BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 063
7 502 8
-V- rt Q o /
OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF REVIEW
, /x?
1 1
ECONOMIC SURVEY OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL INDUSTRY
UNDER FREE COMPETITION AND CODE REGULATION
By
F. E. Berquist
and
Associates
WORK MATERIALS NO. 69
VOLUME II ^
INDUSTRY STUDIES SECTION
March. 1936
5337
OFFICE OF NATIONAL RSCOVEKY ADMINISTRAriON
DIVISION OF REVIEV/
ECONOMIC SURVEY OF THE BITTOilNOUS COAL INDUSTRY
UNDER FRES COI,iPETITION AND CODS F-EGULATION
By
F. E. Berquist
and
AsBociates
INDUSTRY STUDIES SECTION
March, 1936
--r:;c;y-
Tne soft corl ninors hpvt ''I'vays bitterly reserted the copl and
iron police. IXirin^j the period of a strike, the police obeyed their
eaployers if they i^ere ordered to brt-k uv oicket linei, meetings or
mfrches. Testimonv re;-.:? re in,-,' brutal and unlr.'-'iul ptt^cks bv copI and
iron rolice u-con coal miners May be ioimd in ooth volu'nes of the Senate
hearings concerninf"^ the investif^ation ot concitionj m tiie coal fields
of Penncvlvania, ' est Virf^inia, anc Ohio. {*) In times of iDeace, the
■■Tolice in the soft coal co.'apa.ny to-ns I'cre alvpys nresent "'ith uniforia
?^nd gun or riot stick and were n constant reminder oi the erolover's
power. Their dutirs "'ere to patrol the co-iipanv to'-ns, to do orcinarv
police work there and to s^iard the company i^roperty botn in the town pnd
at. the inine. The cornprn*'' o^»^ls every souare ioot of lane in the coiipanv
tO'-n and many of the leases provide t?iat ■ or'--er: mav be evicted at
pny time. Since the coal and iron police i-'ere in company pay under
comppnv orders, they "-ere com^-elled to side "'ith their e'lployers in
case of strike. The '--orkers, tnerefore, regarded the coal and iron
police !^s their enemies.
The publicity resiilting irom tht fatal beating of a rainer by r
drun- en co.^1 an'^ iron police led to a storm of protest. (**) ■^ills,
backed by organized labor, "ere introduced in the State Legislature
'■'hiGli. soiigh,t to deprive the coal and iron police of all powers except
the pc^er to guard property. The bill, '-'hich after amendment, -^as
finally enactec on April lb, iy?9, has betn referred to above.
G-overnor Finchot on June SO,. 1951, revoked all outstanding coal
and iron police commissions, "-hich thtn totaled 1,015. The exact
number of men engaged in policing the bituminous incustry in Pennsylvania
is difficult to determine. '.hen the coramistions were revoked, many
employers adopted the cojapany deputy sheriff system, '-hich '-'ill be
discussed belo\i. The G-overnor's Cominittee which , investigated, special
policing in industry recommended that the Industrial Police Act of
1929 be repealed. This recora.-iendation "-as -rcted upon early in 1935,
(b) Couipanv Deputy;- vVheriffs.' Protection of property and main-
tenance of order are duties '-'hich devolve u^jn those operators whose
mining activities center in their ovn co.apaay tc ns. In the isolated
areas where the mining camp population is 'made up of a mi>,.ture of native
"rhites, blacks, and foreign born, the peace of the community is subject
to frequent disturbance. Tax revenue ia these areas is pi ten insuf-
ficient to maintain a large force of peace oflicers. This situation
gave rise to the mine guard system iliicn provides that pn oflicer be
appointed by the courts or the countv sheriff and that he receive
^.onpf.nsation from tht operators. The nine .^ard system .mav be said
to result irOiU tiie inability oi local .-overn'nent to maintain lav and
order. (***)
Public protest ascainst the deputy sherifi system in Logan County,
est Virgini p. resu lted in a ch-^nge in tne method ol paying the
(*) "-'earings on 3en-^te l.esolation 105, ' 7 Jth Jongresr;, 1st Session, 192^
(**) Jo'in "^arkoski of Tyre in Alle.'-:n'-3ny Countv was beaten to death on
February 10,' 19?9.
(***) United States Goal Comiaission .erort, 19?r , Fart I, p. '172. Also
Pennsylvania rueport on Special -dicing in Industry, p. 16.
9fa37 ' ' ■ • ' ■
-230-
^^rds. (*) The oiDerators lopned the County pn pnount eoupl to the
extra cost oi rapintenance of sioecipl deni'.ties, without pny serious
expectption of repayment.
The question of the mine guard system is very closely related
to the matter of civil liberties in the coal .aining corainunities.
Private Dolicing of an o-oerator's pror)erty was especially common in
those areas which v'ere involved in the union vs. non-union co'^troversy.
Testimony has been -presented uioon numerous occasions to the effect that
the primary duty of company deputies "-as to prevent any eflorts to
unionize a mine. (**) In some instances laine guards ^i-re used to
prevent neaceful assemblages and to intimidate dissatisfied miners.
A recent investigation of conditions in the Harlan, Kentucky, coal
fields disclosed that there existed "a virtual reign oi terror, financed
in general oy a group of coal-mine orjerators in collusion '"ith certain
rublic officials; the victims of this reign of terror are the. coal
miners and their families". (***) The report went on to say that "many
are 'oeaten and mistreated in most unjust and un-Ajaerican methods by
some operators using certain so-called 'peace ofiicers' to carry out
their desires".
The '-'orkers generally hate the company de^juties beC'-^use thev are
armed and uniformed men, employed not 'by the public but by the industry.
The mine guard system may be said to engender discontent among miners
which is often expressed in violence during strike periods. In case of a
strike, the deputy is bound to use his authoritv, and if necessary his
force, in the interests ot his employer and to break the strike. This
condition was illustrated by the events which transpired during the
labor disturbances in Fayette County, Fennsylvana, in the Summer of
1933. (****) T/hen G-overnor Finchot revoked all the coal and iron
police com ■'.isfions on June 30, 1931, a number of employers procured for
their private police, commissions as deouty sneriffs. The deputies
received their commissions from the sheriff, but they were- selected
by the co.apany subject to the sheriff's veto. The violent outbursts
during the strike of 1933 resulted in the G-overnor sending a battalion
of the Kational Ouard to keep order.
The United States Coal Comnission as well as other investigating
groups have condemned the company deputy sheriff system. A Pennsylvf'nia
report stated that, "To abolish the company de'puty -system is to strike
at by far the most serious present evil. If all the deputy sherifis
imist be paid by the County, they ^wiH be responsible to all the
citizens of the County". (*****)
(*) Ibid, supra, p. 174
(**) bee U. S. Coal Commission Reports anc Senate Hearings on
Conditions in coal fields, etc.
(***) report of Investic:,;ation Committee in Harlan County Coal Fields'
to Governor Lafoon, jjrankiort, Kentuckv, June 7, 1935.
(****) Report on Special Policing in Industry ,• op. cit.
(*****) ibid, supra, p. 18. '
9637
-231-
3. SSASOIIAL AiD CYCLIC.U, ASPi^CIS QP gJI'LOYiSlTT
The Bituminous Corl IxhMx^iTj hrs.z iLonc •->'3en charr.cterized by a
short averaijre \70rkin,; ye-r, intox'i;iittent oiv-Io/nent, ••■iii'i. cersonal varia,-»
tion in activity. Altho'itrch the uti^-'sonrl and cyclic?! factors are very
iimortant in their e:" "ect::! o.i eirjloyneat, othe:.' conditions hr.vo also been
sijpiificant fron time to ti.ie iiv the pr.at. Por exp:vile, car shortages
prior to 1923 li::ited the o;ooortujriities ;"or en )lo7;iient» Likewise general
strikes or suspensions of ininir.(; activity iri the organized fields have
occurred ft the ternination of maay of the biennial vr^./ie afcreements. The
curve of bituminous -oroducti'-n is characterized in the "even" years by
peaks and valleys arisin.; from such stop-pages. In the period before the
T7ar it TTas customary for the nines in the central conpetitive field to
close dovm a.lmost co:Tpletel.y during; one, t^ro, or three nonths while a new
working- agreement v;as being franed. Wide spread stopi^a^^es reduced the
average number of days worked by the mines.
Another frctor which influenced oij-oortunity for e:.v)loyinent , but
which was neither seasonal nor cyclical in char-cter was the conroetitive
stnaggle between the predoi.iinately union and non-union areas following
the initiation of the Jrcksonville Agreement, April, 1924. Union opera-
tors, bo-und by higher wp^-e scales, (07.50 a dny as against $4,00 to $5,00
in the non-union fields) found their production costs higher than that of
the non-iinion co:.;petitors pjid so v;ere faced with business losses because
of the higher prices. Decreases in orders for coal jiroduced under union
contrpct meant lowered a,verage days worked by nines in the organized fields*
This situation is clearly illustrpted in the following table which compared
the average tip'ole tine for two groups of states east of the Mississip-oi
River from 1919 to 1933. G-roup A States represent the predominately union
areas,; Pennsylvanir , Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana (althoiigh Pennsj'-lvania
begpji to break from the 'oi-iion in 1325 and Ohio was non-union by 1927),
G-roup B States represent the non-union areas (although northern TJest
Virginia operated under contract -ontil 1925 and then abrogated its agreement
while western Xentuc!^.''s sgreement terninated in 1925), It will be noted
from the table that the sprerd in working time between ITorth and South
was greatest during the period of the Jrcksonville Agreement.
9837
-232-
TABLE I
COLCP Allison OF AVLMGa JAYS WORKED PER YEAR
III TT70 GROUPS OF STATES EAST 01^ THE iilSSIS S IPPI RI-ATER
1919 - 1933
Year
Average days worked
in North - Group A 1/
Avera.^e days worked
in South - Group E 2/
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
189
223
147
133
183
163
180
198
160
192
210
184
160
139
158
200
199
151
146
167
163
221
243
236
220
239
198
171
162
187
SOURCE: U. S. Bureau of Mines
1/ Group A includes:
Pennsylvania
Ohio
■Illinois
IndiaJia
2/ Group B includes:
West Virginia
Virginia
Kentucky
These latter situations which have "been discussed illustrate sporadic
conditions which arise out of the human element in the industry and are
subject to control. Seasonal a.nd cyclical factors affecting employment,
however, recur periodically a,nd are in a large measure "beyond the control
of ajiy single group of individuals in the industrycor even of the industry
as a whole.
The number of days a minor is employed has a vital relationship to
his earnings, to the wage rate, and to the cost of coal. Every day which
the minor does not work, either 'because the mine is shut down or "because
of his own ahsance, means a, lowered living standard for the miner, A
higher wage rate which seeks to comjDensate for a short working year means
high cost coal. Fluctuations in working time reflect variations in pro-
duction and are significant to the rain worker, the operator, and the con-
sumer.
9837
-233-
The average nuin'ber of dai'"S -'orked 'by the mines in each year is a
statistical measure of tiie employment riTforded 'by 'biturainous coal mining.
It does not, houevcr, sho'.7 the lyorkini'".: time .of the mine worker except in
a general wry. Fnile it j.:ny reflect the cyclical factor — • prosperous or
depressed conditions in industry and the conseauent demnnd for coal, it
does not show t!iO vrri- tionr.'. -"hich occur within the year — from month to
month — and, therefore, does not indicate seasonality. The data are hased
upon the information furnished hy the operators to the U. S. Bureau of Minest
The operators are requested to state the nurnher of full days the mine
(tipple) Operated during the year (parts of days should he reduced to
eq-aivalent in full days) (*). In some instances, hovjever, an operator
may fail to reduce the fractional days to the equivolent full-time days
and so re-7orts mine "starts" rather than "days worked". Generally speak-
iiig, this error is not serious*
Ti.yole time operation, while perhaps the "best availahle indicator
of the tine during which the caiDital and working force about the mines
are engaged in production, is not strictly accurate as to the amount of
em-oloyment offered hy the mines. The underground force may he engaged
in cutting and loading coal every day in the week, while the mines may
durap coal -over the tip-^le only a few days in the week. Under these cir-
cumstances the tipple tine tends to exaggerate the hourly or daily produc-
tivity.
The -average numher of days worked in a particula.r area is derived
from the figure for each mine .multrolied hy the numher of men em-oloyed at
the mine, -and the sum of thes^ products for all the mines in the area is
divided "by the sum of the raen.euiDloyed. This weighted average is essen-
tial in order thp.t the real conditions of emoloynent may not be distorted
'by the small mines which are ms-ny in number hut which provide only a small
portion of t'ne employment. However, this average figure fails to disclose
the wide diversity in the niij.iber of days worked bot^eeen mines and areas.
Prior to the IT.R.A. a.;full time year in the hituminous coal mines
was considered a.s 308 days, allowing for 53 Sunda^ys and 5 holidays (**)•
During the year 1934, a. fnllyear under IT.3.A. , it wn.s estimated that the
maximum number of working dciys amounted to 258, allowing for a 5 day work
week. The average annual o^^er-ting time of mines for the period 1890 to
1912 was -213 days; from 1912 to 1922, 206 days; ajid from 1923 to 1932
(last full year before N.R.A.) only 136 days. The record of the industry
when como'-red with the full work year (308/ days) shows that from 1890 to
1912 miners -orked only 69,1 per cent of full time; from 1912 to 1922,
67 jer cent; from 1923 to 1932, 60.4 per cent.
(*) Coal in 1922, page 492.
(**) ITe--" Year's Day, I.ieraorial Dpy, July 4th, Thanksgiving, Christman.
Althaagh this list is ty|)ical, most of the holidays named are not
universallj'- observed. On the other hand, days not mentioned are observed
in many localities.
9837
t234-
T^LL II
ITtm'ber of Men Employed mid. Avers,jje ITumber
of Days i lines Operr.ted, 1905 -
1934
(Source: U. S. Bureau of I.'ines)
•Average No, Days
Kurnter of Men
Inde:: of IIo,
Year
Mine Operrted 1/
Smoloyed 2/
Employed
1905
211
450,529
91.5
1906
• 213
478,425
95.1
1907
234
513,258
102.0
1908
193
516,254
102.6
1909
209
499,754
99,4
1910
217
543,000
108.0
1911
211
549,775
lD9a'Z
1912
223
548,632
109.1
1913
232
571,882
113.7
1914
■ 195
583,506
115,0
1915
203
557,456
110.8
1915
230
551,102
111.6
1917
243
603,143
119.9
1913
249
615,305
122,3
1919
195
521,998
123.7
1920
220
639,547
127.1
1921
149
653,754
132.0
1922
142
657,958
136.8
1923
179
704,7'^3
140.1
1924
171
619,604
123.2
1925
195
538,493
117.0
1926
215
593,547
118.0
1927
191
593,918 . .
118.1
1928
203
522,130 ■
103.8
1929
219 ....
502,993
100.0
1930
187
493,202
98.1
1931
160
450,185
89.5 .
1932
146
405,380
80.8
1933
167
418,703
8.3.2
1934
178
458,011
91.1
1/ Avera,4"e veighted on laasis of niiraber of nen enployed at the nines.
2/ The number reported rp-oresents the total of the numbers employed at
individual mines whether oper.-ted for 20, 50, 100, 300, or other num-
ber of days during the year. Thus, for a mine rrhich oparrted for only
■ a part of one month snd.rras idle the remainder of the 'year, the number
of men enroloyed for such tine is included in the total for the year on
the sane basis as if the men had been em-oloyed throughout the year.
The nuiaber re;')orte.d by the Bureau of Mines does not re-oresent, there-
fore, the average enoloyment throughout the year, but rather the num-
ber euToloyed in the year, uhether for the 'rhole your or for only a
short "Deriod.
9837
-235-
Tlie effect of the cyclical factor on -^orkinir; tine nay be noted for
example in the year 1921 rhich '-rs fer.t'ared h;" tiie jost var de~^ression in
indiistrj'' f^euerall;/. Pittv.incus iiiriSG -forlTeG. onl'/ 149 days in 1921 -vThich
V7as only 72.3 ^er cent of the rver-.'^-e for 1912 to 1922. It should "be
pointed out tha.t the r.hort -"cr'rii: : tiue ir. th-3 foll:)"ing year, 1922
(142 days) is not ;attrijutf-.ole to r seaicnal or cyclical fa.ctor, but
rather to the general suspension -.-hich lasted fron Jlpril 1 to August 19.
Again^. the rise in the nunoer of days worked in 1926 may be attributed
to the influence of the ■anthracite strike (ended in Tebruary) and to the
British miners' strike. The yerr 1929, a "boom" year for industry generally
end of iiirproveraent for bituminous coal (output only 7.2 per cent less
than -oeak e3\.rblished in 1913) afforded but 219 -yorking days. The effect
of the general business de-n'ession on the bituiiinous coal industry is
clearly reflected in the declining number of days norked: 1930, it na.s
1B7 days; 1931, 150 days; 1932, 145 days; and 1933 (affected 'oy il.R.A.),
157 days.
rnese data for the Industry a.s a "hole are significsjit in comparing
one year r^ith another; they do not, however, indicate the fluctions in
em^oloyment opportunities r;hich talce place within the year and even within
a iucnth. lloreover, the data^ do not disclose the variations which exist
in one state as compared with ajiother state. The following table indica.tes
the average number of da^-s worked in the ten leading coal producting
states from 1912 to 1934:
9337
-236-
TAP.LS II r
aVEEaGI: ITUlvBEE OP DMS -JOTJZB PEfi YZ^
TEH LEIDISC- OQaL PFiOIUCTHG STATES 1912 - 1934
Source: U.S. Bureau of i'lnes
Year
Peiin,
U.Va.
111.
Ken.
Ohio
Ind.
Ala.
Va.
I ov;a.
Tenn,
1912
252
266
194
201
201
182
245
251
138
234
1913
267
234
189
212
206
190
255
280
195
241
1914
214
201
173
187
108
152
226
235
204
220
1915
226
208
179
186
142
179
223
235
220
220
1916
259
237
198
208
197
187
252
272
202
239
I'gf?
261
225
243
214
210
221
•273
■273
251
241
1918
269
238
238
230
223
227
278
277
245
■265
1919
218
200
160
189
164
148
239
247
175
201
1920
244
198
213
182
183
192
247
252
250
234
1921
151
149
152
152
134
128
156
165
148
154
1922
194
143
120
140
100
110
215
198
131
163
1923
213
159
158
152
150
135
232
212
181
183
1924
180
182
148
184
143
136
220
226
161
159
1925
200
225
161
206
151
159
245
254
153
211
1926
224
247
172
230
159
173
265
■253
183
234
1927
203
235
114
237
98
120
231
238
114
235
1928
218
223
156
212
171
150
222
226
175
225
1929
230
247
177
222
201
172
231
249
195
223
1930
.98
204
155
137
189
157
139
200
155
196
1931
169
176
135
153
174
146
135
175
142
159
1932
153
169
107
154
126
131
105
144
151
148
1933
162
197
133
170
169
150
143
185
138
152
1934
179
196
160
180
167
171
185
200
156
185
9837
-237-
The next tr.ole, shor/int.: the nijiral^ei- of era-:)loyees and then,verage d?ys
^•'orked by states for the •jeriod 1Q£9 to 1933, illustrates clearly the effects
of the general "busincsG de n-c-.;si '•:. v.^y.\ ern-?lo7'jiient in "bitui.iinous coal
and plso uoon the - orMn;; ti e. '2'.\e dcr-ns-'in;; of the business cycle brought
sharp declines in mine -vorker ervfjloyMont. 2?ot ercriv.nle, in 1932 as cornr-
pared \7ith 1929, the ntunbor of en.iloyces in Periiisylvrjaia had declined ap-
proximately 27,000; in Uer.t Virjvinia, li^jOOO; in ICentucliy 16,000; and in
Illinois, 9,000. These figiAres b;--,sed wpon reports made by operators to
the U. S. Bua-^au of Mines do not disclose accurrtely the serious Irbor
siturtion in coal mining; i-hich develoTied out of the depression, noreover,
it inust be rer.ienbered that declinin,/; employment characterized the industry
lon:5: beef re the depression — ever since 1923. (See Chapter 71.)
The coa,l industr;"- is accustomed to intermittent oi^er^tions and its
adjustments to demrnd iluctae.tions rre made not by cuttinjT do'-,rn the -uim-
ber of men on the ppyroll as such a.s 'oy '7orhin<; feuer dajrs. The normal
"orhin^' force cor.nected with a mine ordinarily is emUoyed -jhenever the
mine operates. The number of drys Tjorked reflects irre^jularity of opera-
tion and definitely influences the amount of employment offered. The effect
of the :y .CT 1 de--ir<r)ssicn uion er,Tolo3'"ment opportuniity is shoim by the luirfl-
ber of days m-orlffid in Pennsylvania declined 76 days or 33 per cent; in
T/'est Virginia, 79 drys or 32 oer cent; in Xentuclc.'' 67 dnj'-s or 30 per cent;
and in Illinois 55 days or 37 per cent. (See T"ble II 5.)
The dc-tR. showing the average number of days vrorked by mines, even
irhen broken down by states, do not portray the variations which exist
from mine to mine. It is necessa.r^'' to consider not only the n^junber of
mines which work a specified number of days, but .also the -Troduction of
these mines (*).
As has been str.ted the averr-ge number of days worked by mines do not
necessarily represent the average numbei- of days worked "by the men in the
mines. L'ine working time as a measure of employment must take into con-
sideration the "oercentage of the employees working a specified number of
days in the yeox. The following table, which shows the i^er cent of men
employed in bitiaxainous coal nines ■•orld.ng specified ntxmber of days, serves
to illustrs-te how widely different may be the o^Dport'cuiities for work
among the vrrious mine v.-orkers:
(*) Por a clear explanation of the signif icaiice of average number of days
worked data, see "Coed in 1922", pages 492 -496.
9837
(]
u.
II 5
-338-
TA'aT.n; jY
BITtBIINOUS OQAL
lUUBEE or SIPLOrSES AM) ATEBiaX
BAYS lOBEED BY SIATXS
1929 - 1933
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Average
Average
ATerace
Average
krenge
Number of Days
HUBber of Days
fMiber of Days
HvBber of Days
SvBber of
Days
Saployees
foriced
Srployees
foriced
fttployeee
foriced
Biqployees
totted
S^aoyeee ffbriced
Alabana
25,208
231
24,393
189
22,973
136
30,443
107
18,237
148
Arizona
39
137
24
196
27
115
17
251
33
268
Arkansas
4,299
146
4,626
115
4,733
95
4.325
92
3,671
94
California, Idaho,
Oregon,* Nevaia 42
113
138
74
116
86
141
69
68
79
Colorado
12,057
187
11,091
169
10,028
142
8,749
142
7,908
l48
Georgia
102
260
60
71
62
180
64
208
93
234
Ulinola
56,725
177
53,603
156
49,685
136
47,697
113
44,146
141
Indiana
15,250
172
13,881
157
12,311
146
10,639
146
11,199
163
Iowa
7,295
195
7,901
155
7,897
142
8,086
151
7,696
138
Kansas
5,139
160
4,855
136
3,813
123
3,691
130
3,809
140
Kentucky
58,649
222
56,674
187
47,766
159
42,367
165
43,717
170
Maryland
3,289
246
3,299
197
3,224
190
3,105
150
2,880
172
MlcMgan
1,336
217
1,294
187
1,372
96
940
159
1,186
130
Ulsaouri
5,618
186
5,700
166
6,362
142
6,677
161
6,690
150
Uontana
2,383
189
2.085
172
1,672
153
1,535
146
1,324
166
New Mexico
3,333
214
2,902
176
2,830
146
3,602
127
3,340
168
Horth Carolina
160
260
70
390
32
83
26
66
10
176
North Dakota
1,421
192
1,258
180
1,300
166
1,311
186
1,301
173
Ohio
25,399
201
25,574
189
25,085
174
23,280
127
•26,443
169
Oklahoaa
6,321
178
5,424
148
4,634
115
3,063
120
3,974
128
PennsTlrania
131,774
230
130,150
198
116,726
169
104,532
154
116,453
162
South Dakota
32
127
43
109
56
127
84
126
147
100
Tennessee
7,619
228
7,536
196
7,448
171
7,525
148
7,061
161
Texas
1,313
212
1,305,
181
1,148
140
699
152
803
163
Vtah.
3,458
211
3,504
168
3,268
140
3,842
176
2,906
176
Virginia
12,053
249
11,709
200
11,357
175
10,376
144
9,761
184
Tashln^on
2,946
227
2,801
205
2,663
170
2,816
161
3,S55
168
Tfest Virginia
104,942
247
105,988
204
97,787
176
85,766
168
93,473
196
Iftromlng
4,839
230
5,216
188
4,759
154
4,173
150
3,753
170
Total
Bltimlnous
502,841
219
493,103
187
a/
450,133
160
406,260
146
1/
418,603
167
Source: "Coal in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1933" - United States Bureau of llines annual reports,
a/ Includes Alaska,
9237
d
d
-255-
TA
•^LZ V
PLH
cs:ii' o:'
- ;-^: ; ;■ ; ^T
(y::rD^i:j
■iTu;
i":ous
COiiL
:.i:;
LS ■/o-iij
G- G^--CJ.
■n:::: v:
;:::i o
y D;:,.YS
11:
CERl'Ani
Yi;.. 5 1
i
Per Cent
of I'.en H
nib"'
ed
19
ij-uj.ibei
1905
"l^'^lS
14
days worlcc
,d Abso
lu te Cii.'nv
Irtiye
j-C)K~o"'.v.t
e '.3\r
ul-fciv
s A'-'Solute
C'OJir-ln.tive
Less than
20 dpys
.3
.3
.2
•
2
•
5
.3
20-59
1.1
-1
«
o
1.
4
1.7
40-59
1.5
2.4
1.0,
1.
5
2.
6
4.5
60-79
1.8
4.2
1.1
2.
7
2.
4
6.7
30-99
1.7
5.9
1.1
3.
8
2.
8.7
100-119
2.7
8.S
1.2
J.
5.
11.7
120-139
3.. 4
12.0
2.5
7.
5
5.
4
17.1
140-169
5.1
17.1
2.9
10.
4
7.
.7
24.8
130-179
5. 3
23.4
4.5
14.
9
9
5
54.5
i:.0-199
10.0
35. 4
0.3
23.
2
12
.1
45.4
200-21?
17.3
51.3
12.2
35.
4
14.
.1
50.5
220-239
12.4
63.7
13.4
43.
3
15
.3
75.8
240-259
13.4
77.1
12.3
51.
5
10
.2
85.0
250-279
10.0
87.1
14.3
75.
9
7
.2
93.2
280-299
5.2
93.3
15.5
91.
5
4
.3
98.0
son r-: over
0.7
100.0
8.5
100.
2.0
100.0
Totrl lio.
e:n--'lo""ed
4SC
,500
571,079
534,180
Avj. I'o.
d.-ys i-orI:ef
in
211
S32
195
Dr-ys
ISl
_6_
1917
A""isolnte
1318
Absolute
d-i.
19<
osoli
il
TTorhed
Al)solut
e
lie
Less thon
Cu-.
:j.lptive
C^x
vn.l,- tive
C"JJi-alr
tiye
Ciinulf.tive
20 days
.4
.4
.2
.2
.1
.1
2.9
2.9
20-39
1.2
.3
.5
.2
.3
4.1
7.0
40-59
.9
2.1
.6
•'.1
.3
.6
4.2
11.2
60-79
1.1
O. <i
1.7
.4
1.0
5.4
16.6
SO-99
.9
4.1
.?
2.4
.5
1.5
7.4
24.0
100-119
1.9
5.0
1.1
3.5
• 9
2.4
3.5
52.5
120-159
2.0
8.0
1.4
4.9
1.1
3.5
12.4
44.7
140-159
2.9
10.9
2.5
7.4
1.9
5.4
11. 4
. 55.1
150-179
4.3
15.2
5.3
11.3
2.8
8.2
L0.3
65.4
130-193
23.5
6.5
17.8
4.5
12.8
9.6
75.0
200-219
15.5
37.0
10.3
23.1
3.9
21.7
8.5
84.3
220-253
14.2
51.2
10.6
oo. r
12.3
34. 5
5.1
89.4
240-253
15.7
64.9
15.3
54.0
17.5
52.0
4.5
93.7
250-279
11.3
75.7
15.8
69.3
17.3
69.3
2.5
96.2
230-299
11.1
87.8
;9,2
33.0
20.5
.39.9
2.5
33.7
500 & oyer
12.2 .
100.0
11.0
100. 0'
10.1
100.0
1.5
100.0
Total llo.
Em-3l02Aed 560,494 602,010 613,775 553,455
Avg. l"o»
d-r--s "or^Te d 250 243 243 149
1/ — BLLTe^.u. of :'in3s, COnl in 1922i '
9357
-240-
Cert?ln features -peculiar to the jita'unous corl i-il-istry -lake the
industry highly s ersonal. Its -jrc -.uct is extre::cly "bullc/. Ls r, orrcti-
Cc.l matter, oi-oduction does not "begin r,.t tiie nine until orJ.ers for coal
rre r eceived. Corl cannot te '7r.:-ehcu3ed or. stored as cm other con-
modities such as .-jrrin, liufoer, steel, -jetroleuji, dothi-v:, food products,
etc. A.1 though a limited li.ouiit of coal c :.i 'oe pnd is stored, cons^iiaer
denand dictates the iorthconii\'; suo-il - --hich r:ust oe availal)le for
innediate delivers if and vhen -'mated. 3tora,^-e of coal nece..:.sit?tes a
hes.v^'- c'-'oitrl irivestnent since labor -and degradation costs, , are ex-
pensive items arid also since freight -ch^r.^es incident to coal trans-
•oortation as i7ell as maintenance costs of stora;,,-e .facilities nust oe
included. • - ,
The highly seasono.l character of th.e industry has long 'been ^^en-
erplly'reco-nized. The U. S. Cor^l Ceii-:ission stated that,, " Seasonal
pro'.uction is the net resultant of a- whole series, of causep, rt the
ootton'of "hich is seasonal- huying and con3ur.rotion, Jioo.ified in every
field and at altiost everj'- iilne "by conditions of r.arket aoility of the
■oarticulrr coals." (*) ITot- only is the i idustrv .seasonal ,, but can
even '-.dder seasona.l variation e::ists- in ■:irrticulaA- fields.. The m.ajor-
ity of the -producing areas are at a, lo^- ooint in Aoril, the 'je rin-ung
of foe coal year, bmq. rise to a. peak in the fall o.r early winter. The
seasonal trend of -oroductian for dor,estic heating is hi hly accentuf ted,
while those fields -^roducin- ■ chiefly, industrial Qorls show less violent
seasonrl fluctuations (**).
T?nile the fall mid -^inter sepson is the pe^-.k period of e'loloynent
in co£:l mining generally, it is interesting to note ho^- particular
prodTccing' prer.s are affected by oartioul-'^r sersonal situations. For ex-
aniDlSj it '■'as stated Wirt much of the -!ro^aict of ^itts":urgh nines went
•"est throu;;h the G-rert La]:es rnd as IpJ-e trrffic wns closed during
severrl months in the winter-, most ©f the lines were omerrtgd on short
time dj.r^.ng those months {***)
■ Acre ;tuated se'^-sonalit"^- is illu^tr tec\ esmecir] ly in the ''estern .
states '-Jiel-e noorer aualitier, of copl - suo. oitu;nin.oj.s said li ;nite -
are -jroduced and where- the tonnai"e is nriiiarily for. the domestic nr.rkets.
These coals degrade rapidly unon ex-'osure and are aot suitable for
stoi-a-ge. The table below sho'-s the- hi -hly .seasonal, production which
characterizes these western -sts.tes:-
(*)- U. S. Coal lie-jorts, "opge 229 •
(**") See Coal in lOSl, nr :e 434, £i;gure 26.
(**■*) ?Lenort on t he Winers' -Strike - iit'a.ni-ious Conl I'ield.in TJestnore-
land Count'/-, Pe-nns'/lvania, in lQlO-11. Houge of ile-:)resentatives,
62 ';oi;ress, 2nd Session, Docu len.t 347, Tjage 34.
9337
Up-shin-,-ton
37
84
i'e'^ "exico
63
111
TTyoming
93
132
I'ontpjia
96
177
Colorndo
102
223
Utah
116.
355
-241-
ro'iTHLY ?:.o:.)ucTio:; or "iiTU';r:ous coal i;- six
TCSTZRl; STi.i. S, 19' '7 - 1931 1/
Stp.te Le rst S'^re t. SliO'n-i C-rer.te-jt S^r?-o. Sho'-'ii 5 Yerr Av/-.
Spread
62
69
109
123
153
206
1/ 3ased on 3ureo.u of llinos HciDorts. ^'rief of Coal QTerators locnted
in Soutnem Portion of the State of T/yoiiing P.elatinc'-; to "Hours of
TJork" to be determined in Pro .osed Code for iit'oj'iinous Coal,
Auf;. 1, 1933,
[line labor is :ix-'of o'iini.lj" imluenced It/ the se.-^onal charrcter
of the industry. Oierrtors objecti:! ; to recaiction of hours in the
Tvork dr'/ have stated:
"The uiiiortunate seasonal character of the coal industry
necessitatco the e;Tployee ^-or].:i:.ig at every a,vaila.ble OT^ortunity
dixring the off-deiiand period, during; vrhich tine men irith families
are corbelled to receive credit fron merchants r'ho in a sense act
p.s an incoiie strbilizer for the ■\ea. Thereafter, "hen the se-^son
of heavier deiie.'id appears, th_e d .itionrl ^•■orki ^f^ ti):ie availrble
enal)les then (if receivin-; a fair yp,:o) to etch u'o on past in-
de"'oted:iess, closiii,; the yerr '■"ith an errnin; equal to their neces-
spxy livinr; costs. Deny this Trivile;'::e and the en/oloyer is con-
■oelled to or,:;anize an additional force Trhich either remains to
diltite the avera::;e earnings of the re^^/ular force or otherwise
■■■^hen the denand falls of:"", they are turned loose on the co:Tiunity
to shift for thenselves. It should be l:eDt in nind that coal
'lines pxe in the najority of cascT locp.ted a' 'ay from the great
industrial centers '-here a diversit"/ of enploy ent exists." (*)
The fluctuations in noithly production reflect variations in nan-
da,ys of eraloyrient. ; [onthl" tonnage divided by the average output per
raan 'oer dry results in the p:o' iro:cirr.p.te number of nrn-drys of enoloy-
nent pjforded by the industry. The following table shof-s the monthly
fluctuations in naji-da-'s e:yjlo".'-'ie:->.t. In 'eneral, the difference be-
tT^een peah month rnd lo'^' month in er.ch 3'"ea:' a.o^roriimates from 2 to 3
million -rn-dpys of e-: jlo;'~;ent. Assuming 25 ijorlring drys in the month^
(*) Ibid, suora.
3337
1
r
-2U3.
a
i
i 3
98T7
Q OS ^- K\ fA ^O •
i*» K> O -* H OJ O
« 10 iH H r<- r<N oj
ir\ lA u>
in o N-
m f*^ iT*
(^ OJ in o\
f^ f^ o\ H a»
3^ 5 S
3 5 #,
O o =r ^ r*\
K\ f^ 1^
cy OJ K\ K\ h^
Q\ ^ lA KN
3- Q lA fy
10 « r^ o
s s
y 3
S 8
lA lA lA lA lA
S' P^
K\ f<^ r*\ KN
On O -4^
s s
O m M r^ fti
a^ -* r^ K\
r- o\ H r-
8 8
o r^ r- «
8 8 8 8
3 S
* O
R
H Q CU
3 R 2
.-* lA K\
•H lA -^
h- rt 3-
e s
(A lA OJ
lA I — f*- O O
H * lA o» O
OJ KA r- lA r^
8 8
Oi K\ vO
5 5
.K t:
^ 5
t, .. .
• « a
a B a
o o
q *> ■*»
« lA;*
aofA
arAKN
*> o\»
« is •
So o
*3 ♦»
fl^lA
"i .
• Ovcy
• w rA
«ChO)
-245-
this vrrir.tion in ir^n-d-^^'-s e-oloyie-it "ovJd ■ orn e. decline in en oloy-
■;ent o:" r:: ororciir te?."^ 100,0' '0 ■'.en ia the lo-- lo-.th r.n nr-:ri-\r,t the oer.k
no'ith. ".Tliilj this :!:"i /ure is p. rcvav'i '"r.'VC"cinrtiO;i, it 'loec? to soiie
de.^ree ino.icrte tJie sersonrl effect xi ion en^loy ont.
The eM'aloy ir.'Mt d-'.tr. reported :■_'■ the ^urer.u of ^'ines are on an
£>.nn\xp.l b-.sis and, therefore, are not G''.;.ita )le for the -ci-arposo of nhor'-
in~ variations fron nonth to ^lonth or the se-sonal f.uctua.tions. The
United States Censiis of lline-. aj^d Qjiarrieo reported eriloynent da.ta
"by nonth^3 aaid states for the ^'•ear 1929. These data are shor.Ti in the
follo'-.-in"; tahle. It nust be reijienbered that the "ear 1029 reipresents
a. year of unusual industrial acitivity and thus tends to conceal the
varia.tion'i ia emloymont as a ;ainst so':e other year nhen production
for donestic narlrets vas rela.tivel;r nor 3 innortant. Takin'T; the averai^e
monthlj- euDloj'^^ent during the year a.; a hase enuivalent to 100, it i7ill
"be noted that the eiiDloynent index for tlie industry,'' as a vrhole declined
from 105.27 in the fjeak month of February to 94.29 in the Ioa- nonth of
Juiie, or in ter:-is of actual en .iloyuent , a decline fron a 'Deak of 482,508
aen to a lo'7 of 432,522 nen — sone 50,334 uen hein-,- tennorarily dis-
placed. ;:ore 3i;;nificant than an avers^^e figure for the industry
as a Thole for ■:iur-}Oses of noting seasonal fluctuations, is the a.ctual
nonthl]- e r:>loy;aent aim the uonthl' index for oarticular states, ^'or
exaiple, the -ride •>eaaon->l '/rrirtions in euloyiient in the ''estei-n
sta.tes -.ir^-f not seen i.noortant in terns of the tonjia:";es involved "out
are very si-jiificant to the nine ^.'orkers affested. "Airthernore, were
nonthly ennloynent drta a.vaila"ble for -oarticular coal nroducing fields,
the hi.%-hly sersonal chara.cter of eniloynent in the industry would "be
even more eviden.t.
(See Table II Ir) .
9837
i
ID
i
III
i
i'li
K
n
'ij
m
sea
sts
iis
Kna
m
Hi
Hi
m
HI
its
3CA
KSB
Ui
Hi
Sii
aats
HE
iii
isi
efts
1^
MS
iii
iii
im
KfC
«9r
hi
UK
Bca
IBS
5S*
is*
Hi
iii
r4
iii\
tn
m
CO
KB
sis
1
J
Hi
|}l?!
Ml
VIA
m
sea
iii
ii*
«3E
MS
its
iii
133
}1S
53
m
m
m
iU
m
m
Wi
8K
III
9»>> mkiua uiK* 4a9Ki siqa
iiSHl tiiii i4ii 1«4* ssii!
»BU rterf Hi»£ eiiKS e^es
i^iii •=-Si*' •'•'■'o'' |-=-'-'3 •'|"<-
Kpr«ift 3-3^9« acftCH Rf»fift vesK
am iihi i^^t iiti^ iii^
ff^KH ^lE^t SKR3S ^£f& EKi^
p'flBka" --V-^ Jj-,j^ g'-'^^a -a*-
MURs E-Ham vs-S'sa rsnic: KS8C
ma Uiii iiiii Hm ^ii^
n»H tuiit stetfi eisKES ansa
MSRVi SgfyV^ f^S^iS <«a^K «ft3c
*.~iii iiiii §d^^$ jji^j i^^^
ma smiB utts ^nss ssn
«"*a»ti -•^'^^ -«-()•' g-'-^n *R''-
9S3K3I r&ffSS R3l»f;il ll«KfK CMJ
i^a 6i.i.H. i^/Ks :^^i^^ tfcKsl
^SttS! tfSEI }J?tc «SaM e»<
SI7K3a dCM^ aecvs ks«&r KBICft
i^diji iti!M9 Etci\^ sir^cac itit
iiKS nut ioai stas mh
a9«::d MRvn vaftsjr r3c::« e«ac
Rcctf^ lifi^^ tgislic am i.m
t.stit iKH Km, seaa i»s
«VAes «a9ffe as:Ri.r PKaa;; aasa
Hsdil! iJM«d i^ii tiiii iiii
tjisi nmi Hiis iHH mn
RaA0K RSRM e<SKas Kae:;t saita
ilScdi itiii. t^ii iiiii iiii
iiSSS IKSkS StSiB SiSH ESIft
i-^rS '-a--
3S;
»9a affRGTi easav m.rkr ccaa
135 35S«* S^«« iiiii HH
H3a£ 38SS8 SStSS IS51E aaJE
irf-ana -»"*K-v ^--^-"av v^--'-<a -?^--
I
cassis aMas £srse 8«ABtf :;ekk
§35^3 iiiii iiiii iiiii iiii
3S»! in3f miU NSiS fUi
i^m -•■'»-' •'--•li' f--i -R--
B5tf60 uJne aftCM a'^a^3a ipff^
§S«5 iiiii iiiii hiii iiii
sift: Zii^ KTSSE »l2ii MU
^<if "'•■'«■'•' •'"-•a- ^"•■•'■'a- -*'-'
saaaa aaaae aasas aaaaa aaaa
iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiii
UicI ISIK iiita 8SSII ^ii
i'^ii '-^-^ -•" 0"-' g-'-'-J •'e--'
i iiiiii ijiii ijLi liiii ill!
,fq
(0
The U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics "began a statistical series
in 1929 showing the raonthlj'- index of employiiient in 'bituminous coal
mining. The base used, equivalent to 100, was the average monthly
enployraent duritig the year as shovm hy the Census of llines and Quarries
in 1929, This base figure nas 458,732, The montli].y employment indexes
reported Ig'- the Bureau of Labor Statistics start .'from this base, but
are adusted to the emplojnnent data re-oorted by the mines to the Bureau,
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that appro ximately 65 per cent
of the total estimated emploj.Tnent is now reported to it. The inde::es
of employment as shown by the Bureau of Labor Statistics since the in-
ception of the series up to the last available report are shown in the
table below:
TABLE IX
IvIOITHLY ICTSXES Oi^ EiviPLOYliElIT IK BITmilEOUS COAL MINING,
1929 - 1935
(U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
1929 = 100
• :onth 1929 1930 19G1 1932 1933 1954 1955
January 106.4 102.5 93.9 80.8 69,8 75.8 80,0
February 107.7 102.4 91.5 77.4 69.3 76.1 81.1
Ilarch 106.8 93.6 88.8 75.2 67.6 77.8 81.6
April
100.2
94.4
85.9
65.5
63.7
72.2
74.3
May
96.6
90.4
82.4
52.6
61.2
76.7
75,3
June
94.7
88,4
73,4
60.5
61.3
76.7
77.9
Jnl-f
94.1
88.0
76,4
58,6
63.2
77.0
70.0
Au.gu.st
95.7
89,2
77.0
59.4
68.5
77.1
75.4
September
97.2
90,5
80.4
62.4
71.8
78.2
77.1
October
98,8
91.8
81.3
67.0
68.0
79.3
74,3
ilovevnber
101.0
92.5
81.1
69.4
74.8
79.8
December
101.4
92,5
81.2
70.0
■;75.4
79.7
Average
100.0
93.4
83.2
67.4
67.9
77.2
Talcing 458,732 as the average monthly number of men emploj^ed in
the industry in 1929 and equivalent to the index number 100, then the
peal: month is that year, February, shov/ed 494,054 employed, while the
low month, July, showed 431,667 men as em.pl oyed. The number of men
displaced amounted to 62,387. It will be nPted that the Bureau of
Labor Statistics figure differs from that of the Census of Mines and
Quarries, largely because of the adjustments made by the former agency.
Perhaps a better indicator of seasonal employment or irregular
operation than any discussed above is the data showing the approximate
average hours worked per week by bituminous coal mines in each of the
"orincipal states. These data are more Buited for showing seasonality
because they represent the fluctuations in working time per week from
month to month reflecting changes in consumer demand. Variations in
enplojTnent tend to lag behind changes in demand, but variations in work-
ing time reflect the ups and downs in consumer purchasing quite accurately.
The avereige working time per week in the principal states during the months
of 1931 is shorm in the table below. The year 1931 was selected as the
last available year which wa,s relatively free from industrial disputes.
9857
(ll'
-?us.
-63^ •
o o a q •
3 " »-
o o oj a«
>> e c Tj
" ^ *. ^ ,«H
« a B t<
o c 9 o ■
-»» ^ I. d h
^ ■» p 4> ;J
t. • c ^
■4 « .H
3 3
9837
O « /3 I. -I
u >> « t<
« tt Q^
» (3. o ja Q.
h .H 4> ?
8 •!) ■«
o ^
•e •^> o
Ssl^
p. o
o
d o ■ 1-1 o .
^ >> q* — ^ o Ih
*> a^ t. a
< -o o. «>
i< H • >.
O Vi flj d ■**
" " o 3 o *»
S d d o!
- • i .n^
d * ^ ^
d t. ^ ja
4> o -f -«> d
8uin o
Xi Vi .^
■ 4* iH O *> *>
►. tj *> d a ^i
&d o o ■ o
a *> ^ e p.
>( & B d e d
w ti o T) j;] ^
O. »< ♦» ;3 ^ H
« {■ • X c
S rH o o ja
J< ■ ;0 w H 9
I- *> (1 "
O »< ■« rH
d ■ d
d B ■»> 4^ S 40
O '" fi >,
fl ;i a o '•I
3 i-i P< o •
?. -" P . -^
N o h ^ V<
« » !>. d ja
_ ^ <H •»»
2 B fc '^ 2 "
r^
I
I
cv^ o t^
(\f r-< iH to ir>
C\J (0 I\i N iH
r-vovDtH<\: i<M*Nf^CT> ty t^
o inovo i-i Q
loo o>«— (oltrs
J- 1^ O SR «9l-*
K->t\J r<^?0 i<-(i^
^<^^^K^l«^ r— ^ i-ivo r—
• • • • •
r-l CVJ cO hj cy
^Kl
mow cyleoM^DO
ratify Ki<\i (\j (\) Ri
H fMT^VD M
(\j cj cy t\j CM
J- uv*1rHcvjip^ r-i eo o c>vo r-t
cu r-i CM(rn(\4r<^
M^f^tp r-ttritpr-H
(Mcuconj r^RjiSiojcvJ
f^-^^ K^ o^w) i^-*.p 'rH r^w cr»K) tr» cr» J- cjN f^ ffx O a> O »^ r^ '^^ r*
(\ICy<MC\J RlSjCUSlCVJ r^^^r^^^ rHi-lrHr-)(VJrJ i-l?V<i-liH>-irj
>~-VOkOi-4 Jt- Jt Ji- U\i-I I— ^ O irMTv O^VOWMM O <-< W ITMTi PJ
WPJWCVI RjCUtVICyfJ ^^^^r^r^ (\lr-l>H (MM ■-^H^^■^ r-l
Rirjcvicvj cviRIRjtMCM
^ lo KM^ i^KO to vajt
ir>i-tj-ocM Hcyioowro ctnonh^ j- cm
t\J p r~-y3 I— VD^OMTvOUJ USOVOr-ICMtrs
tovDr^r- eor~M>ir>H ctv criuj (Ti t\i r- J- (T> <ri f^' CT" \r\jt o\^ ^^^
8iK?^^ K?81f;«^ ^S>S^S SI?S^
a:^
to CM ITirl J- r^
i-l CM r4 CM r-l CM
<T\Of^o in^vDi^w rH eo eo r-l r^ r-iv.o irtCM cm o hvdvo cm irxto
CM CM l<^ (\? iv W CM P^ W
-J' i<\r- cMoincr»fMvp
J CM CM CM CM CM r^ CM ftl
K\KVd- K\K) ir>
CM CM^J CM r^ ^J
f<>CMr-CM » r-- J- o ir> j-eoeojtcM i— lOrH cm CMva v£> r^ j- i— r-i cri
eo O K\iH intrvvp r-iv
CMI^r^KN CM Sj CM CM
^Olr^r<^CM^ cj\(t-^ cr>CMU3
CMCMCMCMCM r-lr1r4 CMCM
^ to CM W P f~
CM CM CM CM Kl CM
(T.olr-i r-l CM ri (j> cn KtJI r<^ o
• «fal«« ••«■••
CM C^J^ W CM ^ CM <S K1 CVlffS» K\
eO r-l CM O ^K^r■^BOfM K)mCT>rHW r-l CJ^ W VO CM rH r-- I-* BO KMTN CM
^. SP 5^ '^ r»-».0 t^VP r^ J-Ojppri CMtOI— ^fOr— fAK\r-(CMrivp
CMCMCmCJ CMCMCMCMCM r-IC\jiM(MCM CVJr-lr-lr4CMCM CMCMCMCMCMOJ
o 1 A q 5 «
c a c en (rt
a g r-l ;J M H
aa .« h «
MO ^E<
8
^1
K"
Ri
3
>4
3
-Is
• f-l 4*
t3 w
a
5
d
p.
Vi
o
d
p.
Vi
o
A
o
-2U7-
It will be noted that consideratle difference is found as to peak and
low months for the various .states. In general, however, it may be said
that the peak months for working time are October, November, December
and January (especially January) with an easing off as the new coal
year, beginning in Aoril, a;;oroaches. The low months are April, May,
June and July. The eastern states in general have their lowest work-
ing time in April, Lay and June, while the far western states consistent-
ly show July as the month of least working time per week. Seasonality,
it must be noted, may be somewhat accentuated in 1931 since industrial
purchasing was at a low ebb and thus domestic consumption assumed a
larger proportidn tending to emphasize seasonal demand.
(See table entitled "Approximate Average Hours V/orked Per Week by Bitu-
minous Coal Mines in Each of the Principal States,. 1931'"
If the average hoxirs worked per week d-uring the year be takn as a
norm, it will be noted that deviations from this norm for peak and low
months differ widely in degree for the various states. These deviations
may be taken as an indication of the extent to which seasonality affects
working time and thus employment in the principal states.
TABLE XI
ABSOLUTE AND PS::lCE'JTaGE DEVIATIONS EHOk TEE AVERAGE HOURS
.iOHKED PES VffiEK DURING YSIaR FOR PEAK i/IONTHS AiO LOW i.iONTHS
IN PRINCIPAL STATES, I93I.
Averat^e Hours Worked
Per
Week
?ea,k
;.;onth
Low
Month
•Absolute
Percentage
: Ab
solute
percentage
State :
Year :
Increase
'.Increase
: Decrease
Detrease
North
Ohio
26. S
3.^
12.7
■ U.O
1U.9
Pennsylvania
26.1
U.6
17.6
3.7
1U.2
Liar yl and
29.2
9.^
32.2
5.^
IS. 5
West Va. (No.)
27.0
^.9
IS. 2
3.6
13.3
Appalachian
".Test Va. (So.)
27. U
5.3 •
19.3
5.2
19.0
Eastern Ky.
26.3
3.2
12.2
•
5.2
19. S
Virginia
27.1
3.9
Ik.k
3.0
11.1
Tennessee
26.8
7.S
29.1
5.0
IS. 7
Alabama
23.2
5.S
25.0
'
3.7
15.9
hiddle West
i,;i chi gan
lU.g
13.6
91.9
12.3
83.1
Indiana
22.5
7.5
33.3
5.1
22.7
Illinois
20.9
7.2
3'+.3
5.1
2k.k
Western Ky,
20.1
6.g
33. s
5.6
27.9
lo'va
21. S
7.5
3H.U
6.3
2S.9
1^ f~l-^ —
-248-
TA3LE XI
(Cont'd)
Avera^'e Ilours Worked Per
Vi'e ek
Year
VQV-'k. i;onth„ . _^
Lot; llonth
state
Absolute
!Percenta.;;e
Absolute Percentage
Increti.se
Increase
Decrease Decrease
Southwest Intersta
te
'
Missoiiri
■ 22.1
9.7
43.9
7.5 ■ 33,9
Kansas
18.9
8.1
42.9
5.8 - 30-.7
Oklahoma
17.8
8.6
48.3
' ■ 8.3 ^ 46.6
Arlransa.s
14.6
18.1
55.5
S.6 ■ 65.8
Texas
2?. 2
fwO
21.6
3.0 12.9^
forth Dr.]:ota
27.1 .
15.2
56.1
10.8 ^'9.9
Roc^cj i.'oxmtaiii
' 10.8
^■5.6
Lionta.na
7.7;' 52."
Wyoming
22. 1-
7.0
'29.5
7.6 52.1
Colora6.o
21.8
10.5
':8.2
10.6 48.5
Hev/ I.iejzico
22.3
6.1
27.4
5'|2 ' 23.3
Utah
iil.5
17.3
80.5
'iij^O 60.5'
Washin:'<ton
26.2
■ 11. 8
■ ■ 45.0-
' 7.0 26.7
U. S. Total (Other
24.9
4.8
19.3
2.6 10.4
States Incliided)
It I'dll he noted, for exara-ole, that Ilichiy^n shors an increase of
13.6 hours rier veek or 91.9 -o^rcnt in the -oeak month as against the
average for the year. The lov month shors a decline of 12.3 hours or
83.1 per cent. This ^dde fluctuation arises out of the fact that much
of the iiichigan -oroduction enters th domestic market. Zl-uctuations
of this charact r occur throughout tl:e, middle West. In the ccse of
the South'7est and Soclry fountain areas, the explanation .li?s not only
in producting for donostic ma-„^':ets hut also because the -tsnoe of 'the
coal produced does not lend itself to storage. Variations in the
eastern coal producing states are not so "oronounced because in addition
to suTolyim, domestic need.s, the coals enter into the industris.1 mar-
kets. Iiidustrir.l coal, bought on contract, makes -oossible more reg-
ularized -oroduction.
In summarizing this section, it may- be stated that the production
of bituminous coal, -hen not affected bjr sf.ch distui'bing factors as
strikes or acute shortrge of transportation, has res-oonded auickly to
shanp changes in the state, of trad^e. When such disturbing elements
enter into the. picture, the bituminous- coal industry might errperience
an artificirl -oros-oerity after other industries '-ere und3rg6ing re-
trenchment, sim-olj^R becrus'7 consumer stocks "ere de-oleted and re-
quired replenislrraent.
9837
-249-
4. MOY HiEITT FOR SH0HT3NIliG TIE WQKK DAY AITD WZEK
Interest in the sxibjcct of reduction of hovj.-s of work in bitumi-
nous corl mining may be n"id tc Hove. be;?;un in the Ip.st decade of the
nineteenth century. The nati'--nal convention of the United Mine Workers
helc. at Pittsburgh on April 3, 1931, .:-rYe serious consideration to the
question of establishing a basic eight-hour day in the central competi-
tive field. (*) Many of the t'eleg-'tes at the convention declared them-
selves in favor of the eight-hoxir day. Tlie eight hour qv.estion was
then openly bi-ought fcnvard before the joint wage conference ' f Ohio
and Western Pennsylvania -perators pnd miners (April 7, 1891). The
United Iline Workers requested that the shorter working day be discussed
because the miners looked upon that question as paramount to all other
issues civC would refuse to talce up anything else until that matter was
settled. (**) ' The statement was mrde that the Merican Federation of
Labor ha,d selected the carpenters to malce the first fight for an eight-
hour (fiay and that it had been successfully established in their craft.
The miners v;ere next designated to undertake the movement, but at the
date set the miners Wdl-e not in condition to ask for eight hours because
they v/ere binder contract with the operators rjid felt obligated to res-
pect their agreements. Tlie jimericpji Federation of Labor convention held
at Detroit, Michigan, (December 189C) re-affirmed the conclusion that
the miners demand an eight-hour day. The joint conference of operators
and miners reached an impasse over the eight-hour day question and ad-
j ourne d sine c^l e .
iii official circular was issued on April 17, 1891 by the United
Mine Workers regarding the question of the eight-hour work day. (***)
An excerpt from this circular inciicrtes the stand talccn by the mine
workers' orgpxiizatinn.
"The lailiu'e -if the miners rnd operators of Ohio rnd
Pennsylvania to agree make possible a national move-
ment for the establishment of the eight-hour c'^y.
Wliile the organization is opposed to strike -unless
as a la.st resort, at the present time we see no wa.y
to avoid the conflict. In calling on you, the miners
aiid mine laborers nf the co-'jiitry, to lay down your
picks ajid demand an eight- hour working day on May 1,
T.-e -but carry nut yrur instructions. " .
(*) Ivans, Chris, History of t];e United Mine Workers of America,
Vol. II, pages 96-lCl.
(**) Ibid: supra, page 106
(**=^) Ibid, supra, pages 114-117
9837
-250-
A meeting of the National Eye c at ive Board and District Presidents
of the United Mine Workers of America (April 25 and 27, 1891) decided
to defer the eight- hoiar movement. The reasons for this postponement
were that in several parts of the coonti'y independent action had teen
taken. For example, the Vi'est Viri^inia miners were not prepared to
partal^e in the movement a.nd liaa so decided in their convention. New
Straitsville, Ohio, miners made an pgreeraent with their employars to
continue working for another year at the then existing prices, anid hours.
These factors plus the number of unorganized miners and the inadequacy
of funds in the treasury resulted in rescinding the strike order
and in the failure of the first general eight-hour movement. (*) The
Interstate Joint Conference bec.'_ime a discredited institution. The en-
suing period, 18S1-1897, was very critical for the United Mine Workers,
being accentuated by the general industrial depression. Efforts to re-
establish interstate joint conferences failed and district bargaining
became .,the rule.
The miners' convention of 1897, decided to call a general suspen-
sion of work cpramencing July 4th in order to enforce the scale adopted
at the convention. The organization then had some 10,000 members, but
the union president said that about 150,000 men ceased work. (**) The
suspension lasted from Jaly 4th until September 11th when it was called
off by the national convention. The interstate joint conference agree-
ment of 1898 resulted from this strike. One of the clauses in the
agreement provided:
"That on and after April 1, 1898, the eight-hour work day
with eight hours' pay, consisting of six days per week,
shall be in effect in all the districts represented and
that \iniform wages for day labor shall be paid the differ-
ent classes of labor in tne fields named, and that internal
differences in any of tne states or districts, both as \to
prices or conditions shall be referred to the states or dis-
tricts affected for adjustment." (***)
(*) Ibid, supra, pages 122-126-Cf. also Suffern, Arthur £. , The Coal
Miners' Struggle for Industrial Status, page 64.
(**) Lubin, Isador, Miners' Wages and the Cost' of Coal, page 55.
Evans' History of the United Mine Workers (page 512)
estimated that there were 111,000 mine workers in the com-
petitive fields of western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, and West Virginia
(***) Section 5, Chicago Agreement (January 28, 1898)
9837
-251-
This agreement applied to the operators and miners of Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania.
Progress toward a universal eight-hour day in the bituminous coal
mines was accelerated during the War period. The data regarding length
of the working day as shown by the Bureau, of Mines refer to the number
of hours that mines are supposed to he in operation, cars and orders
permitting, and not to the niomher of ho'ors actually worked by the men. (*)
These data showed that the percentage of the number of men working in
mines at which the standard day was eight hours increased from an aver-
age of about 60 per cent in the period from 1910 to 1916 to 79 per cent
in 1917. (**) The percentage of men working nine hours, on the other
hand, decreased from 15.5 per cent in 1914 and 17.5 per cent in 1916 to
12.5 per cent in 1917, while the percentage of men \7orking ten hours
decreased from 25 per cent in the period 1910 to 1916 to 8.5 per cent
in 1917. This general change was largely the result of reduced working
hours in Kentucky, Maryland, Pennsylvania (bituminous) Tennessee,
Virginia, and Tfest Virginia, more particularly in the larger non-union
fields. The movement toward the shorter hour work day was still more
evident in the following year, 1918. The percentage of men employed in
mines where the established working day was eight hours increased from
79 in 1917 to 91 in 1918. (***) By 1920 this percentage had reached
97.1. The j'-ears 1921 and 1922, however, showed some retrogression,
altho-'ugh the 10-hour day had practically disappeared from coal mines
in the United States and the nine-hour day prevailed. at only a small
proportion of the mines. (****} The reduction in the percentage of men
working at eight-hour mines was not due to a decrease in the number of
these mines nor of men employed there. The percentage change resulted
from the increased number of nine and ten hour mines, the only real re-
verse suffered by the eight-hour day movement was in Alabama.
The following table, which shows the length of the working day
at the mines from 1903 to 1932, does not show the number of hours the
men actually worked. The cutting, shooting, and loading of coal is
generally paid for at fixed rates per ton, and the men doing this kind
of work are known as contract men or tonnage men. These men are piece-
workers and are not obliged to put in a certain number of hours at their
working places. The figures, thereforp, really indicate the number of
hours the men had an opportunity to work during a full day on the
assumption that there was a full run of cars and that the market condi-
tions were favorable to full-time operation; they do not mean that all
the tonnage men worked the number of hours stated. Other employees
engaged in maintenance, haulage, and repair work are paid by the day
and their hours conform more closely to the established working day
(*) Coal in 1922, page 501
(**) Coal in 1917, page 934
(***) Coal in 1918, page 721
(****) Coal in 1922, page 501
9837
-252-
of the mine. In some occupations the' day men work longer hours than
the mine,. The Bureau of Labor Statistics study of hours and wages in
bituminous coal mining made during the first quarter of 1933 was tased
on reports made for 444 mines. (*) This study showed that the vast
majority of the time workers at these mines began work at fi:30, 7:00,
or 7:30 A.M., worked 4^ or 5 hours in the morning, took 30 minutes for
lunch, worked 3-^ or 3 hours in the afternoon, and quit work at or near
3:30 P.M. The regular or basic ho-urs of work for these employees were,
therefore, eight per day and forty-eight per T/eek, exclusive of lunch
time. Some of the pumpmen, engineers, motormen, brakemen, drivers, and
cagers, and a few wage earners in some of the other occupations, worked at
time, or whenever necessary, more than eight hours per day, and in several
occupations some worked on Sunday, Time worked in excess of eight hours •
per day and work on Sunday was paid for at the regular rate.
The hours of tonnage workers are usually presumed to be approximate-
ly the same as those of time workers, but in actual practice their hours
are usually more or less irregular. Some tonnage workers enter the mines
as early as '^rOO or fi:30 A.I!,, begin work immediately upon arrival at
the face, and work throughput the day, eating their lunch v/hile waiting
for mine cars or material; some quit for the day at or near noon; and
still others enter the mines around or after 7:00 A.M., take as much time-
for lunch as they desire, and often quit before the mine as a v/hole ceases
operation. The U.S. Bureau of Mines reported a total of 40^,380 bituminous
coal-mining wage earners in 5,427 mines in 1932; of this number 3^^5,9*^2
in 4,43fi mines were reported as having the regular or basic eight-hour day.
The data in the follovdng table show the percentage of the total number of
bituminous coal-mining v/age earners employed at mines operating a specified
number of hours per day, during the period 1903 to 1932. These figures will
indicate that the general trend has been to the eight-hour day. The eight-
hour day mines employed 5R.4 percent of the total marnber of wage earners
in bituminous coal mining in 1903. This percentage increased to ^4 in
1907; decreased to 58.fi in 191fi; increased each year to 97,1 in 1920, the
highest for any year from 1903 to 1932; decreased from year to year to
93,5 in 1925; increased to 93.7 in 192fi; decreased year by year to 92,4 in
1930; increased to 93 in 1931; and then declined to 91,9 in 1932.
Wage earners in the nine-hour day mines declined from 17.1 percent of
the total in all mines in 1903 to fi.2 percent in 1932. In the ten-hour day
mines, the percentage of wage earners declined from 2fi.5 in 1903 to 1.9 in
1932. Taking the weighted average hours per day for all bit-uminous wage
earners, there was a decrease from 8.7 in 1903 to 8.10 in 1932,
(See Table on page 8)
(*) Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wages and Hours of Labor in Bituminous
Coal Mining: 1933, page 15
9837
Tr.tlc I
:' EirLCYED II; BITUi;i"/CUS COAL LIITS '*VHO HAD AIT
SST-fcLISFED UOEKirC- DAY C"' C, f; OR lOHOIF-S, 1903 to 195? l/
Soui'ce: U. S.-^Airecu of Jr.ios
Year F_ercei?t of Tolrl Eniplo '"oes i:
C Hoiir 9 Eour
D?.y Day
17.1
15.8
15.6
13.5
11.6
11.1
11.3
10.9
11.5
15.3
15.4
17.0
17.4
IP.. 6
6.7
3.5
2.0
2.9
4.0
4.2
1903
55.4
1904
62.1
1905
61.1
1906
35.0
1907
64.0
190G
63.5
1910
62.1
1911
62.9
1912
•31.6
1915
51.9
1914
50.7
1915
59.6
1S15
5C.-6
1917
79.0
1918
, ^0.5
1919
95.5
1920
97.1
1921
96.6
1932
95.1
1933
94.7
1934
95.7
1925
93.5
1926
93.7
1927
95.4
1928
95.1
1939
92.5
1930
92.4
1351
93.0
1932
91.9
Ln j.i_
"cs V.'orkir.g
T/eijihted Average
10 Hour
Worlring De.-j
Dry
_Jhour^sX,^. .--,
26.5 -
8.7
24.1
25.5
8.6
3.6
23.5
8.6
24-. 4
C. 6
25.4
rJ.O. b
o . 6
C.6
26'. 2 ' ■
G.6
26.9
3.6
■ 22. 9
23.9
3. 6
u. 6
25.4
3.6
24.0
3.6
C.4
8.5
2.7
3.12
1.0
3.06
.9
8.04
.5
8.04
.9
8.06
1.1
3.06
1.2
8.03
1.1
8.08
5.5 .0 8.07
;-.6 1.0 8.08
U. i . o O.Uu
S.7 .8 3.08
S.3 1.0 5.09
G.l .9 8.03
6.2 1.9- 8.10
1/ Percei-.tages arc cr.lculr.ted on "br sis of tctal me.", in nines def initolj" re-
'lorted "E >:C.vinj[_. \:or:;ed r.n 3, 9 or lO-lioiu- dr.y. A sr.irJ.l nuraber of mines
tlir,t v/or".: more than 10 hours or less thr.n 3 hours have heen excluded, . as
have also all mines for rhich the re'^orts -.ere defective or in which the
v7orlcing dr.7 wr s ch.'.„f;ed durin:'j th.e yerr.
9837
-354-
Tae o,dve:-t of the ":".I-H.--.. r.nd the ad.O'^'"ioii of ?, Coue of Pr.ir Cornet"
tion for the 3itiu;iinous Corl Industry -^cve still fujrther invet-.s to the
shorteniiij of the vforh dr.;' rrc v/eeh. Article III of the oit'oi-ninous Ooc.l
Code (effective October ?, 19Zc) orovided thr t :
"i'c er,nio;"ee, e::ce"Tt neiiberti of the executive,
su-Tervisor:/, r,nd co::fider-tir,l )erso:-_:-.el, sh.r,ll
he env;lo;'ed in excess of 40 houjrs in r.n;'"
crlendar week pftc-r the effective drte of this
Code. I'o em'-'lo^-ee shr.ll he reoi^ired or -^er-
■ivatted to r/orl: more thr.n ei:;,ht hovj:s in r.n"
one C^.y rt the usual \7or]:ir.jj' -.laces or other-
v:ise in or rhout the nine (exclusive of lunch
;ieriod), whether ;,r,id b^ the hour cr on a ton-
nri_.e basis or other ;iiecevorh basis.
"There shall be exce; ted from the fore^oin;;;
linitrtions (a-) enr'lo^'ees required because of
accidents which tennorr,ril'' necessitrte Ioniser
houjrs for them; (b) su'-erviscrs, cler!;s, tecliiii-
cians and tiir.t sr.irJl niomber of en lo""ees at each
mii^e whose drily worh includes the ha::dlin^ of
men-trips and/or haulr.^.e animals .?nd coal in
trarnsit and those v;ho are reouired to renrin, on
dut;- while men are e:".terinj or leaving the mine.
"The fore£,oin£ maximum houi-s shr.ll not be con-
strued as e. minimiv.i; rnd if cvt an;'' nine a mr.jority
of the em-'lo;'ed v.'orhers express their desire, by
v.'ritten req_uest to the enr-iloyer, to Siirn-e avE.il-
able v/or]: with bona fide mien-cloyed worhers of the
S: ne mine, the ."'.unbf.r of houjs' worh ma.y be ac'gusted
accordinj^ljr by nuti.irl a_.reenc:--t betv.'ecn such e; i-
yloyed wor]:ers c.nd t'leir cm lor/ers. "
The effect of t]ic Code U'on the le'.i_,th of bhe worldn^; de.y in 1953 as
reported by nines to the'U. S. bureau of i i;.es is clerrly indicated in
the f ollo^7in^_, inset.
9837
-255-
T.-T3le II
Ferce-atrf;e of Men E_nr-lo;'ed 1:^. 3it umin ov.s Copl l.;incs
thr.t lig-d Estrljlishcd T'or?-.inG_.g/^^:_s..of..LJ_^^ ..oilJ-P .Hours_^l'^. 13-'^
(r. S. i:;i:.ror.u of : lues)
_Y_car
Before Oct. .3
After Oct. -
Avg. for "crr
1/
Per ceiit of totr.l er.riloyees
i:i miner. F?r ]:inf;
C hcurs £ ^-l?u^?L5_ 10 Iiou rs _
C2.G 4^9 ^ 2.5
S9 . 8 .1 .1
94.4 :'>.? l.i
ITciglited Aver?.i'e
T/oi-lcint^ ds.y
(hours)
0.10
3.00
8.07
In CO
..ruitin^.
the
averr
■^e
oce".!
\/nightec'
- ^:'
nine
no:
nont":
:s.
the re-sorted Cs.ta. foi- "oof ore Oct,
rr.d t"/:e drtf, for "rftnr r^ct.
on
on
hy
Added to the foreeCinc; provisions der.l-in^- v.'ith ,'nr,j:imfj:i hours of err-;lo-r-
laent in the 3itu!minous Coal Cede, Ai-ticle V, Scctior- (/;) authorized thrt r.s
soon as -jossihle after the adoj^fion of the -Code rn investigation "be iTia.de as
to the practicability and cost Cassvu^dn^- the maintenance of existing rates of
pa;/) of r.p2Dl"ing to hitvjninons coal raning'a shorter v.'ork da.^ and wor': voel:.
A confei'ence hetueen re'^resentativos of ei-.T-;lo;-ers a-.^d era'-'lO'-ces v.'as to be
held on January '5, l?24'to consider this question as i.7ell as others dealing
v.'ith v;a-:e3 and differentials. ' • •
In
ac;
iticn to the' eight-h^ur ox^/ novencnt which has just hecn discussed,
there had '^een initiated another cffoi
This effort oegai
vvhe:^ certair
tion ado-oi £
;o reduce the v:orl; d£iy and wee!:
in the United lline Worher convention of gcptcraher 22, 1919
discontented district officials succeeded in having the conven-
nuinher of de.'vands v;hich the o-ocrrtors were required to meet or
otherwise f: ct a ^^eneral strilre on '/cvcrnber 1, 1919. Amon^
the six-hour da"' rnd fi-ve-da;- v^eel:
in a basic thirty-hour v:or]: x.'cel: sir
lese c-er-iands v;as
Or_rnis.ed mine labor has continued its
interest in a basic thirty-hour v:or]: voel: since that date. In recent ye xs
'"-he thirty-hour week movement hap, rec ived a decided innetus from the legis-
lative efforts of the Anerice-n -■'ederation of Labor. One of the issues brought
forward by the United Iline TTorhers UQ._ the eJ-Tira-,;lon of the Appalachian
Agree.":ie:-.t (harch 31, 1935) vras the thirty-hour weeh.
Although the nine worheis lia.ve not yet rttrined their objective for
the thirty-hour wee]:, a ste-i in thrt dirccti'^n was made v/hen the Bituminous
Coal Code was amended (ho. l) on harch 31, 1934. This ame;;.dment provided
that the .i-xinuiTi houjrs of em-:lo"ment -ler dpy should be seven a/nd thrt the
work week should consist of five days, thus establishing a basic 3C-hour week.
The details of the hours -provisions duri.:g the Cede -period a:-d the econoidc
effects upon cost of production- viill be discussed in a Irter section.
The foregoing parrgrapfns re" -resent a. general sujraip.ry of the movement
for the shorte"ning of the v/ork day and week. In considering this subject,
attention should be given to the differences in the brsic working C:ay in
ui^ion, no;--union end irregu.lar fields. It is undoubtedly true tKat the
unionized cor.l -iroducing arcr.s ererted a co"nsta"nt pressure upon coi.neti:ig
^unorganized fields to reduce the le'/gt/ of the '..-orking day. The following
9837
-255-
table represents a ca,lculation of the differences in the "basic Vforhing day
in the various ccal fields. The fi^.ures indicate the nui-Aoer of hours that
a majorit" of the men were ;iven an op-^ortmiitj'" to labor when the mine o;^cr-
ated a. standrrd da,;-. (*) The fractions that ariear 'under the union desig-
nation are contributed by the fi;iures com-iled for the union v.ve£s of V/'est
Vir(^inia, It is quite lihel:/ that even in tliese '^''est Virginia areas, the
union mines v/ere o;oerating on an ei£ait-hour brsis. In contrcst v/ith the
Gight-hour da;- in the union mines, the non-union mines aver-.ced about ei^ht
and three qurrter hours and the irrej^^ular fields ei<^-ht and a half hours.
Table
II
T
The .Vasic ';7orl:
ins
Day ii
T-
nion, i"
on-union,
and
Irre
f^ular P
it'-ijninous
Co
al Fiel
ds. (a) ]
.912
to 19'
'2
(b)
Avera,
e Stand
ard
Hour s
P.elative Stand'
.rd Hours
(bcse 1930)
All
Ton-
All
Non-
fields
8.65
Uni on
C.04
union
9.61
.1^
re.'iulai
fields
T"nion
union
Irreftiilar
1913
9.38
107.8
100.5
lir.9
116.5
1913
G.60
O.OC
9.50
9.02
107.1
100.6
iiv.e
113.0
1914
C.63
8.06
9.55
9.00
107.3
100.8
118.3
111.8
1915
0.61
8.06
9.51
8.95
107.2
100.8
117.7
111.3
1916
8.64
8.06
9.54
8.94
107 . 6
100.8
118.1
111.1
1917
B.Z.l
8.03
8.78
8.44
103.5
100.3
108.7
104.8
1918
8.13
8.03
S.27
8.37
101.2
100.3
103.4
103.7
1919
8.05
3.01
8.11
8.11
100.2
100.1
■100.4
100.7
1920
8.03
S.OO
8.08
8.05
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1921
8.03
8.00
8.09
8.03
100.0
100.0
100.1
ng.s
1922
8. OS
8.00
8.15
8.09
100.4
100.0
100.9
100.5
(a) Fidher and ^ezanson, Ibid, su;-ira. Vr.sed on statistics compilod by the
Coal and Colre Division of the Geological Survey.
(b) The weighted average for the elven-year period is as follows:
Union, 8.03; non-union, 8.53; all fields, 8.33
These figures for a stf.nderd day are bcsed U)on cc-rta.in assumptions.
In the union fields a standif-rd ei,i,ht-hour day was in effect dujring the entire
period shov:n. The irre^U-lar fields, however, were chan{;inf brc2: and forth
and in some crses the union sit;ned an at^reeraent permitting- a lon^-er day tlar,n
ei^ht hours. (**) iiany mines in the non-union areas wor],:ed ten hours or more,
but the len^.th of the workin.:; d^ay tended to decrc se duriniS the years 1917 to
1920. Since the non-union and irregular areas lacked uniformity in the time
v/orhed ::ier fey, the normal lent;th of the working time h-^d to be coOTmced.
(*) Pisher, '-fldo S. and Bezanson, Anne, Vfe^^e Rrtes and Working Time in the
Bituminous Coal Inc^xistry 1913-19^;2, pages 150 and 151.
(**) Ibid, su->ra, pa^es 333-334.
9837
-257-
?he co:.v)ut£;,tion v/e.s b'r.seti u;-.on tl;e c'Z'.te. of the C-eolO:;:;icp.l Survey r.nd the es-
tablished hours v;erc weiohted by the number of mer. eni;)loyed. Unsj)ccified
mines (r.li others), v.'hich included nines chr.nsin-o their hours durin:; the
year, as v;ell rs those which failed to report, were assunied to have the
sa^ne distribution as v/as four.d in those \.'ith siecified hours. These fi:^-
ures, the-:, indicate the Ic-i^.th of t"-.o v.-or^riii:; da.y which the mine was
scheduled to v/ork end. not the nm.iber of hours that the men v;or2:ed.
The United St. tes Bureau of Lr.bor Strtistics has c-rricd on periodic
surveys re_.ardin(:; the wa;;es and hours of lahor in bituriinous coal mining.
Those surveys cover a varyint; number of mines in cloven sta.tes (*) a-nd
differ as to the period of the year when they are conc:Ucted. The data
collected are heavily wei^^hted by captive o-ierations \/hich cm-)hasize indus-
trial ch^^:^:es.
The number of \.a::e earners covered by the Bureau in the studj' of the
industrv in l9oo ;?as i'sO.c,:;-! or 30.5 j.er cent of the totcl number of mine
rorhers reported by the United States Bureau of liines as ennloyed in bitm.ii-
nous coal niniUb in the United States in 13"?. r.nd o5.5 -^cr cent of the total
I nonber eri.loyed in the eleven states represented in the study. The 444 re-
' -tortinE,- nines accounted for c4.L' -ner cent of the total production of all uiines
in all states in 19S:? and 37.7 per cent of the total tonnage produced by all
mines in.t/ie eleven states.
TI:e.li0m-s of employment data in thir study show (l) time at the face,
includi.i.j ti:.ie for luuich, and (.?) totr.l. time in the nine, including time
for lunch and travel time inside the mine from its openin.:^ to the "face" or
v;orkin£; -1- .ce in the nine and return.
"Time for lunch" w-^ s usually cbout 30 minutes, encent in some mechanized
mines v.here it v.rs estimated that the men consujned l.^' to 20 minutes for
lui^ch while v.'aitini;^ for mine crs. The lon;i,eSt time re--)orted for lunch was
one hour. The v^ei^hted average lunch time taJ-en by the 7''.,C96 miners r.nd
loaders in the '^A^L- nines covered in the 1935 r.tuoy was 'iC. 6 minutes ner de.y.
The round-trip travel time in the differort nines ranged from 10 nin-
h utes to tv.'o hoi:jrs. The weii:;hted r.vor-r^;e time of tr."vel in the mine, from
the opening to the place of work and return, for the 7',o'~6 miners and
loaders in "ohe 444 mires was 54 minutes per dry or ,?7 minutes each way.
The t'nree bcsic occupa-tions in bitujninous coal mining are those of
ha,nd or pick miners, machine miners (cutters), and liand loaders. These
occupctions re-iroFiented 6". 3 per cent of all 'the w.ape ean-ners covered by
the Bure.nu of Labor Statistics' study. These v;.' pe Ocrners are usually paid
a rrte ner to:-, of 3,000 pounds, run of mine coal and are not, therefore, time
■v/orkers.
Since miners and loaders a-re usua.lly naid at tonna.ge inster.d of time :
r.ates,' verj- f ev.- ccm--)r.nic.s' l.:ee^- a. daily record for such emriloyecs. The hours
worked bj- the Ldners and loa.ders v.'ere ascertr.ined, therefore, by arrangements
with mine of fief- Is to kee-i a s"iecial dr,y-by-dLa,y record of 6,11 hours of
(*) AlabaET., Cclorado, Illinois, Indiana, I^anisas, i;entuc].y, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, a.nd Tlest Virginia.
9837
each cimloyec for a sample "oay period. The hours worlred by time v/orkers,
on the other hf-.d, are of rcgu.lar record.
The follovTin^,- t,?L.blc indicates the hours of em-.loynent for miners and
loaders from 19:o,r: to 19;v.. These hoiu-s d;\ta ap-oly to the v,',?^,e ea.rners
themselves and so differ from the d.ata shown earlier in this section - the
latter data "bein;^ for hours v/crhed by mines.
Table IV
Average E jo urs of Em-'iloyment o f l.iiners
and Loaders. 1933. 19 2 4. 1D36, 19^:3, " 19 31, and 1935
(U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
ruiiiber i'umber
of of MB.'^C
Year mines earners
1922 !_/ 300
1924 599
1926 556
1929 535
1931 469
1933 444
33,360
91,167
96,010
99,405
90,063
7G,S96
Averci-ce Eours
In half month
ba.sed on -
■ Time at face
'includi ng lunch
6P.
1
64.
6
7r
4
72.
6
56.
5
57.
2
m
Time m
mine
Per start ( day J
based on -
Time at face
incl. lunch
mine
73.7
7.7
u « o
70.0
7.8
0.5
82.2
7.9
8.6
79.6
8.0
8.8
61.9
8.0
8.8
63.2
CO
8.9
1/ Includes drta for Utch, r/ashin.;ton, and V/yom.ing.
Data as to hours of v:or]: for time v/orkcrs arc shown in the follov/ing
table. It \'.'ill be noted thet v/a:;;e earners in this grou--^ work more average
actua.1 hours than do the tonna.ge men.
Table V
Average Ho urs of Em^l oyme nt of All V/age
Earner s other than H i ners and Lop.ders, 1922. 1924
1926. 1529. 1931. and 1933
(U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
I'm.ib er
of
number of
Avera
go
actuc
xl hours
: T/o
rked in
Per start
Year
nines
wage earners
: lu'.lf month
(day)
1922
1/
200
19,388
07,8
8.7 2/
1924
599
49,552
83.1
0.5
1926
555
52,145
91.7
8.6
1929
535
52,806
87.0
0.6
1931
469
47,725
69.8
8.4
1933
44-4
41,438
67.1
8.4
1/ Includes data for Utah, Y/ashington, and Wyoming,
2/ Hot including data for 777 wage earners -w-hosc starts were not rc-oorted.
9837
-259-
The above tcbles may "be somewhat mislerdin^ in thr.t they tend to
indicr.te'^aunifornitjr in working hours which does not exist. The lollowins
tables which show avera^;o hours :^er dac' (str.rt) for different occupations
in 11 coal :.roducin{-j states indicate quite clearly that the eight-hour day
was coraj-aonly exceeded in nost of the occuoaticns and in some instances
for particular localities a^iproached 10 and even 11 hours per c"^'-. lVor]:in:\;
time in excess of ei^ht hours was more prevalent in the coal producing
areas south of the Ohio Eiver, especially in V^'er.t YirGinia, Virginia, ''.
Tennessee, and Alabama. The Bureau of Labor Sta.ti sties' data cannot be
taluen as an accurate determination of the r.veragc v/orlrin;^ time for employ-
ees in a given stf te or field, but they do serve as -an indict ion of the
laclc of uniformity and the extent to v/hich certain areas had progressed tow;irc
a standard eiolit-hour da.y.
The standard viorhin^ cjDy, -U'ior to the Bit'ominous Coal Code amendment,
was eight h.ours. Th6 mines worhed six cia^s a wcch v/hcn marhet and other
conditions permitted so that the csiicblished working week was 40 hours. There
are no r.vailajle o^xp. to indict te hov; ras.nj'- :nines attained the maximum working
week for a whole or a orrt of the ycc^r. hont/ily --reduction data, however, as
well as the record'of averr.ge number of da-ys worked dtiring the year indicate
that the G-hour day and 43-hour week was not generally e.chieved in the indus-
try. Indeed, s. relatively snail number of mines are able to carry on full-
time, year-round activity, i.iining operations whose production is br.sed upon
long time contracts with mblic utility and induc^trial users havin,-; non-fluc-
tuating needs or ca'^tive mines are the most likely to attain the objective of
full-time, year-r6vuid aetivity. Likewise, during yea.rs of general industrial
prosperity commercial mines sup-olying industrial needs at.a.in greater contin-
uity, of operation". On the otjier hand, mines [iroducing prim£.rily for domestic
consum-ition or whose coals contain d high noi-sture content or are subject
to much de.,Tada.tion, opera.te .excessive hours during periods of peaJc demand
and are r.lmost totally shut do\7n during the slack sef son.
. An estimate of the a.vera.ge wee"^:ly o:oerating time of mines for 1929,
1930, 193l',1952 and 1933 prior to Oct. 2 by individual states is shown in
the following table. The figTires shown ra-ircijent the average working time
for all mines which opera.ted at aay time during the year and are weighted by
the total number of men em-iloyed during the -yea.r regardless of the number of
da5-s T/orked or the months in v;hich the men were em;iloyec.. I^ho data represent,
therefore, the avera.ge for all mines in opera.tion a.t a..'-;' time during the year,
but do not reflect the average time for mines in a.ctual opera.tion during a,
given month nor do they maize allowances for monthly variations in the nujaoer
of men e: ployed.
It should be noted tha.t these data for sta.tcs tends to conceal the
difference in operating time a.;iong vfrious riines \;ithin the state. This
situation is illustrated clea.rly in corn-faring the ^,verc-,f:e hours worked per
week during a. given yea.r for bit'oiainous coa.l -iroductio"xi in all the cta.tes as
against the avera.ge hoijjrs worked per v;eek during the sa.mc year for ar^'-
particular state. For exauiple, in 1929 the industry averaged 34.0 hours vjer
west, but Alabajna., Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia, and Y/cr:t Virginia showed a
ra,nge from 37.3 hours to 39.3 hours, v/hile a.vera^e hours in Arkansas, Illinoir
Indiana, c.nd Kansas ra/nged from 22.6 to 27.2. In aiv case, even the boom yec:^
of 1929 found no rtate shov/ing more tha^n 39.3 average hcun-s vrorked per v:eek a/
against the str-nd;-rd 4o-hour v.'eek. The effect of changing business condition'
and cop-s'omer dem^-nds hs.s s,lrec.dy been discussed in the ;-ircceding section of
this study.
9837
• ,-260-
Table VI
AYIPAC^ .::OinS OF ZIT-LOTJIZ'.S "OTlS:: l/AV i;ii~!?LS AID LOaD]RS'i, 1931
Ai3) 19GS 3Y PLAC2 0]? VOiri, OCCtI?i.?IOiT AID SIL^ToS OR SUBLIVISIOr 1/
(Aver?/,"e Actur.l Hours I];.clLic.ing Tirae for Ltmch)
State rinsic'.e TTorl:
or : 3i-cJ:enen
Subdivision : 1931-1933
Inside 'Vor-:
Laborers
: Inside "Jorh : Inside TJork : Out side
: liotormen : Tr/iclTien : Labore
"'orl-
rs
1931 - 1933:1031 -1933 : 1931 - 1935 :1931 - 11
Alabama
8.5
9.0
Colorado
3.2
8.0
Illinois
3.3
o. 3
Indiana
7.8
7.9
Kansas
3.0
3.1
llentuclcy
S.5
8.6
Sastern
S.7
TJe stern
8.3
Ohio
8.1
8.1
Penns7lvania
3.7
8.4
Central
8.8
""est em
8.0
Tennessee
8.1
8.4
Virginia
8.8
9.0
TJest Virginia
3.6
3.4
Forthern
8.0
Southern
8.5
Average
8.5
8.4
3.4
8.7'
8.5
9.1
8.3
8.9
3.5
3.1
8.0
8.1
C . ].
8.1
8.1
8.7
C.6
8.0
3.0
3.4
8.5
0.0
8.0
0.2
7.8
3.0
7.9
3.1
7.7
7.8
0.0
3.1
8.2
8.0
8.0
3.2
3.1
7.9
0.1
d. 3
8.2
3.2
8.5
3.7
3.2
8.0
3.7
(
8.0
3.1
8.7
3.1
9.0
8.4
8.4
7.9
G .3
8.1
3.0
8.3
8.2
CO
3.0
8.2
8.1
8.1
7.3
3.7
8.4
3.2
7.9
n n
o« O
8.3
8.8
8.1
9.0
7.5
8.0
7.7
3,2
7.9
8.2
3.1
8.5
8.0
8.1
u # O
8.1
8.4
3.5
9.0
9.1
8.3
3.3
9.0
9.0
8.3
8.3
8.7
3.5
8.3
3.2
3.9
8.6
7.6
8.1
7.8
7.6
8.4
8.6
8.2
8.8 C
8.2
3.1
8.6
8.5
8.2
8.0
8.7
8.5
1/ TJages and Ilourr. of Lrbor in jSituiinous Coal i.ining: 1935 - Bureau oi
Labor Statistics.
9837
-se^
i 1
» ■* Si
• X V- ^
I K * S ^ *
is;? !«
w ^ « )4 }
J « 1 ? -
II e 2 » '
> t » f ■
e V
'"is
. ^ t ?
.1 «,r^-1.-~«'~-">~^«'>~*'~"''°°~.°'"'~~^°^'^~^
;JA-AAX>AAAAA*-'0~--'»i'''Ai*AA A
I < " i z *-
■» • J < 2 <
"?
poo
a I 1
I I &
H 1-
"TTTS"
^ ? i ■ --1 p
'65
• ^ q ■ ^ o
5?^
"85
II ha
£HKlH§SI§«f^§SS»»s£tllli;£^
gS8888ga a 88S38R8'SgS®8g8& & 8
OMO K) U W to to 10 10 «0 «0 «0* (0 «a «0 to* U* W* «0 10 lO «0 BO w eo «0
S3®^5»«a8l 551&^gSI5^S«li?^sS S
iSrt
K^<
t.a
s
9«37
f'^vo <jj w ir»o r-vo r<\vo (7^^«^^o onoxOvo ir\H o irv* (Tir'i'-o eo :*
C\J r4 r-t iH i-l *H 1^
4 (-4 rH r-l r4 «-( r
S'SSSSSSfl a g8?S8Rg«S«R8g8« 'S 8
«) to «o «o « 10 10 10 <e 10 10 » to 10 lo ■) «o loio « n to w «e k> ■>
S^555^aS£i5SgS^Sg5&Saa«5«^!cg
3;i
s : :
1:
lll3llJl^*5l^lLilllili&-°
> Oi •« *« &^i^ »' i£
£1 £
5
-262-
Annual da.ta showing the average weekly operating time in individ-
ual stp.tes may he misleading;; in that thej'' imnly a regularity of operation
which does not exist. It is necess-r/, therefore, to turn to monthly
data on a.verage hours v;orked -oer vee;: in order to ohserve the wide
fluctuations which occur in T/orkin-;; time. The following tables indi-
cate the approximR.te avera^:e hoitrs worked ner v/eck hy bituminous coal
mines in each of the -orincipal States for the years 1929, 1930, and 1932
(the table for the year 1931 may be found in the oroceding section).
Only the first nine months of 1933 are shown in order to avoid the
influence of the Code,
It must be remembered that these figures indicate the average
hours woriied -jer v^eek by mines and not by wage earners. The data do
show, however, the opportunity for work available to mine workers,
3it'Jj-ii:ious coal mines in only a few states showed average working time
Der '■•eek in excess of 45 hours for any month during the prosperous j^ear
of 1929, These states were Maryl.:md, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wyoming,
Utah and '.Tc-vshington. Coal production in these preas is primarily for
domestic markets and highly seasonal. For example, altho-ugh these
states reported iDarticular months when more than 45 hours per week were
worked, none of them with the exce-otion of Maryland and Wyoming, aver-
aged more than 55 hours -oer week for the year. The tables for the
succeeding yerrs illustrate similar situations,
lio effort has been made in this section of the study, to in-
vestigate the economic imolications arising out of the movement for
shortening the work day and week. That the movement is of fundamental
economic significance for the bituminous coal mining industry in terms
of trends toward mechanization, effects UDcn cost of oroduction, and
spread of employment cannot be doubted. The treatment in this section
is intended to serve as an historical a,ccount of the movement. The
economic problems and conseauences of the shortened work day and week
will be discussed in section B of this Chapter dealing with working
time ajid labor costs under the code.
9837
CI
(C ,S CO
li (4 rd 0)
11 «, ♦> ^
d d c « fl
«4 o O «> ^
a« S n
« u M
P J3 -^
sat.
« <M <H a o
5 c dp.
a u s 9 -a
f?
0^
i-t
O. X> «J ^ '
.
SU^^°'o
§
o ^5i ^
-^ t. .irf «< ■
S
J3 t. J3 ti
M ■» O •« 3
♦> (. S
V)
'• •<; >> .3
^
O '- 11 .o
0. ♦> ^1 l„
t!D
&. ■ i> 11 O
b .-H 4^
o
T ♦» *• -
a
.?i5.a s.^
«
*><
8
« 3
a
s
S s u s i'
U Q 4> >
• m c^ 01
o w X *^
p -rl 13 HI
O « Jj
^ .^ i* ,14
I« •t' O r^
o • a«
m fd 1* CO
CO o m ^. O
t. .3 -.-• rH
T) fH ♦* '^ O
♦J O -i «>
<t • H C ♦»
' b ^ i3
o
o >. -
t, C3 :. c.
i> o. o .J p.
« T) »*
t. I. -J) t*
■rt t> o a H
cc t, p, fij o
u 4 Cj ^d
0} Oi 1- «
e o a o
-4 01 !► -
** •** 1* c. <u
^ .O (0
VI a T< ^-»
ri - -
oj u
I. -
" V. « .d *> '
(1, o © *^ o ♦*
S 3 C ;.
V. o .c
01 i 01 fci ^ *^
C .o n ^
•>H a ♦» ♦■ P fi
Ha 3, o -rt
!^^"
a o <M
CD ♦* H O *^ **
» 01 H cc
b -d «> d p >>
Pi d o o w &
a; rj ♦J -rc i» p.
.. o> d
T) /3 »<
O B
>< a
P< u
^^ a
I tJ o tJ
P< u
o
S oi
<u r-c o o .c;
J4 n .o ■»» H -J
U *> CO p,
O »H « -H B
d B d
.q -H 41
§
rl^
CO <M • 0. b
P> O b ^ tHt
o c « a o
t . * .o 3
« <. >> a ;q
.O r4 *>
B t< iH « d
-26>
& P;^^!X pj^^ff;;?.^! ,i^^A:^S Ai'^^^^^ri ^.ff\^.4.3§
iJt"':f5 '^'"-Otr^ f'clS^Bj 3;>^«){rvr--m r~.mi-(<riiriM
c^O r-IO i-ttor-C\ji3 O'0O>*J^ ''"'Cu <n o o :* o>3- t<-ij- o
L
I ^ 1^ > J- ^ (H '0 cr» o :> r^ o . c\i
CT. r^ r-l iH O <J^
O^'OO eot^r^r-os r^Wi-tOMH u~i=reo.r.cr\'<'> -r.o^'''OrH
■H J- rA^ '^ '~- '^ ^ 3l a-rutrico^ o(Mr-irceQr-i r-'ooto'Asc'
(TiCTiCUO ^Itl^tOr^ tOCOO^f^l t0l!0t\/J*O''> £)ir\CJO-J>H
Pi ^/^ 'J:^ ^ ^ ^' Si. Q "-• P P ■-• rH r^ O "t O (Ti iH ^ r^ rJ Ifl lA
^t^^^'^l>^ K, Ci 1< , r- i l^S ■ArjKjWlM r\l ,H W l lA < l CV r^ r^ r4 tVI
o
J
4/
1 ^
1?
cr>oo a^O r^i^rjoi!^ ''S-* <r\r-« c\j jttoi^r-rHco o <-. f- '''W tu I
■•■• ♦•••• ••••• •••••• ••••••
CM !<-. 11-^ i?) C\ .-^ C<M<> (\J PI ^ rH fl CM r-l W >C l^. > .^ ri ^ !»S |
(T\:t r^ Lr\r*-
L.~i t<~> r^ r- 1— KiiOrionea
O ^ ;-i t^
^t- f o • I
r<>rHr-CO rjOJC^CMO Of'SOtOt^ ^J^'l^— t^f-l • IfNiH:*:*.**
"^15"^'? 'C'rl-S'^O i^cr.a>o<-i ^^t^criCiH otOi-ti-<;*cM
c\ir— r^»it r-4to<7\oirs cioo^u^i^ ior-c\jr^i-ivo rHCUcr^'MCTvto
Oj r*^r^c^
Q O l^a^ o U^CM O <^ '^'> H
f^ rj t\j cu oj t\j c>J 'ti rH r^ cu
9837
f r-* r*-\ o
O CVJilO O Ml LP.
Htoic^jl 5{%o^|rA 2
o|f-Rj|cvi cy K)|
H cu (Mlirs
>-4 I— C\l O iH
1 • • •! • • • kl ■! • •■ > • • vl al •
-(Vi^O|i~- to r^ in^^lcri ful ^ lr^r^ qaoUt
nl
f^ t*^ t*~^ ^'^ r^ r^\ r^\ r*^ K"i rocj C\J (\1 c'S
O I— O O O a\ 0*OMT>li~ltT\
to * f~-cvj tr\(3 crv 11^ eo cv cy ;*
9
V,
r^ &
»
j3
Q
c\
g
to
o
o
Pi
o
g
s
•a
«l
,*l
4 8 • •
5 „ S " S B
a
H Q< a o o ■ o
h -M >4 o
e
_ o " 3 ^ .
;a ;^ a o Vi _
• a •• t-< • o
I
-261%.
Or-Ovo «0U\^O(^ Oj*^W,h10 J- oil- pH CMTi ovootovo ^
S<8^8 RrSftRR RS^^p^ {^fe'Sf^ P^R»^8i>i?
O|to<nr~ iHOjitnio tTK\r<;* r—
^P^f^S^ Rp^RP^ 4»»»Sr tJ»!8»R^
J* o <n^ K^ H o r^ r<-vo f-i
^ in ifvio w ,^
l*\ 9^^ 9*^ l'\ ^ fr^
• ••• •••«• ■■•«•
K\IOK\(y K\K\r»\f»NK\ ^>^ Aj CM (VI CM
•^(HVOVDVO ^ to CM i-l ;4' inl M ID « CM O ^
tuw r<^?^K^^^^
ij) ir\ t-l CM VQ
OVO10<^ UjeVI^Min l«>«\;*Vi3 Jtrl^r^t^O t^«0ONK\K\C«
'^<^-*-* vo rti—r-H MVD H K\»o o o i-< <vj H n r-o r»M,o in CM
RSl&Rr ^S^«5J« 5888*3 »^'ai?8^* !d^*^'a^*!&
8815^ ^^^^^ «*ss5!? ^:Jif?;i^'s ss"sa;j^"
^" r* 80 to KD r^ irut <::t <r>vo cu r^ i*- \x> tc\t-t a><^ vo ^ ^ kn o cu c»%
{j»{jj6 P^^{JRj6 8S:^:i'5 8d-3"jSd 88*l5»S*"ie
^<^ov* Mvo^toirt ooooj-^ r-«o>^ r«-KMf\ rovu rn o f^ vo
CyC\ieUH% K^I^^C^1^I^<^ r* r* M i-t t^ rHr-IH PjiH iHMi-ICMiHni
«> r~-tvj !»-;*
, ,, r-«o K\4Kr^ iH ir\vovor4^ o
(05^53 S^ S2>9,«??>* 2?Jd8S2f j5»::?'^?d J^* Sf^^'lt J^* >i8
ma\f~«o o«o^-o^u^ r-«ovoeou oirNw^wcu I'NtHf-t^vo^
i^i^ EJ1&^J&^ S<^5y8i*5S iti?d^^i^ ?a»?if3Sf&
o\fMr»NO WiTieoiTMn o t—^ to o
vq to in <r> orj ir>
^ 10 Ks<j\o lO
8?S^I^« P^^f^R ^«f?8«?8 P^^Rd^M 8f8?>KlRifP<
^mA m^m f^^mm AmAfx-s^ iM^m
iHini^to r^cutoeoto tocvjOiHON vx)^o^r-r^in oNcnpiHtoin
56rS^{& f^P^S^^J^ 58l5-a5J» i&sffS^g^J^ «*aV8!^^p^
«
'ft
a
R?
S
13
« -
2 ^
a -H
E5
a ti
O l<
o
o
o '<o
I 1 m
»:l4
f
9837
• «
d • ^
«• «> K O
(0 A •
■ (1 ja •
• « 9 «
» A a • a
•^ ° i i; "
»isll
3 ^ ^
m h B c 'o
N
M N B
• x> *> ^ i3
n
a>
c 3 u n
fH
3
*• V M ti n
n «> o *> 3
<*
♦•BO
t<
i. -a >. a
<0
O €> « £>
o.«> £ Vi
^
ftj aj ♦• T3 o
t^ r-l C
a ♦• ♦• >,
o
C -H 5 ■& J3
M
ts^xi
X
a ic a
c
J3 >> O
O rH v^ a- •
^
o «-< ♦> h to
! ■« p. (B •
o "■ h
.£ gS f
(H
o
a a a a
.■c
§:: " r^o
o
.1
o •<-• ♦^ j:
V. J2 4^ >v
.i
*> C r^
1-4
n o - o
(Of « Ul
S3
O rt f^ O
ID C. X3 w ^
© (iu +J -^ O
** c:
a
5 .°-^s
i
gs^.ss
o
^ O ;d f, ^
u
O : • OK
O T_- fr O
<■ fe ^: « fe
(, ^. o X3 r.
X cJ
a --I ♦■ €)
»-«
-o +>
H
•o t. ii-'^
Sff.Hg
t. r:
o c- a o ^
<^ r t, 11
>-
■-. O C «J
m
•p -. I> -
•f 1 « o
^-■° c^-
n
*H (0 no •
*• : , o — a) t,
a a -' (< a
s
f «-, « x; ♦»
o ■ •!-> o ♦>
U
;. c c a
If M 'C
« e e - x: ♦>
i
— r ♦> »• ? a
= 3 a -<
a u -r. js
^
M o <-> *» a
C 01 «-.
9 .:: V. . w
^
n *- »-i o ♦* ♦•
c a rH a
ti "C ♦• C 3 ti
r. c o o n 4)
a a ♦'-■«/ ft
:.)
O
■^
h *> (h
>. C O
i]
je a » 3 <; B
C> T) o -c ft ■ri
0) cot-'
•4
S
'^* fe s
h ■■< V ^ a
.^
S. (, ♦■ x: Tj B
d
♦» »
'O 1 « >• c
3
1) ^ O B
-Q
>; GQ £ «• M ♦>
k, " a o.
'11
5 ^ *. ^ X
r a 01 XI
- n r.
B — ^ o C fc.
h ^ -< o a
3 01 »>*•■' o
j^ 9 c g «-
»-< P« O J)
« £ 9 A
P h a> /I 3
a o t-. a jd
^ H «»
e g h, F-( a a
-2^5-
-1
«
lO n H «D
CO«t<DO| V> BH»f-IOi
o«no«)
• > t • • •
m
•
o
• • • t
• • •
• • • • • • •
• • • • •
i
•■
2
r^ <D a M
n 01 01 M
nmnS n iSSSmm
S8$i;:8
« A N M M n
fc
4
n t^ a> c>
mtno)^ r- nioHcoi-i
^• c> M n oo
10 « o CO n «
•
• -
^
• • • •
• • •
• • » • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • • •
«
•
Q 00 10 «
n 0) 01 01
fi i-t t- t^ H t^ to ^ €> at
eocowcm c4 ioSimmm
« Ol a r- «
to 01 n M M.
o « t- CD « n
iS rt M N N N
01
S
«
r4 «3 to (0
«ar^»c^ ti ^ r-it- ^ M
• • • G» n
• « n n a> N
n
01
«•
* • t t
• • •
• • • • • « •
• • • • •
• • • • • •
• .
•
CJ
01 01 01 O)
sss?:S
9 S^SSSS
01
s
♦
-H iH M O
^^«a» « lOHooi-i
C- ID CD O O
« C- 01 O CD H
•-i
01
p
• • • •
• • •
• • • • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • • •
•
•
•
rt ■* o m
WtOCMM H cgCMHNN
01 O (» o> c-
01 01 >H H oa
N N Ol 01 rH 3
to
n
to
. OJ Ol 01 01
N
01
<o c~ <o a>
•H^fr^O H i-(^lOMO
■* ♦ o> o to
<0 ■* O O 00 H
01
CO
5
• • • •
• • •
• • • • • • •
• • • » •
• • • • « •
•
in o m H
toiooio to c^iQOnt*-
o 01 a> ^ to
3 ^%^'^^
in
01
•4
■H N H 01
WWHH ^ ^-tftlrt
01 rH 01
M
ft
;>■
rH * O. to
GOHMO O .HcOrH^tO
CD C- « ■* 01
in Ol 00 01 c^ in
rO
to
f-
• • • •
• • •
• * • • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • • •
•
3
Ol 0» CO w
ooe^cD (o «ioio«<o
O O H rH ■*
CO <n H 00 CM <0
"Ji
lO
K^
•"1 rH rH O]
CMMHH iH H W^
Ol H rH Ol
rH r1
M
M
•
01 o «) •*
G0eOtOT|« *0 ONO>lO<D
in c o c^ to
to to in t- o 01
01
C--
9
• • • *
• • •
• • • • • • •
• • • * •
• • • • • •
•
•
c- o» to 01
O CJ» O CD CO lO lO .•) 0» 00
CD rH C^ P^ <0
o p) lo 01 m c-
00
in
•-.
»H rH Ol
Wr-lr-H.H *H rH rHrH
rH rH 01
H rH rH H
H
H
«» <D O lO
0»0>'<*»CD lO OlO'^OitO
« 0- to rH -If
CO •* •* O H H
lO
lO
>
• • • •
• • •
• • • • • • •
• • • • •
• « • • • •
•
•
d
fO o (D CJO
•HCDC^CO *0 CJ'^P'iOiC^
in rH in •* rH
M to <0 Ol in C7I
Ol
lO
rj rH M
OJHiHW rH i~i 1-^ rHiH
rH rH Ol
,-^
H
•
O ^ oi o>
ioocgo» c^ "OtOfiww
o •* o <o CO
CO P- * ID o t-
m
o
h
• • •
• • • • •
• • • • • •
•
C^ tf> ^ O
tQVOO^ «0 «>rHOJ«DCM
« lO « to o
^ Ol C^ OJ 0) rH
rH
CD
•4
W 01 CO
CIrHrHr-4 rH OJrH <HC'
■-1 M Ol
H r-^ r^ t^ r-t r-^
CM
rH
<
•* ^ <o c^
c\itof;<o H o<Hr-NC*
to O O O Ol
O C^ t* lO in rH
•*
lO
•?
• • • •
• • •
• • • • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • • •
•
•
to in rH o
c*inc)c^ CO o>eor-wo
N N « W rH to CQ CO W Pi
o> o •* o in
CJ OJ O •* CD 10
to Ol 01 M rH rH
in
c^
C! 01 CO 10
01 01 rH rH CM
Ol
01
__
4
rH 01 m P-
O0l'*'O *0 fHTfC-CvjiH
01 rH a> 01 01
ID in in in in rH
01
o
O
• • • •
> • .•••••
• • • • •
• • • • • •
•
c
lO rl- CJ rH
tOO^^lfi CD C^t-CDrHW
o m t^ CD in
O; Ol 0- 00 <H rH
01
ID
tu
01 oi to t-l
CI W CJ W >-* « CJ W 01 to
to 01 rH rH 01
1' OJ Ol Ol 01 to
to
Ol
«
C- rH OJ :-!
04 O lO (7
fi in CO o> o H
■<<" tC O <» Ol
f-i 01 CD lO C^ ^
111
to
c
• • • •
1 • • • • • •
• • • • •
• • • • » •
•
•
<
CD * O (^
w c5 M w rH rt Qi :.; N fj
o CD in o >
« CO ID m C-. ^
H
m
>->
01 Ol . ) 01
lO 01 01 CM Ol
•gi 01 c J to 0) to
to
01
i9
rH 0> O C-
CJC^-*lO to OJr-ir'JrH'^f
CM rH « 01 01
Ol « CO m CO o
p-
CD
• • • •
1 • • • • • •
• • ■ • • •
•
•
a
o to PJ to
tf) -^r CM r
C^ ^ W C^ ro ^
tn o a> -t T
CO 1-^ f-t i-i Oi (Ji
rj
01
>-
CM 01 01 M
C CJ w c
fA Ci CM rH CJ CVJ
CM 01 rH rH CM
01 01 01 01 rH H
01
01
V
* • • t
• • •
• • • • •
4>
• • •
• •
a
*!
• a
c: • •
• •
g
'-0
• ^^
h
h •
■a
• a
5.& :
:S!
^
01 •
Jd r
c
• »»
*> o »
• o
o
*> •
(
- • ^
3 3 •
• 3
t1
o •
a • o
o *^ •
• +*
4
•
t •
a
•H . ;5
to a •
• C
>■<
•
r^ •
c
H
•
»H
• •
^
t1
•
! o •
.. 5^r, •
t
. «
:]
9a:!a
1
U
,^
O fH •
-H t
(
rH C a M
« C ^ u-
f-
1 3
! 1 s "^ ^
i
•P 13 OO
a
;. a > m
> t^ C (T
U) c o ^
'}
3 0) c n
c>
.55
7) o •
o C >> -w -<
ft) ^ .!
m oj ^ f
^t (3 t» f-
.f ■'
a
^ « t: ©
j= ^ -H +* aj
snss
"
o
s
2
o
1
"u
C
1
1
a
•rH
rH 0} k
H
Kl ^T »H
i
m
•H
?5
s
Pi
II
u .i y>
«•
9237
^
o
to
B
n
8
»
8
B
EH
O
9
I
?
S 5
§
I
-266-
S888 j-sJRa « *a»ss s^'^'ic » sa&as ts i
• ••• «*•• • ••••• ••••• • ••••• • •
MOJ<MN MMMN n tUMtVl^M MH M M MNHKH S N
• ••• •••'• • ••••• ••••• • ••••• • •
I
•0IHMMM i glMO<(' J
4
e
5
I
I
9S37
-257-
C'APTE-^ IV 1/
SEGTIO:.: 3. :i;Xr3 R\T?.S and ' ■IjURo; aiFLOTiAEHT
Aia EA.^nHG3 unde:i t:;z CoDE.
Labor Costs : jjiaj cv Factor in Costs, Sales
Realization and Value of Product.
T-:.e bitUiiiinous coal industry/ occupies a uninue position among
tae br.sic md'a'-tries in tie e:nployinsnt aff oriel by it a? well as in
tiic ■^i-r.vi't:'. n of t.i-t total cost of proluction an.". t./i value of
proT-V-ct I'e'^re^^entsd "cj laoor cost, "iVita t..:e exceotivn cf aj;ricul-
ture an*". trans:crtaticn no ct..ier sin.--le industry e.n":loys as many
oec.ple vs. bifraiiiinous coal. Si.nilsrl;'', t'.;e bitvurilnous ccal indu3try
stpjic".!? out fr:;T. ot.ier indui-tries in tnat its lab-r cost exceeds 60
percent cf t...e total cost •^f -.roduction. Por example, in the reoorts
mads by t.e industry to t'^ii :-T._i..l, tlie ;idne labor c^st in Division I,
reprcientinj; e.bout 70 percent of t:ie nati'.inal tonnage, v/as 65.3 per-
cent cf t':.e total cost of proauction, axcluding selling and adjninis-
tr8.t;'.ve crots (see Table I) for tiie 5-rnont..' period ITovember, 1933
to Marc:-, 1S24-. Txie labor cost for the 10 mon tli period - April,
1934 to Jsjiuary, 1935 (7--ioar day) m this area v/as 66.7 percent of
the tota'i- production est.
T^ie labcr cost per ton m Division II is s-naller in oro"3ortion
to t:.t.al production than in either Division I or III. D"arin.g the
period ITcveiaber, 1933 - Llarch, 1934, tne lab:r cost v;a.s about 73
cents per ton or 60.4 percent of the total production cost, v/hile
in the following lO-mont-i period of labor cost rose to 83 cents per
ton br.t na.intained about the same proportion to production cost. It
will be noted tnat Indiana's labor cost was only 53 percent of the
total production cost.
Tlie explcination for the relatively lower labor coots in
Divisirn II (Indiana and Illinois — Iowa \^'as excluded because of
insufficient data) is to be found in t.ie fact tnat this area has a
cons:-de^^.ble tonnage produced by strip irhning operations.
T"-"-e increased sijiificance in the labor cost as related to the
totrl production cost in tie lO-montii ":)eriod as against the S-month
period is to be explained by the Amendments 1, 2 oJid 3 to the
Bitui'-iinous Coal Code v/hich increased wage rates and reduced the
hours in the working day from 8 to 7,
L/ x'repci'ec. by Louis Lcvine.
9837
r
-268-
S
^
I
T3
O
•H
o
s,
O <H
O
a.
o
55
•H
to
0>
o
a>
o
a
+> I
o o
I
o
3
•o a
o o
> -H O
(i< +> o
t
u
o +>
^ (0
•p
u
+> o
cl o
c
o »^
o
O n
•H O
+> o
o +>
a"
■H
O
O
«>
o
u
o
o
c\joot-ooi-ir-iino>t~<Mt~eo loio
• ••••••••••• '*
t-»OO>lOr-«00U5«D«>WCVIO
0000^«'rHO>«OCOO'-'«0
tOOlXJWOO'O'^J'CMOOlOOOt-
o> o>
o o
CM CM
««
*•
••
m
•«
••
••
—
••
M
••
M
M M
•• M
Ot)
iH
t-
00
iH
t>-
Oi
^
o>
cH
10
iH
CO
CD
in
\o
00
i-»
CJ>
V)
0>
w
10
o>
o>
Mi
to
CM
o>
^
00
to
iH
«J
CVJ
iH
rH
CM
•
•
r-t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
00
•
00
•
t
•
tO^<00»}CO^CV]CM
• ••••••••
O 0>
t-<^C05|lt~<Dt0^lOtONO
(0<2>co(ou>(0(0(0<Oka(0(o
S^
(O
lO^<O^OWf-Ot~CM00rH
OOtDO>iHOO>t-^«OOeMOO
ootQaomcoioooco^^toO
rHi-lrHCVlrHr-trHrHi-liH<HiH
^ .. o> ^ o>
_- --.. _C<J^C>J«OCM^IOO>
to CO to t" <x> t" ^
O CJ> o> 10 <J> t- o>
o> o> W O
s
e- ^ d ^- CM
00 o> <o t" t»
OO 00
iH ft
n
+>
CO
o
o
s
-p
ol
u
-p
-p
«
-p
©
10
o
si
■p
0)
■o
(O
e
o
o
n
s
I4
^
fl -H
Oi
>0 O -H
S5^
•H Vi
o «>
(m • O
O ^ M
4h O
o
-p
o
a
o
■p
I T3
O
© -H
Vi bO
u
-P o
o q>
(3 u
^^
o -g a
IB -O "O -H a o
3 3 9 • « EH
• ^iwi^^^
9837
1/ Excluding Western Kentucky
2/ Excluding Weetera Kentucky and Southern Subdlyielon t 1
3/ Eicl'idlug Western Kentucky and Soutnern Subdivision t 1 and Southern Subdivision ♦ 2
9337
CROSS SECTIOI
TRAOE it
-ttt ttt t; :
±t
H — \-
4-4-
i^
Mining (piece and
DAY WORKERS)
1S^^-
$
n
i
OFMAMJJAS
(•) Excluding Iowa which did not report in 1934
9837
N
:^=.:::::::|:.::..,:
t---
LABOP POST i:>ERl TON
w^-^
*
(•)
O FMAMJOASOND
Soatheni Tenneaiee ajid Georgia did not report Ld April.
-272-
Table II shows the relation of vages to value of 'bituminous coal
"based upon the f.o.'b. aino price in the 7errs 1919, 1922, 19.^9, and
1924. The. "■ yeai's are the only ones for which sufficiently large cover-
age of wsg data rire av;.ila"ble. Tnus the v/a^'e cost per ton data for the
years 1919 -jid 1929 are derived from the Bureau of Census; 1922 data are
"based upon the U.. S. Coal Cornn-dssion survey; and the 1934 data are those
reported to the IT?A. Tiie figures for production and f.o.h. mine price
are those reported "by the U, S. Bureau of Mines (except that 1934 value
per ton is "based upon a cora"bination of K3A and Bureau of Mines data).
The selected coal producing areas shown on Tahle II are among the most
important ones in the country and represent more than 85 per cent of the
national tonnage. Wages in most instances were in excess of 60 per cent
of the total value of product. However, these percentages vary from one
o"bservation date to another "because of various changes talcing place in
the relationship "between wage costs and realization. .Alabama, for ex-
ample, shows wages as 60.3 per cent of total value in 1922 as against
67,2 per cent in 1919. This decrease in the wage percentage is largely
attri"butaDle to the fact that Ala"b,ama "Dy 1922 had "become non-union and
v/age reductions had talcen place. In 1929, hov/ever, Alabama shows rm. in-
crease in the percentage (68.3) of wages in the total value. This in-
crease is not due to an increase in wage costs — as a matter of fact
wages changed only slightly, but f.o.b, mine prices declined from $2.34
per ton to $2.08. Other factors than changes in relationship betv/een
wages and value must also be considered. A large output in a particular
year moj signify greater regularity in operation and thus reduced wage
costs per ton. Again, changes in the technique of mining — increasing
mechanization — may mean lov;ered wage cost. In both Indiana and Illinois
the percentage represented by wages of the total value declined sharply
between 1922 and 1934 (Indiana from 68.1 to 44.4; Illinois from 68.9 to
52.3), During the same period f.o.b. mine prices dropped in both states
(Indiana from $2.85 per ton to $1,54; Illinois from $2.89 to $1.60) , but
wages per t'>n fell even more sharply (Indiana from $1.94 to .584; Illinois
from $1,99 o ,837), The reduction in wage cost, however, is not due
primarily to lowered vvoge rates in these two highly unionized states. In
fact until ,928 mine workers in both Indiana and Illinois enjoyed a $7.50
basic day rate and from 1928 to 1932 a $3.10 basic day rate and after the
latter date $5.00 a day, Tlie orplanation for the declining wage costs per
ton lies in the extensive development of strip mining operations in both
these States, The percentage of the state tonnage produced by strip mines
between 1922 and 1933 increased in Indiana from 7.2 to 36,8 and in Illinois
from 1,2 to 15,0. The tendency to extend stripping operations, as well
as m.echajiization, is due largely to the high ^lnion wage scales in an
effort to reduce wage costs per ton, (*)
Another indication of the position of the bituminous coal industry
as regards the wage factor may be secured in comparing this industry with
other industries. Table III sho?/s the wage bill, value added by produc-
tion and the per cent which wages represented of that value for specific
major industries in 1929,
(*) Kiessling, 0. S., Tryon, F. G-. , and Mann, L., The Exonomics of Strip
Mining, Bureau of Mines, Economic Papep-ll, 1931, pp. 8-9,
9837
.«3-
|P
55 ai «S i; i» s;
!s ^5 =,-
itii
I
'i -
lib
1^^
sl n n tl si s| tl i|
lllilllllilllill
1 — 5 — r
i I I ! r
I s
J IS
I ~.
5 3
I I
i f
5 '
a ^
I I
S i
1 I
>
XI
55
S '^
"
!! C <:
i>
)l
r* "
S ~ ~
f^
M
£ ^~
:
s ; s
KD
£
.
9
i 1 3
i
6
s 1 1
!.
2 C
f t
,!!
iiji
iil
9 S 8 S I
6 fi A a I
_3^ a.
!l
Value added "by production is used in this tatle rather than value of pro-
duct because it is p more accurrite indication of the visk'^e factor si;^nifi-
caiice in a particulrx industry. Por example, raotor~vehicles, not includ-
ing motor-cycles, show the vnlue ac'.ded 'by prodtiction as $1,321,281,511
and vv'a.^;es as 27.7 per cent of that araomit , If, hov/ever, the value product
"be taken, the amount '..-ould "be $3,722,793,274 and wages would represent
only 9,8 per cent uf that aiflount. Clearly, the difference "between the
value prodtict rau\ the value added "by manufacture is to he explained
largely hy the cost of materials. It should "be rememhered that these
materials already have wage costs and so there is a duplication in the
value produrt, Tjie manufacturing industries selected for comparison were
only those j aying wages in eccess of $100,000,000 in 1929 and the mining
and qiiarryi; g industries listed were only those whose wage "bill exceeded
$50,000,000 in th;:t year. It will "be noted that wages in the "bituminous
coal industry were S9.9 per cent of the value added "by production (almost
the same as anthracite;. ITo other industry, except railroad repair shops,
approaches that high a parcenta;;;:e. Railroad repair shops show wages to
"be 88.2 per cent of the value added "by production, hut it must "be remem-
bered that this industry is not really compara'ble since the process is
almost entirely la'oor. The only other industries showing very significant
percentages in wage costs are motor-vehicle "bodies and parts (53.8),
cotton goods (51.8), and clay products (50, l). All of these percentages
are considerably lower than that of bituminous coal mining.
In view of the significant role played by wages in the bituminous
coal industrj', questions of \Yage adjastment3 and policies are matters of
paramount i:7riortaJice. Wage payments are dependent upon a number of fact-
ors, most important of which for labor are productivity and union organi-
sation and for operators - marketa'bility and sales realization. In
bituminous coal, because the demand for coal is relatively inelastic
(despite inroads of substitute fuels) and over development is general,
the price structure prior to the Code was highly unstable and any increase
in labor costs (especially in w.-:ge contracts) would have to be absorbed
by the operator. Decreasing realization per ton, so generally characteris-
tic of the industry from 1922 to 1933, meaJit increased efforts to reduce
the most expensive cost item, namely, labor. The negotiations over v/age
adjustments in the industry developed serious disturbances and unrest, (*)
This situation was intensified ''o^r the competition between the union and
non-union fields.
Tile rel- tionship between wage costs and mine prices has been set forth
in Table II. The section of that table headed "Percentage Increase or
Decrease in W age Cost Per Ton and Realization Per Ton" is graphically
presented in Chart I. Tliis chaji't sho-.7s the relationship of changing vrage
costs to changing prices. Wlaen sales realizations per ton decrease, there
is usually an accompanying intensification of cornpetition to secure mar-
kets and also an increased effort to reduce costs whether by non-union
operations, reduced wage rates, or new techniques and mechanization. On
the other hand, v.^en sales realization per ton increases, there is a lag
in the rise of wage costs (partly because higher prices give impetus to
more continuous operation and so more efficiency and lowered production
(*) See Chapter IV, section on "Collective Bargaining".
9837
-276-
TABI£ III
RAIIO OF WAGES PAID TO VALUE ADDED BY PRODUCTION Df BIAJOR INDUSTRIES, 1929~
(Manufacturing industries listed include all individual industries
paying more than |100, 000,000 in wages in 1929. Mining and
quarrying industries listed include all individual induotries
paying more than $50,000,000 in wages in 1929.)
1/
Value Added /i
by Productioiw i
Percent of Wages
Industry t
Wages 1
to Value Added
Mining i
Bituminous Coal t
1 674,800,072 i
1 621,986,689 i
69.9
Anthracite Coal t
229,967,059 i
327,568,561 «
70,2
Copper / t
Petroleum and Natural Gas-^ j
73,199,785 i
224,284,690 «
52.6
167,989,615 ,
687,126,985 «
24^
Ifcinufacturing t
Boots and Shoes, other than «
rubber i
222,407,752 i
450,867,448 «
49.5
Bread and other bakery products i
274,561,681 i
789,011,511 >
34.8
Car and general construction &t
repairs, steam railroad repair t
shops ,
590,202,724 ]
668,872,810 ,
88 »2
Clay products (other than pot-,
tery)and non clay refractories,
106,918,327 \
213,235,771 \
50.1
Clothing (except work clothingj
men's, youth '8 and boys' not ,
elsewhere classified ,
179,768,308
460,599,226 \
59.0
Clothing, womens' not elsewhere,
classified i
243,851,145
775,166,822 ,
31.5
Cotton Goods t
324,289,094
626,148,110 ,
51.8
Electrical machinery, appar- <
atus and supplies t
466,377,629
1,329,897,949
54.3
Foundry and machine-shop pro- i
ducts, not elsewhere classified t
697,508,589
1,753,396,872
39.8
Furniture, including store and i
office fixtures i
242.832,096
521,662,189
46.6
Iron and steel jsteel works and|
rolling mills i
689,015,541
1,461,706,648
, 47.1
Knit Goods
210, 714, 335
1 445,016,714
47.6
Lunber and timber products, not
elsewhere classified
421,584,874
853,868,952
49.4
Meat packing, wholesale i
165,867,420
460,526,341
36.0
Itotor-vehicle bodies and motori
vehicle parts ,
366,503,386
680,944,156
, 55.8
Motor vehicles, not including |
motor oyclea
566,579,233
1 1,321,281,511
1 27,7
Honferrous-metal alloys and
productE,.not including aluminim
products
« 116,943,996
» 509,395,157
• 57.8
Paper
1 140,598,574
1 592,578,048
1 55.8
Petroleum refining i
131,176,995
1 608,525,595
1 21.6
Planing-mill products (includ-i
ing general mill work) not nada
in planing mills connected with
saw mills t
116,422,664
1 257,674,999
\ 45.2
Printing and publishing, book (
and job i
251,676,692
1 739,907,405
, 34.0
Rubber tires and inner tubes i
127,081,975
1 540,569,919
1 37.3
Silk and rayon manufactures
( 157,547,146
t 319,018,971
t 48.1
l/ Sources t U,S. Census of Mines and parries, 1929
U.S. Census of MaAufaeturea, 1929, Volume I, pages 21 to 54
Z/ Value added by production in case of mining excludes cost of supplies, fuel
and power purchased; in case of manufactures, cort of materials, containers for
products, fuel, and purchased electric energy wer« excluded,
S/ Flares for petroleum and natural gas are for 1919, U.S. Census of Mines and
Quarries, 1919, p. 40»
SRV*
-277-
co-ts aiid orrtly ^ecnwse ir. unionized areas vie.Qe rates set forth in con-^
tracts are more ri -id) . IJo set for;.Tala aoi-^lies to thic. i-elationsM^v laecause
of local condition?. Tims in 1922 as contrasted v/ith 1919, Pennsylvania
realization adva:iced 23.5 ^^er cent while wa^e costs rose 21.9 r,er cent.
In Ohio, realization increased 45,5 Tier cent vdiile laoor advanced 32.4 per
cent. Tne cain in laoor costs was :xre -oroportionate in Illinois (laoor
cost rose 25.9 per cent and realization 25.7) and in Indiana (lahor rose
30.2 -oer cent; realization, 23.4 ver cent). Healizati-^n in-Alahai.ia de-
clined 20.9 T^er cent while laoor costs decreased (area oecame non-union)
29.1 -per cent. It ;nast he remeinhered that 1922 is not a satisfactory year
for -jurooses of comparison "because even thoujli data are availaole for that
year, ic was also the oeriod of the £-reatest strike in the industry's his-
tory.
In 1929, as ai'ainst 1922, all fields showed a ^^reat decrease -in real-
ization and wage costs declined in all areas except Alabama. Generally
spealrin^, the changes in wage costs co-u-esponded more closely to the chaiiges
in realization during this period than during the -period preceding 1922.
To a large extent this correlation is exolained hy the fact that most of
the areas (except Indiana and Illinois) had hecome non-union "by 1929 and
so vifage reductions were made as ->rices declined. In the case of Indiana
andlllinois the greater decrease in .wage co'Sts Is'eXiolr-ined' "by the extension
of striiDTing operations referred to in the -oreccding pages.
The data, comparing' 1934 with 1929, indicate increases in ooth reali-
zation and wage costs for Pennsylvania, Ohio, "Jorthern West "Virginia, South-
ern ITo. 1 aiid Southern ITo. 2, while in India:'ia, Illinois and Alabama there
were decreases in realiza^tion and wage costs. It is significant that the
increases in realization exceeded the increases i'n 'wai^e costs' ai^d the de-
creases in realization were less than the wage cost declines.
L^ie _„-.Jt._R._A.__Hi_stox: _of .Wai^esi. jE..jiDjjD;::aeiit^_anA _Eai^^^ Data relating
to the total wage "bill of the industry are not entirely satisfactory. The
only v/age data which are available covering the entire industry are those
of the census years, 1919 and 1929. Ttie wage bill, including contract work,
in 1919 was $635,457,034 and $576,689,699 in 1929.' 'Thus, "even in the -pros-
perous year of 1929 the industry's wage bill xvas only 34 oer cent of 1919
wage bill.
