
realize  that  when  any  device  comes  along  which  makes  for  the  increase  of 
efficiency,  it  enables  the  same  number  of  workingmen  to  turn  out  a  larger 
amount  of  work,  and  that  instead  of  injuring  the  workingmen  or  throwing 
them  out  of  work,  it  is  on  the  way  to  create  more  work  for  the  men  in  that 


768          EEPOKT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

trade.  That  is  the  universal  history  of  industry.  But  there  ought  to  be  at  least 
one  illustration,  because,  after  all,  my  say  so  amounts  to  nothing.  Let  us 
have  one  illustration  of  this  fact,  because,  after  all,  illustrations  are  what 
count,  and  not  somebody's  notions,  theories,  talks,  or  generalizations. 

Take  the  cotton  industry,  for  instance.  In  1840,  or  thereabouts,  broadly 
speaking,  1840,  the  power  loom  superseded  the  old  hand  loom.  The  power  loom 
was  invented  50  years  before,  but  at  that  time  inventions  were  very  slow  in 
being  introduced.  About  1840  it  came  into  Manchester,  England.  There 
were  at  that  time  in  Manchester  5,000  weavers,  and  those  men  knew  what  the 
loom  was  going  to  do,  that  it  would  turn  out  three  times  the  work  that  they 
had  been  turning  out  in  the  past,  and  they  knew  that  after  the  power  loom 
was  introduced,  instead  of  there  being  5,000  weavers  in  Manchester  there 
would  be  only  1,500  of  them  left.  Gentlemen,  realize  that  at  that  time  the 
immobility  of  labor  was  something  appalling.  A  man  was  born  in  the  trade, 
and  he  lived  in  the  trade,  and  he  died  in  the  trade.  He  was  born  in  a  town, 
and  lived  in  a  town,  and  never  moved  out  of  that  town  until  he  died.  That 
was  the  rule.  You  will  remember  the  laws  that  were  made  only  a  little  time 
before  that  prohibiting  the  migration  of  workingmen  from  one  county  to 
another  in  England,  so  that  labor  was  exceedingly  immobile ;  and  these  weavers, 
when  they  saw  this  power  loom  coming,  saw  themselves  and  their  families  facing 
starvation.  Put  yourselves  in  their  place.  Before  we  judge  harshly  of  any  set 
of  men,  we  should  put  ourselves  in  their  environment.  I  am  not  defending  arson 
or  murder,  or  anything  of  that  sort,  but  I  want  you  gentlemen  to  put  yourselves 
in  their  places  before  you  judge  these  poor  fellows  too  harshly.  What  they 
did  was  to  break  into  the  establishments  in  which  the  power  loom  was  coming, 
to  smash  the  looms  and  to  burn  the  establishments,  and  to  beat  up  the  scab, 
and  to  do  everything  possible  to  stop  the  introduction  of  that  power  loom. 
I  do  not  blame  them.  You  and  I  would  have  done  the  same  thing,  or  if  not 
the  same  thing,  then  the  same  thing  in  kind,  for  broadly  speaking,  we  would 
have  fought  for  our  lives  and  families;  so  that  I  want  you  gentlemen  not  to 
condemn  these  people  too  severely.  It  was  in  kind  what  you  and  I  would 
have  done. 

What  was  the  effect  of  their  fight  against  the  introduction  of  the  new 
labor-saving  machinery?  Just  what  it  always  has  been,  just  what  it  always 
will  be.  It  was  nothing.  The  power  loom  came  right  along.  I  am  not  sure 
its  introduction  was  not  accelerated  by  the  fight.  I  am  sure  that  in  many 
cases  opposition  to  the  introduction  of  labor-saving  machinery  accelerates  its 
introduction.  I  am  sure  that  the  opposition  to  the  introduction  of  scientific 
management  has  accelerated  its  introduction,  and  not  retarded  it  in, the  least. 
It  has  gone  on  far  more  rapidly  since  the  opposition  became  more  acute  than 
before,  and  it  will  be  so. 

If  scientific  management  is  designed  for  increasing  the  efficiency  of  men  with- 
out materially  increasing  their  effort  and  without  overworking  men,  then, 
mark  my  words,  any  opposition,  from  whatever  source,  however  powerful 
and  whatever  it  is,  will  merely  increase  the  rapidity  of  its  introduction.  That 
is  the  history  of  industry. 

I  predict  the  same  thing  for  scientific  management,  if  what  I  say  is  true, 
and  if  it  is  not  true,  it  is  going  to  fail,  and  ought  to  fail.  That  is  the  history 
of  industry. 

The  power  loom  came.  Let  us  see  what  happened.  Less  than  100  years 
have  gone  by.  The  population  of  England  in  that  time  has  certainly  not  more 
than  doubled,  and  for  every  man  engaged  in  the  cotton  industry  in  Manchester 
now  there  are  10  yards  of  cloth  produced  to  1  yard  that  was  produced  before 
the  introduction  of  the  power  loom,  which  is  before  this  fight  in  1840.  Ten 
yards  are  coming  out  now,  to  every  man  in  the  industry,  for  one  that  was 
turned  out  before  1840;  There  were  5,000  weavers  in  Manchester,  England, 
in  1840.  There  are  now  265,000.  Has  that  thrown  men  out  of  work?  Has 
the  introduction  of  labor-saving  machinery  thrown  men  out  of  work?  Two 
hundred  and  sixty-five  thousand  men  are  working  there  now  where  there 
were  5,000  in  1840,  and  each  of  those  265,000  men  is  turning  out  at  the  very 
least  10  times  the  yardage  of  cloth  turned  out  in  1840.  Multiply  that,  and  you 
will  find  that  for  every  yard  that  went  out  in  1840  there  are  at  least  500  yards 
of  cotton  that  go  out  to-day,  and  that  is  the  history  of  industry.  That  is  an 
illustration  of  why  the  world  is  making  progress.  That  is  an  illustration 
of  why  the  workmen  of  to-day  live  so  much  better  than  they  did  some  time 
ago.  I  have  got  lots  of  them  who  are  my  friends,  I  have  lots  of  them  into 
whose  homes  I  go,  the  families  of  mechanics,  and  I  know  that  they  live 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  769 

better  than  kings  did  250  years  ago.  They  have  more  luxuries,  and  more 
that  is  fine  in  life,  than  kings  did  250  years  ago.  What  is  it  due  to — this  in- 
crease of  output?  All  of  that  goes  to  luxury,  leisure,  art,  culture,  because  of 
this  increase  in  output.  That  is  the  source  of  it.  It  gives  them  the  oppor- 
tunity for  it. 

What  is  the  fundamental  meaning  of  this?  There  is  something  back  of  this 
output  in  cotton.  What  does  it  mean?  It  means  two  things,  that  all  you  have  to 
do  in  this  world  is  to  bring  true  riches  into  the  world,  and  the  world  uses  them. 
That  is  the  fundamental  meaning.  All  you  have  to  do  is  to  create  riches  and 
bring  them  into  this  world,  and  the  world  uses  them.  Think  of  it,  500  yards  of 
cotton  cloth  now  being  manufactured  and  turned  out  at  Manchester,  England,  to 
every  1  in  1840 !  We  do  not  think  of  the  fact  that  in  1840  cotton  goods  were  a 
luxury,  to  be  used  only  by  the  rich  people,  that  the  poor  people  wore  ragged 
woolen  goods.  What  possibly  has  become  an  everyday  necessity,  an  absolute 
thing  of  necessity  to  all  of  us,  at  that  time  was  the  greatest  kind  of  a  luxury ; 
and  that  is  what  is  going  on  all  over  the  world.  That  is  what  is  going  on  in 
every  industry  throughout  the  world — this  change  from  rank  luxury  in  one 
generation  to  what  becomes  absolute  necessity  in  the  next;  and  I  am  looking 
forward,  through  this  same  increase  in  output,  to  the  fact  that  100  years 
from  now  the  working  people  are  going  to  be  living  just  as  well  as  merchants 
live  now,  just  as  happily;  and  what  is  it  coming  from?  This  increase  in 
output,  and  nothing  else.  I  am  dwelling  on  that,  because,  after  all,  the  great- 
est source  of  opposition  to  the  introduction  of  scientific  management  is  because 
the  working  people  are  afraid  of  throwing  people  out  of  work.  They  are  afraid 
that  through  scientific  management  people  will  be  thrown  out  of  \vork.  That  is 
the  greatest  reason  for  the  main  opposition  to  scientific  management. 

I  want  to  call  attention  now  to  one  thing,  and  that  is  that  the  working 
people  are  in  no  way  to  blame  for  this  opposition.  I  want  to  know  who  is 
bringing  these  facts  to  the  attention  of  the  working  people  of  this  country? 
You  gentlemen  live  in  various  cities.  What  man  in  your  city  has  talked  to 
them  and  told  the  working  people  what  I  have  been  telling  you  now?  On  the 
contrary,  their  leaders,  honest  men,  straightforward  men,  but  simply  badly 
educated  men,  men  who  have  not  looked  into  their  own  trades,  are  telling  them 
the  opposite  thing  and  they  are  suggesting  the  strictest  legislation  in  almost 
every  trade-union,  in  the  interest  of  the  trade,  for  fear  some  one  will  be 
thrown  out  of  a  job,  in  order  to  maintain  the  prices,  and  for  various  reasons. 
There  is  hardly  a  trade  in  which  there  has  not  been  restrictive  legislation 
enacted,  in  which  there  has  not  been  suggestion  of  it.  Who  is  telling  to  the 
working  people  what  I  have  said  to  you  now?  I  do  not  know  who  it  is.  Who 
is  pointing  these  facts  out  to  them?  Gentlemen,  if  you  would  go  to  England 
and  if  you  would  look  at  the  condition  there  you  would  find  that  it  is  some- 
thing frightful.  I  am  heartily  in  favor  of  a  redistribution  of  wealth,  to  a 
certain  extent.  I  believe,  to  a  certain  extent,  there  is  too  much  wealth  in  cer- 
tain hands  and  too  little  in  other  hands.  I  am  heartily  in  favor  of  that,  but 
when  it  comes  to  the  socialistic  legislation  that  is  going  on  in  England,  it  is 
doing  nothing.  It  is  doing  nothing ;  it  is  putting  a  little  bit  of  a  plaster  on  the 
outside.  The  great  fundamental  fact  in  England  is  that  every  workman  in 
England  is  born  to  the  fact  that  he  must  curtail  the  output  if  he  is  going  to 
do  his  duty  to  himself  and  his  kind. 

What  do  you  think  of  it?  Just  think  of  it !  I  have  a  magazine  published 
last  August  containing  an  article  by  Ellis  Darker,  one  of  the  greatest  statis- 
ticians of  England,  in  which  he  gives  30  American  trades  and  English  trades 
in  which  the  output  of  the  average  American  workman  is  shown  to  be  more 
than  three  times  that  of  the  English  workman.  The  English  workmen  are 
just  as  good  as  our  workmen  are.  I  have  run  up  against  them  and  I  know 
they  are  just  as  good  as  our  men.  But  they  have  that  restriction  of  output; 
the  unions  have  had  such  control  for  such  a  length  of  time  there — but  in  an 
absolutely  misguided  way  and  absolutely  through  misunderstanding — that  they 
have  restricted  the  output  to  such  an  extent  that  those  poor  fellows  over  there 
turn  out  only  one-third  of  what  our  men  are  able  to  turn  out.  How  can 
they  get  wages — not  so  much  wages,  but  how  can  they  get  food,  the  luxuries 
of  life,  and  even  the  ordinary  necessities  of  life  when  they  are  only  turning  out 
one-third  of  the  output? 

Wealth  comes  into  the  world  from  no  other  source.  It  is  what  these  men 
produce  that  constitutes  the  wealth  of  the  world,  and  no  amount  of  juggling, 
no  amount  of  legislation,  no  amount  of  anything  else,  will  ever  give  that  wealth 
to  the  people  unless  these  men  produce  it.  You  have  to  bring  it  into  the 

38819°— 16- 49 


770         REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

world  and  give  it  to  tliem,  and  yet  they  are  refusing  to  bring  it  into  the  world. 
They  are  robbing  their  own  kind,  because  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  wealth 
of  the  world  is  consumed  by  the  poorer  people  and  one-twentieth  of  the  wealth  of 
the  world  is  consumed  by  the  rich.  All  the  poorer  people  are  suffering,  and 
they  will  as  long  as  they  fail  to  get  these  good  things,  and  it  will  not  be  the 
rich  people  who  will  suffer.  That  is  what  the  poverty  of  England  is  due  to 
to-day,  and  that  is  what  Barker  points  out.  I  have  known  isolated  facts ;  in 
every  industry  I  have  looked  into  myself  I  have  found  that  in  comparison 
with  England  we  are  producing  three  times  as  much,  and  I  went  further  than 
Ellis  Barker  and  have  looked  into  many  instances,  and  have  gone  into  the  work- 
rooms of  these  people,  and  these  poor  fellows  are  deliberately  soldiering,  de- 
liberately restricting  output  and  doing  it  conscientiously  because  they  believe 
it  is  for  the  good  of  their  kind.  There  is  nothing  dishonest  about  it  as  they 
see  it.  It  is  merely  a  bad  instruction,  merely  that  they  do  not  know  what  they 
ought  to  be  doing  for  their  own  interests.  They  have  never  been  properly 
educated. 

What  is  the  end  of  this?  It  is  horrible  when  you  think  of  it.  What  is  the 
ultimate  effect  of  this  restriction  of  output?  It  means  the  people  in  England 
who  have  passed  65  years  of  age  are  living  on  less  than  $2.50  a  week.  That 
is  the  outcome  of  it  all.  Two-thirds  of  the  people  who  are  past  65  years  of 
age  are  living  on  less  than  $2.50  a  week.  That  is  due  to  restriction  of  output, 
and  you  may  legislate  all  you  please  for  redistribution  of  wealth;  but  until 
in  England  they  climb  up  and  do  a  proper  day's  work  and  do  what  they  should 
do  by  turning  the  entire  thing  over,  they  will  never  get  wealth,  they  will  never 
get  the  luxuries,  and  they  will  not  even  get  the  necessities. 

What  I  want  again  to  emphasize  is  that  the  working  people  are  not  to  blame 
for  this. 

The  second  cause  is  this:  If  you  are  making  a  pen  like  this  [indicating],  let 
us  consider  what  the  situation  is.  Let  us  assume  that  a  pen  like  that  can  be 
made  by  a  single  man.  It  can  not,  of  course,  but  let  us  simply  assume  that  one 
man  can  make  a  pen  like  that.  He  is  making  10  pens  a  day  and  getting 
$2.50.  If  he  has  any  kind  of  a  foreman,  that  foreman  is  the  sort  of  a  man 
who  sympathizes  with  his  men  and  wants  them  to  prosper  and  he  will  say 
to  this  workman,  "  You  are  making  10  pens  a  day ;  you  are  getting  $2.50  a  day. 
Why  not  make  them  by  the  piece?"  The  man  will  say,  "That  is  first  rate;  I 
will  be  delighted  to  do  it."  At  the  end  of  the  year,  the  workman,  through  his 
own  exertions  and  the  help  of  his  foreman  and  friends  who  have  been  around 
him,  through  his  own  ingenuity  and  through  the  incentive  that  is  offered  him, 
finds  himself  turning  out  20  pens  instead  of  10.  That  is  a  very  common  and 
usual  thing,  not  at  all  unusual.  The  workman  is  delighted,  because  he  is  getting 
$5  a  day  where  before  he  got  $2.50  a  day.  The  workman  is  pleased,  because 
he  has  doubled  his  income.  The  foreman  is  pleased  because  he  has  doubled 
the  output  of  his  shop  with  the  same  number  of  men. 

Everybody  is  pleased  except  some  member  of  the  board  of  directors.  I  have 
been  a  member  of  boards  of  directors,  and  I  imagine  that  some  of  you  have 
likewise  been  members  of  boards  of  directors.  We  must  not  condemn  this  man, 
because  he  thinks  it  is  his  duty  to  do  it,  but  some  member  of  the  board  of 
directors  calls  for  the  pay  roll,  and  to  his  horror  he  finds  that  a  lot  of  his 
workmen  are  getting  $5  a  day,  whereas  the  ruling  rate  of  wages  for  workmen 
of  that  kind  in  that  community  is  $2.50.  I  have  seen  that  over  and  over 
again.  It  is  a  shock  to  that  man.  It  is  a  genuine  question  with  him ;  from  his 
viewpoint,  we  are  ruining  the  labor  market  in  our  part  of  the  country.  He 
will  say  that  Washington  can  not  compete  with  other  places  because  we  are 
paying  $5  a  day  and  the  rest  of  the  country  paying  $2.50  a  day.  It  is  perfectly 
self-evident  to  that  man,  or  he  thinks  it  is.  It  is  a  fallacy,  but  he  thinks  he 
is  right.  He  sends  for  that  foreman  and  \vants  to  know  the  reason  wThy  those 
men  are  paid  $5  a  day  when  similar  men  in  a  similar  occupation  in  other 
parts  of  the  country  are  paid  $2.50,  and  he  is  told  he  must  stop  ruining  the 
labor  market  of  Washington.  That  foreman,  with  sadness — if  he  is  any  kind 
of  a  man,  and  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  he  is — is  utterly  disgusted,  but  is  obliged 
to  reduce  the  men's  piecework  prices  until  he  finds  himself  turning  out  20  pens 
a  day  and  only  getting  $2.75,  if  he  is  liberal,  or  $3  a  day,  where  he  only 
got  $2.50  before.  That  is  what  takes  place  all  over  the  country  under  the 
piecework  system ;  that  is  the  piecework  system.  Those  of  you  who  have 
worked  under  it  know  it.  Those  of  you  who  have  been  bosses  know  it.  That 
is  the  system  of  the  world  in  piecework.  I  am  not  blaming  the  people,  because 
there  was  not  for  a  long  time  any  other  system  or  any  better  system  than  that. 
There  was  no  alternative.  That  was  all  they  could  do. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND  LABOR.  771 

Just  let  me  tell  you  one  thing :  There  are  a  great  many  people  who  question 
the  honesty  of  the  workingmen,  who  debate  whether  they  are  not  deteriorating 
in  this  country,  etc.  Whatever  your  views  as  to  the  honesty  or  dishonesty 
of  the  workingmen,  my  personal  experience  with  them  has  been  that  they 
are  just  as  straight,  just  as  praiseworthy  as  any  other  class  in  the  com- 
munity— not  more  so;  not  less  so.  I  have  been  among  them  and  have  worked 
with  them  for  many  years,  and  I  have  as  many  friends  among  them  as  I  have 
in  any  other  class.  That  is  my  personal  experience,  and  whatever  your  opinion 
be  on  that  point,  whatever  your  views  may  be,  just  put  one  thing  right  down: 
Whatever  the  workingmen  of  this  country  are  or  are  not,  they  are  not  damned 
fools.  That  is  straight.  They  may  be  a  lot  of  other  things,  but  that  they  are 
not.  It  just  takes  one  cut  like  this — just  one — to  make  them  soldier  for  life. 
Who  can  blame  them?  They  start  deliberately  and  soldier  for  life,  and  it  be- 
comes a  set  habit  with  them.  I  did  not  even  have  to  have  it  before  I  started 
to  soldiering.  I  never  got  my  cut.  I  was  too  keen.  The  boys  informed  rue  be- 
forehand, when  I  was  an  apprentice.  When  I  came  into  the  work  I  began 
soldiering  without  being  cut  and  without  being  told.  We  were  all  intelligent 
boys;  we  wTere  all  good  boys.  I  do  not  know  that  I  got  a  cut  all  the  time  I 
was  working.  I  was  very  careful.  I  watched  that  clock  with  a  very  great  deal 
of  care,  and  if  I  could  have  turned  out  20  times  the  work  I  was  doing,  and  if 
that  wras  the  basis,  I  watched  that  just  as  everybody  else  watches  it — and  you 
can  not  blame  them.  I  was  wrong.  It  would  have  paid  me  and  the  other  people 
much  better  to  have  taken  our  cut  and  gone  right  ahead.  It  is  a  good  deal  to 
ask  of  a  human,  however — to  ask  anyone  to  accept  that  cut  and  smile  over  it 
and  think  it  is  a  good  thing  for  you. 

The  working  people  are  not  to  be  blamed  for  that,  nor  are  the  employers  to 
be  blamed.  Hundreds  of  employers  who  have  to  do  that  deplore  it.  Their  fore- 
men deplore  it  and  their  superintendents  deplore  it.  Everyone  who  is  cutting 
these  wages  deplores  it.  It  is  a  sad  fact  in  industry.  It  is  not  something  that 
anyone  is  proud  of.  I  have  yet  to  hear  the  first  man  who  is  proud  of  it  on 
either  side.  But  there  is  no  better  wray  than  that. 

What  I  want  to  emphasize  is  this :  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  this,  be- 
cause this  is  perhaps  the  most  important,  or  one  of  the  most  important,  facts 
connected  with  scientific  management.  I  want  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the 
very  first  step  that  was  taken  toward  establishing  that  state  of  principles  which 
have  come  to  be  known  as  scientific  management  was  taken  in  an  earnest  en- 
deavor to  correct  this  evil  of  soldiering.  That  is  what  led  to  the  first  move 
toward  the  introduction  of  the  principles  that  have  come  to  be  known  as  scien- 
tific management.  Gentlemen,  every  subsequent  step  that  is  taken  in  the  intro- 
duction of  these  principles  was  taken  in  exactly  the  same  way — not  as  a  theory 
which  someone  propounded ;  not  that  someone  said,  "  Here  is  a  new  idea  or 
scheme  or  plan,"  or  whatever  it  might  be  that  might  be  a  good  thing  to  try ;  not 
at  all — but  because  there  wras  a  crying  evil  existing  in  the  whole  system,  palpa- 
ble and  present,  and  because  as  the  endeavor  was  made  to  correct  that  evil  and 
to  correct  that  existing  evil,  so  that  at  every  step  scientific  management  has 
been  an  evolution  and  not  a  theory.  I  want  to  emphasize  that,  because  every 
man  who  has  had  much  experience  in  this  world  must  be  profoundly  suspicious 
of  every  new  theory,  and  I  do  not  care  what  that  theory  is — his  own  as  well  as 
everyone  else's — he  must  be  profoundly  suspicious  of  it. 

For  my  own  part,  whenever  I  have  a  new  theory,  whenever  I  evolve  a  new 
theory,  and  it  has  not  been  tried  out  and  tried  out  and  tried  out,  whenever  I 
have  made  a  new  invention — and  I  have  taken  out  probably  100  patents — when- 
ever I  take  out  a  new  patent  or  develop  a  new  invention  of  any  kind,  I  say  to 
myself  in  the  enthusiasm  of  the  moment,  "  By  George,  that  is  "the  finest  thing 
that  ever  happened ;  that  is  a  remarkable  invention,  and  it  has  got  to  be  pat- 
ented right  away."  So  I  proceed  to  patent  it.  After  the  enthusiasm  subsides  a 
little  bit,  then  I  say  to  myself,  "  Freddy,  my  boy,  doubtless  this  is  the  most  re- 
markable thing  that  ever  happened  in  industry,  particularly  in  this  branch  of 
industry,  but  probably  the  fact  is,  dear  boy,  that  it  is  just  like  the  other  ninety 
and  nine;  it  is  not  worth  a  damn."  That  is  what  I  have  to  say  about  my  own 
theory  and  what  I  say  about  the  new  theory  of  everyone  else  that  comes  along. 

I  do  not  want  anyone  to  confuse  scientific  management  with  the  new  set  of 
theories  that  are  being  formed.  No  one  ever  reasoned  out  the  theories  of  scien- 
tific management  until  it  had  been  in  use  for  probably  20  years;  no  one  ever 
thought  that  there  was  a  new  set  of  principles.  It  came  as  a  development  of 
one  thing  after  another,  and  gradually  a  set  of  principles  grew  up  which  dif- 
fered radically  from  the  older  principles.  No  one  took  pains  to  analyze  those 


772          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

principles  and  get  to  the  bottom  of  them  until  after  they  had  been  in  use  for  18 
or  20  years.  Then  we  began  thinking — to  analyze  them.  We  said  to  ourselves, 
"Here,  a  new  thing  has  taken  place.  What  is  this?"  I  want  to  emphasize 
that  it  is  an  evolution  and  not  a  theory. 

Scientific  management  exists  in  a  very  large  number  and  variety  of  estab- 
lishments, and  it  is  safe  to  say  that  in  the  average  establishment  where  scien- 
tific management  exists  the  workmen  are  turning  out  twice  as  much  work 
per  man  as  they  were  before.  That  is  in  the  average  establishment.  In  many, 
of  course,  they  are  turning  out  much  more  than  that,  and  in  some  few,  less 
than  that,  but  in  the  average  establishment  men  are  turning  out  about  twice 
as  much  work.  The  output  of  the  establishment  has  been  doubled.  That  has 
resulted  in  an  increase  in  profits  and  the  companies  have  profited  by  it.  It 
has  resulted  in  many  cases  in  lowering  the  selling  price,  so  that  the  general 
public  has  gotten  something  out  of  it.  But,  gentlemen,  let  me  tell  you  that 
in  the  end  neither  the  working  people  nor  the  manufacturers  are  going  to 
get  much  out  of  it,  that  is,  a  hundred  years  from  now.  The  general  public 
is  going  to  have  it  all.  The  whole  world  will  have  it.  That  is  the  history 
of  industry.  For  a  while  the  manufacturer  has  gotten  the  most  out  of  it. 
Then  comes  along  the  workman  in  that  industry,  and  he  gets  some  of  it,  but 
very  soon  the  whole  general  public  gets  it  all,  practically  speaking.  That  is  the 
history  of  industry. 

Let  me,  however,  digress  here  and  point  out  one  fact  which  has  not  been 
generally  appreciated,  and  which  ought  to  go  to  the  credit  of  scientific  manage- 
ment; a  very  important  fact,  that  this  is  the  first  instance  in  the  history  of 
industry  in  which  the  introduction  of  labor-saving  devices  has  been  done  by 
men  who  have  insisted  from  the  start  that  the  workmen  should  at  once  get  their 
share.  The  men  who  have  introduced  scientific  management  have  insisted 
that  the  workmen  should  get  an  increase  in  wages.  In  the  introduction  of 
labor-saving  machinery  formerly  the  manufacturer  has  got  it  all,  at  the  be- 
ginning. Every  man  who  comes  under  scientific  management  gets  automatically 
an  increase  of  from  33  per  cent  to  100  per  cent  in  wages  at  once.  This  is  the 
first  case  in  industrial  history  in  which  that  has  been  true,  so  far  as  I  know. 

There  may  have  been  isolated  cases  that  I  do  not  know  of,  but  certainly 
there  has  been  no  general  movement.  Certainly  that  has  not  been  character- 
istic of  the  introduction  of  labor-saving  machinery,  as  you  all  know.  In  many 
cases  the  first  effect  of  the  introduction  of  labor-saving  machinery  was  per- 
haps, to  lower  wages,  because  a  cheaper  type  of  man  was  able  to  run  the 
machine,  in  some  cases.  Of  course,  in  the  end  the  whole  world  profited  by  it. 
But  in  justice  to  scientific  management  I  want  to  emphasize  the  statement 
which  I  have  just  made,  that  from  the  start  the  people  who  have  introduced 
it  have  insisted  that  the  workmen  should  at  once  get  an  increase  in  wages. 
The  owners  of  the  business  have  a  larger  profit,  the  general  public  shares  in 
the  profit,  but  without  any  question  the  workmen  have  gotten  the  greatest 
good  that  has  come  under  scientific  management.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
shadow  of  doubt  about  that.  As  I  said  before,  the  very  moment  that  work- 
men come  under  scientific  management,  where  a  man  go*es  from  an  establish- 
ment right  next  door  into  one  of  our  establishments,  he  gets  an  increase  of 
from  33  to  100  per  cent  in  wages,  depending  on  the  character  of  his  work, 
and  that  happens  right  away.  That  is  worth  while;  and  yet  without  any 
hesitation  I  say  it  is  not  the  greatest  gain  that  comes  to  workingmen  under 
scientific  management.  The  greatest  gain  that  comes  to  them  comes  from  the 
fact  that  they  come  to  look  upon  their  employers  as  the  best  friends  they 
have  in  the  world.  That  is  the  greatest  gain  that  comes  to  them  under  scien- 
tific management.  Under  the  old  type  of  management  there  is  suspicious 
watchfulness,  and  a  guarding  of  their  own  interests  is  absolutely  necessary. 
They  look  .upon  their  employer  as  perhaps  a  pretty  good  fellow,  but  they 
say,  "You  have  got  to  watch  him;  he  is  human  and  likely  to  grab  for  more 
than  his  share."  But  under  scientific  management  this  suspicious  watchful- 
ness entirely  ceases,  and  workmen  come  to  look  upon  their  employers  as  gen- 
uinely the  best  friends  they  have  in  the  world.  That,  of  course,  sounds  like 
a  broad  statement  and  very  difficult  to  substantiate,  but  let  me  give  you  some 
proofs. 

In  the  30  years  in  which  scientific  management  has  been  introduced,  there 
lias  never  been  a  strike  of  men  working  under  scientific  management.  There 
have  been  a  few  strikes  of  men  who  were  coming  under  it,  but  there  has  never 
been  a  strike  after  the  new  system  has  been  introduced,  after  men  have  come 
to  work  under  the  principles  of  scientific  management.  While  they  were 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  773 

in  process  of  coming  in  there  have  been  a  few  strikes,  but  only  a  few,  and 
never  a  case  of  a  strike  where  men  were  working  under  scientific  manage- 
ment; and  you  can  not  have  a  strike.  Why  is  that  true?  Because  the  essence 
of  the  matter  is  friendship.  Scientific  management  can  not  exist  without 
friendship  being  its  characteristic.  There  is  no  possibility  of  it.  The  moment 
you  have  enmity  scientific  management  evaporates  into  the  air  and  there  is 
no  such  thing. 

What  is  scientific  management?  I  want  to  sweep  the  field  clear  first  by 
pointing  out  what  it  is  not.  First,  I  will  point  out  a  lot  of  things  which 
scientific  management  is  not,  because  I  find  there  is  a  very  great  misunderstand- 
ing as  to  what  it  is. 

Scientific  management  is  not  any  efficiency  device,  nor  is  it  any  group  of 
efficiency  devices.  It  is  no  part  of  the  mechanism,  nor  any  part  of  the  schemes 
which  are  ordinarily  looked  upon  as  scientific  management. 

Scientific  management  is  not  any  new  pay  system,  it  is  not  any  new  scheme 
for  paying  men.  It  is  not  a  piecework  system. 

Scientific  management  is  not  time  study.  It  is  not  functional  or  divided 
foremanship.  It  is  not  any  new  cost  system.  It  is  not  the  printing  and  un- 
loading of  a  ton  or  two  of  blanks  of  printed  matter,  aad  saying  "  There  is 
your  system ;  go  ahead  and  use  it."  It  is  none  of  those  things. 

I  am  not  sneering  at  a  new  pay  system,  or  at  a  bonus  system  or  a  piecework 
system.  They  are  useful.  Some  of  them  have  been  developed  under  scien- 
tific management,  as  some  of  the  elements  of  scientific  management.  But  they 
do  not  consist  of  scientific  management.  Your  whole  system  is  new.  Scien- 
tific management  can  not  exist,  and  does  not  exist,  until  there  has  been  a 
complete  and  entire  mental  revolution  on  the  part  of  the  workmen  as  to  their 
duties  toward  themselves  and  toward  their  employers,  and  an  equally  great 
mental  revolution  on  the  part  of  employers  toward  their  duties  to  their  work- 
men. Until  this  great  mental  change  takes  place  I  say  there  can  be  no 
such  thing  as  scientific  management.  That  is  an  absolute  necessity.  You  may 
have  all  the  mechanism,  all  the  forms  of  it,  you  may  have  your  bonus  system 
and  your  time  study,  but  you  have  not  got  scientific  management  until  that 
change  has  taken  place. 

Now,  I  want  to  point  out  just  one  illustration  of  this.  I  do  not  want  to 
leave  that  there,  because  this  general  talk  is  so  cheap — any  one  can  do  it. 
I  do  not  want  to  leave  you  without  some  illustration  of  what  I  mean  by  this 
mental  change  that  takes  place  on  both  sides.  Again  taking  the  illustration 
of  this  pen,  if  you  are  manufacturing  this  pen,  there  is  a  certain  amount  of 
material  that  goes  to  make  up  the  cost  of  that  pen,  and  then  added  to  the 
material  you  have  to  add  a  certain  percentage  of  overhead  expense,  what  is 
called  overhead  or  general  expense,  the  proper  share  of  taxes,  insurance,  de- 
preciation; and  salaries  of  the  officers  of  the  business,  the  superintendence,  and 
what  is  ordinarily  called  unproductive  labor.  All  those  items  of  the  indirect 
expenses  have  to  be  prorated  onto  that  pen. 

If  you  will  add  those  items  together,  the  cost  of  materials  plus  the  cost  of 
general  expenses,  that  makes  a  sum  of  money.  Subtract  that  from  the  sell- 
ing price  of  this  pen  and  you  have  what  is  called  the  surplus ;  and  as  you  all 
know,  it  is  over  the  division — mark  my  words — it  is  over  the  division  of  this 
surplus  that  all  the  labor  disputes  have  arisen  in  the  past.  The  eyes  of  em- 
ployer and  employee  alike  have  been  on  the  division  of  that  surplus.  The 
workman  naturally  wants  all  he  can  get  of  it  in  the  shape  of  additional 
wages  or  in  the  shape  of  shorter  hours,  or  in  the  shape  of  better  working  con- 
ditions. He  wants  all  he  can  get  out  of  the  surplus.  It  must  come  out  of  that. 
It  can  not  come  out  of  anything  else.  The  manufacturer  wants  what  he  looks 
on  as  a  fair  share  of  the  profits,  and  sometimes  a  darned  sight  more  than  his 
fair  share.  He  wants  all  he  can  get  out  of  the  surplus.  Both  sides  have  had 
their  eyes  on  the  division  of  the  surplus  as  the  most  important  element.  But 
the  moment  scientific  management  is  introduced,  the  great  change  which  comes 
under  it  is  this,  that  both  sides  realize  that  if  they  will  stop  pulling  apart, 
if  they  will  stop  thinking  about  the  division  of  the  surplus  and  stop  fighting 
and  pulling  in  opposite  directions,  and  both  push  hard,  shoulder  to  shoulder,  as 
friends,  cooperating  morning,  noon,  and  night  in  the  most  friendly,  brotherly 
manner,  it  is  possible  to  make  this  surplus  so  large  that  there  is  no  occasion 
for  quarreling  over  its  division,  absolutely  no  room  for  quarreling  over  the 
division.  By  this  cooperation,  by  this  change  from  the  attitude  of  antagonism 
to  the  attitude  of  friendliness,  it  is  possible  to  make  that  surplus  so  much  that 
there  is  no  chance  of  difference.  That  is  a  total  change  in  outlook  from  look- 


774          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

ing  at  the  division,  to  looking  to  the  enlargement  of  the  surplus  as  the  great 
thing.  That  is  one  of  the  great  mental  changes  that  takes  place  on  both  sides. 
I  want  to  emphasize  that. 

Now  I  will  try  to  get  on  and  tell  you  what  scientific  management  is. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  I  am  very  slow  in  getting  at  these  matters.  Now  I  come  to  the 
essence  of  scientific  management.  I  think  I  can  make  it  clearer  to  you  what  the 
essence  of  scientific  management  is  by  first  turning  to  what  I  believe  you  will 
all  recognize  to  be  the  best  of  the  older  types  of  industry,  the  best  of  the  older 
types  of  management.  I  want  to  leave  out  all  the  subordinate  types.  I  want 
to  make  it  so  that  I  think  every  one  of  you  will  say,  "  Yes ;  that  is  the  best  of 
the  older  types  of  management." 

If  you  have  an  establishment,  say,  with  five  hundred  or  a  thousand  men  in  it, 
you  will  have  10  or  15  different  parts  at  least.  Now,  the  men.  in  those  parts 
have  learned  all  that  they  know  through  tradition. 

It  has  been  handed  down  to  them  from  man  to  man.  There  has  hardly  been 
a  book  written  on  industry  that  is  worth  reading,  to  speak  or.  I  served  two 
apprenticeships  in  my  day,  and  all  of  my  reading  was  confined  to  Joshua 
Rose's  book  on  machine-shop  practice.  I  think  I  read  it  through  in  two  hours 
and  a  half.  That  was  the  only  one  available  to  the  machinists  in  that  trade, 
almost.  Now  hundreds  of  them  are  put  out,  but  still  I  do  not  find  the  ma- 
chinists or  the  apprentices  reading  very  much.  I  have  a  boy  who  thinks  he  is 
going  to  be  a  doctor.  I  insisted  that  he  should  leave  college  at  the  end  of  his 
freshman  year  and  work  as  a  machinist,  because  I  think  that  no  matter  what 
a  young  man  is  going  to  be  he  has  got  to  get  down  to  hard  work  early  in  life  if 
he  is  going  to  amount  to  anything,  or  if  he  wants  to  have  the  best  chance  to 
get  down  to  anything.  So  I  insisted  that  the  boy  should  get  up  at  5  o'clock  in 
the  morning,  cook  his  own  breakfast,  and  work  as  a  workman  at  a  good  hard 
task  under  scientific  management.  He  had  no  chance  to  loaf ;  he  was  not  over- 
driven ;  I  never  was  afraid  of  that  in  the  least,  nor  was  he,  but  he  realized  that 
he  was  up  against  a  good  hard  day's  work  all  of  that  year.  I  made  him  a 
present  of  a  lot  of  books  when  he  went  into  the  industry,  thinking  that  I 
would  let  him  learn  something  about  the  theory  of  machine-shop  practice.  I 
bought  him  the  nicest  books  I  could  get  for  him.  He  never  opened  them.  At 
least,  I  never  found  any  evidence  of  that.  I  never  bothered  the  poor  boy.  I 
thought  that  getting  up  at  5  o'clock  in  the  morning  and  getting  his  work  out 
was  enough.  I  never  bothered  him.  I  do  not  believe  he  read  any  one  of  them, 
and  as  far  as  I  know,  none  of  them  ever  were  read. 

What  I  want  to  emphasize  is  that  our  trades  are  learned  just  as  they 
were  in  the  Middle  Ages.  That  is  true  of  workingmen,  and  I  have  no  doubt 
the  same  term  is  used  now  as  was  used  when  I  was  a  boy — you  pick  up  a  trade. 
You  do  not  learn  it.  We  always  used  to  say,  "  I  am  picking  up  a  trade,"  and 
you  do  it;  you  literally  pick  up  your  trade.  You  look  at  this  fellow  and  that 
fellow  to  see  what  they  are  doing.  It  lies  with  yourself;  it  does  not  lie  with 
some  one  else  to  teach  you  a  trade  any  more  than  it  did  50  years  ago.  I  am  riot 
belittling  this  knowledge  that  comes  from  a  trade.  It  is  the  greatest  asset 
that  a  workman  has — a  trade.  But  the  manufacturer,  the  boss,  the  superin- 
tendent who  knows  anything  about  the  business,  who  has  lived  with  his  work- 
men, who  understands  the  problem,  must  realize  that  his  first  object  ought  to 
be  to  get  the  true  initiative  of  his  workmen,  to  get  their  hard  work  and  good 
will.  A  boss  who  does  not  realize  that  amounts  to  nothing,  and  if  he  realizes 
that,  then  he  will  have  to  say  to  himself,  "  If  I  am  going  to  get  the  real 
friendship  of  my  men,  if  I  am  going  to  get  them  to  stop  soldiering  and  to  in- 
crease their  output,  I  have  got  to  pay  them  more  or  do  something  more  for 
them  than  my  competitors  are  doing  for  their  workmen  "  ;  and  if  a  man  is  large 
minded,  if  he  is  a  big  man,  he  deliberately  sets  out  to  do  something  better  for 
his  workmen  than  other  people  are  doing  for  theirs — paying  better  wages  and 
giving  them  shorter  hours. 

A  man  who  deliberately  sets  out  to  do  something  better  for  his  workmen  than 
other  people  are  doing  for  theirs,  will  get  the  benefit  of  it,  and  the  workmen  will 
grow  less  and  less  suspicious.  They  are  justly  and  properly  suspicious  of  any 
new  scheme,  or  any  old  trick  that  comes  along,  for  they  have  been  tricked  and 
tricked  and  tricked.  They  are  properly  suspicious  of  any  new  trick  that  comes 
along,  and  they  think  that  it  is  a  new  trick,  possibly  a  speeding  up  game  to  cut 
down  their  wages,  but  if  a  man  will  keep  at  that  policy,  in  every  case  the  work- 
men will  respond  and  give  him  his  money's  worth.  Why?  Because  they  are 
just  the  same  as  all  the  rest  of  mankind.  They  are  generous  if  you  will  treat 


EFFICIENCY  SYSTEMS  AND  LABOR,  775 

them  generously,  and  they  are  mean  if  you  will  treat  them  meanly.  They  will 
do  just  what  other  people  will  do  all  over  the  world.  I  want  to  make  a  com- 
parison between  scientific  management  and  the  old  type  of  management,  be- 
cause in  each  the  employer  deliberately  sets  out  to  give  his  workmen  better 
things  than  other  people  are  giving  to  their  workmen,  and  in  each  the  workman 
will  respond  by  giving  more  work,  more  ingenuity,  and  everything  else.  I  think 
you  will  recognize  that  as  the  best  of  the  older  types  of  industry. 

I  am  going  to  try  to  show  you  beyond  peradventure  that  there  is  no  possi- 
bility of  even  this  fine  type  of  management  competing  with  the  practice  of  scien- 
tific management ;  there  is  no  possibility  of  it.  The  practices  of  scientific  man- 
agement are  so  much  more  powerful  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  even  the 
finest  kind  of  management  competing  with  it. 

The  first  of  the  great  reasons  is  that  under  scientific  management  the  men 
give  their  initiative,  their  good  will,  their  hard  work  with  absolute  regularity. 
That,  however,  is  the  lesser  of  the  two  gains  that  comes  under  scientific  man- 
agement. The  great  gain  that  comes  under  scientific  management  consists  of  the 
new  and  absolutely  unheard  of  duties  and  burdens  which  are  voluntarily  as- 
sumed by  the  men  on  the  management  side,  new  things  that  the  management 
never  dreamed  of,  new  duties  and  obligations  in  the  performance  of  the  work 
that  the  management  has  to  take  over. 

It  is  these  great  duties  voluntarily  assumed  by  the  men  on  the  management 
side  that  makes  the  vast  improvement,  that  makes  scientific  management 
always  better,  inevitably  better  than  even  the  best  of  the  older  types  of  man- 
agement. These  new  duties  have  been  divided  into  four  large  groups,  and  these 
-groups  of  duties  have  been,  readily  arranged  under  the  present  scientific  man- 
agement, and  it  is  to  the  efficacy  and  the  power  of  these  different  principles  that 
I  wish  to  direct  your  attention,  and  in  which  I  wish  you  to  become  interested. 
It  will  not  take  very  long  from  now  on.  I  want  to  interest  you  in  the  four 
principles  and  to  show  you  their  great  power. 

The  first  of  the  great  duties  that  are  undertaken  in  scientific  management  that 
never  were  undertaken  before,  is  that  those  on  the  management  side  deliber- 
ately start  to  gather  in  this  great  mass  of  intuitive  knowledge,  of  rule  of  thumb 
knowledge,  that  has  been  in  the  minds,  in  the  heads  of  workmen,  and  to  tabulate 
it,  to  record  it  and  to  reduce  it  to  laws  and  rules,  and  in  many  cases  to  mathe- 
matically formulate  them  so  that  when  these  laws,  these  new  rules  that  never 
existed  in  the  past,  are  used  by  cooperation  in  the  management  of  men,  it  will 
prove  itself  of  inestimable  value.  Mark  you,  this  is  done  by  the  management, 
and  the  workmen  are  able  to  turn  out  without  any  more  exertion  an  enormous 
increase  of  output,  and  this  is  simply  through  the  gathering  in  of  this  great 
mass  of  rule  of  thumb  knowledge  and  systematizing  it  and  reducing  it  to  a 
science.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  development  of  a  science  out  of  this  old  rule 
of  thumb  knowledge,  and  it  is  from  that  element  that  scientific  management  has 
its  name — the  development  of  a  new  set  of  laws,  where  no  laws  existed,  in 
place  of  the  old  rule  of  thumb  knowledge  that  was  in  the  head  and  the  body 
of  the  workmen.  That  is  the  first  great  duty  voluntarily  taken  over  by  those  on 
the  management  side. 

The  second  is  the  scientific  selection,  and  then  the  progressive  development 
of  every  workman  in  the  establishment.  It  becomes  the  duty  of  those  on  the 
management  side  to  study  every  single  man  in  that  establishment  to  see  what 
his  possibilities  are,  to  see  his  limitations,  and  after  having  studied  that  man, 
to  deliberately  set  up  and  raise  him  to  a  higher  level  in  the  first  place — to  a 
higher  level  of  capacity  and  to  a  higher  level  of  training  and  education,  and 
then  to  higher  wages  than  he  had  before.  It  is  the  study  of  every  man  and 
the  making  of  every  man.  In  the  past  we  all  know  that  with  all  well-managed 
companies  they  studied  their  machines.  But  under  scientific  management  it 
becomes  far  more  important  to  study,  not  a  few  men,  but  all  men.  Every  man 
has  to  become  a  matter  of  personal  solicitude,  with  the  determination  that  you 
are  going  to  raise  that  man  higher  in  the  scale  than  he  has  ever  been  before ; 
that  you  are  going  to  give  him  higher  wages  than  he  ever  had  before;  that 
you  are  going  to  treat  him  as  a  friend.  That  is  the  second  great  duty. 

The  third  is,  and  I  wish  you  to  mark  it,  the  bringing  of  the  science  and  this 
trained  man  together,  for  they  will  not  come  together  voluntarily.  You  may 
train  your  man  and  develop  your  science,  but  unless  there  is  some  power  to 
bring  those  two  together  the  workman  will  go  ahead  as  before,  because  none 
of  us  want  to  change  in  our  ways  and  do  something  new,  unless  there  is  some- 
thing to  bring  us  together. 


776          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

That  word  "  bring "  lias  a  disagreeable  sound.  The  greatest  incentive  to 
bring  these  together  is  this,  that  you  show  the  man  that  if  he  does  the  new 
v\ay  in  the  first  place  he  will  get  from  33  to  100  per  cent  higher  wages.  That 
is  a  powerful  influence  to  "  bring."  Every  time  he  carries  out  the  new  set  of 
laws,  he  increases  his  output  and  his  wages  from  33  to  100  per  cent.  There  is 
no  uncertainty  as  to  whether  .he  does  or  does  not  carry  them  out.  He  has 
automatically  increased  his  wage  from  30  to  100  per  cent.  That  is  a  powerful 
"  bring."  But,  in  addition  to  that,  there  is  something  more.  There  is  the 
spirit  of  friendliness  and  cooperation ;  the  spirit  of,  if  you  do  your  share  I 
will  do  my  share,  which  is  the  greatest  element  of  all  scientific  management 
and  cooperation  and  that  produces  the  bringing.  The  word  "bring"  has  a 
powerful  sound,  but  it  is  necessary  to  "  bring."  Mankind  is  so  fixed  that  unless 
somebody  does  the  bringing  they  will  not  come.  We  are  all  fixed  that  way.  Go 
and  look  into  any  enterprise  and  you  will  find  that  there  has  got  to  be  a  limit, 
there  has  got  to  be  a  go,  there  has  got  to  be  something  fixed  or  you  will  not 
rise  to  it ;  but  I  can  soften  the  word  "  bring  "  by  saying  that  nine-tenths  of 
our  trouble  comes  from  the  management  side,  and  only  one-tenth  comes  from 
the  workmen.  To  make  the  new  men  do  their  work  our  trouble  is  mostly  with 
the  management  and  none  of  it,  practically,  is  with  the  workmen.  We  never 
have  any  trouble  with  the  workmen,  but  we  have  infinite  trouble  in  teaching 
the  management  to  do  their  new  duties. 

They  start  with  the  mental  attitude,  "  Oh,  yes ;  I  would  like  this  new  thing ; 
it  is  a  new  scheme  for  making  men  do  more  work  " ;  but  when  it  is  pointed  out 
that  the  greater  part  of  this  thing  rests  with  them ;  that  they  have  to  do  new 
things;  that  makes  a  difference.  Oh  no,  they  say,  and  our  trouble  comes  in 
making  them  to  do  what  they  ought  to  do — that  is,  their  share  of  cooperation. 

The  force  of  the  principles  of  scientific  management  lies  in  an  almost  equal 
division  of  the  work  on  both  sides,  between  the  workmen  and  the  management. 
The  work  which  was  all  done  in  the  past  by  the  workmen  is  divided  into  two 
great  parts,  and  one  of  those  parts  is  deliberately  taken  over  by  the  manage- 
ment, so  that  there  is  actual  cooperation  in  the  bringing  out  of  the  work.  For 
instance,  in  an  elaborate  machine  shop  doing  miscellaneous  work — I  am  not 
talking  about  repeat  shops — in  a  shop  where  they  do  miscellaneous  work,  there 
will  be  one  man  on  the  management  side  and  a  number  of  machinists.  That 
slice  of  work  is  deliberately  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the  machinists  and  handed 
over  to  the  management.  When  you  have  this  great  actual  division  of  the  work, 
when  you  have  every  act  performed  by  every  workman  in  the  shop  preceded  by 
an  act  of  some  one  on  the  part  of  the  management,  when  no  man  can  do  his 
work  right  unless  some  man  on  the  part  of  the  management  has  performed 
his  first,  where  there  is  an  interchange  of  work  all  day  long,  you  can  not  have 
war.  You  are  cooperating  for  the  same  thing,  so  that  with  the  object  of  having 
the  workman  earn  more  wages  and  the  management  larger  profits,  the  only 
hope  of  that  is  to  outstrip  your  competitors,  and  in  order  to  do  that  both  parties 
have  to  work  interchangeably  with  an  absolute  cooperation,  with  an  absolute 
interchange  of  work.  You  can  not  fight  with  the  man  who  is  working  right 
alongside  of  you,  who  is  working  for  the  same  object.  WThen  you  and  he  are 
working  for  the  same  object,  you  work  together  for  that  end  or  you  quit.  You 
can  not  go  on  working  side  by  side  for  the  same  thing  and  be  enemies.  You 
must  be  friends.  So,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  commission,  that  is 
the  great  reason  of  all  why  under  this  equal  division,  perhaps  more  than  any 
other  feature,  there  has  never  been  a  strike  under  scientific  management. 
What  is  there  to  strike  against,  when  you  are  all  cooperating  for  the  same  end? 
There  are  no  two  objects. 

I  want .  to  repeat  these  four  great  principles  of  scientific  management, 
briefly:  First,  the  development  of  science  to  replace  the  old  rule  of  thumb 
knowledge;  second,  the  scientific  study  of  every  workman  and  the  progressive 
development  of  that  workman  in  training  and  educating  him,  and  bringing 
him  to  a  better  class  of  work,  at  a  better  rate  of  wage;  third,  the  bringing 
of  the  science  and  the  trained  workman  together ;  and,  fourth,  this  almost  equal 
division  of  the  whole  work  of  the  establishment  between  both  sides.  That  is, 
the  actual  work  is  divided  into  two  tasks,  and  one  of  them  is  taken  by  the 
workman  and  the  other  by  the  management. 

I  am  going  to  try  to  convince  you  of  the  power  of  these  four  principles,  with 
several  illustrations,  and  I  hope  during  these  illustrations  you  will  see  only 
these  principles,  and  not  that  you  will  see  something  else  that  is  interesting. 
I  hope  that  you  will  see  that  the  improvement  brought  about  has  been  due 
to  these  principles,  and  not  due  to  something  else.  I  want  to  show  you  the 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  777 

power  of  these  principles.  That  is  the  reason  I  am  going  to  give  you  the  illus- 
trations. Ordinarily,  illustrations  of  this  kind  begin  with  pig-iron  handling, 
and  most  people  think  that  is  the  beginning  and  end  of  scientific  management, 
whereas,  pig-iron  handling  has  become  almost  a  lost  art.  The  moment  I  came 
to  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Works  and  saw  men  handling  pig  in  the  old- 
fashioned  way,  we  started  to  get  up  machinery,  and  before  I  left  there  it  was 
all  handled  by  machinery.  I  have  taken  the  illustration  of  handling  pig  iron 
simply  because  it  is  the  most  rudimentary  form  of  labor  known  to  mankind. 
Think  of  anything  else  that  is  as  rudimentary.  In  the  first  place  a  pig  uni- 
formaliy  runs  about  92  pounds,  and  varies  only  a  few  pounds  one  way  or  the 
other.  In  the  second  place,  the  man  who  handles  that  pig  handles  it  without 
any  implements  but  his  hands.  Is  there  anything  more  rudimentary  in  labor 
than  picking  up  a  piece  of  uniform  weight  with  your  hands,  carrying  it  off  a 
few  feet  and  dropping  it?  But  I  am  not  going  to  give  that  illustration,  be- 
cause it  takes  almost  half  an  hour.  If  I  had  the  time  I  could  show  you  beyond 
peradventure  that  the  science  of  handling  pig  iron  is  so  great  that  the  man 
who  is  fit  to  handle  pig  iron  can  not  possibly  understand  the  science.  That  is 
true  of  almost  all  industry.  The  higher  up  in  any  industry,  the  more  true  it 
is  that  the  man  who  is  fit  to  do  the  science  can  not  possibly  understand  it. 

I  am  going  to  show  you  a  little  later  that  the  man  who  is  fit  to  do  machine- 
shop  work  can  not  possibly  understand  the  science  of  it,  it  is  so  great.  That 
is  true  of  pig-iron  handling,  and  that  is  the  reason  I  take  that  illustration,  to 
show  the  effect  and  power  of  the  science.  I  can  not  take  the  pig  iron  handling 
illustration  this  morning,  but  I  will  take  the  next  thing  which  is  close  to  it, 
and  that  is  shoveling.  I  dare  say  that  you  people  will  think  that  there  is  not 
much  science  in  shoveling,  but  I  want  to  show  you  that  there  is,  and  how 
powerful  that  is,  and  its  effect  on  the  workman.  If  any  of  you  gentlemen 
or  ladies  had  the  development  of  the  science  of  shoveling  to  work  out,  you 
would  probably  sit  down  right  now  and  use  your  imagination.  You  would  not 
have  to  go  outside  and  watch  men  shoveling.  Within  two  days  you  would 
have  mapped  out  enough  work  for  yourself  to  last  three  or  four  months,  and 
that  in  developing  the  science  of  shoveling.  There  is  so  much  to  it.  When  I 
first  came  to  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Works  I  went  to  the  old  office  there,  and 
looked  out  of  the  window.  Nearby  there  was  a  lot  of  cars  loaded  with  rice 
coal,  and  there  were  four  or  five  men  shoveling  that  rice  coal.  After  these  men 
had  unloaded  the  rice  coal  they  walked  to  another  part  of  the  yard  where  there 
was  a  pile  of  ore  from  Mesaba,  and  with  the  same  shovel  they  shoveled  that 
ore.  In  shoveling  the  rice  coal  they  took  a  load  of  three  and  three-quarters 
pounds  on  their  shovel.  When  they  were  shoveling  the  ore  they  took  a  load 
of  38  pounds.  It  does  not  take  very  much  science,  or  very  much  of  anything, 
except  the  plainest  horse  sense,  to  see  that  if  three  and  three-quarters  pounds 
is  the  right  load  for  that  shovel,  38  pounds  is  the  wrong  load.  That  is  common 
sense. 

There  is  no  science  about  that.  Science  comes  in  when  you  deliberately  set 
out  to  know  what  is  the  right  shovel  load.  I  want  to  show  you  gentlemen 
this  new  change  in  the  mental  attitude.  The  old  way  of  finding  out  the 
proper  shovel  load  is  to  sit  down  and  write  to  half  a  dozen  contractors  and 
say,  What  is  the  proper  load  for  my  men  to  take  on  a  shovel?  You  get  an 
opinion  from  those  men,  and  you  write  it  down,  and  then  you  say  that  is  the 
law.  That  is  the  usual  way.  However,  there  is  another  way  that  is  even  more 
common  yet.  You  say  to  yourself,  "Why,  I  have  a  good  foreman,  Pat,  who 
has  been  shoveling  for  me  here  for  a  long  time.  He  is  the  best  of  shovelers 
for  the  last  10  years  and  I  will  call  him  in  and  ask  him  about  the  proposition." 
So  you  call  in  Pat  and  you  say,  "  Pat,  what  load  ought  your  men  to  have  on 
a  shovel  ?  "  I  will  tell  you  that  my  Irish  friends  are  resourceful,  and  they 
are  never  at  a  loss  for  an  answer.  Pat  will  tell  you  right  off,  about  12£ 
pounds.  He  is  not  going  to  be  stumped  with  a  question  like  that  whether  he 
knows  about  it  or  not.  Then  that  becomes  the  law,  and  that  is  the  way  the  law 
is  gotten  under  the  old  management — 12£  pounds.  That  is  quite  the  uniform 
way  of  getting  at  it.  I  want  now  to  show  you  the  new.  You  never  write  to 
anyone,  you  say  that  is  up  to  us  and  that  we  have  to  know  what  the  proper 
load  is.  What  we  did  long  before  we  struck  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Works  is  this : 
We  sent  for  two  good  shovelers,  big,  powerful  fellows;  well  suited  for  their 
work.  Mark  my  words,  we  never  take  a  human  instrument  that  is  badly  suited 
for  its  work  any  more  than  we  would  take  a  bad  machine.  We  take  a  proper 
human  animal,  just  as  we  would  take  a  proper  horse  to  study.  If  you  wanted 
to  study  the  hauling  of  coal,  you  would  not  take  a  pony  and  study  him,  but 


778          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

you  would  take  a  dray  horse,  and  in  the  same  way  you  would  take  a  man  who 
is  suited  to  shoveling.  Now,  we  say  to  Mike  and  Jim,  "  I  want  you  to  do  a 
whole  lot  of  fool  things.  This  is  no  joke.  We  are  going  to  pay  you  double 
wages  while  this  is  going  on,  and  all  we  ask  of  you  is  to  do  what  that  young 
fellow  is  going  to  ask  you  to  do,  what  is  perfectly  right.  He  is  going  to  say,  I 
want  you  fellows  to  work  so  that  when  you  go  home  at  night  you  will  go  home 
properly  tired,  not  tired  out,  but  properly  tired,  for  you  men  know  how  a  man 
ought  to  be  at  the  end  of  a  proper  day's  work — not  exhausted,  but  so  that 
you  could  go  right  straight  through  this  thing  for  years." 

Let  me  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  under  no  condition  or  circumstance  is  it 
the  policy  of  anyone  connected  with  scientific  management  to  overwork  or 
hurry  anyone.  The  word  "  hurry "  is  unknown  in  scientific  management. 
You  never  can  do  decent  work  when  anyone  is  hurrying.  On  the  other  hand 
you  insist  that  you  shall  have  the  right  implements,  that  the  right  men  shall 
be  chosen  for  their  work,  that  ultimately  in  the  selection  of  men  you  will  get 
the  right  man  doing  the  right  work,  and  you  will  insist  that  the  man  who  is 
shoveling  shall  go  home  properly  and  reasonably  tired,  but  not  exhausted. 
We  told  these  men  what  they  were  to  do,  and  we  said,  "This  is  no  joke,  and 
if  this  young  fellow  catches  you  soldiering,  you  go  out  and  never  come  in  again. 
You  need  not  do  it  unless  you  want  to  do  it.  We  are  simply  asking  you  to  do 
a  proper  day's  work,  but  if  you  soldier  or  try  to  shirk,  if  you  take  it  for  a 
joke,  this  young  fellow  will  be  onto  you,  and  you  will  go  out  and  never  come 
back  again.  Those  men  undertook  to  do  that,  and  they  were  absolutely  square, 
and  I  have  always  found  my  workmen  friends  as  straight  and  fair  as  other 
men.  What  we  did  then  was  to  start  them  up  against  a  big  shovel  load  first. 
We  started  with  a  large  shovel  load,  and  we  took  the  number  of  shovels  they 
used  during  the  day.  Many  hundred  other  records  were  taken.  These  two 
fellows  were  put  in  different  parts  of  the  work,  with  different  watchers.  At 
the  end  of  the  day,  after  weighing  the  shovel  loads,  we  found  that  they  took 
38-pound  shovel  loads.  We  then  found  that  they  did  a  certain  amount  of 
tonnage  during  the  day.  We  then  cut  the  shovel  off  so  that  they  would  handle 
a  load  of  34  pounds,  and  immediately  the  tonnage  work  for  the  day  went  up. 
We  again  cut  the  shovel  load  off  to  30  pounds  and  again  the  tonnage  went  up. 
Then  it  was  cut  off  to  26  pounds  and  it  again  went  up,  and  at  21  pounds,  or 
at  21£  pounds,  they  did  their  biggest  day's  work.  When  we  cut  it  off  below 
that,  the  tonnage  for  the  day  went  down.  There  is  the  scientific  fact  that  a 
shoveler  properly  suited  to  his  work  will  do  his  biggest  day's  work  with  a 
shovel  load  of  21  pounds.  Let  us  see  how  fur-reaching  that  fact  was.  That 
is  one  of  the  many  elements  of  shoveling.  There  are  many  parts  of  it,  and  that 
is  one  of  them. 

Let  us  see  how  far-reaching  that  was.  The  workers  in  the  yard  of  the 
Bethlehem  Steel  Works  all  owned  their  own  shovels.  We  had  to  take  those 
shovels  away  from  them,  and  build  a  big  shovel  tool  room,  and  buy  8  or  10 
or  12  different  kinds  of  shoveling  implements,  and  equip  this  large  tool  room 
with  an  immense  range  of  shoveling  implements,  so  that  for  each  kind  of  work 
the  men  would  have  the  proper  kind  of  shoveling  implements.  If  he  were  to 
shovel  rice  coal,  he  would  have  an  immense  scoop  which  would  take  about  21 
pounds.  When  he  was  to  shovel  Mesaba  ore  he  would  have  a  different  kind  of 
shovel.  They  went  further  than  that.  There  were  from  400  to  600  shovelers 
in  that  yard.  In  order  to  do  our  duty  toward  them,  they  had  to  study  every 
man,  every  shoveler.  Prior  to  that  time  they  were  handled  in  big  gangs,  by 
one  or  two  foremen.  We  had  to  begin  to  study  every  single  workman  in  the 
400  to  600.  We  had  to  give  them  in  advance  specific  directions  about  their 
work.  We  had  to  work  out  a  plan  for  them.  We  built  a  labor  office.  It 
meant  the  laying  out  of  this  yard,  two  and  one-half  miles  long  and  half  a  mile 
wide,  in  a  big  diagram,  and  arranging  a  specific  job  or  place  for  each  man, 
sending  this  shoveler  to  this  place,  and  the  other  shoveler  to  the  other  place. 
It  involved  supplying  each  man  with  a  new  kind  of  shovel,  with  one  kind  to 
shovel  ore,  another  kind  for  sand,  still  another  for  coke  or  coal  or  whatever 
it  was  each  man  was  to  shovel.  It  required  one  kind  of  a  shovel  for  soft 
coal,  another  kind  of  a  shovel  for  hard  coal — an  entirely  new  shoveling  imple- 
ment. It  meant  that  in  order  to  do  justice  to  each  of  these  men  we  had  to 
inform  them  the  next  morning,  when  they  came  on  to  work,  whether  they  had 
properly  made  good  the  day  before  or  not,  because  we  insisted  that  no  one 
should  work  with  us  who  could  not  earn  60  per  cent  higher  wages  than  were 
paid  in  that  part  of  the  country. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOE.  779 

The  first  tiling  I  did  when  I  came  there  was  to  learn  that  the  ruling  wage 
was  $1  a  day,  or,  I  believe,  $1.05,  an  inconceivably  low  wage.  I  horrified  the 
Bethlehem  Steel  Co.  by  saying  "  We  are  going  to  pay  $1.15  right  off  to  our 
labor."  They  thought  that  was  wild.  I  said  "  Not  at  all.  We  are  going  to 
pay  $1.15.  We  are  not  going  to  pay  the  lowest  wage,  but  we  are  going  to  pay 
the  highest  price  in  this  part  of  the  country."  I  said  that  every  man  on 
this  work  must  earn  60  per  cent  more  than  $1.15  before  we  were  through 
with  them.  I  said  we  would  have  the  men  trained  so  they  could  earn  60  per 
cent  higher  wages  than  they  were  then  earning.  It  is  not  just  to  a  man 
to  keep  him  working  three  days  and  then  tell  him  "  You  have  not  made  good." 
Every  morning,  when  these  fellows  come  in,  they  reach  their  hand  into  a  little 
pocket — most  of  them  could  not  read  and  write,  but  they  could  find  their  way 
to  their  pocket — and  pick  out  two  pieces  of  paper.  One  of  those  directed  them 
to  the  tool  room,  told  them  what  implement  to  get,  and  the  part  of  the  yard 
in  which  they  were  to  work,  or  start  their  first  day's  work.  The  second  slip 
of  paper  was  either  a  yellow  slip  or  a  white  slip.  If  it  was  a  yellow  slip,  they 
knew  they  had  fallen  dowTn  yesterday,  that  they  had  not  earned  60  per  cent 
higher  wages  than  the  average.  They  knew  they  had  not  earned  60  per  cent 
higher  wages,  and  that  something  was  wrong.  They  had  a  chance  to  look  back 
over  yesterday's  work  and  see  what  was  wrong,  to  say  "  What  did  I  do  that 
was  wrong?"  If  they  could  read  and  write,  they  would  see  where  they  had 
fallen  down.  Most  of  them  could  read  and  write.  Those  who  could  not  read  and 
write  were  supplied  with  that  information. 

When  a  man  got  three  or  four  yellow  slips,  this  would  happen:  I  want  to 
point  out  this  in  the  mental  attitude  of  the  men  under  their  new  duties  under 
scientific  management.  When  a  man  had  three  or  four  yellow  slips  under 
this  method,  under  this  new  system,  instead  of  feeling  anxious  and  stirred 
up  and  unhappy,  and  saying  "  Oh,  hell,  something  is  going  to  happen,"  as  they 
used  to  under  the  old  system,  they  said,  "  I  have  gone  wrong  somew^here." 
Under  the  old  system  every  man  knew  what  would  happen  if  he  had  three 
or  four  yellow  slips.  The  foreman — and  I  am  not  complaining  of  the  foreman, 
because  it  is  what  I  would  have  done  if  I  had  been  that  foreman — would  have 
said  "  Here,  Pat,  you  have  four  or  five  yellow  slips ;  you  are  no  good ;  get  out 
of  here.  You  are  not  a  high-priced  man;  get  out  of  here."  That  is  the  old 
way. 

The  new  way  I  want  to  point  out.  When  it  was  learned  that  so-and-so  had 
three  or  four  yellow  slips,  one  of  the  teachers  was  then  told  "  So-and-so  has 
fallen  down  for  four  days ;  go  down  and  see  what  is  the  matter."  If  possible, 
the  man  who  originally  taught  him  was  sent  to  him;  the  man  who  originally 
taught  him  to  shovel  was  sent  down.  Along  would  come  his  teacher — not  the 
old  fellow  with  glasses  on,  or  with  a  college  degree,  but  a  star  performer  with 
a  shovel.  Not  only  that,  but  a  man  who  had  sense  enough  not  only  to  shovel 
right  myself,  but  to  show  other  people  how  to  shovel  right.  That  man  would 
go  down  to  him  and  say  "  Mike,  you  have  three  or  four  yellow  ships.  What 
is  the  matter?  Have  you  been  drunk?  Are  you  sick?  If  you  are  sick,  or 
anything  is  the  matter  with  you,  we  will  give  you  a  chance  somewhere  else 
while  you  are  getting  better."  "No;  I  am  all  right."  "If  you  are  not  sick 
and  have  not  been  drunk,  and  if  there  is  nothing  wrong  with  you,  you  have 
forgotten  how  to  shovel.  I  taught  you  how  to  shovel.  Come  on,  I  want  to 
show  you  how  to  shovel."  He  would  simply  stand  there  and  watch  him. 

There  are  many,  many  ways  in  which  to  get  along  with  a  shovel ;  many,  many 
ways  in  which  a  man  can  get  along  shoveling.  You  may  smile  at  ,such  a  thing 
as  that,  but  shoveling  is  quite  an  art.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  knack  in 
knowing  how  to  shovel  right,  in  the  throwing  of  your  shovel  to  keep  your 
load  together,  as  you  have  seen  if  you  have  watched  a  real  good  shoveler.  You 
will  see  that  he  will  load  his  shovel  in  one  way  and  throw  it  in  one  way,  whereas 
he  would  have  to  be  another  kind  of  a  shoveler  if  he  were  shoveling  fuel  into 
a  boiler.  If  you  are  shoveling  coal  into  a  boiler — and  I  presume  some  of  you 
gentlemen  have  done  it;  I  have  done  it — you  have  to  handle  your  shovel  in 
a  certain  way.  But  in  shoveling  any  other  substance,  it  is  a  totally  different 
thing.  In  shoveling  coal  into  a  boiler  you  must  have  a  little  shovel  and 
know  how  to  spread  over  the  grate.  With  hard-coal  firing  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  do  that.  The  art  of  shoveling  is  a  great  one,  and  there  are  many 
parts  to  it.  I  am  only  throwing  out  one  or  two  of  them. 

Every  one  knows,  that  knows  anything  about  shoveling,  that  if  you  are  going 
to  shovel  right  you  must  shovel,  if  possible,  from  an  iron  bottom,  and  if  not 


780          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

from  an  iron  bottom,  then  from  a  wooden  bottom,  and  if  you  do  not  have  a 
wooden  bottom,  then  a  hard  dirt  bottom.  There  is  less  trouble  then  than 
when  you  have  to  go  right  into  the  top  of  the  pile.  When  you  go  into  the  top 
of  the  pile  a  great  part  of  the  exertion  is  put  forth  and  a  great  part  of  the 
energy  is  lost  in  getting  your  shovel  into  the  pile.  That  is  the  difficulty — 
getting  it  in.  When  you  study  the  art  of  shoveling  it  is  a  different  matter. 
Every  workman  is  taught  to  take  a  shovel  into  his  right  hand  and  push  into 
the  pile — to  first  get  the  right  shaped  shovel,  and  that  comes  from  the  tool  room. 
He  must  have  a  sharp-end  shovel.  Hold  your  right  arm  down  on  your  hip, 
and  when  you  shove  into  it,  push  forward  with  your  body  like  that  [indicating], 
and  throw  the  weight  of  your  body  on  it.  There  is  no  arm  exertion  in  that. 
That  is  the  whole  question,  simply  throwing  the  weight  of  your  body  forward. 
Time  and  again  we  would  find  these  workmen  who  had  been  told  how  to  do 
this,  and  then  found  their  yellow  slips,  had  forgotten  that  and  had  gone  back 
to  shoveling  with  their  arms.  That  is  impossible ;  the  exertion  is  much  greater. 
It  takes  two  or  three  times  as  much  exertion  to  shovel  in  that  way.  That  one 
little  correction  would  sometimes  bring  a  man  back. 

It  is  things  of  that  sort  that  affect  their  mental  attitude.  If  that  man  fell 
down,  it  was  probably  from  the  fact  that  he  was  not  taught  right.  We  have 
not  been  with  him  long  enough  in  the  first  place.  But  that  man  would  stay 
right  alongside  of  him,  perhaps  a  day,  watching  him  all  day  long,  and  when- 
ever he  slipped  up  in  any  of  the  elements  of  shoveling — and  there  are  a  good 
many  of  them — wrhen  he  showed  he  had  forgotten  how  to  have  that  little  jerk 
at  the  end  wrhen  he  wranted  to  keep  the  load  together,  he  would  show  him 
how  it  was  done,  how  to  do  it,  until  he  learned  just  how  to  do  it. 

I  am  not  talking  to  you  people  about  shoveling  because  you  are  particularly 
interested  in  shoveling,  but  I  want  you  to  see  what  I  mean  by  this  development 
of  the  art  of  shoveling  first,  and  then  our  duty  toward  the  men.  It  is  our  duty 
to  train  and  develop  and  raise  every  man  up  to  a  higher  level.  It  is  our 
business  to  be  honest  to  that  man  and  to  teach  him,  not  to  "  nigger  drive  " 
him,  not  to  go  for  him  and  call  him  names  and  "  holler  "  at  him.  That  is  no 
part  of  scientific  management  whatever. 

The  question  must  come  into  your  minds,  Does  all  this  thing  pay?  Does  it  pay 
to  teach  your  workmen  all  this?  Can  you  make  your  dollars  and  cents  meet 
with  all  this?  If  we  have  to  build  a  new  labor  office,  if  we  have  to  build 
a  new  shovel  tool  room,  if  we  have  to  put  in  a  telephone  system,  if  wre  have 
to  put  in  a  messenger  system,  if  we  have  to  have  clerks  wTork  all  night,  does  it 
pay?  Yes;  I  say  it  does.  We  are  individualizing  every  man.  It  is  our  duty 
to  measure  each  single  man's  work  and  help  each  man  if  we  can.  This  corps 
of  study  men  and  clerks  and  teachers  means  money.  If  it  does  not  pay,  there 
is  nothing  in  scientific  management.  Mark  my  words.  It  is  not  entirely  a 
philanthropic  scheme.  It  must  pay  both  sides;  it  must  pay  the  workingman 
and  it  must  pay  the  employers  and  pay  them  wTell,  or  there  is  nothing  in  scien- 
tific management ;  at  the  end  of  three  and  one-half  years  we  were  able  to  know 
whether  it  paid.  In  the  last  six  months  practically  every  man  in  that  yard  was 
on  task  work,  whereas  when  we  came  there  there  was  no  man  worked  that 
way.  They  fortunately  had  records  there  of  what  it  costs.  They  handled  sev- 
eral million  tons  a  year  in  that  yard.  It  costs  between  7  and  8  cents  a  ton, 
and  that  is  low.  In  railroad  work  the  average  price  is  between  9  and  10  cents. 
A  figure  between  7  and  8  cents  is  a  lew  figure.  When  you  add  all  this  over- 
head cost  and  all  this  teaching  and  the  salaries  of  all  these  officers,  when 
you  pay  your  men  60  per  cent  higher  wages — and  every  one  of  them  was  paid 
60  per  cent  higher  wages  than  they  could  get  around  that  country  anywhere — • 
the  cost  of  handling  a  ton  was  reduced  from  between  7  and  8  cents  to  be- 
tween 3  and  4  cents,  and  the  actual  saving  to  that  works  in  dollars  and  cents 
during  the  last  six  months  was  an  average  of  between  $75,000  and  $80,000 
per  year.  There  is  your  justification,  the  workmen  earning  80  per  cent  higher 
wages  on  the  one  hand.  We  had  every  man  examined  very  carefully.  There 
were  140  working  then.  When  wre  started  there  were  between  400  and  600. 
A  great  many  people  say,  "Yes;  they  were  driven  out  of  the  works  to  jump 
in  the  river  and  drown  themselves."  If  you  will  ask  me  later  I  will  tell  you 
what  became  of  them,  what  became  of  that  difference  between  the  400  to  600 
and  the  140.  This  is  generally  the  thing  prominent  in  people's  minds,  so  I 
am  anticipating  just  a  little.  If  you  are  interested  enough,  I  will  tell  you  later 
what  became  of  those  men. 

When  those  fellows  were  happy,  contented,  receiving  higher  wages  than 
they  have  ever  supposed,  not  a  man  overworked,  only  2  of  them  said  to  be 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  781 

drinking  men  out  of  the  140 — I  mean  to  say,  heavy  drinkers — that  justifies 
both  sides — increased  profits  on  the  one  side  and  increased  pay  on  the  other 
side.  That  justifies  the  corporation  and  the  men. 

I  want  to  give  just  one  more  illustration.  I  want  to  jump  into  a  higher 
field,  and  that  is  machine-shop  work,  and  I  want  to  say  to  you  again  what 
I  started  to  say,  that  the  science  of  doing  work  is  always  so  great  that  it 
is  impossible  for  the  workman  who  is  fit  to  work  under  it  to  understand  that 
science.  I  will  try  to  make  good  in  that  statement.  It  is  impossible  for  the 
workingman  to  understand,  the  science  is  so.  great. 

My  friend,  Mr.  Barth,  went  to  a  large  company  who  wanted  to  change  over 
from  the  old  system: — the  old-fashioned  way  of  work  to  the  new.  They  had 
piecework  in  that  plant,  and  wanted  to  change  to  the  new  way.  This  com- 
pany employs  between  3,000  and  4,000  men ;  I  think  more  than  that  now.  The 
department*  in  which  Mr.  Barth  was  going  to  do  his  work  was  manufacturing 
a  little  machine  about  that  square  and  that  big  [indicating].  That  is  re- 
peated work,  repeated  over  and  over  again.  It  is  a  patented  machine.  There 
were  300  or  400  men  in  the  department  that  had  been  making  that  same 
machine  for  some  12  years.  Naturally  they  had  become  very  skilled  in  their 
work. 

Mr.  Barth,  I  think,  horrified  the  owner  of  the  business  by  telling  him  in 
advance  that  he  would  be  able  to  get  twice  as  much  work  out  of  that  de- 
partment as  they  had  been  doing.  Naturally,  the  gentleman  became  rather  per- 
turbed about  that,  and,  after  some  little  sparring,  Mr.  Barth  suggested  that 
a  test  should  be  made  of  the  machine  to  see  whether  this  could  be  done.  A 
very  fair  machine  was  selected  by  the  gentleman,  and  then  a  record  was 
kept  of  how  long  it  took  to  do  work  on  that  machine.  It  was  written  down 
by  all  of  the  parties.  It  wras  agreed  to.  Then,  Mr.  Barth  put  in,  not  the  same 
articles,  but  articles  which  were  typical,  and  showed  the  workmen  how  to  do 
that  work,  and  made  his  test.  I  want  to  show  you  what  he  did  first. 

These  employers  made  this  test  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  the  machine. 
It  is  our  business,  when  we  go  into  a  shop,  to  study  not  only  the  men,  but  also 
to  study  the  machine,  and  study  them  in  a  manner  in  which  they  have  never 
been  studied  before.  We  are  not  doing  our  duty  to  the  workmen  unless  we 
get  them  the  very  finest  implements — unless  we  study  these  machines  and 
know  all  about  them.  The  only  wray  you  can  study  a  machine  in  the  machine 
shop  is  by  means  of  these  slide  rules.  This  rule  [indicating]  will  solve  any 
belting  problem,  however  intricate,  and  will  solve  it  in  a  few  seconds.  Some 
of  the  machines  are  run  by  belt  and  motor  in  a  machine  shop.  This  will  solve 
any  belt  problem  in  a  few  seconds.  The  other  one  [indicating]  will  solve  a 
gear  trouble  in  a  few  seconds,  and  they  are  quite  difficult,  some  of  them,  more 
or  less  difficult  of  solution.  But  this  slide  will  solve  any  gear  trouble  in  less 
than  no  time.  This  one  [indicating]  will  tell  you  the  exact  pressure  which 
a  given  shift  will  have  on  the  tool  you  are  cutting  with.  It  will  give  the  depth 
of  the  cut  and  the  feed — whatever  the  nature  of  the  metal  you  are  working 
with.  This  will  tell  him  how  many  thousands  of  pressure  will  act  on  that 
tool.  The  fourth  one  will  tell  you  the  proper  cutting  speed  at  which  to  run 
that  tool  so  as  to  have  your  tool  edge  wear  out  at  the  end  of  half  an  hour, 
an  hour,  or  whatever  time  you  desire.  By  the  use  of  this  method  it  was  possi- 
ble for  Mr.  Barth  to  write  a  prescription  for  the  respeeding  of  those  machines. 

Gentlemen,  I  want  to  state  a  fact  which  is  realized  by  very  few  people — 
machines  are  not  only  badly  speeded,  but  they  are  outrageously  speeded. 
They  are  speeded  so  badly  it  is  inconceivable.  They  are  200  to  300  per  cent 
above  what  they  should  be.  You  may  think  that  is  a  very  broad  assertion  and 
a  very  great  piece  of  exaggeration. 

I  was  asked  to  speak  before  the  Tool  Builders'  Association,  the  people  who 
make  these  machines,  in  their  convention  at  Atlantic  City.  They  were  all 
there — the  owners  of  our  large  machine  shops  and  their  .engineers.  I  said 
to  them  what  I  am  saying  to  yon.  I  said :  Now,  gentlemen,  in  your  own  shops, 
your  own  machines  are  speeded  200,  300,  or  400  per  cent  wrong,  and  you  know 
it  if  you  know  anything.  They  were  speeded  years  ago  by  some  one's  guess. 
They  have  never  been  speeded  by  science.  Some  of  your  modern  machines  are 
right ;  but  the  great  bulk  of  them  are  all  speeded  wrong."  I  threw  down  that 
challenge  to  them.  Not  one  of  them  took  up  the  challenge.  I  said :  "  If  any 
of  you  would  like  to  take  up  this  challenge,  I  will  show  you  that  your  ma- 
chines are  speeded  wrong."  I  do  not  want  you  to  understand  that  I  am  ex- 
aggerating, because  that  is  a  fact.  Mr.  Barth  found  that  the  machine  which 
he  examined  was  speeded  all  wrong,  and  he  wrote  a  prescription  for  it — just 


782          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

how  it  ought  to  be  speeded.  What  I  am  trying  to  do  is  to  show  you  how 
it  is  that  a  man  equipped  in  the  art  of  cutting  metals  is  able  not  only  to  more 
than  compete,  but  is  able  to  do  two,  three,  or  four  times  the  work  that  it 
is  possible  for  the  finest  mechanic  in  the  world  to  do  who  does  not  know  that 
science.  There  was  a  machinist  who  had  been  working  for  years  on  this  same 
basis,  on  the  same  lathe,  but  what  could  that  poor  fellow  do  when  his  lathe 
was  speeded  wrong?  His  lathe  was  speeded  200  or  300  per  cent  wrong.  What 
chance  had  he?  He  had  no  chance  at  all. 

But  I  will  show  you  how  much  chance  lie  had — even  if  it  had  been  speeded 
right.  I  will  show  you  that  pretty  soon.  At  the  end  of  a  week  Mr.  Barth 
came  back  with  a  slide  rule  like  this  one  which  I  have  here.  He  went  home 
and  made  an  instrument  like  that,  which  is  used  for  running  all  the  machines 
in  our  machine  shop.  Every  machine  in  the  shop  lias  an  instrument  like  that 
to  run  it  with.  This  instrument  embodies  the  laws  of  cutting  metals.  By 
the  use  of  this  instrument  Mr.  Barth  was  able  to  show  that  same  man  how 
to  do  his  work  so  that  his  smallest  gain  was  two  and  one-half  times  as  much, 
jmd,  I  think,  his  largest  gain  was  about  nine  times  as  much.  By  this  instru- 
ment he  was  able  to  accomplish  that  much.  It  is  not  Mr.  Earth's  skill.  The 
results  of  years  and  years  of  experimenting  are  embodied  in  this.  I  want  to 
show  you  why  that  is.  I  w-ant  to  make  it  clear  why  this  science  amounts  to 
so  much,  and  what  it  is. 

I  came  to  the  Midvale  Steel  Works  as  a  laborer  and  then  got  to  be  a  clerk, 
and  then  I  was  in  the  tool  room,  and  then  finally  got  to  be  gang  boss  of  the 
machines  and  then  foreman  in  the  shop.  When  I  got  to  be  gang  boss  of  the 
machines  I  knew  the  wiiole  game.  The  owners  of  that  business  thought  they 
were  running  the  business.  The  owners  of  that  shop  thought  they  were  running 
that  shop.  It  was  a  piecework  shop.  It  had  been  running  a  night  gang  and  a 
day  gang.  The  owners  thought  they  were  running  it.  We  knew  they  were  not. 
We  had  the  work  carefully  laid  out  so  we  were  doing  about  a  third  of  a  day's 
work.  Every  young  man  who  came  in  there  was  told,  "  Here,  don't  do  more 
than  two  or  three  pieces  before  noon.  We  will  tell  you  the  game  at  noon." 
When  I  became  a  gang  boss  they  all  came  to  me  and  said,  "  Fred,  you  are  not 
going  to  be  a  piecework  hog,  are  you?"  I  said,  "I  am  going  to  get  more  work 
from  these  lathes.  I  have  been  straight  with  you  fellowrs,  and  now  I  am  on  the 
other  side  of  the  fence,  I  am  going  to  get  more  work  out  of  the  machines." 
They  said,  "Then  take  it  from  us,  we  will  have  you  over  that  fence  inside  of 
three  weeks.  That  means  war.  We  will  wipe  you  out."  I  said,  "All  right; 
very  good." 

That  started  a  fight,  and  a  despicable  fight.  Any  man  who  has  undertaken  to 
drive  a  lot  of  men  to  do  something  against  their  interest — to  force  them  to  do 
things  they  do  not  want  to  do — is  up  against  a  mighty  mean  proposition,  let 
me  tell  you,  and  no  man,  I  do  not  care  who  he  is,  can  welcome  such  a  thing 
as  that  if  he  has  any  sort  of  decency  or  any  sort  of  feeling  about  it.  There  is 
nothing  in  life  that  is  much  meaner  to  do.  I  had  three  years  of  the  haidest, 
meanest,  most  contemptible  work  of  any  man's  life  to  do  in  trying  to  drive  my 
friends  to  do  a  decent  day's  work.  They  believed  it  was  not  for  their  interest 
to  do  it.  They  were  determined  not  to  do  it.  I  had  the  backing  of  the  company 
in  a  remarkable  manner,  or  I  could  not  have  gotten  anywhere.  But  I  had  the 
thorough  backing  of  the  company,  so  at  the  end  of  three  years  I  succeeded  in 
winning  out,  and  have  doubled  the  output  of  the  shop ;  but  I  can  tell  you  I  was 
not  proud  of  it.  No  man  can  be  proud  of  such  a  performance  as  that.  He  can 
only  feel  the  disgustingness  of  it.  At  the  end  of  that  time  I  was  determined  to 
quit  that  business  and  go  into  something  else,  or  find  some  remedy  for  that  state 
of  things.  It  is  a  horrible  state  of  things  where  every  man  is  against  you  and 
you  are  against  every  man.  If  any  man  has  ever  been  through  it  he  knows  how 
mean  and  contemptible  it  is. 

When  I  got  to  be  foreman  of  the  shop  and  had  finally  won  out  and  we  had  an 
agreement  among  the  men  that  there  would  be  so  much  work  done — not  a  full 
day's  work,  but  a  pretty  good  day's  work— we  all  came  to  an  understanding 
and  had  no  further  fighting.  Then  I  tried  to  analyze  it,  and  I  said,  "  What  has 
been  the  matter  with  all  this  thing?  "  I  said,  "  The  main  trouble  with  this  thing 
is  that  you  have  been  quarreling  because  there  have  been  no  proper  standards 
for  a  day's  work.  You  do  not  know  what  a  proper  day's  work  is.  Those  fellows 
know  10  times  more  than  you  do,  but,  personally,  we  do  not  know  anything 
about  what  a  day's  work  is.  We  make  a  bluff  at  it  and  the  other  side  makes  a 
guess  at  it  and  then  we  fight.  The  great  thing  is  that  we  do  not  know  what  is 
a  proper  day's  work,"  I  went  to  Mr.  William  Sellers,  the  president  of  the  com- 


EFFICIENCY  SYSTEMS  AND  LABOR.  783 

pany,  and  said :  "  I  want  to  spend  some  money — a  good  deal  of  money — in  try- 
ing to  educate  the  foremen  of  our  shop  and  the  superintendents  of  our  steel 
works  in  what  a  man  ought  to  do  for  a  day's  work — what  is  fair,  just,  and  right 
for  a  man  to  do."  He  said  that  thing  had  been  tried  a  good  many  times,  but 
there  was  nothing  in  it;  that  I  could  not  work  it  out.  Finally  he  gave  in  and 
allowed  us  to  spend  money,  chiefly  because  we  had  been  successful  in  his  fight. 
He  appreciated  that  it  had  been  a  stiff  fight,  and  out  of  personal  regard  he 
allowed  us  to  start. 

The  first  thing  we  wanted  to  do  was  to  settle  the  question  which  every 
mechanic  and  machinist  had  supposed  was  the  essence  of  the  whole  matter, 
and  that  was,  what  was  the  proper  angle  for  tools,  what  was  the  proper  clearance 
angle,  what  was  the  proper  side  slope,  and  what  was  the  proper  back  slope. 
Our  machinists  all  thought  if  we  could  get  the  right  cutting  angles,  those  three 
angles,  they  could  do  a  great  deal  faster  work  than  they  ever  did  before.  So 
we  started  to  find  out,  and  it  was  an  extraordinary  thing  that  we  were  the 
only  shop  in  Philadelphia  that  could  have  found  that  out.  We  happened  to 
have  a  great  big  pile  of  uniform  metal  to  work  on.  We  had  2,000  tons  of 
locomotive  tires — plenty  of  them  in  the  scrap  heap.  That  was  metal  of  a  uni- 
form type.  So  we  had  plenty  of  splendid  metal  to  work  on,  and  we  had  the 
only  machine  in  Philadelphia  on  which  we  could  make  those  experiments.  So 
we  started  men  to  work  right  along  and  varied  the  cutting  angles,  and  kept 
a  record  of  what  we  did.  For  six  months  those  experiments  went  on,  and  at 
the  end  of  that  time  we  had  arrived  at  the  extraordinary  fact  that  it  did  not 
make  much,  if  any,  difference  what  those  cutting  angles  were  as  far  as  speed 
went.  We  got  only  negative  results.  I  told  Mr.  Sellers  that  and  he  laughed 
at  me,  and  said,  "  That  shows  the  whole  thing.  There  is  a  lot  of  money  blown 
into  the  fire."  I  said,  "  That  is  all  right,  Mr.  Sellers,  but  let  me  show  you  that 
we  have  uncovered  a  gold  mine  of  information.  We  have  got  to  the  top  of  a 
gold  mine,  and  I  want  to  show  you  what  it  is."  When  I  was  able  to  show  Mr. 
Sellers  the  information  we  had  already  got,  and  that  we  were  on  the  track 
of  getting,  which  would  enable  our  men  to  do  faster  and  better  work,  he  said, 
"  Go  right  ahead  and  spend  the  money.  I  don't  care."  They  started  then  to 
spend  money  on  these  experiments,  which  went  on  throughout  practically  the 
whole  time  I  was  at  the  Midvale  Steel  Works.  Men  were  all  cutting  up  chips 
to  try  to  find  the  art  of  cutting  metals.  Then,  when  I  left  there  our  methods 
of  financing  these  experiments  were  at  an  end.  We  could  not  go  on  there. 
Then,  the  only  way  we  could  carry  on  the  experiments  was  to  swap  the  infor- 
mation we  had  with  anyone  who  wras  able  to  furnish  the  materials  and  the 
men  to  conduct  these  investigations.  By  the  means  which  I  have  stated,  we 
have  developed  the  art  of  cutting  metal.  For  nearly  26  years,  almost  without 
cessation,  men  were  engaged  in  developing  the  science  or  art  of  cutting  metals. 
That  seems  preposterous  and  ridiculous,  to  think  of  that  length  of  time,  but 
when  you  see  the  magnitude  of  the  problem,  even  those  of  you  who  are  not 
experimenters  will  realize  the  difficulty  and  almost  the  impossibility  of  suc- 
cessfully conducting  an  experiment  in  which  there  are  12  variable  elements. 
In  the  art  of  cutting  metals  there  are  12  variable  elements,  11  of  which  have  to 
be  kept  constant  while  the  twelfth  is  varied;  and. the  difficulty  in  holding  them 
constant  is  next  to  impossible. 

What  do  I  mean  by  that?  You  must  get  uniform  metal.  You  must  have 
about  20,000  pounds  of  metal  in  order  to  make  a  single  experiment.  That 
metal  must  be  absolutely  uniform  in  quality  throughout  its  20,000  pounds.  To 
get  a  mass  of  metal  weighing  20,000  pounds  that  is  uniform  is  next  to  impos- 
sible. The  way  we  solved  it  was  by  using  the  same  method  that  is  used  in 
gun  forgings,  by  using  the  finest  steel  that  could  be  had,  hydraulic  forging, 
or  forging  under  a  heavy  hammer,  oil  tempering  it,  annealing  it,  getting  out 
test  bars  until  we  had  refined  the  grain  until  it  had  been  so  refined  that  it 
was  uniform  all  the  way  through.  Then  we  were  able  to  eliminate  one  of  the 
great  difficulties,  and  one  of  the  variables  became  practically  constant.  We 
had  20,000  pounds  of  uniform  metal.  It  would  very  often  take  six  months  to 
make  the  forgings  in  advance,  ready  to  continue  these  experiments.  I  point 
that  out  merely  to  show  how  it  was  that  anyone  could  take  26  years  in  carrying 
on  a  series  of  experiments.  During  those  26  years,  to  show  you  "the  magnitude  of 
the  work,  we  spent  about  $200,000  in  wages  and  material.  "About  800,000  pounds 
of  metal  were  cut  up  into  small  chips  while  we  were  studying  the  conditions 
and  laws.  The  number  of  recorded  experiments  alone,  those  that  were  written 
down,  amounted  to  some  50,000,  and  the  unrecorded  experiments  amounted 
to  many  more. 


784          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

You  may  think  I  am  showing  this  to  show  that  Mr.  Barth  and  Mr.  Gantt  and 
a  lot  of  our  friends  are  remarkable  men.  Nothing  of  the  kind.  I  am  saying 
this  to  give  you  gentlemen  a  bird's-eye  view  of  what  is  going  to  take  place  in 
every  industry  and  in  every  element  of  every  industry,  something  similar  to 
this  that  is  going  to  take  place  as  sure  as  fate.  The  information  that  in  the 
past  has  been  in  the  heads  of  workmen  is  coming  out  of  the  heads  of  workmen, 
to  be  reduced  to  law,  to  be  reduced  to  science,  and  then,  through  the  coopera- 
tion of  both  sides,  is  going  to  enable  the  workmen  and  the  company  when  they 
join  hands  to  turn  out  an  enormously  increased  output.  And  from  that  in- 
creased output  is  coming  vast  good  both  to  the  workmen  and  to  the  whole 
world.  That  is  what  I  am  pointing  out. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  one  other  element.  During  18  years,  or  a  part 
of  18  years,  we  had  mathematicians  employed  in  solving  the  mathematical  prob- 
lems that  came  up.  Every  one  of  these  la\vs  had  to  be  reduced  to  a  mathe- 
matical formula.  Then  we  found  ourselves  with  12  mathematical  formulae  to 
use  in  solving  an  ordinary  machinery-shop  problem.  I  dare  say  some  of  you 
gentlemen  do  not  know  what  a  machine-shop  problem  is.  It  is  a  thing  which 
every  workman  has  to  settle  when  he  puts  a  piece  of  work  into  a  lathe,  to 
know  what  speed  to  use,  and  what  feed  to  use.  The  workman  has  to  settle 
those  things  every  time  he  puts  something  into  his  lathe.  He  has  to  settle 
every  time,  "  What  feed  shall  I  use  and  what  speed  shall  I  use."  And  in 
answering  those  two  questions  you  need  this  great  mass  of  mathematical  laws, 
12  great  mathematical  formulae. 

Think  of  it.  After  we  develop  these  12  formulas,  a  man  with  the  facility  of 
the  average  mathematician  could  solve  the  problem  by  hand,  writing  it  all  out, 
in  from  4  to  6  hours.  Think  of  the  absurdity  of  taking  4  to  6  hours  to  solve  a 
mathematical  problem  to  tell  a  workman  how  to  run  a  cut  that  does  not  last 
over  15  minutes.  The  average  cut  does  not  last  over  that  length  of  time.  To 
tell  a  mathematician  to  spend  4  to  6  hours  to  tell  a  workman  how  to  run  a 
cut  that  takes  15  minutes  seems  preposterous  and  a  farce.  For  a  long  time  it 
looked  that  way.  Now,  there  are  hundreds  of  these  mathematical  sciences 
being  developed,  and  anyone  who  has  had  any  experience  in  developing  any- 
thing of  this  sort  will  realize  that  what  at  first  seems  an  absolute  blank  wall 
of  impossibility  becomes  entirely  possible  and  easy  before  you  are  through. 
That  18  years  of  mathematical  work  is  an  illustration  of  the  amount  of  labor 
which  was  involved  in  this  problem,  until  finally  it  has  resulted  in  this  work 
which  Mr.  Barth  has  done.  I  think  we  will  all  agree  that  Mr.  Barth  is  far 
and  away  the  best  mathematician  who  was  ever  on  this  work.  I  do  not  want 
to  detract  at  all  from  Mr.  Gantt,  who  is  much  better  than  I  was  or  could  be: 
but  I  think  Mr.  Gantt  will  also  give  the  palm  to  Mr.  Barth.  However,  the 
problem  was  very  nearly  solved — you  may  say  the  great  bulk  of  the  problem 
was  well  on  toward  solution — when  Mr.  Barth  took  it.  Seven  different  mathe- 
maticians have  worked  on  this  problem  one  after  another,  Mr.  Gantt  and  Mr. 
Barth  having  done  the  finest  work  of  the  seven,  beyond  any  doubt. 

Through  their  work  this  slide  rule  was  made,  which  in  the  hands  of  the 
ordinary  workman,  who  knows  nothing  about  mathematics,  enables  him  to 
solve  that  problem  with  12  unknown  quantities  in  it  in  about  20  seconds.  This 
is  the  first  case  in  mathematics  in  which^it  has  ever  been  possible  to  solve  a 
problem  with  12  unknown  quantities  and  do  it  with  any  degree  of  rapidity. 
In  proof  of  that  I  will  say  that  as  this  thing  went  on  I  went  time  and  again 
and  applied  to  mathematicians  in  different  parts  of  this  country  for  a  solution. 
Whenever  I  heard  of  a  mathematician  in  a  university  I  said,  "  I  will  pay  you 
any  price  if  you  will  give  us  a  quicker  solution  for  this  problem."  Most  of 
them  sneered  at  me  and  said :  "  My  dear  boy,  you  can  solve  a  problem  if  you 
have  an  equation  with  three  unknown  quantities.  You  can  solve  it  if  you  have 
four  unknown  quantities,  rarely  five,  and  never  six ;  and  this  is  an  indeter- 
minate problem,  and  you  can  not  solve  it  by  any  known  means  except  trial  and 
error."  That  was  the  answer  we  got  from  all  the  great  mathematicians.  What 
I  want  to  emphasize  is  that  here  are  very  ordinary  men,  Mr.  Barth  excepted. 
The  rest  of  us  are  very  ordinary  mathematicians,  and  yet  by  simple  digging 
and  hard  work  and  keeping  at  it,  giving  time  to  it  and  putting  money  into  it, 
we  were  able  to  solve  what  the  world  recognizes  as  a  very  difficult  mathematical 
problem.  What  I  want  to  emphasize  is  that  no  one  should  ever  be  discouraged 
in  the  development  and  application  of  science  on  account  of  the  difficulties 
which  he  meets  at  the  start.  You  should  never  admit  the  impossibility  of 
doing  a  thing  simply  because  it  looks  to  be  impossible. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  785 

Now,  gentlemen,  a  slide  rule  of  this  type  is  made  for  every  machine  in  the 
machine  shop,  and  it  represents  a  new  code  of  laws,  just  as  important  as  the 
laws  of  the  United  States.  It  is  the  first  time  that  laws  have  come  into  indus- 
try to  supersede  opinions.  This  slide  rule  represents  the  laws  of  cutting  metals. 
No  one's  opinion  amounts  to  anything  when  it  is  backed  up  against  this  code 
of  laws.  This  code  of  laws  is  just  as  much  above  every  man  on  the  manage- 
ment side  as  it  is  above  every  workman.  No  man  on  the  management  side 
can  any  more  go  against  that  code  of  laws  than  any  workman  can  go  against 
it  and  violate  it.  It  is  the  essence  of  scientific  management. 

There  is  another  code  of  laws.  There  is  a  machine-shop  time  study,  the  most 
of  which  was  done  by  my  friend,  Mr.  Merrick,  whom  I  see  here.  Mr.  Merrick 
is  responsible,  more  than  any  other  man  on  earth  for  10  or  12  years  of  de- 
velopment of  the  code  of  laws  governing  the  actions  of  workmen  in  a  machine 
shop.  This  code  of  laws  is  completely  over  and  completely  controls  the  actions 
of  every  man  on  the  management  side  just  as  much  as  it  is  over  the  actions 
and  controls  the  actions  of  every  man  on  the  workmen's  side.  And  I  want  to 
call  your  attention  to  this  fact,  that  for  the  first  time  in  the  machine-shop 
industry  some  one's  opinions  count  for  nothing.  The  opinions  of  workmen 
count  for  nothing ;  the  opinions  of  foremen  count  for  nothing.  These  laws  con- 
trol both  sides.  You  may  say,  and  it  has  often  been  said  to  me,  "  Yes ;  but  all  of 
these  laws  have  been  developed  by  the  management.  The  workmen  have  had 
no  part  in  it."  It  is  an  extraordinary  fact  that  knows  of  no  set  of  laws  ex- 
cept these  in  which  the  wrorkmen  have  had  one-half  of  the  share.  The  work- 
men have  done  all  the  work  in  developing  that,  in  running  the  machines,  and 
curiously  enough  they  have  had  one-half  of  the  work  of  developing  it,  and  the 
other  man  is  a  man  trained  from  a  workman,  a  trained  observer  to  study  the 
laws,  to  write  them  down,  to  record  them,  and  to  make  them  useful.  It  is  a 
curious  thing,  but  I  know  of  no  science  that  has  ever  been  developed  in  which 
the  workmen  have  had  so  large  a  part  as  in  this  science. 

Let  me  now  call  your  attention  to  this  fact,  which  is  the  most  important 
fact  connected  with  it,  that  the  interests  of  both  sides  in  these  laws  are  abso- 
lutely identical.  There  can  not  be  the  slightest  opposition  of  interest  in  this 
thing.  Under  the  principles  of  scientific  management  our  only  hope  of  con- 
tinually paying  from  33  to  100  per  cent  higher  wages  than  the  other  people  are 
paying  is  that  we  shall  get  a  reasonable  maximum  output  from  every  man  in 
the  place.  That  reasonable  maximum  of  output  must  be  something  which  shall 
never  hurt  anyone,  even  after  50  years  of  employment ;  which  shall  never  over- 
work anyone ;  never  hurry  anyone.  Unless  we  get  that  reasonable  maximum  it  is 
impossible  to  pay  from  33  to  100  per  cent  higher  wages  than  your  competitors 
pay.  So  the  object  of  both  sides  is  exactly  the  same.  There  is  no  conflict  of 
object  in  it.  It  is  just  as  important  for  the  management  to  get  these  laws  right 
as  it  is  for  the  men.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  tyrannizing ;  no  such  thing  as 
asking  too  much,  because  these  laws  have  to  be  tried  out  daily  with  the  work- 
men of  the  establishment.  They  prove  themselves  false  or  they  prove  them- 
selves right  every  day.  Many  of  these  laws  were  worked  out  and  developed 
in  the  Link  Belt  Co.,  of  Philadelphia.  This  particular  code  of  laws  is  tried  out 
every  day  by  the  workmen  of  the  Link  Belt  Co.  They  work  under  these  laws 
and  that  slide  rule  every  day,  all  day  long;  and  the  proof  that  they  are  right 
is  this:  That  98  per  cent  of  the  men  make  good  in  tiieir  tasks  every  day.  If 
these  laws  were  wrong,  98  per  cent  of  the  men  could  not  make  good  under  them. 
They  must  be  just  as  far  as  the  workmen  is  concerned.  They  can  not  be 
wrong  to  the  workmen,  because  98  per  cent  of  the  men  make  good  under  these 
laws,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  investigate  and  find  out  why  the  other  2  per  cent 
fail  to  make  good. 

Now,  one  of  three  things  could  happen,  and  it  has  happened  every  time. 
Either  we  find  that  something  is  wrong  about  this  code  of  laws — that  is  one 
alternative — or  second,  some  man  on  the  managing  side  has  had  the  code  of 
laws  wrong ;  has  made  an  error. 

Third,  it  may  be  that  we  have  not  properly  trained  the  workman,  that  he 
is  not  up  to  his  work,  or  has  slipped  up  for  some  reason.  We  find  that  the 
mistakes  are  about  even  between  the  management  and  the  men.  The  manage- 
ment makes  mistakes  and  the  men  make  mistakes,  and  I  want  to  emphasize 
this,  that  when  a  mistake  is  made,  all  that  it  is  necessary  to  do  is  for  any 
workman  to  say,  "  This  is  a  mistake.  This  code  of  laws  is  wrong.  I  have 
failed  to  do  my  proper  task."  It  is  not  a  question  of  nigger  driving,  and  saying, 
"  I  know  these  things.  You  have  got  to  do  these  things."  Why,  no.  You  say, 

38819°— 16 50 


786          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

"  Something  is  wrong.  An  investigation  has  got  to  be  made,  there  is  no  doubt 
about  it.  Let  it  be  made."  There  is  no  doubt  about  what  the  orders  are. 
There  is  no  doubt  about  whether  these  laws  have  been  or  have  not  been  justly 
applied.  Every  workman  gets  a  time-table  like  that  [indicating]  every  day, 
and  every  time  he  does  a  thing,  he  has  this  table. to  tell  him  how  many  minutes 
he  has  got  to  do  this,  that,  and  the  other  thing  in,  under  the  code  of  laws,  so 
that  whenever  a  thing  goes  wrong,  the  workman  says,  "  Here,  you  ask  me  to  do 
this  piece  of  work  in  12  minutes.  I  can  not  do  it  in  12  minutes." 

Then  an  investigation  has  to  be  made.  Either  our  slide  rule  is  wrong,  or 
the  workman  is  wrong.  An  investigation  is  made  of  which  the  workman  is  a 
part.  He  is  part  of  that  investigation.  It  is  not  made  outside.  That  workman 
is  every  time  satisfied  either  that  it  is  wrong  or  that  it  is  right,  and  if  it  is  wrong, 
that  code  of  laws  is  altered.  Of  course  it  was  wrong.  Of  course  at  the  start 
any  number  of  these  observations  were  wrong,  and  they  soon  thrashed  those  out 
in  actual  practice,  because  they  have  a  meeting  of  both  sides,  because  both  sides 
want  to  have  them  right.  It  is  not  for  the  interest  of  one  side  to  have  them 
right  and  the  other  side  to  have  them  wrong.  Their  interests  are  absolutely 
identical  in  that  matter.  There  is  no  effort  ever  made  to  hurry  a  man,  no  effort 
ever  made  to  nigger-drive  anyone ;  it  is  by  common  consent ;  that  is  what  we  are 
after.  A  proper  day's  work,  a  perfectly  reasonable  day's  work  is  wrhat  we  want, 
and  these  laws  are  entirely  open  and  aboveboard.  No  foreman  can  do  what  he 
ought  not  to  do  with  those  laws  without  it  being  found  out.  He  has  got  to  find 
out. 

The  record  shows  that  the  code  of  laws  is  right  in  most  cases,  but  the  men 
are  just  as  anxious  to  have  it  spread  and  increased,  and  to  have  the  correct 
result  reached,  as  the  management  is.  I  remember  when  the  Link  Belt  Co. 
reported  45  per  cent  of  their  men  who  were  able  to  be  given  a  task,  they  said, 
"  We  will  never  get  beyond  that.  That  is  our  limit."  That  is  a  tremendously 
miscellaneous  company.  They  said,  "  We  will  never  get  beyond  45  per  cent." 
I  said,  "  Oh,  wait  a  few  years."  When  they  got  up  to  75  per  cent  they  said 
the  same  thing.  We  are  now  at  80  per  cent  of  the  men  on  the  high  bonus  under 
those  time-tables.  Why  is  it? 

Let  me  tell  you,  gentlemen,  that  the  difficulty  is  on  the  management's  side.  It 
is  not  with  the  workmen.  We  never  have  any  trouble  with  the  workmen. 

The  great  difficulty  is  in  training  the  men  on  the  management  side,  getting 
our  men  trained  so  we  can  use  these  laws,  getting  them  to  understand  how  to 
develop  these  laws.  That  takes  time  and  patience  on  the  part  of  the  men; 
that  takes  time  and  patience  on  the  part  of  the  management.  It  takes  time  and 
patience  all  the  way  round.  It  takes  a  firm  belief  in  the  fact  that  justice  is 
being  done  or  aimed  to  be  done  to  people.  While  these  men  are  being  trained, 
of  course  things  go  wrong.  These  men  are  all  fallible.  But  all  the  men  came 
up  from  workmen.  There  is  hardly  a  man  on  the  management  side  that  was  not 
at  one  time  a  workingman.  They  are  human,  and  they  are  apt  to  make  mis- 
takes. When  it  becomes  for  the  interest  of  all  to  have  these  laws  right  and 
have  them  applied  right,  you  will  have  a  new  condition  in  industry. 

Gentlemen,  I  want  to  emphasize  of  all  things  the  immense  new  power  that  has 
come  into  industry  through  a  code  of  laws  that  never  existed  before.  That  code 
of  laws  is  above  both  management  and  men,  just  as  much  above  the  one  as  the 
other,  just  as  much  as  the  law  of  the  United  States  is  above  both  the  officers 
of  the  Government  and  the  people ;  just  as  much  the  one  as  the  other.  Under 
scientific  management  they  are  all  subjects  of  the  law  instead  of  subjects  of 
the  union.  For  instance,  let  us  have  an  illustration  of  what  I  mean  by  that : 

There  used  to  be  a  rule  in  industry,  very  largely,  that  men  started  to  work 
at  sunrise.  Under  the  old  regime,  before  there  was  any  almanac,  it  might  be 
a  matter  of  opinion,  we  will  say.  Suppose  we  are  going  to  start  a  company 
to-morrow  morning.  It  might  be  a  matter  of  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  fore- 
man and  the  owner  of  the  business,  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  workmen  on 
the  other  hand,  as  to  when  the  sun  would  rise.  The  foreman  and  the  owner 
might  say,  "  The  sun  rises  at  5.30."  But  the  workingmen,  on  the  other  hand, 
would  exclaim,  "  Oh,  no ;  no  such  thing ;  the  sun  does  not  rise  until  6.30."  Un- 
der the  old  regime  that  would  be  a  subject  for  collective  bargaining.  They 
could  get  together  and  bargain  and  thrash  the  thing  out  and  say,  "  We  will 
agree  the  sun  does  rise  at  6  o'clock,  and  we  will  start  to-morrow  morning  at 
G  o'clock."  The  moment  you  have  an  almanac  there  is  no  collective  bargaining. 
It  is  a  fact  when  the  sun  will  rise. 

But  those  subjects  which  are  subjects  for  collective  bargaining— and  I  ad- 
vocate it,  and  I  strongly  advocate  it — I  believe  in  unions;  they  are  doing  fine 


EFFICIENCY  SYSTEMS  AND  LABOR.  787 

work — but  where  these  things  which  formerly  were  the  main  subjects  of  col- 
lective bargaining  have  ceased  to  be  subjects  for  collective  bargaining  we  have 
the  facts  before  us.  They  are  true  or  false,  and  if  they  are  false  they  must  be 
found  out  by  experts,  by  men  fit  to  do  it  wherever  the  case  may  arise,  no 
matter  what  part  of  the  world  or  where  the  case  is  from — the  expert  who  is 
best  able  to  discover  and  present  these  facts.  You  would  not  think  of  collective 
bargaining  in  the  matter  of  whether  there  was  an  eclipse  of  the  moon.  You 
would  in  that  case  go  to  an  astronomer.  Many  of  these  things  are  not  subjects 
of  collective  bargaining;  they  are  facts.  They  are  true  or  they  are  false,  and 
it  is  to  the  interest  of  both  sides  to  get  at  the  truth.  Can  anything  in  this 
world  live  in  falsehood,  anything  worth  while  in  this  world?  It  is  inconceiv- 
able. It  can  not  ever  be  for  the  interests  of  any  set  of  men  to  live  in  falsehood. 

I  would  like  to  show  you,  if  you  wrill  allow  me,  a  solution  of  a  problem  by 
this  slide  rule.  I  want  to  show  how  utterly  impossible  it  was  for  the  poor 
fellow  to  carry  all  these  things  in  his  mind.  I  will  solve  a  problem  for  you,  if 
you  will  allow  me. 

There  is  a  book  [indicating]  which  contains  the  annual  addresses  of  the 
president  of  the  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers.  Some  years  ago  I  was  sur- 
prised, just  as  much  as  would  be  any  of  you  gentlemen  here,  to  be  told  I  was 
nominated  to  be  president  of  the  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers,  and  for  about 
three  months,  while  the  nomination  was  on,  before  the  election,  my  chest  got 
larger  and  larger,  and  I  had  to  have  somebody  back  of  me  to  hold  up  my  head 
to  keep  me  from  falling  over  backward.  Four  days  after  the  election  I  was 
given  a  dinner.  My  head  and  chest  suddenly  contracted  when  I  was  told  I 
had  been  elected  because  the  society  needed  reorganizing,  and  it  was  believed 
I  was  the  man  to  do  it.  I  had  a  big  year's  duty  ahead  of  me. 

One  duty  as  president  of  the  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers  is  to  write  an 
address  at  the  end  of  the  term,  and,  not  being  able  to  write  an  ordinary  ad- 
dress, I  decided  to  write  up  this  series  of  experiments  in  the  art  of  cutting 
metal.  There  is  one  series  of  experiments.  On  that  little  line  [indicating]  it 
would  take  perhaps  a  week's  work  to  get  those  figures.  Any  one  who  has  had 
anything  to  do  with  experimenting  knows  that  the  moment  you  get  a  piece  of 
experimental  knowledge  you  must  lock  it  up  in  the  safe,  put  it  away  from 
yourself,  and  never  touch  it  again  until  you  get  to  the  end,  because  as  you  find 
yourself  approaching  a  law  it  is  next  to  impossible  not  to  be  biased  in  your 
judgment.  At  the  end  of  six  or  eight  months  that  information  is  taken  out 
of  the  safe  and  spread  out  on  a  table,  like  that  [indicating]. 

The  next  step  is  to  take  this  set  of  figures,  average  them,  and  put  them  in 
the  shape  of  little  crosses  on  that  diagram.  Every  one  of  that  group  of  figures 
comes  from  a  series  of  crosses.  They  are  connected  with  little,  fine  lines,  and 
then  comes  the  work  of  the  mathematician.  He  has  to  hunt  up  a  formula 
which  will  put  the  heavy,  black  lines  right  through  the  other  little  crosses. 
That  is  the  way  mathematics  has  worked  this  out.  That  is  the  way  this  for- 
mula represents  this  law,  embodied  in  this  way. 

After  that  is  developed,  that  law  is  put  onto  this  slide  rule  in  the  shape  of 
these  figures  there,  with  relation  to  these  and  those  [indicating],  and  the  exact 
relative  position  of  that  set  of  figures  with  this  and  that  [indicating]  represents 
the  same  thing  as  that  [indicating].  You  have  five  ways  of  expressing  a  law. 
There  [indicating]  it  is  blind.  There  it  is  in  the  shape  of  a  cross,  next  in  the 
shape  of  a  heavy  black  line,  and  next  it  is  in  that  formula,  and  next  it  is 
there  in  that  way  [indicating].  These  state  exactly  the  same  thing.  There 
are  five  ways  of  stating  exactly  the  same  thing.  We  had  12  of  these  formulas, 
representing  the  art  of  cutting  metal.  I  will  show  you  how  they  should  work. 
The  first  thing  the  workman  has  to  decide  is,  How  long  do  I  want  my  tool 
to  run  without  regrinding.  He  is  told  by  a  certain  section  of  this  rule  that  for 
a  tool  1  by  2  inches  it  ought  to  be  ground  every  hour  in  order  to  get  maximum 
economy.  It  took  a  year  and  a  half  of  experimenting  to  develop  that  fact.  It 
is  shown  for  each  size  of  tool  the  most  economical  period  it  will  run  without 
regrinding.  That  is  the  first  thing  to  settle.  Next,  what  depth  of  cut  shall  I 
take?  He  might  take  from  one-sixteenth  of  an  inch  up  to  1  inch.  We  wTill  say  he 
takes  a  quarter  of  an  inch.  He  slides  the  quarter  inch  down  opposite  here  [in- 
dicating]. Next  comes,  of  great  bearing,  the  kind  of  metal  that  is  being  cut. 
Chilled  iron  you  can  only  run  about  9  inches  in  a  minute ;  mild  steel  you  can 
run  350  feet  in  a  given  length  of  time.  This  [indicating]  tells  the  kind  of  metal 
you  are  cutting.  We  will  say  it  is  class  13. 

Next  we  have  the  power  that  must  be  employed.  That  work  might  be  any- 
where from  nothing  up  to  5  feet  in  diameter.  We  will  say  it  is  10  inches. 


788          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

We  will  slide  tliis  [indicating]  to  opposite  class  13.  You  can  cut  there  with 
1  tool,  2,  3,  or  4  tools  on  the  machine.  We  will  say  that  a  man  is  running  two 
tools,  or  two  men  are  running  a  machine  with  one  man  to  each  tool.  We  will 
use  two  tools  of  a  quarter  of  an  inch.  For  the  pressure  on  the  tool  we  slide  this 
10-inch  diameter  opposite  class  13,  and  now  we  are  ready  to  solve  that  problem. 
These  are  the  needs  of  the  workmen.  These  are  the  things  the  workman  must 
know.  The  workman  must  know  that  "A"  means  to  use  his  triple  gear ;  he  knows 
that  "  D  "  means  to  throw  his  drive  belt  to  a  certain  place ;  and  he  knows  that  "  S  " 
means  something  else.  Here  is  "  3-A-F."  Carry  that  with  your  eyes  across 
in  this  way  [indicating]  ;  that  is  about  three-quarters  of  an  inch.  There  is 
"  4-A-F  "  ;  carry  it  across ;  that  is  about  three-sixteenths.  Carry  "  5-A-F  " 
across;  that  is  about  five-sixteenths.  Because  this  one  happens  to  be  to  the 
left  of  that  [indicating] — and  the  workman  does  not  need  to  know  why — that 
is  the  proper  speed  indicated  there. 

Let  me  show  you  what  that  poor  fellow  had  to  carry  in  his  mind  who  was  up 
ngainst  this  proposition.  If  you  want  your  tools  to  be  reground  at  the  end  of 
an  hour,  if  you  want  a  certain  depth  of  cut,  if  you  know  the  quality  of  your 
metal  is  class  13  you  know  the  diameter  of  your  work  is  10,  but  it  might  be 
anywhere  from  that  up  to  16.  You  have  to  carry  all  this  formula  in  your 
head.  If  you  have  two  cutting  tools,  if  the  pressure  on  your  tool  corresponds 
to  class  13  and  you  place  the  resistance  accordingly,  you  will  do  your  best 
work  by  throwing  your  driving  wheel  on  the  floor  and  your  triple  here  [indi- 
cating], and  following  out  the  other  items  as  I  have  explained  them  to  you,  as 
shown  by  this  rule. 

Under  the  old  plan  the  workman  had  to  carry  all  these  things  in  his  head ; 
and  besides  that  he  had  to  respeed  his  machine,  and  he  had  no  hope  of  doing 
that  accurately. 

I  want  to  thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  covered  the  general  subject.  Undoubtedly  the 
members  of  the  commission  have  some  questions  to  ask.  Mr.  Garretson,  have 
you  some  questions  to  ask  Mr.  Taylor? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  No;  I  do  not  know  that  I  have. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  questions,  Mr.  Weinstock? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes.  Just  a  question  or  two,  Mr.  Taylor,  if  you 
do  not  mind  answering  them. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Certainly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Under  this  system  of  scientific  management  does 
the  worker  have  a  voice  in  determining  the  price  or  the  premium  he  is  to 
receive? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  worker  had  no  voice  in  that.  I  will  go  back,  however,  and 
show  you  the  kind  of  voice  he  had.  It  may  sound  strange — it  does  sound 
strange  to  a  man  who  has  the  old  viewpoint — to  be  told  that  that  is  again  a 
question  which  properly  is  one  for  scientific  investigation.  That  is  what  we  prefer 
primarily,  that  that  is  a  question  for  scientific  investigation.  You  want  to  do 
what  is  fair  to  yourself.  I  will  show  you  how  that  is  being  applied  primarily. 

I  had  lots  of  friends  in  the  Midvale  Steel  Works,  friends  just  as  intimate 
among  the  workmen  as  my  brothers  are,  or  as  any  friends  could  be.  I  went 
to  a  group  of  five  or  six  of  those  fellows  and  said,  "  I  would  like  you  to  go  on 
such  and  such  a  kind  of  work  and  work  for  a  premium  of,  we  will  say,  15  per 
cent  added  to  your  wages."  I  went  to  other  groups  at  other  kinds  of  work 
and  offered  20  and  25  and  30  and  35  per  cent.  I  said  to  these  men,  "Just 
work  ahead  at  this  and  see  whether  you  like  it  better  than  you  did  be- 
fore. See  whether  this  suits  you."  I  said  to  them,  "  Mind  you,  you  are  now 
subject  to  limitations  you  were  not  subject  to  before.  Some  one  now  comes 
and  tells  you  just  how  fast  you  are  to  do  things  and  how  you  have  to  do  them." 
That  is  disagreeable.  No  one  likes  that.  It  is  not  pleasant.  Here  is  a  set  of 
lawrs,  a  new  code  of  laws.  I  said  to  them,  "  When  we  tell  you  we  want  you  to 
use  such  and  such  feed  and  such  and  such  speed  we  want  you  to  use  it.  You 
will  have  to  act  under  certain  limitations  that  you  did  not  have  before.  We 
want  you  to  do  that,  and  then  at  the  end  of  six  or  eight  or  nine  months,  after 
you  have  tried  the  thing,  if  you  like  it  we  will  go  ahead,  and  if  you  do  not  like 
it  you  may  go  back;  we  are  perfectly  willing  to  have  you  go  back  to  the  old 
conditions." 

I  should  say  one-third  of  the  15  per  cent  men  stuck  to  it  and  the  others 
wanted  to  go  back.  When  it  came  to  the  20  per  cent  men  a  larger  number  of 
them  stuck  and  the  others  went  back.  Of  the  25  per  cent  men  more  stuck 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  789 

that  went  back  ,but  still  more  liked  the  old  better  than  the  new  method — of 
those  just  coming  under  it,  but  not  after  they  worked  under  it  for  any  length  of 
time. 

When  we  got  to  the  30  per  cent  men  all  but  one  stuck,  and  at  35  per  cent 
every  man  stuck  and  was  satisfied  with  the  new  thing.  There  is  an  indication 
of  a  law,  and  you  want  to  do  justice.  Mind  you,  the  men  were  new  and  had 
come  freshly  at  this  new  thing  and  they  disliked  it.  No  one  likes  new  things ; 
no  one  likes  to  change  their. ways  right  off  if  they  have  formed  a  life  habit  of 
doing  things  a  certain  way.  The  fact  that  when  we  got  up  as  high  as  the  30 
and  35  per  cent  men  all  of  them  stuck,  was  an  indication  that  at  least  we  were 
doing  justice  to  those  men ;  showing  we  satisfied  some  of  them.  We  found  them 
all  very  well  satisfied  with  it,  in  fact.  There  has  never  been  a  question  on  the 
part  of  our  friends  whether  this  premium  is  just  or  fair.  When  it  comes  to 
a  certain  kind  of  work,  you  have  to  pay  100  per  cent  in  order  to  be  just  and 
fair.  That  is  not  a  question  for  collective  bargaining.  It  is  a  scientific  in- 
vestigation. Let  me  make  it  clear  to  you:  We  welcome  in  every  possible 
way  the  cooperation  of  every  man  in  our  establishment.  We  welcome  the 
cooperation  of  the  unions  and  will  pay  them  for  their  cooperation ;  we  welcome 
it  and  want  it.  We  want  their  help.  They  could  do  immense  things  toward  this. 

The  day  is  not  far  distant  when  they  are  going  to  ask  for  this  being  done, 
and  that  the  machines  in  their  shops  be  properly  studied  and  properly  speeded, 
so  they  can  get  higher  wages,  for  you  can  not  pay  the  high  wages  if  you  do  not 
get  the  increased  output,  and  you  can  not  get  the  increased  output  if  you  go 
along  in  the  same  sloppy  way,  and  do  not  study  your  machines  and  do  not 
make  a  science  of  every  machine  in  the  place,  and  if  you  do  not  study  all 
your  men  and  show  them  the  best  methods  and  give  them  the  benefit  of 
the  experience  of  100  shops  instead  of  the  experience  of  the  old-fashioned 
foreman  or  the  training  of  one  man.  You  are  not  doing  justice  to  your  men. 
The  time  is  coming  as  sure  as  the  sun  shines  when  the  unions  will  take 
that  up  and  insist  on  the  employers  doing  their  proper  share  of  the  work, 
that  they  shall  make  this  proper  study  of  their  machines  and  do  these  other 
things.  WTe  welcome  the  help  of  the  unions.  What  we  do  not  welcome  is  when 
they  try  to  put  us  out  of  business.  I  do  not  feel  the  slightest  resentment 
against  the  union  leaders  because  they  have  seen  fit  to  roast  scientific  manage- 
ment, because  in  their  ignorance  of  it  they  have  written  things  about  it  that 
are  totally  untrue. 

They  say  it  is  a  nigger-driving  proposition,  a  proposition  to  speed  up.  The 
thing  I  do  feel  sorry  for  is  that  these  men  who  write  these  things  will  not 
come  to  our  works  and  see  for  themselves.  If  they  came  they  would  not  write 
that  kind  of  thing  any  more. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  May  I  make  a  suggestion  for  the  purpose  of  speed?  I  was 
asked  this  morning  to  allow  you  to  present  your  viewrs  in  your  own  way ;  that 
is,  to  present  your  proposition  in  your  own  way.  Of  course,  that  was  done. 
We  would  like,  if  possible,  for  you  to  leave  off  the  argumentative  part  of  the 
matter  in  your  answers  to  these  questions. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Certainly. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Of  course,  we  want  you  to  put  your  own  system 
into  effect  here. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Very  well ;  I  will  accept  that  suggestion. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  it  or  would  it  not,  in  your  judgment,  be 
wise  and  expedient  to  give  labor  a  voice  in  determining  the  premiums  and 
prices. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  think  that  the  moment  that  labor  asks  for  it  they  will  have  it. 
They  have  never  asked  for  it  before  because  they  have  looked  upon  what  they 
were  getting  as  just  and  fair.  The  matter  has  never  come  up  before  me  as  a 
question ;  the  fairness  of  it  has  never  come  up.  They  have  accepted  things  as 
they  are,  and  they  have  never  said  that  they  were  anything  but  fair.  In  fact, 
they  are  more  than  fair. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  you  would  have  no  objection  to  giving  labor 
a  voice? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Not  the  slightest  objection.     I  would  welcome  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Just  one  more  question,  and  I  am  through.  You 
pointed  out  that  the  system  of  permitting  things  to  be  determined  by  mere 
opinions  will  soon  be  a  dead  system ;  that  the  system  of  the  future  will  be  based 
upon  the  facts. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.   Yes. 


790          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Now,  assuming  that  to  be  true,  what  will  be  the 
ultimate,  when  all  production  has  adopted  scientific  methods ;  what  will  be  the 
result? 

Mr.  TAYLOE.  Going  right  back  to  fundamentals,  now,  if  you  do  not  bring 
wealth  into  the  world  you  can  not  distribute  it.  The  first  thing,  then,  is  to 
bring  the  wealth  into  the  world,  and  then  you  can  make  your  distribution.  The 
first  thing  for  the  interest  of  the  workingmen — and  they  get  nine-tenths  of  it 
all — is  to  bring  in  twice  as  much,  to  produce  twice  as  much  by  our  factories  and 
our  shops,  to  every  year  turn  out  twice  the  amount  of  production,  and  that  is 
going  to  be  distributed  among  the  workers,  and  they  will  get  it.  That  is  the  first 
thing.  In  order  to  accomplish  that,  men  must  coordinate.  The  workmen  and 
the  manufacturers  must  get  together,  and  the  managers  must  say,  "  We  will 
show  you  how ;  we  will  choose  the  men,  the  most  trained  men,  to  show  the  other 
men."  That  is  the  first  thing.  Cooperation  must  take  place  between  the  two 
sides.  In  order  that  that  shall  take  place  the  workmen  must  cooperate.  It  is 
irksome  to  the  workman ;  there  is  a  certain  amount  that  is  disagreeable  about 
this  cooperation.  If  you  allow  every  man  to  do  just  as  he  darned  pleases  in  one 
case  and  in  another  case  give  them  certain  rules  which  they  must  follow  it  is 
somewhat  irksome  to  them,  and  workmen  will  not  prefer  that  to  the  old  method 
unless  they  are  paid  higher  wages  for  it,  much  higher  wages  than  they  were 
getting  before.  There  it  is ;  this  is  what  the  world  wants.  This  is  the  impor- 
tant fact  in  industry ;  about  17  per  cent  of  the  world  is  engaged  in  coordinated 
industry.  The  rest  is  engaged  in  some  other  form  of  labor,  farm  labor  or  town 
distribution,  and  so  on ;  and  this  17  per  cent  which  is  engaged  in  coordinated 
industry  will  insist  that  they  rise  that  much  higher  above  the  dead  level,  and 
they  will  not  be  satisfied  without  it.  The  same  ratio  must  exist  between  the  dead 
level  of  the  world's  industry,  that  is  the  83  per  cent  of  the  world,  which  fixed 
the  wages  of  the  world — the  relative  value  of  things — and  these  men  who  are 
cooperating  in  an  unusual  way,  who  are  sacrificing  themselves,  if  you  choose  to 
put  it  that  way,  who  go  into  this  great  game  of  cooperation.  It  is  just  like  a 
baseball  team.  You  never  will  find  a  baseball  team  where  one  man  is  not  called 
upon  now  and  then  to  sacrifice.  It  is  darned  mean  for  a  fellow  to  have  to  sacri- 
fice when  he  might  make  a  run,  but  he  must  do  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole 
community. 

The  same  thing  exists  in  the  industrial  community.  We  have  all  got  to  co- 
operate. There  have  got  to  be  certain  things  that  are  disagreeable  about 
industry,  and  the  men  are  going  to  insist,  the  men  who  are  doing  this  thing  for 
the  benefit  of  the  whole  community  will  insist  that  they  should  get  a  proper 
pay  above  the  rest.  The  problem  is  perfectly  clear  to  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  deem  that  an  answer?  Is  there  anything  else? 
Mr.  Lennon,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  No;  I  prefer  to  give  Mr.  O'Connell,  so  far  as  I  am 
concerned,  a  chance  to  ask  questions. 

The  CHAIEMAN.   Mrs.  Harriman,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Mr.  Taylor,  I  should  like  to  know  what  guarantee 
the  workmen  have  under  the  present  system  that  an  unscrupulous  employer  will 
not  speed  them  up — I  mean  under  the  system  that  you  describe. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Because,  Mrs.  Harriman,  speeding  up  results  in  less  work  and 
not  in  more  work.  You  can  not  hurry  without  that  result.  I  defy  you  to  go 
into  any  of  our  shops  and  look  and  find  a  man  that  is  overworking,  in  our 
establishments.  If  you  find  any  man  in  any  of  our  establishments  who  is  over- 
working I  will  gi-ve  $50  to  any  charity  you  say.  Those  who  have  seen  our 
establishments  say  that  the  remarkable  feature  about  them  is  the  fact  that  there 
is  no  hurry  in  them. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  But  they  are  all  good  employers  in  your  estab- 
lishments. I  am  speaking  of  the  condition  of  ordinary  workmen  under  un- 
scrupulous employers. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  If  any  of  you  have  ever  seen  our  people,  you  will  understand 
that  it  is  a  friendly  game.  The  moment  a  man  is  speeded  up  he  refers  to 
these  laws,  and  there  it  is.  You  can  not  speed  him  up  while  these  laws  exist. 
And  as  to  those  laws,  mind  you,  now,  you  take  the  Watertown  Arsenal.  Of 
course,  these  laws  are  still  being  added  to,  but  at  the  Watertown  Arsenal 
there  is  very  little  chance  for  an  unscrupulous  employer  to  do  anything  of  that 
kind,  because  they  have  these  laws  there.  Of  course,  there  are  mistakes  made. 
They  are  fallible  and  they  do  make  mistakes;  but  wrhen  they  make  a  mis- 
take it  is  instantly  found  out. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  791 

You  put  something  under  a  time  table  and  you  give  it  to  a  man  and  he  says 
he  can  not  do  that.  He  says,  "  Come  and  show  me,"  and  you  have  got  to  go 
and  show  him.  He  says,  "  I  will  take  this  thing,  and  you  take  the  stop  watch 
and  time  me."  The  man  can  not  do  it,  and  if  he  can  not,  that  settles  it. 
When  a  man  takes  a  task  and  the  workman  says  he  can  not  do  it,  and  he  says 
to  the  workman,  "  You  take  the  stop  watch  and  I  will  do  this,"  and  he  does  it, 
then  he  says  to  the  workman,  "  I  will  take  the  stop  watch  now,  and  I  will  see 
what  is  the  matter  with  you."  Generally  speaking,  he  finds  that  the  workman 
is  making  some  false  motions,  he  has  not  got  the  right  way  of  handling  himself. 
That  is  the  way  this  code  of  laws  is  thrashed  out. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Then,  you  think  that  the  system  itself  is  a  guar- 
anty against 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Overwork? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Yes ;  against  overwork  and  overspeeding? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  It  is  not  as  it  was  developed  originally,  but  that  code  of  laws 
which  has  been  thrashed  out,  in  which  80  per  cent  of  the  men  every  day  have 
been  making  good,  that  has  been  proved.  Every  man  on  the  management  side 
is  just  as  much  under  that  code  of  laws  as  the  workmen. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Are  there  pacemakers  in  these  establishments? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  We  have  no  such  thing  as  a  pacemaker.  When  a  man  goes  out 
to  do  that  work  he  is  an  efficient  man.  We  never  choose  an  inefficient  man. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  He  is  not  an  exceptional  man? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No;  he  is  not  an  exceptional  man. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  No ;  that  is  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  We  insist  that  every  one  of  our  men  shall  be  a  first-class  man — 
shall  become  a  first-class  man. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Harriman  says  that  is  a  sufficient  answer.  Thank 
you.  Prof.  Commons,  have  you  any  questions  to  ask? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Delano,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  think  that  I  have  understood  what  you  have  said, 
except  one  thing  that  you  said  in  answer  to  Mr.  Weinstock.  You  spoke  of  17 
per  cent  being  coordinated  workers. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Seventeen  per  cent  of  the  world's  workers  are  coordinated 
workers. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  wanted  to  see  if  I  understood 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  That  is,  engaged  in  manufacturing  establishments  and  similar 
establishments  where  men  work  together,  as  against  the  gardener  and  the 
grocery  man  and  the  coachman  and  those  engaged  in  distribution,  etc. 

Gentlemen,  mind  you,  in  all  that  I  say,  in  all  the  generalizations  that  I  have 
made,  about  workmen,  and  in  talking  about  soldiering,  I  have  in  mind  only 
coordinated  industry.  My  gardener  is  a  much  harder  working  man  that  I 
ever  was  in  the  world,  and  he  has  no  incentive  except  kindness  and  honesty 
and  decency.  I  never  coached  him  in  any  way,  and  my  working  friends  would 
not  do  it  if  it  was  not  for  their  interests.  It  is  no  stigma  on  a  man  to  soldier. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  spoke  of  dividing  men  up  into  groups.  One 
should  work  at  5,  another  at  10,  and  another  at  15,  and  another  group  at  30 
per  cent,  and  so  on.  Was  any  selection  made  of  those  men? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No;  we  took  them  as  they  came.  They  were  friends  of  mine 
engaged  in  the  shop,  and  some  of  them  in  other  shops — not  all  machine  shops. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  There  was  no  selection  of  the  men? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No.     What  we  were  after  was  the  truth. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  understand. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  We  were  not  after  somebody 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  appreciate  that.  Now,  has  any  careful  study  been 
made  of  the  men  themselves  to  find  out  whether  they  were  really  tired,  those 
who  performed  these  larger  tasks? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Let  me  tell  you  one  thing.  A  great  part  of  these  things  were 
made  in  a  machine  shop.  We  will  say  fourteen-fifteenths  of  the  work  was  in 
a  machine  shop.  Now,  you  can  not  overwork  men  in  a  machine  shop ;  it  is 
impossible  to  overwork  them  in  a  machine  shop,  because  the  periods  of  rest  are 
so  great.  You  can  not  overwork  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  question  is,  was  any  study  made  of  that  thing,  in  that 
manner  or  otherwise,  to  find  out  if  the  men  really  were  tired  ? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes.  Many  of  them  were  in  the  machine  shop,  and  those  men 
can  not  be  overworked.  Now,  on  vise  work,  heavy  vise  work,  you  can  over- 
work them. 


792          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

The  CHAIKMAN.  He  was  asking  you  about  the  ascertainment  of  that  fact 
alone.  Was  there  any  effort  made  to  ascertain  if  they  were  overworked? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes ;  but  they  were  not.    They  were  not  forced  to  do  anything. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Answering  the  question  exactly  as  it  was  asked,  an  effort 
was  made  to  ascertain? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes,  indeed.    And  remember,  too 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  answer.  There  will  be  time  perhaps  for  a  little 
argument  afterwards,  but  let  us  get  through  with  the  questions. 

Mr.  O'Connell,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  want  to  ask  you  several  questions,  and  if  you  will 
be  as  brief  as  possible  in  your  answers  I  will  be  obliged.  We  will  put  your 
system  into  operation  right  here. 

The  law  creating  this  commission  provides  that  it  shall  seek  to  ascertain  the 
underlying  cause  of  industrial  unrest.  Do  you  consider  the  question  of  effi- 
ciency, as  you  have  it  in  mind,  one  of  the  essential  things  for  industrial  peace? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Indeed,  I  do.  I  think  that  without  any  question  it  is.  For 
instance,  in  the  case  of  the  Link  Belt  Co.,  the  average  man  has  been  in  the 
employ  of  that  company  for  eight  years,  as  sho\vn  by  this  report  before  the 
House  committee.  And  in  a  similar  company,  run  by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Dodge, 
a  very  notable  company,  one  of  the  finest  in  this  country,  one  of  'the  partners 
came  to  me  and  said,  with  tears  in  his  eyes,  "  The  saddest  thing  that  has  hap- 
pened in  our  industry  in  the  last  eight  years  is  that  we  have  lost  45  per  cent 
of  our  men,  changing  every  year." 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  We  have  a  great  many  efficiency  systems — the 
Taylor  system  and  the  Emerson  system  and  the  Van  Alstyne  system  and  the 
Brumbacher  system,  and  a  great  number  of  others.  Relatively  what  is  the  dif- 
ference between  all  of  these  systems?  Can  you  not  all  agree  upon  some  system? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  am  not  bothering  about  other  people's  systems.  I  am  only 
bothering  about  scientific  management,  and  I  can  not  criticize  Mr.  Brumbacher's 
system  or  anybody  else's  system.  I  have  only  tried  to  set  forth  ours,  and, 
really,  I  can  not  criticize  anybody  else's  system.  I  do  not  think  I  ought  to  do 
that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  what  number  of  shops  in  the  United  States  is 
the  so-called  Taylor  system  in  operation? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  can  not  tell  you  that.  I  know  that  I  hear  of  new  plants  all 
the  time,  where  they  have  been  working  at  it  for  6  or  8  or  10  years.  I  have 
been  astonished  to  hear  from  them,  I  know — places  that  I  never  heard  of  and 
never  knew  that  they  were  working  at  it.  I  know  perhaps  of  100  different 
plants  in  which  it  is  working,  but  I  really  do  not  know  how  many  there  are 
in  all. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  you  any  idea  of  the  number  of  people  who 
are  employed  under  the  Taylor  system? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  If  I  should  answer  that,  it  would  be  only  the  veriest  kind  of  a 
guess.  I  should  think  by  this  time  there  must  be  150,000  or  200,000 ;  but  I  do 
not  know.  I  do  not  think  anyone  knows  how  many  there  are. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  have  been  engaged  in  w^ork  on  the  system  for 
30  or  25  years? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  first  steps  were  taken  toward  forming  it  in  1881  or  1882. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  At  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Works  I  notice  throughout 
your  discussion  you  speak  of  the  men  never  being  overworked  and  all  that.  I 
find  in  your  book  here,  on  page  54,  you  say  something  about  that. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Which  one  of  the  books  are  you  quoting  from— Shop  Manage- 
ment? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Yes  ;  Shop  Management.    I  quote  your  language  : 

"  When  the  writer  left  the  steel  works  the  Bethlehem  pieceworkers  were  the 
finest  body  of  picked  men  that  has  ever  been  seen  together." 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No ;  "  that  he  has  ever  seen  together." 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Of  course,  I  am  quoting  you. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Not  "  that  has  ever  been  seen  together,"  but  the  langungo  is 
"  that  he  has  ever  seen  together." 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  what  I  said. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Not  "  that  has  ever  been  seen  together." 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Well,  do  not  let  us  haggle  over  that  word.  I  con- 
tinue reading: 

"  They  were  practically  all  first-class  men,  because  in  each,  case  the  task 
which  they  were  called  upon  to  perform  was  such  that  only  a  first-class  man 
could  do  it.  The  tasks  were  all  purposely  made  so  severe  that  not  more  than 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  793 

one  out  of  five  laborers  (perhaps  even  a  smaller  percentage  than  this)  could 
keep  up." 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes.  - 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Was  that  not  an  extreme  task,  at  which  only  one 
out  of  five  laborers  could  keep  up?  Was  it  possible  for  them  to  perform  the 
task? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No,  indeed;  this  refers  to  pig-iron  handling,  don't  you  see? 
There  are  very  few  men  suited  to  pig-iron  handling.  To  give  you  an  illustration 
that  I  know  will  appeal  to  you :  Most  men  have  not  studied  men.  All  men  have 
studied  horses.  Now,  what  we  say  is  that  a  first-class  man  shall  be  chosen 
lor  his  job  every  time.  If  you  in  Washington  here  were  going  to  haul  your 
coal,  you  would  sooner  or  later  insist  that  you  should  have  it  hauled  by  good, 
big  dray  horses.  You  might  take  in  an  emergency,  when  you  did  not  have  the 
big  horses,  a  grocery-wagon  horse  or  some  other  small  horse,  but  sooner  or  later 
you  would  say,  "  I  am  going  to  have  good,  big  dray  horses." 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  WTe  will  quit  raising  small  horses  after  a  while, 
then? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Not  at  all.  We  would  have  grocery-wagon  horses  to  haul  grocery 
wagons,  and  donkeys  for  hauling  carts,  and  polo  ponies  for  their  work ;  but 
you  would  say  that  no  donkey  would  haul  coal  for  you  in  the  future ;  that  only 
Percheron  horses  shall  haul  coal.  We  were  forced  to  say  in  the  first  place 
that  we  had  not  enough  Percheron  horses.  The  way  those  men  came  on  that 
work,  they  selected  themselves.  They  came  right  out  on  the  street  and  said, 
"  We  would  like  to  handle  pig  iron."  There  was  no  selection  made  at  the  time. 
There  was  a  gang  of  a  hundred  men  running  along  with  a  foreman,  whether 
they  were  fit  for  it  or  not.  We  said,  "  In  order  that  we  may  be  able  to  pay 
these  men  proper  wages  we  have  got  to  get  the  Percheron  horses  to  handling 
pig  iron,"  and  in  order  to  do  that  we  had  to  select  them.  There  is  no  injustice 
in  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  say  that  the  output  and  production  of  your 
plants,  where  your  system  has  been  in  operation,  has  increased  100  per  cent 
or  more? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  the  hours  of  labor  been  reduced  in  any  of 
those  plants,  where  the  system  has  been  in  operation,  to  eight  hours  a  day, 
where  the  output  has  been  increased? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Oh,  yes ;  wherever  it  has  been  possible  to  do  it.  If  you  have 
read  what  I  wrote  about  the  Simms  Ruling  Machine  Co.,  you  will  remember 
the  conditions  that  I  found  there — that  I  found  girls  that  were  working  10 
hours  a  day.  Without  waiting  for  any  system  or  anything  else,  I  just  knew 
that  it  was  inhuman  to  work  girls  10  hours  a  day. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Instead  of  arguing  these  specific  cases,  will  you  kindly 
answer  Mr.  O'Connell's  questions  and  tell  him  what  institutions  you  now  have 
in  mind  where  the  hours  were  reduced  to  eight  per  day  on  account  of  this  sys- 
tem being  adopted? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  Simms  Ruling  Machine  Co. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Any  others? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  To  eight  hours  per  day  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Mr.  Fife,  who  has  just  reduced  in  the  clothing  industry  to  eight 
hours  a  day. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  others  that  you  recall? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  can  recall  lots  of  them  that  have  gone  clown  from  10  hours  to 
9  hours. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  no  more  that  have  gone  to  eight  hours,  that  you  think 
of  now? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  will  look  them  up  and  write  you  about  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well.     That  is  enough. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Has  the  Link  Belt  Co.  reduced  its  hours? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Surely  ;  to  54  hours  a  week. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  long  has  54  hours  been  in  operation  there? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Eight  or  ten  years,  I  should  say. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  long  have  they  had  this  system  there? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Just  a  little  longer  than  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Were  they  not  working  54  hours  a  week  when  that 
system  was  put  in? 


794          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  do  not  think  so.  I  am  pretty  sure  of  that.  I  am  not  positive 
of  it.  I  am  sure  that  the  Taylor  Co.  has  reduced  hours.  We  always  try  to  do 
that.  But  we  will  never  reduce  hours  if  we  are  going  to  make  the  men  work 
harder. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  say  in  your  experience  there  never  has  been  a 
strike  occur  where  the  efficiency  system  has  been  put  in? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  never  said  that ;  most  emphatically  not.  I  said  where  scien- 
tific management  has  been  adopted  there  has  never  been  a  strike.  There  are 
thousands  of  efficiency  systems. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Has  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Co.  reduced  its  hours  of 
labor  since  that  system  has  been  put  in? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  have  not  been  there  myself  for  12  years,  but  the  last  time  I 
knew  of  it  there  were  two  distinct  systems  in  use  at  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Co. — 
our  system  in  the  fine  work  and  the  old-fashioned  individual  driving  system  in 
the  rest  of  the  works. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  your  answer  is  that  you  do  not  know  wrhether  scien- 
tific management  is  now  in  the  plant  referred  to  by  Mr.  O'Connell? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  was  trying  to  explain 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  machine  shop,  you  mean?  That  is,  the  de- 
partment in  which  they  have  the  finer  work? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Isn't  it  true  that  about  two  years  ago  there  was 
a  general  strike  in  there  which  caused  a  general  turmoil? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  never  heard  of  it  in  the  machine  shop.  The  machine  shop 
ran  until  they  had  nothing  to  work  on,  if  I  am  informed  right,  and  then  they 
quit. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  machine  shop  was  where  it  was  inaugurated. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  beg  your  pardon. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  you  ever  heard  of  a  strike  there? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes;  but  those  men  were  not  working  under  our  system.  Do 
you  mean  to  say  men  that  dropped  down  out  of  the  sky?  No;  of  course  the 
men  were  not  working  under  our  system. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  answer.     There  is  no  use  repeating  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Well,  if  the  efficiency  system  was  introduced  in 
the  foundry  in  the  Watertown  Arsenal,  and  the  men  went  on  strike 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  It  was  not  introduced,  because  it  takes  two  or  three  years  to 
introduce  our  system  anywhere.  You  can  not  introduce  it  in  an  hour.  You 
can  not  develop  this  code  of  laws  and  introduce  it  in  a  day. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  understand  this  occurred  three  years  after  the 
system  had  been  started. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  molders  had  not  had  a  solitary  thing.  They  had  no  tables 
and  no  time  system,  and  nothing  had  been  done.  They  struck  at  the  drop  of 
the  hat. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  recall  reading  in  one  of  your  books — just  now  I 
can  not  lay  my  hand  on  it — that  it  was  necessary  to  inculcate  in  the  minds 
of  all  those  concerned  that  they  must  bear  in  mind  constantly  that  this  company 
is  organized  for  the  purpose  of  paying  dividends  to  its  stockholders.  Do  I 
quote  you  correctly? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  think  I  can  read  you  from  this  pamphlet  what  you  are  trying 
to  quote. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  make  a  suggestion,  that  if  any  member  of  the  com- 
mission is  going  to  refer  to  any  writing  of  the  witness,  the  writing  itself  should 
be  read  to  him,  because  it  leaves  so  much  room,  if  you  do  not  do  that,  between 
the  understanding  and  recollection  of  the  interrogator  and  that  of  the  witness 
that  there  would  be  no  end  of  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  have  this  right  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  One  minute,  Mr.  Taylor.  You  say  you  have  there  the  pas- 
sage referred  to? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes.     It  is  as  follows: 

"All  employees  should  bear  in  mind  that  each  shop  exists,  first,  last,  and  all 
the  time,  for  the  purpose  of  paying  dividends  to  its  owners." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  understand  you  have  some  explanation  that  you  wish  to 
make? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Make  it  as  clear  and  as  short  as  you  can. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No  greater  piece  of  injustice — 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Are  you  quoting? 


EFFICIENCY  SYSTEMS  AND  LABOR.  795 

Mr.  TAYLOE.  No.  I  say  no  greater  injustice  can  be  done  to  an  author  than 
to  take  an  isolated  passage  from  one  of  his  works  and  quote  it.  See  the  gross 
injustice  of  this.  Here  is  a  page  that  he  points  out,  and  this  whole  page  is 
taken  up  in  pointing  out  to  the  owners  of  a  business  that  they  ought  to  be 
decent  to  their  men,  that  it  is  their  duty  to  bring  it  to  the  highest  state  of 
efficiency  in  their  shops.  If  they  can  not  pay  them  higher  wages,  it  is  their 
duty  to  find  work  for  them  outside  in  other  people's  shops,  and  to  hand  over 
their  good  men,  whom  they  have  trained  and  paid  their  good  money  to  train, 
to  others.  When  I  said  that  at  the  Midvale  Steel  Works  Mr.  Sillers  (?)  almost 
frothed  at  the  mouth  about  that.  I  say  it  is  their  duty  to  promote  their  men 
and  get  higher  pay  for  them.  Then  after  pointing  out  that,  I  come  around  and 
say  this  to  the  workmen: 

"  On  the  other  hand,  this  policy  of  promoting  men  and  finding  them  new 
positions  has  its  limits.  No  worse  mistake  can  be  made  than  that  of  allowing 
an  establishment  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  training  school,  to  be  used  mainly  for 
the  education  of  many  of  its  employees.  All  employees  should  bear  in  mind 
that  each  shop  exists,  first,  last,  and  all  the  time,  for  the  purpose  of  paying 
dividends  to  its  owners." 

Now,  after  you  say  that  the  employer  ought  to  do  certain  things  for  his  men, 
is  it  not  perfectly  proper  to  call  the  attention  of  the  workmen  to  the  fact  that 
they  ought  to  be  decent  to  their  employers,  and  that  they  must  not  look  for 
promotion,  and  to  the  fact  that  those  shops  exist  for  the  purposes  stated 
here?  Is  it  not  injustice  to  me  to  take  one  of  those  things  without  the  other 
and  quote  it,  as  has  been  done  here? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  believe  in  profit  sharing  between  employer 
and  employee? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Certainly  I  do.  We  share  profits  every  day.  We  give  an  in- 
crease of  30  per  cent  in  wages. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  believe  that  they  should  organize  in  their 
respective  trades  organizations? 

Mr.  TAYLOE.  I  believe  in  dealing  with  the  older  time  type  of  employment ;  it  is 
an  absolute  necessity.  I  have  not  as  yet  seen  the  necessity,  under  the  newer 
system,  and  if  there  is  any  necessity,  if  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  men,  that  is 
what  I  am  looking  for.  If  they  can  do  better  with  it,  they  should  have  it. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  In  response  to  Mr.  Ballard's  question,  Mr.  Taylor, 
as  to  whether  a  study  has  been  made  or  as  to  whether  men  were  being  over- 
worked, you  stated  that  it  was  an  impossibility  for  a  man  to  be  overworked 
under  your  system. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  In  the  machine  shops,  t  said.  It  is  an  absolute  impossibility 
that  they  should  be  overworked.  The  periods  of  rest  are  too  long.  The  period 
of  time  necessary  for  a  man  to  rest  from  work  in  order  not  to  be  overworked 
is  absolutely  established.  All  you  have  to  do  is  to  put  a  weight  on  a  man's 
arm  and  to  calculate  how  much  of  his  time  in  the  day  he  is  under  that  weight, 
and  you  can  see  whether  he  is  overworked  or  not. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Whether  he    falls  from  exhaustion  or  not? 

Mr.  TAYLOE.  No ;  but  if  men  have  been  working  writh  that  load  on  their  arms 
for  generations  and  they  are  all  right,  then  that  is  proof  that  they  are  not 
being  overworked. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Not  even  if  they  die  from  it? 

Mr.  TAYLOE.  But  they  do  not  die  from  it. 

The  CHAIEMAN.  We  will  take  our  recess  now  until  2  o'clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  1  o'clock  p.  in.,  the  commission  took  a  recess  until  2 
o'clock  p.  m. ) 

AFTEE  EECESS — 2   O'CLOCK  P.  M. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  commission  will  come  to  order.  Commissioner  Wein- 
stock  has  a  question  or  two  further  that  he  would  like  to  ask  you,  Mr.  Taylor. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  FREDERICK  W.  TAYLOR— Continued. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  has  been  held,  Mr.  Taylor,  by  the  opponents 
to  your  system  and  its  critics,  especially  among  those  representing  organized 
labor,  that  while  it  is  admitted  that,  temporarily,  the  scientific  system  in- 
creases earnings,  in  the  long  run  it  cuts  the  earnings.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  TAYLOE.  I  can  not  conceive  of  any  such  fact.  I  can  not  conceive  of  the 
application  of  scientific  knowledge  failing  to  do  anything  but  increase  earn- 
ings, because  it  increases  output,  and  invariably  you  will  find  one  thing  is 
true :  You  can  not  increase  earnings  without  output.  You  may  increase  output 


796          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OK    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

without  increasing  earnings,  but  the  only  road  toward  a  permanent  increase 
in  wages  is  an  increase  in  output  permanently.  That  is  true  the  world  over. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  And  yet,  according  to  your  own  statement  of  this 
question,  Mr.  Taylor,  if  I  understood  you  correctly,  you  said  that  in  the  be- 
ginning this  increased  surplus  either  does  go  or  has  gone  almost  entirely  to  the 
employer ;  that  later  on  the  worker  gets  a  part  of  it,  but  that,  ultimately,  the 
consumer  gets  it  all. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  In  this  way :  I  wras  referring  in  that  to  the  history  before  the 
introduction  of  our  system.  That  is  the  history  of  the  industry  in  the  past. 
Look  into  the  introduction  of  the  factory  system,  and  the  employer  got  it  all 
at  first. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  does  not  apply  to  this  system? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Not  at  all.    We  absolutely  safeguard  our  men. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Then,  according  to  your  idea,  the  present  system 
means  that  this  increased  surplus  is  divided  more  or  less  equally  among  three 
factors — the  employer,  the  worker,  and  the  consumer? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes;  and,  for  the  first  time  in  industry,  we  have  seen  that,  be- 
fore anyone  gets  anything,  the  workmen  have  their  33  per  cent  to  200  per  cent. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  the  first  objective? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  That  is  the  first  thing  we  do. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  you  deny  the  charge  that  scientific  manage- 
ment gives  the  worker  only  temporarily  an  increase  in  earnings? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  point  to  every  one  of  our  companies,  as  far  as  I  know,  where 
it  has  been  introduced.  You  will  find  those  same  percentages  are  paid  still,  so 
far  as  I  know. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Has  the  system  been  in  operation  long  enough  to 
determine  that  as  a  permanent  condition? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  In  the  company  that  I  originally  went  to,  where  I  first  intro- 
duced it — the  Midvale  Steel  Co. ;  I  have  not  been  there  for  something  like  22 
years ;  I  have  not  been  inside  of  that  company ;  but  I  believe  you  will  find 
the  same  thing  still  holds  true.  I  can  not  conceive  of  any  set  of  American 
workmen  continuing  to  stay,  as  they  have,  year  after  year,  with  one  company, 
unless  they  found  that  they  were  better  treated  there  than  anywhere  else. 
I  know  that  my  workmen  friends  are  still  at  the  Midvale  Steel  Co.'s  works, 
and  I  know,  also,  that  the  managers  of  the  Midvale  Steel  Co.'s  works  are  the 
same  that  I  trained  and  left  there  many  years  ago.  I  can  not  conceive  that 
things  should  have  changed,  although  I  know  nothing  about  it.  I  have  no 
personal  knowledge  of  the  matter. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  has  also  been  contended  that  the  scientific  man- 
agement system  tends  to  a  finer  and  finer  subdivision  of  labor,  and  that  the 
ultimate  result,  therefore,  is  to  throw  out  the  skilled  worker  and  to  replace 
him  with  the  unskilled  worker,  thus  preventing  the  development  of  mechanical 
ability. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  is  no  question  that,  throughout  all  industry,  there  is  a 
continual  tendency  toward  the  subdivision  of  work;  but  absolutely  no  greater 
under  scientific  management  than  under  natural  management.  That  is  uni- 
versal. You  will  find  that  in  all  trades  everywhere.  In  any  trade  you  will 
find  this  great  subdivision  going  on. 

