View original document

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


ISADOR LUBIN, Commissioner

1^0. DUil

BUREAU OF LA B O R S T A T I S T I C S / ................






For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C.


Price 15 cents


O F F IC E R S , 19 32-33

President. — E. B. Patton, New York, N.Y.
F irst vice president. — T. E. Whitaker, Atlanta, Ga.
Second vice president. — A. W . Crawford, Toronto, Ontario.
T hird vice president. — Edward F. Seiller, Louisville, K y.
Fourth vice president. — (Vacancy.)
F ift h vice president. — Gerard Tremblay, Quebec.
Secretary-treasurer .— Maud Swett, Milwaukee, W is.

Adopted at Chicago, 111., May 20, 1924; amended August 15, 1925; June 3, 1927;
May 24, 1928; May 23, 1930; September 15, 1933.
A r t ic l e


S e c t i o n 1. Name. — This organization shall be known as the International
Association of Governmental Labor Officials.
A r t ic l e


S e c t i o n 1. Objects. — To encourage the cooperation of all branches of Federal,
State, and Provincial Governments who are charged with the administration
of laws and regulations for the protection of women and children, and the
safety and welfare of all workers in industry; to maintain and promote the
best possible standards of law enforcement and administrative m ethod; to act
as a medium for the interchange of information for and by the members of the
association in all matters pertaining to the general welfare of men, women,
and young workers in industry; to aid in securing the best possible education
for minors which will enable them to adequately meet the constantly changing
industrial and social changes; to promote the enactment of legislation that
conforms to and deals with the ever-recurring changes that take place in
industry, and in rendering more harmonious relations in industry between
employers and employees; to assist in providing greater and better safeguards
to life and limb of industrial workers, and to cooperate with other agencies
in making the best and safest use of property devoted to industrial purposes;
to secure by means of educational methods a greater degree of interstate and
interprovincial uniformity in the enforcement of labor laws and regulations;
to assist in the establishment of standards of industrial safety that will give
adequate protection to workers; to encourage Federal, State, and provincial
labor departments to cooperate in compiling and disseminating statistics dealing
with employment, unemployment, earnings, hours of labor, and other matters
of interest to industrial workers and of importance to the welfare of women
and children; to collaborate and cooperate with associations of employers
and associations of employees in order that all of these matters may be given
the most adequate consideration; and to promote national prosperity and
international good will by correlating as far as possible the activities of the
members of this association.
A r t i c l e III
S e c t i o n 1. M em bership. — The active membership of this association shall
consist of—
(a )
Members of the United States Department of Labor, United States
Bureau of Mines, and the Department of Labor of the Dominion of Canada;




such representatives of the bureaus or departments of the United States
or Canada being restricted by law from paying dues into this association may
be members with all privileges.
(b ) Members of State and provincial departments of labor.
( c ) Members of Federal, State, or provincial employment services.
S e c . 2 . H onorary m em bers. — Any person who has rendered service while
connected with any Federal, State, and provincial department of labor, and the
American representative of the International Labor Office, may be elected
to honorary membership by a unanimous vote of the executive board.
S e c . 3. Associate m em bership. — Any individual, organization, or corporation
interested in and working along the lines of the object of this association may
become an associate member of this association by the unanimous vote of the
executive board.
A r t ic l e


S e c t i o n 1. Officers.— The officers of this association shall be a president, a
first, second, third, fourth, and fifth vice president, and a secretary-treasurer.
These officers shall constitute the executive board.
S e c . 2. E lection of officers.— Such officers shall be elected from the members
at the regular annual business meeting of the association by a majority
ballot and shall hold office for one year, or until their successors are elected
and qualified.
S e c . 3. The officers shall be elected from representatives of the active mem­
bership of the association.
A r t ic l e


S e c t i o n 1. D uties of the officers— The president shall preside at all meetings
of the association and the executive board, preserve order during its delibera­
tions, appoint all committees, and sign all records, vouchers, or other documents
in connection with the work of the association. He shall fill all vacancies
caused by death, resignation, or otherwise.
S e c . 2. The vice presidents, in order named, shall perform the duties of the
president in his absence.
S e c . 3. The secretary-treasurer shall have charge of all books, papers, rec­
ords, and other documents of the association; shall receive and have charge
of all dues and other moneys; shall keep a full and complete record of all
receipts and disbursements ; shall keep the minutes of all meetings of the
association and the executive board; shall conduct all correspondence per­
taining to the office; shall compile statistics and other data as may be
required for the use of the members of the association; and shall perform such
other duties as may be directed by the convention or the executive board.
The secretary-treasurer shall present a detailed written report of receipts and
expenditures to the convention; shall pay out no money until a voucher has
been issued and signed by the president. The secretary-treasurer shall publish
the proceedings of the convention as promptly as possible, the issue to consist
of such numbers of copies as the executive board may direct. The secretarytreasurer shall receive such salary as the executive board may decide, but not
less than $300 per year.
S e c . 5. The business of the association between conventions shall be con­
ducted by the executive board, and all questions coming before the board shall
be decided by a majority vote, except that of the election of honorary mem­
bers, which shall be by unanimous vote.
A r t ic l e


1. Finances. — The revenues of the association shall be derived from
annual dues determined on the following basis: (a ) Federal, State, or pro­
vincial departments of labor, when the department staff consists of 1 to 5
persons, $10; 6 to 25 persons, $15; 26 to 75 persons, $25; more than 75 persons,
The executive board may order an assessment levied upon affiliated depart­
ments not to exceed one year’s dues.
S e c . 2. The annual fee of individual associate members shall be $2.
S e c t io n

A r t ic l e



Section 1. W h o e n title d to 'vote. — All active members shall be entitled to
vote on all questions coming before the meeting of the association as herein­
after provided.
Sec. 2. In electing officers of the association, State departments of labor
represented by several delegates shall only be entitled to one vote. The dele­
gates from such departments must select one person from their representatives
to cast the vote of the group.
The various bureaus of the United States Department of Labor and the
Department of Labor of Canada may each be entitled to one vote.
The rule for electing officers shall apply to the vote for selecting convention
A rticle VIII
Section 1. M e e t in g s . — The association shall meet at least once annually
at such time and place as the executive board may decide unless otherwise
ordered by the convention.
A rticle IX
Section 1. P r o g r a m . — The program committee shall consist of the president,
the secretary-treasurer, and the head of the department of the State or Prov­
ince within which the convention is to be held, and they shall prepare and
publish the convention programs of the association as far in advance of the
meeting as possible.
Sec. 2. The committee on program shall set aside at least one session of the
convention as a business session, at which session the regular order of busi­
ness, and election of officers, shall be taken up, and no other business shall
be considered at that session until the “ regular order ” has been completed.
A r t ic l e


S ection 1. R u le s o f o r d e r . — The deliberations of the convention shall be
governed by “ Cushing’s Manual.”
A r t ic l e


S e c t i o n 1. A m e n d m e n ts . — Amendments to the constitution must be filed with
the secretary-treasurer in triplicate and referred to the committee on constitu­
tion and bylaws. A two-thirds vote of all delegates shall be required to adopt
any amendment.
A r t i c l e X II
S e c t i o n 1. O r d e r o f b u s in es s —
1. Roll call of members by States and Provinces.
2. Appointment of committees.
(a) Committee of five on officers’ reports.
(&) Committee of five on resolutions.
(c) Committee of three on constitution and bylaws.
( d ) Special committees.
3. Reports of officers.
4. Reports of States and Provinces.
5. Reports of committees.
6. Unfinished business.
7. New business.
8. Election of officers.
9. Adjournment.






Convention held at—

September 18R3__
June 1884______________
June 1885_____________
.Tune 1886
.Tune 1887_
. _
M a y 1888_.......................
June 1889______________
1890...................... .............
M a y 1891______________
M a y 1892................. .......
M a y 1894______________
September 1895_______
June, 1896_____________
M a y 1897 ___________
June 1898______________
July 1899..........................
July 1900..........................
M a y 1901 ___________
April 1902.........................
April 1903_____________
July 1904..........................
September 1905_______
July 1906. ........................
July 1907. ....................
August 1908 __________
June 1909 _____________

Columbus, Ohio________
St. Louis, M o ___________
Boston, M ass___________
Trenton, N .J ____________
Madison, W i s __________
Indianapolis, In d _______
Hartford, Conn_________
Des Moines, Iowa______
Philadelphia, P a________
Denver, Colo___________
Albany, N .Y ____________
Washington, D . C _ .........
Minneapolis, M in n _____
Albany, N .Y ____________
Nashville, Tenn________
Detroit, M ich ___________
Augusta, M aine________
St. Louis, M o ___________
New Orleans, L a________
Washington, D .C _______
Concord, N .H __________
San Francisco, Calif____
Boston, M ass___________
Norfolk, Va .............. .......
Detroit, M ich ___________
Rochester, N .Y _________

W is



H . A . Newman_________ Henry Luskey.
___ do_____ _______________
Carroll D . W right______ John S. Lord.
____ d o ............................ .
E . R . Hutchins.
____ do........ ....................... ..
____ do___________________
____ do........ ................... .......
No meeting_____________
Carroll D . W right............ Frank H . Betton.
Charles F. Peek
Carroll D . W right............
____ do....................................
____ do.............. .....................
____ do___ ________________
___ do____________ ________
____ do_____________ ______
____ d o .......................... ..
___ do____
_____d o ............................ .....
___ do_____________________
___ d o .......................... .........
___ d o ..________ __________
Charles P. Neill................
___ do____ ________________
____ do___________________
___ do_____________________

L . G. Powers.
Samuel B. Horne.
D o.
W . L. A . Johnson.
D o.
D o.
D o.

M . Clark.


N o.



.Tune 1887
__ __
August 1888 __________
August 1889___________
August. 1890 _
August 1 8 9 1 __________
September 1892 ...
September 1893
_ _
September 1894 _
September 1895
September 1896_______
August and Septem­
ber 1897.
September 1898..........
August 1899___________
October 1900__________
September 1901_______
December 1902.............
August 1903 _________
September 1904_______
August 1905___________
.Tune 1906
.Tuna 1907
.Time 1908
.Time 1909...
___ .


Convention held at—


Philadelphia, Pa______
Rufus R. W ade
Henry Dorn.
Boston, M ass___________ ___ do____ ________________
Trenton, N .J _
___ ____ do....................................
New York, N . Y ________
Cleveland, Ohio
Hartford, Conn_________
Chicago, 111_____________ John Prnney
M ary A . O'Reilly.
Philadelphia, Pa________ ____ do___________ ________ Evan H . Davis.
Providence, R .I ___ _____
Toronto, Canada_______
Detroit, M ich_________
Rufus R . W a d e ______
Alzina P. Stevens.
Boston, M ass___________ _____do___________________
Quebec, Canada________
Indianapolis, In d _______
Niagara Falls, N . Y _____
Charleston, S .C _________
Montreal, Canada______ James Mitchell
St. Louis, M o ___________ Daniel H . M cA bee_____
Detroit, M ich ___________ Edgar T . Davies
Columbus, Ohio________ Malcolm J. M cL ead____
Hartford, Conn_________ John TT. Morgan
Toronto, Canada_______ George L. M cLean
Rochester, N . Y _________ James T . Burke________

i Known as Association of Governmental Labor Officials, 1914-27.



Joseph L. Cox.

Davis F. Spees.
C. V . Hartsell.
Thos. Keity.






Convention held at—

August 1 9 1 0 ................... Hendersonville, N .C .,
and Columbia, S.C.
September 1911.............. Lincoln, Nebr___________
September 1912.............. Washington, D .C _______
M a y 1913 ......................... Chicago, 111_____________

J. Ellery H u d so n ............


E . J. Watson.

Louis Guyon...... ............... W . W . Williams.
Edgar T . D avies.............
A . L. Garrett___________ W . L . Mitchell.

Resulting from the Amalgamation of the Association of Chiefs and Officials of Bureaus of
Labor and the International Association of Factory Inspectors



Convention held at—


June 1914.........................
June-July 1915...............
July 1916____________ _
September 1917..............
June 1918....................... .
June 1919.........................
July 1920.........................
M a y 1921........... .............
M a y 1922.........................
M a y 1923.......... .............
M a y 1924........................
August 1 9 2 5 .................
June 1926________ _____
M ay-June 1927..............

Nashville, Tenn................
Detroit, M ic h ...................
Buffalo, N .Y ____________
Asheville, N .C ___.............
Des Moines, Iowa______
Madison, W is___...............
Seattle, W ash__.................
New Orleans, La..............
Harrisburg, Pa__________
Richmond, V a ...................
Chicago, 111_____________
Salt Lake City, U t a h ...
Columbus, Ohio________
Paterson, N .J ....................


M a y 1928.........................

New Orleans, L a............ .


June 1929.........................

Toronto, Canada..............


M a y 1930_______ ______

Louisville, K y ...................


M a y 1931......... ...............

Boston, M ass.....................


September 1933«...........

Chicago, 111_____________



Barney Cohen......... ......... W . L. Mitchell.
____ do___________________ John T . Fitzpatrick.
James V . Cunningham..
Oscar Nelson____________
Edwin M ulready........... . Linna E. Bresette.
C. H . Younger__________
Geo. P. Hambrecht____
Frank E . Hoffman_____
Frank E . W ood_________
C. B. Connelley________ Louise E. Schutz.
John Hopkins Hall, Jr_.
George B. Arnold_______
H . R . W itter____________
John S. B. Davie_______
H . M . Stanley 2_________
Andrew F. McBride 3__.
fAndrew F. M cB ride___
\Maud Swett____________
M aud Swett____________
John H . H . Ballantyne4_
W . A . Rooksbery_______
E . B. Patton____________ M aud Swett.

1 Known as Association of Governmental Labor Officials, 1914-27.
2 M r. Stanley resigned in March 1928.
3 Doctor McBride resigned in March 1929.
4 M r. Ballantyne resigned in January 1931.
6 No convention was held in 1932, but a meeting of the executive committee and other members was held
in Buffalo in June 1932 to discuss matters of interest to the association. See p. 2.



Development of Association of Governmental Officials in Industry of the
United States and Canada_________________________________________________



Business Session—Chairman, E. B. Patton, president Association of Governmental
Officials in Industry
Committees appointed________________________________________________________
Report of the secretary-treasurer____________________________________________
Minutes of meeting of executive board and other members of A .G .O .I.,
Buffalo, June 3, 1932__________________________________________________
Committees appointed following Buffalo meeting, June 3, 1932______
Draft memorandum re Association of Governmental Officials in In­
Financial statement of secretary-treasurer, Nov. 24,1931, to Sept. 11,1933.
Report of new foreign labor legislation, by Leifur Magnusson-------------------Discussion______ i ________________________________________________________
E. B. Patton, of New York.
Ethel M . Johnson, of New Hampshire.
Leifur Magnusson, of Washington, D .C .
A. W . Crawford, of Ontario.
Reports on new labor legislation:
United States (Charles F. Sharkey)____________________________________
California (Mrs. Mabel K inney)________________________________________
Connecticut (Miss Helen W o od )________________________________________
Georgia (T. E. Whitaker)_______________________________________________
Illinois (Martin Durkin)________________________________________
Kentucky (Edward F. Seiller)___________________________________________
New Hampshire (Ethel M . Johnson) ___________________________________
New York (E. B. Patton)_________________________
Puerto Rico (Prudencio Rivera M artinez)____________________________
Wisconsin (Edwin E. W itte )____________________________________________
Ontario (A. W . Crawford)_______________________________________________
Quebec (Gerard Trem blay)______________________________________________



Joint Session of A.G.O.I. and I.A.I.A.B.C.
Chairman, Thomas P. Kearns, superintendent Division of Safety and Hygiene, Depart­
ment of Industrial Relations of Ohio
Opening address, by Eugene B. Patton, director Division of Statistics and
Information of New York, and president A .G .O .I _______________________
Status of industrial safety codes and regulations in the various States, by
Charles E. Baldwin, United States Assistant Commissioner of Labor
National safety codes progress, by P. G. Agnew, secretary American Stand­
ards Association____________________________________________________________
W . Dean Keefer, of Illinois.
P. G. Agnew, of New York.
Morton G. Lloyd, of Washington, D .C .
Ethel M . Johnson, of Massachusetts.
The New Deal and safety, by W . Dean Keefer, director Industrial Division,
National Safety Council_______________________________ ;___________________






Second Joint Session of A.G.O.I. and I.A.I.A.B.C.
Chairman, Thomas P. Kearns, superintendent Division of Safety and Hygiene, Depart­
ment of Industrial Relations of Ohio

Cause analysis of accidents causing injury and near injury, by C. B.
Boulet, Public Service Corporation, Milwaukee, W is___________ ________
Ethelbert Stewart, of Washington, D .C .
Eugene B. Patton, of New York.
C. B. Boulet, of Wisconsin.
Thomas P. Kearns, of Ohio.
Swen Kjaer, of Washington, D .C .
Elmer F. Andrews, of New York.
Carl C. Beasor, of Ohio.
Standardization of codes and mechanical guarding at point of manufacture,
by Robert M cA . Keown, engineer Industrial Commission of Wisconsin.
Eugene B. Patton, of New York.
Thomas P. Kearns, of Ohio.
Morton G. Lloyd, of Washington, D .C .
Swen Kjaer, of Washington, D .C .
Elmer F. Andrews, of New York.
John B. Andrews, of New York.
Ethelbert Stewart, of Washington, D .C .
Ethel M . Johnson, of New Hampshire.
Joint resolution re safety provisions in N .R .A . codes_______________________





Chairman, A. W . Crawford, deputy minister Department of Labor of Ontario

Minimum wage— Remarks on minimum-wage laws in Canada, by A. W .
Crawford, deputy minister of labor of Ontario___________________________
Gerard Tremblay, of Quebec.
Ethel M . Johnson, of New Hampshire.
Maud Swett, of Wisconsin.
E. B. Patton, of New York.
Leifur Magnusson, of Washington, D .C .
Report of committee on minimum-wage laws, by Edwin S. Smith________
Mrs. Mabel Kinney, of California.
E. B. Patton, of New York.
Leifur Magnusson, of Washington, D .C .
Maud Swett, of Wisconsin.
Ethel M . Johnson, of New Hampshire.
Mary Anderson, of Washington, D .C .
Paul Raushenbush, of Wisconsin.
A. W . Crawford, of Ontario.
Helen Wood, of Connecticut.
Charles F. Sharkey, of Washington, D .C .
Annette Dieckmann, of Illinois.
Gertrude Wilson, of Illinois.
Hon. C. J. Arcand, of Quebec.
Administrative regulations in American labor law, by John B. Andrews,
secretary American Association for Labor Legislation___________________
Ethel M . Johnson, of New Hampshire.
John B. Andrews, of New York.
E. B. Patton, of New York.
A . W . Crawford, of Ontario.






Unemployment insurance— Wisconsin reserve plan, by Paul Raushenbush,
consultant on unemployment compensation, Industrial Commission of
Ethel M . Johnson, of New Hampshire.
Paul Raushenbush, of Wisconsin.
T . E. Wliitaker, of Georgia.
Stephen B. Sweeney, of Pennsylvania.
A. W . Crawford, of Ontario.
E. B. Patton, of New York.
Leifur Magnusson, of Washington, D .C .


Chairman, Edward F. Seiller, third vice president A.G.O.I.

Report of committee on women in industry, by Mary Anderson_________
Maud Swett, of Wisconsin.
Mary Anderson, of Washington, D .C .
Hal M . Stanley, of Georgia.
Ethel M . Johnson, of New Hampshire.
E. B. Patton, of New York.
Helen Wood, of Connecticut.
Mrs. Mabel Kinney, of California.
Edward F. Seiller, of Kentucky.
Child labor— Remarks by Mrs. Clara M . Beyer, of the United States
Children’s Bureau__________________________________________________________
Report of committee on child labor, by Mrs. Clara M . Beyer_____________
Helen Wood, of Connecticut.
Mrs. Clara M . Beyer, of Washington, D .C .
Frieda S. Miller, of New York.
Edward F. Seiller, of New York.
Joseph M . Tone, of Connecticut.
Ethel M . Johnson, of New Hampshire.
E. B. Patton, of New York.
Maud Swett, of Wisconsin.
Elmer F. Andrews, of New York.
Leifur Magnusson, of Washington, D .C .
A. W . Crawford, of Ontario.
A. J. Altmeyer, of Wisconsin.
Miss M . E. Pidgeon, of Washington, D .C .



Business Session— Chairman, E. B. Patton, president, A.G.O.I.

Report of committee on resolutions (as adopted)___________________________
Committee on clarification of application of N .R .A . labor regulations and
State labor laws appointed_________________________________________________
Report of committee on conference with Federal Departments of Labor
of the United States and Canada, by Leifur Magnusson and A. W .
Election of officers____________________________________________________________
Honorary life members_______________________________________________________
A p p e n d i x — List of persons who attended the eighteenth annual conven­
tion of the Association ofGovernmental Officials in Industry__________





No. 609

July 1934

SEPTEMBER 14 AND 15, 1933
Chairman, tE. B. Patton, president Association of Governmental Officials in Industry

The nineteenth annual convention of the Association of Govern­
mental Officials in Industry of the United States and Canada opened
Thursday morning, September 14, 1933, at the Congress Hotel,
Chicago, and was called to order by the president.
The following committees were appointed by the president:

Committee on officers’ reports.—E. F. Seiller, of Kentucky, chairman; Martin
Durkin, of Illinois; Miss Helen Wood, of Connecticut; and C. F. Sharkey, of
Washington, D.C.
Committee on resolutions.— A. W. Crawford, of Ontario, chairman; T. E.
Whitaker, of Georgia; Mrs. Mabel Kinney, of California; Miss Frieda S.
Miller, of New Y ork ; and Miss Ethel Johnson, of New Hampshire.
Committee on constitution and bylaws.—Leifur Magnusson, Washington,
D.C., chairman; Hal M. Stanley, of Georgia; and Gerard Tremblay, of Quebec.
The report of the secretary-treasurer was then read.

On October 14, 1931, Miss Louise Schutz, director of the division of women
and children of the Industrial Commission of Minnesota, resigned as secre­
tary-treasurer of the association as she was no longer with the Industrial Com­
mission in Minnesota. However, she continued to perform the duties of secre­
tary-treasurer until Miss Maud Swett, field director woman and child labor,
Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, was chosen to fill her place by the
executive board.
On December 1, Gen. E. Leroy Sweetser resigned as commissioner of
labor of Massachusetts and, as provided by the constitution, Dr. E. B. Patton,
director division of statistics and information, Department of Labor of New
York, automatically succeeded to the presidency. This left a vacancy on the
executive board, which was filled by the board unanimously choosing Mr. Ger­
ard Tremblay, deputy minister Department of Labor of Quebec, fifth vice
Letters were sent to the various members of the association on February
21, 1982, enclosing statements regarding dues to the association for the year
ending June 30, 1932.




On April 14, 1932, letters were sent out announcing that the 1932 conven­
tion would be held in Buffalo, N.Y., June 6-9, inclusive.
On account of
the prevailing financial depression becoming more serious the executive board
deemed it unwise to hold a regular session for 1932, but decided that it would
be worth while for the members of the executive board and such other mem­
bers as could meet with them to assemble on June 3, 1932, to consider prob­
lems confronting the A.G.O.I.
Letters were sent out on May 20 informing the members of this decision of
the executive board and suggesting topics for consideration at the meeting on
June 3. A copy of the minutes of that meeting is included in this report. At
this meeting a draft memorandum prepared by Mr. Leifur Magnusson, Inter­
national Labor Organization, was presented and discussed and adopted by
those present after some revision. A copy of this memorandum is attached
to this report.
Through the kindness of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics the
memorandum was published in its Monthly Labor Review in February 1933.
It was also published by the bureau as a reprint so that copies might be
distributed to the members of the association.
Letters were sent out again in 1933 to the members of the association and
others interested announcing that the 1933 convention would be held in Chi­
cago, September 14-16, and requesting dues to the association for the year
ending June 30, 1933.
On account of limited budgets some States have not been able to meet dues
as formerly, while on the other hand some States have paid dues this year
which have not paid for a number of years.
On August 16 letters were sent to the members of the association callingattention again to the dates of the convention and giving information in regard
to the subjects covered by the program.
On account of unavoidable delays in arranging the program it was not pos­
sible to get it printed and mailed before September 9.
Respectfully submitted,
M a u d S w e t t , Secreta ry -T rea su rer .
M in u t e s of M e e t in g of E x e c u t iv e B o ard a n d O t h e r M e m b e r s o f t h e
B uffalo,




3, 1932

The following officers and members of the association were present:
B. Patton, director division of statistics and information, Department of
Labor of New York, president.
A. W . Crawford, deputy minister of labor, Ontario, second vice president.
Edward F. Seiller, chief labor inspector, Department of Agriculture and
Labor of Kentucky, third vice president.
Mrs. Isabelle Summers, director bureau of women and children, Department
of Labor of New Jersey, fourth vice president.
Miss Maud Swett, field director woman and child labor, Wisconsin Industrial
C. Hudson, general superintendent Ontario Government Employment
Miss Mary Anderson, director Women’s Bureau, United States Department of
Mrs. Clara M. Beyer, director industrial division United States Children’s
Joseph M. Tone, commissioner of labor, Connecticut.
Leifur Magnusson, representative International Labor Office.
E. B. Patton, president Association of Governmental Officials in Industry,
Dr. Patton stated the purposes of the meeting and the reasons for post­
poning the 1932 convention.





There was a discussion led by Mr. Hudson and Mr. Seiller on the advisabil­
ity of the amalgamation of the Association of Governmental Officials in Indus­
try with the International Association of Public Employment Services. The
discussion brought out that amalgamation of the two associations might not
he desirable, but that in lieu of the amalgamation it might strengthen both
associations and make for better programs if the two associations met at the
same place but not simultaneously; instead, have one convention follow
promptly after the other, with one day, or part of the day, given over to a
joint program.
A motion was made by Mr. Seiller that the 1933 convention of the Associa­
tion of Governmental Officials in Industry meet at a time and place to be
designated by the executive board. Motion carried.
As the constitution provides that a vacancy on the executive board may be
filled by the executive board, the question of filling the vacancy in the office
of fifth vice president was considered. Mr. Crawford stated that Canada
would like to have another representative on the board. As Quebec has shown
considerable interest in the affairs of the association, even though it has not
always been possible for a representative from Quebec to attend the meetings,
Mr. Crawfford was requested to send the name of the new deputy minister of
labor to the president of the association. After receipt of this name the sec­
retary was instructed to put the matter to a vote, by correspondence, of the
members of the executive board.
A motion was made that Miss Louise Schutz who had served as secretarytreasurer of the association from 1923 to 1932, be elected as an honorary life
member of the association. The motion was carried unanimously.
Dr. Patton presented the request of Mr. W . H. Cameron, managing director
of the National Safety Council, for an indication of opinion as to a permanent
section to be known as “ Government Relations ” in the National Safety Coun­
cil, and also whether such permanent section in the council would conflict with
the Association of Governmental Officials in Industry. After a discussion of
Mr. Cameron’s request, Dr. Patton was directed to reply that such permanent
section in the council will not conflict with the Association of Governmental
Officials in Industry activities, but that the Association of Governmental Offi­
cials in Industry does not care to advise the council in the matter.
Mr. Magnusson had prepared a draft memorandum summarizing the prin­
ciples, policies, etc., of the Association of Governmental Officials in Industry,
with some recommendations for future policies and actions. The summary
was carefully considered and discussed and, with some revisions, was approved
by those present, and this memorandum is to be sent by the secretary to the
members of the association. The memorandum provided for a number of com­
mittees whose purpose will be to further the interests of the association.
These committees are as follow s:
1. Committee for conference with the Departments of Labor of the United
States and Canada on the question of bringing about a closer contact of the
association with the Federal Departments of Labor. Mr. Crawford and Mr.
Magnusson were appointed to serve on this committee, Mr. Magnusson to confer
with the United States Department of Labor, and Mr. Crawford to confer
with the Federal Department of Labor of Canada.
2. Committee to arrange for the meeting of the Association of Governmental
Officials in Industry in cooperation with the International Association of Public
Employment Services and/or the International Association of Industrial Acci­
dent Boards and Commissions. Mr. Hudson, of Ontario, and Dr. Patton, of
New York, were appointed to serve on this committee.
3. Committee to enlarge membership of the Association of Governmental
Officials in Industry. The following persons were designated to serve on this
committee: Mr. Seiller, Mr. Rooksbery, Mrs. Summers, Mrs. Beyer, Miss
Anderson. The president requested that the names of other persons who would
be of service to this committee be submitted to him.
4. Uniform labor laws. The president to designate the members to serve
on the following committees: Child labor; unemployment insurance; minimum
w age; old-age pensions; and women in industry.
It was suggested that, as Mr. Crawford was more familiar with the per­
sonnel of the various departments of labor in Canada, he name the Canadian
members to serve on committee 3 and committee 4.
On motion, the meeting adjourned.


Committees A ppointed F ollowing B uffalo M eeting, Ju n e 3, 1932

Committee on C onference with F e d e ra l D epartm ents of Labor of United States
and Canada
Purpose .— To bring about a closer contact of the A.G.O.I. with the Federal
M em bers. — A. W . Crawford, deputy minister, Department of Labor of
Ontario; Leifur Magnusson, representative International Labor Office, W ash ­
ington, D.C.
CommAttee on M eeting of A.G.O.I. with I.A .P .E .S . a n d /o r I.A .I.A .B .C .
Purpose. — To arrange for meeting in cooperation with above association.
M em bers. — H. C. Hudson, general superintendent of employment services,
Ontario; E. B. Patton, director division of statistics and information, Depart­
ment of Labor of New York.

Committee on M em bership
Purpose. — To enlarge the membership of the association.
M embers. — Frank J. Plant, chief labor intelligence branch, Department of
Labor of Canada; 1 H. C. Hudson, general superintendent of employment serv­
ices, Ontario; E. W . Seiller, chief labor inspector, Department of Labor of
Kentucky; W . A. Rooksbery, commissioner Bureau of Labor and Statistics of
Arkansas; Mrs. Isabelle M. Summers, director of bureau of women and children,
Department of Labor of New Jersey; Miss Mary Anderson, Director of Women’s
Bureau, United States Department of L abor; Mrs. Clara M. Beyer, Children’s
Bureau, United States Department of Labor.

Committees on Uniform Labor Laws
Child labor.— Mrs. Clara M. Beyer, Children’s Bureau, United States Depart­
ment of Labor, chairm an; Miss Margaret Macintosh, Department of Labor of
Canada; Miss Beatrice McConnell, director bureau of women and children,
Department of Labor and Industry of Pennsylvania; Miss Ella Ketchin, chief
labor inspector Child W elfare Department of Alabam a; Leifur Magnusson,
representative International Labor Office, Washington, D .C .; Joseph M. Tone,
commissioner of labor of Connecticut; Miss Maud Swett, field director woman
and child labor, Industrial Commission of Wisconsin.
W omen in industry. — Miss Mary Anderson, Director Women’s Bureau, United
States Department of Labor, chairm an; Miss Frieda S. Miller, director division
of women in industry, Department of Labor of New Y o r k ; Mrs. Isabelle M.
Summers, director bureau of women and children, Department of Labor of
New Jersey; Miss Florence A. Burton, director bureau of women and children,
Industrial Commission of Minnesota; Miss Margaret Macintosh, Department of
Labor of Canada; Miss Mary E. Meehan, assistant commissioner Department
of Labor and Industries of Massachusetts.
Old-age pensions.— Alphonse Lessard, director Provincial Bureau of Health,
Quebec; Adam Bell, deputy minister of labor of British Columbia.
Unemployment insurance. — A. J. Altmeyer, secretary Industrial Commission
of W isconsin; Gerald Brown, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labor of Canada;
Gerard Tremblay, deputy minister of labor of Quebec.
M inimum wage. — E. S. Smith, commissioner of labor of Massachusetts, chair­
man ; Miss Florence A. Burton, director bureau of women and children, Indus­
trial Commission of Minnesota; H. G. Fester, Minimum W age Board of On­
tario; Dr. Eveline M. Burns, Columbia University; Miss Helen Wood, industrial
investigator Department of Labor and Factory Inspection of Connecticut; Mrs.
Mabel E. Kinney, chief division of industrial welfare, Department of Industrial
Relations of California.