Turning to -particular producing states for v/hich annual wage bill data
are available after 1929 (see T^ble ly) , it is fo-ond that the wage bill de-
clined in e^ch succeedin;_, year. Por exar.^^le, in Peiins2''lvania the wage bill
fell from approximately $156,000,000 in 1929 (state report) to a low -point
of alrx)st $57,000,000 - a decline of 63.5 -ler cent. Tlie Ohio wage bill de-
creased from $23,224,000 in 1929 (state report) to a low of $9,492,000 in
1932 - a decline of 59 -ler cent. ' T"ne India'na wage bill d'aring the period
1929 - 1933 declined 71.5 -ler cent or approximately $12,945,000. This
decline wo-ald no doubt have 'oeei\ even greater had not three months of 1933
(lI.R.A.) 'bem included.
Tftien it is remembered that these wage bills had been declinin^ in the
industry generally since 1923, it caix readily be observed that the bitumin-
ous coal industr-y had indeed fallen to low levels immediately -Trior to the
enactment of the II.I.K.A. Since the bituminous coal wage bill affects
9837
-278-
t>
I
>i
(A
FH
w>
i=>
fc!
HH
^
^
1^
o
H
o
rl^
C/3
0.1
t3
cr\
O
iH
1—1
t— 1
«v
ro
y
H
R
M
1-1
■<
m
H
l/J
rt
g
i-t
H^
N
l-J
1-1
H
O
R
w
W
'c^
Cj
•=3^ ^
Js
1—1
^
9.
p:i
•^
9S37
J
o
OJ
LTn
OJ
o
4^
60
cr.
r-l
Q) ^l
■«
■*
«
J- -l^ o
<JD
o
to
1-.^ o p
^
00
to
t
I
CA += ©
o^
cr,
— i'
rH C/3 p:;
•«
•«
•»
r-
to
r-l
o-^
OJ
-ao-
o
ro
. ^
o
O
CTA
VX)
K-^
KA
■<J
•»
•»
••
O ^H
r^
1 —
LPv
r^ -p o
CVl
LO
1-^
I
1
K> nJ P-
ITi
CM
K-\
CTi -P a>
•»
•k
#>
tH w pj
OJ
-68-
Ln
O
vn
O
r^
O
rH
O^
O
+3
LO
o
Lr>
LC^
(P ^H
n
r>
«
CM -P o
CJ
^vxT
rH
r^
1
r^ n3 P
to
00
cn
CTi
CTi -P (D
o
o
^
o
rH W prl
«>
»•
••
I —
r-
0■^
LO,
m
-fvO
o
^-
<^o
OU
•• ••!
o
o
o->
UD
4=
o
rH
K>
^
0) fn
M
rt
»k
rt
H -P O
Lr>
K>
iH
U'■^
r^ <ri p-
H
rH
C>^
L^^
1
0■^-P 0)
r^
r—
VT)
OJ
■H w p^
•*
•*
««
tv
r-^
o
^oo
to
(J-\
rH
rH
■69-
O
^
u:>
OJ
o
o
OJ
rH
-p
O
OJ
rH
rH
0) ^
•.
#>
*
O -P o
cr\
o
ir^
o
KA CS P
ou
o
o
I
OJ
C"\-P o
o
J-
Jd-
r^
rH CO rt
•»
••
M
#•
o
t-<^
O
Lr>
1^
rH
CM
iH
-ee-
•P
OJ
OJ
to
r'~\
(1) Jh
n
t^
•t
•»
0'^ -P O
Lc:>
o
K^
r.^
OJ Cj P
0■^
LOl
OJ
t
rH
o^-p q
O^
OJ
O
iH W Ph
««
f\
#t
*♦
i.Oi
\r\
K-\
'^
LO
t-A
OJ
iH
■{y?-
1 —
CTi
CTi
r^
K^
O
LC>
r^
\r\
OJ
CM
to
to
^
KO
fd w w
r>
•t
C3^ <U 0) pi
d"
rH
V-cT
MD
0-^
OJ +3 -P w
r^
O
^
J-
0-^
en -H n3 C
r—
rH
^
co
CTi
rH S 4^ (D
«>
M
m
*t
•»
f w o
r—
to
^
rH
LP>
lO
iH
OJ
rH
r-\
-C/>
03
•H
p;
CO
CC
03
Q)
i>
cti
0)
-IJ
rH
cO
•H
W
cO
t- ,
f!
p;
W
-IJ
'in
ri
•H
tD
w
9^
1 -^
•H
o
t.O
fi;
•vJ
•H
rH
I-*!
•H
M
O
•H
4J
CO
•H
-P
f„
+=
CO
H
ce
■H
U
-P
CO
d
'S
s
1-1
• ••
CO >^
w u.
•H -P
Th W
h !h
rj ro
•
^'^
tj
r;
•"O 'O
•H
!=; fi
p:
C fj
;H
r— <
CO ^1
(D O
■rl
fl rQ
•
fi
•rl 03
03
oJ
s H^
Q)
■H
CO
Vl tH
!H
rH
o o
-|J
ri
W
u
CO -P
•
1^
Cj
o p;
CO
■6
c
•H 0)
®
d
•H
•p s
u
1-1
•^■^
CO -p
u
•rl ^1
7i
«l-l
-p o3
o
>
O
Oi Pi
CO
•H
-IJ <D
0)
-P
r-|
0-i n
r-1
O
6
rj
•H
»>
r-l
'Cl
W
• • CJl
Cj
o
•H
VI A^
T-i
?H
>
O f-i
(D
i^
•H
•H O
Pi
n
-P Pi
•iH
r!
M CD
* ^
o
(D
•H Pi
^
-P
P!
-p
-P
tti H
o
u
-p o3
o
ch
00 '5
CO
Pi
o
H
-p
o
^ Pi
O -a^
u
Pi
-p
o
^
rO
p
rH
O
03 1
CD
nS
Pil-^ \
Pi
a^.
CO
s
ft-
^H -H
H
ti
O p!
03
-^'^
•H
Pi E»i)
03
fi
o u
Pi
•H
pi
• H -H
<
S
^
00 >
•H
CD
>
>■ tH
CD
rH
ni
•H O
CO
p!
O
CO
W
a:
CD
CD
,-^
•H
O -P
fj
rt
'd
■ri r:
p3
lU
r-_\
,^-! -P
<D
Ph
1—1
o w
CH
the purchasing po-7er and well teing of at least 4PO,000 mine v.'or3cers and
their fainilies ~ perh.-ps some 2,000,000 indiviuuals in all, its signifi-
cance in the national picture of econoinic conditions is great. The v/age
till reflects the econoinic sit-aation existing in the coal industry. It
is directly related to the industry's output which is dependent upon the
ntunher of days worked and so upon consiuaer dempnd, mine "breakdown, holi-
days and lauor dijtiu.' "bailees.
Tile statistical series, showing indexes of emplojanent and payrolls
in the "bit-ominous coal mining industry, esta"blished hy the Bureau of La"bor
Statistics in 1S29 is another indicator as to the decline suffered "by the
industry. This series (Ta'ble V) is based upon the reijorts made "by a vary-
ing number of mines (about 1250) representing approximately 50 per cent
of the total number of employef^s in the country. The base year 1929,
equalling 100, may then be correlated with the Census report on wages in
the industry for 1929 ;,vhich was $576,689,599 (including contract work).
Each year succeeding 1929 lontil the enactment of the NIRA. shows a de-
clining payroll. In 1930 the average payroll had decreased 18,9 per cent
(compared with 1929) or approximately $108,994,000, and by 1931 the pay-
roll was $245,000,000 less than that of 1929 - a decrease of 42.5 per
cent. The lov/ point in the annual payroll occurred in 1932, when the in-
dex for the year was 35. 6 or $205,300,000 - a decline from 1929 of 64,2
or $371,388,000. The falling pa^.TOll continued into the first nine months
of 1933, the aver^ige index for that period was 31.5. In August, 1933 the
payroll indrx began to rise so that the average for the year was higher
than that oi 1932.
The declining v.a.;;e bill in the industry is attested to by various
individu^'ls v.no Avere deeply interested in the economic and social problems
of the bituminous coal industry. One central Fennsylvfmia operator stated
that the basic day wage rate was reduced in 1927 from $7.50 to $6,00; on
June 16, 1929, the rate vras reduced to $5,00; on November 16, 1931, it
was reduced to $4.00; and on December 6, 1932, it was further reduced to
$3.44, (*) This operator vjent on to say:
"We figured that was about as far as ve cotild go. And that was
really the highest wage paid by a group of representative op-
erators in our district. ""jTage cutting had become so prevalent
in the industry that it was difficult for anyone to kaov; exactly
what ajiy other operator was paj^ing. It had become a matter of
individual slashing of prices and then the individual slashing
of wat'^es in order to meet the prices and to try to keep in busi-
ness." (**)
(*) O'l'eill, Charles, Testimony, C:se of James Walter Carter v. Carter
Coal i^cmpany, Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, Transcript
of Record to Supreme Coixrt of the "Qnited States, October Term, 1935,
p, 346.
(**) Ibid, supra., p, 347,
9837
-280-
TABI£ V
INDEX OF PAYROLLS IN BITUMINOUS COAL MINING INDUSTRY,
JANUARY, 1929 to NOVEMBER, 1935.
(12 Month Average, 1929 - 100 )
Ubnt^i
1929
19S0
1931
1932
1933
1934
1936
January
106.1
101,4
75.3
47.0
36.1
51«5
59»6
February
116.6
102.1
68.3
47.0
37»2
54,6
66.1
March
108 •&
86 ,4
65,2
46.8
30.7
58*9
67.5
April
89.2
81.7
58.6
33.9
26,6
51.4
45,0
May
91.9
77,5
54.4
30.7
26.9
54.4
49.1
June
90.0
75.6
52.4
27.3
29*2
55.1
64.7
July
85.6
68.9
50,4
24.4
33.6
49.7
35.9
August
92.8
71.1
50.6
26.4
43.3
50.4
45.8
September
98.6
74.9
53.6
30.2
44.1
51.4
60.1
October
106.8
79.4
56.2
37.8
44.1
57,6
69.8
November
106.0
79.1
54.6
38.0
50.7
58.5
65,5
December
108.2
77,7
52»3
37,7
50.8
57.0
Average
100.0
81.3
67,5
35,6
37,8
54.2
1/
57.2
"^ Average for 11 months
Source t U, S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
9837
-281-
Another operator, from Ohio, istated tn:t there T,'as no st-liility whatever
in the indiistry all during the T)eriod fror:; .Jlpril 1, 1927 tmtil the fall
of 1933; that conditions hecanie progressively ;vorse and wage trends were
dovmv.ard. (*) He said that the \7a^es in Ohio, Northern West Virginia,
and Western Pennsylvania went as low as between $2.00 and $3.00 per day
and that miners did not average noro than 3 days work per week, so that
v.'eel:ly earnings were a'Dproxiraately $6.00 to $10,00,
Tile Bituninous Coal Unit of the Research ard Planning Division of
NEA in Becemher, 1933 sent out its from C (employment and earnings data)
to the coal operators requesting, in addition to the \isual data, that the
wage rates paid for various occupations in Al-y, 1933 (pre-Code) he noted
thereon. In view of the fact that most of the coal producing areas v^ere
non-union imi-nediately prior to the KIHA, the wage rates lacked uniformity
even vdthin a given field. The pre-Code wage rate data secured hy the
NP~A. are sig-nificcjit in showing the great diversity in v;age rates and are
also indicative of the low levels to which wage rates had fallen in the
period iminediately preceding the national industrlrl recovery program.
Since compliance with the KHA request for May, 1933, -rage rate data was
voluntary; only those mining operations who kept good accounting systems
or who were willing to disclose their pre-code wage information complied.
As a result, the d.-ita shovm represents the larger and better organized
establishments and are, therefore, conservative and tend to understate
the real depths to vmich wage rates had i,':llen.
'J:-
Tliese data are shown for ftu-ee important occupations in bituminous
coal mining - trackmen (basic underground skilled group) , outside common
la.bor. and loaders (men working on a tonnage basis). Table VI sets
forth the number and per cent of mines in selected areas and the wage
rates paid to traclnnen in May, 1933. In those instances where a mine
reported more than one rate for the same occupation, each rate vras treated
as a separate report. These wage rate data for six selected areas -
Western Pennsylvania, Sastern Pennsylvania, Ohio, Northern West Virginia,
Southern Subdivision No. 2, and Alabama - are shovm in Chart II. It
should be remembered that the Jacksonville scale (ending April 1, 1927)
specified $7,50 per dji^y for traclonen. Tlie May, 1933 data for Western
Pennsylvania show that 49 mines or 32 per cent of the usuable reports
paid less than $2.50 per day, while only 18 mines or 12 per cent paid
more than $3,50. In Eastern Pennsylvania, the shovdng is somewhat better
since 74 mines or 31 per cent of the reports used paid $3.00 or more per
day (no mines paid $4,00 or more), Tui-ning to a southern coal producing
area *- Southern Subdivision No. 2 - it is found that 75 mines or 46 per
cent of the used reports paid less than $2.50 per day (two mines paid
less than $1.50 per day) , while only 5 mines or 5.5 per cent paid $3,50
or more per day. The lowest wage level shown in Chart II is that of
Alabama, where 16 mines or 61 per cent of the satisfactorily reported
total paid less than $2.50 per day. More than half the mines in Alabama
reported a 9 or 10 hour day for Majr, 1933, which means that trackmen re-
ceiving $2,50 or less a day were paid 28 cents or less pji hoxir. Consider-
ing that the traclanan' s work requires a fair degree of skill and experience
ajid involves some risk and that it is in the highest level of miners' jobs,
the wage rates paid in Up'J , 1935 were indeed low.
(*) Finala.y, Harry 0., Testimony, Carter Coal Case, op. eit. p. 384.
9837
-2SZ- ■
J5
i
s
! I-
it
£ Q.
„ in
z
c
k «
( t
< «
) i
S I
> ;
f t
1 1
« «
<• ■
K S
t f
X
^ 5 " ? 5 ? ^
■6 '
^ D 9
«
^
5
i ;
1 1 1 1 1 1 J
II
III
1
1
ii
<
;^*jsi?s
Q «
- -
^
_
^
•^ -»
f il
m ^
« N -^
**
<4
S S ?
^
i
^ s
J
w «- «-
—
?
N ^ >
^
N
■»
H aili
1
«1 S
2
J .
n
- -
5 3
s
'» *i n t* '0
•^
, ,
•ri
ri M
?
Is nil
li
i i
>n
S?
P
«
—
2
—
J
5 S 5 " " S
■* -
<0 tt
^
N
-
?
'l «a|2
1 s
^51
c
*
;;
- ?
M
S * a i £
C -2
c
3
^
c ij
«
s
o » « 2 -» s
^ Mr*
T* r-
I> A N
N
-
~
^ -
> *
g s
lllllt!
s s
l!
J
1
C
r
« > •> 1 » * ^
« s*
^« N
N
<4
V>
n 5
flC ^
5 S « S •
•II
5
l«^
«•
•■■ ii
5 - - ■• s
•» f*
^ -^I «4
•«
^
n
0* lO
n 3
?2 1 C 1
ill
■^
»:
a
?
p "I"
■^
•-
C
la
S" - -^ S
«^ ^ ^
~
M
^
^
!
I 11
5
II
3
S
^
1
?
VI
n - .n
M
M :t
N
^
t4
■3
•J
""
^
—
~
^
_
_^
»
•- 3 -
0.
r
ci ^ n
^
IJ
^
■^
?
-V W)
"
■^
■^
rJ
^
c
t s
N
<
3
S
^
^
t -
_3 •
"
~
■^
"
J
«
11
K;'";i5Ki3
« i
S 5 5
^
ti
«
S'
*■ ""
«
r *;
'U
"el
35 = t s a;
«S
J J to
■?
t
^
5 "
■4
m
J »
5 ^
V «
>» s
E? ;SSS:
«> r >n
■»
•i ii
*- ?
^ «
-3 « N
n
n
•^
a£.
-^^•s*
t9
i!
H O
-H
t ' «
c -> 5
e?-
t " Si
Il-
ia!
-I >:^^
985T
-MJ-
L^
j[|«iit8«»*fQ
\
:k
a w « » a f
♦ o
I
E
\
UT
i. ' '
^
S2NIVM dO daOMOKI
Jn^
1
w
$m
93MitN io oaawnN
m s a
; 5 fi S
T«J7
-334-
T" e wage rrtes ^Dria to outside co.i.ion ?Lfoor r.s re-Torted for ".'ay, 1933
are slic-n in Tr.ole VII and p. ;-:cra-o>.ic -oreserxtaticn for tlie six selected areas
is r.r.de on Cl:rrt III. In ^,7cstcrn Pennsylv.-inio., for example, . o\it of 104 re-
iDorts used, 75 or 61 per cent, s'loved f.ie outside coOTnon Ip.hor rate as less
than ;.2.50 per day, wliile only 3 reports sliowed a rate of ^3.50 or nore loer
d;;.y, Tv.e Eastern Pennsylvania reports for GO aines si: ve^ 29 mines or 47.5
per cent -?ayin,; leps than )'^.50 per di,;y and only 2 mines -naying ".3.25 or
inore -^er cay. In ilorthern "Test Virginia out of a total of 35 report?, 21
or 60 per cent shovred a daily average rate of less th^n $2.50. Alt.icugh
the outside co;T...on labor rate in these norti-.'ern producing areas see-n low,
the '.7a::e rate level in Sou,thern Sui^division No. 2 was even lo\7er. In that
area orit of a. total of 90 mines, whose reports were used, 73 mines, or 81
T)ercent, -oaid Ipss than :)2.25 ^ler day; 28 of these miries -oaid less tlian
03.00 per day. Seven mines in Southrrn Suhdivision 17o.2 reported a rate
of less thWOl.50 per day r<jn<l three of these r)aid ol«-5 or less a day
less tlian 16 cents per hour "based on en. 8-hour day. Again, these wage
rates may oe considered as conservytive indicators and tend to understate
the grave sittvtion which ]ia.d developed. Moreover, it should "be remember-
ed that. wage rates and not earning are being treated here. A mine worher
employed in a i.iine which o^^erated on3.y 2. or 3 days a week could receive
only ';S.00 to .'iC.OO a weeh from wMch a^nount deductions for house rent,
fuel, doctor, etc. woi^ld have to be made.
The tonnage rates paid to loaders in May, 1933 as reported to the
lT.:i.A. by the o-ierators are also indicative of the depth to which rages
had fallen by that tine. (Tabic 7JII - Chrrt IV) T't rates paid to loaders,
even under contract with a trnion, varies from area to area since it is a
rate -oer ton and is dependent uoon size of seam, working condition', etc.
In generpl it mp..;.- be said, ho-^ever, that the wage rate for •'anion loaders
during t e Jacksonville Agreement period (1924 - 1927)was between 75 and
SO cents per ton. In contrast to this rate, it is found that lYestern
Pennsylvcxiia dicl not rewort a rate in excess of 50 cents per ton for May,
1953. As a matter of fact, out of 132 rates reported for this area, 93
or 57 ^^er cent were less than 35 cents per ton — 9 rates being less tlmn
20 cents per ton. To t:e u.sual reader a wage rate per ton is meaningless
■■xaless some Icnowledge exists as to the out -out per .:ian per day for a part-
icular occupational group. The output per nan per day reflects the thiclc-
ness or thinness of seam, degree of nech-sjiization, etc. and, therefore,
varies not only as between districtsjbut even between individual mines.
However, in order to arrive at a rough a.rj-nroximation of the TTestern Penn-
sj'lvania loaders' earnings per day in May, 1933, assume an output per man
per day of 7 tons, (*) then 57 per cent of the reported rates in that area
would re-^resent an earning of '>2.45 or less per day. Since there is no in-
formation as to the number of men v/ho were paid a s-iecified wage rate, one
must be cpreful to avoid the error of ass-oming thataunsjority of the rates
m.eans a majority- of the men.
(*) Coal in 1932-53, U. S. Sureau of Mines re--orts 5.23 tons as output
per maji per day for undergrounc"! men in Pennsylvania. The above lib-
eral assuTiption of 7 tons per dpy is nrtde so that the estimated earn-
ing will not be uxider stated.
9857
-HS5-
z:
-1
12
k:
Q
ti!
z
»— 1
o
Ui
^
u
OC
I
UJ
e>
t
<
'
^
-<!
o
LU
UJ
L^
l_>
n
UJ
UJ
Q, lO
)-
<j^ r,!
1 >
, ''^
UJ
H —
_i
UJ
O >
to
= <
X
nz
~
— i
/I
UJ
£E
z
m
z
UJ
1—
»
<
DC
H
E
UJ
iti
<
5
5
cc
ac
UJ
o
c
^5,
li
I III I I I Is
t ; "t S - e
•» >* 3
■« ^ ^ >« »
liliiil II III I I I
N \« « N
3 ?
I 1
2 s
m
t X '
t »» s s cs
-.«■•»'
3 - i
M
If
U 5
; i i
Hunu h ill
«
t
I
11
4< J(
1^
5f
o > 1
I E !
i if
55i
* S
9837
-286-
3 § S
Saci«*o 53S0!aSaifi£!«
■o
fl")
43
•n
«»-
4->
—J
O
03
ex.-
h
o
c
-c
CT'g;; I
1
c
>.
to
i2
•c
^
in
<
•O
■a
Ql
<D-n
4->
*o
c>
'U
dj
Q.
k.
■D
1/1
$
(!•)
o
c
^.
*J
o
IC
Z-QQ^ 1
'fe
'O
1-
f-
■D
-S
o
F
^
b
3
e
o
^
o
o
1
<
<
<
a : s s » 3
a J' * * *
is
z
I
i-
z
u
1-
<
F
CM
s
in
>
3
s
sags^S?
gs* ■ "' ■
3
^1
lO
1- z ? S
? - -M -
1=
2!
F^
(D
k
b- 1
-1
N-
r-
2
Ul
h
Ul
a
H
is
il
-1
-1
<rt
1.
f"
i»
1
m
k
h
Ui
i
h
R
<o
3
h
1
-
J
5S
in oi
as
CM CSJ
I?
to Hi
»n m
18 .
e
ss
'■^' en
•^H ■<»■.
cvi ro
m
I
2? I"
u;l
"8
I?.
5
8f
g!
a*.
W lO
sa
Ki Kt
8 .
5 S «
S * a S 2i
? 3 S
S3NIIN JO aiawnN
3 S
' 5
■ a 3
— ^
Kl K*
§1
*^< *^ a - »
II
9837
-287-
Ir. Eastern Pennsylvania tlie re^tiorted tonnage rates for lorders in
May, 1C"3 vere i.xacli higher. Oxit of a total of 74 re-norted rates, 65 or S3
■)er cent :7ere in excess of 35 cents ^oer ton. llo rate for less than 25
cents per ton was sho\7n, ITorthern ITcst Virginia reported 43 rates or 31
per cent of the tota.l a,s heing less tlian 25 cents per ton. A weit^^hted
average of the earnings ^er day for :na,chine loaders in northern ¥eit Virgin-
ia, "based -aT^on the I.lay, 1933 rates, was ^)2.58. (*) In view of the fact
that Gl -ler cent of the re-oorted rates were less tlian 25 cents uev ton,
it would follow that more iTien were employed at the higher rates or that
the o'0.t ;Tvit ner man per day wa.s in excess of 10 tons in order to ea-rn
02.58 per c'ay.
Southern SulD-Division ITo. 2 reported 162 ra.tes for loaders for May,
1933, of AThich 117 or 72 per cent were less than 30 cents ner ton. On
the other hand, 14 rates or ao-^roxinately 9 vev cent paid 35 cents or
more ver ton. It will he noted tha.t :na,ny southern coal producing area.s
(Tahle VI II) - Kanawhia and Logan Counties, 'Jest Virginia;' Hazard, Kentucky;
and T7illiajTison, Southern '"est Virginia and viorthern Kentucky renorted a
high -oercer. ':age of their loacler rates as "being less tlaan 20 cents per ton.
Th.e fCiTegoing material, indicating the declining wage rates and wage
oill in the hituninous coal industry, is ver;'' significe.nt in its effect
u-oon a widespread lator population. (See Chart V.) Since bituminous
coal mining is c"rried on in some twenty— six widely scattered states, de-
moralization of mine la-hor - aside from the effects upon operators and
consu-'ners - has a tremendous influence on the economic well-heing of
these area.s, In considerable -nortions of these states more than 60 per
cent of the -oroductive indxistrial workers are em-nloyed in hituininoiis
coal raining. Serious reductions in in-.iyrolls mean curtailed purcliasing
power pjid affect the whole nfitional economy. The hituiainous coal indus-
try for a decade had "been growing incr<?asingly worse in terras of markets,
^^rices, wage hill and emr)loyment. Indeed, it may he said to have contri-
buted more tlia.n its share to the deeply denressed economic conditions whidi
existed in the early months of 1933,
Smplo^onent in bit'oininoiis coal mining in terms of seasonal and cyclical
va,riations has already been disciissed. (**) In this section the evmoloynent
situa.tion will be treated a.ccording to the trend of the last decade in
order to -ircvide a be.ckground for the situa.tion which existed immediately
preceding the adoTjtion of the Bituminous Coal Code. The shrinl:age in em?-
ployr.ient after 1929 in the bitu:7iinous coal industry was neither peculiar
to itself nor more drastic than occurred in other industries. But unlike
most other industries, the bituminous coal indixstry did not have its pealc
eraploj'mcnt in 1929. Unem-aloyment in coal mining had been growing since 1923.
(*) Statistica-l Co::nilation, il'orther TJest Virginia Subdivisional Code
Authority, J?airmont, TJest Virginia, AiDril 1, 1934, p. 109.
(**) See C" '.-oter IV section on Seasonal and Cyclical Flticttiations in
Hmnlo: .lent.
983?
n
d
o
z
<
UJ
CQ
Z
z:
^
LU
i.!r
\^
sss-
"^ T "^ ^ o o "o
" ? I 8 8 I I
R a ^
3
^
-^ -^ "5 ® c>
" •* 5 '- C^
J rj 3 rf 5
5 3
'* Cl ft* -* -* *ft
s 5 5 -!;
N
e -
M
c
o
e
15
o
U
<•
O
c
i
3
CD
10
I
O" fn ^ — •? N*
s s
»J I- »!
Hi N "O
■* >C1 iTl n
lO ^ rj o-
1
g.
a "
^ I
> i
« t
* ?
5ff
^*
■»
01
o ? J i
i J I
13 1 *
IE
i
■»
^ c^
.9831
239
MINES
Number ' Mines " Selected Areas ■■"'^"'' Loaders
were paid Rates Fdlling in Specified Wage Rate
Intervals — May 1953^
NO"'
MINES
56
52
48
W. PA.
E. PA.
OHIO
48
44
40
S9
5b
3'
52
26
.'&
24
^■i
20
21
lb
12
1+
' '
8
9
g
S
A
7
4
.
1 ^
1
'lb
52
MW VA.
50. SUB-DIV 2
ALABAMA
4«
49
44
Ab
40
43
36
52
28
24
20
2'
16
12
B
9
1 ^
6
k-v-Fl
1
« — «
4
4
-Tl
4
'
Ctmis *>•*«* '^^ ^°° 2M 500 3S0 400 4^0 500 UNOtn IW ZOO 2W) 500 bbO 400 450 500 U««t.t»^ 150 200 2S0 500 550 400 450 500
►tdToB '^* '^^ ^*^ ''= ^^ 55^ **^ ■•^^ 0*1" 1^' '95 245 295 545 395 445 495 Ovid lb' l95 245 ^95 545 595 445 495 Ovic
J/ Reported by Cpcator^ u> OituminoiA Coai umt m R a on form'c'
NOn ceruain Mines Rttpofted More irvai one Rate and tncse *rerc Counted as 5epar»Le Reports
-S90.
9S37
— 2C1—
It is necessary, fuerefore, in discixssinc- t]ie unemployment ^^roblera in tliis
inlrstry to refer back to t.ie events -^f nore than a decade ago,. Horeover,
v'hile ceclininj e.ii-nlo:>iVient ip a serio\'..s yjro'ble'.n wherever it is fotmd, in
■bitiminouG coal rainin;'^ the -problem is more ^Tave than else\7here. The coal
miner lives in a decifTedly restricted laLor market. Wien the miner is
thrown on a declining TjaXor m.arhet alternative occupations affording
employr.ient ai'e lacking aiid his mooility is so liniited by his impecunious
state as to shut him out from, other areas where work may he available.
The cr.ta set forth in Table IX -jid Chart 71 indicate clearly the
trend of emroloy-ient in the bituminous coal industry during the ten year
period preceding the advent of the IT.R.A, It will be noted that the
employ.ient ■:iealc was reached in 192v" when the total muuber of employees
in the indu-^try. au-oro>:imated 705,000. At the spme time the number of commer-
cial mines '.n operation totaled 9, '331 - the highest figure in the history
of the indu.-try. The re-'na,rl:a.ble grov.'th in mining operations and therefore
of ca-oacity arising out of the war ueriod is evident when it is seen th-^t
only 7 years before this date the total nuiBber of co:"Tr.iercial mines was
5,7^6 or 3,505 less tlian the nuiiiber in 1?23. 7Jhile these operations a.f for-
ded increased emoloj^ment, thej'" were ov.tgrowths of a teiinorarj'' war-time
demand p,nd of unusually favorable market prices because of 'transportation
shortage and la.bor disnutps. The tremendous increase in excess capacity
in the face of a -Dost.var recession in der;.and inevitably brought liquida-
tion of mining operations. The closing down of mines was accompanied by
decreasin"; emploj^ment. In other cases where mines contin\ied to operate,
the nunfoer of days ?;orked in thc.ye^.r was materially redixced. In still,
other instances operators des^Terately seeking to reduce costs introduced.
mech^.nical cutters j loaders, etc, and t.ius displaced nunerous emoloyees.
In the one yer^r between 1923 and 1924 the number of mines in operation de-
clined 1,745, or ainrozimatcly 19 per cent, v;hile the number of employees
were rediuced by 85,000, or 12 -oer cent.
The decrease in the number of operating coirunercial mines and in employ-
ment continued steadily in each year after 1923 (e::cer)t in 1926 when the
British strike influenced prices s-aff iciently to re-open a few mines and
improve em-lo:mient slightly down to 19C3. These shut down mines repre-
senting potential tonnage and increased excess capacity continued to threat-
en the d.e-oressed market. Only the passage of yea.rs with increasing disrepair,
flooding, roof cave-ins, etc. could remove these mines from the picture,
Th\as in 1929 when industry generally was booming and -oeoTjle were talkincg
of permanent prosperity, the bitujninous coal mining industry since 1923
had closed down come 3,274 mines or 75 -oer cent of the total operating in
that year. Employment in the same period decreased in excess of 200,000
or ap-oroxirv-tely 29 yer cent, The fret that emriloyment did not decrease as
greatly as .he number of mines indie; tes that the larger mines employing
great numbers of men continued in operation.
The d-ownward trend in employment and in the number of com^nercial mines
in oi^eration continued until the sijmrier months of 1933, when in anticipation
of improved economic conditions ■onde-^ the ITational Ind\-.s trial Recovery Act,
emploj^ent. increased aJid a number -of mines re-onened. 3y 1932, ho'-^ever,
employment in the industry stood at 4-06,000 or 300,000 less than were em-^loy-
ed in 19.25.
9357
c
D.Elt. '*»!
EAELE" IX
nm» oj ■ffioKBTP, wosino tna. iwi bitb iro luoe paowoiiTm at miuuiwos coil mub n thi unm> siins. 1899-193U
(eol«M (I) to (6) fro» «nu»l «pDrt. of th. 0. 8. »ir«u of Uln»: Ool™. (7) md (S) con^ut.d froo report, of Ox, n. S. RirMU of Labor
atstlitlci; ColujiEi (9) froB Saport of th« tl. S. Coal ComliiloD and Di Coda)
(3) (It) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) _ __-
(I)
(2)
ployed
( tbousaadj)
^erag* oisBbar of liayii
forkvd
Xdlt
Oa
ftcoount
of labor,
dltputaifi/
Oth.r
caaa«*a/
Het tout
p«r man
p«r day
KuDbar of
ooDtnercl&l
mlnoi In
operation
Average dally eanioge
all daymen covered by
Sureau of I^bor Statli-
tloe. eample lurreyi
feet Tlrfflni/1
Illinois icale
Inside daynien
(trackuen)
M99
1900
1901
1902
1903
1901*
zn
23U
1907 ■
1908 .
1909 •
1910 .
1911 .
1912 .
1913 ■
191U '
1915
1916
1917
191s .
1919
19»
1921
1922
1923
192U
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929 .
1930
1931
1932 .
1933
193U .
301*
23U
31)0
225
^.
230
225
1,38
202
ii£i
211
1(73
213
513
231*
516
193
9*}
209
556
217
550
211
?t9
223
572
232
58.
195
557
203
230
603
2U3
61=
21*9
622
195
6I4O
220
66U
11*9
633
1U2
705
179
620
171
583
195
59U
21"^.
59U
191
522
203
503
219
1*91
187
1*50
160
W)6
1U6
U19
167
1/ U50
—
5
2
7
3
8
2
23
1
11
1
35
2
10
5
19
1*
h
1*
1
25
6
3
78
2
7
2
1
1*5
8
(d)
2
3
19
9
66
69
81
71
80
98
95
67
73
101*
98
56
95
75
71
91*
101
71*
61
58
88
82
156
83
127
130
111
92
72
97
119
IU5
11*3
132
3.05
2.98
2.911
3.06
3.02
3-15
3.21*
3-36
3-29
3.31*
Cc)
3.1*6
3-50
3.68
3.61
3-71
3-91
3.90
3-77
3-73
3.8U
it.oo
1*.20
11.28
lt.lt7
U.56
l*.52
it.«-o
U.55
l*.73
It. 85
5.06
5-30
5.22
1*.78
It.OOO
(0)
(c)
(c)
(c5
(c)
5.060
(c)
(c)
(c)
5.775
5.813
5.887
5.7lt7
5.776
5.592
5.902
5.726
6.939
8.319
8.991*
8,921
8,033
9.299
9.331
7,586
7,11*1*
7.177
7. on
6.U5O
6.057
5.391
5,6it2
5.it27
5.555
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(0)
(c)
(c)
Cc)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
Co)
Cc)
Cc)
Cc)
$it.09
Cc)
$5.37
Cc)
$lt.93
Cc)
$lt.91
(c)
$1*.76
Cc)
$lt.57
Cc)
V $3-25
•/
y
1/
Cc)
(c)
Cc)
Cc)
Co)
Cc)
Cc)
Cc)
Cc)
Cc)
(c)
Cc)
Cc)
Cc)
Cc)
Cc)
Cc)
$3.21
Cc)
Cc)
J/
e/ $3.55
Cc)
V $3.35
u)
X/ $3.28
Cc)
S3 .19
Cc)
y $2.66
i/
$1.90
2.28
2.28
2,28
2.56
2.I12
2.I12
2,56
2.56
2.56
2.56
2.70
2.70
2.85
2.35
2.85
2.35
3.00
3.50 Aor.,
■^.00
5.70 Hov.
6.00 Apr.,
7.W
7.^
7-50
7-50
7.50
7-50
7.50
6.10 Sept.
6.10
5.00 Oct.
7.50 Aug.
6.10
6.10
5.00
5.00
5.00
Aug.
^ Inclidai ttrllcsa, suspensions, and lockouts.
b Includes no oarket car shortage, mine oreal^downe . and all other causes of lost time except labor dlsmtes.
i Vo dntF-.
j Less tfaea ^ day.
± Sunreye nade between Jpnimn' and liay.
X Sorreys made between October 1, 1921 and February 15, 1922.
£ Surreys made between October and Deceober.
h ^irveye c^de between November 26. I926 and Uarch 22, 1927.
X Surreys made In first g.jarter.
^ ^r^'cys scde In first quarter.
k Surveys aads in February
X btlmatsd.
9237
Prepared byi f . 0. Tryon and W. H. Young,
Coal Sconoolcs Division,
U. S. Bureau of Kines.
October 27,' I935.
Ill
-293-
CHART VI
TRENDS OF EMPLOYMENT, WORKING TIME, WAGE
RATES AND LABOR PRODUCTIVITY, 1899-1934
MINES
MEN
(000)
10.000 1,000
9,000
i.OOO
7,000
6,000
5,000
4.000
3,000
2.000
1,000
300
600
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
1
r-
n
'"
».
/
I
/
/
\
/
/
\
'
\
/
1
\
\
\
NUMBER OF /
MINES WORKING /
>
1
>
_^
/^
\
V
(
/
\
\
/
/
^
X
/
\
V
>
\
'/
\
y
^
/
N
^^
\
■*
'-
^^
J
—
1
s
s
_,
'*
/
■■
'".
_,.■
y
•"• MEN EMPLOYED
s.
y
. . . .
/
s.
/'
^^-
i
':..
.^
f"
/
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ;
UNION DAY WAGE :
r
'
\
/'
SCALE- ILLINOIS "*-;
/
■
/
....
'°-
O-i
-J
0-
--
'
/
O
WEST VIRGINIA' ->' "\
DAYMEN'S EARNINGS
;
1 1 |-i->- ■ ■ ■ ■
..},...
\.
I
._.•
'
DAYMEN'S EARNINGS
^i"-
'*
1
\
,../
^
—
—
—
-^
^
-^
^
■
-^
—
^
^
^
—
—
'^
1...
^,_
^-TONS PER MAN PER DAY
1 M i 1 1 1
DAILr
WAGE
$7.50
6.00
4.50
3.00
1.50
OlOOOOOOOOOO — ——— — ——— ~ — (VOJ(\jnJ(MfV|ftJf\j'M'ync»'^<»|fO
TONS
PER
MAN
6.0
4.0
2.0
IDLE
LABOR DISPUTES--
tu-Mi at Uter SUtlitl:!
9837
V f- Tr/oD aAd fl. E. Toua£,
Coal AronoB^c* D1v1*1od,
'J. 9. Surf«u of Uloat.
October ?5. 193*1
Draft'4D< ^ L L. A&d*rion.
<r
■■r-rot-j3::io\it the oeriod ijiiider cliscusGion, it will "be noted that the oiit-
put per :Ticm -oer day steadily increased. Wliereas ir. 1922 this output ai-iount-
ed to 4.28 tons per day, "by the end of 19ol it a.Tio\:;jnted to 5.30 tons T3er
day. The increasing output per man -oer day evidences nev; techniques, .'[great-
er neche.nization and operation of mines having more favra^le natural
v/orlcin^- conditions. Thus, the "evelopment of stri:o minin:; in Indiana and
Illinois meant greater out-out -oer man concurrently with lower labor costs
and reduced' eraloyment. Again, the electrification of the mines, modern-
ization of mine lay-o\its, mechanization of cuttin;'^ and loading — all seek-
ing to reduce rjrodnction costs — I'lso snelled unemployncnt for.lar.^ic
nura'bers of men. Those individuals, who were, for t-anate enough to retain
their jots, found that their working time was seriously reduced. Part
time emploj'Tnent meant deflated pay envelopes. The avpr^ge number of days
worked -ner yerr in the decs.de, 191.5 - 1922, was 205.3; in the following
decade,' 1923 - 1932, this average h?d declined to 186.6. The lower portion
of Chart VI shows "days idle in lahor disputes" to h-^ve oeen of no great
conseauence since 1923, 3x\t "days idle - other causes" (primarily lack
of markets) "became increasingly significant in that "oeriod. Even the
prosperous year 1929 afforded only 219 days of work - the most th-t hi-
tuminous c^al raining had liad since 1920.
The situation in the titunirious coal fields had become so critical
hy 1951 th^t President P^oover requested the American Friends Service
Cominittee to undertake a child feeding urogram in the "bituminous coal
areas. The :iroJect "began with $225,000 and more money was later raised
"by -private fubscri-otion. Child feeding programs were conducted at 640
schools scr :;tered through 40 counties in the states of Pennsylvania,
'.Vest "Virgii-ia, Kentucky, Llaryland, Tennessee and Illinois. (*)
Tlie only continuous and compara."ble data showi.ng earnings of "bitunin-
pus coal miners over a period of yer.rs are those collected "by the U.
S. Bureau of La'oor Statistics. This agency in 1919 instituted periodic
surveys regarding the wages and "iriours of la"bor in "'oituminous coal mining.
These studies, in general, have "been carried on every two yea.rs. They
provide employee data for bituminous coal mining in eleven States - Ala-
ba_ma, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, "Virginia ajid West "Virginia, These States ;oroduce more th-an 90
■oer cent of the national tonnage.
Studies lia,ve been ma.de for the following periods:
January to May -1919
October 1 to Febr^J^ary 15 -1921 - 1922
October to December -1924
llovember 25 to March 27 -1926 - 1927
First Quarter -1929
First Qua.rter -1931
February -1933
(*) Llorris, Hom.er, Testimony, Transcript of Hecord, James Walter Carter
V. Carter Coal Com-oany - Su-oreme Co-urt of the "United States, October
Tern, 1935, p. 503.
9337
ffl
-295-
In epc--. yerr the dnta we-"e collected for each envoloyce in srcli occu-)p.tion
in the in:1ustry, showing the n"arnb'^r of str.rcs or calendar days on which he
worked, the uu'ii'bpr of hours -orked, and the anfiount earned in a re^iresentative
half-monthly pay period. ' The vj^ge data, eiccent for a few coiTi-o;nies yrhich
made trrnscri-ots of their records to the "burcan, -rere tairen directly from
the payrolls, clotfc c.■^rds and other records of the coiTP?anies studied.
The nxTinoer of mines for which c'ata v^'ere secured varied from one survey
to another. The data' covered 2^0 miles in 1922, 599 in 1924, 566 in 19;:!6,
535 in 1929, 469 in 19ol, and 444 in 1933. The recent • sxirveys covered
a-)-Droxinately one- third of the total numoer of eanloyees in the industry.
In general t^ie sxirveys included many larger mines and numharous car)tive
mines. Since the comr)osition of the sairrole favorf the l-.rger well organ-
ized mining operations as well as those. hrvin,_ industrial affiliations,
it ip luidou.'btedly true th' t the number of st' rts in the )ay -oeriod and.
the regularity of operation are greater. As a result the average earnings
indicted are nerhans somewhat higher- than might othenrise be the pa.se.
Likewise, the c^ata for the uiiorga-nised areas heing- "based on the records
of the lietter co:.imanies are apt to present higher a.verage earnir.gs. The
a.verage earnings ca-ta, re-oorted oy the Bureau of Lahor Statistics are net
earnings after- deductions for occuTD.:.tional expenses (poT/der, dynaiaite,
tool sharpening,' 'bl'-cksni thing, etc.) have heen made.
Although the hours and wage studies T)resent da-ta for each individual
occupational classification-, for purposes of tr.eatment hei^e the, occu-oations
will he set u-o into two groups. One group called "tonnage mr-n" is n.ade
UT) -oriinarily of miners (gang miners, hand or ^lick miners, machine, miners
(cutters), and ma.chine miners( (cutters) helpers) and ].oa.ders (contract,
hand, anc! machine). ■ These emnloyees vrork ujiderground or inside the mine
and are generally naid tonnage rates. The other- groun called "da.y m.en"
includes all em'^lo.37ees working either inside or outside ( svirf a,ce) of the
mine who. are -oaid time or da,y rs,tes; thrt is,' r'^.tes per houj:, da.y, or
week. The data for the day men are generally more accurate tlian data for
the tonnage men hecnuse the time and earnings of the former are entered
on the payroll records.
The average earnings of hoth tonnage and day nen, in general, declined
contintioiisly since 1922. It is true th^t the half month earnings of ton-
nage men in 1926 showed a slight rise, hut this increase was temporary,
reflecting the influence of the British strike and increased demand for
coa.l with accom-oanying increased worki'ng time. .The average hourly earn-
ings of tonnage men based on time at the face, including time for lujich
were 91.5 cents in 1922,' 34.3 cents in 1924,' 81.7 cents in 192S, and 5.". 7
cents in 1929. The decrease between 1922 and 1929 was 22.8 cents -oer hour
or 24.9 per cent. Average earnings "^er strrt or day for this group
wej-e '■;7.b3 in 1932,' .:)6,60 in 1924, '■6.46 in 1926, and $5.50 in 1929. Daily
earnings oi.tonna-gs men declined between 1^22 and 1929 to the extent of
$1.53 or 21.8 -oer cent. Earnings in the half month fell from $52.30 in
1922 to $49.85 in 1929 - a decrease of '12,45 or 20 per cent.
For the dci.y mengrouT), average hourly earnings between. 1922 and 1929
declined 14.8 cents or a-nroximately 20 :oer cent. Daily earnings for this
group d-jring the same T^riod decreased $1."3 or 21 per cent. The slight
difference in the uercentage decline between hourly 'pnd daily earnings is
explained by the reduction in the avera.ge hours vrorked per daj^
9837
-296-
Average Sarnirir'^s of Tonnage M e n and Day I.Ien i n Specified Years 1/
Tonnage Men Kay Men
Per Start
In Half
P'
er Start
In Half
Year
;r IIour2/
(Day^
i.'iontli
Per Mo-ur
(Day)
Month
1932
0.915
07.03
62,30
0.753
' 1
6.55
$65,17
1924
.843
6.60
54.44-
.696
5.92
57,81
1926
.317
6.46
61.61
.664
5.70
60,87
1929
.687
5.50
49.35
.605
5.17
52,57
1931
.599 .
4.82
33.32
.595
5.02
41.58
1933
.395
3.18
22.59
.439
3.68
29.46
1/ U.
S. Bureau of :
Labor Statis
tics
2/
Tine at the face, including Itmch
Considering thrt most industries in 1929 had a record for the ^^re-
ceding years of increasing average earnings, the 'bituTainous coal mining in-
dustry's record \7as indeed had. Desr>ite the Io't wage level existing in the
coal industry in 1929, earnings continued to decline in the following j'-ears
with the influence of the business depression. The earnings received by ton-
nage men and day men in 1931 .and 1933 are sho\7n in the above inset. In
the last survey ma.de by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, ]J'ebrut\ry, 1933, it
was found that the amount earned per hou.r by the wage earners, in the Indus- .
try in tlaat year was 41 cents. (*) The average hourly earnings were 85.3
cents in 1932, 78.8 cents in 1934, 76.3 cents in 1926, and 55. 9 cents in 1929.
The decrease between 1922 and 1933 was 52 per cent and between 1929 and 1933
was 38 per cent.
Because an average of earnings for all wage earners in the industry.
tends to be misleading in that it conceals variations existing between -nart-
iciilar occu-^ations and -oroducing areas, more sr)ecific information is needed.
Data giving somewhat more detailed information regarding earnings for all
wage earners, tonnage men, and day men in the States east of the Mississip'oi
River as re-Torted in the stirveys of the BLireau of Labor Statistics are set
forth in Table X. The ejrolanatory note's at the tot) of the tahle are essen-
tial to a riroper understanding of the qualifications attaching to the da.ta
set forth.
A cor.Ti:)Drison of the daily earnings of day men discloses wide differences
in the various states. For examnle between 1921 - 22 and 1927 daily earnings
for this group of men in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohip were in excess of ';7.jO,
whereas in Pennsylvania, Kentiacky and.¥est Virginia, these earnings ranged
from s"omething less 'than .^5.50 to .05.50, and in Virginia, Tennessee and Alabama
the earnings were from $3.'50 to $4.50. The explanation for the variation in
earnings levels for each grouiD of states during the period discussed above
lies, prii'iia.rily in the degree of unionization. Thus, Illinois, Incliana, aiid
Ohio were strongly organized areas operating imoer imion contracts. The gro'qj
of states comprising Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia were only
partially organized and for va.rying -:)eriods of time so tlia.t althoLigh the
earnings in the unionized portions brought vx> the average level, the non-
union area earnings were sufficient to keep the average below that of Illinois,
Indiana, and Ohio. The final .group of States, Virginia, Tennessee and AlabaiTia
was non-union a.nd operated under a great v.ariet " of wage rates, lov^er than those
sr)ecified in union contracts. By 1929 all of the states shown on Table X, except
Illinois and Indiana, were non-union. The wage rates in Illinois and Indiana
were reduced in a new union contr;.ct negotiated in 1928.
9837 -
-297-
i I
* iiS ill! Ill
3 *l!n JiN 5-1
3!
I a
J*:: if
Hill
9
i
B
'^ a
S
9
3
I IP Jjil 1 1
' !» J in? ?N I
E ^^'li ^Sa^ 'I! ■
! liii! If I 1
11
ri
^lirli'irf'irl
ii
»
111
M
a
tSi
ii
!1
J^S
«l
a
i3l
«1
a
a
I3i
n
23!
— 3T
a
1^1
-a-
a
Hi
^iun tnxs9% 9KSi»g
.-..--. •<••*•! •■•••»»
eM9S
KRVSS3
«8ft8l?M
B«as«s;
2jrff.8«41.8
^^«^l!^
■ J.S4 • • •
SJMvas
H^U^
JtRMea
Bttft«$S
ig^ffSK #-,MȣK l-ai^|1SA
KKBOf
R_savisie
M^MS 5^.sm i^mt
„ CR8«»
£se&&«s B^tat&s a?&xftKK
»B»8aCR
jiasRa "stS^« jMBftT
tAJjiJjin
gEB8f&& l^CSfSH RKJ^S
»K&9Xaf
esBsti« tss^sus nfseaij
l«lSi£l£ES
aMY38Bk>
ii^.B^isl
fiKiseea
• liR...
1
I
I
\
J
I
1
a
1
I
§
I
7
-298-
The February 1933 survey disclosed that day men's daily earnings had fallen
to $2,52 in Alabama, $2.66 in Tennessee, $2,89 in Virginia, $3.25 in TJest
Virginia, $3.09 in Kentuclcy, $3.57 in Pennsylvania, and $3.24 in Ohio,
while in unionized Illinois and Indiana these earnings were $5.03 and $4,95
respectively.
The discussion of declining earnings for day men applies equally well
for the earnings of the tonnage men. Indeed it may be pointed out that
after the day men strike of 1920 and the subsequent increase in wage rates
for day men, the earnins|:s of tonnage men relative to that of day men de-
clined more rapidly. With falling demand for coal came drastic reductions
in tonnag's rates, decreased working time, and increased mechanization in
an effort to cut costs. A greater de.gree of specialization and increased
division of labor likev/ise tended to detract from the significance of the
tonnage men - especially the pick miners. Only in the highly unionized
States of Illinois and Indiana were the tonnage men able to maintain some
wags rate differential over the day men and thus have higher earnings.
In the other states, especially after union organization had broken do\im,
tonnage rates fell more rapidly than did day rates.
The earnings per day of tonnage men in Illinois during the period
1921-22 to 1927 ranged from 38.36 to $8.90, but by 1933 had declined to
$5.15. In Indiana during the same period (1921-22 to 1927) the daily
earnings ranged from $8.20 to $8.44, and in 1933 had declined to $5.41.
Daily earnings of tonnage men in Ohio, however, v.'here union organization
had broken dovm after 1927, declined from $7.66 in 1921-22 to $2.69 in
1933, Similarly in Pennsylvania tonnage men' s daily earnings d-uring this
period had declined from $6.13 to $2.33. Tiie lowest earnings per day for
tonnage men disclosed in the 1933 survey were found in Virginia, Tennessffi,
and Alabajna, where they were $2.54, $2.40, ,and $2.31 respectively.
Code History of Wages and Hours : The general demoralization of labor
relations, wages, and hours of work with which the bituminous coal indus-
try was faced in the period preceding the summer of 1933 is clearly evi-
dent from the testimony presented in the hearings held by the national
Industrial Recovery Administration from Augu.st 9 to 12, 1933. (*) These
hearings were held for the purpose of presenting evidence, proposals,
and recommendations for the forimilation of a code of fair practices ,and
competition for the industry. Ydiile much of the testimony presented was
irrelevant to the immediate subject at hand, representatives from various
coal producing areas did testify on conditions which they alleged made
necessary certain v/ag;e provisions and wage differentials.
The K.2.A. attempted to reconcile the large number of proposed codes
which were submitted by compiling a national basic bituminous coal code
which would be "sufficiently flexible in its provisions to meet the needs
of the various geographic divisions of the industry" .( **) This code was
submitted to the industry on September 7, 1933. Provisions v?ere made for
the hearing of any objections or amendments to the basic code on September
11, 1933.
(*) Por a discussion of the various wage and hours provisions set forth
in the proposed codes preceding the final emergence of the Situmi-
nous Coal Code, see Chapter II.
(**) IT.H.A., Release Ko. 673, IJotice Regarding Basic Bituininous Coal Code.
9837
™he maT-ira-ura hours of "or^- and the minimum- re tes of v- y standards ^-ere
set forth in articles III r.nd IV recpectivel-"-. Since the provisions of
this code immediately -oreceded those finally ; loproved by the President,
it is of some interest to m-ke note of them.
Article III - Standards of liaxinum Hours of Labor vvns as follo':'s!
"No employee sh- 11 be employed in ercess of 32 hours in
any calendar veel: durin^ a consecutive period of 26 '"eeks in
any twelve months period, nor in excess of 40 hours in any
calendar week durinf^ the other 26 consecutive '-^eeks of such
twelve nonths -oeriod; P7.0VIDED, ho'-ever, that any employer
may elect to operate any nine on o schedule of employment of
not to exceed thirt-'-six hours -oer v/eek throu<?hout the
tvelve months period. No employee shall be required to work
more than 8 hours in cny one C.ej at the usual vforkin?; pl-'ce
(exclusive of lunch oeriod"" "hether p-id by the our or on
a tonnr-~;e o^sis"....
"If rt anv mine a mcjOx-ity of thp unemployed '"'or^cers,
who 're or ^onize.i in the m;- nner renuired in Section 7(r'* of
the national Industrial "ecovery Act, exoress their d-->sire
to share avail? ole v/ork v ith other bona fide unem-oloyed
"orkers of the same mine, or a \ ritten recuest so to share
the Fork is ao-dressed to the mine raroiagement, si-^ned by a
mrjority of the euployed '.vorkers, the'numoer of hours work
to be allotted to the unemnloyed vorkers shall be deter-
mined, by conference of the i.iine Adjustment Committee, or
in case of disagreement by the decision of the ~)istrict
Adjustment Committee and duplicate cooies of the decision
of the S-ominittee shall be furnished to the local mine men
agement trid the local mine emoloyees' dxily authorized re-
TDresent" tives. " .
Article IV - Standards as to 1 inimum lates of Fav, Inside ^ates -
was expressed in the f ollo'' ing language:
"The basic minimum r-te for inside Irroor including
the occuToations of tracklavers, octtom cag'-rs, drivers,
trio riders, griptjers, '-'ater haulers, machine haulers
and timbermen shall be the rrte herein^Jfter set forth in
Schedule A-|^-?r each District then descrioed, with the
zanders t an d-lii^ that other occuoations will mrint. in
their customary differentials above or below the said
basic minimum r-.te. Should any of these rates conflict
with contract rates in ;' nv district or .jortion thereof,
nerotiated collectively with a union of the employees'
own choosing, the contr-r-ct rates shall govern."
"Each of the Divisional Code Authorities hereafter
described shall within fifteen days from the effective
dr-te of this Code, submit for the consicerrtion r nd ap-
proval of the National :^.ecovery Administration a supple-
mental schedule setting forth its minimum rates of pay to
mine ^"orkerc em.ploued on a tonna ;e bt.sis in pick raining,
hand loading, undercutting,, solid shootin?, ind also to
9837
mine "'orkers emiDloyed in strip i lining, mechr,nizi'd mining
fnd c.e.' dv7ork, to conform to the' br.sic ninira-um rpte for
inside Ifbor, and '"here the niine ■ orkers in pn-^r district
: re ort'^ani7er. and hr.ve bnrgrlneo. collectively for such
\'3^e£ ■ nd ' orking conaitiona, to rrport That, if r-ny,
collective bf rsains h^ve been inr-de."
Some other provisions set forth in Article V (Conditions of ■Em-
ployment') cf this Code which diffe" from those in the finally acceoted Code
v/'ere :
(f^ "Ko person uider sixteen (16"^ yenrs of ei.s'^e shall
be emplo^'-ed inside e n?;- mine nor in hazardous occupations '
outside any mine, proviaed, however, thrt where a. state
la'.T orovices a higher minimum age, the state la':? shall
govern. "
Section (§"> provided for r reioort to the- N.l.A. from a designated
investigation committee on or before i.'ovember 3i^, 19S3, regarding rraong
other things: (l) the practicability and cost (f ssuinin-^ maintenance of ex-
isting rates of pajr"^ of applying to bituminous coal raining a shorter '-ork
day and i-'ork veek, giving condideration to r 30 - hour, a 52-hour and a 35-
hour '"e-'k, (S"* the effect and advisability of revising 'ysge differentials
in the various regions cJid districts cf the industry. Provision v'as also
m'-'de for a joint conference on December 1, 193b, betveen representatives
of employers and employees under the Code to discuss wages, hours :nd dif-
ferentials. Unless this conference urde revisions the l-bor provisions of
the Code were to continue -until April 1, 1934, rnd thereafter during the
effective period of iM.I.^.a. or until ch.. nged by mutioal agreement of oper-
ators and mine workers subject to approval of 'he A-diainistrstor.
The provisions noted above called forth a storm b'f protest at
the he ring held oy the IT.H.A. . The Code, "s finrlly drafted after a con-
ference of K.R.A. officials and l\ joint conference of oper' tors appointed
September 12, 1933, followed the gener- 1 outline of the draft made public
September 7, but m^de a number of modifications. Among the more important
changes in labor provisions viere:
(1) An increase in the maximum ^^ork-week from 36 to ^0 hours.
(2) Limiting the decision to share work --'ith unemployed miners
to mutual agreement "between the employed vor^cers at the mine and their em-
ployers, therety eliminating the provision for appeal to a district ad-
justment committee.
(3) Elimination of occupational specifications in setting up
minimum '"ages.
(U) Elimination of provision requiring Divisional Code Author-
ities to sutmit supplemental schedules covering minimum piecework r-.tes.
(5) Increase in the minimum ago for employment inside the mine
or in hazardous occupations outside from I6 to I7 years.
(6) Date for review of '-..v^es and differentials -nostponed from
9037
lao^omi.er "^0, 1933 to Janiiary 5, 193'+.
(7) Ap-olicition of raayirauTn hoars, -niniimira rates and differen-
tials li-iited to April 1, 19^4, ^anless revision ir, rapde by mutual agree-
ment as a result of the January conference.
(S) Provision th :t the difference in districts in the minimum
rates under Schedule A are not to "be considered as fixing permanent wage
differentials or establishing precedents for future '='age scales.
When the Code -as submitted to the President for approval, he made
three important changes before adding his signature. He added a sen-
tence to" Section 3, Article VII relating to compilation of statistics
by Code Authorities, rhich stated:
"All coal producers subject to the Code shall
furnish to tmy government agency or agencies designat-
ed by the Administrator such statistical information as the
Administrator may, from t ime to time, deem necessary for
the purpose recited in Section 3(a) of the National Indus-
trial Recovery Act; and any reports and other information
collected and compiled by a Code Authority, as heretofore
provided, shall be transmitted to such government agencies,
as the Administrator may direct."
•The President reserved the right to name three additional mem-
bers to the National- Bituminous Coal Industrial Board as against the
number (I5) specified in the Code submitted to him.
The third important change involved the highly controversial
Section 7(a) of the 1-I.I.R.A. (*)
(*) Section 7(a' of Title 1 of the National Industrial Recovery Act
stated:
"Ever-;- code of fair, competition, agreement, and
license approved, prescribed, or issued under this title
shall contain the follo'-dng conditions: (1) That employ-
ees shall ha,ve the right to organize and bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their 0'."n choosing, and
shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion
of eTTTDloyers of labor, or their agents, in the desig-
nation of such representatives or in self-organiza-
tion or in other concerted activitied for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection;
(2) that no emoloyee and no one see!:ing employment shall
be required as a condition of employment to join any com-
pany union or to refrain from joining, organizing, or as-
sisting a labor organization of his oim choosing; and (3)
that employers shall comply with the maximum hours of labor,
minimum rates of pay, and other conditions of employment,
approved or prescribed by the President."
9337
-302-
The Code as it "rent to the President contained a Schedule B vfhich
was a clarification" of Section ?(a) as set forth hy G-eneral Johnson
and Mr. Donald Richterg. The clarification state'nent annoionced that the
section meant notiiing more nor less than it stated and that "the vords
'oTDon shop' ajid 'closed ^ho-o' are not used in the la'v pjid cannot he
written into the law." The Pre'sident, ho^rever, eliminated parr,grat)h b of
Article V ^^hich referred to Schedule S on the hp.sis "that attempts "by
those suDmittin;^ codes to interpret Section 7(a) of the national In-
dustrial Hecovery Act have led to confusion nnd misunderstanding; such
intenoretations should not he incorporated in Codes of ^pir Competition".
The Bituminous Coal Code '7as aporoved by President Roosevelt on
September 18, 1933, but it did not become effective until October 2,
1935, The labor provisions as. set forth in this Code have been con-
sidered models for industry. This distinction is not surprising nhen the
great numbei" and diversity of occupations in the two major classifica-
tions of tonnage men and day men in this industry are considered. '.lore-
over, the steady disintegration of union power in the decade preceding
the ena,ctment of the IT. I, P.. A. seemed to indicate that mine labor would
lack 3, strategic position from -'hich to voice its demand. A few weeks
prior to the enactment of the I'l.I.L.A. , however, the United "dine \7ork-
ers lai'inched a nation wide organization campaign, penetrating almost
every non-union area. V/ith surprisin^^ly little active opposition from
the operators, except perhaps in the case of the steel affiliated cap-
tive mines, the union made effective use of Section 7 (a) of the Act.
Immediately prior to the union organization campaign only a very
small percentage of the national tonnage was being produced under con-
tract with the ijjiion. The principal wage contracts were those in ef-
fect for considerable portions of Division II and IV, the State of
Ti/yoming, two operators in the State of Washington, one operator in the
State of Colorado, a number of operators in Southern Ohio, a fe^^ oper-
ators in Northern West Virginia, and two operators in Pennsylvania, The
remainder of the industry operated without contract wage scales in their
respective areas. As might be expected wages and hours were neither
uniform nor stable for the major portion of the industry, covering in
excess of 90 per cent of the national tonnage. When code negotiations
began in 'Jashington in the sum.mer of 1933, hc'ever, the United lline
'i'orkers '^ere in a position to give effect to their denajids.
At the same time that the code negotiations .were taking place, a
wage and hour agreement between the Appalachian operators and the United
l-'ine '..'orkers was being negotiated under the direction of the President in
conformity with Section 7(b,) of the Recover-r Act, Informal negotiations
beg.on on August 19, 1933 and the agreement w^.s signed on September 21,
It represented a reestablisiiment of the United Mine Workers in Ohio,
Pennsylvania and certain outlying districts to the south as 'Tell as an
extension of union organization %o Southern fields never before union-
ized. The wage agreement ran from October 2, 1933 to Ilarch 31, 1934
affecting a normal output of 300,000,000 to 350,000,000 tons and ap-
proximately 315,000 mine workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
ilaryland, Virginia, Eastern Kentucl^'- and ITorthern Tennessee,
President Roosevelt ap oroved pjid signed the agreement on September
22. He sta,ted when he approved this agreement that it was with "the
9837
-303"
■understanding that the hours, ^ages and conditions of employment reO
cited herein may also ne aPTDlied to em-oloyees not -oarties hereto; and
that the requirements of Section 7(a) of the National Industrial Re-
covery Act will te complied r^ith in carryin;;; out this agreement".
The appalachiart V7afl;e agreement provided that supplementary dis-
trict agreements te made to cnre for local conditions. It also re-
peated the Bituminous Coal Code provision for a conference of em-
ployers, employees, and the N.3.A. on January 5, 1934 to discuss viages,
hours and differentials. Other provisions related to the 8-hour day,
election of chcck'-feighraen, selection of pit committees and machinery
for settling disputes.
Captive mine operations in Western Pennsylvania gave rise to con-
siderahle difficulty before agreement could be reached. An extensive
strike involving approximately 75,000 men for a period of several months
took place. The central demand was effectuation of Section 7(a) of the
Recovery Act. The steel compaiiies contended tha.t they were operat-
ing under the Steel Code and that it was not necessary for them to
sign the Coal Code or cater into "'age agreements. After United Mine
'Jorkers efforts to halt the stoppage had failed, the W.R.A. intervened.
An agreement "as finally signed September 29 under Section 4(a) of the
F.I.R.A. (*) Steel companies operating captive mines agreed "to com-
ply with the mazcimuin hours of labor and minimum rates of pay which are
or shall be prescribed under or pursuant to the Coal Code for the dis-
trict in which such mine is located so long as the Coal Code shall
remr.in in effect". The situation with reference to formal union re-
cognition and the "check-off" continued to be complicated. :
The Bituminous Coal Code established basic minimiun rates for two
classes of labor, namely, outside common labor and inside skilled
labor. It further provided that "other classifications of eraploy-
ment will maintain their customary differentials above or below said
basic minimum rates and that payments for :Work performed on a tonnage
or other piece work basis will maintpin their customary relationship to
the payments on a time basis provided in said basic minimum rates,"
Title 1, Section 4(a) of N.I.R.A.
"The President is authorized to enter into agree-
ments '-rith, and to approve voluntary agreements
laetween ar>d among, persons engaged in a trade or
industry, labor organizations, and trade or indus-
trial organizations, associations or groups, relat-
ing to any trade or industry, if in his judgment
such agreements will aid in effectuating the policy
of this title with respect to transactions in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce, and will
be consistent "rith the reauirements of clause (s)
of subsection (a) of Section 3 for a code of fair
competition, "
9837
-304-
In 'deterraining the minim-mn rates of TTages, it was necessary to consid- ■
er the com-oetitive relationship of the many producing fields in dif-
ferent coal-consuming markets. The comiDetitive elements arise out of
the quality of coal, freight rates, the la.'bor ma,rket, etc. Since the
relative im-oortance of these factors cary from field to field, the
estahlishment of separate districts was necessary. The Deputy Admin-
istrator, K. M. Simpson, stated thpt:
" "As far as TDracticp.hle , however, the numher of dis-
tricts has been kept to a minimuj-n and the snread in
ra,tes has been reduced to the narrowest limits possible
and still promote comiDetitive equilibrium. Rates sub-
mitted in .the numerous codes proposed showed wide variations,
both as to the minimum rrages and the differentials betvreen
different comDeting areas. It would be utterly impossible
to reconcile all the conflicting rates proposed by the dif-
ferent interests involved. The effort .has been made to arrive
at a set of rates which would result in the least economic dis- f'^
location and at the same time carry out the iDunDoses of the
N.I.R.A. - emrilojTnent and increased purchasing power." (*)
These sectional differences were recognized by dividing the country
'into seventeen wage areas., A uniform minimrom v^age rate existed within
each of these wage areas, eizcept in t?/o districts. (**) No data
W6re available from which accurately to determine the differentials
which should exist bet?/een competing districts. Outwardly these min-
imum rates were fixed ty the NoR.A. when the original code vras pro-
mulgated; actually, in most instances, the rates resulted from col-
lective bargaining and the 1-I.R»A. merely incorporated these con-
tract rates into the Code. (***) Thus, the 'differentials in rates
of pay represented agreements arrived at by representatives of -dif-
ferent geographical divisions within the industry as being fair and
equitable, and aporoved 'by the II.RoA. Basic rates set forth in the
Appalachian wage agreement, referred to above, and in earlier unexpired
contracts in fields outside of the Appala.chian region (for example,
Indiana and Illinois) became the bt?,sic minimum rates specified in the
Code. In other districts where no union contracts to set the standards
(*) N.R.A. ,Code of Fair Competition for the Bituminous Coal Ind-
ustry, Vfeshington, 1953, pages til and XIII.
(**) District F - Iowa; Wayne and Appanoose Counties of Iowa.
District K - Hew Mexico; Southern Coldr.ado.
(***) Hale, Sydney A., The Bituminous, Coal Mining Industry, Chapter
VIII, p. 169 in Galloway, George, 3. and Associates, Industrial
Planning Under Codes, Harpers , lOSS,
9837
-SOS-
existed, the N.R.A. and the interested oioerators negotiated the rain-
imam rates. By SeiDtemter 29, 1933 when the SuTDrleraental Executive Order
was made public, (*) every district exce'ot Alabama and Texas had ac-
cented the mininum rates -oronosed "by the E.H.A. Texas was elininated
from consideration on the "basis that its business was entirely in-
trastate. Considerable controversy existed in Alabama, where it was
contended that the minimum rates of $3.40 ver day for inside skilled
labor and $2.4C per day for outside common labor had been im-oosed, but
efforts were being made to have the operators accent these rates. .West-
ern Kentuclcv operators had nro^osod rstes of $2.64 and .$2.24 and stren-
uously -protested a^jpinst a -orooosod base rate of $3.84 ner day for
inside labor, but finally accented rates of $4.00 for inside skilled
labor and $3.00 for outside comnon labor. October 2, 1953, the date
when the Code went into effect, found basic rates of pay for all nro-
ducing areas in the industry and more than 90 per cent of the national
tonnage under -anion wage contracts.
The basic minimum rates as established by the Bituminous Coal
Code are shown in Table XI. Districts A, 3, C, K and J-1 coranrised
Division I of the bituninous co.:il industry. These districts, with the
exception of Western Kentuclcy, were in direct coranetition with one
another, often selling similar coals in the same markets. Moreover,
since Division I nroduced about 70 ner cent of the national tonnage, it
was extremely imnorta.nt that the ba.sic raininum wage in each of the
wage districts be so adjusted to one another as to bring about fair and
comnarpcle coranetitive conditions. The Bit-uminous Coal Code was the
first instrument to give effective recognition to a condition in the
industry which had resulted in constant and recurring price cutting and
wage slashing in an ever downward spiral, namely, the competition be-
tween unionized portions of the Northern nroducing areas and the non-
union coal fields in the South.
(*) This order annroved the revised Schedule A of the Bitumin-
ous Coal Code.
9837
■a
o
o
n
'I
[^
I H g
I rA a
»< H g
X
•« en
ft
c A •
^ ? S
w H Z
• » c
▼4 O
II I
SgE
S|
RSCS
'<*'! ^ *ia T
1
Si88
P
i
5"""
Si
■?
1 1
888S
8 888888 8 8 SS
8 < SiSSSS
S SS' ■ ; g
SS 8 I az i
.£ ill
I :• a s ji a 8 sig s
5 ■' -^ s' - ' •'t.* '
; S£ a s
z S s s s
ll
ii
•««3S« SIC'
I , I
1$
ftsaasR ii 8 81 us
b
A
1 JDS3"
EBBB
ii
T^lHisS i i U i » m
S3 8 S
! I : :
I ! ! :
t!!i
1^
; ill
JJi.
litiii
• i| i I ! • ,
yiJiiii^iVijM
ij Nil
1 iill 1 1 il i I
uli
- i
ill
11
J .1
i P Ii I
II
2 a
I I
II
rii
o :a ;
<:i :
fill
«S11
4^
■I
^^
■*
^
If I
ill!
I 5 \
I J 1
I a I
I I I
I
I It ^^
HI
i ! III! 1^ 11
m
-307-
This situption, "-hich had deraoralizt-d the inuustry p.na hrd broken down
union orgpnizption from the J^c'csonville scple oerlod loi'"'Prd to 1933 (*)
wrs finplly subjected to regiilption throuc;;h the influence of Section
7(a) of the NIRA. lepdin^; to the Arpplpchipn "Pge agreeiuent and the
incorporption of collectively negotiated bf sic rates for the Northern
and Southern coal fieldr. The wage differential Question became one
of the most im-portant and controversial issues in the i-dustry. (**)
The basic miniinum dp-'- rate established in District A (Division I -
North, except Northern west Virginia) for inside skilled labor was
$4.60 and for outside comaon laoor S-o. 60. District C (i^ivision I -
South or Southern Aiopalachian areas) h.ad $4.20 i^er cay for inside
skilled labor and $3. SO for outside common labor. Northern \',est
Virginia (District 3) held a ;aid-position in the co.ipetitive relation-
shiD between the Northern and Southern Apoalachian areas. Its
inside skilled day rate was $4.36 and its outside comaon day rate
was $3.36.
In Indiana (district D) the day rate for, inside skilled labor ^as
$4,575 pnd for outside ii0.i.ion "'abor H;4o20. The Illinois (District E)
rates for inside skilled and outside coraiaor labor ^-'ere $5.00 and
$4.00 respectively. These basic rates ir- Indiana and Illinois, as has
already been stated, ^-'ere in unexpired contrpcts pnd_ were not disturbed
bv the Bitunincus Coal Code, '.estern Kentucky (District r), '-hich
entered into direct corai^etition "ith Indiana and Illinois, had a. $4,00
inside skilled rate and a ^SS.OO putside conmon rate. It, therefore,
enjoyed a favorable differential of $1.00 against llinois and 57^
cents for inside skilled and Sl.rO for outside comrujn Pi'=:ainst' Indiana.
The coal producing areas in the deaper South, e st of the .iiss-
issibiDi r.iver, had the Ic^rest basic rates in the industry. The minimum
day rate in Alabama, C-eorgia and Southern Tennessee (District j): for
inside skilled labor was $3.40 and for outside comaon labor $2.40.
These areas vere not very significant in the total tonnage produced
and their com-oetition ^p..s localized. It should be noted also that
most of these areas had alwpys been non-union. In general, therefore,
although the ^"age scale "as Iot' it did not tend to depress the wage
level of the industry as a v-hole. The Northern Tennessee coal fields
(District J-l) had sone^'hat higher mini'nuin rates - ??3.&4 for inside
skilled and $2.84 for outside common lab9r.
Tiest of the ississicpi r.iver, the lo'-est '^'age rates ^^ere found
in the south-^estern coal fields - Ms^ouri, Aansas, Arkansas, and Ol'la-
horaa (District 0-) "here tne inside skilled rate "as ff3.75 and tna t for
outside com lon laoor $3.28. District j;' wiich included all of Icna ^as
divided so that \vayne and A'ranoose. >^oanties re-oresented a senarate
(*) See Ghp-oter IV, section on Collective liargpining - ' age
Tegotiations and Industrial Dis-cutes.
(**) For a discussion of the wa';e differential -nroolems and controversy,
see Chauter IV, Section C.
9837
-308'
section. This division -?s "onPid uoon p recognition oi p difiertnce in
mininc: conditions pnd slso nn th.: fact that .iayn'- pnd A panoose- Countits
had enjoyed a differ^ntipl over the remninder of Iowa since 19?8. The
inside skilled rate for lo-a (exclusive of '..ayne and Aonanoose Counties)
-ar $'i.7.' as a -ainst $4.56 for '..ayne and A-upanoose ^ounti.r., '-hile the ^
outside coiMon rate was $4.00 a^iainst $3.86. The Dakotas v,ore set up as
a seTjsrate district (0 vith a rate of $4.00 for inside skilled and
:-'3.00 for outside coauion.
As a result of the KSA and tne aooption of the Code, Nc- Mexico,
Colorado, (e^xept x.ock •'iountain iucl Co. .uiich ht^n operating under
union contract in IS^^.b) Utah, anc large parts of yomins-, ;ontana an4
.a;.hinf-ten cam., under umon contracts. The lovest v-rge rates in these
uOu]r/ iountain and lar >.estern States group existtd in Hew iioxico and
Southern Colorado (District K) v^here inside skilled labor received
$4.46 ana $4.44 per day respectivelv, '^hile outside common labor m
both areas re c ived $3.75. District L (l^orthern Coloraoo) under the influence ^
of the leadership ox the Rocky i;iOunta.in Fuel Co. paid $5.00 for inside
skilled labor and $3.75 for outside com;rion lauor. Utan, Wyoming and
.ashing-ton Paid inridn skilled late: oi $5.44, $5,42 and $5.40 respectively.
The highest basic rates .m the in-ustry -ere paid in bontana . vhere mside
skilled labor received $5.63 per day and outside common labor received
$4.82 per day.
The 1-agc rates and hoars of "crk vhich beca.'fie eiiective vitii the
adoption of \he Code on October 2, Ib'oi continued in efitct until March 31,
1934, Horeve:-, the ^Southern Indiana Coal 'perators' Association in a
temporary agreement made with the United rine -..orkers oi District 11
(Indiana) protestea a^:ainst the basic rates established for '.Varrick
and Vanderburgh Counti. s an!> made provisi' n tnat the entire contract
D<^ r-vir-, d by the Bituminous Coal Labor ^'oard of Division II. (*) The
rrotpst stated th-t om-at,ors in these ' counties sold the bulk of their
tonna.-e in local markets and that thev ■ --ere unable to -ithst^nd the
competition of the low cost stripping operations to the north plus Q |
an unfavorable ireight differential a -ainst Northern Indiana and
..estern Kentuckv. The Divisi:.ral Coal Labor Board held a hearing on
the matter on December 7, 1933 and on 'December 1- , 1953 found that
the wage differential reeuested for '.'arrick anc Vanderburgn Counties,
Indian", naraelv, a rate of $4. TO i or inside skilled labor and $3.60
for outside common labor, be granted. This recommendation to the NR4
resulted in the iseuance of an Adifdnistrative Order oy General Johnson
on Decc'iber 22, 1933 establishing the recommended minimum rates -rhich
should be effective subjrxt to the coniercmce of employers and ciployees
on January 5, 1954 as provided by the Code. Th^ modiiication or exemption
of Code rates. fwT '.<arrick and Vanderburgh Counties represented the only
cnange made prior to arch 31, 1934.
In general, the Coal Labor Boards took the position that any ap-
(*) The lull details of thi. -age difierential proolem for ..arrick
and Vanderburgh Counties,- Inaiana are treated in Section C.
9837
-309-
plications for excepti.xis in v.'?.£e rates either in individual mines or local
areas where adverse mining or ir-o,rl::etinr-:,' conditions made -iriajnTicnt of Code
rates difficult or impo^'sible, coiJd not 'oe ,;;ranted. (*) The procediire
for anienc'ln.-- the Code and this for chi-'.n,:;es in wa;,e schedules was such
that modifications could be m;.rde only on recomr.-endati jn of the Administrator
and a-Tnrov:il of the president, or "by direc*- Executive Order of the President.
As lir.s ■^Ireadj'- "been pointed out, hovrever, the Code did provide in 'paragraph
(e) of Article V an opportunity for the industry (operators and mine workers)
to suggest revisions in a conference on J.anuiary 5, 1934,
The wage conference under the atispices of the N.R.A, did not meet
on the scheduled date, "but -was postponed five times so that it finally went
into session on March 26, 1934. Meantime, a nuraher of important events,
presaging the trend, of opinions regarding wages and hours in the industry,
were tahing ple.ce.
The United Mine Workers rt their convention, Janu/;.ry 23 - 31„ 1934
expressed their views regarding the national recovery program and partic-
ularly the Bit-uminous Coal Code. The scole corrAitoee in an adopted reso-
lution stated that the shorter work week represented the onl constructive
approach to stahilization and more widespread employment. It also stated
that nationa.1 prosperity as well as prosperity in the hit-uminous coal
industry "can come only through the mediim of higher wage levels, which,
of course, means increased j^urchasing poY/er and *a consequent increase in
employment generall"". The resolution stated thot the enactment of the
•H.I.2.A. and the adaption of the hituminous Code created new relationships
and responsihilities for miners, operators o/nd the Federal GoveriTnent . It
held that a failure of the joint conferences with Appalachian produc'c-s
to agree on wages, houj's or Y/orking conditions would mean that the N.R.A.
would have to 'solve the difficulties. The miners reaffirmed their demands
for a 50-hcur week and instructed the scale comj.iittee to make a formal
demand for increo,sed ws,ges at the next joint v/age conference. It is inter-
esting to note in passing tha,t a proposed resolution calling for government
ownership of puhlic untlities and b£,sic industries was replaced "by a reso-
lution praising the K,R.A. and the "benefits arising from the BituTiinous Code,
Ifegotiptions for a nev'i Ap^^alachian wa/ e agreement "began in Washington
on Fe"bruary 24, 1934 after several preliminary conferences. Operators in
Su'bd.xvision Ho, 1 (Smokeless Coal fields) were not represented heca.use they
wished to negotiate separately. Central and Western Pennsylvania opperators
then protested against a continijation of the conference on the basis tlis.t
a proper correlation wfith the Smokeless areas was hecessary. President
Lewis then suggested tiiat the Smokeless negotiations be conducted concurrently
and as a result the Appalachian conference continued. The mine workers pre-
sented their demand for a 6-hour day, increased virages and adjustment of
inequita.'Dle differentials. The operators countered with opposition to a
change in wage levels but expressed willingness to adjust differentials.
The next moves were the appqintment of a negotiating committee made up of
eighteen operators and eighteen miners and the adjourn;nent of the conference
subject to call, T"ne Smokeless joint conference "began M-trch 1, 1934 with
the ap'-'Ointment of a conimittee comprising ten operators and ten miners*
(*) Hog-n, T. S., HiGtor- of the Activities of Coal Labor Boards Under
IT. 5. A., 1935, p. 35.
9837
Thus, nnich in the same nn.nvier rs vrnGr. the Code \7a£,:e rates and hoxirs
',7ere "being formulated, the 1354 11. 11. A. viar^e conference (scheduled for
Janii^r?.- 5) beian on March "6 so th,at the act::on of the Appalachian wage
negotiations exerted tremendous pressure. 'iJliile the oelay in holding
the conference was attributed to the fact tht\t uhe Research and Planning
Division of H.R.A, lip.d not yet comjileted its statistical presentation of
the earnings .aid eraploj'Tnent data reported Toy the industry on Poriri C,
perhaps eqully imnoi'tant was the desire of the operators and miners to
reach some agree'nent among themselves, Fnen the statistical data on em-
Ijloynent and efirnings hecuMe available, considerable controversy arose
re:. .>rd±ag their accirracy, ejn^ecially f rcvi those areas whose shoi'dng was
poor. (*) As a matter of fact the statistical Cu-t,. were not used as a
basis for revision of code hoixrs sno wages.
The H.P..A. vfa, ;e conference beg'-n '-dth ;^ ■nvmb..r of interesting
statements indicating the conflict of intc-'-ests whi-ch existed. The rep-
resentative of the j^Iorthern West Virginia Fanliandle operators flavored
a 50-ho\ir wee!" and stated that experience under the 8-hour day throgh
better j :an;: .geucnt and imroroved transportation made possible a greater out-
put th .n with 10 to 14 hours of work' under the "clean-up" system, (**)
He advocated effective correlation of intra-divisional code prices, the
Bureau of Ilines to fix monthly alloco-tions of tonviage and hours of vo rk
and GUggesbed that prices be ef j ective for the sme period as W3,ges, subject
to pqjpeal and reviev/. Western Kentucky operators were op' osed to ,a shorten-
ing of the work day and \/ork wec^r and aemanded a v/idening in the wage dif-
ferential as ai.';ainst competing fields, (***) • The ■•producers in st;.,.tes west
of the Mi s s i s s ij;roi River- gener-lly fpvored i';aintenance of the existing
Code hon.rs , but demanded spieci^l provisions allowing extra working time
d-ujri;ig period^ of peak demand. (■••=***)
The seonc session of the .I'/age conference was devoted i^rima-rily to
prest^nti.g the views of the mine vrarkers. The United Mine Worker repre-
sentative for Ustricts 21, 25, and 34 (Southwestern Interstate Field)
pointed oat that the Deputy AdministraGor had ruled tnat existence of a
valid contract ■'•.i.s a bar to a revision or modification of Code wages even
when such cliange was needed. (*****) p-g ^t'^fed that a Southwest had
formerly o:r)er-'ted on the soxie woge scale as Illinois, Indiana and loY/a,
btit tlkvt an emergency 3 years before the Code necessitnted acceptance of
a lovrer wage schedule, but the ICans;:,s miners who ha,d a 4 yca-r contract
on 0. SS.OO base liad voluntarily accepteci a $1,25 reduction at the time
the Code wn.s adopted. He v^roposed th-at the minimum rate ':ie increased
from $5,75 to $4,60 for Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri and Kansas,
(*) See the following i.vaterial in this Chapter on Employment and
Earnings under the Code.
(**) Taylor, Willicjn, iT,5:,A. Conference on Shortoni.ig 'lours and Increas-
ing Wages, Ma.rch 26, 1S34, Vol. I, p. 7 at seq,
(***) Yon llorm.-ii, J., IbicT, supr-\ p. 15,
(****) MoAuliffe, Eug:enG (Rocky Motuitain - Pacific Coal Association) Ibid,
supra, p. 26 et seq; Kouck, Stanley B, (!Iorth D-knta - South Dakota'
p, 64- et seq; Clark, Albin M, (Division IV)'p. 196 et seq.
(*****) Powler, D'.vid, Ibid, suora, Vol. II, n. ^;04 et seq.
9837
-311-
The lov/a nine workers rlso fo.vored n imiforn r;\te, st-^.tin{; tlir.t the wa;'-;e
difference in cor.PTeting r.re.-.'.s iircl C'^.aced -.ore vinenploj'ment in lea tli'in
had existed -.-irior to the Coo.e. (*) A sii.iil-..r proposal was :;iade hy the
miners in District 15 (Oolorado ar.'.". Hew Mexico). The Western. Kentuclry
miners (U.1J,W. ) protested a^iainst low wv.:e' anc \-eqansted a $4,60
base. The rainers :n Indi.ajia fwored the proposal, hut asked that Wpj-rick
and V-.nderburgh Counties he retur.:.?d to the S4.575 rate as ori,-inal ly
specified ir. the Code, The represent -tive of the Michigan miners pointed
out th-t x.he Cxle ra^es were laver th;-n those of ':he contr-xt which h:<,d
exy-'ired April 1, 1933. The Michi-vn ninerp lo:ked to a revision of their
rates to the pre-Code level .
In aenerr.l, tlie oper-- tors opposed any wa^^je revision upv/ard and in a
few c.-.ses as the 'vand-loadinc mines in Saline Coui:ty, Illinois, requested
reductions, 'Oper-.tors in thia se '.:n mines in Tennessee favored a re-flution
of day r -tes anc" \in increase in mining '.nd loading rates. The Northern
Colorado operators, while protesting ago.inst working time reductions,
pointed out that 90 per cent of their tonnage paid $b,25 (Code "base
was $5,0") and ur^ed that Southern Colorado rates he increased to the
$5,00 level, (**) In Alah-ma a strike h-d heen settled by a wage con-
tr .ct; signed March 16, 193d which vas effective until April 1, 1935
subject to H,Il,A. regulation and the AlabraTva operators held th t they
had aire .dy iriade the vrage revisioiis v/hich the conference generally was
considering.
In re-.lity, the wage conference was r.arking time, Delajrc- and post-
ponements were frequent. Oper-.tors were growin/ restive and demanded
th.-.t the II.R.A. mrdre kno\.T. "the wage and h-urs proposals- for the industry.
Meantine, the Ap2oalachian w.-.ge conference w.-.s continuing -under gre-.t
pressure in n effort to :rrivv. at an agreement between operators and
miners Such r.n ag-':eefuent was made at 3 A.M. on March 30, 1934,
The first spe-\kcr in the March 30th session of the N.H,A, vmge
conference announced th" t the Appal:.chian agreement had been signed,
making substantial ch?,nges as to rio,ximun hours and v/ages, (***) He
st-ted thtt the Joint Conference of Miners and Oper '^tors '.v.Cl ado;oted a
resolution '.-.'hich pro;i-.osed to -juenc Articles III fiC IV of the Bitiminous
Coal Code,
The resolution proposing the rmendnents v/as rp-proved not only
by the operators "Jid the districtr of the United Mine Y/orkers of Anerica
represented in the A"-"palachia,n agreeiaent , •..ut also by all the United
Mine Worker districts in the country, Tl:e poriiosed amendments to the Code
were certified to by Eastern Subdivision, Western Pennsylvania and Ohio
Code Authorities,
It vr; s proposed th-at Article III - M":-iraijm Hours of Labor - should
be r^r.ended to reao. as follows:
(*) Wilsai, Frank, Ibi''., sunr: . Vol. II. p. -oil et seq,
(**) Eoche, Josephine, Ibid, suir; , Vol. II, -'->. 260,
(***) O'l'Ieill, Charles, Ibid, supra, Vol. Ill, p. 293 et seq,
9857
-312-
"IIo employee, except member^ of tlie executive, suiTer-
visory, technic~l and confidential personnel, slricll "be em-
ployed in excess of seven hours per d:iy cnCy five dr.ys ":-er
v;ee^,:, subject to the exceptiovis hereinafter st vted,
"Seven ho"aa's of l-",hor shlL constitute ". dn.y's worl:
.vnd this mer.ns sevenhours v/orh r.t the usur.l v/orkin:;
places for all cl?,sses of la'bor, exclu-sive of the lujich
period, v/hetho-r they "be paid on the d\y or the to'iaage or
other piece worh 'basis; except in cases of accident vAich
tem:->or^,rily necesritrte loiV-.er houi"? for those reqaxlmd
on o,ccovint thereof, anc.. also excepting th'.t numb-" of
workers in e ,ch inine whose dail'" v/orl: includes the h.andling of
mrji-tri-'S r.nd those requi:'"ed to rera-.iu on duty v/hile iiien are
enterin," and leaving; the nine,
"The following classes of mine workers ".re exempted
froii the provisions as to the maximum hours 'f vrark:
( ) All workers en^; .aed in the transportation of
coal snail worl: the additional time necessary to Iv.ndle
man-trips, an'j/or haulaf;e animals, and ?11 corl in transit,
and skall he ;oaid the re-;':ular 'iiovxlif rates. Outside workers
en,? -ged in the dumping, kuidlin/;; and preparation of coal,
and in the mani-'i'act-oxe of coke, sh'J-1 v,rork the additiona.l
• time necesp'.r;-, not to exceed thirty minutes, to d-jm-p and pre-
pare the coal delivered to ':he tip->le each day and to com-
plete the usii'.l duties incident-,1 to the oper; tion of coke
ovens, and sh IJ. he iJ-^dd the re/^ular houjrly rates. This
rule sh-all not encoura;;e bhe vrarking of siich overtime except
v/here it is necessary to tOte care of '.he conditions no,med,
(h) Enployees en{^",ged at pov.'er houses, substations ind
p"o.mps operating continuously for 34 hours da.ily are especially
exempted from the seven-hour provision.. Special exemptioji of
employees other than those named above may be provided, by joint
agreements negotiated in accordance vrith this cod.e , which shall
not ]irovide for work in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours
per week."
xhe other proposed amendnent pertained to Article IV - MinimuiTi Rates
of P.ay - and stnted th-.t from April 1, 13Li4 to April 1, 19S5 the basic
minimum rate for inside skilled labor and the basic minimwn rate for out-
side coa''on l;i,bor shall be the r-.fce set forth in Schedule A -(see Column
2, Tp.ble XI), with the ijndcrstand-ing tli.t other classifications of em-
plojrmcnt will maintain their customary differentials above or belov;
said basic minimturi rrtes. It proposed in order to secuae -arity between
minimum, day rates rnd minimum tonnr.ge rates thr.t on the bo.sis of a, 2,000
pound ton, "oick mining be increased 10 cents; ciitting, 1 cent; and all
yardiage and deaduwor": be increo.sed 9 per cent. Hovrever, the minimum
tonnage rates in Districts E, G, H, J and J-1 shoiild be further increased
in order to obtain a parit'y Vvdth drry rates which Schedule A prescribed.
The pro-oosed schedule of minimum r",tes provid.ec. for a $5,00 inside skilled
rate and a $4».00 outside coiimon rat:; for District A. The Northern West
Virginia (District B) v."f^e differential v;as eliminated and the same
wage rates were given to District 13 as to District A. The inside skilled
rate for District C Y>/as $4.60 and for outsid^e common l;,bor, $3.60, The
basic minimimi rates in Division II (Districts D, E and F - Indiana,
Illinois and Iov;a) remained undistiu-bed. ■ Insid.-e skilled basic r'-te of
9837 • ■ ■
-313-
$4,60 was to 'b'^ aurilifid to all fields south of th'^' Ohio Hiv°r and ^ast
of the Hississip-oi Riv=>r, xJ^acing th°n on -npr ^-'ith District C (Division
I - South). Th'= outsid'T conmon lahor rat'^s for th'^s'^ fi'^'lds ""^r>= like-
wis° to h^. th=! sa.ra'^ as in Division I - South (3.60), excp'ot that the
"''='st'=rn Ksntucky rat° woulrl b^ ^7>.7^. In o ff'^n^ral s=nse all the
northern coal fi^^'c's o?st of th= lassissi-roi paid $5,00 and $4.00
( Indiana $4.57+ and $4.?0) 'Thile th° southern fields naid, in the
main, $4.60 and $4.00. The ^roriospd araendn^nt, therefore, sought to
establish iijiiforn rat°s ov^r ert°nsive a,r°as and for a larg= -oortion
of th° southern flair's it -^ro^os^d to l-^ss«n the '"ag^ advantage ov^r
northern fi-^lds.
"'est of th^ i'ississiTjToi ^iv^r, th^ hasio nini-mim rates ^^^r^ also
to "b" chang'^d so as to orins ahout gr^at^r uniformity in "ag° ra,t°s.
Thus in th= south'^est^rn coal fields (District G) th'= inside skilled
rate was to h^ $4.60 and for outsid° common lahor, $4,00. The minimum
rates in Districts K and L w^rf^ to "b^ incr°as°cl, hut the incr^'ase in
th'^ form'^r district -^as to "be much larger so that the '-rage diff°r°nce
■b^f^e^n th'=' t'^o districts "^as gr'^^tly l^ss^n^^d. District K ^rps to -oav
$5,10 and "^4.10 8/10, -hil=' District L '^as to -oay $5,25 and $4.P5. The
™ag° rat = s in Horth and South Dakota r7°r= to h^ changed to $4.50 and
$3.70.
The for^soinr hours and '-'a>^^ amendm'^nt oroioosals have h^'^n treated
in some detail, "b^^caus"^ the->r hecam^ the has^s of consid^r^hl" disr)ute
in the industry. ,^.en the riro-^osals w°r= "brought h^for^ th^ N.P.A.
'"Pee and hours conf^.r^nc^, th^y '-r^r^ r'=ceiv=^d ■"'ith much objection, '''r.
Blaclc-'^ll Snith, the -nr^siding N.E.A, official, at this session of the
conf^-r^nc" stat°d. that "if ther^ h^ voic'=^d no ohjection, ^° ^ill he
forced to assun° that =v~r'''on^ h-^r^ has no objection to any amendment
sugg=st=d." Almost all th== o-QPrator r^nr^'s^^ntativ-^s in the industry,
outside of th=> Ar^nalachian ^ag-^ negotiating unit, voiced an orjinion
to the effect th^t n'^ OTD-oortunitv ha^i. h^'^n s:iven to consider the amend-
ment -nrOToosals and •"'hil^ th°y did n"t '^ish to r'=nd=r an objection they
res'^rved all rights to ^itlihold th^ir a-oTjroval until Dro-oer considera-
tion to the -oro-DOsals had b=-n given, Es-o^ciall-''' vigorous ^^re th'=!
■orot^sts made b""" i^orth'=rn 'Tpst Virginia., Alabama., ^est^rn Kentucky,
Tennessee, and the South^est^'rn coal ar=^s.
9837
-314-
In reply to Northern West Vir^^inia' s protest, an operator rep-
resentf.tive from Western Fenns. 'Ivania explained that the Appalachiaii
wa£;e conference had agreed to eliraina.te the' Northern West Virginia
wage differential on the grounds that no difference in cost of living
existed and that f .o.h. nine costs rere already low in Northern West
Virginia. (*) However, idien this representative was asked to explain
how the minimum rates for Western Kentucl:;^ had "been determined, he was
at a loss for an ansi=.'er.
Some of the operators wished to have the conference adjourned for
a week so that some time and study could he devoted to the proposed
changes. The attitude of the II. 3. A. was expressed in the following
language: (**)
"April 1st is pt hand cind while we will jiot rush
the Administrator into any action that is unduly
precipitous, there will he the necessity'" of some
pronouncement from the Administrator hefore the
end of the day tomorrow- '(March 31), as I see the
situation, and the nature of that announcement,
as to what the ope\'ators and miners ma^' e:<pect so
■far as the Code is concerned v/ill, in the nature
of things depend upon ?/hat vie, in conference, de-
cide privately, and the Administrator after you have
all had your say.
"The Administration has no thought of putting out
this proposed amendment, as it is read todf;y, as
the Administrntion' s proposal at this time. We
are going to confer, in the light of what has "been
said today, and in the light of what may he said
tomorrow morning if my proposal is carried out,
(to continue the conference) as I think it may he,
and tomorrow, bofore the end If the da;,^, I think
an announcement can he eiqoected."
Mr. John L. Lewis then st-ted that the proposals were the result
of five weeks' effort on the part of Appalachian operators and nine
vforkers and that they were the most constructive ever negotiated in the
coal industry. Hd held that the 7-ho-'ur work day and 35-hour week with
the increased wage hase would maJie an important contribution to increas-
ed purchasing pov^er. H@ pointed out, significantly, that Code wages
expire March 31, 1934 and that some 325,000 or 350,000 mine workers in
the Appalachian area would find themselves vdthout a wage agreement on
April 1st. Mr. Lewis stnted tho'.t the Indiana and Illinois wage bases
were on a parity as was Iowa and so these were not disturbed. Alabama
had received preferential treatment, he said, which wes -ojijustif ied
economically and that its rates were being adjusted to those of other
southern fields. He stated that Western Kentucl-q,' minimum rr^tes were out
of alignment with those of iJastern Kentucky, Illinois, or Missouri and
therefore the proposed rates made for a more proper competitive relation-
ship. A similar situation applied with reference to Kansas, Arkansas
and Oklahnma in mai rit.-.i -ning p gT^-i +.y with i.:i g.;mir-i . E rPRirlpnt T i Rwi '^ cmi-
(*) i'.'orro-', J.D.A., h.H.A. W.-.^u tjid Houi^r. Conference, Ibi(\ supra,
Vol. Ill, pp.349 - 353.
(**) Smith, Blacfa/ell, ibid, supra. Vol. Ill, p. 357.
9837
"315-
eluded his str-tement "by saying that the United I-iine Workers joined vidth
the Appalachian oper. tors in fr>vorinf^ the proposed changes.
'2he 1-1.3. A. conference continued the followin-i: day (March 31, 1934)
and was concluded vvithout any cha>i£:e or clarification of the situjition
which had developed. Alabama and 'western Kentuclq.'' hitterly opposed
the amendment as a hasty and ill conceived neasure. Tne Smokeless
operators also protested on the score that the proposed amendment made
a distinct departure from the Code in Atteraptin-: to fix minimum rates
for tonnage men. The N.P..A. decided to have a hearin,;; on April 9, at
which time the issues were to oe further discussed.
A few hours after the conclusion of the V7a;^:e and hours conference
(March 31, 1934), the N.R.A. issued an executive order declaring the
existence of a serious emere^'ency in the industry and adoptin^^ the wai;,e
and hour proposals as effective Code Anendments pending the public hear-
ing of April 9.
■Durinf,' the first week in April, Illinois and Indiana operators ac-
cepted the 7-hour da^y, although their contracts, virhich preceded the
enactment oi N.I.H.A. and were still effective, specified an S-hotu" day.
Tlie Sahara and Wasson Coal Companies, Saline Count, Illinois, held out
for a 50 cent differential and were confronted by a strike. Only a few
Western Kentucly mines continued to operate. Korthern VJest Virginia
was almost completely shut dovm. "Holiday" suspensions occixred in some
districts sigrtatory to the new Appalachian agreement, while Loj-ran County,
West Virginia, ■ was among the coal producing , areas most affected by
stoppages. Discontent and uncertainty were' apparent in many portions
of the industry-.
The public hearing held by the K.H.A. April 9-11, 1934, was highly
controversial and acrimonious indicating very real differences of
opinion in the industi-y. Tlie vrage changes came up for greater discus-
sion than did the reduction in hours so that in the main the central
problem was that of wage differentials betv/een competing districts.
Alabama operators were especially vehement in their protests, claiming
that 98 per cent of the State's comjnercial tonnag"; opposed the amendments.
(*) They claimed that the Executive Order of March 31, 1934 v;as invalid,
arbitrary, adopted without hearing, and in violation of the Code. These
operators pointed out that Article IV of the Code permitted a Code Auth-
ority to recommend an amendment but that other Code Authorities had a
right to an orderly hearing. So strong was the Alabama opposition that
on April f, 1954 the operators secured an order from the Federal District
Court restraining the N.3.A. from enforcing the Code Changes. The Ala-
bama operators requested that a status quo be maintained until the wage
and hour proposals had been submitted to the National Bitu'^inous Coal
Industrial Board as provided in Article VII, Section 4 of the Code.(**)
Their representative went on to say that:
(*) Johnston, Forney, IT. I'. 3. A. Hearing on Bitximinous Coal Industry
iwodif ication Proposal, April 9-11, 1934, Vol. I, p. 15 et seq.
(**) Ibid, supra. Vol. Ill, (Night Session) p. 786 et seq.
9837
-316-
"I malce the assertion here that the Administrator
in approving the so-called araendraents on March 31st,
not onlv did not act after recommendation of the
Industrial Board hut acted v^ithout lmo'.7led|:e of or
response to the data assembled under Article V (g)
and in both respects acted in viol.tion of the Code."
In the concluding statements the Alabama operators said:
"So far as we are concerned we have definitely" and
finally determined that we will not confoi'm to any
further one-man determination of ]?olicy and. dicta-
tion in repudiation of essential basis and covenant
of the Oode."
Southern Tennessee and G-eorgia operators vmo were a part of the
same divisional area (Division III - Alabama, G-e or gi a and Southern
Tennessee) were joined by manufacturers' associations in that region
in similarly protesting the wa^'e changes. Tlie Southern Appalachian
operators, on the other hand, stated that they had previously withdrawn
from the v/age conference because Alabama and Southern Tennessee hadi
continued to have a viage advantage find not until the March 31 Executive
Order had placed them on an equitable basis had they signed the United
Mine Worker contract. (*) These operators, therefore, favored keeping
the Executive Order intact. The Ha'^ard, Kentucl^,', field made a similar
claim for parity with Division III v/age rates.
Smokeless Subdivisional Code Authority (Subdivison No. 1 of Divi-
sion I) stated that the Executive Order was illegal because it did not
conform with the Code when it specified tonnage rates. (**) Their repre-
sentative' pointed out that the Code originally only specif ied 'basis
minimum da.^"" rates for inside skilled and outside common labor and that
to establish tonnage rates would result in inequities because of dif-
ferences in the amount loaded per man in various areas. He suggested
that a parity in the earnings of day men ajid tonnage men should be the
objective and stated that the N.S.A. statistical studies (Eorm C - Earn-
ings data) shovred that earnings in the Smokeless District were higher
than in the North.
Another vigorous protest to the Code amendments was made by the
Northern 17est Virginia operators who helci that the Pennsylvania and Ohio
operators had arbitrarily and without sufficient advance notice eliminat-
ed the v/age differential, resulting in a complete mine shut-doiiwi and
enemployment for 18,000 men. They stated that they had withdrav.m from
the Appalachian wage conference when the;' discovered that they were not
being given any consideration. These operators point-d to the fact that
(*) Gunter, L. C. , ibid, supra, Vol. I, p. 151 et seq.
(**) Hichards, W. A., ibid,' supra, Vol. I, p. 232 et seq.
9837
-317-
a North ~ South Coramission to study wage differt.ntials was proposed "but
that Northern West Virgriaia \"as not to be suhjectrd to its inquiry. (*)
They requested a retention of their former differential status suhject
to submittal of the qiiestion to an impartial com'Tiission. Hepresenta- .
tives fron Central Pennsylvania, ■Testern Pennsylvania and Ohio (the
three Code Authorities which recomraended the amentoents) replied to
Northern T/est Virrjinia' s contentions "by stritinc: that sufficient data
were already at hand indicatinj^; favorable natural conditions and low
production costs in Northern West Virfjinia v;hich made a differential
unjustifiable.
Western Kentuclcy indicated a wilLinpness to accept the 7-hour day
but demanded a $4.00 base rats in lieu of the $4.60 rrte specified in
the amendment .
West of the Mississippi ^iver there were three major areas of dis-
content - Southwestern fields, lova and the Dalcotas. '-The Southwestern
operators pointed out that their area produced 62 per cent of the total
natural gas in the country and that it consumed 57 per cent of the
nation's total consumption. (**) In addition, this area was subjected
to intense oil competition. Tnese operators contended that Illinois
was their lfjr:-r;est competitor and that increased mechanization and strip
mining- in that State had so reduced production costs as to make im-
possible the wage scale specified in the amendments for the Southvrest.
Tiiey predicted a cessation of operation and unemplojinent for 15,000
miners. lova operators also stated that they could not pay the same
wage base as Illinois and Indipjia and that the restriction of working
time would lead to unemplo:/rient . The Dakotas continued their objections
tc a shortening of working hours and stated that miners' earnings h.qd
already fallen because of specified maximiim hours of work.
The foregoing details of the controversy <'Uid opposition revolving
about the wage changes made by tue amencjnent to the Code indicate the
discontent which prevailed in certain areas of the industry. In general
these wage rate changes represented en increase of 40 cents per day for
Division I, except Northern West Virginia (64 cents) and Western Kentucky
(60 cents). The basic day rates for Division II remained the same (ex-
cept outside common labor in Wayne and Appanoose Counties, lova) . In
Division III (Alabama, G-eorgia and Southern Tennessee) , the change meant
as increase of $1.20 a day, while other Southern Tennessee areas (District
J-l) hand an increase of 75 cents. For Division IV (Missouri, Kpjisas,
Arkansas and Oklahoma) the vrage change meant an increase of 85 cents
per day.
As a result of the protests which were registered in the April 9-11,
(*) !For a complete treatment of this wa:ce differential problem, see
the following section.
(**) Shank, W. C, ibid, supra, Vol. II, p. 443 et seq.
9837
-318-
1934 hef-rin^. the II.H.A. issiieo. an order vaiich v/as approved as Araend-
ment iTo.2 OJi April 32, 1934, mor.if^-in,;; Amendment llo . 1 and malcins such
modification retroactive to April 1. The new cmendment reduced the day
rates to $3.80 and $2.80 in Division III (District J) and to ^4.34 and
$3.34 in Southern Tennessee (District J-l) so that the same wage increase
over the original Code r tes - 40 cents - v/as . ripplied to these areas
as to all the southern producing fields (except Northern West Virpcinia
and Western KentuckjO • In the case of the. southwestern fields (District
G) , however, the basic rptes v^ers reduced to $4,35 .-ind $3.75 which re-
presented increases over the original Code of 60 cents for inside skilled
lator and 47 cents for outside co::imon labor, -amendment No. 2 also speci-
fied in regard to tonnage and other piece work th,"t increases in, Dis- -
trict E (Northern West Virginia) "shall be satisfied pendirug further
order, b-^ an increase per 2,000 pouiid ton for said District of two and
one-half (2ji) cents in loading rates and one-half (;^t-) cent;, in,, cutting
rate^ . ■■!:> ,"
A continuation of objections rnu protests b," the operators from
the southwestern coal areas against ths wage rates specified in Amend-
ment No. 2 resulted in the issuance of another modifying order on June
4, 1934 (effective June 11, 1934) v/hich becsme laiown as Amendment No. 3.
This last modification set up separate basic rates for strip and deep
mining opera.tion3 in Division IV. The strip minus retained the same
basic rates as est-.blished in Jimendraent No. 2, but rates for shaft, drift
and slope mines were reduced 3,'^ cents ($4.00) for inside skilled labor
and 22 cents ($3.53) for outside common labor. No evidence was pre-
sented to indicate the bpsis upon which the v/age differential between
deeiD and stri'Q mines was determined. It yrould seem that .the ability
to pa;;^ a certain wage in the face of existing competitive conditions
rather th,an a study of labor costs v.-as the determining factor in es-
tablishing the wage diff erentinl.
In issuing the modifying Sinendraents, the N.H.A. banned destructive
invasions of operators paying lover v/ages into raarkots of competitors
having higher minimum rates. Tiie ban stated thnt in viev; of the lover
scales granted the districts in question and pending further study and
order,
"there shall be no sales by oper.-tors in said dis-
tricts into the normal consuming markets of another
district which is subject to higher rates of pay,
at any prices for coal of comparable grades and
quality, less than the jjrice for such coal in said
market charged by such other district, and there
shall be no destructive invasion of such other con-
suming markets and, in the absence of satisfactory
agreements governing this matter, the determination
of the Administrator on complaint of any such de-
structive invasion shall be conclusive."
9837
-319"
The wa§e question was thus tied uji to the prohlem of conpetive prices
and this prohihition gcve rise to frequent conferences hetweea affected
groups regarding satisfactory price correlation, and where agi'eement
could not he reached the matter, devolved upon the N.E.A.
Fre-Code aiid Code Wa-::e Hates
The Lituminous Coal Coae . established bpsic minimum rates which
■were substantially.' hiE;;h3r thah those viiich had prevailed earlier in
1933 for pll fields except where itnioh contracts were in effect. Per-
haps the most satinfactory \iage rate drta available (and indeed there
are no other data except those reported for May, 191)3 by a few subdivi-
sions of tile industry on the N.E.A. December C For;^ for the period prior
to the Code) are those secured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for
February, 19?3. In order, therefore., to corup.ai'e the hourly wage rates
during,' -the Code period with those of earlier yer.rs, it is necessary to
turn to the Bureau of Labor Statistics d-ta. TIi.b data for this corn'oari-
son are presented in Table XII. Since the Bureau of Iiabor Statistics
does not make a. very intensive survey for the .areas west of the Missis-
sippi Hiver_, the only- bases for comparing pre-Code aiid Code wage r.ates
are those few union contracts which were in effect. Tt.iis latter com-
parison is made in Table XIII.
An analysis of the data set forth in Table XII discloses that the
Bituminous Coal- Code not only, increased the wage rates abov^ the 1933
.level,- but it also brought about a greater uniformity of wage rates by
eliminating differentials which existed between competing areas. For
example the Bureau of Labor Statistics found separate basic rates for
the same occupation in Central and Vifestern Pennsylvania, but the Code
established one rate for the entire -State. What is more, the Code ap-
lied the -sane rate ' for Ohio, Michigan and Panhandle, West Virginia and
later (April 1, 1934) included ilorthern West Virginia- Again, in 1933
there were separate br.sic hourly r?ites in each of the fields making up
the Smokeless and Appalachian area ranging from 33.5 cents to 39 cents
for inside skilled labor, but the Code established a uniform rate for
the entire region. Were 19S3 data available for Georgia, Tennessee
(Hamilton aad.PJaea) - and' Southern Tennessee , a similar change" would be
noted. In this regard, the IJ.R.A. was clearly in accord with the princ-
iples advocated by organised labor in the industry namely, that in so
far as possible a status of competitive equality should be maintained,
but whereever possible the same occupation sjiould receive the same rate.
With a fev.' exceptions,- v^ich have already been noted, the N.3.A. attempted
to establish a uniform basic \ia,:a rate for all areas north of the Ohio
Siver and east of the Mississippi River and a slightly lower iiniform
rate for all southern producing fields. "vThere,; however, union contract
rates were in effect, as in Indiana end in Illinois, no change took place
except when the working hours per day were reduced from 8 to 7, the
hourly rate was proportionately increased.
burning to the Y;age rate increases effected by the Code, it will
be noted that the wage rates in effect fron October 2, 1933 to March 31,
1934 were generally above those prevailing earlier in 1933, but v;ere
considerably lov.^er than, those of 1929. In a very general sense, it may
be said that the Code established rates which were somewhat lower than
the November, 1917 wage scale which prevailed in the union contracts
!)837
-320-
I— I
;■<!
EH
^
^n
PL,
-- CTi
' OJ
o
o
O
ri cr
J-
cr
O
o
C\J
o
o
LO
1^
•o cf
o :.::
b CT>
Pi r-\
•H
g •
P rH
-P
•H
9337
F=^
03
t:J rl
• H
u
VD
rH
OJ
1
1 (M
o-\st St r^
1
1
J- OJ OJ
1
I 1
w r"
0"^ CM
K)
1-^
1
1 fTi
St si- UTM-'-,
1
1
o^ OJ r—
1
I 1
-ij e
,Q
^ ir^
J-
\rs
1
1 .rt
^^ l^h^
I
1
vo r— ^ rvj
1
I :
pj
cd
• •
•
•
«
• • • •
• • • •
C-T
h^
::n
■ "^
'C)
<U (U
-r! iH
u
UD cr>
^
-Q
1
1 >-X)
f^r— r—
1
1
OJ Lc^ o".
I
1 1
•H M
ro to
t)0
C>J
1
1 r«
r— 1^ PO^
I
1
UD <D OJ LO
1
I 1
m -H
,i3
VX) >.i3
v^^X)
I
I Lr>
\x^isr\si- St
I
1
r-- r- vr^st
I
I I
d i-:
CS
• •
•
•
• • • •
• > • •
i-i 00
1-^
•€■3-
^*
■KJi
CD
•rH
^1
li-^rvj
LTNt^
1
1 r^
r-^ K^, LO
1
^ost r-->.o
1
! I
;^.^
OJ^
rH^
1
I ro
cr.U5 LPi
1
OJ CTiW o^
1
i I
rO
r^ r^
r^r^.
1
1 cv
t^oj ai CM
1
LC\st (\l rH
I
I I
<§<s
oi
• t
•
•
•
• • • •
• • • •
h^
O-
"^1
^
■r!
(D CD
tt: '-'
u
r-H Lf^
KMM
1
I
rH W LfS
1
1
1 — ^r^ ro r^
1
t 1
•H ,-(
^J- 10
r^cn
I
1 LT-.
to cr. N-\ i-~
1
1
t^ C\j st
I
1 1
C/5 .H
r'^
^ J-
St
1-^
1
1 t^i
r-'^ t^ r^. K>
1
1
LOVD to t-O
1
1 1
0. i!
rf
• •
•
t
•
• » • •
• • • •
I-H OT
1-q
H^
---,
•««-
C\J|
<U
■-d fl
•H
u
0000
ir^O Lr>
LO
cn P
10.
in LTv m cvi
ssss
s
rj r—
U^
■P P
,0
^ ,
^ J-
Si- St
St
LO LO ^--^ ^O hO
f^. to
^5
;^
•
■'0-
•
•
• •
• • • •
•
■ • • •
•
• •
'd
(D (»
X i-H
^^
LTn
LTn ITMrMf \
uTMCi in LfMrMn OJ lo lolpv
LO
•H ,-1
1 —
r--
r— r-- J-
CJ OJ OJ CVI
0.i
cu
r-cv CO
OJ
OJ to
m -H
,0
L^^
LO LCALO LPi
in LTn LTMrMTN LO lO'Xl LO^ j-
St St
Fl ^:1
td
•
•
• •
» • • •
•
•
* • • •
>
• •
l-H CO
1^
C3
a)
■H
M
r-\
H
rH
nH rH
^ ^ ^ ^ J- j:}-
rH MO
0.1
m r'
t--
t--h-
r— r-
rH rH r-l iH
H
H
r- to
o<o
4^ r
^
m
Lf,
\r\ ur\ \r
LPi LT-. LPi Lt'> LO
LOUD ir ■. LO-rt ^
St St
pi
■/J
• •
•
•
• •
• • • •
»
•
• • • •
•
• •
rj
-d
•
(U 0)
■TJ rH
fn
^.
St Jt
,-:t- ^
r~- r— r— r-4 r — t — lo^ 1 — oj
01
OJSt
•H iH
r-l
rH
rH
r-4 iH
LtMTv LO U> Lr\ LO LO rH LO^ St
St
cn -H
,0
1 —
r— r— r- r^
>JDVX)VX)U0M3U3VD f— vn LOLO
10 ^D
fl M
(ti
•
•
•
■ •
• • • •
•
•
• • • •
•
• •
l-H (/)
kI
•«v
•
i
•H
rH
CtJ
P
P
•
>
CD
•
>
•
1?
.•><!!
. ' t^ tu
e
cti
v'
fc; p. m
og CD
■H
08
M
+3
b
CD
3 H
~t=-'
F) p5 c\3 CD
Ti
to
rt
CD
CO
^H +3 .H rl
P-I
CD
to
> cti
^1
rH
en
CD n CI rt
CV!
CO r*
CD
+3 CD
R
l-H U
cy
CC
Td U
Q)
,c! (D -H (D
Ih
H
Clj .H -P Cd
cd
W
rH
l-^l
>> -p
+j
tiO
%:^
r-l
•e w w)EH
CD
^
r.
a fl CD ttj
•H
0)
•H
H
w sz!
t/3
•H
(])
p) tH
p
M
B CD
ri (1)
CD
Xi
'it
^
• -H .
p
,cfl
•H .H M ,0
Ph
a
Hi t-l
rt
!~
•H
w r-p 1=-- n
^
'd rH nj
w
(D
.d
•H
d
B
fj rH • rH
CD
II)
P-,
(1 , f?;
to
IH n t:; «!
(i
FH
""^ CO
0)
+3
O
•H
^
-P
CO
•H
t:!
O
n3
G
o
+^
o
P-.
CD
^^
cl
CO
rd
■a
crt
Pi
w
o
l-^
-321-
of lS-3?. Selcictin.? soue of the move irairortant producin.^ areas, which
were iivot imder -union contrrct in 19.---3, -oj; wa" of illustrating; the wa-^e
rate incranses during the Code period, it will he noted, for exani"-ile,
that the inside oke Board, stated: ' ,
"... if through the inefficiency of the industry itself
and its leadership, the' price structure is to fall, then
I may say to you that the United Mine ".'/orkers consider
that it is an intrusion and a breach of the contract it-
self, and the interests I represent do not now or later
(intend") to idly sit by and see that intrusion Derpetra-
ted, and see the wage structure breached, without serv-
ing notice as it now does, formally and on the record of
this meeting, that it will take any necessary steps to
9837
«324-
preserve the integrity of these wage coitracts and
to impress ucon the leaders of the hitiuninous coal
industry and the representatives of the National Re-
covery Administration the imperative necessity of
making good the commitments of the industry and the
government. " (*)
Mr, Lewis stated that the mine workers' organization was willing
to cooperate with the operators in every way to strengthen ohservance of
code oricGs, He pointed out that in the past the operators had not heen
willing to concede lahor representation in the councils of the industry,
Mr. Lewis formally requested that the NoR»A<, provide ways and means
wherehy a reoresentative of the United Mine V/orkers might have a right
to sit a.nd vote on the Code Authorities. (**) The motion was subjected
to a vote of the Board and was defeated 8 to 7. I'r. Lewis indicated
that if the resolution were not adopted, he considered the crisis in the
industry sufficiently important to taJce the matter to the National In-
dustrial Recovery Board and to the President himself. Again at a meet-
ing of the National Bituminous Coal Industrial Board en January 11, 1935,
Mr. Lewis moved the adoption of an Amendment to the Bituminous Coal Code
to read as follows:
"An Amendment to Article 7, Section 2, after the
word 'meratershirj' on line 12, as follows:
"All Code Authorities, divisional or subdivi clonal,
shall have as a member thereon a representative of
the accredited qnd recognized organization of em-
ployees. " (***)
This resolution was subjected to a vote and was adoiDted 10 to 4
(one member of the Board not present). Several operator re-ore sent at ives
and presidential members had changed their opinions since the meeting of
January 4, 1935.
The N.R.A. sent out on February 2, 1935, a formal notice of an op-
portunity to be heard on amending Article VII, Section 2, second sen-
tence to provide labor representation on all divisional or subdivisional
Code Aathorities, On March 14, 1935, the N.E.A. announced approval of
the recommendation submitted by the National Bituminoas Industrial Board
for labor representatives on Code Authorities,- This approval took the
form of Amendment 7 to the Bituminous Coal Code, which read as follows:
"Delete the period of the second sentence of Sub-
Section (a) of Section 2, Article VII, and substi-
tute therefor a semi-colon, and add after such serai-
colon the following:
Provided each Code Authority, Divisional or Subdi-
(*) l'"i>ting. of National Bituminous Coal Industrial Board, January 3,
1934, Vol. I, p. 116.
(**) Ibid, supra, January 4, 1935, Vol. II, Dp. 379-388.
(***) I'^^vting of National Bituminous Coal Industrial Board, January 11,
1935, p. 34.
9837
-325"
visiorial, sh<ill have one member thereon who shall be
selected from norains'.tiona submitted by the accredited
and recognized organization of. employees".
In this way organized labor in the bitiominous coal industry secured
the long sought objective of labor represent'ition in groups of onerator
members, '.aiile the amendment rc'presented a gain in the prestige of tmion
orgcinization among tne mine workers, it h-id no real economic significance
in the affnrs of the industry^ The amendment did, however, indicate
the influeij-e and power of tne Unit'^d Mine .'orkers in the bituminous coal
industry. Early in January, 1935, of 775 approved basic and supiolemen-
tary codes in opf ration, no more than 26 allowed for labor reoresentation
on the Code Authority, (*) The clothing codes representf^d the most im-
portant group (15 codes) giving each labor representation. The bitumi-
nous coal code through Amendment 7 made a great addition to the total
number of employees in tne United States having representation on Code
Authorities,
The Appalachian Vv'age Agreement of April 1, 1934 provided for a
joint conference of operators and mine workers to be held in Tashington,
D. C. , February 18, 1935, "to consider what revisions, if any, shall be
made in tnis Agreement as to hours, wages and conditions of employment,
and to establish such differentials betv/een districts ^s the Conference
finds in the report of the Joint North-South Differential Commission",
This conference began on the scheduled date despite rumors of loostnone-
ment arising out of the fact that a Senate Sub-Committee was to begin
hearings on February 19th on proposed coal legislation.
The United Mine Workers originally proposed, that the operators agree
to the following program:
1, Six-hour day and thirty-five hour week.
2, Increase of 15 cents per ton on combined cutting and
loading rates.
3, Increase of 50 cents per day to all outside and inside
day wage men.
4i Increase of 25 cents per day on all pick mining rates.
£;_ Increase of 20 per cent on all yardagp and deadwork.
., Time and one-half for overtime; double time for Sun-
days and holidayso
7, Elimination of inequitable differentials in and between
districts.
The operators on February 20th rejected the mine workers' demands
except that pertaining to wage differentials. They made a coiinter pro-
posal to the effect that a wage agreement be signed to be effective from
April 1, 1935 to March 31, 1936 and that no changes be made in wages ex-
cept where inequitable differentials were eliminated or in hours of work
per day a nd week except w hen chan ged by legislative a ction. This proposal
(*) L-'On, Ipverett "S. *=,t ql.\ •Tn2__;atinrr;'l ^pcovpr'.'- Administration, \n'
-jj inlysi-s, ^nd an '.poraisa l,- The 3rooi-ina:s In-stitu-tion," 1935, P-.459,.
9837
-326-
was rejected "by the miners. The operators expressed considerable anxiety
as to ¥fhat might happen to the Thirty-^Hour- 'Jefek Bill, the Guffey Coal Bill,
and the President's rlessage on N.^.A. The existing situ.'^tion resulted in
the adoTotion of a re soluticri that the conference be adjourned ontil i'arch
11 , 1935o ■ - ' - ■ ■■ ■ ■ , ■ ■ -. .
'.Tien the joint conference reconvened', the ooerators reiterated their
Dosition, D-ifference-s of opinion developed among the operators as to
v'hether northern 77est Virginia, was a part of the northern coal producing
areas. Operator representatives from Eastern Pennsylvania, Testern Penn-
sylvania, Ohio and Panhandle claimed that Northern ,?est Virginia had fore-
gone its claim to inclusion with northern oioerators when it had refused
to sign the Agreem.ent of 1934. It was suggested that the conference be
recessed until after a consultation with United I'-ine '7orker officials,
After this recess, Charles O'Neill of Eastern Pennsylvania offered the
following resolution which was seconded by Phillio Marray of the United
Mine Workers:
"It is moved that the joint sca,le committee be set
-up with equal voting power as between northern and ■ ■ ■
southern districts outside of iforthern Tfest Virginia;
that Northern ,7est Virginia be given representation
on the scale committee but with the understanding
that on all votes Northern 'Jest Virginia shall be
polled last; that in the event of a tie vote between
the northern operators and so ithern operators, then
Northern ./est Virginia shall not vote nor record any
opinion oh the issue then under consideration; pro-
vided that Northern ,7est Virginia shall be entitled
to vote and have its vote recorded and counted on all
matters pertaining exclusively to the Northern West
Virginia district whether a tie vote exists or not;
provided, further, that this shall be adopted as a
rule of this Convention but that nothing herein con-
tained siiall affect the unit rule already adopted by
the Convention. "
The resolution was adopted and the general conference was adjourned sub-
ject to the call of the Joint '.Vage Scale Committee. The Committee con-
tinued in constant session without arriving at an agreement.'
As the expiration date (April 1st) of the Appalachian Agreement ap-
proached, it became increasingly important that. some agreement be reached.
Neither the Administration nor the Industry looked with favor upon a
shut down of mining operations; Mr, Richberg, Chairman of the National
Industrial Recovery Board, -invited a sub-committee of the Joint Scale
Committee of operators and miners to meet with himon^March 28th for the
purpose of discussing with him and'the Board, the problems of the wage
conference. The' Board extended its good offices to the conference in the
hope of bringing about an amiable settlement of differences between opera-
tors and mine workers.
' Af the conference of the Joint v7age Scale Subcommittee and the
National Industrial Recovery Board, Mr. Richberg proposed to issue an
9837
-327-
order i- qrch 30th extending all wnge provisions nf the existing coal code
antil June 16th (f-xuintion dnte of the d. I,P..AO The oroposed extension
was also to aoply to certain unfair trade practices wnich evnoired after
April 1st, It was stated that tne i>i.I.B.B. nrooosal was a. sug^-estion
and not an ultimatiam and if operators and miners were willing the proper
■orocedure would be for the operators to make such application to the
N.R.A. Arrangements were made for tne entire Board and the Joint Scale
Committee to meet again.
On Varch 30, 1935, the ooerators and miners announced an agreement
to extend the provisions of the existing wage contract until June 16,
1935. Representatives from all districts in the Appalachian Agreement
signed the new agreement except Southern Apoalachian and Harlan. I'iean-
tirae. OToera.tors along with others sought to secure an extension of the
N.IcR.A. for a two-year period. It was houed that by the exniration
date of the new wage agreement, the question of new legislation would be
settled.
The National Industrial Recovery Board on March 30, 1935 issued an
order which became effective as Amend.raent 8 to the Bituminous Coal Cod-e.
This Amendioent stated: _ ^ ' ■
"Add a new sentence to, immediately to follow the
-ore sent provision of, and to become a part of,
.-.rticle XI to reaa ^.S follows;
'This Code and all the provisions thereof, despite
■^.ly provisions to the contrary contained therein
■ and especially, but v7ithout limitr'tion to, those
orovisions of .articles IV, VI, and VII providing
for a time limitation upon tne {effect of such pro-
visions or pny of them, which may provide that the
effect of such -oroviii^ions or any of them shall ter-
minate VTXOT to June 16, 1935, shall remain effective
to and including June 16, 1935."
The Joint Scale Committee continued its efforts to secure a more
permanent agreement wi-tnout success. On Aoril 9, 1935, the Southern Ap-
oalachian Coa,l Operators Association withdrew from the Joint Conference,
legntime, the Bituminous Coal Unit of the IJ.EcA. was ordered to engage
in a rush program of securing cost of production data on ITorm 4. for the
period April, 1934 through January, 1935. Efforts to secure Congression-
al action on the Cuffey Coal Bill were going forward.
The Joint Wage Conference postponed its work from one date to
another and finally met on May 20, 1935, During the course of ensuing
meetings, the Conference seemed unable to reach an agreement. The news
of the U. S^ Supreme Court decision in the Schecter Case, declaring the
N. I.R,.A. unconstitutional, on May 27, 1935, resulted in the Joint Wage
Conference adjourning sine die. At this last meeting, John 'L. Lewis
offered the following resolution which was adopted:
"Resolved, That in the event no wage agreement has been
negotia.ted before the date of expiration of the exist-
9837
-328-
ing agreement-, that the Joint Conference authorize the
continuance of v^ork "by all necessary maintenance men,
provided that such men shall be paid the prpsent wage
.for their services in their respective classifications
plus any increase or adjustment that raav come in the
■""orking out of the base agreement, which shall be retro-
active as effecting these men as of June 17, 1935. \11
details affecting the aioplication of this arrangement
snail be adjusted by representatives of the United Mine
I^'iorkers of America in the respective districts."
Mr. Lewis refused to consicicr any suggestion tnat separate district
a,greements be made. Once again a nation-Ti'ide shut down of mining opera-
tions seemed imminent.
At the invitation of President Roosevelt, Joan L. Lewis (U.M.W.),
D. C. Kennedy (operators). Senator Guffey, Representative Snyder and
Major George Eerry (N.R.A. ) attended a conference at the White House on
June 14, 1935. As a result of this conference, the existing wage agree-
ment was extended to June 30, 1935. V/hen this, new extension was about
to expire (June 29, 1935), the Secretary of Laoor transmitted to the
operator and mine worker representatives a request that the contract be
again extended for 30 days (August 1st). This proposal was accepted by
the Joint ?i"age Conference.