Let  me  point  out,  however,  this  fact,  which  is  not  at  all  appreciated,  that 
under  scientific  management  we  insist  that  every  one  of  our  workmen  shall 
learn  not  one,  but  two  or  three  or  four  trades.  They  have  got  to  go  up.  Every 
man  in  our  place  goes  up.  We  insist  upon  that. 

It  may  be  said  that  that  is  an  assertion  without  proof,  and  I  want  to  call 
your  attention  to  the  sworn  statements  before  this  House  investigating  com- 
mittee. All  of  the  men  in  an  industry  were  there.  There  is  a  list  of  every 
man  who  started  out,  and  what  he  was  at  this  time.  I  refer  to  page  1502, 
third  volume  of  the  hearings  before  the  House  investigating  committee,  and 
that  will  show,  as  a  result  of  this  investigation  there,  that  every  man  has 
gone  up  in  wages  and  position,  and  that  is  so  in  every  one  of  our  companies. 
In  our  companies  you  will  always  find  the  same  thing.  We  insist  on  our  men 
going  up.  That  is  what  we  are  there  for — to  keep  them,  to  train  them,  and  to 
let  them  see  that  we  are  their  friends.  Every  man  in  the  place  knows  that  we 
propose  to  train  him  to  do  the  finest  and  best  class  of  work  for  which  he  is 
fitted  sooner  or  later,  and  to  bring  him  up. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  the  purpose  of  the  system  is  to  bring 
out  of  the  man  the  best  there  is  in  him,  for  his  good  and  for  the  good  of  the 
employer? 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND  LABOE.  797 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes ;  for  their  and  our  good.  As  we  have  said  over  and  over 
again,  our  companies  are  mainly  man  factories,  and  secondarily  something 
else.  If  we  can  first  build  up  this  high  class  set  of  men  and  train  them  and 
keep  them  to  do  good  things,  they  will  do  the  rest  for  us.  There  is  no  question 
about  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Another  point  that  has  been  made  is  this:  That 
while  it  is  admitted  that  the  skilled  worker  under  your  system  earns  more 
than  the  skilled  worker  may  have  earned  in  the  past,  the  fact  remains  that  he 
becomes,  after  all,  an  unskilled  worker  when  called  out  of  his  particular  job? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Our  men  are  the  most  sought  after  of  any  people  in  the  country. 
When  a  man  leaves  one  of  our  establishments  he  can  always  get  work,  and 
they  always  come  back  to  us  when  they  get  a  chance. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  are  all-round  men? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Certainly,  because  we  have  taught  them,  we  have  been  kind  to 
them — it  is  teaching,  and  not  "  nigger  driving."  It  is  a  scheme  genuinely  to 
help  the  man  along.  They  could  not  be  our  friends  otherwise,  and  they  are 
our  friends. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  One  more  point :  A  statement  has  been  made  that 
nothing  could  be  more  unfair  than  to  put  a  premium  on  muscle,  rather  than 
on  brain ;  and  that  a  man  should  be  paid  not  only  for  what  he  does,  but  also 
for  what  he  knows;  that  this  system  puts  a  premium  on  their  muscle  rather 
than  on  their  brains ;  that  a  man  who  can  turn  out,  grind  out  the  most  stuff,  is 
the  man  who  is  more  highly  paid,  regardless  of  his  brain  power. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  am  looking  for  a  particular  man's  name — C.  Cox.  He  came 
to  this  country  January  1,  1900,  as  a  laborer,  at  15  cents.  That  fellow  had  not 
an  opportunity  to  serve  an  apprenticeship.  He  was  intelligent,  but  not  a  very 
well  educated  laborer.  He  was  a  very  intelligent  fellow,  and  exceedingly  in- 
dustrious, and  a  fine  chap.  He  first  became  rather  a  good  man  as  a  helper,  and 
then  was  given  a  drill  press,  and  taught  drill-press  work,  and  lathe  work,  and 
planer  work,  and  finally  he  became  foreman  and  head  of  the  whole  department. 
He  came  at  15  cents  an  hour,  and  when  this  was  written  he  was  making  40 
cents  an  hour  as  a  machinist.  We  had  taught  that  fellow  five  or  six  trades. 
That  is  what  we  propose  to  do  for  every  man. 

The  complaint  has  been  made  that  raising  these  fellows  up  supplants  our 
high-class  mechanics;  but  these  high-class  mechanics  become  our  teachers. 
Our  factories  are  all  managed  by  the  workmen.  They  graduate  from  workmen 
and  come  to  the  management,  and  then  cooperate  with  their  fellow  workmen 
up  in  a  higher  position. 

Every  one  of  them  do  that.  WTheu  we  raise  them  to  a  position  at  which  we 
can  not  afford  to  pay  them  any  higher  wages,  we  send  them  forth  as  superin- 
tendents and  foremen  of  other  works. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  pointed  out  very  clearly  and  strongly  that 
the  first  essential  to  succeed  under  this  scientific  management  system  is  to  have 
the  good  will  and  hearty  cooperation  of  the  workers.  I  think  you  also  spoke  of 
the  fact  that  in  the  beginning  they  looked  upon  this  whole  thing  with  sus- 
picion. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Surely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  looked  upon  it  as  meaning  a  cutting  down 
of  their  earnings  and  losing  their  jobs.  If  that  is  their  attitude  in  the  begin- 
ning, how  can  you  win  them  over  and  secure  their  good  will  and  cooperation? 
How  do  you  overcome  this  suspicious  feeling? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Slightly  by  talking  to  them,  but  not  much.  Talk  does  not  ac- 
complish very  much.  Principally  by  building  up  an  object  lesson.  We  say  to 
a  man,  "  Come  on  and  cooperate  with  us."  One  man  comes  on  and  cooperates 
with  us,  and  we  say  to  him,  "  It  is  a  new  thing  and  we  will  just  try  it  and  see 
if  you  do  not  like  it."  And  we  teach  that  man,  and  give  him  the  30  per  cent 


say,  "  Certainly.  Come  along."  We  never  start  in  to  change  a  factory  over. 
We  bring  one  man  in  and  use  him  as  an  object  lesson,  and  let  him  see  what 
it  is— whether  it  is  an  affair  of  "  nigger  driving  "  or  whether  there  is  anything 
bad  about  it.  And  these  men  see  the  other  men  getting  these  premiums,  and 
they  want  them,  too.  They  say,  "He  has  got  his;  why  can't  I  have  mine?" 
The  main  complaint  in  our  factories  is  not  that  we  are  introducing  the  sys- 
tem, but  that,  under  this  system,  some  of  the  fellows  are  not  getting  a  show. 
They  want  to  get  in. 


798          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  that  in  the  beginning  they  fight  against 
it,  and  later  they  fight  for  it? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  In  the  beginning  they  fight  against  it,  and  in  the  end  they  fight 
for  it ;  absolutely. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Thompson  will  you  kindly  ask  your  questions,  or  I  think 
Mr.  Garretson  has  some  first. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  You  spoke  this  morning  of  a  condition  where  the 
foreman  went  in  and  increased  the  rate  of  pay,  and  he  was  haled  before  the 
directory  and  discharged  for  disturbing  the  labor  market,  by  directors  who 
were  able  to  dominate  the  situation.  What  guaranty  is  there  in  your  scientific 
system  against  precisely  that  condition  taking  place  in  a  plant  where  the  scien- 
tific system  has  been  carried  to  its  ultimate  fullness,  when  change  of  manage- 
ment might  take  place,  or  change  of  control? 

Mr.  TAYLOK.  There  is  absolutely  no  guaranty  possible  against  any  kind  of 
iniquity ;  you  can  not  guarantee  against  that,  but  the  man  who  did  that  would 
simply  kill  the  goose  that  laid  the  golden  egg ;  the  moment  he  tries  any  such 
nonsense  as  that  instantly  his  men  would  cease  to  be  friends  of  his  and  the 
whole  thing  would  tumble  right  down,  and  he  would  find  his  costs  climbing  right 
up,  and  the  whole  thing  would  tumble  right  away. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  what  you  meant;  exactly  the  same  thing 
would  take  place  that  had  taken  place  before  the  piecework  system;  a  man 
would  be  measured  by  his  output  under  the  bonus  system,  and  would  be 
expected  to  do  that  much  under  the  straight  wage  system? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Let  me  tell  you :  A  man  is  not  going  to  do  it ;  it  falls  right  down 
instantly.  This  is  a  question  of  friendship  and  cooperation.  The  American 
workman  is  not  a  slave ;  you  take  away  his  premium  and  away  goes  half  of  his 
output. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  He  has  gone  back  to  the  wage  scale? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  And  he  has  gone  back  to  his  original  output;  he  is  no  worse 
than  he  was  in  the  first  place,  and  a  darn  fool  comes  in  and  thinks  he  can  rob 
people.  He  can  not. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Has  not  the  "  darn  fool "  been  universal  in  the 
wage  problem,  as  far  as  that  wage  problem  goes? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  As  applied  to  the  companies  which  we  have  systematized,  I  have 
not  in  mind  one  single  company  that  ever  got  this  thing  in  that  went  back  on 
it;  not  one.  I  have  never  heard  of  one. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Your  system  represents  a  fractional  part  of  an  inch 
in  the  measurement  of  centuries,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.   Surely. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Has  not  that  type  of  man  been  prevalent  in  the 
wage  system,  the  one  you-  characterize  as  a  "  darn  fool "  ?  That  is  a  very 
charitable  name  for  him,  but  has  he  not  been  almost  universal? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No,  sir ;  the  great  majority  of  this  world  are  right ;  the  great 
majority  of  the  working  people  are  right,  and  the  great  majority  of  the  em- 
ployers are  right.  If  not,  we  would  have  a  terrible  world  to  live  in.  The  great 
majority  of  people  are  right. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Has  justice  been  ordinarily  maintained  in  the 
adjustment  of  wages? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  out  of  a  thousand;  it  is  the 
thousandth  case  where  it  is  not  maintained.  Justice  is  the  universal  thing  in 
this  world,  almost;  the  injustice  is  the  unusual  thing.  If  it  were  not  so  this 
would  be  a  horrible  world  to  live  in.  We  are  tired  of  slavery.  W7e  are 
on  toward  democracy. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  Mr.  Thompson,  I  want  you  to  ask  the  regular  questions. 
I  want  to  say  that  I  wanted  to  have  Mr.  Thompson  first,  but  I  made  a  mistake. 

(Here  the  witness  stated  that  he  desired  certain  books,  which  were  produced.) 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  These  questions  that  I  intended  to  ask  you  were  not  ques- 
tions that  would  depend  upon  books,  although  I  may  touch  on  them  in  the 
questions  that  I  shall  ask. 

In  your  address  upon  the  subject  of  scientific  management  or  efficiency 
systems,  as  we  call  them  now,  to-day,  you  said  something  about  the  establish- 
ment of  measures  in  regard  to  doing  the  work,  and  I  will  ask  you  how  and 
what  kind  of  measures  are  established,  whether  the  work  is  divided  up  into 
basics,  day  work,  or  how  is  it  reached  in  your  system  generally? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  kind  of  measurement  or  equitable  task? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No;  as  to  a  piece  of  work,  as  a  task.  What  might  it  be  in 
a  specific  case? 


EFFICIENCY  SYSTEMS  AND  LABOR.  799 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Why,  here  they  are  all  written  out,  fortunately,  if  you  want  to 
have  an  answer  to  that,  here  they  are  in  writing,  these  tasks.  Here  they  are, 
a  lot  of  written  tasks. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Let  me  ask  you  further,  and  I  will  get  at  it,  seeing  that  you 
have  several  methods.  Do  you  use  the  element  of  time  in  arriving  at  a  designa- 
tion of  a  task;  time  measurement,  for  instance? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Every  elementary  movement  of  every  man  has  to  have  its  ap- 
pointed time,  its  proper  time  in  which  it  ought  to  be  done. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  When  you  say  that  every  elementary  movement  of  a  man 
should  be  measured,  you  mean  by  that  that  you  divide  the  operation  or  the  task 
into  more  detailed  parts,  and  for  this  part  which  you  call  an  elementary 
movement  you  set  a  time  method? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Yes.  We  make  a  study  of  how  long  it  would  take  to  shovel  a 
shovelful  into  a  pile.  We  make  1,500  observations  of  a  particular  thing;  we 
make  1,500  observations  of  one  kind  of  material,  by  two  or  three  good  men — 
not  poor  men — and  those  are  averaged  out,  and  those  furnish  a  foundation  time. 
Then  we  always  add  a  large  percentage  to  that  for  unavoidable  accidents  and 
delays,  and  things  of  that  sort. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  becomes  a  foundation  for  that  elementary  movement, 
or  code  of  laws? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  you  say  that  goes  practically  through  all  industries? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Practically  through  all  the  industries. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  might  be  called  a  basic  or  general  law,  perhaps? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Those  are  the  laws ;  the  time  laws  of  that  industry. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  When  you  get  to  the  measurement  of  the  extra  time,  how 
do  you  do  there;  how  is  that  arrived  at? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  That  is  arrived  at  in  many  ways.  For  instance,  you  will  have 
in  your  establishment  a  man  who  is  recognized  by  his  fellows  as  a  good  worker, 
a  man  who,  when  you  stick  to  him  and  say  "  How  long  have  you  been  at  this 
job?"  he  says,  "Ten  or  fifteen  years."  You  ask,  "Are  you  working  as  you 
think  a  man  ought  to  work?  "  He  says  "  Yes."  You  say  "  Very  well,  then ;  let 
you  and  me  together  examine  this  and  see  what  you  are  doing.  Let  us  get  at 
this  thing." 

When  you  start  in  to  study  that  man  that  way,  you  say  "  John,  you  want  to 
go  into  this  thing  with  us,  don't  you?  You  know  what  we  are  after;  do  you 
want  to  go  into  it?"  and  he  says  "Yes,"  and  you  say  "Very  well.  While  you 
are  doing  this  it  will  be  an  inconvenience  to  you,  and  it  will  be  disagreeable, 
but  we  will  pay  you  double  wages.  What  we  want  is  your  regular  standard 
pace  that  you  find  is  right,  that  you  agree  is  right  and  everybody  else  will." 
We  study  that  man's  motions,  we  find  the  exact  time  that  it  takes  to  do  each 
elementary  motion,  and  then  we  find  that  in  addition  to  that,  that  it  is  neces- 
sary for  him  to  have  proper  rest  periods,  and  in  order  that  he  shall  not  be 
forced  to  work  like  a  slave  all  the  time,  morning  and  night,  and  never  shall  be 
hurried,  and  that  he  shall  have  a  certain  amount  measured  for  talking  with 
his  friends  and  whatever  is  right,  he  should  do.  There  is  a  certain  percentage 
added  on  that,  never  less  than  20  per  cent,  and  in  some  cases  100  to  120  per 
cent  are  added  to  the  time  in  certain  instances,  but  never  less  than  20  per  cent 
on  any  job  that  I  have  had  anything  to  do  with. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  extra  time  is  allowed  by  some  one ;  you  need  not  state 
by  whom. 

Mr.  TAYLOE.  That  is  part  of  the  laws;  it  is  not  allowed  by  some  one  else's 
say  so,  but  it  is  part  of  the  law. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  please  answer  the  question?  If  you  haven't  an 
opportunity  of  answering  fully  when  you  have  answered  the  question,  you 
will  have  an  opportunity  at  the  end.  So  that  at  first  the  time  study  is  estab- 
lished by  some  one? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  then  the  result  of  these  observations  and  time  studies 
is  crystallized  in  a  sort  of  law,  and  the  time  of  the  elementary  operation,  which 
is  a  general  law,  is  next  established  beyond  that  for  the  extra  time? 

Mr.  TAYLOB,  Percentage  allowances,  as  they  are  called. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  there  is  a  payment  allotted,  is  there  not,  for  the  doing 
of  this  work  to  the  workers? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  his  reason  for  doing  the  work? 

Mr.  TAYLOE.  One  of  his  great  reasons ;  yes ;  33J  per  cent. 


800          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  is  a  basic  law  of  his  work;  his  compensation? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  mean  his  extra  compensation ;  what  he  originally 
gets  for  his  work. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  how  is  the  amount  of  return  that  he  is  to  get  arrived 
at?  First,  you  say  he  is  to  receive  33£  per  cent,  or  whatever  that  may  be, 
more  than  he  received  before.  Who  determines  that  what  he  got  before  is  to 
be  the  basis  for  any  computation  of  increase? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Why,  when  a  man,  a  laborer,  comes  to  one  of  our  establish- 
ments he  applies  to  us,  and  we  never  take  him  at  less  than  the  working  rate 
of  wages  there,  and  we  almost  always  in  our  establishments  say  that  no  man 
can  come  to  work  as  a  laborer  unless  he  gets  a  little  more  than  the  ruling 
rate  of  wages,  whatever  they  may  be. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  to  say,  when  he  comes  to  your  establishment  you 
say  that  he  shall  get  the  prevailing  rate,  and  if  he  is  working  in  the  factory 
he  gets  that  prevailing  rate  plus  this  additional  percentage? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Thirty-three  and  a  third  per  cent.  The  moment  he  raises  to 
a  higher  class  of  work  in  our  establishments  his  wages  go  right  up  automati- 
cally and  his  base  goes  on  and  on  and  up,  and  added  to  the  base  is  33£  per 
cent,  or  up  to  100  per  cent  added  on  top  of  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Assuming  that  a  man  is  working  in  one  of  these  factories 
and  your  system  has  been  tried  out  with  reference  to  his  particular  work  and 
you  are  ready  to  establish  that  rule,  who  determines  whether  he  shall  receive 
33 J  per  cent  increase  or  100  per  cent  increase? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  It  is  determined  entirely  upon  the  character  of  the  work  in 
which  he  is  engaged;  it  depends  on  the  nature  of  the  occupation. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Who  decides  as  to  the  character  of  work,  determining  the 
rate  of  percentage? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  That  is  done  by  a  series  of  investigations,  as  I  told  you  this 
morning. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  WTho  makes  the  decision? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  investigator.  No  one  can  do  it  except  the  investigator.  It 
is  a  scientific  investigation,  just  as  a  man  who  figures  there  will  be  an  eclipse 
of  the  moon  and  says  it  is  so-and-so  and  writes  it  down;  that  is  the  man  who 
determines  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  So  that  you  have  in  your  system  of  efficiency,  then,  a  scale 
of  increases  running  from  33£  per  cent  up? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  amount  to  be  paid  to  the  workman,  whether  it  is  33£ 
per  cent  or  more,  is  to  be  determined  by  an  investigator  working  under  certain 
determinations  of  his  as  to  the  basic  rules  or  laws? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Who  hires  the  investigator? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  employers,  of  course. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Wrho  pays  the  investigator  for  his  work? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  employers,  naturally.  You  could  not  get  the  workmen  to 
pay  for  the  investigation.  It  would  be  unjust  to  ask  them  to  do  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Who  installs  the  use  of  your  system  in  a  factory  or  shop? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Well,  if  they  are  wise  they  will  get  a  man  who  has  had  ex- 
perience. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  mean  the  individual,  but  is  it  the  owner  of  the 
business  that  installs  the  system? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  He  gets  an  outside  expert  generally. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  the  owner  does  it  or  the  proprietor  of  the  business? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Surely ;  yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  the  owner  should  decide  that  he  did  not  want  your  system, 
it  would  not  be  put  in — or  any  other  system,  any  efficiency  system? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  do  not  know  how  you  can  in  any  way  make  a  man  do  what 
he  doesn't  want  to  do. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Please  answer  yes  or  no,  and  make  the  answers  as  short  as 
possible,  Mr.  Taylor. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  also  will  endeavor  to  make  my  questions  as  short  as  pos- 
sible. 

Then,  it  is  the  owner  or  proprietor  of  a  shop  or  a  factory,  looking  over  his 
work,  that  would  decide  whether  he  wants  efficiency?  He  is  the  one  that 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  801 

would  make  the  judgment,  and  he  would  determine  as  to  whether  it  would  be 
put  in  the  factory  or  not? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  he  would  determine  what  kind  of  a  system  he  would 
want  to  put  into  use? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes,  perhaps. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  At  least  he  would  determine  whom  he  wanted  to  consult  with 
reference  to  a  system  to  be  established  or  put  in  use? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  either  leave  that  to  the  judgment  of  some  other  man  or 
men,  or  determine  himself  what  system  he  wants? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  As  I  understand  it,  there  are  various  systems  of  efficiency; 
is  that  so? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Well,  the  word  "  efficiency  "  has  been  used  in  relation  to  about 
a  thousand  different  things. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Wait  a  minute — but  generally  speaking  it  is  understood  in 
regard  to  this  field  that  you  occupy  that  there  is  more  than  one  entrant  in  the 
field,  is  there  not? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  More  than  one  person  has  taken  the  word  "  efficiency  " ;  yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  want  to  quarrel  about  the  word  "  efficiency,"  but 
there  are  several  people  from  whom  a  manager  or  owner  of  a  shop  might  select 
as  to  which  he  would  put  into  use? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

•Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  the  selection  would  rest  with  him  or  somebody  that  he 
might  appoint  to  make  the  selection,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

•  Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  if  he  appointed  a  certain  system — that  is,  for  instance, 
he  would  have  investigations  made  and  time  studies,  etc.,  by  the  investigator  or 
a  set  of  investigators — it  makes  no  difference  which  as  to  those  from  which 
he  would  make  a  determination  as  to  the  basic  law  that  underlies  the  operation 
of  a  task  and  determine  the  wage  or  remuneration  which  would  go  to  the 
worker,  and  the  extent  of  it.  Is  that  true  or  not?  That  is  what  you  have 
already  said. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No ;  we  would  not  make  a  new  investigation ;  we  would  use  the 
laws  developed  in  30  years  for  that  investigation.  We  would  make  a  brand- 
new  investigation.  These  laws  have  been  developed,  and  they  are  laws  or 
facts. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  would  take  either  the  result  of  other  investigations 
which  have  been  crystallized  into  laws  or  make  new  ones? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes;  we  take  the  laws  that  have  been  developed  in  the  last  30 
years  and  we  use  those  laws. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  the  proprietor  \vho  would  de- 
termine upon  the  introduction  of  the  system,  and  through  him  either  the  laws 
already  formed  under  your  system  or  laws  made  from  direct  studies  of  his 
business  would  be  put  into  operation,  which  would  govern  the  workman  at  his 
task?  That  is  true,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  If  I  understand  your  question,  yes;  I  think  it  is.  I  do  not 
know  just  \vhat  you  mean.  I  can  not  look  into  your  mind  and  see  just  what 
you  mean  by  those  words. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  As  you  understand  them,  that  is  correct? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  studies,  or  in  the  application  of  those  laws,  the  indi- 
vidual workman  would  have  no  voice  in  so  far  as  the  selection  of  the  system, 
or  in  so  far  as  the  selection  of  the  investigators  who  should  make  the  studies, 
if  such  investigations  should  be  made,  should  use,  would  he? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  individual  workman,  do  you  mean  to  say,  in  Mr.  Smith's 
establishment  ? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.. Mr.  Smith  would  not  consult  his  workmen  as  to  what  system 
was  going  to  be  introduced? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  can  not  conceive  of  such  a  thing.  I  do  not  know,  there  might 
be  such  a  thing.  I  can  not  understand  it.  It  is  to  me  utterly  inconceivable. 
I  have  never  known  of  such  a  system,  where  a  man  would  start  to  introduce 
a  system  and  never  consult  his  own  men.  There  might  be  such  a  crazy  thing 
as  that  done,  but  I  have  never  heard  of  it. 

38819°— 16 51 


802  REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  you  would  say  that  it  would  be  a  crazy  thing  for 
the  proprietor  to  do,  to  introduce  such  a  system  as  yours  without  consulting 
his  men? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Why,  of  course,  I  would.     My  gracious  alive 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  that  is  so,  there  is  no  use  arguing.  Just  say  that  that 
is  the  case,  and  let  us  save  time. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  when  it  comes  to  the  determination  of  the  amount  of 
time  needed  in  an  elemental  operation,  you  say  this  wrould  be  determined  by 
an  investigator.  This  investigator,  you  say,  is  selected  by  the  proprietor  or  by 
people  appointed  by  the  proprietor,  and  that  he  makes  these  determinations. 
What  voice  has  the  employee  in  the  selection  of  the  investigator  who  is  to  de- 
termine finally  the  amount  of  time  that  is  really  required  for  this  elemental 
operation  ? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Are  you  assuming,  now,  Mr.  Thompson 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Please  just  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  You  are  asking  me  a  question  that  I  can  not  answer.  Your 
question  is  there,  but  I  do  not  know  what  is  in  your  mind. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  restate  the  question,  then,  because  I  do  not  want  to 
have  any  doubt  about  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  understood  the  question,  but  there  may  be  a  different  meaning 
in  your  words,  and  we  are  not 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Just  answer  the  question  as  you  understand  it. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Are  you  assuming  that  the  investigator  is  going  to  work  here 
and  making  a  fresh  investigation  of  this  man's  business?  Is  that  in  your 
mind ;  or  are  you  assuming  that  he  is  going  to  use  these  laws  or  that  slide 
rule  that  has  been  26  years  in  being  established  under  investigation? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Read  the  question  to  the  witness. 

(The  reporter  read  the  pending  question  as  follows:) 

"  Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  when  it  comes  to  the  determination  of  the  amount  of 
time  needed  in  an  elemental  operation,  you  say  this  would  be  determined  by  an 
investigator.  This  investigator,  you  say,  is  selected  by  the  proprietor  or  by 
people  appointed  by  the  proprietor,  and  that  he  makes  these  determinations. 
What  voice  has  the  employee  in  the  selection  of  the  investigator  who  is  to 
determine  finally  the  amount  of  time  that  is  really  required  for  this  elemental 
operation?  " 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  want  to  know  whether,  in  that  elemental  operation,  you  have 
in  mind  something  that  has  never  been  determined  before — that  is,  one  out 
of  perhaps  one  hundred  things  that  go  on  in  that  establishment — or  whether 
you  have  the  ninety-nine  that  have  been  determined  and  are  in  this  book  and 
in  that  code  of  laws?  Ninety-nine  of  those  things  are  in  the  code  of  laws,  and 
the  hundredth  remains  to  be  determined. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Of  course,  that  deduction  is  perhaps  arbitrary — that  is,  that 
ninety-nine  have  been  determined  and  that  the  hundredth  has  not. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  would  say  that  more  than  ninety-nine  have  been  determined  in 
the  art  of  cutting  metals,  in  the  art  of  machine-shop  practice. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  stated  a  short  time  ago  that  in  the  determination  of  the 
law  which  specified  the  time  required  for  an  elemental  movement,  you  have  had 
an  investigator — sometimes  more  than  one — appointed,  who  would  make 
studies  up  to  1,500  perhaps — studies  as  to  the  time  required.  Now,  in  the 
selection  of  those  investigators,  if  they  are  needed  as  an  original  proposition  in 
any  shop  you  go  into,  what  voice  has  the  employee  in  the  selection  of  those 
investigators? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Now,  what  do  you  mean  by  the  "employee"?  What  do  you 
mean  by  that?  I  do  not  know  what  you  mean  by  the  "employee." 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  workman  who  is  being  studied. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  workman  who  is  being  studied? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  We  always  ask  for  his  cooperation.  In  ninety-nine  cases  out  of 
a  hundred  the  man  who  is  being  studied  has  the  matter  put  up  to  him,  and  we 
say,  "This  is  what  we  are  after.  Do  you  wish  to  join  us  in  this?"  The  man 
who  makes  that  study  is  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hundred  a  man  who 
came  from  the  workers,  a  man  whom  the  workers  in  the  shop  have  confi- 
dence in. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  understand,  but  the  workman  has  not  the  selection  of  the 
investigator,  has  he? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Of  the  man  who  is  going  to  investigate  him? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  803 

Mr.  TAYLOE.  No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  He  has  no  selection.    That  is  all  I  want,  now. 

Now,  if  there  were  a  difference  of  opinion  between  the  worker,  as  to  the 
time  that  it  took  to  perform  this  elemental  operation,  and  we  will  say  the  pro- 
prietor of  the  establishment,  the  determination  of  that  time  would  be  made  by 
the  investigator,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  TAYLOK.  As  a  preliminary,  it  would. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  TAYLOK.  But,  on  the  other  hand 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  just 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Let  me  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  answered  the  question. 

Mr.  TAYLOK.  No ;  I  can  not  answer  the  question,  one-fourth  of  it,  and  let  the 
rest  of  it  go. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  give  you  an  opportunity  later  to  say  what  you  want  to. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  But  I  can  not  leave  that  question  one-fourth  answered.  It  is 
not  right  to  me  to  leave  it  in  that  way.  Anything  that  you  give  to  that  work- 
man has  to  be  tried  out  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  workmen  in  the  shop. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  first  decision,  as  a  preliminary,  rests  with  the  proprietor 
in  the  shop.  I  wanted  to  have  that  understood  right  off. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  the  workman  in  the  shop  has  the  final  say? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes ;  it  must  suit  him,  and  he  must  say  that  it  is  just.  As  a 
preliminary,  you  are  quite  right ;  the  proprietor  has  everything  to  say  about  it, 
but  the  moment  he  touches  it  and  the  man  comes  out  with  that  time  table  and 
he  says,  "  There  is  your  time,"  and  he  says,  "  I  can  not  do  it  in  that  time," 
that  must  be  settled  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  workman,  and  it  does  not  require 
any  appeal  or  any  question.  When  any  workman  says,  "  I  can  not  do  it  in  that 
time ;  show  me,"  he  must  be  shown,  and  unless  he  is  shown  to  his  satisfaction, 
you  have  not  scientific  management. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes;  he  is  the  final  decider,  in  that  he  says  that  that  time 
suits  him.  That  is,  he  says  that  it  is  not  too  short.  It  may  be  too  long,  but 
if  it  is  too  short,  he  can  say,  "  I  will  not  do  it." 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  code  of  laws  contains  a  great  many  mistakes,  but  any  time 
he  says 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  did  not  ask  you  about  that.  I  want  to  get  down  to  facts, 
and  I  want  to  make  my  own  investigations,  and  if  you  want  anything  further 
you  can  put  it  into  the  record. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  it  not  the  employee  who  is  the  final  decider  of  the  time 
he  can  take  to  perform  an  elemental  operation? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes ;  it  is. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  it? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes ;  he  has  the  final  determination. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  if  you  should  go  into  a  new  establishment  with  the  99 
laws  already  established  in  reference  to  that  business  in  your  book,  an  employee 
of  that  factory  would  have  the  right  to  turn  those  laws  over  and  say  to  you  and 
to  your  men  and  to  the  proprietor,  "  These  are  all  wrong,  and  I  will  write  new 
ones  for  you,"  and  then  state  the  laws  as  he  understood,  and  the  time-work  as 
he  understood,  they  should  be  applied  to  the  elemental  motions? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No;  he  has  the  right  to  say,  not  that  they  are  all  wrong,  but 
"  This  part  of  the  laws  is  wrong."  We  will  not  listen  to  him  if  he  says  they 
are  all  wrong.  Then  we  will  make  an  investigation  to  see  whether  he  is  right 
or  wrong,  and  we  prove  it  in  this  way. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  All  right,  go  on. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  workman  wants  to  know  what  he  has  and  what  he  has 
not  got. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  who  decides  where  the  workman  says  to  you,  "  This  law 
is  wrong  "?  Who  decides  whether  or  not  it  is  right  or  wrong? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  am  trying  to  tell  you,  but  if  you  do  not  let  me  talk,  I  can  not 
tell  you.  If  you  will  let  me  talk,  I  can  tell  you.  The  workman  says,  "  This 
law  is  wrong." 

Our  answer  to  that  is,  "  Very  well.  I  am  a  workman  myself.  Take  my  stop 
watch  and  I  will  do  this  while  you  time  me."  He  takes  the  watch  and  I  do  the 
work  and  he  times  me,  and  then  I  turn  to  him  and  I  say,  "  Did  I  do  it  in  the 
time?  "  He  says,  "  Yes."  Then  I  turn  to  him  and  say,  "  Now,  you  do  it  and  I 
will  hold  the  watch."  Then  the  workman  turns  around  and  I  time  him  while  he 


804          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

does  it,  and  then  we  find  that  the  workman  is  making  false  motions  and  is  work- 
ing in  an  inefficient  way  and  we  have  a  chance  to  see  just  what  he  is  doing  that 
is  wrong.  "  You  are  holding  your  wrench  wrong.  If  you  will  study  this  new 
and  better  way  of  doing  this  thing  you  will  find  you  can  do  it  in  the  time."  We 
are  teaching  workmen  in  that  way  how  to  do  what  they  are  required  to  do  in 
these  operations. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Suppose  he  finally  holds  his  wrench  right  and  it  takes  more 
time  to  do  it,  who  decides  whether  he  took  the  right  time  or  whether  you  did? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  This  time  has  been  established  by  experience  in  50  establish- 
ments by  men  of  a  simitar  character ;  and  we  say,  "  We  will  pay  your  expenses, 
and  you  go  to  the  shops  and  see  other  men  do  it." 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  not  answered  my  question.  I  asked  you,  and  you 
know  just  what  my  language  means 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  is  it? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  tell  that  man  that  he  has  a  wrong  action  ;  that  he  has  not 
done  it  right;  that  he  is  "soldiering"  on  the  time.  In  other  words,  you  de- 
termine— I  do  not  know  what  you  tell  a  man 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No ;  I  do  not  say  that  he  is  "  soldiering  "  at  all.  I  say,  "  Very 
likely  you  are  inefficient.  You  have  not  yet  learned  this  right."  Our  men  do  not 
"  soldier  "  after  they  come  under  this  system. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  you  decide  finally  whether  the  workman's  objection  is 
well  taken  to  your  ruling,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  do  not.  This  code  of  laws  decides  it — this  code  of  laws  that 
has  been  proved  to  be  right  decides  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  A  code  of  laws  is  an  inanimate  thing  and  can  not  decide  any- 
thing. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  is  nothing  in  the  world  more  powerful  than  a  code  of  laws. 
The  whole  United  States  is  run  by  a  code  of  laws.  This  code  of  laws  that  has 
been  developed  determines,  and  we  ask  these  men  to  go  to  these  various  shops 
and  see  whether  it  is  right.  That  is  our  answer.  The  code  of  laws  is  above  all 
people.  That  is  what  I  want  to  impress. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  the  workman  does  not  recognize  that  code  of  laws  framed 
by  Mr.  Taylor  and  his  associates  in  several  shops  as  ruling  human  action. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  It  is  not  framed  by  us. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  you  will  just  answer  my  questions,  Mr.  Taylor,  we  will 
save  a  lot  of  time. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  am  trying  to  answer  the  best  I  can. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  think  not.  I  am  sorry  to  say  that. '  If  this  workman  goes 
to  the  other  shops  and  comes  back  and  says  finally  to  you,  "  Well,  I  think  that 
my  position  with  reference  to  that  law  is  correct,"  then  what  do  you  say? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Then  we  have  a  very  careful  investigation  made  by  one,  two,  or 
three  men,  whose  judgment  I  have  great  confidence  in,  to  go  to  those  and  other 
shops  to  see  whether  he  is  right  or  wrong. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  suppose  after  you  have  made  that  investigation  and 
have  gone  patiently  and  carefully  over  that  with  this  man,  this  man  still  says 
to  you,  "  In  our  judgment  you  are  still  wrong,"  then  who  decides  the  matter? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  do  not  think  I  have  ever  had  that  case  come  up. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  if  it  should  come  up?  I  am  trying  to  get  at  all  sides  of 
these  matters. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Finally  justice  decides  it.  Public  opinion  in  the  shop  decides  it. 
General  public  opinion  of  everyone. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  whose  person  resides  this  capacity  to  determine  exact 
justice?  Does  it  reside  in  the  workman?  Is  he  able  to  say  that  this  law  is 
wrong?  Or  does  the  proprietor  say?  Or  does  the  investigator,  or  investigators, 
sent  into  that  shop  to  work  out  your  system  decide  that  question? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  A  combination  of  all  of  them  settle  it.  It  is  a  democracy  that 
decides  it ;  a  general  democracy  of  the  whole  thing.  It  is  public  opinion  of  the 
shop  that  decides  it.  If  a  man  continues  to  kick  unjustly — a  workman — public 
opinion  of  the  shop  frowns  on  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  do  not  answer  the  question  yet,  Mr.  Taylor,  and  I  wanr 
you  to  answer  it.  Suppose  that  the  employees  on  a  given  task  who  do  that  work- 
in  a  shop,  ten  or  a  dozen  men,  should  say  to  you  that  your  law  is  wrong.  Then 
suppose  you  should  say  to  them,  "  Go  to  these  other  shops  where  it  has  been 
worked."  And  suppose  they  should  go  and  should  come  back  and  still  say  to 
you,  "  Mr.  Taylor,  you  are  wrong."  Suppose,  then,  you  should  have  special 
investigations  made  and  new  tables  prepared,  and  they  should  still  say  to 
you  that  you  are  wrong,  Mr.  Taylor.  Do  you  take  what  they  say  then?  Do 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  805 

you  write  their  table?  Do  their  tables  become  the  incarnation  of  justice,  or 
do  you,  or  somebody  for  you,  somebody  representing  your  system,  decide? 

Mr.  TAYLOK.  Which  one  of  those  questions  would  you  like  me  to  answer? 
You  have  put  an  inquiry  to  me  containing  four  or  five  questions,  and  I  do  not 
know  wrhich  one  of  them  you  desire  me  to  answer.  You  are  asking  me  four 
or  five  questions  at  once,  and  I  can  not  answer  it  until  I  know  which  one  of 
them  you  want  me  to  answer.  If  you  will  let  me  answer  in  my  own  way,  I 
will  do  so ;  or  if  you  will  tell  me  which  one  of  those  questions  you  want  me  to 
answer,  I  will  do  my  best  to  answer  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  am  only  asking  you  one  question,  and  I  will  ask  the  re- 
porter to  read  it  now. 

( The  reporter  repeated  the  pending  question. ) 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Y.ou  have  asked  five  questions  in  succession.  Which  one  do 
you  want  me  to  answer?  Or,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  answer  in  my  own  way, 
1  will  answer.  I  want  to  know  which  one  of  those  five  questions  you  would 
like  to  have  me  answer. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  ask  you :  Did  you  not  say  a  short  time  ago,  when  I 
asked  you  that  if  the  individual  workman  disagreed  with  your  table,  then  you 
asked  him  to  go  to  other  shops  where  the  table  was  in  operation  to  see  how  it 
worked  ? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  said  that? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  did  not  say,  in  case  he  differed  with  that  still, 
that  then  you  made  an  investigation  with  reference  to  these  specific  laws,  new 
investigations,  and  if  they  were  still  found  to  be  correct,  they  were  still  en- 
forced? Did  you  not  say  that? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  If  I  find  those  laws  were  right  and  being  properly  carried  out 
and  workmen  were  working  under  them  in  six  or  eight  shops,  all  of  them 
making  good  under  them,  and  if  I  found  that  those  workmen  were  not  over- 
worked, and  they  were  normal  workmen,  well  suited  to  their  jobs,  I  would 
say,  yes,  these  laws  have  been  proved,  and  are  correct. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  After  you  have  done  those  two  things  suppose  that  the 
men  still  say  that  they  think  the  laws  laid  down  by  you  are  not  correct  and 
are  not  the  incarnation  of  justice,  who  decides  it  ? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  tell  them  that  these  laws  are  not  laid  down  by  me.  These 
laws  are  embodied  in  this  trade.  These  laws  have  proved  themselves  for  the 
last  10  years.  It  is  up  to  you  now  to  show  me  that  they  are  wrong.  I  will 
listen  to  what  you  have  to  say. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Suppose  they  say  "We  believe  they  are  wrong;  we  think 
they  are  wrong."  Then  what  do  you  do?  Who  decides  whether  they  shall 
work  under  those  laws  or  not? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  If  we  find  that  in  four  or  five  shops  many  men  are  working 
under  these  laws  to  their  satisfaction,  I  say  there  is  something  wrong  with 
these  workmen,  then,  and  I  try  to  persuade  them.  I  tell  them  to  get  busy ; 
to  see  what  others  have  been  doing  under  these  laws.  I  ask  them  what  is 
the  matter  with  them,  and  I  tell  them  what  other  people  are  doing  and  have 
been  doing,  and  for  them  to  climb  up  and  get  busy  and  do  the  same. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  suppose  you  do  not  persuade  them?  Suppose  they  are 
still  of  the  opinion  that  they  are  right?  What  is  done,  and  who  does  it,  then? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  To  tell  the  truth,  I  do  not  remember  ever  to  have  had  such  a 
case  as  that  in  my  life.  I  will  climb  that  fence  when  I  get  there.  I  never  ran 
against  that.  Over  and  over  again  I  have  proved  these  things  to  men.  '  I  have 
sent  them  out  to  see  other  people  who  worked  right.  I  have  pointed  out  that 
this  is  so,  and  I  have  never  met  that  kind  of  men.  If  I  meet  them,  I  will  know 
how  to  deal  with  them.  I  can  not  take  a  supposititious  case  that  does  not  exist. 
As  far  as  I  have  found  it,  the  mechanics  that  I  have  come  in  contact  with  and 
the  workmen  that  I  have  come  in  contact  with  are  endowed  with  a  good  deal  of 
common  sense  and  a  good  deal  of  judgment. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  gather,  there  is  no  final  deter- 
mining source  in  your  system?  Is  that  correct,  Mr.  Taylor? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Except  the  gradual  evolution  of  law.  These  laws  are  gradually 
evolved  through  the  cooperation  of  both  sides — not  of  one  side.  They  build 
themselves  up  through  the  fact  that  they  are  giving  satisfaction  to  both  sides, 
and  have  to  repeat  it  and  repeat  it  and  repeat  it.  That  evolves  the  law.  That 
is  the  way  the  common  law  of  the  world  has  been  evolved,  exactly  in  the  same 


806          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

way.  The  laws  of  this  shop  are  so  evolved,  just  as  the  common  law  governing 
ail  countries  is  evolved. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  may  tell  you,  Mr.  Taylor,  that  the  common  law  of  this 
country  and  of  England  is  evolved  in  many  cases,  and  in  most  cases,  from  the 
judgments  of  courts  and  decisions  by  courts  having  the  power  to  decide. 

I  am  trying  to  find  out  from  you  a  very  simple  thing.  I  am  trying  to  find 
out,  when  you  go  into  your  shop  and  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to 
the  time  taken,  who  determines  it,  and  you  do  not  seem  to  be  inclined  to  answer 
that  question.  Anything  that  you  would  like  to*  say  on  the  subject  I  should 
be  very  pleased  to  hear. 

Mr.  TAYLOK.  I  have  tried  to  make  myself  clear,  that  gradually  a  code  of  laws 
is  evolved  which  is  satisfactory  to  both  sides,  and  that  both  sides  submit  them- 
selves to  those  laws ;  that  the  manufacturer,  the  owner  of  a  business,  no  more 
dares  violate  those  laws  than  the  workman  does  to  violate  those  laws ;  that  he 
refers  to  this  code  of  laws  not  as  to  what  he  says — he  does  not  say,  "  This  is  my 
judgment ;  "  but  he  refers  to  this  slide  rule,  and  he  says,  "  There  is  30  years  of 
work.  I  stand  on  that.  It  is  not  a  question  for  me  to  say.  I  do  not  recognize 
it  or  fail  to  recognize  it.  There  is  the  scientific  fact  that  has  been  developed. 
Those  are  the  laws  we  are  working  under." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  see  if  the  commission  understands  the  situation. 
Your  answer  seems  to  amount  to  this,  that  you  have  not  run  across  any  case 
in  your  observation  where  there  wras  a  disagreement  as  to  the  length  of  time  in 
which  the  task  should  be  done.  Is  that  correct,  Mr.  Taylor  ? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  No  final  disagreement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  us  leave  the  subject,  then,  if  the  commission  is  satisfied 
to  do  so. 

There  is  no  objection.    Proceed. 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  I  should  welcome  a  tribunal,  if  one  could  be  made,  to  which  you 
could  refer  these  things. 

The  CHAIBMAN.  You  say  you  would  welcome  such  a  tribunal? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  I  would,  indeed.  I  look  forward  to  the  day  when  the  United 
States  Government  will  furnish  a  tribunal  of  that  sort.  Nothing  could  be  better 
in  this  world,  to  develop  these  laws  and  make  them  national  laws. 

The  CHAIEMAN.  There  are  one  or  two  questions  that  have  been  evolved  that  I 
would  like  to  ask  you : 

In  attaining  the  increase  in  production  of  which  you  have  spoken,  to  what 
extent  would  you  say  the  results  are  due,  divided  into  these  subdivisions :  The 
better  planning  of  the  work,  the  adoption  of  scientific  standards,  the  utilization 
of  new  methods,  and  the  elimination  of  "  soldiering,"  as  you  have  stated,  on  the 
part  of  the  workmen? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Of  course,  that  would  vary  with  the  condition  of  the  various 
types  of  business. 

The  CHAIBMAN.  It  would  be  impossible  to  make  any  general  ans\ver  upon 
that? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  No;  but  in  a  general  way  I  should  say  that  the  immediate 
putting  of  the  establishment  in.  order — just  plain  common  sense,  the  simplest 
kind  of  horse  sense  that  any  fool  would  have,  almost,  going  into  business;  the 
putting  it  in  order;  just  having  things  done  the  same  way  each  time,  instead 
of  a  new  way  each  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Could  you  tell  to  what  extent  that  figures? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  I  was  going  to  say  that  I  have  had  it  produce  a  50  per  cent 
increase,  just  that  alone — putting  things  in  order;  a  50  per  cent  increase  of 
output — moving  things  in  the  logical  way  throughout,  seeing  that  they  have 
no  false  movements,  that  things  are  not  duplicated,  that  things  are  done  in 
an  orderly  instead  of  a  disorderly  way. 

The  CHAIBMAN.  That  would  include  the  better  planning  of  the  work,  the 
adoption  of  standards,  and  the  utilization  of  new  methods?  All  of  that  would 
represent  about  50  per  cent? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  New  methods  is  another  matter. 

The  CHAIBMAN.  Well,  then,  the  other  elements  mentioned  would  represent  an 
increase  of  50  per  cent? 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Merely  the  orderly  movement  of  things,  to  stop  disorder  and 
have  order  in  the  place  of  it;  that  is,  what  we  spend  perhaps  a  year  or  year 
and  a  half  on  in  any  establishment. 

The  CHAIBMAN.  And  you  say  that  in  some  places  that  has  amounted  to  an 
increase  of  production  of  50  per  cent. 

Mr.  TAYLOB.  Yes. 


EFFICIENCY  SYSTEMS  AND  LABOR.  807 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  much,  or  could  you  state  how  much  of  a  percentage 
you  have  found  of  the  increase  of  production  would  be  due  to  the  utilization 
of  new  methods? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Methods  new  to  that  establishment? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  be  my  idea. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Methods  new  to  that  establishment,  but  old  in  other  establish- 
ments. As  a  rule  a  very  large  part  of  the  increase  comes  from  that  sort  of 
thing;  from  the  use  of  this  slide  rule,  from  the  cutting  out  of  a  whole  lot  of 
foolish  movements,  movements  that  were  entirely  unnecessary,  movements  that 
a  man  is  making  because  of  the  formation  of  bad  habits,  learned  when  he  was 
young,  perhaps;  the  gradual  substitution,  where  it  is  a  practicable  thing,  of 
the  movements  of  the  right  and  left  hand  at  the  same  time — teaching  the  man 
to  do  something  with  both  of  his  hands  at  the  same  time,  instead  of  doing 
first  this  and  then  that  [indicating].  That  sort  of  thing  would  be  perhaps  the 
largest  gain. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Could  you  estimate  the  percentage  of  gain  in  the  same 
industry,  or  a  typical  industry  such  as  you  had  in  your  mind  when  you  said 
that  the  better  planning  of  the  work  might  result  in  a  50  per  cent  increase  in 
production? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  could  not  say  that.  I  could  have  the  matter  looked  up  for 
you  and  try  to  approximate  those  various  things  in  an  establishment  if  you 
would  like  to  have  me  do  so. 

If  you  would  like  to  have  me  go  back  and  look  up  the  records  I  will  do  it, 
but  it  is  hard  to  do  it  now.  I  have  never  put  it  exactly  on  that  standpoint. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well,  then.  I  will  ask  you  this  question,  in  the 
record,  and  you  may  give  your  answer.  It  will  be  sent  to  you : 

In  attaining  to  the  large  increases  of  production,  to  what  extent  are  the 
results  due  to  the  better  planning  of  the  work,  the  adoption  of  standards,  and 
the  utilization  of  new  methods,  and  how  largely  to  the  elimination  of  "  soldier- 
ing "  on  the  part  of  the  workers? 

That  will  be  given  to  you  so  that  you  can  analyze  it,  and  if  you  can,  why 
answer  it. 

What  method,  if  any,  has  been  adopted  to  determine  whether  or  not  the 
amount  of  work  required  of  men  is  injurious  to  their  health? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  As  far  as  I  know,  the  method  is  only  that  of  closely  observing 
the  men  when  they  are  at  their  work.  In  addition  to  that,  however,  there 
are  certain  laws  of  fatigue  which  have  been  very  carefully  studied.  When 
we  begin  in  certain  industries  we  can  say  absolutely  certainly  that  this  man  will 
not  be  overworked,  and  can  not  be  overworked,  and  in  certain  others  we  can  say 
that  they  can  be  overworked.  I  will  tell  you  by  an  illustration,  if  you  like 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  rather  have  you  refer  me  to  the  laws. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  will  try  to  tell  you  what  that  law  is. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  it  a  written  law? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes ;  it  is  a  written  law. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Could  you  refer  me,  first,  before  you  make  your  explanation, 
to  any  volume  containing  the  law? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes ;  it  is  somewhere  in  this  book  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  in  your  work? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes;  it  is  here  in  this  book.  But  I  will  repeat  it  very  much 
quicker  than  I  can  find  it. 

If  a  man  is  doing  very  heavy  laboring  work,  and  has  a  load  on  the  end  of  his 
arms,  a  push  or  a  pull,  or  alternately  a  push  and  a  pull,  that  is  very  heavy 
laboring;  most  of  it  comes  on  his  arms,  and  if  he  has  45  pounds  load  on  his 
arms,  he  must  have  a  rest  58  per  cent  of  the  time.  Even  a  big,  powerful  man 
must  have  that — the  dray  horseman  must  have  58  per  cent  rest. 

If  that  load  is  reduced  on  each  arm  so  that,  instead  of  45  pounds  on  each 
arm,  it  is  reduced  to  22£,  he  requires  only  42  per  cent  rest.  If  that  load  is 
reduced  to  15  pounds  on  each  arm,  he  only  requires  30  per  cent  rest. 

That  is  a  law  carefully  laid  down,  a  law  of  fatigue.  He  must  be  free  from 
load  for  his  muscles  to  recuperate  a  certain  portion  of  the  time,  as  I  have  stated. 
That  results  from  the  study  of  the  recuperation  of  the  muscles.  Not  only  that, 
but  these  periods  of  rest  must  come  at  quite  frequent  intervals.  It  will  not  do 
for  him  to  have  a  load  on  his  arm  for  four  minutes  at  a  time  and  then  rest  for 
four  minutes.  He  must  free  himself  from  the  45-pound  load  oftener  than  every 
four  minutes  if  he  is  going  to  get  through  properly  with  the  58  per  cent  rest. 

The  law  of  cooperation  of  muscles,  and  so  forth,  has  been  very  well  settled. 
I  do  not  mean  to  say  by  that  that  there  is  not  much  to  learn  yet ;  there  is  still 


808          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

a  great  deal  to  know,  but  we  investigate  overwork  in  that  way,  and  when  I 
say  that  men  in  a  machine  shop,  14  out  of  15  can  not  be  overworked,  it  is  from 
investigation  of  the  strains  that  they  are  under  that  they  can  not  do  it ;  the 
periods  of  rest  are  a  necessity,  and  they  are  so  frequent,  and  the  stress  on  the 
arms  and  the  body  is  so  mild  that  we  can  not  overwork  them.  I  am  saying  this 
advisedly  and  not  from  any  general  talk  about  it,  but  from  careful  investiga- 
tion. We  made  careful  investigations  to  see  how  many  men  in  a  machine  shop 
it  was  possible  to  overwork,  and  I  find  that  not  1  in  14  is  it  possible  to  over- 
work. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  stated  all  the  method  which  now  comes  to  your 
mind  which  has  been  adopted  to  determine  this  factor  of  fatigue? 

Mr.  TAYLOE.  No;  there  is  another  class  of  work.  For  instance,  the  young 
girl,  the  work  of  a  young  girl,  who  is  particularly  easily  tired  and  quickly 
tired.  We  give  her  a  job  to  do  and  then  we  study  her  very  carefully  to  see 
when  she  shows  any  signs  of  nervousness.  As  soon  as  fatigue  is  beginning  to 
show,  and  when  she  begins  to  fall  off  and  wants  to  talk,  we  carefully  study  all 
that,  and  from  that  study  we  find  that  no  young  girl  should  go  for  more  than  an 
hour  and  a  quarter  without  a  complete  rest,  and  so  in  our  establishment,  where 
we  have  our  way  and  where  we  order  them  to  do  it,  and  they  generally  do  it, 
and  if  they  don't  they  have  to  quit,  we  give  10-minute  rest  periods  every  hour 
and  a  quarter,  and  every  girl,  when  they  leave  the  establishment,  they  go  out 
and  talk  and  get  free,  and  then  they  come  back  again.  These  girls  show 
nervous  fatigue,  and  in  that  way  we  find  that  in  eight  hours  a  day  it  is  very 
difficult  to  overwork  a  young  girl,  which  is  the  one  most  sensitive  and  which 
we  have  to  guard  the  best.  I  consider  it  very,  very  important  that  they  should 
have  these  10-minute  rest  periods  at  the  end  of  every  hour  and  a  quarter.  Per- 
haps we  are  wrong  about  the  hour  and  a  quarter — 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  that  is  one  of  the  methods  you  adopt? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes.  Perhaps  it  ought  to  be  some  other  period,  but  that  is  what 
we  have  determined  and  what  we  believe  to  be  best,  and  we  find  that  it  gen- 
erally gives  satisfaction  to  the  employees;  they  are  pleased  with  it.  Some  of 
them  do  not  like  to  leave  their  work  at  the  end  of  that  time,  but  we  make  them. 
That  is  where  we  come  in  and  we  make  them.  We  say,  "  This  is  the  10-minute 
rest  period,  and  you  can  do  anything  but  work  in  that  period;  you  can  go  off 
and  rest  and  talk  to  some  one  else,  or  please  yourself  in  any  way  you  want,  but 
you  can  not  do  any  work." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  of  any  other  method  that  has  been  adopted,  to 
your  knowledge,  to  ascertain  this  fact  as  to  whether  or  not  the  amount  of 
work  required  is  injurious  to  health? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Well,  except  to  take  the  statistics  of  the  men  who  have  been 
working  under  it,  that  is  all ;  we  study  the  men.  We  take  the  length  of  time 
that  they  have  been  in  the  employ,  and  we  see  if  they  are  happy,  and  we  have 
them,  weighed  once  in  a  while  to  see  whether  they  are  going  uphill  or  downhill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  a  definite  plan  laid  out  in  making  that  study  in  your 
code  of  laws? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Nothing  except  what  I  have  told  you. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  laws  you  mentioned — that  is  what  I  am  trying  to 
get  at.  Under  your  system  is  there  a  definite  portion  of  the  code  devoted  to 
this  proposition  as  to  weighing  the  men? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Surely — no ;  not  as  to  weighing  the  men ;  it  is  only  when  we 
suspect  that  they  may  be  overworked  in  a  line  that  we  weigh  them,  and  then 
not  always,  but  only  when  we  suspect  that  there  is  a  possibility  of  overwork. 
But  as  a  rule  I  find,  as  I  have  told  you,  there  is  a  certain  pressure  pulling  or 
pushing  on  the  arms,  and  that  is  a  pretty  good  safeguard  for  the  men,  pro- 
vided you  pick  the  right  men;  but  if  you  get  a  light  man  and  have  him  carry 
a  load  of  45  pounds  on  each  arm,  that  is  ridiculous;  you  will  overwork  him 
terrifically ;  so  that  we  eliminate  these  men  and  take  the  men  that  are  able  to 
stand  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  just  about  the  same  as  the  large  horse  and  the  small 
one? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  that  result  in  lowering  the  quality  of  the  output? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Invariably  the  output  is  better.  Our  statistics  show  that  every- 
where we  have  observed  we  find  that  the  output  is  better ;  we  must  have  better 
output  and  we  must-  have  better  quality.  We  must  have  more  of  it ;  and  more 
of  it  without  a  better  quality  would  be  ridiculous;  so  that  you  will  find,  if 
you  read  what  I  have  written  on  the  matter,  we  always  begin  with  quality; 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOE.  809 

we  always  begin  by  saying  that  a  man  may  not  lessen  his  work,  but  he  is  to 
do  that  first  and  give  the  same  or  better  quality ;  and  then  you  must  never 
ask  a  man  to  do  what  he  has  not  done  before.  We  see  that  his  quality  is  held 
up  and  that  we  must  get  better  methods  of  quality  rather  than  worse. 

The  CHAIKMAN.  What  is  the  result  of  the  wages  by  employment  under  the 
scientific  management? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  From  33£  to  100  per  cent  better,  at  least.  The  report  of  this 
company  shows  that  the  men  are  getting  731  more — the  average  of  them — 73i 
per  cent  higher  than  they  did  when  they  came. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  works  was  that? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  Taber  Manufacturing  Co. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  To  what  extent  has  that  resulted,  as  regards  compensation, 
with  higher  speed  of  production  when  there  is  such?  Can  you  state  that,  or  is 
that  too  broad? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I- can  state  it  in  a  general  way.  I  will  state  that  we  have  never 
done  anything  but  reduce ;  we  always  advocate  giving  the  lowest  hours  at 
which  a  man  can  do  his  work ;  we  have  never  increased  the  hours  of  labor,  and 
it  is  always  our  tendency  to  go  down ;  and,  I  might  say,  even  in  our  machine 
shops,  in  which  the  output  is  dependent  on  the  machine  rather  than  on  the 
men,  we  are  seriously  thinking  of  seeing  whether  it  is  possible  to  get  down 
to  eight  hours  in  our  shops,  and  away  from  nine  hours,  and  still  compete.  You 
understand,  if  we  can  not  compete  the  whole  thing  falls  to  pieces ;  we  can  not 
pay  the  big  wages,  and  we  are  injuring  our  men.  In  certain  shops  we  are  mak- 
ing a  very  great  study  to  see  if  we  can  not  reduce  to  eight  hours  and  still 
maintain  such  conditions  that  we  can  pay  the  high  wages ;  but  we  are  doing 
no  good  to  the  man  if  you  lower  his  wages  at  the  same  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  statistics  in  existence  showing  whether  the 
hours  of  labor  have  been  reduced  by  the  introduction  of  scientific  management? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Not  that  I  know  of;  but  I  can  assure  you  that  they  have  been 
lowered ;  I  have  told  you  some. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  understand;  but  I  just  wanted  to  know  if  there  was  any 
such  information.  Now,  kindly  refer  to  page  69  of  Shop  Management. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  What  volume? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  There  are  two  editions  here ;  that  is  the  reason  I  asked  that.  I 
will  see. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  a  quotation  of  this  kind :  "  The  writer  has  seen, 
howrever,  several  times  after  the  introduction  of  this  system  the  members  of 
labor  unions  who  were  working  under  it  leave  the  union  in  large  number  be- 
cause they  found  that  they  could  dc  better  under  the  operation  of  the  system 
than  under  the  laws  of  the  union." 

Is  that  correctly  quoted? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Kindly  give  me  a  specific  instance — that  is,  the  shops  and 
the  unions  from  which  they  retired. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  The  Midvale  Co.  and  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Works,  the  Taber 
Manufacturing  Co.,  and  the  Link  Belt  Co. — every  company  I  have  ever  been 
in  that  has  been  so  to  a  certain  extent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mention  all  that  you  can  remember. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  From  my  own  personal  knowledge,  I  can  say  that  I  believe 
there  are  a  great  many;  but  those  are  all  the  specific  instances  I  have  in 
mind. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Those  are  all  the  specific  instances? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes. 

May  I  justify  this  and  explain  that  a  little  further? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly ;  make  any  explanation  you  like. 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  want  to  say  this,  that  so  far  as  I  know  no  one  who  has  ever 
had  anything  to  do  with  scientific  management  has  ever  in  the  sightest  degree 
discriminated  against  a  union  man  or  a  nonunion  man,  so  far  as  I  know.  I 
never  heard  of  any  discrimination  one  way  or  the  other.  The  question  is  never 
asked,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  our  establishment,  whether  a  man,  when  he  comes 
to  work,  is  a  union  or  a  nonunion  man.  We  are  trying  to  do  identically  the 
same  thing  that  the  unions  are  trying  to  do  for  the  workingmen ;  we  are  after 
higher  wages  and  we  are  after  shorter  hours,  and  we  are  after  better  working 
conditions.  We  are  after  exactly  the  same  things  that  the  unions  are  after. 
We  can  not  have  any  quarrel  with  the  unions;  we  agree  with  all  these  objects, 
and  we  have  exactly  the  same  objects.  But  this  is  an  explanation.  If  a  set  of 


810          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

workmen  find  that  they  are  the  best  of  friends  with  their  employers  they  do  not 
need  to  coerce  them ;  and,  mind  you,  I  heartily  agree  with  coercion  that  is  nec- 
essary with  the  unions  on  behalf  of  the  employers  sometimes;  I  am  a  union 
man,  and  all  I  say  is  that  under  our  system  we  have  never  had  a  necessity  for 
coercion.  We  are  anxious  to  do  for  our  men,  and  we  are  doing  and  have  done 
more  than  any  union  has  done  for  them ;  but  these  men  in  the  unions  come  to 
me  and  say  sometimes,  "  Fred,  I  am  tired  of  paying  these  dues.  Would  you 
leave  the  union?  "  I  say  that  I  have  never  advised  them  to  leave  the  union  or 
to  join  it.  I  say,  "  If  it  is  better  for  you  to  belong  to  the  union,  go  on ;  I  have 
nothing  to  do  with  that  matter."  I  do  not  say  yes  or  no  to  unions  in  our  shops. 
I  do  not  object  to  the  men  belonging  to  them,  but  I  tell  them  that  they  will  have 
to  judge  for  themselves.  They  say,  "  I  am  tired  of  paying  dues  when  it  is  not 
doing  anything  for  me,"  and  they  gradually  leave ;  but  they  leave  not  in  an  un- 
friendly way  to  the  union,  and  it  is  an  extraordinary  fact  that  has  come  up  in 
connection  with  this,  and  it  came  up  in  my  early  youth,  and  I  would  like  to 
tell  this,  which  is  to  the  point.  My  union  friends  are  horrified  that  a  man 
leaves  the  union. 

In  my  youth  my  mother  was  a  very  strong  antislavery  woman ;  she  was  a 
friend  of  Lucretia  Mott,  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  and  Charles  Sumner,  and 
when  I  was  a  little  boy  I  lived  with  antislavery  people,  and  when  Lincoln's 
proclamation  came  out  I  remember  distinctly,  young  as  I  was,  and  I  remember 
a  great  many  of  these  antislavery  happenings  and  their  disappointment  because 
it  abolished  their  society.  And  so  with  the  union  people;  they  are  sorry  be- 
cause we  are  doing  more  for  their  men  than  they,  and  are  sorry  we  are  treating 
them  better  and  giving  them  shorter  hours,  and  they  feel  sad  that  a  man  leaves 
the  union  for  the  same  reason  that  these  people  felt  bad  because  Lincoln  issued 
his  antislavery  proclamation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Their  occupation  was  gone? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Yes,  sir ;  I  can  not  help  being  amused  at  that  analogy.  I  re- 
member distinctly.  I  was  only  a  young  boy  at  the  time ;  but  these  women  had 
won  their  cause,  and  they  felt  darned  sorry  about  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  provisions  are  made  under  scientific  management  for 
the  proper  training  of  apprentices? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  Exactly  the  same  as  elsewhere;  that  is  to  say,  we  take  young 
fellows  in  and  teach  them  as  they  do  in  any  other  shop.  There  is  no  difference 
at  all ;  we  simply  take  them  and  bring  them  up  and  teach  them ;  and  they  re- 
ceive a  teaching  that  is  away  beyond  any  teaching  you  ever  heard  of  before  in 
your  life.  These  teachers  go  out  and  stand  at  the  machine  with  them,  and  they 
really  teach  them.  They  are  not  left  to  pick  up  a  trade  as  I  was ;  but  these  men 
are  real  teachers ;  these  men  are  not  bulldozers,  but  they  are  friends  and  they 
go  to  a  fellow  and  say,  "  That  isn't  right."  They  say  that  to  a  young  man  or 
any  man  where  he  is  inefficient  with  his  machine ;  they  say,  "  Let  me  show  you," 
and  they  stand  right  there  and  show  them;  and  if  a  man  gets  into  difficulty 
he  sends  at  once  for  one  of  these  teachers  to  come  and  straighten  him  out,  not 
as  a  bulldozer,  as  was  the  old  efficiency  idea  of  having  a  taskmaster,  but  as 
having  a  friend  show  him,  and  the  teaching  is  immense.  My  boy  learned  in  a 
year  a  better  trade  than  I  learned  in  two  years,  and  he  will  be  a  better  me- 
chanic. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  think  an  efficiency  system  if  put  into  thorough 
operation  would  succeed  the  unions  and  they  would  go  out  of  existence? 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  No ;  I  never  look  for  the  unions  to  go  out.  I  am  heartily  in  favor 
of  combinations  of  men.  I  do  not  look  for  a  great  modification  in  the  principles 
of  unions  as  they  now  exist;  they  are  of  necessity  largely  now  fighting  organ- 
izations; I  look  for  educational  institutions,  for  mutual  and  helpful  institu- 
tions; I  look  for  great  modifications,  but  never  for  the  abolition  of  them.  1 
simply  look  for  a  change,  that  the  union  shall  conform  itself  to  this  new  idea, 
the  idea  of  a  standard  that  is  over  all  of  us.  and  a  set  of  laws  that  will  be  over- 
all sides. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ME.  JOHN  F.  TOBIN. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Thompson,  you  will  kindly  interrogate  Mr.  Tobin,  please. 
Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  please  give  your  name? 
Mr.  TOBIN.  John  F.  Tobin. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  your  address  and  business? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  President  of  the  Boot  and  Shoe  Workers'  Union,  246  Summer 
Street,  Boston. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  811 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  business? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Since  1895. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  are  briefly,  in  a  general  way,  the  duties  of  that  posi- 
tion? . 

Mr.  TOBIN.  General  supervision  of  the  organization,  general  supervision  of 
our  collective  agreements,  and  the  management  of  our  union  label  and  office 
correspondence. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  boot  and  shoe  workers  represented  in  your  union  are 
mostly  in  large  factories,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Large  and  small. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Where  machinery  is  in  use? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  the' product  is  generally  made  in  parts,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  In  subdivisions,  minute  subdivisions,  hundreds  of  subdivisions. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Generally  about  how  many  subdivisions  are  there  to  a  shoe, 
if  you  can  say,  of  any  one  style? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Over  a  thousand. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  regard  to  these  operations  there  is  great  repetition  on 
the  part  of  the  worker  of  the  part  of  the  job  that  he  is  doing,  is  there  not? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  The  operations,  many  of  them,  are  reduced  to  a  fraction  of  a 
cent,  and  a  small  fraction  of  a  cent,  per  pair ;  in  many  cases  a  fraction  of  a 
cent  per  dozen  pairs. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No  operator  on  a  part  of  a  shoe  works  on  another  part? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  other  words,  he  is  a  highly  specialized  worker? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Except  it  might  be  in  the  very  smallest  factories,  he  must  be  a 
specialist. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  factories  in  which  your  workers  are  located,  Mr. 
Tobin,  and  where  the  work  is  divided  into  minute  parts,  wherever  it  be,  have 
the  workers  had  any  experience  with  efficiency  systems? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  With  what? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  So-called  efficiency  systems. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Not  any  of  the  recognized  systems.  Efficiency  in  the  shoe  trade 
was  developed  many  years  ago  through  the  piecework  system.  The  pecu- 
liarity of  the  shoe  business  is  the  high  rate  of  speed  at  which  all  of  the  workers 
operate.  With  the  possible  exception  of  those  very  few  in  the  factory  who 
work  by  the  day. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  measures  of  efficiency  are  used  in  the  highly  specialized 
shoe  factories,  if  you  know? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  will  give  you  my  experience.  I  have  not  worked  in  a  shoe 
factory  for  25  years,  but  I  worked  with  my  watch  constantly  before  me,  and 
timed  myself  to  a  second  on  each  operation,  and  worked  with  the  view  to 
producing  more  to-day  than  I  produced  yesterday,  of  my  own  initiative,  ex- 
pecting and  believing  that  the  more  work  I  performed  the  more  compensation 
I  would  receive.  That  is  the  incentive  to  all  the  operatives  generally  in  the 
shoe  trade. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.    Is  that  true  of  the  trade  to-day? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  More  so  than  ever  before. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  in  the  shoe  trade  the  piece-price  rule  exists? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Almost  exclusively. 

Mr.  THOMPSON,  In  the  carrying  out  of  that  piece-price  rule  is  there  any 
instruction  or  education  of  the  worker  other  than  his  own  native  ability  would 
dictate? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  There  is  no  necessity  for  it.  The  incentive  is  there.  The  piece- 
work task  is  the  incentive  to  high  speed. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  so-called  efficiency  system,  of 
which  Mr.  Taylor  represents  one  kind? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  have  tried  to  study  the  efficiency  systems,  but  I  find  the  lack 
of  efficiency  in  presenting  them  to  be  an  obstacle  to  understanding  them. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  ever  considered  either  Mr.  Taylor's  system  or  any 
other  of  the  well-known  efficiency  systems,  as  they  might  be  applied  to  the  shoe 
industry  ? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  do  not  see  how  it  would  be  possible  to  apply  the  Taylor  system 
or  any  other  efficiency  system  that  I  know  of  to  the  shoe  business. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  WThy  would  it  be  impossible,  say,  to  apply  the  efficiency 
system,  if  you  understand  it,  as  you  do,  to  the  shoe  industry  ? 


812          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  If  an  inspector  or  timer  were  put  to  the  task  of  supervising  any 
one  of  the  several  hundred  minute  operations,  and  undertook  to  teach  the 
operators,  he  would  interfere  with  the  speed  of  that  operative,  and  the  result 
would  be  that  the  operator  would  be  less  efficient  than  before. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Why  is  that?  Is  it  because  the  operator  has  formed  habits 
of  movement  with  reference  to  his  work? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  He  has  formed  habits  and  the  work  would  be  performed  before 
the  inspector  could  suggest  what  was  to  be  done. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  I  understand  that  these  systems  would  teach  the  worker 
how  to  hold  his  tool  properly,  so  that  he  might  operate  more  speedily.  If  one 
were  taught,  for  instance,  to  hold  his  tool  more  properly,  might  that  not  in- 
crease his  speed  finally,  when  he  learns  exactly  the  way  of  holding  it? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  That  might  be  true  in  the  machine  shop,  but  it  would  not  apply 
in  the  shoe  industry.  The  shoe  business  is  equipped  with  highly  developed  and 
speedy  machinery,  and  there  are  very  few  hand  tools  used. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  is  true,  is  it  not,  that  some  people  are  more  speedy  in  the 
work  than  others? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Oh;  yes,  indeed. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  believe  that  any  method  could  be  used  to  teach  the 
people  who  are  slow  to  increase  their  speed? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No ;  I  think  .the  tendency  ought  to  be  in  the  other  direction.  I 
think  the  trade  would  be  vastly  benefited  by  a  supervision  which  would  reduce 
the  speed. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  effect  on  the  workers  of  the  speed  they  now 
work  at? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  They  become  highly  nervous  and  their  health  is  affected  by  the 
close  application. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  think,  instead  of  introducing  a  system  of  efficiency 
in  the  boot  trade,  it  would  be  well  to  introduce  a  study  of  reducing  speed  so  as 
to  preserve  the  health  of  the  operators?  Is  that  it? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  think  a  plan  of  less  work  and  shorter  hours  and  more  pay  is 
to  be  desired  rather  than  more  work  for  less  pay  for  fewer  people. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Will  you  repeat  that  again? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  say  that  it  would  be  better  for  the  shoe  trade,  and  I  think  also 
for  many  other  trades,  if  we  \vere  to  aim  to  give  less  work  to  more  workers 
for  better  pay  and  shorter  hours. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  all  the  questions  I  care  to  ask  the  witness. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Garretson,  do  you  care  to  ask  any  questions? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  No. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  The  tendency,  as  I  observe  it,  under  all  the  efficiency  systems  I 
know  anything  about,  including  Mr.  Taylor's,  upon  his  own  statement,  is  that 
it  seeks  to  furnish  more  work  for  fewer  wrorkers  for  higher  wages. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes ;  quite  a  number. 

What  is  the  attitude  of  the  shoe  workers  toward  the  piecework  system — the 
rank  and  file? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  They  generally  favor  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  favor  it? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes ;  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  cutting  department,  which 
is  the  only  important  department  in  which  daywork  is  in  vogue. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  charge  has  been  made  that  the  piecework 
system  develops  the  muscle  rather  than  the  brain,  and  that  it  is  unfair  to  put  a 
premium  on  muscle  rather  than  on  brains.  What  are  the  facts  from  your 
experience? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  There  is  not  very  much  muscular  force  required  in  the  shoe  busi- 
ness. Speed  and  brain  power  are  necessary.  The  muscle,  of  course,  is  the  re- 
serve force  which  enables  the  worker  to  continue  for  a  longer  period  of  time 
and  to  live  under  the  strain  for  a  greater  number  of  years. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  further  asserted  that  any  system  aside  from 
the  daywork  system  tends  to  drive  a  man  to  work  too  hard,  that  more  of  the 
workmen  work  at  great  speed  and  more  strenuously  than  in  any  other  country, 
and  that  they  do  this  under  the  ordinary  wage  system. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes ;  that  is  the  spur ;  nothing  else ;  the  piecework  system. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  believe  that  the  piecework  system  tends  to 
drive  the  mass  of  workers  to  work  too  hard? 

Mr.  TOIJIN.  Unquestionably. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOE.  813 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Then  you  would  not  advocate  any  system  that 
would  drive  the  workers  to  greater  physical  exertion  than  is  now  exercised? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  would  apply,  very  possibly,  plans  to  the  very  opposite  direction. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  would  restrain?  * 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Restrain. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Rather  than  encourage  to  do  more? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  claimed  in  relation  to  the  efficiency  system 
that  it  is  based  on  the  theory  that  so  much  effort  can  be  gotten  out  of  a  man 
now,  regardless  of  his  future  physical  welfare.  Do  you  know  enough  of  the 
efficiency  system  or  of  the  scientific  management  system  to  pass  judgment  on 
that  point? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  That  may  not  be  a  just  charge  against  the  efficiency  system.  Mr. 
Taylor  absolutely  disputes  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  claimed  that  our  greatest  trouble  is  that 
young  men  should  be  given  an  opportunity  to  learn  a  trade,  and  that  the  pres- 
ent system  means  a  finer  and  finer  subdivision  of  labor,  which  robs  the  worker 
of  the  possibility  of  learning  a  trade. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  We  have  no  trade  in  the  shoe  business.    It  is  an  opportunity. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  it  true  of  the  piecework  system  that  while  tem- 
porarily increasing  earnings,  in  the  long  run  it  cuts  the  earnings? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes,  sir ;  it  does.  The  wages  of  the  shoe  workers  of  this  country 
to-day,  the  organized  shoe  workers — and  by  that  I  mean  also  the  unorganized,  who 
are  relatively  approaching  the  organized  workers — are  higher  than  they  have 
ever  been,  but  their  production  is  much  greater. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Have  their  earnings  been  cut? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  In  the  sense  that  their  higher  speed  enables  them  to  produce 
more. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  their  earnings  are  not  increased  in  the 
ratio  in  which  their  productive  powers  are  increased? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  They  get  more  dollars  per  week  for  producing  more  shoes  per 
week. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then,  if  the  piecework  system  has  cut  their  earn- 
ings, why  should  the  workers,  as  you  say,  favor  the  piecework  system  in  your 
trade? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  The  trade  is  overrun  with  new  workers  who  have  not  learned  by 
experience  the  ill  effects  of  the  piecework  system.  You  might  say  that  in  most 
of  the  shoe  centers  the  non-English-speaking  foreigner  is  a  very  large  majority 
of  the  workers,  and  they  have  very  recently  broken  into  the  trade — picked  it  up, 
as  Mr.  Taylor  picked  up  his  trade.  That  is  possible  because  of  the  subdivision, 
the  minute  subdivision  of  the  work,  and  these  foreigners  getting  into  the  trade 
induce  their  relatives  to  come,  in  and  they  teach  them  at  home,  or  get  into  some 
place  where  they  can  have  an  opportunity,  or  go  to  a  school  where  they  pay  any 
stated  sum  from  $25  to  $75  for  the  opportunity  to  operate  a  machine  for  a  week 
or  two  weeks,  and  then  go  out  and  take  a  job.  So  that  the  men  of  wide  expe- 
rience in  the  shoe  trade  who  know  the  ill  effect  of  high  speed  are  out  of  the 
trade  eventually,  so  that  the  wisdom  which  they  have  acquired  is  not  available 
to  the  trade.  We  find,  too,  that  the  foreign  workman,  because  of  his  lower 
physical  standard,  is  more  prone  to  illness  in  our  trade  than  the  American 
workman.  We  spend  about  $100,000  a  year  for  sick  and  death  benefits  in  our 
organization,  as  against  $10,000  for  strike  benefits. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  you  sufficiently  familiar,  as  a  result  of  your 
reading  and  study  and  inquiry,  with  scientific  management  to  determine  whether 
the  same  objections  that  you  point  out  hold  to  the  piecework  system  would  also 
hold  to  the  system  of  scientific  management? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Not  necessarily.  I  believe  that  scientific  management,  so  called, 
has  been  greatly  abused  by  persons  who  are  not  scientific.  I  do  not  know 
whether  Mr.  Taylor  is  scientific  or  not.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say.  The  chances 
are  that  some  of  his  competitors  would  not  agree  that  he  was  scientific.  There 
is  not  any  agreement  as  to  what  scientific  management  is — any  considerable 
agreement,  I  mean.  The  general  tendency  of  the  worker  is  to  believe  that 
scientific  management  is  invented  solely  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  produc- 
tion and  reducing  the  cost  of  production,  and  that  it  does  not  make  any  pro- 
vision for  displaced  workmen. 

I  might  illustrate  this  statement  by  a  question  which  I  asked  of  Mr.  Taylor 
at  one  of  the  meetings  where  we  happened  to  both  speak. 


814          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Speaking  of  the  Midvale  Steel  Works  and  the  elimination  of  unskilled  labor 
by  several  hundred  that  were  displaced  because  of  inefficiency  in  shoveling  rice 
coal  and  pig  iron,  I  asked  him  what  became  of  the  men  who  were  displaced,  and 
he  said  that  they  were  put  at  other  work  for  which  they  were  mentally  and 
physically  fitted.  Is  that  right,  Mr.  Taylor? 

Mr.  TAYLOE.  Exactly. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  asked,  then,  the  question  as  to  whether  all  of  the  displaced  men 
found  employment  in  the  same  works  for  which  they  were  mentally  and 
physically  fitted,  and  he  said,  "  No  ;  not  by  any  means."  "  Then  what  eventually 
does  become  of  the  men  who  are  displaced  because  of  your  efficiency  ?  "  He 
answered,  "  That  had  not  been  provided  for,  but  in  the  long  run  it  would  be." 

Mr.  TAYLOR.  I  would  like  very  much  to  have  an  opportunity  to  tell  you  what 
became  of  those  4,600  workers,  at  some  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Please  make  a  memorandum  of  this  and  you  can  come  back 
and  give  anything  you  wish  in  rebuttal. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  further  claimed,  Mr.  Tobin,  that  scientific 
management  on  the  one  hand,  or  piecework  on  the  other  hand,  destroys  collec- 
tive bargaining,  and  that  it  means  individual  bargaining. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No;  I  think  the  tendency  is  the  other  way.  It  would  be  almost 
impossible.  Not  impossible,  but  a  very  difficult  task,  to  operate  a  shoe  factory 
and  make  an  individual  price  for  each  operative. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  that,  in  your  trade,  it  has  no  effect  on  collec- 
tive bargaining? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No ;  we  find  collective  bargaining  in  our  trade  is  much  more 
simple  than  the  individual  bargain,  because  all  of  the  operatives,  especially  in 
the  larger  factories,  on  a  given  operation,  have  a  flat  price  of  so  much  per 
dozen  or  so  much  per  hundred  pairs.  Individuality  in  the  production  of  a  shoe, 
I  might  say,  is  not  a  factor  at  all  as  it  was  many  years  ago.  The  shoe  had  the 
character  of  the  workman  stamped  on  it.  The  machine  system  has  entirely 
eliminated  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  percentage,  so  far  as  you  know,  of  shoe 
workers  employed  in  shoe  factories  are  members  of  organized  labor? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Possibly  about  one-third. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  dominate  the  rest,  do  they?  They  fix  the 
prices  and  the  conditions? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  They  fix  a  higher  standard,  naturally,  by  reason  of  being  organ- 
ized ;  and  the  unorganized  factories  must  come  somewhere  near  that  in  order 
to  hold  the  workmen.  In  other  words,  the  workmen  will  go  to  the  factories  that 
offer  the  best  wages,  so  that  the  unorganized  factory  must  pay  approximately 
what  the  others  do  in  order  to  hold  the  best  workmen. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  voice,  if  any,  has  the  worker  in  the  making 
of  the  piece  price? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  In  the  organized  factory  he  has  absolutely  an  equal  voice  with  the 
employer. 

Commissioner  WTEIN  STOCK.  The  two  come  together  and  agree? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  That  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  our  organization. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  if  the  two  can  not  agree  what  happens? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  We  go  to  arbitration,  in  Massachusetts,  through  the  State  board 
of  arbitration;  outside  of  Massachusetts  to  a  local  board  composed  of  one  rep- 
resenting the  employer  and  one  representing  the  union,  the  two  selecting  a 
third  as  an  umpire. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  that  in  your  trade  the  worker  has  an  equal 
voice  with  the  employer  in  fixing  the  piece  price  ? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Absolutely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Does  it  work  out  satisfactorily? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  It  works  out  satisfactorily.  The  employer  is  not  permitted  under 
our  contract  to  make  any  change  in  wages  without  the  consent  of  the  union. 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  union  is  not  permitted  to  make  any  imposition  on 
the  employer  in  the  shape  of  an  increased  wage  without  the  consent  of  the 
employer. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  the  price  that  is  fixed  between  the  union  rep- 
resentative and  the  employer  prevails  for  union  and  nonunion  workers? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No ;  I  am  speaking  now  with  respect  to  the  collective  bargain  in 
factories  with  which  we  have  contracts — that  is,  collective  bargain  contracts, 
arbitration  contracts — but  the  wages  which  we  fix  under  that  system  have  a 
beneficial  influence  in  what  are  known  as  nonunion  shops. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  becomes  a  standard,  practically? 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  815 

Mr.  TOBIN.  It  becomes  something  to  point  to. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  As  a  basis? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  On  the  other  hand,  too,  when  the  union  seeks  to  establish  a  price 
the  nonunion  prices  are  pointed  to  by  the  employer  as  the  market  price,  and  he 
endeavors  to  fix  his  argument  before  the  arbitrators  so  as  to  get  the  advantage 
of  the  lowest  price  that  he  can  find  for  the  same  quality  of  work. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  presume  these  prices  are  arrived  at  as  the  re- 
sult of  time  studies,  are  they  not— of  timing  the  operations? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Not  in  the  sense  that  they  apply  it  in  the  efficiency  scheme. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  the  workers  in  your  trade  object  to  having  a 
time  study  applied? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  It  is  not  necessary.  The  employer  knows  how  many  pairs  a  man 
produces  in  a  given  time.  He  must  know  that,  because  they  have  a  system 
of  coupons  on  which  is  marked  the  number  of  pairs  in  a  case  of  shoes.  A  case 
of  shoes  will  be  12  pairs,  24  pairs,  36  pairs,  or  60  pairs,  and  a  workman  does 
so  many  pairs  a  day,  and  the  employer  knows  that,  because  the  workman  hands 
in  his  coupon,  upon  which  his  wages  are  based. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  self-operating? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes ;  and  without  any  additional  cost.  You  can  figure  up  the 
number  of  pairs  a  man  has  done. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  do  you  have,  in  addition  to  the  piecework 
system,  any  system  of  bonuses  or  premiums  in  your  trade? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  A  very  few  shops  have.  I  will  mention  one  shop,  the  L.  Q.  White 
Co.,  of  Bridgewater,  Mass.  They  have  a  regular  union  standard  wage  there. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Piecework? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No ;  week  work ;  and  in  addition  thereto  they  pay  a  bonus  which 
amounts  to  anywhere  from  $10  to  $20  a  month  per  workman  for  saving  stock. 
In  other  words,  a  certain  number  of  feet  of  stock  is  allotted  a  pair  of  shoes,  or 
a  dozen  pair  of  shoes,  and  if  the  workman  can  get  out  a  satisfactory  shoe  and 
save  stock  over  and  above  the  allotment  of  feetage  allowed  for  a  certain  job 
that  is  placed  to  his  credit  and  at  the  end  of  the  month  he  receives  his  check 
for  the  amount  which  he  has  saved. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  a  bonus  on  the  utilization  of  what  otherwise 
might  be  waste? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Exactly.  You  have  stated  it  very  much  better  than  I  could 
state  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Does  the  union  object  to  that  bonus  or  premium 
system  ? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  They  have  not  entered  any  objection  to  it,  but  they  do  not  like 
the  bonus  system.  Applied  in  that  way  they  do  not  object  to  it,  but  the  bonus 
system  is  calculated,  as  generally  applied,  as  is  the  profit-sharing  system,  to  de- 
velop a  speed  that  is  too  high. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  To  overstimulation? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes ;  that  is  the  objection. 

Commissioner  GARKETSON.  Mr.  Tobin,  you  have  dealt  for  many  years  with 
the  piecework  system? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes.    I  have  worked  at  it  and  under  it. 

Commissioner  GAKRETSON.  In  your  opinion,  is  the  piecework  system,  or  is  it 
not,  an  agency  that — I  am  using  a  piecework  price  in  the  sense  of  wage — 
decreases  wages  while  increasing  earnings,  or  does  it  work  that  way? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  It  does  work  that  way,  absolutely. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  LENNON.  Mr.  Tobin,  do  the  members  of  your  union  and  the  shoe  workers 
generally  turn  out  more  work  now  for  a  dollar  than  they  did  in  1900,  say? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes,  indeed ;  very  much  more. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Then,  while  you  earn  more  money  because  of  the 
different  manner  of  operating  the  factory,  you  have  not  had  any  increase  in 
real  wage,  when  it  is  compared  with  the  production? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Well,  do  not  misunderstand  me.  I  say  that  the  individual  worker 
is  now  receiving  the  highest  wage  in  the  history  of  the  trade ;  but  that  the  whole 
cost  of  producing  a  shoe  is  less  now  than  ever  before. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  you  say  that  he  is  getting  a  higher  wage, 
or  that  he  is  getting  the  highest  earning  power? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  The  highest  earnings. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  not  a  wage,  it  is  really  an  earning  power? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Earnings ;  yes. 


816          EEPOET    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Would  you  not  consider  this  an  evidence  of  the  in- 
troduction of  substantial  efficiency  in  the  shoe  business? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Oh,  we  have  efficiency  beat,  as  far  as  any  system  of  efficiency 
that  I  have  heard  of  is  concerned.  They  are  away  behind  the  times  when  ap- 
plied to  the  shoe  trade.  They  would  starve  to  death  in  a  shoe  factory. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  doubted  whether  you  knew  what  scientific 
management  meant,  but  you  probably  do  know  the  difference  between  a  premium 
system  and  a  piecework  system? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Oh,  yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Which  speeds  the  men  more? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  One  speeds  them  up  to  the  top  notch,  and  the  other  one  a  little 
further. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Which  is  which? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  The  premium  is  on  top  of  the  piece  system.  The  premium  sys- 
tem comes  after  the  piece  system,  and  is  an  attempt  to  get  a  little  more  speed. 
It  is  the  highest  speed  on  the  machines. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  It  is  a  higher  speeder  than  the  piece  system? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  How  do  you  figure  that  out? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  The  very  nature  of  the  term  indicates  that ;  because,  what  in- 
centive would  the  employer  have  to  give  a  premium  if  there  was  nothing  to  be 
gained  by  it? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What  incentive  would  he  have  for  piecework  rather 
than  day  work,  except  that  the  man  will  speed  up  more  and  get  more  pieces  out? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Exactly.  Then  if  you  put  on  a  premium  system  and  then  put  on 
a  bonus  system  on  top  of  that  again,  you  might  get,  possibly,  a  little  more 
speed. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  If  you  will  allow  me,  I  think  you  do  not  understand 
the  premium  system. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Possibly  not. 

Mr.  BARTH.  He  does  not.  Mighty  few  people  do.  I  want  to  emphasize  that 
and  protest 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Well,  do  not  get  excited. 

Mr.  BARTH.  I  protest,  when  a  fellow  that  does  know  about  it  is  sitting 
quietly 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  think,  perhaps,  Mr.  Tobin  does  know  about  it,  but 
he  has  not  thought  in  what  way  the  term  is  used. 

Take  a  piece  that  you  are  getting  out  at  the  rate  of  100  a  day,  and  at  5  cents 
apiece.  In  a  day  you  would  make  $5? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Under  this  premium  system  they  put  it  up  to  you 
in  this  way :  Five  dollars  is  your  daily  wage ;  your  task  is  100  pieces.  That 
comes  out  the  same  way,  does  it  not — 5  cents? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  But  for  every  piece  over  100  we  will  not  give  you 
5  cents 

Mr.  TOBIN  (interposing).  We  will  give  you  4? 

Commissioner  COMMONS  (continuing) — as  we  do  in  the  piecework  system, 
but  we  will  give  you,  say,  2  cents.  Which  speeds  the  man  the  more?  Is  it 
not  more  of  an  incentive  to  the  man  to  speed  up  where  he  is  going  after  5 
cents  than  it  is  when  he  is  going  after  2  cents? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  But,  as  I  understand  the  premium  system — this  gentleman  may 
know  more  about  it  than  I  do,  but  I  have  seen  its  application — just  as  you  see. 
say  there  is  5  cents  apiece  and  for  all  over  100  we  get  4  cents  apiece.  That 
means  that  when  a  man  has  done  100  pieces  he  has  reached  the  limit  for  that 
day  at  the  standard  price  of  5  cents  apiece,  and  if  he  runs  over  that  and  does 
a  few  more  he  gets  at  the  rate  of  4  cents  apiece  for  that  additional  number. 
That  is  my  understanding  of  the  premium  system. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Whereas  in  the  piecework  system  it  would  be  5 
cents? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  It  would  be  5  cents  all  the  way  through;  if  he  did  100  or  150  it 
would  be  a  flat  5  cents  apiece.  If  that  is  not  the  premium  system,  then  I  do 
not  know  anything  about  it. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  what  I  intended  to  define  as  the  premium 
system,  except  with  respect  to  this:  That  under  the  premium  system,  as  a 
minimum,  he  is  not  supposed  to  get  less  than  $5,  even  though  he  produces  less 
than  100  pieces. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  817 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes ;  but  you,  of  course,  appreciate  the  fact  that  the  employer 
has  no  purpose  in  offering  that  premium  unless  it  is  going  to  accrue  to  his 
advantage  in  some  way. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  He  is  trying  to  get  them  to  get  up  to  100? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  But  he  is  also  offering  them  a  premium  above  that 
to  get  them  above  that ;  that  is  where  they  get  this  30  per  cent. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  That  is  not  the  worst  of  it.  Eventually  the  price  at  which  he 
does  all  over  100  is  offered  as  the  standard  price.  Instead  of  getting  the  5 
cents  for  all  he  did  up  to  100,  after  he  has  developed  the  fact  that  he  can  do 
more  than  100,  by  reason  of  the  premium  system,  then  he  is  offered  a  price  of 
4  cents ;  and  he  has  to  do  the  whole  amount,  over  and  above  the  100,  for  less 
than  he  formerly  received.  That  is  the  way  the  premium  system  works  out. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  He  get  a  less  rate? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  there  not  be,  under  the  premium  system, 
more  of  an  inducement  to  stop  at  100  than  there  would  be  under  the  piece 
system  ? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  If  he  had  any  sense  at  all,  yes;  but  most  of  the  workers  in  that 
respect  are  not  farsighted. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Do  they  not  know  the  difference  between  4  cents 
and  5  cents? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes ;  they  do,  after  it  comes  home  to  them  good  and  hard. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  they  not  work  for  5  cents  more  than  they 
would  for  4  cents  ? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  have  not  seen  that  yet.  They  work  for  5  cents,  and  will  do 
the  100,  and  after  they  get  the  100  done,  they  try  to  do  another  hundred. 

Commissioner  Commons.     No  matter  what  the  price? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  At  any  price  over  and  above  the  5. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Suppose  you  put  it  down  to  2  cents,  as  I  said: 
Five  cents  up  to  100,  and  then  2  cents. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  You  can  get  any  quantity  of  men  to  do  it,  unfortunately. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Then  you  do  not  see  any  difference  in  the  intensity 
of  the  inducement  to  speed  up  beyond  that  standard  day's  amount? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Well,  the  inducement  is  there.     That  is  what  it  is  offered  for. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  One  other  question:  Do  you  see  any  reason  why 
your  collective  bargain  in  the  piecework  system  would  not  operate  just  as  well 
under  the  premium  system? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  We  would  not  follow  the  premium  system  at  all. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Well,  if  you  were  making  piece  rates  by  collective 
bargaining  you  could  establish  a  premium  rate  by  collective  bargaining,  could 
you  not? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  have  never  thought  of  that  as  a  practical  thing  to  do. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  has  never  been  put  up  to  you? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Do  you  see  any  essential  difference  between  the 
two,  so  far  as  agreeing  is  concerned? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  It  ceases  to  be  a  premium  system  when  you  apply  a  flat  rate; 
the  premium  system,  as  I  understand  it,  is  something  over  and  above  what 
a  man  may  do  after  he  has  done  his  normal  day's  work,  estimated,  and  that  is 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Well,  you  could  agree  on  what  it  should  be,  whether 
it  should  be  2  or  3  instead  of  5  cents ;  you  could  agree  on  what  should  be  the 
task. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  We  have  to  deal  with  conditions  as  you  find  them.  If  you  make 
a  wage  to-day  on  a  new  operation,  it  looks  like  a  fair  wage  to-day,  at  the 
speed  at  which  the  workmen  are  producing  that  thing ;  we  find  that  in  a  month 
from  now  or  six  months  from  now  the  production  is  so  great  that  the  price 
is  apparently  out  of  joint  with  the  volume  of  work;  that  would  call  for  a 
new  adjustment.  In  other  words,  the  employer  is  always  keeping  his  eyes 
open  to  see  what  the  workmen  are  making  at  normal  wages,  and  when  that 
is  discovered  he  immediately  raises  the  question  of  the  price. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  then  what  happens? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  The  question  of  price  being  raised,  negotiations  are  entered  into 
to  settle  the  price  by  mutual  agreement,  and  failing  to  settle  the  price  by  mutual 
agreement  it  is  arbitrated. 

38819°— 16 52 


818          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  If  you  had  piece  rates  reduced  by  arbitration — have 
you  had  those  rates  reduced  by  arbitration? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  We  have  at  times ;  yes.  A  new  operation  is  very  apt  to  be  set 
at  a  price  that  is  wrong ;  the  newness  of  the  operation  to  the  workmen,  of  course, 
is  in  evidence,  and  \vhat  seems  a  big  task  to-day  in  a  month  from  now  is  a 
very  small  task.  I  can  remember  in  my  own  experience  working  in  the  factory, 
I  used  to  think  that  if  I  could  trim  a  hundred  pairs  of  edges  in  a  day  I  was 
doing  a  good  day's  work.  I  saw  the  time  later  on  when  I  could  trim  that  many 
from  noon  up  to  the  time  of  going  to  a  ball  game  in  the  afternoon;  in  other 
words,  I  had  done  a  full  day's  work  after  dinner.  That  gives  you  an  idea  of 
how  speed  can  be  developed.  And  I  used  to  think  that  200  pairs  was  a  phenom- 
enal day's  work,  but  I  have  seen  the  time  when  I  have  done  600  pairs  after- 
wards, and  that  has  resulted  from  the  change  in  the  wages. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  The  point  I  wanted  to  get  at  was  the  question  of 
readjusting  the  premium  rate ;  the  task  is  exactly  the  same,  and  to  be  referred 
to  an  arbitrator  as  a  problem  of  reducing  the  piece  rate. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  have  never  had  any  experience  with  a  premium  in  that  way; 
the  premium  has  been  offered  by  the  employer  for  what  is  considered,  what  we 
consider,  an  ulterior  purpose,  and  we  have  never  recognized  it  as  a  legitimate 
part  of  the  trade,  although  the  bonus  system,  as  I  have  described  in  the  particu- 
lar factory  to  which  I  have  referred,  we  have  not  objected  to  that  because  it 
is  paid  entirely  for  the  saving  of  stock. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  wanted  to  ask  whether  there  was  anything  in  what 
you  have  expressed  that  is  at  variance,  in  your  mind,  with  the  principles  which 
Mr.  Taylor  has  laid  down.  I  do  not  mean  the  application  of  those  principles, 
but  the  principles  which  he  has  laid  down  as  expressed  this  morning? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Well,  I  am  not  going  to  condemn  any  system  that  I  do  not  under- 
stand, and  I  confess  that  I  have  not  been  able  to  follow  these  sliding  rules,  or  to 
follow  the  claims  made  by  Mr.  Taylor  and  those  who  speak  for  him. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Not  in  regard  to  sliding  rules  or  anything  of  that 
kind ;  those  are  applications  of  principles.  He  has  laid  down  certain  principles 
as  essential ;  is  there  anything  in  your  thought  that  is  at  variance  with  those 
principles?  I  am  assuming  that  you  were  here  this  morning. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes ;  I  was  here  this  morning.  I  would  not  say  at  this  stage  that 
I  subscribe  to  Mr.  Taylor's  efficiency  plan  any  more  than  I  would  subscribe  to 
an  efficiency  plan  of  any  other  man  who  may  be  superior  to  or  an  imitator  of 
Mr.  Taylor. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  There,  again,  you  are  talking  about  the  application. 
I  want  to  get  your  view  on  the  principle  and  not  on  the  application. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  May  I  suggest,  Mr.  Delano,  that  Mr.  Taylor's  prin- 
ciple, as  I  understand  it,  resolves  itself  down  into  three  factors :  ( a )  Higher 
earnings  for  the  workmen,  (&)  shorter  hours,  (c)  better  working  conditions. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  think  there  are  certain  other  principles ;  one  of  them 
is  that  there  shall  be  cooperation  and  harmony  between  the  management  and 
the  workers.  I  think  this  whole  subject  is  misstated  and  misunderstood  quite 
as  much  by  Mr.  Taylor,  and  a  great  deal  more  by  the  employers  than  by  the 
employees.  I  \vant  to  get  at  whether  you  are  at  variance  with  the  principle. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  think  the  employer  is  the  greatest  obstacle  to  the  introduction  of 
a  rational  efficiency  system ;  the  employer  busies  himself  altogether  with  profits  ; 
he  does  not  concern  himself  about  the  greater  comfort  of  the  workman  unless 
his  profit  goes  with  it.  I  am  speaking  of  the  average  employer,  not  of  the 
exceptional  one. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  would  be  contrary  to  the  principles  Mr.  Taylor 
has  laid  down. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  That  would  be  contrary  to  what  Mr.  Taylor  claims  for  the  prin- 
ciples, and  he  has  difficulty  with  the  employer  in  getting  those  principles  into 
operation,  as  he  describes,  very  emphatically,  and  that  is  one  of  the  things 
that  is  going  to  stand  in  the  way  of  this  efficiency,  which  is  going  to  solve 
this  question  of  relations  between  employer  and  workman,  that  the  employer  is 
quite  as  much  an  obstacle  as  the  employee. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  One  of  the  duties  this  commission  has  is  to  find  ave- 
nues of  cooperation.  We  have  first  to  find  out  where  the  employer  and  employee 
differ,  and  try  to  find  a  common  ground  on  which  they  can  meet. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Let  me  make  this  suggestion  to  the  commission,  that  much  time 
will  be  saved  and  greater  results  will  be  secured  if  the  principles  of  collective 
bargaining  can  be  established,  that  employers  as  well  as  workmen  can  be 
brought  to  understand  what  is  implied  and  intended  by  collective  bargaining. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  819 

Mr.  Thompson,  I  think,  endeavored  to  bring  that  point  out  in  the  questions 
to  Mr.  Taylor,  in  endeavoring  to  determine  what  the  workmen  had  to  say 
finally  with  reference  to  the  plan  which  was  laid  out  under  which  he  was  to 
work.  Any  plan  that  does  not  take  into  consideration  the  worker  in  his  indi- 
vidual and  collective  capacity  and  in  his  right  to  bargain  with  his  employer 
upon  an  equal  basis,  an  absolutely  equal  basis,  will  be  faulty.  No  scheme,  in 
my  opinion,  of  promoting  industrial  peace  will  be  possible  unless  that  principle 
can  be  worked  out,  not  in  a  superficial  way,  but  in  such  a  way  as  absolutely 
and  completely  to  recognize  that  power.  The  old-fashioned  idea  of  the  right 
of  the  employer  to  decide  what  a  workman  is  worth — it  is  only  a  few  years  ago 
that  employers  would  take  that  position — one  of  the  greatest  tasks  which  I  have 
had  in  my  work,  which  I  did  not  mention  at  all  when  I  was  asked  what  my 
duties  were  as  general  president,  has  been  to  get  employers  to  understand  that 
under  our  arbitration  contract  he  surrenders  the  right  to  determine  the  indi- 
vidual's wage,  or  what  a  man  is  worth.  In  the  beginning  they  would  set  up 
an  argument  with  me,  "  I  hire  a  man,  and  I  observe  his  work  and  I  see  his 
quality  and  quantity,  and  I  am  the  best  judge  as  to  what  that  man  is  worth." 
And  the  only  way  I  can  combat  that  line  of  reasoning  is  by  asking  him  if  he  was 
willing  to  concede  to  the  employee  the  same  right  that  he  claimed  for  him- 
self, and  he  said  "  Yes." 

I  said,  "  Suppose  an  employee  or  a  collection  of  employees  should  say  to 
you  that  your  estimate  of  their  worth  is  wrong  and  that  they  should  stop 
work  for  the  purpose  of  emphasizing  their  protest  as  against  your  decision 
as  to  what  they  are  worth,  what  would  you  do "  ?  He  said,  "  Well,  then, 
your  union  would  be  violating  your  contract  with  me,  because  you  agreed  not 
to  strike  or  to  stop  work  pending  an  adjustment  of  any  dispute."  "  That  is 
exactly  our  obligation  to  you  and  we  can  not  maintain  our  obligation  to  you 
as  long  as  you  deny  the  operation  of  that  principle  to  your  workmen.  The 
workman  has  just  as  much  right  to  decide  what  he  is  worth  as  you  have,  no 
less  and  no  more;  and  your  estimate  of  the  man's  worth  to  you  we  will  take 
for  what  it  is  worth;  we  are  not  satisfied  with  your  estimate,  and  we  will 
put  you  to  the  task  of  proving  that  you  are  right."  That  is  the  whole  sum 
and  substance  of  collective  bargaining. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  did  not  understand  anything  Mr.  Taylor  said  to  be 
contrary  to  that. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  am  not  antagonizing  Mr.  Taylor's  position  at  all. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  What  seemed  to  be  in  your  mind  when  you  first  ad- 
dressed us  was  that  the  machinery  in  the  shoe  business  was  already  over- 
speeded,  and  that  any  scientific  study  would  result  in  still  further  speeding 
it  up. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No ;  I  didn't  say  that. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  seemed  to  be  in  your  mind.  If  that  is  not  your 
opinion  I  want  to  be  sure  wrhat  it  is. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No ;  my  statement  was  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Taylor 
would  starve  to  death  in  a  shoe  factory,  because  his  system  would  be  out- 
stripped by  the  efficiency  system  already  there. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  You  are  not  willing  to  concede  that  a  scientific  study 
of  the  business  might  not  prove  that  the  machines  were  already  overspeeded, 
and  that  therefore  human  endeavor  resulted  in  less  output  by  reason  of  un- 
scientific methods? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No ;  I  do  not  think  that  would  be  the  case.  Mr.  Taylor's  illus- 
tration of  overspeeding  in  a  machine  shop,  and  in  the  cutting  of  metal  with 
tools,  has  a  direct  application,  but  that  would  not  apply  in  a  shoe  factory  at  all. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  And  why  is  that? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Well,  a  sewing  machine  will  stitch  shoes  with  the  greatest  perfec- 
tion at  its  highest  speed,  more  so  than  at  a  lower  rate  of  speed.  That  would 
not  be  true  in  a  turning  lathe.  That  would  be  true  in  polishing,  but  not  in 
turning. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  were  saying  that  sometimes  the  workmen,  owing 
to  high  speed  in  piecework,  were  nervous.  Do  you  find  that  the  workmen  in 
a  shoe  factory  have,  as  a  rule,  less  good  health  and  shorter  lives  than  those 
In  other  industries  in  the  same  section? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes;  I  believe  that  to  be  true.  Of  course,  that  is  offset  to  some 
extent  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  shoe  workers  work  short  hours. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  About  what,  hours  do  the  shoe  workers  work? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Many  of  the  pieceworkers  work  about  7  or  8  hours,  although  the 
9-hour  day  is  the  shortest  day  we  have  in  the  trade. 


820          EEPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  About  what  wa^es  do  they  make? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Well,  that  is  a  variable  quantity. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  What  are  the  average  wages? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  It  would  be  impossible  to  make  an  average  wage.  I  should  say 
that  the  laster,  which  is  one  of  the  most  important  branches  of  the  trade,  and 
less  subdivided — they  earn  anything  from  $15  to  $25  a  week.  A  Goodyear  op- 
erator, what  we  call  a  hand  seamer,  will  make  from  $25  to  $40  a  week ;  a 
Goodyear  stitcher  will  earn  $20  to  $35  a  week.  Table  girls,  doing  the  very 
smallest  operation  in  the  shoe  factory,  will  make  some  of  them  anywhere  from 
$8  to  $15  a  week.  Vampers,  which  is  the  highest  skilled  job  in  the  fitting  of 
a  shoe  in  the  women's  department — and,  by  the  way,  there  are  a  good  many 
men  employed  at  that  branch  of  the  trade — they  will  make  $18  to  $30  a  week. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  And  they  work  fairly  steady? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes.  The  shoe  trade  is  divided  into  two  principal  seasons.  There 
are  a  few  weeks  in  between  where  the  work  is  rather  slack. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  spoke  of  collective  bargaining  and  the  right  of 
the  workmen  to  be  heard  in  this  collective  bargaining.  Do  you  feel  that  some 
group  of  employers  and  some  group  of  employees  might  agree  on  some  funda- 
mental principles  which  should  obtain  in  the  relations  of  the  unions  with  the 
employers?  Have  you  ever  felt  that  there  are  certain  underlying  principles 
which  should  obtain,  that  each  side  should  mutually  agree  that  they  had  a 
right  to?  You  said  that  the  former  manufacturer  did  not  think  that  the  work- 
man had  any  interest  or  any  right  in  fixing  his  own  wage. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Do  you  think  if  any  such  proposition  as  that  could 
be  mutually  agreed  to  between  the  contending  parties — do  you  think  that  would 
have  some  effect? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  That  is  precisely  what  we  have  done  by  our  arbitration  contracts, 
and  in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  contract  the  employer  was  not  willing  to  concede 
all  the  things  that  the  contract  stands  for. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  think  if  some  fundamental  things  could  be  agreed 
on  there  would  be  an  advantage? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  These  are  now  pretty  well  established.  The  employer  has  begun 
to  see  that  they  work  out  as  we  understood  it.  In  the  first  place,  the  employer 
making  this  contract  possibly  made  it  with  a  view  of  eliminating  labor  troubles, 
and  sought  to  take  to  himself  certain  privileges  which  he  was  not  willing  to 
concede  to  the  other  side.  Our  contract  was  drawn  in  such  a  way  as  to  impose 
mutual  obligations,  and  we  had  our  method  of  interpreting  the  contract,  and  it 
took  us  some  time  to  get  the  employers  generally  to  agree  that  we  had  the  right 
interpretation  of  it.  That  we  have  now  well  established ;  the  same  contract, 
practically,  but  a  better  understanding  of  the  relations  between  employer  and 
workmen. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  do  not  refuse  to  use  nonunion-made  materials  or 
nonunion-made  tools,  do  you? 

Mr.  TOBIN.    The  question  sometimes  arises,  but  it  is  not  a  serious  question 
to-day. 
s Commissioner  BALLARD.   It  is  probably  more  serious  with  the  employer? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  We  sometimes  use  nonunion  leather ;  and  sometimes  the  ma- 
chinists want  us  to  insist  that  we  shall  employ  union  machinists  in  the  factory. 
We  tell  the  machinists  we  are  willing  to  cooperate  with  them  in  that  direction, 
and  ask  them  to  see  that  the  machinists  who  are  members  of  the  union  do  not 
work  in  nonunion  factories.  We  have  endeavored  to  cooperate  in  that  way. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  the  styles  change  with  the  seasons? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes.  A  manufacturer  gets  out  a  new  style  as  a  leader,  and  if  it 
takes  he  gets  the  bulk  of  the  business  that  year,  or  that  season;  the  next 
season  that  style  is  generally  followed  in  the  shoe  trade. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  the  prices  on  the  shoes  vary  with  the  styles,  or 
does  not  that  make  any  difference? 

Mr.  TOBIN.   The  price  of  making  it? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.   The  prices  for  making. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Well,  some  prices  will.  The  prices  of  cutting  will.  If  they  were 
cut  by  the  piece,  but  not  by  the  day ;  it  is  a  question  as  to  the  number  of  pairs 
they  are  required  to  cut. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  the  standard  rules 
would  not  apply? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No;  the  sliding  rule  would  not  apply  to  those  cases  at  all. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  821 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  There  would  be  changes;  there  would"  have  to  be 
changes  now  and  then? 

Mr.  TOBTN.    Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.   That  is,  6  and  6  would  not  always  make  12? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.   It  would  make  13,  sometimes? 

Mr.  TOBIN.   Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  consider  it  bargaining  if,  as  Mr.  Taylor  said, 
one  of  his  men  went  into  the  shop  and  said  "  We  are  going  to  try  something  new 
with  you,  and  we  want  you  to  cooperate  with,  us."  Do  you  call  that  cooper- 
ation, bargaining  in  that  sense? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  That  would  be  individual  bargaining,  which  we  would  not  consider 
in  harmony  with  our  contract. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  would  not  be  a  contractual  relation  with  the 
employers  ? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No ;  a  proposition  of  that  kind  in  a  shoe  factory  would  be  equiva- 
lent to  offering  a  man  a  bonus  for  making  himself  a  pacemaker ;  we  have  plenty 
of  pacemakers ;  we  do  not  need  to  hire  them  especially. 

The  CHAIKMAN.    Mr.  Barnett,  do  you  want  to  ask  Mr.  Tobin  any  questions? 

Mr.  BARNETT.   No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  there  any  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  unions  in 
the  shoe  trade  to  limit  the  output  of  the  individual? 

Mr.  TOBIN.   Absolutely  none. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.   Each  man  has  full  and  free  play? 
.    Mr.  TOBIN.    Well,  circumscribed  only  by  the  fact  that  the  owners  determine 
how  many  pairs  he  will  make  in  his  factory  each  day.     We  have  a  sheet  system, 
and  so  many  pairs  go  in  each  day,  and  there  are  so  many  workmen,  and  the 
theory  is  to  divide  it  equally  between  the  workmen. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  There  is  no  scheme  of  limitation? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No ;  I  wish  there  were ;  there  is  absolutely  none  at  all ;  the  very 
sky  is  the  limit,  and  perhaps  more. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Under  the  system  you  are  operating,  the  contract 
system  and  your  arbitration  tribunal  to  adjust  disputed  prices,  what  has  been 
the  degree  of  industrial  peace  in  the  trade  in  the  last  five  years  as  compared 
with  the  degree  of  industrial  peace  that  existed  in  the  preceding  five  years? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  It  has  been  something  marvelous.  I  might  say  that  in  the  fiscal 
year  ended  May  31,  1909,  our  total  expenditure  for  that  year  for  strike  benefits 
was  $100,000. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  1909? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes ;  and  the  next  following  year  it  was  $28,000 ;  and  last  year 
it  was  $8,000. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  fluctuates? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  It  fluctuates,  and  the  tendency  is  under  these  contracts  we  have 
to  eliminate  the  strike  altogether. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  tendency  is  that  way? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes ;  we  have  not  a  single  strike  under  our  jurisdiction  now. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Looking  ahead  for  the  next  five  years  what  do 
you  forecast  is  likely  to  be  the  condition  of  industrial  peace? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  I  think  that  it  is  going  to  be  greater  than  at  any  time  in  the  past ; 
there  is  every  evidence  of  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  the  degree  of  industrial  peace  will  be 
higher? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  strikes  will  be  fewer? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes ;  we  have  very  few  strikes  in  our  trade,  and  I  attribute 
that  largely  to  the  fact  that  we  approach  the  wage  question  in  an  open  way, 
and  each  side  is  very  free  to  present  arguments  for  either  side. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  then  believe  that  the  so-called  missing  link 
between  capital  and  labor  lies  in  both  sides  being  thoroughly  organized,  and  in 
the  establishment  of  trade  agreements? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes ;  I  think  that  is  a  very  long  step  in  that  direction ;  I  do  not 
say  that  is  going  to  be  a  millenium,  but  it  is  the  best  present-day  method  that  I 
know  of. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  By  mutual  organization  and  trade  agreements? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  Yes ;  and  mutual  recognition  without  any  reservation  at  all  on 
the  part  of  the  employer  as  to  the  right  of  the  workman,  and  the  limitation  of 


822          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

the  employer's  attitude  generally  of  believing  that  the  working  man  is  too 
ignorant  to  negotiate  prices.  That  is  the  mental  attitude  of  some  employers 
and  we  have  had  an  awful  time  to  get  them  away  from  that,  but  we  are 
gradually  getting  them  away  from  that  idea.  I  find"  that  the  employer  is  not 
any  better  mentally,  not  any  better  able  to  deal  with  the  question  of  wages  and 
conditions  of  labor  than  the  workingman,  notwithstanding  his  superior  op- 
portunities. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  the  worker  really  a  closer  student  of  these 
economic  phases? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  The  worker  is  a  closer  student,  and  man  for  man,  can  outstrip 
the  employers  in  stating  the  logical  reasons  of  their  position. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  One  question  in  regard  to  the  figures  which  you 
named.  You  said  $90  and  $100.  I  think  you  meant  $100,000,  did  you  not,, 
when  you  came  down  to  later  years? 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No ;  I  meant  $100. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  said  the  next  thing  was  $60  and  the  next  $80, 
and  I  thought  you  were  coming  along  down. 

Mr.  TOBIN.  No ;  I  just  mentioned  that  year  because  it  was  a  phenomenal 
year,  while  our  sick  and  death  benefits  average  about  $90,000  a  year  for  the 
10  years. 

TESTIMONY  OP  MR.  HARRINGTON  EMERSON. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Emerson  has  prepared,  as  I  understand,  a  statement  of 
his  system,  which  has  been  presented  to  the  commission.  I  would  like  to  have 
the  commission  understand  that  this  is  to  become  a  part  of  the  record,  and  if 
that  is  proper,  I  should  like  to  have  it  so  ordered. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  was  going  to  make  that  suggestion.  I  was  going  to 
acknowledge  this  very  well-gotten-up  statement,  which  I  understood  to  be  his 
testimony  for  this  hearing,  and  it  will  be  made  a  part  of  our  record  just  as 
though  it  had  all  been  testified  to  upon  the  witness  stand. 

You  have  heard  this  discussion  by  Messrs.  Taylor  and  Tobin,  and  if  there  are 
any  points  not  covered  in  the  statement  originally  submitted  by  you,  will  you 
be  kind  enough  to  give  us  anything  that  will  throw  further  light  upon  the 
matter? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like  to  make  this  suggestion  for  the  purpose  of  the 
record  here :  As  it  may  not  appear  in  the  statement  he  has  prepared,  I  should 
like  to  have  the  witness  requested  to  give  his  name  and  address  and  business 
and  the  length  of  time  he  has  been  in  that  business.  I  should  like  to  have 
him  make  just  a  brief  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  ask  the  questions  to  elicit  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  kindly  give  your  name  and  address  and  your 
business? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Harrington  Emerson.  I  have  assumed  the  title  of  standard 
of  practice  and  efficiency  engineer. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  that  work? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  On  and  off  for  the  last  40  years. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  maintain  an  office  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  that 
work? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  do ;  in  New  York. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  employ  assistants  for  that  work? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  have  between  30  and  40  assistants. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  apply  that  system  in  the  establishments  of  your 
clients,  upon  compensation? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  We  have  no  system.  What  we  attempt  to  do  is  to  apply  cer- 
tain principles.  We  are  willing  to  adopt  any  method,  any  device,  if  it  is  ad- 
vantageous, but  we  have  no  such  system. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  apply  that  upon  the  request  of  clients  of  your  office? 
You  apply  those  principles  in  their  establishments? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes.  The  client  generally  comes  to  us  and  wants  to  know 
what  we  can  do,  and  then  we  have  a  long  task  in  persuading  him  to  consider 
principles.  Our  difficulty  is  always  with  the  managers. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  long  have  you  maintained  your  office  in  New  York  City? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Since  1907. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  know,  Mr.  Emerson,  whether  your  book  states  the 
number  of  places  in  which  you  have  put  into  operation  a  system  or  the  prin- 
ciples in  operation.  If  not,  will  you  state,  as  it  comes  to  you,  about  where  your 
principles  have  been  put  in  operation  and  when? 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  823 

Mr.  EMRSON.  We  have  been  consulted  by  about  200  different  firms,  and  a 
consultation  sometimes  extends  very  far  down  into  their  management,  and 
sometimes  it  is  limited  to  conference  with  the  heads  of  the  firm.  The  work  has 
been  put  into  a  number  of  different  plants  rather  thoroughly.  In  no  single 
plant  has  it  been  put  in  absolutely  as  we  would  like  to  see  it,  from  beginning 
to  end,  but  so  far  as  our  advice  or  the  application  of  our  principles  is  con- 
cerned, it  has  run  from  very  little  down  to  very  intense  application  of  what  we 
believe  to  be  the  proper  principles.  All  together,  perhaps  we  have  advised 
clients  who  employed  over  200,000  men  on  the  whole,  and  our  work  has  been 
applied  to  nearly  50,000  men,  more  or  less,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Could  you  furnish  this  commission  at  some  time  with  a  list 
of  those  places,  and  would  you  be  willing  to  do  so? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Very  often  our  clients  object  very  much  to  having  it  known 
that  they  have  needed  any  doctor.  There  are  others  who  are  perfectly  willing 
to  have  that  information  furnished.  As  to  those  I  would  have  no  objection 
whatever  to  furnishing  it,  and  as  to  the  others  it  is  more  or  less  a  confidential 
relation. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  We  will  be  pleased  to  have  those  who  are  willing  to  have 
you  furnish  it,  and  we  will  make  the  information  so  furnished  a  part  of  the 
record  in  this  case. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  kindly  answer  the  question  which  the  chairman 
asked  you  in  the  beginning,  if  you  remember  it? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  I  asked  Mr.  Emerson  was  whether  there  were  any 
points  not  mentioned  in  his  written  statement  which  he  thought  might  throw 
light  upon  the  question  of  efficiency  as  applied  to  labor. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  question  of  that  kind.  It  has 
seemed  to  me  this  afternoon  that  on  both  sides  the  subject  was  perhaps  not 
understood,  or  there  seemed  to  be  misconceptions  as  to  what  the  aims  were. 

Let  us  take  up  the  matter  of  the  determination  of  the  standard.  That  was 
one  of  the  matters  that  was  discussed  by  Mr.  Taylor.  We  feel  that  the  test 
of  a  standard  lies  ultimately  absolutely  with  the  worker.  If  a  worker  attains 
a  standard  without  overspeeding  and  without  undue  strenuousness,  that  in 
itself  justifies  the  standard.  There  is  no  penalty  whatever  imposed  on  a  man 
who  does  not  attain  the  standard. 

Under  the  method  that  I  prefer,  the  man  is  always  guaranteed  his  day 
wages.  That  is  fundamental,  irrespective  of  what  he  accomplishes.  The  mere 
fact  that  he  comes  and  offers  his  time  entitles  him  to  his  wage.  I  consider  the 
management  always  responsible  for  anything  that  goes  wrong  in  a  plant.  I 
have  never  considered  the  worker  responsible.  If  the  worker  is  not  furnished 
the  work,  it  is  the  fault  of  the  management,  and  he  should  not  be  made  to  suffer. 
That  is  the  reason  I  am  absolutely,  wholly  opposed  to  piecework.  I  always 
have  been,  for  the  last  10  years.  Ten  years  ago  I  denounced  piece  rates,  and 
I  have  constantly  worked  and  written  and  struggled  against  piece  rates  ever 
since.  Piece  rates  impose  responsibility  on  the  worker,  and  the  worker  has 
only  small  authority.  The  responsibility  of  what  is  going  on  rests  with  the 
management  to  an  extent  of  90  per  cent. 

Under  the  method  I  use,  we  therefore  pay  a  fixed  day  rate.  That  rate  is 
properly  subject  to  bargaining,  either  individual  or  collective. 

The  second  principle  we  use  as  to  payment  is  that  there  shall  be  a  deter- 
mined equivalent  for  a  day's  work,  and  that  equivalent  should  be  determined 
by  a  scientific  expert,  neither  by  the  management  nor  by  the  worker,  and  yet  it 
should  be  accepted  by  both  before  it  becomes  valid.  As  you  have  it  now,  there 
are  the  two  fixed  principles  of  a  fixed  rate  of  pay  per  day,  and  the  equivalent 
for  that  rate.  In  other  words,  a  bushel  consists  of  60  pounds.  You  have  a 
definite  equivalent  for  what  the  day  rate  is. 

Now,  men  vary  very  much  in  their  abilities,  in  their  speed,  and  under  our 
plan  there  are  many  men  who  attain  what  we  would  call  80  per  cent  efficiency, 
and  there  are  other  men  who  attain  120  per  cent  efficiency.  Instead  of  their  all 
attaining  exactly  100,  they  vary.  We  would  expect,  as  a  test  of  our  standard, 
that  there  should  be  some  few  men  as  low  as  80  per  cent,  and  that  there  would 
be  some  few  men  as  high  as  120  per  cent;  that  is,  the  bulk  of  the  men  would 
rank  somewhere  between  90  and  110  per  cent.  WTe  feel  that  the  man  who  has 
it  in  him  to  deliver  120  per  cent  should  receive  an  individual  reward  on  account 
of  that.  We  should  not,  by  any  possibility,  dispense  with  the  man  who  attains 
80  per  cent,  because  it  is  absolutely  his  right  to  stay  on  the  80  per  cent  level. 
I  would  even  go  further ;  I  would  allow  the  man  who  has  120  per  cent  ability 


824          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

to  shorten  his  hours,  if  he  saw  fit.  He  could  work  8  hours  a  day  instead  of 
working  10  hours.  That  would  be  at  his  option.  The  determination  of  the 
standard  is,  of  course,  the  basis  of  the  fairness  of  the  relations  between  the 
employer  and  the  employee.  As  a  rough  check  on  a  standard,  we  make  it  one- 
half  of  what  a  man  can  attain  by  a  stunt  record,  that  we  call  100  per  cent.  To 
illustrate  what  I  mean  by  that,  the  athletic  record  for  walking  is  8  miles  in  an 
hour.  That  is  the  world's  record  for  walking.  We  would  set  4  miles  an  hour 
as  a  good,  stiff  performance,  and  if  a  man  walks  more  than  that  he  would  be 
paid  accordingly.  We  would  not  think  of  discharging  a  man  who  walks  as 
little  as  2*  miles  an  hour. 

Now,  if  a  man  feels  for  any  reason  that  he  is  not  treated  fairly,  if  we  should 
attempt  in  any  way  to  cut  the  standard,  we  would  suffer  far  more  than  the  man, 
because  if  he  dropped  back  from  100  per  cent  to  80  per  cent,  still  earning  his  day 
rate,  the  loss  to  the  manager  would  be  far  greater  than  the  loss  to  the  work- 
man, so  that  that  stands  absolutely  as  a  barrier  aginst  any  cut  in  the  standard. 
Moreover,  what  we  do  is  to  check  up  the  actual  performances  under  the 
standards  through  a  long  course  of  time,  as  has  been  done  by  different  men  on 
different  occasions,  and  if  we  do  find  that  a  performance  the  standard  of  which 
has  been  six  and  seven-tenths  hours  a  day  regularly  takes  six  and  nine-tenths 
hours,  we  come  to  the  conclusion  that  that  standard  was  too  severe,  and  that 
it  ought  to  be  ameliorated,  that  it  ought  to  be  changed,  that  it  ought  to  be  made 
easier.  The  one  intention  is  that  the  standard  shall  be  fair,  and  when  that  is 
understood  by  both  employer  and  employee — and  I  have  had  just  as  much 
trouble  getting  the  employer  to  understand  the  point  of  view  as  the  employee — 
when  that  relation  is  established  there  is  very  little  difficulty  in  changing  the 
standard  one  wray  or  the  other,  in  order  to  be  fair. 

I  remember  a  worker  that  came  to  my  brother ;  we  had  established  a  stand- 
ard of  three  and  seven-eighths  hours  for  a  machine-shop  operation,  and  he 
said  to  him,  "  The  first  time  I  did  that  it  took  me  three  and  six-tenths  hours, 
and  the  next  time  I  did  it  it  took  me  three  and  four-tenths  hours.  The  standard 
is  too  easy ;  it  is  not  a  proper  standard."  My  brother  said  to  him,  "  You  are 
acting  as  a  leader  for  a  number  of  men.  You  are  carrying  out  other  work  for 
them,  and  you  are  checking  it  up,  and  that  takes  considerable  time  for  which 
we  have  not  been  able  to  allow  you,  and  that  is  the  reason  we  allowed  you 
more  time  on  this  particular  operation,  in  order  to  compensate  you  for  this 
extra  time." 

"Well,"  he  said,  "if  that  is  the  reason  and  you  understand  fully  why  you 
did  it,  and  that  it  is  a  short  time,  I  am  willing  to  accept  it,  but  not  otherwise." 
That  is  the  kind  of  a  spirit,  and  the  only  spirit,  on  which  one  can  build  up 
proper  relations  in  the  shop. 

We  would  have  no  objection  whatever  to  submitting  any  changes  of  stand- 
ards, just  as  we  submit  the  original  standards  to  the  employer;  we  would  also 
be  perfectly  willing  to  submit  them  to  the  employee;  and  \ve  would  be  per- 
fectly willing  to  have  men  from  the  employees  who  are  qualified  to  pass  on 
any  changes  of  standard,  feeling  absolutely  certain  that  substantial  justice 
would  be  done.  I  would  make  a  reservation  of  a  veto  on  behalf  of  the  em- 
ployer, for  the  sole  reason  that  I  would  fear  that  the  standards  set  by  the 
employer  would  be  too  severe.  That  has  been  our  experience.  Nobody  ever 
feels  any  pity  for  any  man  or  any  person  in  his  own  position  in  life.  He  feels 
pity  for  people  in  other  positions  of  life,  but  not  for  people  in  his  own  posi- 
tion. A  man  feels  sorry  for  a  woman  or  for  a  child  or  for  an  old  man.  A 
woman  feels  sorry  for  a  child  or  for  a  man,  but  not  for  another  woman.  A  man 
of  my  age  may  feel  sorry  for  a  woman  or  for  a  child  or  for  a  very  old  man. 
My  father  had  no  pity  whatever  for  an  old  man  he  saw  selling  lead  pencils  on 
the  street.  I  did  feel  sorry  for  him.  I  have  no  pity  for  a  man  of  my  own 
age  who  is  down  and  out.  He  has  no  business  to  be.  In  the  same  way  a 
workingman  who  is  an  efficient  worker  has  very  little  charity  for  the  man  who 
is  inefficient  and  there  is  need  there  for  a  power  of  veto  to  prevent  the  stand- 
ards from  being  too  severe.  That  has  been  my  experience. 

As  to  wages  I  feel  absolutely  certain  that  the  law  of  progress  depends  on 
the  fact  that  value  increases  faster  than  cost  and  therefore  the  endeavor  should 
always  be  to  secure  the  highest  paid  man  that  it  is  possible  to  get;  that  what 
i?  coming  is  that  there  will  be  a  rivalry  and  competition  for  the  high-priced 
man  rather  than  for  the  low-priced  man.  I  would  be  perfectly  willing  in  any 
plant  to  accept  a  wage  rate  of  $5  a  day  and  make  the  costs  lower  in  that 
plant  than  on  any  less  sum  than  that  that  you  could  mention.  I  would  beat  out 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOB.  825 

the  man  and  would  feel  confident  that  I  would  beat  out  the  man  who  was  pay- 
Ing  $4  a  day  or  $3  a  day  or  $2  a  day. 

Now  of  course  there  is  a  limit.  I  believe  that  the  man  should  receive  in- 
creasing wages  for  better  conditions  just  as  long  as  the  unit  price  goes  down, 
and  no  longer,  because  if  you  increase  the  wages  when  the  unit  price  is  going 
up,  you  are  violating  that  other  fundamental  law,  that  with  our  increased  power 
over  the  resources  of  the  universe,  costs  are  coming  down.  We  are  getting 
more  than  we  formerly  got.  Therefore  I  give  the  worker  increasing  remunera- 
tion up  to  the  point  of  increasing  cost,  and  at  that  point  I  stop.  I  give  the 
public  a  lower  price,  just  as  long  as  the  volume  of  the  product  it  buys  enables 
me  to  make  a  lower  cost,  and  no  further.  That  is  the  way  that  I  apportion 
the  difference  between  cost  and  selling  price. 

One  word  more:  I  might  say  that  we  apply  principles  to  the  whole  matter 
from  the  top  of  the  organization  down  to  the  last  detail.  The  principles  of 
organization  are  very  old.  They  were  known  in  the  days  of  Egypt,  and  they 
are  not  practiced  in  this  country.  They  are  unknown,  or  practically  un- 
known. There  is  only  one  organization  in  the  whole  world  that  is  standard- 
ized ;  that  is,  where  you  can  take  a  man  and  change  him  from  any  one  country 
over  to  another  country,  and  he  finds  himself,  and  that  is  the  organization  of 
the  navies  of  the  world.  Take  a  captain  from  a  battleship  and  transfer  him  to 
a  Turkish  ship  or  a  Chinese  ship  or  a  Japanese  ship  or  an  English  ship,  and 
he  finds  himself  at  once,  and  in  no  other  line  do  you  find  any  such  thing  as  a 
standard  organization.  I  have  been  in  200  industrial  plants,  and  no  two  of 
them  are  alike  in  any  respect.  They  get  up  beautiful  little  charts  as  to  how 
they  are  organized,  and  there  is  the  president  on  top — and  I  always  put  him 
at  the  bottom — \vhat  the  functions  of  the  general  manager  are,  and  the  funda- 
mentals of  organization  are  absolutely  neglected.  They  are  not  brought  out 
at  all.  In  fact,  there  are  principles  of  organization,  there  are  principles  of 
employment,  there  are  principles  of  adapting  men  to  their  work  before  they 
start  out,  and  there  are  principles  that  apply  to  operation;  and  when  we 
apply  those  principles  we  automatically  eliminate  inefficiencies.  We  simply 
automatically  screen  them  out.  I  do  not  know  but  what  I  would  like  to  sub- 
mit, as  a  part  of  the  record,  an  analysis  of  each  member  of  this  commission. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Surely. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  have  seen  only  one  or  two  of  them  before  to-day,  and  I 
am  perfectly  willing  to  submit  here  as  a  part  of  the  record  an  analysis  of  the 
qualities  belonging  to  each  member  of  the  commission. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Some  of  us  may  not  care  to  see  ourselves  as  others 
see  us. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  One  of  the  principles  of  correct  management  is  not  to  offend. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  that  all,  Mr.  Emerson? 

Air.  EMERSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  one  or  two  questions.  You  stated, 
in  your  direct  statement,  that  neither  the  employer  nor  the  employee  should 
have  the  right  to  settle  the  standard,  but  that  that  voice  should  be  left  to  an 
expert.  What  objection,  if  any,  is  there  to  the  employees  taking  part  in  the 
selection  of  such  expert?  Assume  a  case  where  a  system  was  already  in 
vogue,  or  a  new  case,  whichever  serves  you  the  best. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  would  have  exactly  the  same  objection  to  the  employee  select- 
ing the  expert  that  I  would  have  to  the  employer  selecting  the  expert.  Gen- 
erally neither  of  them  is  competent  to  do  it.  Unfortunately,  as  matters  are 
now  organized,  the  employer  generally  has  a  feeble  chirp  in  the  matter,  and  he 
goes  out  and  he  may  make  a  wise  selection  or  he  may  make  a  poor  selection. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  This  expert,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  serves  practically  as  an 
umpire  between  the  two,  does  he  not? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  He  should,  absolutely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  would  there  be  any  objection,  after  such  a  system  as 
you  have  was  established  in  a  factory  or  a  shop,  to  a  collective  bargain  between 
the  employer  or  employee  that  would  permit  them  jointly  to  select  some  person 
of  proper  fitness — I  mean  an  expert  person — to  act  as  mediator  between  them 
for  the  purpose  of  adjusting  any  changes — 

Mr.  EMERSON.  It  would  be  an  exceedingly  desirable  thing,  I  should  think,  if 
that  could  be  done.  I  would  say  that  the  opinion  which  the  expert  renders  is 
not  obligatory  upon  either  the  employer  or  employee. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  all  I  wanted  to  ask. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Garretson,  do  you  desire  to  ask  any  questions? 


826          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Yes.  Are  you  conducting  philanthropic  or  a  busi- 
ness enterprise,  Mr.  Ernerson? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Sometimes  I  think  I  am  conducting  a  philanthropic  enterprise, 
but,  nevertheless,  I  have  been  fairly  successful  in  business. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  It  has  a  business  end  to  it? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  It  has.     It  is  an  art,  a  profession,  and  a  business. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  I  think  you  went  a  little  further,  if  I  understood 
you  correctly,  with  the  statement  that  Mr.  Thompson  referred  to,  that  while 
the  expert  who  was  chosen  would  have  the  determining  voice,  it  did  not  become, 
from  your  standpoint,  applicable  until  it  was  accepted  by  both  the  employer 
and  employee.  Did  I  understand  you  correctly? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  would  like  to  see  that. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  I  think  you  went  a  little  further,  if  I  understood 
stood  you,  but  I  want  to  make  it  certain — is  there  anything — well,  you  repudi- 
ated the  word  "  system  "  at  one  stage  of  the  proceedings,  but  it  is  the  best 
thing  I  know  to  describe  the  methods  that  you  advocate — is  there  anything  in 
the  system  which  you  advocate  that  is  not  in  anywise  reconcilable  with  a  full 
practice  of  collective  bargaining  from  your  standpoint? 

Mr.  EMEESON.  No ;  I  know  of  nothing  that  would  make  it  antagonistic  to  col- 
lective bargaining. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  It  may  be  carried  forward,  disposing  in  that  man- 
ner of  all  questions  of  wage  or  conditions  of  service  that  were  conformable  to 
the  standards  you  had  set  up? 

Mr.  EMEESON.  My  plan,  yes,  would  be  perfectly  reconcilable. 

Let  me  say,  perhaps,  that  the  wage  methods  that  I  think  I  have  proved  de- 
sirable were  based  on  and  modified  from  the  methods  of  the  Locomotive 
Brotherhood  of  Engineers ;  the  different  principles  that  they  have  advocated 
there  and  have  used  very  largely  in  their  contracts  are  those  that  I  have 
studied  and  adopted  as  the  basis  of  our  method. 

Now,  as  I  said  before,  there  is  no  obligation  whatever  on  the  employee  to 
attain  any  standard  that  is  set.  There  is,  therefore,  no  injustice  whatever 
done  him  in  setting  an  abnormally  high  standard.  Sometimes,  when  we  wish 
to  get  work  done  in  a  hurry,  where  it  is  necessary  to  work  very  rapidly,  we 
set  standards  that  are  unduly  high ;  that  we  know  are  probably  not  attainable. 
We  have  guaranteed  the  day  rate,  the  man  gets  just  the  same  that  he  did 
before;  he  is  under  no  obligation  to  work  any  faster  than  he  sees  fit,  because 
there  is  no  penalty  imposed,  unless  he  is  so  very  derelict  that  he  ought  not  to 
stay  in  any  case — not  able  to  do,  say,  more  than  two-thirds  of  a  day's  work; 
although  in  a  plant  where  we  employed  11,000  men,  or  12,000  men,  I  never 
asked  for  the  discharge  of  any  employee  or  any  foreman  whatever.  It  was 
my  pride  to  be  able  to  bring  up  their  efficiency  without  discharging  anybody. 
So  that,  assuming  that  we  should  put  in  standards  that  were  unreasonably 
high,  we  simply  find  that  our  men  do  not  attain  them;  that  there  is  not  suffi- 
cient incentive,  if  they  are  too  high.  While  it  would  be  a  very  slipshod  way 
of  doing,  and  is  not  the  way,  by  any  means,  that  we  usually  pursue,  we  could 
successively  lower  those  standards  until  we  had  found  that  they  were  working 
as  a  proper  stimulus,  and  in  that  way  be  the  guide  to  the  method  we  would 
have  to  attain  as  a  practical  standard ;  but  there  would  be  absolutely  no  in- 
justice to  any  worker  in  our  setting  a  standard  of  8  miles  an  hour,  because  ag 
long  as  the  man  could  earn  his  day's  wages  by  walking  2^  miles  an  hour,  it 
does  not  hurt  him  at  all  to  have  that  imaginary  standard  set  up. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Just  one  question  further :  In  places  where  your 
methods  have  been  put  in  vogue,  I  suppose  after  a  time  the  personal  connec- 
tion of  your  establishment  ceases  with  a  place? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEBETSON.  Have  you  ever  noticed  that  after  your  connection 
had  ceased,  there  were,  assuming  for  the  moment  that  the  100  per  cent  man— 
I  suppose  100  per  cent  represents  the  standard  daily  wage? 

Mr.  EMEBSON.  No.  We  pay  20  per  cent  more  than  the  daily  wage  for  100 
per  cent. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Then  88  is 

Mr.  EMEBSON.  Sixty-six. 

Commissioner  GABBETSON.  If  a  man  fails  continuously  to  develop  the  capacity 
that  is  equivalent  to  whatever  you  establish  as  the  daily  wage,  then  have  you 
seen  that  to  act  to  eliminate  that  man  from  the  service? 

Mr.  EMEESON.  I  would  strongly  advise  eliminating  from  the  service  a  man 
that  does  not  attain  66  per  cent  of  a  reasonable  standard,  as  he  is  not  fit  for 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOE.  827 

his  job.  When  I  say  "  eliminate  him  from  the  service,"  that  same  man  may 
prove  very  admirable  in  some  other  place;  but  certainly  a  man  that  can  not 
attain  66  per  cent  of  a  reasonable  day's  work  is  not  fit  in  the  place  where  he  is. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  All  I  wanted  was  to  know  what  the  practical  work- 
ing out  of  it  had  been  in  that  direction ;  because  the  feeling  of  the  men  toward 
it,  of  course,  would  depend  upon  that  practical  result. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  certain  places — not  in  this  big  plant  of 
which  I  spoke,  but  in  others — we  have  eliminated  men,  finally  discharged  them, 
who  did  not  attain  33  per  cent,  but  when  a  man  was  as  high  as  50  per  cent  we 
thought  he  was  a  good,  promising  prospect  to  bring  up  to  100  per  cent. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Might  I  say  one  word  more? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Could  you  not  do  it  just  as  well  after  the  members  of  the 
commission  have  finished  asking  you  questions? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Certainly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well;  please  do  that. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Would  you  discriminate,  Mr.  Emerson,  in  the 
wage  between  the  80  per  cent  efficient  man  and  the  100  per  cent  efficient  man 
and  the  120  per  cent  efficient  man? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  We  believe  in  the  classification  of  men.  We  believe  that  cer- 
tain men  ought  to  belong  in  class  A,  that  might  be  15  cents  an  hour,  and  other 
men  in  class  B,  20  cents  an  hour,  and  other  men  in  class  C,  25  cents  an  hour; 
so  that  there  are  a  number  of  different  classes  of  men.  And  you  might  have  a 
man  that  was  80  per  cent  efficient  in  any  class. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Take  the  man  in  class  A;  you  can  subdivide 
those  men  so  that  one  of  them  has  proven  to  be  80  per  cent  efficient  and 
another  100  per  cent  efficient,  and  the  third  120  per  cent  efficient.  Would  you 
discriminate  in  the  wage  of  these  three  men  in  the  same  class? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  The  men  that  are  80  per  cent  efficient  receive  the  same  bonus ; 
those  that  are  100  per  cent  efficient  receive  more,  and  those  that  are  120  per 
cent  receive  still  more. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  believe  in  the  bonus  system,  then? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Absolutely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  equalize  the  difference  in  efficiency  by 
bonuses  ? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes.  Let  me  say  what  that  bonus  system  is.  We  believe  in 
paying  a  man  who  is  100  per  cent  efficient  20  per  cent  bonus.  If  he  attains 
any  more  than  100  per  cent,  which  many  of  them  do,  a  great  many  of  them 
do,  we  give  him  all  the  time  he  saves  at  his  full  regular  rate  of  pay,  and  we 
pay,  in  addition,  20  per  cent  for  the  time  he  works. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Where  does  the  employer  come  in?  Where  do 
you  get  any  benefit,  if  you  give  him  all? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  All  the  time  he  saves  at  his  regular  wages,  and  20  per  cent 
of  the  time  he  works. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  do  not  grasp  that. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Let  me  ask  a  question  right  there  that  I  think 
will  bring  it  out.  Under  that  system  an  employer  would  get  exactly  the  same 
profit  on  this  time  that  he  did  on  the  preceding  time,  would  he  not — or  would 
he? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  The  profit  to  the  employer,  just  as  much  as  the  profit  to  the 
worker,  is  enormous.  The  worker  may  increase  his  profit  above  his  daily  ex- 
penses as  much  as  800  or  900  per  cent.  So  may  the  employer  increase  his 
profit  very  largely.  The  profit  to  the  employer  lies  firstly  in  the  fact  that  his 
overhead  expense  goes  down  tremendously,  because  if  the  overhead  is  100  per 
cent,  and  this  work  is  done  in  two-thirds  of  the  time,  he  has  reduced  his  over- 
head expenses  one-third  also ;  so  that  that  would  be  one  direct  and  very  great 
gain  to  him  in  bringing  down  the  cost  per  unit ;  and  then  he  has  more  units 
to  sell. 

We  regard  the  whole  plant  as  a  single  machine,  and  we  ask  ourselves,  how 
much  can  we  get  out  of  this  big  machine  per  hour?  That  is  the  thing  that 
counts;  and  if  you  can  get  100  pieces  per  hour,  it  is  very  much  better  than  if 
you  only  can  get  50.  There  is  more  all  round. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  And  the  bonus  on  the  110  comes  in  the  employer's 
profit  on  the  added  10? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  That  bonus  comes  in  the  added  profit.  The  man's  bonus  comes 
in  the  fact  that  he  is  getting  all  the  time  that  he  saves  at  his  regular  rate — not 


828          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

at  his  bonus  rate,  but  at  his  regular  rate,  so  that  the  cost  per  p  ece  is  going 
down  all  the  time. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  believe  in  the  time-watch  system  in 
determining  how  much  time  it  should  take  to  do  a  certain  piece  of  work? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  believe  in  every  instrument  of  precision  you  can  use  in  de- 
terminating the  standard.  It  is  the  basis  of  everything,  and  there  is  no  method 
that  I  would  not  believe  in  using — thermometer,  barometer — we  have  used 
hygrometers  and  instruments  to  show  in  what  direction  the  wind  is  coming,  and 
everything  else. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  that  the  stop  watch  is  a  part  of  your  appa- 
ratus? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  have  been  willing  at  any  time  to  use  the  stop  watch,  and 
with  the  full  knowledge  and  consent  of  the  men. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  agree  with  those  representatives  of  labor 
who  contend  that  the  stop-watch  system  will  not  bring  about  a  spirit  of  coopera- 
tion between  the  worker  and  the  employer? 

Mr.  EMEESON.  We  never  found  it  so,  and  we  have  worked  with  thousands  of 
men. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  have  found,  then,  that  intelligent  workers 
as  a  rule  do  not  resent  the  stop-watch  system? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Not  when  it  is  properly  explained  to  them.  Our  object  in  using 
the  stop  watch  and  in  making  the  time  study  is  to  find  out  what  the  troubles 
are  that  are  preventing  the  poor  workman  from  doing  what  he  ought  to  do. 
Those  troubles  with  the  time  are  up  to  the  management,  and  what  he  should 
do  is  to  cooperate  in  finding  where  the  loss  is.  Where  he  thinks  that  we  want 
to  speed  him  up  naturally  he  objects,  and  I  would  not  blame  him;  but  where 
he  once  understands  what  we  are  trying  to  find  out  is  why  the  work  does  not 
come  forward,  or  why  the  powrer  is  shut  off,  or  why  he  has  poor  tools,  and 
things  like  that  his  spirit  changes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Representatives  of  organized  labor  have  testified 
before  this  commission  that  they  are  in  favor  of  giving  the  worker  a  higher 
wage  for  his  increased  effort,  but  that  they  are  opposed  to  the  employer  giving 
him  a  bonus  for  increased  effort.  Do  you  think  that  that  distinction  is  war- 
ranted on  the  part  of  organized  labor? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  It  is  not  a  distinction  that  lies  in  my  mind.  A  bonus  is  merely 
a  means  of  trying  to  grade  wages  as  they  ought  to  be  graded.  That  is  all  it  is. 
I  would  be  perfectly  willing  to  translate  the  bonus  into  a  permanently  higher 
wage ;  for  instance,  instead  of  giving  a  man  20  per  cent  bonus,  if  he  was  regu- 
larly 100  per  cent  efficient,  I  would  see  no  reason  at  all  for  not  giving  him  20 
per  cent  higher  wage  rate.  It  might  work  out  just  as  well. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  would  it?  Because  the  worker  might  raise 
his  efficiency  until  he  got  the  bonus  translated  into  wages,  and,  having  once 
gotten  it  translated  into  wages,  he  would  drop  his  efficiency. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Then  I  would  drop  his  wages. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  you  would  have  a  row  on  your  hands. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Well,  I  do  not  know  that  I  would. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  bonus  on  the  one  hand  is  adjustable? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Certainly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Where  the  wage  becomes  as  a  rule  fixed? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  would  not  allow  that;  I  have  the  classification  the  man 
would  pass  from.  I  would  always  pass  a  man  into  a  higher  classification  on 
account  of  length  of  service,-  irrespective  of  any  efficiency  whatever. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Contention  has  been  made  also  that  where  the 
bonus  or  piecework  system  or  premium  system  maintains,  sooner  or  later  the 
rate  is  cut  when  the  output  becomes,  in  the  opinion  of  the  employer,  abnor- 
mally large;  has  that  been  your  experience? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  issued  a  pamphlet  at  one  time,  10,000  copies,  to  a  number 
of  workers,  and  immediately  took  up  that  point.  I  said  "  If  you  attain  effi- 
ciency, what  is  to  prevent  the  employer  from  cutting  the  rate?  Nothing,  except 
self-interest  and  common  sense,  because  the  moment  he  attempts  to  cut  the 
rate  you  can  retaliate,  and  I  advise  you  to  retaliate,  and  it  will  hurt  him  far 
more  than  it  will  you,"  and  I  have  never  had  a  case  of  the  rate  being  lowered 
where  we  have  put  in  our  method. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  further  contended  that  any  system  of  piece- 
work or  bonus  offerings  or  premium  offerings  puts  a  premium  upon  slighting 
the  work ;  that  you  get  quantity  at  the  expense  of  quality. 


EFFICIENCY  SYSTEMS  AND  LABOR.  829 

Mr.  EMEKSON.  I  have  found  that  the  character  was  not  changed  by  the 
method  of  pay.  We  find  that  men  that  slight  their  work  under  the  day  system 
will  also  slight  their  work  under  the  bonus  system,  and  a  man  who  is  con- 
scientious under  the  day  system  will  remain  conscientious  under  the  bonus 
system.  I  never  saw  any  connection  between  the  character  of  the  man  and 
the  method  of  pay,  and,  as  a  rule,  seeing  that  you  are  employing  better  men, 
the  quality  almost  universally  rises. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  it  not  true  that  all  of  us  practically  are  more 
or  less  creatures  of  our  environment  and  creatures  of  temptation,  and  when 
temptation  is  offered  us  and  we  are  a  little  weak  we  fall  when  we  otherwise 
would  remain  standing,  and  that  this  bonus  or  premium  system  is  in  the  nature 
of  temptation  to  the  weaker  man. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Liars  will  lie  even  if  there  is  no  excuse  for  them,  and  other 
men  will  tell  the  truth  even  though  it  is  to  their  own  harm.  We  found  that  we 
were  able  to  build  up  such  a  spirit  in  the  shop,  and  we  did  not  find  any  diffi- 
culty in  that  way.  I  do  not  think  that  there  is  a  difficulty.  That  is  all  I  can 
say ;  practically  it  is  not  a  difficulty,  in  my  experience. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  want  to  ask  a  question  as  to  your  method  of  com- 
puting the  bonus.  Could  you  tell  us  how  actually  you  computed,  for  a  black- 
smith or  a  machinist,  the  making  of  the  time  study  and  the  bonus? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  You  mean  how  we  determine  the  standard? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  How  you  determine  the  standard,  and  how  you  de- 
termine the  amount  of  bonus  that  shall  go  for  that  work;  what  units  of  time 
you  take.  If  you  could  just  go  through  the  process  by  which  you  determine 
it,  that  is  what  I  want  to  get  at. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  The  bonus  must  be  enough  to  attract,  to  act  as  an  incentive 
on  the  man  to  do  well.  It  must  be  enough  for  that  purpose.  Any  bonus  that 
is  not  sufficient  for  that  purpose  is  too  small  a  bonus.  Any  bonus  that  over- 
shoots the  mark  and  gives  the  man  more  than  a  reasonable  incentive  would 
be  harmful,  because  it  would  put  up  to  him  the  incentive  of  overwork,  which 
we  wish  to  avoid  just  as  much  as  the  inclination  to  underwork. 

We  have  not  found  it  convenient  to  pay  the  same  bonus  for  a  standard — 
20  per  cent  of  what  we  call  standard,  but  the  standard  can  be  varied  to  suit 
the  conditions,  so  that  we  would  have  a  harder  standard  in  one  line  of  work 
than  we  would  in  another,  the  standard  would  be  much  more  easily  attained 
in  certain  lines  of  more  difficult  work ;  therefore  a  man,  if  he  works  very 
hard,  like  a  blacksmith,  where  he  has  to  stand  up  in  front  of  a  hot  fire  and 
hammer  very  hard  on  the  iron  and  keep  his  heats  going  along,  he  would 
be  able  to  earn  very  much  more — I  mean  he  would  be  able  to  realize  very 
much  more  than  100  per  cent.  Men  of  that  kind  might  very  easily  realize  150, 
160,  and  180  per  cent  on  which  he  would  then  receive  a  standard  bonus  of  20  per 
cent  in  addition. 

Now,  the  bonus  itself,  as  I  have  said,  would  pay  the  man  1  per  cent;  if  it 
was  101,  he  would  get  110 ;  if  it  was  102,  he  would  get  122 ;  and  if  it  was  110, 
he  would  get  130;  and  120,  he  would  get  140  per  cent  bonus,  and  so  on.  That 
makes  it  very  easy  to  calculate.  It  happened  by  accident  that  it  came  out  that 
way.  The  basis  we  took  was  this:  We  pay  the  man  for  all  the  time  he  saves 
above  20  per  cent ;  20  per  cent  because  he  did  the  standard  work  for  the  time 
he  worked ;  that  is  our  moral  basis.  The  other  is  the  computing  basis,  but 
they  are  the  same ;  they  work  out  just  the  same. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Suppose  you  find,  for  example,  that  in  a  certain 
operation  for  a  blacksmith  that  the  time  set,  we  will  say,  comes  out  one  way — 
am  I  starting  off  on  an  illustration  that  you  can  follow?  How  much  would  you 
add  to  that  for  computing  the  standard  of  efficiency?  Have  you  during  the 
time  studies  actually  brought  it  out  to  one  hour?  Do  I  understand  there  would 
be  20  per  cent  of  that  added? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  No ;  oh,  no. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What  do  you  add? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Oh,  no.  We  might  find  that  that  blacksmith  had  only  taken 
one  hour  to  do  that  work,  and  we  might  give  him  a  standard  of  two  hours,  if 
it  was  reasonable. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is,  you  would  multiply  it  by  two? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  We  might  in  that  particular  case. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  that  case  how  do  you  decide  that?  Is  it  based 
on  multitude  of  experience? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes ;  absolutely. 


