Full text of Conditions in the Shoe Industry in Haverhill, Mass., 1928 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 483

View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
JAMES J. DAVIS, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
ETHELBERT STEW A RT, Commissioner

BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES \
Wl
A QQ
BUREAU OF LABOR S T A T IS T IC S /.............. l l f h *10O
M

I S C E L L A N E O U S

S E R I E S

CONDITIONS IN THE SHOE
INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL
MASS., 1928

JAN UARY, 1929

UNITED STATES
GOVERNM ENT PRINTING OFFICE
W ASHINGTON
1929

Acknowledgment
This bulletin was prepared by Robert S. Billups and Philip L.
Jones, of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
ii

Contents
Page

Introduction___________________________________________________________________
1
Factories that moved, liquidated, or failed_________________________________
2 -8
2 -4
Reasons for removal_____________________________________________________
Reasons for failure or liquidation_______________________________________
4 -8
Causes of losses in Haverhill_________________________________________________
8, 9
Small shoe manufacturers____________________________________________________
9, 10
Contract stitching shops______________________________________________________ 10 -1 2
Wholesale prices of shoes, 1925 to 1927_____________________________________ 12, 13
Average hours and earnings in Haverhill and other cities, 1928__________ 13 -1 6
Average hours and earnings, by States, 1916 to 1928______________________ 16, 17
Earnings, by occupations, in a busy and in a slack week___________________ 17 -2 1
Employment, pay rolls, and earnings, 1928_________________________________ 2 1 -2 3
Haverhill pay rolls, 1925 to 1928_____________________________________________ 2 3 -2 5
Shoe workers’ unions in Haverhill___________________________________________ 26, 27
Haverhill Shoe Manufacturers’ Association_________________________________
27
Working agreement or peace pact____________________________________________ 28 -3 1
Union votes to terminate agreement_________________________________________
31
Haverhill shoe board activities_______________________________________________ 3 1 -6 8
Conditions in May, 1927, by chairman of shoe board______________________ 6 8 -7 2
Conditions in 1925 to 1928, by manufacturers and union officials_________72-81
Strikes and lockouts__________________________________________________________ 8 1 -8 6
Overtime_______________________________________________________________________ 86-91
Production. ____________________________________________________________________ 91-99
Cost of producing and selling shoes__________ ______________________ ____ 99 -1 07

BULLETIN OF THE

U. S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
n o . 483

W A S H IN G T O N

J a n u a r y , 1929

CONDITIONS IN THE SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL, MASS., 1928

Introduction
HIS report is the result of the following request to the Secretary
of Labor, by the Haverhill Shoe Manufacturers’ Association
and the Shoe Workers7 Protective Union, for a study of the
shoe industry in Haverhill, Mass.:

H a v e r h i l l , M a s s ., March 27, 1928.
Hon. J a m e s J. D a v i s ,
Secretary of Labor, Washington, D. C.
D e a r S i r : W e are herewith inclosing copies of votes of the Haverhill Shoe
Manufacturers7 Association and District Council No. 1 of the Shoe Workers’
Protective Union, wherein the parties request the survey to be made in accord
ance with the suggestions offered by Mr. Stewart.
1. The manufacturers who are members of the association agree to show to
your investigators the books showing in detail the cost of production, the cost
of selling, and the cost of overhead.
2. The union agrees to furnish such information as your investigators may
need.
3. W e request that the names of the firms investigated be not made public
in your printed reports.
4. It is agreed that your investigators may furnish the names of the firms to
the local board of inquiry, at the request or with the consent of both parties,
with the pledge of secrecy on the part of the members of the board.
Very truly yours,
H a v e r h i l l S h o e M f r s . A s s n .,
F r e d L. C o o p e r , Manager.
S h o e W o r k e r s ’ P r o t e c t iv e U n io n ,
B y J a m e s J. R o o n e y ,
By

President District Council, No. 1.

Agents of the Bureau of Labor Statistics were sent to Haverhill.
They interviewed various officials of the Shoe Workers’ Protective
Union and the Haverhill Shoe Manufacturers’ Association, individual
members of the union and of the association, the chairman or neutral
member of the Haverhill Shoe Board, the secretary of the Haverhill
Chamber of Commerce, bank officials, and other organizations and
persons interested in and informed as to conditions in the shoe in
dustry in the city. They collected from them and their records such
information covering conditions in the shoe industry as was available.
The report is based on this information.

CO ND ITIONS IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

Factories that Moved, Liquidated, or Failed
ABLE 1 presents for each year, 1925 to 1927, and for the first
seven months of 1928, the number of shoe manufacturers in
business in Haverhill at the beginning of each year, the number
starting in business, the number moving out of the city, the number
liquidating or going into bankruptcy during each year, and the number
in business at the end of each period.
At the beginning of 1925, 108 shoe manufacturers were in business
in Haverhill. Between January 1, 1925, and August 1, 1928, 123
shoe factories started in business, 23 moved out of the city, and 106
liquidated or went into bankruptcy, leaving 102 factories in business
August 1, 1928.
Twelve of the 23 factories that moved located in other cities in
Massachusetts, 8 in New Hampshire, 2 in Maine, and 1 in Vermont.
The 23 that moved had a daily capacity of approximately 25,000
pairs and those that liquidated or went into bankruptcy had a capac
ity of 60,000 pairs— an aggregate daily capacity of 85,000 pairs. The
123 that started in business between January 1, 1925, and August 1,
1928, had a daily capacity of approximately 58,000 pairs. The loss
to the city in capacity during the period was 27,000 pairs per day.
The 102 shoe factories in operation on August 1, 1928, had a daily
capacity of approximately 80,000 pairs. Only 40 of the 102 in
operation on August 1, 1928, were in business on January 1, 1925.
The 40 on August 1, 1928, had a daily capacity of approximately
47,000 paire, or an average of 1,175 pairs per factory per day. By
deducting 40 from 102 and 47,000 from 80,000, it is seen that the 62
factories which started in business since January 1,1925, had on August
1, 1928, a capacity of only 33,000 pairs per day or an average of 532
pairs per factory per day, or less than half the average daily capacity
of the 40 that were in business before January 1, 1925.

able

1 .— Conditions of shoe industry in Haverhill, Mass., January 1, 1.925, to
August 1, 1928
Number of shoe manufacturers—
In busi
Starting
ness at
beginning in busi
ness
of year

Year

________________________ _____
1925
1928
_____________ ____ ____
1927
.................................. .......
1928, Jan. 1 to Aug. 1__............... .......... ..........
Total

_____ ____________ _________

108
110
124
109

Liquidat In busi
ing or in ness at
bank
end of
ruptcy
year

Total in
business

Moving
out of
city

126
158
159
131

1
2
10
10

15
32
40
19

106

18
48
35
22
123

110
124
109
102

Reasons for Removal
T^HE 23 shoe factories that moved out of Haverhill employed an
average of 104 shoe workers per factory, the number ranging from
2 in the factor}" with the lowest to 350 in the one with the highest
number. The capacity of these factories in number of pairs of
shoes produced ranged from 200 to 4,000 per day, Tfye reasons for

F A C TO R IE S T H A T M O VED , L IQ U ID A T E D , O R F A IL E D

removal as given by the officials of the factories that moved from the
city are as follows:
1. High labor costs and refusal of the union to grant a cut in piecework rates.
2. Unfair local competition in cutting the wholesale price of shoes and the
playing by bargain-hunting buyers of one factory against others to break down
prices; legitimate competition of factories outside of Haverhill with which we
could not compete on account of local high labor cost and conditions; offer of
capital in the city to which we moved; and lack of cooperation from the banks
in Haverhill.
3. Inability to successfully meet the unfair local competition of manufacturers
who cut wholesale prices; unable to compete with manufacturers outside Haverhill
on account of high labor costs and intolerable labor conditions.
4. Labor conditions in general and primarily the contention of one woman
union agent.
5. High labor costs in Haverhill and interference with the progress of the
business by union agents.
6. Difficulties with union agent. W e wTere in business 25 years before we
moved.
7. High labor costs and local labor conditions.
8. Destruction of factory by fire, and, as an experiment, the desire to try to
manufacture shoes in another city where labor conditions were different.
9. Inability to run our own factory without continual interference by union
agents. Unfair limitations placed upon the manufacturer by the equal division
of work among workers; difficulties encountered in order to get a few hours of
overtime work; and in general lack of cooperation on the part of the union.
10. Unsatisfactory local labor conditions.
11. High labor costs; labor conditions; and canceled orders.
12. General labor conditions and high labor costs in Haverhill; inability to
compete with near-by factories in Massachusetts and New Hampshire; lack of
capital; and poor management.
13. High labor costs and local labor conditions. W e could not obtain a price
concession from the union.
14. High labor costs and local labor conditions.
15. Unable to make agreement with the union on prices and conditions in the
making department.
16. High labor costs and general labor troubles.
17. High labor costs and principally general labor conditions.
18. Labor conditions. Returned to Haverhill in January, 1928, from a busi
ness trip with orders for shoes amounting to $125,000 and found a strike in my
factory. I notified my customers of the conditions. They canceled a large per
cent of the orders, with such statements as “ I do not understand why you spend
several months on the road selling shoes if you have no control of conditions in
your own factory. ” I moved to where I do have control of my own factory and
am now doing a good business.
19. Piece rates too high in Haverhill. W e could not compete with manu
facturers in other sections. Unable to run our factory without instructions by
labor leaders. W e could not continue to operate under such conditions and so
moved.
20. High labor costs. Inducements of free rent and free taxes for a period of
five years by city to which I moved.
21. High labor costs, labor conditions, and unable to meet outside competition.
22. Unfair working conditions in Haverhill factories due to inefficiency and
trickery of certain manufacturers. LTnion methods and rules applying alike to
such manufacturers and to all others in the city, and fear of another general strike.
23. General working conditions brought about by unfair methods of union
agents. Threats by these agents to call certain groups of workers out on strikes
if their particular demands were not carried out and also fear of another general
strike similar to that in January, 1928.

Early in January, 1928, a very important company which was at
that time engaged in the manufacture of turn shoes in Haverhill,
made arrangements to move to Manchester, N. H., because, as
stated by officials of the company, it must have lower labor costs or
lose money. The officials also claimed that all overhead expenses
had been cut to the lowest point possible. Employees were paid off,

CO N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

the factory closed, and all arrangements made to move, even to
trucks being drawn up to the factory ready to load the equipment.
The firm was important in number of pairs of shoes produced per
year and in number of shoe workers employed. It had a ready and
regular market for its products and, as it was probably the busiest
shoe factory in the city, furnished its workers more steady employ
ment than any other factory in the city.
The mayor and other city officials, the president of the chamber of
commerce, members of the citizens’ committee, officials of the shoe
workers’ union and of the shoe manufacturers’ association, and others
united in an effort to keep the company in the city. An agreement
between the union and the company was made. The company
resumed operation with its former force of employees and so contin
ued until January 19, 1928, when all employees except members of
Local No. 2, turn workmen, went on a general strike. The com
pany then moved to Manchester, taking a crew of union turn work
men with them, and reports that it is now (August 10, 1928) doing a
good business with, according to a news item in the Haverhill Gazette,
approximately 300 workers and a pay roll of nearly $9,000 per week.
The company was granted five years’ exemption from taxes by the
officials of the city of Manchester.
It is claimed by the union and confirmed by two of the above-quoted
firms that moved from the city that one of the most important reasons
for removal is competition among Haverhill firms. It is stated that
buyers come to Haverhill, shop around, hunt for bargains and get
them, and that this unrestrained competition in the city frequently
results in cutting prices too low, ruins some companies, hurts all, and
is a menace to the industry. A former manufacturer of men’s slippers
who sold them at $1.05 per pair said the cutting of prices caused him
to go out of business and also caused the failure of his competitor
who took his customers by selling them for 95 cents per pair, or the
cost of manufacture including labor, material, and overhead expenses.
The same kind of competition probably exists in other localities.
Reasons for Failure or Liquidation
HPHE reasons for the failure or liquidation of the 106 shoe factories
that were lost to the shoe industry in Haverhill between Jan
uary 1, 1925, and August 1, 1928, are given below as reported to
agents of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This information was
obtained directly from the officials of these companies when it was
possible for the agents to get in touch with them, and from other
sources, such as shoe machinery and other shoe supply companies if
no official could be found and interviewed.
1. Lack of working capital and insufficient experience in the shoe
business.
2. The failure of this company was due to the failure of another
shoe manufacturer in Haverhill.
3. Returned shoes, many of which were due to poor workmanship
and had to be sold at reduced prices. Partly poor management.
4. Mismanagement. Knew very little about the shoe business.
Did not last long and did not make more than 100 pairs of shoes dur
ing the entire time in business.
5. Lack of business ability, canceled orders, and differences among
officers of the company.

F A C TO R IE S T H A T M O V E D , L IQ U ID A T E D , OR FA IL E D

6. Lack of capital and insufficient experience in the shoe business;
unable to compete with outside manufacturers.
7. Lack of working capital and mismanagement. Lost my savings
of 20 years and worked one year without any salary.
8. Mismanagement and lack of working capital.
9. Labor conditions and the union drove me out of business. I
lost $2,000 in 1927 on account of canceled orders. Conditions are
worse than labor costs.
10. Returned shoes, canceled orders, and large allowances that we
were forced to make in some cases.
11. Unfair local competition. Labor conditions and lack of co
operation on the part of the banks.
12. The union was largely responsible for our financial difficulties.
Labor cost was much higher than in near-by cities. Part of the time
we were in business we did not belong to the manufacturers’ asso
ciation. The union set the prices in the stitching room and higher
piece prices were charged to companies that did not belong to the
manufacturers’ association than to those who did.
13. High labor costs and local labor conditions. Just couldn’t
compete with outside manufacturers.
14. Lack of capital and no business ability.
15. High labor costs, lack of working capital, and returned shoes.
Just couldn’t compete with outside manufacturers.
16. On account of high labor costs it was impossible to meet prices
of my competitors. Also aggravated labor troubles, so I decided I ’d
better quit.
17. Principally labor conditions. Could not compete with outside
manufacturers.
18. Our losses were large, due to the union, strikes, and threatened
strikes. If prices in the stitching room were not agreeable to the
union, the agent would advise us that the prices would have to be
paid or they would call out the stitching room on strike. If the fac
tory w^as busy there was nothing to do but pay them or have a strike
in the factory.
19. Unfair competition with local manufacturers. Was successful
in his business, but did not care to continue to combat the unfair
local cutthroat competition.
20. Failure due to a fire and lack of working capital.
21. To go into business with another Haverhill manufacturer.
22. After two or three years of incessant labor bickering over labor
prices, we decided to liquidate.
23. Lack of experience. One partner had money and the other was
an excellent salesman, but they didn’t know the shoe business.
24. Bad accounts and high labor costs. Jobbers who owed us
money failed.
25. Lack of working capital and keen competition.
26. Lack of working capital and insufficient business ability.
27. I could not sell shoes in competition with those who purchased
raw materials and did not pay for them and in a few years failed
because they were underselling their own costs.
28. Unfair treatment by jobbers who would return shoes for little
or no reason. In some cases substantial allowances would have to be
made.
29. Cancellation of orders by one large company.

CO N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

30. Cancellation of orders in process of manufacture.
31. Labor difficulties and high labor costs.
32. Unable to operate at a profit due to high labor cost in Haver
hill. Could not compete with outside manufacturers. Had some
bad accounts and returned shoes.
33. Lost about $60,000 due to failure of jobbers to meet their obli
gations to the company. Also, some labor troubles.
34. Keen competition, returned shoes, and lack of working capital.
35. Labor conditions and high labor costs, principally the con
ditions.
36. Due entirely to our bookkeeper, who defaulted wTith a large
amount of our money by padding the pay rolls.
37. To consolidate with another Haverhill concern.
38. Lack of working capital, failure to discount bills, slow' paying
accounts, and the fact that the companies from whom leather was
purchased charged slightly higher prices. Also some labor diffi
culties.
39. Lack of orders due to keen competition.
40. Lack of working capital and inability to compete with outside
manufacturers.
41. Lack of capital and insufficient business ability in the shoe
business.
42. Lack of capital and insufficient business ability.
43. Lack of business ability, small working capital, and some bad
accounts.
44. Lost money through mismanagement.
45. Labor costs; couldn’t get volume and couldn’t compete with
outside manufacturers.
46. This company liquidated in 1925 in order to consolidate with
another company.
47. Canceled orders, returned shoes, and some bad accounts.
Buyers controlled the market at that time.
48. Mismanagement; sold shoes as low as 50 cents under cost of
manufacture.
49. The January, 1928, strike found my factory full of shoes in
process of manufacture. As a result of this condition my customers
canceled many of these orders, which caused very large losses.
50. Lack of business ability.
51. Unable to compete with outside manufacturers.
52. Labor prices were too high in Haverhill; could not compete
with near-by towns.
53. Lack of orders; just couldn’t get business on account of keen
competition.
54. Made very few shoes; only lasted a short time. Didn’t know
anything about the shoe business. One partner was crooked.
55. Lack of funds and business ability.
56. Fire and bad accounts.
57. Failure of another company.
58. Could not compete with outside prices. Went to the shoe
board and asked for a reduction in wages, but could get none, so had
to close out business.
59. Closed out business in 1928 because of labor troubles which
caused delays in production. These delays resulted in cancellations
and consequent failure.

F A C TO R IE S T H A T M O VED , L IQ U ID A T E D , O R F A IL E D

60. Couldn’t meet competition on account of high labor costs.
Labor conditions could not be tolerated.
61. Generally due to mismanagement. Proprietor was not system
atic and had insufficient working capital.
62. Lost business on account of lack of up-to-date business methods
in manufacturing and salesmanship.
63. Closed out business in 1926 due to poor management and lack
of working capital.
64. Business closed out on account of the death of one of the
partners.
65. Labor conditions here and manufacturers who undersold their
cost and failed, making their graft in that way.
66. Lack of experience and insufficient working capital.
67. Our main difficulties were with jobbers returning shoes, which
was a big drain on our finances. One other difficulty was high labor
cost, particularly in the stitching room. Could not compete with
nearby cities who worked under different labor conditions.
68. I closed out my business in 1927 because of general labor con
ditions in Haverhill. I was unable to tell a workman how certain
work should be done and could not discharge a man whose work was
unsatisfactory.
69. Quit the shoe business on account of returned shoes, canceled
orders, high labor costs, and a salesman who stole $7,000 from the
firm.
70. Failure to get reduction in wage rates as promised by certain
labor agents on account of low grade of shoes made by the company.
71. Too much cutthroat competition and he just couldn’t continue
to compete.
72. Closed out business on account of high labor costs in Haverhill;
could not sell shoes in competition with outside manufacturers.
73. Lack of working capital.
74. Failure was due entirely to bad accounts.
75. Lack of demand for quality of turn shoe made. Labor condi
tions and keen competition.
76. Labor conditions, bad accounts, and keen competition.
77. Lack of orders, keen competition, and bad accounts. Com
petitors sold below cost in some cases.
78. Discontinued business on account of small working capital.
79. Was only in business about six weeks and made only about 100
pairs of shoes altogether. Labor conditions and keen competition.
80. Due entirely to death of one of the proprietors. His widow
did not care to continue the business. The remaining stockholders
tried to buy her share, but the price was prohibitive.
81. Heavy losses on returned shoes.
82. On account of high labor costs in Haverhill; was unable to sell
shoes in competition with outside manufacturers.
83. Labor conditions, high labor costs, and working conditions in
the factory.
84. Poor management; bad accounts were also responsible for
liquidation.
85. Lack of working capital, returned shoes, and bad accounts.
86. Lack of orders and business ability. Did not manufacture
over two or three cases of shoes.
87. Lack of business ability and experience, and insufficient funds.

CO N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U S T R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

88. Mismanagement; lack of orders.
89. Inefficiency; no experience in making shoes.
90. Canceled orders, returned shoes, and also the fact that there
was a change in product from McKay to turn shoes.
91. Poor salesmanship, returned shoes, and unfair methods used
by customers.
92. Labor costs too high and conditions bad. Lost $50,000 and
thought I ’d best quit before I lost it all.
93. Made a cheap shoe and could not stand the high labor cost
and sell shoes at a profit in competition with other manufacturers.
94. Mismanagement; made poor shoes and sold to bad accounts.
95. Closed out the slipper business to go into the shoe business.
Not much demand for the type of slippers made.
96. Labor troubles, cancellations, and insufficient working capital.
Spent most of my capital in equipment and did not have sufficient
reserve to do business.
97. Could not compete with outside manufacturers on account of
local labor conditions.
98. Returned shoes and bad accounts.
99. Insufficient working capital and returned shoes by jobbers.
100. Only in business a few months; closed up because of lack of
working capital and mismanagement.
101. Lost money on canceled orders.
102. Due to lack of working capital, only in business a few months.
103. Liquidated for the purpose of entering business with another
company.
104. Cancellation of orders in process of manufacture.
105. Failure due to losses in the Mississippi Valley flood.
106. Small factory— proprietor dead, no information available.

Causes of Losses in Haverhill
HE loss of business in the shoe industry in Haverhill in factories
moving out of the city, in failure and liquidation of factories,
in decrease of number of pairs of shoes produced, in number of
shoe workers, and in amount of pay rolls or earnings of shoe workers
was very largely due to the absence of friendly and helpful coopera
tion between shoe workers and shoe manufacturers in a large number
of factories and to the need of more effective cooperation between
the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union and the Haverhill Shoe Manu
facturers’ Association; also to higher wage rates in the manufacture
of shoes in factories in Haverhill than in factories in cities near
Haverhill and in most all other cities in the United States in which
the manufacture of shoes is of material importance.
There was in August, 1928, real effective cooperation between the
workers and the officials in a few factories, and little or no coopera
tion in others in which there was more or less jealousy, suspicion,
lack of confidence and, in some cases, the desire “ to d o ” the other
side rather than a desire for cooperation and improvement in the
industry.
More than one agent of the union in speaking of conditions said in
substance, “ I would get out of bed at any hour at night, go in any
kind of weather t o --------- company and do everything in my power
to adjust any and all differences that might arise between any mem-

SMALL SHOE MANUFACTURERS

ber of the union and the factory because its officials have at all times
been fair with its employees and the union.” An official of a comp&ny employing more than 200 union workers said, “ We employ
union workers, pay union prices, and operate under union conditions,
and have been doing so ever since we started in business about 12
years ago. We try to satisfy our employees and have never had
any trouble that could not be and was not adjusted to the satisfaction
of all parties concerned without loss to anyone.” An agent of the
union in speaking of an official of this particular company said,
“ This company is absolutely fair with its employees and so, of
course, the union and union workers do everything possible to maintain helpful and friendly relations with its officials. A short time
ago an employee of this company, when spoken to by an official of
the company concerning her work, impulsively made an uncalled
for reply and left the factory. She came directly to union head
quarters, arriving there much depressed and very penitent, told
her story to the agent and said she could not return to work in the
factory. The agent, after talking with her for some time, said,
‘ Come, we will go back to the factory, everything will be all right
after we see --------- and have a talk with him.’ We went to the
factory, the worker returned to work and is still employed there.”

Small Shoe Manufacturers
k LL McKay and turn shoe workers in Haverhill except about 250
are members of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union. The
union is well organized, very strong, controls the labor market
in the shoe industry in the city, and can usually enforce union prices
and conditions. With these conditions prevailing and generally
known in the city it would be expected that any person before engaging
in the manufacture of women’s shoes in Haverhill would, as an
insurance against loss by strikes, go to the Shoe Workers’ Protective
Union and make an agreement and ask that he be furnished the best
help available for each department in a shoe factory. Union officials,
manufacturers, and others state that except in a very few instances
this is not done.
The small manufacturer begins in a small way. He opens a shop
in a small room in a factory, at home or in a back yard, buys his
factory supplies, takes orders for shoes, and contracts the making and
stitching. He does the cutting and he and his family do the packing,
working long or short hours per day or week as necessary. The
stitching in piece price or per pair of shoes costs him no more than is
paid by larger factories. He saves much in labor costs, rentals, and
other expenses, and consequently can and does undersell manufac
turers who operate under union prices and conditions. His business
increases from time to time until it is necessary for him to operate a
real factory. He then rents a factory and usually in order to get
efficient help and avoid trouble makes an agreement with the union
and pays union prices. If no agreement is made with the union,
agents of the union appear in a very short time and ask for union
prices and conditions. On refusal a strike is called and it is announced
and published immediately that another strike is on in the city. The
manufacturer is usually unable to finish the shoes in process of manu
facture and can not fill his orders on time because he can not get any

CO N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

other help. His orders are canceled, and he fails or moves out of the
city. Had he gone to the union before beginning work the strike
and loss of business would not have occurred. Had the union pre
vented its members from working at any time for the firm it would not
have been charged with having caused a strike and failure or removal
from the city.

Contract Stitching Shops
k VERY large number of the shoe manufacturers in Haverhill
l \ have no stitching rooms, the work being given out to con
tractors. Consequently, there are many such shops in the
city. The contract shops enable small shoe manufacturers to engage
in business with little capital, often with not more than $1,000, and
to have the assurance of getting the highest class of stitching and
stitching-room work at a cost equal to that of the best shoe manufac
turers who have their own stitching rooms.
Haverhill has a contract stitching shop which is probably the
largest in capacity and number of employees in the United States.
When working full time and at capacity with its full force of about
400 employees it does the stitching-room work on 10,000 pairs of shoes
per day. It was working at capacity in August, 1928. It started in
business in 1916 with a force of 2 workers and is now doing contract
work for 15 different shoe manufacturers in Haverhill. It was not
in August, 1928, doing any work for firms outside Haverhill. Its
employees are unusually efficient and skillful due to the great variety
of styles of shoes worked on in the shop. In times of slack work there
is no reduction of the force. There is, however, short-time work, but
this, as a rule, is not less than 50 per cent of full time. Work in the
shop is available 52 weeks in each year. In addition to this shop there
are from 12 to 15 other contract stitching shops in the city, ranging in
number of employees from 6 to 125 or possibly 150 when working full
time and at capacity. One reports 50 per cent of its work for firms
outside Haverhill, one 15 per cent, and the others little or no work for
such companies. In the aggregate these shops employ about 800 or
900 workers when working at capacity.
Many of the manufacturers and others who are well informed as to
conditions in the industry, report shoe workers of Haverhill as un
usually skilled in making attractive, fancy, novelty women's shoes.
A number of factories that moved out of Haverhill send work to the
contract shops in Haverhill because the workers in these shops are
more efficient than those in the cities and towns in which the factories
are now located, also because it is cheaper for them to have the work
done by contract than it would be to equip a stitching room and organ
ize and train a force of employees. Some establishments are not
financially able to establish stitching rooms. All employees in the
contract shops are members of the Shoe Workers' Protective Union.
A very considerable number of the members of the manufacturers'
association contend that the union workers in these shops should not
do any work for any factories outside Haverhill, especially for those
that moved out, and that have no agreement with the union, and pay
less for the work in their factories than is paid for the same work
in Haverhill. It is not unusual to see an automobile or truck loaded
with shoes in process of manufacture drive into the city to a contract
shop.

CO N TR ACT STITCH IN G SHOPS

The manufacturers state that by working for outside shops the
union helps competing companies and injures not only shoe manu
facturers in Haverhill but the business of the city, and really injures
the shoe workers in the city and in some cases other stitching-room
workers.
The following statement applying primarily to stitching-room work
in Haverhill was furnished by an official of Local No. 1 finishers and
edgeworkers of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union:
During the past few years several shoe-manufacturing concerns have moved
from the city of Haverhill to Boston, Lowell, Manchester, Lawrence, Farmington,
N . H . , Newburyport, Georgetown, and other localities in order to avoid complying
with demands for wages, hours, and working conditions which the S. W . P. U.
thought necessary for the welfare of their membership.
Arriving at aforesaid localities it is obvious that they have established working
conditions, hours of labor, and labor costs widely divergent from those in Haver
hill, paying on essential operations fluctuating prices according to available labor
supply. Most crafts are underpaid and work long hours when the employers
demand same. Massachusetts laws prohibit female employees working in excess
of 48 hours per week, and during seasonable periods these same manufacturers
in their frantic and greedy endeavor for production and profits seek assistance
from other than their own factory organization for work done by female employees,
namely, “ fitting.”
These firms have abandoned Haverhill, left stranded a host of shoe workers
without jobs, causing an abnormal supply of available labor.
Haverhill having a few contract stitching rooms, these were soon overwhelmed
with work from factories who are notoriously unfair to organized labor in general
and the S. W . P. U. in particular. These contract stitching rooms have
expanded and multiplied to such a degree that this locality is fast becoming a
haven for any shoe manufacturer from anywhere to get shoes fitted in an emer
gency, or for concerns who have left Haverhill to send their morally scab-cut,
scab-made, scab-heeled, scab-finished, and scab-packed shoes to be disgustedly
union fitted in the nearly 100 per cent S. W . P. U. city of Haverhill.
To add to this nausea the notorious scab-herding, labor-crushing concern of
----------- , Boston, who secured an injunction against the U. S. W . of A ., part of
our organization, with apparently no trouble, secures all the fitting it wishes in
Haverhill by S. W . P. U. members, who are thereby fighting on the side of the
boss against their brothers and sisters.
It is said that ----------- , in B o s to n ,----------- , in South Braintree, and even the
in fam ou s----------- , in Lynn, to say nothing of slave-driving----------- Co., Maine,
keenly anticipate the daily arrival at their doors of trucks filled with uppers
fitted in Haverhill by S. W . P. U. members.
The apparent willingness of Haverhill S. W . P. U. to assist these nonunion
parasites has caused a demand for young girls, women with families, and even
very elderly women.
The young girls who should be in school, the elderly women, and mothers of
large families who should never have to work in factories are forced by false
economic conditions to do so, and the men are forced to walk the streets of
Haverhill so that the nonunion men of Manchester, Newburyport, Lowell, South
Braintree, Lawrence, Boston, and Farmington can receive their measly dole.
Is this going to end with the men doing the housework in Haverhill and the
S. W . P. U. seconding the motion by demonstrating their approval of the openshop policy?
W ith the situation as outlined above in mind, Local No. 1 in “ m ass” meeting
assembled unanimously indorsed the following resolution:
“ Whereas conditions existing in the Merrimac Valley and particularly in
and around Haverhill are such as tend to weaken our organization, by destroying
the sense of unity among the shoe workers, by fostering an individual selfish jobownership idea as against a labor-union sense of solidarity by supporting and
condoning employers who are antagonistic to labor unions, by fostering and
aiding scabbery and so smirching the good name of the Shoe Workers' Protective
Union as well as working against the best interests of the workers in general;
and
“ Whereas the existence of these conditions is the principal reason why the
shoe workers of Haverhill indorsed and supported the idea of amalgamation and

CO N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y

IN H A V E R H IL L

unity, believing that only through the realization of such an idea could these
conditions be remedied; and
“ Whereas no steps have been taken by the National Shoe Workers’ Protective
Union, although the organization has been in existence almost five months,
which would lead us to believe that the general office does not realize or recognize
the importance and urgency of this problem: Therefore be it
“ Resolved by Local No. 1, Shoe Workers’ Protective Union, Haverhill, Mass., in
mass meeting assembled: That the general office immediately appoint an organizer
or organizers to devote his or their entire time to this section, with the object in
view of remedying the conditions outlined in the above communication.”

Wholesale Price of Shoes, 1925 to 1927
OR many years prior to 1925 the great majority of the manufac
turers in the shoe industry in Haverhill produced turn shoes.
The city was in those years generally known as “ The turnshoe city.” A short time prior to 1925 the kind or make of shoes in
the city was changed to extreme, fancy, novelty M cKay shoes, or,
as stated by an official of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union, to
“ millinery for the feet.” There is now little or no demand for a stand
ard make of women’s shoes.
The experience of a successful retail shoe dealer illustrates the
effect of the change from standard to fancy, novelty shoes. He had
for a number of years sold the standard make of women’s shoes and
had a full and complete stock of that style on hand when the new
novelty shoes were introduced. His stock had been bought at an
average cost of $5 per pair, and as there were no outstanding bills
against him he felt that he was in good condition financially and was
well satisfied. His sales, which had been very satisfactory, decreased
until he did very little business. He worried, wondered what was
wrong, and after some investigation and thought purchased a small
stock of fancy shoes and displayed them in his windows. His sales
immediately increased. He purchased a much larger stock of the new
style and planned to sell his entire stock of the standard make for
whatever he could get for them. He had several jobbers come and
look these shoes over and make an offer for them. His first offer was
17 cents per pair. He sold them at 47 cents per pair, or at an average
loss of $4.53 per pair.
Each of the 23 shoe manufacturers in Haverhill that furnished data
for this report gave the number of styles of sample shoes made in the
factory and the number of styles sold from the samples in each of the
years 1925, 1926, and 1927.
In 1925 the number of different styles of sample shoes of the
factories in Haverhill ranged from 10 in the factory with the lowest
number of samples to 5,000 in the factory with the highest number
of samples. In this year the number of styles sold per factory from
the samples ranged from 6 to 3,295. One manufacturer with 1,000
samples made sales for only 48 of them, and another with 1,660
samples made sales for 1,500 of them.
In 1926 the number of styles of sample shoes per factory ranged
from 10 to 5,000 and the number of sales from them ranged from 10
to 2,840. One manufacturer with 1,500 samples made sales for only
60 of them and another with 1,549 samples made sales for 1,400 of
them.
In 1927 the number of styles of sample shoes per factory in the 23
factories ranged from 10 to 5,000 and the number of sales from them

A V E R A G E H O U RS AND E A R N IN G S , B Y CITIES

ranged from 10 to 3,935. One manufacturer with 2,521 samples
made sales for only 72 of them and one with 1,064 samples made
sales for all of them.
Turn shoes only were manufactured in 5 of the 23 factories included
in the study in 1927 and 1928, McKay shoes in 17, and both turn and
McKay shoes in 1 factory.
Seven of the 23 factories covered in the report were not in business
in 1925 and 3 were not in business in 1926.
The average wholesale price of shoes at the factory in 1925 ranged
from $1 per pair for the factory with the lowest price to $5.90 per
pair for the one with the highest price. In 1926 prices ranged from
$1 to $6.10 per pair, and in 1927 from $1 to $6.30 per pair.
The kind and average wholesale price of shoes for each of the 23
factories are shown in Table 2.
T

able

Establishment
No.

8______
1011_
12_

2 .— Average selling price of shoes at factory, 1925, 1926, and 1927

Kind of
women’s
shoe
made in
1927

Average factory selling
price per pair

McKay.
Turn__
McKay.
.--do___
._-do___
,__do___
,-_do___
-_do___
.do.
Turn___
McKay,
.-d o ___

$2.10
3. 75
2. 00
1.00
0)
0)
2. 29
0)
2. 50
3. 75

2.00
0)

$2. 35
3.75

$2. 50
3.75

2. 85
3.84

1.75
2. 55
2. 48
3. 50
3. 00
3. 92

3. 05

2. 00
1.00
1.71
0)
2. 45
0)
2.00

Kind of
Establishment women’s
shoe
No.
made in
1927

2. 00
1.00

2. 00

Turn.,-.
McKay .
.do.
Turn___
McKay.
--do___
r.-d o .-_ .
,Turn___
.do.
McKay.
...d o ___
...d o ___

Average factory selling
price per pair
1925

0)
2. 00
5. 90
0)
3.10

1926

$2. 55

$3. 60
2. 55
2. 25

3.50
4.15
3. 75

3.10
3. 50
4.15
4.00

3. 30
3. 75

3. 40
3. 75

6.10
2.11

$3. 60
2. 55
2. 50
6.30
2.34
3.20
3.50
4.15
3.65
2. 25
3.35
4. 00

1 Not in business in this year.

Average Hours and Earnings in Haverhill and Other Cities,
1928
VERAGE full-time hours per week, earnings per hour, and
full-time earnings per week for 1928 are presented in Table 3
' for all the shoe workers of 19 representative shoe manufac
turers and of 3 cut sole companies in Haverhill. These averages
ear also given in the table for the shoe workers of a representative
number of shoe factories in a group of small cities near Haverhill
(Lowell, Newburyport, and Georgetown, Mass., and Derry, N. H.)
and for workers in factories in Boston, Brockton, Lynn, Chicago,
Milwaukee, New York City, Philadelphia, Rochester, St. Louis,
and the United States. The averages for the United States are for
48,658 employees of 157 shoe factories in 14 States. Index numbers
of these averages are also shown in the table, with the average for
the United States as the base or 100 per cent.
The regular full-time hours per week in the factories in Haverhill as
established by section 5 of the agreement between the union and the
manufacturers are 48 except in June, July, and August. In these
three months the hours are 9 per day for 5 days, or 45 per week.
The average for the city is given as 48, no weight being given to the

24011°— 29------- 2

C O N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

short hours in the three summer months in computing full-time
averages for Haverhill or to three months or less in computing these
averages for any other locality. Average full-time hours for the
United States were 49.1, and by cities ranged from 45.1 for New
York to 49 per week for the group of cities near Haverhill.
Average earnings per hour for the shoe workers in Haverhill were
69.9 cents, as compared with 52.7 cents for those in the cities near
Haverhill, the average for Haverhill being 32.6 per cent more than
the average for the group of cities near Haverhill, 31.9 per cent
more than for the United States, 3.2 per cent more than for Boston,
13.7 per cent more than for Brockton, 13.3 per cent more than for
Lynn, and 9.3 per cent less than the average for New York City.
Average full-time earnings per week by cities ranged from $25.78
for Philadelphia to $34.77 for New York. The average for Haverhill
was $33.55, or 29.9 per cent more than the average for the group of
cities near Haverhill, and 28.9 per cent more than the average for
the United States.
Average earnings in the table are for pay periods in the busy season,
July to October, 1928, and are for factory workers only. Earnings
or salaries of officials, supervisory foremen, salesmen, clerks, watch
men, teamsters, chauffeurs, and power-house employees were not
used in computing the averages The figures for Haverhill represent
conditions after the 10 per cent reduction of wage rates in June, 1928.
Two of the 19 factories did not receive the 10 per cent reduction.
Fifteen of the 19 shoe factories in Haverhill for which figures are
shown in the table produce women’s McKay shoes, 3 turn shoes,
and 1 produces both M cKay and turn shoes.
T

3 . — Average full-time hours per week, earnings per hour, and full-time earn
ings per week for shoe workers in all occupations combined, by locality, 1928

able

Locality

Haverhill, Mass_________
______ _____
Cities near Haverhill, Mass.1____ ________
Boston, Mass__ _____________________ . . .
Brockton, Mass___ _ . _______________
Lynn, Mass______________________ ____ __
Chicago, 111.. _ . . . __________________
Milwaukee, W is. . _ _________ _ ______
New York, N. Y__ _____________________
Philadelphia, Pa________________________
Rochester, N. Y ________ _____ ______
St. Louis, M o ___________________________
United S t a t e s __ ______ ______________

Index numbers (United States
average= 100)
Average Average Average
full-time earnings full-time
hours per per hour earnings
Full-time Earnings Full-time
week
per week hours
per
earnings
per hour per week
week
48.0
49.0
48.0
48.0
47.9
47.9
48.2
45.1
48.0
48.0
48.0
49.1

$0.699
.527
.677
.615
.617
.641
.538
.771
.537
.581
.542
.530

$33. 55
25.82
32. 49
29. 52
29. 55
30.70
25. 93
34. 77
25. 78
27.89
26.02
26.02

97.8
99.8
97.8
97.8
97.6
97.6
98.2
91.9
97.8
97.8
97.8
100.0

131.9
99.4
127.7
116.0
116.4
120.9
101.5
145. 5
101.3
109.6
102.3
100.0

128.9
99.2
124.9
113.5
113.6
118.0
99.7
133.6
99.1
107. 2
100.0
100.0

i Lowell, Georgetown, and Newburyport, Mass., and Derry, N. H.

The averages in Table 3 are for all shoe workers in 19 shoe factories
in Haverhill and also for those in the factories in other cities in the
United States that were included in the 1928 study of wages and hours
of labor in the boot and shoe industry by the Bureau of Labor Statis
tics. The averages in Table 4 are for the employees in each of 14
of the most important occupations in the industry and are here shown
to illustrate the differences in different localities.

A V E R A G E H O U R S AN D E A R N IN G S , B Y C ITIE S

Cutters, vamp and whole shoe, hand, in Haverhill earned an aver
age of 89.8 cents per hour, as compared with 73.3 cents in the group
of cities near Haverhill, 94 cents in Boston, 89.9 cents in Brockton,
89.5 cents in Lynn, 90 cents in Chicago, 74.2 cents in Milwaukee,
$1,209 in New York City, 67 cents in Philadelphia, 93.9 cents in
Rochester, 95 cents in St. Louis, and 82.4 cents in the United States.
Top stitchers, females, in Haverhill earned an average of 69 cents
per hour, compared with 48.6 cents in the cities near Haverhill.
Like comparisons of earnings per hour in other occupations in
this table, and of average full-time hours per week and of full-time
earnings per week may be made.
T

able

4 .— Average hours and earnings in 14- specified occupations in the boot and
shoe industry in 11 cities and the United States, 1928
A V ER AG E EAR N IN G S PER HOU R
Cities
Phila Roch St.
Hav near
Chi Mil New
United
wau
Lynn
del
er Hav Bos Brock
cago kee York phia ester Louis States
ton
ton
hill
er
hill

Occupation

Cutters, vamp and whole
shoe, hand, male______ $0.898 $0.733 $0.940 $0.899 $0.895 $0.900 $0.742 $1.209 $0.670 $0.939 $0.950 $0.824
I .458
.893
.653
Skivers, upper, male.. __ .925 . 542 .573
.663
Skivers, upper, female___ .654 .444 .537
.621 .573 .576 .440 1.047 .554 .443 .532
.458
Cementers and doublers,
male ___________ __
.703
.636
.444
.415
.733
.596
Cementers and doublers,
female_________________ .440 .362 .366
.402 .403 .440 .352 .424 .313 .365 .360
.330
.398
Lining makers, female___ .586 .405 .489
.424 .467 .523 .480 .604 .428 .506 .438
Top stitchers, male____
.961 .519 1.041
.923 .834
.830
.830 .912
Top stitchers, female____
.690 .486 .573 """."476 .587 .633 .549 .789 .603 ""."540 " ’ .511
.451
Vampers, male__________
.830 .698 1.081
.727
.669 .693 .845 .683 .909 .887 .521
Vampers, female............
.615 .552 .626 .636 .752 .602 .519 .589
.505
.783, .609 .706
Assemblers for pullingover machine, male___
.672 .773 .750 .539 .765 .551 .659 .827
.690 .573 .572
.577
Assemblers for pullingover machine, female.. _ 1.002 .354 .799
.501
Bed machine operators,
male............. .................
.817 .698 .991
.646 .805 .860 .776 .947 .697 .878 .834
.682
Turn lasters, hand, male. .818 .729
.654 .958 .833 .853
.831
.967 .787
.788 .817 "l.”024 .780 .943 .837 .911 ""."994
Goodyear stitchers, male_ 1.206 .496 ’ "."846
.766
Edge trimmers, male...
.764
.986 .685 .982
.873 .751 .992 .844 .899 .742 .984 .930
Edge setters, male_______ 1.048 .770 .985
.832 .868 .892 .802 1.030 .716 .873 .782
.755
Treers, male____________
.785 .604 .863
.708 .645 .702 .623 .947 .676 .669 .683
.624
Treers, female___________
.373 .330
.635 .754 .424 .383
.386
Repairers, male_________
. 529 . 756 . 585
. 593 . 600 . 625 .632 ".756 .561 . 636
.569
Repairers, female________ .535 .414 .454
.559 .464 .406 .449 .579 .403 .425 .333
.376
All occupations, male___
.712 .692 .743 .622 .833 .637 .690 .617
.810 .597 .805
.625
All occupations, female._. .555 .425 .487
.455 .485 .481 .435 .576 .383 .445 .396
.397
All occupations, male
and female____________
.699 .527 .677
.615 .617 .641 .538 .771 .537 .581 .542
.530

AVE R A G E F U L L -T IM E H O U R S PER W E E K
Cutters, vamp and whole
shoe, hand, male..........
Skivers, upper, male.. . .
Skivers, upper, female___
Cementers and doublers,
male__________________
Cementers and doublers,
female..............................
Lining makers, female-__
Top stitchers, male .. .
Top stitchers, female____
Vampers, male...... ............
Vampers, female________
Assemblers for pullingover machine, male___
Assemblers for pullingover machine, female.—
Bed machine operators,
male.................................

48.4
50.0
48.8

48.0
48.0
48.0

48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0

49.0
48.8
50.0
48.4
49.0
49.0

48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0

48.0
48.0
48.0
48.0

48.0
48.0
48.0

48.2
46.3

48.0 48.0
48.0
48.0 ’ 48. 3

48." 0
48.0
48.0

47.5
47.2
50.0
47.2
48.6
47.5

48.0

50.0

48.0

48.1

48.0

49.5

48.0

50.0

48.0

49.2

48.0

48.0
48.0

44.3 48.0 48.0 48.0
45.3
44.0 ~ 4 8 .0 " 48.0 "48.0

48.6
48.1
49.1

48.0

44.8

48.0

46. 2

48.0 48.2
48.0 48.1
48.0
48.0 ” 48.2
48.0 48.0
48.0 48.3

46.1
45.0
45.0
44.7
45.3
44.4

48.0 48.0 48.0
48.0 48.0 48.0
48.0
48.0 " “4876 " "48.0
48.0 48.0
48.0 48.0 ” 48. 0

49.3
49.2
47.9
49.4
48.2
49.3

48.2

45.2

48.0

49.0

48.2

45.0

4§.0

48.0

49.9
49.2

CO NDITIONS IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

T a b le 4 .— Average hours and earnings in 1/+ specified occupations in the boot and
shoe industry in 11 cities and the United States, 1928— Continued
AVERAGE FULL-TIME HOURS PER W E E K — Continued

Occupation

Turn lasters, hand, male_:
Goodyear stitchers, male-1
Edge trimmers, male____ :
Edge setters, male_______:
Treers, male____________ ;
Treers, female__________
Repairers, male_________
Repairers, female_______
All occupations, male___
All occupations, female..
All occupations, male
and female___________

48. 0
48.0
48. 0
48.0
48.0
48. 0
48. 0
48.0
48.0
48.0

AVERAGE FULL-TIME EARNINGS PER WEEK
Cutters, vamp and whole
shoe, hand, male______
Skivers, upper, male____
Skivers, upper, female—
Cementers and doublers,
male__________________
Cementers and doublers,
female________________
Lining makers, female—
Top stitchers, male--------Top stitchers, female____
Vampers, male__________
Vampers, female________
Assemblers for pulling-

over machine, male---

Assemblers for pullingover machine, female. __
Bed machine operators,
male__________________
Turn lasters, hand, male_
Goodyear stitchers, male.
Edge trimmers, male____
Edge setters, male______
Treers, male____________
Treers, female___________
Repairers, male_________
Repairers, female____
All occupations, male.
All occupations, female.._
All occupations, male and
female________________

|
1
$43.10 $35.48 $45.12 $43. 15 $43.14!$43. 20 $35.62 $53. 56 $32.16 $45.07 $45. 60 $40.05
44.40 27.10 27. 50 31.82
21.98
40, 45
31. 41
31.39 21.67 25. 78 29.81 26. 53 27.65 ~2L 25 46. 07 '26." 59 " 21."26 ’ 26." 54 22. 49

21,31

21.12
28.13
46.13
33.12
39. 84
37. 58

28.61
17. 74
19. 76
25. 95
23. 52
34. 20
29. 84

17. 57
23. 47
49. 97
27. 50
51.89
33.89

32. 98 28. 36 27. 46

19.92

32. 84

37.74

29. 38

17. 52 17.28
24. 29 21.02
25. 92 24. 53
25. 01
24.91 "28*27

16. 27
19. 58
39. 76
22. 28
35.04
24.90

32. 26 38. 65 36.00 25.98 34.58 26. 45 31. 63 39.70

28. 27

19. 30 19.14 21.12 16.97
20. 35 22. 04 25.10 23.09
41. 50 43. 78
22. 85 27. 71 30. 38 ’ 26." 46
32.11 33. 68 40.56 32. 78
29. 52 26. 22 30. 05 30. 72

19. 55
27.18
41. 54
35. 27
41.18
33. 39

15.02
20.54
40.03
28. 94
42. 58
28.90

48.10 17. 70 38. 35
39. 22
39. 26
57.89
47. 33
50. 30
37.68

34. 34
36. 45
23. 81
33. 84
38.19
29.96

25. 39 37. 80
25.68 20. 24
29.37
26. 64 20. 74

47. 57

40. 61
47.14
47. 28
41.42
28. 08
21.79
38. 72
23. 38

25.82 32. 49

25.00
31. 01
46. 42
37. 82
41.90
39.94
33.98
30. 48
28. 46
26. 83
34.18
21.84

38. 72 41.28
37. 62
38.81 "49." 15
36. 27 47. 62
42.10 42. 82
31.80 33. 70
36.19 20. 35
27. 00 30. 00
21.99 19. 49
33. 49 35. 59
22. 84 23. 09

37. 40 42. 62 33. 46
31. 39 42. 73 39. 98
37.67 42. 53 40.18
40. 77 40. 54 35. 62
38. 58 46. 35 34. 37
30. 03 42. 43 32. 45
18. 38
30. 34 ~34.85 ’ 26."93
21.64 25. 48 19. 34
29. 98 37. 65 30. 64
20. 97 25. 80 18. 38

42.14
40.94
43. 73
47. 23
41.90
32.11
17.90
30. 53
20.40
33.12
21. 36

40. 03

15.98
29. 62
19. 01

33. 55
39. 80
37. 46
37. 51
37.07
30. 70
19.03
27. 60
18. 57
30. 63
19. 53

29. 52 29. 55 30.70 25.93 34. 77 25.78 27. 89 26.02

26. 02

47.71
44. 64
37. 54
32. 78
15.84

Average Hours and Earnings, by States, 1916 to 1928
HE averages in Table 5 are for all of the shoe workers that were
included in the study of wages and hours of labor, by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, in each State in each of the specified years
from 1916 to 1928. According to the 1925 report of the United
States Census of Manufacturers approximately 96 per cent of the
total number of shoe workers in the industry in the United States
were in the States included in the table. The number of wage earners
included in the 1928 study is 23 per cent of the total in the industry
in 1925.
In 1916 average full-time hours per week ranged from 52.5 for the
State with the shortest hours per week to 59 for the State with the

E A R N IN G S

IN A

BUSY W E E K

AND

IN A

SLA C K W E E K

longest hours, and for all States combined was 54.6 per week. In
1928 the averages by States ranged from 47.1 to 53.1 per week and for
all States was 49.1.
In 1928 average earnings per hour ranged from 41.4 cents for
Minnesota to 62.6 cents for Massachusetts. The average per hour
for all States combined was 53 cents.
T

able

5 . — Average hours and earnings of shoe workers in all occupations combined

in specified years, by State

Average earnings per hour

Average full-time hours per week
state
1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

52.6
53.1
51.6
55.1
"57.Y 54.3
55.0 53.2

50.0
52.4
47.5
49.7
48.2
47.6

49.8
52.2
47.4
49.7
48.0
49.0

49.8
53.4
47.8
49.7
48.0
49.8

48.4
53.4
47.1
49.7
50.4
49.3

Cents
49.8 29.0
53.1 25.5
48.1 28.2
49.6
50.0 "2 4 8 "
49.7 23.4

48.7
48.4
47.9
49.9
50.1

49.4
46.2
48.0
49.8
50.2

49.2
47.1
48.1
49.8
49.9

1916

Illinois.............
Maine_______
Massachusetts..
Michigan____
Minnesota___
Missouri_____
New Hamp
shire_______
New Jersey.
New York___
Ohio_________
Pennsylvania.
Virginia______
Virginia and
Maryland
Wisconsin____
Total__

54.2
57.9
54.0

55.0
55. 0
52.5
55.2
54.8
59.0

50. 5
54.7
50.8
53. 8
54.5
54.2

48.6
49.1
47.6
49.9
50.7
48.0

48.5
47.7
47.4
50.0
50.6
47.9

57.0

54.2

48.8

48.7

48. 7
49.0

48.9
48.9

54.6

52.3

48.6

48.7

49.0

1916

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents
31.8 52.1 47.3 52.0 52.6
49.1
45.5
35.6 55.6 48.3 44.0 39.8
36.6 59.6 52.7 59.5 61.2
62.6
46. 9
26.8 44.7 44.9 45.7 43.7
30.1 54.4 52.0 50.5 42.4
41.4
46.2
28.9 50.2 48.5 47.6 45.6

23.6
23.4
28.6
22.6
21.8
19.8

34.9
27.0
36.5
29.8
27.1
25.7

58.5
46.9
64.2
49.7
47.9
45.9

45.8
44.5
53.5
48.9
41.8
45.1

50.5
54.6
54. 6
44.9
44.7

48.1
57. 3
59.3
51.7
45. 8

49.8
57.9
57. 5
48.9
46.5

48.9
49.1

19.1

27.0

48.0

46.5

40.5
53.0

45.2
50.4

42.8
51. 4

49.1

25.9

33.6

55.9

50.1

51.6

52.8

53. 0

Average full-time earnings per week
State

Illinois...............................
Maine_________________
Massachusetts......... ........
Michigan_______ ______ _
Minnesota.____ ________
Missouri_______________
New Hampshire_______
New Jersey____________
New York_____________
Ohio___________________
Pennsylvania__________
Virginia._____ _________
Virginia and Maryland..
Wisconsin______________
Total..