It wa.s apparent that both mine workers and ooerators were looking
toward the enactment of the so-called Guff ey-Snyder Coa,l Bill. A Sub-
committee of the House Ways and Means Committee held hearings on the Bill
from June 17-28, 1935. A revised a.nd redrafted Bill (H.R. 8479) was not
reported back to the full Committee until July 30th, Meantime, President
Roosevelt once more transmitted a request through the Secretary of Labor
to the Joint 'i,age Conference ttiat the contract be extended to September
16tn, Again the Conference .complied with tne request. The House Ways
and Means Committee on August 12, ' 1935 amended and approved the coal
regulation bill (naraber changed to K.R. 9100), The bill was passed by
the House on August 19th and after amendment was passed by the Senate on
August 22nd,' After a conference of House and Senate conferees, the bill
was sent to the '.'/hite House on August 23rd and finally signed by the
President on August 30th,
The Joint liVage Conference met sever,al times without success but
on September 14, 1935 agreed to extend the wage contract to September
22nd after intervention of Assistant Secretary of Labor McGrady, At this
meeting the United Mine Workers offered a new proposal:
1, Continuation of the 7-hoar d.ay and 35-hour week,
2, Increase of 50 cents per day on all day and monthly mfin,
.39 Increase of 10 cents ocr ton on combined cutting and loading
rates.
4, Increase of 10 cents per ton on pick mining rates,
5, Increase of 15 per cent on yardage and deadwork,
6, Same increase given to handloaders to be given to men employed
on macaino loading and other mechanical devices and on stripping
9837
-329-
operations; to be ';vork:ed out in district conferences,
7. One-yetr contract, expiring September 16, 1936.
LTien the Wage Conference again mot on September 21st, complete dis-
agreement Tias reported. Assistant Secretary McG-rady interv-ened and asked
that tne Conference reconvene. The operators came for^^^ard with a propos-
al which accepted tne union demands on all points oT^ccpt that 6 cents per
ton increase for tonnage men (rather than 10 00"^^) war. offered, 10 per
cent increase on yardage and deadwork (rath^J^ than 15 per cent), and a
contract to run until April 1, 1937. Th- mine workers refused to accept
the operators' proposal. Four days lacer, John L. Lev/is stated that the
miners would be willing to accept '•■•tie operators' program except that the
tonnage rate increase be 9 cents per ton. .Aean'.ime, nowever, the United
Ijine Woi-kers wenb oit on stri'.e (contract expired September 22nd) and a
nation-wide shut down follower.. Only the Progressive Miners and a fev;
non-union mines continued to operate-.
Tne strike ended with the signing of a new Appalachian Wage Agree-
ment on Se^ r ember 27, 1935. The wage contract granted an increase of 50
cents per a-.-y to all da;y' and monthly men, 9 ct-nts per ton on combined
ctitting and loading rates, 9 cents per ton on pick mining rates, an in-
crease of 10 per cent on yardage and deadwork, seven-hour day, thirty-
five hour week to apply and contract to run "ontil April 1, 1937. Pour
districts did not sign the Arpalacnian Agreement - Southern Appalachian,
Hazard, Virginia and Hi^rlan. Southern Appalachian and Harlan districts
were not present and Hazard and Virginia refused to sign pending action
of these districts. Most of the coal producing areas, outside of the
Appa-lachian Conference, accepted the wage increases in the new agreement
and resumed work. .iichigan, Alabama and Soavhern Appalachian arear,, hcv/-
ever, were not working even by October 12, and not until Hovember 1 did
the 9,000 eastern Tonnesee azid southeastern Kentucky miners return to
work. Alabama did not reach an figreement until November 17, 1935. The
Alabama contract is in'^eresting in vie',7 of the fact that the wage in-
creases granted were lees than 50 per cent of those for the rest of the
country. Bay and monthly men received an increase of 20 cents per day,
tonnage workers received a 4|- cents per ton increase, and yardage pjid
deadwork rates were increased 5 per cent.
rorking Tim e and Labor Costs U nder the O'^de: The Bituminous Coal
Coal Code in seb'.ing up standards cf msxiuuin hor.rs of work and minimum
rates of pay soujht to '^"fectuate the ultimate objectives of the N.I.R.A.-
greater employmen'^ and vncreated p"archasing power The establishment of
the 8-hour day for ^he entire industry did not represent a radical change.
With the possible e.cception of certain of tr.e, southern producing areas
where the "cleaner'; system was in effect and n en worked 9, 10 or even
more hours per d: ,- , th:; industry generally was •i.lready operating on the
basis of an 8-hoar day.
If is difficult to drav, any definite conclusions as uC the effects
of Code hor.rs on output per man per daj or on labor costs and total costs
of production. The Bureau of Mines reports only annuel figures on the
productivity per man per d:^. Thus the 1933 figiores are made up of 9
pre-Code months and 3 months under che'C'^de, while the 1934 figures con-
tain 3 months of 8-hour day operation and 9 months of 7-hour operation.
98S7
-330-
These figures do not, therefore, acciirately reflect chang-es in working
hours. Similarly, no data regarding labor costs or total costs of pro-
duction were availtible for the period immediately preceding the adoption
of the Code. Ac to the effect on employment only rough cppr Dximations
based upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics index or the Bureau of Mines'
reports are possible.
Unfortunately, no accurate information can be secuxed v/nich shows
the average hours per week that employees worked in the various mining
areas. Operating companies rarely keep acciuate records of the actual
hours vrorked, especially of tonnage men who comprise approximately two-
thirds of the working force. The nearest approach to the working time
afforded employees is the nuraber of d^ys (starts) mine tipples operated.
By assuming that the tipple operated according to the standard hours of
work per day an estimate of hours of tipple cpera-tion may be secirred. It
must be remembered that sucn data indicate the v^orking hours of the mines
rather than that of tne men. (*) The lack of satisfactory working time
data is regrettable because such data aru essential to a proper evaluation
of the factors entering into trie controversy concerning reduction of hours
in the work day and week.
The change from the 8-hour day to the 7-iiour daj'' in the bituminous
coal industry was undoubtedly accompanied by numerous readjustments. The
exact effects of the shortening of the work day ai-e, however, unlcnown.
A reduction in the number of working hours per da^'' might supposedly be
reflected in decreased output, but on the other hand, the operating com-
pany could add more employees to its payroll, install new mechanical de-
vices such as loading or cutting mpchines, or isiprove its underground
haulage ways and transportation facilities. Ar-y one of these factors
would tend to offset the decrease in working time. Again, output cannot
serve a.s a s£^.tisfactory reflector of changes in working hours because of
fluctuetions in market demand. It is rather clear that miners working
regularly and continuously supplying a steady market have Better tonnage
records than when the work is intermittent, xvluch, too, depended upon
the managerial policy displayed by the operating company. Where a com-
pany failed to furnish work for all its men every day when consumer de-
mand permitted because of poor mine lay-out, cutting insufficient number
of rooms, and shortages in nine cars, a reduction in working hours per
day would require better planning or else the operating company would
fall by the wayside in the competitive struggle. -Likewise, a company
v/aich was lax in its policy toward absenteeism on the part of its men
could offset reduced hours by a more stringent and disciplinary program.
In tnesR instances, therefore, lever ma:cimum working hours might not
result in decreased output, but on the contrary could bring about great-
er efficiency.
Those compenies, on tae otuer hand, whose operations were already
highly mechanized or whose program was well planned and efficient with
mine Icy-outs, etc. based upon an 8-hour day, undoubtedly faced greater
hardships wnen the maximum hours per day were reduced. Since such com-
panies were already making effective use of their men, equipment and re-
sources, opportunities for further extensive improvements were lacking.
(*) For a discussion of working time in the industry see sections on
"Seasonal and Cyclical Fluctuations in Employment" and "Movement
for Shortening tne Viork Day and Veek".
9837
-331-
It is conceivable tuf-t unaer these cirou;astances a company faced \7ith a
shorter work-d&y mipht find its operatin,'? efficiency iraprired, its out-
put lowered and its labor costs disproportionately increased. If the
com'oany v.-ere readily -.veil managed, ho-'ever, these difficulties would be
only temporary or while the readjustments were talcing place. Once the
raining operations were rearranged to fit. into the shorter workday, the
company would again E,ppcar relatively superior to its competitors.
It is safe to st.f tnnt highly efficient operating conditions were
not prevalent tnrou^;hout the coal industry. Since room for improvement
was extensive, insofar as the shorter workday served as a stimulus to
greater efficiency, the industry benefitted from better coordination of
man power, technJ.cal eciuipnient smd natural resources. It does not fol-
low that th-^ reduced work day operated to bring about a more intensive
use of the factors of production throughoat the entire industry. Nor can
any definite ansv.-er be given as to 'hether the industry could stand a fur-
ther reduction in working hours. Some well informed operators have taken
the stand that the "slack" in the industry has been taken up and that a
further reduction in working time would result in considerable distress,
mine shutdowns and excess! "^e increases in oroduction costs. Organized
labor, however, holds that 6-hour day and 30-nour week would result in
greater employment v;ith no untoward effects upon the operators.
It is significant to note that in a large measure the inability to
make anjr estimates or oredictions regarding the effect of a further
shortening of tne work day grows out of the lack of necessary statistical
data for costs, employment, working time and earnings. Thus, for example,
a cajeful analysis of the contentions made by operators in some areas
such as Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota cannot be made because sup-
porting statistical data are. lacking. These operators state that re-
striction of working time in their areas results in lowered employment
and reduced earnings because they operate under highly seasonal conditions,
producing low quality coals (lignite; friable 'and high moisture content)
for a primarily domestic market and that the working force is made up of
pajrt-time miners who are really neighboring farmers. TThile neither the
tonnage nor the number of men employed is large in these areas, the
problem has given rise to considerable controversy.
Indicative of the variety of opinion existing among operators re-
garding the snortening of working ho-ujrs are some of the following excerpts.
The Chairman and operator representative of tne panhandle. West Virginia
Subdivisior.j,l Code Authority nede these significant remarks:
' 2he primary purpose of tne National Industrial Re-
cover ' Act, and v;nich I thinic to some extent we in the indus-
try have at leart temporarily lost sight of, is to increase
em:olo"/ment. C-enera.lly speaking this cannot be brougnt about
in our industry in any other way than by shortening of the
maximum working hours . . . . "
"Experience during the past seven or eight months has
shown that reduction in daily working hours, and in some
cases even weekly v.'orking hours, does not necessarily result
in a corresponding reduction in tonnage produced, the percen-
tage of reduction in productive capacity being a great deal
9837
-3o2-
loss tl:ian the percentage of reduction in woiirlng hours.
'"In the case of mines operated oy some of tho companies I
represent where prior to the NM we were operatinc on a cloan-up
system which kept some of our men \orl:ing for 10, 12 and even as
as much as 14 hours per day, v>fo have found that on an 8-hour day
not only do we not produce less tonnage per day with tho same num-
ber of men hut ,as a ma.tter of fe.ct, we are act-u^lly producing a
greater tonnage in some mines. We have found since the adoption
of the 8-hour day tliat it would not he necessary to worlc 10 or 12
hours per day only for the company's ovm delinquencies. We fo^und
that the trouhle was viitli our underground transportation system
and that after we speeded up this system our men in some of the
mines are producing more coal in 8 hotirs tha.n they previously did
in the 10 -and 12 and longer hour day." (*)
The speaker, in making tho foregoing statements, proposed tliat the
industry establish a basic 30 hear week.
In operator roj)resontative appearing on behalf of the 3.ocky
Mountain - Pacific Coal Association viewed a further limitation of
working hours in an entirely different light. (**) He contended tlia.t
his area (jDivisioai V) required the maintenance of the 3-hour day and a
restoration of the ri;J-it to work a maximixn of six days per week during
the brief peak deiaand when orders for coal were available. In addition
to the seasonal fa.ctor, this spea.kcr pointed out the increasing conTpct-
ition from substitute fuels and energy a,nd stated tliat this industry
could not boar tho burden of increased coats resulting from a red^^ction
in working time. He held tlie.t m.inc labor "ould be the ultimate victim
because of lowered earnings. This western representative pointed out
that a reduction of one hour from the established work day of 8 hours
represented a reduction of 12.5 per cent, while if the daily rate would
be increased 14.3 per cent; and if the v;ork day ^7ere reduced bytvTO
hours or 25 per cent, the hourly wage rate '-'ould be increased 33.3 .
per cent. Shortening the work day, according to this operator, would
defeat the desired objectives of increased earnings and employment
because it u/ould make coriipctition vdth ether fuels more difficult;
create extraordinary costs v;here thin seams and other difficult mining
conditions required much labor; and it vrould concentrate production
in mines requiring a rainim-om of labor such as stripping operations
where labor could bo displaced by machines or low cost mdnes where tho
seams were thick and flat.
When it is remembered tha.t the mining operations in Division V
were generally among the most highly mechanized and that the mine manage-
ment policy was quite efficient, a change in the working hours schedule
might result in considerable Imrdship. Lloreover, the working force in
tho western states comprised a large percentage of men paid on a day
basis, contrary to the industry generally, and a reduction in hours per
(*) Taylor, William, Bituminous Coal Industry Conference on Wages and
Hours, ffo.rch 26, 1934, Vol. 1, pp. 496
(**) McAuliffo, Eugene, ibid, su^^ra, -m. 26-62
9837
day meant a rise in the hoiirly rate v;ithout nedessarily any increased
efficiency. (|*) A chanc:e in the rnxmber of hours per day a.ffects a time
worker more than a oiecevrorker. ' Tonnage men do not work a specified
number of hours, heing more concerned v/ith output which determines their
pay, hut daj'' men "benefit from a reduced T/ork day withotit having any in-
centive to improve their output. A similar situation applies to machine
men when paid on a time banis.
Ihe Northern .West Virginia Subdivision Code Authority published
statistical data tending to indicate that the reduction in working hours
per day from 8 to 7 effected a decrease of appro ::imately 5 per cent in
the out-put per nair-'ia'y i^^ contrast to the 12,5 per cent decline in . • '■ '
working tiro. ('**) ^ anAl^sis of the effect of the 7-hour d.ay on prod-
uctivity Mf 'T by the SmolvGless Code Authority arrived at. approximately the
same conclUoions.
!I!he Rock^---Mountain-Pacific Corvl Association completed a stud;^' in
February-, 1934, based upon questionnaires sent to operators, which attempt-
ed to calculate the cost increase resulting from the application of both a
7-hour ajid 5-hour day to the coal inductrj- in Division V. (***) These
calculations covered 79,7 per cent of the touna£;e mined in 1932 (approxr
imately 90 per cent of the 1953 tonnage). The results of this study are
set forth in table IQ-V. According to the evidence presented in this table,
the estimated cost of shortening the work day from 8 to 7 hours was 23,76
cents per ton or for the reported tonnage a total of $3,671,530, If the
work day and vork vreek were reduced to si:: hours per day and thirty hours
per wee]-:, the cost of production -.rould be further increased 25.03 cents
per ton or $7,692,939 for the tonnage reported by the operators.
Tlie proportion which labor costs contributed to the estimated in-
crease in production costs .re s'ulting from the shortening of the work day
may be noted in Table XV. Accordina,- to estimates' made, labor costs (e:?-
elusive of supervisory and clerical) would increase 15.54 cents per ton
or $2,401,255 when the working hours were reduced to seven per day. A
further reduction to the 6-hou-r day wo-old result in an. increase of 54,98
cents per ton or $5, -^05, 037. Trius, .according to these estimates labor
(*) xhe I"EA Form C reports on employment and earnings for Nov. 1-16,
1S33, showed that approxiKatcly 60 per cent of the men in Division V
were paid on a time ba.-:is (Northern Wyoming and Montana employed a
negligible number of tonnage men) while Bureau of Labor Statisticts
surveys have found that appro ::ima,tely 66 2/3 per cent of the men
stu .led in the eastern areas i;:ere tonnage men.
(**) Northern West Virginia Subdivisional Code Authority, "Compilation of
Statistical Data covering Period October 1, 1933 to March 31, 1954",
p. 106; ena Supplement No. 1 (May to October, 1934) p. 87.
(***) Brief of Coal Operators Located in Division V of the Code of Fair
Competition for the Bituminous Coal Indiistry, for Restoration of
the Light-Hour Day and the Privile,.3e of Working Six Days Per Week
Wlien Work is Available, November 10, 1934,
9837
-334-
EH
p
■O
>
CO
>.
c,
H
i
in
O
^— X
|3
■o
0)
fl)
tin
R
+5
a-,
^
tH
o
O
fl
pl
^
fl
•H
•H
rt
tr.
(H
P
4J
«j
rH
(-1
O
^r:]
BJ
WJ
<U
+^
•a
r„
fn
o
UJ
,H
&n
f.w
a?
t^n
§
c
o
•H
4^
-(J
rH
nd
jj
^
CO
Cu
(1)
Ph
>^
iH
c
f^
o
pi
•H
()
-p.
^.
CJ
;5i
b.p
'O
f!
o
•H
<-l
r '
\M
P
E>
'■-1
i.i
o
<t5
>_•
-p
c
o
^~^
o
*
N«^
c
•H
m
!-(
m
(1)
o
w
!t1
0-
(U
M
^
•H
t)
W
c
M
o
+^
•ti
a;
'O
-(^
c
c
oj
iH
O
rH
Cfl
t_)
o
CO Q
o n
o
u
0)
en
c^J
CD
O CO
o
to
o
o
(D
o
Si
k->.
iLr, to to H
HJj I^- to r-^, I — iH rH ^
:^ -=;■ r^ O r- , lc-\ it-, n-
pJ
^■~^ lo, o"> ^— ru vr a^
i-O W^ I — rH >.-0
I
ri|j- 1^ o o o en o
oi c^^ r""^ c\j rH rj t^\ r^
EHi 0^ rH O to C\J C\J Lr%
I ic. ^ >..o ^ r-^<.n r^
;-<!
^-D Lt^ o Lr^ o to VD
r^ , UD to r^. oj o"^ ci>
^ U3 o ^o VJ^" 0\JD
1. Oi VO r^, to to I^ CU
i\t^: r— i'~\LO cvi r<~-,
,-C-O-
f^l^J- r-'^ r— L^^ lo, CJ^ ^■^
O o ^-D en o ^- CA
en ci^ r— 1^ LO cT^ to
O' rH CM aj rH CV' rH
-69
OJ W)
rO CC fOVO LT, to LO H rH
en f!
rH Pi
o
■ EH
O "^-D ,d- LO o■^ to to
to en en to to i —
c I r— to en rH jJ^ en ho
I O fl t^ OJ C\I tD r— ,rt
o o CO ^- to t'-\ en en, 0.1 o t
- - ■ CD, .. ~ ^ - ► ~ « I
r(|io cn.-j- t~— r-i f, o 1
•H|0^ ej o'^^'- o ^ ■ '
o
4^
o
CH
'li
f^ L
r o H ^- en OJ
' rT CJ r^ r-A
irH r~'>VO I — 10, ^£) tO^
. C\J U3 to CVJ CJ c\J 10 I-—
t-- cni-o H c^ ^y.o o
Sf
J to O to OJ I O rH O ■\ 0"^
en r-—>xi lo c^j o^ ho^
LO rH CM t/J rH Lr^ 1^-
I
ILOJ- H 01 OJ rH rH
1 1
CO
A i
CD
I
CD
u
CD
A-^
•H
O'-P
a.
>
•H
(D
O
rH ,-rt t-- OJ <J^ to ^ O
^ r-{ ,-\
CO
o
u
O -H
•^ IW X
ci3 s::^ CD
O f^
c^.
bn
q
S
«l
•H
-■l
+2
.a
t3
'A
t->
o
o
o
!>-, (D -p O Cu
• Is:; t5 ;4 t3
crt
Cll
+=
-tJ
-M
'c3
i3
W
.-I
^
-1 ^
+^
1h
fi
CO
en
.'O
o--,
CM
en
o
VD
CVI
r--
to
o
o
to
Lr>
o"
en
K>
en
LO
en
o
E-l
-p
•H
o
Ph
o
o
o
•H
CO
•H
•H
n
rj
•H
O
O
CO
o
+^
Clj
u
CD
ft
O
rH
03
O
o
ClH
o
(D
•rH
Jh
LiSG
-335-
W) *
c >^
•H •
+J •
rH W
1^ J-.
tn pi
O O
rt UJ
y— N.
tlj
w H
0)
<D -H
w
4J CO
c
cd
nS
PCJ O
^
4^
o
■§
nJ C
S ^
o to
CO
EH U
v^
^
o
Tb 5
In
C W
ci
en
fl
Q>
fH O
+2
o >
c'
•^ .Si
^1
d w
fe
>5 -P
ni
w
a
r:J
l-q
n >5
a
5
Eh
Cii
O
o
+3
^
'^
en fn
^
-P o
o3
w fe
o
>.
O <x>
rH
^
U
C 4^
•cH
O
tH
^
to o
0)
^-j
05 tj
rt
c3 a
•H
© -H
J"
^4 rt
E^
o a
fi +=
o:i
M Ph
■=il
o
*- _. -^
'ti A
0) CO
+3
ce cfi
l— f
•p( B
o o
rH fn
rt tH
O
n
g
o
H-3
CO
o
o
nJ
Q)
CO
03
CD
%^
O
P!
CO
CD
HJ
n3
ID
tiC
03
a
o
en
o
n
I£26
o
a
i
CD
>
CD
m
o
CO
-P
w
o
o
■Td
CD
<h
CS
CD
O
CO
CD
CD
3
o
Eh
g
-3
o
EH
U
<D
Ph
Phi
O
E-l
U
(X)
F4
C
o
EH
U
CD
Ph
CD
■P
c3
•p
Ui O rH OJ LTiVri VO
,r- ,5 rH VO O O r'-N
Lr\ rH 0"^ I— 0■^ to CJ>, J
r^, I — to O ^ r'~\ O I
LC-^ J- K-\>^ rH CO rH
(T^ rH ^■^ c\j cj
OJ LT. CTi in to rH H
r\J U5 K>U) I — ^O 60 I
rH l^.bO O O to 1^ I
nj O C\) rH O rH O
CJ LTn rH rH to r->, rH
cT^ LT, LO> r^A bO ^!- I —
^- to rH LT.^ h^tO
r^MD rj a; o ^ .zt
r-{ o OJ I — c\i a^ cvi
to O OJ LO^- (^
CM 0"^ O CTv O I CO v^ I
rH O^VO I^O rH r~- I — I
to ^^ to r^ o ,' rH h- I
rH OJ M Oj' C\J t^ rH
-co-
<JD UD I — r^ n~\ OJ
CT^ rH r^i O m O^. rH I
VX; O VQ t—jii- ^ to I
„ « r<->| - - - ^ I
r^ J- - Lr^ ^-^ J-
oj U3 MD I- : en
J- J- rH
rH
r^ CTN LP, K^ o^ O ^
.rJ- LOi CI r— r-o to ^ I
o^ H OJ J- o r - 1^ 1
O O rH O O O O
r^ LX^ rH c^
to ^ O^ C\J L'^ 0^1 i-~-
r—UD to OJ (\i r^\ H 1
OJ LOi to ,~ » - n I
. .. ~viD r--^, -.,? r J I
11^ L-^ l^iVJD to r— <->.
I — I-c^i CJ^ OJ rH r-{
-&■>
Lf> OJ r— I — L^ t^ o
r^-\ to 00 to VD r^ y- I
to o r-- o 00 -d ur\ i
O rH O rH O rH O
•€/>
c\5 ci
•p +=
o
Coo
o
o
•H
J-^-^,
•"O
fcO
a
t-T o n
CD
•H ^ ^
o
^
H^
.i:^ -p -p
rH
O
T!
rt
cT !H d
C1
!>i
0)
•p
o
cj O 6
o
t=
S
t=>
t: r^ CO
^^0
O
O
O
■c/>
OJ
VD
OJ
rH
<e-
rH
o
LP,
,=1-
OJ
V£)
LOi
LT.
to
LT,
O
O
■m-
o
o
o
rH
-y>
H
C3
o
CH
Jh
4J
W
fj
>-l
n
rH
r".
o
o
CJ
rH
&
STl
■H
v.
7i
-p
•H
FQ
-
■??
o
■
•H
ITN
+3
rj-
cj
•H
mj
O
f-l
O
Cj
UJ
c)
^
<
r^
•
Cj
Ph
n
Pi
CJ
n
o
rH
■H
'-H
•H
d
O
3
T'
rH
(h
o
»
>
fl
•^
^^
HJ
r^,
S
o^
fi
rH
o
>JD
r?
OJ
Tj
r^
o
'o
c,H tn
^ &
CD W
o ca
01
CD, <D
o
CD CD
<)H O
'H r;
•H CD
rH U
>4 CD
^ n
o o
■ -336-
costs (daj" lator and tonnage rates) represented £5,4 per cent of the in-
creased cost of production resulting from a change to a 7-hour day and
70,3 per cent oi the increased cost rhen r/ork hours per day were reduced
to 6. It is interesting to note also that the increased costs of d?.y
lator represented approximately 64 per cent of the increase for all labor
costs (e::clusive of supervisor;,'' and clerical) when the 'Torking hours were
reduced. In this latter regard, it will te noted that TJashington, UtaJi
and LIoMtan.a ma,de the largest contributions to the increase in costs of
day labor.
The Hocky Mountain-Pacific Coal Association study stated:
"The results submitted (discussed above) were most, carefully
audited and checked by those in charge of the compilation, and
have been found, in the light of the increases sustained during
the months April to Septeraber, 195-1, to be over-conservative,
such increases as have been reported, fully equal to or in excess
of the figui'es shown in the compilation of Jebruaryj 193i, "
Unfortunately, Division V did not report cost of pl-oduction da-ta to
the NPA for the period covering the 7-hour da,y so that the estimated labor
costs arising from the shortened day set forth b;- the study cannot be ver—
ified,
Tlae operators in Division 111 issvied a report pointing out the sit-
uation vrhich had developed in the bituminous coal nining industry in Alab-
ama, Sot\thern Tennessee and Georgia after the Code Amendments. (*) Acc-
ording to this report:
"The nine months experience from'April 1, 1931- to- December 31,1934;' '
has proven the impossibility of the survival of the industry under,
the 7-hour day and $2.90-$3,80 wage scale. The com, .ercial produc-
ers of Alabama, realizing the imperative need to adjiist their oper-
ations to meet the shorter hours, worked earnestly a^nd to the full
extent of their financial ueaais to the end. of reducing costs with-
out disemplo3.-!nent of labor. Daily production dropped 12 per cent
from 32,100 tons average for 70,8 'S-hour days to 28,300 tons aver-
age for 131.4 7-hour da^'s; average tons per man da.^- dropped from
3,60 for the year 1932 to 3,26 for the year 1933,- to 3.0 (estimated)
for the 8-hour period 193'>1934, and to 2,7 (estiruated) for the
7-hour period April - December 1934; costs increased from $2,00 per
ton to $2,33 per ton; and realiza.tion increased from $1,94 per ton
to $2,29 per ton - lacking four cents of meeting the cost of prod-
uction," (**)
(*) Report of the Situation of the .Bituminous Coal Industry- of Division
111, Mai-ch, 1935 - Alabama uining Institxite, Southern Tennessee Coal
Producers Associa.tion, Tennessee-Georgia Coal Producers' Association,
(**) Ibid, supra, p. 4 '
9837
-337-
•Eie op-'rators in this Division of the industry- strongly opposed
any furthei reduction of vorkin,?- hours per day. In referring to the six-
hour da;^- th:se operrtors stated that Alabama coal mine employees were
recruited jr-dnly from the farming section and until the advent of the KRA.
were accustomed to a 9"hour v;orl: day. The decrease of worlcing time to 8
hours rJid later to 7 hours per day, it was claimed, had removed all in-
efficiencies leaving little opport\inity for further improvement. The op-
erators also pointed out that the shortened \-ork day had subordinated
safety to the need of doing in 7 hours what formerly had required 9 or
10 hours so that the 1934 fatality rate (3.12 per million tons) had in-
creased 25 per cent over 1933 and 40 per cent over 1932. As further
evidence of the effect of the speeding up process on safety, it was stated
that 'jhereas haulage fatalities were only 11 per cc.nt of the total fatal
accidents in 1932 and 32 per cent in 1933, in the year 1934 they repre-
sented 34 per cent of ' the total.
Tlie only statistical approach to an analysis of the effect of the
reduction in rrorking hours from 8 to 7 per de^- upon the labor costs
lies in the cost of production data (Form A) reported to the NHA from
November, 1933 through January, 193.5, (*) The reported information
covered various costs incident to production and so necessarily treated
labor costs, but the schedules \7ere not dra-.^Ta up for the particular pur-
pose of securing detailed data relating to the labor costs. The total
mine labor costs was made up of four cost groups - daymen, mine (piece
and dac,- workers), yardage and dead-'ork, end mine supervisor;,' and cleri-
cal. The data submitted showed the total tons produced, number of days
tipple started, and nimber of mines reporting. Amounts paid out to each
of the labor cost groups and the cost per ton for each reported. TJhile
this information was valuable and more satisfactory than any previously
available c ta, it lacked certain details essential to a proper eval-
.uation of : .bor costs. Originally the ¥.Rk had set up a statistical pro-
gram which Drovided for the repoi'ting of emploj-ment and earnings data
(Form C) ari Y.-hich operated for three pa;' periods (two weeks) from Nov-
ember 16, 1933 to December 15, 1933. A variety of factors contributed
to the discontinuance of this portion of the statistical reporting. (**)
As a res-alt only the Form A data are a.vailable for any considerable
length of time extending over the 8-hour and 7-hour periods. Unfortun-
ately these data do not indicate the number of employees engaged in each
occupation, the actual '-orking time of each employee for specific occup-
ations, individu-al earnings per start and pay period for various occupa;r
tionpl groups, and the degree of mechanization. It is, therefore, difir*
icult to accurately evalua,te the extent to --hich the shortening of the
(*) Chapter V treats these cost data in considerable detail for var-
ious sections of the industrj^ The statistical proced\ire of com-
pilation, editing, etc., are discussed elsewhere,
(**) The data reported relating to emplojnnent and earnings and the con-
troversy centering around this p?:ogram are discussed elsewhere in
this study.
9837
-338-
woi-k dry resulted in the expressed objectives of increased emiplo^-ment
and earnings. Ho\7ever, insofar as latior cocts per ton were increased
durinf:; the period of reduced rorking time per day, it is reasonable to
assume that a large proportion of the increased costs went to mine work-
ers. It does not follow that the increased costs arose only out of the
shortened work day, since in many portions of the industr;,' basic day rates
and tonnage rates \7ere also increased. In those areas where basic wage
rates were increased, it is impossible to detennine what portion of the
increased labor costs should be allocated to reduce working hours and
T/hat portion may be attributed to increased rates.
Any comparisons of l8,bor costs per ton that are made between areas
or for different periods should properl;/ give consideration to the aver-
age nui.iber of days mines operated in the respective areas or periods. It
should be kept in jaind that as the n'oraber of working days per month in-
creases, labor costs per ton are progressively decreased. Eut as has
already been pointed out the number of mine starts or days operation
per month is only an approximation of the exact working time and does
not indicate the actual time (hours) worked. Since output is largely
reflective of working tine, the tonnage produced for a given area or
period of time is eo^ually si^^Tiif leant in the effect upon labor costs
per ton.
It has been thought desirable in compai'ing the labor costs per ton
under the 8-hour work day and under the 7-hour work day to use compar-
able months of the year when seasonal demand vrould have similar effects.
Such a comparison is set forth in Table XVI. Total mine labor costs
(including supervisory and clerical) per ton are compared for the months
of November and December, 1933 and January, 1934 (8-hour working day)
SJid Uovember and December, 1934 and Jcnuary, 1935 (7-hour \Torking d^y)
in specified divisions and subdivisions of this industry. Unfortunately
no cost data were reported, for Western Kentucky in Division 1 and for
Iowa in Division 11 during the latter months of the statistical program.
Similarly Divisions 17 and V early in 193-i ma,de only scattered cost re-
ports to the NBA and by June had cea.sed renorting altogether. Table XVI,
therefore, compares labor costs under the 8-hour and 7-hour days for the
areas east of the Liississippi Pdver (except Western Kentucky). Since
these areas produce approximately 92 per cent of the national tonnag;e, a
comparison of their la,bor costs maj" be taken as indicative of the in-
dustry. In considering the percente^ge increase- in labor costs per ton
during the 7-hour pa2,^ period attention should be given to the change in
the reported tonnage.
The vreighted average labor cost per ton for Division 1 (exclusive
of V/estern Kentucky) during the months of the 8-hour day period used in
Table XVI amounted to 94,25 cents, but during the months of the 7-hour
day period this cost increased to $1.1578 per ton - an increase of 22,84-
per cent. Since the reported tonnage declined 5.5 per cent, it msy be
said that 3. small portion of the increased cost should be attributed to
that factor, 'but \indo\i.btedly the significant items contributing to this
increased, labor cost per ton vere the shortened work day and the increa-
sed basic wage rates.
9837
-339-
■IA.BLE XV.
Cor.pai'ison of Line L;lior Costs per Ton Iniring 8-IIour Lay Period
(ilovemuer and Deceutex-, 1933 and January 1934) and 7-Hour Day
Period (iTovenber and December, 1934 and Jf;jiuary 1935) in
S"occified Areas of the Bituninous Coal Industry'.
Per Cent
Per Cent
Chan.ge in
Reported
Labor Coi
sts Pi
3r Ton
Change
Area
N0V.& Dec. 1933
N0V.& Dec. ,1934
in Lahor
Tonnage
and Jan, ,1934
and
Jan.. 1935
Cost
Division ,1
Eastern Sul)division
-2.0
$ 1.0518
$
1.2889
22.54
Maryland
-I-:-, 3
1.1318
1.3072
■ 15.50'
Upper Potomac
/lO.g
1.1340
1.3293
17.22
Western Pennsylvania
-8.0
.9933
1,1855
19.35
Northern TT, Virginia
-13,2
.7761
.9908
27,66
Ohio ' .
/ 9.5 •
. .9605
1.1521
19.95
Michigan •
-10.0
1.5770
1.8335
16,27
Panhandle, TJ, Virginia
- 1.2
. 9747
l.l'i76
17.74
Southern Uob 1. l/
/ 5.2
.9493
1.1562
21.80
Southern Ko. 2 1/
-10.4
.8826
1.0968
24.27
Total Division 1 dJ
-5.5
.9^.25
1.1578
22.84
Division II
Indiana deep
Indiana strip
Indiaiia deep and strip
Illinois deep
Illinois strip
Illinois deep and strip
Total Division IJ
deep Zj
Total Division
strip 3/
Total Division
deep and strip 3/
Total Division III 4/
II
;i
- 3.2
- 2.9
- 3.1
/12.1
/lO.B
/11.9
/S.8
r4. 5
/7.9
/7.5
.7672
.3644
,6202
. 8647
. 3543
.7828
.8435
.3589
.7392
1.13a-5
.8077
.4281
.6689
.9528
.4337
.8694
.9248
.4278
-.8211
5.28
17.48
7.85
10.19
22.41
11.06
9.64
19.20
11.08
22.19
1/
Data for November, 1934
Cor.parison for months of December and J'•-nu£l^J^
are not available.
2/ E:;cluding Western Kentucky: comparison for months of December and
January' since Southern llo. 1. and Southern No. 2 did not report Ho v"
ember, 1934 separately.'
3/ Excluding Iowa.
4/ ConparT son for months of November and December. No report for Jan-
uaiT/, 1935.
9837
-340-
The anendments to the Code affected the various Sujn.ivisions of
Division I in differing degrees. Thus, for example, in Eastern Suhdivi-
sioii the lahor cost per tor. increased fron SI. 0518 to ?i>1.28C9 per ton or
22.54 per cent r/hile tonne.ge declined only 2 neT cent. In Haryland the
labor cost per ton increared 15.5 :oer cent and tonnage fell 14.3 per cent.
The Upper Potomac Subdivision reported a 10.9 per cent increase in tonnage,
but over the sa-ne period labor cost per ton rose from $1,134 to *1.329 or
17.22 per cent. The -Testern Pennsylvania Subdivision, which along ^^ith
Eastern Subdivision and Ohio sponsored Amendment I-Io. 1, reported an 8 per
cent decrease in tonnage and an increase of 19,35 per cent in labor cost
•oer ton ($.9933 to $1.1855). The largest percentage increase in labor
cost per ton in Division I nas registered bv northern "est Virginia.
IThile a -oart of this increase may have arisen fro:n the 13.2 per cent de-
cline in tonnage, it is also laiovn that this ares, had a greater increase
in basic day rates and tonnage rates than any other area in Division I
as T/ell^ as the uniform reduction in uorhing hours per day. Hovrever, no
information is avail.able '.'hereby a proper allocatio'h of the increased .
labor costs may be nade to the appropriate influ'ehcing factors-. In Ohio,
desoite a 9.5 per cent increase, in output rhich normall:,^ nould ha.ve meant
increased v,rorIring tine snd. lowered, labor costs ^7er "ton, the Code Amend-
ments witnessed a 19;95 per cent increase in la.bor' costs ($.9605 to
81.1521). In the case of Southern ITo. 1 and Southern Ho.. 2 comparison
of la.bor costs coul-I- onljr be mad.e for the months of December and^ January
because the November, 1934 data could not be separated from the reports
for a number of months made b;^ these a.rea.s. "outhern i'o. 1 reported a
tonnage increase of 5.2 per cent a.Qd a labor cost increase of 21.8 per
cent ($.9493 to $1.1562). In Sou.thern ITo. 2 the tonnage declined 10.4
per cent and the labor cost rose from $.8826 to $1.0968 or 24.27 per cent.
Labor costs ner ton in Division II (excluding Io\7a) vrhen corn-oared,
for the 8-hour and. 7-hour day -oeriods are especially interesting. This
interest arises from the fact that" the basic ds.:/ rates for inside skilled
labor and outside common la.bor in Indiana and -Illinois were unchanged by
Cod-e .Ajiiendm.ents so that only the hourly rates- -TJere increased to meet the
reduction in hours -for the \7orking day fro.m 8 to 7. Tonnage rates like-
wise remained undasturbed. It is 'logical, therefore, to assume that any
incre8.se in labor costs ver ton following the Avaendjnents to the Code
resulted primarily from the shortening of the.worJ: day. The labor costs
in Division II have added interest in tliat data are available for both
deep andt strip mining and it is therefore possible to note the varj'^ing
effect of a shorteneci xiorlz day oh these operations.
Total prod.uction of deeo and strip mines in Division II increased
7,9 per cent during the jnonths of the 7-hour da^?- period which are comiDared
vfith those of the 8-hour day period and the labor cost per ton rose from
$.7392 to $.8211 or 11.08 per cent. The percentage increase in labor
costs in Division II was less than that of -either Divisions I or III. The
explanation for the relatively smaller labor cost increase is found pri-
marily in the fact that basic day rates were not increased, but it may be
said that the labor cost increase might ha.ve been smaller had it not been
for the striiD mining o-oerations. It will be noted that dteep mine labor
eosts in Division II increased from $.8435 to $,9248 or 9,64 per cent, but
la.bor costs in strir) mines of this Division rose 19.20 per cent ($.3589
to $,4278). Several fa.ctors combined to increase labor costs in strip
mining much more than in deep mining. Strip mines are highly mechanized
9837
-341-
and their opera-tions ^nere pa.tterned on an 8-hour day basis so that
the reduction in worltin^^^ hoiu-s to ? per da''- not only dinturbed the
operating schedu3.e and thus reduced ei'f iciencj'-, but also less opioortunitj?-
existed to bring about improveraent through fxirther 'mechanization. This
latter situation was subject to readjustment and so may not be considered
of basic inportanco. Far more significajit v/as the fact that the r.'or?cing
force in strip mines is made up of day j/ien, vmile the deep mines employ a
large proportion of tonnage men. Since day men are T)aid on a time basis
any reduction in working time even tho\igh not "accompanied by a wage rate
increase means higher labor costs because daily output is definitely re-
duced. The change in working hours per day from 8 to 7 meant a- definite
reduction of 12,5 per cent in working time for the day men. In the case
of tonnage men, who comprise the ma-jority of the employees in deep mines,
a similar reduction in working hours does not have the same effect upon
out-put because these men rarely worked a full 8 hours even before the
change and since they were "oa.id on a piece work basis, they could speed
up their work so as to. maintain ap;oroximately the same output with less
working time.
The foregoing remarks ma.de with reference to Division II aptjly equal-
ly well for the Subdivisions in Illinois ajid Indiana. In Illinois deep
mines, the change in working time ^/as I'eflected by an increase of only
10,19 per cent in labor costs, while strip mine labor costs per ton in-
creased 22.41 TDer cent'. The Indiana deep mines, despite a. decrease in ton-
nage of '3,2 per cent, had an increase in labor costs of only 5.28 per cent
while strip mine labor costs per ton rose 17.48 ner cent.
La.bor costs per ton in Division III increased from $1.1345 to $1.3862
or 22.19 per cent — approxima,tely the' sane as for Division I. The ton-
nage reported in Division III increased 7.5 per cent, however, while that
of Division I fell 5,5 per cent. It is, therefore, logical to assume that
had Division III raainta,ined the sane output in both the 8 and 7-hour day
periods, its labor cost increase would have been greater than in Division I.
The foregoing discussion treats labor cost ver ton in the- various
areas of the industry under the Tituminous Coal Code and. its Amendments,
It is similarly i-nportrnt to com-oare the labor cost per ton prior to the
Code and ur.der the Code after the r-age- and hours revisions. The only data
indicating labor cost -..-.er ton immediately vcior to the Code are those which
were calculated from the wa.ge rates in effect on ilay, 1933 as reported to
the N.R.A. on Form C in December, 1933. These calcula.tions assume a con-
tinuation of similar woTking conditions in every respect except tliat wage
rs.tes were increased, with the adoption of the Code. Such an assumption had
some valid-ity for the first part of the C"ode period (November, 1933 through
March, 1934) except in those areas (as Alabama) where the Code established
a shorter and uniform work day. VPnen, however, the Code was amended so that
working houjrs per day were red.uced and wage rates were further increased,
the calc-olated. pre-Code labor cost loses some of its validity. It must,
therefore, be admitted tha.t the labor costs per ton for liay, 1933 as shown
i'n Table XVII are onl''- ro-ugh approximations, but are being used for want of
any more accurate information. Since only those operators whose wage rates
were relatively high reported wlia.t they paid in May, 1933, it may be that the
labor cost per ton during the Code period' increased even more than Ta.ble
X^ni indicates,
9337
-342-
The comparison oi" "laOor costs durin.; the 10 months period, April,
1954 through osnuary, 1335, >'jitii those, calculatr^d for ia7,'1933 shov/
tnat in five important Subdivisions of Division I, the l,--"bor cost per
ton increased vithin the rather narrow ran;.c8 of 48.3 cents to 56.4 cents.
These preas (Sastsrn Pennsylvania, Vi'estern Fennsrlvmin, .Ohio, ITorthern
West Vir.,;;inia and Southern Wo. 2) produce approxim.-^tely- 77 per cent of
the tonnage in Division I. It is reason ble to . ssume that uad all tne
Subdivisions of Division I reported Iviav, 1935 labor cost per ton, a
weig'hted average of such costs ymen compared v/ith those under the Code ■
after amendments would show that labor costs per ton for Division I
(producing in excess of 70 per cent of the national output) increased
approximately 50 cents.
The percentage increase in labor cost per ton for those areas in
Division I v.-hich reported for liay, 1933 varied wicely. ITortliern West
Virginia, as night be expected in view of the da" and tonnage rate in-
creases effected by the A'aendjaeats, showed tne sharpest rise - 106.2
per cent. This increase in labor cost explains the protests of the
Northern Y/est Virginia operators a.gainst the Code Ar.iendments. The
next largest l&bor cost increase, 9">.o per cent, occurred in Southern
Subdivision No. 2. Western Pennsylvania ioliov;ed these areas closely
with an increase of 90..1 per cent. The smallest labor cost increase
for those areas reporting is loiind in Eastern Fenns; Ivtinia - 59.9 per
cent.
Labor cost per ton in Division III rose from :i>.747 in I'ay, 1933
to $1^413 for the 10 month period, April, 1934 through January, 1935,
or 89.2 per cejit. This large increase is e:rplained by -the fact that a
9 and 10-hour cay and. ver;- low wage rates prevailed prior to the Code,
while after the Code Amendments, the working day consisted of 7 hours
and wage rates had been increased. Alabaina raining operations were
affected by the Code hours and wages more than those' of. any other area
for which data are available. Labor cost per ton increased from $.677
to $1,411 - a:i increase of 73.4 cents per ton or 108. 4' per cent.
Similar data for Divisions II, IV and V are not available. How-
ever, in most of these areas the wage rates established in existing con-
tracts were specified in the Code and made applicable to other mines
which had no contracts. The increase in labor cost per ton came chiefly
after the Amendments to the Bituminous Coal Code. _ ' ...
Emiployment under the- Code ; ■
In view of the fact that increased' emplo-"ment was a primary ob-
jective of the Bituminous Coal Code, it is unfortunate that no statisti-
cal data are nvailable from which to determine accurately the degree
of success attained 'by the Code with reference to this objective. The
employnent data reported by the Bureau of Mines are on an annual basis.
Since the Bitviminous Coal Code became effective October 2, 1953, the
Bureau of Mines data give no indication as to the employment prior to
the Code an- under the Code. Similarly, it should be noted that the
amendments to the Code v;hich reduced hours of work per da;'^ and increased
basic rates were effective from April 1, 1334 and so again i.t is im-
possible to state precisely from the Bureau of Mines' data the effect
of reduced workin;; time on emplo^^Tnent. Moreover, since the eraplo:,Tnent
9837
-31*3-
_• in
4^-
3 8
8
« CT^r^
o i s
p-4 •
Hi
|l|
o
o »^
a ON
i
i
M
-a*
R^^"«l iRs'li 111!
Pi.S^I IS I i;^:3M I
IC^^I ISM
I I
tr\0(\iiHK>sO«o sOBOrH a\c\j ^(tn a\
■£ e> tr» f— 10 h- ^- jt- r— cvJ-^r^j^ ^-0^^|!^
q ^ ^ tr» ON h- a\ ».to rH N|5Na\ r^2S«g|P
I I
III!
QO ON
O «0
O <ri
K^f\l
ss
leSisA I I j» (3)
MM*
U^
I I I I
o • <
1 1
;i
:;lfS
^1
a^ a
as 3
ana!
!
fin*
flee
• *4 ^
M ■ ■
m *■ *■
» ■* ♦»
•i ri a e ^ ^
So 'S
|3
O 1-4
M «• •
M 8 |i
■ 8
•• • o
1:^^ i
9837
-244-
data published "by the 3\iroau of Mines are "based upon operator reports,
they tenC to indicate tiie v.-orI:in ; .rorce nttnched to t]ie mines hut do not
show irre^'ular and discontinuous enn^lo,- i,-int . (*) As a r-sult, the
average nuiTiber of men employed at tne nines is apt to he soi-newhat
higher than the nm.-'her of men regularly employed. Gearin.^ the fore-
going- remarks in mind, the Sur h\i of LUnes sho"s that emplonnent in
1933 amounted to 418,703 v/hile that of 1934- was 458,011 - an increase
of 39,208 or approximately 9.4 per cent. Since it is e;enerally re-
cOj-vnized that the N.I."^l.A. fave ;m impetus to -."reater eraplo.-^ent in the
summer months of 1933 and tnat the Sitxu.iinous Cord Code broUi~ht increased
emplo^.-^.ent after October, 1933, it is probable that the percentaj'^e in~
crease in employment durin.r the cod period over the pre-code months
was somewhat hi^^^her than that shown by the Bureau of Mines.
Most bituminous coal employneni; data, bein.^ based upon reports
made by minin-; compandes, ;'re subject to the limitations inherent in
such reporting, namely, that they include all individuals on the pay-
rolls rather than the member actually worhin; full time. The United
States Census of Fopulo.tion and Unemployment tahen in April, 1930 as a
house to house canvass is more compr:';h3nsive and in the case of unem-
plojtnent djnotws the mine woricer'-s status o; . a f;in,:le working day -
that precedin.; the enuxaerator ' t; vi^it. Since tne Bureau of Labor
Statistics monthly index of emplo-T'ient is the only available month to
month indication of emplo-nent changes, it has been apjjlied to t he
Census of Occupationa as of A;.;ril, 1930, converted to 100 per cent
and carried forwai'd. The resultant estimates of emplo^mient and unem-
plojTnent are sho-m in table XVIII.
The April, 1930 survey snowed a total of 631,545 coal mine
employees in the industry. The estim.ated number of anthracite m.iners
was deducted resulting in a total of 477,090 bituminous coal miners.
Returns for all gainful workers showed approximately 1.5 per cent as
unable or unwilling to i"ork. Deducting tnis percentage from 477,090
leaves approximately 470,000 able bodier' workers attached to the
industry. The April, 1930 survey indicated 38,149 men cs being
without jobs, or approximately 32,000 able v;orkers unemployed. The
survey recorded 35,793 coal nine voxdcers (including anthracite) as
having been laid off on the day preceding the enujTierator ' s visit. Of
this group, 18,386 men or 22 per cent had been idle for more than
four weeks. Undoubtedly many of these men retained their place on
the payroll and so would be reported to the Bureau of iiines and to
State Bureaus as employed, althou;,h these men cleai'ly were not at
work dui^in", the lay-off period. The data set forth in Table XVIII
represent the application of the Bureau of Labor Statistics index to
the base of those reported as v/ith ,iobs in .the'April, 1930 census.
Accordin.;; to the estimates in Table XVIII, the low point in bi-
tuminous coal emplo^Tiient was reached in July, 1932 v.'hen the index
stood at 58.6 and slightly over 200,000 men were unemployed. Unem-
plo^Tnent in this month arises in some measujre from the seasonal character
of the ird.u;try. The index foi- the liesj: 1932 was 67.4, while in the
first six months of 1933 the i:ide:: averaged 65.5. Vie^red in this
(*) See Seasonal and Cyclical j'luctuations of Smployment
9S37.
"=1
Si
11
l|fl
.Z
\t • • o
o a ¥ -t
ill
S"S|
• " • fl
II s*
v< • • b
O (I • <-l
5 55
■ .a
«4 • • O
o 5 ► ►»
lll|
8 q • ^
-■fil5-
g C * 2, Ri R S
«^ o^ (^ tf^ vD r4 •-•
§■ S, « 5 » J f
5 s ^ :i I K § -^ g "g
e s ^ s" ■ ' " "
lf^ W K^ IT.
ve try
scfiis^ tap
l|5*
***8
1 «
I 1
§
§
a
«
R
a
s «
g
s s
(r\
cr.
5
-
S
o
i 3
v«
!• S
f *
§
§
Si
e
^
8
»
1; *
« s
R
S
K
»
R
*
« i.
R
«0 -H
w cw
^
^
o
„
„
»o r—
ftj
e )£
K K
vC
X
!=
c
ae
^
P c
f=
£ f
^ i
ON
?
C
t
^.
CO
S %
«
SS;RRl^»fSg5|S
*^ \^ *^ \0 1^0 vD \0 <^ r** ^JD r^
K
8
f s f
rt
B
•s
1
o
5
*
S K
8
ITl
» g ff
R
S
s
i
SI,
S 1
S
s
S « f
®
•s
K
§^
s
S 1
«
*
t S !§
^
>§
e
s
^
5
a s
«)
^
ftj l/^ ^o
■TN
yj
;,
J-
O
^
o ^
S lA
a a 8 ::
9. s^
o
5
&
S
?
\£ Ml
C 3
%.
*
o
5
^
«
f
5
3
s
P;
R f
&
S
p.
S
K
a
ON
»r
w
ff«
^
^ ^
o
^
K\
,H
«
M
II
R « « £ 3 K J S' i af
I F I" H" I 3 §" F f J
'^^8 S K en9k<A(nvt
. I » i 5 t
^ ■ ■ ■
I
:5i
8 ctn5\
3«37
(I
([
-546-
manner, the earl-- months oi' 19oo represented the lowest level of employ-
ment in the industry. Th.^. p»SL-a-.-;e of tiie N.I.R.A. in J-ane, 1933 and
the Rc'optiou of the Bit-uininoua Coal Co'.'e i a October, 1933, were reflected
hy increased eraplo; "nent so thrt the inder. for the Ir.tter montrxs of 1933
aver;ij;;e'." 70.3, The avei'Pc;;e emplorment in this pioriod (321,710) in-
creased 22,039 as against th-: first six months of 1933. If the average
employ--:rtnt in the first six months of 1934 (includes three months of
code f,-nendment) i-: comparw' ■'ffith th;'t of th.r first six months of 1933
(pre-i".I.R. A. ;-jad Co.-. 1 Code) the estimated employirent increase is ahout
47,589 (from 299571 to o-i:7,?S0). Averarje emplo-nnent in 1934, a full
year un; er the Code, amounted to 33v-J,290 in contrast to 310,733 in 1933 -
an incroias^ of 42,452 or apv^roxi-aately 13.7 per cent. It is li-:ely that
the employ..-ient increase ap-^Tori n,- ted slightly more th-.n 41,000 men. In
Iv.f-rch, 1935 the Buri^u of Laoor Statistics' ind'>x stood at 81.5 and
375,421 men v;ere estiirated as employed. Thij morth wa; the hi.^liest
point of employment since i.^y, 1931 and unc^oubtedly the chief contriou-
tinv inctor was the threat of a ■;eneral snut doi"r. loliov/in-;;' the expira-
tion of v'at;e contract on lirrch 31, 1935. The employment recline re-
gistered in October, 1935 came vdth tne new -rai^e contract v.'hen rainin-^
operr.tions had carried ove.' aetwi- -otoclis of coal from previous months.
Tne fore;:20in.j, estinates of increased employment purport only to
c. Iculate the nuraher of mm added to hituminous coal mining payrolls*
No accux'pte statement can be made iridicrti;-.,- the decree to vrhich the
Bit^jininous Coal Code contrib-ate.' to adf' ed emplo, T.ient , but it is si,j;ni-
ficant that these incref^es c,--,m3 at tne time when the K.I. 3. A. was
enacted anr" the Coos adopttd,. i'Jeither do the estimated em.plojT:nent
increases shov tne volume of emplo^Tnent afforded in terms of regulax or
continuous workiny time. Obviously, the most exact measui'es of real
employ-'.ent are data indicatiny maoi-days, or prefers.bly m.an-hours, in
the industry for a speci-ie,.' time period. Unfortu:L?tely such data are
lac-:in.,- so that only esti lates of chanji'es in th'^ niomber of men on the
payroll can be made rdtho-j.t showing the dec^ree of full-time or part-time
emplo-mient .
It ^"ill be not<jd the esti'^ated av raye unemplo^nnent even for the
coce year, 1954, v'as 116,710. ^lthou.-,h the Bituminous Coal Code did
brin^' about increased employment, the !;';ain v/t s not as extensive as might
have been e>5)ected. Severfl factors contributed to this situation -
especially the fact that m- n.-- com.panies had soioj-ht to retain men by
part-time vork durinvc; the (.o- 'n-s^'in;^^; phase of the business cycle and
thus Were somewhat limited in addin,: more employees later; and also
risin-i' labor costs iTave an impetus to mechr.nization which did not dis-
place .."len so much as it made arf-'ed employees less necessary. Similarly,
risin-j laoor costs server' to increase stripping mines vdiich rely neavily
on mechanical or-eration. In ;ome cases, too, the increase^, miine prices
made possible the installation of new equipment. It should be remem-
bered that the number of ('..fys the mines worked in 1934 increased 6.5 per
cent over 1933 (167 to 173). Against these factors were the greater
production in 1934 r.s against 1933 (7.7 per cent) and the lowered output
per man per nay for the same periods (8 per cent).
Des"pite the fact that the emplo;Tienc sit-aation in bitum.inous coal
mining improved consi'""-erabl7' r urin-;, the code period and thereafter as
9837
n
ii>
• -S47«
compared with the precedin.; period, n lar^e nuiTiber of mine workers,
exceediiif; pt-rhaps 115,000 men y;'ere •mieinployed. That the condition
was a serious one is evidenced "by the fact that cae Bit-uminous Coal
Conservation Act of 1935 specified amon/; the or.>u;r duties of the
Commission a stud," of:
"The rehahilitation of mine v;oi'kers displaced from
enployment, and the relief of mine v'o:-Vers partially
emplo"ed. The Con.v.i3sion' s findin-js and recor.inenda-
tions shall he transmitted to tho 'proper a, .'ency of
the Governrne t for rliei, rehabilitation, and sub-
sistence homesteads". (*)
An indication of the ;:rave situation of the unerployed and partially
employed in coal mining areas may be secured, from the data set forth in
Tacle XIX. Ti^ese data v/ere derived from information reported by the
Works Pro.rress Administration. A conl mining- area vras defined" as any
county within a state where at least 60 per cent of the productive in-
dustrial vforkers were, reported in the 1930 Census as employed in coal
mining,-. The anthracite miners of Pennsylvania were excluded so that the
data represents bituminous coal 'mining. ' The si:-;;,Tiif icant item in this
Table is the percentage of the papul-tion in these coal mining areas
that r-'as reported as bein,^ on relief in Juiae, 1935. It will be noted
that in the coal mining areas of tv/elve states '-'ith a population of
2,134,190, the number of persons receiving relief amounted to 490,251
or 23 per cent of such population. Thus, approximately, one out of
every four persons in these coal mining areas v\fas reported as being on
relief in June 1935. The lO'-est percentage of population on relief in
coal producing areas was found in Ti'yoraing with 10 per cent, vfhile the
hi.j.hest percentage was 37.2 in Ohio. It is regrettable that the data
do noc show how many of the persons on relief were persons able and
willing to work and- so un^ier improved circuiastances mi-iit have been
classed as gainfully employed.
The comparison bet-.^een the prrcentages of persons in coal mining
areas and in entire states on relief rolls is pe^^haps the best Indi-
cation available as to the serious plight of the mine workers. For
example, 15.9 per cent of the populntion in the specified states were
on relief in June, 1935, while in the coal rainin-.; areas the percentage
of persons on relief amounted to 23 per cent. If relief data regarding
these states were available for the period prior to the lOA, it is
probable that considerable improvernsnt 'would be evident for the later
period. In any c se, the available data do indicate that the bituminous
coal mining areas-^are- still hard pressed- and that people in these areas
are in p-.rhaps wors^-NQircuinstances than ■-■r ^ people living in areas
having more divers occupations. Thus in Ohio, 37.2 per cent of the po-
pulation in coal mining areas were on relief, while in the entire state
17 per cent of the population were on this basis. A sim.ilar situation
applies in Indiana where 35.6 per cent of the coal minin ; area popula-
tion is on relief and 13 per cent for the entire state. In only three
of the listed states die the entire state relief percentage exceed that
of the coal mining areas - Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. Of this
(*) Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935, Section 16, paragraph 3,
9837
-348-
ir^
r-^ h^
M 0~^
H
P-H
■r-q -
M r-1
Hi
1- ^ *-^
i-H .^
O M
li-l. w
O 1-1
I-* t-l
CI -s!
<i LH
K '^
^ ^ -.*
tx)
S^l
a
^r^
r-i r^
rq
o : .
f^
q
(4 "--;
EH
•aj
F-^a
. 1 .—1
ri -a^
CI
,f 1 CO
r-.<4
o
cii
. i^j . -^
b i-i
w :",
1— 1 M
f J ' -*
;-^-
f^^
b o
o o
«H
CL>
•H
tti
iH
+3
fj
Cl
PI
+5
r/->
ri
O
C!J
;h
H
•H
r;J
-P
O
i-l
03
w
Sh
(1)
P^
•H
-p
a
O
!h
Pi
B
O
<HH
■P
•H
dj
rt
-|J
■H
I
c>
d
■r-l
o
o
rH
r.
Ph
d
Pi
P-l
fn
Pi
CD
O
a
CfH
FM
Ph
o
o w
^t
•P ID
.
S .'-i
ii;
© Th
rl
p!
o o
■H
ch
O
N
Pi
o
Im
■H
w
0) rH
1 ^
r-l
a
«H
FL, c5
c:<
o
O
■H
H
rO
oa
.H
o u
CiS
(-1
Sh
r— '
<o -P
o
OJ
t-
w
o
r-i
Ph
P^
W) pi
Pi -3
s
•H ri
•H
S
> M
o
03
■J
•H
W a^
(D
-P
>
>:
03
W -rH
O
rH
p3 -P
rH
rJ
(D O
o
p,
^ pi
1
o
-a!
EH
CO
,~--^ OJ t^^ 1^1 C)>, h- CA t-|-^ H O H H
rH OJ H c-l H H r-l H OJ H CVJ '
to to r-H r^ to
^ »..0 iv>, bo ..-!-
to ^l-^ o ^ CTs o^ r^
r-: O O to IX>H Li-
Lf ^ r-^ OJ LOv c\j f J LC
^ to o o u^^ c\j
^ CU H OJ CA O
K^ OJ O J- ,^ H.
H rH
r— r~-^- K>, to LT
\-~^ O r^>^' OJ
[H 1^ H OJ I '-\
r-l 0-1 CA>>-0 rH OJ O^UD U'l 0'^ rH O
•• • •• • •■ ■■ •. •. •- •■ • •
rH CO to lOv K^ t^ LC^ O CVI rH r— O
OJ h->y CVi m CO ^|~, tVI OJ Oj OJ rH r-l
t-H o t-^ ur-v G>, OJ rj c-^^ ^o o k--
'^O >^0 rH r— O OJ O^ H O H O^ O
Lf-.^ CO OJ ~^ o tno co^ c
OJ ^-^ to h-vr; 1^ LOJ- H r— OJ
H rH VD to rH U'^ rH O
H H
i-r> o OJ to r-l Lp»,-i- I — to r^ J- o~
J" r~-i7^ r<^rH I — rHOJ 0"-iV.O (J~\ Lf
^ O to rj r^ r-: >^0 to r^ rH LCs O
C^f-^H K^>^0 ^ rH V.O h--
Lr% Ln cu cvj r— ^ a^ oj rH
■ 1 <J \ u
L'A OJ OJ
o m
Cj 'J -H
Cu
Kj (D
> (I)
r^ m
oi r-
•H .r
tJ3
■r^ O. >H,.-xd..-P
(jj rH rH ro r|
rH O
fc! ^ t'.'' -;■-• r
Q) -p
<i! o i-H w ; :! o fii r- 1 !r?
.rl (D
H
to-
to
0\
to
Lr\
to
o
OJ
H
Ou
o •
o
rH
o
EH
o
■H
HJ
c3
Pi
C/5
<!
M
02
Th
o
u
Ph
Jh •-.J
O pi
O
^ <D
• J 03
05 .H
•ri p;
rH Co
. P,^ >.
Pi rH
cn LI
C g
o o
■H PL,
cj p;
O in
CrH Pi
r! a;
■^H rt
•H
O
Th CJ
tin 4^
• H
■J O
(U OJ
> b
•H ^
Pi Hr"
D Pi
1^
■ . CO
"349n
group West Vir-inia is the o;;!; important co-^l proaucin state and its
entire strte -.-alief pe:'cent-.u;,-e i'06:s not f:;reatly exceed the percentage
in coal nininr,- areas.
Earnin::s iiiV.'-er the Code;
Tne ori.inr.l stpoistical program undertaken "bv the K3A for the
bi tvuninous coal industr;" included, aiion., o thei' data, the r-'porting "by
the industry of mine workers' earnin.^s . These earnings data vfere sub-
mitted on the Form C. Unforttmately, this portion oi the statistical
progra":! ceased durin." the latter part of Decanlier, 1933. (*) As a
result, earnings ^ver^ reported for only three pa^.^ periods iron ITovamher
1st tixrough November 1-5, 19j3. These earnings d.-'ta were very essential
to a proper investigation of the wage differential problein. I'oreover,
had the Porn C reporting been continued through the period following
the Code ainendments, a much mor^ realistic analysis of the effects of
the shortened "ork da^' an the increased basic -'age rates \ipon total
earnings for an area a's well as upon eai'nings of particular occupa-
tional gi'otips would have been possible.
The Foi'n C reports for the period December 1 to 15, 1933 re-
quested the operators to report opiDOsite each labor classification the
vjage rate in effect in May, 1935. These reports were edited in the
Corl Section of IT.Jt.A. , the finrl study being confined to only those
reports which were included in the ^ecamber emplo: :nent and eai'nings
study. Schedules reporoin=; incomplete infonnation, such as I'^ay rates
for da;- men but not for piece v/orkers, or multiple rates for piece
workers were rejected. In the includsd reports, numerous occupations
were eliminated, particularly those composite groups having no specific
rate, such as "Other Skilled", "Other Unskilled", etc., any group
for whic-i no ri.tes were reported, ano those for which two or more
rates were reported.
A r- tio was computed bet^'een the rates reported for each period
for e ch occupation, jin ' this ratio ap'plied to the total earnings of the
men in that occ". pation for the periodi Dec-^mber 1 to 15, thus securing
a calculated total earnings fivOire for Kay. Pro.; the summary of all
these totals, it is possible to calculate tne increases in the actual
December earnings over what they would have baeii in iviay, had the same
opportunities for vo:rl-. existed at that time, i.e., the same number of
da,--s end the same number of hoiu-s per day.
The estimated earnings increases for mine '-'oikers in December,
193S as against May, 1933 are set forth in Trbls XX. It will be noted
that the Subdivisions comprising i.achigan, Fanliandle, Southern V.o . 1,
and Western Kentucl::/,- in Division I did not report s.-tisf actory data
for making any comparisons. Of taa submitted Decf'moer reports, 44.6
per cent of the total earnings repregentedi wer^. for nines having
complete data on liay r.^-tes. For these mines and areas in Division I,
the total avera-"e earnings increased $769,106 or 50.4 per cent during
this paj' period on the basis of the Dec mber wage rates (original rates
in Co- e) as against the May, 1931 rates (pre-Codt) . The degree to which
certain important occupational groups benefited under the Code is signi-
ficant. For er.araple, rainers' earnings increased 50 per cent; loaders'
(*) For a discussion of th:- controversy leading to the cessation of
Form C re-portin-: see Section on 17 age Differentials.
9837
_35f)-
EH
M ^
o o ,-» ; -.t^\o J^d■ r^
»> C «l •-• U I r«.rH ^ > fv_
O -4 <B a 41 I "\J '^—t .H
-'0>- vo a»
-knJIS^
• a -• ^ I
o 4>|^ a: ^ I
i-< jU.^J o a, tJ -
> a L. , (Q <J ft> tt <
Ovr-i-t O iM
, o -« fc 3 Jt
r-O -H nj O
O ^ "VJ 10 ".^
*^k>3' "^ i> o
ao - - - - -
K" J OO > ■D 0,
t -y \j » o-
I I- * -u^
I-
irs'«xii\r- o
J «» C Ui-O - . . . -
,C * « w:y ,-^
1^ — ir\j * lAiCv
s e
•ftj «
.•II
I :^
c oj 1 w -o iT^Ksr^j
! I,
4< « 3.
■3 n •
r^
o V
r-
^1 a a
o -<
« •> c e
CO- c t£
« < t<
^ t. > -4
o a. « *i
C V
1>4 » »
I V
I a.
act.
■ t* <e I.
« K « O
ac c
o o
u-< -^
-.«. «c?)
>-4 -4
> > >»
*>-H 1 M
ttQ r> u
\. 3 3 C
f*S -CO <D «
•f ad
S5t t C
C V «) I*
^** *J iJ
-* W C3 3 «
d -H «Q O «
e^
earniriy^s, 55.3 per cent; ani. loaders, 51.2 per c^nt. On this iDasis the
loaders rec^tivec- the lr.r;%e3t incr-^rse, out the averfvr,e increase for all
■groups was i",- irly similar. Eowever , particular Subdivisions show wider
variations in th's p'ircsntaire increace of eax-nings for certain occupational
groups. Thus, in Northern West Virt.lnia loaders' earninf^s increased
69.5 per cent as against 54 per cent for c ay men and 63.6 per cent for
miners.
In Division III where mo-'e than 8 hoxirs of work per day prevailed
prior to the Coc'e, the standar;' 8-hour cay and. increaser wage rates under
tne Cods resulted in an increase of $28,546 or 51.3 per cent for one
da;" period. As mi,,ht he expected, the Codt hrou.ht a g'reater percentage
increase in earnings to the oay men than to the other occupational
grou'-is. Day -nan's earnings increased 56.9 per cent as against 49.6 per
cent x'o. loaders :ind 49.3 per cent for miners. Undoubtedly, a large
part of the greater earnings increase to day nen is to "be attributed
to the shortened work dnj' and the elir.iinntion of tht "clean-up" system
Toncer the Code -
Whe:. these earnings data rra consioered in te_-ras of the average
earnings per day, a comparison of the data for the pre-Code and Code
period disclose interesting information. This compai'ison is made in
Table XXI.
It is si;inificant to note the relatively low daily earnings which
prevailec- prior to the ac'option of the Bitiijninous Coal Code. The areas
in Division I, which report-d iiay, 1933 wa;:e data, represent approximately
57 per cent of the national annual tonnage. In these areas even the
occupation requiring most skill raid e-'perience - miners - averaged
only $2.99 per day prior to the Code. Day men and loaders averaged
$2.81 and $2.79 per day respectively. With the advent of the Code,
miners' daily earnings for all these areas averaged $4.48 or an increase
of $1.49 per day. Daily earnings of '.'ay .aen rose to $4.21 r^uring the
early Cc'e period - an increase of il.40 per day and loaders' earnings
increased, to ?4,33 per r.^i^r or >?1.53 mor;^ than had previously prevailed.
The foregoin.j data, being averages for an extensive portion of
the industry, tend to conceal the vdde variations which occurred in daily
earnings, increases for p.articular districts and subdivisions. Northern
West Virginia e>rperienced the lar.-;est increases v/hen daily earnings of
loaders andi miners are considered. Loaders' earnings in Northern West
Virginia increased $1.93 per day, while miners' daily earnings in this
area rose $1.90. The lowest subdi visional increase in earnings for
loaders and miners ins found in Central Pennsylvania v/here loaders earned
$1.12 and. miners $1.07 more per day than previously. In t?ie case of the
day men, the largest subdivisional increases in daily earnings occurred
in i'.aryland and. Upi:er Potomac and in Southern Sub-division No. 2 -
$1.54 and 31.53, respectively. Central Pennsylvania experienced the
least increase in day men's daily earnings - $1.12 more than had pre-
viously prevailed. Within indiividual districts, daily earnings increases
appro Jdrnating $2.00 or more were not uncomjnon and in one area - the
Connellsville, Pittsburgh Seam in YJestern Pennsylvania - an increase of
$3.00 pel- day was r. ported.
9837 '
a
OOUPA&ISOS or AVUaiQE SiBHQIOS PSB DAT 07 OIFLOTXBS DI filTmilHOUS OOlL Umxs
BZBOSZ iSD AITEB IDQPTIOB Of OODl l/.
Arara«a Barnls^i par
=====
iTar^a Thmlnga par
ATaraca fcmlnga par
man n^f Amf
Inoraaae
I)eo«Dl>ar
mnn p«.
iia
lucraaaa
Oaosnbar
iIat
Jooanbar l-i;
' »w. 1933
Oaoaabar 1-15
Hay. 1933
Daooabor I-15
"ajr. 1933
Dvooobar
SOb-dlTltlOS sod ATM
1933
(•■tlnatad)
o»ar liar. 1933
1933
(aatlmatad)
OTar llay, 1933
1933
(aatlaatad)
OTar 11.7. 1933
Cvatral ?«uia7lTul«
S«zna«bor?
n^
$3.06
t .81
»lt.28
♦ 3.29
*s
*tll
( 2.86
t .a
BluUlok and Broadto;
3.35
1.25
1».23
2.89
3.21
.98
Olauflall
§
2.72
.82
11.18
2.95
1.23
2:55
2.58
.90
laatr-jlo
^:S
i.dt
H.31
3.13
1.18
3.87
1.06
R«QraoldjTUl«
t.67
1.26
k.a
3.09
1.12
It. 57
^:S
1.21t
toath lork
KzH
3.35
.89
It. 39
3.I1O
• 99
lt.02
1:?
Soutbarn Soaariat
'».53
2.9«
1.55
U.23
2.91
1.32
it.27
2.82
ToUl
)t.ia
3.3^
1.07
It. 28
3.15
1.13
''.37
3.25
1.12
MarTlaBd and Dpixr FotoHO
llarrland
J.93
2.140
]:M
I1.O5
2.1|ll
1.61
i:^
2.27
1.37
laat TlrglJila
3.01
3.96
2.U7
I.I19
3.00
1.82
Total
h.!t
2.67
1.61
lt.W
2.I16
1.51.
lt.06
2.53
1.53
Vaatara frnmeylranlB
1, 2 and 3 - ftlok Tali
It. 66
3.19
\^l
h'.k)
3.10
1.26
lt.ll6
2.99
l.lt7
U . Biln Tain, ATalla
Ul
2.01
2.28
2.12
3.7t
I1.03
1.81
1.93
5 - Otis Tala |/
6 . Biin Tain 1/
2.67
1.57
i:^
2-93
I.H3
2.1)6
1.57
3.73
2.31'
1.39
3.01
1.39
3.52
2.19
1.80
7 . OoanaUarUla, Pjt. lan
S-12 - OonnalliTllla, Sawlolda;
y «?
I:r7
3.00
1.7it
ts
2.22
2.66
2.12
1.71
l^
f.&
9 . OoanallrnUa, all othara
Ig
3.15
2.1*2
U.ltl
2.67
1.7lt
1%
ilJ?
2.51
10 - Dppar rragport
2.71
1.80
i*.35
2.1(0
1.95
11 - Biick rra<i>ort
U.99
3.IVU
1.15
11.39
3.1.6
.93
lt.38
3.12
1.26
13 - BsUar - Varear
it - araeDi1>iir<
J:S
2.36
.85
11.38
2.52
1.86
5:g
2.16
.86
2.55
2.33
2.67
1.62
2.39
2.30
15 - Latrott
16 - Uscolar
3.62
i.si
i.n
lt."36
2.60
1.76
3.119
1.67
1.82
-
-
It. 21
2.50
1.71
-
lotal
'».52
2.85
1.67
'♦.37
2-93
l.Ult
k.JO
2.63
1.67
■ortharn faat Tlrsljila
nttatarcti - Badatou
5.08
3.03
2.05
U.20
2.76
l.ldt
U.90
2.83
2.07
3.99
2.31
1.68
11.20
2.59
1.61
3.78
2.13
?raftoo asTiBtj
U]
HI
.88
U.18
2.31
1.87
3.72
'•.53
2.76
1.4
Sanll
1.1*3
It.l7
2.95
1.22
3.0a
loUl
II.8U
2.911
1.90
U.20
2.7it
1.H6
I1.67
2.7lt
1.93
Ollto
DlTlelon 1
lt.l7
3.02
1.15
1*.36
3.17
1.19
Vd
2. SI
1.12
DlTlalona 2 and 3
11.26
2.71.
1.52
It. 30
2.93
1.37
2.56
1.50
total
U.22
2.86
1.36
lt.33
3.03
1.30
lt.00
2.68
1.32
Seuthaxn SulN-diTialon #£
Bl£ 8an^ — Bkboxn
it.63
3.19
1.1*
3.97
ft. 00
2.58
1.39
lt.lllt
3.02
l.l|2
Earlan
"t-SS
i:S
1.67
2.23
1.77
It. US
2.77
1.68
Sauird
lt.05
1.57
3.91;
2.30
1.61t
3.79
».37
2.32
l.lt7
lasalba
It. 52
2.95
1.57
3.96
fM
i:e
2.80
\%
!««»=
1.11
2-57
1.5U
3.91*
3.95
2.I16
flootheni ippalacMao
3. SI
2.56
1.25
3.92
lt.02
2.20
1.72
il?
2.112
1.30
TlrjlMa
2.59
1.85
2.I19
'S
n
1-5
TUliaaaon
lt.67
2.82
1.85
3.95
2.21
It. 30
1.76
Sotal
i«.ia
2.12
1.59
3.97
2.1tU
1.53
lt.2l
2.66
1.55
Sotal of UTialos 1
KUs
2.99
1.119
U.21
2.81
l.llO
>t.32
2.79
1.53
ilal)aaa
Dictrlct I
3.1*7
2.0lt
l.'«3
3.05
1.711
1.31
3.2it
1.90
1.31
Uatrlet Z
3.12
1-93
1.19
3-05
1.83
1.22
3.25
2.02
1.23
Ilatrieti 3 and U
3.39
1.90
1.I19
2.97
1.85
1.12
3.75
2.19
1.56
lotal
3.2lt
1.9it
1.30
3-02
1.82
1.20
3.27
2.00
1.27
A oMfpaxitaa of the maiber of nen Included In thle stud; with the total num'bca- Included In the BnploTment snd Samlnge Stud? for the period Deceater l-15i 1933 ehows
this Btodf to 'be repreemtstl7e to the followlAg exteatt
OiTleloa I - Uinare, 35*2 P*' coat; Saf-cen, 62.7 per eatt;
Loaders, ^7.2 per cent.
t1n>— - tUneffe, ^.3 per cent; Day-oen, ^1.6 par ceot;
Lottdars, 66. ^ per cait.
Teat of liono&eahala BlTsr.
Sut of Manongahala BlTer.
Incli:dee BakBT irea.
I I
I
d
-35
OGO-
It is uiifort-ujipte tnat the raportiiu,- of -a^Q data for the above
periO(' ■'■•r.s inconplete and that the stacistical program of repcrtiri;;
earnings data cli-l not continue into t he period ai'te. the Code amendments.
Such -"rta "TOuld have been invaluable in establishini^ equitable wage
differentials between various competin,^- districts.
Tile ffa>:e Bill Undor the Code
The onlj" continuous str.tic-tical indiv'ation of the amount paid
out in -T'Ces in the bituminous corl inaustry for several years prior to
tne Co-"e is tne inrex of payrolls (base:' upon 1929), publish'^r by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. T'nese data have.beeu set forth in Table V
of this Section. Tho total va..e bill for the industry, exclusive of
supervisory and clerical war-'es, in 1929 accordinvC to the Census of
Mines ann. Quarries a^ proximated $574,800,000. This amount was used as
the base for the Bureau of Labor Statistics' index. Accordin to this
index the avera.- e payroll for each year since 1929 vrould be as follows:
Index and Araoujit of Payrolls in Bituminous
Coal Minin,-;, 1929 - 1935, by ye;;rs. (*)
(OOOs of dollars omitted)
Change from
Chanr;e fron Base Year Preceding; Year
Year
In*: ex
Amount
1929
100.0
' $574,800,
1950
81.3
457,312,
19;>1
'7.5
330,. ^10.
1932
■ 3b . o
204,629,
1935 .
37.8
217,274,
1934 ..
54.2
311,542,
1935 1/
57.2
328,786,
-$107,488
- 244,290
- 370,17,1
- 357 , 526
- 263,258
- 246,014
-$107,488
- 136,802
- 125,881
4- 1?.,645
f 94,268
■j. 17,244
The rbove annual dnta c'isclOoe a steaciily f'sclininc-- payroll from
.1929 forwarc through 1932. In tna latter year, the average payroll
was approxi:(iately $370,171,000 less thau tnat of 1929. T-ie average
pa^Toll in- 1933 increased ■-312,645,000 over the preceding year. Again in
1934, the pa^-roll increased $94,268,000 over 1933 and for eleven months
in 195-, it averaged $17,244,000 above that of 1934. It is, interesting
to note that the 1935 average p?yr9ll approximated that of 1930. Vifhile
these a-nual data indic-.te a constantly improving payroll since 1933,
they sho'-- that even in 1935, bitwainous coal payrolls averaged $246,014,000
less than in 1929 and it is generally recognized that payrolls in this
industry were declining for almost a cecade prior to 1929. It is evident,
therefore, that tne industry's payrolls a^e still at a low level.
ITo effort has been made to ai'just these payroll figures to
changing cost of living data.. In this latter sense, it is lilcelj'- that
the mine workers' real income during the earl;- depression years v/as
somewnat better than the pn^Toll data tend to inr'jcate. Since a primary
objective of the.il. I.P..A. and the Bituminous Coal Coc'.e v/as to increase
purchasing power, nominal wage data should be related to the cost of
C*) Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1929 base year
1,/ Average for 11 months. ;;
9837
„3'54-
livin.r. Uni'ort-oii' telr. no satisf f-ctor;-' iirior-nrtion is available re-
gari?iu5' mine i-'orkers' cost of living aiiQ it is ol^vioris tiirt ;;eneral or
even industrial workers' cost of livin- ■ c .not "be applied.
In order to evaluate properly the influence of the: code period
on "bituminous coal payrolls, it is necessary to tiu-n fron the annual
data and set up the index for the months of a coal year. Thus, for the
twolvo month period, April, 1932, throu.':h March, 1933, the payroll in-
dex averaged 32.5 and amounted to $186,810,000. For a similar twelve^
month period, April 1934 through larch, 1935, the index averaged 56. o
and amounted to $324,762,000. The former period represents pre-N.I.H.A.
and pre-code months, vmile the latter period' covers the months after
the code r-mendnents. The comparison shows that the pay'roll inder. during
the coce period increased 24 points and the amount increased $137,952,000.
It may he said, therefore, that payrolls -au-in-: the latter months of the
coce period were approximately $138,000,000 greater tnan in the pre-code
months.
The only other statistical evidence on lahor co<,ts in coal mining
(NHA) fro t which- estimates may he made of the v age hill tends to corro-
borate the Bureau of L'Tbor Statistics' payroll data. The estimated vrage
cost per ton in lAay, 1933 for 73 per cent of the toiinage in Division I
and 57 per cent of the national armual output was 61.4 cents. As has
been previously stated in this section, the May, 1933 wage data are
considered somewhat high so that any comparisons with later wage costs
per ton tends to be conservative and understates the probable increase
in the return to the labor. Por the nine months period, April through
December, 1934, (after code amendments) the wage cost per ton averaged
$1,153. This cost represented an increased wage cost of 53.9 cients
per ton or 87.8 per cent. Ap' lying this increase to the total produc-
tion of these areas of Division I, which reported their May, 1933 costs
to NEA, during the period April 1, 1934 through March 31, 1935 -
206,000,000 tons - the increase in the wage bill amounted to $111,000,-
000. (*) These areas made the greatest gains 'in the industry because
in addition to the general shortening of the workday from eight to
seven hours (April 1, 1934), they had two increases in basic wage rates
(October 2, 1933 and April, 1934). The estimated numbf-r of employees
in these areas approximated 265,000. Accepting the increase of
$111,000,000 in the wage bill, then the average increased retui-n per
worker amounted to $419 for the coal year, April, 1934 through March,
1935, as against what the eai'nings would have been had the May, 1933
wage rates and hours continued. If it is assumed that the average
output per man per day v/ere 4.2 tons, then tne daily wage in these areas
was $2.26 higher after April, 1934 than in i/iay, 1933.
Similar wage data are available for Division III (Alabama, Georgia
and Southern Tennessee) of the industry. The labor cost in May, 1933
was 74 per cent per ton. During the poriod April through December, 1934,
under the Code, the labor cost averaged $1.39 per ton, an increase of
65 cents or 87 .8 per cent. The approximate tonnage produced in this
area for the coal year April, 1934 through March, 1935 was 10,500,000.
(*) All sub-divisions of Division I reported except Southern No. 1,
Michigan, Panhandle, and Western Kentucky. The areas which did not
report represented approximately 15 per cent of the division's output.
9837
-355-
Appl.Tirip-,' the per ton later cost i:icre'ise to this tonnage, gives approxi-
mately $6,800,000 as the fji'.ount by vhich the wai,'e "bill was greater than
if the May, 1933 rates hnd continuod. The ostirnated numher of employees
in Division III is .'.boiit-- lo,000. On this oasi'i the wage return per
worker in this area for thi? j'-ear ai'trtr April, 193^1- was slightly over
$375 thaii if the pr-:-codi.-,' \'Oge ratjs hav. continued.
Tlie return to labor in Division II (Indiana and Illinois -
excluding Iowa) were not increased as greatly as in either Division I
or Division III. Union contracts -..'ere in effect for almost all of the
production in this Division prior to the Code. Tiie wage rates speci-
fied in these contracts were carried for\7ard into t he code period.
However, ','ith the code amendment on April 1, 1934 - shortening the
v/ork day - hourly rates were increased and wage returns were likewise
higher. The labor cost per ton in this division (excluding Iowa) for
deep and strip mines combined was 72.99 cents during the five month
period (llovember, 1933 through March, 1934) prior to the amendment.
For the ten month period following the amendment (April 1, 1934),
the labor cost was increased to 82.91 cents per ton - 9.92 cents or
13.6 per cent. The output in this area for the 12 months following
the amendment approximated 58,000,000 tons. Applying the labor cost
per ton increase to this tonnage results in an increase of $5,750,000
in the wage bill over what would have been received had the previous
Code wages and hours continued. The estimated number of employees in
Illinois and Indiana approximates $55,000. On this basis, each
employee received slightly over $100 more in the year after April,
1934 than he would have received under the original code provisions.
'Tiius, taking the total producing areas east of the Mississippi
River (exclusive of Southern No. 1, Panhandle, Michigan and Western
Kentucky) , the estimated tonnage would represent approximately 75 per
cent of the national output and tne emplo;:-ment would cover 338,000
men. The increases in the wage bill for the tv;elve months following
April, 1934 over the pre-Code wages in this area was approximately
$123,500,000 or about $365 more per employee.
The remainder of the indjastry. Division IV (comprising Missouri,
Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkaiisas) and Division V (Rocky Mountain area)
produce together less than 9 per cent of the national tonnage. Wage
data for these areas, as well as for those in Division I which v/ere
excluded (about 15 per cant of the national output) are not available
for malring any comparison pre-Code and Code wage bills. Since no
union contracts existed prior to the Code for the latter areas in
Division I, it is probable that the wage increases approximated those
of the other areas in the Division. In the case of non-union portions
in Divisions IV and V, the rates of pay established by the Code were
higher than existed previously. Further wage increases were secured
v/ith the shortening of the work day after the Code amendments.
An overall survey of the iPA. wage data when compared with the
Sureau of Labor Statistics' payrolls increase as indicated by their
index, show approximately the same results. For example, the ITRA
wage bill increase estimate is $123,500,000 for 75 per cent of the
ooTr"
-356-
national production, while the Bureau of Lator Statistics index for
the entire industr.^r indicates a -'lage "bill increase of appro xi.nate ly
$138,000,000. It seems very prohable that the comparativel;' larc^e wage
increases in those areas of Division I for which data are lacking and •
the lesser increases in Divisions IV and V after the Code amendments
would bring the WHA estimate very close to that reported "by the Bureau
f>f I.fl'bor Stat-ir.ticc-,
9837
-357-
CliAFT::?. IV - C! 1/
TAC^-E di::t?z:gi ?iiLi,s: 71:1:. iis^csy, T:isin i-TLUzrcE
Definite t.scertaim.ie-it of t>.e ■..'ivje c.iffe-'ential situr-tion o:;i sting p.t
a g-iven time "bet'.veen flfferer-t r-lKt-jict"-, or bet', ec-r different :''ields or mines
TTithin a district, would recj.di'e ej::act:i;.uKr. of ': znovlec{;e concerning vc^e scales,
organization of Irbor forces, minin/; contitionsa^ic. t^.s adjustnent of pa^nnents
to varip-tions in sucli conditions. Si\c':l f-.illness of information it majA be
stated at the outset is not in e>-istrrico.- Elaborate accounting records have
never been 7.^0 due ed at a joint conference. Or as stated recently by the man
whose experience with, and knov.-lec'^ge of, -.'age diff e:-entials is perhaps a-s
wide as that of cny one: "There never has been a scientific studj'' of this
quoc-.tion. As natters- now stand, the e::tablished differentials in many ins-
tances hcve oecn the source of continued discord among miners and opers,tors
'ali're." (*) 'Jith this ma"'- be compared his earlier testimony before the United
State?, 3it-U:ii;-:ous Coal Co-unission in 1920: (**)
"Inea^''i::.lities on tonnage rates, on machine differ-
entials and otherr.'ise, '.'hich the men claim e^re entitled
to consideration, -orevail. Some of these conditions
have prevailed for a grea.t number of years. They have
prevailed becau-se the Liine Uorhers have heretofore been
povrerloss to secure their modification or adjustment and
though in conference after conference -.'e have talcen up
these matters caid. so\-i£:nt consideration, we were often-
times b;'- force of circumrtances coraoelled to enter into
an agreement, which did not carr^^ v/ith it n,n,y adjustment
of these differentials and startlinf^ inequalities. Al-
though in some fields the differentials were originally
small matters, amounting to only a ver-y few cents per
ton, they have yec.v if tor ";-ea.r through the s-^stem
of applying percen-tage increase UT:ion these rates and
differentials, grov.'n and grovm, until today they
menace the secarity of the industr"?-. "
From 13S8 until its breahdoT/n about 1927 the Interstate Joint Conf er^ence' s
wage agreement was the fo-'ondation of the wage structure. From 1927 until the
establislament of Code rates in late 1933 such stable \7age rates as existed.
v/ere the result of district, or indivi'dual mine, agreements. Tnen Code rates
were eliminated the Appalachian TTage Agreement ha.d su;oplanted the Central
Com.petitivs Field contract as the basis of stabili:3ed wage rates. The Inter-
state Joint -Conference went no further than to establish wage rates for four
1/ Prepared by Charles E. Persons.
(*) Le'ris, John L. Transcri'it of Proceedings, Coal Code Hearing,
August 10, 1933, p. 329.
(**) -Trajiscript of Evidence — a, -t-'-pewri tten manuscriTst in 4 volumns, made
available by the courtes"' of the "a.tional Coal Association. Vol.1,
9837
-S5B- ■
basing points, one in each of the foxir states of Illinois, Indirna, Oliio, and
Western Pennsylvania. ( *) These rates supposedl;'- ',7ere (-jaides to be follo'..'ed
bj'- tlie state and district conferences later. The degree of their influence,
hov.'ever, frequently hs,s been nisconceived. In practise they uere not re^^ard—
ed as fixed rates. Eather the negotiators in district conferences were con-
cerned to raise or loner e::i sting rates in the same degree that basing point
rates had been changed. Original tuiion contracts tend to acceot the vfage
structure as found. Successive adJTistnents in the district conference ma3''
be based fundamentally on the T;age levels of 1398 or even of an earlier date.
In the outl^'^ing districts, althoiogh the prers covered by union contracts
varied xjith the fortunes of luiionisn, at. one time or another union contrrcts
were fotuid in Central Pennsylvania, Iowa, I,iary3s, r«d, northern Uest Virginia,
the Kanar?ha, Psnliandle, and Tew River districts of T7e=-t Virginia, some fev;
distric,ts in Southeastern Een':uclcy and Tennessee, 7es'':.ern Kentuck:/, Michigan,
Tfeshington, TT-roming, Lioniana, I.!isso"ari, Kansas, Ar]:ansas, and Oklaliona. The
last four sts.tes named made up the South^.'e stern Interstate Conference with o.
histor,y of wage negotiations of its ovra. Aside from these outlying districts
contracts were made at tines with individixa,! nines in other fields, e.g., in < ^
Northern Colorado, Southern "^^est Virginia and Alabpma, Price competition bound
3.11 these districts, v.dth the possible e::ception of tiie extreme northv/est, to
the Central Competitive Pield. Hence it was natural that wage changes there
should be reflected in the outl-ung districts. This tendency the \mion organ-
ization strongly supported. Testimony was given in 1920 to the effect that
"whatever (advance) was gi'anted in the CentroJ Gom-oetitive S'ield v/as applied to
the tonnage rates in the Southwestern District." In the Kanav/ha field of 7est
Virginia it v.-as understood that "'."hatever rice or fall in the Central Competi-
tive Field took place, the sfune percentage of increase or decrease would
affect" that district. "Jhilc in Colorado it vras sta,ted 'that "ijnder the joint
contract we have a clause which automatically gives us the same advances in
wages that ma;^ be applied in the Centrrl Competitive Field." ( **)
However, this T)rinciT3le frequently yielded to the press^^re of other
forces. The incursion of competing fuels in the southwest area provided
special conditions v^hich resulted in the building up in that area of a
special v/age s3''stem on a lower level than the "princij^le " would have esta.blished. '^
Union weakness joined eitiier to emplo;/"er strength or to the sheer pressiire of
competitive forces reo.ched a similar result elsev/here.
Finally the non-uiiion fields had a wage stin:.ctur^ wliicn rose and fell
with fluctuation in the demand for coal stnd in the suop?Ly of labor \7ithout re-
ference to contract dates. The general wage situa,tion here i/as not iininfluenced
by the wcge structure in union fields. It tended^ to maintain a distinct wage
differential below the stfindr.rd-s they set up. It is T.'orthy of note that non-
union conditions v/ere not confined to distinctly non-iuiion fields. Tliere were
apt to be non-union inclusions vfithin union territory'-. Sub-marginal mines or
hard pressed managers might find an opnortunit]'' for profit in maintaining such
wage differentials. CSU-bsequent discussion follov/s the order indicated by
the preceding paragraph: the Central Competitive Field; the Outlying Union
(*) In Indiana the separate agreement for the Block Coal District made,
in effect, a second basing point.
(**) Transcript of Evidence before the United States Bituminous Coal
Commission. See Vo. Ill, p. 1S32, Vol. I Y, p. 2602, Vol, III, p, 1985,
9S37
- 359
Districts; tlie "fon-unlon Area??.
Fro:.: t"..is standpoint of e:-actitudo of knowledgo regarding the true wa^e
situation, it is unfortunate tlmt tlio "o.-cic wsgc a^-^reement in the Central Com-
petitive Field was custc:-naril;/ rc-ouced to r^ few baric w.nge determinations.
Thus the "oiclc mining rate which coverea hj' far the juost important part of
wage cost in coal mining operation cairiug the early years of Interstate Joint
Conferences was fixed for the four "oasin'i points as shown for successive dates
in the following table:
BASING- FOIIJT RAT 3S FOR PICK MIiaW G
1386*
1807*
1898
1916
1923
Screened HOlvl Screened HOlvi Screened ROM Screened ROii Screaned,
RCM
Pittshur^^h
( thin vein)
Indiaiaa Bitwni-
nous ".7o . 1
Grape Ci-ecl:, 111
(Danville)
$ .71 $ - $.65
.55 - .56
$ - $ .66 $.4266 $ - $.6764 $ - $1.1164
.66 .40 - ,64 - 1.08
.75
Hodcin^ Valley, Ohio .60
1924-27
.65.
.56
1928
.66
.40 - .64 - 1.08
.47-1/7 - .6764 - 1.1164
Screened RQLI Screened ROM
Pittsbur^'i
(thin vein) $ - $1.1164 ITon-Union
Indiana Bitu.ii-
nous :'o. 1 - 1.03 $ .91
Gra.pc Creel;, 111 .
(Danville) - 1.08 .91
Eocking Vrlley,Ohio- 1.1154 ITon-Union a/
a/
Small
cents
jroup of operators in Soufiern Ohio - had contract with rate of 37,64
er ton for pid': mining.
Here the original differentials for screened coal set in 1886 r^n^'ed from
60 (fents in IZoclJing Valley to 75 cents in Grape Creek, Illinois. This consider-
able sprer.d of 15 cents serves as v/ell as any other illustration to point out tho
difficulties inherent in correlating^- wago rates with earning opportunity or v/ith
costs of procxLction. For the labor and the exnense involved in gaininj^- a ton of
screened ccl in the mines at the four br-sing points is dependent on nuaerous
factors - the sizo of the oi^ening in the screens, the friability of the coal
mined, t':.e :::ethods employed in extraction, and the methods of weighin;^ or ;"iieasur-
ing the coal producfid. It might easily have been true that the seeming ".vage
diffcrenti?ls hero prescribed were only an adjustment to cover differences in
mining practices or in '.•-olegical conditions and that the actual earnings ?nd the
real costs of production v/cre substantially equivalent in the four districts.
It will be noted that when the transition was made to payment on a
* Lubin, Iscdor, i.inr.rs' Tagcs and the Cost of Coal, p. 83. Other rates from
study of union contr-ct by rirs. Charlotte "^arncr Fitch, of rl.R.A. staff.
qoT'-»
rim of nine "br.sis, the major part of tliis ostensilile "s.ge differential
was slir.incte-;'.. A nev; differertidl of 3.54 centn per ton bet'-veen the Indi-
ana and Illinois basing points on the one hand and those of Penns'rlvania
and Ohio on the other v.'as naintained imchangsd -until tue Interstate Joint
Confer<=!nne r:ia.cliinery broke dovrn in 1S27.
By that time material changes had taiien place. The a.dvance of mechani-
zation through the introduction of machine cutting and later of machine loading
had reduced the importa,nce of the pick mining rates as measures either of
miners' earnings or of operators' costs. Moreover, the advance of mechani-
zation had proceeded at different rates in the four states. To a degree also
the basing point which had first been selected as fields Tilth similar mining
conditions and eou^l strength of union orga.nization had to some extent
ceased to merit this basing point designation. Other districts had risen in
importance and Hocking Vallej'", at least, was losing ground. The mere fact
that pick mining rates at the four basing points were substantially equal no
longer held the answer to queEtions regarding the existence of wage differen-
tials and their extent. In any case the content of the pick miners' duties .
have varied widely in different fields and even among miners', in the same fields.
Inasm.all mine and under early conditions the -iiick miner oerformed all .the
operations incidental to getting out the coal and loading it in the mine
car. He was tr<?.cklaj''er, tiraberraan, tinder cutter, ^jbt"irer and loader. In
union contracts may be '^-and all -lorjsible .combination of these duties v;ith
corresponding variations in wage rates. TJie detailed comparative statement
of Mr. Stayton, a T/est Virginia opera.tor, speaking of conditions in the
Kanav/ha field is instructive.
"In the Central Com-oetitivc Field the miner
ha.ndles 12 inches of sla,te, laj'^s down hi,s own
track and pushes his cars from the pcrting to
tlie face of his room, all of whis-h is included
in the price per ton But in our district
we pay for 12 inches of slate 93-;:- cents per
linear j'^ard. The comx^any la3;-s the track,
delivers and hauls the ca,rs from the miners'
face of his room and entries. Cle-arly a flat
advance in both of thene fields v,'ould "'ork in-
justice in one or the other; onl"'- a percentage
advajice could be impa.rtial. " (*)
To discover the actural \7eight of wage differentials would reqiiire ore-
cise correlation of these diverse adjustments of duties and v.'s/;es.
Further difficulties a.rose because of the different development of
mining methods in different fields. In some fields hand methods persisted
and mines xieve small ipeasured by output or by number, of men employed. In
others full advantage v.'as talcen of the advance.of mechanical methods and
the mines turned out a la.rge tonnage dail3'' fxn.'C. gave employment to vary con-
siderable labor- forces. In the small mines little division of labor exists
while in the large mechanized mines both specializa.tion of labor and closeness
of supervision have gone to lengths which are new r.nd. strange in the bitumi-
nous coal industry.. -The exa^ct measurements of wage differentials tinder such
contrasting conditions is practicall y im'oos sible with any da-ta now available.
(*) Transcript of. Evidence 1920. Vol. IV, n, 2601.
9837
-361-
In tlie snr.ll Iiand operated nines the -jic!: ninin^ rate is all important. Ticy
rates are of minor significance and m;-cliine rates have no hearing on either
earnings or costs. In the lai'ge Mechanised nines pich raining is incidental
and of ver;-'- slight invporta~;ice. Uncer special conditions a fei; tons may be
obtained b^;- hand mining; the bnlh of the tonnage is produced by machine
methods.
After the pick mining rate the Interstate Conferences have been concern-
ed V7ith the v/ages paid day men. The conference in 1898 vras notable for the
establisliing of an eight-hour day throughout the Central Competitive Field
and for setting up uniform rage rates for inside day men. The basic rate
then establislied \7as $1.75 for most classeg. Trackmen and timbermen received
$1.50; pip eneii .II.'Cj a.iicL trappers 75 cents, "This scale was obtained b-r taking
the average of the uages paid in all the competitive districts and reducing
it to pji eight-hour basis." (*)
At succeeding Interstate Joint Conferences, the practice v.'as to make
changes in the inside day rate by adding or subtracting equal junounts. from
the e:-:isting rates. Thus uniformits'- of "inside oa-' rates at the four basing
points nr.s maintained as long as the Interstate Joint Conferences continued.
This rneaiit that at these basing .joints nen perfon:iing the same duties had
eq.us,l 2"'a"/". From tl;eir vie\.' :>oint. no vage differentials existed. From the
standpoint of the oper;:.tors these uniform v/ages might, nevertheless, represent
V7age differentials. "One mine in uhich most of the norl: of laying track in
the rooms, taking up floors, tunneling, etc., is done by the miners them-
selves TTill have relatively feu compaAy men underground; another in \7hich
much of the norl: ir done b-^^ cormar^'" men may have as many inside v/orkers a.s
it has miners. (**) T.nen inside da";- rates were increased mines organized
with the ma::imnim of inside da- m,en would find their costs of production per
ton materially increased on coinjxr.ri son \Tith mines where the bulk of the work
was done by men on tonnage rates. This auounted to a wage differential fav-
oring the small pick mines. (***)
However, there have been som.e er.ceptions to the rale of passing uniform
inside da-^ wages in the Central Competitive field. In Indiana the motormen
rate has been higher than in the other three states. This came about as
the result of an p^reement between operators and miners v/hereby motormen were
reclassified and certain helpers eliminated with an accompanying increased
rate for the motormen. Soixt-hern Ohio \7ps"given'a concession on inside dav
rates running from 30 to 50 cents per day lower than was paid in the balance
of the state. This was intended to 73ut operators in that district on an
equal competitive basis with those at the Hocking Valley basing point. (****)
(*) li-bin, Isador, Opus cit. - p. 141
(**) Lubin, Isador, ut supra, p. 139.
(***) Compare the testimony for the operators by I.ir.. C. E. Maurer. "They
have a little thin "seam of coal in that field where they employed SO
per cent day man and. 40 per cent miners. In order to produce that
coal and put it on the market they h<ad to have a. reduced wage for day
men. " '
(****) See testiJnony of lir. John ;,:oore, President of the Ohio I.iine TJorkers.
;-.';.i'-scrl; ii of -Svidence, U.S. Bituminous Coal Commission, 1920
-362-
The lo?8 scale corar.iittee atempted to' formulate a scale for outside
day labor "but fa,iled due to the fact that many of these outside occupations,
engineers, firemen, etc., c£;me -oncer craft unions not affiliated v/ith the
United Lline IToi'kers of America. LTot ■•ontil 1912 did the Interstate Joint
Conference take into account r/ages for outside day men and even then only
to specif;^ the amount of chanj^e to he made in the existing rates. Ho ---ro-
visions were made for uniformity at the basing points and it T/as ass"Jined
that variations in outside v/age rates, like deadv;ork variations, were to be
continued.
This situation naturally led to a great diversity in the rules applying
to these men and their r/ages. In Indiana, blacksmiths worked nine, and
inside da.y men, eight' hours per day. Engineers had duties to perform out-
side of their regular hours. In .some sub-districts in Ohio certain occupa-
tions were not affiliated with the United Kine Wor!:ers of America. ( *) Tlie
wage structure v^as even more com-olicated. The following table sho'.vs the
var^.'-ing ratesin effect in 1922 for the occupation, outside common labor. (**)
Outside Laborer s
( dollars oer day )
Illinois
6.36
Indiana
S.85
Ohio
Cambridge
7.22
Crooksville & Hocking
7.25
Jackson & I ronton
5.90
Pomeroy
5.50
lilassillon, Pahliandle, T'as-
carav/as & Coshocton
5.80
Tie stern Pennsylvania
5.60
Hot only was there a considerable variation in the v;a;'?;e scale for one occu-
pation but the diversity in the sts.tus of outside workers resulted in consid-
erable vari8.tion between the various classes of labor. Tlie Illinois contract
made little attempt to eqn:ia.lize ra.tes and stated only that the $6.85 rate was
a minimum rate, while firemen and stokers shall receive $7.25. (***) The
■Jestern PennsylveJiio- contrrct listed the followirig occupations "ith rates.
Dumpers $5.92 per day
Ram operntors.. ^ 7.10 " "
Pushers ._. . 6. 68 " "
V ' " Trimers -. ....6.86 " . "
Car cleaners 6.60 " "
It further s-oecified that blacksmiths,, carpenters, rivermen, firemen and
otlier outs'icLe labor rates v/ere" to remain as they were. (****)
In Indic^:;a^,the contract specified a flat rate of $6.85 for outside day
men, with the e:n:cer)tion of blacksmiths', who, worked nine hours at a rate of
$7.92 and firemen, for ten hours, at $7.356 per day. (*****)
(*) Lubin, Isador, ut supra, pp.
(**) Pisher, W. E. and Bezanson, Anne, Wage Rates and 'Working Time in the
Bituminous Coal Industry, Appendix Table 52.
(***) Contract between Illinois Coal Operators Association and the United
Mine Works of ^erica, 1922 to 1923.
(-^H<*.:5;<) Contract between Indiana Bituminous Coal Operators JJcsociation and
the United Mine Workers of America, 1922 to 1923.
(*=;<*■.;. y Contract between Pittsburgh Coal Producers Association and the
9857 United Mine Workers of America, 1922 to 1923.
7.45 "
7,25 "
7.45 "
7.25 "
5.06 "
-363-
The Ohio scale, for liockiiifT Valley, reported the following scale. ('^)
First blacksmith $7.77 per day
Second tlacksJi.ith
Blacksmith helper
Mine corpenters
Dumpers & triinnior:
Greasers & coiioilers
Engineers & fireuen era-
ployed by the any 7.25 i' "
Again in the field of yardage and deadwork rates the diversity of
actual wage rates may be overlooked if examination is not carried beyond
t:..c statements of wage contracts. The Interstate Joint Conference did
not fix these rates. It was customary to determine a percentage rate of
increase or decrease applicable to the existent rates at the basing points.
..oints. Similar provision was made- in the district contracts. For exam-
ple the wage agreement covering Illinois, effective August 10, 1932, r"
reads: "All yardage, deadwork and horsebacks on which 9, scale has been
established shall be reduced twenty-five per cent from rates in effect
under the contract which expired March 31, 1932." Correlating inter-u^
district rates in search for vage differential data would require even
in the simpler field of yardage-, a painstaking comparison of yardage
rates for entry-,, room turning and break through work, giving full con-
sideration to such factors as seaip thickness, methods of mining and div-
ision of duties field by field. Thus only can the student hope to dis-
cover the true status of comparative earning potentality or of production
costs.
In the field of deadwork payments it is practically impossible to
measure wage differentials, payiaents for r.uch uii standardized and non-
uniform tasks as cleaairxg up falls, and eliminating irregularly occurring
impurities in coal seams are ordinaa-ily arranged between individual
miners and their mine foremen. No schedule of rates can be arranged for
such ui^iredictable occurrences. Indeed some contracts provide that when
the coal seam in a given room contains an undue amount of impurities, it
shall be handled by day men and the miner affected shall be given an
"average room." It is unquestionably true that deadwork payments, and
yardage only in lesser degree, are a fruitful source, albeit incommen-
surable, of wage differentials. Hard pressed mine managers reduce dead-
•■ ork payments to the minimum and chisel on yardage allowances; Liberal
managers at prosperous mines especially if supported by vigorous unionism,
pay considerable wage differential; at this point. Data from NRA records
show that significant wage differentials might arise hare. Thus a ten-
month average from J^ril 1934 to January 1935, both inclusive, shows that
Maryland and Upper Potomac, with very difficult mining conditions, pai'^
12.5 cents per ton for yaraage and deadv/ork out of a total labor cost of
$1,295. Tiiis is 9.65 percent, ilifhlgan for the snjne period paid 29 cents
out of a total labor cost of $1.93 or 15 percent. T^estern Kentucky with
wage standard based on non-union conditions from 1926 to 1933 shows for
the two months - November and December 1933 - for which reports are
available, about l/o of a cent per ton in an. avera; e lal-nr cc^tof'y.l^
cents per ton. This makes less than half of one percent..
(*) Contract between District ^6, Ohio and the United Miner Workers of
America, 1922 to 1923.
9837
-354-
We.f^e rates in the oT.tl/in.;; L.istri'cts ;-re iDasec. on those exi-tlng
when the union first ...pinea leco tuition. '2he^" m,':..y hrve fcSen hijher or
li.v>'f%r tnon tuose obt^ineo. in the Central GoLipeti'tive. Field. Thus the
rates in v7e shin,-:;; ton, Y/yoinine; and Lontcna '/rere cistinctly hi;'hcr due to a,
hi/^her cost of livin;;; in thft re :;iDn one to the exi-,tence of a^ generally
hi._;her wage level. In .Western Kentucky-, on the contrary, when a union
contract wa.s first xie,2"o.tiate'd in 1900- wrje rates •'■ere considerably lo'ver
thfn those of the Centrrl Com-oetitive Field, This is explained as oxic to
the pressure of neij^htorin::; non-union areas. These lov/er rrtes were
nevertheless incorporated in the -ccntr'-ct su.hject to a promise of the
operators that the interstate wa;;;e level would ue granted in case the
union succeeded in organizing the -remainin,-:;: ifestern Kentucky mines.
Contracts succeecing the original arreeient were affected by
the changes mp.de in the Interstate Joint Conference. h'owever, be-
cause of the original acceptance of the inol -eno^.s wap:e rates their re-
lation to the Central Competitive Field is by no mefna uniform. ;.'or be-
fore the advent of Code control can it be shovrn that, the lack of uniform-
ity had lessened rather than increased. In the remfining luilonized areas
Conipetitive pres:ures, e. g. , had driven basic rates in the , South'<:/est .
from $3.75 to ; 4. 00 while the Inciana and Illinois Co;', jeti tive rate v;as
yo.OO •."■,.■.
The basis for this situation was stated Toy Lir. Clark, re;prcsent-
ing the Central Pennsylvania, Field, before the United States Bitimiinous,
Coal Commission as follows: "O'lir a reements have been built, up from a
competitive, standpoint antl from a stajidpoint that filled, the conditions,
s.urrouncdn;; the mining industry from an Oijer.-.. ting standpoint. "(*)
"The principles ujiderlying wage •setting- were pointed out with
equal franlaiess by Hr. John I.Iitchell in his testimony before the .
Commission on Indiistrial delations.
"As I gay, it, is impossible to determine ■ t'lie cost solely upon the
earnings of a man, because if "we were to do that, if we v/ere' to say that
a man could earn 'iA a day at Dghville he ought to earri'.;)4 at every other
mine, because if -the board fixed entirely tipon wa-;es some of the mines
could not opei-ate; the physical cmrition 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 unterstsnd what the
mine owners, I think, all reco -nize tha.t that burden should be carried
in part by the mine ovmer by rediiced profits, 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 op:jortunities
of the different mining fields and perhaps upon the oijportunities of
the miners in the different fields to earn their wages^ " (**)
m
(*) Transcript Vol. IV p 23-54 a • ■ - . ■
(**) Quoted Report of The United States, Coal Commission, 1923 Part III,
p. 1C47.
9837
-S65-
This is to say when plainly stilted th;.vt the iriui'^-enous wage scales
fovLncL when nnionizrtion taV-SS place tiie net resultant of a struggle
"betv/een com.ctitive forces fiucn ■ "..uc. tie neri-Jiiess of the unor'^ani zod
miners is of croitpl i Liortn. ce. '-,-.e si tc.rtlou in tlie Bitvaninous Coal
Inaustry with its suvjer-fbandr.nce of oro^.uctive ca-pcity rJiu its shrink-
ing marhets is such thrt in each fic?.e ever.;- i:dne i-: opened v.p and is
operated to the fullest extei.t v;,,xo . 'tverit, of alining conditions
joined to fix v.'illin,_;ness of the lf.:Jor lorce to ecceot Inv; wagos, malces
possible. Moreover, the o per,: tor \-lil srA :■ to the most distant fields and
absorb the greatest air.ovjnt of frei.,lit' c^^pr-es vhich is made possible by
savings in procuction costs coiitin::ent on e^ctended time of operation.
Fr.atever the wage situation, it is alv/ays correctly defended as the highest
which can be maintained if the mines in ooerr-tion are to be continued and
miners to be employed for the established .-nnuGl cays of operation.
Keither miners' nor operators, therefore, will con'-ent to unioniza-
tion except it be tacitly, if not implicitly stated, that the existing
co.inetitive sitiuation is to be maintained. Thus the joint circular of
lerators and miners sent out in 1386 callin-; the fir-t interstate confer-
ence plrinly stated:
"If the ;n-ice of labor in the United States was uniformly raised
to the standard of three years ago, the employers of labor would
occupy toward each other the same relative position in point of competi-
tion as at present. Such an eC.vpnce v-/ould prove beneficial to their
interests, as it would materially iielp to remove the present general
discontent of the miners: in their employment. " (*)
This is to say that both parties must be assu.red that their
opport-oiiities for emoloyment and for the enjoyment of wages and of
profits are not to be diminisheu. A';;ainst any attempt to raise wages
above the com.Detitive levels est-'blisheo. before unionization, the
operators fight vdth the pertinacity born ^f justified fears for the
life of their mines. These fears are frequently intensified by the
spectacle of nu.;.erous bai.":ru.iocieK a.;ong tj.eir business associates
aiid rivals. Under s-ach conditions tne union officii Is were not in-
clined to ov.sh the demaxids 'for wage increase oeyond the level attained
in the Centrrl Competitive Field anc. in nei ::iboring outlying districts.
Here then is the basis for wa ,e '..if lerentia.ls found between the
Central Competitive Field and the ovitlying districts in general as well as
betv/een the various outlying districts. They were established as were sim-
ilar wage dif^erez-tirls between the states combined in the Interstate Joint
Conference, under pre-unionization conditions of intensified competition.
They were embocJ.ed in wage contracts and .naintaincd by the policy of per-
centage increase in tonnage rates together with fixed increases on day
rates. To this wage structure and labor cost the prod^.ctive and distributive
orgaiiization accommodates itself. Superabundant competition forces the in-
dustry to jroduce and sell every ton which the wage structure allows. It is
always literally true that to increase wage costs in any district will destroy
the marginal and submarginal mines desperately striving to maintain a
place in the indMstry. It m^ust be held in mind that survival for them is
not deoendent on any wage level, hi-;h or low, but rather on the maintenance
of the comparative wage situation under which their entries were opened
and their markets estaolished.
(*) (Evans, Chris. History of the United Mine Workers of America,
9337 '^"1- 1' P- l'-2-
-366-
The ,:eneral via -e diTi erential so f-. r as the non-union fields are
concerned is simple in ^tete.iGnt. Unc'er competitive oresstire the non-
union operators seek to ta'^e --^ gv -n t a ve of the relr tively stable r.nd per-
manent wage ?tn\ct:ire ehibo<..ied in uniori contrrcts rat to mpintain for
themselves a loiter wa,i;e level. A: mcntlonci.' above tliese non-union operators
may be in the heart of Jiiioa territory. A notable exajaple was the "iron
clad" contract of the Kew Yor': rnu C] tvol'r-iid C-rs Coal Company effective
in 1396 and for some yerrf. tl.ereafter. .This contract baldly stated that
the price to be paid for minin-;- coa,l should be 10 cents oer ton less
than any other price paic' in the Pittsburo-,h district, but it further
provided that if a strike occurred in the other mines of the district
' til is wa.-je should be increased IC cents per ton durin-c siich strike. (*)
The re.iort on tiie strike in 1910-1911 in 'ffentmoreland Coruity,
Penn-jylvania,, disclosed a similar situation. T'^ere the miners were
still workin.;; 10 hours dally although unionized mines in the Interstate
Competitive Field had been on 8 hours since 1B9S. (**) Despite this
m.aterial disadvcnta;5e in hours, errnin;^3 of both tonnage and day workers
\'.'ere lower in the non-iLnion mines than in nei.-^hborin^ jnionized opera-
tions.
The wai;;e differential controversy carried on by the union with
tne distinctly non-union I'ield'^. of "7est Vir ;inia, Eastern Kentucky,
Tennessee, '5eor;-ia and Alabama, is faailiar to all students of coal
problems. It wa.s perse cute'dvith increasia^ intensity as the develooment
of tiiese new fields hi.-'ily favoreu b^' natiiral conditions ana. reenforced
with favorable waje differentials invaded the markets of xmion operators
and end-n ered the union wa^e stnctiire. It was not only the lower
wa^e but the -.reater flexibility of i,7age rates virhich did dama/^e. When
demand slac]:ened these non-xuiion areas cut v/a.^es and extended sales at
tne expense of operators bound to the pa^vinent of union wage scales. In
times of brisk o.emar.d the non-union o ierators promptly raised wages
and bic- hi-^h for an increased share in the limited wage force. In
periods of strike stoppa/'e in union fields, these non-union mines
continuea production ana reaped, a harvest from hir^h t^rofits, intensive
operation and a^bundant labor supply. However the general wage level
in non-union fields was m.a.terially below the union standards, ivieasure-
ment is difficult since no •■';eneral wage scales exist in non-union mines.
Lach mine ha.d its own wage system. Indeed "in some of them each laborer
ma6.e his o?/n bargain vith the mine official and iiis rate was, in large
pa.rt, determined by his own bargaining oower". (^'^=^) A general state-
ment covering an eleven year period is found in a work based on
investigation made for the United States Coal Commission. The con-
cliici jn rear-.s:
(*) Article by J. E. George in Vol. XII Quarterly Journal of Econ'>mics,
pp. 200-201.
(**) IvTeill, Charles P. Report on the Miners' Strike in Sitfuninnus Coal
Fields in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania in 1910'- 1911 Pass-um.
(***) Lubin, ut si-'OJra, p. 209.
-367-
' ^.t the str^.rt of our recorc. in .1912, the fverage
rstes ;;er ho\~.r paid to dry men vere 30 cents in iiuion
fields, 23 ctnto i.: irre/julr.r, nnd slightly less than
22 cents in non-i.uixon areps. 3y the close of 1922,
day rttes in union fields ■xvenirec. 89 cents, in irrei'ju-
lar SI cents, ca:d in non-union ?0 cents per ho\:i.r. Du.r-
ing the depression, the oifierences were Isr-'er than
is indicated hy taese absolii.te co.nparisons. The mpin-
tenance :f union scales in the first hrlf of 1922 v.-hen
rates in other sreas aecreased .neant thst the pverage
hourly rates of union day men were 40 cents above the
non-union snd 23 centn above the irregalar rrej.s. " (*)
Within tliis general situ-.tion -if vaiion fields, divided between
the Central Competitive Field anc. the outlyin^^; districts, and the non-
uiiion areas, certai;^ reco^^nized v/aje differentials developed. These
may be discussed under the headings: machine, freijht, thin vein, and
jseo^rephical o.ifferentials. Insofar as these wa;-;e differences have
been consciously fixed, they are all conditioned .by the purpose to
inrintain the principle of competitive exi.jte:ice for all operators and for
all 3ron.ps of miners. This principle, be it reuiembered, is of belated
applicatioii. Wa^^e scales and c'lff erentials are not iredetermined and
a.pplied to mines as they are developed £ nd as they establish markets.
Bather they wait on vnionizatinn and adopt an inchoate — one is tempted
to say ur.principled — waq;e stiu.cture based on nothing' more defer. sible
than coi.v.ietitive strur-le. Once accepted these wa,3e differentials must
be meintained if certain mines are to o;.ernte and the miners there
e.rioloyed are to "'ork. Ot'ierwise stated, the maintenance of the relative
corapetitivf advanta^-es is essential to retain the loyalty of miners and
operators to the wage conference. Either pa.rty will forsalre the
agreement if convinced that their interests are not protected.
This was effectively stated in 1920 by l.Ir. TI. !T. Taylor speaking
(*) Fisher, Waldo S. and Bezanson, A-yae, I^sqc Rates and Working Time,
Bitu:.-dnous Coal Industry 1312 - 1922, pp. lol-132, — "Irre^:;u.lar
areas" are those in which "the -anion and the operators have v.'a-^ed
an almost continuous str.-./jgle over the question of union recog-
nition". There was oroduced a iproxi.aa.tely 10 per cent nf the
soft coal durin:; the period-. 1912 - 1922: Pon-ui'iion areas about
nne- third. Su. p. 33,
9837
-368-
for the oporators in the Southwestern District. •'
"V;e I'SVG iDuilt "Up oi^ collective bc-,r^;aiji-
ing, relative scales, so tlmt the fields can
enjoy, thrcu^h corqsetitive relations, a cer-
tain market "between the fields of the South-
west against their eastern competitors. To
disturb those rolationshij^s would "be the-
clinination of many of our mining centers.
These cent<?rs have a right to live, v/hcther
some people thihli they have or not. If
disturhed wo cease to exist and our miners
must leave their homes and seek other fields.
The operators cannot leave, beca.uso their mines
are in the ground and cannot "bo moved. "(*)
An apt illustration of tnese factors is foyjid in the machine
differentials. The interstate Joint Conference at first "based its
wage sti'v.cture on the picienining rate. '7hen compelled to take
accoujit of machine undercutting it was liandling the interests, at
first, of a minority group. To m£?-intain the majority competitive
interests of operators and miners it set rates for machine opera-
tion v/hich gave the managers introducing the machines little "beyond
a fair return on the investment in the machines. Thus the majority
ox miners and operators still cariying on pick mining were protected.
In addition the miners operating machines made a ha.ndsome ?;age and
the only voices in the conference dissenting were those of the, at
first, inconsidera"ble minority oi operators using raa.chine cutters.
When, nevertheless, mechanization progressed the market competition
had. heen adjusted to the later costs imbedded in this wage struc-
ture. It was far easier to maintain the established machine dif-
ferentials tlian to face the diT'jption incident to setting up a
relative wage base on an accurate scientific determination, assuming
tliat any one party '^•j the agreements harbored such an unusual design.
Further diversity developed as new districts were progressively ■
brought into the unionized wage structure at various stages of mech-
anization and with relative rates for mac'hinc and Irnnd operation
variously adjusted. With mecha.nical loading added to machine cut-
ting the mines in which geological conditions required hand opera-
tion were forced back definitely into the class of submarginal
mines. As an alternative to ceasing operation entirely, hand
mining rates were progressively reduced and the machine differentials
had a new manifestation.
It must not be supposed tha.t machine differentials vi'erc uni-
form throughout the Central Competitive 7icld. The basic rate for
(*) Transcript, ut supra, Vol. Ill, p. 1638. Cf. views of Mr. J. 3.
Wilson of Oklahoma, p. 1736.
9837
-369-
Dp.nvlllc, Illinois for nacliine raining, i.e. -ancle rctit ting by machines,
plus hand loading after rarichine-3, ^7as set at 10 cents lovi/er tlian
the liand rate. In all dist_'icts outside Danville the differential
\7as set at 7 cents, Txiis "was based on the average machine differ-
ential which ^nrovailed under non-union conditions "before 1898". (*)
Those differentials despite much o-oerator discontent were maintained
throughout the period when the Interstate Joint Conferences were
offectiv.-;. In the Indiana Biti^jninous district a machine differen-
tial of -2 ceaits a ton was maintained. Ohio liad nine different
differencials, as detailed in the tahlc or. tl^c following page.
Four of its 15 districts had 17.64 cents, which was the machine
differential of the Hocking Valley "basing point. Pomeroy and two
other sections ns.d 20.5 cents, the highest differential; Deerfield
had 14.86 cents, the lowest; Crooksville 16.25 cents; Coshocton
16.6 cents; Sand^/ Valley had 5 ^6.75 day rate for machine cutting.
Pennsylvania had 17.54 cents in the thin vein area, 14.8 cents in
veins rated as thick. In outlying districts the ma.chinc differen-
tials are descrihed ,as a "motley array rijuining from Z cents in some
sections of the Southwest to 18 cents in Michigan. In some districts
machine miners are p^-id on a day rate basis, while in others they
are paid a fixed amovjit for eacn sq"uarc foot of coal that they under-
cut." The table following shows these machine differentials for
the Interstate Competitive field:
(*) See Lubin, op. cit. pp 107 ot seq. for discussion of machine dif-
ferentials.
3837
--370^
Coiroarison of Hand and fechine rS.tes and Differentials
Pennsylvania., Ohio, Indiana, Illinois (*)
(i,iine-run basis, rates in dollars and cents per net ton)
fe.chine "mte
Picl
1-
(Loading and
Differen-
E3.te
Ctittin;
:)
tial
Pennsylvania
■2hin Vein
V 1.1164
;;0.94
$0.1764
Thick Vein
1.0311
0.8831
0.1480
Ohio
Amsterdam
1.116
0.94
0.176
Camh ridge
i.iie-^
X
0.94
0.1754
Coshocton
1.146
0.98
0.156
Crooksville
1.146
0.9835
0.1625
Deerfield
1.195
1.0454
0.1486
East Palestine
1.180
1.021
0.159
Hocking Vail
■cy
• l.llo-^
L
0.940
0.1754
Jackson
1.180
0.9774
0.2026
I ronton
1.146
0.9774
0.1636
I\/iassillon
l-ol817
0.9757
0.2060
Panhandle
1.1164
0.940
0.1764
Pomeroy
1.146
0.940
0.2060
Tuscarawas and Sandy
Valley
1.146
0.975
0.1710
Indiana
1.080
0.96
0.12
Illinois a/
District ;"-l
1.357
a/
1.290
a/
0.067
District JS
(Danville)
1.080
.980
0.100
District v3
1.089
?J
1.017
a./
0.072
District ;H
1.083
a/
1.014
a/
0.069
Di strict #5
and 9
1.083
a/
1.011
a/
0.072
District #6
1.040
a/
.970
a/
0.070
District "^
1.041
a/
.973
^
0.068
District '}Q
1.166
a/
1.080
a/
0.086
a/ Weighted rates
(*) Source: Fisher, V/. Z., and Bezanson, A., , _
Time on the Bitt-uainous Coal Industry , appendix tahles 4 and 7.
These v^^ere the contract rates from April 1, 1920 to March 31, 1927.
'Jage Rat es_ and Working
9837
-371-
Tis.^e differentials ■based on freit;lit dif lorentials are deeply
imbedded in the general vra^o set up. Jhen Southern Illinois rose
to inr^ortancc in production, the field secured a 4 cent diffcren-
tip.l over Coiitral Illinois on the pick raining rate hccause of the
higher cost of shipping coal to Chicago, which was then the princi-
pal market for "bot'h fields. Although the marketing situation soon
changed the wage differential persisted, \vestern Kontuclqy and
Northern '.Test' Virginia defended their low v/age scales vigorously
on the score of their disadvantagcovis situation and greater ship-
ping costs as coiinarcd with their nearest rivals. The tendency is
to regard freight rates as inescapahlc and irreducihle clnarges.
Wages, on the contrary, are held suh.ject to reduction to any ex-
tent required to enable the mines to continue operating. Earnings
of miners can be supplemented by faming ,or gardening. And low
standards of living, resultant from low wage scales, are skilfully
transformed in public statoraonts into lover costs of living. At
botto.- these wage differentials are based on the sincere convic-
tion that developed mines must operate. This belief is held by
miners as well as operators. In the case of the miners this con-
clusion i:ias frequently been enforced by prolonged shut downs and
resultant lack of a means of livelihood. Mines are thereafter
reopened at any wage scale v;hich permits operation. Such scales
then become accustomed and accepted.
Thins vein differentials work coiintcr to the freight differ-
entials in that as adjusted they raa.ke it mox-e, rather tlian less,
difficv t for the mines to operate. They are based on the natural
belief f the wage earners that tonnage rates shoii.ld be higher
when mo e difficult natural conditions are encountered by the min-
ers. Tile difficulties of gaining a ton of coal in a 2 foot vein
are much greater than those met in a 5 or 6 foot seam. On prin-
ciple the wage scale should be so adjusted as to make the earnings
of miners equivalent in both cages. In practice the tonnage rate,
while higher in the thin seam, may fall far short of completely
balancing the more difficult conditions. In the historical develop-
ment of v;age systems niunerous suryiva.ls T;ere left not now defensible
on an exact comparison of natural conditions.
Host important of these is the Pittsburgh thick and thin
vein differential of $.0853 .per ton. In its origin in 1902 this
has been explained as a freight differential based on the doclcago
fees on the Monongahela Eiver. . It persisted and drew the fire
of the United Mine Workers' president in the Code Hearings in 1933.