830          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

In  that  particular  case,  if  the  work  was  very  hard  and  the  man  had  to  have 
rest  in  between,  and  he  could  not  reasonably  do  more  than  five  pieces  in  a  day, 
and  anybody  would  know  that  five  pieces  \vas  a  reasonable  work,  even  if  he  had 
done  it  in  an  hour,  that  would  be  no  reason  for  making  the  standard  one  hour ; 
we  would  set  the  standard  at  two  hours. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Even  if  he  had  done  it  in  tho.se  two  hours,  he 
would  get  the  ordinary  time  rate? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  He  wrould  get  two  hours'  wages. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  He  would  get  two  hours'  wages? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  And  he  would  get  20  per  cent  on  top  of  that. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Twenty  per  cent  in  addition? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes ;  supposing  he  did  it  in  one  hour. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  getting  it  down  one  hour? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Supposing  he  had  done  that? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Yes. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  He  would  receive  wages  for  that  one  hour  and  he  would 
receive  the  hour  that  he  had  saved,  full  wages  for  the  hour  that  he  had  saved ; 
therefore  he  would  receive  two  hours'  wages,  and  he  would  receive  20  per  cent 
for  the  hour  that  he  had  actually  worked. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  He  would  get  220  per  cent  of  the  day  rate,  the 
ordinary  rate  for  that  hour? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes;  that  is  what  he  would  get. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  the  case  of  a  machinist,  you  would  not  add  an- 
other hour  probably? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Probably  not. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  would  add  a  half  an  hour? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  It  would  depend  a  lot  on  what  the  situation  was;  that  is 
absolutely  a  question.  The  determination  of  a  schedule  is  the  most  difficult 
thing  there  is,  because  it  must  be  absolutely  fair,  and  all  the  knowledge  you  can 
possibly  bring  to  bear  on  it,  and  all  the  experience  is  necessary  in  order  to 
determine  a  fair  schedule.  Now,  it  is  the  fairness  of  the  schedule  that  counts. 
We  have  taken  men,  taken  a  machinist,  that  has  come  to  us,  and  we  have 
said  "  Are  you  walling  to  work  for  $3  a  day  ?  "  "  Yes ;  I  am."  "  Very  well, 
now  that  settles  that  point.  Now,  here  is  this  work  here.  How  long  is  it 
going  to  take  you  to  do  that  work?  How  long  will  it  take  you  yourself  to 
do  it?"  He  says  "I  don't  know."  "Well,  let's  try  it,"  and  he  does  it  in  24 
minutes.  "  Well,"  we  say,  "  we  will  try  it  over  again  and  see  what  you  can 
do,"  and  he  does  it  in  18  minutes.  Now  we  said  to  him,  "  We  are  going  to  give 
you  a  time  of  30  minutes  on  that  work.  Can  you  turn  out  20  a  day,  one  every 
half  hour  in  the  day  of  10  hours;  can  you  do  that?  Would  you  be  willing  to  do 
that,  or  do  you  think  you  can  do  it  without  undue  fatigue,"  and  he  says,  "  Well, 
you  saw  me  turn  it  out  in  24  minutes,  and  you  saw  me  turn  it  out  in  18 
minutes."  "  Yes;  I  know  that,  but  can  you  turn  one  out  every  half  an  hour?  " 
"Surely  I  could."  "Very  well,  if  you  can  do  that  we  will  pay  you  $3.60 
instead  of  $3."  Now,  he  is  sure  of  his  $3  in  any  case,  if  he  only  turns  out 
two,  and  if  he  comes  to  us  at  the  end  of  a  certain  number  of  days  and  says, 
"  I  can't  keep  at  that  20,  it  is  too  hard,  I  find  I  can  not  stand  it,"  we  would 
immediately  reconsider  it. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Well,  it  is  figured  out  then  on  each  day's  work,  is 
it,  or  how  is  it  computed,  the  bonus?  Do  you  average  it  up  for  any  period  of 
time,  or  how  do  you  conduct  it? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  We  conduct  it  exactly  as  a  deposit  and  checking  system  is 
conducted  in  a  bank.  We  give  the  man  credit  for  all  the  hours  that  he  has 
delivered,  and  wre  charge  him  with  all  the  money  that  we  have  paid  him  in 
the  month.  Now,  if  he  has  actually  been  present  250  hours  and  he  has  deliv- 
ered 250  hours  standard  work  his  efficiency  is  100.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he 
has  delivered  only  200  hours  standard  work  and  he  was  present  250  hours  and 
we  have  paid  him  for  250  hours  his  efficiency  is  only  80  per  cent,  and  he  would 
receive  about  4  per  cent  bonus  instead  of  receiving  20  per  cent.  If  he  delivers 
only  160  hours  and  had  been  present  and  received  pay  for  250  hours,  his 
efficiency  would  only  be  66  per  cent  and  he  would  receive  no  bonus,  but  he 
would  receive  pay  for  his  160  hours. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Do  you  usually  figure  it  out  on  a  monthly  basis? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  On  the  pay-roll  basis.  If  it  is  a  week,  it  is  a  weekly  basis; 
if  it  is  two  weeks,  it  is  two  weeks ;  if  it  is  a  month,  it  is  a  monthly  basis.  We 
never  apply  it  to  the  individual  job,  because  we  do  not  want  a  man  to  speed 
on  an  individual  job.  We  want  the  average  of  his  work. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOE.  831 

I  have  one  example  of  a  man  who  has  been  working  eight  years.  I  know 
every  job  that  he  did  during  that  time  exactly  at  the  standard  time  and  the 
average  time  he  has  taken  at  each  job  in  the  eight  years,  and  he  has  averaged 
consistently  throughout  that  time  110  per  cent.  He  was  53  years  old  when 
he  started  in.  There  is  a  man  you  might  as  well  give  an  increased  wage  to  as 
to  give  him  a  per  cent. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Where  is  Dr.  Osier? 
Mr.  EMERSON.  I  really  do  not  know. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  understand  the  tendency  of  this  is  to  make  the 
men  speed  up  and  perhaps  have  a  desire  to  have  increased  output,  and  as  the 
result  of  that  perhaps  to  turn  out  some  work  which  might  not  be  as  well  done 
and  which  might,  to  the  next  man  on  further  down  the  line,  cause  more  delay 
than  he  gave  good  to  the  firm.  Have  you  any  evidence  of  that  at  all? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes.  We  had  a  man  who  was  a  riveter  and  a  man  wrho  was  a 
fitter.  The  man  who  fitted  for  the  riveter  was  to  receive  a  bonus  on  the 
amount  of  work  he  fitted.  The  poor  riveter  found  that  the  work  was  so  poorly 
fitted  that  he  could  not  drive  the  rivets.  So  we  suddenly  turned  around  and 
paid  the  fitter  the  bonus  on  the  work  the  riveter  accomplished,  and  thus  changed 
his  whole  viewpoint  as  to  the  fitting  of  the  work,  and  after  that  we  had  no 
trouble  whatever  with  poorly  fitted  work  for  the  riveter. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Is  it  possible  the  speeding  up  has  indicated  the 
men  are  unable  to  continuously  perform?  Does  it  appear  to  affect  their  health 
at  all  or  have  any  suggestions  ever  been  made  to  show  whether  the  men,  by 
this  speeding  up,  were  injured  physically? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  As  I  said,  I  gave  you  this  example  of  this  man  53  years  old 
when  he  started  in  8  or  10  years  ago,  and  I  saw  him  last  year,  and  he  was 
still  on  the  same  schedule  of  work,  and  very  well. 

I  want  to  say  my  own  impression  is  that  everyone  of  us  needs  speeding  up. 
The  greatest  wealth  in  the  world  is  in  our  latent  power,  and  most  of  us  are 
tremendously  inefficient,  and  we  are  tremendously  lazy.  I  do  not  care  what 
kind  of  a  spur  you  put  back  of  us,  this  is  going  to  be  a  good  thing.  That  is 
the  way  I  regard  humanity  as  a  whole,  myself  included,  and  if  there  is  any  way 
we  can  inspire  and  encourage  and  stimulate  people  I  regard  it  as  one  of  the 
greatest  possibilities  that  lies  in  the  world  to-day,  because,  as  William  James 
has  pointed  out,  all  of  us  have  reserve  powers  that  are  undeveloped,  and  that 
make  for  the  wealth  of  the  world.  Dr.  Gulick  has  pointed  out  that  the  reason 
the  white  men  are  civilized  and  have  beaten  out  the  savages  is  because  they  have 
utilized  their  reserve  powers  to  a  greater  degree  than  the  savage  ever  thought 
of  doing.  You  can  take  a  team  of  white  men  anywhere  in  the  world  and  put 
them  up  against  a  team  of  savages  and  they  will  beat  them  at  doing  anything, 
because  the  white  race  has  had  the  greatest  stimulant.  That  is  my  conviction. 
I  want  therefore  to  hold  something  up  ahead  of  people.  I  am  not  driving  them 
from  behind ;  I  am  holding  up  ahead,  and  if  it  will  encourage  and  stimulate 
them,  not  as  the  piece  rate  does,  but  stimulate  them  to  become  better  types  of 
men  and  women,  that  is  the  thing  we  need. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  O'Connell,  do  you  desire  to  ask  the  witness  any  ques- 
tions? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  the  hours  of  labor  been  reduced  in  any  of 
the  plants  in  which  your  plan  or  idea  has  been  put  into  effect? 
Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes;  some  of  them. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  you  them  in  mind,  or  would  you  desire  to 
state  them? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  would  prefer  to  think  that  over,  Mr.  O'Connell,  and  give 
them. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  there  any  strikes  occurred  in  any  of  the 
plants  in  which  the  system  has  been  introduced? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  After  it  has  been  introduced ;  no.  While  we  were  attempting 
to  introduce  it ;  yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Would  you  care  to  give  those? 
Mr.  EMERSON.  The  Rauch  &  Lang  Co.,  of  Cleveland,  build  electric  automo- 
biles.    Just  as  we  started  in  our  work  there  was  objection  on  the  part  of  the 
men,  and  we  discontinued  the  work. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Where  the  system  has  been  introduced  in  a  plant 
has  it  ever  been  discontinued? 
Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes ;  I  think  so. 
Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  many? 


832          EEPOET    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  do  not  know  about  many.  Some  of  them  have  continued  and 
some  of  them  have  discontinued.  We  have  been  thrown  out  from  some  plants 
with  enthusiasm  and  we  have  left  others  with  enthusiasm. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  are  interested  in  the  introduction  of  the  sys- 
tem in  the  Santa  Fe  Railroad  shops? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  At  Topeka,  Kans.? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Is  the  system  still  in  operation  there? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Yes,  sir ;  not  as  I  left  it,  but  still  substantially  in  operation. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  the  reduction  of  a  force  taking  place  where  the 
system  is  in  vogue,  is  there  an  indiscriminate  laying  off  of  men,  or  are  the  men 
of  lower  standard  laid  off? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  We  would  always  advocate  the  laying  off  of  the  men  of  least 
aptitude  for  the  work.  I  would  always  advocate  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Regardless  of  the  time  of  employment  by  the  firm 
and  the  fact  that  they  had  given  their  life  to  the  firm? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  No;  in  case  it  was  an  old  man  with  the  firm  long  years  we 
would  consider  there  was  very  great  moral  obligation  to  take  care  of  that  man — • 
very  strong  moral  obligation,  which  we  have  always  inculcated.  Of  course, 
what  we  much  prefer  is  a  clamor  for  increasing  output  rather  than  to  go  into 
a  firm  where  the  output  is  decreasing.  That  is  one  of  the  most  painful  things 
there  is. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Of  course,  we  can  not  avoid  sometimes  slack  times 
in  business.  There  must  be  a  stoppage  of  work  some  time,  and  some  reduction. 
Then  in  the  reinstatement  of  men  after  business  picks  up  again,  of  those  who 
have  been  laid  off,  I  suppose  those  having  the  highest  efficiency  of  the  number 
laid  off  would  be  those  to  be  reemployed  first? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Those  cases  have  not  come  ^p.  I  can  state  what  I  would 
like  to  do  and  what  I  advocate. 

Suppose  we  are  running  on  an  average  9-'uour  day.  Sometimes  it  might  be 
necessary  to  go  to  10  hours ;  other  times  it  might  be  necessary  to  drop  to  8 
hours.  I  would  like  to  see  the  balance  of  9  hours  maintained.  Work  still 
further  slacks  off,  I  would  like  to  go  to  V  hours  or  to  6  hours,  or  even  to  5 
hours,  and  then  to  5  days  a  week,  in  order  to  preserve  the  force,  because  it 
seems  to  me  the  permanence  of  employment  is  one  of  the  most  vital  things 
there  is  for  the  workingman.  It  is  his  bread  and  butter,  and  anything  that 
throws  a  man  out  of  employment  is  tremendously  inefficient.  It  seems  to  me 
one  of  the  worst  features  we  have  in  modern  industry,  so  that  I  would  say  to 
avoid  that  in  any  possible  way. 

Secondly,  we  have  found  through  our  long  experience  that  men  have  been 
tyrannized  over  in  the  most  outrageous  manner  by  their  foremen  and  by  the 
employing  owners,  in  a  way  that  makes  any  decent  man's  blood  boil.  What  we 
have  tried  to  do  is  to  make  men  independent  of  that  possible  tyranny  on  the 
part  of  the  employer.  WTe  would  never  dream  of  allowing  a  foreman  to  dis- 
charge a  110  per  cent  man.  He  could  not  do  it  any  more  than  he  could  take 
a  sledge  hammer  and  smash  a  valuable  machine.  That  man  is  too  valuable  to 
allow  any  foreman  whatever  to  discharge  him.  We  might  fire  the  foreman,  or 
we  might  shift  them  so  as  to  keep  them  employed,  but  as  for  discharging  a  man 
of  that  kind,  never. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Prof.  Commons  wants  to  ask  one  more  question. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr.  Emerson,  you  heard  Mr.  Tobin's  testimony  re- 
garding the  notion  that  piecework  does  not  speed  up  more  effectively  than  the 
bonus  or  premium  system.  I  believe  the  bonus  system  you  have  would  not  add 
an  inducement  in  the  way  of  compensation  as  would  the  piecework  system, 
would  it? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  As  I  have  said,  if  there  is  anything  we  hate  and  despise,  it  is 
to  go  into  a  plant  in  which  piece  rates  prevail.  We  consider  it  the  greatest 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  building  up  efficiency.  What  we  find  is  that  efficiency 
does  not  depend  on  speeding  up.  It  depends  on  other  qualities  that  are  far 
more  weighty  in  getting  the  output  than  the  speed  of  the  operator.  In  one 
place  where  they  make  bolts  and  nuts  we  found  when  they  made  100  bolts  it 
cost  38  times  as  much  per  bolt  as  when  they  ran  a  run  of  10,000  bolts. 

Those  are  the  things  that  we  come  in  to  rectify.  We  find  those  confounded 
piece  rates  standing  in  our  way  nearly  every  time.  We  can  not  change  around ; 
we  can  not  adjust ;  we  can  not  make  the  shifts  that  would  be  possible  to  increase 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  833 

the  output,  without  increasing  the  work  on  the  men  under  the  piece-rate  system. 
That  is  the  reason  we  dislike  it,  and  yet  we  have  never  seen  the  place  where  it 
was  not  possible  to  lower  the  cost  as  compared  to  piece  rates,  and  yet  make  it 
easier  for  the  men. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  do  not  consider  that  pressure  for  overwork  is  as 
great  under  your  system  as  it  is  under  piecework — the  pressure  for  speeding  up  ? 

Mr.  EMEESON.  In  piece-rate  work  you  have  two  things:  You  have  the  desire 
to  speed  up  where  the  man  is  absolutely  guaranteed  his  piece  rate,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  you  have  the  desire  to  stand  pat  for  fear  it  will  be  cut.  We  find 
in  a  great  many  piece-rate  establishments  evidently  the  men  are  standing  pat, 
and  we  do  not  blame  them.  If  you  see  a  man's  wages  $12  one  week  and  $11.95 
the  next  week  and  $12.05  the  third  week,  you  may  know  right  off  he  is  standing 
pat,  necessarily  so.  A  great  many  employers  look  at  the  pay  roll  and  shy  at  the 
idea  of  any  man  earning  more  than  so  much.  In  one  foundry  where  we  were 
the  foreman  went  to  a  man  and  said,  "  Be  moderate ;  be  moderate  here.  Don't 
you  dare  to  earn  over  $3.50  a  day.  Every  time  you  earn  $4.50  don't  you  know 
the  manager  comes  down  here  and  wants  me  to  cut  the  piecework  rates  all 
around?  Be  moderate,"  We  said,  "What  did  you  ultimately  do?"  He  said, 
"  I  had  to  get  rid  of  all  the  efficient  men.  I  can  not  keep  them  in  the  shop. 
They  could  earn  so  much  more  money,  but  the  other  men  could  not  keep  up; 
therefore  I  simply  had  to  get  rid  of  those  men."  That  is  one  of  the  evils  we  run 
into  in  this  piece-rate  business.  We  believe  a  schedule  ought  to  be  set  to  the 
material,  the  tool,  the  machine,  and  the  man.  If  a  man  has  been  there  for  20 
years,  he  might  have  an  entirely  different  schedule  from  the  man  that  had  just 
come  in,  with  the  same  material,  the  same  tool,  and  the  same  machine. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Is  there  no  possibility,  under  your  system,  of  any 
pressure  being  brought  to  bear  on  the  speedier  man  to  reduce  his  output? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  No ;  because  there  is  no  stopping  point.  There  is  no  particu- 
lar point  at  which  they  can  stand  pat.  A  man  receives  what  we  would  call 
a  nice  piece  of  pie  to-day,  on  some  schedule  that  is  rather  easy ;  but  he  does  not 
know  but  what  to-morrow  he  will  have  a  schedule  rather  difficult ;  and  he  goes 
right  in  and  works  at  a  regular  efficient  rate  straight  along.  We  have  never 
found  very  much,  of  course,  there  are  men  that  remain  80  per  cent  men — never 
better ;  and  there  are  other  men  who  are  120  per  cent  men  right  straight  along. 
We  find  men  striking  a  certain  gait  and  they  maintain  that  efficiency  right 
along.  Of  course,  I  would  prefer  to  shift  the  80  per  cent  man  over  into  some- 
thing at  which  he  would  be  120  per  cent  efficient  rather  than  keep  him  at 
something  at  which  he  is  only  80  per  cent  efficient. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Garretson? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Mr.  Emerson,  do  you  believe  that,  in  say  the  past 
200  years,  your  adjustments  have,  in  100  per  cent  of  the  cases,  been  just  to 
the  workers;  that  the  employer  has  always  been  fair  and  just  to  the  em- 
ployees ? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  No ;  I  do  not. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock? 

Commissioner  WETNSTOCK.  I  take  it,  Mr.  Emerson,  that  you  believe  it  is 
wiser  to  give  a  certain  number  of  men  in  dull  time  half  a  day's  work  rather 
than  double  that  number  a  full  clay's  work.  In  other  words,  suppose  you 
had  100  men  and  business  dropped  down  to  one-half  the  volume,  and  you  had 
to  either  discharge  50  people  or  put  100  men  on  half  time;  which  of  the  two 
do  you  regard  as  the  lesser  evil? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  I  myself  would  much  prefer  to  put  100  on  half  time. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Rather  than  reduce  the  number? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Absolutely.  At  the  same  time,  there  are  a  great  many  ques- 
tions of  shop  discipline  that  I  would  be  perfectly  willing  to  refer  to  the  em- 
ployees themselves,  and  that  would  be  one  of  them. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  would  give  them  a  voice? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  If  they  preferred  to  go  on  to  full  time  for  half  the  number 
of  men,  I  would  consider  it  very  seriously.  My  own  instinct  would  be  to 
employ  the  full  number  of  men  half  the  time. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  have  expressed  great  objection  to  the  piece- 
work system.  Do  you  think  it  is  vicious  in  many  respects?  You  heard, 
doubtless,  what  Mr.  Tobin  had  to  say  about  the  shoe  industry ;  that  it  was 
practically  conducted  on  a  piecework  basis.  Take  the  shoe  industry  as  a  unit, 
if  you  were  given  the  power,  how  would  you  organize  the  shoemaking  industry  ? 

38819°— 16 53 


834          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  That,  of  course,  might  require  one,  two,  or  three  months  of 
careful  study  to  make  a  report.  We  have  been  in  shoe  establishments,  and 
we  see  no  real  reason  why  they  should  not  be  organized  on  standard  time 
and  a  bonus,  particularly  the  cutting  department,  of  which  Mr.  Tobin  spoke. 
We  have  worked  in  there  along  the  lines  he  spoke  of.  The  material  counts 
for  so  much,  and  a  cutter  can  waste  so  much  that  it  is  very  expedient  to 
pay  him  a  bonus  upon  the  material  that  he  saves,  or  as  he  lessens  the  waste. 
But  we  hold  our  objection  to  the  piece  rates  in  the  shoe  industry  just  as  we 
have  in  all  the  industries. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think  there  is  a  better  way  that  could  be 
determined  in  the  shoe  business? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  That  is  our  conviction. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So  you  do  not  regard  the  present  shoemaking 
system  as  the  best  conceivable? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Not  by  any  means;  not  from  what  I  know  of  the  shoe  busi- 
ness, and  I  have  been  in  a  whole  lot  of  shoemaking  plants. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  you  say  that  as  an  employer  as  well  as  a 
worker? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Certainly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  not  the  best  possible  for  either  party? 

Mr.  EMERSON.  That  is  right. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  all,   Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  questions,  Prof.  Barnett? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  No,  Mr.  Chairman;  but  was  not  Mr.  Emerson  promised  a 
chance  to  speak  from  his  chart? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.    You  may  do  that  at  this  time,  Mr.  Emerson. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  It  will  only  take  me  a  moment  or  two. 

[Displaying  a  chart  to  the  commission.]  Here  is  the  corner  of  200  per  cent 
efficiency,  and  down  in  this  lower  corner  it  would  be  zero.  There  are  two 
•  ways  of  obtaining  high  efficiency.  One  is  to  travel  along  these  lines  in  this 
direction  [indicating],  and  the  other  is  to  travel  up  that  way  [indicating] 
so  you  are  on  a  different  line.  WTe  went  into  a  shop  in  which  the  average 
efficiency  was  80  per  cent,  in  this  way  [indicating].  That  line  [indicating] 
shows  50  per  cent.  Without  discharging  any  of  the  men  whatever  we  were  able 
to  increase  the  average  efficiency  up  to  100  per  cent,  as  indicated  there  [in- 
dicating] by  simply  ameliorating  the  conditions  that  surrounded  the  men,  dis- 
patching the  work,  planning  a  schedule,  standardizing  the  conditions,  stand- 
ardizing the  operations,  giving  the  proper  standard  of  practices  and  instruc- 
tions. 

Here  [indicating]  is  a  man  of  5  per  cent  raised  to  10  per  cent.  That  raised 
all  the  men  in  this  way  [indicating].  This  man  of  110  per  cent  got  up  to  220 
per  cent.  There  was  a  general  raise  all  the  way  through.  That  is  the  part  of 
the  manager.  On  the  other  hand,  every  one  of  these  men  that  was  here  at  this 
point  [indicating]  originally  started  there  at  that  point.  They  had  to  travel 
along  this  line  up  to  this  point  [indicating].  That  is  the  part  of  the 
worker.  You  have  the  high  efficiency  when  you  have  the  management  giving 
the  men  a  better  opportunity,  and  you  have  the  desire  of  the  worker  to  travel 
along  these  lines  [indicating]  wherever  they  are,  from  that  lower  end  up  to 
this  poiat  [indicating].  It  takes  the  combination,  absolutely  the  combination 
of  the  manager  and  the  worker,  to  move  from  that  region  down  in  there  [in- 
dicating] up  into  this  region  up  here  [indicating].  I  can  only  indorse  what 
Mr.  Taylor  said,  that  it  needs  the  cooperation  of  the  worker  and  of  the 
management  in  order  to  reach  this  region  [indicating]. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  very  much  obliged,  Mr.  Emerson. 

The  commission  will  now  adjourn  until  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  5.30  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  commission  adjourned  until  to-morrow, 
Tuesday,  April  14,  1914,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Tuesday,  April  14,  1914. 

The  commission  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.  in  the  assembly  room  of  the  Shoreham 
Hotel. 

Present:  Commissioners  Frank  P.  Walsh  (chairman),  John  R.  Commons, 
Mrs.  J.  Borden  Harriman,  Frederic  A.  Delano,  Harris  Weinstock.  S.  Thrustou 
Ballard,  John  B.  Lennon,  James  O'Connell,  and  Austin  B.  Garretson. 

Present  also  for  the  commission :  Mr.  W.  O.  Thompson,  counsel ;  Mr.  W.  Jett 
Lauck,  managing  expert ;  Mr.  George  E.  Barnett,  special  investigator ;  Mr.  B.  M. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  835 

Manly,  superintendent  Division  of  Industrial  Relations ;  and  Mr.  F.  H.  Bird, 
superintendent  Division  of  Public  Agencies. 

The  CHAIBMAN.  I  would  like  to  make  this  announcement,  that  Mr.  Louis  D. 
Brandeis,  who  was  on  the  calendar  for  yesterday,  can  not  be  present  until  to- 
morrow ;  that  Mr.  Johnson,  president  of  the  International  Association  of  Ma- 
chinists, will  be  unable  to  be  present  on  account  of  being  at  the  national  confer- 
ence of  his  organization  in  St.  Louis ;  and  that  P.  J.  Conlon,  vice  president,  will 
take  his  place.  Likewise,  Mr.  John  P.  Frey,  of  Cincinnati,  editor  of  the  Molders' 
Journal,  can  not  be  present,  and  Mr.  L.  P.  Allifas  has  been  subpoanaed  in  his 
place. 

The  first  witness  for  to-day  is  Mr.  Charles  W.  Mixter,  of  New  Haven,  Conn., 
who  came  over-  from  yesterday's  program,  and  I  will  ask  Mr.  Mixter  to  take  the 
stand. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  CHARLES  W.  MIXTER. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  Mr.  Mixter,  will  you  please  give  your  full  name  and  address  to 
the  reporter,  and  your  occupation? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Charles  W.  Mixter,  313  York  Street,  New  Haven,  Conn.  My 
present  occupation  is  time-study  man  with  the  Sentinel  Automatic  Gas  Appli- 
ance Co.,  of  New  Haven.  Do  you  care  to  hear  about  some  things  that  led  up  to 
that? 

Mr.  BAKNETT.  I  should  like  you  to  explain  what  your  previous  occupation  was 
before  becoming  an  expert  in  scientific  management. 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  I  do  not  claim  to  be  an  expert  in  scientific  management  yet.  I 
went  to  Johns  Hopkins  University ;  graduated  in  1892.  I  next  went  to  Harvard 
Graduate  School  for  two  years.  Then  I  \vent  to  Germany  for  one  year,  at 
Gottengen  and  Berlin,  and  then  went  to  Harvard  again  for  two  years.  I  ob- 
tained my  degree  at  that  time.  Then  I  was  instructor  for  two  years  at  Har- 
vard, and  also  instructor  at  Trinity  College,  Hartford,  for  one  year.  Then  my 
health  broke  down  and  I  went  to  Central  America  for  nearly  one  year  to  get 
well. 

Coming  back,  I  was .  instructor  at  Harvard  for  two  years.  Then  I  was 
professor  at  the  University  of  Vermont  for  10  years;  that  is,  9  years  teach- 
ing, and  the  last  year  on  leave  of  absence. 

I  may  say  that  early  in  my  residence  in  Burlington,  Vt.,  my  chief  acquaintance 
on  the  faculty  happened  to  be  the  mechanical  engineer.  He  knew  about  Mr. 
Taylor's  views,  having  heard  the  papers  when  they  first  came  out,  at  meet- 
ings of  the  Society  of  American  Mechanical  Engineers,  and  having  heard  Mr. 
Gantt's  papers.  That  was  a  common  meeting  ground  for  us  to  talk  about.  I 
did  not  know  much  about  his  subject,  and  he  did  not  know  much  about  mine, 
so  I  became  interested  in  scientific  management,  and  presently  began  to  teach 
it  to  my  engineer  students,  having  a  section  of  engineer  students,  separate 
from  the  others ;  if  I  may  say  so,  I  think  I  was  about  the  first  one  in  the  United 
States  to  teach  scientific  management. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  What  were  you  teaching  at  that  time? 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  My  subject  was  economics,  and  for  the  engineer  students  I 
gave  them  a  course  in  scientific  management. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  university  was  that? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  The  University  of  Vermont.  That  wras  6  or  7  years  ago  that 
I  began  to  teach  the  subject,  and  as  time  went  on  I  became  more  and  more 
dissatisfied  with  having  only  book  knowledge  of  the  thing,  so  I  obtained 
leave  of  absence  and  went  to  the  Tabor  Manufacturing  Co.  a  year  ago  last 
August.  I  stayed  there  just  a  year.  I  first  went  into  the  stores  room,  in  the 
tool  room,  and  then  was  assistant  to  the  stockkeeper,  on  the  assembling  floor. 
I  got  rather  tired  of  that  sort  of  thing,  and  asked  for  a  real  job.  They  gave  me 
a  real  job  at  bench  work,  and  I  may  say  I  kept  regular  hours  and  was.  on  the 
pay  roll.  After  a  while  I  helped  the  clerk  in  the  planning  room  for  about 
six  weeks,  and  then  went  back  in  the  shop,  again  on  the  bench  work.  I  did 
some  machine  work,  but  mostly  bench  work. 

Then  I  assisted  the  inspector  a  good  deal,  a  job  I  never  liked,  measuring 
and  counting  things.  I  would  a  good  deal  rather  make  things. 

After  I  got  through  with  them,  I  had  a  little  more  bench  work,  then  finally 
went  in  the  planning  room.  I  did  not  go  around  to  all  of  the  positions  in  the 
plans  room,  but  quite  a  good  many  of  them,  and  finally  all  last  summer  was 
on  one  job  helping  the  foundry  clerk. 

Then  I  left  there  when  my  year  was  up,  and  when  I  got  home  I  investigated 
one  plant,  wholly  innocent  of  modern  methods,  a  place  where  I  did  not  have  any 


836          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

real  job — I  was  not  hired  to  do  anything,  but  was  allowed  to  go  in  there  and 
make  a  report  on  how  they  might  improve  things. 

Then  I  went  to  the  Acme  Wire  Co.,  of  New  Haven,  Conn.,  in  December,  and 
there  served  a  sort  of  apprenticeship  in  time  study,  and  now  have  been  trans- 
ferred to  this  other  firm,  controlled  by  the  same  proprietors.  They  are  not 
ready  yet  for  time  study  to  be  made.  It  is  a  new  concern,  just  starting  with 
a  new  product,  and  I  am  helping  install,  and  doing  all  kinds  of  jobs.  I  realize 
I  have  got  a  great  deal  to  learn,  and  I  do  not  profess  to  be  an  expert. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  those  systems  of  scientific  management  which  you  have 
seen  in  operation,  will  you  explain  what  the  system  of  remuneration  is? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  The  task  and  bonus  system. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  In  all  you  have  seen? 

Mr.   MIXTER.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  the  method  of  making  time  studies  identical  in  the  estab- 
lishments you  worked  in? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Practically  so.  I  did  not  have  much  to  do  with  the  time-study 
department  at  Tabor,  so  I  would  not  be  able  to  talk  about  details  there,  but, 
so  far  as  I  know,  substantially  the  same. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Will  you  give  the  commission  your  view  as  to  whether  in  the 
places  where  you  have  seen  the  system  installed,  the  task  and  bonus  system 
seems  to  induce  overexertion  on  the  part  of  the  employees. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Only  occasionally  by  accident.  Sometimes  on  particular  work 
the  time  is  set  short  by  accident.  I  may  say  that  the  error  is  almost  always 
the  other  way ;  that  the  times  are  set  too  long,  and  there  are  reasons  for  that ; 
but  occasionally  the  time  is  set  short,  and  the  workmen,  out  of  pride,  without 
saying  anything,  without  making  any  kick,  do  press  themselves  a  bit  to  get 
through  in  time,  but  they  can  kick  if  they  want  to,  and  at  the  Acme  they  do 
kick,  and  the  foremen  kick  for  them  all  of  the  time. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Against  the  system? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Against  any  time  which,  through  the  natural  error,  the  time- 
study  man  himself  occasionally  has  set  too  short. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  simply  kick  against  the  time  as  set  too 
short  and  not  against  the  system? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Oh,  my,  no;  not  against  the  system,  but  the  actual  job  as  it 
happens  to  go  through  the  shop.  The  foremen  are  paid  bonuses  on  the  number 
of  made  jobs,  and  just  as  soon  as  the  operative  thinks  the  job  is  not  coming 
made,  instantly  they  report  to  the  instructor.  They  have  instructors  in  each 
of  the  rooms  besides  the  foreman,  and  the  instructor  commonly  is  able  to  show 
what  is  wrong  and  pull  the  matter  up  all  right,  but  if  they  should  not  prove  so, 
and  if  batch  after  batch  should  say  the  material  did  not  come  right,  or  some- 
thing, the  foreman  goes  right  down  to  the  stime-study  desk  and  the  time  is 
revised. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Can  you  give  us  any  idea  as  to  what  part  of  the  men  or  women 
at  work  on  a  task  ordinarily  make  more  than  the  task — that  is,  complete  the 
job  within  less  than  the  time?  In  other  words,  is  it  the  expected  thing  that  the 
average  will  be  just  about  the  task,  or  that  a  considerable  part  of  them  do 
more  than  the  task? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Now,  that  depends  a  good  deal  on  the  character  of  the  work  as 
to  whether  it  is  repetition  work  or  jobs  that  vary.  On  the  jobs  that  vary,  and 
where,  say,  only  one  workman  does  that  kind  of  work,  as  a  rule  it  is  more 
difficult  to  get  a  good  time  than  where  there  are  many  work  people  engaged 
in  that  same  kind  of  work,  and  there  the  most  of  the  times  are  right,  but  some 
of  them  vary,  being  too  long,  and  some  a  little  too  short.  The  average  most 
decidedly  is  in  favor  of  the  workman;  but  the  time  cards  men  are  short,  be- 
cause on  the  jobs  that  are  too  easy  they  hold  back,  use  up  nearly  all  the  time, 
and  hand  in  their  tickets  just  as  the  time  set  is  up.  So  you  could  not  tell  by 
looking  at  the  time  ticket,  but  on  a  job  that  is  repetition  work,  as  at  Acme, 
and  especially  in  the  assembly  room,  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  girls  beat 
the  time  a  good  deal.  They  get  through  a  batch,  say  the  time  is  a  day  and  a 
half — of  course,  it  varies  for  different  sizes  and  types,  but  on  the  whole  about 
a  day  and  a  half — there  are  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  girls,  I  would  not 
say  just  \vhat  per  cent,  but  I  think  one-fifth  or  one-quarter,  who  get  through 
in  just  a  little  over  a  day.  They  beat  the  time  two  or  three  hours.  Then 
they  take  a  rest,  and  no  foreman  or  instructor  hustles  them  and  says,  "  Hadn't 
you  better  get  together  and  on  another  batch?"  After  they  have  rested  until 
further  rest  time  is  more  of  a  bore  than  a  value,  they  will  start  in  of  their 
own  accord  on  a  new  batch. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  837 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  the  weekly  wages  of  tliese  people  come  to  more  than  the  task 
time  would  idicate?  That  is,  do  they  earn  more  wages  than  the  allotment  to 
the  task  would  give  them? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  If  I  understand  what  you  mean,  my  answer  is,  "  Yes."  The 
bonus  is  multiplied  by  jobs  per  day ;  that  is,  the  rate  at  which  they  are  work- 
ing. So  if  they  beat  the  time  a  good  deal  their  wages  mount  up  very  rapidly. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that  they  do  exceed  the  task? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  They  have  a  motive  to  exceed  the  task.  They  are  not  required 
to,  but  those  who  can  easily  wrork  well  inside  the  time,  of  their  own  accord 
and  from  ambition,  after  they  have  rested  all  they  want  to,  will  start  in  again 
on  another  job,  on  another  batch. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  And  you  say  those  are  about  20  per  cent? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  think  about  20  per  cent. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  any  opinion  as  to  whether  the  variability  of  efficiency — 
that  is,  of  speed — is  greater  under  a  system  under  which  the  task  and  bonus 
system  is  not  used,  than  under  a  system  in  which  it  is  used;  that  is,  between 
the  ordinary  wage  system  and  the  task  and  bonus  system?  How  does  the  vari- 
ability compare? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  think  I  see  what  you  mean.  You  mean  compared  to  the  point 
of  view  of  piece  rates? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Yes. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  happened  to  get  to  talking  with  a  man  on  the  train  coming 
down  here,  a  man  who  worked  in  the  New  Haven  shops  at  New  Haven,  the 
kind  of  man  on  whose  word  you  can  depend.  You  can  depend  on  what  he 
says.  I  think  I  know  now  how  I  can  pick  out  a  workman  who  does  not  draw 
the  long  bow,  but  just  talks  facts — and  he  told  me  about  his  experience  under 
the  piece  rate,  not  in  his  present  employment,  but  in  a  former  shop  that  he 
worked  in.  He  said  a  man's  mind  is  never  at  rest.  He  is  always  \vorrying 
about  whether  the  next  job  he  will  get  will  be  profitable  or  not.  Whether  a 
different  kind  of  a  job  or  the  same  job — because  the  same  job  varies  according 
to  whether  work  comes  right  or  not — whenever  a  piece-rate  worker  gets  a  bad 
job,  and  the  times  are  set  by  perfect  guesswork,  ragged  and  all  out  of  line 
ordinarily,  for  piecework  in  the  old-style  shops,  a  man  can  not  make  wages, 
as  the  saying  is.  He  works  his  head  off  and  has  nothing  to  show  for  it.  On 
the  other  hand,  whenever  he  gets  the  other  kind  of  a  job  at  a  piece  rate,  it 
hurts  his  self-respect  to  hold  back  on  it  and  not  make  as  much  as  he  might, 
because  he  knows  the  rate  will  be  cut  if  he  does. 

To  my  mind,  also,  there  is  the  steady  flow  of  piecework,  say  in  a  shoe  factory. 
Under  the  bonus  system  the  end  of  a  batch  is  a  sort  of  stopping  place.  It 
breaks  the  unbroken  flow  of  the  thing,  and  I  should  say  that  there  is  simply 
no  comparison  between  working  under  the  task  and  bonus  system  and  the  piece- 
rate  system. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Let  us  see  if  we  can  reduce  that  to  some  definite  arithmetical 
proportions.  Let  us  suppose  that  there  were  a  hundred  men  at  work  under  a 
system  of  piece  rates,  and  out  of  that  hundred  men  a  certain  part  would 
cluster  around  an  average,  somewhere  around  a  medium.  Then  some  of  them 
would  be  at  some  distance  from  that,  some  above  and  some  below  that.  Now, 
under  a  task  and  bonus  system,  would  they  tend  to  cluster  more  closely  around 
this  average,  or  would  they  be  more  dispersed?  In  other  words,  does  the  task 
and  bonus  system  tend  to  produce  a  standardization  of  the  work  of  the  people, 
in  your  opinion,  and  are  there  less  differences  in  the  output  of  the  different 
people  under  a  task  and  bonus  system  than  there  would  be  under  a  piece  sys- 
tem, or  under  a  daytime  system? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  doubt  very  much  whether  a  correct  answer  could  be  made  to 
that  question  as  regards  the  system.  It  depends  upon  the  application  of  it  in 
the  particular  shop.  If  the  bonus  time  is  set  rigorously,  then  there  would  be  a 
tendency  to  bunch  the  workers  at  the  bonus  point.  They  would  not  be  spread 
out  so  much.  But  where  the  bonus  time  is  set  liberally,  as  it  is  at  Acme,  the 
foremen  and  the  instructors  in  the  interest  of  their  own  bonuses,  see  to  it  that 
the  time  is  set  rather  liberally.  Then  from  that  point  the  workers  spread 
themselves  out  according  to  their  natural  differences. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  But  a  severe  task  would  tend  to  produce  this  standardization 
of  output,  in  your  opinion? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes.  Then  there  would  be  the  matter  of  selection  come  in. 
After  a  while  you  would  get  a  picked  body. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  do  not  know  whether  any  statistical  studies  have  been 
made  as  to  the  differences  between  the  effects  of  these  different  systems  on  the 
standardization  of  the  employees  at  all? 


838          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  know  anything  about  that. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  If  I  understand  you,  at  Tabor  the  foreman  is  paid  according 
to  the  number  of  persons  who  come  up  to  the  task?  That  is,  his  bonus  depends 
on  the  proportion  of  the  workers  who  reach  the  task? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  It  is  slightly  different  in  form  at  Tabor  than  at  Acme.  At  Tabor 
the  foreman's  bonus  is  based  on  the  percentage  of  the  bonus  earnings  of  the  men 
under  him,  while  at  Acme  it  is  simply  on  the  proportion  of  made  jobs. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  do  you  men — the  proportion  of  made  jobs? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  In  a  certain  department,  if  all  the  workers  make  a  bonus,  then 
it  is  100  per  cent  made  jobs.  If  they  do -fall  down,  then  it  is,  say,  95  per  cent 
made  jobs,  and  there  is  a  scale  of  foremen's  bonuses,  running  from  30  per  cent 
downward,  depending  upon  that  proportion. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  that,  according  to  your  experience,  that  induces  the  foremen 
to  complain  if  the  task  is  too  high,  because  the  foreman  then  can  not  get  much 
bonus  ? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Suppose  a  foreman  was  paid  according  to  the  total  output? 
Would  he  have  the  same  incentive  to  complain  about  the  severity  of  the  task? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  No ;  that  would  concentrate  his  attention  in  another  way  and 
make  a  driver  of  him. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Have  you  seen  any  shops  in  which  that  system  of  remuneration 
of  foremen  was  in  vogue? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  have  heard  of  them,  but  never  worked  in  such  a  place. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  it  a  principle  of  the  Taylor-Gantt  system,  which  you  have 
seen,  that  the  foreman  shall  be  rewarded  according  to  the  number  of  workmen 
who  make  their  task? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  is  a  part  of  the  system,  is  it? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes, 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Is  that  intended  in  part  to  prevent  speeding  up  or  driving  on 
the  part  of  the  foremen? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Not  so  much  that  as  to  achieve  maintenance  of  schedule  and  to 
make  it  for  the  interest  of  everybody  to  smooth  out  the  rough  places.  The  great 
trouble  in  a  shop  is  in  work  not  coining  right,  material  falling  below  standard ; 
and  where  the  workers  make  bonus,  and  then  the  foreman  has  bonuses  based  on 
that;  then  he  kicks  right  straight  off  when  things  do  not  come  right,  and  it  is 
intelligent  kicking  that  goes  to  the  right  place  to  settle  it,  and  not  a  mere  kick 
that  sets  people  to  swearing,  the  usual  way  of  trying  to  hustle  things  up  in  the 
old-style  shop. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  You  are  acquainted  with  the  theories  of  collective  bargaining 
and  the  history  of  collective  bargaining  in  different  industries  of  this  country 
and  abroad.  Does  it  seem  to  you  possible  to  introduce  into  the  efficiency  systems 
some  form  of  collective  bargaining  by  which  the  workers  collectively  would 
have  a  voice  in  the  fixing  of  the  tasks? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  There  is  nothing  essentially  incompatible,  but  a  very  great  prac- 
tical difficulty,  especially  at  the  outset — the  reorganizing  of  any  old  concern. 
The  installer  has  his  hands  full,  struggling  with  the  management,  just  as  Mr. 
Taylor  and  others  said  yesterday.  He  has  to  go  around  sometimes  and  fight 
battles  to  get  the  bonuses  for  the  work  people,  and  so  on ;  shaking  his  fist  under 
the  nose  of  some  old  fellow  who  has  control  of  the  business  in  the  head  office, 
and  a  great  deal  of  his  time  and  energy  goes  that  way. 

Then,  all  along  down  the  line,  the  superintendents  and  room  bosses,  and 
so  on,  are  naturally  wedded  to  their  ways  of  doing  things,  and  it  is  human 
for  them  to  rather  resent  this  outsider  coming  in  to  show  them  how  to  do 
their  business.  They  are  all  the  time  raising  objections,  and  he  has  to  spend 
a  great  deal  of  his  time  talking  and  arguing  and  persuading  people  into  the 
new  view — the  new  way  of  doing  things.  Now,  if  in  addition  to  that  a  work- 
man should  come  to  him  and  say,  "We  want  to  be  persuaded,  too,  about  all 
these  times,  and  so  on,  that  you  have  set,"  and  he  would  say,  "  Jim,  I  simply 
can  not  do  it ;  my  cup  is  full ;  I  can  not  do  it,"  and  it  would  be  largely  wasted 
time.  He  would  be  objecting  to  things  in  advance,  in  anticipation.  You  would 
say,  "  Try  it  first ;  I  tell  you  I  am  going  to  give  you  a  square  deal ;  try  it 
first." 

Well,  it  is  that  exigency  that  would  stand  in  the  way  at  the  outset.  Then, 
after  a  while,  what  happens  is  this,  that  the  high  pay  and  better  conditions 
make  the  work  people  fall  away. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Do  you  mean  it  makes  them  fall  away  from  the  unions? 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  839 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes ;  fall  away  from  the  unions ;  and  so  you  do  not  get  it  in  the 
end  for  that  reason ;  not  because  of  hostility  to  the  unions,  but  simply  because 
it  dies  out  of  itself.  And  I  might  say  at  that  point  the  scientific-management 
man  and  the  leader  of  organized  labor  are  a  good  deal  like  rival  tradesmen 
trying  to  sell  the  same  thing  to  the  same  people — that  is,  higher  wages  and 
shorter  hours.  That  does  not  come  as  fast  as  it  ought  to,  for  a  reason  I  will 
give  presently — that  is,  give  my  surmise.  The  organized  labor  man  believes 
in  organized  labor  on  principle,  and  he  wants  to  have  these  institutions  go  on 
doing  business  at  the  old  stand.  Here  comes  along  a  rival  tradesman  who 
takes  away  their  trade;  they  not  only  have  a  personal  interest,  but  they  think 
in  the  long  run  it  will  not  pay  labor  to  fall  away.  In  a  certain  concern  in 
England — I  had  occasion  to  review  a  book  last  year  describing  their  methods. 
There,  when  the  high  wages  and  better  conditions  generally  caused  people  to 
fall  away  from  the  unions,  the  employers  regret  it  and  they  try  to  induce  the 
men  to  stay  in  the  unions.  I  think  American  employers  are  apt  to  take  a 
shortsighted  view  about  that,  and  to  think  it  is  a  nice  thing  to  have  the  work- 
men fall  away  from  the  unions.  They  do  not  seem  to  realize  that  they  have 
got  to  come  to  recognize  the  great  principles  of  democracy  at  last,  and  they 
might  just  as  well  begin  to  do  it  now.  It  is  not  a  good  thing  in  the  long  run 
for  labor  to  fall  away  from  the  unions. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  How  do  you  consider  that  the  system  of  collective  bargaining 
for  the  setting  of  these  tasks,  for  example,  might  be  worked  out,  assuming  that 
the  men  did  remain  in  the  union,  that  the  unions  were  strong,  and  that  they 
desired,  after  the  system  had  been  installed — passing  over  that  initial  diffi- 
culty— that  this  thing  be  done?  Have  you  thought  about  how  collective  bar- 
gaining might  operate  on  the  task  system? 

Mr.  MIXTEK.  Nothing  very  much  in  particular,  except  it  would  be  like  in  col- 
lective bargaining  if  we  had  had  the  times  and  the  bonuses,  the  base  rates, 
the  wages  and  hours,  like  the  subject  of  debate  on  terms  of  conditions  and 
agreements.  I  do  not  see  any  reason  why  it  might  not  be. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  I  mean  about  setting  the  task ;  it  would  be  necessary,  would 
it  not,  if  the  subject  of  task  setting  was  to  be  brought  under  any  efficient  joint 
control,  for  the  union  to  have  a  representative  with  the  efficiency  engineer?  , 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Perhaps  not  exactly  that  way.  My  opinion  of  the  way  that 
capital  and  labor  must  get  along  in  the  future  is  something  of  the  way  as 
happened  pretty  generally  throughout  the  old  countries  of  Europe.  They  still 
have  permanent  heads  of  the  Government,  the  Crown,  and  a  good  deal  of  the 
ancient  Crown  prerogative  is  retained,  but  checked,  controlled  by  the  elective 
Parliament,  it  seems  to  me,  in  something  the  same  way  we  have  to  work  it  out 
in  industry.  The  prerogatives  of  management,  of  course,  have  got  to  be  re- 
tained. Every  ship  that  sails  the  sea  has  got  to  have  a  captain.  Somebody 
has  to  be  the  boss  everywhere.  You  can  not  have  too  many  cooks  in  the  execu- 
tive work,  but  there  might  be  a  parliament,  if  you  please,  some  body  of  repre- 
sentative men  of  the  employees  who  would  have  full  check  and  control,  or  suffi- 
cient check  and  control  on  the  exercise  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  management, 
in  their  representatives,  of  course. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  To  bring  that  down  to  a  concrete  case,  suppose  that  in  a  shop  in 
which  the  right  of  the  employees  to  have  a  voice  in  the  setting  of  their  tasks  was 
admitted,  a  particular  task  was  set  and  it  was  not  changed  by  the  foreman  on 
complaint  of  the  employees,  how  do  you  think  that  matter  might  be  adjusted 
under  a  system  of  collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  do  not  think  these  head-on  collisons  come  very  often,  just  as 
Mr.  Taylor  said  yesterday. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  But  suppose  one  did  come? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  In  the  last  resort  there  is  only  one  answer  to  make :  The  preroga- 
tives of  the  management,  of  course,  have  the  final  say  now,  at  any  rate. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  They  do  now. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Under  collective  bargaining  you  could  conceive  that  both  sides 
would  have  nn  equal  say. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is  how  do  you  feel  the  employees 
could  fit  into  this  system?  Would  it  be  an  advisable  thing  for  the  employees 
to  have — as,  for  example,  in  the  mines  the  miners  have  a  check  weighman,  who 
stands  by  the  side  of  the  operator's  weighman  and  ascertains  wfhether  or  not  the 
weighing  is  correctly  done — a  check  efficiency  man?  Would  it  be  possible  for 
the  operatives  in  a  large  establishment  to  have  by  the  side  of  the  efficiency  man 
of  the  establishment  a  representative  of  their  own,  who  saw  these  time  studies 
and  who  had  in  mind  the  interests  of  the  employees,  who  was  especially  charged 


840          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

with  that,  and  then  in  case  they  disagreed  perhaps  the  matter  might  be  referred 
to  a  third  person? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Wherever  necessary.  I  do  not  see  why  there  should  not  be  a 
representative  of  the  employees  who  might  perhaps  be  a  specialist  on  time  study, 
and  the  time  study  man  explain  to  him  fully  his  methods,  and  so  be  able  to 
adjust  these  things  for  them  when  they  came  up.  That  there  should  be  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  men  chasing  around  the  shop  all  the  time  with  the  time  study 
man,  at  his  elbow,  working  his  watch  also  like  the  other  man,  which  indicates  a 
suspicion  of  cheating  all  the  time,  I  do  not  think  is  necessary. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  Do  you  think  the  presence  of  a  timekeeper  representing  the  em- 
ployees indicates  suspicion  necessarily? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  imagine  that,  because  there  have  been  some  mighty  bad 
practices  in  the  past  on  the  part  of  employers  and  employees  both,  perhaps. 

Mr.  BABNETT.  Suppose  in  a  certain  industrial  line  it  should  be  found  these 
taks  were  consistently  too  heavy  and  the  employees  found  them  constantly  too 
heavy,  would  that  not  form  the  same  kind  of  justification  for  the  establishment 
of  a  check  efficiency  engineer? 

Mr.  MIXTEK.  If  those  conditions  obtain,  it  would  call  for  correction,  and  cor- 
rection through  the  forces  of  organized  labor  and  their  representatives.  It 
could  not  be  obtained  otherwise.  I  do  not  think  there  would  be  any  necessity  of 
their  having  a  representative  man  at  the  elbow  of  the  time  study  man  all  the 
time.  I  do  not  agree  to  that  at  all.  If  he  is  worthy  of  his  job  at  all,  he  is 
going  to  do  it  in  a  professional  spirit.  As  far  as  I  know,  the  errors  that  are 
taking  place  are  through  ignorance.  There  are  a  number  of  young  fellows  who 
sometimes  make  mistakes,  but  the  final  mischief  is  done  in  the  head  office.  It  is 
not  the  time  study  man  that  sets  the  tasks  too  high.  It  is  the  policy  of  the 
labor-grinding  proprietor.  Your  organized  labor  might  go  directly  for  them. 
They  need  not  make  a  burden  on  the  time  study  man.  I  know  of  a  certain 
place,  or,  at  least,  heard  of  it,  where  the  operators  had  been  around  smashing 
the  time  study  man's  windows.  It  was  not  his  windows  they  should  have  been 
breaking. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  Would  it  not  be  a  protection  to  the  time  study  man  in  seeing 
that  his  rights  were  not  interfered  with  by  the  firm  if  they  were  made  under 
joint  consideration  with  the  representatives  of  the  employees,  assuming  that  that 
representative  was  a  fair-minded  man  and  that  he  was  intelligent  enough  to 
understand  the  methods  which  wrere  in  vogue?  In  other  words,  would  it  not 
insure  the  efficiency  expert  against  interference  by  the  firm  in  his  work? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  very  best  control  would  come  that 
way.  As  regards  the  unfair  attitude  which  the  employee  may  take  toward  the 
installer  or  the  time  study  man,  it  depends  on  the  others'  perfection  or  their 
opinion  and  public  opinion  generally.  So  far  as  the  detail  in  the  shop  is  con- 
cerned, the  usual  methods  of  organized  labor  might  apply. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  What  would  be  your  objection  to  this  check  efficiency  man — 
the  cost  of  it  or  the  difficulty  of  agreeing  with  the  men,  the  possible  difficulty  of 
agreeing  with  the  men?  What  would  be  your  objection  to  it,  concretely? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  A  sort  of  mixing  of  legislative  control  with  administrative  work. 
You  can  not  explain  the  details  of  everything  as  you  go  along.  You  can  not 
ever  get  the  work  done.  The  demonstrator  has  to  go  ahead  and  do  things,  and 
then,  say,  a  representative  body  have  a  check  on  his  work  after  it  is  done. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  So  you  would  feel  that  the  check  on  the  control  of  the  efficiency 
man  through  collective  bargaining  ought  to  come  after  his  work  is  done? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  is,  that  the  complaints  would  be  made  by  the  particular 
operatives  concerned  to  their  union,  and  through  them  would  be  taken  up? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes;  after  his  work  is  done  and  after  it  is  tried  out,  about 
right  off. 

Mr.  BARNETT.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  questions,  Mr.  Garretson? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Yes ;  I  have  one  or  two  that  I  want  to  ask. 

Take  your  attitude  as  stated,  Mr.  Mixter,  on  the  question  of  the  right  of  the 
employer,  that  it  can  not  be  interfered  with;  is  not  that  exactly  the  attitude 
that  lias  been  taken  by  every  employer  since  the  beginning  of  time  until  he 
had  some  of  his  opinions  changed  by  organized  labor? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  think  there  have  been  other  forces  at  work  besides  organized 
labor. 

Commissioner  GARRKTSON.  Whatever  has  changed  it,  the  prerogative  is  what 
has  always  been  insisted  upon — benevolent  despotism. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  841 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Oftentimes  the  benevolent  part  is  left  out. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  The  new  plan  would  be  benevolent  despotism. 
In  other  words,  I  have  noticed  running  through  your  ideas  of  efficiency,  of 
scientific  management,  the  broad  idea  that  a  new  boon  was  being  brought 
to  men,  and  that  they  were  not  entitled  to  any  voice  in  fixing  its  terms. 
They  must  take  just  what  was  brought  to  them,  without  having  any  voice 
in  fixing  its  conditions.  Is  that  any  more  than  a  repeating  of  the  old  attitude 
of  the  employer  all  of  these  years,  except  with  this  difference,  any  man 
that  is  connected  with  an  efficiency  system — and  in  that  term  I  am  embracing 
all  of  the  various  systems — seems  to  assume  that  its  administrators  possess 
qualities  that  the  employer  has  not  possessed  heretofore?  Is  not  that  the 
idea? 

Mr.  MIXTER,  I  think  that  is  the  idea,  and  I  think  it  is  so,  too. 

Commissioner  GAIIRETSON.  Good.     That  is  a  scientific  fact — that  it  is  so. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  think  that  this  movement  has  really  brought  something  new 
into  the  industrial  world. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  not  the  question  that  I  asked.  The  ques- 
tion I  asked  was  in  regard  to  the  personnel  of  the  men  who  present  the  move- 
ment. Are  they  more  superhuman  than  has  been  in  the  game  before? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  They  do  have  a  different  spirit. and  different  methods. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  When  they  go  into  the  temple  to  pray,  they  say, 
"We  thank  the  gods  that  we  are  not  as  other  men"? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  No;  they  do  not  say  anything  of  that  sort.  They  do  not  pro- 
fess to  be  more  virtuous  than  other  men,  or  to  be  so  much  wiser  than  other 
men,  but  there  are  such  things  as  inventions  in  the  world  of  ideas,  as  in  other 
realms,  and  new  movements,  new  ideas. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Did  not  your  theories  of  absolutism  in  adminis- 
tration reach  their  highest  side  in  slavery? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  have  no  theory  of  absolutism. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Declarations  made  in  regard  to  the  nonright  of 
the  \vorker  to  a  voice  in  these  matters,  and  that  the  men  who  are  putting 
efficiency  systems  in  could  not  give  heed  to  their  protests  because  his  cup 
was  full.  It  struck  me  that  that  vein  runs  through  it. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  maintain  that  is  not  a  declaration  of  absolutism,  it  is  simply 
a  statement  of  fact. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  In  other  words,  the  system  and  the  employer  have 
all  of  the  rights  that  have  always  been  claimed  for  him,  and  the  worker  gains 
no  rights,  he  must  accept  the  good  that  comes  to  him  without  any  voice  in 
how  it  is  to  be  arranged? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Until  the  entrepreneur  changes,  either  under  this  system  or  any, 
of  course ;  but  I  would  like  to  make  this  statement :  It  is  true  the  system  intro- 
duces checks  and  balances  which  considerably  modify  the  old  autocracy.  It 
is  true  that  you  get,  to  a  very  great  extent,  a  government  of  laws  and  not  of 
men — to  a  considerable  degree. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  You  are  reasonably  familiar  with  the  average 
man's  ideas  of  some  laws? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  do  not  understand  exactly  what  you  mean. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  The  average  man  does  not  hail  all  laws  as  good. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  No;  they  find  some  of  them  very  irksome. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  favor  the  piecework  system,  Mr.  Mixter? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Not  at  all. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  are  your  objections  to  it? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  It  is  a  hit-or-miss-it  thing,  a  crude  device.  It  could  conceiv- 
ably be  worked  fairly  well  with  time  studies,  but  even  then  it  would  be  much 
more  difficult  to  set  piecework  right  with  time  studies  than  the  task  and  bonus. 
If  you  make  any  error  one  way  or  the  other,  the  thing  tips  too  much  over 
against  the  man  or  against  the  company. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  other  words,  you  think  it  unscientific? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Essentially  so. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  favor  the  task  and  bonus  system? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  do. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Where  do  the  two  differentiate? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Well,  on  the  task  and  bonus  system,  on  jobs  where  the  work  does 
not  come  right,  and  that  means  not  only  difficult  jobs,  but  simple  jobs,  from 
time  to  time^  does  not  go  against  the  man.  The  utmost  they  can  lose  is  to  lose 
their  bonus,  under  the  bonus  system,  for  they  get  their  day  wage  anyway. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  are  sure  of  a  living? 


842          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON"    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  They  are  sure  to  get  their  base  day  wage,  anyway.  Then  there 
is  the  advantage  for  the  firm,  too.  If  it  tips  the  other  way,  there  is  not  the  in- 
centive to  cut.  In  piece  rates,  when  they  get  out  of  line  and  the  earnings  are 
extravagant,  the  rate  is  cut,  while  under  the  bonus  system,  while  the  pay  may 
be  handsome,  it  never  runs  away  out  of  sight. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Do  you  favor,  under  the  task  and  bonus  system, 
giving  labor  a  voice  in  fixing  the  rates? 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  Those  are  separate  things,  in  a  way.  The  whole  matter  of  col- 
lective bargaining  .stands  on  its  own  footing,  and  as  an  economist,  I  believe  in  it. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  If  you  owned  a  plant  and  you  introduced  the  task 
and  bonus  system  in  your  plant,  would  you  be  willing  to  give  your  workers  a 
voice,  an  equal  voice  with  yourself,  in  determining  the  proper  rate  of  bonus? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  I  should  certainly  want  to,  but  if  I  found  things  were  getting  all 
mixed  up,  and  I  could  not  make  it  that  way,  I  would  be  human  enough  to  give 
it  up. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  if  you  found  yourself  and  the  rep- 
resentative of  labor  were  continually  disagreeing,  and  it  was  causing  delay  and 
friction,  you  would  give  it  up? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Delay  and  friction — too  many  cooks. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Could  not  that  be  overcome  by  a  third  party  who 
would  be  an  arbitrator  in  disputed  cases? 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  I  do  not  believe  in  arbitration  at  all  with  outside  people.  The 
way  to  settle  disputes  is  inside  the  industry. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  thing  that  would  make  you  hesitate  to  give 
your  labor  an  equal  voice  with  yours  in  determining  the  bonus  would  be  the 
fear  that  you  would  disagree,  and  that  disagreeing,  you  would  have  no  means 
of  settlement,  other  than  by  an  arbitrator  whom  you  would  look  upon  as  an 
intruder? 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  If  I  saw  the  arbitrator  coming  I  would  agree  right  off  in  no  time. 
I  would  much  rather  come  to  any  sort  of  an  agreement. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think  that  yielding  to  labor  would  be  a  lesser 
evil? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Decidedly,  in  the  long  run.  In  the  long  run  it  could  be  worked 
out  so  that  there  would  be  no  evil  at  all. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Your  objection  to  giving  labor  a  voice  in  fixing  the 
bonus  is  the  fear  of  a  disagreement  and  an  objection  to  having  an  arbitrator? 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  It  is  a  sort  of  practical  and  temporary  difficulty.  Say,  where  you 
are  making  an  installation,  you  would  have  so  many  things  objected  to  before 
they  were  tried.  I  am  sort  of  speaking  all  of  the  time  of  two  sides  of  minds, 
one  side  the  economist  side,  and  the  other  side  that  which  goes  to  the  practical 
difficulties,  especially  where  you  are  making  an  installation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  would  be  in  the  nature  of  a  hamper  and  a 
hindrance  ? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Yes;  and  sometimes  that  is  so  great  that  you  have  to  let  your 
principles  go  for  a  while  and  say  "  Let  us  get  on." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  favor  collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  Certainly,  on  principle. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  opportunity  is  there  for  collective  bargaining 
in  a  bonus  system  if  labor  is  not  to  have  a  voice? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  I  hope  we  shall  all  come  to  that,  that  they  will  have  a  voice.  I 
believe  in  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  On  the  one  hand  I  understood  it  is  impracticable 
to  give  labor  a  voice,  and  the  other 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  Impracticable  while  the  system  is  being  installed. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  which  side  of  it  is  it  practicable  to  give  them 
a  voice? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Usually  after  the  system  is  thoroughly  installed.  There  are 
quite  a  good  many  things  that  I  think  might  be  done,  say,  after  any  shop  has 
had  scientific  management  for  five  years.  I  believe  there  are  a  good  many 
things  about  the  system  itself  that  can  be  sloughed  off,  that  were  necessary  in 
the  earlier  stages,  and  take  collective  bargaining;  the  proprietors  might  well 
say  that  we  could  not  do  it  then,  but  we  are  ready  to  do  it  now. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  you  would  suspend  collective  bargaining  in 
the  early  stages  of  the  game? 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  you  would  take  it  up  at  some  future  time 
when  the  machinery  was  running  smoothly? 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  843 

Mr.  MIXTEK.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOOK.  What  occasion  would  there  then  be  for  collective 
bargaining  after  the  machinery  was  running  smoothly? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  On  general  principles — 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  would  there  be  left  to  bargain  about? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  A  further  reduction  of  hours,  for  one  thing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Questions  other  than  prices? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  The  fundamental  base  rate  of  wages,  of  course,  and  some  other 
things. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  the  only  thing  upon  which  you  would  not 
want  to  have  collective  bargaining  in  the  early  history  of  the  proposition  would 
be  the  bonus  maintained,  and  you  would  not  object  to  collective  bargaining  on 
the  base  wage  or  on  the  question  of  hours  and  working  conditions  ? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  "  Working  conditions  "  is  a  pretty  broad  term. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  mean  the  physical  conditions  of  the  shop. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Oh,  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  not  be  made  right. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  would  simply  draw  the  line  in  the  beginning 
at  collective  bargaining,  so  far  as  it  would  relate  to  the  bonus  or  the  premium? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  To  the  task  and  bonus. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  that  you  would  want  to  be  supreme  for  a  time? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Largely,  in  the  matter  of  putting  it  in  and  giving  it  a  good  trial. 
Then  let  the  objections  come  after  the  trial. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  In  the  State  of  California,  where  I  live,  at  the  last 
session  of  the  legislature  a  measure  was  introduced  for  establishing,  through 
a  properly  appointed  bureau,  a  minimum  wage  for  women  and  minors.  To  the 
surprise  of  the  public  generally,  organized  labor  fought  it  very  bitterly.  The 
alleged  reason  given  on  the  part  of  organized  labor  for  fighting  the  minimum 
wage  was  that  they  believed,  if  enacted,  the  minimum  wage  would  become  the 
maximum  wage,  and  therefore  would  not  be  in  the  interest  of  women  and 
minors.  That  was  the  alleged  reason.  The  real  reason,  as  was  later  developed, 
was  that  organized  labor  feared  that  if  the  State  were  to  fix  the  hours  of  labor, 
as  the  State  has  done  in  California,  for  women  and  minors,  and  if  the  State 
also  was  to  fix  the  minimum  wage,  that  there  would  be  no  reason  for  women 
and  minors  joining  unions ;  that  the  answer  would  be  that  "  the  State  is  doing 
for  us  all  that  unions  can  do,  and  hence  there  is  no  occasion  for  us  to  pay  our 
dues  and  to  burden  ourselves  with  that  tax."  From  what  you  know  of  condi- 
tions you  realize  that  organized  labor  opposes  the  bonus  system  and  the 
premium  system  on  the  ground  that  it  injures  the  worker  physically ;  that  it 
leads  him  to  become  a  strenuous  worker  rather  than  simply  an  industrious 
worker.  Do  you  believe  that  is  the  real  reason  on  the  part  of  organized  labor, 
or  is  it  not  the  fear  that  the  success  of  the  bonus  system  will  make  the  men 
drop  out  of  the  unions? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  think  that  is  the  alleged  reason  and  not  the  real  reason.  Of 
course,  I  have  a  great  deal  of  sympathy  with  that  attitude.  Of  course,  they  do 
not  want  to  see  their  position  undermined  at  all,  and,  of  course,  it  has  given 
deep  offense — all  this  about  the  planning  room  being  the  brains  of  the  shop. 
There  is  plenty  of  room  for  brains  in  other  places  than  in  the  planning  room. 
In  various  ways  the  hair  has  been  rubbed  the  wrong  way,  and  therefore  natu- 
rally, just  the  same  as  all  of  us  do,  they  put  forth  the  most  telling  arguments, 
the  arguments  that  will  go  best  with  the  public;  and  hence  the  claim  in  respect 
to  the  degradation  of  being  timed  with  a  stop  watch.  I  would  like  to  talk 
about  that  also. 

Then  there  is  this  claim  of  alleged  overspeeding,  which  was  made  before  a 
committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  the  year  before  last.  Somebody 
said  that  under  the  symbol  system  in  a  Taylorized  shop  the  men  were  forgetting 
the  name  of  a  hammer.  Nobody  but  the  instruction-card  man,  the  tool-room 
man,  has  any  occasion  ever  to  use  the  symbol  for  a  hammer.  All  sorts  of  things 
are  brought  forward  that  are  calculated  to  catch  the  sympathy  of  the  public 
as  objections  to  the  system.  The  real  reason  is  that  the  position  of  organized 
labor  is  undermined,  and,  as  I  say,  I  have  a  good  deal  of  sympathy  with  them. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  take  it  that  you  are  not  an  employer. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  your  sympathies  are  with  labor  rather  than 
with  the  employer? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Naturally,  from  being  a  professor  of  economy  all  of  my  life,  my 
sympathies  are  that  way,  and  yet,  again,  I  am  a  man  of  science,  so  I  do  not  let 


844          EEPOBT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTKIAL   KELATIONS. 

niy  sympathies  go  either  way ;  but  I  am  getting  more  and  more  the  employer's 
point  of  view,  naturally.  1  could  not  help  it.  I  see  his  difliculties ;  and  on 
time  study  I  am  going  to  try  and  set  the  times  so  that  they  will  be  fair  to  the 
workpeople,  and  of  course  I  am  going  to  do  it  also  within  the  idea  of  setting 
them  so  that  the  company  would  not  lose  money. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  You  have  no  prejudice  against  organized  labor? 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  None.     My  sympathies,  rather,  are  with  it. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  I  gathered  from  what  you  said  that  you  think  it 
would  be  a  calamity  to  society  for  organized  labor  to  be  wiped  out? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Yes.  It  makes  serious  mistakes,  of  course,  and  all  of  that ;  but 
I  think  it  is  part  of  the  great  democratic  movement  of  the  time,  and  we  have  to 
accept  it. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Therefore,  talking  as  you  do,  you  do  not  talk  as  a 
man  hostile  to  organized  labor? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Not  at  all. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  But  one  whose  sympathies  are  with  organized 
labor  ? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  From  what  you  know  of  the  bonus  system,  and 
from  what  you  know  of  objections  that  prevail  generally,  has  it  been  the  result 
of  your  observation  that  the  bonus  and  premium  systems  injure  the  men 
physically  ? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  have  not  seen  it.  I  heard  a  particular  workman  whom  I 
trusted  to  speak  the  truth  say  that  a  particular  job  that  he  worked  on  for  five 
days  at  a  time  was  arranged  so  that  the  time  was  set  a  little  close.  Of  course, 
that  will  happen,  and  if  he  was  not  too  proud  to  kick  he  could  go  and  have  it 
changed. 

As  for  the  Acme,  you  ought  to  see  those  girls  when  they  get  onto  four  or  five 
cars  Saturday  noon,  going  home — well-dressed  and  good  looking  and  healthy 
and  well  fed.  They  are  not  candidates  for  some  nervous  recuperation  asylum — 
not  much.  Of  course,  I  have  not  been  there  very  long ;  but  I  am  told  by  a  man 
whom  I  believe  that  their  improvement  since  the  system  was  installed  is  very 
marked.  They  live  better  and  eat  better,  and  they  are  a  better  looking  crowd 
than  they  used  to  be.  I  asked  him  whether  that  was  not  because  a  lot  of  new 
ones  had  come  in  by  selection,  and  he  said  "  No." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  We  have  been  talking  a  good  deal  the  last  several 
days  about  what  constitutes  the  missing  link  between  capital  and  labor.  Do 
you  believe  that  the  trade  agreement  is  that  missing  link  between  capital  and 
labor,  organized  on  both  sides? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Yes ;  and  I  have  written  some  things  about  that,  and  even  have 
gone  so  far  as  to  prepare  some  legislative  bills. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  are  a  believer  in  the  trade  agreement? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Does  the  bonus  or  premium  system  in  any  way  in- 
terfere with  the  carrying  out  of  trade  agreements? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  No.  The  more  things  you  bring  into  any  trade  to  agree  upon,  the 
more  elements,  the  more  difficult  it  is  to  come  to  an  agreement,  of  course.  A 
simple  thing  is  easier  to  bargain  over  than  a  complicated  thing,  naturally. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  You  mean  that  the  bonus  and  premium  system 
add  to  the  complexity  of  the  situation? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Yes,  but  it  struck  me  yesterday  that  Mr.  Tobin  said  that  the 
shoe  workers  like  the  piece-rate  system,  on  the  whole.  Notwithstanding  he  said 
it  probably  injured  their  health,  they  seemed  to  like  it,  but  that  the  laboring  peo- 
ple pretty  generally  did  not  like  it.  The  probable  reason  for  that  is  that  histori- 
cally they  got  it  early,  and  that  through  many  battles  those  piece-rate  scales 
have  been  woven  into  the  system  of  contracts  and  understandings  with  their  em- 
ployers, and  now  they  do  not  want  the  other  thing,  because  it  is  new,  and  they 
say,  "  Oh,  that  will  make  trouble  with  us  and  we  will  have  to  li.u'lit  all  over 
again,  and  fight  for  fresh  agreements."  Very  likely  that  is  the  only  objection 
to  it,  but  in  itself  it  would  be  a  decided  improvement  upon  the  piece  rate. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Summing  up  all  that  has  gone  before,  your  judg- 
ment is  that  the  piece-rate  system  is  unwise? 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  Most  decidedly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Unscientific;  and  that  the  bonus  premium  system, 
while,  perhaps,  not  the  best  conceivable,  is  to-day  the  best  possible,  because  it  is 
based  on  scientific  methods? 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  845 

Mr.  MIXTER.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  difference  between  the  bonus  and  the 
premium  systems. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  You  do  not  treat  them  as  synonyms? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Not  at  all. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  is  the  difference? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  In  the  premium  system  the  time  allowed  is  not  a  time  necessary 
and  usual,  set  by  time-study  methods,  but  simply  a  time  from  which  the  pre- 
miums begin,  and  is  set  by  guesswork  or  past  experience  of  the  shop,  and  from 
that  point,  say  five  hours  on  a  job,  the  premiums  begin.  Oftentimes  the  value 
of  the  time  saved  is  half. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  about  the  bonus  system? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  On  that  same  job,  for  example,  by  time  study  you  would  find 
that  three  hours  and  a  half  is  the  time  for  that  job,  and  then  the  bonus  begins 
with  a  jump. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  We  would  stick  to  the  bonus  system  then;  the 
piece  system  is  objectionable? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  the  bonus  system  is  desirable? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  you  have  collective  bargaining  in  the 
beginning  on  all  things  other  than  determining  a  bonus? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  would  give  labor  a  voice  when  the  machinery 
was  running  smoothly  and  experience  had  been  gained? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  believe  that  the  trade  agreement  is  the  miss- 
ing link? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  believe  that  it  is  a  big  thing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  do  not  think  that  the  objection  of  organized 
labor  against  that  bonus  system  affecting  man  physically  will  stand? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  No,  no ;  I  don't  think  it  will  stand. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think  that  that  is  the  alleged  reason,  and  not 
the  real  objection  on  the  part  of  organized  labor? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  think  the  real  objection  on  the  part  of  organ- 
ized labor  is  the  fear  that  the  bonus  system  might  undermine  unionism? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  That  is  it. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  if  there  is  to  take 
place  a  change  in  the  factory  by  the  introduction  of  this  system  the  employees 
are  entitled  to  be  consulted  before  the  change  is  made? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  The  employees? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Yes.  In  other  words,  that  the  change  can  not  be 
made  without  consultation  with  the  employees  and  without  their  consent? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  They  do  it ;  they  make  the  change. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  On  what  hypothesis  do  you  base  the  claim  that  the 
employees  are  not  entitled  to  consultation  before  the  change  is  made? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  The  system  of  industry  under  which  we  live.  We  have  not  got 
a  complete  democracy  in  industry  yet. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Well,  if  that  is  true  in  industry,  why  should  not  we 
apply  it  all  through — social  life  and  governmental  life?  Why  should  not  we 
employ  it  everywhere,  and  say  that  one  class  of  society  must  be  consulted  and 
their  consent  must  be  obtained,  and  the  other  class  must  not  be  consulted? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Well,  we  get  into  very  deep  water  on  those  questions. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  know  that. 

Mr.  MTXTER.  If  we  had  democracy  in  government  centuries  ago,  the  advance 
of  civilization,  in  my  opinion,  would  have  come  to  a  standstill ;  we  were  not 
ready  for  it.  It  is  a  modern  luxury,  in  a  way,  that  would  increase  the  health 
and  everything  else;  but  now,  at  least,  we  can  come  to  a  great  ideal  that  no 
other  age  dreamed  of,  the  full  participation  in  it  by  free  men  in  society — no 
helots.  It  is  a  great,  big  thing ;  it  is  common  law,  and  in  the  nature  of  things 
it  must  come  a  little  bit  slowly. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  But  if  this  principle  is  recognized  as  being  correct, 
as  to  the  introduction  of  what  is  called  scientific  management,  why  should  it 
riot  be  employed  if  the  employer  desires  to  change  the  laboring  hours  from 
10  to  14  hours  a  day?  Should  he  have  the  right  to  put  in  a  14-hour  day  instead 
of  a  10-hour  day  or  an  8-hour  day  without  consultation  with  the  employee — 
with  the  people  who  have  the  work  to  do? 


846          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  I  think  going  from  a  10-hour  day  to  a  14-hour  day  ought  to  be 
prohibited  by  law,  and  it  ought  not  to  be  left  to  the  employees  to  fight  it  out 
with  him ;  it  should  not  be  allowed. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Then  in  this  case  you  do  not  desire  to  bring  in  the 
outside  arbitrator? 

Mr.  MIXTEK.  The  necessary  rules  of  society  on  a  broad  matter  like  that  are 
very  different  from  an  outside  arbitrator  trying  to  settle  all  the  little  disputes 
that  arise  in  an  industry  that  nobody  but  the  insiders  know  anything  about. 
Your  Congress  can  know  about  14  hours  a  day,  but  not  about  whether  a  certain 
job  is  new  \vork  and  the  scale  applies  or  does  not  apply.  That  is  not  a  thing 
they  \vould  know  about. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Can  not  the  employees  know  anything  about  these 
questions? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Certainly ;  through  collective  bargaining  they  can  do  that. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  But  collective  bargaining — there  are  some  people  who 
have  had  experience  in  the  world  as  well  as  professors — collective  bargaining, 
if  it  is  to  be  effective  and  worth  anything,  must  be  at  the  initiative  point  and 
not  after  a  plan  has  been  established  in  a  factory. 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  It  can  not  come  in  to  remedy  faults  in  its  initiation.  It  is  not 
worked  that  way  in  the  realm  of  government.  On  the  whole  the  administration 
fixes  the  law  and  does  things  first,  and  it  is  changed  afterwards. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  My  conclusion  differs  with  yours,  although  you  are 
an  expert  and  I  am  only  a  layman,  but  I  have  not  found  that  in  my  reading. 
But  never  mind  that ;  that  is  outside  of  the  subject. 

Now,  what  kind  of  work  is  made  by  this  Acme  Co.*?  What  is  the  nature  of 
the  product  there? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  They  make  coils  for  electrical  magnets,  coils  of  wound  wire. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  What  is  the  proportion  of  women  employed  to  men? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Nearly  all  of  the  work  in  the  rooms  is  done  by  the  men ;  a  little 
of  it  is  done  by  the  women. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  understand  you  have  been  there  but  a  short  time, 
but  perhaps  you  know  something  of  the  policy  that  is  to  dominate  the  future 
of  the  concern.  What  opportunity  is  there  going  to  be  in  that  factory  for  any- 
one to  really  learn  the  trade? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  As  much  as  in  any  other  factory  where  similar  work  is  done,  if 
not  more. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  anticipate,  then,  if  these  girls  employed,  if  they 
stay  there  five  years,  they  can  go  out  and  work  in  some  other  factory  at  per- 
haps the  same  identical  work,  or  work  involving  the  same  mechanical  prin- 
ciples, wrhere  those  mechanical  principles  are  in  vogue?  Can  they  do  it  in  some 
other  factory  and  make  good? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  I  should  think  they  could  go  out  and  obtain  higher  wages,  these 
very  girls ;  they  are  decidedly  improved.  There  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  As  you  understand  it,  in  whose  interest  are  these 
efficiency  systems  introduced,  in  the  interest  of  the  employer  to  accentuate 
profits,  or  in  the  interest  of  the  working  people  to  increase  wages? 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Of  course,  under  the  entrepreneur  system,  it  is  the  proprietor 
that  sends  for  the  efficiency  man  and  puts  him  on  the  job,  and  he  is  actuated 
partly,  if  he  is  a  "  white  man,"  or  particularly  by  the  desire  for  profits,  and 
partly  by  a  desire  for  other  things,  and  if  the  heavy  wheels  runs  smoothly,  it  is 
something  he  can  take  pride  in.  If  he  is  the  other  kind  of  man,  all  he  thinks  of 
is  the  profits. 

As  to  the  installer,  all  that  I  know  most  decidedly  have  a  professional 
spirit,  and  they  care  for  the  welfare  of  the  help,  and  when  they  find  some 
proprietor  that  wrants  to  hire  them  at  the  hog  time,  they  do  not  want  to  work 
for  him  and  they  leave  him — quit  him. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Suppose  you  go  into  a  new  establishment,  or  an  estab- 
lishment that  has  been  in  existence  for  any  length  of  time — it  makes  no  differ- 
ence how  long — how  do  you  fix  the  basic  wage,  the  daily  wage  at  which  you 
start?  Suppose  there  are  a  dozen  factories  in  the  city;  how  do  you  fix  the 
wage  in  the  factory  where  you  are  going  to  install  your  ideas. 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  Of  course  I  haven't  done  any  hiring  myself ;  I  have  simply  left 
it  to  others.  I  have  always  done  that.  You  understand  I  have  not  done  that 
myself,  but  it  is  the  prevailing  wages  for  the  different  trades  in  the  community 
or  district ;  that  is  the  base  rate. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is,  you  take  all  the  factories  and  find  the 
average,  or  do  you  take  the  base  wages  prevailing  in  the  community  ? 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  847 

Mr.  MIXTEB.  That  I  can  not  say.  Presumably  the  average  is  somewhere  be- 
tween the  lowest  and  the  best.  I  have  not  done  that  work  myself,  and  I  could 
not  say. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  This  commission  is  very  anxious  to  find  some  common 
ground  in  which  the  parties  at  interest  can  agree,  and  if  there  are  any  funda- 
mental principles  upon  which  we  can  agree,  it  is  very  desirable  to  find  them. 
Do  you  think  there  are  such? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Well,  there  are  some  fundamental  considerations  in  the  way. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  mean  by  "  fundamental "  principles  that  apply 
with  equal  force  to  the  employer  and  the  employee,  something  where  both  can 
have  a  common  ground  on  which  to  agree. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  have  something  in  mind  that  may  not  answer  your  question 
exactly,  but  I  would  like  to  say  it.  It  is  suggested  by  your  question,  that  I 
think  the  commission  might  well  take  the  view  that  it  is  a  very  dangerous  and 
undesirable  thing  for  Government  interference  in  the  infancy  of  any  art.  Of 
course,  scientific  management  is  new,  and  of  course  it  is  going  to  be  improved. 
It  is  something  like  the  steam  engine  in  the  days  of  Watt  and  Bolton,  and  much 
ingenuity  has  been  put  on  improving  the  steam  engine  since  then.  This  is 
going  to  improve.  I  believe  that  everything  that  is  objected  to  now  will  be 
smoothed  out. 

As  regards  the  tax  and  bonus,  the  slight  amount  of  error  that  I  injected  into 
some  of  my  answers — I  believe  that  the  art  can  be  improved  so  that  it  will  be 
amended,  and  I  think  it  will  be  most  regrettable  that  if  on  the  ground  of  some 
blemish  and  wrong  now  some  obstacle  were  put  in  the  way  of  development  and 
growth. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Lennon  asked  you  in  his  questions — scientific 
management — he  asked  you  in  whose  interest  it  was  usually  invoked,  and  you 
said  in  the  interest  of  the  employer.  That  is  equally  true  of  labor-saving  ma- 
chinery, is  it  not? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Why,  yes;  under  the  entrepreneur  system  of  cost  a  man  buys 
a  machine  and  puts  in  the  system  that  he  owns  and  buys.  What  I  mean  by 
that  is  that  he  is  a  dictator. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  I  mean  the  employers  that  have  vision  enough  to  see 
the  value  of  improved  methods  or  improved  machinery ;  it  is  a  minority  rather 
than  the  majority  that  sees  the  advantages  of  things  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  They  are  materialists  in  that  way  of  thinking.  Almost  every- 
body is  shortsighted  and  does  not  get  the  big  idea.  If  they  only  saw  scientific 
management  and  collective  bargaining,  all  of  it,  was  the  most  valuable  machine 
that  they  could  possibly  put  into  their  works — if  they  could  only  see  that  they 
would  do  it. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  It  is  no  reflection  on  the  employees  in  a  factory,  is  it, 
that  they  do  not  suggest  the  introduction  of  new  methods? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  It  is  no  reflection  on  them,  of  course. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  It  has  been  stated  as  a  fundamental  economic  truth — 
it  was  stated,  I  think,  by  Mr.  Taylor  yesterday — that  it  is  impossible  for  the 
workinguian  to  progressively  improve  his  condition  either  in  wages  or  in  work- 
ing conditions  unless  there  is  an  improvement  in  efficiency — that  is  to  say,  an 
increment  in  the  actual  per  capita  output.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Does  your  own  study  and  observation  convince  you 
of  that? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Most  decidedly.  I  have  given  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  that. 
I  wrote  my  thesis  on  the  theory  of  overproduction.  An  increased  production, 
of  course,  is  the  basis  of  our  whole  civilization  and  the  welfare  of  others.  I 
have  an  idea  on  that  point.  I  think  the  big  thing  that  labor  can  get  out  of 
scientific  management  is  shorter  hours.  Some  questions  were  asked  yesterday 
which  indicated  to  me  that  the  idea  was,  would  it  last?  How  about  the  long 
run?  Say  you  get  your  30  per  cent  now.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  things  that 
every  art  diffuses  its  effect.  In  time  it  is  eliminated.  It  all  goes  in  simply 
increasing  wealth  all  around.  The  general  public  gets  it,  and  our  civilization 
is  advanced  on  the  material  side.  If  we  are  going  to  have  any  one  big  thing 
to  point  to,  a  definite  thing  that  labor  will  gain  out  of  scientific  management, 
I  think  it  will  be  shorter  hours,  and  this  movement  lends  itself  directly  to  that. 
There  is  no  question  but  what  these  methods  facilitate  the  movement  of  the 
material  through  the  shop.  You  can  do  in  8  hours  or  7  hours  or  6  hours  as 
much  as  you  formerly  did  in  10  or  12  hours.  But  if  the  thing  is  rightly  managed 
it  will  not  all  go  in  lesser  prices  and  mere  higher  wages,  but  in  the  great  big 


848          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

boon  to  all  working  people  of 'shorter  hours.  I  have  had  enough  taste  of  regu- 
lar hours  so  that  I  know  what  it  means.  It  is  not  the  health,  but  it  is  the  time 
it  takes.  You  can  not  have  citizens  of  a  Republic  on  10  hours  a  day.  There  is 
no  leisure  for  the  other  duties  and  interests  of  life. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Ballurd,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Professor,  I  understand  you  think  it  is  possible  to 
get  some  group  of  employers  and  some  group  of  employees  who  can  together 
agree  upon  some  basis  of  fundamental  principles  that  could  be  mutually 
accepted  by  the  public  generally  as  right  and  fair  between  the  two. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  It  has  been  done  in  some  industries. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Have  you  written  any  books  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  No ;  but  I  have  studied  it  somewhat. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  In  making  these  investigations  with  regard  to  the 
time  studies,  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  employee  does  not  have  any  repre- 
sentative who  stands  with  the  scientific  engineer  to  make  those  studies.  Does 
the  employer  usually  have  some  representative  who  stands  by  the  side  of  the 
scientific  engineer,  or  does  the  scientific  engineer  work  out  those  things  as  an 
engineer  and  then  present  them  to  the  employer? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  If  he  makes  mistakes  he  gets  into  trouble  with  several  people. 
There  is  a  system  of  checks  and  balances. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  question  is,  does  the  employer  go  with  him  when  he  is 
making  his  studies? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  No ;  certainly  not. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  The  objection  was  that  the  workman  did  not  have 
any  representative  who  went  along  with  the  scientific  engineer  when  he  made 
his  studies.  Now,  does  the  employer  have  a  representative  with  the  engineer 
when  he  makes  his  studies? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  The  efficiency  engineer  comes  as  an  efficiency  engi- 
neer, comes  at  the  request  of  the  employer,  but  makes  independent  studies  by 
himself  and  for  himself,  and  then  submits  them  to  the  employer. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Rarely  does  the  employer  make  the  time  study  himself.  Some- 
body connected  with  the  establishment  is  detailed  as  time  study  man,  and  is 
taught  the  method,  and  is  coached  by  the  installer,  and  then  he  has  to  fight 
it  out  with  the  foremen  every  time  he  makes  a  mistake. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  are  the  wages  of  these  girls  that  are  work- 
ing in  this  electrical  goods  manufacturing  establishment? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  can  answer  approximately.  In  the  winding  room  where  the 
older  girls  are  employed  the  wages  are  over  $15  a  week. 

Commisioner  O'CONNELL.  And  for  the  younger  girls? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  For  the  younger  girls  in  the  assembling  room,  where  the  work 
is  very  light,  it  is  $12  a  week  or  thereabouts. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  are  the  hours  of  labor  there? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Ten  hours  or  a  trifle  less.  I  believe  it  is  10  minutes  less  than 
10  hours. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  long  has  the  system  been  in  operation  there? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  believe  something  like  three  or  four  years. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  hours  have  not  been  reduced  at  all  under  it? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  That  I  could  not  say.    I  do  not  know. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  know  whether  hours  have  been  reduced 
anywhere,  where  the  system  has  been  introduced? 

Mr.  MIXTER,  Only  by  reading. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  yon  in  mind  any  place? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  The  Simonds  Co.,  Pittsburgh. 

Commisioner  O'CONNELL.  What  hours  do  they  work? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  That  is  not  fresh  in  my  memory  now,  but  it  can  be  ascertained 
readily. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  have  been  speaking,  of  course,  of  the  Taylor 
system.  You  have  no  new  idea.  It  is  the  so-called  Taylor  system? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes;  that  is  the  system.  According  to  my  notion  that  is  the 
orthodox  system. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  are  simply  an  advocate  of  the  Taylor  system, 
not  of  anything  new? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  No ;  not  of  the  various  heterodoxies. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Under  the  Taylor  system  or  the  idea  of  a  bonus, 
you  say  a  reduction  does  not  or  can  not  take  place  under  this  standard. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  That  a  reduction  of  time  can  not  take  place? 


EFFICIENCY  SYSTEMS  AND  LABOR.  849 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  A  reduction  of  the  wages,  of  the  bonus,  a  reduc- 
tion of  the  30  or  100  per  cent,  or  whatever  it  is ;  that  if  a  man  is  getting  that, 
and  that  man  leaves,  that  that  will  be  maintained  permanently ;  that  no  reduc- 
tion can  take  place. 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  I  could  not  say  definitely  about  the  bonus.  I  do  not  know  that 
I  ever  happened  to  hear  about  that ;  but  the  thing  that  has  been  well  impressed 
on  me  is  that  the  promise  that  is  made  is  that  the  time  shall  never  be  changed 
unless  the  job  becomes  of  a  new  character,  so  that  it  is  another  job. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  wage  is  based  on  the  man's  original  day  rate — 
that  is  the  standard. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Suppose  a  man  is  engaged  in  running  a  lathe,  and 
his  original  wage  was  $3  a  day. 

Mr.  MIXTEK.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  the  standard  rate  was  made  and  then  a  bonus 
was  added,  making  it  $4  a  day. 

Mr.  MIXTEE,  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Based  on  his  $3. 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Suppose  he  quits  his  job. 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Or  supposing  he  is  discharged  or  dies,  or  a  thou- 
sand and  one  things  occur,  so  that  another  man  must  be  put  on  the  machine, 
and  a  $2  man  is  put  on  the  machine  instead  of  the  $3  man?  What  is  the 
difference  then  between  the  $4  and  his  bonus  rate  then?  Is  not  that  a  reduc- 
tion in  the  earning  capacity  of  that  man? 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  I  should  rather  question  the  fact,  unless  the  character  of  the 
work  had  changed  so  that  you  no  longer  need  a  first-class  mechanic  for  that 
work.  If  they  needed  the  same  sort  of  a  man  they  would  take  on  another  $3 
man. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Is  not  there  a  possibility  of  the  reduction  of  the 
total  earnings? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Of  course,  in  the  absence  of  collective  bargaining  there  is  always 
that  possibility. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  the.  point  I  want  to  get  at.  What  is  there 
to  protect  the  individual  by  maintaining  that  original  $3  rate,  or  a  better  rate 
as  things  improve,  unless  there  is  some  method  of  collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  In  the  long  run,  of  course,  in  any  of  these  shops  there  may  come 
a  king  who  knew  not  Joseph,  and  in  the  long  run  there  is  no  guaranty  except 
collective  bargaining  . 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  As  I  understood  Mr.  Taylor  yesterday,  this  system 
has  been  exactly  standardized  and  never  could  be  changed ;  that  it  was  abso- 
lutely right.  Yet  I  see  the  possibility  which  I  have  just  explained,  a  possi- 
bility of  a  change  of  the  rate  of  earnings  of  the  man.  The  total  earnings  of 
100  people  in  the  factory  may  have  been  originally  $300  a"  day.  By  the  bonus 
system  it  may  be  made  $4  a  day,  but  at  the  end  of  six  months,  under  the  new 
system,  the  100  people  may  be  replaced  by  100  other  people,  and  their  day  rate 
may  be  changed,  and  the  total  earnings  of  the  100  people  may  not  be  $200  a  day. 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  I  do  not  think  I  could  quite  agree  with  yon.  The  base  rate 
would  be  the  thing  that  would  have  to  give  way,  and  although  it  was  not 
agreed  to  by  the  employer,  competitive  conditions  would  establish  the  base  rate. 
On  the  whole,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that,  the  bonus  Once  established,  it  would 
be  an  institution  in  the  shop,  and  you  could  not  change  that.  A  new  man 
coming  on  would  be  told  right  away,  "  They  are  putting  something  over  on 
you.  So-and-so  used  to  get  such  and  such  a  bonus  on  that  job,  and  they  are 
not  giving  you  what  you  ought  to  have." 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  bonus.  I  am  speaking 
of  the  basis  or  standard  on  which  the  bonus  is  based. 

Mr.  MIXTEE.  That,  of  course,  is  a  thing  which  is  subject  to  fundamental  eco- 
nomic conditions,  including  the  bargaining  between  employer  and  employee. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  the  absence  of  collective  bargaining  the  em- 
ployee is  solely  in  the  hands  of  the  employer. 

Mr.  MIXTER"  He  is  solely  in  the  hands  of  the  economic  forces  that  govern 
the  situation,  which  does  not  mean  that  the  employer  has  an  absolutely  free 
hand  to  do  as  he  pleases. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  take  a  recess  for  10  minutes. 

(At  11.23  o'clock  a.  m.  the  commission  took  a  recess  for  10  minutes. 

38819°— 16 54 


850          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  commission  resumed  its  session.) 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Ballard  has  a  question  which  he  wishes  to  ask  the 
witness. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Prof.  Mixter,  in  your  argument  you  said  that  the 
relative  positions  of  employer  and  employee  in  a  factory  might  be  considered 
a  little  like  the  relative  positions  of  ruler  and  parliament  in  Europe,  the  parlia- 
ment aiding  the  ruler  in  the  establishment  of  laws.  Is  there  any  case  in  his- 
tory where  a  king,  emperor,  or  czar  ever  volunteered  to  call  for  a  parliament 
to  help  him,  or  were  not  the  parliament  forced  on  the  rulers? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  In  the  nature  of  things  people  who  have  power  very  seldom  like 
to  relinquish  it  voluntarily  until  the  pressure  has  come  from  the  people. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Garretson  has  a  question  that  he  desires  to  ask  Mr. 
Mixter. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  were  absolutely 
opposed  to  arbitration  as  the  settlement  of  difficulties  of  the  character  that 
arise  between  employer  and  employee. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  do  not  want  to  be  a  doctrinaire  about  that ;  but  I  mean 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  As  a  general  proposition. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  As  a  general  proposition,  as  a  student  of  this  subject  I  think 
that  trade  agreement  and  not  arbitration  by  outsiders  is  the  way. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Then  if  a  disagreement  arises  between  the  em- 
ployer and  the  employee  in  the  formation  of  the  trade  agreement,  that  is  when 
arbitration  is  usually  invoked.  You  disbelieve  in  that,  do  you? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  think  it  is  better  for  them  to  wait  awhile  and  see  if  they  can 
not  come  together. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Then,  in  other  words,  the  causes  that  create  in- 
dustrial unrest  of  that  character,  in  your  opinion,  are  not  the  concern  of  the 
public?  The  public  has  no  right  to  demand  any  such  method  of  settlement, 
you  think? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  The  public  might  have  a  right,  but  it  might  not  be  expedient 
always. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Who  would  decide  whether  it  was  expedient  or 
not  to  exercise  that  right? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  In  the  last  resort  the  parliament  elected  by  the  people. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Their  decision  is  final. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Manly  of  our  staff  has  two  or  three  questions  he  would 
like  to  ask. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Mr.  Mixter,  you  testified,  if  I  have  your  testimony  right,  that  in 
case  the  time  set  for  the  task  was  too  short,  it  was  revised  if  the  contention 
of  the  employee  proved  to  be  correct. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  It  is  all  the  time,  repeatedly. 

Mr.  MANLY.  If  the  time-study  man  makes  a  mistake  and  sets  the  time  too 
long,  so  that  it  is  an  easy  task,  is  it  revised  under  those  conditions? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  It  stands  under  those  conditions. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Is  not  the  tendency,  therefore,  for  the  time-study  man  to  make 
the  task  time  short  in  order  to  avoid  being  called  down  by  the  employer? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Quite  the  contrary.  The  employer  does  not  bother  him  very 
often,  and  he  does  not  want  to  have  the  continual  trouble  of  having  his  times 
challenged,  and  having  to  revise  them.  They  laugh  at  him  of  course  every 
time  that  happens. 

Mr.  MANLY.  If  he  makes  it  too  long 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Then  it  stands.    He  is  laughed  at  even  then. 

Mr.  MANLY.  If  he  continually  makes  them  too  long,  is  not  his  job  in  jeopardy? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  If  he  continually  makes  them  too  long,  he  is  a  bungling  fellow 
at  his  job,  and  of  course  he  gets  discredited,  if  he  habitually  makes  the  time 
altogether  too  long. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Therefore  his  interest  is  to  err  in  making  the  task  short,  because 
they  can  then  be  readjusted.  Am  I  right  in  that  assumption? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  No ;  I  do  not  think  so.  Of  course  while  I  have  not  done  so  much 
of  it,  myself,  I  have  gone  over  instruction  cards  and  so  on  that  other  people 
have  made,  and  I  think  that  the  error  made  is  overwhelmingly  in  the  direction 
of  making  the  time  too  long.  There  are  various  reasons  for  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Prof.  Commons  has  some  questions  that  he  would  like  to  ask. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  make  a  distinction  apparently  between  the  one 
who  installs  the  system  and  those  who  make  the  time  studies.  The  one  who 
installs  the  system  is  usually  a  professional  man  called  in  as  an  expert? 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  851 

Mr.  MIXTER.  As  a  rule ;  yes ;  I  think. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  The  one  who  makes  the  time  studies  is  employed 
by  the  employer,  on  his  staff? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  He  might  possibly  be  in  the  employ  of  the  installer,  but  I  think 
he  is  usually  some  one  in  the  employ  of  the  concern. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  this  case  the  whole  issue  turns  on  the  time 
study.  Therefore  the  person  who  makes  the  time  studies  is  doing  that  under 
the  direct  control  of  the  employer  and  not  under  the  control  of  the  outside 
professional  man? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  There  is  a  sort  of  double  control.  That  is  a  part  of  the  system 
of  functional  foremanship;  and  under  the  spirit  of  the  new  method,  the  staff 
system  in  place  of  the  old  way,  the  time-study  man  is  partly  under  the  control 
of  the  employer  and  he  is  partly  under  the  control  of  the  other  man. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  if  the  system  is  installed,  after  the  professional 
man  leaves  the  time-study  man  is  totally  under  the  control  of  the  employer  ? 

Mr.  MIXTEK.  In  the  whole  system  of  things  that  is  a  system  of  checks  and 
balances  and  laws  and  rules  which  are  very  largely  adjusted. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  It  is  possible,  then,  for  this  professional  expert  to 
become  simply  an  employer's  expert? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  If  I  have  given  the  impression  that  in  any  real  scientific  manage- 
ment shop  there  are  hogs  employed,  that  is  not  so.  You  can  not  have  scientific 
management  under  those  conditions,  and  it  does  mean  a  new  spirit,  a  new 
method,  a  new  set  of  institutions  that  interlock  with  one  another,  and  more 
and  more  it  is  becoming  impossible  to  have  evasions  and  tricks  and  the  exer- 
cise of  autocratic,  undesirable  power. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  the  examination  of  Mr.  Taylor  yesterday  I 
rather  gathered  the  impression  that  the  expert  stands  there  as  the  employer's 
representative.  He  is  seeking  to  further  the  interest  of  the  employer  to  the 
best  of  his  ability.  He  is  employed  by  the  employer,  and  he  is  there  to  watch 
and  further  his  interests;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes;  to  a  degree;  but  with  that  tempering  force  that  comes 
always  with  the  professional  man.  You  call  in  a  doctor,  and  you  can  not  order 
him  to  do  anything,  although  you  are  his  employer.  He  has  his  standards  and 
ideals  of  the  ethics  of  his  profession,  and  the  same  with  a  lawyer  of  standing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  that  attitude  at  all  in  conflict  with  the  state- 
ment yesterday  made  by  Mr.  Taylor  that  as  a  scientific  manager  his  first  thought 
is  the  welfare  of  the  worker? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  You  mean  the  thought  of  the  installer  of  the  system? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Taylor's  first  thought.  He  practically  is  the 
installer,  because  he  has  been  engaged  in  that  sort  of  work.  He  stated  that  his 
first  thought  is  the  welfare  of  the  worker  rather  than  the  welfare  of  the  em- 
ployer. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  do  not  question  that  that  is  so  with  Mr.  Taylor.  He  is  an 
idealist,  and  the  conditions  under  the  old-style  management,  of  the  everlasting 
pulling  and  hauling  and  tricks  and  evasions  on  both  sides  went  against  his 
grain,  and  there  is  no  question  in  my  mind  but  what  the  root  of  this  whole 
thing  was  the  idea,  "  I  will  get  a  thing  that  will  be  a  square  deal  and  take  the 
place  of  all  this." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  say  Mr.  Taylor  is  an  idealist? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  We  know  that,  as  a  rule,  there  is  a  conflict  be- 
tween the  worker  and  the  employers. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Taylor  or  Mr.  Emerson — I  have  forgotten 
which  it  was — pointed  out  yesterday  that  you  take  the  cost  of  the  material  and 
the  cost  of  the  overhead  expense  and  deduct  that  from  the  selling  price  you  get 
the  difference,  which  is  the  surplus ;  and  that  the  issue  arises  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  that  surplus  between  the  employer  and  the  worker.  Now,  there  is  a 
conflict  there,  each  naturally  wanting  the  larger  share  of  that  surplus.  So  that 
is  a  natural  conflict.  Now,  your  point  of  view  is  that  the  expert  represents 
the  employer's  interest  primarily  and  incidentally  the  worker.  Mr.  Taylor's 
point  of  view  was — at  least  I  so  gathered — that  his  first  thought  is  the  worker, 
and  the  employer  becomes  an  incident  in  the  matter.  Now,  there  is  a  conflict 
between  your  attitude  and  Mr.  Taylor's  attitude. 

Mr.  MTXTER.  While  I  may  have  given  that  impression,  I  did  not  mean  to. 
I  do  agree  with  him  upon  that.  Of  course  it  is  a  difficult  thing  to  express. 
The  installer  is  hired  by  the  employer,  and  he  has  to  work  in  his  interest,  and 


852          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

he  must  try  to  make  the  whole  thing  not  a  financial  loss.  Of  course  he  has 
his  professional  attitude  to  his  ideals,  and  chief  among  them  is  to  bring  a  new 
regime  for  labor.  In  respect  to  the  conflict  about  division  of  surplus  and  wages, 
I  am  fully  persuaded  that  it  is  more  a  great  mass  of  little  things,  little  in 
themselves,  but  in  the  aggregate  big,  that  makes  the  trouble. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  He  has  to  sit  as  a  court  of  equity  between  the 
two? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Most  decidedly,  and  he  does  if  there  is  any  occasion  to. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  to  determine  how  to  distribute  the  surplus 
in  accordance  with  his  best  judgment,  wisely  and  fairly? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Yes.  It  is  a  gain-sharing  scheme — the  philosophy  of  gain  shar- 
ing. An  installer  is  not  in  a  continual  fight  with  the  employer,  as  a  rule, 
because  the  employer  would  not  be  installing  scientific  management  if  he  had 
not  seen  a  new  light.  That  is  a  real,  genuine  thing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  the  installer  a  man  with  full  power?  Does  the 
employer  waive  his  rights  in  the  matter  and  subordinate  them  to  the  installer 
and  permit  him  to  act  as  supreme  power  in  the  matter? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  To  a  very  great  extent  after  the  employer  has  been  persuaded 
on  the  main  things.  He  hands  it  over  as  a  man  does  a  law  case  to  his  lawyer. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  abides  by  his  decisions? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Abides  by  his  professional  decisions. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  does  not  accept  his  recommendations  subject 
to  his  own  approval? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Not  in  detail.  You  may  change  lawyers,  but  as  a  usual  thing  a 
man  does  what  his  lawyer  tells  him  to  do,  and  as  a  usual  thing  you  abide  by 
his  professional  decision.  To  the  same  degree  a  man  installing  scientific  man- 
agement abides  by  the  decision  of  his  installer. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Mixter,  you  stated  that  you  would  like  to  make  a  state- 
ment with  reference  to  the  alleged  degredation  of  the  stop-watch  system.  Do 
that  briefly,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  have  not  very  much  to  say  about  that.  I  do  not  think  there 
is  anything  in  it  at  all.  I  think  the  thing  is  done  open  and  aboveboard.  The 
man  knows  that  he  is  being  timed  and  why  he  is  being  timed,  and  in  particular 
in  my  experience,  so  far  as  I  have  done  it  myself,  I  should  say  standing  over 
somebody  and  asking  him  about  his  work,  why  he  does  this  this  way  and  that 
that  way,  and  taking  his  time  rather  dignifies  his  work  instead  of  degrading  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  all  upon  that? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  That  is  all,  I  think,  upon  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  there  something  else  that  you  desired  to  say? 

Mr.  MIXTER.  Possibly  a  few  things.  I  would  like  to  make  this  remark,  that 
I  think  that  the  phrase  "  speeding  up  "  is  a  question-begging  epithet  and  that 
it  would  be  much  wiser  if  it  were  left  out,  if  witnesses  would  drop  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  not  asking  too  much,  am  I,  if  you  will  confine  yourself 
to  any  little  element  of  fact  that  you  know  instead  of  arguing,  because  we 
have  a  number  of  witnesses.  I  do  not  want  to  cut  you  off,  but  if  there  is  any 
fact  that  you  think  is  significant  I  wish  you  would  state  it  and  not  argue  it. 

Mr.  MIXTER.  I  understand.  There  is  one  statement  of  fact,  and  that  is  that 
there  is  a  misapprehension  in  respect  to  the  taking  of  time  studies.  Unfor- 
tunately on  the  observation  sheets  at  the  last  is  a  column  headed  "  minimum 
time."  That  has  probably  given  the  impression  to  a  lot  of  people  that  we 
picked  out  the  shortest  time.  That  simply  happens  to  get  there  by  somebody 
who  did  not  happen  to  think  of  the  right  word.  It  is  the  representative  time 
and  never  the  minimum  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all.  We  thank  you  very  much,  and  especially  for 
waiting  over. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  ROBERT  G.  VALENTINE. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Thompson,  will  you  be  good  enough  to  interrogate  Mr. 
Valentine? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  please  give  us  your  name  and  address? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Robert  G.  Valentine;  75  State  Street,  Boston. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  profession? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Industrial  counselor. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Please  state  briefly  to  the  commission  what  you  mean  by 
industrial  counselor. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  mean  a  man  who  is  devoting  all  of  his  time  to  studying  the 
relations  between  employers,  employees,  and  the  public. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOK.  853 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  that  occupation? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Specifically  about  2  years ;  in  principle  for  the  last  15  years. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  were  you  engaged  in  before  those  two  years? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  was  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  here  in  the  city  of 
Washington. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  last  few  years,  as  a  student  of  the  relations  between 
employer  and  employee,  what  experience,  if  any,  have  you  had  with  the  so- 
called  efficiency  systems,  naming  places  and  where? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  have  run  into  it  on  the  slant  in  a  number  of  places.  I 
prefer  not  to  name  all  of  the  places,  because  my  work  is  of  a  professional 
character. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Name  the  number,  if  you  can,  without  naming  the  indi- 
vidual plants. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  A  half  dozen  cases. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  in  these  examinations  been  called  upon  to  make 
a  fairly  extensive  study  of  the  relations  between  the  employer  and  the 
employee  ? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  there  several  efficiency  systems,  so  called,  on  the  market, 
if  I  may  use  that  term,  open  to  the  choice  of  the  employer? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Several  so-called  ones. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  it  not  uniformly  the  case  that  the  efficiency  system  is  put 
in  at  the  instance  of  the  employer? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  If  I  may  be  pardoned,  I  think  it  is  absolutely  futile  to  gen- 
eralize about  these  things,  and  I  also  think  it  is  likely  to  leave  a  mistaken  im- 
pression with  the  commission  if  you  delve  into  some  of  the  details  before  getting 
the  general  principles  and  points  of  view  clearly  before  the  commission.  For 
instance,  I  was  very  sorry  to  see  so  much  emphasis  put  upon  the  payment 
plans  in  the  the  case  of  the  last  witness.  It  seemed  to  me  it  was  leading  the 
commission  astray.  You  will  pardon  me  for  that  criticism. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  a  concise  statement  that  you  would  like  to  make 
in  accordance  with  what  you  have  just  suggested  to  the  commission? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  should  not  want  to  make  any  statement,  because  it  does 
not  seem  to  me  that  a  public  hearing  is  the  place  to  do  that.  In  a  word,  it 
seems  to  me  that  a  good  many  of  us  are  here  upside  down  and  wrong  end  first 
on  this  whole  thing.  Briefly,  just  to  be  personal,  in  order  to  be  concrete  and 
short,  I  am  a  thorough-going  democrat  first,  and  a  believer  in  the  best  ways 
of  doing  things  as  a  pretty  close  second,  and  I  think  that  must  be  the  direction 
from  which  you  approach  the  thing. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  other  words,  if  I  understand  you,  you  believe  that  the 
introduction  of  an  efficiency  system  must  come  from  democracy.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  With  a  very  humble  sense  of  the  dangers,  I  still  feel  that 
the  dangers  from  that  direction  are  less  than  any  other. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  from  that  principle  which  you  have  as  a  cardinal 
principle  of  your  view  on  the  relations  of  the  employer  and  employee,  would  it 
not  be  essential  that  the  employee  in  any  given  shop  should  participate  from 
the  beginning  in  the  introduction  of  any  efficiency  system  under  which  he  should 
be  required  to  labor? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  not  only  think  the  individual  should  so  participate,  but  I 
think  he  should  participate  as  a  part  of  the  union. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  believe  that  in  connection  with  the  introduction  of 
the  efficiency  system  there  should  come  in,  as  one  of  its  first  principles,  the 
effect  which  we  would  call  collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes,  sir ;  and  the  whole  system  of  constitutionalism  and 
industry  as  leading  to  democracy  in  industry. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  term  "constitutionalism  in  in- 
dustry "  ? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  mean  a  rather  condensed  progress  in  the  present  day  of 
precisely  the  same  thing  we  have  seen  going  through  the  political  governments 
throughout  the  world — principles  of  representative  government,  of  checks  and 
balances,  of  all  concerned  having  a  voice  and  being  connected  with  an  educative 
process  in  making  determinations. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Mixter,  the  last  witness  on  the  stand,  stated  to  the  com- 
mission that  in  the  introduction  of  an  efficiency  system  in  any  plant  or  shop 
such  introduction  should  be  at  the  instigation  of  one  of  the  parties,  namely, 
the  employer,  and  that  in  this  introduction  the  participation  of  the  employee 
would  lead  to  confusion,  or  at  least  would  very  greatly  hamper  and  hinder  the 


854          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

efficient  introduction  of  the  efficiency  system.     What  have  you  to  say  on  that 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  disagree  with  Dr.  Mixter.  I  prefer  confusion  to  catas- 
trophe. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Why,  from  your  experience,  do  you  prefer  confusion  to 
catastrophe? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Because  I  think  we  have  in  our  modern  life  two  ideals  which 
have  got  to  work  out  together — science  and  democracy.  I  think  every  one  of 
us  recognize  that  if  you  could  have  a  beneficent  despot,  omniscient  and  omnipo- 
tent, he  could  make  the  world  better  at  once.  I  simply  do  not  think  that  is  a 
feasible  ideal. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  what  follows  from  what  you  say,  Mr.  Valentine,  if  I 
reason  correctly,  that  that  would  be  better  than  no  efficiency  system  be  intro- 
duced at  all  than  that  such  a  system  should  be  introduced  without  the  concur- 
rence and  the  cooperation  of  the  employees?  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  In  the  interest  of  trying  to  clear  the  air,  I  will  assent  to  that 
absolutely.  Of  course,  you  will  recognize,  and  all  of  you  will  recognize,  there 
are  common-sense  ways  of  approaching  these  things,  but  that  is  the  principle, 
and  it  is  right. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  From  your  study  of  the  relations  of  employer  and  employee, 
what  is  it  in  that  relationship  or  in  those  relations  which  makes  you  feel  that 
the  introduction  of  these  efficiency  systems  can  be  made  to  accord  with 
democracy? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Because,  in  my  experience,  I  have  found  that  neither  side 
possessed  a  monopoly  of  the  brains. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  had  any  practical  experience  in  any  case  or 
cases  wherein  efficiency  systems  have  been  introduced  with  the  cooperation  of 
the  employee? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  have  slanted  on  them.    I  have  not  been  very  deep  into  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Give  us  your  slant. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  know  one  store  where  that  is  going  on  at  the  present  time. 
I  know  of  a  printing  plant  where  it  is  going  on  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is,  the  introduction  of  the  system? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes,  sir ;  although,  please  pardon  me,  I  do  not  like  tags ;  I  do 
not  like  the  words  "  system  "  or  "efficiency."  I  like  the  words  "  democracy  " 
and  "  doing  things  in  a  scientific  wTay." 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  may  use,  of  course,  Mr.  Valentine,  your  own  words. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  want  simply  to  indicate  that  I  think  we  lose  a  lot  if  we  do 
not  get  below  a  lot  of  the  tags  that  have  been  bruited  around  the  world  in  the 
last  10  years  down  to  the  essential  principles  for  which  these  tags  more  or  less 
incompetently  stand. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  you  aware  of  any  case  where,  now  using  the  accepted 
phrase,  efficiency  systems  have  been  introduced  without  the  concurrence  of  the 
employee,  which  has  resulted  in  any  injury  to  the  employees  of  the  shop? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  It  seems  to  me  that  is  too  big  a  question  for  any  man  to 
answer.  I  should  not  feel  that  my  answer  was  of  any  value  to  this  commission, 
and  in  evading  answering  I  would  suggest  that,  for  instance,  when  this  com- 
mission is  in  the  neighborhood  of  Boston  it  go  out  to  and  hold  a  hearing  on  the 
grounds  within  the  walls  of  this  one  at  the  Plympton  Press  at  Norwood.  That 
visit  would  be  worth  hours  of  my  taking  your  time  here. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  large  a  plant  is  that? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  a  fair-sized  printing  and  bindery.  I  do  not  recall 
the  number  of  employees,  but  it  has  worked  out  a  great  many  of  the  principles 
which  are  here  in  debate. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  do  not  know  whether  they  have  500  or  1,000  or  2,000 
employees,  or  more  or  less? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  should  say  about  1,200.  [Addressing  some  one  in  the 
audience:]  Is  that  right?  About  700  or  800. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  there  is  anybody  in  the  audience  who  knows 

Mr.  VALENTINE  (interrupting).  That  is  right.  He  has  tipped  me  off. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  describe,  if  you  know,  Mr.  Valentine,  the  method 
by  which  the  so-called  efficiency  system  or  scientific  management  was  intro- 
duced into  either  this  last-named  printing  shop  or  elsewhere  that  you  know  of? 
What  was  the  machinery  used  to  bring  the  employee  and  employer  together? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  would  be  glad  to  answer  that  question  if  you  insist  on  it, 
but  I  think  it  would  be  a  waste  of  your  time.  It  is  a  thing  so  complicated,  so 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  855 

much  a  shop  detail,  that  if  this  commission  really  wants  to  know  what  is  done 
there,  it  should  go  and  see.  You  can  not  get  at  these  things,  it  seems  to  me, 
by  sitting  up  here  with  a  public  hearing. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  To  divide  the  matter  up,  Mr.  Valentine,  did  the  employees 
have  a  voice  in  the  selection  of  the  expert  who  took  time  studies,  if  they  were 
taken? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  think  not,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  person  was  employed  by  the  employer? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  imagine  so. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Were  the  conclusions  of  the  time-study  expert  subject  to 
review  by  any  committee  or  body  of  which  the  employees  comprised  an  equal 
proportion  with  the  employers? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  am  not  sufficiently  familiar  with  the  details  of  that  par- 
ticular place  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  why  do  you  say,  Mr.  Valentine,  if  I  understood  you 
correctly,  that  the  employees  in  that  shop  participated  and  cooperated  in  the 
introduction  of  the  efficiency  system? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do  not  really  think  I  said  that.  I  think  they  had  had  some 
hand  in  many  aspects  of  it,  because  in  certain  branches  there  they  have  col- 
lective bargaining  on  hours  and  wages,  and  have  had  for  some  years. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  this  particular  shop? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  In  this  particular  plant ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  know  on  what  matters  they  have  a  trade  agree- 
ment? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  They  have  trade  agreements  on  hours  and  wages  with  cer- 
tain local  unions,  but  I  could  not  tell  you  off  the  card.  That  is  the  kind  of 
thing  a  person  hates  to  answer  except  from  the  records;  there  is  so  much 
loose  talk  about  these  things. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Leaving  out  of  consideration  the  name  of  any  plant — there 
may  be  some  reason  to  not  state  it — what  voice,  if  you  know,  have  the  em- 
ployees had  anywhere,  either  in  selecting  the  expert  who  made  the  time  study, 
or  on  a  committee  who  should  finally  accept  or  reject  his  conclusions  after  the 
time  study? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Speaking  generally,  I  should  say  the  employees,  either  indi- 
vidually or  collectively,  had  had  very  little  voice  in  such  selection. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  you  know  of  no  plant  where  this  occurred? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Not  in  a  way  that  I  should  personally  consider  ideal. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  your  conclusion  or  your  statement  in  the  beginning 
was  a  statement  as  to  what  you  think  should  be  done  from  your  study  of  the 
relations  of  the  employer  and  the  employee? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Thompson.  In  your  opinion,  Mr.  Valentine,  would  that  obviate  or  tend 
to  obviate  the  complaint  over  the  so-called  speeding  up,  which  unions  make 
against  efficiency  systems? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  It  would,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Even  to  the  extent  of  reiterating  what  has  already  been 
well  said,  I  understand,  Mr.  Valentine,  that  you  believe  in  the  principle  of  col- 
lective bargaining  as  applied  to  the  introduction  of  efficiency  systems  or  scien- 
tific management  in  shops  and  factories? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Prof.  Commons,  are  there  any  questions  you  desire  to  ask 
at  this  time? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr,  Valentine,  it  seems  to  me  the  terms  which  you 
have  used  have  been  quite  vague  and  general.  They  have  been  terms  of 
political  science,  of  government,  rather  than  terms  of  shop.  I  presume  you 
certainly  have  thought  this  out  in  terms  of  shop  management;  and  while  you 
say  that  we  can  not  get  the  general  principles  here,  but  we  must  go  and  visit 
the  factories 

Mr.  VALENTINE  (interrupting).  I  beg  your  pardon;  may  I  interrupt? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Yes. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  To  get  detail  you  must  go  and  visit  the  factories;  to  get 
scientific  appreciation  you  must  visit  the  factories.  I  do  not  think  the  kind 
of  things  you  have  had  this  morning  bring  out  those  principles. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  it  not  help,  in  visiting  the  factories,  in  order 
to  ascertain  the  detail,  to  first  get  some  principles  that  we  might  apply  or  test 
as  we  go  into  those  factories? 


856          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Very  greatly,  sir. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  certainly  must  have  thought  out  some  princi- 
ples or  some  standard  of  tests,  as  here  you  have  two  very  conflicting  things. 
They  have  always  conflicted  in  the  history  of  government  and  in  the  history  of 
industry — efficiency  and  democracy.  I  suppose  that  would  be  stating  it  in  the 
way  you  would  state  it? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  very  much  like  that  way  of  stating  it. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  have  figured  out,  evidently,  some  way  of  har- 
monizing these  two,  and  it  must  be  upon  some  general  principles.  You  must 
have  developed  them  fully.  This  commission  certainly  has  not. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No  wise  man  has. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  It  is  up  to  this  commission  to  develop  such  princi- 
ples. If  we  can  not,  we  will  have  to  say  so.  Would  not  you  assist  us  by  start- 
ing off  on  some  principle  of  harmonizing  efficiency  and  democracy  in  the  shop 
on  what  would  perhaps  be  a  more  general  principle  which  you  would  lay  down 
and  then  pass  on  to  some  more  detailed  principle? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  If  the  commission  request  it,  I  would  be  glad  to  be  that  goat, 
If  it  would  really  help  you  in  your  work. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Suppose  we  start  out  on  that  idea,  that  you  will  be 
the  goat  [laughter] — and  you  are  not  committed  to  anything  that  you  suggest 
or  propose  as  principles.  But  we  would  like  to  have  some  principle  of  this 
character.  It  seems  to  be  quite  fundamental.  If  you  will  mention  what  occurs 
to  you  in  any  order,  we  shall  be  glad  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  will  be  glad  to  do  so,  if  the  commission  will  very  rudely 
check  me  up  if  I  get  astray  or  take  too  much  time. 

It  seems  to  me  that  if  we  are  going  to  get  at  this  thing  right  we  have  got  to 
be,  at  the  start,  pretty  vague,  because  we  have  got  to  be  comprehensive;  we 
have  got  to  see  the  whole  field.  We  can  not  peck  into  it  at  any  point.  A  good 
deal  of  what  I  have  to  say  will  strike  you  as  vague,  ideal,  and  merely  hopeful  of 
a  future  condition ;  but  there  again  it  seems  to  me  that  unless  we  see  where  the 
trend  lies  we  will  be  continually  getting  off  the  road.  With  the  best  vision  we 
now  possess  we  have  got  to  fix  our  eyes  on  the  mountain  peaks  and  then  climb 
up  for  them.  So  again  I  will  ask  you  to  excuse  things  that  seem  general  or 
abstract. 

I  have  had  a  number  of,  to  me,  very  significant  experiences  in  the  last  10 
years  which  led  to  this  tentative  idea  that  I  now  hold.  At  the  present  time,  for 
example,  I  am  serving  as  chairman  of  the  first  wages  board  of  Massachusetts. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  mean  under  the  minimum- wage  commission? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes.  At  the  table  are  grouped  six  representatives  of  employees, 
six  representatives  of  employers,  and  three  representatives  of  the  public. 

I  would  like  to  say,  if  I  may — and  this  particular  sentence  I  would  like  not 
to  have  put  on  the  record,  because  it  might  injure  some  of  the  things  we  are 
trying  to  do  before  that  board ;  but  I  will  give  you  confidentially  and  as  vaguely 
as  this  audience  can  remember  it  what  is  happening  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Reporter,  please  omit  this  until  such  time  as  the  speaker 
indicates  you  are  to  go  ahead. 

(Here  ensued  a  statement  by  Mr.  Valentine  and  some  informal  discussion  be- 
tween Mr.  Valentine  and  the  members  of  the  commission  which,  by  direction  of 
the  chairman,  was  not  spread  upon  the  record.') 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Among  the  employees  on  that  board  is  a  representative  from 
the  cigar  makers'  union;  also  a  representative  from  the  telephone  operators' 
union,  a. young  girl  with  whom  I  was  associated  in  a  recent  fight  of  Boston 
against  the  telephone  company,  where  we  won  some  quite  substantial  victories. 
In  addition  there  are  four  brush  workers — this  is  a  board  in  the  brush  indus- 
try. One  of  those  has  shown  very  keen  judgment.  So  there  are  three  of  the 
workers  whom  I  would  consider  an  addition  to  any  council  table.  Please  do  not 
think  I  am  sentimental  about  this  or  making  any  plea  for  the  down-trodden 
workers.  They  do  not  need  it  from  me. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Three  of  these  apparently  represented  organizations 
of  labor  and  the  others  were  unorganized  employees  ? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Two  represent  the  ideas  and  training  and  intelligence  of  or- 
ganized labor  and  four  represented  the  unorganized  employees  in  the  brush 
business  itself. 

The  point  I  would  like  to  bring  out  is  that  I  consider,  from  what  little  insight 
I  have  got  into  it,  the  kind  of  debates  that  are  going  on  around  in  trades-union 
rooms  is  the  hope  of  democracy  in  this  country;  in  stating  this  point  very 
briefly  and  without  elaborating  it,  I  trust  you  will  realize  that  they  need  to  be 


EFFICIENCY  SYSTEMS  AND  LABOR.  857 

elaborated  before  they  are  finally  accepted,  but  to  save  your  time  I  will  just 
state  them. 

It  may  save  your  time  further  by  briefly  summarizing  the  facts  that  experi- 
ences like  that  on  the  brush  board,  and  experiences  in  a  number  of  factories 
and  stores  and  various  other  plants  have  led  me  to  feel  that  is  one  of  the 
inescapable  elements  of  the  situation,  and  the  right  point  of  view.  I  have  been 
very  much  interested  in  learning  all  I  could  about  the  system  that  is  before  you 
under  the  label  of  scientific  management,  and  I  am  losing  no  opportunity  to 
investigate  the  workings  of  that  system,  and  I  am  frank  enough  to  say  that  I 
have  not  got  far  enough  at  the  present  time  to  feel  that  my  testimony  on  that 
particular  point  is  of  any  value  further  than  I  will  now  lay  before  you. 

In  the  first  place  I  believe  in  constitutional  democratic  government  developing 
steadily  in  industry  as  it  has  developed  in  politics,  and  tending  toward  an  hon- 
orable democracy  in  which  everybody  from  the  most  skilled  to  the  unskilled 
laborers  will  have  a  generally  recognized  opportunity.  That  seems  a  little  too 
much  like  a  political  speech  and  a  little  grandiloquent. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Will  you  state  that  in  terms  of  shop  industry? 
What  does  that  mean? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  It  means  this,  in  a  certain  plant  they  have  two  ideals,  the 
cooperative  ideal  on  the  one  hand,  and  an  attempt  on  the  other  to  pay  dol- 
lars per  unit  of  efficient  service  rendered.  The  present  result  to-day  is, 
the  way  it  is  lined  up,  that  there  are  two  hostile  ideals  at  each  other's 
throats.  The  thing  is  being  conquered  by  the  establishment  of  a  very  carefully 
worked  out  series  of  committee  systems  in  that  particular  plant,  and  not 
merely  by  harmony  committees,  or  other  details,  but  one  committee  which 
gathers  together  all  the  opposing  elements,  and  the  elements  which  if  left  alone 
would  be  most  destructive  of  real  cooperation  in  that  concern.  The  tendency 
is  steadily  growing  to  keep  these  now  rather  hostile  ideals  from  remaining 
longer  at  each  other's  throats,  and  endeavoring  to  make  them  become  useful, 
in  reconciling  hard-fought  differences  of  opinion  in  that  concern,  by  which  the 
concern  will  really  grow.  The  question  of  discharge,  the  question  of  discipline, 
in  that  particular  concern,  is  handled  by  the  employees,  and  the  employees  do 
things  that  no  autocratic  employer  in  the  world  would  dare  to  do;  and  they 
are  just  about  it ;  they  are  very  just. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  say  that  is  the  prevailing  condition  in  a  cer- 
tain establishment? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  you  object  to  naming  it? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  would  not  be  allowed  to  name  that  particular  concern. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Interpreting  that  in  terms  of  what  you  mean  by 
constitutionalism,  it  means  that  all  the  elements  of  employer  and  employee, 
those  two  elements  should  be  represented  on  committees  dealing  with  the  par- 
ticular issue  or  a  number  of  issues;  to  use  your  idea,  that  there  should  be  an 
odd  party  jointly  selected  by  both  sides  to  sit  with  them? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  My  mind  is  in  a  very  fluid  state  in  regard  to  that.  I  think 
so  far  as  possible  the  method  of  conciliation  without  a  third  party  is  wise. 
I  am  inclined  to  think — for  instance,  it  was  suggested  to  me  by  the*  preceding 
testimony — I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  ideal  arrangement  for  the  future 
in  regard  to  systems  of  efficiency  would  be  to  have — supposing  you  had  the  time- 
study  man,  there  would  be  one  time-study  man  representing  the  employer,  and 
another  time-study  man  representing  the  union,  and  that  the  expert,  so-called 
installer  of  the  system — I  don't  like  that  word,  but  I  will  not  spend  my  time 
objecting  to  words — the  so-called  installer  of  the  system  in  that  case,  so  far  as 
he  brings  scientific  knowledge  which  neither  side  possesses,  would  alone  be 
the  third  party,  who  would  have  the  final  word. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Who  would  have  the  final  word? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  In  the  final  analysis  I  think  an  organization  in  which  both 
the  employer  and  employee  were  represented  would  have  the  final  word.  Under 
other  cases,  as  is  now  the  case  under  the  protocol  in  New  York,  where  the  wage- 
scale  committee,  as  you  know,  is  paid  equally  by  both  sides,  some  system  of 
arbitration  can  be  devised. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  They  have  an  odd  man  that  they  have  agreed  on? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  think  a  system  of  that  kind  could,  by  your 
installing  scientific  management,  conduct  its  continuous  operation  thereafter? 
I  am  referring  now  to  the  distinction  made  by  Mr.  Mixter,  which  you  heard? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 


858          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What  is  your  idea  about  the  differences  in  dealing 
with  these  two  questions  by  such  an  organization  as  you  propose? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  If  I  understand  your  question^-and  if  I  do  not  answer  it 
please  check  me  up — I  think  the  situation  that  we  have  developing  under  the 
protocol  in  the  garment  trades — that  is,  the  labor  wage  scale  board — is  one 
of  the  experiments  that  is  most  worth  trying  at  this  time,  and  they  will  go 
on  from  the  statistical  side  of  the  situation  to  a  real  scientific  analysis  of  all 
the  rates  in  that  industry,  and  that  will,  after  receiving  the  approval  of  repre- 
sentatives of  the  unions  and  representatives  of  the  manufacturers,  be  the  com- 
mon and  statute  industrial  law  of  that  industry. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  on  the  piece  rate,  which  in  the  efficiency 
system  would  be  that  each  time  study  would  be  conducted  by  this  joint  board 
of  three? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  It  would  be  conducted  by  this  board  of  three  through  its  ex- 
pert, paid  half  by  the  workers  and  half  by  the  employer. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Who  would  have  the  final  decision? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  machinery  now  in  existence,  which  I  think  has  been 
very  carefully  outlined  to  you. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Which  would  be  this  arbitrator;  this  odd  man? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  in  cases  where  they  could  not  agree  he  would 
decide? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes.  Personally,  I  think  such  a  board  should  consist  of 
three  men ;  I  think  it  would  be  unwise  to  leave  it  to  one  man. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  a  detail? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  a  detail. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  you  introduce  this  at  the  beginning  of  the 
installation  of  the  system? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Have  you  thought  out  how  you  would  take  it  up 
with  the  union  and  with  the  employer? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  How  would  you  do  that? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  would  go  straight  to  him,  which,  simple  as  it  sounds,  is  not 
often  done. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  that- is  another  detail? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  another  detail. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Now,  then,  as  I  understand  it,  the  general  principle 
you  have  is  that  efficiency  can  be  harmonized  with  democracy ;  it  is  recognized 
that  there  are  two  antagonistic  elements,  and  they  proceed  to  install  efficiency 
under  their  joint  direction,  with  the  odd  man  agreed  upon  between  them  to 
settle  points  where  they  can  not  agree.  Does  that  sum  up  the  statement? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  would  sum  it  up  pretty  well,  except  that  I  think  a  little 
wrong  slant  is  given  by  the  emphasis  you  put  on  the  odd  man.  I  think  a 
board  of  five  should  sit  on  that  proposition,  made  up  entirely  within  the 
industry,  or  with  an  outsider  who  knows  the  industry,  or  one  or  two  outsiders 
who  know"  the  industry,  I  think  that  board  could  make  a  finding  which  would 
not  be  arbitration  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  term,  that  will  insist  upon  such  a 
presentation  of  facts  that,  even  on  a  board  of  that  kind,  the  finding  will  be  very 
likely  to  be  unanimous. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Have  you  undertaken  to  install  a  system  of  this 
kind  in  any  place? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  This  committee  work? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Substantially  what  you  have  stated. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes ;  I  am  doing  it  in  two  places  now. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Two  places? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Although  I  do  not  like  to  call  it  installing,  because  I  am  not 
an  efficiency  man  myself  and  not  an  engineer  or  anything  of  that  sort.  My 
whole  duty  is  that  of  studying  the  relations  between  employers  and  employees, 
and  I  only  come  to  the  engineer  and  the  accountant  on  the  edge  of  things. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  would  like  to  get  a  name  for  your  job  so  as  to 
identify  it  with  some  things  possibly  that  have  been  before  us.  Would  you  be 
called  a  negotiater  between  capital  and  labor? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No;  because  my  only  interest  i*  in  trying  to  produce  the  facts 
on  which  my  client,  whether  he  is  an  employer  or  an  employee — and  I  have  had 
both  kinds — can  act.  I  am  not  a  compromiser  or  an  investigator.  I  am  just 
as  much  of  a  scientist  in  my  field  of  establishing  relations  between  employer 


EFFICIENCY  SYSTEMS  AND  LABOR.  859 

and  employee  and  their  relation  to  the  movement  of  the  times,  as  is  the 
engineer  in  his  field  or  the  chemist  in  his  field.  I  call  it  an  industrial  coun- 
sellor, for  lack  of  a  better  name. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  calls  the  work  industrial  counseling,  and  he  would  be 
called  an  industrial  counsel,  perhaps;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Can  you  give  us  samples  of  anybody  else  in  the 
country  who  is  doing  anything  like  that? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  think  I  am  the  only  crazy  person. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  So  we  can  not  class  your  profession? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  hope  there  will  be  a  lot  more;  I  think  it  is  a  profession 
in  itself. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Prof.  Commons,  we  might  get  some  light  on  it 
if  you  would  ask  him  just  what  his  function  is  in  a  plant ;  just  what  he  does. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  rather  thought  he  had  described  that  pretty  well, 
telling  how  he  has  handled  this  minimum-wage  negotiation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  No ;  he  is  an  official  there,  a  State  official. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  But  still  true  to  my  private  job. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  As  I  said,  you  simply  try  to  act  for  both  sides? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes.  I  think  I  am  at  perfect  liberty  to  mention  this  tele- 
phone situation,  because  it  has  been  made  public  outside  of  myself.  In  adopt- 
ing a  professional  attitude  about  these  things,  I  do  not  talk  about  them  unless 
my  client  makes  them  public,  and  this  is  a  public  record. 

Very  briefly,  some  months  before  anybody  in  Boston  knew  that  there  was 
likely  to  be  trouble,  the  telephone  operators  consulted  me  about  certain  de- 
mands that  they  were  planning  to  make.  We  worked  those  over  for  a  period  of 
six  weeks,  until  finally,  when  things  reached  the  crisis  and  things  were  on  the 
verge  of  a  strike,  and  the  company  had  introduced  several  hundred  strike 
breakers  into  Boston,  these  met  in  conference  with  members  of  the  Boston 
Chamber  of  Commerce  and  with  officials  of  the  company,  and  they  had  so  pre- 
pared themselves  that  they  won  point  after  point  hands  down,  and  among 
other  things  they  won  was  the  little  tentative,  puny  beginning  of  a  joint  board 
for  the  telephone  industry  in  Boston. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  in  that  instance  you  would  probably  be  called 
ordinarily  the  business  agent  of  the  union? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Very  likely. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  in  case  you  had  been  employed  by  the  em- 
ployers, what  then? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  only  reason  that  I  have  let  you  drag  me  into  this  per- 
sonal history  is  because  it  does  illustrate  this  one  thing,  which  is  important,  I 
think,  for  your  consideration.  I  did  not  try  to  help  these  girls  win  their  case 
irrespective  of  whether  they  were  right  or  wrong;  I  did  not  tell  them  a  single 
thing  that  I  would  not  have  told  the  telephone  company  if  I  had  been  em- 
ployed by  them.  But,  to  make  it  concrete,  there  was  a  little  book  that  was 
published  by  that  telephone  company  which  took  the  attitude  of  a  school 
teacher  with  a  pupil.  It  says,  "  When  you  speak  of  this  company  you  will 
speak  of  it  as  our  company." 

Now,  the  last  thing  that  hates  to  be  talked  to  as  if  she  was  a  pupil  is  a  young 
girl  telephone  operator,  because  she  has  graduated  from  school.  I  told  the  girls 
that  I  thought  they  had  a  right  to  feel  bad  about  being  talked  to  in  that  way, 
and  if  the  company  hald  talked  to  me  in  that  way  I  would  have  told  them 
that  that  was  a  fool  book  to  issue. 

The  point  I  want  to  make  is  that  it  is  just  as  scientific  a  field  and  it  is  just  as 
indifferent,  it  seems  to  me,  an  attitude  that  this  commission  could  assume — if 
I  might  be  pardoned  for  suggesting  an  attitude  it  could  take,  and  that  it  un- 
doubtedly is  taking — is  that  there  is  a  field  in  these  industrial  relations,  an 
absolutely  neglected  field  at  the  present  day,  which  has  just  as  scientific  a  value 
and  is  just  as  capable  of  being  reduced  to  human  facts,  as  the  engineering 
field. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  would  be  the  general  way  in  which  you  would 
go  at  it — on  the  lines  of  democracy. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  were  at  a  point,  if  he  went  into  a  plant  to  represent  the 
employer  he  would  give  us  some  information. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  yourself  are  a  believer  in  some  system  which 
might  be  called  scientific  management? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  am  absolutely  a  believer  in  thoroughgoing  efficiency  opera- 
tion. The  difference  I  have  with  my  friends  is  that  I  believe  in  going  at  it 
from  a  different  end  and  a  different  point  of  view. 


860          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  believe  in  going  at  it  from  the  standpoint  of 
democracy;  is  that  the  only  difference? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  is  a  pretty  big  difference. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  you  say  that  that  is 'the  only  difference? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  In  essence ;  yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  think  a  number  of  them  expressed  very  briefly 
their  ideas  on  collective  bargaining  as  applied  to  this;  I  do  not  know  whether 
you  heard  them  or  not. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  did  not,  sir;  no. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  If  you  should  take  it  up  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
employer  and  introduce  a  scientific  management  system  in  an  establishment, 
how  would  you,  as  his  agent,  then  proceed  with  the  employee? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  would  not  proceed  until  I  had  put  the  question  up  to  the 
employees  and  got  their  collective  assent  to  the  proposition.  Now,  a  lot  of 
people  will  say  that  Tarn  an  absolute  dreamer  and  a  crazy  man;  that  it  would 
not  be  possible  to  get  them,  but  my  actual  experience  in  putting  things,  as  I 
said  a  little  while  ago,  straight  to  them,  is  that  if  you  get  the  question  of  con- 
trol right  at  the  start  I  think  you  can  do  these  things. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Then  you  base  that  on  the  ground  that  the  laborers 
are  more  intelligent  than  the  employers? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  By  and  large,  I  do  not  think  there  is  much  to  choose.  You 
know  Walter  Lipman,  I  think,  has  stated  that  the  reason  there  will  never  be  a 
class  war  in  this  country  is  that  the  employers  have  not  got  the  collective  in- 
telligence to  solidify  themselves  into  a  fighting  class,  and  under  our  collective 
system  I  think  there  is  a  great  deal  of  truth  about  that. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Will  you  think  of  these  things  later  and  take  the 
trouble  to  write  down  for  the  commission  a  collective  formula  of  your  prin- 
ciple, bringing  that  out  in  some  sort  of  systematic  way?  You  remember  Mr. 
Taylor  presented  to  us  some  principles. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  did  not  hear  him. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  can  easily  get  access  to  that  testimony,  and  if 
you  could  formulate  that  so  that  we  would  have  it  a  little  more  definitely,  I 
think  we  would  appreciate  it.  I  believe  you  could  do  that. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  will  be  glad  to  do  the  best  I  can. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Delano? 

Commissioner  DELANO.  No ;  thank  you. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Ballard? 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  I  had  two  or  three  questions,  but  I  am  not  certain 
that  it  is  worth  while  to  take  up  the  time  of  the  commission,  but  I  will  ask  this : 
Do  you  think  it  is  possible  to  get  the  employer  and  the  employee  together  as 
two  different  classes,  through  their  committees,  to  agree  on  certain  fundamental 
principles  which  could  be  accepted  by  both  sides  as  a  starting  point  for  col- 
lective bargaining? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  do,  sir. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  That  has  never  been  done. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  think  there  have  been  some  pretty  good  starts  made  in 
various  places.  I  think  there  is  a  strong  drift  in  that  direction. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Would  you  accept  it  as  a  right  principle,  which  the 
unions  sometimes  enforce,  that  after  they  have  got  a  shop  well  organized  and 
known  as  a  union  shop,  to  refuse  to  use  tools  or  implements  of  a  nonunion 
plant? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  don't  believe  I  quite  catch  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  stenographer  will  repeat  it. 

(The  question  was  repeated  by  the  stenographer.) 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  am  glad  you  asked  that  question,  but  I  will  answer  this 
question  first  and  then  I  will  add  to  it.  Yes ;  I  consider  that  their  stand  against 
the  use  of  tools  that  in  any  way  brings  them  into  cooperation  writh  nonunion 
men  is  a  right  principle. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Or  refusing  to  work  with  nonunion  materials  and 
things  of  that  kind? 

"Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  can  see  20  reasons  why,  under  certain  circumstances,  I 
should  consider  a  union  entirely  justified  in  so  refusing.  I  might  say,  in  further 
amplification  of  that,  that  personally — this  is  my  own  personal  feeling — I  have 
the  feeling  that  if  I  were  a  workman  and  refused  to  join  in  or  participate  in  a 
union,  that  I  should  either  be  as  ignorant  of  or  as  false  to  duties  as  a  citizen 
as  if  I  refused  to  \ote  to  the  best  of  my  intelligence  and  ability  at  a  political 
election. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  861 

When  I  say  that,  I  do  not  mean  that  I  stand  for  certain  attempts  to  drive 
nonunion  men  into  a  union ;  neither  do  I  stand  for  a  whole  lot  of  the  crimes 
that  are  committed  in  the  name  of  the  freedom  of  individuals.  All  our  legisla- 
tion, for  instance,  to  keep  children  out  of  factories  and  get  shorter  working 
hours  has  been  opposed  in  State  after  State  -on  the  ground  that  it  interfered 
with  the  liberty  of  the  individual.  I  do  no  stand  for  a  kind  of  liberty  of  the 
individual  that  is  opposed  to  those  things. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  To  carry  out  that  thought  to  its  limit,  if  a  unionized 
plant  refuses  to  use  the  tools  or  material  of  a  nonunion  plant,  and  if  the  men 
were  forced  through  that  method  to  become  unionized,  then  we  might  give  up 
our  whole  government  to  the  union  man  and  have  no  other  government;  that 
would  be  government  enough. 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  am  not  sure  that  the  day  is  not  coming  when  the  union 
will  be  one  of  the  great  big  factors  of  the  government  of  the  future.  Where 
I  would  like  to  modify  my  answer  to  that  question  is  this:  It  has  long  been 
my  belief,  and  every  month  I  feel  it  increasingly,  that  if  employers  stopped 
fighting  organizations  as  organizations  and  simply  devoted  themselves  to  fight- 
ing what  they  regard  as  economic  fallacies,  which  employers  in  common  with 
employees  and  all  the  rest  of  us  are  committing,  they  would  get  a  lot  further. 

In  other  w^ords,  while  labor  unions  have  to  fight  for  their  lives  as  labor  unions, 
I  can  not  only  intellectually  forgive  them  for  the  things  that  they  do,  but  my 
candid  belief  is  that  when  they  no  longer  have  to  fight  for  their  organization 
they  themselves  will  do  a  lot  of  things  which  we  now  wish  them  to  do. 

They  have  found  it  necessary  because  they  have  been  jammed  into  fighting 
bodies  to  do  things  which  friends  of  mine  among  them  tell  me  they  hope  the 
day  will  soon  come  about  when  these  things  are  no  longer  necessary ;  that  the 
time  for  doing  them  will  soon  go  by. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  One  question.  This  is  just  in  passing.  Will  you 
be  good  enough  to  explain  how  the  two  panels  of  six  each  were  chosen  on  your 
wage  board? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  They  wrere  selected  in  this  particular  case  by  the  minimum 
wage  commission ;  the  commission,  I  think,  would  prefer  to  have  them  selected, 
if  there  had  been  a  labor  organization  in  the  industry  or  any  kind  of  group 
organization,  to  have  them  selected  by  that. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  You  simply  looked  among  the  employers  and 
picked  out  the  six  men  you  thought  would  be  the  fairest? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  The  commission  did  that;  the  commission  that  is  over  us 
chose  the  board. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  that  the  commission  looked  over  the 
field  and  picked  out  six  employers  and  six  workers  and  three  representing  the 
general  public  and  appoints  them? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  But  they  do  it  through  asking  the  employers  to  submit 
names  and  make  nominations,  and  through  taking  the  \vorkers  as  a  group, 
whether  organized  or  not,  and  asking  them  to  submit  names. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  can  so-called  unorganized  workers  submit 
names? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  That  was  the  difficulty  that  they  had.  They  had  to  drift 
through  the  shops  and  pick  the  most  intelligent  people  that  they  could  find. 
That  is  the  defect  in  that  method. 

Commissioner  WTEIN STOCK.  The  two  sides  submitted  a  list  of  names,  and  out 
of  this  list  of  names  the  commission  chooses  a  panel? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  it  not  done  by  any  elective  system? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  No ;  I  think  it  should  be,  and  there,  I  think,  is  a  very  impor- 
tant point  in  connection  with  arbitration  proceedings,  where,  for  any  reason 
they  have  to  become  arbitrators,  they  should  be  picked  from  panels,  so  that 
there  will  be  an  easy  veto  if  there  are  personalities  disagreeable  to  both  sides. 
Some  of  these  people  pick  out  impossible  personalities. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Dr.  Barnett,  do  you  care  to  ask  any  questions? 

Mr.  BARNETT.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Garretson?    Excuse  me,  Mr.  Garretson  has  a  question. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  You  know  that  there  are  certain  practices  indulged 
in  by  labor  organizations  that  are  in  reality  nothing  but  a  weapon  to  be  utilized 
in  the  fight  for  existence? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  I  have  that  feeling ;  yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Now,  in  relation  to  this — I  want  to  understand  -one 
thing  about  your  present  position;  that  is,  as  an  industrial  counselor — you 


862          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

hold  that  the  vocation  of  a  man  in  your  position  is,  whether  attained  by  em- 
ployer or  employee,  to  insist  upon  the  doctrine  of  accepting  the  equities  as  they 
appear  to  you? 

Mr.  VALENTINE.  With  the  exception  of  substituting  facts  for  opinions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Lennon  says  that  he  has  no  questions  to  ask,  so  that 
will  be  all,  Mr.  Valentine.  Thank  you  very  much. 

We  will  adjourn  now  for  luncheon,  to  convene  again  at  2  o'clock  sharp,  and 
after  luncheon  Mr.  Dodge  will  be  the  first  witness. 

(Whereupon  a  rfecess  was  taken  until  2  o'clock  p.  m.) 

AFTER  RECESS 2   P.   M. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  commission  will  please  come  to  order.  Mr.  Dodge  will 
take  the  stand. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JAMES  M.  DODGE. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Thompson,  will  you  interrogate  Mr.  Dodge? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  have  some  questions  here  which  have  been  prepared  by  the 
craft,  which  I  will  put  to  you.  If  afterwards  you  care  to  make  any  further 
statement,  you  will  be  given  that  privilege.  First,  I  will  ask  your  name,  resi- 
dence, and  business. 

Mr.  DODGE.  My  name  is  James  Mapes  Dodge.  I  am  chairman  of  the  board  of 
the  Link  Belt  Co. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Where  is  that  located,  and  how  long  have  you  been  connected 
with  it? 

Mr.  DODGE.  The  Link  Belt  Co.  has  three  shops,  or  four,  really — two  in  Indian- 
apolis, one  in  Chicago,  and  one  in  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.   How  long  have  you  been  connected  with  that  company? 

Mr.  DODGE.  For  35  years. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  in  what  positions? 

Mr.  DODGE.  The  Link  Belt  Co.  was  organized  only  a  few  years  ago,  but  I  was 
with  one  of  the  component  companies — the  Ewart  Manufacturing  Co.,  in  Chi- 
cago— 35  years  ago ;  and  then  I  have  been  in  that  same  business  with  the  same 
people  ever  since. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  did  they  manufacture? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Elevating,  conveying,  and  power-transmitting  machinery.  Before 
that  I  served  two  years  with  John  Roach,  in  shipbuilding,  and  I  have  been 
through  every  phase,  every  stage,  of  mechanical  occupation. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  I  will  put  to  you  the  first  question  that  is  prepared  in 
written  form  here :  "  Please  give  a  brief  account  of  the  introduction  of  scientific 
management  into  plants  in  which  you  are  interested,  describing  in  general  the 
system  installed." 

Mr.  DODGE.  Mr.  Taylor,  who  was  before  you  yesterday,  and  a  Mr.  White  in- 
vented what  is  known  as  the  Taylor-White  steel.  The  Taylor-White  steel,  when 
used  as  a  tool  in  a  lathe,  or  on  a  planer,  would  do  variously  from  5  times  to  20 
times  as  much  work  as  any  of  the  then  existing  steels.  I  heard  of  this  and  went 
up  to  Bethlehem  and  saw  it  and  bargained  with  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Co.  for  the 
use  of  the  Taylor-White  steel.  We  were  the  first  people  that  ever  made  a  bar- 
gain with  them  at  all. 

We  then  got  some  of  the  steel,  brought  it  to  Philadelphia,  and  tried  to  use  it 
on  cast  iron,  and  it  wras  a  failure.  The  steel  that  would  cut  almost  the  hardest 
known  steel,  like  armor  plate,  would  not  cut  cast  iron.  The  reason  was  that 
the  peculiar  principle  of  Taylor-White  steel,  or  high-speed  steel,  is  its  enormous 
strength  when  it  is  hot,  and  a  tool  made  of  that  steel  would  take  a  peeling  off  of 
u  piece  of  steel  that  was  turning  in  the  lathe  the  same  as  you  would  take  a  peel- 
ing off  of  an  orange.  Your  fingers  do  not  go  into  the  place  where  the  peel  and 
the  orange  are  united  and  cut  them  loose  from  each  other,  but  they  pry  the  out- 
side layer  off.  That  attribute  of  the  Taylor-White  steel,  doing  this  wonderful 
work,  would  lead  a  person,  naturally,  to  suppose  that  it  would  cut  cast  iron  the 
same  as  it  would  a  piece  of  cheese ;  but  it  appears  that  in  cutting  cast  iron  the 
tool  has  to  go  right  in  there  and  work  on  the  particles  of  iron  with  its  cutting 
edge. 

I  made  some  tools  in  Philadelphia  for  turning  off  big  pieces  of  steel.  One  of 
them  had  four  little  steel  balls  in  the  end  instead  of  a  cutting  edge,  and  the 
other  had  a  little  roller,  and  as  long  as  we -could  keep  those  things  lubricated  it 
kept  taking  off  a  layer  of  steel  on  the  outside.  But  it  was  a  very  difficult  thing 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  863 

to  keep  it  lubricated,  and  as  soon  as  you  failed  to  keep  it  lubricated  it  was 
ruined.  That  shows  the  wonderful  difference  between  cutting  cast  iron  and  a 
piece  of  steel.  We  started  then  a  series  of  experiments,  with  the  aid  of  Mr. 
Taylor,  and  a  steel  was  developed  that  would  do  equally  good  work  on  cast  iron. 
That  cost  a  great  deal  of  money  and  took  a  number  of  years.  Just  as  soon  as 
we  saw  that  a  lathe  would  do  twice  or  three  times  as  much  work  with  the  Taylor 
steel  as  it  had  done  before,  we  realized  that  our  old  piece  rates,  our  old  methods 
of  management,  were  not  in  harmony  with  this  new  development. 

We  found  that  the  tools  themselves — the  lathes  and  the  planers  and  every- 
thing we  had — were  too  weak  to  properly  use  this  high-speed  steel.  We  re- 
built the  tools  that  we  could,  and  eventually  We  ordered  new  tools  properly 
made  for  use.  At  that  time,  if  we  were  going  to  buy  a  lathe,  the  salesman  would 
come  in  and  want  to  sell  us  lathes,  and  we  would  say,  "  How  much  power  does 
your  lathe  take?  "  and  if  it  was  5  horsepower,  we  would  say,  "  How  much  does 
this  other  take?  "  That  would  be  4  horsepower,  and  we  would  buy  the  4-horse- 
power  lathe,  because  that  was  cheaper  to  run. 

After  Mr.  Taylor,  Mr.  Barth,  and  Mr.  Gantt  began  with  their  practical  work, 
then  when  a  man  came  in  to  sell  us  a  lathe,  we  would  say,  "  How  much  power 
can  we  safely  transmit  through  your  lathe  to  the  cutting  tool?"  and  the  man 
that  said  the  most,  up  to  50  or  60  horsepower,  he  was  the  man  that  we  dealt 
with. 

Now,  there  was  a  revolution  in  the  tools  of  the  trade.  It  was  no  revolution 
in  the  workmen ;  it  was  no  revolution  in  the  boss ;  it  was  simply  a  fact,  the 
same  as  Maximite  is  better  for  some  things  than  gunpowder.  It  required  an 
adjustment  of  everything.  So,  then,  we  felt  and  knew  that  we  would  have 
to  have  management,  accounting,  and  everything  that  goes  with  it,  in  our  busi- 
ness, commensurate  with  this  wonderful  discovery. 

Mr.  Taylor  had  been  working  on  this  shop  management — he  called  it  the 
"  art  of  management " — for  a  great  many  years ;  some  35  or  30  years  ago  he 
started,  and  about  15  years  ago  or  so — 12  or  15  years  ago — he  published  a 
paper  on  the  subject.  We  had  known  Mr.  Taylor,  and  we  knew  the  manner  of 
man  he  was,  and  we  immediately  made  up  our  minds  that  if  we  were  going  to 
have  a  shop  that  was  thoroughly  abreast  of  the  times,  we  must  have  not  only 
high-speed  steel  and  the  best  tools  and  the  best  electric  driving,  which  we  were 
pioneers  in  putting  in,  in  a  sense,  but  we  would  have  to  have  a  commensurate 
management.  So  we  asked  Mr.  Taylor  what  he  could  do  for  us.  Mr.  Taylor 
was  not  in  active  business.  He  was  a  man  who  had  retired  with  a  very  hand- 
some competence,  and  all  made — all  except  what  he  got  out  of  this  high-speed 
steel — from  his  own  ability  as  a  manager  in'  taking  different  concerns  and 
managing  them. 

So  he  said  that  he  could  not  do  anything  for  us  except  in  an  advisory  way. 
We  said,  "  Well,  what  are  we  going  to  do  now?  We  want  this  thing.  We  want 
all  your  experience  here."  He  said,  "  Well,  the  best  thing  I  can  tell  you  to  do 
is  to  engage  Mr.  Barth,"  and  we  engaged  Mr.  Barth  in  1905. 

Now,  you  see  that  is  about  12  or  13  years  ago.  Mr.  Barth  came  to  our 
place,  and  he  had  been  a  student  under  Mr.  Taylor,  and  he  came  there  to  tell 
us  what  to  do.  Mr.  Barth,  with  frankness  that  is  not  usual,  said  that  he  was 
a  student  himself,  and  that  if  we  were  willing  to  let  him  come  in  our  shop 
and  try  to  do  the  things  that  Mr.  Taylor  talked  about,  he  would  undertake 
the  job. 

Almost  the  first  day  he  was  there  my  associates  said  to  Mr.  Barth,  "  What 
are  you  going  to  do  for  us?"  He  said,  "I  don't  know.  How  can  I  tell 
until  I  get  into  it?  "  That  was  his  answer.  He  said,  "  How  can  I  tell?  "  That 
sounds  as  though  we  were  foolish  to  engage  Mr.  Barth,  but  all  the  people  who 
have  known  him,  who  knew  him  then  and  have  known  him  since,  know  that  that 
was  a  perfectly  truthful  answer.  He  did  not  know  where  he  was  coming  out 
in  that  deal ;  but  with  Mr.  Taylor's  suggestions,  and  with  some  little  bit  of 
help,  but  with  a  great  deal  of  hindrance,  from  us,  at  the  end  of  four  years — 
was  it  not,  Barth? 