1 Deceased.

D raft M em o r an d u m


A s s o c ia t io n
t h e U n it e d

G o v e r n m e n t a l O f f ic ia l s in
States an d Canada


I ndustry

To the M em bers of the Association of G overnm ental Officials in Industry of
the United States and C anada:
Believing that the preservation and strengthening of the Association of Gov­
ernmental Officials in Industry of the United States and Canada is a worth­
while project necessitated by reason of the social and economic situation in
•he United States and Canada, the executive board of that body, and such
other members whose signatures appear below, have united in drafting the
following statement of principles and motivation for the more effective function­
ing of that body. The existence of this body since 1883 is evidence of need of
an organization of this kind. There has been, however, a lack of coherent
programs and of well-considered motivation of purposes. It is believed that
insufficient understanding of the association and its principles accounts for a
lack of interest on the part of many State and Provincial labor administrations,
and that a restatement of principles and purposes, and the formulation of new
methods of organization and practical operation, may help toward a better
and necessary understanding of the aims of the association.
I. Principles and Policies
Acting in the interests of the wage earners and producers in the different
States and Provinces the association .sets as its practical objective for every
State and Province what the most progressive and enlightened States and
Provinces set as the standard for wage earners and producers. It believes
that labor should enjoy fair and humane conditions of work, that the workers
should be protected in their right to combine and associate for all lawful
purposes, and should be consulted on measures affecting their welfare. The
association believes that these principles should motivate the labor policies of
all States and Provinces and are basic to the objects of the association as set
forth in article II of its constitution, namely, the protection of women and
children in industry, the safety and welfare of workers, the best possible
education to meet industrial and social changes, and the maintenance of har­
monious relations between employers and employees.

M ethods

The method by which the association seeks to attain these objectives is set
forth in article II of its constitution. In general, the method is to encourage
the cooperation of all branches of Federal, State, and Provincial governments
charged with the administration of the laws protecting wage earners in indus­
try. The association acts as a clearing house of information in its field, under­
takes to promote the enactment of beneficial legislation, sets standards for
such legislation, and encourages cooperation among the States and Provinces
in compiling and disseminating statistics and information having reference to
industrial problems.
More particularly, the association seeks to cooperate
with associations of both employers and employees on the general principle
that those who are affected should be consulted.


There are special reasons for the continued and strengthened cooperation of
all States and Provinces in the work of the A.G.O.I. First and most important,
there is the free-trade character of our extensive domestic markets in which
labor in one State or Province competes for jobs with labor in other jurisdic­
tions. W ith the free mobility of labor provided by the extraordinary facility
of communication, this competition is active and intensified. W ith the slack­
ening of industrial activity and lessening possibilities of rapid and dynamic
growth, this competition is likely to become more severe. By way of illustra­
tion, reference need only be made to the present situation and the vast numbers
of unemployed migratory workers crowding into our cities or drifting back to
the farms. It is in such a situation as this that the maintenance of uniform
minimum standards becomes a matter of the economic life or death of industry
within those States and Provinces which maintain more nearly adequate stand­
ards of wages, hours, and working conditions.
7 3 5 9 7 °— 3 4 - -----2



This same intensification of our social problem is being increasingly mani­
fested in the changing character of some types of social legislation and in the
methods of attaining uniformity of standards. Here reference need only be
made to the recent conferences on uniform minimum standards for labor legis­
lation and on uniform minimum standards for social legislation. The move­
ment for old-age pension legislation may be cited to show the need of more
uniform action among the States and Provinces. Thus, as time goes on, un­
equal standards of social legislation are increasingly becoming, as has been
said, the most vicious form of “ social dumping ” that can be practiced by
any State or Province.
It is only through uniformly adequate legislation that the various States
and Provinces can maintain improved standards of living within their borders.
Unless standards are raised in the more backward States and Provinces it is
difficult to maintain and improve standards in the more advanced States and
Provinces. In short, the States and Provinces have a joint responsibility for
the social welfare of both Nations, and it is only by working together that they
can promote a harmonious development of social welfare within their borders.

Recom mendations

With these considerations in mind, the executive board and undersigned
members of the A.G.O.I. meeting at Buffalo, N.Y., June 3, 1932, make the fol­
lowing suggestions and recommendations for furthering the interests of the
association in the coming y ears:
(1) In view of the broad interests to’ be conserved by the association, it is
believed that close contact with the Federal Departments of Labor should be
maintained. For the furtherance of this recommendation, it is suggested that a
special committee of the association be appointed fbr conference with the de­
partments of labor on this question and for arranging such an understanding
between the association and the departments of labor.
(2) In view of the close relationship and purpose between the associations
mentioned below, it is suggested that the A.G.O.I. hold its annual meeting at
the same place and in cooperation with the International Association of Pub­
lic Employment Services and/or the International Association of Industrial Ac­
cident Boards and Commissions. For the purpose of making this arrangement,
the appointment of a special committee of the A.G.O.I. is suggested.
(8) To increase the vitality of and interest in the association it is recom­
mended that a special committee be appointed to enlarge the membership and
secure the support of nonmember States and Provinces.
(4) In view of the far-reaching effects of labor legislation, it is recommended
that special committees on uniform labor laws be set up. These committees
would function in the different States of labor legislation and present for con­
sideration of the association drafts of model laws in their respective fields.
Dr. E. B. P a t t o n ,

P resident, New York.
A. W .

Craw ford,

Second Vice P resident, Ontariof
E dw ard F .

S etlleir ,

T hird Vice P resident, K entucky,

I sabelle Su m m e r s ,

F o u rth Vice P resident, New Jersey ,
M aud

Sw ett,

Secretary-T reasurer, Wisconsin,
M em bers of the E xecutive Board.
M a r y A nderson,

D irector W om en’s B urea u, U.S. D epartm ent of L abor.
Clara M . B eyer,

D irector Industrial Division, C hildren’s B urea u, U.S. D epartm ent of Labor.

L etfur M a g n u s s o n ,

International Labor Office, W ashington, D.C.



SEPT. 11, 1933

Nov. 24, 1931. Amount transferred by Secretary-Treasurer Louise
Schutz______________________________________________________________________ $60. 61
Receipts for remainder of fiscal year ending June 30, 1932 (interest and
Feb. 12 Canada— Federal Department (dues $25, exchange
$ 3 )____________________________________________________$22. 00
8. 65
15 Alberta, Canada (dues$10, exchange $1.35)________
27 International Labor Office____________________________
10. 00
29 Virginia_______________________________________________
15. 00
Mar. 1 New Hampshire_____________________________________
10. 00
13. 20
4 Ontario, Canada (dues $15, exchange $ 1 .8 0 )________
13 N ova Scotia__________________________________________
10. 00
25 New Jersey----------------------------------------------------------------25. 00
Apr. 13 Georgia_______________________________________________
25. 00
15 Washington___________________________________________
25. 00
30 Maryland_____________________________________________
10. 00
M ay 8 New Y o rk ____________________________________________
50. 00
28 Pennsylvania_________________________________________
50. 00
June 10 Massachusetts_______________________________________
50. 00
. 56
Interest to June 1, 1932_____________________________
July 21 Wisconsin (dues to June 30, 1932)_________________
50. 00
------------- $374. 41
Receipts for fiscal year ending June 30, 1933 (interest and dues):
Sept. 12 Oklahoma_____________________________________________
10. 00
June 16 Connecticut__________________________________________
10. 00
16 Virginia___________________________
15. 00
July 6 Canada— Federal Department (partial dues)______
15. 00
6 Nova Scotia__________________________________________
10. 00
8 New Hampshire______________________________________ 10. 00
15 Washington__________________________________________
25. 00
24 Wisconsin_____________________________________________
50. 00
25 Quebec________________________________________________
15. 00
27 New York____________________________________________
50. 00
29 Massachusetts________________________________________
50. 00
Aug. 10 Pennsylvania-------------------------------------------------------------50. 00
15 California____________________________________________
15. 00
23 Canada— Federal Department (remainder of dues) _ 10. 00
2. 52
------------- 337. 52

772. 54

9 Weber Printing C o--------------------------------------------------------------------------$11. 50
21 Christine Miller, stenographic service____________________________
3. 00
21 Stam ps._____________________________________________________________
. 48
Feb. 13
D o _____________________________________________________________
1. 02
2. 05
14 Louise Schutz, stamps_____________________________________________
19 Rose Case, stenographic service__________________________________
8. 00
19 Stamps______________________________________________________________
3. 00
Apr. 13 Envelops____________________________________________________________
. 45
15 Stamps______________________________________________________________
1. 15
18 Cook’s Copy Shop, letters stamped and mailed (notice of conven­
tion dates)________________________________________________________
4. 00
22 Rose Case, stenographic service__________________________________
7. 50



19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

M ay

5 Rose Case, stenographic service__________________________________
$3. 00
. 50
5 Stamps_____________________________________________________________
20 Cook’s Copy Shop, letters stamped and mailed (notices of post­
ponement of convention)________________________________________
6. 00
20 Stamps_____________________________________________________________
3. 50
20 Envelops---------------------------------------. 45
June 1 Stamps_____________________________________________________________
. 26
1 Partial honorarium, Maud Swett,secretary-treasurer (Buffalo). 75. 00
July 23 Partial honorarium, Maud Swett,secretary-treasurer____________
50. 00
Nov. 22 Stamps______________________________1---------------------------------------------1. 06
23 Continental Letter Service, letterheads and envelops___________
11. 95
Dec. 8 Partial honorarium (Washington, D .C .)________________________ 125. 00
9. 50
21 Rose Case, stenographic service__________________________________
27 Air-mail stamps____________________________________________________
. 14
5. 00
Feb. 21 Rose Case, stenographic service__________________________________
Mar. 1
D o _____________________________________________________________
4. 75
M ay 18 Partial honorarium, Maud Swett, secretary-treasurer___________
50. 00
29 Rose Case, stenographic service__________________________________
4. 50
June 1 Paper for carbon copies___________________________________________
1. 00
9 Stamps_____________________________________________________________
. 63
16 Rose Case, stenographic service__________________________________
6. 75
July 14 Stamps____________________________________________________________
6. 00
Aug. 9 Telegram to San Francisco, Mrs. Kinney________________________
. 90
9 Rose Case, stenographic service_________________________________
11. 08
9 Rose Case, stamps used__________________________________________
. 30
15 Telegram to Washington, Mary Anderson______________________
. 63
17 Telegram to New York, Dr. Patton______________________________
.6 3
31 Rose Case, stenographic service_________________________________
10. 00
Sept. 6 Telegram to New York, Dr. Patton______________________________
.6 3
7 Stamps_____________________________________________________________
. 61
7 Envelops___________________________________________________________
. 15
7 Telegram to Louisville, E. F . Seiller______________________________
.5 0
11 Telegram to Chicago, Mrs. Kinney----------------------------------------------. 32
12 Schwab Stamp & Seal Co., 100 badges_____________
15. 00
12 Continental Letter Service_______________________________________ 18. 75
12 Rose Case, stenographic service_________________________________
5. 63
12 Partial honorarium, Maud Swett, secretary-treasurer__________ 50. 00
Total disbursements_______________________________________ 522. 27
Balance on hand, September 12, 1933, savings account_________ 250. 27
T o ta l....................................................................................................... 7 7 2 .5 4

[The president announced that owing to the retirement from the
New York Department of Labor of T. C. Einer, who was the
A.G.O.I. representative on the American Standards Association com­
mittee on Safety Code for Amusement Parks, Robert McA. Keown,
engineer of the Wisconsin Industrial Commission, was substituted as
A.G.O.I. representative on such committee.
President P a t t o n . Mr. Magnusson, Washington representative of
the International Labor Office is here, and as he made such an
effective report last year and in other years on foreign labor legis­
lation, we have asked him to give us a report on new foreign labor

L eufur M a g n u s s o n ,

W ashington Representative, International L abor Office

I have a few notes here, of a somewhat sketchy character, that comprise,
first of all, a progress report of ratification of International Labor Organization



treaties, and secondly, a recital or examination of one or two principal pieces of
legislation attempted in a few of the European countries. The ratifications of
the International Labor Organization are ottered as a sort of barometer of the
progress of social legislation in the different countries. It is borne out, I think,
that when a country ratifies, it follows that up with legislation making the
treaty effective. A t least that is the presumption with respect to sovereign
States. In any case, follow-up reports are required every year subsequent
to ratification, and thus far that has occasioned no difficulty. Countries have
been reporting faithfully exactly what they are doing to put the treaties
into effect, once they have ratified them.
As to progress then, in the year 1932 it was, of course, decidedly halting and
hesitating; only 42 ratifications of the labor treaties were registered by the
Secretary General of the League of Nations during that year. The normal
progress since the beginning of ratification, about 1921, has been more nearly
50 ratifications every year. As the number of labor treaties has increased from
a half dozen in 1919, as the result of the first conference, to a recorded list
at present of 32, presumably the number of ratifications should increase pro­
portionately, but that has not exactly been the case. As I say, 1932 was
admittedly a laggard year with respect to progress in social legislation of a
general character, but beginning with 1933 the number of ratifications began
to pick up considerably, so that by the end of the year 87 ratifications had
been deposited.
Of the progress of 1932, I think it is worth while reporting that Spain was
the outstanding country, ratifying 14 treaties and marking thereby a sort of
consolidation of her social revolution which has been taking place during the
last 2 or 3 years. By the end of 1933 Spain had ratified 30 treaties out of
33 then in force. (It is interesting to note that the Minister of Labor used to
be her official delegate to the international labor conferences and was for a
time the representative of the International Labor Office at Madrid, and a
former associate of the director, Albert Thomas, as editor of a labor paper in
France, the L ’Humanite.)
The interesting thing on the other hand— the darker phase— is that Great
Britain and Germany deposited no ratification of labor treaties during the year
1932. Germany deposited one ratification in 1933, but Great Britain again
deposited none.
There has been some progress in the middle eastern countries, Bulgaria hav­
ing ratified 2 and Albania 4 treaties. Portugal registered 3, Norway 2, and
all the other countries registered only about 1 treaty ratification during the
year 1932.
The conference of 1932, another point to be considered, was a large one, 49
countries being represented. It agreed on the final draft of a treaty for the
prohibition of the employment of children under 14 years in nonindustrial pur­
suits, having already put the limit of 14 in industry and agriculture, and a
little higher in seafaring and in all mining operations.
In 1932 there was initiated the discussion and formulation of treaties on
old-age insurance and invalidity, and survivors’ pensions. Another point of
progress was the beginning of a treaty on the elimination of fee-charging em­
ployment agencies. Both subjects were concluded in 1933 by the drafting of
final treaties— the subject of old-age pensions being split up into six separate
treaties covering the three branches of insurance, old-age, invalidity, and sur­
vivors, applicable, first, to commerce and industry, professional and domestic
service, and second, to agriculture. Unemployment insurance and the 40-hour
week were also opened up before the 1933 conference, to be consummated in 1934.



The interesting feature of the 1933 conference was the presence for the first
time of American observers, at the head of which was Miss Mary Anderson.
The presence of the American observers, of course, greatly increased the interest
in this whole problem of unemployment insurance, and more particularly the
shorter workday. It is regrettable that the conference did not make greater
progress, but the ways of international life seem to move slowly. When a
diplomat says, “A h , -----------” , and pauses a moment, it creates quite a disturb­
ance in the world, and it has to be given very careful consideration for another
year, this “Ah,----------However, the 1933 conference did get, as I say, a treaty for the abolition of
fee-charging employment agencies, which will mean the abolition of these after
a period of 3 years in the countries ratifying. This abolition does not include
the prohibition of taking of fees by private cooperative agencies which work
exclusively for their members, or exclusively for employers or trade-unions,
services for which fees are charged, but not for purposes of profit. Nor does
it include newspapers that take employment advertisements and serve both the
employer and the trade unions.
A special technical placing conference was also convened, to which one of
the American observers was also a delegate. This was mainly a conference
dealing writh the problem of foreign workers, and their admission to the differ­
ent countries. It heralds the increasing interest in migration problems under
a regime of some sort of restraint and regulation by bilateral treaties. The
days of liberalism in the movement of populations are apparently over, and
now the problem is to deal with the matter by international regulation of some
sort. For instance, we are in great danger of tightening up our borders so
much that learners and apprentices and people coming in for education will
find it difficult to learn the ways of the different countries, to educate them­
selves in the industry of those countries, and to take back such information for
their own improvement and that of their own country.
In 1933 a big advance in ratifications was achieved, but more significantly a
much greater interest was manifested on the part of the South American
countries. Uruguay ratified 30 out of the 33 treaties offered, and Colombia 14.
This is interesting in view of the forthcoming Pan American Conference at
Montevideo, which has on its program the question of a Pan American labor
bureau, and the creation of some sort of committee or commission to interest
itself within the Western Hemisphere with the same problems the Labor Or­
ganization deals with for the world as a whole and its 55 member countries.
The 1933 conference was significant because it came at a time when inter­
national labor officials were reporting for the first time that unemployment
was actually on the decline. The Labor Office frankly reports that this mys­
tical “ corner ” we have been talking about may be about to be turned by the
world as a whole. I do not want to say that that is coming too fast or too
rapidly, but there are some indications that an economic recovery throughout
the world is taking place. And as that occurs, I think the most important
thing that we ought to felicitate ourselves upon is that social legislation and
standards have been maintained fairly successfully, and that further progress
is bound to be made gradually as that industrial recovery takes place.

President P atton . A s yon know, Mr. Magnusson is the American
representative of the International Labor Office. The International



Labor Office is conducted under the auspices of the League of
Nations. The United States is not a member of the League of Na­
tions, but it does cooperate with the International Labor Office.
I was interested in Mr. Magnusson’s remark that, viewing the
world as a whole and not through too rose-colored spectacles, there
is, and I agree with him, evidence that perhaps (although we may
not like to use that expression) the industrial corner is in process
of being rounded— I will not say turned. To me there is, and has
been for a considerable number of months, evidence in that direc­
tion. It may be that the wish is father to the thought, but that is
and has been my feeling for some time.
Is there anyone who would like to question Mr. Magnusson about
the International Labor Office, about the function which the United
States plays in cooperation with it, what Mr. Magnusson does, and
particularly, what information you may expect to get from Mr.
Magnusson, if you wish to find out something next month or next
winter, or at any time? In other words, I wonder if we are all
familiar with the International Labor Office and what service we
may severally or individually get from it. I f there is any such
doubt or question in the mind of anyone, now would be a good time
to extract such information from Mr. Magnusson.
Miss J o h n s o n (New Hampshire). I should like to ask Mr. Mag­
nusson which of the major powers have ratified the hours con­
Mr. M a g n u s s o n . The 8-hour convention? There are 16 countries
which have done so. I am not sure that I can name all of them
offhand, but you are, I know, interested more in the negative ones.
Germany and France have ratified only on condition that the others
ratify, and Great Britain has not ratified in any way, shape, or man­
ner. The most important industrial countries that have ratified
are probably Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Italy has rati­
fied by reservation; namely, if Austria and others ratify. Austria has
ratified only on the condition that Germany, Italy, and Switzerland
ratify. The other countries ratifying are the lesser industrial coun­
tries and not the larger ones.
France for all practical purposes has the 8-hour day, and the
same with Great Britain. The stumbling block in Great Britain is
a minor feature in the agreement of the railway men, which, it is
said, would have to be modified seriously if the treaty is ratified.
For all practical purposes the treaty is in effect in those countries.
Cuba, some of the South American countries, some of the middleeastern European states, such as Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czecho­
slovakia, and Bulgaria, and the u corridor55 between Russia and
western Europe, have ratified. O f Mexico I am not sure; I will have
to check on that. (Mexico sent in a few ratifications this year,
after she became a member. Mexico was represented at the last
international conference for the first time, as she became a member
only a year ago.) Now, of course, these countries have moved on
from the 8-hour day and are considering a 40-hour week as the
remedy. They are having the same difficulty as there is here with
regard to the connection between hours of labor and unemployment,
which you know is a much-discussed question among economists.
M is s J o h n s o n . What does the 40-hour week mean?




Mr. M a g n it s s o n . It means 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. The
countries were amazed when in January of last year there was
introduced in the United States Senate a 30-hour-week bill. They
are very much interested and are watching with bated breath
progress under the industrial codes.
President P a t t o n . In case of the ratification by the United States
of the 8-hour day, that ratification as I understand it, would bind
the United States Government only. Would each of our individual
States still have to take steps to make it effective ?
Mr. M a g n u s s o n . That is the age-old constitutional question. W ith­
out expressing any opinion on it, I shall have to point out the two
sides of the issue. There are those who hold that a treaty ratification
by the Congress of the United States overrides legislation by the
States, on the ground that a treaty becomes the law of the land
once it is ratified. They cite in support of that the migratory-bird
treaty, which was made between the United States and Canada.
Under the old dispensation the various States had charge of the
preservation of game. Naturally their regulations affected the
normal movement of migratory birds into Canada, .who complained
she was being discriminated against by the laws of certain States.
Congress ratified a treaty on the subject with Canada, thus regulating
that movement by treaty. The State of Missouri questioned it, and
said if had complete control over its wild life, and if it wanted to
shoot all the ducks that were headed north into Canadian waters,
before they got there, it had that right. Congress said that this
was a subject which could not be handled by State legislation.
The birds had no sense of boundaries; they did not know of any
boundary between Canada and Missouri, or any other place. It
was clearly a problem that had to be handled by Congress, with
sovereign power in the premises resting elsewhere. For i f it was not
handled by Congress, the States must, but actually could not, handle
it, creating a thoroughly ridiculous situation. Obviously, therefore,
the power lay in the Federal Government, as power must reside
International competition obviously is a problem with which a
State cannot deal, and if the 8-hour day in the United States or
in other countries affects the competitive position of industries in
the United States in a certain way, New York certainly cannot
deal with it. But sovereign power rests somewhere—ergo, the Fed­
eral Congress can ratify a treaty that covers the situation to be
dealt with.
On the other hand, there is a good line of argument that says
that you are trying to do indirectly what you cannot do directly. As
shown in the child-labor legislation of 1916, I believe, we tried both
the commerce clause and the taxing clause. The Supreme Court
thereupon ruled that the States have the sole power to do this, and
we social reformers are just trying to find a device to get around the
right of the States. The substance of the problem is the thing, not
the form or the method. We cannot let you, the Supreme Court
said, do indirectly what the Constitution forbids you to do directly
and openly; therefore a treaty or law dealing with labor matters of a
national character is ultra vires, so far as the Constitution is



President P a t t o n . Suppose, Mr. Crawford, that the Dominion of
Canada should ratify the 8-hour day, what effect would that have
on the various Provinces of Canada? Would the ratification by
the Dominion apply to the various Provinces ?
Mr. C r a w f o r d (Ontario). You are asking a question I cannnot an­
swer. There is no danger of the Dominion ratifying that treaty
or convention; the Dominion Government has ratified only the con­
ventions which come within its own jurisdiction—employment on
the sea, things of that kind. It has always passed on to the Prov­
inces any conventions which have been adopted in Geneva—sent
them out for our comments and criticism. The provincial govern­
ments deal with them, send back their comments and suggestions,
but there has been no ratification to date. We have laws in advance
of many of these conventions, but no attempt has yet been made to
ratify. I f the Dominion Government undertook to ratify any
conventions, some of the Provinces would object and say it had no
such power, and I think they would be sustained.
The Provinces are saying, I think with some justification, the situa­
tion is such that only action by the Dominion Government can deal
with it. At the same time they are so tied to that idea of their own
powers—provincial rights—that they will not take united action
to give the Dominion Government the necessary power to do what
they say it ought to do—I imagine you have the same difficulties
here— and as a result we just go along in our own way. I do not
know whether that answers the question, but that is pretty much
the situation there. The Dominion Government has not made an
issue of it.
Mr. M a g n u s s o n . I should have added that there is a clause in
the Labor Organization treaty which exempts Federal Governments
from ratifying treaties covering matters which are clearly within
the province of their constituent Provinces or States. Therefore a
treaty which comes to Canada, the United States, or Australia, deal­
ing with problems which constituent States thereof are competent
to ratify is merely referred to them and is not likely to be ratified
by the National Government. For instance, the United States Gov­
ernment would ratify, it is assumed, the .seamen’s treaties or the
immigration treaty, but other treaties are not on this footing. The
only way we can argue Congress into the other treaties is by the
analogy of the migratory bird treaty or through some device that
social legislation in the United States is a matter of National and
not State concern.
On the other hand, it is clear that the wTorld is an economic unit.
The obvious reason why trade takes place is the difference in costs
of production. I f one could equalize costs of production there would
be no international trade; that is the essence of international trade.
But there are differences in costs of production. I f the determining
factor in the difference in cost of production is the long hours of
labor, the sweated wages, that we are talking about under our
codes, then we are going to have a code on minimum wages or on
child labor. W hy? On the ground that it is unfair competition
between the North and the South that one section of the country
should permit work to children from 10 to 12 years of age and the
other limit it to children from 14 to 16 years old, or whatever the




standard may be. There are only two ways one can deal with that
on an international scale. One can deal with it, as far as imports
are concerned, through the tariff, by raising the tariff so high that
nothing can get in—entirely conceivable, but the tariff will not help
our exports which compete in the world’s markets. Or one can get
the countries to agree that competition shall be on a certain plane
of decency—on the plane of the labor standards of the International
Labor Organization, let us say, a plane which can be achieved by
the progressive ratification of treaties covering the points at issue.
President P a t t o n . The best we can say, then, at present, is that
the matter is one of those things that will have to be decided by
Concerning Mr. Magnusson’s report, it is decidedly a question
as to what extent the ratifications made by the various Govern­
ments will be effective. Perhaps we will have to draw a rule-ofthumb line and simply say that such ratifications are to be effective
only in cases where the National Governments clearly have author­
ity. I f you do that, then you strike out, of course, many of the possi­
bilities of the International Labor Office provisions. If, on the other
hand, these constitutional objections are to be sustained, as one
side argues for them, then you have taken away very largely from
the powers and possibilities of the International Labor Office. Are
there any other questions?
Mr. C rawford. There is one thing we are considering in Canada.
The Dominion Government appoints the representatives to Geneva
for the International Labor Office and for the main body, the Gov­
erning Body, but the Provinces have occasionally been asked to
send visitors.
The suggestion has been made, and I think it is probably worth
considering, that if the Provincial governments in some way were
asked to send official delegates to the International Labor Office so
that they would become thoroughly familiar with the work and take
an active part, it would be a much simpler matter to work out the
question of jurisdiction as to ratification, because then the repre­
sentative of the Provincial government would go there and repre­
sent the whole Dominion; After awhile when a number o f them have
gone there, you would find the desire for action and ratification and
keen interest in the work itself. A t the present time it is left that
way. The Dominion Government is finding it very difficult to
interest the Provinces in the whole matter.
I imagine you have the same difficulty. I f you were a member of
the League and the Federal Government were to send over three or
four men to represent the United States, and they were all appointed
by the Federal Government, some of the State governments would
say, “ Well, this isn’t a matter for us; we don’t know much about
it. What are we going to do? ” You would have a much more d if­
ficult problem than we have, because we have but 9 Provinces, and
you have so many States that you would have to have a large dele­
gation and it would take a long time to get around. I f we, with 9
Provinces, could solve the problem, we might have some suggestions
as to how you might go about it, but so far we have not been able to
do anything.



President P atton . It might be regarded in this country as the
opportunity to provide 48 junketing expeditions for the 48 States.
As was said a while ago, it seems to me to be one of those problems
that cannot be solved clearly offhand; it will probably be left to be
settled by drift. In the meantime, though, Mr. Magnusson, has
there been a minimum-wage agreement submitted at any time?
Mr. M agnusson. N o. The Labor Office has not touched the
question of the minimum wage as such. It has merely drafted a
treaty which provides for the setting up of machinery for the deter­
mination of wages—machinery that will supplement the trade unions
in the organized trades. The Labor Office utilizes the trade unions
in the organized trades and the employers’ associations in fixing its
standards; they are represented at the conference, on the Governing
Body, and on committees. On this question of the minimum wage
the Labor Office recognized that there are a great many industries
that are not organized and for those it suggested that boards should
be set up in every country. But the International Labor Office has
not taken up the question of what constitutes a minimum wage in
each country. That is a vast question.
President P atton . We are giving more attention than usual to
this question because all of us recognize, as Mr. Magnusson has
pointed out, that the internal situation both in the United States
and in countries abroad has forced to the front the necessity for
deeper consideration, on an international scale, of problems that we
have hitherto considered as being national only in their character.
We are not in position yet, it would seem, to see our way clearly,
but it is a situation which all of us ought to bear constantly in mind.
Usually, at this stage of an Association of Governmental Officials
in Industry meeting, we have on our program the roll call of the
States and reports of State legislation. This year, owing to the
fact that our regular session last year was omitted, and that we
made what may or may not turn out to be a successful effort to have
a joint meeting with the I.A.I.A.B.C., we have not as large a num­
ber of States represented here as we usually have in our own separate
convention. The secretary will call the roll of the States and Prov­
inces and ask each of you to respond briefly as to the high spots in
your State legislation of the year.
United States (by Charles F. Sharkey)

Since the eighteenth annual convention of this association held in Boston,
Mass., in 1931, two sessions of the Seventy-second Congress and a special
session of the Seventy-third Congress have been held. At the first session of
the Seventy-second Congress, which convened in December 1931 and adjourned
in July 1932, the following laws of interest to labor in some respect werie
Chapter 8. Creates the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. (P. 5.)
Chapter 47. Provides for the registration of trade marks of trade unions in
the District of Columbia. (P. 50.)
Chapter 78. A joint resolution which authorized the Interstate Commerce
Commission to investigate the feasibility of a 6-hour day for railroad employees.
(P. 65.) In compliance with this resolution a hearing was held during the sum-


19 33


mer of 1932 and a report of the findings were made to the Congress in December
of that year.
Chapter 90. This act is popularly referred to as the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
It concerns the use of injunctions in labor disputes.
(P. 70.)
Chapter 272. Establishes a credit-union law for the District of Columbia.
(P. 326.)
Chapter 441. Provides for the protection of wages of employees of contractors
in the District of Columbia.
(P. 608.)
Chapter 476. Provides for the licensing of plumbers in the District of
Columbia. (P. 659.)
Chapter 520. The Federal Relief Act. (P. 709.)
Chapter 522. The Federal Home Loan Bank Act. (P. 725.)
Chapter 524. Repeals the National Trades Union Act of 1886. (P. 741.)
A t the second session of the Seventy-second Congress the following act was
Chapter 6. Requires the closing of barber shops in the District of Columbia
1 day in every 7.
(The above acts are contained in 47 U.S. Stat.L.)
A t the special session of the Seventy-third Congress held this year many
laws were passed by the Congress either directly or indirectly affecting labor.
Chapter 1. Emergency bank law. (P. 1.)
Chapter 3. Economy Act. Includes legislation in regard to veterans and
employees of the Government. (P. 8.)
Chapter 17. Reforestation law— formation of Civilian Conservation Corps.
(P. 22.)
Chapter 25. Agricultural Adjustment Act. (P. 31.)
Chapter 30. Emergency Relief Act (Costigan-La Follette b ill). (P. 55.)
Chapter 32. Muscle Shoals Act. In this law the following provisions of
interest to labor were incorporated— prevailing wage rate; workmen’s com­
pensation; invention by an employee is the exclusive property of the corpora­
tion ; and the appointment, selection, and promotion of employees under the
act are to be on merit and efficiency. (P. 58.)
Chapter 49. National Employment System. ( Wagner-Peyser Act.)
(P. 113.)
Chapter 64. Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933. (P. 128.)
Chapter 90. National Industrial Recovery Act. (P. 195.) Under the provi­
sions of this law the following concerned labor in particular: Employees have a
right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing and shall be free from the interference of employers of labor in the
designation of representatives. No employee shall be required, as a condition
of employment, to join any company union or to refrain from joining a labor
organization of his own choosing. Employers must comply with the maximum
hours of labor, minimum rates of pay, and other conditions of employment
approved by the President.
Employers and employees are given the opportunity to establish by mutual
agreement maximum standard hours, minimum rates of pay, and such other
conditions of employment as may be necessary in such trade to effectuate
the policy of the act. However, where no such mutual agreement has been
approved by the President, he is authorized to investigate the labor prac­
tices, etc., and conditions of employment and is authorized, upon such investi­
gation, to prescribe a limited code of fair competition by which maximum hours
of labor, minimum rates of pay, and other conditions of employment are fixed.
Title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act pertains to public works.
It is specifically provided in this section of the law that all contracts must
contain provisions establishing minimum rates of wages to be predetermined by
the State highway department. Other provisions are the prohibition of convict
labor, a limitation of 30 hours per week, employees must be paid a just and
reasonable wage, and preferences must be given to qualified ex-Service men with
dependents. Preferences are then given to citizens of the United States and
aliens who have declared their intention of becoming citizens who are bona
fide residents of the political subdivision and county in which the work is to be
performed, and thereafter to such citizens and aliens who are bona fide resi­
dents of the State, territory, or district in which the work is to be performed.
The law specifically provides that these preferences shall apply only where such
work is available and the persons are qualified to perform the work to which



the employment relates. The law also provides that the maximum of human
labor shall be used in lieu of machinery wherever practicable.
Chapter 91. Emergency Railroad Transportation Act of 1933. (P. 211.)
(The above acts are contained in 48 U.S. Stat.L.)
California (by Mrs. M abel K in n ey)

Our department is one of seven divisions. W e watched carefully during
the two sessions of our legislature (for we had an adjourned session), in an
endeavor to strengthen the department wherever possible. My hardest work
was in trying to save the department, for it was up for abolishment. It was
saved but we had to promise to exist with a 38 percent cut in our budget.
The minimum wage law in California, however, is still on the statute books
and is being enforced.
The following is a summary of the labor legislation enacted in California
in 1933:
Chapter 41. Amends credit-union law.
Chapter 50. Provides that penalties withheld for violation of labor provisions
in a public contract shall, at the end of 90 days, be transferred to the State
treasurer. The time for action by the contractor for the recovery of said
penalties shall be limited to the said 90-day period.
Chapter 87. Adds a new section (1*4) to the law in regard to employee’s
bonds. Investments and the sale of stock or an interest in a business in con­
nection with securing a position are made illegal.
Chapter 154. Amends sec. 653d, Pen. Code, making more forceful the law
which prohibits the rebating of wages on public works.
Chapter 161. Requires persons engaged in mining, but not having title to the
fee of the property being worked, to have on hand cash or its equivalent in
readily salable securities, sufficient to pay the wages of every person em­
Chapter 174. Adds to Pen. Code, sec. 653g, stating that no employment fee
shall be charged applicants for employment on public works.
Chapter 175. Amends sec. 1204, Code of Civ. Proc. giving preference to
wage claimants under receiverships.
Chapter 226. Gives preference to local labor and domestic material in public
Chapter 353. Amends prior law on housing conditions.
Chapter 409. Provides for protection and registration of trade-union em­
Chapter 543. Requires the former employer of a minor to notify the person
who issued the work permit that the minor has left his employ.
Chapter 548. Gives wage claims a preference in the administration of
estates of minors or incompetents.
Chapter 566. Declares antiunion contracts illegal.
Chapter 632. Adds to Pen. Code, sec. 653c-l, limiting the hours of labor
on public works to 30 per calendar week during the economic emergency.
An exception is made of persons employed on maintenance or repair work by
the State, or any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof, who
may work a maximum of 44 hours per week or 8 hours per day.
Chapter 636. Takes advantage of Hawes-Cooper Act and regulates sale,
etc., of prison-made goods.
Chapter 761. Law passed to aid indigent residents not eligible for assistance
under the State old-age pension law.
Chapter 801. Amends law in regard to hours of motor-bus drivers.
Chapter 840. Amends old-age pension law in regard to investigation of appli­
Chapter 888. Provides for use of convicts in construction, etc., of highways.
Two resolutions (A.C.R. no. 45 and S.C.R. no. 38) request that free em­
ployment agencies be established in the section of Oakland west of Market
Street and south to Twentieth Street and in Bakersfield.
S.C.Res. no. 14, chapter 95, creates commission to investigate advisability
of establishing a State hospital for persons injured in the course of their
employment in the mining industry.