1916

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

$15. 72
14. 76
15.23

$26. 05
29.13
28.31

$23. 56
25. 21
24. 98
22. 32
24.96
23. 77

11. 68

$16. 73
18.90
18. 89
14. 77
16. 34
15. 37
17. 62
14. 77
18. 54
16.03
14. 77
13. 93

$25.90
23. 50
28.44
22. 71
24. 24
23. 70
24. 59
26.43
26.15
22. 36
22. 39

$25. 46
21. 25
28. 83
21. 72
21.37
22. 48
23. 76
26.47
28. 46
25. 75
22. 99

$24. 45
24. 16
30.11
23. 26
20. 70
22. 96
24. 50
27. 27
27. 66
24. 35
23. 20

10. 89

14.63

23.42

19. 72
25. 97

24. 65

22.10

20.93
25.24

14.11

17. 54

14. 33
12. 87
12.98
12.87
15.02
12.48
11.95

22.22
26. 22
23. 90
28. 43
23.03
30. 56
24.80
24.29
22.03

22. 21
21.23
25. 36
24. 45
21.15
21.60
22. 65

1928

24. 45

Earnings, by Occupations, in a Busy and in a Slack Week
Earnings in a busy and in a slack week of individual employees in
eight representative occupations in the shoe industry were copied
from the pay rolls of six representative shoe manufacturers in Haverhill
by agents of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The busy week was one
when the factories were in operation approximately full time and when
earnings were nearly as much as in any other week during the busy
season. The slack week was one when hours of operation and
earnings of employees were nearly as low as in any other week during
the quiet season. The figures as presented in Table 6, therefore,

CO N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

represent pay periods when production and earnings were nearly at
maximum and at minimum in each of the factories No. 1 to No. 6 and
include the earnings of all employees who worked any time in the
occupation during each of the designated pay-roll periods.
Factory No. 1 had five cutters, vamp and whole shoe, hand, on its
pay roll during the busy week, ending May 19, 1928. Their earnings
in that week ranged from $46.89 to $61.07 and averaged $52.25 per
week, or $8.71 per day. In the slack week, ending April 9, 1928, the
factory had only two cutters and each earned in that week $6.62, or
an average of only $1.10 per day.
Factory No. 4 had 26 cutters during the busy week, ending
February 27, 1928. Their earnings in that week ranged from $16.38
for the one with the lowest to $58.78 for the one with highest weekly
earnings, and in the week they earned an average of $43.35 per week,
or $7.23 per day. This factory had only 12 cutters in the slack
week, ending December 12,1927. Their earnings in that week ranged
from $5.56 to $17.08 and averaged only $12.33 per week, or $2.06 per
day.
Factory No. 1 had four wood heelers during the busy week, ending
March 19, 1928. Their earnings in that week ranged from $49.44 to
$62.88 and averaged $57.79 per week, or $9.63 per day. In the
slack week, ending April 9, 1928, the earnings of the four wood heelers
ranged from. $9 to $14.08 and averaged $12.46 per week, or $2.08
per day.
Factory No. 6 had nine wood heelers on its pay roll during the busy
week, ending July 27, 1928. Their earnings in that week ranged from
$14.09 to $77.86 and averaged $58.10 per w~eek, or $11.62 per day.
The employee who earned only $14.09 in the week worked less than
the full week of five days of nine hours each, or 45 hours, as did
also the one who earned $34.02. Employees in an occupation fre
quently work less than full time per day and per week on account of
having been sick, disabled, or off duty part time, or of having been
in the service of the company only part of the week. In the week
ending June 1, 1928, when work was slack the work available in the
factory was divided equally among the regular force of five wood
heelers as provided in Article 6 of the agreement. Their earnings in
that week ranged from $35.10 to $42.65 and averaged $36.65 per w^eek,
or $7.33 per day. Employees in the service less than five weeks
are not members of the regular force and are dropped from the rolls
in slack seasons. The average per day was obtained by dividing the
weekly average by 5, because this firm, like others in Haverhill, was in
operation only five days per week in each of these weekly pay periods.

E A R N IN G S IN A B U SY W E E K AND IN A SLA C K W E E K
T a b le

6 . — Earnings in a busy week and in a slack week, by occupations
[Dates in italic indicate months in which season occurred]

Em
Occupation, and estab ployee
lishment No.
No.

Cutters,
vamp
and
whole shoe, hand:
Establishment No. 1.

Average per week.
Average per day _.
Establishment No. 2.

Average per weekAverage per day _ _
Establishment No. 3_

Average per week.
Average per d a y ..
Establishment No. 4.

Average per week.
Average per d ay ..

Earnings in one
week
Busy
season

Slack
season

May, ’28 Apr. ,’28
$49.74
$6.62
61.07
6.62
46.89
54.11
49.44
52. 25
8.71

Fancy stitchers:
Establishment No. 1.

6. 62

1.10

Jan.,’28 Jan., ’28
$40.45
$6.50
51.30
10.44
50.94
8.01
51.30
10.80
50.09
10.44
53. 91
11.16
23.91
45. 99
7. 67

Occupation, and estab
lishment No.

Average per i
Average per day_
Establishment No. 4.

9. 56
1.59

JSov., ’27 Dec., ’27
$30. 42
$4.80
26.46
14.13
24. 75
27. 72
12. 42
23.40
48.90
8. 25
28. 80
20. 34
46.45
20.83
19.80
21.95
19. 65
30.09
5. 02

16.04
2. 67

Feb.,’ 28
$58. 78
55. 39
51. 69
24. 66
47. 74
46. 30
44.58
46. 51
47.61
34. 65
55. 04
45.94
36. 77
33. 96
53. 69
16. 38
42. 22
34. 38
42.01
38. 70
49. 26
50.90
42. 39
47. 44
42. 69
37. 35

Dec., ’27
$11. 78
9.47
13. 74
5. 56
13.98
14. 35
13.31
8.24
9.28
17.08
14.80
16.33

43. 35
7. 23

12.33
2. 06

Average per week.
Average per day__

Em
ployee
No.

Earnings in one
week
Busy
season

Slack
season

May, ’28 Apr., ’28
$31.71
$3. 90
27. 84
1.99
28. 30
1.99
18.84
1.99
29.43
17.83
19.16
28. 93
19.76
24. 62
24. 64
4.11

2.47
.41

Feb., ’28 Dec., ’27
$29. 39
$9.95
25. 94
16. 35
31.85
24.64
26. 73
9.06
29. 06
3. 78
31.06
21.74
28. 29
3. 54
1. 72
13. 79
31.05
3. 69
29. 53
10. 51
29. 65
3. 70
30.84
11.89
35.20
13.10
24. 40
7.42
26.18
7.84
24.17
11.53
35. 68
8. 36
15.05
20.04
35.12
7. 67
20.62
5.44
32. 37
7. 72
23. 85
9.85
37.15
24. 30
31.02
6. 70
27. 86
12.16
25. 93
9. 68
20.10
14.85
13. 21
9. 75
24.10
11.53
31.82
7.07
43.02
24.59
18. 84
7. 72
26. 38
7. 72
36. 02
11. 55
31.80
9.70
20.07
29. 93
32. 02
27.44
29. 32
40. 95
20.13
29. 41
26.13
20. 07
18. 84
32. 79
19. 55
23. 44
27. 25
4. 54

11.11
1.85

20
T

CO N D ITIO N S I N SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

able

6.— Earnings in a busy week and in a slack week, by occupations— Continued

Em
Occupation, and estab
ployee
lishment No.
No.

Occupation, and estab
lishment No.
Busy
season

Slack
season

May, ’28 Apr., ’28
$26. 22
$4.01
25. 54
4. 51
26.13
3. 09
19. 52
26. 28
25. 76

Top stitchers:
Establishment No. 1.

24. 91
4.15

Average per week.
Average per day_.

Turn workmen:
Establishment No. 1.

3.87
.65

Feb., ’28 Dec., ’27
$32. 38
$24.93
43. 42
8.04
35. 21
10.71
31.03
11.10
38. 80
2.19
34. 79
12. 99
42. 79
13.94
36.29
13.20
39. 06
2. 56
41.79
8. 66
14. 78
31. 45
33.14
11. 70
9. 62

Establishment No. 4

36.68

Average per week.
Average per day. _

Establishment No. 5.

Earnings in one
week

6.11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

11.11
1.85

July, ’28 June, ’28
$34. 90
$22. 42
36. 76
26. 32
29. 60
18. 65
34. 90
20. 99
33. 57
25.73
33.31
21.45
39. 79
26. 88
34. 01
23. 70
35. 94
28.23
32.00
20.11
40. 97
24. 00
33.19

Average per week.
Average per day...
Wood heelers:
Establishment No. 1.

Average per week.
Average per day..
Establishment No. 2.

Average per week.
Average per day
C o n so lid a te d hand
method lasting ma
chine operators:
Establishment No. 3.

Average per week.
Average per day

Establishment No. 6.

Average per week.
Average per day..

23. 50
4. 70

Nov., ’27 Dec., ’27
$36. 99
$10. 53
36. 63
14. 86
42. 39
11.76
38. 67
6. 45

12. 38
2. 06

July, ’28 June, ’28
$58. 40
$31.58
31.58
58. 40
28. 54
42. 32
58. 97
42. 32
15. 39
31. 75
43. 94
8. 79

30.06

6.01

Average per week.
Average per day_.
Establishment No. 3.

Average per week.
Average per day..
Establishment No. 4.

Em
ployee
No.

Earnings in one
week
Busy
season

Slack
season

M ay,’28 A pr.,
ill. 46
$36. 68
11.46
36. 68
5. 85
34. 20
5.85
34.20
11.56
35. 22
35. 22
11.56
12. 06
34. 51
12.06
34. 51
5. 85
26.94
5. 85
34.68
5. 85
34.68
11.89
34.74
11.89
34.74
15. 99
40. 39
15.99
40. 39
35.16
5. 85
36. 63
5. 85
10. 54
34. 26
10. 54
34. 26
5. 85
35.10
5. 85
35.10
34. 37
3.90
34. 37
3.90
5. 85
35.16
34. 08
5. 85
26. 94
5. 85
36. 63
34.08
34. 85
5. 81

8. 65
1. 44

Mar.,’28 Apr. ’28
12. 66
56. 92
14. 08
61. 92
9. 00
49. 44
14. 08
62.88
57. 79
9. 63

12. 46
2. 08

Feb.,’28 Jan., ’28
$7. 86
$51. 51
14. 92
52.38
10.20
32.50
52. 92
8. 58
48.06
56. 56
48. 99
8.17

10. 39
1. 73

N ov.,’27 Dec., ’27
$14. 70
$61. 38
63. 86
19.66
17. 52
61. 65
14. 82
58. 32
62.01
18. 66
70.47
30. 84
62.95
10. 49

19. 37
3. 23

Feb.,’28 Dec., ’27
$23. 82
$57. 24
25. 20
58.14
66. 31
36.44
54. 75
29.08
25.02
57.24
21.87
37.08

EM P L O Y M E N T , P A Y R O LLS, AND E A R N IN G S ,

1928

T a b l e 6 .— E a r n i n g s i n a b u s y w e e k a n d i n a s la c k w e e k , b y o c c u p a t i o n s — C o n tin u e d

Em
Occupation, and estab ployee
lishment No.
No.

Wood heelers—Contd.
Establishment No.4.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Average per week.
Average per day _
Establishment No. 5.

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Average per day
Establishment No. 3_
Average per day
Establishment No. 4.

Edge trimmers— Contd.
Establishment No. 4_.

Treers:
Establishment No. 3_

EstablishmentNo. 4.

Establishment No. 5.

1. 55

Average per week.
Average per day

Feb., ’28 Jan., ’28
i $13.40
1 $58. 62

Establishment No. 6.

9. 77

2. 23

Nov., ’27 Dec., ’27
i $19. 65
1 i $50. 01
8. 34

3. 28

Feb., ’28 Dec., '27
1
$49. 32
$36.90
2
57. 71
31.82
3
64. 21
35. 90
4
34. 02
60.83

Average per week
Average per day

Earnings in one
week
Busy
season

1
2
3
4
5
6

29. 95
4. 99

May, ’28 May, ’28
$37. 02
$20. 70
37. 01
23. 69
22. 55
13. 36
60. 22
33. 09
37. 98
6. 33

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

17. 34
2. 89

Feb., ’28 Dec., ’27
$58.13
$28. 96
54. 51
28. 46
51. 84
28. 68
63.24
27. 90
58. 79
37. 72
42. 69
29. 04
61. 66
28. 39
30. 44
61. 71
33. 74
53. 53
53. 98
9.00

1
2
3
4
5

35.11
5. 85

Nov., ’27 Dec., ’ 27
$22. 02
$16. 94
27.10
17. 38
19. 48
17. 66
24. 36
19. 29
27. 54
20. 25
12.51
24.10
4. 02

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Slack
season

Feb., *28 D ec.,’27
$60. 98
58. 35
$36. 90
58. 57
9. 76

Average per week
Average per day

36. 65
7. 33

May, ’28 Apr., ’28
i $9. 29
i $35. 63

5
6
7

Average per week.
Average per day

19. 27
3.21

July, ’28 June,’28
$69. 66
$35.10
77. 86
42. 65
62. 85
35.10
62. 54
35.10
62. 37
35. 28
69. 82
14. 09
34.02
69. 66

Em
ployee
No.

Average per week_
Average per day

25. 82
4. 30

May, ’28 May, ’28
$59. 00
$20.13
59. 01
20. 60
56.28
19. 02
49. 80
17. 31

5.94
1

Slack
season

Feb., ’28 D e c.,’ 27
$24. 54
$56.16
59. 58
29. 25
57.24
23. 45
57. 06
24. 48
61.74
25. 02
57.24
24. 84
56. 70
24.12
57.24
26. 60
57. 87
25. 56
59.31
26.10
61. 02
25. 26
58. 50
24.12

58.10
11.62

Average per day
Establishment No. 2_

Busy
season

56.02
9. 34

Average per week.
Average per day
Edge trimmers:
Establishment No. 1_

Occupation, and estab
lishment No.

57. 25
9. 54

Average per week.
Average per day
Establishment No. 6.

Earnings in one
week

19. 25
3. 21

July, ’28 June, ’28
$38. 74
$12.10
43.21
7. 50
41.11
5. 70
41.99
9. 33
42. 20
5. 70
37. 06
9.57
42. 99
8. 70
40.41
5. 52
35. 44
3. 00
34. 63
10. 59
39. 23
39. 73
7. 95

7. 77
1.55

1 Only 1 employee working.

Employment, Pay Rolls, and Earnings, 1928
ABLE 7 shows for 19 of the important Haverhill Shoe Manu
facturers’ Association factories the number of working days,
the number of employees on the pay rolls, the amount of the
pay rolls, the average earnings in one week, and the average earnings
per day based on the days of operation, for each of the weeks in

CO ND ITIO NS IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

1928 from the one ending January 6 to the week ending July 27.
Employees as here used include all factory workers, officials, fore
men, office force, and all others on the pay rolls. Data for factory
workers were not available.
During the week ending January 6, 1928, there were only 5 working
days, the factories being closed on Monday, January 2; the 19 fac
tories had a total of 2,643 employees on their pay rolls in this week
and paid to these employees $56,902.32, an average of $21.53 per
week of 5 working days, or $4.31 per day.
Shoe factories were closed on Saturdays in June and July. The
regular working days in these months were, therefore, 5 per week.
The number of employees on the pay rolls of the 19 factories
during the period covered ranged from 2>643 for the week ending
January 6 to 3,433 for the one ending March 30, and represent 45
to 50 per cent of all of the shoe-factory workers in Haverhill. The
amount of the pay rolls ranged from $50,832.46 for the week ending
January 27 to $112,297.46 for the one ending February 17. The
week ending January 27 was part of the period of the January 19 to
30 general strike. The average weekly earnings of $18.77 for this
week were less than in any other week in 1928, from January to July,
inclusive. The average earnings per day of $3.13 were also less
than in any other week. Average earnings per week were highest
($33.06) during the week ending February 17 and per day were
highest ($6.06) during the 5-day week ending February 24.
The chart following Table 7 shows the trend of employment and
of pay rolls in the industry in Haverhill during the period covered.
T

able

7. — Employees (all classes) and pay rolls for 19 Haverhill shoe manufacturers’
association factories each week, January 6 to July 27, 1928

Pay roll for week ending—

Jan. 6__ ____ _ _ ______ ____________________
Jan. 13 .
_________ ____________________
Jan. 20
____ ____ ________ _
Jan. 27__ ___________ - ______
-- _______
Feb. 3______________________________________
Feb. 10. . _____ _____ _______
_____ __
Feb. 17__ _______ _______ __________
Feb. 24_____________________________________
Mar. 2 ___ ____ __ _
..
________
Mar. 9 _ __ ________
- _________ ______ Mar. 16
. _________ __
________
Mar. 23 __ _________
- _ __ __ _ _ ____
Mar. 30
__ _
__ _________
Apr. 6_ __ ____
___ ___ ___
__ ____ ____
Apr. 13- _______________ _____ _______
- __ - __ _______
Apr. 20 ___ ______ Apr. 27
.
_ _ ___
- - - - - - ___ __
May 4 _ _________
_ _ __ __
May 11 -_
. -- _ _ _ _ _ _
__ ______
May 18 ______
- ______ __ _ _____
May 25
_ _____
__ _ _ __
June 1 _ _ _
___ _ __ _____ _ _ __
June 8____
________
_ __ _ ______
June 15_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ __
June 22 _ _
________
_
_ _ ____
June 29_- _____ __ __ ___ _____ ______ __
July 6___________ __________________________
July 1 3 - - _ _ __ ____ __ __
_
_
July 20_____________________________________
July 27_____________________________________

1 Holiday in this week.

Num
ber of
work Number of
ing
employees
days in
week
i5
6
6
6
6
6
6
i5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
15
6
6
6
6
6
15
5
5
5
5
i4
5
5
5

2,643
2,979
3, 044
2, 708
2, 892
3,316
3, 397
3, 328
3, 402
3,424
3. 373
3, 388
3, 433
3, 299
3,169
3,082
3,038
3, 015
2,983
2, 853
2, 777
2, 683
2, 767
2, 686
2, 813
2, 798
2, 845
2, 965
3,081
3,165

Amount of
pay rolls

i $56, 902. 32
74, 779. 25
77, 343. 54
2 50, 832. 46
2 66, 519. 60
103, 669. 49
112. 297. 46
i 100, 852. 90
104, 300. 81
109, 489. 33
110, 607.12
110, 484. 63
106, 219. 32
96, 381. 76
84, 062. 98
i 73, 208. 41
76, 920. 45
82, 968. 84
72, 435. 17
65, 207.11
58, 652. 00
i 50,911. 35
54, 312. 65
57, 248. 58
62, 094. 23
62,035.95
i 61, 699. 41
66, 862. 81
79,027.12
85, 847. 32

Average
Average
earnings in earnings
per day
one week

i $21. 53
25.10
25. 41
2 18. 77
2 23.00
31.26
33.06
i 30. 30
30. 66
31.98
32. 79
32. 61
30. 94
29. 22
26. 53
i 23. 75
25. 32
27. 52
24. 28
22. 86
21.12
i 18.98
19. 63
21.31
22. 07
22.17
i 21. 69
22.55
25. 65
27.12

2 General strike Jan. 19 to 30.

$4.31
4.18
4. 24
2 3.13
2 3.83
5. 21
5.51
6.06
5.11
5.33
5. 47
5.44
5.16
4.87
4. 42
4. 75
4. 22
4. 59
4.05
3. 81
3. 52
3.80
3. 93
4. 26
4.41
4.43
5.42
4.51
5.13
5.42

H A V E R H IL L P A Y R O L L S,

1925 TO

1928

Haverhill Pay Rolls, 1925 to 1928
HE figures in Table 8 represent the total weekly earnings of all
the employees in the various manufacturing industries in
Haverhill, Mass., beginning with the week ending January 9,
1925, and ending July 27, 1928. It is estimated by officials of the
banks where the money for the pay rolls was obtained by the manu
facturers, and also by others in the city who are well informed as to
industrial conditions, that the pay rolls for the shoe industry, including
the allied industries— wood heel, cut sole, leather heel, etc.— repre
sent more than 90 per cent of the total pay rolls of all industries in
the city. It is, therefore, believed that the figures are also repre
sentative of the actual trend of the shoe industry during the period
covered.
The amount of each weekly pay roll is shown in the table with
index numbers for the various amounts, the 1925 weekly average being
taken as the base or 100 per cent. The 1925 weekly indexes increased
from 67.6 for the week ending January 9 to 123.5 for the one ending
April 3, decreased to 78.7 June 5, increased to 136 September 25, and
decreased to 67.4 for the week ending December 31. Payrolls were
low early in January, June, and in November and December and high
in March, April, August, and September. The trend of the pay rolls
in Haverhill for all industries combined follows very closely the
generally known trend of the shoe industry, which has two busy
seasons— one in March and April and the other in August and
September— and two slack seasons— one from October to February
and the other from May to July— and also confirms the estimates

CO N DITIO N S IN SH O E IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

that the pay rolls for the shoe industry represent more than 90 pe?
cent of the total for all industries in the city.
The low indexes in 1925 for the weeks ending February 27, April
24, June 5, July 10, September 11, October 16, November 27, and
December 31 are due largely to holidays in each of these weeks.
This also applies generally to weeks in 1926, 1927, and 1928 which
included holidays. The very low indexes for the weeks ending
January 27 and February 3, 1928, reflect loss of earnings during the
period January 19 to 30, when approximately 5,000 shoe workers
w^ere on a general strike.
Pay rolls by weeks were generally higher in 1926, lower in 1927,
and much lower in 1928 than in 1925. Examples: The April 17,
1925, April 16, 1926, April 15, 1927, and April 13, 1928, indexes are,
respectively, 107.6, 121.6, 104.8, and 78.4. The indexes by years
are 100 for 1925, 111.4 for 1926, and 87.7 for 1927. The trend in
each year is shown graphically by the chart following Table 8.
T a b l e 8 . — Amount and index number of pay roll, January, 1925, to Julyy 1928, by

weeks
[1925 weekly average =100]
1925

1927

1926

1928

Index
Index
Week
Index
Week
Week
Index
Week
ending— Amount No. ending— Amount No. ending— Amount No. ending— Amount No.
9
16
23
30
Feb. 6
13
20
27
Mar. 6
13
20
27
Apr. 3
10
17
24
May 1
8
15
22
29
Jane 5
12
19
26
July 3
10
17
24
31
Aug. 7
14
21
28
Sept. 4
11
18
25
Oct. 2
9
16
23
30
Nov. 6
13
20
27
Dec. 4
11
18
24
31
Av
Jan.

$253,653
292,443
317, 525
332,891
369,443
374,228
381,827
361,057
415,032
431,400
446,067
453,550
463,243
434,473
403,623
344, 285
393,872
391,679
368,182
348,868
363,170
295,038
300, 523
303,754
318,693
360, 732
300, 523
360,383
385,384
425,947
441,857
465, 521
489,134
495,373
507,354
433,150
500,717
509,934
469,581
445, 588
357,758
396,167
397,491
347, 138
298,906
295,345
272,368
273,622
276,936
285, 062
300, 798
252,720
375.077

67.6
78.0
84.7
88.8
98.5
99.8
101.8
96.3
110.7
115.0
118.9
120.9
123.5
115.8
107.6
91.8
105.0
104.4
98.2
93.0
96 8
78.7
80.1
81.0
85.0
96.2
80.1
96 1
102.7
113.6
117.8
124.1
130.4
132.1
135.3
115.5
133.5
136.0
125.2
118.8
95.4
105.6
106.0
92.6
79.7
78.7
72.6
73.0
73.8
76.0
80.2
67.4
100.0

Jan.

8
15
22
29
Feb. 5
12
19
26
Mar. 5
12
19
26
Apr. 2
9
16
23
30
May 7
14
21
28
June 4
11
18
25
July 2
9
16
23
30
Aug. 6
13
20
27
Sept. 3
10
17
24
Oct. 1
8
15
22
29
Nov. 5
12
19
26
Dec. 3
10
17
24
31
Av

$323,016
357, 794
397,118
431,018
448,823
465,330
472,011
445,439
505, 534
519,156
500,868
499,885
474,092
457, 565
456,133
408,737
485, 787
481,400
474,516
463,782
443,930
366,084
387,966
379,265
389,436
410,026
299,932
379,400
406,019
426,899
435,945
450,933
469,632
485,489
492, 798
421,440
567,346
540,122
554,952
540,472
460,937
476, 632
385,004
373,743
326,035
278,725
254,656
230, 907
239, 643
250,052
255,101
272,141
417, 686

86.1
95.4
105.9
114.9
119.7
124.1
125.8
118.8
134.8
138.4
133.5
133.3
126.4
122.0
121.6
109.0
129.5
128.3
126 5
123.6
118.4
97.6
103.4
101.1
103.8
109.3
80.0
101.2
108.2
113.8
116.2
120.2
125.2
129.4
131.4
112.4
151.3
144.0
148.0
144.1
122.9
127.1
102.6
99.6
86.9
74.3
67.9
61.6
63.9
66.7
68.0
72.6
111.4

Jan.

7
14
21
28
Feb. 4
11
18
25
Mar. 4
11
18
25
Apr. 1
8
15
22
29
May 6
13
20
27
June 3
10
17
24
July 1
8
15
22
29
Aug. 5
12
19
26
Sept. 2
9
16
23
30
Oct. 7
14
21
28
Nov. 4
11
18
25
Dec. 2
9
16
23
30
Av

$265,715
314,085
326,015
357,008
371,683
373,111
380,973
341,910
376,937
393,241
354,988
373,412
403,245
403,017
392,898
327, 549
347, 701
340, 531
326,494
308,094
299,286
246,137
261, 567
257,994
269,390
316,131
224,871
300,875
341,480
354,274
355, 282
384,653
380,254
395,320
408,144
341,368
404,491
418,139
416,640
411, 200
352,907
363,455
361, 588
326,940
276,895
243,040
226,438
218,187
215, 580
210,488
234, 271
204,467
328, 853

70.8
Jan.
83.7
86.9
95.2
99.1
Feb.
99.5
101.6
91.2
Mar.
100.5
104.8
94.6
99.6
107.5
107.4
Apr.
104.8
87.3
92.7
90.8
May
87.0
82.1
79.8
65.6
June
69.7
68.8
71.8
84.3
60.0
July
80.2
91.0
94.5
94.7
102.6
101.4
105.4
108.8
91.0
107.8
111.5
111.1
109.6
94.1
96.9
96.4
87.2
73.8
64.8
60.4
58.2
57.5
56.1
62.5
54.5
87.7 1

6
13
20
27
3
11
18
24
2
9
16
23
30
6
13
20
27
4
11
18
25
1
8
15
22
29
6
13
20
27

$211,301
255, 591
277,350
225 641
236,481
322,423
367,045
355,458
363,976
367,981
375,362
362, 512
346,669
317,468
294,193
268,011
274, 747
289,317
284, 756
247,648
231,375
222,654
219,523
221,272
225, 628
251,444
229, 711
243, 549
271,362
299,270

56 3
68 1
73 9
60.2
63 0
86 0
97 9
94 8
97 0
98.1
100.1
96 7
92 4
84 6
78 4
71.5
73.3
77.1
75.9
66 0
61.7
59.4
58 5
59 0
60.2
67 0
61.2
64 9
72 3
79.8

H A V E R H IL L PA Y R O LLS,

1925 TO

192S

IN D E X N U M B E R S OF P A Y -R O L L S .
1925 weekly average. = 100.

C O N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

Shoe Workers’ Unions in Haverhill
HE Shoe Workers’ Protective Union, with an average of 8,042
members in good standing in 1925, of 8,790 in 1926, of 8,262 in
1927,
and an average of 7,465 for the months January to August,
1928, is really the only shoe workers’ union in Haverhill of material
importance in number of members. This union has an agreement
(p. 28) with the Haverhill Manufacturers’ Association and agreements
or understandings with each of the other manufacturers of shoes or
parts in Haverhill, except 1 open shop, 1 cooperative shop, 1 nonunion
shop, and possibly a few very small factories that have been in business
for only a short time.
“ In good standing” as here used means that all dues and assess
ments have been paid in full.
The actual number of shoe workers in Haverhill on the register
of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union is considerably in excess of
the number given above as there are at all times a number in arrears
of dues.
The initiation fee is not less than $2, the dues are 25 cents per week,
payable weekly, and members of local unions are also subject to
assessments. From this it may be seen that for dues only the unions
collect from their members approximately $100,000 annually. The
money collected for initiation fees, dues, and as assessments is used
in paying per capita dues of 10 cents to general office organization,
salaries of union officials and agents, maintenance of offices, half the
expenses of the shoe board, and attorney fees and other expenses.
It is rather difficult to get initiation into some of the locals of the
Shoe Workers’ Protective Union. An official of the union in speaking
of the various locals remarked incidentally that in one of the locals it
is necessary that a candidate for initiation be recommended by two
members in good standing and that no two members of that local
will sign the petition of any applicant. The local was named by the
official.
The Boot and Shoe Workers’ Union, with a membership of 194 in
1928, is the only other organization of shoe workers in Haverhill.
The initiation fee is $2 and dues are 35 cents per week. This union
is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and has an
agreement with only one shoe manufacturer in Haverhill— one making
men’s shoes. The membership of this union in Haverhill decreased
from about 1,200 in 1920 or 1921 (when it had agreements with three
manufacturers of men’s shoes) to 299 in 1925, 265 in 1926, and to 206
in 1927. A small number of members of this union also have mem
bership in the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union and are now working
in factories which have agreements with that union. A representa
tive of this union stated that the Haverhill manufacturers do not
want agreements with the Boot and Shoe Workers’ Union. When
asked for an explanation of this statement the representative said,
“ A number of them a few years ago made agreements with us but
quit and made agreements with the other union.”
The open shop has been in operation about four years, beginning
with about 35 employees, and having in August, 1928, 175 workers.
It operated full time in 1925, 1926, all of 1927 except two weeks in
December when the factory worked 50 per cent of full time, and all
of 1928 to August, the period covered by this study. The employees

HAVERHILL SHOE MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION

are reported as satisfied. Only one worker is reported as having left
the service in the last year and then only because the family with
whom he made his home moved from the city. It was stated by this
firm that the company has a waiting list of 300 to 500 applicants on
file at all times, that each applicant makes application in writing, and
that the company has been unable to keep up with its orders.
Each of the 70 employees in the cooperative factory is a stock
holder of the establishment. The factory had in August, 1928, been
in operation about five months.
The nonunion shop which had in August, 1928, been in operation a
little more than four years was in that month employing about 30
shoe workers.
The following table gives the total membership in good standing in
the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union in Haverhill, including a small
local at Derry, N. H., in each month from January, 1925, to July,
1928, and the average number for each year.
T

able

9. — Number of members of the Shoe Workers1 Protective Union in good stand
ing each month, January, 1925, to July, 1928

1925

1926

1927

1928

Month

1925

1926

1927

January.. ............. . 7,848
February___________ 7,928
March . __ _
8,122
April. _
____ _____ 8,116
May _____________ 7, 707
June__ - ____ ___ 7, 526
July------------------------- 7, 829

8,463
8, 630
8, 760
9,025
9,031
8, 807
8, 677

8,487
8, 571
8, 817
8, 592
8, 432
8,079
7,921

7,434
7, 738
7, 892
7,820
7, 505
7,019
6, 847

August_____________
September.._______
October
_________
November__________
December__________

8, 228
8, 457
8, 393
8,140
8, 213

8, 760
8, 913
9,116
8, 798
8, 496

8,039
8, 228
8, 283
8,067
7,626

Average for year.. 8,042

8, 790

8,262

Month

1928

i 7, 465

i 7 months.

Haverhill Shoe Manufacturers’ Association
I N MARCH, 1928, the Haverhill Shoe Manufacturers’ Associa
tion included 42 members and employed approximately 6,000
shoe workers, or 80 per cent of the total number at work in the
shoe factories in the city at that time. The number of association
factories and the average number of workers employed in such fac
tories vary from year to year. Association members ranged from 30
in 1925 to 65 in 1920 and employed an average of 6,987 shoe workers
in 1920, 6,503 in 1921, 6,213 in 1922, 6,244 in 1923, 5,272 in 1924,
4,560 in 1925, 5,947 in 1926, 4,552 in 1927, and 4,826 January to
June 30, 1928. In 1925 the association members employed about 57
per cent of the average number of shoe workers in good standing in
the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union in Haverhill, 68 per cent in 1926,
55 per cent in 1927, and 65 per cent for the period January 1 to June
30, 1928.
The expenses of the association are paid from funds collected from
association members. Each association member pays $5 per year for
each employee, based on the average number employed each month.
These funds are used in the payment of the salary of the association
manager, of an expert who figures labor costs or prices of various
operations on different styles of shoes for association factories, of one
or two stenographers, of rent for office and of office expenses, and also
of half of the expenses of the shoe board. In the aggregate the
expenses amount to between $25,000 and $30,000 annually.

CO N D ITIO N S IN

SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

Working Agreement or Peace Pact
T

HE agreement between the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union and
the Haverhill Shoe Manufacturers7Association, in effect w^hen
the material for this report was collected in 1928, is as follows:

This agreement between each and all of the members of the Shoe Workers’
Protective Union of Haverhill, Mass., and such others as shall become members
of said union during the term of this agreement, party of the first part, herein
after referred to as employee or employees, and the following-named persons,
firms, and corporations engaged in the business of manufacturing shoes, members
of the Haverhill Shoe Manufacturers’ Association, namely: [List of names
omitted] and such other manufacturers as shall become members of said associa
tion during the aforesaid term, excepting those under prior contract with some
other labor union, party of the second part, and hereinafter referred to as manu
facturer or manufacturers.
Witnesseth: 1. This agreement applies only to the operation of factories in
Haverhill, Mass.
2. There shall be no strikes, lockouts, or cessation of work during the life of
this agreement. This article is not arbitrable.
3. Except as may be otherwise agreed upon only members of the Shoe Workers’
Protective Union in good standing shall be employed by the manufacturer to
perform operations in the manufacture of shoes. When a manufacturer lacks
a sufficient number of union operatives to do his work before he can employ
operatives who are not members of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union, he shall
at once notify the union headquarters and give the union an opportunity to
supply union operatives; if the union does not supply a sufficient number of
competent operatives within 24 hours, then the employer shall have the right
to employ operatives who are not members of the Shoe Workers’ Protective
Union to fill the places of those the union is unable to fill; and the union agrees
to accept such operatives into the union at the regular initiation fee, provided
that the manufacturer, upon being notified that the union can supply union
operatives, states that he wishes to retain such operatives who are not members
of the union; and such statement by the manufacturer shall place the said opera
tives in the same status as members of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union.
This is not to be construed as meaning that the union must take in any person
or persons not having a clean labor record and manufacturers, shall replace such
operatives upon request from the union.
Upon hiring operatives who are not members of said union the manufacturers
shall immediately forward in writing to the union the name and address of such
operative.
Any member of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union after a period of five
consecutive weeks of employment becomes a member of the shop crew.
The manufacturer agrees that there shall be no laying off of members of the
crew, and during the slack periods work shall be distributed as equally as possible
among the crew.
/
4. The provisions of this agreement shall not apply to work performed by
office forces, salesmen, superintendents, and foremen, foreladies, assistant fore
men, assistant foreladies, not to exceed three persons in any one department, one
of whom may be designated as a shipper, unless the production of such depart
ment exceeds 1,200 pairs daily, when a greater number of assistants in propor
tion to the work required may be had, machinists who do not work on shoes,
engineers and other persons employed by the manufacturers in executive, mana
gerial, or administrative capacities and persons holding such positions need not
be members of the union.
During their spare time, but not amounting to more than half their time,
superintendents, foremen, foreladies, assistants, and foremen and assistant fore
ladies may be employed to a reasonable extent in working on shoes in any of
the departments without being members of the union.
Any claim of the union that the designation of any employee as one holding
such a position is a pretext or that any such person is to an unreasonable extent
employed or engaged as a shoe worker, if not adjusted with the union, shall be
referred to arbitration.
Manufacturers, including in cases of corporations, officers, may work on shoes
in any of the departments of the business without being members of the union.
5. The basic week’s work shall be from 7.10 to 11.50 a. m., each week day
morning including Saturday and from 1 to 5 p. m, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednes

W O R K IN G A G R E E M E N T O R PEA CE PAC T

day, Thursday, and Friday during the months of September, October, November,
December, January, February, March, April and May of each year. During
the months of June, July, and August the working time shall be 7 a. m. to 12 m.
and 1 to 5 p. m. on each week day except Saturday.
Overtime work shall be granted at the discretion of the neutral arbiter, if the
manufacturer can show such overtime to be necessary.
Saturday morning work during the months of June, July, and August shall
be granted within legal limits at the discretion of the neutral arbiter.
Overtime work over 48 hours shall be paid for at the rate of time and one-half.
Prices in existence, at the beginning of this agreement shall prevail for one
year. Operatives to be paid not later than 5 p. m. Friday..
6.
All the differences shall be referred for final settlement to a board of arbitra
tion, which shall consist of three members, who are to be chosen as follows: One
member to be appointed by the local involved, or by the general president of the
Shoe Workers’ Protective Union if the district organization is involved, one mem
ber to be appointed by the manager of the Manufacturers’ Association, both of
whom shall serve until the determination of the particular controversy for which
they were appointed; the third member, who shall be known as the neutral arbi
trator, shall be chosen by the said general president and manager: Provided, how
ever, That if within 12 secular days from the date hereof they shall fail to agree
upon and designate the third or neutral member of said board, then the neutral
member shall be named in writing by any four of the following named persons:
William D . McFee, Rev. John J. Graham, Fred D. McGregor, Rev. A. Karl
Skinner, Matthew J. Fowler, Parkman R. Flanders, and Daniel J. Cavan, acting
upon the written application of said manager or said general president, but no
neutral member shall be so named unless he has the indorsement of either said
manager or said general president.
Said neutral member shall serve until the expiration of this agreement.
A vacancy in the membership of said board of arbitration caused by the death,
resignation, refusal, or inability to serve of the third or neutral member shall be
filled by the appointment of a new member of said board by the then general
president of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union and the then manager of the
Haverhill Shoe Manufacturers’ Association: Provided, however, That if wTithin 12
secular days from the creation of such vacancy the said general president and the
said manager shall fail to agree upon and designate the third or neutral member
of said board, then said appointment of the third or neutral member shall be
made as provided in case of failure to agree on the first appointment of said
neutral member.
In case of the failure of any member of said board other than the neutral
member to serve for three days for an 3^ cause, then the said local involved, or the
general president, if the district organization is involved, in the case of said
failure of a union member to serve, or the said manager of the association in the
case of said failure of a manufacturers’ member to serve, shall within three
secular days after receipt of a written notice of such failure to serve from the
other party to the agreement, appoint a representative who shall act as a member
of said board in place of said member failing to serve. If the said local involved,
or the general president if the district organization is involved, or the said manager,
whose duty it is to appoint such representative, fails within said three secular
days to do so, then the other members of the board of arbitration shall proceed
and transact business and in such case their decision shall be the decision of the
board, and if they fail to agree the decision of the neutral member shall be the
decision of the board.
^ Said board of arbitration may summon witnesses and conduct a full investiga
tion of all matters in dispute which shall be referred to it and shall have powder
to determine and settle by a vote of a majority of its members, except as otherwise
provided, all matters of controversy referred to it, and every determination or
finding as aforesaid by said board of arbitration shall be conclusive and binding
upon the parties.
The board shall have power to determine the manner of conducting its hearings
and the nature and character of the evidence. Every decision of said board of
arbitration shall so far as it may be possible, relate back to, and become effective
as of, the date of the original claim for arbitration, and the same matter shall not
be brought before the board again within three months from the date of said
decision.
Prices that have been fixed for a yearly period shall remain unchanged as pro
vided in article 11, but prices for new work may be fixed at any time for the

24011°—29----- 3

CO N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U S T R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

remainder of said yearly period: Provided, That if no 90-day notice is given as
provided in article 11 all prices shall remain unchanged for another year.
Before the board convenes on any case presented for arbitration, it shall be the
duty of the chairman of the board to visit the department involved and make a
personal investigation of the subject in controversy.
The board shall not have authority to impose monetary fines.
Reference to the board of arbitration may be claimed at any time, in writing
by the Haverhill Shoe Manufacturers' Association, acting through its manager, or
by the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union, acting through its general president.
Written notice shall be given by the party to this agreement to the effect that
such reference is claimed, and describing briefly the matter or matters in con
troversy to be settled thereby.
The said board of arbitration shall give notice in writing to both parties
hereto of the time and place of the hearings upon all matters referred to it as
aforesaid, and may order the production before it of any shoes, machinery, or
materials which it may deem relevant to any matter to be decided by said board.
Within three secular days after the reference to said board of arbitration of any
matter, complaint or controversy, a regular hearing or hearings thereon shall
be had before said board, and shall proceed with all reasonable expedition.
All decisions and orders of said board of arbitration shall be made in writing
and shall be signed by a majority of its members, except as otherwise provided,
and shall be made within three days after the close of the evidence.
The third or neutral member of said board of arbitration shall be reimbursed
for all expenses and disbursements incurred by him in performance of this duties,
and shall be paid a reasonable compensation for his services, the parties hereto
agreeing to pay in equal shares all sums of money required for the abovementioned purposes. Clerical and stenographic services incurred by the board
shall be borne equally by the association and union.
7. There shall be no work done on the following holidays: January 1, Feb
ruary 22, April 19, M ay 30, July 4, Labor Day, October 12, Thanksgiving D ay,
and Christmas Day, or the days on which said holidays are celebrated.
8. The discharge or suspension of any employee which the union claims to be
unjustifiable shall be arbitrated, and such case must be heard and a decision
rendered within two secular days of reference.
9. The collector and business agent of each local of the Shoe Workers’ Pro
tective Union shall, after giving notice to the office, have access to the departments
of the factory in which the work under the jurisdiction of such local is done for
the purpose of performing their official duties. Shop committees shall be allowed
to have full rights to perform their official duties.
10. When a condition arises in a factory department which is peculiar to that
department or branch of work and does not appear in other departments or
branches of work then the matter may be taken up between the local in whose
jurisdiction said department or branch of work may be and the manufacturers’
association, for adjustment.
If a mutually satisfactory agreement can be reached between the local involved
and the manufacturers’ association then such agreement shall be binding on the
parties but shall apply to and affect only the local involved. If a satisfactory
agreement can not be reached such matter is to be arbitrated. N o decision
under this article shall be considered a monetary fine.
11. This agreement shall remain in force until December 31, 1930: Provided,
Should either party to this agreement desire to alter, amend, or annul it before
its expiration, it shall give written notice thereof to the other party not later
than September 1, 1928, in which event the agreement shall remain in force until
December 31, 1928.
If no notice is given on or before September 1, 1928, the agreement remains in
full force and effect until December 31, 1930. If such notice is given and mutually
satisfactory amendments are entered into by the parties, then the agreement as
amended shall continue in full force and effect until December 31, 1930.
In case such notice is given meetings shall be held between the parties not
later than 10 days after the giving of the notice. If the party giving the notice
fails or refuses to meet the other party within said 10-day period, then the orig
inal agreement shall continue in full force and effect until December 31, 1930.
Any proposed changes or amendments agreed upon by the representatives of
the parties to the agreement shall be submitted for approval, or ratification to
the parties themselves and such approval, ratification, or rejection (as the case
may be) shall be made known to the parties on or before October 1, 1928. A
desire to change prices at the end of any year shall become a controversy under

H A V E R H IL L SH OE B O ARD A C T IV IT IE S

this agreement and notice of such desire must be made 90 days before the expira
tion of the term. If such notice is not given prices shall remain unchanged for
another year. All evidence must be presented to the arbitration board within
60 days after the date of such notice and a decision reached 10 days before the
end of the year, and such decision shall become the prices for the following year.
In witness whereof the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands t h is ----------day of December, 1925.
t

a v e r h il l

Shoe

orkers’

P r o t e c t iv e

U n io n

B y ----------- , General President.
H a v e r h i ll S h o e M a n u f a c t u r e r s ’ A s s o c ia tio n

B y ----------- f Chairman of Board of Trustees.

Union Votes to Terminate Agreement
HE Shoe Workers’ Protective Union on August 16, 1928, by
referendum voted 570 against and 23 for the continuance of
the “ peace pact” after December 31, 1928. The total vote
of 593 is only 8% per cent of the total of 6,847 members of the union
in good standing as of July, 1928. Union leaders in commenting on
the vote as cast stated that it represents the general sentiments of
the rank and file of the union against a further continuance of the
agreement. The vote confirmed the prediction of the result of the
referendum a week before the vote was cast as made by one of the
most active and influential union leaders. District Council No. 1
of the union, before September 1, 1928, gave the Haverhill Shoe
Manufacturers’ Association written notice as required by the agree
ments of the decision of the union to terminate the agreement on
December 31, 1928.

Haverhill Shoe‘Board Activities
k ETICLE 6 of the agreement between the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union and the manufacturers’ association provides
for final settlement of all differences by an arbitration board.
The board consists of a representative of the union, a representative
of the manufacturers, and a neutral member selected by the general
president of the union and the manager of the manufacturers’ associa
tion, or by any four of a committee of seven specified leading citizens
of Haverhill.
In any controversy arising between any of the members of the
union and one or more of the manufacturers’ association and inability
of those directly interested parties to make a satisfactory settlement of
their differences, the representative or agent of the union and the
manager of the association, on request of either party, try to settle
the differences. In case of failure, the question at issue is then referred
to the shoe board in writing, for final settlement by arbitration.
There is no provision in the agreement for appeal from the decision
of the shoe board.
Between October 28, 1927, the date of the beginning of the service
of the present chairman of the shoe board, and August, 1928, the repre
sentatives of the union and of the manufacturers’ association referred
379 cases to the board for arbitration. Of these, 337 have been
decided. Approximately 91 per cent of the cases were inaugurated by
the union. In 190, or 56 per cent of the 337 cases, the representative
of the union voted with the chairman. In 147 cases, or 44 per cent of
the 337? the union representative did not vote with the chairman.

CO N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

In cases directly affecting individual local unions the union repre
sentative voted with the chairman or neutral member of the board in
71 per cent of the total number of cases of Finishers’ Local No. 1;
in 50 per cent of Turn workmen Local No. 2; in 58 per cent of Cutters’
Local No. 7; in 54 per cent of McKay and Welt-Workers’ Local No.
8; in 45 per cent of Packers’ Local No. 9; in 58 per cent of Stitchers’
Local No. 10; and in 22 per cent of the cases of Heelers’ Local No. 13.
The outstanding decision of the shoe board since May 8, 1924,
when wrages were reduced was that of December, 1927, in answer to
the appeal of the manufacturers for a reduction and of the union for
an increase of wage rates. (See briefs, pp. 43 to 68.) The December,
1927, decision is entirely too long and complicated to include in
this report. It caused much contention and conflicting claims as to
the amount or percentage of reduction. The citizens’ committee
recommended that a test of the reduction be made by figuring the
prices at the rates before and after the reduction on 50 representative
pairs of shoes in the order of arrival at the manufacturers’ association
from the various factories. The test was made and the chairman
of the board said it was found that the reduction ranged from 2 per
cent on the pair of shoes with the lowest to 13 per cent for the pair
with the highest percentage of reduction and that the average was
7.6 per cent. An agent of the union in speaking of this reduction
recently said it was 10 per cent.
Piece rates on shoes before and after reductions.— The figures in
Table 10 show piece rates per case of 36 pairs of shoes on each of 37
styles of shoes as paid to the shoe workers in each of 7 local unions of
the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union and to all locals together before
and after the reduction of such rates. The Haverhill Shoe Board
reduced rates in December, 1927. This reduction went into effect
January 1,1928, and was rescinded January 29 by an agreement (p. 82),
made at the termination of the strike by the union against the reduc
tion. The union made a voluntary and general reduction of 10 per
cent in June, 1928, to each shoe manufacturing establishment that
would sign the following agreement:
Agreement
1. It is hereby agreed between t h e ----------- , its assignees or successors, and
District Council No. 1 of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union that in considera
tion of a 10 per cent deduction on all piece prices on the 1927 lists granted by the
said District Council No. 1 to t h e ----------- , the company agrees to furnish to the
employees in its factory — cases’ of shoes each year during the period of this
agreement, it being understood that — cases mean — cases of 36 pair lots. No
more than 20 per cent shall be in lots of less than 36 pairs.
2.
agrees that in the event that it fails to furnish this number of shoes
to its workers, it will pay to them the difference between what they earned
under this concession and what they would have earned if the prices were
figured on the 1927 basis. Hour work prices are to remain the same as before.
3. No member of the Shoe Workers’ Protective LTnion shall be required to
work on shoes or any parts of shoes coming from a factory where members of the
Shoe Workers’ Protective Union are on strike.
4. Regular prices paid in other factories shall be paid for all contract work
done by this firm. Contract work done by this firm does not apply to the
guarantee given by this firm.
5. This firm will be governed by all the other articles of the peace pact.
This agreement to take effe c t-----------------, 1 9 2 , and to expire-----------------, 192 .
Signed for fir m :------------------------ .
Signed for union: ------------------------,

H A V E R H IL L SHOE BO ARD A C T IV IT IE S

In case there is no permanent shoe board, all differences shall be taken up and
settled by arbitration and each case so arbitrated must be heard and a decision
rendered within two secular days of the reference to the arbiters.
The arbiters are to be appointed as follows: One arbiter to represent the
union, one arbiter to represent the firm, and the neutral arbiter to be selected by
the other two, which neutral arbiter shall be chairman of the arbitration body.
In the event the arbiter representing the union and the arbiter representing
the firm being unable to agree upon the third or neutral arbiter, then it is mu
tually agreed that ----------of ----------- shall act as the third or neutral
arbiter.
Signed for the fir m :------------------------ .
Signed for the union: ------------------------.