Mr.  BARTH.  I  was  with  you  four  and  a  half  years,  off  and  on. 

Mr.  DODGE.  By  the  time  he  had  been  there  four  and  a  half  years,  and  we  had 
tried  all  we  knew  how  to  help  him,  Barth  went  to  other  fields  and  left  us  with 
what  is  still  the  Taylor  system  of  management. 

You  see  that  has  gone  on  for  nearly  10  years.  It  was  four  years  and  a  half 
that  he  was  with  us,  and  we  have  had  it  practically  in  full  operation  for  six  years. 
No  other  concern  in  the  world  has  had  that  system  in  operation  for  a  longer 
time  than  that.  Mr.  Taylor  came  to  see  us  as  often  as  he  could.  He  was  not 


864          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

in  very  robust  health.  Mr.  Earth  has  a  fatherly  eye  over  us,  and  we  have 
followed  out  the  principles  that  they  inculcate. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  With  regard  to  the  second  question,  Mr.  Dodge,  how  was 
the  system  received  by  the  workmen? 

Mr.  DODGE.  We  never  had  any  trouble  from  the  workmen.  I  will  tell  you 
who  we  did  have  trouble  from. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Follow  the  questions  down,  and  then  you  may  explain. 

Mr.  DODGE.  All  right. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  was  the  effect  of  the  introduction  of  the  system  on  the 
quantity  of  product? 

Mr.  DODGE.  The  product  was  very  largely  increased. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  To  what  extent?    What  percentage? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Oh,  I  would  not  dare  say  that.  In  individual  cases  the  product 
might  be  increased  tenfold.  In  other  cases  it  would  be  increased  twofold.  I 
suppose  it  would  be  safe  to  say  that  if  we  could  have  held  all  the  conditions 
exactly  alike,  which  is  impossible,  of  course,  we  certainly  would  have  turned 
out  twice  as  much  work  as  we  did  before;  but  we  have  no  data  on  that,  be- 
cause there  was  no  use  in  keeping  records  under  a  system  that  had  been  in 
vogue  since  the  Pyramids  had  been  built.  Questions  were  never  asked. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  think  it  has  paid,  though,  from  the  standpoint  of  pro- 
duction, well? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Oh,  absolutely  paid;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  was  the  effect  on  the  quality  of  the  product? 

Mr.  DODGE.  It  was  very  much  improved,  through  more  careful  and  scientific 
inspection  and  instruction  of  the  men.  They  did  not  make  mistakes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  To  what  extent  did  the  greater  overhead  charges  for  plan- 
ning room,  functional  foremen,  etc.,  offset  the  higher  output  per  man?  In 
other  words,  to  what  extent  were  the  net  profits  of  the  concern  increased,  if 
you  know? 

Mr.  DODGE.  There  are  two  questions  in  one  there.  In  the  first  place,  two 
years  after  Mr.  Earth  left  us  our  overhead  charge  was  no  higher  than  it  had 
been  before.  In  other  words,  as  soon  as  we  learned  enough  of  it,  as  Mr. 
Taylor  and  Mr.  Earth  had  told  us,  to  dare  make  changes,  the  overhead  came 
down  to  where  it  ought  to  be. 

As  to  the  functional  foremen,  etc.,  that  meant  in  the  machine  shop,  apparently 
nine  men,  but  Mr.  Taylor  told  us,  when  he  talked  the  matter  over  with  us, 
he  said,  "Are  you  going  to  put  nine  men  in  there?"  We  said,  "Yes."  He 
said,  "We  can  not  stand  that.  How  many  men  have  you  got  now?"  We  said 
"  We  have  got  a  foreman."  There  were  two  of  the  men  that  were  detailed  to 
help  the  foremen,  and  they  were  not  recognized  under  the  functional  we  had 
before,  so  that  when  we  got  through  we  had  less  supervision  than  we  had 
under  the  old  system. 

Now,  as  to  the  increase  of  net  profits,  the  net  increase — the  net  profits — 
have  never  showrn  any  great  increase,  because  we  have  been  able  to  sell  our 
goods  at  a  lower  price  and  pay  our  men  higher  wages.  The  earnings  of  the  con- 
cern have  ranged — and  all  this  is  in  the  State  reports  in  Pennsylvania,  and  so 
on — there  has  never  been  a  fluctuation,  not  since  the  Taylor  system  went  in,  of 
over  2  per  cent,  and  our  net  profits  have  been  a  little  over  9  per  cent  on  our 
sales. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  has  been  the  effect  on  the  general  health,  the  wage 
rates,  and  the  earnings  of  the  workmen? 

Mr.  DODGE.  The  effect  on  the  wage  rates  has  been  a  very  substantial  in- 
crease in  wages.  I  have  here  the  record  of  the  workmen's  time  and  earnings ; 
the  records  of  some  of  our  men  who  have  been  with  us  ever  since  the  Taylor 
system  was  introduced.  Here  is  one,  Walter  M.  Megargee.  I  read  this  almost 
at  random.  In  March,  1913,  his  day's  rate  was  38  cents  per  hour.  Now  we 
have  got  a  column  here  "Average  number  of  hours  work,"  by  this  same  man. 
Mind  you,  38  cents  was  his  rate  per  hour,  if  he  worked  at  straight  daywork. 
His  actual  wages  were  62.1,  71,  66,  76,  61,  74,  71,  59,  68,  67.  In  other  words, 
by  the  week,  if  he  had  worked  54  hours,  he  would  have  made  a  little  over  $16^ 
and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  got  $38,  $37,  $33,  $33,  $40,  $38,  $31.  I  do  not  mean 
to  say  that  they  are  all  as  good  as  that ;  but  that  only  show^s  the  way  it  goes. 

Now,  that  is  for  1913.  In  1911  his  earnings — total  weekly  earnings — were 
$15,  $25,  $26,  $22,  $26,  $27,  $27,  $24,  $26,  $24,  $17,  $23,  and  so  on. 

Now,  here  is  the  record  of  the  same  man  in  1911,  1909,  and  1908.  Let  us 
see  how  far  back  this  goes.  Here  is  his  record  for  1907. 

In  1907  his  total  weekly  earnings  were — oh,  in  1907  we  had  the  slump.  The 
man's  time  was  reduced,  and  he  worked  35  hours  a  week  for  July,  August,  and 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  865 

September,  and  then  he  went  up  to  38.  At  35  hours  per  week,  the  full  week  be- 
ing 54  hours,  he  made  $15,  $10,  $17,  $18,  $15,  $13,  $13,  $15,  and  so  on.  That 
was  during  the  slump  in  1907.  We  shortened  hands  there  by  reducing  the 
time. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  any  objection  to  introducing  those  schedules  into 
the  record? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  will  tell  you  the  difficulty  is  that  these  are  the  original  records 
in  daily  use;  but  I  can  send  you  photographic  copies  of  any  of  them. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  do  that? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  will.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  would  like  to  have  all  of 
them  or  not.  Here  we  are  lapping  over  onto  the  question  of  health. 

Morris  Marshall  is  now  foreman  of  our  planning  room.  He  worked  on  the 
lathe.  There  is  a  notation  here  which  I  made  yesterday  that  says  that  he 
weighs  105  pounds,  is  5  feet  2£  inches  high,  and  the  time  he  worked  in  the 
shop  was  eight  years.  During  this  time  he  never  lost  a  day  from  sickness  or 
injury.  He  operated  a  lathe  with  a  28-inch  swing,  24  feet  between  centers, 
shafting,  axles,  and  so  forth.  His  health  was  better  in  the -shop  than  in  the 
office.  He  complained  of  the  confinement  of  the  office  work,  but  he  had  good 
health  while  he  was  in  the  shop. 

Now,  I  want  to  show  you  some  things  here  that  may  be  interesting.  I  want 
to  get  that  question  right ;  I  do  not  want  to  get  away  from  the  question.  Well, 
I  have  answered  about  the  facts  of  the  wage  rate  and  the  earnings  and  this 
general  health. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Dodge,  your  question  is  with  regard  to  the  individual 
man.  Is  that  typical  of  the  rest  of  the  men? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  have  picked  out  men  running  gear  cutters,  and  men  on  the 
floor,  and  on  the  bench,  and  setting  up,  and  men  running  a  large  boring  mill, 
and  lathe  hands,  and  another  lathe  hand,  and  another  lathe  hand,  and  men 
working  on  radial  drill  presses,  and  on  a  planer,  and  general  machine  hands, 
and  so  forth. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  furnish  us  with  copies  of  those  records? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  the  condition  with  reference  to  the  wages  shown  in  these 
schedules  typical  of  the  rest  of  the  employees  who  have  worked  in  your  shops? 

Mr.  DODGE.  It  is,  because  it  could  not  possibly  be  otherwise;  everything  that 
is  down  in  these  records  is  done  after  a  proper  time  study,  and  consequently  it 
must  come  out  with  the  same  result. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  these  schedules  are  not  schedules  of  men  who  have 
more  than  ordinary  ability  in  their  line  of  work? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Of  course,  when  we  introduced  the  Taylor  system  we  were  run- 
ning quite  a  large  shop,  and  these  men  were  working  under  the  old  system,  and 
the  same  men  are  practically  with  us  yet.  In  other  words,  we  have  not  se- 
lected men,  although  some  of  them  have  left,  but  the  average  term  of  employ- 
ment in  our  shop  for  all  of  our  men  is  nearly  eight  years. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  what  you  say  with  reference  to  the  health  of  the  men 
in  the  planning  room  true  generally  of  the  employees  in  your  establishment? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  could  tell  that  better  by  giving  you  this  one  little  sheet  of  data. 
We  nave  a  .beneficial  society,  and  the  number  enrolled  in  1911  was  454 ;  in 
1912,  431 ;  in  1913,  477 ;  in  1914,  471.  Of  course,  that  record  is  only  for  three 
years.  Total  time  lost  during  the  year,  from  sickness  or  injury,  380  weeks  in 
1911,  or  1.6  per  cent  of  the  number  of  weeks. 

You  see,  the  number  of  weeks  that  these  men  would  work  in  a  year,  if  they 
worked  a  full  year,  that  would  be  1.26,  so  that  there  was  1.6  time  lost  by 
employees  in  1911,  1.10  in  1912,  1  per  cent  in  1913,  and  1914  has  not  gone  far 
enough. 

Time  lost  by  shopmen  by  sickness — this  makes  the  distinction — 122  weeks 
for  shopmen,  or  1.2 ;  in  1912,  137  weeks,  or  1.5  per  cent ;  in  1913,  146  weeks,  or 
1.4  per  cent. 

Time  lost  by  men  not  in  the  shop  from  sickness  or  injury,  258  weeks,  or  1.9 
per  cent,  as  opposed  to  1.2  for  the  shopmen — 115  weeks  in  1912,  or  0.8  of  1 
per  cent,  as  against  1.5  per  cent  for  the  shopmen;  in  1913,  1.25  per  cent  of 
the  shopmen  and  one-half  of  1  per  cent  of  the  office  men.  So  you  see  there  is 
no  rule  indicated  there.  It  is  a  little  bit  in  favor,  however,  of  the  shopmen, 
but  I  think  that  is  because  they  have  better  digestion. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion,  Mr.  Dodge,  would  the  continuance  of  these 
men  at  work  under  this  system  shorten  their  working  life? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Absolutely  no. 

38819°— 16 55 


866          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Referring  to  question  No.  7,  what  changes  have  been  made 
in  the  working  hours,  and  was  this  directly  due  to  the  change  in  the  system 
of  management? 

Mr.  DODGE.  No;  the  change  was  in  name.  We  used  54.2  and  we  used  to 
work  60  hours  under  the  old  system,  and  we  used  to  work  10  hours  a  day,  but 
that  again  was  not  made  on  account  of  a  system  of  philanthropy  or  anything 
else,  but  through  dividing  up  better,  and  to  make  easier  bookkeeping  and 
time  keeping,  to  work  54.2  hours  a  week. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  the  main  advantage  to  the  men  is  the  gain  in  increased 
wages? 

Mr.  DODGE.  And  less  exertion;   increased  wages  and  less  exertion. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  effect,  if  any,  has  it  had  on  the  number  of  men  em- 
ployed? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  do  not  know  how  to  answer  that  exactly.  I  think  our  business 
has  increased  because  we  were  able  to  get  more  contracts  than  some  of  our 
competitors,  because  we  were  doing  fine  work  and  we  were  selling  cheaper 
than  the  other  fellow. 

Now,  you  see,  from  1911  to  1914  it  is  454,  431,  447,  and  471  men.  These 
differences  I  can  not  especially  account  for,  except  that  business  was  good  in 
1913 ;  just  now  it  is  falling  off  like  smoke. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  effect  has  it  had  on  the  grade  and  qualifications  of 
the  men  employed  and  on  the  proportion  of  skilled  and  unskilled  workmen? 

Mr.  DODGE.  We  have  no  record  of  that.  We  could  dig  that  out,  but  we 
are  not  conscious  that  the  shops  look  any  different  from  what  they  did.  We 
are  not  conscious  that  there  is  any  great  change.  You  see  the  work  is  about 
the  same  thing. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  effect,  if  any,  has  it  had  on  the  regularity  of  opera- 
tion of  the  factory? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Well,  our  reports  show,  from  the  beneficial  society — if  I  had 
known  I  was  to  be  asked  that  question,  I  would  have  gone  back  of  this — but 
our  records  show  that  the  men  in  the  shop  have  been  in  better  health  under 
the  system  than  they  were  without  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  question  also  includes  question  No.  6;  what  effect  on 
the  regularity  of  the  workmen. 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  think  it  has  had  a  very  beneficial  effect  on  the  regularity  of 
the  workmen,  but  I  can  not  differentiate  between  the  system  and  giving  filtered 
water,  the  beneficial  society  before  we  had  the  system,  and  before  we  filtered 
the  water  and  cooled  it  without  direct  contact  with  the  ice,  they  showed 
stomach  troubles  all  through  the  spring,  summer,  and  fall,  they  were  the 
principal  causes  of  men  not  coming  to  work,  and  after  we  filtered  the  water 
we  thought  it  was  the  greatest  benefit  of  all.  The  system  has  got  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  that,  unless  our  men  were  dropping  dead  by  the  wayside, 
and  they  do  not  do  that;  they  are  very,  very  regular. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  there  many  complaints  from  the  workmen  of  the  fact 
that  they  are  compelled  under  the  system  to  work  too  hard? 

Mr.  DODGE.  We  only  have  one  form  of  complaint  in  our  shop  to-day,  and 
that  is  that  we  have  to  keep  the  men  on  daywork  longer  than  they  think  we 
ought  to.  In  other  wrords,  the  struggle  in  our  shop  is  to  come  under,  the  system 
and  under  the  bonus  method  of  payment,  under  the  task. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  effect  has  the  system  had  on  the  length  of  time 
the  workmen  will  remain  in  the  employment  of  the  company? 

Mr.  DODGE.  As  I  say,  I  took  all  of  our  men,  the  whole  bunch  of  them, 
through;  I  asked  our  timekeeper  this  question.  I  asked  him,  "How  long  do 
the  men  work?"  And  he  said — this  is  his  report  to  me  as  the  boss — "We 
have  gone  over  the  length  of  time  that  each  man  has  been  employed  in  our 
machine  shop,  and  we  find  the  average  length  of  time  to  be  better  than  seven 
years."  Now,  I  will  challenge  any  shop  in  the  United  States  to  equal  that 
record,  that  does  not  have  scientific  management. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  other  words,  you  consider  that  a  good  record  of  length  of 
service? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  think  it  is  wonderful.  You  go  around  in  our  shop  and  ask  the 
men  how  long  they  have  been  there,  and  you  will  find  that  they  have  been 
there  15,  20,  or  25  years.  Of  course  we  have  men  come  and  go.  That  will 
happen,  I  do  not  care,  at  the  very  best  of  times,  that  they  will  move  away, 
perhaps  from  sickness,  or  their  wives  will  be  sick,  or  something  like  that,  but 
that  is  doing  pretty  well. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  867 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  ask  whether  the  functions  of  the  employee  are  more 
universal,  more  specialized  than  before? 

Mr.  DODGE.  We  do  not  do  competitive  work  in  our  shops,  and  we  have  to 
develop  all-around  workers,  and  we  frequently  change  men  from  a  lathe  to  a 
boring  mill,  or  from  a  boring  mill  to  a  drill  press,  or  something  like  that,  so 
as  to  have  them  ambidextrous,  so  that  when  we  want  men  to  stick  in  on  one 
thing  we  have  got  them.  We  do  not  need  specialists.  Specialists  are  detrimen- 
tal to  a  shop.  Of  course  that  may  be  so  in  a  chewing  gum  factory,  or  some- 
thing like  that,  but  we  do  not  need  them  in  our  company. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  men  leaving  your  shop  would  have  better  chances  else- 
where than  without  the  system? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes;  we  find  that  other  people  hire  them  right  away,  make  it 
more  attractive  to  them,  but  there  is  no  trouble  about  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  mean  when  they  leave  it  is  not  on  account  of  the  sys- 
tem? 

Mr.  DODGE.  No ;  I  have  not  in  mind  any  case  where  we  had  to  let  a  man  go 
on  account  of  the  system. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Does  it  increase  the  employee's  interest  in  his  work? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Certainly  it  does,  because  it  increases  his  compensation,  and  he 
has  a  better  time,  and  he  has  no  disciplinarian,  he  has  nobody  swearing  at 
him,  and  he  can  go  jogging  along,  and  he  does  his  work  and  makes  his  money 
and  is  satisfied. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  a  nice  way  to  die. 

Mr.  DODGE.  That  is  the  way  they  die,  most  of  them ;  in  the  first  place  we  will 
make  them  happy  when  they  are  ready  to  die. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  times  of  depression  what  class  of  men — are  they  all-round 
mechanics  or  not  that  are  likely  to  be  laid  off,  so  far  as  you  know? 

Mr.  DODGE.  We  lay  off  the  ones  we  have  not  the  work  for ;  it  is  not  a  matter 
of  class  at  all.  In  the  first  place  we  reduce  hours  as  much  as  we  can,  and  if 
men  have  to  go,  why  naturally  the  ones  that  were  the  least  competent  would 
be  dropped  out.  But  it  sometimes  happens  that  we  have  run  out  of  work  in 
certain  classes,  and  then,  of  course,  they  suffer  the  most,  but  any  man  that  is 
laid  off  that  way  is  given  the  first  opportunity  to  come  back.  We  never  fill 
a  man's  job  with  somebody  else. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  provisions  are  there  in  your  company  for  the  training 
of  apprentices? 

Mr.  DODGE.  We  have  a  standing  order  with  the  Williamson  Free  School  of 
the  Mechanics'  Trades,  and  we  get  as  many  as  we  can,  but  unfortunately  the 
Pennsylvania  Railroad  competes  with  us,  and  some  others,  and  we  are  very 
lucky  if  we  can  get  three  boys  a  year  out  of  their  classes.  They  are  taught  trades, 
they  are  not  taught  to  be  engineers  or  draftsmen,  they  are  taught  to  be  work- 
men, and  we  have  had  as  many  as  we  can  get  of  them  for  a  number  of  years, 
and  I  am  glad  to  say  that  we  have  never  had  one  of  those  boys  disappoint  us. 
They  have  all  turned  out  well.  The  majority  of  them  are  either  foremen  in  our 
establishment  or  in  other  establishments. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Where  is  that  school  located? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Near  Media,  Pa. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  are  your  relations  with  the  employees,  and  how  are 
they  adjusted  in  case  of  difficulty? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Well,  my  personal  relations  with  my  employees  come  pretty 
nearly  to  the  point  of  their  calling  me  Jim  instead  of  Mr.  Dodge ;  I  call  them 
by  their  first  names,  and  I  try  to  remember  them.  My  door  is  always  open  to 
everybody  in  our  establishment. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  have  no  special  machinery  for  the  adjustment  of 
difficulties  if  they  ever  arise? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  do  not  have  that,  except  where  a  man  complains  that  he  is 
not  doing  enough  work  other  than  daywork ;  that  is  the  great  difficulty. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  all,  if  the  chairman  please. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  say  that  the  Taylor  system  you  have  had 
in  operation  about  six  years? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  would  be  from  about  1908? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Well,  Mr.  Earth  went  away  in  1908. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Well,  it  doesn't  matter. 

Mr.  BARTH.  I  went  away — I  don't  know  just  when  I  went  away,  but  I  think 
early  in  January  of  1908. 


868          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  DODGE.  Well,  let  us  say  six  years.  We  began  getting  the  men  under  the 
Taylor  system  long  before  Mr.  Barth  went,  because  we  would  not  let  him  go 
unless  we  had'  squeezed  him  pretty  dry,  and.  there  were  other  people  after 
him  all  the  time. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  1908  what  were  the  hours  of  labor? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  think  they  were  about  the  same. 

Mr.  BAKTH.  About  the  same,  54.2 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Was  that  in  the  Philadelphia  shop  or  all  the  shops? 

Mr.  DODGE.  The  Philadelphia  shop.  We  did  not  put  it  in  Chicago  for  two 
years  afterwards.  It  took  us  four  years  and  a  little  more  to  introduce  it  in 
Philadelphia,  but  it  took  us  only  about  a  year  to  make  the  same  progress  in 
Chicago  because  we  had  the  same  experience. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Is  54  hours  about  the  regular  hours  of  labor  in  the 
machine  shops  in  Philadelphia? 

Mr.  DODGE.  As  far  as  I  know;  there  may  be  some  exceptions,  but  I  am  not 
conscious  of  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  Saturday  half  holiday  has  been  recognized  for 
many  years? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  is  not  a  npw  thing  at  all  in  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  DODGE.  No. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  is  an  old  custom,  is  it? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  So  that  since  the  introduction  of  the  Taylor  system 
the  hours  of  labor  have  not  been  reduced? 

Mr.  DODGE.  No. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  if  they  were  it  would  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  system.  The  same  rules  now  prevail  in  the  Chicago  shop? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  you  ever  had  any  strikes  in  the  shop  since 
the  system? 

Mr.  DODGE.  We  have  never  had  the  slightest  trouble  since  we  introduced 
scientific  management.  Our  Chicago  shop  was  raided  three  times,  men  were 
knocked  out  in  the  shop,  windows  were  broken,  and  machinery  was  broken,  and 
things  of  that  kind,  and  we  have  had  mobs  go  through  the  Chicago  shops  three 
times,  but  we  never  had  any  trouble. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  at  Indianapolis? 

Mr.  DODGE.  In  Indianapolis  we  never  had  the  slightest  trouble  at  any  time. 
And  in  Philadelphia  we  have  never  had  any  labor  trouble. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  the  unions  been  in  any  way  recognized  or 
dealt  with  in  any  of  the  shops? 

Mr.  DODGE.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Never  in  the  Chicago  shops? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Before  the  system  was  put  in  we  tried  to  deal  with  the  unions,  and 
we  had  riots  there. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  There  is  no  method  of  collective  bargaining  between 
the  men  and  your  company? 

Mr.  DODGE.  No. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  company  sets  the  standard  of  wage  upon  which 
wage  the  bonus  is  based? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes;  with  the  cooperation  of  the  men. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Are  the  men  taken  into  consultation? 

Mr.  DODGE.  They  have  to  be ;  every  time  a  time  study  is  made  it  requires  two 
people — the  man  that  is  taking  the  time  and  the  man  that  is  doing  the  work. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  man  who  is  doing  the  work  is  simply  part  of 
the  machine,  as  it  were? 

Mr.  DODGE.  4s  much  as  any  workman  in  our  shop  that  the  time-study  man 
goes  to.  It  is  not  one  man  that  goes  around  and  does  all  these  stunts ;  he  goes 
to  first  one  man  and  then  to  another,  so  that  every  man  in  our  shop  has  had 
these  time  studies  made  on  him  maybe  50  times;  we  have  on  file  now  maybe 
50,000  time  studies. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Suppose  you  make  a  time  study  of  a  man  and  you 
set  «p  the  conditions  under  which  he  operates  a  lathe,  for  instance,  turning 
shafts  in  a  lathe;  you  set  a  time  for  the  turning  of  those  shafts? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  after  you  have  agreed  with  your  expert 
that  such  and  such  is  the  proper  time  that  such  work  can  be  done  in,  and  the 
workman  says,  "No,  it  can  not  be  done  in  that  time,"  what  is  the  result? 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  869 

Mr.  DODGE.  We  bring  a  man  in  there  to  show  him  that  it  can  be  clone. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  if  he  still  disagrees  with  you? 

Mr.  DODGE.  You  do  not  mean  to  say  that  he  will  disagree  after  he  has  been 
shown  that  the  thing  can  be  done? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  am  afraid  I  do;  yes. 

Mr.  DODGE.  If  I  say  two  and  two  is  four  and  a  man  disagrees  with  me,  and 
I  bring  a  mathematician  or  a  professor  to  tell  him  so,  and  show  him  in  every 
way  that  I  can  that  it  is  so,  and  he  still  disagrees,  he  is  hopeless. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  But  you  know  what  some  men  can  say  and  what 
they  can  do  with  figures,  and  what  other  men  can  do  with  figures.  The  fact 
is  that  the  employer  sees  that  the  employee,  in  so  far  as  the  time-study  man 
comes  to  him — he  uses  him  as  a  means  of  working  out  a  time  study? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  the  only  way  in  his  interest  in  which  he 
is  consulted? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  he  is  in  no  other  way  in  that  matter  at  all? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  He  has  no  other  say  in  the  matter  at  all? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes,  he  has.  He  can  say  that  it  is  not  right,  and  we  will  keep  at 
it  until  we  convince  him,  if  it  is  a  possible  thing.  There  is  no  arbitrary  idea 
of  forcing  a  man.  In  that  ^connection  I  could  show  you  some  diaries  of  our 
men  that  were  in  use  up  to  the  day  before  yesterday,  in  which  the  man  kept 
records  of  the  time  required  for  a  particular  job,  and  all  the  particulars  of  it. 
I  did  not  know  much  about  it  before,  but  I  found  lots  of  them  were  doing  that, 
and  here  are  the  books ;  and  if  somebody,  after  we  are  all  gone,  was  to  try  to 
put  it  over  those  men  with  the  same  kind  of  a  job  at  a  lower  rate,  he  has  his 
record  as  to  what  he  did  it  in  before,  and  he  would  bring  that  in  and  say: 
"The  last  time  I  did  that,  it  required  so  much  time."  And  he  is  entitled  to 
an  explanation,  and  he  gets  it.  And  if  there  is  an  error,  it  is  corrected.  If  the 
thing  has  been  improved,  that  is  taken  into  consideration.  For  instance,  sup- 
pose a  man  had  a  record  of  the  work  that  he  did  with  the  old-fashioned  carbon 
steel,  and  then  we  introduced  the  high-speed  steel,  which  does  from  4  to  40 
times  as  much  work.  In  that  case  the  old  time  record,  as  you  well  know,  would 
l>e  valueless,  and  he  would  recognize  it,  and  submit  to  a  readjustment  of  the 
rate,  due  to  the  fact  that  we  had  got  better  tools  for  him  to  work  with.  That 
is  always  recognized. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  A  very  large  percentage  of  the  increase  of  output 
was  first  brought  about  by  the  introduction  of  high-speed  steel? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  should  say  yes,  probably  that  was  the  greatest  opportunity 
that  we  had,  and  new  tools  to  go  with  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  And  with  that,  the  introduction  of  new  tools, 
electric  driven  tools,  and  all  these  appliances  that  go  to  make  things  speed  up? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  So  that  the  great  saving  in  the  time  of  production, 
and  the  great  increase  in  production,  is  not  because  the  workmen  per  se 
soldiered  to  that  extent  under  the  former  condition? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Oh,  no. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  seems  to  be  the  idea  of  some  that  we  have 
discussed  this  question  with  that  the  workman  has  been  the  great  soldierer 
in  that  proposition.  They  do  not  seem  to  see  that  there  are  other  conditions 
surrounding  his  former  employment  which  had  a  very  important  bearing  upon 
the  question,  and  that,  although  he  may  have  worked  under  the  most  laborious 
conditions,  yet  he  could  not  produce  anything  like  what  he  can  under  the 
improved  conditions. 

Mr.  DODGE.  That  is  very  true. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  So  that  it  is  not  the  employee  who  has  been  the 
soldier — the  workman? 

Mr.  DODGE.  No ;  not  at  all.    I  do  not  agree  with  that  idea  at  all. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  believe,  Mr.  Dodge,  that  there  is  a  possi- 
bility that  the  employees  might  be  organized  into  a  form  of  an  organization 
under  which  they  could  cooperate  with  the  employers,  with  a  view  of  meeting 
them  on  a  common  basis,  at  a  round  table,  as  it  were,  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
cussing all  these  various  matters? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  think  it  would  be  most  desirable;  yes.  The  point  is  this,  in 
regard  to  this  matter  of  time  study :  If  I  come  to  you,  or  any  one  of  you  gentle- 
men, and  say,  "  Come  over  here  with  me  and  help  me  do  this  thing  " ;  and  sup- 


870          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

pose  a  certain  thing  when  it  is  added  up  comes  out  at  one  minute.  That  is  not 
a  matter  of  arbitration,  that  is  a  matter  of  fact.  It  is  not  any  more  a  matter  of 
arbitration  than  if  I  should  say  to  you, "  Come  over  here,  I  want  to  show  you  the 
multiplication  table,"  and  you  should  come  over  and  look  it  over  and  say,  "  We 
will  arbitrate  it." 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  But  suppose  I  should  say  to  you  that  I  am  now 
getting  $4  a  day  and  I  should  get  $5  a  day.  Is  not  that  a  question  for  arbitra- 
tion? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  don't  know  whether  it  is  or  not.  If  I  felt  that  I  was  not  paying 
the  man  enough  and  I  was  grinding  him  down,  I  think  I  would  take  very  serious 
heed  to  that  proposition  personally,  and  I  should  say  that  it  would  be  a  case  or 
a  matter  for  arbitration. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Suppose,  collectively,  the  employees  should  say  to 
your  Link  Belt  Co.,  "  We  believe  that  we  ought  to  have  an  increase  of  10  or  20 
per  cent  over  the  rates  we  are  now  enjoying."  Do  you  think  that  would  be  a 
question  for  conciliation  or  mediation  or  arbitration? 

Mr.  DODGE.  It  depends  on  how  much  of  a  hole  they  were  pushing  us  into.  If 
we  felt  that  we  could  not  do  that  without  jeopardizing  our  business  or  bank- 
rupting ourselves  or  doing  ourselves  serious  injury,  we  would  fight  it  as  long  as 
we  could  and  then  give  in  gracefully.  As  Bob  Ingersoll  used  to  say,  "  If  you 
have  only  one  dollar  in  the  world  and  you  have  to  spend  it,  spend  it  like  a  lord." 
That  is  what  we  do. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  that  case,  I  think  the  Link  Belt  Co.  ought  to  be 
a  leader  in  the  matter  of  shortening  hours,  if  they  are  getting  this  great  increase 
in  production  over  other  firms  that  are  not.  Don't  you  think  they  ought  to  pave 
the  way,  so  to  speak? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Very  likely,  from  your  point  of  view.  Very  likely,  if  you  were  one 
of  us  and  were  down  there  working  along  and  saw  the  men  happy  and  the  men 
wanting  to  work  that  long  and  make  the  wages  they  can,  and  not  wanting  the 
time  reduced,  I  think  you  would  say,  "  Let  them  work." 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  would  volunteer  one  more  thing  about  the  cooperation  of  the 
unions  with  scientific  management. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Dodge,  it  is  one  of  the  objects  of  this  commission 
to  try  to  discover  some  common  ground  upon  which  we  can  all  meet  in  settling 
this  question,  and  it  has  been  stated — you  perhaps  heard  it  yesterday 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  was  not  here  yesterday. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Well,  it  was  stated  here  yesterday  that,  as  a  funda- 
mental economic  truth,  it  was  impossible  for  the  workingmen  to  improve  their 
condition,  either  in  wages  or  other  working  conditions,  unless  there  was  an 
improvement  in  efficiency ;  that  is  to  say,  an  increment  in  the  actual  per  capita 
output.  Do  you  believe  that  to  be  true? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes  ;  I  do.  I  believe  that  is  so.  I  believe  that  it  is  a  truism ;  that  a 
man  that  makes  two  blades  of  grass  grow  where  only  one  grew  before  is  a  bene- 
factor of  his  race ;  that  a  man  who  makes  two  books  grow  where  only  one  grew 
before  is  a  benefactor  of  his  race. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Do  you  carry  it  to  the  point  of  saying  that  unless 
something  like  that  is  accomplished  the  workingman  can  not  expect  a  greater 
remuneration  or  better  working  conditions? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say.  I  do  not  know  where  the  breaking 
point  is.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  if  we  were  to  increase  our  men's  wages 
10  per  cent  that  of  necessity  we  would  go  into  bankruptcy.  We  would  scratch 
like  thunder  to  meet  that  situation  and  do  the  best  we  could ;  and  we  might  keep 
off  unprofitable  lines,  or  we  might  do  something — I  don't  know  what;  but  wo 
certainly  would  fight  hard.  I  do  believe,  however,  that  the  very  minute  that  the 
labor  unions  will  become  interested  in  the  efficiency  of  their  members  more  than 
in  the  loyalty  of  their  members — that  is  all  right,  but  let  it  be  secondary — that 
that  would  be  a  tremendous  step  in  advance.  I  also  believe  this,  that  whereas 
we  have  had  the  relations  between  organized  labor  and  employers,  without  any 
system  whatsoever,  simply  guesswork — coming  in  to  the  foreman  and  saying, 
"*How  much  can  that  be  made  for?"  and  he  looks  wise  and  turns  it  over  and 
says,  "  It  should  be  made  for  10  cents." 

Now,  I  was  a  party  to  that  for  a  great  many  years,  and  I  worked  under  the 
piece  rate,  and  I  cut  the  piece  rate;  and  we  made  mistakes,  and  the  way 
we  adjusted  them  was  to  take  it  out  of  the  hide  of  the  workmen.  We  would 
say,  "  That  should  be  made  for  10  cents,"  and  the  man  would  make  six  of 
them  in  the  time  when  we  thought  he  could  only  make  three,  and  we  would 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  871 

reduce  the  price  to  5  cents;  and  if  lie  got  up  and  got  his  head  above  water 
again,  we  would  hit  him  again,  just  as  far  as  we  could.  I  have  been  all 
through  that  matter,  and  that  is  the  pernicious  part  of  piecework. 

Under  the  present  system,  when  that  job  comes  into  our  shop,  we  do  not 
look  back  and  see  when  we  made  a  book  like  this,  for  instance,  but  we  analyze 
the  things  that  go  into  the  making  of  that  book,  labor  and  time  and  every- 
thing that  goes  into  it,  and  we  look  for  analogies  in  the  records  that  we 
already  have;  so  that,  even  though  this  is  the  first  time  for  this  job,  we  are 
able  to  make  a  very  good  estimate  of  what  it  is  going  to  cost,  and  we  can 
set  a  rate  which,  ninety-nine  times  out  of  a  hundred,  the  workman  accepts; 
and  that  is  where  the  difference  is.  What  we  want,  and  what  the  unions  could 
insist  upon,  is  the  absolute  elimination  of  guesswork.  There  is  something  that 
we  could  agree  on;  and  if  any  gentlemen  connected  with  the  labor  organiza- 
tions, the  heads  of  them — the  higher  up  the  better — will  make  a  study  of  how  to 
harmonize  the  scientific  management  with  unionism,  they  will  find  the  heart- 
iest kind  of  cooperation ;  but  so  long  as  the  attitude  is  that  scientific  man- 
agement must  harmonize  itself  with  unionism,  it  is  going  to  be  hard  sledding. 
It  is  a  mutual  proposition.  The  labor  organizations  would  be  welcomed  by 
any  people  who  have  scientific  management  to  see  what  adjustments  can  be 
made.  All  they  want  to  do,  both  sides,  is  to  insist  upon  seeing  that  justice 
is  done;  and  the  union  can  be  just  as  potent  in  striking  or  resisting  an  un- 
fair employer  under  scientific  management,  provided  they  favor  scientific  man- 
agement, as  they  can  in  resisting  the  unfair  employer  now,  with  no  system 
whatsoever. 

So  that  I  do  not  consider  that  the  things  are  incompatible  at  all.  However, 
it  must  be  a  mutual  coming  together.  I  predict  that  before  many  years  the 
unions  will  insist  upon  scientific  management,  and  see  to  it  that  it  is  done 
fairly  and  squarely  and  scientifically;  and  the  minute  that  comes,  there  will 
be  an  end  to  labor  disputes.  There  will  not  be  an  end  to  the  unions,  because 
there  is  plenty  for  the  unions  to  do. 

The  CHAIKMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock,  do  you  wish  to  ask  any  questions? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

You  stated^  Mr.  Dodge,  that  under  the  old  piecework  system,  when  the 
worker  was  earning  too  much,  you  would  cut  the  price? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  this  little  book  that  you  have  here,  belonging  to 
one  of  your  men,  there  are  notes  of  the  time  studies.  One  of  the  notes  says : 

"  I  made  a  barrel  of  money  on  this  rate.  Browen  said  I  didn't  do  it  honestly ; 
but  I  offered  to  bet  him  twelve  dollars  to  five  that  I  could  still  go  ahead  of 
that.  But  he  got  cold  feet." 

In  view  of  his  having  made  "a  barrel  of  money  "  under  these  circumstances, 
was  the  rate  cut? 

Mr.  DODGE.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  was  not  cut? 

Mr.  DODGE.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  was  allowed  to  go  on  making  "  a  barrel  of 
money  "  ? 

Mr.  DODGE.  We  would  not  dare  to  cut  the  rate.  Scientific  management  would 
evaporate  like  snow  in  sunshine  if  we  did  not  keep  our  word  with  our  men. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  stated,  also,  that  since  the  introduction  of  the 
system  the  net  earnings  of  the  business  have  not  increased  to  speak  of? 

Mr.  DODGE.  The  gross  earnings  have. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  not  the  net? 

Mr.  DODGE.  The  net  earnings  have  fluctuated  about  2  per  cent  on  the  sales ; 
but  we  have  been  able  to  sell  our  goods  cheaper  and  to  get  a  larger  share  of 
the  trade. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  you  have  gotten  a  larger  volume  of  business  on 
the  same  net  earnings,  your  surplus  for  distribution  ought  to  have  been  larger 
than  under  the  old  conditions? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Look  at  these  statements  here  yourself,  and  see  what  the  surplus 
is — from  25  to  60  per  cent,  right  straight  along  here. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then,  when  you  said  "  net,"  you  meant  the 
rate 

Mr.  DODGE.  No.  We  make  a  report  to  Harrisburg  every  year,  telling  every- 
thing that  has  gone  on  in  our  business. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  am  afraid  I  have  not  made  myself  plain.  I 
mean,  have  your  stockholders  reaped  any  larger  dividends  than  they  did  under 
the  old  conditions? 


872          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  DODGE.  They  have  done  this ;  we  have  had  a  larger  volume  of  business, 
and  our  dividends  have  been  practically  constant,  except  in  some  hard  spells. 
Our  dividends  have  never  exceeded  12  per  cent,  and  I  do  not  remember  that 
they  ever  went  below  9  per  cent.  I  would  just  as  soon  not  have  that  published, 
because  I  am  not  entitled  to  tell  that,  you  know. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  This  is  my  point:  If  I  were  a  stockholder  in  your 
enterprise,  I  would  then  be  in  a  position  to  come  to  you  and  say  this :  "  While 
this  new  system  has  evidently  been  of  some  advantage  to  labor,  it  has  been  of  no 
advantage  to  me  as  a  stockholder,  because  my  dividends  are  no  larger  to-day 
than  they  were  before."  What  \vould  be  your  answer  to  that? 

Mr.  DODGE.  My  answer  to  that  is  this,  that  the  dividends  have  been  larger. 
The  largest  that  I  know  of,  or  remember  of,  is  2  per  cent  larger,  and  to  that 
extent  it  is  a  great  advantage.  Furthermore,  we  have  established  a  stability  in 
our  business  that  we  were  never  able  to  establish  before. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  that  the  chance  for  losing  is  minimized, 
because  your  labor  is  better  satisfied? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes.  We  do  better  work  and  fill  our  orders  more  quickly.  If 
I  were  to  ask  the  president  of  our  company  what  the  greatest  benefit  derived 
from  scientific  management  was,  he  would  say  "  Prompt  shipments.  Keeping 
our  promises."  I. might  say  that  now,  in  our  shipments,  when  promises  are 
made,  we  run  all  the  time  over  86  per  cent  that  we  ship  on  the  day  we  promise 
to  ship;  and  I  remember  the  time  very  well  when  it  was  86  per  cent  of  the 
time  that  we  did  not  ship  on  the  day  that  we  promised.  That  is  a  big  asset 
in  business. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Prompt  shipments? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes.    I  tell  you  it  is  a  big  asset. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  gives  you  a  better  grip  on  your  trade? 

Mr.  DODGE.  It  surely  does. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Unionists  have  expressed  the  opinion  that  they 
more  or  less  fear  scientific  management  because  it  is  a  menace  to  unionism. 
Has  not  your  experience  demonstrated  the  fact  that  it  is  a  menace  to  unionism, 
in  that  your  plant  is  not  organized,  when  it  formerly  was  organized? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Until  they  come  together,  the  union  and  scientific  management, 
making  a  study  of  scientific  management,  it  is  a  menace.  Our  men  do  not  see 
any  reason  why  they  should  pay  dues  to  a  union  to  insure  them  less  wages  than 
they  are  getting  now.  Our  wages  run  right  along  and  are  above  the  union 
rates.  I  can  not  help  but  feel — it  is  a  personal  matter  with  me,  and  I  do  not 
want  to  explain  it  as  a  political  economist;  but  I  know  this — that  if  we  can 
make  1,000  workmen  enthusiastic  about  scientific  management  I  will  guarantee 
to  make  100  labor  leaders  as  equally  enthusiastic  if  they  will  give  me  the  same 
chance. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Take  it  in  your  own  plant,  Mr.  Dodge.  Do  you 
ask  applicants  for  jobs  whether  they  are  unionists  or  not  ? 

Mr.  DODGE.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  ask  them  no  questions? 

Mr.  DODGE.  We  do  not  care  a  rap. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Have  any  efforts  been  made  in  your  plant  since 
you  introduced  the  system  to  unionize  the  shops? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Not  that  we  know  of.  We  haven't  any  watchman,  except  the 
watchman  at  the  gate,  and  we  have  a  sign  up,  "  Visitors  always  welcome." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  an  effort  was  made  to  unionize  your  shops 
would  you  resist  it? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  should  say,  as  it  is  now  organized,  that  I  would ;  but  if  a 
union  leader  were  to  come  to  me  and  say :  "  Will  you  allow  me  to  stay  here 
for  a  month,  until  I  acquire  what  little  knowledge  I  can  of  your  system,  and 
if  I  am  convinced  that  it  is  all  right  I  will  meet  you  in  the  spirit  of  scientific 
management,"  we  would  throw  the  doors  open  and  say  "  You  are  welcome." 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  you  have  objected  to  efforts  being  made  to 
unionize  your  shop,  because  you  feared,  I  take  it,  that  if  it  was  unionized  they 
would  fight  the  bonus  system? 

Mr.  DODGE.  No.  I  will  tell  you.  I  might  say  this :  Our  shop  in  Philadelphia 
had  a  machinists'  union  in  it,  and  it  disbanded.  I  don't  know  exactly  when, 
but  I  could  find  out.  It  voluntarily  disbanded  some  little  time  after  Mr.  Barth 
came  there.  The  shop  in  Chicago  having  been  raided,  we  had  the  dickens  of 
an  old  time  there.  We  were  obliged  to  have  an  open  shop  and  say  so.  We  have 
said  so,  and  we  have  maintained  an  open  shop,  and  it  is  a  happy  shop,  and  we 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND    LABOK.  873 

have  no  trouble  to  get  men,  and  we  do  not  ask  any  questions  there  as  to 
whether  they  are  union  men  or  not. 

The  whole  thing  in  a  nutshell  is  this :  I  think  the  unions  are  fighting  some- 
thing that  they  have  not  thoroughly  investigated. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  just  want  to  ask  you  one  question,  Mr.  Dodge. 
This  question  has  been  asked  before,  in  a  little  different  form,  but  I  want  to 
bring  out  another  phase  of  it.  It  is  laid  down  as  a  fundamental  proposition 
that  the  condition  of  the  workmen  could  not  be  bettered  unless  the  output  was 
increased.  Assuming,  for  the  moment,  that  that  is  a  truism,  would  it  not 
also  be  a  farce  if  it  was  applied  where  the  corporation  that  was  the  employer 
was  declaring  dividends  of  45  per  cent  as  against  another  corporation,  and  a 
competitor  of  it,  that  was  declaring  dividends  of  5  per  cent? 

Mr.  DODGE.  I  should  say  that  if  I  was  the  fellow  that  was  getting  5  per  cent, 
I  would  be  so  mad  that  I  would  go  out  and  bite  nails,  and  I  would  not  stand 
for  it. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Would  it  not  be  absurd  to  apply  it  as  a  truism  to 
the  two  conditions? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Certainly.     I  think  our  friend  Ford  has  got  a  soft  snap. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  You  do  not  recognize  the  same  fundamental  prin- 
ciples— 

Mr.  DODGE.  No.  If  we  were  to  follow  in  Ford's  footprints,  it  would  be  a 
different  proposition. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  The  reason  why  he  is  able  to  do  as  he  has  done  is 
because  so  many  people  do  follow  in  his  footprints,  or  tire  prints? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes.  I  had  that  all  written  out,  but  you  did  not  ask  me  about  it, 
so  that  I  am  not  going  to  squelch  him.  I  had  something  rather  interesting, 
about  that.  The  truth  is  that  our  earnings  per  man  have  ranged  from  25 
cents  to  $1  through  a  long  term  of  years  and  Ford's  earnings  were  $5.46.  If 
we  had  $5.46  per  man  to  play  with,  I  would  give  you  a  lot  of  it,  and  everybody 
else. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Then,  I  am  sure  that  I  wish  you  had  it. 

That  is  all. 

Mr.  DODGE.  It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that  a  number  of  the  members  of 
your  commission  have  visited  our  plants,  and  I  wish  to  say  that  we  \vould  be 
delighted  to  entertain  the  whole  commission,  either  individually,  separately,  or 
in  a  bunch,  or  any  other  way. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Thank  you. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  P.  J.  COITION". 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Conlon,  please  give  your  name  and  residence  to  the  re- 
porter. 

Mr.  CONLON.  P.  J.  Conlon,  Mount  Ida,  Va. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  occupation? 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  am  international  vice  president  of  the  International  Associa- 
tion of  Machinists. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  subject  that  we  have  up  for  consideration  at  this  hear- 
ing is  the  subject  of  efficiency  systems  and  labor.  What  contact  have  you  had 
with  any  such  systems  of  shop  management? 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  have  had  some  contact  with  what  is  known  as  the  standard 
time  system  and  the  Vicar-Maxon  system,  the  piece-rate  system,  and  the  Taylor 
system — a  modified  form  of  the  Vicar-Maxon  system. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  the  system  in  force  in  England? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  general  attitude,  if  there  is  any,  of  your  organi- 
zation on  scientific  management? 

Mr.  CONLON.  The  best  answer  I  could  give  you  to  that  would  be  to  read  an 
extract  from  our  laws. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  may  do  that. 

Mr.  CONLON  (reading)  : 

"  This  association  stands  for  the  abolition  of  the  operation  of  more  than  one 
machine,  piece-rate  premium,  merit,  task,  or  contract  systems.  Members  who 
may  be  found  guilty  of  agitating  or  encouraging  any  of  these  systems  in  shops 
where  it  is  not  in  operation  are  liable  to  expulsion;  and  the  practice  in  such 
shops  shall  be  entirely  abolished  as  soon  as  possible,  the  date  to  be  set  by  the 
general  executive  board." 


874          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  I  understand  that  correctly,  that  would  prevent  your  men 
from  working  under  the  Taylor  system? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Or  any  bonus  system? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Or  any  task  system? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Upon  what  is  the  position  of  your  organization  based?  Just 
state  it  briefly. 

Mr.  CONLON.  On  the  daywork  basis  of  compensation,  with  generous  super- 
vision, and  the  taking  of  the  employee  into  consideration  in  the  matter  of  col- 
lective bargaining  or  trade  agreements. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What,  specifically,  is  the  objection  of  your  organization  to 
the  bonus  system  or  the  task  system  in  the  shop? 

Mr.  CONLON.  We  have  several  objections.  The  first  is  that  it  requires  a  task 
that  is  always  increasing  in  intensity.  The  second  is  that  the  so-called  efficiency 
systems  have  been  devised  solely  in  the  interest  of  increasing  dividends  and 
with  but  little  regard  for  the  employee.  Third,  because  we  know  that  the  over- 
head charge  of  accounting  must  be  directly  borne  by  the  producer.  Fourth, 
that  the  stimulation  held  out  is  deceptive  and  will  disappear  entirely  as  soon 
as  the  maximum  task  is  established  and  standardized.  We  object  because  there 
is  no  margin  left  to  take  into  consideration  the  increased  cost  of  living  year 
after  year,  except  that  which  is  actually  forced  by  competition  and  losing  the 
employee.  The  employee  is  not  taken  into  consideration  in  setting  prices ;  they 
are  arbitrarily  set  by  the  efficiency  engineers,  who  arrogate  to  themselves  the 
terms  upon  which  the  employee  shall  work.  We  believe  it  is  an  effort  to 
standardize  men  and  conditions — an  impossible  task,  and  unscientific  in  the 
very  nature  of  it.  It  is  an  attempt  to  subordinate  the  mechanical  initiative  to 
others,  whether  they  have  better  methods  or  not;  and  the  workman  is  simply 
an  automaton,  and  loses  his  mechanical  identity.  We  consider  the  establish- 
ment of  these  systems  a  confession  of  gross  mismanagement  on  the  part  of  the 
supervising  force.  Successful  plants  do  not  have  to  resort  to  these  systems. 
Lastly,  we  believe  that  it  builds  up  in  the  industrial  world  the  principle  of 
sabotage,  syndicalism,  passive  resistance,  based  on  economic  determinism. 
We  did  not  hear  of  any  of  these  things  until  we  heard  of  scientific  manage- 
ment and  new  methods  of  production.  The  last  few  years  we  hear  considerable 
about  them. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  a  list  of  these  points? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  A  list  in  typewriting  of  the  points  you  have  read  off? 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  have  not  got  them  in  typewriting.    I  have  a  list. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  you  mind  letting  me  have  that  list? 

Mr.  CONLON.  No.    You  may  have  it  t handing  list  to  Mr.  Thompson]. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Taking  up  first  the  last  subject  you  named,  Mr.  Conlon,  what 
is  the  basis  for  your  statement  that  efficiency  systems,  so-called,  have  caused 
sabotage,  other  than  the  mere  fact  that  we  have  just  lately  been  talking  about 
efficiency  systems  and  just  lately  in  this  country  been  talking  about  sabotage? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Because  they  have  come  to  the  surface  about  the  same  time ; 
and  we  find  that  when  men  can  not  help  themselves,  nor  can  they  get  any 
redress  of  grievances,  and  are  forced  to  accept  that  which  is  thrust  upon  them, 
that  they  are  going  to  find  within  themselves  a  means  of  redress  that  can  find 
expression  in  no  other  way  than  passive  resistance  or  in  syndicalism. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  that  the  only  connection  which  you  have  stated  upon 
which  you  base  that  statement? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  the  appearance,  in  your  opinion,  of  two  things  in  our 
civilization  substantially  at  the  same  time  would  be  all  that  you  would  require 
for  the  deduction  that  they  grow  out  of  each  other  or  are  related  to  each 
other? 

Mr.  CONLON.  They  both  break  out  in  the  industrial  world  at  the  same  time. 
If  there  was  no  correlation  of  these  two  things  appearing  simultaneously,  we 
might  not  make  that  deduction. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  I  have  stated  the  correlation  in  this  case  is  that  of  con- 
temporaneous appearance.  I  do  not  understand  you  to  give  or  show  any  other 
reason  why  these  two  are  connected. 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  do  not  catch  your  question. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  875 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  say  I  have  not  understood  you  to  give  any  other  reason  for 
the  connection  of  these  two — sabotage  and  efficiency  systems — other  than  their 
contemporary  appearance  in  our  life. 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  the  only  reason? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes;  the  exploitation  through  industrial  papers  of  the  fact  that 
large  concerns  were  discriminating  against  industrialists  who  had  reached  the 
age  of  35  years,  and  imposed  maximum  tasks  at  a  minimum  age  throughout 
the  country,  which  led  people  to  seek  for  a  means  of  taking  life  easy  through 
passive  resistance. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  do  you  connect  these  last  two  statements  with  the  sci- 
entific management  system  and  with  sabotage? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Well,  as  an  illustration,  if  a  body  of  men  during  a  depressed 
time  have  suddenly  thrust  upon  them  the  alternative  of  being  in  enforced  idle- 
ness, or  of  accepting  an  efficiency  system  that  they  have  no  voice  in,  either  in, 
the  prices  or  making,  they  will  take  it  as  the  less  of  the  two  evils ;  but  in  tak- 
ing it  they  are  going  to  doggedly  resist  its  successful  operation  in  that  shop. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Can  you  give  us  any  specific  instance  of  the  use  of  sabotage 
upon  the  introduction  of  an  efficiency  system? 

Mr.  CONLON.  No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  this  idea  is  simply  a  matter  of  theory  with  you,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Not  exactly. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Name  any  fact  upon  which  you  make  that  deduction. 

Mr.  CONLON.  The  specific  instance  that  I  have  in  mind  at  the  present  time 
is  that  of  the  American  Locomotive  Works,  in  1907,  when  the  standard  time 
was  in  operation  there.  The  men  struck  against  its  extension.  I  tried  to 
adjust  the  strike,  and  failed.  I  went  back  and  told  them  of  my  failure  to  get 
the  strike  adjusted.  They  made  up  their  minds  during  the  panic  of  1907  that 
they  would  go  back  into  the  sjiop,  but  that  they  would  not  try  to  make  any 
bonus,  and  they  did  not,  and  in  order  to  see  whether  they  were  sincere  in 
their  statement  that  they  would  not  try  to  make  any  bonus,  I  picked  up  some 
38  pay  envelopes  at  the  yard  gate  one  pay  day,  and  there  were  only  $2  and  some 
cents  bonus  out  of  $550  of  earnings  in  the  envelopes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Personally  I  can  not  see  the  connection  with  that  last  state- 
ment you  made  and  this  thing  we  call  sabotage.  What  do  you  understand  by 
"sabotage,"  and  wherein  does  that  statement  bear  upon  that  matter? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Sabotage  is  where  men  see  that  there  is  no  hope  of  redress  at 
all,  and  they  will  finally  try  to  ruin  the  business  of  the  employer. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  did  not  get  the  last  part  of  your  answer. 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  say  they  will  eventually  try  to  ruin  the  business  of  the  em- 
ployer. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  the  sabotage  that  you  mean  is  that  the  men  limited 
their  output  to  their  daily  wage? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  that  the  only  instance  of  the  use  of  sabotage  by  the  men 
as  a  reprisal  or  defense  against  an  efficiency  system  that  you  know  of? 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  think  you  are  getting  crossed  on  sabotage.  I  do  not  call  that 
sabotage.  I  call  that  passive  resistance. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  asked  you  for  cases  that  you  knew  of  where  sabotage  was 
used  upon  the  introduction  of  efficiency  systems. 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  misunderstood  you  upon  the  question  of  sabotage.  Passive 
resistance  is  getting  along  the  best  it  can  on  that  basis. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  when  I  used  the  word  "  sabotage  "  you  understood  me 
to  mean  passive  resistance  to  the  employer? 

Mr.  CONLON.  No;  I  think  there  is  a  difference  between  sabotage  and  passive 
resistance.  Sabotage  means  that  the  men  have  made  up  their  minds  that  they 
are  going  to  destroy  the  business  or  in  some  way  ruin  the  employer  unless  he 
comes  to  their  way  of  thinking.  I  am  not  as  well  posted  on  that  as  I  ought 
to  be,  because  I  do  not  believe  in  that  line  of  industrial  thought;  but  I  do 
know  that  it  is  very  prevalent  in  the  case  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World,  a  rival  organization  to  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is,  and  you  have  stated  it 
here  as  a  fact,  that  the  introduction  of  an  efficiency  system  has  caused  sabotage. 
1  have  asked  for  the  connection  between  the  two,  rather  than  their  contem- 
poraneous appearance,  and  you  have  told  me  of  a  case  where  the  employees  of 
the  American  Locomotive  Works  have  refused  to  earn  a  bonus,  and  you  say 
that  that  is  sabotage.  Now,  you  say  it  is  passive  resistance  rather  than  sabotage. 


876          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  case  do  you  know  of  where  sabotage  in  the  way  you 
have  explained  it,  the  ruining  of  the  property  or  business  of  the  proprietor, 
has  been  indulged  in  by  the  union  forces  as  a  defense  against  the  introduction 
of  efficiency  systems? 

Mr.  CONDON.  I  do  not  know  of  any  specific  instance. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  it  is  true,  as  I  stated  before,  that  that  is  your  deduc- 
tion from  the  contemporaneous  appearance  of  those  two  things? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  basis  for  the  statement  that  under  the  effi- 
ciency system  the  task  is  always  increasing  in  its  intensity? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Mr.  Taylor's  statement  on  page  63  of  his  book,  that  he  be- 
lieved  

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  book,  Shop  Management? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Scientific  Shop  Management.  He  says  on  pages  63  and  64 
that  the  four  shop  principles  are  a  large  daily  task,  standard  conditions,  re- 
ward for  success,  and  being  penalized  for  failure. 

Then  he  goes  on  further  to  say  in  his  book  that  there  should  be  periodical 
lay  offs  in  order  to  teach  the  men  an  object  lesson  in  the  matter  of  passive 
resistance. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  When  you  quote  Mr.  Taylor  it  is  only  fair  that  you  will 
quote  his  page  and  the  book. 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  am  trying  to  do  that.     Page  74  of  his  book. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  On  scientific  management? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes.    He  says: 

"  The  task  idea  is  emphasized  in  style  and  piecework  by  two  things,  the 
high  wages  and  periodical  lay  offs  after  a  reasonable  trial  of  incompetent  men, 
the  success  of  the  system,  the  number  of  men  employed  on  practically  the  same 
work  should  be  large  enough  to  have  the  workmen  quite  often  have  the  object 
lesson  of  seeing  men  laid  off  for  failure  to  earn  high  wages,  and  other  men 
substituted  in  their  places." 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  the  statement  as  to  reason  No.  1,  that  it  requires  a 
task  that  is  always  increasing  in  intensity? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  understand  from  what  you  have  read  that  you  have 
shown  that;  as  I  understand  it  the  task  is  a  certain  sat  time  usual  under  the 
Taylor  system  in  which  a  piece  of  work  is  to  be  performed. 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  merely  fixes  a  standard  or  a  yardstick  to  measure  a 
man's  efficiency? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  Cases  do  you  know  of  specifically  where  the  yardstick 
or  standard  has  been  increased,  causing  increased  intensity  of  work  on  the 
part  of  the  wrorkers? 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  do  not  know  of  any  specific  instance  from  personal  contact, 
but  I  have  had  evidence  from  the  men  that  the  time  studies  have  been  taken 
on  their  work  three  or  four  times,  and  prices  set  on  each  occasion. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  shops  and  where,  if  you  have  a  record  of  it  ? 

Mr.  CONLON.  The  Manchester  shop  of  the  American  Locomotive  Co.,  in  Alle- 
gheny in  1907 ;  I  think  it  was  January,  1907. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  other  places? 

Mr.  CONLON.  That  specific  instance  there  I  know  of. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  that  all  the  specific  instances  you  have  heard  of  or 
know  of? 

Mr.  CONLON.  For  the  benefit  of  the  commission  I  want  to  say  that  I  do  not 
get  access  to  the  shops.  I  have  to  rely  entirely  upon  what  I  get  from  testimony 
given  to  me  by  correspondents  through  our  general  office,  which  is  located  here 
in  Washington.  When  you  are  asking  me  directly  what  I  know  of  specific 
instances  I  must  rely  upon  this  testimony,  otherwise  my  testimony  is  valueless 
to  you. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  other  words,  this  statement  of  yours  is  based  upon  letters 
you  have  received  from  other  people  and  have  left  in  your  mind  a  general 
impression? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  the  task  is  always  increasing  in  intensity? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  877 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  of  your  own  knowledge  you  know  only  of  one  instance, 
and  you  can  not  recall  any  other  instance  that  you  received  from  the  cor- 
respondents ? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  the  commission  are  to  understand  that  that  is  the  basis 
of  your  statement? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Upon  what  do  you  base  your  second  point,  or  reason,  so-called 
efficiency  systems  have  been  devised  in  the  interest  of  increasing  dividends  and 
with  but  slight  regard  for  the  employee? 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  believe  that  testimony  was  emphasized  by  the  former  witness 
here  for  the  benefit  of  the  commission,  that  the  dividends  had  increased  2  per 
cent. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  the  testimony  was  also  that  the  wages  of  the  men  had 
increased  infinitely  more  than  that ;  some  going  up,  if  I  remember  correctly,  as 
high  as  over  70  per  cent. 

Mr.  CONLON.  The  general  run  of  the  bonuses  we  have  been  able  to  secure 
have  been  nowhere  near  that  much. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  specific  instances  can  you  give  now,  any  shop  during 
any  time,  where  you  can  make  this  deduction  that  they  have  been  devised  solely 
in  the  interest  of  increased  dividends  and  have  been  of  slight  benefit  to  the 
employees  ? 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  say  that  that  is  the  general  belief  of  our  membership  through- 
out the  country  that  is  the  idea  of  these  systems,  and  they  have  no  proof 
to  the  contrary,  so  far  as  their  earnings  are  concerned.  It  has  not  been  of 
sufficient  enticement  to  them  to  accept  this  system  yet. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  you,  yourself,  know  of  no  specific  instance  where  that 
had  been  the  effect? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Oh,  as  a  matter  of  figures  to  prove  it  out,  no. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  from  your  contact  with  the  machinists  in  your  union, 
that  is  the  present  belief? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Take  the  third  reason  you  give,  because  the  employees  know 
that  the  overhead  charge  of  accounting  must  be  directly  borne  by  the  producer. 
If  that  overhead  charge  that  is  caused  by  putting  in  an  efficiency  system  results 
in  the  cheapening  of  the  production,  more  than  would  meet  the  overhead  charge, 
there  would  be  no  absolute  necessity  for  the  consumer  to  bear  that  cost,  would 
there? 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  do  not  get  your  question. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  the  saving  by  putting  in  an  efficiency  system  and  doing 
the  work  was  greater  than  the  cost  of  putting  it  in,  there  would  be  no  addi- 
tional charge  put  on  the  consumer  for  the  product,  of  necessity? 

Mr.  CONLON.  No ;  I  think  competition  would  take  care  of  that,  in  the  matter 
of  the  selling  price. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  the  third  reason  is  one  that  must  be  tested  by  each 
individual  case,  as  to  whether  it  exists  or  not? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Well,  in  answering  your  question,  we  know  from  experience 
that  there  is  a  large  planning  room  there,  and  a  routing  room,  and  an  account- 
ing room,  and  a  large  number  of  clerks,  in  fact,  in  some  instances  the  office  is 
almost  as  large  as  the  shop ;  we  see  no  place  where  the  employer  is  going  to 
make  the  cost  of  that  office  of  necessity,  other  than  through  the  exertion  of  the 
producer  who  is  making  the  product  for  sale. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  other  words,  in  your  opinion  the  cost  of  installing  such  a 
system  must  of  necessity  be  taken  out  of  the  producer  by  causing  him  to  give 
extra  labor? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Exactly. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  know  of  any  instances  of  that? 

Mr.  CONLON.  No ;  it  is  self-evident ;  it  don't  require  any  instances.  If  we 
have  two  men  in  the  shop  and  we  only  had  one  timekeeper,  and  now  we  install 
a  system  whereby  we  must  have  three  men,  an  accounting  clerk,  a  routing  clerk, 
and  a  timing  clerk,  those  are  nonproducers,  inasmuch  as  they  put  nothing  on 
the  market  for  sale  which  is  to  pay  those  three  additional  clerks. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  must  confess  that  I  do  not  think  that  that  would  be  a  fair 
test  of  an  efficiency  system,  where  you  have  two  men  in  the  shop.  Take,  for 
instance,  where  there  are  a  thousand  men  in  the  shop,  and  where  by  the  intro- 
duction of  these  efficiency  experts  with  their  planning  room,  etc.,  first,  they  will 
be  able  to  lessen  the  wrork  of  the  men  and  make  better  machinery  and  make 


878          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

better  routing,  which  take  up  lost  motion,  and  in  addition  are  able  to  help  the 
worker  to  a  better  method  of  doing  his  work  and  as  a  combination  of  these  two 
things  they  decrease  the  unit  cost  for  the  output,  wherein,  in  such  a  case  as  that, 
would  the  producer  or  the  workman  be  compelled  by  extra  labor  to  absorb  the 
cost  of  the  introduction  of  the  system? 

Mr.  CONLON.  We  take  it  for  granted  that  competition  will  handle  the  selling 
price  of  the  product,  and  that  any  extra  cost  paid  in  that  shop  either  for  clerk 
hire  or  for  any  other  cause  must  be  paid  by  the  extra  exertion  on  the  part  of 
those  who  make  the  product  for  sale. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Let  us  examine  that  and  see  if  it  is  sound.  If  -the  proprietor 
should  introduce  a  piece  of  machinery  which  would  cost  $5,000,  which  would 
have  been  borne  by  the  product,  but  that  by  introducing  that  machinery  his 
product  was  so  many  more  times  increased  with  the  same  number  of  men 
working  by  reason  of  the  machine  that  it  reduced  the  unit  cost  of  the  product, 
would  not'  the  expense  of  the  machine,  the  introduction  of  it,  be  of  value  to 
the  consumer?  It  must  of  necessity  be. 

Mr.  CONLON.  In  that  case  I  would  judge  that  there  would  be  some  justifica- 
tion for  your  deduction. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Assuming  that  the  introduction  of  the  efficiency  system  with 
reference  to  shop  management  and  with  reference  to  men  management  enables 
the  shop  to  produce  and  turn  out,  taking  into  consideration  the  cost  of  that 
work,  the  product  at  a  less  cost,  would  not  that  be  a  benefit  to  the  consumer? 

Mr.  CONLON.  We  can  not  accept  that  deduction,  that  this  system  is  so  broad 
in  its  scope  that  it  is  going  to  make  dividends  for  the  stockholder,  increased 
wages  for  the  employee,  and  also  pay  a  67  per  cent  fixed  charge  for  accounting, 
planning,  and  routing.  It  must  have  some  great  elasticity  to  it  that  will  enable 
it  to  do  anything  like  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  assumed  in  your  answer  several  separate  things: 
First,  you  go  back  to  the  old  question;  you  admit  that  if  the  introduction  of 
that  efficiency  system  reduced  the  unit  cost  of  the  product,  then  it  has  been 
a  benefit  to  the  trade,  do  you  not  ? 
Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  your  objection  is  based  on  the  fact  that  you  believe,  and 
those  in  your  trade  believe,  that  the  introduction  of  the  system  actually  in- 
creased the  cost  of  the  product? 

Mr.  CONLON.  No;  it  don't  increase  the  cost  of  the  product,  because  the  com- 
petition will  take  care  of  that;  the  selling  market  will  take  care  of  that  part 
of  it ;  but  that  we  have  got  to  turn  out  so  much  more  in  order  to  make  up  for 
this  overhead  charge. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  if  the  turning  out  of  so  much  more  is  made  easier  to  the 
worker  than  the  turning  out  of  the  smaller  product  before  the  introduction  of 
the  system,  does  it  not  stand  to  reason  that  it  is  for  the  worker's  benefit,  so  far 
as  the  actual  work  is  concerned? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes ;  if  it  can  be  proven  that  it  will  be  made  easier. 
Mr.  THOMPSON.  Assuming  that  to  be  a  fact,  it  must  be  so. 
Mr.  CONLON.  No ;  we  will  not  assume  that  because  we  can  not  see  where  we 
can  turn  out  more  than  we  are  doing  at  the  present  time  to  such  an  extent. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But,  Mr.  Conlon,  I  am  asking  you  if  it  were  a  fact.    If  you 
can  answer  that,  you  can  make  your  other  explanation  afterwards.     If  it  ac- 
tually decreases  the  manual  labor  of  the  employee  in  turning  out  a  unit  of 
product,  to  that  extent  at  least  it  would  be  to  his  benefit? 
Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  if  in  fact  he  does  that,  and  by  reason  of  doing  that  per- 
mits the  employee  to  produce  a  greater  amount  of  product  in  a  given  time,  with 
less  exertion,  and  by  reason  of  that  fact  the  employer  increases  his  compensa- 
tion, then  the  introduction  of  the  system  is  of  benefit  to  the  worker,  is  it  not? 
Mr.  CONLON.  You  are  traveling  on  the  assumption  that  it  does  all  that? 
Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  if  it  does  all  that. 

Mr.  CONLON.  If  it  does  all  that,  we  could  then — but  we  have  to  have  an  ocular 
demonstration  of  it  first. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  what  case  have  you  in  your  mind  where  the  efficiency 
system  does  not  have  that  effect — what  plant,  and  where? 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  have  stated  one  plant.  Now,  I  might  cite  the  Washington 
Navy  Yard,  where  they  have  a  modified  form  of  the  Vicker-Maxim  system  on 
certain  work,  and  they  have  the  employees  of  that  place  continually  complain- 
ing about  it,  that  the  time  is  too  short,  although  there  is  no  bonus  or  anything 
of  that  sort  being  paid,  they  are  complaining  about  the  time  being  set  too 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  879 

short,  and  the  engineers  that  are  planning,  they  are  planning  behind  screen 
doors,  and  it  does  not  take  into  consideration  the  watching  time  that  they  have 
or  anything  else.  I  hear  these  complaints  every  Wednesday  night,  and  there 
is  no  bonus  to  be  paid,  anything  more  than  a  man's  record  is  supposed  to  be 
up  to  the  standard  in  the  case  of  a  furlough. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  in  the  case  you  have  mentioned  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  a  bonus? 

Mr.  CONLON.  No  bonus. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No  bonus  in  question? 

Mr.  CONLON.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  is  simply  the  question  of  the  setting  of  a  time  task? 

Mr.  CONLON.  The  setting  of  a  task ;  yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  case  of  a  private  establishment  do  you  know  where 
that  has  been  so? 

Mr.  CONLON.  The  American  Locomotive  Works  of  Manchester — or  Allegheny. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  They  have  no  bonus  system  there? 

Mr.  CONLON.  They  had  a  bonus  system  there,  what  was  known  as  the  stand- 
ard-time system.  I  believe  they  experimented  with  it  for  a  period  of  two  years 
or  more  at  a  cost  of  $800,000,  and  finally  discontinued  it  as  being  unsatisfactory. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  a  case  where  the  company  itself  abandoned  the  sys- 
tem? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Abandoned  the  system. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  know  what  system  they  used? 

Mr.  CONLON.  They  use  the  straight  piecework  system  now. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  was  not  the  bonus  system,  then? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes ;  they  had  what  is  known  as  the  standard-time  system,  with 
a  bonus. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  does  that  operate  in  connection  with  the  piecework 
system  ? 

Mr.  CONLON.  The  standard  time  was  a  set  time,  and  it  had  two — I  do  not  re- 
call it  now.  May  I  refer  to  this  book  here? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  read  from  page  199  of  this  pamphlet,  which  is  Official  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  Railway  Club  of  Pittsburgh,  at  its  meeting  on  February  25, 
1910.  I  said  at  that  time :  "  Now,  all  these  operations  would  be  added  up  upon 
completion  of  the  job  and  the  combined  time  placed  on  the  card  as  the  standard 
time  for  turning  a  crank  pin,  and  this  time  taken  by  a  stop  watch  and  under 
the  most  favorable  circumstances  must  be  lived  up  to  to  enjoy  what  is  known 
as  100  per  cent  efficiency,  which  entitled  the  man  to  a  bonus  of  20  cents  on  the 
dollar  based  on  his  day  rate,  if  he  can  maintain  an  average  efficiency  of  100 
per  cent  for  the  entire  week.  But  broken  belts,  dressing  tools  and  grinding 
them,  waiting  for  card,  dispatching  cards,  and  failure  to  find  the  necessary 
clamps  and  bolts  play  havoc  with  100  per  cent  efficiency." 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  been  reading  all  that  from  this  pamphlet? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes,  sir.  So  that  when  a  man  maintains  an  average  of  85  per 
cent  for  the  entire  week  he  would  be  entitled  to  a  bonus  of  10  cents  on  the 
dollar,  and  so  on  up  to  100  per  cent  efficiency,  which  entitles  a  man  to  20  cents 
on  the  dollar.  Then  I  go  on  to  say  something  further  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  intimately  are  you  acquainted  with  the  operation  of  the 
system  in  the  shops  you  mention? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Not  as  intimately  as  I  should  like  to  have  been.  My  attention 
was  called  to  it  by  reason  of  the  strike  that  took  place  somewhere  along  in 
the  fall  of  1909.  I  went  to  New  York  for  the  purpose  of  adjusting  this  strike 
with  Mr.  David  Van  Alstyne,  who  was  then  first  vice  president  of  the  American 
Locomotive  Co.  Mr.  Van  Alstyne  very  bluntly  told  me  that  the  standard-time 
system  had  come  to  stay,  and  that  we  would  have  to  accept  it  in  all  its  ramifi- 
cations or  else" get  out  of  the  plant.  I  went  back  and  put  the  men  back  in  the 
plant,  because  they  had  to  abide  by  their  constitution  in  the  matter  of  striking ; 
and,  secondly,  we  were  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  system  to  know 
whether  they  had  a  just  cause  for  striking  or  not. 

I  then  took  it  upon  myself  to  find  out  how  much  cause  for  complaint  they 
had,  and  I  got  into  the  shop,  and  I  noticed  that  the  men  were  working  at  a  pretty 
good  gait,  and  I  noticed  also  that  many  of  them  were  in  a  frenzy  because  they 
could  not  get  the  crane  at  a  particular  time  when  they  wanted  it  to  turn  over 
a  pair  of  cylinders,  and  my  attention  was  especially  attracted  to  a  drill  press 
where  a  young  boy  was  drilling  holes,  and  I  timed  that  boy  one  day  going  to 


880          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

the  card-dispatching  room  to  get  his  cards,  and  I  found  that  going  to  get  his 
card  and  put  it  back  in  again  for  the  job,  he  took  from  a  minute  to  a  minute 
and  a  half  time  to  put  the  card  back ;  and  I  took  the  time  on  the  job,  and  I 
figured  that  that  boy  spent  40  minutes  trying  to  uphold  the  system  and  20  min- 
utes producing,  and  I  thought  that  it  was  a  pretty  poor  system  that  would 
require  a  boy  to  do  that.  Then  I  got  interested  in  knowing  just  what  particular 
amount  of  bonus  these  men  were  getting.  I  did  not  tell  them  what  I  was  there 
for,  but  when  they  came  up  to  the  pay  window  'and  got  their  envelopes,  they 
tore  the  top  of  the  envelope  off  and  threw  the  envelope  away,  and  after  they 
went  away  I  picked  up  some  38  of  these  slips  and  put  them  into  my  pocket 
and  took  them  to  the  hotel  and  counted  them  up.  I  have  here  the  record  of 
what  the  slips  said.  These  slips  I  gave  to  the  Railway  Club  of  Pittsburgh,  in 
order  that  they  might  verify  them  for  their  own  satisfaction.  The  slip  gave 
the  name  of  the  man,  his  weekly  earnings,  the  amount  of  bonus,  and  the  number 
of  hours  worked,  and  the  number  of  workmen.  I  read  from  page  199  of  the 
Official  Proceedings  of  the  Railway  Club  of  Pittsburgh  for  1910,  quoting  from 
a  statement  which  I  made  at  that  time : 

"  In  making  my  inquiry  regarding  the  bonus  paid  I  was  surprised  to  learn 
of  the  few  who  had  received  any  bonus,  so  started  out  to  gather  a  number  of 
pay  envelopes  at  random  to  satisfy  myself  as  to  what  extent  it  was  being  paid. 
I  have  here  in  my  hand  38  pay  envelopes  that  I  thus  secured,  belonging  to  men 
who  were  working  for  the  American  Locomotive  Co.  during  the  week  ending 
November  20,  1909,  as  machinists.  These  men  are  still  working  for  this  com- 
pany, and  their  shop  numbers  are  on  the  envelopes,  together  with  their  earnings 
and  bonus  paid,  and  I  am  going  to  leave  them  with  the  club  for  verification  if 
necessary.  This  is  what  the  envelopes  say :  The  aggregate  earnings  in  these  38 
envelopes  was  $510.86,  and  the  total  amount  received  in  bonus  was  $6.57.  The 
highest  bonus  paid  was  72  cents  and  the  lowest  was  2  cents.  Fourteen  men  of 
the  38  here  represented  got  no  bonus  whatever.  However,  the  matter  of  bonus 
does  not  concern  us,  as  we  much  prefer  any  bonus  or  premium  that  company 
might  see  fit  to  bestow  upon  us  to  be  added  to  our  hourly  rate ;  but  what  did 
concern  us  was  the  marking  down  of  efficiency,  which  constituted  a  cause  for 
dismissal  if  not  above  69  per  cent." 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  system  was  that,  if  you  know,  which  was  installed 
there? 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  think  it  has  something  to  do  with  Mr.  Emerson's  system.  I 
am  not  sure  about  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Your  experience,  then,  in  that  shop,  would  indicate  that  the 
system  there  installed  had  not  been  efficient  at  all? 

Mr.  CONLON.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Take  for  a  test,  however,  shops  in  which  systems  have  been 
introduced,  either  Mr.  Emerson's  or  others,  where  it  has  increased  the  pay  of 
the  worker  and  lightened  his  work  and  increased  the  output ;  what  do  you  say 
with  reference  to  such  a  system  in  a  shop? 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  have  never  heard  of  such  a  place  except  from  scientific 
engineers. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  heard  Mr.  Dodge  on  the  stand? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Apparently  his  case  is  such  a  case. 

Mr.  CONLON.  We  have  no  evidence  of  it  from  any  of  the  members  of  our 
association. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  if  such  a  case  did  exist,  then  in  that  particular  case, 
at  least,  it  would  be  a  good  thing? 

Mr.  CONLON.  If  it  increased  the  wages  of  the  employees  and  reduced  their 
hours? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Reduced  their  work — the  burden  of  the  work? 

Mr.  CONLON.  And  reduced  their  work ;  yes.  I  should  say  that  it  was  a  good 
thing. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  these  reasons  which  you  give  in  opposition  to  the 
introduction  of  scientific  management  schemes  would  not  pertain  to  such  shops, 
would  they? 

Mr.  CONLON.  We  are  not  opposed  to  efficiency.  We  welcome  it.  We  want  it. 
But  we  are  opposed  to  any  system  of  exploitation  that  is  going  to  hold  us  up  to 
a  certain  task,  day  in  and  day  out,  with  no  relaxation.  If  your  question  is,  do 
we  favor  anything  that  has  with  it  a  method  or  a  system  with  absolutely  no 
point  of  relaxation  in  it,  I  say  no. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  881 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  we  are  to  understand  that  the  objection  really  is  not 
to  scientific  management  or  to  efficiency  systems,  but  to  those  systems  or  to  that 
class  of  management  in  which  there  is  no  relaxation? 

Mr.  CONLON.  We  are  opposed  to  a  bonus  system,  or  what  is  known  as  so- 
called  scientific  efficiency  systems. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  am  trying  to  get  at  why,  and  you  say  you  are  opposed  to 
any  system  which  gives  no  relaxation  to  the  men? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  if  there  should  be  such  a  system,  which  did  give  relaxa- 
tion, there  would  be  no  objection? 

Mr.  CONLON.  That  does  not  require  a  task  within  a  standard  limit. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  it  not  possible  that  a  man  can  have  a  task  within  a  stand- 
ard limit,  which  will  give  him  an  opportunity  for  relaxation? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes ;  if  that  is  possible. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  To  give  you  an  illustration,  suppose  even  an  ordinary  slow 
\vorker  would  take  a  half  an  hour  in  doing  a  piece  of  work,  and  the  standard 
test  would  give  him  an  hour ;  there  would  not  be  any  objection  to  that  system 
on  the  basis  that  there  was  no  relaxation? 

Mr.  CONLON.  No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  suppose  a  system  was  introduced  by  which  a  man  with 
less  effort  could  complete  that  work  in  20  minutes ;  what  objection  would  there 
be  to  such  a  system? 

Mr.  CONLON.  The  very  fact  that  it  is  a  system ;  that  it  is  a  system  of  ex- 
ploitation that  is  continually  going  on.  We  have  had  tasks  and  expect  to 
have  them.  There  is  not  an  operation  in  a  railroad  shop  that  is  not  timed. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  do  not  object  to  the  task? 

Mr.  CONLON.  If  it  is  a  reasonable  one,  no. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes.  Then  the  question  is,  after  all,  is  it  reasonable  or  un- 
reasonable, fair  or  unfair? 

Mr.  CONLON.  We  object  to  a  minimum  task  being  set. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No;  but  to  get  back:  You  say  you  have  no  objection  to  a 
task,  because  tasks  are  established  in  railroad  employment? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON,  Then  your  objection  is  really  based  on  its  reasonableness  or 
unreasonableness,  its  fairness  or  unfairness  to  the  worker? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Sure. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Assuming,  then,  that  in  any  given  case  a  system  of  scientific 
management  could  be  introduced  to  the  advantage  of  the  industry,  and  that 
the  employees  should  have  a  voice  in  its  introduction,  in  the  setting  of  the 
standard,  in  the  determination  of  the  price;  a  voice,  say,  equal  with  that  of 
the  employer;  what  objection,  then,  could  there  be  to  the  introduction  of  a 
beneficial  efficiency  system,  in  such  a  shop? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Our  objection  would  be  considerably  modified  if  we  had  a  voice 
and  a  say  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  you  had  an  equal  voice  with  the  employer,  and  the  sys- 
tem was  a  good  one  to  be  introduced  in  that  shop,  would  help  the  pay  of  the 
men  and  would  lessen  their  efforts,  then  your  objection  would  be  removed, 
would  it  not? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes ;  if  we  had  an  equal  voice  in  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  think  that  is  all  that  I  care  to  ask  the  witness. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Commissioner  Delano).  Mr.  Garretson,  have  you  any 
questions? 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Is  it  not  true  that  just  as  long  as  scientific  manage- 
ment or  efficiency  systems  or  whatever  is  represented  by  any  of  those  names 
is  based  upon  the  sweeping  away  of  all  that  the  men  have  done  for  themselves 
in  a  series  of  years  past,  just  so  long  there  will  be  objection  to  it? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  You  read  an  excerpt  from  your  laws,  which  was 
the  declaration  of  the  attitude  of  your  organization  toward  task  work.  I  am 
using  that  to  describe  a  half  a  dozen  things.  By  whom  were  your  laws  made — 
by  the  rank  and  file  of  the  organization? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Or  by  the  officers? 

Mr.  CONLON.  They  are  made  by  the  rank  and  file  of  the  organization ;  by  a 
referendum  vote. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Of  the  individuals  themselves? 

38819°— 16 56 


882          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  CONLON.  Of  the  individuals  themselves. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Therefore  the  declaration  of  the  law  is  the  declara- 
tion of  the  rank  and  file? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEKETSON.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Commissioner  Lennon,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  There  is  just  one  question  that  I  want  to  ask  Mr. 
Conlon.  Is  not  your  attitude  upon  this  question  based  more  upon  the  fact  that, 
no  matter  for  what  reason,  collective  bargaining  has  not  been  tried  to  any  ex- 
tent in  these  shops? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes ;  that  is  quite  largely  true. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Yes. 

Mr.  CONLON.  After  our  trouble  with  the  standard  time  in  the  American  Loco- 
motive Co.,  we  were  called  in  by  the  vice  president  who  succeeded  Mr.  Van 
Alstyne,  and  asked  if  we  would  bargain  with  him  on  piecework.  We  had 
never  agreed  to  bargain  even  on  that  until  that  time  and  we  readily  agreed  to 
go  ahead  and  do  the  best  we  could  with  anything  that  would  be  a  substitute 
for  the  obnoxious  standard-time  system. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  What  do  you  think  would  be  the  attitude  of  your 
union  if  some  employer  in  your  line  in  this  country  would  communicate  with 
your  headquarters  saying  that  they  had  the  efficiency  system — by  some  name, 
no  matter  what — instituted  in  their  establishment,  and  they  would  like  to  take 
up  for  consideration  with  your  union  the  question  of  collective  bargaining? 
Do  you  feel  that  your  union  would  refuse  to  go  and  make  investigation  and  go 
carefully  into  the  matter,  if  such  request  should  come  to  you? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Do  you  mean  that  we  would  refuse  it  ? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Yes. 

Mr.  CONLON.  No,  sir.  We  would  lay  that  matter  before  our  general  executive 
board,  and  I  am  sure  that  they  would  recommend  investigation  into  the  matter 
at  once. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  rather  infer  from  your  answers  to  Mr.  Garretson's 
questions  and  my  own  and  some  of  Mr.  Thompson's  that  if  a  friendly  attitude 
had  been  maintained  so  far  as  unionism  was  concerned  in  some  of  these  shops, 
you  would  probably  have  gone  into  a  more  thorough  investigation  and  would, 
if  you  could,  have  probably  entered  upon  collective  bargaining  with  these  firms? 

Mr.  CONLON.  There  are  some  features  of  the  systems  that  we  might  bargain 
on. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Yes. 

Mr.  CONLON.  And  there  are  some  that  we  have  not  yet  brought  ourselves  to 
the  point  of  bargaining  on,  such  as  the  the  stop  watch  and  the  bonus  part  of  it. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  have  collective  bargains  as  to  piecework  already, 
have  you  not? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Very  few. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Very  few? 

Mr.  CONLON.  I  do  not  believe  we  have  any  now,  at  the  present  time.  Yes ;  we 
have  one  with  the  Norfolk  &  Western  Railroad. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Mr.  Ballard? 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  You  have  read  from  the  constitution  and  by-laws  of 
your  union? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Would  you  mind  leaving  with  us  a  copy  of  them? 

Mr.  CONLON.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  That  is  all. 

Commissioner  HABBIMAN.  May  I  ask — you  spoke  of  not  having  yourself 
personally  seen  many  of  these  shops  where  this  scientific  management  is  in- 
stalled, and  I  want  to  know  how  many  of  the  labor  people  you  think  have 
really  studied  the  question  or  really  understand  it;  I  do  not  mean  the  men 
themselves  so  much  as  the  leaders.  Do  you  think  they  have  gone  thoroughly 
into  it,  and  do  you  think  many  of  the  leaders  have  been  to  these  places  and 
investigated,  or  do  you  think  that  they  have  just  taken  it  from  what  they 
have  read  and  hearsay,  and,  as  you  have  said,  by  letters  from  the  employees? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Our  experience  has  been  based  entirely  upon  grievances  that 
have  come  to  us.  Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  has  not  been  sufficient 
of  these  systems  introduced  where  our  membership  has  a  foothold  for  us  to 
come  to  any  practical  knowledge,  or  to  get  any  knowledge  practically,  or  an 
opportunity  of  investigating  the  matter;  the  employers  generally  throughout 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  883 

the  country  have  not  seen  fit  to  adopt  this  system.  Railroads — I  do  not  know 
of  one,  except  the  Santa  Fe,  that  has  adopted  it,  and,  as  a  consequence,  we 
are  limited  as  to  an  opportunity  for  investigation. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  What  I  mean  is,  that  apparently  you  have  taken 
quite  a  decided  stand  against  it;  that  is,  you  are  advising  a  very  decided 
stand  against  it. 

Mr.  CONLON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Is  it  from  personal  knowledge  that  you  have  taken 
that  stand? 

Mr.  CONLON.  It  has  been  from  a  personal  knowledge  with  other  systems  that 
have  been  a  forerunner  of  the  Taylor  and  Emerson  systems ;  one  known  as  the 
Towne  and  Halsey  system,  which  has  been  exploited  for  some  years ;  but  they 
all  look  alike  to  us. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  But  are  you  sure  that  they  are  alike? 

Mr.  CONLON.  No;  they  are  not  alike,  inasmuch  as  some  are  premium  sys- 
tems and  the  others  are  bonus  systems,  but  they  are  synonymous  to  us ;  they  are 
about  the  same. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Have  you  ever  seen  the  Taylor  system  working  in 
arsenals?  I  understand  that  it  is  installed  in  the  arsenals  at  Watertown. 

Mr.  CONLON.  Mr.  Alifas,  the  Government  representative,  has  seen  it  in  opera- 
tion in  the  arsenals.  He  will  follow  me  later  on. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Let  me  add  one  more  question,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  a  very  large  portion,  or 
virtually  all,  of  the  laboring  men  conversant  with  conditions  have  based  their 
objection  largely  to  the  efficiency  systems  on  the  writings  and  utterances  of 
the  authors  of  those  systems? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Very  largely. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  And  the  declarations  contained  therein? 

Mr.  CONLON.  Very  largely. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.   DAVID  VAN  ALSTYNE. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  give  us  your  name,  address,  and  business? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  David  Van  Alstyne;  residence,  105  West  Fortieth  Street, 
New  York  City. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  profession? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  At  present  I  am  assistant  to  the  president  of  the  New 
York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  Railroad. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  experience  have  you  had  with  so-called  efficiency 
systems? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  I  was  the  introducer  of  the  Emerson  system  into  the 
American  Locomotive  Co.  That  is  about  the  extent  of  my  experience. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  the  experience  which  Mr.  Conlon  spoke  of? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  was  the  attitude  of  union  labor  toward  the  introduc- 
tion of  that  system,  if  you  know? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Union  labor  and  nonunion  labor  were  opposed  to  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  was  the  reason  for  the  breaking  down  of  the  system, 
if  you  know? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  It  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  system. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Well,  what  was  the  reason? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  It  was  outside.  You  mean  why  they  took  the  system 
out  of  the  concern? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  They  took  it  out  after  I  left,  immediately  after  I  left; 
but  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  system.  It  .was  a  totally  different  affair. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  know  what  the  affair  was? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Yes;  I  do. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Did  it  have  anything  to  do  with  labor? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Nothing  to  do  with  labor  at  all. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  know  of  the  use  or  introduction  of  an  efficiency  sys- 
tem by  and  with  the  consent  of  labor  anywhere? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  It  was  done  by  and  with  the  consent  of  organized  labor 
in  the  American  Locomotive  Co.  when  it  was  finally  accomplished. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  it  in  existence  there  now? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Not  that  I  know  of. 


884          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  kind  of  agreement,  if  you  know,  was  made  with  union 
labor  with  reference  to  the  introduction  of  the  system  there? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  I  made  an  agreement  with  the  rnolders'  and  blacksmiths' 
unions,  which  was  the  ordinary  trade  agreement,  but  the  principal  feature  of 
it  was  that  the  unions  committed  themselves  to  a  maximum  output,  of  which 
the  company  was  to  be  the  judge,  and  the  basis  of  it  was  the  Emerson  standard 
time  system  and  a  bonus  paid  for  efficiency  above  two-thirds  in  addition  to  the 
straight  day's  wages. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Were  there  any  provisions  in  the  contract  as  to  how  this 
worked  out?  Did  they  make  any  provision  in  regard  to  adjusting  the  standard? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  In  order  to  facilitate  matters  we  agreed  to  make  the 
standard  times  by  means  of  a  demonstrator,  and  if  there  was  no  objection  to 
that  we  put  the  time  into  effect,  and  it  became  the  standard ;  it  was  provided 
for  in  the  agreement  that  the  shop  committee  could  object  at  any  time  they 
wanted  to,  and  if  the  shop  officials  and  the  shop  committee  could  not  agree  it 
was  further  provided  that  it  would  be  officially  settled  by  me  and  the  head 
of  the  union. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  there  any  provision  for  a  third  party  or  umpire  in  case 
you  and  the  head  of  the  union  disagreed? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  During  the  time  the  system  worked  and  while  you  were 
there  did  you  and  the  head  of  the  union  agree  as  to  the  standards  to  be  fixed? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  We  had  no  occasion  to. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  There  was  no  complaint  about  that? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  was  the  effect  on  the  earning  power  of  the  workmen, 
if  you  know? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  It  increased  the  average  materially,  but  by  reason  of 
changing  from  a  very  poor  piecework  system,  and  by  reason  of  the  fact  that 
the  agreements  were  based  on  day  wages,  day  rates,  day  rates  which  were 
similar  to  the  ruling  rates  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  various  plants,  in  some 
cases  the  rates  were  actually  reduced  by  agreement. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  heard  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Conlon  in  regard  to 
that  plant? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Which  plant? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  American  Locomotive  plant. 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  We  had  10  plants. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  the  one  at  Manchester. 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  which  he  said  that  he  picked  up  a  great  number  of  pay 
envelopes  and  that  the  highest  bonus  that  any  workman  got  was  79  cents,  if 
I  remember  correctly. 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  I  understood  him  to  say  that  was  Pittsburgh. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  was  Pittsburgh,  Mr.  Thompson. 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  That  was  Pittsburgh.  Pittsburgh  was  full  of  agitators  at 
that  time,  and  they  were  doing  all  they  could  to  interfere  with  us,  but  that  was 
only  one  plant  out  of  ten,  and  that  was  only  temporary. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Was  the  system  introduced  into  the  other  plants? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  it  working  in  any  of  the  plants  now  so  far  as  you  know? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  I  don't  think  it  is. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Generally,  what  was  the  effect  of  the  introduction  of  the 
system  on  the  relations  of  the  workmen  and  the  management  in  other  places 
than  Pittsburgh? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  I  should  say  they  were  improved,  because  the  general 
officers  of  the  unions  with  whom  we  made  the  agreements  were  well  satisfied. 
I  was  well  acquainted  with  them  and  met  them  frequently ;  in  fact,  when  we 
made  the  agreement  with  the  molders'  union  Mr.  O'Keefe  and  I  visited  all  the 
plants,  and  he  represented  the  company  and  I  represented  the  union,  in  that 
he  put  it  up  to  the  men  that  they  had  made  an  agreement  and  that  he  expected 
them  to  live  up  to  it  in  good  faith,  and  I  urged  the  nonunion  men  to  go  into 
the  union  on  account  of  the  agreement  which  was  made  by  the  union  officers. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  heard  Mr.  Conlon  speak  about  the  strike  that  occurred? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Yes;  that  was  at  Pittsburgh. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  that  was  due,  in  your  opinion,  to  these  agitators,  I 
take  it? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Yes. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  885 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  not  to  the  introduction  of  the  agreement? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  No;  because  I  had  every  reason  to  believe  that  if  I  had 
offered  the  same  agreement  to  the  machinists'  union,  which  had  no  organization 
in  the  plant  except  locally,  we  could  have  made  the  same  arrangement  with 
them  easily. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  introduction  of  this  system,  in  the  joining  of  yourself 
with  the  workmen  to  adjust  standards,  in  your  opinion  was  that  a  good 
scheme  ? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  would  be  a  good  scheme  in  the  introduction  of  systems? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  no  opinion  on  the  matter  of  the  introduction  of  the 
umpire,  have  you,  between  you  two  in  case  you  fail  to  agree? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  I  think  it  might  have  been  a  good  one,  but  we  didn't  get 
that  far.  We  had  no  occasion  to. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  all  I  care  to  ask. 

Commissioner  GAEBETSON.  Mr.  Van  Alstyne,  I  do  not  know  whether  I  quite 
understood  you  or  not,  but  you  believe  in  the  putting  in  of  an  efficiency  system 
that  it  is  more  desirable  to  take  the  matter  up  with  the  unions  that  are  affected 
rather  than  to  attempt  to  force  it  in  on  them? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  If  I  were  a  laboring  man  I  should  fight  an  efficiency  sys- 
tem to  the  death. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  If  they  did  not? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  You  believe  that  men  and  hogs  are  not  easily 
driven? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  I  believe  that  an  efficiency  system  or  a  scientific- 
management  system  in  a  shop  is  fatal  to  unionism,  and  I  think  we  need  union- 
ism more  than  we  need  efficiency  management. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  all ;  I  do  not  care  to  ask  any  more. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  The  only  thought  that  occurs  to  me  is  this :  If  in  10 
of  these  locomotive  plants  the  system  was  installed,  and  it  was  thrown  out,  you 
would  not  care  to  give  the  reason? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  It  hadn't  anything  to  do  with  labor.  You  perhaps  have 
read  more  or  less  about  the  American  Locomotive  Co.  in  the  papers  lately,  and 
you  can  draw  your  own  conclusions. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Do  you  think  this  efficiency  system  is  fatal  to  it  by 
itself;  that  is,  unless  it  is  part  of  the  consideration  writh  the  employee  and  go 
along  with  it? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Every  labor  agreement  should  have  two  sides  to  it;  the 
ordinary  railroad  agreement,  for  instance,  binds  the  employees  to  certain 
specific  rates  of  pay,  and  certain  apprentice  rules,  and  certain  hours,  and  all 
sorts  of  things.  It  binds  the  employee  to  do  nothing  except  sit  in  the  shop  a 
certain  number  of  hours.  It  is  my  judgment  that  every  operation  should  be 
measured  by  piece  price,  or  standard  time,  or  something;  that  these  times  or 
prices  should  be  made  a  part  of  the  contract,  and  should  be  subject  to  joint 
agreement  or  joint  adjustment. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  Under  those  conditions  it  would  not  be  fatal  to  the 
unionism  of  the  shop? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  No. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  May  I  add  one  question  here?  This  is  drawn  out 
of  this  statement  of  Mr.  Van  Alstyne's.  Probably  he  only  makes  it  from  his 
own  viewpoint.  You  spoke  of  railroad  agreements ;  you  meant  shop  agreements  ? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  I  means  shop  agreements;  yes. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Then  you  are  not  familiar  with  road  agreements? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  I  am ;  yes. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  They  all  contain — there  is  another  proviso  in  road 
agreements  in  regard  to  only  getting  so  many  hours ;  they  contain  that  measure. 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  You  are  right ;  I  should  have  mentioned  that. 

Commissioner  GAEBETSON.  That  is  the  point  I  wanted  to  bring  out. 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  All  agreements  should  be  on  the  same  basis  as  the  en- 
gineers' and  firemen's  and  conductors'  agreements — definite. 

Commissioner  HAEEIMAN.  I  understand  that  believers  in  scientific  manage- 
ment claim  that  the  system  is  the  best  friend  of  the  employer  or  laboring  man. 
Do  you  deny 'that?  Do  you  deny  that  it  is  a  friend  to  them  in  the  end? 


886          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  I  do  not  tliink  it  is  good  for  the  laboring  man  to  have  his 
loyalty  to  the  union  destroyed.  I  think  the  laboring  man,  when  he  can  make 
the  scientific  management  a  part  of  the  contract  with  his  employer  and  do  both, 
work  under  the  efficiency  system  and  have  an  incentive  to  remain  loyal  to  his 
union,  would  be  better  off. 

Commissioner  HAEKIMAN.  Could  not  that  be  possible?  Could  that  not  be 
brought  about,  that  the  union  by  having  a  scientific  management,  having  the 
two  things  go  along  together? 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Absolutely.  We  made  such  an  agreement  in  the  American 
Locomotive  Co. 

Commissioner  HAEEIMAN.  You  said  a  little  while  ago  that  it  would  be  fatal 
to  the  union. 

Mr.  VAN  ALSTYNE.  Unless  it  is  made  a  part  of  the  agreement.  There  would 
be  no  trouble  with  it  then. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Van  Alstyne.    Thank  you  very  much. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ME.  CARL  G.  BAETH. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  give  us  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation? 

Mr.  BAETH.  Before  I  do  I  would  like  to  get  a  little  more  air.  I  am  pretty 
nearly  smothered. 

(Whereupon  an  attendant  opened  a  window.) 

Mr.  THOMPSON.   Is  that  better? 

Mr.  EARTH.  I  have  not  felt  the  effect  as  yet,  but  in  anticipation  of  some 
improvement  I  will  proceed.  My  name  is  Carl — written  with  a  C  and  not 
a  K — Carl  G.  Barth.  There  is  more  to  it,  but  it  is  too  long  to  state. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Where  do  you  live? 

Mr.  BAETH.  Well,  ask  me  where  my  wife  lives,  and  I  can  tell  you.  I  live 
where  she  lives — 6151  Columbia  Avenue,  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  didn't  know  you  had  been  married. 

Mr.  BAETH.  Oh,  I  have  been  married  for  33  years.  I  don't  remember  the 
time  I  wasn't  married. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  business? 

Mr.  BAETH.  Well,  that  is  an  awfully  hard  question  to  answer,  but  as  people 
insist  that  a  man  assume  a  title  in  order  to  cover  a  multitude  of  sins,  I 
assumed  the  title  of  consulting  engineer,  because  I  can  do  anything  under  the 
sun  under  that  title. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  you  acquainted  with  what  has  been  called  by  Mr.  Taylor 
"  scientific  management  shops,"  as  relating  to  the  workingmen? 

Mr.  BAETH.  I  should  certainly  say  I  was,  if  any  man  is.  I  am,  next  to  Mr, 
Taylor. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have  had  many  years  of  experience  in  that  regard? 

Mr.  BAETH.  It  will  be  15  years  this  summer  since  I  got  in  touch  with  that 
work,  although  I  knew  Mr.  Taylor  30  years  ago  also.  I  know  some  of  his 
earlier  efforts. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  first  direct  your  attention  to  this  question:  After  a 
standard  is  set  for  piecework,  what  provision  is  made  for  preventing  the 
management  from  changing  it  in  order  to  drive  the  worker  to  a  still  higher 
rate  of  production? 

Mr.  BAETH.  Nothing  whatsoever,  except  self-preservation  of  the  manager, 
if  he  is  not  one  of  these  darn  fools  that  we  will  kill  yet,  as  one  was  killed 
yesterday,  that  he  will  have  sense  not  to  do  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  protection? 

Mr.  BAETH.  The  only  protection  I  know  of  is  that  there  are  enough  of 
these  fellows  around,  I  will  admit ;  but  I  would  like  to  see  some  other  kind  of 
protection. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  experience  with  employees  and  managements 
as  to  their  taking  advantage  or  not  taking  advantage  of  that  opportunity? 

Mr.  BAETH.  So  far  I  have  not  seen  any,  but  I  have  worked,  unfortunately, 
in  an  establishment  where  they  have  driven  the  men  before  so  much  that  a 
time-study  man  has  been  brought  up,  and  not  by  myself  but  by  others,  that  I 
have  been  somewhat  in  touch  with ;  they  have  been  in  that  spirit,  but  the  time 
is  rather  short,  in  a  good  many  instances,  so  that  the  matter  approaches  some- 
what the  condition  in  the  shoe  factories  that  I  have  heard  about.  It  is  in  fac- 
tories where  the  work  is  similar  and  where  the  men  should  be  treated  more 
like  women  have  been,  where  the  proper  thing  has  been  done  fully.  Also  in 
connection  with  that  matter  it  has  happened  that  a  man  like  myself  is  usually 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  887 

asked  to  take  an  extended  leave  of  absence,  usually  for  a  lifetime,  long  before 
he  likes  to  withdraw  and  before  he  can  get  people  to  see  that  it  is  to  their 
advantage  and  what  ought  to  be  done.  I  never  yet  had  the  pleasure  of  spend- 
ing half  the  time  that  I  would  like  to  spend  in  a  plant,  and  I  do  not  expect 
to  have  that  pleasure.  I  do  not  expect  to  live  long  enough.  God  Almighty 
could  not  live  long  enough  to  do  it,  so  what  can  you  think  about  a  human  being? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  experience  have  you  had  in  introducing  the  system 
where  the  workmen  were  organizing  unions? 

Mr.  EARTH.  Nothing  whatsoever.  Curious  enough,  I  have  not  been  in  touch 
with  any  organization  at  all,  except  once  on  the  outside  I  met  nine  laboring 
men  at  Pittsburgh  and  they  started  in  to  eat  me  up,  but  before  I  got  through, 
at  the  end  of  two  hours  and  a  half,  we  were  very  good  friends  and  shook  hands, 
and  there  wasn't  a  man  there  that  I  did  not  feel  that  I  could  cooperate  with 
when  I  got  through  with  him. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  see  any  objection  to  the  cooperation  of  organized 
labor  and  scientific  management  in  the  shop? 

Mr.  BARTH.  Not  in  case  these  fellows  will  come  to  me.  to  go  to  school  for  two 
or  three  years  first.  I  will  give  you  the  same  answer  as  Bob  Ingersoll  gave  a 
man  once.  I  never  forget  it,  because  it  is  a  fine  answer  of  a  fine  man,  given  to 
a  man  in  the  audience  who  objected  to  something  that  he  said  about  the  Bible. 
He  said  "  My  dear  friend  " — the  audience  wanted  to  shut  down  on  him,  but 
Ingersoll  said :  "  No,  let  us  hear  what  he  has  to  say."  The  man  wanted  to  talk 
about  matters  which  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  audience  were  perfect 
nonsense,  but  Ingersoll  said,  "  My  dear  friend,  if  you  will  go  back  to  an  or- 
dinary common  school  first  for  three  years,  and  then  go  to  college  and  spend 
three  or  four  years  there,  and  spend  three  or  four  years  more  on  top  of  that 
thinking  about  these  matters,  I  will  argue  that  question  with  you ;  "  and  so  it 
has  to  be  with  a  great  many  people;  I  would  want  to  have  them  put  them- 
selves in  my  hands  so  that  I  could  teach  them  and  they  would  know  what  we 
were  going  to  argue  about,  before  we  would  have  any  discussion.  But  I  am 
willing  to  admit  that  by  nature  I  am  particularly  inclined  to  instruct,  and 
particularly  inclined  to  receive  instruction.  I  am  always  ready  to  teach  and 
always  ready  to  learn. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Providing  the  laboring  men  do  come  and  are  instructed  by 
you  as  you  say,  what  objection  would  there  be  to  cooperation  between  union 
labor  and  the  employer? 

Mr.  BARTH.  I  do  not  think  there  would  be  any  in  the  slightest,  so  far  as  I 
can  see ;  absolutely  none  whatever.  I  never  had  any  trouble  with  anybody 
that  went  to  school  with  me.  That  is  saying  a  good  deal,  but  I  will  stand  on 
my  record  with  anybody  that  knows  me. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  there  is  not  any  necessary  objection  to  organized 
workmen  working  in  connection  with  the  scientific-management  system? 

Mr.  BARTH.  Nothing  except  the  education  that  I  am  speaking  about.  That 
has  got  to  come  to  them  some  way  or  other.  They  are  going  to  be  educated 
to  the  ideas  we  are  trying  to  work  out,  so  as  to  come  in  and  argue  on  the 
question. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  mean  assuming  that  they  are  educated  to  believe  in 
the  scientific-management  system,  as  you  understand  it? 

Mr.  BARTH.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  what  objection  would  there  be  to  joining  with  the  pro- 
prietor of  the  shop  in  carrying  out  the  system? 

Mr.  BARTH.  Only  I  believe  there  would  be  mighty  little  for  them  to  do, 
but  to  follow  that  thing  out,  to  take  up  the  spirit  and  to  follow  that  as  far 
as  I  am  able  to,  I  believe  it  wrould  be  possible  to  argue  about  a  base  rate. 
Fluctuation  and  hard  times  come,  when  reductions  should  be  made,  and  then 
extraordinary  good  times,  there  should  be  an  increase.  In  good  times  every- 
thing costs  much  more,  because  normal  things  keep  on  costing  high.  Of  course, 
you  understand  I  am  no  economist,  but  I  have  been  taught  that  as  a  young 
man,  that  in  good  times  things  are  cheap,  and  in  hard  times  thing  are  dear,  and 
the  fluctuations  in  this  country  are  upsetting  these  things,  and  the  great 
financiers — I  don't  understand  that  question,  though;  that  is  not  part  of  my 
business. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  believe  it  is  possible  for  the  men  and  the  proprietor 
to  get  together  on  that  question  of  setting  a  basic  rate  or  standard? 

Mr.  BARTH.  Yes;  there  are  awfully  few  impossible  things  in  this  world.  I 
think  it  is  within  the  realm  of  possibility. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  you  say  it  is  inadvisable? 


888          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BAKTH.  No;  I  would  not  say  that  at  all;  no,  sir.  I  simply  have  not 
thought  very  far  about  it,  because  I  am  so  imbued  by  the  idea,  and  I  do  not 
think  that  all  the  daily  troubles  that  somebody  tells  us  are  going  to  come  next 
year — I  don't  think  about  them ;  we  haven't  had  that  trouble  yet. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  have  not  taken  into  consideration  the  question  of 
collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  BAKTH.  No ;  not  very  seriously,  because  I  do  not  shake  hands  with  the 
devil. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  As  a  scientific  man  would  you  prefer  not  to  give  an  opinion? 

Mr.  BARTH.  I  believe  that  is  a  false  idea  among  the  public,  that  every  man 
has  a  right  to  his  opinion.  I  believe  there  are  very  few  men  who  have  a  right 
to  their  opinion.  I  consider — and  I  am  constantly  studying — that  you  have  no 
right  to  an  opinion,  because  you  never  sweat  for  that  opinion,  just  because  your 
grandfather  or  your  mother  had  it  or  some  old  woman  that  you  have  heard 
around  the  street  corner  had  it.  I  do  not  consider  that  a  good  right  that  I 
should  have  that  opinion.  If  you  lie  awake  at  night  and  study,  and  so  forth, 
and  so  on,  it  is  possible  to  get  opinions ;  but  I  have  got  mighty  few ;  but,  by 
the  Almighty,  they  are  strong.  [Laughter.] 

That  is  the  Taylor  system,  but,  you  know,  people  prefer  to  modify  it  some- 
what. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  you  have  not  entertained  an  opinion  of  the  collective 
bargaining  system,  attaining  it  through  a  process  of  study? 

Mr.  BARTH.  Not  that  I  consider  myself  entitled  to  an  opinion,  a  serious 
opinion,  except  so  far  as  people,  you  may  say,  absorb  something  through  the 
atmosphere;  but  I  have  sense  enough  not  to  perspire  it  out  again.  [Great 
laughter.] 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  effect,  if  you  know,  has  the  introduction  of  scientific 
management  had  on  the  welfare  of  the  workmen  who  work  thereunder? 

Mr.  BARTH.  Now,  will  you  allow  me  to  make  quite  a  little  discussion  about 
those  matters? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  is  up  to  the  chairman. 

Mr.  BARTH.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  be  allowed  just  to  take  the  initiative  in 
some  matters  myself  on  the  whole  scheme  of  management  ? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Commissioner  Delano).    Go  ahead. 

Mr.  BARTH.  I  consider  that  I  occupy  quite  a  singular  position  in  this  whole 
matter,  because  most  of  it  is  nothing  but  talk.  I  got  into  this  work  because  I 
proved  myself  to  be  a  good  efficiency  engineer  and  particularly  inclined  to  make 
use  of  what  little  mathematics  I  had  learned  in  the  old  country  on  practical 
problems,  and  that  is  why  Mr.  Taylor  got  me.  For  14  years  I  was  a  machine 
designer,  and  I  designed  machine  tools  that  were  as  good  as  any  of  them.  I 
rose  in  a  short  time  from  $10  a  week  to  double  the  salary  of  a  foreman.  I 
was  not  made  a  foreman  for  certain  reasons.  I  will  not  mention  them.  I  had 
my  own  ideas  of  what  certain  things  about  machine  tools  should  be,  and  so,  of 
course,  I  got  the  start,  and  the  ideas,  some  of  them,  I  got  from  England.  I 
found  out  that  they  came  from  England.  I  was  one  of  the  few  men  that  found 
out  that  Englishmen  knew  something  50  years  ago,  some  things  that  some  of  us 
are  just  beginning  to  find  out  now. 

So,  when  I  came  to  Mr.  Taylor  my  combined  knowledge  of  machinery  and 
the  ability  that  I  had  in  the  applying  of  mathematics  in  that  relation  later  on 
made  a  most  happy  combination,  and  I  fell  into  that  work  in  a  wonderful  way, 
and  I  have  been  working  on  it  with  a  great  deal  of  enthusiasm  for  many  years. 
In  fact,  my  pastime  is  to  work  in  a  little  different  way,  not  fussing  and  quarrel- 
ing with  men  in  the  shop — I  do  not  mean  now  literally  ;  I  mean  fussing  around — 
but  to  sit  down  by  myself  with  God  Almighty  and  a  piece  of  paper  and  a  pencil. 

I  got  an  ideal  on  which  I  believe  that  all  machine-tool  builders  should  build 
their  tools.  You  understand,  it  was  a  crank's  idea  five  years  ago,  but  I  have 
the  great  pleasure  now  to  find  that  machine-tool  builders  are  borrowing  my 
ideas  and  are  looking  on  me  as  an  authority  as  to  how  to  build  machine  tools ; 
and  it  is  this  ideal  of  my  own  that  I  am  working  for  more  than  anything  other- 
wise, because  it  is  based  on  efficiency  of  making  tools  more  than  anything  that 
people  dream  of  to-day.  I  want  to  touch  that,  you  may  say,  from  a  certain 
point  of  view,  that  every  machine  tool  in  a  machine  shop  is  adjusted  to  certain 
musical  chords,  and  they  should  be  together,  so  that  there  is  harmony.  I  do  not- 
mean  that  the  physical  noise  is  going  to  be  less,  but  with  a  knowledge  like  mine 
on  the  part  of  everybody  else  around  there,  there  will  be  more  or  less  music 
and  everything  running  in  harmony.  I  will  tell  you  what  I  mean  by  it  if  you 
will  get  me  the  blackboard  which  was  here  this  morning  for  my  benefit  and 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  889 

was  taken  away.  Therefore,  I  hope  somebody  will  bring  it  back.  If  you  want 
to  have  it  put  before  you  properly  so  that  you  can  understand  the  whole  matter, 
let  me  have  the  blackboard.  You  can  have  your  choice ;  if  you  want  to  have  it, 
you  can  have  it. 

(Mr.  Barth  here  pinned  a  blue  print  on  the  blackboard.) 

What  I  have  to  say  in  this  matter  of  perfecting  machinery  is,  of  course,  a 
trifle.  I  am  not  conceited  about  it.  Maybe  other  people  think  that  I  am,  but 
I  do  not  believe  I  am.  I  think  that  I  occupy  a  unique  position  in  this  work. 
This  blue  print  is  a  logarithmic  layout  of  speed  ratios. 

(Mr.  Barth  here  gave  a  short  explanation  of  the  diagram  on  the  blackboard.) 

Mr.  BAETH.  Now,  it  is  the  preparation  of  a  standard  for  the  machinery  in  a 
shop  that  is  my  work,  and  that  is  where  I  claim  that  I  do  more  than  any- 
body else  to  really  standardize  the  differences ;  and  when  I  say  "  standardize  " 
I  do  not  mean  that  I  use  standard  time.  That  is  a  confusion  of  terms,  to  my 
mind.  I  mean  the  standardizing  of  conditions  before  you  do  the  work.  That 
is  something  tangible  and  something  physical.  And  my  wTork  consists  in  blaz- 
ing the  way.  And  then,  I  never  prepare  a  thing  as  I  like  to  have  it.  That  is 
the  difference  between  what  I  do — I  can  come  back  to  certain  other  things — 
and  what  other  efficiency  engineers  do.  They  go  and  touch  the  high  spots,  do 
a  little  bit  if  they  can,  usually  mighty  little  in  really  standardizing  the  condi- 
tions, and  when  I  make  a  time  study  that  means  nothing.  It  would  not  mean 
anything. 

Go  right  in  the  shops  and  find  out  who  put  a  system  in  and  you  will  find  out 
just  what  it  is.  I  will  give  you  all  that  I  have  here,  and  you  need  not  pay  a 
dime  for  it  if  you  do  not  want  to,  but  it  can  be  yours  for  nothing,  if  you  want  it, 
and  I  can  throw  light  on  lots  of  things,  if  you  want  this,  and  I  would  rather  say 
too  much  to-day  than  not  say  enough ;  and  I  will  say  more  privately,  but  it  will 
not  be  for  publication. 

Now,  I  am  trying  to  do  something  that  will  live  when  I  am  gone — something 
that  will  live  even  when  I  am  dead";  not  only  when  I  am  gone  from  the  shop 
and  gone  home  to  my  wife.  [Laughter.]  Now,  take  these  specific  instances. 
Now,  here  I  show  the  conditions  in  regard  to  a  single  manufacturer,  and  when 
you  look  at  it  you  see  that  he  does  not  know  a  thing  about  his  work.  Here 
you  see  the  difference  in  the  adjustment  of  these  machines  all  the  way  through. 
Here  are  drill  presses  varying  a  little  bit  in  size,  you  see.  Look  at  these  dif- 
ferences ;  see  they  vary,  when  they  should  be  the  same.  Now,  how  can  we  get 
them  the  same  distance  apart,  and  what  distance  should  they  be  apart?  That 
is  where  I  know  I  have  got  the  machine  tool  builders  to  agree  to  this  idea  of 
mine,  on  the  distance  between  the  notes  in  an  octave.  Now,  after  spending 
some  money — Mr.  Dodge,  you  recognize  this  as  some  of  the  work  in  your  shop, 
do  you  not? 

Mr.  DODGE.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAETH.  You  see,  these  are  all  different.  It  is  just  as  if  this  one  had 
the  nose  in  the  back  and  this  one  in  the  front.  [Laughter.] 

Now,  here  comes  the  speed.  You  see  how  this  thing  comes,  one  big  one  and 
one  smaller  one,  and  this  manufacturer  has  16  speeds,  and  he  loses  5.  He  tells 
his  customer,  "  I  have  16  speeds."  He  has  got  only  11.  The  most  charitable 
thing  to  say  is  that  he  does  not  know  any  better;  he  is  telling  a  falsehood, 
but  it  is  an  unintentional  one.  He  does  not  know  any  better.  That  is  what  I 
have  told  them.  The  machine  is  so  constructed  that  I  was  not  able  to  do  better 
with  it  without  throwing  away  half  of  the  machine. 

Here  you  see  where  I  still  sacrifice  some  speeds. 

(Mr.  Barth  continued  his  explanation  of  the  diagram  referred  to.) 

Now,  I  want  to  show  you,  so  long  as  you  have  the  patience  to  listen  to  me, 
just  what  I  have  clone  in  one  of  those  machines  to  bring  them  into  line  and  to 
harmonize  them  and  standardize  them.  Now,  I  haven't  got  much  time  to  sleep, 
but  my  dream  is — and  I  dream  sometimes  in  between  work  and  sometimes  at 
night — my  dream  is  that  the  time  will  come  when  every  drill  press  will  be 
speeded  just  so,  and  every  planer,  every  lathe,  the  world  over,  will  be  har- 
monized, just  like  the  musical  pitches  are  the  same  all  over  the  world.  We 
can  study  that  out  and  say,  "  We  will  get  nearer  and  nearer  to  standardizing 
our  material,"  so  that  when  we  ask  for  a  certain  material  we  get  it,  so  that  we 
can  standardize  and  say  that  for  drilling  a  1-inch  hole  the  world  over  that 
will  be  done  with  the  same  speed. 

Mr.  Dodge,  you  never  knew  that  dream  of  mine.  That  dream  will  come  true, 
some  time. 


890          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Now,  I  have  an  invention  here,  but  I  never  expect  to  get  anything  out  of  it. 
My  son  gets  a  little  out  of  it,  but  I  do  not  get  anything.  I  have  had  to  change 
all  those  things,  and  wherever  you  see  a  figure  on  this  chart  that  means  a  new 
gear.  Now,  it  is  my  principal  job,  gentlemen ;  and  training  young  men  to  under- 
stand that.  It  is  not  a  thing  that  comes  overnight,  but  here  is  a  thing  that  I 
am  most  sorry  for,  that  my  son  has  been  working  with  me  for  seven  years, 
and  he  is  still  my  apprentice,  whereas  others  have  men  with  them  for  a  year 
and  then  those  men  go  out  as  efficiency  engineers.  [Laughter.]  We  had  a 
man  at  Watertown  Arsenal  who  came  in  and  wanted  work;  a  fine  looking 
fellow ;  he  came  and  applied  for  a  job.  He  saw  Col.  Wheeler  and  talked  with 
him,  and  the  colonel  was  very  well  impressed  by  him.  He  sent  him  out  to  the 
time  department  to  see  Maj.  Williams,  and  he  was  also  very  well  impressed 
with  him.  Then,  he  sent  for  me  to  come  in  and  see  a  man  that  he  said  looked 
very  promising.  It  took  me  just  10  minutes  to  find  out  about  him,  because  I 
have  a  certain  way — not  through  a  lawyer,  but  in  my  work  there  is  a  way — of 
finding  out  what  a  man  knows.  I  asked  him  what  his  education  was,  and  I 
found  out  that  only  a  year  ago  he  had  been  in  a  drug  store  as  a  drug  clerk, 
and  he  had  been  there  an  assistant  to  one  man  who  had  once  been  an  assistant 
to  one  of  the  great  concerns  of  Europe — I  am  not  saying  any  name — and  in 
that  way  he  had  become  an  expert  in  cost  accounting  and  in  bookkeeping  and 
in  time  study  and  all  those  things  that  I  feel!  that  I  am  not  absolutely  an 
expert  in  myself.  As  to  the  time  study  I  do  not  know  much  about  it  except 
the  theory.  I  can  not  use  the  stop  watch.  I  wish  I  could,  but  life  is  too  short. 
I  turn  that  over  to  inferior  men ;  the  most  important  part  of  the  system  I  turn 
over  to  inferior  men,  because  the  final  thing  is  to  make  that  right.  But  I  have 
enough  to  do  to  prepare  the  way  for  that  fellow.  Like  John  the  Baptist,  I 
prepare  the  way.  [Laughter.] 

Now,  here  I  will  show  you  what  is  implied  in  just  one  single  plant.  Here 
are  the  things  we  have  to  do  [indicating  on  blue  print].  Every  one  of  this 
group  of  machines  had  to  have  a  chart  made  like  that.  Every  pulley,  every 
gear,  if  you  can  not  get  it  from  the  manufacturer ;  and  to-day  even  the  great 
manufacturers  can  not  give  you  drawings  representing  the  machines  that  they 
build.  They  ought  to  be  taken  out  and  hung  or  drowned.  They  do  not  belong 
in  1914.  [Laughter.] 

Still,  some  of  them  have  high  reputations.  It  shows  how  crudely  things  are 
still  done  in  this  country.  I  do  not  know  about  any  other  country.  I  got  dis- 
gusted over  there  and  came  over  here.  [Laughter.] 

Now,  I  want  to  show  you  something  further  of  that  work.  These  little  lines 
that  you  see  there  mean  very  little  to  you,  but  they  mean  everything  to  me 
[indicating  on  another  chart].  By  trying  all  those  speeds  as  we  find  them,  I 
can  at  once  see  what  state  of  affairs  we  have  in  that  shop,  whether  things  are 
harmonious,  or  whether  we  have  any  old  thing,  and  that  is  what  we  usually 
find.  The  instructions  come  along  with  the  machine  for  speeding  the  machine, 
and  the  man  figures  out  from  that — it  is  a  tremendous  problem  for  him,  you 
know — although  it  is  nothing  for  anyone  that  knows  how — he  figures  out  that 
it  is  25  or  30,  and  so  he  gets  this  again  and  again.  When  we  put  two  speeds 
on  the  countershaft,  we  double  up,  and  many  a  time  a  man  thinks  he  has 
provided  for  16  speeds,  and  what  has  he  got?  He  has  got  only  10.  That 
shows  it. 

Now,  there  is  the  same  thing,  and  you  see  how  it  is  condensed  [indicating 
on  chart].  You  see  how  the  spaces  are  more  regular,  and  there  is  where  they 
would  not  give  me  the  money  that  I  wanted,  and  I  made  the  best  that  I  could 
with  what  I  had. 

Now,  this  is  much  better  for  the  workman,  because  while  the  wrorkman  knows 
mighty  little  about  the  machine  he  knows  far  more  than  the  management,  as 
a  rule.  Of  course,  there  are  exceptions. 

Now,  here  is  a  case  where  I  have  laid  out — of  course,  this  was  made  over 
again  for  a  lantern  slide  [indicating  on  another  blue  print].  I  sometimes  give 
talks.  I  hate  to  give  them,  but  sometimes  do,  and  when  I  give  them  I  hammer 
away.  There  you  see  a  group  of  machines,  and  you  see  the  enormous  gaps  in 
that  group  of  machines.  There  it  is  as  they  should  have  been  [indicating  on 
another  chart].  That  is  what  it  will  be  50  years  hence,  when  manufacturers 
have  either  agreed  on  my  periods  or  some  other  periods  that  will  be  just  as  good 
or  better ;  although  I  think  they  will  have  a  hard  time  to  get  anything  better — I 
will  say  that,  from  the  study  that  I  have  given  it.  Of  course,  nothing  is 
simpler  than  two  and  one,and  one  and  a  half  in  between.  There  is  nothing 
simpler  than  the  square  root  in  between  one  and  two.  How  much  the  com- 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  891 

mission  understands  of  that  I  do  not  know,  and  I  do  not  think  it  is  very  im- 
portant. I  will  give  them  credit  for  something,  though.  I  will  give  them  a 
whole  lot  of  credit  for  being  the  best  body  of  men  to  study  this  subject.  You 
can  take  that  as  you  want  to.  At  least,  they  ought  to  have  an  engineering 
counsellor.  There  is  lots  more  to  it,  you  know,  but  I  have  an  awful  good 
memory,  so  that  I  don't  get  in  the  habit  of  making  notes  as  much  as  I  ought  to. 
I  tell  everybody  else  to  do  it,  but  I  don't  do  it  myself,  much. 

Now,  here  is  a  phase  of  the  work  that  I  do.  If  it  is  a  question  of  asking  me 
how  to  introduce  scientific  management  in  a  machine  shop,  I  never  try  it  the 
same  way  twice.  I  go  and  spend  only  a  very  few  days  and  make  a  report. 
One  time  I  was  asked  to  make  a  report  by  Mr.  Redfield.  After  he  had  ex- 
amined me  in  the  last  investigation  he  asked  me  to  go  to  one  of  these  companies, 
and  I  went  and  spent  three  hours  in  that  company  and  then  spent  three  days 
writing  a  report.  At  other  times  I  can  spend  three  days  and  make  my  report 
in  three  hours,  but  I  am  a  very  slow  writer. 

I  ought  to,  but  I  have  never  learned  as  a  young  man,  and  you  know  you  can 
not  learn  an  old  dog  new  tricks. 

But,  now,  then,  everywhere  I  go  I  do  the  preliminary  work.  I  get  farther 
along  or  less  farther  along — that  may  not  be  good  English,  but  you  understand 
me — before  we  do  something  to  get  more  work  out  of  the  shop,  because  it  is 
perfectly  true  that  primarily  it  is  the  employer  who  looks  after  his  interests  and 
has  got  to  make  a  showing.  He  is  after  his  interests,  as  a  rule,  first.  So  I  got 
no  less  than  two  cases  of  record.  Mr.  Dodge  is  one  of  them,  but  he  was  too 
modest  to  mention  it  this  morning,  but  after  we  were  working  at  the  Link  Belt 
for  a  while  it  commenced  to  look  good.  It  did  not  look  so  good  at  first,  but  it 
came  to  look  better  later.  He  said,  "  Now,  Barth,  I  will  be  perfectly  satisfied 
if  I  don't  get  anything  out  of  this  system,  if  you  get  the  men  more."  I  did 
not  think  about  throwing  this  bouquet  to  him  when  I  came  up  here,  but  as  we 
are  friendly  I  will  do  it,  because  it  is  true,  although  I  do  not  always  tell  the 
truth. 

Now,  then,  my  first  object  in  a  shop  is  to  gain,  to  keep,  and  more  to  keep  than 
to  gain;  but  I  have  got  to  gain  before  I  can  keep.  That  is  what  the  mil- 
lionaires do,  anyway.  And  in  conference  with  the  men — I  wanted  them  to  get 
used  to  me;  I  wanted  them  to  understand  that  I  am  an  awfully  ordinary  son 
of  a  gun.  I  put  on  overalls  and  I  carry  around  tools  among  them.  I  didn't  look 
very  stylish,  but  I  do  not  like  these  efficiency  men  who  put  on  a  good  deal  of 
style  and  wear  kid  gloves,  and  I  don't  have  an  office  boy  to  carry  the  tools 
around  for  me,  so  in  order  to  save  time  I  picked  up  the  tools  and  carried 
them  around  myself.  I  did  not  do  that  to  play  to  the  gallery,  although  I 
know  it  is  good  policy  to  do  that — although  I  didn't  do  it  for  that.  Mr.  Dodge 
said  that  I  didn't  have  any  policy,  and  he  got  mad  as  hell  at  me  once  in  a 
while,  but  I  really  did  it  because  I  can  do  it,  and  why  shouldn't  I  do  it?  The 
time  may  come  when  I  can't  do  it,  but  I  am  pretty  lively  yet. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  We  have  discovered  that. 

Mr.  BARTH.  Somebody  else  has,  too,  but  not  always.  Well,  that  is  my  prime 
object,  and  I  am  looking  for  benefits,  first,  to  do  that  kind  of  work  with  the 
machine  and  improve  it,  that  the  man  suggests.  I  try  to  find  out  what  the 
matter  is  with  the  machines,  and  I  tell  you,  all  this  talk  about  the  employer 
looking  out  for  the  machines  and  not  looking  out  for  the  men  is  all  rot.  I 
should  say  it  is  just  about  even,  and  it  is  most  deplorable,  from  my  point  of 
view,  because  I  look  at  the  machine  first.  I  haven't  seen  these  sickly  over- 
worked fellows  that  they  talk  about  so  much.  When  I  meet  them  on  the  street 
cars  they  are  as  well  dressed  as  I  am,  and  they  have  been  to  the  same  kind  of 
amusements,  except  possibly  they  don't  spend  the  same  amount  of  time  that  I 
do  to  get  clean ;  otherwise  there  is  no  difference ;  I  see  no  difference.  I  am  very 
particular  about  that.  I  don't  care  how  dirty  I  get,  but,  my  God,  I  want  to  get 
clean  afterwards. 

But  in  that  way  I  try  to  get  at  and  correct  the  most  crying  defects  and  cry- 
ing abuses  of  the  man's  machine,  and  it  is,  to  my  mind,  most  deplorable  the 
amount  of  waste  there  is  going  on  in  this  country  by  not  repairing  machinery. 
In  my  judgment  the  machinery  doesn't  fare  half  as  well  as  most  men  do.  Do 
you  know  why?  My  God,  it  is  because  they  can't  talk  any  more  than  a  dog 
can.  If  they  could,  they  would  be  howling  terrible  around  here. 

I  was  up  against  one  case — I  won't  mention  any  names,  but  it  is  a  very 
large  company — I  just  happened  to  think  of  it.  They  had  60  drill  presses  in 
that  plant,  and  there  was  not  one  on  which  I  could  test  properly  a  1-inch  drill. 
Think  of  it.  I  had  to  buy  absolutely  a  new  one,  and  when  I  bought  it,  it 


892          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

had  to  be  modified  to  suit  me.  I  got  in  touch  with  the  best  drill  manufac- 
turers of  the  country,  and  they  all  agreed  to  do  what  I  wanted,  so  I  got  the 
machine  to  test  the  drills  in  such  a  way  that  we  simply  got  the  employer 
wondering  what  in  the  world  was  up,  and  they  never  saw  anything  like  that 
in  their  lives  before.  Then  there  was  a  man  came  to  me  the  next  day  and 
said  "  Earth,  I  have  been  laying  awake  all  night  long ;  I  wonder  how  in  the 
world  you  can  make  these  drill  makers  do  as  they  did."  But  that  is  a  fact, 
and  I  want  to  mention  that  to  show  you  how  little  people  know  about  their 
own  business.  You  know  most  doctors  kill  their  patients,  and  while  machines 
turn  out  things  thousands  of  times  better  than  they  did  years  ago,  it  is  also 
true  of  Mr.  Taylor  and  his  work;  that  is  right,  that  is  the  proof  of  this  con- 
glomeration that  I  showed  you.  From  my  point  of  view  it  is  disharmony; 
that  is  the  way  that  I  have  sometimes,  we  haven't  got  the  same  kind  of  spirits 
around  the  house,  with  my  wife. 

But  that  is  the  way  I  approach  the  subject,  so  that  when  I  finally  get  to 
these  things  that  affected  the  men,  they  have  confidence  in  me,  and  I  do  not 
know  a  single  instance-— there  were  rumors  around  the  Link  Belt  Co.  that 
I  had  been  working  on,  that  they  told  Taylor,  but  they  didn't  tell  me.  I  was 
told  that  they  were  going  to  kill  me;  I  wasn't  told  that  by  accident,  because 
everything  that  is  bad  around  a  plant — when  I  came  around  they  would  say 
"  That  is  the  reason,"  so  that  I  was  the  scapegoat  for  everything  that  hap- 
pened. You  know  people  used  to  believe  that  God  ran  the  world,  and  every- 
thing that  went  wrrong  was  his  fault,  and  that  was  the  case  here;  there  has 
always  got  to  be  a  scapegoat.  Of  course,  people  don't  put  it  that  way,  but 
when  you  analyze  it,  that  was  the  reason,  that  God  was  always  the  scapegoat. 

Now,  just  to  show  you  how  I  can  gain  the  friendship  of  men  that  way,  I 
mention  a  case  where  this  company  here  in  the  Middle  West  set  to  work  to 
test  tool  steel,  as  \ve  had  done  before  often,  and  there  was  an  old  Swede  who 
ran  a  machine  for  15  years,  and  he  was  amazed  at  what  we  did.  They  had 
high-speed  steel  on  the  market  for  12  years,  but  in  this  plant  they  did  not 
know  how  to  get  it,  except  in  one  corner,  and  it  did  not  go  across  the  street, 
in  the  same  plant,  and  when  we  got  through  with  that  thing,  from  the  very 
beginning  he  saw  things,  and  he  was  pleased — he  was  an  exception  that  way — 
but  from  the  very  first  minute  he  was  pleased  with  the  things  that  he  learned, 
that  he  did  not  know  anything  about  before,  and  it  is  deplorable  that  every 
machinist  in  the  world  does  not  know  it  to-day. 

So  much  for  that,  but  when  we  got  through  he  asked  to  have  a  photograph 
made  of  the  lathe  with  the  test  tool  in,  and  with  the  instruments  that  we 
measured  with,  and  among  other  things  the  stop  watch,  because  we  find  the 
sun  dial  too  crude  for  these  things,  and  we  have  got  to  use  a  stop  watch.  Well, 
at  first  he  got  a  picture,  but  he  did  not  altogether  like  it,  but  here  it  is  [exhibit- 
ing picture].  He  said,  "Barth,  no;  that  is  not  what  I  want;  I  want  you  in 
the  picture."  So  reluctantly — I  am  not  very  proud  of  my  mug — I  reluctantly 
consented  to  this,  and  tried  to  hide  myself  as  much  as  I  could,  and  it  was  simply 
pathetic  to  see  how  he  valued  that  picture.  And  here  it  is  [exhibiting  another 
picture]. 

It  was  simply  wonderful  to  him,  the  way  we  ran  that  lathe,  and  the  way  we 
speeded  it  and  fixed  it  up  and  overhauled  it  for  him,  and  the  result  we  got. 
He  was  simply  tickled  to  death,  except  that  he  forgot  to  die  on  top  of  it. 

And  it  is  the  same  way  with  the  man  that  went  that  day  to  help  me  in  testing 
drills,  the  next  day  when  the  drill  manufacurers  were  present — I  will  mention 
here  that  we  conducted  the  tests  in  tool  steel  in  this  plant  where  we  had  15 
men,  representatives  of  12  drill  companies,  present  during  the  last  two  days, 
and  the  tool  that  won  was  admitted  by  everybody  to  be  the  best  tool  steel  made. 
I  knew  that  problem  so  well  that  I  could  swing  these  fellows  on  the  outside, 
so  that  they  were  ready  to  beat  each  other  up,  and  there  was  not  a  man  that 
did  not  go  away  satisfied  that  everything  had  been  done  to  show  up  the  best 
in  steel.  I  said,  "  Gentlemen,  take  your  hat  off,  and  take  it  off  to  Dr.  So- 
and-so  " he  was  the  man  that  made  that  tool  steel. 

I  got  an  operator  on  the  second  day  whose  name  was  Emerson — he  wasn't 
a  relative  of  our  friend  Emerson  here — and  I  said  "  Do  you  realize  that  you 
never  knew  anything  about  drilling  before,"  and  he  said,  "  yes."  I  said,  "  Well, 
let  us  review  it."  I  said,  "  Here  is  a  representative  of  the  drill  steel  com- 
pany, and  he  thought  he  had  to  reduce  the  speed  because  he  did  not  get  re- 
sults, and  you  agreed  with  him,  and  you  proved  that  we  did  not  get  it  when  we 
increased  the  speed."  Every  time  there  was  any  trouble  the  ordinary  man 
would  reduce  the  speed,  but  unless  you  give  certain  things  a  certain  amount 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  893 

of  things  to  do  it  will  not  do  anything  hardly.  It  is  like  human  nature,  you 
have  to  give  a  busy  fellow  plenty  to  do  and  keep  him  pretty  busy  or  he  will 
get  into  such  a  habit  that  it  will  be  a  bad  thing.  You  must  keep  him  up  to  a 
certain  standard,  and  if  you  do  go  too  fast  you  burn  it  out  in  a  machine,  and 
so  you  will  in  a  man. 

I  am  a  scientific  man  and  an  engineer,  and  I  am  entitled  to  the  title,  because 
I  took  the  greatest  possible  care  to  find  out  the  limit  of  the  machinery  in  the 
cutting  of  tools,  and  I  insist  so  far  as  it  is  in  human  power  that  the  very  same 
thing  is  done  in  finding  out  what  a  man  can  do,  but  unfortunately  that  job 
is  too  big,  I  can  not  do  it  all.  I  must  turn  it  over  to  other  men  and  instruct 
them  and  admonish  them,  and  tell  them,  as  I  have  always  told  them,  "  Remem- 
ber the  first  thing  it,  if  there  is  a  doubt,  to  give  the  man  the  benefit  of  the 
doubt.  I  want  you  to  realize  that."  I  do  not  say  that  everybody  does  that; 
they  may  forget  it,  but  that  is  the  spirit  that  Mr.  Taylor  has  inculcated  in  me, 
and  it  has  all  come  from  Mr.  Taylor.  I  come  from  a  long  line  of  ancestors 
that  raises  hell  once  in  a  while.  But  \ve  want  to  do  a  fine  piece  of  work  for 
the  world,  to  the  best  of  our  ability,  even  if  it  is  only  one  little  bit  of  brick. 
You  people  are  trying  it,  I  suppose,  to  the  best  of  your  belief,  and  we  are 
trying  to  do  the  same  thing.  There  is  no  use  of  our  pretending  that  we  succeed 
always.  Mr.  Taylor  sat  here  yesterday,  and  spoke  about  these  things  as  if 
they  were  always  an  accomplished  fact,  and  he  spoke  as  if  he  was  working 
night  and  day  and  spending  money  for  the  realization  of  his  ideals.  Now,  I 
do  not  care  to  rap  about  millionaires ;  I  would  rather  see  them  drowned,  but 
we  have  not  considered  that  we  have  a  right  to  do  that  yet,  but  the  time  may 
come  when  we  will  do  it  in  some  way  or  other,  I  don't  know. 

Now,  then,  he  can  not  help  looking  at  these  things  a  little  too  ideally,  so 
far  as  accomplishment  is  concerned,  but  it  is  the  spirit  and  not  the  absolute 
accomplishment.  That  is  what  Christ  himself  says,  and  I  think  it  is  a  very 
fine  thing,  not  because  he  said  it,  but  because  it  is  true.  I  don't  care  who  says 
things  as  long  as  they  appeal  to  me.  It  is  for  you  to  find  out  to  what  extent 
some  of  these  things  have  been  accomplished,  or  what  has  been  accomplished 
that  they  intended  to  do,  and  it  is  only  the  ordinary  human  failing  and  the 
overambition  of  a  lot  of  people  who  think  they  are  especially  fitted  to  do  this 
work  in  some  cases.  I  never  thought  them  fitted,  but  some  people  have  made 
me  do  it,  I  think  against  my  better  judgment ;  but  I  went  at  it  in  such  a  way 
that  I  got  convinced  that  I  can  do  some  things  pretty  well  anyway,  but  the 
other  fellows  told  me  that  I  was  fitted  to  do  that  work ;  some  people  think  that 
they  are  especially  fitted  for  it,  but  they  make  this  mistake — the  desire  to  make 
big^  money  from  that  ability  to  do  the  work — and  that  is  a  mistake,  and  it 
shows  up  again  and  again  by  the  enormous  number  of  failures  there  are  in  the 
country.  You  talk  to  some  people  about  efficiency  and  they  run  you  out.  They 
could  kill  a  fellow  who  comes  n  round  and  says  that,  because  of  their  experi- 
ence with  others.  That  may  not  be  in  all  cases  the  result  of  the  efficiency  engi- 
neer, because  there  may  be  some  fellows  on  the  inside,  but  again  and  again 
you  will  find  lots  of  fellows  who  will  not  admit  that  they  tried  it  and  found  it  a 
failure;  who  will  not  admit  that  they  have  been  taken,  and  if  you  are  after 
truth  and  facts  I  will  give  you  some  little  line  to  work  on. 

Our  people  at  home  say,  "  For  God's  sake  don't  talk  that  way,"  but  I  can't 
do  otherwise;  no  matter  how  many  devils  there  are,  you  can  always  go  and 
tell  which  you  fought.  I  also  want  to  say  something  about  soldiering  in  shops. 
There  have  been  no  facts  brought  out  here  to-day  or  yesterday  to  prove  that 
there  is  soldiering  going  on.  I  have  any  God's  number  of  evidences  about  that, 
but  as  with  that,  so  it  is  with  everything  else  in  the  shop — it  is  the  manage- 
ment's fault.  I  told  the  last  investigation  commission — and  if  you  read  it  I 
will  not  repeat  it,  but  the  rest  of  the  public  may  be  interested  in  hearing  it,  be- 
cause this  is  a  public  hearing.  I  do  not  known  what  that  means  myself,  except 
that  there  is  a  public  hearing,  and  we  will  put  that  interpretation  on  it,  anyway. 
I  investigated  one  shop  in  New  England,  and  went  around  with  the  foreman 
for  three  days.  There  was  the  most  deplorable  conditions,  from  the  modern 
point  of  view,  that  I  ever  saw.  Nothing  was  right  in  that  shop.  I  came 
around  through  the  shop  with  the  foreman  behind  my  back,  and  came 
up  against  a  planer  working.  His  eyes  were  apparently  riveted  on  his 
work.  He  was  apparently  doing  a  wonderful  work.  At  a  distance  the 
foreman  imagined  he  was  very  busy.  He  would  come  along  and  see  this  man 
making  those  motions,  and  then  go  off  somewhere  else  and  see  somebody  else 
at  work.  We  happened  to  almost  sneak  up  behind  him — not  intentionally,  you 
understand.  I  wanted  to  see  the  work.  I  was  studying  the  work  there — the 


894          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

finishing  and  the  other  things.  This  was  the  most  wonderful  work  in  the 
\vorld,  so  I  was  told.  Everybody  does  that  kind  of  work.  Everybody  has  that 
idea  until  you  find  out  what  other  people  do.  There  was  absolutely  no  cutter 
in  that  machine.  Mr.  Dodge  knows  those  things  happen.  I  did  not  know 
what  to  do.  I  did  not  want  to  inflict  that  awful  mortification  upon  the  poor 
man,  so  I  looked  at  it  and  passed  on. 

The  man  must  have  felt  awful.  He  did  not  know  whether  I  was  a  mechanic 
or  not.  When  we  went  away  I  said  nothing.  I  suppose  he  thought  "  Oh,  well, 
that  is  one  of  those  fools  that  don't  know  nothing."  But  I  mentioned  that  in 
the  evening  when  I  gave  a  talk  to  all  the  men — the  foreman  and  the  employers. 
The  big  bugs  were  all  there.  I  said :  "  I  want  you  all  to  understand  this." 
I  told  them  this  man  had  said  he  had  loafed  in  order  not  to  make  too  much 
money,  because  "  the  minute  he  does  you  pounce  upon  him."  I  said  "  Don't 
go  down  and  find  fault  with  your  foreman  or  with  that  man.  It  is  your  fault." 
I  spoke  that  way  to  them,  and  I  spoke  of  a  good  many  other  things.  I  talked 
to  them  pretty  straight,  and,  my  God,  they  needed  it.  There  was  one  instance 
of  it. 

I  saw  a  man  come  down  from  one  of  the  departments  away  off  carrying  a 
casting.  They  were  working  in  the  old  way  of  the  shoemaker,  the  fellow  was 
making  all  of  the  shoe — everything  about  the  shoe.  "We  had  certain  machines 
for  this  particular  kind  of  shoes  that  he  did  not  have.  That  fellow,  person- 
ally, goes  from  his  department  down  to  the  planer  department  where,  as  luck 
would  have  it,  that  planer  was  available,  and  he  gets  the  planer  going,  and, 
probably,  it  took  him  20  times  as  long  to  do  that  as  it  ought  to. 

Those  things  are  criminal  when  you  know  better.  When  you  don't  know 
any  better,  of  course,  it  is  all  right.  The  minute  you  know  better  it  is  wrong. 
As  an  engineer  it  is  my  duty,  when  once  I  realize  it,  to  do  all  I  can  to  in- 
crease the  production  and  to  utilize  the  equipment  of  production — to  perfect 
it  as  it  has  been  given  to  me.  The  man  that  does  one  little  thing  better  than 
anybody  else  does  it  is  just  a  little  bit  tickled  over  it,  even  when  he  lays  down 
to  die. 

There  is  no  question  about  Mr.  Taylor's  system.  He  has  common  sense.  You 
can  not  pay,  on  the  whole,  a  wage  earner  more  money  unless  you  can  increase 
his  productiveness.  You  can  do  it  in  isolated  instances.  There  was  a  case 
cited  here  of  two  competitors,  one  making  5  per  cent  and  the  other  45  per 
cent.  Of  course,  the  45  per  cent  man  could  pay  more  than  the  5  per  cent  man. 
It  is  a  drop  in  the  ocean  \vhen  you  take  work  generally  out  over  the  country. 

We  are  living  better  to-day  than  we  used  to  because  we  are  more  productive ; 
and,  by  jinks,  we  have  not  begun,  as  Mr.  Emerson  said,  to  utilize  our  reserve 
forces. 

I  believe  in  a  personal  mission.  I  believe  that  there  are  enough  men  in  the 
world  to  do  these  things,  and  who  are  willing  to  sacrifice  their  individuality  to 
aid  in  the  advancement  of  all  mankind.  I  know  I  could  do  that,  and  I  am 
no  better  than  the  rest  of  you.  I  am  just  a  very  ignorant  cuss,  by  jinks. 
Here  is  a  millionaire,  for  instance,  and  if  he  knew  how  to  give  all  of  his 
money  away  to  do  some  real  good,  great  God,  it  wouldn't  take  5  minutes  to 
get  him  into  this  lodge ;  but  he  don't  know  how  to  do  it.  Lyman  Abbott  said : 
"If  I  had  $1,000,000,  I  wouldn't  know  how  to  spend  it  to-day."  History  has 
shows  that  when  you  spend  a  large  amount  of  money  to  correct  evil,  it  "turns 
around  and  increases  that  evil.  That  is  too  much  for  me.  I  am  awful  glad  I 
haven't  got  a  million. 

I  guess  that  is  enough.  If  you  wish  to  ask  me  some  questions,  I  can  always 
answer  questions,  God  knows — good  questions,  fool  questions,  and  any  kind  of 
questions.  If  I  have  not  succeeded  in  giving  you  anything  worth  while,  try 
to  pump  me  now. 

Commisioner  O'CONNELL.  How  about  the  nonproducer? 

Mr.  BARTH.  We  haven't  any  nonproducers.  I  will  not  admit  that  for  one 
second.  We  have  indirect  and  direct  workers.  WThen  I  sit  in  my  office,  doing 
all  kinds  of  things,  I  am  working  in  one  way,  and  I  am  working  like  hell  from 
morning  to  night,  too.  I  will  not  stand  for  a  minute  for  a  fellow  to  come  and 
call  me  a  nonproducer.  We  will  have  a  scrap  about  it,  by  God,  if  he  comes  too 
close  to  me.  You  want  to  forget  this  idea  about  producer  and  nonproducer. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  not  we  have  them  in  society  as  a  whole? 

Mr.  BABTH.  No;  we  have  parasites.  Those  are  the  nonproducers  that  eat 
without  work.  I  don't  know  what  you  have  observed  about  that,  but  probably 
not  very  much,  from  your  question.  That  shows  how  little  we  have  absorbed 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  895 

the  spirit  of  the  Bible,  because  it  says,  if  you  don't  work  you  shall  not  eat. 
Some  of  these  fellows  think  too  damned  much  about  eating,  and  don't  work  a 
bit.  We  have  parasites  all  around,  and  we  want  to  get  rid  of  them.  They 
have  no  place  in  our  system. 

Commissioner  DELANO   (presiding).  Mr.  Garretson,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  No;  thank  you. 

Commissioner  BALLARD  (presiding).  Commissioner  Weinstock,  have  you  any 
questions? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  was  not  here  during  the  early  part  of  your  talk, 
so  I  doubtless  missed  a  good  deal  of  it. 

Mr.  BARTH.  You  surely  did. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  I  was  told  I  missed  a  circus. 

Mr.  BARTH.  That  is  all  I  consider  this  thing,  anyway — just  a  circus. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  suggested  to  me  that  it  is  a  wise  man  that 
stays  out  of  these  things,  but  I  am  going  to  be  foolish  enough  to  enter  upon  a 
question  or  two.  You  have  been  here  a  couple  of  days,  and  I  suppose  you 
have  got  the  drift  of  this  whole  thing  more  or  less? 

Mr.  BARTH.  Yes.    It  was  awful  sometimes,  but  I  guess  I  got  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Among  other  things  that  have  been  brought  to  the 
attention  of  this  commission  is  the  matter  of  scientific  management.  This 
commission,  in  its  report,  will  more  or  less  be  expected  to  say  something  about 
that.  In  the  course  of  our  investigation  we  have  had  more  or  less  objection 
made  to  scientific  management,  more  especially  on  the  part  of  organized  labor. 

Mr.  BARTH.  I  know  all  about  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  As  one  who  has  had  long  experience  in  dealing 
with  the  problem,  and  as  one  who  is  an  authority,  and  who  is  an  expert 

Mr.  BARTH  (interrupting).  I  beg  your  pardon;  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any 
authority  for  this  work. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  will  modify  that  at  your  suggestion  and  call  it 
alleged  authority. 

Mr.  BARTH.  That  is  all  right ;  I  will  accept  the  amendment. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  We  would  like  to  get  your  point  of  view  and  your 
opinion  as  to  the  objections  that  were  raised  on  the  part  of  organized  labor 
against  the  scientific  management.  In  the  first  place,  the  claim  is  made  that 
scientific  management  increases  productivity,  but  does  it  at  the  physical  ex- 
pense of  the  worker. 

Mr.  BARTH.  If  it  did,  it  would  be  wholly  unscientific;  it  would  not  be 
scientific  at  all. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  would  not? 

Mr.  BARTH.  No.  Mr.  Taylor  suggested  it  would  kill  the  golden  goose.  Some 
people  do  that.  We  know  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  From  your  experience  and  observation  you  would 
not  admit  that  real  scientific  management  means  reducing  the  vitality  of  the 
worker  ? 

Mr.  BARTH.  I  admit  it  just  as  well  as  I  admit  that  the  moon  was  made  of 
green  cheese,  absolutely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  next  charge  that  is  made  against  it  is  that 
while  scientific  management  may  temporarily  increase  the  earnings  of  the 
worker,  in  the  long  run  his  earnings  are  reduced. 

Mr.  BARTH.  It  has  not  run  long  enough  to  prove  that.    That  is  only  guesswork. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Up  to  this  time  it  has  not? 

Mr.  BAP.TH.  I  have  not  seen  any  of  it.  I  said  some  other  things  about  that, 
and  there  is  no  need  starting  the  circus  performance  a  second  time.  You  can 
read  that  to-morrow. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Up  to  this  time  you  would  deny  the  charge  that  it 
tends  to  cut  the  earnings  of  the  worker? 

Mr.  BARTH.  Scientific  management?  Oh,  there  is  a  lot  of  alleged  scientific 
management  that  is  an  outrage  to  industry  to-day,  and  I  insist  upon  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  next  objection  raised  to  it  is  that  it  destroys 
collective  bargaining.  . 

Mr.  BARTH.  As  I  have  never  seen  collective  bargaining,  but  I  have  only  heard 
of  it,  I  can  not  say  anything  about  it.  I  can  not  understand  how  a  thing  can  be 
destroyed  that  I  never  saw  myself.  That  is  all  hearsay.  I  never  met  this.  I 
had  talks  with  a  lot  of  people  about  it.  They  started  to  heat  me  up,  and  when 
they  did  that  I  said,  "  Here,  we  part,  because  that  is  something  I  feel  I  could  not 
deal  with." 


896          KEPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  \Yi;i \STO< K.  I  >o  y<»u  beli<-\e  that  organi/ed  labor  is  a  good  thing 
for  the  laborer  and  a  good  tiling  for  society? 

.Mr.  P.AiiTn.  As  I  have  never  been  nenr  them,  I  h;ive  not  much  opinion  on  that  ; 
but  from  what  I  IK-MI-  oilier  people  say— L  can  not  help  nhsorlting  things,  though 
J  do  not  lil:e  to  spread  it  out  that  way,  for  fear  of  faultfinding — there  must  he 
something  of  that  kind  in  the  air,  jus!  the  same  as  scientific  management.  These 
people  c;ill  It  democracy.  I  never  was  a  politician.  I  come  from  Norway,  you 
know,  where  they  don't  have  politics,  and  still  I  have  been  told  much  about 
those  things.  I  do  my  daily  task,  and  I  set  it  myself.  I  don't  need  any  task- 
maker  for  myself.  My  task  is  harder  than  anybody  will  give  me,  God  knows. 
I  don't  bother  about  those  questions  until  they  come  to  me,  and  I  feel  if  I  have 
time  enough  to  give  anything  attention  I  am  entitled  to  a  real  opinion  before 
I  express  it.  You  ask  me  what  I  think  about;  it,  and  I  will  tell  you  I  am  too 
busy  to  think  about  it,  and  expect  to  be  until  I  die.  I  did  all  the  thinking  I 
could  when  I  was  young,  and  1  don't  propose  to  waste  another  five  minutes  in 
that;  fashion.  I  am  not  going  to  waste  live  minutes  on  the  labor-union  question 
until  they  come  to  me.  If  I  am  called  in  on  something  and  they  say,  "  We  are 
unions,"  I  will  say,  "  What  about  it?  What  about  it?"  We  meet,  get  together, 
and  have  a  talk  with  the  labor  leaders,  and  1  am  glad.  How  it.  will  come  out 
I  ran  not  tell  you.  If  they  want  to  be  fair  and  square,  I  can  tell  you  how  it 
Ivould  be.  In  my  opinion,  they  rank  as  a  set  of  biased  fools  that  would  simply 
make  use  of  me  ;ind  waste  my  time  on  it,  when  I  should  put  to  advantage  all 
my  time  as  long  as  I  can  live,  no  matter  how  long  I  live. 

Commissioner  WKINSTOCK.  You  doubtless  have  explained  to  the  other  commis- 
sioners during  my  absence  how  the  bonuses  are  arrived  at. 