Amendments and additions to the workmen’s compensation were enacted
as follows:
Chapter 274. Outlines basis for compensation to employees engaged on un­
employment relief work and provides that compensation shall be based upon
monthly or anticipated earnings of worker, but excludes persons working
merely for aid or sustenance from benefits of act.
Chapter 335. Amends the law so as to provide for special classifications in
mining employments to allow rating based on hazards or loss experience.
Chapter 379. Empowers industrial commission to direct the manner, etc.,
of payments in cases of default where surety becomes liable. Such surety is
given same preference as is given to those to whom payments were made.
Chapter 517. Provides that if an injury is caused by a third party, the
employer shall be entitled to recover from such person all moneys paid to the
injured employee, during the period of his disability or to dependents, as
wages, salary, pension, or other emolument.
Chapter 522. Provides that in the future in computing the award earnings
are to be based on a 5-day, 30-hour week, rather than a year of 260 working
days, and adds a new provision covering injuries to employees working for
2 or more employers at the time of the accident.
Chapter 864. Directs that proceedings before commission or referee must
be taken down in shorthand by a competent reporter.
Chapter 1022. Enlarges coverage to include volunteer firemen.
Connecticut (b y Miss Helen W ood)

The most important legislation Connecticut passed, I think, is the minimumwage law, which is the standard National Consumer’s League bill. The second
most important was a law which requires the registration of all factories with
the commissioner of labor and that a factory cannot open or change its location
until 5 days after mailing such registration to the commissioner.
All factory regulations respecting hours of labor and sanitary conditions
were extended to home workers.
The hours of labor of women and children in stores, restaurants, etc., were
reduced from 58 to 52 for women and 48 for minors. That is probably the
most important other legislation. The hours of truck drivers were limited to
14 per day.
The prevailing rate of wages on the construction of public buildings was
ordered paid. Failure to pay wages is now punishable by a fine of $50 and
1 and/or 30 days in jail.
A number of minor bills were passed which strengthen the present labor
laws, mainly by adding heavier penalties and jail sentences.
That the unemployment and old-age pension bills passed the senate, though
not the house, was, we think, somewhat of a victory. This year the labor
department sponsored all the labor legislation and called in other groups, which
was an innovation in Connecticut.
Georgia (by T. E. W h itak e r)

One amendment to the workmen’s compensation law successfully passed
the legislature; it provides* that where an insurance company writes premiums
on insurance, it shall be estopped from pleading nonjurisdiction because the
treaties are not covered by the act.
W e introduced many other amendments to that law, such as one increasing
the maximum, and it looked very much as if that was going through this
year. It passed the senate along with many others, but, due to controversial
matters, failed to reach the house. W e are hopeful that at the next session
of the legislature we will be able to get other social legislation.
Another bill was passed which I think may be of some importance to many
here— the barber bill, which was substantially improved this year, the main



purpose being to include all beauty shops and hair-dressing parlors, which
had not theretofore been included.
Illinois (by Martin Durkin)
The only legislation passed in Illinois of any great importance was a mini­
mum wage law for women in industry. The committee has not been com­
pleted as yet— I received my appointment on the first day of September. The
reason given by the former director of labor was that, because of the N.R.A.
adopting the minimum wage in their codes, he thought it would be a good thing
to wait until that was done so that the same minimum wage could be adopted
in Illinois.
Kentucky (by Edward F. Seiller)
The only legislation of importance was a bill regulating the work of barbers
and beauticians. Another created a public employment service. However,
the public employment service in Kentucky has not been organized, due to the
fact that no appropriation was> made for the service. The act was passed
in anticipation of the passing of the Wagner-Peyser bill, and I am hopeful
that our act will work in with that bill when an appropriation is made next
The Massachusetts Legislature of 1932 extended the jurisdiction of several
labor laws. Most of these concerned the statutes regulating the employment
of women and children. Outstanding in this new legislation is the require­
ment that “ every person hiring, employing, or contracting with a member of
a family to maker alter, repair, ornament, finish, or adapt for sale by labor
to be performed in a room or apartment in a tenement or dwelling house,
any article except wearing apparel or any part thereof or material supplied
by said person, shall at such times as the commissioner may require, furnish
to the department the names and addresses of the workers so hired, employed,
or contracted with and of all women and minors dwelling in said room or
apartment, and of girls under 21 and boys under 18, their ages.” The exception
of “ wearing apparel ” made in this case is due to the fact that in another
statute it is already covered.
In homes where work of this type is being done, children have been known
to work in violation of the statutes regulating child employment in this
State. At present when a violation of this kind comes to the attention of the
department, the concern is immediately notified of its responsibility in this
connection even though such employment is not in its plant. The Massa­
chusetts statutes provide that no person shall employ a minor under 14 or
permit him to work in or about or in connection with any establishment
engaged in the manufacture or sale of these goods. Furthermore, the Massa­
chusetts law requires that such persons shall not employ a child between 14
and 16 or “ permit him to work ” in or about or in connection with his
establishment unless an employment certificate is issued to such child.
Another side to this problem appears in relation to the 48-hour law for
women employed in labor in certain types of establishments. I f work is taken
from the place of employment to be done in the home, then the home is used
for industrial purposes. The statutes define industrial establishments to
include “ * * * factories, workshops, bakeries, mechanical establishments,
laundries, foundries, tenement house workrooms, all other buildings or parts
thereof where manufacturing is carried on * *
Manufacturing estab­
lishments are defined to he “ any premises, room, or place used for the pur-



pose of making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, or adapting for sale any
articles or part thereof.” An employee who takes work from the shop and
does it at home brings the home within the scope of “ a place used for the
purpose of making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, or adapting for sale any
articles or part thereof” , and therefore becomes, for the purpose of the
statute, a manufacturing establishment. The advantage under the new law
consists of requiring manufacturers to furnish the department with a list
containing the names and addresses of the workers so hired, and of all
women and minors dwelling in the room or apartment, and also in the case
of girls under 21 and boys under 18, their ages. This will enable the depart­
ment to maintain supervision of such places and strengthen the laws relating
to women and children.
Another important addition to the labor laws of the State was made by the
legislature in amending the statutes providing for the weekly payment of wages
to employees. Difficulty was experienced in securing the imposition of the
penalty for violation of these provisions in the case of a corporation. The
new provision enacted is that in case a corporation violates the section, any
officer thereof responsible for a criminal act of this kind may be punished by
a fine of not less than $10, nor more than $50, or by imprisonment in the house
of correction for not more than 2 months, or both. Furthermore, the new law
provides that at a trial for the violation of the weekly payment law a loan made
by an employee to his employer of wages which are payable weekly under the
law, whether made directly to the employer or to another person or persons
on his behalf, shall not be valid as a defense unless such loan shall have been
made with the approval of the department. It is expected that the new
amendment will be helpful in curbing a vicious procedure.
Other laws adopted by the legislature for the protection of women and chil­
dren require that the employer shall “ keep posted in such manner as the
commissioner may require the time notices containing the schedule of hours for
women and children.”
Measures concerning social welfare passed by the legislature of 1932 include
an act relative to agents to carry on the provisions of the workmen’s compen­
sation law respecting public employees; permitting certain pupils of dancing
schools to participate in dancing exhibitions at graduation exercises by a school
furnishing them instruction; relative to vacations for municipal laborers;
relative to the fact or certain agreements of periods in workmen’s compensation
cases on the finality of certain findings of the industrial accident board ; relative
to the county wherein certain proceedings under the workmen’s compensation
law in the superior court may be heard and determined; authorizing the pay­
ment of small amounts of wages or salaries, not in excess of $100 due an
employee who dies intestate, to the surviving husband or wife or adult child,
to the surviving father or mother of such employee; continuing and extending
the existing preference in the qualified labor service to persons with dependents ;
bids and contracts requiring the 44-hour week for State printing and binding
and furnishing office supplies.
The department of labor and industries was also directed by the legislature
to make special study into the provisions of the law relating to 1 day’s rest
in 7 for certain employees now excepted by the statute; and another requiring
investigation as to the advisability of including laborers in the prevailing rate
of wages law in the construction, addition to, or alteration of public works.
New Hampshire (by E thel M. Johnson)

A number of important labor measures were enacted in New Hampshire
during the biennial session of the legislature which was prorogued this year.



These include amendments to the general labor laws to provide for 1 day’s
rest in 7 for employees in industrial establishments, with the usual exceptions
with respect to those engaged in continuous processes and in work considered
essential to the public welfare.
The measure carries with it provision for posting names of employees re­
quired to work on Sunday and for reporting such work to the State labor
There is also an amendment applying to manufacturing and
mechanical establishments which prohibits requiring employees to work beyond
the legal limit of hours in order to make up time lost by reason of a holiday.
There were three amendments to the workmen’s compensation law enacted,
liberalizing the provisions of that legislature.
One of these provides that
reasonable medical and hospital care, when needed, shall be furnished by the
employer, free of charge, to injured employees during the first 30 days after
an industrial injury; and that such aid shall not reduce the compensation
benefits to which the employee is entitled. The second measure provides, in
the case of total or partial incapacity for work extending beyond 1 week, that
compensation shall date from the time of the in ju ry; that benefits shall be paid
weekly; and that the amount of such benefits shall not be less than $7 a
week nor more than 50 percent of the average weekly earnings of the employee.
The third amendment concerns child labor and specifies that, in the case
of minors under 18 years of age suffering industrial injury double compensation
shall be paid where there are violation of certain provisions of the labor
The measures in question include those regarding certification and
employment of minors, hours of labor, night work, posting hours, and em­
ployment at times other than posted.
One of the outstanding labor measures enacted this year is the minimum
fair-wage act. The New Hampshire law follows, in general, the provisions of
the model measure sponsored by the National Consumers’ League. It provides
that employers shall not pay their women and minor employees an unfair
or oppressive wage. Such a wage is defined as one that is both less than a
fair and reasonable return for the services rendered and less than sufficient to
meet the minimum cost of living necessary for health.
Wage orders are at first recommendatory; later they may be made manda­
tory. It is in this respect that there is the chief difference from the model
bill. Under that measure a directory wage order may be made mandatory
after 9 months. Under the New Hampshire law such a change may be made
after an order has been in effect for 5 months. The arrangements as to court
proceedings are also more detailed in the New Hampshire act.
New Hampshire was one of the nine States to ratify the child labor amend­
ment this year. Another measure of interest is the 48-hour bill which passed
the house but failed of passage in the senate by a narrow margin.
A measure which becomes effective in January 1934 prohibits the use of
prison labor or the products of such labor by any except State institutions or
departments, or political subdivisions of the State.
The legislature took no action to make effective in the State the WagnerPeyser Act for the development of the public employment service. Governor
Winant, however, in behalf of the State accepted the provisions of the act and
arranged for transfer of the necessary funds from the emergency appropria­
tion. A State coordinator for the public employment service has been appointed
and arrangements have been made for the development of the service. Reem­
ployment offices have been opened in all of the counties of the State.

73597°— 34------3


1 9 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

This record of progressive legislation and action is due to the fact that New
Hampshire has a chief executive who possesses social vision and who has a
keen interest in labor and social welfare legislation.
New Y ork (by E. B. Patton)

Legislation affecting labor passed by the New York Legislature in 1933
included the following:
Full intrastate application in New York of all business codes and agreements
for fair competition under the National Industrial Recovery Act was provided
for (ch. 781, extra session), and the use of State and local officers and employees
by the Federal Government in the administration of the national recovery
program was authorized (ch. 783, extra session).
The industrial commissioner was made the agent of the State for cooperation
with the United States Employment Service (ch. 812, extra session).
A separate division of minimum wage in the department of labor to admin­
ister the law requiring a minimum wage for women and minors in industry
was created and its powers and duties prescribed (ch. 584). A division of
bedding, for the regulation of the manufacture and sale of bedding to protect
the buying public against disease and fraud, was also created in the department
of labor (ch. 408).
The addition of these two divisions increases the
number of divisions in the department to 13.
The duty of determining wage schedules as the basis for contracts for public
works outside cities (ch. 731) and of designating minimum hourly wage rates
as part of all public highway contract specifications (ch. 733) is imposed upon
the department of labor.
A minimum wage law (ch. 584) applying to women and minors was passed.
It includes pieceworkers but excludes domestic servants and farm laborers.
The mechanic’s lien law was amended in certain particulars (chs. 164,
The daily tour of town policemen in Westchester County was limited to 8
consecutive hours daily (ch. 724).
The subject of workmen’s compensation received legislative attention as
follow s:
The time limit upon reclassification of disability was eliminated (ch. 384).
In reclassification of cases 7 years old, however, the employer and carrier
are granted a review by the entire industrial board, approval by at least three
of the five members of the board being required for any action it may take.
Open cases pending before the board on April 24, 1933, and closed cases in
which application for reopening was received before such date are excluded
(ch. 774, extra session). A special fund is provided to relieve the employer
and carrier from liability for compensation in two classes of cases involving
difficulty of evidence because of lapse of time (ch. 384).
A carrier seeking review of a referee’s decision by the industrial board and
losing the case must pay an assessment of $10. Any other party so losing must
pay a $5 assessment if so decreed by the board (ch. 393).
Jurisdiction was conferred on the court of claims to hear and determine
work accidents to inmates of State prisons, hospitals, and reformatories by
17 chapters of the Laws of 1933.

The Legislature of Ohio at its last session adopted a number of bills which
were designed to benefit the workers of the State, and which might be classed
as labor legislation. Among them were the barbers’ license la w ; the Waldvogel
bill, which is a uniform bond a c t; the prison labor bill, which does away with



shipping of prison-made goods from other States into O hio; the garnishee and
attachment of wages b ill; the agreed workmen’s compensation b ill; the CassidyW olf bill, regulating the amount of printing to be done in the Ohio penitentiary;
and the Fleger bill, regulating the inspection of elevators.
The Ohio Legislature also voted in favor of the Federal Child Labor
Outstanding among the bills passed was the minimum wage law, relative
to the establishment of minimum fair wage standards for women and minors.
This bill was first introduced by a Republican representative and was finally
adopted as a bipartisan measure, known as the “ O’Neil-Pringle bill.”
was adopted unanimously by both branches of the Ohio Legislature.
Puerto Rico (b y Prudencio R ivera M artinez)

Acts affecting labor were passed in 1932 as follow s:
The wage-payment law was amended as to procedure in case of wage claims.
In order to carry out the purposes of the vocational education act, provision
was made for the expenses of equipment, buildings, etc.
A division of economic and social research and investigation in the depart­
ment of labor was created by Joint Resolution No. 45. The establishment of
this division resulted from a survey conducted in pursuance of a resolution
(No. 16), July 19, 1929, to determine the causes producing industrial, etc.,
uneasiness and restlessness giving rise to unemployment in the Island. The
mediation and conciliation law was amended (Act No. 16) to conform to the
act of 1931 which separated the departments of agriculture and labor. The
chairman of the Mediation and Conciliation Commission is required by Act No.
37 to devote his entire time to the office, at an annual salary of $3,000.
In 1933 the following labor and social welfare legislation was passed:
A Homestead Division was created in the Department of Labor (J.R. No. 47)
to purchase land for the construction and leasing of houses for workmen and
for farms to be leased to farm laborers, and provision was made for financing
the same (Acts Nos. 42, 43, and 52 ).
A law providing for mothers’ pensions and for a pension board to administer
them, and appropriating therefor was enacted (No. 17, special session).
W isconsin (by Edwin E. W itte )

While the total volume of the new labor legislation enacted in 1933 was not
as great as in some previous years, several very important measures were
E xem ptions from garnishm ent .— The measure likely to affect the largest
number of workmen was chapter 69, which revised the law governing exemp­
tion of wages from garnishment. This was an administration measure, recom­
mended specifically by the governor in his first message to the legislature.
Under this new law married wage earners will hereafter have an exemption
of 60 percent of their wages but not less than $60 nor more than $100' per
month. Wage earners with children under 16 years of age will have an ad­
ditional exemption of $10 per month. Under the prior law married wage
earners had an exemption of 60 percent of their wages, with the same addi­
tions for dependent children as in the present statute. As the great majority
of the wage earners of the State were getting less than $100 per month, most
of the wage earners under the old law had an actual exemption of less than
$60 per month and, because the exemption was expressed entirely upon a
percentage basis, no wage earners were altogether exempt from garnishment.
Under the new law no part of the wages of workmen who receive less than
$60 per month can be garnisheed. This protects the weakest and poorest of


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

wage earners and will be of incalculable benefit to workmen who have accum­
ulated debts during the period of unemployment. Under the law as it now
stands, the great majority of these workmen cannot be harassed by creditors
through garnishment proceedings as soon as they get back to work— to which
they were exposed under the old law. This same act, further, for the first
time extended the exemption from garnishment to farmers. Heretofore farmers
have had no exemption whatsoever. The new law provides that milk checks
and other income of farmers shall be on the same plane as salary checks of
employees. Farmers with families, like wage earners, now have an exemption
of 60 percent of their monthly income and not less than $60 nor more than
$100 per month, plus $10 per month for each child under 16.
W orkm en's compensation .— Important changes were made in the workmen’s
compensation law, all of them measures strengthening this act. The most im­
portant new law affecting workmen’s compensation was chapter 402. This
is a measure intended to expedite the disposition of contested workmen’s com­
pensation cases. For years there has been complaint that the industrial com­
mission is far behind in its work. This has been due primarily to the fact that
the commission as a body has been required to pass upon all contested compensa­
tion cases. As there are in the neighborhood of 3,500 such cases every year,
the commission has had great difficulty in keeping up with its work. Com­
pensation cases have been heard by a single commissioner or by an examiner,
but under the law as it stood prior to the enactment of chapter 402 the
commission as a body had to go over all of the testimony taken and reach
a decision. Chapter 402 alters this procedure by providing that the commis­
sioner or examiner who hears the case shall render a decision thereon. Either
party may appeal from his decision to the commission as a body and from the
commission’s decision to the circuit court of Dane County, but experience in
other States where this system has been tried has demonstrated that the great
majority of cases are disposed, of without appeal to the commission as a body.
The new system thus is expected greatly to expedite the disposition of com­
pensation cases and will also operate to give the commission more time for its
numerous other duties.
Another important new compensation iaw is chapter 314, which fixes the
liability in occupational disease cases. Occupational diseases have been com­
pensable for many years on the same basis as industrial accidents, but there al­
ways has been great difficulty in determining the employer responsible where
a workman who has contracted an occupational disease during a period of
years worked for more than one employer during such period. In consequence,
a great many workmen who contracted occupational diseases were unable to
recover any compensation. Chapter 314 remedies this situation by providing
that where a workman contracts an occupational disease by reason of his em­
ployment, the employer who last employed him at work of a kind in which the
occupational disease could have been contracted shall be liable therefor.
Other changes made in the workmen’s compensation act include the follow­
in g: Chapter 353 abolished the compensation insurance board and transferred
its duties to the commissioner of insurance. The regulation of compensation
insurance is not affected by this change, as the commissioner of insurance will
have exactly the same control over the compensation insurance companies as
the compensation insurance board has had heretofore. In fact, another act
(chapter 230) strengthens the regulatory law through providing that compensa­
tion insurance rates shall be reasonable as well as adequate. Heretofore the
only standard has been that of adequacy; now, employers will have the addi­
tional protection that the rates must also be reasonable. Chapter 36 provides
that withdrawals in compensation cases shall become effective within 30 days



after notice of withdrawal is given the industrial commission. Chapter 402,
besides making the changes noted above in the disposition of contested cases by
the industrial commission, makes a considerable number of other changes in
the compensation act, all of which were recommended by the industrial com­
mission. This chapter restored the condition for compensation that the injury
must arise out of employment, which the supreme court held was (inadver­
tently) stricken from the law by a reviser’s bill in the 1931 session. It allows
copartners and corporation officials to file nonelections under the compensation
act. It requires insurance companies to give the industrial commission notice
of their intent not to renew particular insurance policies, so that the commis­
sion will be in a better position to enforce the law requiring all employers
subject to compensation to insure their risks unless exempted by express order
of the commission. This chapter also clarifies the law relating to compensa­
tion for second serious injuries.
Child labor.— Chapter 143 is the first law enacted in many sessions strength­
ening the child labor law. This act establishes a 16-year age limit for em­
ployment during the hours that the schools are in session. No child under
16 who has not completed the highest course offered in the public schools of
the municipality in which he resides may be employed during the period while
the schools are in session, but this does not interfere with permits for work
during school vacations. Children under 16 who have not completed the most
advanced course offered in the schools of their municipality, further are required
to attend such schools until they have reached the age of 16. Heretofore the
age limit for full-time employment during school hours has been 14 if the
child had completed the eight elementary grades, and 15 if he had not done so.
Under this law many children could not get permits for full-time employment
until they were 15, but there was no requirement for full-time school attend­
ance after the age of 14. Now, children who reside in cities or school dis­
tricts operating high schools or vocational schools must attend such schools
full time until they are 16, but this requirement does not apply to rural dis­
tricts which have no high schools. In such districts the age of compulsory
school attendance remains at 14.
The changes made in the child labor law by this act are in accord with the
requirements which the National Recovery Administration is insisting upon in
all industrial codes now being formulated. Wisconsin wrote these standards
into its statutes several months before the National Recovery Administration
insisted that they be observed during the present emergency by all industries
throughout the country.
Wage-payment and wage-collection laws.— Chapter 303 amended the semi­
monthly wage-payment law by striking out the exemption of sawmills, retain­
ing, however, the exemption of logging operations. Chapter 473 amended the
wage collection law, passed in 1931, to make it clearly constitutional and to
give the industrial commission an appropriation for its enforcement. Under
this law the industrial commission has to assist wage earners in collecting wage
claims which the commission upon investigation finds are just. The 1931 act
was held unconstitutional in a decision rendered by a circuit judge in Mil­
waukee County, due to the fact that it imposed criminal penalties for the
nonpayment of wages without regard to the ability of the employer to pay.
The new law avoids this difficulty by providing that the criminal penalty shall
apply only where an employer is able to pay wages he justly owes but refuses
to do so. Further, the new law gives the industrial commission an appropria­
tion for enforcement. The commission has done some work in assisting wage
earners in the collection of wage claims even prior to this 1933 statute, but
is now in much better shape to do so than heretofore.


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

Chapter 95 makes it the duty of all political subdivisions of the State to
determine the minimum wages to be paid all workmen employed by contractors
on public works projects of these municipalities. These minimum-wage scales
must be incorporated in the contracts and failure to observe them is made a
criminal offense for the contractor. Heretofore municipalities have had the
right to establish minimum-wage scales, but have not been required to do so.
On State work provisions for minimum-wage scales were made in 1931, and
this act, during the past week, has been used as the medium for the conclusion
of an agreement by all building contractors fixing a minimum-wage scale, not
only for public but for private work throughout the State, except in Milwaukee
County, with rates ranging from 60 cents to $1.10 per hour.
U n e m p lo y m e n t r e s e r v e s .— Two laws were enacted amending the unemploy­
ment reserves act passed in the special session of 1931-32. Both of these
measures were agreed upon unanimously by the representatives of both the em­
ployers and employees on the advisory committee created by the industrial
commission in connection with this act. Chapter 186 postpones the effective
date of the compulsory provisions of the unemployment reserves act until for
3 successive months the index of employment in manufacturing establish­
ments in this State is 20 percent above December 1932, or the index of the
pay rolls in such establishments 50 percent above December 1932. In no event,
however, are the compulsory provisions of the unemployment reserves act to
go into effect until July 1, 1934. With the increase in employment incident to
national industrial recovery, it now seems practically certain that the Wisconsin
unemployment reserves act will go into effect on July 1, 1934—in fact, employ­
ment in July 1933 was already 20 percent above December 1932, so that the
unemployment reserves act will take effect in July 1934 if the present level
of employment is retained for 3 months. Wisconsin thus is not only the
first State to enact an unemployment insurance law but will also be the first
State to put such a law into effect.
Chapter 383 made numerous minor changes in the unemployment reserves
act, all of which were agreed upon unanimously by the representatives of the
employers and employees on the advisory committee. These changes are all
intended to make the law more workable when it gets into operation.
P u b lic e m p l o y m e n t offices. —In chapter 406 this State accepted the provi­
sions of the Wagner-Peyser Act relating to Federal aid for State employment
offices. Under this act approximately $27,000 will be available in the current
fiscal year from Federal funds for the expansion of the State employment
offices, and above $60,000 in the fiscal year 1934-35. This law requires the
States and their political subdivisions to match dollar for dollar the aid given
by the Federal Government for public employment offices. This, however, does
not necessitate any additional expenditure on the part of the State, as Wis­
consin has been expending in the neighborhood of $50,000 a year for its pub­
lic employment offices and the municipalities about $10,000 more.
P r is o n la b or. — No action was taken by the legislature on the problem of
prison labor, which wiH'become an acute one when the Federal Hawes-Cooper
act takes effect in January 1934, making prison-made products imported from
other States subject to the laws of the State into which they are imported.
Instead, the legislature created an interim committee to study the entire
problem of prison labor, which committee is to report to the special session
or the 1935 regular session.
A n t ila b o r m e a s u r e s . —A large number of bills to repeal or weaken existing
labor laws were introduced, but not a single one of these measures became law.
The governor in his first message indicated that he would not approve any



legislation weakening the existing labor laws, and he vetoed two measures
which he believed had this effect. One of these would have reduced the work­
men’s compensation payable in cases of silicosis to one-half the normal com­
pensation, and the other permitted appeals in compensation cases to be brought
in any circuit court instead of only in Dane County, where the attorney gen­
eral can represent the injured workmen to whom awards are made. On the
silicosis problem an interim legislative committee was created, but the com­
pensation payable for silicosis remains the same as for other industrial diseases
and accidents.
Antilabor bills defeated in the legislature without reaching the governor
included bills to repeal the unemployment reserves act, the wage-collectioil
law, and the law prohibiting Sunday work in bakeries, a bill to exempt
tobacco warehouses from the minimum wage law, and another measure to
increase the waiting period and reduce the compensation in all workmen’s
compensation cases.
Legislation of benefit to labor although not technically labor legislation was
passed as follow s:
Mortgage foreclosures.—Ten acts were passed during the session to afford
relief to property owners who in the present emergency are unable to meet
payments of interest and principal on mortgages falling due. Collectively
these acts provide that in the foreclosure of mortgage loans made prior to
July 1, 1983, except by the Federal Government, the redemption period may
in the discretion of the court be extended beyond the statutory 1-year limit for
such time and upon such terms and conditions as the court may find equitable,
not exceeding a total redemption period of 3 years. By a later act these same
provisions relating to the redemption period were made applicable to the fore­
closure of land contracts. Another act provides that the court shall not approve
any sale of a farm or home after foreclosure unless the sale price fairly measures
the value of the property; further, that failure to pay interest or taxes or both
shall not be deemed such waste as to justify the appointment of a receiver after
foreclosure. Still another act provides for the establishment of county media­
tion committees to attempt to adjust differences between mortgagors and mort­
gagees in mortgage cases involving farms or homes. These mediation com­
mittees have no compulsory powers but their recommendations are to be taken
into consideration by the court before whom foreclosure proceedings are pending
or may be brought.
All the above legislation relating to foreclosures is applicable only during
the present emergency. It applies only to foreclosure actions begun before
July 1, 1935, and, as amended near the close of the session, does not apply to
loans discounted by any Federal agencies or to loans made by private parties
after July 1, 1933. The purpose of the legislation was to afford a breathing
spell to hard-pressed farm and home owners who by reason of unemployment
or the low prices of farm products are unable to meet payments at this time.
This legislation enacted early in the session had the effect of greatly reducing
the number of foreclosure actions and, still more, the number of cases in
which deficiency judgments are allowed. This was all that the State could do
pending action by the Federal Government to refinance the mortgagors. Upon
the passage of such legislation by Congress (in May and June) the foreclos­
ure laws were promptly modified to exempt Federal loans. This was done to
secure for the State the advantages of these refinancing acts and such refinan­
cing is now actually in progress.
Not an emergency measure but along related lines is chapter 422, which pro­
vides that household furniture sold on conditional sales contracts may be


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I,

repossessed by the seller only through legal process. This corrects a grave
abuse which has arisen in connection with installment sales. In many instances
furniture sold through high-pressure methods has been retaken without any
court order, despite the fact that the purchasers had made very substantial
payments thereon. Such proceedings will hereafter not be possible, as court
proceedings are necessary before any furniture sold on conditional sales
contracts may be repossessed.
Relief for delinquent taxpayers.—A number of measures were enacted to
afford relief to property owners who have fallen behind in the payment of
their taxes. Chapter 244 extends the redemption period after tax sale from
3 to 5 years, this extension applying to all tax certificates sold in 1933 and
thereafter. The same act provides that delinquent taxes may be paid in in­
stallments of not less than $10 and in multiples of $5, with interest apply­
ing only to unpaid balances. Chapter 334 permits county boards to fix any
rate of interest on tax certificates held by the county. Chapter 288 authorizes
counties to remit all or any part of the penalties and interest on taxes of the
years 1931 and 1932 which are paid before July 1, 1934. The purpose of
this act is to afford an inducement to taxpayers to clear up their delinquent
taxes and to give the counties complete freedom in compromising claims for
interest and penalties.
Of a fundamentally different character, but likewise beneficial to all prop­
erty taxpayers, were the repeal by the last legislature upon the governor’s
recommendation of the State tax on property and the very large reduction in
total State appropriations made in the Executive Budget Act. This act re­
duced the appropriations from the general fund, excluding highway appropria­
tions,. from a total of $57,000,000 to $42,000,000, which represents a reduction
of above 27 percent.
Emergency relief.— The Emergency Relief Act (chapter 363), passed near
the close of the session, provides funds for continued State participation in
relief for the unemployed. This act imposes an emergency relief tax on
the incomes of individuals o f the year 1932, which is to be collected in Novem­
ber 1933. This emergency relief tax is very similar to the emergency income
tax imposed in the special session of 1931-32, but has higher exemptions and
so will not bear quite so heavily on people with but moderate incomes. The
same act also imposes an emergency surtax on inheritances and an emergency
gift tax. These several taxes are expected to yield in the neighborhood of
$4,500,000, which is believed sufficient to enable the State to get its full share
of the funds which have been made available by the Federal Government
for relief purposes. Passage of this act insures relief during the next winter
for all who are in need of relief.
Several other measures enacted somewhat liberalize the conditions for re­
lief. Chapter 299 provides that the ownership of a home or an insurance
policy having a loan value of not to exceed $500 shall not be a bar to relief
where the family is actually in need of relief. Chapter 165 provides that
where hospitalization or surgical care is necessary for an indigent the cost
of such treatment shall be a proper charge against the municipality o f residence.
. Legislation was also enacted during this session to enable the State to take
full advantage of all of the several Federal acts of Congress to permit agricul­
tural and industrial recovery and to insure cooperation by the State with the
Federal Government in carrying out these acts. Under this legislation a large
number of reforestation and flood control camps, giving employment to several
thousand young men, have been established in this State. The State is also
cooperating with the Federal Government in securing compliance with the
National Recovery Act and the President’s Emergency Recovery Agreement.