The table also shows the percentage reduction by the shoe board
in comparison with that of the union.
Before any reduction was made by the shoe board or by the union
a rate of $1.48 per case of 36 pairs of style No. 1, a M cKay shoe, was
paid to local No. 1 finishers and edge makers. This rate was reduced
to $1.34 or 9.5 per cent by the shoe board and to $1,332 or 10 per cent
by the union.
The shoe board made no change in the rate of 89.5 cents for Cut
ters Local No. 7, but the union reduced this rate to 80.55 cents or 10
per cent. The shoe board made a reduction of 9.9 per cent in the
rate to Local No. 8; of 4.9 per cent to Local No. 9; of 5.6 per cent to
Local No. 10; and of 16 per cent to wood heelers or Local No. 13, as
compared with a reduction of 10 per cent to each local by the union.
The total of the rates to the six local unions before the reduction by
the shoe board or the union was $8.42 per case of 36 pairs. This rate
was reduced to $7.81 or 7.2 per cent by the shoe board and to $7,578
or 10 per cent by the union. Local No. 2, turn workmen, do no work
on M cKay shoes, nor do M cKay lasters and stitchers or Local No. 8
do any work on turn shoes.
T

10.— Piece rates to union locals on each of 37 styles of shoes before and after
reductions by Haverhill Shoe Board on January 1, 1928, and by union in June}
1928

able

Piece rates paid to members of local union No.—
8: Mc
1: Fin
Kay d: Pack 10: Fit
ishers 2: Turn 7: Cut lasters
ters
13:
ers,
work
and
and
Wood
and
ters
ironers, stitch
edge
men
heelers
stock
etc.
makers
ers
fitters

Item

Total

SHOE NO. 1

Rate before Jan. 1 1928, reduction___
Rate after Jan. 1,1928, reduction____
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board___
Per cent reduction by union..... .........

$2. 43
$2.19
$2.187

$1. 44
$1. 37
$1. 296
4.9

10.0

i. 375
$1.80
$1. 70
L315
$1.62 $0. 3375
5.6
16.0
10.0
10.0

$1.16
$1.01
$1. 044
12.9
10.0

$4.19 $1.265
$4.20 $1.265
$3. 771 $1.1385
i 0.2
0
10.0
10.0

$1.44
$1.37
$1. 296
4.9

$3. 59 $1. 32
$12.965
$3.28 $1. 26
$12.385
$3. 231 $1.188 $11.6685
4.5
8.6
4.5
10.0
10.0
10.0

$1.48
$1. 34
$1.332
9.5

$1.33
$1.33
$1.197
0
10.0

$1.48
$1.34
$1.332
9.5
10.0

$0.895
$0.895
$0.8055

$8.42
$7.81
$7. 578
7.2
10.0

SHOE NO. 2

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction...
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board___
Per cent reduction by union..............
SHOE

no.

10.0

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction____
Rate after June, 1928, reduction........ .
Per cent reduction by shoe board___
Per cent reduction by union................

i Increase.

10.0

$2. 43
$2.19
$2.187
9.9
10.0

$1. 44
$1. 37
$1. 296
4.9

10.0

$6.00
i. 375 $13.055
$5. 72 $0. 315 $12. 265
$5.40 * i. 3375 $11.7495
6.1
4.7
16.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

CO N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U S T R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

T a b l e 10.— P iece rates to u nion locals on each o f 37 styles of shoes before and after

reductions by H averhill Shoe Board on J an u ary 1, 1928, and by u nion in J u n e,
1928— C on tin u ed
Piece rates paid to members of local union No.—

Item

1: Fin
ishers 2: Turn 7: Cut
work
and
ters
men
edge
makers

8: Mc
Fit
Kay 9: Pack 10:
ters
13:
lasters
ers,
and
Wood
and
ironers, stitch
heelers
stock
etc.
ers
fitters

$1.53
$1. 34
$1. 377
12.4
10.0

$1. 575
$1. 575
.4175

$2.43
$2.19
$2.187
9.9

$1.44
$1.37
$1. 296
4.9

10.0

Total

SHOE NO. 4

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board...
Per cent reduction by union_______

!4.61 $1.46
$13.045
;4. 33 $ 1.10
$11.905
;4.149 $1.314 $11. 7405
6.1 24.7
8.7
10.0

10.0

SHOE NO. 5

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board...
Per cent reduction by union.............

$1.16

$1.01

$1. 044
12.9

10.0

$1.44
$1.37
$1. 296
4.9
10.0

$4. 80
$4. 51
$4. 32

$1. 44
$1.37
$1. 296
4.9
10.0

$3. 81 $0. 375 $10.99
$3. 48 $0. 315 $ 10.10
$3.429 $0. 3375 ‘ I. 891
8.1
16.0
8.7
10.0
10.0
10.0

$2.178
12.4

$1.44
$1. 36
$1. 296
5.6

10.0

$2.98 $0. 375
$2.87 $0. 315
$2. 682 $0. 3375
16.0
3.7
10 0
10.0

$2.43
$2.19
$2.187
9.9

$1.44
$1. 37
$1. 296
5.6

10.0

$4.1» $1. 075
$4. 20 $1.075
$3.771 $0.9675

10.2
10.0

10.0

$1.32
,$13.985
$1. 26
$13.425
$1.188 $12. 5865
4.5
6.0
4.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

SHOE NO. 6

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board...
Per cent reduction by union_______

$1.53
$1. 34
$1.377
12.4

;$1.405
$1.405
$1. 2645

10.0

$1.48
$1.34
$1. 332
9.5

$1.135
$1.135
$1.0215

10.0

$2.43
$2.19
$2.187
9.9
10.0

SHOE NO. 7

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction.__
Rate after June, 1928, reduction___
Per cent reduction by shoe board...
Per cent reduction by union_______

$2.42

$ 2.12

$9.83
$9.14
$8. 847
7.0
10.0

SHOE NO. 8

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board__
Per cent reduction by union_______

$1.00

$1. 53
$1. 34
$1.377
12.4

$1. 00

$0.90

10.0

$4. 27
$4.10
$3. 843
4.0
10.0

0. 375 $11.045
0.315 $10. 315
0. 3375 $9. 9405
6.6
16.0
10.0
10.0

SHOE NO. 9

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction.__
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board...
Per cent reduction by union_______

$1.16
$1. 01

$1.044
12.9

10.0

$4.19
$4.20
$3. 771

i 0.2
10.0

$1.44
$1. 37
$1. 296
4.9

0. 79
0. 79
0.711

10.0

$10.85
$1.95 $1. 32
$10. 53
$1.90 $1. 26
I. 765
$1.755 $1.188
2.9
4.5
2.6
10.0
10.0
10.0

SHOE NO. 10

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction.__
Rate after June, 1928, reduction___
Per cent reduction by shoe board...
Per cent reduction by union_______

$1. 53
$1. 34
$1. 377
12.4

$1. 39
$1.39
$1. 251

10.0

$1.16
$ 1.01
$1.044
12.9

$4.19 $1. 395
$4. 20 $1. 395
$3. 771 $1. 2555

$2.43
$2.19
$2.187
9.9
10.0

$1.44
$1. 37
$1. 296
4.9
10.0

$14. 90
$6. 65 $1.46
$13. 76
$6. 37 $ 1.10
$5.985 $1. 314 $13. 41
7.7
24.7
4.2
10.0
10.0
10.0

SHOE NO. 11

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction.__
Rate after June, 1928, reduction___
Per cent reduction by shoe board...
Per cent reduction by union...____

10.0

i 0.2

10.0

$13. 305
$1. 32
$12. 655
$1. 26
$1.188 $11.9745
4.9
4.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

$1.44
$1.37
$1. 296
4.9
10.0

$3.80
$3. 42
$3.42

$1.44
$1. 37
$1. 296
4.9
10.0

$12. 25
$4.12 $1.46
$11. 39
$4.12 $ 1.10
$3. 708 $1.314 $11.025
7.0
24.7
0
10.0
10.0
10.0

SHOE NO. 12

Rate before Jan. 1,1928, reduction..,
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board...
Per cent reduction by union..............
1 Increase.

$1.53
$1. 34
$1. 377
12.4
10.0

$1. 27
$1.27
$1.143

10.0

$2.43
$2.19
$2.187
9.9
10.0

H A V E R H IL L SHOE BOARD A C T IV IT IE S

T a b l e 10.— P iece rates to union locals on each of 37 styles of shoes before and after

reductions by H averhill Shoe Board on Janu ary 1, 1928, and by union in J u n e,
1928— C on tin u ed
Piece rates paid to members of local union N o

Item

li Fin
ishers 2: Turn 7: Cut
work
and
ters
men
edge
makers

8: Mc
10: Fit
Kay 9: Pack ters
13:
ers,
lasters
and
Wood
ironers. stitch
and
heelers
stock
etc.
ers
fitters

Total

SHOE NO. 13

$4.19
Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___ $1.16
I. 765
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction____ $1.01 $4. 20 $0. 765
Rate after June, 1928, reduction_____ $1.044 $3.771 $0. 6885
Per cent reduction by shoe board____
12.9
0
i 0.2
Per cent reduction by union_________
10.0 10.0 10.0

$1.44
$1. 37
$1. 296
4.9

$1.54 $1. 32
$10. 415
$1. 39 $1.26
$9. 995
$1. 386 $1.188
$9. 3735
4.5
9.7
4.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

$1. 44
$1.37
$1. 296
4.9
10.0

$3. 83
. 32
$12.99
$3. 60 $1. 26
$12.49
$3. 447 $1.188 $11. 691
4.5
3.8
6.0

$1.44
$1.37
$1. 296
4.9
10.0

$4.15
I 54
$12. 935
$3.96
1.48
$12. 475
$3. 735 $0.486 $11. 6415
11.1
3.6
4.6
10.0
10.0
10.0

$1.44
$1.37
$1. 296
4.9

. 32
$3.13
$12. 735
$3. 03 $1. 26
$12. 365
$2. 817 $1.188 $11. 4615
4.5
2.9
3.2

10.0

SHOE NO. 14

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___ $1.16
$4.19 $1. 05
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction____ $1. 01 $4. 20 $1. 05
Rate after June, 1928, reduction______ $1.044 $3. 771 $0. 945
Per cent reduction by shoe board____
i 0.2
0
12.9
Per cent reduction by union_________
10.0 10.0 10.0

10.0

SHOE NO. 15

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___ $1.16
$4.19 $1. 455
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction. _
$1.01 $4. 20 $1.455
Rate after June, 1928, reduction__
$1. 044 $3. 771 $1. 3095
Per cent reduction by shoe board__
0
12.9
i 0.2
Per cent reduction by union______
10.0 10.0 10.0
SHOE NO. 16

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction.
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after June, 1928, reduction_____
Per cent reduction by shoe board..
Per cent reduction by union______

$1.16

$1.01

$1. 044
12.9

10.0

. 495
$4.19
$4.20 $1.495
$3. 771 $1. 3455

i 0.2
10.0

10.0

SHOE NO. 17

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___ $1.16
$4.19 $1. 255
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction____ $1.01 $4. 20 $1. 255
Rate after June, 1928, reduction_____ $1. 044 $3.771 $1.1295
Per cent reduction by shoe board___
12.9
i 0.2
0
Per cent reduction by union________
10.0 10.0 10.0

$1.44
$1.37

$1. 296
4.9
10.0

$1. 32
$13.225
$12. 735
$3. 64 $1. 26
$3. 474 $1.188 $11.9025
4.5
5.7
3.7
$3. 86

10.0

SHOE NO. 18

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction__
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction____
Rate after June, 1928, reduction_____
Per cent reduction by shoe board___
Per cent reduction by union________

$1.16

$1. 01

$1.044
12.9

10.0

$4.19 $1. 675
$4. 20 $1. 675
$.3. 771 $1. 5075

i 0.2

10.0

$1.44
$1.37
$1. 296
4.9
10.0

$1.32
$12. 445
$2. 62 $1. 26
$12.135
$2.394 $1.188 $11. 2005
4.5
1.5
2.5

$2. 66

10.0

SHOE NO. 19

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction__
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction____
Rate after June, 1928, reduction_____
Per cent reduction by shoe board___
Per cent reduction by union________

$1.48
$1. 34
$1.332
9.5

$1.875
$1.875
$1.6875

$2.43
$2.19
$2.187
9.9

10.0

$2. 43
$2.19
$2.187
9.9

$1. 44
$1.37
$1. 296
4.9

10.0

$1.44
$1. 37
$1.296
4.9

$3.92 $0. 375 $11. 52
I. 315 $10. 77
$3. 68
$3. 528 $0.3375 $10.368
6.1 16.0
6.5

10.0

SHOE NO. 20

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction__
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction____
Rate after June, 1928, reduction_____
Per cent reduction by shoe board___
Per cent reduction by union..... .........

$1. 53
$1. 34
$1. 377
12.4

$1. 27
$1. 27
$1.143

10.0

$1.48
$1. 34
$1. 332
9.5

$1. 545
$1. 545
$1. 3905

$4. 24 $1. 46
$12. 37
$4.12 $ 1.10
$11. 39
$3. 816 $1,314 $11.133
7.9
2.8 24.7
10.0

10.0

SHOE NO. 21

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction...
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction____
Rate after June, 1928, reduction. __
Per cent reduction by shoe board..
Per cent reduction by union______
1 Increase.

10.0

0
10. 0

$2. 42

$2.12

$2.178
12.4
10.0

$1.44
$1.363
$1.296
5.3
10.0

$4. 03 $1.46
$12.375
$3.63 $ 1.10
$11.098
$3. 627 $1. 314 $11.1375
24.7
10.3
9.9
10.0
10.0
10.0

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN H AVE R H ILL

T a b l e 10.— P iece rates to union locals on each of 87 styles o f shoes before and after
reductions by Haverhill Shoe Board on J an u ary 1 , 1928, and by u nion in J u n e ,
1928 — C o n tin u e d

Piece rates paid to members of local union N o

Item

8: Mc
li Fin
Kay 9: Pack 10: Fit
ishers 2: Turn
ters
13:
7:
Cut
lasters
ers,
work
and
and
Wood
ters
and
ironers, stitch
men
edge
heelers
stock
etc.
makers
ers
fitters

Total

SHOE NO. 22

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction...
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board....
Per cent reduction by union_______

$1.44
$1.37
$1.296
4.9
10.0

$12.855
$2.86 $1.32
$2.72 $1.26
$12. 445
$2. 574 $1.188 $11. 5695
4.5
3.2
4.9
10.0
10.0
10.0

10.0

$2.43
$2.19
$2.187
9.9
10.0

$1.44
$1.47
$1.296
4.9
10.0

$12.06
$3. 50 $1.46
$3.09 $1.10
$10. 79
$3.15 $1. 314 $10.854
11.7
24.7
10.5
10.0
10.0
10.0

$1.345
$1. 345
$1. 2105
0
10.0

$1.93
$1.74
$1. 737
9.8
10.0

$1.44
$1. 363
$1. 296
5.3
10.0

$3.39 $0. 375
$3.00 $0. 315
$3.051 $0. 3375
11.5
16.0
10.0
10.0

$1. 285
$1. 285
$1.1565
0
10.0

$1.93
$1.74
$1. 737
9.8
10.0

$1. 44
$1. 363
$1.296
5.3
10.0

$2. 98 $1.46
$10. 575
$2. 27 $1.10
19.098
$2. 682 $1. 314
19. 5175
23.8
24.7
14.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

$0.915
$0.915
$0.8235
0
9.5
10.0 .............
10.0

$1.93
$1. 74
$1. 737
9.8
10.0

$1.44
$1. 363
$1. 296
5.3
10.0

$4.12 $1.46
$11.345
$3. 54 $1.10
$9.998
$3. 708 $1.314 $10. 2105
14.1
24.7
11.9
10.0
10.0
10.0

$1.16

$1. 01

$1.044
12.9

10.0

$4.19 $1.885
$4. 20 $1.885
$3. 771 $1. 6965
10.2
0
10.0
10.0

SHOE NO. 23

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction...
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board__
Per cent reduction by union...........

$1. 53
$1.34
$1. 377
12.4
10.0

$1. 70
$1. 70

____ $1.53
____ 0

SHOE NO. 24

Rate before Jan. 1,1928, reduction...
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board__
Per cent reduction by union_______

$1. 53
$1. 34
$1. 377
12.4
10.0

0.01
;9.103
;9. 009
9.1

10.0

SHOE NO. 25

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction...
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___
Rate after June, 1928, reduction-----Per cent reduction by shoe board__
Per cent reduction by union_______

$1.48
$1.34
$1.332
9.5
10.0

____

SHOE NO. 26

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction...
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board__
Per cent reduction by union_______

$1. 48
$1. 34

SHOE NO. 27

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction...
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board....
Per cent reduction by union..............

$1. 53
$1. 34
$1.377
12.4
10.0

$0.985
$0.985
$0.8865
0
10.0

$1.93
$1. 74
$1. 737
9.8
10.0

$1.44
$1.363
$1. 296
5.3
10.0

$4. 52 $0.375 $10. 78
$3. 75 $0.315
*1493
$4,068 $0.3375
i. 702
17.0
16.0
11.9
10.0
10.0
10.0

$1. 48
$1.34
$1.332
9.5

$1. 435
$1.435
$1. 2915
0
10.0

$1.93
$1. 74
$1. 737
9.8
10.0

$1.44
$1. 363
$1. 296
5.3
10.0

$3. 30 $1.46
$11.045
$2.92 $1.10
$9.898
$2.97 $1.314
$9.9405
11.5
24.7
10.4
10.0
10.0
10.0

$1.105
$1.105

0
10.0

$2. 42
$2.12
$2.178
12.4
10.0

$1.44
$1.363
$1. 296
5.3
10.0

$2.98 $1.46
$10.885
$9. 418
$2. 39 $1.10
$2. 682 $1.314
$9. 7965
24.7
13.5
19.8
10.0
10.0
10.0

$1. 345
$1. 345
$1. 2105
0
10.0

$2. 42
$2.12
$2.178
12.4
10.0

$1.44
$1.37
$1. 296
4.9
10.0

$4.99 $0. 375 $12. 05
$4. 22 $0. 315 $10. 71
$4. 491 $0. 3375 $10.845
11.1
15.4
16.0
10.0
10.0
10.0

SHOE NO. 28

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction.
Rate after June, 1928, reduction___
Per cent reduction by shoe board...
Per cent reduction by union_______

10.0

SHOE NO. 29

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction.__
Rate after June, 1928, reduction____
Per cent reduction by shoe board—
Per cent reduction by union............

$1.48
$1. 34
$1. 332
9.5
10.0

____ $0.9945

SHOE NO. 30

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction.
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction..
Rate after June, .1928, reduction.
Per cent reduction by shoe board..
Per cent reduction by union...........
1 Increase.

$1.48
$1. 34
$1. 332
9.5
10.0

HAVERHILL SHOE BOARD ACTIVITIES

10 — P iece rates to u nion locals on each o f 87 styles o f shoes before and after
reductions by Haverhill Shoe Board on Janu ary 1, 1928, and by u nion in J u n e,
1928— C on tin u ed

T a b le

Piece rates paid to members of local union No.—

1: Fin
ishers 2: Turn 7: Cut
work
and
ters
edge
men
makers

Item

8: Mc
Fit
Kay 9: Pack 10:
ters
13:
lasters
ers,
and
Wood
and
ironers, stitch
heelers
stock
etc.
ers
fitters

Total

SHOE NO. 31

Rate before Jan. 1,1928, reduction____ $1.48 ............. $1,095
Rate after Jan. 1,1928, reduction_____ $1.34
$1.095
Rate after June, 1928, redaction........ . $1.332
$0.9855
Per cent reduction by shoe board_____
9.5
0
Per cent reduction by union. .............
10.0 .............
10.0

$2. 42
$2.12
$2.178
12.4
10.0

$1.44
$1.363
$1.296
5.3
10.0

$4.07 $1.46
$11.965
$3.46 $1.10
$10.478
$3.663 $1.314 $10. 7685
15.0
24.7
12.4
10.0
10.0
10.0

$0. 785
$0. 785
$0.7065
0
10.0

$1.93
$1. 74
$1. 737
9.8
10.0

$1.44
$1.363
$1. 296
5.3
10.0

$5. 75
$4.95
$5.175
13.9
10.0

Rate before Jan. 1,1928, reduction____ $1.48
$0. 985
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction........ $1.34
$0.985
Rate after June, 1928, reduction.......... $1.332 : : : : : : : : $0.8865
Per cent reduction by shoe board____
9.5
0
Per cent reduction by union. .............
10.0
10.0

$1.93
$1.74
$1. 737
9.8
10.0

$1.44
$1.363
$1. 296
5.3
10.0

$3.13 $1. 46
$10. 425
$2. 83 $1.10
$9. 358
$2.817 $1. 314
$9. 3825
24.7
9.6
10.2
10.0
10.0
10.0

$1.93
$1.74
$1.737
9.8
10.0

$1.44
$1.363
$1. 296
5.3
10.0

$4.31 $0.375 $10.45
$3.64 $3.15
$9.313
$3. 879 $0.3375 $9.405
15.5
16.0
10.9
10.0
10.0
10.0

$1.115
$1.115
$1.0035
0
10.0

$1.78
$1. 56
$1. 602
12.4
10.0

$1. 44
$1. 37
$1. 296
4.9
10.0

$1.88 $1.46
$1. 74 $1.07
$1. 692 $1. 314
7.4
26.7
10.0
10.0

$9. 205
$8.195
$8.2845
11.0
10.0

$0.815
$0.815
$0. 7335
0
10.0

$1. 78
$1. 56
$1.602
12.4
10.0

$1.44
$1.37
$1.296
4.9
10.0

$1.96 $0.375
$1. 74 $0. 285
$1.764 $0. 3375
11.2
24.0
10.0
10.0

$7.90
$7.11
$7.11
10.0
10.0

$0. 785
$0.785
$0.7065
0
10.0

$1. 38
$1.14
$1. 242
17.4
10.0

$1.44
$1. 44
$1. 296
0
10.0

$1.45
$1.30
$1. 305
10.3
10.0

$5. 935
$5. 375
$5.3415
9.4
10.0

SHOE NO. 32

Rate before Jan. 1,1928, reduction____ $2.10
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction____ $1.905
Rate after June, 1928, reduction.......... $1.89
Per cent reduction by shoe board____
9.3
Per cent reduction by union. ...........
10.0

$12. 005
$10. 743
$10.8045
10.5
10.0

SHOE NO. 33

SHOE NO.

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___ $1.48
$0.915
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction____ $1.34 : : : : : : : : $0.915
Rate after June, 1928, reduction_____ $1.332
$0.8235
Per cent reduction by shoe board____
9.5
0
Per cent reduction by union. .............
10.0
10.0
SHOE NO. 35

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___ $1.53
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction____ $1. 34
Rate after June, 1928, reduction. .......... $1.377
Per cent reduction by shoe board.........
12.4
Per cent reduction by union. ..............
10.0
SHOE NO. 36

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction........ $1.53
Rate after Jan. 1,1928, reduction_____ $1.34
Rate after June, 1928, reduction............ $1.377
Per cent reduction by shoe board_____
12.4
Per cent reduction by unifin_________
10.0

::::

SHOE NO. 37

Rate before Jan. 1, 1928, reduction___ $0.88
Rate after Jan. 1, 1928, reduction____ $0.71
Rate after June, 1928, reduction.......... $0. 792
Per cent reduction by shoe board___
19.3
Per cent reduction by union ................
10.0

The following decisions illustrate the work of the Haverhill Shoe
Board :
C a s e N o. 1536.— Suspension of a cutter

(Referred to arbitration by the union March 3, 1928; hearing, March 5; decision,
March 7)
The union asks reinstatement and charges discrimination. The association
bases its case entirely on the “ crew membership clause” claiming this gives the
firm legal right to suspend or discharge any workers for any reason or no reason,
within the time limit.

CO N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

The chairman is obligated to base decisions on his interpretation of the agree
ment.
He has clearly defined opinion of the intent of the above clause in article 3,
but does not support the extreme view of some locals whereby certain workers
are taken off jobs within five weeks to prevent them from becoming crew members.
The facts are:
1. When this operator wTas laid off the reason given was “ no work.’ ’
2. The firm promised to send for him or to put him on when there wras work.
3. The firm later hired two new men.
4. The firm made no effort to get in touch with the man whom they had
promised to send for.
The charges of discrimination are not substantiated. The 5 weeks’ clause
neither strengthens nor weakens the union’s case. The decision is based entirely
on the failure of the firm to keep its promise.
Immediate reinstatement is ordered.
C a s e No. 1598.— Suspension of a shoe cutter

(Referred to arbitration by the union March 27, 1928; hearing, March 28;
decision, March 30)
There was no question as to the quality of workmanship, it being extremely
poor. No proof was presented that the man in question actually cut the shoes.
The chairman would not under any circumstances reinstate an operative if
positive proof was presented that he did the work.
The firm made all sorts of statements as to what they would and would not do.
This decision is not establishing a precedent of reinstating poor workmen.
It is because of a threatening attitude toward any person or group who oppose
them.
Immediate reinstatement is ordered.
C ase

N o. 1651.— Suspension of four wood heelers— Equal division of work

(Referred to arbitration by the union M ay 9, 1928; factory investigation M ay
9; hearing, M ay 12; decision, M ay 14)
Immediate reinstatement of the four original men is ordered, with the fol
lowing provisions:
That the firm follow out the plan of equal division as was intended and out
lined at the hearing held at this board.
That the earnings be checked monthly and a memo, sent to the shoe board.
C a s e N o. 1659.— Suspension of a trimming cutter

(Referred to arbitration by the union M ay 24, 1928; factory investigation,
M ay 24; hearing, M ay 25; decision, M ay 26)
This case centers on one question. The firm emphatically states the oper
ator wastes material needlessly on a majority of the jobs cut. The cutter admits
he does not check off his leather. On the six case job that he was discharged for
cutting high, the statement of the firm has been checked and found to be correct.
The operator states there is no reason why he can’t cut the shoes down to the
allowance of the firm, namely, 24 feet on pattern 110; 29 feet on patterns 105 and
118 and sole linings out of 13 feet per 36 pairs.
The chairman, the agent, and the operator consider the allowance of the firm
ample. Reinstatement is ordered under the following provisions:
The cutter shall count his stock and verify the footage.
The cutter shall notify the foreman of a shortage of leather or of broken
stock.
The cutter is held responsible for the footage being correct and cutting to
allowance.
C a s e N o. 1681.— Suspension of a French cord turner
(Referred to arbitration by the union June 12, 1928; factory investigation,
June 13; hearing, June 14; decision, June 15)
The operator in question has been a crew member for almost a year. The
work she did and for which she was discharged was, in the chairman’s opinion,
poor. The operator, according to her own testimony, appears to have been
heeding the advice of her shop mates instead of the instructions of the forelady.

H A V E R H IL L SH OE B O A R D A C T IV IT IE S

The agent of the local stated she did not consider the work poor but qualified
it by calling attention to the fact there was no extra snipping at the point of
scallop. The firm does not insist on the snipping. They do, however, and have
every reason to, expect and insist on a good quality of work.
The forelady has in several instances reinstated discharged operatives at the
agent’s request. On the operator's side there is a strong point in her favor.
Although in this particular case of shoes the work was below the grade required,
the supervisor states she can do good work if she so desires.
The board hereby orders conditional reinstatement. The operative shall
pay attention to the instructions of the forelady and do good work.
C ase

1701.— Suspension of a Ireer

(Referred to arbitration by the union July 9, 1928; factory investigation, July 9;
hearing, July 10; decision, July 11)
From evidence presented at the hearing it is apparent the supervisor has had
trouble with this operator in several instances for nearly two years.
There is conclusive proof that the workmanship in this instance was very
poor. In addition, the workman used abusive language to the supervisor and
referred to the firm in abusive words.
The agent states the firm threatened one and one-half years ago to get rid of
this operator. This statement is not supported by fact.
The chairman has much sympathy with the operator’s family but can not
find one valid reason to try to protect an operator who will not protect himself.
This discharge is confirmed.
C ase

N o. 1708.— Deduction of 10 per cent— General

From evidence presented at the preliminary hearing held on July 16, the
decision (R -1534) was dated and released July 17 and is self-explanatory. Fol
lowing is a copy of the decision just mentioned:
“ Reference to arbitration under date of July 12 reading “ The Shoe Workers’
Protective Union requests a hearing as soon as possible on Shoe Manufacturers’
Association firms deducting 10 per cent from the employees’ pay contrary to
the agreement.”
“ It will be noted that reference was not made to any individual factory;
therefore, no investigation could be made. At the hearing, agreements were
referred to by both sides but no evidence or agreement was produced showing
any agreement in existence other than the working agreement dated December
16, 1925.
“ Six factories are involved in the case, namely: Green Bell Shoe Co., Barr &
Bloomfield, Hirshberg & Stein, Karelis Shoe Co., Farber Shoe Co., WrightGorevitz-McNamara.
“ In the case of the Green Bell Shoe Co., the association asserts that there
is a strike existing. The union denies this statement and declares the firm
locked out their employees.
“ The chairman is of the opinion that article 2 in the working agreement
forbids any hearing where a strike or lockout exists. The chairman, therefore,
orders the entire crew to report for work at the factory Tuesday morning, July
17, at the regular starting time or as soon after as possible, after being notified.
The firm is ordered to put to work in their respective places immediately or as
soon as possible all the workers who left their work of their own volition or were
locked out by the firm or who were called out on strike by the union. Both
parties to the agreement shall cooperate to this end. The chairman considers
any evidence presented at the hearing held on this date in regard to 10 per cent
or any other amount being deducted in this factory not legal until both sides of
the agreement have complied with article 2 of the working agreement.
“ The next two factories in the order named are members of the association.
Their representative will receive due notice when the postponed hearing will be
held. The next three factories in the order named will receive due notification
individually as they are not members of the association. The union will receive
notice of the date of the postponed hearings.”

Both parties to the agreement having complied with the above decision, the
chairman called a hearing to be held on July 19 for the purpose of taking up the
original reference to arbitration. The six firms mentioned in this case are prac

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN H AVERHILL

tically charged by the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union with the same offense
although they differ slightly as to verbal acknowledgments, circumstances, and
bates.
The union charges these firms with deducting 10 per cent from the operators’
earnings (pieceworkers) before having a signed agreement with the union. The
union asserts the manufacturers are not within their legal rights in deducting the
10 per cent, as there is in existence an agreement between the Haverhill Shoe
Manufacturers’ Association and the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union. Three of
these firms are not subscribers to the association.
The union asserts that the first clause in this agreement dated January 30,
1928, a part of which reads: “ The workers shall return to work in their respective
places and be paid 1927 prices” is final and binding to both parties to the working
agreement. The union contends that the manufacturers have no right to nego
tiate or attempt to negotiate an agreement with their employees; further, that
the workers have no right to agree to or accept prices other than those agreed upon
through proper union authority. The union also states that union officials
informed the manufacturers by telephone that they could not deduct any amount
until agreements had been signed. The union further contends that the Haver
hill Evening Gazette news item as applying in this case was neither official nor
authentic. The union also states that the manufacturers had no right to assume
anything in so far as a reduction was concerned without new agreements being
signed. The union contends further that the 10 per cent deduction was to be
granted to the manufacturers only in exchange for an agreement containing
certain valuable conditions for the benefit of the workers. The above with varia
tions is substantially the union’s case.
The association contends in the case of the Green Bell Shoe Co. that prior to
the union granting a wage concession to any manufacturers, Mr. Greenstein, of
the Green Bell Shoe Co., was led to believe by union officials he was entitled to
and would be given relief in the form of a reduction. The association contends
and the Green Bell Shoe Co. contends that no reduction was made until after they
had learned through the columns of the Haverhill Evening Gazette that the
union by a referendum vote and by the sanction of the council had agreed upon a
10 per cent wage concession. Further, that before any deduction was made from
the workers’ envelopes, Mr. Greenstein, of the Green Bell Shoe Co., had taken the
matter up with his employees and an offer was made that if the reduction was
satisfactory work would be furnished which could not be furnished otherwise.
It is stated by Mr. Greenstein and he also told the employees that any dissatis
fied workers could call at the office at the end of the week and receive the 10 per
cent. It is asserted by the association that as the other factories in the Haverhill
shoe industry had received the benefit of the reduction in piece rates, to refuse
the Green Bell Shoe Co. the same privilege would be a discrimination against that
company and would force them to discontinue manufacturing shoes by placing
them in unfair competition. The association further contends that the Green
Bell Shoe Co. should be one of the first to receive the concession in view of the
fact that it manufactures a cheaper grade of shoe than other manufacturers who
have long since received the concession. The association emphatically asserts
that it should receive the same consideration from the union for all its members,
and that this has not been done. The Green Bell Shoe Co. contends that in many
instances the workers when figuring their work slips deducted 10 per cent before
depositing the same at the office. The association claims that this in itself is
acknowledgment of the acceptance of the deduction.
The evidence submitted by both parties in regard to other factories named in
this case is of a like nature.
It was brought out in evidence that prior to M ay 1 the Green Bell Shoe Co.
applied in person to the general president of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union
for relief, and that on Mr. Nolan’s advice or suggestion the Green Bell Shoe Co.
sent a communication to the District Council No. 1 stating “ Unless we obtain
some relief from your organization we shall discontinue manufacturing shoes
in about three weeks.”
No evidence is at hand of a reply to this letter. On
June 3 the Jonas Shoe Co. obtained permission from the manufacturers’ associa
tion to negotiate with the union for a reduction for itself. On June 6 the Green
Bell Shoe Co. obtained permission from the manufacturers’ association to negotiate
with the union for a reduction for itself. The Green Bell Shoe Co. then wrote
the district council asking for immediate attention in regard to its application
for a wage concession.
On June 4 the president of the District Council No. 1 signed an agreement with
the Jonas Shoe Co. granting a reduction of 10 per cent on all piece rates effective

H A V E R H IL L SHOE BO ARD A C T IV IT IE S

on date of signature. On June 12 a referendum vote was held by the Shoe
Workers’ Protective Union and on the 13th day of June the Gazette carried the
following news item:
“ A wage reduction of 10 per cent on piece prices in all M cK ay factories was
granted by the local shoe crafts of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union in a
referendum vote conducted yesterday and ratified by the district council late
last evening.”
On investigation the board finds that on either June 13 or June 14 Mr. Greenstein of the Green Bell Shoe Co. talked with his workers about the reduction,
and said in effect that he had no orders on hand but as there had been a vote
by the union accepting 10 per cent reduction, he intended under this arrange
ment to go on making shoes, and if this was accepted that there would be work.
On June 15, 10 per cent was deducted from the wages of all pieceworkers. On
the following Monday he put in operation stock shoes which increased his pro
duction to about normal. It appears that he did tell his workers or at least some
of them if the reduction was not satisfactory to call at the office. The chairman
can not ascertain that the last statement by the firm was made during the first
or second week after the deduction. There appears to be no question that the
workers protested against this arrangement immediately. It is apparent, how
ever, that dissatisfaction arose within a short time as on the 25th day of June
the union wrote the association a letter stating that the Green Bell Shoe Co.
had refused to sign special agreements with the union and demanded that the
association compel the Green Bell Shoe Co. to live up to the peace pact stating
that unless they did this it would be necessary for the Shoe Workers’ Protective
Union to take court action. The association replied to this letter, stating that
this firm had not been given an opportunity to sign any agreement as no union
council had presented the same. It was stated by Mr. Collins, agent of Local
No. 9, that the council had voted that no manufacturer who had deducted 10
per cent from the workers’ envelopes would be given an agreement until this
money had been returned. Mr. Bouvier, agent of Local No. 1, testified that on
June 29 he called on Mr. Greenstein to negotiate an agreement and on that
date no mention was made in regard to reimbursing the employees. Mr. Bouvier
also stated at the meeting that Mr. Greenstein would not sign this agreement,
as the date of expiration was one year from date and the Green Bell Shoe Co.
desired an agreement for five months only. It is apparent to the board that
Mr. Bouvier would have signed an agreement with the Green Bell Shoe Co. if
it had been satisfactory to the firm. As chairman of the board of arbitration,
it is my opinion that when the Green Bell Shoe Co. had made an application to
the union for a reduced wage and this was not granted, if they could not continue
without loss, the reasonable course to pursue would be to close their factory.
The chairman also believes that the workers have to be considered and placed
in the same position as workers in other factories. It appears that the Green
Bell Shoe Co., acting on the information that appeared in the Gazette and also
taking it up with its workers, was acting in good faith even though it was mis
taken as to the legal status. The firm continued in operation at a 10 per cent
reduction with at least partial consent of the employees and the knowledge of
the union. If the chairman has any authority to make a decision on what the
rights of the Green Bell Shoe Co. and the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union were
before July 12 he finds that the Green Bell Shoe Co. has no right to rely on
newspaper reports or to accept any statement of a worker or official of the union
as a bona fide agreement. It is also the opinion of the board that this firm or
any other should not be penalized if it acted in good faith.
It appears to the chairman that there is one of three courses this firm must
pursue: Continue to pay 1927 prices, sign a new agreement with the Shoe
Workers’ Protective Union, or discontinue manufacturing. It is also the opinion
of the chairman that the union should follow one of two courses: Either rescind
the action taken by the union granting a reduction or grant every manufacturer
an agreement of the same nature effective the same date. It is the chairman’s
conviction that the following decision is not for the best interest of the workers
and the industry but he is obligated to base his decision on the provisions of the
working agreement. All factories in this case who are members of the associa
tion or who come under the provisions of the peace pact are bound by the agree
ment which provides that the workers be paid 1927 prices. Article 6 of the
working agreement, paragraph 6, reads in part as follows: “ Every decision of
said board of arbitration shall so far as it may be possible, relate back to and
become effective as of, the date of the original claim for arbitration.”

CO N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

The board hereby orders the Green Bell Shoe Co. to pay 1927 prices on all
work done on and after the date of this reference to arbitration and refund all
deductions from that date. This refund shall be made not later than August 10,
1928. It is ordered that 1927 prices shall be paid until otherwise agreed upon.
Decided August 1, 1928.
In the case of Wright-Gorevitz-M cNam ara Shoe Co. an agreement was pre
sented the firm that was signed by the president of the district council before
presentation. A lengthy conference was held between Mr. Gill of the union and
Mr. Wright of the firm. The agreement referred to was in evidence at the hearing.
The question was taken up in regard to the number of cases the firm would
have to guarantee to produce in a given time, beside other important clauses in
the agreement.
It is admitted by both parties that during the discussion Mr. Wright signed
one copy of the agreement. After both Mr. Gill and Mr. Wright had apparently
reached an understanding, a matter which had long been in dispute between the
firm and the union was taken up by Mr. Gill but no satisfactory adjustment was
made. After Mr. Gill had ascertained that this matter could not be adjusted
satisfactorily to the union he was unable to enter a new agreement until the
firm had complied with the provisions of the working agreement. The two
parties agreed as to the facts in this case.
The point in controversy is primarily a matter of the firm having in its employ
operators who do not belong to the union. The peace pact specifically states:
“ Except as may be otherwise agreed upon only members of the Shoe Workers’
Protective Union in good standing shall be employed by the manufacturer to
perform operations in the manufacture of shoes. When a manufacturer lacks a
sufficient number of union operatives to do his work before he can employ opera
tives who are not members of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union, he shall at
once notify the union headquarters and give the union an opportunity to supply
union operatives; if the union does not supply a sufficient number of competent
operatives within 24 hours, then the employer shall have the right to employ
operatives who are not members of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union to fill
the places of those the union is unable to fill; and the union agrees to accept such
operatives into the union at the regular initiation fee, provided that the manu
facturer, upon being notified that the union can supply union operatives states
that he wishes to retain such operatives who are not members of the union; and
such statement by the manufacturer shall place the said operatives in the same
status as members of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union. This is not to be
construed as meaning that the union must take in any person or persons not
having a clean labor record and manufacturers shall replace such operatives
upon request from the union.
“ Upon niring operatives who are not members of said union the manufacturers
shall immediately forward in writing to the union the name and address of such
operative. ”
This matter was in controversy between the manufacturers’ association and the
union during the period the firm was a member of the association and between
the firm and the union since the withdrawal of the firm from the association.
It was brought before the board of inquiry and was directed by that body that a
settlement be reached between Mr. Bearak and Mr. Wright. It was evident a
settlement had been reached as the case was not jDrought before this board.
While it is apparent that the agent of Local 7 did everything in his power to have
the matter straightened out according to the provisions of the agreement, the
union, however, did not consider it important enough to refer to arbitration
through the regular channels. It is also evident that had the matter been left
entirely to the agent of Local 7 a settlement would have been reached long ago.
Even now the union states that tnis matter is not up for arbitration (although it
is considered one of the most important clauses in union agreements).
The detail in this case is somewhat different from that in Case No. 1708
R -1 5 4 9 but the important facts in the union case are identical.
The board hereby orders the Wright-Gorevitz-M cNam ara Shoe Co. to pay
1927 prices on all work done on and after the date of this reference to arbitration
and refund all deductions from that date. This refund shall be made not later
than August 10, 1928. It is ordered that 1927 prices shall be paid until otherwise
agreed upon.
Decided August 7, 1928,

H A V E R H IL L SHOE BO ARD A C T IV IT IE S

Brief of manufacturer s’ association as presented by manager Fred L. Cooper
The shoe manufacturers of Haverhill again appear before the board of arbitra
tion to show the impossible position they are in because of unfavorable union
conditions and high labor costs, which are restrictive and uneconomical.
Our manufacturers sell their products to the country at large in competition
not only with manufacturers whose factories are unionized, but also with those
whose factories are free from the dictation of any union.
The country manufacturers control their own factories as regards hours of
labor and such union discriminations as overtime work, equal division of work
and production of their crews, continuing in their employ only those whose work
is satisfactory both as to quality and quantity. A large number of capable Haver
hill shoe manufacturers have gone elsewhere to obtain these advantages, men who
in their present locations are now doing a successful and profitable business, yet
whose hearts from a home and social standpoint, in many instances, are still
hitched to Haverhill.
When firms of such high standing in the shoe world, who started their manu
facturing careers in Haverhill, feel compelled to move out of town to successfully
meet competition, it should cause us to reflect. W e regret that such concerns
as Bancroft-Walker, Herman E. Lewis, Frank E. Adams, LeBosquet-Moore,
C. V. Watson, Gale Shoe Co., Sam Shapiro, Geo. B. Leavitt, William H. Butler,
George Dobbins, E. D . Haseltine, E. L. Thomas, Moss-Seamans, Dole & Waldron,
M . T. Ornsteen (who has branch factories in Lowell and Marlboro), and many
others, are not now employing Haverhill workers and citizens in local factories
under the same wages and conditions that prevail in their present locations.
The union has charged many times that Haverhill is in the throes of factory
mismanagement. If this is so, there must be a definite reason for it— a reason
sufficient to prevent better management from coming to our city. W e are, how
ever, dealing with actual facts and not with theories, and it will be necessary for
us to make better conditions for the present management.
The union also contends that factories outside of Haverhill are able and willing
to pay more than the manufacturers in Haverhill for some operations. This
may be so, as it is within the province of the outside manufacturer to distinguish
the skilled from the semiskilled and unskilled worker and pay them accordingly.
In many instances, in the country factories, boys and girls are employed at low
rates on unskilled operations while some unskilled operators in Haverhill earn
from $35 to S45 per week.
The union has presented in evidence many price lists from unionized centers.
These centers are either noncompetitive or only partially competitive. They
omitted to present information from the “ country” factories from which we feel
our strongest competition, nor have they stated the earning capacity of any price
lists submitted. W e have presented no evidence along these lines as we realize
that we can not authenticate them, as a study as to conditions, earnings, etc.,
would be necessary in each instance to be of any value.
Some locals in presenting their arguments before this board have seen fit to
claim that membership in the association has been a deterrent to prosperity
and that some manufacturers have been more successful since abandoning that
membership.
Facts do not verify this. W e learn that two nonassociation factories moved
because labor costs were so high and two more nonassociation factories are now
or have recently been negotiating with the union for a reduction in wage rates,
stating that union refusal will compel them to move elsewhere where rates and
conditions are more favorable. It appears that nonmembers are unable to cope
with the present situation as well as association members.
Haverhill's statistical figures for the year ending October 1, 1927, show a fall
ing off in shoe production over the previous year of 1334 per cent and we would
like to call the attention of this board to the prophecy made by the manufacturers
just a year ago. A t that time figures were offered showing the increased pro
duction of 1926 over the previous year. This, we believed, was due to the reduc
tion in wage rates made by this board in 1924 and pointed out that trade condi
tions indicated that prices of shoes were on the decline and a further reduction
in wage rates would give the manufacturers an opportunity to maintain at least
the 1926 production.
The chairman of the board at that time, believing that the increased business
showed a trend for the coming year, decided against the manufacturers and
granted an increase to the workers.

CO N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

What has resulted? Alman Shoe Co., nonassociation, liquidated; Anna Bell
Shoe Co., nonassociation, failed; Beaucage & Morris, association, removed;
Becker Bros., nonassociation, removed; J. Berkovich, nonassociation, failed;
Bloomfield Shoe Co., association, liquidated; Brenner & Brody, association,
failed; L. Callaghan & Co., nonassociation, liquidated; Colbuck Shoe Co., asso
ciation, removed; B. E. Cole Co., association, liquidated; Dole & Waldron,
nonassociation, removed; Emery-Dana-Tucker, nonassociation, failed; Garbelnick Shoe Co., association, failed; F. B. Heath, nonassociation, failed; Jaffarian
Bros., association, removed; Kesslen Shoe Co., association, removed; A1 Knox
Shoe Co., nonassociation, failed; Lynway Shoe Co., association, failed; MossSeamans Co., association, removed; Nox-All Shoe Co., association, removed;
Paris Shoe Co., nonassociation, removed; Silsbv Shoe Co., nonassociation, failed;
F. L. Thomas Shoe Co., nonassociation, removed; Thurston & Kelso, nonasso
ciation, failed; Triangle Shoe Co., association, liquidated; Zubick Shoe Co., nonassociation, removed; Moses Brown Co., nonassociation, removed; Louis Sha
piro, nonassociation, removed; Holland Bros., nonassociation, removed; David
Shoe Co., association, failed.
Of the above failures, 64 per cent were nonassociation factories, and 57 per
cent of the removals were nonassociation.
In addition to the above a prominent officer of the manufacturers’ association
has taken over a factory in Marlboro. He is also financially interested in a
factory in Lowell and he has many times said that if Haverhill conditions were
more satisfactory, he would like to have all his interests under one roof in the city
he loves and lives in.
There is an unconfirmed rumor of another association manufacturer seeking
a location to make his mail-order and chain store shoes out of town.
The press has quite recently stated that a firm made up of two bright Haverhill
young men, that are doing a volume business to chain stores in women’s turn
shoes and are one of the largest employers of turn workers in the city have told
the union officials that unless some relief is granted them in the way of a reduc
tion in wage rates, they will seek a location elsewhere.
This certainly is a sad showing for the city.
Early this year the effects of the board’s 1926 decision became manifest to
everyone who made a study of the situation, and the then chairman of the board
of arbitration, who in December, 1926, was not convinced by our arguments at
that time, on M ay 20, 1927, wrote a letter to both parties to the agreement
which told of the situation as he saw it, and which was in substance what we had
prophesied six months previously. W e quote from his letter as follows:
“ The Haverhill shoe industry is in a critical situation. There have been
failures, liquidations, and removals within the past few months, and further
reductions of productive capacity are likely. No half-way measures will in my
opinion save the situation nor do I see any ground for hope that the near future
will be much better than the recent past.
“ Haverhill’s output of shoes during the season now ended has fallen off from
a year ago. The production of women’ s shoes in the United States as a whole
was slightly larger than a year ago. Our loss of business was not sufficient alone
to have created the present crisis; but coupled with the smaller production have
been higher costs of materials, complex patterns requiring more labor, greater
demands for quality on the part of the buyers, and in spite of all this substan
tially lower prices paid by buyers to manufacturers. The inevitable result has
been seriously unprofitable business for the manufacturer.
“ This severe price situation will almost certainly continue. The retail distri
bution of women’s shoes is passing into stronger hands. The buyer, not the
manufacturer, makes the price. W^hile there exists an enormous surplus produc
ing capacity, this situation is bound to continue.
“ The low cost producers are going to get the business and maintain sound
financial conditions. They will be able to operate fairly steadily and with greater
efficiency than can possibly be attained with recurrent long periods of slack work
such as characterize Haverhill.
“ I see no likelihood whatever that Haverhill shoe workers will be able to retain
their present wage rates. I agree that present wage rates are none too high to
give a good yearly wage. Nevertheless economic factors are certainly going to
control the outcome. Irrespective of any arbitrator or any existing union, the
wage rates in Haverhill will, I fear, be drastically reduced during the next few
years, and probably quite soon. Shoe workers must have work, and very little
work will be available in Haverhill until labor costs are much lower.”