Mr.  BAETH.  That  is  a  thing  I  am  just  aching  to  show  you,  because  all  along 
since  I  have  been  here  they  have  been  talking  about  that  for  two  days.  I  under- 
take to  explain  to  you  the  meaning  of  premiums  and  bonuses  and  piecework, 
and  why?  Because  when  Mr.  Halsey,  the  inventor  of  the  premium  system,  got 
the  invention  I  was  working  side  by  side  with  him  20  years  ago,  and  I  have  been 
around  the  business,  except  for  a  period  of  time  when  I  was  not  there,  for  SOUK; 
years.  I  was  with  Mr.  Gantt  when  he  devised  his  bonus  system  at  the  Bethle- 
hem Steel  Works  15  years  ago.  I  was  not  with  Taylor  when  he  invented  piece- 
work, but  I  guess  you  can  imagine  it  was  not  difficult  to  find  out  what  his  plan 
was.  There  are  unquestionably  three  ways  of  paying  men,  and  they  do  not  con- 
sist of  the  true  system.  I  had  to  laugh  at  the  absurdity  of  a  question  asked  by 
one  of  you  commissioners  the  other  day — what  is  the  difference  between  the  pre- 
mium system  and  the  Taylor  system?  Why  not  ask  what  is  the  difforeix 
tween  the  earth  and  the  universe?  I  do  not  ask  that  kind  of  fool  questions  any 
more. 

They  had  a  number  of  my  countrymen  working  in  the  shops,  that  they  any 
day  make  $10.  I  did  not  dare  make  more  than  five.  How  did  they  handle 
the  thing — because  William  Sillers  &  Co.,  like  everybody  else,  did  not  give  the 
men  a  job  at  the  time,  but  they  spend  so  much  time  on  it  and  so  much  money. 
They  gave  them  a  bunch  of  tickets,  and  a  man  might  be  working  for  a  long 
period  of  time,  and  he  simply  took  time  from  the  factory,  and  he  averaged 
in  such  a  way  that  he  did  not  exceed  the  limit.  But  unfortunately  there  were 
some  human  hogs,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  workmen,  who  once  in  a  while 
would  show  us  how  to  take  the  fat  rate.  They  would  make  tlie  fat  rate  and 
then  skin  out  and  then  go  elsewhere  and  take  the  fat  rate  there.  That  was 
railed  spoiling  the  rale.  So  in  the  course  of  the  years  the  plan  nearly  always 
reduced  the  fat  rate,  but  they  never  got  a  chance  to  increase  the  real  rates. 
The  workmen  would  say,  "  .Now,  I  have  done  so  and  so.  For  God's  sake  take 
the  time  off  mid  put  it  in."  That  feeling  was  bad,  and  we  are  trying  to  create 
a  better  spirit,  and  we  have  done  so  to-day  to  a  greater  extent,  so  that  I  have 
seen  that;  terrible  defection,  where  I  have  seen  it  in  the  old  country,  men  loaf- 
ing in  the  navy  yards,  and  nfter  dancing  all  night  I  have  gone  in  and  slept;  in 
a  boiler  all  day.  [Laughter.]  I  heard  an  awful  lot  about  it,  because  so  many 
of  my  countrymen  worked  in  shops  in  Philadelphia,  and  those  shops  there  were 
considered  easy  shops.  I  know  how  the  men  deceived  their  employers  and  t.h"m- 
selves.  If  a  man  gets  .$10  a  day.  and  he  does  not;  make  more  than  live,  just 
cut  it,  that  is  all.  Now,  Mr.  Ilalsey  says  that  I  am  going  to  show  that  I  can 
do  something  belter  than  that.  He  will  simply  go  to  work  and  select  a  certain 
length  of  time  that  it  takes  to  do  certain  jobs.  We  will  give  up  this  baneful 
piecework  that  might  have  been  erratic,  and  we  will  say  simply,  "The  last: 
time  this  job  was  done  it  took  10  hours,  and  we  will  just  guess  at  it  that  if  it 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AXD    LABOR.  897 

\v;'.s  done  in  10  hours  it  could  have  been  done  in  8  hours  easily."  They  first 
chipped  off  a  couple  of  hours,  and  they  told  the  man,  "  If  you  beat  that,  we 
will  give  you  half  the  benefit,  and  we  will  have  half  the  benefit."  Hr.  Halsey 
said  one-third.  Most  people  said  one-half.  So  that  we  took  the  man  who  had 
a  time  limit  of  eight  hours  and  he  did  that  thing  in  four  hours,  which  Mr.  Halsey 
did  not  object  to  at  all. 

You  take  that  system  and  a  man  will  get  six  hours  for  four  hours'  work. 
What  happens?  The  last  man  let  himself  out.  They  were  told  that  there 
would  not  be  any  trouble  about  doing  that  thing ;  they  would  not  have  to  meddle 
with  that.  The  men  made  such  enormous  money  that  the  fool  of  a  manager 
came  around  again  and  cut  that,  too,  and  that  is  where  all  Mr.  Halsey's  disap- 
pointments came  in,  that  he  thought  he  was  going  to  benefit  the  manufacturers 
and  the  workmen  by  this  system,  and  he  found  it  was  just  as  bad  as  the  piece- 
work. Now,  Mr.  Halsey  invented  that  system,  and  it  was  one  of  the  disappoint- 
ments of  his  life.  He  did  not  know  anything  about  planning  in  the  sense  in 
which  Mr.  Taylor  has  carried  it  out.  Long  before  Mr.  Taylor  had  taken  tip 
his  work  with  the  Midvale  Steel  Co.  he  had  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that 
guesswork  will  not  do.  . 

It  must  appeal  to  anybody  that  finding  out  by  the  best  methods  we  can  resort 
to  really  the  length  of  time  that  it  takes  a  man  to  do  a  job  is  the  only  basis 
on  which  you  will  put  a  task  on  the  limit.  All -these  things  are  tasks.  They 
give  you  $2  a  day  there,  but  you  have  got  to  do  so  much  work  in  a  day.  Even 
those  workmen  have  a  limit.  The  task  has  not  anything  to  do  with  that.  We 
use  any  one  of  a  number  of  systems  of  putting  a  man  on  top  of  the  task,  and 
that  is  what  we  want  to  do  to  determine  the  task.  What  is  the  proper  task 
for  a  man  in  a  day?  WThy  do  we  use  the  stop  watch?  Because  the  sun  dial 
will  not  do.  The  sun  is  not  up  all  the  time.  The  stop  watch  does  not  get  near 
enough  sometimes.  We  can't  get  at  the  time  on  certain  small  operations,  even 
with  an  ordinary  stop  watch.  We  will  have  to  have  an  instrument  to  make  it 
finer.  So  that  you  see  here  what  was  the  baneful  thing  of  the  old  piecework 
system,  and  the  baneful  thing  on  which  we  hope  for  improvement,  that  there 
were  guesses  behind  the  whole  thing.  Mr.  Halsey  thought  that  no  matter  how 
bad  that  was,  the  manufacturers  would  get  so  much  more  out  of  it  that  it 
would  not  disgust  the  man  with  what  he  got  out  of  it,  but  it  did.  He  came 
around  and  said,  "  That  man  can  not  have  that  much  money.  He  will  be  as 
rich  as  I  am  in  a  little  while."  Now,  there  has  been  a  little  friction,  I  think, 
between  Mr.  Halsey  and  Mr.  Taylor.  Mr.  Halsey,  because  he  managed  to 
publish  that  before  Mr.  Taylor  did,  felt  a  little  sore.  Mr.  Taylor  claimed  that 
he  had  invented  his  differential  piecework  system  before  Mr.  Halsey  did  that. 
But  now  Mr.  Halsey  is  disgusted  with  the  results,  anyway,  so  that  I  do  not 
think  he  cares  to  claim  anything  any  more.  If  a  thing  turns  out  badly,  nobody 
cares  to  claim  it. 

Now,  let  us  figure  out  how  this  differential  piecework  system,  is.  Now, 
remember  that  Mr.  Taylor,  by  necessity,  is  changing  his  views.  Of  course  he 
is.  Who  can  work  for  35  years  without  changing  his  views?  To  read  his  books 
like  some  of  you  fellows  have  done  here  is.  to  read  them  like  the  devil  reads 
the  Bible ;  he  read  it  backward.  Of  course,  he  couldn't  get  any  kind  of  meaning 
out  of  it.  You  know,  one  time  they  put  60  fellows  together,  I  have  been  told, 
to  study,  and  they  prayed  that  the  Holy  Ghost  would  enlighten  them,  so  that 
they  were  all  studying  in  a  cubby-hole 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Stop ;  I  tell  you,  I  am  not  going  to  listen  to  this.  It 
is  not  pertinent  to  the  subject  of  the  inquiry. 

Mr.  BAKTH.  That  is  perfectly  right.  I  am  ready  to  be  sat  on  any  time.  But 
I  only  wanted  to  say  that  the  Holy  Bible  is  not  to  be  read  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Taylor,  then,  by  all  the  means  that  he  could  lay  his  hands  on,  went  at 
this.  Suppose  that  a  man  took  10  hours  to  do  a  job,  and  suppose  that  man 
got  30  cents  an  hour.  If  he  did  that  in  10  hours  he  would  be  earning  $S  a 
day.  That  is  a  task,  you  say.  It  is  enough  of  a  task  to  warrant  paying  that 
man  himself  his  day  wages;  and  suppose  we  take  for  simplicity  one-third, 
which  is  the  average  machine  shop,  and  should  be  that  in.  the  shop.  He  says, 
then,  "  I  will  take  and  add  one-third  of  that,  which  will  be  a  dollar,  and  that 
will  be  $4."  He  will  pay  that  high  rate  for  the  job— of  $4.  If  the  man  did 
that  inside  of  10  hours,  he  got  $4.  But  if  that  man  failed  to  do  it  in 
10  hours,  he  said,  "  I  will  give  him  a  certain  part  of  that."  But  the  part 
which  was  more  than  the  day  wages,  in  case  he  did  not  fall  down  very  mate- 

38819°— 1C 57 


898          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

rially,  he  got.  In  adopting  that  method  in  Mr.  Dodge's  place  he  does  not  say 
so,  but  it  is  a  bonus.  I  can  tell  you  more  about  his  shop  than  he  can.  He  has 
there  a  differential  piecework  for  most  of  the  work.  No\v,  you  take  and  divide 
that  by  five-sixths,  and  you  will  find  that  if  he  misses  it  only  by  an  infinitesimal 
part  he  will  still  get  it ;  but  if  he  misses  it  badly  he  still  gets  his  piecework. 
If  he  did  not  do  anything  he  would  still  get  his  day  wage ;  but  that  high  wage  is 
paid  for  turning  out  a  certain  thing  in  a  certain  time. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  he  not  guaranteed  a  certain  wage? 

Mr.  BAKTH.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  understood  that  under  the  Taylor  system  in 
any  event  a  man  got  his  daily  wage,  with  a  plus  if  he  exceeded  a  certain 
production. 

Mr.  BAETH.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Taylor  system  at  all.  That  is 
one  way  of  paying  him  wages,  but  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Taylor  sys- 
tem at  all.  I  am  glad  you  asked  that,  because  the  Taylor  'system  is  a  thousand 
times  bigger  than  any  one  way  of  determining  to  pay  a  man.  He  went  into 
that  like  lots  of  other  things ;  but  you  can  use  a  part  of  this  invention  and  not 
the  whole  of  it.  What  is  the  objection  to  that  in  the  minds  of  some  people? 
That  you  have  got  to  be  so  dead  sure  about  those  10  hours  most  of  the  time 
the  manager  will  not  give  the  extra  time  enough  to  standardize  conditions  suf- 
ficiently to  get  so  close  to  that  that  a  man  like  myself  likes  to  commit  himself 
to  that. 

In  the  shop  at  Bethlehem  for  the  time  study  an  intelligent  guess  was  near 
enough.  You  only  want  to  make  five-sixths  difference  in  the  men's  pay.  So 
Mr.  Gantt  invented  his  bonus.  Isnt'  that  so,  Mr.  Gantt? 

Mr.  GANTT.  There  was  not  a  bonus  invented  there,  but  what  was  invented 
there  has  not  been  in  use  for  10  years.  - 

Mr.  BAKTH.  No ;  I  do  not  say  what  was  there ;  but  it  is  to  go  and  create 
the  use  of  high-speed  steel,  and  we  set  a  reasonable  task  that  we  were  willing 
to  swear  by ;  so  that  Mr.  Gantt  one  day  woke  up  with  the  idea  that  they  would 
do  that ;  but  I  said,  "  We  have  got  10  hours  " ;  and  then  they  say,  "Any  man 
that  does  that  inside  of  10  hours  will  get  that  extra  dollar."  That  was  his 
bonus.  If  he  fell  down  he  would  get  his  day  wages.  Now,  Mr.  Gantt  has 
since  modified  that  thing ;  but  that  was  what  he  invented ;  that  was  the  Gantt 
bonus,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAETH.  Now,  I  do  not  care  to  go  any  further.  There  are  a  thousand 
systems.  Every  Tom,  Dick,  and  Harry  wants  to  invent  something  that  he  can 
attach  his  name  to.  I  invented  one  myself,  but  I  never  said  anything  about 
it  except  to  my  son.  I  do  not  propose  to  use  it.  I  think  it  is  a  little  better  than 
some,  but  I  don't  want  to  put  out  one  more  to  flood  the  market.  [Laughter.] 

Again,  do  not  imagine  for  one  moment  that  the  Taylor  system  is  any  one  of 
those  things.  We  apply  any  one  of  those,  and  lots  more  are  applied  by  the 
other  fellows;  but  what  we  are  after  is,  by  the  best  means  we  can  find,  to 
determine  how  long  it  takes  to  do  a  job,  and  then  any  one  of  a  dozen  ways 
can  be  invented  to  do  substantial  justice  on  top  of  that;  and,  for  God's  sake, 
dont'  waste  any  time  on  what  is  going  to  be  done  on  top  of  that.  Everything 
else  fails  on  account  of  not  being  able  to  get  at  the  time. 

We  use  the  differential  piecework,  we  use  the  bonus,  and  we  use  the  other 
systems,  according  to  the  conditions  in  the  shop  and  the  sentiment.  Some 
people  hate  piecework  and  so  they  take  a  certain  bonus  system,  and  it  is  abso- 
lutely the  same  thing  in  his  pay  envelope.  Now,  I  do  not  do  that  myself.  I 
do  not  consult  anything  that  looks  different  from  what  it  really  is.  If  there 
originally  was  one  way  of  looking  at  a  certain  thing,  if  the  same  thing  comes 
up  I  do  not  want  another  name  for  it  to  confuse  us. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  guesses  that  were  made  at  the  length  of  time  it  takes 
to  do  a  job  were  made  by  watching  a  man,  or  by  sneaking  up  on  a  man  and 
watching  him.  That  was  the  old  method. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  We  must  adjourn  now.  We  will  adjourn  until  10 
o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  BAETH.  Will  you  want  me  again?    No?    I  will  be  here. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Commissioner  DELANO).  Will  you  be  here  anyway? 

Mr.  BAETH.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  There  may  be  some  questions  arise. 

(At  6  o'clock  p.  m.  the  commission  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Wednesday, 
April  15,  1914,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  899 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Wednesday,  April  15,  1911i. 

The  commission  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.  in  the  assembly  room  of  the  Shore- 
ham  Hotel. 

Present:  Commissioners  Frederic  A.  Delano  (acting  chairman),  John  R. 
Commons,  Mrs.  J.  Borden  Harriman,  Harris  Weinstock,  S.  Thruston  Ballard, 
John  B.  Lennon,  James  O'Connell,  and  Austin  B.  Garretson. 

Present  also  for  the  commission :  Mr.  W.  O.  Thompson,  counsel ;  Mr.  W.  Jett 
Lauck,  managing  expert ;  Mr.  George  E.  Barnett,  special  investigator ;  Mr.  B.  M. 
Manly,  superintendent  Division  of  Industrial  Investigations;  and  Mr.  F.  H. 
Bird,  superintendent  Division  of  Public  Agencies. 

Commissioner  DELANO  ( acting  chairman ) .  The  commission  will  come  to  order. 
The  commission  has  a  good  deal  cut  out  for  it  to-day.  Mr.  Berres,  secretary- 
treasurer  metal  trades  department,  American  Federation  of  Labor,  will  be  the 
first  witness. 

Mr.  Sanford  E.  Thompson,  of  Newton  Highlands,  Mass.,  will  come  next,  and 
Mr.  N.  P.  Alifas,  of  Washington,  and  Mr.  H.  L.  Gant,  of  New  York. 

Mr.  Brandeis,  who  was  held  over  from  Monday,  will  not  appear  until  to- 
morrow afternoon. 

I  will  ask  Mr.  Manly  to  conduct  the  examination  of  the  first  witness,  Mr. 
Berres. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  A.  J.  BERRES 

Mr.  MANLY.  Mr.  Berres,  will  you  please  give  your  address  and  business  to 
the  commission? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  am  secretary-treasurer  of  the  metal-trades  department  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor.  My  office  is  at  513  Ouray  Building,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C. 

Mr.  MANLY.  In  your  official  position  you  have  been  brought  into  contact  with 
what  is  called  the  systems  of  management? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Indirectly. 

Mr.  MANLY.  In  what  way? 

Mr.  BERRES.  In  this  way,  receiving  protests  from  organizations  working 
under  the  different  systems. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Have  you  investigated  those  protests — followed  them  up? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  might  answer  that  in  this  way,  it  would  be  impossible  for  us 
to  make  an  investigation  of  all  these  protests  personally.  In  some  of  the 
plants  that  some  of  the  gentlemen  have  enumerated  in  which  these  systems  are 
installed  or  where  they  are  attempting  to  install  them  I  really  do  not  know 
what  would  become  of  a  representative  of  labor  if  he  would  approach  that 
management  and  ask  that  he  be  permitted  to  make  an  investigation. 

Mr.  MANLY.  But  it  has  not  been  from  those  plants  that  your  protests  have 
been  coming? 

Mr.  BERRES.  No ;  the  protests  that  have  been  coming  to  us  have  been  mostly 
from  men  employed  in  the  Watertown  Arsenal. 

Mr.  MANLY.  In  the  Government  plant? 

Mr.  BERRES.  In  the  Government  plant. 

Mr.  MANLY.  May  I  ask  what  trades  particularly  have  been  making  protests? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Largely  the  machinists  and  the  molders. 

Mr.  MANLY.  In  order  to  bring  out  definitely  your  ideas  with  regard  to  the 
systems  of  management,  will  you  give  us  briefly  your  understanding  of  the 
principal  features  of  the  system  with  regard  to  which  you  are  going  to  speak? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  want  to  say  in  the  beginning,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen 
of  the  commission,  that  we  are  not  opposed  to  efficiency. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  When  you  say  "we"  you  mean  organized  labor? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Organized  labor.  To  be  brief,  I  think  I  ought  to  say  that  if  the 
men  who  are  supposed  to  work  under  any  of  the  systems  had  the  opportunity 
to  sit  down  and  have  the  system  explained  to  them  much  of  the  difficulty 
would  be  eliminated.  The  mere  fact,  even  in  the  Government  service,  of  the 
Government  having  an  outsider  come  in  in  order  to  install  a  so-called  efficiency 
system  immediately  invites  the  suspicion  of  the  men,  and  in  my  judgment  if 
efficiency  would  come  from  within  there  would  be  less  opposition  to  it.  I 
believe  that  is  one  of  the  great  troubles  with  the  installation  of  the  systems. 

Next,  the  men  feel  if  it  has  been  necessary  for  the  management  to  go  outside 
to  get  some  one  to  come  in  to  tell  them  how  to  run  their  business,  that  there 
is  something  radically  wrong,  and  that  they  might  expect  a  great  departure 
from  the  method  of  doing  business  that  they  have  been  used  to,  and  in  order 
to  eliminate  that  suspicion,  if  the  men  were  given  an  opportunity  to  listen 


900          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

to  what  the  system  consisted  of  I  think  much  of  the  difficulty  would  be 
eliminated. 

I  want  to  follow  that  up  by  saying  that  I  think  there  is  a  great  chance  for 
not  only  bettering  the  conditions  of  the  workers,  but  of  improving  the  methods 
of  manufacture  and  lessening  the  cost  of  the  manufacture  of  many  articles, 
and  in  lessening  the  cost,  so  long  as  it  does  not  interfere  with  the  workers' 
status,  as  relates  to  hours  of  labor  and  general  conditions,  we  should  not  offer 
any  opposition  that  I  can  see. 

Mr.  MANLY.  You  believe,  then,  that  an  increase  in  productivity  is  a  good 
thing? 

Mr.  BEERES.  Certainly. 

Mr.  MANLY.  That  is,  it  provides  the  means  for  increasing  prosperity,  that 
the  whole  question  comes  clown  to  two  fundamental  issues:  First,  exactly  how 
the  man  is  affected  in  increasing  his  productivity  and,  second,  how  the  increase 
in  productivity  is  distributed? 

Mr.  BEREES.  Yes. 

Mr.  MANLY.  In  order  to  bring  those  down  more  definitely  there  are  several 
fundamental  features  of  the  systems  of  management,  and  in  order  to  get  it 
to  an  issue  I  would  like  to  go  over  those  one  by  one  to  show  which  features 
are  the  ones  about  which  you  think  the  men  can  be  properly  concerned  and 
as  to  which  they  need  either  explanation  or  modification. 

From  the  management  end  there  is,  first,  the  planning  and  the  routing  of 
the  work.  There  is  no  objection  to  that,  is  there,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
workmen? 

Mr.  BEREES.  I  have  not  heard  any  opposition  to  that. 

Mr.  MANLY.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  that  feature  of  the  work  can  very  well 
be  to  the  great  advantage  of  the  workmen? 

Mr.  L»EEEES.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  MANLY.  The  second  feature  is  the  standardization  of  the  work  by  means 
of  definite  time  study.  What  would  you  say  in  regard  to  that? 

Mr.  BEERES.  That  is  a  question  that  I  think  the  men  should  have  an-  oppor- 
tunity to  study  and  to  express  themselves  upon. 

Mr.  MANLY.  As  a  broad  general  proposition,  do  you  see  any  objection  to  get- 
ting  definite,  precise  knowledge  of  how  much  time  the  work  should  occuppy, 
properly  fixed? 

Mr.  BEEEES.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  we  ought  to  find  out  how  that  is  going 
to  be  determined.  If  I  might  at  this  point  say,  a  great  deal  of  the  most  serious 
opposition  that  has  come  to  our  notice  has  been  the  fact  of  the  use  of  the 
stop  watch.  I  do  not  know  whether  that  could  be  eliminated  or  not,  if  the 
men  had  an  opportunity.  From  what  I  have  learned  from  them,  there  seems 
to  be  a  positive  stand  against  the  stop  watch  being  used  to  measure  the  time. 

Mr.  MANLY.  On  what  is  that  opposition  based,  as  you  understand  it? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  think  the  best  way  to  view  that  question  would  be  for  the 
man  of  the  management  to  put  himself  in  the  same  position  that  the  work- 
man is  placed  in.  I  do  not  think  that  any  man,  any  young  American  at  least, 
wants  anybody  to  start  him  off  with  the  watch  and  stop  him  with  the  watcli. 
I  think  it  immediately  invites  antagonism  of  the  men. 

Mr.  MANLY.  By  starting  him  off  with  a  watch  and  stopping  him  with  a 
watch,  just  what  do  you  mean? 

Mr.  BEERES.  The  fact  that  some  one  stands  right  close  to  the  man  with  a 
watch  in  his  hand. 

Mr.  MANLY.  You  do  not  understand  that  that  is  a  constant  practice,  that 
that  is  done  every  time  a  man  performs  a  job? 

Mr.  BERRES.  No. 

Mr.  MANLY.  That  is  only  upon  the  original  time  studying. 

Mr.  BERRES.  That  is  the  way  I  understand  it. 

Mr.  MANLY.  At  the  time  the  schedule  is  made.  In  making  a  railroad  sched- 
ule, for  example,  how1  would  you  make  it,  except  by  timing  the  beginning  of 
the  journey  and  taking  the  end  of  the  journey? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  think  that  is  an  entirely  different  proposition,  and  it  does 
not  always  follow  that  the  end  of  the  journey  comes  at  the  time  the  schedule 
specifies,  either. 

Mr.  MANLY.  No;  but  there  is  a  schedule. 

Mr.  BEKKES.  Yes ;  there  is  a  schedule. 

Mr.  MANLY.  The  objection  is  to  the  use  of  the  stop  watch,  or  is  it  to  the 
general  proposition  of  knowing  exactly  how  long  the  work  should  occupy? 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  901 

Mr.  BEERES.  It  seems  to  me  it  is  to  the  stop  watch.  But  there  are  any  num- 
ber of  different  ways  in  which  men  could  find  out  how  long  it  would  take  to 
do  a  job,  and  whether  the  man  was  doing  it  right  or  wrong. 

Mr.  MANLY.  If  the  total  time  for  a  task  was  measured  with  an  ordinary 
watch,  would  there  be  any  objection  to  that? 

Mr.  BEERES.  I  can  not  see  very  much  difference.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  do 
not  know  whether  the  man  would  know  whether  it  was  a  stop  watch  or  an 
ordinary  watch. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Any  sort  of  timing  is  objectionable,  is  it? 

Mr.  BEERES.  That  has  been  the  general  opposition  to  the  installation  of  the 
system,  that  men  did  not  want  to  be  placed  in  that  position,  where  they  are 
going  to  be  timed. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Do  they  not  time  themselves  when  they  want  to  catch  a  train, 
to  find  out  just  exactly  how  much  time  they  have  got  to  get  the  train? 

Mr.  BEERES.  It  would  be  natural  to  suppose  that  they  would.  That  is  not 
having  someone  else  do  it,  though. 

Mr.  MANLY.  One  of  the  other  fundamental  features  of  the  system  of  manage- 
ment is  the  payment  of  men  in  proportion  to  their  productivity,  either  by  means 
of  task  work,  a  bonus,  piece  rate,  differential  piece  rate,  or  one  or  the  other 
of  the  various  systems.  What  would  you  say  with  regard  to  the  use  of  some 
such  system  of  payment? 

Mr.  BEREES.  I  might  answer  that  in  this  way :  I  think  every  one  of  our 
international  organizations  is  on  record  in  its  constitution  as  being  opposed 
to  anything  except  the  straight  time  system  of  payment ;  and  as  nearly  as 
they  possibly  can,  they  follow  that  out,  so  that  we  have  always  felt  that 
that  was  the  way  in  which  men  should  be  paid,  and  we  have  not  changed  from 
that  position  at  this  time;  so  that  anything  I  might  advance  in  that  direction 
would  not  be  of  value,  I  think,  because  we  are  opposed  to  anything  of  that 
nature. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Unalterably  opposed  to  anything  except  the  straight-time  sys- 
tem? 

Mr.  BEEEES.  Yes. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Your  organizations  do  work  under  piece  rates,  do  they  not? 

Mr.  BEERES.  Some  of  them. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Are  those  piece  rates  all  equitably  fixed?  I  mean  are  there  not 
lean  rates  and  fat  rates  among  them? 

Mr.  BEREES.  That  is  a  question  that  I  could  not  answer.  Those  agreements 
or  decisions  are  reached  by  the  organizations  directly  involved,  and  I  have 
not  had  the  opportunity  to  witness  the  making  of  such  an  agreement,  or  the 
fixing  of  such  prices.  I  judge  that  if  they  are  in  existence,  they  are  satis- 
factory to  the  men  who  made  them,  under  the  conditions. 

Mr.  MANLY.  You  have  had  shop  experience,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  BEREES.  Yes. 

Mr.  MANLY.  In  your  shop  experience  you  have  never  seen  anything  of  the 
existence  of  fat  rates  and  lean  rates? 

Mr.  BEEEES.  No;  none  whatever.  I  might  say  that  I  am  a  pattern  maker 
by  trade,  and  I  have  never  yet  seen  where  the  installation  of  a  system  such 
as  we  have  heard  spoken  of  here  has  been  tried,  or  where  an  effort  has  been 
made  to  apply  it.  That  is  because  there  is  very  little  duplication  of  the  work. 

Mr.  MANLY.  In  what  branches  of  the  metal  trades  do  you  foresee  that  there 
is  likely  to  be  a  development  of  such  system  of  management,  or  a  tendency  to 
put  it  into  effect? 

Mr.  BERRES.  The  machinists,  the  molders,  the  boiler  makers,  and  the  black- 
smiths, I  think. 

Mr.  MANLY.  From  your  experience  in  the  shop,  and  from  dealing  with  man- 
agers, you  have  formed  some  idea  of  what  constitutes  an  efficiently-managed 
shop,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Yes ;  from  my  own  point  of  view. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Would  you  mind  telling  us  what  you  consider  an  efficiently-man- 
aged shop,  and  how  the  efficiency  in  such  a  shop  is  best  attained,  in  your 
opinion  ? 

Mr.  BERRES.  First  of  all,  I  would  have  the  most  improved  machinery;  sec- 
ondly, I  would  have  it  located  at  the  most  convenient  places,  so  that  all  the 
men  could  get  to  it  in  the  least  possible  time.  I  would  have  the  best  kind  of 
materials  for  the  men  to  work.  In  my  shop  practice  I  have  noticed  that  there 
seemed  to  be  very  little  judgment  used  in  the  placing  of  machines.  Of  course, 


902          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

our  business  is  almost  entirely  different  from  any  of  the  other  metal  trades. 
For  instance,  the  machines  would  be  halfway  down  the  shop.  That  is,  they 
would  be  half  the  length  of  the  shop  away  from  the  first  man,  so  that  any  time 
he  wanted  to  use  either  one  of  them  it  would  consume  that  much  time  going 
and  coming;  whereas,  if  the  machines  were  placed  in  the  middle  of  the  shop, 
at  least,  where  all  the  men  could  have  easy  access  to  them,  there  would  be  much 
time  saved. 

Mr.  MANLY.  A  great  deal  of  the  efficiency  of  the  shop  would  depend  on  the 
grade  of  workmen  that  you  employed,  whether  they  were  good,  capable  men, 
wo.uld  it  not? 

Mr.  BERRES.  That  is  very  necessary,  if  you  want  to  see  efficiency. 

Mr.  MANLY.  How  would  you  select  your  men? 

Mr.  BEEBES.  The  way  that  they  are  usually  selected;  they  are  taken  into  the 
pattern  shop  and  are  worked  for  a  reasonable  length  of  time  at  what  we  term 
"  second  class,"  and  then  if  they  prove  their  value  they  are  increased  in  a 
reasonable  time,  usually  60  days. 

Mr.  MANLY.  On  what  basis  are  those  increases  in  compensation  made? 

Mr.  BERRES.  From  the  character  of  the  work. 

Mr.  MANLY.  From  the  character  of  the  work?     By  that  you  mean  quality? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Quality,  in  a  way.  There  are  patterns  and  patterns.  There  are 
patterns  that  almost  anybody  could  make,  and  there  are  others  that  take  the 
finished  mechanic  to  execute. 

Mr.  MANLY.  It  would  depend  entirely  upon  their  ability  to  make 

Mr.  BERRES.  To  make  anything. 

Mr.  MANLY.  On  their  ability  to  make  the  more  advanced  or  more  intricate 
patterns? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Yes. 

Mr.  MANLY.  You  would  not  advance  men  at  all  on  the  basis  of  the  facility 
that  they  had  in  making  patterns  rapidly  ?  You  would  not  make  any  difference 
between  the  slow  pattern  maker  on  the  same  class  of  work  and  a  rapid  pat- 
tern maker? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  think  if  I  was  an  employer  I  should  certainly  consider  that 
phase  of  it — certainly. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Yes;  I  thought  you  would.  How  would  you  arrive  at  the  idea 
of  which  was  the  fast  pattern  maker  and  which  was  the  slow  pattern  maker? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  have  never  seen  a  pattern  shop  yet  where  they  did  not  keep 
the  cost  of  the  job  by  a  card  system.  A  man  makes  out  a  card  every  day  on 
the  job  on  which  he  works,  the  amount  of  time,  and  that  goes  to  the  office.  So 
it  would  not  seem  to  me  to  be  very  difficult  to  take  another  similar  case,  if 
there  was  another  similar  job,  and  see  who  was  the  fastest  man;  and  then  if 
a  man  paid  strict  attention  and  gave  close  application  to  the  shop,  which  they 
do  in  a  pattern  shop,  because  there  are  never  very  many  pattern  makers  in  a 
shop,  he  can  certainly  distinguish  as  to  which  one  of  two  men  working  on  the 
same  job  is  carrying  it  on  in  the  best  manner. 

Mr.  MANLY.  In  your  idea  of  an  efficiently  managed  shop,  who  would  decide 
on  whether  the  man  was  a  fast  man  or  a  slow  man?  Would  it  be  up  to  the 
foreman,  or  would  you  have  the  management  look  over  the  cost  sheets  and  de- 
termine it  in  that  way? 

Mr.  BERRES.  If  it  were  me,  I  should  leave  it  entirely  to  the  foreman. 

Mr.  MANLY.  You  believe  in  the  fairness  of  foremen  generally? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  certainly  do.  I  think  a  foreman  has  that  degree  of  interest  in 
the  shop,  as  a  general  proposition,  so  that  he  is  going  to  select  the  best  men, 
when  it  conies  to  a  time  for  discharge,  for  his  own  protection,  if  for  nothing 
else. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Because  ultimately  his  advance  depends  upon  the  productivity 
of  his  shop? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Certainly. 

Mr.  MANLY.  You  really  in  the  long  run  pay  a  man  in  proportion  to  his  pro- 
ductivity, do  you  not?  That  is,  the  man  that  makes  the  biggest  output  and 
does  the  best  work  at  the  same  time  would  naturally  be  paid  a  differential  rate? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Well,  you  might  make  that  statement  in  the  broadest  sense.  As 
I  said,  we  never  work  on  piecework,  and  there  are  fixed  rates  for  these  classes 
of  men,  and  if  you  call  that  paying  the  most  for  the  increased  productivity, 
why  I  say  yes. 

Mr.  MANLY.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Garretson,  have  you  any  questions? 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  903 

Commissioner  GARRETSOX.  Do  you  not  believe  that  the  objection  of  the  aver- 
age man  or  the  average  mechanic  to  what  is  generally  termed  here  the  stop 
watch,  whether  it  is  a  stop  watch  or  some  other  kind  of  a  watch,  and  to  the 
methods  that  are  described  in  the  various  efficiency  or  scientific  systems,  lies 
very  much  in  the  fact  that  the  man  who  feels  within  himself  the  power  to  suc- 
cessfully perform  the  duties  of  the  trade  to  which  he  belongs,  that  he  objects  to 
being  made  an  automaton  and  a  cog  in  a  wheel? 

Mr.  BEREES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSOX.  The  destruction  of  the  individuality  in  those 
directions,  while  dwelling  on  the  individual  factor  in  the  dealing? 

Mr.  BEERES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSOX.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  men,  if  carried  to  its 
perfection,  would  it  not  result  in  the  elimination  of  a  large  part  of  the  initia- 
tive that  the  American  workman  is  supposed  to  possess? 

Mr.  BEREES.  Certainly. 

Commissioner  GARRETSOX.  The  suppression  of  the  incentive  faculty? 

Mr.  BEREES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSOX.  Or  the  pride  of  being  able  to  do  a  thing  better 
than  another  man? 

Mr.  BEERES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSOX.  From  your  standpoint,  do  you  believe  that  as  long 
as  the  apostles  of  these  various  systems  bitterly  disagree  as  to  which  is  the 
method,  that  it  is  any  wonder  that  the  body  of  the  men  will  not  accept  any 
one  of  them  as  law  and  gospel? 

Mr.  BERRES.  None  whatever. 

Commissioner  GARRETSOX.  That  will  be  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTIXG  CHAIRMAX.  Mr.  Weinstock,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  WEIX STOCK.  As  I  understand  it,  organized  labor  stands  for  the 
minimum  wage,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIXSTOCK.  A  minimum  wage  that  shall  insure  a  living  wage? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIX STOCK.  But  it  has  no  objection  to  a  maximum  wage;  that 
is,  it  has  no  maximum? 

Mr.  BERRES.  It  has  no  maximum. 

Commissioner  WEIX  STOCK.  It  has  not  the  slightest  objection  to  the  employer 
paying  as  much  above  the  minimum  as  the  employer  is  prepared  to  pay? 

Mr.  BEREES.  None  whatever,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEIXSTOCK.  In  other  words,  while  there  is  a  minimum,  there 
is  no  maximum? 

Mr.  BERRES.  No.  sir. 

..rnissioner  WEIXSTOCK.  Now,  imagine  that  you  or  I  were  working  side  by 
side  in  a  shop,  and  we  both  started  in  at  the  minimum  wage.  And  imagine 
further  that  you  were  an  efficient  worker,  and  I  was  just  the  average  worker ; 
that  I  was  worth  the  minimum,  but  no  more ;  but  you.  by  virtue  of  your  initia- 
tive, by  virtue  of  your  speed,  by  virtue  of  your  higher  intelligence,  by  virtue  of 
your  industry,  produced  more  than  I  did.  Would  you  or  would  you  not  feel 
that  you  were  entitled  to  more  than  the  minimum  wage? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Well.  I  would  feel,  of  course — we  often  feel  that  way,  but  there 
is  the  possibility  that  the  man  in  charge  does  not  feel  that  way. 

Commissioner  WEIXSTOCK.  No.  I  am  not  asking  you  to  tell  me  how  the  man 
in  charge  feels,  but  how  you  would  feel. 

Mr.  BEBKE-.  I  say  we  would  possibly  feel  that  way,  but  nothing  comes  of  it. 

Commissioner  WEIXSTOCK.  Please  answer  the  question  directly.  My  ques- 
tion is.  If  you  should  prove  to  be  much  more  efficient  than  I,  would  you  feel — 
not  what  the  boss  would  feel — that  you  ought  to  be  appreciated,  and,  therefore, 
that  you  «  -arn  more  than  I  was  earning ;  that  you  were  entitled  to  re- 

ceive more  than  the  minimum? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Certainly  :  I  think  anybody  would  feel  that  way. 

Commissioner  WEIXSTOCK.  And  if  you  did  not  get  more  than  the  minimum 
you  would  feel  that  you  were  not  getting  a  square  deal,  would  you  not? 

Mr.  BEI;  D  will  let  me  qualify  that.     If  there  was  in  that  shop 

a  higher  rate — if  there  was  a  high  rate  already  established 

iinissioner  WEIXSTOCK.  No.  Many  shops  have  only  the  minimum  amount, 
and  the  rest  of  it  depends  upon  the  individuality.  For  example,  I  investigated 
the  conditions  that  prevail  in  New  Zealand,  in  the  factories.  They  have  a 


904          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

minimum  rate  fixed  by  law,  but  they  have  no  maximum.  In  looking  over  the 
manufacturers'  reports  I  found  50  per  cent  of  the  men  earned  only  the  mini- 
mum, that  some  earned  5  per  cent  above  the  minimum,  and  some  50  per  cent 
above  the  minimum,  according  to  their  individual  merits.  That  is,  the  spirit 
was  to  pay  each  man  just  what  he  was  worth.  Do  you  feel  that  is  just — to  pay 
each  man  just  what  he  is  worth,  or  would  you  pay  him  less  than  he  is  worth? 

Mr.  BERRES.  That  would  take  a  whole  lot  of  explanation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  No.  You  can  answer  that  question  yes  or  no. 
My  question  is,  Would  you  pay  a  man  all  that  he  is  worth? 

Mr.  BERRES.  If  I  were  an  employer? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  certainly  would. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  as  a  worker  you  would  expect  to  get  all  that 
you  are  worth? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Certainly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  you  are  worth  more  than  the  minimum,  you 
would  expect  to  get  more  than  the  minimum,  or  you  would  feel  that  you  were 
not  justly  treated.  Is  not  that  correct? 

Mr.  BERRES.  That  is  right. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  We  have  now  established  these  points :  First,  that 
organized  labor  demands,  and  I  think  properly  so,  a  minimum  wage;  second, 
that  there  is  no  maximum;  and,  third,  you  feel  that  if  you  are  worth  more 
than  the  minimum  you  should  get  more  than  the  minimum,  properly  and  justly. 
The  question  now  arises,  how  is  it  to  be  determined  how  much  more  than  the 
minimum  you  are  worth.  Let  us  see  how  we  would  come  to  that.  Imagine 
you  wanted  to  buy  some  coal,  and  I  am  a  coal  dealer.  If  you  came  to  me  and 
wanted  a  ton  of  coal  you  would  not  be  satisfied  if  I  used  my  eye  in  determining 
how  much  constituted  a  ton.  You  would  expect  me  to  weigh  that  ton  out  so 
that  you  would  be  sure  to  get  your  2,000  pounds. 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  do  not  think  I  would  stand  for  anything  of  that  kind. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  would  demand  the  exact  rate? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  think  that  is  exaggerating  the  thing  a  little  bit. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Not  at  all.  That  is  easily  answered.  You  would 
want  your  money's  worth,  and  if  the  price  of  coal  was  $10  a  ton,  and  2,000 
pounds  constituted  a  ton,  you  would  not  be  satisfied  if  I  used  my  eye  and  said, 
"  I  guess  that  is  about  a  ton."  You  would  insist  upon  my  weighing  it  out  and 
giving  you  all  that  you  were  paying  for.  Is  that  right  or  wrong? 

Mr.  BERRES.  That  is  right. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Very  well.  If  there  is  no  maximum  established, 
and  there  is  a  minimum,  there  is  one  of  two  ways  in  which  I  can  determine 
how  much  more  than  the  minimum  you  are  worth.  One  is  to  guess  at  it,  and 
one  is  for  me  or  for  the  employer  having  a  large  plant  to  say  to  the  foreman, 
"  Whenever  you  think  a  man  is  worth  more  than  the  minimum,  let  me  know, 
and  I  will  pay  him  whatever  more  you  think  he  is  worth."  Then  another  way 
is  to  do  as  you  would  want  your  coal  weighed  out  to  you,  by  exact  and  just 
methods,  so  that  all  of  your  efforts  are  properly  and  exactly  measured,  and  not 
guesswork.  Can  you  conceive  any  other  way  of  determining  that,  than  by 
either  measuring,  counting  or  weighing,  or  by  guessing  at  it?  And  if  so,  let  me 
know  what  other  way  there  is — I  mean  by  eliminating  guesswork. 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  assume,  first,  that  the  man  in  charge  of  the  shop  of  any  charac- 
ter is  a  practical  man. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  BERRES.  And  that  he  has  had  sufficient  experience  to  prove  himself 
a  capable  and  efficient  man.  Otherwise  he  would  not  be  acting  in  the  capacity 
of  foreman. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  BERRES.  If  that  man  is  not  qualified  to  know  when  a  man  is  doing  his 
best,  when  he  is  manufacturing  the  thing  under  the  best  possible  conditions, 
then  who  else  is  going  to  determine  it? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  then  would  give  to  the  foreman  divine  powers 
and  knowledge,  which  is  impossible.  I  say  this  from  practical  experience, 
from  absolute  knowledge.  I  am  a  merchant.  I  employ  a  great  many  people 
in  my  business.  I  have  heads  of  departments  and  some  heads  of  departments 
have  a  good  many  assistants  under  their  charge.  I  have  tried  the  plan  of 
going  to  the  head  of  the  department  and  saying  to  him,  "  Just  rate  all  of  your 
people  here  and  tell  me  which  produces  the  best  results,  who  has  the  largest 
sales,  and  who  has  the  smallest,"  and  I  have  found  that  where  he  trusted  to 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  905 

memory,  nine  times  out  of  ten  he  was  wrong,  and  that  the  only  way  he  could 
tell  me  accurately  was  to  go  to  his  reports  and  see  the  exact  results,  and  rate 
liis  assistants  accordingly.  I  do  not  think  that  a  foreman  of  a  shop  is  on 
the  whole  any  higher  in  intelligence  or  accuracy  than  the  average  head  of  a 
department  who  earns  all  the  way  from  $1,800  to  $5,000  a  year.  Therefore,  it 
would  seem  to  me  that  in  justice  to  the  man  there  should  be  accuracy  and 
not  guesswork,  and  if  men  are  to  be  paid  in  accordance  with  their  deserts,  if 
they  are  to  receive  all  they  are  worth,  as  you  think  they  ought  to  receive,  is  it 
not  in  the  interest  of  the  men  then  that  it  should  be  determined  by  accuracy, 
and  not  by  the  spirit  of  favoritism  or  by  guesswork? 

Mr.  BEERES.  I  can  only  say  briefly  what  I  said  in  the  beginning,  that  in  my 
experience  there  is  always  a  record  kept,  a  card  system,  and  when  it  comes 
down  to  the  fine  point  whore  there  has  to  be  discrimination  made,  that  enters 
into  the  final  decision  of  the  case.  I  do  not  think  any  man  ever  tries  to  run 
a  pattern  shop  by  guessing  at  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  you  do  not  object  to  accurate  methods? 

Mr.  BEREES.  Such  as  I  have  enumerated. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  you  take  the  least  accurate  methods  in 
determining  a  man's  worth,  or  would  you  take  the  most  accurate  methods? 

Mr.  BEEEES.  I  would  not  care  what  kind  was  taken,  so  long  as  they  did  not 
interfere  with  my  rights  and  place  me  in  a  position  where  I  would  simply 
become  a  machine. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  When  you  enter  a  shop  in  the  morning  and  reg- 
ister your  time  in  the  time  clock,  as  they  do,  I  take  it,  in  most  well-regulated 
shops,  and  register  your  time  when  you  go  out  to  your  meal  and  when  you 
come  back  again  and  at  the  close  of  the  day,  is  that  interfering  with  your 
rights? 

Mr.  BEEEES.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  concede  that  that  is  proper  and  ought  to 
prevail.  When  you  do  a  piece  of  work  and  a  card  is  handed  to  you  and  you 
place  your  card  through  the  time  clock,  and  when  the  job  is  completed  it  is 
passed  through  the  time  clock  again  to  see  how  much  time  has  been  given  to 
the  job,  so  that  its  cost  may  be  determined,  is  that  interfering  with  your 
rights? 

Mr.  BERRES.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Very  well.  Then  you  do  not  object  to  the  time 
clock  in  the  transaction? 

Mr.  BERRES.  In  that  way,  no.  I  never  wrorked  under  one  of  them,  but  I 
know  something  about  how  they  are  worked,  and  it  always  creates  more  or 
less  trouble. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Timing  a  job  creates  trouble? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  My  dear  sir,  if  I  have  an  automobile  shop  and 
you  bring  your  automobile  to  me,  and  my  rate  to  you  is  $1  an  hour,  how  am  I 
going  to  determine  what  to  charge  you  unless  I  time  my  worker  so  that  I 
can  go  to  you  and  say,  "That  job  took  five  hours,"  or  five  hours  and  a  half  or 
ten  hours?  Is  it  not  imperative  that  the  job  shall  be  timed  in  order  that  the 
cost  may  be -determined. 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  am  not  speaking  that  way.  I  understood  you  to  say  a  man 
would  register? 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Surely  he  registers. 

Mr.  BERRES.  He  registers  when  he  comes  in  and  goes  out. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Exactly.  That  is  another  occasion  when  he  is 
timed. 

Mr.  BERRES.  That  is  what  I  am  speaking  of. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  is  timed  when  he  comes  in  and  goes  out  and 
he  is  timed  in  all  well-regulated  shops  on  the  job  that  he  does.  I  know  that. 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  said  I  agreed  to  that.     We  make  our  cards  in  our  shops. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  say  that  does  not  interfere  with  a  man's 
rights — timing  him  when  he  goes  in  and  when  he  comes  out,  when  he  starts 
and  finishes  a  job.  If  that  is  the  case,  I  still  can  not  comprehend  the  distinc- 
tion between  timing  a  man  when  he  comes  in  and  goes  out,  and  timing  a  man 
when  he  starts  and  finishes  his  job,  and  timing  the  man  in  advance,  how  long 
a  job  ought  to  take.  Why  do  you  not  object  to  the  two  kinds  of  timing  touched 
upon,  and  then  object  to  the  third  time? 

Mr.  BEREES.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  difference  between  a  man 
coming  in  the  shop  and  ringing  up  a  time  clock,  or  doing  something  like  that. 


906          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

He  is  doing  that  alone.  There  is  nobody  there  to  watch  him.  There  is 'quite 
a  distinction  between  that  and  a  man  being  given  a  blue  print,  and  having 
somebody  stand  over  him  with  his  watch  timing  every  movement  that  he  makes. 
There  is  quite  a  distinction,  and  instead  of  creating  in  that  man  a  desire  to  do 
his  best,  it  brings  his  mind  to  such  a  state  that  it  makes  it  absolutely  impos- 
sible for  him  to  do  the  best. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  that  it  fills  him  with  resentment? 

Mr.  BEBBES.  Certainly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  think  you  are  quite  right,  Mr.  Berres.  If  I 
were  an  employer  and  came  to  you,  and  made  you  feel  that  I  distrusted  you, 
that  I  thought  you  were  soldiering  on  me,  and  made  you  believe  that  I  was 
going  to  pursue  a  gum-shoe  method,  you  would  be  filled  with  resentment,  just 
as  I  would  under  like  conditions,  but  if  I  came  to  you  and  said,  "  Here,  Mr. 
Berres,  we  are  not  producing  the  best  results,  there  is  a  way  whereby  you  can 
make  more  money,  and  I  can  make  more  money.  Let  us  get  together  and  see 
if  there  is  not  some  plan  whereby  we  can  reduce  the  cost  of  this  work,  and  both 
of  us  profit  by  that  reduced  cost,"  would  that  create  resentment  in  your  mind? 

Mr.  BEKEES.  No ;  that  would  not. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  From  the  explanations  given 

Mr.  BEREES.  Will  you  let  me  say  one  thing  in  addition  to  that? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BEEEES.  Being  an  organization  man,  and  heartily  believing  in  it  I  should 
not  want  to  act  in  that  way  simply  in  my  individual  capacity,  in  a  suggestion 
of  that  nature  that  you  might  make.  I  should  want  the  opportunity  of  pre- 
senting it  to  my  organization,  and  if  the  employer  saw  fit  to  present  a  similar 
proposition  to  the  organization,  and  they  accepted  it,  it  would  be  all  right.  I 
would  not  deal  as  an  individual. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  we  to  understand  that  when  you  join  an 
organization  you  absolutely  give  up  all  of  your  rights  and  privileges  and  all  of 
your  prerogatives,  and  all  of  your  individualities? 

Mr.  BEEEES.  How  could  an  organization  be  successful  if  each  fellow  was 
going  on  and  dealing  with  the  boss,  and  one  getting  this  and  the  other  fellow 
getting  that?  What  is  the  good  of  an  organization? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  do  that  now.  You  tell  me  the  organization 
has  no  objection  to  a  minimum. 

Mr.  BEEEES.  But  you  are  speaking  of  an  employer  coming  to  me  with  a 
proposition  as  an  individual  regarding  a  thing  that  affects  the  whole  shop, 
which  it  naturally  would.  If  there  is  going  to  be  any  improvement  come  to  me, 
in  justice  to  myself  and  my  fellow  men,  I  would  want  to  let  them  know  what 
the  management  had  in  mind. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Exactly.  As  an  employer  I  go  still  further,  and 
I  would  say,  "  I  do  not  propose  to  do  this  thing  for  you  and  you  alone.  What- 
ever condition  we  shall  establish  shall  be  for  the  men  in  the  shop ;  they  shall 
have  an  equal  opportunity  with  you.  You  are  not  going  to  get  a  monopoly, 
you  are  not  going  to  get  an  exclusive  privilege;  it  is  going  to  be  a  common 
condition."  But  I  take  you  as  a  representative  worker,  as  a  fair,  intelligent 
worker,  in  whom  I  have  confidence,  so  that  we  can  get  the  basis,  and  the  reason 
I  use  this  watch  on  you  is  to  get  the  basis,  not  to  time  you  on  every  transac- 
tion, but  to  have  some  basis  on  which  to  figure.  Could  you  object  to  that, 
reasonably? 

Mr.  BEEEES.  I  can  not  see  the  necessity  for  taking  every  minute  of  time. 
Why  should  you  put  a  man  down  to  a  minute?  What  is  the  occasion  for  getting 
a  man  down  so  fine?  Is  it  not  after  all  a  desire,  after  once  that  is  determined, 
to  hold  that  man  to  that? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  might  as  well  say,  What  is  the  use  of  taking 
a  yardstick  and  getting  it  down  to  the  accuracy  of  an  inch  or  a  quarter  of  an 
inch?  It  is  to  get  accuracy.  If  you  came  into  a  dry  goods  shop  and  you  wanted 
a  certain  yardage  of  cloth,  you  would  not  want  me  to  measure  it  by  my  eye, 
but  you  would  want  me  to  measure  it  accurately. 

What  the  yardstick  is  to  a  piece  of  cloth,  the  time  watch  is  to  determining 
the  exact  time  it  ought  to  take  to  produce  a  certain  unit,  in  order  that  you 
may  receive  all  that  you  are  worth,  and  not  less. 

Mr.  BEEBES.  I  can  not  reconcile  the  proposition  of  measuring  a  yard  of  cloth 
with  trying  to  measure  a  human  being.  I  think  there  is  quite  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  two. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  No;  it  is  simply  the  point  of  accuracy,  getting 
the  accurate  results,  and  eliminating  guesswork. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND   LABOB.  907 

Mr.  BEKRES.  That  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  it  is  accurate.  As  I  said 
before,  a  man  may  under  those  conditions  do  his  worst.  Any  man  who  is 
taking  a  mental  examination  knows  that  while  he  may  not  be  at  his  worst,  yet 
he  is  not  the  man  he  ordinarily  is,  because  he  feels  he  is  under  extraordinary 
stress  at  that  particular  time. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Very  true. 

Mr.  BEKEES.  So,  after  all,  I  dare  say  that  the  mere  fact  that  a  stop  watch 
has  been  used  is  not  an  indication  that  the  job  has  been  done  in  the  least  pos- 
sible time. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  think  you  are  right  there,  but,  as  I  take  it  from 
the  explanations  that  have  been  made  here,  the  basis  is  not  determined  by  any 
one  operation,  but  a  great  number  of  operations,  which  are  timed  in  order  to 
strike  a  fair  average. 

Mr.  BERKES.  That  is  true. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  overcomes  your  objection? 

Mr.  BEBRES.  No.  I  say  the  same  thing  could  happen  in  each  one  of  those 
operations. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  possible,  but  hardly  probable,  in  a  great 
number  of  operations.  There  has  been  one  point  raised  here  upon  which  I 
would  like  to  get  your  point  of  view,  and  that  is  that  while  all  of  these  systems 
that  we  have  heard  so  much  about  in  the  last  few  days,  it  is  generally  ad- 
mitted— I  have  not  heard  it  disputed — tend  to  reduce  the  cost  of  production,  and 
that  that  reduced  cost  of  production  is  divided  between  the  employer  and  the 
worker ;  that  is,  that  it  means  larger  profits  to  the  employer  and  increased  earn- 
ing power  to  the  worker ;  yet  it  has  been  contended  on  the  part  of  representa- 
tives of  organized  labor  that  that  saving  is  taken  out  of  the  physical  hide  of  the 
worker.  Is  that  also  your  belief? 

Mr.  BERRES.   That  is  a  broad  question.     I  do  not  think  so  altogether. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.   You  think  not? 

Mr.  BERRES.  No.  You  were  here,  I  think,  when  I  enumerated  some  of  the 
things  that  I  thought  could  be  done  in  a  pattern  shop  in  order  to  make  the  work 
more  efficient.  I  would  not  say  that  was  taken  out  of  the  hides  of  the  work- 
men, because  the  machinery  was  placed  right,  and  it  was  the  very  best  ma- 
chinery and  the  best  material.  I  do  not  think  anybody  would  take  that  position. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  position  was  taken  at  one  of  our  previous 
examinations.  I  do  not  recall  just  who  took  that  position,  but  I  am  quite 
sure — if  I  looked  up  my  data  I  could  locate  it — that  some  of  the  representatives 
of  labor  admitted  it  meant  more  earnings  to  the  men,  but  that  the  system  was 
an  injury  to  them  physically ;  that  they  were  overworked ;  that  in  place  of 
working  industriously  they  worked  strenuously;  and  that  it  shortened  their 
working  life. 

Mr.  BERRES.  Either  you  misunderstood  them,  Mr.  Weinstock,  or  else  they  did 
not  exactly  state  the  thing  in  the  manner  in  which  they  desired.  I  do  not  think 
anybody  would  take  that  position.  I  never  heard  of  anybody  taking  that 
position  where  the  machinery  was  placed  in  the  most  advantageous  position. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  No;  I  am  speaking  of  systems  and  not  especially 
of  the  placing  of  machinery. 

Mr.  BERRES.  You  asked  if  it  was  all  taken  out  of  the  hide.  I  am  trying  to 
show  what  I  think  would  be  done  and  would  not  come  out  of  the  hide  of  the 
man — the  increased  productivity. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  bettered  facilities? 

Mr.  BERRES.   Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.   Bettered  shop  facilities? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Admitting  that  part  of  it,  Mr.  Berres,  would  not 
come  out  of  the  hide  of  the  men,  would  the  other  part  of  it,  in  your  opinion, 
come  out  of  the  hide  of  the  men?  That  is,  their  increased  efficiency?  For 
instance,  if,  under  the  old  conditions,  a  man  produced  $5  worth  of  work  a  day, 
and  under  the  new  conditions  produced  $7  or  $8  worth  of  work  a  day,  admit- 
ting that  part  of  that  gain  was  the  result  of  improved  facilities  and  that  the 
other  part  of  it  was  the  result  of  increased  efficiency  on  the  part  of  the  men,  do 
you  believe  that,  as  explained  here  by  the  various  witnesses,  is  at  the  physical 
cost  of  the  operator? 

Mr.  BERRES.  To  some  extent  I  do. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  there  any  way  that  could  be  demonstrated  to 
the  satisfaction  of  this  commission? 

Mr.  BERRES.  In  this  way :  If  men  are  going  to  be  timed  down  to  the  second 
and  are  expected  to  keep  that  up  regardless  of  what  the  circumstances  are, 


908          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

would  not  you  consider  then  that  this  increased  productivity  was  being  gotten 
out  to  some  extent  because  of  personal  sacrifices  on  the  part  of  these  men? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.   That  would  depend  upon  the  circumstances. 

Mr.  BERRES.  But  those  circumstances  are  liable  to  arise? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  From  the  explanations  that  have  been  made  here 
by  the  witnesses,  I  should  say  not.  I  should  say  the  methods  as  explained 
indicate  that  there  is  a  great  effort  made  to  conserve — not  to  dissipate,  but 
to  conserve — the  energy  of  the  men,  and  without  increased  exertion  and  by 
greater  skill  and  by  better  judgment,  by  a  clearer  understanding  of  his  work, 
he  will  produce  more  without  increased  effort. 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  hope  that  is  true. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  these  things  do  tend  to 
injure  men  physically,  it  ought  to  be  a  fact ;  and  if  it  is  a  fact,  it  ought  to  be 
demonstrable ;  and  if  it  is  demonstrable,  we  ought  to  know  it. 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  should  say  this  to  the  commission :  The  only  way  to  find  out 
accurately  whether  it  is  or  not  is  to  go  into  one  of  the  plants  where  the  thing 
is  in  operation  and  get  the  consensus  of  opinion  of  the  people  who  are  working 
directly  under  it,  Mr.  Weinstock.  I  have  not  worked  under  it,  and  there  are 
many  others,  of  course,  who  have  not  worked  under  it,  so  our  opposition  has 
come  from  protests,  because  of  the  fact  we  have  well-defined  principles  in  our 
organization  with  which  this  conflicts.  But  I  believe  the  only  way  this  com- 
mission can  find  out  and  determine  for  itself  whether  or  not  it  is  a  bad 
system  to  expect  men  to  work  under,  is  for  them  to  make  a  personal  investiga- 
tion of  a  plant  in  which  the  system  is  in  operation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  do  not  think  that  would  produce  the  desired 
result,  for  this  reason:  We  might  walk  through  a  plant,  but  it  would  be  im- 
possible for  us,  with  hundreds  of  men  there,  to  determine  whether  those  men 
were  physically  better  or  worse  off  than  they  were  before. 

Mr.  BERRES.  You  could  get  the  men  who  do  the  work  there  and  ask  them. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  could  get  them  all  better  than  we  could, 
because  they  could  and  would  talk  to  you,  and  in  a  way  they  would  not  talk  to  us. 

Mr.  BERRES.  You  realize,  in  order  to  get  the  thing  in  the  right  shape,  we 
ought  to  be  able  to  see  the  men  doing  the  thing.  Don't  you  think  so? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  BERRES.  There  are  some  people  who  protest,  no  doubt  you  have  noticed, 
but  when  it  comes  to  proving  a  thing,  it  is  entirely  a  different  matter.  A  man 
ought  to  be  given  the  opportunity  to  show  why  such  and  such  a  thing  is. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  were  present,  of  course,  during  all  these 
hearings  the  last  two  or  three  days? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Most  of  them;  yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  will  recall  there  were  several  employees  on 
the  witness  stand,  and  that  question  was  brought  up  particularly  as  to  how  it 
affected  the  health  of  the  men,  and  they  submitted  figures  that  showed  that 
the  average  health,  if  anything,  was  better  than  it  had  been  under  the  old 
conditions. 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  should  like  just  as  well  to  hear  that  come  from  the  other 
side,  too,  before  I  would  render  a  decision.  If  you  should  ask  for  a  decision, 
I  should  like  to  hear  the  other  side  of  it.  Figures  are  peculiar  things,  and 
it  depends  on  which  side  you  are  looking  from,  sometimes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  sit  here  as  a  juror,  and  you  are  the  com- 
plainant— that  is,  organized  labor  is  the  complainant,  and  as  the  complainant, 
it  comes  to  us  and  says  "  We  object  to  that  system  because  it  injures  our  men 
physically."  The  other  side  denies  that.  The  burden  of  proof,  therefore, 
rests  with  you.  You  have  to  demonstrate  that  it  does  injure  the  men  physi- 
cally, and  unless  you  can  demonstrate  that  to  the  satisfaction  of  this  com- 
mission, your  charge  -falls  to  the  ground. 

Mr.  BERRES.  That  is  very  true.  The  commission  has  the  opportunity  to 
ascertain  whether  that  is  the  fact,  whether  the  statement  of  the  other  side 
is  the  fact  or  not.  The  only  conceivable  way  for  the  commission  to  get  at  the 
facts  is  to  get  the  men,  who  are  working  directly  under  the  system. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  do  not  know  about  that.  I  do  not  think  we 
are  expected  to  go  out  and  become  individual  inspectors.  When  a  charge  is 
made,  if  you  make  the  charge  you  are  supposed  to  substantiate  that  charge 
with  proofs.  A  court  does  not  go  out  and  make  personal  inspection.  We  are 
sitting  here  as  jurors  and  court.  The  court  does  not  go  out  and  investigate 
into  the  nooks  and  corners.  The  parties  are  supposed  to  bring  testimony  and 
submit  it  to  the  court.  The  burden  of  proof  rests  with  you,  and  not  with  us. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  909 

Mr.  BERRES.  The  court  would  go  and  get  eyewitnesses,  and  if  they  were 
going  to  bring  in  handwriting  experts,  or  anything  like  that,  they  would  have 
them  promiscuously. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  parties  to  the  issue  would  bring  witnesses, 
and  not  the  court.  So  you  see,  Mr.  Berres,  the  burden  rests  with  you  to 
demonstrate  to  the  reasonable  satisfaction  of  this  commission  that  that  system 
does  injure  men  physically.  When  you  do  that  you  have  scored,  and  we  must 
stand  with  you.  If  you  fail  to  do  that,  your  charge  has  nothing  to  stand  on. 

Mr.  BEKRES.  I  would  say  this:  I  think  that  when  a  number  of  men,  such  as 
the  number  I  am  going  to  mention,  take  the  position  they  do,  there  must  be  some- 
thing radically  wrong,  and  I  have  every  right  to  assume  what  they  say  is  right 
If  you  would  take  the  Watertown  Arsenal  to-day,  where  there  are  180  machin- 
ists, you  will  find  the  most  affected  trade  by  the  installation  of  the  so-called 
efficiency  system,  where  there  are  over  150  out  of  180  men  who  would,  if  they 
were  given  the  opportunity  to-morrow,  repudiate  the  system;  and  that,' I  think 
justifies  the  commission  in  making  some  investigation  "of  those  men  themselves] 
That  is  the  evidence  we  get. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  other  words,  you  offer  those  men  as  your 
witnesses? 

Mr.  BEKRES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  you  practically  ask  the  commission  to  exam- 
ine those  witnesses? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  say  this :  I  say,  out  of  180  men  there  are  150  and  over  who,  if 
given  the  opportunity,  would  repudiate  the  system.  I  take  it  from  that  there 
must  be  something  very  radically  wrong  about  the  system  and  that  it  does  not 
give  the  benefit  to  the  men  that  has  been  stated  by  those  who  are  expounding 
the  system. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Let  me  ask,  Mr.  Berres,  if  you  think  it  would  be 
fair  to  the  men — that  it  would  not  in  any  way  prejudice  their  positions  or 
jeopardize  their  future  careers — to  bring  them  as  witnesses  before  this  com- 
mission? Do  yoii  think  that  would  have  any  effect  on  them?  Do  you  think 
they  would  be  in  a  position  to  talk  to  us  as  frankly  as  they  would  do  to  you, 
this  being  a  public  hearing? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  do  not  see  why,  Mr.  Weinstock.  I  had  the  pleasure  of  bring- 
ing about  a  settlement  of  that  strike  when  the  system  was  first  installed a 

year  or  so  after  they  started  to  install  it — when  a  molder  absolutely  refused  to 
work  because  of  the  stop  watch,  and  when  he  refused  he  was  discharged ;  and 
in  consequence  of  that  the  other  molders  left  the  shop.  I  happened  to  be  at  the 
War  Department  at  the  time  and  I  got  those  men  reinstated,  with  the  under- 
standing that  there  would  be  an  investigation  within  a  reasonable  length  of 
time,  and  Col.  Thompson  was  the  investigating  officer,  and  he  told  me  that  he 
wanted  me  to  notify  all  those  men,  regardless  of  what  their  positions  were, 
that  if  they  came  before  him  as  the  investigating  officer  he  wanted  them  to  feel 
that  their  positions  would  not  be  jeopardized,  no  matter  what  they  said.  He 
wanted  to  hear  the  truth  and  said  they  would  be  protected.  I  assume  that  this 
commission  would  tell  the  men  the  same  thing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  am  not  altogether  sure  that  this  commission  is 
in  a  position  to  guarantee  protection,  because  at  best  it  is  a  temporary  com- 
mission and  will  be  out  of  existence  within  a  year,  and  it  would  have  no 
means  of  guaranteeing  anything  to  anybody. 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  realize  that,  and  I  do  not  know  that  it  would  be  necessary  for 
the  commission  to  take  that  position,  for,  after  all,  when  any  employer — even 
the  Government  as  an  employer — wants  to  get  rid  of  a  man  they  usually  find 
means  of  getting  rid  of  him  without  telling  him  just  why ;  but  I  have  no  doubt 
there  are  a  great  many  men  employed  in  the  Watertown  Arsenal  and  other 
places  who  will  be  willing  to  come  and  tell  the  truth  just  as  it  is.  I  am  glad 
to  say  we  have  got  some  men  in  Government  institutions  who  have  got  back- 
bone and  are  not  afraid  of  their  positions.  If  there  is  an  evil  existing,  then  a 
man  ought  to  be  man  enough  to  come  out  and  tell  everything  in  connection 
with  it,  and  I  think  you  will  find  that  there  will  be  quite  a  number  of  men 
who  will  be  glad  to  come  here  and  lay  bare  the  whole  facts  in  the  case. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Would  you  be  in  a  position  to  give  the  commis- 
sion the  names  of  such  men? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  should  make  an  attempt  to  get  them.  I  think  there  is  a  gen- 
tleman down  here  from  there  now  who  would  be  glad  to  give  such  testimony. 
I  do  not  know  that  he"  would.  He  is  here,  and  I  do  not  know  why  he  should 
come  if  it  is  not  for  that  purpose,  if  he  is  given  the  opportunity. 


910          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Lennon,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Mr.  Berres,  the  attitude  of  trade-unions,  because  of 
conditions  in  modern  industry,  is  emphatically  in  favor  of  collective  bargain- 
ing, is  it  not? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that,  in  so  far  as  information  has 
come  to  you,  in  the  introduction  of  these  efficiency  systems  they  have  under- 
taken to  institute  the  personal  contact  and  to  eliminate  the  collective  contact? 
Is  not  that  the  real  cause,  or  the  principal  cause,  of  the  opposition  of  organized 
labor  to  these  systems? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Yes;  I  should  say  so. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  In  your  contact  with  men  have  you  not  found  that 
the  matter  of  habit  is  really  second  nature,  as  the  old  axiom  states  it ;  that  is 
to  say,  that  men  form  habits,  either  good  or  bad,  and  they  become  a  part  of 
the  man? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Does  not  the  opposition  to  bringing  in  a  new  system, 
without  explanation,  without  consultation  with  men  collectively,  make  a 
man  fear  that  if  he  has  learned  a  trade  and  has  what  he  considers  the  neces- 
sary habits  to  make  his  exercise  of  that  trade  successful,  in  some  way  it  is 
going  to  develop  an  injury  to  him? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Do  you  know  of  any  case  that  has  come  to  you 
through  complaints  or  otherwise  where,  upon  the  attempt  to  introduce  these 
efficiency  systems,  there  has  been  a  real  effort  made  on  the  part  of  the  expert 
introducing  the  system  to  convince  the  men  collectively,  not  one  man  at  a  time, 
but  collectively,  of  the  advisability  of  this  system? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Not  in  any  instance. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Suppose  these  systems  were  to  recognize  this  idea  of 
collective  action  on  the  part  of  the  workers  and  take  the  men  into  consulta- 
tion. What  is  your  opinion  as  to  the  outcome?  Would  it  be  likely  to  be  more 
favorable  than  now,  or  less  favorable? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  should  say  it  would  clarify  the  situation  to  a  very  great  extent. 
May  I  say  a  word  right  here,  Mr.  Chairman? 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  here  by  the  experts  with  reference  to  what  they 
believe  of  labor  organizations  and  the  necessity  for  them,  and  that  labor  was 
protesting  against  a  system  that  they  had  not  studied  and  knew  nothing  of, 
and  particular  stress  was  laid  on  the  beneficial  results  that  will  accrue  from 
the  installation  of  such  a  system,  benefits  to  the  employee,  and  they  would  lead 
us  to  believe  that  in  every  instance  they  have  kept  before  them  the  results 
of  the  installation  of  the  system,  as  far  as  the  men  are  concerned.  But  if  that 
is  true,  it  seems  to  me  peculiar  that  they  have  not  seen  fit,  inasmuch  as  this 
system  is  going  to  assist  in  bringing  about  the  millennium — why  they  have 
never  knocked  at  the  doors  of  the  conventions  of  these  organizations  of  labor 
and  asked  the  opportunity  to  explain  these  systems;  because,  in  my  judgment, 
from  sitting  here  and  listening  attentively,  it  would  seem  that  it  would  take 
some  time  to  give  proper  instructions  to  men  before  they  would  have  an  under- 
standing of  the  workings  of  the  thing. 

Now,  if  they  are  so  solicitous  of  the  welfare  of  the  men,  as  they  say  they 
are,  why  have  they  not  made  some  effort  to  go  among  those  men  in  large 
bodies,  where  they  congregate  and  where  they  legislate,  and  explain  this  filing 
to  them  and  get  their  views  on  it?  I  have  never  heard  of  one  instance  where 
they  have  even  gone  into  a  locality,  to  a  local  organization  whose  members 
would  be  directly  affected  by  the  installation,  to  explain  the  system  to  them 
and  ask  what  their  views  were. 

So  their  efforts  in  the  direction  of  educating  the  people  up  to  the  necessity  of 
these  things  is  not  borne  out  by  the  facts ;  that  is,  they  do  not  seem  to  be  sincere 
in  it. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Mr.  Berres,  is  not  the  opposition  of  organized  labor 
to  a  premium  system,  the  payment  of  bonuses,  or  whatever  you  may  call  these 
systems,  largely  due  to  the  experience  that  we  have  had  with  piecework? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  to  say,  that  while  these  are  different  modes, 
they  do  have  some  of  the  same  element  as  to  making  prices  that  existed  in  the 
piecework  system? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  take  it  that  they  do ;  yes. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  911 

Commissioner  LENNON.  If  the  unions  were  taken  into  consideration,  and  it 
could  be  clearly  demonstrated  that  these  premium  systems  of  payment  and 
bonus  systems  of  payment,  or  anything  else  under  any  other  name,  that  the 
evils  of  the  piecework  system  would  not  accrue,  that  justice  would  eventually 
come  to  the  workers  in  so  far  as  their  earnings  were  concerned,  do  you  believe 
the  unions  would  continue  their  opposition  to  them  under  such  circumstances? 

Mr.  BERKES.  As  I  said  before,  I  think  that  wrould  go  a  long  way.  In  fact, 
rny  idea  is  that  most  of  the  difficulty  is  because  of  the  lack  of  understanding, 
the  lack  of  cooperation ;  and  I  will  say  that  that  lack  of  cooperation  and  under- 
standing is  not  due  in  any  instance  to  the  worker.  The  workers  knock  at  the 
door  of  the  manufacturer,  the  employer,  and  ask  to  be  given  an  opportunity  to 
discuss  these  matters,  and  they  are  not  given  that  opportunity.  If  that  oppor- 
tunity was  given,  I  will  say  that  much  of  the  difficulty  could  and  would  be 
eliminated. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  want  to  say  here — I  want  to  see  whether  your  view 
is  the  same  as  mine — I  take  it  that  the  opposition  to  timing  a  man  with  a  stop 
watch  rests  upon  the  fact  that  he  does  not  know  why  he  is  being  timed  in  that 
way?  It  has  not  been  explained  to  him.  The  whole  scheme  has  not  been  laid 
out.  If  the  whole  scheme  wras  laid  out,  he  would  see  the  necessity  of  it  and  the 
possible  benefits  to  come  from  it,  and  he  would  not  then  take  an  antogonistic 
position  against  being  timed  by  a  stop  watch  simply  because  it  was  a  stop 
watch.  It  is  because  he  does  not  understand  why  it  is  to  be  done? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  have  expressed  myself  along  that  line,  Mr.  Lennon.  As  I  said 
just  now,  if  these  gentlemen  would  go  to  the  places  where  the  representatives 
of  labor  congregate  and  ask  for  the  opportunity  to  explain  this — if  they  are 
solicitous  of  the  welfare  of  labor  and  they  think  this  is  going  to  bring  beneficial 
results  to  them,  I  can  not  see  why  they  have  not  solicited  the  aid  of  labor 
unions,  instead  of  waiting  for  the  labor  unions  to  come  to  them  and  ask  about  it. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  O'Connell,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  you  ever  heard  of  the  hours  of  labor  being 
reduced  in  any  plants  where  these  efficiency  systems  have  been  introduced? 

Mr.  BERRES.  No,  sir. 

Commissoner  O'CONNELL.  The  machine  shop  seems  to  be  the  common  prey  of 
these  systems,  as  far  as  you  know? 

Mr.  BERRES.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  have  already  stated  that  you  have  never  heard 
of  any  attempt  at  collective  bargaining,  or  even  to  the  extent  of  taking  into 
conference  the  employees,  before  the  system  was  being  inaugurated  or  during 
its  inauguration? 

Mr.  BERRES.  No,  sir ;  I  never  heard  of  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Ballard,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Mr.  Berres,  you  said  that  in  many  shops  that  were 
badly  arranged  the  machines  that  the  same  man  had  to  work  on  were  in 
different  parts  of  the  room,  and  sometimes  he  would  have  to  lose  a  great  deal 
of  time  in  going  from  one  part  of  the  room  to  another  for  these  different 
machines.  Suppose  the  efficiency  engineer  should  come  to  the  factory  and  say 
to  the  owner  that  his  machines  were  badly  placed,  and  in  order  to  convince 
the  owner  of  that  fact  he  should  say,  "Now  we  will  go  down  to  this  room 
where  these  machines  are  badly  placed,  and  I  will  take  the  time  of  the  man 
in  going  from  one  machine  to  another,  to  show  you  what  loss  of  time  there  is 
by  the  misplacing  of  your  machinery,"  would  there  be  any  objection  to  taking 
that  time  with  a  watch? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  can  not  see  that  there  would,  not  in  that  case.  I  think  that 
would  be  so  plain  that  there  would  not  be  any  necessity  for  timing  it. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  You  would  want  to  find  the  amount  of  time  that  was 
lost.  Suppose,  then,  that  the  efficiency  engineer  should  say  to  the  manager,  "  It 
is  important  that  you  should  have  a  board  by  the  side  of  each  machine,  where 
the  wrenches  and  other  tools  that  the  workman  uses,  and  perhaps  the  cutting 
machines  and  all  that,  should  be  placed  conveniently,"  and  suppose  the  man- 
ager should  say,  "We  have  it  very  well  systematized  now,"  would  there  be 
any  objection  to  the  efficiency  engineer  saying,  "To  show  you  how  much  time 
is  lost  in  finding  tools,  wrenches,  and  so  on,  I  will  take  the  time"?  Would 
there  be  any  objection  to  that? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  can  not  say  whether  they  would  object  or  not.  I  can  not 
speak  for  the  other  men. 


912          EEPOET    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  understood  that  he 
should  take  the  time  and  see  how  much  time  was  really  lost  in  the  bad  ar- 
rangement of  tools. 

Mr.  BERRES.  If  the  tools  were  in  the  place  that  you  say  the  shop  would  have 
them,  I  can  not  conceive  of  any  other  place  they  could  put  them  that  would  be 
more  convenient. 

Commissioner  BALLAKD.  I  suppose  every  shop  is  arranged  differently,  and  it 
would  seem  a  part  of  scientific  management,  as  I  understand,  that  all  the 
tools  and  all  the  work  should  come  along  in  a  consecutive  way  and  be  con- 
venient and  handy,  so  that  there  should  be  no  time  lost  in  finding  them  and 
getting  them.  I  should  think  in  order  to  convince  the  manager  of  one  shop 
that  it  was  necessary  to  have  a  rearrangement  of  his  shop,  the  scientific 
engineer  would  be  able  to  say  to  him,  "  You  have  lost  so  many  minutes  on  this 
job  in  having  a  badly  arranged  shop." 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  might  be  able  to  cut  out  this  inquiry  by  saying  that  we  invite 
that  kind  of  efficiency. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  He  would  take  the  time  with  a  watch,  of  course,  to 
see  how  much  time  was  really  lost. 

Mr.  BERRES.  As  I  say,  we  invite  that  kind  of  efficiency.  We  can  not  see  any 
objection  to  it. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Suppose  the  efficiency  engineer  should  say  to  the 
workman,  "  You  have  turned  around  so  many  times  in  getting  these  tools,"  or 
"  You  have  made  so  many  false  steps.  We  will  see  if  we  can  not  save  you 
those  steps,  which  have  taken  so  many  minutes,  and  rearrange  the  work,  and 
rearrange  the  men's  handling  of  materials  as  well  as  of  tools  and  the  machines." 
Could  not  that  be  done  with  a  watch? 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  suppose  it  could  be  done.  Whether  or  not  the  men  would  like 
it  or  would  look  kindly  on  it  is  another  thing. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  Of  course,  in  a  shop  where  the  work  passes  through 
the  hands  of  a  number  of  different  persons,  if  they  were  working  cooperatively 
it  seems  to  me  they  would  accomplish  a  great  deal  more.  Perhaps  the  highest 
development  of  cooperative  work  is  in  a  crew  of  boatmen,  where  there  are 
eight  men  in  a  boat.  They  are  timed  absolutely,  down  to  the  last  fraction  of 
a  second.  Some  crews  take  27  strokes  to  the  minute,  other  crews  31,  others  42, 
and  they  will  talk  and  argue  as  to  which  is  the  best,  and  every  man  is  told 
how  to  sit,  how  to  move  his  feet,  how  to  handle  his  hands,  in  order  to  get 
the  very  highest  possible  efficiency  and  cooperative  force.  Everything  is  planned 
and  timed  to  the  very  greatest  nicety.  Now,  suppose  the  same  system  could 
obtain  in  a  cooperative  shop,  where  every  man  is  a  part  of  the  unit,  in  all 
turning  out  the  greatest  amount  of  work  and  the  best  kind  of  work ;  would  not 
that  be  fair? 

Mr.  BERRES.  There  is  quite  a  distinction.  Those  men  in  the  boat  crew  are 
only  going  to  do  that  once,  to-day.  They  are  not  going  to  do  it  day  in  and  day 
out.  They  are  not  going  to  work  under  that  strain  all  the  time.  Everybody 
knows  that  an  athlete  could  not  do  the  same  thing  day  in  and  day  out. 

Commissioner  BALLARD.  That  is  very  true ;  but  in  order  to  get  the  best  results 
that  has  to  be  taken  into  consideration,  and  where  they  do  it  every  day  the 
time  must  be  regulated  to  the  best  advantage,  by  a  stop  watch  or  some  watch, 
or  a  time  study  is  made  in  every  case. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  No. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  stated  what  seems  to  be  evident  from  what 
I  have  heard  before,  that  a  good  deal  of  the  difficulty  in  this  as  in  other  cases 
is  due  to  misunderstandings,  mutual  misunderstandings.  Of  course,  the  object 
of  this  commission  is  to  try  to  clear  up  the  misunderstandings.  The  commission 
has  approached  the  subject  from  different  angles,  but  we  are  trying  in  a  semi- 
judicial  way  to  arrive  at  some  common  meeting  ground.  If  we  could  all  agree 
on  what  is  meant  by  scientific  management,  a  good  deal  could  be  accomplished ; 
isn't  that  so? 

Mr.  BERRES.  That  is  very  true. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  going  to  hand  you  a  very  rough  draft  of  a 
definition  which  I  have  prepared  after  hearing  what  has  been  said  here,  and  I 
will  ask  you  if  you  will  study  it  over  and  at  your  convenience,  if  you  feel  like 
it,  return  it  with  any  suggestions  you  may  have  on  it. 

Mr.  BERRES.  I  should  be  very  glad  to  do  so. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Any  other  questions?  We  are  much  obliged  to  you, 
Mr.  Berres. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  913 

Mr.  BERBES.  May  I  say  just  one  word?  I  do  not  want  to  take  up  time,  but 
I  do  not  want  to  let  the  statement  go  without  refuting  it  that  in  the  case  of 
men  leaving  their  organizations  where  these  systems  are  being  installed  two 
plants  were  cited,  one  the  Midvale  and  the  other  the  Bethlehem  Co.  I  want  to 
say  that  in  either  case  there  have  never  been  enough  union  men  in  either  of 
those  plants  to  form  an  organization  that  would  have  a  quorum.  In  the  case 
of  the  Bethlehem  Co.  a  man  might  just  as  well  sign  his  death  warrant  as  to 
let  them  know  that  he  was  a  member  of  an  organization,  and  I  want  to  say 
that  in  the  case  of  the  last  strike  in  1910  it  was  investigated  by  the  Labor 
Department,  and  reported  in  Document  521  of  the  Senate,  an  investigation  under 
the  direction  of  Charles  P.  Neill.  And  where  the  strike  at  the  Bethlehem  steel 
plant  occurred  there  was  no  semblance  of  an  organization,  none  whatever ;  nor 
has  there  ever  been  at  Midvale.  And  while  I  do  not  think  that  the  strike 
occurred  because  of  the  fact  that  the  system  was  in  vogue,  I  do  want  to  say 
that  if  after  that  system  was  installed  and  those  were  the  conditions  that  ob- 
tained there,  surely,  then,  the  system  is  not  the  great  benefit  to  the  workers 
that  the  experts  say. 

On  page  18  of  this  document,  the  second  to  the  last  paragraph — this  is  for 
1910 — it  says  there  were  a  large  number  of  laborers  working  for  12$  cents  an 
hour  12  hours  a  day,  7  days  in  the  week ;  of  the  9,184  employed  in  January, 
3,640,  or  28.7  per  cent,  were  working  for  12  cents  and  under  14  cents  an  hour ; 
1,528,  or  16.6  per  cent,  for  14  and  under  16  cents  an  hour ;  48.5  per  cent  of  all 
the  employees  were  getting  less  than  16  cents  an  hour,  31.9  less  than  14  cents, 
and  61.2  less  than  18  cents  an  hour. 

That  is  all  I  care  to  put  in  the  record. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Berres. 

Mr.  BARTH.  Could  I  be  allowed  just  five  minutes  to  throw  light  on  the  Beth- 
lehem situation? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  think  we  can  yet.  If  you  will  stay  through 
the  meeting,  you  will  be  allowed  to  make  some  rebuttal;  but  I  think  we  had 
better  not  interfere  with  the  other  proceedings. 

Mr.  BARTH.  I  did  not  get  quite  finished  yesterday.    I  could  have  said  more. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Please  make  notes  of  anything.  You  may  hear  some- 
thing that  you  will  be  interested  in. 

Mr.  BARTH.  I  have  got  plenty  of  notes  already. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  SANFORD  E.  THOMPSON. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  give  your  name  and  address,  please? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Sanford  E.  Thompson.  I  have  offices  at  Newton  High- 
lands, Mass.,  and  also  in  Boston. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  profession? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Consulting  engineer. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  particular  lines  of  work  do  you  carry  on  as  consulting 
engineer? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  My  professional  practice  includes  two  branches — one  of 
those  consultation  with  reference  to  engineering  design  and  construction  and 
the  other  line  management.  The  work  of  management  is  divided  about  equally 
between  industrial  work  and  construction  work. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  With  reference  to  your  professional  work  in  regard  to  man- 
agement, how  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  that  ? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  The  strictly  professional  work,  I  have  only  been  engaged 
in  that  for  about  three  years.  I  was  engaged  for  about  20  years,  part  of  my 
time,  in  the  work  leading  directly  up  to  this,  particularly  in  the  study  of  the 
building  trades. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  regard  to  the  study  you  have  made  professionally  in  the 
building  trades,  in  regard  to  the  question  of  management,  have  you  served 
upon  efficiency  systems,  so  called,  or  scientific  management? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  My  studies  have  been  along  scientific-management  lines ; 
that  is,  the  studies  have  been  made  according  to  the  methods  that  Mr.  Taylor 
has  introduced  in  shop  work. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Has  your  study  of  scientic  management,  as  you  have  said, 
had  to  do  with  the  management  of  men? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  The  special  studies  that  I  refer  to  have  had  more  to  do 
with  establishing  standards,  time  study,  and  economical  operations  of  men ; 
yes. 

38819°— 16 58 


914          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Of  men? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  in  distinction  from  the  machine. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  subject  we  have  under  consideration  here  is  efficiency 
systems  and  labor,  and  I  want  particularly  to  direct  your  attention  to  the 
question  of  scientific  management  and  efficiency  systems  as  they  touch  on  the 
working  of  men.  Whore  have  you  made  studies  of  scientific  management  as 
relating  to  the  workmen — in  what  places,  what  construction  work? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Either  I  or  my  assistants  have  made  studies  all  over 
the  country ;  that  is.  east  of  the  Mississippi,  east  of  Chicago — Boston  and  New 
York,  Ohio,  and  various  other  places. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  might  describe  briefly  the  result  of  such  studies  and  the 
method  in  which  you  make  them. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  You  are  taking  up  the  latter  part  of  the  questions  that 
you  gave  me  first,  are  you  not?  I  can  illustrate  that  best  by  referring  to  some 
of  the  matter  that  I  brought  with  me,  not  to  present  to  the  commission  but 
simply  to  give  an  idea  of  the  character  of  the  work.  This  book  which  I  have 
here  on  Concrete  Costs,  written  by  Mr.  Frederick  W.  Taylor  and  myself,  is  the 
first  publication  of  what  might  be  called  a  code  of  laws  for  the  concivte  in 
dustry.  It  is  a  code  709  pages  long.  I  believe  one  of  these  books  has  been  sent 
here  and  is  one  of  the  exhibits  before  the  commission.  I  am  not  going  to 
read  the  book  to  you  at  this  time,  but  I  do  want  to  call  attention  to  the  tables 
it  contains.  These  tables  show  the  time  and  cost  of  practically  every  opera- 
tion on  a  concrete  job.  I  have  here  part  of  the  original  note  sheets  and  the 
computation  sheets  used  in  making  up  this  little  volume.  These  are  the  notes 
taken  on  form  construction;  that  is,  the  making  of  forms  for  a  concrete 
building. 

If  you  turn  to  the  book,  you  will  find  over  here  in  the  back  part  of  the  book 
the  time  and  cost  of  labor  on  the  forms.  There  are  times  and  costs  for,  I 
believe  it  is,  over  700  pieces  or  forms.  By  "  forms  "  I  mean  the  wrooden  molds 
that  are  erected  when  a  reinforced  concrete  building  is  to  be  constructed,  into 
which  the  concrete  is  poured.  These  give  the  times  and  costs  for  all  kinds 
and  sizes,  something  that  is  absolutely  impossible  to  give  by  any  other  method 
except  time  study  and  the  unit  time  method. 

A  table  in  the  back  gives  the  times  of  these  various  units  used  in  making  up 
these  times  given  in  the  table.  This  matter  here  represents  some  of  the  tabula- 
tions necessary  to  figure  up  those  times. 

This  other  pile  which  is  before  me  is  the  same  height  as  a  pile  that  I  intended 
to  bring  with  me,  but  could  not  get  into  my  bag,  which  checks  the  amount  of 
computation  necessary  in  getting  up  this  book.  This  code  took  about  four 
>  ears'  time  of  two  assistants  all  of  the  time  and  quite  a  good  deal  of  my  own 
time  and  some  of  Mr.  Taylor's,  and  the  cost  of  it  was  over  $20,000. 

The  apparatus  we  use  in  making  time  is  a  stop  watch,  and  for  convenience 
we  inclose  this  watch  in  a  book,  which  I  have  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  wish  you  would  pass  that  around  to  the  members  of  the 
commission. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Very  well ;  I  will  wind  it  up  first.  The  manner  of 
getting  at  these  times  in  the  course  of  construction  is  something  as  follows: 

The  work  on  this  particular  matter  was  done  by  one  of  my  most  competent 
engineers.  He  selected  five  of  the  best  contractors  in  reinforced  concrete  in 
the  country  and  made  special  studies  on  the  job.  He  also  took  supplementary 
studies  on  various  other  jobs.  In  this  way  he  found  the  actual  time  of  perform- 
ing each  operation.  It  included  the  work  from  the  time  of  lifting  one  board 
and  driving  one  nail  to  the  time  of  erecting  and  moving  the  forms. 

In  respect  to  the  details  he  took  the  various  methods  adopted  by  the  best 
contractors  and  studied  them  in  detail,  and  combined  the  best  in  each,  and 
also  thought  out  new  methods  and  obtained  designs  that  were  extremely  economi- 
cal to  construct  and  use.  I  have  a  drawing  here  which  shows  that.  I  had 
several  copies  blue  printed,  just  to  show  the  result  of  one  particular  study, 
do  not  expect  you  to  appreciate  the  details  of  it.  but  it  is  simply  a  practical 
illustration  of  one  practical  thing  that  has  been  accompished.  This  drawing  is 
the  result  of  these  studies,  and  the  form  was  designed  by  my  associate.  Mr. 
Lichtnor.  who  made  original  studies.  By  such  methods  as  these  we  found  the 
time  required  to  build  forms  for  all  kinds  of  work.  We  have  in  these  form 
tables,  for  example,  the  times  and  costs  for  over  700  pieces  or  forms. 

The  important-"  of  this  form  construction  may  be  realized  when  we  consider 
that  about  half  the  cost  of  a  reinforced  concrete  building  is  in  the  making  and 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AXD    LABOR.  915 

erecting  and  removal  of  the  forms.  If  you  would  like  to  have  me  do  it  now, 
I  can,  perhaps,  illustrate  the  method  of  making  these  studies,  and  the  result. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  would  like  particularly  to  direct  your  attention  to  the 
method  of  studying  the  operations  of  the  men.  For  instance,  you  say  that  you 
studied  the  men  with  the  five  contractors  and  found  how  long  it  took  from 
many  studies  for  them  to  actually  do  the  work,  and  that  you  also  made  sug- 
gestions as  to  more  correct  methods  of  doing  their  work. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  would  like  very  much  to  have  you  give  us  more  on  that 
subject. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Perhaps  the  simplest  way  to  illustrate  that  is  this— 
you  mean  the  way  that  we  actually  made  these  time  studies?  Is  that  the  idea? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  As  I  understand  you,  you  have  two  methods  of  cheapening 
concrete  construction? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  First,  by  finding  the  best  forms  to  use.  I  take  it  that  that 
had  little  to  do  with  the  actual  work  of  the  workmen.  It  may  have  reduced 
the  amount  of  work  necessary,  but  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  its  management. 
It  is  the  form  decided  upon  as  the  best  form  to  use? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  I  would  like  to  get  from  you  now  is  the  studies  you 
made  and  the  methods  of  the  workman  when  he  drove  a  nail,  when  he  lifted 
up  a  plank,  and,  briefly,  what  changes,  if  any,  you  made  in  that  work. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  think  probably  I  can  do  that  best  if  I  follow  out  the 
line  of  two  or  three  of  these  questions  that  you  have  handed  to  me. 

Take  the  second  part  of  question  two :  "  Describe  the  methods  used."  The 
principles  are  the  same  in  the  shop  where  the  requirements  are  similar  to 
shopwork,  just  as  in  a  shop  where  the  problem  is  a  large  one  and  involves 
the  scientific  study  of  the  methods  and  the  men.  I  can  illustrate  best,  per- 
haps, before  giving  you  the  methods,  by  showing  you  the  results  obtained 
in  one  concrete  case,  and  that  is  the  making  up  of  the  form  for  a  concrete 
building.  This  making  of  the  form  is  a  carpenter's  job.  It  is  putting  some 
boards  together,  and  cleating  these  boards.  I  do  not  need  to  go  into  the 
details  at  all.  By  the  ordinary  method,  and  I  am  in  this  way  taking  up, 
I  think,  just  the  point  you  wish  to  illustrate,  the  foreman  takes  the  general 
drawing  of  the  building,  looks  it  over,  and  tells  each  carpenter  the  size  of 
the  form  required.  The  carpenter  goes  to  the  lumber  pile,  probably  50  or 
100  feet  away,  seeks  through  the  pile  until  he  finds  just  the  boards  he  thinks 
will  fit,  selects  them  and  then  carries  them  one  by  one  to  his  workbench, 
and  puts  the  boards  together  in  almost  any  way  he  chooses.  He  measures 
and  saws  off  the  length  and  squares  each  end  with  a  saw.  Then,  in  order 
to  make  the  width  right,  he  runs  a  split  saw  the  whole  length  of  the  board, 
which  is  very  laborious  work. 

As  a  comparison  between  this  former  method  which  he  used  in  a  very 
large  part  of  the  concrete  work,  the  larger  proportion  of  it  in  this  country, 
I  wish  to  show  now  the  newer  way,  the  more  scientific  method.  In  this  I 
am  not  describing  a  theory,  but  the  actual  practice  followed  on  jobs  that  have 
introduced  in  them  at  least  partial  scientific  management. 

By  this  new  method  a  detailed  plan  of  the  form,  of  the  most  economic 
design,  is  made  up  in  the  office.  The  boards  are  arranged  so  as  to  have 
just  the  right  width  to  make  the  form,  without  any  sawing,  if  possible.  The 
boards  for  each  form  are  sawed  to  length  in  a  sawmill.  They  are  then  taken 
to  the  carpenters  by  laborers,  and  piled  just  back  of  their  benches.  The 
carpenter  takes  the  boards  and  lays  them  out  in  the  way  called  for  by  the 
plan.  He  uses  the  sizes  of  the  boards  exactly.  He  drives  the  number  of 
nails  shown  on  the  plan.  He  gets  better,  stronger  forms,  in  about  a  third 
of  the  time  that  he  was  accustomed  to  use. 

I  want  you  to  note  the  distinction  between  the  old  and  the  new.  In  the 
first  place,  there  is  the  design,  and  in  the  second  place,  there  is  the  lumber 
which  comes  right,  and  in  the  third  place  there  is  the  carrying  of  the  lum- 
ber, which  is  done  by  laborers,  who  ought  to  do  it,  and  in  the  fourth  place 
there  is  the  saving  of  the  sawing  by  the  carpenter,  and  in  the  fifth  place 
there  is  the  nailing  of  only  the  right  number  of  nails  and  with  the  right 
tool,  and  in  the  sixth  place,  a  point  that  I  have  not  heretofore  mentioned, 
the  forms  are  made  in  groups,  which  will  make  them  work  most  economically. 

Instead  of  doing  that  work  of  the  laborer,  the  carpenter  does  the  work 
of  his  own  trade.  The  danger  of  having  to  remake  his  work  on  account  of 


916          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

mistakes,  something  a  skilled  workman  dislikes  more  than  anything  else  to 
do,  is  almost  entirely  eliminated.  If  the  regular  day  rate  for  a  carpenter  is 
$4  per  day,  he  receives,  say,  $5.20. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  As  I  understand  it,  so  far  as  you  have  described  the  opera- 
tion, it  is  principally  preparing  the  work  and  telling  the  carpenter  of  the 
plan,  so  that  he  may  save  time.  There  is  no  specific  time  placed  upon  his 
motions  or  movements? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  That  is  one  side  of  it.  Now,  on  the  other  side,  we 
have  the  timing.  I  have  some  notes  here  which  are  arranged  in  a  certain 
order 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  you  have  your  notes  in  a  certain  order,  we  will  take  it 
up  in  that  way. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Perhaps  that  will  be  the  quickest  way.  Suppose  we 
drop  for  a  minute,  then,  the  making  of  the  forms  and  take  up  the  third  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  in  any  case  dealt  with  labor  unions  in  any  such 
undertaking?  If  so,  what  attitude  was  encountered?  Was  that  attitude 
uniform  on  the  part  of  the  different  trades? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  have  never  dealt  with  labor  unions,  although  I 
have  dealt  with  a  good  many  labor  union  men. 

Men  who  work  under  scientific-management  methods  always  like  the  wrork, 
so  far  as  I  have  found  in  all  my  experience,  the  union  men  and  also  the  non- 
union men.  I  never  saw  a  case  otherwise.  To  illustrate  that,  for  example, 
in  a  typical  case,  in  a  shop  in  Lawrence,  Mass.,  that  was  being  put  under 
scientific  management,  we  did  as  we  usually  do.  We  made  studies,  and  after 
arranging  the  routings  which  I  have  described,  we  put  a  pair  of  two  men 
onto  task  and  bonus  work,  a  couple  of  carpenters.  After  that  had  been 
going  on  for  a  couple  of  days^-we  always  try  them  out  before  we  put  on 
any  more  men — a  couple  of  men  from  the  other  side  of  the  shop  came  to 
the  foreman  or  superintendent  and  said,  "Now,  look  here,  we  have  been 
with  you  longer  than  these  two  men,  and  we  can  do  just  as  good  work  as 
they  can.  Give  us  some  of  this  extra  money." 

Now,  that  is  not  a  special  case ;  it  is  a  typical  case.  In  another  case  I  have 
a  letter  that  I  happened  to  run  across,  which  I  received  some  time  ago.  It 
says,  "All  men,  union  and  nonunion,  are  crying  for  task  and  bonus." 

The  trouble  is  always  with  some  members  of  the  company,  or  the  superin- 
tendent, or  both,  just  exactly  the  same  as  it  is  in  shopwork.  You  can  not  con- 
vince the  superintendent  for  a  long  while  that  this  method  is  any  better  than 
Ins  old  method  of  swearing  at  the  men  and  threatening  to  discharge  them. 
You  can  not  convince  him  that  this  old  method  is  not  better  than  the  new 
method  of  paying  extra  pay  and  handling  the  men  properly. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  the  superintendents  do  realize  the  advantages  of  it 
from  their  own  standpoint — I  am  speaking  now  of  the  ease  with  which  the  work 
is  handled — and  the  better  feeling  with  the  men,  then  after  a  time  they  come 
to  ask  for  it.  One  construction  company,  for  example,  is  introducing  scientific 
management  in  its  various  places.  This  company  does  work  all  over  the 
country  and  has  a  large  number  of  superintendents.  It  gives  the  superintend- 
ents the  option  of  handling  their  work  under  scientific  management  methods  or 
not,  just  as  they  choose.  It  has  been  about  two  years  since  this  company 
began,  and  now  the  superintendents  are  coming  to  them  asking  to  have  scien- 
tific methods  introduced  into  their  organization.  Now,  in  answer  to  your 
fourth  question 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  read  the  question,  so  that  it  will  appear  in  the  record. 
I  may  say  for  the  benefit  of  the  commission  that  we  handed  Mr.  Thompson 
some  questions,  written  out,  so  that  he  would  have  a  general  knowledge  of  what 
we  were  going  to  cover. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  These  questions  cover  almost  exactly  the  original  letter 
of  the  commission  to  me. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  has  been  the  effect  of  the  system  on  the  earnings  of 
unskilled  workmen? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  This  varies  with  the  class  of  work.  In  general,  I 
might  say  from  25  to  35  per  cent.  In  one  case  in  the  shop  very  recently  we 
have  been  establishing  a  bonus  of  100  per  cent.  That  does  not  apply  to  con- 
struction work. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.   Why  does  it  not  apply? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  This  particular  case  \vas  in  a  shop  and  not  on  con- 
struction work — this  particular  case  of  100  per  cent.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND   LABOR.  917 

in  certain  forms  of  construction  work  you  might  not  desire  to  use  a  100  per 
cent  bonus. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  state  the  general  increase  in  pay  on  construction 
work? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.   As  I  have  said,  it  is  from  about  25  to  35  per  cent. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Why  is  it  that  in  shopwork  there  is  the  possibility  of  an 
increase  of  100  per  cent  and  on  construction  work  only  from  25  to  30  per  cent? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Your  question  does  not  state  quite  the  truth  of  the 
matter.  I  did  not  say  that  it  was  impossible  or  inexpedient  to  use  100  per  cent 
on  construction  work.  In  that  case  of  a  100  per  cent  bonus  I  was  simply  refer- 
ring to  one  particular,  specific  instance. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  might  state  what  that  instance  was,  and  why  in  that 
case  100  per  cent  increase  was  paid. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  This  was  in  a  shop,  and  the  work  was  of  a  very  intricate 
nature.  Now,  the  union  pay  on  that  job  was  $15  a  week,  but  for  that  par- 
ticular class  of  work  on  that  machine  it  required  a  great  deal  of  skill  and  ex- 
perience, and  it  was  no  more  than  fair  to  give  the  men  100  per  cent  bonus,  and 
so  they  were  given  a  bonus  by  raising  the  pay  to  $30  a  week  instead  of  $15. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  kind  of  work  was  that? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  would  rather  not  answer  that  question,  because  of 
some  of  the  points  that  are  involved.  I  would  be  glad  to  give  the  name  to  the 
commission,  but  not  to  have  it  spread  on  the  record. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  would  rather  give  it  to  the  members  of  the  commission 
themselves  ? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.   Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  All  right,  then;  you  may  do  it  at  your  leisure.  What  has 
been  the  effect  of  the  system  on  the  relations  of  employers  and  workmen,  if 
you  know? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  every  case  that  I  have  had  anything  to  do  with  it 
has  been  beneficial,  even  leaving  out  of  consideration  the  task  and  bonus 
feature.  The  men  seem  to  like  the  work  under  the  tickets,  where  the  time  of 
their  work  is  recorded ;  and  one  of  the  reasons  they  give  is  that  the  favorites  of 
the  foremen  are  not  given  snap  jobs ;  that  it  gives  a  square  deal  for  everybody, 
and  the  work  of  all  the  men  is  recognized. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  WThat  results  have  been  secured  in  the  form  of  greater  speed 
and  decreased  cost  of  construction? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Just  one  further  word.  I  was  not  quite  through  with 
my  answer  with  reference  to  the  effect  on  the  relations  of  employers  and  work- 
men. In  the  particular  company  to  which  I  have  referred,  in  construction 
work,  the  men  follow  the  jobs  around  from  one  place  to  another.  If  the  com- 
pany has  a  job  in  Ohio,  for  instance,  or  we  will  say  New  York  State,  the  men 
come — a  good  many  of  them  at  their  own  expense — in  order  to  work  on  that  job, 
instead  of  taking  a  job  in  their  own  city. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Just  one  question  there.  To  what  extent  is  that  due  to  the 
installation  of  the  system. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  understand  that  has  been  largely  increased  since  they 
began  to  introduce  these  methods,  and  that  is  the  reason  given — that  the  men 
like  the  task  and  bonus — and  so  for  that  reason  they  follow  the  jobs  around. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Has  that  been  told  to  you  by  the  contractor? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes.  Also,  we  have  been  in  contact  with  the  work  to 
a  certain  extent. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  results  have  been  secured  in  the  form  of  greater  speed 
and  decreased  cost  of  construction? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  With  reference  to  speed,  the  management  on  construc- 
tion work  has  not  gone  far  enough  to  get  very  definite  results.  It  stands  to 
reason,  though,  that  where  the  limit  of  speed  on  a  job — that  is,  the  period  of 
construction — is  limited,  as  it  is  in  a  great  many  cases  by  the  number  of  men 
who  can  work  on  a  job,  if  these  men  accomplish  more  there  will  be  an  increase 
In  the  speed ;  that  is,  the  job  will  be  completed  sooner. 

Furthermore,  if  we  look  at  it  from  the  standpoint  of  work  that  is  accom- 
plished, we  might  say,  as  a  list  of  the  things  that  would  make  for  this : 

1.  The  work  is  planned  in  advance. 

2.  The  materials  come  in  when  they  are  wanted. 

3.  The  materials  come  in  the  right  quantity  and  shape  to  be  used  without 
sorting  and  rehandling. 

4.  Delays  on  account  of  unsystematic  arrangement  are  avoided. 

5.  The  skilled  workmen  accomplish  more  because  they  have  material  supplied 
more  systematically. 


918          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

6.  The  speed  with  which  they  do  each  piece  of  work  is  increased  by  the  fact 
that  they  are  given  a  bonus  for  its  proper  accomplishment. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like  to  ask  you  at  that  point,  Mr.  Thompson,  what 
proportion  of  the  advantage  comes  from  the  bonus  given  to  the  men  for  in- 
creased speed,  and  what  proportion  of  advantage  comes  from  the  other  matters 
you  speak  of,  like  the  laying  out  of  the  work,  and  so  forth. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  That  is  a  question  that  it  is  impossible  to  answer 
definitely,  because  the  two  are  so  intermingled.  I  should  say  at  least  half. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  At  least  half  will  come  from  the  greater  speed  of  the  men 
resulting  from  the  bonus? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  About  half  from  one  and  about  half  from  the  other. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  much  importance  do  you  attach  to  the  time  study? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  consider  it  the  foundation  of  the  whole  thing,  that 
toward  which  the  other  work  leads  up. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  actual  practice,  how  is  this  study  made?  Have  you 
covered  that  in  your  previous  testimony? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No ;  I  have  not.  I  can  illustrate  that  best  by  taking  a 
case  right  here  in  this  room.  If  you  will  look  toward  the  ceiling  you  will  see 
a  molding  just  above  the  paper.  That  is  a  piece  of  wooden  molding.  Now,  I 
have  here  the  times  that  are  required  for  cutting  and  erecting  a  molding  like 
that,  and  I  do  not  think  I  can  do  any  better,  to  illustrate  the  process  of  time 
study  and  also  to  show  you  how  the  time  of  the  task  is  fixed,  than  to  take 
that  illustration. 

It  is  evident,  looking  at  that  molding,  that  it  will  take  a  different  length  of 
time  to  place  a  molding  like  that,  as  it  is  so  cut  up  by  windows  and  with 
corners  and  a  chimney  piece  and  a  long  piece  across  that  end,  than  if  this  room 
were  perfectly  square.  There  is  no  carpenter  living,  I  might  say,  who  can 
actually  tell  the  difference  between  those  two  cases,  but  by  time  study  you  can 
tell  the  difference  between  those  cases  and  all  similar  cases,  if  you  have  the 
right  units. 

Now,  leaving  out  the  very  fine  units,  the  unit  times,  as  they  are  called,  that 
we  take  with  a  stop  watch  are  as  follows : 

Move  tools  and  implements.    That  is,  bring  the  tools  to  the  job. 

Get  molding  to  hand.  I  am  reading  what  was  written  off  by  a  time-study 
man  who  came  from  the  workman. 

Get  length  of  molding.    Cut  moldings  off  square. 

Place  in  box  and  cut  miter. 

Place  to  nail. 

Nail  per  foot,  two  eightpenny  wire  tin-finished  nails,  16  inches  on  centers. 

Nail  extra  per  corner,  cope  molding,  extra  per  slice,  cut  and  miter,  extra  for 
mitered  corner. 

A  combination  of  those  units  will  give  you  the  times  on  all  kinds  of  molding. 

Now,  looking  at  it  in  a  different  way,  and  in  order  to  set  the  task  for  it; 
that  is,  to  find  out  how  much  it  is,  you  have  got  to  consider  the  difference  be- 
tween that  beveled  corner  and  the  square  corner,  the  difference  between  cutting 
it  up  against  that  window  and  laying  a  straight  piece,  and  so  we  have  these 
unit  times  divided  into  five  groups.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  the  time  of 
getting  ready  for  the  job ;  in  the  next  place  is  the  time  of  fitting  the  corner. 
Now,  that  time  of  fitting  corner — just  to  illustrate  that  one  point — requires  an 
extra  cut  and  an  extra  nailing,  so  that  there  are  two  or  three  unit  items  that 
come  into  that. 

The  third  feature  is  the  time  per  linear  foot.  That  involves  the  placing  and 
nailing. 

The  next  is  the  fitting  of  the  mitered  corner,  or  the  beveled  corner,  such  as 
we  have  there.  The  next  is  splicing. 

Now,  from  that  I  can  figure  the  actual  time  that  it  takes.  I  came  up  here 
last  night  and  simply  paced  the  length  and  width  of  this  room  and  counted  up 
the  corners,  so  as  to  save  time ;  and  in  order  to  do  that  I  took  these  times  that 
were  made  up  for  a  job  of  carpentering  in  actual  use,  for  setting  tasks  of  the 
men  and  figuring  it.  For  example,  there  are  13  pieces,  at  a  minute  and  thirty- 
five  hundredths;  that  is,  17  minutes  and  a  half.  There  are  four  corners  at 
1.57;  there,  are  four  mitered  corners  at  2.76;  there  are  68,  approximately, 
linear  feet  of  molding,  at  one-quarter  of  a  minute  apiece,  seventeen  minutes  and 
seven-tenths. 

There  is  one  splice,  right  up  here,  2.90.  Add  to  that  the  time  of  moving 
tools  and  getting  ready,  and  we  have  for  that,  4.45.  The  total  time  would  be 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  919 

fifty-nine  minutes  and  eighty-seven  hundredths.  In  practice,  that  would  be  1 
hour,  or  60  minutes,  for  cutting  and  placing  that  molding. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  in  this  small  room? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  If  this  room  were  square,  I  have  figured  it  out  that  it 
would  be  about  40  minutes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  this  room  here? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  That  is,  it  would  take  an  hour  to  put  the  molding 
around  this  entire  room? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No ;  only  this  section,  this  end. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Three  sides? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Practically  it  would  be  five  sides,  because  of  the  angles 
there. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Now  you  are  all  getting  anxious. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  time  percentage  would  you  allow  the  workman  to  ac- 
complish that  in  order  to  get  a  bonus?  Would  it  have  to  be  done  in  an  hour? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No;  you  would  add  to  that  30  per  cent.  That  30  per 
cent  would  cover  the  necessary  rest  and  delay. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  do  you  figure  this  30  per  cent?  On  what  basis  is  that 
arrived  at? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  That  percentage  is  based  on  certain  definite  rules,  de- 
pending on  the  heaviness  of  the  work  and  on  the  rapidity  with  which  it  has 
to  be  done,  and  in  the  trade  those  percentages  have  to  be  established ;  they 
vary  with  the  different  character  of  the  work. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Can  those  rules  be  gotten  at?    Are  they  published? 

Mr.,  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No ;  they  are  not. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Can  you  tell  us  what  those  rules  would  be  with  reference 
to  the  placing  of  that  molding? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  The  rules  are  in  a  measure  empirical.  They  are  partly 
based  on  experiments  such  as  Mr.  Taylor  described  in  his  talk  with  reference 
to  the  weight  on  a  man's  arm,  and  in  other  cases  they  are  based  on  time 
studies  of  the  operation  of  a  particular  job.  For  example,  in  a  new  job,  of 
course,  we  have  no  percentage  and  you  have  to  fix  the  task;  and  you  can  de- 
termine from  these  other  percentages  on  other  classes  of  work  very  nearly 
what  the  percentage  would  be ;  but  in  order  to  be  sure  of  what  you  are  doing, 
and  check  that,  the  plan  that  we  follow  is  that  after  finding  the  accurate 
times  and  combining  them,  to  time  a  man  on  a  piece  of  work  involving  all 
these  units — for  instance,  in  this  particular  case  we  would  time  a  couple  of 
men  putting  around  that  molding  on  a  number  of  rooms,  and  we  would  time 
him  so  as  to  be  sure  that  he  was  not  loafing ;  simply  we  would  watch  him  and 
take  times  on  him  and  see  that  he  wasn't  loafing,  and  then  from  that  you  would 
get  at  the  proper  percentage. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  definitive  time  do  you  allow  in  that  increased  time 
for  delay  in  getting  materials,  or  delay  in  getting  tools,  or  anything  of  that 
kind? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  That  is  this  4.45  minutes  that  I  spoke  of.  He  brings 
the  tools  with  him  to  the  job,  and  the  material  is  put  around  by  laborers; 
routed  to  the  job,  as  we  call  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Those  estimates  are  based  on  the  assumption  that  he  has 
the  material  and  the  tools  at  hand? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  in  the  extra  time  of  30  per  cent,  that  is  also  calculated 
on  the  basis  of  the  tools  and  material  being  at  hand? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  in  the  estimate  so  far  there  is  no  allowance  such  as 
named  yesterday  in  the  American  Locomotive  Works,  where  the  witness  said 
he  saw  men  frantic  waiting  for  the  crane  to  come  along? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No;  if  you  have  waits  of  that  kind  you  have  not 
scientific  management  at  that  point  in  the  game. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  other  words,  in  making  an  estimate  for  time  on  task 
work,  then,  where  the  worker  had  to  rely  upon  the  presence  of  a  machine  like 
a  crane,  that  he  could  not  control,  but  was  used  by  others,  the  system  would 
break  down? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No.  If  there  was  simply  one  crane  in  the  place  and 
that  had  to  be  used  by  these  workers,  the  work  would  be  routed  to  that 
crane  so  as  to  distribute  it  as  evenly  as  possible,  so  that  you  would  have  a 


920          EEPOET    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

minimum  of  waits ;  and  then  if  the  study  showed  that  there  were  waits  which 
can  not  be  taken  into  account,  then  there  would  be  enough  time  allowed  to  these 
men  to  make  up  for  these  waits  on  the  average. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  could  only  be  arrived  at  by  a  study  of  a  long  period  of 
time,  could  it? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes.  That  is  just  what  I  mean  by  the  scientific  method. 
You  have  got  to  get  these  things  ready  before  you  can  put  scientific  tasks  into 
operation. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  grade  of  man  is  selected  as  the  subject  of  study? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  A  man  well  fitted  for  his  work. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  incentive  is  given  him  to  work  efficiently? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  That  varies.  About  50  per  cent  is  usually  a  fair 
amount  to  give  him.  You  would  take  it  up  with  him  and  tell  him  you  are 
going  to  put  him  to  some  trouble  and  are  going  to  ask  him  to  work  in  just  the 
way  you  want  him  to — that  you  are  going  to  ask  him  to  take  the  tools  you 
are  going  to  ask  him  to  use,  and  are  going  to  ask  him  to  do  the  work  in  the 
sequence  you  request ;  and  for  that  you  give  him  this  extra  amount.  He  does 
it  with  the  knowledge  it  is  to  be  for  task  work. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  many  observations  are  ordinarily  made,  if  you  can 
state  that? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  That  varies  entirely  with  the  character  of  the  work. 
If  a  particular  unit  time  occurs  only  seldom,  comparatively  few  times  are 
taken.  If  it  is  something  that  is  to  be  repeated  for  a  large  number  of  times, 
like  shoveling,  perhaps  a  thousand  or  more  times  are  taken.  Then  I  would 
say  the  range  would  be  from  a  very  few  up  to  a  thousand,  according  to  the 
class  of  work. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  purpose  of  the  installation  of  your  system,  Mr.  Thomp- 
son, or  of  any  such  systems,  is  to  eliminate  waste,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  that  is  one  of  the  purposes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  when  that  touches  the  actual  work  of  the  workmen,  it 
is  to  eliminate  waste  of  time  in  the  performing  of  the  job? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Therefore,  it  starts  with  the  basis  that  the  workman  will 
complete  a  given  job  in  less  time  than  before? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No;  not  necessarily.  He  will  complete  it  in  a  time 
which  is  fair.  It  might  be  you  will  reduce  the  time  or  increase  the  time  he  is 
taking  for  the  work ;  you  would  increase  the  time  he  is  taking  if  he  is  working 
too  hard. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  it  is  piecework  and  he  is  crowding  himself  too  fast,  the 
time  will  be  increased? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  he  will  be  compelled  to  work  slower? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes.  I  had  my  attention  called  to  an  illustration  of 
that.  Two  or  three  years  ago  a  certain  construction  work  was  doing  a  little 
with  scientific  management  methods,  and  there  was  one  foreman  wrho  was 
called  a  man  killer.  He  was  handling  steel  bars  for  concrete  work,  and  work- 
ing his  men  by  the  day.  They  wrere  worked  extremely  hard.  There  was 
something  said  about  putting  that  work  on  the  task  and  bonus,  and  we  refused 
to  have  anything  to  do  with  that  so  long  as  that  foreman  held  his  opinions.  I 
understood  only  a  few  days  ago  that  that  foreman  was  still  with  his  company, 
and  he  has  seen  the  introduction  of  the  task  and  bonus  and  the  operation  of  it 
on  other  classes  of  work,  and  so  he  came  around  and  asked  for  it,  and  had 
taken  it  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  introduced,  and  was  going  to  work  under 
the  task  and  bonus. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  in  so  far  as  his  work  was  concerned,  you  might  have 
reduced  the  output  of  a  given  number  of  men? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes;  we  probably  should. 

Mr,  THOMPSON.  That  would  be,  in  your  opinion,  to  the  advantage  of  the  men? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes.  I  would  qualify  that  other  answer  now,  because 
in  that  particular  case,  and  in  general,  the  ultimate  effect  would  not  be  to  re- 
duce the  output.  We  would  reduce  the  amount  of  work  that  he  would  do,  the 
amount  of  labor,  but  we  would  make  up  that  difference  by  these  other  prin- 
ciples of  properly  routing  material  and  methods  of  handling. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  am  always  eliminating  that  element  in  my  questions.  As 
I  stated  in  the  beginning,  I  am  trying  to  get  at  the  matters  that  affect  purely 
the  workman  in  the  performance  of  his  work.  I  am  taking  it  that  you  could, 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  921 

by  routing  and  superior  planning,  make  a  saving  in  the  work  even  though  you 
made  no  time  studies  of  the  men? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  although  the  time  studies  are  necessary  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  in  order  to  properly  route  the  work,  because  you  have  to  tell  how 
long  a  job  takes  in  a  general  way,  and  sometimes  quite  definitely,  in  order  to 
fit  it  in  with  other  jobs  and  lay  it  out  in  advance. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  would  not  necessarily  be  a  time  study  of  each  opera- 
tion, but  a  time  study  of  the  average  of  time  the  job  took  under  the  old 
method  ? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  a  good  many  cases  the  time  study  of  the  individual 
operation  is  absolutely  necessary. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is,  not  for  the  purpose  of  laying  down  a  rule  of  action 
for  him,  but  rather  to  serve  the  purpose  of  the  other  planning  and  routing? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  generally  the  idea  is  that  by  the  introduction  of  these 
systems  waste  will  be  eliminated ;  first,  with  regard  to  the  planning,  routing, 
etc.? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  next,  and  the  question  in  which  we  are  interested,  in 
saving  the  time  of  performing  a  task  by  the  worker. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPS'ON.  And  that  amounts  to  about  50  per  cent  of  the  proposition, 
as  you  have  stated? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  setting  the  time  for  a  task,  do  you  generally  allow  a  bonus 
in  connection  with  the  performance  of  that  task? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  quite  understand  your  question,  whether  you 
mean  bonus  in  distinction  from  other 

Mr.  THOMPSON  (interrupting).  I  mean  a  bonus  as  used  by  Mr.  Taylor. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  We  allow  some  method  of  giving  the  man  more  pay. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  state  one  method  of  that?  And  I  would  then  like 
to  examine  you  on  it.  Take  this  carpenter  job  of  which  you  spoke.  I  suppose 
that  would  be  repeated  a  thousand  times? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  We  usually  adopt,  as  a  method  of  paying  the  extra 
money,  what  we  call  the  bonus  system.  But  may  I  bring  out  a  point  right  here 
that  seems  to  have  been  treated  with  more  or  less  confusion?  That  is  the  form 
of  payment,  whether  it  be  bonus  or  premium  or  any  other,  is  of  but  little 
fundamental  importance  in  comparison  with  the  scientific  determination  of  the 
task.  One  plant  that  was  referred  to,  the  Link  Belt  Co.,  has  a  form  of  piece- 
rate  system.  The  Tabor  Manufacturing  Co.  has  a  bonus  system.  Mr.  Gantt 
has  a  different  form  of  bonus  from  what  was  used  in  that  plant.  The  Plymp- 
ton  Press,  referred  to  yesterday,  has  a  combination  of  bonus  with  graduated 
wage  system,  and  so  on.  But  all  of  these  produce  the  same  result  simply  be- 
cause they  have  the  same  fundamental  basis  of  the  scientific  determination  of 
the  time  and,  naturally,  the  distinction  between  what  sometimes  has  been 
called  in  this  hearing  piece-rate  work  and  the  newer  method. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Give  us  one  statement  of  a  bonus  scheme  with  reference  to 
the  performance  of  the  work  within  a  task  time. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  this  case  to  which  I  have  referred  the  time  we  have 
figured  is  1  hour  and  18  minutes.  If  he  gets  it  done  in  1  hour  and  18  minutes 
he  receives  the  pay  for  that  time  and  also  a  bonus  of  30  per  cent  on  that  pay. 
If  he  does  it  in  less  than  that  time,  he  receives  simply  his  day  pay. 

Mr.  THOMPSON,     If  he  performs  it  in  less  time? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  beg  your  pardon.  If  he  performs  it  in  more  time,  if 
he  takes  longer  than  1  hour  and  18  minutes,  he  gets  simply  his  day's  pay  for 
the  time  he  is  working  on  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  there  any  graduated  bonus  system  that  you  use  in  which 
the  saving  of  time  from  minute  to  minute  becomes  of  added  benefit  to  the 
worker  in  increased  pay? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No;  not  just  in  that  way.  But  after  he  reaches  that 
point,  if  he  does  it  in  a  shorter  time,  then  he  gets  some  increased  pay.  Below 
that  time  he  gets  no  more  than  his  day  wage. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  mean  above  that  time? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Above  that  time ;  I  beg  your  pardon. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  he  takes  longer,  you  mean? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 


922          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  would  be  the  increase  of  work  of  that  kind  that  would 
be  often  repeated  if  he  completed  that  work  in  10  per  cent  less  time  or  20  per 
cent  less  time? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  You  are  going  into  details  that  I  question  very  much 
really  affect  the  conditions.  There  are  different  ways  of  handling  that  kind 
of  thing.  To  go  into  details,  it  seems  to  me,  will  rather  confuse  the  point 
and  take  quite  a  good  deal  of  time  in  explaining  the  different  methods.  For 
instance,  I  see  Mr.  Gantt  uses  one  method  of  bonus.  The  Tabor  Manufactur- 
ing Co.  uses  another  method.  The  exact  way  of  handling  that  differs.  If  you 
want  me  to  do  so,  I  will  be  very  glad  to  do  it,  but  it  will  take  a  good  deal  of 
time  to  go  into  the  detail,  where  we  have  the  general  principle — 

Mr.  THOMPSON  (interrupting).  Let  me  put  a  question  which  may  bring  out 
an  answer  to  the  whole  proposition.  If  a  scheme  of  bonus  is  provided  by 
which  the  worker  receives  increased  pay  for  each  minutes  that  he  saves  in  per- 
forming the  task,  then  that  bonus  and  that  scheme  would  have  the  effect  of 
offering  a  premium  to  the  worker  to  work  as  fast  as  he  could,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  the  tendency;  and  it  must  be  the  purpose  of  offering 
such  bonus  is  to  get  the  worker  to  perform  the  task  as  fast  as  he  can? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  If  you  adopt  that  method ;  yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Consequently  it  would  be,  so  far  as  desired,  no  different 
from  ordinary  piecework  as  to  getting  the  workers  to  wrork  as  fast  as  they  can? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  If  you  have  no  limit  and  no  distinction,  that  might  be 
true.  •  The  bonus  method  that  I  have  referred  to  does  not  have  that  difficulty, 
because  we  fix  the  task  which  is  supposed  to  be  a  fair  task.  We  do  not  care 
for  him  to  do  it  in  much  quicker  time  than  that.  We  consider  that  a  task  is 
about  right  for  him,  and  if  he  does  it  in  quicker  time  we  do  not  give  him  so 
much  greater  excess  than  we  give  him  for  doing  it  in  the  required  time. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  it  is  your  opinion  that  to  place  a  bonus  upon  the 
quicker  performance  of  the  task  is  not  the  right  theory  to  have  the  task 
performed  ? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  rather  prefer  this  other  method. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  you  do  agree  that  where  such  a  theory  is  put  into  op- 
eration of  offering  the  workman  the  premium  on  all  the  time  he  saves  that 
such  has  a  tendency  and  is  intended  to  get  him  to  perform  the  task  as  speedily 
as  possible? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  would  not  say  as  speedily  as  possible.  I  would  say 
as  speedily  as  he  can  do  it  without  overwork.  If  a  man  is  getting  good  pay, 
he  is  not  nearly  so  apt  to  overexert  himself  as  if  the  limit  was  away  down 
low.  If  you  give  him  a  good  advance  over  his  ordinary  day's  work,  there  is 
not  the  incentive  to  overwork  himself,  as  you  might  say. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  very  theory,  however,  of  offering  him  a  bonus  for  doing 
it  in  shorter  time  must  be  of  appealing  to  him  and  creating  an  incentive  for 
him  to  work  faster.  That  must  be  the  theory  of  it,  must  it  not? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Whether  it  actually  works  is  another  thing,  of  course.  As 
I  understand,  according  to  your  statement,  if  he  gets  a  fair  day's  wage,  he  is 
not  inclined  to  accept  this  incentive,  and  it  is  intended  for  that  purpose? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  The  whole  proposition  is  that  under  whatever  system 
you  have  you  fix  what  is  a  fair  day's  work,  and  give  the  men  to  understand 
that  that  is  what  he  is  rather  expected  to  do. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  setting  of  these  task  times  in  any  place  where  you 
have  set  them  have  you  ever  taken  into  consideration  or  worked  with  the 
workmen  in  the  determination  of  a  standard  time? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  in  every  case. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  any  of  these  cases  has  he  had,  with  the  employer,  an 
equal  voice  in  making  that  determination? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  He  practically  has  the  deciding  voice,  for  this  reason : 
After  we  make  our  studies  we  set  a  man  onto  his  task  and  offer  him  the  bonus 
for  its  accomplishment.  He  knows  what  he  is  doing  it  for ;  he  knows  he  is 
doing  it  to  establish  a  rate  for  that  whole  shop.  He  is  not  pushed;  he  is  not 
asked  to  exert  himself.  He  is  told  how  to  do  it;  he  is  told  the  right  way  to 
do  it ;  and  until  and  unless  he  shows  he  can  do  it  no  result  is  reached.  But  if 
we  feel  that  there  is  something  a  little  bit  wrong  with  the  task,  and  unless  at 
the  first  send-off  a  man  can  do  what  he  is  told,  that  task  does  not  go.  When 
n  task  is  set  and  is  in  operation — for  example,  in  a  case  that  I  have  in  mind, 
i-iere  were  some  carpenters  who  were  setting  a  window  casing.  A  time  was 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOE.  923 

set  on  a  new  job,  based  on  unit  times,  and  the  carpenters  immediately  fell 
down  on  it.  This  was  during  the  introduction  of  the  system.  They  immediately 
came  to  the  foreman — it  does  not  take  them  long  to  find  that  out — and  the  time- 
study  man  went  out  there  and  found  there  was  a  mistake  in  setting  the 
task.  It  was  immediately  corrected. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Who  determined  that  there  was  a  mistake  in  setting  the 
task? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  The  time-study  man. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  his  determination  was  the  final  decision? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  that  case  I  believe  my  associate  was  on  the  work 
at  the  time,  and  he  made  the  final  decision.  If  he  had  not  been  there,  the 
time-study  man's  decision  would  have  been  accepted  as  final. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  time-study  man  was  an  employee,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  of  the  employer? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  You  mean  by  that  that  he  was  paid  by  him? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  His  time  was  paid  for  by  the  employer? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion,  would  it  not  be  feasible  for  the  employee  to 
have  an  equal  opportunity  to  have  a  voice  in  the  determination  of  the  time 
study,  as  you  say  he  already  has,  and  also  would  it  not  be  feasible  for  him 
to  have  an  equal  voice  in  the  selection  of  the  time-study  man? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  would  like  it  very  much  to  have  a  workman  pick 
out  satisfactory  time-study  men  for  me.  One  of  the  most  difficult  things  in 
introducing  a  system  of  management  is  to  find  the  proper  time-study  men  to 
handle  these  different  classes  of  work.  Now,  if  the  men  would  pick  me  out  a 
time-study  man  that  would  do  his  job  accurately  in  this  routine,  scientific 
fashion,  I  would  be  delighted  to  have  them  do  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  you  see  no  objection? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  would  not  have  two  men  on  the  job.  That  would  be 
impracticable  entirely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  other  words,  you  think  that  the  use  of  the  extra  time  study 
man  representing  the  employers  would  not  work? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  It  is  absolutely  impracticable. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  They  do  use  it,  though,  in  the  anthracite  coal  regions.  They 
have  there  what  they  call  a  check  weighman. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  That  is  an  entirely  different  proposition.  Yes,  and  I 
understand  that  they  have  a  lot  of  friction ;  it  would  engender  the  friction  and 
reduce  the  good  relation  that  does  exist.  I  never  find  any  trouble  in  timing 
men.  We  have  never  run  up  against  this  trouble  of  timing  men,  and  no  objec- 
tion whatever  to  their  being  timed,  by  the  men  or  girls  either. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  There  is  another  objection  that  you  may  not  be  aware  of, 
in  the  organized  labor  world  against  these  systems ;  not  against  efficiency,  as 
I  understand  their  position,  but  as  against  these  so-called  efficiency  systems  of 
which  Mr.  Taylor's  is  the  leading  one  which  they  mention.  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  opposition  could  be  removed  to  a  great  extent,  perhaps  wholly  removed,  if 
there  were  some  introduction  of  the  democratic  principle  into  it.  Of  course,  the 
place  where  it  would  be  of  greatest  importance  would  be  the  setting  of  the  time 
standard. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  can  not  answer  that,  because  I  disagree  with  your 
original  statement  that  there  is  objection  to  it  on  the  part  of  the  laboring  world. 
The  men  with  whom  I  have  had  to  do,  whether  they  are  union  men  or  nonunion 
men,  so  far  as  my  experience  goes,  who  have  actually  been  in  the  shops  and  on 
the  jobs  where  the  methods  are  being  introduced,  like  it  without  exception. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Let  me  put  it  to  you  in  another  form.  Assuming  that  the 
time  standard  has  been  set  for  the  work,  what  is  to  prevent  the  employer  from 
introducing  that  time  standard  at  any  time  he  pleases,  if  he  is  the  sole  judge? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  For  the  same  reason  that  an  employer  who  is  paying 
laborers  on  the  street  $1.75  a  day  does  not  reduce  them  to  $1.25  a  day.  That 
is  one  of  the  reasons. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  other  words,  you  mean  the  supply  and  demand  of  labor 
would  control  it? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes,  if  the  workmen  object.  Another  very  fundamental 
difference,  which  is  very  difficult  to  appreciate — this  is  not  theoretical;  it  is 
practical,  but  it  is  very  difficult  to  appreciate,  and  that  is  the  change  of  atti- 
tude that  comes  about  in  the  management  after  a  system  of  real  scientific  man- 
agement is  introduced,  and  they  have  an  entirely  different  feeling  toward  the 
men,  an  entirely  different  feeling  toward  the  amount  that  the  men  earn.  Of 


924          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

course,  I  am  talking  strictly  about  where  the  work  is  really  done  under  scien- 
tific methods. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  in  the  last  analysis  the  controlling  factor  is  that  the 
employer  can  not  reduce  the  price  below  the  point  where  he  can  get  the  men? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Or  have  friction  in  his  shop,  or  misunderstanding  in 
his  shop.  It  is  opposed  to  the  whole  principle.  One  of  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples is  that  you  must  not  cut  rates.  If  you  cut  rates  you  throw  the  whole 
thing  away. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Assuming  that  the  proprietor  is  willing  to  stand  that  friction, 
and  assuming  that  he  minimizes  the  possibility  of  it  when  times  are  dull  and 
the  demand  is  not  so  great,  and  the  men  are  not  only  willing  to  work  under 
the  cut,  but  they  have  to  work  under  a  cut,  and  they  work  pleasantly ;  that  is, 
they  will  have  to  like  it. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  He  may  not  reduce  the  bonus ;  he  may  reduce  the  day 
wages.  If  the  cutting  of  the  rate  of  wages  was  reduced  considerably  below 
what  was  being  paid  in  other  shops  in  the  locality — but  he  would  not  do  it 
until  he  had  gotten  down  to  a  certain  extent  below,  because  a  good  manager — 
.1  don't  care  who  he  is — likes  to  pay  the  high  rate  of  wages  rather  than  the 
low  rates,  and  when  the  hard  times  come  and  the  going  rate  of  wages  in  that 
industry  are  reduced — then  he  would  consider  reducing  the  rate  of  wages  of 
employees,  the  day  pay. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  that  variation  in  the  day  rate  and  the  variation  in  the 
treatment  of  the  men,  in  accordance  with  the  shops  in  that  locality,  would  apply 
as  well  without  the  system  as  with  it,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  consequently  the  employer,  without  having  the  system, 
would  naturally  pay  the  rate  of  wages  in  the  community,  would  he  not? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  he  wanted  to  work  without  friction? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  under  your  idea  there  would  be  no  need,  or  if  there 
is  no  need  for  the  organization  of  the  men  under  this  system,  there  would  be 
no  need  for  organizing  the  men  without  the  system. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  did  not  say  there  was  no  need  of  organization. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Does  not  that  follow  from  what  you  say? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  say  there  is  no  need  of  organization. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  believe  that,  the  organization  of  workmen  in  a  shop 
where  there  is  scientific  management  would  result  to  their  advantage?  Could 
there  be  any  point  where  they  could  meet  with  their  employer  and  set  day  rate 
standards  or  the  like? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes;  there  is  no  reason  under  the  sun  why  they  could 
not  meet  and  set  this  base  rate  wage.- 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  They  could  meet  and  organize  for  the  same  purposes  and  to 
the  same  extent  in  the  scientific-management  shop  as  well  as  in  one  in  which 
there  was  no  such  scientific  management? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  think  the  necessity  for  it  is  quite  so  great, 
because  'of  the  better  feeling  between  the  men  and  the  management,  but  there 
might  still  be  a  necessity  for  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  see  no  objection  to  it? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  all  I  care  to  ask  the  witness. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Your  personal  application  has  largely  been  in 
building  trades'  lines,  as  I  understand  it? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  It  has  been  about  equally  divided  between  that  and 
the  shop. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  large  manufacturing  plants  have  you  had 
experience  with,  employing  500  or  1,000  workmen? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  the  shop  a  good  deal  of  my  work,  or  at  least  a 
certain  part  of  my  work,  has  been  one  function.  We  have  done  something 
with  the  entire  shop.  One  of  the  shops  I  have  been  connected  with — I  will 
speak  of  it  because  it  was  mentioned  yesterday — was  the  Plympton  Press.  We 
make  the  original  time  studies  there  and  set  the  first  tasks. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  was  a  machine  shop? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No ;  a  book-printing  establishment. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Oh,  the  press — a  printing  office? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  925 

Commission  O'CONNELL.  Have  the  hours  of  labor  been  reduced,  in  any  way 
in  that  plant  since  the  system  has  been  in  operation? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  think  they  have.  I  am  not  positive  about  that;  but 
I  think  that  is  on  the  records ;  I  think  the  statement  was  made  by  Mr.  Valen- 
tine. I  will  say  that  I  went  through  the  shop  the  other  day,  and  we  came 
into  the  room  where  the  monotypes  are  at  work,  where  the  girls  run  the 
typesetting  machines,  and  there  was  nobody  around  the  machines ;  the  windows 
were  open,  but  none  of  the  girls  were  there.  Twro  or  three  minutes  after- 
wards the  girls  all  came  trooping  back.  They  had  left  simply  for  a  recess. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Do  you  know  anything  of  the  earning  of  the  girls 
in  that  plant  per  day  or  per  week? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  would  rather  not  give  it  from  memory.  I  know  they 
make  good  pay. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  What  is  to  prevent  the  employer  from  establish- 
ing a  rate  of  wage  or  a  basis  with  an  employee,  say  of  $3  per  day,  and,  then, 
on  top  of  that,  establishing  a  bonus;  setting  a  standard  and  then  giving  a 
bonus  for  going  above  the  standard?  What  is  to  prevent  him,  in  the  course  of 
time,  from  employing  a  man  at  $2  a  day  to  perform  the  same  work,  when  the 
total  earnings  of  the  latter  man  and  his  bonus  would  not  equal  the  former 
day  rate  of  the  first  man? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  That  is  something  I  have  never  had  any  experience  in. 
In  all  the  work  I  have  had  to  do  with,  the  men  who  were  running  the  machines 
and  handling  the  work,  were  getting  pay  that  was  suited  to  their  jobs,  and 
I  do  not  know  of  any  change  of  that  kind. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Well,  the  rate  is  not  based  upon  the  job  par- 
ticularly, is  it — upon  the  man,  or  which? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  The  pay  for  all  kinds  of  work  is  governed  more  or  less 
by  the  character  of  the  work. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  If  you  say  that  a  certain  job  shall  be  $3  a  day, 
and  the  bonus  on  it  was  $1  a  day,  that  job  will  pay  $4  a  day,  we  will  say. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commisioner  O'CONNELL.  Is  every  man  that  comes  along  entitled  to  that, 
regardless  of  his  capability?  Is  that  the  standard — that  every  man  that  got 
that  job  would  get? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  As  an  illustration  of  that  point,  the  way  it  is  handled 
in  a  certain  plant  might  be  of  interest.  That  has  to  do  with  a  process  that 
requires  a  good  deal  of  experience  and  skill,  and  this  method  of  pay  came  in 
when  I  had  to  do  with  the  work  in  that  shop.  I  think  it  was  at  my  sugges- 
tion, the  way  it  wras  handled  in  that  particular  case;  those  girls  are  classified 
into  three  different  grades.  There  is  one  rate  of  pay,  we  will  say,  at  12  cents 
an  hour;  another  set  of  girls,  on  the  same  operation,  earn  14  cents  an  hour; 
another  set  of  girls,  on  the  same  operation,  earn  16  cents  an  hour.  That  is 
determined  automatically  by  their  output.  Just  as  soon  as  the  12-cent  girl 
gets  up  to  a  certain  standard  of  output,  after  she  gains  experience — she  be- 
comes a  14-cent  girl  and  also  gets  a  bonus  on  that  14-cent  rate. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is,  each  one  has  a  particular  task  that  must 
be  worked  up  to? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  order  to  get  the  increased  rate  you  must  work 
yourself  up  to  perform  a  certain  task? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Then  that  becomes  purely  a  task  system;  that  is 
not  based  on  any  special  wage  system.  It  is  simply  a  task  that  is  established, 
and  if  you  want  to  get  into  this  12  or  14  or  16  cent  class  you  must  be  capable 
of  performing  the  task  required,  to  get  into  that  class? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  and  that  task  is  established  by  special  stop-watch 
studies  and  time  studies. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  If  you  were  working  in  a  department  store  where 
they  employed  clerks  selling  the  ordinary  materials  that  they  handle  in  that 
store,  how  would  you  go  about  it  to  take  stop-watch  records  of  the  ability  of  a 
clerk  to  sell  goods  to  a  purchaser? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Well,  in  the  first  place  I  would  want  to  spend  perhaps 
six  months  in  that  shop  and  study  it  out  and  find  the  best  way  to  do  it.  I 
certainly  would  not  be  willing  to  write  a  report  to  the  company  and  tell  them 
how  that  could  be  done  without  making  a  thorough  scientific  study  of  the  whole 
thing. 


926          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  think  there  is  a  great  divergency  in  the  ability 
or  capability  in  one  clerk  to  deceive  a  certain  patron  into  the  merits  of  one 
certain  kind, or  class  of  goods  or  another;  how  would  you  do  that  with  a  stop 
watch? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  As  I  say,  this  proposition  is  one  that  I  have  never  run 
up  against,  but  I  would  find  some  way  to  do  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  other  words,  the  capability  of  this  girl  to  lay 
off  3  feet  to  the  yard,  laying  off  calico,  she  might  lay  off  a  little  bit  extra? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Scientific  management  does  not  depend  upon  time  study. 
I  tried  to  make  that  clear.  . 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  In  the  case  of  the  stop  watch,  your  rule  would  say 
that  3  feet  made  a  yard  of  calico? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  But  how  would  your  stop  watch  get  at  the  capa- 
bility of  that  girl  to  convince  a  lady  purchaser  that  that  was  the  calico  she 
wanted  in  less  time,  or  in  a  speedier  time,  than  another  clerk  would  sell  you 
that,  or  another  man  would  sell  you  a  pair  of  shoes  or  a  suit  of  clothes,  and 
convince  you  that  it  was  all  wool  when  it  was  cotton?  How  would  you  get  at 
a  proposition  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  As  I  say,  we  take  all  kinds  of  propositions  of  that  kind 
and  study  them  out.  It  might  not  be  a  stop-watch  proposition  at  all.  There  are 
other  elements. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Then  there  is  some  other  method  besides  the  stop- 
watch method  by  which  you  can  get  studies? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  If  you  ask  whether  a  woman  is  honest  or  not — if  you 
want  to  determine  whether  a  woman  is  honest  or  not,  you  can  not  do  that  by  a 
stop  watch;  so  that  I  will  say  you  can  not  determine  everything  by  the  stop 
watch,  unquestionably. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Then  everything  is  not  based  upon  the  time  of 
measurement  or  figures,  the  whole  proposition  of  production? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  have  given  a  specific  instance  where  it  is  not.  You 
can  not  determine,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  whether  or  not  a  girl  is  honest  to  her 
customers  by  any  stop-watch  method. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  But,  so  far  as  your  experience  goes,  has  not  the 
question  of  efficiency  been  largely  applied  to  certain  lines  of  industry ;  for  in- 
stance, machine  shops? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  never  had  anything  to  do  with  machine  shops,  and  I 
don't  know  anything  about  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  It  seems  to  be  a  common  prey  for  experts  and 
experimentalists  and  cranks  and  all  that  sort  of  thing;  they  light  on  the 
machine  shop  the  first  thing.  I  don't  know  why. 

Commissioner  GARBETSON.  The  machine  shop  is  the  dog  in  this,  like  the  rail- 
ways are  the  dog  in  national  legislation. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  The  only  question  I  have  is  that  it  has  been  sug- 
gested that  a  man  whose  time  has  been  set  out  under  the  bonus  system,  if  a 
crane  was  not  in  operation  and  he  could  not  get  to  it  in  his  work  he  would  be 
delayed.  Would  that  system  at  all  contemplate  giving  the  man  credit  for  any- 
thing of  that  kind,  if  he  was  delayed  a  certain  number  of  minutes?  Would  he 
have  a  right  to  go  to  the  foreman  and  say,  "  Here,  I  have  made  no  bonus  this 
day,  because  at  such  and  such  a  time  the  crane  was  in  use  and  I  did  not  get 
the  benefit  of  it"? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  have  a  memorandum  on  that  point,  and  I  am  glad 
you  spoke  of  it.  If  a  delay  of  that  kind  is  long,  he  has  the  privilege  of  having 
day  work  during  that  period;  that  is,  his  task  stops  just  with  the  delay,  and 
would  be  taken  up  when  the  delay  is  gotten  out  of  the  way.  If  it  is  something 
that  comes  constantly,  it  is  allowed  for  in  some  way,  so  that  it  will  not  affect 
his  pay.  A  man  can  not  be  docked — well,  I  didn't  mean  to  use  that  word,  be- 
cause it  is  not  that  at  all — a  man  can  not  lose  his  bonus  or  his  premium  prop- 
erly for  causes  that  are  not  his  own. 

Commissioner  BALLAED.  It  would  be  like  the  clock  on  a  taxicab — it  will  reg- 
ister when  the  machine  is  not  going? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Mr.  Thompson,  you  recognize  our  difficulty  in  get- 
ting a  definition  of  scientific  management.  It  would  seem  we  need  some  defi- 
nition. I  would  like  to  try  this  on  you :  As  I  understand,  you  have  adopted 
the  word  "  scientific  "  in  order  that  you  may  possibly  include  all  systems  that 
you  choose  to  pass  upon  as  coming  within  a  certain  standard.  Is  it  merely  to 


EFFICIENCY^  SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  927 

make  the  public  feel  that  you  have  some  superiority?  We  are  coming  to  a 
time  when  we  call  one  kind  of  religion  "Christian  Science,"  but  it  does  not 
make  that  religion  effectually  different  from  Mormonism  or  Theosophy.  The 
question  is,  can  we  get  some  other  word  besides  "  scientific  "  that  will  not  carry 
with  it  an  implication  that  it  is  something  superior,  that  ordinary  people  can 
not  understand  it,  but  that  it  requires  experts  to  understand  it?  Can  we  de- 
fine "scientific  management "  according  to  something  that  we  actually  mean? 
As  I  take  it,  gathered  from  all  that  has  been  said,  it  does  not  apply  to  any 
method  or  any  doctrine,  but  it  does  mean  that  whatever  you  do  you  establish 
some  way  or  method  of  accurate  measurement.  Is  there  any  principle  in 
scientific  management  that  we  can  reduce  it  to  so  it  means  what  you  actually 
intend  by  it?  Is  it  to  substitute  in  all  things  some  method  of  accurate  meas- 
urement as  against  rule  of  thumb  or  tradition,  or  must  we  have  something  else 
besides  that?  I  take  it  from  the  fact  that  the  science  I  am  supposed  to  teach, 
political  economy,  is  often  charged  by  mathematicians  with  not  being  any 
science  at  all,  that  it  is  simply  a  policy.  I  have  been  trying  to  get  a  definition 
that  will  rank  me  in  the  line  of  scientist.  I  think  the  definition  is  largely 
whether  we  apply  accurate  systems  of  measurement  to  the  subject  matter  we 
are  investigating.  Possibly,  if  you  do  not  care  to  work  it  out,  it.  would  be  well 
for  Mr.  Delano  to  submit  to  you  the  definition  he  has  proposed,  and  see  if  we 
can  reach  something  more  definite.  Do  you  care  to  try  to  answer  that  ques- 
tion now? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  think  I  might  prefer  to  have  the  question  submitted. 

Mr.  Reporter,  will  you  read,  please,  that  first  paragraph  of  Prof.  Commons's 
question?  I  am  not  quite  sure  that  I  agree  with  his  premises  there.  That  is 
the  point. 

The  REPORTER  (reading)  : 

"As  I  understand  you  have  adopted  the  word  '  scientific '  in  order  that  you 
may  possibly  include  all  systems  that  you  choose  to  pass  upon  as  coming  within 
a  certain  standard.  Is  it  merely  to  make  the  public  feel  that  you  have  some 
superiority  ?  " 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  any  definite  criticism  of  that. 
I  think  you  mean  the  question  in  the  way  that  I  would  answer  it.  I  would 
say  briefly  that  the  position  you  take  is,  it  seems  to  me,  one  of  the  chief  prin- 
ciples— accurate  measurement.  I  would  prefer  to  look  over  the  definition  fur- 
ther before  submitting  a  definite  answer. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Could  we  substitute  some  word  for  "  scientific 
management "  that  would  tell  us  what  we  really  have? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  There  is  just  one  point  on  that :  That  matter  has  been 
pretty  thoroughly  considered,  and  I  question  very  much  whether  you  can  sub- 
stitute any  other  term  which  better  expresses  just  exactly  what  it  is,  whether 
this  "  accurate  measurement "  is  not  just  that  scientific  principle. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  spoke  as  though  you  would  like  to  have  the 
workman  select  the  time-study  man.  Do  you  remember  you  said  that?  You 
said  that  you  could  not  very  well  operate  with  two  time-study  men,  one  repre- 
senting the  employer  and  one  representing  the  workman.  You  have  dealt 
largely,  I  judge,  with  establishments  that  have  already  organized  labor — that 
is,  carpenters — and  have  made  studies  where  they  have  organized  labor? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  part  organized  and  in  part  unorganized. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Is  there  any  way  by  which  a  union  already  organ- 
ized could  propose  to  you  a  member  of  their  union  or  a  representative  whom 
you  would  approve  as  a  time-study  man? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  would  be  ready  to  take  a  time-study  man  from  any- 
where, provided  he  has  the  proper  ability.  For  instance,  I  noted  down  here 
some  of  the  requirements  of  a  good  time-study  man : 

First.  He  must  have  an  analytical  turn  of  mind. 

Second.  He  must  have  the  ability  to  think  in  terms  of  small  units. 

Third.  He  must  have  studiousness ;  he  must  be  studious. 

Fourth.  He  must  have  quickness  and  accuracy  in  mathematics. 

Fifth.  He  must  have  good  judgment. 

Sixth.  He  must  have  tact. 

If  you  can  get  that  man  from  any  source  whatever,  who  is  ready  to  take  this 
time  study  and  do  it  by  scientific  methods,  I  do  not  care  very  much  where  he 
comes  from.  But  there  must  be  the  requirement,  not  that  he  comes  from  any 
one  body  of  men,  not  that  he  comes  from  the  employer  or  the  labor  union  or 
anybody  else,  but  that  he  has  the  proper  qualifications. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  all. 


928          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  resume  the  hearing  at  2  o'clock  this  after- 
noon. 

(Whereupon,  at  1  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  commission  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock 
p.  m.) 

AFTER  EECESS 2  P.  M. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Commissioner  Delano).  The  meeting  will  please 
come  to  order.  Mr.  Garretson,  have  you  any  questions? 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  SANFORD  E.  THOMPSON— Continued. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  There  are  one  or  two  questions  I  would  like  to 
ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  just  as  a  matter  of  information.  While  making  up  the 
time  estimate  of  a  man  putting  up  the  cornice  or  molding,  I  want  to  ask,  does 
the  man  under  those  conditions  work  from  a  ladder  or  a  staging?  I  notice 
that  no  time  allowance  was  given  governing  either. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  He  works  from  a  staging. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Under  those  conditions,  is  that  built  by  the  laborer 
or  the  carpenter? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  general,  by  the  laborer,  I  should  say. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Does  the  task  and  bonus  or  premium  system, 
either  one,  contain  within  itself  every  element  that  enters  into  the  piecework 
system,  with  more  or  less  addition,  as  the  case  might  be,  every  basic  element 
that  is  embodied  in  the  piecework  system  is  embodied  in  all  or  any  of  these 
systems  that  are  described  by  those  t\vo  general  names? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  think  I  can  answer  so  broad  a  question  as  that, 
not  without  giving  considerable  study  to  it. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Can  you,  then,  name  offhand  any  element  that 
enters  into  the  ordinary  piecework  plan  that  is  not  embodied  in  each  of  the 
others,  with,  as  I  have  stated,  more  or  less  addition,  bearing  in  mind  that 
piecework  itself  is  a  very  simple  plan? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  some  of  the  systems  I  should  say  that  the  principles 
of  the  ordinary  piecework  system  are  included. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  what  I  meant. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  As  one  of  the  features,  but  only  as  one,  and  not  a 
fundamental. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Whether  fundamental  or  otherwise,  the  real  ideal 
of  piecework  is  embodied  in  either  one  or  the  other,  is  it  not,  whether  it  is  basic 
in  them  or  not? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like  to  ask  you  what  you  mean  by  the  real 
ideal  of  piecework? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  For  a  given  performance  to  give  some  overpay,  or 
a  given  amount  of  production,  to  use  the  phrase  that  has  been  used  here 
largely. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  If  the  same  time  system,  or  time  allowance, 
secured  by  any  means,  stop  watch  or  otherwise,  was  applied  to  the  piecework 
system — that  is,  applied  to  these  other  systems  that  I  have  referred  to — would 
it  not  work  out  exactly  the  same  result,  minus  bonus  or  premium? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  that  question  am  I  to  understand  that  you  think  the 
bonus  or  premium  is  not  included  in  the  piece-rate  system? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  In  the  piece-rate  system  that  is  indirect;  that  is 
all.  In  the  premium  or  bonus  systems  it  is  direct. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  a  properly  applied  piece-rate  system  you  get  the 
bonus  or  premium  another  way. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Surely  you  get  it  by  day  work,  not  by  the  ordinary 
piece-rate  system? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  You  get  it  in  another  manner,  in  which  the  piece- 
work is  not  essentially  in  evidence  in  producing  the  wyork,  but  would  not  the 
result  in  the  earnings  be  exactly  the  same? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  understand  what  you  mean  by  exactly  the 
same;  exactly  the  same  amount  or  exactly  the  same  principle? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  In  amount,  with  the  same  time  allowances  and 
the  same  rate  for  allowance  for  the  work ;  in  other  words,  by  the  bonus  system 
you  get  it  by  the  payment  of  so  much  time  and  in  the  other  you  get  it  by  the 
payment  of  so  much  flat  sum. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  certain  forms  of  payment  by  bonus  you  would  have 
exactly  the  same  result. 

Commissioner  GAKKETSON.  Producing  the  same  pay.  For  instance,  a  man 
bringing  out  locomotive  cylinders  in  a  machine  shop,  if  he  was  allowed  the 
same  time  under  the  piecework  system  that  was  equivalent  to  the  money  he 
was  paid  under  the  other  system,  the  result  would  be  the  same  amount  of  pay 
on  the  same  turnout? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  On  the  other  hand,  as  I  said  this  morning,  your  com- 
mission should,  I  think,  not  spend  too  much  time  on  differentiating  between 
different  methods  of  payment  as  to  getting  at  the  real  basic  principle.  Now,  if 
you  get  at  the  thing,  the  rate  of  payment,  scientifically,  on  a  scientific  basis, 
and  you  base  your  piecework  system  on  that  scientific  basis — the  Link  Belt,  for 
instance,  have  a  piece-rate  system;  and  if  you  do  that  on  this  scientific  basis, 
1  would  say  that  that  piece  rate  was  on  scientific  management,  one  form  of 
scientific  method. 

Commissioner  GAKKETSON.  My  questions  have  no  personal  bias  because  I  rep- 
resent pieceworkers ;  are  you  aware  of  that.  My  men  are  pieceworkers. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  But  you  talk  about  this  being  a  detail;  the  larger 
portion  of  the  exponents  have  condemned  piecework  as  producing  a  vicious  re- 
sult, and  lauded  the  other  system  as  bringing  a  highly  beneficial  one.  What 
guaranty  is  there  that  all  the  evils  of  the  piecework  system  do  not  exist  in  the 
premium  or  bonus  system? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  One  of  the  chief  evils,  the  fundamental  evil  in  the  ordi- 
nary piecework,  is  the  fact  that  the  rates  are  set  by  guess  instead  of  scientific- 
ally. Now,  if  you  have  a  piecework  system  and  set  the  rates  by  scientific  prin- 
ciples, then  you  have  an  entirely  different  proposition  from  ordinary  piecework. 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  How  can  a  scientific  idea  have  anything  to  do  with 
a  day's  wage  and  the  rate  paid  therefor?  How  will  you  determine  the  basic  day 
wage  or  the  basic  hourly  rate  scientifically? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Your  basic  hourly  rate  does  not  come  into  your  piece- 
work. 

Commissioner  GARBETSON.  It  will  come  into  the  day's  earnings  and  propor- 
tionally into  the  task  and  bonus  or  premium. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Indirectly,  yes. 