He described the imaginary line drawn, put the pick miners' differ-
ential in favor of the so-called thin veins at 10 cents per ton,
and stated that a co.rrosponding differential had been granted for
hand loa-ding and machine cutting. He declared:
"Despite the fact the operators producing coal
in the so-called thick vein enjoy a. differential,
in pick and machine mining below thin competitors in
the Pittsburgh District, yet it is notoriously true
9837
-372-
tlmt ravLCh oi" the coal mined in the so-called
thick vein territory is about the same in thick-
ness as in the so-called thin- -ieiri district.
"Opei-ators suffering for years from the
effects of these differentials have soioght in
vain to make the tonnage rates the sajnc thro"Ut,hout
this a.rea, and mine workers ha.ve conpl&incd, even
to the extent of striking against a contintiation
of this abuse. "(*)
\7ith this may be contrasted the statement, made in 1920, of
Mr. Don r.ose, an operator in the Freeport seam of V/estern Pennsyl-
vania, He testified tliat the Pittsburgh seaiii is continuous cover-
ing the entire district and that variation in thickness is of a
gradtial and comparatively steady clmracter. It increases in
thickness as one traverses it from north to south and any divid-
ing line must be an arbitrary one. 2he differentia-1 originally
"was established on the basis of oq"us.lity of potential earning
power o?i the part. of the miners in each district." " Large invest -
ments in coal lands, develo-ipment and ootiipmont have been made ,
based upon the full Imowlcdge of the dividing' line and uoon its
bearin,'.; uoon mining onerations. Any . disturbance of this question
at this time would certainly result in substantial in.niry to such
' investments. " (**)
Here is a clear-cut illustration of the difficulty of chang-
ing wage scales once the competitive pressures Imve expanded produc-
tion by the favored districts to exploit the last vestige of advan-
tage from the situation. For the operators dependent on thetege
differential, its defense becomes necessary to existence and no
historical exegesis or philosophical dissertation affects their
attitude in the least degree.- They are blessed with entire single
mindedness of vision and purpose. '
It is not difficult to point out great seeming divergence in
the thin vein differentials. Thus the rate paid for pick rained
coal in a 3 foot 5 inch seam is vl»08 in Indiana; 01.1817 in the
Massillon District, Ohio; and Ol.24 in the Za'st Palestine District,
Ohio.(***) Farther "coal of -this height, in the Southwest Interstate
Field generally carries a rate of $1.15 or more; in counties of
Missouri 0l.2O, $1.23, $1.25 and $1.40, while in Subdistrict 2 of
Iowa we find $1.21. (****) Again, 2 feet 3 inch seams in the East
(*) Transcript of Code Hearings,- pp. 330-331.
(**) Smpliasis added. Transcript, Vol. II, pp. 985-6.
(***) lubin. Opus Cit. p. 98
(****) These rates from Coal Section Sfudy of Union Contracts.
9837
-373"
Palestine section of Ohio of the Central Field have a ol.30
pick rate; in kicaisan a ,C'1«33 rate; and in Suhdistrict 4 of
Iowa the extreme rate of ('1.80. Similar diffex^ences can "bo
foTond t)5'' comparison with almost any other outlyin^^ district. "(*)
Ostensihly these divergencies are tascd solely on the seam
thickness. In reality the v^a^e differential is affected by
other natural difficulties such as the -oressence of gas or
water, tnc folded or pitching position of the scams, the divi-
sion of labor and methods of mining and cleaning the coal, not to
mention the- relative bargaining strcnf:th of _the parties to the
agreement and the historical incidents, or feiceidcnts, of- wage
scale development and of trac'e.x-jiionir.ation. Bb safe conclusion
can be drawn ?icrG without a most complete and- painstaking corripari~
son of all factors which affect the miners' opportunity for earn-
ings and the operators costs of production. It might easily be
true, e.g., tiiat the wide divert'vcnce quoted between East Palestine,
Ohio, and District 4, lova, worked out zo s\"'bstantial equivalence
both in miners' earnings and in operators' costs when all factors
were as-cssed at their correct value. ITo such study has ever been
made an. for the differentials quoted data is not in existence on
which t ■ base it.
Ziiiphasis on geographical wage differentials is of comparatively
recent development. Such discussioM is not foixnd in the reports of
the United States Coal Commission nor in works based on these
data.^i*) Until that date cheif interest attached to the organiza-
tional differentials, i.e. union vs. non-imion. Because the south-
ern and the southeastern fields were of large importance in the non-
union districts, this discussion ha.d a geogrs-phical bearing. After
1914, with the growth of southern VJest Virginia production to com-
petitive importance, records began increasingly to carry debates
over the north-south wage differentials. 'Jhile chief interest at-
tached to this geographical controversy, it should not be forgot-
ten tl-iat other such differentials of iiirportance existed. The Pocky
Mountain Pacific coal fields 1-iad wage scales materially higher than
those based on the Central Comjoetitive Field wage scales. After 1924
the the Southwestern Field under pressure from con-peting fuels
broke away from union control and developed a wage scale distinctly
lower than that maintained in Central Competitive territory while
the southern fields had the lov/est wage system of all.
'Thile this general conclusion as to the southern wage levels
is gsnerally accepted, the precise measurement of this north-south
wage differential has never been attempted. A promising start on
an exact scientific study we.s made under Code administration with
(*) I .in, Op. cit. T). 162
(**) T is is trae of both Lubin's and of Fisher and Bozanson's
books quoted above.
9837
-374-
the appointment of a ITorth and South Coramission. (*) It suffices
to mention here ths.t extensive differences were discovered in
methods of operation and in natural difficulties encountered re-
sulting in the planning of an olatorate engineering study. One
member of the commission stated his conclusion th\is:
"It is ap-parent tliat tnere is a. difference in
tlie services performed and the proportion employed
of company men and loaders in the various districts
and, therefore, a higher cost in some districts than
in others for the company men. This difference in cost
should "be obtained and should be reflected in the piece
workers' rates. The ^resent rates are based on unlike
things and unlike amounts of labor required and work
performed. "(**)
These suggestions were equally ap^-^licable at earlier dates.
(*) See the discussion below.
(**) IIHA. files. Letter of James D. Frances and suggestion for informa-
tion to be obtained by Engineers, July 26, 1934.
9837
-375-
WAGE JIFj'EKEIITIALS AT TIE CODS HEARING
The most uncompromising stand against wage differentials was, taken
"by C. E. Hosford, spealcing as a representative of the Coal Producers
Association of Western Pennsylvania. His opinions have great interest in
view of his present position as Chairman of the Bituminous Coal Commission,
Jiir, Hosford stated at the outset of his ai'gument:
"In m^r Judgement, it is unfair to allow the mines of one district
to work eight, nine or ten hours. Again, I say, it is unfair tha.t
one district is permitted to have one scale of wages and another
district to have a different scale of wages when these two districts
mefet competitively in the marketing of their coal." (*)
Tlie speaker admitted that wage differentials had existed for years and
that differences in costs of living constituted a "sound economic reason"
for them. But he continued:
"Now, there is no desire to take away from any producing district the
advantage which it obtains from its geographical location, nor should
it he deprived of any advantage which it has through the natural
conditions affecting production. If the coal seams are thicker,
if there is no draw slate, if -there are no partings in the coal,
and from that results a greater capacity per man, thus resulting
in lowfer costs, that advantage should he enjoyed hy that district,
hut we suhmit that no district should he protected hy any artificial
differential.
"Carrying -out this -theory, we submit that regardless of the district
in which the work is performed and regardless of the return to the
■ ' operator from that particular T/ork or service, the wage earners in
the "various districts of the Appalachian Range should he on an equal
basis as to hours of labor and should receive equal rates of pay*
This applies just as well to the men who are paid on a piece-work
basis as to those who are paid by the hour. If a motorman or other
skilled laborer inside the mine receives, just let us arbitrarily
say 50 cents an hour in Ohio and Pennsylvania, that same rate should
be paid in the Southern fields." (**)
His conclusion was positively stated:
"I submit that in the final drafting of the code or codes, which will
apply to our district and to those other districts which are compe-
titive with us, that there is absolutely from a theoretical stand-
point, from an economical standpoint or from a practical standpoint
no justification for the allov;ance of any differential whatsoever."
Similar convictions were stated by Frank E. Taplin on behalf of the
Central Coal Association. As he put the problem:
(*) IT.I.H.A. Transcript of ^earing on Code of Eair Practices and
Comoetition, Vol, III, p. 440,
(**) Ibid p. 441,
(***) Ibid p, 444. - - ,
9837
-376-
"If production and employnent are to te eq-uitalily spread over the
entire Greater Appalachian pLange, it is vital that maximum working
hours, minimum rates of pa-jr and uniform working conditions te the
same in all of the districts within this Range. The general code
suhmitted provides for not to exceed 5 percent differential in
favor of the mines south of the Ohio River as against the mines
north of the Ohio River, tut it is onjr earnest desire that for
equitable reasons there should he no differential hetween those
districts in base wages." (*) .
A less extreme position was talcen hy the "general code" which was
sponsored by a group of bituminous coal operators in the States of
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa,
Kentucky, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Montana and Wyoming. In pres-
enting this code, I,ir, George B. Harrington said:
"When we first aporoached this subject we disciissed the possibility
of setting up a basic wage scale for the entire country. The many
complexities which irai-ediately arose showed the utter impracticability
of such procedure and brought us to the conviction that the only
solution Was to arrive at some simple formula for miniiiiam basic
wages and simple formula for adjusting and conforming tonnage and
other rates to the basic daj" rates.
"The basic rate for underground mine-workers is fixed at $5.00 for
an eight hour day; for outside men, $4.00, Within the industry it
is recognized that specified classifications of labor receive
somewhat less than the basic wages, and certain other classifications
receive somevihat more. Such basic rate of pay, however, provides
a living wage for the mine-workers, and it has entered into the
sale prices of bituminous coal to such an extent that the industry,
with the fe\i limitations in the clause of the Code set forth, is
adjusted to such wages, or can be adjusted thereto. "(**)
These minimum rates wei^e subject to the following adjustments:
"(a) In those districts south of the Ohio River and east of the
Mississippi River, and in the I;organto\7n and Fairmont districts of
West Virginia, the minimum day rates raaj^ specify a differential
below the basic rates of not to exceed five percent,
(b) It is recognized that in the States of Oklalioma, Arkansas and
Texas special conditions exist, and authority is given for joint
agreement between the representatives of the mine workers and the
operators on the question of pro^oer differentials.
(c) Existing higher differentials established in Colorado, Utah,
Wyoming, Montana and -Washington during past years by reason of
higher living costs -shall not be disturbed."- (***)
(*) Transcript, Vol. II, p. 266.
(**) Transcript, Vol. II, ]sp. 2S5-236. - - ■ ,' - ,
(***) Pro-Qosed "General" Code of Fair Com-oetition for ttie Bittuninous Coal
9837 Industry, p. 4.
-377-
With these adjustments the United Mine 'Jorkers v/ere in agreement.
However, having accepted the cost of livin^j "orinciple as a justification
for the higher wage levels of the Hock'/- Mountain and Pac-ific territory,
their representative. President John L, Lev/is, was at pains to show that
a lower cost of living did not constitute a defense for the lower wage
scales of the Southern fields. (*) He argued that lower wage levels
required southern miners to live on a lower standard and emphatically
stated that such evidence as exists indicates that very possibly the cost
of living, for an equivalent standard of living, is higher on the average
in Southern than in Northern communities. (**)
A paragraph may he quoted:
"As to the question of differentials within districts, attendant
upon tonnage rates, it is the expressed desire of the United Mine
Workers of America that in the district conferences created for the
purpose of estp,"blishing tonnage rates comprehending a condition
of fair competition within districts and with competing districts,
that the conferees should apply themselves most diligently to the
task of eliminating these ahsurd interno.l differentials, and make
■ secure to the tonnage worker a minimum wage at least equivalent
to the minimum rates for undergroimd day workers." (***)
In the Code presented jointly by the Northern Coal Control Associ-
ation and the Smokeless and Appalachian Coal Association, labor costs in
the "oroduction of coal were called for which "make it possible for the
producer to meet, on a comparable price basis, the competition of other
fuels and other sources of energy, such as oil, natural gas, wood,
an-?hracite, and h^^dro-electric power." (Article V) "Firm differences of
opinion Sjnong the represented groups" developed on- the question of other
district wage differentials. These operators set forth detailed wage
scales, evidently based on wages in effect. The standards set were
distinctly below those of the general Code. For Pennsylvania and Ohio
the me.ximum wage for inside day men was 50 cents per hour applying only
to machine runners, motormen and rock drillers. Most of the important
inside workers had 48 cents per hour while helpers rated 43 cents. By
the Smokeless and Appalachian Association the maximum set for inside day
men was 45 cents per hour; the bulk of occuoations had 43 cents, helpers
38 cents'.
Hie Rocky Mountain Pacific group of operators had agreed on a code
containing general principles. T/hen it came to wage standards, however,
each of the Associations concerned submitted its own wage scales. These
were regularly those in effect in the district covered. Most frequently
the wage agreement with the United Mine Workers was quoted in full and
'made a part of the Code, basic rates generally ranging upward from $5»00
per day. The Montana district, which was recognized to have the highest
wage rates, paid miners, timbermen and tracklayers $5,80 per day. 3rat-
ticemen, shotfirers, drillers* team drivers, pumpmen and head cagers were
rated from $5.70 to $5.75 per day.
(*) See this agreement. Transcript of Hearing, pp. 337 et seq.
(**) , Ibid p. 337.
(***) Transcript, Vol. II, p. 334.
9837
"378-
The Southuestern Coals Association in a i.Tritten orief (*) presented
by its President, I.'r. '7. C. Shanlc, e;;plained the "special conditions"
existing in this area as due to the exceptional competitive joressure
exerted loj oil and gas competition, ^age scales, as prboosed in the
Code submitted, seeminglj'" were based on the cuiTejit rate of $3.75 per
day for inside day men.. In four of the seven districts as shovm in the
insert following, inside day men v;ere rated at 44 cents an hour or $3»72
for an 3-hour day; outside day men at 41 cents, except in one case
40 cents. Txio districts, both in Missoia-i , presented rates of 37^-' cents
inside and 32-f cents outside per hour. The McAlester and Wilburton
districts of Oklahoma wore exceptional, proposing 47 cents per hour for
inside daj^ men and 39 cents for outside work.
Pro-posed Liniraiim ^^sic Day states (Ci
ents
130 r Hoi-ur)
•
Presented by
0"oorator3 in Kansas,
i.iisf
;ouL'i
a,nd Oklahoma
Cherokee & Craw-
Randolph, Adair &
ford Cos.", Ivans.
Barton Co., Ho.
Lafa:/ette "^ay & I
Coimty, '.io. Cos., i
31ay
:io.
Liacon Cos. , Ho.
Shaft
Strip
Mines
Mir-3s
Inside
44
44 44
37-rr
_
Outside
41
41 41
33|
41
Henryetta & Tulsa
HcAlest,er o TJil-
"loone. Bates, Linn &
Districts. Okla.
b-orton Districts
Ve
irnon Cos.
, Missouri.
Shaft Mines
Okla.
Shaft
Mines
Inside
Outside
44
40
47
39
37i
32j
Alabama coal operators presented a code through the Alabama Mining
Institute and their case v;as presented before the Hearing by Mr. Forney
Johnson. They complained of intense competition by oil, gas and hydro-
electric power vdth an imminent rjotential competitor in the T.V.A.
development. Further they called attention ,to their diffictO.t mining
conditions and to the necessity which they were under of washing three-
fourths of their coal. They foijnd some excuse for their lov/ wage levels
in the location of their mines in rural surroundings allowing miners to
supplement their incomes vdth farming, gar-dening and canning operations.
l''ir. Johnson described the "grave condition, of the coal industry in
Alabama"' with "an actual loss" in corporate income. per ton of coal 'mined
of 23 cents, or $112.00 per man emplo'/ed" , find spoke of the "shocking
condition of destitution and unemT)loyraent in the Birmingham area," (**)
V
(*)
(** )
9837
H.R.A. Files, B.C.S. 13, Minutes and E:diibits Coal Code Hearings,
Augus't 1933. ■ ,
See the presentation of Forney Johnson, Transcri-ot, Vol. Ill, p. 463
et seq. Passim, also the Letter attached to .the "executed counter-
part" of the Code from the officials of the Alabama Mining Institute,
-379w.-.' ,.
Near his conclusion, I-tr, Johnson asked "the national Recovei-y
Administration to boar in mind tlmt the coal mines cannot pay wages at all
in excess of the rates nro-oosed by the Codo and cannot continue to pay those
rates by selling less coal than was sold in 19r?2; that effective increase
of the competition from other fuels and hydro-pov;er is inevitable, and
that every fraction cf a cent forced upon the cost of Alabama Coal
accelerates the' substitution of the coraneting fuels, shortens the
Alabama coal radius and curtails its tonnage and its labor, "(*) The
proposed v;age rates even in the light of the accomp;inying discussion
setting forth corarietitive conditions seem painfully low. The minimum
hoTorly rate for inside wor]:ers was to be 30 cents per hour or $2,40
for an 8-hour da,y; for outside workers (other than slate and sulphur
pickers) the hourly rate was to be 25 cents, TTorkers who on June IG, 1933
were paid in excess of the lowest price class were to be given higher
rates "based on the existing average differentials over minimum" wages.
Thus the range of basic wages pro-oosed for ina.jor geographical
divisions d\iring the Code hearings ranged from $2,40 per da^y for inside
skilled labor in the South to $3,75- per day in the Southwest; $5,00 in
the Central Competitive Field rjid tho regions directly affiliated thereto,
and $5,25 to $5,30 in Rockjr Mountain and Pacific mining fields.
In the testimony of representatives of the Coal Trade Association
of Indiana there occurs instructive coranent on the wage differential
situation betvreen Illinois pxid. Indiana, In both States wage agreements
with the United >Iine Workers had been maintained i^ractically ever since
1898. But even during the continuance of the Central Competitive Field
negotiations each of the states- "liad locrl rates of pay and conditions of
contract tha,t differed from those in the other states". After such
negotiations 'ceased, contracts were continued in Indiana which were
"entirely independent of and without reference to contracts in other
districts". Since the current contract did not terminate until llarch 31,
1935, an attempt to standardize rates met certain difficulties. The basic
wage rate in the Indiana contract vas $4,57;^j per day, A new basic rate
of $4,00 was proposed. The basic rate generally suggested for the area
was $5.00 per day.
Illustrations will indicate the difficulties in appraising the effect
of divergent wage systems on potential eajrnings or labor costs of production,
i,e,, on wage differentials. In the Illinois scale tracklayers, bottom
cagers, drivers, trip riders, grippers, water hn.uJ.ers, machine hauiors-and
tinbermen were paid $5.00 per day; helpers had $4,75. In Indiana the
minimum rate of $4,57-j applied to helpers as well as higher skilled men.
It was a miniimiD, not a basic, wage. Despite the seeming difference of
42|- cents in the daily wage for these inside workers, the Indiana spokes-
man found the average hourly rate in Illinois to be 59 cents as compared to
57 cents in Indiana, Again the Indiana outside minimum da;"- rate was $4.20
applying to sulphur pickers as \rell as others; the general Illinois rate
was $4.50 but sulphur pickers had but $5,00, 1/Iachine workers had the
follo^7ing corap-arative V7ages:
(*) Transcript ut supra. Vol, III, pp, 495-6,
9837
-^380-
1
Illinois
Indiana
Cutting machine operator
$ 7,00
$ 6.75
and helper
Shearing machine operator
6.00
6.75
and helper
Drillers
5.75
5.15
Loading coal- on conveyors 5.70 6.75
•These rates are said to average 76 cents an ho-or in Illinois and
83 cents in Indiana. But obviously such averages have little meaning.
A proper weightini^ of such rates would require complete knov/ledgo of the
relat'ive importance of these operations in the ti.70 States and, indeed,
in each mine studied. T/liat machine mining meojit in the potential
earnings and in the actual cost of operation in each Sto,te would depend
on the relative advance of machine raining, the relative effectiveness
of the mechpjiical set up and the importance still attaching to pick
mining. No such anal;;sis was atterarpted. It may safelj'- "be asserted
that such a precise measurement is imoossible. (*)
The Code hearings developed also tv/o regions in vrhich a peculiar
triangular com;netitive relation had existed for some time besides a
considerahle numher of submarginal areas ^resenting )leas for wage
differentials "based on a variety of handicaps. In most cases, however,
there was evidence tha.t these areas were affected by the advance of
mechanization and were in drager of falling victims to a belated
manifestation of the Industrial Revolution. Quite regu].arly the
representatives of these mines placed emphasis on their abilit;^ to
furnish employment because of their reliance on hand methods. Thejr had
confidence that the II.R.A. wotild suroport their cause because of its
intent to better the direful conditions of unemplo.ynent v/hich had had a
large part in calling- that agency into being.
The older of the triangular competitive set ups was composed of
Western Kentucky nhose stern conflict with mines in the Central Competitive
Field brought crushing pressure on an outlying part of the Uestern ICentuckj'-
coal seams which by an accident of political map drawing vras included in
Indiana. 'This was the Warrick and Vtinderburgh Counties area. Closely
parallel was the competitive situation between Iowa ajid i.Iissouri and -a' "
coal field in Wajme and ■ Appanoose Counties of Iowa, \rhich on geological
and coal marketing considerations, was associated closely \7ith the Liissouri
coal field, . _
The situation in the West Kentucky/- triangle, at the time of the Code
earings, had developed in the course of the breakdoT,7n of the Jacksonville
Agreement. The West Kentucky wage agreement with the' United Iline Workers
lapsed in April, 1925. The basic inside day \7age rate in effect under the
contract had been $6.85, comparable to $7.50 in the Central Competitive
Field. After the Western Kentuclcy operators went non-union, they put into
effect a scale of $4.09 per day. This meant a wage differential under the
Indiana rate of $3.41 per day. With the putting into effect of a $6.10 da;r
(*) See the testimony- of Mr, Charles G. Hall, Transcript Vol. Ill, p. 600,
and of lir, Harvey Cart\7right, Ibid p. G23.
9837
-381-
rate in Indiana on November 1, 1928 after the strikes resulting from the
brealcdorm of thu Jacksonville Agreement, TTestern iventuck-'- is stated to have
reduced their wage scale tirogressively, A rate of $3.o0 was quoted as a
maximum v/hen the Code Hearings were in progresr.. (*) In Indiana, on
September 10, 1933 the inside skilled labor rate had been set at $4.57^-
per da;;A. Tliis statement is substantially in accord with the_ evidence of
Mr, C. F. Richardson, v/ho represented the TJestern Kentucky Coal Association.
He stated that "since 1924 the differences in wages as between Western '„
Kentucky and Illinois has exceeded $2,00 per dn;;/-" . Under questioning
he quoted the current wage for inside workers at $2.58 per da;;-; for outside ■
at $2.24. Both rates had been increased unier the stimulus of the
President's Reemplojniient Agreement - the outside rate from $2.11. (**)
i.Ir, Richardson's aTDOlogy for these wage rates v/as based primarily
on adverse freight differentials. Western Kentucl:;'- o^oerators were hammered
by restricted home markets. Whether they attempted to ship to the south,
west, north or east, they encountered competition from fields with lower
transportation costs. Kentucky- coal did not store well. Seams were
narrow, production largely by hand labor, and conditions generall;'-
unfavorable for mechanization. Favorable factors were stated to be that
practically all the employees v/ere native born Kentucki.ins, that safety
records were -unusually good and that the mines v/ere surrounded by small
farms allowing the workers to supplement mine earnings \ath farm work or
through the cultivation of gardens. Despite the low wa/ces and low labor
cost ^Dcr ton, Ivlr. Richardson declared that "during the last five years
Western Kentucky" had produced and sold coai at an actual loss". In 1929,
128 railroad mines were in operation; at the time of the hearings the
number had fallen to 60.
The effect of these wage reductions on the mines in Warrick and
Vanderburg Counties o.f Indiana was stated by Mr, William R. Bootz for the
Southern Indiana Coal Producers Association. Although geologically their
coal seams were an extension of the Western Kentucky?" measures, the Southern
Indiana operators had been included in the Central ComTjetitive Field wage
agreements by virtue of their geogra-Dhical situation. At the time of the
Code Hearing, the Association comprised 11 companies operating 11 hand
loading mines. Roof conditions were described as bad, requiring excessive
timbering, and destructive -competition was encountered from small wagon
mines paying wages of $1.50 per day and making delivery by trucks. Under
pressure of the Western Kentucky'- comrietition, most of the railroad mines
in Warrick and Vanderburg counties had been closed preceding 1926. At
that time, as stated by Itr. Bootz, an effort was made to secure a wage
adjustment from the officials of District No. 11 of the United Mine Workers.
This effort failed. "Then voluntarily," said he, "our employees solicited
these cora-oanies to negotiate. Each year since 1926 our employees, through
representatives of their 0',7n choosing, have mi\de wage contracts with our
conroaiiies." These contracts evidently provided severe reduction of wages
in order to enable the compcmies to operate. At the hearing the existing
wage scale was stated to be $1,50 per da;'' at some mines and $2.50 at others
where the men worked in excess of eight hours.
(*) See the testimony of Williaan R. Bootz, representing the Southern
Indiana Coal Producing Association, Transcri-ot, Vol, IV, p. 618.
(**) Transcript, Vol. Ill, p. 576 and p. 582,
9837
-382-
Basic ^B.f:'='. snal°s, directly for a livelihood and an equal
number indirectl'^. It is im-olicit in the discussion that hand loading
is the reg-ular i^ractice.
On the ba.sis of these handica'os it wp.s claimed that wage differ-
entials of 20 p'fer cent were required ojid that such p. Wage adjustment was
of long stajiding. Definite wage sca,les were stated in the code with a
maximum rate of $3,16 for an 8-hour day quoted for motormen; $3,00 for
gra.des of inside labor u'oon which basic rates are usually established;
outside labor at $2,75 per day and 40 cents T)er net ton for pick-mining, ■
D, '.'.'ith the -discussion of conditions in Somerset County, Penn-
sylvajiia, nay conveniently be -grouped a brief received from a group of op-
erators in- C'^'inbria sjid Johnstown Counties, The Somerset County Coal 0"oer-
ators Association was represented at the hearing by lir, J, S. 3rennen,
who stated that coal produced in the County was shipped "almost entirely
eastbound". It met keen competition from southern producers and ve.s in
gener?,l so friable as to be unsuited for screening and sizing, 'Jhen sold
a,s run of mine, it wp.s so small in average size a,s to necessitate its
sale in conpetion with screenings from competitive fields. The field was
developed under these handicaps ajnd a "labor differential of almost the •
9837
-38S-.
same e::tent has normally existed"* Even so the district" had "lost jiore
tha.-.i our share of tonnage in the distressed ;oeriod", (*) Txie "oresentation
concluded 'by "respectfully' requesting that (the County) "be given con-
tinued advantage of its geographical and cOLToetitive situation^ re-
cognizing our usual differential under Central Pennsylvania, and placed
on the srr.ie "basis as our Southern low volatile competitors - five cents
■oer hour nnr'.'^^r the Oent I'al Pennsylvania scale, tonnage r-tes in ^oro-
A group of ten operators in Cambria pnd Johnstown Counties pre-
sented a hrief distinctl;^ legal in -ohraseology. So far as its argument
is "oertinent here, it assailed the Code presented for the Central Penn-.
S3''lvajiia. district, alleging tha.t the wage sca-le pro-oosed represented a
severe discrimination against -oick mines where the coal wa.s hand loaded.
CoraToarisons of machine differentials effective in "..'estern Penns3^1vania
were declared to show a much raore favorahle wage situation for hand
operated mines. The attorneys contented themselves vath arguments to
prove "grossl;'- unfair and discriminating differentials", llo positive
statenent of proposed rates was given,
2. The "oroducers of hajid-mined bituminous coal in Hamilton,
Sequatchie, I.Iarion, Bledsoe and Piiea Counties in Tennessee and in "./alker
and Da-de Counties in Georgia "finding themselves at v-rimce with tne
proposed code of operators of la.rge mechanical mines situated in northern
Tennessee and in the States of Kentuclc;^ ajid Alabama^' presented their own
code and were represented in the he.^rings by Mr. H. J. leelzs, IJo fornaJ.
orgeaiization existed but the letter of transmitt.al was. signed liy ten
operators. They claimed for their -oroduct a relatively high fuel rr-.tio,
from 2 to 3-- as compared to L' to 2 on con-oetitive coa.l. Tho mines are
old, situated in a distriqt of sma.ll tor/ns with a permanently located
native born mining population. The thinness of the sea:ns and the small
size of the operation make it uneconomical to mechanize nor will the re-
sult warrant the investment, "Y^ith one e:cce-otion these mines had never
been unionized or connected with a n-^.tional labor organization and that
exception no longer had an active union," The o-oerators claimed that
these snail mines have operated "a full week of 5 or 5 days of 8 ho^xTs
each, except during the summer months for. the past three years". They
concluded:
"It is impossible for a hand opera.ted mine of 200 ton ca^oacity
a day to loay the identical wages that a mine as far distant as 150
miles with a capacity of from 500 to 5,000 tons per day. If such
a, code and such a blanket wage "orovision is enacted in this hea,ring
it will be but a continuation of the-alliance between the big
shipper and the railroads tha.t. hag -been existing in the past."
The reference, here was to the freight rate situation \7hich the3'-
claimed had set up a barrier placing their coal at a disadva.ntage in the
Chattanooga market.
The v;age scales oroposed are, small compared with those for other
areas. The;- must be judged with reference to the fact that these mines
are operated entirely by man and mule power. Aside from the oick miners
there is "no other skilled labor in the mine". The -oick mine rates vried
(*) Traaascript, p. 155.
9837
-587-
from 45 cents a ton in coal over 35 inches in thiclmess to 75 cents a
ton for coal -andcr 24 inches. Unskilled lator ooth within and outside
the nine ras to have a minirxajn ~rr\Qe of 25 cents an hour. Skilled labor
outside the nine "such as lilacksni bhs , en'^ineers, electricians, the "ore-
vailin;:^- scale for such rork as adopted in their orofession in the nearest
locpJLit^^", (*) Painfully lo'.7 as these na^es seem, it should he noted
that the;^ uere strted to he "30 to 50 "oer cent above the present scale".
7. The Code jointlj' submitted bj the Coal Producers Association
of Illinois and the Progressive Miners of America rras stated to be "in
~runda:.iental -principles exactly the same as the G-eneral Code, The iiajority
of the nenbers of the Association Y7ere hand loading mine operators. That
fact seemed to mark the reason for split tin;:^ from the Illinois Coal
Operators Association. The effective field of the new Association was
in Saline, Jackson, .j'illiamson and G-allatin Counties, but they -had
ambitions to develop state wide nembershi'o and wage agreements. In this
ambition they were actively supported by the Progressive I.Iiners Organi-
zation. In the four Cou:ities ns^med above, there e::isted a further
operators' organization com-oosed of small producers, kno\7n as the Off
Railroad Coa.1 i.iine Operators. Since these mines depended entirely on
trucks and wagons for transportation and did not have access to large
markets, they believed that they should have a wage differential of 20
per cent under that of the large- operators. They set their minimum
basic wage at 50 cents per ho-jir for inside men and "an equal proportionate
wa,ge for tonnage men".
The Coal Producers Association and the Progressive Miners suc-
ceeded to a contra,ct made with the United Mine Uorkers in August 1932.
This had a basic wage of $5,00 "oer day. A special adjustment, hov/ever,
was na.de b"- those organizations apr)licable in Saline County.. Here the
coal seams were relatively lovr, ranging from 4 feet 6 inches to 6 feet,
neighboring counties had coal from 6 to 12 feet in thickness. In Saline
County there was further difficulty because of the. presence of draw
slate from 1 to 18 inches in thiclniess, which cane down with the coal
and mp.de a. difficult problem in loading clean coal. Two companies in
the Countj'- had a mine each coinpletel-y nechajiized; other mines were -oa,rtly
mechanised. The contract entered into April 1st, 1933, stated that in
consideration of the removal of all mechanical loading devices from each
and all of said mines "the scale, salary and wages,. and all pajnuents for
wp.ges or services or earnings of the employees shall be ten -oer
cent less than that "orovided in the joint contract", (**) The result of
this a.djustment was said to ha.ve been both an increase in employment and
a rise in average daily earnings as compared to the result under
mechanized o-oeration.
(*) Testimony of Mr, K, J. TJeeks, Transcript Vol, I, p, 175, Letters
of tra,nsmittal and code, ilUA files, D.C.S.- 13,
(**) Transcript', Vol, III, Testimony of ',7. C. Kane, pp. 536 et seq.
Coal Producers' Association Code, p. 13,
9837
-388-
G. The St. Clair and liadison County, Illinois, Coal Ooen^tors'
Association acce-oted the Illiiiois Coal Producers' Association Code T/ith
certain raodif ications. Lieraoers of this Associ-i.tion for the nost ■o'-rt op-
erated truck Tiines trioutary to the City of St. Louis. Host rrere hand
o-oer^ted. It T7as stated that "the hand method of ninin^ reouires five
nen ':hile strin raines produce the spjne av.iount of ton;ia/:;e Tfithone nan vnd.
:nprh.-:5TTi zpd mines ^7it•h 2^'; men. Ilarhets '.rere distinctly local, "90 -oer cent
of the prodiiction "being sold r/ithin an a.rea of fifty miles". These op-
erators had not customarily dealt \7ith unions and desired such locpl ad-
rainistrtion as woiild alloT? continuance of local control ejid wage ryree—
raents. . (*)
H. ""'or convenience tvjo other subrnarginrJ areas in Illinois ma;'' he
grouped hare. The Vermilion Count]^ Small Coal Operators Association pre-
sented through their Code Committee a code hased on that resulting from
the Chicago meeting of ooerators. They as-oired to reriresent 115 mines
classed as "non-shroping mines" r/hose "business vas confined to local truck-
ing raid v/agon trade. It vrill "be noted ta-t their territory is that of the
Danville "basing "ooint under the. Interstate Joint Conference machinery.
These snail o;oerrtors "oro-oosed for adoption the minim-om rate of pay set
forth in the state contract hetv.'een the United liine './orkers of America
and the Illinois Coal Opert-tors Associrtion. This was to he conditioned,
u-pon "the estjjblished relative com-oetitive v;pge scales in the several- dis-
tricts of the country!' - a "oroviso in considera"ble need of clarification.
The case of the Prairie St'te Laning Comopjiy, locrted at Granville,
PutnaM County, Illinois, was presented "by ilr, "Jard Guthrie. (**) He
claimed for this com-oany a 20 ■•3er cent differential below the "mtes ore-
scrihed for me^chine operated mines in the central region". This v.'a.s oa.sed
on the difficulty encountered in oioerating "by hand methods in a 5 foot to
3 foot 6 inch vein of coal located "between tv.'o strip mines. He reenforced
his argument "by .reciting the ixnfortunate recent histor;'' of the mine which
was closed for the seven years from 1923 to 1930. The iiiine was the only
industr'y in Putnam County and. furnished emT5lo3rment to a nu.m"ber of men from
60 to 75 --ea-rs of age. A.scalo of wages was ouoted of $1,00 oer ton for
pick miners, $4„00 for an 8-hour day for ""bottom Irhorers" and $3.50 for
top lahorerso The conclusion of the "olea reads: "Denied this exception
as to wages J the only other alternative is the closing of this -pro'Toerty
with the result that over. half of the miners now em-oloyed -Jid receiving
living wages will "be left .destitute and "because of age, unahle to get vrark
in other r:ines or industries. "
I. The Littleton, Colorado, Coal 0-oer"tors Association com'oosed of
three small coal companies vras advised hy the "ilorthern Colorado Coal
Producers Association, within whose territory their operations were in-
cluded, "tha.t du.e to the difference in situa.tion, raining operations, the
coal vein and other causes", they should not join the genera.l association.
(*) Testimony of I'r, C. G. Stiehl, Transcript "/ol. Ill, p. 450,
(**) Transcript, Vol, III, p,.44S.et seq, ■' '■ '
9837
-389-
Accordingl"'-, they oresentecl their or:n code and -proposed the scale of
T7.?^es c\\rrentl3'" in effect for ??,doption.
This scale carried a tasic inside ^o.qq for day workers of $5.00;
$4,00 for tO"o men; 66 cents a ton for -oicJ^ninin.;;; 52 cents for rmchine
"loadin- and 35 cents for shovelers. The distinctl:^ sutmarginal position
of these mines is evident on comparison of these rates vrith those in the
northern Colorado Co?.l Producers Association rTage scale. T7hile the
basic inside '.'a,ge a;;;;rees a.t $5.00 "oer da3'', nost clr.ssif icrtions of top
da-/ la'bor drew $4,50 per da^'-; pick miners had 69 cents a ton; machine
loaders 55 cents rad shovelers 45 cents in the Louisville district; 35
in the Erie ?nd Trederick districts.
»
9337
-E90-
'cf;e DifferentiaJs in the Code as Ap-'jroved ; As. noted p.bove the
finaJ. for;'itilp„tio:i of the Code ■ma the; setting ixo o'^ iDrsic miniij-uiii da:"
rp.tes in "Schedule A" ^.Tr.ited u-oon the conclusion of the first Ap-
■oalachirji /^reeraent. The erctrene iressure for this '5ettle?aent led to
the a^do'otion of certa,in corroronises on vr:C-:e differentials v/hich it \7-'.s
later declared ■.-'ere never meant to he -oernanent. This ^7as nota'bl7 true
of the trixihlesQine ' orthern .est "'irginia differential. The a.rea cover-
ed 0" the A-3 J'-.lp,chian A<^'reeiaent included all the territor" of Division I
exce'ot estern ICentuclr- and ; Michigan. It arolied to districts producing
r,"0':)ro;ci'a-^tel-' 70 'oer cent of the tonnage of Dituninous coal. Adding to
this oasis the T~estern str-tes in irhich the"e ttp.s general agreenent that
existing high '-'^ge levels shov.ld he naint-ined; the three str.tes of Divi-
sion II, in 'Thich the union contra.cts furnished an acceata.'ble oasis for
■liniraua 't:. e stamdards; a:'id the South'Testern states, 'iiere the co;i-oeti-
tion of other sources of energ7 enforced the curre.it '"-■ges desoite their
lo'.' levels, ra-de the covera.ge ^-.'hetlier 'le-.sured 'h'- fields, tonaage or h"-
feasihle. Iside fro:i
.lere rein^ined onl;' so;'ae
eni'ologees so la.rge that iv-iviediate action Decarae
Division III \7hich furnished a ^m.ott",'" 'orooleri, tr
submargina.l a.rea.s a>,nd sorae districts intermediate het^'een major fields
in ■'..'hich mininruin ra-tes must he estahlished, J'or this '."'ork the districts
vfith determined -'a.-jes furn.ished uoi-its for co-narison ■•hich greatl;'
facilitated the '.'orl: of "".3.. A. off:^cials.
It v.'ill he heloful as a ooint of rle ^rt^vx-e to get in. nind the vrage
differentials included in the districts "'irst settled. The solid h^sis
for the A.p"^ala.chiaJi negotiation ■/-in found i;n the union contract areas
maintadned in Division II, ~ates in these three st-tes, ho^Tever, ^ere
not uniforn. (*) Illinois had a '^,00 inside da"/ rate njxd an outside
rate of $4,00. '..hile no other district had e:^:actl"'• the sarnie hasic ■vrages,
these rates, nevertheless, h.ave sone nretensions to oe reg-^rded as the
hasic '.Tages of the Code regii.ie. The technical staff of the jiturinous
Coal Section reoorted: "in our judgment (it is) hest to sug;est tiie
rates o'f (Illinois-Indiana.) as a ra^nge",, As noted in Cha^oter II it vs
to these levels that vteendment ''o, 1 .attenroted to r^ise the I'orthern
Apnalachi.-,n districts, a.nd it was from this o 'Sis that concessions to
the Southern A"ODa.l-^chian districts and to Divisions III and IV viere
■:ie~sured. The current r-^tes in the other st.-tes of Division II had
modified the --^'-,00 standard, 1:1 Io^7a, as st.-.ted .ahove this a,ffected
onl;'" the inside rate a.nd nas T"ith intent to ecualize ea.rning o-onortunities
of da:/ men and tonnr-.ge men. The i;iside da;-
(*) See Dchedrile A as aoioroved and Ta.hle I a"on)ended to this Charster
".■nich gives the coiio-rison hetveen hourl:/ r/age rates for Inside
Skilled Lahor nid Outside Co r..ion Lahor for each district vith
ever" other.
9837
-391-
$4,70 and countervailing increase mrde in the tonnage r-^.tes. In
Indiana the inside day yrr^e was $4,577^ or 42| cents "oer da.y 'below the
Illinois standard; outside d.s:f w-ges on the contrary were $4.20 per
day or 20 cents higher. The discussion at the Code hearing related
a'cove shows that Indiana, after the ■brea!cdo^7n of the Jacksonville Agree-
nent, hrd "oursued an inde-Dende.it cor.rse. Her rates "eve not directly
comT^arahle with those for Illinois since the occuoational coverage of
various ra,tes differed materially.
In the area covered "by the new ApToa^lachian AgresFient were com-ore-
hended three wage levels. ?3istrict A, including Penns'/lvania, Ohio and
the Panhandle district of "..'est Virginia o;' union agreement, end Michigan,
through the efforts of the IIBA officials, took $4.60 for inr:ide day
workers ?iid $3.60 for outside, l.iichigan fields et the time were idle
jiue to E strike. In this settlement the -ore-existing rates were reduced
from a $5,00 "basic level. Union s^ookesmen later declp.red that their
district was the only one in the United States in which the miners were
required to talce a wage reduction helow the r-tes of April 1, 1933. (*)
I'orthern '..est Virginia, District 3, had a three cent "oer hour, or 24
cents "oer day, wage differential helov/ District A. This was the wage
adjustment proposed in the Ap"oalachian Code, (**) The technicp.l staff
of the Bituminous Coal Code Section recommended that it "be tentatively
ador)ted for e. three months "oeriod. The same recomnen'^'.ation was m-'de for
the lTorth-Sou.th differential of 40 cents r day a^o-olied to "both inside
and outside workers. The "South" here is District C including Southern
'..'est ■'/irginia, Eastern Kentucky, Up-per Potomac, Maryland, Virginia and
northern Tennessee,
Division V whose xmion r^tes, as a. general sta.tement, were covered
in as Code rates, had a considera'ble ra.nge of V7?ges rising from the
$5.00 inside And $3,75 outside of northern Colorado to $5,63 inside
ajid $4.82 outside in nontana. Exce-otions to these high standards are
found in the district directly affected "by the com-oetition of the South-
western States. District K made up of New I-exico and Southern Colorado
agreed with Northern Colorado in outside rates "but had $4.48 and $4,44
resT^ectively for inside skilled la"bcr. The lignite districts of North
and South Dakota, also, had the exceptiona.llj'' low rates of $4,00 inside
and $3,20 outside. This was not a com-oetitive matter "but rather due to
(*) Transcript of Hearing, March 28, 1934, -o. 231,
(**) Protest of Northern "."est ■'"irginia Su"bdivision, Octo"ber 3, 1334,
■0, 3 et sen.
9837
-392-
the lo:/ heat value of the fuel mined in those states aid the highly '
seasonpd "oeriod of oi^eration.
Division lY rates of $3.75 and $3,23 Mere sirToly covered in to
Code r-^tes from the union agreenent without discussion and, judging from
1,-1 .^-r ar-vo^npments without much satisfaction to any interested grouiD*
At this time and later the extreme pressure of competing fuels con-
strained the adoption of this result, "It is reco£.'nized", said the
Technical Str-ff, "that in the states of this area special conditions
exist, rnd authority should Lie ^-iven for joint agreement between the
renresentatives-of the mine workers and the o-oerators on the question
of -Dro-oer differentials",
?ollowing the rdvice of the spne grou;o, the '<\FA renresentatives
took u-o the v;-rious suh-mrrginal areas as special cases. The greatest
difficulty v/as found iniea.ching a settlement for .'estern Kentucky and
for Alahama, After a series of conferences oetvreen re'oresentatives of
.."estern Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and lo'va during ^./hich bitter com-
plaints were voiced agai:-:st the "cut throat comrietition" of the './estern
Kentuclcy fields tased on a lov; wage cost, a con-oromise settlement was
reached at $4.00 inside a.nd $3.00 outside for that area. In Alabama
no agreement couid he arranged, S-okesmen for the oroducers called
attention to the fact that 50 -o-r cent of their oiitmit was sold on con-
— tracts with the railroads aaid that these contrr.cts had, no wage rate in-
crease release clan.ses. At . the highest the operators would not consent
to a wage above $3,20 for inside skilled labor and T.iA agents would not
accept a lower rate than $3,4^. The latter rate was finally prescribed
by the Adrainistrptor shortly before Schedule "A" was finally a^oaroved by
the President. The outside rate was set at $2,40, '::^hese rates applied
to District J including Alabama, ^roorgia and two counties of Southern
Tennessee, ?or the other seven counties of Southern Tennessee, District
J-1 was constituted. This area served as a buffer district and in that
ca-oacity had rates midway between District J and District C. Inside
rates ware set at -^-3,84; outside at $2.84,
It will, be noted that no com^o:rative adjustraenj; had been made for
"Jestern Kentucky's nearest com::etitor in Southern Indiana-, This r.rea
covered the Counties of .^rrick and 'rr.ndf?rburgh, liines in Southern
Iowa occuTDying a simiL-^r oosition bet'-'een ;:issouri with its f';3,75 b"sic
rate and Iowa with $4,70 were so:.iewhat more fortunate. As a result of
the re-oeated conference held in Se-oteraber between iriA officials and
representatives of operators ajid miners, the:/ vrere graaited ? 14 cent "lev
day differential below Iowa's r-tes. It will be remembered that at the
Code hearing this district hpd advanced claims to a ""LIO dif ifgrential
under the Iowa rpte. This claim they based onr-tes once recognized in
union contracts. I'evertheless a SDokesman for the district at the
hearing on Amendment !^o, 1 referred to the 14 cents as a "fairly decent
differential". (*)
(*) Hearing, Ilarch 23, d. 282.
9837
-393-
All the other claimants for sriecial consider-^tion who ap-oeared at
the Code hearing: C-eorges Creek, i.Iar;-'-land; Preston Coimty, ./est Virginia;
Somerset Coiinty, Pennsylvania; rnd the vr.rious Illinois groups shared
the f.-,te of 'jsrrick and VanderlDVLrgh Counties' a::id vrere refused con-
cessions under hasic Trage rates. However, it should he stated" here
that after the puhlic hearing they were given -o~tient consideration in
-orivate conferences, (*) Thus on Septeinher 21, 1933, p. conference '7as
held with Somerset County representatives at which they -orotested against
the rp.te of $4,&'^, IIHA officials stated that "orices might he raised to
offset the new wage rates. Thereafter the ODerators appealed direct to
President Roosevelt. He referred the m-^.tter ba.ck to :J3A officials who
decided that the r.-.te should stand. It should he noted that while
Preston County did not receive s'oecial concessions they shared in the
wage differential granted northern .est Virj-p-nia. Three couiities of
".estern Pennsj'^lvania - Mercer, Beaver and Lawrence, -out in a i^lea for
a 40 cent differential in day wages. Their re'oresentatives argued that
sufh a differential had "been customary and that their tonnage rates were
high due to operating in thin veins. They 'jere refused on the ground
that this claim was similar to those of Somerset and Preston Counties
previously denied and because it was "necessary to have a consistent
policj'"".
Conferences regarding the wage rrte adjustment between Division IV
and V were particularly interesting because of the light thrown on the
far reaching effect of wage differentials. It was agreed that the low
wage rates in '.estern Kentucky and resultant comoetitive prices had
forced wage reductions in the Southwest nnd these had reacted, in turn,
on Southern Colora-do and New Hexico, There was further the question
of the relationshiij of wage r~tes in northern Colorado. Southwestern
operators stood firmly for the current rates because of the pressure of
the substitute fuel-oil and gas. Since these \7ages were written into
contrcacts, their -oosition was a strong one. Under these conditions i-lRA.
officials decided that contract rates would have to stand. Southern
Colorado-Hew i.iexico rates were p.ccordingly .-.djusted between those of
other Districts "in Division V and the exce"otional wage rates of the
Southwest,
Two other features of the Code WR.ge structure deserve mention here.
The thorn"- questions of tonnage rates and their adjustment to day wa.ge
rp.tes were not settled beyond the Code -orovision that "other classi-
fications of em"olo^,Tnent will maintain their customary differentials
above or below said basic mini'-iruun rrtes and that -ofyments for v.fork per-
formed on a tonnage or other piece work basis will maintain their
customary rels,tionship to the oajments on a time basis ^rovided in said
(*) llemos. of Conferences in II, R, A, files.
9837
-594-
tasic ninim-un rn.tes". Again the entire \ir^e settlement rras of a teim^orary
nature. The Code -orovided for a conference on January 5, 1934 "for the
purpose of determining Y/hat, if any, revisions ::iay be desirable at that
time of the wrges, hours and differentials". Even though not revised as
a result of this conference, the hour:; of work, miniinum r.-tes of "oay ajid
T7age differentials were to continue in effect only to Aoril 1, 1934,
This defining of a three to six months 'oeriod for the wa,ge settlements
w?s an essential loart of the strategy a.dopted to secure compromise
settlements. It ws.s expected that cost and v/a.^e re'oorts collected a:id
compiled by iT,R,A. would furnish a sound basis for later conferences.
Interested groups, both of miners and operators, had well laid :olans to
modify the wage and hour situation,
A quotation from the re-oort of the teckoical staff will be en-
lightening at this Tooint:
"y/hen it comes to the "oroblem of settling ciifferentials
for the south, the staff franlcly admits that the data essential
for forraula„ting reliable o-oinion are not available. The Adminis-
trator should be informed that .although the Illinois General
Code recommended a 5 "oer cent differential between the North
and South areas and the "Jorth and Sou.th Code recommended 5 cents
per hour between the Ohio and Pennsylvfuiian fields on the one
hand, and the Smokeless Ap'oalachian Fields on the other, pnd
3. cents an hoiir between i.'orthern Uest Virginia and Ohio — Pennsylva-
nia, neither of the proponents of these Codes submitted sub-
stantiating data of a character which would hel'o the Adminis-
tration in arriving at an informed judgxaent. Any discxission
of the "Jorth-South differentials must take cognizance of the
fact that as the result of a conbinrtion of freight and wage
differentials plus such factors ps better cuality of coal,
shifts in mp.rket nreferences, differences in natural conditioi.s
of mining such as height of seams, roof conditions, timber re-
quirements and differences in overhead costs such as taxes,
depletion and insurance, large coal fields have been developed,
railroads have been built and extended, l^rge industries have
been located at -joints with a convenient source of su'oply
available from several districts and whole cominunities have ''oeen
brought into existence. Any change of differentials is, there-
fore, a life and death matter to the o'oerators and miners and
communities in the fields of both the north and south." (*)
Between the effective date ox the Code and that of its first amend-
ment, two noteworthy modif icr.tions of the wage differentials situation
were mp.de. The first of these ap-olied to the 'Jprrick - Vanderburgh -prob-
lem; the second to certain hand operated mines in Saline Coimty, Illinois,
Special interest attaches to these adjustments. In each case Division
II 's Bituminous Coal Labor Board intervened but the policy pursued in
the two Codes was diametrically opposed. As mentioned above, the a'o-
proved Code in Schedule A made no mention of '■arrick and Vanderburgh
Counties, In consequence mines situated there came automr tically "under
the Indiana rates of $4,57-2- and $4,2^. However, the Southern Coal
Operators Association had a temnorary contract at lower rates with the
(*) Letter from Technical Staff of Code Section to James H, Pierce,
August 17, 1933.
9837
-395-
United Hine './orkers which exoired December 17th, IS'34, The Coal Trade
Association of Indiajia was consistently in favor of the differential
prOT30sed at the time of the Code Hearing for those two southern counties.
Immediatelj'- on the puolicp.tion of Schedule A, the managing director of
that Association wired the Recover;^ Administration strongly sup-oorting
the wage pdjustment and pledging the suTDport of this Association to a
committee which was to interview these officials the next day. (*)
."The Administrator of the Coal Code referred the matter to the
Divisional Lator Boprd and the case came up for hearing Decemher 7, 1933,
The Board ruled unanimously in favor of the contentions of the ','arrick
and Vanderburgh operators. They found thr»t the mining conditions of these
counties rjid of ■..'estern Xentuclcj'- were practically identical; that freight
differentials ran against Southern Indiana to the extent of from 10 to
26 cents on shipment to Indianapolis and from 25 to 40 cents to the
Chica,go m?rket; pjid that the Torincipal reliance had "been, and must con-^
tinue to "be, on markets to the northward. It is noteworthy that the
B0B.rd reported that "hand loading was universally prevalent". There is
further significance for its "bearing on the difficulties inherent in
a.ssessing actual wage differentials from day wage rates in the following
quotation from the Board's decision:
■ "The wage rate fixed in the Code for 'j'estern Kentucky, just
across the river from the Indiana counties, is $4.00 for inside
la"bor and $5.00 for outside l""bor. There is a further differ-
ential in fa,vor of './estern Kentucky v/hich does not ap'oear in
the schedule of rates in the Code. The minimum inside day wage
rate as a'opiied to west Kentuckj^ as against the $4.57^ rate for
Indiana creates a^ differential' in the lahor cost in favor of west
Kentucky'' as against southern Indiana, "by virtue of Article 4 of
the Code under I.'iinimum Rates of Pay, which reads: 'The •'basic
minimum ra.te for inside skilled la.hor and the "basic minimum rate
for outside common la'bor shall be the ra.te hereinafter set forth
in Schedule A for each district therein described for each such
classification of labor with the understanding that other classi-
fications of emiDloyment will ma,intain their customary differ-
entials above or below said minimum rates . . .' The basic mini-
mom rates set out for Indiajia as $4,57^ a.ctually represents the
minimum for inside day labor, while in '/est Kentuclcy, because of
their customary differentials, the $4.00 inside day wage rate does
not apply to all of the em-oloyees, their c^^stomary differentials
being below the minimum set forth in Schedule A, namel;'', $3,75,
and since the -rate set forth in Schedule A for top labor provides
for the TDayment of $4.20 in Indiana as against $3.00 in 'Jest
Kentucky, represents a 40 per cent differential in outside labor
. in favor of ".'est Kentucky, "
(*) Decision Divisional Board ITo, II, December 18, p, 5,
9837
-396-
Altlicagh the Board was fully in sympathy witii the request of the
Southern Indiana operators it declared that "a ciiant;e in the rate can be
made only oy an Executive Order of the President amending the Code," Ac-
cordingly the decision rendered December 18, 1933 went no further than to
recommend "that action be taken at once by the Administrator to assure tlie .
operators of Taaderburgh and 'Jarrick Counties that the differential sug-
gested be granted and that it will be retroactive to the 17th of December,
1933"'. This assurance would allow continuous operation of the mines under
the terms of the temporary joint„.wage agreement. Such an order was issued
by Administrator Johnson under date of December 22, 1933. It set minim-ojn
inside day rates of $4.20 per day; outside of $3.60 per day. This con-
cession did not affect day rates in strip mines which continued on the
Indiana basic rates. This meant the creation of a nev/ type of differential -
deep vs. strip mines - and furnished a precedent followed later in Division IV
by Amendment No. 3. . The nevdy created rates were to be in effect only "pend-
ing completion of investigations nov;. in process oy ll.'R.A, as to wages, hours
and working conditions in the bituminous coal industry". (*)
The second modification of Code wage rates grew oat of the case of
mines in Sahara County, Illinois. This .again wa.s a reopening of an appeal,
not granted when the Code was forimilated and Schedule "A" promulgated. It
should be remembered that it was hea.rd before the same Board which decided
the Warrick - Vanderburgh cafje. The mines interested had a contract ef-
fective preceding the Code aaid not terminating until April 1, 1935., Tliis
agreement granted to the operators a wage concession of 10 peir cent, re-
ducing the basic day wage from ,p5.00 1;o $4.50 in return for a promise to
operate' their mines. entirely by hand labor. It was agreed that these pro-
visions xiad resulted in exteniiing the markets with a consequent extension
of operating time. The miners t^iere had greatery monthly earnings despite
the lower wage scale. ' . ,
No' action was taken to validate tjiis contract before the Code was
approved. On October 10, 1933, the operators filed a petition aslcing for
an exception from Code rates to t'ae extent t-ia.t the terms of their con-
tract differed from those of the State of Illinois. This petition was
automatically referred 'to -tae Coal Labor Board. It came up for aearing
December 29, 1933. Prior to fiiat date. General Counsel HiC-iberg in re-
sponse to a questi'on from the Chairman of the Labor Board, transmitted,
through the Presidential Member of Division II Code Authority, had ruled
on the question T/Tdiether Code rates superseded these' incorporated in a
valid cdntract.' His positive statement, dated December 21, 1933, read:
■ "The Bituminous Coal Code is binding on tlie
employees in the industry and a contract to pay ^
$4.50 a day furnishes no excuse to' .an employer
(*) quoted in Hearing,. March 31, 1934 p. 433-4
■)8Z7
-397^
for not paying $5.00 a day. As a matter of law,
individuals ty contracting cannot prevent the
exercise of governmental authority as, for ex-
ample, in the regulation of interstate commerce,
so that in the case of conflict the regulations
of the Coal Code necessarily control." (*)
Notwithstanding tl\is positive ruling and in contravention of their own
decision of less than a month earlier, the Board on January 13th, 1934,
unanimously "concluded that the contracts should be upheld and by virture
of its authority so ordered for a preliminary period of six months".
Under these conditions it was not surprising that the Board was at
pains to support its decision. "This contract", reads the decision, "is
not oppressive. It is deemed on all sides to be a good contract." * *
"The compensation is above that which is fixed as the minimum of decency
and comfort. Moreover it is a matter of common Icnowledge that more days
of work in a year are provided under this contract than would be if the
$5.00 rate were exacted." After quoting legal precedents as to the san-
ctity of legal contracts, the Board fo\and that from the standpoint of fair
competition conditions required by the Bituminous Coal Code, the 10 per
cent differential was justified. "Tlie thickness of the vein of coal",
said they, "and the draw slate condition of these mines deprive the oper-
ators of any advantage, even with the wage reduction, over the mines of
neighboring counties". The United Mine Workers not content with this con-
cession to their rivals, the Progressive Miners, appealed the case to the
National Bituminous Coal Labor Board, Before this Board reached consid-
eration of the matter, however, the United Mine Workers withdrew their
appeal and tlie case was dismissed as closed.
The stoiy of Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been told above. At
this point nothing further will be attempted than to state the net effect
on the wage differential situation of these modifications. Tlie succes-
sive changes in wage rates may be followed in Table II appended. Div-
ision II was the greatest gainer. Its own day rates were unchanged
aside from a minor change in Wayne and Appanoose which eliminated the
14 cent day wage differential for outside day workers. On the other hand
the day rates of its nearest competitors in Division I were increased
40 cents per day. Western Kentucky was to be increased 60 cents per day
on inside skilled labor and 75 cents on outside comn:ion labor while
Northern West Virginia had increases of 64 cents in both classes of la-
bor. Thus Districts A and B after the Amendments had day rates eoiial
to those of Illinois and in tie case of inside day labor appreciably
above those of Indiana and Iowa. Indiana' s outside rate was 20 cents
higher while Iowa's was the saine.
(*) letters in N.3.A. files.
9837
-398-
In Division V day wages ,vy ere chantjed in :nly a few districts. In
llortliern Colorado tiie inside day rates were raised 25 cents to :)5.25 and
outside rates 50 cents to $4.25. H.is was of nominal importance since
for the most lart this meant nothing more than writintj into the Code the
rates actually paid. Changes in Southern Colorado and New Mexico v/ere
of greater importance. The increase itself v/as of significant C'jnount,
from ;p4.44 and $4.48 inside to .pS.OO and from .)7,.75 outside to $4.10. . ':
It will "be n^ted that these raises are materially hig'aer than tliose no-
minally given to the competing district to the north. In most cases the
increases were a net reduction of the effective wage cost differential
since Northern Colorado mines had previously paid these new Code minima.
In the matter of the Southwest competition tiie net result of the Amend-
ments was to further handicap Southern Colorado and New Mexico. In the
original Schedule A these States had a 73 cent inside vrage differential
above states in the Southwest and 47 cents in outside laoor. After Amend-
ment No. 3 became effective the differentials between deep mine rates
were $1.10 and 57 cents; in strip mines 75 and 35 cents. The net result
so far as day wage rates were concerned was an increase in the relative
v;age cost burden imposed on Southern Colorado and New liexic. For the
balance of Division V the relative wage situati n was unchanged. The
50 cent increase in botjx inside and outside day labor in the Dakota,s had
little practical significance since tiere was little compliance witli Code
rates. (*)
In the final outcome the day wage differentials between Southern
Tennessee and Southern Appalachian field remained unchanged at 36 cents
per day. Alabama and Georgia had 80 cents below Southern Appalachian
the same differential written into the original Code. Tlie Southwest gained
at the expense of Alabama since the regionsd differentials in favor of
Alabama had been 35 cents on inside rates and 88 cents on outside rates.
The new adjustment allowed only 20 and 73 cents on deep mined coal The
wage differentials between Illinois and the Southwest had been considerably
narrowed, Tne interdistrict hourly v;age rate situation is presented in de-
tail in Table III
The effect of piece rate changes remains obscure. A flat general
advance was provided in Amendment No. 1 of 10 cents per'.ton for pick min-
ing, 8 cents for machine mining, 1 cent for cutting -nd 9 per cent on yard-
age and deadvrork. This of itself disturbL;d the existing wage adjustment
since it applied indifferently to districts in which day rates had been
advanced and to those in which the original Code day wages were maintained.
The states in Division II and most districts in Division V should show an
increase in tonnage costs as compared to day wage costs. Tliis is on the
assumption that tonnage produced did not decrease in proportion to the
one-eig.hth cut in hours of operation to which the unchanged day rates ap-
plied. In any case, there can be no doubt that districts in which both
day rates and tonnage rates were increased would show increased labor costs
of production by comparison with interests in which but one category of
wage rates was increased.
(*) Transcript of "earing before Division V Labor Board, June 8, 9 and
11, 1934, Bismarck, North Dakota.
9837
-399-
An.itlier coraplication entered at this sta^e of Cod'3 wage history
to ftirtier confuse the prDDlera of correctly comparing the interdis-
trict \ia.QB differential situation. The general tonnage rate in-
crer.se has just been stated. There was a further clause, applying
to District B, Northern \7est Virtb'inia; District G, the Southwest;
Distr:.ct IT, Western Kentucky; and Districts J and J-1 , which made
up Division III. TIais called for an additional increase in piece-
work rates "by an aiBount sufficient to maintain the parity" be-
tween the new day rates and these tonnage rates. In tae outco.ne,
as noted ab:ve, '.Vestern Kentucky successfully evaded all changes
in piece rates, and submitted to only so uiuch increase in day rates
as res'olted from applying the old day rates to the shortened hours.
Northern 'Jest Virginia compo'onded the renuirements by granting an
additional increase of 2-^ cents in loading rates and V cent in cut-
ting rates. Pick-mining rates and yardage and deadwork got no more
than the 10 cents and 9 percent called for in Ainendment 1. Consid-
eration of the fact that day rates in this district has been jumped
64 cents a day or over 14 percent will indicjite that tiis v/as by no
means a. countervailing advance sufficient to taaintain 'the old
parit.y with day rates. Spokesmen for Northern V/est Virginia main-
tained taat the rates as adjusted made the earnings of their ton-
nage workers equivalent to those of similar Workers irt competing
districts. (*) In the Southwest in the final adjustment of day
rates, which it will be remembered ga.ve much less of an increase
to dee;:) miners than the normal 40 cent? per day,.- a concession was
made below the standard increases in tonnage rates. The pickmining
increase v/as but 8 cents per ton; the combined machine cutting and
loading rate increase was 7 cents and the yardage and deadwork ad-
vance v/r.9 the starldard 9 percent. (**)
Sttidy of union wage contract rates foimd in agreements by the
Bit^■':,•nino^ls Coal Code Section in Hes^arch and •Piannm^ reveals tliat
in several other cases the advances called for by t'leCode were not,
in fa.ct, received. Fields in the Smokeless region generally re-
ceived but 9 cents increase in the pickmining rate, as shown by
the fol!^ owing insert:
(*) • ?i-:.te3t and- Brief ut supra, pp. 66 et seq,
(**) See Chapter II. .
9837
_4nn„
LOADIlT'l ,.iFT3?.
?IGXUi;iING
.jICjiOE
0(
:t. 3
Apr. 1
Inc.
Oct. 2
Apr, 1 Inc.
1933
1934
Gents
1933
1934 Cents
New Eiver
.517
.607
f.09
Winding C-alf
.434
. 544
4-. 09
Greenbrier
.447
.537
+ .09
Pocalionta? J.
rug
.357
.437
+ .03
Siver
Kaxiawlia.
.492
.582
+ .09
Logan
.384
.474
+ .09
lillirrascn
.414
. 504
+ .09
Big Sfjid:/ (Un
der
48 inc'.ies)
.545
.635
+ .09
Hazard
.482
.572
+ .09
'■^arlc'Ji (56 to
44
.480
. 570
+ .09
Inc.es)
Sou. Arxlca-
ian
.530
.610
i.08
(G6 tc ■'-2
inc. L
.es)
Iowa, "Tiv/ne and ■ : ' - ■
Ap?anoo'3e a/ 1.300 1.410' -i-.llO ' .32 ,91 +.09
Arkansas
Oklaicr.ia
Mo. - 3a-/ .;. Clay
Kan s. -Crawford c,
C.erokee and
Barton Gc . , '.\o
.72
.30
+ .03
.53
.64^
+ .06
.72
.80
■ +.03
.53
.64*
+ .06-
1.21
1.29
+ .08
.72 3/3
.78 3/5
+ .06
.30
.88
+ .08
.55
.61
+ .06
3,/ Screened I'oi-np or hand picked oasi;
Tiie important areas of Pocahontas, Tug River and Soutnern Appalacnian
were given hut 8 cents. Tliese adjustments seem to have been made by
private negotiation and entirely without reference to K.R.A. authority.
Beyond the statement that they v/ere granted in return for concessions
on yardage and deadwork payments, these adjustments have not been
explained.
It remains to discuss three wage differential controversies which
persistently demanded the attention of K.R.A. officials, Cae first of
9837
-401-
these crcse "between Divisions IV txnd V. T-^e coinplamt of Divisijn Y
was base:-, on a provision in AinencLuen t iJo* 3 wliic.i read:
"In view of tie differentials accorde-l the Scutli-
west t. ere s:\all be no snles by operators of
said District into the normal consioming markets
of cJicther District which is subject to hi^jher
rates of pay at any price for coal of comparable
^rr.de and quality, less than tiie price for such
coal in said market charged by such other Dis-
trict, ajid there sliall be no destructive inva-
sion of such other consuming; markets, and, in
tie absence cf satisfactory agreejiients govern-
ing the matter, the determination of the Ad-
ministrator on complaint of any such destructive
invasion shall be conclusive."
Division V made formal complaint alleging that Nebraska, Kansas,
Sout-i Dal-ota and Northern Texas were normal consuming markets of
Jnoming, Colorado and New Liexico coals; that Southwestern coals were
as ij'ocd as the best western coals and mucn better tnan tne average cf
those crals; and citing production data and the recordi of railway shi;o
ments t: pi-cve tliat the operators of Division V had soJTx'ered .from the
co.iipetit-_:n cf Division IV. Conferences were held at I^rnsas City in
June, 19-14; at Colorado Springs on August 13 and 14th; rnd a formal
hsarin^ asse.'.oled at Cnicago on September 10, 1954. At that time the
case cf Division V was fully pr-esent«d. Spokesmen for that section
manifested a desire to arrajige a compromise. Division IV, on the
contrary, brcu^^ht forward scant statistical or other d;-.ta while en-
largin,^- en their difficulties due to courpeting fuels. Tiiey acknow-
ledged that their prices had been reduced but declined to discuss
division of competitive territory or adjustment of prices. Tne onl^
suggestiin t'.iey proffered v;as taat Division V s vrage standards and
prices might be reduced to compare wit-i t^iose in Division IV.
Tne r-.ling of Division Admini strati 3n iHlis, dated October 3rd,
sustained the contention of Division V, and ordered Division TV to
desist from invading tLie nonnal markets of the complaining states.
Little compliance was given to the order. On Idarch 13, 1935 the
Chairmeji of Division V complained to N.R.A. that Division IV "had
made no a.ttempt to co:iiply". Letters originating in Division IV of
someAvhat later date state that the Cpde Authority of Division IV had
"successfully ignored" the order to date. At that time the Code
Authority v/r.s engaged in collecting opinions to the effect that ob-
servance of the order would severely damage operators in their dis-
trict. (*)
T-ie second controversy was the Northern Test Virginia case dis-
cussed at sc:.:e lengtn above, where it nas been carried through the
Code Paid Code amendiiient stages. The coixipromises, then made, so far
as Northern "est Virginia was concerned were accepted only as tempo-
(*) Trciii-cript of learing anl correspondence, N.R.A. files.
837
-402"..
Tavj ejTTiedients. They were sacrifices niR,de necessary "oy the desire tc
retain the benefits of Code control-,' Taere is abuxidant evidence to
demon str-ate that the rates were sincerely felt to bear inequitably on
the district. Tneir acceptance, pending study of add.itional data, v/as
a lesser evil than a return to unrestricted competition.
de ela.ocrate printed Protest and Brief, a document of about
ICO pages Y/ith supporting statistical tables, charts and maps, suimned
up tie pcsiti:n of operators in I^Torthern West Virginia. It was
jointly submitted by the liortnern West Virginia. Subdivisional Coal
Association and the Subdivisional Code Authority, under date of
October 3, 1S34. In brief 'suj-ninary, the argmnent contended that the
origin-L.l Code minima had fairly extended a wage adjustment of long
standing. The doctrine of vested interests was given effective
statement. "T.ie operators", reads the brief, "have acted on the
faith of the correctness of those wage differentials in their busi-
ness relation, in acquiring, and developing their properties and in
making tieir contracts." It was alleged that the aj'nended rates had
seriously disturbed tlie parity of pay for tcnncage and piece workers,
had increased the costs of production for IJorthern lest Virginia by
a greater percent than had been tru.e for competing districts, and
had caused their district a loss in tonnage .produced without suffi-
cient "spre.d" between costs and realization to perait price reduc-
tions.
A showing was made that ixTorthern leijt Virginia due tc the fact
that but '". percent of prciuction was consumed in t'le district, was
under necessity of anippin.g coal unusuall.y long distances and was at
a serious disadva,nta.ge because of discrimin.atin-g freigat rates. Tliis
iiandicc.p had been, and should continue to be, balanced by a lov/er pro-
duction cost. Coal seaams in the district were tiiick. The coal Wo.s
clean, roof and drainage conditions good, and draw slate infrequently
encountered. (*) hence the lower tonnage jrates per ton gave equiva-
lent or greater earning opportimity to the miners than txie l;.ivi^ier per
ton rates in c ther: fields. So.ae of these in j-iio and .Yestern
Penns^^lvajiia required the handlin.., by tae miners of up to 12 inc.ies
of dnaw' slate without extra compensation. (**) Cie protestants
appealed to the records botl-i of i\T.H.A. and of t;;e Bureau of Mines to
prove that "OJider Code wages, this district lad net ex.x-inded produc-
tion to the detriment of co.apeting areas. In cldsing, the brief
states:
"Even handed justice demands that no alteration
of w.o.ge differentials of long standing in any
mining district Sj.:ould be made without justifi-
able data therefor assembled by an impartial
tribunal covering a sufficient period of time
(*) See Tivnscript of hearing, April 10, 1934, Textimony of
hr. J. LToble Snider, p. 308.
(**) See 3rief , Section IX, pp. 70 et seq.
9837
f
-403-
tc be dependable," (*)
Si^c'..! an iiioartial tribunal was invoked to settle t.iis and the
third le,?.din^ wage differential case - that concernin,:: the Smoke-
less field. Tais controveray was coterminous with Code his.tory.
It took definite siiape in the conferences which preceded Code
formalaticn. Smokless operators were clear in their recollection
that both General Jo-inson and John L. Leris had proraise'l that the
wage rr.tes for tlieir district written into "Schedule A" should be
continvied only as long as was necessary to shovir the relative wage
costs i:.rp:sed by Code rates on them and on their northern competi-
tors. T'-is co'iiiiiitment was acknowledged by lles'5rs. Johnson and
Lewis. (**) But it was further str-ted t.iat tue promised adjust-
ment v/r.s conditioned upon "proved injustice". Da':a for such proof
A' connected story canape pieced together from t'lc opposing
argusTients. Difficulties, were enco\.uitered at the first Appalachian
joint v/a_;^e conference in reaching agreement on the relative tonnage
rates for loaders of Central and 'Jestern Pennsylvania and of the
Smokeless field. Appeal was made to General Johnson s,s arbiter. It
was claiiued f:r tJae northern fields that loaders averaged 10 tons
per day ,^s compared to 11 tons in tne south. On thic bas^s and con-
sidering the new loading rate for the Korth to represent an increase
of 10 cents per ton, General Johnson prescribed a 9.3 cents incraase
for txie Smokeless field. Hepresentativas of t^iat district disagreed
both \7it',- t-:e statement of average tons lo5.ded in the North -and with
the statement that the new loading rate amounted to a 10 cents f)er
ton increase. They accepted the nev'/ rate under protest as a tempor-
ary settlement. It was tc hold only until data wa,s a,vailable for
an exact statistical determination.
\T.^en under Amendment No. 1 it was proposed to apply a further
increase of G cents per ton to the loading rate in North and Scuth
alike, the Southern spokesmen voiced an indignant .protest. They pre-
sented evidence to sl:iow that the average loading rate per man per
day in Northern fields was 7 tons instead of 10 as claimed when the
first Appalachian Agreement "was signed. Ihe Smokeless field had an
average loading rate per man per day of 11 tons. Thus the northern
miner loading coal earned $4.29 in Central Pennsylvania; $4.42 in
Western Pennsylvajiia; and but $4.00 in Ohio. In all these Subdivi-
sions, earnings of loaders should have equalled ^'A.60 per day to ir.ain.tain
the desired parity with inside day men's wages. In the Smokeless area,
on the contre.ry, earnings of loaders had been $4.74 although the re-
quirement cf parity with day wages called for but $4.20.(***)
(*) See Secticn XII.
(**) Letter in Transcript of ^"earing, April 9, 1934-, p. 249.
(***) Brief cf W. A. Phchards for Code Authority of Southern Sub-
division 7, presented ADril 9, 1934, p. 3, N.3.A. files.
9337
-404-
This fsAl'dve to iiiaintain eoaity "between the Subdivisions and parity
between day and tonna,2e earning:, tlie southern spokesman argued \7ould
be emphasized by the flat incre.ise of 8 cents per ton proposed by
Amendment No. 1. This 8 cents applied to the Northern loader's
average day' s output of 7 tons made 56 cents increase per day. .Since
the loaders in the Smokeless fields' output was 11 tons, it meant a
gain to hin of 38 cents per day. Thus the loaders differential in
the tv/o areas would be increased by 32 cents a day. Since the inside,
day man's wa^^e in the Smokeless field had been increased but 40
cents, t-iis R8 cent increase in the loader's daily earnings would
further extend the failure of the Code to attain pa,rity betv/een in-
side day \'ie.Qes and loader's tonnage earnings. ''*) T'ie earnings and
employ-.ient data, of II. R. A. support this presentation. T.sre is less
support for the biting conclusion of the brief o^uoted which reads:
"■/7e cr^i only conclude that the Amendment was drawn as it was to se-
cure th.e :riva,te advantage of certain of the district? which parti-
cipated in dre.wing it."
T-^e explanation quoted for tuis disparity in daily tonnage loaded
and in conse-^uent earnings was t-.e difference in the organization of
inside labor in tue tv/o fields. 1-I.il.A. reports taicen for tne November
1 to 15th payroll period in 1934 s-^owed t..'.e foil. wing situation as to
the relative percentaj^es of. day and tonnage men in tie districts con-
cerned:
Tonnage I;Ien
Day Men
Per Cent
Percent
70.3
29.7
74.5
25.5
74.1
25.9
67.2.
32.5
56.2
43.8
Western Pennsylvania
Central Pennsylvania
Gaio
Northern "lest Virginia
Southern '^Aib division No. 1
(Smokeless)
Southern Subdivision No. 2 61.3 38.7
■Eiese data show that the. contention of the spokesmen of the
Smokeless field were.vvell based albeit /in the open hearing somewhat
exaggerated. The 43.8 percent of day men in their field much exceeded
that of any of the Northern fields and was approac.ied only by the other
soutiern field. Under t'lis organization, it was t.ie contention of the
Smokeless representatives that lower tonnage rates for loaders were
fully justified by. the lesser demands made on tlie miners. Day men
timbered t, .eir working places, cleaned up falls, laid track, placed
empty cars at t le fact of their rooms and removed tie cars when loaded.
In addition los.ders virer3 paid additional compensation for handling
draw slate. In some of the Northern fields draw slate up to 12 inches
in thickness was handled by loaders without additional compensation.
(*) Brief ut supra, p. 4.
9837
-405-
Tliess claims liad support, at tl^e tirae; fi'om tae Director of N.R.A.
Besearc:i and Planning in the followm,'; terras i
"T-ie S'.iokeless operators' petition for est.^.blish-
nient cf parity bet'-veen earnint;s of tonnaa;e men
i'jid day men raises t_-e same issues as tlwse in
t". e I'crtliorn V/fL!t Virginia Case.
"Tl^e Smokeless operator's reports to tlie N.R.A.
indicate an -unusual differential of the earn-
in^^s of piece workers aoove t-ie earnings of day
aen. Tliis spread will be furt.ier widened, per-
haps in absolute amount a:id certainly relative
to tl;e spread in other fields, by t^e general
flat increases m tonnage rates . specif iel in
th.e JUiiendment.
"On the basis of parity between earnings of ton-
najye men and day men, or en the basis of main-'
tcT^ance of approximately the same sjjreads be-
tv7een such earnings in the various fields, the
Smokeless operators can support their claim
for an adjustment in tonnage ratgs. The Amend-
;"-:ents places them at a disadvantage relative to
Eastern Pennsylvania because it involves tne
saiTie increases in piece work costs per ton but
la.rger increases in day labor costs per ton
thazi in Eastern Pennsylvania. This is due to
the relatively larger nunber of day men and to
t-:e specialization of the leaders' duties in
the Smokeless field. "(*)
Despite this weighty support and the earnest and capablr, pre-
sentation made in behalf of the contention of the Smokeless operators,
no amendment of the loading rates was secured. Instead the problem
was frii-neo. over to the North-South Commission provided for in the
second Ajpalachian Agreement. Tnis body was to be made up of 4
northern operators with 4 miner representatives; one each from the
fields of TTestem Pennsylvania, Eastern Pennsylvania, Ohio, and
Northern "^Test Virginia; and a similar number of operators and miners
"fully representative of the Southern fields". (**) The assignment
of tiiis Commission covered only the Smokeless- and the N^D-rthem West
Virginia controversies. Tne plans of N.R.A. , however, much exceeded
these limits. It was intended to make a co.nprehensive study of all
■wage difierer.tial ouestions. To this end a special official was
engaged in July, 1934, and plans laid for the gatliering of all needed
.data on v.'a^es, earnings and employment. The Nort'.i-South Commission
(*) Repcrt of Leon Henderson, April 19, 1934.
(**) "Jage Agreements, 1934, p. 31..
9337
-40 fa-
met in Jujie and July and rjorked'out plans to famish data. After vari-
ous (".elays tlie group met a^'ain in September ?/lien insoluble questions
arose regard:.ng the handlini^ of reports oh the time worked by tonnage
men. Tor these workers no time record is ordinarily kept and attempts
to define nifln- ctarts in a way acceptable to everybody concerned did
not D^^caGed, In Consequence, the projected study was abandoned in
in Docemoer, 1934, (*) 'Eiis result can only be regarded as a major
statistical disaster since it defeated all plans for a substantial
investi^e.ticn of the wage differential situation. In txie nope of
salvaging something from the wreck, a letter from the Smokeless
representative, together v/ith uis suggestions to guide the investi:^'a-
tors, is a:TDenied to this chaioter. ; Tlie essence of his statement v/as
bound up in the sentence "The present rates are based on unlike
things and unlike amoiints of labor required and work performed."
Persist&n-t study of wage differential problems will deepen
appreciation of this v/ise observation. Hany of the most heated
controversies have persisted, at least since 1920, as a reading of
the records of the United States Bituninous Coal Commission discloses.
No discernible advance ^-as been made toward tneir settlement. Tiiey
are caronic, deep seated maladjusfcnents calling for radical surgical
treatment. Superficial obseyvors are tempted to conclude that the
wage differential situation is merely irrational, inerplicable and .
a logical field for the exercise of tLie talents of "braintrusters"
and economic ;Dlanners, At bottom most wage differentials have two
chief re£'.£cns for being. Taey result from severe economic pressures
or they a,re ! istorical survivals from unregulated non-'anion condi-
tions. Given coal seaaias in backward districts with a population
livin;::; on lov/ economic levels, the-, tendency is for coal mines, like
all other industries, to build up a wage system ad.apted to the
current standard of living. 'Biereafter the decrease in production
costs resulting from full and continuous production induces the
operatcr-to pilsh his sales and shipments, to the mo?t remote markets
he can rerch. This results in establi suing an equilibrium between
costs and realisation at his low wage standards . Tnen the union
enters this situati-oh it can only ga,in recognition by accepting
the cu.rrent wages, \fxien N..R.A. promulgated Amendment No. 1, sub-
marginal districts as the S'nuthw.e st , Division II and 'Jestern
Kentucky, no't tO' mention areas of lesser importance, ■ alleged with
convicti-n and "truth that such. wage advances would necessitate the
closing of mines. It should be empiiasized in tnis connection that
this state of affairs is not alv/ays associated with a low wage level.
Too little attention is paid to the favorable differential maintained
in Division V. ".lere, too, production is keyed to the output
possible at current labor costs. . But a scant labor supply j-oined to
a high standard of living' established wages at a relatively high
level.
(*) Final Report of 7/illard E. Hotchlciss to the Director of Research
and planning, December 15, 1934. ...
9837
r.ie National Recovery Adrainistration owed its existence to tlie
great derressicn. In consequence it operated in parlous times;
All its actions and judcinents were conditioned by a desire to in-
crease enr:lo7ment. However, it may well be doubted wLietlier its
efforts t: erase v»'age differentials would have been more successful
in nGr;.ial times. Tnen faced with the dilemna tnat maintenance of
wage standards means destruction, or even serious .xanpering of in-
dustry, governmental regula,tion has pretty regularly abandoned tlie
wage standard. And it may be added has been aided and abetted by
labor in so doing. Thus the history of development uiider successive
Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was perfectly normal and could have been
precisely'' predicted by any student of affairs blessed with a good
memory ejid a modicum of insight.
In wage questions there is always an insufficiency of data.
But in tlie case of wage differentials this handicap transcends the
lack of mere wage recording. Ilie need is for exact knowledge of
mine conditions and labor organization. It does not follow in the
bitui-jinciis coal industry that men rated the same and given the
same occupational designation, are doing the same or even equivalent
work. Illustrations of tnis are given above. But they are incidental-
better accidental - discoveries which suggest that adequate research
would disclose a comprehensive lack of coiapara,bility, not only
district b" district, but in many cases, mine by mine.
Tliis is eminently true in areas v?here tae progress of mechani-
zation IS incomplete. Some thin seams with irregularly occurring
impurities, cannot be economically mined with machines. The per-
sistence CI hand operations in an industry now passin-^ through its
industrial revolution gives rise to a situation not correctly to be
included in wage differential discussion. ,ilhat we have here is not
a malac'.justed wage situation but rather the familiar and futile
struggle of artisans against the machine. In the beginning the
industr:' established a machine differential. At present the indus-
try is setting up preliminary handicaps. Some of these are openly
arrived at as in tie Saline County case; more are concealed in the
general preliminary rate as related to machine operations. As the
best available illustration of inter-district differences in condi-
tions, a statement of relative payments for yardage and deadwork is
appended to the chapter. Tlie relative payments by divisions are
shown in the following insert:
Percent Yardage &
Deadwork is of total
Labor Cost
Division 1 6.1
Division II 2.1
Division III 8.3
Tiie extreme variation by districts is from 1.1 percent in Indiana
to 15 percent in Michigan as snovm in Table IV appended to this
Chapter.
9837
-toe-
dpi
gS&38
1 1 1 I ■
-4. 1
1* 1* r 1 It
??
i'5t;8a
r^ r-« O r-< r^
i?
s?
pl?f.
S?,|,** 3>3
P4 r^ O (-• i-t W >-»
^ w O •-« <-< (VI '^
O O O O O
9«37 I
sS
o o o o I o •-'
«S8 iSS::?
CM^ ftj W^ J»
KJ cy cy ir^W o
o 1 o o o o ^
•i Till-*.
o o <-• op o p
I I I I I
^ ^ ^ ^ rH O r^
r r r r I i •
O O O O I
^ r I -4. -i.
O ©"J} C\)
O O O O 1
O I
■^1-4. Ill
VO to ti> '^ f^<3A <-«
rH Si w CM cu evi r^
* KA O W W J' J*
So ^^BSojwo
-*i r r r r I* I I I
I 1 I 1 I • -
o o O
p-o^ Kst^ r^\~
p o t o o <-« o
-♦.-i!. -H.-H. •-*--*.
8 .S'S8 S8
r i' r T-i. -«. I
CM f*-J»VD VO
8in^ p w
o o o o 1
-C r I -^ -4.
r-cr* »^'0 'T^I^
O O I O O i-" o
•«
pis
pis
r^ r^\D '-O g> irv r~
o O O O O P o
f^ir\cu p Qvo cy
r— cr^ cy ft) lf^ <-^ ^
O O rH ^ ^ r^ o
r 1 r I I I -4.
^ p^O WW.;*.:*
»— g>cu r-< J* ^ 5^
o o ^ -^ -^ -- o
P P O O O O O
^vD K\.-i ■-• r— r<
■-« K^vO 1^ OMf^ f^
O O O O O O O
"31
cy ir\r—
ifN ir>H ro
5 o
O-O^ t Ti,
A, n (o C3 t* r
a
«4 ^ P » * •-•
B o g
as*
c 2 ^
«> .o ^
B « ■
ee
« « o
^ XI o
1 e 6 •
3 (n lo a
e e.
V C I
o *» o
K D K
^ 31 IB O A. cy
** i •>
d • b.
o 4 o
cy CM
1 1
1 1
o o
-H- t
o o
-*. 1
i
1
CM
1
1
S8
O P
u eo
les
CO
CO
w in
P O P o o .
,€
i-» cu cr.-* P w Q
o w ^ Lr\ J ^ ^-o
r-« o O o O I >-» «-<
CO CO
O o
r^ fy r
O O r-tO Wr-* ^OOlOOt3t-J
o 1 S o o o ^
r^eo f\l Ojv^ BO
I p O O P o o
ir«r^ cr>r- f^w gvd^ 9 E2.S
-='. 'I ■?, '^i X?) So I O P rt
-4. till -4.-4-
o o
c\j cy cy cy c\j r
I I t I I I
O P r_
I 1 r
H O O
CO o r*-\r^j- wij) cy
e> o cy r-1 o P^ o o P o o
-(T»cycyKM^irvr^
1 O r-l r-t r^ f-- O O
irivo cr< Jr « eo
u~N-o CTi^ CO oo cy
,-< K^vD vD r-- ■-< J[
o J o o o ^ I P
vo i^p l^^o^CT^l~tCT^
ss
•ae
3 rt h
) O *• O O O O] u
k) 91 K K O (k* cy
n n
p. o.
$.s
59
II
V u
o o
•hi Vi
S
01 d
n d)
SI
■ail
i:
.^1
E-i O
«» o S
•1
9837
Ok •
t H O
i .*
■H H a
.?! .
o.
« o c
> r-l «
:;3 -5
O CM
sal
11
ii
Ii
Ii
-409-
ii
ill
asse
s
8883
:-^ J"
888888 a 8 88
|i I
i^ if
II 4-
II I i
8883
"Try
i :
S : ; I
r-sr
IS
ss
8 i
a 3
• a 5 i S
8 8 8
!!
!!
!i
«8t88« a 8 S!
I . £
I $1
» 8
■IIRR8R a 8 88 8 8
lasiaa
ITT^
* sa 8 IS
X sa 3 ; s:
111
I
I is
llgjl
l»
!
W
\ !
S3
3*:
il ;|
II ?
S3
ll
f?
II
II
I t
<* = I
1 I 3
Z 2 '
iip
ME. -J
Jill
^*
^^
<
^
III I
p. ]
IE 3 *
i I
I ^
i I
- I
I
1 2
> «-
. I 5
I - "^-a
i ^
1 8
14
llsi
a,»t»
P.
s
9
1
1
s
3
SI
i^
-J
It
fl
ll
|i9l°l^5llil§|. If
(J30 oCa^ :3 - 4 3 u,^ 3 q a
410
IT (0) TABLE 3
Different ialt In Hoarly tag* Bataa Eatabllahed by tha Pod*
Pa- Ob 1 o- U 1 c h 1 gan- Paah aadl e
Northern ftst Virginia
S.fest VB..E.Keatuck7,tJi7oar PotonaC
llaryLand, Virginia, No.TennesBss
Indiana
UllnolB
Iowa
loira-Tsfne It Appanooaa Cos.
Ulesourl-KAiises-Arlcanflas-OlclBboma
ffeotem Kentucl^
Alabama-'Ieorela-So.Teiin. {Hamilton & Hbaa)
Soutbem Tennessee
Hew Irlezloo
Southern Colorado
Northern Colorado
Utah
Northern It Southern looming
Montana
Washington
Rorth A South Dakota
Pa-Ohio- Ulchlgan-Panhandle
Northern West Virginia^
Indiana
Illinois
Iowa
lowa-Wfiyne & Anpanoose Cos.
L 1 3 e our I- Kan 3 a a - Arkan 3 a 3- Oklahoma
Western Kentuck;
AlAbaiiia-Georgla-So.Tenn, (Hamilton & Bbea)
Southern Tennessee
Hew Ueilco & Southern Colorado
Northern Colorado
Utah
Northern fyotnlng
Montana
Washington
North A South Dakota
So-,ithern Wyoming
Inell*
Skilled Uior
Ceats per
DIST.
DIST.
DIST.
DIST.
hour
A
B
C
D
C«nt«
Cents
Cents
Cents
.575
.
-.030
-.050
-.003
.5*5
».030
-
-.020
♦ .027
.525
..050
♦ .020
-
♦.01.7
.57!
♦ .003
-.027
-.0117
-
.655
-.050
-.080
-.100
-.053
.588
-.013
..OI13
-.063
-.016
Ife
♦ .005
-.025
-.0115
♦ .002
».106
♦ .076
♦.056
♦ .103
:^,
♦.075
♦ .0U5
♦.025
♦ .072
•.150
♦ .120
♦.100
♦ .II17
.1180
♦.095
♦ .065
♦.0U5
♦ .092
.560
♦.015
-.015
-.035
♦ .012
.555
♦ .OJO
-.010
-.030
♦ .017
M
-.050
-.080
-.100
-.053
.ito
-.105
-.135
-.155
-.108
.67!
-.103
-.133
-.153
-.106
:???
-.129
-.159
-.179
-.132
-.100
♦!o55
-.150
-.103
.500
♦ .075
♦ .025
♦ .072
Oats lie
Coainon Labor
.USD
_
-.030
-.050
♦ .075
.Ujo
Ifo^
-.020
♦.105
:kS>
♦.020
-
♦.125
.525
-.075
-.105
-.125
-
.500
-.050
-.080
-.100
♦.025
:5S?
-.050
-.080
-.100
♦.025
-.033
♦ .olio
-.063
-.083
♦ .042
.1110
♦ .010
-.010
♦ .115
.375
♦.075
♦.0115
♦.025
♦ .150
.300
•.150
♦ .120
♦ .100
♦.225
♦.095
♦.065
♦.0115
♦ .170
-.019
-.OI19
-.069
♦ .056
!li69
-.019
-,0li9
-.069
♦,os6
.560
-.110
-.lUO
-.160
:^]
.568
-.118
-.1U8
-.168
.603
-.153
-.183
-.203
-.07s
■.c
-.050
♦ .050
-.080
♦,020
-.100
♦ .125
.555
-.105
-.135
-.155
-.030
Dlffereatlals In BouTl; Vage Hatea '.
established I7
the Code
Ootober 2, 1933.
oaas
NUUBES
Inside Skilled Labor
Pa - Ob 1 o-U 1 ch 1 g R&- Panhaa d 1 e
Northern West Virginia
S.West Ve., B.ITantucky, Upper Potomac
Uer:/land. Virginia, No. Tennessee
Indiana
nilQOle
Iowa
Iowa-Wayne i Appanoose Cos.
Wl99ourl-Kangqs-.4.rlcan3as-0klflhQiiia
Western Kentycky
Alpbana-Georglft-So.Tenn.CHflinllton A Rhea)
Southern Tennessee
New Mexico
Southern Colorado
Northern Colorado
Utah
Northern & Southern Ityoolng
Montana
Washington
North & South Dakota
DIST.
B
Cants
-.075
-.0U5
-.025
-.072
-.125
-.08B
-.070
♦ .031
♦ .075
♦ .020
..060
-.055
-.125
-.180
-.178
-.20U
-.175
Pa-Ohlo-lilohlgan- Panhandle -.075
Northern Weot Virginia -.0^5
S.West Va.. I.Kontuclgr, Uopor Potomac -.025
Uaryland. Virginia, Bo. Tennessee ,^^
Indiana -.150
IlUnole -.1^
Iowa -.125
Iowa-Wayne 4 Apoanoose Cos. -.108
MiBBOurl-Eansas-Arkanaaa-OklehomB -.035
Western Kentucl^
Alabama-Oeorgla-SOkTenn.CBanllton & Hbea) ^.075
Soathem Tennessee ♦.020
New Uexlco & Soathem Colorado -.09U
Hortbem Colorado -•19'*
Utah -.185
Soathem Wyoming -.180
Montana -.228
Waahin^on -.125
Nortn i South Dakota -.025
Northern Wyoming -.193
51 ST,
J
Cent?
-.01',
-.120
-.100
-.1'47
-.200
-.163
-iouJ
-.075
-.055
-.135
-.130
-.200
-.255
-.253
-.279
-.250
-.075
..150
-.120
.,100
■.225
..200
-.200
..183
-.110
-.075
..055
■.169
..169
.,260
-.255
■.303
..200
-.100
DIST.
J-1
Cents
-.095
-.065
-.OU5
-.092
-.11*5
-.log
-.090
♦.oil
-.020
♦.055
-.075
-.IU5
-.200
-.198
-.22U
-.195
-.020
DIST.K
(New'Uexico)(
Cents
-.015
♦.015
♦.035
-.012
-,065
-.028
-.010
♦.091
♦ .060
♦ .135
♦ .080
♦".005
-.065
-.120
-.118
-.llOl
-.115
♦ .060
DIST.K
Sou.Colo.)
Cants
-.020
♦.010
• .030
-.017
-.070
-.033
-.015
♦.086
♦.055
♦.130
♦.075
-.005
-.070
-.125
-.123
-.lUg
-.120
♦ .055
Cants
♦.050
♦.053
♦.037
♦ .055
♦.156
♦ .125
♦.200
♦.ll»5
♦.065
♦,070
-.055
-.053
-.079
-.050
♦.125
Outside Comnon Labor
-.095
..063
..o»i5
■.170
..1U5
-.11*5
..128
..055
..020
► .055
..111*
..llU
-.205
..200
•.249
-.11*5
-.0U5
♦.019
♦ .01*9
♦.069
-.056
-.031
-.031
-.Oil*
♦.05?
♦.094
♦.169
-.091
-.086
-.13*»
-031
♦,069
-.099
(
Cents
;ExoeDt Wajrae A
♦ .050
♦ .013
♦ ,080
♦ .OI13
♦ .100
♦.063
♦ .053
♦.016
-.037
♦ .037
-
♦ .055
♦,018
♦ .156
♦,119
♦ .125
♦ ,088
♦ .200
♦ ,163
♦ .II15
♦ ,108
♦ .065
♦ ,028
♦ .070
♦ ,033
-
-.037
-,055
-,092
-.053
-.090
-.079
-,116
-,050
-,087
♦ ,125
♦ .088
♦ ,050
♦.050
♦ ,080
♦.080
♦ ,100
♦.100
♦.017
♦.090
♦.125
♦.200
♦ .IU5
♦ .031
♦ .031
..060
..06b
-.103
♦.100
♦.017
♦.090
♦ .125
♦.200
♦.ll*5
♦.031
♦.031
-,060
-.068
-.103
♦.100
(Wayne A Apoa-
"""cisii'
Cents
-.005
-.106
♦ .025
-.076
♦.0»5
-.056
-.002
Si
-.055
-.018
-,119
-
-,101
♦,101
.
♦,070
♦,1115
♦!o£
♦,090
-,011
♦,010
-,091
♦.015
-.086
-.055
-,156
-,110
-,211
-,108
-,209
-,1311
-,235
-,105
-.206
♦ ,070
-,031
♦ .033
♦ .063
-,0llO
-,010
♦ .083
♦ ,010
-.0112
-,115
-.017
-,090
-.017
-,090
-.073
♦.073
♦.108
♦.035
♦ .183
♦ .110
♦.128
♦,055
♦.OlU
-,059
♦.OH
-.059
-.077
-,150
-.085
-,158
-.120
-,193
-.017
-,090
♦ .083
♦ ,010
DIST.
U
Cents
♦ .105
♦.135
♦.155
♦ .108
♦ .055
♦ .092
♦ .110
♦•ai
♦ .180
♦.255
♦ .200
♦ .120
♦ .125
♦ .055
♦ .002
-,02U
♦ .005
♦ .ISO
,019
•■no
.0l»9
♦ ,lllO
.069
♦.160
.056
♦■035
,0)1
♦.060
,031
♦.060
.OH
♦.077
:S2
♦.150
♦.185
:ffl
♦.260
♦ .205
♦ .091
♦ .091
.091
.
,086
♦ .005
,13l»
-.0113
.031
♦ .060
,069
♦.160
-.055 --055
October 2, I933,
DIST.
K
Cents
♦.103
♦.133
♦.153
♦ ,106
♦.053
♦.090
♦ ,106
♦.209
♦.178
♦.253
♦.198
♦.118
♦ .123
♦ .053
-.002
-.026
♦ .003
♦ .178
South. North.
1^0. ^0.
♦.105 ♦.lis
♦,135 +.11*8
.-.155 +.168
♦.030 ♦.OI43
♦.055 ♦.06s
♦.055 ♦.063
♦.072 ♦.085
♦ .li*5 ♦.158
4.180 ^.193
♦.255 ♦.268
♦,200 ♦,213
♦.086 ^.099
♦.0B6 ♦.099
-.005 4.008
♦.013
-.0U8 -.035
♦.055 ♦.068
♦.155 ♦.168
-.013 -
♦.153
♦.183
♦.203
♦ .078
4.103
♦.103
♦ .120
4.193
♦ .228
♦.303
♦ .2I+8
♦.131*
♦ .ll"*
♦ .0U3
♦,0U8
♦ .103
♦.203
.♦.050
♦ .080
♦.100
♦.017
♦.990
♦.125
4.200
♦.11*5
♦.031
♦ .031
-.060
-.055
-.103
♦.100
-.068
-.11*5
DIST.
DIST.
DIST.
P
«
Cents
Cents
Cents
..129
♦ .100
-,075
♦.159
♦.130
-,045
♦.179
♦.150
-,025
♦.132
♦.103
-,072
♦.079
•.050
-,125
♦.116
♦ .087
-.088
♦.I3I1
♦.105
.,070
:-M
♦ .206
♦.175
♦,031
♦.27?
♦.22lt
♦.250
♦.075
♦.195
♦,020
..ll*
♦.115
-,060
♦.II19
..120
-,055
♦.079
♦.024
♦.050
-,125
-.00.1
-,180
♦.026
,-,003
-,178
-
-,029
-,204
♦.029
-,175
-.050
-.020
-,125
-,100
-,100
-,083
♦,0X0
♦ ,025
♦ ,100
♦ .045
-,069
-,069
-.160
-,155
-,203
-,100
-Uu-
ir\r~-c\i to r<Nr^rH
a
OV* ^J*r~CUV£>JJJ-M3 o
o a^^'^^ o <o o
inr~-M3 T^rH^ r^
*^ to ^ lr^ rH r— r^
S^
■3
i)
o
•3
■a
o
Eh
o
I
13
O
) cr^rof^ CO
r oj r-M in
> c\j o O O
r— CO r— o f^J- r-i
cr.^^ into cuvDvn in'jj o>
I * J- I
O <H f— to rH I— M cri J- to VO
inOrHOcoinminco r^vx>
crvCTMnr^cvj cr»to^ to r^o
fU r-l r-l Crv r-< CTN <-<[•-• O I^ f^
t<->
eo'j- O cr,
• • • rH ,
a] a
O
CTi 60 ITv Q r<-\
60 (r>to J r^
r^M3 o O cr»
en 60 r-* f-l i-<
o "■
ir
o
cr
.^
•!60
CTij- r-cii o o
OJ 60M3 O I<\ •
^ ro t^ rH t^ m
O O O <-H CTi o
o crv>^
• •
r-o
o (^
ifMjj cr\ r •
>H O 1-1 ,. ._ -
r^cr» oj o
r— in iSi-i
>lin
r-l
.O
r--\n OJ
J- CO r^
60 men
in M o rH
- o o
60 rof-O
60
t-l t-»
'1
►aim
cr>f«~\^ r-
r— r^ KMn in r— cT
invD ^ o 60 ro c\J
c\j inincnoMVj r~-
,-< o o (\i o o o
l'^.
O
a.
invo 60 c\j a
cr>r--_* ^x)
r— in 60 OJ TiJ
O O O 1-1 -rf
9S37
o
a
e
PL, f<-l •
o r-l d
P. p
P O J3
« (U
tJ O fo
§ M h
o c
Tj 45 4^
(C CO
ll
W Q O
hilsi'^
-412-
c.C:^^:.ii.fY (c) ^r;;:-3ix .u
TO Iv3;ii33?.S of the NORTH and SJUTH C0I11..ISSI0H:
Huntin^-.'ton, Vi/. Va.
Jul:- 26, 1934.
Operators;
Chas. O'lTeill
J. D. A. Morrow
W, L. Ro"binson
J. D. Francis
R. E. Tai-gart
L. C. Gunter
C. A. CalDell
Miners;
James Mark
F. T, Fa.=;an
Percy Tetlo'Y
Frank Li ley-
Van A. Bittner
T17m. Turnblazer
Sara Cadd;;,''
J. T. Saxton
Gentlemen:
It was understood at the last raeetinj^" of this Coimission that I
would prepare and send out a circular memoranduin of ray conception of the
duties of the Engineers of the North and South Commission.
I have done this without having had the opportunity to discuss the
matter with any other member of the North and South Commission, and
nothing therein reflects viev^s other than my ov.'n. I have not had the
time to put on this what I v,-ould like to have had, and the matter should
have more detailed study. In order that we maj'' have somethin.A before
us for discussion, I am mailin.;-, this to each member of the Commission,
and also a copy to Mr. Berquist.
I do not know whether I will be able to personally attend this
meeting on the Slst. If not, my alternate v/ill be present.
I want to again call the Commission's attention to our action in
eliminating cars containing less than three tons. I believe this is
going to result in a greater distortion of figures than we thought at
the time the matter was voted , and while I do not want to take up the
time of the Commission, I believe that, in the interest of common ac-
curacy, the matter should be given further consideration.
The earnings in all the districts in which I am interested show
that the elimination of all 1-car starts (or 3 tons) makes a difference
in the district of 22(;zf a day. In other words, if the 1-car starts v/ere
eliminated, the earnings would be 22(# more, and that would be shov/n
on the reports agreed upon. In some of the districts v/here much smaller
cars are used, the effect is greater than in the preliminary reports
of the districts I refer to and the earnings may be increased an average
as much as 44(# a day over the real wage, or between 8f^3 and lOfo differ-
ence between what the earnings actually are and the indicated earnings.
9837
fl"
-413-
What vre all want is a record that will "be comparable and stand for
years, and that will not have to "oe e>rplained any more than necessary.
I reali^.e that absolute rartheraatical accxiracy in a record of this kind
is hardl;" possible;
There was one other thing at the last meeting that, to my mind, was
ambiguous, and that is the item of mines under 50,000 tons yearly capa-
city. In speaking of this, I had in mind that v/e were discussing com-
panies v/ith production of less than 50,000 tons. One company may have
three or four hundred thousand tons production, while a number of its
mines may have a production of less than 50,000 tons each. I believe
that any company having a capacity of over 50,000 tons, should show
their entire prod\iction, regardless of the capacity of the individual
mines smaller than 50,000 tons. They should all be included.
The Engineers should cPnrefully report the number of mines in erch
district having under 50,000 tons; the number of men employed in these
.mines; the_percentg.ge this tonnage bears to the total in the district,
and the percentage the number of employed men ber^rs to the total em-
ployed in the district.
Yours very ■cruly,
( Signed)
Jpnes D. Francis
jdf/h
9837
-414-
INFORIviATIOH TO B3 OBTAINED BY ENGINEERS
for
THE NOHTH-SOUTH WAGE DIEEEHENTIAL COljasSION:
1. "LIST LF OFEHATING C0I.':FAI'TIE5" .
A complete list of operating companies, listing each mine and ton-
nage for 1933 and showing averHge daily tonnage, should he obtained.
Thic Hot may he available at the Bureau of Mines.
2. "SECTIONS 07 SEAIaS" .
Representative detailed sections of seams worked should be taken.
These sections should show the character of the top and the bottom and
the character and thiciaiess of each parting.
3. " IMPURITIES IN SEaI; WHICH aRI, FaID FOR"
The average thicloiess of impurities, and/or top, and/or bottom,
handled by the miner on a dead work basis should be shov/n ,- nd the per-
centage of this material per ton of coal should be computed. Tne pre-
sent dead work rates should be given and the cost p3r ton of coal for
handling this material shoiild be computed.
4. "IMiFURITIES IN 3E.U. INCLUDED IN LOADING RATE".
The thickness of seajn impurities and/or top and/or bottom handled
by the miner for which he receives no extra compensation should be ob-
tained and a comparative statement in tons of such material handlf^d and
tons of coal loaded should be caluclated, mvl the percentage of material
handled and coal loaded should be computed.
The amount of slr.te, impurities and waste coal handled by the miner
for which he is not com^ensKtec , v-ries considerably in different dis-
tricts and in different mines. In some cases the miner must handle
approximrtely one ton of such waste ninterial for each ton of coal load-
ed; while in other mines very little waste material has to be handled
by the miner. This is neither fair to the miner nor to the producer.
Accurate data should be collected by the engineers so that more uniform
and more equitable rates can be arrived at.
•o.
"CCNDITION OF SEAiiS",
The engineers should thoroughly observe and note the mining con-
ditions of the seam, as to grades, pitches, horsebacks, water, and all
other unusual conditions.
6. "GEi^RAL PRACTICES".
The engineers should gather all available information as to the
customs anri practices in the various mines, such as:
9837
"4i5-
a. In which mines are the miners required to
■clean the coal at the face and to what extent.
h. To throw back bug dust.
c. To sweep the face before shooting.
d. To timber his place and to what extent.
e. To bail v^ater.
f.' To gob partings or load in cars.
g. Whether the impurities have to be handled twice.
h.- To place cars by hand or are they placed by motor;
to pusli cars to and from face and. entry.
i. To lay track and to what extent.
j. To drill holes in shooting top or bottom slate.
k. To scrap bottom.
1. ■ Size and height of 'Cars to determine whether coal
can be easily loaded; type'of machines; depth of
cut and tons of coal per cut in both rooms and
headings,
and all other practices rr duties which might affect the amount of ton-
nage he is able to load per "man-start".
7. "F5RCBIOTAGE OF DAY MBJI" .
The number of inside day men and the number of loaders employed
should l3e obtained and the percentage of each class of workmen computed*
It is apparent that there is a difference in the services: performed
and the proportion employed of company men and loaders in the various
districts and, therefore, a higher cost in' some districts than in others
for the company men. This difference in cost should be obtained and
should be reflected in the piece worker's rates. The present rates are
based on unlike things and unlike amounts of labor required and work
performed.
8. "TOiri'IA&E ELIMIlIATaP IH H. R. A. REPOHTS" .
In the iT. H. A. reports an elimination of three tons in counting
man-starts will be permitted. This tonnage deducted from the total ton-
nage loaded should be obtained and its percentage of the total tonnage
should be computed. The number of starts by miners preparing their work-
ing places dioring which start no coal is loaded and no man-start is
counted, should be obtained.
9837
-416-
9. "FICKIHG TABLES" . . .....
The n-umter of men employed on picking tables and in cars, in cleaxi-
ing coal, and the percentage of same as compared with the number of
loader employed should be gotten. This is necessary in order to show
comparatively the amount of cleaning done at the face "oi;' the miner and
by company employees. The nuuber required for this purpose "varies con-
siderablv in different districts and in different mines:
;b •
10. "DEDUCTIOI-IS FROM P.AT3S" . . ■ , ,
The engineers should compile a schedule of all published rates and
all deductions from same which are made because the loader is relieved
of certain duties. These deductions are- made for shearing, drilling,
shooting, bug dusting, explosives when not furnished by the' minor, and
for other things. Where the miner biiys his oiiTn explosives and shoots
his own coal the cost per ton should be obtained. This data is neces-
sary in order that these deductions be made on a more uiiiform basis than
is now being done.
11. - "EQUIFMEHT ^^-^ MMAGSt.ai'T" .
The engineers should collect all available data as to the equipment
of the mine; v/hether it is sufficient to supply the needs of the miners
and provide them an opportunity to earn an average inside day wage;
whether the eqi ipment used is modern or obsolete. Tlie time and effort
necessary to earn the same wage is directly affected by the t;',7pe and
quantity of equipment.
Management a:id pia:'ining is an importaiit factor in providing the
miner an oppiortunity to earn fair wages with the least effort. If, due
to inefficiency of management, lack of proper equipment and planning,
the miner is not furnished vvith sufficient cars in v/hich to load his
coal and must wait on cai's even thoixgh engaged in the v;ork of handling
impurities in the coal during the waiting period, the wage scale should
be so adjusted as to allow him to earn an average day v/age. This would
promote both effort and efficiency on the part of the management.
IN COilCLUSION: We think that a sufficient number of capable en-
gineers should be employed to secure ample data as above outlined which
can be used in connection with the il. H, A ., reports, in order that
comparable rates between districts can be arrived at.
9837
-417-
CHAPTE?. V 1/
COST 0-7 PRODUCTION, SELLIilC- AFI> ADlirTISTHATION
UIOER CODE COIIDITIOIIS
A. Effect of :i«P..A. Code on Costs
Prior to October 123r^, when the Code "becaxie effective, a decade
of domivard -orice trend had driven the annual average price per ton for
■bitur-inoiis coal fron $2.68 in 1923 to $2.20 in 1924, piid $2.04 in 1925.
In 1S26 -orices alDOut held their o'.7n, "out in 1927 fell to $1.99, in
1928 to $1.35, in 1329 to $1.78. This in s-oite of the fact that prices
and general "business conditions were on a stead;- upward curve during
these Irtter years. The depression "beginning in the fall of 1929 added
new impetus to the ^^rice decline, until "by 1932 the "average value" had
s\ink to $1.51. Due to the operation of the Code .nd a reversal of
depression infliiences through the operation of general industry codi-
fication, 1935 rose to $1.54, and 1954 to $1.75. (*)
Costs necessarily follow in 1-rge degree the trend of prices, and
the -orice or average realization hotterments under the Code a.re direct-
ly tracep.'ole to the stand^.rdization of miniinum wges 3.t higher levels
ajid maximum working hours at B daily, 40 weekly, coupled with -orice-
fixing to su-oport the resulting lahor costs, which alone com-orise from
slightly under 60 to ahout 65 per cent of total costs in the different
■oroducing ?reas.
Full treatment of lahor costs, v;rges, and w^ge differentials v;ill
"be found in other chapters. It is necessary here to lay merely a
found tion for understanding the direct relationship of IsCoov cost to
total cost, which inevitably follows "orice trends, even though they
have not always kept -pace. Year a.fter year of increasing losses were
experienced "by the industry as a whole, "beginning in 1925, until 1934,
when the average realization of Divisions I, II and III com"bined (ac-
counting for over 92 per cent of total U. S. production) showed a
slight m-rgin a"bove the average costs as reflected in W.R.A. summaries.
The underlying causes during this pre-lT.R.A. decade of to"boganning
price levels were many, chief among them "being a large overcapacity to
■oroduce pressing on a market no longer showing a more or less dependable
annual increase in demand; growing competition from other fuels; and
notable strides in fuel economy. This potent pressure on prices might ha.ve
"been resistahle had not a situation existed within the industry itself
that lent full impetus to the downward pressure of other factors. This
situation is found in the fact that while the northern producing areas,
during the earlier half of the -ore-code decade, were generally -onionized
1/ Frep-red "by Sllery B. Gordon ?jid 17. T. Crandell.
(*) All "average value" figures from U. S. Bureau of Hines data as
sujnma.rized in ta'ble -oresented as Def endajit' s Exhi"bit 3a in case
of James 'Ja.lter Carter vs. Carter Coal Company et» al. , files
of II.?., A. Bituminous Coal Unit.
9857
-418-
and boiiiid by ^'a.^-e ai_;reements , the south was larfjely non-ionion and inde-
•oendent of contri.cts ar- to hoiir'-.of v/orh or v,faf,e scales, Vfefces, constituting
60 per cent or more of the total cost, r.. lar/;;er percenta^je than in a,ny other
major industry, offered the one very subsfcantiaJ. cost item ■chat possessed
flexibility. There developed (l) acontinuoixs roimd of rul ce reductions
"by non-union fields in a determined efiort to extend their volume of
Duoinesf. , follov/ed hy reductions in \'i'ir;es "'aid in order to "'lermit such
price cuts; (Z) a resulting; upv/ard saving in the ratio of n .^jn-'oni on tonna^-e
to the industry's total tonnai^:e; until (5) the "iinion districts found them-
selves faced vdththe ncce';sity of meeting; this price ■ couipetition or ex-
periencing- dispL^trous loss of business to the non-union fields. By 1927
and 1928 the Ohio and Pennsylvania fields bad began to break away from
their \7age a'xeenents ,in order to permit of price reductions and stem
losses so far as possible, New wai^.e a^^reements in Illinois e^nd Ijidiana
twice rediiced wage sca,les, anc the ea,ST.crn fields eventually wen non--anion
IDractically lOl" per cent, followed a contin'oance of the cycle of successive
intersectional price a,nd \7age reductions, uiitil average prices during the
depression years became so low tliat for 1G5?' they resulted in an industry
loss of over $51,000,000. (*)
It may fairly be said taat clui'ing this period the intense competition
was basically one of wage rates, n^n-imion vrorkers being obliged to accept
what the siT-ccessive ^rice cut's "^emitted' the operators to pay them.
Although no cost c a.t;i for the moiiths preceding the Code are availa.ble,
N,R.A. Torm C, covering Er.rloyTient ml Earnings, called for reporting mines
to show on their Hecember returns the r-ates of pay in effect in May,, 1933,
From this data for Mry and December from identical mines, it is "ossiole to
arrive at ap, "'oximate wage-r".te incre'\ses uiider the Code as compared with
pre-Code conditions. The December wage data v;ere projected to show Virhat
the e3,rnings of workers would have br-en liad. the May rates prevailed in
December, .From the data reported as actu-,1 earnings in December a" d the
wage rates paid in 'May, it is possible' to calculate the increases in
actual Decemuer earnings over what tln.6 May rates (had they continued in
effect) vrould ha.ve produced in De'cember. This estimated increase is
slightly over 50 per cent in Division I, and abort 51 ver cent in
Division III.
Tre.nslating these earnings into Labor Cost -ner ton, the estimated
figures for Ifey were set against the reported costs for December 1933 ,
and. cOi:T[-iarisons of Realization just prior to and under the first period
of the Code, up through March 1934, Cost Table 106 ("Labor Cost per
ton May 1933, compared wdth La.bor Cost per ton 10 months April 1°34
through January 1935; Realization per ton January throiigh September 1933
compared rrith Realization per ton April 1934 tlirough Janufl.ry 1935") shows
the increases in Labor Cost effected by the Code v;ith its 8-hour day sind
nationally effective v/a,ge scales and by Amendment 1 thereto with its ;
7-hour day and increased 'v/age rated. Because of the inter-dependence of
(■*) "Statistics of Income," 1932, U. S. Burea.u of Internal Revenue;
shovm in Dcfend.ant's Exhibit 6a, James Walter Carter vs. Carter
Coal Company, et. al., files of K.R.A., Bituminous Coal Unit ■files.
9837
labor cost? and prices, the a.verai';:e .realization per ton for each of these
periods is sjiown for conroarison.
Since labor cost bears Iniovm relationships to tot 1 cost in the
first or G-hour-day period of tlie Code ending March 31, 1934, as well as
in the second or 7-ho-ur-day period be.;i:v.-.int:; April 1, 1934, and since
labor cost is the onlv element of total cost for which pre-code compari-
sons can be n^:^de, these data are only partiall?" indicative of the full
Code increase in total costs. For those areas v/hose Hay 1933 rates are
available, the ininediate effect of the Code on labor cost alone v/as as
follows;
Averaf'^e Increase per Ton
Eastern Pennsylvania ■ ,26,4 cents
Western Penrsylvania 37.9 "
Ohio 30.5 "
Northern V/'est Virginia 29.3 "
Southern Subdivision' No. 2 ■ 32.8 "
Maryland andUjvper Potomac 43 »4 "
Alabama 43.5 "
The extent of increases in other cost items between May and December
193G is not laiovm. .
Accepting these May 1933 labor costs as representing probably a
somevfiiat higher average than would have been found had all mines
reported, logically' assuming, that those v/ho refrained may v.'ell have
be'n those paying still lovrer rates m tlB pre-code period, it can safely
be S3.id ths-t total costs increased by something more than the above averages,
It is well Imown tliat the spring and summer of 1953 si:im~alated general
activity that turned both production and ;orice curves upvrard for the first
time since 1930, which undoubtedly affected other items of tituminous
coal costs as well's labor costs.
The average cost per ton again rose sharply v/ith the adoption
of Amendment 1, reducing v.'orking hours to 7 a day, 35 a yreel:, and in-
creasing basic v/age rates. This increase is well illustrated in '.the
charts presented with this cha;->ter showing by months the average costs
of each code authority Division and Subdivision, Discussions of these
cliarts and accom-panyi'ng tables occtir later.
Combining tlie lacbor cost increase -over 1/Iay 1933 with the increase
in total cost in the second, or 7-hour-day "oeriod of the Code, a total
average cost increase of at leasv the follov.dng cents per ton is found
in those areas for v/hich cor.rparative data are a,vailable:
9837
-420-
Ilstimp.ted Increas es in Cost Under :".?:. A. Code
Division I (*)
Eastern p.?..
j'ei^bern Pa.
Ohio
ITortliern '..'. Va.
Southern Suhdivision
^0, 2
l.Id. &, U"i"oer potonac
Average
Increase in Incre.-^.se in To- Avera,:,'e increase
LalDor Cost tal Cost A'oril in totLd cost ruider
Dece:noer '53 •34-Janiiar^^ '35 code, something
over Ua:y '33 over i:ov. '33- more than
;,:."rch ' 34
$ .264
$ .390
$
,654
.379
.300
. 679
.305
.279
,584
.293
• 352
.645
.328
.270
. 506
.434
.330
.764
$ .332
( =
$ .312
a/
$
. 644
It rmst he enohasized th,-t the first coluj-nn ro;oresents figures cor>
"Dosed of the lahor cost increase only, insofar a,s the immediate effect
of the Code on costs in concernad. Unausstionahl"/ sone unlrno'jn in-
creases occurred "betveen lia.;'' pnd Lecej.foer 1933 in the cost of sup'olies,
and ou-ite nossihly in some fir:ed charges, selling and administrative
ejrpenses. For that reason the indicated "increases in total cost under
code" re-oresent a nininum fi;gure - the actual increases were 'jrohaul"/
greater "bv sone ri.nkno'.7n pnoujits.
Cf the ahove estinrtecl total increases, lahor cost :re"oresented the
folio .Ting anounts, for connarison:
Incrca-se in Total Increase in
Cost nrnder Code Lahor Cost
something more' under Code
than:
Eastern Pa,
Western Pa.
Ohio
ITo. ..est Va,
Southern Su.hdivision llo. 2
Lid, c: Upper Potomac
Aver?.ge
Footnote on next -onge,
9S37
.554
.679
,584
,645
,606
,764
$ ,644
,554
,498
.513
,525
,S13
ft ,497
-421-
Division II nas p.lready oper- ting under a imion scale agreemenit
the 'basic rrtes of vjliich r'ere incor-oor-^ted in the a'oproved Code, llo
record of ^re-code 1933 costs is available, "put ■oresturna'bly any in-
creases ex-oerienced in Decen'ber as com-op.red vdth iiay 1953, v/ould h,ave
teen minor so far ?.s later cost is concerned.
The final TOrd as to increase in total cost in all of Division I
has to be that it was protia'blj'- soraerrhere around 65 cents per ton during
the Code -oeriod. In Division II, it \7as oerhaps sonething more for deep
mines than the 12.''; cents, caused by Amendment 1 uhich instituted the
7-hour day and 35-hour week; for strip mines something over 21 cents.
In Division III the total increase in lahor cost alone ;7as 66, 6>
cents per ton during the Code period, Decemher 1933 lator cost for
Division III was 38,3 cents over May 1933; the 10-months' -oeriod under
Araendjjent 1 averaged an increase in total cost of 35 cents per ton. It
is safe to say that Code operation saw a total increase in cost of over
73 csnts per ton.
B. Cost He'oortin,';: Darin;"; Code Period
The -our-QOse of monthly cost reporting to 11. Z. A. was (l) to provide
comroosite cost figures for comparison with the average realization as
one measure of the reasonableness and result of minimum -orices fixed
under the Code, (2) inform the Adrainistrrtion as to the effect of the
ado-otion of the Code and Amendment thereto upon lahor and other costs,
(3) to nalce available to the industry,"- generally for its information ?nd
guidr?j:?.ce current summeries and averages of costs, realization, and
margins. (*)
Cost Data TToical and Re-oresentative
( a) A t'opical o-gerations e::cluded fron final summeries ;
It is pla.in that any summarized totals should be representative of
t^'pical operations, costs tha.t are not distorted b^ abnormal or sub-
normal conditions. To this end, the editing staff at "Joshington ex-
cluded some mine re-oorts from the tabulations. (**)
Jootnote from other pa^ge,
(*) Exclusive of Uichigan, Panhandle of "J, Virginia, Southern Sub-
division llo. 1, "./estern Kentucl:;^, for which Llay 1933 data were too
incomplete for use. The average for these areas of Division I for
V.B^'- 1933 is weighted by the total tons produced as reported in
U. S. Bureau of Mines 7. C. R, 922, March 11, 1935.
a/ Average for these areas of Division I weighted by total tons pro-
duced these months b^'' each area, as reported in U. S. Bureau of
Mines '.:, C. R. 922, March 11, 1935, and W. C. S, 932 Supplement,
(*) I?or full descri-otion of forms used and procedure folloT/ed, see
Appendix I,
(**) The bases for exclusion of mine reports from ta,bulation are dis-
cussed in Appendix I,
9837
t
fi
•i-t
-31
"I
II
i|
8
P
s 3^Ǥ^kS31 S, SSI 3
I
^1^
5 IHSISISI I &2I *
8 "
i
^ r^Oj r4 r-< in
8
■••a
:i
irwij 1
<n
CM
u^
R
c'gS'RRCS'R'
a
er'
a
ft
tn
ft
8
31
1
;:^
tSfsRIeSI
S
4tl
S
S
S
t
1
'
as'" "-sa
c
VO iTi
id
w
31
a
Si
p;
.^?i
a
Hal
S a! £
-
SSg^RHSI
i
Sfll
r^
■fi
§
S
5
1
-
ss-" -:i!:
K
B'-
■«
t^
J*
5
^
1
III
^
*^Rsia£gl
^
e»i
8
- .?
o>
^
»
1
»
:*^
Ol
::»
:»
S|-
ir\
31
&^RSR8S«I
R
SSI
s
e
*
^S
■«
3
g'-
"^
ca
—
ujcu 1
ssasscse'
S
Ec'
a
P
?
S'
E
^ ,
;
51
a
K
"33
«S3
^
s§P?S*3a!
i
ISI
a
i
&'
R
4
«"|
1
"
31
^
3|
a
. -St I
'
IIP
;:;■
«5g£iSaS5l
1
SSI
£
3
?
^
C
X
a*
i
J££
3|
£
1
III
I
|l2£i<RSi
s"
B
a
• <
5
5f §»!?!?«*;
1
ISI
5;
1
S
n
'^
33^" ''32
K
S^
-■
K\
ftl
ITi
^
a
;i|
ir.
iniD H
m
^
Jt
\£
t^i
f:a*C3€&B3
i^
&8£
3
le
In
s
H
S
1
1
a
-II
i
SSIUEHI
R
*
«
2
• « i
!
t3ssaS!j^_
in\* »^ t^<jr<^iH
s
«
3
B
1
!l|
!
in
g5«
§
1
*
1
^1
I
1* ON t^ t^\0 o' H
I8§
in
a'
S
a
.1
*
= I
i'.shmi 3 III 3 i|3 3 3
n
31
ft
1 1
!!
si
I'
I?
5£|
!^ I
i s
Mm
^ -8
o e « a
I 4 <-« H &
- ° C «■
I
ill
12'
et ■
t||i«.1«
J! > _ • I" • «
?1- 'tin's
iiiluun-n
-423-
( b ) Su"bstrntial Per Cent of Tot a l Produ cti on Repres ented in
Siimmaries as Published. >Io vember 193^ ^ thro-;v^h Ja^mary 1935: The tonnage
covered by mine reports tabulated, as published in the 3 volumes November
and Decer-ber 1933; January, February, t^arch 1934; bikI April 1934 throu,';h
January 1935; all iiiclusive, corrprises satisfactory representation of
the conimercial production in each of those periods. The acconpaiiying
table shows this comparison in detail.
Tlie coverage in per cent of total production (as reported by the
U. S. Bureau of iMnes) for iTovember-Decenber , 1933, is 71.2^, January-
February-Mar cii, 1954, is 65.8;'3. After April, 1934, Divisions IV and V
did not report and for April 1934 throiigh January 1935, the coverage is
61.2^ of the total U. S. production, but 66.6^o of the production of
Divisions I, II, and III, vdiich are included in the published summaries.
These percentages, however, are not a true measure of the high
degree to which these sumnaries are representative. A fairer measure is
^ that based on the proportion of tonnage included in the summaries as
compared with the "Commercial and Mixed" tonnage produced, as shovm in
the table.
C. Factors Affecting Production Cost.
1 . Number of Days Tipple Started, or Available Tforking Time
D-Jiring the Month : Certain upkeep work is necessary whether a mine is
operating or not (such as pumping, repairing of props, etc.) plus in-
escapable overhead such as property taxes, salaries, depreciation on
certain equipment, property insurance, etc. ^or this reason, the cost
per ton during a month of light operation will be considerably higher
than any month of full operatiraj, other things being about equal. A mine
which has booked business that will enable it to operate 12, 16 or 21
days in a month will show a progressively lower cost per ton for its
operation during that month than if it were able to operate only 8 days.
Mine operators are at times faced with the problem whether to a ccept
^ orders at cost or below cost in order to operate at a smaller loss, as
agai'.s t the known loss from remaining idle.
An approximate measure of the influence on production cost of the
number of working days per month is ascertained in the following tabula-
tions (*) of production cost items for specified number of working days.
This table is prepared from operators' reports furnishing cost data for
working da^/s, idle days and Siindays and holidays. For all deep mines in
Eastern Subdivision of Division I, for example, 113 mines reported an
average of 19 tipple starts in January 1935 and a total output of
1,637,496 net tons at a production cost of $1.8462 per ton. Labor and
supply costs are segregated, in aggregates, between average working
day, average idle day, and average Sunday and holiday. The average
numbers of working days, idle days, and Siondays and holidays are also
reported, 19.0, 7.0, and 5.0 respectively, so that the per day average
Variable costs are determined by division. Variations in working days
connote equal but opposite variations in idle days, Sundays and holidays,
being determined by law and custom, are determinate for any one month.
(*) Bituminous Coal Statistics, April, 1934 through January 1935, sheet
API, page 24 is appended.
9837
"424- .