H A V E R H IL L SH OE B O A R D A C T IV IT IE S

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a resume of the situation as seen by an expert em
ployed jointly by the manufacturers and workers to serve impartially as the
chairman of the board of arbitration. This opinion was given after constant
contact with the Haverhill situation, and after
years’ service. W ho could
possibly be in a better position to judge the facts and draw proper conclusions?
For six years the manufacturers have presented the same facts to the union
officials and have met with only partial response. The proof of the truth of
these statements is the large percentage of withdrawals already referred to.
W e herewith quote from the United States statistics the average [hourly]
earnings of a few of the operations in the several departments of shoe factories
from the country as a whole, also Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire:

Country

Cutters_________________
Skivers_________________
Cementers_____________
Lining makers_________
Top stitchers__________
Vampers (female)_____
Vampers (male)_______
Assemblers_____________
Bed operators_________
Turn lasters____________
Goodyear stitchers____
Edge trimmers_________
Edge setters____________
Treers_________________

$0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

808
486
340
413
486
531
741
596
700
870
776
785
766
611

New
Hamp
shire

Maine

$0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

676
387
331
384
416
505
586
560
632

$0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

556
398
274
325
379
503
546
567
592

.
.
.
.

683
719
670
568

.
.
.
.

538
571
582
470

Massa
chusetts

Massachusetts
(48-hour
week)

$0.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1.
.
.
.
.

$41.
28.
18.
24.
28.
30.
34.
32.
35.
48.
39.
42.
40.
34.

857
598
386
504
603
635
709
676
737
009
825
877
848
710

05
70
52
19
94
48
03
45
37
00
76
09
70
08

In contrast to the al
figures we present another table based on earnings
taken from actual pay rolls.
■five consecutive weeks are:
$65.
47.
34.
74.
69.
43.
41.
53.
76.
79.
90.
82.
76.
70.
101.
90.

93
02
39
71
38
92
48
42
91
64
39
58
93
15
43
99

$69.
45.
53.
61.
64.
52.
57.
57.
79.
72.
86.
83.
68.
72.
99.
98.

45
20
80
67
47
23
02
69
52
93
74
90
04
42
55
82

$69.
47.
67.
67.
69.
49.
68.
56.
82.
69.
87.
89.
70.
60.
98.
98.

87
32
14
30
77
95
13
07
54
54
27
35
81
28
12
12

$69.
47.
75.
56.
73.
57.
68.
63.
81.
81.
83.
83.
58.
68.
100.
91.

04
69
42
41
09
54
43
89
41
63
92
72
44
03
94
62

$54.
45.
43.
44.
75.
56.
59.
62.
82.
81.
80.
87.
80.
71.
101.
100.

45
61
75
04
14
76
74
28
08
69
07
80
18
48
15
26

Notwithstanding these facts the union agents are requesting increase on nearly
every operation in the factory in percentage up to 50 per cent on base prices and
as high as 900 per cent on extras. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that some
shoes figured for treeing before the board, that the advances requested showed a
total increase in the cost of that operation varying from 15 to 96 per cent.
W e can not believe that these facts are appreciated by the rank and file nor do
we believe that you, as chairman of this board and a citizen interested in Haver
hill, can see justification in such requests.
With the continued migration of Haverhill shoe factories there comes a need
foi reflection, of finding the reason for these removals, of studying the causes for
so many manufacturers deciding to leave the city.
W e present the actual recent withdrawals as concrete proof that the existing
prices and conditions are impossible for further growth and the need of definite
modification to retain the few manufacturers who are now left.
W e are again nearing the beginning of a new year. In accordance with the
peace agreement, hour and piece rates are in controversy and on the decision of
the board depends in a great measure the future of the Haverhill shoe industry.
24011°— 29------- 4

CO N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

Manufacturers must sell shoes to employ union shoe workers and in order to
compete successfully not only with shoe manufacturers who employ union
workers but workers who may not be affiliated with any union, they must have
reductions in labor costs of approximately 20 to 25 per cent. W e do not expect
nor do we ask the board to fix prices as low as either the country as a whole or
Maine or New Hampshire averages, but we must at least be on a fair basis with
our competitors.
Our case is now in the board’ s hands and we shall expect that the decision will
be such as to permit the manufacturers not only to continue but to increase their
business and to attract new manufacturers to locate in Haverhill. W e desire to
see the workers prosperous and our factories run on a 52-week basis.
W e ask the board to consider carefully all the facts and in so far as possible
give careful consideration in its decision as to the skilled, semiskilled, and un
skilled operators, making prices accordingly.
Brief of Shoe Workers’ Protective Union as presented by Norman Ware, industrial
engineer and statistician of the Labor Bureau (Inc.), New York City
[The Labor Bureau (Inc.) is not connected in any way with any national, State,
or city labor department or bureau. It is entirely independent and, as in this
case, usually acts as an attorney for labor organizations in arbitration cases.]
W e intend, Mr. Chairman, to make this brief short and sweet. W e have a
clear case for an increase in wages,, a case that needs no great amount of explana
tion, and we shall present our facts knowing that you will decide upon them
fairly and wisely.
The manufacturers will come to you, no doubt, with the usual sob story.
They will probably tell you that business is terrible, a wage increase unthinkable
and cut needed. They will give you a glowing picture of the future prosperity
of Haverhill if only they can get a cut, the same picture they gave the last chair
man in 1924. W e could do the same'but we prefer facts to melodrama and all
the facts to some of them.
The first fact in connection with the shoe industry in Haverhill in the past few
years is that we had a war. That war did a number of things to the shoe industry
in Haverhill and elsewhere and to every other industry in the country. It
created a greatly increased demand for shoes at higher and higher prices. It
invited everyone with a little capital to go into the shoe business and every
firm already in the shoe business to add to its plant. After the war the shoe
business, like every other, had to get back to normal. It had to reduce its
stocks, factories, number of workers, and everything else. This was done from
1922 to 1925, bad years for the shoe industry and for many others. Some indus
tries managed this deflation better than others. Everyone knew the war could
not last forever and some were wise enough to salt away a pai& of their war
earnings to carry them over the readjustment that was bound to come. The
shoe manufacturers of Haverhill seem not to have done that in many cases and
naturally they suffered for their want of foresight. But that is all past and we
propose to make our case on present conditions and not on past mistakes. The
thing we want to make clear at this point is that this deflation was finished by
January 1, 1925, and that since then the shoe industry in Haverhill has been
going forward and is now 50 per cent better than in 1924. This improvement
has been regular and healthy and warrants our belief that the industry is now in
a position to return to us some part of the losses we took during the deflation.
In most industries, the deflation cost the wage earners less than it cost the shoe
workers of Haverhill and in practically all of them a considerable part of that
loss has been regained. This is common knowledge and we shall not bother
you with masses of statistics to prove it. I will cite only one instance from my
personal knowledge. In the clothing industry in the city of Rochester, the work
ers received a cut of 15 per cent about 1921. They regained 10 per cent of that
within two or three years and are now working on a scale that is only 5 per cent
lower than their war-time rates. The clothing industry is, like the shoe industry,
a highly competitive one.
It is not our business to criticize the manufacturers of Haverhill, but there is
one point in their attitude that needs mention. For four years they have talked
to this board as if the Haverhill shoe industry was the only industry in the United
States, as if no war had been fought and no general deflation had been borne.
W e ask you, Mr. Chairman, to correct this point of view from your own knowl
edge.
There was nothing peculiar about the condition of the Haverhill shoe
industry in, these years unless it was the failure of the manufacturers to prepare
for it. The really peculiar thing, the extremely astonishing thing, is that after

H A V E R H IL L SHOE BO A R D A C T IV IT IE S

the deflation is all over and healthy progress has come about, they should come
to you to-day and ask another reduction in wages.
Earnings of Haverhill shoe workers.— The shoe board was established in Haver
hill about the beginning of 1924. In M ay it made a cut of about 25 per cent in
wages. The manufacturers promised that this would bring more business to
the city, but it did not, and in 1925 they came again to the shoe board to ask for a
further general reduction. This was not granted, but some adjustments were
made. In 1926, after the Haverhill shoe industry had had the best year since
the deflation and was very prosperous, we asked for the return of some part of our
1924 losses. This too was refused, and we remain to-day practically on the same
level as we found ourselves after the reduction of 1924. W e come again this year
to ask a restoration of a part of the 1924 cut. W e ask it for three main reasons:
(1) Our earnings are low; (2) the business is prosperous; (3) we have suffered
under the agreement.
Earnings: W e shall prove to you the need for higher rates on the grounds of
low earnings by establishing two things— (a) that our earnings are low as compared
with 1924, 1925, and 1926, (b) that our earnings are low as compared with other
shoe workers in Massachusetts. W e coniine ourselves to Massachusetts simply
because we live in Massachusetts and work here. W e could, of course, compare
our earnings with Brooklyn or Germany or the South Sea Islands but it would
not mean anything. W e pay Massachusetts prices for food, clothing, rent.
The manufacturers compete with Massachusetts firms. If we go beyond the
State we get into all sorts of difficulties.
In Table I are found the average weekly earnings of Haverhill shoe workers
from January, 1924, to September, 1927. The lowest weekly earnings in that
period were $16.63 for the month of December, 1925. The highest were $30.67
for September, 19^6. The average weekly earnings for 1924 wTas $23.71. The
average for 1925 was $23.78. And the average for 1926 was $25.02. W e can
not give you the average for 1927 for the simple reason that the year is not over,
but we have figures for nine months of this year, and we shall compare them
with the same 9-month period in previous years.
In 1924 the average weekly earnings for the first nine months of the year
for Haverhill shoe workers w~as $23.94. This is 23 cents higher than the average
for the year because, as you know, the last three months of the year is usually
a dull season. In 1925 the 9-month average was $24.42. In 1926 it was $25.59,
and this year $24.93.
WTe ask you first, Mr. Chairman, if you think these wages are high? If you
think that $24 and $25 a week is a good wage for skilled workers or for anyone
else? If you think they can be reduced and allow the workers to live? And
we ask you to notice that in spite of the improvement in the industry since 1924,
the shoe workers are getting only $1.01 a week more than they got in the deflation
year of 1924, and 66 cents a week less than last year. It seems to us that the
manufacturers should have considered these figures very carefully before asking
a further reduction. It is no exaggeration at all to say that this demand of the
manufacturers for a reduction in earnings of $24 and $25 a week is a matter of
ife and death to the workers.
T

able

I .— Average weekly earnings in Haverhill boot and shoe industry

[Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries. “ Employment and Earnings in Representative
Manufacturing Industries.” Monthly press releases]

Month

1924

1925

1926

1927

January_______
February_______
March_________
April___________
M ay___________
June-----------------July____________

$21. 05
25. 60
27. 94
21.51
19. 38
25. 33
19.99

$19. 95
23. 23
28. 25
24. 77
21. 92
20.09
24.10

$23.93
26.64
28.13
22.44
23.00
24.19
23.24

$23. 68
25. 62
24. 82
27. 85
25.02
21.99
24.40

Month

1924

August_________ $25.31
September______
29.34
October________
27. 34
22. 54
November_____
December._ .
19.13
9-month av___
23.94
12-month av___ 23. 71

1925

1926

$28. 52
28. 96
27. 48
21. 50
16. 63
24. 42
23. 78

$28.07
30. 67
27.20
23. 37
19. 38
25. 59
25.02

1927
$25.70
25.29

24. 93

In Table II we show the average weekly earnings for boot and shoe workers
in Massachusetts as a whole in 1926 and 1927. Taking the same 9-month period,
we find that the earnings for Massachusetts as a whole are lower than those of
Haverhill. For 1926 the Haverhill figure was $25.59 and the Massachusetts
figure $22.99. In 1927 the Haverhill figure is $24.93, the Massachusetts figure,

C O N DITION S IN SH OE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

$23.36. This difference is to be expected because the figures for Massachusetts
as a whole cover small towns, villages, and the country where all values and
prices are lower than in a city like Haverhill. At that the difference is very
little, and if the living costs were taken into consideration it would be found that
the real earnings in Haverhill are lower than in the State as a whole. But the
important thing here is not difference in actual figures but the difference in
trend. In Haverhill for these two years earnings have fallen 66 cents a week.
In Massachusetts they have risen 37 cents a week. This means that the Haver
hill shoe worker is losing to-day, in comparison with his fellow-workers through
out the State, a total of $1.03 per week. W e shall show later that this is not
due to a shortage of work in Haverhill as compared with the State, but to increased
rates in Lynn, Boston, and other places. Outside of Haverhill the shoe workers
are getting back part of their losses. Here they are asked to take further
reductions.
T

able

I I .— Average weekly earnings in Massachusetts boot and shoe industry

[Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries. “ Employment and Earnings in Representative
Manufacturing Industries.” Monthly press releases]

Month

1926

1927

January
_ __ __ __________
February
_ __ __ __
March
__ _________________
April
_____ _____ ____ _____
M ay___
_________ _________

$21. 67
22. 65
24.24
21.34
21.73

$20.86
23.68
23. 87
22.99
22. 75

Month

1926

June__________ _________________ $22.43
July_____________________________
23. 36
August__________________________
24.99
September. _ ............................. ..... 24. 52
9-month average_______________
22.99

1927
$21. 56
23.84
25. 55
25.15
23. 36

In Table III we give you the earnings in 1926 and 1927 for the three out
standing shoe towns of Massachusetts, outside of Haverhill. W e have selected
these simply because they, like Haverhill, are known all over the country to be
shoe centers with a long history of shoemaking behind them. They are Brock
ton, Lynn, and Salem. In Brockton weekly earnings have risen from $23.07 in
1926 to $24.12 in 1927, an increase of $1.05 a week against our loss of 66 cents
a week. In Lynn weekly earnings are way above those of Haverhill— $29.46
in 1926 and $28.94 in 1927, a drop of 52 cents against our 66-cent loss. In
Salem the weekly average of 1926 was $24.22 and in 1927 it was $25.92, an
increase of $1.70, against our loss of 66 cents. This means that during the last
year the Haverhill shoe workers have lost per week $1.71 compared with Brock
ton ; 14 cents compared with Lynn; and $2.36 compared with Salem. W e believe
that with this before you our request for an increase will seem reasonable and
just.
T

able

I I I .— Average weekly earnings in the boot and shoe industry of Brockton,
Lynn, and Salem

[Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries. “ Employment and Earnings in Representative
Manufacturing Industries.” Monthly press releases]

Brockton

Lynn

Salem

Month
1926

1927

1926

1927

1926

1927

January..___________ ______
February. _ _ _______________
March_______________________
April__
___________________
M ay---------------------------- 1------------- --- ---------- __
June___
July--------------------------------------August—
________________
September___________________

$23.12
23. 60
23. 62
19.95
20. 61
23. 00
24.09
25.97
23. 63

$22.05
23.13
23. 66
22. 36
24. 02
25. 57
25. 05
25.99
25.29

$29.14
29. 26
30. 36
28.88
29. 66
28. 73
29. 66
29. 56
29. 93

$28.30
29.48
29.28
26.68
28.93
27. 85
29.09
30. 26
30. 57

$23.99
23.68
24.22
24.14
24.20
24. 79
24. 50
24. 35
24.09

$25. 36
25.86
26. 78
25. 85
25. 82
25.11
25. 70
26.20
26. 57

Average, 9 m onths............. __

23. 07

24.12

29.46

28.94

24.22

25.92

Condition of the industry output.— So much for the condition of the Haverhill
shoe workers. W e shall now show you a very different picture— the condition
of the Haverhill shoe industry, out of which both workers and manufacturers

H A V E R H IL L SH O E BO A R D A C T IV IT IE S

are paid. W e can not show you how much the manufacturers have made,
because they are the only ones who know and they won’t tell us or you. This
is one of the weaknesses of arbitration in Haverhill. Arbitration is based on
facts rather than on bargaining strength. The union gives up its chief bargain
ing weapon, the threat of strike, and agrees to settle wage rates on facts and
figures. But the manufacturers are the only ones who have the facts and they
will not give them to us. They may have good reasons for not telling us how
much money they are making or losing. W e suppose they have. But that
does not alter the fact that we are at a disadvantage in arguing on facts when
we are refused the most important ones.
Accepting this limitation we shall show that the shoe industry in Haverhill
has been advancing and prospering since 1925. W e have shown that the workers
are not advancing and proceeding. And a further conclusion is equally simple
and just: That we should get a share in the new prosperity as we took our share,
if not more, in the bad times of 1923-24.
It is generally admitted that the output of a factory or city is a good indication
of the state of business. If Haverhill is making more shoes than in 1924, it
is fair to assume that business in Haverhill is better than in 1924. It might
be that these shoes are sold at lower prices and that the actual amount of money
from them is less. Later we shall produce figures to show that this is not the
case. Here we take output alone as a sign of good business and we think no
one will question its usefulness.
Since 1923 the shoe manufacturers of Haverhill have been telling the shoe
board that business is rotten. They said it every day and all day for four
years, in season and out of season. It became a habit of theirs. You know, M r.
Chairman, that if a thing is repeated often enough it makes no difference how
false it is, people will sooner or later come to believe it. That is one of the
commonplaces of advertising. It is the main thing in a great branch of medicine.
Mr. Coue popularized this practice and for some time people went around say
ing “ Every day in every way I am getting better and better.”
This is what the
Haverhill manufacturers have been doing for four years, only instead of saying
better and better, they have said worse and worse. If they had said better and
better they would now see that they are cured. But while their business is
actually getting better and better they are getting sicker and sicker because
they have got the habit of saying so. The chamber of commerce should look
into this. Everyone in Haverhill should look into it. If Mr. Coue were not
dead I should advise the Haverhill manufacturers to send for him. But frankly
and seriously we believe that the real trouble with Haverhill is mental. The
manufacturers have said business is rotten for so long that they have come to
believe it, for no other reason than that they have said it. Other people too have
been mesmerized by this phrase, but the facts prove the opposite, as we shall
show. This unhappy habit of the manufacturers is, however, not confined to
the shoe industry nor to Haverhill. It is a common practice everywhere. W e
have yet to hear of a manufacturer, unless he is a professional optimist like the
late Judge Gary, who ever really admitted that business was good. If it is very
good, the most he will admit is that it is not bad. When it is good, he is accus
tomed to call it rotten.
Attitude of manufacturer.— This is not because manufacturers are liars. They
are just being careful. If they admit that business is good they know that
workers will ask for more money; the Government will ask for more taxes; and
that friends and customers will ask for favors of various sorts. So they have
got the habit of saying that business is bad. This has been strengthened by the
easy money they made during the w^ar. Some of them have come to regard war
profits as normal and when they make less they think they are ruined. During
the war they could not help making money. If they bought leather one day
at a dollar it would be worth $1.50 the next, through no effort on their part.
When they started to make a shoe to sell for $3 they found that the price had
risen to $5 while it was being made. They got exaggerated ideas of reasonable
profits and what is worse, they found no need for careful management. War
business hurt their morale and some of them have taken a long time to get over
it. And we believe that if they had put the same energy into problems of financ
ing and manufacturing that they have into their efforts to get wrage cuts, they
would be ready to-day to give us an increase without argument.
W e ask you, Mr. Chairman, to ignore any sob story the manufacturers may
tell you unless it is backed up by facts and figures of profits and losses. W e ask
you not to consider individual firms but the shoe industry of Haverhill as a whole.
W e are sorry to see firms fail and move away from Haverhill, but it is the Haver

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL

hill shoe industry and not particular firms in which we and you are interested.
If that has improved it means that business is good, whatever may happen to
John Doe or Richard Roe. No one likes to see old firms fail but they do fail
when they do not adapt themselves to new conditions, and rates must be set in
relation to the competence of the Haverhill shoe industry to pay them and not on
the incompetence of any individual establishment or any group.
For four years this board has been told that Haverhill is losing business to the
surrounding districts. Here in Table IV we present the figures of Haverhill and
the surrounding district on output of pairs of women’s shoes from 1924 to 1927.
In the spring of 1924 the average daily output of women’s shoes for Haverhill
w^as, in round number, 30,000 pairs; in the spring of 1925 it was 33,000; in the
spring of 1926 it was 48,000; and in the spring of 1927, 38,000. This shows an in
creased production in 1925 over 1924 of 10 per cent; in 1926, 59 per cent; and in 1927,
27.5 per cent. The average annual increase of 1925-1927 over 1924 was 32 per
cent. Comparing fall output for the same period we find a similar healthy
advance. The daily output for the fall of 1924 was, in round numbers, 32,000;
1925, 43,000; 1926, 45,000, an average annual increase of 38 per cent.
You will see from these figures that every year has been better than 1924 for
both the spring and the fall. You will also notice that there has been a falling
off in the spring of 1927 as compared with 1926. If wages were set on every
fluctuation in the industry we should have had a big increase in rates last year
and a slight reduction this year. But they are not. They are set on the general
trend of the industry, which has been upward since 1924. And besides we did
not get a general increase last year. If the employers had come to this board
last year and had said: “ W e have had a very good year and want our workers to
benefit by it along with u s” and had offered us a 25 per cent increase, they would
to-day be entitled to ask for a slight reduction with better grace. But they did
not do that. They fought our request for an increase and we did not get one,
and they have no moral right to come here to-day and ask for a reduction.
1926
a good year.— The spring slump of 1927 left the industry still nearly 28
per cent better off than in 1924. It was not peculiar to Haverhill. Every in
dustry felt it, and it was quite natural and necessary after the boom year of 1926.
W e can produce pages of figures to show that 1926 was the best year in almost
every industry since 1910. It was so good that no one expected 1927 to beat it.
The industrial system had to take a breathing spell and it took it in the spring of
1927. Many industries, did not recover in the fall and are still depressed, but
the shoe industry in Haverhill did recover in a remarkable fashion, as we can show.
T

able

IV .— Output of shoes in Haverhill, surrounding district, and in the United
States, 1924 to 1927
[Average for spring of 1924=100.0]
Average daily output, all shoes 1

Period

Pairs

1924: Spring____________________
Fall______________________
1925: Spring____________________
Fall____ _____ ___________
1926: Spring____________________
Fall______________________ I
1927: Spring____________________ i

Surrounding district

Haverhill

30,020
32,090
33,080
43, 250
47, 620
45,376
38,260

1 Data from Haverhill Shoe Board.
2 Data from U. S. Department of Commerce.
in the United States.

Index
number
100.0
106.9
110.2
144.1
158.6
151.2
127.5

Pairs

103,490
111, 040
106,360
108, 350
106,030
116, 748
106, 435

Index
number
100.0
107.3
102.8
104.7
102.5
112.8
102.8

Average monthly output
of women’s shoes in
United States 2

Pairs

8,568,000
8,788,000
8,495,000
8,968,000
8, 771,000
9, 624, 000
9,110, 000

Index
number
100.0
102.5
99.1
104.6
102.3
112.3
106.3

Monthly press releases on Production of Boots and Shoes

Table V gives the actual production, in cases of shoes, of Haverhill for four
months in 1925, the whole of 1926, and the first nine months of 1927. You will
see that the spring of 1927 was behind the spring of 1926. But we draw your
attention, in particular, to the figures for August and September, 1927, as against
those of 1926. You will see that in August, 1926, the total production of Haver
hill was, in round numbers, 40,000 while in August of 1927 it was 42,000. In
September of 1926 it was 49,000 and in September of this year 46,000. Adding
these two fall months together we get a total of 88,425 cases last year, compared

H A V E R H IL L SHOE BO ARD A C T IV IT IE S

with 88,439 this year, an increase of 14 cases over the same two months in the
biggest year in the shoe industry since war deflation. This means, M r. Chair
man, that the spring slump was simply a breathing spell and that the shoe
industry this fall had recovered and had passed the peak year of 1926. W e
doubt if many industries can show a recovery like this and it proves conclusively
that the Haverhill shoe industry is in a healthy and expanding condition and
that our request for a wage increase is well founded on the increasing prosperity
of the business since 1924. These figures are supplied by the Haverhill Chamber
of Commerce and are as close to date as they have been compiled. W e have
every reason to believe that the fall of this year was as good as, if not better
than, last fall, which we have already shown was more than 40 per cent better
than 1924. The spring we know was 59 per cent better in 1926, and 27.5 per
cent better in 1927.
T

able

Month

V .— Cases 1 of shoes shipped from Haverhill
1925

January________________
February __
M a r c h .____
April__________ __
M ay__________ ___ _
June___________ ____
..

1926

1927

Month

1925

1296

26,169
33, 776
46, 273
41,920
38,842
34, 775

25,185
32,050
42, 518
38, 603
32, 284
26, 793

July ____ ______ ______
August _
September
___
October
__
___ __
November.
. ___ __
December-__ _____

45, 652
36, 379
23, 542
21, 936

32, 682
39, 792
48, 633
41, 205
28, 271
18,039

1927
26, 215
42,177
46, 262

i Average, 36 pairs in a case.

So much for Haverhill itself. Let us compare Haverhill and the competing
surrounding district. The manufacturers made a great deal of this competition
in past hearings. W e do not think they will say much about it this year. In
Table IV we also give the output of the surrounding district (figures from the
shoe board). Like Haverhill, there has been an increase, but unlike Haverhill,
it is so small that it is very hard to find. The spring of 1925 showed an increase
of not quite 3 per cent over 1924; 1926 showed an increase of 2.5 per cent; and
1927, 2.8 per cent. Compare these increases with the Haverhill figures, 10 per
cent, 59 per cent, and 27.5 per cent and you will see how much business Haverhill
manufacturers are losing to the surrounding district. The fact is that the sur
rounding district is almost at a standstill and losing to Haverhill at an astonishing
rate. The fall figures tell the same story. The surrounding district gained 7.3
per cent in the fall of 1924 over the spring of that year; it gained only 4.7 per
cent in the fall of 1925 and 12.8 per cent in 1926, compared wTith the spring of
1924. Compare these gains with those of Haverhill— 6.9 per cent in 1924, 44 per
cent in 1925, and 51 per cent in 1926. There is, in fact, no competition from the
surrounding district.
If there ever was it has long since disappeared.
We
suspect it is another bogy.
In the fifth column of figures in Table IV , we give the output of women’s
shoes for the United States as a whole. It clearly shows how Haverhill is holding
its place as a shoe center and improving that place every year. The women’s
shoe output of the United States increased slightly every season but one, com
pared with 1924. Taking the spring first, the year 1925 shows a loss of almost
1 per cent, 1926 shows a gain of 2.3 per cent, and 1927 a gain of 6.3 per cent.
Again compare these with the gains of Haverhill— 10 per cent, 59 per cent, and
27.5 per cent. The fall figures for the United States as a whole show a gain in
1924, over the spring, of 2.5 per cent; in 1925, a gain of 4.6 per cent; in 1926, a
gain of 12.3 per cent. Compare these with the Haverhill gains for the same
periods— 6.9 per cent, 44 per cent, 51 per cent— and it is evident that Haverhill,
since 1924, has been getting more and more of the women’s shoe business of
the country as a whole.
Improvement in industry.— But, Mr. Chairman, we have other ways of showing
the improvement in the Haverhill shoe industry as compared with the past, and
as compared with other shoe towns in Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts
Department of Labor and Industries publishes a census of manufactures, and
from the 1926 press releases we have taken a complete picture, under five heads,
of the condition of the boot and shoe industry in Haverhill, Lynn, Brockton,
Lowell, Beverly, Chelsea, Everett, Newburyport, and Worcester.
W e think
this about covers the situation but we can get more if anyone wants them.
The towns are chosen simply for the size of the shoe industry. The figures are
given for two years, 1924 and 1926.

CO N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

W e shall take first the three major shoe cities, Haverhill, Brockton, and Lynn
In Table V I will be found five items considered by the Massachusetts Depart
ment of Labor and Industries as showing the condition of the industry. These
are: Capital invested, value of stock and materials, amount of wages paid during
the year, average number of wage earners employed, and the value of the product.
Capital invested is, as you know, a good indicator of an industry’s condition and
the trend over a number of years. If the industry is in bad condition, capital
will be withdrawn by removals, failures, or transfers to some other place. If it
is prosperous it will attract capital and the amount thereof will increase. The
manufacturers have told us of manufacturers leaving Haverhill. If they are,
and are not being replaced, it will show in this item. The value of materials used
is another good indication of the relative condition of the industry in the various
towns. If prices have gone up the value of materials would not showTthe actual
increase of business over a period of years in one place. But as prices move for
all shoe manufacturers in Massachusetts in the same degree, the figure is useful
and proper for a comparison of Haverhill and other places. The total amount
of wages paid, together with the average number of wage earners, will show com
parative earnings, and the final item, the value of the product, is the best of all,
because it shows the total amount earned by the industry in each place during
each year. This figure should be compared with our figures for output to show
that our increased output has not been gained by lowering the price of shoes. ^
From 1924 to 1926 the capital invested in the shoe industry in Haverhill in
creased 1.17 per cent. This is not a great increase but it disproves completely
the assertions of the manufacturers that the shoe industry in Haverhill has
declined. And when it is compared with Lynn and Brockton it is really aston
ishing. While Haverhill has increased its shoe capital by more than 1 per cent,
Lynn has lost more than 16 per cent and Brockton has lost more than 9 per
cent. In other words, Haverhill has done nearly 18 per cent better than Lynn
and more than 10 per cent beter than Brockton.
The second item, the value of materials used, has increased over 16 per cent
in Haverhill, over 15 per cent in Lynn, and has decreased over 11 per cent in
Brockton. In this respect, too, Haverhill stands out, nearly 1 per cent over
Lynn and 27 per cent over Brockton.
The amount of wages paid in Haverhill has increased 4.21 per cent, in Lynn
10 per cent, and in Brockton it has decreased more than 13 per cent. This is a
very interesting figure. Haverhill has increased its capital over 1 per cent and
its wage bill over 4 per cent. Lynn has lost 16 per cent of its captia.l and has
increased its wage bill 10 per cent. This 16 per cent less capital in Lynn is pay
ing 10 per cent more wages, while in Haverhill, 1 per cent more capital is paying
only 4 per cent more wages.
T

able

V I.— Census of manufactures in leading shoe 'producing centers of Massa
chusetts: Boots and shoes, other than riwber

[Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries.
Item
Capital invested:
1924............................ ...............
1926________________________
Amount of change__________
Per cent of change__________
Value of stock and materials:
1924________________________
1926__________________ _____
Amount of change__________
Per cent of change__________
Amount of wages:
1924____________ ___________
1926________________________
Amount of change__________
Per cent of change__________
Average number of wage earners:
1924________________________
1926________________________
Amount of change__________
Per cent of change__________
Value of product:
1924________________________
1926________________________
Amount of change__________
Per cent of change..................

Census of Manufactures, 1926.
Haverhill

Lynn

Press releases]
Brockton

$9, 094, 745
$9, 201, 466
+$106, 721
+1.17

$12, 518, 287
$10,440,196
- $ 2 ,078,091
-1 6 .6

$27,110,989
$24,498,253
—$2,612, 736
- 9 . 64

$12, 489, 209
$14, 523, 616
-f $2,034, 407
+16. 29

$12, 052, 938
$13, 915, 747
+$1, 862, 809
+15. 46

$22, 319, 267
$19, 838, 678
—$2,480, 589

$9, 831, 271
$10, 245, 617
+$414, 346
+4. 21

$8, 748, 458
$9, 626, 009
+$877, 551
+10.0

$12,044, 363
$10,425, 820
-$ 1 , 618, 543
-13.44

8,043
8, 350
+307
+3. 81

7, 258
7, 814
+556
+ 7 .7

-1,102

$28,474, 257
$31, 935, 560
+$3, 4G1, 303
+12.16

$27,010, 842
$28, 717, 028
+$1, 706,186
+ 6. 32

$44, 272,865
$39,195,690
—$5,077,175
-11.47

1 1 .1 2

-1 1 . 25

H A V E R H IL L SH OE B O A R D A C T IV IT IE S

The average number of wage earners in Haverhill increased 3.81 per cent
from 1924 to 1926. In Lynn, the increase has been 7.7 per cent. Dividing the
number of workers into the wage bills, we find that average yearly earnings of
Haverhill workers have gained only 0.38 per cent while Lynn workers have
gained 2.2 per cent. In other words, the increase in wages in Haverhill has been
almost wiped out by the increase in the number of those who have to share it,
while in Lynn the average yearly earnings have increased 2.2 per cent in spite of
the increase in the number of workers. In Brockton the number of workers has
fallen 11 per cent.
The last item— the value of the product— is the best indication possible of the
condition of the industry. It represents the money value of the entire boot and
shoe output of each of the three cities in 1924 and in 1926. In Haverhill the
value of the product has increased 12.16 per cent. In Lynn it has increased
only 6.32 per cent or about half as much as in Haverhill and in Brockton it has
fallen off 11.47 per cent. W ith this figure, of an increase of over 12 per cent in
the value of the shoes made in Haverhill, we do not see, Mr. Chairman, how
anyone can ask you for a reduction of rates. But we do see how we can ask that
we be given a share of this increase. W e helped make it. W e have received
no adequate part of it. And we think it is time that we should. W e wish you
would keep this figure in mind. While the workers’ rates have been reduced
about 25 per cent since 1924, and while o u t earnings this year were only $1.01
a week above 1924, and were only $1.31 above in 1926, the total value of the
products of the industry had risen 12.16 per cent from 1924 to 1926. W e think
it not unreasonable to ask some share in this increase.
In Table V II we present similar figures for the boot and shoe industry of
Lowell, Beverly, Chelsea, Everett, Newburyport, and Worcester, between 1924
and 1926.
Taken with the figures already analysed for Lynn and Brockton, we have a
complete picture of the shoe industry of Massachusetts between 1924 and 1926.
The six towns in this table are not chosen by us. They are all the towns for
which the Massachusetts Census of Manufactures has issued the 1926 boot and
shoe records.
T

able

V I I .— Census of manufactures, boots and shoes (other than rubbers), 1924
and 1926

[Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries.

Census of Manufactures, 1926.
|

Item

Lowell

Beverly

Chelsea

Everett

Press releases]

Newbury
Worcester
port

Average number of wage earn1,223
1924.
.............................
1,277
1926-...................- .................
+54
Change.......................... ___
Invested:
1924-........................................ $1,105, 526
1,115,860
1926__________ ______ _____
+10, 334
Change............................ .
Capital value of stock:
2, 256,945
1924__________ _______ ____
1926.......................................... 2, 382,240
+125,295
Change........ ................... .
Amount of wages:
1924_________ ________ ____
1,184, 744
1926_____ _____ ______
1, 251,926
Change.......... .....................
+67,182
Value of product:
1924_ ......... ....................
4, 313, 723
1926____________ ________
4,520,981
Change..............................
+207,256

740
423
-317

1,746
1, 790
+44

822
433
-389

1,536
2,050
+514

1,444
1, 385
-5 9

$1, 248,168
559,039
-689,129

$3, 544, 857
2,988,936
-555, 921

$1,000,975
700,358
-300, 617

$2,471,128
2, 619,184
+148, 056

$3,438,434
2, 607,181
-831, 253

1,008,108
725, 032
-283,136

3,401, 816
3, 695, 571
+293, 755

1, 321,916
813,185
-506, 731

2, 609,151
3,404, 551
+795,400

4,003, 059
3,387,610
-615,449

676, 267
428, 882
-249, 385

2,183, 389
2, 232, 749
+49, 360

901, 772
446, 505
-455, 267

1,895,293
2,192,859
+297, 566

1,458, 394
1. 501, 394
-43,000

2,109,138
1, 505, 232
-603,906

7, 374,464
2,934,108
5, 899,874
7,484, 087
1, 639, 712
7,179, 967
+109,623 -1,294, 396 +1, 280,103

6,187,109
5,870,773
-316,336

In average number of workers, three show losses, while Lowell gained 54
workers, Chelsea 44, and Newburyport 514.
In capital invested, four of the six show a marked loss between 1924 and 1926.
Lowell shows a gain of $10,334 and Newburyport a gain of $148,056.
In value of materials, three show a loss. Lowell shows a gain of $125,295,
Chelsea a gain of $293,755, and Newburyport a gain of $795,400, against Haver
hill’s gain of $2,034,407.

C O N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U ST R Y IN’ H A V E R H IL L

In amount of wages, Beverly, Everett, and Worcester show a loss. Lowell
had a gain of $67,182, Chelsea a gain of $49,360, Newburyport a gain of $297,566,
and Haverhill a gain of $414,346.
In value of product, three show losses, while Lowell increased by $207,256.
Chelsea had a gain of $109,623, Newburyport a gain of $1,280,103, against
Haverhill’s gain of $3,461,303.
Thus, in practically every respect, Haverhill has increased beyond each of
the eight Massachusetts shoe centers of which we have records. The only other
town that comes near it in extent of improvement is Newburyport, but while
both have advanced, the improvement of Haverhill is very much greater. In
value of materials, Haverhill has increased $2,034,407 to Newburyport’s $795,400,
and in value of product Haverhill has increased $3,461,303 to Newburyport’s
$1,280,103.
W hat more, we would ask, do the Haverhill manufacturers want? Where is
the decline in Haverhill’s shoe industry? Surely the facts speak for themselves.
In practically every respect Haverhill is advancing rapidly and outdistancing
all Massachusetts. W e submit that under these circumstances we are entirely
justified in asking a general increase in wage rates.
*

The closing bogy.— For four years now the manufacturers of Haverhill have
pursued a policy which has been very harmful to the shoe industry of the city.
In their passionate desire to get wage cuts they have published to the world the
sorrows and hardships of shoe manufacturers "here. This defeatist attitude has
no doubt had its effect on shoe buyers and others and though the facts disprove it,
the legend, once established, is very hard to destroy. W e believe, Mr. Chairman,
if the manufacturers would change their tone and talk prosperity, based upon the
figures we have presented and will present of Haverhill’s comeback in the last
four years, more business would come in, confidence would be restored, and
prosperity would continue and increase.
If this were not a wage hearing only, we would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to
instruct the Haverhill shoe manufacturers to repeat morning and evening each
day for one year the following cheerful refrain: “ Every day in every way the
shoe business in Haverhill is getting better and better.” It would be true and it
would be healthful.
The thing that the manufacturers have emphasized most, all through these
years, is that factories have closed down and have left the city. This has bulked
so large in their minds that they can see nothing else. And they have insisted that
because of these closings the shoe business of the city is going to pot. W e propose
to prove here and now, Mr. Chairman, beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is
not so. Of course factories have closed down and factories have left the city.
This was necessary after the war inflation but it was alwaj^s offset to some extent
by new openings. It was not confined to Haverhill nor to the shoe industry, but
was found everywhere.
It is also true that factories are still closing down and leaving the city. It al
ways will be so in a small scale industry like this, where competition is keen.
But it is not competition from the outside that is causing some firms to fail and
leave at the present time. It is competition within the city itself among firms
which pay the same prices, and the failures are not due to rates but to the failure
of some concerns to adapt themselves to new conditions. This is proven by the
fact that other firms are expanding and new ones are coming in.
W e are sorry to see old Haverhill firms fail and leave the city but our main
interest is not in particular firms. It is in the industry as a whole. As far as the
city of Haverhill is concerned, it makes no difference in a strictly business way
who makes shoes here, so long as they are made. If John Doe fails and we lose
an output of 1,000 shoes and Richard Roe prospers and we gain an output of
2,000 shoes, the city is much better off as a result of these two facts, than it was
before. And this, or something very like it, is what has happened.
Since 1925 the shoe industry in Haverhill has been expanding. That is the
thing we want to emphasize, the thing we would like the board and the manu
facturers to understand and remember. When we establish this fact the defeatist
story of the manufacturers will be destroyed and we hope they will be in a better
frame of mind to continue and increase this expansion in the best city in the
United States for the making of women’s shoes.

HAVERHILL* SHOE BOARD ACTIVITIES

In Table I X , columns 3 and 4, you will find the figures of the shoe board for
capacity to manufacture all types of shoes in Haverhill and the surrounding
district. For Haverhill the figures go back to 1922 and for the surrounding
district to 1925. Haverhiirs capacity declined as a result of postwar deflation,
over 33 per cent from June 1, 1922, to January 1, 1925. When deflation was
completed on January 1, 1925, the industry was ready to start on an upward
trend again. It is not yet back to the figure of 1922 and may not get back
unless we have another war, but the recovery has been remarkable, as the figures
show. During the first half of 1925 capacity increased 6.1 per cent. During
the fall of 1925 there was a gain of over 20 per cent, making a total increase at
the end of 1925 of 27.3 per cent. By July 1, 1926, it had reached a point more
than 14 per cent over July 1, 1925, and during the fall of 1926 there was a further
rise so that on January 1, 1927, capacity was 1.4 per cent above January 1, 1926.
The two years together show an increased capacity, for all shoes, of 28 per cent.
These figures, Mr. Chairman, prove that since 1924 the Haverhill shoe industry
has improved remarkably and has added continuously to its capacity.
In the same table will be found the figures for the surrounding district which
the manufacturers have argued has been stealing the shoe business away from
the city. The figures show the opposite of the manufacturers’ assertion. Haver
hill is, in fact, stealing the shoe business away from the surrounding district.
In the spring of 1925 the surrounding district gained less than 1 per cent while
Haverhill gained 6.1 per cent. For every season since then it has lost, not only
in comparison with Haverhill but in comparison with its own capacity in 1925.
The shoe industry in the surrounding district is declining while that of Haverhill
is expanding. During the fall of 1925 the surrounding district lost nearly 6
per cent, as compared with January, 1925. By July 1, 1926, it had lost more
than 10 per cent. In the 2-year period when Haverhill was increasing its
capacity by 28.7 per cent, the surrounding district lost 8.3 per cent of its capacity.
In the same table, No. I X , columns 1 and 2, we show the capacity for Haver
hill and the surrounding district for women’s M cK ays and turns only. The
Haverhill capacity shows an increase of more than 38 per cent and the surrounding
district an increase of only 6 per cent.
T

able

I X .— Capacity (pairs of shoes per day) of shoe factories of Haverhill
and of surrounding district, June 1, 1922, to January 1, 1927

Capacity (pairs of shoes per day)

Women’s McKays
and turns

All types of shoes

Date

Haverhill

1922: June 1>_................. .........
1923: Jan. 1................................
July 1........................ .
1924: Jan. 1__............. ...........
July 1_________________
1925: Jan. 1____................... .
. July 1...... .........................
1926: Jan. 1_______ _________
July 1___........ .................
1927: Jan. 1........ .......................

W omen’s
McKays and
turns

All types of
shoes

Sur
Sur
Surround
Surround Haver round Haver round
ing
Haverhill
ing
hill
ing dis hill
ing dis
district
district
trict
trict

107,808
110,978

137,338
137, 558

145.9
150.2

118,128

87, 548
73, 888
79, 508
99, 718
94, 398
102, 608

Index numbers (Jan. 1, 1925=100)

85,4l0
87, 470
85, 330
82,820
90, 540

91,868
97,488
116,908
111, 348
118,268

149.7
149.7

118.5
201, 720
203,400
190,030
180,410
184,910

100.0
107.6
135.0
127.8
138.9

126.6
100.0
102.4
99.9
97.0
106.0

100.0
106.1
127.3
121.2
128.7

100.0
100.8
94.2
89.4
91.7

In Table X we give same figures, with separate items for women’s M cKays
and for women’s turns. This shows a gain in Haverhill of 82 per cent for McKays
and loss of 18.4 per cent for turns, while the surrounding district gained only
16.2 per cent capacity for M cK ays and lost 15.5 per cent for turns.

56
T

able

CO N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L
X .— Capacity (pairs per day) of women's shoe factories in Haverhill and
in surrounding district, June 1, 1922, to January 1, 1927
Capacity (pairs of shoes per day)

Women’s McKays

Women's turns

Index numbers (Jan. 1, 1925=100)
Women’s Mc
Kays

Women’s turns

Date
Haver
hill

1922: June 1 . _______ ______
1923: Jan. 1_________________
July 1_________________
1924: Jan. 1 ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
July 1_________________
1925: Jan. 1_________________
July 1_________________
1926: Jan. 1_________________
July l._
__ ________
1927: Jan. 1_________________

Sur
round
ing
district

43, 850
43, 580

Sur
round
ing
district

46, 388
58,060
60,120
59, 880
58, 720
67,440

31, 888
32, 588
33, 038
24. 078
26,028

Sur
Sur
Haver round Haver round
ing
hill
ing
hill
district
district
104.4
103.8

63,958
67, 393

41,180
42, 000
46, 920
06, 680
70, 320
76, 580

Haver
hill

200.6
211.4

98.0
27, 350
27, 350
25, 450
24.100
23.100

100.0
111.7
158.8
187. 4
182.3

145.5
100.0
103. 5
103.1
101.1
116.2

100.0
102.2
103.6
75.5
81.6

166.0
300.0
93.1
88.1
84.5

Finally on this point, Mr. Chairman, the union has made a complete list of
all the openings and closings in Haverhill for this year, with the output of each,
where it was possible to get it.
In Table X I you will find, bynam e, 12 firms which have closed down in Haver
hill because of failure or removal in 1927. In addition to these 12, there is one
firm for which we have no output figures, and one contract-making room which
has moved to Derry, N. H . The total capacity of these 12 firms that Haverhill
has lost this year was 10,780 pairs of shoes per day. In Table X I I you will find
another list of 33 firms that have opened in Haverhill this year. Of these, the
union has been able to get output figures for 28. The total output of these 28
firms is 10,574 pairs of shoes per day. The union feels that 600 pairs per day is
a low estimate for the five firms whose figures they were not able to get. If this
is accepted, the gain to Haverhill by new firms coming in is 11,174 pairs of shoes
per day. In addition to these new openings you will find in Table X I I I a list of
14 Haverhill factories which have added to their capacity during the year.
This added capacit}^ amounts to 6,671 pairs of shoes per day. Thus the total
added to the Haverhill shoe industry in 1927 was 17,845 pairs of shoes per day,
and the total lost because of removals and failures was 10,780, which makes a
net gain of 7,065 pairs. Add this to the gains we have already shown for 1925
and 1926 and you will be convinced, we feel sure, that the Haverhill shoe industry
is in a healthy and expanding condition and that the manufacturers’ tale of woe
is simply the repetition of an old story thejr learned five, six, and seven years ago.
W e hope and believe this improvement will continue. There is every reason to
expect that it will. But we are asking for an increase not on the future, which
no one knows, but on past and present prosperity which we have shown you.
T

able

X L — Shoe factories 7noved or failed since January 1, 1927

Firm

Alma Wright Shoe Co
Becker
_ __ ...................................
Bloomfield
_ _ _____
Brenner & Brody
B. E. Cole.. _ __ ________________
Dole Waldron
Emery Dana Tucker_________________
Garbelnick___________________________

Capacity
per day
(pairs)
200
1, COO
720
1, 000
1, 800
300
720
1, 000

Firm

Capacity
per day
(pairs)

F. B. Heath_________________________
Langlois ______________ ___________
E. L. Thomas ______ ___________ _____
Morin-Curtin __________ ______ __ __
Hartman (not reported)__ ___________

2,500
180
1,000
360

Loss in capacity________________

10,780

Holland Bros., contract-making room, who made shoes for Haverhill firms,
moved to Derry, N . H .
Shoes are now being made by other Haverhill contract
firms.

H AVERHILL SHOE BOARD ACTIVITIES
T

able

X I I .— New shoe factories since January 1, 1927

Firm

Alma Shoe Co__________ ____ _______
Barr & Bloomfield____________________
John Buckley______ ______ _______ _
Brenner & Bloomfield__________ _____
Cote____________ _____ __________ ___
Franzblau Bros.. ___________________
Goudreault..................... . .......... ..............
Fred Haley........ ....................................
Haverbach._____ ___________________
Hillson_______ ___________ ____ _____
H. V______ ____________ ______ ______
Iona____ _______ __________ _____ ___
Katzman Rosengard
Lazzaro Marino...... ................... ..............
Mayfair__.................................................
Novels
Oak............................................................ .
Radio. _______ __________ ____________

Capacity
per day
(pairs)
200
500
300
720
300
200
360
300
700
360
300
180
500
180
360
200
252
144

Capacity
per day
(pairs)

Firm

Robinson_____ ____ ___
Richard Roche................
E. W . Tilton____
..
Tourraine______________
L. Triberman.
Vogue (not reported).
Widder_________
__________________
Wise & Nesson
________ _______
Wright & Snider
W. Verrette (not reported).
Z. H _________
_______
Z. K _____ ____
______

360
258
180
1, 200
700
720
540
360
100
100

Total______________________
Not reported (estimated)____ ____

10, 574
600

Increased capacity__

11,174

Other now factories for which capacity could not be obtained were Mucciolo,
Ross Kelly, and F. Smith.
T

able

X I I I . — Shoe factories which have increased capacity per day since January
1, 1927

Firm

Model Shoe Co. ....................................
Modern Shoe Co____________ ________
Ayer Williams_____ _________________
Harrysons_____ ___________ _____
Milchen____________________ ________
Rickard No. 1 (not reported).
D. & E
R. V. Murphy___________ _______ ____

Increase
(pairs)
1,440
540
540
720
875
360
360

Increase
(pairs)

Firm

Kimel_________
Gerber_______ _
C lin to n ..____
J. M . Harian___ _
Bourque_______ _ ___
David_________________

__
_____ ____

Increase in capacity

216
360
540
180
180
360
6, 671

Net gain, Haverhill shoe capacity, since January 1, 1927
Pairs per day

New factories__________________________________________________
Expansion_____________________________________________________

11, 174
6, 671

Total increase_________________________________________
Factories closed_______________________________________________

17, 845
10, 780

Net gain_______________________________________________

7, 065

The position of Haverhill as a shoe center in relation to the whole United
States is shown very clearly in Table X IV .
This gives a complete list of the
shoe factories, by States, in 1926 and 1927. The chief shoe manufacturing States,
as you know, are Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. From
1926 to 1927 Massachusetts, with Haverhill, lost 36 factories; New York lost 50
factories; Pennsylvania lost 1; and Missouri lost 9. In the same period the city
of Haverhill made a net gain of about 20 factories. Can anything more be asked
to prove to the shoe manufacturers of Haverhill that, instead of losing their
share of the industry, they are gaining remarkably in comparison with the
surrounding district, the State of Massachusetts, and the United States as a
whole?