The State is, further, at this time “ lining up ” public works projects to be
financed with Federal aid and is cooperating in the refinancing of farm and
home mortgage indebtedness.
O ld -a ge p e n sio n s a n d o th e r s o c ia l w e lf a r e leg is la tio n . — Chapter 375 post­
pones the compulsory provisions of the old-age pension act for two years until
July 1, 1935. Several bills were introduced in the legislature to repeal the
old-age pension law. The measure passed was a compromise acceptable to the
supporters of old-age pensions. Until the law becomes compulsory, any county
may operate under the old-age pension system and, if it does so, it shares in
the State aid of $75,000 per year for this purpose. Chapter 363, the emer­
gency relief act, increased the State aid for mothers’ pensions for 1933 from
$30,000 to $200,000 per year. This is the first time since the mothers’ pension
law was enacted in 1915 that the State has contributed more than $30,000
for mothers’ pensions.
P r o h ib itio n . — The legalization of the manufacture and sale of been by Con­
gress has been greatly beneficial to Wisconsin. No other State has produced
as much beer since this act took effect as has Wisconsin. This has given em­
ployment to a very large number of workmen both in Milwaukee and else­
where in the State. Increased employment has been reflected in a reduction
in the number of families on public relief lists. In Milwaukee alone this
number has gone down from 33,000 in March of this year to 23,000 last week.
Wisconsin has had no State prohibition law since 1929. Passage of the
Federal law legalizing the manufacture and sale of beer, however, necessitated
the passage of a regulatory law in this State. This law provides relatively
few restrictions and leaves regulation entirely up to the localities, thus ob­
serving the democratic principle of home rule. The State, however, imposed
a revenue tax of $1 per barrel on all beer sold, which tax promises to yield not
less than $1,200,000 per year— an amount badly needed in the present condition
of the State revenues.
The State also acted very promptly on the proposed repeal of the Eighteenth
Amendment, being the second State in the Union to hold an election for a
convention and to ratify the proposed Twenty-first Amendment repealing the
Eighteenth Amendment. In anticipation that the necessary 36 States will
act favorably on this new amendment within the next six months, the legis­
lature also created an interim committee to study the problem of the regula­
tion of the traffic in intoxicating liquors, which is to make its report in the
special session, if such a session is held next winter.
Ontario (by A. W . Crawford)
T h e in d u s tria l d is p u te s i n v e s tig a tio n a c t , 1 9 3 2 . —The industrial disputes in­
vestigation act is a piece of new legislation passed in 1932. It is enabling
legislation which makes operative in Ontario the Dominion Industrial Disputes
Investigation Act. Under the Federal act no strikes or lockouts may be brought
about in connection with public utilities and railways until a board of con­
ciliation and investigation has thoroughly investigated the circumstances and
made public its report. If both parties agree, the findings of the board may
become binding. Industrial disputes of any nature may be referred to a board
when both parties agree, but in a case of public utilities the appointment of a
board is compulsory. The Ontario act exempts all commissions the members
of which are appointed by the Crown.
This act insures to employees and employers in certain industries a hearing
and fair trial before changes may be made in wages or working conditions.
Already four boards of conciliation and investigation have been established
under the act, all of which have been successful in averting strikes as follow s:


1 9 3 3 MEETING OP A.G.O.I.

(1) In the case of a dispute between the London Street Railway Co. and its
employees; (2) in the case of a dispute between the Niagara, St. Catherine &
Toronto Railway and certain shop employees; (3) in the case of a dispute
between the Niagara, St. Catherine & Toronto Railway and certain passengercar operators; (4) in the case of a dispute between the Hydro Electric Com­
mission of Hamilton and its employees.
T h e d e p a r tm e n t o f la b o r a ct. — By an amendment in 1932 a new section was
added as follow s:
9. Whenever any inspector appointed under this act or under any of the
acts or regulations administered by the department of labor is of the opinion
that any work or installation to which any such act or regulations apply or
any portion of such work or installation is being carried on or has been installed
in such manner as to be dangerous to life or property, he may, by written order
to the employer, person, firm, or corporation responsible for such work or
installation, or to the contractor for any part thereof, order the immediate
cessation of the work or operation of the plant or equipment or any portion
thereof, which he considers unsafe.
The section outlining the functions of the government employment office
was amended to meet the present scope of these offices, as follow s:
( d) Establish and maintain in the various centers of population through­
out Ontario, employment offices and similar agencies for obtaining suitable
employment for persons both male and female, in any of the trades, occupa­
tions, or professions, and for procuring workers for employment in any of the
trades, occupations, or professions, and subject to the Employment Agencies
Act, to regulate all voluntary, private, or municipal employment bureaus,
(formerly “ for workingmen” ).
Certain changes in provision for penalties were also made.
T h e f a c t o r y , sh o p , a n d office bu ild in g a ct. — The factory, shop, and office build­
ing act was revised in 1932. A new section was added permitting the employ­
ment of female workers and youths in factories on a double-shift system of 8
hours each and between the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. Another new section
provides for regulations for the protection of persons engaged in any indus­
trial process involving the use or manufacture of benzol or any other poison.
Among other changes made amending certain sections was that permitting
the employment in shops and restaurants of female workers and youths
until 11 p.m. providing they are not employed more than 10 hours in any
1 day or 60 hours in any one week.
An amendment in 1933 exempted from annual inspection any boiler used in
connection with any hot-water-heating system of the open type.
O p era tin g en g in e e r s a ct. — The stationary and hoisting engineers act was
revised in 1932 and the name changed to the operating engineers act, in order
to incorporate all its activities. The amendments bring the act into agree­
ment with modern plant practice.
The introduction of internal-combustion engines on hoists called for pro­
tective legislative measures. These are now embodied in the operatingengineers act, making it compulsory to employ qualified engineers for this
class of labor.
In order to facilitate the making of regulations respecting the three differ­
ent classes of work that came under the original heading of hoisting plant,
the act now sets down three divisions, namely, hoisting, traction, and portable.
An unwritten law with present builders of boilers lays down the rule that
15 pounds steam pressure is the dividing line between high and low pressure
plants. In accordance with this practice the act has been changed so that



a boiler, the safety valve of which is set to relieve the steam pressure of
15 pounds or under, is designated low pressure and is exempted, unless it is of
200 horsepower or over. In the old act, all boilers irrespective of the horse­
power, tfie safety valves of which were set at a pressure of 10 pounds or less,
were considered as low-pressure plants and exempted.
An additional grade of certificate for firemen is now in force. This cer­
tificate takes care of night watchmen who require a knowledge of boilers,
but not sufficient for an operating engineer’s certificate of the fourth grade.
Further changes in the act involve the separation of refrigerating and aircompressor plants and placing them in twTo classifications as the same engineer­
ing qualifications are not necessary for both plants.
The steam-boiler act.—The amendment of the steam boiler act in 1932 fixes
a penalty of from $50 to $300 for any contravention of the act or regulations
which endangers the safety of persons or for failure to comply with any order
given under the act. New regulations have been drafted this year governing
the installation of hot-water-heating systems, particularly those of the closed
The apprenticeship act.— In 1932 changes were made in the apprenticeship
act and regulations, in order to give all concerned equal opportunity for shar­
ing in the work of developing apprenticeship along lines acceptable to the
The advisory Provincial apprenticeship committee was replaced by a board
of three members, one representing employers, one representing employees, and
the third the Provincial department of education. This board is entrusted
with administrative responsibilities, subject to the approval of the lieutenantgovernor in council and acts under the immediate direction of the minister
of labor.
It was also provided that employers or employees may at all times petition
the board in connection with any suggested changes in the legislation or
regulations, and that the trade affected must be thoroughly canvassed before
changes are put into effect.
The minimum wage act.— The minimum wage act was amended in 1932,
requiring employers to keep certain records setting forth the names, addresses,
rates of wages, hours of labor, actual earnings, and actual time spent in
work of all their female employees, and the ages of those employees under
18 years. The definition of wages was changed to include remuneration other
than money payment, such as board and lodging. Certain changes were made
regarding penalties.
An amendment in 1933 reduced the membership of the minimum wage board
from 5 to 3 persons, of whom 1 must be a woman.
Mothers’ allowances act.— Amendments to the mothers’ allowances act were
made in 1932 and 1933 but these were of minor importance.
Old-age pensions act.— In 1931 the Dominion Old-Age Pensions Act was
amended to provide for the payment to the Provinces of 75 percent of the cost
of pensions. The Old-Age Pensions Act of Ontario was therefore amended in
1932 in accordance with this change in the Federal act, and the percentage col­
lectible by the Province from the municipalities was reduced from 20 per­
cent to 10 percent of the pension. In 1933 a new section was added to the act
dealing with the registering of pensioners’ lands.
The workmen's compensation act.— Certain changes were made to this act
in 1932 in order to carry out recommendations made by Mr. Justice Middleton,
who was appointed in 1931 as the commissioner to inquire into the subject of
workmen’s compensation in the Province. By these amendments dental treat-


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I,

merit has been included in medical aid; certain changes have been made
in the system of merit rating and additions made to the schedule of industrial
diseases, as follow s: Infected blisters, bursitis, dermatitis, and cancer arising
from the manufacture of pitch and tar. A new section made provision for
compensation where a minor is unlawfully employed and a claim is made
for injuries to such minor. In 1933 new provisions were made in connection
with silicosis.
Quebec (by Gerard Tremblay)
One of the most interesting events in the Province of Quebec was the creation
of a separate department of labor 2 years ago—before 1930 the department of
labor was united with the public works department—and in 1931 Hon. C. J.
Arcand was nominated minister and myself deputy minister.
Various legislation has been adopted in the course of the last 2 years. First,
we decided to abolish all private fee-paying employment bureaus for 2 years.
At the same time we reorganized our public employment service, and we have
felt that many good things have come out of that. We have also revised
our pressure boilers act. This legislation had been in the factory act, but on
account of technical progress it was decided that we should have special legis­
lation on this subject.
We have also amended our minimum wage legislation for women, extending
it to girls and women working in commerce.
Last year we adopted legislation for the reduction o f hours of labor. This
legislation authorizes the ministry of labor to limit the hours of labor in all
industries which are not exposed to international competition or competition
from the other Provinces. Of course, in practice this legislation is limited to
the building industries and some kinds of local transportation. We have
adopted, in execution of this legislation, an order in council limiting the hours
of labor in the building industries to 40 per week, and in all the buildings being
financed by public bodies we have decided to establish double shifts with 36
hours per week.
Two years ago we had a social insurance commission, which investigated
the various laws concerning assistance, insurance, and hygiene in industry.
The members of that commission visited Geneva, Germany, France, England,
and Czechoslovakia to acquire the best data on all social insurance matters.
We have its report, and I will be glad to send copies to the association.
We amended our compensation act this year. On account of the crisis and a
deficit of nearly $1,000,000, we are to reduce the compensation about 15 or 20
percent. Of course, this is only for the time of the crisis, and we hope that
next year or within 2 years we will be able to reestablish the minimum we
had before.
We also enforced the enabling act in the Province of Quebec, as Ontario
did, to give jurisdiction to Federal legislation on all matters which are sub­
ject, from the constitutional point of view, to Provincial jurisdiction.
We have a special registration for electricians. All the employers, all the
workers and apprentices, in the electrical trade are obliged to register now and
to have a license. This year we amended the law so as to have registration of
apprentices, and our offices will follow an apprentice from the beginning to the
last period of his apprenticeship. In, say, 4 years he will pass an examination,
and if he is all right he will have his license.
[Meeting adjourned.]

T H U R S D A Y , S E P T E M B E R 14— M O R N I N G S E S S IO N
J o i n t S e s s io n o f A . G . O . I . a n d I . A . I . A . B . C .

Chairman, Thomas P. Kearns, superintendent Division of Safety and Hygiene, Department of
Industrial Relations of Ohio

Opening Address

E ugene


P a t t o n , D irector D iv is io n o f S ta tistics a nd In fo rm a tio n o f N e w

Y o r k and P resid en t A . G . O . I .

As most of you know, there are three organizations of labor depart­
ments which meet annually. The one with which we are most familiar
is what Mr. Stewart terms the alphabet society, the I.A.I.A.B.C.,
which, being interpreted, is the International Association of Indus­
trial Accident Boards and Commissions. There is another organi­
zation known as the A.G.O.I., or the Association of Governmental
Officials in Industry of the United States and Canada. It is the
joint session of these two bodies which is now beginning.
There is also a third organization of labor department officials
known as the International Association of Public Employment
Services, which is directly and particularly concerned with the
operation of public employment offices. There probably are other
organizations, but these are the three which I have in mind.
We have a very short time and a crowded program; therefore my
presidential address is to consist simply of a recommendation which
probably will not meet with the approval of more than a few of
you; yet it is a recommendation which personally I strongly favor
and believe to be for the best interests of all concerned.
That recommendation is that henceforth there be one annual
meeting of labor department officials. In the term “ labor depart­
ment” I include various titles, such as industrial accident commis­
sions, departments of industrial relations, or whatever they may be.
I mean to include that group of people in a State or Province which
is concerned with labor problems.
M y recommendation is that there be one annual meeting of such
officials, at which meeting there be one section devoted particularly
to workmen’s compensation problems, one section to public employ­
ment office problems, and one section to the general problems of laborlaw administration and enforcement with which the A.G.O.I. concerns
itself. In other words, it is to have something somewhat analogous
to the National Safety Council, which deals with the general problem
of safety and has separate sections to which those interested in any
particular phase of the safety problem are directed and in which they
may meet.
I realize quite well that there are reasons rooted in tradition
against this, but the present depression has taught us, I think, that
it is wellnigh impossible (in many cases it has been proved to be
so) to get anything like an adequate representation from each of the
Provinces and States for each of these separate conventions. It





takes time, money, and effort, and expense of one kind or another
is involved. In many cases the same people from a given Province
or a given department who would go to one of these meetings are
also expected to go to another. I can see no reason why it would
not be more desirable, from the standpoint of stimulation of interest,
increase in attendance, and decrease in expense, to have one com­
mon, general meeting of labor department interests. I see no reason
why any particular interest, such as workmen’s compensation,
public employment offices, administration of labor laws, and so
forth, could not be as well cared for as it is at present. I feel quite
sure that there would be a larger attendance and a greater interest
manifested by so doing.
T h is I realize will require changes in the constitutions of each of
these organizations. I will take occasion to point out such steps as
I could take unofficially and w ithou t havin g any auth ority entrusted
to m e in this direction. T h e A.G.O.I. was to have m et in B uffalo
in M a y 1932. Because of the prevailing depression the m eeting was
postponed for 1 year. W e had no session in 1932 and w aited until
A t a m eetin g of the executive com m ittee in B uffalo a com ­
m ittee was appointed to prepare for the 1933 session. I m ade an
effort to secure in 1933 a m eeting in the sam e city and at approxi­
m a tely the sam e tim e— th a t is to sa y, w ithin the sam e week— of all
three o f these bodies.
T h e public em p loym en t officials were quite
eager for it and were going to m eet w ith us, until late in the sum m er,
when th ey decided th at on account of the reorganization of the
Federal E m p lo y m e n t Service it w ould be essential th at they m eet in
W a sh in g to n this year.

The I.A.I.A.B.C. went so far as to agree to this joint session
which was at first planned for only a half day; then because of the
full program, it was extended to something more than a half day.
That is my recorhmendation. I realize how much may be said
against it; nevertheless I am convinced of its value.
Another thing particularly concerns the A.G.O.I. only. If we do
go on as we are, I recommend a constitutional change which will
lodge the office of the secretary in the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics, on the ground that it has the organization and the facil­
ities for conducting such work and that it will provide a greater con­
tinuity in the management of the program. Even if that is not done,
I recommend that some one person, either the secretary or the
president, be given full power to draft the program for the coming
year. The A.G.O.I. does not have funds for an annual meeting of
its executive committee to formulate a program, and therefore it is
necessary to correspond with the States and Provinces. I believe
that, whoever may be our secretary, if either the secretary or the pres­
ident is given such power it will save time and effort, and a better
program will result, than under the present plan which involves con­
ference by mail.
Mr. Kearns, superintendent of the Division of Safety and Hygiene
of Ohio, is to preside at this joint meeting on safety, and he is responsible
for a large part of the program. The first two addresses were arranged
for by the A.G.O.I., and from then on the speakers have been secured
by Mr. Kearns, perhaps acting in conjunction with Mr. Baldwin.
Before turning the meeting over to Mr. Kearns, I wish to ask that



in your minds and in your conversation with each other you will at
least give the recommendation I have made your serious consideration.
Chairman K e a r n s . It is indeed a happy privilege to preside at
this joint session this morning, because of my past connection with
the Association of Governmental Officials in Industry and my present
connection with the I.A.I.A.B.C.
I think it a splendid idea to hold a joint session of these two asso­
ciations for the purpose of discussing the subject of safety, one of the
most humanitarian problems confronting us today, and one which is
engaging the attention of the entire world because of the terrific toll
of life and limb being taken by accidents, not only in industry but
also in the home and on the public highways.
While a great deal has been accomplished in the prevention of acci­
dents in recent years through the enforcement of safety laws and
regulations and the promotion of educational safety work in indus­
try (and that is the phase of safety work in which both organiza­
tions are primarily interested), the roster of those killed and injured
in accidents in industry is still unnecessarily large. When we think
of 15,000 being killed and 1,215,000 being seriously injured in indus­
trial mishaps in 1 year in this country alone, we get some idea of the
magnitude of the job that lies ahead and of the grave responsibility
resting on the shoulders of those of us who are charged with the duty
of bringing about the enforcement of safety regulations and promot­
ing industrial safety work.
This responsibility is, I think, greater today than it has ever been.
Industry is passing through the most momentous crisis in its history,
but the tide seems to be turning, and as it turns and normal condi­
tions once more prevail, safety work and safety workers are almost
certain to face a crucial test. Long periods of idleness have softened
workers, slowed up the skill acquired by long practice, forced read­
justments, placing men on unaccustomed jobs, impaired the effi­
ciency of safety organizations, and put both employer and employee
in a frame of mind not conducive to optimism. The mental hazards
of industrial jobs have been greatly accentuated in these times, and
the readjustment of mental attitudes will be one of our biggest
The future of safety depends largely upon the success attending
our efforts to effect a transition from the reckless to the careful age,
and the degree of success attained will depend largely on the amount
of effort put into the work by those who bear the responsibility. I
am as optimistic as any man regarding the future of safety. While
the time will probably never come when there will be no industrial
accidents, I think the day will come when all preventable accidents
will be prevented, when safety consciousness will have taken such
root in the hearts and minds of employers and workers that the lax­
ity which permits the occurrence of a preventable accident will be
viewed with shame, and when a man's attitude toward safety will
have equal weight with his ability and integrity. It may mean years
of persistent effort to bring this about, but my prediction is that
this goal will ultimately be reached if we all do our part.
So I repeat that it is fitting and appropriate that these two organi­
zations which have so many things in common in connection with
this great problem of safety should get together for discussion of the
topic, so that we can give each other the benefit of our views and


19 3 3 MEETING OE A.G.O.I.

experiences and do what we can to be mutually helpful in working
out a solution of these problems.
In arranging for the program for today, we have endeavored not
only to select subjects that would be of vital interest to all safety
advocates and workers but also to select speakers who from training
and experience could speak with authority on the subject of accident
prevention. I believe that every one of the speakers will have a
real message on safety for this audience today. The first item on
the program is the “ Status of Industrial Safety Codes and Regula­
tions in the Various States” , by Charles E. Baldwin, Assistant Com­
missioner of Labor Statistics.

Status of Industrial Safety Codes and Regulations in the
Various States
By C harles E. B aldwin ,

U n ited States A s sis ta n t C o m m issio n er o f L a b or Sta tistics

During the period of domestic and handicraft employment, before
the application of steam and electric power, workers were exposed to
few hazards, and the question of safety in industrial life was principally
a matter of individual caution. Introduction of machinery changed
conditions completely. Accident hazards were multiplied, and the
safety of the worker depended not only on his own judgment and
caution, but also on the judgment and caution of his fellow workers, as
well as on the amount of protection afforded by the employer or by
the manufacturers of the mechanical devices against the hazards
incident to machine operation.
' It did, however, take considerable time before it was realized that
an accident to a worker is evidence that something has gone wrong,
and that a repetition of a particular kind of accident is evidence that
something is habitually wrong and should be corrected. The mount­
ing toll of industrial accidents causing physical and mental suffering
as well as financial loss to the workers, and the increased cost of pro­
duction to the employers, finally resulted in enactment of State
regulations to safeguard workers from preventable accidents.
Massachusetts took the lead in 1877 with the first American law
requiring factory safeguards, providing that all transmission machin­
ery and all machinery having movable parts in factories and work­
shops, or mechanical and mercantile establishments, should be securely
guarded as far as practicable, if so placed as to be dangerous to em­
ployees while engaged in their ordinary duties. Factory inspectors
were appointed 10 years earlier, and a permanent bureau for the inves­
tigation of labor conditions was established in 1869.
The example of Massachusetts was followed by New York, Wis­
consin, and other States, many of which adopted blanket codes or
regulations of similar character. It was, however, found that under
blanket provisions the standard was very indefinite and vague, and
that the constant changes in industries and methods required specific
and detailed regulations. As a result, a number of special safety
codes, rules, or regulations for industrial activities covering either
specific important industries, certain mechanical processes, or special



hazards have been developed in the leading industrial States and in
others that have considered accident prevention important.
Safety codes or regulations are adopted and enforced for the
purpose of preventing accidents. The enactment of workmen's
compensation laws and the compilation of accident statistics have
played very prominent parts in the accident-prevention movement
and have pointed out the necessity for safety regulations. Industry
was forced, through workmen's compensation acts, to pay the bills
for all accidents. Through such payments the employers began to
realize the frightful toll of indifference and, sometimes, criminal
negligence. Statistics disclosed that it was cheaper to prevent acci­
dents than to pay for them, and investigation showed that a large
majority of accidents could be prevented. The experience of some
large firms, which had applied rules of their own, proved both points.
Safety regulations in some States are still statutory, with certain
agencies designated for enforcement. In other States it has been
found advisable to authorize the enforcing agency (industrial com­
mission, department of labor, utilities commissions, etc.) to formulate
reasonable rules, regulations, or orders for the prevention of in­
dustrial injuries. In such case the rules are sometimes promulgated
by the enforcing agency itself, but the principal industrial States
have adopted the method of forming advisory committees for as­
sistance in the drafting of safety codes or orders. Such advisory
committees are composed of the various groups interested: Employ­
ers; employees; and insurance, medical, legal, or technical experts
with special knowledge of the particular problems involved. In
some States public hearings are also held before the codes become
Since the previous report to this association an inquiry has been
made, through the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, con­
cerning the specific safety regulations in effect at the present time
in the individual States and the District of Columbia. Information
has been received from practically all, and is shown in the appendix,
by States. Previous information, supplemented by data obtained
through careful research, is given for the States from which definite
information was not obtained.
In some instances the safety regulations shown in the appendix
are authorized specifically by statute, while in others they are pro­
mulgated under authority of the industrial commission, the depart­
ment of labor, or other regulatory agency to carry out the general
provisions of law which authorize safety measures, without defi­
nite specifications. Safety provisions covering mines and mining
operations are indicated under a general classification “ Mines", and
are not given in detail, as that subject is ordinarily covered by the
United States Bureau of Mines.
Two of the States, Alabama and New Mexico, have no safety regu­
lations of any kind, and Florida has only regulations covering em­
ployment of children under 16. Other States show considerable
variation. Some of them have safety provisions covering all dan­
gerous practices, while others have regulations for a few specific
subjects only.
Some revisions and changes were made during the past year in
the existing regulations in several States and some new safety codes
7 3 5 9 7 °— 34-------4


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

were adopted. Notable among the latter were the laws and regula­
tions for the use of nonshatterable glass in motor vehicles, adopted
by California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, and New York.
Bills on this subject have also been introduced in the legislatures of
Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio, and in the United States Congress.
In California a new code was adopted for work in compressed
air. In Maryland the existing list of approved safety codes was en­
larged by the adoption of codes on compressed-air work; floor and
wall openings, railings, and toeboards; and protection against light­
ning; making a total of 32 separate safety codes approved by that
State. In North Carolina regulations were issued covering spray
painting and quarries.
In Ohio a new code has been adopted, covering pressure piping
and mechanical-refrigeration systems and equipment, while two of
the previous codes have been completely revised, bringing regula­
tions up to date for elevators and for fabricating machinery.
Appendix A.— Safety Regulations for Industrial Workers, by States, 1933
Safety codes, rules, or regulations for the protection of industrial workers
have been adopted by all of the States except Alabama and New Mexico, and
by the District of Columbia. Considerable difference exists, however, in the
number of subjects covered in the various jurisdictions, partly due to differ­
ences in industrial development.
A compilation is here presented of the specific subjects covered in each of the
States, either by statutory enactment or by orders of the enforcing governmen­
tal agency authorized through the laws to develop and issue regulations, accord­
ing to information received by September 1, 1933, from the various States and
from research of reports and laws.
The classification may not be complete, as some States have blanket regulations
covering health and safety of industrial workers in all industries located in the
jurisdiction, but it is assumed that all subjects are listed that are covered by
specific rules and practically all that are covered by the general rules. Brief
explanatory notes are included.
Alabama.— No industrial safety laws have been adopted, and no govern­
mental agency has authority to formulate rules or regulations. Suggestions
furnished to industrial establishments, when requested, are usually based on
regulations advocated by the various engineering societies or the National
Safety Council.
Alaska.— Statutory regulations cover health and safety of workers in mines,
and sanitary conditions in factories, canneries, or other establishments where
labor is employed, but failure of securing appropriation for necessary expenses
has prevented enforcement of the sanitary provisions for nearly a decade.
Arizona.— Safety measures are provided to a certain extent through the
industrial commission by variation in the cost of insurance in the State com­
pensation fund. Statutory provisions cover the following subjects: Abrasive
wheels, construction work, electrical installation, and power-transmission appa­
Arkansas.— Statutory provisions cover boilers, mines, public-safety corpora­
tions, and industrial sanitation for female employees, and prohibit employment
of children under 16 in dangerous occupations. Some proprietors of laundries,
woodworking plants, printing plants, etc., provide safety appliances in con­
formity with recommendations of companies manufacturing such appliances,
but such measures are voluntary.
California.— Safety orders of the industrial accident commission apply to all
places of employment in the State, and the commission has power to require
that all unsafe conditions be removed, whether that condition is or is not covered
by a special order. The safety orders cover the following subjects:



Machine tools
Abrasive wheels
Metal working
Milling industry
Air-pressure tanks
Amusement parks
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Oil drilling
Automobile headlighting
Paper and pulp mills
Brewing and bottling
Plant railways
Plate- and sheet-metal working
Power control, electrical
Colors for traffic signals
Compressed-air machinery (in part)
Power control, mechanical
Power-transmission apparatus
Compressed-air work
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery Protection from fire and panic
(in part)
Refrigeration, mechanical
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Rubber machinery
Safety glass
Drycleaning and dyeing
Sanitation, industrial
Dust explosions, prevention of
Scaffolds and staging
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Steam shovels
Steel mills
Exhaust systems
Stevedoring operations
Floor and wall openings, railings, and Sugar factories
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in
Gas installations
Walkway surfaces (in part)
Laundry machinery and operation
Window washing
Woodworking plants
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Logging and sawmill machinery
Colorado.— Safety regulations, based m broad statutory provisions, are now
enforced by the inspection department of the industrial commission, with the
exception of mining regulations which come under the coal-mine inspection
department or the State bureau of min s, respectively. The following subjects
are covered:
Lighting of school buildings
Abrasive wheels
Machine tools
Compressed-air machinery
Paper and pulp mills
Construction work
Plate- and sheet-metal working
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Drycleaning and dyeing
Power presses, and foot and hand
Dust explosions, prevention of
Rubber machinery
Elevators and escalators
Sanitation, industrial
Exists, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and Scaffolds and staging
Spray painting
Foundries, protection of workers in
Sugar factories
Laundry machinery and operation
Walkway surfaces
Woodworking plants
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Connecticut.— Statutory provisions co er the following subjects:
Exits, building
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Laundry machinery and operation
Automobile headlighting
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Power-transmission apparatus
Construction work
Sanitation, industrial
Electrical installations
Scaffolds and staging
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems


19 33


Delaware.— Statutory provisions cover the following subjects: Aeronautics;
automobile brakes and brake testing; automobile headlighting; boilers; can­
neries; exits, building; and explosives. Local safety provisions for the city
of Wilmington cover dry cleaning and dyeing, gas installations, plumbing, and
protection from fire and panic.
District of Columbia.— Safety regulations, adopted by the Commissioners of
the District under authority enacted by Congress of the United States, cover
the following subjects:
Air-pressure tanks
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Automobile headlighting
Power control, electrical
Power-transmission apparatus
Compressed-air machinery
Pressure piping
Drycleaning and dyeing
Pressure vessels
Electrical installations
Protection from fire and panic
Refrigeration, mechanical
Elevators and escalators
Sanitation, industrial
Exits, building
Steam shovels
Florida.— The only safety regulations in the State are the statutory provi­
sions of the child-labor law, which include safety and sanitary provisions for
children under 16.
Georgia.— Statutory provisions cover building exits and child labor only.
None of the governmental agencies are authorized to promulgate safety codes.
Hawaii.— Statutory provisions cover aeronautics, and explosives (under super­
vision of the Territorial superintendent of public works), while sanitary regu­
lations are promulgated and enforced by the Territorial board of health.
The workmen’s compensation law has no provision for safety regulations,
but the industrial accident boards cooperate with local insurance carriers and
employers to minimize industrial accidents, and ordinances of the city and
county of Honolulu regulate several industrial conditions. Including the items
mentioned previously, the subjects covered by the various regulations are:
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Laundry machinery and operation
Automobile headlighting
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Construction work
Lighting of school buildings
Electrical installations
Lightning, protection against
Exits, building
Protection from fire and panic
Floor and wall openings, railings, and Safety glass
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Idaho.— Safety regulations issued by the industrial accident board, which is
empowered by statute to protect workers, cover the following subjects:
Elevators and escalators
Protection from fire and panic
Exits, building
Woodworking plants
Laundry machinery and operation
Power-transmission apparatus
Illinois.— Statutory provisions, administered by the department of labor
through the division of factory inspection, cover the following subjects:
Laundry machinery and operation
Abrasive wheels
Construction work (structural iron)
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Cranes, derricks, and hoists (limited)
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Electrical installations
Power-transmission apparatus
Exhaust systems
Sanitation, industrial
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and Scaffolds and staging
Spray painting
Foundries, protection of workers in
Woodworking plants
Gas installations
Ladders (in part)
I n d ia n a .— Statutory provisions of the factory act, the boiler inspection act,
and items under the State safety department, cover the following subjects:

Abrasive wheels
Air-pressure tanks
Amusement parks
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Automobile headlighting
Brewing and bottling
Compressed-air machinery
Compressed-air work
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Dry cleaning and dyeing
Dust explosions, prevention of
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Felt-hatting industry
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in
Heads and eyes, protection of


Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Lighting of school buildings
Logging and sawmill machinery
Machine tools
Metal working
Milling industry
Paper and pulp mills
Plate- and sheet-metal working
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and hand
Power-transmission apparatus
Refrigeration, mechanical
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Spray painting
Steam shovels
Steel mills
Sugar factories
Woodworking plants

Iowa .— Blanket regulations, covering specified health and safety conditions in
all workshops or other industrial establishments, except mines or in agricul­
tural work, authorize orders by the State bureau of labor for proper observ­
ance of the law. Regulations for mine safety are under the jurisdiction of the
State bureau of mines. Special industrial subjects covered include the following:
Abrasive wheels
Dust explosions, prevention of
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in
Heads and eyes, protection of

Laundry machinery and operation
Paper and pulp mills
Power presses, and foot and hand
Power-transmission apparatus
Rubber machinery
Sanitation, industrial
Woodworking plants

Kansas .— No specific codes for special subjects, but statutory blanket regu­
lations for all industrial establishments authorize orders from inspectors for
necessary changes according to individual judgment.
In a general way the
following subjects are covered:
Abrasive wheels
Aeronautics (in part)
Amusement parks
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Automobile headlighting
Boilers (in part)
Colors for traffic signals
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Drycleaning and dyeing

Dust explosions, prevention of
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Foundries, protection of workers in
Gas installations
Gas-mask canisters, colors for
Heads and eyes, protection of (in part)
Laundry machinery and operation



Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Machine tools
Milling industry
Oil drilling
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and
Power-transmission apparatus



Protection from fire and panic
Refrigeration, mechanical (in part)
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Sugar factories
Walkway surfaces
Woodworking plants

Kentucky .— Statutory regulations cover only industrial sanitation (under the
State board of health), fire prevention (under the State department of fire
prevention and rates), coal mines (under the State department of mines), safety
provisions for miners and dust removal for polishing or grinding machinery
(under the department of agriculture, labor, and statistics). The latter is
authorized to inspect industrial establishments and suggest corrections of hazards.
Some safety codes have been adopted by the department for the guidance of
inspectors in making recommendations.
Louisiana .— Some statutory regulations exist, but the only inspection is in
the parish of Orleans by an inspector specifically provided by the law to enforce
the child-labor act. The following subjects are covered:
Construction work
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building

Protection from fire and panic
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging

M aine .— No codes have been adopted. The department of labor and industry
is permitted by law to order changes in ways, works, and machinery, where same
are deemed necessary. Safety provisions cover the following subjects:
Automobile headlighting
Boilers (in part)
Compressed-air work
Exits, building

Power-transmission apparatus
Sanitation, industrial

M aryland .— American Standards Association safety codes have been adopted
by the State industrial accident commission as minimum specific requirements
for safety and have the force of law. The following subjects are covered:
Abrasive wheels
Compressed-air machinery
Dust explosions, prevention of
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in
Gas installations
Gas-mask canisters, colors for
Heads and eyes, protection of

Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Lightning, protection aganist
Logging and sawmill machinery
Paper and pulp mills
Power presses, and foot and hand
Power-transmission apparatus
Refrigeration, mechanical
Rubber machinery
Woodworking plants

Massachusetts.— Under authority conferred by statute the State departments
of labor and industries, of public safety, and of public works have adopted a
number of health and safety codes covering the following subjects:
Abrasive wheels
Air-pressure tanks
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Automobile headlighting
Brewing and bottling

Compressed-air machinery
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Drycleaning and dyeing
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems

Exits, building
Felt-hatting industry
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Foundries, protection of workers in
Gas installations
Heads and eyes, protection of
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Lighting of school buildings
Lightning, protection against
Logging and sawmill machinery
Metal working
Paper and pulp mills
Plate- and sheet-metal working

Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and
Power-transmission apparatus
Protection from fire and panic
Refrigeration, mechanical
Rubber machinery
Safety glass
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Spray painting
Steel mills
Sugar factories
Woodworking plants



M ichigan .— In addition to statutory legislation, the department of labor and
industry has adopted rules and regulations for safety in industrial establish­
ments, some of them as a result of conferences with those interested. The laws
and regulations cover the following subjects:
Abrasive wheels
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Automobile headlighting
Colors for traffic signals
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Dust explosions, prevention of
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in
Gas installations

Heads and eyes, protection of
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Lighting of school buildings
Paper and pulp mills
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and hand
Power-transmission apparatus
Rubber machinery
Sanitation, industrial
Spray painting
Woodworking plants

Minnesota .— The statutes relating to industrial safety are very general in
their application and authorize the industrial commission to promulgate specific
rules and regulations. With the exception of regulations for plumbing, which
are under the jurisdiction of the health department, these cover the following
Abrasive wheels
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Brewing and bottling
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Dry cleaning and dyeing
Dust explosions, prevention of
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in

Heads and eyes, protection of
Laundry machinery and operation
Logging and sawmill machinery
Paper and pulp mills
Pow'er control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and hand
Power-transmission apparatus
Refrigeration, mechanical
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Window washing
Woodworking plants




M ississippi .— No special safety codes have been adopted, but statutory pro­
visions cover the following subjects:
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Guarding of all machinery
Lighting factories, mills, etc.

Lighting of school buildings
Power transmission
Sanitation, industrial

M issouri .— The labor laws of the State contain general provisions for the
protection of industrial workers, with specific reference to several subjects but
details left to the judgment of the State department of labor and industrial
inspection, and the only specific rules formulated by the department pertain to
boilers. Including this code, and the regulations for mines which are under
the jurisdiction of the State bureau of mines, the following subjects are covered:
Abrasive wheels
Automobile headlighting
Colors for traffic signals
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Construction work
Dust explosions, prevention of
Elevators and escalators
Exits, building

Foundries, protection of workers in
(in part)
Gas installations
Heads and eyes, protection of
Plant railways
Power control, mechanical
Protection from fire and panic
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Woodworking plants

M ontana .— Statutory provisions cover boilers and steam machinery, electrical
installations, and mines.
Nebraska .— The safety codes approved by the American Standards Associa­
tion have been adopted as minimum requirements for safety. The following
subjects are covered:
Abrasive wheels
Air-pressure tanks
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Drycleaning and dyeing
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Heads and eyes, protection of
Floor and wall openings, railings, and

Laundry machinery and operation
Metal working
Paper and pulp mills.
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power-transmission apparatus
Pressure vessels
Rubber machinery
Safety glass
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Window washing
Woodworking plants

Nevada .— Statutory provisions cover the following subjects:
Abrasive wheels
Electrical installations
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and

Power-transmission apparatus

New H am pshire .— The factory-inspection law permits the bureau of labor
to issue orders covering any condition that is dangerous to the life and limb
of workers. Regulations issued cover the following subjects:
Abrasive wheels
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Automobile headlighting
Compressed-air machinery
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building (in part)

Floor and wall openings, railings, and
toeboards (in part)
Foundries, protection of workers in
Heads and eyes, protection of
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Logging and sawmill machinery

Machine tools
Paper and pulp mills
Power presses, and foot and
Power-transmission apparatus
Refrigeration, mechanical



Sanitation, industrial
Walkway surfaces
Woodworking plants

New Jersey .— Statutory provisions and safety regulations cover the following
Abrasive wheels
Construction work
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Dust explosions, prevention of
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Felt-hatting industry
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in

Heads and eyes, protection of
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and hand
Refrigeration, mechanical
Rubber machinery
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Window washing
Woodworking plants

New M exico .— No safety regulations exist. Some safety practices have been
applied in coal mines through cooperation of inspectors and employers, but
strictly voluntary, as there are no State laws for enforcement.
New York .— The State department of labor is authorized to formulate and
adopt codes or rules which have the same force and effect as statutes enacted
by the legislature. Such codes are supplementary to the labor law, which in
some sections is specific, but in others broad and general. They are developed
with the aid of an advisory committee, and public hearings are mandatory before
final adoption. The existing codes cover the following subjects:
Abrasive wheels
Brewing and bottling
Compressed-air work
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Drycleaning and dyeing
Dust explosions, prevention of (in
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in
Hand tools
Heads and eyes, protection of
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.

Machine tools
Metal working
Milling industry
Paper and pulp mills
Plate- and sheet-metal working
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and
Power-transmission apparatus
Protection from fire and panic
Rubber machinery
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Walkway surfaces
Window washing
Woodworking plants




North Carolina .— Rules and suggestions promulgated by the State department
of labor covering the following subjects:
Abrasive wheels
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Automobile headlighting
Colors for traffic signals
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Hand tools
Heads and eyes, protection of

Lighting, factories, mills, etc.
Lighting of school buildings
Lightning, protection against
Plant railways
Power control, electrical
Power-transmission apparatus
Protection from fire and panic
Sanitation, industrial
Spray painting
Woodworking plants

North Dakota .— Safety regulations of the State department of agriculture
and labor cover the following subjects:
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Electrical installations

Exits, building
Scaffolds and staging

Ohio.— Safety codes prepared under statutory authorization by the indus­
trial commission, with the assistance of representatives of employers and em­
ployees, have the force and effect of statutory regulations. The following
subjects are covered:
Abrasive wheels
Air-pressure tanks
Compressed-air work
Construction work
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Drycleaning and dyeing
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in
Hand tools
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Lighting of school buildings
Machine tools

Metal working
Plate- and sheet-metal working
Power presses, and foot and
Power-transmission apparatus
Pressure piping
Pressure vessels
Protection from fire and panic
Refrigeration, mechanical
Rubber machinery
Scaffolds and staging
Spray painting
Steel mills
Window washing
Woodworking plants


Oklahoma.— Statutory regulations, or safety provisions issued by the State
department of labor to give effect to the laws, cover the following subjects;
Abrasive wheels
Brewing and bottling
Compressed-air machinery
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Drycleaning and dyeing

Dust explosions, prevention of
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Explosives (in part)
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Foundries, protection of workers in
Heads and eyes, protection of

Ladders (in part)
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Logging and sawmill machinery
Machine tools
Metal working
Milling industry
Oil drilling
Plate- and sheet-metal working
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and hand


Power-transmission apparatus
Pressure vessels
Safety glass
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Steam shovels
Steel mills
Walkway surfaces
Woodworking plants

Oregon.— Statutory provisions, or safety standards, promulgated by the indus­
trial accident commission and having the effect of legislative action, cover the
following subjects:
Abrasive wheels
Air-pressure tanks
Compressed-air machinery
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
toeboards (limited)
Foundries, protection of workers in
Laundry machinery and opreation

Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Logging and sawmill machinery
Paper and pulp mills
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and
Power-transmission apparatus
Pressure piping
Pressure vessels
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Walkway surfaces
Window washing
Woodworking plants


Pennsylvania .— Safety codes, developed under statutory authorization by the
State department of labor and industry, assisted by employer and employee
representatives of the respective industries, and submitted to public hearings
before adoption, cover the following subjects:
Abrasive wheels
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Automobile headlighting
Brewing and bottling
Compressed-air machinery
Compressed-air work
Construction work
Drycleaning and dyeing
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in
Gas installations
Heads and eyes, protection of
Laundry machinery and operation

Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Lighting of school buildings
Logging and sawmill machinery
Machine tools
Milling industry
Paper and pulp mills
Plant railways
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and
Power-transmission apparatus
Protection from fire and panic
Safety glass
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Spray painting
Tanneries (in part)
Window washing
Woodworking plants





Rhode Island .— Statutory provisions of the factory-inspection law and the
boiler-inspection law cover the following subjects:
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Abrasive wheels
Foundries, protection of workers in
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Laundry machinery and operation
Automobile headlighting
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Colors for traffic signals
Construction work (cities)
South Carolina .— Statutory regulations pertaining to industrial establish­
ments prohibit children under 14 from cleaning machinery while in motion and
require seats for female employees in mercantile establishments and sanitary
drinking receptacles, the only industrial safety regulations in the State.
South Dakota.— Statutory regulations cover automobile brakes and brake
testing, automobile headlighting, boilers, lighting of school buildings, and indus­
trial sanitation where women or children are employed. They also cover building
exits (under the jurisdiction of the State fire marshal), as well as mines, quarries,
and the removal of gases, fumes, or dust in smelters or reduction works (all under
the jurisdiction of the State mine inspector).
Tennessee .— Safety standards adopted by the factory-inspection division of
the State department of labor and published for the use of inspectors or the indus­
tries cover the following subjects:
Metal working
Abrasive wheels
Paper and pulp mills
Amusement parks
Compressed-air machinery
Plate- and sheet-metal working
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Drycleaning and dyeing
Power presses, and foot and hand
Elevators and escalators
Protection from fire and panic
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Refrigeration, mechanical
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Sanitation, industrial
Foundries, protection of workers in
Spray painting
Gas-mask canisters, colors for
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Walkway surfaces
Logging and sawmill machinery
Woodworking plants
Machine tools
Texas .— The health, comfort, and safety law, the law for female employees,
and the child-labor law permit a broad field for safety rules in factories, mills,
workshops, and mercantile establishments. Specific requirements include exits,
handrailings, and industrial sanitation, but the State bureau of labor statistics
includes the following subjects as covered:
Amusement parks
Logging and sawmill machinery
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Milling industry
Automobile headlighting
Colors for traffic signals
Plant railways
Construction work
Dust explosions, prevention of
Power presses, and foot and hand
Electrical installations (local)
Elevators and escalators
Power-transmission apparatus
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Protection from fire and panic
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Sanitation, industrial
toeboards (in part)
Scaffolds and staging
Gas installations
Stevedoring operations
Hand tools
Sugar factories
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Lighting of school buildings
Woodworking plants



Utah.— The industrial commission is authorized to promulgate and adopt safety
codes, rules, and regulations. A number of standards have been adopted as a
result of conferences with employers and employees. The following subjects
are covered:
Abrasive wheels
Air-pressure tanks
Amusement parks
Automobile brakes and brake testing
(in part)
Automobile headlighting (in part)
Brewing and bottling
Colors for traffic signals
Compressed-air machinery
Compressed-air work
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Drycleaning- and dyeing
Dust explosions, prevention of
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in
(in part)
Gas-mask canisters, colors for
Hand tools
Heads and eyes, protection of (in
Ladders (in part)
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc. (in part)

Lighting of school buildings
Logging and sawmill machinery (in
Machine tools
Metal working
Milling industry
Oil drilling
Plant railways
Plate- and sheet-metal working
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and hand
presses (in part)
Power-transmission apparatus
Pressure piping
Pressure vessels
Refrigeration, mechanical
Safety glass
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Spray painting
Steam shovels
Steel mills
Sugar factories
Walkway surfaces
Window washing
Woodworking plants

Vermont .— No specific safety codes have been adopted. The statutes are
indefinite but broad so far as the jurisdiction of the State commissioner of
industries is concerned and the activities of that office cover the following
Abrasive wheels
Compressed-air machinery
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Elevators, and escalators
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Foundries, protection of workers in
Heads and eyes, protection of
Laundry machinery and operation

Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Logging and sawmill machinery
Paper and pulp mills
Power-transmission apparatus
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Walkway surfaces
Woodworking plants

V irginia .— Statutory regulations give the State department of labor dis­
cretionary powers in the regulation of safety appliances and sanitary con­
ditions in industrial establishments, but does not provide for the establish­
ment of safety codes. In 1930 the legislature appointed a committee to study
the advisability of adopting a safety code for employers and employees. A
report of this committee has been submitted to the legislature, recommending



promulgation of safety codes by the industrial commission, with enforcement
in the department of labor and industry. Specific statutory provisions cover
the following subjects:
Abrasive wheels
Exits, building

Power-transmission apparatus

Washington .— Under statutory regulations the State department of labor and
industries has promulgated general safety standards, adopted after conferences
with employers and employees and holding of public hearings. These stand­
ards have the status of legislative action, and carry penalties for noncompliance.
Much of the safety work is covered by city ordinances, such as building exits,
elevator operation, etc., and motor-vehicle subjects are under the jurisdiction of
the highway patrol. The following subjects are covered:
Abrasive wheels
Amusement parks
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Automobile headlighting
Brewing and bottling
Construction work
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Dry cleaning and dyeing
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Foundries, protection of workers in
Hand tools
Heads and eyes, protection of
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Logging and sawmill machinery
Metal working
Milling industry

Oil drilling
Paper and pulp mills
Plant railways
Plate- and sheet-metal working
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and
Power-transmission apparatus
Pressure vessels
Refrigeration, mechanical
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Steam shovels
Steel mills
Walkway surfaces
Window washing
Woodworking plants


West V irginia .— No special rules have been issued, but statutory provisions
cover the following subjects:
Abrasive wheels
Elevators and escalators
Exits, building
Laundry machinery and operation

Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power-transmission apparatus
Sanitation, industrial
Woodworking plants

W isconsin .— The industrial commission is charged with the duty of fixing
standards of safety in all places of public employment, and has promulgated
a number of safety codes or general orders, with the assistance of advisory
committees, and public hearings. Including the provisions for plumbing, which
are under the jurisdiction of the State board of health, the following subjects
are covered:
Abrasive wheels
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Automobile headlighting

Colors for traffic signals
Compressed-air work
Construction work
Cranes, derricks, and hoists

Dry cleaning and dyeing
Electrical installations
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
toeboards (in part)
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in
Flammable liquids
Heads and eyes, protection of
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.
Lighting of school buildings
Logging and sawmill machinery (in
Machine tools

Paper and pulp mills
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and
Power-transmission apparatus
Pressure vessels
Refrigeration, mechanical
Rubber machinery (in part)
Sanitation, industrial
Scaffolds and staging
Spray painting
Tanneries (in part)
Window washing
Woodworking plants



Wyoming .— Under the authority of the act creating the State department of
labor and statistics, the commissioner issues safety orders for industrial estab­
lishments, while under statutory mining regulations the safety orders for mining
are issued by the coal-mine inspection department. The following subjects are
Abrasive wheels
Automobile brakes and brake testing
Automobile headlighting
Colors for traffic signals
Compressed-air machinery
Construction wrork
Conveyors and conveying machinery
Cranes, derricks, and hoists
Dust explosions, prevention of
Elevators and escalators
Exhaust systems
Exits, building
Floor and wall openings, railings, and
Forging and hot-metal stamping
Foundries, protection of workers in
Laundry machinery and operation
Lighting factories, mills, etc.

Logging and sawmill machinery
Machine tools
Paper and pulp mills
Plate- and sheet-metal working
Power control, electrical
Power control, mechanical
Power presses, and foot and
Power-transmission apparatus
Refrigeration, mechanical


Rubber machinery
Sanitation, industrial
Walkway surfaces
Window washing
Woodworking plants

Chairman K e a r n s . The next number on the program is a report
on National Safety Codes Progress, by Mr. P. G. Agnew, secre­
tary of the American Standards Association.

National Safety Codes Progress
B y P. G.

A gnew ,

Secretary Am erican Standards Association

There have been many developments in the national safety-code
program which are of special importance to governmental agencies,
and rather than go into the details of the progress of work on all
safety-code projects, which I understand will be printed in the pro­
ceedings, I will limit my discussion to some of the high spots of the
safety-code activities.




First, you will be interested to know what new projects have been
undertaken. Two have been initiated during the past year, covering
work in compressed air and specifications and methods of test for
safety glass. The first-named project is under the sponsorship of the
I.A.I.A.B.C. and was initiated as the result of a request received from
that organization. At the present time the States of New York, New
Jersey, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania have safety codes on this
subject. A code for the State of California is in the course of prepa­
ration. The increased use of compressed air in tunnel, bridging, and
building construction necessitating the use of caissons has made this
group of regulations of importance. As most of this work is done by
special contractors operating throughout the entire United States, it
is important that a national group of regulations with which these
contractors are familiar should be developed and put into use. The
sectional committee for this project has been appointed and work
will be undertaken during the coming winter.
The project on safety glass was initiated following a request re­
ceived from the National Bureau of Casualty and Surety Under­
writers, which organization, together with the Bureau of Standards,
is sponsoring this project. The scope of the code will cover all kinds
of safety glass used in motor vehicles, airplanes, boats, bullet-proof
glass for armored cars and partitions, and safety glass for use in
goggles. The specifications, as far as goggles are concerned, will
supplement and tie in directly with the specifications now contained
in the head and eye code.
While the number of new projects which have been undertaken is
not very large, a successful effort has been made to revive some of
the other projects which have been lying dormant for a number of
years. Of particular interest is the safety code for ventilation and
the safety code for exhaust systems. The first code is still sponsored
by the American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers, but
a complete new sectional committee has been appointed and work
will be started this fall. In addition to all of the material previously
collected for use by the old sectional committee, the new committee
will have available the ventilation code requirements prepared by
the sponsor organization. It is expected that the new committee
will be able to make considerable progress in a short period of time,
inasmuch as many of the conflicting points of view of differenttechnical organizations have been brought into closer harmony during
the past 2 or 3 years.
The safety code for exhaust systems is now being sponsored by
the I.A.I.A.B.C., and the new technical committee for this code has
been appointed and will shortly proceed with the work. The scope
for this project remains as originally approved.
The industrial sanitation code, sponsored by the United States
Public Health Service, is now being actively developed by a sectional
committee as reorganized during the past year. The committee has
held one meeting, considering a tentative draft of the code prepared
by the sponsor. Plans have been made for the development of other
codes following the completion of the standard now being prepared
on industrial sanitation in manufacturing establishments. Other
codes will be developed covering labor camps and mercantile estab­



Among the projects now under revision that are of outstanding
importance is the safety code for the protection of the heads and eyes
of industrial workers. The sponsor, the United States Bureau of
Standards, has submitted a new scope in order to permit the project
to contain specifications for respirators. This new section will be of
extreme importance to all regulatory bodies in view of the emphasis
that is being placed these days on occupational diseases resulting from
dust hazards. Any regulatory bodies having special points of view
should send their comments to the representatives of the I.A.I.A.B.C.
and the A.G.O.I. so that they will be able to present such comments
to the sectional committee. Additional comments on the experience
of regulatory bodies in applying the provisions of the national head
and eye code would also be of considerable value to the sectional
The use of the national safety codes by regulatory bodies is con­
stantly increasing, and there is one point in this connection which
has been brought forward and should be emphasized at this time.
Many of the States feel that it is not possible for them to use safety
codes, inasmuch as they have not been accorded any regulatory au­
thority by their respective legislatures. That such States can use
safety codes in their inspection work is exemplified by the way in
which the State of New Jersey has found it possible either to develop
its own codes or to use the national codes without having specific
authority to do so.
The factory laws administered by labor departments prescribe that
certain hazards must be eliminated without specifically stating the
methods. In such cases inspectors, when issuing orders for the
elimination of hazards and when requested for information as to the
methods which should be followed, can refer to the safety codes as
the standards which are being followed by the department and in
this way put across the proper safety-code program. Of course,' the
plant manager would be in position to follow his own method of re­
moving a particular hazard if he so desired, but he would have to
furnish ample evidence that his own method was the equal of that
set forth in the standards of the Department of Labor.
The A.S.A. will be very glad to go into this situation further with
any regulatory body which would like to proceed with the develop­
ment of a code program and has been unable to get the necessary
legal authority from its legislature.
National Safety Codes— Progress Report
A 9 {1929). — Building-exits code
A .G .O .I. representative, John Campbell, Pennsylvania Department of Labor
and Industry.
I.A .I.A .B .C . representative, James L. Gernon, New York State Department
of Labor.
At the annual meeting; of the National Fire Protection Association in M ay
1933, the proposed report of the building-exits code committee, which includes
certain revisions harmonizing this code and the building code of the United
States Department of Commerce was approved. It is expected that the revised
tentative draft will soon be printed and circulated to the members of the com­
mittee and other interested groups for comment and criticism.

A 10.— Am erican standards for safety in the construction industry
The organization meeting of this sectional committee was held in September
1930, at which time arrangements were made for the appointment of six sub­
committees with individual chairmen, to carry on the work of the various sections
73597°— 34----- 5



of the code. These subcommittees are now at work on the preparation of drafts
of the various sections and it is probable that a meeting of the sectional com­
mittee will be held in connection with the National Safety Congress in Chicago
in October of this year.

A l l (1930).— Code of lighting: Factories, mills, and other work places
A .G .O .I. representative, C. H . Weeks, New Jersey Department of Labor.
I.A .I.A .B .C . representative, T . C. Eipper.
The revision of this code, which gives recommended values and minimum
requirements for illumination of various classes of industrial buildings and work
places has been widely used since its approval in 1930. The code has also been
recommended in a study on the Lighting of Work Places, published by the
W om en’s Bureau of the United States Department of Labor.
A 12 (1932).— Safety code for floor and wall openings, railings , and toe hoards
A .G .O .I. representative, E. J. Pierce, New York Department of Labor.
I.A .I.A .B .C . representatives, J. L. Gernon, New York Department of Labor;
C. H . Weeks, New Jersey Department of Labor.
This code is the result of several years’ work of a broadly representative tech­
nical committee and is perhaps one of the most important of the safety codes
developed during the last 10 years. It contains definitions and regulations ap­
plying to all places where there is a hazard of persons or materials falling through
floor and wall openings, or from stairways or runways. Copies of the code
were distributed to regulatory bodies, building inspectors and other interested
groups at the time of its approval.

A14-— Safety code for the construction, care, and use of ladders
I.A .I.A .B .C . representatives, R. J. Cullen and J. L. Gernon, New York D e­
partment of Labor; R. Me A. Keown, Industrial Commission of Ohio; J. P.
Meade, Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries.
On the basis of comments and criticisms received following the distribution of
the last draft of this code, a final draft is now being prepared by the chairman of
the committee, and it is expected that it will be put to letter ballot of the sec­
tional committee within a few weeks and then submitted to the American
Standards Association for approval.

A 17 (1931).— Safety code for elevators, dumbwaiters, and escalators
A .G .O .I. representative, J. P. Meade, Massachusetts Department of Labor
and Industries.
I.A .I.A .B .C . representatives, M . H . Christopherson, New York State Insurance
Fund; C. H. Weeks, New Jersey Department of Labor.
The technical committee in charge of this code is a permanent one and an annual
meeting is held. A t the meeting held in March of this year various revisions were
given consideration which will bring the code into line with the latest engineering
practice. The handbook for inspectors which will supplement the National code
has not yet been submitted for approval, but when it is completed this standard
will be of value as a means of giving additional information concerning the
application of the provisions of the code.

A 22.— Safety code for walkway surfaces
A .G .O .I. representatives, John Campbell, Pennsylvania Department of Labor
and Industry; H. E. Mackenzie, Connecticut Department of Labor.
I.A .I.A .B .C . representative, T . C. Eipper.
The code drafting committee is still making every effort to prepare a draft for
submission to the sectional committee. Following the last meeting of the code
drafting committee, held on February 14, 1933, a questionnaire was sent out to
members of the committee asking for fundamental information from the field to
determine the type of material to be included in a draft code. A report is then
to be prepared for transmission to the full sectional committee summarizing the
work of the subcommittee and requesting that the members use the question­
naire as a means of obtaining further practical information from industry.

A 23 (1932).— Code for lighting of school buildings
This standard was prepared under the joint sponsorship of the Illuminating
Engineering Society and the American Institute of Architects, and the last
revision was approved as an American standard in September 1932.

A 39.— Safety code for window cleaning
I.A .I.A .B .C . representatives, T . C. Eipper; C. A. Pense, Illinois Department
of Labor.
The final draft of this code has been approved by the sectional committee and
by the sponsor, the National Safety Council. It is now before the executive com-



mittee of the safety code correlating committee and will be submitted for formal
approval to the Standards Council within a few weeks.

B 7 (1930).— Safety code for the use, care, and protection of abrasive wheels
I.A .I.A .B .C . representatives, John Campbell, Pennsylvania Department of
Labor and Industry; H . G. Ehret, Industrial Commission of Ohio; R. Me A.
Keown, Wisconsin Industrial Commission; J. P. Meade, Massachusetts Depart­
ment of Labor and Industries; John Roach, New Jersey Department of Labor.
The latest revision of this code was approved in June 1930. The code is con­
tinuously under revision and the committee is now considering changes in certain
provisions of the code regarding allowable speeds for coping wheels. The per­
manent sectional committee also acts as a committee on interpretation of technical
questions arising in the application of the code. The code has been almost
universally adopted throughout the grinding-wheel industry and as a basis of
requirements for State regulatory bodies and insurance inspectors.

B 8 (1932).— Safety code for the protection of industrial workers in foundries
A .G .O .I. representative, E. J. Pierce, New York State Department of Labor.
The revision of this code which was originally approved in 1922 was developed
under the joint sponsorship of the American Foundrymen’s Association and the
National Founders’ Association.
Probably the outstanding provision of the
revised code is the requirement which applies to charging buggies (new equipment
only) calling for the use of small size automatic couplers. The revised code was
approved as American standard in April 1932.

B 9 (1933).— Safety code for mechanical refrigeration
A .G .O .I. representative, M . H . Christopherson, New York State Insurance
I.A .I.A .B .C representative, J. F. Scott, New Jersey Department of Labor.
A revision of this code covering the refrigerant methyl formate was approved in
January 1933. The code is still under revision and a list of amendments to the
present requirements has been prepared by the subcommittee on interpretations
and exceptions for consideration by the entire sectional committee.
amendments cover the small office-household type of air conditioning unit which
was not included in the original code.

B l l (1926).— Safety code for power presses and foot and hand presses
This project was originally undertaken in 1920 and approved as American
tentative standard in 1922. The work of the committee was continued and in
December 1924 the code was advanced to the status of American standard.
The last revision was approved in 1926.

B 15 (1927).— Safety code for mechanical power transmission apparatus
I.A .I.A .B .C . representatives, John Campbell, Pennsylvania Department of
Labor and Industry; S. Kjaer, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics; R. Me A.
Keown, Industrial Commission of Wisconsin; J. P. Meade, Massachusetts
Department of Labor and Industries; John Roach, New Jersey Department of
A new section to this code, on mechanical power control, has been before a
special subcommittee for some time, but no progress has been made during the
last year owing to the difficulty of securing attendance at committee meetings
under present business conditions.

B 19.— Safety code for compressed-air machinery
I.A .I.A .B .C . representative, J. F. Scott, New Jersey Department of Labor.
This committee has been inactive for several years and no meetings have been

B 20.— Safety code for conveyors and conveying machinery
A .G .O .I. representative, J. P. Meade, Massachusetts Department of Labor
and Industries.
I.A .I.A .B .C . representatives, M . H . Christopherson, New York State Insur­
ance Fund; R. Me A. Keown, Industrial Commission of Wisconsin; J. F. Scott,
New Jersey Department of Labor.
This project is being developed under the sponsorship of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers and the National Bureau of Casualty and Surety Under­
writers. The work has been divided into several sections and subcommittees are
now at work preparing drafts which will be considered at a later date by the entire
sectional committee.

B 24 (1927).— Safety code for forging and hot-metal stamping
A .G .O .I. representatives, J. P. Meade, Massachusetts Department of Labor
and Industries; John Roach, New Jersey Department of Labor.