Thus, it is possilile to calculate the approximate variahle cost per ton,
assuming the output to vary directly \Yith and proportionately to the
numter of days worked, for ;iny combiiiation of working and idle daj^s.
Fixed charges are those costs that remain consta-it in amount per month
such as taxes on mine property, etc.; or those costs that are charged at
a fixed rate per ton regardless of output, such as royalties and the
like. Projections are calculated hy reducing aggregate variatile costs
to aggregate costs per working day, per idle day, and per Sujiday or holi-
day and then hy multiplying tnese respective per day aggregates t y the
numher of working or idle days comprising saiy d.esired comoination. To
these aggregates are added the aggregate costs of fixed charges (those
constant in amount regardless of output and those varying in aggregate
directly with the output). Per ton costs are ohtained, of coiorse, oy
dividing the aggregate costs thus obtained hy the output which is assumed
to vary with the number of days worked.
Costs projected by this method are used repeatedly tnroughout this
chapter, as a raeans of eliminating the factor of days worked, to establish,
an approximate m.easure of the real increase in costs under the code.
2. Geological Factox^s: 3y this is meant such natural factors as
thicloiess of seain; degree and direction of inclination or pitch (vdth
respect to natural drainage); prevalence or practical absence of "faults"
for example, squeezing out of coal for a varying distance involving
"yardage and deadvrork" before workable coal resumes; folds in the under-
lying or overhead strata necessitating the removal of rocj: or slate to
maintain working height; widening of drav; slate, overlying the coal and
taken down for the purpose of safety in roof; and many others which in-
volve temporary mining of rock or other dead-loss operations.
Examples of these factors do not stand out in the group averages as
published. Individual mines, however, v/hen reporting on Form A, were
requested to fill in the blank: "State any special local condition that
affects production cost or market value for this period" . Below ai'e
quoted several of the replies appearing on Form A reports from mines
which showed in certain months an unusually high cost in some items,
either as compared with their own normal, or as compared with the district
average:
"Extremely bad roof" .
"Cap and bone coal gobbed, 8 inches".
"Partings in seams; low coal; heavy draw slates".
"Bad roof" .
The effect of yardage and deadwork on production cost is direct. In
the following few examples from unidentified mine reports for successive
months, this "yardage and deadwork" item is one of the factors in the
higher cost of producing in one month than in the other:
EXAIviPLE: _ 1 1st Month 2nd Fonth
No. of days tipple started 19 ?D
Production per day 1,599 tons l,622tons
Item 5c -Yardage & Deadwork :pn.ir)07 per ton 0.1450 per ton
Producing cost $1.9793 " " 1.9S38 '" "
9837
h
11
P
!
Ill m HI
«H Pi j||
ilt Js,i m*
U? t^5 1^^
tir III III
i\:\: '^\>u ^aU);^
»J} 58? liJ3
f5| 5t4 fJi
»4^ ?,S5 S-S*
^•\-N >^> '.^-H
?|^ ;n ^'l!
^iS n^"! ^^^
^Jj ^5J isr
^■lA -t-1% •^•^'^
SiC JfJ ^.^a
m i5? 5l!:
fsT is"
111 111 III
IM >P i;?
«V^ V^V ^'ffV
^«4 K*(^ «tn^
Ss^ Si^ ^2^
SSi sU E?S
i. !
r
J!-.
li.
I
m
I!,
i!l
lit
iiil
iiii'
?n (S-ibS ^s-
era is-t- ijt
:ial 2:5 5;;.;!
i^J ?£t 35?
sla m III
m 5^? 3«i
?iS E;s JJs
»;"! ajs j«5
fti ;^i sif
til ?|J l«3
J5; aii S?J
111 Sl| |U
»=; jsf 5ji
5 Ir': ?<^
il'
esj ?4x ^ft^l
sn jss Us
i^5 J5| ;|J
j|? iii 5f-s
ru
SjS jti J»S
^^•» -ti* ^-^^
ti9 ^SS ?<}
^a 3s» sh
nt m )£i|
HI m \\\
\r-nt "^A ^'
4
fln* 5"2 *"*
?| 5?f Stf ?^«
3:-^ I?? m
as ssi ns
;?i 1*4 n«
{.SJ :J» sli
?!s B^J 3->l
S^S t?f 3i3 3
E?s itJ :?r i
n\ w. m
idj |-i<| iii
ill ^t1 )\l:
m tti iis
m m m
S5' *ti ii'^
5|c sH as
III ;j| aft
Hi Hi Hi
II? S^l W%
«E1 ?S1 JIJ
»j fU m
l-i Hi Hi
5^5 Jjt ;||
M3 fM fil
"i!^
4{» iJ? 5S3
in ;59 IjI
•■ ; 3 !7» *<<
11
i!
i!j
'1'
m m m
WWW
m nt m
n
I ^^? m
ssa 5ES s^s
^i! IIS m
ii% Tt« Ml
•*'\n '^ts %>^
sH Hi
<%^ S ^ 4 it
ii<
'li.
t!{ ^it 'J'JS
jifS :;i; ^i\
m m 111
m
m m
Hi iU 1*4
=?? JTi ^JC
R^a axa tv-1
m wi
)5-:jfe m
kik Hi. Ui
m iu ».j
'»^-. >*• **i
Pl il^
i»? fs? m
A?; S-W 5*5
j\|i| 4»5\| ij>|\i
UI
3S3 5^5
IjI H?
i|f «|i
? Ill III 11
nil
III Ui
i si< it^ m
m
«'.:
n
fiii
«
s
•i'
-426-
EXAMPLE: - 2 1st I^onth 2nd Month
No. of days tipple started 20 23
Production per day 497 487
Ite.-n 5c- Yardage and Deadwork $0.0934 per ton $0.1728 per ton
Producing cost. 2.0668 " " $2.0862 " "
EXAIiPLE: - 5.
No. of days tipple started 18 19
Production per day 395 tons 493 tons
Item 5c -Yardage & Deadwork $0.1458 per ton $0.2368 per tor
Producing cost $1.9403 " " $2.1026 " "
In Exarrples 2 and 3, other factors also operated to affect cost:
In Example 2, an increase of atout 8 cents in "Yardage and Deadwork" in
the 2nd month was nearly offset ty the influence of 3 days increased
working time; in Example 3, various other influences ad.ded to the in-
crease in cost in the 2nd month.
3. Method of t'iinin.3: Followed : There are technical advantages
attaching to the various general methods of mining - "but engineers will
often differ as to the most economical method to follow -ander particular
conditions. Pick mining, of course, is the only method availaole \inder
certain conditions, the conditioning factors "being thickness of seam,
pitch (incline) of seam, etc., v/hich may preclude the use of cutting
machinery and/or loading machines. 2ut in mines where leading devices
can he used, the cost of production will he directly affected hy the ex-
tent to vmich mechanization has "been installed. To a degree, the use of
mechanical aids to production is limited hy natural and geological con-
ditions, of course; also in some instances hy the opposition of lahor,
and in some instances oy either ultra-conservatism or financial weakness
on the part of management or owner.
The introduction of cutting machines, mechanical loading machines,
power locomotive hauling, and other inside lahor and time saving equip-
ment has heen one of the outstanding fnctors in the lowering of production
costs "by increasing the output per man-day. This suhject has heen
specially treated in Chapter I.
4. Productivity of Hen and Mine: It is so ohvious as to require
mere mention, that the man-day output hears directly on the production
cost per ton. Tlie possible man-day output is conditioned hy the many
geological characteristics, mining methods, and degrees of mechanization,
already"- mentioned. Other conditioning factors, as between men, rest
upon willingness, ambition, energy - and betv;een groups, upon the spirit
which animates each group. All these conditions together more or less
determine the productivity of one mine as compared with another, or the
rate of daily output in different periods in the same mine.
5. Unavoidable or Unpredictable Interruptions: Among such factors
in cost may be mentioned brealidowns in machinery, power, ventilation;
accidents of a m.ajor character such as the fall of an elevator with
casualties, an explosion v/ith casualties, any fatal accident - on account
of a major inside accident mining customarily has censed for at least
the balance of that day. Labor suspensions or strikes or lockouts are
not to be classed in this category, since ordinarily such cessation of
-437-
work will "be pi^edictable for at least a few d.,a.ys, often a few weeks.
6. Other factors: The usual differences from rnontn to month or
from mine to mine due to m.anai^ement methods, tax variations, capital
costs, etc., are of course general throughovit the industry, but in the
aggregate offset each other to some extent, and are inherent in any
industry's averages.
D . Importance of Principal Cost Items with Relation to Total Cost.
A recapitulation of the percentage "borne "b." each principal
group of items in selected subdivisions snovfs the relationships and an
indication of varying changes in the percentages "oetv;een the two clearly
defined periods of the N.R.A. Code:
Percentage of Total Cost Represented
by Constituent Cost Items ( *)
-Hour Da;''' Period
iviisc
. &
Prod'n
Selling
Labor
Mining
Fixed
Cost
and
Subdivision
: •,_-Cost
Supolies
Charf~es
Adm.
Eastern Fa.
61.51
14.89
15.35
91.75
8.25
(excl. Md. & U.P.
.)
Western Pa.
60.18
12.86
20.40
93.44
6.56
Ohio
62.55
12.53
16.08
91.16
8.84
No. West Va.
58.92
12.30
15.93
83.15
11.85
Southern #1
56.89
13.84
19.05
89.78
10.22
Southern ^2
56.82
13.64
17.98
89.44
11.56
Ind.- Deep
54.31
19.89
16.30
90.50
9.50
Ind. - Strip
32.45
23.56
30.07
85.08
13.92
111. - Deep
60.22
16.41
14.10
90.79
9.21
111. - Strip
32.11
24.50
28.35
84.95
15.04
Alabama
56.60
16.67
16.44
89.71
10.29
(*) Source - Cost Tables 6, 17, 31, 36, 41, 4S, 60, 61, 66, 57, 78
this Chapter.
-428-
Percentafie of Tot al Co st Hepresented
L).V Constituent C ost Itof.s ( * )
7-Ho-ar Day Feriod
Misc. & Sellint-;;
Labor L'ining Fixed Prod'n and
Subdivision Cost S upplies Charges Cost Adr-'.
Eastern Fa. 61.05 15.05 15.14 91.22 S.78
(excl. Md. & U.F.)
Vv'estern Fa. 61.32 12.96 18.89 93.17 6.83
Ohio 63.87 12.95 14.72 91.54 8.46
No. West Va.
Southern tt'I
Southern f2
Ind. - Deep
Ind. - Strip
111. - Deep 59.51 16.62 13.57 89.70 10.30
111. - Strip 34.36 25.82 24.57 84.75 15.25
Alabama 60.82 16.45 13.81 91.09 8.91
(*) Source - Cost Tables 6, 17, 31, li6, -aT^reT 60 , 61, 66, 67, 78 this
CliaiDter.
59 . 73
11.80
16.15
67.68
12.32
58.85
13.93
17.07
89 . 85
10.15
59.81
13.23
16.33
89.37
10.63
53.73
20.35
16.21
90.29
9.71
34.73
25.03
25.21
86.02
13.98
The accompanyin(^ cost chart number 18 illustrates c^'ipJ^ically the
percentage relationships in these selected areas for the 7-hour day
period, April 1934 thro.igh January 1935, as a whole.
Labor Cost: It has been repeatedly Stated in public hearin^^is that
labor cost is the controlling iten, avera^^ing generally between 60 and
65 per cent of the total. The wage rates that lie behind this cost
element, being at once the largest ai^id most flexible cost factors, have
been depressed as a means to price cuts dLirin/';; times of sectional
struggle for business, particularly during the period 1924 to 1933 (see
details in labor and price sections of this study) .
All the principal areas average around the accepted range of 60 to
65 per cent of the total. Exceptions ai-e Southern Subdivisions 1 and 2
of Division I, and the Indiana deep mines, which sho?/ in the first or 8-
hour day period a labor cost nearer 55^0 than 60)5 of the total. In the
second period, labor cost in Southern No. 1 and 2 grdned to nearly 60>
of the total cost, due to the influence of the reduction in vrorlcing
hours from 8 to 7 and increases in wage rates. Indiana, however, which
in 1934 mechanically loaded 61. 4f^ of its output ( a gain of 12, 8f^ over
1933) even reduced its proportionate cost chargeable to labor from
54.31/0 to 53.735J in its deep mines. Illinois, another highly mechanized
section, also shov/ed a slight reduction in labor cost ratio to total
cost, but its ratio. .is nearly 60*^0 of total cost. All the other areas
covered above reflect an increase in percentage relationship to total
cost after the 7-hour day went into effect. The stripping mines of
Indiana and Illinois are particularly noticeable in the above table, for
9837
-429-
Percentage which Each Cost is ^^^^^ Total Operating
Cost in Bituminous Coal Mining for Selected Areas
during Period April 1934 — January 1933.
BASED Wi NRA B l.^m,roiA Coil M.nc ReporU. Fo«n
PREPARED 0r &tv'r'v3« Co*: Ur. ■. Dvi^on •* Rev:
line LdDor
Mir»t Supplies
LEOE NO
■I i *" Oth(* £v'0'-«4
G
-430-
their radically lov-er ratio of labor to total cost* This type of mining,
largely with powerful steaia shovels, is of course highly mechanized, with
a comparatively low per ton labor cost.
Mining Sutiplies: In the Subdivisions of Division Ij supplies cost
ran ^-enerally betv.een l.?fj find 15'^ of the total cost. In the deep mines
of Division II, Indiana and Illinois, hov;ever , this cost bore from 16',o
to 20'/o of total cost, while in Alabama (the largest part of Division III)
it averaged around I6/0 to 17->. The cost of supplies is controlled by
necessity and is, of course, variable both from month to month in any
mine and from mine to mine as well as from district to district. Physical
mining and safety reqxiirements vary, and costs of principal supply items
Vary with distance from the source.
Miscellaneous and Fixed Charges: This item is made up of two
classes of charges that vary from month to month o^uite differently. They
are (l) the cost of "fixed charges usually on a lump sum basis", normally
varying only slightly from month to month in amount, but as output per
month increases, the per ton cost decreases. General supervisory sal-
aries, rent, taxes, insurance, depreciation, etc., are ordinarily on a
monthly basis and vary in cost per ton as the output varies. (2) The
group of fixed charges composed of "fixed charges usually on a per ton
basis", v/hich, of course, vary in amount depending on production, consist
principally of royalties and depletion. The combination of all these over -
head items constituted a variable proportion of total costs, running
generally from 14 to 20 per cent.
Production Cost: This term has been used throughout the N.R.A.
cost studies as representing the total of the cost charges involved in
producing only, exclusive of sales and general administrative expenses*
For the deep mine operations, this producing cost averaged in the Sub-
divisions of Divisions I and II slightly under and slightly over 90 per
cent of total cost. Western Pennsylvania Subdivision I showing 93.44
per cent with others ranging lower - Northern West Virginia averaging
88.15 per cent of total cost.
Selling and Administrative Expenses: Generally speaking these items
averaged arouiid 10 per cent of total cost, with the Northern Subdivisions
running under 10 per cent, and Western Pennsylvania averaging as low as
6.56 per cent. The Southern Subdivisions averaged slightly over 10 per
cent. Since these expenses are frequently the subject of critical analysis,
especially the administrative costs v/hich include salaries of executives,
a brief statement of the cost in cents per ton will be here undertaken.
9837
I
■ -431-
Selling and Administrt^.tivc Cos ts , Aycr-f^c in Cents
Per Ton i^or Selec,tcd,.Ai-oa-r in Di visions I, II and
III. Composito\for 10 'Months April 1934
through January 19_35
Sellinfi' Ex!:)ense (*) AdrAinistrative ExjDensc (*)
Cents 'p of Total Cents f. of Tot;).l
Per Ton Cost Per Ton Cost
Eastern Pa. (excluding Hd. 10.69 5.04 7,94 3.74
and Upper Potomac)
Western Penns^'olvania .
Ohio
Northern Wost Virginia
Southern ITq. 1
Southern No. 2
Indiana - deep
Indiana, - strip
Illinois - deep
Illinois - strip
Alabrma
Division I - North
Division I'- South
Division I as a v/hole
Division II '- deep
(Ind. & 111.)
-strip
Divisions I, II, III ; ■"
comhined
S.29
3.24
6.96
3.59
11.34
6.29
3.91
2.17
13.45
8.07
7.09
4.25
14.06
7.22
5.71
2.93
13.68
7.52
5.66
3.11
10.42 .
6.49
5.17
3.22
11.43
6.30
7.83
5.58
9.72
6.01
S.94
4.29
9.91
7.86
9.31
7.39
9.20
3,96
11.47
4.95
9.46
4.90
6.79
3.52
13*32
7. 34
5.74
3.05
11.68
6.13
5.25
3.28
9.87
6.10
5.58
4.07
10.53
3.05
8.71
6.65
11.29
6,12
S.54
3.65
(*) Source: "Bittuninous Coal Statistics April 1934 thro-ogh January 1935",
pp. 8 and 9; files of N.E.A. BittuninotLS Coal Unit; except
Indiana,, Illinois, Division II, deep and strip segregated
costs v.'hich rerc computed from the unpuhlishcd data, in same
files.
The compp.rativoly lo\7er selling cost average for Western Pennsylvania
stands out. Undoubtedly the presence in that Subdivision of the country's
largest; operating company with v/ide ramifications through subsidiary
distributing cor^porations exercises a downward influence on the average
selling cost per ton.. It is cuite possible tha,t discretionary allocations
of selling co-^tt.- -/ere nade to subsidiary corporrtions , such as lake doclcs.
This Subdivision also is in the heart of the by-product and steel district,
with haavy-volnmc cons-jmers..
Other subdivisions average aro^ond 9 to 14 cents jer ton for selling,
Division I - North averaging C,46 cents and Division I - South 13,82 cents
per ton, with 11.63 average for the Division a,s a whole. Selling expense
for Division II is slightly under tha-t for Division I, the o-verage amounts
being 10 and 11.58 cents per ton respectively.
9837
"432-
On the other hand, administrative oxoonsc per ton f^enerally aver-
ages hi^'-ier in those subdivisions lic?,vin;2,: lov/er selling costs than in those
v;ith the hirfier selling costs (t/c stern Pennsylvania again heing an excep-
tion) , rimning from ahout 5 to 8 cents, vith Ala'baraa almost 11-i^j cents.
In dealing v;ith selling and ac'dninistrative expenses, several facts
should he remembered, iTot 3.1ways do company accounts accurately segregate
the rep.l soiling costs; principo,l administrative officers often do a
large part of the selling, especially to ths important customers. Speci-
alization u]"ijn or exceptionally good n,ccess to large-volume consumers o.s
against dependence upon a larger nuiuher of customers whose average busi-
ness is small in volume, v/it.h commensurate ly greater expense of selling
per'.ton; or a. v/ide expanse of territory covered in selling as against the
more fortunate situation, even with ^t he sa,nc number and size of customers,
congregated in a comparatively small area; or a group of comparatively
small mines contributing to ,the avereige as against larger average sizo mines
in- another subdivision, v/ith the effect generally of a larger cost of sell-
ing per ton in .the former area; difference in policj- as to size of com-
missions paid or channels of distribution utilized- — these and other
factors largely unrcvealed %xi the N.R.A. cost reports mr^y reasona.bly account
far vp.riations in selling ejgDonse, and to a lesser extcnb administrative
expense,
Generally speaking, the combined selling and administrative cost
in cents per ton, as reportqd from month to month,, ran. from 15 to 20 cents,
the 10-month average for Division I _bcing 17,9 cents per ton, 9,4^ of total
cast; Division .II 17,1 cent^ per toil, 11,1^ of total cost; and Divisions I,
II. 'and III combined, 17.8 cqnts per. ton, 9.8^ of total cost,
E, Average Costs, by :i.H,A. Code Divisions .
Monthly averages are presented in this chapter in tabular form, with
illustrative charts for the principal Subdivisions and Divisions. The
charts and tables shov/ the following items:
Labor Cost
Supplies
Miscel"'-ncous and Fixed Charges
Production Cost- (total of foregoing)
Selling and Administrative Expense
. . Total Costs
Average IT-umber of Days Tip'ole Started
The nwnber of rcportizig mines vdiose figures enter into the averages,
and their total production in tons, also appear on the "tables.
The reader will be able to trace average costs in any Division or
Subdivision or field area, within a Subdivision, For a more detailed
breakdov/n of the costs themselves into sub-items, reference may be mode
to the ptiblished su-imaries in three_ volumes (lIovcmbcr-Dccember 1933; Jan-
uary-Eebru£iry-March 1934; April 1S3'4 - Jamjary 1935), v;hich are an appendix
to this stydy,
1, Divisional Averages: An avera.g' cost figure for all the
9837
(»'
-433-
mines operating vatliin a Division muct .idmittcdly reveal only a very
general picture. Kevertliclops , in this industry r.uch averages are very
si^'nificant ,
Division I, for instrjicu, co'iprises all the 'bit-uminous coal fields
east of Indiana (except Alab.am;i*Gcor^:ia*Southorn Tcnncr;?ce) and incl-udc
also Western Kentuck;''', This Division acconnts for .norc tli^an 72^ of the
entire Unitru States productiou. It coinpctcs, generally speahing, for
the business of the Zast, laiddlc West and Northv/est - in the Dast among its
o\Tn neighbors, and elsewhere with Division II primarily. In any coordinated
discussion of thi industry, Division I fields usiuilly arc bracketed to-
gether. This is particularly true since the World War, tho\igh this large
producing territory finds itself sub-divided by wage-scale differentials
into tv'o sections, called for convenience Division I North and Division
I South,
In- the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935, the districts
formerly comprising Division I under the N.R.A. Code were combined vdth
Indiana, Illinois and Iov;a (il.R.A, Go'co Divis'ion II) to establisli
"Minihiun Price Area IJumber 1", Pricds fixed under this Act must 'shov;
an average return "as nearly as may be" to the v/oightvjd average of the
total costs per net bOn on pII "tonn.age of such minimum price area" ^
Clearly, Divisional averages dtixing the Code 'period .talce on an added
significance "as forming a 'body of cos't data c'omiDarablc "vatli those' requi-
site as oases for price fixing under the Bitwriinous Coal Conservation
Act of 1935, For purposes of future comparison, therefore, a statement
will follow the di s cus.s i.on* of Divisi'^hs I and' II, presenting the 'combined
averages of these Division's,
. 2. Tv/o Distiiiet Periods U nder .Code; The K,Pu,A. Code period
naturally divides itself i'nto two pai-'ts: ■ (l)' The 8-hour day and "40-hour
u'eck' period through Marcir 1934; and '(2) the 7-hour day and 35-hour v/eek
period beginning April 1, 1934, and running through to the termination
of the IT.S.A, Code llay 27, 1935.
Bituminous Coal v/as the first industry in history to adopt a nation-
wide 7-hoiu' day, (Sce Chapter I'V-(b) on Wages and Hours.)
Cost statements on Porm.s A a.nd B were required by IT.R.A. beginning
with November 1935, so that s-um:uarics are available for the five months
ending in llarch 1934 (the 8-hour day period), and for the ten months
starting with April 1934 thjoitgh January 1935, (in the 7-hour day period)
\7hen monthly reporting- ceased. - -
The proportionate relationships of the cost items shov/n during the
first 5-month period v/cre fairly constant from month- to month in the
divisional 3Vc---ages. Although in the different months the aver.iges were
not always b-:-,;>;d on reports of identical mines, nevertheless the repre-
sentation in tonnage is so large as to be f .-.irly conclusive of broad indi-
cations, Por instance, o-verage production costs show a variation ap:_-)rox-
imately indicative of the effect of a. variable number of days vrorked.
It sho"dld be borne in mind that average costs as bctv/een any two
Divisions normally appcrr at different levels, due in varying degrees
to typical geological conditions, expanse and population density of
marketing territory, wages and oth^r labor factors, etc. For instance,
9837
-434-
ia r;ivisi?-E I anO II, the cosg of sell-ing cfincrallj is liliely to "bo less
per ton l;li£m in Divisions lY an:. V, due to a more congested market; la'oor
costs avera:. e less in Division II than in cith.r Divir-ion IV or Divi-
sion I, due partly to the hc.-.'.vy vrei, gating of stripping oper^.tions and
partly to favorahle operr.tiri;'/; conditions; in Division V the costs appear
higher tlx.n in Divisions I or II hcc;-uiL-e of avcr-ivje higher i/rage scales,
higher selling costs - a no're scattcrrd mar'xt, and longer transportation
with higher freight costs on equiprasnt -nad sup-:dics.
The Divisions compare as follows for t/ic two K.R.A. Code Periods:
Division I
IIov. 1933- :ar. 1934'
Apr. 1934- Jan. 1935
Division II
Nov. 1933~Mar. 1934
Apr, 1934-Jan. 1935
Division III
Nov. 1933-Mar. 1934
Apr. 1934-Jan. 1935
Division IV
Nov. 1933-Mar. 1934
Apr, 1934-Jan. 1935
Division 7
Nov, 1933-Mar. 1934
Apr, 1934-Jan. 1935
(a) Not available
Mine Mine
Lahor Supplies
$Pcr ton $Per ton
.9427 .2168
1.1519 ,2575
Pi
$P.
;.'IisC, &
xed Chgs,
er ton
.2872
.3171
Sf
&
$P(
;1] ing
Adm,
3r ton
.1522
.1793
Total
Cost
$Per ton
1.5989
1,9058
.7299
.8291
.2471
.2944
.2311
.2504
.1372
.1709
1,3453
1.5448
1.1218
1.4130
.3077
.3658
.3189
.3131
.1999
,2064
1,9483
2,2983
.8011
(a)
,3297
(a)'
.4106
(a)
,2296
(a)
1.7710
(a)
1.0758
(a)
.3111
(a)
.4123
(a)
,2423
(a)
2.0414
(a)
«'
3. Divisio n I; Average Costs - (in 1934 produced 12,11$ of
the U.S. total, ficcordi!!^ to U. S. Bureau of Mines pre-
liminary estimate)
For Divisirn I, labor cost averaged nearly 59^ of total ...
costs during the 5-month period wl-en the S-hoiir day wf»,s' in effect, and in
the second pciriod uncler 7-hour day averaged nearly ^Q\ per cent of total
costs.
The nnmber of da.ys worked is a heavy factor in costs per ton, Labor
pr.id on a dt.y anc hour basis obviously v;ill vary in cost per ton depending
on tons i3rod\iced; shorter working tinicD vdll reduce the production, but
often day v/orkers v/ill work full time in unproductive or lovf production days.
Tonnage men, on the other liand, v/ill, given the same pro^^ortions of men
vrorking at the respective rates in two different periods, shov; very nearly
9837
-435-
t.:e Sfvmc aver..,(,G cost per ton for their labor while the wage rate remains
uncliansed. Yardage and deadwork v.lll also more or less average out in
a composite representing a large nuvibcv of mines, although in individiial
mines the cost per ton inav vr.ry v.l: clj' bctvra.n one month an"". ..vnother.
Mine Su-^ervisory and Clerical Qxoonh\o is lil:oly to run more or less the
same in total rjrnount from month to no}it]i, v-'rying per ton according to
the days the laine -worked r;.nd the tons produced.
Total Labor Costs, avcra^.cd for all of Divisi.m I, reflect the monthly
changes in v/orldng time only to a slight degree, but comparatively narrov/
variations in each of the cost grouvTS coirrorising production costs (labor,
supplies, miscellaneous and fixed charges) combine to illustrate quite
clearly the effect of variable \7orking tine. 'The November 1933 production
cost, $1.4519 in a 17.1 day month, rose in December to $1.4934 as days vrorked
fell to 15.9; and by March had fal on back to $1.4123 v?hcn the average mm-
ber of cj.ys tip-oles started rose to 21,3, a, very good month.
It is not intended to attribute the entire variation to v/orking
days, but undoubtedly in the averages this is the largest direct-effect
factor. Nearly all other factors appear at irregular times in reports of
individual companies, but the working time factor is likely to appear in
the vast majority of mines and affect the cost of a vaef bulk of tonnage
all in the same month.
It is unfortunate that tv.-o Southern Subdivisions of Division I
(Southern No, 1 and Southern V.o, 2) reported for the 8-month period
April-ilovember 1934 in one statement, which necessitates showing the
Division I Summary in tliat ma,nner. The 10-month average cost for this
period indicates the increase in l^hor cost to ho.ve averaged 20,92 cents
per ton under Code Amenojiiont 1 as compared v/ith the earlier period. Other
costs increased also, naraely Supplies 4.07 cents. Miscellaneous and Fixed
Charges 2.99 cents, for a total increar-c in Production Cost of 27,98
cents per ton. Selling and Administrative expense increased 2,71 cents,
resulting in Total Cost increase duri:ig this lO-m.inth period of 30,69
cents.
5-Month Period
ITov, 1933 through
March 1934
(8-hoi;j day)
10-Month Period
April 1934 through
Jan-ua.ry 1935
(7-hour day) Increase
nine labor
Mine Supplies
Miscellaneous & Pixcd Charges
Production Cost
Selling and Administration
Total Cost
Per ton
$0.9427
,2168
.2372
1.4467
,1522
$ 1.5989
Per ton
$1.1519
,2575
,3171
1,7265
.1793
Per ton
$0.2092
,0407
.0299
.2798
,0271
$ 1.9058
$ .3069
Not all of this increase is directly due to the increased wage scale
and reduction of maxim-urn. hoiirs to 7 a c'ay, 35 a v/eek. The cost of supplies
v/as also increasing; and the factor of working days had a decided influence.
The simple average of the workii-ig days in the 8-hour day period, wo-uld be
•^.
9837
IE
s
^
-436-
8
I I ^ al'ij ^ ^ ^ ^
8
-ft
go
>'
uU:
i
^
£L
'»
4
^^ -s.
f^r
<fi
-437-
18,2 per month for the five months; in the 7-hour day period, it would "be
15,8 per month (15,7 for tho B-noaths composite fvo;ii April through
Noverjber), This reduction in working time operated as. a direct influence
to increase costs per ton. It is to ho exoected that ordinarily a iDoriod
of months which includes April to Au^'ust or Septemher v;ill reflect the
relativel;/ lov/cr suiraer rate of production, Durin,;" this 1954 stretch,
April ^7as affected advGrs.:ly hy certain interruptions due to the new
schedule of hours and v;ages - some r.tcrihutable to the opcr'.tors p.nd some
to lahor (see more detailed discussion in Clmptcr IV), In no succeeding
month did the aver-.f.e working days equal the 18,2 avera.9;c of the initial
5-month period, and thr averages for Hovemher, December and January failed
to' reach the time worked in 193^' hy 2,1 daj^s in llovemher, 1,7 in December,
and ,7 a day in January,
The comparative influence of v/orking time, of lahor cost increase,
and of other increases known to have taken place, such as cost of Eup;olies,
etc., is not discernihle or capable of segregation in the report? as sub-
mitted.
In the 5-month period, an average of 863 mines reported a total
production of 79, 07k:, 000 tons, or 869,879 per day, an average per mine
per day of 1,^08 tons. In the lO-month pr riod, an ave-'^age of 793 mines
reported a total production of lS3,309,0i^0 tons, or 876,483 per day, an
average per mine per da,y of 1,105 tons. This indicates a substantially
different sample of mines in th.c..tvo periods; the resulting average costs
in both periods rest upon the composition by Subdivisions, which vdll
later be exajnincd, (*) The significance of these comi~iarative rates of jiro-
duction i;S also tied up with a consideration of the number of additional
men employed, the greater mmber of vrorking places opero^ted, the nviraber
of loading mo.chines added to offset the effect of reduced ]iours per day.
Data on these poiiits are not available.
Before leaving the Divisional discussion, the two major sections
of Division I should be consido-red, since those producing o-roas north
of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers (including also Northern West Virginia),
knoT/n as Division I - Horth, operated ja a highr r basic v/age scale thj,n
did those south thereof, knovm as Division'. I - South.
4. Division I_ -. Ilorth - (in 1934 produced 38. 02^. of the toto.l
U, S. prod\iction, according to preliminary estimate of
U. S. Bureau of Mines)
This is the Section of Division I for which the II. R, A. Code estab-
lished basic minimirai v/age rates for inside skilled labor of $4,60 per
8-hour day. (4.36 in Northern West Virginia), as against $4,20 per 8-hour
day in Division I - South; tmd for whicn Amendment 1 established a day
rate of $5,00 beginning April 1, 1934, as against $4.60 in the South,
Reference to tho table indica.tes that the first 5 month period, under
(*) Relative v;eight of each Subdivision appears in table "Ap"'roximate
Representation cf.Tonnage Shov/n in Statistical SuirtTrrics" , for ref-
erence to which sec earlier in this Chapter, page 422.
9837
-438"
the 8-hotir day, resulted in o.n avcrai';:e labor cost of 87.35 ccntc- p;r
t ., ■, . ;. ?-_. ■ (i ; "ijf.icv scale increased by 31. 23 cents to
$1.1858 per ton in tiic 10 hiontlis i'ollovdnt^.. Silp"-lies in the second
period v/ere up 4,46 ccntf;; miscclliineous and fixed chargds 3,9 cents;
selling r.nd r,dininistrat .on 3.19 ccnt^; a 'total increase of 3'r3.68 cents
per ton froi'i 'l.oO.'lij to ^l,.. .rG. '.''aus, iucror.sod lalDor costs accounted
for 65^'S of the increased cost, althoi;igh, as indicated in the discussion
of Division I costs just ■:".'bovc , not 'ill of this increa.se in labor cost
can be attributed to the increa.sc ia- V'a;rc scale and reduced worlcing hours.
The avera :c nonthly worldng time in the 10-month period was onlj'' 15,19
days per month a,s against 18,2 days in the early period.
It i-- interesting to compare the output per mine per vrorking day in
the ti'o periods. Under -the ,8-houi' da,y, the '433 mines reporting showed
an aver ge of 1040 tons a day per mine, v/hile during the 7-hour day period,
408 mines reported an average daily output of 1095 tons per mine. Again,
dr<,ta to place the responsibility for the faster output are lacking, but it
undoubtedly lies m a combination of more nen, more vorking places, more
mechanical equipment.
At the time of the adoption of Amendment No, 1, operators estimated
that the nev; hours and wage scale and other rising costs meant an aver-
age increased cost of about 23 cents per ton',
. 5, Division I - South - ('In 193d- produced 34.75^3 of the
U. S. total, according to preliminary estimates of
the U. S. Bureau of Mines)
Average labor costs in the South were lov;er than in the North
by 6,39 cents per ton in the early Code period, and 6,67 cents in the
latter period. The total costs in the tv.'o sections were very nco,rly
the same in the first period, mainly duo to higher average selling and
administrative expenses rejDorted in the South. In the second period,
hcv/ever, although both sections shov/ed very similar increase in labor
cost, the North reported greater avcra.gc increases in the other items,
which results in an average total cost of ,ol,9296 for the North and
SI. 8829 for the South, a difference of 4.67 cents per ton in favor of
the South,
The (simple) aver£:.ge monthly v.'orking time Y/ds only 16,4 days
in the sec ;nd period as against 18,2 days in ' the earlier period. It
may be noted here tho.t the South shovre relatively better vrarking time
throughout, the usioal "slack" months of the year than does the Uorth
largely because of the steadilrv maintained production of the smokeless
coals in Southern Subdivisi'jn No. 1 (so: later discussion of this Sub-
divisions' costs in detail).
\
5837
-439-
9S37
-440-
D
O
s
s
2
V0
X
H
5
Z
O
(O
>
:!•
■3
3 S ^
i ! !^
bus _;
^2
i
-^
r^
XT
ILI
J£L
3
<
3
uJ
3
O
CROSS SECTION ;C H )0
-441-
6. Division II (in 1934 ac>JOunted for 16.48^ of tho tj. s. total
production, according to orclicinary estimates of U." S. Purcau
of Mines) " .
In Indiana and Illinois a sti'cstantial oart of the output is pro-
duced by stripping operations. In 1933, of the total Indiana output
36. 3^0 was from stri-o mines, and in Illinois 155^. {*) The influence of
these lower-cost stripping operatiois on aver-ge costs is decidedly down-
ward. Deep and strip mines all ccmiDete for the same business.
The lower strip mines costs are, however, not entirely responsible
for the lower average costs in Division II as against Division I. A
combination of circumstances, including (l) better seams on the average;
(2) the use of a higher proportion of workers on a day basis than in
Division I; (3) a much higher percentage of total production loaded mech-
anically than in Division I; all weigh heavily in the lower average of
deep raining costs in'. Division II,
For the Division as a whole, including both deep and strip mines,
the figures disclose the combined influence of the 7-hour day, new wage
scale, and other increasing costs, in the two M.R.A. Code periods, in-
tensified by a number of days worked monthly averaging 16.8 in the first
period and only 14.6 in the second period:
Mine Labor
Mine Supplies
Miscellaneous & Fixed Charges
Production Cost
Selling & Administration
Total Cost
5 Months
10 Months
November 1933
April 1934
thr ough
through
i.ierch 1934
January 1935
Per ton
Per ton
$ .7299
$ .8291
,2471
.2944
. 2311
.2504
$ 1.2081
$ 1.3739
.1372
. 17C9
$"
Increase
Per ton
. 0992
,0473
.0193
.1658
.0337
$ 1.3453
$ 1.5448
$ . 1995
Note from the ensuing analysis of the averages for the Division II
Deep mines and the Division's Strip mines that the influence of the Deep
mine group in the Division averages was comparatively heavier in the 8-
hour day period than in the second or 7-hour day period. Thus the aver-
age total costs of the Deep mines during the 10-months of the 7-hour day
was $1.6157, an increase ef $.1987; the Strip mine figure ($1.3088) was
an increase of $.2198, resulting in a combined Deep and Strip average
increase of $.1995.
Note also that in Division II, Amendment 1 on Aptil 1, 1934, effected
a change only in the maximum hours - the basic rates per day remained un-
changed, so that the increased labor cost resulting from Amendment 1 was
due mostly to the change in the working day, by contrast with Division I
(*'> U. S. Bureau of Klines, "Coal in 1953, Detailed Statistics", p. 3''^2,
9837
C[J
a
I
u
whero the hours and basic scale we. e both changed at this time, i*^
The average outout per mine oer day was 1, 575 tons in the 8-hour
day -oeriod, but increased to about. 1,610 under the 7-houi" day; the first
figure is the aggregate of 170 mines, while the second is for only 149
mines, however, a substantially different sample.
The Peer) Mines composed 78.13 per cent of the total production of
the reporting mines during the initial 5-raonth period, or 17,538,000 out
of 22,447,000 tons. In the succeeding 10 months, a shorter work-week period,
the reporting deep mines composed 76.9 per cent, or 27,035,000 out of
35,155,000 tons.
In the earlier period, the (simple) average of days wcrked per month
was 17; in the second period only 14.6 days, due to the smaller numher of
working days per month in the spring and summer. The tocal days worked
per mine for the three-month period beginning November 1933 was 51.1 and
for the same three m.onths in the 1934 period was 55.6 da.ys. A raonth-by-
mohth comparison of costs for these 3 winter months discloses the follow-
ing:
Division II Average Days Average Total
Deep Mines . Worked Cost per Ton
November 1933 16.3 $ 1.4490
November 1934 15.5 1.6103
Doccmbcr 1933 17.0 1.4337
December 1934 .' 19.5 1.5327
January 1934 17.8 1.4099
January 1935 20,6 1.4897
1933 - Total 3 Months 51.1 $ 1.4299
1934 - Total 3 Months 55.6 $ 1.5374
While it is fairer to compare like seasons to measure the 8-hour day costs
with those under the 7-hour day, there is the factor of different numbers
of days worked, which in this case operates to offset some of the increase
in costs. The bare fact is that in these three seasonally cxjmparable
months the cost increase shown is $.1075; but the actual increase would
unquestionably show as somewhat more than that, if the working time in
the, two winter periods had been the same. By projecting theaascertained
average one-day cost, by items, in the same manner as described in section
C-1 of this chapter, the average increase in cost may ie approximated for
the three months, Hovember 1934 - January 1335, over November 1933 -
January 1934, had the reporting mines worked 55.7 days in both periods.
The projected cost would then compare with the Novemlser 1934 - January
1335 act"ual averages as follows:
(•*) See Scheduls A of th? Code and revisions of Schedule A in Amend-
ments 1, 2, 3, N.R.A. Bituminous Coal Unit files, "Code".
9837
■ -444-
Avpra.re Production Cost
Divi sion
Deen Uir
II
les
Hon
ths
Average Daj^s
^Jerked
Projected for
ITov. 1933-Jan.l934
$1.3362
1.2610
1.2395
Actual
Nov. 19 34- Jan.
$1.4600
1.3844
1.3553
$1.3938
35
ilovember
December
January'-
15.6
19.6
■20.5
55.7
Total 3
$1.2733
Thus by projection it appears that the adoption of the 7-hour day,
35-hour neek, viith increased/hour- rates, on April 1, 1934, resulted in an .
avera:~e increase in production cost of about $.1205 per ton for the re"oort-
in^ deep mines of Division II (exclu6.ing lona) on a comparable basis of d&ys
worked during these three v/inter months.
; The Strip nines of Division II, exclusive cf Iowa, showed average
total costs during these same t^/o comparable periods as follov/s:
Division II
Strip Iv[ines
Ilovember 1933
I'ovember 1934
December 1933
December 1934
January
Jan'oary
1934
1935
1933 - Total 3 Months
1934 - Total 3 Months
Average Days
Average Total
Worked
Cost -per Ton
14.7
$1,141®
16.0
1.2790
16.0
1.1213
19.1
1.2068
16.4
1.0796
19.9
1.2226
47.1
$1.1131
55.3
$1.2337
(p
To approximate the actual effect of the 7-hour day and accompanj'-ing increase
in wage scale in April 1934, a projection has been made similar to that used
for the deep mines just discussed above, which produces the following com-
parison of average costs in the 3 vanter months of 1933 with those of 1934
on the basis of the same number of working .days:
Avera.'^e Production Cost
Division II
Av
erage Days
Prnj
ected for
Actual
Strip L'lines
Worked
Nov. 19
33-Jan.l934
.9370
lIov.1934-Jan.1935
ITovember
. 15.9
$1.1029
December • ■
19.0
.8695 ■
1.0248
January
19.8
. 8202
1.0551
Total 3 Months
54.7
$
.8717
■ $1.0586
The approximate average increase in -oroduction cost per ton, on the basis
of comparable working da^^s during these 3 v/inter months thus v/as $.1869
per ton for this group of reporting' strip mines. - •■ .
9837
I
-445-
? r L-i'-'n: ;nines rn'orini"; into the pvc:raf.;rs nhoi"cd an outnut nrr
minn ner d^y of 1790 t^ns in tho 5 m-^nths imdcr the 8-hour day, but increased
to 1,975 tons undc-r the 10 vionths of thv- 7-hcur dry. There '"ere 34 reporting
mines in the former figure -nd o2 in the l-ittc r. 2<o con-netcnt accounting
for the in-nr:>ved n>tc cf nroducti^n is ••vnilfijlr ,
7. Divisj :.^;^,^ r nd I I C^nVoi ncd; 7.'Ar- combined area includes the
producing f ields""of' I^^-a, Il'lin i^, lirnr^n-^, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, West
Virgin: », Northern Tcnnessc , Vir^-iiiia, i.ierylend and Pennsylvania. In 1934,
the TDrcducticn of these Divisions constituted 89.25 -ncr cent of the total
United States cuttiut, or 519,884,000 out of 358,395,000 tons, according to
the -ork liininary estimate of the U. S. Bureau of Mines.
The significance of these combined avcraices lies in the fact that this
area is identical ^ith minimum price area number 1 under the Bitiaminous Coal
Conservation Act of 1955. Prices as fixed under this Act must be coordinated
and averaged in realization "as near as may be" to the average cost of all
the producing fields embraci d in the minimTim price area.(*) (No chart is
av liable for Divisions I and II combined; one is attached, hoi^ever, covering
Divisions I, II and III combined).
A comparison of the average costs for the 3 v/intcr months beginning in
Nov. 1933, '^ith the same months beginning November 1934, is not possible
because of the form in ^hich Southern Subdivisions I and 2 reported in the
latter period, T'hcn only an 8-month averagf coverin.^: Anril through November,
1934, is pv?- liable.
The composite averages of Divisions I and II •■re sho'^n in the follo'ving
table for the 5 months of the R-hour day compared ^-ith the 10 months of the
7-hour day. For strict comparability, the deep mines alone are sho--fn in one
comparison -^nd the de p and strio m.Liiin.^ averages combined in another.
DIVISIONS I • nd II CGI/BIHED
AVJRAGS COSTS
Deep Kines Only
Deep ■'ind St^ip Mines Combinec
Ivline Labor
Mine Sup■'^lies
Misc. & Fixed Chgs.
Production Cost
Selling & Aem. Ex-o.
Total Cost
" . I" ys . .: ; ■■v-.i\
No. Days Tipple Started
No. of Mines
Production (Thous-
ands cf tons) 96,610
5 Months
Nov. 1933 -
March 1934
8-Hour Day
10 Months
April 1934-
Jan. 1935
7-Hour Day
Pe.r Ton
$1.1177
.2613
.3025
1.6P15
.1759
Si. 8534
5 Months
Nov. 1933 -
March 1934
3-Hour Day
10 Months
April 1934-
Jan. 1935
7- Hour Day
Per Ton
$.9233
.2215
.2727
Per Ton
$ .8956
.2748
1.3939
. 1489
$1.5428
Per Ton
il.0861
.2650
. ".035
1.4175
. 1434
$1.5659
1.6550
.1777
$1.8327
89.4'
999
155.1
910
8P.9
1033
156.1
942
155,344
101,519
173,464
(*) Bituminous Coal Conrervation Act of 1935, Section 4, Part II,
subsection (a), !%P..A. Bituminous Coal Unit files.
9337
J>
-4*6-
9837
'/f >
t
-447-
The Dee-p Mines ; On r simr)le average basis, the nines re-oorting in the S-hour d;
■period aver.i-ed 17,9 i^crkin- d"ys -per month, ^whilo during the 7-hour day Beriod
the re-ncrtinj mines pver^ged only 1;:. 5 days -nor .nontli^ The conrnfirison of total
costs "beti-'een the t-'-'O -periods i? n^^t ^ fair mcHe-j.rc of Increase in cost, due
to the direct factor of siiorter ? ver'v^c niujcr of d ays worked In the second
Deriod. The increase as sho-n rtriAls ---t 29.P.5 cents -per ton. However, the
influence of the summer month:-, in rcducir..::: f vailaole \"orkinp time destroys the
period's comriarnhility ^"ith the 5 v-intcr months of the previous season. Based
on projections of production cost for Division I find Division II seioarately, and
ppr)lying the influence of the - orking-day weighted hy tonnage indicates an
f.verage increase for Division I of -roout 23.83 cents, for Division II of about
14. o3 cents, and for Divisions I and II conoincd of ?0.35 cents per ton. Note
that these figures represent projected produc tion costs, and do not include the
increase indicate'"! for Selling and Administrative costs, which a-onears at 2.88
cents per ton without rer.pect to the influence of working drys. It is fair to
say that the change in cost between the 8-hour day nnd the 7-hour day periods
ap-proximated 23 or 24 cents -ner ton for this entire area.
8. Division III (In 1934 p-roduced 2.96'^^ of the U. S.
total, T'ccording to U. S, Bureau of Mines pre-
liminary estimate.)
Divisi-^n III (Alabama, G-eorgia and Southern Tennessee) was more materially
affected by the 7-hour day than either Division I or Division II. Labor cost
rose from 57.53'^ of total cost du^inT the first or 8-hour day -period to 61.48'^
in the 9 months after Amendment 1, and from $1.1218 to .''1.4130, or 29.12 cents
per ton.
In the first porio'3 the mines average''' 14.5 o-oerating days per month and
in the second period 14.6 days. Tl:erefore the increase of 29.12 cents in
labor cost may be said to be due to the 7-hour day and new wage scale.
The cost of su-p^lies also avera£-ed hi her per ton in the second period,
increasing from 30.77 to 36.53 cents, or 5.81 cents. Selling and Administrative
was up from 19,99 to 20.54, or BS/lOO cents per ton, but Fixed Charges were
58/100 cents less. The t^^o periods compared as folloi"s:
I/iine labor
Mine Supplies
Misc. and Fixed Charges
Production Cost
Selling & Administration
Total Cost
5-;;onth Period
10-Month Period
i-Tov. 1933 through
April 1934 through
March 1934
January 1935
(8-Eour Day)
(7-Hour Day)
Increase
Per Ton
Per Ton
Per Ton
$ 1.1213
^. 1.4130
S
.2912
.3077
. 3658
.0581
.3189
.3131
.0058
1.7484
2.0919
.3435
.1999
.2064
.0065
*. 1.9-33
ft 2.2983
S
.3500
Avera-ge total costs in the second period were thus increased 35 cents per
ton over the initial period, labor and supplies almost e xactly accounting for
it. The average output per mine per da,y under the 8-hour day was about 700 as
against about 550 under the 7-iiOur da.y, with an average res-nactively of 47 and
50 mines contributing to the figures.
9837
(u
-446-
O O
»M O
2 ?
s ?
1 —
Ln
N
m
g;
c:
z
, ... 3
0)
^ s ^
>
" ^ -H
S ^- fO
o
^ 5Q
g o>
z
J6S
l«
-lO-
g
3
U3
13
y
c
s
8
T
(IP
i
(II r
-450-
TLe f re.-v.eacy tables show a -rov. of mines in the lowest-cost intervr.l
consiste::tl_ vorhiii;-; fewer then the ciivisionfl rvera. ;e clays (except in A^ril
1934, V.' icl: v.t s i aionth of v. set beca'.'.se of snis 'ensions after tlie new vrQe
scale cn-L 7~' our dr;y bec-rje effective). In fret, in the month of December 1934,
the tv/o lowest-cost groups ■'or'cec. ii r.nd G fc\7er da;, s thrn the divisional
averaje rni- fev;er than rn;.' ox' the ni hci'-cost j:ro"o.;is, Usin;r November 1933 r:id
December 1?3 : for srm;jle riirlyses, r biicf recr;..it\uation may be made as follov/a;
DIVISIO III
ITHEqUElICY lASLIS
-■; .
l^^n. of
■ of
AV; :. Out a.t
Av-i;. ¥o.
Avg. Cost
Cost ?cr 'j?on
i.'ines
Total
Fer Mine
of Tipple
Per Ton
Tons
Per Dai
Starts
(Tons)
(voider)
- ■.1,60
4
9.6
Ko^
.-ember 1933
3.1
$ 1.51.7
551.50
1,408
1.60
- 1.70
3
12.0
1,015
18.8
1. 655
l.VO
- l.GG
7
IS.l
591
15.2
1.744
l.ov
- 1,90
7
12.1
481
17. 2
1.355
1.90
- 2.00
6
IV. 1
880
15.5
1.933
2.C:
— L. 20
4
5.7
510
13.5
2. 1C5
2.20
- 2.50
2
3.4
1,C67
7,7
2. 244
2.30
- 2, 40
3
5.1
592
13.6
2. 355
2.40
- 2. .0
5
8.5
l,uC6
3.1
2.434
2.50
cj over
9
13.4
574
12.5
2.820
Totrl
F,0
ICO.'
752
12.7
$ 2.034
December 1934
$1. 50
-
vl. -0
1.80
—
.1.90
1.90
—
2.00
2.00
-
2.10
2.10
-
2,.jC
2.20
-
2. SO
2.30
—
2.40
2. ^:0
—
2. 50
2.50
&
over
3
5
5
3
7
4
4
4
11
4.8
10. 6
22.1
5.6
15.9
5...
6.0
8.2
20.3
319
990
1,;
659
'-31
463
549
554
10.0
11.4
17.7
20.
13.2
19.9
17.1
19.7
17.6
$ 1.661
1.
355
1.
968
2.
032
2.
151
2.
213
2.
ooo
2.
453
2.
395
Totc-1
A
-ib
100.
16.5
$ 2.241
9, Divisions IV ni\6. V ; Reporting of costs rnc. reeJiLation from hiines in
the SoU-thv'est r:nd Eocky luti^taln Divisions '."id not continue into the 7-hoi:ir day
period, ilo ciccus'-ion, therefore, cm be mpde as to comparative effect of
A^endinent 1 on r'/erage costs. Hinin,: conditions in these Divisions do not i.irlce
f»r as loTT^cost o-:erations, in rjenerrl, as ere fo'u.^.id in the! Divisions to the
east. Scc2.ir are, for the most part, raro.ch tliinner and less continuous, favlts
and .lartin-;- are more jersistent, piid deadvror:: is therefore much more of r,
factor i:_ cost. The coals from these areap compete in a uidely scattered mr.rhet
with fuel oils rnd natural ';-as frai thie Tes
-nC. Oklrhomr Oil fields as v.'ell as
with the loT7ei>-cost coals from other sections of the country, especi^llv Division
II. All of these adverse mining rnC. market i;v;5; conc^lticns are reflected in
generally smaller ninin j o aerations anJ, fevjer avera,"j;e nvimber jf days worked per
month,
9857
r
v_
-452-
Aver?ge C^sts by T'^'^.A. C^Oe Subdivisions.
-tei
Analytical discussion of costs -'ill not be :Tirde for the seam grouns or
Press ^itliin the -nrinci-onl Subdivisions. Tlie rcrdor i ^> referred to con-
densed tabulations of cost? by r.re;s, rn-.nth by month (.Surin;;: the entire 15-month
reTJorting neriod, y-hich arj-iear in the -"Tiviendix of cost tables.
1. Eastern Subdivisi'-:n c f Division I ; Thir- Subdivision includes
Central Pennsylvania, Soutlicrn So:.ie-^set, I.VTyl''.nd and Un-^er Potooa.c fields. In
1954 its ^-iroduction t.-^talrd 57 , VQ'- , O'-Xi tons cr 10.55 -oer cent o f the U. S. total,
according to -orelininary cptim,-tes of the U. S. bureau of Mines. (*)
Of the Subdivision tot-^1, 'iaryland and Urj-oer Potomac output was ?, 462, 000 tons
and the other 35,3o2,000 tons '•'ere -oroduced in Central Pennsylvania (called
"Eastern Pennsylvania'' in IJ.P..A. terminology)
Total cost averaged $1.7528 during the 5 months of 8-hour day (40-hour
reek) ct)eration, during which ■'iieriod the re-norting mines worked an average
of 91 days, or a sim^ole average of 18.2 days oer month.
In the 10 months of 7-hour dry (55-hour week) operation beginning Anril 1,
1934, the average t':trl cost increased by 38.54 cents to ',2.1182 per ton.
This period, however, included six slack months of the s-oring and summer, and
the working days ^jer- uonth averaged only 15.1; obviously the increase in cost
in this period is in -oprt due to less working time. The actual increase in
•production cost alone was 54.21 cents. 3y -projection methods already ex-
plained, the ap-nroximate -production cost, ha.d the same mines operated 18.2
days m'^nthly (as they did in the earlier period), is indicated as about 9
cents TDer ton less. This represents the influence of the smaller momber of
working days. In other words, the increase in nroduction cost during the
7-hour day period may be estimc-^ted a. t nearer 25 cents loer ton than the 34.21
cents shown in the summaries. Of this 25 c nts, labor cost contributed ^bout
18.5, supplies about 2.3 cents, miscoll-'neous and fixed charges about 3.7
cents per ton. Selling and a dninistrative exnense shoried. an actua.1 increase
of 4,53 cents. It is fair to say th^ t the total cost in the Eastern Sub-
division increased, on a comparable br-sis, about 29 cents -oer ton tinder
Amendment 1,
An examination -f the disoersion of mines and tonnafres according to cost
intervals of 10 cents, conveys a fairer nicture of the mine relationshit)S
as to cost tlian can be had from averages alone. For purpose of com-oarison, a
LTief discussion win here be made of the cost dis-oe^si'^ns for November 1953
and for January 1935, typical vnonths in the 40-hour ajid 35-hour week periods,
respectively.
Mines in this Subdivision s.iowed for ITovf ruber, 1953, a dis-oersicn cf
costs, ranging f^^om the "$1.20 - 01.40" grou-n to ''$2.50 and over." To aid in
analyzing the significant indications, the follo'-infT brief recar)itulation is
presented:
9837
( I
«
-453-
Eastern Su'bdivision of Division I - N'^vem'be r 1953
iJo . of
'6 of
Av;.;. Out-mt
Avg. l\i"o.
Avg. Cost
Cost Per Ton
Miner,
Total
Per Mi-ic
of TiT)r)le
Pi
cr Ton
Tons
Per Pajf
. Starts
^
(under)
(Tons)
$1.20
-.$1.40
7
9.8
1,524
20.1
$
1,340
1.40
- 1.50
11
10.5
1,099
19.0
1,457
1.50
- 1.60
19
15.4
1,019
17.4
1,559
1.60
- 1.70
22
9.9
639
15.4
1,643
1.70
- 1.80
24
16.8
869
17.6
1,763
1.80
- 1.90
26
15,0
817
16,5
1,857
1.90
- 2.00
14
7.9
855
14.5
1,940
2.00
- 2.10
14
5.5
617-
13.8
2,067
2.10
- 2.20
7
1.4
348
13.1
2,141
2.20
- 2.50
8
3.5
735
13.1
2,415
2.50
& over
Total
12
3. .3
554
10.9
2.704
164
100.0
R16 ■
15.4
$
1,752
The lower cost ranges obviously embrace, in .^^enerrl, mines^^ith higher rter-
day cut-out and '^ ith greater average vjcrking days. Outstanding exceptions are
(l) the $1.60 - $1.70 group v?ith lower, average out-put r)er mine "oer day than
4 of the higher cost grou-^s and with fewer average days w orked than 2 of
the higher cost grouns; and (2) the $2.20 - '!;2.50 grou-o of 8 mines Yrith larger
average output tier day tlia,n 3 of the lower-cost groups, and the same avera.ge
n-umher of working days as the $2.10 - $2.20 group of 7 nines whose average
daily output was less tlian half as great for the same average n-umher of days
worked. It should be remembered tliat each group average is for a rnonber of
mines one or more of which may be an exce-otion to this genera.l trend. It shoulc
also be remembered in all these freouency comt)a„risons that size of mine is a
minor influence and that this factor together with mmber of days worked is
insufficient to acco-iint for a difference of -olacement in the next interval-
grout) if working days of a group had equaled the average of the Subdivision,
With these -orincipal exce-otions, the -nrngressively increasing cost grou-os
reflect, as would be expected, a general trend downwa.rd leither in Average
N-umber of Tipnle Starts or in Average Daily Output per Mine, or both.
There arc other im-oortant cost influences such as thickness of seam,
geological wealcnesses in roof or floor, faults, etc., which undoubtedly hel-o to
accQ-unt for the higher cost grou-os, e s-occir-lly tliat ranging from $2.20 to $2.50.
Da.ta are not available from which to make ana.lyses sufficently searching to
disclose all of the factors res-oonsible for these exce-otions.
A similar examination of the freouency dis-oersions for 166 mines reporting
in January 1935, under the increased costs of the second Code -nei-'iod, reveals
a different general -nictu-re as regards d.istribution of the mines among the
grou-os. The grou-o of largest average da,ily -broducers are far from the lowest-
cost group, and the highest cost group en.joys better than the average number of
working days:
9837
-454-
Eastern SuLdivision o f -Divig.ion I. - January 1955
llo. of
^\ of
Av/5 . 0utt)Ut
Avg. No.
Avg. Cost
Cost Per Ton
Mines
Tot?l
Per Mine
of TiT-i^le
Per Ton
Tons
Per Day
Starts
(under)
(Tons)
$1.30
_
$1.60
9
7.0
1,120
17.8
$ 1.549
1.60
-
■ 1.70
12
5.4
504
18.8
1.666
1.70
—
1.80
17
7.1
621
17.1
1,754
1.80
-
1.90
20
12.5
795
20.1
1,839
1.90
-
2.00
23
21.6
1,270
18.8
1,955
2.00
-
2.10
25
13.6
767
18.0
2,036
2.10
-
2.20
18
11.5
929
17.5
2,160
2.20
-
2.30
10
6.9
882
19.8
2,261
■2.30
-
2.40
12
7.2
836
18.3
2,333 (
2.40
-
2,50
4
1.1
551
12.9
2,469
2.50
&
over
IS
6.1
486
19.9
2.741
<v l>
Total
166
100.0
829
18.5
$ 2.018
Note that several of the larger mines, as to a,verage daily output, do not fall
in the lo^jr-cost brackets. In fact, the tro grcu-ns $1.60 - $1.70 and $1.70 -
$1.80 are comnosed of medium size mines on the average and had about average
working days, s tami^ing them as enjoying definitely low-cost operating condition;
Per contra,, the two highest-cost -groups combined averaged 18.3 da.ys of work,
or about the average of all reporting mines in Janua.ry 1935, and a re quite
conclusivel.y stamped as orjerating on the average under high-cost conditions,
not necessarily connected with their smaller daily rate of production.
Possible Result f Allocation of Product ion on Co st Basis; In the absence
of more detailed kno'-'ledge of all the conditions attaching to the higher-cost
grouBS, i t is some^iat Tinfair to s-oeak of the nossible effect on costs if a
certain -oercentage of highest cost ;nines were to be cl'^-sed. It is in fact
qiiite possible that some -^ f the highest cost mines produce special coals
required for certain uses, and find a ready ma.rket even at higher prices. It
must be b-jrne in mind that this is a ourely statistical application and ignores
several practical considerati'^ns, among them the "special coals" already
mentioned. There is also the -nrirae consideration of consumer a.dvantage in -oric
so that an acttia,! an-Dlication of the allocation theory might well leave mines
in the nicture at very high cost levels but enjoying preferred geogra-ohical .■
location with reference to markets. Freight rate advantages might well offset
or more than -offset cost disadvantages. With full knowledge of Drobable qualif
ing circumstances, such a projection has been made, using Eastern Subdivision
as the example, November 1933 as a typical 8-hour-day month, and January 1935
as a ■tyoical 7-hour-day month. The representation of these reporting mines is
about 78 ner cent of total commercial -nroduction. This fact alone s tamT)s the
drita available as insufficiently representative for the -ourpose at 'hand, since
it is -Drbable that the 22 per cent of lonreported tonnage ^^^as produced largely
by small oiDerations mining at com-oa.ra tively high costs.
c
9837
-455"
The res-nonsibilitj'- fcr -Droducing the enti-"e otit-mt is here assigned to
the remrir.ing mines, p.nd cost "^f ■^')r'^diicti'"n i s -orojected on the asstun-otion of
an opr)crt-an.ity for all mines t'^ enj y p-n-nroxina tely the sane niunher of working
days -oer month. Such an all'-'cation T'-ints to a prs.ctical nonopnly among a
liraiteci nviraher of mines.
The resiilt f-^r Ifovcmhc^' lOZZ lever, the 13.? mines '4iich o-nerated at
costs ut) to $3.00 per t^n and nro'ucod '16.3 ncr cent d" the total shovm, and
permits thera 19.9 days of operation to rroduce nonut the same total tonnage as
ras re-oorted by the 164 reporting mines. H'miC-ily projected by interval groups,
a decrease in cost is shorn for the entire 133 mines amounting to 12 cents per
ton, to an average cost of '''51.635.
The result for Ja.nu'ry 1935 -rould leave in operation 134 mines vrhich
reported costs ur. to .'';2.30 per ton and oroduced 85.6 uer cent of the total of
all 164 re-Dorting mines; itv'ould also -oermit the 134 mines 21.5 r/orking days
to T-iroduce the total of 3,543,000 tons. "Rotignly projected, by dispersion
groups, the decrease in cost a-maears as 12,7 cents -oer ton, with the cost for
the 134 mines averaging ''51.891 TDer ton.
These theoretical i-)rojections are presented merely as indicative of the
resxilt cf Tjurely statistical allocation of lOO'o of production to mines i^hich
re-nresented about 85^ of the re-oorted output. Similar projections have not
been made for other subdivisions, but the basic material exists in files of
N.H. A. from i-hich to do so.
2. TTe stern Pennsylvani a Subdivision o f Divis ion I produced 53,891,000
tons Drl5.4'?o of the U. S. output in 1934. I*) Under the 8-hour -'age scale in
the 5 months preceding April 1934, the average total cost for an average of
143 reporting (deet)) mines ^'ps $1.6443 per ton. Under the 7-hour rrage scale in
the 10 months beginning April 1, 1934, the average total cost of 148 reporting
mines i-as $1,9408 -oer ton, an increase of 29.55 cents per ton. The mines
vcrked only 15.5 days per month on the average, however, as against 18.8 in the
first -oeriod. The entire increase, therefore, cannot be attributed to the
changed hours and v-a^^es. In fact, the 10-month average production cost -oro-
jected to 18.8 days indicates tliat h-id the reportin.^ mines been able to reach
that average monthly '"orking time, prt.duction crnt T7ould have been less b.y
about 4.25 cents. Instead of CA.".0'^Z ner ton the figure rould Iv-^ve been $1.7658,
an increase of 22.94 cents over $1.5c64 in the earlier neriod. It r/ould thus
p.-Q-i^ear that on a. com-oarable b'-'.sis of days '^'orked, ap-oroximate total cost in-
crease during the second -oeriod ■'"as about 35 cents -ner ton.
The dispersion of mines and tonnages by 10-cent intervals of costs
reflects the cost rela.tionshi-os among tlie mines that make u-o the averages.
Briefly reca-oit-ulfited,. these dis-oersions for IJovember 1933 under the first or
8-hour-day -oeriod of the Code ap-^ear as follo^-'s:
(*) U. S. 3ureau of rlines W.C^.. 919, February 15, 1935; -nreliminary estimate.
9837
G
•
-456-
jr^
S §
o
%
o
o
v-5
««
O"
.^
o.
ss
vQ
%
<
in
z
tn
;»
z
c
lU
*i
c
CL
c
«fl
I
->
ZJ
;. r
^
3
U
s
I-
H
O
T/j
<
u
0^
Si
-4L
l^t^
^S~
i.
8
O
^
o
r5
9S37
L
-457-
Western Sxibdivision of Division I - November IQ?-"^
•
No. of
^, of
Avg . Out-nut
Avg. No.
Avg. Cost
Cost Per
Ton
Mines
Total
Per Mine
of Ti-onle
Per Ton
Tons
P^r "Dr^-y
Starts
(under) -
(Tons)
$1.10 -
$1.20
■2
.6
664
14.9
$ 1.172
1.20 -
1.30
7
5.2
1,230
20.6
1,251
1.50 -
1.40
14
6.6
818
19.8
1.355
1.40 -
1.50
25
17.6
1,194
20.1
■ 1,446
1.50 -
1.60
22
15.1
1 , 217
19.3
1.547
1.50 -
1.70
30
32.7
I,ni4
•20.5
1.642
1.70 -
1.80
20
8.2
732
19.1
1.752 ■
1.80 -
1.90
6
2.2
642
19.3
1.849
1.90 -
2.00
19
10.4
1,116
16.7
1.948
2.00 -
2.10
3
.6
503
13.4
2.045
2.30 -
2.30
2
.4
695
10.3
2.216
2.40 -
. 2.50
.al
2
.4
428
16.2
2.438
To1
152
100.0 ■
1,157
19.4
1.604
-458-
The loFest cost "bracket includes' 5 rnineS" ■■-hich o'bvioUsly 'nust be
operating under unusTxally advantageous conditions. In spite of their
small daily output and working time 4-^- days "belovr the r.verage for the
Subdivision (hoth of \^hich circumstances tend to increase the -oer ton
cos.t), their average cost per ton was almost 8 cents less than the aver-
age of the next lowest group.
Although the 30 mines whose individual costs fall "between ^1.60 and
$1.70 were the largest in average daily, output ver mine, 1,814 tons, and^
enjoyed 20-\ working days, still their costs averaged. $1,642, or 47 cents'
per ton more' than the 2 mines which, with over 5 fewer working days .and
only about one-third of the daily output loer mine,- fell in the Ic^est-
cost grouTD. •• ,
The $2.40 - $2.50 nines ap-oarently operate norraallj'- under high cost
conditions, since their costs a.veraged $2,438 even, with "oetter working
time than the 2 mines in the SI. 10 - $1.20 grou-o. ,,:
Mines producing 88.2 per cent of the total reported by these 152
Western Pennsylvania ODcrations ranged in cost between $1.10 and $],90 .
limits; 11.8 ner cent of the total tonnage averaged over $1.90 in cost,
A similar recapitvilation for January, 1935, a t;\rriical month in the
7-hour day period, shows a somewhat rTiffer"e""nt" 'oicture':
TTestern Subdivision of Division I - January 1935
', of
Avg. Out-Qut
Ave. '"0.
Average
¥.0. of
Total
Per Fine
of TiioDle
Cost
Costs
Per Ton
"ines
Tons
Per Day
Starts
Per Ton
(
^ujider)
(Tons)
$1.40
«
$1.50
9
5.6
783
23.0
$ 1.445
1.50
-
1.60
5
3.2
914
19.9
1.531
1.60
-
1.70
20
10.5
782
19.4
1.663
1.7C
-
1.80
21
13.3
993
18.4
1.738
1.80
-
1.90
24
13.2
783
20.3
1.860
1.90
-
2.00
25
19.8
1,364 ■
16.7
1.955
2.00
-
2.10
26
22.1
1,413
17.3
2.061
2.10
-
2.20
9
4.6
1 , 304
11.4
2.175
2.20
-
2.30
10
3.2
637
14.7
2.248
2.30
-
2.40
5
2.2
1,039
12.0
2.321
2.40
-
2.50
2
2.0
2,549
11.4
2.466
2.50
fc
over
0.3
515
-.6
2.515
Total
159
100.0
1,056
17.2
1.904
Here the lo^'est cost group of 9 ^aines averaifres $1,446, reflecting 27.4
cents per ton increased cost over the lo^-est-cost .°-rou'D of 2 mines in '''Tovember
1933 and 19.5 cents increase over the 7 nines i^-i tl'.e second lowest-cost
grou-p of that month.
9837
-459-
The first five lov;er-cost .frrouios, with workin,)?- time exceeding the
average of all mines for this nonth b;- from 1.2 to 5.8 days, all average
less in daily outmit -oer mine than does the entire group of 159 mines.
In the succeeding hi'^her-cost-j^-;rouDS the general trend of working days
and daily output acco\int to a great extent for the groupings.
The highest cost group is composed of 5 mines of com-oaratively small
daily output and only 5.6 working days. By -orojection, had these 3 mines
enjoyed as many as 17 da:-s of wor':, their average cost would have teen
around $1.90 ner ton. On the other hand, had the 2 mines in the $2.40 -
$2.50 interval riad 17 working days, their average costs, by Drojection,
would ap-oear to be about $2.29 per ton, still comparatively high-cost.
o. Ohio Subdivision of Division I produced in 1934 a total of
20,842,000 net tons, or 5.81 per cent of the U, S. T)roduction. (*) The
57 (deep) mines re^Dorting during the 5 months of the 40-hour week averaged
17 „ 6 working days a month and a total cost of $1.5243 loer ton, but in the
10 months following, under the 35-hour week, the average monthly working
days vras only 13.8~and the cost increased to $1.8031 or 27.88 cents per ton.
The ^Droductio'i cost in the first loeriod of $1.3896, increased in the
second loeriod to $1.6505, or 25.1 cents ner ton. A projection of this
latter cost to a basis of 17.6 days, however, reflects the cost after re-
moval of the influence of fevrer working days. On this more nearly com-
■oarable basis, the increase in -i^roduction cost apijears to be about 18.5
cents -oer ton. The comparable costs for similar working days indicate
the increase in total cost to have been about 20.5 cents -oer ton in the
later "oeriod, of which labor increase accounted for about 15.5 cents, sup-
plies and fixed charges about 3 certs, and selling and administrative about
2 cents.
Frequency Tables show that 38 of the 50 reioorting mines, producing
84.4 -oer cent of the re-oorted :oroduction for November 1933, fell between
$1.20 and $1.70 in average costs per ton. Compared with the dispersions
for Eastern and Western PcnJisylvania Subdivisions already discussed, this
is a narrow range of costs for so large a proportion of the total. A
similarly narrow range occurs in January 1935, when 43 out of 56 mines, or
84 -er cent of the tonnage, fell between $1.40 and $1.90 in cost ner ton.
4. richi.eian Subdivision of Division I nroduced 531,000 tons or 0.18
per cent of tne U. S. output in 1934. (**) In the earlier period average
costs for ''ichigan operators appear as $2,714 and in the succeeding period
average costs increased to $5.1843, or 47.98 cents -oer ton. It is interest-
ing to note that, although cost of labor and supT^lies averaged decidedly
higher, res-oectively 36 and 12.8 cents per ton (a total of 48.8 cents), the
average cost ^er ton for fixed charges and for selling and administration
were slightly reduced.
(*) U. S. Bureau of i'ines ^.C.R. 919, February 15, 1935; preliminarjr
estimate.
(**) U. S. Bureau of Tines, preliminary estimate, rf.C.R. 919; February
15, 1935.
9337
,
460-
1
o
o
§
1 1
9! «^ s!
V* ^ (^ P
~ . 1 t
^
1
^
?
8
1
8
o
1 '
Is
hi
Q
^/ / /
-
9;
I'
00
•1
0)
i
2
1
0^
K
1^
11 1
tj
Z
H
Q.
UJ
10
<
h
-3
lU
z
3
■3
(£.
a.
<
i
id
u
f?
3-
tti
Q
z5?
W Zjll 91
1
1
/
ou 2
\
\ \
CM
1
1
CM
tM
m
CM
3;
-
J
1 1 1
/ 1 1
^
^^^>S-^\
JV
s
1...
_
— i
73ir7T"
03
-J
15
1 ^'^ ^
lis
v2o £0
w2
^1
8
§
S •^ (M
«
2
?
8
98.37
-461-
!To nrojection of costs to tlm ;-):eat"r ^lum^ber of rorking days enjoyed
in the earlier -oeriod can "be nade, t.ie "basic data being unavailable. The
average costs in ilichigan are higher than in the other Eastern Subdivisions
principally because of the locPli":r;d and United extent of v/orkable de-
posits, connaratively ] oiv avera.'e thic':ness of tne senns, prevalence of
weak roofs, and other disp.dv-mta''.:Gs.
5. P anhandles Subdivision of i;Iorti.' .ern ?est Vir.:;inia (Division l)
produced 3,982,000 tons or 1.11 oer cent of the estimated IJ. S. total
output in 1934. (*) ?rom this relatively small Subdivision, an average
of only 6 nines reiDorted corts for the 4 months beginning ITovember 1933
and no re-oorts wer? nade available for I'arch 1934; during the next 10
months 5 mines consistently renorted and in the first 3 months another
mine's reports vere included. The average days worked itier month in the
4 raonths under the 8-hour day \Tas 20.3; and in the 10 months imder the
7-hour day 18,4 -oer month. The indicated increase in cost in the second
period over the first is 14.18 cents; although the labor cost alone aver-
aged an increase of 14.58, sup-^lies and fixed charges actually decreased
al:iost 2 cents "oer ton, i-fith selling and administrative expenses increas-
ing by 1,58 cents -oer ton.
Data n.re not available urion ^I'hich to base a lorojection to the greater
number of working days, vhich would reduce the increase here shown still
further. It is airoarent that mines in this Subdivision were more succes-
sful than in other sections in overcoming some of the effect of reduced
working hours and increased wages. It is understood that physical operat-
in-^: conditions, including mechanization, were very favorable to success
in this direction,
6. Northern Test Vir.^inia Suodi-ision of Division I : This Sub-
division Tiroduced 13,114,000 tons, or 5.53 )er cent of the U. S. total
output in 1S34. (**)
The total average cost of the 65 reporting mines for the 5 months
of the first or 40-hour week period was ^1.3151, and for the 58 nines re-
porting for the second or 35-hour week r)eriod it was $1.6671, an increase
of 35.2 cents oer ton. Sone of this increase is due to the influence of
fewer working days in the second period, when the average monthly days
worked was 13.34 as against 17.7 in the earlier oeriod. By the projection
methoc' previously described, an a-D"nroximation can be made of the -production
cost -oer ton if the nines had worked 17.7 days in the second period; this
figure is $1.3990, which when compared with $1.1593 production cost in the
earlier period, shows an increase of 23.97 cents uer ton. The increase in
selling and administrative eroense amounts to about 5 cents per ton. It
is safe to estimate the:;. increase in total cost on a basis of comparable
working days at about 23 cents per ton.
(*) U. S. Bureau of I'ines, r:.C.R. 919, February 15, 1935,
(**) U. S, Bureau of Tines preliminary estimate, TT, C,R. 919,
February 15, 1935.
9837
-462-
-•463-
9337
-464-
Data 'lulilished by this S"a"bdivisional Code Authority iDrovide a basis
for compar;ag the daily nrodnctivity ner nan under the 8-hour day with
that under the 7-hour daji-. The avera^^e oroduction ner man -oer day du]>-
ing the six months of the 8-hour day neriod extendin^"^ from October 1,
1933, through March 31, 1934, vras ?.? tons; and for the ensuing six
months under the 7-hour day (Aisril 1 turoiv^h Seiotemher 30, 1934) was
5.6 tons per day. (*)
Thus the reduction in ^-"orkin,^ hours per day from 8 to 7 effected
about a 5 per cent decrease in tons -oroduced loer man-day, quite disioro-
portionate to the 12|- per cent reduction in Forking time. Informal con-
versation with those having knowledge of this situation placed the credit
upon the combined efforts of men and management: increased mechanical
equipment installed, more working places -orovided, all operations of
mining, loading, hauling studiously synchronized to a greater degree than
previously.
Frequency tables of mines in 10-cent cost intervals disclose the
comparatively narrow cost range of the bulk of tonnage -oroduced by the 65
mines reporting for November 1933 and January 1935. All but 16 of the 65
mines and 10.9 ner cent of the total tonnage reporting in November 1933
showed costs between 90 cents and $1.50 ner ton; in January 1935, all but
11 of the 64 mines and 10.4 -ner cent of the total tonnage reporting show-
ed costs between $1.20 and $1.80 ^er ton.
7. Southern f Smokeless) 5i.xbdivision No. 1 of Division I ; In
1934 this Subdivision produced l?.o2 per cent of the total United States
output, according to loreliminary estimates of the U. S. Bureau of Mines.
(**) The mines producing low-volatile (commonly called "smokeless")
coal in Pocahontas, New River, Greenbrier and Winding G-ulf fifelds of
West Virgi lia comprise this S^abdiviGion, together with a small group of
high-volatile mines in the New River district. The high volatile r>ro-
duction in this Subdivision was minor and was not included in the sum-
mary reports.
Total cost during the five-mo ith reporting period of 40-hour-week
oioeration averaged $1,657 per ton; during the succeeding 10 months under
a 35-hour week, beginning April 1, 1934, the composite average for the
period was $1.9473 per ton, an increase of 29.03 cents -oer ton in the
second period. With no slack season, due to heavy summer business over
the Great Lakes, monthly working days were maintained at a steadier rate
than in any other subdivision, averaging 18.9 per month in the first per-
iod and 18.2 "per month in the second -period. The average monthly work-
ing days were so nearly the same in both periods that it is fair to ac-
cept about 29 cents -oer ton as the average increase in cost.
(*) "Com-oilation of Statistical Data Covering Period October 1st, 1933,
to March 31st, 1934", dated ADril 1, 1934, by Northern West Virginia
Subdivisional Code Authority, p. 106; and Supplement No. 1 thereto
dated October 1, 1934, p. 87; in N.R.A. Bituminous Coal Unit Files.
(**) U. S. Bureau of }'ines TDrelirainary estimate, 7.C.R. 919, February
15, 1935.
9837
(c
-465-
9837
-466-
The disr.ersion of mines in 10-cent interval groups "by cost ner
ton shows that 118 of the 14o reporting mines and 90.4 yier cent of the
total tonnage '^as produced and sold at a cost under $2.00 ver ton in
November, 1933; 105 mines out of lo9 and 85.6 per cent of the tonnage
at a cost under $2.00 per ton in December, 1933; 145 out of 153 mines
and 96.9 per cent of the tonna.-^e in Januarj, 1934; 95,8 per cent of the
tonnage in February, 1934; o,nd 93.8 per cent of the tonnage in March,
1934; all in the first or 8-hour-day neriod of the N.R.A. Code.
Beginning with April 1, 1934, the cost increased durigg the succeed-
ing 10 months under the 7-hnur day by an average of about 29 cents per
ton. In these months, the proportions of total tonnage renorted at a
cost of under $2.30 ner ton were as follows:
A-oril 1934 — 94.2 per cent
May 1934 ~ 92.3 " "
June to ITov. — Not available
Dec. 1934 — 85.7 per cent (a month of account-
ing adjustments)
Jan. 1935 — 96.9 per cent.
The frequencies briefly recapitulated are as follows:
Southern (Smokeless) Subdivision No. 1 of Division I
Yo. of
ilines
Cost Per Ton
"o of
Avg. Output
Avg. "0.
Avg. Cost
Total
Per Mine
of Tipple
Per Ton
Tons
Per
Day
Starts
(Tons)
"ovember
1933
8.0
1 , 193
21.6
*1.345
19.2
1 , 546
18.8
1.441
11.0
1,172
16,2
1.568
21.0
1,285
16.9
1.649
14.0
996
17.3
1,745
11.2
858
18.9
1.839
6.0
643
16.0
1.942
3.8
831
11.7
2.046
2.3
692
14.2
2.133
1.9
860
14.1
2.235
1.1
522
14.5
2.444
0.5
618
9.3
2.795
(binder)
$1.10 - $1.40
1.40 -
.1.50
16
1.50 -
1.60
15
1-60 -
1.70
25
1.70 -
1.80
21
1.80 -
1.90
13
1.90 -
2.00
15
2.00 -
2.10
10
2.10 -
2,20
6
2.20 -
2.30
4
2.30 -
2.^50
3
2.50 &
ov':^
9
Total
143
100.0
1,054
17.1
$1 . 679
9837
(i
(«
<^
-467~
Southern ( Saolcelecs) Subdivision Fo. 1 of Division I
'To. of
^J of
Avg, Output
Avg. No.
Avg. Cost
Cost Per
• Ton
Mines
Total
Per I'ine
of TiiDTDle
Per Ton
Tonr,
Per Lay
Starts
('^ons;
(unde
r)
January
1935
*1.40
.^
$1-50
2
.4
314
21.2
* 1.449
1.50
-
1.50
11
12.2
1,728
22.4
1.561
1.60
—
1.70
.9
7.9
1,548
19.7
1.671
1.70
-
1.80
26
16.9
1,128
20.0
1.751
1.80
—
1.90
24
16.2
1,230
19.0
1.842
1.90
—
2.00
12
7.3
1,082
19.4
1.944
2. CO
—
2.10
36
24.2
1,323
17.6
2.032
2.10
-
2.20
11
5.2
1,218
13.6
2.150
2.20
-
2.30
10
6.6
1,355
17.0
2.244
2.30
—
2.40
3
.9
710
13.7
2.373
2.40
-
2.50
3
.7
490
16.6
2.462
2.50
&
over
6
1.5
631
13.9
2.618
Total 153 100.0 1,225 18.6 * 1.894
It will be noted that the lloverater 1933 grouping shows a fairly
general trend from the larger mines to the smaller, and from more to fewer
working days, as average costs rise, although it must be recognized that the
10-cent intervals of cost are greater than could he attributed to these
factors alone. This is -olainly illustrated by the fact that in the January
1935 grouping the 2 mines coranosing the lowest cost group averaged only 314
tons of nroduction per •■mine per da-j, yet with a day less of working time
had an average cost 11.2 cents ver ton less than the second lowest cost
group of 11 mines which turned out 1,728 tons "oer mine iDer day. It is
clear that the two low-cost nines were definitely enjoying comparatively
advantageous conditions other than good working time.
8. Southeim Subdivision I\''o. 2 of Division I ; This Subdivision pro-
duced 20.23 per cent of the total United States Output in 1934, accord-
ing to preliminary estimates of the U. S. Bureau of Mines. (*)
Total cost of 256 mines, averaged over the entire 5 month -neriod
November 1533 - llarch 1934, was $1,5424; for the following 10 months, Arjril
1934 - January 1935, the composite average of 208 mines was $1.8199. This
was aji apparent increase of 27.75 cents per ton in the second or 7-hour-
day period over the first or 8-hour-day -oeriod. The factor of monthly aver-
age working days contributed some of this increase, however,
(*) U, S. Bureau of nines W.C.H. 919, February 15, 1935.
9837
-468-
OD
O
-at
CM
o
a
o
o
00
s
^T^
CO
u
o
O
O
S ^ 9
O
8
--a
M
z6
<A
oQ
i=
3
■P
«A
C
Si
> o
lU
- X
>,
1-
s
3
S{
-M
(A
O
h£2
o
'^< ^
ox 5
uo 2=
in
d
23
O
-
c —
T
C (^
D
«
o
c
4'^
Q
o
z
O
UJ
o
<
z
z
a
<
5^
-3 —
§
t^O
5I
? 3
O
8 S
^ 1
1
?
o
o
c
9837
I
-469-
A projection of the prodaction costs in the second period from the
(simple) average of 15.1 working days to the same average nu.m'ber of days
available -oer month during the first period, 16.9, "by nethods previously
described, aporoximates the increase had ,tiie "jreporting mines enjoyed the
greater number of working days with all other conclitioning factors un-
changed. The 'production cost by this projection rould have been about
3,55 cents less, or SI. 591 instead of .$1.5^65 per ton. It is fair to
estimate the increase in total cost in the second -oeriod over the first
to have been about 24 cents per ton.
Frequency tables covering total costs for January 1934 and January,
1935, two fairly comparable months as to working days may be briefly re-
capitulated as follows:
Southern
Subdivision
No,
. 2 of Divis
ion I
I'o. of
fo of
Avg. Output
Avg. Wo.
Avg. Cost
Cost Per Ton
i'ines
■ Total
Per Mine
of Ti^^ile
Per Ton
• Tons
Per Day
Starts
(under)
(Tons)
Janunrv
1934
ii.oo
- 51.20
10
10.5
2,388
17.7
$ 1,120
l.SO
- 1.30
14
6.8
971
20.1
1.245
1.30
- 1.40
25
11.6
1,082
17.3
1.354
1.40
- 1 . 50
34
14.1
1,035
16.1
1.446
1.50
- 1.60
46
18.8
978
16.8
1.552
1.60
- 1.70
38
13.4
830
17.0
1.S41
1.70
- 1.80
24
9.1
1,103
13.8
l.?52
1.80
- 1,90
24
10.1
1 , 141
14.7
1.849
1.90
- 2.00
13
3.6
886
12.7
1.954
2.C0
- 2.20
5
2.0
934
13.9
2.098
Total 234 100.0 1,056 16.2 fk 1.533
?837
"470-
Southern Sulidivision Ho. 5 of Division I
Uo. of.
^o.ot
Avg. Out^out
Av^. No.
Avg. Cost
Cost Pe:
r Ton
Mines
Total
Per nine
of Ti-nplG
Per Ton
Tons
Per Day
Starts
(under)
(Tons)
Jsnur;ry
1935
$1.20
_
$1.40
3
2.0
. 1,140
21.5
$
1.275
1.40
-
1.50
7
2.7
799
17.5
1.478
1. "J)
-
1.6C
16
J • Iv
1 , 244
17.8
1. ^62
1.60
-
1.70
47
26.1
1,18?
17.1
1.562
1.70
-
1.83
34
16.1
1,003
17. 2
1. 745
1.80
—
1.90
26
11.3
934
16.9
1. G41
1.90
-
2.00
26
14. 9
1,?V:1
16.8
1. S53
.^.00
-
2.10
19
5. 8
370
15.0
>?.G57
.3. 10
-
2.20
11
(_/• u
1,0:^4
17. 6
2. 147
2.20
-
2.30
6
2.1
6a
19.6
2. ,343
3. 30
—
2.40
4
. 5
b Z' b
e.2
2.40
—
2.50
7
1.7
612
1-'-. 1
2. 427
2.50
c
over
4
.7
326
7.8
/C# OuO
Total
210
100.0
1,0:
16.8
.05
In Janurry, 1954 t le lov.'est cost S^J-'O-P lo;;;icrlly included IC ;.ij.nes
siioy/ing the largest rverp-^e oiitjjtit per rai.ie per dr^' raid a fairly" Mjh
r.vera;;;;e number of. d5,ys v/orked; the xiezt t::ree lowest interval ■;;-rou)s
avera^-ed a. much lov/er output yer mine per day aaad, v.'ith a ::)roi:;re3sivcly
decreasing number, of days worked, place themselves generally a.s ni-^,\it
he e:nected. , , ■• . ■
e
-471-
The JpntTary, 19o5, freqv.cncy -f^i-'oTL-ps, ho"c=!ver, irosrnt a less reji\-
lar ali.'^iinent . Stsrtri,':; "rith the 3 gooc'. ^lized mines in the lo'vest-cost
grov.--), $1.20 - $1.40, ave-aging $1.S75, the next lo-'est .';ro-.ip is o^ con-
p'^r?.tivel"* S'nall avorr.,;r' rize i \ c.ai].7 out'O'it "oer nine, '^ith less v.'orVc-
in;^ time txirn the thir^. grcwo of r.iach lpr-;er r.ii-ies, still S-voTRi/^hig, al-
most £ cents lower in cost. The ne^t five groups are normally related,
out the i3.10 - $2.?C' '^I'Oi^p f^f 11 nines show an avers^'e cost 11 cents
\igher not-:'ithstanding they are larf;er in size ar-d had more '-or'-ing days
than the next lovfer-cost ^Tjroup.
b. "'estern j'lenti' c":y Sifodivini .jn o f Division I : ^7e stern "en-
tiichy 3rod\i.ction in 1£34 '-'as c . 2 pe-' cent of the total U. S. output. (*)
The nines in this Su'odivision ret^orted costs to I-.li.A. for "oveviber and
Deceir.oer 1933 an,d J-^nu iry 1534. After that date no re~norts --ere made,
due to the defection of thft Subdivision \ipon the adoiotion of Aiiendment
1, A"oril 1, 1934, and the litigation -'hich resulted in an injvinction a-
gainst the enforcement of the wage scale ■)rovidod in that Amendment for
TTestern Kentucky. There aj?e no data available, therefore, uoon which
to coaoPTe costs durin.j' the sucoeedin;^ months. M avera,ge of 27 nines
reported a conpooite average cost for th-^ threo r:onths' oeriod of $1.2017
per ton, with average wor':ing days of 15." per nonth.
The cost fi 'aires for these ;.:ii.3S ^err n"^t inclu-dod in the Division
1 a,vei;-;.:es.
10. Indian--, "uoc'ivision of ~iivi :i"n IT ; (in l^~*o4 Indiana oro-
duced 4.41 -■-er cent of th>; IT. S. Total according to the nrelininar-y es-
timate of the U. S. 3urcau of lines.) (**)
In India?ia the labor costs for "11 mines, ooth deeo and stri"o, al-
though inc;rea.sing from 60.49 centr to 71.91 cents oer ton, constituted
pra,ctie£l-ly the some 'oro-oortion of total costs duri-ig the 5-nonth, 8-
hoi\r-day period beginning "'ove-iber 1, 1933 as in the imnsdia.tely suc-
ceeding 10 mionth, 7-honj:'-day period, 47.26 -oar cent aiid 47.30 per cent
respectively. During those :oeriods, the resoective average daily pro-
duction of 54 and 45 nines, '-orhing p .ic. a,vr.rage of 17.4 daj^s in the first
aiid 14.0 days in the second period, '■'ere 1,272 and 1,302 tons per i-iinc.
The follo-'ing tabiilation shoe's the relative and absolute changes in the
total cost per ton p.-'A in the constituonts thereof d-Liring these o'Der-'.-
ting periods.
(*) -J. S. Bureau of 1 inss ^'.C.H. 919, -"ebruar^^ 15, 1955.
(**) V. S. Sureau of ..ines r/.C.R. 919, Feoirxav 15, i:35.
9337
-47:
5 monta, S-lio.r-dp.y 10 jnonth, 7-liour-day
'"leriod - neriod
Costs 'oer Per Cent C'St'-, -oer- Per Cent
ton of Totjl ton of Total
Copt Cost
ii'ine La Dor
$ .GC49
47,
,25
■ ■ S . 71 91
47.
.30
iline Su-o-Qlies
.2698
21.
.08
.35 BR
22,
.29
i'-iiscellsneous and Pixed
Charges
. 2555
20,
.74
. • ppr
19,
.25
Prodxiction Cost
::>1.MC2
e-".
.08
Sl.;.507
88.
.05
Sellivig and
Adni n i s t ra.t i n
.13SB
10.
,92
.1596
11.
.15
Total Cost
ol . 2800
ICO.
,00
$1.5203
100.
,00
Average Days TTorked Per : o.
17.4
14.8
Avera;2;e ""o of lanes '"".e^oor tin-
r>
54
46
Average Daily Production vier
;dne
1
,272
1
.,302
Per Cent of Deeio Tine
Prodiiction To Tot^-l
62.3
62.7
AlthoiAgh the g^"bove periods a.re fairly co'noaraole as to represent.a-
tion of liigher-cost deep and lo"'er-Gost strio riining o^-ier?itions, thej''
are not conparatle as to representation of hi^jher and lo^-'or-cost season-
al operations . This first period is made up of T.'i:'iter months in nhich
the nines vorced unifornl;!- close to 17 days loer month at a daily average
of aooct 1,272 tons "oer mine, while in tn..; latter "oeriod the nunber of
days worked per month varied fro;a 11,5 in Jivie, 1934 to 20.1 in Jp-rcv:a.Tj,
1955, uith average da.ily productions per nine varying froii 1,223 tons in
April, 1954 to 1,314 tons in January, 1955. The costs of a single nonth
may oe representa.tive of the cost of a longer period, 'but it is conceded
that coiroarisons are inproved "by extendin"^ the sarroles. The follo^7ing
data shorrs the average production costs for dee"o Rj\6 stri-o irine operations
for seasonally connarahle 3-nonth loeriods, -orcjected to equal working tine.
Indiqnfi Sn b""'ivisio? i of Pi vi si " in II
Dee-Q 3,nd Stri^o ianes
Av £ r R g e P r d ' '- c t i o n Cpstj
Average "umher of Projected Actual
Month Days "or ke d 'To y. ig33-~ja;n. 1954 •'^ov.l954-Jan,1955
llo venter 16.3 'a. 2047 ,$1.2846
Dece.foer 19.2 . 1.13G7 1.2523
J anuary -.O.O 1 . 0596 1 . 2107
Total of 3
Lonths 55.5 ^1.1231 $1.2398
)837
-473-
Tliese da.ta iiicicste thpt c'lAri-i ; t^ie 7-ho''.\r '-'or^i-vr dpy the -oroduc-
tion ccits for dee-o f>2id stri-o p.i:ies coMbi ved. increased atout 11-2/3 cents
■•Dor to'T. over t.iose of ths 8-ho\-.r-da-r oeriod. Tlif; repdcr is ''-rned tha,t
averaf-;e costs for toth c'ee-i and stri-o -vine onerntions are susceptible to
consider?.ble ciianfie vith a shift in tao.relstive pro'oortions of tonn^,i'e
■o-''od\i.ced -ander these t'-'o ;uni:,ig Liethods. nevertheless, the coal -li-^ed
-and.e:." ootli iiethcds corToetes in the saTne market ,a,nd thus their cofjiied
averr'\'e costs are of consio.ei-aDle sig-iificance.
The follo-i vi.^: trhulatiou of the freo;.",enGy distributions for t-'o
aonthc, i"! IC-cent tota,! cost intervr;la, :-,ho'7s the ranf^e of costs a.nd the
j^jrourjinr^s of nines aroiuid the avera.je, thv.s facilit»tin:^5 an approximation
of the hulji-line costs.
Indi'^-nr-. Subdivision of Division II
Trecii&'.c-' Distrilj^ition of Total Z'^P.t:
>Tove]r.ber 19 So
Dcs") pnd Strin ines
Costs per Ton 'Ti.'.rfDer of Per Cent Average Daily Average Average
Totals
ines
:otal
Cutmt -oer
"To. of
100 .
1 coo
16,
Cost
•oer
production
I line
Ti;^-ole
Stprts
Ton
Imder
.80
—
1.10
o
19.4
2,715
14.6
SI. 007
1.10
-
1.20
7
15.0
1,513
17.4
1.151
1.20
-
1.50
11
22.2
1 , 343
18.3
1 . 251
1.50
—
1.40
7
G.2
611
17.8
1 . 363
1.40
—
1.50
o
12.9
957
10.3
1.463
1 . 50
-
1.50
7
11 .4
1,125
17.7
1 . 547
1.60
—
1.80
4 ■
4.5
670
21.0
1.570
1.00
-
1.90
2
4.4
1,696
16.0
1.855
l.SC
—
2.00
2
1.8
988
10.2
1.976
2.10
—
2.20
2
0.7
282
15.7
2.125
2.20
-
2.30
2
1.4
716
15.6
2.239
1 . 33 c
•TovenDor 1'^'34
.80 -
1.00
2
10 .
5,325
15.3
.926
1.00 -
1.10
o
9.8 ,
O J X r^ 1
15.6
1.046
1.20 -
1.30
4
15.2
1,381
20.5
1.253
1.30 -
1.40
5
12.7
1 , 516
17.0
1.330
1.43 -
1.50
5
b.5
1,130
15.3
1.437
1,50 -
l.SO
8
12.3
869
18.0
1 . 543
1.60 -
1.70
2
4.7
I,:' 34
19.4
1.629
1.70 -
1.80
10
15.2
1,152
14.2
1.749
1.80 -
1.90
3
2,5
658
13.2
1 . 843
l.SO -
2.00
3
3.7
655
19.1
1.931
2. CO -
2.40
4.3
1 , 264
11.5
2.125
Tota,ls
4S
ir^O.OC
1 , 304
16.3
1,438
3837
-474-
lo r^.a-" oe observed fro^-, the p.'oove dp.t^. thrt over 50 -oer ce-it (5S,'"5^)
of tlie tot-l -oroductioM for tlie nontii of "Joverfoer, l^o'^, "?,s -onduced by
a'Toroxinately 41 ver cent of the re . sorting nines ett a tots,l cost of less
than $1.30 loer ton, -^hile in '■'overfoe-', 1934 onlv 35 vei- cent of the total
■oroduction as reDorted "by IS "oer cent of the re--)ortin=; nines '7as produced
^Tithin that cost ran^e and 56. S per cent of the total production reported
by 40 -oer cent of the mines cost ixo to $1.50 loer ton. The naxira-ara r?n-je
of costs cliiring ^Tovenber 1953 ^-^as $1.50 -oer ton (fron ;1 30 to $3.30),
'-fhile in Novenber 1934 the range ^-'as $1.60 "oer ton (fron $ .80 to ■■:;'c.4C).
The average total cost -oer ton '-ras slightly over 10 cents nore in the
latter tha^i in the earlier month, about hplf of --hich is accoi^nted for
by incrersed labor costs.
Deep '. iines . Durin.;-; the initial 5-n.onth period an averai;e of 35 re-
porting deep raines in Indiana produced 62.6 per cent of the coal nined
by a,ll reporting- nines; in the succeeding 10 nonths an. average of ■"
do^p -ines -rof.u-ii d S3. 7 ->c c :■-'<■ . D'rin t'uc - .r\ • t-ij :iu ■, -■-■"-:-
\-. "-^ ".vrjra;-;o of '':' .C days and. 16.2 days per nonth, respectively, pro-
ducec. azL average of 1,127 and 1,183 tons per day. The follo-'in'; is a
tabulation of data '"dth respect to deep mine operations alone.
Indi-^na Su-bdivision of Division II
Costs - Je ep , i nciS '^nly
o-i.ionth, 8-]iour-day .lO-i-ionth, V-hor r-c" a],;
period period
Costs ner Per Cent Costs per per Ccnv,
To- of Total Ton of Total
Cost Cost
:;ine Labor J^ .7530 54.31 $ .8635 53. 75
:iine Supplies .2759 ' 19.89 .3356 , 20.35
ilisc. rnd ?ixed Charges .2261 Ui-^O^ .2602 16.21
Production Cost $1.2550 ' 90.50 $1,449-: SO. 29
Sellin-i- aiid Administration .1 317 9 . 50 • .1559 9.71
Total Cost $1.3867 100.00 $1.6052 100.00
Average Da3rs forked per
. pnth
Average- yo. of i.ines Ri.>portinE
Avera.ge Da.ily Prodp.ction per
; ane
Per Cent of Total Production
19.0
16.2
; , 35
29
1,127
],183
62.5
S3. 7
These data, indicate an increase in production cost of sli-H;htly nore
than 19 cents per ton and eliAost 22 conts 'incre.-'.se in total cost, 11
cents of phicli is represented by increased labor costs. Undoubtedly- a
part of these increased costs during the ].C-'-ionth period naj'' be attribu-
ted to the supj-'er operations vrhich are nornall},'' hi,;-iher i-n cost per ton,
due to less contin'aop-s i-rorhing tine, than are pea,'': sea.son operations of
9&L,7
-475-
the •■'inter nonths. The follo-'ing calculation is designeci to segre.2;ate
roughly the increased costs ciTie to fe-'er da'"''s '■'orl'-ed, in two periodic,
from the increased cost due to other factors. The projection is based on vari-
ations that occurred in "ovenuer l?o3 costs and pre not altogetner aoili-
cahle to costs extending over the linger -ocriod.. It is believed, hor/-
ever, tlTr-t thoy do servn to ui«5a3ure a'oioroxinatel',^ the variations due to
different '..-or-jing tine.
Indian? Subdivision of Division II
P ro lection of F roducti"'n C osts in 5-Konth -period from 19
Says to 16 . 2 Days r)er i.onth
Deep ui nes
Labor Supplies Fixed Char;":es Production Cost
Costs on lo.2 Day
Basis $ .8165 $ .2952 $ .2405 $1.3523
Costs on 19. C Da;^'
Basis .7 o53 .^730 . 2253 1.2886
Increase due to 2.8
lpe\iev T'orking D?ys $ .0312 ■ $ .0172 • $ .0153 $ .0637
5~i,Ionth Costs on 19
Dry Basis 0.) . 7550 . 2759 . 2261 1 . 2550
Projected 5-; onth Costs
on 16.2 Day Basis $ .7842 ■: .2931 -S .2414 ^1.3187
10-MC. Costs on
16.2 Day Basis .8625 .3236 . 2602 1.4493
Increase of 10-";io. Costs
over 5-r.io. Costs (2):5 .0783 $ .0335 $ .0188 $ .1305
(1) See "oreceding table
(2) Attributable to other factors than fener ^Torking days per month.
These data allocate the increased costs of the 10-month period over
those of the 5-month period as follovrs:
Labor Supplies Fized Charges Production Cost
To Fevrer Days forked per
Month 's; .0312 5 .0172 ;S .0153 $ .0637
To other Factors .0785 .0335 . 01 83 .1306
Cost Increases in 10-
mo , over 5-rao .
Period $ .1095 $ .0507 $ .0341 $ .1943
9837
-476- "
These dn.tr indicate that the increased -oroduction costs of the
l?ter 10-month -period due to the working day fp.ctor 'jere a. little nore
than 6 cents ijer ton, of i^'hich about 3 cents nere labor costs. ]>.70 .
factors ox o-o"TOsing influence are loresent in these costs (l) a. smaller
number of de.ys uorked 'ler month normally mpke for higher costs per ton,
(2) a lar;<^er output -oar doy tends to result in lo^7er costs; to rrha^t e:-:-
tent these tendencies offset each other it is difficult to say. Their
net effect ^'ould seen to substantiate the o^oinion that the 11-cent
increase in labor cost is prius.rilj'" due to the shorter day and increased
hourly rs.te in the later 10-nonth ;oeriod.
Por the three nonths of ITovenber, December, and Jrdiuary of these tr'O
periods the a.vcraf/e iroduction costs for deep mines projected to com-
parable uorhin^ day bases, '-'ere as folloiTs:
Indioxia Subdivision of Division I I
Deep Mines
• Avera,^e Production Costs
r
Averc'i;,'e IJuiaber Projected Actual
Month of Days IJorkod Hov;. 1935-Jan. 1954 ITov. 19o4-Jpn. 1955
November 17.7 ■ $1»3194 ■ $1.3917
December 20.2 1.2571 - 1.5734
January 21 = 6 lo2015 1.2771
Tot?l 3 iionths 19.8 $1.2556 $1.3424
On r comparable v;orking-da;'' basis and for sersonall;;' comparable per-
iods the incre^'se in -oroduction costs under the 7-hour day over those ex-
perienced under the 8- hour df>y v.-ere p.bout 3;, cents "oer ton. These data
a,re , perhaps more re-orcsentativo of tiie t^'O -periods of the Code than any
of the other datr sho-n, and tlie increase of 8- ■ cents -ler ton in production
cost represents, in all :irobrbility, the effective increase uninfluenced bj*
rrorking time, seasonal differences, and random interferences exoerianced in
single monthi3«
The f olloi7in;3 frequenc:'" distribution is presented in. order to facili-
tate judgment as to the re'oresentative character of the avero,r;e total costs
in these t'70 months.
9837
-477-
Indif t nn. S uljci ivision of Di v ioion II
Prequen c,v JiGt ribut ion of Totpl Costs
See-Q rinos
Novenber 1933
Costs -pex. Ton NiajnlDer of Per Cent AvGra^':;e Daily Average No. Average
Under Hines of Total O'j.tput per of Tipple Cost Per
production i!ine Star ts Ton
1.10 - 1,20
3
11.4
1,492
20.2
$ 1.183
1.20 - 1.^0
9
51.4
1,-141
19.2
1.250
1.30 - 1.40
5
6.0
539
16.1
1,352
1.40 - 1.50
8
18.7
9G4
19.3
1,461
1.50 - 1.50
6
17.2
1,270
17.2
1.548
1.50 - 1,30
3
6.7
842
21,0
1.675
1.80 - 1.90
2
6,8
1,696
16.0
1.355
2.10 - 2.30
2
1.8
334
20.9
2.183
Totals
38
100.0
1,115
18.8
1.426
Totals
30
Hover-foer 1934
1.30 - 1.40
2
17.1
2,414
22.5
$1,247
1.40 - 1.50
4
18.7
1,500
18.7
1,325
1.50 - 1.60
2
8.0
1,460
17,5
1.456
1.60 - 1.70
7
15.3
731
19.1
1,550
1.70 - 1.80
2
7.5
1,230
19.4
1.629
1.80 - 1.90
8
22,9
1,2"S
14.7
1,748
1.90 - 2.00
2
3.4
845
12.9
1.840
2.00 - 2.20
3
7.1
896
16.3
2.011
100.0
1,204
17.7
$1,542
These data sIiot that over two-thirds of the ilovenlDsr 1933 tonnage rras
Hined at a total cost of less than $1.50 per ton rrhile in llovemher 1934
the cost 01 a like proportion of the tonnage ran as high as $1,80 per ton.
In the erjrlier raonth oporrticns producing the greatest average volume per
day fell into next to tae highest cost interval 'jhile in November 1934
the largest avera,ge daily production ^r.s at the least cost.
9837
-478-
Strj-j Mines ; Strip lainiii;';; 'oy pji nveraf'^e of 19 opcr-'tors Rccomited
for 37.4 per cent of the coal rained in the reiaorting operations in
Indiana daring the 5--inonth, S-hour-day period from ITovemher 1933 through
March 1934. In the succeeding 10 nonths, during vhich the miners worked
7 hours per da3'', these operations, as reported oj" an a.verage of 17 mines,
accounted for 37.3 per cent of the total. Turing these -jeriods the mines,
working an average of 15.3 ajad 13,0 days per wonth res-,Dectivel7, produced
on the averrge 1,542 tons and 1,506 tons per nine -oer day.
I ndi ana Suhdivision of Division II
Average Costs - StrJD Mines
Mine Lahor
Mine Su'oplies
Misc. & Fixed Charges
Production Cost
Selling ci Administration
Total Cost
5-raonth, 8-hour- day
iperiod
10-month, 7-hour-day
-period
Costs -,jer
ton
$ .3575
.2595
.3312
$ .9483
,1534
$1.1017
Per Cent
of Total
cast.
Costs per
ton
32.45
23.56
30.07
$ .4785
.3593
.3474
86,08
13»92
$lel852
= 1926
100.00 $1.3778
Per Cent
of Total
Cost
34.73
26.08
25.21
86.02
13.93
100.00
f
Average Days Worked per Month 15.3
Average ilo, of Mines Reporting 19
Average Daily Production per Mine 1,542
Per Cent of Totrl Production 37,. 4
13,0
17
1,506
37.3
These data shcj pn increase in production cost of nearly 24 cents
per ton for the 7-hour day over the 3-hour day period i7hile the total
costs increased nerrJ;^ 28 cents per ton. Ahout half of the increase in
production cost is attrihutahle to increpsed lahor costs. The operations
during these oeriods ap^Derr fairly comparahle except for the factor of
seasonality. A -oortlon of the i^icreased conts of the latter period may
"be accounted for ^oy the higher-cost off-peak qoerations of the summer
months.
These unfavorahle '^rorlcing conditions inflated lahor costs ahout 5
cents per ton. The aroparent increase of sons 27 cents in total costs for
the 10-month period over those of the 5-month -period csjinot he said to
"be the true change in comparahle costs for the folloi7ing reasons, (l) in
the second -oeriod the mines norked 2.3 fener days per month, on the aver-
age, th3,n in the first, (2) 19 mines re-ported in the first iieriod while
only 17 mines re^.^orted in the second ar^d there is no a.ssurance that they
were 17 of the 19 re-sorting in the earlier months. The sa/Toles maj he
quite different as to costs, working days, or output -oer day, and (3)
average dally output -oer luino was 36 tons less in the 10-raonth than in
the 5-month -oeriod. An approximate a.djustment nay he made for the fewer
working days per month hy -rjrojecting the 13 day production costs to a
15.3 day 1)3,313. The result of this projection, the i^rocedure of -which is
9837
-479-
otitlined in this cha'.">tcr, Section C-1, shovrs the follo'-ring:
Indiai^r. Siio d ivision of Division II
Projection of Production Cocts in 5-IIonth
Perio d from 1 5«5 D^y.- s to 15«0 dayij -jcr Mo .
St:
ri ^ J!ines
Lator
SuTjlies
Fixed Charr:es
Production Cost
13,0-Day Basis
,4024
.2973
.3840
1.0837
IS.S-Da^' Basis
.3557
.2757
.3424
.9748
Increase due to 2,3
Pe^er TTorkin:? Days
.0457
.0206
.0415
.1089
5-month, 10-3 Day
Costs (1) ■
.3575
.2596
.3512'
. .9483
Projected 5-month
,
costs on 13-Day Basis
.4042
.2802
.3728
1.0572
10-month costs on 13-
Day Basis
,4735
.5593
.3474
1.1852
Increase of 10-month
Period (2)
.074:
.0791
.0254 (*)
.1280
(*) Decrease (l) See precedin.;; table {:) Attrihuta'ole to other
factors than fever 'Torking days
Pron the above projection, vhich furnishes a rouf;h approximrtion
of the costs in the 5-nonth -oei'iod had the averar;e numbe-r of working
days been 13.0 instead of 15,3, it appears that the -oroduction cost in-
creased about 13 cents and consequently attributes rboi.it 11 cents to 2.3
fe-wer days worked. On the same basis about 5 cents increase in labor
costs ?.re attributed to fever vorking days pnd 2 cents to the fewer hours
per day. Although no data are. available for -Drojecting selling and admin-
istration ercoenses -oer ton tn a fevrer nuinber of days, it is certain that
there sa-e some fixed costs in these catagories that become less per ton
as the total tonnage increases. It is 'orobable that had the miners worked
an average of 13 days in the 5-raonth loeriod instead of 15.3 dsys the
selling and adiainistration expenses would have been aroundl7 cents per
ton inst^^ad of 15 cents as actually re-:)Orted. Based on this a,ssunrjtion
the total o.verpge costs for the 5-month period wo-old have been $1.23 -oer ton
8,s compared with $1.38 in the 10-month period, an increase of pbout 15
cents per ton, and the percent-^ge that ea.ch element would have boine to
the total would have provided the following con-oarisons.
9837
-480-
Per Cent : of L^'ior to Totsl
Per Cent of Su-yjlies to Toto.l
Per Cent of Pixcd Charrres to Totr.l
Per Cent of Prodiicti n to Total
Per Cent of Selling; & Acij.iinintrr.ti'.ai
to Total
5-1 lonth Period 10-lIonth Period
32.94
34.73
22.83
26.08
30.58
25.21
85.15
85.02
13.85
13,98
With an equal niimter of 'rrorking daj''3 and a. relatively -uniform daily
average out mt per mine, labor costs increpsed, due -^rinci'Dall?,' to the
higher hourly rate, a,oout 7 cents oer ton in IJoveraher 1934 over iloveraher
lS35,,aJid at the snxie tine "because a, niore_ signif icajit constituent of total
costs. It is significpnt to observe, at this ooint, that Ip.bor costs con-
situte a greater proportion of total costs in deep mines tlian in strip
mine operations, due to the relatively greater use of machine, such as
steam, shovels, in the latter t:/-pe of nine. (Por detailed discussion of
relative importance of cost items, see Section D of this chapter).
Costs for single months, hov/ever, ai'e subject to varia.tions that
ate local to short 'periods. The. f ollov/ing data for seasonally conroarable
periods of 3 months, projected to equal '-orking time, p.voids some of these
difficulties and raay^ therefore, /oe considered as a^ truer measure of the
representptive increase in oroduction costs under the 7-hour day over those
of the 8-hour day -^eyiod.
Indiana Subdivision of Divisinr. II
Stri-Q Mines
Month
Averar'i:e production Costs
Average IJumber of
Days TTorked
Projected Actual
Nov. 1 933- Jpn. 1934 Hov. 1934- Jan. 1955
November
December
January
Total 3 Months
14,3
17,7
17.8
$1.0051 (*)
,8941
. 32S1
49,8
$ ,9054
$1.1046
1,0008
1.0862
$1,0617
(*) Actual
These data attribute nearly 16 cents -oer ton as the average increase
in production costs during the 7-hour day period over the production costs
under the 8-hour d.i.\y,'
9837
-481-
Prora the-^ follOTvin-: frequency tabulation of nines operating at 10-
cent cost intsrvrls, it is o'lserved that over hplf of the tonnage re-
ported in "both liuvcm'ber 19o'6 raul lovenbor 1954- vas nined at a totpj. cost
of less than $1,10 pjr ton.
I f ovemb er 1933
Costs per Ton ITuMi'oer of Per Cent AverP'-ie Daily Averp,ge
Under Ilinas of Total Output per ilo. of
Production Mine Tipple
Starts
Average Tota.1
Cost -per Ton
$ .SO - 1.10
1.10 - 1.20
1.20 - 1.30
1.30 - 1.40
1.40 - lo70
1.90 - 2.00
2.10 - 2.50
6
55.2
2,714
14.6
$ 1.007
4
21.8
1,537
15.3
1.120
2
5.2"
930
12.0
1.257
2
5.5'
642
• 21.9
1,331
5
3..5
435
11.6
1,518
2
5.1
1,063
10.2
1.976
2
2.7
554
10.3
2.219
Totals
21
100.0
1,435
14,3
1.169
Hovenber 1934
$ .
,80
—
1.
,00
1,
1.
,00
,20
-
1,
1,
,10
,40
1.
,40
^
1.
,50
1.
,70
.80
-
1,
2.
,80
,00
2,
,20
—
2,
,40
2
25.8
3,326
15.3
$ .826
3
26.2
2,121
15.6
1.045
3
14.5
1,292
14.2
1-.289
4
- 15.6
1,142
15.8
1,457
2
5,1
860
11,3
1. 754
2
6.9
605
21.7
1.. 900
2
3.9
1,085
6.8
2.295
Totals
18
100.0
1,475
14,3
1,261
11, Illinois Suhdivision of division II . (In 1934 this Subdivision
TDroduced 11,41 per cent of the U. S. tot?!', according to the U. S. Bureau
of nines -oreliniinarj'' estimate.) (*)
Dee-p gjid Stri'-j liines . An average of 114 deep and strip mines reported
total costs for the 5-raonths' period ITovenber 1953 through ilarch 1934.
Ihiring this period the nines .-"vorked 8 hours per day. and a,n average of 15.3
days per month -jith costs averaging $1,368 ver ton. iOr the succeeding 10
months, during rrhich an avera'^e of 103" raines reported, the average total cost
increased to $1,553 nev ton. During this later -oeriod the miners T-orked only
7 hours ;:er day and pn a-ver\;e of 14,5 days ^er month. This increase in
total cost may he the net result of severa.1 ne'-' factors operrting in the secon,
period -^ith different effects, among rrhich r'ere: (l) a larger representa-
tive of the higher-cost deep :aines in the first neriod (88 per cent and
85 per cent respectively^) producing a smaller output per day, (2) a larger
representation of high-cost ofi'-'oeak seasonal b'oerations , (3) smaller monthly
(*) U, S. Bureau of liines, U."c7h^ 919, February 15, 1935 ~~~
-482-
output per mine nhich tends to increase the fixed charges per ton, ajid
(4) cm increase in the wage r;.te per ton. The following tabulation
-oresonts the salient data \7ith re^^ard to costs and the factors effect-
ing t.he:a roi- tiio t-'o ocrioas.
I llinois Subdivision of Division II
Average Co
3tS -
Dee-3 ano
St
ri-o Mines
5-month.3-
-hour-
•day "oeriod
IC-month,
7- hour-
day neriod
Costs per
Per Cent
of
Costs oer
Pel
• Cent of
Ton
Total Cost
Ton
Tot
al Cost
Mine Labor
$ .7754
55.63
$ ,8663
55.78
Mine Surolifes
.2388
17.45
.2793
17.98
Misc. & Fixed
Chai'.-cs
.2186
15.97
.2352
1 - .Di
Produc tion Cost
$1.2328
90.05
$1,3818
88.97
Selling & Adminis-
tration
.1362
9.95
.1713
11,03
Total Cost
$1.5590
100.00
$1,5531
100.00
Average Days TJorlied
Per Mine
15.5
^
14,6
Average lo.'of Mines
Reporting
114
103
Averrge Daily Prot
-uction
per Mine
.,746
n
1,746
Per Cent of Dee'D I
iine
Production
83.8
81,7
The mines included in these t^'o periods re-nresent quite different
samples of the industrj'' in this_ Subdivision, the averrge number of mines
reporting in the first period being 114 i.7lth_ an rverage number of days
worked per month of 16.5 '-ihile in the second perioc.103 mines reported
an averrge of 14.6 days per month. The daily rate of production -oer nine
i7a.s. the sane for both samples. The a.verr,ge costs oer ton in the second
period 7ere generally higher than those in the first; labor costs about
9 cents, sup ilies . about 4 cents, fi::ed chrrges 2 cents, making a total
of 15 cents per ton increa.se in jroduction costs. Selling and adminis-
trative costs increa'se about 3.5 cents, making total costs aropro:cinately
IBg- cents per ton higher during the 7-hour per day than in the earlier
8-hour jDor day -oeriod.
The following data shov7 .the average production costs of both deep
and strip oi^errtions for eeasonally comparable 3- month periods during
\7hich the mines operated 8 hours per. da]/ and 7 hours per day, respec-
tively. The costs' have beeai -orojected to ec^ual rrorkinig days per month
and are as representative of the effective average -jroduction costs as
are obtainable. ' ......
9837
IllinoJ G Su bclivision of Division II
Dee- 1 pnd Stri p ianes
Month
Novem'ber
Decer."ber
Jonwrrj
AveiT'./.'o
Production Cogts
Avera^'e llumber Projected Actual
of Dp-rs forked Hov. 1 933- J m . 1954 ITov. 1934-Jan« 1955
Total 3 L'onths
15.4
19.5
50.5
$ 1.2555
1.1957
ia774
55,4
$ 1.2041
$ 1.4135
1.3334
1.3218
$ 1.3505
Aoout 14,6 pents "oer tO'i pro 'errs to hrve been the averr^ge increase
in production costs of the y-hour per day ;period over those of the 8-hour
por day period.
A freauoncy distrib^ltion of the total costs. per ton for tno months
is -oresented in the follo^Tinf- tnhulrtion:
9337
~4B4^
Illinois Subdivision of Pi vis i on II
Preq-iency Dis'
!;rio"ation of To
tal Costs-Dee-o
and Strip
Mines
Deceinb
er 1933
Costs per Ton
lTu:,:oer
of per Cent
Average Dr,ily
Average
Average
Under
Hi nee
! of Total
Output per
ITo. of
Total
Prod-uction
Mine
Tipple
Starts
Cost per
Ton
^ .70 - .90
h
3.5
1,536
12.9
$ .203
.90 -1.00
3
2.k
l,U7g
lo.O
.920
1.00 -1.10
6
6.0
1,526
21.7
1.066
1.10 -1.20
10
12.1
?.173
12.3
1.143
1.20 -1.30
15
9.9
1.301
16.7
1.232
1.30 -i.Uo
IS
IS.l
1,712
13.4
1.33s
i.Uo -1.50
13
14.4
1,527
16.4
I.U5U
1.50 -1.60
15
16.9
2,739
13.6
1.532
1.60 -1.70
15
S.2
1,217
14.2
1,632
1.70 -i.go
s
U.6
1,026
IS. 3
1.761
1.20 -2.00
3
1.0
S99
11. S
I.S9I
2.00 -2.10
5
1.2
555
21.9
2.039
2.30 - over ;
2.50 k
1.1
997
^ 9^0 __
2.629
Totals 125 100.0 1,522 16.7 I.3S6
Decevaber
1934
$ .90-1.10
•7
'1
3.b
2,U31
19.0
$ .9bU
1.10 -1.20
11.3
2,527
21.1
1.159
1.20 -1.30
11
10.5
1,616
22. S
1.245
1.30 -l.UO
lb
13.7
1,633
13.6
1.352
i.ko -1.50
1'-/
IS. 9
2,097
IS. 3
I.U45
1.50 -1.60
17
12.7
1,399
20.6
1.549
1.60 -1.70
ri
7.0
1.935
• 17.5
1.639
1.70 -1.20
IS
13.6
l,U9S
13.5
1-735
1.20 -1.90
k
1.5
650
22.3
1.255
1.90 -2.00
6
3.3
1,391
15.1
1.921
2.00 -2.10
2
0.3
39^^
Ik.k
2.072
2.10 -2.20
2
i.U
l.liU
2U.6
2.154
2.20 «2.U0
3
1.2
1,02S
15.1
2.259
2.50 and over
.3^ .
1.0
151 ._
22.2
2.765
Totals 122 100,0 l,6l9 I9.5 1.435
4
9237
-4e5-
This exhibit s'lov/s tliat over half of the toiTnage in Decenber I933
was produced and soli', at van average total cost of less than $1.U0 per
ton; in December 1S3'-I- a like proportion 'Df the corl produced had a
total cost up to nearl;' $1.50. The distribution of lar'je daily pro-
ducers shows no oartiailar tendency to center around the low cost
brackets in either of the t','o months for \7hich data are above presented
- there does seer;; to be so.ie evidence that the highest cost mines ^Tore
low in daily output, especially in December 1933 •
Dee-p Mines . luring; the initial 5-uonth, S-hour-day period begin-
ning Hoveraber 1933, -i^ average of 100 deep rines reported an average of
16.5 deys per aonth at an average output of 1,672 tons per day. In the
succeeding 10 months Turing which the 7-hour v.'crj -./as in effect, an aver-
age of SS deep riincs reported -'orlzing time of lU.3 c'lays per month and
an average daily outjTut of 1,710 tons. The average per ton cost data
for these periods are tabulated in the following table.
Illinois Subdivision of Division II
Avercw^e Costs - Dee-o Mines
5-:-.onth, g-hour-day 10~nonth, 7-hour-day
period -period
Costs per per Cent of Costs per Per Cent of
.'on
Total Cost
Ton
Total Cost
Mine Labor
Mine Supplies
Misc. & Fixed Char;:;es_
Production Cost
Selling & A'iiiiinis-"
tration _
Total Cost
.S523
.2339
:;l,25Uo
.1312
Ol.^:-252
60.22
16.U1
1U.16
90.79
9.21
100.00
$ .9632
.2629
.2197
$1.U51[
rrr
LOOQ
3i,6isU
59.51
16.62
13.57
S9.7O
10.30
100.00
Average Days TTorked
Per Mine
Average Ho. of Mines
Reporting
Average Daily Prof-uction
Per liine
Per Cent of Total Pro-
duction
16.5
100.
1,672
c3.S
1^.3
Sg
1,710
81. 7
Pron these data it appears that the average production cost per ton
increased about I6 cents in the later period over the earlier. Labor
costs averaged about IQ • cents higher, mine s^Jipplies about J)h cents
higher, and fixed procxicti on costs about 2 cents, iirhing U'o the total
increase in -production costs of nearlj' 16 cents per ton; to this should
9S37
-486-
te added atout 3--t cents -jer ton increase in selling and administration
cost, making a total inc-ease of nearly 19\ cents per ton in the cost of
producing and sellin,:: coal under the 7-hour 'd^:' over that of the S-hour
day period. These costs, ho^vever, were reported oy ruite different sara-
ples of the industry and under quite different seasonal conditions. As
Tointed out a><'ve, 100 ni-.ips reported in the earlier period wnile only
S2 rev'oii:"<i in the later one, their average daily production wrs not com-
ivji-n?Ot3, and the nines r:orked, on the average over t-jo days less in the
second than in the' I'li'st period. Some of these variations in the sam-
ples may he parti;- over cone by selecting certain months or periods of
like seasonal charr.ct eristics and hy projectin;; costs to the oasis of
an equal nunher of "..'orhing days for the periods to he compared. It
oust "be emphasized, ho-vever, that tiaose adjustments only roughly c;.pprox-
imate comparability' in certain particulars and ma;,- introduce new factors
malting for incoraparability in other particulars. Assuming that varia-
tions in the costs for different numbers of working d?.ys in November 1533
are characteristic of like variations in costs for the entire 5-i'nonth
period November I933 - Ilarch IS3U, the fol'^.ovdng tabulation shows the in-
creases in production cocts of the 7-^our-day period over that of the
8-hour~day.
' IllJ -nois S^abd j-vmsio n of D ivirion ll_
Prelection of ?rodiiction Costs in "H-o n'bh P eriod from
16, ^5 Da?'- 5 -per Lionth to ik.G Days
Deep Mines
- Labo r S-gppl ies gi-ed Chrrj-^cs , Productio n Cost
Costs on 1U.6 day •
basis (Nov., 1933) $ .G67O $ .2680 $ .2211 ' $ 1.3561
Costs on- 16. 5 day br>- • . •
sis (Nov. 1933) .0U72 .2613 .2077 1.3l62
Increase diie to I.9 ■
fevrer days .OI9S , .OO67 .0131-1- .0399
Add, costs on iG.'i
day basis (l) ' .[^qH .23^;9 .2018' 1-29U0
Projected costs or.
lU,6 day basis
(5 months) $ .S7SI $ .2U0b $ .2152 $ 1-3339
Costs on lU.6 day
basis (10 ,montlis) .9S32 .2bS9 .2197 I.U5IS
Increase of 10— month
period over 5"rnoJ-'^-'fc'^^
(2) $ .0S51 $ .02S3 $ .00H5 -1179
(1) See preceding 'fable.
(2) Attributable to other fHCtors ,than fe-ver \;orking days.
9S37
-487-
The a.fcove ca2cv_"'..Voio;is v;o\ilil seem to o-ttriijatc about ■;■ of the l6
cent increase in ^JxOc.uctio;: cost to other factors thrai fe'ver ^rorking
days, and about 12 cents of the increase to other factors.
?urther illud nation on the costs as report ec". 07 deep mines for
these periods :jay he had fron analyses of costs reported in seasonally
corrpai'able months in these tv/o periods.
It is douhtftil •..h.ether the influence of usi\cJLly hi,n;her-cost suiamer
operations can he even a-pproxiraately sef:re;^;-ted 'o" co::paring the costs
of particular :nonths of the t'.io periods ^'hich are seasonally comparp.hle.
Too aany other factors, such as poor raining conditions v/ithin the nines,
etc., may "be introduced in any one raonth v/hich tend to become diffiised
when spread over a lon;;er period. Only by close scrutirxj'' of average
costs i-n combinations over several months .and in separate similar months
adjusted as -jell as :ay be for factors that are not comparable, together
with frequencj'" distriotitions of the costc; in sr.all cost intervals, . can
an appreciation.be had of the effect of cost cha:i::es in the two periods
before and after Ai'.enc'^::ent l:o. .1 became effective,
A comparison of production costs on the basis of ecru.al number, of
v7orking days for 3 montJis of the 5-^ionth> .S-hou.r-da'^ period with those
for the 3 corresponcang '.onths luider the 7-hour period follows:
Illino is Su bdivision of .Division II.