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL
T a b l e X I V .— A complete list of shoe factories

State or city

Cormp.ntifMit,
Georgia
_
_ __
Illinois
Indiana.. ____ _____ ____ ______
Iowa.
. _
Kansas
Kentucky. Louisiana
Maine________ ___ ____
__ ____
Maryland____ ___ ___ ____ .
Michigan___ __
M innesota.-____ __
___
Missouri____________ __ _
Nebraska ____
______ _ _ __
New Hampshire_________________
New Jersey. ______ ________
New York State, without Brook
lyn
________ ______________

1926
14
5

1927

66
4
4
3
11
3
49
17
14
14
122
3
67
23

15
5
5
69
6
5
3
10
3
56
16
15
14
113
3
62
15

214

191

State or city
Brooklyn________________________
North Carolina-- ______ _______
Ohio________________________
Oregon.. ____________ _______ _
Pennsylvania___________________
Rhode Island___ ____________ Tennessee.. ________
______
Texas__________ . __ _
- _ .
Vermont-.. ___ __
_
Virginia____ __
__ _
.
"Washington. ___ - _ __ _______
West Virginia_______ ___________
Wisconsin_________ ____________
Massachusetts, without Boston,
Brockton, Lynn, Haverhill. _ __
Boston____ _____ _______________
Brockton_______________________
Lynn____________ ______________
Haverhill___ _________ __________

1926
199
3
69
1
125
1
6
3
4
7
2
75
220
51
39
100
141

1927
172
3
67
1
124
1
7
4
3
7
5
2
73
206
44
41
99

The peace pact.— The second section of this brief deals with the request of the
manufacturers for a reduction in wages of 25 to 35 per cent.
In the last four years we have heard a great deal from the manufacturers about
saving the shoe industry of Haverhill. What we want to insist upon now is
that the shoe workers of Haverhill are also part of the industry and as much
interested in saving it as are the manufacturers. W e assure you that a cut in
wages at the present time will not save the shoe industry in Haverhill, but will
drive the shoe workers out. W e have had experience with one cut. W e know
exactly what it means. Another cut will mean that much more of the same
thing. It will make it impossible for us to live here, especially as better time and
higher rates can be obtained outside. It is stating a simple truth, Mr. Chairman,
to say that shoe manufacturers in Haverhill can come and go and the shoe
industry will continue. But when the shoe workers, who are admitted by all
to be a special and highly competent class, begin to leave, the shoe industry,
for which Haverhill has stood for a century, will go with them. W e have listened
patiently and long to the sad story of the manufacturers. W e have not paraded
our woes on every occasion, as they have. But there is a point below which we
can not go and continue to live. W e know that you are interested in seeing the
shoe industry remain and flourish in this city. So are the manufacturers. So
are we. And we tell you frankly that another cut will drive us out and when
we are gone, no matter who takes our place, the city of Haverhill will have lost
its best asset, the skilled and competent shoe workers who have given this city
its name and reputation. This is not just talk. You know and the manufac
turers know that the shoe workers are already discontented and have been
since 1924. And we tell you earnestly and sincerely that there is no surer w~ay
of destroying the shoe industry in this city than to cut wages at the present
time. There are two sides to this story of woe. For four years we have heard
much of one side— the manufacturers’ side. To-day we are telling you something
of the other side. The manufacturers talk about full-time earnings. W e do
not get full-time earnings. W e do not live on what we would get if we worked
full time. W e have to live on what we actually get. Take 25 per cent and 35
per cent from what we now get and we are done, gone busted, and with us the
shoe industry, which is our industry, and the city which is our city.
But the manufacturers will tell you that a cut will bring more work. The
last chairman believed that. W"e took a cut. Did it bring more work? No,
M r. Chairman, it did not. It brought less wTork, as we shall show you, and less
pay. The same thing would happen again, but with this difference, that we
are at rock bottom now and simply can not stand a further cut. W e know that.
Our earnings prove it. If the manufacturers doubt it let them bring here annual
earnings, deduct 25 per cent, and show us how we can live on that.
W e have come, Mr. Chairman, to the last year of the peace pact and we want
you to go back with us to its beginnings and see how it has worked out. When
we have done this we shall ask you if it is wise of the manufacturers to come to
you witn a request for a further cut, if it is in their own best interest, the best
interest of the industry and of the city of Haverhill. W e feel sure that you will

HAVERHILL SHOE BOARD ACTIVITIES

agree with us that a serious mistake has been made. But before examining the
record I want to say a few things about arbitration such as this under which we
are now working.
I am here to-day, Mr. Chairman, as a representative of the shoe workers.
But I am also and have been for some time an arbitrator in another industry.
It is in this other industry that this sort of arbitration machinery originated and
in which it has been carried on for more than 10 years. It is being carried on
successfully to-day. Both sides believe in it. Both sides know they have
benefited by it. It is an established thing and will not lightly be given up by
either workers or manufacturers. I shall tell you in a very few words why this
arbitration in this other industry has lived so long and has worked so successfully.
It is because both sides have benefited by it in about equal degree. The manu
facturers are satisfied because they have no more long and desperate strikes, and
though they have plenty of stoppages for short periods, their rates are set over
a period that allows them to figure their costs and sell at a price at which they
know they can produce, and for other reasons. The workers are satisfied because
their earnings are maintained, their piece rates fixed. In a word, it is a 50-50
proposition on the whole. Neither side gets everything or nearly everything.
If either side did, the arbitration machinery would break down. And I can
assure you, and anyone else who has had experience with arbitration can assure
you, that it can not last when over a year or more the advantage leans all to one
side or the other.
Advantage with manufacturers.— W e assert here, Mr. Chairman, and will prove
that for the four years in which this peace pact has been running, the advantage
has been on the manufacturers’ side. W e do not blame anyone for this but it is
a fact. Let us review:
This first agreement between the manufacturers’ association and the union was
signed for a year in 1921. Before that the union had dealt with individual firms.
The agreement of 1921 provided that disputes should be arbitrated by a committee
chosen for each dispute. This was unsatisfactory. The settlements were slow
and contradictory. Strikes were frequent in spite of the agreement and in 1923
conditions were so bad that a citizens’ committee intervened, this peace pact was
signed and a chairman chosen. In signing this pact the union gave up certain
rights and privileges. It gave up the working card or permit system and allowed
employers to transfer workers from one operation to another as they saw fit.
It gave up the rule that if workers were kept waiting for work beyond a fixed time
the whole department would stop for the day. It gave up the 5-day week and
allowed employers to open on Saturday for 9 months in the year or for 12 under
certain conditions. This has been greatly abused by some manufacturers. For
some reason we can not understand there are manufacturers who w~ill work
Saturday, if on no other day of the week. The union further gave up the right
to strike. It gave up the right to settle rates by bargaining with individual firms
and put the final settlement into the hands of this court. But note, Mr. Chairman,
that when it agreed to allow this court to settle rates on facts it was not given
access to the facts. The manufacturers come here and tell you and us that they
are not making money but neither you nor we have ever seen any figures to prove
it, or to prove that high labor costs are the cause of it. When rates are set on
facts, Mr. Chairman, the facts should be available. In this case they are not.
W e have given up our bargaining weapon, the threat of a strike, for the wiser and
better method of argument based on facts. But we are not given the facts by
the manufacturers, who are the only people who have them. This gives the
manufacturers a great advantage over us.
These we gave up, Mr. Chairman, and in return we received two things: The
division of work and the review of discharges. W e ask you to balance the five
things we gave up against the two things we got in return and see if the balance
is not greatly with the manufacturers.
Before going on with the record under the peace pact I want to draw your
attention to one of the things we gave up, the right to strike. In the other
industry of which I have spoken the right to strike is also given up. But strikes
are not. In one market in the course of a year there were over 100 stoppages.
Yet the employers felt that the machinery was satisfactory. How many strikes
have you had in Haverhill since the agreement was signed— 100 a year? I think
not. One stoppage of any importance, if I am correctly informed. Now, Mr.
Chairman, the main advantage employers get from peace pacts of this sort is the
avoidance of strikes. In other industries if they could get that and that alone,
they would be satisfied. Strikes have ruined more employers and more industrial
centers than any other thing. In the industry of which I speak they do not get

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL

rid of small strikes or stoppages. The people are sent back to work but there
remain considerable losses. And though the manufacturers are not pleased with
this, they are satisfied enough to continue the arrangement. I feel, Mr. Chair
man, that the Haverhill shoe manufacturers have had their m oney’s worth out of
this pact many times over just from this one thing, the stoppage of strikes.
They know that themselves. And yet they come here year after year for reduc
tion of wages, knowing that we have signed away our right to strike and that we
keep our word.
The peace pact was made in December, 1923, and on or about June 1 the shoe
workers of Haverhill through this board received a general cut of about 25 per
cent. This was the sixth thing they' lost under this agreement. This cut was
made, according to the manufacturers, to bring business back to Haverhill.
But
the experiment was tried. If business had come back perhaps our earnings
would have been maintained. But instead of coming back, more business was
lost. W e quote from our brief of 1925.
Let us look back a moment to the spring of 1924. W hat was the situation
then? Exactly what it is this very day.
Manufacturers were voicing the same
complaint and were suggesting the same remedy. They came before the shoe
board and asked for a reduction, and they told the workers and the board and the
citizens of Haverhill in general that if they got substantial relief they would fill
their factories, give steady employment to their employees and bring prosperity
once more to their native city. Unfortunately no stenographic minutes of last
year’s proceedings were made, otherwise, we are sure, we could now quote to the
board the same arguments, the same promises, and the same suggestions which it
has listened to during the course of the present hearings. But the truth of this
assertion is of such general knowledge throughout the length and breadth of the
industry that there can be no denial. A few quotations from the press of Haver
hill reflect the prevailing sentiment of that time.
News item from the “ Haverhill Evening G azette” 1:
“ Several manufacturers, confident that the wage concessions will open new
business to them, are already in New York and other big city markets calling upon
their buyers.”
Editorial comment from the same source 2:
“ The readjustment places our manufacturers in a favorable position to com
pete for a new season’s business.”
Headline from the same source 3:
“ Wage cut comes in time to help business boom.”
“ Makes it possible for Haverhill men to book summer business and meet
country-wide price slashing.”
But most significant and illuminating of all is the comment of the chairman of
the board, who ii\ an official statement said as follows 4:
“ The manufacturers are being awarded a large reduction in labor costs so
that they can sell more shoes. It is their duty to go out immediately and fill
their factories. The manufacturers have given assurance that they can do it
with 25 per cent reduction. Careful study convinces the chairman that they
can do it with 20 per cent reduction. They will have forfeited a serious measure
of confidence if they fail.”
And the chairman also said in the same statem ent5:
“ This wage adjustment can justify itself only by bringing more orders for
shoes into Haverhill factories.”
These are solemn words, M r. Chairman, and they can have only one interpre
tation. They imply a covenant to the shoe workers of Haverhill that if the wage
reduction which you ordered in M ay, 1924, did not bring business to the manu
facturers some other remedy would have to be found, and that there would be
no further reduction of wages. W e are going to show you that the reduction did
not bring “ more orders for shoes in Haverhill factories” and that it, therefore,
most decidedly did not “ justify itself.”
W e are certain that you will not again
allow yourself to be deluded by the vain hope that a wage reduction will bring
prosperity. W e are certain that you will recognize the fact that the manufac
turers “ have forfeited a serious measure of confidence,” and that j^ou will act
accordingly.
W e are certain, Mr. Chairman, that you will not take another cent from the
pockets of the workers. W e marvel that the association, in the face of your
1 May 9, 1924, p. 1.
2 May 9, 1924, p. 4.
3 May 27, 1924, p. 1.

4 Statement of Haverhill Shoe Board, May 8, 1924, p. 6 in re Case No. 48.
8 Idem, p. 3.

HAVERHILL SHOE BOARD ACTIVITIES

dictum of a year ago, dares to appear before you once more, and having once
failed to make good, to offer the same time-worn arguments and the same hollow
promises.
W e do not accuse the manufacturers of having willfully “ lain down on the
jo b .” No doubt they tried their best to get orders. No doubt they would have
been delighted to have got them. But they could not.
Several of their repre
sentatives in the course of the hearings have told you that without the reduction
they would have been worse off to-day than they are. That is entirely a suppo
sition. It might have proved a fact or it might not have. W e shall never
know. But we do know that the reduction did not bring them the increase in
business. That is a fact, Mr. Chairman, and it is substantiated by figures that
we are going to introduce.
The union asked the manufacturers to submit certain data, including, among
other things, the net sales of its members and the number of pairs of shoes shipped
in each of four periods— June 1, 1923, to December 31, 1924; and January 1,
1925, to May 31, 1925. Sixteen concerns supplied the information as to the
value of their sales, and 15 of these 16 also stated the number of pairs sold. In
other words, our conclusions are based on data covering about 50 per cent of the
members of the association, which is a thoroughly adequate sample. The
identity of the firms which responded to the request of the union is not known
to us, except that they include six M cK ay, eight turn, and two welt and turn
factories. Below we present the figures transcribed from the original question
naires, which we will gladly submit upon request.
Sales of association members, June 1, 1923, to M a y 81, 1925
June 1 to Dec. 31,1923 Jan. 1 to May 31,1924 June 1 to Dec. 31,1924 Jan. 1 to May 31,1925
Questionnaire
No.
Amount
13__.....................
10_____ _______
7______ ____ _
6______________
5______________
9______________
4______________
2______________
15_____________
12____ ________
1______________
3 ._____ _______
8______________
11. ............. ........
14_____________
16____ ____ _
Total

$98, 582
198, 294
89, 713
75,095
213, 830
145,404
312, 589
302, 502
132, 667
233, 522
386, 246
72,191
486, 348
326, 847
279, 564
71, 349
3,424, 743

Pairs

Amount
$133,021
184, 583
161, 455
34, 681
224, 799
172, 935
161,048
341, 689
55, 891
171, 209
331,443
48,080
572,523
362, 678
378,472
84,870

56, 626
32, 347
104, 806
14,972
46, 683
85,904
36,108
282,900
72, 569
94,860
17,100

3,419,377

1,030,399

48,163
53, 526
32, 724
14, 355
38,~952_
59, 599
92, 296
36, 970
64,166
102, 228
51,048
240, 660
86, 785
79, 680
17, 623
1,018, 775

Pairs
86,389
46, 825
45, 360
6, 890

Amount
$139,196
160,085
318,154 !
13, 878
297, 035
196, 720
174, 280
380,122
160, 202
146,179
194,042
55, 383
499, 614
242, 281
356, 607
72,133
3, 205,911

Pairs
62, 111
47,650
43, 276
3,453
75, 554
32, 250
120, 529
46, 848
46,124
55, 708
42, 264
250, 700
70, 666
93,480
17,859
1,008,472

Amount

Pairs

$119, 320
57, 852
240, 524
65,029
111, 041
38, 968
2,451
9, 321
235,104
150, 804 ” "60,'369
26, 762
138, 584
400, 564
126, 204
142, 529
45, 622
253, 323
74,970
151, 227
39,367
52. 232
43,668
364, 412
170,420
211, 774
52, 590
285, 806
82,440
54, 553
12, 865
2,921,118

899, 577

Let us analyze the above table. Very little need be said, because the figures
speak for themselves.
The wage reduction went into effect about June 1, 1924. The figures, therefore,
cover one year at the old rate of wages and one at the reduced rate. Each year
is divided into two periods.
The total sales of the 16 firms from June 1, 1923, to December 31, 1923,
amounted to $3,424,743. For the corresponding period in 1924, after the wage
reduction, sales of these same firms amounted to $3,205,911, a falling off of 6.4
per cent. Expressed in numbers of pairs, there was a drop of only 1 per cent—
from 1,018,775 to 1,008,472.6 This indicates that the shrinkage in value of
sales during this period is accounted for to the extent of about 85 per cent by a
decline in shoe prices or by a run of cheaper shoes, and to the extent of about
15 per cent by an actual falling off in physical production.
Total sales from January 1, 1924, to M ay 31, 1924— prior to the wage reduc
tion— amounted to $3,419,377, while for the corresponding months in 1925—
after the cut— they amounted to only $2,921,118, a shrinkage of 14.6 per cent.
The decline in the number of pairs sold was from 1,030,399 to 899,577, which is
J*Only 15 firms reported sales in pairs,

.24011°— 29—

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL

equal to 12.7 per cent. W e may conclude that in this period the drop in sales
is explained to the extent of only 15 per cent by any decline in shoe prices or by
a cheaper run of shoes, and to the extent of 85 per cent by an actual falling off
in volume of shoes run through the factories.
Considering the entire 12 months prior to the wage reduction, and the entire
12 months subsequent thereto, we find that sales fell off 10.5 per cent, or from
$6,844,120 to $6,127,029, while the number of pairs shipped fell off 6.9 per cent,
or from 2,049,174 pairs between June 1, 1923, and May 31, 1924, to 1,908,049
between June 1, 1924, and May 31, 1925. ' This total falling off in sales of 10.5
per cent for the year after the wage cut as compared with the year before, is
accounted for to the extent of approximately 35 per cent by lower shoe prices or
by a cheaper run of shoes, and to the extent of approximately 65 per cent by an
actual falling off in the physical volume of shoes produced.
There can be no denying the fact that in spite of lower prices Haverhill manu
facturers on the whole got less business during the year following the reduction—
which had been ordered by the board for the sole purpose of stimulating business—
than they had had during the preceding year when higher piece rates and weekly
wages prevailed. Obviously, earnings of Haverhill shoe workers must have
been greatly reduced, for they had a smaller number of pairs to work on and
they were paid lower rates for what thej^ did.
Wag e-reduction facts.— How can anyone escape the conclusion that last year’s
wage reduction failed utterly to bring about the result the board expected, as
shown in its decision already quoted? The board hoped to bring more orders to
the manufacturers and more work to their employees. W hat happened was just
the reverse— less orders and less work. In the light of these facts alone, quite
aside from the many other considerations, the request for a further reduction
on the part of the association is entirely unwarranted. The board’s pronounce
ment of last M ay actually rules it out of order, and the board, in the capacity of
judge, ought to dismiss the plea on this ground, without even assuming ihe
function of jury and weighing the other evidence.
But, Mr. Chairman, we have further evidence that the 1924 cut did not help
things. In the early part of 1925 the manufacturers’ association, seeing their
business still declining, took another tack. A wage cut had been tried and had
failed. What else could it be? Not the manufacturers. That was too painful a
thought. Not the general condition of the industry. N o; it must be the same old
trouble, the shoe workers. And what was the trouble in 1925 with the shoe
workers? Conditions, that was it. The manufacturers had given the wTorkers,
in exchange for six important concessions, two conditions that can be found in
any peace pact or trade agreement you wish to examine. They had given the
division of work and the right of review in cases of discharge. So the manufac
turer asked that these two things, the only things the workers got from the agree
ment, be withdrawn. They wanted the abolition of the division of work clause
and the freedom of discharge without review for bad work. I know of no industry
where arbitration has been set up in which these two provisions are not accepted
without question. I do not believe there is such an industry and I do not see
how an arbitration system can work without them, for they are the only things
the workers get out of peace pacts and arbitration agreements. To take them
away would mean simply that the workers had given up every single right they
ever had and the manufacturers had gained exactly 100 per cent by the agreement.
These proposals wore defeated by referendum so that they can not be counted as
further loss. But the mere suggestion that these two rights be withdrawn shows,
first, that the wage cut had not done what the manufacturers promised and,
second, that the manufacturers’ association was willing and anxious to get every
thing out of the pact and leave nothing for the workers.
In the fall of 1925 conditions were little better and the manufacturers came
again asking for another cut of 25 per cent. The same old arguments were used,
but the chairman was evidently convinced that lower rates would not bring
business and no general cut was made.
Then came 1926, the best year the shoe industry had had since 1922. Business
was good, flourishing. In August nearly 40,000 cases of shoes were shipped and
in September nearly 49,000. It was a good year. There was no competition.
Even the manufacturers said that competition did not worry them.
W e thought then that it was the time to get back some part of our losses. As
we had been cut 25 per cent in the bad year of 1924 surely we could get back at
least 12 per cent in the good year of 1926. W e came to this board and showed
what a good year 1926 had been. W e asked that we get at least something out
of this peace pact. It was time. For all we had given up since 1923 we had

H A V E R H IL L SH O E B O A R D A C T IV IT IE S

received not one single thing in return. The mutual agreement was working
practically 100 per cent for the manufacturers and practically nothing for us.
Three years of it, and nothing— surely it was time that something came our way.
W e went to the board and what did we get? Mr. Chairman, we got nothing.
There were adjustments, some up and some down, but no one, not even the chair
man who made the adjustments, can show that we got anything in 1926, the best
year in the industry since 1922.
Now this is 1927, Mr. Chairman. In June business had fallen off as it fell off
all over the country last summer. But by August and September the shoe busi
ness in Haverhill was back not only up to 1926 but beyond it. In August and
September, 1926, 88,425 cases of shoes were shipped out of Haverhill. In
August and September, 1927, 88,439 cases were shipped, or just 14 cases more for
those two months this year than for last. And in the face of that the manufac
turers’ association is back here in November asking again to reduce our rates by
25 to 35 per cent.
Though we gave up six important rights, though we accepted a large general
reduction, though we were given nothing when we asked for a crumb of the
prosperity of 1926, and though we find business to-day has recovered from its
summer slump and is better than last year for the two peak months of the fall,
though we have given all this and practically nothing has been given us in return,
we are to-day asked, Mr. Chairman, to accept a further cut. W e ask you, we
ask the manufacturers’ association, we ask the citizens of Haverhill, is this fair,
is it reasonable, is it 50 -5 0 or anything like it? And if it is not, if, as we assert
and have shown, we have got practically nothing and have given practically
everything under this agreement, do you or does anyone else believe that it can
last? W e are not making threats, Mr. Chairman.
W e are stating the facts.
No agreement can last that is all or nearly all one way and nothing or nearly
nothing the other. This so far has been that sort of an agreement. And should
this agreement break down, we shall be back where we were in 1923, back to
chaos and trouble, and the manufacturers, the workers, the shoe industry, and
the city of Haverhill will suffer. The manufacturers’ association has had four
years of a peace pact that has been all or nearly all their way. They have for
gotten, perhaps, the conditions that existed before it. Let us remind them,
before their headstrong course destroys the thing that saved them. This pact
expires next year. It is supposed to be a pact for mutual benefit. Our share is
yet to come and we ask it now at your hands in an increase of wages.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we wish to draw your attention to a statement we
made on page 28 of this brief [p. 54 of this bulletin]. It is a very important
statement and one that when thoroughly understood will change entirely the
accepted ideas as to the real trouble with the Haverhill shoe industry. W e said
that the real trouble in Haverhill is not outside competition but competition
among the Haverhill firms themselves. This is true. When a Haverhill firm
fails it is because some other Haverhill firm has taken business away from it. It
is commonly said that there are no prices on Haverhill shoes, that buyers shop
around, hunt bargains and get them, and that a cut throat competition is carried
on within the city itself that sooner or later ruins some firms and hurts all.
This is the real secret of the trouble in the shoe industry of this city. Outside
competition as we have shown means nothing. Inside competition means every
thing. The manufacturers are barking up the wrong tree and we suspect they
know it. When they stop cutting each others’ throats there will be no more talk
of bad business in Haverhill. But so long as they continue under selling each
other at any cost they will have failures and removals.
In this wage arbitration this is a very important fact, perhaps the most im
portant of them all, because wage rates under this agreement have not the
slightest effect on this inside competition. The same rates are paid under this
agreement throughout the city. When you set rates after this hearing, Mr.
Chairman, they will apply equally to all. Whether you raise them or lower them
or leave them as they are the competitive condition in this city will remain as it
is to-day. All firms pay the same rates whatever they are and they will continue
to compete among themselves for business by a dangerous lowering of prices.
Some firms will continue to fail and others to be damaged whatever you may or
may not do. The real trouble in the Haverhill shoe industry is quite beyond
your reach or ours.
The cure lies with the manufacturers. When they stop cutting each others'
throats and present a united front on shoe prices their troubles will be over and
not before,

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL
Rebuttal of union brief

The chairman has no doubt noted that the union has taken figures from the
reports of the Massachusetts Board of Industries and linked them up with figures
of the Haverhill Chamber of Commerce to show that Haverhill is in a flourish
ing condition, that Haverhill manufacturers are prosperous and happy. It is
unfortunate that these conditions do not prevail.
W e wonder, after carefully perusing Mr. Ware’s maze of figures, if former
employees of F. B. Heath, who failed; former employees of B. E. Cole Co., who
liquidated; former employees of Kesslen Shoe Co., who moved; former employees
of Moss-Seamans, now in Newburyport; former employees of Triangle Shoe Co.,
who liquidated; former employees of the David Shoe Co., who failed; and present
employees of the Ornsteen Shoe Co., whose mail-order shoes are to be made in
Marlboro, are quite as sure as Mr. Ware that business in Haverhill is increasing
by leaps and bounds.
Will this asinine bit of information of Mr. Ware’s convince the many Haverhill
union members whose homes and families are here but who are compelled to go
to Lawrence, Lowell, Kennebunk, Farmington, Dover, Newburyport, Amesbury,
and Wakefield to work at rates much under Haverhill prices, that business is
good and that jobs are plentiful in Haverhill?
When the city’s pay rolls are decreased by 30 removals, failures, and liquida
tions, when the shoe production of Haverhill drops 13^£ per cent, and when there
are so many empty tenements, can figures prove to the merchants, professional
men, chamber of commerce, shoe workers, and to you, Mr. Chairman, that
business in Haverhill is better than a year ago?
While official figures are not available to us as to production or productive
capacity, we ask you to carefully examine Table X of the union brief and you
will wonder why the union officials did not tell Mr. Ware that such firms as
Moss-Seamans, Beaucage & Morris, Triangle Shoe Co., Kesslen Shoe Co.,
David Shoe Co., Anna-Belle Shoe Co., J. Berkovitch, L. Callaghan & Co.,
Colbuck Shoe Co., Jaffarian Bros., A1 Knox Shoe Co., Lynway Shoe Co., Paris
Shoe Co., Zubick Shoe Co., Thurston & Kelso, Silsby Shoe Co., and Becker
Bros., either liquidated, removed or failed, so that he might include them in
his list. If he had been given the correct data, Tables X I and X I I would have
been more authentic.
W e are offering Tables I, II, and III correcting Tables X , X I , and X I I .
The union compilation shows a net gain in productive capacity of 7,065 pairs,
which they believe should convince the chairman that the Haverhill shoe busi
ness is in a “ healthy and expanding condition.”
If the tables had been conscientiously compiled, the result would have shown
a net loss of 11,245 pairs, or a difference of 18,310 pairs.
W e would ask that the chairman draw his own conclusions of the union’ s
statement from the above.
Statistical figures.— W e refer you to Tables V I and V II, and also to page 25 of
the union brief [p. 54 of this bulletin]. Figures do not lie, but the deduction
made by the union from their tables are surely misleading. For instance, they
say that in value of product Newburyport gained $1,280,103, while Haverhill
gained $3,461,303.
Mr. Ware tells you that Haverhill’s gain is 12 per cent, but
he does not tell you that Newburyport’s gain is 21 per cent. The union tables
also show that in making this 12 per cent increase Haverhill increased the average
number of workers by 307, while Newburyport to make the 21 per cent increase,
increased the average number of workers by 514. If Mr. W are’s figures prove
anything, something is rotten in Denmark. W e would ask you to consider all
the union figures on a percentage basis.
Earnings.— The union used for earning comparison Lynn, Brockton, Salem, and
Massachusetts State statistics. They contend that the reason for this is that
Haverhill shoe workers “ have to pay Massachusetts prices for food, clothing,
and rent.”
If the shoe buyers were restricted to buying Massachusetts’ output
then the union’s contention would have been well taken, but unfortunately, they
are privileged to buy shoes in Maine, New Hampshire, or anywhere else in the
country.
The facts are that Haverhill does not compete with Brockton at all, very
little with Lynn, and as the output of w om ens shoes in Salem is but 4,300 pairs

H AVERHILL SHOE BOARD ACTIVITIES

per day, very little competition is met there.7 Haverhill’s keenest competition
is from Maine, New Hampshire, and other cities and towns in Massachusetts.
It would be interesting to know, although the data is not available, the aver
age weekly earnings of shoe workers in Auburn, Skowhegan, Springvale, Biddeford, Kennebunk, Augusta, Hallowell, Gardner, Belfast, Richmond, Calais, and
Norway, M e .; Manchester, Derry, Dover, Farmington, Claremont, Epping,
Raymond, North wood, Exeter, Hampstead, and Keene, N. H .; Lowell, Marlboro,
Salisbury, Lawrence, Newburyport, Wakefield, North Reading, Chelsea, Marble
head, North Adams, and South Braintree, Mass.
The chairman should realize when considering the average earnings of Haver
hill, that the enforcement of the equal division of work rule tends to reduce the
earnings of all employees. This is a handicap which no other shoe town has
to contend with, and if crews could be reduced to actual requirements of the
factories, earnings would be increased greatly, and the possible earnings under
the present Haverhill wage rates would be much in excess of present weekly
pay rolls.
Mr. Ware has used 1926 figures in Tables V I and V II. He has used in his
brief many quotations taken from Mr. Bernheim’s presentation of 1926. W e
admit now and admitted last year that the 1926 production increased over
1924 and 1925 due to the wage reduction of 1924.
The association told this board last year that after the 1924 reduction it took
the manufacturers a long time to turn about and regain customers who were lost
on account of the prohibitive wage bills of 1922 and 1923.
Mr. Bernheim, in his rebuttal of 1926, admitted that shoe workers had received
more income, and that more shoes had been made in Haverhill in 1926 than in
1924 and 1925 and inferred that the 1924 reduction had justified itself.
This is another year; 1927 has showm so far a falling off of 13J4 per cent, caused
in part by removals, failures, and liquidations, and we urge this board to consider
carefully the city and help put the shoe industry on a basis that will prevent more
failures and contemplated removals.
The union has seen fit to offer a veiled threat in regard to the continuance of
the peace pact. This should in no way be considered nor should it influence this
board in its findings.
T

able

I .— Shoe factories moved, failed, or liquidated since January 1, 1927
[American Shoemaking Directory used for authority]

Firm

Capacity
per day

Firm

Pairs
Alma Shoe C o .......................... ..............
Anna-Belle Shoe Co__________________
Beau cage & Morris__________________
Becker Bros__________________________
J. Berkovitch____ ____ ___ ____ _____
Bloomfield Shoe Co__________________
Brenner & Brody. _________ _________
L. Callaghan & Co_______ ___________
Colbuck Shoe Co____________________
B. E. Cole Co__________ _______ _____
Dole & Waldron
Emery-Dana & Tucker______________
Garbelnick Shoe Co................................
F. B. Heath___________________ ______
Jaffarian Bros
Kesslen Shoe Co............. .........................
Lynway Shoe Co____________________

200
360
250
« 1,000
360
720
1,000
900
540
1, 800
720
540
1,000
2,500
450
1, 500
700

Moss-Seamans Co___ ________________
Langlois_______ ______
____ _______
Nox-All Shoe Co_____________________
Paris Shoe Co______ ________________
Silsby Shoe Co_________ _____________
E. L. Thomas_______________ _____
Thurston & Kelso_________________
Triangle Shoe Co___ _________ ______
Zubick Shoe Co _____ _________
__
David Shoe Co_______________________

Capacity
per day
Pairs
1,500
i 180
1,800
540
700
1,000
500
1,000
900
1,600
24,260

Hartman Shoe Co. (estimated reduc
tion)_____________________ ______ _
Loss in capacity_______ _______

1,800
26,060

° No reference in American Shoemaking Directory, so we have used figures in Table X I (p. 56), union
brief.
7 American Shoemaking Directory.

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL
T

able

I I . — New factories since January 1, 1927
[Union brief used as authority]

Firm

Capacity
per day

Firm

Pairs

Pairs
200 Vogue Shoe Co. (not reported).
Widder______________________________
500
Wise & Nesson
_ _ ______ _____
300
Wright & Snider
___ ____________
720
300 W . Verrette (not reported).
200 Z. H _________________________________
360 I Z. K _________________________________
300
Total__________________________
700
Not reported (estimated). . . . . . 360
___
Hillson _
H V
300
Increase in capacity____________
180
___ _ _ _
Iona___ ________
500
Katzman- Rosengard _ _ ___
Pairs
180
Lazzaro & M arin o____
200
Mayfair __
_
___ __ ' ___
360 Franzblau out of business_____
Touraine succeeded Becker
200
Novels__________ _ _ _ _ _ _____
252
Shoe... __
. . . . __ ____ _ 1,200
_ _ _
____
Oak__________ _
144 Widder moved to Skowhegan,
Radio.
_______
____
_ _
M e___________
___________
720
_______
______
360
Robinson __ __
Wise & Nesson succeeded I.
Richard Roche.__
_____
258
E W Tilton
Wise
540
180
1,200
Touraine Shoe C o . ___
_____ _ _.
L. Tribeman_____ __
____ _ _
700

Alma Shoe C o _________ _____ ______
Barr & Bloomfield
John B uckley_____________ _____
Brenner & Bloomfield _
___
_
...
Cote____________
Franzblau Bros. Shoe Co
___
Goudreault
Fred Haley
Haverbach.

able

720
540
360
100
100
10, 574
600
11,174

2, 660
8,514

I I I .— Shoe factories which have increased capacity per day since January
1, 1927
Firm

Model Shoe Co______ _____ _________
Modern Shoe Co________
______ __
Ayer & Williams ___ . . . ____ ____ _
Harrysons _
__ _______ _________
Milchen
Rickard No. 1 (not reported).
D. E_
.
________________________
R V Murphy
Kimel Shoe Co___ _
______
_____
Gerber Shoe Co _________________
_

Increase
Pairs
1,440
540
540
720
875
360
360
216
360

Firm

Increase
Pairs

Clinton._ _ _____________________
J. M . Harian _
___
Bourque._________________________
David____ ________________________

540
180
180
360

Increase in capacity____________
David fa ile d .._____ __ ___________

6,671
360
6, 311

Net loss, Haverhill shoe capacity, since January 1, 1927
Pairs per day

8 ,5 1 4
6 ,3 11

New factories.
Expansions__

Factories closed_______________________________________________

14, 825
26, 060

Net loss________________________________________________

11 ,245

Union rebuttal
After careful search the union is able to find only two arguments in the manu
facturers’ brief that need any rebuttal. The manufacturers give a list of 30 firms
as having failed or removed from Haverhill. They say nothing about their output
and nothing about new firms coming in.
The list therefore proves nothing about
the condition of the industry in this city.
Of the firms named, J. Berkovich has started up again. Colbuck Shoe Co.
was formerly Becker and as Becker is listed it means that two names have removed
but only one firm. This firm has again changed its name to Touraine so that
instead of two removals we have one firm under three names.
A1 Knox Shoe Co. is still in Haverhill

H A V E R H IL L SHOE B O A R D A C T IV IT IE S

Kessien Shoe Co. has come back to the city and now has more floor space.
Lynway Shoe Co. failed in 1926 and not in 1927.
Paris Shoe Co. is still here.
Thurston & Kelso is in the 1927 shoe directory.
Moses Brown was a contract-making room.
Louis Shapiro was Shapiro & Wise. Shapiro got out and Nesson took his place.
The firm is still here as Wise & Nesson.
The Alma Shoe Co. changed to the Alma Wright and is now Wright & Snider.
The other argument in the manufacturers’ brief is based on a comparison of
“ average hourly earnings” for the United States, New Hampshire, Maine,
Massachusetts, compared with “ the possible earnings of a cutter, a skiver, etc.”
in Haverhill for five consecutive weeks.
This comparison, Mr. Chairman, is so ridiculous that it is a positive insult to
us and to you for the manufacturers to offer it.
The “ average hourly earnings” are not actual earnings but are computed by
the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and can not be compared with actual
earnings under any circumstances. When they are further computed into weekly
earnings the comparison becomes ridiculous.
Beside this the manufacturers have taken not the shoe making States like
New York, Pennsylvania, and Missouri, but New Hampshire and Maine, which
are noted for their scenery. The manufacturers make no claim that they com
pete with these States. They might just as well have used Mexico or Timbuctoo.
Finally, these computed earnings are compared with “ the possible earnings of
a cutter, a skiver, etc., for five consecutive weeks” in Haverhill.
W hat do the manufacturers mean? Do they mean that “ a cutter” has made
these figures or that he could make them? The brief does not say. If they mean
that these earnings have been made will they tell us:
1. Who was this cutter, this skiver, etc.? Was he a specially fast man who
was fed work for the very purpose of making high earnings? If not, who was he
and how did he get that way? W e would like to know\
You are not asked, Mr. Chairman, to set rates for “ a cutter, a skiver, a lining
maker, e tc .”
You are asked to set rates for cutters, skivers, lining makers.
If their rates and earnings were high the manufacturers would have brought
them. Instead they pick out some individual to prove what one man can do
when the manufacturers want to see him do it.
2. W as overtime worked and was it paid at time and one-half or double time?
The brief does not say.
3. What are these weeks? Are they the same weeks for all operations or are
they picked weeks taken at one time for one operation and at another for another
operation?
4. Are they from the same factories?
The whole comparison is wrong, Mr. Chairman. The figures of “ hourly
earnings” computed into weekly earnings can not be compared with the actual
earnings of “ a cutter, etc.,” in five peak weeks. If the manufacturers would
compute Haverhill average hourly earnings as the United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics does the average hourly earnings of the country as a whole they
would be entitled to their comparison though it would be a bad one. But when
they take one method for the United States figures and another method for
Haverhill figures, they have no case at all.
Surrebuttal of union brief
In final surrebuttal of the union brief, we want to call your attention to the
statement on page 51 (p. 63 of this bulletin), where the union says, What did
we get in 1926? Nothing.
We refer now to about 14 shoes submitted to the board by the union, comparing
figures of Haverhill and Lynn. Based on Mrs. Rooney’s own figures, the union
must have benefited, as wdien she figured the uppers in 1926 and 1927 she found
that on stitching alone the last decision gave an increase of from 1.7 to 28 per
cent.
(Table X , p. 68.)
From your records Mr. Chairman, you can find that edgemakers and M cKay
side lasters and niggerhead operators were granted a substantial increase on
bases and extras. From these figures we ask you to draw your own conclusions
as to their statement.
Average weekly earnings of Haverhill.— In June of 1924 the board handed down
a decision reducing piece prices approximately 17 per cent,

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL

This reduction allowed the manufacturers to go out and sell shoes and not
withstanding this reduction the average earnings increased from the last six
months of 1924 about 2 per cent.
The year 1925 showed an increase in earnings over the 1924 period before the
reduction of 1.4 per cent and the year 1926 showed a 6.6 per cent increase over
the 1924 period before the reduction.
In December, 1926, the board granted an increase in wages which had the
effect of reducing average earnings, the first nine months of 1927 showing a
decrease over the same nine months of 1926 of 2.5 per cent.
In contrast to the above, Massachusetts’ average earnings increased over this
period 1.6 per cent. Haverhill's 1927 period now shows 6.7 per cent more than
Massachusetts as a whole.
Since the increase granted by the board in December, 1926, Haverhill’s output
has shown a decrease in average daily production of 19 per cent over the corre
sponding period of 1926 (shoe board figures), while the country as a whole shows
an increased monthly output in 1927 of 3.8 per cent over the same period of 1926.
In a comparison of the same two periods, the surrounding district shows a
slight gain.
In conclusion, the union has stated that the pay rolls were selected by the
association, that the manufacturers had been forewarned and had “ set the
stage” for big earnings. W e offer the affidavit of Mr. Louis Kremer, C. P. A .,
which speaks for itself.
Regarding the return of the Kesslen Shoe Co. to Haverhill, as claimed in union
rebuttal, we present affidavit of Mr. Harry Kesslen, which also is self-explanatory*
T

able

Shoe
»**■
Lynn No. 2..................
Lynn No. 3...... .......... .
Lynn No. 4__________
E. & W . No. 4_______
E. & W . No. 10_____
E. & W . No. 5_______
E. & W ______________

Haverhill fitting figures for shoes, submitted to shoe board

1926

1927

3. 372
1.49
5. 97
2. 69
2.05
1.002
1.43

3. 523
1.82
6.092
2. 78
2.11
1.28
1.539

Per cent
increase
4.5
22.1
2.0
3.3
2.9
28.0
7.6

Shoe

E. & W . No. 2 ......... .
No. 8 Mark CH ...........
E. & W . No. 11______
Lynn No. 14................
E. & W . No. 6 ...........
E. & W . No. 1___........

1926

1.62
2. 4L
3.23
2. 80
1.43
3.59

1927

Per cent
increase

1.648
2. 59
3. 355
2. 884
1. 539
3. 72

1.7
4.4
3.8
3.0
7.6
3.6

Conditions in May, 1927, by Chairman of Shoe Board
R. EDWIN NEW DICK, after more than three years’ service
and experience as chairman and neutral member of the
Haverhill Shoe Board, in close touch with conditions in the
shoe industry in the city, and having an unusual* opportunity to
study the industry, issued a statement expressing his opinion as to
conditions. The statement was addressed to the Shoe Workers’
Protective Union and the Haverhill Shoe Manufacturers’ Associa
tion, published in the Haverhill Gazette, and is presented herein.
The union officials, claiming that the statement disqualified Mr.
Newdick from further service as the neutral member of the board,
appealed to the superior court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
for his removal from the board. The appeal was granted. See
“ Findings, Rulings, and Order for Decree” by court, following the
statement of the chairman of the shoe board.

Shoe Workers’ Protective Union.
Haverhill Shoe Manufacturers’ Association.
Greetings: The Haverhill shoe industry is in a critical situation. There
have been failures, liquidations and removals within the past few months and
further reductions of productive capacity are likely. No halfway measures will,
in my opinion save the situation nor do I see any ground for hope that the near
future will be much better than the recent past.

CO N D ITIO N S IN M A Y ,

1927

Haverhill’s output of shoes during the season now has fallen off from a year
ago. The production of women’s shoes in the United States as a whole was
slightly larger than a year ago. Our loss of business was not sufficient alone to
have created the present crisis; but coupled with the smaller production have
been higher costs of materials, complex patterns requiring more labor, greater
demands for quality on the part of buyers and, in spite of all this, substantially
lower prices paid by buyers to manufacturers. The inevitable result has been
seriously unprofitable business for the manufacturer.
This severe price situation will almost certainly continue. The retail distri
bution of women’s shoes is passing into stronger hands. The buyer, not the
manufacturer, makes the price. While there exists an enormous surplus pro
ducing capacity, this situation is bound to continue.
The low-cost producers are going to get the business and maintain sound finan
cial conditions. They will be able to operate fairly steadily and with greater
efficiency than can possibly be attained with recurrent long periods of slack
work such as characterize Haverhill.
I see no likelihood whatever that Haverhill shoe workers will be able to retain
their present wage rates. I agree that present wage rates are none too high to
give a good yearly wage. Nevertheless economic factors are certainly going
to control the outcome. Irrespective of any arbitrator or any existing union,
the wage rates in Haverhill will, I fear, be drastically reduced during the next
few years, and probably quite soon. Shoe workers must have work and very
little work will be available in Haverhill until labor costs are much lower.
A stitching room job in Haverhill is not considered good by the more skilled
women unless full time will yield $40 a week or better. The men on the more
skilled operations in other departments of the factories do not consider a job
good unless full time will yield $60 a week or better. I am convinced that such
earnings will not long be possible. I believe the time is not far distant when
women in the shoe industry will be thankful for $25 jobs, and men for $45 jobs.
The present working agreement and the union practices under it, subject the
manufacturer to numerous hampering and restricting requirements which reduce
efficiency and seriously increase labor costs. The immediate removal of these
restrictive practices is required to prevent the fall in wage rates and earnings
from being more severe than it need be. The longer these restrictions on effi
ciency are in effect, the worse off will the Haverhill industry and the Haverhill
shoe workers be in the end.
So far as I can see the union is absolutely powerless to prevent the develop
ments which I foresee. Worse than that, the union will quite likely be unable
to maintain its existence. Unless the union bends it will break. I fear the
latter will happen. There is no dominating group in the union prepared to
face unpleasant facts. Intolerance and obstruction are met by anyone who
undertakes to go contrary to the active few and their activity is largely promoting
discontent and encouraging unreasonable demands. The structure of the union
makes it in fact very much nearer seven unions with one name than one union
with any common purpose, policy, or leadership. There is so much autonomy
and independence of the several locals that general officers, however wise and
courageous, can not possibly lead or control the organization.
The idea of peaceful settlement of industrial disputes is good but it can not
possibly be successful under the existing agreement in the Haverhill industry
with conditions as they are and with the union as it is. The enormous diffi
culties of the situation could be met only by making the arbitrator’s work largely
administrative. The arbitrator should be an economist and engineer and he
should be free to find out all that he needs to know and to do those things neces
sary for the improvement of the industry and for securing as large annual earnings
for shoe workers as are consistent with competitive conditions and a profit to
the manufacturer.
Instead of giving the arbitrator such powers and functions, what have we?
We have an agreement so filled with limitations and technicalities that the
arbitrator is restricted at almost every turn. W e have woeful waste and ineffi
ciency in manufacturing because of slack and irregular production and lack of
financial resources on the part of the manufacturer. W e have obstruction and
unreasonableness on the part of the dominating groups in the several locals.
Result: Much time, effort, and expense wasted in patching up industrial back
yard squabbles while the big, important work for fundamental improvement
goes undone.
Every attempt or recommendation which I have made in the direction of
constructive work in the industry has met with opposition. The expense in

CO N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

volved has often been pleaded as the reason against the undertaking.
Mean
while, nearly 10 cents per week has been paid by every manufacturer under
the agreement for each operative he employed, and every member of the union
has paid the union 25 cents per week in dues; thus about 35 cents per week per
operative has gone to the two organizations. The expenses of the shoe board
have amounted to about 3 cents per operative per week. I do not see that there
is ever likely to be any adequate income available for constructive work while
some half dozen paid employees of each organization are kept busy watching
and checking each other.
It is in my judgment useless to recommend partial measures in the present
situation. The thing which should be done, as I see it, is immediate negotiation
for the abrogation of the existing agreement. This done, the next step should
be a choice by the union and by the association as to whether an arbitration
agreement is to be made constituting the chairman of the shoe board in a real
sense an administrative officer. Such an agreement should provide only that
there will be no strikes or lockouts and that all parties will abide by decisions of
the arbitrator. The agreement should contain nothing else.
The situation seems to me sufficiently serious to warrant immediate suspension
of consideration of all pending cases. The union and association should immedi
ately endeavor to formulate policies and appoint delegates empowered to deal
with the situation. No hearings will be held by the shoe board until further
notice.
I do not personally desire to serve through another general wage revision with
out such complete change in the agreement as will convince me that by remaining
I shall have reasonable opportunity^ to accomplish a genuine and substantial
improvement of the industry.
(Signed)
E d w i n N e w d i c k , Chairman.
John D. Nolan vs. Edivin Newdick et al.— Findings, ridings, and order for decree
The following facts are agreed:
On December 13, 1925, a working agreement known as the “ peace pact”
was executed between the Shoe Workers’ Union of Haverhill and the Haverhill
Shoe Manufacturers’ Association, a copy of which is annexed to the bill of com
plaint. The purposes of this agreement are in the main to prevent strikes and
lockouts, fix working hours, and to provide a board of arbitration for the settle
ment of industrial questions arising between the parties. The agreement is to
remain in force at least until December 31, 1928, and if neither party desires to
amend, alter, or annul it, it is to remain in force until December 31, 1930. A
similar agreement had been in effect between the parties for about two years
prior to this agreement.
On December 26, 1925, the defendant, Edwin Newdick, w^ho was appointed
neutral arbitrator and chairman of the board of arbitration under the earlier
agreement at a salary of $10,000 a year, was reappointed to the same position
at the same salary under the present agreement. Under the earlier agreement
the board of arbitration decided about 500 references and under the present
agreement about 900 cases were decided prior to M ay 20, 1927.
On M ay 20, 1927, the defendant, Newdick, sent the communication incorpo
rated in paragraph 5 of the bill of complaint to the parties to the agreement and
to the newspapers in Haverhill, where it was published.
On the same day he
left Haverhill and went to New York to attend an exposition of the Shoe M anu
facturers’ Association of Greater New Yrork, leaving no information as to when
he would return. He returned to Haverhill late in the day M ay 26.
On Monday, M ay 23, the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union caused to be de
livered to the secretary of the board of arbitration a reference asking for the
reinstatement of an employee who had been discharged and was not working.
The secretary refused to receive the reference and handed it back to the messenger,
who returned it to the union headquarters.
On M ay 27, 1927, the secretary of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union notified
the defendant, Newdick, by letter, Exhibit 5, that by reason of the communica
tion of M ay 20 and the refusal to hear the matter referred M ay 23, 1927, it had
concluded that he had vacated the office of neutral arbitrator, and requested the
surrender by him of the keys of the rooms of the Haverhill Shoe Board and
all property belonging to said board. The defendant, Newdick, has not com
plied with this request and has claimed the right to continue to act under his
appointment.

CO N D ITIO N S IN M A Y ,

1927

The Shoe Workers* Protective Union has not referred any matters to the board
of arbitration since M ay 23 and has refused to participate in the consideration of
five cases submitted by the manufacturers’ association since M ay 27. These
cases have been considered by the board in the absence of a representative of
the union. Its decisions have been recognized by the union and by the manu
facturers, but not in some cases by individual members of the union. The
manufacturers have refused to consider the position of neutral arbitrator vacant
and have continued to recognize the defendant, Newdick, as the neutral arbi
trator. The union has refused to pay its share of the salary of the defendant,
Newdick, and the expenses of the board which have accrued since M ay 27.
No question of parties or pleadings has been raised.
I find that the statement of the defendant, Newdick, of M ay 20, 1927, was a
voluntary and honest expression of his judgment of the condition of the shoe
industry in Haverhill, formed after a service of 3J^ years as neutral arbitrator,
during which time he had considered and decided about 1,400 references, involving
industrial questions affecting both employees and employers, and had studied
the shoe industry in Haverhill and other localities, for the purpose of enabling
him to make proper decision of the questions submitted to the board of arbitra
tion. I find that the aim and purpose of the defendant, Newdick, in making the
statement of M ay 20, 1927, was to give the employers and employees the benefit
of his opinion and judgment of the state of the shoe industry, its competitive
condition and future prospects, the danger of unemployment in Haverhill, and a
proposed remedy formulated as a result of his experience as neutral arbitrator
and study of the conditions of the shoe trade generally. I find that the defendant,
Newdick, has expressed by his statement of M ay 20, 1927, an opinion as to the
wTages which the shoe manufacturers can afford to pay, in advance of the hearings
on the annual revision of wages, which begin usually about the 1st of September,
and that this is one of his most important duties under the agreement. I find
that although the peace pact calls for all matters to be decided by the board of
arbitration, they were, as a matter of fact, decided by the defendant, Newdick,
alone, the other members of the board acting as representatives of the parties to
the reference.
I find that the secretary of the board in refusing to accept the reference of
M ay 23 stated that the board was not at that time holding any hearings.
I find that the defendant, Newdick, had not authorized or instructed the
secretary of the board to refuse to receive references or to state that the board
was not hearing cases.
I find, however, that she had knowledge of the contents of the statement of
M ay 20 and acted in accordance with what she believed was the wish of the
defendant, Newdick.
I find that on M ay 20 it was the intention of the defendant, Newdick, not to
consider any new references until, at least, the parties to the peace pact had taken
some action on his letter of M ay 20, and that it was his intention not to sit as
neutral arbitrator on the annual revision of the wage scale unless the parties
submitted it to him under conditions different from those contained in the peace
pact.
I find that on his return to Haverhill on M ay 26, or shortly thereafter, he
changed his intention and since that date has been willing to continue to per
form the duties of neutral arbitrator under the peace pact in its present form.
I find that one of the most important objects sought to be accomplished by
the peace pact was the immediate settlement of industrial disputes that might
arise between the parties. The reference of M ay 23, was by the terms of article
8 of the peace pact, required to be heard and decided within two secular days
of the reference.
I find that the union was justified by the statement in the letter of M ay 20
and by the refusal of the secretary to receive the reference of M ay 23 in believing
that this was no longer possible.
I find as a fact that the union in recognizing the findings of the neutral arbi
trator made subsequent to M ay 27 on matters submitted to him after that date
by the manufacturers did not intend to waive its claim that the position of
neutral arbitrator had become vacant and that the letter of M ay 20, 1927, had
disqualified the defendant, Newdick.
I rule as matter of law that the statement of the defendant, Newdick, of
M ay 20, 1927, disqualifies him as neutral arbitrator.
I rule as matter of law that the union was entitled to treat the conduct of the
defendant, Newdick, as a refusal to act further as neutral arbitrator, and having
on that assumption, by its letter of M ay 27, notified the defendant, Newdick,

C O N D ITIO N S IN SH O E IN D U S T R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

in effect that it considered the place of neutral arbitrator vacant, the defendant,
Newdick, could not thereafter change his mind and elect to continue to act as
neutral arbitrator under the agreement.
I rule as matter of law that the failure of the union to pay its share of the
defendant’ s, Newdick’s, salary and office expenses does not prevent the plaintiff
from maintaining this bill of complaint.
Let a decree be entered in accordance with the first, second, and third prayers
of the bill of complaint.
(Signed)
G e o r g e A. F l y n n ,
Justice of the Superior Court.

