risk upon the worker at all times. Where employe representation and profit-sharing have been wisely instituted, workers and owners have also jointly endeavored to guard against risks and losses to Capital and to minimize the workers' risks by setting up Reserves or Sinking Funds for the above purposes before net profits are divided. In one such plan, Capital's Sinking Fund is intended to secure to the stockholder his 6 per cent 'wage' during a period of depression and the Employes' Sinking Fund is intended to secure to the worker unemployment insurance of half wages when the Company is unable to furnish employment. Other plans provide more or less similar Loss Sharing Funds. The size of these funds should be proportionate to the probable risk in the business and to the estimated hazard of unemployment and will vary greatly according to the nature of the industry. It would be wise for a company to build up these Reserves partially or entirely before announcing its profit-sharing plan."

Mr. Myers then gives some of the comments which were made at a conference by the representatives of the workers and their foremen illustrating the effect of profitsharing on the attitude of the workers toward their jobs. "Another foreman said that the plan has educated the people in the mill to take an interest in the mill, in the business and its problems, and that they were all thoroughly interested in watching the daily bulletins of orders received and production turned out.

"A representative of the Shipping Department stated that in his department there used to be a big turnover, that they were unable to keep men to do the heavy work of loading the trucks in all weather and that new men were constantly hired. Since the plan went into effect, he remembered no changes. Formerly, also the gang used to grumble and kick when large shipments of goods came down late in the afternoon to be gotten to the station, but that now the bigger the shipments the better they liked it, as they all say 'business must be good and there will be profits for all at the end of the month.'***

"When asked what he thought about dividing profits each month, another worker admitted that it was probably a bad idea to divide profits before the end of the year, which, he said, was 'like taking your cake out of the oven before it was baked.' He said he had been with the Company a great many years, that he was a member of the union, and with others had suspected 'a nigger in the woodpile' when the plan was first inaugurated. He said he had been on the Board for two years and had worked hard to get industrial democracy really functioning in the mill, but now he felt sure it was a paying proposition for everybody concerned. * * *

"About two years ago, one of the machine runners in this mill, through carelessness, spoiled many thousands

of yards of cloth by 'pin cuts.' The plant paper published a letter from the Sales Manager, stating the seriousness of this loss, and saying that it might amount to a loss of as much as $6.00 apiece in profit-sharing to every one in the factory. The result was that although neither the department nor the individual was mentioned, within thirty minutes the whole factory knew about the loss, knew what room it had occurred in, and the man who was responsible, and every one was so sore that it seemed doubtful whether the operative at fault would get home alive! Here you have public opinion strongly in favor of good work in the factory. *** Every one was down on the man who had caused this common loss. ***

"Over two years of financial depression in this industry have not seriously impaired the partnership spirit in the mill. It is not to be expected that a flush of happy enthusiasm can be maintained during a period when no profits are distributed and men are out of work one or two days a week. That condition taken together with a low scale of wages for the entire industry is enough to take the edge off any morale. No partners are exactly exuberant during business depression. But they can understand and trust each other and each one do his best. It was not a surprise to the partners in the mill referred to when depression came on. Full information in regard to market conditions and the trend of business had been given them from month to month. Not only was this publicity continued throughout the depression, together with full information in regard to the Company finances, but they were also informed on the amount of work being secured by competitors and how their own mill stood in the trade. As a result, the officials state that this mill has made a remarkable record for the years of depression and the Sales Manager has attributed this accomplishment directly to the 'spirit of our six hundred partners who get the work out right and get it out quick.' This is, of course, one of the greatest assets that any mill can have when orders are scarce."

The National Industrial Conference Board summarizes, in the following language, the benefits derived from profit sharing: "Both the general objects, such as cooperation and loyalty, and specific objects, such as reduction of labor turnover, economies of material, greater productive efficiency, avoidance of industrial disputes, and the promotion of thrift, are being achieved, to a greater or less extent, with profit-sharing plans." If these are to be obtained, the writer contends that: "Profit-sharing plans should be wisely formulated upon a sound financial basis, setting up proper reserves against losses and making provision for the expansion of the business. The share of profits offered to the workers should be liberal and substantial enough to give them a real interest in making the business a success. A real voice in the management should

be a part of every profit-sharing plan, and the plan must be properly administered."

Mr. Myers' advocacy of profit-sharing brings to mind some figures recently published relative to the proportion of personal income which comes from services, wages, and salaries, and the proportion which comes from dividends, interest, etc. With smaller earnings from services, there usually goes an even smaller percentage of income from accumulated property. To those who earn larger salaries, there usually goes even a larger percentage of income by way of interest and dividends. This is not surprising when one stops to reflect that only those who earn higher

salaries have any substantial economic surplus to invest, but it nevertheless has a moral implication to be considered in connection with the problem of profit-sharing. It naturally raises the question whether it is desirable that those who receive the ordinary returns of wage earners, and whose material needs are more pressing should more generally share in the profits of the business with which they are connected. On the whole, the viewpoint seems to be gaining ground that this privilege should be extended to employes on specially advantageous terms when they are willing to make sacrifices by investing some of their money in the business.

The Russell Sage Foundation has just issued a six hundred page volume dealing with the problem of employment and the need for public employment offices. The work has been done by the collaboration of several writers under the direction of Mr. Shelby M. Harrison. This volume is an exhaustive and painstaking review of existing methods of securing employment and the problems involved in the administration of public employment offices. Its chief virtue is in the interest that it must

awaken in the present absence of systematic data on the personnel of the American wage earners and the opportunities of employment which are actually open to them, and the possibilities for making employment more secure if systematic data on these subjects is collected.