I.A .I.A .B .C . representatives, R. M cA. Keown, Industrial Commission of W is­
consin; S. Kjaer, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
This code was initiated in 1923 and approved as American recommended
practice in April 1927. No revision has been undertaken.

B 28.— Safety code fo r rubber machinery
A .G .O .I. representative, E. L. Sweetser, Massachusetts Department of Labor.
I.A .I.A .B .C . representatives, S. Kjaer, United States Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics; John Roach, New Jersey Department of Labor; R. E. Lee, Ohio Depart­
ment of Industrial Relations.
A subproject, B28a, safety code for rubber mills and calenders, was completed
by the technical committee in charge of this code and approved as American
recommended practice in March 1927. The committee is at present inactive.
B 30.— Safety code fo r cranes , derricks , and hoists
A .G .O .I. representative, E. B. Patton, New York Department of Labor.
I.A .I.A .B .C . representative, S. Kjaer, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A completed draft of this code was submitted to the members of the sectional
committee in July 1932. Various comments and suggestions were received as the
result of the circulation of this draft, and they are still being considered by the
sectional committee.

B 31.— Code fo r pressure piping
I.A .I.A .B .C . representative, A. L. Wilhoit, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.,
Youngstown, Ohio.
No drafts of this standard have been completed or submitted for final approval.
The sponsor for the project, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
is now preparing revised drafts which have been reviewed by the editorial

C2 (1927).— National electrical safety codef parts I and I I I
I.A .I.A .B .C . representative, S. Kjaer, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
This project was approved in 1927 as American standard. While no revisions
have been undertaken during the past year, one of the rules of the code provides
that when new values for the ultimate fiber stresses of wood poles shall have been
formulated by the sectional committee on wood poles-05, the values given in the
national electrical safety code shall be proportionately adjusted. New values for
these fiber stresses were approved as American standard in November 1930 and
have therefore been incorporated in the electrical safety code.

D1 (1925).— Aeronautic safety code
This project was developed under the joint sponsorship of the Society of Auto­
motive Engineers and the Bureau of Standards and approved as an American
tentative standard in 1925. The Bureau of Standards later resigned from its
sponsorship, leaving the Society of Automotive Engineers as sole sponsor. In
January 1933 a request was received from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers for a revision of this code. The sponsor was notified of this request,
but the American Standards Association has not as yet been advised as to whether
or not such a revision will be undertaken. The present code is completely obso­
lete, necessitating its either being revised or dropped from the status of American

D 2 (1922).— Safety code for automobile headlighting— laboratory tests for approval of
electric headlighting devices fo r motor vehicles
This code was submitted for approval as an existing standard by the Illumi­
nating Engineering Society in 1921, and was given formal approval as American
tentative standard in November 1922. The Illuminating Engineering Society
and the Society of Automotive Engineers were then designated as cosponsors to
undertake a revision of the code. Extensive research was carried on and in
January 1928 a proposed revision was issued by the Illuminating Engineering
Society for trial, comment, and criticism. In October 1932 the National Bureau
of Casualty and Surety Underwriters requested the early completion of this
revision as being of vital interest both from a humanitarian and from a commer­
cial point of view. An informal conference was held composed of meipbers of the
sponsor organizations, the National Bureau and the American Standards Asso­
ciation staff. It was agreed by the meeting that a sectional committee should
immediately be formed to undertake the development of a comprehensive group
of national specifications covering not only the technical points in the construction
of headlights but also standards of service and usage.



D 3 { 1 9 2 7 ) .— C olors f o r traffic signals

This code was developed under the sponsorship of the American Association of
State Highway Officials, the Bureau of Standards, and the National Safety
Council, and was approved as American standard in November 1927. It repre­
sents the only group of national standards which have been developed on this
subject. No revision is at present being undertaken.
D 4 { 1 9 2 7 ) .— S a fe ty code f o r brakes and brake testing

The American Automobile Association and the Bureau of Standards acted as
joint sponsors for this project, which was approved as American tentative stand­
ard in 1927. A revision has been under way for several years and considerable
research work has been done, but owing to the lack of funds it has been impossible
to complete the research work necessary. Obtaining new funds will probably
have to await improvement in business conditions.
D 5 .— M a n u a l on street-traffic sig n s, sig n als , and m arkings
The American Engineering Council, sponsor for this project, has requested that
action by the American Standards Association be delayed, due to the formation
of a joint committee of the American Association of State Highway Officials and
the National Conference on Street and Highway Safety to bring about the coordi­
nation of the codes of the organizations. The joint committee has made very
definite progress in the development of a manual following considerable research
conducted by the Bureau of Standards. It is expected that the committee will
complete its work by the end of the year.
K 2 { 1 9 2 7 ) .— Gas sa fety code

This code was developed under the sponsorship of the American Gas Associa­
tion and the Bureau of Standards and was approved as an American standard in
December 1927.
K 1 3 { 1 9 3 0 ) .— S a fe ty code f o r the identification o f g a s-m a sk canisters

A.G.O.I. representative, John Roach, New Jersey Department of Labor.
I.A.I.A.B.C. representative, C. A. Pense, Illinois Industrial Commission.
Under the sponsorship of the National Safety Council this code was approved
as American recommended practice in January 1930. As a result of a sugges­
tion of the German national standardizing body that this code be correlated with
other national codes on the same subject, the International Standards Association
was requested to appoint a committee to consider the correlation of the work of
the several national standardizing bodies. No action has as yet been taken.
L I { 1 9 2 9 ) .— S a fe ty code f o r textiles

A.G.O.I. representative, John Campbell, Pennsylvania Department of Labor
and Industry.
I.A.I.A.B.C. representatives, J. P. Meade, Massachusetts Department of Labor
and Industries; H. M. Stanley, Georgia Industrial Commission.
Work on this code was undertaken in 1925 and was approved as American
tentative standard in March 1929.
0 1 { 1 9 3 0 ) .— S a fe ty code f o r w oodw orking plants

I.A.I.A.B.C. representatives, R. McA. Keown, Industrial Commission of Wis­
consin; S. Kjaer, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics; J. P. Meade, Mas­
sachusetts Department of Labor and Industries.
This code became an American tentative standard in 1924 under the sponsor­
ship of the National Bureau of Casualty and Surety Underwriters and the
I.A.I.A.B.C. A revision was approved as American standard in March 1930.
The sectional committee is now considering the question of dust explosions as
related to woodworking establishments, but no drafts have as yet been submitted
to the American Standards Association for approval.
0 2 { 1 9 2 If).— L o g gin g and saw m ill sa fety code
S ee p. 174.
P I { 1 9 2 5 ) .— S a fe ty code f o r pa p er and p u lp m ills

I.A.I.A.B.C. representatives, John Campbell, Pennsylvania Department of
Labor; J. P. Meade, Massachusetts Department of Labor; H. Schreiber, Wiscon­
sin Industrial Commission.
This code was developed under the sponsorship of the National Safety Council
- and approved as American tentative standard in January 1925. This code is now
under revision and several additions have been made to the personnel of the
sectional committee. A revised draft of the code was circulated to members of
the sectional committee under date of January 24, 1933, and a meeting of the
committee has been held to consider this draft.


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

Z 2 ( 1 9 2 2 ) .— N a tio n a l sa fety code fo r the protection o f the heads and eyes o f in d u stria l

A.G.O.I. representative, J. P. Meade, Massachusetts Department of Labor and
T.A.I.A.B.C. representative, C. W. Roberts, M.D., Atlanta, Ga.
This project was sponsored by the Bureau of Standards and approved as
American recommended practice in 1921. It was advanced to the status of
American standard in October 1922. A revision was undertaken in 1928 and
the scope found not to. be broad enough to include gas masks and respirators.
The sponsor was asked to submit a restatement of scope for approval to cover
these ^subjects. This statement has now been received and referred to the com­
mittee on scope for recommendation. A draft was submitted to the committee
under date of May 26, 1933, and on June 8 further material was forwarded to
the committee supplementing the draft. It is probable that some reorganiza­
tion of the technical committee will be undertaken to insure that all interested
groups are afforded representation.
Z 4 .— S a fe ty code f o r industrial sanitation

A.G.O.I. representative, T. C. Eipper.
I.A.I.A.B.C. representatives, John Campbell, Pennsylvania Department of
Labor; S. Kjaer, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics; John Roach, New
Jersey Department of Labor.
A second draft of this code was forwarded to the sectional committee under
date of June 13, and the first meeting of the reorganized committee held on
July 12. Various changes in the draft were considered by this meeting and the
proposed revisions have been circulated to the entire committee. It is expected
that another meeting will be held in the early fall for the purpose of completing
the section of the code now under consideration, the safety code for industrial
sanitation in manufacturing establishments.
Z 5 .— V en tila tio n code (p rop osed com m ittee)

A.G.O.I. representative, John Vogt, New York State Department of Labor.
I.A.I.A.B.C. representative, John Vogt.
The sectional committee being formed by the sponsor, the American Society
of Heating and Ventilating Engineers is now practically completed and it is
expected that work will be begun on the project in the early fall.
Z 8 ( 1 9 2 4 ) .— S a fe ty code f o r la u n d ry m a ch in ery and operations

This code was developed under the sponsorship of the A.G.O.I., the Laundryowners National Association, and the National Association of Mutual Casualty
Cos. It was approved as American tentative standard in June 1924.
Z 9 .— S a fe ty code f o r exhaust system s

A.G.O.I. representative, John Roach, New Jersey Department of Labor.
I.A.I.A.B.C. representatives, John Campbell, Pennsylvania Department of
Labor and Industry; T. P. Kearns, Industrial Commission of Ohio.
The sponsorship for this project has been reassigned to the I.A.I.A.B.C. and
the sectioral committee is now about completed. An organization meeting will
probably be called some time in the near future and work actively begun.
Z 1 2 .— S a fe ty codes f o r the p revention o f dust exp lo sion s

A.G.O.I. representative, W. J. Burk, New York State Department of- Labor.
I.A.I.A.B.C. representative, John Roach, New Jersey Department of Labor.
Under the joint sponsorship of the National Fire Protection Association and
the United States Department of Agriculture, nine standards have already been
approved under this general heading. This is a permanent committee, and other
standards having to do with the prevention of dust explosions will be submitted
from time to time.
Z 1 3 .— S a fe ty code f o r a m u sem en t parks

A.G.O.I. representative, T. C. Eipper.
I.A.I.A.B.C. representative, S. W. Homan, Pennsylvania Department of Labor
and Industry.
Various sections of this code are being developed by subcommittees and
several drafts have been submitted to the American Standards Association for
correlating and editing. The work is being carried on under the sponsorship of
the National Association of Amusement Parks and the National Bureau of
Casualty and Surety Underwriters, but owing to business conditions during the
past 2 years very little progress has been made.



Z 1 6 .— S ta n dardization o f m ethods o f recording and c om p ilin g accident statistics

A.G.O.I. representative, J. H. Hall, Jr., Virginia Bureau of Labor and Industry.
I.A.I.A.B.C. representatives, Evan I. Evans, Industrial Commission of Ohio;
A. O. Fried, Industrial Commission of Wisconsin; L. W. Hatch, New York State
Department of Labor; W. J. Maguire, Pennsylvania Department of Labor and
This code is being sponsored by the I.A.I.A.B.C., the National Council on
Compensation Insurance, and the National Safety Council. A final draft of
part I on definitions and rates has been submitted to the sectional committee for
letter ballot but no action has as yet been taken.
Z 2 0 .— S a fe ty code f o r grandstands

A.G.O.I. representative, E. F. Seiller, Kentucky Department of Labor.
A final draft of the subcommittee on portable steel and wood grandstands has
been completed and is now being put to letter ballot of the subcommittee. It
will then be submitted to the sectional committee and later to the American
Standards Association as a separate standard under the general heading of the
grandstand code.
Z 2 6 .— S pecifica tion s and m ethods o f test f o r sa fety glass

This project was initiated in March 1933, and the National Bureau of Casualty
and Surety Underwriters and the Bureau of Standards appointed as cosponsors.
The following scope has been approved:
“ Specifications and methods of test for safety glass (glass designed to lessen
or prevent injuries resulting from accident) as used for all purposes, including
windshields and windows of motor vehicles, motorboats, and aircraft; goggles;
and bullet-proof windows and partitions.”
The sponsors are now completing the personnel of the sectional committee and
it is expected that the work will go forward early in the fall.
Z 2 8 .— S a fe ty code f o r w ork in com pressed air

The initiation of this project and the assignment of sponsorship to the
I.A.I.A.B.C. was approved in January 1933. The sectional committee is now
being formed and work will probably be started within a very short time.
The approved scope of the project under which the committee will carry on
its work is as follows:
“ Construction and operating rules for work in caissons, tunnels, or wherever
workers are subjected to air under pressure higher than atmospheric; including
protection from mechanical hazards, the use of necessary instruments and
apparatus, provision of locks, methods of lighting, communication and decom­
pression, the keeping of records, medical attendance, periodic inspection and air
analysis,, rest rooms, hours of labor, sanitation, ventilation, fire prevention, fire
protection, temperature control, and other conditions of work.”
B I S (1924)•— L o g gin g and sa w m ill sa fety code {revision to he called 0 1)
This code was developed under the sponsorship of the Bureau of Standards and
was approved as American tentative standard in January 1924. The National
Safety Council is now collecting material to be placed before the sectional committee
in connection with a revision which will advance the code to a full American stand­
ard. The sectional committee is now considering, in cooperation with the
committee on dust explosions, Z12, the question of dust explosions as related to
logging and sawmill operations.

Chairman K e a r n s . Are there any questions that anyone would
like to ask at this time about this report, or about the progress of
Mr. K e e f e r (Illinois). The National Safety Council has been very
much interested, of course, in the safety-code work of the American
Standards Association. We have had a representative in Washing­
ton, D.C., for several months in conferences with officials of the
N.R.A. I should like to ask Dr. Agnew, if I may, what chance there
is, in the first place, of securing recognition of the A.S.A codes in the
N.R.A. codes that are coming up for approval from time to time.



Dr. A g n e w . We have made no formal representation to the N . R . A .
about that. Some organizations have made inquiries as to why we
should not have the safety codes written into General Johnson’s
general industrial codes. Our reply to those inquiries has been that
while we believe that the proposal would be an extremely valuable
one, we have not felt quite free to press for it. The American Stand­
ards Association has been very jealous of not becoming known in any
way as a lobby organization. So we have responded to this proposal
that we think that either the State bodies or perhaps the Industrial
Advisory Board or the Labor Advisory Board might be the proper
bodies to bring this up. I have transmitted copies of that correspond­
ence with a little memorandum to the Secretary of Labor, I think
perhaps Dr. Lloyd might add something on that extremely important
Dr. L l o y d (Washington, D.C.). As it actually works out in prac­
tice, it is not the Industrial Advisory Board nor the Labor Advisory
Board which has taken the initiative in this matter, but the Con­
sumers’ Advisory Board. It is now definitely proposing to the Admin­
istration that something should be said in the codes along two lines.
One involves the quality of the product, which is essentially a con­
sumer consideration, making it a matter of fair practice properly to
represent quality, and to maintain, as far as possible, good quality.
The Consumers’ Advisory Board considers it is also a matter of con­
cern to the consumer to prevent industrial accidents, because we all
know that accidents are costly. We know that the cost is far greater
than the mere compensation which is paid to the worker, it having
been estimated that industry pays four times that amount. We also
know that such increased costs of production are going to be reflected
in the price to the consumer. The Consumers’ Advisory Board has
consequently considered it appropriate to its field to make some
move toward writing into these codes some element of accident
prevention by making it a matter of fair competition between the
producers to keep their accidents down as far as possible.
An effort is being made to have the matter of safety standards and
quality standards brought into some of these codes and to put all
manufacturers on the same basis in respect to those matters. At
some of the public hearings it has been proposed that a number of
these safety codes should be written into the industrial codes. I
recall particularly the hearing on the code for the soft-coal industry,
which has not yet been finally promulgated. The representative of
the American Association for Labor Legislation made a pronounced
request* that since there are so many deaths of coal miners due to
explosions in mines, since these can easily be prevented by rock
dusting, and since there is an American standard code for rock
dusting of soft-coal mines, that that should be put into the industrial
code. It is not yet known whether that will be done. That is a
very striking instance of accidents that are very expensive and that
can very easily be prevented. One of our American standard codes
is available to tell just how it should be done.
Miss J o h n so n (Massachusetts). I understand that the American
Standards Association has encouraged regional agreements applying
to States on the adoption of uniform safety codes. I should like to
ask Dr. Agnew how that is progressing and whether any actioij



is being taken by the association in connection with the movement for
interstate compacts. I do not know whether any other State has
enacted such legislation, but this year Massachusetts passed a
resolve providing for the appointment of a commission to take up
with competing States, or States in the vicinity, the question of
uniform labor legislation compacts, or agreements between the States
for uniform labor laws. Although that resolve mentioned specifically
hours of labor and wages, it is broad enough to include specific
questions in the matter of safety and industrial hazard. I am
wondering if the American Standards Association was planning any
action in connection with that commission.
Dr. A g n e w . The Safety Code Correlating Committee, of which
you are a member, has through a subcommittee developed a model
safety law. Our board of directors has felt (there has not been any
official action) that that work really lies beyond the scope of the
association. Consequently, I have informally conferred with the
Secretary of Labor in reference to that and have given the Secretary
copies of the developments up to date. It was my understanding
that it was the intention of Miss Perkins and her colleagues to discuss
that point with the joint bodies now in session. I do not know what
the plans are, but I should think that is a point which might well
come up for discussion and action by this joint body here today. It
seems to me that these two bodies are the bodies which should
handle such questions.
Chairman K e a r n s . The next speaker on the program is Mr. W.
Dean Keefer, who has been connected with the National Safety Council
for a period of about 15 years, first as business manager and later as
director of the industrial division. The National Safety Council,
through this industrial division under the direction of the speaker,
has done a splendid job in accident-prevention work in industry, in
the home, and in public safety. There is no one in America to whom
I would rather go for counsel and advice on industrial safety work
than to Mr. Keefer.

The New Deal and Safety
By W. D e a n K e e fe r ,

D irector In d u stria l D iv is io n , N a tio n a l S a fe ty C ouncil

The subject that your chairman assigned to me, The New Deal
and Safety, seems to carry with it the implication that in the past 20
years the safety men in industries have done a pretty good job of it.
But perhaps we are now entering a new era when it is about time to
cast aside some of our old methods, some of our old activities, and
look for something new, something with which we might combat new
Some of the industrialists with whom I have spoken in recent weeks
have expressed the fear that accident rates are going to go up, because
they see in the future or in the next month or two, thousands of workers
coming back to the job, perhaps with reduced skill, perhaps with
reduced stamina. They call attention to the fact that the mental
hazards of these jobs are going to be increased because the men have
been worried by idleness, they have financial obligations which are
pressing, and maybe sickness in the home.



Unquestionably these factors are big factors which we must con­
sider if we are to attempt to keep our accident rates down to the low
levels which have been established in 1930, 1931, and 1932. Un­
doubtedly the fears that have been expressed by State labor depart­
ment officials and by industrialists are justified. This is the first
point I want to discuss briefly: Do we want to cast aside all of the
plans, all of the activities, all of the methods which have proved to be
so satisfactory and so successful during recent years, and look around
for something brand new just in the hope that it may work miracles
for us?
Before I discuss th at point in detail I w ant to review hurriedly the
success th at has attended the accident preventionists in industry
during the past 20 years, and see if we can draw from the success
th at has m et the efforts of these m en anything th at will interest us
concerning the activities which they have follow ed in bringing about
this success.
Perhaps the m o st com prehensive accident data or acci­
dent statistics which we have available now have com e to us through
the N a tio n al S afety C ouncil, which has estim ated th at there were

19.000 industrial fatalities in 1928, 20,000 in 1929, 19,000 in 1930,
17.000 in 1931, and 15,000 in 1932. There were no satisfactory esti­
mates prior to 1928, so far as we can make out. From the period
of about 1920 to 1928 the figure usually quoted was 23,000, without
much change from year to year. Prior to 1920 the figure usually
quoted was anywhere between 23,000 and 35,000. However, in spite
of the fact that we do not have more convincing data, I think we can
rest assured that the safety men in industry have done a pretty good
job; success has fairly well attended their efforts. How far can we
rely on such figures? Certainly we cannot take them at their face
value, because they do not take into consideration the important
factor of exposure.
Here again I think we can turn to some of the records of the Na­
tional Safety Council, the individual reports of individual industrial
concerns. There were 4,000 individual industrial concerns reporting
to the council in 1932, and from the tabulated records of these various
individual concerns we have figured the frequency rates and the
severity rates. From 1926 to 1931 the indexes for frequency rates
declined 60 percent and for severity rates declined 36 percent.
It is on the basis of this downward trend that I feel rather optimistic
about the plans, methods, and activities which we have been using
in the past, and I wonder if we can afford to discard all of the things
which have been worked out and have proved to be fairly successful.
As I see it, the average State department of labor, industrial board,
or industrial compensation board has its safety activities pretty well
divided into three general classifications: (1) Formulation and en­
forcement of safety laws, rules, and regulations; (2) encouragement
of backward employers to organize as their forward-looking competi­
tors have done; and (3) helping backward employers, once any interest
on their part has been secured.
T h e first a ctiv ity I think needs little consideration.
L e t m e m ake
one point, how ever.
In all this work of form u latin g and enforcing
safety laws, rules, and regulations the work has gradually been on the
decline, and I think justifiably so, because there are literally thousands
o f em ployers throughout the U n ited States who are v ita lly interested
in safety w ork. N o t only have these em ployers com plied w ith the



laws and rules and regulations of the States under which they w ork,
but m a n y of them h ave gone w ay beyon d th at, n ot on ly doing the
m in im u m required b y the S tate enactm ents, but actually doing
the m axim u m for the protection of their workers.

If I may be permitted to criticize any of the States in the United
States, I think that criticism should be leveled against those States
which have devoted too much time and attention to the enforcement
part of their programs.
The second function of State departments, that of encouraging
employers to take an interest in accident prevention, is certainly an
old job. I wonder if we want entirely to abandon encouraging the
backward employers to take an interest in safety work—to organize
safety work as they have organized sales, or as they have organized
production and accounting. Until all groups combine in selling
safety to these backward employers we are certainly not going to
attain the millenium which was mentioned by one of our former
speakers. Even though this may be an old job, we cannot afford to
throw it aside and look for something brand new with which to combat
a supposedly new problem.
The third point, that of helping employers once a fraction of
interest has been attained, from a safety point of view is perhaps the
most important function of a State department. The problem which
confronts you in this respect is quite similar to the problem which
confronts the National Safety Council along the same line. We know
that every year a few of the companies which become members of the
National Safety Council sign their names on the dotted line, pay $50
average annual dues, put up a few posters, and then expect that the
millenium has come and that accidents will naturally drop to zero.
They do not realize, sometimes, that the best the National Safety
Council can do for them under such circumstances is to give to them
the accumulated experience of thousands of other employers to give
them posters, pamphlets, leaflets, etc., which they can use; but, if
they are to be effective and accomplish anything they must be studied,
adapted, and applied. By whom? By the council? By the State
department? No; by the employer himself. He has to be taught,
led by the hand, if you please, into what he considers an easy job, that
of preventing industrial accidents. In that respect, it seems to me,
your work is very similar to the wTork of the National Safety Council.
The council or the State or any other organization cannot alone
prevent accidents. The work must be done by the employer.
A short tim e ago I had an opportu n ity to talk to a S tate official in
one of the States, who told m e of the criticism th at had been leveled
against him and his associates because a catastrophe had occurred in
his State w hereby som e 12 workers were killed.
T h is critic, I think
falsely, accused the S tate departm ent of neglecting to enforce safety
laws, rules, and regulations in th at S tate, and practically laid the
entire blam e for th at catastrophe upon the shoulders of the S tate
departm ent.
In m y h um ble opinion, this com m issioner in replying
to this criticism prepared a m asterpiece, bringing out, am ong other
things, the very im p ortan t fact th at safety can never be legislated and
enforced into industry.
S afety m u st be sold and taught into industry.
I wonder if all of us realize the im portance and the truth of such a
statem ent.



The New Deal certainly brings new problems, but let me repeat
my question: Does the New Deal make it necessary for us to cast aside
all of the plans and all of the activities which have proved successful,
and does that New Deal require us to look for new plans and new
ideas which we hope will bring success?
The second point I want to discuss briefly is this: If we are convinced
in any way, shape, or form that we can not afford to throw away all
of our old ideas and plans, then what is there that we can pick up from
the old regime? What plans should we consider at this time? What
old things should we still work on in carrying out the selling and
teaching program that we have laid out for ourselves?
What is new in safety? That question is a very hard one to answer.
There is not very much that is new, certainly not from a day-to-day
standpoint, and what may be new to me may be awfully old to 99 out
of 100 others. Perhaps it is partly due to my difficulty in answering
that question that I feel somewhat conservative on this matter. Is
there very much that is new? Has very much that is new come to
your attention, either through your own efforts or through the efforts
of the safety men who are working in your State?
Accidents are still occurring in much the same way as in the past
decade, aren't they, and aren't most accidents the result of unsafe
conditions and unsafe practices? Isn't it still the job of the employer
to safeguard his machinery and equipment and to teach his men the
safest way to do their jobs? Those are the fundamentals, it seems to
me, of the accident-prevention program in industry.
I wonder if there are not many safety men, many State officials in
the United States, who in these trying times are just sitting back
waiting for the heavens to open and some new discovery to come out
that will create a royal road to success and relieve them of the
responsibility of fighting for results.
This reminds me of the old king in the ancient days who decided
that he wanted to learn mathematics. He called in the greatest
mathematician of the time and said to him, “ I want to be taught all
there is to know about mathematics in one lesson." What did the
mathematician reply? He said something like this: “ In spite of the
fact you are the king, you cannot learn mathematics in one lesson.
You are going to have to sit down and study, just like every other
common ordinary individual. There is no royal road to knowledge,
certainly not in mathematics."
I feel pretty strongly that there is no royal road to success in acci­
dent-prevention work, and perhaps our seeking for it is going to lead
us up some blind alley. In view of that fact, may it not be advisable
for us to do a little studying, a little work, a little thinking.
I call to mind a story that was told about Llo3^d George some time
ago. Lloyd George, in giving advice to a young politician, said this:
“ If you want to learn anything about a subject and become an expert
on it, you have to study first of all. Then after you have studied, to
clinch your knowledge, sit down and write a book. If you don't
want to write a book, do something, even make a speech. If you
can't find an audience before whom to make your speech, go ahead
and make that speech to your wife. Maybe you won't teach her an
awful lot, but she will certainly teach you a lot."
Another example along this same line comes to us from the ex­
perience of Papini, who, you know, started out some years ago to



write a book disproving the divinity of Christ. Some of us recall
that the more Papini studied on the subject the more convinced
he became that Christ was divine, and finally he wrote one of the
best books of its type, the book depicting the life of Christ and
absolutely proving His divinity.
I mention these illustrations simply to bring out the point that
studying, writing, speaking, and adapting are the things we must
do if we are to be successful in our accident-prevention work.
A short time ago I asked one of my friends here in Chicago: “ Tom,
you have done a lot of safety work in the last 20 years. You have
pulled a lot of stunts and I am wondering if you have not thrown away
a lot of those stunts, discarded them, called them no good. Sup­
pose your boss came to you and said, ‘Tom, look here. I am going
to restrict you to one activity now, from now on, just one activity.
What will that activity be?' "
Tom reflected a moment and said that if he were restricted to one
activity in safety, and only one, he felt that he would carry on pretty
much the same activity he had been carrying on for the past 8 or
10 years, that in which the foremen of the plant had a luncheon
meeting every day, under the chairmanship of the operating super­
intendent, to discuss two things, operating problems and safety.
But he did not split it into two; he said operating problems, including
safety. I asked him to tell me more about it.
First, he told me that his job consisted of passing over to the chair­
man of the meeting a short list giving a couple of the high points
on every accident that had occurred during the 2 or 3 days preceding
the meeting. The chairman would get up, start to read the list,
and say, “ The first accident we have here is to Bill Jones, out in
the heat-treating department. Tom, you are foreman in that
department. What about that accident?"
My friend, in telling this story, said the first two or three times the
chairman pulled this stunt the foreman would get up, scratch his
head, and say, “ I didn't know that man was hurt. Tell me about
it." And the general superintendent did. First of all, he said
something like this, “ Well, you are the foreman of your department,
aren't you?"
“ Yes."
“ You are supposed to be responsible for the production out there?"
“ Yes."
“And you are responsible for the safety of your men?"
“ Well, maybe."
“ Well, if you are responsible for production and don't know what
is happening to your men and don't know what they are doing,
how can you get out a good production? If you don't find out and
don't keep up to date on what is happening to your men, you are not
going to be foreman of that department very long."
As these meetings went on it was not very long before these fore­
men got the proper cue and got up each time and said, “ Yes, that
man was hurt. I know how it happened. This is what I have done
to prevent its recurrence." Or he would say, “ I don't know what
to do to prevent recurrence. What can this group suggest?" Then
they would have a discussion of that particular accident and they
would usually come away with something that Tom considered very


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

much worth while. That, briefly, is an outline of the method Tom
would carry on if all his activities were restricted to one activity.
I had the privilege of asking that same question of a man from
another concern. His answer was very different, but I think it
is equally interesting. He said: “ If I were limited to one activity,
and only one, I would continue to hold meetings every morning
of the year, meetings at which I get 15 to 20 of our workers and talk
to them about safety and fire prevention/7
The first 20 or 30 minutes in these meetings were spent in a sort
of lecture to these men. They gradually loosened up, got to be
more informal, and discussed the problems in their own departments.
This man told me that he had learned more from the men them­
selves than he could ever hope to learn by making inspections of
those very departments in which these men worked.
One interesting experience that he told me about in connection
with this work was at a meeting he held. He had talked for 20 or
30 minutes when suddenly a tall fellow got up in the back of the
room, reached for his hat, and started out. My friend said, “ Wait
a minute. Why are you going out?”
“ Well, listen, Mister, if what you say is true, and I believe it is
true, your company can have my job right now. I am done. Do
you know what I had to do yesterday? I am a truck driver. I
was down at the station and the foreman put on my truck 3 bales
of scrap paper, 4 cylinders of nitrogen, 8 cylinders of oxygen, 3 cases
of dynamite, and some other stuff, and forced me to drive up the
middle of this city to the plant with that kind of load on my truck.
If what you say is true, I don't want the job any longer.”
Well, the meeting was adjourned immediately. My friend en­
countered the foreman of that department and asked him if it was
true. He brought about some changes that not only made it possible
for this man to keep his job but insured that the lives of many of
the citizens of that city would not be endangered by equally foolish
jobs in the future.
This man, in other words, said, “ If I were to be restricted to one
activity and one activity only, I would go on with this old plan of
conducting these safety and fire-prevention discussions with my men,
whereby every man comes into that meeting at least once a year.”
I could give numberless illustrations. I should like to tell you about
the answer given to me by the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. man,
something about the plan they formulated for the elimination of
unsafe practices. I should like to tell you about the work of Jones &
Laughlin Steel Co. in Pittsburgh. Their first answer to that question
was, “ We would rely upon the safety contest.” The answer to that
question has been revised, and it now has to do with the safety and
foremanship series of booklets that has been gotten out by the Na­
tional Safety Council and which have been used successfully, not only
there, but in many other plants throughout the United States.
I don't want you to misunderstand and get the idea that I am advo­
cating the restriction of all safety activities in any plant to one activ­
ity. Certainly that cannot be done. Nor do I say that any of these
activities can be transplanted from one plant and pushed down the
throats of the management of another plant simply because it worked
well in one. That cannot be done, because safety depends so much



upon the attitude of the management and upon the convictions and
the ability of the safety man himself. To give you other illustrations
would simply lead to this conclusion: Industrial safety men in these
troublous times are not looking to any great extent for the heavens
to open and bring out some new discovery that will enable them to
combat their present problems. They are going back to their old
ideas and their old plans, which have worked so successfully. They
are taking into consideration new factors, they are speeding up, and
they are accepting the challenge brought about by the emphasis of
the need in industry; but they are sticking to the old, tried, and true
things which have proved successful.
In concluding, I should like to emphasize that one thought, that if
we are to continue to make progress and not slip backward, we have
to study, we have to write books and articles, we have to make
speeches, and we have to teach, sell, and adapt, and perhaps then
we may be doing about half of our jobs.
[Meeting adjourned.]

