the piece system according as their work can or can not be standardized. That is to say, they accept it when it does not interfere with collective bargaining. It is doubtful, however, whether this explanation can be applied to conditions in the United States. Many of the twentyeight American unions which accept the piece system without active protest, refrain from protesting merely because protestation appears useless; and many of the twenty-two unions which oppose piece payment, could adopt the system without destroying collective bargaining. The labor leaders, especially, are opposed to piece work. "The principal officers of many of the most important American unions whose members habitually work by the piece, would, if they had the power, instantly abolish the system.'

(e) Hours of Labor: The labor leaders oppose piece work because they believe that if workmen toil and strain to increase their earnings by this system, the piece rate will inevitably be lowered, so that eventually the workman will be able to earn with the increased strain and effort, only enough to maintain him in his accustomed style of living. This same belief in the controlling power of the standard of living, makes the regulation of the working day, in the opinion of many labor leaders, the most important of all union aims and policies. "The most progressive leaders, such as Mr. Gompers of the Federation of Labor, are constantly urging their associates to put the shorter work day in the forefront of their demands. Organize and control your trade and shorten

your hours, is their position, and wages will take care of themselves. ''1

The "normal day," unlike "the standard rate," is a maximum, not a minimum, and there seems no uniform policy with respect to it beyond the general effort to reduce it as much as possible. When the Cigar Makers secured the eight hour day, they immediately began to discuss the six hour day. When the German-American Typographia secured the eight hour day, they followed it up with a five day week in certain places. Only a few national unions like the two just named have a uniform. working day, and the regulation of the hours of labor is for the most part left to the local union. Overtime is systematically opposed. One or two unions forbid it, except in cases of emergency, but the usual preventative is found in demanding extra pay for overtime.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century men worked, almost universally, from sun to sun. At the present time, many important trades work only eight hours a day, and the average working day, excluding agricultural and domestic labor, is probably less than ten hours. This great reform is a distinctive accomplishment of organized labor, and in the past it has met with the endorsement of the disinterested economist as well as that of the labor leader himself. Both justify the movement on the grounds that it will give the worker more time for rational amusements, educational, civic and family duties,

1 Report of the In. Com., Vol. XVII, p. xlvil. The writer takes this opportunity of acknowledging his general indebtedness to this altogether admirable description of American labor organizations.

and that this increased leisure will result in a more intelligent, contented and efficient working population. Both agree moreover that in the long run and within reasonable limits wages are strongly affected by the standard of life, and that a tenacious refusal to work an excessive number of hours will to a degree remove the necessity for it. But here the average economist and the average trade unionist part company. The former defends reduction of hours under present conditions because he believes that it will not diminish the product of industry; whereas the labor leader advocates persistent and radical reductions precisely because he believes that it will diminish the product per individual, and furnish work for the unemployed. "The idea that a man will produce as much in eight hours as in ten may occasionally be advanced by labor leaders, but it is not their general position; and even if one does advance it he is likely to bring forward in the next paragraph ideas that are entirely inconsistent with it. The argument which really carries weight with them is based on the opposite idea. It is that the reduction of hours will reduce the supply of labor power in the market, and so will raise its price. It will make room for the unemployed, and so will remove the depressing influence of their competition.

'Whether you work by the piece or the day,
Decreasing the hours increases the pay,'

is a constantly reiterated expression of the current creed of the union leaders.""

1 Report of the In. Com., p. xlvii.

(f) Attitude towards Machinery: The old historical antipathy to labor saving machinery still persists quite generally among the rank and file of the trade union. world, and finds occasional expression, for example, in the successful opposition to the introduction of typesetting machines in the Government Printing Office, or in the working rules of a few unions. "What is known as a stone pick," say the by-laws of the Journeymen Stone Cutters' Union, "is not a stone cutters' tool, and this association will use every effort to discourage its use." "Planer work," reads the twelfth article of their constitution, "will not be permitted to be shipped into any city where the union has succeeded in abolishing them [planers]." On the other hand, a small number of unions whose members work by the piece, actually insist upon the introduction of the most efficient machinery; and the more advanced leaders generally deprecate the blind opposition to labor saving devices. "Useless labor," says the Secretary of the United Garment Workers, "cannot be justified, or anything which curtails human activity. Economies of production all tend to make more of the individual. If labor saving inventions are used as a means of oppression it would be wiser to meet the situation with a view of correcting abuses than to deprive ourselves of the inestimable advantages they furnish." Speaking generally, the great mass of unionists have been convinced that the prolonged resistance to machinery is impossible, and that the real function of the labor union is to regulate its introduction so that it will

cause as little distress and unemployment as possible. Their specific policy in achieving this result is to insist that the new machines be manned by unionists, not by new workers, and that the "machine rates" of wages be such as to give the worker some small share in the increased profits ordinarily secured by its introduction.1

(g) Restriction of Output: Almost every device of the trade union limits in some way the industrial output. The "New Trades Combination" and the successful restriction of the entrance to the trade, limit the output of the whole industry; the reduction of hours, the penalization of overtime, the prohibition of piece-work, the leveling of wages, all tend to reduce, in the first instance, at least, the output of the individual worker. In addition to these methods, the output of the individual workers is sometimes directly limited by other means. The Lithographers, Machinists, Pressmen and other organizations limit the number of machines which a man may tend. The Stove Mounters, the Flint Glass Workers, the Iron, Steel and Tin Workers, and other piece-working trades, limit, under some circumstances, the amount of wages which may be earned in a day. The direct limitation of earnings is rare, but the hatred of "rushers" or pacemakers is general, and occasionally finds formal expression, as in the following by-law of the New York branch of the Brotherhood of Carpenters: "Any member who does an unreasonable amount of work, or who acts as

A good illustration of the application of this policy may be found In the Report of the Industrial Commission, Vol. VII, p. 276 seq.