Part I of the book is devoted to the study of existing methods of bringing workers in contact with jobs. It points to the conclusion that employment agencies must be publicly operated and that a correlated national, state and local employment service is best adapted to the existing needs of the employment problem. Part II deals with the problems surrounding the organization and administration of a national public employment service. Part III discusses the actual problem of bringing the worker in contact with the job, and the administrative functions of a local employment office. Part IV deals with employment groups requiring special service, such as farm labor, migratory workers, apprentices, immigrants, handicapped workers, negroes, and professional men and women.

Emphasis is laid upon the point that the national employment service should be independent of the Department of Labor or of any other department devoted to the interests of a special group of the citizenry, and that the policies of the service should be determined by an advisory council representative of all the interests engaged in industry. The suggestions made as to the data to be collected concerning each job available and each applicant is highly instructive in awakening interest in the great possibilities latent in careful and intelligent personnel

work. There is also intelligent discussion of the theory that an employment office should give or should not give heed to the prejudices of employers against certain types of workers and of workers against certain types of employers.

The problems discussed by this book seem to us to be inescapable and ones that exercise increasing pressure for their solution.

In summarizing the discussion on existing methods of bringing the worker in contact with the job and the inadequacy of these methods, the book says:

"If unorganized methods are inadequate, and modern industry therefore requires an organized service, of what kind shall it be? The possibilities were sought among the seven types with which industry was found to have had experience. (1) want advertisements in newspapers and periodicals; (2) employment bureaus maintained by chambers of commerce, boards of trade, employers' associations, and the like; (3) by trade unions; (4) bureaus conducted by fraternal, professional, and technical organizations; (5) by philanthropic societies; (6) private fee-charging agencies; and (7) bureaus maintained by the public. An examination of the first six of the organized methods, namely, all the non-public agencies, showed them insufficient to meet the need of organized assistance in making employment contacts.

"Investigation showed further the reasons which lie behind the use of these unorganized and organized employment methods and agencies. Chief among these, in the case of the direct or unorganized methods, were: that in one or another of these, varying often with the circumstances, employers or workers saw certain advantages to themselves in bargaining over the terms of their work contract; that some of the methods appeared to give workers an advantage in competing with other workers for jobs, or employers in competing with other employers for labor; that some supplied desirable details and informa

tion about men and jobs; that some of the procedures seemed easy and convenient, 'in the line of least resistance;' that some satisfy a desire of employers to select workers from a large number, and of workers to know of as many jobs as possible; some also satisfy the worker's desire to have his personality and individuality recognized; and, finally, some were valued when workers or jobs were needed quickly in emergencies and the like.

"The chief reasons for using organized methods were the following: (1) Want advertisements saved the time of employers when written responses were required; they often kept a steady stream of applicants coming to the gate of the plant and thus, as in the case of direct methods, increased the employer's bargaining power; and they brought quick responses in emergencies. The advantages were practically all on the side of the employer, but disadvantages to him were also found. This kind of advertising tended to cause people to change jobs and thus to increase the labor turnover of the community; and it also was expensive. For the worker it often meant a serious waste of time, and also subjected him at times to 'fake' advertising and other abuses. (2) Bureaus operated by employers' associations carried advantages to employers in the greater degree of control of the means through which the employment contacts were made, and the confidence that such bureaus would be alert to advance the employers' interests. (3) Similarly, union workers saw advantage in bureaus maintained by the unions through their control over the contact-making agency. Employment contacts were easy and natural for them through this agency; little or no bargaining was necessary; the information supplied usually covered more matters of interest to them than are covered by other agencies; and union members thus could cooperate in increasing the number of work openings for members. (4) In bureaus operated by fraternal and professional organizations, both employers and workers, being members, meet on a more equal footing and their contacts are on a more or less personal basis. The fact of mutual interest by both employers and workers in the bureau or the organization operating it had a valuable reaction upon the quality of its work. (5) Bureaus maintained by philanthropic societies are part of their activities in helping families and individuals to self-support. Thus, these bureaus are in the great majority of cases laboring in the interests of

workers who are handicapped in one way or another. (6) The best known fee-charging agencies are those placing professional and office workers, domestics, and casual and unskilled labor. In general, employers and workers thought the professional and technical bureaus to be efficient and doing reasonably satisfactory work. On the other hand, employers were not satisfied with the efficiency of the general labor agencies and regarded them with indifference or suspicion; while the attitude of workers was definitely hostile. (7) Outstanding considerations among those who used the public bureaus was that they were free and open to all employers and workers on equal Not that opposition to the public bureaus was not found among employers, for it was; but in general the opposition was to the service as administered in 1919, at the time of our field investigations, rather than to public employment service as such. Everywhere and from all points of view the importance of impartiality on the part of the public bureaus was emphasized.

"But it was further found that no one of these organized agencies was fully meeting the employment needs of industry and the community. A consideration of their future possibilities leads to the conclusion that the greatest immediate promise lies in the development and raising to a high standard of efficiency of a national system of public employment bureaus. Four important reasons point in this direction: the fact that all the non-public agencies together fall short of meeting the quantitative demand for an able employment service; that they leave important fields untouched which in the public interest should be provided for; that they are not well adapted for service on a national co-ordinated scale; and that in the nature of the case they cannot meet the requirements of impartiality.

"It is recognized, however, that the change from the methods now in practice to a system whereby a maximum of the work shall be done through the public bureaus must be a more or less gradual process. The first step in the process should be to provide placement service for those unlikely to be properly served by other agencies, and at the same time to seek to bring all bureaus working to reduce unemployment into as effective cooperation as possible. Then the service should be extended in amount and scope as rapidly as experience proves it to be feasible and the development in industry desirable."