Second Joint Session of A.G.O.I. and I.A.I.A.B.C.
Chairman, Thomas P . Kearns, superintendent Division o f Safety and Hygiene, Department o f Industrial
Relations o f Ohio

Chairman K e a r n s . The first number on the program this after­
noon is an address, Cause Analysis of Accidents Causing Injury and
Near Injury, by Mr. C. B. Boulet, safety director of the Public Service
Corporation of Milwaukee, Wis. Mr. Boulet is eminently qualified
to speak on this subject. He has been with this corporation for ap­
proximately 15 years. For 11 of those years he has been in charge of
the personnel work of the company, including the safety work. He
has given a great deal of personal attention to the problem of accident
prevention in this corporation. In speaking about the record of his
company, he told me of some very remarkable records it had made. I
asked him if he was going to mention that in his address. His reply
was no, that they didn’t want to live in the past. They were going to
live in the future. I think these records are worthy of mention.
For 3 of the last 4 years this company has won in the national
safety contest for large public utilities conducted by the National
Safety Council, as having the best accident record. Mr. Boulet
informs me that in the past 11 years, or since he has had charge of this
safety work and since the company has been doing organized, inten­
sive safety and'accident-prevention work, it has reduced its accident
frequency from 42.4 to 1.1. I think that is a remarkable achievement
and it is entitled to a lot of credit. I take great pleasure at this time
in presenting Mr. Boulet of the Public Service Corporation of Mil­
waukee, Wis.

Cause Analysis of Accidents Causing Injury and Near Injury
By C. B.

B o u l e t , P u b lic S ervice C orp ora tion , M ilw a u k e e , W i s .

A num ber of years ago in a sm all electric u tility com pan y the
generator suddenly stopped running.
T h e local engineer could find
nothing wrong, so a long-distance call brought an expert from the
General E lectric C o . in C hicago.
T h e expert exam ined the m achine
carefully, took a sm all h am m er from his bag and tapped several tim es
at a certain point on the m achine.
T h e switch was thrown and the
m achine operated.
A sk ed for his bill he n onchalantly said, “ One
hundred five dollars and expenses.”
“ W h a t !” said the owner of the
plant, “ one hundred five dollars for a few taps w ith a h a m m er?”
“ Y e s ” , said the expert, “ five dollars for the taps and one hundred
dollars for know ing where to ta p .”
T h a t is the secret of any curative science, know ing where to tap.
B u t to know where to tap takes years of stu dy, of trial and error, of
experim entation, of analysis of causes.
W ith o u t know ing the cause
of the trouble, it is im possible to prescribe the cure.
So it is with




I t is altogether possible th at the n um ber of accidents in any plant
m ight be reduced b y any individual who m igh t sim ply apply a num ber
of generally accepted principles of accident prevention. H e is ju st as
likely to get results as the old grandm other who gave castor oil for
every ailm ent. M in o r trouble m igh t be corrected and favorable
results show n up to a certain poin t, b u t when th at point is reached
the doctor who understands the sy m p tom s m u st be called in to restore
the p atient to perfect health.
A n d w hat is the doctor's procedure? T o look at the patient and
prescribe a cure off-han d?
N o ; n ot at all.
H e first o f all discovers
the facts.
A ll the facts which exist which m ig h t h ave a bearing on
the case— the p atien t's tem perature, his pulse, condition o f his tongue
and his eyes, condition of the blood, his heart, his lungs— all these
are m en tally tabulated b y the doctor as facts, and when they have
been discovered a picture is com pleted which tells him at once the
cause o f the trouble, and know ing the cause he is in a position to
prescribe a rem edy.
B u t first of all he m u st have all the facts.
In the analysis of accident causes it is likewise necessary th at all
facts be obtained and tabulated.
A part of the difficulty experienced
b y m a n y engineers in their a ttem p t to analyze accident causes has
been failure to go all the w ay in obtaining facts.
T heir opinion as to
cause has therefore been based on an incom plete record and conse­
quen tly the cause as determ ined from the in form ation available has
been incorrect.
L e t us try to find the reasons for this h a lf-w a y analysis.
There m a y be several: (a) O veranxiety on the part of the investiga­
tor to reach a conclusion; ( b) failure to distinguish between prim e
and secondary conditions affecting the cause; (c) loss of sight of the
object o f cause analysis, and consequent distorted facts developed
from those in volved.
There is a natural tendency on the part of m a n y of us to ju m p to
conclusions follow ing an accident which has caused serious injury.
T h e facts which im m ediately appear in the foreground are accepted
as real causes, while careful scrutiny and further investigation m igh t
develop underlying facts which h ave a far greater bearing on the real
cause than those w hich are so self evident.
I cannot attribute this failure to assem ble all facts to laziness, b u t
rather to a desire to find at once the cause of the accident.
Likew ise, w h at often is indicated to be a prim e cause of an accident
should be classed m ore correctly as only a secondary or incidental
T h e third possibility is to m e im portant.
F acts pertaining to accidents are developed usually through per­
sonal investigation of conditions and through careful questioning of
the injured p arty and witnesses of the accident. T h e attitu de of
those to be questioned m u st be correct or the true facts will never be
I f the em ployee feels th at an effort is being m ade to place
the blam e som ewhere, y ou m a y be sure th at his lo y a lty to his fellow
em ployee will far outw eigh his sense of d u ty to the investigator.
is im portan t, therefore, th at he be p ro m p tly m ade to understand that
the reason for the investigation is to determ ine the cause of the acci­
dent and th at this is necessary if future similar accidents are to be
H e m u st be m ade to feel th at he is being consulted and
7 3 5 9 7 °— 34------- 0


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

his assistance in helping to stop accidents is being sought, if all facts
are to be developed.
The investigation of an accident should be confined to determining
facts through which to discover the cause. Overtures which make
of the investigation a legal affair, and cross-examination of witnesses
which tends to arouse their antagonism or suspicions, will prove of
no value in determining accident causes.
I appreciate the fact that many reports required by industrial
commissions and accident boards require only such information as is
relevant to the cause of injury and oftentimes the cause of accident
is not divulged.
Take, for instance, a certain report which recently came to my desk.
This report supposedly tabulated “ causes of accidents.” Among
other things in the report was a classification “ Electricity ” or “ Elec­
trocution” ; a certain number of injuries were classified under this
head, some of which were fatal while others were less serious.
From my own experience I know that every single electrical accident
I have investigated was brought about by certain underlying funda­
mental causes, such as protective equipment not used, lack of super­
vision, lack of instructions, poor mental condition of injured, worry,
Investigation of the causes of each of these accidents has taught a
definite lesson and has prevented recurrence of future similar accidents.
Getting back to the industrial commission reports, simply classi­
fying these cases as electrical, I cannot think of a single benefit
derived from this knowledge. The reason for this failure to arrive
at accident causes is, of course, evident. The prime duty of com­
missions has in the past been considered to be the supervision and
determination of compensation because of disability due to injury.
I believe a great service can be rendered by you gentlemen if more
thought is given to the determination in each accident of real causes,
followed by the broadcasting of information as to how to eliminate
these causes of accident and thereby reduce the number of injuries.
I have made these preliminary remarks because, no matter how
elaborate a system of accident analysis is developed, it is worth
nothing unless the facts on which the analysis is based are correct
and complete.
Any accident cause analysis tabulation must have certain char­
acteristics to be of value. First of all, it must be sufficiently complete,
so as to permit of proper classification of all accidents. Secondly,
it must be sufficiently simple to permit its application to various
industries and by engineers, superintendents, etc., who do not claim
to be experts in this field. Third, it must be in sufficient detail to
permit management and others to understand and derive from it
information necessary to apply proper remedies.
Such a classification is not easy to find. I have at hand a number
of classifications or tabulations which vary from the simplest form as
first used by a number of eastern public utility companies to a very
complete form suggested in the forthcoming report of the A.S.A.
committee on causes.
The simplest classification breaks down accident causes into three
main divisions:
1. Supervisor failure.
2. Employee failure.
3. Causes beyond control of injured.



Under the first of these are seven subdivisions:
1. Class of work beyond experience or physical or mental ability
of injured.
2. Use of improper tools or devices.
3. Lack of proper instructions.
4. Protective devices not provided or inadequate in number.
5. Protective devices not used.
6. Lack of proper inspection and maintenance.
7. Insufficient light.
Under the second heading, employee failure, are seven subdivisions:
1. Rules or instructions not followed.
2. Intemperance.
3. Lack of concentration, carelessness.
4. Hurry.
5. Poor judgment.
6. Willfulness.
7. Unfit physical condition of the injured.
Under the third heading are five subdivisions:
1. Particles carried by air currents.
2. Contributory negligence of others.
3. Abnormal weather conditions.
4. Failure of equipment.
5. Nonindustrial.
For the small plant where it is impractical to expect a highly or­
ganized safety department, I believe some such classification of acci­
dents can be of inestimable value. Even in larger organizations which
have not previously analyzed accident causes, the code can be used
as a beginning. It has numerous advantages. It is simple, it covers
the main causes of accidents, and can be understood by the foreman,
superintendent, and manager. A study of results obtained under
this classification will prove helpful in determining the causes and
will point to the elimination of future accidents of a similar nature.
Under the more complex tabulation, which will be used by larger
industries, by national associations, and by industrial commissions in
an effort more easily to locate all factors contributing to accidents,
several contributory factors are tabulated.
For instance, a suggested code, now under consideration, requires
a 7-column field of a tabulating card. Accident causation under this
code is identified by such contributory factors as internal agencies,
broken down into 14 heads such as machines, pumps, prime movers,
elevators, conveyors, boilers, tools, chemicals, electrical apparatus,
etc. Each accident is classified under one of these heads.
A further break-down of any one of these material agencies in order
to tabulate the exact part of the agent causing the accident can also
be made, for instance, “ gears and pulleys” of machines, “ belts” of
pumps, “ tubes” of boilers, etc.
Third, the manner of contact is analyzed and classified under one
or more of 11 headings such as falls of persons on level, falls of persons
from one level to another, slips—not falls, struck against, drowning,
caught in or between, shock, burns, etc.
The accident cause is again classified according to performance of
person injured. Under this head is tabulated such conditions or
causes as operating or working at unsafe speed, using defective tools,
overloading, nonuse of safety devices, etc. Each of these items can



again be broken down into specific causes; for instance, under operat­
ing or working at unsafe speed, the exact cause might be given as
running, feeding too rapidly, driving too rapidly, throwing material
instead of carrying or passing it, driving too slowly, etc.
Lastly, the accident may be classified according to proximate
causes, and this classification broken down into physical causes and
supervisory causes.
Under the first will fall such items as improperly guarded hazards,
defective equipment, unsafe dress or apparel, etc.
Under the second such causes as improper instruction and willful
disregard of instructions should be listed.
The National Safety Council in its Safe Practice Pamphlet No. 21
suggests a modified code covering cause analysis that is neither as
simple as the first which I have discussed nor as complicated as the
This code segregates and classifies causes under five heads as
1. Machine or other agency involved in accident.
a. Mechanical.
b. Nonmechanical.
2. Manner of performing work or job.
3. Method of contact.
a. Inhalation, absorbing, burning, poisoning, etc. (acute).
b. Inhalation, absorbing, burning, poisoning, etc. (slow).
c. Falls of persons (on level).
d. Falls of persons (to different levels).
e. Slips.
/ . Falling or flying objects.
g. Caught in or between.
h. Struck against.
i. Drowning.
j . Shock (electrical).
k. Burning (electrical).
4. Mechanical causes.
5. Personal causes.
It will be noted that the code suggested by the N.S.C. follows to
some degree the code suggested by the committee on causes, but is
somewhat more elaborate. Personally, I lean toward the established
code as suggested in Safe Practice Pamphlet No. 21.
So much for methods used in classifying accident causes.
You, I am sure, would have little faith in a doctor who tabulated
your temperature, pulse, lung action, and blood analysis and then
took a good look at the tabulation, picked up his medicine case, and
walked out on you—perhaps to go to the golf course and play the
customary 19 holes.
That, however, is the chief difficulty with many agencies gathering
information on accident causes. They forget the objective which
they started out to attain. After all, the analysis of accident causes is
not an end in itself, but is rather a means to an end. What we seek
through this analysis is remedies to apply in order to prevent future
accidents of similar nature. The interpretation of statistics compiled
through the analysis is the final measure of its value.
I have seen many tabulations prepared by national trade associa­
tions, accident-prevention organizations, and industrial commissions



that simply tabulate and leave the patient as is. The doctor who
would not even suggest a cure or at least prescribe a sedative would
certainly not merit his pay.
The job of you men, the most important job, is to interpret these
statistics and suggest remedies for the conditions indicated by the
facts presented.
The job of accident prevention, of selling employees on a new code,
a suggested practice or a change in method has been made immeasur­
ably simpler in my own organization whenever we have been able to
show by careful analysis that a certain practice or procedure was the
underlying cause of an accident or near accident and should be
Experience continues to be the best teacher and it is our job, yours
and mine, to select from experience those lessons which will, if taught
by us to the men in the field, stop accidents.
What is true of the employees in my company is true of the em­
ployers of labor over whom you exercise a certain jurisdiction. If you
can show them, by illustration, that a large percentage of actual
accidents have been due to a certain cause, if you can cite cases
proving your contention, and if you can then point out a definite
way to stop these accidents in the future, then your efforts at cause
analysis will be of some value. To continue simply to present statistics
and sit complacently by while accidents continue to happen and
statistics continue to accumulate, is worthless to the employer of men
and will have no effect in the elimination of national economic waste.
Summarizing, I think the responsibilities of a forward-looking com­
mission or accident board can be set forth as follows:
1. Determination of all the facts pertaining to every compensable
2. Analysis of these facts to determine:
a. Accident cause.
b. Compensation liability.
3. Publication of a description of these accidents, setting out:
a . Facts pertaining to causes.
b. Causes.
c. Remedies.
Again, I say it is your job to teach the lesson that your analysis of
information collected indicates must be taught if accidents are to be
Chairman K e a r n s . I am sure that all of you feel that there is food
for thought in the suggestions made by Mr. Boulet, and some of you
may want to ask him questions about some of the points he made
regarding the cause analysis of accidents. Is there any question you
would like to ask Mr. Boulet?
Mr. S t e w a r t (Washington, D.C.). I think we all agree that that
was about the best analysis of accidents from the objective point of
view, so far as objective things can be recorded, that we have had.
The longer I live the more I feel that there is a principal cause of acci­
dents that is not covered by our guarding of machinery or any ob­
jective things that can be done. The superintendent of public
safety in Buffalo a number of years ago, when the automobile accident


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

rate began to rise so rapidly, said, “ There is but one adequate remedy
for the increasing automobile accident rate and that is starting 5
minutes sooner. ” We put off starting until we must go at a break­
neck speed to get there on time. Instead of taking the advice of that
superintendent in Buffalo, we have been increasing our speed rate,
setting back 5 minutes each week or month or so the time when we
The speed rate which the speaker referred to in the factory is not
always set by the worker, and the individual is not always the cause
of the accidents listed. When you reduce the piece rate you increase
the speed rate, and your accident as a result of the increased speed
is not the fault of the individual, who is under a necessity that neither
he nor she can control, but is caused by your change in the piece rate.
That is an illustration of the mental cause that you cannot get any
X-ray picture of at all. Another thing that you cannot get an X-ray
picture of is the mental state of the employee caused, not always but
sometimes, by the attitude of the foreman or the straw boss. I
remember walking through a factory once with the manager or
superintendent. We were talking about the cause of accidents at
the time. I saw a girl at her machine crying. The tears were rolling
down her cheeks. I said to this fellow, “ You are going to have an
accident over there the first thing you know.”
He said, “ W hy?”
I said, “ Not because that girl is crying, but because there is some­
thing the matter with her that makes her cry.”
He looked around and said, “ I don’t know. Her boss reported her
“ Maybe that is why she is crying and if you have an accident
maybe the boss will be the cause of the accident.”
In the extreme tension of industry, anything that throws off the
guard of the individual will have its effect.
A commissioner to whom I was talking this morning said, that
during .the years she had been on that commission, very few of the
cases she had heard (practically none of them, I think her expression
was) had been caused otherwise than by the foolishness of somebody.
After years of experience with the labor question, I once made the
statement that I had never investigated a strike nor attempted to
settle a strike where the final, ultimate, or end cause of the strike was
not that somebody had forgotten to be a gentleman, and such forget­
fulness on the two sides of the conflict is about 50-50. I wonder how
many accidents are caused by somebody who forgot to be kind,
somebody who forgot to be human, or somebody who forgot to know
what was going on.
The foreman ought to know the physical condition of the persons
working for him. So far as the mental condition is concerned, the
mental conditions produced in a factory by the unkind word, the
inhumane treatment, ought to be checked up. We ought to know
who in the establishment is responsible for it. Of course, you can
carry that too far too, but after all it must not be ignored.
One foreman said to me that whenever he had an accident he always
asked the fellow if he had had a row with his wife that morning or the
night before. Once when he asked a fellow that question, the fellow
thought the foreman was a fool as he was not married at all.



Suppose you do miss fire once in a while. There are other things
that affect the mental condition which we safety men have not yet
discovered as a cause of accidents. Kindness in the factory, square
dealing, seeing eye-to-eye between men and men, and men and
women—in other words, the subjective cause of accident— I trust
will be your next field of study.
Chairman K e a r n s . I s there any further comment on that?
Mr. P a t t o n (New York). I want to congratulate Mr. Boulet on
his paper, but I want to point out to him that he must not criticize
industrial commissions or labor departments altogether for the lack
of information as to causes of accidents as distinguished from causes
of injuries. You are all familiar, I guess, with the study of H. W,
Heinrich of the Travelers Insurance Co. It has been out for some
years. In his study he indicates that 98 percent of all industrial
accidents are preventable. In other words, nearly all accidents are
due to some lack of supervision on the part of the employer. He
made a recommendation, you know, and our association committee
on statistics and costs has been wrestling with it for a long time, calling
on all States to get the facts on the causes of accidents as distinct from
the causes of injuries. Without waiting for the final report of that
committee and its adoption, we have been experimenting with this
idea in New York, and a number of other people have been experi­
menting with it.
Mr. Boulet would like, and so would I, accident reports to indicate
whether the accident was caused by supervisor failure or by employee
failure. But do you think that the foreman who makes out that
report, knowing that the accident may become the subject of a com­
pensation hearing, is going to say that the accident was due to super­
visor failure?
At a meeting of claims representatives of insurance carriers a year
ago, I asked, “ What would be your objection, if any, if the New York
reporting form was amended” , so as to call for not merely what Mr.
Boulet does in his paper but that still more complex form of which he
speaks. They almost hooted me out of the room. “ We are not
going to have our policyholders report to the Department of Labor of
New York that this accident was caused by the fact that their foreman
gave improper instructions, or failed to issue instructions, or that the
machine was improperly guarded.” I said, “ In New York and in
many other States liability for payment of compensation has no
relation whatever to negligence on the part of employer or employee.
You would have to pay no more even though you do report you are at
fault.” These representatives said, “ That is all right, but we are
not going to require policyholders to report facts indicating that they
are at fault. ”
I have made a serious effort to get this sort of information in a
supplementary form. So far the results have been disappointing.
Before the depression close to 500,000 accidents a year were reported
to the New York State commission. How would it be possible ever
to get sufficient appropriations from the legislature to make the kind
of investigation of each of these accidents that Mr. Boulet says we
ought to have and which I think we ought to have? It is one of
those things that appear now to be beyond the bounds of practica­
bility. On the other hand, the present accident causes tabulations
which we print do not stop merely with “ electrocution. ” The present


19 3 3 MEETING OE A.G.O.I.

standard cause code recommended by the association and in general
use in the country has between eight and nine hundred different
classifications. Electrocution accidents are subdivided into quite an
imposing list.
The figures indicate that over a period of years falls of persons have
been one of the most serious types of accidents. Furthermore we have
those falls subdivided into some 40 or 50 kinds of falls. If the safety
man is provided with that information, it is up to him as safety man to
discover what hazards exist which help to bring about falls. When
the report comes in that a man slipped, that is all the foreman says
and that is all the compensation referee wants to know— all he wants
to know is the fact necessary in deciding whether an award is to be
made or not. We know that the floor may have been slippery or the
light poor, etc., or he may have had a sudden shock or fright— all those
things help to bring about falls.
Can anyone tell me how any State legislature can be expected to
provide sufficient funds for the kind of subjective analysis and fact
finding that theoretically we ought to have? I see no practical way
out of it. In New York whenever a hazardous condition is found to
exist that is causing accidents, we isolate a certain number of incoming
accidents of that sort, and send out agents to investigate them on the
spot, while the accident is fresh. From that sample of accidents we
learn what is the best thing to be done in the matter of accident
prevention. As yet I do not see any more practical way of handling it.
I am willing to admit that theoretically all the 500,000 accidents should
be investigated and that 10 or 20 times that many near accidents were
never reported. As has been pointed out, a near accident is just as
much a warning or indication to a safety man, or ought to be, as an
accident, but we have to limit ourselves to our possibilities. What we
can do must be considered as well as what we ought to do. I cannot
agree with the statement that merely because in New York we have
100,000 tabulated accident causes broken down into more than 800
different subdivisions, that that tabulation is not of service as a guidepost and as an indication to any safety man who is seeking to prevent
accidents in his plant.
Mr. B o t j l e t . I fully appreciate the difficulties that have been
mentioned. I should like to quote this: “ Nothing will ever be ac­
complished if first all objections must be overcome.” I appreciate
there are difficulties. We know that well. We have our troubles;
the commissions have theirs. There are problems that I know nothing
about so far as the commissions are concerned. I simply tried to
bring to you something that would be of value to me. It is probably
selfish, but I believe that ultimately something must be worked out.
If we are to stop accidents there must be some practical way worked
out and that way should be found.
Chairman K e a r n s . I quite agree with Mr. Boulet that a good deal
more care and attention should be given to cause analysis, and insofar
as it is possible to do it, the industrial commissioners should, after
a careful study, give out information as to the causes that would be
helpful in the prevention of such accidents. In many cases, and I
know from our own experience in Ohio, you seldom get sufficient
information on the accident report itself to make the detailed study
that Mr. Boulet refers to ; yet I think it is a wonderful thing for gov­
ernmental labor officials, factory inspectors, men and women charged



with the enforcement of safety regulations, and particularly those
making investigations of accidents, to keep in mind those different
things that should be investigated in order to determine the cause
of the accident as well as the cause of the injury. I do not believe
that any of us who are engaged in safety work at the present time
are giving sufficient attention or attaching sufficient importance to
the matter of investigating the cause of the accident, where that
is possible, rather than the cause of the injury. I think the records
show that there are perhaps 300 accidents occurring to one accident
resulting in injury.
I think it an excellent idea to investigate all of our minor injuries,
to make a thorough investigation, because after all each of them is
potentially a major accident, and according to the law of averages
sooner or later those minor injuries are going to result in major injuries.
The same thing is true of accidents that cause no injury. The accident
may not cause an injury today, tomorrow, or the next day, but sooner
or later if such accidents continue to occur they will cause an injury
and it may be a very serious one.
So I think it might be a good thing for us to give considerable
thought to that subject of investigating causes of accidents that do
not cause injury, as well as those that do cause injury, and find a
remedy to prevent the recurrence of these accidents also.
Mr. K j a e r (Washington, D.C.). The United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics gets quite a few copies of the accident reports in the
iron and steel industry made to the different States. I have noticed
that a good deal of the necessary information is lacking on some of
them that should really be in the report. There is no one to blame
for that except the employer who sends out the report. The industrial
commissioners cannot be blamed; they cannot compile the facts when
they do not get them. I think the fault lies directly with the employer
in that case.
Chairman K e a r n s . Perhaps that is true; yet I think, on the other
hand, it might be said that in many instances the industrial com­
missions and accidents boards do not make use of some of the informa­
tion they do get. To be perfectly candid about it, I think a good deal
more attention should be given to the general question of accident
prevention by all of the industrial commissions and accident boards
throughout the country. I realize that they do not always get this
information, but certainly they get some information that could be
used to advantage among the employers and safety men of the State
in the matter of promoting accident-prevention work.
Mr. E l m e r F. A n d r e w s (New York). Mr. Patton has described
our system. One of the things that might be of interest is that we
photograph every first report of accident. That goes to a unit where
a card index is kept to show the accident experience of each factory
in the State. Furthermore, a second photostatic copy goes to our
inspection division. We have inspectors traveling in the districts
where accidents occur, and we have inspections of every major plant
in New York. Our factory inspectors are advised immediately after
an accident is reported. Then the inspector in that district takes it
up personally with the management of the factory on his next visit.
So far, we think that does a great deal of good. We are getting very
fine reactions from the employers.

19 3 3 MEETING OE A.G.O.I.


Mr. B e a s o r (Ohio). I should like to bring out something that
I think they should know here. We send out to our field men each
month a record of the serious and near-serious accidents. Those
men go into the plants, with all the information they have, and talk
the thing over with the particular employer, not to criticize but to
help. We have found in Ohio, as Mr. Patton has in New York,
that these people are not going to incriminate themselves by saying
that it was the foreman’s fault or the supervisor’s fault. With the
idea of teaching the employers to keep that record, we are suggesting
to them the keeping of that data in such a manner that the manager or
person in charge of the plant will know exactly the person who is
responsible for the injury or the accident. It is being suggested to
them that they not only keep such records of injuries but also keep a
record of their accidents.
Our field men are reporting that it has been taking very well with
a number of employers and they are following out the scheme, so
much so that for some time a certain group of employers, such as the
electric-industry men, have their safety men attend round-table
meetings about once a month. Of course this information goes to
nobody else but those men in the meeting. They lay the record of
each plant right on the table and are able to make a cooperative
effort to help each other. I think some of those plants even extend
into another State, but since it is similar work, they are getting these
other fellows in, perhaps to help them.
S ta n d a r d iz a tio n o f C o d e s a n d M e c h a n ic a l G u a r d in g
a t P o in t o f M a n u fa c tu r e

R obert

M e A.

K eown,

Engineer Industrial Commission of Wisconsin

[Read by M r. Wise, Industrial Commission of Wisconsin]

When accident-prevention work was first undertaken by some of
the States more than 20 years ago, the lack of standards to guide the
inspection personnel was soon apparent. Without standards it was
impossible to secure uniform compliance where more than one inspector
was assigned to the work.
The first regulations, adopted either by legislative act as in some
States, or by the board or commission having supervision of the
work as in others, appear in the fight of present-day experience as
rather crude, but they served their purpose at least to a degree, and
as time went on and more experience was gained these regulations
were revised and new ones adopted as new methods and processes in
industry introduced new accident hazards.
With many of the States and some cities adopting regulations for
the safety of employees and the public, and many insurance companies
having their own standards, the need for some central organization to
undertake standardization of regulations on a national scale became
almost a necessity. With this object in mind the United States
Bureau of Standards called a conference in Washington in January
1919 for the purpose of considering methods to be used for the pro­
mulgation of a set of national safety standards. At this conference
there were approximately 150 representatives of the Federal Govern­
ment, State boards and commissions, and engineering associations.
More than 50 safety codes were discussed with the idea of developing



national standards that would supplant the large number of individual
State regulations on each subject.
The American Engineering Standards Committee, now the Ameri­
can Standards Association, had already been organized (1918) by
five major engineering societies for the purpose of carrying on stand­
ardization work, and as a result of two Washington conferences
arrangements were made to have safety standards included within
the scope of their activities. Since then the safety code work has been
made a part of the American Standards Association program.
In order that standards finally approved by the American Standards
Association may in fact be American standards, the association has
outlined definite methods of procedure for the guidance of any organ­
ization wishing to have standards approved. These methods are
outlined in the American Standards Association method of procedure
from which the following statements are taken:
The association recognizes four such methods: (1) Sectional com­
mittee method; (2) existing standards method; (3) proprietary
standards method; (4) general acceptance method.
Of these four ways for the development of standards, the sectionalcommittee method is the one most generally used. According to the
association, the name of the committee is so called because of the f&ct
that its personnel represents a true cross-section of the industries and
organizations concerned with the development of any standard. ^
The rules of the association require that for safety codes sectional
committee memberships shall be made up as follows: (a) Manufac­
turers (makers of equipment); (b) employers (users of equipment);
(c) employees; (d ) governmental bodies having regulatory power or
influence over the field in question; (e) independent specialists, such
as staff representatives of technical societies, consulting experts with
no exclusive business affiliation, and educators; (/) insurance inter­
ests. It will be recognized that with a committee organized in this
manner, the standard finally proposed for approval should be quite
generally acceptable.
The existing standards method is, as the name implies, a method
for having an existing standard approved by the association, but can
only be used where in fact the existing standard is qualified to receive
The proprietary standards method is, according to the association,
for those standards that were formulated in the first instance and
thereafter revised entirely under the auspices of the sponsor organiza­
tion, and which are in fact competent to be approved by the associa­
tion as national standards.
The general acceptance method for procuring national standards is
primarily for simple projects and for which the organization of a
sectional committee is not deemed advisable. This method consists
of a conference of those individuals or groups principally concerned,
supplemented by a sufficiently large number of written acceptances
of the conference recommendation from all of those substantially
concerned with the scope and provisions of the recommendation.
The 1932-33 year book of the American Standards Association lists
44 accident- and fire-prevention codes that have been approved as
the American standard and 18 such projects not yet completed.
The American Standard Safety Code on any particular subject
may not be as rigid as are the requirements in individual States that



have had regulations for a number of years, and in some instances it
might not be desirable to lower the State standard, although it should
be borne in mind that where a State has a standard that appears to be
more rigid than the balance of the country, if it relates to apparatus
that is used country wide, the customers in that State will pay more
for such apparatus. As an example of this may be cited the grounding
of noncurrent-carrying parts of electrical equipment. Wisconsin for
a number of years required the grounding of all such parts for voltages
exceeding 100, but when the code was revised m 1930, the majority
of the State advisory committee was of the opinion that this require­
ment should be made to conform to the national standard. The
arguments were that State and national standards should be uniform,
and that for some kinds of electrical appliances, particularly small
equipment, it would be safe only for the manufacturer to make the
ground connections as they must almost of necessity be built into the
machine. Instances were cited where insulation had been broken
down when such work was done by local electricians. This position
was taken notwithstanding the fact that many Wisconsin users of
electrical equipment had already made the change and although there
have been a number of fatalities on noncurrent-carrying parts that
had become “ alive” due to insulation becoming defective and where
the voltage was presumably below 150. This is a matter, it seems to
me, that should be given further consideration to determine whether
or not manufacturers of this equipment should supply ground con­
nections on all appliances using the ordinary lighting circuit.
Where a State has no regulations in any particular subject, the
advantage of having an American standard either to adopt as is or to
use as a guide in formulating regulations will be apparent.
In 1923 it was desired to issue a code regarding the use of spray
coating in Wisconsin, and as far as could be ascertained no State had
any regulations specifically covering this subject. It was therefore
necessary for the advisory committee appointed to suggest a set of
regulations, to visit plants where this method of painting was carried
on, and by a process of elimination frame regulations that would
prohibit those conditions which were observed to give unsatisfactory
results. This meant days and days of work before the committee was
prepared to make its recommendations to the industrial commission.
Since the original adoption of the regulations, they have twice been
revised because of the use of new materials or for other reasons, and
within a short time will be subjected to another revision.
A similar condition existed with reference to the commission's
general order on trench guarding. The original order stated that
trenches, “ * * * must be securely shored up." On a contested
case the supreme court ruled that this was not definite enough and
that the employer must be told how to shore them. There were
not to our knowledge any existing regulations on this subject, so the
advisory committee drafted a set of timber requirements for trenches,
and after several hearings they were finally accepted as being rea­
sonable and were adopted. The results obtained have been gratifying.
Probably one of the most uniformly adopted codes is that for
boilers, known as “ A.S.M.E. Boiler Code." As far as we have
ascertained there is but one State having boiler regulations that does
not accept boilers made in accordance with this code. The adoption



or acceptance of boilers built according to a standard code has many
advantages, which may be listed briefly as follows.
(a) The advantage to the boiler manufacturer who does an inter­
state business. Boilers can be manufactured in quantity in advance,
taking advantage of quantity buying of materials and of slack seasons
for employment.
(b) The purchaser can get a better price and prompt shipment.
(c) Resale value of standard boilers is higher because of acceptance
in a larger field.
(d) Boiler insurance companies operating in many States can give
better inspection service due to inspectors becoming familiar with
standard construction.
(e) Responsibility centered with manufacturer, over whom State
officials can easily exercise control, and as a result the boiler is made
uniform and safe at the source.
(f) Prevents dealers from making the State a dumping ground for
worn-out and obsolete boilers.
(g) Employees benefit from the greater safety due to concentrating
on one set of specifications and develop to the greatest extent safety
features that are universally approved.
There have been instances come to our attention, when having shop
inspections made of new boilers, that the boiler because of some sub­
standard condition, could not be accepted under the State require­
ments. Such boilers are not scrapped but are sold elsewhere. Fre­
quently, also, boilers because of age and design are not permitted a
working pressure in excess of 15 pounds. These boilers are taken out
of service, given an overhauling, and sold elsewhere as second-hand
power boilers.
Another example of the value of uniform requirements is to be
found in the case of elevators. Elevator manufacturers submitting
proposals for elevator installations in various States can more readily
satisfy the customer if the requirements of the State are in accordance
with national standards.
In discussing this matter with insurance company inspectors, who
in Wisconsin are licensed to make elevator inspections tin t are
accepted in lieu of regular State inspections, and who operate in a
number of States, the thought is frequently expressed as to the
desirability of a standard code and particularly for one that is enforced
by the State officials who have jurisdiction. If the insurance inspector
is not able to “ sell” the assured on the necessity of complying with the
standards, the only thing that the insurance company can do, if it
does not wish to put up with the conditions, is to cancel the policy.
Sometimes, if the insurance inspector is too insistent in securing com­
pliance with the code, the assured will cancel the policy. This is a
condition that should not be tolerated, and the owner should be made
to comply with the code no matter with what company he carries
Another case showing the value of national standards is found in
building construction and particularly with respect to structural
requirements. Some points that might be mentioned are:
(а) Live load requirements for structural design can be uniform.
(б) Allowable unit stresses in any particular type of building ma­
terial should be the same. Existing building codes at present differ
as to allowable working stresses.