Deex) I lines
Av ercA'e Production Cost
Avera'.'e IMmber Projected Actual
Month of Days '.•or ked l?o v.iq"5"5-J an.iq3U I'ov.lS^^-Ja n.lSl^
November I5.O ' $1.3'-+15 $1.'477S
December IS.U 1.2b20 I.3S69
Jnjiuary 20.3 . 1,2'491 1.3739
Total 3 Llonths 5'^!-.7 $1.2777 $l.U06l
These data- would seem to justify the. conclusion tlmt the increase
in ccmpa.rable production costs of deep mine operations during the 7-hour
day period over those of the S~hour da;y p.eriod -.'ere a2:iost I3 cents per
ton.
The followin.; fre-uency distribution of avera:;e total costs for
December 1933 ^■'^^ Decefoer I93U is given to cor-ple:ent the tahilation
of average costs:
9S37
'-488-
Illinois StT"bdivision of Division II
Freciuenc7" nisi
:ri"otition of
Total Costs - :
jee-Q L'ines
DeceMbe
r 1933
Costs per Ton :
lumber of
Per Cent
Avera,.'i;e Daily
Average
Average
Under
nines
of Total
Output -per
ITo, of
Total
Production
Mine
Tipple
Starts
Cost per
Ton
$ .SO - 1.00
3
1.9
S29
21, ij-
$ .9UU
1.00 - 1.10
-^
5.9
• 1,496
22.1
1.06^
1.10 - 1.20
S
S.3
1.27s
20. U
1.165
1.20 - 1.30
12
9.U
1,226
17.8
1.227
1.30 - i.Uo
17
IS. 5
1,616
IS. 7
I.3U4
i.Uo - 1.50
IS
16.2
l,Ug3
16. S
1.^53
1.50 - 1.60
15
20.1
2.739
13.6
1.532
1.60 - 1.70
15
9.7
1,217
lU.S
1.632
1.70 - l.SO
s
5.^
1,026
IS. 3
1.761
l.SO -^2.00
3
■ 1,1
S99
11, s
1.S91
2.00 -2.10
5
■ 2.2
555
21.9
2.039
2.30 - over 2
.50 4
1.3
997
9.0
2.888
Tot.-J-s
111
100.0
1.506
16.6
^a.'439
December 193U
;il.'lO - 1.20
1^
■ 3.8
2,716
21.0
$1,165
1.20 - 1.30
9.9
1,5S0
22.3
I.2U7
1.30 -l.Uo
13
12.1
l,53>+
19.7
1.350
i.Uo - 1.50
17
-20.3
2,lU0
IS. 2
I.UU3
1.50 - 1.60
17
•15.0
1.399
20.6
I.5U9
1.60 - 1.70
e;
g.3
1,935
17.5
1.639
1.70 - l.SO
17
•lPi.2
1.515
IS. 3
1.735
l.SO - 1.90
\\.
1.8
6^0
22.3
1.S55
1.90 - 2.00
6
3.9
1,391
15.1
1.921
2.00 - 2.10
2
o.U
392
lU.U
2.072
2.10 - 2.20
2
1.7
l.ilU
2)4.6
2.15U
?.pn _ p.un
3
i.U
1,02s
15.1
2.259
2.50 and over
r
lOS
1.2
100.0
351
22.2
2.765
Totpls
1,555
19. U
1.532
9837
-489--
Prom this tr/ole it is to be observed thr?.t ner.rly half (UU-'t) of the
December 1933 torja':,:_;c ■:i:z ■(roducud and sold at ;\ totr2 cost of less
than $1,U0 per ton, v;l:ile in December 193^+ only 3^ per cent of the ton-
nage was produced r.nC. sold within that cost, Ti'.o entire range of costs
extended fron SO cents to over $2.50 per ton in Decenber 1933 and in
December 193^ fron $1,10 to over Sc'.50 per ton. The largest group, in
terras of tonnage, vras produced at an average of ;)1,532 in December 1933
and at $l.!4i43 in Dece:'.bei- 195^. '
Strip Hines . During the 5-nonth period frou lJove::iber 1933 through
March I93U, in which the £-hour day \ip.s in effect, an average of lU mines,
working lS,9 days per r.onth produced an avera-'.-e of 2,26l tons per month;
in the succeeding 10 ;io:iths, working 7 hours per dey and an average of
16 daj^^s per nOnth, ,15 nines reported an average production of 2,000 tons
per dry. The follovring tabulation presents pertinent average cost and
operating data for these two periods:
9S37
_^ -490- . ^
Il linois Sii Mivi sipn of DiviGJon II
Avernge Costs - Strip Fines
5-innnta, 8-hoi-.r>-dai7 pai^iod 10-iaonth, V-hour-day
period
Costs per
Per Cent
Costs per
Per Cent
Ton
of Total
Ton
of Total
?
Cost
Cost
Mine Labor
.3453
32.11
$ .4332
34.36
Mine Supplies
.2643
24.50
'.3256
25.82
Misc. & Fixed Chare^es
.3057
28.35
.3099
24.57
Production Cost
.9162
84.96
1,0687
84.75
Selling &:, } "minis-
tration
.1632
15.04
.1922
15.25
Total Cost
$1
.0784
100.00
$1,2609
100.00
Average Bays Worked
per Mine
16.9
16.0
Average Ko. of Mines
Heporting
14
15
Average Daily Production
per Mine
2
261
2,
000
Per Cent of Total Pro-
duction
16.2
18
.3
These data, which are fairly coiriparalile as to vrorking days per month
and as to nunber of mines reporting, show rather marked increases in the
several items of cost per ton. Labor cost, for exaiviple, shov/s an increase
of more than 8^ cents per ton uiider the 7-hoiar day over the 8-hour day
costs, over 6 cents more per ton for supplies, and less than half a cent
increase in fixed production costs. Tliese increases aggregate over 15
cents increased production costs, to which were added 3 cents increase in
selling and. administration costs, making total average costs 18^ higher
in the second than in the first period. Much of this, of course, was
due to the shorter woricing day - some of it can undoubtedly be attributed
to slightly fewer working %ys per month, some to conditions lessening
the average daily output per mine, a portion to the off-season production
in the latter period, while the effect of a different group of reporting
mines cannor be estimated. The constituent elements of cost changed very
little in t..eir relation to the total cost.
Attention is called to the relatively small proportion of labor to
total cost in strip raining as compared with deep mine operations. Here
we find labor constituting a little over 30 per cent of total cost while
in deep mines this item generally averages 60 per cent or more. The
data presented in this table lack com])arability as to average number of
days worked per month.
9837
k
-491-
The following tabulation shov;s the average -oro duct ion costs of
strip '.nine operations duri.;.; 3 correspoadir;:: T:ionths in the 8-hour and
the 7-hour day periods. Besides being seasonally comparable, the data
for November 1934-January 1935 have been projected to the same average
number of worlcing days as were reported in the Hoveiaber 1933-January
1934 period.
I llinois Subdivision of Division II
Strip L'ines
Month
Averaga Nvjnber of
Days \forked
Average Production Cost
Projected Actual
Nov . 1933-Jan . 1934 Nov . 1934-
J an . 1955
November
December
January
Total 3 r.^onths
17.5
20.3
21.7
.8837
.8494
.8141
$1.1016
1.0426
1.0532
59.5
$ .8468
$1.0564
These data i::dicate that durin^^ the 7-iiOur day period the product-
ion costs of strip mines increased nearly 21 cents over the costs
reported during the 8-hour per day period. Tliis is perhaps the best
measure of the increase in operating costs that is available.
The follovdng frequency distribution of mines and production at
10-cent cost intervals is made fropi average costs unadjusted for differ-
ing daj's worked per month.
Illinois Subdivision of Division II
Freauency I
)is
tribution of
Total Costs
- Strip M
ines
•
December
1933
Costs per Ton
Under
Number
I'iines
of
Per Cent
of Total
Production
average Daily Average
Output per No. of
Mine Tipple
Starts
Average
Total
Cost per
Ton
$ .70 - .90
.90 - 1.10
1.10 - 1.20
1.20 - 1.30
1.30 - 1.50
2
3
4
3
2
18.5
15.6
32.3
12.5
21.1
2,432
1,659
2,615
1.600
2,826
19.3
16.8
16.0
13.5
19.3
$ .792
1.013
1.113
1.254
1.340
Totals
14
100.0
2,191
16.9
$1,103
9837
-492- . .
December 1934
$ .90 - 1.10
3
23.0
2,4S1 ■
19.0
$ .964
1.10 - 1.20
T
o
25.1
2,372
21.2
1.148
1.20 - 1.30
2
13.5
1,779
22.8
1.239
1.50 - 1.40
3
22.3
2,330 ,
19.2
1.360
1.40 - 1.80
•3
16 . 1
1.556
20.7
1.552
Totals 14 100.0 2,116 20.3 $1,230
Prom the above it is tq.be observed, tnat 66-. 4 ix-r cent of the
December 1933 output of strip mines in Illinois WpS produced at a total
cost of less than $1.20. per ton, while in December 1934, 51.6 per cent
of the total output was. at a total cost up to $1.20 per ton. This indi-
cates that the principal increase^ iji avera^ye total- cost for the Sub-
division occurred among. the hij^her cost mines.
12. Iowa Subdivi s ion of iPiv i sion II . (in 1934 Iowa produced .93
per cent of the U. S. total ,• according to the preliminary estimate of the
U. S. Bureau. of Mines.) (*)
Cost data for this Subdivision were not completely reported through-
out the period of the operati-on of the N,2.A. Cade, and for that reason
Iowa is not Included in the data heretofore presented In this chapter
under the caption Division II. Statistics, sufficiently comprehensive
for publication, v/ere received for deep and for strip mines in ifovember
1933 and for deep mines in December 1933.- .v. Average costs for these
periods are tabulated on the following page.
I
(*) U. S. Bureau of Mines, T^C.R. 919, February 15, 1935
9837
-493"
Iowa SiiMivision of Division II
Av er ai-r e Cos ts oer Ton
llovem'ber 1933
Decem'ber 1953
Dee"p and S trip
Strip
Deep
Deep
Far Cent Per Cent Per Cent . Per Cent
Costs of Total Costs of Total Costs of Total Costs Qf.r o ti.l
Mine Lator $1.4650 5.5.34 .9348 45.10 $1.5161 67.56 $1.4473 68.53
Kine Supplies .2607 11.72 .4710 33.23 .2404 10.71 .2267 10.73
Iviisc.tS: Fixed
Charges
Fred. Cost
Sellinsi- & Ad-
.3378 15.18 .4446 21.93 ^3275 1 4.59
,2944 13.94
$2.0635 92.73 1.6504
ininiptration
Total Cost
.1617 7.27
. 1772
91.26 $2.0840
8.74 .1602
92.86 $1.9684 93.20
7.14 .1436 6.80
100.00
$2.2252 100.00 $2.0276 100.00 $2.2442 100.00 $2.1120 100.00
IIo. of Mines
Hoporting 28
Average Days
Worked 15.4
Average i'ines'
Dail;- Production 463
3
6.4
698
25
16.1
453
25
18.0
476
All of tnese data are iDased on 8-hour day operations, no reports
being tabulated for operations under the 7-hour day. It is of importance
to note that labor costs under strip mine operations constitute a some-
what larger proportion of total costs in Iowa than in either Indiana or
Illinois. Both production and total costs run higner as a rule in Iowa,
partly because of more difficult mining conditions and partly because
of the smaller si::ie of t^^niical operations.
13. Subdivisions of Division III. Division III was not subdivided
for Code AdTninistration purposes, consequently no disc\ission of Sub-
divisional statistics is here presented. A discussion of the costs of
this Division is made earlier in this chapter.
14. Southwestern Subdivision of Division IV . (in 1934 this Sub-
division produced 1.62 per cent of the U.S. total according to the
preliminary estimate of the U. S. Bureau of Mines.) (*)
The coals mined in this Subdivision are of bit-uminous rank, a large
proportion of which are recovered by strip-mine operations; in fact this
section hrs been a pioneer in the development of large scale strip
(*)
U.S. Jiureau of Ilines W.C.3. 919, February 13, 1935
-494-
mining methods and equipment. A"boiit two-thirds of all the coal produced
in Division IV none from this Suhdivision. Tahle 82 shov/s the average
costs reported for this Subdivision dicing- the 5 months beginning Nov-
eraher 1933. An average of 44 raines reported vfirking time of -Qnly 14 days
per month dui-ing this period, .■•nd an average production of ahout 640 tons
per day. The production costs, i.^ these 5 months, ranged flora an average
of $1.3757 per ton to $1.4c:;;::;, averaging $1.4271 for- the entire period.
Total costs averaged $1.6463 per ton for the S-mouth period.
15 . Arj^ansas and Eastern Oklahoma Subdivision of Division IV.
(In 1934 tnis .Suhdivision produced .63 per cent of the U.S.- total accord-
ing to the preliminary estimate of the U.S.' Bureau o'f Mines.) (*)
The coals of this Subdivision are generally of a higher grade than
those mined in the other sections of Division IV. I'.'ost of the coal is of
oitumihous rank, although some from the eastern portion is of a semi-
bituminous rank. Deep mining is the principal type of operations and the
daily output per mine averaged ahout '352 tons for the months from Hovember
1933 through February 1934. An average of 18 mines reported about 8-^
working d, ys per m.onth for this perio'd, and their average production costs
ranged.;fro-i $2.4175 per ton in February ; 1934 to $2.7939 in November 1933,
an average of $2.5316 for the 4 months. Total costs averaged $2.9063 per
ton for the period. T;ible 91 presents pertinent cost and operating data
for this Subdivision.
16. ITorthern 'v7:;omin^; District of Division V. (In 1934 this District
prodxiced .22 per cent of th^^ U. S. total according to the preliminary
esti late of tJ:e U. S. Bureau of Lines.) (**)
The coals mined in tliis District range from low-rank sub-bituminous
to high-rank bituminous. Reports from only 4 or 5 mines v/ere received
by IT.H.A. for the 5 mouths of November and December 1933 and January,
February, and March 1934, they reported an aver;)ge of as few as 9.8
working days in March pjid a high of 16.8 days in November - an average of
about 12 days per month for the period. The average daily output per mine
for the period was slightl.'" less than 1,000 tons at an average production
cost of $1.3862, and a total cost of $1.5392 per ton. This State is re-
ported to contain the greatest unmined tonnage of aaiy state in the Union,
the seams running as higii as 90 feet in thiclmess. Cost and other operating
data for the commercial mines in this District are given in Table 97,
appended to this Chapter.
17. Southern IVyomin^-: District of Division V. (in 1934 this District
produced .99 per cent of the U.S. total according to the preliminai'y
estimate of the U. S. Bureau of Ilines.) (***)
T*) U. S. Bureau of Mines'W.C.S. 919, February 15, 1935
(**) U. S. Bureau of Mines W.C..H. 919, • February 15, 1935 ■ •
(***) U. S. Bvreru of :.ines M.C.2. 919, February 15, 1935
9837
-495- '
Tlie coal in this District rr.aks from sub-lDituminous to high grade
■bitioininous, 'out nuch of it h-).s ■be<-':i uiider such heavr' cover that its future
commercial development is douotful. Tlie seajiis rniif:e in thicloiess from
less than 2 feet in the Hock Sprii.gs -^'ield to 34 feet in the Ha.ma Field,
•i^irivig the last t'.'o non ths ox 1933 jnic! the first two months of 1934, 10
mines reported to IT.H.a. an average of 14.4 vrarhing da;-s per month and
a dailr production of about 700 tons per mine. Tliis production cost per
ton as reported averaged $1.S1 rmd the total cost .?2.05, of y/hich lahor
constituted about 50 per cent. Opereting data for this District may be
fouiid in Table 98.
16. i:ontana Distric t of i^ ivision V . (in 1934 this District produced
.75 per cent of the U. S. total according to the prelirain.ary estimate of
the U. S. Bureau of lines.) C'*) ■
The coals in this District rank from lignite to semi-anthracite.
The poorer grades are found mostly in the G-reat Plains Areas while the
better grades are in or near the mouiitains. Because of the great irregu-
larity in the coal bearing strata majay small individual coal fields
exist, .anc the raining costs are high. ' ost of the mines are captive and
much of the coal is used for railroad fuel. Commercial mines, for the
most part, serve local markets and are in competition with natural gas.
Operating data and costs for com;-iercifl mines are exhibited in Tpble 99,
a-opended to this chapter. These data are from five or six mines which
reported an average of 11 V70rking days per month for the 5 months begin-
ning November 1933. Their production costs rcinge from $1.56 in December
193S to $1.85 in Iv.'arch 1934, with an average of $1.65 per ton for the
period. Total costs averaged $1.91 for the same period. Pour mines re-
ported for April 1934 while operating under the 7-hour per day schedule.
No appreciable change in costs can be detected because of this chajige in
working time. The basic 'day rates remained unchanged, but hourly rates
were adjusted. Labor cost, nevertheless, constituted a smaller proportion
of total costs than in the preceding month under an 8-hour day.
19. Central New iiexico Dis trict of Division V. (in 1934 tliis Dis-
trict produced .16 per cent of the U...S. total, according to the prelim-
inary estimate of the U. S. Bureau of Iviihes.) (*)
The coals in this District rank from sub-bituminous to anthracite,
bat the sea'is are discontinuous and thic]-. pa^^ti^gs are frequent. The
production costs in this District are high, for the 6 months beginning
November 1933, compared to those reported by other Code areas. Labor
costs increased 21 cents per ton in April 1934,' over the previous 5
months' averaj^^e, but averaged about the sarae as the:" were for i.iarch in
sT)ite of the fact that wage rates increased and the 7-hour day v/as sub-
stituted for the 8-hour da;;. Production costs and total costs, however,
were higher after the Amendment became effective, due principally to
increases in Fixed Charges and Selling and Adininistrative costs. Table
100 shows the per ton costs and other operating data for this District
from November 1933 through April 1934.
20. Utali District of Division V. (In 1934 this District produced
.67 per cent of the U.S. total according to the preliminary estimate of
the U. S. Bureaii of l.iines.) (*) , :
(*) U. S. Bureau of j:ines w.C.H. 919, February 15, 1935
9837
-496-
Most of the coal mined in this District is of "bituminous and svLb-
■bitTiniinoiis rank, and is suitable for railroad, industrial and domestic
use. Reports were received for 5 months under the 8-hour day schedule
and for April 1934, the first month d.u-rin,j; which tne 7-ho-uT d.-i;; was in
effect, ilo change in da;,'' rates of pay were authorized in Amendment llo .
1 for this District. Ilo appreciable increase in costs can be detected,
"but the reportinti mines nurahered. only 9 in April as a'^ainst an average
of 16 mines for the 5 months beginning November 1933. Production cost
for the 5-month period varied from an average of $1,73 in December 1933
to $2.11 in February 1934, with an average of $1.82-| for the period.
Table 101 sumarizes the cost and operating data received for months of
November 1933 through April 1934.
21. Washington District of Division V. (in 1934 tnis District
produced .39 per cent of the U. S. total according to the preliminary
estimate of the U. S. Bureau of I^ines.) (*)
The commercially mined coals in this District are for the most part
bituminous or sub-bitiiminoiis in ranlc. Most of the active operations are
in the central portion of the state v/est of the Cascades. The coals
from this District compete in tae domestic market with wood and "hog-fuel"
while in the industrial market electric power is an important competitor.
Wage rates paid under the Code were axaong the highest in the country and
were not changed in Amendjuent ITo. 1 except as the fev/er hoars per day
correspondingly increased ho\u'ly rates. Labor costs constituted over
60 per cent of the total costs in contrast to ai'OLind 50 per cent in
other Districts of this Division. Pertinent cost and other operating
data for the 6 months beginning Kovember 1933 may be found in Table 102.
22. i'orth Dakota Strip I.iines District of Division V . (in 1934
this District produced .49 per cent of tne U. S. total, accord.ing to
the preliminary estimate of the U. S. Bureau of Mines.) (*)
All of the coal mined in this District ranks as lignite. Tlie seams
range from a few inches to 40 feet in thickness; they vary greatly and
may either thin out and disappear or thic]:en anrl be split into several
beds by clay seams ani partings. These lignites as mined contain a high
percentage of moisture A^ich if evaporated too 'rapidly causes the fuel
to disintegrate or slack into fine sizes. The market must of necessity
be largely local in character because of the unstable composition of
the coal. Characteristic of stripping operations, the average production
cost in this District for the 4-m.onth period beginning November 1933 is
very low, ranging from $ .78 in January- 1934 to $ .91 in November 1933,
an average of $ .83 for the 4 m.onths. Selling find Administrative costs
averaged about $ .16, m.aking an average total cost of p .99. Only 6
mines reported in each of the 4 mouths; their average working time was
nearly 20 days per months and the average daily output was 1,046 tons
per mine. Cost and operating data for this Division are found in
Table 103.
23. ITorthern Colorado District of Divis ion V. (in 1934 this Dis-
trict produced .64 per cent of the U. S. total according to the pre-
liminary estimate of the U. S. Bureau of Mines.) (*)
I*) U. S. Bureau of Mines W.C.P.. 919, February 15, 1935
9837
-497-
This field is laiovni a^; tue ilorthern Cv-)lorauo "Lignite" field.
The coals prodviced are for the 'nost part of bituminous and su'b-'bituininous
ranks. Denver, Boulder, arid other local cousuining areas constitute the
principal marlrets outside of railroad fael. Production costs d\iring the
5 months prior to the adoption of Araentu.ient llo. 1 averar^ed :^1.38g- and the
costs for individual months showed little variation from this average.
During this period an average of 20 mines reported avera,5e working time
of almost 21 days per nionth at a dailv rate of 551 tons per niine. During
the succeeding 3 months an average of about one-half this number of mines
reported about 15 da^'s wor]:ed per month. 'Zheir costs ran considerably
hi--;her, ranging from pi. 94 per ton to ^2.17. A-nong the items of cost
that increased v;ere labor (from A. 12 to around $1.37 per ton), Fixed
charges (from i?.35 to about $.40 per ton), and Selling and Administration
(from -p .17 to over $ .30 i:ier ton). Some of these increases are undoubt-
edly due to the higher wage rate per day that b-ecarne effective with the
adoption of Atiendnent' No. 1, some to generally higher prices of supplies
and a portion at least may be the result of a materially different
sample of reporting mines and the fewer da,vs worked per month. Cost and
other operating data for this District may be found in Table 104.
24. Southern Colorado District of Division V. (in 1934 this Division
produced .99 per cent of the U. 3. total according to the preliminary
esti".ate of the U. S. B^'oi^eau of i lines. ). (°^)
In this District are found coals ranking from anthracite to sub-
bituirdnous; most of the coal, hovrever, is of bituminous rank. The mar-
kets for these coals are mostly local, although the anthracite from the
Crested Butte field is marketed over' a wide area, i.'iuch of the coal is
used for railroad fuel. Tlie mines in this District made sufficiently
complete reports to N.R-.A. for publication for only 4 months' operations
during the 8-hour day period. Tlie production cost for this period averaged
$2.12g- cents per ton, $1.30 of which' viras nine labor. Ko data were re-
ported while operating under Anendinent ilo . 1 when the day-rates of pay
were considerably increased. From 26 to 36 mines (average 33) reported
an average of 10.6 working days per month for the 4 months at an average
daily production of about 641 tons jjer mine. Other relevant cost end
operating data for this District ai'e fou;ad in' Table 105.
&. Cost Increases Rec a'oi tulated .
There are shown in the opening Section of this chapter estimated in-
creases in cost brought about by the effectuation of the Code beginning
October 2, 1933. The 7-hour da^r and'35-houx week, with the accompanying
increases in wage scales under Arnenditient 1, effected another upswing in
costs, vmich have oeen estimated throughout the preceding discussion for
each Subdivision, after re:noving the seasonality or v/orking-day factor.
These estimated increases may be siirnrnarized and averaged as follows
on a basis wnich renoves the unequal weighting due to various percentages
of representation araong the cost reports received from the different Sub-
divisions (sse Section 3 of this chapter for detailed showing of these
percentages of representation) . To accomplish the weighting for this
purpose, the increases in cost have been applied to the total commercial
(*) U. 3. Bureau of l.'ines W.C.R. 919, Februpjry 15, 1935.
-45^3--
production 'of ■■each Sv'.'b'division as Te-ported' t;;' the Bureau, of k;ines and
the Division- averag'es-. ■wei-.'-.hted theteoh. ' Divisions I.V nnd V cannot ."be
treated in this manner 'Decaiise -tiieir rep'oi'tint'; did not continue te^'ond
the first four or five raoilths.-of the ' Cede period. ' .: ^ ., ._.
Bitu^iinous Coal.
Minimum Increas'e In Cost'Uhder il.H.A. ; "^ode, in b
•Months of tlie B-Houi- Da;^ Period, I'lovemher 1933 -March
1934: in the 10 Months of the V-IIour Da.y Period April
1934. -. January 1935; and Total Increase, estimated
from Cost leport-s covering these .Honths. ■
•
Commercial
Estima
ted Increase
in Cost
Production 8/
8-Houa^ Day
7-Ho-ur Day
Total
5 Mos.
10, Mos,.
Period;
Period
Increase
llov.
April
Dec. over
over
Under
' 1933-
1934
Maj' 1933
S-Hour Day'
'Code
!' larch
.Jan. . •
some thing
Period, '
something
1934
1935
more than
1/
ahout ■
more than
(1)
ii-)
(3)
(4)
(E)
Ctil; !♦•' Col.2 Thousands of ^ons
Eastern, Pennsylvaaiia ;,'.2S4'
Western Pennsylvania .o79'
Ohio . , ■ ,. .505'
Panhandle '. .,' 5/.
Michigan ,■ S/'
!Torthern TJifest y.irginiaj^293
DIVISIOlv^ I _ H03TH
.290 ■
. 250
.o0'5
.142
■ 5/
.280
.516 2/ .255 2/
Southern Suhdiv.. I'lo., 1 ■ !5/ .290
Southern Subdiv. I'Jo.2 .'323 .240
Maryland & Upper Pot. ■■434 . .290
Division I -SOUTH
TOTAL DIVISIOl? I
.333 3/ .260 3/
.253
,OD'±
.629'
.510
: 2/.
-.573 "
V571 2/
.568
.724
.593 3/
.580 3/
14,521
16., 813
8,933
1.582
• 335
' 8". 6 9-2
50 , 931
17,836
27 , 139
1.2 43.
45 , 223
97,154
24, a 34
30.0:87
14,214
. 2,6-90-
478
13.953.
&1 , 606
33,689
54,111,
1..927
.89 ,727,
174,333
Indiana
Illinois
TOTAL Division II
TOTAL Division III
.383:
.15
■ .174
.170 4/
i .350 6/
.16
.174
.170
.733
7,613
' I B. '820
. 25.433
■3,262
11.725
29.699
:41,424
4,701
GRAi'ID TOT/iL DIVI-
SIONS I,. II,, III
^/
.243 7/
5/
126,849 220,4,58
i/ This is the increase in' 'lahor cost' anly; see. Section A, this chapter..
2/ Exclud,ing .those •a;:eas noted as' -'"not' av,aila'bl'i:^" .'
3/ Exclu,ding,, Western: Kentuolcy aintl those areas noted a's"not available. "
4/ Excluding Iowa. .., (K.O.tes contimie<i- -mi fallowing :page) , ', .
9837
-499-
Tliis shovvin;::: is inooaclusive inni.ily -'iie to lack oi" completeness in
the 'basic neasuriu,- datn for thu first 'Deriorl. As to Division I, it is
safe t^ sf'." that tlie incroaso i:. costs cairiuj the 3-iiom- da;; period ao
comiDared, say with tne first t-irev: qu.-.rters of 1933, averntced consider-
ably more than the 32 cents siiovvn, due to incre.'i;=es in other costs than
labor; and by the sa^ne tol;en the over-all increase for the entire Code
period was probaoly at least 6o cents, ^'..'.ere is no data available in
N.R.A. for conputintC tne ri^^'ht figure.
Division II jr^enerally e::"]"ierienced no increase directly due to wa.";e
scales aiid hours established, by the Code in Octooer 197/3. 'Hie existing
scale under contracts still in effect becr-jne the basic rates for Illinoi
and Indiana -under the Code. Ihe overall effect of the Code on costs in
this Division is i.-robably understated in the table, rather thjai overstated.
Division III costs showed alriOst 75 cents a ton increase duriiig the
Code period.
s
(i.'otes continued from preceding page.)
5/ Hot available
6_/ Cost fi.pxres in 7-hour da;' period cover 9 months April through
December 1934.
2,/ Secluding Western Kentucky, Iowa, and those areas marked "not
available" .
8/ rro;n 3ureau of Kines, total production minus production of 100^
captive mines.
9837
-500-
CHAPTER VI 1/
PRICES IMDSR THE CODE
The statilization of the "bituminous coal industry contemplated un-
der the Code wasj to a large degree, dependent on the success of the
price structure to he set up. This was clearly realized ty operators
and lahor. One need only surrey the downward trend of prices following
1923 for an explanation as to why price conditions were considered of
vital importancee
Under the Code, the set-up for prices consisted of a detailed mech-
anism, largely e^cperimental, since it was established upon short notice
and with little precedent, arid hence was subject to many changes. Records
are not complete on all phases of its operation, and time prevents a
thorough discussion of its detail. Therefore, part of the text may ap-
pear incomplete, though atteirpt is made to give a consecutive story of
main events during the period of the Code. Because of the length of this
section, the major parts are listed below in their proper order.
A. Original Code Price Provisions.
B. Administration of Prices .
C. Eactors in Bituminous Coal Prices.
D. Establishment of Prices.
Eo The Price Structures.
P. Problems in Price Control.
G. The National Coal Board of Arbitration.
H, Realization under the Code.
I . Summary.
A. Or igina l Code Price P r ovisions ; Article VI contained the
price and marketliig pro/isions of the original Bitviminous Coal Code.
The general principles of price fixing were prescribed in Section I
of Article VI, wherein it was stated that, "The selling of coal under
a fair market price (necessary to carry out the purposes of the National
Industrial Recovery Ac*". . to pay the minimum rates herein established,
and to fur^ilsh employr.;. -; '; for labor) is hereby declared to be an unfair
competitive practice ac.i in violation of the Code"
No definite measures or standards were given in the Coda as to
what constituted a "fair market price", though the methods for establishj-
ing prices were given description. Section 2 of Article VI provided
that minimum prices for the various grades and sizes may be established
for future application by a marketing agency or agencies which are repre-
sentative of at least two-thirds of the commercial tonnage of any coal
district or groups of districts. Code Authorities were to exercise the
power of establishing prices where no marketing agency existed. Market-
ing agencies were required to report their prices to the Code Authorities.
In Section 4, it was said that the prices established should be publishr-
ed within 15 days after effective date of the Code, after approval by
the proper Presidential Member, who in his approval might permit a re-
duction or increase in the prices within limits which he might specify.
It was provided that prices be published- whfen any changes were made
1/ Prepared by George A. Lamb.
9837
-501-
therein, "but not less frequently thajn once each month and on the first
day of the month. Prices were to he sutmittcd to the Administrator for
his review and suhseqiient action.
Sy Section 5, Article VI, the records and data of marketing agen-
cies, and of the Code Authorities, were open to inspection and invest—
is^ation "by any agent of the Administrator. Changes proposed "by such
an agent af"cer his inveiitigation were not to "be effective until approv-
ed "by the Aoministrator.
Sections G to 18, inclusive, defined unfair trade practices. Coal
exported^ outside of bunlcer fuel, was not included in the price and
trade provisions.
In addition to the failure to set up standards for establishing
fair market price::, it will be seen that the Cede had no measiire pro-
scribing the manner in v/hich joint action between Code Authorities was
to be carried on, or as to hov7 controversies between Code Authorities
were to be handled. These three factors, particularly the joint action
and settlement of controversies, became severe obstacles to the opera-
tion of the Code.
3. Administr ation of Pr ices; The original Code permitted market-
ing agencies to osta.blish prices imder rules and regulations of their
respective Ocle .'."•ithorities. Provision was made' for the Code Author-
ities to est-abiirh prices for areaS' not represented by marketing agencies.
Prices were t-j "be approved by the Presidential Member before their
publication, ar-d also trabmit ted to- the Administrator for review and
any further action, fcLle prices originated generally with the market-
ing agoncifrs, :'chii -jyclcs administrative machinery centered aroiuid the
Code Ao-thorri-tieSy v.-i i/h the Presidential Member and Administrator exer-
cising review foiictions.
Each Cede Aubhority had its own by-laws and these usually contain-
ed a detailed piccedare in respect to prices. Specialized committees
were set up, each with specified duties, such as on prices, on class-
ification, and en ma2i:eting practices. Procedures were instituted for
carrying on the work butv?een m.arketing agencies and Code Authorities.
Generally some pro^^'ision was made for handling complaints made by Code
Members on prices. and classifications.
A wealoiess in the Code until January 1935 was in regard to relar-
tions between Code Authorities. As the Code was written, and as Code
Authorities were quick to accept, prices and classifications were taken
as intra-Code Authority matters. This placed a severe handicap on Code
operations, and on several occasions threatened the entire Code set-up.
Division I had a Divisional Code Authority and 9 Subdi visional
Code Authorities. Ihe Is-tter were in competition with one another in
at least some markets and, as a result, disputes were bound to arise.
Yet, the Code had no provision that treatedi such difficulties. The
Divisional Code Authority, an agency that one would expect to act on
controversies, was considered of second^ary importance since its powers
were conferred by Subdivisional Authorities, and thus it could do little
9837
-502-
more than encourage coordination "between Subdivisions. The same prot-
l-..\ -LIS true for other Divisions that had Subdivisions, except Division
III where there were no Subdivisional Authorities. No better arrange-
ment existed for proceedings or disputes between Divisions.
Neither did the Code make specific provisions so that the Admin-
istrator could deal effectively with Code Authority disputes. The
Administrator and Presidential appointee had authority to approve or .
disapprove prices and practices, and the Presidential appointee could ,
change px'ices within certain limits, but neither could initiate action
as to settling controversies.
It was soon evident after prices were first established that some
method had to be employed to smooth out the relations between Code
Authorities. This resulted in committees being appointed by Code Au-
thorities. For instance, Eastern Subdivision in its by-laws, made
provision for handling inter-Code Authority disputes through a committee
to be appointed by the Code Authorities, with decision by a two-thirds
vote. Voluntary action of this kind was often unsuccessful since the
committees, composed of members representing pa^rticular interests,
found trouble in reaching a common understanding. Sometimes a committee
of impartial members was set up, but such an agency, with no authority,
often had its findings disregarded. One agency that had some degree of
success in handling price controversies was the Joint Marketing Com-
mittee of Division I. This Committee, established in the spring of
1934, held formal meetings on price disputes, and in some cases reached
a decision that was generally accepted. By the s-uxnmer of 1934, the
Joint Marketing Committee recognized it was unable to cope with all the
price controversies, and it suggested that the Presidential Members of
Division I meet as a board and render decisions to the Administrator
.on cases not settled by the Gormittee. (Letter to Administrator from
Joint Marketing Committee, June 25, 1934.) The Committee and the Pres-
idential Board of Review more or less worked together on the cases.
Tlie Board did not attain the success desired. In January 1935, the
Code was am;ended (iimendment No. 6) to amplify tTae price sections and
.to provide for a National Coal Board of Arbitration.
C. Factors in Bituminous C oal P r ices ; Before entering into the
actual Code prices and the problems connected therewith, it seems well
to consider the various factors connected with the mako-up of bituminous
coal prices.
Tlie Price L evel
The physical supply of bituminous coal is unlimited for all prac-
tical purposes. In Chapter IV and elsewhere, the excess capacity of
the industry has been given full description. In addition, there are
several other noticeable characteristics that appear in connection with
the production and disposal of coal. The coal industry has its product
already existing, except for some possible preparation, and requires
only mining and transportation to market. This is quite unlike other
industries where the production activities include fabrication or
processing. Because of this, coal can be sold "in the gro\ind", i.e.,
before it is mined, and this is a customary practice. In other
9837
-503-
industries, production is based often on anticipated sales. Coal is
not stored at the mines, aside from resultant' sizes that sometimes
pile up; pnd is not sent to' market to avait a sale, unless one con-
siders the relatively small amounts in the retail yards and at the docks.
Neither is coal stored to aaiy c'^eat extent "by consumers, partly tecause
of custom and partly because of costs, and again because users know
their requirements can be obtained -upon short notice. This is in con-
trast to many other commodities that are stored prior to sale. In
summary'', bituminous coal is an industry v.ith sn e::cessive capacity,
with a product already existing, with production often based on sales
already made, and with sales largely according to current needs.
• OZhe demand for coal is generally said to be inelastic. Several
elements seem to support this contention. Bituminous coal in many cases
is a necessity to the extent that other fuels cannot be easily substi-
tuted. Equipment installed to bum coal cannot be economically changed
to oil and gas furnaces -where the prices of the different fuels hold
somewhat to past relationships. A second point favoring inelasticity
is that the cost of coal is often, only a small. part of the consumer's
production costs. Figures are not available to justify accurately this
point, though some approximation may be obtained from the Fifteenth
Census of the United States — Manufactures, 1929, wherein it is shown
that total "fuel and energy purchased" amounted to 2.6 per cent of the
value of all manufactured products, and 5.9 per cent of value added to
products. It is to be noted that "fuel end energy purchased" includes
all kinds of fuel as well as energy so that the proportion of bituminous
coal would be considerably less. If it can be assumed from the above
that bituminous coal is but a small item in manufacturing costs, then
it can be accepted that manufacturers will purcliase coal as they need
it since even a sizeable increase in price would change their costs but
little. For other industries, bitujninous coal represents a larger item
in costs but, likewise, an important necessity. In 19.29, coal purchased
by Class I Hailroads represented 6.7 per' cent of their total railway
operating expenses. (Statistics of Railways, 1929, I.C.C.) ^tiile a
15 or 20 per cent increase in coal prices vvould not affect railway
operating ercpenses a great deal, even a larger increase v/ould not con-
vert all railroads to another fuel or energy because of the difficulties
involved in such a substitution. Information is not complete regard-
ing fuel substitution or the costs of f\iel to total production costs,
but it is apparent that these two factors influence the consumers'
demand for bitmainous co-al and account for elasticity at least to some
degree.
The effects of the various factors related to the sale of coal
under conditions of free entei^irise brings into consideration the his-
tory of the industry for the decat'e prior to the Code. With an \in-
limited tonnage available, the markets were potentially flooded with
coal, causing the price to be determined by the interaction of factors
on the supply side. This was a period in v/hich the buyers could sit
back and enjoy the cut-throat activity between producers. The object
of producers was to outsell each other, and seek what economies they
could so that costs would at least be covered. This meant a continual
down pull on the price level and attempts to lower costs. Labor, the
largest item in- mining costs, and more flexible than others, was
9837
-504-
pressured in the economy adjusting process, causing much disorder be-
t./'^cn labor and producer. (See testimony of Mr. Charles O'Neill before
jjlstrict Supreme Court, Carter Coal Case, Print p. 346-7. )
From 1923 to 1932, the trend of the price level was continually
doi.vnward. The losses suffered by the industry during this period are
indicated in Chapter I, showing that the economies effected were not
sufficient to overcome the depressed price level. , In other works, the
level at which coal was actually- sold was below the cost level.
An opposite condition will be found for earlier years. In 1920,
a year of car shortage, the price level averaged $3.75 per ton. Average
monthly spot prices for this year advanced to a high of $9.51 per ton,
and instances occurred where individual prices were twice' as high.
See Chapter I. Experiences in high coal;prices before 1923 offer raach
support to the inelastic nature often attributed to the demand for
coal. It is to be recalled, that before 1923,- many outside influences,
such as car shortages, war conditions and strikes, had nmch to do with
coal prices, and it was not until after the disappearance of those in-
fluences that the factors of supply and marketing could show their
full importance.
, Pai'ticular Prices ' , ; .
The bituminous coal, price problem becomes more complicated when
the question of individual prices for sizes and kinds of coal are brought
into consideration, .,■ , •,■ -
Much of the difficulty in respect to particular prices appears
because the industry is largely one^ '»''* joint, costs. Coal is usually
sold according to certain sizes but it cannot be rained by size with
one exception, namely the *li]^no Run!' ope Jifi cation. Numerous sizes must
be prepared by the industry ta supply the requirements of the consumers.
T/fhile the preparation of the coal is usually a simple process, the
prices for the different sizes may vary, a great deal. The joint nature
of the product appears since none of the "sized" specifications can be
produced without some resultant remaining. Por instance 6" 1-ump can-
not be prepared without . coal of lesser size resulting therefrom. This
makes it impossible to allocate costs to the different kinds of pre-
paration, and the importance given to each, may vary greatly between
producers.
Another complication is that what may be a resultant size to one
mine may be a major product to another. Thus, a mine in one region
may specialize in steam coal while _ a mine in another region may largely
sell prepared sizes. The producer of steam coal naturally attempts to
get rid of his resultant, at any price, and in doing so he may directly
compete with the producer of prepared sizes. , An opposite situation
will appear when the producer of prepared sizes attempts to sell his
resultant.
Much price trouble has appeared because of the qualtities of coals
of particular districts. Coals may vary a great deal in make-up ac-
cording to the districts where they are mined. The classification of
9837
■ „505-
coals by ranlc starts v.-ith anthracite, aiid then continues through the
different kinds of 'bituminGtis, the kinds of sub-bituminous; and the
kinds of lignite. (See report of Sectional Comnittee on Classification
of Goals, 37th Annual Meeting of A-neriacan Society for Testing Materials,
1934.) But in addition, there are coals of numerous raalce-ups within
each rr.nlc, and it is this variation that gives rise to complications
in the market. Part of this coal variation may be determined by cheR>-
ical analysis; that is, it is possible to measure moisture, sulphur,
ash, fixed carbon, volatile matter, heat content and fusibility; ele-
ments that describe part of the qvialities of a coal. Tlie value of chem-
ical analysis, of course, depends on how widely it is used, the extent
to which producers accept the results of each other, and how well it
is followed by consumers. Hien, again, there are certain elements,
such as friability, grindability, free burning, coking and caking which
are related to the performcince of a coal in its different uses. It
is said these elements can be judf.'ed only through the e:q5erience of
producers and consumers, and it is probably for that reason that they
are often spoken of as intangible elements. With all these many vari-
ations existing in the character of coals, it is easy to see the com-
plications that would arise in a common m.arket when producers com.pete
under terms of free enterprise.
Sales have often been made for the purpose of keeping mines in
operation. It is claimed to be a better practice to run a mine by
selling coal at some price as against leaving it idle and undergoing
the costs of pumping together with certain overhead items. (See.
Testimony of Mr. Charles O'Neill, before District Supreme Court, Carter
Coal Case, Print p. 347.) It is also probably true that producers
have sold coal at a relatively low price rather than lose a customer.
The policy of keeping a mine running regardless of price becomes of
serious consequence in an industry like bituminous coal where an excess
capacity prevails.
The peculiar nature of the factors related to coal prices furnish
a key to the causes that depressed the industry after 1923. They clear-
ly indicate the obstacles appearing in the marketing procedure, and
suggest the handicaps of the industry in its attempts to operate under
free enterprise. They point to the need of regulation in the industry
but, at the same time, the complications connected with such regulation.
D. Establislmient of Pri ces; Tlie Code prescribed no definite
standards as to how the original prices were to be established. Aside
from the general provision tha.t prices were to be fair and at the same
time sufficient to carry out the purposes of the Act, Article VI 2 (c)
specified that Code Authorities shall utilize the classification of
coals as a basis for deterraining the fair market price. Classification
was to be effected by marketing agencies except, in districts where
agencies were not organized, the Code Authorities were instructed to
classify the coals. The Code Authorities were also to cl;;ssify coals
not sold by marketing agencies of any district. In addition to these
conditions, a fair market price and classification, the Code allowed
consideration to be given to competitive fuels and energy in the deter-
mination of prices.
3837
■ • -506-
Altiiof-^h tlie&e price .^Drovisi-di-f; ?'-i" ear ..rather YS.{jo.e, tlieir sij^-
riiiicance ;.£, £-•"; rent rcoon fwrtlier couSiueiVtior.. In ti\e first "olace, r-
fair i"n^.rl-et ;irice, one tc cc.r\j'j cut ti-e , intent k,- of the Coc'-e, reoiiired
that costs oe .covered., ajac, thr t ■^orotecti';n'''l5e v'iv-en a£;r.inst vmlimited
■price cr.ttin^. 'To satisfy: thCie'-^-conc-ltions",' the coirrposite nine price
'■'oulc'' hPvG't'o, eVr.e.l or- exceet. costs, ' r.iea-j4n_: th?.t ootk uine costs and
sales rs-iizatioi;. rould .have • to Ids hr.oun, -Also, a miniinr'x: ;-irice i.7as
necessar7. . In the second -place, the (ilassiifieation laile instru.cted
■that ■o"i"o^i3r ■ x^ice relati0nshi-?"'& he estahlished for the coals of each
district. I'his r^u.lfc. recphre'd tlTa.t pirice differentials he set u;fi for
rai-nes vhich i..-o"aid i.,ive. meagul'ement to varia^tion. iii the qu^'.lit;/ of thei.r
coals. ■ ■
Jifficr.lties in Settin;: U'l Ini'bial rrices ; ■ I'he ohstacles faced
in the earl;- ;;'rice proCedu.rQ are easily realiz.ed vfhen it is recalled tlia.t
lit Lie data rere ayailacle on the .suDjecto Uniform cost accoiiJitinii; liad
not been follovjec, hy ^operato-S, and the re;CordsavailahlG lached iini-
formit w.' cc.-:;:leteness. Data on costs, ajid prices, ■pa.rticvila.i-ly the
latter, _.;' . 'oeen considered a private rn?-,t^ter andi/^re held as confidential.
7."he-n the Code became e:f-fe:ctive, Article VII, Section C^ -lermitted Code
Authorities to collect necessary data and, .-".I'hile this allowed entrance
to certain files, it-;Y,'as .not rossihle v.'ithin the limited time to organ-
ize sta.tistical bra"ea.us,:vhi'ch'Coiild Collect, and corjoile all the sta-tis-
tics needot., ■ •
A reaso;" for the •■laxh of information on :Gosts, -prices said rna.rhet-
inr, p'as. tl;:e.t .the ui:t"Oxi,iinoi\s' coal in...ustry had. never been brganij^ed exten-
sively,'." It 'ir true tlia.t qperator associaticns existed in most of the pro-
duciut,' districts.,. ■oxT.t; t-hese V72re ' conperned mostly vith local ma.tters, sixch
as wa^e disputpF: ,. .and their activi .'ties, ■'.''ere .s.e:ldom extended to the more
general prohl ems-. -(.The .Kational- Coal Ascociation, on Janua.r:)- .r^?, 1C!'?6, list-
ed 33 locr.l o^perator.aspo'C.iafio;is, and it i^. said that most of these operated
before the 1",.?..A,) . The .S'.i.rst important a.pency to deal directly v.dth coa.l
p ri c'e s ■• a/nd marhetin,-:; vi'a.s oix'anized only shortly before the Code. This vas
the App-lachian Coals I-nc, '-hich bepr'n operations in 105.3.
In form, A'rp? lo-chian Coals vras -a coopera.tive raar?r:etin;, a.^ency, v,'ith
its stochi'ioldors consistinp of o-Terators located V'ithin defined areas.
The Liemi-jcr operators entered ir.to a contract v;heroby the agency vovild
have exclusive ri^ht to the sale of their coal, except as to outstanding
contracts, coal i^sed at the mines, and coal "aold to errrploycos. (A^'ipala-
chian Goals, Inc., et al, vs. United States, 288, U.S. n44.) Appalachi-an
Coals, coon after orr:.anization, i-nclr.dcd the majority of "producers of
hit.:h vole tils coal in Eastern hentuc:':^'-, Tennessee, Virginia and Test
Vir^^inia, and accov.ntcd for three-fourths of the production in this terri-
tory by the early part of l?-o'j. (ibid) The a^;ency at that time repre-
sented 1,; per cent of the production east of the hississipT-d River.
Functions of A;-'"T:-.lachian Coals Y,fere to senl; better methods of distri-
bution, advertise intensively, to eliminate unfair trade piractices,
&nC. to carry on .aarhet research. ',7hile Appa.lachian Coals was in no
position to dominate ma.rlr.et ■^^rices, it was able to bring order in rospcct
to its o^jerators, and it die" collect a lar^e amount of raa.rket in-
forma.tion. . "ith the leiality of Ao^^^alachian Coals cor.firmod
by the Gu-orcnc Couit in i.^rch, iOou, certain doubts wei'C
nr;-7
-507-
eliminated as to the Anti- Trust laws, and cooperative marketing was
stimulated generally, llothem Coals., representing various Ohio dist-
ricts, be;"^;!!! to ftmction in Jiijie, 1953. In September, Hocking Coals,
Inc. , an organization for Liouthern Ohio fields, began operations.
Greater progress in cooperative marketing would probably have been ex-
perienced in the summer of 19o3 had not attention been directed to Code
fornulation. Of the three sailing agencies organized prior to the Code,
Appalachian Coals was the only one in a position to be helpful in the
establishing of Code prices, since neil'her Ohio Coals nor Hocking
Coals, Inc. , had been operating long enough to assemble any great amount
of information, Appalachian Coals was a v^'luable aid to the organizar-
tion and operation of Southern Sutdivi£,ion llo. 2, the Code Authority
for the southern high volatile region; aiad furnished a pattern for other
Code organizations.
The most complete information available on costs and prices of the
industry at the time of Code organization was published oy Goveinment
agencies. Tnese data, of course, had to be released in such a way as
not to reveal information on any particular company and, in consequence,
many of the important statistics on costs and prices had to be excluded.
For instance, the Bureau of Mines had data on realization, i.e. the
composite prices, by states ai'id counties, ajid by years. This agency
was unable, however, to obtain information on the actual prices for
kinds and sizes, nor was it able to compile a complete summary of prices
in any market. The most recent and complete information on mine costs
in 1933 was the Census which, for 1929, had data by states, and by count-
ies that produced over 100,i'0C tons for the year. The value of these
statistics was mos+"'ly in the form of showing the importance of individ-
ual cost items rather than as a basis of a cost level, since costs had
changed noticeably after 1929.
Even had more data been available on costs and prices, difficul-
ties would still have been faced in setting up the Code prices. There
was the problem of adjusting prices according to the proposed wage ad-
vances, and other cost increases that were beginning to appear. Then,
again, there was the problem of contracts. A large tonnage was under
contract at relatively low pro-Code prices, and the contracts were to
continue throijgh the Code until their expiration. It is said tha.t many
operators estimated after a survey of conditions, that the price level
would have to be somewhere around $2.0(.i per ton and, no doubt, many
kept this figure in mind when establishing prices.
Classification of Coal s; The classification of coals introduced
additional complexities to the price fixing process. Coals within a
district, or even between adjacent mines, may vary greatly in market
quality. As a, result, coals mined under similar conditions may take
different prices in consuming markets or for certain uses. It was
specified in the Code that the various coals be classified so that
recognition be given to the marketability of. the different kinds.
Classification implies that consideration be given to consumer
demand which by nature is an evasive factor. It consists of numerous
variable elements and many that ar*^ unknown. There are, however,
measurements for certain characteristics of a coal which form a general
basis for burning requirements. These are obtained by a chemical
9337
-508-
analysis. Moisture, sulphur, ash, fusitility, phosphorus, fixed carton,
vol-^tile matter and heat content may be definitely weighted through an
analysis of this kind. (Material on chemical analysis is taken largely
from "Keystone Coal Buyers Manual", 1935. Suggestions also obtained
from "Preliminary Classification of Coal for Code Authority of Western
Pennsylvania", 1934; "Price- Fixing in the Bituminous Coal Industry",
Stepheh P. Burke.,- 19 35-; Brief, Eastern Sabdivision, Docket 13, II.C.B.A. ;
and "The Appalachian", Appalachian Coals Inc., June 1935.,)- ■ r, ..
The characteristics measured through a chemical analysis may "be
described as follows:
f' " Moisture >- All coals contain moisture, varying from 1 per cent
in certain parts of the Appalachians to 40 per cent in the lignite, of
Texas, Coals may also have some surface moisture due to washing .or
rain, particularly in the case of fine sizes, but much of this may
disappear under favorable atmospheric conditions.' Usually part of the,
natural moi,sture is lost in shipment. Moisture in coal must be evap--
"orated before combustion can occur, requiring part of the heat liberated
from the coal.
Sulphur - This may range from 0.5 to 8 per cent, and sometimes
more. ■ Sulphur, has some heating value, and in some cases is a source
for sulphuric acid, but is objectionable to certain uses when it com- ■
; bines with other bases to form clinkers.
Ash - Thi,s is the incombustible remainder after coal is burned.
Ash has no fuel .value, requires freight charges along with the coal,
may form clinkers, and requires extra labor as to furnace cleaning.
Fusibility - This is the heat required to cause remaining ash to
form clinkers. It is said that ash with a fusing temperature of 2100-
deg. F, , will not only become melted in most fireboxes, but will be
heated beyond the melting 'point and run over the grate area to form a-
thin sheet. . .
Phosphorus - Tlie amount of phosphorus in coals was important
when steel was made by the Bessemer process, since it adversely affect-
ed the product, but as steel is now processed mostly by other methods
the importance of low phosphorus in coal has decreased.
Fixed Carbon - Roughly this is the remainder after moisture,
volatile matter and ash have been eliminated. It has a high heat
value, and it is said the best chance to obtain full heat -value is
generally when fixed carbon represents between 77 and 81 per cent of
coal.
Volatile Matter - Tliis consists mainly of the combustible gases
•in the coals, some of which produce more heat than any other part of
the coal. The he.at obtained depends on -the make-up of the gases, and
the manner in which the coal is burned. For example, high volatile
coal thrown i"n large quantities on a fire produces smoke because gases
are expelled so rapidly they cannot unite with oxygen of the air, leav-
ing carbon to issue from the stack as smoke. Much of the heat content
9837
-509-
is lost under such conditions. The te:?ni "hijh volatile" is usually
connected with coals having over 28 per cent in volatile matter;
"r.ediuia volatile" refers to coals h;ivine from 21 to 28 per cent in
volatile matter; and ''low volatile" refers to coals with 20 per cent
or less in volatile matter.
Heat VaPu e - Tiais is expressed in British thermal units, i.e.,
the quantity of heat required to raise one poiu-id of w.-iter, at 62 de£^-rees
?. , through 1 degiee F.
!Ehe ii-iportance of the chemical malce-up varies according to the
type of user. For almost any constiraer, coals are oh jectional)le when
they contain extrtme aiTiounts of moisture, sulphur and ash. Smoke
ordinances may prompt users to give attention to volatile content.
For many users, the relation of the properties of a co?l to each other
are highl.y important, and the chemical measurements are considered
directly when purchases are made. Coals of a given ash or sulphur
content may be useless for certain purposes, while a low fusibility
may hinder ouming in some fuj-naces. Volatile requirements for effic-
ient burning in fireboxes are often Imowii. Coals required "oy partic-
ular users maz'' come only from a sin;;,'le field, and some coals are rel-
atively scarce. Tlie nature of the chemical properties will sometimes
measure the efficiency of coals as well as their usability, and for
those reasons a chemical ajialysis alone may be responsible for the high-
er price on onec 'ooa»l as against another. As an example of how chemical
properties are given consideration, the base specifications of the
United States Eavy on bunker coal are shown below:
Vola.tile Matter .15 - 23,.
Ash 5 - 5 •
Sulphur, less than ' 1.5
Fixed Carbon 71 - 79
B.T.U. about 14,700
(Keystone Coal Buyers Manual 1935, p. 50, quoted from
circular of Information, U.S.N. Paymaster General.)
Measurement through chemical analysis may furnish only one set of
specifications as to the marketability of coals. There are other
characteristics which are not subject to any definite measurements, and
which operators often spealc of as intangibles. These intcUigible qual-
ities are known to exist because coals giving similar results under a
chemical analysis will sometimes vary in market price. Hecognized among
the intangibles are friability, grindability, free burning, coking, and
caking. . _
Friability - The extent to which a coal is subject to cr-umbling
and breaking down. Friable coals will more easily lose their size
make-up when handled, and often give large quantities of extreme fines
whicii may contribute to clinker formation in some furnaces. Again,
friable coals maj' lose uniformity in their size more easily, a condi-
tion that may hinder combustion in many fireboxes.
G-rindability - This is how well coals are 'adapted to crushing.
9837
-510-
Sorae coals are useless in this respect. Th-e comiDarptive advantages of
grindable coals are related Ifrgely to the type of turning equipment and
npture of plant.
Free Burning - This indicates ?n absence of coking qualities, indi-
cating that free burning coals vril]. not readily fuse together v/hen hurn-
iiigf giving fine sizes little resistance as to being blown out the tubes.
Stokers ^re used, horever, which eliminp.te much of the trouble with free
burning coals.
Coking - Vhile volatile m-tter, sulphur and other qualities sub-
ject to measurement are important, the complete value of a coal to coking
is often found only after exi^riment. This is due to certain characteris-
tics of the gases of coals as well as the tj'pe of plant. Sometimes differ-
ent coals are mixed for coking purposes.
Caking - This refers to the action of various coals, with coking
properties, that fuse together when burning, and cause combustion diffi-
culties under certain conditions.
Intangible cha.racteristics , like the chemical properties, have an
importance according to the application of coal in v- rious uses. Pew
are in agreement as to how the intangibles should be measured. One
authority states that, on the aiverage, intangibles should have a weight
of one-third as against a weight of two-thirds for the chemical measure-
ments. (Brief, Eastern Subdivision, Docket 13 - IT.c.B.A. ) A study of
market prices over a period would probably give some indication of price
differentials for kinds of coal and the weight of intangibles. These
data were often not available for the' months prior to the Code, and even
were prices obtainable they would, in many cases, be distorted because
of the cut-throat competition that had prevailed in the industry.
Occasionally a special classification is established for certain
types of buyers. Tor example, it has been the practice of railroads to
pay a fixed price for coads of a given preparation of particular mines.
These large buyers fail to recognize price differentials based on a chem-
ical analysis and other considp-ration when coals a.re relatively similar
in character. The raalroads can obtain like results from coals that may
vary some in physical make-up, vrhereas oth^-r users may find a noticeable
change in efficiency due to slight differences in sulphur, ash, or other
properties. Because of this and the fact that the railroads are large
buyers, railway fuel is usually given a special classification.
The task of the marketing agencies and Code Authorities was to con-
sider the ma.rketability of the numerous coals in light of their chemical
and intangible Dualities, and to rate the individual mines accordingly.
Little emphasis need be given to the magnitude of such a work. It
should be stated, however, that there had been little e:.rperiences in
classification, while chemical analyses were not in existence for all
m:nes. Pew operators could agree on classification standards. Much of
the classification "ork was on. an arbitrary basis, ajid a great deal
of dissatisfaction resulted. (See Bulletin, National
9837
-?11-
Coal Association, Noveiater 10 and 20 ,■ 19.'^>3.) '.linos vvora grouped in a
fevy, or i.ias'be as many as a dozen classes, causing certain operators to
co..nlr,in -m' tlieir position on t-ie clas?if ication schodule.
Settlnj, up the Init i al Prices ; Information is meagre on the
.net'^cd-G siiployed in setting up tlie original Code prices. 1 survey of
early price scl-iedules and related information ougjests thet the
inar?-etin^; cVi^encies and Code Autiicrities resor+.ed to various means in
for.-Ta].atins the price sc'iedules. G-enerally, the first step was to
set up r. :ninin-nxTi mine price. So;.'.e ViOra not clear as to vuetuer t.,-e
price f:r rn/ size or kijad of coal could be quoted telow tie averc-tje
cost. Soi.ietimes , tae mininiaiii- mine prices varied according to severs!
"narlcet zones. Tiaxiuram freight absorptions were often allowed on all
or certr.in sizes of coal, "lines were not classified in all causes.
It v:a.s IcnoTOi that the first prices failed to conform in all cases to
all the Co.'e reouirements but, at tne s,aiTie time, oriccs had to be
established. T^iis was done with the -JJider standing that the schedules
were te-vporary and woald be improved urjon, esoecially w-ien ;orice in-
forviation v;as more com;;;lete.
An actual picture of early price methods may be obtained for
one Subdivision. (Brief Eastern Subdivision, Docket 13 - F.C.3.A.)
It is stc-ted t.iat this Subdivision, oefore fixing prices in
September 1935, determined the rvera.ie c: st of producing coal for
mines in its territory. The method of figuring costs is not de-
scribed, jjext, a studj^ was mad.e of- inarket prices over a period of
a year to ascertain the average differences in price of the lo\rest
.'-irade group of coals as coirpared with tlie hig-iest grade group. This
amounted tc 'oO cents per ton. Intermediate coals were then grouped
in :''-cent steps between the low and aig.i grade coal, using the aver-
age cost as the value of the- lowest grade coal. The range of lorice
was c. eclced against a cnemical analysis, and a^a,inst prices filed by
pro'-ucers of Centra]. Pennsylvania that .lad operate", under ti'e Code
of Tair T'lTde Prrctices, a code that had required price? to be
caaiigec. v/iti: a central authorit.y and no c'nange to be made without
notice.
Ijy October 14, 1933, price sciiedules had oeen approved by the
Adj-a.nistrator for Divisions III and V. Prices for Subdivisions of
Divis:-:.n I ha,d been given temporary approval, but prices for
Divisi:ns II and IV were still due. (Bulletin of }fational Coal
Associatioii, October 14, 1933.) By t-ie end of October, all prices
were approved, except tor Western Kentucky. Tentative approval ?/as
given to Illinois and Indiana prices Decs.use of tue conflicts between
tliese So.bdivisions. (>alletin of JTt tional Coal Association,
November 4, 1933.)
1^:e procedure of having schedules published witli mini num -orices
effective for the future caused a rigidity in prices not customary
for the bitu-minous coal industry. Some operators found the mini-
mom prices too higii to permit them to continue in certain old raa.rkets,
9837
-512-
w.iile ctlicrs were iDitter as to the mine classification they received.
(Blach Diaaiond, Vol. 91, December 23, 1933, p. 34.) Freiglit rate
absoi-Ttions v/ere allowed soraetimes to permit more flexibility.
( Is;.rin;^ before Presidential i.iember, Butler-Mercer controversy,
Ie3tern Pennsylvania Code Authority, June 13, 1934.) T--e method of
auotin,;- earlj'' prices f.o.b. mine, and the allowance of c maximum
frei;:;;ht absorption, generally made tae actual prices in any market
difficult to det3rmine and left room for abuse in trade practices.
The Adm.-.niitration early stated the- Code meant that "orices should
be established for consuming markets. (See Conference of Producers
of Divisicn II, 7estern Kentucky, and Eastern Representatives,
Dece.iberV, 1933, 7ashington, D. C. , p. 25.) This really included
two tliins^s : first, that coals have a definite price for each
marhet, which wo aid exclude variable freight absorptions; and
second, that prices of Divisions and Subdivisions be correlated in
the markets. It was also tnrough the Administration txiat activity
was e:,rly directed towards the establisiiment of coamon aiancetin^
area.s.
E. Tne Price Sti'uctu res: Tne price stractures underwent con-
siderable ch.ange during the Code period. One of the first modifica-
tions V7a<-: the establishment of prices by markets as compared with
early attempts at varrying mine prices and maximum freight absorp-
tions, bot?i of which had caused a great deal of confusion. By the
Sprin,!; of 1934, tne iiiajority of the price schedules had prices by
markets, while maximun freight absorptions were being used less and
less, iir.rket price areas began to appear early in 1934, and be-
caine general by Summer. In the late Spring of 1934, more activity
was turned towards t.ie relationships of prices of competing Sub-
divisions in markets and, after tnis time, the price patterns showed
a larger a:ncunt ox correlation. The nunerous price controversies
appearin;: the SuTimer of 1934 were largely concerned with correla-
tion matters, of which classification was the more important.
Price areas proved to be convenient in the setting up of
market prices. A price area consisted of one or a group of consum-
inr^ ■ocmts for wnic.i specified prices applied as to tne kinds and
sizes of coal of a given district. Information is not found in
regard to considerations talcen into account in tne establishment
of the areas, but apparent in tnsir raalce-up are conditions such as
tie customary aiarkets of raining districts, peculiar ch.aracteri sties
of certain ..larkets, and freight differentials to be absorbed. At
first, the areas 'were set up by particular Sub-divisions, but later
areas -.ere agreed upon between Subdivisions. On July 1, 1934, the
S-abdivisions of Division I jointly established tjie price areas
showii in the accompanying .nap. Price areas were used by nearly
all t--e Subdivisions during the second half of the Code.
Dae to lac: of time and otaer conditions, it is necessary
to resort to a few simple illustrations of tae price structures in-
stead 01 tlie detailed treatment as originally planned.
9837
-513-
-514-
1"'-:. ta")le below is ta-:en !>.•) i a price scliedule of the Onio Su'o-
divis-ic-i, a:id is typical of tie •:^rlGe set-ups foiind during the later
half of th.e Code period. It if. onl/ one :;-rt c.f the orice schedule,
the of. ei- x.i-t? including se':3;\r.'.te .>i-:.ce -aot-.t ■'.c!:p for eacn of the
follDwr.n^;: vri.j.roai I'usl, Ji.m.cer fuel, lai'Ce coal, truck sales; and
sectioHo c".i rules, re£ul;,ti ns and ■•.nf:-^--' nation a;, to t...e application
of t,e ^r:.ces. Prices in t. ^e acco»:nejiyinj table .■rre fcr all coal
exce :-t that C'jverel in the &eps.rate r.uotaticns I'^qcr^hed above.
hr.-et areps, correspondxni, to tlie d-esit^nati :-ms en the 'iarket
Area ha;.";, are shown m the fir'^t coliirnn o.f t.ie Ohio schedule.
Jlass'-f _c-.tj.on? are incHided under the title, "Origin hine Groups."
Tho ;t .:r coluvrjis on t-c: table are for tue different sizes of coal.
It v;'.ll be seen t'^at pncef; are 'Quoted accoriin^^ to four desi^Tia-
tions: by ..-.arlcet areas, by classifications, by producing districts,
and by sis'^s.
Price variations 'oy aiancet areao may be .ae-sared by taking cne
clo.ss:.f ..cation and sev.sral si:^es. For instance, on Liine .Ran, mines
in C-rc .ip I '.■.o.d a. price cf .1 . 0'5 for consu-iiinj, points in ^reas 5, 10,
and 11; ')'■;. 00 in Areas 1 to 4 inclusive, ?nl .A.rea 6; •-'nd '^^.O^ in
Area?. 7, 3 and 9. Luinp 5" and larger did not have the sane market
differer.tr.als. 'iarket Areas 4 and 11 had the lov/est orice, )^.40,
wit. a z:t3f6. of "^0 cents to 4.rep.s 8 and 9, the markets taking the
hig'ie s t pri c e s .
Classification differentials varied botri by I.iarket Areas and
sizes of ccal. In Market Area 8, classif:; cations B and E took the
sane price on Mine 3un, but a differential of 10 cents between the
two is n.:ted for liarket Area 11. On 5" Lump, tlie difference bet?/een
Class 3 a^id Class F amounted to 15 cents \7hen for Area 11. Differ-
entia,ls bstv/oen the producin.j; jrcuos a^.^e readily apparent.
A 1 r.r:,er spread is f lunl for tie differentials between the
sizes of ccr,l. In market Area 3, for example, Sroup I mines nad a
price of $.:..60 on -5" ucup.p and a price of ol.75 on Slack 3/4" and
under, e. ".ifference of 8 5 cents.
1i±e table: "Prices .at Ciiicaijjo" affords an example of compara-
tive ma:;ket prices -onder t.:e Code. It is a caapariscn of the prices
on t .0 highest class of Mine P'j.n of the selected V.stricts, each of
which -ellE in Ci.-icago. A wide varrety of coals are found between
soae cf t ..e listricts, whicn is indic-ted in th.e price differen-
tials.
northern Illinois, which is located nearest Chic.a£,o, is used
as r. hate i the co.-iparisons. It will be seen t.iat Central Illinois
and t.:.e Iiviaiia districts, y/ith tie exception of Evansville, had a
delivered _ rice of 70 cents afb-.ve Zlcrtnern Illinois. Southern
Illinois and Western Kentucky/ er.c.i nad a dif f e-'^ential of ,^1.30, and
tae districts of Southern #2 .laad differentials of .,)<3..d4 and .)3.39.
T-ie lov/ volatile coal cf Sout.iern ^^l had a deliverel once of v5.5G,
or .S2.7C over Northern Illinc is.
9837
-515-
S
la
<
VI
M O-
S8
SLACK
UNDEB
s?
S3S
^^^
sss
asa
SSS
SPSS sass ssss
ass
1.70
1 70
1 70
1.70
1 7l.
1 70
1 60
1 60
I 70
1 60
1 80
SiS3
ses
SiSS
gsa
3(53
aaaa ssss ?s^s
3S3.
sggs esss sss
isas
t2SJ2
KSS
sss
iSSiS
asas ssss ss^s
sss
SSSS s,ss sss
i
QO
ZU
BZ
Qo
z
OS
u
M
o
n
i
.«.
.S.
.S>
.s<
,S.
.S i < ' i
i8i
la Ill
s
J
^
m
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 t 1
1 1 1
III
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 a
£
i
s
5
sss
ass
sss
— M —
sss
8288 ai2
8SS
assa 1 1 1 1 III
Z
— « —
sss
— M —
sss
— N —
sss
sss
8288 2282 8888
SSS
S8S8 S8. 1 ,8 I
-"-- -SI
s
>
■a
1 1 (
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
s
•?
o
"?
s
2aa'
^I!!^
sss
2sa
SSSS 3Si 1 1 1 1 1
C*<MM
S2SS 1111 III
s
1
"1
as
u za
ii
h
2gg
fMe4oi
SSSS 3S ,
2g22 2aS2 -SS
%
,S,
e
,s,
(4
l^ 1 1111
iSi
S2 , , SiSS S,S
1
5
on
Q.
k
ass
sss
2gS
sgs
sass ssgg ssss
C4Me>IC4 WMMM M«v|M«4
SSS
OirtOO 2 1 1 1 1 1 S
■a
i
1 1 1
iS.
1 1 1
SSiS ssss ssss
,SI
2— 2 1 22 222
N
sss
sgs
2Sg
sgs
sss
sass «s
SSS
2gsa s ,as sss
1
1 1 <
1 1 1
1 1 1
' ' ' '
I 1 1 1 I S 1 « 111
^
W
S33
gS3
S3S
33g
SSSS SS
sss
gagg
■
^
S33
gss
sss
S33
33S
SSSS K3
SSS
2g22' sass sss
■
1
.a
1
•'" < ■'
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 9
0.
SSS
gS3
sss
SSS
38S
SS3S SS SSg
M«S3 S t n<n nttm
sS
S3
;
9SS
sss
sse
«SS
SSS
gSRS SS , 1 1 1 . ,
sss
SSSS SiSs sss
-si
■sss
sss
sss
3SS
SSS
8SSS SS 8SS
SSSS S.S3 sss
NM(NiN M (MM MOM
S2S
SHg
g2§
SS3
S2SS sag , SSSS
sss
SSSS s,ss sss
O -J
— — N>0
n
s
^ 1
> ■<< CDUQtd
U5
<
*
so
-
n
z
».
=
-S "
"■ o a • S o-D I
an s a
CO
ZZ ZZ
^1
31
ii
p.
'SI
1"
"I
I*
ii
H fl IJ III
s t
•So
LI
a I
■a C9
Is IJ
JILi
•3s
5.3 5
.SI
la
II
ill
= » •
|1i
:1|
If!
III
■i =1
^s^:
111
V
ts
=Sz°
|e
a o
rd
I
H oZ O
Si- 3
oi-o=^ .«<"
•-■8g« 3«
i-o . > . >
^ s , J .J
0-1° 1°
5^rJ so
8 .
s
.
1
z
a
!^
-^
8
8
.3
]f
5
B
B
Ii
1
nS
a
x«,
b .
•a
3^
1
1^
P
U
>
a
3i!
9837
-516-
Frxces cf tlie Illinois atii. Indiiina districts, and of Western
Kentuc::/, fii.rnisa good exaa^iles of correlation. The delivered prices
for Central Illinois, Brazil-Olinton, Linton-SUllivan, and Princetoa-
.Vers:.i::e wore the s;i.ne, .■'^'-.O. T.-hs wa? :n.-.de Possible througli an
adj-o.stnent of the mine prices since tnere was ... variation in the
freij.it rr.tes on sliipmsnts fro-n fcxeJe districts to j.;.:.cr.,i0. It was
neces5<ri'y for Central Illinois and Linton- mllivon t- absorb 10 cents
in freij.t^hecause of tie rate of )1.55 effective fi-r.:i Irazil-Clinton.
Likewise, rrinceton-A.yersr:ire aad to absorb 33 cents. Both Southern
Illin-i:- en:. "Jestem Kentucky heX a delivered price of ';4.00, ob-
taine-:. b ■ .'.aving '.Vestern Kentucl:/ absorb 30 cents.
>
9337
-517-
P-1IC3S AT C-ICAGO
Comparison of delivered price on oun of Mine Coal
originating in selected areas, per net ton,
Dece.iiber 20, 1934.
Sub d :. V i E i o n ?.nd
Producin^,, District
Difference
.■Railroad 7.^.3. above
nine Price Freig'it nrte C!'jicaix,o Northern
Illinois
Illinois
ITcrtl'-ern Illinois
Centrrl Illinois
Sov.tLi s rn II lino i s
; 1.70
.: 1.10
:? 2.80
y
1.35
1 . 65 .
3.50
.70
3.05
1.95
•^^.00
1.20
Indiajia
Brazil~Cl intcn
1.95
1 . 55
3.50
.70
Lin ton- Suj. 1 i van
1.35
1.65
3.50
.70
Frinceton-Ayer shire
1.75
1.77
3.50
.70
Evajisville
1.55
1 . 30
3.35
.55
".Ye stern lientuck.y
1.70
2.30
■^.00
1.20
Sbuthern Subdivision ■}2
Eastern Zentuc^cy:
".lillers Creek
2.10
3.09
5.19
2.39
Hff.zard
1.95 .
3.09
5.04
:> . 54
mietorn
1.95
3.09
5.04
2.24
Harlan
2.10
3.09
5.19
2.39
West Virginia:
7illiai;-son •
1 . 95
3.09
5.04
2. 24
KaJiciwha
1.95
3.09
5.04
2.24
Locaji
1.95
,3.0'^
5 . 04
2.24
So"at_ern S^abdivisicn }1
?:cr."_ar.ta3 and
l"ew ?.iver
,30
3.29
5.39
2.79
3o'0-rce: ""iiinimura Costs of irToducts and Services", Divisional
Code Authority 26, .Retail Solid Fael Industry.
9337
-513-
F. P roblems in Price Control
Problems in urice control developed quickly and increased rapidlv
soon pi"ter the Code was put in operation. Important among the problems
were the controversies betreen Code Authorities traced Isxgely to the
lack of stpndards as to tjrices, and the absence of a definite procedure
for handling and settling disputes. Each Code Authority and marketing
agency had its own ideas on price establishment, and conflicts '7ere in
evidence vrlien price schedules for common markets were first compared.
No central board existed to adjudicate the disputes, while the Code
Authorities showed little desire to delegate any effective power to a
general agency. Compliance was another phase responsible for difficui-
ties. It wa.s not easy to police price compliajice, nor was it a simple
ma-tter to obtain evidence on price evasions. There was always the fear
of s.udden price cu-tting ajid the crumbling of the price structure.
Examples of several of the more important controversies will
illustrate the nature of the price problems.
Division II and Western Kentucky ; One of the earliest price diffi-
culties was the controversy between Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa, the Sub-
divisions of Division II, Western Kentucky, which despite its geo-
graphical and geological location was part of Division I, was an interest-
ed "oarty in the sense that its action on -orices was dependent on the
outcome of the dispute. The conflict between these Subdivisions, which
reached its height during the first four or five months of the Code,
seemed at times to be beyond the settlement, and many feared the effects
would become widespread and endanger the general Code set-up,
A record of the early events that formed the background of the
controversy are found in the transcript of a December meeting. (Con-
ference, Division II, Western Kentuclqr and Eastern Representatives;
Washington, D. C, December 7, 1933.) A number of issues are involved,
but they all center around the question of how the prices of the Sub-
divisions of Division II, r-nd Western Kentuclgr, were to be correlated
in common markets.
It seems that the producing districts in Division II looked to the
Southern Illinois district for leadership in pricp matters. Southern
Illinois had been the largest producing district of Division II terri-
torjr, and had been well organized. Apparently it was generally accepted,
when the Code prices were first being set up, that Southern Illinois was
to have a base price of $2.75 per ton on 6" lump, and that other dis-
tricts were to adjust their prices accordingly. Protests were soon
entered tha.t $2.75 was too high, and the base price was reduced to $2.45.
Activity was then directed to the relationship of prices between the
Illinois. It appears that Indiana was not active with Illinois when
the latter's schedules were being formulated, and the early price work
of the Indiana districts was largely local to the Indiana Subdivision.
Illinois and Indiana representatives had met on various dates between
the middle of September and the middle of October, but no agreements
were reached on market correlation. Both Illinois and Indiana received
temporary approval of their prices in Washington, on October 18, but
Illinois Immediately found its districts in disagreement, largely because
9837
-519-
of the Inelana i^rices, pnd later vithdrcw its price schedules to operate
under non-Qode prices. Iowa and T'estern Kentucky were awaiting develop-
ments. :
Tlie Indiana orice schsrlules, as tejnpor.-orily approved, pwrmitted a
maxiaun freicht absorotion of 30 cents per ton, and lower prices in one
marlret zone as against the other. This was disturbing to the Illinois
districts as. they were setting up prices without freight ahsorptions or
zones, r-Ad generplly confusinj^; since the ao-olicptions of the ahsorptions
r.nd zones of the Indiana schedules were not clearly understood without
a great deal of fi^^uring. Districts outside of Indiana recognized that
drastic -orice adjustments were necessary if custowrry markets were to
"be maintaaned. By the end of October, it was evident tha.t a price war
was iDrening, and by the middle of Novemher the wax was in full progress.
Indieaa withdrew its teatjorary spproved prices on Kovemher 11, as it
agreed to do if a satisfactory arrejigement could not he reached '.vith
Illinois. , On Hovenher 1,'^, approval was given' to Illinois prices which
had a freight absorption clause the sf-me as for Indiana. The latter
Subdivision also then' got a:oproval to use again the zone market system.
Subsequently, freight absorptions were used widely and in varying ways
by all the districts of Division II, md ¥estern Kentucl-'zy, and the -orice
struetujre was in a jumble. The sitaation was irritating to Division I,
which is a competitor of Division II, and its representatives indicated
a desire to enter the warfare if settlement was not brought about in the
near suture.
The price difficulties of Division II may be related to two factors:
lack of understanding as to the Code or'^rlnization; and varied ideas as
to how prices should be set up. Operators were in disagreement as to
the fujictions of the Divisional and Subdivisional Authorities, and they
were not sure of the powers of the Presidential Members. As to prices,
some operators supported the principle thpt a mine price, vpr;;^ing ac-
cording to sever,-.! market zones and freight absorptions, formed the best
kind of price structui-e. Others favored a mine price with no allowances.
It appears that, in either case, emphasis was given to prices at the
mine", tnd little attention was directed to the establisliment of prices
in rara-kets a,s was intended by the Code.
As a result of the meeting at Washington on December 7, 1933, a
definite -olan w^ s drawn up that the several issues be treated. Arao-ng
other things it was specified that the _sixth vein of Franlrlin County,
Illinois, be used as a basis of correla'tion for prices to be submitted
December 15, and that no contracts be ma/e until these prices were ap-
proved. Maximum freight absorptions were to be eliminated. On December
9, representatives met to correlate prices, but classification problems
were encountered and little success was met. (See Coal Prices, Indiana
v, Illinois, prepared by Illinois Coal Bureau, January 3, 1934.) Meet-
ings were continued throughout the winter with never a general price
agreement in view. The records are not clear as to the degree and time
of settlement of the Division II issues, but it is known that diffi-
culties were experienced in the spring of 1934 as the contract morator-
iums .and corn-plaints of districts indicate, and the effects of the con-
flict were never entirely removed during the. Code period.
9837
-520-
P rice Con trove rsy "between Northern West Virginia, Western Penn-
^:^_ ».v: . i.- ■ and Eastern Suljciivi Gions : Northern West Virginia, Western
-Pennsylvania, and Eastern Subdivisions had trouhle in correlation from
the first. By December 1933, price disagreements had developed into
price cutting, and soon a price war was under wpy^ (Saward's Journal,
Vol. 16, Janiiary 20, 1934, Vi 539,) This situation, plong with the
Illinois and Indiana dispute, made many feel thpt the lorice structure
was due for a complete breakdown, (See Transcript N. B.C. I.E., January
1934.) Active warfare disappeared in the middle of January, 1934, when
some agreements were reached between the Subdivisions, but the matter
had become complex with numerous conflicts, and the controversy was to
require treatment throughout the Code months. .
Classification difficulties seemed to be at the bottom of the matter.
•Northern West Virginia, Western Pennsylvania, and Eastern Subdivisions
were highly comioctitive in leading markets, and each was quick to oppose
any measure or action that appeared to give disadvantages. Each had
separate ideas as to classification and, when .attempts were made to relate
the coals, disagreement arose as^ to what constituted a common basis. It
seems that as between the cl3.ssifica,tions and correlations proposed, the
acceptsjice of any one would have required a revamping of existing prices. V
As a result of a, meeting betvreen these Subdivisions on Harch 9, 1934,
it was decided that a technical board would be appointed to study the
classification problem; and temporary'' price adjustments were agreed
upon as well as a contract moratorium to extend from March 12 to April
10, 1934. (Decision, N.C.B.A. - Docket 27, April 26, 1935.)
On June 15, 1934, the technicfj. board submitted its final report
on classification. (An excellent summary of this report is found in
"The Problem of 'Minimum Fair Competitive Prices' in the Bituminous Coal
Industry" y bjr Stephen P, Burke.) The technica]. board proceeded along
impartial and scientific lines, and its findings were contributions of
value. It made a thorough studjr of a consumer class which, it estimated,
represented the -most -orobable destination of any ton of steam coal. The
board was concerned solsly -Tith a basis for measuring the relative value
of coals to the consuiaer, and not with the actual price of any coal.
Findings of the technical board were not acceptable by all parties, how-
ever, and the controversy continued, being given much attention during
the time of the National Coal Board of Arbitration. (See, Brief Eastern
Subdivision, Docket 13, N.C.B.A.)
Prices on Hail road Coal i The selling of railroad coal below Code
prices was a subject of much discussion during the first half of 1934,
A grea.t deal of the discussion was directed to the relations between the
Louisville and Na.shville Railroad and various operators, and the prices
this ca.rrier was obtaining on coal. The climax of the matter was the_
Bledsoe Coal Company Case which was heard and decided by the National
CoraplirJiee Board on May 15, 1934. Since compliance was the main issue,
the Bledsoe case throws some light on the early price evasions.
The Bledsoe Company owned, . controlled, or acted as sales agency for
a number of mines located in Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois.
These included 6 mines in the. territory of Southern Subdivision No, 2,
and served by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad. On April 23, 1934,
the Bledsoe Company entered into a contract with the Louisville and
9837
-521"
Nashville for the sple of 75,nOO tons of 4" screenin^.-s p.t $1.70 per ton
?/hen the ap-oroved minimiain price for this soecified coal T;as $1.80.
Statements of the Bledsoe Corapsn^- suggest the price evasions current
at that time. In a -letter to the DeT^uty Administrator, dated May 7,
1934, the Conpany contended that, during the first months of the code,
certain operators actusllj/- cut prices and therehy obtained the "business
of the L & II, The action of these operators was covered up when their
prices vrere subsequently approved. Probtahly a better description is
contained in the memorandum of the N^H.A. Legal Division, May 4, 1934,
vjherein evidence was given of much coal being sold belovf the approved
minimuB prices in Southern Subdivision 1-To. 2, and to the extent that
1?he Code structure was threatened. Another memorandum noted that the
L & U \7as more active in price fixing thnn the Code Authorities. (To
Compliance Division from Deputy Administrator, May 10, 1934.)
A condition that contributed towards price disorder in Southern
No. 2 v/as that representatives of Appalachian Coals Inc., made up the
larger part and control of the Code Authorityj sJid some operators who
were not members of this sales agency felt they were at a disadvantage.
The Bledsoe Com-panj'-, for instance, held that Appalachian Coals was in a
position to get price information from 24 to 48 hours before operators
outside its fold; and that classifications and- prices were often made
to fit market conditions as they affected the Ar-palachian groxj-p, (HeaX'-
ing, national Compliance Board, May 15, 1934, j)-p, 35, 43.) It was
claimed that a rumor of another decrease in price, soon after prices had
been reduced 5 cents to $1.80 by the Code Authority. on April 28, was
disturbing in that the Bledsoe Company feared a return of the condition
where prices would be cut by certain operators and then later approved.
It, was said this condition, along '-'ith the threat that the L & N would
buy coal in Western Kentucky at $l.o5- rather than pay $1.80, prompted
the Bledsoe interests to offer their coal at $1.70. (ibid p. 44.)
Denials were presented at the compliance hearing that Appalachian
Coals took advaiitage of its position to give favors to its membership,
A ferture of the heading was the attitude of the United Mine Workers,
Mr, Van A, Bittner, President District 17 of the United Mine Workers,
stated that prices and wages are so closelj'- interrelated that his or-
ganization must take an active interest in price matters. He claimed
that members of the United Mine Workers would not produce coal for any
opera.tor that engaged in' selling coal below Code prices. (Transcript
p. 26.) This was more than a forceful statement since miners actually
refused, to work for certain operators involved in the case. (Coal Age,
Vol, 39, June, 1934, p. 254.) The National ComiDlianoe Board found that
the Bledsoe Company had violated Section 1 of Article VI of the Code,
and the case was referred to the Litigation Division for submission to
the Department of Justice, Federal prosecution, was not necessary,, how-
ever, as a compromise was effected between the operators wherein the
Code minima on railway fuel wn.s increased slightly above the $1.70
figure, and the L & N announcad it would buy at the new prices. (Coal
Age, Vol. 39, July 1934, p. 291.)
Other Price Problems :- The Drice controversies under the Code were
numerous. Some are considered in detail in the next section of this
Chapter, (see The National Coal Board of Arbitration) and others will be
mentioned here as a matter of reference. Long term contracts caused no
end of trouble. Little information was available on the pre-Code con-
9837
tracts, snd. it was never definitely known whether they were permitted to
expire rs provided in the original agreements, or whether conditions in
the agreeiiients vvere ap"olied so as to permit extensions in certain cases.
Another difficulty arose when certain .operators entered contracts for
the delivery of coal after the expiration of the Code, June 16, 1935,
without regard to Code prices. This resu3.ted finally in the adoption
of Amendment 5, January 8, 1935, which prohihited the making of a con-
tract at a price "below the fair market price effective on date of con-
tract. Administrative Order X-48, June 12, 1934, granted exemptions to
any memhers of industry, subject to Code of Fair Competition, who bid
on contracts to be awarded by ;%-overnment agencies that specify condi-
tions which fail to correspond vrith Code provisions. The Order really
placed governmental agencies in the most favorable buyer classification.
As apiDlied to the bituminous coal industry, operators were quick to
attack the Order as they saw it contained p.arts that would destroy the
price control that had been established. The IJ.E.A. Legal Division ad-
mitted that the Order constituted an Amendment to the Bituminous Coal
Code, md an amendment made without granting to the members of the in-
dustry e.n opportu.nity for a hearing, (Memorandum, To Administrator,
June 21, 1934.) On June 27, 1934, the Administration declared the Order
inoperative in respect to the bituminous coal industry, the coal dock
industry-, the wholesale coal industry, and the retail solid fuel in-,
dustry. A somewhat Similar experience was in connection with Executive
Order 7^6757, June 29, 1934, which permitted members of industry to quote
reduced prices to Government agencies, the. reductions not to exceed 15
per cent of the approved Code prices. This Order modified Executive
Order #6546, March 14, 1934, which required Federal agencies to purchase
from companies complying with their Codes.- Eefore operators had a
chance to mal^e formal protests, it was decided that Executive Order
#6767 did not apply to bituminous coal because it referred to codes
which required the open filing of prices. No such requirement was in
the Bituminous Coal Code. (Memorandum, to The Comptroller General,
from Frank Healy, Chief, Government Contrs.cts Branch.) Besides diffi-
culties due to correlation and contracts, a number of important cases
were in connection with price compliancGj while wholesale discounts
caused much trouble o
A general price disturbance was felt in October, 1934, when it was
indicated that the Administration was going to oppose price-fixing,
(Developed from informal remarks by Mr, Donald Richberg.) The statement
was received with alarm by coal operators, especially since many inter-
preted it to mean that all price fixing would be abolished. A buyers'
strike resulted. (Bulletin, National Coal Association, October 13,
1934.) Following protests from operators, the Administration definite-
ly held that the price provisions of the Bituminous Coal Code woiold be
continued and no changes would be made except as permitted by the Code.
(N.E.A. , October 10, 1934.) ' '.
Developments in Price Control ; Early efforts were made to organ-
ize an administrative machinery to centralize the activities between
Divisions, Subdivisions, and marketing agencies. The early organiza-
tion proposals, however, received little surport, and no formal or-
ganization was set up until the summer of 1934. At the meetings of the
National Bituminous Coal Industrial Board, January, . 1934, plans were
9837
-524-
The '.7ork of the Presidential Memtersof Division I was soon to "be
extended to the settling of controversies e It cannot "be determined from
the records as to the origin of the new duties of the Presidential Mem-
bers, though it appears that the Joint Marketing Committee had a part
in their establishment . On June 25, 1934, the Joint Marketing Committee
passed a motion that the Presidential Members of Division I (excepting
Western Kentucky) organise as a Board, establish a procedure for hear-
ing cases, aaid present decisions to the Deputy Administrator. (Letter
to W» P. Ellis from Joint Marketing Committee, June 25, 1934.) It seems
that the Joint Marketing Coranittee had been unable to settle a number of
important controversies, and believed a greater degree of success was
possible through the concentrated action of the Presidential Members,
The new organization became known as the Presidential Board of Review,
and later as the Board of Review, Its functions were primarily to treat
the cases which the Joint Marketing Committee was unable to settle. The
Board fa,ced obstacles from the first. It had no definite authority;
while its members were unable to separate themselves entirely from the
interests of their respective Code Authorities, the latter a particular
wealcness since its decisions on price controversies required a unamimous
vote, (Definite rules and regulations of the Board, established at
meetings of October 10 and 11 , also included the unanimous vote provi-
sion.) The Board was unable to add much to the work of the Joint
Marketing Committee. (See Hearings of the Presidential Members of
Division I, sjid Transcript of Meeting N.B.C.I.B. , January 3, 1935,
p.. 239,) Western Pennsylvania indicated its opposition to the Board of
Review in the late part of 1934, and withdrew from the procedure on
December 31, (Letter to Administrator from Western Pennsylvania Code
Authority, December 14, 1934, and Coal Age, Vol. 40, Janaury 1935,
p'. 45.) Amendment 6, January 25, 1935, provided for a general board of
arbitrp.ticn, the functions of which superseded end made unnecessary the
work of the Beard of Review,
Tonnage Allocation ; Production control between competing districts
as ail aid to price -stabilization had been considered for some time in
the bituminous coal industry, Por instance, the Lewis Bill on bitumin-
ous coal regulation, introduced in June 1933, made specific provision
for tonnage allocation as between 30 coal districts in the United States
(H.R, 6040, 73 Cong. 1st Ses.) Allocation was given attention in the
meetings of the National Bitrjninous Coal Industrial Board, held in
January, 1934, (Transcript of meeting, January 16, p. 5.) In May 1934,
J. L« Steinbugler made a plea for tonnage allocation, citing as examples
the method of production control used in Germany and England, (Meeting
of U. S, Chamber of Commerce reported in Coal Age, Vol, 39, June 1934.)
A form of tonnage allocation was established on July 12, 1934, when
Subdivisions in Division I, excepting Ohio and Western Kentucky, signed
an agreement whereby each agreed. as to what their tonnage proportions
should be. The allocation was eventually known as the Adams' Plan, in
relation to C. E. Adams, who took an active part in making the agree-
ment "possible, Ohio was not agreeable to the plan, while Western
Kentuclcy was not interested because of its separation from other Sub-
divisions on production and marketing matters. Ohio's objection was
that its allotment was too^ low as compared with its past performance,
(Brief Ohio Subdivision, Docket 6'-N,C.B.A.) The effective date of the
allocation was from July 12 to December 31,' 1934, and the proportions
assigned to the Subdivioiona were as shown below, (Discussion of set-
up of plan in transcripts of meetings of Chairman of Subdivision, Di-
9837. ":■■"'.
..-E25-
vision I, Jt^y 11 -ind 13, 19u4.)
Southern Su'bdi vision No. 1 18.25 Per Cent
SouTliern Subdivision IToi. 2 • [/'"^elO
■ Western Pennsylvania 17.75
Eastern Subdivision 15.30
Northern Vest Virginia 8o50
Ohio Sahdivision 8o40
Panhandle of ¥3st Virginia 1.70
. ino.OO
The purpose of the allocation was to establish a "basis to aid in
the measuring of the price relationships between. the Subdivisions. It
was provided that each Subdivision was to file with the Dep^ity Adminis-
trator, on or before the 25th of each month, a statement of its tonno,ge
produced in the preceding month, showing captive tonnage separately.
These tonnage statements were to be checked against the Bureau of Mines
reports. The connection of the tonnage figures to prices was that if
any si^i'nificajit departures from the proportions were evident (aside
from seasonal variations) and which indicated a diversion from a Sub-
division, the price structures were subject to adjustment so that the
share of ea,ch Subdivision would be maintained.
The per cent that actual commercial production in 1954 was of the
" Adams alio tment " :
Southern Subdivision Ho. 1 104.7
Southern Subdivision No. 2 101,8
Western Pennsylvania 97.4
, Eastern Subdivision 99.3
Northern West' Virginia 91.5
Ohio Subdivision 100. 5
Panhajidle of West Virginia 91.3
(See "The Problem of Minim-um Pair Competitive Prices in the Bituminous
Coal Incustr;'-" by Stephen P. Burke, p. 25.)
A new allocation was not established with the expiration of the
tonnage agreement on December 31, 1954. The records do not disclose
that the tonnage agreement had been used effectively in the adjusting of
prices. Its value seems to have been primarily in the restricting of
unlimited price cutting. With the opening of the new year, interest
was concentrated on the revamping of the price provisions of the Code,
but with little attention directed to tonnage allocation.
Code Amendments ; By th.:; later part of 1934, it was recognized that
drastic changes were necessary to strengthen the price structure. Every
means had been attempted to operate with the autonomy of Code Authori-
ties preserved, but each effort was followed with failure. The last
resort was to amend the Code so that greater centralized action would
be possible. Until this time, price amendments to the Code had been
avoided. Amendment 2, April 22, 1954, and ^endment 3, June 4, 1934,
contained provisions to protect the normal consuming markets of produc-
ing districts against lower prices than might be quoted by certain other
districts enjoying favorable wage differentials. These amendments, how-
9637
-526-
ever, made no reference to price methods or price administration. (The
apiilicr.tion of Amendment 2 is found in the ner-t section under Docket 38.)
Amendment 4, Slovember 5, 1934, was concerned, with the collection of
statistics, and only related to prices insofar as the data were to be
used in price determinations, imendrnent 5, January 8, 1935, was direct-
ly connected with prices in the sense that it dealt with contracts. It
was a protection against price cutting on coal to "be delivered after the
expiration date of the Code, June 16, 1935, but it did not extend to
general price nhases. A general revision of price methods did not ap-
pear until Amendment 6, January 25, 1935.
Amendment 6, as written, resulted from the meetings of the National
Bituminou.s Coal Industrial Board held in J,anuary 1935. Discussions dur-
ing the meetings form a summary of operations under the Coae, particular-
ly in regard to the brealcdown of compliance; the inability to settle
disputes; end the lack of coordinated action; subjects illustrated by
actual cases in the first part of this section. (See especially the
transcript of January 4, pp. 8-9, 80-95.) Many representatives recogniz-
ed tha.t Government control was the only solution ujiless a workable
scheme of centralized action between the Code Authorities could be
established. Opposition to centralization was now in the minority, led
by Western Pennsylvania, which favored a return to the ideas of local-
ization found in the original Code (ibid p. 35). It was generally agreed
by all, however, that the price structure was rapidly weakening.
Articles VI and VII of the Coae were changed completely by Amend-
ment 6, Additional conditions were orescribed for "orice establishment.
It was specified that Code Authoi-ities and marketing agencies, in de-
termining fair market prices, should take into consideration, among other
factors, the purposes of the N.I.R.A., wage rates, competition of other
fuels, consumer needs and requirements for kinds and sizes of coal, and
the necessity for giving to consumers reasonable opportunity to buy and
to producers reasonable opportunity to sell their coal in usual and
normal ma,rkets. Provision was made that classification, based on all
factors considered in connection with physical stiu.cture, chemical
analjrses and salability, should be considered by the Code Authorities
and ma.rketing agencies when fixing prices. Competition was to be
preserved but dumping prices were to be prohibited. (Article VI, 2b.)
Prices were to be effective after approval by the Presidential Member
(acting under direction of Administrator), were to be published by the
Code Authority, with reference made to changes, and submitted to the
Administrator- for his reviev/ and subsequent action. (Article VI 2f).
It ■will be noted that no date of fair price publication was named, a
difference as compared with the original Code.
Another addition of Amendment 6 was the procedure entitling an
operator to make objections to the Code Authority or marketing agency
establishing his prices. The Code Authority or marketing agency was in-
structed to hold a hearing within 5 days after receipt of written com-
plaint, unless an extension of time was agreed to by the operator. The
operator was given the right to appeal to an impartial Board of Arbi-
trators if he was dissatisfied v;ith the decision of the Code Authority
or marketing agency. (Article VI, 3.)
9837
-527-
It was further provided that agx'eements could "be entered into "betT/een
Code Aiitliorities, between marketing agencies, or "between "both, as to a
"basis for market prices. The agreements were to he submitted to the Ad-
ministrator pnd were to become effective within 10 daj's after receipt by
him unless he disapproved them. Where a Code Authority or marketing
agency was of an opinion that its producers might be affected by the fail-
ure to ree.ch an agreement, cr that unfa,ir prices or practices result from
any a^iTeenent, it could make an apreal bo the National Board of Arbitra-
tion, (Article VI, 4^)
The administrative Tnachincry for the new price set-up was contained
in Article VII. Provisions were made for arbitration boards for Code
Authorities and marketing agencies active in the establishing of prices,
and for the Nation^al Bituminous Coal Industrial Board. The former, de-
signed to handle local matters, were to consist of not more than 5 mem-
bers, rho were not to be connected directly or indirectly with the coal
industry. The ITationa] Board represented the new means by which to ob-
tain centralized action between the Code Aathorities a.nd marketing
agencies.
Western Pennsylvania OT)"oosed Amendment 6, and failed to recognize
the Toroceedings and docisio^is of the National Coal Board of Arbitration.
This Subdivision disliked the method of electing members of the Board,
holding- that it was not promotive of impartialityo It also believed
that, in view of the Federal legislation pending at the time, it was
impracticffl to set up a temporary board involving a large expense,
(Telegram to Clir. S. Clay Williams from Code Authority of Western Penn-
sylvania, February 6, 1355.)
9837
"528-
G. The national Coal Board of Arbitration : Article VII of the
Code, as revised hy Amendment G, provided that the Board vas ".... to
settle disputes and controversies bet^feen or among marlceting a^^encies
■or Code Authorities reriresentin^ different Divisions or Subdivisions
with respect to fair competitive prices r>nr* TDractices relptina; thereto..
.." The Board rras desi>;;nated as an inpartial agency of 5 members who
were to be elected- members of the "Jational Bituminous Coal Industrial
Board (the nine members named by the Divisional Code Authorities) and
subject to a.-DT3rovp,l of the Adjninistr-tor. Election vras by majority vote
and the term of office ras t'^o 3;-ears. • A maximum salarj'- of $10,000 was
specified, with the salaries of each member of the Arbitration Board to
be decided, by the electors. A vote of at least six of the electors was
■required for removal of a member of the Bit-ominous Board. Salaries and
expenses of the Board were to be paid by the Diirisional Code Authorities
on a tonnauO;e basis.'
A skeleton of--procedure "as also contained in the -orovision of Arti-
cle VII. Cemplaints were to be in vrritin.^, and made only by a marketing
at-^ency or a Code Authority. The Arbitration Board ^'as to establish all
necessary riiles and regulations for its o^oeration, and ^"as instructed to
keerj a record of its actions. Complaints were ordinarily to be heard
within 10 days. CoTDies of the, comTjlaints were to be sent to other in-
terested marketing a.c^encies and Code Authorities and to the Administra-
tor in accordance with the rules of the Arbitration Board. It was pre-
scribed that the Arbitration Board be governed by. the same -orinci-'nle and
standards in resnect to prices and 'oractices as contained in the Code.
Decisions were to be transmitted to the Administrator for apT^roval or
disaiDproval, and when aprjroved were to tshe effect within 10 days after
recei-ot. Aniorooriate publication was to be made by the Code Authority
of any change in iDrice required by a decision.
It will be seen from the above that the National Coal Board of Ar-
bitration was an agent for the bitu'-iinous coal industry and, while it
was sux)-D0sed to be irroartial, its "-ork was at disadvantage since its
members were de'oendent on the industry for tiieir ai^-nointments, tenures,
and salaries; and decisions of the Board were subject to the a-oproval
or disaTjTDroval of the Administrator.
Members of the Arbitration Board, elected ■J'ebrua,ry 1, 1935, were
Dr. A. W. Gauger, Director of the School of Mineralogy, Pennsylvania
State College; Godfrey li. S. Tait, Tecimical' Assistant, Coal Section,
N. H. A., and former engineer; J. R. Henderson, 'Executive Secretary,
Illinois Subdivisional Coal Code Authority; John A. Sargent, Kansas City,
Missouri, former executive of the Central Coal and Coke Com"oany; and
7. H. Ss,dler, Jr., an a-ttorney of Birmingham, Alabama. (Bulletin,
National Coal Association, February 2, 1935.) Captain Tait was named
as Chairman; !'r. Sadler as Vice-Chairman; and Mr. Henderson as Secre-
tary.
The first duties of the Arbitration Board ^ere to formulate rules
for the hearing of com^^laints. These '^ere mailed to members of the
industry on February 9, 1935, slightly more than a ^^eek after the an-
nointment of the Board. The rules /^^rve full description to the ne^-'
■orice -orovisions of Amendment 6, and -orescribed additional regulations
necessary to exDedite the handling of com-olaints. Among other things,
9837
"529-
it r.'as rrovided th'Tt "no coTolaint shall oe cust.''.ined e:ccer)t urion con-
currence therein by a majority of the toal mimber of members of the
Joard".(*) Stress ras ?:iven to the orovision in Amendment 6 Tvhich
specified that no marketing a.gency or Code Authority might submit any
comnlaint to the Board unless the com-ilainant should have, in good
faith, endeavored to settle the natter '."ith the marketing aff^ency or
Code Authority complained a^i'^inst.
7rom the time the Arbitration Board vias arpointed, February 1, 1935,
until I'ay 27, less than four month;;, records sho\'" that 50 co'n~ilaints
V7ere made and assigned to the Boards' docket. Of the totpl comnlaints,
33 decisions r^'ere rendered; 12 com.ilaints were dismissed or rithdra"^,
and 5 'vere still to be decided-. In a n'jjnber of instances, Tietitions
or Administrative orders were made for rehea.rihgs and, where these were
gi:^inted or required, 9 decisions were made, bringing the totnl decisions
to 42. Five cases are found, in the files where the Board's decisions
were disa-Dnroved or modified by the Administrator. (See Dockets 20, 27,
28, 29, and 30 of the Board) The large amount of -'ork covered within
a short time indicates the efficiency with v/hich the Board -nerformed
its duties.
The Arbitration Board- made noasible the formal treatment of many
questions that had been -ororainent in the ind-ustry, -oarticularly since
the beginning of the Code. Below --ill be found d.escrint ions of a few
iraisort-int cases heard and decided by the Board.
DOCKZT I
Subdivision go. 1 vs. Eastern Subdivision. Com'oetitive conditions
in ITe^- Engrland ; Docket #1 of the National Coal Board of Arbitration in-
volved the complaint of the Smokeless Coal Code Authority — Subdivision
ITo. 1 of Division I, concerning competitive conditions in Ven Engla.nd;
Eastern Subdivision of Division I was the respondent. The case centered
around the competition of coal shiToed all-rail from Eastern Subdivision
with coal originating- in t he Smokeless fields and moved by rail and wa-
ter to the New England destinations. The complaimt was received by the
Arbitration Board on February 16, 1935.
Brief of Southern Subdivision #1 : Southern Subdivision #1 pre-
sented a lengthy brief to sup^jort the comnlaint. It was contended tha,t
the eom-olaint was in connection with a long dra^Ti-out controversy that
originated with these t-""0 suodivisions when certain i3rice changes were
made in January, 1934. The claim was that these -orice changes had giv-
en advantages to Eastern Subdivision at the exoense of the comolainant.
Diversions were estimated from 1^ million to 2 million tons. Three
factors were considered by the complainant as controlling in the aase;
the setting of Market Area =*1, consisting of the eastern r^art of ■.
NtiW England, by which the ^rice spread between Smokeless and- Eastern
Subdivision was reduced 11 cents -oer gros? ton; second, the unequali-
ties of Eastern Subd.ivisions classification between Barnesboro and
Somerset County coals and iJanty-Glo Class "A" copIs, which further
* "Hules and Regulations for the Operation and Procedure of the
National Coal Board of Arbitration". - IT.C.B.A. , February 9, 1935.
9837
-530-
reduced the Drice s-ore-^d 'between the t^wo Stfodivisions; and third, re-
>'' i.ctioi;- in all-rail rates to certain Y^ew En,ff;land "ooints vhich disturbed
the Drevious price set-un.
The Smokeless grouiD held that, in the latter i:)art of December, 1933,
it liad acceiDted the arran'^e'Tients of Beouty Administrator Ellis to sit in
conference with Eastern Suhdivision to discusr correlation. A meetin?
was f^lanned for January 4, rhich was later changed to January 9. It was
stated that Smokelesp. found, urjon enterin.^ the rneeting, that Eastern
Subdivision had -aade a drastic reduction in t heir -orices January 2, by
setting]; uo a schedule of ■orices for a ne^T market territory called Area,
#1, which was formerly t)art of T'arket Area #2. Eastern Subdivision was
asked to cancel the new T:)rices. This resulted in various negotiations,
and no semblance of correlation arjoeared between these two Subdivisions
until February 6, 1934, when an agreement was reached ^"hereby Eastern
Subdivision was to oublish certain -orices until a study of the coal "' ' ■''
freight rate and traffic situation in I-Iew England was made, which woulo.
fvirnish a basis for further consider=ition of the nrice set-up. These
orices, which were from 10 to 15 cents higher than the orices in January
2 schedule, were said to be, -ner net ton:
E.O.i^I.
2" Stol:er
f" Slack
Hanty-Glo
South Pork
$2.05
2.10
?P. 1.90
1.94
* 1.75
1.75
In A"Dril, Nanty-Glo prices i"ere advanceci 25 cents due to T'age in-
creases.
Soiithern Subdivision =fl apr)ointed its trafi'ic committee on June 4,
1934, It was claimed the work of this committee was soon brought to a
halt when the New Haven Railway refused to furnish certain data on shiiD-
raents because of objections from Eastern Subiovision. In December 1934,
an agreement was made between the t^-'o Subdivisions as to what traffic
information should be obtained, but it is said that little success re-
sulted in the traffic -nroject because of the inability to get effective
cooTDeration from Eastern Subidvision. By January 21, 1935 the Subdivi-
sion #1 Code Authority decidec! it '^^-s useless to reach a solution to
the nroblem through a.ttemiDted cooneration with Eastern Subdivision, and
thereuTDon -oroTDOsed a naximun freight absorr)tion of 30 cents to certain
New England points, the amount to be graduated according to the sum re-
quired to set ut) delivered urices on a -oarity with Fanty-Glo Class "A"
coals.
Southern Subdivision =*1 em-ohasized the noint that the various sub-
divisions, in assuming the responsibilitv of i3rice fixing, '--ere to do so
ontne oromise that all retained their right to maintain nre-Code tonnage
flov; to their accustomed marl'ets, and where adjustments with com-oeting
coals of other subdivisions was necessar:,'-, these -orices should be adjust-
ed grade for grade, and si?e for si'^e , on a. delivered basis. It was
stated that thou;^h water trans-oortatioh enters the l]e'-' England tiicture,
the shipping facilities are limited anc' of such a character as to -permit
a sound annual cost per ton on the shipments. A total of i^3.70 ner grosF
ton was presented as the minimum transioortation and handling charge on
coal moving from the Smokeless fields by rail to Hampton Roada unA thence
9837
-531-
to New England -oarts, including; the aniounts for discharge, storage and re-
load.
By addiri;'^ to the mine price the $3.70 basis and the ex-tide rate
from port to destinationsj Southern Subdivision T^repe^.ted its various
delivered -orices at a iivjnber of New En-'jland -ooints, and. com'oa.red these
prices r'ith those oa Eastern Subdivision coal vhich consisted of mine
price plus the all-rail frr-ifi;ht rates. Nanty-G-lo Class "A" coals are
given the saiie basis as Smokeless Clasc "?" coals, and "run of mine" is
used as a common si^e since it ™as said to be the size basis for Eastern
Subdivisions. It is shorn, for instance, that the delivered lorice to
Cheshire, Connecticut, vhich is in Ne^ Iprket Area ■"•2 and located 16 mil-
es from weT Haven, eiives Smokeless a 7 cents advant.^'^e over Eastern Sub-
division. At 'Tallin.5:ford, Connecticut, located 13 miles from 'I'Tev? Haven,
the fferket Are^. =r 1 nrices apoly, vhich •/•ives Smokeless coal a disad-
vant-^ge of 16 cents. Exsmi^les are riven of the delivered -orices thot
ap-olied in the different -^rei.-Tht rate destination ^roa-ns, and the pidv-^nt^^g-
es or dis-^Jv^nta^^es srive.n the snokeles-, fields in those territories . At-
tention is '"Iso directed to the effects of the freif;ht rate changes both
in I'arket Area ^1 and '"arket Area 43. In summary, it is stpted that for
a total of 374 destinations, nearly all of rhich '-ere located in "^arket
Area ^1, a "orice adjustment '"'as necessary. It '-'as furtlier said that
Eastern Subdivision never had a, ."-reat deal of tonna''-''e in T'arket Area ^1,
and never enou-^h to justify the s-:ecial lor; -orices.
A-o-oeal was made by Southern Subdivision for p orice adjustment in
Nev England, '-^ith a maximum sjsor-otion of 30 cents which shall be gradu-
ated domnrard vhere necessary. Also asked thr>t ''nrket Area =^1 trices be
su-o-olemented hy Area ^~2 "crices, and that Eastern Sabidvisions be required
to reclassify mines in Barnesboro, Clearfield and Somerset districts so
they rill oroToerly relate to their Nanty-G-lo "A" mines to vhich Smokeless
coals are correlated.
Re-oly of Eastern Subdivision, Eebrioar-"- 26. 1935 : Eastern subdivision
took exce-otion to the com-olainant as to the ;orice chancres in Januar-^, 1934,
claiming that Southern Subdivision =*1 r)rices ^-'ers not nro'oerly correlated
until February 1935, 'and that Eastern Subdivision had com-olained for some
time on Southern Subdivision's mine -orices r^s a basis of correlation to
tide-'ater markets. It '"rs sta^-ed thnt the diverted tonnage estimated by
Soutiiern Subdivision could in no "ay be substantiated.
The three factors iDut forth by Southern Subdivision were critisized
in the following wa:/:
1. Estaolishment of ''arket Area -1 - Prices for this
area vere "o-ublisiied rit ^he reouest of the com-olainant
ths.t its i-^olicy of a single 'orice for given -orice
areas could be maintained.
2. Classification of coals - snid to be an intra -subdi-
visional mat*-er by Eastern Subdivision.
3. :^ed-uction in all-r^il rates to Ne^" En^^and - made
at direction of Interstate Commerce Comm.ission to correct
the then existing inequities.
9837
-532-
Eastern Subdivision asserted thr?t follo^'in^ the ince-otion of the
Code, October 1933, it had attennted to secure a i^eetiri!? with the com-
■olainant "but without success until January/- 9, 1934. Prior to this tiT^e,
it was sp.id. Southern Subdivision ha'l ^ ^ic',.e iDrice ^idv^ntp'^e and for
that reason refused to -aeet for correlation ^ruoosss. Southern Subdivi-
sion's statement th-^t it beca-;ie aware of nrice chpnf^es ^-fhen enterinis; the
meeting of January 9, is misleading since the -orice list was known and
"oublished several da^^s -^rior.
The -orices -oublished by the coirolainant '^ere said to be correct,
exceiit that no correlation ^f-as effected on mine run coals since South-
ern Subdivision claimed this si^e of coal rould not be shi-o-oed into the
market.
A :orotest was nade to the New Haven Railroad in resrject to furnish-
in.^ information on shipments since it v.-as believed that such data wou'i.d
be used to the advantage of the coniola,inant. The a.^^rreement on the traf-
fic study was that it should be-^.de jointly by both Subdivisions, but
Southern Subdivision acted indeoendently and atte''n;oted to secure the in-
formation in advance. The reason that Eastern Subdivision representatives
could not become actively en^^a ^ed in the study after the "leetin,?? with
the Ne-' Haven Tiailroad, on Decenber 28, '•'as because of other hearings and
raeetin£;s that required immediate a-ttention.
Complainant admitted that it jro^DOsed. a maximum frei;^nt absor-otion
of 30 cents '■'ithout con"olete infor-iation of the lew "Tnp;la.nd situation,
and contended that representatives of the com-olainant had often su-oT)orted
the orinciple that absorptions should mt er'ceed 25 cents oer ton.
■^astern Subdivision failed to a'^ree with the "oromise that the pre-
cede tonnae;e flow to accustomed markets should not be hindered by the
N.l.A. nrice set-un.
It was said that water transoortation, and the intangibles involved,
would not loermit a correlation with coals which -ove all-rail. Again
though the 3.70 -would re-oresent a fair minimum transnortat ion charge, the
customer may not be charged th-'^t amo'int since many producers in the Souths
ern Subdivision own their o'-'n vesi-els and can add to the mine price any
amount they wish. It is Tiointed out that the .ISS,?© is arbitrarily used by
the comiolainant in the illustrations of delivered -orices at cert-^in New
England Tooints.
"Eastern s'abdivisions claimed that it had given the classification
of coals a long and intensive study. Southern Subdivision, on the other
hand, had only cla.ssedL its mine run coals on a basis of coarseness.
It was held that if Southern Subdivision's ai^-oeal is granted it will
have an a.bsorbing -orivilege in the boating and handling charges, and an
additional "orivilege of 30 cents. Again st-'^ted that the classification
of coals was entirely within the -orovince of the Subdivision.
Re^slv by Southern Subdivision No. 1. Tebruary 28. 1955: This re-oly
was to Ea.stern Subdivision's second ansv/er entitled "0-eneral Statement
of Position of Issues Involved", of which there is no record. The fact,
however, that the first answer of Eastern Subdivision '-'as February 26,
and the -ooints in that answer are closely related to this re^ly, suggests
that little is lost by not having the second ans'-'er.
9837
-533-
Southern Suofivision denied tn'^t ^..e is-^uen involvec' in the "Se^
Uns'lpud cr^se '-ere the s.^ne as found for -li tide^-ster novements. The
tide'^ater mar'cet betv.'een ¥/:.:^' Tor": and Hrapton Roads wes said to be one
dealing v^ith tidS'-'ater coal, while the Te\- Sn/lnnd market is definitely
affected "by the all-r?il -lovement r .
It '.~as clrined that Southern Subdivision had no desire to correlate
on a f.o.b. mine basis, but su-oported a delivered b^^sis. ^astern Sub-
division's contention ta-'^t SnokelessJ producers ].ar^el7 0'''n the vessels
and facilities- by rhich their coal is shiomed '"ar. denied, end informa-
tion vas included to shot; the ownershiio Bnf control of v;ater facilities.
Held thpt only 20 tier cent of Southei-n SurKivision' s -oroducers' coal is
carried in their ovrn vessels rnd handled over their O'-'n docks.
Summary of Conte nt ions Covered in Briefs of Southern Subdivision
yo. 1. llarch 6. 1935 : At the reqi^est of the Chairman of the I'.C.B.A.
a summary of the v.?.riou? contentions ^resented, by Southern S'o.bdivipion
was oresented. I'Jothi'i>T ne^"' ^vas ^resented in the suramary excent pro-
posed re'-ulations for controllin-r^ the "^3.70 arbitrary. '
It vas sU'^'^ested t^i'-'t frei^^ht nosor-otiois '"ould be allowed on the
exact tonna-^e shi-roed to the listed destinations at the r^te 'oer ton
sti-oulated for the destinations involved only v'hen the follo^'in^ re-
quirements '"ere met and ce'-'tified ov tae S'lokeles'- Code Authority Bu-
reau:
1. TThen the deliverin.-;; a.']:ent sells anrl bills the tonnage
involved, to a, "oermitted destination at Code 'orices
plus tne arbitrary of "^3.70, nlus the nublished inland
rate.
2. The producer or his 'Te-' En-Tlan''' a.^ent shall submit to
tne Bureau a cnioy of invoice a.nd freight bil^ of
each shipment.
3. Invoices and freight bills must contr-in full descri^otion
as to kind ^^nd size of coal, a";d freight a.bsorotion.
Southern Subdivi'^ion again g^ve attention to t-o questions rhich
it em-nhasi-red rreviously;
a.. Is Eastern Subdivision justified in the iirices set uo in
Harket Area #1, or suoald i^a,rket Are? ^2 -orices be restor-
ed for the entire territor;/?
b. Is Southern Subdivision entitled to a 30 cent maximum
absorotion to destinations rhich ca.nnot nor be reached
on a oarity rith llanty-Glo Class "A" coals'
I.'emorandum from Eastern Subdivision, i'a.rch 14. 1935: "^a s t e rn
Subdivision contended th-t if Southern Subdivision believed Torices
in Market Area =^1 ^er? not 'oro^er, facts should be presented to show
that prices are too lor, something th^t has not yet been done exceiot
through general st?itement. These orices rare said, to have be^n made
9837
-534-
after a good deal of study; '7ere accepted in a correlation af^reement "itli
Southern Subdivision I^'o. 1, according to i^hich no change vas to te made
until a traffic stud;/ on the Ne^." England sit'oation had been coimoleted.
With resToect to the 30 cent Tnaxi'^u^ freight abr.ontion, it ^a.s
claiTied that no -neans of policing destination ^orices existed because of
the va.rying nature of boat and dock charges. Reference was made to a
statement of a representative of the Southern Subdivision T^ho admitted
tha.t a great oortion of the tonnaee eoing to Ne'.7 England is laid dovm
on the dock and -nicked u-o after^'^ard. It '^"as further clained that i-'iich
of the tonnage lost its identity rhen relopded at the clocks.
Renly by Southern Subdivision IIo. 1. ''arch 15. 1935 ; It rras
said that Southern Subdivision had "orotested Market Area #1 prices for
a year, and had given a great deal of attention to this matter in its
brief, llo coo^-ieration had been received from Eastern Subdivision in com-
piling data on the traffic situation in Ner England.
Decision and Q-oinions of the national Coal Board of Arbitration .
March 18. 1935 ; The Board said the complaint averred that the unfair cora-
■oetitive conditions in Te^" England result from the lo'^ered trices estab-
lished by the res-oondent for the territory known as ^'arket Area 41, early
in 1934; and since that d-'te freight rate reductions to i^Te^" England have
taken Dlace.' Complainant asks thr<t Farket Area ^-^1 be rbolished and I'arket
Area #3 nrices a-oply, and that a -mxi'-aum absorption of 30 cents be allo^r-
ed.
The Boarcl recogni'?^ed the 30 cent absorption as of oriinary imiDortance.
Admitted there was a good reason for such a oractice since comnetition
between producers is in cons^oming markets. The fair co-nnetition contem-
plated by the Code must e::ist in res-oect to the delivered nrice to the
consiimer, and to deny the ;'irivilege of equalizin"' to a -oro-oer extent would
lessen comT)etition in many cases. Purpose of Code is not to lessen com-
petition but to ^ake it fair. But equali'^ation must be confined to -oroiDer
limits; the absoriDtions should not nalce the transaction uneconomical, either
in the sense of burdening producers as to minimiim "ages, or preventing the
sale of coal by others in their xisual and normal markets.
The Board believed that Market Area --'^1 caused certain unreasonable
and unjustifiable inequities in resnect to consumers situated near the
border line as well as the comislainant. Again, freight rates have been
reduced since I'arket #1 was established.
The Board held that coal shipped by the res;oondent -noves by railroad
and has definite freight charges. Freight charges "oaid by the coraiDlain-
ant are indefinite because of the water and dock factors. Insufficient
evidence was ^resented on the $3.70 arbitrary, it was said, and this de-
manded further study.
Eindin^'^s
1. A maximum absorrition of 25 cents ^oer net ton allowed.
2. ResTDondent shall nut into effect in Market Area ^1 the same trices
as are in effect in Market Area *2.
9837
-535-
3. That both -oarties should, i^ithin 10 days of this date, a;^ree
upon a figure rhich rould be fa.ir and reasonable as to r'ater and dock
char^^cs; and failin? to do so the matter '."ill be submitted to the Board
for decision. :
4. Wlien the T^ater and dock charf;es are fixed, the delivered cost
of coal fron the subdivisions shall be the nublished ririce tdIus trans-
ports'tion costs.
5. The 25 cents absprotion shall not be allored until oroof is
furnished of the actual riaynent of the cost of trans-oortation in the
manner oroposed to be established, to '•'it: the ^artier, hereto shall 'fith-
in the next 10 6.ays agree u-oon a method of suoervising transoortation
cha.r§es.
(One dissent vas re^7;istered amon/^ the full Board of five members
that took part in the case.)
PetitiTx of Eastern Subdivision for T^ostoonement . '^cehea.rinfl:, and
Heconsiderrtion. Karch 39. 193 5; ^^Sa.stern Subdivision said it did not
establish lo^er ;orices for Market Area. ---1, rhen as a matter of fact,
in its correlation aj^reement, ?ebrua.ry 1934, the "orices vere increased,
resulting in an abson^tion of 35 cents for Southern Subdivision on nut
and slack, and slack coals, said to be the bulk of the southern tonnai^e.
?rom the statistics corn-oiled by Research and Planning, IT.R.A. , a
comparison of costs and tDrices r'as- given. The com-olaina.nt had costs of
!*1.66 per ton, and Eastern Subdivision iiad costs of *1.73 per ton.
ShoTTn that Southern Subdivision Class ? slack coals had r\ nrice 26 cents
belc:? costs, while Nanty-Glo Clas-? A slack coal v^as 2 cents above costs.
Prices of other coals above or belor; costs:
Eastern Southern
Subriivision Subdivision
W. 8: S. + 17 cents ■ - 11 cents
H. 0. M . T 52 cents + 9 cents
Said it 'v7as clear that Southern Subdivision lost on the Ne'.'' England
trade since the larter Dart of its tonnage 'jas nut and slack, and slack.
It vj&s said that TTestern Pennsylvania and northern rJest Virginia
ha.d correlated their "orices with Eastern Subdivision, and any change
in the-lTev^ England prices vrould disturb the -orice set un of all three
Subdivisions. It ttouIg be unfair to raise Eastern Subdivision's "orices
T^ithout chan/^ing the trices in these other t'^o Subdivisions.
Aga.in Eastern Subdivision "orotested the ^fater and dock cnarges
in the absorotion ba.sis. In reference to the red.uction on ITe^ England
freight rates, it wa.s stated that their effect was much less than had
been asserted.
Eastern subdivision contended that 'orices -oublished by Southern
Subdivision constitute diomping prices. The complainant vas said to
already enjoy a 35 cent absorption on nut and slac]:, and. slack coa.ls,
9837
-536-
and the auditional 25 cents v^ould make the total aosorotion arnount to 50
cents.
Re-ply hy Southern Subdivision I^^o. 1. in 5es-oect to Eastern Sutdivi-
sion's Petition for -^ehearinf^. A-pril 4. 1935; Southern Subdivision
said it had no objection to a rehoarinr^ on the 43,70 a.rbitrary, but ob-
jected to covering other matters that had been previously decided.
Claimed that even if Eastern Subdivision did not lo^^er -orices as alleged,
the date on which these Drices '~ere '■nadeTiald not justify them because
no normal tonna;'5e flow was to be ^irotested in Market Area. #1. A summary
of Kanty-CTlo, Class A, R.O.'I. prices was given.
Area # 1 Area # 2
Date Prices Prices
*2.15
2.15
2.15
1 . 90 (
2.15
2.15
2.40
The above isrices v.'ere TDresented to show that Eastern Subdivision did
lower "orices for Market Aren #1.
DTotice of Postiionement- of Rehenring. A-'::iril 17. 1935 : A notice from
the IT. 0.3. A. stated thct the rehearing, scheduled f or A^oril 15, hs.d
been loost^ooned until Arjril 23.
Closing Out of Docket H : The 1-.C.3.A., through r< notice, h^ay 20,
1935, stated that Docket '^1 ^''ou"id be closed out as of Ilay 27, 1935, t)ro- n
vided that any additional written briefs may bef iled by any .interested I'
party on or before th.at date.
DOCKETS 4, 5, 6 AKD 7
Prices for Market Area -11. Lake Cargo Coal -'•id By-Froduct Coal;
These four dockets cover a controversy'' reg.^rding trices for I'arket
Area #11, lake cargo conl, and by-oroduct coal. Southern Subdivision
Fo. 2 is the ccrolainant in each case, waile the refj'oondents are South-
ern Subdivision T^o. 1, for Docket 4; 1-Torthern West Virginia for Docket
5; Ohio for Doclcet 6; and Western Pennsylvania for Docket 7. The four
dockets '•'ill be conr.idered in relation to each other because of the
similarity of is&ues, while Docket 4 '"ill be covered more in det^i]. in
order to bring out the different questions involved in the controversy'-.
General Brief of Southern Subdivision " '^ o. 5. Eebruary 25. 1935 :
This brief, while of later d.^te than the briefs -oresented for the rjar-
9837
10/3/33
42.15
10/29/33
2.15
December
2.15
1/1/' 4
1.90
1/15/34
1.90
2/6/34
2.05
4/1/35
2.30
-5o7-
ticiilrr dockets, has a short history of the case, and -provides informa-
tion on the origin of the controversy "bet?;een Siitdivision IIo. 2 and the
other Subdivisions. Pr-,rt of hrief contains the complpint against South-
ern Sutdivision NOj 1, but much of the S'-^me material is contained under
an earlier brief yrhich will be summarized in a later rart.
It was said thr-t rhen tie Code was established, the -orodiicing terri-
tory of Southern Subdivision To. 2 was represented by a marketing agency,
A-D-oalachipji Coals, Inc., and was able to piiblish prices within a short
time. The northern Subdivisions Tfere hi^:hl■- com-netitive and experienced
difficulty in setting uv prices, t^nd finally in i^ay 1S34, met in ITew York
to work out a definite nrogrrm, which resulted in an agreeable plan for
tJarket Area ^11. Southern Subdivision ITo. 2 had not participated in the
negotiptions, and wrs accused of refusin^^; to correlate -prices in this Area.
The part talcen by Southern Subdivision IIo. 1, however, is not clear cither
as to the negotiations carried on by the northern Subdivision or its re-
Irtions with southern Subdivision To, 2.
Southern Subdivision :'o. 2 ■oresented a base coal and its price in a
meeting vrith other Subdivisions ?t '.'ashington, D. C. , September 8, 1934.
'.lith the exception of Onio, other Subdivisions were said to have failed
to name a base coal. These other Si-ibc".ivisions were said to have favored
a correlation of prices brsec?. on certpin seam d.fesignntions or coal from
indicated mines, a procedure not fpvored by Southern Subdivision No. 2.
The -complainnnt claiued that prices published by 'other Subdivisions
in Market Area rll ^re at least 15 cents too low, pnd an adjustment should
be made.