Conditions in 1925 to 1928, by Manufacturers and Union
Officials
ACH of the manufacturers and union officials in Haverhill who
was interviewed by representatives of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics was asked to describe in a written statement the
conditions in the shoe industry in Haverhill during the years 1925 to
1928 and to give the causes of the loss of business and the fear of con
tinued loss and depression. Statements were obtained from 17
manufacturers and 4 union officials, and, in part, are as follows:

From manufacturers
No. I. Within the last four years I have noticed steadily a reduction of the
better shoe manufacturers, both financially and in standard, because of the
uncertain labor conditions that they had to contend with. I could mention 20
real shoe manufacturers that have been in business for at least 10 years or better,
that are entirely out of business or have moved away because of the above con
ditions.
The reason is because other cities are manufacturing the same class of mer
chandise that is manufactured here; they can handle their labor in such a manner
that it gives them a real honest living and still make their shoes 25 to 35 cents a
pair cheaper than they are manufactured in Haverhill.
In going through several operations only this last week with a shoe manu
facturer not 15 miles from here, who is making the same grade of shoes, he con
vinced me that his labor cost was exactly 27 cents a pair less on a plain pattern
than ours. The same shoe constructed in a fancy pattern, in accordance with the
arbitration stitching room prices, would cost approximately 40 cents a pair more.
It can readily be seen what we have to contend with to sell our merchandise to
shoe buyers who can purchase shoes cheaper from outside factories than they can
from the Haverhill shoe manufacturer. There is really only one rebuttal in the
argument to the shoe buyer and that is the shoes manufactured in Haverhill are
of superior workmanship. W e have been selling the shoe buyer Haverhill and not
shoes, and we managed to get away with the talk of Haverhill as a selling
argument until the buyer actually woke up and found that shoes can be manu
factured outside of Haverhill for less money and just as good, if not better, in
workmanship.
There is absolutely no way of reasoning with the heads of the union. The
attitude they assume is, if you don’t like the conditions the best you can do is
to move, because the fixed conditions are here to stay.
Living conditions did not cause this city to lose its hold on the shoe business.
There is only one thing that has ruined this city, and that is its labor conditions.
Within the last three weeks seven concerns have gone broke and three other
factories have deliberately moved out of the city of Haverhill because, and only
because, of labor conditions. Of the three manufacturers that have moved out
of Haverhill, two of them were owners of homes in Haverhill.
W e had an order for one hundred 36-pair cases of shoes to a large chain store
operator, which pattern he gave us to copy. A certain manufacturer who was
making the same grade and the same pattern for this same concern was charging
them a certain price. When the writer looked at this shoe he figured that we
could make this same pattern in Haverhill in that quantity at the same price.
The system in this town is to present a shoe, when a new pattern is adopted, to
the manufacturers’ association for piece price. The union also has its representa

CO N D ITIO N S IN

1925 TO

1928

tive there. The shoe is figured and the basic price is made. The result of this
transaction was that we had to return the order because of the fact that our
stitching costs on this particular shoe was 20 cents a pair more than the stitching
price was with our competitive shoe manufacturer who was in a different city.
W e pay the same price for upper leather, sole leather, inner soles, and other mate
rials as competitive shoe manufacturers in other cities around Haverhill, and our
labor is so much higher that we can not compete with these other shoe manu
facturers. It is thus seen that Haverhill is in a precarious condition.
If I had no lease on this factory and if I was financially able to move, I wouldn’t
stay in this town one extra day longer than I had to.
No. 2. The inability to run our own factory. The manufacturer should at all
times determine whether his crews should work overtime or not. The unfair
limitations placed upon the manufacturer by the demand of equal division of
work. The continual interference of union agents. The lack of authority to
deal direct with our help. The limitations placed upon the manufacturer by the
union. The upkeep with the times regarding modern methods of shoe making
and the adoption of modern machinery. The lack of cooperation from the
union in general.
No. 3. The absence of responsible persons at the head of the union. There
has been, and is, uncertainty as to what the immediate future will bring at any
time, resulting in a hesitant policy in looking for business. The uncertainty
applies to fear of possible strike or disturbance, and is due to the fact that the
union leaders are either not big enough to enforce their orders and thereby keep
pledges made to manufacturers in regard to prices and strikes, or else the union
leaders are seeking for reasons of their own to break down industry or capital
as it is to-day.
The shoe industry, especially that part with which we are acquainted, is in a
state of change, due to a number of conditions. Materials are going up, although
they may not do so steadily; orders are hard to get, and the fact that money has
not been made in general in the industry has made a state of general uneasiness
as to what the future will bring. Other centers that do not have this union are
in a more favorable position to shift and take advantage of every change in gen
eral busines conditions. They do not have to spend the time we spend in dealing
with union agents and with arbitration boards. The petty aggravations by
union members act as an irritant all the year and prevent'manufacturers from
giving their whole-hearted attention to business.
W e feel that we have lost perhaps a thousand cases of shoes this year for which
we had done the missionary work, and which we felt reasonably sure were ours.
It is our intention not to let ourselves again be put in the position where we can
not take business due to strikes, and while recognizing the advantage of Haverh ill’s large labor supply, we intend to either remove or set up another factory
outside of this union’s influence.
No. 4. During the years 1925 to 1928 the shoe industry in Haverhill has been
one long controversy between the manufacturers and the union.
The manufacturers were trying to impress upon the union how important it
was for them to get a reduction in order to meet competition of the near-by
country factories, but without avail. They did not realize, and still do not
realize that unless quick action is taken in Haverhill by the union the rest of the
workers in Haverhill will join the ranks of the unemployed.
When customers are in a store bu}dng shoes, they do not care if the shoes come
from some city in Maine, New Hampshire, or from a shoe city like Haverhill, as
long as the shoes look as well. The country workers are at present at a point
where they can make shoes equally as well as the city workers, and even better
in quite a few instances, for city workers are very independent, whereas the
country workers are not.
A t the time that merchandise was very cheap, and factories were not so
numerous, it was possible to make our grade of shoe in Haverhill. Now that
merchandise in our line has practically doubled itself, and as country factories
grow continuously, it is an impossibility to make our grade of shoes in Haverhill.
Before the market rose we had at least the benefit of quantity buying at a
price, but now with prices high and labor so much higher than in the country
factories, it is an absolute impossibility to make our grade of shoes.
W e found that existing conditions forced us to cut our daily production onehalf. Under present conditions we will not be able to make this number of shoes,
as we can not compete with our near-by country competitors. The result will
no doubt force us to stop production completely before the year is over.

CO N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U S T R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

No. 5. There has been so much unrest and controversy between the manu
facturers and the unions here that the average man buying shoes has no con
fidence in the ability of the Haverhill manufacturers to deliver the shoes on time.
W e make rather a cheap shoe, and yet must pay the same labor cost per
operation as the fellow who makes a high-grade shoe. Operators are able to per
form a greater number of operations on our shoes in a given period of time than
on the higher grades, as the workmanship does not have to be as exacting as on the
higher grades. W e believe factories are not properly graded.
No. 6. The city of Haverhill was for many years, up to 1925, knowTn as a turnshoe center, and was engaged very extensively in the making of medium-priced
turned shoes. About that time there was a great demand for shoes to retail at
$2.95, $3.95, and $4.95— with the bulk of the sales known as $4 and $5 sellers.
The selling price as already established by the larger chain stores and mail-order
houses was a severe blow to the turn manufacturers, as they could not possibly
manufacture shoes to retail for these prices, with the result that there has devel
oped a large field for medium-priced M cK ay shoes.
Some of the manufacturers had foresight enough to give up their turn business
and alter their factories for the manufacture of M cK ay shoes. Others, wrho
could not foresee this condition, either had to give up manufacturing turn
shoes or move to the country towns wThere cheaper labor costs enabled them to
make turn shoes to retail for $5.
Haverhill was not the only city that saw this opportunity to manufacture
$4 and $5 M cK ay retailers. Other centers in New England established factories
to build shoes of this grade.
These concerns had several advantages over the Haverhill shoe manufacturers.
They were able to make shoes fully as good as those made in Haverhill and at
less money. They could obtain cheaper labor cost; they were not troubled with
strict union conditions such as exist in the city of Haverhill; they had no difficulty
whatsoever in obtaining skilled Haverhill labor, due to the fact that many Haver
hill manufacturers were obliged to close up their factories.
The above conditions caused many Haverhill shoe manufacturers either to
move from our city, to liquidate, or to fail, as it was utterly impossible for Haver
hill manufacturers to compete with these outside centers in this grade of shoes,
of which Haverhill manufacturers themselves were the pioneers.
Finally, the union and the shoe manufacturers’ association held a conference
and formed what is known as the peace pact.
Although the peace pact aided matters as far as relations between employers
and employees were concerned, it nevertheless did not tend to stimulate confi
dence in the trade, as there was always a fear that there might be a breach at
any time because of the strength of the union, and this resulted in many orders
going to competitive centers that should have come to Haverhill.
Still more orders were lost to the city of Haverhill due to the fact that within a
radius of 40 or 50 miles of Haverhill similar shoes are made at from 10 to 25
cents per pair less than shoes made in Haverhill.
Sometime during the first part of January, 1928, the neutral arbitrator, as
chairman of the shoe board under the peace pact, rendered a decision whereby
the shoe workers of Haverhill were to take a cut in wages. This the workers
turned down completely, thereby indicating that the neutral arbitrator had
authority in name only and rendering the instrument known as the peace pact
useless.
Should the existing conditions in the city of Haverhill continue, it will mean
the driving out of the medium and cheaper grade manufacturers to near-by
towns, where more peaceful and better labor conditions can be found, or their
failure in business.
No. 7. W e were not in business in 1925 and 1926. In 1927 conditions were
very poor, owing to threatened.strikes by the union. W e did have one walkout
or strike. Outside buyers have no confidence in the delivery on time of shoes
made in Haverhill, owing to the above conditions. W e can not compete with
the surrounding cities as prices are absolutely too high and the union does not
give us half a chance.
No. 8. In our opinion, the loss of business and fear of continued loss and de
pression is due entirely to local conditions. W e find that out-of-town manu
facturers are prospering, while Haverhill manufacturers are continually making
assignments.
Any manufacturer doing business in Haverhill finds himself the subject of
union agents at all times and has no control whatsoever over his life’s savings
invested in his own business. Any decisions, any pricey, any hours of labor, any

CO N D ITIO N S IN

19 2 5 TO

1928

materials to be used, are entirely subject to the approval of union agents. In
other words, a satisfactory agreement in favor of the union is all that is essential.
Should anything, however, prove in favor of the manufacturer, it then becomes
null and void, regardless of agreements that may have been entered into. How
can anyone expect to do business under such conditions?
Logic in making new prices is a very important factor.
Our out-of-town
competitors can make shoes 25 per cent cheaper, due to prices and conditions.
W e find that some of the most unskilled operators in our factory are earning
100 per cent more than others who perform operations of much more skill. There
are some operations in Haverhill that pay 60 per cent more than near-by cities,
which, of course, throws Haverhill out of line in competitive selling.
W e feel that if conditions rested between our employees and ourselves, that if
prices were given us in line with competitive shoe centers, that we could con
tinue making shoes in Haverhill. If not, the only alternative will be removal
to another city.
No. 9. It was during the year 1925 that M cK ay factories making a type of
shoe resembling turns appeared in Haverhill and made rapid strides, cutting
into the turn-shoe business and forcing some of the turn factories out of business.
Others moved out of town, establishing themselves in surrounding towns, or in
New Hampshire cities. They obtained a change and new wage schedule in
these localities. This was necessary, according to m y opinion, on account of the
price it cost to make shoes in Haverhill and on account of the excessive labor
demands.
W e feel that the loss of the shoe business in the city of Haverhill is going to
continue unless drastic and immediate action is taken to give the shoe manufac
turers relief, enabling them to compete with other shoe centers that produce
shoes at less money. I feel that the shoe industry in Haverhill with the union
at its head and they stopping every initiative taken by the manufacturers is one
very important factor of the trouble. It is a positive fact, I know of specific
cases, where shoe workers will go out of town and work with firms locating
themselves outside of Haverhill, and work for less money and longer hours, and
yet they refuse this relief to the manufacturers in their own town.
These conditions can not go on forever. We, ourselves, are able to get business
only during the rush months and we can not stay in business and pay overhead
on what we make during the two or three rush months. The only way to get
steady business is to be able to compete with the factories in surrounding cities.
Haverhill shoes mean nothing to the buyer. Outside factories make as good a
shoe as Haverhill and they get the business on account of the conditions that
prevail in their districts. Unless the conditions change very soon, the writer
seriously contemplates moving out of Haverhill.
During the years 1925 to 1928 we have continually improved conditions in our
factory. W e have installed new machinery and equipment where it was needed
and we feel that our factory is fairly well organized, enabling us to make shoes
for our needs if we can be put on the same basis as outside competitors.
No. 10. W e started in the shoe business here some six years ago, with prac
tically nothing, and have grown until we employ around 650 people, furnishing
most of them with steady work the year around. If we were to detail here our
experiences with some of the union agents and others from whom we would nat
urally expect cooperation for the benefit of all concerned, there would be one
endless repetition of selfishness. If we could count on cooperation with our added
experience we might be able to grow in the same proportion and give employment
to as many more people.
It is imperative that we look conditions squarely in the face before it is too
late. There must be cooperation on every side in order to overcome the harm
that has been done to the shoe industry of Haverhill.
In the early history of this country when an important document was being
signed one man said, “ Now, no pulling different ways.
W e must all hang
together in this m atter.” And another answered, “ Yes, or we shall all hang
separately.” This applies to the conditions here. W e must get together at
once or we lose.
W e readily admit that there is a good and bad element in both workers and
manufacturers, and as usual, the good have to suffer for the bad.
No. 11. Due to conditions which have been forced on the shoe manufacturing
industry of Haverhill by the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union, it has been impos
sible to operate a factory legitimately at any kind of profit. These conditions,
namely, high labor prices, pay and one-half for overtime work, and the equal
division of work (that is, keeping on a capacity crew when production dwindles

CO N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U S T R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

down to 25 per cent), are the main reasons for loss of business in Haverhill and
continued failures and removals.
While our base prices in some cases are not much higher than those of com
peting centers, extra after extra is added onto the different operations until our
costs are so much higher that it is impossible to merchandise the shoes in com
petition with factories of neighboring cities.
No. 12. High labor costs and dominating union rules put us out of competition
with factories making the same grade of shoes in shoe towns adjacent to Haverhill.
M any factories moved to these towns where they found more desirable labor con
dition and were able to market their shoes at less price than we were able to make
them in Haverhill. The majority of manufacturers who remained in Haverhill
were compelled, in order to meet this outside competition, to use inferior materials
and were unable to maintain the quality of their merchandise, which caused
returned merchandise and lack of duplicate business.
The conditions in this factory were of course similar to all others in Haverhill.
However, up until the fall of 1927 we were able on account of our buying power,
to purchase merchandise at prices which made it possible for us to retain our
business. The market in the fall of 1927 became a sellers’ market, and we are
now unable to go into the leather market and obtain any advantage by our large
buying power. W e feel that the only way Haverhill can continue to make shoes
profitably is by a reduction in labor costs, in prices, and more freedom in the
management of factories.
No. 13. Cities close by are taking the orders we are obliged to turn down for
the reason the labor prices are too high for us to figure shoes as the competing
factories in other cities are doing. W e feel that certain operations on the shoe
are costing too much for the labor and skill necessary to make a good shoe, while
on the other hand we would suggest an increase to other operations which are
very difficult. However, the old price list is the one we are following and until a
new one is drawn up we can not do anything but sit and try to figure shoes to
please the buyer.
No. 14. The control of the shoe industry in Haverhill by the Shoe Workers’
Protective Union during the past three years has made it impossible to compete
for business against other shoe centers where labor leadership is not so domineer
ing.
In most shoe centers it has been possible for the manufacturers to have the
cooperation of their workers, not only as regards prices, but also as to quality of
workmanship and in working hours.
Competition has been and is so keen and the margin of profit so small that in
order to do business with any possible chance of success it is absolutely necessary
that the manufacturer have the whole-hearted support of his entire working
organization, which is impossible to obtain from Haverhill shoe workers, controlled
as they are by their radical leaders.
W e find competitors of ours in Derry, Manchester, Amesbury, Seabrook, Newburyport, and other places doing profitable business at prices ranging from 25 to
30 cents per pair less than we can figure. The materials used by them in manu
facturing cost the same as ours and, in many cases, more.
The cost sheets of manufacturers in the above-named cities disclose that their
great saving is on labor, which enables them to take business which we are obliged
to turn down, as it would be plain suicide for us to even attempt to take orders
on such prices, which is the reason why these out-of-town factories do a steady
and profitable volume of business throughout the year and are successful.
These workers in factories outside Haverhill are interested in their yearly
earnings from steady weekly employment, and not in high-price weekly earnings
followed by long periods of dullness as we have in Haverhill.
We have ample proof of this from the number of Haverhill workers employed
in all these out-of-town factories who ride back and forth daily to these outside
shoe centers, putting up with many inconveniences and paying car fare from a
weekly wage at least 10 to 15 per cent under Haverhill union prices, and willingly
doing this because they know their average yearly earnings from steady weekly
employment will be much more than they can earn in Haverhill from a few weeks
or months of high-priced wages, followed by long periods of dullness.
The out-of-town manufacturer can also afford to construct with a better
quality of material on account of his saving on labor, and thus obtain a stronger
hold on business, and can meet the prices offered by the chain stores to-day.
No. 15. Competition in neighboring towns and cities, violation of the provision
in the agreements or peace pact by two strikes or walkouts causing a loss of busi
ness and forcing buyers to go elsewhere for shoes, and inability to manage our

CO N D ITIO N S IN

1925 TO

1928

factories in a saving way. W e can not handle our employees. They are domi
nated by the union. If we could control them, conditions in our factory would be
100 per cent efficient.
No. 16. The conditions in Haverhill in 1925 made it extremely difficult for the
manufacturers to meet outside competition. First, a highly organized union
forced a 45-hour week, giving an advantage to outside manufacturers who work
their employees from 48 hours in Massachusetts to 54 hours per week in New
Hampshire and Maine.
New employees immediately became members of the shop crew and entitled to
equal division of work in slack periods, resulting in overloaded crews in all depart
ments, discouraging individual incentive and depreciating the quality of the prod
uct. In January, 1926, a new peace pact became effective, with a five weeks'
probation period in hiring new workers. It was helpful but failed to correct the
evil. Foremen and supervisors were handicapped in their efforts to secure quality
of workmanship through the operation of the above rule. It denied to supervisors
the right to discharge inefficient members of the crew at a time when the produc
tion is low.
The contract stitching room in Haverhill makes competition more difficult.
Manufacturers outside of Haverhill each season send hundreds of cases of cut
uppers here, have them fitted in the contract stitching room, and then returned
to the outside factory to be made. They have not only gained the benefits of
our fancy stitching, which adds to the appearance of their lower-cost shoe, but it
enables the nonunion shoe manufacturer to get maximum production, incidentally
flooding our local contract stitching-rooms with shoes at a time of peak produc
tion, which causes shortage of stitching room labor, limiting Haverhill manu
facturers’ production to less than capacity, thus causing greater overhead cost.
This is most unfair on the part of the union in aiding outside, nonunion factories,
where lower standards of wages and in many instances longer hours of work
prevail, and it is certainty inconsistent with union principles.
In the highly competitive business of manufacturing shoes, the Haverhill
manufacturer has, by the conditions imposed upon him by the local labor trust,
been most severely handicapped in his efforts to survive. The law of supply and
demand has not been permitted to operate. That law is in operation outside of
Haverhill, and the Haverhill shoe worker has found out that when he leaves his
bench in Haverhill to go elsewhere to seek a livelihood he will sell his labor at a
price the other fellow offers him. Is it not inconsistent with union principles for
the worker to sell his labor in adjacent towns and cities at a less price than he will
sell the same to the Haverhill manufacturer?
I
will name 1 firm in Boston, 2 in Newburyport, 3 in Lowell, 1 in Salisbury, 1 in
Epping, N. H ., and 1 in Manchester that left Haverhill because of the conditions
mentioned and are now doing a successful business. [Ten firms were named.]
The list is too long to enumerate in full. As a result of these removals Haverhill’s
productive capacity suffered a great loss. In October, 1922, the daily production
was 65,000 pairs and in October, 1927, the production was 45,400 pairs. A loss
of 19,600 pairs daily, or 30 per cent. This does not take into account the losses,
from 1920 to 1922 nor the losses from 1927 up to the present time, which are con
siderable.
Mr. Edwin Newdick came here directly from the labor bureau of New York and
served as chairman of the Haverhill Shoe Board for several years. He is a wellknown student of economics, a graduate of Dartmouth College, and a man who
for many years prior to coming here gave his time to social service work. He
evidently considered it his duty to resort to the public press and give his opinion
in regard to the local situation.
(See Mr. Newdick’s statement, p. 68.)
The local union resorted to court action, claiming that Mr. Newdick was no
longer neutral because of this article which appeared in the public press. The
court sustained the union and he lost his position for daring to express the truth
as he viewed it.
Mr. Newdick was originally suggested by the union as a candidate for chair
man of the shoe board and not by the manufacturers. He was finally selected
for the position by the local citizens' committee after failure on the part of the man
ufacturers' association and the union to agree upon a candidate.
No. 17. From the year 1925 to 1928 Haverhill shoes were produced largely
under the operation of the so-called peace pact. Under this pact a board was
created consisting of one representative of the union, one for the manufacturer,
and an impartial chairman. The duties of said board were to fix and adjust
prices and settle disputes that arose from tinje to time between the subscribers
24011°— 29------- 6

CO N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U S T R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

to the pact. However, the board did not always function in this manner but
became a one-man board wherein every thing was settled by the impartial mem
ber. This became so because of the fact that cases submitted to the board by
either side, regardless of merit or demerit, were sure to carry a predetermined
judgment from both sides. On every case there was always a determination to
fight for everything and give nothing. Therefore, an impartial chairman in
rendering his decision must of necessity create dissention among those who were
to lose by that decision.
An economic situation faced the industry during this period which was keenly
appreciated by the chairman of the board and forced him with an iron hand to
gradually reduce prices of labor that had been inflated in the more prosperous
times directly following the World War. Competition had become very keen
during this period due to the advent of new concerns in the field that were ship
ping tremendous quantities of shoes to the market. The amount of shoes going
to the market was greatly in excess of the possible consumption. The old law
of supply and demand pushed the selling price of shoes far below its proper level.
This brought about three classes of manufacturers; (1) The manufacturer who
figured his manufacturing costs accurately and priced his shoes accordingly
and found himself unable to sell his merchandise; (2) the manufacturer who
struggled to meet a competition that could only spell bankruptcy; and (3) the
manufacturer who either knew nothing about costs or cared nothing about them
but sold shoes to get money for pay rolls and eventually failed, passing his losses
on to the merchandise creditor.
The first manufacturer did one of two things, either liquidated or located his
business in some place where he could obtain lower labor costs by removing
himself from the jurisdiction of the bodies that controlled the industry in Haver
hill, and thus gained some advantage in his manufacturing costs that would
perhaps enable him to compete. In some cases the manufacturer that moved
out of Haverhill was able to live and make money; in other instances he was
forced out of the running.
The third group of manufacturers became an actual menace through one of
two reasons— either an utter ignorance of figures and manufacturing problems
or a predetermined plan to embark in the enterprise with a distinct purpose in
mind to go as far as his creditors would allow him, at the same time drawing out
in form of salary all the money that he could and hiding these assets for his use
after the inevitable failure. This type of operator is in some instances still doing
business and before the industry can be righted he must be driven out of business.
He is an illegitimate operator and must be eliminated before the industry can
dig itself out of chaos.
Now with wages inflated by postwar prosperity and the many concerns liqui
dating, moving, or failing, a large number of shoe workers were thrown out of
employment. Again, the law of supply and demand steps into the picture. It
very naturally follows that the price of labor must go down. But in Haverhill we
find a unique situation. When the union was in its ascendency it built up a very
strong political machine controlled largely by individuals who for the most part
are very keen, intelligent, and who by their efforts were able to create conditions
and raise wages beyond a point where any legitimate manufacturer could operate
successfully. By the united efforts of this machine they were able to have incor
porated in the peace pact many of these conditions and put price fixing beyond
the reach of the manufacturer so that they could not be changed for a period of a
year. Thus we have a bona fide agreement between two organizations that actu
ally is in part defeating the operation, at least temporarily, of the law of supply
and demand.
During this period of high wages the average worker changed his method of
living. The house he used to live in is not good enough for him now, the food and
clothes he used to be satisfied with no longer meet his demands, and he finds him
self with an appetite created for the better things of life, but does find himself
unable to produce the money to purchase these things. By no amount of reason
ing can this situation be explained to the worker. Nobody of intelligence will
deny that the worker is entitled to these things, but a power greater than that of
all Haverhill is slowly grinding in a cold-blooded merciless way to the end that this
same law of supply and demand be met.
By no means is the worker entirely to blame for conditions in Haverhill. ^ The
manufacturers referred to above who are conducting their affairs in an illegitimate
way are tricky and unscrupulous and will stop at nothing to gain a monetary
advantage, thereby creating an atmosphere of distrust and hate that is so peculiar
to Haverhill.

C O N D ITIO N S IN

1925 TO

1928

From union officials
No. 1. It must be borne in mind that turn shoes require the best of material
obtainable if they as a product are to be salable. This is in direct contrast to the
M cK ay shoe, in which material may be and is used that can not possibly be put
in turn shoes.
Early in 1925 the turn-shoe business in Haverhill was very good, but the buying
market at about that time called for a turn shoe that would retail for $5 or less.
Manufacturers in order not to lose customers cut profits on shoes in order to meet
the demand of the buyers. The result was some manufacturers went out of busi
ness, some liquidated, some failed, and others moved out to small towns hoping to
be able to manufacture a turn shoe that would retail at $5 per pair. This trend
to a cheap shoe also caused turn-shoe manufacturers to shift to M cK ay shoes,
which they could produce at a labor cost of 25 to 50 cents per pair less than the
labor cost on the turn shoe.
The rising leather market and the low retail price of turn shoes since 1925 are
the prime factors, or reasons for the loss of business to turn-shoe manufacturers
in Haverhill. Wages for turn-shoe making in the citj^ are below some of the
other shoe centers. Other factors are the underbidding of one manufacturer
against another on prices to acquire business and the lack of capital.
No. 2. Conditions in the shoe industry in Haverhill have been and are governed
by the economic conditions of the country as a whole, not only in the shoe indus
try, but in all other industries. The law of supply and demand has operated in
Haverhill as in other centers. When there was business Haverhill manufac
turers always got their share. Overproduction in the shoe industry has caused
loss of business in Haverhill.
No. 3. In our factories in Haverhill we have many conditions that could be
changed that would place the factories in a much better position to do a pros
perous business both for operators and manufacturers but all the manufacturers
are willing to do themselves or allow the Haverhill Shoe Board to do is to give
reductions in wages.
In the stitching rooms the work on shoes can be done m any ways. There
are some ways shoes can be done to make the cost in labor on some operations
from 25 to 4(3 per cent cheaper than the way they do them. A t the same time,
on the 25 to 40 per cent saving to the manufacturers the operators would earn
more money on the cheaper price but the manufacturer sells his shoes, lets them
run along in the factory until many of them are all made, and then sends them to
the manufacturers’ association or union headquarters to have the labor cost
prices figured for the fitting room. M any times they have been fitted the highest
possible way. Then in some instances they have them refigured to try and fit
them a cheaper way, but the damage has already been done and the manufac
turers have taken the loss. The operators had to learn to do the shoes the first
way and now when the shoe is refigured they go over the same thing and learn
all over again. W e have tried many times to stop this waste of time to the
operators but without success. The manufacturers’ association insists that the
manufacturers have a right to change their method of doing their work and have
them done a different way, which of course Js true, but if the manufacturer
chooses to run his business in this slack manner then let him take the blame of
his shoes being higher than those of his competitor and not blame the union.
The union has stood enough through the loss of time and money to its members.
W e have in many of our factories supervisors who have no real knowledge of
the right way to fit shoes or how to handle help. This, I believe, is one of Haver
hill’s greatest handicaps. If the manufacturers would hire real, competent
supervisors and pay the price it would be a big saving in quality of work, money,
and production. I think this is the opinion of both union and manufacturers’
association representatives. W e have some efficient supervisors in our city and
it is a real pleasure to visit these factories and see their systems. When their
shoes come to the association or union to be priced there comes with each style
shoe a description telling just how they are to be done. This is a big saving in
time to the parties who figure the shoes. Efficient factories are far in the minority.
Conditions in our stitch rooms indicate that there is much unnecessary waste
in both money and time to both manufacturer and operator. Many of our oper
ators who work in factories and also keep homes have small children to be taken
care of while mother works. The piece help spend hours at a time in factories
that they do not have any work at all. If these operators could be told at night
not to report for work until 9 o’clock the next morning or noon whenever no work

C O N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

would be ready for them early in the morning, they could do work at home and
make their money go further toward paying bills. This again is poor supervision.
In these same factories you will not find the girls who work by the day loafing
around because it costs the firm money. In our efficiently run factories this is
not true to nearly so large an extent. They are careful not to ask the help to
report for work when the work is not ready for them.
No. 4. For one to trace the memories of the ups and downs of the shoe industry
of the city of Haverhill for the past four years requires a very large variation of
research: First, the amount of business, that is, the output for each year; second,
the help employed; third, the agreements entered into by employer and employee.
This should all be carefully balanced by the amount of business of other manu
facturers in other shoe centers making a similar grade of shoes. To do this
requires time, study, and research, which the writer, forced to earn his living by
the sweat of his brow “ when given an opportunity,” is Unable to devote at this
time. Nevertheless, wishing to comply with the request of the Government
survey board, they having asked for my personal viewpoint, I shall endeavor to
do my best to cover at least some of the ground.
After having experimented with many forms of agreements and arbitration
contracts, the union and the manufacturers’ association decided to enter into what
they termed a peace pact and hire a neutral man whom they believed qualified
to do the work, at a salary of $10,000 per year; namely, Edwin Newdick. The
above agreement was in effect in 1925. The functioning of the shoe board is so
well defined in the brief and other knowledge given the respective officials of the
Government, I need not go into that part of the question. When this agreement
was being negotiated the manufacturers came before the people in mass meetings
called by the union, requesting them to sign the agreement which changed the
work week from a five-day week to a five and one-half day week, for which they
promised the workers a 50-week a year business and they would fill their factories
with shoes. In the signing of this agreement the manufacturers received all they
requested; six months later they appeared again before the people with the state
ment that they were unable to secure orders and requested amendments to this
agreement.
When the revision of wages comes up each year, January 1, the union has in
in the past appointed committees from each local to go to the competitive centers
where the manufacturers claim competition and gather information regarding
prices and conditions. This information was submitted to the manufacturers’
association and the shoe board with a request that they check up all information
prior to any decision being made. This has been resorted to each year at an
expense of many hundreds of dollars to the union and so far has amounted to
practically nothing. When Mr. Newdick first came to town he did not wait to
check up the union’s information but handed down a 25 per cent reduction.
The workers believed this to be a grave injustice in the face of the high cost of
living. But under the impression it might bring business to the city, as promised,
they accepted the reduction with little comment but with great disappointment
when instead of more business they received less and a great deal less money and
their condition became deplorable.
The stitchers or “ fitters” on account of the nature of their work have been
able to get back some of their money but the other locals, in spite of all that could
be done, remain very close to the reduced figure; hence, the “ outing” of the nigger
head operators in M ay, 1927. This reduction did little or nothing for the manu
facturers as the buyer took advantage of it also and demanded their shoes at a
reduction to correspond.
There are a few factors that enter strongly into the business methods of Haver
hill: First, the general depression of business throughout the country since
1920; second, the inefficient management by the method of hiring unskilled and
cheap supervision; third, the manufacturers’ failure to cope with a situation
dangerous to any industry, namely, the buying of shoes by the jobber and return
of said shoes when shipped. The same buyer having a man on the ground to
buy the same shoes, when returned to the manufacturer, at a great reduction.
This practice is common.
The object of this survey is to determine why firms leave Haverhill. The
writer is trying to confine himself to some of the reasons and nothing more.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
T h e ----------- Co., a very prosperous firm, with unlimited credit, bought leather
in large quantities and sold their shoes, I am told, for as low as 50 cents per pair
under the cost of manufacturing. Finally, of course, they failed, dragging down
other small firms with them and crippling others.

S T R IK E S AND LOCK OUTS

It is impossible to convince the Haverhill shoe manufacturers that they are
not the only ones who are not working at full capacity, and having talked it so
long they have really become convinced it is true. These manufacturers claim
competition from the surrounding country. When gathering information for
the union, we got the statement from th e ----------- Co. of Auburn, M e., T h e ------------Co. of Exeter, N . H ., and t h e ----------- Co. of Manchester, that their worst com
petitors were Haverhill firms. T h e ----------- Co. claimed that t h e ----------- Co. of
Haverhill took two large orders from them. The manufacturers of Haverhill
buy the cheapest materials possible to procure and expect the operators to make
the shoe, “ which they d o .”
As illustrated while gathering the information for the 1928 price adjustment,
shoes were bought in Lynn “ a Lynn product.” At a public hearing of the shoe
board when the union and the manufacturers presented their case the abovenamed shoes were on exhibition for the purpose‘of figuring in comparison with the
Haverhill-made shoe. A comparison of workmanship was started by a super
visor of a factory. In every case the Haverhill shoe could be picked out by the
superior quality of workmanship and the inferior quality of leather.
The general president of the union and the undersigned as chairman of the
district council, together with a Boston lawyer, Joseph Bearak, realizing the
walkout was in violation of the peace agreement, tried to sound the alarm.
They held many meetings with the citizens7 committee, who in turn did all that
could be done, but the manufacturers voted, when they finally held their meeting
to vote on the question, to stand by the decision of the board.

Strikes and Lockouts
ARTICLE 2 of the agreement between the union and the rnanu/\
facturers* association (p. 28) states that “ There shall be no
strikes, lockouts, or cessation of work during the life of
this agreement. This article is not arbitrable.”
More than 5,000 union shoe workers in Haverhill went out on a
general strike January 19, 1928, in protest of a wage decision by the
Haverhill Shoe Board. The decision, which reduced wage rates, was
made after the filing of briefs (pp. 43 to 68) by the manager of the
manufacturers’ association and the attorney for the union. The
manager in his brief said the manufacturers “ must have reductions
in labor costs of approximately 20 to 25 per cent.” The attorney for
the union asked for “ a restoration of part of the 1924 cut.” Mr.
Edwin Newdick, the chairman of the shoe board, on May 8, 1924,
issued a statement in which he said: “ The reduction is an average
decrease of nearly one-fifth, or 20 per cent, of present piece rates on
fancy shoes in the average factory where the making room is classified
as grade 3. On plain shoes the reduction will be about 15 per cent.”
The hearings of the shoe board were conducted as provided by article 6
of the agreement.
The members of all locals of the union in Haverhill except No 2
(turn workmen) engaged in the strike. The turn workmen issued
the following statement:
To the editor of the Gazette: W ill you kindly allow us, Local No. 2, S. W . P.
U ., space in your paper to state our position in the present misunderstanding, if a
misunderstanding exists.
Local No. 2, turn workmen, has had contracts and agreements with the shoe
manufacturers of Haverhill for the past 30 years. These agreements were made
with the shoe manufacturers under various forms of arbitration.
W e want to announce to the citizens of Haverhill and also to the citizens out
side of Haverhill, that we have yet to break an agreement that we have attached
our signatures to.
If our signature to an agreement is not to be depended upon, then those with
whom we sign agreements will not respect our signatures.
W e are at present connected with that working agreement that has proven
so unsatisfactory, but we intended to live up to that agreement as we have lived
up to all our agreements in the past, which we have attached our signatures to.

CO N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

Local No. 2, turn workmen, has no mysterious committee appointed, or any
so-called big brother clubs.
In conclusion, we would ask as a favor from the public press of Haverhill, to
tell the world that the turn workmen of Haverhill are the most skilled turn
workmen of the turn work industry, either in the United States or elsewhere.
(Signed)
S i f r o i d J. P o t h i e r , President.
H e r b e r t T a y l o r , Agent.
H a r o l d S e a v e r , Secretary.

As indicated in the statement by the turn workmen, the strike was
unauthorized as it was directed and managed by a “ mysterious
committee” or an “ emergency committee” and not by the general
officials of the union, who at the beginning of the strike declared that
no authorization for the strike had been given by either the district
or general officers of the union. The Secretary of Labor and the
Commissioner of Labor Statistics, when the request for a study of
conditions in Haverhill was made, asked Mr. Nolan, the general presi
dent of the Shoe Workers7 Union for an explanation of the strike.
The president stated that it was really a revolution and that the
officials were at that time unable to control the workers. This state
ment is confirmed by Mr. Edwin Newdick, chairman of the Haverhill
shoe board, who in May, 1927, in a statement (see p. 69) said:
* * * There is no dominating group in the union prepared to face unpleas
ant facts. Intolerance and obstruction are met by any one who undertakes to go
contrary to the active few and their activity is largely promoting discontent and
encouraging unreasonable demands. The structure of the union makes it in fact
very much nearer seven unions with one name than one union, with any common
purpose, policy, or leadership. There is so much autonomy and independence
of the several locals that general officers, however wise and courageous, can not
possibly lead or control the organization.

Mr. Newdick had been chairman of the board for more than three
years when he issued the statement.
The strike was settled January 29, 1928, by the following agreement:
It is hereby agreed by and between the Haverhill Shoe Manufacturers’ Asso
ciation and the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union—
1. The workers shall return to work in their respective places and be paid
1927 prices.
2. A committee of three from the association and three from the union shall
be elected or appointed for the purpose of amending the peace pact.
3. A committee of three from each side shall be elected to inquire into the con
ditions prevailing in the industry and report their findings to both parties with
recommendations; the committee to have full authority.
The work of paragraphs 2 and 3 to be done by the same committee.
4. The wages deducted by the employers shall be returned to the workers
within three weeks from the day they return to work.

It may be seen that No. 4 of the agreement provides that “ The
wages deducted by the employers shall be returned to the workers
within three weeks from the day they return to work.” This means
that employees who worked any time during the period from. Jan
uary 1 to 19, 1928, and kad been paid for such work at the 1928
rates in effect after the reduction were also paid as required by this
agreement the actual difference between the amount earned at the
1928 rates after the reduction and the amount they would have
earned at the 1927 rates before the reduction.
In 1927 the members of the side lasters Local No. 8 went on a
“ vacation or outing” because the increase in pay granted them at

ST R IK E S AND LO CKO U TS

that time by the shoe board was not as much as they claimed it
should have been.
In April, 1928, the wood healers of a factory used defective heels
on about 6 cases of shoes. The officials of the factory were not
informed of the defects and consequently poor work resulted. A
member of the firm saw the poor work, called attention to it, and
asked the workers to remedy the defects. The heelers quit work
immediately, left the factory, and did not return until the manufac
turer asked them to and agreed to pay for the work of fixing the
heels. It seems that in this particular case there was lack of coopera
tion between the officials and employees, and also that there was need
for provision by the establishment for efficient inspection of supplies.
A company with about 30 employees opened a shoe factory in
Haverhill early in August, 1928, without entering into an agreement
with the union and without making any effort to do so. After the
factory had been in operation a few days, agents of the Shoe Workers’
Protective Union called on the company and asked for an agreement.
No agreement was made, and on the 10th of August three agents of
the union appeared in the street near the factory. All employees
went on a strike. The company was unable to complete and fill its
orders on time. The strike continued about two wreeks and was
settled when an agreement was made with the union. This is a
fair sample of the methods followed by many small manufacturers
in the city.
In May, 1928, the employees of a small shoe factory who were
members of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union wrere called out on a
strike. The factory at that time had been in operation four years
as an open shop. The strike resulted in the following decree of the
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
Final decree
This cause came on to be heard and was argued by counsel and thereupon,
upon consideration thereof and upon agreement of the parties made in open
court, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows:
That no members of the Shoe Workers’ Protective Union will at any time at
tempt to induce any employee of the plaintiff to break a written contract of em
ployment for a fixed period of time which said employee may have with the plain
tiff, provided that the plaintiff has given written notice to the Shoe Workers’
Protective Union of said contract; and provided further that before entering into
such a contract the plaintiff shall notify the general secretary-treasurer of the
Shoe Workers’ Protective Union of said application for employment; and pro
vided further that if said general secretary-treasurer truly informs the plaintiff
that said applicant is a member of the union at the time such notice is given to
him, the plaintiff will not make such written contract with the applicant.
That upon demand by the plaintiff for official information concerning such
membership, said general secretary-treasurer will submit the records of the Shoe
Workers’ Protective Union to the plaintiff so far as they bear upon the member
ship of said applicant.
That such notice and information as said general secretary-treasurer is herein
required to give shall be given forthwith when the matter is drawn to his personal
attention.
That the defendant shall not solicit any employee of the plaintiff who has
entered into such contract to become a member of the Shoe Workers’ Protec
tive Union while such contract exists and shall not intimidate or otherwise
induce such employee to commit a breach of such contract.
That the defendants will not picket the plaintiff’s factory in any other than a
lawful manner, without force, violence, or intimidation, "and at no time will

C O N D ITIO N S IN SH O E IN D U S T R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

there be more than two pickets on duty at or in the vicinity of the plaintiff’s
factory.
That otherwise the bill of complaint is dismissed without costs to either party.
By T h e C o t j r t .
Entered M ay 23, 1928.

In discussing strikes in Haverhill, five representative manufac
turers and one leading union official spoke as follows:
Manufacturers
1. One does not know from one day to the other whether his help will report
for work the following morning or not. In one instance about a year ago the
side lasters decided they should have more money, therefore, they took what
they termed an “ outing” and remained out for some time, thus tying up some
factories for a long time, which was against the peace pact. And again, a short
time ago, because a decision was handed down by the head of the shoe board
against them, they decided they would tie up the Haverhill shoe industry trade,
which they did for more than a week.
Therefore, it can be readily seen that peace pact or no peace pact, as long as
the decision is in opposition to their wishes, they do not intend to live up to any
thing between themselves and the manufacturer.
A complete understanding must exist between the union and the manufacturers.
If the manufacturer is going to be subjected to breach of contract such as “ out
in gs” and “ strikes,” how can he have confidence to solicit future business and how
long will the buyers have confidence to place business in Haverhill?
The peace pact was drawn up and signed in all good faith between the union
and manufacturers here in our city, which promised there would be no walk
outs or strikes. Last year (1927) an “ outing” was called, which was a cowardly
alibi for a strike. W e replaced those strikers with new men, but it took us many
months of hard work to overcome the loss suffered through their breach of
contract.
Again this year a secret committee connected with the union called a strike,
which lasted 10 days, which was another violation of their contract. This
secret committee had the power of calling this strike without the sanction of the k
union. This action was a dark blot on Haverhill, which resulted in the buyers’
washing their hands temporarily and in some instances permanently of Haverhill.
How can we have any confidence that the secret committee will not call a strike
at any time they want to?
One of our customers, who placed orders for an enormous amount of business
with us, had previously bought shoes in Haverhill, but on account of labor con
ditions stopped placing business here some four years ago, and since that time he
has been inconvenienced twice by so-called “ outings” and “ strikes.”
He is so
disgusted with labor conditions existing here that we do not know whether we
shall be favored with his future business or not.
Something drastic has got to be done and done quickly, and we know whereof
we speak.
The blame can not be placed entirely in one place, as there are weak spots in
the armor of a number of contributing sources, and these must be adjusted quickly,
or it will be too late. W e know personally from the buyers’ viewpoint, that they
are skeptical of placing any more business here, and we are giving this information
for the good of the city. W hat is Haverhill without the shoe business, since it
is practically the only industry here? It means a death blow to the population,
which has decreased from 53,000 to 43,000 and will decrease more in the next
year. It means a big loss in real estate and all kinds of business depending on the
shoe industry. If conditions will not allow us to continue doing business here,
we will be obliged to go elsewhere. W e have made no idle boasts of moving,
and this is not one. If we once decide to go, no late-day inducements will cause
us to reconsider.
2. The peace pact means nothing as far as the union is concerned, as was
evidenced in a walkout over a year ago and a general strike of some ten days which
occurred in January, 1928. The strike completely closed our plant for that time.
The secret committee and the like may be blamed. The conditions leave the
manufacturer helpless. The union or committee abides by the peace pact only
so long as it pleases. Otherwise, it is utterly disregarded and broken.
3. W e have had many instances during these three years, and only recently,
when our judgment has been disputed by contentious union agents who have

S T R IK E S A N D LO CKO U TS

tried to coerce and bulldoze us to keep worthless workers in our employ, under
the threat of a general walkout.
4. Conditions in the shoe business in Haverhill are not good at the present time.
In 1927 the lasters walked out and caused production to cease. This caused loss
of a good deal of business and since then the fear of another walkout has always
been prevalent. In 1928 we had a strike which also caused loss of a lot of business
and loss of customers.
5. The latter half of 1927 it was necessary to elect a new chairman for the shoe
board. The manufacturers’ choice was the present holder of this office, M r.
Frank C. Richardson. He was formerly agent of the cutters’ local and a man
of excellent character. The union opposed his election but he was finally elected
by the citizens’ committee, as provided in article 6 of the agreement.
Shortly after the new chairman took office the union and manufacturers both
asked for revision of prices, as provided in the peace pact. Said prices to become
effective January 1, 1928, for the entire year. Immediately following the request
of the manufacturers for revision of wages, the inner circle or the so-called
emergency committee of the union held meetings, the purpose of which was clearly
evident. It was common talk that thq real excuse for the existence of the com
mittee was the threat of strike, if the neutral arbitrator gave a wage decision
downward. Manufacturers realized that this was no idle threat, as in 1927,
when the side lasters struck after Mr. Newdick, the then neutral member of the
Haverhill Shoe Board, granted them a slight increase, because they thought it
was not large enough. The chairman of the shoe board, who succeeded Mr.
Newdick, did, in December, 1927, give the manufacturers approximately 8 per
cent reduction. The new rate became effective January 1, 1928.
The workers went out on a strike on January 19, 1928, and stayed out approxir
mately 10 days, causing a great loss to the Haverhill shoe manufacturers not only
in the amount of business involved but the undesirable notoriety broadcasted
through the country that this city was a shoe center where continual strife existed.
The effect on the buyer of shoes can well be imagined. Our local concern suffered
at least a loss of approximately 300 36-pair cases of shoes by cancellation.
Fortunately, the shoes were not in process of manufacture nor was the stock
bought because of warning by timely threats of the so-called emergency com
mittee. Because of a threat of strike, some manufacturers discontinued cutting
shoes as the day approached when it had been broadcasted that the strike was
to take place. Some union members were unfair in stating that this was the
cause of the strike, but a very careful study of the existing situation prior to
the strike will disclose the real facts.
It would be well to state at this time, that since the first of the year, because
of the above-mentioned condition, we have lost the firms of Ayer & Williams,
Seldon Shoe, Duane Shoe, and many others.
It would be unnecessary to add that the strike was illegal. Again the peace
pact proved to be worth nothing more than the paper that it was written upon.
Union leader
In the month of M ay, 1927, Mr. Newdick, neutral member of the Haverhill
Shoe Board, believing the economic condition of the country in a bad way,
became alarmed at the Government figures of importation of shoes— the greatest
in history— and the wheels of the shoe industry in this country practically at a
standstill, and wrote a letter (see p. 68) for publication dealing with the place
he had jurisdiction over in prices. The union took exception to his communi
cation, stopped paying part of his salary, although they paid for half of the
maintenance of the board, and took Mr. Newdick into court. The court sus
tained the union and rendered a decision (p. 70) disqualifying Mr. Newdick
from holding this or any similar position in the State of Massachusetts. This
left the shoe board without a chairman and continued so for months or until
October, 1927. When finally names were submitted by the union, one name
only was submitted by the manufacturers, that of Frank C. Richardson, the
names were then submitted to the citizens’ committee as arranged for by article
6 of the peace agreement.
Mr. Richardson, a former business agent of the
cutters’ union, was selected in spite of a vigorous protest by a large majority
of the union members.
The price adjustment was about to take place. Mr. Richardson, the new
neutral member of the shoe board, a shoe cutter, knew nothing of the other
departments of the shoe industry. The union gathered information (see brief,
p. 46). The manufacturers’ brief (p. 43) cited possible earnings per week

CO N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U S T R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

of top stitchers as $74.71, $61.67, $67.30, $56.41, and $44.04, and of cutters as
$69.45, $69.87, $54.45, and $69.04. The union checked up some of these earnings
and found them due to overtime work, got affidavits to that effect, and submitted
the evidence to the shoe board. The neutral member of the board made his
decision reducing wage rates. This decision proved to be too much for the union
to stand, added to the conditions prevailing in nearly all factories, especially
where retail work is made. It would reduce the worker below a living wage,
hence the walkout in January completely tying up the industry.

Overtime
HE regular hours of operation of the shoe factories in Haverhill
according to article 5 of the agreement between the union and
the manufacturers’ association are from 7.10 to 11.50 a. m.
and 1 to 5 p. in., Monday to Friday, and from 7.10 to 11.50 a. m.
Saturday, or 48 per week, during the months from September to May
inclusive; and from 7 a. m. to 12 noon and 1 to 5 p. m., Monday to
Friday, or 9 hours per day and 45 per week, in June, July, and
August.
The article also provides that “ Overtime work shall be granted at
the discretion of the neutral arbiter, if the manufacturer can show
such overtime to be necessary,” and that “ overtime over 48 hours
shall be paid for at the rate of time and one-half.” The manufacturer
makes his request in writing to the chairman of the shoe board,
specifying the number of employees in each occupation and the hours
of overtime desired and the reason therefor. The permits for over
time are issued to the manufacturer by the chairman and returned
after the completion of such work with a statement as to the number
of employees and hours of overtime worked.