Commissioner  GAKKETSON.  And  is  not  the  day's  wage  the  basis  for  an  estimate 
of  the  piecework  rate? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Now,  surely  scientifically,  how  can  you  get  away; 
from  it? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Get  away  from  what? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  The  daily  wage,  or  the  basic  wage. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  want  to  get  a\vay  from  it. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  And  how  can  you  scientifically  fix  the  daily  wage? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  know  yet  of  any  way  of  scientifically  fixing  the 
base  rate;  that  is,  scientifically  in  the  sense  in  which  we  are  using  it  in  gen- 
eral ;  it  is  more  or  less  standardized,  using  standardization  in  an  unscientific 
way  by  saying  your  base  rate  must  be  substantially  the  same  as  the  base  rate 
of  wage,  as  in  other  establishments  in  the  same  locality,  usually  a  little  higher 
than  the  average  wage. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  term  locality  would  not  come  in  to  such  a  great-  extent. 
I  am  not  sure  about  that.  I  am  not  familiar  enough  with  your  conditions. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Train  operation. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Whether  a  man  in  the  Southern  States,  where  condi- 
tions are  different,  would  have  a  different  day's  wage  than  those  in  the  North- 
ern States? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Take  it  the  continent  over,  there  is  only  18  cents 
on  a  day's  rate ;  it  is  $1  in  the  East  and  $1.17  in  the  AVest,  and  there  is  a  varia- 
tion yet.  You  notice  I  say  that  it  has  diminished? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes,  on  construction  \vork ;  it  worked  in  the  South  a 
great  many  years  ago,  when  we  paid  our  negroes  a  dollar  a  day  and  the  prevail- 
ing rate  was  80  cents. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  The  word  "  locality "  would  apply  entirely  dif- 
ferently to  a  problem  like  mine,  as  compared  with  a  shop  which  had  only  one 
location  in  a  city? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

38819°— 16 59 


930          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Now,  where  would  you  find  a  scientific  base  for 
one  that  would  apply  to  the  other? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  That  is  the  same  problem,  and  I  have  never  run  up 
against  it,  and  I  do  not  feel  that  I  have  given  it  sufficient  study  to  answer  your 
question. 

Commissioner  GAEKETSON.  You  lean  somewhat  to  the  belief  that  it  would 
need  some  two  or  three  years  looking  over  before  you  could  furnish  the  remedy? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  am  inclined  to  think  it  would  take  considerable 
study. 

Cornmisioner  GAEEETSON.  I  do  not  mind  confiding — this  is  under  the  rose — 
that  I  have  been  wrestling  with  it  for  30  years  and  have  not  found  the  answer 
yet,  although  I  have  sweated,  but  I  have  not  got  it  yet.  Now,  you  made  a  state- 
ment a  little  while  ago — I  believe  I  could  probably  quote  the  exact  language 
of  it,  although  the  copy  is  probably  gone  where  we  can  not  read  it — that  a 
good  manager  likes  to  pay  high  wages.  Is  that  fairly  correct?  I  think  those 
are  the  exact  words  that  were  used. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  think  that  is  about  what  I  said. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  That  conveys  the  idea? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAKEETSON.  How  long  have  you  dealt  with  employers  on  the 
wage  proposition? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Oh,  for  nearly  30  years,  probably. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Does  the  average  manager  stop  at  liking  to,  or 
does  he  go  further  and  pay  them? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  stated  that  principle  not  as  a  scientific  fact,  but  as 
my  opinion,  and  I  still  uphold  that  opinion.  That  opinion  is  based  on  con- 
versations with  a  great  many  manufacturers  and  other  employers  of  labor,  and 
my  experience  with  them ;  for  example,  I  cited  this  place  in  North  Carolina, 
where  they  paid  the  negroes  $1  a  day  in  place  of  80  cents.  Now,  that  was  not 
philanthropic;  it  was  simply  in  order  to  get  the  best  labor  on  that  job,  and 
they  did  get  the  best  labor  in  North  Carolina. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  And  to  get  them  to  work  uninterruptedly? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  There  was  an  incentive.  It  was  not  for  love  of 
paying  a  high  wage,  but  to  attain  an  object,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  I  am  glad  you  did  not  state  this  as  a  scientific 
fact,  for  I  would  have  to  lay  down  30  years'  experience  against  it,  and  we 
would  have  been  down  to  the  stage  of  two  timekeepers  running  two  stop 
watches  at  the  same  time.  Bear  in  mind  mine  is  the  outgrowth  of  that  many 
years'  experience  for  large  armies  of  men.  I  believe,  like  you,  that  the  average 
manager  likes  to  pay  high  wages,  but  he  is  not  working  at  it. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  make  that  statement  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  railroads  only  or  from  your  knowledge  and  experience  and  conversation 
with  manufacturers  and  other  employers  of  labor? 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  I  would  answer  that  in  two  ways — I  make  it 
absolutely  upon  my  own  experience  with  the  contracting  offices  of  the  railway 
companies  in  one  direction  and  upon  second-hand  knowledge  in  the  other 
direction. 

That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAEBMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  will  have  noticed,  Mr.  Thompson,  there 
seems  to  be  some  very  pronounced  conflict  between  the  representatives  of 
organized  labor  on  the  one  hand  and  the  advocates  of  scientific  management 
on  the  other  hand  on  two  points :  First,  a  conflict  concerning  the  feeling  of  the 
men  who  are  working  under  scientific  management.  On  the  one  hand  we  have 
heard  the  statement  reiterated  on  the  part  of  consulting  engineers  and  scientific 
managers  that  the  men  generally  working  under  the  system  like  it  and  that 
they  fight  for  it  rather  than  against  it. 

On  the  other  hand  you  have  doubtless  heard,  in  common  with  the  commis- 
sion, representatives  of  organized  labor  saying  that  the  men  protest  against  it 
and  object  to  it  and  operate  under  it  not  from  choice,  but  because  they  are 
obliged  to  do  so. 

At  the  best  those  things  are  opinions.  This  commission  does  not  want  to 
deal  with  opinions  where  facts  are  available.  Can  you  suggest  to  this  com- 
mission any  scientific  way  of  getting  at  the  facts  in  that  pronounced  difference 
of  opinion? 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS  AKT>   LABOR.  931 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Before  I  reply  further  I  want  to  give  one  illustration 
that  may  have  a  little  bearing  on  the  disagreement.  Whether  it  will  have  a 
bearing  on  the  main  question  I  am  not  sure. 

About  two  years  ago  Mr.  Lickner,  my  associate,  set  a  task  on  a  certain 
machine  in  a  shop.  It  was  the  only  task  that  had  been  set  in  that  shop,  and 
there  was  no  other  task  set  for  nearly  two  years.  When  he  set  that  task  the 
man  who  was  on  this  machine,  a  man  who  was  working  alone,  was  opposed  to 
it.  He  did  everything  in  his  power  to  prevent  Mr.  Lickner  getting  all  the 
information  that  he  wanted  to,  aside  from  any  open  objection.  It  was  perhaps 
the  only  case  we  ever  had  where  there  has  been  even  as  much  opposition  as  that, 
although  I  would  hardly  call  it  by  the  name  of  "  opposition  "  even  there.  But 
he  did  not  take  kindly,  we  might  say,  to  doing  everything  Mr.  Lickner  asked 
him  to  do. 

This  spring  Mr.  Lickner  happened  to  do  some  work  in  that  same  shop  on 
some  other  machines  which  were  something  similar  to  this  one  I  speak  of. 
In  doing  that  he  had  occasion  to  go  down  and  take  some  studies  on  this 
same  man  who  had  been  working  for  two  years  on  task  and  bonus.  This,  by 
the  way,  was  heavy  work,  handling  heavy  stuff,  putting  it  on  the  machine,  that 
really  required  a  very  muscular,  strong  man,  andjie  had  been  doing  this  work 
for  two  years.  The  change  in  the  man's  attitude  was  very  marked.  Instead 
of  doing  things  grudgingly,  as  he  did  before,  he  tumbled  over  himself,  you 
might  say,  to  do  everything  Mr.  Lickner  asked  him  to  do,  and  even  made  sug- 
gestions as  to  ways  of  doing  things  better. 

There  is  a  question  whether  this  does  not  have  some  bearing  on  the  point 
you  make — whether  all  the  objections  there  are  may  come  from  the  men  who 
are  just  beginning  to  appreciate  the  thing  and  who  are  not  on  task  and  bonus 
themselves,  and  the  other  side  of  the  question  may  come  from  the  men  in  these 
particular  shops  referred  to.  I  would  not  put  that  for  a  general  proposition, 
because  that  has  not  been  my  experience,  as  I  have  said.  But  when  the  men 
do  get  used  to  it  or  when  it  is  properly  explained  to  them  they  immediately 
see  the  benefits  and  there  is  absolutely  no  objection  whatever. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  point  has  been  made,  Mr.  Thompson,  and 
made  this  very  morning,  as  you  may  recall,  by  Mr.  Berres,  that  the  objection 
comes  from  men  who  have  been  working  under  the  system  for  two  and  one- 
half  years  in  the  Government  shops.  Two  and  one-half  years  is  certainly  a 
sufficiently  long  period  for  the  men  to  be  able  to  appreciate  all  its  advantages 
and  all  its  objections.  As  you  will  recall,  Mr.  Berres  said  they  had  protests 
from  the  men  employed  in  the  Government  plants  against  the  system. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  That,  of  course,  was  the  statement  made  this  morning. 
Of  course  it  is  a  point  which  your  commission  will  investigate  here,  to  determine 
upon  what  that  statement  was  based.  I  will  admit,  of  course,  that  this  has 
been  the  criticism  that  has  been  made  at  this  hearing  on  that  plant  and  one 
other  plant.  Your  problem  is  to  find  a  way  to  get  at  the  truth  of  the  matter, 
as  to  whether  these  objections  are  real  objections,  or  whether  they  come  from 
some  men  who  are  not  on  task  and  bonus  at  all,  or  from  one  or  two  men  who 
are  disgruntled,  or  from  men  who  have  for  some  other  reason  made  the  state- 
ment. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  a  fair  way,  if  it  is  prac- 
ticable— there  may  be  objections  that  do  not  occur  to  me — to  go  to  a  plant  such 
as  the  Watertown  plant  and  take  a  referendum  in  the  nature  of  a  secret 
ballot? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  question  very  much  whether  you  would  get  a  fair 
expression  of  opinion,  even  in  a  secret  ballot. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  should  prevent  getting  a  fair  expression 
of  opinion  in  a  secret  ballot? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  While  I  appreciate  that  the  statements  that  have  been 
made  on  this  stand  of  the  ability  of  the  workingman  to  see  through  a  good 
many  questions,  I  am  not  sure  but  what  he  would  be  influenced,  either  one  way 
or  the  other,  to  give  an  opinion  that  would  be  really  contrary  to  what  he 
actually  felt — that  is,  for  the  good  of  the  cause,  you  might  say.  He  might  have 
the  opinion  that  it  was  for  the  good  of  his  cause;  it  might  be  impressed  upon 
him  that  it  was  for  the  good  of  his  cause,  if  not  for  his  own  good.  He  might 
feel  perfectly  favorable  toward  it  himself,  but  he  might  feel  it  was  for  the  good 
of  his  cause  to  give  expression  the  other  way. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  he 'might  be  willing  to  sacrifice  self- 
interest  for  the  common  good,  or  what  he  believed  to  be  the  common  good? 


932          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  What  he  believed  to  be  the  common  good.  That  is 
what  you  would  find.  You  want  the  man's  personal  opinion. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  there  any  other  way,  any  other  conceivable 
way,  you  can  determine  that?  . 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  The  question  is,  whether  you  could  go  into  a  shop  as 
individuals  and  talk  with  the  men  without  their  knowing  just  what  you  repre- 
sent. That,  of  course,  would  be  questionable. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  a  problem  that  is  coming  to  face  this  com- 
mission, if  it  is  to  decide  the  thing  intelligently.  My  friend  Mr.  Garretson 
suggests  the  question  whether  you  believe  there  are  enough  martyrs  who  are 
willing  to  sacrifice  themselves  to  change  what  would  otherwise  be  the  result. 

Commissioner  GAREETSON.  Not  necessarily  "  Christian  martyrs." 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  As  I  say — and  I  still  say — I  question  very  much 
whether  you  would  get  a  correct  view,  as  you  would  if  you  could  find  some 
way  of  talking  with  the  individual  men,  either  in  the  shop  or  out,  and  finding 
out  right  from  him,  getting  not  necessarily  what  he  says  or  the  expressions  he 
uses,  but  his  real  feeling  in  the  matter. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  would  not  be  a  scientific  method.  If  I  un- 
dertook to  do  that  personally  I  might  bump  into  12  or  15  men  who  happened 
to  have  the  same  point  of  view,  and  it  would  not  represent  the  majority.  I 
might  happen  to  interview  a  dozen  men  who  were  all  opposed  to  it,  and  yet 
all  the  rest  might  favor  it,  and  on  the  other  hand  I  might  interview  a  dozen 
who  favored  it  and  all  the  rest  might  oppose  it.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
scientific  method  would  be  to  get  the  complete  report. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  On  the  question  of  averages,  if  you  selected  at  random 
a  sufficient  number,  you  would  get  a  pretty  good  result  of  the  whole. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  same  issue  has  been  raised  regarding  the 
physical  effect  upon  the  men.  Can  you  suggest  any  plan  whereby  we  could 
determine  that  as  a  fact,  and  not  be  obliged  to  deal  with  it  purely  as  con- 
flicting opinions? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No;  I  can  not,  unless  you  can  find  some  such  record 
as  Mr.  Dodge  brought  here,  of  the  notebook  of  a  man,  which  gave  his  weights 
and  his  health  at  different  periods,  and  unless  you  can  find  the  records  of  estab- 
lishments where  the  task  work  has  been  in  use  for  some  time,  where  they  have 
not  fallen  down  on  the  tasks.  That  is  pretty  good  evidence.  If  you  can  find 
some  shops  or  some  managers,  who  have  kept  records  of  the  tasks  that  have 
been  performed  over  a  long  period  of  time,  that  is  pretty  good  evidence. 

Now,  the  way  it  will  work,  if  the  health  of  a  man  is  failing  or  he  is  over- 
worked, is  that  he  will  tend  to  drop  down  on  his  tasks.  He  will  run  along  for 
a  little  with  the  tasks  up  to  the  limit,  and  then  he  will  begin  to  fall  off,  after  a 
certain  period.  It  seems  to  me  that  that  would  be  a  way  of  getting  at  it  that 
might  give  very  definite  facts. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  other  words,  we  would  have  to  depend  upon 
shop  records,  if  there  are  any  such  shop  records  available? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes.  No ;  I  would  say  that  would  be  one  very  important 
way  of  doing  it. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  way  that  might  be 
suggested  ? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  think  of  any  at  the  present  time. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Can  you  tell  the  commission  whether  the  determi- 
nation of  the  daily  wage  is  arrived  at  in  any  different  manner  under  scientific 
management  than  it  is  where  scientific  management  does  not  prevail? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No ;  except  where  scientific  management  prevails  there 
is  apt  to  be  more  attention  and  study  given  to  that  point.  For  example,  in  cer- 
tain establishments  they  have  a  certain  particular  man  who  hires  all  the  men, 
who  has  to  do  with  the  discharging  and  any  disciplining  that  comes  up.  Now, 
he  can  size  up  the  men  who  come  to  him  and  get  a  better  basis  and  -a  more 
equitable  wage  than  under  the  ordinary  method. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  many  plants  are  you  familiar  with  where 
that  system  is  in  operation;  that  is,  plants  where  you  know  of  the  conditions, 
and  are  familiar  with  them? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  From  a  personal  knowledge,  I  do  not  know  that  I  could 
say  over  a  dozen,  anyway. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Aggregating  how  many  employees,  about? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Possibly  under  10,000. 

Commissioner  WETN  STOCK.  About  10,000? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes,  sir. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  933 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Under  those  dozen  shops  what  proportion,  if  any, 
fix  the  wage  by  individual  bargaining,  making  an  agreement  with  each  in- 
dividual man,  regardless  of  what  the  others  may  get? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  That  I  could  not  say.  In  mentioning  this  number,  I  am 
not  intimately  enough  familiar  with  that  department  of  the  question  to  make  a 
statement.  In  certain  of  the  shops  there  are  unions,  and  the  rates  are  the  base 
rates  of  the  union  rates  or  sometimes  above  the  union  rates. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  are  not,  then,  in  a  position  to  answer  that 
question  ? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Not  in  a  way  that  would  be  of  advantage  to  you. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  evils  in  the  piecework  system  does  the  time 
and  bonus  system  overcome? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  One  of  the  great  evils  that  it  overcomes  is  this  constant 
friction  and  fight  between  the  men  and  the  management  as  to  the  piece  rates. 
The  ordinary  method  of  fixing  piece  rates  is  for  the  superintendent  and  the  fore- 
man to  get  together  and  decide  on  how  many  pieces  a  man  ought  to  turn  out  a 
day,  and  fix  the  rate  on  that  basis.  After  he  has  worked  on  for  a  little  while,  if  he 
exceeds  the  number  of  pieces  to  a  larger  degree  than  the  managers  consider 
is  fair,  or  to  a  degree  that  produces  enough  to  give  him  af  very  high  wage,  they 
cut  the  rate.  Now,  after  one  or  two  cuts  of  that  kind  the  employee  very 
properly  fixes  a  certain  rate  that  he  will  work  under,  and  he  accomplishes  that 
particular  rate  day  after  day.  It  may  be  a  fair  rate;  it  may  not  be  a  fair 
rate.  Occasionally  some  one  will  come  and  speed  up  on  that  particular  job,  and 
then  the  rate  will  be  cut  again.  There  is  that  continual  friction.  The  men 
are -not  trying  to  do  a  good  job,  they  are  not  trying  to  do  a  fair  day's  work.  It 
affects  them  from  a  moral  standpoint,  and  that,  I  should  say,  was  the  prin- 
cipal objection  to  the  ordinary  piece  rate;  except  that  that  is  a  tendency  to 
overspeed  in  certain  cases,  especially  when  the  task  is  fixed  too  severe. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  When  you  come  to  me  as  an  employer,  as  for  ex- 
ample, as  a  consulting  engineer  introducing  a  system,  in  all  likelihood  you 
would  say  to  me  after  the  bonus  had  been  established,  "  My  advice  to  you 
is,  do  not  cut  this  bonus." 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Decidedly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Despite  the  fact  that  the  men  seem  to  be  earning 
abnormal  wages? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  would  be  your  advice  and  counsel  to  me? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  would  there  be  anything  to  prevent  me,  de- 
spite your  advice  and  counsel,  from  cutting  the  bonus? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  The  great  objection,  the  great  consideration  which  would 
prevent  the  cutting,  would  be  that  it  would  disorganize  the  shop  and  create 
friction  between  the  men  and  the  management.  Just  as  soon  as  you  began  to 
fix  new  rates  they  would  soldier  and  use  every  way  possible  to  prevent  your 
getting  a  fair  rate  on  it,  and  would  destroy  one  of  the  principal  functions  of 
scientific  management.  In  other  words,  you  would  have  unscientific  manage- 
ment, because  that  is  one  of  the  fundamental  principles. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Well,  granting  that  that  would  be  so,  it  would 
not  be  any  more  so  than  when  you  cut  the  price  in  piecework?  Does  not  the 
same  law  apply  to  both  systems?  That  is,  if  you  will  not  cut  the  price  of 
piecework,  but  let  men  work  at  their  full  capacity  and  earn  whatever  they 
can  earn,  however  abnormal  it  might  seem,  you  have  the  satisfaction  and 
contentment.  On  the  other  hand,  if  you  cut  the  bonus  down,  you  have  the 
same  dissatisfaction  as  if  you  cut  the  price  on  piecework?  It  is  the  same  law 
operating  in  both  systems? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No;  because  when  you  cut  the  piece  price,  as  I  have 
mentioned,  it  is  almost  invariably  because  it  was  set  too  high,  and  the  men  can 
readily  do  the  amount  and  earn  a  fair  day's  wage  even  after  the  price  is  cut. 
Now,  if  your  rates  are  scientifically  fixed,  be  it  piecework  or  taskwork  or 
bonus,  then  if  you  cut  them,  a  man  has  to  do  an  extra  good  day's  work  for 
ordinary  pay,  and  you  can  not  compel  a  man  to  do  an  extra  good  day's  work 
for  an  ordinary  day's  pay.  It  is  against  human  nature. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  see.  That  is,  under  the  piecework  system  there 
is  liable  to  be  water  in  the  price,  and  when  you  attempt  to  squeeze  out  that 
water  you  have  difficulty.  Under  the  bonus  system  the  price  has  been  arrived 
at  so  scientifically  that  there  is  no  water  to  be  squeezed  out? 


934          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  assuming  that  by  the  piecework  system  you  mean 
the  ordinary  piecework. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes.  May  I  ask  whether  you  have  confined  your 
endeavors  to  scientific  management,  or  whether  you  have  familiarized  yourself 
with  labor  conditions  generally  as  an  economist  and  as  a  sociologist? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No;  I  have  not  gone  into  that  side  of  it  at  all,  except 
indirectly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Have  you  studied  the  problem  as  to  how  to  create 
a  more  cordial  and  more  friendly  feeling  between  capital  and  labor,  and  estab- 
lish better  general  relations? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No;  I  have  not  studied  that  problem.  I  find  that  it 
works  automatically,  you  might  say,  when  you  carry  out  the  system  properly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  may  have  been  here  the  other  day  when  Mr. 
Williams  was  on  the  stand.  Do  you  remember  his  testimony? 

The  ACTING  CHAIBMAN  (Commissioner  Delano).  No;  that  was  last  week. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No;  I  was  not  here. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  question  was  put  to  Mr.  Williams  as  to  what 
he  regarded  as  the  missing  link  between  capital  and  labor,  and  he  being  a 
mediator  and  arbitrator  said,  "  I  am  the  missing  link."  I  assume  if  that 
question  was  put  to  you  you  would  say  this  system  was  the  missing  link? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  am  afraid  I  am  not  enough  of  an  economist  to  an- 
swer that  question. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  you  do  not  know  what  the  missing  link  is? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  would  say  that  scientific  principles  go  a  long  way 
toward  smoothing  over  difficulties. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Lennon,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  have  just  one  question,  which  might  lead  to  an- 
other one.  If  in  this  job  you  speak  of  here  the  time  is  set  at  an  hour  and  a 
half  or  an  hour  and  18  minutes,  and  it  is  completed  within  that  time,  you  would 
pay  30  per  cent  more  than  the  basic  wage ;  was  that  it  ? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  If  it  is  done  in  very  considerably  less  than  an  hour 
and  18  minutes,  why  is  there  an  additional  bonus  given;  that  is,  in  addition 
to  the  30  per  cent? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  That  is  no  more  than  fair  to  the  man.  If  he  does  an 
exceptional  day's  work  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  not  have  an  increase 
in  pay. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  And  that  is  not  done  with  the  idea  of  speeding  the 
men  up? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No.  A  man  is  expected  to  do  just  about  his  task.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  they  do  that.  I  have  some  figures  here  on  some  work,  show- 
ing the  comparisons,  taken  from  an  actual  job.  These  figures  are  on  different 
operations ;  different  numbers  of  pieces.  We  have  here :  Actual  time,  5  hours 
and  12  minutes ;  figured  time,  5  hours  34  minutes.  There  is  a  difference  of  22 
minutes.  Here  is  another  one,  actual  time  2  hours  and  42  minutes ;  figured 
time,  2  hours  and  45  minutes. 

Actual  time,  1  hour  and  15  minutes ;  figured  time,  1  hour  and  4  minutes. 

Actual  time,  2  hours ;  figured  time,  2  hours  and  5  minutes. 

Actual  time,  56  minutes ;  figured  time,  54  minutes. 

This  is  taken  from  a  letter  written  on  July  25,  1912. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  sufficient.     No — just  one  other  question. 

If  this  hour  and  18  minutes  is  reached  as  a  fair  basis  for  a  man  to  do  that 
work,  in  the  interest  of  humanity  is  it  advisable  to  either  offer  a  bonus  or 
anything  else  to  promote  his  doing  it  in  three-quarters  of  an  hour? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  If  you  had  men  who  are  identical  in  capacity  and  muscle 
and  intellect,  that  would  be  the  case ;  you  could  fix  a  task  and  say  that  they 
should  do  it  in  just  that  time,  and  no  more  and  no  less;  but  if  you  have  a  man 
who  is  especially  adapted  to  the  work — better  than  the  rest  of  the  men  in  that 
particular  job — and  it  is  possible  for  them  to  do  it  in  a  shorter  time  with  very 
little  exertion,  he  should  be  permitted  to  do  it,  just  as  you  and  I  are  permitted 
to  do  a  big  day's  work  if  we  feel  like  it,  and  we  do  it. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Commons  wants  to  ask  you  one  or  two  questions. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  understood  you  in  answering  Mr.  Weinstock,  or 
Mr.  Garretson  possibly,  to  say  that  the  wage  basis  is  a  matter  which  can  not 
be  scientifically  ascertained  as  yet;  that  there  is  no  method  worked  out  that 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR.  935 

ascertains  scientifically  the  wage  basis.     That  is  to  say,  whether  a  man  should 
start  in,  say,  at  $3  a  day  or  $2  a  day. 

Now,  take  the  vicinity,  and  take  the  best  judgment  of  what  the  current  base 
rate  should  be. 

Mr.  S.  B.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  You  think  that  should  be  worked  out  more  scien- 
tifically? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes;  I  think  it  will  be  worked  out  more  scientifically 
some  time. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  So  that  in  that  case  the  employment  office  of  the 
establishment  should  have  a  functional  man  for  hiring  people,  you  think? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  then  he  has  full  power  to  determine  the  wage 
base  for  each  man  that  he  takes  on? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No ;  the  man  who  is  hired  has  an  equal  or  greater  say. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Take  in  a  case  like  this:  I  know  an  establishment, 
and  you  probably  know  the  same,  where  girls  are  employed,  and  the  record  has 
been  that  the  girls  make  about  20  per  cent  premium  or  bonus.  That  is,  if  they 
are  hired  at  12  cents  an  hour,  they  ordinarily,  on  the  average,  will  make  2£  or 
3  cents  additional  per  hour  under  the  premium  or  bonus  system,  and  that  brings 
it  up  to  15  cents,  we  will  say. 

Now,  the  employment  office  always  uses  that — and  this  is  the  result  of  my 
interview  with  a  certain  employment  man  in  a  very  large  establishment — he 
says  that  that  is  a  good  talking  point.  He  says,  "  If  I  am  making  an  employ- 
ment for  a  girl  I  would  say  to  her,  '  Now,  if  we  take  you  on  at  7  cents,  we  have 
a  bonus  system  here  by  which  you  will  be  able  to  make  15  cents.' "  Now,  he 
says  that  is  a  good  talking  point,  and  that  she  would  just  as  soon  go  on  at  11 
cents  and  make  this  bonus,  and  that  would  still  bring  her  up  above  her  12  cents, 
Or  she  might  go  on  at  10  cents,  and  by  making  a  20  per  cent  premium,  she 
would  come  out  at  12  cents. 

Now,  is  it  not  a  matter  of  fact  that  this  functional  foreman,  the  great  advan- 
tage which  he  has  to  a  large  firm,  he  being  a  specialist  in  the  labor  market, 
he  knows  how  to  deal  with  these  thousands  of  people  that  are  at  the  gates — 
is  it  not  a  matter  of  fact  that  he  will  use  this  bonus  or  premium  as  a  talking 
point  to  reduce  the  wage  base?  Have  you  had  experience  or  knowledge  of  that 
being  done? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No ;  I  have  never  had  any  experience  or  knowledge,  or 
heard  of  that  being  done  before.  In  a  way,  of  course,  at  the  same  time,  if  he 
gave  that  girl  to  understand  that  in  order  to  earn  that  high  rate  she  had  to  do 
a  great  deal  more  work,  there  would  not  be  exactly  justification  for  that,  but 
it  would  not  be  especially  objectionable  if  he  told  her  all  the  facts.  If  he  made 
it  simply  as  an  inducement,  without  stating  the  other  side  of  it,  I  would  say  he 
is  hiring  her  under  false  pretenses. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  No;  he  is  an  honorable  man.  I  have  spent  some 
time  in  making  his  acquaintance.  He  simply  employs  some  20,000  people  or  so 
a  year,  and  he  explained  the  whole  system  to  me  very  fully.  He  hires  several 
thousands  of  girls,  and  he  says  he  always  tells  them  that  this  system  was  based 
on  12  cents  or  10  cents,  and  "  You  are  supposed  to  get  out  a  certain  amount." 
He  explains  it  very  fully  to  them ;  there  is  no  question  about  that.  I  suppose 
he  takes  but  a  short  time  to  explain  it,  there  are  so  many,  but  they  all  go  in 
on  that  basis. 

Now,  how  can  you  make  that  man  or  that  employment  office  or  that  functional 
position  there  scientific?  What  is  there  in  the  science  of  management  by 
which  you  can  standardize  that  man  and  he  could  not  be  prevented  from  using 
this  premium  as  a  talking  point  to  reduce  the  wage  base? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  As  I  say,  I  have  not  given  that  point  consideration. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  One  point  of  your  function,  then,  would  be  to  edu- 
cate him  and  train  him? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  get  him  into  this  new  spirit? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  So  that  it  is  likely  that  the  wage  base  may  be 
jockeyed  with  in  this  way.  I  know  that  it  is  by  observation  and  from  opinion. 

Now,  as  to  the  other  question,  with  reference  to  the  question  that  Mr.  Wein- 
stock  asked  you 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Just  one  point  on  that:  In  a  properly  managed  shop, 
even  if  that  did  take  place,  after  that  girl  got  into  the  shop,  if  she  was  worth 


936          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

more  than  that  base  rate  at  which  she  was  hired,  she  would  be  changed  over 
to  some  other  shop  which  gave  her  the  benefit  of  a  higher  rate. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Would  the  scientific  system  automatically  change 
her  over  without  judgment  or  discretion  on  the  part  of  the  individual  who  had 
the  authority  to  make  the  change? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Perhaps  not  absolutely  automatically. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  order  to  be  scientific,  you  have  got  to  cut  out 
human  judgment  and  human  will  and  human  discretion  in  this  matter,  if  I 
understand  what  is  meant  by  "  scientific."  But  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is 
whether  it  is  to  be  absolutely  automatic. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  It  would  be  automatic  in  this  way,  that  the  records  of 
the  girl  would  be  kept,  and  when  they  wanted  a  girl  for  another  position  they 
would  go  to  the  records  and  find  the  best  girl  to  put  in  that  place.  They  would 
have  the  information  to  base  their  judgment  on,  instead  of  its  being  a  hap- 
hazard method,  at  the  will  or  favoritism  of  the  foreman. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  this  establishment .  to  which  I  refer  they  have  a 
very  complete  system  of  individual  cards,  so  I  presume  they  utilize  that  system. 

As  regards  the  other  subject  that  Mr.  Weinstock  suggested,  regarding  the 
cutting  of  the  bonus,  as  I  understand  the  bonus  in  the  illustration  given  us, 
if  he  comes  up  to  the  standard  time  the  bonus  is  30  per  cent,  and  you  answered 
that  you  would  advise  him  not  to  cut  the  bonus,  that  it  would  be  unscientific  to 
cut  the  bonus.  I  do  not  know  that  I  need  to  follow  that  question  out,  because 
I  think  it  is  perfectly  plain  what  would  happen  in  times  of  great  improvement. 
I  think  perhaps  if  you  would  take  such  a  business  as  the  steel  industry,  and 
suppose  they  had  this  system  in  effect  20  years  ago,  that  the  enormous  improve- 
ments which  have  been  made  would  inevitably  cause  them  to  make  some  new 
time  studies,  and  they  would  have  to  bring  both  the  base  and  the  bonus  down. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No ;  they  would  not  bring  the  bonus  down. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  They  could  bring  simply  the  base  down? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  By  bringing  the  bonus  down  they  could  save  30 
per  cent,  and  that  is  all  they  could  save? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  the  maximum? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  But  this  task  system  has  been  figured  out  upon 
the  man  turning  out  a  certain  number  of  pieces  in  a  day's  time — we  will  say 
in  10  hours. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  will  say  the  task  has  been  figured  out  on  100 
pieces  in  10  hours.  It  seems  to  me  quite  plain  that  the  employer  would  not 
cut  the  wage  base  $3  a  day.  He  would  not  get  much  advantage  there;  nor 
would  he  get  much  advantage  in  cutting  the  bonus,  or  at  least  a  very  small 
advantage.  But  where  he  would  get  his  advantage  would  be  when  he  finds 
that  this  man  is  making  a  large  sum  of  money,  that  in  the  next  shop  order 
that  went  out  to  that  man,  instead  of  having  100  pieces  he  might  have  500 
pieces  as  a  task.  I  know  a  case  where  something  quite  similar  to  that  hap- 
pened in  a  very  large  establishment  having  5,000  employees.  The  orders  did 
not  come  out  as  an  order  for  one  piece,  but  they  came  out  in  bunches  of  100 
pieces :  "  Finish  100  pieces  at  this  rate."  This  man  got  up  to  $7  or  $8  a  day. 
He  was  an  ordinary,  common  laborer.  The  next  order  came  to  him  just 
double  the  number  of  pieces  in  that  task.  Naturally  that  might  accomplish 
three  or  four  times  as  much  as  could  have  been  accomplished  by  reducing  his 
daily  rate.  He  started  in  at  $2,  we  will  say.  He  would  have  gone  on  a  strike 
if  they  had  cut  the  $2  down  to  $1.50,  or  if  they  had  cut  the  bonus  from  30  per 
cent  down  to  15  per  cent.  But  in  this  rather  subtle  way  that  he  could  not  quite 
comprehend  they  simply  doubled  the  task  on  him,  and  there  they  actually  re- 
duced the  rate  one-half. 

What  is  there,  automatically  or  scientifically,  without  the  judgment  of  the 
boss,  that  would  prevent  that  increase  of  the  task? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  the  first  place,  I  do  not  quite  agree  with  you  on  this 
being  a  subtle  increase.  I  think  it  is  perfectly  surprising  how  a  workman  in 
a  factory  can  figure  out  just  what  is  coming  to  him.  Sometimes  you  would 
think  it  took  higher  mathematics  to  do  it,  but  they  can  do  it,  and  I  do  not 
believe  this  man  was  fooled  by  that  plan  any  more  than  if  you  cut  his  wage 
right  on  top  of  his  bonus.  Of  course,  occasionally  the  fixing  of  a  rate  might 
involve  the  making  of  a  mistake,  so  a  man  will  earn  too  much;  that  mistake 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  937 

may  happen.  About  the  only  way  is  to  keep  on  paying  the  man  the  high  rate. 
I  know  a  great  many  employers  will  do  that.  In  certain  cases  where  there  is 
a  change  in  the  method — suppose,  for  instance,  that  is  done  by  machinery  and 
that  increase  is  accomplished  by  changing  the  machine;  that  is  a  different 
proposition.  The  man  is  not  entitled  to  that  raise  if  it  is  simply  a  change  in 
the  machine,  which  does  not  make  him  any  extra  work. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  am  not  counting  that  into  these  three  instances. 
I  am  assuming  the  first  rate  can  be  fixed  right,  but  I  am  trying  to  find  out, 
after  that  has  been  fixed,  whether  there  are  not  really  three  points  there  that 
are  left  to  discretion  and  not  to  scientific  determination — that  is,  the  wage 
base,  the  bonus,  and  the  amount  of  the  task — and  what  there  is  in  the  system 
to  prevent  these  three  things  being  changed. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  In  the  case  you  name,  it  shows  right  on  the  face  of  it 
that  the  task  was  not  properly  set  in  the  first  place,  and  I  suppose  you  acknowl- 
edge that  and  simply  say  in  this  particular  case  the  man  made  a  mistake. 
That  rarely  occurs  where  you  have  the  proper  task  setter,  but  I  will  admit  that 
every  one  is  liable  to  make  mistakes.  There  is  no  reason  why  that  should  be 
cut,  even  then.  It  is  usually  better  to  just  keep  on  paying  it.  If  it  is  cut,  the 
way  to  do  it  would  be  to  go  to  this  man  and  take  it  up  with  him  and  put  it 
up  to  him  as  to  whether  it  was  a  fair  thing  to  do  or  not.  It  is  a  general 
principle  not  to  cut  a  rate,  even  if  it  does  run  away  with  you. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  a  principle,  a  moral  principle,  wre  might  say, 
and  not  an  automatic  principle ;  not  what  I  would  call  something  that  you  can 
fix  and  set  in  a  chart,  because  it  means  simply  the  change  of  the  chart,  and 
there  is  still  left  there  some  discretion. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  The  plan  that  I  usually  use  in  fixing  rates  would  not 
permit  of  that  increase,  and  so  I  would  prefer  not  to  answer  that  question  any 
more  definitely,  because  I  do  not  feel  I  am  competent  to  do  it.  It  is  something 
I  have  not  come  across. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  certainly  think  you  are  right  in  stating  that  these 
instances  I  have  given  were  not  based  on  accurate  time  study.  I  know,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  they  were  not,  so  that  my  inferences  can  not  be  raised  as  an 
objection  to  accurate  time  study,  if  that  can  be  made — that  is,  the  man  would 
not  have  been  making  such  a  large  bonus.  I  do  not  think,  however,  it  would 
meet  the  other  point ;  that  it  can  be  used  as  a  talking  point  in  getting  them  to 
consent  to  come  in  on  a  lower  wage  basis. 

But,  granting  that,  and  taking  it  up  under  the  scientific  system,  where  it  is 
actually  measured  by  time,  and  we  do  get  it  automatically  as  near  as  possible, 
is  it  not  a  fact  that  there  is  no  industry  as  yet  in  which  scientific  management 
exists  in  all  of  the  competing  establishments? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  what  industry  would  you  think  it  has  spread  to 
the  largest  extent?  Has  it  covered  10  per  cent  of  all  the  output  of  any  particu- 
lar industry? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  industry  where  it  would 
cover  anything  like  10  per  cent. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Then  we  will  say  the  best  we  have  now  is  the  indus- 
try in  which  10  per  cent  of  the  establishments  have  scientific  management,  and 
90  per  cent  do  not — all  being  competitors  producing  the  same  article. 

The  10  per  cent  would  be,  as  I  think  Mr.  Dodge  illustrated  very  well  the 
other  day,  able  to  keep  steady  employment  for  their  people  and  to  make  a  larger 
profit,  or  at  least  to  get  a  good,  fair  profit,  because  he  can  undersell  his  com- 
petitors. That  is  what  scientific  management  has  done  for  him.  It  has  enabled 
him  to  undersell  his  competitors. 

Suppose  we  gradually  extend  this  scientific  management  to  his  competitors 
and  gradually  reach  the  point  where  there  will  be  a  number  of  competitors  who 
do  not  adopt  scientific  management,  who  will  drop  out  and  go  into  bankruptcy. 
The  others  that  protect  themselves  against  him  will  have  to  adopt  scientific 
management  They  will  all  finally  reach  the  point  when  the  only  people  in  the 
industry  are  those  who  have  scientific  management.  Then  we  will  have  a 
situation,  not  of  Mr.  Dodge  underselling  people  who  do  not  have  scientific 
management,  but  of  scientific-management  competitors  underselling  each  other. 

In  order  to  do  that  successfully — and  I  am  assuming  they  do  not  form  a 
trust — their  profits  will  have  to  be  coming  down.  This  12  per  cent  will  go  on 
down  to  10  and  9  and  5  and  4,  and  when  it  gets  down  to  about  3  per  cent  they 
will  have  to  look  for  some  other  source  in  order  to  undersell  their  competitors. 
What  other  source  can  there  be,  except  either  the  bonus  to  the  workmen  or 


938          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

the  wage  base  to  the  workmen  or  an  increase  of  the  task  to  the  workmen  when 
it  is  universalize IV 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Of  course  the  fixing  of  the  final  wage  is  an  economic 
problem  that  I  do  not  consider  myself  fitted  to  go  into.  There  are  one  or  two 
things,  however. 

In  the  first  place,  I  have  said  over  and  over  again  that  you  can  not  expect  a 
man  to  do  an  extra  day's  work  for  an  ordinary  day's  pay.  In  order  to  keep 
up  the  production,  as  you  will  have  to  do,  you  have  got  to  'continue  to  pay  him 
what  is  n  good,  big  day's  pay.  It  may  not  he  in  this  case  any  bigger^  than 
your  competitors,  but  it  will  be  a  good  day's  pay. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  you  put  these  different  shops  under  scientific  manage- 
ment you  have  the  same  similar  results  to  what  you  have  in  the  introduction 
of  machinery ;  you  produce  more  wealth,  and  the  general  tendency  will  be  for 
the  workers  to  take  a  good  slice  of  their  profits  from  that  increase  in  produc- 
tion, so  that  naturally  the  wages  will  tend  to  go  up  rather  than  tend  to  go 
down. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  So  that  it  resolves  itself  into  looking  ahead  into  the 
future  arid  seeing  whether  the  whole  benefit  of  this  is  going  to  1><-  absorbed  by 
the  consumer  in  low  prices  or  whether  the  wage  earners  are  going  to  save  for 
themselves  a  part  of  it. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON*.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  In  shorter  hours  and  higher  wages? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  So  that  in  the  long  run  we  will  have  to  decide  at 
the  start,  when  we  begin  to  install  scientific  management,  whether  we  pro- 
posed to  strengthen  the  laborers'  bargaining  power  in  the  installation  of  this 
thing,  so  that  he  can  prevent  the  consumer  from  getting  it  all  away  from  him? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  No;  not  necessarily,  because  the  strengthening  power 
of  the  labor  will  rise  as  the  man  grows,  will  it  not? 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Well,  it  is  a  question  there;  of  course  it  is  a 
mooted  question  which  would  have  to  be  solved  by  science  and  statistics,  as  to 
whether  and  to  what  extent  the  labor  has  shared  in  the  benefits  of  machinery 
and  to  what  extent  that  has  been  owing  to  his  organizations  or  to  other  forces. 
But  my  point  was,  to  come  to  the  question  of  scientific  management,  to  the 
point  where  we  must  look  to  the  ultimate  issue,  in  the  final  analysis,  as  has 
been  discussed,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  situation  comes  to  this  simple 
point,  that  scientific  management,  no  more  than  day  wage  or  any  other  thing,  can 
automatically  prevent  the  final  contest  between  labor  and  capital  on  those  three 
points — the  wage  base,  the  bonus,  and  the  amount  of  the  task. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  disagree  with  you  entirely  on  that  if  by  a  contest 
you  mean  warlike  contest.  I  believe  there  will  be  a  contest.  I  believe  that 
these  principles  of  scientific  management  and  getting  together  have  engendered 
both  in  the  workman  and  the  employer  and  will  tend  to  make  that  a  peaceful 
conflict  which  will  be  settled  without  the  troubles  that  occur  where  there  is 
continual  friction  between  them. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Then,  would  it  not  be  essential  if  you  are  going  to 
have  it  a  peaceful  contest,  that  they  take  it  up  and  work  it  out  together? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  As  organizations  or  individuals? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  presume  it  would  be  through  some  form  of  organiza- 
tion. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  could  not  be  allowed  to  wait  until  the  system 
has  been  installed?  They  would  have  to  take  it  up  at  the  time  of  installation? 

Mr.  S.  K.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  quite  understand  you;  I  thought  you  were 
talking  about  the  general  economical  principles,  of  ultimate  wages.  Now  you 
are  speaking  of  the  installation  of  the  system. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  the  question. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  You  based  your  argument  on  the  question;  your 
premise  was.  as  1  undersiood  it,  that  all  these  questions  of  that  kind  were 
under  scientific  management. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  led  me  to  the  next  question,  which  should  be 
separated  from  the  other,  brought  out  by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Mixter.  You 
remember  what  he  said,  that  this  system  could  not  be  installed  in  a  collective 
way  and  we  would  have  to  wait  four  or  five  years  before  we  had  collective 
bargaining  to  deal  with  it.  My  notion  of  it  is  simply  this,  that  the  laborers  will 
not  be  forced  to  demand  collective  bargaining  until  the  wage  base  and  the 
bonus  began  to  be  decreased,  until  the  task  begins  to  be  increased;  then  labor 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  939 

will  be  forced  to  organize  in  order  to  prevent  that;  now,  that  will  corne  when 
tin-  scientific  management  is  diffused  enough  through  the  industry  to  cut  into 
the  profits  of  the  employer? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  would  not  say  that  it  would,  but  I  will  say  that  it 
might 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  It  might? 

.Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.   Yes. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  if  this  commission  is  required  to  investigate  the 
causes  of  industrial  unrest  and  to  look  forward  as  well  as  backward,  we  should 
naturally  be  compelled  to  expect  that  in  the  case  of  scientific  management  there 
would  come  a  time  when  it.  would  not  necessarily  bring  industrial  peace,  as  it 
does  now,  arid  that  is  only  in  a  few  establishments. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  should  consider  that  you  had  industrial  peace  if  this 
ntont  was  settled  in  an  amicable  manner;  in  my  opinion  that  is  what  you 
would  have.     I  do  not  quite  get  at  your  point. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  What  I  arn  trying  to  get  at  is  whether  we  should 
try  to  work  out  some  system  to  anticipate  this  future  struggle,  after  scientific 
management  has  been  diffused,  to  try  to  install  it  in  some  collective  way  that  it 
would  have  to  be  can-led  on  after  five  or  six  years  after  it  had  become  diffused. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  think  we  would  make  a  great  mistake  if  we  cross 
these  bridges  before  we  come  to  them.  I  believe  ultimately  there  will  be  no 
force  that  will  be  so  potent  to  the  bringing  into  use  of  scientific  management 
as  the  laboring  man  himself.  We  see  that  from  the  way  they  feel  about  it, 
aerording  to  my  experience  and  the  experience  of  most  others,  the  way  they 
feel  about  it,  when  they  really  get  hold  of  the  thing.  Now,  on  the  other  hand, 
just  at  the  present  time,  and  for  some  years  to  come,  when  the  condition  is 
more  or  less  chaotic,  and  the  laboring  men  have  not  as  yet  had  an  opportunity, 
no  more  than  the  employer,  to  study  out  this  question,  it  seems  to  me  that  you 
are  altogether  too  much  ahead  of  the  times  if  you  endeavor  to  formulate  rules 
for  conditions  that  will  apply  after  these  ultimate  conditions  have  taken  place, 
which  will  not  be  for  many  years. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  I  have  one  other  thing  in  mind  with  reference  to 
thsit.  Yon  were  asked  by  Mr.  Weinstock  as  to  what  confidence  you  could  have 
in  the  evidence  that  men  in  the  shops  would  give,  whether  they  were  speaking 
for  their  own  individual  value  that  they  put  on  this  system,  or  were  standing 
out  for  the  good  of  the  cause.  Now,  as  I  understand  it,  the  trade  union  is  what 
you  mean  by  standing  out  for  the  good  of  the  cause;  that  is,  they  would  subject 
their  Individual  benefit  for  the  good  of  their  fellow  workmen? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  What  they  considered  was  for  the  good  of  their  fellow 
workmen. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Perhaps  they  in  that  have  some  sort  of  instinctive 
foresight  into  the  future;  that  is,  not  the  present  workmen,  but  that  it  is  for 
the  future  of  their  trade,  the  future  of  the  industry,  and  might  it  not  be  that 
these  workmen,  having  gone  through  this  same  experience  with  piecework  and 
always  havirtg  had  it  work  out  in  this  way,  might  instinctively  feel  that  this 
scientific  management  is  going  to  work  out  in  this  same  way,  and  that  the 
cause  he  is  standing  for  is  the  future  cause  of  labor  as  well  as  the  present 
cause  of  his  fellow  workmen? 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  but  on  the  other  hand  it  might  be  due  also  to  the 
far-t  that  there  is  certain  pressure  brought  to  bear  on  .them  by  men  who  were 
not  on  the  bonus  system,  who  might  believe  that,  without  having  any  basis  for 
their  belief,  and  not  having  actually  worked  under  the  task  and  bonus,  and 
would  not  have  a  fair  basis  for  making  their  opinion. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  And  if  they  convert  him  they  would  say,  "This  is 
only  a  temporary  gain  you  are  getting;  after  a  while  competition  will  take  it 
away  from  you,"  and  that  would  be  one  of  the  things  he  would  be  looking  out 
for,  for  himself  in  the  future,  to  that  competitive  period  when  the  whole  thing 
has  been  diffused.  But  I  will  not  follow  that  out  any  more;  I  just  wanted  to 
bring  out  whether  we  should  not  have  these  fundamental  questions  in  mind  as 
well  as  the  machinery  of  scientific  management. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  Yes,  provided  you  do  not  cross  bridges  too  far  ahead. 

The  ACTING  CHAJKMAN.  Mrs.  Harriman  left  a  question  which  she  wanted  to 
know  if  you  would  kindly  answer.  She  wanted  you  to  give  your  definition  of 
the  difference  between  bonus,  premium,  differential  rate.  ;md  piece  rate  methods 
of  payment.  You  need  not  do  this  orally,  if  you  would  be  willing  to  give  your 
answers  in  as  succinct  a  way  as  possible,  stating  in  writing  what  your  defini- 
tions are  of  those. 


940          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  S.  E.  THOMPSON.  I  will  write  some  kind  of  a  general  description. 
The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Are  there  any  further  questions? 
Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  have  no  more. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  IT.  P.  ALIFAS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  give  us  your  name,  residence,  and  occupation? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  N.  P.  Alifas. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  your  residence? 
<    Mr.  ALIFAS.  120  Maryland  Avenue  NE,  in  the  city  of  Washington,  D.  C. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  what  is  your  occupation? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  am  the  president  of  District  No.  44,  International  Association 
of  Machinists.  District  No.  44  comprises  the  machinists  employed  in  the  Gov- 
ernment service. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Everywhere  in  this  country? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes ;  it  comprises  the  machinists  of  the  arsenals  and  navy 
yards,  and  the  Government  departments  here  at  Washington,  such  as  the 
Government  Printing  Office,  the  Bureau  of  Engraving  and  Printing,  the  Light- 
house Service,  and  the  employees  on  the  Canal  Zone. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  position? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Since  December  1,  1911. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  that  time  you  have  come  into  contact  with  so-called  sci- 
entific management,  or  so-called  efficiency  systems? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  have. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  your  general  attitude  toward  scientific  manage- 
ment, and  what  are  the  reasons  therefor? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Do  you  wish  me  to  give  you  a  general  statement  of  our  objections 
to  it,  and  why  we  object  to  the  different  things? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  wish  you  would  briefly  state  it,  if  you  will. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Our  objections  are  these :  We  object  to  the  system  of  scientific 
management  as  a  whole  on  account  of  the  way  it  is  built  up,  and  we  also  have 
specific  objections  against  certain  features  of  it  to  which  we  would  object 
even  though  they  were  segregated  and  were  acted  upon  apart  from  the  system 
as  a  whole.  Our  principal  objections  to  the  system  are  its  possibilities,  and 
the  sort  of  limitations  that  are  placed  upon  the  possibilities  of  the  system. 
The  principal  features  of  the  system  that  we  object  to  are  the  time  study,  the 
stop-watch  time  study,  the  premium  system,  the  system  advocated  by  certain 
of  the  scientific  engineers,  of  hiring  cheaper  men  to  do  the  character  of  work 
that  has  been  formerly  done  by  highly  skilled  men.  We  object  to  the  very 
severe  disciplinary  system  that  goes  with  it. 

It  must  be  understood  that  any  complicated  system  in  order  to  work,  in 
order  to  make  everything  come  just  right,  has  to  have  a  very  severe  system  of 
discipline  in  order  to  make  it  do  that. 

We  object  to  the  elimination  feature  of  it. 

While  labor  does  not  object  to  improvements,  to  good  management,  we  think 
that  before  any  very  drastic  changes  should  be  brought  about  some  provision 
should  be  made  for  those  who  are  going  to  be  inconvenienced  by  such  ch'anges. 

Those  are  just  some  of  the  objections.  I  can  explain  in  detail  or  a  little 
more  specifically  why  we  object  to  these  different  items  that  I  have  brought  out. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like  to  hear  that.  Take  the  first  in  order,  the  pos- 
sibilities of  the  system.  Why  do  you  object  to  those? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  do  not  know  that  the  possibilities  of  the  system  ought  to  come 
first  in  order,  because  the  explanation  of  some  of  these  other  questions  might 
perhaps  be  necessary  in  order  to  explain  the  possibilities,  but  I  will  go  on  with 
that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  simply  took  that  first  because  you  stated  it  first.  Start 
with  the  one  that  will  unfold,  in  your  opinion,  naturally. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  could  just  briefly  touch  on  the  possibilities,  in  order  that  you 
might  understand  the  others  also. 

The  question  of  paying  men  bonuses  is,  of  course,  a  method  of  endeavoring  to 
get  them  to  do  more  work — to  do  as  much  as  possible — and  all  the  expedients 
that  are  explained,  in  principally  Mr.  Taylor's  work,  are  in  the  direction  of 
increasing  the  output  of  the  individual  workman  and  offering  him  as  many 
stimulants  to  increase  the  output  as  it  is  possible  to  get  him  to  stand  for  or  as 
circumstances  will  permit. 

Now,  take  piecework  for  an  example.  That,  of  course,  is  not  a  part  of  the 
scientific  system,  but  it  is  more  strenuous  than  daywork  that  the  machinists 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  941 

whom  I  represent,  in  particular,  are  now  working  under.  We  think  that  the 
system  of  daywork  is  sufficiently  severe  and  furnishes  sufficient  inducements 
to  induce  the  average  employee  to  work  as  hard  as  he  ought  to  be  compelled  to 
wrork,  and  if  you  give  him  any  more  stimulants  than  that  that  he  eventually  is 
going  to  overwork  and  shorten  the  years  of  his  life,  probably  10  or  15,  or  even 
more  than  that. 

The  premium  system  is  still  more  intense  than  the  piecework  system,  and  I 
should  like  to  explain  the  difference.  I  do  not  believe  that  has  been  brought 
out  here ;  that  is,  it  has  not  to  my  way  of  looking  at  it.  We  will  take  the  way 
the  premium  is  arranged  at  the  Watertown  Arsenal,  in  regard  to  which  I  have 
some  information.  We  will  say  that  the  time  study  has  indicated  that  100 
pieces  can  be  made  in  36  minutes.  As  a  premium,  or  as  a  time  within  which 
premiums  shall  be  given,  they  will  set,  say,  an  hour,  which  is  40  per  cent  in 
addition  to  the  lowest  possible  time,  and  they  will  give  one-half  of  the  man's 
rate  per  minute  for  every  minute  that  he  saves  under  the  hour. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Might  I  interrupt,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  ask  whether  it  would  not 
be  better  to  define  the  terms  "premium"  and  "bonus"?  The  witness  is  testi- 
fying about  the  bonus -system  and  calling  it  a  premium  system. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  am  talking  about  the  premium  system. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  Not  as  we  know  it. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  am  talking  about  the  premium  system. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Do  you  use  "  premium  "  and  "  bonus  "  as  synony- 
mous ?  " 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  No,  sir ;  I  know  very  well  what  I  am  talking  about. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Commissioner  Delano).  Is  this  the  Taylor  system? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  It  is  the  Taylor  system. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Taylor  and  his  men  have  been  talking  about  his 
system  as  a  task-and-bonus  system. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Is  it  a  task-and-bonus  system,  or  are  you  really  de- 
scribing the  premium  system? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  It  is  the  task  system  with  a  premium. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  With  a  bonus. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  With  a  premium.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  EARTH.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  installed  that  system.  What  is  the  use  of  lis- 
tening to  everybody  else  and  not  giving  me  a  chance?  I  am  all  right. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  we  will  hear  the  witness. 

Mr.  EARTH.  I  think  that  is  mighty  funny. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Let  Mr.  Alifas  go  along  in  his  own  way.  He 
knows  what  he  is  talking  about. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  we  will  have  to  let  him  go  along.  Evidently 
you  have  not  been  here,  Mr.  Alifas,  all  the  time.  Mr.  Taylor  and  his  men  have 
been  careful  not  to  use  the  word  "  premium  "  in  describing  their  system,  but 
they  use  the  words  "differential  piecework"  and  "task-and-bonus  system"  in 
describing  their  methods., 

Mr.  EMERSON.  That  is  the  reason  that  I  asked  this  witness  if  he  would  not 
kindly  define  those  terms  for  us  for  the  benefit  of  the  commission. 

Mr.  E.  S.  THOMPSON.  May  I  answer  that  one  point  now,  since  you  asked  me 
that  question? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  think  we  should  interrupt  the  witness  now. 
.  Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  ask  this  witness  to  define  what  he  means  by  these 
terms.  That  will  simplify  the  thing,  so  far  as  he  is  concerned. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  will  define  what  you  mean  by  "premium, 
as  you  are  using  it,  we  would  like  to  have  you  do  that.    You  may  not  be  using 
it  in  the  same  sense  in  which  others  are  using  it. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  mean  at  the  Watertown  Arsenal  they  call  this  premium  the 
money  they  make  in  the  plan  that  they  have  inaugurated  there.  I  was  en- 
deavoring to  describe  that  plan.  If  they  made  100  pieces  in  36  minutes  and 
they  were  allowed  an  hour  to  make  those  pieces,  the  plan  is  that  for  every 
minute  that  is  saved  within  the  hour  the  workman  shall  be  paid  for  a  half  a 
minute  Under  the  piece  system,  if  a  man  has  been  given  a  task  that  he  would 
take  an  hour  to  do,  he  will  be  paid,  say,  5  cents  apiece,  and  for  every  piece  he 
makes  more  than  that,  he  will  be  paid  5  cents  apiece.  If  an  employee  under 
this  system  that  is  in  vogue  at  the  arsenal  should  complete  that  particular  job 
in  36  minutes,  he  would  get  more  for  that  same  amount  of  work  than  he  would 
if  he  worked  an  hour  on  it.  If  he  worked  an  hour  on  this  particular  piece,  if 
he  was  getting  30  cents  an  hour — I  mean  30  cents  for  the  100  pieces — he  would 


942          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

get  30  cents,  but  if  he  completed  that  within  36  minutes  he  would  get  30  plus 
one-half  of  the  amount  of  money  he  would  save  by  shortening  the  time  24 
minutes,  which  amounts  to  about  40  cents  for  the  100  pieces.  Consequently  it 
is  to  the  man's  interest  to  increase  the  price  that  he  gets  for  the  particular 
amount  of  work  that  he  is  doing.  Now,  in  that  it  is  more  intense  than  the 
piecework  system  is. 

Another  way  of  stimulating  men  which,  I  understand,  is  to  follow  this  par- 
ticular plan  which  I  have  called  the  premium  system.  It  may  be  different  from 
what  these  other  gentlemen  claim  is  the  premium  system,  but  that  is  what  we 
call  it  at  the  arsenal — a  differential-rate  system,  with  a  bonus.  Whenever  they 
have  finally  discovered  how  much  a  man  can  do  of  a  certain  amount  of  wrork, 
thej'  place  that  at  as  low  a  limit  as  they  think  they  can  get  a  man  to  work  for 
and  still  make  it.  I  suppose  that  if  they  should  discover  that  a  man,  by  very 
strenuous  efforts,  could  make  10  of  these  given  pieces  in  a  day,  they  would 
say,  "  If  you  can  make  10  of  these  in  a  day,  we  will  give  you  35  cents  apiece. 
If 'you  do  not  come  up  to  10 ;  if  you  only  make  9f  " — or  whatever  the  tolerance 
will  be — "  we  will  give  you  only  25  cents." 

The  question  of  only  a  very  few  minutes  of  speeding  up  during  the  day  might 
mean  the  difference  between  getting  $2.50  a  day  or  $3.50  a  day.  If  a  man 
misses  that  $3.50  a  day  by  only  10  minutes,  he  would  regret  that  very  much, 
and  he  wrould  be  willing  to  speed  himself  up  considerably  harder  in  order  to 
make  that.  That  is  an  added  stimulant — added  onto  the  man. 

Then  you  can  stimulate  him  still  further.  These  systems  provide  for  a  sys- 
tem of  eliminating  men,  and  eliminating  the  least  efficient  of  them,  and  in 
view  of  the  fact  of  their  supposed  increased  production,  so  they  do  not  get  as 
many  men  to  do  the  same  amount  of  work  that  they  have  been  doing,  it  is 
possible  to  discharge  quite  a  few  men  every  once  in  a  while,  as  the  system  be- 
comes perfected  and  they  can  get  along  without  them.  While  they  are  dis- 
charging these  men,  they  might  as  well  turn  it  into  an  advantage  and  say, 
"  We  will  keep  the  best  of  the  men,  and  those  wrho  can  not  keep  iip,  of  course, 
will  have  to  go."  That  is  natural.  They  will  say,  "  If  you  men  do  not  make 
these  premiums  or  bonuses  that  we  are  offering  to  you,  if  you  will  not  work 
hard  enough  to  get  them,  we  will  eliminate  you."  That  is  an  added  stimulant, 
especially  at  a  time  when  there  is  very  little  work  in  the  country,  and  the  men 
will  work  still  harder. 

A  foreman  might  not  be  disposed  to  press  that  point  as  hard  if  he  is  working 
himself  under  a  salary,  as  if  he  were  under  a  bonus  or  premium  for  doing  that 
sort  of  thing.  Mr.  Taylor's  system  especially,  and  I  think  most  of  the  other 
scientific  systems,  provide  that  a  foreman  shall  be  paid  a  bonus  in  proportion 
to  the  number  of  his  men  who  are  making  bonuses.  Consequently  that  gives 
him  an  incentive  to  speed  up  his  men  in  order  to  force  them  to  make  bonuses. 
There  are  two  ways  of  doing  it.  You  could  give  a  foreman  a  bonus  for  the 
number  of  men  who  were  making  premiums,  or  you  could  regulate  the  size  of 
his  premium  in  accordance  with  the  amount  of  premium  or  bonus  his  men 
were  making.  This  last  particular,  of  course,  would  be  more  stimulating 
to  him. 

We  feel  that  there  is  altogether  too  much  stimulus  connected  with  that. 
You  might  say,  "Oh,  they  would  not  do  that.  Our  employees  are  too  tender- 
hearted to  be  willing  to  enforce  such  an  inhumane  system  of  oppressing 
people."  I  would  feel  very  much  disposed  to  give  them  credit  for  their  very 
best  intentions.  However,  we  have  to  be  guided  somewhat  by  what  they  say 
they  will  do.  Mr.  Taylor,  in  his  presentation  of  this  subject  before  the  Ameri- 
can Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers,  in  June,  1903,  gave  an  outline  of  his 
system.  It  was  at  least  just  as  harrowing  as  what  I  have  just  related,  in  'our 
opinion.  He  not  only  advised  them  to  do  that,  but  he  showed  where  he  had 
done  that,  to  prove  that  it  was  possible  to  do  it. 

In  presenting  a  subject  of  that  kind  in  the  way  that  Mr.  Taylor  did,  since 
he  has  had  enough  experience  with  employers  to  know  what  would  appeal  to 
them,  I  presume  he  wrote  this  paper  in  such  a  way  as  to  appeal  to  the  average 
employer.  If  that  sort  of  language  is  what  is  going  to  appeal  to  the  average 
employer,  I  think  that  the  working  people  might  put  up  a  good  strong  resistance 
to  any  program  that  is  going  to  work  out  in  that  fashion. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  that  language  here? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir.  In  regard  to  keeping  the  cheap  men,  I  will  read  a 
paragraph  to  illustrate  that  point  from  Shop  Management,  page  1347,  para- 
graph 37: 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOE.  943 

"By  'high  wages'  he  means  wages  which  are  high  only  as  relating  to  the 
average  of  the  class  to  which  the  man  belongs,  and  which  are  paid  only  to  those 
who  do  much  more  or  better  work  than  the  average  of  his  class.  I  would  not, 
for  illustration,  advocate  the  use  of  a  high-priced  tradesman  to  do  the  work 
which  could  be  done  by  a  trade  laborer  or  low-priced  man." 

In  explanation  of  that,  he  figures  that  by  systematizing  the  shop  and  taking 
advantage  of  all  the  modern  improvements  that  he  has  incorporated  in  his 
system,  it  is  going  to  so  simplify  the  work  that  it  is  not  going  to  be  necessary  to 
have  the  skill  of  the  mechanic  who  formerly  had  to  do  it,  but  that  he  can  dis- 
pense with  him  and  use  a  laborer  or  a  skilled  man  who  gets  much  less  pay, 
and  that  the  increase  that  he  would  be  giving  the  employee  would  not  be  an 
increase  to  the  mechanic  who  Avas  displaced,  but  would  be  an  increase  of  a 
certain  per  cent  to  the  laborer,  and  an  increase  in  the  laborer's  wages  would 
not  amount  to  probably  as  much  as  the  mechanic  got  who  formerly  did  that 
class  of  work. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Referring  to  that  last  paragraph  which  you  read,  what  ob- 
jection, if  any,  could  be  made  to  a  simplification  of  the  work  in  a  shop  so  that 
the  element  of  skill  was  reduced  and  more  men  of  the  kind  who  labor  and  wrork 
as  you  have  suggested  could  perform  tasks? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  There  could  be  no  objection  raised  to  it,  except  it  would  be  the 
objection  that  whenever  the  employer  improves  things,  he  keeps  all  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  improvement  himself. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  would  be  the  objection? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  That  would  be  the  objection.  We  have  no  objection  to  simplify- 
ing things.  In  fact,  if  we  could  make  everything  by  automatic  machinery,  and 
nobody  would  have  to  do  anything,  it  would  be  perfectly  satisfactory,  provided 
the  man  who  invented  that  did  not  keep  all  the  advantage  himself  and  let  the 
rest  of  the  \vorld  starve  to  death. 

Now,  paragraph  247  illustrates  the  effort  which  will'be  made  toward  cheaper 
workmen.  The  several  possibilities  of  functional  performance,  however,  will 
not  have  been  realized  until  almost  all  the  machines  in  the  shop  are  run  by 
men  who  are  of  smaller  caliber  and  attainments,  and  are  therefore  cheaper 
than  those  that  were  required  under  the  old  systems.  The  adoption  of  stand- 
ard ideas,  plans,  and  methods  throughout  the  shop,  the  planning  done  in  the 
planning  room,  and  detailed  instructions  sent  them  from  this  department;  added 
to  the  direct  help  received  from  the  four  executive  bosses,  permit  the  use  of 
comparatively  cheap  men  even  on  complicated  work. 

Now,  he  will  not  be  able  to  do  that.  It  appears  in  certain  shops  that  they 
have  not  reached  this  highly  desired  state  of  affairs  where  they  can  get  along 
without  the  high-priced  man,  but  that  is  due  to  their  inability  to  make  the 
system  do  what  they  thought  it  would;  but  it  does  not  prevent  them  from 
taking  advantage  of  the  situation  which  will  enable  them  to  do  that. 

In  regard  to  the  speed,  I  believe  that  has  been  read  here  to  the  commission, 
paragraph  125,  which  relates  to  the  pig-iron  handlers  at  Midvale : 

"  AVhen  the  writer  left  the  steelworks,  the  Bethlehem  steelworkers  were  the 
finest  body  of  picked  workers  that  the  writer  had  ever  seen,  altogether.  They 
were  all  practically  first-class  men ;  the  work  they  were  called  upon  to  do  was 
such  that  only  first-class  men  could  do  it;  the  tasks  were  purposely  made  so 
severe  that  only  1  out  of  5,  or  perhaps  even  a  smaller  percentage  than  this, 
could  keep  up." 

Now,  with  regard  to  that,  as  I  remember  it,  there  were  about  400  men  in  that 
gang  and  only  about  140  or  144  of  them  were  finally  retained.  If  labor  condi- 
tions had  been  very  bad  in  that  district  from  the  workers'  point  of  view  they 
naturally  would  have  attained  very  high  speed.  Mr.  Taylor  the  other  day 
illustrated  what  he  meant  by  first-class  men,  by  comparing  them  to  horses — 
not  comparing  the  \vorkingmen  to  horses,  but  in  the  sense  that  he  would  take 
a  large  horse  to  do  heavy  work. 

In  introducing  scientific  management  I  do  not  suppose  that  the  man  who 
hired  them  would  hire  a  weakling  to  carry  pig  iron,  but  in  the  first  place  he 
would  naturally  select  men  who  he  thought  would  be  capable  of  doing  it,  and 
men  would  offer  themselves  for  that  service  who  thought  they  would  be  able  to 
perform  the  duties.  Now,  after  trying  such  men  as  that,  who  ordinarily  would 
appear  to  be  capable  of  doing  it,  only  about  1  out  of  5  were  able  to  do  the 
work  assigned  to  them.  The  others  would  either  quit  or  go  to  other  work,  or 
they  would  be  discharged  for  their  inability  to  do  the  work. 

Now,  that  looks  pretty  severe  to  us.  I  think  one  reason  why  the  employees 
who  were  contemplating  the  work  under  this  system  in  the  Government  service, 


944          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

one  reason  why  they  were  fearful  of  the  system,  wras  due  to  the  inability  of 
those  over  them  to  see  anything  drastic  about  that  book.  Even  after  pointing 
out  these  things  to  them  it  seemed  like  they  were  unable  to  see  that  that  would 
cause  anybody  any  hardship. 

Now,  we  have  a  pretty  fair  conception  of  what  we  consider  hardships,  and  if 
those  are  not  hardships  we  do  not  know  what  hardships  are. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What,  if  any,  increase  in  pay  do  you  know  that  these  men 
got — do  you? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  additional  output,  if  you  know? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  think  it  is  shown  in  the  book  that  instead  of  carrying  about 
13  tons  of  pig  iron  a  day  they  carried  about  48  tons  of  pig  iron  a  day,  and  in- 
stead of  receiving  $1.15  for  that  they  got  $1.85.  It  was  stated,  I  believe,  that 
some  men  would  work  in  their  gardens  in  the  evening  under  the  old  way  of 
working.  However,  there  is  some  question  as  to  whether,  after  a  day's  work 
carrying  48  tons  of  pig  iron,  they  would  be  able  to  do  that  or  not. 

Now,  another  limitation 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  that  particular  case  they  carried  about  300  per  cent 
more? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Three  hundred  per  cent  more  pig  iron  and  got  a  little  over  50 
per  cent  more  wages? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes;  something  like  that. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  do  you  make  it  300  per  cent  increase  from 
12  to  48? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  From  12$  to  48. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  From  12$  to  48.    T«hat  would  be  about  3  to  1. 

Now,  another  limitation  that  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  this  commis- 
sion to  is  the  question  of  \vhat  a  man  is  able  to  do.  It  appears  that  these 
gentlemen  have  figured  out  to  a  nicety  just  how  long  rest  periods  men  must 
have  during  the  day  in  order  to  be  able  to  carry  a  certain  load.  That  is,  if  he 
rests  less,  he  carries  less ;  and  if  he  rests  more,  he  also  carries  more.  That  is, 
by  experimenting  they  have  discovered  just  exactly  how  much  a  man  can  do. 
That  resolves  itself  down  to  a  very  pertinent  suspicion  that  if  they  had  their 
way  about  it  they  might  start  to  find  out  how  much  it  was  necessary  for  a 
man  to  eat  in  order  to  maintain  his  strength,  regardless  of  whether  his  appetite 
wTas  satisfied  or  not,  and  then  base  his  wages  on  whatsit  was  necessary  for 
him  to  earn  in  order  to  sustain  life.  That  is  a  bare  possibility ;  at  least,  it 
falls  in  line  with  scientific  methods  of  doing  things. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  they  not  really  doing  that  now? 

Commissioner  WETN STOCK.  That  is  done  under  the  minimum  wage  law  to 
determine  the  cost  of  living. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes;  they  determine  how  much  it  costs  to  sustain  life. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  State  does  that? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes;  how  mu£h  it  costs  to  sustain  life,  and  they  determine  that 
you  must  at  least  get  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is,  so  many  calories  of  strength. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes.  Now,  we  object  to  being  reduced  to  a  scientific  formula, 
and  we  do  not  want  to  have  the  world  run  on  that  kind  of  basis  at  all.  We 
would  a  good  deal  rather  have  the  world  run  on  the  basis  that  everybody  should 
enjoy  some  of  the  things  in  it,  and  if  the  people  of  the  United  States  do  not 
want  to  spend  all  their  time  working  they  have  a  right  to  say  so,  even  though 
the  scientific  engineers  claim  that  they  can  do  five  times  as  much  as  they  are 
doing  now.  If  they  don't  want  to  do  it,  why  should  they  be  compelled  to  do  it? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Just  one  point:  Assuming  by  the  introduction  of  scientific 
management  in  regard  to  these  men  they  reduce  the  efforts  of  the  men,  cut 
out  waste  motions  and  false  motions,  and  teach  the  men  to  do  the  work  easier 
and  thereby  to  accomplish  more  wrork  in  a  given  number  of  hours,  your  ob- 
jection just  made  would  not  apply  to  that  condition,  would  it? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  No,  sir;  it  would  not. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  So  far  as  it  did  that,  you  would  agree  to  that  system? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  would  agree  to  anything  that  cut  out  unnecessary  work  on 
the  part  of  the  people,  provided  of  course  that  we  were  not  put  to  too  great 
an  inconvenience.  That  is,  I  would  not  care  to  burn  down  this  entire  city 
with  the  assurance  that  I  would  have  a  better  one  50  years  from  now,  because 
we  might  have  to  live  in  a  tent  in  the  meantime.  But  improvements  are  a 
good  thing,  if  you  do  not  have  to  suffer  too  much  inconvenience  in  getting  them. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  945 

Of  course  the  man  who  is  starting  these  improvements  can  stand  to  see  the 
workmen  suffer  considerable  inconvenience  in  order  that  he  might  get  the  benefit 
of  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Forgetting  for  the  moment  the  language  of  Mr.  Taylor,  which 
perhaps  is  very  unfortunate  in  that  book  and  perhaps  elsewhere,  and  simply 
taking  this  fact  into  consideration,  that  by  advising  these  men  how  to  carry 
pig  iron  they  are  able  to  increase  the  man's  output  from  12£  tons  to  48  tons 
a  day,  and  without  any  more  exertion  on  his  part,  could  there  be  any 
objection  to  it? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  No ;  I  do  not  think  so  except,  as  I  have  already  stated,  that  the 
people  who  are  inconvenienced  by  improvements  should  get  sufficient  benefits 
out  of  them,  otherwise  the  improvement  should  be  postponed  until  some  solu- 
tion is  found  by  which  they  can  get  the  benefit  distributed. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  other  words,  you  would  not  have  any  objection  to  the 
saving  of  the  waste  motion  and  waste  time,  but  if  there  is  a  saving  you  think 
the  workmen  should  share  more  proportionately  in  it? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  taking  up  your  time-watch  study,  you  said  that  you  and 
labor  objected  to  scientific  management  on  that  account.  What  have  you  to 
say  in  that  regard? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes.  In  the  first  place,  I  think  that  it  is  humiliating  to  have  a 
man  hold  a  stop  watch  on  us.  We  have  been,  through  the  papers  on  scientific 
management,  accused  of  "  soldiering  "  repeatedly,  and  while  of  course  we  are 
not  really  blamed  for  it,  the  manufacturer  is  blamed  for  it  because  he  does  not 
take  the  necessary  measures  to  prevent  us  from  "  soldiering  " ;  that,  however,  is 
a  blame  that  would  be  taken  in  very  good  part  by  him ;  but  it  is  humiliating  to 
have  a  man  stand  over  you  with  a  stop  watch  when  it  is  well  recognized  that 
the  reason  he  is  doing  it  is  because  he  suspects  that  if  he  does  not  do  it,  and 
tries  to  get  your  task  as  a  whole,  you  would  cheat  him.  That  is,  you  would 
give  him  to  understand  that  it  took  you  longer  to  do  the  work  than  it  did 
actually  take. 

I  read  an  account  not  long  ago  of  where  a  man  had  been  in  some  foreign 
country,  and  one  of  the  spectacles  that  amazed  him  very  much  was  to  see  a 
farmer  out  in  his  field  plowing,  and  he  had  his  wife  hitched  up  to  the  plow 
in  connection  with  an  ox.  Now,  even  under  scientific  management,  if  that 
task  had  been  fixed  so  that  it  was  not  hurting  her  any  and  that  she  was  not 
overworked,  yet  I  imagine  that  our  American  wives  would  feel  somewhat 
humiliated  at  being  in  such  a  situation,  so  that,  even  though  it  does  not  hurt 
you  any,  it  is  possible  to  have  a  thing  humiliate  you. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  you  think  the  average  American  wife  would  object  to 
that  yoking? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  think  so.  Another  reason  why  we  have  objected  to  time  study 
has  been  on  account  of  the  attitude  of  the  employer  to  get  the  very  most  out 
of  us  that  it  is  possible,  and  oftentimes  the  only  defense  that  the  workingman 
has  had  has  been  in  the  ignorance  of  the  employer  as  to  exactly  how  much 
he  could  do.  Just  as  soon  as  an  employer  found  out  how  much  he  could  do, 
the  employer  would  insist  that  he  should  do  a  larger  day's  work  than  it  was 
possible  for  him  to  do  and  keep  up,  and  the  only  defense  he  has  had  has  been 
the  same  defense  that  a  great  many  business  houses  and  big  corporations  have 
when  the  public  proposes  to  find  out  what  their  earnings  are,  to  see  if  they  can 
not  get  an  increase  in  rates,  or  something  like  that — like  our  railways  are 
doing — to  endeavor  to  force  the  facts  and  figures  with  a  view  to  pretending 
that  they  are  not  earning  as  much  as  they  are  really. 

There  seems  to  be  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  people,  when  determining 
what  anybody  else  should  have,  that  they  make  it  a  little  bit  less  than  it  ought 
to  be.  That  is  one  reason. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  cases  do  you  know  of  in  scientific  management  where 
that  has  actually  been  the  case? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Well,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  gentlemen  here,  it  seems 
that  piecework,  when  first  established,  is  susceptible  of  being  cut  several  times 
until  it  finally  reaches  a  point  where  it  is  impossible  to  reduce  it  any  more; 
but  with  the  stop-watch  practice,  that  last  time  after  the  job  has  been  cut  is 
the  time  that  has  been  discovered  in  the  first-  place,  so  that  labor  does  not 
get  the  advantage  of  having  had  an  easier  time  while  the  cutting  was  going  on. 
Then  they  find  out  the  least  possible  time  they  should  take  in  the  first  place. 

38819°— 16 60 


946          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Assuming,  Mr.  Alifas,  that  tlie  time  study  is  a  normal  time 
study,  would  there  be  any  objection  to  making  that  time  the  task  time? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Well,  in  assuming  that,  you  would  have  to  assume  that  the 
people  who  have  the  final  determining  of  it  are  going  to  determine  right,  and 
that  is  just  where  we  differ. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Assuming  that  they  did  determine  right;  what  objection 
could  there  be  to  it? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Assuming  that  they  gave  you  the  right  task?  I  do  not  know  as 
you  could  find  any  objection  to  it,  if  you  assume  that,  but  under  the  present 
circumstances  I  do  not  see  that  any  assumption  of  that  kind  could  be  made, 
due  to  the  fact  that  it  is  all  determined  at  the  present  time  by  the  employer. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  For  instance,  if  a  study  of  a  task  which  took  several  hours — 
say  five  hours — involved  quite  a  few  different  processes,  it  might  be  necessary 
to  make  a  study  of  those  processes  to  see  wherein  motions  could  be  eliminated, 
and  waste  effort,  and  finally,  on  reaching  the  completion  of  the  whole  task,  they 
would  say  that  a  certain  time  was  normal.  Suppose  it  was  the  right  time  and 
nobody  could  reasonably  object  to  it,  could  anybody  reasonably  object  then  to 
the  methods  of  examining  into  any  of  the  processes  to  arrive  at  the  same  total, 
say  five  hours? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  That  has  something  to  do  with  the  mental  attitude  that  would 
induce  a  man  to  think  that  he  should  make  a  time  study. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Let  us  assume  that  it  was  understood  on  both  sides  that  the 
desire  was  simply  to  arrive  at  the  whole  task,  or  process,  and  that  it  took  five 
hours  and  required  several  processes;  that  it  was  simply  a  desire  to  arrive  at 
a  normal  time  for  the  whole  task.  Could  there  be  any  reasonable  objection 
then? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Well,  there  is  no  objection  where  there  is  no  objection,  of  course ; 
we  all  know  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Could  there  be  any  objection  in  that  kind  of  case,  where  it 
was  understood? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Well,  the  objection  is  this,  that  when  a  man  thinks  it  is  neces- 
sary for  him  to  find  out  what  a  workman  is  doing  every  minute  of  the  day  he 
has  got  an  attitude  of  mind  that  is  going  to  be  hard  to  please  as  to  the  work 
to  be  done,  and  when  a  man  takes  that  attitude  it  is  necessary  for  the  working- 
man  to  guard  himself.  I  think  it  is  like  a  husband  starting  out  from  the 
house  in  the  morning  and  he  would  decide  to  dole  out,  for  his  wife  to  use  that 
day,  so  much  pepper  and  so  much  salt  and  so  many  potatoes,  etc.;  whereas 
before  she  had  been  able  to  use  about  what  she  thought  was  necessary  she 
would  begin  to  think  he  was  getting  altogether  too  closefisted  in  his  manage- 
ment, and  that  is  what  we  think  when  the  employer  begins  to  inquire  what  he 
did  with  that  last  15  seconds ;  it  is  time  to  oppose  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  you  a  married  man? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes ;  and  I  don't  do  that. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  scientific  management  is  on  the  other  end. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  do  not  think  that  illustration,  while  very  interesting,  meets 
the  idea  I  have.  What  I  want  to  bring  out,  what  I  want  to  prove  is,  that  if 
the  employer  and  employee  meet  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  in  a  perfectly 
friendly  way  as  to  what  time  should  be  consumed  in  an  operation — where  the 
employee  understands  that  there  is  no  desire  to  question  his  good  will  even 
much  less  his  honesty — this  thing  would  evaporate  the  thing  you  speak  of? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  would  say,  assuming  the  very  favorable  premises  you  have 
stated,  that  there  could  be  no  objection. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  in  piece-price  factories  the  determina- 
tion of  the  piece  prices,  like  in  clothing  factories  and  glove  factories  and  other 
places,  there  is  a  time  test  made,  not  only  at  the  instance  of  the  employer,  but 
often,  and  most  often,  at  the  instance  of  the  employee,  particularly  in  all  these 
establishments  where  the  manufacturer  sets  the  price  first,  then  the  employee 
demands  a  time  test  of  the  operation,  so  that  he  may  prove  to  the  employer 
that  the  price  he  has  set  for  the  operation  is  not  fair.  In  that  case  the  em- 
ployee insisting  upon  the  time  study  could  not  object  to  it,  could  he? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  No;  he  could  not. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  therefore,  the  objection  of  the  employee  to  the  time 
study  is  to  what  he  thinks  is  back  of  it ;  he  thinks  there  is  some  question  of  his 
honesty  or  faithfulness  of  work,  and  he  objects  to  it? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Allow  me  to  make  an  explanation  there.  The  employee  might 
ask  that  a  certain  thing  be  done,  which  he  really  objects  to  in  itself;  that  is, 
that  it  is  better  than  something  else.  I  have  heard  of  people  wrho  asked  to  be 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AXD   LABOR,  947 

allowed  to  go  to  the  penitentiary  instead  of  being  hung,  but  that  is  not  to  say 
that  he  prefers  the  penitentiary  instead  of  being  free.  A  man  might  prefer  a 
time  study  to  an  unjust  condition  imposed  upon  him  by  an  employer,  but  that  is 
not  to  say  that  he  would  be  in  favor  of  that  time  study. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  you  think,  if  I  understand  you  correctly,  that  where  an 
employer  sets  a  price  on  an  operation  and  the  employee  asks  for  a  time  study, 
it  is  similar  to  a  man  who  is  condemned  to  be  hung  asking  for  a  term  in  the 
penitentiary? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  In  the  sense  that  it  is  a  lighter  punishment,  so  to  speak. 
Commissioner  GARRETSON.  It  is  the  lesser  of  two  evils? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  It  is  the  lesser  of  two  evils.  That  is  what  we  object  to — piece- 
work. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Would  you  say  that  is  the  attitude  of  the  employees  in  con- 
nection with  time  studies  in  different  trades — the  clothing  trade,  for  instance? 
Mr.  ALIFAS,  I  wTould  not  presume  to  speak  for  the  clothing  trades.     I  am 
speaking  for  the  machinists'  trade,  which  trade  objects  to  piecework,  and  to 
the  necessary  paraphernalia  for  carrying  the  piecework  system  into  operation. 
Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  I  should  tell  you  that  in  the  clothing  trade  the  employees 
ask  for  that  time  study  and  accept  it  as  part  of  their  machinery  for  arriving 
at  prices  and  it  is  not  looked  upon  with  any  disfavor  whatever  that  would 
eliminate  at  least  one  group  of  workers,  would  it  not? 
Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir ;  assuming  your  premises,  it  would. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  as  a  result  of  your  testimony,  it  is  what  is  back  of  the 
time  study  that  you  object  to? 
Mr.  ALIFAS.  That  is  it. 
Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  motive? 
Mr.  ALIFAS.  That  is  it — the  motive. 
Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  implication? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  The  motive  behind  it ;  and  that  brings  out  another  point  I  would 
like  to  just  touch  on  before  I  forget  it.  That  is  the  suggestion  that  has  been 
.  made  here  that  employers  should  confide  in  employees  what  they  propose  to  do. 
In  accordance  with  this  system  I  see  that  it  would  be  very  much  to  the  disad- 
vantage of  the  employer  to  confide  any  such  thing  to  the  employee  if  he  pro- 
poses to  do  to  him  what  these  writings  indicate.  He  would  in  effect  tell  a  good 
machinists  that  is  working  in  the  shop,  getting  $4  a  day,  "  I  want  to  time  you 
on  this  job,  and  I  want  to  find  out  if  you  can  do  two  or  three  times  as  much 
work  as  you  are  doing  now,  and  then  I  propose  to  make  you  do  it.  That  is,  I 
am  going  to  pay  you  enough  so  you  will  not  quit  here  and  go  somewhere  else, 
but  I  am  going  to  make  you  do  it  by  penalties,  if  I  can  not  find  somebody  else 
that  is  cheaper  than  you  are  who  can  do  that,  and  if  I  can  I  will  take  him." 
That  is  in  effect  what  he  would  have  to  tell  the  employee  if  he  proposed  to 
follow  out  this  system  as  we  understand  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  in  your  opinion,  under  the  ordinary  rules  of  business, 
the  scientific  system  of  management,  while  designed  to  lessen  effort  and  elimi- 
nate waste,  is  really  a  method  by  which  the  employer  can  exploit  labor? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  That  is  the  idea  exactly.  Simply  because  a  thing  is  scientific 
does  not  make  it  good ;  that  is,  you  may  discover  a  scientific  way  of  doing  almost 
anything,  such,  for  instance,  as  swindling  the  public.  They  have  that  down 
to  a  science,  I  understand,  in  New  York  and  certain  places,  where  they  inveigle 
the  credulous  into  certain  schemes  and  then  trim  them.  They  might  reduce 
that  to  scientific  methods  of  doing  it,  and  yet  it  would  not  be  a  good  thing 
simply  because  it  was  scientific.  It  depends  on  the  purpose  for  which  you 
expect  to  use  any  given  knowledge  whether  it  is  good  or  not. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  the  introduction  of  a  scientific  system  of  management  was 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  eliminating  waste,  false  motions,  and  the  like,  and 
labor  was  to  share  fairly  and  fully  in  the  saving  thereby,  there  could  be  no 
objection  reasonably  to  such  a  system,  could  there? 
Mr.  ALIFAS.  No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  the  chairman  please,  that  is  all. 
The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  O'Connell? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Nothing  at  this  time,  Mr.  Chairman. 
The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Garretson? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Mr.  Alifas,  do  you  and  the  average  man  whom  you 
represent  believe  man  was  created  wholly  for  the  purpose  of  creating  wealth 
for  others? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  No,  sir.  Man  was  created,  we  think,  for  the  purpose  of  enjoying 
life  to  some  extent. 


948          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  GAKRETSON.  As  you  understand  scientific  management  from  the 
presentation  from  which  you  read,  it  would  act  as  an  amendment  to  the  ordinary 
catechism  which  gives  man  another  purpose  in  life? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  It  would  seem  like  it. 

Commissioner  GAKRETSON.  Does  the  perusal  of  the  writings  on  the  subject 
with  which  you  are  conversant  convey  the  idea  to  the  average  laboring  man 
that  this  form  of  management  is  a  boon  to  labor,  an  unquestioned  good? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  have  endeavored  to  find  that  out  first  hand.  About  three  years 
ago  I  wrent  to  Philadelphia  for  the  purpose  of  interviewing  some  of  the  em- 
ployees who  were  working  in  three  plants  of  that  city,  where  it  was  alleged 
they  had  introduced  scientific  management.  Those  plants  were  the  Mid  vale 
steel  plant,  the  Link  Belt  Co.,  and  the  Tabor  Manufacturing  Co.  I  interviewed 
the  employees  that  were  working  there  or  that  had  worked  there  that  I  could 
find  and  that  I  could  see.  I  only  found  one  man  who  liked  the  system,  who 
would  not  rather  work  under  the  ordinary  daywork  at  the  regular  daywork 
wages. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  He  did  not  like  the  real  thing  any  better  than  he 
liked  the  public  statement,  then,  in  regard  to  what  to  do? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Apparently  not. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  In  regard  to  the  rules  that  exist  in  trade  agree- 
ments, is  it  not  true  that  a  large  number  of  those  rules,  covering  both  wage  or 
condition  of  service,  are  not  a  fair  example  of  what  either  side,  employer  or 
employee,  in  making  up  the  trade  agreement  desires,  but  are  compromise 
measures  ? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir.  The  employee,  as  a  rule,  would  make — I  will  state  that 
this  wTay,  and  come  right  to  the  point :  Each  side  would  make  it  more  favorable 
to  itself  if  it  could. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  It  is  the  result  of  mutual  concessions? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Is  not  that  true  of  every  trade  agreement  with 
which  you  are  familiar? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes;  it  is. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  regard  Mr.  Alifas  as  one  of  the 
most  intelligent  and  one  of  the  best  informed  men  from  the  labor  side  on  this 
question  of  scientific  management. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Weinstock. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  There  are  a  number  of  questions,  Mr.  Chairman, 
in  connection  with  scientific  management,  concerning  which  my  mind  is  unde- 
termined. I  have  not  been  able  to  get  conclusive  evidence  to  reach  an  opinion 
of  my  own  that  I  can  depend  on.  I  want  to  take  advantage  of  this  opportunity 
of  questioning  Mr.  Alifas,  and  therefore  I  will  submit  to  him  quite  a  number  of 
questions,  and  I  want  to  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  commission  to  permit  me  to 
take  not  only  my  own  time  but  to  take  advantage  of  the  absence  of  my  fellow 
employer  representative  on  the  board,  Mr.  Ballard,  and  use  his  time  also. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  have  my  time,  too. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  And  you  may  have  my  time,  too. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Alifas,  to  begin,  do  you  agree  with  me  that  the 
most  valuable  asset  the  State  has  is  its  men? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  also  agree  with  me  that  the  most  valuable 
asset  man  has,  the  most  valuable  asset  that  you  have,  the  most  valuable  asset 
that  I  have,  is  our  efficiency? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Rob  us  of  our  efficiency,  and  we  become  burdens 
upon  the  State? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  In  all  directions,  I  would  say.  Our  efficiency  not  only  to  produce 
something  that  somebody  else  helps  to  divide  for  us  and  give  us  our  little  share, 
but  also  our  efficiency  in  getting  more  other  things  that  we  are  already  pro- 
ducing instead  of  trying  to  produce  more  and  to  get  result  from  the  Government 
we  are  under. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Therefore,  really  the  most  valuable  asset  the  State 
has  is  the  efficiency  of  its  men  and  its  women? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Anything  that  will  increase  that  efficiency  without 
injury  is  in  the  nature  of  a  blessing,  is  it  not? 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  949 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Anything  that  will  diminish  that  efficiency  Is  la 
the  nature  of  an  evil? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir.  I  want  to  modify  both  of  those  answer  to  this  extent, 
that  anything  that  would  increase  efficiency  without  detriment  to  the  individual 
is  a  blessing,  and  anything  that  would  decrease  efficiency  for  the  benefit  of  the 
overworked  individual  would  also  be  a  blessing.  I  think  there  are  some  people 
who  are  working  too  hard  at  the  present  time. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  also  think  you  will  agree  with  me,  Mr.  Alifas, 
that  all  employers  are  not  fair  and  not  equitable  and  are  not  just.  Do  you? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes;  I  do. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  there  are  employers  who  are  unfair  and  un- 
equitable and  unjust? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  that  it  is  the  purpose  of  organized  labor,  as  I 
stated,  to  protect  themselves  against  that  kind  of  employers? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  other  words,  if  all  employers  were  just  and  fair 
and  equitable  and  did  the  square  thing,  there  would  be  no  need  for  labor  unions, 
would  there? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  No,  sir.  I  will  also  add  there  that  the  good  employer  at  the 
present  time  is  handicapped  in  giving  his  employees  poor  conditions,  due  to  the 
unjust  competition  of  the  unfair  employer. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  unfair  employer  sets  the  pace? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  the  fair  employer  must  either  follow  that  pace 
or  get  out  of  the  game? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  That  is  correct. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  take  it  from  that  that  you  will  also  agree  with 
me  that  all  workers  are  not  fair  and  just. 
-    Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  all  workers  do  not  give  a  fair  day's  wrork 
for  a  fair  day's  pay? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  will  modify  that  to  the  extent  that  as  a  rule  a  man  is  perform- 
ing a  task  that  is  worth  what  he  gets  for  it,  because  the  employer  would  not 
hire  him  at  all  if  he  was  not  worth  as  much  as  he  is  getting;  so  he  can  not 
possibly  cheat  the  employer  by  any  means — that  is,  with  reasonable  supervision. 
The  average  employer  would  find  out  if  he  was  not  worth  what  he  was  getting. 
He  might  cheat  the  employer  to  a  certain  extent  by  not  giving  the  employer  a 
just  return  on  his  investment. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  do  not  think,  then,  it  is  possible  for  a  man  to 
do  the  least  that  he  can  and  to  hold  his  job  without  the  employer  dismissing 
him? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Ordinarily  I  think  that  the  employer  would  find  out  a  man  like 
that.  I  will  state  that  our  experience  in  daywork  has  led  us  to  the  conclusion 
that  daywork  furnishes  a  man  sufficient  incentive  to  make  him  do  a  good  day's 
work.  He  may  not  invent  new  methods  of  doing  it,  but  he  does  a  good  day's 
work  with  the"  implements  he  has  at  hand,  and  that  the  fear  of  discharge,  the 
desire  to  stay  in  the  same  locality  where  he  may  own  a  home,  and  the  natural 
fondness  he  "might  feel  toward  a  good  employer  would  induce  him  to  turn  out 
a  good  day's  wrork. 

Of  course,  these  systems  carry  along  with  them,  supposedly,  a  lot  of  new  im- 
provements that  have  been  made,  and  wherever  shops  which  they  have  invaded 
have  been  run  in  the  old  systems  which  have  been  in  existence  for  15  or  20 
years,  they  have  a  lot  of  antiquated  methods,  and  if  they  abolish  those  anti- 
quated methods,  together  with  their  stimulus,  that  will  increase  the  produc- 
tivity, and  all  that  productivity  is  charged  to  the  system;  whereas  under  the 
old  method  of  doing  work  they  could  have  secured  perhaps  three-fourths  of 
that  increase  without  putting  any  added  stimulus  on  the  workman. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  you  were  earning,  for  example,  say,  $4  a  day, 
would  you  be  content  to  remain  at  $4  a  day  for  the  rest  of  your  days,  or  would 
you  want  to  increase  the  amount  of  your  earnings,  if  you  could  legitimately 
and  honorably  do  so,  without  injury  to  yourself? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Oh,  every  man  wants  to  increase  his  earnings. 


950          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  If  I  was  to  come  to  you — if  you  were  my  worker 
and  I  was  your  employer — and  I  should  say,  "  Mr.  Alifas,  you  are  getting  $4 
a  day,  and  that  is  all  you  are  worth  with  your  present  output;  that  is  the 
maximum.  If  the  output  can  not  be  increased  you  have  reached  your  highest 
point.  Now,  I  want  to  see  if  there  is  not  some  way  by  which  you  can  earn 
more  than  $4  a  day,  and  I  can  also  increase  my  profits.  I  am  not  coming  to 
you  as  a  philanthropist,  and  I  am  not  coming  to  you  out  of  benevolence.  I  am 
coming  to  you  for  our  mutual  good,  and  I  want  to  see  if  I  can  not,  for  your  good 
and  mine,  increase  your  efficiency  so  that  you  can  earn  more  money  and  I  may 
earn  more  money.  I  will  exercise  my  brain,  or  such  brains  as  I  can  hire,  and 
cooperate  with  you  for  our  common  benefit."  Suppose  I  should  come  to  you 
and  say  that;  would  you  object  to  that? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  would  not  object  to  it  if  I  had  some  voice  in  the  thing. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  you  had  a  voice? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  And  you  should  not  insist  upon  getting  all  the  benefits  of  it,  and 
eliminating  me,  possibly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Exactly.  Now,  if  I  should  come  to  you  and  invite 
your  cooperation  and  give  you  an  equal  voice  with  myself,  you  wrould  look 
upon  it  as  an  advantage? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes ;  without  a  doubt. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Your  objection — and  when  I  say  "  your  objection  " 
I  assume  that  you  are  here  representing  organized  labor,  and  are  not  speaking 
only  for  yourself 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  have  talked  with  a  great  many  employees,  and  while  they  may 
not  have  expressed  their  objections  in  the  same  terms  as  I  have,  I  feel  that 
their  objections  are,  either  consciously  or  unconsciously,  mine. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  I  take  it  that  the  objection  to  this  so-called 
scientific  management  is  not  the  fact  that  it  can  increase  productivity,  but  the 
fact  that  it  is  put  upon  the  worker  without  his  cooperation  and  without  giving 
him  a  voice  in  the  matter? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes.      It  is  the  purpose  for  which  they  propose  to  use  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  that  objection  was  removed 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  But  I  will  say  this,  that  the  system  has  been  built  up  with  that 
in  view.  Now,  it  is  a  good  deal  like  building  a  structure  of  any  kind — you 
might  say,  building  a  guillotine.  It  is  proposed  to  use  that  for  the  purpose  of 
decapitating  people,  and  you  would  not  expect  to  have  that  used  for  a  church 
organ,  or  something  of  that  sort.  [Laughter.]  It  is  constructed  that  way. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Very  well,  then ;  you  .have  not  any  objection  to 
the  system,  then,  I  take  it,  but  you  have  objection  to  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
applied  ? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  would  arrange  the  system  a  little  bit  differently. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Go  ahead  and  tell  us  just  exactly  how  you  would 
arrange  it,  so  it  would  be  fair  and  equitable  to  both  sides. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  wrill  say  this,  that  if  we  should  agree  to  any  one  of  the  fea- 
tures of  the  system,  it  is  so  built  up  that  the  next  logical  step  in  the  system  is 
something  else  that  we  think  is  to  our  disadvantage.  Of  course  we  may  be 
mistaken.  Our  opponents  have  credited  us  with  a  great  deal  of  ignorance  on 
this  subject,  but  it  looks  to  us,  at  least,  as  if  it  was  built  up  in  such  a  way 
that  the  next  logical  step  would  be  something  that  would  be  finally  to  our  dis- 
advantage. I  do  not  think  we  would  have  any  objection  to  a  shop  or  an  in- 
dustry, say,  rearranging  their  machinery  in  such  a  way  that  there  would  be 
no  unnecessary  time  lost  in  distributing  the  work,  or  properly  routing  the 
work.  There  would  be  no  objection  to  that.  There  would  not  be  any  objection 
to  ascertaining  and  insisting  on  it,  in  a  general  wray,  that  workmen  should  use 
the  proper  speed  and  feed  for  work. 

Now,  I  will  say  right  here  that  the  very  elaborate  explanation  that  Mr.  Earth 
gave  yesterday  of  his  method  of  ascertaining  the  proper  speed  and  feed  could 
not  be  figured  out  by  the  workman  as  he  figures  it  out,  but  the  workman  is 
accustomed  to  looking  at  a  lathe,  say,  for  instance,  and  he  knows  what  kind 
of  a  tool  he  has  got,  and  he  can  figure  out  by  his  experience — he  knows  it 
intuitively — about  how  fast  that  machine  should  run  to  keep  that  tool  sharp 
until  he  gets  to  the  end  of  the  cut.  If  he  has  any  number  of  pieces  to  make, 
he  may  experiment,  and  he  does  experiment.  He  will  throw  on  a  little  heavier 
power  and  faster  speed,  until  he  gets  the  proper  speed,  and  it  does  not  take 
him  much  longer  to  ascertain  that  than  it  does  for  a  man  with  an  elaborate 
set  of  figures  to  sit  down  and  figure  it  out.  It  might  be  likened  to  analyzing 
the  air  a  man  breathes.  I  take  it  that  some  scientist,  if  he  was  like  efficiency 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR,  951 

engineers,  might  wonder  how  people  were  able  to  breathe  before  they  knew  what 
the  air  was  composed  of.  It  is  just  like  ascertaining  what  amount  of  speed 
and  feed  it  is  necessary  to  use  at  the  point  of  contact  with  the  steel,  and  in 
order  to  find  out  what  it  will  stand,  he  will  put  on  a  little,  and  if  it  will  not 
stand  it,  he  will  throw  it  down.  We  get  that  from  experience. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Now,  you  heard  Mr.  Thompson  explain  to  us 
the  method  that  prevails  in  the  clothing  industry.  He  explained  that  the 
worker  has  an  equal  voice  writh  the  employer  in  determining  the  prices,  and 
consequently  in  the  clothing  trade  the  men  take  the  initiative  and  ask  that  the 
system  be  introduced.  Therefore  it  is  evident  that  in  the  clothing  industry  the 
objection  that  you  have  against  the  system  has  been  removed. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  if  the  worker  has  an  equal  voice  with  the 
employer,  and  the  employee  is  not  supreme? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  He  is  put  upon  a  basis  of  absolute  equality.  It  is 
a  case  of  real  copartnership  between  the  employer  and  the  employee,  and  it  has 
worked  out  in  such  a  degree  to  the  interest  of  the  worker  that  he  now  desires 
it.  Therefore  would  not  the  whole  problem  be  solved  if  we  transplanted  the 
conditions  that  now  prevail  in  the  clothing  industry  into  all  other  industries? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  will  say  that  that  depends  upon  the  character  of  the  work.  The 
clothing  industry  is  such  that  it  lends  itself  to  duplication.  There  is  very  little 
variation  in  it.  But  in  a  machine  shop  there  is  a  great  deal  of  variation. 
Mr.  Taylor  told  you  that  in  ascertaining  the  variation  in  the  speed  of  the 
machine  there  were  12  variables? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  One  of  those  variables  is  the  hardness  of  the  metal,  which 
.varies  a  great  deal;  and  it  is  impossible  for  you  to  know  until  you  try  the 
metal,  oftentimes,  what  its  hardness  is.  I  presume  he  guesses  at  the  hardness 
of  the  metal  and  then  he  figures  out  how  much  speed  that  will  take — the  way 
they  weigh  a  hog  in  Kansas — they  put  a  rock  at  one  end  of  the  beam  and  a 
hog  on  the  other  end,  and  then  they  guess  at  the  weight  of  the  rock.  He 
guesses  at  the  hardness  of  the  steel,  and  then  figures  out  how  fast  the  machine 
should  run.  It  is  just  as  easy  to  guess  at  the  speed  in  the  first  place,  or  to 
experiment. 

But  to  come  back  to  the  clothing  industry  and  other  industries,  the  condi- 
tions in  the  machine  shop  are  so  variable  that  there  are  no  two  things  alike, 
you  might  say — there  are  so  many  variables.  There  are  12  variables  in  the 
cutting  machine,  and  that  is  only  a  part  of  the  variations  which  are  possible, 
and  that  causes  so  much  dissatisfaction  where  a  premium  or  a  bonus  or  a 
piece  system  is  used. 

For  instance,  if  a  man  has  a  certain  job  to  do,  and  if  he  has  got  a  certain 
amount  of  time  to  do  it,  he  goes  to  the  tool  room  to  get  his  tools.  Now,  tools 
are  used  over  and  over  again  by  different  workmen,  and  they  may  be  worn. 
They  may  not  be  100  per  cent  efficient.  The  workman's  time  is  likely  not  to  be 
on  the  basis  that  everything  will  be  fairly  satisfactory,  and  he  finds  that  he  can 
not  get  a  proper  tool.  He  loses  premiums  while  he  is  working  with  a  poor  tool, 
through  no  fault  of  his.  Then  he  may  be  waiting  for  a  crane,  and  he  loses 
premiums  through  that  process.  The  steel  may  be  hard,  and  he  loses  premiums 
through  that.  We  are  told  that  if  it  is  proven  to  the  management  that  there 
are  any  obstacles  that  they  had  not  foreseen,  they  will  be  adjusted ;  but  I  believe 
it  was  Mr.  Townsend  who  wrote  an  article  to  the  American  Magazine — I  may 
be  wrong  about  that,  but  I  am  pretty  sure  that  it  was  Mr.  Townsend — in  which 
he  said  this:  He  said  that  if  you  gave  men  allowances  every  time  they  came 
around  and  apparently  proved  that  they  had  troubles,  you  would  never  get  a 
job,  and  that  he  had  to  shut  down  on  the  allowances  altogether  in  order  to 
compel  men  to  overcome  obstacles  that  he  thought  they  ought  to  overcome  by 
themselves. 

In  the  machine  shop  the  conditions  are  so  variable  that  we  feel  that  the 
workman  should  not  be  compelled  to  stand  all  the  variations.  It  is  just  like 
an  insurance  company.  People  may  insure — they  insure  their  houses 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  have  caught  your  point.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  give  that  illustration. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  just  wanted  to  illustrate  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  want  to  digress  for  a  moment  and  put  Mr.  Wil- 
liam ().  Thompson  on  the  witness  stand  for  a  moment  or  two. 


952          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  Thompson,  I  take  it  that  you  are  more  or  less  familiar  with  tlie  condi- 
tions that  prevail  in  the  wornan's-garment  industry? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  am  less  familiar  with  it ;  but  in  New  York,  for  instance, 
repetition  is  not  the  rule. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  How  many  changes  in  prices  are  there  in  the  cloth- 
ing industry  in  New  York? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  One  firm  had  6?SOO  different  styles  in  a  year.  That  would 
make  6,800  different  prices  in  a  year. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  That  was  in  one  firm? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes ;  and  there  are  1,000  firms. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  All  right.  Does  the  same  condition  prevail  in  the 
woman's-garment  industry  that  prevails  in  the  men's-clothing  industry — of  both 
sides  having  a  voice  in  fixing  the  prices? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  They  do  it  in  the  clothing  industry  under  the  protocol ;  both 
sides  have  a  voice.  But  that  is  because  of  the  complicated  nature  of  the  work. 
A  standard  has  not  been  arrived  at. 

In  the  cloak,  skirt,  and  waist  industry,  also,  women's  garments — that  appears 
from  the  name — they  have  spent  $40,000,  both  the  unions  and  the  firms,  in  try- 
ing to  arrive  at  some  standard  or  yardstick  by  which  to  measure  the  values. 
That  report  has  just  been  completed.  I  doubt  very  much  that  it  is  the  final 
word  in  that  trade,  because  I  know  that  they  have  had  great  difficulty  up  to 
very  lately  in  being  sure  that  they  are  right,  but  they  have  at  least  got  an 
approximation  toward  some  standard  which  can  be  worked  out. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  In  both  those  cases,  both  sides  have  an  equal 
voice? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes;  in  that  case. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  the  prices  are  adjudicated  by  general  action? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  By  general  action. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  know  of  any  machine  shop  where  there 
would  be  6,800  changes  in  a  season,  Mr.  Alifas? 

\Er.  THOMPSON.  I  was  speaking  of  a  year. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  was  in  one  firm,  there  were  6,800  varia- 
tions? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  many  firms  are  there? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  There  are  1,000  firms. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  that  the  average  number  in  one  firm? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  No,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  the  maximum? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  the  big  pumpkin  of  the  show. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  the  machine-shop  business  more  variable  than 
that? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  have  not  figured  out  the  variations.  Among  those  there  are 
several  thousand  pieces,  of  those  styles,  that  do  not  vary  among  themselves. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  great  reason  for  that  is  that  the  women  of  the  land, 
fortunately  or  unfortunately,  demand  something  that  no  other  woman  has  got. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  They  want  exclusiveness? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes;  that  is  the  great  problem. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  They  even  want  that  in  regard  to  men ;  they  want 
a  man  that  nobdy  else  has  got. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  am  not  so  sure  about  that  last. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  question  of  a  change  goes  to  the  extreme  of 
whether  a  buttonhole  is  up  and  down  or  straight  across. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  So  far  as  sewing  a  seam  is  concerned,  there  is  not  very  much 
difference  in  the  thread  or  in  the  hardness  of  the  material ;  so  that  you  can 
figure  out  how  long  it  will  take  to  sew  a  seam  of  so  many  stitches,  with  a  cer- 
tain number  of  stitches  to  an  inch.  Most  of  that  would  reduce  itself,  then,  to 
some  such  problem  as  that.  In  the  machine  shop  you  might  take  a  piece  like 
that,  that  size  [indicating]  and  they  might  change  the  diameter  and  you  could 
not  tell  how  long  it  would  take  to  run  a  cut  across  that,  because  you  do  not 
know  how  hard  it  is.  If  it  was  very  hard,  it  would  take  longer. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  somebody  has  got  to  determine  that,  sooner 
or  later? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Our  point  is  that  you  determine  it  after  it  is  done.  The  work- 
man is  a  mechanic,  and  he  endeavors  to  do  the  best  he  can  with  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Very  well.  Let  us  ignore  the  method  that  is  pur- 
sued in  determining  the  value.  The  fact  is  that  somebody  under  the  system  does 
determine  the  value? 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  953 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  All  right.  At  that  point  do  you  not  meet  the  situa- 
tion by  giving  labor  an  equal  voice  with  the  employer  when  the  moment  of  de- 
termination arrives? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  So  that  there  are  doubtless  difficulties  and  prob- 
lems, just  as  Mr.  Thompson  has  pointed  out  there  are  in  the  woman's  garment 
industry ;  but  they  are  being  met,  they  are  being  solved ;  but  it  is  a  progressive 
science  and  will  never  be  absolutely  solved,  because  conditions  are  changing 
all  the  time. 

Now,  if  it  can  be  done  in  an  industry  so  complex,  so  variable  as  is  the  woman's 
garment  industry  it  certainly  ought  to  be  possible  to  do  it  im  the  machine  indus- 
try, which  I  take  it  is  far  less  complex.  Therefore,  summing  up,  I  gather  as 
the  result  of  my  questioning  you  that  the  solution  of  the  problem  lies  in  giving 
labor  a  joint  voice  with  the  employer  in  determining  values. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  All  those  details  can  be  determined  by  conference  and  agreement 
and  arbitration,  I  think.  There  are  some  things  we  would  not  submit  to  arbitra- 
tion, however. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Those  are  outside  of  this  particular  question. 
That  makes  it  clear  to  me,  Mr.  Alifas,  that  labor,  being  given  a  voice  with  the 
employer,  under  those  conditions  anything  that  will  develop  the  worker — and  he 
will  not  permit  himself  to  be  developed  unfairly,  he  will  not  permit  himsef  to 
be  exploited 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK  (continuing).  Anything  under  those  conditions 
that  develops  the  worker,  increases  efficiency,  and  increases  his  earning  power 
is  a  very  great  blessing  to  the  worker,  to  his  employer,  and  to  society. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  am  through. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  can  say  in  that  connection  that  there  are  certain  things  we 
would  not  arbitrate,  because  even  if  they  were  arbitrated  and  were  settled  by 
conference  with  the  employer,  at  the  moment  they  got  them  established  and  he 
could  get  along  very  nicely  without  us,  he  could  terminate  it. 

We  could  not  get  away  from  it.  That  is,  he  would  have  his  plans  all  laid,  and 
he  would  perhaps  engage  in  collective  bargaining  while  he  was  establishing 
these  relations,  but  when  he  got  his  plans  worked  out  he  could  get  along  without 
it ;  and  there  are  matters,  such  as  the  time  study,  which  we  think  is  one  of 
them ;  and  the  premimum  system  is  another,  which  we  feel  that  we  could  not 
afford  to  allow  to  be  introduced  under  any  conditions  if  we  could  prevent  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then,  taking  the  Watertown  situation  as  an  illus- 
tration, I  am,  then,  to  understand  this  to  be  your  attitude :  You  ask  that  labor 
be  given  an  equal  voice  with  capital  in  fixing  the  rates? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  In  fixing  the  amount  that  is  a  proper  day's  work? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes.  In  other  words,  I  gather  now,  from  what 
you  have  said  in  the  last  few  minutes,  that  you  do  not  want  to  consider  the 
Taylor  system  or  the  systems  that  correspond  with  the  Taylor  system  under  any 
circumstances,  and  yet  you  ask  the  Government  to  give  you  a  voice  in  wage 
fixing.  What  do  you  propose  to  concede  to  the  Government  in  consideration  of 
their  giving  you  a  voice  in  the  fixing  of  wages?  You  have  no  right  to  come  into 
court  and  ask  everything  and  give  nothing.  What  do  you  propose  to  give  in 
exchange  for  that?  If  an  employee  insists  upon  getting  more  wages  than  the 
employer  is  willing  to  give,  he  goes  on  a  strike  or  he  does  other  things  that  are 
eoually  bad. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  That  is  the  alternative.  If  the  employer  does  not  see  fit  to  do 
somewhere  near  what  labor  wants,  those  are  the  things  he  has  to  contend  with, 
and  in  exchange  for  that  on  these  particular  things  he  ought  to  be  willing  to 
arbitrate  the  thing. 

In  regard  to  such  things  as  the  premium  system,  that  is  a  very  radical  change 
in  the  method  of  paying  the  machinist  compared  with  wThat  he  has  been  accus- 
tomed to  doing  for  a  good  many  years,  and  he  believes  that  he  has  discovered 
in  the  task  system,  other  than  .the  day  system,  the  stimulus  might  be  too  much, 
and  he  can  not  afford  to  bargain  too  much  in  regard  to  it  any  more  than  a  man 
who  is  susceptible  to  alcohol  could  afford  to  compromise  on  the  matter. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  you  have  stated  in  the  last  sentence  has  put 
me  up  in  the  air  as  to  where  we  are  at.  I  understood  this,  that  the  objection 
you  had  to  the  so-called  Taylor  system  was  the  fact  that  it  was  arbitrary,  that 
labor  had  no  voice  in  determining  the  conditions  or  bonus  or  premium,  or  what- 
ever it  was,  and  that  if  the  same  conditions  could  be  established  that  prevailed 


954          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

in  the  clothing  industry  there  would  be  no  objections  to  it.  Then  you  turn 
around  and  say,  "  I  would  not  have  it  under  any  circumstances."  I  can  not 
reconcile  it 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  On  that  particular  thing  I  believe  you  are  assuming  that  we 
had  ideal  conditions,  and  on  that  basis  could  afford  to  compromise,  but  now 
here  is  some  one  thing  that  the  laboring  people  do  not  want  to  do,  and  if  they 
do  not  want  to  do  a  certain  thing  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  a  right 
to  say  that  they  do  not  want  to  do  it.  even  if  some  people  could  prove  to  them 
that  they  would  be  financially  ahead  by  it.  In  regard  to  such  a  matter  how 
can  you  compromise  on  a  matter  that  you  do  not  want  to  do  at  all?  There  is 
no  halfway  measure  between  a  day  work  system  and  the  premium  system. 
We  do  not  want  to  operate  on  a  basis  of  pay  that  is  variable,  like  the  pre- 
mium system,  because  we  think  that  the  day  work  furnishes  stimulus  enough. 
If  we  do  not  want  any  more  stimulus  than  that  how  are  we  going  to  compro- 
mise on  it? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  We  are  told  by  representatives  on  the  other  side 
that  there  are  tens  of  thousands  of  workingmeu  in  the  United  States,  union 
and  nonunion,  who  are  working  under  this  system,  and  wrho  do  not  have  to  do 
it  if  they  do  not  want  to,  they  can  quit,  and  the  proof  that  they  are  willing 
to  do  it  is  that  they  do  not  quit,  the  fact  that  they  do  it. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  The  fact  that  they  continue  to  do  it  is  evidence  that  they  do 
want  to  do  it? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Surely. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  At  the  Watertown  Arsenal  they  are  working  on  the  premium 
system,  and  a  very  large  percentage  of  them  are  utterly  opposed  to  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  a  mere  matter  of  opinion;  that  is  not  a 
fact.  It  is  demonstrated,  because  on  the  opposite  side  it  is  said  that  they  are 
satisfied. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Who  says  they  are  satisfied? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Gen.  Crozier,  who  was  here,  made  that  statement, 
that  he  has  had  no  complaint. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Suppose  I  was  working  at  the  arsenal,  and  Gen.  Crozier  said 
that  I  was  satisfied  and  I  said  I  was  not;  who  would  you  believe? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  you  were  working  there  I  would  take  your 
word,  of  course. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  The  employees  down  there  are  the  ones  that  I  have  been  talking 
to  on  this  proposition,  and  I  have  understood  from  the  employees  who  have 
gathered  the  information,  and  also  judging  by  the  large  petition  that  was  sent 
to  Gen.  Crozier,  that  they  do  not  want  the  system,  and  they  had  a  petition 
signed  by  300  people  that  was  sent  to  the  chief  of  ordnance  last  September, 
asking  him  to  abolish  the  system ;  they  didn't  want  it.  That,  to  me,  is  evi- 
dence that  they  do  not  want  it,  no  matter  what  anybody  else  might  say;  some- 
body else  is  not  authorized  to  speak  for  them ;  they  can  speak  for  themselves. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  It  is  very  evident,  then,  that  there  is  a  very  pro- 
nounced conflict  of  opinion. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  have  asked  at  least  half  of  them  collectively  at  the  WTater- 
town  Arsenal,  just  offhand  at  a  meeting  of  this  kind,  in  which  I  endeav- 
ored to  get  at  their  true  sentiment  on  this,  if  they  would  rather  give  up  the 
premium  system  as  it  existed  there,  and  not  get  the  premium,  but  go  back  to  day 
work,  and  they  said  they  would. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  many  have  you  asked? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  At  that  particular  time  I  asked  about  75. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  many  are  employed  there? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Well,  there  might  not  have  been  over  60  at  that  meeting. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  How  many  are  employed  there? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  There  are,  I  think,  about  130  machinists. 

A  VOICE.  I  would  like  to  make  a  statement  as  an  employee  of  the  Watertown 
Arsenal. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  think  we  can  have  that.  We  will  call  you 
at  some  other  time. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  I  will  say  offhand  130  machinists. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  you  say  there  were  60  present  at  the  meet- 
ing? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Was  their  opinion  unanimous? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes;  there  was  not  a  single  man  that  would  not  rather  give  up 
the  premium  and  go  back  to  day  work. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  955 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  were  at  tlie  Watertown  Arsenal  just  recently, 
during  the  investigation? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  recently? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Last  week. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  This  talk  you  had  with  the  men  was  as  recent  as 
last  week? 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  Yes.  May  I  say  another  thing  in  regard  to  this  yard  stick  that 
you  spoke  of  some  time  ago?  The  idea,  as  I  understood  it  was  that  the  cus- 
tomer had  a  right  to  demand  that  the  persons  he  bought  cloth  of  should  use 
the  yard  stick  to  measure  it  off. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  not  use  his  eye. 

Mr.  ALIFAS.  And  not  use  his  eye.  I  do  not  think  that  is  exactly  applicable 
to  this.  This  system  would  put  that  question  in  this  way;  that  the  customer, 
who  was  the  employer,  buying  the  labor  from  the  laboring  man,  has  a  right 
to  go  to  the  laboring  man  and  say,  "  Now,  you  propose  to  sell  me  6  cents  worth 
of  cloth;  now,  I  am  going  to  investigate  your  books  and  see  how  much  cloth 
you  can  sell  for  6  cents,  and  then  I  will  say  that  that  is  the  amount  I  want." 
That  is  a  little  bit  different.  The  employer  proposes  to  see  how  much  the 
employee  is  able  to  sell  him,  how  much  he  is  able  to  do.  Now,  Ave  are  not 
asking  the  employer  to  open  up  his  books  and  tell  us  how  much  he  is  able  to 
pay,  and  then  proceed  to  make  him  pay  that,  and  we  do  not  want  him  to  try 
to  find  out  the  very  maximum  that  we  are  able  to  do  and  then  try  to  make  us 
do  it ;  it  is  a  fair  bargain  to  say,  "  Such  an  amount  of  work  for  a  day's  work 
is  all  we  want  you  to  do,  and  if  you  are  satisfied  to  accept  that  as  a  day's  work 
for  so  much,  it  is  a  bargain."  A  man  does  not  have  to  work  at  his  top  speed 
if  he  does  not  want  to.  If  he  wants  to  take  life  a  little  bit  easier  and  make 
a  little  less  money,  that  is  his  business. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  that  is  all,  Mr.  Alifas.  We  are  much  obliged 
to  you. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HENRY  LAWRENCE  GANTT. 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  would  like  to  have  somebody  pretty  soon  bring  that  blackboard 
up  here,  because  I  am  going  to  want  to  make  some  diagrams. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  please  give  your  name  and  address? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Henry  Lawrence  Gantt,  Montclair,  N.  J. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  your  profession? 

Mr.  (jANTT.  Consulting  engineer. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  work  as  consulting  engineer  have  you  had  anything 
to  do  with  scientific  management? 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  have  been  introducing  what  is  generally  called  scientific  man- 
agement for  some  years. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Where  have  you  introduced  it,  if  you  care  to  state? 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  have  no  objection  to  stating  those  places  which  are  commonly 
known,  but  some  of  my  clients  wish  not  to  be  mentioned  in  this  matter. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  State  those  who  are  commonly  known. 

Mr.  GANTT.  One  that  has  been  spoken  of  here,  the  Sales  Bleacheries,  and  the 
Brighton  Mills,  both  textile  concerns. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Are  there  any  others  you  would  care  to  name? 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  have  done  some  little  work  for  tire  Amoskeag  Manufacturing  Co. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  what  other  lines  of  industry  have  you  put  in  your  system? 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  have  been  connected  with  shops  of  various  kinds,  but  inasmuch 
as  I  have  only  been  connected  with  one  shop  of  that  kind  of  industry  I  would 
be  substantially  giving  away  my  clients'  names  if  I  should  do  so,  but  I  am 
perfectly  willing — there  is  one  case  I  think  I  can  state  without  difficulty — I 
have  been  doing  some  work  for  the  Remington  Typewriter  Co.  and  some  work 
for  the  Standard  Oil  Bearing  Co.,  of  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  introduction  of  scientific  management  in  the  shops 
•you  generally  divide  it  up  into  two  parts,  do  you  not;  first,  that  which  deals 
with  the  mechanical  end  of  things  like  routing,  new  appliances,  etc.,  and  then 
that  part  which  relates  to  the  management  of  the  men? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes,  absolutely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Thompson  stated  on  the  stand  this  morning  that  in  re- 
gard to  additional  efficiency  that  is  obtained  in  the  shops,  that  about  an  equal 
percentage  comes  from  each  of  those  divisions ;  that  is,  it  is  about  equal.  Is 
that  the^idea? 


956          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

}.Ir.  GANTT.  I  should  say  that  rather  more  than  50  per  cent  came  from  setting 
your  house  in  order,  which  in  my  experience  takes  at  least  a  year  in  any 
shop  of  any  size,  and  oftentimes  longer.  I  have  a  shop  on  hand  now  where 
we  have  been  working  at  it  a  year  and  we  have  not  nearly  got  things  in  any- 
thing like  the  shape  where  we  could  begin  to  do  the  kind  of  things  we  have 
been  talking  about  at  this  meeting.  I  have  never  done  any  job  exactly  as  I 
would  like  to  do  it.  I  have  never  gotten  any  problem  solved  to  my  entire  satis- 
faction. I  have  gotten  a  great  many  things  done,  and  some  shops  are  running 
very  well,  but  I  do  not  feel  that  I  could  say  that  everything  has  been  perfectly 
installed  anywhere. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Briefly,  to  what  is  that  due? 

Mr.  GANTT.  That  is  due  usually  to  the  fact  that  those  in  particular  when 
they  get  a  certain  amount  done  are  satisfied ;  they  are  satisfied  they  can  do 
the  rest.  I  might  say — but  perhaps  I  have  answered  your  question. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  it  is  not  on  account  of  any  opposition  from  labor  that 
you  are  not  permitted  to  install  the  system  completely? 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  have  never  had  any  opposition  whatever  from  the  workman 
that  was  not  immediately  overcome  as  soon  as  he  understood  what  we  were 
doing.  If  you  would  like,  I  can  go  into  that  subject  and  explain,  but  that  is 
with  you. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  may  do  that,  Mr.  Gantt. 

Mr.  GANTT.  Before  I  undertake  to  do  any  work  for  any.  concern,  I  ask  the 
people  employing  me  or  who  contemplate  employing  me,  to  read  this  little  book, 
Work,  Wages,  and  Profits.  I  ask  those  people  who  have  in  mind  employing  me 
whether  they  are  in  accord  with  the  idea  expressed  in  that  book  of  how  to 
handle  their  workmen  and  what  share  the  workmen  shall  have  in  what  is 
being  done.  Unless  they  are  willing  to  subscribe  substantially  to  what  I  have 
written  in  this  book  I  have  always  declined  to  do  any  work  for  them. 

We  then  start  there.  One  of  the  things  said  in  this  book  is  that  when  a  task 
has  been  once  set  that  task  remains  permanent  unless  the  method  of  perform- 
ing the  work  is  radically  changed. 

Another  thing  is  that  we  shall  use  no  coercion  with  any  wokman  to  cause 
him  to  do  as  we  ask,  and  that  no  discrimination  shall  be  used  toward  a 
workman,  provided  he  objects  to  doing  what  we  have  set  out  for  him  to  do. 

Therefore,  when  a  problem  has  been  studied  and  a  task  -has  been  set,  if  the 
workman  does  not  wish  to  perform  that  task  he  is  free  to  refuse  to  do  it.  Do 
you  wish  any  illustrations?  I  can  give  you  names  where  that  policy  has  been 
carried  out,  and  the  illustrations  are  in  this  book. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  know  what  happens  to  him  if  he  refuses  to  perform 
that  task? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes ;  I  can  give  one  illustration.  In  the  Brighton  Mills  we  started 
to  put  some  task  work  on  looms  run  by  three  men.  Two  of  those  men  started. 
The  third  one  said  he  did  not  want  that.  After  trying  the  work  for  a  day  or 
two,  we  found  that  the  conditions  had  not  been  sufficiently  perfected  or  stand- 
ardized, and  preparations  had  not  been  sufficiently  completed  to  enable  us  to 
supply  those  men  with  the  proper  material  in  the  proper  condition  to  do  their 
work  satisfactorily.  They  were  unable  to  earn  the  bonus.  They  were  then  told 
that  "  We  are  not  going  to  ask  you  to  earn  a  bonus  on  this  work  until  we  can 
get  these  conditions  right."  It  took  about  a  week  to  do  that  and  at  the  end 
of  that  time,  when  we  started  up  again,  the  man  who  had  declined  at  first 
asked  to  be  allowed  to  do  it. 

You  will  find  that  on  a  chart  opposite  page  182  of  this  book  to  which  I  have 
referred.  You  will  find  three  Greeks.  The  one  at  the  top  is  the  one  that  did 
not  do  it.  His  name  is  Papadimitre.  But,  to  make  a  long  story  short,  that 
man  earned  his  bonus  almost  continuously  after  he  once  got  started,  and  since 
that  time  he  has  become  an  instructor  of  weavers  in  that  mill.  The  man  is  a 
Greek. 

In  explanation,  for  the  enlightenment  of  those  who  are  not  familiar  with 
these  charts,  I  will  say  that  we  keep  charts  of  this  character  for  what  people 
we  have  on  task  work.  We  make  a  black  mark  opposite  the  workman  when 
he  makes  his  bonus,  and  we  make  a  red  mark  when  he  fails.  We  keep  that  kind 
of  a  record  in  every  place  we  go,  and  we  keep  that  kind  of  a  record  of  all  in- 
dividuals. That  record  is  open  to  inspection  of  the  employees  of  that  mill.  It 
is  used  continuously.  Whenever  there  is  any  dissatisfaction  they  are  brought 
in  and  asked  to  look  at  this  chart  and  see  what  the  trouble  is. 

Perhaps  I  had  better  explain  one  of  the  things  which  will  be  necessary  to 
understand  if  I  am  going  to  give  you  a  clear  idea  of  our  form  of  paying  bonuses. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOK.  957 

The  term  "  the  bonus  system  "  has  been  used.  There  are  a  great  many  bonus 
systems.  The  term  "  clay  work  "  has  been  used,  which  we  all  know  about,  except 
this ;  it  has  been  assumed  that  day  work  was  the  panacea  for  everything. 
Apparently  that  is  believed,  as  I  have  seen  some  of  the  worst  bosses  under  day 
work  that  I  have  ever  seen  anywhere ;  but  the  probabilities  are  that  everybody 
has  seen  them.  No  system  is  going  to  change  human  nature,  and  I  do  not 
believe  a  system  of  laws  will  change  human  nature.  I  have  been  able  so  far 
to  ask,  before  I  undertake  the  work,  "Will  you  conform  to  the  rules  of  the 
game  we  have  laid  down  here?" 

I  would  like  to  explain  the  way  in  which  we  pay  a  bonus,  because  there 
seems  to  be  a  great  deal  of  misunderstanding  on  this  general  subject.  In  my 
testimony  I  wish  to  say  that  I  have  had  very  little  experience  with  or  knowledge 
of  any  work  done  by  anybody  except  myself;  so  that  my  testimony  is  not  of 
scientific  management  or  efficiency  systems  in  general.  It  it  only  of  the  work 
which  I  myself  have  done.  I  have  been  into  almost  none  of  the  shops  where 
other  people  have  done  work.  If  I  mark  off  this  horizontal  line  in  equal  dis- 
tances on  the  blackboard  and  call  each  distance  an  hour,  and  represent  that 
as  the  amount  of  pay  for  one  hour,  then  the  length  of  this  line  [indicating] 
represents  the  amount  of  pay  for  two  hours,  this  [indicating]  would  be  three 
hours,  this  [indicating]  would  be  four  hours,  this  [indicating]  would  be  five 
hours,  and  this  [indicating]  would  be  six  hours,  the  assumption  being  I  have 
drawn  my  lines  correctly.  If  a  man  is  working  on  day  work,  he  works  one 
hour  and  gets  that  amount  of  pay;  for  two  hours  he  gets  that  amount  [indi- 
cating], and  so  on.  Let  us  suppose  we  have  studied  the  task — and  I  want  to 
say,  in  order  to  save  time,  that  I  am  substantially  in  accord  with  Mr.  Thomp- 
son's description  of  the  method  of  setting  tasks  or  making  time  studies.  I 
might  add,  though,  that  I  have  not  any  objection  to  having  anybody  present 
when  we  make  all  of  the  studies  we  are  going  to  make.  We  do  not  ask  anybody 
to  perform  a  task  unless  we  have  entirely  satisfied  him  that  that  task  is  an 
executable  one.  We  do  not  discriminate  against  him  if  he  refuses.  We  believe 
it  is  up  to  us  to  make  the  inducement  to  him  such  that  he  will  do  it  willingly. 
You  will  find  in  this  book  the  basis  for  that,  at  page  20 : 

"  In  considering  the  subject  of  management  we  must  recognize  the  fact 
that  in  this  country,  so  long  as  a  man  conforms  to  the  laws  of  the  State,  he 
has  a  right  to  govern  his  own  conduct  and  to  act  in  such  a  manner  as  his  in- 
terests seem  to  dictate.  Granting  this,  it  follows  that  any  scheme  of  manage- 
ment to  be  permanently  successful  must  be  beneficial  alike  to  employer  and 
employee." 

By  beneficial,  I  do  not  mean  only  to  give  him  more  wages.  He  must  con- 
sider it  beneficial.  I  should  decline  to  do  any  w^ork  where  I  could  not  convince 
the  workman  that  it  was  to  his  interest  to  do  it. 

I  will  break  off  here  for  just  a  moment  and  say  there  have  been  a  lot  of 
questions  about  scientific  management.  There  is  one  objection  to  the  term, 
namely,  that  it  is  an  implication  that  other  things  are  not  scientific.  That 
point  has  been  raised,  and  I  think  it  is  a  good  objection.  But,  all  things  con- 
sidered, it  seems  to  meet  the  case  better  than  any  other.  However,  I  do  not 
use  it  any  more  than  I  have  to.  I  prefer  for  my  work  "  modern  organization." 

There  is  one  thing  here  which  I  have  defined,  "  System  of  management " : 

"  A  system  of  management  may  be  defined  as  a  means  of  causing  men  to 
cooperate  with  each  other  for  a  common  end.  If  this  cooperation  is  main- 
tained by  force,  the  system  is  in  a  state  of  unstable  equilibrium  and  will  go 
to  pieces  if  the  strong  hand  is  removed.  Cooperation  in  which  the  bond  is 
mutual  interest  in  the  success  of  work  done  by  intelligent  and  honest  methods, 
produces  a  state  of  equilibrium  which  is  stable  and  which  needs  no  outside 
support." 

I  am  reading  these  things  to  you  because  they  are  things  which  I  ask  the 
people  I  work  with  to  subscribe  to  before  I  start. 

It  takes  anywhere  from  one  year  to  two  years  before  we  can  get  to  the 
point  of  making  time  studies  or  setting  the  tasks.  We  find  all  kinds  of  con- 
ditions that  would  hamper  us  if  we  started  out  at  once.  Usually  the  delay  in 
work  is  that  they  have  not  got  the  material  or  have  not  got  the  tools  or  have 
not  the  means  of  getting  proper  information  to  the  people  at  the  right  time. 
It  takes  quite  a  time  to  get  a  system  of  planning  and  routing,  which  enables 
them  to  give  that  information,  and  to  get  the  information  where  the  man 
wants  it. 

I  want  to  say  that  if  I  go  into  a  shop  where  there  is  piecework,  one  of  the 
first  things  I  do  is  to  ask  that  the  piecework  be  abolished  and  that  a  day  rate 


958          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

be  established,  such  a  day  rate  as  is  satisfactory  to  the  workmen.  If  these 
people  have  been  making  an  amount  of  money  considerably  in  excess  of  what 
the  ordinary  day  rate  is  in  that  community,  the  day  rate  is  made  satisfactory 
to  them.  It  must  be  very  close  to  what  they  have  averaged  on  piecework. 
That  is  the  only  way  in  which  we  can  do  anything  satisfactorily,  because  the  day 
rate  is  the  basis  of  everything.  If  there  is  no  day  rate  established,  and  if 
it  comes  to  a  question  of  establishing  the  day  rate,  there  is  no  objection  what- 
ever, in  my  way  of  thinking,  to  settling  that  by  any  means  the  management 
sees  fit,  in  conjunction  with  the  workmen — collective  bargaining  or  any  other 
way.  It  does  not  affect  my  work  in  the  slightest,  and  I  do  not  see  any  reason 
why  there  should  be  any  difficulty  in  that  matter.  In  this  case  suppose  a  man 
has  work  and  has  a  day  rate.  In  many  cases  I  do  not  know  what  the  day 
rates  are.  I  much  prefer  not  to  know  what  the  day  rates  are.  But  if  a  man 
has  a  day  rate,  which  is  represented  by  that  mark  [indicating]  for  one  hour, 
and  if  he  works  two  hours  he  \vill  get  that,  three  hours  that  [indicating],  etc. 
If  by  the  methods  Mr.  Thompson  has  described,  we  find  that  task  is  one  which 
should  be  performed  in  five  hours,  and  it  has  been  decided  the  amount  we  are 
going  to  give  him  for  that  five  hours'  pay,  the  amount  he  gets  if  he  does  the 
work  in  four  hours  is  five  hours'  pay.  If  he  does  it  in  less  than  four  hours  he 
gets  five  hours'  pay.  If  he  takes  longer  than  four  hours  he  takes  his  day  rate. 
That  is  all  there  is  in  the  bonus  system  which  I  operate.  If  a  man  does  it  in 
less  than  four  hours,  he  gets  that  amount.  If  he  does  it  in  four  hours,  he  gets 
that  amount.  If  he  does  it  in  more  than  four  hours,  he  gets  the  day  rate. 

There  has  been  one  factor  in  this  which  has  not  been  brought  out,  namely, 
the  idea  of  training  the  workman.  We  do  not  put  green  men  in  and  expect 
them  to  do  things  without  any  training.  We  believe  the  man  to  study  the  job 
is  the  man  that  knows  most  about  it.  We  like  to  get  our  study  man  from  the 
shop.  We  like  to  have  the  best  man  there  and  to  make  him  an  instructor.  He 
takes  the  men  and  trains  them  and  teaches  them  how  to  reduce  their  time  from 
six  or  seven  or  eight  hours  down  to  four  hours.  That  we  believe  to  be  one  of 
the  best  investments  we  can  make. 

When  we  have  taught  this  workman  how  to  perform  the  task  in  that  time  he 
goes  out  and  does  it.  Let  us  suppose  he  fails  to  perform  it  at  any  time.  That 
is  immediately  investigated.  The  cause  of  failure  is  immediately  investigated. 
When  a  man  turns  in  a  time  card  showing  that  he  has  finished  a  job  the  clerk 
at  once  calculates  whether  he  has  made  his  bonus,  whetker  he  has  done  it  in  the 
task  time  or  not.  If  he  has  failed  to  do  it  in  task  time  that  card  is  given  to  the 
foreman  at  once,  and  he  must  find  out  the  cause  of  the  loss  and  write  it  on  the 
back  of  that  card.  We  find  that  those  causes  are  very  much  more  apt  to  be  the 
fault  of  the  management  than  the  workman.  If  the  task  has  been  fairly  set, 
those  things  are  very  much  more  apt  to  be  the  fault  of  the  management  than  the 
workman ;  that  is,  the  management  has  failed  in  some  respect ;  the  material  is 
not  what  it  ought  to  be,  the  tools  have  not  been  kept  in  repair,  or  somebody  has 
failed  to  do  his  duty.  Then,  we  want  a  report  on  the  back  of  that  card  as  to 
what  the  foreman  is  going  to  do  and  what  arrangement  has  been  made  to  ob- 
viate that  difficulty  in  the  future.  Those  cards  are  summarized  and  then  given 
to  the  superintendent.  Every  red  mark  on  these  charts,  as  we  do  the  work, 
represents  where  somebody  has  failed  to  do  the  work  as  well  as  it  ought  to  be 
done,  and  there  must  be  an  explanation  of  that  go  to  the  superintendent. 

There  are  some  other  things  that  I  want  to  bring  out  with  respect  to  this. 
We  have  talked  about  planning  and  routing.  If  we  have  a  properly  balanced 
shop  we  have  so  many  tools  of  one  kind,  so  many  tools  of  another  kind,  and  so 
many  tools  of  another  kind,  and  we  know  that  such  a  tool  should  get  out  so 
many  pieces,  and  this  tool  so  many  pieces,  and  we  want  to  balance  those  up  so 
we  will  know  each  day  what  we  are  going  to  get. 

After  we  have  set  the  task,  when  the  task  is  performed  regularly,  we  get  that 
man  on  a  basis,  and  we  can  depend  upon  that  man  for  the  work  he  is  doing ;  we 
can  depend  upon  thai  number  of  pieces  for  the  work  in  the  next  department — 
perhaps  assembling  our  machines.  It  is  therefore  to  our  interest  to  get  that 
amount  of  product,  but  it  is  not  greatly  to  our  interest  to  exceed  it. 

In  setting  tasks,  I  may  say  we  always  give  the  workman  the  benefit  of  the 
doubt.  We  expect  him  to  make  10  or  15  per  cent  over  and  above  his  task;  to 
d<>  10  or  ir>  per  cent  more  than  the  amount  called  for  by  the  task. 

When  you  get  to  New  York  I  think  there  will  be  some  gentlemen  there  who 
would  be  glad  to  show  you  what  they  are  doing  in  their  work  in  these  lines.  I 
asked  your  chairman  if  he  wished  me  to  present  any  charts  and  so  on  with 
regard  to  that.  He  said  there  would  not  be  time  here,  which  I  realized. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  959 

I  want  to  show  you  one  just  for  a  moment;  I  want  to  show  you  a  chart 
which  I  can  not  put  in  the  record,  because  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  do  it.  You 
will  be  able  to  see  it  when  you  get  elsewhere.  These  charts  were  actually  kept. 
There  is  one  with  quite  a  little  red  on  it  [indicating].  There  is  one  which  has 
a  good  deal  less.  We  have  charts  enough  of  this  character  to  paper  these  walls 
here,  in  the  different  places. 

The  answer  to  one  of  the  questions  which  has  been  troubling  the  commission 
seems  to  me  to  be  this :  If  we  can  have  publicity  as  to  what  is  being  done  in  this 
work  we  will  answer  a  good  many  things.  I  do  not  know  that  that  will  solve 
all  our  trouble,  but  it  will  put  us  in  the  way  of  finding  out  the  facts.  Eight 
years  ago  that  seemed  to  me  to  be  a  good  thing,  and  I  began  to  make  these 
charts.  If  those  charts  are  carried  out,  and  they  are  made  available  through 
publicity,  it  will  make  it  impossible  for  a  concern  to  exploit  its  workmen  to  any 
very  great  extent. 

Every  red  mark  on  there  means  that  the  workman  failed  to  perform  his  task, 
and  an  investigation  is  made  as  to  why  he  failed. 

Now,  we  also  ask  them,  at  the  direction  or  discretion  of  the  superintendent, 
that  a  man  shall  be  awarded  his  bonus  even  though  he  fail  to  perform  his  task. 
The  troubles  that  have  occurred  in  the  changing  over  to  scientific  management 
are  undoubtedly  due  to  the  fact  that  changing  a  system  of  management,  where 
everybody  has  his  own  idea  of  his  rights  and  privileges,  is  a  very  serious 
matter,  and  people  have  gone  at  it  with  that  idea  in  mind,  that  they  must  have 
what  they  want,  you  know;  there  are  people  who  think  they  must  have  what 
they  want,  and  there  are  some  other  people  who  think  they  want  the  same  thing, 
but  they  can  not  have  it,  in  which  case  they  can  get  a  compromise,  usually,  if 
they  go  at  it  slowly  enough.  Perhaps  I  have  given  that  part  sufficiently  In 
detail. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  With  reference  to  your  illustration,  Mr.  Gantt,  in  which  you 
pay  five-hour  time  for  a  four-hour  task,  what  would  be  the  objection,  say  in 
a  case  like  that  where,  two  days'  tasks  were  performed  in  an  eight-hour  day,  to 
saying,  "We  will  pay  a  daily  wage."  Let  it  be  understood  in  the  shop  that  it 
would  be  based  upon  the  performance  of  two  of  those  tasks.  What  objection 
would  there  be  to  that  and  not  to  establish  any  so-called  bonus,  as  it  were,  but 
to  allow  10  hours  for  8  hours'  work,  the  understanding  being  that  two  tasks 
should  be  performed? 

Mr.  GANTT.  That  is  just  exactly  the  idea  I  had  reference  to  when  I  spoke  of 
the  abuses  in  the  daywork  system ;  they  call  it  daywork,  but  it  was  a  stunt 
system,  which  practically  amounted  to  that. 

*  Now,  I  do  not  know  how  you  can  prevent  inconsistencies  and  things  of  that 
character  cropping  out  anywhere  except  by  publicity. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  ask  you  this:  Is  not  the  fact  that  you  give  a  man  an 
extra  hour  for  completing  a  piece  of  work  in  four  hours,  is  not  the  result  of 
that  apt  to  be  the  incurring  or  causing  the  worker  to  believe  that  he  is  being 
forced  ahead  by  a  bonus,  and  that  there  is  something  unusual  and  unnatural 
about  the  thing,  that  a  piece  of  work  can  be  normally  performed  in  four  hours, 
and  he  is  to  be  given  an  hour  extra  for  its  being  performed  in  that  time? 

Mr.  GANTT.  In  most  of  the  places  where  I  have  been  the  people  have  been 
willing  and  have  been  glad  to  get  more  money,  if-  they  could  get  it,  and  that 
question,  as  you  suggested  it  here,  has  not  arisen  in  my  knowledge;  but  if  the 
subject  had  been  brought  up  and  the  speed  had  been  set — now  usually  that  job 
is  done  in  8  or  10  hours,  without  any  instruction  or  teaching.  Let  me  explain 
just  for  a  moment.  Most  men  who  are  familiar  with  shopwork  of  any  kind 
know  that  there  are  some  people  in  these  shops  who  can  do  two  or  three  times 
as  much  as  the  ordinary  man  in  that  shop.  Now,  the  best  use  you  can  make 
of  a  man  who  can  do  that  is  not  to  make  a  pacemaker  of  him,  but  to  make  him 
an  instructor,  if  you  have  simply  daywork  and  nothing  else,  make  that  man  an 
instructor  to  teach  the  other  people  how  they  can  do  it,  you  will  get  a  great 
big  improvement. 

Now,  if  you  set  a  task,  and  when  you  find  out  the  reasonable  amount  to  be 
done,  you  set  a  task  and  have  this  man  act  as  instructor  and  pay  the  man  who 
was  doing  it  in  eight  or  nine  hours,  and  show  him  how  to  do  it  easily  in  four 
or  five  hours,  he  is  glad  to  receive  pay  for  the  four  or  five  hours,  as  a  rule. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  the  minds  of  some  people,  is  it  not  difficult  to  make  them 
believe,  as  I  have  said  before,  that  there  is  no  trick  about  it,  and  that  it  is 
offering  something  to  them  by  which  they  will  speed  themselves  up  to  get  more 
pay,  because  it  is  not  in  human  nature  to  make  people  believe  that  an  employer 


960          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

is  willing  to  give  five  hours'  pay  for  four  hours'  work,  but  that  there  is  some- 
thing back  of  that? 

Mr.  GANTT.  You  know  to  give  the  employee  enough  to  make  him  want  to  do  it. 
Here  is  a  general  statement,  I  might  say.  A  man  hires  himself  out,  and  he  is 
making  $2  a  clay,  if  you  wish.  He  has  been  working  as  he  saw  fit,  and  willing 
to  go  along  as  he  saw  fit  and  make  that  $2  a  day.  Now,  he  will  obey  instruc- 
tions and  work  in  any  reasonable  way  that  he  is  asked  to  work,  provided  a 
proper  inducement  is  made  to  him  to  do  it,  and  he  will  obey  instructions,  if  he 
is  accustomed  to  work  on  his  own  initiative,  as  a  rule,  when  there  is  some 
inducement  to  have  him  do  it.  How  much  inducement  do  you  have  to  give? 
That  is  the  inducement  [indicating  blackboard]. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Turn  it  around  for  a  moment.  When  you  make  a  time  study 
of  a  task  and  finally  determine  on  four  hours  as  being  the  proper  time,  your  de- 
sire is  to  find  out  how  much  waste  movement  or  other  thing  you  can  eliminate, 
and  with  that  eliminated  what  time  it  should  reasonably  and  fairly  take  to  do 
the  work. 

Mr.  GANTT.  We  do  that  before  we  set  the  task.  We  find  out  how  much  time 
it  should  reasonably  take,  and  we  do  not  set  the  task  for  four  hours  unless  we 
find  that  four  hours  is  a  reasonable  time,  and  ample  time,  to  do  the  work. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  is  an  attempt  to  set  what  would  be  a  fair  standard  for 
that  piece  of  work? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  TnoMPSON._And  by  setting  a  fair  standard  for  a  piece  of  work,  and  let 
the  workman  be  advised,  and  the  employer  as  well,  as  to  how  much  time  one 
man  should  spend  on.  that  piece  of  work? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  the  only  thing  that  can  be,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  if  that  is  fairly  and  conscientiously  made  and  deter- 
mined with  some  expertness,  then  it  really  represents  an  ideal  time  in  which 
the  job  should  be  performed?. 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Making  all  human  allowances? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  that  is  so,  why  could  not  a  day  rate  then  be  made  for  the 
worker  under  which  he  shall  be  paid  a  certain  standard  wage  per  day,  with 
the  understanding  that  he  is  to  perform  during  that  time  this  particular  task, 
that  he  should  perform  two  of  those  tasks  in  a  day,  an  eight-hour  day. 

Mr.  GANTT.  Oh,  that  is  a  perfectly  legitimate  thing  to  do,  and  I  can  see  in 
many  cases  where  it  would  work  out  very  nicely. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  there  is  in  the  minds  of  many  workmen  some  idea  that 
there  is  a  trick  in  this  bonus  or  premium  proposition,  and  it  seems  an  unnatural 
thing  to  them  that  a  man  should  pay  an  extra  hour  when  they  did  not  perform 
the  work,  this  day  wage  would  eliminate  at  least  that  proposition,  wouldn't  it? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  so  far  as  what  amount  should  be  performed  is  concerned, 
it  eliminates  that,  because  you  have  already  set  your  time  study  and  your 
task? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  opinion  any  objection  to  the  bonus  or  task  could  be 
eliminated  by  day  work? 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  do  not  really  know  exactly  what  you  mean,  because  that  does 
not  look  like  an  objection  to  me. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Well,  if  there  is  an  objection  on  that  ground,  it  would  be 
eliminated  ? 

Mr.  GANTT.  You  would  find  it  extremely  difficult  to  carry  that  idea  that  you 
there  out  ;  to  adopt  it  as  a  general  scheme.  I  think  the  theoretical  idea— 
I  will  grant  you—  might  be  all  right,  but  at  the  same  time  I  should  not  like  to 
operate  a  scheme  of  that  general  character. 

Mr.  THOMPSON,  in  many  cases  is  not  the  task  system  set  on  the  product  of 
the  day's  work? 


It  is  usually  set  on  the  product  of  the  day's  work.  My  absolute 
>rmciple  is  that  if  a  man  does  in  one  day  what  is  required  of  him,  he  gets  paid 
for  so  many  hours  over  and  above  the  day. 

Mr.  THOMPSON-.   Why  not,  then,  make  a  standard  based  on  that,  and  say  and 
it  understood  "This  is  a  task  that  a  man  must  perform  in  order  to  earn 
" 


that  wage? 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOK.  961 

Mr.  GANTT.  That  would  mix  up  the  thing  which  I  have  tried  to  get  out  of. 
I  have  tried  to  leave  the  labor  unions  entirely  free  to  handle  their  collective 
bargaining  idea  on  the  subject  of  the  daily  wage ;  not  to  get  into  the  daily-wage 
question.  I  would  much  prefer  to  have  that  daily-wage  question  settled  out- 
side of  my  work  entirely ;  therefore  I  would  prefer  only  time. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  On  that  point,  just  to  pin  that  down ;  when  you  have  set 
this  task  of  four  hours,  in  reality  the  scientific  part  of  your  work  is  done? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  other  is  merely  a  matter  of  inducement? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Really  managerial  inducement? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes ;  managerial  inducement.  It  is  a  question  where  you  can 
bargain  or  where  you  can  agree.  I  do  not  see  any  reason  why  that  can  not  be 
settled  by  any  reasonable  agreement  between  people. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  illustration  of  what  I  meant  there  I  will  give  you  this 
illustration  :  In  a  certain  clothing  shop  where  there  are  800  cutters,  the  men  are 
paid  on  a  weekly  wage  basis,  and  these  men  vary,  each  man  from  the  other  in 
the  shop,  but  it  is  understood  as  an  element  of  return  that  the  wage  should  be 
earned  by  the  operator  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  cuts  he  makes,  and  as  a 
study  of  what  that  should  be,  a  rate  of  52£  cents  has  been  set  in  that  shop.  If 
the  cutter  falls  down  for  a  couple  of  weeks  in  earning  his  weekly  wage,  by 
reason  of  not  making  a  sufficient  number  of  cuts,  he  is  notified  by  the  firm  that 
his  wages  will  be  reduced  at  the  end  of  the  next  week  if  there  is  still  a  falling 
off.  If  the  falling  off  continues  there  is  a  cut.  In  the  same  way  if  he  con- 
tinually improves  his  output  his  weekly  wage  is  increased. 

Now,  assuming  that  the  price  per  cut  has  been  nearly  scientifically  adjusted 
at  52|  cents,  what  objection  can  there  be"  to  that  system  in  which  the  weekly 
wage  is  paid,  and  not  a  bonus  or  piecework  or  task? 

Mr.  GANTT.  The  weekly  system,  I  do  not  see  any  objection  to  that,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  general  considerations ;  the  consideration  which  I  find,  though, 
is  that  it  looks  to  me  to  be  a  very  important  one,  namely,  that  the  daily  ac- 
counting is  very  much  better  for  everybody.  These  men  know  to-morrow  morn- 
ing at  9  o'clock  whether  they  have  earned  the  bonus  to-day  or  not. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Let  me  just  put  a  question  to  you  there.  The  objection,  if 
I  understand  it  which  is  made  by  labor,  organized  labor — which  is  perhaps 
the  only  labor  that  is  qualified  to  speak,  because  the  other  people  do  what  they 
are  compelled  to  do  in  the  shops — they  take  the  job  or  leave  it  alone — but  the 
objection  is  that  it  causes  a  man  to  speed  up  each  day.  Now,  if  a  man  should 
feel  a  little  under  the  weather  one  day,  he  would  feel  that  he  could  make  that 
time  up  the  next  day ;  if  he  felt  under  the  weather  a  couple  of  days,  he  could 
still  make  it  up  at  the  balance  of  the  week ;  but  here  every  day  he  is  put  to  a 
test,  and  there  is  a  specific  and  daily  loss  each  day,  and,  as  I  understand  it, 
under  some  of  the  systems,  if  he  fails  to  cover  a  certain  amount  a  day  he 
makes  quite  a  loss  per  day ;  it  might  amount  even  to  a  dollar  by  falling  off  in 
even  a  quarter  of  his  task. 

Now,  does  not  this  weekly  wage  give  a  better  opportunity  for  a  man  to  per- 
form his  work,  provided  the  task  has  been  set  scientifically  to  the  time  it  should 
take,  or  as  to  the  money  value  of  it? 

Mr.  GANTT.  With  regard  to  that  I  want  to  say  that  I  have  had  a  good  deal 
of  difficulty  with  some  of  my  friends  in  getting  them  to  allow  me  to  pay  the 
task  by  the  day.  So  many  people  want  to  do  it  by  the  job.  If  the  job  only 
lasts  two  hours  they  want  to  say  that  he  either  earned  or  lost  his  bonus  on 
that,  but  my  experience  so  far  is  that  the  average  for  the  day  is  very  much 
fairer  than  in  an  attempt  to  do  it  at  shorter  intervals,  do  it  by  the  day  or  week. 
I  do  not  know  just  exactly  what  the  effect  would  be,  but  the  workman  likes  to 
know  each  day  what  he  did  yesterday. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  assuming  that  the  objection  of  the  workingman  was 
the  fact  that  he  was  held  down  to  each  day  in  the  latitude  of  time  to  cover 

shortcomings 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  do  not  know  that  there  would  be  any  serious  objection  to  that ; 
I  do  not  believe  it  would  be  as  good  a  thing  for  the  workingman  in  general,  and 
I  do  not  believe  it  would  be  as  good  a  thing  for  everybody,  because  there  is 
an  element  in  that  which  I  want  to  bring  out,  that  if  we  ought  to  have  so 
many  pieces  per  day  to  assemble  a  certain  machine,  we  have  counted  on  so 
many  pieces  for  that  machine  in  order  that  we  might  assemble  something  out 
here^  it  is  very  important  that  we  should  have  that  many  pieces  per  day. 

38819°— 1G 61 


962         REPORT   OF   COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  not  that  just  the  very  reason  why  there  is  an  objection? 