The base coal used by Southern Subdivision h; d the following analysis:
Volrtile I'rtter 34.00
Fixed Carbon 59.00
Ash 7.00
Loisture 3.00
Allowance wr-s mrde for differences ■ in fusion
2750 and up Ease
2600 - 2749 I'inus 5.jf
2450 - 2599 n 10.;*
The allowpjice for fusion y'ps also to t^ke care of sul^nhur content as
in nearly a,ll cases high sulphur coal was spid to be low in fusion.
Adjustment was made for size in the follo'-'ing mp.nner:
3" to 2|" r.<i S. Plus 5<^ I" to f " Slack I'inus 10^
2" to ij" Tf.L S. Base 3/8" to O" Slack Tinus 15<i
1-f-" to 7/8" II. <f: S. rinus 5(f:
DOCICET 4
Southern Subdivision I'o, 2, Coraplpinant, vs. Southern Subdivision
:'o. 1, Respondent, in the Latter of their All-Rail Prices' in Market
Area ^11; their Lake Crrro Prices, ^nd their All-"ail, Tidewater pnd.
9837
Sul'ohur
5.T.U.
A.S.T.
Price t
mine
Dry
'.o.b.
1.
14,
n
~ 1
$1.
,00
,000
,750
,80
fusion:
2300 -
Tnder 7.
£449
'300
I
'inus
It
15^
20rf
-538-
L'^ke Cargo By-Product Prices.
Complaint was received oy the National Coal Board of Arbitration on
Petruary 18, 1935, consisting of a ;orotest by Southern Subdivision t*'o.2
as to General Price Schedule v^ 14, effective December 1 , 1934, a.nd su-o-
plements thereto Quoting (a) Market Area #11 all-rail prices; (b) Lake
Cargo prices; (c) By-product -orices — all-rail, tide^^a.ter and lalce.
Market Area #11 Prices ; It A7as contended by the ccnplainant. Sub-
division 'So. 2, that it had a price disadvantage in Market Area #11, be-
cause of the relatively low prices published for this territory by Subdi-
vision Fo. 1. Prices and analyses were sho'vn on 5/8" and under slack as
compared with the complainant's 2" nut and' slack, the forner said to make
up the major portion of the slack shipments ^-loved from Subdivision T'o. 1,
and it was said that these prices were 25 to 30 cents lower than the pri-
ces of Subdivision Uo. 2, on a comparable coal. It r'as stated that the res-
pondent had freight differentials ranging from 10 to 25 cents to destina-
tions in Market A-rea #11, north of the Ohio River and, where the 10 and
15 cent differentials applied, prices were from 15 to 20 cents too low.
Also noted that Southern Subdivision I'lo. 1 has freight advantages on tide-
water and eastbound coal and southbound coal with some exceptions.
Lake Carf^o Coal : Through tonnage data for the year 1932 to 1934, in-
clusive, it was shwon that Southern Subdivision llo. 1 had bettered its
position in the lake ti'a,de to a greater extent than the complainant. Said
to have been caused by higher prices in high volatile territory, i.e.,
Southern Subdivision Y.o. 2, after the marketing agency was established
there in April 1933.
Bv-Product Prices : It \"as claimed that the major part of the by-
■product shipped from Southern Subdivision l-Tol 1 took a mine price of '^l.BO.
The same coal takes a price of .1;2.10 in Spbdivision '^'^o. 2, and the latter
price should apply for the respondent's coal th-t took the ."^LSO price.
Replies of Southern Subdivision ^lo.l.- February 26. 1935. and Febru-
ary 28.1935 : Southern Subdivision ■To. 1 claimed that the complainant was
not against present price relationships, but made an actual appeal to
establish a new level of prices. The analyses of coals cited by the com-
plainant were said to be incorrect. Lata were given to show that 5/8"
slack amounted to 45 per cent of the steam coal production of Subdivision
No. 1. Into the market in question, it '"as indicated that the following
shipments v;ere made;
1 - -3^" stoker — 23,000 tons
li - f" screenings — 84,000 tons
5/8" slack — 91,000 tons
It was said the assertion that a friable coal of 5/8" size from Sub-
division No. 1 was competitive to a hard structure coal of 2" size was
wrong, since the minimum size relation cannot be less th^n size for size.
The formula used by the complainant was said to prove that the *2.00 price
for 2" stoker, as quoted by the respondence in 'its "F" classification, is
10 cents too high. This, in addition to unfavorable freight differentials.
Places Southern Subdivision at a large disadvantage. At Chicago, South-
ern Subdivision No. 2 allows a freight absorption of 20 cents on stoker
9837
-539-
coals,\7hich was claimed to plri.ce a price disadvnjitage of 65 cents on
the responc'ent.' Held that Southern Su^bdivision No. 1 was able to
seciire onl;-' 200,000 tons of steam sto!:er ''ousiness in 1S34 in an area
to which it shipped 11 million tons of coal. Stated that the respon- •
dent's freight advantaf-^es to the soiith and east v7ere not as great as
had been contended by the complainant. It was further stated that
Southern S^abdivision iTo. 1 had been losing tonnage in Area 11 and,
hence, no complaint on prices could be made for that territory,
Lal-e Ca.rA:o Co al; Southern Subdivision iM'o. 1 said it had a price
disadvantage ranging from 30 to 90 cents on steam coal at Duluth and
Superior.
B y-Product Coal ; Said that the price of the respondent's by-
product coal v7aS between $1.75 ■■.md $2.00, with approximately half being
sold at the $2,00 price. Reference was made to the oral hearing where
it was stated that Class A by-product of coals of Southern Subdivision
llo. 2 sold at prices 25 to 60 cents higher than Beckley and Pocahontas
coals during the years 192S - 1930 inclusive.
c;^;,^-^-] p;y^P^^_^'n 3 rief of Sout hern Su bdivi sion ITo. 2: It was said
that"~the~^base c'.jal " of Soiitliern Subdivision llo. 2 applied to 10 per
cent of the mines in that Subdivision since j^ril 17, 1933 when the
mariieting agency, Appalachian Coals, piT.blished its first price list.
At the same time, it was admitted that certain coals could be classi-
fied on a higher level thfm the base coal providing that the $1.80
coals could be prooerly correlated with comparable coals in Southern
Subdivision No. 1. But it claimed that Southern Subdivision No. 1,.
and other Subdivisions, with coals sold at favorable differentials as
against the complainant's prices, should not insist that the prices on
nut pjLd slack be increased in Southern lIo.2. It was stated that the
prices in question had been objected to since the Subdivisions of
Division 1 had been neetia-^ together.
The 5/8" slack produced in Southern Subdivision No. 1 was held
to be of vital concern to the complainant because of the favorable
differential, and its comparability with l-^-" and 2" nut and slack of
Subdivision No. 2. Respondent's connection that "the minimum size
relation cajmot in common sense be less than size for size" was opposed
on the grounds that the relative value of the coals would be overlooked.
It w?,s aj-so claimed that the freight rate situation described by the
respond.ent was incomplete.
^or a nuraber of years, it was said, Southern Subdivision No. 2
has had a good market in the Sotitheast, but is now threatened by the
lo\7 prices of its competitor, Southern Subdivision No. 1. Reference
was made to tonnage figures for other parts of i/Iarket Area. #11 as an
illustration of how the respondent increased its tonnage volurae more
than Southern Subdivision He. 2.
La^ie Cargo Coal: Again the larger increase of Southern Subdivi-
sion ilo, 1 in the lal:e trade is given attention. It was further said
that the prices used by the respondent were contract prices effective
on and. ai"ter the dates claimed. The respondent was said to have
9337
-540-
refused to meet with other Suhdivisions in the Spring of 1934 to
ectahlish prices, mailing its prices voluntary and subject to complaint
in event other Subdivisions ccui sho'j losses in movement. It was asked
that lal'e prices for Southern Subdivision IJo.l be increased. Siigges-
tion was made that prices quoted e;:-iIorthwe stern Docks be dropped
because of the various factors that affect the northwest market and
destroy the nine differentials.
By-Pro due t C oal si - Lov/ volatile coals used in the by-product coal
mixture were held to result in a larger coke yield a,s compared with
high volatile coals, though the yield on by-products, such as gas, is
reduced. The larger portion of coke result in a net gain, making it
desirable to use low volatile coals. Thus, by-product coal Subdivision
Ho. 1, with a price of $1.65, was said to have an advantage in the mar-
ket. That by-product prices were higher on high volatile coals, 1923-
1S30, was due to the fact that Southern Subdivision No. 1 had a surplus
of slack which was moved at a relatively low price.
Decision on Docket 4, March 22, 1955
Prices in Market Area #11 : The National Coal Board of Arbitra-
tion considered the coraplaint on prices in Market Area #11 from (a)
price advantage of the respondent, and (b) the comparison of quality
of respondent's coal's with a theoretical base coal priced by the com-
plainant at an 'arbitrary figure.
In respect to (a), the Board was ujiable to interpret the statis-
tics' of the respondent as indicating any shift of tonnage from Southern
No. 2 to Southern No. 1.
As to (b), the comparative quality of the coals in question, the
Board held that correlation was still indefinite and unsatisfactory.
In addition, it v;as said that the complainant had not presented any
analysis of actual coals, while other facts to substantiate the various
claims were not in evidence.
The Board dismissed the conplaint.
Lal:e Cargo Coal : Here again the Board hel<^ that the evidence
failed to show any shift in tonnage at the expense of -Southern Divi-
sion No, 2, and the complaint was dismissed.
By-Pro duct Coal; This complaint was dismissed on authority of de-
cision" rendered on by-product prices in Dockets 8, 9, and 14.
Docket 8 was concerned with the proposed elimination by Eastern
Subdivision of a differential in the price of coal as between users of
such coal for Steam raising pttrposes and users of such coal by the
manui'acturer of by-products therefrom. Complaint was entered by
Southern Subdivision No. 2, which stated that the custom had been for
by-produ.ct coals to be priced at a premium, over steam quality coals.
The Board, in a 3 to 2 decision, held that if the classification of
coals is based on the inherent quality of the coals and reflects in
the price structure the marketalDility of the coals, it is neither
8837
-541-
logicaJ. ncr proper to charge a premium for one class of consumer as
agninst piiother unless there are otlier factors v/hich r.mst Tdg taken in-
to consic ero.tion. The complaint was thus dismissed. Dockets 9 and 14
were sinil=;ir aiad decided on the same tasis,
Summar.y of Poc ke ts 5, 5, and 7
The issues in Docket 5 vere the smue as in Docket 4; prices for
Market Area #11, lal^re cargo coal, and hy-product, but with the ilorthern
West Virginia Suhdi visions as respond.ent. Docket 5 was a complaint on
the a^l-rail prices established "0,7 the Obio Subdivision in Market Ai'ea
#11; while Docket 7 was in connection witn the prices established by-
Western Pennsylvania in Market Area #11, prices on lake cargo coal and
the additional pliase, namely, vessel fuel, and prices on bjr-product coal.
The Board dismissed the complaints with the same reasoning contained in
the decision on Docket 4.
A short description of the respondent's brief submitted for
Docket 6 will be given belov; for general purposes of information. The
files appear incomplete for Docket 5, and for that reason it v.dll not
be given trea,tment. The detailed complaint filed by Southern Subdivi-
sion IIo. 2 on Western PennaylvDjiia' s prices was not answered by the
respondent.
doci:et 6
Ohio Subdivision as Hespoadent
Prices in Market Area #1 1: The respondent claimed that it was not
in cor.rpetition v.dtu the theoretical coal presented by the complainant,
Southern Silbdi vision iio. 2. That it had one price on screenings 2" and
down, whereas the complainant had various prices for these screenings.
It was suggested that Subdivision Eo. 2 submit ijroper analj^tical data
on its various coals. The respondent said it was not fami'liar with the
analyses of the. various Ohio coals given b;^ the complainant, or did it
know the formula employed in arriving at the suggested differentials.
Allotments under the Adams Plan were given reference, and it was shoif/n
that for the last 9 months of 1S34, Southern Subdivision ITo. 2 had ex-
ceeded its quota, while Ohio fell belov? the amount proposed for it.
On karch 4, 1C35, the Ohio Subdivision submitted a detailed com-
pilation to supplement sjid support the arguments contained in its
briefs of Pebraary 23, and March 1, which have been summarized above.
The following includes many of the points given in the supplemental
brief:
1, Over 90 per cent of the Ohio tQnna;ge is sold in Market Area #8,
#11 and Laice. Various Subdivisions v/ere said to use these markets as
a dumping ground. Asked that a mariinum spread of 25 cents be estab-
lished on each individual classification as between the different mar-
keting areas for each size and grade of coal, f.o.b. mine, in order to
limit dumping in unnatural marlrets. A greater limitation on freight
absorptions v/as also asked. A protest was made of the practice of
permitting differentials on off-time railroad fuel.
9837
-543-
2. Contended that the producing field nearest the consuning
market should set the base price to i;7hich the more distant fields should
correlate. The Hocking District, it uas said, depends for its domestic
market on the area comprising Ohio, half of the lower peninsula of I.iich-
igan, axid. the Northeastern quarter of Indiana; a market that will quick-
ly disappear for Hocking if prices are not properly correlated. In this
respect, it vras suggested that domestic prices in Subdivision Ho. 2 he
raised 20 cents per ton. As to steam prices, it was the practice, prior
to the Code, to mal:e mine prices on Ohio coal the same as for coal of a
like size in Sahdivision IJo. 2. This practice has been ignored since
the Code, and a new correlation is necessary to protest the Ohio steam
coals. Argument was advanced for a new correla^tion of prices in Market
Area #8, for which Ohio #8 was suggested as a base.
It may he noted that the main answer hade byi-the aomplaihant to
Ohio's argument was that the price formula used "by Southern Subdivision
Ho. 2 has worked satisfactorily cjid can be applied by other Subdivisions
for Ilarket Area #11. (See Ansvrer, 'by Southern Subdivisional Code Auth-
orit^r, March 4, 1955.)
Docket 38
Division III vs. Southern Subdivision Ho. 2
of Division I
Price deductions in Southern Applachian Price List Ho. 6 ; The
complaint of Division III was directed at certain price reductions pub-
lished ^02' the respondent in Southern Appalachian Price List Ho. 6, as
detailed in proposed correction sheets to Price Circular Ho. 15, effec-
tive Pebruary 11 and 23, and March 5, 1935. This is the only docket on
•the recorded calendar wherein there is a controversy between parties of
different Divisions.
Brief of Complainant, April 4, 1955 : Division III developed the
following points:
1. Reasonable effort' had been made to settle the controversy.
Meetings between the two parties had talren place 'in April, August,
September, and December, 1934. Hothing resulted from the last three
meetings, while in the first certain agreements were reached as to a
proper basis of correlation,
2. Complaint has come, in the first instance, from the Tennessee-
Georgia District of Division III. The basis between the coals in this
District and coals in Southern Subdivision Ho. 2, according to the
meeting of April 1934, was to place the lowest priced .".coals of the
Southern Appalachian territory of the respondent on the same level as
coals of the Sewanee seam of Division III. Coals of the Ravenscroft
and Soddy seams, located in Division III, were to be in cents lower.
3. The above relationship has been continually disturbed by
the appearance of coals from Southern 'jSubdivision Ho, 2 in the agreed
price level though -they had been taJ:ing a higher qualitjr rating. Re-
cently, prices in the Chattanooga market have been disturbed by attempts
9837
)43-
to reduce prices on certain Ap;'')alachian coals Delow the Dean seam coals
of SuDdivision ITo. 2, which in tirrn are related to Southern Tennessee
coals. These -oroTDOsed reductions are found for coals from Stearns Coal
and Lviii"ber Co, , seams One a.ic!. Tuo of the Kentuck/ field, the prices for
which noTi equal cr are lorer turn the prices of Dean seaia coals.
4, In April of last year, there were 9 coals in the price list
of Southern Subdivision ilo. 2 \7hich- had a price helo-.? the Dean seam
coals, ajad at "oresent date there are 14 coals. Recently an application
v;as made to redace the price of Dean sean coals hy 15 cents per ton, a
procedxxre that would distu.rD all the price rel-^.tionships.
5, Since 75 per cent of the coal produced in the Tennessee-
Georgia District runs 2 x 0" and smaller, anj- reduction of price of the
respondent's nut >and slack \70uld reduce the District' f; realization to
the e-tent of lo cents per ton,
0. Request entered that the Doard discontinue o.ny prices entered
■fay the respondent on coal moving to the G-eorf^ia and Chattanooga mar-
kets, v;hich are lo-jer than the prices effective Janu^iry 1, 1935.
Resiponse of Soutaern Suhdivision lio. 2, April 20, 19Z5 ;
Southern Suhdivision lie. 2 euphasized the points "below in its ansvver
to the orief of Division III:
1. Paragraphs 5 of Anendment 2 of the Code prohiDits the destruc-
tive selling hy a district with a lower wage scale in the normal con-
suming markets of any c'lstrict which is subject to higher rates of pay.
This provision gives to Southern Subdivision ilo. 2 the duty of estab-
lishing base prices on coals which coupete wita coals of Division III.
Ajnendi.-ient 2 gave a bs,se rate on inside skilled labor at 80 cents per
day less for Division III as against Southern Subdivision No. 2, a
wa,ge differential that requires protection for Southern Appalachian
operators.
2, In the meeting of April, 1934, it was recommended that
Southern Tennessee producers of Division III, "x x x shall not males
prices in any competitive territories less tiiaJi the delivered prices
of cor^3arable dor.estic and steari coals from. Southern Subdivision ho. 2
of Division I". Anotner recommendation was that a permanent committee
be appointed, " x :: x to consider any inequalities that may develop
frOLi the application of these general rules". The committee was nec-
essar;- because of the meagre information on coals of either Southern
Ho. 2 or Division III. A tentative correlation was set up as a start-
ing point. Later meetings showed that the correlation needed adjust-
ment, but little success was load in malcing the necessary changes.
3, The price adjustments axid changes proiiosed by Southern
Subdivision ho, 2 are warranted according to an analysis of the differ-
ent coa,ls. One of the proposed changes is to give Clincimore 3/8" x 0"
coal, which is now 'delivered into Chattanooga at $2,30, a 10 cent lower
price. This coal now has only a differential of 1 cent under 3/4" x 0"
nut-slack produced in the Tennessee-Georgia district; a differential
9837
-544-
not reasonable due to the size differences. Reduction in prices of
coals prodxi.ced in the Dean sesjn is required because of the low quality
of those coals, which prevents thera from competing with other Southern
Appalachian coals.
4, , The Stearns coal in question is of very low quality, which
requires a price as low as proposed,
5. At the time of the tentative correlation agreement, there
was no understanding that the Sewajiee seam coals were to he priced on
an equal delivered basis with the lowest priced coals of the Southern
^palachian district of Division I. Rather the understanding was that
the Sev7anee coals were to have the same basis as the Dean seam coals,
and that Southern No. 2 would have the right to cla,ssify other coals
in its district above or below the Dean seain prices to enable thera to
compete on a fair basis with other districts.
6. Believed that the Tennessee-Georgia District will not sxiffer
losses if proposed prices are established since its prices will not be
lowered. This district has relatively lower prices to other markets,
some of which appear to be in violation with Anendment 2,
7. Tonnage data show that the Tennessee-G-eorgia district has
bettered its position considerably in the Chattanooga market in the
years 1932 - 1934.
3. An analysis of 2" nut and slack from a mine in the Tennessee-
Georgia district shows the superiority of that coal as compared with a
like size coal from the Deaji seam,
Jecision of the National Coal Board of Arbitration, May 1, 1935 :
In reference to Anendment 2 of the Code, the Board held that the res-
pondent overlooked the fact that provision was made to prevent coals
from Division III invading markets of other Divisions or Subdivisions
at a knovm competitively low price. In this case, the situation was
said to be reversed as Southern No. 2 seeks to invade the home market
of Division III through a price reduction prompted by a losing tonnage
said to be caused by an improper correlation.
It was stated that the comparison of Division III and Southern
No. 2 coals used by the respondent was questioned by the complainant
on good grounds. The latter also showed that, as between these coals,
the Southern No. 2 coals already had a favorable differential of 11
cents instead of 1 cent as indicated by the respondent.
The "sluggishness" and "heav^^- coking" behavior of Sewanee seam
coals as against Dean seam coals, as cited by the complainaJit , were
considered by the Board as properties not subject to measure. If
these properties, did exist as described, however, it was stated they
woTjld probable be offset by the ash softening temperature claimed by
respondent to be in favor of Sewanee coals.
9837
-545-
Tiie Board concluded, that the coripetition from ';hi.ch the lowest
grade of Soiithern Ap'oalp.chiaii nines are suiferinii; came not from Division
III 'b^^t iron mines in their o-m Subdivision. This contribution X7as
attricuted to the fact that a reduction :.had been made on higher grade
coals of Southern Appalachipn territory whicn affected the markets of
the lover grade coals of the srme Subdivision and, to effect an adjust-
ment, the proposal was to lower by 15 cents the price of the inferior
corJ-s under the prices correlated with Division III.
Shipment figures submitted by the respondent to show that Division
III he.d been bettering its position in the Cha,ttanooga market as con-
psixed with the Southern Appalachian fields were criticized by the Board
as tons were used in one instance and cars in another.
Fy a four to one vote, the Board sustained the complaint of Divi-
sion III which protested the proposed price circulars.
Petition L"r.de by Southern Subdivision for a Reh earin:q: of Docket 38 :
Southern Subdivision Ho, 3 acc£;pted the Board's decision v;ith disapprov-
al, ai'^d on Kay Oj 1935 petitioned for a rehearing, of the case. The
Docket was reopened on L!ay 8.
Southern Ho, 2 made reference to prior- schedules in order to show
that prices had not been generally lowered after April, 1954* It was
said that prices of onl^- 17 of 101 Southern A^^palachian mines had been
reduced, while prices of 2 mines were incrersed, the changes applying to
low grs,de as well as high grade mines.
Other points developed by Southern Subdivision No. 2 were:
1, That the tonnage figures formerly presented show that the
market of Division III has not been invaded by Southern Appalachian
coals.
2, That the analyses cf coals presented were representative.
3, That the Board must have confused another size of coal in
believing that the -"differential on 2" nut aiit?- slack was 11 cents in-
stead of 1 cent.
4, That the low volatile content ^.ind other qualities of Sewanee
coals are subject to measure since these fertures bring higher prices.
5, That the competition of Dean seam coals is also with coals
of Division III.
6, That the figures on cars can be made coroparable with the ton-
nage figures by using 50 tons to a car as a conversion factor. This
will clearly indicate that the Dean seam mines have been losing ton-
nage.
9837
"546"
Brief of Southern Sulidivision No. 2 in Response to Oral Testimony ,
"■■'"' 15, 19o5; This orief , though suhmitted in the rehearing proceedings,
was in reference to the oral argument presented hy complainant on
April 24, 1915. It i.7as said in thie "brief:
1. That the Dean seam coals did not have the lovrest prices
as a result of the correlation in April 1934.
2. That the Deen seam mines did not ship to the Chattanooga
raar'ret "before 1929, as clained "by the respondent, is incorrect.
Other argument gave in detail the points already covered in the
petition for rehearing of l.Iay 3, 1935.
Reply "by Division III, ilay 20, 1935 ; Division III entered
further detail to support its former position. Anong other things, it
also claimed:
1. Tha.t witnesses testified that Deciji seam coal was not shipped
into the Chattanooga market prior to 1929.
2. That the prices referred to "by the respondent did not include
the proposed reductions.
3. That the National Coal Board of Ar"bitratlon was not wrong
in assuming that a 11 cent differential already existed on the 2" nut
and slack Dean seam coals in the Chattanooga market.
Su.p'olemental Decision of The Ifational Coal Board of Ar"bitration ,
Hay 24, 1935 ; The Board reaffirmed the original decision of Hay 1,1935,
holding' that the complaint of Division III should he sustained.
9357
-547-
H, Eealizg-tion Under The CoCe
Tlie la,rger r),.rt of urice discussion in the orevious sections of
this chapter has "been in connection, rrith the i:)rice relationship tetiveon
sizes and kinds of corl, "between Divisions, and l.->etween Subdivisions,
Another phase of much importance vinder price-fixing is that of realiza~
tion, i. e. , the corroosite of prices or the ^:)rica level. This ohase
directs attention to tha rotio of price to cost, and the degree of
sta'bilization in the price structure.
Brief reference only need te given here on realization for the
3-ears prior to the Code (See Chapter I, section on :iine Realization).
The dovTii-.-ai'-d trend of realization, pfcrticularl}/ 'between 1925 rnd 1933,
is one of the significant frctors in connection vrith the long, depression
of the industry,
MontlxL"- realization data are no.t available for tho months orior to
the Code, 'out it is genstally acce;oted th'-.t the lowest level for real-
ization, since the lax cjid probalilr for several decades, was reached
during the first iielf of 1933. Heel izat ion for 1933 amounted to $1.34
per ton ss co-roared ■''itli $1.51 for 1932 "but, of course, Code prices
were in effect for the last • qxiarter of 1933. For 1934, the only full
yerr under the Code, rer.lif.ation advauced to il.75 per ton, an amount
nearly as great es the $1.78- for 1929.
Tlie statisticsi system made pospiale under the KR/l provided a mea,ns
to olDtain and -3Uolish realization data in gregter detail. (The statisti-
cal methods, for o'::taining information on the industry are descrihed in
A.>pendix l). Thus, realization figi^res are founa not only for terri-
torial designations tut hy months. These data are ^oresented in detail
in charts (in Appendix), and Driefly in the t^.■ble helo", T'ith "both pre-
sentations in such form as to be rsadily comparable with the cost data
in Chapter Y, Tlae iJEA realization figures do not include tonnage of
captive nines, which is a variation in method as compared with the
Biixea.u of Ilines' fifrures that include -caotive corl.
9837
-548-
Reall::a.t ionr. , Co sts rnd Margins ,
Diviijious I . I I and III
3-Month Period, Woveraoer-Ivferch 1S34 (l)
10-Month Pei^iod, April-January 1935
Division
November
lS33-;-i?
rch 1954
A"nril
1934-January 1935
and
(5-Month Period)
(ic
'-Month Po
riod)
Subdivision
Reali-
Reali-
zation
Cost
Mar^-^in
zation '
Cost
Marein
(a)
Division I
1.6387
1 . 5989
.0398
1.9194
1.9058
.0136-
Division I -
North
1.6338
1.6028
.0310
1 . 90C4
1.9296
- .0292,
Division I —
South
1 . 6440
1,5947
.0493
1.9377
1.8829
.0548
Eastern Sub-
division
1.7230
1.7328
- .0098
2.0603
2.1182
- .0579
Western Penn-
sylvania
1.6675
1.6443
.0232
1.9085
1 . 9408
- .0323
Ohio
1.6785
1.5243
,1542
1.8584
1.8031
.0553
Panhandle
1.5668*
1.5854*
- .0186
1.7542
1.7272
.0270
Mic.hig;oii
2.9209
2.7140-
.2069
3.1625
3.1848
- .0223
Northern West
Virginia
1.3320
1.3151
.0169
1.6214
1.6671
- .0457
Southern # 1
1 . 7387
1.6570
.0817
2.0359
1.9473
.0896
Southern # 2
1.5684
1.5424
.0260
1.8447
1.8199
.0248
* 4-l.ionths period; Ilarch data not available
(a) E::clusive of Western Kentucky
(l) Data from "Bituminous Coal Str>tir.tics, " i-'lRA
9337
-549-
Realizat i ons, Costs cr na Margins .
Divisions I, II and I II
(continued)
5-Month Period, ITovein'ber-March 1934 (l)
10-Month Period, April-January 1955
Division
November
19o3-Mr
rcl- 1934
April
1934-Jan,-
aary 193^
and
(5-l,Ionth Per
•iod)
(lO-lvIonth Period)
Subdivision
Reali-
Reali-
zation
Cost
Lergin
zation
Cost
Margin
Division II
(a)
1.5091
1.3453
.1638
1.6292
1.54" 8
.0844
Illinois
1,5337
1.3690
.1647
1.6396
1.5531
.0865
Indiana
1.4417
1.2800
.1617
1.5985
1.5203
(b)
.0782
Division III
1.9103
1.9483
- .0380
2.2539
2.2983 -
.0444
Divisions I,
II,
and III
1.6] 71
1.5522
.0649
1.8701
1.8439
.0262
(l) Data from "Bituminous Coal Statistics," NRil
(a) E:-clu3ive of Iowa
(b) 9-uonth period; January not available
One noticeable feature of the orice level under the Code ^as that
it corresjonded closel'' to the> cost level. This is a remarkable showing
for several reasons. It is to be remembered that the individual prices
were estr.blisned with little cost and i^rice ds.ta on hand, and with wage
increases and other cost increases in viev. In addition, there was that
troublesome factor of pre-code contract tonnage. Divisions I, II, and
III, conbined, had a realization of 1.62 for the 5-month period, which
afforded a margin of 6.5 cents over costs. Division II was largely res-
ponsible for the size of the raargia, since the realization for Division
I was 4 cents above costs while the realization for Division III was be-
low costs to the extent of 4 cents. For the 10-month oeriod, April-Janu-
ary 1935, the margins narrow considerably. Divisions I, II, and III,
together, had a realization that ?ras only 2,5 cents over costs; Division
I had a margin of 1,4 cents; the margin of Division II decreased to 7,8
cents; and the realization of Division III was still below cost?. Da.ta
for Divisions IV and V were not conplete enough to be included in the
comparisons.
Differences in margins are found for the Subdivisions. For the
5-month period, Ohio and Southern # 1 enjoyed the largest margins in
Division I, while Eastern Subdivision and panhandle had realizations under
costs. For Division II, Illinois and Indiana both had substantial margins;
16.5 cents and 16,2 cents respectively. For the 10-month period, Southern
TT 1 maintained its margin but Ohio's margin decreased to 5.5 cents, while
the realizations for Eastern Subdivision, Western Pennsylvania, Michigan
and -lorthern T7est Virginia, fell below costs. Illinois and Indiana had
smaller margins for the lO-month ^jeriod.
9337
The charts give iiiontn,\by month comparisons of ' re9,lizati-,n3 and costs,
November 1933-Janua,ry 1935, with separate- shov'ihgg of realizations from
coal sold -uxider Code prices and coal sold under contracts made prior to
the Code. Margins above costs are shown by black areas, and the margins
below costs by tiie crbss-aatclied ar'feas. Hie proportions of sales made
under Code prices are presented on -the lower part of th-e charts.
Little explanation need be given to the charts, except .to point out. .
several interesting features. For Divisions I, II, and III, combined,
the margin betv/eeh realization and costs remains small, and uniform for the
10-month period, April to January 1935, aside from some variation in ■'
January. Tile margin is more irregular for the 5-mo.nth period ending in
March 1934. The latter result may be related largely to the decrease, .in_ -
pre-code contract coa,l which had occurred in la.f^e arao-onts over..'the 5-month
period. Similar tendencies will be foUnd m the chart of Division I. The
chart for Division II is quite irregular. Iviargirs : belo'v? costs are found
betv/een May and August, v.dth plus margins for the other months. The de-
crease in pre-ccde contract tonnage is' more gradual as against the above
charts. Division III has more variation than either Division I or II.
Tiie charts clea.rly illustrate how price adjustments v?ere made in April
1934 to meet' the wage advances of that time.
Although prices v/ere increased noticeably under the Code, there is
no evidence that the Code price level was unreasonably high. It is true
tha,t realization advanced from $1.34 in 1933 to $1.75 in 1934, an increase
of 30 per cent. A still larger increase vrould be found, no doubt, if real-
ization for the first-naif- -of • 1933- cauld-be eompared vi^it-h ■ the original Code
prices. At the same time., it is to be remembered that, the industry was
operating at a loss for a number of j'-ears before the Code. This v/as true
in spite of low wages and forced economies. In' other words, an increase
in price wo-uld xiave been nece-^sary to co-ver the previously lov/ costs.
Under the Code, wages advanced sharply and ether costs increased. These
t;vo sets of . conditions, ".a" rela.tively low price. 'before tlie Code and large
increases in Costs due tti. tile Code, meant that' a narked increase in real-. ,
ization v/as 'necessary , if" (posts .Were to be met.' lifaile an increase in price
v;as necessary, it does ijot appear 'th.t -unreasonable advances were made.
The margins betv;een cost and realization were small in most cases, amo-unt-
ing to only 2.6 cents per ton for Divisions I," II., and III'., combined,
Some criticism may be entered as to the price 'level because Code prices
had to make up for the relatively "low priced 'doal sold under pre-code con-
tracts. This was true. during the first few months of t'ne Code, but during
most df the Code period the proportion cf pre-code contract tonnage was
too small to affect realization to ajiy degree.
The extent of price stabilization under the Code is apparent in the
realization carts. Fqr .instance, the curve on realization for Divisions
I, II, and III, combined, is px'actically flat for the 10 months, April-
January 1935. The s-ame is true for Division I. For certain' Sub-divisions,
such as Illinois and Alabama, the price level fluctuates noticeably. In-
formation is not available: to verify contentions taa,t stabilization wAs
breaking down rapidly during t]\e last fciiror five months "of the Code.
9837
1. Siri.ma ry ; An o.ocencje of aniforiit/ anO. standards in price
fixing ws a realcness early apparent in the Code. Metnods of price
fi:^ing varies between Coae Authorities. This was especially true
as to classification. Disputes vjere quick to arise ■between the Code
Authorities regarding tae relationships of prices in comnon markets.
Anotner weakness 0/ the early Code was txie absence of provision
for a central .agency to adjudicate disoates. Ifany of the distiutes
arising during the first months of tne Code were due to confusion and
misunderstanding and coold have been settled or reduced in importance
through a central authority. In time, these disputes became more. com-
plex and involved, tneir effects became more widespread, while settle-
ment became more difficult. The principle that price fixing was a
Subdi'.'isional matter 'ibs guarded closely, and it i"as only with reluc-
tance t'nat the industry slowly turned to a more central action. With
the failure of voluntary agreement as a method of settlement, a loroce-
dure was established in June 1954, whereby advance notice w=s to be
given on price changes, and the urice changes were open to review of
representatives of Code Authorities, marketing agencies, and the
Administration. This tended to coordinate price activity and eliminate
tne confusion often followin-g unexpected changes, but it did not pro-
vide a method for handling controversies already in ctI stence. The
latter was given attention ^^hcn the Presic'ential f embers of Division I
(excenting "Western Kentucky) were organized as a board, also in
■June 1934, to hear and render opinions on disputes. This board, with-
out any definite authority, had little success in smoothing out the
price difficulties.
Little information is obtainable on virice compliance under the
Code. It is generally known that price evasions took place, and
failure in compliance was always a serious subject. Price evasions
appear to have been mostly sporadic, and more common to some producing
districts than others. The failure to specify a definite and effective
means to oolice prices soeras to have been one of the handicaps in re-
spect to compliance.
It was not until the addition of Amendment 6, January 25, 1935,
that major changes were made in tne price provisions of the Code. This
Amendment clarified and amplified price fixing, added a more definite
price basis, and gave a procedure for handling controversies through a
central agency, the National Ccal Board of Arbitration. Amendment 6
became effective only 4 months before tne end of the Code, and for that
reason cannot be evaluated in terms of results. It is clear, however,
that it was a great improvement. At the same time, it represented
about the extreme limits in code organization with the oroblem of bi-
tuminous coal regulation still unsettled. Already nrogress had been
made towards permanent legislation for the industry and, the day before
Amendment 6 became effective, the G-uffey Bill had been introduced in
the Senate.
Bituminous coal price fixing was one of the major experiments
under the IvT.I.R.A. , and the results were extraordinary in certain as-
pects. A complex price system was established both uoon short notice
and with little precedent. The prices so established gave a realiza-
tion that approximated costs. Stabilization apr^ears to have been
effected over the Code months. These were accomplishments in an indus-
try that previously had no semblance of a price structure, that had
suffered losses over a decade, and that had enjoyed no degree of stabil-
ization.
-552- ■
APPEN DIX I y
S tatistical Hepo rti n:; Under I'I.R.A»
It T/as er.rl;- recognized thr.t current facttial data -rould be indis-
pensa'ole to intelligent aojninistration of the Code. Althou,?;h the Code,
as subnitted to the President for api5roval, did not make provision for
statistical reporting, the President's formal approval, signed September
18, 1933, imjoosed a condition that:
"(l) 'There shall be added to the first paragr.^ph of Section
3 of ArticloVll of the Code the folloring sentence:
All coal producers subject to the Code shall furnish te
any governmental agency or agencies designated by the Admin-
istration such statistical infoniaa.tion as the Administration
mayj from time to time, deem necessarj'- for the purposes
recited in Section S(a) of the National Industrial Eecover;'
Act and any reports and other information collected and
conpiled by a Code Authority, as heretofore provided, shall
be transmitted to such government agencies as the Adminis-
tration me;,' direct."
Pursuant to this provision, a Bituminous Coal Section was set up
in the Division of Research and Planning under the direction of P.E.
Berquist, This unit numbered as many as 85 people at its maximum. One
of the first assignments was to devise suitable forras on which individ-
ual mines were to report operating data required by this Section.
Pom A provided for monthly statements of costs in detail,- vith
a section for sumuarized total realization from shipments against con-
tracts made prior to the Code, shipments on orders taJcen subsequent to
effectuation of the Code, and certain other classes of shipments or dis-
position of the period's production.
Pom B called for selling and administration costs broken down
in detail, to be submitted by each operating comnany and covering the
operation of whatever number of mines it operated.
PoiTii C was designed to show the details of emplojonent and earn-
ings per paj'^period, for each mine.
Pona r called for monthly details of income from sales by sizes
and grades of coal, use classes, and price zones, separated as to pre-
Code contract shipments and Code-price sales; ?ath inventory adjust to
acco-ont for total production during the month of reporting.
1/ Prepared by Ellerj' B. Gordon
9857
553
Form T was a f:reatly simplified blank for the use of small mines
(under 15^1 tons output per month), and embraced a simcle cost statement,
employment data, and realization from sales. The scattering returns on
these forms were very inadequate and incomplete; no sijmmaries were pre-
pared.
This statistical program developed not only the most elaborate
body of first-hand data collected oy N.R.A. from any industry, but ad-
mittedly tne most representative (nearly 70 per cent of total production)
and extensive acc"amuIation of vital factual information ever provided for
bituminous coal over a continuous period of equal extent.
Forms A and E served to establish a basis of cost relationships
among constituent items and among mines in the same aroducing field; aver-
ages of cost by months by fields tnroughout a full cycle of seasons;
basic average cost relationships amon.' tne larger groups of fields repre-
sented by subdivisions under tae Code; and finally the average cost com-
parisons between the 3-hour day and the 7-hour day periods. The break-
down of operating data called for on Form A also provided a basis for
projecting costs as reported for tae n-omber of days actually worked in
any month tc an estimated or aporoximate cost if the mines in the group
had worked different numbers of days during the month.
Value of Employment and Earnings Data and Cause of Form C
Discontinuance: The prime purpose of N.I.R.A. wps to increase purchas-
ing po''"<=r cy increasing payrolls. This puroose was unquestionably
realized under the Bituminous Code. Coincident with this purpose was a
decrease in the number of unemployed. The bituminous coal industry
showed fin increase in number of employees of about 4n,nno in 1934 over
1933. The number of days worked by the mines also increased, as did the
average annual earnings per man. (For details of these improvements see
Chapter IV. of this study.)
Form C provided details of employment and earnings by principal
occupations dxirine a pay period; a frequency distribution of the number
of men who worked various numbers of hours per period; another frequency
distribution of the number of men who fell in each of eight earnings
groups per period. It provided a basis for establishing average srelat ion-
ships among occupational groups, for the first time available to a wage
conference committee negotiating a new agreement. Form C perhaps per-
formed its most valuable function in this manner in the early 1934 wage con-
ferences vrhich eventuated in Amendment 1 and the 7-hour day. The occupa-
tional relationships thus once established are continuously useful. Many
objections to the basic form of the report in some particulars were the
subject of long continued conferences. The main point of argument cen-
tered around the basis for reporting a "man-start". The form carried the
following instruction'-with respect to column 26 - "Total man-starts":
"Under 'mining, cutting, and loading labor' (item 107) use tne
fofjo- ing rule for determininrT the mmsPT of starts for emuloyees
on a tonnage basis: ./hen ■a:torihage vorker >as 'be'f*a" cifcHted
with _t^-o or more cars on- tae bullrtirt i"6fi anydayt^t should be con-
9337
Form X
NRA Bit. Coal
NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
BITUMLNOUS COAt
DO NOT FILL IN
Kty Code No.
Name of reportinf companj, firm, or IndiTldul .
Addreu _
Mia*.
I CEBTIFY (bat this report haa been compiled from (he recorda of tbla mine, and la, to the beat of
raj luowledge and belief, true and correct, for the month of „ — , 193
(Kuw of eempAny or Snn)
Form T
KRA Itlt. Coal
NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
_ BITUMINOUS COAL
rtifORMATION FOR SMALL »fTXE9
(TO ■■ liirOltTES> FOB GaCU U1.NQ
LooUon ot mine: 6Ut« _
Code (uthoritj No
Kudo and/or Dumber of Kun worked
TonnAge dlipoeed of hji 1. Trucks or wagons
Type of mloe; Deep (ibaft, slope, or drift)
CoOBtj
Name of mliiliig district ,
RATION
DO NOT FILL IN
Key Code No.
UoHTV «r
itn
Field „
. tou. 2. RallroadJ ...
toni. 8. Wat«rwftyi
__ Strip pit
DATA ON WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT
Fin In following dtla Tor each Indlvldail (Including members of producer's famllr) earning ptj daring month. Do not report names.
EMPT.OVKB
NLMBEB
W
OCCUPATION
(h)
WAOB RATS FEB DAY
(0
TOTAL Otiosa RAnSINOS
(SMiuOtuuU 1)
NDUDER OP DAV3 WORKED
<Sm (ootooU 3}
(«)
<
Poomnu 1 Rtport tba lot*) evnlno of lb* omd vid oot wtui tb«7 drew tbm dadoetloo tar powdw,
FooUMU 1 Coetvt (rmoUoiuI dan InW •quJ*kt«iit itiU-Unw d«rs-
Uho.
Form T
NIU. mi. Coal
-555-
L>fFORMATION FOR SMALL MINES
(TU DK ItKI'ORTED POR CaCH MINE)
F0U.O* iNataccnoNs CASircLLT roi EAcnlnu
1. Number of daji mine worked duriag moDth_
S. ToUl tons produced duriog moDth
8. Number of men worklog duriog moDth_
4. Avcrafte output of mine per worlriog day ((2) divided by (I)]-
TOTAL COST
AHOtniT
PnTol
S
t
8. Total Extenbes pob Man StrppuES Vbt.d Dvhino Mokto (see Inetr
7. Otsxb MfVE Expense iNcimRED DimiNO Mokth: (See Uutructions)
(K) T*Tf>
r
(/} Total Othxh Expsirsu (7a to 7« Ineluu
ft. Torn. Ciyiyr (fliirn of 6, 0, «Dd 7^)
ro) .
$
s
TONB
AMOUNT
FEB TON
CODE PRICK ria
TON
iMCon moM Coal SALia:
t
1 *
t
m "ot
(/■> Nnt
(<^ R<T#fnlTi0» (flpi-W)
$
, _ _
t...
10. If memben of prodaoer*! famflj mA In mliu, ipedfj number so employed .
11. If mine li vodiad bj inttduoezi on ft ahare basis, vtato total loeome earned by produoera thia month, $..
12. Are ytra aeDinf eoal at (be oode price? .
C3. Are jon paying wagea estabUahed under eodeT .
TW \amnntan •■mb^n i
INSTRUCnONS
»«<a * i bate* vontm»»A "Ub ab^iv* Itoa nmbcn
M(k. — Rttport ooJr Um HMO «tM> bar* M/nl
W06 Ittd 00 eKTHIOSl
mlap
dortni tba sMoLb. Aor ama «bw «i
Dot tM loduOaa
6 Total *Mc* ^Id dwtnf •wsth.— Oa<lv ibl' tcm rapot tnmt •«g*i (wKl to •■»
c4onn. *be(tM> pud bf Ih* hour, daf ^ U>o <ix on nttMr plM»wart tafU) Do oot
uic^ude (1m mrtungi of MJkr>«>l (mirforMe n^ m ctarkj, itaomrapban, bookkeapen,
(upefftaorv Mc (B*^ uuinjci Ion* 74 tn'l 7r)
• Total ripriMP fof nln* xiwtbn hp^ 4*riB( awath.— R«pnn npfilM imH Ud
propwtj cti&ri«abl> lo oiid* unaiM> dunitf LbM pertul. poww purchaaftt duflof mooLl)
U>d/o( oiioe luel uMd ■( nin* im povar li «i^ Acuna w* oM arkdabla, ut MtUu*U
«f UMM aipeaaa tbouM ba rHwnad
kilka f>M a* ■iriwai^— iU»cn nt*iXim doa^
98^^""
n Taiaa^aaiaaptop t riTaiideqglpmcnL— RaporttlPdy thbbaadlngtllraaj MUM,
mnoQkl propartr.aodolhef c&ieslo lieu iberooFlaTladoD mine pTDCwrtyutdMiulpiiiaot.
TbU )bouJd rapraaem Uia moDib'i aban of tu«a buBd oo previcxu raw'* utiul ux
biUi
7c COTapanaallaa ln«araiu« paid or acnTiad.~R«poTt Iba moaUl'l propoHlaa of and
paojsUoo losuraiKa paid or accniBd.
14 Saloa cipeoaa.— locUdei tucb Items u aBlulH and nimiaBs ol nJenneo. ooiii-
nl^ani paid or aocrued. mIIIds ofSoe eipetue. Kilea t&ir«. eu.
T& MlanlUaaoaa.— lacJuda bare aalaiica nf darlcal and an p er v U u i > vmploreM,
opanum' anoeUUoo dun uid UMamaaU, ooda auUuMlly aipenae. luur^noa otbcr
toaa eotnpc '" "" ■--■- ■-• . > r -
B eoffipvamUoo, depTMlaUoo, dapletloo (um t i>«™n« t«i
V psU kv Utia monUL
[ANSWEB WAGS AND EMPLOYMENT DATA ON BETEBSE SIDE]
aipenn.
bwb to t
oKlcuUUoa), et&
Form A
NRA Bit. Coal
-666-
NATIONAL RECOVKKY ADMINISTRATION "
BITUMINOUS COAL
DO NOT riLl IN
Key Codo Nq.
ClABsifioatlon „
Beport for
Name of reportinf compuij..
Address
I CEBTin (bat this report has been compiled th>iii (he records of (his company and is, to the best
of mj knowledge and belief, true and correct, for period of , 193
For..
(NuDc ti Bnmpaar)
Form A
NRA BU. Coal
NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
BITUMINOUS COAL
DO NOT PILL IN
Key Cod© No
CUasificatfon
For period
County
Field .
Nameof mloing district .
8. Waterways .
Looatlon of mine: State _„„
Code Authority No SubdIvEnon code authority letter
Name and/or number of 8eam(s) worked -. ._ -_ :..^ ::
Toana^ diaposed of by: 1. Tniokfl or wogona 2. lUflroads — , i...
Tjrpe of mine: 1. Deep (ehaft, elope, or drift) .„ /.* 2. 8trip pit
CtaMcf mine: 1. Commercial Q]; 2. Part commercial, part captive [^; 3. All captive Q;
Captive to: (a) Public utility QJ; (6) Steel and by-product coking plants (other than public utllitiea) [^;
(c) Railroad □; (d) InduMrial □; (•) Other (epecify) _ „
Average outpat-penrarking day (wbetber onew moreehtfta are worked* _ — -.. net tons <total lomiage for period divided bv
number of daya tipple started) .
State any apcclal local condition that affecta production coat or market value lor this period' •• t ■ ■;■■.: ■;■ j - . . -. ^^ .
If this form la uaed to report on unaaalgned or reaerve acreage, note here _.
Number days tipple started . _.. Tonnage produced in this period .
Approximate percent coal mined by: Scraper loaders .
Duckbills
Fit-car loadera..
Total average thJckneaaof aeom .
.. iochea: draw alate ..
Mobfle loading macbinea . i...i.t'........
Hand loading face conveyors
Hand loading .
inchea; total partings fnehea.
INSTRUCTIONS
Hm Iniilracitoaa anmb«c«<l I lo ll MnMVoaJ'wItk Item a«m(»«r« on re*af«e stdo <t thia for
TIili tota itiaold b« und id noon aaeb miiM vtetlttr workuu or lOIe (eiwpt
abwxlnwd miaa^. When > oompur boldi anuslgiMd or r«aerve ureoge that li not
i^^ariltH to • jwitleolar mliw, all axpaoMa «( ricI] acraasi abould b* raport«d tor osob
nbdlTlUoiia) v«a sepanUlr on othw ooplea of Fomi A. Tbese [ormi ibould b«
cifMCJaDy ■jai'tad " Uoanicnsd or hmttib aooifB " uid otiociJd tbow t n^ft* , losumua,
aad eClMr eUTTlii| durpa ueapt InunM on liiTwtmaDt
1. NnBbOTafdiyvlJp^ataned.— Baporttb«DaiiiberiiIttaniiiudab;tJpplq vbelbcr
^Ty^fT^^f^ latigv ibao tt If*^ tfi^i> 8 boun par A\y
( ^jm t^pls hU«.— Tbe Dumbw of darv> oU>v tiuu SoDdaya and
I, lb* tipple was Mte- -
1. NambB of twlldsra and S an dar*.— Report iit)4«r this Itam tbe Dombw of Stifidays
- iDtbatnooUi pku tKil^ri raMCnlud b 7 tba labor cod tract, or wl aside by procUioatloi)
of Uw PnaldBDt ol tbe Ooilad 8UM1 of OoTenur of ttie Sut«.
4. THal Bet tea>-pt«dac*d.— Report on a abort-ton (2,000 lb.) baHs. Plfun tbmil<i
repnnot all eoal diapoasd of plm s mlnoa ciiances to InveDtcrr (aablQed can, stoc;.
P » w,«l c .) at bavliuUai aad md of aioQib
ft. IMr Haa.— RvnSR 111 dar mac eioept Unm Indaited OtKls' R>. 5c and Bd.
Sb. BCbOig (ttace or ^{^wnrken).— Report all worken enxafed Id cottli« or loMlIn;
onL wbMlwr oo tonoace or dail; or botirly twsU.
Jo. lariaaaaad d aadw »fc .^Report*ll yardasi paid lor nana' work, alao all^otbci
daAdwKT work commonl? known ai deadwork.
M. 8ip«f*lBairr and dwloL— Reperi msosscn, mparlotendeots, and utb«r ivspon-
flbla ■dmlplrtiatlTc mlos cniplorMa. lecbnlcal einpIor«ea, clerks, neooerapberv, book-
I. tad oUmt *4«nca] employtw on aalary.
ikW KlM labor.-Toial of S&. 6b, Ji&^aad Sd. .....
■ (aJt •^yilBacsnvt power aad rbcll.— Report foppllaa aaed aadproperlr
'*"fr"' '" ""■"
. ^^Hp. Iht. ,w<^t flnnnllp n^ ^ Tr"tn"T VOT
rspatot ibtold ba rvportad unds Be
6b. Hi ail iiaiilMail' TTiln aboold twSUdt p6««r porcluised TTom dtUllr CbtDlMhUe
and Otfaer^ ai w«0 aa power prodooad bj etuxni po^ir pUnt owned by tbe »mpanj
and maklnf a prvaiad cbarp to Ua mla» tor lbs pcwer II laef.
te~ Hlaa fMl^-IUpgrt mine fuel nwd by iuUvidua) m\vm power tlanta U wA'os
riMl OMd kr baaUsg and drying purpoMS.
M, TotaJ of tI«BirtK 9b. acdOe
7. IMal Bine Ub«r aad mine aappllaa.--Tbli aboold Include tbe total o( Be and Mi
aa. W«r*M»»d ffi MMMereUwTMBploT— Jlett ft ^wJ W ikitt'iafM.— thb thoold
iQ^tida pro nta of wlary aad cipense* of 'liTUi'^a uiperiataadesti. Eentnl rapertoten'
- <)«ata, dlrtdcm engiaeera. tratelloi aadlion. m-chacinl enfloewv, and pnportloa of a-
peun of aor flunnl oSee MrrUtg more tbsn trae mlaa, aO «l wblcb are not IndndMl
to tba Xdttla d Sa. Tbe tuoal practloe of tbe eompaor iboold be loUow«d la dlKrlboUns
n— eBiiwiooaltbw a vamap or a tlin»'wvyft^<a. lodadatattittioooaat'teehiilM
aSi>pMieeotncw4lorwttbflnUldeeoae*rai. , _
Oeaati luCr«dl«u.— Corapank! bsTlm central preparation planta. brlqaettlnc pUnt«.
aad otber oampaaj-owed ooSU fEioapt oeotral- fMwer plaoti) terrlni morelban oo«
mliM dMoM prance labor and mpplT ooet« to cacb ladindu&J mlQ« ud report ondtr
Kami M and sa:
to. Iteea ea aUae jn—r o aad egal muB t Cnccpt a n aaNp r d aicrcaau.-BAport
o&dw tins caption all nal eatate. peraooal property, and otber tat^ lo Ilea tbareot 'ad
7aloim.etc.) lerlad on mloa property and •qolpmeDl Tblsabould indDdatbetBonrbly
aecnad amaoct band on pnrioia year'* actnaJ lai blUs.
"Ob. laranaee >alraaaMa csayl r niiii ii nrntiin) . — "Ro port lbs motiLblr pnpotileo of
aO >BB>Tyf* cnoUsQU lor Ore. toraado. and otber claMM of liwtfittce bat aidi^lac
' lifflMnia repreteMixK itompecMtton innuvBce.
v; -le. C^ifam-hgae mt e nM {tactadli* bad claifee iberwa) lea li«tii&— Rei^ort '
aB »— »tr-ny biaaa expanne tor repair*. aulnMMaca, aod flxad obarisa. isdndlnt tatea.
hMuiaa ea. aad daivedatlim. aD IncooM froo i<ciriiatwaMba oadited lo ihlk aeminl'
M tfaa oat ameoDt rviwnad lor eMb mine a tbe aM reailt from oparatloi) of company
booaM. Bepgrt Dal loeoBia In rad aad dadact from lota] of otbw atpaoMa
90, I>*anetaMa_lBW hi t^t m ba«ta to (aleaiattaa).-'-4Uport Imttttnn prit
portloD of fbe dapradfttko ond In rvpecUm lb* (nootne to tba Traaaory Dep ftmaa t
«s tbetr *0TB Ha. lUD. Tbb te dooa ts asl tbe «M <t depradatleo oe a> Dnlfonn a
bai4 aa poalbla. If tbe«aaipasjli oalac rMaa dodag tb« ywr otbet tbaa iboae tbry
> tbe T riair y Dega niBm i. tfteae ■hoold aoc be otd tn thli capttoc,
I OMStbyy pfopcnioo of ibe anraaot «a njrohtaj for tbe amnul'
— It«parlrorahlMdBaVacaoed.« paid Iv tua iboatb '
d wCb tbeBlB&lcr vbkiiibtoreponaiDada. ' —
i aMB^Beai>.-£eptft iiai 11 cod da«
Lie. Ciwai»aiU»«lneBraaenpatdoretffa»±— Report monthly proportion of ^Hipao
taiJoD Lnxurann paid or a<cru»d. CompaolM carrTloK out^de losuraaoa will rvpon
the montblf [noportlon whieb tbey will hftve to pay. or bare paid, aod tboae oorryloK
tbelr own [nmranoe aboald report the amount tbey aeorue In actual pr«ctloe. tut lo
pioeed the rate of accrual requind for tbe year 1933.
Od. Cvda aatborlty oxpeaMa.— Report eode auIhoHty eipon'wn Incorred far tbla
montb and If a deOolte rate per ton baa been eslablUbed by tbe eod of tblt monib toorao
tbe amoont bewd upon.thla raU c>f anesraeat.
lie Daaletkia.— losUuctloiU rlvea uoder Bd will apply Lo (hU Item.
M. Total aclH^ ezpeoaefl.-~6Hl]8 forward from roroi B (be rate per ton for aeOlng
expenses as detanalacd on tb«t rvport 'pbl* rate per too ibould be moJUpUad by ton-
nage produced (Item 4) to arVlva at the amount to be Included on tbU mine's report. It b
quite tieoestary tbatlhUeitAuloD be made In Chli maaaer In order to work out tbeooot
studied required by NBA under the Coai Code.
IS. Ttotal admfniatrelli'e eipMiaea.— Instruetloiu tor reporting are Ibe Baaie aa abova
In 14.
to. Tbbl <Mt pvr uiL—Cvefillly ebift alt totals In tbe "Amonat" eolnmne, u Well
aa tbe "ptr ion" tolalj la arrlviagaf tbe per ton ogst the calculation abool^ beeaffted
roar place* beyood the decimal
IZa. Sales ban oolen and c»nlra«ta takM pfler lo areellr* dale of eed* prtoaai—
Care ibould be taken to Mgrecate lalet of coal oontracted or told prior to ttib data u
II becomes an- Importaal Item IntbeTtDdy miulred by KRA. Report only coal loaded
on r»nraad car^ banaa, or lonmotlTe teaderi.
17b. Salea Tran order* taken uider code aebadale of prlcea.— PoUcw lostnicUoas
tlvoo In I7a abovctcKMbe cnad« at priou eittblbtiMi under tbe QodA
lo elotage (rail yard* and deckaj.^Reporc (aj bunker eoal. (b) ooal
nyinflfw^np'TiTfrTl'
U «Id bal aonslcDM (o ine
TKAiaar «r bb aceot at i^f) or trai& yards, ildenaier ports, river ports, or lake ports,
and/or at docks beyond tueb pari],
ITd. Caal Id bacUre «nna aad brltnelUM plan Is.— Report ooai traaslerred lo tbeaa
plaatakwl iBdada tbe' amoaat at wblcb ibli tonnace was ealoed. If In (be practloe u»d
by tbe Mmpaoy do t^da wm anlgned to ibL* tonnace um tbe mlnlcnmn code price tor
IM atea tiaioftirTed.
IT*. ,<8triM ai pal^ea M dealer* aad retail caalencn (iad^dlay ba^ eaaB.-r^eporr
onder Uilf ftem alf tonnage delivered to trucks at tbe mine regardlen olwbetber tbe order*
were btfon or after tbe Code {u aet out in iTa and I7b. wbleh Is to be uaed exdoslvely for
car-lot or barge ahlpmenit; also Include local retell opal and bouse coal).
17L Net efaaage In InTenlwy tm this perkMl 'plus or vlana) ^Report In red (T the
tnreatory at tbe pod <i[ tbe t«r1od Is Ims tbaa tbe Inventory at tbe Snt of tbe parlod,
ead Id ase tbe tonnace ajid amount la to r«d tbls lion) tfaoold be subtracted from'Ibe
otber lieini ITa to J7a lb reporting line U,
IS, A*eraae leiw prodaeed to period.— It b desired to know tbe ararag* dally tonnage
prodoooj.and Ubr any reason ttUdlvlslan of Kan 4 by Itatn ) dob not nsult la a nonaal
average dally prodndoi tlgure, not* at tba bottom of this report what b oons)der*il tbe
priatiot-oonnal working-day tonnage.
ais. laber Mpea ae to werfcloa dare.— In ibcae cases la wblob dajly tabor coou are
not coaipated as a pan of tbe aormal icMuoUng practice lor tbe mlaa, Lbe foUowIng
oaabod (er arrtrlog at labor eoeti For workldg dsyt ta aaitgestad:
Subttact tbe total of labor coiu for idle days and Sundays and holidays (Iteui 30b
Plos-Uaot. ao« .a«B tU total Jabor oaet.<ltai& M .
Care (boold be taken tbat eantlaga of SDperrbory and elpncal employee* <ltsia Sd)
BVelTia Rami'Ba, tb, asd'So aw yiup rft y allooated uodOT Items Z)a, Xb, and soa.
' [H). yabnr aKIf ia e to |d|e daisb— ftmiasrtM total acpense fpr 1^ dajs as ibowa on
tbe pay roll or coat sbeets lor reporting aadsr tbb Item.
3DB- Laber e r pe a ei for Sanday* and holMare.— TJm aame InstrartloDS al nsder Xlb
tn lbe edumn beaded "Numbor of Days". Insert tbe number of working dar*. number j
ot Idle days,' aombar of Sttaday* and holiday*, which sbmiid equal on line Xd IIm tatal '
dap ia tbe qonU) for «lit^ UU* r*#«t If madip. Tbla'Wambv of Pay^'abould b^
din^ Into tbe '*ToW Amonal to give tbe "Average per Day.''
tla. 21b. aad 2b.— Instructions nsder 20a. Xb, and 30o will apply to Ibeae Items Where
a coapany does do( ^p a dally mpply east tt)* total SBpply cost tor the mooth sbpoM
betvportad. A a effort should be made » afrtre at the ameoat of ta«r*r eoit and mUs
lOal ssparUely lor Idle daj* aad Bundfysaad tMUdayi. V^Kh uaouot stMuld be sat in
as the MBbuBtS for ilb'uid'Slc. JiHim Vrtrlag at the ooat for power aod mine foal 00
Jdlsdayssod fliiiiiliiii ■ililinil llaaii iiiiisilli mta total npply SSpaas* toarrivtat
total worltlM-dar supply oosi. ThbwfD aartn the saaller mines that do not keep dady
ee«aa*<>Pl4ieaa8d wiH not tUstofbto lifl^ g^at ntaat tbe studl* on soppiy eipaoa*.
THr scsapaBMa thai kasp accarala daOj aapcir expsoses sbuUd rapen the supplT
III fiiSM lar aorklac ttaylt idle day*. and'Snaday* and boUday*.
9837
Form A
MRA Bit. Coal
-557-
PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION COSTS (For Indiridual Mines)
For period , 193 , to 193
FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY FOR EACH ITEM (Sm Kfcrt* ltd* of Ibis form)
1. Numb«r oF daya tipple started
2. Number of working daj's tipple Idle..
8. Number of holidays uid Buodftya
4. Total net tona produced _..
1
TOTAL OOBT
(For mouUi or pvriMl)
AtlOlINT
riBTOK
6. Mivt Labor:
fia. Day men (paid by hour, day, or month) _ ^ _
66. Mining (piece- and day-workers)
I
....
J....
6d. Mine auperviflory and clerical employeoa «
(
t
fl, MiKi Scpplieb:
"
*
U. Total Minb Sopplieb
I
J..-
t
(
8. Otbcb iintm Expekbcb:
E=^
»....
fl. Cbabom Ubdallt on a FixsD Ldmp-Sdm Babib;
9o. Taxea ou raine propeHy and equipment and other taiea In lieu thereof (eioept on unaaalsned acreage). ..
!
II ..
11. Cbarobs Usuallt on a Per Ton Babib:
S
1....
t
1
=
8-...
t....
1....
II
U. Total Sblleno Expenses — Pbb Ton raoy Item 64 (applied to tonnage produced from this mine)
16. Total ADUunaTRATivB Expbhbkb— Per Ton raou Itbu AQ (applied to toanage produced from this mine)
le. Total Coaj P»b Ton (sum of per ton costs of Itama 7, 10, 12, 14, and 16)
>
s
»....
17. Incmjub from Coal Sales— From Thib Minb:
T0N8
AMOUNT
PM TON
s
$_
17/. Net change In Inventory (coal on band and Id transit to scales) for this period (plus
Ig. Total Ihcowb rsoM Coal Salbb (total of 17o to 17^) Tons, same as item 4
s
ff
/ OPERATING DATA
IB. AramAOB Dailt Tom* Pboddobd fob Pbbiod (lt«m 4 divided by It«m 1)_
90. Akaltbis or Total Han Labob (see iostructioos):
30o. Labo' eipeoee for working days
206, lAbor expense for idle days . _-
20c L«bor eipeose for Bundaya and hoUdays_
20d. Total All Mdtb Labor (item 68)....
11. Amaltbib or Total Mora Bupplibs:
Sis. Supply expense for working days.
316. Supply expense for Idle dayt^
31c. Supply expense for Sundays and holldaya^
2\d. Total All Mikb Bdppliu (Item ed)-
X X z
XXX
X X z
X Z X
X X X Z
9837
Form D
HBA. Bit. Coal
-5S»-
NATIONAL RECOVZBY ADMINISTEATION
BITUMINOUS COAL
DO NOT nun
Key Code No
ClAMlfleatloQ
Report for .
. Blae.
Name of reporting compuj .
Address..
I CEBTIFT that this report hu been compiled from the records of this compwv and Is, to the beat
of mj knowledge and belief, trae and correct, tor SMnth of , 19j>...
For.
Qf ■■>» ^ wwripmy)
Form B
NRA Bit. Coal
NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
BITUMINOUS COAL
DO MOT nU. IN
Kay Code No.
CUjaif)o*tloD
SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR EACH OPERATING COMPANY
Covering Operations for all Mines
(MUST B^ rDKNISBBD TO UJ. BDBDITISIONAX. COOB AUTHOUTIBS IN WHICB BUNKS 4KE LOCATED)
60. Total Tonb Peodcced— All Mnrae (Bum ot Item 4)_
fil. Total Tomb Pdbcbased Coal Sols, and Joibbd Coal Hakdlbd .
fi2. Total Tonb Handled— This Pbkiod bt Tbb CoMTAlfT—
63. Sbllinq Cobtb;
63o. Balariee and flxpenow— wJeaman..
63b. CommiBflions paid or Accrued—.
63c. Salaries aod expenses — selUng offieen
S&d- Salariea and expeoaee — olerieal
63«. Rent and oflSce expensea . .
63f. Advertiaiog
63g. Sales taxes
63A. DepreoiatioD — office equipmeot and ftutomobOeL.
63i. All other aeUlng expeniei
Total Sblliko Expsnbbb (Itema B8a to 08O. Vm toniuga ttam 63 «■ divtoor.
66. Aduinisthativb Expenbbb:
66a. Salaries and expenaee — officere —
666. Salaries and expenaeB — olerieal and otbert ..
66c. Office expeoses and reot . .
66d. Legal .
66«. General . .
66/. Depreciation — office equipmeot. __
66^. Corporate taxes.
66*. —
66t. All other administrative expenaea ■■■ — .
M^ Total AouunaTBATirB Extbhsbb (Itema 6Ao to 660. Dse toonage Item 63 •• dlvtaor^
87. Total PaoDucmo Ezpensbs — All Mihbb (total of Items 18). U« tooiuige item 60 h dlviaor „.
68. Total Cost peb Ton — Eaob OpBBATDia Cohpant (sum of per ton Items 64, 60, 67)_
INSTBDCTIONS
Tbfl tmtncOoBa nmlMrad H to K u M i ii|i « < wltk IW It^ i^baw •
0«Bcnl IsBtnictlonL-Thla f
Wbara ft oompkar oom*tm ■ tnla* or — ' —
k, oaplM ol inli ntnra w"
(ul Inclad* any uhoodI 1'
__B lubdlylslaDAl ooJa nr^ oaplM ol imi ntnra wUl tM oeoewr loi moIi
■ubdlvlslooAl code aulboilly Do lul Inclad* Uiy unooDl For lutvut ot otW aplUi
10 Tout lona pntdocvd— All mlEwa.~Rspart Uw totAl Umu|« [Todtund by meh
flompcD; r<«&idlaE« ot fubdlTUlooAl uithorlty boondarla. ThU wUl tw Uw •am <rf
tlsms 4 on Form A (or all miota oF eaeb ooinpAoy.
Bl. Tool loM r — ' ' o*> Mid.— R«patt All t^ puTchuMj eoai told dQjlns tU«
monUi iot vhlcti tb« aipcnM □( Mlllni AOd buidllDi U toclodcd la ItMni U ud U.
63. Total una handled.— This li tb* mm at lUnu SO uid ei Aad li U b* UMd to vtIt*
At ttM MT-toD oo«i ot Mltlnf ad BdmlnlBtrstlTa mjiviMa,
~L nallllw and eipenae*— Salcanen.— Icaluds In thli lUm onlj tb« Mlarln uid
an illiecily oionwied wlib iaIm oI ooaI
MpAld
!• comjiil«loc»» pkld,
K tgtttCf. aboul'l b« rsported ui
paid to company ulumen wbo ara no > rocunUilgQ bwU of ooiDpaCkMUloi
(Sc. BalarlM and apoBM^-SalUiif •fflean.—TtMM ibould Lilduda: Tb* <
•xpenaea of the geaaraJ eiiy:iit1vB oaIm offlcwi, leiMnl uie* tautt, m1«
but oat s&Jeoroen dlrectlr HlUng ooaJ
bSd. SbIatIm and Bipe me*— CIrarlrBl.— Report oolr the cI«i1oa1 npauM
wltb Ibe ruuolEH eiii] [luinAglDg of (aIm oCDom.
at BabI aaa olSn tjpnnaM.— Thtj itkjuld only la<diid« r«U ud office anMDM
dlnoUy oonnoctoil U> adllng eflorU
ffiAdTertiBlaI.— Tbl3 iDCludM edTertlilQt etptnwi. paid or e«nMd. Id oantuMim
the i^e ol coal or ocat urnduat) by eaob oompaoy,
S3«. 8a)e« taica.-Wbsn BCaU Miee Ut )•*• prorlda tbat tbay •baO batnatadMBii
U«m ot ooal. thl* aipenM Ahould ba raportad — *'''* " —
GV. AO oUmt eaAlag anaa
inrldad lot In lum Ue to tl#
TTued. — II iiparatlDg ooropuiy anu(e« a eelllns eommoy
I paid, logeuwr Tltb an j oominiraraa paid to empervuor;
Med UDildr tbls lleni Tbli wiu bJiq Indude oommlnloni
■.— Raport aH otlict Mlllni aipaiiMi nol ■pT"'~"T
rma B. abvn
— Dlrlda total ot lt«D SI by Itam S3 lo UTiTe at tbe p«r-
M. Total aaOlBc enaaaL. __.....
too eo«t of aelUng I'he per-ton ooM iboiild b« cvrlad to tour placai paat tb* dadmal.
Uo aalmrisa ud Piyrnaia OBc— ■— EapontbaMUrtoaofallofflBeo of thaaompany,
aicept u provided tor In lt«in 6tc.
aat SalartM aad aipiiwe Ctm^ AAd o(k«a^-IUpart olwlcal and otlMr axpeni*,
moept MM provided lor Id fi3d aod U ol Ftrm A.
tie. OOoa axveBaea asd raaL—Raport aD offloi npaaeaa mad mt, aioapt at prorldad
for lo 6k-
56^ La^L— RAport all l«oJ enwoaea, paid v eMnwd, lor tba mooUi
Uc. OaDoal.- Report undw tbif Itam npaneea of a raaurrini oatura and not (pwU-
cally clanlflad andw Ma t. t. d, f. aod f Tbi* ttpUon (boold not Induda niadrr
admlnlstraUie arpanae of a DODrfAuTlzit natora, whlob ihould ba tep«M'tad acd« 161.
W [>mwlaiioD— oa<a fqnipnaat.— fiaport dapTMAatloo OB Inoo m a-tAi bula lor iD
fmn^ dOloa and lalca ollloe eqitlpaiant.
bba Cvpgnto taea.— Report MpllAl-atook (ai and ot^w Btaia aorparM* Xttm, b
otn<Uii| Mvafanoa. toanafe, and net-prooaedi talML
UA. BlaDk.— Rapert an* ipadal adinliilMi«tlva axpaiiMe whlob mAy ban oooamd
In this momb, wbiob itaotud ba Mt out dladootly tma otbar fVMnl nlwtnnatlrmi ondv
thli heading.
Ui AB alher aibtlaiamtttoa MvanaB.— Bafiort nndry noRfamnlni orpanaH.
M. l^tal ■l^ialilialin iipiaaaa FlTlli tba total (rf Itam M by tbe tola] ot llam U
p« ton, whlob ahoold ba oarrlad to bui planet past tha dadmAL
ADkIma.— Thiitboaidbatbetumofltam* lion rarm
_ Ia] trcoD ItMD BO, thoald rapnaant tba total ooat par Iod
indiuini tod bj aa^ oompany In thla mcmtb. Tba ps-foo oott ibould ba oairiid
S7. Talal |f*MtM atya— AH Adaaa.— Thll tbocJd b
A and, whd dMdad by tha loUl tram lt«D BO, thocdd n
to pndiulni SON by aaah oompany In this mcmtb. Tba
9S37
Niu aiuocMi
NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
BITUMINODS COAL
DO NOT riLL IN
sjr Cfld. No „
AddrcM _„
1 CBSTirT that this rrporl bu htta compiled from the record! of thli compuiy ud la, b
of my knowledge asd belief, true utd correct, for period of 19)
. Pot
NKA Bit. Coal
NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
BITUMINOUS COAL
DO NOT riLL IN
K»y CodBKo
ClkalSMtloD _™.
LocktloD ol mlng: SUie _
CouBtr-
Fl^_
Cods Aulhortty No SubdWIdoo ood* wilhorltjr bitar Hum of mlniDg dliMM
N>mekoil/or Duijit>er ot «vn(*) vorkad „.._
TbDDBte dlipaa«d of by : I, Truaki or wagooi j. BaOraadi
TypooftnlnB: I, Dmp (•haft, ilope, or drift) j. Strip pit
S. Wktarwaji —
CUb of mluB; 1 All comimreW Q; 3. P»rt comiiMrclA], put opUva Q; t. AU captlv* Q;
C»pll»»— oroedotconlroUad by: (o) PuhUo utiUtr Q; (6) StMl tnd by-product ookla« pUoto tolbor thu pubUa uUUtki) □;
(c) RsUnud Q; (d) Iiulualrial Q; (*) OlW {ipeolfy) .
*^2G^ oVdiyfupX'Sl^,"''"*'^ *"" " ""'" '*^** "" ""^"^ "' ***• <***^ **™*» "" '"'^ '"*'<^ "^
St*l« my «pcoU iMd eoDdltJoQ thkt ittooU produoUoo oo«t or ntarket vklus for tilt period , .
It Ihla tuns L* UMd to r«port on UD>alsa«] or ruarvs m
Number d»y( tipple (tftrlcd Tonnsge pnxluotd b lhl« porloS"
ApproxImBto pcroont «*1 mined by; Scrtpor lokdvn % MobD« Ia»dlD< ^,^.^^^^ ^
DuckbDli % Hacd lotOlaa fMi oooTaron
PllH^r iMden % H»nd IokUdc
ToUl aTCTM" thlekM« ol M>m Inahe*; draw iblo Ineh..; total putlov li
DATA ON HAN-HOUBS OF PIBCB WOBEERS
1ft)
work bMii, report tlie total mao-bo
figuroi report in column t-)
Id IhoM rnw In which ■ <«nipacy doc* not
piecorork bkiu trul dot4 malctaln k record ol lim
Id detail under column <4i Uie method uml id n
dkta •uppli«) cannot he nwd l( data irporlod
kwp ■ record of time rptnl of ISt Jact
t tpmt in 1A« iHiiw. report tha total man
)llectlD| the data ai teportoj below. 1
)T mining,
hour, of tl
loading cmployBc* on a
□■. and loading cmployi
mplo,«. ID oSumn lii
total man-hour* ftgurea sren
computed
n a mlDS eut
ranoolomlD
ontraoM baali. ikaft bottom to •haft bot
tombaali, orumo
other baaU.
tJjSr"
IN-aoITM
SIS'
■fe-
-^».o.„.„o.
RDINQ Tm«
OCCUPATION
?
<D
Tot«L„
INSTBUCTIONS
—The
particular ftudy I* dedred at tbii Ume. The \M of ocvupatloa* (da'
pared by your Code Authority Id cooperatloo with the Aomlnlatrallon,
, ^ '^5** oarnioge and employment InlormaUoD for employee Id Unapedfled Inalde day ocoupatlone (eicludlng miperrlaorT. toehalcaL or
Clerical jorkers, or U>0Dagi9 workc™ paid by the day) »bould be reported under Itemi (t) and III, and the daU for employeei In uoapectBed
outaido dav occopatlooa (eieludlne iupcrvuory, technical, or elerlcall .hoiild be reported under Itemi (o) and (p) In ctaMlTyiu ai betnen
ijp«»cdi«l iruide •killed and unAlllL-d day men, place all employe- «« rcyor Jl.n rpu^fi^ «cupn/,U# who rT^l.TrritT^wl toTS
^"iS '"IV "",'''*™ "' brakeman r«le in the -other eklllcd ■^iaatlflcatioL aod all other un»pcclfiod employee. In the "other u oak Qled-
sUrS?*™™ 1° t^e «•« of outwde day men. place aU employee, not rtparltd in tpMjS^d «™p<U«™ who receive a rate equal U> or higher
akSid"^GSflSu ***"■ °' "' "'^'*" '" *■" """' •''"'«' claauflcatlDB and all other employee* not reported Ld the "other un-
Id thoMi iDrtancea In which day men are .olermlttontly ahllted from one day group to an<
oecopatloii Id which they-worked the greater number ol daya In Ibe cawi of plooeworkori who
"^ r nlngi ol theac employee* ahould bo reported in Lhcir oormal tjjniuife oocupatlon.
hour* aad U
Calnmu 1. 31, and it — "Nnmber of men eamlnf pay dnrlol period.*'— Report In
pay period reported. Any men who were oo the pay roll but who bad no «rolng»»hDu.
ColDana I and 4T~"Riie per day-"— Report the rate per 6-hour day paid the men under Ibe i-arloua clamQcatloi
n only Ibo m
[■ during
worked."— Report In thi. colun
I worked."— Report In thli colui
n effect .peeify the rale
ColDDDi 1 and 4t— -Tolal ma
CoDTBTt fiacUonal day* into equlv.
CMvmiiB t and U— "Total mai
CahuBu S. n. and Sft— "Total aamlnga."—
Colamna * to lU asd SI to Mo— "Namher
■bocld be carefully oompUed and a croai addition ahould equal thi
Celnnaa II, II, U. U. and CT
Sunday, or holiday, do ool
n the actual man-dayi worked,
m the total man-hour, aiitually
Itas 105— "S*parri»H7
•batlre mine employee*. '
a M-"Tolal
I ma ot the Scurc* In the« column, .hould equal the tola! pay roll.
man who worked In tUa p.y pcrisd."— The luformalion reported bi tbe*e column*
iBD on pay roll under each occupational claariBcatloD.
If* werkini force. "—Id reporting the working foroe on a normal working day Idle day
hr. ,»_ .,T.r,i„.».< on .peeuJ Job*
id elCTlcaL"^rndBr thi. dedgnattnTj report maoagera, i
onployee., olerki, (tenograpber.. bookkeepera. and oti
,. ^ , ^ , a."— Coder "Mhilog. cutting, aad loading labor" (Item lOT) iiae tho following r^ (or determiolng
the number of rtarl* lot employ™, on a tonnage bad*. When a tonnan worker ha* bem eredlled with two or more car. on the bulletin
(ot an y day 11 dwuld be eonjidwed a. a .Urt To theae .lart* •hould be added the thlfla performed at day Ubor by IhiM! num.
Catamaa a and *>— "T»lal aQ Mmlag*. ladodfag yardage aad dwdwarfc."- In tbae column* ahould be repor1»l the total amount
T TT'^Z^i.i l"^^, *",.''" '™,* '^'' " 1"™""' '*^. ""i 'or the purpoK of thU rtudy It 1> dedred to haie the eammg* to, yardage
S anlnT^ luiJudod In the total aanitagi. The "yardage and deadwork oarnln**". however, diould be reported Kiparate^ hi colu^
n/ tfcS^illT V **, ^T'f^^T "' ■•" •*"" aaminM Id Ud* »«y pOTlod ware."- TW. .hould be arrired at from the total aamLng*
Of tbc ncD and not what tbey drew alter deducbon*. la othai word., growearalng baai* ebould be uwd.
^- i.-,'?",?:!^'"'^?"^"*, — '^— f eoal."^In Uiom oaae* In which maehlna loader* do iDtermltteat piecework, clarify ibem ■*
^^^!S°" !^^ -^oiploye- who both cut and load coa] ondar the oocupatlon In which they gel thSr greater <»li^.
"" ;5f?..^'^^M '^•^y—yoiiB IhH dtsliaatlao report all plecpworker. who normaUy comprtae a mechanical load-
lag crew. Dojim Mport thOBB emtloyee* elwwhere.
jDTt the combined bade rale* for cutter* aad culler*'
paid by the day who normally comprlae a mechaoleal
— Under thi. dodgnatloD rtpori all m
ol report tlMBB employee* alaewh«rw.
d g^^'T m a l ■ h o mtl a Mgm 'Ufcy: mMMi^—Xa the pay ran period jsiiint each >mni np.. .i—n i who. (a any rT!a«m
. .. , "^"2 . ^tij^. J"^ ."• "»"*''l« *" l^. "d •-'ID to each employeTtbe number of hour* h* could ban
a be been pr™ent_ Report ts tM. column the total man-hour* abacntcelam for each otcupaUonal claMiScation.
,J^??_l?7LT"'f? .ff"*"^"^" (*»*?W*«") -CouDl each employe. In thk group ab«int -ho. for an/ r»»oD whalever,
— I -u . _. 1 the total of «uch man^tarta tor
whatever, failed to report fi
I* avaUahle to him. Consider Mch ab*enc« .
u* group
983;
EMrLOYMIi^Nr AND EARKING!? INI'ORMATION~a'or iDdiridu&I Mines)
"' ' ^""^ For Period „ ,193 , to
n
»H nnra 1^ IT (kU (n 1
(RM un w CODC kmratm. ff Dunun
~T il
Kwi^i/fLtlt
.v.«^™., ^-.^»,^. [....„...,„».
N,m.M: m >!» «RUt> W .iKI** pm* •«.--
^ !
'
1 r..^
(4i IB
1
. _ Is. . ..L. .J
1
b«...[li«n
m \ 7n
(10) 1 (11) j mu
(1»)
...
ll*J
1
(18,1 (W!
ar,
OS)
KS
uau
MM
Ctl)
(Ml
m
lOI
laik.a dar naa:
—
t_L..
]
i... —
E
■~;
1
.. _...L
lI" ■""■
[::;:::z2:.l-:-
]
....
i.. ,
/. -„
—
.....
~'
.z:
t
—
;■;
...
.
.,._
. -- ._
.. .--'-- -^-
1
_J
[ _.L .
h-
. .
!
J- -U
H
*"
:.„::„:::[:„ .;
"1
„..t._
,J.
-- :
, i ]...
.:::;:::;: ::::::"■ .::;.
...J_....j...
—
._.
1 ...
■"
i
J
1"
f. Other kUlled
(. Ottw UMktll«l „ _
Inaldo d.7 maB-Totnl „
—
*■
... .!
.."t:.::.
1
.-..
_..
—
I X
z :, :::;::.:i;:. x:-.:
1
■- ^
1U3
,..'....... ........i...lt:...
L
'
1
2..
103
OntaliU dir Bon:
1-4:: r-i-
1
11
1
h ^
!
L..
......
- i-
J- •,--■ v--^
1
zrl..-
......1... .-.:;
■—
z_..._....r .
J
r~
1 r ; 1
L.
I...,u, .....^l:..?
:":: ::::
1.... ,_.^^ 1 _
L.:r-ir-'
...-U.-,
_...
/. 1
r
....,
h. .—-,
_ ., .. :,
1
:rt::rEf
■•■-
._ 1 j J.
—
-
:::::
....
J.
.
..: .,
p„i
— ■
~._.
—
.
1
i
r:,..i:::::_:
.....
-■1
r
""
:__.:.t::::.-:-
...__L.J.....
_ "...-
.
z ". :~
±A „„
z~
^
;::.. p"
r~ _'
"'"
::.. , -.:..;;;!z:i: x;:::
,,
L... ,1. l__ ■ . „..„ L. ..L li L...L...iL ...
r
—■3
..I ;
: j
,EfSS,
... - L.-.L _!._.: 1
:zr::rzr":::
f
llK
OuUld*! iij Bai»-Tatat..^
i.-
t^-...
.,:n._..i™r.,r.:.:...:i:!}.:...i_.::
n L_ I......
,
lOS
SnpeiiliurT "Xd derteaJ:
f^ I \ I n-^i~T r
„....n._. .! _
i !
;.. Su.fc'-e. icrjudi'ig mlna uSirp -
\l}^':l[h-^:-ll±±±±:--'—^^
....:,: :..c.;;.i.::."i::;;;.;i.:_.j-v!;;-.
1 .. : . ' . II..
.... j-.-.-~j.- .,^,.— .
=
!,..!. ^i 1 ii ^r L .»
— •• — -' '= — = —
KUJBiH « aw, ■!« ■njBPio I1.ll e.» (-hd ««-
r""T" ""
•sons^^
1 . iwiM ran
1 1 11,
. 1 1
; on ' «) j (an
'Ml
1
111) Wll
NOUd
Sas,
107 ' Minlaf. cdiUbi nod *o*dln| bhot i.tn pifce- 1
wnrkbuU): 9
o. WeicmlnuM --t™ j.
h. Loiden—iuBehiiii-fit <•« 1 i 1.
. . - ... .J
1 1
1
n::::r::..[..__
,
i
J_.X.. .■_.
.__!..... .. ......
. 1. ..(.. 1
108
!._._. J... ■ ......_ .1.1 .L...
.....
i .L... _ 1...
„.l '....
: i.
i
' ..' « !...' ...L..J -l-....i
ToUl ml«liK. <Tilli"r, mnd towlloi Ubor.l 1 « ^ B 1 L_.
l. ..:.L..
;,.._J^-_ix.l..; 1. L-.i
[ 1
''N»n..«j| i
v.Ml.U h .m'jh»t*u.intu?».i.fdiiw»pijinr
.0. X^^^T"
XuahK i< UNO -hMD anlm U UU ny iKT^imr-
'
1 <M) I rtVJ uw i (4f Ij W H i«l 1 'Wi j <«« i (Ml
>M) ! (Mj i^Kiiy [in (W)
(m;
KS
(•))
1
SIS
(M)
Ml»t
lOAl
lOe ' CilUnlkad loidlaiLibsr (ondarrUV): | |
.1 .. 1
I ,
"\ i' " "
\ !
1
1
L L..
1..... ■ ■
'
r
1
....
....... ,..
j "" """"T"
..„
! L .._
rf r,.tt«.' hoi»». ) l! E
1 " !
"I T r -
no
111
""i-^
-,.---1 .,
1..^
"i7
-T--,-— -r-l— ^^h
'="■
i
Total (llcna IDI, 101, IDS. lOB, 1101 .,
--
X ,
v^..
TT
tr:
i~
u.
L...
fTT
' u.iirnrczrrr
d'C~]~~
9837
-561-
sidered as a start. To these starts should te added the shifts
perfomed at dr.7 labor hj- these men."
Tills basis for -liian-starts was not entirely sitisfactoiy, in part
"because of the difference in tlie size of mine-cars in use among the
many nines, rr^nging all the wa^- from sli";litly under a ton up to 4 tons.
No fijiUre of average capacity of mine cars ras availahlce though report-
ing over a period could have developed such a figure, which could have
"been applied to the man-start measuxement so as to "bring a'bout su"bstan*-
tial unix'orriiit.)',
A straggle ensued to reconcile the different vie\-;points and pro-
duce a mcji-start "basis accepta"ble to the ixidustrj-, so that the report-
ing of Form C data could continue through a period of months sufficient
to esta"blisl'i scojid relationships.
On Jiil;^ 5, 1934, Tr. Willard E, Hotciilciss vras appointed to direct
a special studj- of wage differentials existing among the various bit-
uminous coal fields. Pr^ Hotchkiss rendered a rei:iort as of l\fovember
30, 1934, T.iiich clearly set forth the historj'^ of the attempt to adjust
Form C to raeet fne divergent s,ttitudes to'.Tard the man-sta,rt basis; the
follov:ing is quoted from his r^^port:
"During the time immedis.tely following my appointment a
revieu was r.ade of previous studies of wage rates and diff-
erentials* Later on efforts to assist in removing obstacles
in the way of carrying out the current statistical program
ha.ve given fiequ.ent occasion to consider existing different-
ials; but in the absence of compp^rable operating figures under
existing wag-:- scales it has not been possible to proceed with
the study which I was scheduled to direct.
"Those rho hoped for direct benefits from the study were
na,turally disappointed that no stuL^' was made. But even if a
stuo^" had established a theoretical case for adjustments on
October first, it is doubtful to what extent it would have
been possible to malce such adjustments; revising an unexpired
wage agreement presents serious diljiiculties.
"Viewing the bit-ominous Code in the large, the harm resulting
froa failure to secure facts upon which to base a study of diff-
erentials consists chiefly in delaying the time when improved
procedure in meeting issues, whether by negotiations cr otherwise,
cen become effective, Uhile some of the Code Authorities have
collected operating data, for their particular subdivisions, these
are without official sanction, and doubtless it is now too late
to secure da.ta from the whole industry on any approved schedule
so as to perrait c'necking and comparison between fields in time
to be available for the forthcoming negotiations, From the stand-
point of the interest "hich IT,H,A. obviously-- has in the Bitum.inous
Code, lack of official statistics to guide these negotiations is
"unfortvuiate.
9837
-562-
"Fe-ilure to adept a rchediile for securi;\~ current
operating statistic \:as orotislit r^jout "by disar:ree-
nent between operators a.nd v/as confined to Schedule
C (Earnin.'is) and specifically to the definition of
nan-start ^/ithin tha.t schedv.le.
"Since the nunoer of hou.rs A7or];ed "by piece ^rorhers
is not universallj'- recorded, it i? inpossible to
secure accurate fir-ares of hourly ea-rninrs of piece
norhers throughout the indu.stry, Lachin,':; a record of
the hours ■■.'oihed, the nearest practicable approach to
accurac'v ha-s "been souf;ht oy dividin.-j the total piece
\-'orl: earninys for each nine anc' cla-ss of piece ','orhers
into the totPl n-U'.i'^^er of starts r.iade "b-- the -Torlzers in
question. Literally'-, a nan-start is a case in 'vhicJi a
nan oeyins '~'or:: on any da.y, irrespective o-" the nuin"ber
The Ditnuinout' Coal Section suy^ested a "basis of 3 tons of coal or
one car of coal on the tipple sheet. "This definition vas seriously
challen£;ed b" sor.ie of the operators on the fjround that nixing; cars and
tons introduced an inconyrous elenent into the sta.tistics and also on
the grounc that cars -Tere of different sizes in different nines and
fields," says tlie report, -"iich proceeds:
"Controversj'- over the definition of a nan-start nas
confined in the nain to the Eastern fields --hich con-
stitute Division Ivanber One under the 3itu:.iinous Code.
This Code ha.s no national code a.uthorit;', but operates
throuyli divisional and sub-divisional code a.uthorities.
Division Ittufoer One, conprisinfj t"ne inportant fiel6.s of
Ohio, Pennsylvania and T/est "Vir^^inia, and also the other
Eastern Eielf.s to the south of Ohio and Pennsylvania,
has b:'- far the largest tonna-^e of all the divisions, and
is itself divided into se'^'eral subdivisions -rith si\bdivi-
sional code a,uthoritieE. Issues 'vhich e::tend beyond the
jurisdiction of the subdivisional code a-athorities in
Division IJanber One have been dea-lt irith in a.n ori2;a,niza-
tion knoun a-s the ilorth-South CoT-iission, na-de ^ip of op-
era-tors and representatives of the United iiine TTor]:ers.
"At t"-:e tin.e the issues concerniny Scheoule C developed,
the Pairnont anc. Snoheless fields ha-d -n-ithdravn fron the
llorth— South Co^riission a.nc' Tere therefore not represented
in the deliberations of that body. At a meeting of the
ITorth-South Coi"iniss ion- held in Washington in the niddle
of July, prolori(';;ed discussion vrc.s -"iven to Schedule C and
unaninous decision uas nade to elininate the one- car item
fron the definition of a nan-start, leaving; the definition
nerel;/ as three tons on the tipple sheet.
"Duriny this neetiny, in ';'hich ilr. Serquist and I par-
ticipa-ted, ilr. l^ercuist nade it very clear that the defi-
nition r'as lilrely to neet '^ith opposition on the pa.rt of
the Paimont and Snoheless fields. ITot only did this
9S37
-563-
prove to iDe tae case, bv.t certain lenibers of the Ilorth-
South Conimission v.iio v-ere at . the meetiiii;; and voted for \
the definition late-r .#cund f.ikt it was not acccptal-le to
the operatorr, of t'lei"" diKtrictc-.
"In an effort to compose differences, Mr, BerqiiiGt '
s'C£v;estcd that the eoltuim in the schedi-.le shoeing )na,n-
starts under the three-tor. definition he uavalleled "by
a col-uj^Tn showin;5 man-start? on a so-called 'man-at--v"or]:'.
ha.sis.' Such a colniiin ^YOtild have shovci for oacn mine
and tj--ic of r/orh the :,uinher of case? i:\ whic-h a man
a,ct-i9.1l7 v;ent into the mine. andv'or];ed o'h an;" dib.y,
regardless of the length of time he worhed. To -.ro-
vide* for chochin^, it v/as proponed tmt as.ch mine
should post a list, of all it;- piece .workers ixiDon a sheet
on T-liich there-v/ould he a sq-u$.re for' each working day,
in -.vhich to chec]-: off eaca man v.-lio shot-Jd ' go into the,
mine and work on the day in nucstion. By posting this
list in a conspicuous place v/nere, 'Tdrkerr:. and representa-
tives of the rjiion could ins-iecf it and s-u£';;est necessary
corrections,, i-t. v;as hoped that sifostantial acc-aracy might
he attained, Eov/eve.r, 'operg-tors quite generally rejected
the proposal on .the ground th^t the procedure would he
unfomiliar, that •.the;, necessary provisions for checking
v/ould liave to he .improvised rather hurriedly, and tliat
results would he hi/.hly itnsatisfactory.
"At tnis stage of the proceedings representatives of :ill
the suhdivisions in livision I'wher One v/ere callcc- to
meet at ?/ashington vdth the hope that they would either
reach an agreement or receive, an order from the Adminis-
trator to proceed in accordance wihh a schedule v.-hich he
might designate as the one. to he used. The meeting did
not have this res-alt, out.it was ."ossihle during the dis-
cussion to bring about .an. agreement on the nart of those
fields thii.it had. oh jected to t'le three-ton cefinition to
accept tha,t definition, -provided it was paralleled in the
schedule hy colurms showing (l) tlie n-um.her of starts and
corresponding earnings . eliminated uider the three-ton
definition, -nd (3) the n-urr.her of one-car starts.
"In a conference which lucssrs. :Berqaist, hllis and Hotch-
kiss held trith representatives of the operators in Central
and Western Pennsylvania and Ohio on August 22, 1934, the
solution of the rmn-start problem, just m.entioncd, was ac-
liTLowledgei to be statisticplly soimd, hut the possibility
tha,t --revious commitments might prevent the data from being
use^ imp>artially as hetv/eeii tl'ie several fields was given as
a reason for declining • t? -proceed on tne basis indicated.
"I took the ^usitlon at t.iat time, whic. I still hold,
tx^at no agent of the Government could h^ve intentionally
promised to m^lce adjustments following statistical studies,
except such as the findings indicated to be fair and jusi
between all interested parties. As for tne f ut-jrc , the
50
9357
-554-
force whicn aathenticated statistical data may havp upon
adjastraents between fields will rest upon the merits of the
case, as shoijvn oy the facts when tney "become available.
"Any one familiar with the setting in which this issue
of a man-start developed could scarcely believe tnat a simple
statistical item of this sort, even with the ghost of a vague
commitment in tne background, would hold up the program of a
whole industry and an importaut arm of the United States Gov-
errjifnt. Historically, the question may perhaps be dismissed
with the statem-^nt that it was doubtless an item in the
'horse trading' frequently incident to important negotiations.
In case N.'^.A. had decided uDon a schedule taat was statis-
tically defensible and embodied it in an order to the industry
it seems n^robable tnat the special study and the regular work
of the bituminous coal unit would have gone ahead as aplanned.
"Looking ahead it is unthinkable that an industry confronted
with the hazards that surround bituminous coal mining will con-
tinue to throw over a constructive urogram of fact finding be-
cause of a single item on one sb-iedule, even were the issue as
contentious as the extraordinary proceedings of the past summer
have made the definition of a man-start ap'oear. The questions
which the industry and the Recovery Administration have to face
in respect to research must certainly be answered on thie merits.
If the results of research are to be used as a guide for indus-
trial oclicy and ttie settlement of contentious issues in this
industry, it is highly essential that prompt means be foijnd for
advancing a suitable research program,
"Considcrinfb, the fact that coal is an exhaustible natural
resource concerning which there was a strong urge for a defi-
nite national policy long before N.E.A. , it appears reasonable
to supoose that the Sit'ominous Code will be near the top of
the list of those likely to be continued beyond June 15, 1935.
It also ap'oears improbable that current misgivings about price
fixing and regulation of production will lead to any sudden
abandonment of governmental efforts to cooperate with
members of tne industry- employers and workers — to safe-
guard the approaches to stability which the Code has developed.
"Although tae necessity of a national policy in respect to
coal is almost universally recognized, there is available
no adequate body of information upon which to base more
than the general outlines of such a policy.
"The tentative character of the suggestions made by
members of the industry in recent conferences indicates
that they are by no means in agreement concerning the
lines along which future policy should be drawn. The
subject is one to which a great deal of study will need
to be given, arid facts that have already come to light
9837
-565-
in the analysis oi u.?,ta collected last year show con-
clusively thj.t tlie roven\ient or. its pait can scarcely
corra-:iit itself for any considero'ble -^nerioC-, in resv^ect
at least zo ;vi.-ice and "Toducfcion co;'t;.-61, except on
.the basis of reasonably crn^Tlete and continuous st.-itis-
tical infoDTiation,
"The fact tivat the industry is almost conipletely union-
ized m?j:es it especially important tiiat the C-overninent
should be at all tines in the possession of data to justify
any policy it may underwrite .in which the consuiaers of coal
ha.ve any significant interest. Obviously, there are few
policies connected v'ith any •■-iro^ram of stabilization in
wliich consimiers are not interested,
"With the Governraent facing rroblems of, the nagiiitude and
importance of t?iose here -ujider discu-ssion, it is unforttm-
ate that t"ie statistical v;ork vipon v/hich the whole ■•■'ro^ram
was intended to rest, sho\ild ha.ve been interrupted during
the crucial six months period j^ist ended. The members of
the industry v;ho "nave eyoressed solicitude for continuing
the bituninous Code jiave greater direct interests in the
statistic-il program th.an any other group. They are in
general as intelligent a group of leaders as will be found
in any of the industries with which the Recove-'y Adminis-
tration has maintained contacts during the past year and
a .-lalf . It is very doubtful whether any responsible leaders
in the industry will e:q:)ect the C-overnment to continue
present policies or embark': upon new policies which involve
the UL^derv^ritin■^ of price structiires and distribution quotas
v/ithout resting action u,oon the most complete statistical
inf orraation.
"These leaders should be equally ready to recognize tliat
informcotion concerning the earnings of xvorlrers is abso-
lutely indispensable as a basis for any program of stabili-
zation. This is es"->ecially the case because of the high
percentage of total v-lue of "roduct re-L-iresented by the cost
of labor. Also it is important becaiise of the wide geograph-
ical distribution of the industry and tlie consequent import-
ance of adjusting wage differentials, if any, so tiiat em-
ployment and earni-^gs, as well as profitable operation will
be distributed in some fair way between the different local
;-roi5-)s v/ho are entitled to sliare the opTortunities that this
incus try affords,
"Prom all these points of view, it would o,ppear tliat one
ot the first questions to be raised in any conference v/ith
operators looking toward the continiaance of the 3it-uminous
Code should be the question of proceeding at the earliest
possible date with the work of collecting authentic current
statistics,
"Obviously, it is pertinent to the dr;-,fting of any aew
policy to go over the whole st.atistical program, item by item,
9837
-566-
to determine whether there a,re any point s at which it can te
simplified and vriac'e less ex'.iensive. Any s^ich scrutiny,
however, should proceed entirel-' on the lerits of the
items scrutinized in relation to the whole program and
vdthout reference to the question whether one item or
another would reveal facts favorahle or unfavorahlc to
partlc\ilar areas in connection with negotiations or ad-
rrjin.ir-trative decisions. There can he no sound argur.ient
against basing policy a'nd acunini strati on upon the "host
9837
"567-
?orm D - Analysis of Income from All Goal Sales: The price-
fixing provisions of the lj.'A..i.. Code for Bituminous Coal suggested natu-
rally a means for checking realiz.-^tion from sales against average costs
as reflected by Forms A and 3. "Form D was t o furnish this means. The
tons shiiDTDed o.urin-^ e^ch nonth, to ech different -crice zone, of each
different size and xDro'^-ir- tion of co 1 '•■mg reiDorted separately, "'ith
separate columns for the tonnage shipped , g-^lnst contrrcts made prior to
the Code, tonnage ship-oed against orders received after the Code became
effective. nd the ;verag: r>.:-ali?ation from all. In order to balance the
reDort agi-inst total tonnage iDroduced during the month, items for inven-
tory tons and valuation 'irere also orovided, with the same separation
betrreen that part ■ reserved against pre-Code contracts and that available
for a-oplication on Code-price business.
3y projecting all the tonnage ship-oed to a Code-price basis,
the influence of the pre-Code contract shipments could be ascertained.
This renort form ouickly became inadenuate as the items multi-
plied on the Code-price lists. Esoecially did the early adoption of
"mai-ket are'S"by some of the im-oortant subdivisional code authorities,
with a schedule of -orices on the same coals set at different levels for
the different mar-cets, necessitate the addition of many items beyond the
line caT)£city of this alread-r very detailed form. This market-area idea
spread ro.pic.ly and aJTter the llovember and December 1933 reioorts had been
made the industry representatives voted their disaoproval of continuing
Form D.
Such detailed re:-orting by items, under the exceedingly compli-
cated price-list structure thrt grew until the January 1935 Code price
list of the Division I subdivisions listed some 28,0'^0 price items, is
adraittedly very burdensome, nevertheless it is highly desirable that the
industry : nd gov^i'nment know corrently dui'ing ?? ny price-fixing xseriod the
details of all shioments -sxid -or ices.
7orm D was discontinued after December 1933. Its oossibilities
were perhaps not fairly exs.rained. Obviously ny regulated price fixing
;inder Governmentr 1 ausrjices must be surrounded ' ith every arecaution
against c'-'use. Besides se* ving tis a check on violations or subterfuge as
to orice, however, the form offered other vitally important analytical
data, sucn f s:
(1*^ Breakdown of total tonnage tjr sizes.
(2'' Breakdown of shipments by market zones.
Both of these types of data are vital to a sound esti-
mate of the average retiorn ver ton on all coal when
it is by law or regula,tion required to be related to
or apriroximate a definite standard, such as cost.
(3) prompt reflexion of shifts in demand for respective
sizes and t-rpes of 'oreoarations ; "ithin a market zone
or ranong such zones.
98S7
nhj. Bi:. rn«r
-56s-
NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
Bm'MINOtS COAI.
I iK> NOT nu. m
IKftf CodaSV ■ . ,
ClMklB»U03
Bcfdrtfer
NuM of repoctiAf
[ CSBTiTT tkai tlili report hu btm toDipH^ Pram ih« rvnrdi «f Mm MOtpuy asd b. to the best
•f my kaowledf e kod brllcf, true ud correct, (ot tbe period of „ . IM
aim><f«>MMMi
Fwro D
KRA Bit. OOMl
NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION
BITUMINOUS COAL
DO NOT riLL IN
Ke» C«Jb Ni ^
Clu«IBfaUbi>
Stnr ol m
„.... 3. Walanrijr* .
Cod« AuUiontT No, SubdJvUlao «od* Kilhurit]- loliw
N«a>«iuiU«r ouabai or muu!«) worked __.._ .., ,,.' , ,. __ __.™
Tmiuc* dl«pOMd of ty: 1. TriKka cr v**'"* —•—■'— ^—-'^■"- 3- lUUtOtd* .».- _.—
Type ot mlM; I. V>mp (ditft, «lop«, or Jrifl) _ 3. Bltlp pit
CUMofmlnK 1, AUftoausn'U Q; a. Part commorol*!, part t«pUv« £3' ^- AU»ptlr<>Q;
CkpU*o— ewDad or conlratM by; (a) Public ulUlt)- Cj; I'M Sl«il wid by-prodiivl coklns planU (other th»n public ulUltir.0 Q;
(el IUJnM.1 □; n/> In.lu«(ri>l Q; (.) OUint («pMlry) _ _
Ai«n«a nulpul pw worklnt d«y {ir1.elh«r odi or mofo ulil.'tj a" wotlcwl) — „ _ oat ten* (total tdotUf* for period divlda'! by
Mimbtt of daj-i Uppln alArtcdt.
State mat fpacul \oeti condtUoc that afftota pr«<lu«U'in Mil ornoiarket valiolar Uiu perloil ....
^
if thli font la uiai t« raport on uDaMlaoad or rtatn* a^roaaa. onta ban ..„ ,
Kumbar dayi tippk itartcd ToDiuif « ptuduved Iri tbu pariod .
Appraxluala pcroaol coal mlocd by: Scraper loadu* ,, ., % Moblla loaillcit 'ox-liiixr
DuckbUla ,._■■_■. , % tlaaJ loldlo; dec oooveyoni
nt-uai loadMi „ ?; itaod loadme
Total vnnst OMansm of imb >- IaUm; 0/ * date .__^ .,... Unhm; total parUDfi . . .
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The puriMaa vt thli ram la to prorldo tb* Cede Authority acd tbt Adtoluirtnitor *1*^ infunoattoo
toib>)« vbathvT tb« mlDlmum pifoea autborucd bain baan naUiad In- tb«al*e* ahlpped Jurlog tlift partod,
alio ai a gatdt tor the Cwfe Autbonty to arrivloi at fair prica ard for tlis AdmluUtntor In apiimvlnic tikoac
pricoi. The (orra ihcn Ihn realliatioa tor that portion of the roal lL*o<r«d and iblppcd di.rlcg tbe moatL
«hkh applied OQ orders and crnUacta takro before Uie eflacUrv data of U>e fodo prlcci: and that lavilinj
and ahippe-i (Qbapquef t to eflectlve dala of approved code prim durui( tlie fnooUi. P^ Ul-lng the Ioit-
sa(Oi>f eafb of th« alf« »l<t a*!!! iiuttiplylac each P.- the mlnlEQum code price In aScet durluf IJie mon'h.
loo theoieUcal return (mm Um aali* cf ooal (had all aalw b*i» loada at cod* prioee) luay be det«rmU.ed,
Compartaoo or trie actual ia1« rraliutluo with tbe prrclucUoD coal a< oompllod lt\iiD F^rm A ■'ill ladliutlt
vbetbei ttB prlns approted under (.be code aiv adequate to Mvrr the cod of produoUoD. blJ li a'.tov a
maTBin to: capital cbarya and return oa iuTratmeDt.
In TvportiDi Iha toQ&age of each aUoaold, apeelfy (a) the toIlLac■^ and tiiearlual an'l avenge rrMjUation
paU id thai portion of the coal lorolMd and ablppad durini tLc montli wUcli agipliRl od orde** aou
oootiacta takeabeforalfaeeSeoUradatoaftbeeadaprlow.atuI (bj the toawHteand thr, pncea tor that i>uTtlou
of Boal involoed and alilpped during the monUi vUoh applied on ordon and oootraau oatored late elDea tba
effoclUedatoDf tbeootleprlen In thoae *p7-lal CMoe Id which Uiaappn>vi>d pnee* fnr a Kleeo alii va/y
Id accordasra vrlUi ualurc uf uae (doincalk'', ileaiu, br-triiJi'et, %tt, tlr:,, ctt In ncoordanoi> wlUi feocrapb-
kcol ■ooeo, t^o tODDa^ea sold it thev »p;cla] prleea diouli; \hi G1<»■*1^' 'njiratad an£ thn eilesdons made
at Uieapprvvrd epccial pnrra. If aul^i^ent np^i* Lro not pro v'Jn] on tlietcna, attach Mfaedule* (bow'.iiK
the uomplrle detaUx luiulnd on the forni. (II rouvuiloiil. attain ueoeuary adilUcral I't^nna from your
Code Authonly.) Fcr ih^iiiWLl* ou onion ta>rn anil eonlraol' made al 'arlour prii« levcli under tom-
mltaient* p.-lor tc O.r eSooUve date of tUe cede prku, It vrLL aioet the Adminfitrator'a iwedi If tbe total
ixAluauoQ and tnc aversK* rtaltiatlou t'lr tli< tptiAtitiij >o ah.pped a>v reported b; alroi /c *o<A u» flut
»> luT'i ai (pnUfled in nolunio 'i.
Tbo toUoiHig j;>«ciuiiji Mluiiraloa tbe toeltaod ot lUllnii In yoRu D, llio dlatnloitlon (or Ii:inp coal
•how* tl'eopplleatloD'iI Ihn coal lodlflercat riuteint iiaafor 'ftlilrli ilMB.-tf:it piiu* ate provided :u ajoe nl
the apprfvod phce liita: Ihe ngg and (tovo Area Are abi'ti~a aa ^narbolvi] :l d'B^iwt Kacera,)lilca- ion» (or
ablch dlUrrvot ^tdn pricu am oittbUahed '.i tone of the apiiroi^Ml prioe ll>t>. The ifirf* given io the
epeclmen arn purely bypolbetlraJ. Tho>' an iDdlcaterJ only t.. vir's ai a ciili^e, UlbltlBtinji lUu metbifd lo
be foil owed IB preparlLj tono D.
h. Ea»om9ieir»,
raMft
Ufk)
Sciaa
\MA
...*!j».».I
3ooo fl
..fiP9
.if-"
1*^- %a/.M.
'/[fx r«i
139
t\ir
.JS«'«Bp.. i_
._.M«3!. j:^
n
C NffTomRmq*.
~.%'f,.'-'ji fiomtJfatJittjlui.t.
\atf-)
\ 3o
^■coo I-.-, |/|jr». [ /Pfo_
toU
10
■tiP..\ jjua«««.
.^ffipo^
g
^soot>o [ f3«yjiULJj t yjj| ^^oy*qjLl / » i\y¥\ /?v^gs[^
/ga^ »•€» \/CO \ Soaoa SI iS'o |^
DETAILED INSTEUCTIONS
Cataaa I. — Report rfia ihJppad. Dcalinale by Incbea ind lift laixw dlaeo^ioe flnrt.
CataaaZ-^WlMa more than ooaprica rot the nme (lie baa beroapproTfdbr the A<lmlalalrat«t. either
liiiaiii '£ the natvte of tha bualnew on mtiMt add or the ■•ocraphica) uina Ir.lA vUeh ahtppei padfy
Uwae ila^ i of bosacH In roloma 3
Cetama 1. — Report lotal net tooaeblpped dortac Ihe nkoallt lp(*-code and pnel-eoda aalee eoeblOiHl]
C^tnaa 4-— Tbe purpoae of thli cvluno I* l» rtio* th* pert* otaci d tack riae oWalMd bj ecwecltn
Tbe diTiacr M thrrrfoee t^ tota! produetloa «f aereered rixaa plua aenaDlav^ «adiidi«« Mrei#Al aHee run
of the (Ilea aa elaalfled In enldoiD !, the total
ivtrace :«aliulioa pe- Ion, and tbe actual uct
Ji the effcct>>e date o( code pr.ona lo eoUmna
er eomiollcienla iRaile aubaequaot to the cods
eehadule of prieaa fa ooluotna 6, A, and T report for cael
actual realliatkio br/ert 4M>uli»4 (eainiuunu, the ftcluol
' ina(« c4 all eoal ahlpprd uoder rommltnienu mulp prior
b, V, and 10 (lee tbe almdar data tor all r>al anippcd uo
achcdule of prlcMa.
Colamna II aad 11. -lo columo 11 aboa aftual leellutl'io auj In toluma 14 otlmalad realllatlor,
Kfert dadiiainf roMMiinau, for all r«al •hlpT'.l, prr-oode and pul-eod* aalet Ooisbtned.
CaloBB tS.--Tbc prtcM rrpurlad In ihli cclunio ahould bo thow aprirored by (ha Ad.-nL>i>trator for
eaeh of tbe atiee aod claaena of aiite •pwlSr'l lu colun^o 3. Tte prirea ahould be raporlad tcr each dia or
claaalA<atir>a oT alii alilpped dgrlni th* inontU,
la ■•« aealtaMa an lkl« tars, aKaeb a4dlllaeal aebedalaa fletoc Ike derir«4 laferMatlea
9S37
FormD
NRA. Bit. Co*]
-569-
ANALYSIS OF INCOME FROM ALL COAL SALES
INDIVIDUAL MINE REPORT
lorlude nutroad. riT«r. and truck shipmenU, tnnsrer to compuj pbats nuBaftkctarlng prodacts of coal, local aales and mine fuel — Exclude purchased coal
For period _ _ , lU , lo_ _,_ _ 193
rOLLOW ntSTBCCnONS CASBrinXI fob bach ITBH (Sm ntww •»• ar Uih r«r4
■~5?fS~Ss'
m
■5?
iemii OWH Ruuunoi BDOu Du-vmao CeiriuuKiin
an
"^
■m
•>—" — iawasa— — ■"
saa^isvasrssKfair-
W+flB
»uJS^U
n>wwM.fcr
(« 1 (SI
en
m
m
(101
at}
(It)
».-. 1 .>_,
f^UD
Ntttou
Ugut
p*(«
AawBl
F>lM
rauD
ABHnl
A. Ima.
,
-
—
— .
B. Bod OB Bmtb,
1
„..
-
C itvtomVMiQM.
" '
_
.
_
.
.
■*rirfbiteitf>«Bai>).
h-
1
■■
a ll0Mra> Mm Bm,
—
:;■■ _
■"" "
J. BiuiOKT Mm Kn.
K. Totu. LnoKB.
U AsB tvnvTWT AT Bas ov
1
. :. :: ..._."i
-
B. TwAL a ph> U],
(
(
O. Ij^ 1»i*»iu»i at Baa»
na« or P«na« MM«.
'
-
.
_
_
'
naoorrnioa.
Q. Nit PmoBveiioB tbis
PnUM^BtOMp).
9b37
-570-
An adaot.-;tion of fhis form in such manner as to groiy;, itomtj ^-^^
minimize the detail could nno snould, it. is br-lipv-d, be a regular re--
quir-^ment. It fills or cm be revised uo fill a v ry notic^ablp lack in
available bituminous coal data. A-Sujriin^; a continued int-rest in if not
actual regulation of bitu.r.inous coal niiidng, one of th- outstanding gans
in current data uas b--n tr.at of aistributlon details. It is suggested
tuat th" followin,-, d- ta snould d- ciirx-ntly ^rovio'e; to the ^ro'ier govern-
mental agency by all bituminous coal min"s:
(1) Tons sniiT^ed, by sizes, by markpt ar^as.Fsnd by
s.-.ecial use class-s vndca r-present customary
"trie- cla.ssif icati jns .
(2) lotal r-Mlization in dollars received for each such
se-Darat^ item, inclusive of commissions to selling
agents and/or wholesalers;
(3) Snowing of commissions allowed »ach selling agent,
wtiolf^saler, '-tc., listing tons ship-oed on each com-
mission basis.
(^) Br^rkdown of sniDments betw--=en "contract" and "s-oot",
with r^ilization on eacn.
A* System of :-:'andlin^ Reports : The 24 headquarter offices of Sub-
divisional Code Authorities functioned as field statistical imits at the
outset. Later, by Code Amendment 4, approved November 5, 1934, each Code
Autaority was dir--^ct^dto set un a statistical bureau, under a manager, to
receive and sumn.arizp tirie monthly re^iorts.
All reporting forms were submitted to the various Code Authori-
ties and others for criticism ^nd suggestions. The forms were tnen printed
and distributed in quantity to each Subdivisional Cod" Authority, for ^
distribution in quadruplicate to -ach known mining iperation in their re-
spective territories. One of the 4 copies v/as for the mine to use as a
worksneet , one was to toe r-t^^in-d by the reporting mine in its submitted
form, and two to be fil-d witu th-- Cod=' Authority. The Cod'^ Authority
Was to retain one copy and fonvard a cora^olete set of all reports to the
Bituminous Coal Section of Research and Planning, N.E.A.
Mine identification on all forms and tn.bulations therefrom was
by a cod- number, tne key to v/nicn was held confidential witnout exceptipn
GO far as the Bituminous Coal Section of N.E.A. was concerned. Positive
identific tion by narae and address was nrovided on each form by a perforated
tab v/hich vas detached oy the Code Autnority before mailing to N.R.A.
Accor.r anying the st>t of mine reports for each renorting period
the Coce Authority submitted a columnar listing of the data (on standard
tabular forms called "plates") it°m by item and min^ by mine, with totals
and averages for each subarea, v;ithin th-^ subdivision.
Tne editing ann statistical staff of the Bituminous Coal S'^-ction
verified all computations on these plates, <=dited the detailed items and
entries for mistakes, eliminated obvious distortions and recapitulated the
9837
-571-
subaren totals by Subdivisions and Divisions, from which reca ^i tulation
summaries w^re ur-narpd for nublication.
Uniformity of st-itistic-;! tre^tm nt in the Cod^ Autnority offices
v/as insurpd by circulariz--d bull'^cin sprvice, au-^m'^nted by s-'v^ral rpgional
mpi^tingis C'lled and '^tt^ndvd by ?. E. Berquist, who ex')lain'"-d every ste^
and, by question ^nd ansv/er method, unified the understanding of statistical
bureau heads.
3 . gditinfi, Recau tulation and Summ arizing;
A trained staff was '^stablishe ■ in the Bituminous Coal
Section, under the immediate direction of qualified nroject supervisors':
Production and Distribution d' ta (Forms and B) under Lf:wis F., Bond; Em-
oloyraent and Eirning data (Foi-m C) under Waldo E. Fisher; ^nd Sales pLeal-
ization dr>ta unn^r Ellery B. Gordon.
'i
Tue work n^tur-illy divid-d itself into editing, tabulation,
recapitul-tiiig, and sumranrizing. Competent assistants under the project
supervisors wer^ res-nonsibl^- for the ord'-rly, 'accurate, ^d s-needy handling
of the flow of Vi'ork: Production and Distribution costs, Mrs. Eva A. Pugh;
Employment and Earnings data, fuss Chnrlotte /arner and Mrs. Hazel Davies;
Sales Realization -lata, Carl Gnam. Every posting, ev-iy com-outation, every
correction was checked for accur.'^cy oefore passing on to the nexc sten.
C. Editing the Individual Mine Figures
1 . Atypical Qpeiations Excluied from -final Sxommaries ;
Distorting elements wer-^ ear-fully avoided. It was necessary to edit the
individual mine figures very carefully, under d"^ tailed instructions fur-
nished the ^.::itorial staffs for tn>=-ir guidanc-^ with res-nect to each of
tna reporting forms. Tlie bases for exclusion from summaries were gener-
ally as follows, vdth special cases decided by th- supervisor in charge;
(a) Captive min-s (those owned by and producing for con-
sumers of coal, such as a st^el -olant, public utility, or Isrger manufact-
ur-^r) , It is obvious that some normal factors in costs may bp either al-
together elioiinat^i (such as selling expense) or be on a basis that de-
stroys tneir strict comnarability v.ith coramprcial operations (such as the
administrative pxiensp), Sucn mines as report'-d oart of their loroduction
•••carjtive" and nart commercial v^ere included if as much as 40 per cent wf
output was sold commercially, unl-ss the costs themselves were such as to
ma.terially distort the averages. It should oe noted that many of th^ most
important cat)tive O'oerr.tions ma/e no re orts on Form A, but, under a
STjecial agr-e^ent , reported theii' respective coal operations individually
by companies. The r^norts so made were g-nemlly not on couventional Form
A and v/ould not have been usable in the summaries; they also were often
9ub.;.itted as consolidat'^d reports for all the mines o-oerj'ted by the same
consuming intei^st without segregation as between Code districts or Suo-
divisions.
(b) Small mines reiDorting an average output less than
150 tons a day for th^ d^ys or)erate:i during the montn, w^re excluded.
Many such min^s suomittpd v-^ry unsatisfactory reports, incomplete and ob-
9837
-572-
viously made up from inadequatp records. A few exce-.^tions- vRrp made in
cases vnere, by including a small mine whose renort was otaerwise usable,
a grouD of 3 mines could oe cormol'^ted and thus avoid disclosing the iden-
tity of particular mines. -■ .
(c) Disclosures avoided ! In order to avoid disclosure
of -ij^riiv 3 ri-uoi mi no figurps, in no ca.se were figures -ouDlisned for a grouu
ri less than 3 minca.
(d) XilS3J-X^i'^.i6i^A-D.aA''l' Het)Orcs incon.-olete as to essen-
tial items or l;-cking in a whole group of items (for example, on i'prm A,
items 5d ■- Mlno P^nvcw xr-ory ana Clerical; ^a. - All SupTjlies except -oower
and neat; 8a and 8b - Mine office rent and salaries; 9d - Denriciation;
11a and lie - Eoyaltieb and Depletion; 14 - Selling; 16 - Administration)
were excluded from summaries. The absence of any on^ of these items was
not necessarily decisive; if comparison of a_n items indicated taat one
or more of those missing wns nrobaoly included in anotner item, and the
tonnage influence of tne mino on th° average of Mie grouo v.'as not dis-
torting, the report was tabulated. Exaniple, on Form C, mines were elim-
inated which did not re-)crt data for all ohe major occupational groupings
of 102, 104, 108 or 110. '■iiien dealing \<ix,n individual mine rer)orts sched-
ules had to be eliminated if essential information such as man-days and
man-hours and distribution had been omitted. Similar practice was followed
in editing all th<= ""orms.
(e) Distorting Fac tors: 'hen a mine reported on Form
A such extremely high costs or extremely low costs, as obviously to re-
present a definitely .iistnrting influence in the averages for the group,
it was excluded. For example, if a roaucing cost of .18. 00 or $10.00 per
ton appeared in a group which ranged from HI. 25 to jiS.OO per ton for
varying numbers of tipple fitarts, such mine was excluded from the summary.
A truck mine (or one which re-oortcd sidn dng by truck mor^ than 50 per
cent of its production) was excluded if its realization from sales appeared
CO include cost of trucking as well as thp cost of production, since the
average realization shown on siimmaries represents f.o.b. mine sales.
Similar practice was followed in editing Form C. ■ .
(f) §A^liJI Rijie^ Were excluded from the tabulations for
deep mines, but were included in Special Strip Mine Summaries when a suf-
ficient number reported to make it possible witnout disclosure of indivi-
dual figures(3 or more mines). Beginning with the Summaries .for April,
1934, through January, 1935, deep and stri-":! mines were combined in the
summaries released covering the Illinois and Indiana Subdivisions.
2. Mi-^Ang Forms_ A_aiid_B_: Immediately after the receipt
from the Subdivisional Code Authority "office and "check-in" of a month's
mine schedules or tabulations on plates, they were examined for "elimina«
tions" . The basis for eliminating or excluding certain mines from tab-
ulations was as aoove described. Tne r^-maining mine figures on Form A
were then edited oy checidng tn^^ Selling and Administrative Expense costs
per ton against those shov/n on Form 3 for the same mine.
In editing Form A, the total costs reported for selling
and for administration ,iere reconciled witn the corresiionding Form d items;
9837
thus, the tot°l f^inount suown for cellin*, pxpense on Form 3 for a company
oper^^ing 3 mines must r'^'~.rt:sent the oot'l <^f thpse items as shown on the
3 mine rer^orts. Ordinj^'.rily , the Form 3 selling; ^X'^ense "oer ton wps found
to have been aT)Plied to tne tonnage 'produced oy e.ich of the 3 mines to
arrive at the nine's selling ex-)ense;. in some cases, v/here Form B indicated
a sr-le of coal nurchased, in a dition to that produced in the 3 mines,
the Form B exT)Rnse ier ton WfS MD^olied to e/ ch mine's rcnort on the tonnage
produced. In such cases, of course, the tot^l selling expense of the 3
mines would be less than Form B, Item 5-^,, by the amount of exr)ense incurred
in selling the "purchased" coal at the spjne ner ton cost. Seme exceptions
occurred, v/here th-^ acco-anting system of the r^norting comiDany made a
fine distrioution of th^ actual amount of costs incurred in selling pur-
chased coal. Sometimes also the actual amount of costs for selling the
out-DUt of one mine a-o-neared at a different rate from that allocated to
another mine operated by tne same company. In such cases, the total of
'the amoun-os' of sellin^: costs shown on .the individual Form A mine reports
was cnecked as correct if it equaled the Form B item for total selling
cost .
The next editing ste-i involved a mine-for-mine ccmrarison of
costs Der ton with tnose of the preceaing monta, to detect vmusual costs
ajid account for them. The following items- were psnecially scrutinized:
* 5d - Mine Su-^^ervisory 10 - Total Fiicd Charges
be - Total IviineLaDor 11a.- Royalties
• ■ 6d - Total Mine Supplies lie - Depletion
* 9a - Taxes 14 - Selling Expenses
* 9d - Depr"ciation . ■ . * iD - Administrative Expense
" *. These might reasonably run about the same from month to
•month as to airiount , differing in cost ner ton dependent
* -on the tons oroduced.
Cnecking for In consistencies ; Other normal agreements and rel.a-
tionshins among items were c-^irefully verified as were subtotal nestings,,
comnutations and- tot.als.
In some cases serious inconsistencies could be accounted for by
corres-Dondence; a very few were found wnich nroved to be --^i typical Vidth
distorting influence on the groun totals and averages, and these mines
were excluded from taoulation. Notes were made of any marked changes in
the average Der ton of any imoort^nt item; each book or volume of nuo-
lisned summaries cont-iins nages of such explanatory notf
-.PR
The last stetj in editing a montn's material for one Subdivision
was to submit to the chief editor all
1. ^lates (itemized by mines, in tabular form).
2. I>-ine re-oorts.
3. List of mine reiorts excluoed, with reasons in each
case. As to those excluded on account of essential
data missing, sctipdule of item or items missing in
each case.
9837
-574-
•• Special notes explaining -dmisuai divergence frbm pre- ■
vious raontli' s f ii^ures. / ' , ..'.'.
This edited material . was . examined b^' "the chief editor, and on heing
foiind in order, proceeded thrptigh^. the stages of recapitulation "by "areas"
and 3 -.'bdivisions, froBi which the final. Summaries' hy' Suhdivisions and
Divisions were posted, verified, lettered in final form, reverified,
and sent to the G-overnment Printin;-: Office for printing and hinding pre-
liminary to public release.
Editing: Form C: Upon receipt of the individual mine reports or
tabulated plates they were examined, item by item, for those schedules
which had to be eliminated. (See previous discussion for eliminations.)
The following checks \,'ere then made:
1. All items under e,.ch occupational grouping (102, 104, 106,'
108 and llO) were checked for arithmetic accuracy and totaled to get
item 111. The number of men reported in the two frequency distributions
of hours and/or starts and earnings were checked to the men earning pay
during the period,
2. The next step consisted of various checks to determine
the internal consistency of items reported - . ...
a. For each occupation total man-hours were divided by
total man-days to find the hours worked per day.
b. For each occupation, total earnings v;ere divided by
man-days or man-starts and this figure of average
earnings per day or start was checked, against the
hours worked (in the case of day men) and the rate
per day or start reported on the schedule.
c. The distribution of men in the frequency tables under
hours cJ.id enrnings were also checked for consistency
in relation to the total man-hours and total earnings
repo-rted.
The last steps in editing were similar to those described under
Editing Forms A and B .
4. Editin;^ Form H consisted of examination for imcompleteness
and for eliminations of mine reports made on an improper basis or operat-
ing as distortions in the ave'ragee. . Eliminations followed generally the
lines of tho-e en-umerated in prior treatment of "Editing Forms A and B" ,
with application to the realization per ton in place of cost per ton.
D. The summaries were published in four volumes, re-
leased as completed. November 193? data .were first -completed and releas-
ed to be available to the wage conference of January - March 1934. This
volume included more detail, especially .as-, to the labor , data, or Form C
summaries, than the volume prepared for, general distribution and released
October 16, 1934', which contained the. lloyerober 'and December 1933 Statis-
tics. After December 1933, Foi-ms C and D viere dis.eontinued and data
9837
-575-
was available on Forms A and 3 onl"; succeeding releases included there-
fore the cost and realisation data fron these forms onl;'. '-^le monthly
January-Fehruarv-i-.arch 1934 cost stmra;U'ies vera released on October 30,
1934. Although on Januai'y 9, 19r;'3, a volume v/as published releasing
the monthly cost summaries for April-Ma;.--June 1934,. these data were later
made much more representative by tne inclusion of more nine reports, and
this volume should not be used, since revisions appear in the final
volume covering April, 1934, throu,-;h January, 1935, r -■leased in Kay, 1935,
This 10-month volume ^.-as prepared in record time (about five weeks) in
the spring of 1935, particularly to malce the data available to the wage
conference which finally negotiated an agreement after five successive
strike postponements and a strike lastinfi' from Monday September ?3
through Konday September 30.