T a b l e 11.— Number of 'permits and hours of overtime worked each week} January

to April, 1928

Week ending—

Jan. 6________________________
Jan. 13___ __ _____ _______
Jan. 20_____________ _______
Jan. 27 _______________ _____
Feb. 3
______ _______
Feb. 10
_ _
Feb. 17______________________
Feb. 24_____________ ____ _

Number
of per
mits
granted

Number
of hours
of over
time
worked

2
4
4

38
19
12

34
30
50
49

290
193
438
700

Week ending—

Mar. 2_ __
____ __________
Mar. 9______ _______________
Mar. 16______________________
Mar. 23_______ ____ __
___
Mar. 30___ ______ __
_ ___
Apr. 6_ __
Apr. 13____ ______ __________

Number
of per
mits
granted

30
53
67
84
79
20
9

Number
of hours
of over
time
worked
489
519
541
1, 200
1,136
- 164
20

The shoe industry is seasonal. When shoe factories are busy,
shoe workers are employed full time or nearly so, and business in
general is very good in the city of Haverhill. When the factories
are not busy, due to lack of orders, labor has no work or is employed
much less than full time and business in the city is bad or very poor.
Production, actual hours of work available, and amount of pay rolls
are generally highest during weekly pay periods in March and Sep
tember and lowest in January, June, July, and December. Overtime
permits and overtime hours are few in number in months when pro
duction and pay rolls are lowest, and quite numerous in months of
peak production and pay rolls. (See Tables 8, 13, and 14 (pp. 24,
95, and 99) and figures in Table 11.)

O VERTIM E

There is, however, little variation in employment or number of
employees in the regular force of wage earners, due to that part of
artiple 3 of the agreement which provides that “ there shall be no
laying off of members of the crew, and during the slack periods work
shall be distributed as equally as possible among the crew.” During
busy seasons temporary employees are added to the regular working
force, usually for periods of less than five weeks. If retained for five
weeks or more an employee automatically becomes a member of the
regular crew, and therefore materially decreases average earnings
per week and per day, more especially during slack periods.
Overtime is considered by the manufacturers as necessary at times
in order to meet requests of customers for the rushing of orders and
to get out orders on time and prevent cancellations and losses after
unavoidable delays.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics made its regular biennial study of
wages and hours of labor in the boot and shoe industry in the United
States in July, August, and September, 1928. Data were collected
for 48,658 wage earners of 157 shoe factories in 14 States. Only 21
of the 157 factories paid at the time of the study an increased rate
for overtime and 8 of these were in Haverhill. Eighteen of the 21
paid one and one-half times the regular rate for overtime to all
employees who worked any overtime, one paid one and one-half
times the regular rate to workers in the treeing departments only,
one paid one and one-half times the regular rate to all employees
who did any work on Sundays and holidays, and one paid 20 per cent
extra— or one and one-fifth times the regular rate— to employees in
the cutting department, and 10 per cent extra, or one and one-tenth
times the regular rate, for overtime to the employees in the other
departments.
Haverhill shoe manufacturers and union leaders w^ere questioned
concerning overtime work and rates of pay for such work. Eight
manufacturers and three leading union officials answered as follows:
Manufacturers
(1) In our packing room, which is in the treeing department, we were a little
behind in our shipments and requested our men in the treeing room to work one
hour extra at night, or from five to six, so as to be able to get our shoes out that
we w^ere late on. They agreed to do this and requested time and a half pay for
this extra hour and we thought this was very unreasonable. These men are
pieceworkers and we. w^ere satisfied to pay them for the w^ork they w~ould do but
we were not satisfied with the time and a half pay that they requested. I men
tioned the fact that we could easily put another machine in the room, get another
man, and get our work out. W e thought it was to their advantage to allow them
to make this extra money and that they were entitled to it. If a man is put in
our room we have to keep him after he is with us five weeks. That is a ruling
of the union. When the work comes through in just an ordinary way we have to
divide it equally among the crew including the new or extra man. In other words,
we tried to point out the advisability of their working this extra hour and not
burden the present crew with an additional man. Our crew themselves took the
matter up with the agent of their local union and although they w^ere satisfied
to work under the conditions outlined their hands were tied and had to either
request and get time and a half for this hour or suffer the consequences of over
a year's run by adding on a new man. That is another condition that exists in
Haverhill that does not exist in any other part of New England, and as long as
such conditions exist this city will lose and must lose its better shoe manufac
turers and help.
(2) The Monday before Easter Sunday we received a wire from our salesman
and also a letter from several of our customers to the effect that if we did not
get our shoes to them for the Friday and Saturday before Easter Sunday, orders

CO N D ITIO N S IN SH OE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

would be canceled. In order to get these shoes out in due time overtime work
was necessary in several departments. W e got a permit from the chairman of
the Haverhill Shoe Board in due form to work overtime. The agent of Local
No. 2, which is shoemakers, refused to honor the permit (he has no jurisdiction
to do so) and consequently the men refused to work. It took considerable
pleading and humbling of myself before I could convince the agent that my men
should work. While my men were willing to work, at first the agent firmly
denied to honor the permit; however, he was convinced I was to suffer loss by
reason of cancellation of orders if these shoes were not delivered in due time,
and the men were permitted to work. The same condition arose the following
night with w^ood heelers. The men are supposed to work upon presentation of
a permit from the Haverhill Shoe Board without being sanctioned by the agent;
however, the agent insists that they are to countersign our permits or the men
will not work.
(3) W e feel that the question of overtime has caused the loss of thousands
and thousands of dollars in Haverhill during the two rush periods of the year.
During the months of March and August we found ourselves in a position where
a small number of operators are needed a few extra hours per week. During our
last rush we had to pull every wire possible with some of the union executives in
order to get a few hours overtime, a great deal of which, however, was entirely
refused us. It seems rather a pity to see orders for shoes canceled and have
them returned to factories due to late delivery wiien the shoes could have been
shipped on time and would have given the employees a little extra money.
(4) In order to meet competition from factories operating outside Haverhill,
it is absolutely necessary that wages and conditions in our factories be adjusted.
W e do not ask for a large cut, but a reasonable one, and only on those operations
which are overpaid. If there are operations underpaid, we are willing to have
them adjusted. The biggest factor of all is factory conditions. There is no
limit placed on the time the factories out of town can work, thereby being able
to handle rush deliveries. If we are not allowed to work overtime, how can we
compete with the out-of-town factory, and if we can not make shipment of shoes
in the time desired, we not only lose reorders on these shoes, but will not be
favored with new business from these concerns. Is not this point a good one
with which to start cooperation? There is nothing to lose by acceding to this
point, and everything to gain.
(5) W e never could rely on getting permits for overtime when we were par
ticularly rushed and we did not have space to put on more workers. Permits
would be granted by the shoe board, but we were unable to get the union agents
to honor them. They insisted on putting on extra help, although we showed
them that we did not have room for any more. W e have in our factory an edge
trimmer who was making about $85 per week. The agent of that local wanted
us to put in another machine and another operator. This came up on applica
tion for overtime. W e were paying the union price.
(6) At the height of the Easter rush, our beater-out was taken suddenly ill
and was obliged to stop work. W e hired another man in his place who was not
quite so familiar with the work, and consequently held up production. In
order to make shipments on time, we requested the new man to work a little
extra time on Saturday afternoon. He readily consented. W e took the matter
up with the shoe board and were granted a permit. However, the union agent
objected and told the operator he would be fined $200 if he did work on that
afternoon. The result was no w^ork was done and the shoes were delayed
indefinitely.
In certain cases, where shoes have been held up for lack of stock and inability
to procure it on time, our customers have threatened cancellation of orders unless
the shoes were delivered in a special specified time. To meet such conditions
we go to a worker and ask him to do us a favor and work an extra hour or so.
In order to have him do this we are obliged to fill out an application for overtime
work which is furnished by the shoe board. To get a permit for overtime On the
day on which the request is made, it is necessary to make the request for the per
mit before noon on that day. If we receive a telegram threatening a cancellation,
and do not call the shoe board before the afternoon (as we did not receive the wire
in the morning) we are obliged to go through a lot of red tape, even though the
worker himself is agreeable to do the extra work of an hour or two.
Many shoe manufacturers do a lot of favors for their help. They in turn ask
for cooperation when necessary. In most cases the help is willing to return
favors, but the outsiders must give their consent before the worker can reciprocate.

O VERTIM E

(7) W e are compelled to pay time and one-half for any overtime work we want
done when conditions of the trade demand shoes in a hurry, or through having to
wait for certain kinds of material, which is no fault of ours, but still adds to the
cost of manufacturing shoes. If, on the other hand, we do not work overtime
and are late in delivery the orders are canceled, which means a serious loss.
(8) Prior to January 1, 1926, overtime permits could be secured only through
permission of the union agents. Willingness of operators to work overtime were
oftentimes ignored by agents. The new peace pact, in effect January 1, 1926,
made provision for overtime permits to be granted at the discretion of the chair
man of the shoe board. It proved very helpful to the industry until the latter
half of 1927 and the first few months of 1928. Some locals evidently instructed
their members to ignore permits granted by the chairman of the shoe board unless
permission was also given by the agent of the local. The local agents usually
denied the permit. Local No. 8 was the principal local that violated this clause
in the peace pact.
Union officials
(1) Our members work overtime as provided in article 5 of the agreement.
The overtime is paid for at the regular rate. This statement may seem to con
tradict some of the manufacturers. An employee may work one or more hours
outside the regular hours of operation per day on one or more days per week and
yet be paid at the regular rate of pay for such overtime due to the fact that such
employee worked less than 48 hours during the wTeek when work was done outside
the regular hours of operation.
(2) All permits for overtime in association factories are granted through the
shoe board. After a permit has been granted the shoe board notifies the local,
naming factory, department, and operation for which overtime has been granted.
The peace agreement, however, calls for an investigation by the board before
permits are granted. Unfortunately, too many times investigation has been
omitted. In fact, very seldom was an investigation made, with the result that
the privilege was very much abused. It is understood that through the summer
months no permits were to be given except in very urgent or emergency cases.
However, permits were issued for the asking. In the conference leading up
to the peace agreement it was agreed by both parties that time and a half would
be paid for all overtime. This, the union understood and was led to believe
means any time after a 9-hour day. The agreement as signed, however, read
after a 48-hour week. Consequently the manufacturers refused to pay for over
time until 48 hours had been worked in any one week. If an employee worked
overtime the early part of the week and loafed the remainder of the week he
would receive no extra pay. This was plainly the fault of the agreement, but
the plan mutually agreed to was said to be different.
The union suffered under the above-mentioned conditions until finally they
were forced to action. When the chairman of the shoe board issued a permit to
a company after calling the manager on the phone and asking him if he was
going to pay time and a half for the overtime, he answered “ Absolutely.” On
investigation the shoe board found he was not paying the extra for overtime.
The chairman of the shoe board refused to issue any more permits to him, and
the lasters’ local refused to permit their men to work on any permit until their
local was consulted. The council sometime in July passed a motion of a similar
nature including all locals. But in spite of this action of the council, Locals 8
and 10A have issued permits where, in their opinion, emergencies existed. The
chairman has changed his tactics of late and went to the other extreme, turning
down requests for permits. In many recent cases where the chairman has turned
down requests for overtime the union agents upon investigation have granted
permits.
(3) Overtime permits are granted to association factories by the shoe board
when, in the opinion of the board, they should be issued. The requests for them
are investigated by the agents of the several locals involved, and approved if
there are no idle machines where operators can be placed at work to keep up
production. The articles in the peace pact governing the issuing of permits and
the payment for overtime have been lived up to.
Overtime in nonassociation factories is granted by application direct to the
local involved, and is granted if conditions applying to association factories on
overtime are lived up to. Overtime permits are also granted in the case of
congestion at individual machines and in departments.

90
C ase

CO N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U ST R Y IN H A V E R H IL L
N o.

1702.— Shoe board overtime decision concerning cutting-room overtime
payment

(Referred to arbitration by the union July 9, 1928; hearing, July 11; decision,
July 12)
The union asks time and one-half for time worked above the specified daily
schedule of hours on June 21 and June 22. The firm, first made application for
three hours on Saturday morning after having consulted with each member of
the crew who, with the exception of one or possibly two men, were willing to work.
The chairman, being opposed to Saturday morning work (unless emergency
exists), took the matter up with the supervisor and advised the extra hours
needed should be worked on Thursday and Friday. This suggestion was carried
out, the department working one and one-half hours extra on these days. It is
the opinion of the chairman that this was agreeable to all parties.
The chairman’s interpretation of the “ time and one-half clause” is that extra
time is not overtime until 48 hours has been worked in a full week.
Three rulings made by the former chairman touch on this question. Case No.
1279, ruling 1094, states “ Forty-eight hours were not worked in the week.
Extra payment for overtime is denied.” In Case No. 796, ruling 734, it is ruled
that time and one-half shall be paid after 10 o’clock on Saturday morning. It
appears there was a doubt in the chairman’s mind whether the men worked 48
hours in that week. In Case No. 575; ruling 503, the former chairman states that
the union claims it is not intended that extra pay shall be given for Saturday
morning work during the 3 summer months when the regular week is only 45
hours.
The agreement reads: “ Overtime work over 48 hours shall be paid for at the
rate of time and one-half.”
The chairman is of the opinion that the “ time and
one-half” for overtime clause is considerably abused by both parties to the
agreement and that union members could collect time and one-half in many
instances were the cases sent to arbitration. The request for time and one-half
payment is denied.

Information concerning overtime work and rates for such work have
been collected for a number of years and published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics in bulletins covering wages, hours, earnings, and
working conditions of employees in the automobile, boot and shoe,
cotton goods manufacturing, foundry and machine shop, hosiery
and underwear, lumber, men’s clothing, slaughtering and meat pack
ing, and woolen and wrorsted goods manufacturing industries in the
United States. Overtime in these industries is generally understood
as any time worked in excess of the regular standard of hours per day
or per week as established by a specified time of beginning work in
the morning and of quitting wTork in the afternoon less the regular
time off duty for the midday meal.
A summary of extra rates of overtime by industries are here pre
sented for the last year for which data are available:
Automobiles.— In 1925 data were collected from 99 manufacturers
of passenger cars, trucks, busses, bodies, and parts of motor vehicles.
Of these, 60, or nearly 61 per cent, paid all or part of their wage
earners extra for overtime. The extra rates for overtime work on
week days were one and one-fifth, one and one-fourth, or one and onehalf times the regular rate, and for work on Sundays and holidays
were one and one-fifth, one and one-fourth, one and one-half, or two
times the regular rates. The prevailing rate for overtime was one
and one-half times the regular rate.
Cotton goods manufacturing.— In 1926 data were collected from 151
mills engaged in the manufacture of broad or wide-woven cotton
goods of varying weight and quality. Only 11, or 7 per cent, of the
mills paid extra for overtime, The prevailing rate was one and one-

PRO DU CTIO N

half times the regular rate. The other rates were one and threetwentieths, or one and one-fourth times the regular rate.
Foundries and machine shops.— In 1927 data were collected from
417 foundries and 526 machine shops. Of these, 244 foundries and
404 machine shops paid extra for overtime. The prevailing rate was
one and one-half times the regular rate. The other rates were one
and three-twentieths, one and one-fourth, and two times the regular
rate. The double rate, except in a very few establishments, was for
work on Sundays and holidays.
Hosiery and underwear.— In 1926, when the study of this industry
was made, 18 of the 105 hosiery and 5 of the 85 underwear mills paid
extra for overtime. The prevailing rate was one and one-half times
the regular rate. Other rates were 5 or 10 cents extra per hour, 35
cents, or $1 per day extra, one and one-fourth or one and twentyseven one-hundredths times the regular rate.
Lumber.— In 1925 only 17 of 299 mills included in the study paid
extra for overtime. Four mills paid one and one-fourth and 13
mills paid one and one-half times the regular rate for overtime.
Men’s clothing.— In the 1926 study 32 of the 198 establishments
covered in that year paid extra for overtime. The rates were one and
one-fourth, or one and one-half times the regular rate, or $1.50 or
$1.61 per hour. The prevailing rate was one and one-half times the
regular rate for overtime.
Slaughtering and meat packing.— In 1927, when the study of this
industry was made, 52 plants, or 60 per cent of the 86 plants covered,
paid one and one-half times the regular rate for overtime.
Woolen and worsted.— In the 1926 study of this industry 52 of
the 112 mills covered in that year paid extra for overtime. Thirtynine paid one and one-half times, nine paid one and one-fourth times,
two paid one and one-tenth times the regular rate, and the other
two paid various rates in excess of the regular rates, the rates vary
ing in different departments.

Production
ABLE 12 shows the production, in number of pairs of shoes, in the
United States and in each of nine States in which the manufac
ture of shoes was of material importance in 1914, 1919, 1921,
and from 1923 to 1928. The 1928 figures are for six months only,
or January to June, inclusive, and represent nearly one-half of the
total production in 1927. The table also gives for each State the
per cent that its production was of the total in each of these years.
Production in the industry in the United States as a whole in
creased from 292,666,468 pairs in 1914 to 331,224,628 in 1919, dropped
to 286,771,101 in 1921, and then increased to 351,114,273 pairs in
1924, the year of maximum production in this country. Production
by years has not varied greatly since 1923. It ranged from 313,230,157 pairs in 1924 to 343,605,905 in 1927. In 1925 it was
323,553,055 or only 960,640 pairs less than in 1926.
Production in 1914 in the nine States included in the table ranged
from 8,292,659 pairs in Illinois to 115,224,383 pairs in Massachusetts.
Illinois produced 2.8 per cent and Massachusetts 39.4 per cent of the
total in that year. In 1927, the last year for which complete annual
figures are available, production by States ranged from 16,085,064

C O N D ITIO N S IN SHOE IN D U S T R Y IN H A V E R H IL L

pairs in Maine to 78,182,264 pairs in Massachusetts, percentages of
total production being 22.8 in Massachusetts, 22 in New York, 14 in
Missouri, 7.6 in Illinois, 5.5 in New Hampshire and in Wisconsin,
5.1 in Pennsylvania, 4.8 in Ohio, and 4.7 in Maine. Production by
States in number of pairs of shoes in each of the specified years from
1914 to 1927 is shown graphically by the chart immediately following
Table 12.
Between 1914 and 1927 production in Massachusetts decreased
37,042,119 pairs or 32 per cent; in New York, increased 36,889,110
pairs or 95 per cent; in Missouri, increased 27,281,283 pairs or 131 per
cent; in New Hampshire, decreased 5,708,115 pairs or 23 per cent;
in Pennsylvania, decreased 4,574,343 pairs or 21 per cent; in Maine,
increased 375,787 pairs or 2 per cent; in Ohio, decreased 1,515,632
pairs or 8 per cent; in Wisconsin, increased 10,577,686 pairs or 126
per cent; and in Illinois, increased 17,795,732 pairs or 215 per cent.
In 1927, production in all States, or in the industry, was 50,939,437
pairs or 17 per cent more than in 1914.

able

12. — Production of boots and shoes in specified years, by States

24011'

[Computed from reports of United States Department of Commerce]

NUMBER OF PAIRS
State

1914

Total___________________

1921

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928 1

115,224,383
38,798,158
20,868,352
24,659,886
22,184, 502
15, 709, 277
17,973, 441
8,382,882
8,292,659
20,572,928

116,992,912
62,773,081
26,362,397
22,700,694
23,617,362
19,175,387
17,870,148
11,142, 456
10,638,609
19,951, 582

85,819, 586
63, 696,324
27,423,938
14,631,976
19,195,193
16,515,142
16,835,245
10,407,318
12,295,206
19,951,173

89, 517, 331
75, 821, 623
2 64, 695, 276
21,718,392
21, 533,047
17,261, 279
17,243, 519
17,150,437
(3)
26,173, 369

73, 529,432
69,852, 563
2 64,194,649
18, 538, 973
19,265, 276
15,031,349
14,093,480
15,826, 740
0
22,897,695

72,266,595
72,595,033
2 72,466,613
18,296,422
17,309,661
16,717,333
15,621,439
16,901,651
(3)
21,378,308

72,851,015
72,025,470
» 73,168, 731
19,130, 211
15,617, 560
16,487,294
14,853, 755
17,536, 582
(3)
22,843,077

78,182, 264
75,687, 268
48,149, 635
18,951, 771
17,610,159
16,085, 064
16,457, 809
18,960, 568
26,088, 391
27,432, 976

39,660,707
35,147,548
24,122,717
10,285,426
8,629,246
8, 726, 772
7,339,086
8,440,416
12,649,778
13,476,509

292,666,468

331,224,628

286, 771,101

351,114,273

313, 230,157

323,553,055

324, 513,695

343,605,905

168,478, 205

22.3
22.4
2 22.4
5.7
5.3
5.2
4.8
5.2

22.4
22.2
2 22.5
5.9
4.8
5.1
4.6
5. 4
7.0

22.8
22.0
14.0
5.5
5.1
4.7
4.8
5.5
7.6
8.0

23.5
20.9
14.3
6.1
5.1
5.2
4.4
5.0
7.5
8.0

100.0

PER CENT OF TOTAL
Massachusetts________________
New York________ __ ______
Missouri______________________
New Hampshire_____ ________
Pennsylvania_________________
M aine..____ __________________
Ohio__________
__
___
Wisconsin---------------- --------------Illinois------------------------------------All other States_______________
Total___________________

39.4
13.3
7.1
8.4
7.6
5.4
6.1
2.9
2.8
7.0

35.3
19.0
8.0
6.9
7.1
5.8
5.4
3.4
3.2
6.0

30.0
22.2
9.6
5.1
6.7
5.8
5.9
3.6
4.3
7.0

100.0

1 First 6 months only.

25.5
21.6
2 18.4
6.2
6.1
4.9
4.9
4.9
0

7.5
100.0

’ * Including Illinois.

23.5
22.3
2 20.5
5.9
6.2
4.8
4.5
5.1
(3)

7.3
100.0

(3)

6.6
100.0

(3)

PRODUCTION

Massachusetts________________
New York_______ _____________
Missouri___________ __________
New Hampshire. _ _ ________
Pennsylvania_________________
Maine___________________ _____
Ohio____ ______________ ______
Wisconsin__________________ _
Illinois_______________________
All other States_______________

1919

3 Included with Missouri.

CO
CO

[ millionsof
1 PRS. 125

B O O TS

S H 0 E 5 .

ST A T E S

MILLIONS OF
12?. PRS

_____

I I

100

ILi

i i —

*14 *19 '«

*14*19 *2* *9 *24 *2? *26 *27

Mfir.:. .1

'14 *19 ’2 1 *2 5 ’at *25 *26 *27
wid.

rex:

’14 *19 *21 ’25 *24 '2> *2fr *27
1

•?

125

dTH&RS\
100

100

INDUSTRY

l i u i m
i i
f\
w,
'14 *19 *21 *25'24 *25 *2**27

. .

SHOE

r
n

50 '

CONDITIONS

too

PRO D U CTIO N

!
25

zs
o

’14*13 ’21 '23*21 *25*26'27

i i i i i i i i

■

*14 *19*21 *23 *24*25 *2**27

*14*19*21 ’2V24*25*26’27

■

■ n
*14 *19 *21

1 im r m i
*27

■i4 *i9 ’a 'n ’» 'zs % 'zr

H AVERHILL

/50
v

PRODUCTION

The number of pairs of men’s, boys’ and youths’ , women’s, misses’
and children’s, and all other shoes, and the total number produced
in each month from January, 1924, to June, 1928, are presented in
Table 13 for the United States and also for Massachusetts. The
table also gives the per cent that the number of each kind of shoes
was of the total in each year.
In 1924 the production of men’s shoes in the United States was 27
per cent of the production of all shoes; that of boys’ and youths’
shoes, 6.5 per cent; of women’s shoes, 33.2 per cent; of misses’ and
children’s shoes, 11.4 per cent; and of all other shoes than those
specified, 21.9 per cent. In 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927 production
was usually higher in March and April and in September and October
than in other months.
The production of men’s shoes in Massachusetts decreased from
31.6 per cent of the total shoes produced in the State in 1924 to 26.7
per cent of the total in 1927; that of boys’ and youths’ shoes, decreased
from 4.1 per cent in 1924 to 4 per cent in 1927; of women’s shoes, in
creased from 39.8 per cent in 1924 to 43.8 per cent in 1927; of misses’
and children’s shoes, increased from 7 per cent in 1924 to 8.5 per
cent in 1927; and of all other shoes than those described, decreased
from 17.5 per cent in 1924 to 17.1 per cent in 1927. Production
was higher in Massachusetts in March and April and in September
and October, 1924, and in March and April and in August, Septem
ber, and October, 1925, 1926, and 1927, than in other months. Wo
men’s shoes increased from 29,247,005 pairs in 1924 to 34,226,555
in 1927; men’s shoes decreased from 23,243,969 pairs in 1924 to
20,840,782 in 1927; and misses’ and children’s shoes increased from
5,174,833 in 1924 to 6,656,899 pairs in 1927.
T a b le 13 *— Production of shoes in United States and in Massachusetts, January,
1924, to June, 1928, by months
[Computed from reports of United States Department of Commerce]
Number of pairs
Year and month
Men’s

Boys’ and
youths’

Women’s

Misses’ and
children’s

All others

Total

UNITED STATES

1924:
January_______ ____
February___ _____
March_____________
April_______________
M ay_______ ____
June_______________
July________________
August_____________
September_________
October........... .........
November.-. _____
December__________

7,869,978
7,344,367
7, 550, 263
6, 723, 044
6,086, 713
5, 646, 670
6,148, 567
7,177, 985
7,592, 349
8,333, 007
6,991, 851
7,198, 063

1,713,841
1,501,174
1,618, 538
1,664,060
1,490, 851
1, 521, 557
1,545, 294
1,798, 377
1,793,012
2,161, 717
1,714, 290
1,750, 813

8,234,385
8,793, 274
9,894,179
9,285,991
8,145,484
7,075, 643
6,910,150
8,718,703
9,951,500
11,107, 746
8,500, 379
7,518, 035

3,315,688
3,296,708
3, 269,422
3,398,107
3,139, 399
2, 696,424
2,344, 017
2,712,456
3,009,460
3,132,313
2, 660, 677
2, 719, 252

5,363,264
5,896,385
6,532,061
6,932, 589
6,377,706
5,523,366
4,441,470
5,065,533
5,369, 551
6,091,215
5,455,014
5,416, 230

26,497,156
26,831,908
28,864,463
28,003,791
25,240,153
22,463,660
21,389,498
25,473,054
27,715,872
30,825,998
25,322, 211
24,602,393

Total...................
Per cent of total—_

84, 662, 857
27.0

20, 273, 524
6.5

104,135,469
33.2

35,693,923
11.4

68,464,384
21.9

313, 230,157
100.0

1925:
January......................
February___________
March.. _________
April_____ ________
M ay............................
June...........................
July.............................

7,659, 263
7,137,121
7,636,473
7,189, 276
6, 222, 854
6,147, 294
6,748,248

1, 748, 285
1, 642, 794
1, 712, 941
1,997, 900
1, 579,005
1,665,136
1,820,977

7,952,810
8,426,835
9,736, 746
9,396,045
8,059, 003
7,400,287
7,955,137

3,254, 242
3,471,456
3,835,994
3,986,137
3,169, 659
2.735,705
2,824,530

5,462, 779
5,776,785
6,963, 674
6,907,084
6,076, 676
5,500,166
5,409,456

26,077,379
26,454,991
29,885,828
29,476,442
25,107,197
23,448,588
24,758,348

96
T

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL

able

1 3 .— Production of shoes in United States and in Massachusetts, January,
1924t to June, 1928, by months— Continued
Number of pairs

Year and month
Men’s

Boys’ and
youths’

Women’s

Misses’ and
children’s

All others

Total

UNITED STATES— contd.

1925—Continued.
August____________
September_________
October____________
November_________
December__________
Total___________
Per cent of total..
1926:
January___
February
March____
April______
M ay______
June______
July---------August____
September.
October___
November.
December. _
Total___________
Per cent of total1927:
January...
February.
March___
April-------M ay_____
June_____
July..........
August.
October _
November.
December. .
Total___________
Per cent of total1928:
January. _.
February .
March___
April_____
M ay_____
June_____
Total____ ____
Per cent of total.

7, 350,227
7,980,956
8, 401, 885
6, 924, 789
7 ,148, 078

1,896,280
1,762, 553
1, 982, 877
1, 576, 306
1, 636,104

9,779,917
10,468, 741
10,743,256
7,621, 426
7, 241, 484

3, 249, 088
3,250,076
3,184, 929
2, 795, 516
2,933, 724

6,210, 500
6,306, 556
6, 742, 548
5, 712, 267
5, 444,199

28,486,012
29, 768,882
31,055,495
24,630, 304
24,403, 589

86, 546, 464
26.7

21,021,158
6.5

104, 781, 687
32.4

38, 691, 056

12.0

72, 512, 690
22.4

323, 553,055

6,855, 325
6, 672, 486
7,447, 678
6, 515,927
5,660, 720
6, 567, 724
6,748, 629
7,977, 881
8, 676,160
8, 522, 724
7, 523, 500
7,474, 874

1,640,195
1,664, 604
1,691, 229
1,530, 261
1,325, 329
1,655, 201
1,769, 198
1,946, 559
2,105, 283
2,015, 299
1, 882, 020
1,885, 366

7, 802,826
8, 683,158
10,328, 821
8,982,814
8,281, 585
8, 622, 378
8,792,153
10,852, 808
11, 207, 624
11,125, 562
8, 295, 898
7,471, 218

3,040,164
3,280, 300
4,004, 962
3, 549, 644
2, 657, 581
2,830, 660
2,663, 912
3,086, 167
3,493, 538
3, 643, 333
3, 240, 788

4, 535,150
5,397,181
6,455, 550
6,058, 492
5, 203, 518
5,364, 717
5,078, 071
5, 782, 848
6,190, 841
6,355,160
5,816, 226
5, 497, 789

23,873, 660
25,697,729
29,928,240
26,637,138
23,128,733
25,040, 680
25,051,963
29,646, 263
31,673,446
31,662,078
26, 758,432
25,415,333

86, 643, 628
26.7

21, 110, 544
6.5

110, 446, 845
34.0

18, 577,135
11.9

67, 735, 543
20.9

324, 513, 695

7, 660, 169
7, 771, 452
8, 507, 537
7, 355, 387
6,927,902
7,426, 260
7,993,824
9,137,328
9,052,176
8,638,477
7,470, 342
7, 387,244

2,088, 982
1,832, 085
2, 214, 859
2,005, 603
1,890, 753
2,282, 819
2,032, 454
2,326, 039
2, 277, 005
1,967, 328
1,580, 472
1, 730, 897

7, 796, 789
8,926,172
10, 438, 283
9, 729, 442
8, 689, 985
9,155, 366
9,383, 271
12,930, 869
12,579, 125
11, 712, 421
7,998, 854
6,918, 289

3, 304, 072
3, 624, 270
4, 111, 400
3, 671, 420
2,989, 254
3,168,186
2,929, 042
3, 645, 051
3, 615,199
3, 213, 402
2, 672, 918
2, 705, 747

4,142, 545
5,138, 287
6,004, 446
5, 627, 620
5,127,946
5,464, 079
5,436, 063
7,021, 243
6,409,430
6,734, 993
6,250, 540
4, 782,492

24,992, 557
27,292,266
31,276, 525
28, 389, 472
25, 625,840
27,496, 710
27,774, 654
35,060, 530
33,932,935
32, 266, 621
25,973,126
23, 524, 669

95, 328,098
27.7

24, 229, 296
7.1

116, 258, 866
33.8

39, 649,961
11.5

68,139, 684
19.8

343, 605,905

7, 743, 786
7,957,776
8,191,240
6,540,970
6,979,968
7,450, 646

2,045, 201
2,104, 349
2,162,471
1,685, 630
1,915, 333
2,061,877

8,968, 015
10, 696, 453
12,429, 871
9,888, 791
9, 389, 352
9,115, 307

3, 264, 905
3, 634, 576
3, 635, 886
3,077,105
2, 733, 799
2,879, 300

4,187, 717
5,235, 264
5,881, 668
5,436, 061
5.408,161
5, 776, 727

26, 209, 624
29, 628,418
32, 301,136
26,628,557
26,426,613
27,283,857

44,864, 386
26.6

11,974,861
7.1

60, 487, 789
35.9

19, 225, 571
11.4

31, 925, 598
18.9

168,478, 205

2, 285,385
2,170,534
2, 291,208
1,992,079
1,678,417
1,401,029
1,703,867
2,105, 333
2,222,440
2,093,642
1,626, 261
1,673, 774

247, 749
237, 542
247, 771
255, 770
224, 717
143,003
213, 238
297, 309
299, 772
330, 236
246, 773
275, 123

2, 269, 259
2,467,883
3,058,189
2,839,149
2, 345,895
1, 832,469
1,858,491
2, 520, 647
3,068,062
3,186,922
2,116, 843
1, 683, 196

544, 228
581,896
561,006
549,399
423, 560
272,135
216,360
314,306
401,782
456, 640
416,032
437,489

773,433
904, 510
1,194,001
1, 282, 280
1,159,451
957,915
969,158
1,044,267
1, 203,181
1, 272, 175
1,194,843

6,120,054
6,362, 365
7,352,175
6,918,677
5,832,040
4,606,551
4,961,114
6, 281,862
7,195, 237
7, 339, 615
5, 600,752
4,958,990

3,019,003
4.1

29, 247,005
39.8

5,174,833
7.0

12, 844, 622
17.5

73, 529,432

100.0

MASSACHUSETTS

1924:
January..................
February_________
March____________
April_____________
M ay_____________
June_____________
J u l y .....................
August___________
September_______
October__________
November_______
December________
Total. .................
Per cent of total.

23, 243, S

31.6

100.0

PROD U CTION
T

able

13.— Production of shoes in United States and in Massachusetts, January,
1924, to June, 1928, by months— Continued
Number of pairs

Year and month
Men’s

Boys’ and
youths’

Women’s

Misses’ and
children’s

All others

Total

MASS ACHUSETTS— COntd.

1925:
January____________
February................
March_____________
April______________
M ay_______________
June_______________
July_______________
August____________
September_________
October____________
November_________
December__________

2,139,920
1, 972,944
2,154,892
1, 795, 570
1, 544,319
1,456, 755
1,875,916
2, 267,491
2, 159,436
2,059, 235
1, 687, 378
1, 676,298

260,458
239, 576
256,856
212,086
144,416
142,432
178,989
259, 932
274,039
300,819
184,841
220,029

2,088,062
2,364,814
2,861,369
2, 598,243
2,095,046
1, 799,777
2,233,142
2,814,273
3,138,015
2,698,024
1,955, 111
1,692,119

420,829
505,422
655,824
612,099
383, 237
206, 580
288,164
416,055
419,627
407, 779
349,490
361,984

838, 818
902.207
1, 208, 248
1,134,436
1,080,142
1,036,974
1,066,895
1,247,576
1,392,890
1, 376,063
1,180,324
972,310

5, 748,087
5,984.963
7,137,189
6,352,434
5, 247,160
4,642, 518
5,643,106
7,005,327
7,384,007
6,841,920
5,357,144
4,922,740

Total____________
Per cent of total...

22, 790,154
31.5

2,674,473
3.7

28,337,995
39.2

5,027,090
7.0

13,436,883
18.6

72,266, 595

1926:
January____________
February__________
March_____________
April______________
M ay_______________
June__________ ____
July-----------------------August------------------September_________
October____________
November_________
December__________

1, 803, 343
1,730,419
2, 049,310
1, 568,696
1,420,162
1, 575,964
1, 691,978
1,987, 657
2,082,918
1, 879,359
1,667,376
1, 543, 750

259, 016
235, 543
276, 820
223,640
184, 272
182,439
205,008
275, 809
287,047
281,368
293,083
254,494

2,085, 543
2,584,040
3,191,845
2,450,028
2,577,951
2,446, 737
2,379,740
3,036,609
3,159,499
3,013, 213
2,039,173
1,556,358

434,055
485, 269
719, 883
612, 568
460, 393
398,693
364,074
494,332
560,029
608,120
631,989
560,950

509, 830
758,877
1,058, 748
945,408
919,774
970,959
1,028,545
1,206,338
1, 263,622
1,328,480
1,279,284
770, 588

5,091, 787
5, 794,148
7, 296, 606
5,800,340
5, 562, 552
5,574, 792
5, 669,345
7,000, 745
7,353,115
7,110, 540
5,910,905
4, 686,140

Total____________
Per cent of total.

21,000, 932
28.8

2, 958, 539
4.1

30,520, 736
41.9

1,330,355
8.7

12,040,453
16.5

72,851,015

1927:
January____________
February__________
March________ ____
April______________
M ay_______________
June_______________
July_______________
August____________
September_________
October____________
November_________
December__________

1, 681,431
1, 698, 339
1,987, 341
1,664, 670
1, 565, 836
1,752, 271
1, 663, 822
2,197, 943
2,029, 061
1, 752, 556
1, 480. 251
1, 367, 261

294, 579
230, 723
259,112
236, 504
218, 090
216, 770
272, 291
329,863
298, 463
289, 386
275, 522
172, 086

2,023,075
2,441,135
3,218,481
3,039,029
2,737,140
2,433,256
2,720, 623
4,030,168
4,041,407
3,718, 537
2,215,467
1, 608, 237

568,436
600, 552
732, 272
613,180
488,986
440,206
481, 636
685,499
616, 226
589, 235
451,955
388, 716

574, 860
840,064
1,025, 094
970, 241
1,017, 743
1,039, 527
1,141,960
1,483, 230
1,487,170
1, 505,885
1,436, 590
842, 275

5,142,381
5,810,813
7, 222,300
6, 523, 624
6,027, 795
5,882,030
6, 280,332
8, 726, 703
8,472, 327
7,855, 599
5,859, 785
4,378, 575

Total____________
Per cent of to ta l-

20, 840, 782
26.7

3,093, 389
4.0

34,226, 555
43.8

i, 656, 899
8.5

1928:
January___________
February_____ ____
March_____________
April______________
M ay________ _____ _
June_________ ____ _

1, 578,099
1, 737, 772
1,859, 764
1,454, 641
1,463,471
1, 553, 690

328,805
314, 722
351,371
241, 708
214, 233
258,347

2, 606,435
3, 580, 635
4,341,941
3, 239, 247
3,055,469
2, 563,103

630,043
684, 808
724,910
568, 028
407, 553
368,983

609, 054
925,454
1,129,403
940, 684
936, 679
991, 655

5, 752,436
7, 243,391
8,407,389
6,444,308
6,077,405
5, 735, 778

Total____________
Per cent of total...

9,647,437
24.3

1,709,186
4.3

19,386,830
48.9

3,384,325
8.5

5, 532,929
14.0

39, 660,707

13, 364, 6

100.0

78,182,264

100.0

Table 14 shows the number of pairs of shoes that were (according
to information collected and furnished by the Haverhill Chamber of
Commerce) shipped from Haverhill each month from September,
1925, to September, 1928. Figures are not available for any month
prior to September, 1925. (See chart on p. 98.)

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL

The shoe manufacturers in Haverhill produced 17,781,579 pairs in
1914; 21,830,680 pairs in 1919; and 13,624,549 pairs in 1921, and, as
shown in the table, shipped 15,493,572 pairs from the city in 1926
and 14,202,612 pairs in 1927, or a larger number in each of the years
1926 and 1927 than was produced in 1921.

100 0 *5

or
PAIRS

NUMBERS OF PAIRS OF SHOES
SHIPPED, BY MONTHS.

10005
Of

PAIR5

More pairs of shoes were shipped in September in each year than
in any other month, and the 1,945,368 pairs for September, 1928,
surpassed all previous monthly figures, followed next in order by
1,870,740 pairs in August, 1928. These figures indicate a decided
upward trend in the shoe industry in 1928, especially since June.

COST OP PRODUCING AND SELLING SHOES
T

able

14.— Number of pairs of shoes shipped from Haverhillt September, 1925,
to September, 1928, b?/ months
Month

January_______________________________
February ___ _____ _________
March.. ___ ____________________
April__________________________ _ _ _
M ay_________ _____ _________ ________
June__ _______________________________
July. _______________________________
August________________________________
September ___________________________
October. _______ _____________________
November______________________ _____
December. ______ _______ ____________ _
Total __________ ________ _______

1925

1926

1927

1,643,472
1,309,644
847, 512
789, 696

942, 084
1, 215,936
1,665,828
1, 509,120
1,398, 312
1,251,900
1,176, 552
1,432, 512
1, 750, 788
1,483, 380
1,017, 756
649,404

906,660
1,153, 800
1, 530,648
1, 389,708
1,126, 224
964, 548
943, 740
1, 518, 372
1, 665,432
1,490,652
945,468
567, 360

15,493, 572

14, 202,612

1928
741,240
1,288, 764
1,771,848
1,088,820
931,032
962,928
1,147,464
1,870, 740
1,945,368

Cost of Producing and Selling Shoes
HE figures used in arriving at the various items of cost in the
manufacture and sale of shoes were obtained directly from the
records of 23 of the important shoe factories in Haverhill and
from their own copies of Federal income tax returns for each of the
years (1925,1926, and 1927) in which each company was engaged in the
manufacture and sale of shoes. The total number of pairs of shoes
produced and sold in each year by each company was also obtained.
The principal items of cost are materials, consisting of upper
leather, sole leather, lining, wood heels, and findings; wages or earn
ings of factory labor, and salaries of officials, clerks, and the sales
force. When available, separate material costs were obtained for
upper leather and linings, for soles, and for all other materials, and
figures for each are presented in Table 15.
The per cent which each item of cost is of the net amount received
for the shoes and the cost per 100 pairs of shoes for each specified
item, based on the number of pairs of shoes produced and sold and
the expense incurred, are presented in the table.
Labor cost varies with the style of the shoe. A fancy novelty is
much more expensive in labor cost per 100 pairs than a plain shoe, the
cost increasing with the increase in the number of “ cut outs,” straps,
etc., due to the increase in the number of operations.
Cost of materials per 100 pairs of shoes varies with the style. A
change in style which increases or decreases the quantity or, as in
some cases, the quality of leather or other materials means a change
in the cost of materials per 100 pairs. The cost also varies with the
fluctuation in the price of materials. A large manufacturer reported
that his profits prior to 1928 were largely due to the advantageous
purchase of leather in large quantities when the price of materials was
low. He claimed that the advance in the price of leather in 1928
eliminated this source of profit and that it was necessary for him, in
order to continue in business in Haverhill at a profit, to get a reduc
tion in wage rates. He made this request of the union and was
refused. He closed his factory.
Certain overhead expenses, such as rents, fuel, light and power,
taxes, and insurance, usually continue with little change in amount

100

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN H AVERHILL

annually regardless of the variation in the number of pairs of shoes
produced from year to year. Cost of each of these items per 100
pairs of shoes decreased in years in which there was an increase in
production and increased in years in which there was a decrease in
production. This point is clearly shown by factory No. 7, in which
the number of pairs of shoes produced in 1927 was 25 per cent more
and rent was 10 per cent more than in 1925. The cost per 100 pairs
for rent decreased from $1.63 in 1925 to $1.49 in 1927. The cost per
100 pairs of shoes in salaries of officials in this factory increased from
$3.03 in 1925 to $9.03 in 1927, or nearly 200 per cent, due to an increase
of nearly 275 per cent in salaries as compared with only 25 per cent
increase in production. This cost in factory No. 2 was $7.84 per 100
pairs in 1925, $5.87 in 1926, and $25.45 in 1927. In this factory
production in 1927 was 10 per cent less and salaries of officials about
195 per cent more than in 1925.
T

15. — Per cent that specified items of cost of production constitute of net
sales, and cost per 100 pairs of shoes, by establishment and item of cost, 1925,
1926, and 1927

able

Establishment number, kind of shoes, and item of
expense

Per cent that specified
items constitute of
net sales
1925

NO. 1— w o m e n ’ s

1926

1927

Cost per 100 pairs

1925

1926

$44.86
48. 82
77.32
11.86
2.06
2.61
.30
1.88
1.77
1. 73
1.27
1.63
.97
.09
.31
.20

$58.47
45.15
97. 27
4.53
2.61
1.68
. 15
1.09
2.42
2. 55
2.08
1.96
.77
1.89
.48
.32

.54
.81
.68
5.45

. 10
.95
1.36

1927

m’kay

Leather (upper and lining).................................................
Other shoe material__________________ ______________
Wages of factory labor
___
___
Salaries of officials________________ __________________
Salaries of clerks_____________________________________
Salaries and commissions, sales force _________ _____
Expenses, sales force__________________ _____ ______
Rent of factory and office_____________________________
Rent and royalties on machines _____________________
Lasts, patterns, and dies..
________ . ____________
Maintenance and repair______________________________
Fuel, light and power____ _____________ ______ _____
Freight and delivery e x p e n s e _________________ ___________
Interest.._______ _______ ____________________________
Insurance.
_ ________________ ____________
Fares _ _
_ ________________________________
Moving expense .. __________________________________
Bad accounts
_ . ________________________ ______
Depreciation _ _________________________ . . ______
All o t h e r e x p e n s e s ____ __________________________ __________
Net gain _
_ ______________________________
Net loss______ ___________ - - - - - ______ _______________

21.9
23.8
37.7
5.8
1.0
1.3
.1
.9
.9
.8
.6
.8
.5
0)

.2
.1

.3
.4
.3
2.7

26.0
20.0
43. 2
2.0
1.2
.7
0)

.5
1.1
1.1
.9
.9
.3
.8
.2
.1

.4
.6

25.3
23.9
38.3
1.1
.9
.5
.3
.4
.9
1.5
.4
.6
.4
.4
.2
.1
.3
2.1
.3
.5
1.6

$59. 26
56.03
89.91
2.69
2.07
1.06
.71
.93
2.01
3.46
1.05
1.42
.99
.91
.47
.20
.73
5.04
.68
1.24
3.77

.61

NO. 2— WOMEN’ S TURN

Leather and other shoe material...____ ______ _______
Wages of factory labor and office clerks.______________
Salaries of officials ............. ................................. ...............
Salaries and commissions, sales force- _______________
Expenses, sales force _________ ______ _______________
Rent and royalties on machines_____________ - ________
Lasts, patterns, and dies___ ____ ____ _________ ____
Maintenance and repair______________________________
R e n t , fu e l, lig h t and p o w e r ________________________________
Freight and delivery expense_________________________
Interest._____ _______________________________________
Insurance.
_____ _____________________________
Taxes
_________________________________
Depreciation_____________________ ______ ______
..
All other expenses________________ ______________ . Net erain.......................................... .......................................

i Less than one-half of 1 per cent.

46.6
39.2
1.8
5.4
.3
.5
3.2
.6
1.5
.3
.2
.2
.2
.3
.7
.9

45.5
40.5
1.6
4.2
.1
.5
1.8
.5
1.4
.2
.2
.2
.1
.3
.5
4.0

46.7
38.6
6.5
.2
.3
.7
.9
.3
1.8
.3
.6
.2
.1
.5
.7
8.1

205.41
172. 67
7.84
23. 62
1.24
2.38
14.13
2.64
6.49
1.12
.69
1.07
.88
1. 35
3.00
3.86

167.99
149. 55
5.87
15. 65
.36
1.79
6. 76
1.72
5.11
.66
.83
.66
.48
1.10
1.86
14. 59

182.34
150.85
25.45
.70
1.08
2.83
3.67
1.18
6.89
1.23
2.45
.74
.22
2.08
2.77
31.44

101

COST O F PRO D U CIN G AN D SE L LIN G SH OES

1 5 . — Per cent that specified items of cost of production constitute of net
sales, and cost per 100 pairs of shoes, by establishment and item of cost, 1925,
1926, and 1927— Continued

T a b le

Establishment number, kmd of shoes, and item of
expense

Per cent that specified
items constitute of
net sales
1925

1926-

Cost per 100 pairs

1927

1925

1926

40.7
33.6
5.0
.7
.7
1.0
.6
1.1
.6
(3)
(3)
_ .4
(3)
(3)
.2
12.0
.6
4.9

$82. 57
89.41
8.17
(2)
3.31
1. 27
.47
(2)
.56
(2)
2.11
.49
.17
.07
.03
.17
.12
.99
5. 33

$81. 33
71.04
8. 50
.68
6.17
3.11
.55
.60
1. 53
.45
.66
.54
.23
.70
.09
.03
.80
3.91
4.44

1927

NO. 3— WOMEN’ S MEDIUM FINE M’ KAY

43.9
44.6
Leather and other shoe material— _________________
48.3
38.3
Wages of factory labor_____
__ _______ ________ __
4.4
4.6
Salaries of o f f i c i a ls ._ _______ _______________ _ . .
.4
Salaries of clerks____
_________ _____
(2)
3.3
1.8
Salaries and commissions, sales force _ _
____ ____
1.7
.7
Expenses, sales force...
______
_______ .
.3
.3
Rent of factory and office___
_____________________
.3
Rent and royalties on machines_____
______ - . . .
(2)
.3
.8
Lasts, patterns, and dies__ _ _______ ____ _ ____
.2
Maintenance and repair...
__________ ____ __
(2)
.4
Fuel, light, and power_________ __________ __ ___ 4 .1
Freight
________
__ and delivery.3expense.3
.1
.1
Interest... _____________________ ______
_ _____ . .
.4
Insurance,
........... ...............
-..... 0)
.1
T axes...
_____ _
__________ ________
. . . ______
0)
.1
Bad accounts____
________ . . . _.
- . . ._
0)
.1
.4
Depreciation
.
___ ___________________ ____
2.1
.5
All other expenses.
__ _
________ ______ __
2.9
2.4
Net gain...
__________ . . .
Net loss.
........... ....... . . .

$77.97
64. 36
9. 50
1. 37
1.40
2.01
1.15
2. 20
1.17
(3)
(3)
.67
(3)
(3)
.34
23. 01
1.11
9.46
3. 57

1.9

NO. 4— MISSES’ AND CHILDREN’ S M’ KAY

Leather and other shoe material______________________
Wages of factory labor_______ _ . _ ____________ __
Salaries of officials................. ........... .........
.
___
Salaries of clerks____________________ .
_ . _ . ..
Salaries and commissions, sales force
Expenses, sales force___ . . . __
_______ _______
Rent, fuel, light, and power
_____ _ ___
Rent and royalties on machines
...
Lasts, patterns, and dies_________________ _____ ____
Maintenance and repair._______________________ ____
Freight and delivery expense_________________________
Interest___ _____ __________
________ ____________
Insurance_________________________ _______ ________
Taxes__________ ______________ _______________ ____
Moving expense________ _.
. . _ _____
Bad accounts_____ _______________________ _______ _
Depreciation_________________________________________
All other expenses ______ __________________ _____
Net gain____ _______ ________________________ _____
NO.