Mr.  GANTT.  May  be. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Because  there  is  a  necessary  speeding  up  of  the  man  when 
he  does  not  feel  like  it?  That  is  to  say,  the  task  which  he  could  do  easily  in 
four  hours,  the  day  before  it  might  have  been  a  little  too  much  for  him? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Under  those  conditions,  if  that  man  should  come  in  the  morning 
and  say,  "  I  do  not  feel  like  working  task  work  to-day,  I  am  not  feeling  very 
well,"  he  would  always  be  relieved  and  given  some  other  j6b  under  my  scheme. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  you  know  that  very  few  men,  even  if  they  are  in  an 
independent  position,  like  to  confess  an  inability,  even  for  a  day,  to  do  their  job. 

Mr.  GANTT.  You  understand  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at.  I  have  tried  in  all 
the  ways  I  know  how  to  make  this  work,  as  near  as  possible,  equitable  between 
employer  and  employee.  I  do  not  feel  that  I  would  be  making  anything  that 
would  be  permanent  if  I  did  anything  which  seemed  to  me  to  allow  one  to  take 
advantage  of  the  other.  I  will  talk  to  you  about  that  later  if  you  wish  me  to, 
but  you  have  brought  up  a  question  there  that  is  an  entirely  new  idea  to  me, 
and  I  have  not  given  it  any  thought,  and  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  might  say  that  we  have  had  it  worked  out  three  years 
satisfactorily  where  800  men  were  employed. 

Mr.  GANTT.  It  may  be  worked  out ;  I  will  not  say  that  it  will  not,  but  it  is 
an  entirely  new  thing  to  me,  and  my  opinion  would  not  be  of  any  value,  or 
worth  a  great  deal. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  they  have  tried  to  be  equitable  in  their  work,  as  to  how 
much  time  it  ought  to  take.  The  man  devoted  to  that  task  alone  is  paid 
$20,000  a  year  to  see  that  the  firm  gets  what  is  coming  to  it. 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  would  like  the  job. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes.  Of  course,  he  works  pretty  hard,  though.  Now,  do  you 
see  any  objection  to  the  workingrnan  who  is  asked  to  cooperate  with  a  plan  or 
proposition  of  the  kind  you  mention  taking  part  in  the  development  of  it? 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  do  not  see  any  objection  to  it.  I  will  tell  you  in  regard  to  that. 
Here  is  my  experience :  As  I  said  before,  putting  the  shops,  whatever  they  may 
be,  in  shape  for  us  to  begin  and  make  such  set  tasks  is  quite  a  long  job. 
During  that  time  the  people  engaged  in  this  work  of  getting  the  shops  in  shape 
become  acquainted  with  the  workmen  and  with  the  foremen,  and  if  they  are 
not  capable  and  honest  people  these  workmen  and  these  people  find  it  out.  I 
do  not  find  any  objection  on  the  part  of  the  workingmeu  if  the  man  who  comes 
out  there  to  show  them  and  set  their  work  is  really  a  capable  and  honest  man. 
If  he  is  not,  he  is  going  to  make  trouble,  and  I  uphold  the  workmen  in  the 
trouble  when  they  make  it. 

Now,  usually  of  the  people  that  I  have  got  on  the  work,  the  workingrnen 
seem  to  have  more  confidence  in  them  than  the  management  has.  I  find  every 
now  and  then  when  something  is  done,  and  when  my  man  makes  a  report,  I 
find  somebody  from  the  head  office  comes  and  sneaks  around  to  find  out 
whether  that  report  is  true  or  not.  I  could  give  you — I  am  not  at  liberty  to 
do  so,  but  I  could  give  you  illustrations  of  where  the  workiiiginen  absolutely 
are  willing  to  do  and  believe  what  the  men  representing  me  have  told  them, 
far  more  so  than  the  management— and  I  was  hired  by  the  management.  I 
do  not  understand  it,  but  that  is  a  fact. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  there  anything  in  the  scheme  of  scientific  management 
which  would  have  of  necessity  eliminated  the  voice  of  the  worker  in  the 
setting  of  the  time  standards  and  the  tasks? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Of  course,  what  we  have  done  is  this:  The  task  setter— Mr. 
Thompson  gave  you  the  specifications  of  the  men  who  could  make  time  studies 
and  sot  tasks,  mid  I  am  very  much  in  accord  with  Mr.  Thompson — the  man 
who  has  not  had  an  education  which  has  fitted  him  to  make  a  study  of  any 
kind  on  the  job  is  apt  to  make  a  great  many  errors,  and  when  he  is  shown 
these  things  and  gets  into  it  we  do  not  have  any  diniculty  with  him  at  all. 
We  do  not  make  any  study  on  any  workman  unless  the  workman  is  perfectly 
willing  that  we  should  do  so,  and  I  might  say  that  it  is  my  practice  not  to 
gi\v  a  workman  on  any  study  any  additional  pay  while  we  are  making  the 
study  unless  when  the  task  is  set  we  give  that  person  the  first  show  at  the 
task. 

Now,  listen  to  that  carefully,  because  that  means  a  whole  lot.  A  man  or 
woman  whom  we  study  to  set  a  task  knows  that  when  we  take  his  or  her 
time  on  that  that  we  are  going  to  give  him  or  her  the  first  privilege  of  making 
the  task. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  is  the  reason  you  do  not  give  them  extra  pay? 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOB.  963 

Mr  GANTT.  We  do  not  give  them — if  we  select  them,  then  we  go  back  and 
pay  them  a  bonus  for  that  time. 

Mr.  THOMPSON,  Why  don't  you  pay  them  the  extra  bonus  or  extra  pay,  rather, 
while  they  are  being  time  studied? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Wait  a  moment.  Perhaps  I  made  a  mistake  in  what  I  said  there. 
I  said  I  did  not  advocate  the  method  I  spoke  of,-  but  I  think  it  is  done  in 
some  places. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Why  don't  you  advocate  it? 

Mr.  GANTT.  We  do  not  want  these  people  to  speed  up  during  that  time.  We 
want  to  get  the  facts.  Mind  you,  I  want  to  follow  up  Mr.  Thompson's  state- 
ment that  scientific  management  is  management  by  means  of  facts.  Most  man- 
agement of  every  kind  is  management  by  means  of  opinion.  Now,  if  we  can 
differentiate  between  facts  and  opinions,  we  have  got  something,  and  we  want 
to  get  the  facts.  It  is  facts  that  we  are  after,  not  to  overspeed  persons.  We 
have  had  girls  get  very  nervous  when  we  studied  them.  They  speeded  away 
up.  Well,  we  left  them ;  we  didn't  want  them  to  do  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Why  wouldn't  that  objection  you  make  to  the  operator 
speeding  up  while  you  are  making  the  time  study  apply  equally  to  when  they 
are  performing  the  work? 

Mr.  GANTT.  AVe  find  this :  That  if  I  say  too  much  to  Torn  Jones  about  work- 
ing too  hard,  he  don't  like  it.  He  says  he  guesses  he  knows  how  hard  he  can 
work.  I  have  found  that  that  usually  settles  itself,  that  they  do  not  naturally 
take  a  pace  which  is  killing  unless  there  is  some  absolute  reason  for  doing  so; 
and  later  I  can  give  you  some  data  on  the  effect  of  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  generally  'state  to  the  person  who  is  being  studied, 
or  to  the  shop  in  general,  that  it  is  done  for  the  purpose  of  setting  the  task 
record? 

Mr.  GANTT.  There  is  no  question  about  their  knowing  that ;  they  all  knowr  it. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  the  work  done  in  view  of  all  the  shop? 

Mr.  GANTT.  In  the  view  of  everybody.  We  particularly  object  to  getting  off 
in  some  comer  and  doing  it.  We  do  it  in  the  view  of  everybody,  and  with  the 
IMTSOU  in  front  of  the  machine  wherever  possible. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  you  know  of  no  reason  why  the  worker  should  not 
have  a  voice  in  the  determination  of  the  time  standard? 

Mr.  GANTT.  We  allow  them  a  criticism  in  detail,  and  if  there  is  any  objec- 
tion to  it  in  any  way  we  go  over  it  part  by  part  with  them;  and  when  we  have 
done  that  we  have  never  had  any  serious  objection. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  objection  would  there  be  to  allowing  the  workers  an 
equal  voice? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Just  exactly  what  do  you  mean  by  that? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  mean  in  case  the  representative  of  the  workers  disagreed 
with  the  employers,  that  they  would  then  have  to  refer  the  matter  for  adjudica- 
tion, or  have  to  convince  each  other. 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  arbitration. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Put  it  in  this  way,  that  in  case  the  worker  did  not  agree 
with  the  employer,  it  should  be  thoroughly  understood  that  the  employer  could 
not  put  that  task  into  operation. 

Mr.  GANTT.  Unless  the  worker  feels  that  it  is  a  fair  task,  we  do  not  ask  him 
to  perform  it 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  What  would  you  say  about  an  agreement  being  made  with 
the  workers  as  a  whole  that  unless  their  representatives  agree  it  shall  be 
referred  ? 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  have  never  considered  that.  I  have  never  thought  into  it,  but 
I  have  made  that  statement  in  this  book,  that  we  would  use  no  coercion.  It 
seems  to  me  that  covers  it.  It  has  covered  it  up  to  this  time  with  me. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  that  event  that  would  practically  mean,  when  crystallized 
into  the  terms  of  an  agreement,  that  the  workers  should  have  no  agreement? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Should  have  no  agreement. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  GANTT.  It  seems  to  me  that  covers  it.  It  has  covered  it  up  to  the  present 
time. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  all  I  care  to  ask. 

Mr.  GANTT.  Let  me  explain  one  other  thing,  if  I  may.  The  question  has  been 
raised  about  the  quality  of  work.  Now,  we  have  discovered  a  very  interesting 
thing  about  quality.  If  a  man  is  comfortably  busy,  so  that  he  has  not  time  to 
Flop  and  do  other' things,  his  work  is  better  than  if  he  has  time  to  stop  and 
think  about  something  else;  and  that  is  especially  the  case  with  girls.  If  a 


964         REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

girl  has  enough  work  to  keep  her  comfortably  busy,  so  that  she  has  to  keep 
her  mind  on  the  work  all  the  time,  her  work  will  be  of  a  higher  quality  than 
if  she  has  time  to  stop  and  think  about  something  else,  and  talk  about  last 
night's  party,  and  so  on.  Her  work  goes  off,  then.  We  find  that  same  thing  in 
weaving  \vork  and  other  work.  A  man  running  just  enough  looms  to  keep  him 
comfortably  busy,  we  find, 'is  happier  and  does  better  work  than  a  man  who 
has  not  quite  enough  to  keep  him  busy,  and  sits  down  and  gets  to  dreaming 
about  something — of  course,  I  do  not  mean  that  he  should  never  sit  down — 
gets  his  mind  on  something  else.  Then  he  finds  that  he  has  got  a  whole  lot  of 
stuff  in  there  to  pick  out.  What  we  want  is  to  give  them  enough  work  to  keep 
them  in  a  healthy  condition  of  activity.  In  that  way  you  get  the  best  work. 
There  is  a  point  there  that  I  hope  to  be  able  to  give  some  light  on  some  day,  but 
I  have  not  got  it  yet.  There  is  the  question  of  quantity  and  quality,  where  you 
get  to  a  peak  where  those  two  things  make  a  maximum. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Commissioner  Delano).  We  will  adjourn  this  meeting 
now,  and  will  ask  you  to  come  back  to-morrow  morning  if  you  will. 

Mr.  GANTT.  That  will  be  rather  inconvenient  for  me.  Do  you  think  you 
will  want  me  very  long? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Mr.  Thompson  has  asked  all  the  questions  he  has  to 
ask  of  Mr.  Gantt. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Thompson  has  finished  with  the  direct  examina- 
tion, but  I  supposed  members  of  the  commission  would  want  to  ask  you  other 
questions.  Mr.  Garretson,  have  you  any  questions  to  ask? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  have  about  two  or  three. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  I  have  none. 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  am  not  quite  through.  I  should  like  to  read  something  here 
that  will  take  me  about  five  or  ten  minutes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  One  reason  why  we  must  adjourn  very  soon  is  that 
we  are  required  to  give  up  this  room  at  six  o'clock.  The  hotel  requires  it.  For 
that  reason  we  would  have  to  adjourn  very  soon,  but  if  you  have  very  little 
to  say,  we  might  have  time  for  it. 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  have  very  little  to  say,  but  I  would  like  to  answer  your 
questions. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  You  dwelt,  time  and  again,  on  the  fact  that  there  is 
no  coercion  used. 

Mr.  GANTT.  In  my  work. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Oh,  sure;  but  what  I  want  to  know  is:  What 
happens  to  a  man  if  he  keep  on  refusing  long  enough? 

Mr.  GANTT.  Now,  we  have  not  had  that  condition  obtain  at  all.  If  the  task 
is  right,  we  have  not  had  that.  I  do  not  know  just  exactly  what  might  happen 
in  the  long  run,  but  we  have  had  this  case  where  that  did  happen,  and  the  local 
system  superintendent  undertook  to  fire  a  person,  and  the  general  manager 
ordered  him  taken  back.  He  had  not  agreed  to  do  the  things  according  to 
this 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Did  that  man  go  on  working  at  the  old  rate  while 
everybody  else  had  the  new  one? 

Mr.  GANTT.  No ;  he — well,  I  really  do  not  know.  I  have  forgotten  the  details 
of  it,  and  I  would  not  like  to  say.  I  know  that  the  thing  went  off  all  right. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  could  not  see  how  the  old  system  would  be  con- 
tinued for  one  man  while  a  new  system  went  into  effect  for  all  others. 

Mr.  GANTT.  Excuse  me — as  to  the  day  work,  there  is  no  place  in  which  all 
the  people  are  working  under  a  task  system.  There  is  great  deal  of  day  work. 
In  fact,  in  most  of  the  factories  where  I  have  had  anything  to  do  we  had  a 
great  deal  of  day  work.  There  is  day  work  available  for  a  great  many  people. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Mr.  Gantt,  what  is  your  standard  of  judgment  of 
men  under  certain  conditions?  We  will  assume  that  we  have  a  man  who  has 
given  a  pretty  thorough  study  for,  say,  15  or  20  years,  to  the  problems  involved 
in  the  industrial  connections.  Is  your  standard  of  honesty  and  intellect  for 
him  based  on  whether  he  agrees  with  you? 

Mr.  GANTT.  I  should  not  like  to  say  that,  Mr.  Garretson. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  did  not  know. 

Mr.  GANTT.  No.  You  know,  I  am  only  one  of  a  great  many  people.  I  do  not 
claim  any  supernatural  powers,  or  anything  like  that.  I  am  only  one.  I  am  a 
Democrat. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  am  not 

Mr.  GANTT.  Well,  I  am.  One  of  the  things  I  was  going  to  read  was  what  my 
ideas  were  on  some  of  these  tilings,  and  I  should  like  to  read  this.  This  is  a 
part  of  a  paper  that  I  read  a  while  ago.  It  will  take  only  five  minutes. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  965 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Let  me  ask  you  one  fractional  question  more.  You 
referred  right  there  at  the  last  to  the  fact  that  if  you  keep  a  man  busy  enough, 
he  is  happy,  if  you  do  not  keep  him  too  busy. 

Mr.  GANTT.  Yes ;  you  must  not  overwork  a  man. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Have  you  ever  studied  to  know  if  you  kept  a  man 
hungry  enough,  but  not  too  hungry,  it  had  any  effect  on  his  happiness  or  his 
productivity  ? 

Mr.  GANTT.  No ;  I  never  considered  that. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  can  not  be  here  to-morrowT  morning,  will  you 
hand  that  paper  in  so  that  we  will  get  the  benefit  of  it? 

Mr.  GANTT.  It  is  only  a  short  paper.  I  was  not  going  to  read  this  whole 
paper.  I  will  shut  off  now. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  If  you  want  to  submit  that,  hand  it  in  to  us  and  we 
will  make  it  a  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  GANTT.  All  right. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  can  not  have  the  use  of  this  room  to-morrow 
morning  for  our  meeting,  but  the  hotel  has  kindly  assigned  for  our  use  the 
lounge  or  parlor  on  the  floor  below,  directly  north  of  the  office,  and  the  hearings 
will  be  resumed  there  at  10  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

(Whereupon,  at  5.50  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  commission  adjourned  until  to-morrow, 
Thursday,  April  16,  1914,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Thursday,  April  16, 

The  commission  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.  in  the  Shoreham  Hotel. 

Present:  Commissioners  Frederic  A.  Delano  (acting  chairman),  John  H. 
Commons,  Mrs.  J.  Borden  Harriman,  Harris  Weinstock,  S.  Thruston  .Ballard, 
John  B.  Lennon,  James  O'Connell,  and  Austin  B.  Garretson. 

Present  also  for  the  commission :  Mr.  W.  O.  Thompson,  counsel ;  Mr.  W.  Jett 
Lauck,  managing  expert;  Mr.  George  E.  Barnett,  special  investigator;  Mr.  B. 
M.  Manly,  superintendent  Division  of  Industrial  Investigations;  and  Mr.  F.  H. 
Bird,  superintendent  Division  of  Public  Agencies. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Commissioner  Delano).  Mr.  Thompson,  call  your 
first  witness. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  will  ask  Mr.  Duncan  to  take  the  stand. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JAMES  DUNCAN. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Duncan,  will  you  please  give  your  name  and  address? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  James  Duncan,  Hancock  Building,  Quincy,  Mass. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  your  business? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  General  president  of  the  Granite  Cutters'  International  Associa- 
tion of  America ;  incidentally  first  vice  president  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  long  have  you  occupied  each  of  those  positions  ? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Since  the  fall  of  1894  and  the  springtime  of  1895. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  a  general  way,  what  is  the  granite  cutters'  union;  what 
does  it  include  in  its  membership? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  It  includes  in  its  membership  practically  the  men  engaged  in 
the  trade.  The  trade  is  what  we  call  practically  well  organized  and  compre- 
hends all  the  men  cutting  granite  and  hard  stone  in  North  America,  the  men 
who  polish  it,  the  tool  dressers  for  the  cutters,  and  the  men  who  saw  granite 
and  turn  it  by  turning  lathes ;  anything  that  produces  a  piece  of  dressed  granite 
after  it  leaves  the  quarry  until  it  is  put  to  use,  from  the  roughest  kind  of  street 
work  to  the  finest  kind  of  statuary. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  include  in  the  membership  the  builders  of  struc- 
tures— those  who  are  engaged  in  the  erection  of  buildings  and  the  placing  of 
granite? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  In  some  instances  are  members  setters — that  is,  what  are  known 
as  stone  setters — but  as  a  general  proposition  the  stone  is  set  by  stonemasons 
who  are  not  members  of  our  association. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  it  might  be  said  that  the  majority  of  your  membership 
is  engaged  in  quarry  work  and  shop  work  on  granite  and  other  hard  stone? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  In  the  cutting  and  dressing  of  granite  after  it  is  quarried. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  what  you  might  call  shop  work? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  In  sheds,  as  we  call  them. 


966          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  had  any  experience  with  the  so-called  efficiency 
systems  or  methods  of  scientific  management? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Only  by  general  knowledge.  I  am  not  aware  that  the  subject, 
by  the  title  you  give  it,  has  been  specifically  known  or  in  evidence  in  our  trade. 
Efficiency  in  our  trade  is  at  such  a  high  tension  itself  that  I  suppose  the  effi- 
ciency managers  did  not  feel  that  there  was  much  opportunity  for  them  to 
enter  in. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  made  a  study  of  the  so-called  efficiency  systems  and 
scientific  management  systems  which  are  spoken  of  to-day  ? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  To  some  extent. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  From  the  study  which  you  have  made,  what  have  you  to  say 
to  this  commission  as  to  their  benefit  or  lack  of  benefit  to  the  workers  ? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  As  I  have  stated,  we  have  little  evidence  of  it  in  the  granite 
industry,  because  of  what  we  call  strong  competition  among  men  to  hold  jobs ; 
because  of  the  competition  between  contractors  to  get  contracts  in  selecting  the 
very  best  men  they  can  select  to  manage  their  business ;  and  the  superintendent 
or  foreman  who  would  not  practice  what  theoretically  is  called  efficiency  would 
not  hold  his  occupation  very  long.  Then  the  competition  among  the  men  behind 
the  hammer  to  hold  their  jobs  is  such  that  it  causes  a  large  portion  of  the  trade 
to  study  the  nearest  and  most  practical  way  to  get  done  as  quickly  as  possible. 
By  doing  so  those  who  are  most  efficient  in  that  direction  have  the  best  wages 
and  the  most  steady  employment. 

In  other  lines  I  could  not  speak  with  the  same  authority  as  men  employed  in 
some  of  the  other  industries,  but  from  such  opportunities  as  I  have  had  of  gain- 
ing knowledge  upon  the  subject  I  have  not  got  much  to  testify  in  favor  of  so- 
called  efficiency  being  of  advantage  to  working  men  and  women.  There  may  be 
times  when  an  efficiency  manager,  or  any  other  outsider,  might  see  something 
that  could  be  done,  in  the  same  way  as  an  onlooker  may  see  a  chance  in  a  game 
of  checkers,  that  the  players,  because  of  their  intensity  of  interest  in  what  is 
going  on,  may  not  see ;  but  apart  from  that  the  men  and  women  in  the  different 
occupations  are  so  placed  in  our  competitive  system  that  in  order  to  retain 
their  positions  they  all  need  to  be  more  or  less  efficiency  managers  in  accord- 
ance with  their  opportunities  and  mental  and  physical  capacities. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  granite  cutting  there  is  a  very  strong  competition,  as  you 
say,  between  man  and  man  for  the  jobs,  is  there? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  And  each  one  maintains  his  position  by  reason  of  his  per- 
sonal efficiency? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Is  it  not  possible  that  in  the  heat  of  this  competition,  in  the 
desire  to  go  ahead,  the  man  must  give  a  sort  of  catch-as-catch-can  attempt  at 
efficiency  and  have  not  the  time  for  calm  consideration  as  to  the  methods  and 
means  which,  perhaps,  if  it  was  done,  a  still  more  efficient  method  might  be 
adopted  than  the  necessarily  hurried  attempts  of  an  operator  under  pressure? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  That  might  be  possible.  In  a  general  way  I  do  not  think  it 
would  apply.  Workmen,  of  course,  are  human  beings,  and  each  of  them  has 
his  own  brain  construction  and  his  own  way  of  doing  things,  and  two  men  will 
reach  one  point  pretty  nearly  at  the  same  time  in  different  ways.  In  granite 
cutting,  for  instance,  sometimes  a  man  with  a  slow  blow,  as  we  say  in  the 
trade,  is  the  most  efficient  workman.  He  takes  time  to  think,  and  every  blow 
that  he  strikes  produce*  a  result,  whereas  a  man  who  would  be  hitting  faster 
would  be  wasting  certain  energy  that  the  other  man  was  conserving ;  and  it  is 
true  that  the  man  who  practices  what  we  call  the  slow  blow  is  not  only  usually 
the  most  efficient  workman,  but  he  usually  is  among  the  fastest. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  To  carry  that  analogy  just  a  little  bit  further,  you  stated 
previously  that  the  men  work  under  competitive  pressure. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Now,  take  a  practical  student;  not  a  theoretical  man,  but  a 
practical  student,  who  would  calmly  study  your  work  for  a  year  or  two  before 
he  gave  any  directions.  By  reason  of  that  slow-blow  process,  or  careful  weigh- 
ing of  the  operation  from  point  to  point,  is  it  not  possible  that  he  might  be  able 
to  make  a  suggestion  which  would  be  of  value  to  the  workers  In  the  doing  of  the 
work? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yos ;  it  might  be  possible,  but  it  is  extremely  remote.  The 
man  who  would  stand  aside,  who  does  not  know  the  trade,  who  would  make 
suggestiona  occasionally,  the  thing  that  he  would  suggest  which  would  be  ap- 
parently of  immediate  advantage  would  be  very  likely  to  be  found  of  disadvan- 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOE.  967 

tage  in  another  direction ;  and  the  man  who  is  trained  to  the  work  and,  in  his 
competitive  way,  is  doing  his  best  with  it,  knows  how  to  lay  out  and  proceed 
with  his  work  so  as  to  produce  the  best  results,  which  I  do  not  think  any 
scientific  manager  could  foresee  unless  he  was  skilled  in  the  industry. 

I  followed  my  trade  many  years  in  Baltimore,  and  personally  I  knew  quite 
a  number  of  the  students  in  Johns  Hopkins  University,  and  they  used  to  come 
and  talk  to  me  in  their  spare  time  and  watch  me  at  my  work.  I  followed, 
wherever  possible,  the  lightest  kind  of  work — lettering,  carving,  and  so  forth — • 
and  some  of  the  things  that  I  did  while  I  was  talking  to  them,  without  ap- 
parently applying  my  brain,  were  so  marvellous  to  them  that  they  used  to  come 
back  and  look  again,  and  bye-and-bye  they  began  to  make  suggestions  to  me.  I 
do  not  know  if  they  were  studying  the  rudiments  of  this  scientific  management 
or  not.  However,  they  advocated  their  opinions,  and  would  say  to  me  if  I 
would  do  so-and-so  could  I  not  do  it  a  little  quicker.  They  did  not  say  that  I 
might  do  it  better,  because  the  grade  of  the  work  did  not  come  natural  to  them. 
They  did  not  know  the  grades  of  the  work,  nor,  perhaps,  other  than  being 
pleasing  to  the  eye,  could  they  tell  when  the  work  was  finished  according  to 
the  grade  of  work  required. 

Usually  the  suggestions  they  made  to  me  were  just  such  as  any  person  would 
make  to  another  person,  being  first  introduced  to  something  the  bulk  of  which 
they  did  not  know  anything  about — what  I  might  term  superficial  statements. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Take  the  case  of  an  expert  granite  cutter,  when  he  had 
shown  particular  skill  in  stone  cutting  and  dressing,  one  who  had  a  knack  in 
intuitive  capacity  at  his  work,  and  remove  him  from  this  competitive  strain 
which  drives  men  on,  and  say  to  him,  "  Now,  here,  you  seem  to  have  a  natural 
skill  at  this  work ;  just  take  and  study  it ;  take  a  year  or  two  years  and  study 
this  proposition.  You  are  a  practical  master  of  the  trade;  you  are  the  best 
man  we  know,  and  we  believe  that  something  better  can  come  from  you  than 
this  very  competitive  work  that  you  have  done;  we  believe  that  you  have  in 
you  the  possible  improvement  of  the  trade.  Study  it  thoroughly,  carefully,  with 
your  practical  knowledge,  doing  systematic  work."  Might  it  not  be  possible 
that  such  a  man  could  add  to  the  knowledge  of  the  trade  and  be  able  to  suggest 
improvements  in  the  methods  of  work  that  would  help  not  only  increase  the 
output,  but  which  would  save  the  workers? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  I  scarcely  think  that  would  be  the  result.  One  thing  that 
would  happen  would  be  to  make  him  improve  himself  in  knowledge  as  to  how 
to  do  a  thing,  and  do  it  a  little  better,  but  when  he  went  away  from  the  ex- 
perimental stage,  back  to  competing  with  the  other  men,  the  employer  would 
consider  time  the  criterion  by  which  to  judge  him,  and  he  would  have  some 
advantage  by  having  had  time  to  think  without  competition,  and  to  perhaps 
form  certain  mental  combinations  by  which  he  could  do  the  work  a  little  faster 
or  better  than  the  others. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  We  will  assume  that,  as  a  result  of  this  study,  he  had  de- 
vised a  much  better  method  of  doing  the  work  than  that  ordinarily  in  vogue, 
which  followed  along  certain  old  lines. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  could  there  be  any  objection  to  putting  into  effect  such 
improved  methods,  provided  always  that  they  were  of  an  advantage  and  bene- 
fit to  the  worker? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No.  We  are  all  of  the  time  doing  that,  we  are  taking  advan- 
tage of  everything  that  comes  from  thought  or  practice  or  anything  at  all.  In 
fact  we  have  to  do  that.  We  can  not  help  ourselves.  If  we  do  not  we  find 
ourselves  out  of  employment. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  any  opposition  that  might  exist  on  the  part  of  any- 
body, so  far  as  you  know,  to  any  method  of  doing  work,  would  be  the  opposition 
which  exists  in  every  man's  heart  to  methods  which  are  devised  to  drive  him 
on  to  his  utmost.  Is  not  that  true? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  To  'a  very  great  extent  that  is  true.  When  men  are  working 
with  a  will,  which  they  must,  in  order  to  reflect  themselves  in  their  work,  if 
some  one  comes  to  tell  them  to  do  it  in  some  other  wTay,  or  to  suggest  new 
methods  to  them,  it  is  somewhat  like  teaching  an  old  dog  new  tricks.  They 
will  in  a  second  grasp  the  idea,  if  there  is  anything  in  it,  but  if  there  is  not 
anything  in  it  they  consider  their  time  is  being  wasted  by  a  bore  buzzing  around 
them. 

In  regard  to  the  question  that  you  asked  a  few  minutes  ago  about  the  man 
with  the  slow  blow,  and  the  advantages  in  its  being  taught  to  others,  I  would 
say  that  you  should  have  in  mind  that  a  man  who  works  with  what  we  call  a 


968          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

swift  blow  works  that  way  naturally,  and  to  change  him  from  his  method  of 
doing  his  work  to  a  man  with  a  slow  blow  you  would  have  to  remodel  the 
man.  He  is  following  something  in  his  nature,  in  his  mental  and  physical 
make-up.  It  seems  to  him  to  require  that  he  hit  fast,  and  make  out  in  that 
way ;  and  because  of  that  being  his  trend,  his  mentality,  at  least,  would  have  to 
be  remodeled,  and  I  am  not  sure  but  also  his  physical  body.  Efficiency  man- 
agers claim  a  great  deal,  but  I  question  if  they,  in  a  long  time,  could  do  that. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  My  idea  of  that  illustration  was  simply  to  show  that  as  in 
your  'opinion  apparently  the  slow-blow  man  was  the  man  who  did  the  best — 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Usually,  not  always.  Sometimes  they  are  naturally  slow  all 
of  the  way  through,  but  usually  it  is  a  fact  that  the  man  with  a  slow,  careful 
blow  is  the  best,  for  every  blow  he  strikes  indicates  upon  his  work,  and  there 
is  nothing  lost  in  the  way  of  energy. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  1  merely  used  that  as  an  illustration.  If  that  is  so  usually 
in  regard  to  the  slow-blow  man,  might  it  not  be  so  with  reference  to  picking  out 
a  method,  and  where  the  workers  generally  are  under  the  compulsion  of  this 
competitive  system,  they  have  not  got  the  time  to  really  study  what  is  the  best 
way  for  them  to  do  the  work.  That  was  the  purpose  of  the  suggestion,  not  to 
say  they  should  teach  a  naturally  fast  man  to  make  a  slow  blow. 

I  would  understand  from  your  last  statement  that  if  such  a  man,  a  practical 
expert  stonecutter,  should  study  the  profession  and  really  make  some  improve- 
ment for  the  benefit  of  the  workers,  there  could  be  no  reasonable  objection  to  it. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Assuming  that  in  the  making  of  these  studies  he  found  that 
it  was  advisable,  in  fact,  necessary,  to  make  time  studies  of  the  men,  and  sup- 
pose the  men  understood  that  it  was  not  for  the  purpose  of  questioning  their 
faithfulness  about  their  work,  but  was  made  by  one  of  their  own  people  for 
the  purpose  of  trying  to  find  a  higher  method  of  doing  the  work,  what  reason- 
able objection  could  there  be  to  a  time-study  proposition? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  None  at  all.  Everything  that  will  be  of  advantage  from  any 
source  has  always  been  accepted.  The  best  answer  perhaps  that  I  could  give 
to  your  question  is  that  to  be  taken  from  a  recent  actual  experience.  The 
members  of  my  trade  since  the  spring  of  1900  have  been  working  eight  hours 
per  day.  We  now  have  a  44-hour  work  week,  namely,  a  Saturday  half  holiday. 
That  has  been  in  use  in  our  trade  all  over  North  America  since  1900.  About  a 
third  of  our  membership  had  an  eight-hour  workday  prior  to  that  time.  About 
two  years  ago  an  employer  who  had  been  in  the  granite  industry  for  many 
years — he  and  his  father  had  their  place  of  business  in  Buffalo,  and  the  busi- 
ness had  been  established  for  60  years,  and  the  present  man  had  been  in  the 
business  for  over  30  years,  succeeding  his  father — this  man  suggested  that  the 
men  in  the  granite  yard  were  doing  so  well  under  an  eight-hour  system,  as 
compared  to  when  they  were  working  10  and  9  hours  a  day,  that  he  was  of 
opinion  that  the  limit  had  not  been  reached.  He  made  an  offer  that  he  would 
pay  eight  hours'  wages  for  a  seven-hour  workday,  for  a  man  to  follow  prac- 
tically the  process  to  which  you  refer,  that  is  to  say,  not  to  be  required  to 
work  any  harder  than  his  gait  while  working  eight  hours  per  day,  but  if  his 
arms  got  tired,  or  if  his  eyes  were  blurred,  or  something  of  that  kind,  to  rest  a 
moment  and  look  at  his  work  and  see  what  could  be  done,  and  give  his  eyes 
a  rest,  and  so  on,  and  then  start  again  and  see  what  the  result  would  be. 

He  suggested  that  rather  than  have  the  appearance  of  having  a  worked  out 
plan  of  his  own,  that  the  workmen  in  the  shop  should  select  one  from  their 
number  to  make  the  experiment.  They  selected  one  and  he  went  to  work 
and  worked  seven  hours  per  day  in  a  shed  where  others  were  working  eight 
hours,  and  he  did  not,  as  far  as  he  testifies  himself,  and  the  others  the  same 
thing,  work  any  harder  than  he  had  been  doing  before,  but  he  worked  a  little 
more  steadily  and  took  a  little  time  occasionally  to  think  out  the  best  way  to 
do  certain  things,  and  after  the  limit  of  time  had  expired — I  forget  whether  it 
was  one  month  or  two  months — it  was  found  that  the  man  was  producing  a 
fraction  more  in  the  seven-hour  workday  by  that  method  than  he  had  been 
doing  in  the  eight-hour  time,  and  it  seemed  to  carry  out  the  idea  that  the 
employer  had,  and  also  the  idea  that  many  of  us  have.  You  know  we  are  still 
expecting  that  by  and  by  as  our  economics  develop,  we  shall  get  down  to  a  six- 
hour  workday,  three  hours  before  noon  and  three  hours  after  1  o'clock,  for 
a  full  day's  work,  in  order  to  give  men  time  to  think  and  study,  for  leisure, 
JUKI  to  become  more  humanized  than  the  brutality  of  the  past  which  has  fol- 
lowed all  of  the  hard  trades,  that  wreck  a  man  in  his  physical  condition  be- 
fore he  is  45  years  of  age.  We  need  something  of  that  kind,  because  at  the 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  969 

present  time,  when  the  men  in  our  trade  begin  to  show  gray  hairs,  they  are 
not  so  much  wanted,  and  if  any  other  plan  than  simple  hard  labor  is  found, 
such  as  the  process  to  which  you  have  referred,  taking  time  to  think,  taking 
advantage,  and  where  men  would  not  be  tired  out  easily,  and  would  work  six 
hours  per  day,  they  would  be  able  to  produce  better  and  to  live  longer  and 
more  happily. 

The  man  to  whom  I  referred  as  having  gone  through  this  experiment  was  not 
coached  by  anybody.  He  simply  used  his  judgment,  knowing  that  he  was  upon 
test,  and  doing  it  without  physical  harrassment ;  he  looked  at  his  work  and 
took  time  to  judge  as  to  the  best  process  to  follow,  and  followed  it,  and  proved 
that  the  plan  was  successful.  The  employer  might  have  introduced  the  seven- 
hour  workday  in  his  works,  but  after  the  experiment,  the  man  being  paid  eight 
hours'  wages  for  seven  hours'  work,  so  to  speak,  finding  that  his  output  was 
just  a  little  better  than  it  wras  before,  he  thought  he  ought  to  be  compensated 
in  accordance  with  the  extra  production,  to  which  the  contractor  objected.  He 
thought  when  he  was  paying  him  what  he  claimed  was  eight  hours'  wages  for 
seven  hours'  work,  the  man  should  not  look  for  an  addition — which  is  a  pretty 
conclusive  answer  to  the  scientific  management  argument,  that  by  the  practice 
of  it  the  man  who  would  do  the  extra  producing  would  get  the  extra  pay.  We 
have  no  knowledge  of  that  in  so  far  as  practical  work  is  concerned.  All  our 
knowledge  of  advantage  to  the  workman  goes  the  other  way. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Let  us  see  if  I  understand  it  correctly.  In  that  case  he  was 
to  get  the  former  eight  hours  of  wage  for  seven  hours'  work? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  would  be  a  certain  advantage  to  the  Avorker? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  every  worker  could  get  an  hour  off  each  day  that  would 
be  of  at  least  some  advantage? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  fact,  from  the  union  standpoint  that  is  a.  very  great  ad- 
vantage? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  It  is  very  great. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  So  considered  in  6rganized  labor? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes ;  very  great. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  was  some  advantage  to  the  workers? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  On  the  other  hand,  the  advantage  that  the  employer  took  was 
a  little  increased  output.  In  a  sense  that  presented  a  case  wrhere  the  benefit 
was  split,  perhaps  not  altogether  fairly,  but  at  least  it  was  not  altogether 
solely  to  the  advantage  of  the  proprietor,  was  it? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No.  There  are  so  many  other  things  that  enter  into  it  that 
that  point  you  are  making  would  be  offset.  For  instance,  the  employer  has  to 
pay  the  tool  dresser  a  certain  amount  per  clay  per  man  that  he  sharpens  for, 
and  that  is  governed  by  the  number  of  tools,  and  the  better  the  workman  the 
fewer  tools  he  uses.  A  tool  sharpener  could  sharpen  more  tools  for  expert 
men  than  he  could  for  others.  I  had  in  mind  when  I  made  reference  to  this 
instance  the  point  that  you  make. 

In  the  experiment  in  question  the  employer  was  fairly  well  satisfied.  He 
did  not  believe,  however,  that  he  could  change  his  works  to  seven  hours — not 
then — with  everybody  around  him  working  eight  hours.  He  is  not  dismayed 
as  to  his  experiment  and  has  invited  our  association  to  consider  the  advisa- 
bility of  reducing  the  working  day  perhaps  to  seven  and  one-half  or  seven 
hours,  which  is  a  vague  proposition  to  us  at  the  present  time,  because  it  took 
us  a  quarter  of  a  century,  with  all  the  political  influence  we  could  get  in 
Congress,  as  well  as  our  efforts  in  our  own  union,  to  get  the  eight-hour  day 
established,  and  when  we  will  get  the  seven-hour  day  is  at  the  present  time 
beyond  my  comprehension.  We  got  the  eight-hour  day  by  trade  effort  and  by 
congressional  action. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Generally  speaking,  if,  as  you  say,  union  labor  could  show 
to  the  world  that  it  could  accomplish  more  for  the  benefit  of  the  world  by 
having  a  seven-hour  day  than  an  eight-hour  day,  would  not  labor  make  that 
demonstration? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  WTe  have  done  it  They  used  to  work  us  in  the  summer  time 
31  and  12  hours  per  clay,  and  eventually  v/e  got  the  work  down. to  10  and  then 
to  9,  and  now  to  8  hours  a  day,  and,  excepting  the  employer  whose  head,  as 
we  think,  is  not  set  on  his  shoulders  the  right  way,  the  employers  would  not 
return  even  to  the  9-hour  day. 


970          KEPOET    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Human  nature  is  a  peculiar  thing,  and  even  with  the  knowledge  that  our 
men  are  cutting  as  much  granite  in  eight  hours  as  15  or  20  years  ago  they 
did  in  nine  does  not  satisfy  some  of  our  employers.  They  still  want  a  little 
more,  but  the  employers  agree  that  our  men  are  cutting,  except  in  the  very 
hardest  portion  of  the  trade — that  is,  requiring  the  very  hardest  human  ex- 
ertion— as  much  in  8  hours  as  we  did  in  10  and  11,  and  the  finished  product 
to  the  purchaser  is,  if  anything,  reduced  in  price  to  what  it  was  then.  Ma- 
chinery may  have  something  to  do  with  that,  but  the  keenness  of  the  workman, 
his  woYking  more  steadily  and  having  the  shorter  day,  which  gives  him  leisure 
that  he  did  not  previously  enjoy,  all  adds  to  his  producing  ability. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Still,  the  general  statement  is  true  that  if  labor  could  show 
to  the  world  that  it  could  produce  more  by  working  shorter  hours  it  would 
do  so;  it  would  take  the  shorter  hours  and  give  to  the  world  the  increased 
benefit,  would  it  not?  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  through. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Garretson,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Mr.  Duncan,  is  it  not  true  that  the  methods  of 
the  workman,  the  ways  in  which  he  performs  his  labor,  as  well  as  the  methods 
of  his  manager  in  conducting  his  business,  are  largely  temperamental? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes;  largely. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  a  man  does  his  work  precisely  as  he  meets 
the  other  conditions  of  life — in  a  different  way  from  what  some  other  man 
does? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Absolutely. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  In  your  opinion,  Mr.  Duncan,  if  it  is  legitimate  to 
apply  so-called  scientific  efficiency  methods  to  the  workman,  would  it  not  be 
equally  consistent  to  apply  them  to  the  management  of  the  business?  If  it  is 
consistent  for  the  workman  to  have  to  do  everything  in  exactly  the  same  man- 
ner, according  to  a  code  prescribed,  would  it  not  be  equally  consistent  to 
require  the  business  should  be  managed  by  just  such  a  code? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  That  is  what  we  call  in  our  industry  "  overhead  charges,"  and 
there  is  nothing  that  will  cause  so  much  -despondency  in  the  working  ability 
of  a  journeyman  granite  cutter  as  to  see  around  him  a  boss,  a  superintendent, 
a  foreman,  and  several  others  in  the  office,  all  reaping  the  benefits  of  the 
employment  of  a  few  men,  when  perhaps  one  or  two  at  the  most  of  those  men 
would  accomplish  all  the  others  are  doing  and  the  expenses  of  the  industry 
charged  up  in  a  lump  sum  to  the  workmen  upon  the  job  would  be  largely 
reduced. 

Commissioner  GAJRRETSON.  You  misunderstand  my  question  to  a  certain  extent. 
I  mean  as  to  the  methods  that  will  be  followed  by  the  men  holding  just  the  same 
position  in  administrative  capacities.  If  repression  of  individuality  in  the 
method  of  working  is  desirable  for  the  man,  as  a  boon  to  the  man,  would  it  not 
be  equally  beneficent  to  the  management  to  repress  initiative? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Absolutely  so. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  If  we  follow  that  out  clear  through  all  the  pur- 
suits of  life,  if  it  is  consistent  for  the  man  that  labors,  would  it  not  be  con- 
sistent in  every  pursuit? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  It  would. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  The  result  would  be  that  we  would  have  embalmed 
management,  just  as  we  have  embalmed  music.  If  it  is  good  as  applied  to  labor, 
why  should  it  not  be  good  as  applied  to  legislation,  for  instance? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  I  thoroughly  agree  with  the  deduction.  I  had  the  honor,  a  short 
time  ago,  to  speak  on  this  subject  before  the  New  York  Economic  Club,  and  one 
of  the  .points  that  I  brought  out  was  similar  to  the  question  you  now  put,  only 
I  had  applied  it  more  directly  to  the  legal  fraternity  than  to  shop  management. 
I  do  not  know  anything  in  connection  with  scientific  management  where  its 
beneficent  results,  if  it  has  any,  could  be  better  applied  and  better  exemplified 
than  in  trying  it  upon  the  legal  fraternity,  not  only  in  so  far  as  their  general 
line  of  work  is  concerned,  but  their  practice  before  the  courts,  and  applying  it 
to  the  courts  themselves. 

By  that  I  do  not  desire  to  express  any  opinion  derogatory  to  our  judges. 
They  have  to  meet  conditions  as  they  come.  However,  the  judges  can  not  always 
alter  the  practice  before  the  court;  and  if  the  same  scientific  management  which 
is  attempted  to  be  applied  to  the  man  behind  the  hammer  were  applied  in  the 
legal  profession,  for  instance,  they  would  have  a  first-class  chance  to  exem- 
plify their  theory,  and  doing  it  among  themselves  they  would  no  doubt  be 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  971 

able  to  produce  the  best  results,  although  I  think  that  long  before  their  in- 
vestigation was  over  they  would  conclude  that  the  practice  or  the  experiment 
was  a  humbug. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Have  you  ever  formed  any  conclusion  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  legal  fraternity  would  accept  it  until  they  were  convinced 
that  it  was  for  their  interest  to  do  so? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  I  am  in  doubt  about  it,  then. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  As  a  member  of  the  lawyers'  union  I  will  say  that  I  will 
accept  the  application  of  the  efficiency  system  there  as  Mr.  Duncan  has"  ex- 
pressed it. 

Commissioner  GAKEETSON.  Going  back  to  the  example  that  was  given  a  mo- 
ment ago  of  the  eight-hour  man  doing  the  labor  of  the  eight  hours  in  seven,  if 
the  fatigue  caused  by  the  necessary  exertion  to  do  the  eight  hours  work  in  seven 
hours  was  of  such  a  character  that  it  took  him  the  other  hour  to  recover  the 
normal  condition  that  would  have  been  his  if  he  had  done  the  work  in  eight 
hours,  would  the  giving  of  that  hour  be  any  boon  to  him? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No ;  but  I  do  not  think  that  would  be  the  result.  It  might  in 
some  instances,  but  generally  I  think  not.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  shortening 
of  the  hours  of  labor  has  yet  reached  the  balance.  I  am  of  the  opinion  that, 
especially  among  trades  where  the  workmen  and  workwomen  do  a  great  por- 
tion of  the  work  by  their  hands,  six  hours  comes  pretty  nearly  being  the  balance 
of  a  working  day.  By  that  I  mean  that  while  it  follows  that  ordinarily  as 
much  work  is  being  done  in  8  hours  as  had  been  done  in  10,  I  do  not  desire 
to  create  the  impression  that  if  it  were  reduced,  and  reduced,  and  reduced 
they  would  finally  be  doing  as  much  in  1  hour  as  they  had  in  9  or  10.  I  think 
about  six  hours  would  be  a  happy  medium.  If  they  want  below  that  I  ques- 
tion  whether  the  results  would  be  beneficial. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  In  connection  with  the  purely  academic  idea  that 
a  man  should  be  able  to  have  the  day  divided  for  him  so  that  he  would  have  a 
very  reasonable  period  of  rest,  a  reasonable  period  for  work,  and  a  reasonable 
period  for  human  recreation,  do  you  believe  that  it  ever  was  associated  with 
the  idea  that  in  order  to  secure  a  reasonable  length  of  working  day  to  conform 
to  that  idea,  that  within  that  period  he  must  perform  as  much  work  as  if  the 
working  day  of  24  hours  were  divided  into  two  shifts  of  12  hours  each ;  for  in- 
stance, that  he  would  do  as  much  wor"k  in  6  hours,  taking  that  as  your  idea  of 
what  should  be  the  working  day  as  he  formerly  did  in  12? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Your  question  is  quite  a  long  one. 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  It  is. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  But  the  idea  of  reducing  the  working  day  primarily  was  not 
for  the  purpose  of  expecting  a  man  to  do  as  much  in  8  hours  as  he  had  done  in 
10  or  9.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  giving  him  an  hour  or  two  hours  per  day 
additional  leisure  from  the  drudgery  of  work,  so  that  he  could  have  the  leisure 
time  for  mental  and  physical  benefits. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  It  was  just  to  relieve  him  of  two  hours'  work? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes;  and  so  that  he  would  apply  the  two  hours  in  ways  that 
would  be  of  betterment  to  himself  and  to  the  occupation  in  which  he  wras  em- 
ployed. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  In  other  words,  the  two  hours  became  his. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes.  I  think  all  experience  shows  that  where  they  formerly 
had  two  shifts  of  12  hours  each  and  then  changed  to  three  shifts  of  8  hours 
each,  where  machinery  and  plants  are  required  to  be  worked  almost  continu- 
ously, experience  shows  that  the  change  from  12  hours  to  8  hours  was  of  ad- 
vantage in  every  way. 

A  few  years  ago  in  discussing  the  merits  of  the  pending  8-hour  bill  before 
Congress,  and  in  connection  with  it  Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie  testified  that  a  num- 
ber of  years  ago  he  had  changed  the  working  hours  in  his  plant.  He  was  then 
active  in  the  business.  I  do  not  mean  by  that  to  say  that  he  is  not  active  now, 
but  what  I  mean  is  that  he  was  more  on  the  job,  as  we  say.  He  said  that  he  found 
that  the  change  to  8  hours,  three  shifts  of  8  hours  each,  was  of  great  advantage 
in  so  far  as  the  amount  of  work  that  the  men  turned  out  in  8  hours  as  'com- 
pared to  their  previous  12  hours,  but  he  was  not  sure  that  in  the  change  from 
two  shifts  to  three  shifts  the  men  were  immediately  doing  as  much  in  8  hours 
as  they  had  been  doing  in  12. 

Commissioner  GABEETSON.  But  they  were  doing  more  per  hour? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  They  were  doing  a  great  deal  more  per  hour  than  when  they 
had  been  working  12  hours.  After  he  had  practiced  this  as  an  experiment  for 
some  considerable  time  he  had  to  abandon  it  simply  because  of  the  competition 


972          EEPOET    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    EELATIONS. 

of  some  other  mills  which  refused  to  go  through  the  experiment.  The  difference 
in  the  wages  would  not  make  up  for  the  difference  between  the  length  of  hours 
the  men  were  working,  and  after  he  had  passed  the  experiment  he  dropped 
back  to  two  shifts  of  12  hours  each  again,  the  same  as  he  had  done  before,  and 
he  said  he  did  it  very  reluctantly. 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Lennon,  have  you  any  questions? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  spoke  of  the  address  you  made  in  New  York  as 
dealing  with  the  subject  of  efficiency  in  the  industry? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes;  generally. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Will  you  file  a  copy  of  that  address  with  this  com- 
mission? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Now,  I  want  to  ask  you  regarding  some  details  of 
these  efficiency  systems  as  they  have  come  before  the  commission.  First,  I  want 
to  call  your  attention  to  what  I  think  is  the  general  statement  of  the  men  who 
have  represented  efficiency  systems,  that  it  is  necessary  to  make  a  time  study  by 
a  stop  watch  of  all  the  different  processes  that  the  workman  goes  through  to 
bring  about  the  results  of  production.  I  want  you  to  give  us  your  views  as  to 
this  application  of  time  study  by  a  stop  watch,  of  all  these  different  processes 
that  the  workmen  go  through,  as  to  their  advisability,  as  to  their  necessity,  as  to 
their  effect  upon  the  workman,  and  as  to  their  effect  upon  industry  as  it  ap- 
pears to  you. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  I  fail  to  see  of  what  advantage  that  would  be  in  any  event,  ex- 
cept, perhaps,  where  a  man  or  a  women  were  almost  automatically  following  a 
machine;  and  then  it  would  be  the  gearing  of  the  machine  more  than  the  stop 
watch.  But  as  far  as  men  are  concerned,  working  at  a  given  industry  with 
their  hands  and  with  the  tools  of  their  employment,  the  stop-watch  proposition 
is  nothing  short  of  a  farce.  Two  men  never  do  the  same  thing  in  the  same 
way,  and  what  would  apply  in  one  instance  would  not  apply  in  another;  and 
the  only  advantage  that  the  stop-watch  process  would  have  would  be  if  it  were 
applied  upon  each  individual.  But  it  is  questionable  if  an  experience  gained 
upon  one  individual  would  be  very  helpful  with  another  individual. 

If  a  man  were  standing  over  me  with  a  stop  watch,  however  friendly  I  might 
Jbe  to  his  proposition,  if  he  was  watching  my  movements  and  telling  me  how 
to  do  this  and  how  to  do  that,  I  would  feel  like  an  automaton,  and  that  my 
individuality  had  been  entirely  cut  out;  that  when  I  finished  my  work  there 
would  be  no  credit  to  me  for  it ;  that  it  would  be  because  of  the  stop-watch 
system,  and  I  would  have  to  surrender  my  individuality  and  go  by  the  process 
or  I  would  have  to  quit  the  process  and  follow  my  individuality ;  and  as  far  as 
I  would  be  individually  concerned  as  a  mechanic,  I  would  prefer  to  follow  my 
own  individuality  and  take  chances  upon  the  result. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  The  development  of  the  evidence  before  the  commis- 
sion indicates  that  the  idea  of  the  use  of  the  stop  watch  is  to  make  the  motions 
and  the  methods  of  doing  the  work  practically  exactly  the  same  to  every  indi- 
vidual worker.  Do  you  believe  that  would  be  practicable? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  A  hopeless  failure ;  a  hopeless  failure.  As  you  are  asking  your 
question,  I  have  in  mind  having  been  employed  for  some  time  cutting  granite 
for  the  State,  War,  and  Navy  Building  in  this  city,  and  I  remember  quite  a 
large  stone  coming  from  the  quarry  and  it  was  offered  to  a  number  of  workmen 
to  cut  into  what  they  call  a  window  gap.  It  is  in  one  of  the  windows  in  the 
building  now.  Some  of  the  most  expert  men  on  the  job — and  there  were  from 
150  to  500  skilled  cutters  upon  the  job,  according  to  the  appropriation — refused 
the  stone  because  it  would  not  make,  as  we  call  it.  It  was  not  large  enough 
to  produce  what  was  desired.  We  wrere  working  on  piecework.  It  was  after 
the  Government  had  abandoned  the  direct  employment  of  men,  and  we  were 
finishing  the  building  by  contract. 

After  these  other  men  had  refused  the  stone,  one  man  came  along  and  looked 
at  it,  and  he  went  and  cut  a  small  space  in  the  very  center  of  it,  what  we  call 
cutting  a  dental.  If  any  of  you  are  mechanical  men  you  will  know  what  a 
dental  course  is  in  a  molding,  and  if  you  pass  the  building  you  will  easily 
understand  what  I  mean  by  cutting  a  dental.  He  cut  the  dental  in  the  rough 
stone— a  place  right  in  the  center  of  it — and  as  soon  as  he  cut  that  space  and 
applied  the  rule  and  square  and  his  lines  in  a  rough  way,  he  took  the  stone  in 
and  cut  it  to  the  finished  product. 

No  efficiency  manager  on  the  face  of  the  earth  and  no  stop  watch  or  anything 
of  the  kind  could  supply  the  mechanical  acumeii  of  the  man  who  did  that. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOK.  973 

It  was  about  the  last  that  any  man  would  do  in  cutting  the  stone,  and  he 
did  the  very  last  thing  first;  and,  as  we  say,  he  gauged  the  stone  from  this 
spot  in  the  center  instead  of  cutting  the  stone  in  the  way  that  a  man  ordi- 
narily would,  letting  the  center  take  care  of  itself.  I  desire  to  bring  out  by 
that  illustration  the  acuteness  and  keenness  of  the  mechanical  mind  that  can 
foresee  things  like  that;  that  no  stop-watch  system  and  no  method  that  could 
be  applied  to  one  man  should  be  applied  to  another,  because  it  would  not  pro- 
duce a  result  anything  like  that  or  mechanical  thought  akin  to  that. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  You  apply  this  to  the  granite-cutting  industry.  Have 
you,  through  reliable  avenues,  information  as  to  its  application  in  the  machine 
shop  or  in  the  molding  shop? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No;  I  have  little  personal  experience  of  that.  I  only  know 
that  in  a  general  way,  in  following  a  machine,  there  might  be  motions  that  the 
human  being  would  have  to  go  through  that  would  permit  of  the  machine  being 
tensioned  up  and  made  to  run  more  swiftly,  etc.  That  might  be  possible. 
The  same  amount  of  mechanical  skill  is  not  in  evidence  when  a  machine  is 
doing  nine-tenths  of  the  work  and  the  human  being  is  applying  the  other  one- 
tenth  a-s  when  the  proportions  are  the  other  way. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  In  the  consideration  of  this  subject  we  have  heard 
much  regarding  what  is  called  the  premium  and  bonus  system  of  payment  of 
wages ;  that  is,  where  men  or  women  in  an  industry  perform  more  work  than 
has  been  set  under  the  stop-watch  system  of  fixing  the  time  for  doing  the  job ; 
that  they  shall  be  paid  a  premium  or  a  bonus  for  having  accomplished  that 
work  in  a  shorter  time,  or  having  accomplished  their  stunt  or  task  in  less  than 
the  time  set  by  the  time  study.  What  do  you  think  of  that  method  of  payment? 
What  will  result  from  it? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  I  know  nothing  favorable  to  it.  We  have  in  most  of  the 
mechanical  trades,  where  there  is  much  evidence  of  the  use  of  the  hand  tools,  a 
system  of  agreements  with  employers  that  comprehends  a  minimum  wage  rate. 
Then  workmen  are  to  be  paid  as  much  higher  than  the  minimum  as  their  pro- 
ducing power  will  warrant.  That  is  the  theory  of  our  agreements.  In  some 
instances  it  works  out  very  well.  It  gives  to  the  swift  workman  compensation 
for  his  ability,  and  because  of  the  higher  wage  rate  paid  to  him  there  is  that 
much  protection  to  the  slower  workman  who  produces  less  and  is  paid  less  and 
has  then  a  proportionate  opportunity  of  employment.  That  course  usually  fol- 
lows what  we  call  real  mechanical  ability,  and  among  workmen  that  idea  can 
not  well  be  put  into  words  nor  written  into  a  book.  Men  working  together,  be- 
longing to  or  following  a  certain  occupation,  can  tell  by  a  man's  actions  whether 
he  is  performing  a  certain  thing  by  improved  or  increased  mechanical  ability 
or  if  he  is  doing  it  through  a  method  of  waste  to  himself  and  by  force,  as  it 
were,  and  perhaps,  in  a  vulgar  sense  in  the  trade,  we  call  the  difference  the 
payment  of  blood  money.  A  man  who  is  working  beyond  his  mechanical  gait 
in 'order  to  earn  a  certain  price  above  the  established  wage  rate  and  for  the 
sake  of  gaining  a  so-called  premium  is  said  to  be  working  for  blood  money, 
which  usually  has  the  effect  of  putting  a  man  into  his  grave  from  10  to  15  or  20 
years  earlier  than  he  would  otherwise  go. 

In  many  portions  of  my  own  trade  the  employers  consider  the  minimum  wage 
in  the  agreement  to  be  the  maximum  rate  in  the  office  and;  pay  the  men  a  flat 
rate.  That  applies  more  west  of  the  Mississippi  than  east  of  it.  Then,  they 
figure  that  one  man  is  a  little  slower  than  another,  and  the  good  man  makes  up 
for  the  slower  man,  and  the  employer  has  a  fair  average  out  of  it,  and  he  pays 
them  all  alike. 

The  process  of  paying  men  above  the  maximum  is  plentifully  in  use  in  the 
New  England  States,  where  the  most  of  the  trade  of  which  I  am  a  member  is 
followed,  and  with,  for  instance,  $3.40  minimum  for  an  eight-hour  workday,  the 
wages  will  grade  from  that  rate  to  $4  and  $4.25,  and  sometimes  as  much  as  $6 
per  day,  according  to  a  man's  ability;  and  when  the  extra  price  is  paid  it  is 
seldom  that  there  is  any  evidence  of  the  man  earning  it  because  of  extra  exer- 
tion ;  it  is  usully  through  extra  mechanical  ability,  and  the  employer  pays  him 
the  increase  in  order  to  retain  him,  or,  as  he  says,  to  keep  his  competitor  from 
getting  the  man. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Mr.  Duncan,  one  of  the  cardinal  principles  of  organ- 
ized labor  is  that  of  collective  bargaining  as  to  the  wages  and  conditions  and 
hours,  and  those  things  which  generally  have  to  do  with  a  workman's  applica- 
tion of  his  ability  in  the  shop  or  factory  or  yard.  That  is  usually  the  subject 
of  collective  bargaining,  as  between  the  union  and  the  employer.  That  is  a  fact, 
is  it  not? 


974          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.   Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Do  you  see  any  obstacles  in  the  way  of  collective  bar- 
gaining in  connection  with  these  efficiency  systems,  so  far  as  they  have  come 
under  your  observation?  For  instance,  as  to  time  study  and  premiums  and 
bonuses  and  those  things? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  One  result  that  I  would  expect  from  that  would  be — perhaps 
not  right  away,  but  certainly  soon — quite  a  reduction  in  wages.  We  had  the 
piecework  system  for  many  years  in  our  trade,  and  it  was  abandoned  by  mutual 
consent,  no  resolution  having  been  passed  when  it  was  abandoned  by  our  asso- 
ciation or  by  the  employers  and  their  associations,  nor  by  any  of  them  indi- 
vidually. During  the  time  that  we  were  working  piece  rate,  men  would  be 
selected  because  of  their  ability  to  turn  out  a  certain  piece  of  work  as  quickly 
as  possible,  and  the  man  who  was  selected  to  do  that  would  be  paid  according  to 
the  rate  that  had  been  made  by  collective  bargaining.  But  when  the  next  time 
came  to  make  another  collective  bargain  the  rate  per  foot  that  these  fast  work- 
men had  been  able  to  turn  out — the  price  per  foot — was  gradually  reduced. 
They  took  the  output  of  the  fast  workmen  as  a  criterion  for  the  others  and 
simply  said  that  the  others  were  incompetent  as  compared  to  this  fast  workman, 
and  they  desired  to  reduce  the  wage  rate  per  foot  so  that  the  expert,  skilled  man 
would  be  paid  perhaps  two-thirds  of  what  he  had  been  getting,  or  less  than  that, 
and  the  others  would  be  reduced  in  pay  accordingly.  That  method  of  premiums 
etc.,  paid  to  men  to  produce  extra  work,  has  never  in  my  knowledge  had  any 
other  effect  than  sooner  or  later  to  reduce  the  wages. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  That  is  all  I  care  to  ask,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Harrirnan? 

Commissioner  HAEBIMAN.  Mr.  Duncan,  is  there  any  phase  of  the  efficiency 
system  of  which  you  do  approve? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes;  the  general  efficiency  system  to  which  I  have  referred, 
the  general  efficiency  system  that  is  found  among  workmen  taking  advantage  of 
everything  that  would  tend  to  promote  them,  to  turn  out  a  fair  day's  work 
or  a  finer  job.  They  are  continually  doing  that ;  that  is  in  evidence  all  of  the 
time. 

I  am  very  glad  that  you  asked  me  that  question,  Mrs.  Harriman,  because  it 
gives  me  a  chance  to  answer  it  in  this  way :  The  difference  between  the  two 
lines  of  thought  is  the  difference  that  exists  between  practical  efficiency  and 
theoretical  efficiency.  Practical  efficiency  is  always  in  evidence,  and  that  is 
what  has  produced  the  greater  producing  power  of  workmen  to-day,  as  com- 
pared to  the  past,  and  so  on.  The  theoretical  efficiency  argument  is  advanced 
by  those  who,  like  every  other  theorist,  believe  that  if  certain  things  are  done 
differently  from  what  some  particular  man  does  them  they  would  neces- 
sarily be  correct,  because  they  followed  certain  theoretical  lines.  We  believe  in 
all  phases  and  forms  of  efficiency  in  management  and  mechanics  that  can  be 
practically  applied — all  of  them. 

Commissioner  HARBIMAN.  The  system  that  we  hear  about,  then,  you  claim  to 
be  theoretical? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  HABBIMAN.  And  the  other  kind  to  be  practical? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  HABBIMAN.  In  other  words,  you  believe  it  should  be  left  to  the 
individual  to  be  as  efficient  as  he  can? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No;  it  is  left  to  them  collectively.  The  competition  that  is 
among  them  makes  them  that,  and  the  men  who  are  trained  in  different  occu- 
pations must  necessarily  know  more  about  it  than  a  person  who  has  not  had 
the  advantage  of  training  that  they  have  had.  The  manager,  superintendent, 
or  the  firm  or  individual,  if  he  knows  the  plant,  will  require  his  foreman  to 
always  do  more  and  more.  He  always  wants  more,  and  the  foreman  in  return, 
in  order  to  keep  the  favor  of  his  employer  and  to  show  his  value,  is  endeavor- 
ing all  of  the  time  to  produce  more  and  more.  One  of  the  methods  he  takes, 
apart  from  counseling  with  his  men  and  showing  them  how  to  do  this  or 
that  to  advantage  is  to  discharge  the  slow  ones,  the  less  efficient  ones,  which 
spurs  the  others  on  to  look  for  methods  and  plans  of  accomplishing  more.  The 
whole  process  of  efficiency  is  in  evidence  from  the  time  a  mechanic  lifts  his 
hammer  all  the  way  through  to  the  employer  in  the  office. 

Commissioner  HABBIMAN.  That  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIBMAN.  Mr.  O'Connell? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Mr.  Duncan,  the  law  creating  this  commission 
provides  that  it  shall  seek  the  causes  underlying  industrial  unrest  and  make 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  975 

some  recommendations  to  Congress  in  the  matter.  Do  you  consider  that  the 
fact  that  the  so-called  efficiency  or  scientific  management  systems  have  not 
been  introduced  in  the  factories  or  workshops  of  this  country  is  a  cause  of 
industrial  unrest? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Briefly,  in  your  opinion  what  is  the  underlying 
cause  of  industrial  unrest? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is  one  of  those  questions  where  it  can  be 
asked  in  a  very  few  words,  and  a  man,  in  endeavoring  to  answer  it,  would 
take  two  days  and  then  not  get  very  far  into  the  subject.  , 

Evidently,  judging  superficially,  there  are  more  workers  than  there  are  jobs. 
Men  and  women  are  required  to  work  too  many  hours  a  day  for  their  own  good 
or  for  the  good  of  the  country.  If  there  were  a  shorter  workday,  and  there- 
fore greater  opportunities  given,  and  some  rational  and  practical  limitation  to 
immigration,  so  that  immigration  would  be  in  accordance  with  the  needs 
rather  than  flooding  the  market,  there  would  not  be  the  great  unrest  and  visible 
idleness  that  we  see  at  the  present  time. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Then  if  the  idea  of  the  efficiency  people  were  car- 
ried to  the  extreme  the  fact  that  there  are  more  men  than  there  are  jobs 
would  be  intensified? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  It  wxwld. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Because  we  ar  told  here  by  all  of  the  experts  who 
have  appeared  before  us  that  under  their  system  men  produce  from  one  hundred 
to  three  and  four  and  five  and  six  and  seven  and  eight  hundred  per  cent  greater ; 
that  there  is  more  product  when  they  have  put  their  plans  into  operation,  and 
necessarily  there  must  be  a  reduction  of  the  force  in  such  plants,  unless  the 
plants  gather  an  immense  increase  of  business.  To  that  end,  then,  the  efficiency 
idea  w^ould  only  intensify  the  conditions  of  industrial  unrest  and  the  unemployed 
situation. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  The  efficiency  managers,  in  so  far  as  their  writings  are  con- 
cerned— and  they  are  all  theoretical — somewhat  conflict  one  with  the  other  on 
that  point.  Some  of  them,  I  think  Mr.  Emerson,  hold  that  the  application 
of  scientific  management  would  mean,  perhaps,  a  shorter  workday.  In  any 
event,  it  would  mean  more  compensation  to  the  worker  and  steadier  employ- 
ment ;  but  I  think  he  also  links  to  that  fact  the  fact  that  there  were  three  or 
four  million  immigrants  who  came  into  this  country  in  about  three  or  four 
years,  and  he  applies  the  fact  of  all  the  immigrants  coming  here  to  an  absolute 
need  for  them,  else  they  would  not  have  come. 

The  other  point  in  which  they  are  not  practical  is  this :  They  will  tell  about 
the  number  of  motions  they  require  a  mechanic  to  go  through,  eliminating 
perhaps  two-thirds  of  them,  and  that  then  he  can  produce  so  much  more.  One 
of  their  illustrations  is  that  of  a  bricklayer.  They  propose  to  cut  out  more  than 
half,  or  nearly  two-thirds,  of  his  motions  when  he  is  laying  bricks,  which  of 
necessity  means  that  by  the  elimination  of  each  motion  they  are  supplying  that 
same  labor  power  by  some  one  else.  That  is  the  only  theory  on  which  they  can 
claim  they  would  retain  anything  like  the  same  number  of  people  employed — 
that  is,  by  diverting  the  work  that  a  skilled  bricklayer  would  do  to  a  less 
skilled  man,  perhaps  a  handy  laborer,  or  something  of  that  kind,  which  would 
mean  that  a  portion  of  the  work  now  done  by  the  bricklayer  at  $4  a  day  might 
be  done  by  a  man  less  skilled  in  any  other  capacity  at  $2  or  $2.50  a  day. 
Then,  all  the  other  motions,  the  preparation  of  the  brick,  of  the  material  before 
it  came,  so  that  the  mechanic  in  placing  his  work  could  do  it  in  much  less  time, 
must  necessarily  be  supplied  by  somebody  else  before  it  gets  there ;  somebody 
else  must  do  some  portion  of  it  in  this  automaton  system  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred, and  if  they  carried  the  same  number  of  employees  as  before  all  the 
difference  would  be  that  a  great  deal  of  the  work  would  be  compensated  for  at 
less  wages  than  before.  That  might  be  an  economy  and  an  economic  gain  to  the 
populace,  while  it  would  be  a  loss  to  the  mechanic. 

But  speaking  generally,  if  there  is  anything  about  the  theory  of  so-called 
efficiency  management,  and  the  stop  watch  process,  it  would  add  to  the  trouble 
that  we  have  at  the  present  time,  in  the  great  unrest  and  the  amount  of  idleness 
that  is  present. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  We  are  told  here  that  some  of  these  experts  have 
been  engaged  in  this  business  for  30  or  35  years,  for  instance.  Mr.  Taylor, 
for  instance,  has  been  engaged  in  the  work  for  over  30  years.  Others  have 
been  engaged  for  a  certain  number  of  years.  Have  you  ever  heard  of  or  known 
of  a  case  where  the  hours  of  labor  have  been  reduced  in  a  factory  or  workshop 
or  plant  as  the  result  of  this  system  of  management  being  introduced? 


976          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Never.  I  have  known  of  some  instances  where  for  evidently 
good  economic  reasons  employers  have  voluntarily  made  a  reduction  of  hours, 
in  expectation  of  something  to  meet  it.  But  in  nine-tenths  of  the  cases  where 
hours  have  been  reduced  it  has  come  from  the  beneficent  efforts  of  organized 
labor,  and  other  trades  not  organized  have  profited  by  the  advantages  of  the 
organized  worker. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  So  far  as  you  know,  you  never  have  known  of  the 
hours  being  reduced  because  of  the  introduction  of  scientific  management? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Mr.  Duncan,  you  told  us  how  in  your  industry  the 
hours  of  labor,  as  the  result  of  about  25  years  of  effort  on  the  part  of  organized 
labor,  have  been  gradually  reduced  from  10  hours  to  9  hours  and  from  9  hours 
to  8  hours. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Are  the  men  producing  as  much  in  8  hours  as 
they  formerly  produced  in  9  or  10  hours? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Excepting  in  the  portions  of  the  trade  where  the  work  is  very 
laborious,  very  heavy  and  hard,  I  think  they  are  producing  a  little  more,  but 
this  must  be  borne  in  mind  in  connection  with  that,  that  during  the  time  this 
economic  change  has  taken  place  there  have  been  many  new  tools  introduced 
in  the  trade,  especially  machine  tools,  which  have  gone  toward  helping  to  turn 
out  the  finished  product.  However,  upon  work  where  men  are  not  using  much, 
if  any,  of  the  improved  tools,  the  shorter  workday  finds  them  working,  if  not 
every  minute  of  every  hour,  practically  so,  more  steadily,  applying  themselves 
more  diligently  to  their  work,  because  a  workman  who  has  his  life  in  his  work 
desires  to  produce  a  day's  work  and  he  wants  to  produce  it. 

The  shorter  workday  gives  them  an  additional  advantage  in  that  the  work- 
man is  not  tired  out,  as  he  would  be  otherwise. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  So,  on  the  whole,  you  would  say  that  the  trade  is 
turning  out  on  the  average  per  man  as  much  in  8  hours,  if  not  a  little  more, 
than  they  formerly  did  in  9  or  10  hours? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes;  and  I  think  that  will  be  borne  out  by  nearly  all  of  the 
employers  in  my  trade  who  have  been  in  business  that  long. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  further  said  that  you  believe  that  ultimately 
n  six-hour  day  will  be  the  happy  medium  for  a  working  day. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Have  you  faith  enough  in  the  possibility  of  the 
men  in  the  trade  to  think  that  the  time  will  come  when  a  man  in  six  hours' 
honest,  earnest  work,  intelligently  applied,  will  be  able  practically  to  produce 
as  much  as  he  is  producing  now  in  eight  hours? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  In  this  way  I  have  no  doubt  of  it.  While  the  evolution  is 
coming  on  to  a  reduction  to  a  six-hour  workday,  I  anticipate  the  same  ratio 
of  inventions  will  apply  in  the  way  of  supplying  tools  and  machinery  to  produce, 
and  with  the  expert  ability  and  the  skill  of  the  workmen,  possibly  the  additional 
machines  too  that  will  be  invented  to  put  in  use,  the  product  will  be  more,  a 
little  more. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  it  will  develop  men's  brains? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Along  the  lines  of  higher  inventive  genius? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  it  will  develop  the  workers'  methods  along 
the  lines  that  with  less  physical  effort  he  will  be  able  to  accomplish  substan- 
tially as  much,  as  he  is  accomplishing  now? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Do  you  regard  the  man  or  the  men  who  have 
been  able  to  bring  about  this  reduction  in  hours,  without  any  injury  to  the 
worker  and  with  benefit  to  society,  as  a  friend  or  an  enemy  to  the  worker  or 
to  society? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  As  a  friend. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  If  you  were  able  to-day  to  bring  about  a  six- 
hour  day  along  the  lines  you  have  outlined,  do  you  believe  that  you  ought  to  be 
regarded  as  the  friend  or  the  enemy  of  the  worker  and  of  society? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  I  would  say  that  I  was  the  friend  of  the  worker  and  of  society. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  think  we  are  both  in  accord  on  that  point. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Absolutely. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS  AND   LABOR,  977 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  That  being  the  case,  is  it  not  evident  that  when 
men  were  working  on  a  10-hour  day  they  had  not  developed  their  highest  effi- 
ciency, as  seemingly  has  been  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  to-day  in  eight 
hours  they  accomplish,  if  anything,  a  little  more  than  they  formerly  did  in  10 
hours?  I  suppose  that  must  be  proved,  that  when  they  were  working  on  the 
10-hour  basis  they  were  not  working  to  their  fullest  efficiency— perhaps  not 
intentionally,  but  ignorantly? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  I  do  not  think  ignorantly,  but  I  think  this,  that  they  were 
not  doing  it — but  not  ignorantly.  I  think  the  reason  they  were  not  propor- 
tionately producing  more  than  now  is  because  of  the  drudgery,  the  harassment 
of  the  work,  and  because  of  their  being  tired  out,  both  physically  and  mentally, 
because  of  a  long  workday.  I  consider  myself  yet  a  young  man,  but  the  11- 
hour  workday  had  passed  before  I  began  to  work  at  my  trade.  Then  hours 
is  the  longest  I  have  worked,  and-  when  I  had  some  distance  to  go  to  work,  to 
start  at  7  o'clock  in  the  morning,  with  an  hour  at  noon,  and  worked  until  6 
o'clock  and  then  would  go  home,  and  after  I  got  home  and  got  cleaned  up  and 
had  my  dinner — what  society  people  call  dinner,  but  what  we  call  supper — I 
did  not  have  a  great  deal  of  ambition  during  the  balance  of  the  evening,  and 
unless  there  was  something  that  called  me  out,  I  was  very  prone  to  sit  down 
in  my  boarding  house  and  fall  asleep. 

I  worked  in  New  York  City  at  my  trade  when  I  was  a  boy,  and  any  of  you 
that  know  the  workingman's  section  of  that  city  will  know  what  I  mean  when  I 
say  that  in  the  summer  time  I  used  to  climb  up  the  inside  stair  to  the  roof  to 
rest  and  cool  off  a  little  and  get  some  fresh  air,  and  either  my  roommate  or 
the  good  lady  that  I  boarded  with  used  to  come  up  and  rouse  me  and  tell  me 
that  it  was  time  to  go  to  bed.  Of  course,  that  did  not  follow  every  night,  but  I 
say,  unless  there  was  something  to  keep  me  in  of  an  evening  or  to  go  to  a  meet- 
ing, very  likely  that  would  be  it.  I  did  not  have  any  ambition  to  sit  down  and 
•study  or  go  to  a  library  and  look  for  any  of  the  things  to  relax  a  person,  and 
the  next  morning  I  used  to  do  the  same  thing,  and  when  it  came  Saturday 
night  I  wras  a  pretty  tired  man.  And  then  Sunday  used  to  pass  very  quickly, 
and  it  seemed  to  me  that  Monday  morning  came  after  Saturday  evening  very 
suddenly. 

The  change  from  that  to  the  eight-hour  day  gives  a  man  a  different  chance 
entirely.  Some  of  the  most  expert  baseball  players  that  there  are  in  this 
country,  that  this  country  has  ever  seen,  are  men  who  learned  their  trade  and 
worked  at  it  and  played  ball  in  the  evening  and  in  their  spare  time,  and  princi- 
pally since  we  had  a  reduction  from  the  longer  working  day;  and  they  did  it 
with  vim,  and  so  forth,  and  we  have  enjoyed  this  in  other  parts,  and  they  live 
better,  and  there  is  a  general  betterment  all  around,  all  around,  that  is  re- 
flected in  their  work  and  in  their  lives,  which  can  be  seen  in  the  appearance  of 
their  children  at  the  present  time  as  compared  with -a  quarter  of  a  century 
ago ;  how  they  dress  and  how  they  go  to  school,  and  all  that,  and  it  is  evident 
all  the  way  through  that  there  is  a  different  ambition  in  the  man.  He  has  been 
humanized,  as  it  were,  and  he  has  ceased  to  be  the  drudge  that  he  was,  and 
with  a  little  spare  time — some  of  us  are  not  all  human  and  do  not  employ  the 
time  to  the  best  advantage,  but  that  is  the  exception.  The  rule  is  that  they 
have  had  general  betterment  individually  and  in  their  families,  and  it  is 
reflected  in  their  work. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  I  take  it,  Mr.  Duncan,  that  the  man  or  the  men 
who  have  been  able  to  bring  about  this  change  in  conditions  which  you  have 
described  to  us  in  so  interesting  a  manner,  so  that  it  is  possible  to-day  to  pro- 
duce even  more  in  8  hours  than  it  was  possible  to  produce  in  the  past  in  9  or 
10  hours,  he  has  certainly  been  a  benefactor  to  the  worker  and  to  society 
generally  ? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Now,  I  take  it  from  the  opinion  you  have  ex- 
pressed that  we  have  not  reached  the  limit — that  eight  hours  is  not  the  limit? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  that  you  venture  to  forecast  that  the  time  is 
not  distant  when  six  hours  will  take  the  place  of  the  present  eight  hours ;  that 
if  it  were  possible  to  bring  that  about  to-morrow,  whoever  would  do  that  would 
likewise  be  a  benefactor  to  the  individual  and  the  rest  of  us? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  that  anything  that  will  make  that  more  pos- 
sible ought  to  be  encouraged? 
38819°— 16 62 


978          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  And  that  if  you  could  be  satisfied  that  efficiency 
systems,  or  so-called  efficiency  systems,  by  whatever  name  you  call  them,  would 
help  along  those  lines,  then  that  efficiency  system  would  be  in  the  nature  of  a 
blessing? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Now,  the  only  issue  between  you,  for  example, 
and  the  gentlemen  who  represent  these  efficiency  systems  is  the  question:  Will 
it  bring  that  about?  Will  it  hasten  that  day?  You  think  it  will  not  and  they 
say  it  will.  It  will  have  to  be  admitted  that  they  have  brought  evidence  before 
this  commission  to  show  that  it  has  done  that.  We  may  disagree  as  to  the 
degree  in  which  they  have  done  that,  but  that  it  has  been  done  to  some  degree 
I  think  remains  undisputed,  because  facts  were  brought  out  before  this  commis- 
sion that  were  not  denied  and  not  disputed ;.  that  output  has  been  increased ; 
that  profits  have  been  increased ;  and  that  the  workmen's  earnings  have  been 
increased.  That  has  been  generally  admitted  wherever  the  so-called  systems 
have  been  intelligently  and  fairly  applied  and  where  the  men  have  cooperated 
with  the  promoters.  The  only  point  at  issue  that  is  yet  to  be  determined,  as  I 
see  it,  is  whether  this  increased  profit  and  increased  output  and  increased 
earnings  were  gained  at  the  physical  cost  to  the  worker.  It  is  claimed,  on  the 
one  hand,  that  it  has  come  "  out  of  the  hide  of  the  worker,"  and  that  claim  is 
denied  on  the  other  hand,  and  that  point  is  yet  to  be  determined;  but  that  it 
has  been  made  more  possible  to  cut  hours  of  labor  and  still  maintain  the  output 
as  large  as  was  put  forth  in  the  past  I  think  has  been  clearly  demonstrated. 
Whether  it  applies  to  your  industry,  of  course,  I  could  not  say,  but  would  you 
say  that  because,  in  your  opinion,  these  so-called  efficiency  systems  could  not 
increase  the  output  in  stouecutting  that  it  could  not  increase  the  output  in  any 
other  industry? 

Would  you,  for  example,  want  this  commission  to  take  the  conditions  apply- 
ing to  your  industry  and  make  a  character  for  all  industries? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No. 

Commissioner  WETNSTOCK.  Or  do  you  appreciate  the  fact  that  there  are 
different  conditions  in  different  industries? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WETNSTOCK.  And  that  therefore  because  it  may  not  apply  to 
your  own  industry,  it  may  apply  to  other  industries? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  I  have  been  through  the  State  of  Missouri  twice,  and  those 
what  you  call  scientific  managements  have  got  to  show  me;  they  are  what  I 
call  theorists.  I  claim  we  have  more  scientific  management,  so-called,  in  evi- 
dence in  the  different  occupations  than  is  in  evidence  or  can  possibly  be  in  evi- 
dence by  the  theorists.  Speaking  generally,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the 
stop-watch  system  and  everything  that  goes  with  it,  are  perhaps  applied  nearly 
as  much  in  the  machinists'  industry  as  perhaps  all  others  combined.  I  may  be 
wrong  in  that  proportion,  but  I  am  not  very  far  wrong. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  If  you  said  three  times  more  you  would  not  be 
wrong. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Well,  perhaps.  They  usually  say  I  am  terribly  conservative, 
and  I  will  hold  onto  that.  I  do  not  want  to  spoil  my  reputation  before  this 
commission. 

If  there  is  anything  to  their  claim,  it  should  be  reflected  in  the  machinists' 
business.  I  do  not  think  that  any  man,  even  of  a  theoretical  mind,  will  doubt 
but  there  is  perhaps  as  much,  if  not  more,  skill  required  in  the  machinists' 
industry  as  almost  any  individual  employment. 

Now,  what  do  we  find  among  them  to-day  as  to  these  benefits  to  which  you 
have  referred?  The  organized  and  unorganized  machinists  of  North  America 
will  not  average  as  much  in  wages — I  doubt  if  they  will  average  as  much  in 
wages  as  a  hod  carrier.  There  is  scarcely  a  building  trade  but  is  paying  much 
higher  wages  than  a  man  in  the  machinists'  business.  In  some  of  the  building 
trades  the  wages  are  twice  as  high,  and  there  are  few  if  any  building  trades 
now  where  the  workingman  works  more  than  eight  hours  per  day ;  and  I  doubt 
if  there  is  10  per  cent  of  the  machinists  of  the  country  working  8  hours 
per  day.  If,  therefore,  there  is  all  of  this  advantage  to  the  theoretical  scien- 
tific management  that  the  advocates  of  it  claim,  it  should  be  reflected  some- 
where, and  that  would  be  the  place  where  it  would  be  in  evidence.  I  suppose 
they  will  take  the  condition  that  exists  among  the  men  in  the  machinists' 
business  at  the  present  time  and  compare  it  with  what  it  was  5  or  10  or  15 
years  ago,  and  say,  "  There,  there  is  our  proof,"  but  the  reduction  from  10 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  979 

hours  a  day  in  the  machinists'  trade  to  9  followed  the  general  claim  for  an 
8-hour  day  by  other  trades,  and  I  would  not  be  surprised,  from  my  knowledge 
and  experience,  if  the  building  trades  will  not  be  down  to  7  hours'  working 
day  by  the  time  the  machinists  get  down  to  8,  with  all  the  advantages  scien- 
tific management  can  apply  to  them. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  point  out,  Mr.  Duncan,  that  the  raise  in 
wages  in  the  building  trades  has  been  much  greater  than  the  raise  in  wages, 
for  example,  among  machinists? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  May  this  not  explain  that  fact,  that  the  building 
trade  is  largely  a  noncompetitive  business:  Let  us  take  the  city  of  Washing- 
ton, for  example.  If  I  want  to  build  a  house  in  Washington  I  can  not  import 
that  house  from  New  York  or  San  Francisco  or  New  Orleans.  It  has  to  be 
constructed  here.  If  the  workers  in  the  building  trades  organize  strongly  in 
Washington  they  can  dictate  their  own  terms,  and  I  have  to  practically  sub- 
mit. The  contractors  are  quite  willing  to  pay  that,  because  as  long  as  they  all 
pay  it  it  is  no  disadvantage  to  either.  They  simply  transmit  that  burden  to 
me  as  the  owner  of  the  building.  But  when  it  comes  to  buying  a  machine 
I  have  the  whole  United  States  to  .compete  with  for  that  sale.  In  fact,  I  have  the 
world.  Therefore,  the  machinists'  business  is  a  competitive  business  and  the 
building  trades  is  a  noncompetitive  industry,  and  therefore,  it  being  non- 
competitive,  it  comes  very  nearly  to  being  in  the  nature  of  a  monopoly,  and 
wherever  you  can  establish  monopoly  there  you  can  fix  your  price. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Your  statement  is  very  largely  akin  to  the  theoretical  argu- 
ment of  the  scientific  managers.  When  applied  practically,  and  its  base  is 
knocked  from  under  it,  naturally  the  whole  of  your  argument  would  fail. 

In  so  far  as  the  building  industry  in  the  city  of  Washington  is  concerned 
there  is  very,  very  small  percentage  done  here.  None  of  the  stone  for  it, 
whether  it  be  hard  or  soft,  is  cut  here.  The  iron  is  not  made  here.  The  brick 
is  not  made  here.  Certain  of  the  timbers  may  be  trimmed  before  they  come 
here.  Most  of  the  woodwork,  the  sheet-metal  work,  and  everything  is  put  to- 
gether here.  There  is  competition  between  the  marble  man  and  the  granite 
man.  The  terra-cotta  man  is  after  them  both.  The  iron  workers  and  the 
cement  league,  so-called,  are  after  everything  of  the  kind,  and  the  carpenters 
are  trying  to  maintain  a  relic  of  the  past  art  or  craft  of  carpentry,  which  is 
fast  passing  away,  as  the  result  of  the  use  of  artificial  materials  and  metal  and 
that  sort  of  thing.  So  the  competition  for  your  house  to  be  built  here  in  Wash- 
ington is  as  keen  in  every  particular  as  the  purchase  of  any  part  of  machinery 
coming  from  where  it  may. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is  true,  but  that 

Mr.  DUNCAN  (interrupting).  The  only  point  that  would  apply  would  be  this, 
that  after  the  material  is  contracted,  by  whomsoever  may  contract  it,  from 
Maine  to  California,  and  sent  here,  the  building  trades  in  Washington  might 
concentrate  and  say  certain  conditions  shall  be  applied  in  connection  with  the 
execution  or  erection  of  the  material ;  but  the  same  thing  would  apply  in  con- 
nection with  machinery.  Wherever  it  is  made  and  sent,  the  assembling  of  the 
machinery  by  the  machinists  would  be  subject  to  the  same  proposition ;  by 
lining  up  all  the  other  iron  trades,  they  could  do  the  very  same  thing.  So 
there  is  practically  no  difference  between  them,  and  there  is  as  much  competi- 
tion, perhaps  more  competition,  except  in  the  iron  industry,  in  so  far  as  the 
building  is  concerned,  than  in  almost  anything  else  you  could  apply  to  the 
erection  of  your  house  or  your  office  building,  as  the  case  may  be. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  the  building  trades  are  not  thoroughly  organ- 
ized in  the  city  of  Washington,  what  you  say  would  hold.  But  if  they  are 
thoroughly  organized,  as  they  are  in  my  own  home  city  of  San  Francisco,  it 
would  not  hold,  because  when  it  came  to  the  question  of  erection  or  assembling 
of  these  materials,  regardless  of  what  competition  in  getting  the  materials, 
the  hod  carrier  is  in  a  position  to  demand  $4  a  day,  which  is  more  than  the 
machinist  gets,  more  than  the  minimum  wage  of  the  machinist  in  San  Fran- 
cisco, Which  is  $3.50. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Did  the  scientific  manager  help  to  get  the  hod  carrier  that 
price? 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  No;  he  did  not. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  further  point  out  that  two  of  the  underlying 
causes  for  unrest,  as  Mr.  O'Connell  suggested,  could  be  minimized,  as  you 
point  out,  by  the  shorter  workday  and  diminishing  immigration  or  restricting 


980         REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

immigration.  Are  we  to  gather  from  tliat  that  one  of  the  causes  of  unrest  is 
overproduction ;  that  there  are  too  many  men  to  do  the  work ;  that  we  are  pro- 
ducing too  much  for  the  number  of  hands  we  have  to  produce  it? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  We  are  evidently  producing  faster  than  the  market  can  con- 
sume, or  else  there  would  be  a  demand  for  the  employment  of  those  who  are 
unemployed,  and  then  we  would  not  have  this  social  unrest. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  If  it  was  a  case  of  producing,  would  we  help 
matters,  would  we  increase  prosperity,  would  we  better  the  condition  of  the 
worker  if  we  cut  down  our  production? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  We  would  not? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No;  a  better  distribution  of  it  would  be  all  right,  but  to  cut 
it  down  would  mean  the  release  of  a  certain  greater  number  of  men  and  women 
that  are  now  employed. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then,  distribution  would  be  purely  a  matter  of 
marketing? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No ;  not  entirely ;  not  entirely.  For  instance,  in  an  employment 
where  men  and  women  are  working  9  or  10  or  11  and  sometimes  12  hours  a  day, 
if  they  were  brought  down  to  8  or  7  or  6  hours  a  day  there  would  be  more  people 
employed;  there  would  be  a  greater  consuming  power;  the  consuming  power 
of  the  populace  would  be  enhanced,  and  therefore  there  would  be  greater  con- 
sumption of  the  finished  material. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  But  I  can  not  reconcile  that  with  your  previous 
statement.  I  can  not  reconcile  that  with  your  statement  made  a  little  while 
ago  that  men  are  producing  as  much  in  8  hours  as  they  formerly  produced  in 
10,  and  that  you  hope  to  see  the  day  when  men  will  be  practically  producing 
as  much  in  6  hours  as  in  8. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  I  do  not  entirely  blame  you  for  not  seeing  my  point  in  that, 
for  I  fear  your  mind  is  running  along  the  theoretical  line.  By  producing  more 
we  are  selling  a  great  deal  more.  We  are  not  housing  it  up.  The  fact  that 
we  are  producing  it  shows  there  is  a  market  for  it. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Very  well.  But  if  the  output  to-day  is,  say  100, 
is  represented  by  the  figure  100,  and  if  we  can  produce  that  same  100  in  6 
hours  in  place  of  8  hours,  we  will  not  have  increased  the  opportunity  for  em- 
ployment. We  will  have  exactly  the  same  number  of  people  producing  that 
100,  only  they  will  do  it  in  6  hours  in  place  of  doing  it  in  8  hours. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  That  does  not  follow.  When  we  changed  from  9  to  8  hours  a 
day,  in  the  first  two  or  three  years  after  we  did  that,  more  people  were  em- 
ployed than  ever  before  in  the  history  of  our  trade  for  the  amount  of  stuff 
that  was  turned  out  at  the  time.  That  has  gone  on  since  then,  but  the  change 
was  very  marked,  and  the  advantage  of  the  reduction  in  hours  of  labor  usually 
is  to  create  a  healthy  market  for  the  product.  In  the  first  place,  it  employs 
more  people.  A  man  could  not  work  to-day  10  hours  and  to-morrow  be  put 
on  an  8-hour  day  and  do  the  same  thing  in  8  hours  as  he  did  to-day  in  10 
hours,  because  his  mentality  and  his  physique  and  everything  about  him  is 
still  upon  the  10-hour  basis.  It  required  a  development,  and  in  the  course  of 
that  development  more  people  are  employed,  and  with  the  more  people  em- 
ployed the  consuming  power  is  increased. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then  that  simply  means  not  that  you  employ 
more  people  to  make  the  same  output  that  you  have  to-day,  but  that  you  are 
steadily  increasing  your  market  for  that  output,  and  by  increasing  the  market 
you  are  giving  employment  to  more  people.  In  other  words,  if  we  could  double 
our  market  to-day ;  if,  instead  of  selling  100  machines,  we  found  a  market  for 
200  machines,  we  could  naturally  employ  a  good  many  more  people  than  we 
do  to-day.  But  if  we  limit  our  output  to  100  and  could  find  no  market  for 
more  than  100,  and  if  we  could  take  the  men  who  are  working  on  that 
100  machines  to-day,  and  put  them  on  an  8-hour  basis  and  get  them  to 
turn  out  those  100  machines,  or  if  we  could  take  the  men  who  are  turning 
out  those  100  machines  on  an  8-hour  basis  to-day  and  put  them  on  a  6-hour 
basis,  we  will  not  have  opened  the  door  for  more  workers. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  You  evidently  can  not  conceive  of  the  fact  of  the  change 
bringing  more  workers  into  use  and  making  better  distribution  of  the  money 
of  the  country  and  the  producing  power  being  increased  accordingly.  The 
opposite  was  tried,  you  know — I  know  that  you  know  it — and  it  was  found  to 
be  a  failure.  It  used  to  be  the  custom  in  factory  work  that  whenever  there 
was  a  sluggish  market  they  began  to  reduce — sometimes  they  increased  the 
time  and  reduced  the  wages  so  as  to  make  the  product  cheaper  in  order  to  get 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  981 

rid  of  it.  After  years  of  trying  that  and  it  having  proved  that  the  consuming 
power  was  not  increased,  they  have  changed  that  plan  now,  and  when  the 
market  becomes  dull  they  reduce  the  number  of  working  hours. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  I  want  to  make  the  point  clear  in  my  own  mind, 
Mr.  Duncan,  and  I  think  I  can  do  it  by  asking  two  or  three  questions,  if  you 
will  be  kind  enough  to  ans\ver  them  by  yes  or  no.  First,  in  your  trade  men 
are  producing  as  much,  if  not  more,  than  they  did — they  are  producing  as  much 
on  an  8-hour  basis  now  as  they  did  formerly  in  10  hours? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Secondly,  there  are  more  men  employed  in  your 
trade  to-day,  doubtless,  than  there  were  when  the  10-hour  day  prevailed? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Then  if  there  are  more  men  employed  to-day 
than  there  were  when  10  hours  prevailed,  it  is  not  due  to  the  fact  that  men 
are  producing  less  in  8  hours  than  they  formerly  produced  in  10;  it  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  there  is  more  demand  for  your  product. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Brought  about  by  the  change.  You  can  not  disassociate  the 
one  from  the  other. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  It  is  due  to  the  -fact  that  there  is  an  increased 
demand  for  your  products — not  due  to  the  fact  that  men  are  doing  less  work 
now  and  therefore  it  takes  more  hands  to  do  the  same  amount  of  work? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  The  distribution  is  better 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  Therefore,  the  secret  lies  here,  if  we  are  to  give 
more  employment,  if  we  are  to  minimize  the  ranks  of  the  unemployed,  we  can 
not  hope  to  do  it  by  shortening  hours  pure  and  simple.  We  must  hope  to  do 
it  by  lessening  costs  with  a  view  of  broadening  the  demand  and  increasing  the 
market  for  that  which  we  produce.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  I  can  not  conceive  of  a  condition  of  reducing  the  hours  "  pure 
and  simple."  When  you  say  "  pure  and  simple  "  you  produce  a  different  con- 
dition entirely.  There  is  not  any  "  pure  and  simple "  about  it.  Everything 
that  hinges  upon  the  main  question  goes  with  it,  and  to  disassociate  the  main 
question  from  the  things  which  surround  it  is  not  a  fair  proposition. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  That  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Duncan,  you  naturally  wrant  this  commission  to 
put  themselves  in  your  place  and  get  your  point  of  view  on  this  question,  and, 
I  think,  therefore,  perhaps,  it  is  not  unfair  that  we  should  ask  you  to  put 
yourself  in  our  places  and  assist  us  somewhat  in  our  investigations.  You  are 
familiar  with  the  fact  that  this  commission  represents  three  different  parties 
in  interest,  and  that  we  are  trying  to  discover  some  common  ground  upon 
which  we  can  arrive  at  a  harmonious  report.  It  would  not  help  the  public 
to  have  two  or  three  reports  on  this  great  fundamental  question.  I  do  not 
think  it  helps  the  question  very  much  to  try  to  develop  the  fact  that  there  is 
an  irreconcilable  conflict  or  anything  of  that  kind.  It  seems  to  me  our  efforts 
should  be  to  try  to  find  out  where  the  points  of  agreement  are,  if  we  can  do  so. 
I  want  to  appeal  to  you  on  that  basis  for  help.  I  do  not  have  to  ask  you 
whether  you  are  a  believer  in  collective  bargaining,  for  I  know  you  are. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  I  do  not  have  to  ask  you  whether  you  object 
to  the  introduction  of  machinery,  because  I  know  you  do  not. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  That  is  right. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  being  so,  do  you  object  to  improvements  in 
methods,  provided  always  that  the  workmen  are  safeguarded  and  are  not  de- 
ceived in  the  introduction  of  the  methods. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  object? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  appears  to  me  as  one  of  the  fundamental  diffi- 
culties, and  if  that  could  be  brushed  aside  wre  would  make  some  real  headway. 
Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  somewhat  familiar  with  the  granite  industry. 
I  lived  in  your  town  for  six  years,  when  I  was  a  boy.  There  have  been  im- 
mense improvements  in  the  cutting  of  stone  by  machinery  in  the  30  years  past  ? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  were  those  improvements  made?  Were  they 
just  made  out  of  a  clear  sky  by  some  inventor,  or  were  they  made  by  careful 
study  of  the  process  of  cutting  stone? 


982          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Both.  Some  of  the  most  effective  tools,  in  cutting  granite  at 
the  present  time,  were  more  or  less  accidents.  Men  were  groping  for  some- 
thing, and  here  and  there  some  fellow  would  fall  upon  a  process.  For  in- 
stance, one  of  the  most  effective  tools  there  is  in  the  business  is  what  we 
call  a  large  surfacing  machine.  I  suppose  it  would  appear  strange  to  you  to 
know  that  the  whole  process  of  it  was  discovered  through  a  man  of  our  trade 
watching  a  brass  worker.  He  was  some  kind  of  a  machinist,  I  have  not  in 
mind  at  the  present  time  just  exactly  what.  I  think  he  made  seals  and  things 
like  that.  You  will  find  sometimes  on  metals — gold,  brass,  and  copper,  an  orna- 
mentation, a  rough  coat  that  is  produced  by  dabbing — a  dabbing  machine — • 
upon  a  plain  surface  after  the  plain  surface  has  been  made.  Sometimes  they 
call  it  rustication.  It  was  originally  put  in  metal  to  form  a  contrast  between 
the  finely  molded  and  polished  portions  of  the  ornamentation,  and  the  portion 
which  would  be  what  we  call  dabbed.  The  process  by  which  that  man  was 
using  the  machine  was  to  turn  it  with  his  foot,  and,  having  a  little  tool,  he 
would  do  this  dabbing  and  this  would  make  it  rough  and  a  little  coarse,  and 
that  suggested  to  the  man  who  invented  this  surfacing  machine  the  idea,  or  it 
gave  him  some  of  the  groundwork  for  his  invention.  Prom  such  a  crude  be- 
ginning as  that  the  machine  was  finally  evolved,  and  is  in  use  at  the  present 
times.  That  machine  will  do  easily  from  10  to  12  times  as  much  work,  guided 
by  a  man,  of  course.  The  machine  does  not  work  automatically,  but  the  prod- 
uct in  a  day  would  be  10  or  12  times  the  product  of  manual  labor. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Has  the  labor  gotten  any  of  the  advantage  from  the 
introduction  of  machinery? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Well,  individually,  perhaps  not;  only  this,  if  it  might  be  so- 
called,  more  constant  employment.  It  has  helped  to  cheapen  the  finished 
product,  and  the  finished  product  has  been  produced  more  perfectly,  which  has 
given  them  additional  employment;  but  so  far  as  the  physical  application  of 
the  machine  to  the  man  is  concerned,  and  outside  of  the  additional  employment 
that  he  may  have  had,  it  has  had  the  very  opposite  effect;  it  has  been  very 
harmful  to  his  health. 

Quite  a  number  of  years  ago,  up  to  1890.  perhaps,  the  deaths  from  tuber- 
culosis, especially  in  the  throats  and  lungs  of  the  workmen,  were  from  30  to 
40  to  45  per  cent.  As  it  came  along,  now  it  is  nearer  to  85;  and  that  is 
attributed"  largely  to  the  machines  because  of  the  increased  amount  of  dust 
which  permeates  the  atmosphere;  and  the  man  has  difficulty  in  getting  away 
from  it;  and  the  men  who  are  strong  physically  otherwise  and  able  to  throw 
off  consumption  do  it  and  live  long  and  well ;  those  who  are  not,  or  who  are 
careless  in  their  living  and  are  not  exactly  circumspect,  the  germ  gets  hold 
of  them.  The  men  in  my  trade  wrho  die  from  consumption  usually  die  from 
25  to  40  or  42. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  I  want  to  get  at  briefly  is  this:  I  do  not 
want  to  take  up  much  of  your  time;  but  it  is  more  or  less  the  subject  of 
grievance,  is  it  not,  on  the  part  of  the  workingmen  that,  on  the  introduction 
of  machinery,  he  has  not  received  the  benefit,  or  as  much  of  the  benefit,  as  he 
thinks  he  is  entitled  to? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  is,  he  thinks  he  ought  to  have  shared  in  the 
benefits,  and  not  had  so  much  of  it,  or  perhaps  he  might  say  all  of  it,  go  to 
the  employer? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  He  does  not.    We  do  not  claim  all  of  it  goes  to  the  employer. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  had   a  bigger  share?     There   are   three 
sharing  in  the  benefit,  of  course — the  employer,  the  worker,  and  the  public. 
.  Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  I  want  to  get  at  very  briefly  is  this:  Do  you 
think,  speaking  for  the  workman  in  your  industry,  that  he  has  had  as  big  a 
share  as  he  ought  to  have  had? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No;  perhaps  not;  but  the  dear  public  has  had  the  most  of 
it.  The  competition  between  the  employers  for  the  work  reduces  the  advan- 
tage that  he  might  individually  get ;  but  I  do  not  think  the  man  that  is  run- 
ning the  machine,  or  the  contractor,  has  got  the  advantage  this  change  has 
brought  about,  but  the  public  has  got  it  by  reduced  cost. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  a  remedy  for  that;  is  it  in  organization 
on  both  sides — organization  on  the  part  of  the  employer  and  organization  on 
the  part  of  the  employee? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  That  might  be  helpful ;  but,  of  course,  if  that  were  carried  to 
its  conclusion  it  would  like  a  conspiracy  between  the  two  of  them  to  fleece 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  983 

the  public  to  that  extent;  but  in  the  stone  industry,  at  least,  we  have  not, 
either  in  the  office  or  in  the  stone  shop,  we  have  not  been  able  to  get  up  such 
a  combination. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  want  you  to  understand  that  I  meant  a  com- 
bination. I  meant  that  perhaps  it  might  be  required  in  every  trade,  such  a 
commission,  theoretically,  at  least,  as  this — a  commission  that  represents  all 
three  parties  in  interest ;  but  even  that  sort  of  thing  can  not  be  obtained  unless 
you  have  organization. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  That  is  right. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  One  of  the  things  that  you  gain  by  collective  bar- 
gaining is  to  protect  those  who  are  represented? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  if  that  is  true  about  the  introduction  of 
machinery,  is  it  not  also  true  in  regard  to  the  introduction  of  methods — im- 
proved methods? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  I  don't  think  so.  Among  the  skilled  trades  I  have  never  seen 
anything  done  to  prevent  or  to  create  the  impression  in  the  minds  of  men  that 
improved  machinery  or  improved  opportunities,  like  improved  management, 
should  be  considered  detrimental  to  the  worker,  or  that  he  did  not  get  out  of  it 
what  he  thought  he  ought  to  have.  It  is  true  that  the  man  behind  the  hammer 
thinks  he  is  not  well  enough  compensated.  That  is  part  of  his  nature,  too; 
and  he  would  not  be  much  of  a  human  being  if  he  didn't  think  so;  and  I  do 
not  think  there  are  many  reasoning  beings  that  think  they  are  getting  enough. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  all  trying  to  get  more;  we  are  all  trying 
to  better  ourselves,  aren't  we? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Do  I  get  the  impression  from  you  that,  while  you 
think  there  has  been  in  the  past,  as  is  proved,  and  that  there  will  be  in  the 
future,  improved  machinery,  that  there  is  room  for  any  improvement  in  methods? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Oh,  yes;  there  is  room  for  improved  methods  all  the  time.  The 
difficulty  that  we  have  in  getting  into  the  minds  of  the  scientific  management  is 
this :  They  conclude  that  because  we  can  not  see  the  thing  through  their  eyes, 
therefore  we  are  wrong  and  that  there  is  no  advancement,  and  we  stand  for  no 
advancement  because  we  do  not  accept  their  theories.  We  say,  for  instance, 
that  in  the  general  concept  of  commerce  the  advantages  they  claim  are  scarcely 
visible,  whereas  in  commerce  the  advantages  of  improved  management  and  im- 
proved skill,  and  all  that,  is  in  evidence  in  every  walk  of  life  and  in  every 
industry  and  every  phase  of  industry. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  let  us  forget  them  for  a  moment.  We  have 
gotten  to  the  point  where  we  both  agree  that  there  has  been  in  the  past,  and 
will  be  in  the  future,  improvement  in  machinery,  and  that  there  has  been  in  the 
past  and  will  be  in  the  future  improvement  in  methods. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  you  say  that  these  improvements  in  machinery 
have  come  sometimes  sort  of  out  of  a  clear  sky  and  sometimes  they  have  come 
by  observation  and  by  study.  A  man  has  applied  the  experience  of  years  to  a 
problem  and  he  has  finally  worked  out  a  better  solution  than  anybody  else  ever 
did  before. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  can  you  npt  conceive  of  that  same  thing  being 
true  of  methods? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes;  absolutely  so. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  then,  what  you  really  fear  is  that  somebody 
will  come  along  who  does  not  really  know  the  subject  and  will  try  to  apply 
methods  that  will  be  unfair;  is  not  that  what  you  really  fear? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  That  is  one  of  them ;  yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  are  the  others? 

Mr  DUNCAN.  One  of  the  fears  that  I  tried  to  exemplify  before.  For  instance, 
you  say  to  eliminate  the  other  party.  It  .is  difficult  for  me  to  eliminate  him 
from  the  discussion,  because  he  is  there. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  did  not  say  to  eliminate  him ;  I  say  forget  him. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Well,  it  is  cutting  off  the  different  letters  of  the  word  "  habit  " ; 
there  is  always  some  of  it  left.  The  methods  that  you  speak  of — if  you  admit 
the  methods  that  we  follow  at  the  present  time  in  a  practical  manner,  by  which 
the  additional  advantages  have  been  gained,  then  you  are  referring  to  some 
additional  methods  than  those  you  originally  referred  to  when  you  referred  to 
methods,  because  there  are  any  amount  of  methods  now  in  use  in  every  industry. 


984          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  -want  to  cut  them  out  without  adding  any? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No.  One  of  the  principal  things  that  a  workman  objects  to  'in 
this  is  a  man  standing  over  him,  in  theory  or  otherwise,  directing  this,  that,  and 
the  other  thing  to  be  clone,  evidently  almost  entirely  eliminating  his  individu- 
ality, so  that  his  mechanical  ability  and  his  skill  and  his  brain  training  are  not 
as  much  represented  in  his  work  as  following  a  routine  laid  down  by  a  speeding 
boss.  That  is  what  hurts  the  man  more  than  anything  I  know,  and  it  would 
take  all  the  ambition  out  of  him ;  it  would  leave  his  mind,  if  it  were  followed 
up,  not  in  a  position  to  conceive  the  advantages  or  put  him  in  a  position  where 
he  should  look  for  them  and  take  advantage  of  them,  but  should  rely  on  some- 
thing foreign  and  outside  of  his  individuality  and  mentality,  and  what  would 
be  gained  in  one  way  would  be  more  than  lost  in  the  other. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Leaving  that  for  a  moment,  do  you  still  use  in  the 
granite  districts  the  methods,  that  I  know  were  used  until  recently,  of  splitting 
up  a  big  piece  of  granite  with  wooden  blocks  and  a  series  of  holes  and  wetting 
those  blocks  and  letting  the  swelling  of  the  wood  split  the  piece? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  That  has  been  abandoned? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes ;  long  ago ;  perhaps  about  a  hundred  years  ago. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Then,  you  haven't  got  the  same  idea  that  I  have,  be- 
cause when  I  was  a  schoolboy  it  was  still  in  use,  and  I  can  not  date  back  that 
far. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  I  wrould  like  to  shake  hands  with  you  over  that.  I  want  to  live 
as  long  as  I  can,  and  your  age  encourages  me. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Perhaps  you  misunderstood  me. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  No ;  I  did  not.  Occasionally  that  might  have  been  done,  and  in 
your  time,  but  it  was  a  relic  in  my  own — a  relic  of  the  past.  They  passed  from 
using  wooden  wedges  to  iron  wedges,  and  occasionally  after  they  had  abandoned 
the  wooden  wedge  they  would  sometimes  use  it  where  they  wanted  to  split  a 
stone  of  a  certain  width;  if  it  were  18  inches,  and  they  wanted  two  stones  of 
8§  apiece,  or  something  like  that,  and  with  the  metal  wedges  that  they  used 
they  would  get  a  rough  break,  because  it  would  break  more  fast.  With  the 
wooden  wedges  you  speak  of  and  this  swelling  there  was  always  a  considerable 
wait  in  the  granite  business,  even  at  that.  They  used  to  wet  them  at  night 
and  let  them  rest  over  night.  The  way  \ve  need  granite  nowadays,  because 
of  the  scientific  management  of  the  machine,  we  need  to  split  a  stone  in  15 
minutes,  and  we  can  not  wait  until  next  clay.  They  drifted  from  the  wooden 
wedges  to  the  metal  wedge,  and  later  than  that,  about  30  years  ago,  they  drifted 
from  that  to  what  is  called  in  the  trade  "  plug  and  feather,"  "  shins  and  wedges  "  ; 
there  are  different  names  for  it.  It  is  a  small  wedge  that  is  put  in  and  a  man 
with  a  small  drill — about  half  an  inch  or  five-eighths  of  an  inch  bit — drills  a 
line  of  holes  and  puts  in  these  wedges,  and  in  10  or  15  minutes  he  would  have 
split  a  piece  of  stone  that  would  have  taken  a  day  and  a  night  with  the  wooden 
wedge. 

Again,  when  they  need  close  sizes  they  will  put  a  stone  under  a  saw,  and 
with  that  saw — we  are  sawing  now  as  much  as  38  inches  in  8  hours,  whereas 
when  I  was  a  boy  and  in  the  trade,  if  we  sawed  an  inch  or  an  inch  and  a  half 
in  a  week  we  thought  we  were  doing  well. 

So  much  for  the  scientific  management  of  the  man  behind  the  hammer. 
That  thing  has  been  going  on  all  the  time.  They  take  a  block  the  size  of 
these  tables  and  they  put  two  or  three  saws  in  it — or  six  of  them,  according 
to  the  size — and  put  a  machine  to  work  on  them,  and  in  a  short  time  they 
have  a  carload  of  slabs,  whereas  with  the  wooden  wedges  and  with  the  others 
it  would  have  taken  a  long  time.  They  have  not  been  split,  as  I  stated,  with 
wooden  wedges  for  a  long  time. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  What  I  referred  to  was  getting  big  blocks — when 
they  wanted  a  big  column,  or  something  like  that. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  When  they  wanted  to  have  a  very  fine  break  they  never  did 
that,  except  where  the  slow  process  will  take  effect  rather  than  the  quick,  be- 
cause a  stone  would  wobble  and  they  would  lose  width. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  spoke  of  the  hammer  and  chisel,  and  all  that ; 
are  they  the  same  form  and  size  that  they  were  using,  say,  25  or  30  years  ago? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Well,  because  there  are  saws  giving  a  better  shape.  At  the 
time  you  mentioned,  the  cutter,  his  hand  hammer  is  not  as  heavy ;  but  the  dif- 
ference is  not  so  much  in  that,  perhaps  a  quarter  of  a  pound,  3|  pounds  where 
it  used  to  be  4,  and  the  chisels  he  uses  by  hand  are  about  the  same,  and  most 
of  the  chisels  he  uses  now  are  in  machines:  most  of  them  are  in  machines  or 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOE.  985 

pneumatic  tools,  so-called,  are  doing  most  of  the  work  that  way ;  they  do  not 
do  a  great  deal  of  it — some  portion  of  it,  perhaps — but  in  chiseling  they  do 
the  most  of  it. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question  or  two  on  one  sub- 
ject that  was  brought  out  by  Mr.  Weinstock,  showing  another  phase  of  what 
application  or  management  might  do.  Following  up  this,  the  product  will  be 
represented  by  a  hundred? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  And  for  a  similar  purpose  we  will  say  that  the 
number  producing  that  product  is  100? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  And  that  the  number  of  consumers  is  represented 
by  100? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  We  will  just  draw  a  fence  around  the  country, 
and  let  those  three  numbers  represent  those  three  factors.  If,  under  efficiency 
management,  as  is  claimed,  the  individual  product  is  increased  to  a  degree  that 
eliminates  one-fifth  of  the  workers,  or  20,  does  not  that  create  a  corresponding 
reduction  in  the  market  for  that  product,  or  does  it? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  It  would  depend,  of  course,  upon  the  consumption  of  the 
public. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  If  the  public  are  the  consumers,  these  workers 
are  part  of  the  same  public. 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  Yes;  then  it  would  be  reduced. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Then  what  would  follow?  Would  production  be 
limited  because  consumption  had  been  limited?  They  would  have  to  find  a 
new  market  otherwise,  wouldn't  they? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  They  would. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Would  not  a  further  reduction  of  the  number  of 
producers  again  limit  the  market?  Does  it  make  any  difference  how  much 
you  cheapen  the  market  price  of  a  thing  if  the  producer  has  no  money?  Would 
that  condition  be  fairly  economically  good,  then,  if  it  worked  that  result? 
Would  it  or  would  it  not? 

Mr.  DUNCAN.  The  advantage  we  contend  for  in  your  question  is  that  unless 
there  is  an  advantage  to  the  consuming  number,  the  economic  claim  is  an 
error  ? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Very  well;  I  think  that  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Thompson,  will  you  call  your  next  witness? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  should  like  to  ask  the  commission  if  there  is  any  definite 
hour  set  for  Mr.  Brandeis? 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Two  o'clock  is  set. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  we  will  begin  with  this  witness,  and  split  the  time  if 
we  are  not  finished. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JOHN  GOLDEN. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Your  residence,  Mr.  Golden? 
Mr.  GOLDEN.  Fall  River,  Mass. 
Mr.  THOMPSON.  Your  occupation? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  General  president  of  the  United  Textile  Workers  of  America. 
Mr.  THOMPSON.  How  long  have  you  been  such  president? 
Mr.  GOLDEN.  Since  1903. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  tell  the  commission  what  workers  that  includes,  or 
organization? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  The  manufacturing  of  all  classes  of  textile  fabrics,  cotton,  wool, 

silk,  flax,  and  jute. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Where  are  they  mostly  employed;  in  factories  ami  shops? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  All  in  factories. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  that  line  of  industry  there  is  considerable  use  of  machinery, 
is  there  not.? 

Mr  GOLDEN.  Very  little  handwork  at  all  now. 

Mr'  THOMPSON.  In  that  industry  have  you  had  any  chance  to  study  the  opera- 
tion of  the  so-called  scientific  management  systems  or  efficiency  systems? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  have? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  A  little ;  not  to  a  very  large  extent  yet. 


986          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  made  a  study  of  those  systems  outside  of  your  own 
industry  ? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  More  particularly  in  my  own  industry. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Tell  us  in  your  own  language  what  you  have  to  say  with  refer- 
ence to  those  systems,  as  affecting  the  workers  in  your  own  industry. 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Well,  gentlemen,  I  want  to  say  in  the  first  place  that  I  have  not 
had  as  much  of  this  to  meet  as  some  of  the  other  industries.  Take  the  ma- 
chinists' industry,  etc.,  but  the  last  two  years  it  has  become  more  pronounced, 
and  in  the  last  few  months  we  have  had  more  of  it,  until  it  has  come  to  a  point 
now  where  the  moment  we  get  a  complaint  in  about  increasing  the  work  of  the 
operatives  we  do  not  have  to  jump  to  a  conclusion.  In  about  nine  cases  out  of 
every  ten,  we  find  it  comes  about  through  the  introduction  of  what  is  known  in 
our  trade  as  a  systematizer,  a  man  who  comes  in  there  and  begins  to  introduce 
new  methods,  and  in  a  very  short  time,  as  they  have  done  in  a  great  many 
instances,  he  succeeds  in  bringing  the  mill  on  strike.  We  had  a  number  of 
instances  in  the  last  few  months. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Will  you  give  a  typical  case  of  what  the  systematizer  did,  and 
how  that  led,  if  it  did  lead,  to  trouble? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Well,  we  had  a  case  within  the  last  few  weeks.  I  will  give  you 
this  because  it  will  take  the  shortest  time  to  give  it.  I  understand  that  if  I  am 
kept  on  the  grill  as  long  as  my  friend  Duncan,  my  testimony  will  be  broken  into 
by  my  friend  Mr.  Brandeis — I  have  no  objection  to  having  that  done — but  I 
have  one  case  which  will  take  some  little  time  to  explain,  but  will  probably 
serve  to  answer  some  of  the  questions  that  will  be  answered  later  in  regard  to 
some  phases  of  this  subject. 

We  had  a  case  of  a  mill  in  Massachusetts,  and  I  want  to  say  that  I  prefer,  in 
giving  my  testimony,  to  give  some  specific  cases  if  I  am  allowed  to,  and  I  want 
to  ask  the  privilege  of  giving  the  facts  of  those  cases  and  leave  the  names  in  the 
hands  of  the  commission,  for  obvious  reasons. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  You  may  do  that.  I  might  say  to  you  that  you  may  take  your 
own  manner  of  stating  what  you  have  to  state.  We  have  permitted  the  experts 
to  do  that,  and  in  fairness,  will  do  the  same  thing  with  you. 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  We  had  a  case  only  about  six  weeks  ago  in  a  large  manufacturing 
city,  where  scientific  management  had  been  unknown  up  to  that  time.  It  was  in 
a  department  of  a  large  mill  where  nothing  but  women  were  employed,  and 
things  had  gone  along  mighty  peacefully  for  many  years. 

We  were  notified  at  our  headquarters  that  a  strike  had  taken  place  in  this 
particular  mill,  so  I  sent  a  representative  from  headquarters  to  investigate,  and 
he  came  back  and  said  "  scientific  management."  So  I  made  a  personal  investi- 
gation, and  here  is  what  happened : 

A  so-called  systematizer  had  arrived  and  began  to  look  around  for  the  best 
field  to  begin  operations  in.  I  suppose,  according  to  his  theoretical  judgment, 
that  was  the  best  place,  and  he  started  in.  This  mill  was  an  old  mill  and  had 
machinery  a  little  mite  antiquated.  Knowing  that  that  condition  existed,  the 
superintendent  of  the  mill,  who  had  risen  up  from  a  sweeper  boy  and  spent  40 
years  in  the  mill,  had  that  machinery  running  at  a  speed  which,  according  to 
his  experienced  mind,  was  as  fast  a  speed  as  the  machinery  would  stand  for. 
We  have  a  list — there  is  an  indicator  on  those  machines  that  governs  the  wages ; 
they  are  paid  piecework,  and  they  were  paid  so  much  per  hank,  which  is  840 
yards  in  length.  AYe  use  those  terms  in  order  to  bring  down  the  volume  of 
figures. 

Knowing  that  this  machinery  could  not  be  speeded  up  any  more,  these  people 
were  paid  a  few  cents  extra,  or  a  few  mills  per  hank  more  than  the  agreement 
called  for — more  than  would  prevail  in  the  newer  and  more  modern  mills. 
The  systematizer  came  in  and  immediately  discovered  this,  and  said,  "  Oh,  we 
will  change  that."  Well,  it  only  meant  about  30  cents  per  week  on  the  change, 
but  to  a  woman  earning  $10  a  week  30  cents  is  a  lot  of  money. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  He  cut  wages  immediately  to  the  extent  of  30  cents? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes ;  he  cut  them  in  this  way,  though :  He  said,  "  We  will  put 
these  on  the  standard  prices,  but  this  machine  is  not  running  so  fast  as  the 
machine  across  the  street,"  and  consequently  he  knew  more  than  ttie  man  who 
had  been  in  charge  of  that  machine  for  30  years,  and  immediately  the  speed 
of  the  machine  was  increased  up  to  the  standard  rate.  The  girls  did  not  say 
anything;  they  do  not  go  much  into  details  in  regard  to  the  size  of  the  gears 
put  onto  the  machines,  but  they  were  told  that  they  were  on  the  standard  rate 
of  wages,  and  this  change  was  taking  place,  etc.,  and  that  extra  30  cents  had 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  987 

been  taken  off,  but  on  account  of  the  extra  speed  of  the  machine  they  would 
earn  from  $1  to  $1.50  more. 

Well,  the  girls  tried  it  out,  and  the  first  week  they  were  about  60  cents  short 
of  their  average  weekly  earnings,  and  there  was  a  lot  of  unrest  started  among 
them.  But  he  said,  "  That's  all  right ;  you  have  not  got  used  to  this,  but  another 
week  will  show  it  up." 

Well,  another  week  went  on,  and,  if  anything,  it  was  a  little  wrorse,  because 
the  girls  had  got  excited  and  were  not  working  under  their  normal  condition  of 
mind,  and  at  the  end  of  the  second  week  things  were  worse  than  they  were  at 
the  end  of  the  first  week.  They  went  to  the  superintendent  and  made  their 
complaint,  and  the  superintendent  said,  "  Well,  you  have  got  to  go  right  on ;  I 
can  not  change  it."  They  did  not  know  all  the  particulars  then,  but  the  fact 
of  the  matter  was  that  the  thing  had  been  put  in  the  hands  of  a  so-called  expert. 
The  women  talked  it  over  among  themselves,  and  they  got  so  excited  that  they 
struck  work. 

I  went  clown  and  I  tried  to  reason  with  the  superintendent.  I  did  not  know 
what  part  he  was  playing  in  this,  or  anything;  and  he  said,  "Well,  John,  I 
can  not  help  it ;  it  is  there,  and  the  gentleman  claims  that  these  machines  ought 
to  run  as  fast  as  the  others,"  etc.  I  said,  "  Well,  you  know  they  have  not  for 
many  years,"  and  he  said,  "No;  I  know  that,"  but  he  said,  "He  is  not  going 
to  give  anything  away  again,  and  they  have  got  to  run  as  fast  as  the  others." 

Then  it  was  stated  that  they  were  going  to  make  some  other  changes;  that 
they  were  going  to  give  them  help  in  carrying  the  production  away  and  bringing 
the  raw  material  to  them.  Well,  that  was  all  right ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  on 
the  excess  speed  under  which  they  were  working  they  were  turning  off  a  less 
production,  so  that  they  neither  had  time,  as  they  had  before,  to  fetch  their 
raw  material  or  carry  their  production  away,  simply  because  the  machine  was 
breaking  the  threads  on  account  of  its  being  overspeeded,  and  the  promise  of 
assistance  in  bringing  the  raw  material  and  the  promise  given  them  of  assist- 
ance in  carrying  the  finished  product  away,  as  far  as  that  particular  machine 
was  concerned,  had  no  bearing  on  the  case,  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  were 
not  using  as  much  and  that  the  breakage  in  the  thread  was  creating  work  there 
which  would  not  give  them  any  time  to  do  either  one  job  or  the  other,  and  at 
the  end  of  the  week,  of  course,  with  the  breakage  of  the  thread,  their  envelopes 
were,  as  I  say,  30  cents  less,  and  as  high  as  60  cents. 

I  thought  there  was  something  underneath  this  and  advised  the  girls  to  go 
back  to  work.  He  said  he  would  make  up  their  pay ;  he  said  be  would  give 
them  the  pay  they  had  formerly  received,  average  wages,  if  they  would  go  back 
under  the  new  system.  The  girls  went  back.  The  speed  was  left  on  there,  and 
at  the  end  of  two  weeks  the  girls  struck  again.  The  members  of  the  union 
told  me  straight,  "  John,  we  will  not  work  under  those  conditions.  We  are 
overworked.  They  fixed  the  wages  all  right,  but  still  we  know  now  what  is 
happening.  They  have  speeded  up  that  machine  to  the  point  where  it  will  not 
run  right,  it  will  not  carry  the  thread  right,  and  we  are  piecing  up  threads 
all  day,  and  we  are  earning  in  production  less.  We  are  getting  the  same 
kind  of  wages,  and  we  are  doing  more  work,  and  we  refuse  to  do  it  any  more." 
A  strike  ensued,  the  result  of  which  was  we  cut  out  the  system,  and  as  the 
result  of  the  difference  of  opinion,  I  suppose,  between  the  superintendent  and 
the  proprietors,  and  the  troubles  they  had  had  there,  the  superintendent  also 
was  either  fired  for  not  being  able  to  handle  these  people  and  continue  the 
system,  or  otherwise  he  got  so  sick  himself  he  gave  up  the  job.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  he  is  not  there. 

Something  was  said  here  about  the  stop  watch.  The  most  ridiculous  thing 
that  I  have  seen  has  been  the  systematize!'  sitting  in  front  of  a  machine,  with 
a  man  or  woman  working  on  it,  and  timing  that  machine  when  it  is  already 
running  at  the  maximum  guaranteed  by  the  maker  of  the  machine.  Then  we 
have  had  cases  where,  in  spite  of  that  guaranteed  maximum  speed,  which  the 
machine  very  seldom  attains,  because  they  figure  on  the  very  highest  basis  to 
sell  their  machines,  where  the  systematize!-  has  gone  in  there  and  increased  that 
machine  over  the  guaranteed  speed  given  by  the  maker. 

Our  experience  has  also  been  this :  I  know  the  same  thing  would  prevail  if 
I  had  to  go  under  the  ordeal,  even  with  all  my  experience  on  the  outside.  I  do 
not  care  who  the  man  or  woman  or  boy  or  girl  may  be,  where  somebody  is 
standing  over  them  with  a  stop  watch  they  are  not  going  to  give  the  same 
results  as  if  the  man  with  the  stop  watch  was  down  in  the  cellar  and  they 
were  working  in  the  attic. 


988          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Almost  in  every  case  where  it  has  been  attempted  in  the  textile  industry, 
it  has  always  been  upon  the  basic  principle  of  increasing  the  speed  of  the 
machinery. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Golden,  referring  to  the  question  of  setting  the  time 
standards  by  a  stop  watch,  and  assuming  that  it  is  necessary,  or,  rather,  that 
it  is  a  good  thing,  to  make  a  time  study  of  a  piece  of  work,  and  that  a  certain 
operator  is  selected  for  that  purpose  who  is  willing  to  be  taken  as  the  time 
study,  then  certainly  he  can  not  feel  humiliated  or  insulted  if  he  is  willing  to 
accept  the  time  study,  can  he? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  No ;  he  does  not  feel  humiliated,  but  when  he  knows  he  is  going 
under  that  ordeal,  our  experience  has  been  that  he  is  not  giving  the  results,  he 
is  nervous  because  somebody  is  watching  him. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  assuming  that  the  time  study  is  made  of  some  length 
of  time  so  it  gives  him  opportunity  to  operate  carefully  and  properly,  and  he 
is  perfectly  willing  to  do  it  and  is  given  perfect  freedom  to  say  no  without 
any  penalty,  and  that  no  compulsion  is  used,  then  certainly  there  can  be  no 
objection  so  far  as  the  single  operator  is  concerned,  can  there? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Oh,  no;  not  at  all. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  a  good  thing  to  make  a 
time  study — assuming  that  as  the  fact — to  arrive  at  a  given  task,  and  the 
operator  was  perfectly  willing  to  do  it  and  pleased  to  do  it  as  a  matter  of  fact 
also,  then  your  objection  to  the  time  study,  as  you  have  mentioned  it,  would 
of  course  pass  away.  In  other  words,  your  objection  to  the  time  study  is  based 
upon  the  assumption  that  on  the  part  of  the  worker  he  feels  humiliated,  and, 
in  the  second  place,  that  he  is  put  under  a  nervous  strain  which  he  feels  is 
unfair.  That  is  your  objection? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes.  He  always  has  this  in  mind,  and  it  is  natural  that  there 
is  an  assumption  there  that  he  and  the  rest  of  them  are  not  doing  their  best. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  if  he  could  be  disabused  of  that  and  the  rest  could  be  dis- 
abused of  that  idea,  and  if  this  were  simply  one  of  the  things  being  done  for  the 
purpose  of  trying  to  see  if,  by  the  use  of  systematic  study  from  point  to  point  of 
the  industry,  not  any  single  man's  work,  but  on  the  various  works,  and  there  was 
no  intimation  at  all  that  that  record  was  being  kept  to  show  that  the  worker  was 
being  unfair  or  was  soldiering,  but  in  so  far  as  the  work  undertaken  was  con- 
cerned that  the  management  was  itself  subject  to  some  criticism  in  the  routing 
and  in  its  part  of  the  work ;  in  other  words,  if  the  worker  felt  those  things  that 
they  were  studying  the  shop,  not  only  as  concerned  the  worker,  but  as  concerns 
the  proprietor,  by  an  impartial  man  without  criticism  of  either,  but  to  find  the 
best  method  there  could  then  be  no  objection  to  it,  could  there? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  I  do  not  think  there  would  be. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Where  there  is  a  setting  of  time  standards,  or  the  setting  of 
a  day's  wage,  like  a  day  wage,  from  your  experience  as  a  union  leader  do  you 
believe  there  is  the  opportunity  for  the  exercise  of  this  collective  bargaining 
and  trade  agreement? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.   Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Do  you  feel  a  great  deal  of  the  present  opposition  that  exists 
among  the  workers  with  reference  to  these  efficiency  or  systematizing  people — 
that  if  its  operation  were  subject  to  the  worker,  or,  rather,  that  in  guiding  him 
the  worker  has  an  equal  voice  with  the  proprietor,  then  a  great  deal  of  the  ob- 
jection would  pass  away,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Undoubtedly.  I  might  add  to  that  further  by  saying  this :  That 
in  many  factories  of  our  textile  industry,  in  which  some  of  them  are  highly 
skilled,  you  can  put  25  people  in  one  room,  all  running  the  same  kind  of  a 
machine,  and  you  will  find  no  two  people  that  run  those  machines  exactly  alike. 
They  will  get  somewhere  near  the  same  total  in  production.  In  fact,  they  have 
got  to;  but  they  get  at  it  by  a  little  different  method.  For  instance,  take  the 
trade  that  I  followed  as  a  mule  spinner — that  is,  spinning  fine  yarn.  You 
would  find  one  man  always  working,  always  seemingly  in  a  hurry,  and  also 
pushing  his  machine  a  little.  The  next  man  to  him  would  not  walk  so  fast. 
When  I  say  "  walk  "  I  mean  that  at  my  trade  as  a  mule  spinner  a  man  walks  an 
average  of  from  30  to  35  miles  a  day  in  his  bare  feet,  following  the  two  machines 
that  travel  back  and  forth.  They  travel  64  inches  back  and  forth  from  four  to 
four  and  a  half  times  per  minute  He  has  to  work  in  his  bare  feet,  or  he  would 
fall  over  the  machine  while  it  was  in  motion.  He  can  not  work  with  slippers 
or  anything  on  the  soles  of  his  feet.  One  man  would  always  be  in  a  hurry. 
The  next  man  to  him  would  be  taking  it  a  good  deal  easier.  If  you  should 
attempt  to  change  that  man's  method  of  work  you  would  have  to  change  his 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  989 

whole  disposition;  naturally  so.  Probably  he  had  been  that  way  from  a  boy, 
and  he  was  then  a  man  40  years  of  age.  And  yet  he  gets  the  same  results,  or 
gets  the  same  number  of  pounds  off  at  the  end  of  the  week ;  but  he  works  differ- 
ently because  he  is  temperamentally  different.  As  was  said  here  a  little 
while  ago,  I  do  not  know  whether  the  experts  on  scientific  management  are 
claiming  that  they  can  change  the  temperamental  nature  of  mankind,  but  they 
would  have  to  do  it  in  those  cases.  What  I  say  of  the  mule  spinner  prevails 
more  or  less  with  both  the  men  and  women  employed  throughout  the  industry- 
Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  in  your  opinion,  so  far  as  the  spinning  industry  is  con- 
cerned, considering  the  conditions  and  the  machines  used,  there  is  little  oppor- 
tunity for  the  introduction — at  least,  so  far  as  the  operator  is  concerned — of 
any  new  methods  of  operation? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.   I  do  not  see  where  there  is  any. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But  it  still  might  apply  to  other  industries? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.   Yes. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  To  which  it  might  be  of  advantage? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  I  should  imagine  it  would  apply  more  to  the  man  working  by 
hand. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Mr.  Golden,  in  the  case  of  mule  spinning,  how  are  the  piece  rates 
determined? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  By  the  length  of  yarns  you  spin. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Are  they  determined  by  the  employer  or  by  agreement  between 
your  organization  and  the  employer? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  In  the  mule  spinning  trade  it  has  been  organized  since  away 
back  in  1858.  It  is  the  best-organized  branch  of  the  textile  industry ;  that  is, 
in  cotton  or  worsted.  They  are  determined  by  a  joint  agreement.  We  drew  up 
a  list  in  1886,  the  last  list  we  drew  up,  and  from  time  to  time  when  there  is  any 
little  dispute  we  get  together,  and  it  is  determined  by  joint  verbal  agreement. 
We  do  not  go  into  any  written  agreements,  because  we  get  so  close  together  that 
we  can  agree.  Of  course,  we  have  a  fellow  that  tries  to  pay  a  little  less  once  in 
a  while,  but  we  attend  to  him. 

Mr.  MANLY.  One  of  your  representatives,  in  that  case,  goes  to  the  mill  and 
takes  the  matter  up  directly  with  the  employer  and,  if  possible,  they  thrash 
the  thing  out? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  In  the  larger  cities — and  in  the  smaller  places  they  are  guided 
by  them — like  New  Bedford  or  Fall  River  or  Lawrence  or  Lowell  we  deal  with 
the  employers'  association.  They  appoint  a  committee,  and  we  appoint  a  com- 
mittee, of  five  or  three.  Sometimes  the  heads  of  the  local  unions  settle  the 
thing  up.  They  are  expert  at  the  business.  But  all  those  lists  have  been 
drawn  up  and  started  away  back  in  1886  between  the  two  associations,  and 
everything  is  based  on  those. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Are  those  rates  that  exist  in  the  list  of  1886  equally  advan- 
tageous? Are  there  fat  and  lean  rates  or  pieces  that  a  man  would  rather  work 
on  than  others? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  No.  The  principle  of  the  list  is  this :  You  have  the  very  coarse 
yarn.  We  call  them  by  numbers,  No.  2's  and  4's  and  6's,  and  then  they  go  up 
perhaps  to  250,  which  is  the  very  finest  yarn.  The  man  who  works  on  the 
finer  yarn  does  not  work  quite  so  hard  as  the  man  on  the  coarser  yarns,  because 
the  man  on  the  coarser  yarns  walks  twice  the  distance.  We  found  there  was 
a  dispute  for  several  years,  and  that  this,  took  more  skill  on  the  finer  grades, 
and  another  argument  was  that  "  this  man  works  harder  and  travels  more." 
We  have  had  our  troubles,  but  for  many  years  now  we  have  based  those  lists  in 
the  cases,  etc.,  on  making  it  as  nearly  uniform  as  possible.  Some  of  the  men  on 
the  coarser  grades  never  would  make  a  real  good  fine  spinner.  But  it  is  so 
balanced  up  between  the  skilled  worker  and  the  distance  walked,  etc.,  that  we 
finally  agreed  the  most  satisfactory  way  was  to  base  the  wages  as  nearly  as 
possible  upon  a  uniform  basis  in  accordance  with  the  length  of  the  machine  he 
ran.  That  meant  the  number  of  threads  he  had  to  attend  to. 

Mr.  MANLY.  That  has  been  worked  out  on  the  basis  of  the  general  experience 
of  the  organized  men  and  the  employers  simply  by  giving  and  taking,  and 
finally  getting  down  to  a  basic  principle? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes ;  we  have  sat  like  we  are  here  for  a  whole  day  and  thrashed 
the  thing  out  and  finally  come  to  an  agreement. 

Mr.  MANLY.  In  thrashing  it  out,  was  it  your  general  experience  or  did  you 
have  accurate  data  of  the  output  per  day? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Oh,  yes ;  we  took  the  average  production  of  the  spinners. 

.Mr.  MANLY.  On  the  different  sizes  of  yarn? 


990          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  The  different  sizes  of  yarn  ;  y«>s, 

Mr.  MANLY.  And  worked  out  a  differential  based  on  that? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes. 

Mr.  MANLY.  So,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  you  arrived  at  a  pretty  definite  series  of 
standards? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes.  I  might  add  also  that  what  you  say  of  the  mule  spinner 
now  largely  obtains  in  the  other  departments,  because  they  took  different  kinds 
of  frames — drawing  frames  and  the  fine  speeder — and  .they  have  their  indicators 
on  there  and  those  indicate  the  number  of  yards  turned  off  by  the  operative. 

Mr.  MANLY.  That  indicator  is  making  more  or  less  of  a  time  study  all  the 
time? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes ;  it  simply  indicated  the  speed  of  the  machine. 

Mr.  MANLY.  That  with  the  deduction  of  time  when  the  machine  is  not  run- 
ning would  show  the  total  number  of  units? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes.  They  allow  us  so  much  percentage  off  for  what  we  call 
"  doffing  " — taking  the  material  off,  etc. — and  some  of  the  methods  introduced 
in  there  in  some  instances  by  the  systematizer  have  been  to  try  to  adopt  some 
different  methods  in  the  system  of  doffing.  We  allow  in  some  instances  5  per 
cent  for  time  stopped,  and  some  3  per  cent.  They  have  tried  to  change  the 
method  of  doffing  to  reduce  that  5  per  cent. 

Mr.  MANLY.  But  the  general  result  of  the  negotiations  over  a  long  period  of 
years  of  the  union  and  the  manufacturers  has  been  to  get  to  pretty  definite 
standards  for  your  work? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes. 

Mr.  MANLY.  As  to  what  constitutes  a  fair  price  for  the  basic  yarn  and  what 
is  a  proper  differential? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  We  have  very  few  disputes  in  regard  to  that,  simply  because 
when  one  does  arise  we  can  point  to  illustrations. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  arrangements  in  the  cotton  textile 
industry  of  Lancashire,  England? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes ;  as  a  young  man  I  worked  there. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Do  you  know  the  way  in  which  the  readjustment  of  piece  rates 
there  is  carried  out?  After  the  basic  rates  are  determined  and  increases  are 
determined  by  joint  conference,  then  the  readjustment,  the  in-between  confer- 
ences, are  practically  all  carried  out  by  two  experts,  one  from  each  side. 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Those  experts  are  selected,  are  they,  by  a  very  careful  test? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  The  usual  thing  is  that  they  have  a  very  much  more  advanced 
system  there  than  we  have.  Take  the  more  technical  schools,  or  what  we  call 
textile  schools  here — the  unions,  on  the  one  hand,  make  it  their  business  to 
develop  some  of  their  own  men  in  the  expert  line,  and  the  employers'  associa- 
tion do  the  same  thing ;  so  when  it  is  all  boiled  down  the  experts  are  really  the 
expert  representative  of  one  side  and  the  expert  representative  of  the  other 
side. 

Mr.  MANLY.  And  they  thrash  out  practically  all  questions  that  come  up  with 
regard  to  the  respeeding  of  the  machines,  and  so  on? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes;  and  they  are  very  often  in  joint  conference  with  the 
experts  there. 

Mr.  MANLY.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  union  representative  has  to  pass  what 
amounts  to  a  civil-service  examination,  does  he  not? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes. 

Mr.  MANLY.  He  is  put  through  a  very  rigid  test? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes ;  he  has  to  know  his  business. 

Mr.  MANLY.  From  start  to  finish? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Oh,  yes. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  The  commission  will  recess  now  until  2  o'clock.  Mr. 
Golden,  will  you  be  able  to  be  here  this  afternoon  after  we  conclude  with 
Mr.  Brandeis? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes. 

(Thereupon,  at  1  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  commission  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock 
p.  m.) 

AFTER   RECESS 2    O'CLOCK   P.    M. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN  (Commissioner  Delano).  The  meeting  will  please  come 
to  order.  Mr.  Thompson,  will  you  please  call  your  witness? 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  991 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  LOUIS  D.  BRANDEIS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  For  the  purpose  of  the  record,  but  not  for  our  information, 
will  you  please  give  your  name  and  occupation? 

Mr.  BKANDEIS.  Louis  D.  Brandeis,  Boston,  counselor  at  law. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  The  commission  has  for  the  subject  of  its  public  hearings 
to-day  the  question  of  efficiency  systems,  scientific  management,  and  labor.  We 
should  be  pleased  to  hear  from  you  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  BKANDEIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  my  special  interest  in  this  subject  arises  from 
a  conviction  that  in  the  first  place  the  workingmen,  and  in  the  second  the 
members  of  the  community  generally,  can  attain  the  ideals  of  our  American 
democracy  only  through  an  immediate  increase  and  perhaps  a  constant  in- 
crease in  the  productivity  of  man.  We  hear  a  great  deal  about  the  inequality 
in  the  distribution  of  wealth  and  in  the  proceeds  and  the  profits  derived  from 
industry.  Such  inequality  exists ;  and  it  is  clear  that,  even  if  there  were  a  per- 
fectly fair  distribution,  our  ideals  could  not  be  attained  unless  we  succeeded 
in  greatly  increasing  the  productivity  of  man;  and  to  my  mind  the  greatest 
objection  from  one.  standpoint  to  the  inequality  to-day  is  that  it  tends  to 
discourage  effort  and  therefore  suppresses  productivity.  The  progress  that  we 
have  made  in  improving  the  condition  of  the  workingmen  during  the  last  cen- 
tury, and  particularly  during  the  last  50  years,  has  been  largely  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  intervention  or  the  introduction  of  machinery  has  gone  so  far  in 
increasing  the  productivity  of  the  individual  man.  The  misfortune  in  con- 
nection with  the  introduction  of  machinery  and  the  revolution  that  came  with 
it  is,  or  was,  that  when  that  introduction  of  a  method  of  increasing  the  pro- 
ductivity of  man  was  made  labor  did  not  get  the  share  to  which  it  was  enti- 
tled. With  the  advent  of  the  new  science  of  management  has  come  the  next 
great  opportunity  for  increasing  labor's  share  in  production;  and  it  seems  to 
me,  therefore,  of  the  utmost  importance  not  only  that  the  science  should  be 
developed  and  should  be  applied  as  far  as  possible,  but  that  it  should  be  applied 
in  cooperation  with  the  representatives  of  organized  labor  in  order  that  labor 
may  now  in  this  new  movement  get  its  proper  share. 

Now,  I  take  it  that  the  whole  of  this  science  of  management  is  nothing  more 
than  an  organized  effort,  pursued  intensively,  to  eliminate  waste.  The  expert 
tells  us  how  this  may  be  done.  The  experts  make  the  individual  detailed  study, 
which  is  an  essential  of  the  elimination  of  waste ;  but,  after  all,  the  fundamental 
problems  are  social  and  industrial.  It  is,  in  the  process  of  eliminating  waste 
and  increasing  the  productivity  of  man  to  adopt  those  methods  which  will  in- 
sure the  social  and  industrial  essentials,  fairness  in  the  development,  fairness 
in  the  distribution  of  the  profits,  and  that  encouragement  to  the  workinginan, 
which  can  not  come  without  fairness. 

Now,  I  take  it  that  in  order  to  accomplish  this  result  it  is  absolutely  essential 
that  the  unions  should  be  represented  in  the  process.  In  the  first  place,  the 
question  comes  up— must  come  up — in  applying  the  results  of  scientific  manage- 
ment, in  determining  the  very  basis  and  standard  on  which  any  system  is  to 
rest,  as  to  what  is  the  proper  time  in  which  a  certain  operation  shall  be  per- 
formed. Now,  that  subject  of  what  is  the  proper  time  is  a  question  in  which 
representatives  of  the  workers  distinctly  ought  to  have  a  voice.  No  matter 
how  far  you  may  go  into  scientific  investigation,  there  must  always  come  in 
the  question  of  the  human  element,  as  to  how  hard  a  man  ought  to  work, 
how  fast  he  ought  to  work,  and  how  fast  he  can  work  consistently  with  health. 
Now,  in  that  question  there  ought  to  be  an  opportunity  for  the  full  protection 
of  the  men  who  work,  and  that  properly  can  be  done  only  through  representa- 
tives of  organized  labor. 

In  the  next  place — the  first  bears,  of  course,  upon  the  adopting  of  what  is  the 
standard — but  the  next  thing  comes  in  applying  some  matter,  some  incentive, 
as  you  may  call  it,  or  a  reward  of  a  fair  division  of  the  profits  resulting  from 
the  introduction  of  the  ne\v  system.  Now,  what  is  fair?  What  is  the  amount 
which  ought  to  go  to  labor  is  a  subject  which  can  not  be  determined^  by  any 
scientific  investigation.  It  is  a  matter  for  the  exercise  of  judgment,  judgment 
as  to  wrhat  not  only  shall  be  the  best  and  the  proper  incentive  but  judgment  as 
to  what  is  just,  what  is  consistent  with  the  interests  of  the  community,  all  of 
the  conditions  which  surround  introduction,  and  all  of  the  conditions  which 
concern  the  pursuit  of  business  under  these  new  conditions,  just  as  those  which 
concern  the  conduct  of  business  under  the  old  conditions,  demand  that  labor 
should  have  its  representatives  in  the  solution  of  these  problems.  When  labor 


992          REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

is  given  such  a  representation  I  am  unable  to  find  anything  in  scientific  manage- 
ment which  is  not  strictly  in  accord  with  the  interests  of  labor,  because  it  is 
nothing  more  than  fair,  through  the  application  of  these  methods  which  have 
been  pursued  in  other  branches  of  science,  to  find  out  the  best  and  the  most 
effective  way  of  accomplishing  the  result.  It  is  not  making  men  work  harder. 
The  very  effort  of  it  is  to  make  them  work  less  hard,  to  accomplish  more  by 
what  they  do,  and  eliminate  all  unnecessary  motions;  to  educate  them  so  as 
to  make  them  most  effective;  to  give  special  effort  and  special  assistance  to 
those  who  at  the  time  of  the  commencement  of  their  wTork  are  mostly  in  need 
of  assistance  because  they  are  least  competent. 

Now,  the  advance  in  the  condition  of  the  workingman  is  attained  by  each 
and  every  one  of  the  purposes  which  scientific  management  and  which  the 
apostles  of  scientific  management  set  before  themselves.  Whatever  there  is  in 
the  application  of  the  principles  of  scientific  management  to  a  business  that 
may  expose  the  workingman  to  danger,  that  is  to  be  guarded  against  and  will 
be  guarded  against  by  a  proper  representation. 

So  that  as  I  view  the  problem  it  is  only  one  of  making  the  employer 
recognize  the  necessity  of  the  participation  of  representatives  of  labor  in  the 
introduction  and  carrying  forward  of  the  work,  and  on  the  other  hand  bring- 
ing to  the  workingman  and  the  representatives  of  organized  labor  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  fact  that  there  is  nothing  in  scientific  management  itself  which  is 
inimical  to  the  interests  of  the  workingrnan,  but  merely  perhaps  the  practices 
of  certain  individuals,  of  certain  employers,  or  concerns  who  have  been  engaged 
in  it. 

I  have  felt  that  this  presented  a  very  great  opportunity  for  organized  labor. 
It  seemed  to  me  absolutely  clear,  as  scientific  management  rested  upon  funda- 
mental principles  of  "advance  in  man's  productivity,  of  determining  what  the 
best  way  was  of  doing  a  thing  instead  of  the  poor  way,  of  a  complete  co- 
ordination and  organization  of  the  various  departments  of  business,  that  the 
introduction  of  scientific  management  in  our  businesses  was  certain  to  come; 
that  those  who  oppose  introduction  altogether  were  undertaking  a  perfectly 
impossible  task;  and  that  if  organized  labor  took  the  position  of  absolute  op- 
position, instead  of  taking  the  position  of  insisting  upon  their  proper  part  in  the 
introduction  of  this  system,  and  the  conduct  of  the  business  under  it,  organized 
labor  would  lose  its  greatest  opportunity  and  would  be  defeating  the  very  pur- 
pose for  which  it  exists. 

You  have  heard,  Mr.  Chairman,  so  much  on  this  subject  during  the  week, 
and  so  much  from  others  who  know  far  more  about  it  than  I,  that  I  doubt 
whether  there  is  anything  I  can  say,  unless  it  be  to  answer  some  of  the  ques- 
tions or  attempt  to  answer  some  of  the  questions  which  may  have  arisen  in  your 
minds  in  the  course  of  the  discussion. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Brandeis,  I  would  like  to  ask  whether  in  your  study  of 
this  subject  you  have  placed  or  fixed  any  time  at  which  labor  should  cooperate 
with  the  employer  as  to  the  setting  of  a  time  standard  and  the  initiation  of  a 
standard  ? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  Yes — all  the  time. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  begins  at  the  beginning? 

Mr.  BKANDEIS.  It  begins  at  the  very  beginning.  It  seems  to  me  it  should 
begin  at  the  time  when  the  plans  are  being  made  to  introduce  the  system. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Some  of  the  advocates  of  scientific  management,  Mr.  Brandeis, 
who  have  appeared  here  as  witnesses  before  the  commission,  while  agreeing  to 
the  proposition  that  it  would  perhaps  be  beneficial  for  labor  to  cooperate  or 
have  a  voice  in  cooperating  with  the  employer  in  the  running  of  the  system, 
felt  that  at  the  introduction  there  should  be  no  cooperation ;  that  there  is  so 
much  difficulty  in  the  selection  of  the  system  and  in  the  installation  of  it,  that 
the  added  element  of  labor  would  make  it  impossible.  Do  you  so  conceive  it? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  should  say  quite  the  contrary.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  ele- 
ments of  difficulty  in  introduction  are  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  there  is 
hostility. to  the  introduction,  and  that  if  organized  labor  or  the  representatives 
of  labor  should  welcome  and  cooperate  in  the  introduction  a  greater  part  of 
these  difficulties  would  be  removed.  Of  course,  there  are  a  good  many  diffi- 
culties that  must  stop — I  mean  matters  that  involve  a  very  great  study — diffi- 
cult in  the  sense  of  problems  to  be  solved.  They  will  exist  under  any  circum- 
stances— the  problems  of  finding  out  how  you  want  to  do  a  thing;  when  you 
know  how  you  ought  to  do  it,  how  you  ought  to  bring  a  man  to  do  it  the  way 
he  ought  to  do  it.  Those  are  problems  which  are  inherent  and  have  to  be 
worked  out  and  require  most  intensive  application  and  patience.  But  the  whole 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  993 

of  the  work,  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  greatly  aided  by  a  spirit  of  helpfulness 
instead  of  the  reverse. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Mr.  Brandeis,  some  of  the  representatives  of  organized  labor 
who  have  appeared  here  to  testify  have  concurred  in  the  idea  of  scientific 
management  which  you  have  elaborated.  That  is  to  say,  if  by  studies  and  by 
analysis  and  selection  better  methods  for  doing  the  work  could  be  brought 
about  which  would  be  beneficial  to  the  community  and  to  the  worker  as  well 
as  to  the  employer,  it  was  a  good  thing.  But  they  have  objected  to  the  stop- 
watch method  of  making  time  studies.  People  who  have  represented  systems, 
such  as  Mr.  Taylor  and  others,  have  said  that  the  stop-watch  method  of  making 
time  studies  is  one  of  the  first  laws  of  scientific  management.  In  your  opinion, 
what  reasonable  objection  can  there  be  to  the  introduction  of  the  stop-watch 
method  of  making  time  studies? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  It  seems  to  me  there  can  be  no  objection  except  the  one  as  to 
the  way  in  which  it  is  introduced.  There  is  a  question  of  tact,  there  is  a 
question  of  consideration,  there  is  a  question  of  the  recognition  of  prejudice  and 
feelings  and  of  the  possibility  of  misunderstanding  which  a  man  of  tact  and  a 
man  accustomed  to  dealing  with  labor  or  to  dealing  with  men  generally  must 
recognize.  But  if  it  is  done  in  the  right  way,  the  stop  watch  can  not,  it  seems 
to  me,  be  objected  to  by  labor,  because  it  is  the  greatest  possible  protection  to 
labor.  What  labor  has  suffered  from  in  the  past  and  is  constantly  suffering 
from  now  is  the  ignoring  of  facts,  either  because  they  are  not  known  or  be- 
cause they  are  known  to  some  persons  and  not  to  labor.  There  is  nothing,  as 
I  view  it,  in  the  situation,  the  whole  social  industrial  structure,  that  labor 
wants  so  much  as  knowledge.  It  wants  not  only  to  know  itself  but  it  wants 
others  to  know  it ;  and  any  means  that  may  be  adopted,  whether  it  be  the  stop 
watch  or  the  photograph  or  any  other  means,  that  could  absolutely  establish 
the  fact  as  to  what  is  being  done,  how  long  it  takes  to  do  it,  what  the  unit  is 
of  doing  the  particular  thing — all  those  are  in  the  interest  of  labor,  because 
they  are  in  the  interest  of  truth.  Of  course,  there  is  a  question,  as  I  have  said, 
of  tact  in  dealing  with  the  subject. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  study  of  this  subject  have  you  considered  ways  and 
means?  In  other  words,  have  you  considered  the  kind  of  machinery  that  might 
be  used  in  the  cooperation  of  the  employer  and  employee  in  putting  into  opera- 
tion their  joint  cooperation  in  the  introduction  of  this  system? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Not  machinery — and  I  doubt  very  much  whether  there  is  any 
machinery,  except  the  tactful  and  sympathetic  man,  some  one'  who  realizes, 
in  the  first  place,  that  the  greatest  gain  we  are  to  get  from  scientific  manage- 
ment is  advancing  the  interests  of  the  workingman,  and  who,  recognizing  that 
as  a  fact,  has  the  tact  to  bring  the  workingman  and  his  employer  together  in  the 
adoption  of  the  means  by  which  the  various  steps  should  be  taken. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Have  you  considered  whether  or  not  it  is  feasible  at  the 
beginning  for  a  representative  of  the  workers  and  the  firm  to  have  a  joint 
voice  in  the  selection  of  the  expert  who  shall  install  a  system,  or  would  that 
be  impracticable? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  have  thought  of  that,  and  I  see  no  difficulty  whatever  in 
the  adoption  of  that.  We  are  fortunately  getting  to  the  .point  where  the  unions, 
as  they  are  developing  stability  and  strength,  are  recognizing  that  they,  like 
other  people,  must  employ  experts.  They  are  taking,  consequently,  in  select- 
ing for  their  important  work  men  who  are  not  members  of  their  unions,  just 
as  employers  must  select  professional  men  to  perform  particular  duties.  They 
have  found  in  many  instances  that  some  men  were  available  and  were  as 
loyal  to  their  cause  as  anybody  could  possibly  be  to  a  cause.  That  is  the  situa- 
tion which  presents  itself.  The  expert  who  is  to  be  selected  may  be  selected 
by  the  unions  with  quite  as  much  intelligence  and  with  quite  as  much  cer- 
tainty of  loyal  service  as  if  it  were  by  the  employer ;  and  there  are  very  many 
relatons  in  life  where  the  selection,  for  instance,  of  an  expert  accountant  is  to 
be  made  by  the  various  parties  at  interest,  and  where  experts  are  constantly 
being  employed  by  parties  who  have  different  interests  to  conserve  by  joint 
arrangements.  I  see  no  difficulty  whatever  in  making  that  selection  in  such  a 
case  as  this. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  such  a  selection,  Mr.  Brandeis,  of  the  kind  of  man  you 
mention,  a  tactful,  diplomatic  man,  he  would  then  be  in  a  sense  the  instrument 
or  medium  by  which  this  principle  of  cooperation  in  scientific  management 
might  be  brought  about? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  Certainly. 