Iowa reporting discontinued after December 1933, Western JCentucky
after January 1934, and in the final 10-raOntns volume Divisions IV ajid
V :vere not available. Tlie record is complete from ITovember 1933 through
January 1935 for Divisions I, II and III, exclusive of VJestern Kentucky-
and Iowa; representing about 90 per cent of the U. 3. annual production.
From these monthl;'' nnd period suminr.ries have been computed the
charts and tables on cost and realization used in this study; also much
of the material used in the discussion of vra-ies and earnings during the
Code period.
The adoption of ^toendment 1, with increased wages and a 7-hour daj'',
35-hour week, beginning April 1, 1934, established a natural dividing
line. All considerations and comparisons split as of that date.
E. Freguenc" Distribution Taoles
Avere^es are frequently misl-^ading and in any event do not disclose
the full picture. To discover the composition of average figures an
analysis of each Subdivisional monthly summary was made as to cost of
Production, as to Total Cost (incl"uding Selling and Ad^nini stmt ion) and
as to the matrgins between Healization naid Total Cost. The result has
been set up in such form as to show on all three types of frequency
tables, the number of reporting mines which fall in g, ch 10-cent interval,
the tons produced by the interval-group, and its per cent of the total
production of the Subaivision. In the freo^uency tables on production
cost and total cost, there are shov/n in addition the average output
for eech interval -group in tons per day, and its v/eighted avera-se number
of days tipple started. In the tables showing margins per ton (differ-
ence between total cost and realisation) the additional columns for in-
terval groups cover weighted average number of days tipples started,
average output per day, average margin (plus or minus) per ton, percent-
age sold under pre-Code contracts and their aver ge per ton realization,
percentage sold under the Code of schedules of prices and their average
per ton realization.
In all cases, the totals are shovm for the Subdivision at the foot
of the Table.
9837
-576- *
3sm-oles of these frequenc:,' tables apperT for a selected month for
e- ch Subdivision as .Dutlished in the -rf-pril 1934- throu;-5h January 1935
■book.
As an example, take OctolDer 1934 production cost in Eastern SuTd-
division. An examination of summaries discloses that the 160 mines
reporting in this month produced 2,334,250 tons in an aver ge of 15.9
tipple starts, at an average producing cost of $1.8738. But the analyst
wtots to Icnow "between what ranges of cost these mines fell; in what
narrower ranges the majority of the mines fell - also the majority of
the tonnage, and alonjr; what points the hulk-line vrould run. Per contra,
there may he little definite showing of bulk - a fairly even distribu-
tion of mines through a wide range of frequency groujis - and if so, is
the weight in tonnage also viidely discributed, or 2iarrov;ly confined?
To help answre these and many other questions jiertinent to a thought-
ful analysis of' averages, these frequency tables have been prepared for
every Subdivision and every month covered 'oy published Form A summaries.
Below is reproduced the frequency table on Production Cost for
Eastern Subdivision, October 1934. An examination makes clear that a
more vivid picture may be drawn of vmat happened among the mines as to
production cost than could possibly be dravm from the summary averages
alone.
While only a few of these frequency tables have been released in
published form (see "Bituminous Coal Statistics for the period April
1934 'through January 1935"), they have all been available and carefully
considered in this study.
9837
-577-
BITmaiTOUS COAL
Frequency'" Tali!
Le of P?.0
DUCTIOiJ
Division I
Costs
per ton.
Subdivision
Eastern
(I ten
13 from
Form A)
Period Covered Oct-
ter 1934
DEEP
r Ix'ES
llo.
S of
Avg. Out-
Avg. No.
Costs'
of
Tons
Total
Per put per
■Tipple
F
er Ton
mi ne s
Produced
Tons
Amount Ton day
Starts
(under)
.70
.70
.30
.80
.90
.90
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.10
1.20
1.20
1.30
1.30
1.40
2
95,566
4.1
$132,664 1.388 4,851
19.7
1.40
1.50
9
142,490
8.1
206,303 1.448 7,772
18.3
1.50
1.60
11
125,245
5.4
196,082 1.565 6, £98
18.2
1.60
1.70
17
221,007
9.5
365,184 1.652 13,276
16.6
1.70
l.SO
21
371,988
15.9
651,929 1.753 20,664
18.0
1.80
1.90
29
478,849
20.5
882,496 1.843 29,197
16.4
1.90
2.00
17
172,591
7.4
,337,210 1.954 10,854
. 15.9
2.00
2.10
14
215,915
^' 9.2
' 441,653 2.045 13,949
15.5
2.10
2.20
14
215,989
9.3
459,160 2.126 12,556
17.2
2.20
2.30
8
148,159
6.3
329,170 2.222 8,995
16.5
2.30
2.40
5
15,590
.7
37,061 2.377 : 1,009
15.5
2.40
2.50
5
43,249
1.9
106,119 2.454 2,765
15.6
2.50
& Over
10
87,602
3.7
.328,896 2.613 5,258
16.7
Total
160 2
, 334 , 250
100. 0$4, 373, 927 1.874 138,055
16.9
9837
-573-
F . Operating: Costs Fro.jected to Different ^orkin,?; Days Per
i'.ionth
a.
Method of Arriviiy at Cost Per Da;,^ : In addition to the
actual mine costs, the operator was requested to report a hreslcdovm of
lator expense and supply e:;pense between woi-king •daj'^s, idle days and
Sundays and holidays.- Tiiis hreal-cdown made it possihle to get an average
cost per day of labor and supplies for e-ch working day, idle day, and
Sunday and holiday.' 3ie total production in net tons was also ]jut on
' per day basis. , .
b . Projection to Various Numbers of ".7ork-days in Month:
It was desired to discover the best approximation possible to show the
effect on costs had more or fewer working days be; en available during
the period, assuming that all conditioning factors remained the same
as in the rctual cost d' ta. Although the resulting projections to bases
of 12, 14, 15, 18, 20 and 21 days represent the theoretical costfj, a
test projection to the actual days yror^ced indicated in most cases a
sufficiently close approximation to the actual costs to maJce these pro-
jections at least reasonably iindicntive of bhe effect c." days vrorked on
Production Costs. (*)
(*) Per day Items : the outiut per day in tons, labor costs. ■
per day and supply 'cost per day as reported \"ere pro- ■
jected to the desired nuubsr of rays by ra-altiplication.
As the dairs Y/orked in a period increase, production in-,
creases accordingly, so that idle day expense per ton
drops. Sundays "and holidays, of coixrse, remain the same-
in nximber but, as production increases, the cost per ton
drops. •
Lump Sum- Items :■ "Itemj Usually on a Fixed Amoiint Basis"
■ are divided on Form A as follows:
Item 9a - Taxos on I'dne' Prop>erty S: Equipment
9b - Insurance (all Classes except compensation)
9c - Company House Expenses
9d - Dejjreciation
These items are not affected as to their aiTioimt by either
high or lov; production but- stay on practically the same basis
for each month. Tlie total arao-mt of these items is carried
throughout the T:irojection vithotit chani;,e, the cost per ton
decreasing as the days worked, and, therefore, production
increases.
Char^^es Usually on a ?er-Ton Easis:
Item 11a - Royalties paid or accrued
lib - Operators' association dues and assessments
lie - Compensation Insurance (paid or accrued)
lid - Code Authority Serpen se
lie - Depletion
All of these items are usually increased in amoimt by the tons
produced, but the cost per ton is not chanced, Eie projection,
therefore, is first to a one-day total ainoui.t, ^oy multiplication
on the day's tonnage production and from one day's cost the
projection is extended again by raulti' licntion to the various
9837 days worked.
-579-
c. Months Selected for Fro.jections and P.easons ; Tlie montias
of November and December, 193o, May, 19.'34, and January, 1935, were used
as samx-le months for projections. Tiiose three months are very representa-
tive as to number of mines report in.^ and the number of days worked con-
sid'-^riiij: the conditions prevailing': in the industry dui'ing the 15 months
period covered by the cost Forms A ;ind 3. The projections apioear in the
appropriate volumes as published
G . Basic Data Recommended as Essential to full Factual Knovifledv'^e;
At the time the xiituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 was under con-
sideration before its passat^e. the Bituminous Coal Section, on request,
submitted through the Director of Research and Planning, comments on its
various provisions. These comments closeu with the following; recommended
studies: (l) costs of production, sellint^- and administration; (2) realiza-
tion from sales; (3) profits and capital investment; (4) distribution of
i'oal" geographically by both consuming and producing districts; (5) wage
earnings.
It is the reasoned judgrient of the 3it-uminous Coal Unit that these
studies, conducted concurrently, form the minimum factual basis for any
economic program involving bituminous coal, when taken in conjunction
with the statistics "of production, men employed, productivity per man-
day, earnings and other enli -htening data embraced in the continuing re-
cords of the Bureau of l/iines and Bureau of Labor Statistics. The minutiae
of the necessary forms and the periodicity of reporting may well be left
to those who ma;!"- in good time be charged with such studies.
One closing comment cannot be omitted: public interest, to say
nothing of fairness to those operators who so , faithfully cooperate by
submitting their reports without compulsion, would seem to suggest that
any factual reporting seriously undertaken along lines such as those
mentioned should be industrj'-vdde. Omission of a considerable percentage
of the total tonnage representation in any producing area detracts from
the conclusiveness of over-all averages aiid their relationships.
9837
-580,- _
APPaiTIX II. •- SECTION A
Is.r^e Rates ,-' Biti.iminoas Coa.1 Incfastry
An;^ attempt to deal i.'rith the wage problems in an industry requires
a cora-oreliensive and accurate knowledge of the existing wage structure.
The great nuiifoer of occupations covered in the mining of coal; the geo-
logical factors and conditions such as thiclmess of seam, the character
of the coal seam, presence of impurities in the coal; geographical loca-
tion; the economic condition of the industry/; the seasonal demand for
coal; the stor;^ of unionization, etc., have all made the wage problem
■oarticularl-/ acute in' this industry. Ihe wage negotiations occupied a
prominent -jlace in the formulation of the Coal Code and the problem of
finding a solution to the man3^ conflicting interests immediately arose.
The historic: 1 data on wages which were necessary and essential in re-
viewing this problem were not immediately at hand.
For the years 1912 to 1922 Professor Fisher and Dr. Bezanson have
■oresented the story of viage rates in their book, "Wo.ge Eates and 'Jorking
Time in the Bittiminous Coal Industry". Their analysis of the Coal Com-
mission data gives a detailed picture of the rate structure in union,
non-union, and irregular fields. (*) However, in. some cases, in the
union fields, their tables present weighted, average rates for districts
and fields which conceal the nmiber of actual- rates in effect. In the
irregular fields vieighted rates only have been reported and no segregation
was made of the rates under union contract as separate from non-union.
Prior to 1912 and since 1922 no sinnnarization of the wage rate dpta
has been available, (**) Unfort^jnatel:^^, there can be no way to tell the
story for the non-union fields. In this 11 year interval between 1982
and 193S the union lost much of its power and for this "oeriod the scale
of wages paid to the majority of men in the coal industry is not available.
(*) See Appendix tables, Fisher, 'T.S. and Bezanson, A., "Wage Rates and
Working Time in the Bituminous Coal Industry, 1912 to 1922".
Union areas — fields in ^^hich the great majorit;" of ooerators have
maintained affilirtions with the union throughout the entire period,
ITon---ani n ^ir eas — fields which for practical purooaes have resisted
all ef:'orts to'-ards unionization.
Irre-^Lilar areas — fields vfhich hnve operated part of the time on a
union and oart on a non-union basis.
(**) Tlie Biu-eau of Labor Statistics has made biennial surveys of daily
and hourly earnings by states since 1919.
9837
-581-
The -o-or-oose of this study has bean to bring together soae of the
more inportant data on Y;age rates for thcae fields which had a history of
union e.ffilir.tion -^rior to the period of the Bituminous Coal Code. A
complete historj'- of wage rates for fields which worked under contract
with the United i.iine Workers was "lot oossible. For the states of Illi-
nois, IndifJia, Ohio and Western Pennsylvania, it was possible to project
the data back to 1898. For all the other areas, 1912 was chosen as the
starting point. No data are presented for those fields which have come
under uiiion contract since the inaug-urat ion of the Coal Code,
A conprehensive statistical presentation of wage rates and their
analysis and evaluation, with the accompanying problems of wage move-
ments and trends, differentials and employment opportunity was too
tremendous in scope and magnitude to be undertaken. This study must
necessarily^ be -oresented in the form of reference and work material.
The presentation of tables fall into three parts:
1. Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and "Jestern Pennsylvania, (*)
1898 to 1937.
2. The Southwestern Inter'strte Field — Kansas, Missouri,
Arkansas and Oklahoma, 1912 to 1937.
3. Outl^^ing: Districts — Central Pennsylvania, Michigan,
northern West Virginia, Kanawha, West Virginia,, Western
Kentucky, Iowa, Colorado, Northern and Southern Wyoming,
and Montana, (**) 1912 to 1937.
There are other districts and fields which have worked under union
contract at sone time or other dtiring the period 1912 to 1933. These
fields liave been omitted from the study for various reasons but their
omission, with the exception of Washington, does not detract from the
general pictiore, since in all cases, in terms of men involved who were
under contract, they represent a relatively small portion of the indus-
try. These fields were:
1, Western Maryland and U-p-'jer Potomac . This area was under
contract from November 1, 1917 to March 31, 1922. The contract did not
specify a wage scale but was merely a working agreement dealing with em-
ployee rights and s ettleraent of disputes and grievances,
2, New River. We s t Virginia . In 1913 a contract was negotiated
in this field and by 1915 operators representing a large portion of the
field were under union contract. The \mion extended its sphere Of influ—
(*) Western Pennsylvania includes Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler,
G-reene, Lawrence, Mercer and Washington Counties.
(**) Washington was not included as time did not permit the finishing
of this table.
9837
"Ess-
ence during the '-'a.v, rnc" aole to -^aintrin co;itrr.ctual rG''-r.tionG -antil .
1521. The onispion'of this field v.'asnece5:.itr tec. "oecrv.se the r.tes
reported in the c'o ^tracts 'Tere too s' :e''t ch;'*' to iToni a continuous storr,
3, Panhandle. \7 er;t Vii--inia . The vinion had ectahlishec" -rcre
contracts "lith a,' conciderahlo m''.r.)er of operators 07 1'12, Datr. on '7a';e
rates, lioxrever, 'vere not avriljahle,
U. Crhin Creeh, Ilanarha District, T7est Vir:-:inia . A r:-ouj of
op^^i-ators had a contrr.ct f ro'i 1S13 ^0 IC'22,
5. Coal Paver, "Jert Vir' . l-iia. Union -r.incd r:co:'nition in
1313 s.n6. ;aintained contracts until 1^22.
S, Southeastern IIentu.clr' and Tennessee . An o^jerator's esso-
ciation in this arer had a contra,ct fro:i hoveuher 1, Ijl? 'to liarch pi,
15 22. Ou.tside this association vere several co:ipa-ies, the Palls
fjranch Coal Conpanp and the "Joolrid^e-Jellico Coal Co;poanp, ^^hich opera-
ted under union contract iron l'S12 to 132:^; and the Tracy City Srrnch
of the llashville, Chattanoopa anc" St, Lnuis Zr.ilroa'." , -h.ich had a con-
tract fron 1S20 to 1522. ' '' ' ^ ' '
7. Alajxpia. A lar^je part of this .''ield -'as under contract
for the period Pa:^ I5, 1;:13 to Parch 3I, 1\20, The ua, ;c rates reported
could not he used ps the:;-",'ere in ter :s' of a flat increase over the pre-
vious scale '-'hich \7as un^ :no"n.
0. Ter.as. A fe-: 'unes In this fielc --rere under union
contract. , ■
3. Horth Dr.P'ota . A coal operator's a,ssociation in this
a.ree. had a contract in I3IS' ^-''^^'- ^-920.
It ^'as rlso found necessary to liviit the study to certrin "basic
occupations in an a-ttcn^ot to recuce the -'orl: of collectinp and tahu-
latinp. The occu:oations selected '^'ere: ,• : '
Day 7a.pe Ite-tes :
1. Tracbnen — representin;: the skilled Inside
day ■'•'a;^;e scale. (*) ■ . . . ,
2. Ou-tside Go -ion Lahor — re---rc''.enti.nf; unsh-illed
laoor ou.tside tho -line.
Tonnape Pates
1. richnininp'
2. Loading after ..p.chines
3. llachine cuttin;' ■ -
(*) The rates :^or traclzien in sone instances are sli(:;htly hi :;her than
other occupp.tions co;ionl;'- ]:no'''n as the Inside s^tilled group. This is
true in hichigan, iiontana and for the earlier years in the Central
Con'oetitive field.
S::37
-583-
In addition to the alDove occvLpc?.tion5, rates for :ir.chine cutters and
helpers vrcre alco rcvr.Qrted for tliose areas '.'here the practice of pa;_'in£;
raachine ctitterr. oy the fry instead o" the ton •.■ar prevr'lent and since
152s the scale for lechrnicv.l lotdinr occu:r,tions ^-ac sho'-n for those
areas r-hich reported these cata.
In Illinois rnc. Ohio it '.ras nccessa "7 to further li-.it the study
to just those ra-i-es for the 'ba.sin"; points, Danville, and Hochin"; Valley,
respectively. It '-as inpossihle to 'tIiot rll themtes in effect in the
nan"" suhdistricts. 7or e:c"^rple., the Illinois contract for the '"ears
lSP-0 to 1522 reports 35 rrtes for pich lininf: in the nine suhdistricts
and Ohio had approrciiatcl:/ I5 suhdistricts '"ith as lany rates. The
r>a...\e prohleii of selectinjy essential data v/as also tn?.e for the South-
••estern Inter- -"'tatc Tield. Here it •■'as the practice to report not onl"*
rates for fieldc hut rates for individual lines -'hich in sone instances
ni^ht lern as lany as 50 different rates for one occ^vpation, The
procedure follo'Ted \ias to report only those rates "fhich wovild he ?icplied
generally to an entire field.
The story of collectiv harf^ainin^^, va;;e ne;;;otiations and lahor
disputes, a necessar;/' corollary to these tahles, has already oeen
covered in f;reat detail in Chapter IV, Section A. Reference to this
section vill set the jac!:cround and ciYC the deta,iled picture necessary
in follo-Tin;;j" the -'a^je rate t?-oles.
on"? 7
58U
JLP?Ei^E)IX III
zii'u:;iirous coal industry z3P0-IT
The materiel in tiis r.ppendix relates to
"Costs, ?epli::r,tion r.nd Ilargins" "by .nonth-G, fron November 1533
through January 1535" I't comprises hasic naterirl covered in Chapter 6.
9S3T
BliquillOIJS COAl. IBPUSTBI
0S5
UBLt 1
lt,l»0I8. IgPIABA.
?BIO. WISTIHI PIMSSTLTllIA
HwiTly Mid D»tU *•«• Il*t»« for Tf«k»M*'l«9B to 1957
r.
L 1 NO 1 Ji
Indiana A- Xmd.ama Brazil Bloc>^
Om 10
WfSTEKN P»~M5VLVANIA |
Yt»>
PfMOO OF Was*
C.T^ OF
J-O.WT
rMTfiHiTTHTI
roNreRBMC€
Hours
V\AlRKFD
her
<1ay
Al..
Y.A«
FrnioD OR Wacp
ACRCC>t»NT
Ail
YCAR
Fe H 1 « r Va a f
ASRer^e*jT
Hock, MS
Vallty
rtAR
PtRloo OP WacE"
Afine E A1EN T
All
DrSTBlCTS
RATS HATC
RATf SaTC
RATB RATE
RAT6 RAT*
lilt
A^«,(//W-/*l. !/,/«»
CoLO^BOS
J»8
/.»«
/87<
firm.1, IfH-riAA-'l.lltl
.}38
/.1o
/8W
A TAl.lW-fl/". 3(1199
.731
l9o
lt9S
AfAl.im-MAA il.1199
.33s
1.90
itn
Am ('Wf-/r<<i J/, /foo
n TTs ewi««H
23S
/.»o
I«<t9
ArA.I. lS99-MA,L3t,f9e'C
isl
190
/«»7
A'aJ. IS99-n^A.H /foo
33t
no
/«77
Afa I,l911-/^AA 31.1900
.738
.»'
If
Am /, Hk-Mah 31. Ilol
XnOIAMAPOLI
.IIS
jaj
(foo
Arit.l, l'IIK.f\'.'3l,l9lil
.US
771
/7»o
Ar«./, t9oO- /lAA..3f.l9ol
.7IS
771
1900
AfK.t, I9oo- rfAR 31. l9o 1
.Tie
2.J8
IV
AmLltfi-ffi^Hn'^
CoL«*iBua
.Its
;i»
;fo/
Ar-i.na-nAAHnoi
.?»«
7.^
/f«/
AfK.tl9ol-llAR.3l.ne2
2,S
77t
IVtl
Apa.1, nol- f'K 3I,I9c2
■ats
77S
ifi
Am/.lfti- /f'f^3(if'}
X».D.A^A.«U.
■7 It
^78
/7eJ
A'iKi,ifa- Hf,iK.3i, )»o3
.«»s
130
l9'7
APA.I.I90^-hAA..3l,l9ci
.Its
771
It07
AfA.l.l9o7- riAR7l.no3
.7SS
3.3«
i<m
Ant CI9ti- //<«,»/, /»»</
Ih(».*.a»ou
■ 33o
^«
/7o3
AfA i,noj- MAK.3i,rwi .310
7Sb
/7o3
AfR./,l*.3-/J»».3/,/W
320
ZSC
(7o3
Ap»t/7»3- l1'"^3t.l9oH
,31c
3,«
no*
Ar».l,l1BV- ffAA.H'foi
[•^OlAMA^OLi:
.3o3
?*a
/«>«
^l,r.tlfl>V-,f»'3l,l9l!t
3«3
7.17
/♦w
Ara</7o«-«aa 5/,/»«t
.303
J.«3
/»*
Ar A 1. 1901- r/AA 31.190),
.30J
avi
not
Arm l.lfl>t-/1''it 31,1^1
.»o
.irt
/r<>«
Ar^.l, mb-tp^Kil, /frt .310
7S6
(ro&
ApR/./Mf AR,3((?«S
.3J0
7 Si
/»>«
AfA.1, 1906' //A f.3l.t foS
.324
.if^
ii>t
A»«.t Iter- rtAK-31, /fic
Tei-coo
SB*A««T> Am
L
.Me
x*<
/?o8
AfaI,I9oS flAK.31111.
.920
3 Si
imi
AfA.i,i9oi-nAAti, 1910
.320
7S6
/f»«
Afm 1.1908- fiAn 31.1910
.330
a^s6
llic
Ami, 19k- 1a «. 31, 1913.
.3J«
7.70
/»/»
Atjs.t.nto- Ai-K f,l9l7
.938
710
1910
AfAl.i9K-nA.ii3i.i9n
.331
370
I9IO
AfA 1, 1910- ^AA 3t.l9l7
■ 93g
X7o
If IX
A >«.//»«- /^li'Ji! 'f/V
Xnpiana^ui
.3«-
J'W
19a
Arit.l.l?'^- lptK.}l,l1lt
.3iS
T-iH-
1917
AfA.1,1913- nA/L3l.i9i*
3SS
3Sf
I9IX
ApA/,l1l7-ftAA 31191*
■sss
ifK
If 11
AriL/,lfl^/ft„.>l.lflt
.gt;^s^.
*
.its
a«
I9lf
Af,t.iiril/-HAr.Hltli
.3Sf
'1*
Ifl*
T„,.^ IS.I91I- llAK3l.l9li
.3fS-
7 It
191*
AfA 1,1919- nAA.3l.ni6
.3SS
XH
il'i-
*" 1, IVl- I'^'.H KIlS
New Y«kk
s
.173
278
1916
ArK.1,1916 -fir.R3l. 19/S
.377
7 9«
1916
AfAl,l9lt-/iAA.3l.niS
■ 372
7.9s
1916
AfA i,nit-H'A.ii.nit
37a
39a
"in
A".lt,i<in- H'^i'ti.nit
New York
«
aWo
a<o
nn
Ari<ll,l9n- riAftll, I9i»
.M<i
iie
/tn
AfKli. nn- MnnHHie
.*»
3.&
I9n
f'PA/i. l9i7-lAAll,l9n
./so
3.60
nn
mi
Wa*«.«t«.
AWAHD
New Y«"<
■7/2
■7«
I70
too
nn
nit
I93e
N^^.i. 1917 -^..T^ <^
Ai-A /, f9lS *
Dec.IS.l9l9-rlAK3l.l91'
'&0^f<^M^ A-«A^'
Ar^.(l93e-/rAAdl. /97>
.US
■ 717
■ 7S'
STB
1117
1919
1970
iJEO./o, 1919- liAH 31,191
Ahr.l, I970.nn'3l,'9^
.i7S
■ 717
-7ft)
Soe
4:70
*.oo
nn
191
1930
Ho^. 1,1917- fiAK 3f,'9^
DecJS. 19/9- IIaa.31. /fjt
AfaI, l97e-ffAAti,if7
■as
■717
■ ISO
S^oo
«:*
6..0
/fao
4 K «. /*, /fa* - /f ^ «. J/ /9»
CoLUflBUS
■■m
7«
Ifc
Aus.li.mo- flAA}l,l9;!7
■93S
7 So
I970
Aut li.l97o-f/AA3l,l9n
93t
7.5-0
1170
A„c./(t l97i,-/lAA3il?t; .lit
ISO
/r«
4«*. /<!/?"- yy^A-S/zfaS
Clcv^lano
Xmo.v.vual
8
.73*-
7S0
I97i
Aat.li,l977-/tf.K.3l,l923
.731
7.si
I1A7
Au<i.lt,(Ta.-MAi,Hm3
931
7«
1137
A<,€ It,lp3-/1AAV.I1K ■9)g
ISO
I'm
-
Mew Yon^
8
.i9J
TSo
1713
Ai'i>.l,l9>3-H/tF.3l,l9»'
738
rso^
1973
AfA.t, l<pl3-ffAH.3l,l9y/
.738
Zi-o
1933
AfA.1, nil- fiAii.3i,i9vt
■Its
7 so
iTv)
A/'K /. /fu'/- ^A>L3/.if37
Jack SOW v.tiC
?
»>«
74-0
I971
A^A 1, 1971^ fiAK.-il,l9r}\.1il
7S^
Hat
Tuiri6,1i1-'^AA.3i,i]n
.758
7"
IIU
AfA./,iti^-/lAf.3i,ifn
738
ZS-o
fl»i
5e^T liJf^8'/lAK.3l,l?3Z
?
163
<-/5
IVH
Wo/</«?S-«<« 31,19311
.■)6l
610
I97S
1/
5crr.l,l97S-nAA3l. 1930
«r
.J«o
Ilit
19 ii
8
.7«
.7153
</»
i It,
1130
1931
Apr l,lf3o-HAA3l.r»l
Aaa ,. I9il- ffAA ji./VJ.
.Til
7"
..*"
..,^
193c
ini
No rl - ur^ 10 ry
I930
IftI
Al Al - U/1 fON
tl
IfU
Au^JC,/f3^-AfAm.U f9»9
8
.«f
S.oo
1137
%PT./Oil937- I^AK 31, /93i
.S73
H.S&
1937
1931
t/
ArH.1, /933' /fAmJSl. /fjg
iHoui CaAt. Cooe
S
!
7
■7/*'
1133
a, re
liMCtJi CoAt. CooF
S72
,573
«^7f
«/7i-
/?33_S)»f Iiirt3- 'o„T,i.^_
STATe ASACt^teiT iaka'
BiTUf1iN09S Coal Caoc
l933\0cr.3.i933-flAA.3il9vl
AMENOAirMT 1
.J7r
.7/4'
3.3S
4«<0
Sec
ifa
,iiMaf3 Coal Cofi€
S7S
7i¥-
Mto
Set,
/93i{OcT.Z lt3i-^AKtl,i93'l
AnfNO»^€^r 1
If33 Ot.t 7, l133-flAH.3l,/93>'
inf
Af^^i, if$4~n^nKi'f3S'
11^^'
4aa /,/f}^/iAf.3/,/r3f
1930
Hff. i,/P''-n*i<H/fis
1934
ApAl,fl34-nAA.3l, ifK
,f>S
0<st:t^ ifys-7r)»A/ j/^ Kfsj
7
7«'
S.so
lft£
tlkCl,/f3S--/!<u/.3/.l<j3J
7^4-
So/r
ips
3lei:./j/^3S-/fiAJ3l,lfi7
.-lei.
s:^o
JJ3S-
(Ca.,,l13S-/^J,,/f37
.78b
S.So
y Sonre*: V^« Costr»cii of Dalt*d Htna lorkan of lOBTlca
2/ lb* •trlkc •>■ offlelkll7 dlacoatlsa«d Dwcaobar LO, 1919. Jiut vlai tbe slaoi ■«» opowd
Is eart&lA fl«lda t( not Ibiovd -- probstiL; Bot it&tU 0»c«Mbflr 15 or lb.
^ &!■ cootr«ei for » laall tr wip of op«rator« — C*atrBJ Ohio Co«I Op«r«^9n JUtoctatloa.
Tba r*«t of Ohio ni opartCLof Baa-ntloa.
^ (Ui eoatrkct for • mbJI gf^ u p of oparatori la Soathm-o Obis.
^ Ibc Pttttb(ffc& Samlcal Cokl Corponilm Had a coatract fflta tbe folloaln^ r=v«a-
Jn* Z3. 19J1 ts Jtsi« 30. 1952 pt.2^ p«r W
J»ly 1. 1952 *o J«n« 30. 19JJ 3-60 ' "
JiOr 1. 1933 Vo Cod* ).U *
a/ BmU Ilo4 nt* >u «2.2S fn* iprll 1. 190I to Octobvr 1. 1901 atid K-Vi frv
Octobw 1, 19CI to Kuch 31. 1902.
U l« coBtactt could ba loc«t^ la tsia jMrlod for Brull Block, thla dlatrlct h«d
bacoaa slaoit antlralj a ttrtp vtalos field.
i/ kruU Hock aad > c«stnct fn* Jal; 1, 1933 - Hmrch 31. 193^ «( 14.575 p«r day
^ StrU* is Oblo froa A?rU 1. ^Ott to Jalj K. 1906 bat Kmm alaaa l»7l^ doud* c
9837
586
TABLX 2
IBPqSTHT — ILI.IBOIS. IHDIAlA- OHIO ^BB IISTIBI flBISTLTA"lA
Hoiirlj aDi EWlT Wo<« E»tos for Outside Conaon Ubor^ 1698 to 1937
I L i. lAI
Ol S
Inomivii <*» iMB'ti^i Awz/t &lom
OH 10
IVESTlTKr/ P^/mtlL-ii'iin 1
ftlK
C/ry cf
//outs
iVottMeo
/,er
'I'l
VlSTHIClS
y«.
?£RIOO o-f nvnoE
/I tEEMEU T
fl^l-
dlSTfllcTS
/M«
flfftioO 0* VV-flCc
RCltSEiiCAIT
HocHina
loLLty
fsAA
p£Rioa of M/ics
/iORECneNT
DiST/ricr s
I>tvnLi <iint.^
ifountl Joit/
ho>*/.-f Jn'i-r
Rmz fUTE
HUTA imre
isn
0^- 1, /I9S- A««. H itn
Coi^Oi BUI
t
i/
/»»«
a^.i,ieit-lwt.3l itn
5/
/m
apti.isig- M''3i,/tn
5/
im
a/»,./, /ill- ilM 31,1111
y
im
<i^l,/Sn- Mm H /foe
Pirrs»uH6H
1
»/
/«■?
a/n. i./m- Mo*- 31. i9co
2/
/S99
a^/,/i19-29<UJ 31, If 00
«/
/r?
a/U./, IS17-/no^. J/ /?oo
^
liae
^tpl/. t. /9ot>- M'^ 31, /lol
hio.^^A^a..
9
i/
I?oo
Ctfi^ 1,1700- Mw. 3/j /fbl
£/
noo
dpin. /, ilbo- AmAt 31, Hoi
i-l
1100
tl/u, 1, /foo-irM.t/, ifel
9d
ItOI
<^/, ifoi-Mwi' I', '9tt
Couunaos
S
.jas-
/■So
i9oi
a^/, lib/- Am. 3/, Ilea.
£/
ilal
a^ 1 Itol-^^V.ilat
iJ
110 1
O/Oitl, irez-^OA.. 3/,/fM
£• ,
lf>-
«)**< I /fo3. -P^itu>. 31, /fo3
X#<B(AWAPa"
S
.aas
/.go
l9o-*
a^.l, IfaS- frioji^/.lfei
J-" ^ /.go*
/So ;.i^i
Hot-
Off. l,l9o7-7?nA,3l. Ifmi
JJ
/9^
a^l.lW- A<"- «(/»'
£/
nis
Ofi^/, ffa3' ^<vi/. 3f, /9oi/-
Zmo.ama'-ou
S
.j-rs
Zo3i
1103
Ofi*. 1, /903- -*icM-3/, 19^1
J S3 s^asi
1903
C^. 1, lloi-^ioA. 3l,/f»%
/llifi.M^
lie 3
t/tiO./,l1e3-M^. 3l,lfe1
^
,t<4
a^ 1, ifi><^- *itof >/, irni
iNa^^HAPfLV.
t
.SJ1
/■I'
llof-
a^/, /loi'.M^^}/, /fsi
339
111
{■9i3ii
I.S3 9/
190^
a^/, 1^1/- *«*. 31, if't
Mfoitao 'S
aJ'A'^e /^3
lief
a^ /, /9e¥- *»»■ 3/, 190I
^
.
I«B,»«*p...rs
a
.SS3
XolS
lift
O/tK/, i?ti- M'^H/f')
US 3
.Jo3
/.«2£/
toisi
■asy
Hoi
a/w 1, i9oi-*n~3l, ifH
.Jf.5-
..If.
l9o6
O/m/, Hoi-AoA. 31, /fog
V
Ilok
OfVil 1, 191)6- l>KJU Sl^lfoS
rN».yp«*^
iloS
apu 1, IloS- *•« 31, Illo
III. f^noe
s
is3
I^OIS
l9ot
Ofi*. 1, /log- hv/- 3/, if/o
J«,
Jo3y
190I
(^. /, t9o6-?Hw.3lj1io
i9S
2.36
/90I
OpA,. / IfigJhK-'.Jf/tlO
5/
191'
<^- 1. '■fio-?ir'^- 31, '91 1-
JTATS A<HH
fl
.Jit
Z.I3
I9/0
Ot/A 1, /f/o-a^/, /9/x
J£i
2.1341
/I/O
OfiA / 1910- ?rwi. 3f,lt/^
.311
2.91
,1,0
a/ui./, if/o- 7?i'u. 3/,i9i3
Iffi
OfiAi. 1, 191 2 - /*!««• 31, If 11^
J«.M^.P..-.
8
3»l
I7f1
I1IX
a^i, tfii-yyioA. 31,191'/
.3lo
231-
1912
a^.i, ip3-)ti^ 31,11'/
.32S
2iZ
1912
Q^. 1, i9ii - /n^Aj si,i?''t
.2Se
3.00
'?/V-
afM.t,iii4- 7rKM.3i, ifii
x&';if?-n
8
.«/
7211
lilt
a/iAi 1, iifi-iDoj/ 31. ii'i'
■2to
2.31^
lint
^u£^is,iti'i-7ii''A,.3i,iie.
■ 32t
2^i2
It/9
a/M 1, Hi'i-znojo 31, ITU
.ZSo
3 00
iVb
0/^. 1, tin -MaV- 31, lilt
/Ve». >&*«
a
■US
i3«
lilt
<yiA) 1, I1li> 'TtJaM 31. 1919
■214
Z3S2
lilt
^^■1, Ifii- y/!aii'^3l,i1ia
■3¥*
2.7s
11/6
//pM/, 1916- TtloAi. 31, I9tt
.363
3./0
i<in
a^. it, Ifit-Tn^.ji, lilt
New r—
.
Ifo
■l.li
lin
Il^.n,i9if- 7/]AJu 3i,i9ig
■«7
21s
1117
0^ li, 1917- nioAfii, 1119
■ "19
3.3S
1I17
<l^. 16, 1917- T/loA/ 21, 1918
■ssa
2.»
'f/7
mi
IliO
?)oii'. t,l9l7~ £^"C< fe ^-
&A APIS to
New itRK
8
.5W
.670
«36
£3<
1111
1130
rjev 1,1917- SZ'^ » "^
0/^ >, Ilia °
/^LO ls,/'^l9-l7JaAi3l,lffa
<3^ ,, "/A - TnoM 31, 1933.
.S4»
.i2o
■HI
*3S
•/■lb
R3S
1911
1919
1130
Nov. 11917- V*— ^r;"'*
re ia^ej^i- I 'tin" f.ji>>
/C^a. io.i9i-f^/^AAi 3l,i9''0
0-^ 1, i-j^jo - TTJam 31, /fii
.SfH
.STt
.-111
lis
SIX
S^IS
/f/7
1919
1120
No/. l,l9l7-/fAR 31,19^
'fko.ls,l9l9-/naAi2l,l1v
0.^.1, 193^ - TnoA, 31, /f *:
.439
I//0
*t7
sie
illo
Om^i4,, l<f^O-)naA^. 31, if^
Ci-ev£t-AMD
g
.tS8
i.ts
1110
Qm^ ■ lk,l93o-7naM. 3l,19ii
■SS6
.tS6
6^SS
^S
.rs
1120
A«4. n,if2o-?n»j'3i, 1911
duo. /t./f<W-^V^ 3l,lfl
■ lot
7.2S
1130
duo.. 1 6, 1920 -//laAi 31,191- ..62K
(■io
lllZ
tua. /6, l<f»Si-)naJU.AI, IfA 3
ST^re Af^t'
I13i
&Mi . It,, I911^-/9»v.3i,'p3
l.ii
mi
<yi\}.l, l<f9.3-hlaM. 31, l<fi.4
/v*^ r*-^
■isa
(Hi
1933
d/Lv. / /f zj -f/hi'V 3t,l9!W
.tit.
1123
dflAJ 1, li^li-TfjlSM 31,19V/
106
7.2s
1123
d^.l, I9i3-7T)AAJ 3l,/fl4
12s
6.60
iii^
<2^. 1, If A 4- >»Ta^ J(, ifi-J
ThcKSamiLij
iss
6ti
1134
0^ iifiJi-TnoM 3i,iiif
■ SSi
6;'i
mt
^4J» l(,.l9->J/-'niOA,3l,l1I
.706
7.2s
nzih
Q^ 1, l-J-Ll- JTH/u 31, 19^1
.t3S
6.60
(fit
Sc^. li,, IfJjR ~Ma^ 31, /yj J
■Jol
S.il
int
Hov.i,K)13-^i>l< 31,1930
.^0
s,^
int
Sc/ot l,l9Zf- iDlw 31, 1930
B/
1921
1930
■ 701
Sil
1930
/ym. 1. 1930-y/jaM 31,1931
■ Too
sA
/930
/VOIM' UIYIO
/
mo
/M r/ - t//v 10 !■/
1111
■loi
S.bl
1131
CL^. 1,1931-yilaM 51, If 31
.Jo.
m
ini
£/
1132
Ou^.io, /ja^ynoA. SI, If 33
.Soa
tf.oo
1932
i-f^ I0.lf3i->y)a^ 31, 193s
as
1,3^
1133
1132
a
I1S3
<3/aJtJ./,/f33->rbxA>. 3/, IfSS-
■ soo
iH>0
1133
S2S-
^3^
1933
.310
3.12
1133
£J
3'TOf,
■ Soo
■ill
ifoo
¥>oo
1933 <i£t A. l933JnaAJ 31,1931
Ali^^D^fENT 1
.Sis
■ioo
*.3C
¥■30
3lTO
li/vous Coal Cooe
.I/so
..S7I
3to
i/.oo
irru
fifjaus Coal. Cook
.9S0
■SII
3.M
9,00
I13i
dXdir A, If 33 - ?f*LV. 31, If 34
1933
Ann
Oct lL,'933-~ln'Ai 3i,lf3i/
lonENT 1
1933
/In,
^ct A, /? JJ- ThiA. SI, If 34
mi
<X^ /, lf34->n<iJJ. 31^ lf3S-
lin d**^', '931^'fnaAI 31, Ifis-
IfSl
t^ /, 1931/- ?»M,, 31,193s
1134
a^.f, If I*- ff^ J/, ifaS
ms
^S^. /, Jpr- ^AAJ.J/^ If37
i'l 3
yjvj
/?3S-
IDtt. 1, ip^-ftliw 31,1937
ill
9 TO
I93f
tSiX:', i93S->nw.3l, I13J
<V3
■/so
1135
<S^ 1, Ifj^- tfxM. 31^ lf3r
.4V3
'/so-
\J Soxirco: !•«• eootr»ct» of the Unltad MlM forkere of iMrlM.
£/ Tl* Btrlke •»! offlclfclly dliconl lnuad Docoober 10, 1919- Jiut »*»«» '>!• »!»•• ••» op»&*^
lo certain field! !• ooi taio«n ~ probably oaX until Decoobar 15 0' lb.
1/ Tile coBtract for a aoall creap of oparmton — Cenlral OClo Coal Operatera laiocUtloa.
The reat of Ohio bbc oparatlne ood^doIob.
hi This contract for a anall gmip of oparatori In Southern Ohio.
5/ The Pltti&urgp TermlDal Coal Corporation had a oootract rttfi the lolloTliiS rate*:
June 23, 19JI to Jwia 30. 195^^ 3-20 Dollar* per day
July 1. 1932 to JT»e JO. 1933 2-56 ' " °
July 1. 1933 to Code 2.80
4/ The onfiloylng of outtlde day laborera around the mine, and wa^et to be paid the aama, ahall
be left entirely to the «nploy*r». and tht- ijueatlon of onlfora wafev for outalde labor be
raferred to the next loteratale Jotat ConTentlon.
■Hl tXl outelde labor now recelTlne $1.50 or a»er be adtanced 20 per C«nt — all raeaWinc lata
tf^nn fi.^ to be sdTanced and th«D adTancad 20 per cent.
t/ Bot reported
4/ On and north of the B. » 0. S. ». Braill Block did not report.
9!)37
1/ ScraUi of Xb» S. i 0. S. V. Br»>ll Blook did oot report.
X/ South of tha B. A 0. S. 1. the m^% ahall ba $1.81i par dar Atb loi easta par day In adAltloft
thereto cotoBehclnx Iprll 1. 1911 afid aach year tbareaftar n&tU the aoala eovth eqB*la thai
oortb of the B. 4 0. S. t,
£j Bo coDtracti could be located la thla period for Brasll Block. Ihla dlitrlot had bacoM alaoat
entirely a atrip nlnlnc field.
b/ roe rata for Sretll Block eas t^.fX.
if SniU filock had a contract from JtUy I. 1933 to Harcb 3I. 1935 at I'l, 20.
j/ Special prices according to nature of eoik.
Jt/ Data not available.
iJ Strike In Ohio froa April 1. 19* to July 18, I906 bul »
g paying daaahda and •DiUnf.
587
n
<
z
<
>
J
y
z
z
i
»» ». 5^ tt
Nil ^o i^ vrt
^ NO ^ l>< NO
N© Irt v,irt
r
£>0
Nb"rt
« Wi V6 :*
iS ^
NOINf) - NON
I
O
IX cs m
S M NS
■;>si« .^
S 2g
NO V^ In
1
1? <?"^
o «o-*
O »« IN
NO
1
N
N p - W M
N.rs
NO
<
z
<
o
2
H
^
K
n; rs M N,
» ^ «>
NO
00
f J
It
[QtJ
r*^ rv rv (^^
v6 'i ^0 vc
so NO N«
!5
>o
"?«! •*
<§?<?
1^ fv ix fs
■« VO Nfi so
Nivi^
!5
>6
)f 5 !0 !!j
^0 >« Mi vi
N0N6>e
^6
■^"^ in w
Hi J. ig
1
« « o o
6i *i »i »L
o«
s§§§
*■ 0^ Oi tf.
III?
»S *- *- Oi
Ob
■ z
-1
M
III?
N NO >^ N©
N<i
5
0<J
i4S
« o o
« « o
N N NO
pi
N.NO No "O
^
Vi
L" c« «;pt
o- s:-
<*>
« « O
K N NO
SNJ) NO 1^
;5
?5 ?S
o o s
o o o
N K NO
s
N-
Nso NoUi
.52
1^
a
S 8§
ir S ,S>
Q CN« ^ r^
r^N^NC <<^
PN
.5
0<i
5" ^
o6
MECHAN I c al
Loading Occupations
in
K
>
>
Ul
u <
O K
< Ul
O 0.
-1 o
<n
ut
Z
I
o
<
c
t
z
f-
<->
or ^
c^ S Ul
t u, « 0.
J 1 Ul -1
?< "; 0. Ul
i u OX
°^ . w
lU Ml Z Z
; ; J i
1 T S S
o a I z
; - < 5
>- t 2 <
= =51
^j ?_) vo ^n
S Ul «
oi ^ I
«, O
Z Z 1- K
i i 11 '^
< < HI -1 Ul
Ul Ul 0. Ul >
tn ^ ^ o:
2 1 u, U^ ^
o o Q 1^ i-u
01
Ul
a
<
_l
J
<
o
Z
<
I
LI
In
-1 ^ CC
< u Ul
S < ° 2
i <^ §
. O - -1
- or
t "^ t <
< Ul < u
q; a «
Ul -1 Ul ^
Q, Ul Q. _
Q X O Ci-
of
n
Ul -1
i Ul
ox
Z ^
O o
J -J
o o
QC
U
?
r
t-
Uj
41
li
z
in
K
4
Uj
U
<
u.
t
z
Ul
^ i
a.
z
<
ill
I o -a
o <a
I i-l |4 T)
t u a u
(=1 » A
5 8-i
o o M '3 H
«4 • --rt ** 3
Jd A ^ O J4
-^ ~a 2» -a
t-
03
(I
'3
M
4
■:'-.
5i JT^
TTT
.^ rrTTTtTTTTT Ts
u u M u n r
11
5 sTTTTTT
5 5 i ; 5 s « ? 5 5 5
rrriTTTTiTTTTT~nTTT
rr rr rr r m^"i"?~^"r r rr
«
TT7
s_^ s ? 5 5 J ? f ^ S I f ^ ?
rrrro"i~rrr3 1 u' rm~r
rTT-rrTTTTTTT
TTT
TTTTTTTTTT
» 1 i n~^"TTT'§T
i \ i i^ t ) tt ] I i I { i I I {
J- s s s s » s i s
i I
yi
i '' ! H H H O H H i' t H f
" ^ * T| i I
£ £
1TTTTT7
x-rl-rrr
I s < if *^
J ;ii
i i i I i i S I I I I i I t il i-^i \ % l^
H M M M I n H ♦' Hj I H
i I J M U U M H ? jf'Jll M U
I?
i I
i I
Li
11
TTTT"IMn i«?-
- \w-
z iiilii
13
H
)!
is
a hii
nu
Inu
m
'"•hit
u
Iff!
■,U\i
iiiii
I i
J! I
Mlf;
i lil ?n^ IIP.
^
-;l'!
TTT-rVYTTTT
JlililUiiUiljJi
u
r
T— r — r
TTTf J. TTT
< H H M
t M M n
44-M444
*: i i: i
i «
TTT^rTTTTTTT
^ -a ;>'»:•
H Is
» * * » »
sijjii )4^»*i.s«
J i
I I .1
I . =s
I til* t
ill!
» »■ s
< i i
4 i I
l^
%
»!
i ' i i » > »
5 t ; J? ^ 3 ? f ^ *
5 * J »i f « '5 ; i <
« f
^ » 5 ? TT"
^ t ^ ? ^ ^
°«;B.S-
* ^ * I £ a £ S £ ? s
? e
: «
M ^ M i g. ^° M I
1 1 ^ M n g n M
3 5 5 5s
ell
"T^ ^
\ t
§ I I
—J — :! — s — 5 — :; — ^
rrTTTTTTTTTT
I s I
g I s
T's~rxTT~TTTTTTT
■^ I* > ? ^
■s~.r
« ^
s g ^
■Hi
■'iU
ii * I
I I 1
^ ? ^
'a 8
-H
a
III!
S S ?• s ; St
i
9 ft
il 1 1 U I j 1 J ] I I H U
1 1 M H ! ! H M H 1 1 i !
J
.1 5 I
1 1 M n 1 1 1 1 1 1
t^ ("■ *. o 2
I '1 i
<n ^ <•
s g a S
1;
I i
^C-
. ; ^ ; . ^ ^ . i_.,-)_
f I
I t
"^TTTT
Tm"T^"TTT
XT"
:=i
* 2 * i ; s «
I ,\\ I Si I
c
U i J
ji
:sa
I I I ? I
i i 5 *f
§ £ % ^
^ ^ ^ ^.
3'''°
£ £ «
'S~^l « s a t g"
t ? t ^ t t *
iSH^i fi ^ a
1 §
e s s 3
"> PJ t ft
^ ^ *! A ^
n
n 1 1 1 J f H
M H M ! £ I
Ill
! I M
I ill!
1 |y I-
»• *' ^
' ^ ~ "
R 5T
» ;■ s-
f^ ^ ^
LM
i . M-
t ! I !! ^
i i ij!
s 3 i - s
=" 5 il =5
' ll|i| = :«li"3S
:a ;^ 3t^ :a;a
i
" s
j^
. I
K " **
n cn v<
a
590
I
£
1
592
<
z
<
Ok
(i-
o-
10
5J
- <
z
^ ^^\^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
X
^ ».
11
.^
in
>? <!> X-
5
^^ 4
1
.<
4
3^
^
^ ^
'i »» 1i
?
^
^^r^^ ^^ ^ ^ ^
-^a — 4r
5 •-
^i
s ?.
^
>^
V
>
N
S"
<■
^
.^
■*
■^
-o \,N /; > ^
^ "> ^ i 0.
? * .^1
1 f
|^|«j|
5
^
w
^ ^
I
« vi w *
^ ^ ^ ^
^ 1? t
S. »^ t^
=; -» i
i 4 I
f^i
I-
5r< ?■< T
Hi
'g, ^ t ^S
^
|\^
^
o
V
'ui
\
^
1^
.<
^
^ i^ I
IK IK ^
JL ^
«,
tf
TTTT
1
"1
-■s — ST"
I 4
S -
7
J?
^ vj Sj ^I 1^ -il i^
^ rn «!, •« 4~ *n »»
•^ T T ^ >» *^ ^
X
1
i<5 ^ ^
TT^
.X .2.
1^
TV
^
""5: — T"
.^
T~r~^^
T
4^ 4
I
TT
g- 1^
4
«■ «■ s- -
I I I
^:
: i
r
III i
'.5
II
IS 111
15 i
I
k
if
il
•J
1^ ^5! I si
is 1^ -i ',1
^ II i I i
:»7a5tti la "a
yC
O O <
131
»» V. », V, ^ \.
« O -4 » T »
a a I
25-S
9*> a 1
231:3
'Mi
; i.
W
li
ii'i
il
^ '
^ I
i d.
d^
_&ii^
*
^ *
iii:
illl
TTTTirrrrfT
I \ I
\ i
n
r ^ J'S i J- » » >
;i -Si » *
•*•■*> '^'' ^ f.
•*(, t, -fh JK
^ 5 J
; ii i
x^rrrrr
in 5 i * i
I"!
xV^r
5 5
.» •* »v
5i «l
111? i lUI H H I ^ li
» ^ !■
4
^ ? ^ ^^ ^
5— s-
« 5
H « 5
il
a ;i B
LLi.
- '\lh
iliil
iii'ii
l!
H I? n H ! I
» )- ,^ r j 1^4 ^ 4 »
i I g. ^
Vi'r' ']« ^l!-1 H
:5}! I'-tVx''^^"
li
ill
nil
1'^
■
-
1
3
1
^ !
-
3 :
^ -
2 7
M
1 '
1 ?
u
w
■^
;g;
n K
^
— ai i S£ ^. a s ii s
•j -ii ? 5 t 5 ? f 5 it
$ i * I M- M rr
FT*
■a * ii ii i
J i i i
, Ji ,. s s s
M 5 > s S
K^K ^». ^s:
•S -^ ^ -S-
5 :; a 2
a U3i a
a 45
5 ^ ^
jv Ji a s
SI JJ SS Si
% I % ^
^' f ill I i ^
^ I ? M I
*5 *j.
J 5
m"
g|?
; It -ii i^
. ■^ iP Ji
! 1 *T >T Sf N »t t 1" f-
^ li« >f5 *> >i> ^ *5 J.) « «
■^Hmr
*i «i ii ii *5 « « «». t —
di •* -Si. ^ " *' -' ^* t
J*- jfi- «- 'ftJ-Jt* —
-NS
"T7W
>f )^
s 3 S
»! ?
5 *■
^ ?
^ T
II
*? js ^ tt *t ji
li. a > a it !i
■s >
i-i_*-
_^_i_Ll_i.
-r|-
^>;
« 4 ;
t « fc fc
U H |!i ! !
-.^ -T i >i
?X
3.
j! ill
^ I ^
1 -. S i ;
HI
11 33
<' is
I! \>
i i
nil b i
^ ? 11^
5M
l-j| i nil
Ml i
ii
h
•I ! "
38
at at
i-
597
-Iff
u
c
re
c
5-'o
r
X
£
Tl
is
t
?*
X5
kj
- 5
o
i
K
>
It
'5 -i^
T
^ ^ t
K N 2.
K tc S:
s.
1
TT
T — *^^ — ^
N» S* \»
"^
»t ?» »»
^
^
<1 r^ ^ m
(J I* V^ 1^
« s *^ *^
^ ^' ■« , ^i
?
I
- •
"V-
3
to
^
^ig i>:a ^>
^
""C — "*~
« ^
^ ^
^
^
V
5 - ^, < ^
I.
5}
.<
^
??.< S ^ ^
.^
1
^ V.
«1 v ^
'I 1 '<
V V v
^ s \
^
V
11
ft "1 .ft
1 ^
^
^.
5
«•
>
^
w
t!
11
^
^
5!
t
;^
*
8t
«^
•
,
«
?
«.
»i
^
i»
V
r
V
*i
>
.5
.*
o
*
^
?!
•n
>.
*
1
u3
^
.^
•^
T
IN
I
^1
I
p6 ^=§1
^x <-
^
O WM Eo
M
r
III
u 6
'r
M a
fArA
■ f!
! 3
il
a-*
5-3
I S£'S
lis: i
a B o fl ft
^ - S S
on* H •
.Sj$ 9
U « •I ■
• «• « 14 h a -^
Jill cl ^
:»5» ?i "a
o
TBI
Z i
s: ;
;i >
ii
it
lif
s i
o
s *
M
^ ^
I
^
: aas.
V. « *. "^ N. V
^ "^ » « ^ *
•5 N* n3 S* N. ^
«t ^ ^ ^ 'X ^t
>
1 1
I
I
I
^
^
Si!
=». ^,
?
^
^
^
Is
1
^
V
^ i?
V H
n.
^
K IK
^
^
•ji 'a 15
:; ^ ^
TTTIITTTTTTTTii
ri~rri~rt~t~i~i~i~i"tTt
£
^ i:
•^
^
^
N4 ^sS
I
Si «5
I
S5
I
"i V, *^
% ^ ^
^
^
^
^
fe:
^
^
^
ti
•i
*».
>^
,^
^
t-
K
K
K,
<N
<\
^•"
<a
>i
"i
>
V)
W
^
t
^
t
^
t
^
^
^
>«
\0
5^
1:
5
4
<
'^^
Al^
i
5^
I
T
r^
s \ ,^
•^ -^ x^
4
^
S
"H — 5~
V
T
I
i
««
T
f'? ?
s 3. S
"T ^-^ ^>
^
a
,5
^
^
<j
^
5^ ^ S ^
"s
\ N
^41^^ IS- 1-
§1
T~¥
s: B i
V <K ••
-SQl
k
$1^^
^
^
K
II
n
"■3
11
SS
AH ■>
1:1
e ^ e
C*!
e • !£ -e
,» . it
• *- r- a •
a »• g r^ S o
*( • « fl d P.
« * f> e o
tUy_
"I 1°
S . ■
aa - .
■'•'" i il
""tlM ! =
t-
n
>t X'i'A ?!i ill
sa.'i ^. -.n'A-.-,U-ti
iiliVrii'iU
ImUmli
600
' c o
:-3
2 K
IT S U)
ic ^ -tF
c I-
I f:
; •=■■»
S^ ?^ §■ 5 ^ I ?. ?~
I
^ ^
■I "J
!S ^ * ^ ^ 5- R
Hi <t^ w^ * " *<) t\
O O -^^"^ !
s^ '3 5 i
? i% 3
TTTTl^^'yT
^i ^1 ^^ ^6, ^ v5 >^ ^ »
\^ w ^ «;i
^^ ^ ^
^ ^
1.^
IT
TT
T
^ i)
-^ $
^§ ^^ ^^ '' ^? ^ ^§ ^^
^^ H *»^-
^^ if
^- ^5 *5
5 ^
1 ^> ;
K
^
TV
:t
1!^ I
V-t,^; ^ ^^ '^,
I ^
Hi-
Ifii
^^ Iff
?3 ir
Is ^ *-
5\ i a
I;
t • E
U
HI
J !
I i
J I
S -
3 i
"i-J t
\ ii
1,-333
!i|i|^5^;iJ| 111
: I
<4 ^
!
^
^ ri ? ^ H
s
1
'HT^u n I
3°
•
^
^
$ ^ V T ^ ^ ^
4
1
^
?
^ i1 u u
1
r ru I I ?
>^
i'i i ? 1 1
1
-.5
.' it
i
1 rn m
SJ""
^?
?
^ \^ r 1 '^ ^
J:.
'J
X
O
Ik
i^
j^
»
M 'H 1 U
^
1
5
■»
■J
mm
;
3*
t
e
t
1 n I i M.
;
i'
t
4-
nil?!
<
^^
tt
n 'in B 1
^
1 ^
1
1 s t i r r 1
!
?0 n i i
i
^
fi
i;? I n 1 1
^
1
t
H'Uiil
5
?
1
5"! i ? ? •
J
z
C
C
s^
1
1
irui!!
^
3L
1
s
•: ii ? 3 .- .'^ -r
X
i
z
• -
if
>-
\i
> ^ ^ !? 5 S
^k >» < .. vi -
!^ 5 i\ <» « tl
1. >, Vj N K fi
J ■
O
^
^ t. X »» ^» K
-» -^ , Ni ^ s.
'>
? \r S. ^ 5} ?!
^ '^ N N K
2
o
7
5 ' *
111
■
is
't
**
1
^ '«: ^ ^ X ^
?
o
•1
K
V
"k \ 5 5 S S
^ ^ '' K V N
5|.
5^/
4 J
■s
<
•i
>« >! ^ ^ -J -S ^
'^ *i >i >. •-• >i v»
K
S
^
1
.^ ^ \ i: \ \ \
1^1
IT
^
n
^h^^^^^.t
-^ "^ .
V
3^
*
» 1 'j t ^ s s
^ 1 !
3 « • '
V
-
^
1
ft '
;
c
(5
if
1
t
1
i
4-
1
V
i
i
I
11 Mill
1- ^ r,^ i -'^ r
5i
\
i
1 '
n
4-
<
^
•^
>
*> ^ ^ ;; i 5 ; 4
S J! i
^ ^ ^
u
e!^
•7'
1
l-.i
Zi ■
!
iVA >
i-'' > *
".••Jl!i :
nil:; I
•2s?
i^'.li'l
It:- [Zf
602
1S
55
5
s
f
1
o
..3 .3
i
1^
3 ■
|s
•3 J= J a
U
S
88 .9 .,
t
1 ° 1 * •
11
•
Si
3}ii n
si
J
«H
ft( 1^
J*
1^
♦
* ^
<k
F c
5 T3
U
^
4
•J
\? ^s J
^
^^
^>5 •§
-'^
■<^
5 s ^ ^
4 ^ > *
^«
Ul </>
1- X
h Ul
f<
«i
»t
«>
^ V) ^
N
»\
^ ^
\
Vi
*
Z
^
^
Si;
^
^ >^ >5:
i
K^ ^
i^
-t
5 n ^ =
5
3 a
O J
D
■i
■^
"^
^ V»- V,-
\
\
K \
\
si:
%i s. y, ^^
lo
lo
St
■
s
.^
;5^^ >
■^
^'
52 s^
s^
!!^
lo
lo
li
i«
"^
"n
■^
V) Vi s<
\
\
\ \
K
^
^ V N; ;
*
5
h
1
■^
^
^^ V!n ^
i^
J;
"^ ^
^
^
^ ^^ $ .
..^
N«
ij
^1-
n>
«»
«1
v» \j \i
K
K
K \
K
N«
^• N» Vl l,j
w
Ifl
J
?}
'V
^ ■
•n -n m
V Si
s»
^
M
«0
«
^
5
*
Shi
^.
^
,^
r ':^ ^
^
^
^
<0
>
^ 1 i ^
s^
11
M 5
4
^1
1
^^
i
I u,
1-
a'
J
-J
cr
^
^
^5
^
$
'4
1
z :
fi
\
S
^
5 ^«> >S
^
I
^ ^
S V
t
r
a
« 1
1
^
h^
^
m
(1
a
" 5^ J i
Vi
^
■».
>>»
V, 'S <>%
>»
««
»« N,
»»
N.
V
=C5
1
^ 1
i
5-
1
hi
O
lit
II
«:
1
1
1
N
1
III
ti {
5- 4^ i
1
4
^
c
Sr 5- ^
Si- ;^^ .^- 5
^ i ^ ^^
^ ^ V
1- 4. 4 1
r
^
X
I
I
.^
5V b t^
^ 5> ^
!
1
Si a
^ 1
1
1
ml
1
N
1
o m t M^
.its " r;!!'"
o • O 4 1
I-
CO
t —
ttr
21- -a
3
«x ^
" ^
ih •
i«
,"5l
' r *
I- n
n
1 i
<c a
:l
it
**
o
(/)
E
z
2tr
603
"T» ^
I
^^
TT
a^
^- A
i
N
-"T-
^
N
\
^
;^
<? «? ?
«^ "V -v
s"
K
«
^ -
^ ^
->vr
5.
•«!
^
S ^V ^'' \ <>S *; *' * ^ ^ i>, -io
->-
J^
» S ~»
a 3 X vorf 3^1
*S ^'0 ii. ^. ■a'o
iJ^ ^ "t > »^
V> V) si N. tS^
^ ^ \ !i^ 1 !
? J V oa 3 y
^
^
r
"r
-"v»-
a?
"V
^ ^
\x «J S >i ^ \ I "f % \
*<^^ J ?^ s ^ % \ r
^ ^ ^ ^ 5
"i"'" 9
X
Is
1 — X, -^i! ^b *'s.
]__ i_J_i
s 'S "**'^ ^"s^^C K ^v> V, ^-0 K ^>o V 3iv, V •'>;
*.
a. ;? X \ ^v. s ^^ «'^ '^ >i *^ *i *V5 a. < «\ VC^
«>; ^o
^
T
«^^^^-
"^
"5r^
s. X
4 i
"sf;~if:
il 1
'■''? *& ''S "^N ^'^ ■^. "^i "^V ^^ ^. ^ ^. *«
O 3J.I/OJ3ii JPV
T
■i V.
^
V
? ^ ^
^
^
.^
»s
4
N
i.
'^
>?
1
s^
-n
■5 '^
4^
T
.^
^
^
,i
%
4-
i
^
:>
v:
». •^ ^
^ ^ ^
V V K
N X N.
^
V
^
V
»s
^
V
^
V
♦s
^
^
V
>»
V
I"!
5
k
I
<&
' «l m
h o a K *a **
PtB i • g c3
\l I
V, 5 - • - .
• t*A -* *■
a.ifS ' ° .1
Hall as ?| I
p. t* o « *> S
- fto » -■« -o r
j3 a ^
iji
3«t' p -a
- J < e o
Y . c ^ »> w vi
hi?*'-
»0
*
^
'/l
X
*
!
%
J
to
>
^
r-::^
-^_,
''•
\
•s. 1
• o
a .e
o o
s g =
* 4 -
l|3
• c a
^3t
_ _ St
■ iH •• -o e •
« o • *• o 8
e « e
e V o
■o 3 ■ --
Jo a
m •
o C •re
° t " 1 ■ 3 -
ivt
iiii^fl' 61-^e''^
.' O O O ^ * • « K • •• ■
• ^ ^ a M ■ -
>. vj Jislll I^JI3li|
..^.^ «
1^
:«•
a a
J. s
'1 I
i - 3>
If
93
I- 3 -
\n
<
—- V—
z
3;e
oit
£1' ,
Id
■;
o o
1^
iS
-^r
o
2
o
Q. i-
0. V-
604
a^ a^ <3g N^;
«,'- '*l^ '"^ ^i" ■•Jl'* r^
^^ ^>
^
a
si5 ;;i:2 ::i^ a^ ;;i!c
is
5
NO t»*
«0
-^'^^'^
!5
■rt
Vn
•■o
lo
v>
Vn
§
N
*
*
>
*
«k.
«
-So
;*»
O
N
t^
lO
to
lO
>0
00
1<1
V3
In
M
a 5
* *?
s a
1,-;
3 "-iZi
15
• =21
fe pi"
° SS5
1 r»
2-". J
2 8 .£
8-2^
S35»
'^s::^
Ills
i:s^
JO O •
-&5 • I
SSSS .5
^•3 2jl?l'^:5SC
is"- i-S13 . .s
^Bmqj3* g>4aoM
.o a g o
•2 &S5
^"■assi
■as
.5
« a •-
u i o <H
If !o||_
*" ** « a • "
■ S fl p. 3 • "
** W •-• C
lis
J-
I*
£:
!1
3i
■3
Jus ^--lays"
5 c? I
.I.
t.'
'.I
^
««ah^or— M WM^ir>a
a V4 ^ a ■ a a %*
Sil ■ - o *• a • -
Vivibaapd o^aav<
« « « M'] ^•c^a^^-l-a**
,9££J!:a3.aj3<a£33£e
05
fiOf>
i^^
i(?:
■*
0^
J ■
<<
<- '<i
}'
^
^ -
^
^
? ^^5
-5'
*
.^^ ^
<^
= 5
<!, -J,
UJ
■n
-c
|3
*
*
kij.ii!
1-
o
i^
>
10 -5
t;
ia^
^ "*«
o
45
*
^
■^
fO
is
«
» o
1*) o
t^
<
i«
>
W V«
t^
7 ^
<a;!;
iL ^
>
^c
X
fe
z
4 '
*
^* v>
vB
ij
^ ^
^
t
z
r4
>
C
D O
ijUJ
5
I-.
NO
>- b
- ^
< 2
-J
IN N
1
5" u
>
>
5
o
5 ^
2
i
o
: <
\^
s ^
tS «
tB lo
<0
Is
i-.,
o
n
Is
£ "
ts.
^ *
o
r^
IS
4^
1
^5
NO'
o
o
1<)
l: S
i "
"I
o
H
JS
Vs
o
; <
1
^^
0-
5 5 :
R ?
III
4 ^
7t
l\)^
s
z
H
i3
0.
^
M '
5 R.
«;
a
-5 5
IJ
3
'0 •<>
Wt
b-
*
z
u
s:
V
i '
N, i~.
I"
*
<
5 u
^
o
"1 lo
I a
-<
-J
t *
■^
> b
J V-
if
3
5?
r-
5 i>
5
1
1
N*
t> f;-
>»
:3
^ a >
M
^
1
a; UJ •
'|2
90
0-
00 ^,
00 1^
^. 5
•4
■»■ V)
t^
a
t ^ *>
»• ».
1^
«i
•O
^
i?
5f
1
ri
1
In
Q «:
0-
if!
1
r
O
o
X
r
1
5r ?r
1
0,
<
?: 5:
5g fv
si
N
> N* «0 C f<
C! !J t" ^ S.
^ V. ^, 5- 5«
>
^
«
'I,
1
V a
t-
o «
is
si
V H
. £
< 0.
a e B • • ■ •
OCiOODOO«>
»->.». V, V. V, V, ,
0vv«ae«j^
^«t "a3)'oi'5i"S)ii'5a'3|
t-
a 0-?
606
Sr
hijo^
■*i
'<i
^1
»
i- c
«
t
a
«
§
<5
>•
I
i
a.
it
Q
b
k
K
2
J '
-3^
00 t
•0
^
^^3;
«0
^'O
4
■^
•i u
. i^-*
;-o?
N N
^
oii
1"
^,5^SJS^* '^
•o
«A
-^
-
a
* «»
l~
Z
>-«■"
N
z
iii
-• t^
^r 1
««t
■^
« ?s
k ao
t>.
^^
z
z
vS^S
^ f^
•0
lu
1
a
*
3
0- r ?
<° «
c*
Z< J
2 J <
a^
z
^5
<u
<.
)
^ "
H
z
o
z
i
5 S
1,0 z
A
0.
z
1
% ••
N
??^?
00
^
X
«?_
^
^. •:
W
I- U Ul <
rf y,
N
:; r D q;
f ^
5
* 6 u.
5 < v
>o fl J >- „
i
;w
5
i
if
1
:^5^^i
?«
"^s
" 4 1
1
^.^i
iii
SlJ
1 '
^^^s"
i
1- 1
5:
, "^^5
t',
*«
-
^
i.% «
■i^
J5 Ju,
0-
(^
^
-'^
,S 5
ss
j^ <^
^
X
i a
r-,^°f
1^
<
s.s
!!
;«
(^
?
1
J
o5\^
s
n:
a
E
I T
<r
io
^
■ft
r<
If
s
■<
H ) U
5 - —
R 2
i
z
o
■^
R
1
Z
o
O
1 Si:<"
z
s.
^
^
o
Z
1
I
5 1
5 J t
fe a
>
<>-
^
of
" fi
4
o
2
5 )-
1 u
;n
z
I«
'^
»-
2
<« >c
In
J lu h
~ lu
05
0-
1> H-
r« CB
0> •
w z
i^
^
?
1 >.
N
"^.
S!^
^
t 8.
^
z
1
f
•J
1 "'
Si
1
»
$^
U
^
^
^
i
^
Q-
1^
1
V)
3
^ J:
ST?
1
<>» >
Nfi r^
**
Q M ■»■>««» O
12 ?
^
In
>%. •**
tx N ly »< N "^
in J
<^ II
">
:^
0^ t>.
*-
S; ». ^ ». *. V
PQ
^^
^
«:
1
9
!^2
si .
S'H
«2
f-t^
!f ^
> > "> ■>
n
lH§
^V
•»■>■>
J5
»
,- I
r
S s
2 «
a u
1.1
« c
< C <
c J* a
i ^ • ^^
( a o u c
cj I -H
s i-
4
a
I
? 9
t t
I I
'^ IB e
8 .' = S
i.
se
^
5 q •
01 ^
3 v< g
I I
U ^ ^ ^ •
"3
nags
u h M •
111- 1
«a OS
607
?-^
— o ■
« «* d
m o
i?
isi
0" A
^:i^
iti i * "
10 IBO*-'
; -I , <
i' J < Z o
. •" i V h
-J a.
11
<
tf 5
^iz
^
^ * o- ="=
<
h
;5
z
Ui
s:
111
Ul
c
of
o
<L
<
lir
oJ
tt
<
ii5
z
"o"
-^-
:3
z
"2-
Uj
^~
it
O III
4lN (■«
io *li
oti
°o » It
5,^
*IC
ta
s ^
1. 1
f^ 00
*li2 >■"■
ilKi Jl,
>• ss
00
I
I
Ul ? ^
r « ■*
o
z
Z
0_
2
^
° S
- 3<f
?
^^^ ?
In
m
1^^
z
-J
0-
t--
£
v>
'^
\s
Oiu
tUVJ
h
o
r
•^
In
5
^0
Kl
In
lo
<l
$
W)
so
J*
In
C^
_
Q
<
o
o
5
^
(!
2
- >-
^
So
I
OD
ffl
—
\r>
0^
t^ 0^
Ijj
a
^
to
In
E
U.
1
1
rs
o
a
Ui
jr
In
t
<
In
■•«
t-~
lu
o
—J
>-.i-
In
NO
In
VO
t-^
1.-1*
1-
><i
?5|
IC
3l
8
5t*
q
z
3 >
lo
^ 7-
(«
^
sr
lu
o
_J
uo
t.* S
>
S'l f
s
o
Vo
>n
^
w
0^
?,.-?i
u
- 1
i?S^
UJ t>)
z z
^
In
to
T
?
NO
^
1
i. -J
^<
>
v»
Oo
Q
■x
i\
<N
"^
"1
»v
On
On
o~
J9l
5
N. K
5r
I
8
5
it
a o
= 1
o o
■> ■> ^
5*
^ -i
9<D a
I^S ^;
S 'iij
^^5 §;y s: 5
I- fc a. a (4
I I 5
§•5
« » H
O Q »*
« la »
j3 o o
o »i o *•
O O T
d d £ o (
O h (3 (3 (H
o o — d -c
• :a o a
a ■o » , o *
aflat. c
. ® oj 5 ^
O * n d u c
t) o « .4 4 a
« m o u d <<
I V € '«
lot, . ci,
I u rf K
9 « C **
I k e
S3
o o o o
o p Id <e a
« iM d M u o
H « e c «
O 3 n m J3
t/> (E CO (O V) t4
-. -« o fl
4 v* o o
fl m o « a
-< W 5E a; O
03
608
*> o a
.61
i -• < "
,^ UJ O tf
In
2 < J 3
J J <<
< 111 J
J Q < -
;i < a
Z J u
SS^"
If ui 7
5i«
^J^^
r^^
O I
»u.t
:< I-
^
^H."
«>«
m
it-
It
HI
»*
v.
i^^
fl
In
kit
o 111
*0t
ko.
O
0-
o
-o
o
0-
a 5
§^ ii
^
!«;
G
O
iL
J>-
-I >
<<
Jli o
3
10
^t
?"
i-K
O I
at-
00 0-
S s
^i:; < -^
saw ■sioo
5J 3-
^?
^ ^^ >^
^t ''I
1
4*
a
•>
9
k
>
1^
■> ■>
o
Q
Ul
i
lu
^s
— 0)
> T - O
— nr —
r J
;<0 i
0«<
-
-J
1 1
J<
Is
uJ.
S
5- -
Si I-
ID (JJ
(ft r
^ <
0«
o
5; >.
^ ^
$: »-
T5^
1^ m
5-. •>
!5
I I
?t ?j
as
a. ^^ i
-- IE i
i *
|S
l|5
65 2
5a5
^Ea e
k: 1
sa:: 8 „
•
--a - i
:»
5Si- s ;
at
■So" . ■;
'i
111 -1
a t;
«"
n
-"3: &8
if,.
•
S55 8 I
A9
a
a
Jofr - *
as
s.« s ?
Ji.l
A u ^ u
^
^
<;
A
R
^
5
■V
'O
^
-<*
3
Kl
^■
«
■»
<^
m
»-
a a -« • V. g a
609
IT?
i=fO
•5
1: t
tu Ul
Z ar
- u,
^ a
u _j
It u.
111
z
STU
1.
V'
to:*-
*-■ O
r
!C -
^5H
Pi
ft
«
IK
■si
^
^
^
>;
'^
Si
t
>&
N8
-1.
^
^
^ ^ >^ 'j^
<^ »S «Ss "K ^
K tv K, K ''i
I
IK
^
^
$
^
I
5
I
VA III
<C IC J. >
O O "^TJ
13
III
v>
^^
ki
t "XT
(t
^
■$
^
?
51
1
t
t ^ ^^^
^
^
K
I
?i Ji
^
X
4
^
^ ^
^ ^
X
^^
5^
**• » t(|
I
41.
I
i
I
T
^ j 4^4^^
^
I
^
-5J
K
T
I
t
t
I
> ^. 5n ^ ^ ^ ^ s 5 ^ ^ § ^
^
I «
« tic •> X '^
S d 5? ^ 5:<
^ »v »^ X 4;
^ ~^ \ \ V
^
Q
K-
^
^ ^ iS.
K K t<
5-
a-
-R
1
1
I.
^
^
b ^ O Vi
• Q n >H
» -d ^ -S
a d p, a
■oS , t
ss' ^
'I i
6'^
** "" 5 S
tt >^ o «
*» a a
u " a
a u o «
sc--g
a vt s
o o "d s
■ « 4
» c a •>
..t«l
• «• b H
u a ft o
h O U
• P,
ssaar
" is
u ti
a ^ d
g 3^
9 .^
'd u) c
"il I
"all
^ O, 4« d
-« a n «
(-1 AM H
n.
21
a
M
nil
il'i
am
jk * > >5
>. t V »• ^ » »■
s 9 e Jv
8«
> f- 4
« *
• ' i
a ^
m
5flfl5«*.5!\« ilia.
S ^ « « *«,
* * «> Sl'"
> > V ii V k ~ h
1^ ^ « 4 * « !« !| 5: 5«. sj*
iirriiT
-< * t 1
nOT'TTj
'I V V, Is
t ^ » <! "
■rt3
^^^r^
4 »
et
i'i
-p
51 !"-■''
ii:
a;
*"»\^:iMM^*^ ^'»'
\ N S ^ H
X *> \ S * » ^ >,
> ^ H N
* s
— — ^—
M n
S\^ti?'ii.> ttttfcfcQ
!;t;V^i^^it^>.st^t^>ay»v> >!^>tig
i«i;i?!5B,a fcfc^fct;?!
TT
TT
TTTTTY
^ *
f
^ * ft
^^'i(?l«,«'».iii>,>.««.«. <*e-
y *
is -»
« t
5 .^ s ^- ^- .^,1 *^ * *
U t" M i ? U
i i
s I
i 1
I'll liJ*!
3a a ^ na
Ui
J
t' -
i it
e r
-^ -
<n
t ♦
>-
611
X 5
- It
I I-
j:
K
^
-5
■«w
.c«!
A .8
O o
^5
19
■* 111
V 11
O u
o v»
oar
c
K,
N.
K,
^ ^
^
'rj Ni
^
t
V
^
n
^
n
n
V
K
'\
V
K
\
\
K
^
<i
'S
Wl
V'n
«>
"I
S
V.
X
N>
^ "^ V ct
V
^
^
IT)
^
^T^
^
\
§
^
I:
I
T
I
I
T
^
ti t»> ^
^ ^ ^
"^~V
^
?
IK
"^J 5 ^^ 3
V N <\ X
?
T
5^
»» <s
K
I
I
T
50
^
T
1^
\
\
I
I
V
^
5
\
*(
K
^
s.
«
«
c
%
d
b
<>
s
^s
\e
\<i
\J
\e
^
<^
<§>
^
^
^
s
N»
\»
\i
s»
K,
^ S '^ ^
<S «» S lo
3 >7^ U
"C O I
3
^ a !a iS
• « .0
"I"
•> o
a " t
O K
U o •
m n
• « -*
9«"
K •
« a a
A 9 -*
;i?
. S.'
, .3
O.
:iJi
J../: ?
ei
ni
di
I
M ^a ^ ^« ^5 »? ^i ^* ^i -^i ^J!
3 ii^
sl.^
n
2 »
\ t
^
v »•
&12_
^ S g t
^ ?.
TTTTT
"r~§"
""T^
> ^
.•bS -^ ^ -^
li: -^j -^i
»l. t^ <^ «v >^
-^
=,« -> ^5 flXj ^ -^ ^« ^ ^
"m"YT^"^^TT
VTTTTTTTTTT^^FVT^
>3
K ? (?
■* s
i- ^ i,
^ &^5
"^
^^ ^
X^
ig ■?'
"VT"
I 4
s^
V
^
J""
1 1
"-g -" £
I- :
1
s I
I l
: i
■i i
i :
> * t. o -
i
1 •!
1 1 J
1= li I
£ = s Si-!, i'^" i"S
uEa 3k H •• ' • P
o>|3 Oh • «« -a ti a
r,i3
J
<
u
Z
a
-1
-i
o
z
tc
I
u
Ul
Z
f
K
1
<*
K
Si
si
-J
K
Ȥ
13]
V4 ,4
5 5 «-
II e5
is U
J i 1
Mi i
il 1
in 1
44^ ^
1^^ 1
•5 s
■8 S'
52
X A.
o ^
IT 111
r X
X K
11
^5
^ ^ '^ ?^ ^
N. ~« \ V. V
5i
5
S
^
s
5
""5
><>
5 ?
h
1
.^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^1 ^ * %
s» K K '^ *>
i
4
•n
■i
J!
-5
v5
ft- S
1 >^
^ ^ * $ ^
^'5 < r i
5"
■Sl
t
^
3^
I 2
X
** *•
*■,
X *» ^ V ^
s,
-
**
S>
V
»^
K K
n
s s
<
a
oo:
V
V
1!
>>
u
ri
1
4
>>'? 3 T !?
V
1
1
i
1
*
o
1
i
V
J)'
1
"V 2
u
r
c
^
n
^
^
mu
1
1
1
r.=
Ills J
' I
;SB8 - £
°3-fe 1 .
li-i '
it,: 1.1
}i=1 ^i-
'All 'h
ll'i III
t-
laal =lj
:)» A -a a
1
in TTT^T "^
4
=i ^ 1 ? s^ S
1
f ! ; 5 ^ J ^ r 1 r r t
if J
1^ :
^ij^HH^ M n U i
•« 1 .... .
Ik ^
*JH? ? n ! -HlHi
y|: M > > n
a a
• n ? ^ . f M s ? ? s ^
iiH n H M M ! n
io
■ 55 n ! f » ? n n ?
ij$^ n n * n M ij
-
,,in\ f ^ ? «n i n 1 ^ iJ,5
J J ^
^
slil:? n M M j f e J ? r?
? ^ 1
J
J ,t ^ « , { r .{ V r 5 t t ^
<J
n-:M ^. t 1 ^ * ? f ^ 1 f
r
: in ^ i ii i
tfl
in n 5 n
1
1 .,
1 2
mi ^ ^ 5 V ^
1 1
-M ^ i a ^\k t t i ^
b M
I:]! w i
i- - s
is 1
U^ X \
li'^.
t\ll\\ S * S |> ^ I. ^ t t; <!
tjM.
:ij5|. 4 3 * ^-J 5 S t M *^
i;4
kM ^ ^ %i ^ r
5 -'I'! T 5 M V ^ 1; ^ SI 1; i
1 = .
S;l|-t t ^ 5 S^M ^ t t ^ l^^i
|4i
1 -V
Mj;« '!5a|'^Si!LiiSilS'i
s ^
:isU 1 ^1 l\^ 1 J U 1 ^
1 i
5y"^5-&5«l:'^fcfcfc8rtS'
: is^i t: fc ;; fc fc
iil- t t t v- »-
- S 5 V V X V ^
J
|I
li is nun
4
■i^^'^mi^ HH ^
n
i|M ^ u n tH n
<*
U; 5 i J M^s ! • n ?3i
2 O-J
I: 5 H i n M ^
i * -
1: * * K t rr ! n n ?
J^
|;1^!> !^ ^ 5 5l'J iU ^ U
K
i;7 '^ *= X t ^^u n n
o
l:iii'^ -K 1 ! Ji ^ > H ? «'?'« ■
^ »^ *i
■
i-
S ,0 l«, ■ y J -. N S ? ^
i^ ' n n^n n M ■
|. 1 i 4 i *» j=« ii- i »• *■ <■ * S
*■ » «■
,■ ~ - - ^ - . ^ ^
M^^
ill
IM:
:?
?i
^.
s~
•j
h
If
Jl
H
il:
I nips
jijj-ifl
III
i!l!?
^j
ill
I
1.1? I
r,i^
hi
\imfri
\mm
I
ill
lifl
135 ill!
II! II M
Jl :; 1^
flu!:;!!!
hit ilmiiVnt I
^;;i ^ ^^ ^
•SI
0\
<
z
4
CJ>
cC
a.
Q
z
<
0>
<
za.
4
*SSI
r 2 ■
No'
il
>Q
QZ
•M ^
T T
l/> ». ^
•S »■ i'^
05
> is
*n Li ^
f-v ri -sS ^ O
^3
:5 s 3 ^
^ ^ ■a 1
.o- « U
•^ v'3 ;;
U?
■a "^
\ Hi
f^ ,> f^ —
"io Vi Ni N-
•s. '^ m t V
<
.5^
"> > "(
^
^
U^
w
■w
I/)
Ul
z
-z
h
o
-1^ *r»
"» -^ V*
:&
Nj Tt tV
;! ^ ?
^ "S IS
•-ft -^ "^
1>^
^
^1 V CK
^
> < "> tJ, n
^
>-^^
.s
a
U ^ (*1 T «i
d
Z
Z
u
I
h
D
O
to
V ~» 5 -J
'^;^
I "^ «> fv
cvl
-d
z
z
pf
I
h
D
.0
^ ^ 1
>
h
z
Ul
Vi .« ^ ^ ^
'i ^ Q. n tX
^ ^ VA ,'. ^
ti.j Wi W
z
0!
W
.1-
(/:
UJ
5
^
> ^ V^ <i^ ew
^
^0
I
h
— 3
O
^ »c ^
1 >
-i
^
^. **> ^
> ^. -V tK tv
r^ \.-i tr. .
1^ t\ ^^
>.« rr) ^
^ nj ^
I0
3
-V V/l l^ _5 V
to q 3 (
II
i I
"^ <n tx '^ "^
«»^ ,«^ ^ > >* 1
gj
as
>1
' 2 ^ fl
> « 3
n ;3 D £
z
A
is-
= f5
^ '^ ^
Si
1^ ^o ^
•A '^ t
(i "^ <<
~^ s '^
C>» *^ J>
'X "i <\
•H "» 1
Si
"i &» ,^ "J f^
~> '^ T^ ^ ^
^ >» r-l Ci, v>
tl« f<, >
^ >6 C^ ^ >
-.J r^ t% t^ ^
V r-> ^ ^ n(
> (k, >~ Wi ^
>. --^ % > ^^
Q ^ r-l O^ -^
v.Ni '^ > ^
Q -t o I
^ V. ^
^ !>o tto tv
?^ V) ti a^ >
* ■? V
z
03
h
)Pio z
^^ Q »3 f-
^> (Q O <
r w ,< <
■!2 3I ? 5 w
s^.
f
^
<
z
lUf
0.
h
h
UJ
10
^^S Z
1^
o
I
o
ZaahS
|2
015: to o <
1^
^
J X „
<
8
Z 5
12
z
w
I
o
z
P .(5 < '-' N
in
^ -J Z n UJ
-I
f
z
i^B^P
ST* -I J
^ •
1 s
; I
i I
ai^if^
— T y M W^
oo^
OIAC
u IP z
2£[2
-tu-
I'!.:
! ■''
A
J
§
If)
5
D
h
g
<
a
hi
h
U.
<
a
z
<
z
p
Q
LU
Q
to
h
o
a
o
CQ
<
-I
i
'Mi
12
5 X
M
i 2
s^B
«n3^
^
^^^^?
-I
^nU «i^ tnH ?^.4 UU! «Jf
I
1
'i
I^Ui
1
^nn
^1
^%'U!
1
524H
• 1
mrt
UHlt
9^3
mn
Uh*
*1
mM
«^6
inu
''1
um
"1
tuu
"'!
mn
^il
f
^;iHi
•>
K
mM
v..
UIH
6 3 4 B :*,
3 <«
^^ul
^iHi 5^2
?s^n «^^
■> « "3 "» 'i
'3
UU?
...... ^
In
I A
If
Um
h
'I
tv V f^ ^rt •»
•^ •« O
nh^ =>«! sal?« 3^£ |?ni ^^^§
7
1
M
>
2
Q
o
(11
If)
D
il)
>
Q
<
9
1
> -» 1 tv fv
"> ■* 9 o C
^ - *4 *• 1^
% '4 Q O 9»
>■ j ■* 2 >
■» « 1^ "» »»
■a
hi.
mil ^1
^ N •< •» H ♦.
^ t *' r» a a- '^
1
u.^n t^^l *'^3U ?^|
UHs
15*
lit
»> ■» O Q rv
^- d fc fc ** -
> a ^ ?• ». « Sr-t
V« ^ tK U fv. ©^
3
a s
I i
\\
«3 Kjmioio
ill
al-u)
\|} g) Z
g innin on
<
z
i
>
I-
h
a Q
z < w
C t "
tin 3
III
y s z
l" o< o ^
"^ Z £ Q 3
vj a 3
"'^ 1/) 2
o
z
z
a
Ul z ,
?( 9 a
S5
u, « J
ill
I!
'if I
..Si! «
o
O
I
-J
a
a
<
D
UJ
h
U-
<
Q
Z
<
UJ
«
z
UJ
a
en
o
u
0-
o
<
-J
Mi
pm^
Ct
D 2
P5 z?
rj T irt , (^
■^ ^ - Vn H
«* \rt •» ~» do
•\ ^ ^ T^ ^
~ - J ^ > t
■» 1^ o V ;^
= I
5-3 S *". S
-:» V/» Q a o
"> ^ ■;-* ^ rt
' -s. "? '^ ■^
\.t O- Oa ^ -t
"> "^ N« ^ "^ 1*1
-^ t^ « « '^
5 ^^ - ° ^
^ -^ > ^ ? 'o -^
€
I3S
i -5 Ob -J O p«-;
"1 ^ o o »
^ 1^, f- -i W
- b It ■<■ S
■^ ~ S^ tr S"
t^^i 0-. ^-tl-
'l \n 2 *>" f
"J J O O ~
Mi
W V ^
o3 |§y Of
1
:si
3111
S ^tt
-^ ri tB a* fi
7 ? "^ * *>
(3
■^ -^ ~ .^ Vj ft
/ a z
li4 >5 ft wp
D
- £ <J
- n U
>
o
Z
10
as
ill
§i3
as
1 1!
'I?
-61^
J
o
Z)
o
z
D
h
I
NT
fO
O)
1 — I
Q
Q
<
UJ
)-
Q
Z
<
UJ
a
£
U4
CQ
Z
P
Q
UJ
a
CO
O
u
a
o
CQ
<
r s J * *
ft Si Ss
f - 5 ■» S
"^ Vt M (S *
i ?
Q
7
z
<
to
z
o
>
Q
U)
-)
>
Hi
p
<
9
a
?
,9
1^
■1 O V« \« ri
f;-*. 4. I* »-
i «rt "5 S" ::
-5'Mi ?-1;i fs^n-
s?3
*" •* ^ c ^
^ y, o -> o.- K
■■•■-■ E-
> *rt « a V
: ^~
\% ■* S; 5
1 > e o o-
''^1
« 5 iS 5 5
n ■» o o o-
<ii ^ o o 5v
ilHI
• ?^"? 5 ? K.:? ■^
^ ^!i.<^ . 2
. tt, >• fi (V. -3 ,
^ ^ Vn •* ^ -J ,
> "1 tt Q •« ^ O,
■7* ri t«- cv a- »-
■1 "* o 6 *• -> u
^» Va •. > - •««
f 5^ S.^ ft??!.
•J 4 c (i 4 "C (^
^ rt (
V'"
III
'i
i -^ ^ "iS k"
"» ■^ ? '^ -*
?^^l
- 3 ^/^ \rt -i
> "l Q O ^ ^ Q-
L-^JS
"? f\ « « ci^
t (^ -» tta m
. o si a. -»
^ ■^ i i
"^ O C Q,
i -^ 5 '
S^^:
' 5 H •*• ^
IT) nq « ^ r..
J l^ ~ O do
1^ "^ O O pv
^ ^ -t N £
I- iaZ
" "J
|S jl
IJIfs
ills;
ZZH
_1
u
o
h
I
1 — I
J
a
<
UJ
<
Q
Z
<
a
e
m
Z
a
UJ
a
O
o
o
<
hoi 5
^ £
i."* is
^^;
>^ 3^i
r fe t"*
^s
<1 l\ O Q sS
O 1 « "S •« *>
?| "^ ":
> -^ ^^ f\
ij > ^ « o
1 ^s. ■* O *
•Vi;
>'"'"'
i ** ^ S
lrf» >* - O >
^ ^ >0 s« I*
»-"* L» >e -o
> ^ -. -v f»
«---> O- Ll ^
d
2>>* ^*5?-^
- 1— -1 sj > a« t
> o n en o-
» (to - O >
"S 5 ■? ^
ci:r^s->
, -V f^ Ijl ^
^ y» \* <i •^
§ ao o c* *J
~ o 1^ j-^(
y^ *• i>. *% '
i (s» aa o- -v
i> ■"» Q 5 -,
> 1^ <!. &. 1 ") -^ 'i
1 Vrt "a Q -: ^
■» Jrt a. o^ Jv. n^ •
"1 v\ ^ o -
\,\~
ff, \rt fi "^ fi
"v w» 'i ^ *
■^^ vi &^ t^ '^
-J 5; s ; (ft
^ ^ -ft ; V >
■^ ^ p. -^ J . <>■
•^ >% \n •S^^ 'X <\ •*
> \a O -^ •- '^
»■ ^ -J ri <J
f^i <i r\ Qo \a
1 t^-v tl -.
«« n« -^ O ^
5 "^ (» ^>.«<
<^ 5 -1 3^"*
?
u
Ik
3a: fl
nl
II
^^^
V« ^5 r»
<>, m <»■ *i H o
** ^ ^ > P
\rt 5» \rt <^ N*
"^ -R.
5 ? ;
I * :
II I
'• I I
s s ■
I I I
\ i ;
> >
< 2
Of or
-dm
. wj lOI/)IO m
T ?i l\RiS3S\g'"iE!| |9^PI'^»M5'l3>~Ra l!S.'-|
O (fl o
M •a o,
<»^|•.
621
^ii^i^:e^iS^fr^&ii^^i8iSii
K>f-I iH (H H
K< CM •-<
PS"S S^
&lSltg|SSllP^|-^|^l&5t:Sl^^l
l^il 5S-!R|'?,8S^i?P^S>S!as! I I 18iJ?i^i5^R I iSk« I i
?."
s^l^'
1 1
> eo Q Q BO
1 f*-(\J K\^
ir\it (H 1 Q CO oj irv.;;
o I chinr'^rH c
I t I
1 I 1 o to
I I
\oo\D I K\3 w^ fti iH M ir\\c\ i I I pSilSj* I cu iH 1 I I cu I I
in I r-t 60 r- r- in^
• I - - - - -
C0VX3 f-t r-cuojw^
\D H K\ vp r<Nh-CO CM
in rH^
rj f^M) r^4nr"t»-Q f*-inH mm to
mCJVD o^to ^ r^^^ I I I to fiO i-l I miH I I I ^ I I
. «5!? -a
:S
1
85**
fl »
-*< « t3 4» '
e5
§•6-1
'Co
<4 <!} (D a
<4 cQ <D d
■O ft O
>to S -
'■a
^
g
r-l rH ■»» +3
g »
622
Si'iS.I IEF.^SK'ASSSIpM l^fifil.^ I-^^I I \9,^\
I 1
8
en(r«
'^ ir\cr\
eo J3- cvi r^
, ^.~ 1 1 I ^f:: I
■ffvtt
u) rotrv I
5 o r*^
'". I I I 'I'" I
gvSi I |K!S«'SS I I^S I i IS'^^Ri
v^ O VO C\J ITMO lf\
rO CU H H fHVD
coo CTNQ ir\ r-r- i r-< (r»
0^'-*-=^ £J IT*
ir\ o Q r^'ja o mui w oj
1 r*-:*- r^
(\JJ-OJ Wr*^rH^ir\ CUCMQO
i^oj to c\i\£> vi f^j:ir Q h3- iJ\
I ^D cy ro rH j^ I cd v£i r^ ra I
_ \Q C.
\o «p i?\oj r—
> CO into Q in o ro
1 ;nr*-in » w cuj*
■xo (-t f^ »^ in o ''^
I o I I ir^r^ I i
CVJvD
\£ij^ \r\\D
in 60 I <J^O
<r> »*% \^ r-t «J
BO^Xi Q CO CO
-3- J- w»^ incvj cov
vo2- OMn r*-r-r BO
f uSto r-in I f-tj^j:t
■^l-^ I I
\D to
I t
M i|« p>- a\r^ Okco OJ m fW rH i
r\ lr\tiHi-40^ OJ HHti
I ^ p^ OJ I
OJ K\tO rOrH O
N OJ OJ I KVt* f-l
OJ CD cn rH M} invo r<~ in lr^ rj
r-i f^O fS^^u) rH H J- OJ er*
H o a^ I r*-iZS roinr— o eo co
f-i w r-
i^^c
Q o\eo in iH c
^ ^ OJ r J OJ v3
8 8^9,
So t 05 OJ iH I
a%«) ro OJo-.wv-s
r^ffSO I f^Sj-oj<r«c«,
f^KifH I r^VD r-< KMni-<
J* in in CO in
I f<~.iniiS I Q OJ r-<
I vu o ^^ I OJ in;*
s.
I
0) a) '4 d •ri cd
-3.r
55,
> f) 4)
o >» «
Wa
\n
> e 0)
I-
JO
623
■< d o fl
■dp.©
o o
rH *> +a
* d €>
£^5>.<5
i iTvr^ir^ttwo fti m to <t\<I> f^cuif
C\JC^J^r^O^0^00l^^Or^ r-iTscv. vocot^
rS t^lAcS P^K\W) OClTtlvDBOCO | I l^f^O
9,
l«rl I
o
• o to to <r»v^ ir\ KV3- in "^ »*>co
I CM OJvD ^"^N^ I "JD r-"^ i I i
R'f?,??,R^!5S'-3'-S
I j UA ^ 1*^ 1 l-^-" 1 1
* r-t O (\J f-tU) rOkO r
2r* r-t r—H OJ
in^ w f-i
I I
I i
'g?
rotn
CU CUJ3-*
inm-x J3-
r-o
r— r^r— CM
CM fH
foineo
CJ t
|-°;| 1
1
I ?5
§5
5&£
^ Pi
« O •
o o
r-( «* •«>
5 •
J-VO CM r-CMmor^ \X3M3 1^
3-cr»cj!r*~icycj\iDCU' - ■
rHtnrH I lr-*CMir\K
K%<M
^^ I
mwvx) I vD to o CO (T*
•-* o Q i~< <y\
o OJ ir\iAvO
r J I I ^sD J- CM ir\
^ cr\r»-
r^ f^ C\
"fO vnvOWmW O Q*^ J-J^cr»0 ONCT* vO r4 to
o tr\co iH (\j
05 w K\ I M to
• • - I
, , r«-\[^Ja^K^ ^ rn en :* ^ 05
I I **■ '^^ *'' I '^^^ in I Inr- o
O h-o~» J* tH ^Do^c\J
H »H m CM
in
inv^ t-i KMno if»r-Q
'" ^ CM CM CM H^P h-P\
inr^r-*
CM r-<TNh-
I I -T^S
I nj cvi H
^^
! 2-as ^
fH O r-l -O r
S* r-( O O
O *H M l-(
ffi U O V) s C 3
rtdrH^b3sXJ=:
(2 M 2 31 a
.>
•a
5 If
tA n o
?.^
^
t
s
I
ii
u o n •
(. a <
iH 4» 4>
h 6 •
O 0} O «
Q O to
624
Ntf^r-I PS
l,Aii
inch
r^ O
J3" K> f^ Cd <TN in
I ......
I o cu>^ incu <-i
ir»cu
1 1
1 1
O to h-W>
p iTvto -o O) cy r•^c^ r
Kj t-i rH Q ifvjr r^uSo
»*VT ^ I as O VO MS CJ
f-(^ K^to t\j cy w
OJ M t^'oa ro iH Q <r\ Q to f
I H W I 1 I l^Cy ^ I I OJ iH I ^ roftj
H Q rH\D <T\
W W r- I ir» r-l rH H K^ P^
I H
I I
l^l'§
€3!
? O r-t C\J O
>vp in CO 3-
F W C\J >D o
r-OJ cy I tnj- t*^to co rH ih^jd »h
CM r^in irv3- r4 cy i-t k^
tr» "Si
I I
cy cy cy
U- 1 H I
mm
<5 r-
i I
hag
<» o ^
■2 _ "
u) o a *4
W u □
*» !>» 5 -
D
si
a »
ffi. * 5
4> e CD
■^ & • fl
■dp,©
g,1
y
S (0
- ry cy \r m<y r-cy ^
••-I-* -•
I r-f r— »H cy f\r^
cy (T\3 I
o <H r^
I i
I I
cy^ rocy^ i
'8?°
minr-t I I row cy
gs^
1 1
^g,S'
cy to
I I
v£. r»-(T\f^mto cy m
pjK)3Mtgcy^cy3-
mto3^3cy cyo3
vD mo »*^CTsK% •moo
cy cr\hT-( r* i-i m
O r-r^ O
cy
I i
o r*-o\co
r— 60 mp
I I -* M cy cy
I I r^,mj-_j:t
^t*^ momtocTir-WJcyoN OOOW ow r«-mcDC2
i*"\.^ I I m^ J- o r^ K^ ocr\60| f fiioomi^acy! |wrHK\
Smeo cy cy cy r- cy cy
«-c cy cy i-i
\o r— v£> oocypo^cy win cu r— j* vi
O inr^ o H
I I
Smm 60VO o f^to
cyvo f* I mvD to mo
I I '^.^. I I
'sD roo cy f^c
O <H rH I -^ P
> > > t
Q meO rH
mrH^
in ro
I ^■^-
cy -03
I I
rHViSm I^Poj'aS
cy\x> rH I miTujj cr\o
inj-"rH r4
I il>Si i^SIs iS^^i il§,i I
Q) C] TJ
nt
3 c
;<
i»
•SI
o
rH
o
^^
&&
rH O
3
rH'2fdCHO<flC^t^*-'Hr]2d
rHCOalOcd^^QCOOJjidVO
■^MS2a:a!H»:>;;oopi«(J5
s
I f-
?,
p.
s
s
I
i
i
625
1 1
eooNpON r<~\o rH p r-r--
p r-r
I I
ir» cr^ H r^ in r-t r- j- r-i o cri Q <-*
vo r»- J- o^ J* Q Q •-« IT* o^
vx> t*^a\ ey if\ OS PSj i^ p
ifH60(Mcni3'ir\ (\jcvjo
f" (M fy cu o r-T cvT
I I
iffe,
-3 p, <
q V
to V
^ cG 3 Ol OJ O ON^D C\J ITN K\ rH cu
I <T\\s> CO I to m r- I I
J* H OJ r-* H
oj^Dvotovpvo CM irtc\j<rt
•-< »h3- iH r^ rH cm
■,5^'^S^S ,
o if> cu r-t irv r— ^ in in jj' r-om i-tin«HOJ QQtoi^(
c\j r^ c\i mv£r ^ in r^uS (J^ t^^o r— cotorM^ r^cvioccvji
o r- 1*- I Jt -3-' CO w' uv* rH iH r^ I <D t:^ I oj cu
fHCM ■Zor^HOJcvjcy i-^cvi inKv^ en
inr-^
(H^ incM CO mr^inrMn
60 (H r— i-t ^ o."a3 r— "»C BO
I r-CT>ojKAr*MnHrHO
W).HK\r-<nrH Cy 1-H
c\j o 60 in
I to i-«\i) in I ,
cu cy rH ^^ I
r^^ Ir-IHfHCMinf^rH
I I
r«^rH O »^ W to K\
CM CCl K\ I r-' (\J I
■J) J- r— 60 crsvp <n r— o
1-i r-60 r^in^ to roro
|_:taMn606omrHiom i
60 CTi cu (T*
r— CO inr~-
ina' p
rH iH rij
J- into
to 0-:3-
r»-aMn i
J- OJ 60
o ino
Q p r<~v J- in3- ^^60 60 r-i r^tTi I
Q 60 r-l rOQ"^
I l^^^^ 60 I p^ r— !
into cu
(H OJ
r^cu o KMninou)
OJ in I inrH rH r-l I
I i r
i I
inoj
o J- o
OJ f'Sin I
cy rH
._ ONtO
\D r-t inh-*^ ^ r-t
s
CJ J- 60
CO r-
60 BO
cr>oj
\^ ca
ininp r-t c^ r^».o in cri r^ 6p f*".p»
r-cvj ch I tr\t^\D r-tjt\l k^bo I i t 3 h 60 i
<H (T. I cu J* or*-ol IcTtHi I tooini
inrHcHi-trH inrHin
■I IgR^'l
«i;oci-ti-(iHM^e::
rs
^ r-i -^4
o tt Hi x: s:
> 0] 0)
o-S
"^
|*1^0» oo^^ o o o
g-3
o li
c >
!3e;soo(Xi«ie. tcs!»e»-
s
g*
I-
00
05
<< c3 © d
-o ft c
'3 « 3
ns
626
r-r^tcu'Mcur^inmaiOJftjcy iwrHi^r^ itocoo r^^ocu
1-^ IrHrHi-lrH Hr-*p^r-t<-ti «HrHr-t| iH i-lrH<H
r^ r— Q
rH CfSf
Jt to
CUWtHK) C\JEO6C?ijB0(\JOJI
rfj
(nr«-if\eor«-cri60 ir\ i
^ W ftJ K%0
rH cu in o ^D ft) IT* f-( in M r*-^cy
OJ 60 v2
tov^ r^ OJ OJ BO*25
oJ o C
■d ft o
r^ ■*» -^
J 01 3
' >* 5 -
i A u H}
rH 1-4 r^ioPS OJ cO
ir»o to p I
t f* t-t OJ I i
•Hoo ojr^QfHW i-nik^ CO mo
So r^ fH cT\3 i-i it \x) OJ o f^ O
^60 iH IT. eo ec 3- ^ 60 rH o r—
r- [--OJ I ^ iH fH 60 ^
ITi »H r— OJ OJ —
r-t OJ ro
?,
0-=t J- OJ Q
fu r^
ir\ir\rH trv
OJ Q K^OJ
oj\25 OJ ir\
U) Oj'oT I r^ I
r-«H o fH -
I gjpcy I
(Tvp— h- oo^r-tjr«OM^o(r*ojiri
OJ r— en 60 foa>«) 6o nj 60 oo ooj
t--^'^^^ IC^DOOJr— rHr— o -*
OJrHOJ cor^ r— r-< OJ
vrvoj Q ir» I
rH 60 OJ <T*
vo ineo I ■-
r— rH^
> >» u
•< a (D a
-d ft o
Qt O §
, o -
U CJ
o A)
»4 CI CD
© O >}
-^ rt (D a
"O ft o
#. s?<" I -a Ri ^?>-?.S'S'f3 Si I ""-a s J7 1 ^s '-*-*• -^ -!
r^rH^ rH
ir> o c\J I J cr\ r«-.j- J* lf^a^oo^l i^r<->oh-l^r-^*f^o^ojr—
60 rH J- ,-1 O! tn^ \D K£>
J-i-HOl-X-rHOJOJr^
^ oi r-
OJ ^
Q "^ OJ
m lis rH
J- cr>o
-ICO'sD rHOl K^Cr>rHr-
1 J- O a>-=J- rH r—^ 60 K%
60 Cr>^ ir\ CTi rH rH rH
----- -_.... „.rOt^60 OJ^'I^BOrHQftO
I ^■:5':£S2 cr\KMn_:t r^ i i ^ k\vjd oj loojrH^o^PSl
t J- o cr.^ rH r^\D 60 K% I I r^oj r^ I oj eo rH SjT'^oj 1
-§S'.
in 60 '^ v^ OJ ^ K\
^ &5 -
O q O ©
6^ -d O ^
a>rHCT\oj6o mr^rHt,o roroeo 1*^60
».o »-o 60 in r<~\r^K\o~\j* ir.mtrvrH
OJ rH LO rH ^ ITwO r-t t-i ^ r^
-* r— r^in
w_rH I mf^a>o [ rH r- l*^o^ f^o (T* 1
r<-\rH cur—f^ O rH ^ 60 ^X)
:f Cr* rH ^
] •r< <
rH 4*
S SM
i;
is
*4 -rt .H
tl I— ( O
lU;Msr5:saa^aoopL^K^t^e^^J>&=(c
P» o
05
o
B
I
9
35
627
>■ a V i
*< « P. <
1
8i!
f i I
I I I
I Mil I
I rH I I cvJo^o^H lj>^ I I I
m CO I I I I I vp I
•0 ^-
'«
I I I
•v;^ <TN r-i \0 05 C\i cv to <r* P^ sD
S I I 1^" ^"l I I i l~ I
> to (
^3 I
■^ ? at I
I I
II M
60 f^ Qf^OO-^ ir»r-
QO h^CTN Q •-• o
o r^ w iTvCp t\J
ft) K K\ racvi <T%
<r^ (
15^ is?'#v'^"-s 1"^^ ; I I ^g.^f^l
SI I'iS.I I
UVh h I I I I |vi>- r^l I U'l I
<4 a « a
85
■< * c a
•5 p, o
i
£.
85
1-4 o (H trt ir\
S?.
I I
I I
I I II II
H r<-\ ii> eo <r\^ m Q
1-4 r-S- o> h- ir> ir\\i>
cvj r^vD lO O to
r-\£) c\j a> r^ -:*
Q (TWO to \r\
-^^ I I ISl'lvltl I llll
I r
. ^ r- WW)
to to lOQ t^
tnf^ cj to iH
ON •-4^ io
-*■ M I S'-""'" I
vo BO r*^
ir»iH <r«
K^ 5s «o
r4 VA
~ I I I ^ I I
j?as'j8-?v-?,'^iR
i I I
I I
I I
^0
-o o^o^•o
!§;
I<^i l^S'^Si.S^'^S II^S^"[?;lfiS| IS^S-M
C |4
O •«»
R to
> tTwQ a\ <rt\fi vo CM I
- t^a^a\'^ \3 r- f^
r*0 rH OJ CM
to » fuM P-r*^
I I "*. ^ °^ I "^ '"'
I I -rf. 11
^4
s
S5
tlllsp:
•o E q
fl o «
M »H la
I
M a a
tt a k
•HOC
a a IE
:a B5 5
•§§5
a :
o 0, m
§196
9^
3
R
ER
»
t
I
a
«
O V
v<
s
5
J,
§
&
t*
>
^M
wO
OS
t
3
!
628
i
i
1
1
• ^ a
r^\£)^ r— ^-* rH vx) a\r-t
m n
r^d 60 iH r-l iH ]
^ 1
Pit
1 1 1 1 II 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
S c •>
5l-g
4» (H
, — ■ 1
o
O O •
(d ID p
1 1 1 1^:8.-1° l-^l 1 1 l^^l^-ll 1 II l~. 1
g
o^
rH
a o a
1
o
38S 5^ §s^ 5^ f Ss
!£. H
o e
P 1
fegi
1 1 1 1"^" n M 1 i-^i 1 1 1 1 1 1" 1
~" 1
^ -H
1
« a «>
1
«t: 5
r*^ ^-ir»r*~»oj to tfM*^ o^ r*^ vo to h
f^ u
CU H K\ J* r-«
H U
1
U E ■*»
u
111 1 i 1 I ! 1 1 ! 1 1 I I
a « ffl
III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1
II ^
^ls.g
43 <M
0) O •
o u
i-t fH loj* rKcu eo^X) how w h
CJ H
iH 4> -H
. »>.>>- •••
M do
lli
1 « -H
|~ I ISIR™-^ 1"" 1 1 1 ISI^l^i 1 11 1
^ i
H y
^
BOB)
1
,
in n
1
o
lf\ W r^ O^ H CVJ H r»-V K\ Q Q H
f^ M
o ®_
<^ ^S?SS* 'i^KJ * f. 8 S »
OJ H
H) tj
f4 d «
1 d h
1 ilS-^ 1 i i 1 1 1 1 M 1 ! i
H j
j{
_3 tt) -p
g E »
D
l^ai
-#> ^8?^:::?! S'Si" ii S '^, 5"^,
c^ i
Ml -^ 1 1 1 l-^l-^l ! 1 1 I I
« » ffl
^l|g
■*> Vi
n
ao
o o •
o u
rH ♦* *»
$ sls^l ^»& ^ 3 P §g
1 1
"3 ■ 3 *
1 |E?;l>S^5!,.SS^ l^-l?"^! 1 l"i£!J?.l MIIS'^I
J- H IT* VD
H H
H
la-
BOO
». i
ir. eo cu cr. in H ^ a^ '^^ ,,,^ ^'ii^i 11*^1
CM
O V
r-
j 1 H 1 H »Ah hhi r4|llo^|tnt till ^1
IM"
R
^ a b
3 o ■*>
SB"
*• s
•SS> ?--!9v^P^•3 ' "^K: -S^E?. S S
in
a r^ r-( V< rH r-1 CU rH M ....
l-"
1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 II i 1
e (Q BO
^llg
^
r-
4» <M
a o •
BOW mwr-r-in h (r* 3^«> l^
JS'
o u
«
l-t 4> -P
C\J
3^1".
m - m m m * pw ir\ • • • - » •
l5SlSf;S"g^•I.;'i?^l 1 1 is-scs^rM li 15^1 I
in
.71
a>
^|i|
ir^
1 iH
w ir\ vx)
«"
i d p
n
a o oj
^ i
I^I^P,1?llf^.Mli^^|l^MII^II
1
o •
h d s
u O ^
m\or— ir.P'.H c\j M) H
Si
J> H w Jt
t*-
.a -H
rH
H
^ :^
11
tS B »
1
- «
•
. • > e
*
• • •
is =
1 i
• ••■*>
•1
•
• S
SS
••a :^
s
no m
B oi ol T^ C
a
till 2
ll°!^lE§l^l!^^IS-°^ilii^tf?i1l
II
3i
<=
C
c
*-
a
^
SZ
i
u ^
su » B e
vol
(i. (J5 t-
>
ra Pk -p
IT J3 d V t\J
4» ti urn
^J3^
« a ,0 -p O)
629
=J o
« h s
8 . I
>-« e
2 • CQ
o a
P r-l rH
3.
§■85
CO )-« o
m u
i
e6 a> a
> " g
I d u a>
%s
< ir\ t\i Q r*^ OJ W t*- Q
lOM> »«~« h- iTvr^eovr rH
I i
0J\£> IfN
ir\ lo t\j o <r»v£>
y o «o ir\vo I-* o -J vO v£
OvjS f-l <-I,3- ri ir\-5
p— o^(^J ir» Kv<£) J- r*>^
1 I -x CM to I r ■> I vi> OJ w r—
ff^-iR
I I I
I i I
i I I
o o
ITS iH
er\o ON
loll <r.Q
leptoi ||o\pi^iir»!
g \J3 r~-co
I ^?3"s I
■ 3
?^f
III
Q O «-*
cr»r— t\i
W ONO
Q Q «0 O t^N
ill -- 1
I I I
I I I I
I I M I
J r-* flSlTvCJ rH'^
ir\c\i cj r*- K^to
ir\f-t K\ »^ to
._.._ -_ rHeoa> h- (o
I f-t I I r^^^ <n I uT^ I I I I oo ONW I lo I I I I rA (
QtOCMt^OJ 0\r- OtQ to K'* ^
BO ^ to eo ON iTN^u iTN ir\ r- r^ 3-
I II a; ^\ I I II u^ (nT i ^- 1 I I I «>-
9.
s-
Sz;oo(i4WtHeHt)t>l
o
o
♦»
P4
V
TO
*?
CO
o
V
rH
IfN
P
1-1
r*
v<
7(
t>n
a
o > q
S5
5;3
u a
to o
" &
*> 0)
a) ^
« CO
•d O
-H 4*
^ i
g &
>lll
630
I 01 N0U33S ssom
-••ui
632
_k.
o o o o o
(0 f^ la lii «!• <»i
^i£L
ctov.i
o
«*4
o
8
$ ^
u O
^ O O
0.
3
o o o o o o
o> «o r-- «» ") ^
o
? y o
Tr
#
H »J- tJ ti ■-
i~~l
Ji
z
—• « O
u —
a.
^^^^^^
2. 20
TtIO
Chart No. 7
■JV/W—
Panhanolle
Biti^minous Coal — Cost, Realization,
- and Margins by Months +
Nov. 1935 thru Jan. 1955
REALIZATION
^
DOILAM
ZliO:
2.J&-
ZOO
L90
<B0
170
fceo
tso
140
renccNT"
100
80
60
-40
20
Jr~~i kt'-
T BASED ON N RA 6ituininou5 Cml Mine Rejjortj, Form A
- — -fRZPAHZD BY -Bituminous Ci>»l Unit, Division •tRciievt.
N RA under the direction t
200
i90
I.BO
1.70
1.60
130
»40
100
80
60
40
20
NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN.
1933 I93A 1935
I 9&3T
f
637
dhaK No. 8 Ndrtherp M^esft yircjiiniia
Appewdix jK
DOLLAR!
Bituminous |co«al — Co$t,Rea\i'A3tt\pn.
anpt Marqilns by Mc^nthg
I93p ' thru Jan. 935
NOV DEC. JAN FEB. MAR. APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG. 5EPT OCT NOV. DEC. JAN.
1933 1934- I93S
9837
iii
t -■
1
Iii
ffliJliiiiii
i
ill
m
mm
mmmmm
Ch4rt No. 9
%
:b;
turninous
Coa "-1 Ccpst jRealizabioh,
aouth
rii Sub. No.i
■ Appp Nqix nr
oai
<
I
o
z
I
o
X
Ui
o
liJ
z
CD
o
o
z
o
I-
<
N
<
111
2 s
z "
< «
O
z
ii
CD
(0
X
I-
z
o
>
ffi
in
to
o>
z
<
3
o:
X
Q.
Ui
UJ
O
g
CO
>
o
z
H
q:
<
I
o
VtV
-6117-
I?^
J
it,
M
m m
ii I
W -ills. ii^i§553«' ^J^I^t-SM^ l?e^i
'St
si
ml
I
jjii
W37
— 3-A8-
APPEISIX TO
(^::^' 2I3. III .
FRODUCTIOIT aIJD DISTHIBUTION
ECONOuIC SURVEY
01 THE
BITUMINOUS COAL IITOUSTRY
Ui-IDER FREE COI.iPETITIOi'I AW CODE REGULATION
9837
- 649 -
BITUiillTOUS
CAFACr.
C0.AL Fr.ODUCTIC::. 2SAL]
:SATI01-J AITO t.llll
1899 - 1934
E
PY III riffi UKIT
ED STATES,
Production
Average
Calculated Capacity
Average
(I'illions
llum'ber
(l,;illions
of llet Tons)
Value
Year
of l.'et
cf a&irs
at
at
Per Wet
Tons)
Worked
308 days
280 days
Ton
1899
193
234
254
230
$0.87
1900
212
2-^4
279
255
.1.04
1901
226
225
309
281
•i-05
1902
250
230
348
315
1.12
1903
233
225
387
350
1.24
1904
279 •
202
425
586
1.10
1905
315
211
450
417
1.06
1906
343
213
496
451
1.11
1907
395
234
520
473
1.14
1908
333
193
551
482
1.12
1909
330
209
550
510
1.07
1910
417
217
592
538
1.12
1911
40 S
211
593
558
1.11
1912
450
223
622
555
1.15
1913
478
'232
555
577
1.18
1914
423
IS 5
658
603
1.17 .
1915
445
203
572
610
1.15
1918
503
2n0
575
515
1.52
1917
552
243
599
635
2.25
1918
579
249
717
550
2.58
1919
456
195
roo
559
2.49
1920
559
220
796
725
5.75
1921
416
149
350
781
2.89
1922
422
142
915
832
5.02
1923
565
179
970
885
2.58
1924
484
171
871
792
2.20
1925
520
195
822
748
2.04
1926
575
215
821
747
2.06
1927
518
191
835
759
1.99
1928
501
203
760
591
1.85
1929.
535
219
752
679
1.78
1930
458
187
770
700
1.70
1931 .
382
150
756
653
1.54
1932
310
146
553
594
1.31
1933
334
157
615
559
1.34
1934*.
358
173
622
565
1.75
'* Ca'oacity under IHA conditions pjid • orJcing time
Soui^ce: U. S. Lxxreau of ;;ines
prepared ''oj Dituminous Coal Unit
Division of Hevie^, IJHA
under direction of F. E. Berquist
9837
- 650 "
BITin.IIlIOUS COAL FRODUCTIOIL
, HEALIZATION AllD MIIIE
CjffACITY
III THE TOUTED
STATliiS, 18 s
;9 - 1934
'
production
Average
Calculated
Capacity
Average
(Millions
muaber
(Millions of Net Tons
Value
Year
of Het
of days
at
at
Per Net
Tons)
Worked
308 days
280 days
Ton
189?
193
234
254
230
$0.87
1900
212
234
279
255
1.04
1901:.
226
225
309
281
1.05
1902 ■
260
230
348
316
1.12
1903
283
225
387
350
1.24
1904
279
202
425
336
1.10
1905
315
211
460
417
1.95
1906
343
213
496
451
1.11
1907
385
234
520
473
1.14
1908
333
193
551
482
1.12
1909
380
209
, ; 560
510
1.07
1910
417
217
592
538
1.12
1911
406
211
593
538
1.11 .
1912
450
223
622
556
1.15
1913
478
232
635
577
1.18
1914
423
195
658
608
1.17
1915
443
203
672
610
1.13
1916
503
230
573
613
1.32
1917
552
243
699
636
2.26
1918
579
249
717
550
2.58
1919
465
195
735
669
2.49
1920.
569
220
796
725
3.75
1921
416
149
850
781
2.89
1922
422
142
916
832
3.02
1923
565
179
970
885
2.68
1924
484
171
871
792
2.20
1925
520
195
822
748
2.04
1926
573
215
821
747
2.06
1927
518
191
835
759
1.99
1928
501
203
750
691
1.86
1929
535
219
752-
679
1.78
1930"
468
187
770
700
1.70
1931
382
160
736
660
1.54
1932
310
145
■ 653
594
1.31
1933
334
157
515
559
1.34
1934*
358
178
522
565
1.75
* Capacity under YBA conditions and vrorking time
Source; U . S . Bureau of Mines
Prepared ty Biturainous Coal Unit
Division of Heview, ITRA
under direction of P. E. Berquist
9837
- 551 -
BITmilNOUS COAL PnODUCTIOl' . r.lEALIZATIOlT AIID MINE
CAPACITY III TH5 UlTITBD STATES. 1839 - 1954
Production
Average
Calculated Canacity
Average
( Hi 11 ions
11101:11)6 r
(ilillions
of llet Tons)
Value
Year
of iTet
of days
at
at
Per llet
Tons)
yorked
308 days
280 days
Ton
1899
193
234
254
230
$0.87
1900
212
234
279
255
1.04
1901
226
225
309
281
1.05
1902
260
230
348
316
1.12
1903
283
223
387
350
1.24
1904
279
202
425
386
1.10
1905
315
211
460
417
1.06
1906
343
213
496
451
1.11
1907
395
234
520
473
1.14
1908
333
193
531
482
1.12
1909
330
209
560
510
1.07
1910
417
217
592
538
1.12
1911
406
211
593
538
1.11
1912
450
223
622
566
1.15
1913
478
232
635
577
1.18
1914
423
195
668
60 B
U17.
1915
443
203
672
610
1.13
1916
503
230
673
613
1.32
1917
552
243
699
636
2.25
1918
579
249
717
650
2.50
1919
456
195
736
6S9
2.49
1920
569
220
796
725
3.75
1921
416
149
860
781
2.89
1922
422
142
916
832
3.02
1923
555
179
970
885
2.68
1924
484
171
871
792
2.20
1925
520
195
822
748
2.04
1925
573
215
821
747
2.06
1927
518
191
835
759
1.99
1928
501
203
760
691
1.86
1929
535
219
752
679
1.78
1930
468
187
770
700
1.70
1931
382
150
736
569
1.54
1932
310
145
653
594
1.31
1933
334
157
615
559
1.34
1934*
358
178
622
555
1.75
* Capacity under IIRA conditions and working tine
Source: U. S. Buresu of iiines
prepared oy Bituiinous Coal Unit
Division of keview, IIEIA
under direction of P. E. Berquist
9837
652 -
3lf'
ITULIIIOTJS O.OAL PlIODUCTIO" . ?J]ALIZATIOI^ AlH) IIIIIE
CAPACITY
Il-I THE ITJITED
STATES, 189
'9 - 1934
procUiction
Average
Calculated
Capacity
Average
(llillions
1111:111)6"
(liillions of
■ Net Tons)
"Value
Year
of Uet
of days
at
at
Per Het
Tons)
Uorhed
308 days
280 days
Ton
1899
193
234
234
230
$0.87
1900
212
234
279
255
1.04
1901
225
225
309
281
1.05
1902 ■
250
230
348
315
1.12
1903
283
225
387
350
1.24
1904
279
202
425
3S5
1.10
1905'
315
211
450
417
1.06
1906
343
213
495
451
1.11
1907
395
234
520
473
1.14
1908'
333
193
531
482
1.12
1909
350
209
560
510
1.07
1910
417
217
592
538
1.12
1911
406
211
593
538
1.11
1912
450
223
622
565
1.15
1913
478
232
535
577
1.18
1914
423
195
658
■508
1.17
1915
443
203
672
610
1.13
1915
503
2S0
673
613
1.32
1917
552
243
699
535
2.26
1918
579
249
717
650
2.58
1919
466
195
736
569
2.49
1920
559
220
795
725
3.75
1921
416
149
850
731
2.89
1922
422
142
915
832
3.02
1923
555
179
970
885
2.58
1924
484
171
871
792
2.20
1925
520
195
822
748
2.04
1926
573
215
831
747
2.06
1927
518
121
835
759
1.99
1928
501
203
750
591
1.85
1929
635
219
■752
679
1.78
1930
468
187
770
700
1.70
1931
382
160
736
569
1.54
1932
310
146
653
594
1.31
1933
334
1G7
515
359
1.34
1954*
358
178
622
555
1.75
* Capacity under KTRA conditions and '^'orlcing time
SouTco: U.S. Biu-eau of I'ines
Pre-pared "by Bituminous Coal Unit
Division of Heviev, IIEA.
under direction of F. K. Berquist
9837
j §^ 8-, §. §„ I, §. §^ i^ §^ i„ i.
j r 4° 3- t° 5= 8f' r' 8- js I" 5°
653
8 5
s° r
- B
1^ i- I. tr. i^ i, 8, §.
s« j" g° s° §~ s° jis i'
B •*' ** "^ '^" tt •**
g- go £- s"o ja
?- go S^ £. 2. 4,
fs g" 3° »- K" )§ =
&^ So B«.
S- i, i, 5h c~ S
r r p i" s°' i°
w Siri 9' H>c> aiw
?5 ?-? S-. 8<> ?.. E-: ?-.. ?- SL E., £- r. 1?„ 1. go J. ?., J, 2„ S, 8„ E„ «.. «„ 6- £,
r r r r" fa s- 8- r «= 5° i° r s° r -° e° r r' £« r i"' i° r r' s"^ s-
- - ^ R ff " - R -■ »■<.•_• _■ j. „- ^ ^ ,0 ^ -• ^ J,"
U R,. «^ J. B. 5^ 6^ &^ S^ E„ s„ 5„ ?. S. So sL £, *., 5. 31. I« i„ S,. S. S. S„
i" s° 3" «" sa f a° «" «s ?° r s" s° 3i° ~°' g° I'' r' 5» s" s° s° 5~ i° s* £-■
a-- SS--R
?-, f^ S. go S^ ?., S. £.. So E,. =. ?,
g- R° «- -« E= j- go 5° j= go- --d g,
E - - R S " ~ R ~ "
«° s° l° 8-
5- c~ S^ E,« 5,„ 5o S->
r e° E° r s"' j« s-
■ s "
e
•«o
5°
go
K°
So
£.. 5^ a. *o 3^ 51.. f. £. I. 5. S. £. ^ g,. e„ «„ £, §^ g. |„ j^ s„ i, c^ g^ g^
f" r «- »° 5= t" 1° s° s= y° i° 1° s° 3° =*°" 2° r r' s* r s° «- r' §i°' ae -<■-"
~ - -r- 5 . ^ - 5 ~ V ,-, »■ „■ ^ ^ jj .^ -■ ,; Ic „■ ,; ;•■
ft„ £« S- Si„ »^ S_ S « c c 31 a s . K s
J- 1° 5" *° j= £"^,1° 5° |s 3° 5° K° i° i° s"=
5° 8!« |- H° S- r
" A " - "' 3
^ir> r*\0 S f >
*.-. *-: &•: S=. *.«-. S-; S-. 2,; t., 3.. £„ X^ 5. S„ =,„ £,. S„ *^ S_ £. S„ 3„ ^^ j^ j^ ifi
5^ JO 
TVNews
OpenLibrary