49.7
34.7
1.5
.6
(2)

.2
1.7
1.2
.5
.6
.6
.3
.6

0)
(2)

.5
.1
7.2

43.4
35.7
.8
.7
.9
(2)
1. 5
1.3
.5
.3
.7
.6
.4
.2
.4
1.3
.3
1.0
9.9

49.1
30.0
1.0
.8
.4
(2)
1.6
1.3
.4
.4
.6
.3
.5
.3

48.6
35.1
(5)
.9
3.0
1.2
1.1
.8
.5
.3
.3
.3
.2
.5
4.1
.5
1.2
1.4

45.3
38.4
(5)
1.0
(2)
.6
1.7
1.0
1.0
.3
.3

64. 20
44. 89
1.92
.77

1.1
.3
.1
9.3

(2)

.26
2. 25
1. 53
.62
.83
.82
.34
.72
.01
(2)

.61
. 15
9. 33

53. 86
44. 27
1.00
.85
1.09
(2)
1.90
1. 57
.62
.36
.87
.74
.55
.28
.48
1.67
.41
1.21
12. 26

59.88
36. 56
1. 22
.92
.49
(2)

2.01
1.64
.43
.45
.71
.41
.63
.31

1.28
.42
. 16
11.39

5—WOMEN’ S AND MISSES’ M ’ KAY

Leather and other shoe material ____ __________ _____
Wages of factory labor___ ___________________________
Salaries of officials.______ ______________ ____________
Salaries of clerks__________ _
___________________
Salaries and commissions, sales force ________________
_____________ ______
__ ____
Expenses,
sales force
Rent of factory and office___ _
_______________ . . .
Rents and royalties on machines ____________________
Lasts, patterns, and dies_____________________________
Maintenance and repair______________________________
Fuel, light, and power_____ _
___________ _______ 1>.........
Freight and delivery expenses___________ ____ ______ J---------Interest________ ____ __________________ ______ ______
Insurance______________ _____________________________
Taxes____ __________ ___________________________ ____
Bad accounts_______ ____ _______ . . .
_______ ___
Depreciation____ _______ _________________ ____ _____
All other expenses________ _____
. _____________ ._
Net gain________ _____________
____ __ . . .
____
Net loss____ _____ ____ ____________________ _________
1 Less than one-half of 1 per cent.
2 None.
3 Included in “ All other expenses.”

0)
.2
.7
5.9
.6
1.2
17.3

4 Light only.
6 Officials drew no salary.

84. 37
60. 90
(5)
1. 50
5.17
2.02
1. 82
1. 35
.85
.50
.56
.59
.34
.92
7.09
.94
2.16
2. 36

81. 58
69.12
(5)
1. 72
(2)
1.02
2.98
1.73
1.72
.63
.51
.06
.32
1.29
10. 56
1.08
2.16
31. 05

102

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL

15 — P e r cent that specified items o f cost o f production constitute o f net
sales, and cost per 100 pairs o f shoes, by establishment and item o f cost, 1925,
1926, and 1927— C on tin u ed

T a b le

Establishment number, kind of shoes, and item of
expense

Per cent that specified
items constitute of
net sales
1925

Cost per 100 pairs

1926

1927

NO. 6— WOMEN'S M’ RAY

Leather and other shoe material............ .
Wages of factory labor and office clerks..
Salaries of officials___________ __________
Salaries and commissions, sales force___
Expenses, sales force___________________
Rent of factory and office______________
Rent and royalties on machines..............
Lasts, patterns, and dies_______________
Maintenance and repair........... .................
Fuel, light, and power_________________
Freight and delivery expense__________
Insurance_____________________________
Taxes_________________________________
Bad debts________________________ ____ _
Depreciation___________________________
All other expenses_____________________
Net gain_____________ _________________

$106.88
85.38
1.07
3.67

48.1
38.4
.5
1.7
.4
.4
.7

1.00

.90
1. 67
2.73
.76
1.17
.60
.34

1.2
.3
.5
.3

.10

0)
.7
0)
.3

1.58
.08
.78
13. 58

6.1

NO. 7— WOMEN’ S M ’ KAY

Leather (uppers, linings)_____________ _____ _____
Leather (soles)__________________ _____ _____ _____
Other shoe material________________ _______ _____
Wages of factory labor__________________ ________
Salaries of officials________________________________
Salaries of clerks____________________________ ____
Salaries, commissions, and expenses, sales force____
Rent of factory and office_________________________
Rent and royalties on machines_________ ________
Lasts, patterns, and dies--------------------------------------Maintenance and repair__________________________
Fuel, light, and power____________________________
Freight. ____________ ______________________ _____
Insurance___ _______ _____________________________
Taxes___ ______ _________________________________
All other expenses_____________________________

27.4

25.8

12.1
37.0
1.3

15.6
38.5

3.1
.7

2.4
.5

8.8

1.1

1.2
1.2
1.0
.4
.3

8.8
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.4

1.0

26.5
9.5
13.1
36.1
3.6

1.0
2.2
.6
1.1
1.1

.5
.4
.3
.3

$63.03
20.21
27. 83
84. 80
3. 03
2. 50
7.11
1.63
2. 86
2. 65
2. 37
.95
.80
.53
.63
1.80

$63. 28
21.48
38.17
94. 35
3.86
3. 06
5. 86

1.10

2. 95
3. 51
2. 50

1.11
1.00

.63
.61
2.23

65. 62
23.58
32.45
89. 50
9. 03
2. 60
5. 56
1.49
2. 73
2. 65
1.43
1.13
.81
.59
.64
1.99

NO. 8— W O M EN’ S M’ KAY SLIPPERS AND PUMPS

75. 33
54.04
144.44
6.99
2.81

26.0
18.6
39.5
2.4

Leather (uppers and linings)_________
Other shoe material________ _________
Wages of factory labor_______________
Salaries of officials._______ ___________
Salaries of clerks_____________________
Salaries and commissions, sales force..
Expenses, sales force and advertising.
Rent, fuel, light, and power_________
Rent and royalties on machines_____
Lasts, patterns, and dies------------------Maintenance and repair_____________
Interest_____________________________
Insurance___________________________
Taxes_______________________________
Depreciation________________________
All other expenses___________________
Net gain------------------------------------------Net loss_____ ________________________

1.0

.02

0)
1.4

4.11
3.19
3. 35
8.07

1.1
1.2

2.8

.66

.79
.47
.16
.24
6.54
8.73

.1
2.3
3.0

NO. 9— WOMEN’ S M ’ KAY

Leather and other shoe material_______________
Wages of factory labor_________________________
Salaries of officials_____________________________
Salaries of clerks_______________________________
Salaries, commissions, and expenses, sales force..
Rent of factory and office______________________
Rent and royalties on machines________________
Lasts, patterns, and dies_______________________
Maintenance and repair_______________________
Fuel, light, and power--------------------------------------Freight................. .......................... ............................

i Less than one-half of 1 per cent.

50.5
40.0
1.3
.7
.7
.7
0)
.7
.4

46.9
43.2
.3
.7

49.9
37.5
.5

122.46
97.04
3.20
1.68
1.62
1.70

118. 39
108.95
.83
1.88
1.96
1.13

1.74
.99
.57
.85

.13
.98
.44

1.0
1.2

.4
(I). i
.4

.12

.10

138.77
104. 34
1.35
2.91
3. 22
2.43
2.56
1.70
.71
1.05
1.33

103

COST OF PRODUCING AND SELLING SHOES
T

15 — P er cent that specified items o f cost o f production constitute o f net
sales, and cost per 100 pairs o f shoes, by establishment and item o f cost, 1925,
1926, and 1927— C on tin u ed

able

Establishment number, kind of shoes, and item of
expense

Per cent that specified
items constitute of
net sales
1926

no.

9— w o m e n ’ s

m ’k a y —

1927

Cost per 100 pairs

1925

1926

$0. 64
.53

$0.73
.27
.32
.65
8.41
12.98

$0.70
.54

126.71
36.88
125.95
11.40
10.14
13.15
3.22
3.01
2. 55
6. 64
1.74
1.83
.57
1. 23
.53
.39
.27

136.39
24.48
126.37

1.20

1.49
3.60

continued

Interest............... .
Insurance...... ..........
Taxes_____________
Depreciation______
All other expenses..
Net gain__________

0.3

.1
.1

.1
.3
2.4
4.5

.3
3.3
5.1

.3
.4
.7
5.0

.22

.64
5. 86
10.89

.86

1.18
1.94
13.95

NO. 10— WOMEN’S TURN SLIPPERS AND PUMPS

Leather________ ___ _____ __________
Other shoe material_____ ___________
Wages of factory labor______________
Salaries of officials. ______ ___________
Salaries of clerks____________________
Salaries and commissions, sales force _
Expenses, sales force. _______________
Rent of factory and office____________
Rent and royalties on machines_____
Lasts, patterns, and dies____________
Maintenance and repairs____________
Fuel, light, and power__ ____ ______
Freight_____________________________
Interest_____________________ ____ _
Insurance___________________________
Taxes________ ____ _________________
Bad accounts_______________________
Depreciation________________________
All other expenses___________________
Net gain_________________ ____ _____
Net loss______ ________________ _____

36.0

36.0
10.5
35.8
3.2
2.9
3.7

38.6
6.9
35.8
3.5

135.08
32.41
146. 58

4.3
.5

1.0

12.65
2.08
3.36
2.41
10. 93
1.72
2.51
1. 47
.78
.77
.65
2.85
1. 88
3. 58

1.2

7.71

2.8
1.0

2.9
.5
.7
.4

.7
1.9
.5
.5

.8
3.2
.3

.2
.2

.2
.1

.3
.7
.5

(2)

10.01
11.02

2. 34
1.80

12.22

10.01
15.31
1.93
3.56
3.00

11.20
1.04
2.21

1.21

2.04
.59
.48

(2)

4.12

NO. 11— WOMEN’ S M’ KAY

Leather and other shoe material________
Wages of factory labor and office clerks..
Salaries of officials—. ..................................
Salaries and commissions, sales force___
Expenses, sales force___________________
Rent of factory and office______________
Rent and royalties on machines________
Lasts, patterns, and dies_______________
Maintenance and repair_______________
Fuel, light, and power_________________
Freight and delivery expense__________
Interest______ _______ _________________
Insurance______________________________
Taxes____________ _____ _______________
Bad accounts. _________________________
Depreciation. ______ ___________________
All other expenses_____________________
Net gain_______________________________

76.99
80.60
3.46
.26
.75
.41
(2)
.96
.03
.15
.85
.07

82.12
71.01
6.74

4.86

.45
1. 58

.76
.37
.84

42.8
41.9
.4

44.7
46.8

2.0

47.9
41.4
3.9

(2)
(2)

.5
(2)
.1

0
(2)
(2)
.7
12.9

.2
(2)

.6
0)
.1

1.0

0
.1
0)
2.8
.1

.1
.1
.1

.4
.4

1.1

.11
.02
.10

1.01

.70
.78
1.30
1.74
.34
.64
.71
.24
.09

.10

NO. 12— WOMEN’ S M’ KAY

Leather............... ............ .........................
Other shoe material-.____ __________
Wages of factory labor..........................
Salaries of officials....... ............ ........... .
Salaries of clerks........ ............................
Salaries and commissions, sales force.
Expenses, sales force..........................
Rent of factory and office-----------------Rent and royalties on machines_____
Lasts, patterns, and dies____________
Maintenance and repair_____________
Fuel, light, and power______________
Freight and delivery expense________
Interest....................................................
Insurance........ ........................................
Taxes............... ................................... .
Bad accounts__________ ____ _______
Depreciation_________ _______ ______
All other expenses..______ __________
Net loss........................... .........................

1 Less than one-half of 1 per cent.

26.7
20.0

47.9
2.5
.7

.'2
1.1
.6
1.6

4.1

1.8
.7

.2
0

.2
.6

9.2

2 None.

73.33
55.02
131. 55
6.82
1.81
.42
3.02
1.75
4.31
11.23
4.93

2.01
.47

.01

.56
.09
.35
.48
1.78
25. 22

104
T

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL

1 5 .— P er cent that specified item s o f cost o f production constitute o f net
sales, and cost per 100 pairs o f shoes, by establishment and item o f cost, 1 9 2 5 ,
1926, and 1927— C on tin u ed

able

Establishment number, kind of shoes, and item of
expense

Per cent that specified
items constitute of
net sales
1925

1926

1927

Cost per 100 pairs

1925

1926

1927

$182. 50
118. 70
17. 86
2. 28
.38
3.47
1. 58
1.91
7.30
1.24
1. 54

$157.96
122.19
13.48
2.30
8.18
3.27
1.19
2.16
4.48
.94
1.49
.16
.27

NO. 13— WOMEN’ S TURN

52.3
34.0
5.1
.7
.1
1.0
.5
.5
2.1
.4
.4
0)
0)
.2
0)
0)
.3

Leather and other shoe material_____
Wages of factory labor_______________
Salaries of officials___________________
Salaries of clerks____ _______________
Salaries and commissions, sales force _
Expenses, sales force________________
Rent of factory and office____________
Rent and royalties on machines_____
Lasts, patterns and dies_____________
Maintenance and repair_____________
Fuel, light, and power______________
Freight and delivery expense________
Interest_____________________________
Insurance___________________________
Taxes_______________________________
Bad accounts_______________________
Depreciation________________________
Moving expense_____________________
All other expenses___________________
Net gain____________________________

1.1
1.3

46.2
35.8
3.9
.7
2.4
1.0
.3
.6
1.3
.3
.4
0
.1
.2
.1
2.2
.4
.2
.9
2.9

.11
.13

.66

.04
.04
1.15

.66

3. 78
4. 49

.34
7. 35
1.39
.84
3.03
10.08

111. 18
98.14
5.87
(2)
2.00
3.13
2.62
3. 02
.52

NO. 14— WOMEN’ S M ’ KAY

Leather and other shoe material-------Wages of factory labor----------------------Salaries of officials,__________________
Salaries and commissions, sales force _
Expenses, sales force________________
Rent of factory and office-----------------Rent and royalties on machines_____
Lasts, patterns, and dies____________
Maintenance and repair-------------------Freight and delivery expense----------Interest_____________________________
Insurance___________________________
Taxes_______________________________
Depreciation________________________
All other expenses___________________
Net gain____________________________

44.6
36.7

2.8

5.4
.5
1.3
.9
3.2

.2
.1

.1
.1

.3
.5

2.8

45.8
39.8
4.5
3.2
1.0
1.0
.8
1.3
.3
.1
.2
.1
.1
.2
.7
.7

47.9 $113. 68
93. 49
42.3
7.14
2.5
13.79
(2)
1.39
.9
3. 32
1.4
2. 27
1.1
8 .11
1.3
1.48
.2
.1
.47
.35
.4
.27
.2
.2
.23
.2
.75
.8
1.16
7.16
.6

150. 85
131. 28
14.97
10. 69
3.44
3.28
2. 68
4.18
1.14
.81
.17
.46
.72
2. 31
2. 26

.89
.44
.45
.57
1. 75
1.49

25.2
21.3
35.3
9.2
.8
(2)
1.3
.8
1.1
1.7
.9
.6
.2
.1
.3
.2
.1
.3
1.2
8.3

26.6
20.8
35.5
1.2
1.1
(2)
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.1
.6
.8
.2
.2
.4
.4
.3
.4
1.6
6.2

52.41
42. 77
74. 77
2. 77
2.14
.19
2.88
2.31
2. 56
2. 92
3.18
1.93
.53
.03
.78
.78
(2)
.67
1.55
14. 63

53.14
44.86
74. 38
1.93
1.74
(2)
2. 69
1.73
2. 27
3. 67
1.95
1.35
.50
.15
.61
.44
.15
.63
2. 53
17. 50

63.49
49. 69
84. 77
2.78
2. 51

20.4
15.4
42.0
1.2

22.4
16.0
41.3
1.2
1.7

124.14
203. 97
6.51

118.12
89. 22
242. 58
7.03
10.29

132.95
94. 87
245.45
7.37
10.02

.22

. 12

NO. 15— WOMEN’ S AND MISSES’ M’ KAY SLIPPERS AND
PUMPS

Leather (including uppers and linings)----------------------Other shoe material---------------------------------------------------Wages of factory labor-----------------------------------------------Salaries of officials___________________________________
Salaries of clerks_____________________________________
Salaries and commissions, sales force-------------------------Expenses, sales force_________________________________
Rent of factory and office____________________________
Rent and royalties on machines--------------------------------Lasts, patterns, and dies____________________________
Maintenance and repair--------------------------------------------Fuel, light, and power______________________________
Freight and delivery expense________________________
Interest..____ _______________________________________
Insurance___________________________________________
Taxes_______________________________________________
Bad debts___________________________________________
Depreciation________________________________________
All other expenses----------------------------------------------------Net gain---------------------------------------------------------------------

25.2
20.6

36.0
1.3

1.0
.1
1.4

1.1
1.2

1.4
1.5
.9
.3

.4
.4
(2)
.3
.7
7.0

(2)

3.35
2. 53
2. 77
2. 51
1. 52
1.99
.55
.54

.65
1.05
3.83
14.74

NO. 16— WOMEN’ S TURN

Leather (including upper and linings)-----------------------Other shoe material_________________________________
Wages of factory labor_______________________________
Salaries of officials___________________________________
Salaries of clerks_____________________________________

1 Less than one-half of 1 per cent.

22.2

18.1
36.5

1.2
1.6

1.8

101. 20

2 None.

COST OF PRO D U CIN G AN D

105

SE L LIN G SHOES

15 — P er cent that specified items o f cost o f production constitute o f net
sales, and cost per 100 pairs o f shoes, by establishment and item o f cost, 1925,
1926j and 1927— C on tin u ed

T a b le

Establishment number, kind of shoes, and item of
expense

Per cent that specified
items constitute of
net sales
1925

no.

16— w o m e n ’ s

1926

1927

Cost per 100 pairs

1925

1926

$35.07
7.32
9. 88
3.71
15. 85
(3)
1.57
2. 39
1.51
1.18
3. 89
2. 55
15. 43
14. 01

$36.09
9. 30
10. 41
3. 53
12. 24
(3)
.88
2. 75
1.33
1.15
2.05
3. 01
21.00
7.17

1927

t u r n — continued

Salaries and commissions, sales force _
Expenses, sales force_______ ________
Rent, fuel, light, and power_________
Rent and royalties on machines_____
Lasts, patterns, and dies____________
Maintenance and repair_____________
Freight and delivery expense________
Interest_____________________________
Insurance___________________________
Taxes_______________________________
Bad debts___________________________
Depreciation________________________
All other expenses___________________
Net gain____________________________
Net loss_____________________________

6.3
1.3

1.8
.7

2.8
(3)

.3
.4
.3

.2
.7
.5

2.8
2.5

6.2
1.6
1.8
.6
2.1
(3)
.2
.5
.2
.2
.4
.5
3.6
1.2

4.9
1.9
1.7
.6
1.6
(3)
.4
.6
.3
.2
1.4
.6
3.7

$28.98
11.56
9. 85
3. 61
9. 38
(3)
2.11
3. 74
1.68
1.14
8.51
3.45
21.99
2. 26

NO. 17— WOMEN’ S M’ KAY

Leather and other shoe material________________
Wages of factory labor--------------------------------------Salaries of officials_____________________________
Salaries of clerks_______________________________
Salaries, commissions, and expenses, sales force..
Rent, fuel, light, and power____________________
Rent and royalties on machines________________
Lasts, patterns, and dies______________________
Maintenance and repair_______________________
Freight and delivery expense__________________
Interest________________________________________
Insurance______________________________________
Taxes__________________________________________
Bad debts_____________________________________
Depreciation___________________________________
All other expenses_____________________________
Net gain------------------------------------------------------------

56.5
25.5
4.2
3.0
1.1
.9
.6
1.3
.4
.5
.2
.1
C1)
.4
.1
.3
9.1

55.9
27.1
3.2
2.4
(3)
.9
.5
.8
.3
.4
.2
.2
.1
.5
.1
1.9
8.6

49.5
32.4
1.8
.9
4.2
1.3
.9
.9
(3)
.8
.9
.3
.7
.4
.1
2.6
1.6
1.3
1.2

45.9
32.8
2.7
.8
3.6
1.3
.8
.8
(3)
.4
.9
.2
.9
.5
.1
5.4
1.5
.8
.6

36.9
43.8
1.7
2.0
.4
2.3
1.7
.8
6.4
1.0
1.8

41.6
40.4
1.2
1.8
(2)
2.1
1.4
.8
4.1
.6
1.3

|m _

152.81
69.11
11.33
7.99
3.04
2. 29
1.53
3. 50
1.05
1.40
.48
.33
.10
1.04
.34
.93
24. 66

161.09
78.13
9. 35
6. 85
(3)
2. 52
1.53
2. 27
.97
1.21
.71
.43
.34
1.39
.34

155.17
104. 61
5. 66
2. 77
13.15
3.93
2.83
2.93
(3)
2.39
2.96
.97
2.18
1.33
.43
8. 21
5.07
4.17
3.78

143. 60
102. 60
8. 41
2. 63
11.19
3. 98
2. 51
2. 58
(3)
1.29
2. 72
.78
2. 95
1.69
.36
16.96
4. 63
2.42
1.90

99.91
118. 41
4.49
5.42
.96
6.24
4. 61
2.10
17. 25
2. 67
4. 76

178. 84
173. 77
5. 28
7.93

24. 67

NO . 18— W O M E N ’ S M ’ K A Y

Leather and other shoe material_____
Wages of factory labor_______________
Salaries of officials___________________
Salaries of clerks____________________
Salaries and commissions, sales force.
Expenses, sales force________________
Rent of factory and office____________
Rent and royalties on machines_____
Lasts, patterns, and dies____ _______
Maintenance and repair_____________
Fuel, light, and power______________
Freight and delivery expense________
Interest___ _____ ___________________
Insurance___________________________
Taxes_______________________________
Bad debts___________________________
Depreciation________________________
All other expenses----------------------------Net gain-------- ---------------------- ------------

47.1
34.0
1.9
.7
3.1

1.1

(3)

1.0

.6
.5

1.3
1.5

1.2

3.4

NO. 19— WOMEN’ S TURN AND M’ KAY

Leather and other shoe material_____
Wages of factory la b o r .____ ________
Salaries of officials--------- ------- ------------Salaries of clerks_____________________
Salaries and commissions, sales force...
Expenses, sales force, and advertising..
Rent of factory and office....... .......... .
Rent and royalties on machines............
Lasts, patterns, and dies........................
Maintenance and repair______________
Fuel, light, and power............ ................
1 Less than one-half of 1 per cent.
2 None.

39.7

3.0
.3
1.5

150.47
139. 59
5. 45
7. 65
3.42
5. 80
5.45
2. 39
11.20
1.31
5. 52

3 Included in ‘ All other expenses.’

9.18
6. 03
3. 36
17.75
2. 73
5. 59

106
T

CONDITIONS IN SHOE INDUSTRY IN HAVERHILL

15. — Per cent that specified items of cost of production constitute of net
salesy and cost per 100 pairs of shoes, by establishment and item of cost, 1925,
19261 and 1927— Continued

able

Establishment number, kind of shoes, and item of
expense

Per cent that specified
items constitute of
net sales
1925

. 19— w o m e n ’ s

1926

1927

Cost per 100 pairs

1925

1926

$2.26
4. 22
1.45
.68
19. 83
1.86
5. 80
4. 78

$2.31
1.89
.67
.41
.76
1.28
5. 02

1927

t u r n a n d m ’ k a t — c o n t in u e d

_____________ _
Freight and delivery expense
_
_______
Interest. . . . ______________ . .
Insurance________ _____________________ _________ _
Taxes________________________________ . . . _________
Bad debts_________ . . . ___ __ ____________ ________
Depreciation___ __
. . .
All other expenses.. _________ ____ __ __ . . . ____ . . .
Net gain,
Net loss___ ___________ _________ __________________

0. 6
1.1
' .4
.2
5. 2
.5
1. 5
1.3

0.9
.7
.2
.2
.3
.5
1.9

0.7
.6
.3
.2
.1
.5
2.2
.1

3.2

$2.88
2. 58
1.08
.85
.25
2.02
9. 36
.32

8.62

NO. 20— WOMEN’ S TURN

Leather (upper and linings) _________________________
Other shoe material-_____ ________ _________ _______
Wages of factory labor . . . _________________ ________
Salaries of officials. ___ _____________ .... - _______
Salaries of clerks _____ _____ ______________________ _
Salaries and commissions, sales force...
.. .. _
Expenses, sales force___________ __________
Rent of factory and office— ____ _______ . _____ __
Rent and royalties on machines__________ _______ _
Lasts, patterns, a n d d ies
Maintenance and repair
_
Fuel, light, and power. _ _______________________
Freight and delivery expense_____________________
Interest..______ _______ _____________________________
Insurance__ __________ ________ _____________________
Taxes____ ____ ________ ________ ___________________
Bad debts _ __ ____________ ____ ____________
_ _
Depreciation____________________________________ ____
All other expenses._ _________________________ ____ __
Net gain__________ __________ _______________________
Net loss_______________________________________ ____

26.1
22. 3
35.1
2.0
1.2
1.0
.8
2. 5
.6
2. 5
.4
1.0
.2
!3
.6
.3
.5
.9
1. 6
1.0

27. 5
22.0
35.2
2.3
1.3
1.3
.8
2.3
.6
3.0
.4
.9
.3
.3
.6
.3
2.9
.7
1.6

18.7
32.4
33.2
2.7
1.1
.3
.8
1.8
.8
3.3
.4
.8
.3
.3
.2
.2
1.4
.6
.9

4.1

95. 69
81.85
128. 37
7. 31
4. 39
3. 69
2.90
9. 06
2.29
9. 25
1.29
3. 62
.81
1.08
2.19
.95
1.99
3.39
5. 80
3.54

120. 52
96. 36
154. 45
9. 94
5. 56
5.66
3, 50
9. 99
2. 68
13.17
1.79
3.85
1.14
1.52
2. 71
1.28
12. 71
3. 28
6.83

61.79
107.41
109.93
8. 80
3. 77
1.12
2. 77
5.96
2.79
10.95
1.18
2.58
.98
.92
.73
.78
4.79
2.12
3.13

17.99

1.24

NO. 21— WOMEN’ S M’ KAY AND PUMPS

44.4
39.7
8.2
.8
.4
.3
.5
.7
1.1
.4
.6
0)
.3
.1
.1
.1
1.0
1.8

Leather and other shoe material ......................................
Wages of factory labor________________ ______________
Salaries of officials_______________ _____ ______________
Salaries of clerks _____________________ _____________
Salaries and commissions, sales force. __________ _____
Expenses, sales force _______________________________
Rent of factory and office - __ _____________ _______
Rent and royalties on machines.. . _________________
Lasts, patterns, and dies.. ________________ ______
Maintenance and repair______________________________
Fuel, light, and power ______ ________ _____ _______
Freight and delivery expense______________ . _______
Interest
__________________________________ . _____
Insurance___ ____ ____ _____ _______________________
Taxes _ _______ _____ _______ _____ ______________
Depreciation______ _____ ______ ______ ____ _________
All other expenses __________________________________
Net gain
. . ______________________________

52.09
46. 57
9. 55
.94
.49
.37
.59
.83
1.26
.49
.66
.03
.31
.14
.06
.14
1.20
2.12

NO. 22— WOMEN’ S M’ KAY

Leather and satins........................................................ .......
Other shoe material_______ _____________ ______ ______
Wages of factory labor. _____ _______________________
Salaries of officials____________________________________
Salaries of clerks____________ __________________ ____
Salaries and commissions, sales force ________________
Expenses, sales force__ ____ ________________________
Rent, fuel, light, and power__________________________
Rents and royalties on machines____ ______ _________
Lasts, patterns, and dies_____________________________
Maintenance and repair..____ _____________ ___ _____
Freight and delivery expense...........................................
Interest...................... ............................. ............. ...............

i Less than one-half of 1 per cent.

22.4
23.2
37.1
5.4
1.1
.4
1.2
1.7
.9
(1>.8
.3
(2)

23.7
22.9
37.2
5.1
1.0
.2
.4
1.4
.8
3.3
.7
.3
(2)

24.3
24.1
35.0
5.2
1.2
.8
.9
1.1
.8
1.5
.5
.3
(2)

71.58
74.25
118.74
17.15
3.40
1.31
3. 75
5.43
2.88
0

2. 52
.90
(2)

2 None.

78. 58
76.14
123. 59
17.03
3.34
.76
1.44
4.67
2.79
10.90
2.35
1.06
(2)

79.48
79.02
114. 84
17.06
3.90
2. 70
3.10
3.69
2. 76
4.87
1. 56
.89
(2)

107

COST OF PRODUCING AND SELLING SHOES
T a b l e 15.— Per cent that specified items of cost of production constitute

of net
sales, and cost per 100 pairs of shoes, by establishment and item of cost, 1925,
1926, and 1927— Continued

Establishment number, kind of shoes, and item of
expense

Per cent that specified
items constitute of
net sales
1925

1926

1927

Cost per 100 pairs

1925

1926

1927

no. 22—women’s m’kay—continued
Insurance ......-............. - .....................
..... .
Taxes__________________________ ____________________
Bad debts____________ ______________________________
Depreciation._ ________________
_______________ _
All other expenses____________________ _______________
Net gain____________________________ __________ _____

1.0
.3
(2)
2.2
1.5
2.9

1.0
.2
(2)
.4
1.4
.9

1.0
1.5
.9
.4
1.9
1.0

$3.30
.87
(2)
7. 01
4.69
9. 42

$3. 33
.77
(2)
1.39
4.58
3.14

$3.12
.52
2.92
1.18
6.38
3.20

53.1
22.6
3.6
.5
2.8
1.4
5.5
.6
.4
.2
.8
1.1
.1
.3
.1
1.1
.7
4.3
.8

43. 6
30.4
4.8
.8
2.7
1.2
5.8
.7
.2
.3
1.1
.4
.2
.6
.2
1.0
.7
2.9
2.5

48.6
24.9
4.2
3.8
3.4
.9
4. 5
.7
.1
.3
.8
.4
.1
.5
.3
.7
.6
4.7
.6

316. 64
135. 05
21. 61
2.98
16. 41
8. 26
32. 53
3.66
2. 46
1.29
4. 80
6.64
.80
1.78
.73
6.31
4. 27
25. 63
4. 57

187.95
131.24
20.50
3. 34
11.85
5.01
25.00
2.90
.97
1.16
4. 59
1. 78
. 75
2. 57
.77
4. 35
3.17
12.61
10.88

224. 52
115.03
19.23
17. 71
15.89
4.37
20. 61
3. 01
.60
1.25
3.66
1. 76
.64
2.33
1.24
3.04
2. 91
21. 89
2. 58

NO. 23— WOMEN’ S M’ KAY

Leather and other shoe m aterial-._____________ ____
Wages of factory labor__________ _ _____________
Salaries of officials.____ ______________________________
Salaries of clerks________________ _____________ _____
Salaries and commissions, sales force. ._ ____________
Expenses, sales force________________ _____ ____ _____
Rent of factory and office____________________________
Rent and royalties on machines______________________
Lasts, patterns, and dies_____________________________
Maintenance and repair......................................................
Fuel, light, and power___________ _________________ .
Freight and delivery expense_________________________
Interest______ ______ _________ ____ _________________
Insurance.............................. ..................... ..........................
Taxes_____________________ _____ ____________________
Bad debts......... ............................. ............................ ..........
Depreciation____________________ ____ _______ _______
All other expenses_______________________ _____ ______
Net gain________ ______ _____________________________

2 None.

LIST OF BULLETINS OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
The following is a list of all bulletins of the Bureau of Labor Statistics published since
July 1912, except that in the case of bulletins giving the results of periodic surveys of the
bureau only the latest bulletin on any one subject is here listed.
A complete list of the reports and bulletins issued prior to July, 1912, as well as the bulletins
published since that date will be furnished on application. Bulletins marked thus
are out of print.

(*)

Conciliation and Arbitration (including strikes and lockouts).
*No. 124. Conciliation and arbitration in the building trades of Greater New York. [1913.]
*No. 133. Report of the industrial council of the British Board of Trade on its inquiry into industrial
agreements. [1913.]
No. 139. Michigan copper district strike. [1914.]
No. 144. Industrial court of the cloak, suit, and skirt industry of New York City. [1914.]
No. 145. Conciliation, arbitration, and sanitation in the dress and waist industry of New York City.
[1914.]
*No. 191. Collective bargaining in the anthracite coal industry. [1916.]
*No. 198. Collective agreements in the men’s clothing industry. [1916.]
No. 233. Operation of the industrial disputes investigation act of Canada. [1918.1
No. 255. Joint industrial councils in Great Britain. [1919.]
No. 283. History of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board, 1917 to 1919.
No. 287. National War Labor Board: History of its formation, activities, etc. [1921.3
No. 303. Use of Federal power in settlement of railway labor disputes. [1922.]
No. 341. Trade agreement in the silk-ribbon industry of New York City. [1923.]
No. 402. Collective bargaining by actors. [1926.]
No. 468. Trade agreements, 1927.
No. 481. Joint industrial control in the book and job printing industry. [1928.] (In press.)
Cooperation.
No. 313. Consumers’ cooperative societies in the United Jtates in 1920.
No. 314. Cooperative credit societies in America and in foreign countries. [1922.]
No. 437. Cooperative movement in the United States in 1925 (other than agricultural).
Employment and Unemployment.
*No. 109. Statistics of unemployment and the work of employment offices in the United States.
[1913.]
No. 172. Unemployment in New York City, N. Y . [1915.]
*No. 183. Regularity of employment in the women’s ready-to-wear garment industries. [1915.]
*No. 195. Unemployment in the United States. [1916.]
Nc. 196. Proceedings of the Employment Managers’ Conference held at Minneapolis, Minn., Jan
uary 19 and 20, 1916.
*No. 202. Proceedings of the conference of Employment Managers’ Association of Boston, Mass.,
held May 10,1916.
No. 206. The British system of labor exchanges. [1916.]
No. 227. Proceedings of the Employment Managers’ Conference, Philadelphia, Pa., April 2 and 3,
1917.
No. 235. Employment system of the Lake Carriers’ Association. [1918.]
*No. 241. Public employment offices in the United States. [1918.]
No. 247. Proceedings of Employment Managers’ Conference, Rochester, N . Y ., M ay 9-11,1918.
No. 310. Industrial unemployment: A statistical study of its extent and causes. [1922.]
No. 409. Unemployment in Columbus, Ohio, 1921 to 1925.
Foreign Labor Laws.
*No. 142. Administration of labor laws and factory inspection in certain European countries.
Housing.
*No. 158.
No. 263.
No. 295.
No* 469.

Government aid to home owning and housing of working people in foreign countries.
Housing by employers in the United States. [1920.]
Building operations in representative cities in 1920.
Building permits in the principal cities of the United States in [1921 to] 1927.

24011°— 29------- 8

(i)

[1914.]
[1914.]

Industrial Accidents and Hygiene.
*No. 104. Lead poisoning in potteries, tile works, and porcelain enameled sanitary ware factories.
[1912.]
No. 120. Hygiene of the painters’ trade. [1913.]
*No. 127. Dangers to workers from dusts and fumes, and methods of protection. [1913.]
*No. 141. Lead poisoning in the smelting and refining of lead. [1914.]
*No. 157. Industrial accident statistics. [1915.]
*No. 165. Lead poisoning in the manufacture of storage batteries. [1914.]
*No. 179. Industrial poisons used in the rubber industry. [1915.]
No. 188. Report of British departmental committee on the danger in the use of lead in the painting of
buildings. [1916.]
*No. 201. Report of committee on statistics and compensation insurance cost of the International Asso
ciation of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions. [1916.]
*No. 207. Causes of death, by occupation. [1917.]
*No. 209. Hygiene of the printing trades. [1917.]
*No. 219. Industrial poisons used or produced in the manufacture of explosives. [1917.]
No. 221. Hours, fatigue, and health in British munition factories. [1917.]
No. 230. Industrial efficiency and fatigue in British munition factories. [1917.]
*No. 231. Mortality from respiratory diseases in dusty trades (inorganic dusts). [1918.]
*No. 234. Safety movement in the iron and steel industry, 1907 to 1917.
No. 236. Effects of the air hammer on the hands of stonecutters. [1918.]
No. 249. Industrial health and efficiency. Final report of British Health of Munition Workers’
Committee. [1919.]
*No. 251. Preventable death in the cotton-manufacturing industry* [1919.]
No. 256. Accidents and accident prevention in machine building. [1919.]
No. 267. Anthrax as an occupational disease. [1920.]
No. 276. Standardization of industrial accident statistics. [1920.]
No. 280. Industrial poisoning in making coal-tar dyes and dye intermediates. [1921.]
No. 291. Carbon-monoxide poisoning. [1921.]
No. 293. The problem of dust phthisis in the granite-stone industry. [1922.]
No. 298. Causes and prevention of accidents in the iron and steel industry, 1910-1919.
No. 306. Occupational hazards and diagnostic signs: A guide to impariments to be looked for in
hazardous occupations. [1922.]
No. 339. Statistics of industrial accidents in the United States. [1923.]
No. 392. Survey of hygienic conditions in the printing trades. [1925.]
No. 405. Phosphorus necrosis in the manufacture of fireworks and in the preparation of phosphorus.
[1926.]
No. 425. Record of industrial accidents in the United States to 1925.
No. 426. Deaths from lead poisoning. [1927.]
No. 427. Health survey of the printing trades, 1922 to 1925.
No. 428. Proceedings of the Industrial Accident Prevention Conference, held at Washington, D . O.,
July 14-16, 1926.
No. 460. A new test for industrial lead poisoning. [1928.]
No. 466. Settlement for accidents to American seamen. [1928.]
Industrial Relations and Labor Conditions.
No. 237. Industrial unrest in Great Britain. [1917.]
No. 340. Chinese migrations, with special reference to labor conditions. [1923.]
No. 349. Industrial relations in the west coast lumber industry. [1923.]
No.’ 361. Labor relations in the Fairmont (W. Ya.) bituminous-coal field. [1924.]
No. 380. Postwar labor conditions in Germany. [1925.]
No. 383. Works council movement in Germany. [1925.]
No. 384. Labor conditions in the shoe industry in Massachusetts, 1920-1924.
No. 399. Labor relations in the lace and lace-curtain industries in the United States.

[1925.]

Labor laws of the United States (including decisions of courts relating to labor).
No. 211. Labor laws and their administration in the Pacific States. [1917.]
No. 229. Wage-payment legislation in the United States. [1917.]
No. 285. Minimum-wage laws of the United States: Construction and operation. [1921.]
No. 321. Labor laws that have been declared unconstitutional. [1922.]
No. 322. Kansas Court of Industrial Relations. [1923.]
No. 343. Laws providing for bureaus of labor statistics, etc. [1923.]
No. 370. Labor laws of the United States, with decisions of courts relating thereto. [1925.]
No. 408. Laws relating to payment of wages. [192G.]
No. 444. Decisions of courts and opinions affecting labor, 1926.
No. 467. Minimum-wage legislation in various countries. [1928.] (In press.)
No. 470. Labor legislation of 1927. (In press.)

(II)

Proceedings of Annual Conventions of the Association of Governmental Labor Officials of the United
States and Canada. (Name changed in 1928 to Association of Governmental Officials in Industry of
the United States and Canada.)
•No. 266. Seventh, Seattle, Wash., July 12-15, 1920.
No. 307. Eighth, New Orleans, La., May 2-6,1921.
No. 323. Ninth, Harrisburg, Pa., M ay 22-26, 1922.
No. 352. Tenth, Richmond, Va., May 1-4, 1923.
*No. 389. Eleventh, Chicago, 111., May 19-23, 1924.
*No. 411. Twelfth, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 13-15, 1925.
No. 429. Thirteenth, Columbus, Ohio, June 7-10, 1926.
No. 455. Fourteenth, Paterson, N . J., May 31 to June 3, 1927.
No. 480. Fifteenth, New Orleans, La., May 15-24, 1928. (In press.)
Proceedings of Annual Meetings of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and
Commissions.
No. 210. Third, Columbus, Ohio, April 25-28, 1916.
No. 248. Fourth, Boston, Mass., August 21-25,1917.
No. 264. Fifth, Madison, Wis., September 24-27, 1918.
*No. 273. Sixth, Toronto, Canada, September 23-26,1919.
No. 281. Seventh, San Francisco, Calif., September 20-24, 1920.
No. 304. Eighth, Chicago, 111., September 19-23,1921.
No. 333. Ninth, Baltimore, M d., October 9-13,1922.
No. 359. Tenth, St. Paul, Minn., September 24-26, 1923.
No. 385. Eleventh, Halifax, Nova Scotia, August 26-28,1924.
No. 395. Index to proceedings, 1914-1924.
No. 406. Twelfth, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 17-20, 1925.
No. 432. Thirteenth, Hartford, Conn., September 14-17, 1926.
No. 456. Fourteenth, Atlanta, Ga., September 27-29, 1927.
Proceedings of Annual Meetings of the International Association of Public Employment Services.
No. 192. First, Chicago, December 19 and 20, 1913; second, Indianapolis, September 24 and 25, 1914;
third, Detroit, July 1 and 2,1915.
No. 220. Fourth, Buffalo, N . Y ., July 20 and 21, 1916.
No. 311. Ninth, Buffalo, N. Y ., September 7-9, 1921.
No. 337. Tenth, Washington, D. C., September 11-13, 1922.
No. 355. Eleventh, Toronto, Canada, September 4-7, 1923.
No. 400. Twelfth, Chicago, 111., May 19-23, 1924.
No. 414. Thirteenth, Rochester, N. Y ., September 15-17, 1925.
No. 478. Fifteenth, Detroit, Mich., October 25-28, 1927.
Productivity of Labor.
No. 356. Productivity costs in the common-brick industry. [1924.]
No. 360. Time and labor costs in manufacturing 100 pairs of shoes, 1923.
No. 407. Labor cost of production and wages and hours of labor in the paper box-board industry.
[1926.]
No. 412. Wages, hours, and productivity in the pottery industry, 1925.
No. 441. Productivity of labor in the glass industry. [1927.]
No. 474. Productivity of labor in merchant blast furnaces. [1928.] (In press.)
No. 475. Productivity of labor in newspaper printing. [1928.] (In press.)
Retail Prices
*No. 121.
*No. 130.
No. 164.
No. 170.
No. 357.
No. 369.
No. 464.

and Cost of Living.
Sugar prices, from refiner to consumer. [1913.]
Wheat and flour prices, from farmer to consumer. [1913.]
Butter prices, from producer to consumer. [1914.]
Foreign food prices as affected by the war. [1915.]
Cost of living in the United States. [1924.]
The use of cost-of-living figures in wage adjustments. [1925.]
Retail prices, 1890 to 1927. (In press.)

Safety Codes.
*No. 331. Code of lighting: Factories, mills, and other work places.
No. 336. Safety code for the protection of industrial workers in foundries.
No. 350. Specifications of laboratory tests for approval of electric headlighting devices for motor
vehicles.
No. 351. Safety code for the construction, care, and use of ladders.
No, 375. Safety code for laundry machinery and operations.
No. 378. Safety code for woodworking plants.
No. 382. Code for lighting school buildings.
No. 410. Safety code for paper and pulp mills.
No. 430. Safety code for power presses and foot and hand presses.
No. 433. Safety codes for the prevention of dust explosions.

(in)

Safety Codes—Continued.
No. 436. Safety code for the use, care, and protection of abrasive wheels.
No. 447. Safety code for rubber mills and calenders.
No. 451. Safety code for forging and hot-metal stamping.
No. 463. Safety code for mechanical power-transmission apparatus.—First revision.
Vocational Workers* Education.
*No. 159. Short-unit courses for wage earners, and a factory school experiment. [1915.]
*No. 162. Vocational education survey of Richmond, Va. [1915.]
No. 199. Vocational education survey of Minneapolis, Minn. [1917.]
No. 271. Adult working-class education in Great Britain and the United States. [1920.]
No. 459. Apprenticeship in building construction. [1928.]
Wages and Hours of Labor.
*No. 146. Wages and regularity of employment and standardization of piece rates in the dress and
waist industry of New York. [1914.]
*No. 147. Wages and regularity of employment in the cloak, suit, and skirt industry. [1914.]
No. 161. Wages and hours of labor in the clothing and cigar industries, 1911 to 1913.
No. 163. Wages and hours of labor in the building and repairing of steam railroad cars, 1907 to 1913.
*No. 190. Wages and hours of labor in the cotton, woolen, and silk industries, 1907 to 1914.
No. 204. Street-railway employment in the United States. [1917.]
No. 225. Wages and hours of labor in the lumber, millwork, and furniture industries, 1915.
No. 265. Industrial survey in selected industries in the United States, 1919.
No. 297. Wages and hours of labor in the petroleum industry, 1920.
No. 356. Productivity costs in the common-brick industry. [1924.]
No. 358. Wages and hours of labor in the automobile-tire industry, 1923.
No. 360. Time and labor costs in manufacturing 100 pairs of shoes, 1923.
No. 365. Wages and hours of labor in the paper and pulp industry, 1923.
No. 394. Wages and hours of labor in metalliferous mines, 1924.
No. 407. Labor costs of production and wages and hours of labor in the paper box-board industry,
[1926.]
No. 412. Wages, hours, and productivity in the pottery industry, 1925.
No. 413. Wages and hours of labor in the lumber industry in the United States, 1925.
No. 416. Hours and earnings in anthracite and bituminous coal mining, 1922 and 1924.
No. 435. Wages and hours of labor in the men’s clothing industry, 1911 to 1926.
No. 438. Wages and hours of labor in the motor-vehicle industry, 1925.
No. 442. Wages and hours of labor in the iron and steel industry, 1907 to 1925.
No. 443. Wages and hours of labor in woolen and worsted goods manufacturing, 1910 to 1926.
No. 446. Wages and hours of labor in cotton-goods manufacturing, 1910 to 1926.
No. 450. Wages and hours of labor in the boot and shoe industry, 1907 to 1926.
No. 452. Wages and hours of labor in the hosiery and underwear industries, 1907 to 1926.
No. 454. Hours and earnings in bituminous-coal mining, 1922, 1924, and 1926.
No. 457. Union scales of wages and hours of labor, M ay 15, 1927.
No. 471. Wages and hours of labor in foundries and machine shops, 1927.
No. 472. Wages and hours of labor in slaughtering and meat packing, 1927. (In press.)
No. 476. Union scale of wages and hours of labor, 1927. (In press.)
Welfare
*No.
No.
*No.
No.

Work.
123. Employer’s welfare work. [1913.]
222. Welfare work in British munitions factories. [1917.]
250. Welfare work for employees in industrial establishments in the United States.
458. Health and recreation activities in industrial establishments, 1926.

Wholesale Prices.
No. 284. Index numbers of wholesale prices in the United States and foreign countries.
No. 440. Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1926.
No. 453. Revised index numbers of wholesale prices, 1923 to July, 1927.
No. 473. Wholesale prices, 1913 to 1927. (In press.)

[1919.]

[1921.]

Women and Children in Industry.
No. 116. Hours, earnings, and duration of employment of wage-earning women in selected industries
in the District of Columbia. [1913.]
*No. 117. Prohibition of night work of young persons. [1913.]
No. 118. Ten-hour maximum working-day for women and young persons. [1913.]
No. 119. Working hours of women in the pea canneries of Wisconsin. [1913.]
*No. 122. Employment of women in power laundries in Milwaukee. [1913.]
No. 160. Hours, earnings, and conditions of labor of women in Indiana mercantile establishments and
garment factories. [1914.]
*No. 167. Minimum-wage legislation in the United States and foreign countries. [1915.]
*N o. 175. Summary of the report on conditions of woman and child wage earners in the United
States. [1915.]

(IV )

Women and Children in Industry— Continued.
*No. 176. Effect of minimum-wage determinations in Oregon. [1915.]
*No. 180. The boot and shoe industry in Massachusetts as a vocation for women. [1915.]
*No. 82. Unemployment among women in department and other retail stores of Boston, Mass. [1916.]
No. 193. Dressmaking as a trade for women in Massachusetts. [1916.]
No. 215. Industrial experience of trade-school girls in Massachusetts. [1917.]
*No. 217. Effect of workmen’s compensation laws in diminishing the necessity of industrial em
ployment of women and children. [1918.]
No. 223. Employment of women and juveniles in Great Britain during the war. [1917.]
No. 253. Women in the lead industries. [1919.]
Workmen’ s Insurance and Compensation (including laws relating thereto).
*No. 101. Care of tuberculosis wage earners in Germany. [1912.]
*No. 102. British national insurance act, 1911.
No. 103. Sickness and accident insurance law in Switzerland. [1912.]
No. 107. Law relating to insurance of salaried employees in Germany. [1913.]
*No. 155. Compensation for accidents to employees of the United States. [1914.]
No. 212. Proceedings of the conference on social insurance called by the International Association of
Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, Washington, D . C., December 5-9, 1916.
*No. 243. Workmen’s compensation legislation in the United States and foreign countries, 1917 and
1918.
No. 301. Comparison of workmen’s compensation insurance and administration. [1922.]
No. 312. National health insurance in Great Britain, 1911 to 1921.
No. 379. Comparison of workmen’s compensation laws of the United States as of January 1, 1925.
No. 423. Workmen’s compensation legislation of the United States and Canada as of July 1,1926.
No. 477. Public-service retirement systems, United States and Europe. [1928.] (In press.)
Miscellaneous Series.
*No. 174. Subject index of the publications of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics up to
May 1, 1915.
No. 208. Profit sharing in the United States. [1916.]
No. 242. Food situation in central Europe, 1917.
No. 254. International labor legislation and the society of nations. [1919.]
No. 268. Historical survey of international action affecting labor. [1920.]
No. 282. Mutual relief associations among Government employees in Washington, D. C. [1921.]
No. 299. Personnel research agencies: A guide to organized research in employment, management,
industrial relations, training, and working conditions. [1921.]
No. 319. The Bureau of Labor Statistics: Its history, activities, and organization. [1922.]
No. 326. Methods of procuring and computing statistical information of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[1923.]
No. 342. International Seamen’s Union of America: A study of its history and problems. [1923.]
No. 346. Humanity in government. [1923.]
No. 372. Convict labor in 1923.
No. 386. Cost of American almshouses. [1925.]
No. 398. Growth of legal-aid work in the United States. [1926.]
No. 401. Family allowances in foreign countries. [1926.]
No. 420. Handbook of American trade-unions. [1926.]
No. 439. Handbook of labor statistics, 1924 to 1926.
No. 461. Labor organizations in Chile. [1928.] (In press.)
No. 462. Park recreation areas in the United States. [1928.]
No. 465. Beneficial activities of American trade-unions. [1928.] (In press.)
No. 479. Activities and functions of a State department of labor. [1928.]

A D D IT IO N A L COPIES
OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
U.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C.
AT

20 CENTS PER COPY

(V )

Full text of Conditions in the Shoe Industry in Haverhill, Mass., 1928 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 483

FRASER