38819°— 16 63 


994          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  As  only  a  small  portion  of  labor  is  organized,  Mr.  Brandeis, 
how  would  you  protect,  in  the  introduction  of  systems  of  scientific  manage- 
ment, the  unorganized  workers? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  You  mean  in  a  particular  establishment? 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  a  particular  establishment  or  industry,  or  in  general? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  extent  and  character  of  his  protec- 
tion would  be  precisely  that  which  exists  to-day.  Organized  labor  is  probably 
doing  more,  far  more,  to  protect  those  who  are  not  organized,  than  they  are  to 
protect  their  own  members,  and  the  problem  would  present  itself  in  just  the 
same  way. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  I  would  draw  this  deduction  from  that  answer,  Mr.  Bran- 
deis, that  perhaps  from  the  best  introduction  of  scientific  management  in  a 
shop  or  factory,  it  really  would  require  an  organization  of  the  workers  in 
order  that  they  might  have  a  competent  voice  in  the  selection  of  the  expert. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  That  seems  to  me  to  be  absolutely  so.  I  think  it  is  perfectly 
possible  and  probable  that  scientific  management  has  been  introduced  in  so 
many  shops  where  the  workmen  have  been  well  treated,  and  certainly  where 
their  wages  have  been  very  largely  increased  by  the  process,  but  it  is  not  safe, 
and  as  a  broad  social  proposition  we  ought  to  insist  upon  the  other  thing. 
It  is  contrary  to  all  our  ideas  of  democracy,  and  particularly  of  industrial 
democracy. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  you  would  agree,  Mr.  Brandeis,  with  the  witnesses  who 
appeared  before  this  commission  last  week  on  the  subject  of  collective  bar- 
gaining and  conciliation  and  arbitration,  that  the  best  results  are  obtained  in 
the  industrial  world  where  there  is  good  organization,  thorough  organization, 
on  both  the  part  of  labor  and  the  part  of  capital? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  have  no  question  of  that,  and  I  think  it  is  not  only  that, 
but  it  is  the  only  safe  course  to  pursue. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  In  your  view,  Mr.  Brandeis,  of  scientific  management  of 
business,  you  do  not  take  that  to  mean  only  such  a  system  as  could  be  carried 
out  by  a  superman  or  man  far  above  the  normal? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  Quite  the  contrary.  To  my  mind  one  of  the  greatest  advan- 
tages of  the  introduction  of  scientific  management  is  to  make  the  so-called  in- 
competent man  useful.  The  man  who  is  extraordinary  needs  no  help  from 
anyone  under  any  system.  He  advances — of  course,  not  as  far  as  he  might. 
He  might  waste  considerable  of  a  great  ability;  but  the  man  of  great  ability 
does  not  need  any  help  from  the  community  as  such,  or  from  a  system  as 
such. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then  any  system  of  scientific  management  which  only  con- 
templated that  one  man  out  of  five  would  be  able  to  carry  it  out  would  not  be 
generally  such  a  system  as  you  would  indorse? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  One  man  out  of  five  might  be  able  to  perform  a  particular 
work,  or  one  man  out  of  10  or  20  a  particular  work,  and  there  ought  to  be  work 
for  him  to  do,  and  work  that  he  could  do  more  effectively  than  he  would  ordi- 
narily do  it. 

Of  course,  it  is  the  essence  of  scientific  management  to  pick  your  man  for  a 
particular  work,  just  as  important  and  essential  as  it  is  to  pick  your  tool  for  a 
machine  for  a  particular  work — that  is,  to  treat  human  beings  as  you  treat  a 
machine — intelligently — and  not  put  a  round  man  in  a  square  hole. 

But  in  the  evidence  which  we  have  on  the  subject  of  scientific  management, 
one  of  the  interesting  and  hopeful  things  is  that  by  which  seemingly  the  most 
incompetent  and  most  impossible  persons  were  made  by  patient  instruction  to 
become  effective  workingmen  and  aid  themselves  and  industry  as  a  whole. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  But,  in  your  opinion,  if  there  were  any  attempt  in  any  sys- 
tem to  develop  it  to  the  point  where  men  were  driven  to  an  extreme,  and  the 
tendency  was  to  see  just  how  much  efficiency  you  could  get  out  of  a  man  for  a 
short  term  of  years ;  if  there  was  such  a  system,  it  would  be  rectified  by  the 
cooperation  of  labor  and  its  suggestions? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  Yes.  The  contrary,  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  absolutely  con- 
trary to  all  principles  of  scientific  management.  It  recognizes  the  conservation 
of  man  and  it  affords  the  very  greatest  incentive  to  the  conservation  of  man, 
because  it  takes  raw  material  and  makes  it  a  perfect  and  finished  article. 

It  would  be  absolutely  suicidal  for  any  manager  to  develop  his  men  and  then 
kill  them.  That  is  the  way  you  could  take  unskilled  labor  and  kill  it  at  the  start, 
but  under  scientific  management  the  manager  has  put  an  immense  amount  of 
money  in  his  investment.  It  would  tend  also  to  the  stabilizing  of  labor,  because 
men  want  to  keep  their  health  when  they  have  been  trained ;  so  all  the  funda- 
mental ideas  of  scientific  management  are  in  accord  with  our  social  desires  for 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  995 

labor,  but  it  needs  a  protection.  Nobody  ought  to  be  absolute ;  everybody  ought 
to  be  protected  from  arbitrariness  and  wrong  decisions  by  the  representations 
of  others  who  are  being  affected. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  Then,  in  your  opinion,  any  system  of  scientific  management 
which  looked  just  to  the  greatest  amount  of  productivity,  without  respect  to  the 
effect  of  that  upon  the  health  and  well-being  of  the  worker,  would  miss  one  of 
the  very  largest  parts  in  the  real  proper  condition  of  scientific  management? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  It  would  not  be  scientific  management. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  It  would  not  be? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  It  would  not  be. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  That  is  all  I  care  to  ask  this  witness. 

Mr.  MANLY.  You  have  said  that  the  prosperity  of  society  as  well  as  of  the 
workman  was  dependent  on  a  great  increase  of  productivity.  Is  it  not  a  fact 
that  at  the  present  time,  however,  that  not  any  of  our  industries  are  operated 
to  their  full  capacity  or  even  approximately  to  their  full  capacity  throughout 
the  year? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  I  think  that  is  true,  throughout  the  year,  and  probably  at  all 
times  during  the  year. 

Mr.  MANLY.  Probably  at  all  times  during  the  year.  Not  only  for  the  neces- 
sity for  repairs  but  through  shutting  down  the  plant  from  time  to  time? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Yes;  and  many  other  causes. 

Mr.  MANLY.  In  the  case  of  the  steel  industry,  for  example,  the  capacity  is 
approximately  about  40,000,000  tons,  and  the  largest  output  recorded  to  date  is 
approximately  30,000,000  tons.  We  have  there  a  reservoir  of  unused  productive 
capacity.  If  the  existing  plant  became  more  productive,  has  society  any  way  to 
force  it  to  produce  to  its  full  capacity?  If  we  can  double  the  capacity  of  indi- 
vidual plants,  it  would  be  possible  to  produce  our  30,000,000  tons  with  half  of 
the  existing  plants ;  would  that  be  done,  or  would  the  manufacturer,  out  of  the 
goodness  of  his  heart,  produce  60,000,000  tons  a  year  by  running  to  full  capacity? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  I  should  not  rely  upon  the  goodness  of  heart  of  anybody.  I 
think  the  system  ought  to  be  developed  on  entirely  different  lines.  Your  ques- 
tion suggests  one  other  thought,  aside  from  the  direct  one  that  is  involved  in 
scientific  management  specifically,  and  that  is  the  propriety  of  a  demand  for 
regular  employment.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  time  has  come  when  that  should 
be  one  of  the  specific  demands  of  society  and  of  the  labor  unions,  and  that  the 
conception  of  day  labor  is  entirely  unsocial  and  is  entirely  uneconomical ;  it  is 
distinctly  contrary  to  the  whole  conception  of  scientific  management,  because  it 
involves  such  waste  as  you  can  find  in  any  possible  department  of  industry. 

Mr.  MANLY.  But  it  is  true,  is  it  not,  that  society  even  now  is  not  getting  the 
benefit  of  the  full  productive  capacity,  either  of  the  equipment  or  of  the  man? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Yes;  but  that  is  not  because  there  is  not  a  possibility  of 
utilizing  the  full  capacity.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  so  far  away  in  this 
country,  and  probably  in  any  country,  from  satisfying  the  possible  wants  of  the 
community,  that  there  is  no  fear  of  overproduction  in  its  proper  sense.  It  all 
comes  to  the  question  of  what  people  can  afford  to  buy,  and  whether  it  be 
steel  or  whether  it  be  many  of  the  other  things,  if  they  could  be  produced  in  a 
way  so  that  they  themselves  would  thereafter  be  productive;  that  is,  at  less 
cost,  that  the  demand  would  be  there  for  them,  and  that  there  is  practically 
no  such  thing  as  there  not  being  potential  demand  enough  for  all  that  we 
can  produce. 

Mr.  MANLY.  I  am  afraid  I  haven't  made  my  point  clear,  because  it  seems  to 
me  the  theory  is  not  one  of  overproduction  in  that  case,  in  the  steel  industry ; 
not  the  fear  of  the  steel  industry  producing  60,000,000  tons  after  the  capacity 
of  each  plant  had  been  doubled,  but  that  it  will  not  produce  60,000,000  tons. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  You  mean  that  it  will  voluntarily  restrict  production? 

Mr.  MANLY.  That  it  will  voluntarily  restrict  production,  as  it  is  doing  now. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Then  the  answer  to  that  proposition  is  the  one  that  I  sug- 
gested before,  that  society  and  labor  should  demand  continuity  of  employment, 
and  when  we  once  get  to  a  point  where  workingmen  are  paid  throughout  the 
year,  as  the  officers  of  a  corporation  are  paid  throughout  the  year,  and  the 
higher  employees  are  paid  throughout  the  year,  everyone  will  recognize  that  a 
business  can  not  be  run  profitably  unless  you  keep  it  running,  because  if  you 
have  to  pay,  whether  your  men  ar  working  or  not,  your  men  will  work. 

It  seems  to  me  that  industry  has  been  allowed  to  develop  chaotically,  mainly 
because  we  have  accepted  irregularity  of  employment  as  if  it  was  something 
inevitable.  It  is  no  more  inevitable  than  insistence  upon  payment  for  a  great 


996          REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

many  of  the  overhead  charges  in  a  business,  whether  the  business  is  in  daily 
operation  or  is  not. 

Mr.  MANLY.  In  short,  it  seems  to  me  that  society  has  to  develop  the  capacity 
of  the  individual  through  scientific  management,  or  otherwise,  and  it  is  also 
necessary  for  society  to  take  pains  that  it  actually  gets  the  benefit,  and  actually 
gets  .that  increased  capacity  utilized? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  That  certainly  is  necessary. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Weinstock: 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Is  it  or  is  it  not  a  fact  that  labor  opposes  the 
introduction  of  scientific  management  not  because  it  is  scientific  management, 
and  that  it  thinks  scientific  management  an  evil,  but  because  it  fears  that  it 
will  be  abused  to  the  injury  of  labor? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think  that  is  true,  although  there  have  been  some  indications 
of  an  objection  to  scientific  management  itself;  that  is,  the  failure  to  distin- 
guish very  clearly  between  the  grounds  on  which  the  objections  were  based. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Does  not  labor  also  have  a  further  fear,  which 
leads  it  to  oppose  the  introduction  of  scientific  management,  that  its  very 
successful  introduction  will  undermine  unionism? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  have  heard  that  expressed. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  is,  if  the  worker  finds  that  he  is  getting 
all  that  unionism  is  getting  for  him ;  that  is,  shorter  hours  and  better  pay,  that 
he  will  have  no  use  for  unionism? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  have  heard  that  fear  expressed,  but  I  do  not  think  it  is 
sound.  It  has  no  basis,  I  think,  because  I  do  not  see  how  scientific  management, 
or  anything  else,  can  in  the  long  run  get  for  the  worker  everything.  It  may 
for  a  time,  but  unless  the  interests  of  the  workingman  are  protected  by  his 
representatives,  neither  scientific  management  nor  any  other  method  of  em- 
ployment or  compensation  will  protect  the  laborer. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Assume,  in  order  to  bring  out  the  point  more 
sharply  and  more  clearly,  that  scientific  management  to-day  was  a  common 
condition,  had  been  universally  adopted. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  assuming  that  because  of  that  the  hours 
of  labor  had  been  diminished  and  the  pay  had  increased,  without  injury  to  the 
worker  physically;  what  think  you  would  be  the  status  of  unionism? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think  there  would  be  a  good  deal  left  for  unionism  to  do, 
and  I  do  not  think  the  time  will  come  when  there  will  not  be,  as  long  as  there 
is  a  wage  system  in  existence.  That  is,  this  other  thing  we  have  been  dis- 
cussing now,  the  question  of  the  regularity  of  employment;  that  is  a  subject 
as  to  which  the  iinions  have  taken  practically  no  steps  up  to  the  present  time, 
and  it  is  a  matter  which  in  some  ways  is  infinitely  more  important  than  a  great 
many  as  to  which  they  have.  That  subject  would  occupy  the  unions,  I  think, 
for  a  very  long  time  to  come. 

Again,  I  do  not  feel  that  we  have  reached  the  limit  of  the  shorter  day ;  cer- 
tainly not  in  some  employments ;  nor  do  I  think  that  we  have  reached  the  limit 
of  the  higher  wage;  certainly  we  have  not  reached  the  limit  of  the  best  con- 
ditions of  employment  in  many  industries. 

All  of  these  subjects  are  subjects  which  must  be  taken  up,  and  should  be  taken 
up,  by  the  representatives  of  the  men  and  .women  who  are  particularly  inter- 
ested. There  will  be  work  for  unions  to  do  as  long  as  there  is  a  wage  system. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  mean  that  this  bonus  system  does  not  deal 
with  the  wage  itself ;  it  is  simply  a  plus  over  and  above  the  wage,  and  that  wage 
would  still  remain  a  question  for  collective  bargaining? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  should  go  even  further  than  that.  It  is  dealing  with  the 
wage ;  I  am  speaking  of  the  wage  as  including  the  bonus  or  the  compensation. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  No;  I  differentiate  between  the  wage  on  the  one 
hand  and  the  earnings  on  the  other.  The  earnings,  of  course,  would  include  the 
bonus  and  the  wage. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.   Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  The  wage  would  not  necessarily  include  the  bonus? 

Mr.  BRANDETS.  Well,  I  think  the  unions  should  be  heard,  not  merely  on  the 
wage,  but  on  the  bonus  quite  as  much  as  on  the  wage,  and  practically  on  every 
step  that  is  involved  in  the  system  that  is  installed. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  see.  Then,  your  conception  of  the  ideal  of 
scientific  management  is  in  giving  the  laborer  a  voice  in  determining  all  the 
factors  involved  in  scientific  management? 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  997 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Not  only  in  making  the  decision,  but  in  ascertaining  the  facts. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Exactly.  Not  only  should  labor  have  a  voice,  but 
it  should  select  its  representatives? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.   Exactly. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  you  see  no  menace  to  unionism  in  scientific 
management? 

Mr.  BKANDEIS.   No. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  see  a  larger  field  for  usefulness? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.    Very  much. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  you  think  the  fears,  if  there  are  such  fears 
on  the  part  of  organized  labor,  are  groundless? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Yes ;  groundless,  except  for  this :  That  I  think,  for  instance, 
that  the  existence  of  the  system  of  scientific  management,  unless  the  unions 
choose  to  cooperate  with  the  effort  to  install  it,  may  menace  unionism,  because 
the  most  efficient  and  advanced  employer  may  adopt  it,  whether  the  unions  like 
it  or  not,  and  in  that  way  these  establishments  may  become  successful  and  be  so 
buttressed,  by  their  success  as  to  be  able  to  exclude  the  union  from  their  busi- 
ness. That  is  the  menace  if  they  do  not  take  part;  but  if  they  cooperate,  it 
seems  to  me  it  simply  advances  unionism. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Then,  reviewing  your  answer,  I  take  it  that  your 
point  is  this,  that  in  your  judgment  scientific  management  opens  up  a  new- 
opportunity  for  labor? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.    Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  if  it  is  wise  it  will  make  the  most  of  that 
opportunity,  enlist  its  cooperation  in  the  movement,  and  endeavor  to  bring  it  to 
its  highest  possibilities  at  the  earliest  day,  in  order  that  it  may  better  share 
this  increased  surplus? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Yes;  that  it  may  not  only  be  given  a  share,  but  get  a  very 
much  larger  share  in  the  increased  production. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  And  in  your  judgment  it  makes  a  colossal  error 
if,  instead  of  working  with  it,  it  works  against  it? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.   Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.   And  it  defeats  its  own  purpose? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.   Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  That  fighting  against  it  will  tend  toward  the  de- 
struction of  unionism  rather  than  toward  its  being  strengthened? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.   Precisely. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  What  effect,  in  your  judgment,  will  the  success  of 
scientific  management  have  on  unemployment?  Will  it  increase  it  or  di- 
minish it? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  One  form  of  unemployment  I  have  already  discussed,  namely, 
irregularity  of  employment,  which  seems  to  me  to  be  by  far  the  most  serious 
form  of  unemployment.  It  is  far  more  prevalent,  and  it  is  far  more  serious  in 
its  effect. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  intensive  study  of  businesses  and  of  the  elimination 
of  wage  in  business  must  result  in  regularizing  business.  Every  man  who  has 
undertaken  to  study  the  problem  of  his  business  in  the  most  effective  way  has 
come  to  recognize  that  what  he  must  do  is  to  keep  the  business  running  all 
the  time,  keep  it  full.  If  it  is  a  retail  business,  he  makes  it  his  effort  to  make 
other  days  in  the  week  than  Saturday  a  great  day;  he  tries  to  take  periods 
of  the  year  when  people  do  not  naturally  buy  and  make  them  buy,  in  the  off 
seasons,  in  order  to  keep  his  plant  going  during  the  period  in  which  ordinarily 
and  in  other  places  of  business  it  loses  money.  Now,  that  effort  must  proceed 
in  every  business,  to  try  by  means  of  invention,  and  invention  involving  laVge 
investment,  to  make  the  business  run  throughout  the  year ;  that  is,  to  regularize 
the  work,  avoid  the  congestion  of  the  extra-busy  season,  and  avoiding  the  dearth 
in  what  has  been  a  slack  season. 

Now,  scientific  management  must  develop  regularly ;  therefore,  in  develop- 
ing regularity  it  will  tend  to  eliminate  unemployment.  Of  course,  it  also  will 
naturally  tend  to  eliminate  that  other  unemployment,  which  comes  from  lack 
of  work  to  do,  because  if  we  are  right  id  supposing  that  there  is  plenty  of  con- 
sumptive power  but  not  enough  ability  to  buy  the  things,  then  we  may  be  able 
to  produce  them  cheaply  enough  and  people  will  want  them  and  will  take  them. 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Mr.  Garretson? 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Mr.  Brandeis,  would  you  hold  that  the  elimination 
of  waste  was  a  true  economic  process  unless  applied  to  all  the  terms  of  a 


998         REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

problem — that  is,  to  production,  to  distribution,  and  to  consumption?  Would 
not  it  be  of  equal  force  in  all  three  directions? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  It  is  certainly  of  equal  force  in  production  and  distribution. 
I  think  there  is  some  waste  in  consumption,  which  is  a  part  of  the  luxury  of 
life. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  That  is  probably  true.  The  thought  I  had  more 
particularly  in  mind  was  what  is  ordinarily  called  absorption,  the  market,  in- 
stead of  the  actual  consumption. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Yes.    I  should  treat  that  rather  as  a  part  of  distribution. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  It  is  in  one  sense;  but  it  is  final,  while  distribu- 
tion is  in  transit. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  If  the  application  of  a  principle  to  production 
should  create  an  injurious  effect  on  one  of  those  other  agencies,  for  instance, 
the  market,  would  it  be  economically  sound?  In  other  words,  if  the  agency 
that  doubled  the  production  destroyed  the  market  for  the  production,  it  would 
be  bad  economics,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  It  certainly  would  be  if  it  destroyed  it;  but  I  consider  the 
market  as  a  malleable  thing,  just  as  I  consider  the  processes  of  production  and 
of  distribution. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  It  is  malleable  to  this  extent,  at  least:  If  those 
who  buy  have  money  to  buy,  it  is  malleable.  If  they  have  no  money,  it  is 
ruined,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned.  Is  not  that  true? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Yes.  If  there  is  a  glut  in  the  market,  you  are  apt  to  have  a 
falling  off  in  prices. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  For  illustration,  it  does  not  matter  how  cheap  a 
thing  is  if  a  man  has  no  money  to  buy  it ;  it  can  not  appeal  to  him  to  the  extent 
of  inducing  him  to  buy  unless  he  has  either  money  or  credit? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  That  is  true. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  In  this  question — and  I  am  now  using  "distribu- 
tion" in  another  sense,  and  that  is  of  division — in  this  question  of  the  pro- 
portions in  which  profit  shall  be  distributed,  can  scientific  solution  enter  into 
it  at  all? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  I  do  not  think  so. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  It  is  purely  a  question  of  judgment,  tempered  by 
equity? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Or  dominated  by  equity? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Unquestionably. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Bear  in  mind  I  do  not  mean  equity  always  dom- 
inates, but  that  is  what  it  should  be  determined  by. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  It  is  largely  a  question  of  power. 

Commissioner  GAEBETSON.  That  is  a  foregone  conclusion — at  least  it  has  been 
in  the  past. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  It  is  apt  to  be. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  The  man  who  had  the  biggest  cannon  got  the 
biggest  share? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  My  feeling  is  that  that  is  the  reason  why  the  people  should 
have  the  biggest  cannon — because  it  would  be  more  apt  to  be  shared  among 
many. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  I  do  not  believe  we  will  differ  on  that.  Do  you 
believe  there  is  anything  in  any  system  of  management,  whether  it  may  be 
denominated  scientific  or  efficient  or  by  any  other  term,  that  will  change  the 
nature  of  man? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think  he  is  possible  of  some  modification. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Modification  of  extremes,  possibly. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  I  think  his  nature  may  be  refined  and  bettered,  perhaps  not 
revolutionized. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Do  you  believe  even  that  the  man  who,  under  the 
ordinary  system  of  administration,  had  bristles  on  his  back  would,  by  the 
adoption  of  scientific  management,  make  the  bristles  into  shaving  brushes  or 
leave  them  on  his  back? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think  we  ought  to  have  some  protection  against  him  in 
either  event. 

Commissioner  GAREETSON.  You  do  not  believe  we  would  all  get  shaving 
brushes  free?  In  other  words,  the  human  equation  will  be  just  as  great  under 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  999 

one  system  as  under  the  other,  and  safeguards  will  be  needed  against  the  nuiii 
who  wants  more  than  his  due  proportion  precisely  as  in  the  past? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think  so. 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  I  think  it  is  due  you  to  know  that  a  good  many 
who  have  favored  this  have  taken  the  position  that  the  altruistic  principle  was 
set  up  in  the  employer's  mind,  if  not  in  his  heart,  by  the  institution  of  scientific 
management  in  many  instances — not  by  all  of  the  advocates  of  the  system,  but  by 
many  of  them.  My  reason  for  asking  that  question  of  you  is  that  I  have  never — 
well,  let  me  put  it  this  way :  I  used  to  go  to  the  Methodist  church ;  they  have 
revivals,  you  know,  in  the  country  churches,  and  a  man  gets  religion,  but  I 
have  noticed  that  a  smooth  horse  trader  could  make  just  as  good  a  deal  the 
next  morning  as  he  did  the  day  before,  and  I  imagined  that  under  scientific 
management  the  man  who  was  reaching  out  for  his  handful  would  still  reach. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think  we  need  democracy  at  all  times  no  matter  what  the 
system  is  under  which  we  work. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  The  position  has  been  taken  by  a  number  of  men — 
mouthpieces  of  the  system — and  questioned  by  some  of  us,  that  the  labor  union 
was  just  like  Othello — his  occupation  would  be  gone  when  scientific  manage- 
ment was  installed.  I  gather  from  your  position  that  you  believe  it  has  just 
as  much  of  a  mission  as  it  ever  had  either  during  installation  or  pendency  of 
the  system. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think  it  will  be  increased;  its  functions  and  its  scope  and 
possibilities  will  be  increased. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  judge  you  have  given  thought  to  this :  Have  you 
ever  devised  in  your  mind  any  system  or  any  agency  that  could  take  the  place 
and  perform  the  functions  that  have  been  performed  by  the  labor  union  so 
long  as  the  wage  system  is  in  vogue? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  No;  I  do  no  not  think  there  is  any.  I  think  people  have  got 
to  protect  themselves  in  all  positions  in  life  and  must  be  in  a  position  to  do  it, 
and  I  do  not  know  any  way  in  which  labor  can  be  amply  protected  except 
through  its  own  representation. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  You  subscribe  to  the  old  theory,  then,  that  God 
helps  those  who  keep  their  powder  dry? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  That  seems  to  be  sound. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Another  question  arose  here  on  which  I  would 
like  to  have  your  opinion.  The  question  was  asked  with  regard  to  whether  or 
not  the  high  priests  of  efficiency  systems  had  attempted  in  any  way  to  disarm 
the  opposition  that  exists  on  the  part  of  the  laboring  men — I  am  using  "  labor- 
ing man  "  largely  in  the  organized  sense — to  the  installation  of  the  system  and 
the  attitude  of  labor  has  been  characterized  in  various  ways.  But  from  your 
standpoint  I  should  be  glad  to  know  whether  or  not  you  would  hold  that  this 
is  true — that  if  the  system  contains  the  desirable  features  that  have  been 
ascribed  to  it  would  it  not,  if  they  were  able  to  demonstrate  that  fact,  largely 
disarm  this  opposition  if  the  jar  bringers  would  go  to  the  deliberative  bodies 
representing  the  unions  with  full  explanation  of  the  methods  proposed  and 
what  they  believe  would  be  effected  thereby?  In  other  words,  if  they  believe 
that  the  advantages  which  would  accrue  to  these  men  are  so  tangible,  as  it  is 
asserted,  that  knowledge  first  hand  of  those  things  might  disarm  a  large 
portion  of  that  criticism,  and  especially  along  those  lines  where  the  average 
man  feels  there  is  something  concealed  behind-  the  veil  that  he  fears. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think,  Mr.  Garretson,  that  some  of  the  representatives, 
some  of  the  experts  in  scientific  management,  have  been  at  fault  in  this  respect, 
but  I  think  very  many  labor  leaders  have  been  at  fault  also. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  would  not  question  that. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  They  were  taking,  to  my  knowledge,  a  stand  definitely  opposed 
to  scientific  management — I  mean  individually,  men  and  bodies — when  I  was 
certain  they  were  not  familiar  with  the  subject  and  did  not  have  the  basis  on 
which,  in  the  important  affairs  of  life,  a  man  ought  to  stand — that  they  did  not 
know  these  facts.  I  think  it  has  been  unfortunate.  On  the  one  hand  there 
have  been  expressions  as  to  the  attitude  of  labor  unions  and  the  possible  way^ 
in  which  they  would  approach  it,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  attitude  of  hostility 
to  this  new  idea  which  has  been  opposed  by  some  of  the  most  excellent  gentle- 
men who  are  well  known  in  the  labor  movement.  Those  are  misfortunes,  it 
seems  to  me — but  some  of  the  unfortunate  accidents  that  have  happened  in 
connection  with  the  introduction  of  this  system.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  work 
which  your  commission  is  now  doing  may  be  extremely  helpful  in  starting  a 


1000       REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

new  era,  in  turning  over  a  new  leaf,  and  in  letting,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
employer  and  the  particular  advocates  of  scientific  management,  and  on  the 
other  hand  the  leaders  of  the  labor  movement,  understand  exactly  what  this 
is,  what  the  changes  are,  what  the  dangers  are  which  are  to  be  guarded  against, 
and  how  it  is  to  be  done.  I  think  that  so  far  as  the  past  hostilities  and  some 
of  the  past  expressions  on  either  side  are  concerned,  the  best  thing  all  of  us 
can  do  is  to  forget  them. 

Commissioner  GAEBETSON.  I  do  not  believe  there  has  ever  any  subject  arisen 
in  which  there  have  not  been  intemperate  statements  made  on  each  side.  But 
this  fact  remains :  Will  the  men  who  now  hold  the  opinions  which  they  do 
in  regard  to  scientific  management  ever  move  from  that  position  as  long  as 
the  attitude  is  assumed  by  those  who  father"  scientific  management,  that  be- 
cause one  man  may  have  studied  the  question  of  scientific  management  for  10 
years  intensely,  as  applied  to  the  details  with  which  he  has  come  in  contact, 
while  the  other  may  have  given  a  lifetime  to  the  study  of  general  conditions 
of  labor  and  the  relations  of  the  employer  and  employee — as  long  as  the 
opinion  is  openly  expressed  that  the  man  who  is  influenced  by  his  general  view, 
untempered  by  his  general  view,  untempered  by  intensive  study  of  one  phase 
of  it  is  ignorantly  prejudiced. 

Mr.  BBANDEIS.  I  think  this  is  a  case  where  the  wise  will  yield  in  their  views, 
and  I  have  great  confidence  in  the  wisdom  of  the  labor  leaders.  I  think  with 
the  aid  which  your  commission  gives  we  may  hope  for  a  clear  understandng  of 
this  subject  and  the  adoption  of  that  method  and  that  force  which  will  lead  to 
what  we  all  want. 

Commissioner  GABEETSON.  I  suppose  if  any  man  alive  has  a  right  to  some- 
what question  the  universal  wisdom  of  the  labor  leaders,  I  might  be  justified 
in  it.  I  do  not  know  whether  one  could  always  bank  on  that  wisdom  or  not. 

In  regard  to  this  continuity  of  service,  Mr.  Brandeis:  Under  slavery  con- 
tinuity of  service  was  an  absolute  necessity.  Its  ceasing  was  a  virtue  and  its 
continuation  was  a  combination  of  the  most  obnoxious  features  of  slavery  by 
the  owner  who  was  afterwards  the  employer.  In  other  words,  when  he  lost 
title  to  his  slave  he  also  evaded  the  most  onerous  condition  of  slavery. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  That  brings  me  down  to  just  one  other  question — 
though  it  may  involve  two  or  three  questions.  There  is  no  denying  this  fact, 
that  one  of  the  great  fears  of  the  laboring  man — and  this  is  not  confined  to 
the  union  laboring  man  by  any  means — is  that  concealed  behind  the  theory  of 
scientific  management  is  an  elimination  of  the  men ;  in  other  words,  that  even 
though  it  may  work  out  to  swell  the  earnings  of  the  individual,  those  swelled 
earnings  of  the  number  of  individuals  who  are  still  employed  will  be  a  still 
far  less  amount  of  money  than  was  paid  to  the  number  formerly  employed. 
That  is  putting  it  in  wage  terms. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  I  want  to  ask  your  opinion  in  regard  to  this, 
because  your  opinion  in  this  is  of  value.  You  are  not  allied  to  one  camp  or  to 
the  other ;  you  are  standing  on  middle  ground.  Just  for  a  moment,  let  us  draw 
a  line  around  this  country,  because  the  result  of  drawing  a  line  here  would 
be  precisely  the  same  as  to  give  us  world-wide  application. 

Taking  the  population  on  the  basis  of  100,000,000,  presumably  80,000,000 
of  those  are  wageworkers.  I  think  that  is  not  very  far  out  of  line  with  the 
figures,  is  it?  It  is  not  an  unreasonable  application  of  them? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Possibly  not. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  If  the  80,000,000  wageworkers  were  to  at  once 
come  under  the  terms  of  efficiency  systems,  and  the  increased  productiveness  of 
each  worker  thereunder  was  promoted  to  the  degree  that  74  per  cent  of  those 
workers  could  bring  the  same  output  as  heretofore,  what  would  become  of  the 
other  25  per  cent  of  workers  under  this  system? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Our  80,000,000  plus  the  other  20,000,000  would  consume  a  great 
deal  more  than  they  do  now. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  How  many  men,  by  that  elimination  of  that  num- 
ber would  be  taken  from  the  purchasers,  and  therefore  circumscribe  the  market 
that  much? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  You  would  not  take  anybody  from  the  purchasers. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  But  if  he  had  no  money 

Mr.  BEANDEIS  (interrupting).  He  would  have  money  because  he  would  have 
employment.  There  is  not  any  limit  and  there  never  has  been  a  limit  with  us 
in  the  consuming  power.  The  limit  that  has  arisen  from  time  to  time  has 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  1001 

been  in  the  purchasing  power.  Take  it  in  the  field  of  railroading,  with  which 
you  are  particularly  familiar.  Our  operations  increase  at  the  rate  of  about  2 
per  cent  a  year.  For  a  long  period  of  time  the  gross  revenues  of  the  railroads, 
in  spite  of  perhaps  slight  reductions  in  rates  increased  at  the  rate  of  6  or  8 
or  10  per  cent  a  year.  What  does  that  mean?  It  means  in  the  main  an  in- 
creased production  on  the  part  of  our  people.  The  average  amount  of  money 
per  family  which  the  railroad  revenues  of  the  United  States  represent  is  almost 
as  great  as  the  earnings  in  some  countries  of  the  men  altogether.  Why  is  it? 
It  is  because  our  people  here  live  better  than  the  people  do  somewhere  else; 
they  have  more  to  eat  and  they  have  more  clothes  and  they  have  more  luxuries ; 
they  live  in  better  houses  and  are  better  off  in  many  other  ways. 

They  are  able  to  do  it,  but  there  is  no  limit.  The  limit  has  not  been  reached. 
If  we  can  produce  more,  if  we  can  give  men  more,  men  will  buy  more.  The 
dollars  will  go  further,  and  there  has  never,  it  seems  to  me,  been  a  greater 
fallacy  than  the  one  which  has  been  constantly  urged  by  laboring  men  at  all 
times — I  mean  in  the  labor  movements,  in  certainly  the  time  I  have  known 
them — that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  that  if  one  man  does  more  work  he  takes 
the  work  away  from  somebody  else.  I  think  there  is  an  absolute  fallacy  in 
that  idea,  and  it  is  a  thing  that  everybody  ought  to  want  in  this  country — to 
produce  more  and  have  more;  and  this  country,  if  we  can  produce  it  cheaper, 
will  find  a  full  market  for  it. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  But  this  fact  remains  unanswered:  If  there  are 
80,000,000  wage  men  and  20,000,000  of  them  are  taken  out  of  the  positions  which 
they  now  hold,  you  have  got  to  create  new  industries 

Mr.  BEANDEIS  (interrupting).  Oh,  no,  you  have  not. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Without  going  outside  of  the  country  to  do  it,  be- 
cause we  have  a  wall  around  it.  You  have  to  create  a  new  form  of  productive- 
ness  

Mr.  BEANDEIS  (interrupting).  Things  do  not  happen  over  night. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  This  introduction  of  scientific  management  for  the  80,000,000 
people  will  not  happen  overnight. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  I  do  not  think  at  the  rate  it  is  going  that  it  will. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  What  happens  is  this — and  what  has  happened  in  every  busi- 
ness so  far  as  I  have  known,  in  which  not  only  scientific  management,  but 
better  processes  and  cheaper  processes  of  manufacture  have  been  introduced — 
that  that  business  prospers.  No  man  is  turned  out  of  work  to-day,  or,  so  far 
as  we  can  look  ahead,  will  ever  be  turned  out  of  work  because  of  scientific 
management;  because  when  you  introduce  scientific  management  you  increase 
the  productivity  in  establishment  A,  establishment  A  is  growing  and  grows  all 
of  the  time,  because  it  is  able  to  produce  its  work  better  or  cheaper,  and  to 
expand  itself  through  its  better  organization. 

This  process  that  you  speak  of,  of  the  ultimate  end,  during  all  this  time  these 
people  will  have  been  placed,  placed  in  doing  more  work  of  the  same  kind,  or' 
placed  in  doing  some  other  work  equally  profitable,  or  possibly  more  so. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Bear  this  in  mind  in  answering  the  question:  I 
am  not  asking  it  from  the  standpoint  at  all  of  the  men  I  represent,  because, 
first,  the  men  I  represent  are  pieceworkers.  Moreover,  some  time  back  they 
reached  the  limit  of  what  car  couplings  will  hold.  Consequently  there  is  no 
question  of  increasing  their  labor  under  efficiency  or  any  other  system.  But 
those  are  questions  that  appeal  to  me  in  this  problem. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  I  think  that  field  of  speculation  is  one  that  is  based  upon  an 
entire  misconception.  I  think  that  if  the  labor  leaders  to-day  would  look  at 
this  matter  in  a  practical  way,  and  not  consider  what  may  happen  10,000  years 
hence 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON  (interrupting).  That  is  when  you  are  setting  the 
limit  for  efficiency? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  I  think  if  you  will  look  at  what  would  happen  to-morrow  or 
next  year  in  introducing  an  efficiency  system  in  a  particular  business,  you  will 
find  that  all  the  men  in  that  business  are  going  to  be  benefited.  Take  it  up 
one  by  one,  one  business  after  another,  and  the  businesses  to  which  it  applies 
would  be  advanced.  You  will  have  exactly  the  same  situation  as  has  been 
suggested  to  me  that  happened  when  a  man  like  Ford  undertakes  this  thing. 
He  produces  things  cheaper  and  better,  and  it  does  not  put  anybody  out  of 
business.  There  are  not  less  men  in  the  automobile  business,  or  working  in 
the  automobile  shops  of  this  country,  but  there  are  more  people  who  are  buying 
automobiles,  and  there  will  be. 


1002       REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  GAREETSON.  They  'have  the  purchase  price.  The  buyers  of 
automobiles  have  the  price  to  buy  with. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  They  have  the  price  to  buy  automobiles  if  they  are  cheap 
enough,  but  a  man  may  be  able  to  buy  an  automobile  from  Ford  at  $575  who 
would  not  be  able  to  pay  $800  for  it. 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  But  if  Ford  automobiles  were  worth  35  cents  how 
many  could  a  man  sell  in  Rutger  Square? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  If  a  man  is  taught  how  to  work — to  my  mind  there  is  no 
such  thing  inherently  as  unskilled  labor.  Unskilled  labor  is  an  abomination. 
All  labor  ought  to  be  skilled,  and  there  ought  to  be  an  effort  of  everybody  to 
make  them  more  and  more  skilled.  When  you  find  a  man  who  can  not  earn 
anything  to-day,  it  is  the  result  usually  of  a  system,  of  an  erroneous  system. 
Sometimes  it  is  an  erroneous  social  system ;  sometimes  it  is  an  erroneous  in- 
dustrial system.  Men  have  not  been  taught  to  do  things — that  is  one  of  the 
difficulties.  Nobody  who  has  to  do  that  business — and  certainly  it  must  have 
impressed  you  constantly  how  many  people  need  guiding,  how  many  people  need 
help.  The  wrong  has  been  done  to  a  very  large  number  of  people  in  not  show- 
ing them  how  to  do  things,  or  how  to  do  them  better.  These  men  who  have  not 
the  35  cents  are  very  many  of  them  the  men  who  have  not  been  shown  how  to 
do  things.  That  is  one  thing — that  society  has  tolerated  such  an  abomination 
as  irregularity  of  employment. 

I  do  not  think  scientific  management,  any  more  than  any  one  other  thing 
we  are  striving  for,  is  going  to  solve  the  human  problems. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Good. 

Mr.  BRANUEIS.  Certainly  not ;  and  I  do  not  think  the  labor  union  is  going  to 
solve  all  human  problems. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  It  has  not  so  far. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  It  is  an  extremely  valuable  instrument  and  so  is  scientific 
management.  What  we  have  to  do  is  to  avail  ourselves  of  every  instrument 
that  is  conceivable — labor  unions,  scientific  management,  and  all  the  other 
organizations — and  try  to  remove  particular  difficulties  which  exist  in  the  way 
of  these  men  having  the  35  cents,  of  whom  you  spoke. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Lennon,  do  you  desire  to  ask  anything? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Mr.  Brandeis,  we  have  had  several  different  systems 
that  are  called  scientific  management.  Do  you  think  there  is  any  such  thing 
as  a  determined  system  of  scientific  management? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  I  should  not  suppose  so — not  an  ultimate  system. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Will  you  give  us  your  definition  of  scientific  manage- 
ment? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  doubt  whether  I  could  state  it  as  well  as  some  others,  but  the 
fundamental  thought  which  I  have  in  scientific  management  is  this :  In  the  first 
place,  it  puts  business  on  the  plan  of  engineering.  It  does  not  let  things  happen, 
but  it  predetermines  what  is  to  happen.  It  undertakes  to  think  out  in  advance 
what  shall  be  done  in  every  line  of  business.  That,  of  course,  is  taking  the 
broad  organization  of  business  and  not  particularly  or  solely  the  work  of  the 
workingman  we  haA7e  been  speaking  of  now.  It  plans  and  it  makes  things  hap- 
pen in  accordance  with  the  plans.  It  does  for  business  what  a  time-table  does 
for  a  railroad ;  that  is,  it  is  on  the  same  basis  that  the  time-table  is  introduced 
in  the  railroad  business — to  make  a  train  arrive  at  a  particular  time.  If  they 
have  been  running  too  slowly  between  two  stations,  or  if  there  has  been  a  par- 
ticular delay,  they  undertake  to  overcome  it  within  limits  and  reach  their 
destination  according  to  schedule. 

That  is  one  of  the  fundamental  thoughts  in  scientific  management.  Another 
one  is  to  find  the  best  possible  way  of  doing  everything  and  of  coordinating  the 
best  possible  ways  of  doing  all  the  particular  things,  so  that  it  results  in  the 
best  possible  way  of  doing  the  whole.  It  recognizes  that  every  single  depart- 
ment of  a  business,  and  every  part  in  the  process  of  business  is  worthy  of 
special  study  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  how  best  it  can  be  done  and  how 
the  waste  which  inheres  in  it  may  be  eliminated. 

Those  are  the  elements  of  scientific  management.  Now,  a  number  of  gentle- 
men have  undertaken  to  approach  this  in  different  ways,  recognizing,  for  in- 
stance, that  one  of  the  problems  is  to  get  the  man  to  do  the  thing  in  the  best 
way,  after  you  have  found  out  what  it  is,  and  to  keep  him  at  it.  They  undertook 
to  devise  a  bonus  system.  That  is  merely  one  attempt  to  influence  the  indi- 
vidual, to  attempt  to  find  out ;  but  it  is  merely  one  way ;  there  are  a  great  many 
other  ways  of  doing  it.  You  can  conceive  of  other  ways,  and  nobody  can  state  in 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOE.  1003 

regard  to  these  things  that  the  way  he  has  found  out  is  the  ultimate  way  any 
mone  than  he  can  say,  "  I  have  found  a  way  of  shoveling  a  certain  amount  of 
coal,  and  that  is  the  best  way  of  shoveling  that  amount  of  coal  that  ever  was 
devised."  Well,  it  may  be  infinitely  better  than  the  way  that  was  used  for  the 
last  year,  or  10  years  ago ;  but  it  would  seem  to  me  a  bold  thing  to  say  that  it 
is  the  best  way  that  can  be  devised.  We  are  finding  out  new  ways  of  doing 
things  all  the  time ;  we  are  finding  out  new  ways  of  pitching  a  ball,  and  it  seems 
to  me  we  may  find  new  ways  of  shoveling  coal. 

But  the  very  essence  of  scientific  management  is  to  say  that  the  mere  shovel- 
ing of  coal  or  the  lifting  of  pig  iron  is  a  thing  that  may  be  done  badly  and 
wastefully,  or  that  it  may  be  done  well,  and  then  to  find  out  how  to  do  it  bet- 
ter, and  in  order  to  find  it  out  you  must  adopt  exactly  the  same  methods  that 
have  been  adopted  in  the  field  of  science — by  study  and  observation,  and  patience 
and  careful  observation,  such  as  the  scientists  have  applied  in  their  department. 

Commissioner  LENNOX.  Then  I  understand,  from  some  things  you  have  pre- 
viously stated,  that  in  working  out  what  you  have  defined  as  being  scientific 
management  that  labor  is  entitled  to  take  the  same  part  in  working  out  this 
scientific  system  of  industrialism  that  the  employer  is  entitled  to? 

Mr.  BKANDEIS.  It  seems  to  me  so. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Then  I  just  want  to  ask  you  one  more  question. 
Tradesmen  have  been  practically  taught  since  time  immemorial  that  the  best 
work  possible  for  a  mechanic  was  the  work  which  develops  his  personality  or 
in  work  in  which  his  personality  is  developed.  For  instance,  the  sculptor — that 
is,  the  high  type  of  it — the  personality  of  the  man  appears  in  his  work.  Now,  I 
say  for  myself,  as  well  as  for  many  laboring  men,  that  it  is  to  some  extent  the 
fear  of  eliminating  this  personality  in  the  things  which  he  produces  and  that 
personality  of  making  it  the  very  best  thing  or  one  of  the  very  best  things  that 
have  been  produced  in  the  different  crafts  and  trades;  that  is  one  of  the  rea- 
sons why  I  do  not  like  the  apparent  leveling  process  of  what  is  called  scientific 
management.  What  do  you  say  to  that? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  If  I  thought  it  would  eliminate  or  reduce  individuality,  using 
that  in  the  best  term,  as  I  understand  you  to  do,  I  should  be  definitely  opposed 
to  scientific  management.  I  think  that  after  all,  our  business  is  not  to 
make  goods,  but  to  make  men,  and  the  reason  why  I  feel  such  an  interest  in 
scientific  management  is  that  it  does  tend  to  make  men,  in  my  view  of  it.  I  feel 
that  one  of  the  first  things  that  ought  to  be  done  to  develop  a  man  is  to  make 
him  realize  the  possibilities  of  accomplishment,  the  joys  of  accomplishment,  and 
the  possibility  of  development  in  the  work  which  he  is  doing.  He  has  got  to 
conclude,  whatever  that  work  is,  that  it  is  something  which  he  does  do  better 
or  may  do  better  than  he  did  before,  or  perhaps  better  than  others  do.  He 
ought  to  realize  all  the  time  that  he  has  not  gotten  to  the  end. 

Now,  I  feel  that  one  of  the  great  defects  in  a  large  portion  of  the  work  done 
to-day  is  that  the  men  who  are  doing  it  do  not  feel  real  joy  in  their  work ;  they 
do  not  feel  joy  in  the  accomplishment ;  they  do  not  have  any  standard  by  which 
their  accomplishment  can  be  measured  as  compared  with  somebody  else.  Every- 
body realizes  that  this  very  measuring  is  the  thing  that  he  feels  happiest  about. 
He  wants  to  play  a  game  of  ball,  and  he  wants  to  win,  which  means  that  he  has 
played  better  than  anybody  else,  and  he  gets  that  test  in  the  competition  of  a 
game  of  ball  as  to  whether  he  has  done  well,  and  he  is  delighted  with  his  par- 
ticular performance,  whether  as  pitcher  or  as  catcher  or  on  the  bases.  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  objection  to  a  large  part  of  the  work  which  is  done  to-day  is  that 
men  have  not  standards ;  have  not  tests  as  to  the  excellence  of  their  work.  To 
my  mind  the  best  game  that  there  is  is  the  game  of  work,  and  I  want  to  see 
men  in  it  for  all  the  joys  that  come  with  the  working  effectively,  and  I  think  it  is 
possible  to  do  it,  and  I  think  that  one  of  the  first  steps  is  the  standard. 

I  do  not  believe  for  a  moment  that  when  some  of  our  friends  of  scientific 
management  have  worked  out  a  way  of  doing  a  thing,  which  may  be  infinitely 
better  than  it  was  done  before,  that  they  have  attained  the  best  possible ;  it  is 
the  highest  that  has  been  possible  up  to  that  time ;  but  I  should  regard  each  step 
that  they  have  taken  as  a  "  thank  you  marm  "  from  which  you  would  start 
up  to  the  next. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  There  have  always  been  men  in  the  world  and  wo- 
men in  the  world,  and  are  yet,  in  all  lines  of  work,  that  have  taken  some 
pride  in  the  things  they  produce,  taken  more  pride  in  the  things  they  pro- 
duce than  they  did  in  the  wages  they  received  from  it. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think  that  is  true. 


1004       REPORT   OF    COMMISSION    ON   INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  Can  you  say  that  there  would  be  any  destruction 
of  that  under  this  scientific  management  of  which  you  speak? 

Mr.  BBANDEIS.  I  should  expect  the  reverse ;  I  should  expect  it  would  greatly 
stimulate  satisfaction  in  performance,  because  it  would  give  what  people  need, 
a  test  of  excellence,  and  this  would  be  a  constant  test.  Now,  the  only  thing 
we  have  to  look  out  for  is  that  men  in  their  eagerness  to  go  forward  do  not 
go  too  fast.  Most  of  them  will  not  go  too  fast,  but  there  are  some  men  who 
will,  and  it  is  well  enough  to  have  some  one  call  their  attention  to  that  pos- 
sibility ;  but  there  must  be  an  immense  satisfaction  to  men  when  they  have 
a  proper  and  reasonable  test  of  performance  in  seeing  that  they  can  attain 
it,  or  beat  wrhat  they  did  before,  and  possibly  what  the  other  fellow  did. 

I  think  an  immense  deal  is  lost — no  matter  what  the  work  is,  whether  it 
is  shoveling  coal  or  anything  else — an  immense  deal  is  lost  in  the  pleasure 
and  satisfaction  of  life  and  development  of  the  individual  when  you  take  away 
from  him  the  opportunity  of  measuring  himself  against  his  own  or  somebody 
else's  record,  and  you  have  got  to  have  a  record  in  order  that  you  can  meas- 
ure it. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  apprehend  that  you  know,  and  I  feel,  that  one  of 
the  wonderful  subdivisions  of  labor  in  the  last  40  or  50  years  has  eliminated 
some  of  that  pride  and  personality  in  production? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  It  has. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  There  was  a  time  when  a  shoemaker  was  the  philos- 
opher and  scientist  of  the  world,  almost — more  so  than  any  of  the  other  classes, 
outside  of  a  very  few.  Isn't  that  true? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  There  are  some  good  philosophers  among  them  even  at  pres- 
ent, and  I  think  you  will  find  among  them  also,  you  will  find  among  these 
shoemakers  some  men  who  have  a  very  high  conception  of  excellence.  Take 
some  of  the  welters  or  treers  and  edge  setters,  and  you  will  find  that  those 
men  can  draw  a  clear  distinction  between  a  good  job  and  one  that  is  not  good. 

Commissioner  HARKIMAN.  I  wanted  to  ask  you  something  that  you  partially 
answered,  and  that  is,  that  if  the  art  of  scientific  management  is  all  that  its 
exponents  claim  it  is,  how  do  you  propose  to  bring  about  a  better  understand- 
ing of  it  on  the  part  of  the  workers;  that  is,  of  educating  the  laboring  peo- 
ple to  appreciate  the  value  of  scientific  management?  You  spoke  of  what  this 
commission  might  do.  Of  course,  we  will  recommend  or  not  recommend  it, 
but  how  far  is  that  to  go? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think  that  will  go  very  far,  because  you  have  on  your  board 
three  very  distinguished  members  of  labor  unions,  and  if  they  should  agree 
with  the  view  that  scientific  management  can  be  introduced  consistently  with 
the  welfare  of  the  worker  or  of  the  union,  I  think  that  would  go  very  far 
toward  producing  the  result  that  you  desire,  and,  of  course,  beyond  that  it  is 
a  question  of  patient  individual  discussion. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  Missionary  work? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  Missionary  work,  because  you  have  a  prejudice,  and  you  will 
have  to  overcome  prejudice. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  It  struck  me  that  it  would  be  of  great  interest  to 
the  commission  to  have  in  its  record  your  definition  of  bonus,  premium,  differ- 
ential piecework,  and  piecework  systems  of  payment.  I  think  it  would  be 
too  much  to  ask  you  to  do  it  now,  but  would  you  dictate  it  some  time  to  your 
secretary  and  let  us  have  it? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  would  be  very  glad  to  do  it,  but  I  think  experts  on  that  who 
are  exponents  of  these  various  systems  could  probably  do  it  more  accurately 
than  I  could.  I  should  be  afraid  I  might  represent  one  or  the  -other. 

Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  I  may  be  very  dull,  but  after  listening  yesterday 
and  the  day  before,  I  was  a  little  more  confused  than  I  was  before  as  to  just 
what  the  difference  was. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  am  inclined  to  think  if  you  request  them  seriously — I  should, 
in  view  of  your  question,  suggest  that  each  one  of  them  be  requested,  for  the 
purpose  of  the  record,  to  state  his  understanding  or  his  definition  of  the  par- 
ticular method  or  incentive  which  he  creates;  I  think  that  would  be  fairer  to 
them,  possibly. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Those  who  have  come  before  us  have  told  us  that 
they  have  been  interested  in  this  system  some  30  or  35  years,  trying  to  intro- 
duce it,  telling  us — Mr.  Taylor,  for  instance,  that  he  did  not  pretend  to  intro- 
duce it  in  a  shop  inside  of  two  years,  and  preferably  five  years,  to  work  it  out 
properly.  We  have  known  of  it  more  or  less  by  reading  books  and  hearing 
of  these  systems,  for  the  last  30  or  35  years ;  at  lea«t,  I  have.  I  think  probably 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  1005 

in  the  last  two  or  three  years  your  writings  and  your  speaking  on  this  subject 
of  efficiency  have  probably  given  more  interest  in  the  whole  proposition,  as 
to  the  saving  of  waste,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing,  and  efficiency  in  management, 
than  all  the  writers  and  speakers  that  have  come  before  us.  I  do  not  think 
there  is  any  question  about  that,  that  the  public  have  it  more  in  mind  than  in 
the  years  gone  by,  until  within  the  last  couple  of  years,  perhaps,  so  that  the 
public  rather  look  upon  an  expression  from  you  as  a  real  authority  upon  this 
question  of  efficiency. 

In  your  opinion,  if  efficiency,  as  you  understand  it,  is  not  adopted  in  a  gen- 
eral way  in  our  plants  and  workshops  and  business,  is  that  going  to  be  a  real 
cause  of  industrial  unrest,  or  has  it  been  a  real  cause  of  industrial  unrest 
because  it  has  not  been  adopted? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  Let  me,  before  answering  that  question,  say  one  word  about 
your  reference  to  this  subject  of  scientific  management  having  been  in  the 
minds  of  people  for  30  or  35  years.  I  think  that  may  give  misapprehension,  or 
be  a  basis  for  it. 

There  undoubtedly  has  been  an  effort  for  35  years,  and  perhaps  for  a  longer 
time  than  35  years,  to  improve  management  in  particular  departments.  Men 
have  realized  the  importance  of  greater  efficiency,  although  that  particular 
term  was  not  used  widely  before ;  but  the  different  rules  and  the  different 
views  and  the  different  steps  which  had  been  taken  have  not  been  formulated 
until  within  a  comparatively  short  period.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  rules,  the 
method  of  approach,  did  not  reach  a  point  where  you  could  properly  speak  of 
the  science  of  management,  until  very  recently. 

Now,  answering  your  specific  question  as  to  the  effect  of  scientific  manage- 
ment as  bearing  -upon  the  subject  of  unrest,  my  view  is  simply  this :  Unrest 
will  be  to  a  certain  extent  mitigated  by  anything  which  improves  the  condi- 
tion of  the  work,  and  I  can  not  see  any  real  solution,  ultimate  solution,  or  an 
approximation  of  a  solution  of  unrest  as  long  as  there  exists  in  this  country 
any  juxtaposition  of  political  democracy  and  industrial  absolutism.  To  my 
mind,  before  we  can  really  solve  the  problem  of  industrial  unrest,  the  worker 
must  have  a  part  in  the  responsibility  and  management  of  the  business,  and 
whether  we  adopt  scientific  management,  or  adopt  any  other  form  of  obtaining 
compensation  or  of  increasing  productivity,  unrest  will  not  be  removed  as  long 
as  we  have  that  inconsistency,  as  I  view  it. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  We  have  your  opinion  in  the  record  as  to  how 
to  get  the  labor  leaders  and  the  laboring  men  to  see  the  benefits  of  the  effi- 
ciency system,  by  several  questions  asked  you.  I  want  to  know  how  we  are 
to  get  it  from  you  now  so  as  to  get  it  in  the  record ;  how  we  are  going  to 
teach  the  employer  to  come  into  sympathy  with  organized  labor,  and  not  only 
into  sympathy,  but  into  business  relations  with  organized  labor. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  There  again  I  think  we  are  fortunate  in  having  representa- 
tives of  the  employer  upon  the  commission  who  will  have  to  do  missionary 
work  with  the  employers  as  you  gentlemen  will  be  called  upon  to  do  with  the 
working  men.  I  feel  this,  however,  and  I  ought  to  say  this:  I  am  convinced 
that  among  the  efficient  employers  the  consideration  which  makes  them  most 
apprehensive  of  the  labor  unions  is  the  belief  that  it  is  the  policy  of  the 
unions  to  restrict  production.  If  that  belief  can  be  overcome,  and  the  founda- 
tion for  the  belief,  where  it  exists,  can  be  removed,  I  feel  quite  certain  that  a 
very  large  part  of  the  best  employers  will  welcome  cooperation  with  the  union. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  One  of  the  exponents,  or  scientific  engineers  who 
have  been  before  us,  in  answer  to  a  question  as  to  whether  this  subject  was 
not  one  of  mutual  consideration  and  could  not  be  dealt  with  by  committees  on 
both  sides,  and  so  on,  said  that  in  his  opinion  that  probably  after  the  system 
had  been  in  operation  for  two  years  and  probably  longer,  better  five  years, 
and  that  then  probably  the  question  of  mutual  bargaining  might  be  taken  into 
consideration;  that  nothing  in  so  far  as  the  basic  rate  or  wage  rate  upon 
which  the  bonus  were  paid  afterwards  should  be  considered,  not  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  rate,  and  not  the  bonus,  but  the  wage  rate ;  if  wages  went  up 
or  went  down,  the  question  of  wages  might  possibly  be  a  question  of  bargain- 
ing. Do  you  think  that  is  logic,  that  that  will  tend  toward  advancement  of 
efficiency  ? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think  that  is  absolutely  unsound. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  feel  that  the  employer  ought  to  meet  the 
employee  as  a  representative  of  his  organization,  and  go  into  the  question  as 
he  would  any  other  question? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  Precisely.  Take  the  first  question ;  take  the  question  which 
has  been  so  much  talked  about,  although  it  is  only  one  of  the  many  things 


1006       REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

that  are  bound  to  come  up — the  question  of  how  long  a  time  it  takes  to  do  a 
given  operation  in  which  a  stop  watch  is  used. 

Now,  in  order  to  determine  that  question,  nothing  more  is  necessary  than 
correct  observation,  assuming  that  the  worker  is  working  naturally ;  and  yet 
I  can  see  that  it  is  absolutely  essential  that  representatives  of  the  workers 
should  participate  in  making  that  observation,  because  it  is  important  not 
only  that  it  should  be  correct,  but  that  the  worker  should  know  that  it  is 
correct,  and  should  have  the  means  of  convincing  himself  that  the  conclusion 
that  was  reached  was  properly  reached,  both  that  the  observation  was  properly 
taken  and  that  the  performance  that  was  going  on  was  a  normal  performance 
when  it  was  going  on,  and  was  not  something  abnormal. 

Now,  I  can  not  see  that  there  is  any  single  point  in  which  the  union  should 
not  be  represented.  If  any  calculation  is  made — there  are  many  mathematical 
calculations  that  have  to  be  made — and '  the  laws  of  arithmetic  or  calculus, 
or  anything  else  that  may  be  applied,  are  certain,  and  I  think  the  union  has  a 
right  to  know  that  those  laws  are  properly  applied  and  that  the  result  reached 
is  a  correct  result.  I  can  not  see  that  there  is  any  point  in  the  process,  either 
in  its  introduction  or  in  its  application,  after  it  is  produced,  in  which  it  is  not 
essential  that  both  parties  in  interest  should  have  their  representatives. 

I  could  perfectly  well  conceive  that,  a  man  might  be  selected  who  would 
have  the  confidence  both  of  the  employer  and  of  the  union,  and  who,  as  an 
expert  or  as  a  scientific  manager,  would  be  called  in  there  and  would  do  it 
all,  because  you  both  trust  him  and  you  employ  him  jointly,  as  you  many  a 
time  in  the  case  of  a  dispute  select  jointly  an  arbitrator. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Mr.  Taylor,  when  he  was  before  us  the  other  day, 
was  speaking  of  the  question  of  dealing  with  the  men — giving  them  a  say  in 
the  matter — which  led  me  to  believe  at  least  that  this  idea  of  giving  the  men 
a  say  was,  for  instance,  to  say  to  John :  "  John,  we  are  going  to  do  something 
here,  and  we  want  you  to  cooperate  with  us.  If  you  do,  you  will  not  be 
hurt  by  it,  and  during  the  time  that  you  are  cooperating  with  us,  we  will  pay 
you  double  time  to  show  you  that  we  are  in  good  faith."  The  impression  I 
got  from  Mr.  Taylor  was  that  the  idea  he  had  was  of  John  being  taken  into 
the  proposition. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  That  is 'contrary  to  all  principles  of  collective  bargaining. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  would  not  consider  that  a  fair  way  of  treat- 
ing John? 

Mr.  BKANDEIS.  Not  any  more  than  I  should  in  any  other  case  where  we  have 
collective  bargaining,  or  making  a  wage  in  any  other  way. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Now,  in  the  introduction  of  a  scientific  manage- 
ment in  a  plant,  where  they  increase,  as  they  tell  us  they  have,  100  to  800  per 
cent  of  the  production  of  the  plant  or  in  the  production  of  the  men — the  joint 
production — they  greatly  increased  the  cost  to  the  employer,  and  slightly  in- 
creased the  wages  of  the  employee ;  the  employer  has  been  put  to  a  very  great 
advantage  in  the  matter  of  going  into  the  markets,  if  his  competitor  was  work- 
ing under  the  old  system,  according  to  their  way  of  thinking.  Well,  is  there 
any  reason  why  that  firm  should  not  at  once  begin  to  give  the  employees  a 
share  in  the  benefits  by  a  reduction  in  the  hours  of  labor? 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  My  own  view  of  that  is  this :  That  in  that  process — of  course, 
in  the  cases  that  I  have  known  of  there  is  not  the  outer  limit  which  you  have 
mentioned — but  in  the  cases  with  which  I  have  been  most  familiar,  I  should 
think  that  the  advantages  were,  perhaps,  as  a  rule,  divided  pretty  equally 
between  capital  and  labor  and  the  community.  I  mean  that  it  generally  re- 
sulted in  some  concession  in  the  price  of  the  article  to  the  consumer;  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  highly  desirable,  as  an  incident  of  scientific  manage- 
ment, to  reduce  the  hours  of  labor,  unless  the  hours  of  labor  are  already  as 
short  as  they  ought  to  be,  and  I  know  of  very  few  cases  where  they  are. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  you  any  experience  of  any  plant,  firm,  or 
company  that  have  had  in  inauguration  for  a  number  of  years  the  system, 
where  they  have  reduced  their  hours  below  10,  as  the  result  of  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  system? 

Mr.  BBANDEIS.  I  could  not  say  that  there  was  a  result,  but  I  do  know  there 
has  been  a  tendency  to  reduce. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  There  has  been  a  tendency? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  know  a  number  of  them  have  reduced  it;  but  I  doubt 
whether  it  is  a  result.  I  think  if  you  had  had  a  potent  union  in  that  organi- 
zation they  would  have  taken  that  opportunity  to  insist  upon  a  reduction. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  1007 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Of  course,  the  unions  get  these  things  later.  A 
promient  Senator  told  me  once,  when  I  called  upon  him  here  at  the  Capitol,  in 
regard  to  the  question  of  the  eight-hour  day,  he  said  "  I  would  go  out  and 
take  the  people  and  organize  for  eight  hours ;  I  would  not  bother  here  about  it." 
That  is  how  we  got  eight  hours ;  not  because  they  were  given  to  us. 

Mr.  BBANDEIS.  I  do  not  believe  things  are  given  to  men  as  a  rule;  and  I  do 
not  think  it  would  be  very  desirable  if  they  should  be. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  think  the  introduction  of  this  system,  if  it 
does  anything,  ought  to  be  able  to  reduce  the  hours  of  labor? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  It  ought  to  make  it  possible  for  the  hours  of  labor  to  be  re- 
duced, and  living  conditions  to  be  improved,  and  I  think  it  would. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  all. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Do  you  know  of  any  establishments  that  have 
adopted  scientific  management  in  which  you  think  the  men  were  being  driven 
beyond  what  would  be  considered  a  proper  amount  of  exertion? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  have  not,  in  my  own  knowledge,  no;  but  I  think  it  quite 
likely  that  it  would  happen. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Have  you  known  of  establishments  which  have  not 
had  scientific  management  in  which  they  have  been  driven? 

Mr.  BKANDEIS.  I  have  known  of  a  great  many. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Now,  we  learn  from  the  working  people  that  in  some 
establishments  which  have  scientific  management  the  men  are  driven;  if  we 
should  find,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  they  were  driven,  on  investigation,  would 
you  say  that  that  was  scientific  management? 

Mr.  BBANDEIS.  I  should  think  that  it  was  a  miapprehension  of  it,  that  it  was 
not  perfect  scientific  management,  and  I  should  say  that  what  had  happened 
had  probably  happened  because  the  men  did  not  have  intelligent  and  effective 
protection,  such  as  the  union  ought  to  be  able  to  give  them. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Then,  to  get  at  a  definition  of  what  is  scientific  man- 
agement, have  you  worked  out  in  your  own  mind  certain  rules  or  principles 
that  we  could  apply  as  a  test  of  whether  it  is  scientific  or  unscientific? 

Mr.  BBANDEIS.  Well,  I  think  it  would  come,  in  dealing  with  the  particular 
question  you  refer  to,  to  the  matter  of  application  of  science.  There  is  a 
science  of  medicine,  and  yet  in  therapeutics,  as  in  other  departments,  you 
may  misapply  the  rules  and  you  may  produce  some  very  great  wrongs  because 
you  have  failed  to  apply  them  properly.  I  think  the  rules  of  scientific  man- 
agement, as  they  are,  may  be  perfectly  correct,  and  that  they  may  be  misapplied ; 
and  I  regard  scientific  management  not  as  a  perfected  system,  but  as  a  method  of 
approach  more  to  the  problems  of  business;  it  is  a  determination  to  solve,  a 
recognition  that  there  are  problems,  and  a  determination  to  solve  them  in 
certain  definite  ways.  You  may  be  applying  scientific  management,  but  it  may 
be  applied  imperfectly,  if  you  produce  the  result  that  you  speak  of. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  Other  advocates  of  scientific  management — of  course 
you  are  evidently  a  strong  advocate  of  scientific  management — lay  down,  in 
their  writings,  certain  principles.  I  do  not  find  in  any  of  them  that  one 
principle  which  they  recognize  should  be  there  the  principle  of  collective 
bargaining.  If  we  were  going  to  reach  scientific  definitions  of  scientific  man- 
agement, should  we  say  it  is  scientific  only  when  it  has  collective  bargaining, 
as  you  have  discussed  it  to-day? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  do  not  think  I  should  put  it  exactly  in  that  way.  I  should 
say  it  is  an  essential  condition  to  safety  in  applying  the  method  of  operating 
businesses,  and  of  solving  the  problems,  that  there  be  representatives  of  both 
parties,  but  I  think  perhaps  it  would  not  be  entirely  accurate  to  say  that  col- 
lective bargaining  was  an  essential  principle  of  the  science — essential  to  the 
safe  application  of  the  science. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  We  are  circulating  definitions  of  scientific  manage- 
ment amongst  the  members  of  this  commission,  and  perhaps  you  would  add  your 
contribution  when  our  effort  gets  around  to  you? 

Mr.  BBANDEIS.  If  I  can  produce  anything  that  is  worthy  of  submitting  to  the 
commission,  I  shall  be  very  glad  to  do  so. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  As  I  judge,  scientific  management  with  you  has  re- 
solved itself  down,  not  into  principle  and  rule,  but  into  accurate  measurement. 
It  seems  to  me  that  time  study  and  any  method  of  accurate  measurement  is 
the  final  analysis  of  the  method — including,  of  course,  the  elimination  of  waste — 
the  object  being  to  eliminate  waste  by  means  of  accurate  measurements  of 
whatever  effort  you  undertake. 


1008       REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BKANDEIS.  I  should  not  put  it  that  way.  I  think  that  accurate  measure- 
ment stands  with  reference  to  scientific  management  as  accounting  stands  to 
business.  You  can  not  find  out  whether  you  have  adopted  the  best  way  unless 
you  have  some  record.  You  have  to  know  your  facts.  You  may  have  the  best 
record  in  the  world,  and  may  be  running  your  business  extremely  poorly.  You 
want  to  know  what  you  are  doing.  You  want  the  chart.  That  is  what  it  is; 
it  is  the  observation  by  which  you  navigate.  Having  taken  that  first  step  of 
finding  out  or  analyzing  or  dividing  the  operation  into  its  atoms,  in  order  that 
you  may  study  it  in  detail,  then  comes  the  question,  and  there  should  be  an 
infinite  field  for  invention.  I  am  using  "  invention "  in  the  broad  sense  of 
finding  the  best  method  of  doing  a  thing.  When  you  have  take  that  time  study, 
when  you  have  analyzed,  when  you  have  a  realization  of  the  fact  of  these 
various  things  that  have  all  been  involved  in  what  has  previously  been  con- 
sidered a  single  operation,  and  learned  to  eliminate  one  after  another,  that  is 
the  process  which  becomes  possible  through  your  time  study  or  through  your 
careful  analysis.  But  it  is  another  process  of  the  mind.  I  should  regard  the 
time  study,  however  important  it  is,  as  but  a  very  small  part  of  the  science  of 
management. 

Taking  scientific  management  as  a  whole,  the  most  important  thing  in  it  is  its 
preparedness,  its  converting  the  business,  elevating  the  business  into  a  propo- 
sition of  engineering,  thinking  out  in  advance  how  a  thing  ought  to  be  done,  what 
the  processes  ought  to  be,  and  making  sure  that  they  are  done  according  to  the 
schedule  which  you  have  worked  out ;  that  there  are  no  accidents ;  that  there 
are  no  things  happening  by  chance.  There  is  where  a  very  large  part  of  the 
great  advance  has  got  to  come — that  everything  is  known.  Of  course,  in  that 
comes  the  process  of  development  of  the  individual,  so  that  he  fits  into  the  par- 
ticular job,  just  as  the  particular  operation  fits  in  at  the  proper  time. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  To  get  back,  let  me  ask  this  other  question :  In  this 
discussion,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned  with  it,  it  is  not  so  much  dealing  with 
machinery  and  mechanical  things  that  can  be  measured,  but  it  is  dealing  with  a 
bargain  between  two  people — an  employer  and  employee,  or  a  corporation  and  a 
union.  It  is  not  like  the  science  of  astronomy  or  any  of  the  sciences  of  business 
which  tell  you  where  you  best  markets  are  and  where  you  can  make  the  best 
sale  and  where  you  can  buy  the  cheapest ;  but  it  is  the  one  specific  thing  of  mak- 
ing a  wage  bargain.  The  engineer  can  deal  with  machinery  and  the  routing 
and  systematizing.  But  is  there  any  principle  that  differs  from  a  mechanical 
principle  that  could  be  applied  to  this  human  thing,  which  is,  as  you  stated,  an 
expression  of  power — one  power  against  another — in  reaching  a  bargain  which 
is  figured  out,  in  a  way?  Is  there  not  some  principle  there  that  is  quite  differ- 
ent from  that  usually  recognized  as  scientific?  Must  we  not  recognize  some- 
thing else  that  is  not  scientific? 

Mr.  BBANDEIS.  I  do  not  think  anything  ceases  to  be  scientific.  I  suppose  we 
speak  of  economics  as  a  science.  It  is  a  fairly  inexact  science.  We  speak  of 
ethics  as  a  science.  They  are  all  fairly  inexact.  Still,  we  are  endeavoring  to 
approach  to  some  recognition  of  human  law  and  of  applying  human  law.  The 
ultimate  problems  in  the  wage  system  have  got  to  be  human  problems — how 
men  are  to  get  on  with  one  another  and  what  ultimately  shall  be  the  share  of 
the  one  or  the  other  in  comfort  or  in  money.  There  is  not  any  science,  in  the 
strict  sense  of  laying  down  a  rule,  easy  of  application  or  mechanical  applica- 
tion which  may  deal  with  this  problem.  The  question  of  how  the  profits  of  a 
business  are  to  be  divided  is  a  question  that  can  only  be  worked  out  through 
mutual  power  or  influence,  with,  of  course,  a  recognition  of  some  fundamental 
principles.  I  can  see  nothing  in  scientific  management  that  should  be  a  substi- 
tute for  that  process  of  adjustment,  but  I  do  think  that  it  makes  possible  an 
adjustment,  because  it  opens  up  an  entirely  new  field  of  profit)  and  therefore 
the  natural  and  proper  demand  of  the  working  classes  for  better  conditions,  in 
which  the  whole  community  is  as  much  interested  as  they  are  themselves. 
Those  demands  can  be  met,  and  it  offers  a  solution,  or  a  partial  solution,  in  the 
problem  of  discontent,  because  it  opens  up  new  fields.  It  presents,  in  respect 
to  existing  industrial  discontent,  the  same  sort  of  solution  that  the  opening  up 
of  immense  western  lands  presented  to  the  problems  of  civilization  50  years  ago. 
It  was  not  any  solution  at  all  for  the  ultimate  problem,  but  it  gave  a  way  out, 
and  it  seems  to  me  that  is  just  what  scientific  management  does  here.  If  it  is 
a  fact,  as  it  appears  to  be,  that  we  can  increase  the  productivity  of  men  30 
or  50  or  100  per  cent  or  more,  there  is  the  chance  to  satisfy  the  natural  demand 
of  American  civilization,  just  as  we  could  if  we  had  to  offer  them  that  immense 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  1009 

virgin  soil,  as  we  had  the  opportunity  of  offering  25  or  50  years  ago.  That  is 
the  thing ;  and  it  seems  to  me  we  have  the  greater  need  as  a  community,  as  well 
as  working  men;  we  have  the  greater  need  of  the  full  utilization  of  the  con- 
servation of  energy  which  is  afforded  here,  because  our  free  lands  are  practi- 
cally exhausted  in  America  now,  and  we  are  coming  to  meet  the  difficult  prob- 
lems of  increased  cost  of  living  incident  upon  the  agricultural  lands  being  fully 
taken  up.  The  community  needs  this  as  a  whole,  just  as  the  workman  needs  it, 
largely  for  that  reason. 

Commissioner  COMMONS.  That  is  all. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Garretson  wants  to  ask  another  question. 

Commissioner  GAERETSON.  Mr.  Brandeis,  I  want  to  ask  another  question 
that  I  overlooked  before.  Would  you  regard  an  allowance  in  time  to  the  em- 
ployee performing  a  task  more  efficiently  as  just  as  much  a  bonus  as  though 
he  were  paid  an  added  price  therefor? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  You  mean  an  allowance  of  free  time? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Yes. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  You  mean  shorter  hours  of  work? 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  In  other  words,  if  he  finished  an  eight-hour  day  in 
seven  hours;  if  he  was  allowed  the  eighth  either  to  sell  back  or  to  use  for 
himself,  would  you  consider  that  just  as  much  a  bonus  as  if  a  certain  addition 
of  pay  were  granted  and  he  was  used  for  the  hour? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think  under  the  circumstances  it  might  be  more  valuable 
than  the  additional  pay. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Has  your  attention  ever  been  attracted  to  the  fact 
that  one  of  the  largest  industries  in  the  country  has  been  paying  on  that  bonus 
system  for  30  years? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  It  has  been  not  uncommon  in  the  shoe  industry. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  mean  universally  in  an  industry. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  have  not  known  of  it  as  a  universal  thing. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Have  you  ever  had  occasion  to  look  over  the  trade 
agreement  in  effect  on  any  railroad  on  this  continent,  between  either  the 
Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers,  the  Brotherhood  of  Firemen  and  Engine- 
men,  the  Brotherhood  of  Railway  Trainmen,  or  the  Order  of  Railway  Con- 
ductors, on  the  one  hand,  and  the  employing  company  on  the  other  hand? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  do  not  recall  that  I  ever  made  any  study  of  it. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  It  is  universal  on  the  continent,  including  the 
countries  of  Mexico  and  Canada.  Every  freight  mile  that  is  run  on  this  con- 
tinent is  paid  on  a  time-bonus  basis.  All  the  agreements  read  like  this,  and 
this  is  the  standard  phrase  in  every  one  of  them : 

"  One  hundred  miles  or  less,  ten  hours  or  less,  constitute  a  day." 

If  they  run  1  mile  in  10  hours,  or  if  they  run  100  miles  in  1  hour,  they  have 
rendered  an  equivalent  for  the  daily  wage,  and  all  the  other  time  is  theirs. 
It  is  usual  on  what  are  known  as  the  "  red-ball "  trains — I  suppose  you  have 
become  familiar  with  that  phrase — that  run  at  12  or  14  or  16  miles  an  hour, 
hauling  competitive  freight  from  one  terminal  to  another,  that  it  will  run  100 
miles  in  6  hours.  On  arrival  that  entire  crew  are  paid  for  that  100  miles,  in 
accordance  with  the  agreement,  and  the  other  four  hours  are  theirs;  and  that 
has  been  universal  in  application  for  20  years,  has  been  common  for  30  years, 
and  exceptional  for  35  years. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  think  there  is  one  difficulty  in  that  situation.  The  running 
of  that  in  a  short  time,  or  the  failure  to  make  the  100  miles  in  5  hours  instead 
of  10  hours,  may  be  due  in  very  large  measure  to  causes  for  which  the  train- 
men themselves  are  in  no  respect  responsible. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  true.  That  influence  would  be  a  re- 
tardant? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  Yes. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  It  could  not  accelerate  beyond  a  certain  point,  but 
it  could  retard? 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  It  could  conceivably  retard. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Overtime  or  overmileage  is  paid  in  addition  to 
that,  if  their  hours  or  miles  should  exceed  that. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  That  suggests  to. me  a  thought  which  has  been  very  much 
in  my  mind  in  connection  with  railway  service,  of  an  opportunity  that  I  think 
was  lost  in  the  introduction  of  scientific  management.  The  greatest  single  item 
of  expense  on  railroads,  as  you  know,  is  coal. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Yes. 

38819°— 16 64 


1010       REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  The  amount  of  coal  used  is  very  largely  dependent  upon  the 
engineer  and  the  fireman.  They  can  make  the  coal  go  further  or  not,  as  they 
please,  and  the  limits  as  to  what  they  can  do  are  well  known.  The  tests  show 
that  it  would  be  comparatively  easy  to  reduce  consumption  25  per  cent  and 
quite  conceivable  to  do  it  50  per  cent.  It  seemed  to  me  that  when  the  proposi- 
tion came  up  for  increasing  the  wages  of  the  engineers  and  firemen,  there  was 
the  chance  to  apply  scientific  management.  Taking  the  whole  situation  as  it 
was,  the  user  of  coal,  as  it  was,  here  men  could  have  been  paid  according  to 
their  performance  in  the  use  of  the  coal.  If  less  coal  had  been  used  to  pro- 
duce a  given  result,  of  course  there  would  have  been  a  great  saving.  That 
saving  might  have  been  paid  in  considerable  part  to  those  who  brought  it 
about.  It  would  not  have  involved  more  work,  except  certain  brain  work  on 
the  part  of  the  engineer  or  fireman.  It  would  have  involved  more  care  and 
less  physical  work,  if  anything.  It  would  not  have  involved  the  discharge  of  a 
single  man,  because  you  would  have  had  the  same  locomotive  engineer  and 
fireman  employed.  But  you  would  have  had  a  clear  case  of  the  saving  affected 
in  a  necessary  element  in  railroad  operation  through  the  application  of  care 
and  intelligence  on  the  part  of  the  men  who  were  performing  the  duty,  and  the 
men  themselves,  the  engineer  and  the  firemen,  would  have  been  better  off  and 
worthier  men,  and  developed  themselves  by  that  application. 

It  seems  to  me  there  was  and  is  still  a  great  opportunity  for  the  application 
of  scientific  management. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  Have  you  ever  known  of  but  one  effort  to  intro- 
duce it  on  those  men?  - 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  I  have  known  of  very  little  effort. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  There  has  been  one  railroad  where  it  was  tried, 
and,  so  far  as  I  know,  only  one.  But  I  think  some  of  the  elements  that  en- 
tered into  that  have  probably  gotten  away  from  you. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  That  is  quite  possible. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSOIS.  Bear  this  in  mind:  I  am  only  talking,  not  from 
personal  knowledge,  because  I  was  in  no  way  connected  with  the  case.  Here 
is  what  men  said  to  me  afterwards.  I  never  happened  to  come  in  contact  per- 
sonally with  scientific  management  as  applied  to  my  own  men,  because,  under 
the  system  we  operate,  it  is  not  possible  yet  that  it  could  produce  any  greater 
state  of  efficiency  in  train  movement — I  am  speaking  of  the  train,  and  not  the 
engine — than  now  exists.  But  in  this  instance  the  allegation  is  made  by 
those  who  did  work  in  connection  with  it  that  it  did  involve  the  application, 
extra  work,  and  more  time.  I  do  not  pretend  to  pass  on  the  correctness  or 
incorrectness  of  that  statement,  but  it  was  from  that  viewpoint  that  the 
engineers  opposed  it,  as  I  understand  it.  Mr.  Stone  has  never  told  me.  I  have 
heard  this  from  the  men  who  were  on  that  line. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  I  have  no  doubt  it  involves  more  care.  It  involves  a  certain 
amount  of  education,  and  it  involves  time  in  acquiring  education. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  I  was  speaking  of  the  loss  of  time  in  transit. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  I  understand  that  it  is  not  true  that  it  involves  a  loss  of 
time,  or  at  all  events  that  it  would  not  come  quite  within  the  time  limits  that 
are  fixed.  I  am  told  that  Col.  Goethals  undertook  exactly  that  method  in 
operating  the  railway  in  connection  with  the  canal  and  has  had  the  most 
successful  results. 

Commissioner  GAUBETSON.  I  do  not  know  as  to  that.  I  have  not  canal 
jurisdiction. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  I  think  you  will  find  it  in  his  reports  that  he  has  undertaken 
exactly  the  methods  laid  down  by  the  scientific  managers  to  undertake  to  in- 
struct the  men ;  that  he  employed  traveling  engineers 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON  (interrupting).  Every  road  does. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS  (continuing).  Who  went  about  and  instructed  these  men  in 
the  methods,  and  that  as  he  instructed  them  it  produced  this  economy  in  fuel 
consumption. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  There  is  not  a  railroad  on  the  continent,  to  any 
extent,  that  does  not  employ  traveling  engineers  for  those  purposes,  those 
positions  being  filled  by  men  who  have  long  developed  excellence. 

Mr.  BEANDEIS.  What  I  mean  is  that  there  is  the  opportunity  for  the  applica- 
tion of  a  standard.  Give  a  man  something  that  he  can  measure  his  performance 
with.  Whether  he  is  going  to  use  more  coal  or  less  coal  ought  to  be  a  subject 
of  tremendous  interest  to  each  man. 

Commissioner  GAEEETSON.  There  is  no  question  about  that. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  1011 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  And  he  ought  to  have  an  accurate  test  of  it.  He  not  only 
feels  satisfaction  if  he  succeeds  in  running  with  less  coal,  but  he  ought  to  be 
rewarded  according  as  he  does. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  have  no  doubt  the  spirit  that  actuated  the  men 
in  that  one  instance — the  only  one  I  know  of,  to  wit,  the  Santa  Fe — was  some- 
thing like  this:  It  is  a  misfortune  that  you  have  not  been  here  during  this 
hearing 

Mr.  BRANDEIS  (interrupting).  I  presume  that  is  true. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  Men  do  not  take  kindly  to  being  "  shooed."  I 
believe  if  you  had  sat  there,  as  I  have,  during  these  days,  you  would  have 
gotten  the  same  impression.  While  nobody  has  put  it  in  such  terms,  I  gathered 
the  idea  from  the  testimony  of  the  men  who  are  the  fathers  of  the  system,  that 
the  mission  they  were  exercising  was  to  correct  the  mistakes  that  God  Almighty 
had  made  in  the  creation — to  get  all  men  just  alike,  to  abolish  individuality 
absolutely,  and  turn  them  out  like  tin  plate.  Man  will  never  accept  anything 
with  that  spirit  brought  to  him. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  He  ought  not  to.  Taking  this  particular  instance  which  we 
have  been  discussing  about  the  user  of  coal,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  any  10 
men  who  are  running  engines,  under  exactly  the  same  conditions  on  the  same 
road,  would  come  out  alike. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  No ;  of  course  not. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  Every  man  would  be  different  from  every  other  one. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  a  foregone  conclusion. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  And  every  man  would  obtain  his  particular  result  differently 
from  the  others,  and  he  would  have  something  to  measure  by  as  the  result. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  There  is  a  lot  in  the  way  men  are  approached. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  Exactly. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  I  think,  judging  from  what  I  have  seen  of  men  in 
other  occupations — I  have  seen  a  man  who  made  a  bet  that  he  would  go  out 
with  a  bunch  of  twenty -dollar  gold  pieces  in  a  certain  crowd  and  there  would 
not  be  a  man  take  one  of  them,  and  he  made  good,  because  they  would  not 
take  his  money.  He  had  good  twenty-dollar  gold  pieces  and  wanted  to  give 
them  away,  but  they  would  not  take  them.  That  is  true  of  other  things. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  Absolutely ;  that  is  true. 

Commissioner  GARRETSON.  That  is  all. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Just  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the  record,  I 
am  sure  Commissioner  O'Connell  inadvertently  made  a  statement  that  Mr. 
Taylor  while  on  the  witness  stand  had  said  he  would  not  favor  giving  labor  a 
voice  until  some  several  years  after  the  system  had  been  introduced.  In  look- 
ing over  my  notes  I  find  this  is  what  Mr.  Taylor  said 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  may  have  gotten  the  wrong  name;  it  may  have 
been  another  witness. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Here  is  what  Mr.  Taylor  said : 

"  I  think  well  of  giving  labor  a  voice  in  determining  these  prices  and 
premiums  under  scientific  management." 

It  was  Mr.  Mixter  who  said  he  would  not  give  labor  a  voice ;  that  he  would 
not  think  it  wise  to  give  a  voice  until  the  bonus  had  passed  the  experimental 
stage. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Which  was  about  five  years? 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  names  do  not  cut  any  figure;  it  is  all  in  one 
family. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Except  that  it  might  do  Mr.  Taylor  an  injustice. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Brandeis,  in  the  statement  you  have  made  you 
have  pretty  fully  covered  the  questions  I  was  going  to  ask ;  but  I  want  to  hand 
you  the  tentative  definition  that  has  been  prepared  by  some  of  us,  and  I  wish 
you  would  take  the  pains  to  go  over  it  and  give  us  the  benefit  of  your  criticism, 
rewriting  it  entirely  if  you  wish. 

Mr.  BRANDEIS.  I  shall  be  glad  to  do  so. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  certainly  very  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr. 
Brandeis,  for  appearing  before  us. 

We  will  take  a  recess  now  for  about  10  minutes,  and  will  reconvene  at  25 
minutes  of  5. 

(Whereupon,  at  4.25  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  commission  took  a  10-minutes  recess, 
and  at  the  expiration  of  the  recess  reconvened  and  proceeded  as  follows : ) 


1012       REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

TESTIMONY  OF  MR.  JAMES  GOLDEN— Recalled. 

Mr.  THOMPSON.  If  the  commission  please,  we  have  finished  the  direct  exami- 
nation. 

Commissioner  DELANO  (acting  chairman).  Perhaps  you  would  care  to  com- 
plete your  statement,  Mr.  Golden. 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  I  have  just  this  other  statement  to  make,  and  then  I  think  I 
will  wait  to  be  questioned,  which  might  bring  out  better  some  of  the  things  I 
have  in  mind,  and  if  they  are  not  covered  by  the  questions  I  will  claim  your 
indulgence  for  a  few  moments  to  cover  them. 

Much  has  been  said  here  in  questions,  and  I  do  iiot  know  what  has  been  said 
previously,  in  regard  to  the  attitude  of  organized  labor.  It  ran  through  my 
mind  while  Mr.  Brandeis  was  speaking — and  I  might  say  that  Mr.  Brandeis 
and  I  have  discussed  this  subject  for  hours  at  a  time  within  the  last  three 
years,  and  I  wish  he  were  here  so  as  to  allow  him  to  have  the  pleasure  of 
hearing  me  say  that  he  has  come  over  to  some  of  our  ideas  during  the  last 
three  years. 

In  1911,  on  March  21,  if  I  am  not  mistaken — and  if  I  am,  Mr.  Emerson  will 
correct  me,  as  he  was  one  of  the  speakers  there — we  discussed  this  problem  in 
the  Economic  Club  in  Boston,  March  21,  1911.  I  would  be  glad  to  leave  what 
I  said  to  the  commission,  but  I  want  to  read  the  closing  sentence.  I  was 
speaking  exclusively  in  regard  to  the  textile  industry,  and  being  in  New 
England,  of  course  I  spoke  in  regard  to  the  men  who  were  placed  at  the  head 
of  the  large  textile  mills  and  corporations,  some  of  them  having  from  10  to 
20  mills,  and  on  the  system  of  promotion,  which  simply  meant  that  if  a  man 
came  from  a  certain  family  and  bore  a  certain  name  he  was  made  head  of  the 
concern.  That  has  been  a  constant  grievance  with  us  for  a  long  time  up  in 
that  section,  and  the  process  was  that  as  a  boy  he  went  to  high  school, 
as  a  young  man  he  went  to  college,  and  when  he  finished  the  college  course 
he  came  down  and  became  a  mill  agent,  and  when  there  were  not  any  places, 
or  not  enough  places  as  mill  agents,  they  put  him  to  work  selling  cotton  or 
cloth  until  a  vacancy  occurred.  The  last  part  of  the  speech,  of  course,  is  the 
matter  I  particularly  wish  to  refer  to,  but  I  had  better  read  it  all,  so  that  you 
will  grasp  the  idea. 

"  Efficiency  and  ability  counts  very  little  against  blood  relationship,  '  pull,' 
and  influence  in  securing  the  higher  positions  in  the  management  of  textile 
mills ;  in  many  of  these  mills  there  is  as  much  '  waste '  made  by  inefficient 
management  and  incompetent  management  as  would  give  the  operatives  a  10 
per  cent  increase  in  wages.  Of  course,  some  of  these  kind  of  mills  get  back  some 
of  this  loss,  by  resubmitting  this  waste  over  and  over  again  to  the  manufac- 
turing process.  Then  the  consumer  suffers,  but  the  greatest  sufferers  are  the 
men  and  women  and  children  working  long  hours  under  indifferent  conditions, 
making  amends  for  the  blunders  of  those  '  higher  up,'  blamed,  fined,  and  dis- 
charged many  times  for  imperfections  over  which  they  have  no  control,  and  all 
for  a  wage  that  keeps  them  just  48  hours  from  starvation.  If  this  idea  of 
scientific  management  will  remedy  all  or  even  some  of  these  evils  then  I  say 
let  us  have  it  by  all  means,  if  it  means  a  lighter  burden  for  the  toiler,  if  it 
means  a  better  living  wage,  then  the  sooner  it  comes  the  better.  Organized 
labor  will  not  hinder  it  or  place  any  obstacles  in  the  way,  but  will  do  as  it 
has  always  done,  cooperate  and  assist  in  every  possible  manner,  if  allowed  to 
do  so.  But  let  me  say,  in  closing,  and  I  can  not  say  it  too  strongly,  that 
if  this  scientific  plan  is  another  means  of  still  grinding  more  out  of  the 
employee,  if  it  means  more  production  with  less  remuneration  for  the  toiler, 
then  organized  labor  will  fight  against  it,  as  it  has  at  all  times  fought  against 
industrial  exploitation  of  the  wage  workers." 

That  declaration  was  made  in  1911,  and  I  have  not  seen  any  reason  yet  to 
change  my  mind,  and  I  think  I  am  perfectly  safe  in  saying  that  that  is  the 
attitude  of  organized  labor. 

Commissioner  DELANO.  Mr.  Weinstock. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  have  given  us  a  concrete  illustration  this 
morning  of  what  happened  in  a  certain  mill  where  they  attempted  to  introduce 
the  so-called  scientific  management,  which  led  to  two  strikes  within  a  brief 
period  of  time. 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Now,  would  you  call  that  scientific  management? 
Did  not  the  results  make  it  clear  that  it  was  unscientific  management,  mis- 
named? 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  1013 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  But  engineered  by  scientific  experts. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Yes;  but  if  we  are  to  judge  everything  by  the 
results,  that  was  a  failure,  and  hence  it  can  not  be  scientific,  because  a  thing 
that  is  scientific  is  not  a  failure.  In  fact  the  very  meaning  of  the  word 
"  science  "  is  to  see  the  end  at  the  beginning.  Now,  if  that  promoter  or  that 
manager  could  have  seen  the  end  in  the  beginning  he  would  not  have  intro- 
duced it  in  the  manner  in  which  he  did,  and  the  very  fact  that  he  could  not 
see  the  end  in  the  beginning  is  proof  that  it  was  unscientific. 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  But  he  came  in  there  a  total  stranger  to  the  local  conditions, 
and,  as  I  know  since,  without  even  the  indorsement  of  the  man  who  had  been 
there,  and  who,  as  I  stated,  had  lost  the  job ;  he  came  in  there  and,  without  ask- 
ing the  cooperation  of  the  man  who  had  been  in  charge — and  the  women  in 
there  were  not  even  considered;  of  course,  they  were  part  of  the  machine,  I 
suppose — and  put  it  into  effect. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  You  could  not  offer  any  better  evidence  to  me  that 
he  was  unscientific  when  he  attempted  to  do  that,  so  that  it  was  a  case  of  hav- 
ing the  wrong  man  on  the  job,  and  it  was  not  the  fault  of  scientific  ma'nage- 
ment,  as  I  see  it.  Now,  you  have  pointed  out  that  if  scientific  management 
results  in  grinding  out  more  work  from  the  worker  without  due  and  just  com- 
pensation you  would  oppose  it.  You  probably  heard  Mr.  Brandeis,  who  is  per- 
haps as  intelligent  an  exponent  of  scientific  management  as  we  could  hope  to 
find  outside  of  the  professional  ranks.  You  heard  him  state,  among  other  things, 
that  his  idea  is  to  give  labor  an  equal  voice,  absolutely  an  equal  voice  with  the 
employer  in  every  move  that  is  made.  Now,  if  that  is  done,  the  abuses  of  the 
system  which  you  fear  can  and  ought  to  be  guarded  against.  If  you,  for 
example,  represent  labor,  you  are  going  to  see  to  it  that  in  the  introduction  of 
that  system  it  is  not  abused,  and  if  an  attempt  is  made  to  abuse  it  you  will 
protest  against  it  and  will  have  an  equal  voice  with  the  management  in  the 
matter.  You  doubtless  heard  Mr.  Brandeis,  and  I  should  be  very  glad,  as  a  rep- 
resentative of  the  employers,  to  have  an  expression  of  your  dea  as  to  his  views. 
The  substance  of  what  he  said  is  about  as  follows  :  The  unions  fear  that  the  system 
will  be  abused,  and  also  that  if  it  succeeds  it  will  undermine  unionism.  Both 
fears,  he  went  on  to  say,  are  groundless ;  the  system  can  not  be  abused  if  labor 
has  a  voice ;  it  will  not  undermine  unionism  because  labor  must  be  organized  to 
have  a  voice  in  scientific  management,  and  because  there  is  much  that  will  de- 
mand a  voice  in  the  matter  of  hours  and  labor  conditions,  etc. ;  that  unionism, 
on  the  other  hand,  has  much  to  fear  in  fighting  the  system.  The  system  will 
come  to  stay  and  will  stay  despite  the  opposition  of  the  unions,  so,  in  a  contest 
against  its  introduction  unionism  is  likely  to  be  crippled.  The  wise  unions, 
therefore,  will  work  with  and  not  against  the  system ;  the  success  of  the  system 
will  increase  production,  lower  costs,  increase  consumption,  and  thus  increase 
employment.  Now,  if  there  are  any  fallacies  in  his  statement,  or  if  he  is  in 
error,  I  for  one  should  be  very  glad  to  have  it  pointed  out. 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Mr.  Brandeis  is  speaking  about  a  condition  that  does  not  exist 
corrected.  There  are  some  other  representatives  of  other  trades  here,  but  to  my 
knowledge,  and  so  far  as  it  has  been  introduced,  or  the  attempt  to  introduce  it 
is  concerned  in  the  textile  industries,  I  do  not  know  of  any  instance  yet  where 
organizd  labor  was  ever  consulted,  so  that  I  have  discussed  this  thing  with  Mr. 
Brandeis ;  his  theory  is  right ;  I  believe  that  if  there  is  anything  in  this  organ- 
ized labor  wants  to  do  it,  and  organized  labor  is  in  a  receptive  mood'  to  know 
it,  but  to  my  mind  at  the  present  time  it  has  never  even  been  consulted.  I 
have  debated  this  question  with  several  of  the  exponents  of  the  scientific  man- 
agement plan,  but  up  to  the  present  time,  while  nothing  has  been  said  in  my 
presence  in  the  open,  I  gather  from  what  some  of  the  members  of  the  com- 
missio  stated  this  afternoon,  and  from  a  few  words  dropped  this  morning,  that 
the  belief  is  in  the  minds  of  at  least  some  of  the  exponents  of  this  new  twentieth- 
century  idea  that  there  is  not  any  need  for  organized  labor  any  more,  and  that 
this  is  a  plan  to  be  worked  out  by  John  Jones,  who  is  the  employee,  and  by 
Prof.  Smith,  who  is  an  expert,  and  the  employer. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  Well,  doubtless  there  are.  some,  and  there  may  be 
some  on  the  commission  that  have  that  point  of  view,  but  I  have  not  met  them. 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Just  understand  me,  I  do  not  say  on  this  commission;  I  spoke 
of  the  exponents  of  scientific  management. 

Commissioner  WTEINSTOCK.  Doubtless  there  are  some  that  think  this  scientific 
system  of  management  will  achieve  for  labor  all  that  unionism  aims  to  achieve 
for  labor.  If  there  are  any  such,  I  for  one  do  not  agree  with  them.  I  am  in 
accord  with  the  point  of  view  expressed  by  Mr.  Brandeis,  that  there  is  and  will 


1014       REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    OX    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

continue  to  be  the  widest  possible  field'  for  usefulness  on  tlie  part  of  organized 
labor  in  protecting  organized  labor  against  the  unfair  employer,  who  will  always 
exist.  From  what  you  have  said,  then,  are  we  to  understand  that  if  capital 
shall  agree  that  labor  shall  be  fully  represented,  that  it  shall  have  an  equal 
voice  with  capital  in  all  things  that  effect  scientific  management,  then  labor  would 
not  object  to  the  introduction  of  scientific  management? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  No.  They  would  not  object,  but  I  would  answer  that  further 
by  saying  that  ever  since  my  earliest  recollection  I  have  been  adjusting  these 
things  along  the  best  methods,  etc.  If  some  expert  can  come  in  and  help  out  in 
that  situation,  yes;  but  I  think  we  can  continue  without  the  theorist  to  map 
out  the  best  method  and  the  best  plan  of  scientific  management  and  run  our 
different  industries. 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  Well,  to  make  this  point  perfectly  clear,  let  us 
imagine  that  I  am  an  employer,  employing  a  great  many  men  in  a  plant,  and 
that  you  are  representing  the  labor,  and  we  come  together,  and  I  say  to  you, 
"  Mr.  Golden,  I  want  to  introduce  this  scientific  system ;  I  have  been  led  to 
feel  that  it  has  merit  and  that  I  can  profit  by  it,  that  my  customers  can  profit 
by  it,  and  that  my  workers  can  profit  by  it."  And  you  say  to  me,  "  How  are 
you  going  to  do  it?"  I  say,  "  I  am  going  to  secure  the  services  of  an  expert  to 
come  in  who  will  revise  the  whole  system  and  pick  out  the  weak  spots,  see 
where  there  is  wastefulness,  and  utilize  that  wastefulness."  You  said,  "  I  dis- 
agree with  you,  Mr.  W.  I  do  not  think  you  need  an  expert  for  that ;  I  think 
you  and  the  rest  of  us  ought  to  see  all  these  things,"  and  you  fail  to  convince 
me  and  I  am  still  determined  to  bring  in  this  expert,  believing  that  he  has  more 
knowledge  along  these  lines  that  he  has  specialized  on  than  you  and  I  have  to- 
gether, and  I  say,  "  We  differ  on  this  point.  I  can  not  convince  you  and  you 
can  not  convince  me,  and  we  are  a  hung  jury ;  but  I  am  perfectly  willing,  if  you 
wrish,  that  you  shall  have  an  equal  voice  with  myself  in  any  changes  that  may 
be  brought  about,  and  if  we  can  not  agree  wre  will  submit  the  matter  to  a  third 
party  and  we  will  both  abide  by  the  decision."  What  would  be  your  answer? 
Mr.  GOLDEN.  That  we  would  like  the  expert  to  come  in  and  show  us  what  he 
knew. 

Commissioner  WEIN  STOCK.  You  would  have  no  objection  under  those  con- 
ditions? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  None  whatever. 

Commissioner  WEINSTOCK.  I  have  nothing  further  to  say. 
Mr.  GOLDEN.  We  want  him  to  come  in  there  and  show  us  what  his  knowledge 
is;  we  would  welcome  him. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Garretson? 
Commissioner  GARRETSON.  No. 
The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Lennon? 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  want  simply  to  bring  out  a  little  further  one  point 
that  Mr.  Weinstock  raised.  If  you  were  assured,  as  president  of  your  organi- 
zation, and  through  that  could  assure  the  members  that  a  proposition  to  put 
scientific  management  into  one  of  the  mills  was  to  be  done  in  entire  cooperation 
with  organized  labor  in  the  mills,  would  you  give  it  the  necessary  investigation 
to  determine  as  to  whether  it  would  be  good  or  not,  and  fairly  judge  as  to  its 
merits? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Oh,  yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  And  if  you  found  it  good  you  would  go  ahead  with 
the  proposition? 
Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  LENNON.  I  do  not  care  to  ask  anything  more. 
The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mrs.  Harriman? 
Commissioner  HARRIMAN.  No. 
The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  O'Connell? 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  You  say  that  the  system  has  not  been  introduced 
in  any  of  the  mills  as  a  whole,  except  possibly  in  some  one  mill,  and  that  i 
a  sort  of  unknown  commodity? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Here  and  there  in  spots. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Not  enough  to  be  made  a  criterion  as  to  whether 
the  product  of  the  plant  has  been  increased  or  decreased,  or  the  wages  in- 
creased or  decreased,  excepting  some  occasional  case  that  has  come  1 

D'  Mr. GOLDEN.  Why,  yes;  it  has  not  been.  Of  course,  you  realize  that  the  tex- 
tile industry  is  a  very  large  industry,  and  when  you  say  the  textile  industry 
you  take  in  everything  that  I  mentioned  this  morning. 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR.  1015 

As  we  view  it,  and  when  I  say  we,  I  mean  we  labor  men,  it  has  not  hit  the 
textile  industry  yet  very  hard,  but  it  is  shaping  toward  that  for  the  simple 
reason  that  the  case  I  recited  this  morning  occurred  in  one  of  our  largest 
textile  cities.  Now,  I  have  got  some  evidence  here  which  I  will  leave  with 
this  commission.  When  we  started  this  discussion  in  1911  Mr.  Brandeis  was 
part  of  the  discussion  at  the  time;  it  was  put  into  effect  in  a  certain  mill  and 
was  given  a  two  years'  trial;  they  had  convinced  a  number  of  doubting 
Thomases  that  it  was  all  right,  and  then  they  made  the  effort  to  convince  me.  I 
do  not  know  whether  my  friend  Duncan  has  been  in  Missouri  any  more  than 
twice,  but  I  have  been  there  several  times,  and  I  said  they  had  to  show  me ; 
so  I  made  arrangements  and  made  the  request  that  I  be  allowed  to  investigate 
it,  and  I  want  to  say  in  justice  to  the  employers  who  I  believe  were  con- 
scientious in  the  thing,  I  was  given  permission  to  go  in  there  and  make  a 
personal  investigation.  After  I  had  made  an  investigation  of  the  system  and 
had  ascertained  how  it  was  working  and  so  forth,  I  found  that  a  large  per- 
centage of  the  employees  were  women  and  girls,  and  I  felt  there  were  some 
questions  I  would  like  to  ask  there,  or  at  least  there  were  some  questions  I 
would  like  to  have  answered,  and  I  wanted  to  know  what  the  effect  on  the 
human  system  was,  so  I  made  a  request  of  the  employer  if  I  could  bring  a 
woman  there  and  make  inquiries,  and  so  forth,  and  would  he  have  any  objec- 
tions, and  he  said  no.  So  I  brought  one  of  our  experienced  representatives, 
and  she  was  allowed  to  go  in  the  mill  and  she  was  allowed  to  interview  the 
women  and  the  girls,  and  she  afterwards  visited  their  homes,  and  she  talked 
to  them  there,  and  that  is  all  here  in  regard  to  the  effect  of  this  system,  where 
it  had  been  in  effect  for  two  years,  on  the  workers. 

I  want  to  submit  that  evidence  to  the  committee,  and  I  only  want  to  read 
one  paragraph.  Perhaps  that  will  suffice  to  show  that  it  is  evidence. 

This  system  was  put  into  effect  by  representatives  who  are  here. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  You  mean  experts  who  are  at  the  hearing? 

Mr.    GOLDEN.  Yes. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Does  that  show  the  earnings  of  the  employees, 
both  girls  and  women? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  It  shows  everything,  Mr.  O'Connell.  Just  while  we  have  that 
question  in  mind,  here  was  one  of  the  systems;  this  was  in  the  weaving  de- 
partment : 

Every  time  the  shuttle  crosses  the  loom,  that  is  what  we  call  a  "pick."  In 
this  particular  mill  they  were  paid  by  the  number  of  picks  per  day,  registered 
on  a  clock.  If  the  weaver  makes  251,400  picks  per  day,  he  receives  $2.41 ;  but 
should  he  fall  below  this  number  of  picks,  he  goes  back  to  the  flat  rate  of 
$1.47  per  day.  In  other  words,  should  they  make  250,000  picks  or  250,400 
picks  per  day,  they  lose  their  bonus  and  go  back  to  the  flat  rate  of  $1.47  per 
day.  That  means  this — you  will  not  understand  the  technical  terms  there, 
but  it  means  this :  The  weaver  works  on  these  looms  and  is  paid  by  the  number 
of  picks  going,  and  his  machine  is  calculated  to  go  all  day.  Nobody  has  ever 
yet  discovered  how  to  stop  a  textile  thread  from  breaking.  It  is  going  to  break 
anyhow,  more  or  less.  If  that  weaver,  working  all  day,  got  within  one  pick, 
going  over  that  loom,  of  the  .necessary  251,400  picks,  instead  of  getting  $2.41 
for  his  day's  work,  he  would  get  $1.47.  I  asked  the  question:  Who  got  paid 
for  the  difference  between  the  amount  of  cloth  woven  for  $1.47,  and  one  pick 
short  of  what  they  would  get  for  $2.41. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  scientific-management  man  would  tell  you 
there  that  that  was  not  scientific  unless  that  had  been  taken  care  of.  I  am  sure 
they  would  say  that. 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  All  that  surplus  of  cloth  from  every  weaver  that  fell  below  the 
251,400  picks,  of  course,  went  somewhere,  but  the  employee  did  not  get  it. 
To  me  it  seemed  a  very  good  proposition  for  the  employer,  because  under  the 
old  system  the  weaver  would  have  been  paid  for  every  yard  of  cloth  he  wove. 
Under  the  new  system,  if  they  should  drive  all  day  and  make  that  necessary 
251,400  picks,  they  would  get  $2.41.  If  anything  happened,  sometimes  some- 
thing over  which  they  had  no  control,  they  came  back  to  the  $1.47,  and  some- 
body got  the  remainder.  It  was  said — I  am  not  in  a  position  to  prove  it— 
that  the  expert  got  $50  per  week  while  he  was  putting  this  thing  into  opera- 
tion, and  perhaps  that  helped  to  >pay  his  salary. 

I  just  want  to  read  one  of  these  statements,  of  which  there  are  a  number : 
"  I  interviewed  another  girl,"  said  one  of  our  women  investigators,   "  also 
a  spooler,  whose  statement  was  as  follows  " — a  spooler  is  one  that  winds  yarn 
on  a  bobbin; 


1016       REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

" '  I  can't  make  the  bonus  every  day.  When  the  work  comes  bad,  and  that 
is  often,  it  is  impossible  to  make  the  bonus.  I  have  lost  19  pounds  in  three 
months  and  am  fearfully  nervous.  I  was  fined  60  cents  this  week  because  the 
work  came  bad.  I  would  much  rather  be  paid  under  the  old  system,  namely, 
for  what  I  produced.'  She  was  in  bed  when  I  interviewed  her  at  4  o'clock  on 
Saturday  afternoon." 

There  are  a  number  of  those  cases,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Just  file  that  document  with  the  commission,  will 
you? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes ;  I  will  file  it  with  you. 

(The  documents  submitted  by  Mr.  Golden  were  thereupon  filed,  and  are 
as  follows:) 

SCIENTIFIC   MANAGEMENT  AS  APPLIED  TO  THE  TEXTILE  INDUSTRY. 
[By  John  Golden.] 

Perhaps  no  subject  has  been  more  freely  discussed  during  the  current  year 
than  that  of  scientific  management  or  what  is  sometimes  termed  "  greater 
efficiency." 

Louis  D.  Brandeis,  of  Boston,  declared  that  by  the  introduction  of  greater 
efficiency  the  management  of  our  railroad  systems  throughout  the  country 
$1,000,000  per  day  could  be  saved. 

I  have  no  desire  to  discuss  the  subject  of  scientific  management  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  railroads,  but  wThen  the  ardent  advocate  of  this  most  wonder- 
ful panacea — greater  efficiency — heralded  it  as  a  cure-all  for  every  industrial 
disease,  real  or  imaginary,  for  which  we  suffered  or  were  supposed  to  suffer, 
and  included  the  textile  industry  as  an  example  of  what  it  had  accomplished, 
I  decided  to  make  a  thorough  investigation. 

The  Brighton  Mills,  situated  in  Passaic,  N.  J.,  had  been  used  on  many  occa- 
sions as  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  scientific  management,  this  system  hav- 
ing been  in  operation  there  for  a  period  of  about  three  years. 

On  March  23,  1911,  accompanied  by  Sara  A.  Conboy,  an  organizer  of  our 
international  union  and  a  practical  textile  worker,  I  began  the  investigation. 

We  first  interviewed  the  officials  of  the  firm,  including  the  owner,  two  super- 
intendents, and  the  representative  of  the  promoters  of  scientific  management, 
who  had  been  assigned  to  introduce  and  carry  out  this  system  in  this  mill. 
We  were  very  courteously  received  by  these  officials,  who  placed  not  the  slight- 
est obstacle  in  our  way  toward  securing  all  the  evidence  possible,  and  whatever 
be  the  evils  of  this  system,  I  am  satisfied  that  the  owner  of  this  concern  is 
absolutely  sincere  in  his  belief  in  the  system. 

The  Brighton  Mills  manufacture  a  peculiar  grade  of  cloth  which  is  used 
in  the  making  of  automobile  tires. 

They  employ  635  operatives,  445  male  and  190  female,  of  mixed  nationalities, 
including  51  English-speaking  male  operatives,  41  English-speaking  female 
operatives,  543  operatives  of  foreign  descent,  394  of  whom  are  male  and  149 
females.  Of  this  number,  272  are  Polish,  88  Italian,  84  Slavs,  the  remainder 
being  divided  between  Hungarians,  Lithuanians,  Germans,  Greek,  French, 
and  Dutch. 

The  mill  runs  116  hours  per  week,  with  two  sets  of  help.  The  day  help 
works  their  schedule  of  58  hours,  beginning  Monday  morning  at  12  minutes  of 
7,  and  stops  at  6  p.  m.,  with  42  minutes  allowed  for  dinner,  for  five  days  in 
the  week,  and  stops  on  Saturday  at  18  minutes  after  12,  noon. 

The  night  help  perform  their  week's  work  in  five  nights,  starting  at  6  p.  m., 
and  stopping  at  6  a.  m.,  with  thirty  minutes  allowed  for  lunch  at  midnight. 

The  sanitary  arrangements  in  the  mill  are  very  good,  separate  clothes  closets 
being  provided  for  each  operative,  clean  toilets  and  wash  rooms  for  both 
males  and  females,  and  a  very  pleasant-appearing  lunch  room,  where  light 
lunches  are  served  at  cost  price. 

The  whole  system  of  scientific  management  is  based  upon  securing  the  very 
largest  amount  of  production  in  a  given  time,  each  machine  being  figured  out  as 
to  what  it  should  actually  produce  when  speeded  up  to  the  limit.  The  price  is 
then  fixed  on  this  amount  of  production. 

Should  the  operator  fall  below  the  standard  set  a  reduced  price  is  then  paid, 
which  is  commonly  known  as  the  flat  rate.  For  instance,  take  the  weaving 
department.  The  flat  rate  of  wages  is  set  at  $1.47  per  day  on  four  looms. 
If  the  weaver  makes  251,400  picks  per  day  they  receive  $2.41,  but  should  they 
fall  below  this  number  of  picks,  they  go  back  to  the  flat  rate  of  $1.47,  or,  in 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOE.  1017 

other  words,  should  they  make  250,400  picks  per  day  they  lose  their  bonus 
and  go  back  to  the  flat  rate  of  $1.47  per  day. 

I  instructed  Mrs.  Conboy  to  visit  a  number  of  these  people  at  their  homes, 
believing  they  would  be  inclined  to  give  their  opinions  more  freely  there,  while 
I  got  in  touch  with  a  number  of  the  male  operatives.  We  talked  to  about  50 
people  all  told,  representing  the  various  departments  in  the  mill.  I  withhold 
their  names  for  obvious  reasons,  but  have  them  recorded. 

Without  a  single  exception,  we  found  the  sentiment  among  the  operatives 
interviewed  to  be  very  much  against  the  bonus  system.  When  asked  the  reason 
why,  the  replies  wrould  invariably  be  as  follows :  Yes,  we  get  a  little  more  money 
some  days — not  always — but  we  are  pushed  to  the  limit.  The  mental  strain 
under  which  we  work  and  our  anxiety  and  fear  that  we  will  fall  below  the 
standard  set  makes  the  job  scarcely  worth  while.  We  were  far  better  off  when 
we  were  paid  for  every  yard  of  production  we  turned  off;  our  overseers  were 
more  kindly  disposed  to  us  under  the  old  system,  as  they  are  now  working 
under  the  same  nervous  strain  as  we  are,  because  they  also  are  paid  in  accord- 
ance with  the  production  of  their  help. 

The  following  cases  reported  by  Mrs.  Conboy  are  a  fair  sample  of  the  many 
investigated :  In  calling  on  two  girls,  who  are  sisters,  I  found  one  of  them  ill ; 
the  other  was  disposed  to  talk,  and  said,  "  I  work  as  a  spooler  and  have  to 
get  off  12  doffs  a  day  to  earn  the  bonus  of  $1.47.  The  first  attempt  was  to  have 
us  get  off  13  doffs,  but  this  was  found  to  be  a  human  impossibility.  Should  I 
get  off  only  11  doffs  I  receive  $1.05,  the  flat  rate."  On  being  asked  if  she  liked 
the  system  now  used  in  the  mill  she  said  "  No,  I  would  rather  work  by  the 
piece  or  basket,  as  in  former  days.  I  come  home  from  work  every  night  ex- 
hausted and  often  wet  through  with  perspiration.  I  never  go  to  any  place  of 
amusement,  being  so  tired  that  many  nights  I  am  in  bed  at  7.15.  We  are  fined 
15  cents  for  bad  work  when  many  times  it  is  not  our  fault,  but  the  fault  of  the 
spinner,  and  this  fine  is  imposed  whether  we  earn  the  bonus  or  $1.47  or  the  flat 
rate  of  $1.05  per  day." 

I  interviewed  another  girl,  also  a  spooler,  wrhose  statement  was  as  follows: 
"I  can't  make  the  bonus  every  day.  When  the  work  comes  bad  (and  that  is 
often )  it  is  impossible  to  make  the  bonus.  I  have  lost  19  pounds  in  three  months 
and  am  fearfully  nervous.  I  was  fined  60  cents  this  week  because  the  \vork 
came  bad.  I  would  much  rather  be  paid  under  the  old  system,  namely,  for  what 
I  produced." 

She  was  in  bed  when  I  interviewed  her  at  4  o'clock  on  Saturday  afternoon. 

Another  woman,  who  is  a  weaver  on  fine  work,  made  the  following  statement : 
"  I  have  worked  there  for  a  number  of  years,  both  under  the  old  system  and  the 
new  one,  and  find  the  work  much  harder  under  the  bonus  system.  If  a  loom  is 
stopped  for  any  cause  you  lose  the  bonus.  We  have  to  wait  many  times  foe 
filling.  We  are  fined  for  stained  threads,  ranging  from  10  cents  to  60  cents, 
according  to  the  length  of  the  stain.  It  is  drive,  drive,  drive  every  minute  of 
the  day.  I  am  ready  to  go  to  bed  the  moment  I  get  home  at  night,  often  without 
supper.  The  flat  rate  of  wages  is  $1.47  a  day.  If  we  get  off  272,600  picks  regis- 
tered by  the  clock  on  the  loom,  we  get  $2.40  per  day.  If  we  fall  below  this  num- 
ber of  picks,  we  go  back  to  the  $1.47.  I  would  a  great  deal  rather  work  under 
the  old  system,  for  then  I  would  be  paid  for  all  the  work  I  do." 

Loom  fixers  get  20  cents  per  hour.  They  get  5  cents  bonus  on  every  weaver 
that  makes  their  bonus,  and  if  all  the  weavers  make  it,  he  gets  10  cents  for 
each  one.  Thus,  if  no  one  else  is  bound  to  drive  the  help  working  under  him,  he 
is,  in  order  to  secure  as  much  bonus  as  possible  for  himself. 

The  men  whom  I  personally  interviewed  were  very  emphatic  in  their  dislike 
of  the  bonus  system,  and  the  substance  of  their  reply  to  my  questions  was  as 
follows : 

"How  do  you  like  the  present  system?" 

"  It  is  no  good." 

"Why?" 

"Because  we  are  driven  too  much  at  our  work,  fined  very  heavily  for  im- 
perfect cloth,  some  of  which  we  are  not  entirely  responsible  for,  and  often  fall 
down  on  getting  our  bonus  through  having  to  wait  for  filling.  Our  bosses  do  not 
treat  us  so  well  as  formerly,  and  taken  all  in  all,  we  would  much  prefer  to  be 
paid  under  the  old  system,  namely,  for  every  yard  of  cloth  produced  irrespective 
of  bonus." 

None  of  the  help  in  this  mill  are  organized.  We  did  have  a  few  members  at 
one  time,  among  them  a  vice  president  of  our  local  union,  but  they  were  so 
openly  jibed  by  some  of  the  underofficials  in  the  mill  in  regard  to  their  mem- 


1018       REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

bership  in  the  union,  that  they  finally  stopped  paying  dues  rather  than  be  sub- 
jected to  the  sarcastic  remarks  of  these  same  officials.  The  man  who  was  vice 
president  of  our  local  union  would  be  often  asked :  "  Say,  Mr.  Vice  President, 
when  are  you  going  to  call  a  strike?"  He  stood  for  this  until  patience  ceased 
to  be  a  virtue,  and  then  gave  up  his  job  rather  than  leave  his  union. 

This  is  the  story  of  scientific  management  in  the  Brighton  mills  as  gleaned 
from  operatives  working  under  the  system. 

The  story  speaks  for  itself. 

When  greater  efficiency  and  scientific  management  tends  to  conserve  and  not 
destroy  human  effort,  when  it  makes  for  lightening  the  burden  of  the  toiler,  not 
to  make  it  still  heavier,  then  and  not  until  then  will  it  be  successfully  applied. 

STATEMENTS   OF  EMPLOYEES. 

(1)  Spinner:  "Work  is  very  hard,  and  goes  home  from  work  badly  tired 
out,  and  awful  hot.     I  make  $1.05  a  day,  and  if  make  bonus  can  get  $1.47. 
Work  is  very  hard  and  we  have  to  work,  oh,  so  hard,  to  make  the  bonus.     I 
have  worked  so  hard  I  lost  19  pounds  in  three  months,  and  am  going  to  leave 
soon  to  do  housework.    I  was  fined  60  cents  last  week." 

(2)  Spinner:  "We  have  to  work  like  dogs,  and  you  will  not  mind  work  if 
they  give  you  what  you  earn.    Last  week  I  lose  my  bonus  three  days  for  only  a 
little  bit,  and  when  I  ask  boss  about  it,  if  I  get  nothing  for  working  so  fearful, 
he  say  you  get  flat  pay  $1.05.     I  hate  my  boss  now,  and  he  was  one  fine  boss, 
but  not  no  more.    Would  rather  work  old  way,  by  the  piece,  for  you  work  hard 
then,  but  get  all  you  work  for." 

(3)  Spinner  (ring)  :  "  I  don't  like  this  way  of  working.    I  don't  mind  work- 
ing hard,  for  we  can  make  good  pay  if  we  make'  the  bonus,  but  if  I  work  hard 
all  day  till  I  am  so  tired  then  lose  that  bonus  I  get  so  mad  I  want  to  swear. 
Sometimes  I  cry,  I  am  so  mad,  but  it  did  not  do  me  any  good.     Every  girl  so 
tired  that  we  don't  know  what  to  do,  only  go  to  bed.    Yesterday  I  had  a  fight 
with  my  boss,  and  told  him  I  was  so  tired  I  must  go  home,  and  I  did." 

(6)  Weaver:  "  I  have  worked  in  this  mill  for  a  number  of  years,  both  under 
the  old  system  and  the  new,  and  I  never  worked  so  hard  in  my  life  as  I  have 
to  work  under  this  efficiency  system.     If  a  loom  is  stopped  for  any  cause,  you 
lose  your  bonus.    Have  to  wait  a  long  time  for  filling  and  the  fines  are  fearful. 
We  are  fined  for  stained  threads  when  many  times  it  is  not  our  fault,  but  we 
have  to  pay  for  it  all  the  same.     Wre  get  $1.47  flat  pay,  and  if  we  are  lucky 
enough  to  make  our  bonus  we  get  $2.40.     It  is  hard  work  in  the  winter  when 
the  weather  is  cool,  but  you  ought  to  see  us  in  the  summer  when  the  days  are 
hot.    But  I  don't  intend  to  see  another  summer,  and  work  like  I  did  last  year. 
It  would  kill  a  horse.    I  would  a  great  deal  rather  work  the  old  way,  for  there 
are  periods  when  a  women  is  not  able  to  exert  every  bit  of  strength  in  her 
body." 

(7)  Weaver  (man)  :  "Like  this  system?    I  guess  not.    But  what  can  we  do 
about  it?    We  are  supposed  to  get  0.01  a  thousand  picks,  but  we  don't  get  it. 
We  get  $1.47  flat  rate,  no  matter  how  many  picks  we  make,  if  it  is  not  up  to 
the  number.    When  we  make  291,000  picks  we  get  only  $2.29,  and  get  $2.13  for 
272,000  picks  on  fine  work.    Weavers  are  worked  so  hard  that  many  of  them  give 
out.    The  loom  fixers  are  paid  by  the  product  that  is  taken  off  the  looms,  and 
he,  if  no  one  else,  drives  us  as  hard  as  he  can.    I  belong  to  the  union,  and  every 
clay  the  boss  asks  me  when  I  am  going  to  call  a  strike,  and  so  I  will  not  stand 
it,  and  I  am  leaving  this  week  to  be  a  baker." 

(8)  Weaver :  "  I  think  that  the  system  of  doing  work  the  way  that  we  have  to 
do  it  is  cruel.    They  only  think  of  how  much  work  we  can  get  off,  and  do  not 
care  how  tired  we  are.    We  can  work  all  day,  and  then  if  anything  happens  at 
the  last  hour  that  we  break  down  or  have  a  pick  out,  it  means  the  loss  of  the 
bonus.    The  loom  fixers  get  20  cents  an  hour,  and  if  our  loom  is  stopped  for  one 
minute  they  are  yelling  at  us,  for  they  get  5  cents  bonus  when  we  make  our 
bonus,  and  if  all  his  weavers  make  their  bonus  he  gets  10  cents  for  each  loom, 
so  you  see  he  just  pushes  us  for  all  he  is  worth.     I  would  a  great  deal  rather 
work  on  the  old  system  than  on  this  new  one,  for  then  we  get  paid  for  every 
yard  we  make,  and  now  if  we  lose  our  bonus  we  lose  a  great  many  yards,  and 
it  is  not  fair." 

(9)  Ring  spinner    (night):  "Work   is  very   hard,   especially   on  your  feet. 
There  is  no  time  to  rest  at  all.    We  work  from  6  p.  m.  to  6  a.  m.    I  get  $1.74  a 
day,  and  my  feet  ache  so  that  when  I  go  home  in  the  morning  the  first  thing  I 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS    AND    LABOR. 


1019 


do  is  bathe  my  feet  and  then  go  to  bed,  tired  out.  It  is  no  work  for  a  woman, 
to  work  all  night,  but  I  have  to  work,  and  you  have  to  work  pretty  hard  here. 
I  do  not  like  it,  and  I  am  going  to  do  housework  in  the  spring." 

(10)  Winder:  "I  do  not  like  this  way  of  doing  work.     If  the  thread  comes 
good  it  is  not  quite  so  bad,  but  when  the  thread  is  poor,  it  is  awful.    If  we  want 
to  keep  up  with  the  work,  and  make  the  bonus,  you  have  to  work  like  fury. 
We  never  walk  up  or  down  our  alleys,  but  we  run  all  the  time,  and  our  backs 
are  ringing  wet  with  sweat  all  the  time.    Of  course,  some  girls  can  work  faster 
than  others,  and  then  those  that  can  not  work  so  fast  must  work  like  sixty  to 
keep  up  with  the  smarties." 

(11)  Man  on  roving  frame  said:  "They  got  us  down  pretty  fine,  so  fine  that 
they  have  only  one  man  doing  the  work  that  used  to  be  done  by  two  men  and  a 
helper.    They  can  afford  to  pay  us  a  bonus  when  one  man  does  the  work  that 
was  always  done  by  three,  so  you  can  imagine  how  we  must  work,  and  if  we  do 
not  like  it,  we  can  look  for  work  elsewhere,  or  like  going  to  school,  go  to  the 
foot  of  the  class,  and  every  one  who  comes  in  will  know  that  you  are  a  slow 
worker.    I  wish  the  old  way  would  come  back  again,  but  I  guess  it  won't,  for 
they  make  too  much  money  working  us  this  way." 

Male  and  female  help,  by  nationalities. 


Female. 

Male. 

Female. 

Male. 

English 

9 

6 

Greek 

5 

1 

American.                

32 

24 

Russian  .  . 

28 

10 

Polish 

223 

49 

Hungarian 

4 

o 

Gorman 

15 

11 

Scotch 

1 

2 

Italian       

64 

24 

Lithuanian  

2 

0 

Slavish 

33 

13 

Poherrnifvn 

1 

0 

Trteh 

9 

French 

g 

6 

Total  

445 

190 

Holland.... 

11 

35 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  The  females  were  largely  in  the  majority,  appar- 
ently, \vere  they  not? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Just  a  moment.  Perhaps  I  should  answer  that  question, 
Brother  O'Connell,  in  this  way :  This  statement  gives  the  nationalities.  There 
were  445  females  and  190  males.  There  were  223  Polish,  9  English,  32  Ameri- 
cans, 15  Germans,  64  Italians,  33  Slavish,  and  so  on,  down  the  line.  The 
Polish  were  in  the  very  large  majority.  There  were  only  9  English  people — 
that  is,  people  that  had  come  from  the  other  side — and  32  Americans,  making 
41  people  who  speak  the  English  language,  in  this  particular  mill.  Seventy- 
five  per  cent  of  the  employees  were  foreigners. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Would  that  run  generally  as  the  average  of  the 
industry? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  It  would  run  generally  in  this  way,  that  whilst  you  would  get 
the  Polish  people  in  that  ratio  in  one  particular  district  or  city  or  town,  you 
would  get  the  Portuguese  in  another,  and  the  French-Canadians  in  another, 
and  so  on. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  mean  the  proportion  of  male  and  female. 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  We  figure  in  our  industry  a  little  over  65  per  cent  or  nearly  70 
per  cent  are  females  and  the  remainder  males. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  you  figured  out  in  your  organization  any- 
thing like  approximately  the  average  wage  paid  the  girl  or  the  woman  in  the 
industry  ? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes ;  the  average  wage  paid  the  women  in  the  industry  runs 
from  about  $6  to  $6.50. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  How  about  the  girl? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  The  girl  will  run  from  $3.50  to  $5. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  Have  you  figured  the  male  earnings? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  To  speak  about  the  male  average  in  the  textile  industry,  you 
would  have  to  take  them  by  their  particular  work.  You  would  have  to  take 
them  in  cotton,  woolen,  or  silk.  In  the  silk,  they  would  be  higher,  and  in  the 
woolen  and  worsted,  they  would  come  next,  as  also  the  carpet.  In  the  cotton, 
they  would  come  lower  still ;  would  probably  run  between  $9.50  and  $10.50. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  That  is  all. 


1020       REPORT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTRIAL   RELATIONS. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  probably  Mr.  Brandeis  would  say,  in  answer 
to  your  last  testimony,  that  those  very  points  which  you  have  raised  would 
be  cured  if  the  system  were  protected  on  the  part  of  the  employees  by  col- 
lective bargaining.  Would  not  that  be  so? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  Yes.  I  think  one  of  the  troubles  undoubtedly  is  that  the  men 
who  are  expounding  this  scientific  management  idea  simply  go  into  the  employer 
and  say,  "  Here  it  is  all  ready ;  put  it  into  effect."  They  forget  the  other 
fellow.  They  do  not  consider  he  has  a  voice  in  this  thing. 

It  might  be  news  to  your  commission  to  know  that  the  great  Fall  River 
strike  in  1904,  which  involved  26,000  people  for  six  months,  was  brought  about 
by  the  introduction  of  a  system — not  by  the  experts  of  scientific  management, 
but  by  two  new  inventions,  one  a  longer  bobbin  in  the  shuttle,  which  lasted  a 
little  longer;  and  the  other,  through  the  invention  of  what  we  call  the  warp 
electrical-stop  machine,  which  stops  the  loom  when  the  thread  breaks.  On 
account  of  that  one  thing  it  lessened  the  work  of  the  weaver,  and  on  account 
of  the  lessening  of  the  work  of  the  weaver 

The  ACTING  CHAIEMAN.  Do  you  mean  it  threw  the  weavers  out  of  employ- 
ment? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  It  did  to  this  extent,  that  the  weaver  who  could  run  8  looms 
under  the  old  system  was  told  to  run  10,  and  in  many  instances  they  were 
expected  to  run  10  looms  for  the  same  amount  of  money  they  got  when  they 
ran  8.  Of  course,  the  weaver,  under  that  plan,  was  producing  a  little  over 
one-fourth  more  as  much  cloth  on  the  new  system,  and  wanted  some  extra 
compensation,  but  was  refused  it,  and  then  came  a  reduction  of  wages  on  top 
of  that.  While  it  is  believed  to  this  day  by  the  outside  community  that  it  wa3 
resisting  reduction  in  wages,  it  was  really  resisting  an  attempt  to  compel  the 
weaver,  on  account  of  the  new  inventions,  which  entailed  some  more  work  on 
the  weaver,  to  do  it  without  receiving  any  extra  compensation. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  How  was  that  strike  settled? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  That  strike  was  settled  at  the  end  of  two  conferences  held  in 
the  statehouse  in  Boston.  Gov.  Douglas  was  governor  at  that  time,  and  it 
was  settled  upon  this  basis:  It  took  $20  per  loom  to  put  on  the  invention. 
Our  people  were  to  run  the  extra  looms,  but  we  would  divide  the  difference  in 
the  amount  of  production  into  three  parts — one  part  of  the  profits  accruing 
were  to  go  to  the  employer,  one  part  of  the  profits  would  go  to  the  weaver, 
and  the  other  part  would  go  toward  paying  some  little  extra  help  that  was 
put  on  there,  which  probably  would  amount  to  about  one-fourth  of  the  other 
part,  and  the  remainder  was  to  go  to  paying  the  expenses  of  putting  in  the 
invention.  Of  course,  in  the  long  run  we  easily  realized  the  employer  had 
the  best  of  it,  because  one  of  the  parts  had  been  assigned  to  paying  for  the 
$20  expense  to  put  in  the  loom,  and  after  that  was  paid  he  had  the  remainder, 
less  the  little  extra  for  the  help  that  was  employed  there. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  anything  else,  Mr.  Golden? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  I  just  want  to  make  this  statement,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  then 
I  think  I  am  through,  unless  it  brings  out  something  else. 

Mr.  Brandeis  and  I  agree  to  a  great  extent  in  regard  to  this  thing  having 
created  a  feeling,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  experts  have  gone  ahead  and 
said  this  will  eliminate  organized  labor,  etc.,  and  that  has  created  another 
impression  that  that  is  the  reason  why  organized  labor  has  shown  some  oppo- 
sition to  it. 

That,  in  my  opinion,  is  not  so.  On  the  other  hand,  speaking  for  the  textile 
industry,  I  do  not  know  of  any  single  instance  where  the  employees,  let  alone 
their  representative,  where  they  were  organized — and,  so  far  as  I  know, 
where  they  were  unorganized — have  been  even  consulted.  But  I  am  not  so 
very  pessimistic  about  this  thing,  because  it  is  something  like  these  revolution- 
ary movements  that  come  sometimes  to  oppose  our  American  form  of  trade- 
unionism.  I  have  a  concrete  case  there  in  a  neighboring  State,  where  for 
10  years — and  I  want  to  say  this  more  particularly  to  the  experts  who  believe 
that  it  is  going  to  eliminate  the  organized  labor  movement,  and  I  want  to  say 
that  in  my  judgment  whoever  brings  this  scientific  management  out  in  its 
true  value  will  find  that  to  be  the  result — in  this  particular  locality,  within  the 
last  six  months,  where  we  have  failed  for  10  years  to  organize  the  women 
workers,  a  man  went  in  there  and  sat  over  the  girls  with  a  stop  watch,  to 
introduce  some  new  fads.  There  are  about  640  girls  employed  in  there,  and 
as  a  result  of  that  they  are  all  members  of  our  union  to-day.  I  think  he 
was  the  best  unpaid  organizer  we  ever  had. 


EFFICIENCY   SYSTEMS   AND   LABOR.  1021 

Commissioner  WEIN STOCK.  You  agree  with  Mr.  Brandeis,  then,  that  the  in- 
troduction of  scientific  management,  as  a  rule,  will  not  destroy  the  usefulness 
of  the  unions? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  It  will  if  it  is  followed  out  along  the  lines  they  suggest.  That 
might  maintain  there.  The  only  reason  that  came  out — if  I  may  finish  the 
story — was  that  the  union  men  all  around  there  were  well  organized.  The 
women  and  girls  had  never  seen  the  necessity  of  organizing,  because  they  got 
everything  that  came  along  in  the  shape  of  shorter  hours.  They  just  had  their 
hours  reduced  from  60  to  54  as  the  result  of  organized  effort;  but  the  minute 
the  man  came  in  with  the  stop  watch  and  began  to  tell  a  woman  who  had 
worked  in  that  particular  job  for  15  years,  and  who  was  old  enough  to 
be  his  mother  undoubtedly  in  many  instances,  how  she  would  have  to  do  the 
job,  and  she  would  have  to  do  it  in  that  way  or  get  out — so  the  bosses  said 
later — they  immediately  began  to  organize.  But  the  injustice  of  the  thing  is 
shown  in  the  other  particular  instances,  where  the  foreign  element  are  being 
dealt  with,  where  the  unorganized  element  are  being  dealt  with.  I  do  not 
know  just  what  conditions  exist  there  now.  If  this  commission  has  the  time, 
either  now  or  some  time  later,  to  make  an  investigation  of  that  condition,  I 
would  like  them  to  do  it,  because  I  can  not  get  writhin  a  quarter  of  a  mile  of 
the  mill  now.  I  was  received  with  open  arms  in  1911;  but  because  we  told 
the  truth  of  what  the  conditions  were  there,  it  is  not  possible  to  get  in  their 
mill  any  more.  But  where  they  are  organized,  our  people — and  that  will  bring 
nbout  intelligent  organization,  and  all  that  has  been  eliminated  in  this  par- 
ticular instance  where  they  organized — if  it  is  allowed  to  go  ahead  in  places 
like  the  one  I  have  cited  previous  to  the  last  one,  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
people  in  our  industry  are  liable  to  be  exploited  for  years  without  anybody 
knowing  anything  about  it. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  anything  else  to  say  Mr.  Golden? 

Mr.  GOLDEN.  No. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you  for  coming .  here. - 

TESTIMONY  OF  ME.  HAEEINGTON  EMEESON— Eecalled. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Emerson,  we  understood  that  you  wanted  to 
make  a  brief  statement,  or  some  supplementary  suggestions? 

Mr.  EMEESON.  If  the  commission  permits,  I  would  like  to  make  a  few  more 
remarks. 

In  my  first  testimony  I  spoke  very  strongly  against  piece  rates.  I  would  like 
to  say  that  there  was  one  thing  which  we  learned  from  piece  rates.  It  was 
brought  out  in  Mr.  Tobin's  testimony  that  the  men  very  often  work  only  seven 
hours  under  peice  rates.  We  did  learn  it  was  of  very  great  advantage  to 
give  the  men  jurisdiction  as  to  how  long  they  should  work.  Usually  when  a 
man  is  working  under  piece  rates  there  is  no  objection  in  his  working  for 
seven  or  eight  hours,  or  any  number  of  hours  he  might  see  fit,  as  long  as 
he  usually  accomplishes  a  certain  minimum.  So  that  feature  of  allowing 
the  man  to  determine  what  he  shall  do  with  the  time  that  he  gains,  I  con- 
sider a  very  desirable  feature.  It  is  one  that  I  might  embody  in  a  particular 
method  that  I  use,  that  was  based  upon  the  contracts  made  by  the  Brotherhood 
of  Locomotive  Engineers  and  the  other  trainmen. 

I  would  like  to  call  to  the  attention  of  the  commission  the  natural  law  of 
work,  because  that  is  a  very  important  matter  that  underlies  a  great  deal  of 
this  modern  movement.  If  a  man  is  going  at  top  speed,  namely,  20  miles 
an  hour,  he  can  only  accomplish  300  yards  in  a  day,  and  he  can  only  do  that 
by  taking  baths  and  massage,  and  being  treated  medically  in  order  to  keep 
him  in  condition.  Three  hundred  yards  is  the  total  output  of  a  man  at  a 
speed  of  20  miles  an  hour.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  goes  3  miles  an  hour,  he 
can  do  172  times  as  much  as  when  he  goes  at  top  speed.  So  it  is  perfectly 
evident  that  there  is  a  very  much  lower  speed  at  which  a  greater  amount 
of  work  will  be  accomplished. 

Long  hours  are  always  more  economical.  If  we  disregard  entirely  the  human 
side  of  it,  you  can  get  more  out  of  a  man  working  16  hours  a  day  than  you 
can  working  12  or  10. 

For  many  years  I  did  not  believe  that,  but  I  have  finally  found  it  was  so. 
Therefore,  we  must  deliberately  curtail  a  man's  output  for  social  and  for 
ethical  reasons,  and  not  for  economic  reasons.  If  it  is  considered  advantageous 
to  cut  the  time  down  to  seven  or  eight  hours,  that  is  a  benefit  which  the  com- 


1022       REPORT    OF    COMMISSION"    ON    INDUSTRIAL    RELATIONS. 

munity  or  the  fabric  of  society  reaps  from  some  of  the  gains  made.  It  is  not 
cheaper  for  the  employer  to  do  it.  It  is  more  human  to  do  it.  But  this  is 
not  true  of  machines,  railroads,  steamers,  glass,  steel,  and  paper  works.  There 
you  really  want  to  get  just  as  much  out  of  your  plant  as  you  possibly  can. 
Whether  you  shall  work  with  two,  three,  or  four  shifts  is  a  question,  of  course, 
for  discussion  and  deliberation.  It  takes  less  men,  and  they  individually  earn 
more  on  two  shifts  of  twelve  hours.  The  plant  undoubtedly  does  better  on 
three  or  four  shifts.  It  is  because  of  improvement  in  the  plant  that  we  have 
been  able  to  progress  from  16  and  14  hours  down  to  12,  10,  8,  and  even  less. 

Mr.  O'Connell  asked  me  whether  I  knew  of  any  cases  under  my  experience  of 
reduction  of  work.  At  Albuquerque  we  advocated  putting  through  a  reduction 
of  hours  from  10  to  9,  when  I  was  connected  with  the  Santa  Fe  Railroad.  I 
recommended  for  the  whole  road  a  standard  of  9  hours  a  day  instead  of  10, 
but  I  was  not  able  to  put  that  through.  On  the  9-hour  basis,  at  Albuquerque, 
a  man  earned  20  per  cent  more  per  hour,  and  a  total  of  10  per  cent  more 
in  the  day,  and  gained  10  per  cent  of  their  time.  We  always  left  it  up  to 
the  men  to  choose  whether  they  would  work  80  per  cent  for  10  hours  or  100 
per  cent  for  8  hours. 

This  is  a  personal  matter  now:  One  of  the  witnesses  spoke  of  the  Emerson 
system  having  cost  the  American  Locomotive  Co.  $800,000. 

I  think  it  is  a  matter  of  record  that  the  giving  up  of  the  system  caused 
an  increase  of  expense  of  $800,000  to  the  American  Locomotive  Co.,  which  is 
perhaps  what  he  was  referring  to. 

In  listening  to  the  scientific  managers  and  to  the  representatives  of  organ- 
ized labor,  and  to  the  members  of  the  commission,  I  have  been  reminded  of 
the  babes  in  the  woods  who  were  buried  under  a  shower  of  falling  leaves.  I 
have  heard  details,  endless  details,  and  very  few  principles.  This  was  writ- 
ten, however,  before  Mr.  Brandeis  spoke. 

By  scientific  skill  we  can  regulate  the  channel  of  the  Mississippi,  but  we 
can  not  hold  the  water  back  by  dams,  nor  can  we  turn  it  back. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  efficiency  movement  is  a  movement  which  began 
centuries  ago,  which  is  now  world-wide  and  is  growing  irresistibly.  You  can 
check  the  movement ;  you  can  not  stop  it.  The  first  thing  to  be  realized  by  the 
people  of  the  world,  by  the  United  States,  by  this  commission,  by  employers, 
by  employees,  by  organized  labor,  and  by  efficiency  engineers,  is  that  the  move- 
ment is  above  us,  superior  to  us,  and  that  our  separate  and  collective  duty  is 
to  play  the  game,  and  that  if  we  do  not  play  the  game  we  shall  be  hurt. 

Several  minor  aspects  of  this  question  have  in  my  opinion  been  emphasized 
out  of  all  proportion.  These  minor  matters  are  devices  of  methods  of  pay, 
of  collective  bargaining,  of  overwork,  and  of  reduction  of  pay.  Devices  like 
slide  rules,  stop  watches,  etc.,  are  interesting,  ingenious,  and  valuable,  but 
not  of  vital  importance,  and  only  important  when  of  use.  Any  method  of 
pay  or  bonus  used  as  a  stimulus  is  a  wholly  minor  matter.  Do  not  let  us 
mistake  the  flavor  of  salt  on  the  beefsteak  for  the  beefsteak  itself.  Coopera- 
tion is  the  essential.  Equitable  division  comes  next. 

I  would  through  cooperation  rather  receive  one-third  of  $1,000,  even  though 
I  was  entitled  to  two-thirds,  than  to  secure  the  whole  of  $100.  There  are  more 
powerful  incentives  than  bonus.  We  have  never  forced  any  man  to  take  bonus. 

Collective  bargaining  about  the  laws  of  the  universe  is  an  absurdity.  We 
can  either  play  the  game  or  not  play  it.  We  can  not  bargain  collectively 
about  infant  mortality.  If  we  observe  certain  laws  infant  mortality  sinks  as 
low  as  eight  per  hundred  in  the  first  five  years,  or  we  can  have  it  as  high  as 
80  per  cent.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  observance  of  the  laws.  Now,  of 
course,  as  to  infant  mortality,  you  can  decide  whether  you  are  willing  to  have 
80  per  cent  of  mortality,  or  you  will  have  eight,  but  you  can  not  get  away 
from  the  fact  that  60,000  bacteria  in  a  cubic  centimeter  of  water  means  a 
very  high  mortality. 

To  overwork  is  a  violation  of  a  law  of  physiology.  For  one  person  who 
overworks  scientifically  there  are  2,000  who  overwork  unscientifically  and 
10,000  who  underwork  unscientifically.  Personally  I  have  no  ideal  of  little 
work  and  short  hours.  I  like  to  work  12  hours  a  day,  and  to  work  faster  is 
my  greatest  pleasure,  because  I  like  my  work,  and  two-thirds  of  it  is  with- 
out pay,  but  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  accept  the  idea  of  underworking  scien- 
tifically versus  underworking  or  overworking  unscientifically. 

Reduction  in  pay :  It  is  a  law  of  the  universe  that  value  increases  faster 
than  cost  of  effort.  Any  proposition  to  degrade  value  is  on  the  face  of  it  an 
idiocy.  Rather  than  try  to  legislate  against  several  million  examples  of  idiocy 


EFFICIENCY    SYSTEMS   AND    LABOR.  1023 

I  would  like  to  see  idiocy  itself  suppressed,  and  suppressed  by  the  encourage- 
ment of  common  sense. 

I  am  perfectly  willing  to  pay  men  $12  a  day  for  eight  hours  a  day,  but  if 
in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  the  game  I  am  also  willing  to  work  16  hours 
a  day  on  bread  and  water,  and  thank  God  for  the  privilege  of  both  the  16 
hours  and  the  bread  and  water,  and  a  good  deal  more  grateful  for  both  than 
for  the  dollar  and  a  half.  If  anybody  has  ever  been  wrecked  at  sea  and  has 
rowed  16  hours  in  a  boat  to  get  anywhere,  he  will  understand  what  I  mean. 

Commissioner  O'CONNELL.  I  have  been  out  in  one,  but  not  that  long. 

Mr.  EMERSON.  It  is  the  game  we  must  play,  not  bumblepuppy,  whether  we 
are  playing  baseball,  football,  chess,  golf,  or  the  game  of  life. 

I  would  like  to  bring  up  some  of  the  questions  of  disagreement,  apparently, 
between  the  scientific  managers.  There  are  certain  systems  that  have  been 
mentioned;  for  instance,  those  of  Halsey,  Taylor,  and  others.  The  funda- 
mental common  ground  is  the  establishment  of  standards  and  their  attain- 
ment, and  that  is  the  only  common  ground  that  can  be,  namely,  the  setting 
up  of  an  ideal  and  a  desire  to  attain  it.  What  the  ideal  shall  be  and  how  stren- 
uously it  shall  be  sought  for,  and  what  the  methods  are  for  attainment,  are 
subsidary  questions.  One  may  use  a  notched  stick  for  a  method,  or  a  Hollerith 
machine.  I  have  seen  the  Igorotes  shoot  dimes  out  of  notched  sticks,  and 
they  preferred  the  dimes  to  the  nickels,  and  I  have  also  seen  the  United  States 
Navy  hit  a  target  at  8  miles  at  the  first  shot. 

Forty-five  years  ago  my  brother  and  I  were  trying  to  find  standards.  We 
\vere  suddenly  thrown  into  new  conditions  in  frontier  life.  We  were  attaining 
standards  as  a  regular  habit  when  Mr.  Taylor  was,  according  to  his  own  report, 
still  soldiering.  In  my  own  experience  as  a  general  manager  I  was  asked  to 
take  care  of  a  plant  that  had  been  trying  to  manufacture  a  product  that  had 
never  before  been  produced  in  this  country,  or  anywhere  else  in  the  world,  for 
that  matter,  successfully.  We  had  to  mix  our  materials  chemically;  they  had 
to  be  weighed  out  on  standard  scales  with  the  greatest  exactness ;  the  time  of 
the  melt  was  an  exceedingly  important  element.  I  went  to  Mr.  Bristol,  and,  we 
timed  the  cooling  of  the  material,  which  was  glass,  and  we  found  that  it 
dropped  a  dozen  degrees  in  temperature  in  one-fifth  of  a  second,  and  that  the 
whole  subject  of  the  operation  of  those  machines  depended  on  how  fast  we 
could  operate  them  in  that  slight  period  that  we  had  before  it  cooled  off. 

Of  course  the  whole  glass  did  not  cool  in  a  fifth  of  a  second ;  it  took  a  little 
longer  time,  but  it  came  within  fractions  of  a  second  that  you  had  to  operate. 
Now,  it  was  not  possible  to  have  any  collective  bargaining  as  to  those  points. 
Later,  when  the  glass  passed  into  the  leer,  we  had  pyrometers  that  recorded  its 
exact  temperature;  they  were  not  allowed  to  vary  more  than  5°.  We  had 
clocks,  and  every  time  a  clock  rang  a  man  had  to  pull  a  handle  and  move  the 
leer  and  move  the  glass  along,  and  the  whole  thing  was  absolutely  a  matter  of 
necessity,  not  as  collective  bargaining,  which  would  not  have  been  possible  in 
any  way  whatever.  It  was  run  on  a  stop-watch  proposition  and  a  clock  propo- 
sition; it  was  simply  a  question  for  the  men  and  the  management  and  every- 
body else  as  to  whether  we  could  make  glass  or  whether  we  could  not. 

We  had  no  bonus,  no  piece  rates,  nothing  but  straight  day  pay.  We  had  to 
keep  a  watch  on  the  men,  or  rather  observe  the  men,  to  keep  them  from  over- 
working the  schedules,  just  as  people  speed  automobiles ;  we  had  to  slow  them 
down.  In  the  cutting  room  it  was  different;  there  was  great  waste  from  the 
broken  glass,  and  by  doubling  the  wages  we  were  enabled  to  increase  the  wages 
50  per  cent  by  simply  lessening  the  amount  of  broken  glass.  It  was  after  this 
experience  that  I  met  Mr.  Taylor.  I  think  Mr.  Taylor  was  entirely  too  modest 
in  pointing  out  the  tremendous  and  wonderful  work  that  he  has  done  in  the 
history  of  machine-shop  practice,  which  he  has  revolutionized  all  over  the 
world  by  the  invention  of  high-speed  machines. 

Mr.  Earth,  with  his  slide  rules;  Mr.  Galbraith,  with  his  motion  pictures; 
they  have  also  done  wonderful  work;  but  I  am  acquainted  with  work  equally 
wonderful  among  men  who  have  been  associated  with  me.  Mr.  Power,  for 
instance,  is  a  man  that  on  one  occasion  when  the  men  had  gone  out  on  strike 
went  out  from  a  conference  with  the  president  and  was  immediately  sur- 
rounded when  he  came  out  by  the  pickets,  and  both  the  president  and  the 
pickets  wanted  him  to  advise  them  as  to  how  to  settle  the  strike.  His  great 
ability  as  an  efficiency  manager  lies  in  the  fact  that  he  can  gain  the  confidence 
both  of  the  men  and  the  employer. 

One  of  the  other  men  associated  with  me,  my  brother,  made  this  statement. 
He  says,  "  You  can  not  get  a  man  to  work  faster  by  offering  him  any  bonus ; 


1024       EEPOKT    OF    COMMISSION    ON    INDUSTKIAL   RELATIONS. 

you  can  not  get  him  to  work  faster  by  telling  him  that  it  is  to  his  advantage, 
or  that  the  work  is  more  economical,  or  for  any  other  reason  of  that  kind.  A 
man  will  cooperate  with  you  if  he  likes  you,  and  he  will  not  like  you  unless 
you  first  like  him." 

Now,  there  are  principles  that  I  think  are  fully  as  important  in  installing 
scientific  management  as  the  slide  rule  or  the  motion  picture  or  the  stop  watch. 

One  of  my  other  assistants  rose  in  three  years  time  from  being  a  machinist 
to  being  superintendent  of  motive  power,  owing  to  certain  qualities  that  he 
had,  of  great  energy  and  initiative.  The  problems  of  organization,  I  think,  are 
more  important  than  those  of  the  stop  watch  and  of  the  slide  rule.  I  think 
vocational  selection  is  more  important  than  the  question  of  the  stop  watch  and 
the  slide  rule.  I  have  known  Mr.  Taylor's  work ;  I  have  gone  into  shops  where 
Mr.  Taylor's  work  has  been  installed,  and  I  have  checked  it  up  and  have  found 
it  exceedingly  good ;  sometimes  he  would  have  made  it  a  little  less  hard,  at 
other  times  a  little  harder.  We  take  Mr.  Taylor's  standards  on  belts;  on  pig 
iron  we  were  able  to  surpass  him.  I  say  no  actual  results  that  have  been 
attained  that  were  superior  to  these  have  been  attained  by  other  methods  that 
were  fully  as  important. 

I  have  noticed  100  per  cent  improvement  in  12,000  men  in  two  years'  time. 
That  seems  very  much  more  practical  than  300  per  cent  improvement 'of  100 
men  in  five  years. 

One  of  the  managers  at  one  time  told  me  quite  recently,  "  We  are  only 
doing  50  per  cent  at  the  present  time  of  what  we  ought  to  do."  He  says,  "  It 
is  100  per  cent  better  than  it  was  before  we  started  on  this  scientific  manage- 
ment." 

System  is  not  efficiency.  The  accountant  is  not  an  efficiency  engineer. 
Strenuousness  is  not  efficiency.  I  regard  the  eagle  as  far  more  efficient  than 
the  rooster,  and  yet  the  rooster  works  a  great  deal  harder  when  he  tries  to  fly 
than  the  eagle. 

In  establishing  standards  I  think  Mr.  Taylor  and  his  skill  are  preeminent. 
They  have  made  wonderful  studies  of  methods  of  establishing  standards,  and 
methods  that  can  very  often  be  immediately  accepted  and  built  on. 

The  question  of  wages :  As  I  said  before,  one  of  the  employers  came  to  me 
one  time  and  said,  "  You  come,  Mr.  Emerson,  and  induce  my  men  to  increase 
their  wages  from  $8  a  day  to  $12  a  day  ?"  I  said,  "  That  is  exactly  the  kind 
of  thing  I  would  like  to  undertake.  The  fact  is  that  the  higher  the  wage  is, 
generally  the  more  economical  the  wage.  I  can  see  no  incentive  for  an  employee 
to  lessen  his  wages,  and  to  destroy  anything  that  he  has  carefully  built  up. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  would  prefer  always  to  secure  the  kind  of  man  that 
required  higher  and  progressively  higher  wages  all  the  time. 

The  ACTING  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  very  much  obliged,  Mr.  Emerson. 

The  hearing  is  now  adjourned. 

(Whereupon,  at  5.45  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  commission  adjourned.) 

o