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

(c) Organizations, national in scope, provide standards that can
be universally adopted. They are as follows: (1) Steel— American
Institute of Steel Construction; (2) concrete— American Concrete
Institute; (3) wood— National Committee on Wood Utilization; (4)
masonry, solid and hollow— American Society for Testing Materials.
Standards of the above organizations have been adapted to the
Wisconsin State building code. If such standards were in general
use the buying public would benefit. Without such general standards
the responsible designer and manufacturer is always at a loss to
knowr whether his wnrk is in competition with other designs and
products. The result is that such designers and manufacturers are
forced to meet irresponsible competition, with a consequent lowering
of ideals rather than raising them.
Examples are frequently brought to light in Wisconsin, from outof-State designers wiio do not have any particular standard to follow,
in which variable assumed loadings and working stresses are used.
In manufactured materials the same results are found. Wisconsin
has certain requirements on hollow building units. Neighboring States
have none, except perhaps in individual cities; consequently, out-ofState manufacturers have difficulty in marketing their products in
Wisconsin. This is particularly true in regard to concrete blocks.
Another phase of the matter is the opportunity that Wisconsin manu­
facturers have to dispose of inferior products in other States where
there are no regulations. This could be avoided by standard require­
By the standardization of allowable working stresses and of build­
ing material in general, the buying and building public would benefit
and a curb would be placed upon irresponsible designers and manu­
There are instances where State authorities do not wish to adopt
national codes because of their length. As an example of this we
may cite the power press code. Wisconsin’s requirement is contained
in a single order, but mention of the national code is made in a foot­
note, referring to it as a valuable source of information on the subject.
States making new safety regulations or revising existing require­
ments will assist to a large degree in promoting the national standard­
ization program if they will make free use of the national standards
that have already been prepared.
The National Safety Council through its A.S.S.E. engineering sec­
tion has had for a number of years a standing committee on research,
standards, and code, one of the principal functions of which is to
promote use of national safety standards.
That the American Standards Association appreciates the coopera­
tion that it is receiving from your organizations is indicated by the
following quotation taken from the association’s 1929 year book:
The State governments are also actively participating in the work. This co­
operation is chiefly through national organizations of State commissions. The
most active of these are the International Association of Industrial Accident
Boards and Commissions and the International Association of Governmental
Officials in Industry, through which the State governments are taking a leading
part in the entire safety-code program.

So far in this discussion no mention has been made of mechanical
guarding at the point of manufacture, although the bringing about of
this condition will undoubtedly be made much easier if uniform safety
standards are adopted.



There are a number of reasons why safety of operation of machinery
should be taken into consideration by the manufacturer, a few of
which are as follows:
1. A more workmanlike and finished job can be done at the factory
when the guarding is given consideration while the machine is in
process of design than can generally be done by the purchaser.
2. The purchaser dislikes very much to buy a new machine and
then have some inspector come along and inform him that he must
provide additional guards to make it comply with State requirements.
3. The complete guarding of a machine makes a good selling point
for the manufacturer.
4. A machine designed with safety of operation in mind is more
efficient than one not so designed.
For a number of years our department has been making use of a
small form upon which the inspector reports substandard conditions
found on new machines. On this form the inspector gives the
following information: Name of maker of the machine; address;
name of machine; name of manufacturer using machine; address;
suggestions for safeguarding.
Upon receipt of this information from the inspector a letter is
written to the machine builder calling attention to the ways in
which the machine in question does not comply with safety stand­
ards, pointing out to him some of the advantages of guarding before
selling and requesting his cooperation. In general the results
obtained have been very encouraging. Occasionally, however, a
reply is received that leads one to believe that not all manufacturers
are alive to the situation. A certain plant purchased a large and
expensive woodworking machine upon which there was an unguarded
sprocket chain and wheels. A letter to the manufacturer was referred
to the legal instead of the engineering department and brought
the reply, that since their machines were shipped to all parts of the
world it would be impossible to keep up to date on all of the various
guarding standards, and therefore they shipped without guards.
They completely overlooked the fact that proper guarding of this
sprocket chain and wheels would have passed muster in any country
regardless of their standards.
Only recently a bulk gasoline storage station employee, while
reaching for the clutch lever on a newly installed gasoline pump,
missed the lever and lost two fingers in the gears that were only
partially enclosed. Correspondence with the pump manufacturer
brought a reply enumerating the States where this pump was accept­
able as fully complying with safety requirements. Upon being in­
formed, however, that complete enclosure of gears wTas required, he
took steps to replace the guards on all recent installations. The
pity of it was that a person had to be permanently injured before
this was brought about, and besides his employer wras called upon
to pay additional compensation because a substandard condition was
the cause of the injury.
One frequent source of injuries is that caused by machine^ used
in highway construction, including quarry and gravel-pit outfits.
Most counties and contractors using this class of machinery are not
well equipped to do any guarding, particularly during the season
when it is used on the job.


1 9 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

For a number of years there has been a large working exhibit of
this kind of machinery in Madison during the annual road school
conducted by the Wisconsin Highway Commission. Each year it
has been our practice to make an inspection of tills equipment and
to write to the manufacturers, pointing out the respects in which it
did not meet the State safety requirements. The cooperation
received from these manufacturers has been very fine, and at their
request we have sent a man to their plants, even to other States, to
discuss with their engineering departments methods of safeguarding.
Whether this guarding is in all cases furnished as standard equipment
with machines sent to other States we do not know, but the improve­
ment in safety of machines furnished to Wisconsin purchasers has
been quite noticeable.
Another way in which buyers of machinery can secure guarding
by the manufacturer is to include specifications for safety along with
and on a par with other specifications. If such specifications are
sent out when asking for bids, all bids will be submitted on the same
basis. Safety specifications should be based upon practical and
recognized safety standards and should require that all machines
furnished must be equipped with properly designed, constructed, and
installed guards. In some cases it will be desirable to go into details
even more than this and state the guards desired.
The following table, compiled from United States census reports,
gives some information on the concentration in the manufacture of a
few important classes of machinery:
Proportion of United States total of specified classes of machinery manufactured in
States noted as leading producers , 1929 1

Classes of machinery manufacturers

Agricultural implements_________________
Electrical machinery_________ _________
Foundry and machine-shop products,
including woodworking and laundry
machinery__ ________________ _________
Machine tools______ ______ _______________
Prime movers________ ________ __ _
Textile machinery______ _________________
1 U.S. Department of Commerce.
No. 67.) Washington, 1932.

Num ­
ber of num­
estab­ ber of prod­
ments earn­




83.4 X




85.4 X X IX X
81.6 x X x
-- -


Manufacturing Market Statistics.


States classified as leading

Percent of United
States total

| California
| Connecticut
1 Indiana
1 Iowa
| Massachusetts
I Michigan
I New Hampshire
1 New Jersey
[ New York
1 Ohio
| Pennsylvania
i Rhode Island
, Wisconsin

N um ­
ber of
fied as



__X X X X
____X _




X x

(Domestic Commerce Series

It will be noticed from this table that 7 States produce in value
83.4 percent of the agricultural implements, 84.2 percent of the elec­
trical machinery, 74.6 percent of the machine tools, and 81.6 percent
of the prime movers of the United States. With this concentration
in a few States many of which are among the leaders in the safety
movement, it would not seem to be an insurmountable task for
industrial boards and commissions to make considerable progress in
securing cooperation from their respective State manufacturers of



In closing, I would like to urge upon your organizations the contin­
uing with even greater force of the support that you have given these
programs in the past, to the end that the day may soon come when
all safety standards will be national in scope and all machines guarded
at the point of manufacture.
Mr. P a t t o n . In a meeting of this body at Toronto Mr. Lewis
DeBlois read a paper embodying the experience obtained by corre­
spondence with every State in the United States. He wrote to each
of the States to get its safety requirements on a long list of pre­
scribed topics. The replies indicated a bewildering array of differ­
ences. For instance, why should a guard rail in one State be required
to be 36 inches high and a guard rail of precisely the same sort in
other States be 42 inches high? There are many such illustrations.
Mr. DeBlois was making the point that in order to stimulate the
manufacturers to safeguard machinery at its source, it would be
very helpful if the States, through their standard practice bodies,
should eliminate these minor and nonessential, and in a number of
cases perfectly useless, differences that now exist. In other words,
it would greatly strengthen the drive for manufacture of machinery
which would be safe, if the different States would get together even
more than they have done in the past in making safety requirements
standard. It is sometimes difficult for the manufacturer in making
a machine to have to build it in seven different ways because each
of seven different States has a different way of safeguarding it.
Chairman K e a r n s . I have always felt that an exposed gear, an
exposed set-screw, a shaft end, or any other piece of machinery that
is open is just as hazardous in one State as it is in another. If it is
strictly and satisfactorily guarded in one State I think the same re­
quirement should be used in the other States for proper protection to
the employees.
In Ohio in the last few years we have been endeavoring to make our
codes conform as closely as we could to the requirements of the A.S.A.
standards. I think all of the States should do that, so far as it is
possible. Of course, local conditions make it necessary sometimes to
adopt additional requirements or to modify the requirements, or, in
some cases, to make them more stringent, but on the whole it seems
to me that it would be to the advantage of everybody concerned if
these codes were standardized. I think we should all work to that
Dr. L l o y d . This is an old question that is brought up here today.
I think it was 10 years ago that I addressed this association on some­
what similar lines, pointing out the advantages of uniform require­
ments in the different States. This paper brings out something that
I think is perhaps a new idea to some of us, the part the State authori­
ties can play in obtaining better practice among the manufacturers.
It is true that there are varying requirements in the different States,
but in the case of the guard rail, a man who builds his guard rail 42
inches high meets the requirements of both the 42-inch State and the
36-inch State. When it comes to the guarding of gears, I do not think
there is any such differentiation that we can point out. A gear is
either enclosed or it is not enclosed. When enclosed it is safe,
73597°—34---- 7


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

Mr. Keown describes the practice that has been followed in Wis­
consin, and apparently it is getting results. I think we can get a
great deal more in the vray of results if that practice were copied in
other States. I think most State authorities are content to point out
to the owner of the establishment the ways in which his installation
fails to comply with the regulations, but Wisconsin is going farther
than that. It finds out who is the manufacturer of that equipment
and calls his attention to the defects and urges him to supply machin­
ery that will meet the requirements. If the manufacturers received
such requests as that from a great many of the States, I think it
would be much more effective in getting machinery guarded at the
point of manufacture, where it can be done much better than by
trying to apply the guard after installation. We would thus get a
more general supply of equipment that is thoroughly protected by the
manufacturer. Putting a guard on a machine after it is installed is
usually to some extent a patchwork job. If the manufacturers
would all build the guard into the machine it would give us much
better results. We would get them at less expense, because, taking
it all around, it is less expensive to do the thing right at the start. It
is perhaps not possible to sell the guarded machine at as low a price
as the unguarded machine, and there is not the incentive to the manu­
facturer to put on something to increase its cost. If, however, the
customer realizes that sooner or later he will have to pay that|expense
the manufacturer undoubtedly can sell the guarded machine in the
first place and it will be better guarded and better designed.
It seems to me that State officials can do quite a lot to bring that
about if they will follow Wisconsin’s practice of going to the manu­
facturer of the machinery in case anything is not sufficiently guarded.
Many manufacturers are already doing a good job on that. You see
over here at A Century of Progress and in other exhibits of machinery
numerous examples of machinery that are completely guarded by the
manufacturer. An effort is needed to bring the slipshod manufacturers
into line to do the same thing, and a little pressure from all sides might
accomplish more in that direction.
Chairman K e a r n s . Have you any idea, Dr. Lloyd, as to how many
States have a statutory requirement that machinery and equipment
shall be guarded in accordance with the requirements of the code of
the State before it is shipped into the State?
Dr. L l o y d . I do not know o f any State that has such definite
requirements. I suppose it might be possible to enforce that. On
second thought, I think that has been done in one or two States, but
I am not sure. I think possibly Minnesota has such a requirement.
Mr. K j a e r . I believe several laws cover the point that new machin­
ery installed must be guarded in a certain way.
Dr. L l o y d . I s it illegal to bring it into the State without the guards?
I think some State has started a movement in that direction, but I
am not positive of it. A requirement of that kind might be very
effective in getting results.
Mr. E l m e r F. A n d r e w s . I think the Federal Department of Labor
is very much interested in this subject. I know the American
Standards Association is. Perhaps there is a clearing house in Wash­
ington for information for all of the States so that there may be stand­
ardization in guarding machinery and in enabling legislation. It



would be fine if those interested would communicate with Miss
Perkins. I am sure she would be glad to hear of any suggestions and
whether the idea is thought to be a good one by the various States and
their representatives.
Mr. J o h n B. A n d r e w s (New York). I recall that more than 20 years
ago when industrial codes and the machinery-guarding proposition were
advanced, one of the strongest arguments raised in favor of the code was
its elasticity. In a State the representatives of the different interests
would serve on the code committee. They would draw up the safety
code through an educational process, and then as conditions changed
in industry from month to month it would be unnecessary to wait for
the next session of the legislature in order to make desirable modifica­
tions in the code. With the advance of the American Standards
Association code, I am wondering what has happened to elasticity on
a national basis. Can anyone throw any light upon how many of these
codes, when once established by the A.S.A., have been modified by
the same educational procedure after they have once been adopted?
Are we losing something of that educational effect in the development
of codes by the representative process within the State, with the
State’s expert assistance, or are these A.S.A. codes, as uniformly
adopted, being modified with the changes in industry? I have been
impressed with this a little in making a study of the advance of this
very important branch of labor legislation in the last 20 years. I find
that some States which have been rather inactive in the development
of safety codes have suddenly, within 1 year, adopted as many as 20
codes in a single State. I should like to know how many of the A.S.A.
codes have been frequently modified to meet new conditions.
Mr. S t e w a r t . S o far as the codes that have been sponsored by this
organization are concerned, there have been, I think, a number of
changes in every code with which I have had anything to do in the
past. Take the abrasive wheel code. There have been at least two
changes, and the association has just approved a third. I think that
is true of all the codes. Of course, in the nature of the thing, these
codes are looked after by the manufacturers’ associations— the manu­
facturers producing the machinery. If there is any proposed im­
provement in the machinery that necessitates a change in the code,
they see that a request is made that the code provides for that new
machinery. The sectional committees of the A.S.A. take up suggested
changes and perfect the code. I know especially that that one code
has been changed three times since it was adopted.
Mr. K j a e r . T w o of the States— Nebraska and Maryland— have
adopted the A.S.A. codes verbatim. I think they are the only two
that have done so. Nebraska specifies the A.S.A. codes where the
matter is not covered by other requirements of the State, and Mary­
land has adopted a number of them. Outside of that, not a single
code has been adopted that conforms exactly to the A.S.A. code.
There have been changes in the A.S.A. codes, some by amendment.
On the whole, the majority of the codes conform to the A.S.A. codes.
Some of the States use these codes only as a guide for their inspectors
instead of adopting them exactly. In these States the feeling is that
the codes are to be used to advise the employer instead of demanding
that he conform to the standard.
Dr. L l o y d . Dr. Andrews brought up a point that perhaps needs
further consideration, that is whether the adoption of the ready-made


1 9 3 3 MEETING OE A .G .O .t

code involves a loss in the educational process of the people who have
to live with that code within the State. I do not think the two things
are incompatible. In most of the States it is required by law that a
public hearing be had before the regulations are adopted. Frequently
there are local committees to draw up a code or at least to consider it
before it can be brought before a public hearing. It is my view that
full use can be made of these codes prepared on a national basis with­
out losing the advantage of the local discussion. If the national codes
are brought to the attention of the local committee, if they are used as
a basis for the local committee’s work, after full discussion in a public
hearing, if we could get into operation some machinery by which the
local committee would always get the benefit of the enormous amount
of work done on the subject before the national code has been pro­
mulgated, it would be very helpful. It would be extremely helpful,
when such committees are working in the several States and when
these public hearings are being held, if someone who has been
intimately connected with the development of the national codes
could be present to explain why some of these requirements are in the
code— requirements to which perhaps some local objection is made.
Experience can be related justifying those requirements and the
necessity of them pointed out.
Then we would have in practice a code that is locally prepared and
adapted; yet it would be substantially identical with the national
code, because the local committee would have the same reasons for
adopting the national code as the national committee had. In many
cases I know that codes or preliminary drafts of codes have been
altered by local committees or State committees, due to objections
raised in public hearings, because there was nobody present who
could explain why certain requirements were in the national code.
They are usually there for a good reason. It is the experience in
other States that justifies the requirement, and if, by hearing such
experience, the local committee could be satisfied that the requirement
is a good one, we would not have so many of these local variations.
I hope the American Standards Association will sometime be in
position to pay the necessary expenses of sending to any State that is
devloping a code, or having a local hearing, a man who can explain
why the national code is a good one and why it is to the advantage of
that State to adopt it verbatim or without making serious changes in
it. Usually there is a good reason for everything in it, but the local
people do not always know what that reason is.
Mr. K j a e r . That is just the reason the American Standards
Association codes were adopted in Nebraska. There was a member
of the staff of the American Standards Association in Nebraska. He
interviewed those people and showed them the desirability of the
national codes. Consequently the codes were adopted verbatim.
Miss J o h n s o n (Massachusetts). When we were adopting the light­
ing code the Federal Bureau of Standards sent Dr. Lloyd to speak
at the public hearing on the code. While the code adopted was not
identical with that of the American Standards Association, it was a
lot more like it than otherwise would have been the case.
Chairman K e a r n s . We are all agreed, I think, that standardization
is a good thing and that we should all do what we can to bring it about.
I think also that we feel it advisable, where it can be done, to have all
machinery and equipment guarded in accordance with the require-



m ents of the State regulations before it is shipped into the State.
do n ot have such a law in O hio, b u t we are attem p tin g to overcom e
th a t b y contacting the em ployers of the State and asking them to
write into their purchase orders a proviso th at the m achinery or
equipm ent m u st conform to the requirem ents of the Ohio law.
As a
result, we have had frequent requests from m anufacturers of m achinetool equipm ent in a num ber of States throughout the U n ion.
M any
of our em ployers are carrying ou t th at idea.
[The follow ing resolution, which was drafted for consideration and
possible action b y b oth the I .A .I .A .B .C . and the A .G .O .I ., was read
b y M r . P a tto n :]

Resolved, by the I.A.I.A.B.C. and the A.G.O.I. in joint convention, that it be
recommended to the National Recovery Administration that some such clause as
the following be included in each of the industrial codes:
Every employer coming under the jurisdiction of this code shall comply with all
safety and health laws and regulations of the State in which the wrork place is
located. In all occupations in which workmen are not protected by State laws
or regulations the employer shall comply with provisions of any standard safety
code approved by the American Standards Association which provides protection
against any hazard encountered in such occupation.
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to General Hugh S.
Johnson, Administrator of the National Industrial Recovery Act.
M r . P a t t o n . T here has been a great deal of discussion as to the
safety provisions, or lack of safety provisions, in the N .R .A . codes,
and this resolution is p u t forward for consideration as to whether or
n ot it is the opinion of these two bodies th at all such codes should
include the sta tem en t th at the State safety and health laws and
regulations should be observed, and th at insofar as there was no State
safety law in effect the em ployers should com p ly w ith the safety code
approved b y the A m erican Standards Association.
[A m otion to adopt the resolution was m ade and seconded. There
was considerable discussion as to the propriety of such a resolution
from the join t session of the I .A .I .A .B .C . and the A .G .O .I . before the
m otion was p u t to a vote and carried.]
[The m eth od of transm itting the resolution to General Johnson was
discussed, follow ed b y a m otion , duly seconded, instructing the secre­
taries of the tw o organizations to act jo in tly in sending the resolution.
T h e question of including the C o n su m ers’ A d v iso ry B oard in the
resolution was also discussed, after w hich the m otion was p u t to a
vote and carried.]
[M eetin g adjourned.]

Chairm an, A . W . C raw ford, deputy m inister D epartm ent o f L abor o f O ntario

C h airm an C raw ford . B e fo re calling on the first speaker it m ig h t
be well to la y before you briefly a few o f the facts concerning m in i­
m u m -w age law s in C anada.
E ig h t o f the nine P rovinces in the D om in io n have m in im u m -w age
law s fo r fem ale workers, although the act o f N ew B ru n sw ick has
not yet been proclaim ed. I n only one P rovin ce, n am ely, B ritish
C olum bia, is there a m ale m in im u m -w age act. W h e n this law was
first enacted only tw o orders were issued, covering m ale em ployees
in the catering and the lum bering industries. A lm o st im m ediately
trouble arose in connection w ith the lum bering in dustry and the law
had to be changed. A new act was passed in 1929 under which one
order, affecting stationary engineers, has been issued. I n tw o P r o v ­
inces am endm ents to legislation make certain provisions fo r m ale
workers. T h e M in im u m -W a g e A c t o f M anitoba covers boys under
18 years o f age in certain occupations.
Representatives fro m the Province o f Quebec are w ith us, and I
expect they w ill speak fo r themselves. O w in g to recent conditions,
m ost o f the P rovinces have fe lt it necessary to reduce slig h tly the
rates fo r wom en and girls. In B ritish Colum bia a 10 percent re­
duction was put into effect in certain trades, in clu ding the fru it
and vegetable canning industry. I n A lb erta an order fo r a 10
percent reduction was passed, but was later rescinded because it
was thou ght conditions were im p rovin g. I n Saskatchew an a tem ­
p orary reduction o f 10 percent was authorized in M arch 1932. In
the Province o f N o v a Scotia the m in im u m -w age board, rather than
issue any special order, notified em ployees that in the opinion o f the
board it w ould be advisable to w ork fo r sligh tly low er than the
m in im u m required by law rather than to find them selves out o f em ­
ploym en t, or to inflict w h at m ig h t be considered an undue h a rd ­
ship on certain em ployers, but no order was issued.
I n the Provinces o f Quebec and O n tario, after consultation be­
tween the boards, it wTas agreed th at i f at all possible they w ould
m ain tain the m in im u m rates established d uring n orm al tim es, or
w hat m a y be term ed norm al tim es. In these two P rovinces a very
earnest effort is b eing m ade to m aintain w age rates fo r g irls and
women which w ould give a decent standard o f liv in g or at least a
m inim um standard o f liv in g d uring ordinary tim es, and I believe
it is safe to say th at a fa ir measure o f success is being attained m
both Provinces. There are exceptions. Speakin g fo r the Province
o f O n tario, I can say w ithout fear o f contradiction th at in m ost o f
the industries the m in im u m -w age rates are being volu n tarily m a in ­
tained by em ployers w ithout any undue pressure fro m the board.
I n some industries, how ever, where there is keen com petition, where
the price o f the goods m anufactured has been greatly reduced, and



where the in dustry is not w ell organized, it is becom ing increasingly
difficult to m aintain the w age rates. F o r exam ple, all branches o f
the needle trades are finding it very difficult at the present tim e to
m aintain decent w age rates fo r their fem ale em ployees. O f course,
m any excuses are offered, but I believe that the ch ief reason fo r
this condition is lack o f organization in the in dustry itse lf and lack
o f confidence on the p art o f the em ployers in their com petitors.
I t is unnecessary to go in to detail regard in g the laws. I f any o f
you have questions regard in g the nature o f the legislation, the
am ount o f the w ages, or any master o f th at kin d, I shall be very
g la d to answer them i f I can. W o u ld you care to sa}^ an yth in g,
M r. T rem b lay , regardin g the P rovince o f Quebec ?
M r . T r e m b l a y (Q u e b e c ). Y o u have covered the groun d, M r .
C raw fo rd.
In the P rovin ce o f Quebec, as in O n tario, wTe feel it is very h ard,
especially in the needle trades, to enforce our regulations and o r­
ders, but we have decided to sue the em ployers w ho did not com ­
p ly w ith the orders. I think that, on account o f this policy, which
has been advanced by the H o n . M r . A rc a n d , our orders are n ot too
bad ly respected now.
O u r orders actually cover 14 or 15 general industries.
restaurants are not yet covered, and thou gh our legislation entitles
us to cover the girl and w om an em ployees in commerce, because o f
the crisis, no orders have been adopted by the com m ission. W e feel
that it was a very good th in g to have a m eeting between the O n tario
com m ission and the Quebec com m ission, and to decide not to decrease
the rates o f wages fo r girls and wom en. W e hope th at the crisis
is nearly over and th a t it w ill n ot be necessary to lower the rate
o f wages, which is not so h ig h as to perm it any im portant reduction.
O u r statistics reveal that 40,000 girls are actually protected by
our different orders, and th at the average wages fo r girls in m ost
o f the industries is about $13— between $12 and $13— and th at it is
a little bit higher than the m inim um .
M iss J o h n s o n (N ew H a m p sh ir e ). I should like to ask i f there is
any tendency tow ard the inclusion o f men under the wage orders
in other Provinces, besides B ritish C olu m bia?
C h airm an C rawtford . I m eant to m ention that. I n the P rovince
o f A lb erta the m atter was given careful consideration, and in 1926
its law was amended to elim inate exploitation o f men and boys
when replacing girls or wom en. T h e law now provides th at in any
industry where an order has been issued govern in g the w age rates
o f fem ale em ployees, and the em ployer undertakes to replace fem ale
workers by m ales, either men or boys, the w age rate m ust not be less
than that fo rm erly paid to the fem ale em ployees. T h a t am endm ent
is being considered now by some o f the other Provinces, because it
has been fou nd th at there is a tendency on the part o f certain
em ployers— in restaurants, etc.— to take in men and boys and pay
them less than the m in im u m rate required fo r girls. A lb e rta , h ow ­
ever, is the only P rovince w hich has actually taken steps to prevent
such exploitation.



M iss J o h n s o n . I wonder i f the depression b rou gh t m en ’s wages
dow n in some industries so th at such action was needed in the interest
o f protecting them .
C h airm an C r aw fo r d . T h a t is rather a difficult question to answer.
T h e p olicy o f both organized labor and organized em ployers until
the present tim e has been against any governm ent regulation o f
wages. T h e unions have alw ays fe lt th at they could control their
wages m uch better th an the G overnm ent, because there is a tendency
fo r th e G overnm en t m in im u m to become the m a x im u m or the
standard rate. N o w , I w ould say, there is a different feelin g , and
i f organized labor could be assured th at it w ou ld be a tem porary
measure on ly, it m ig h t be possible fo r the governm ents to enact such
legislation. I feel that the sentim ent in Canada is n ot yet sufficiently
favorable to w arrant any governm ent in passing legislation cover­
in g all m ale em ployees. T hose w ho are affected feel th at they should
be protected. E v e ry day m en come in to m y office w an tin g to know
w hy the G overnm en t does n ot protect the w ages o f men and boys.
O n the other han d, i f we announced th at we were g oin g to introduce
such legislation I am quite sure w e w ou ld have large deputations
protesting against it. T h o se who feel that the depression is about
over are n ot now ready to give up their form er righ ts.
M iss J o h n s o n . There is no question o f constitutionality involved
w ith you, as there m ig h t be in the U n ited States, on in clu ding men
in the m in im u m -w age provision ?
C h airm an C r aw fo r d . N o question o f constitutionality th at I know
o f.
M iss S w e t t (W is c o n s in ). Y o u have no constitution to g o against,
have you ?
C h airm an C r aw ford . O h , yes, we have. T h e B ritish N o rth A m e r ­
ica A c t is our constitution. W e have as m uch difficulty on con­
stitutional grounds between the P rovin cial and the D om in ion
G overnm ents as you have between you r State and F ed eral G overn ­
M r. T r e m b l a y . I m ig h t add also th at in the P rovin ce o f Quebec
we receive a great num ber o f dem ands fro m in d ividu als to establish
m in im u m w ages fo r m en, b u t the governm ent is a fra id o f enter­
in g this ground because our m in im u m -w age com m ission fo r wom en
finds that, especially in depression tim e, it is very hard to enforce
all the orders in a satisfactory m anner, and i f we were to survey all
the p ay rolls o f the em ployers w ho em p loy m en, we w ould have
to increase our staff very largely. E v e n then, I am quite sure th at
we could not check everybody.
W e feel that w hile m en m ay organize easily, wom en do so w ith
T h e w om an generally enters into in dustry fo r a very
b rief time— fo r 3 or 4 years— especially in the P rovin ce o f Quebec,
then she gets m arried. She has n ot a very large interest in in dus­
try . A lth o u g h m en are n ot in the same situation, they are con­
vinced th at they ou gh t to organize in dustry as to w ages, so as to
find in their p ay sufficient fo r liv in g . T h is is the condition which
we are facin g. I n the last few weeks especially we received a very
strong and u rgent dem and fro m lum berjacks. R ates o f w ages, in



the w ood in dustry, are actually low , on account o f the price o f pulp
and paper, but we th in k, a fter a conference we h ad w ith repre­
sentatives o f the b ig com panies, th a t-th e rates o f w ages this fa ll
and w inter w ill be better and th at the feelin g fo r a m in im u m w age
fo r m en w ill disappear as soon as conditions as to wages are better.
M iss J o h n s o n . H a v e new orders covering new occupations been
entered to any extent in the P rovinces d u rin g the period o f depres­
C h airm an C r aw fo r d . O n ly one order th at I know o f in the P r o v ­
ince o f O n tario and th a t was a rather unusual one covering fem ale
bootblacks or shoeshiners. I believe the P rovince o f Quebec has
issued orders.
M r . T r e m b l a y . I n the fo o d in dustry— biscuits, chocolates, etc.
C hairm an C r aw fo r d . I am n ot sufficiently fa m ilia r w ith the other
P rovinces to answer.
D r . P a t t o n (N ew Y o r k ) . A r e all o f the C anadian m in im u m -w age
acts based on the cost o f liv in g , or do you also have this addition al
phrase th at has ju st come into use in the U n ited States w ithin the
last year w ith reference to oppressively low w ages, “ or fa ir and
reasonable p ay fo r the services rendered 55? M y im pression is th at
your acts are based on standard o f liv in g , aren’t they %
C h airm an C r aw fo r d . T h a t is true, D r . P atto n . T h e basis is the
cost o f liv in g ; but, speaking fo r the P rovin ce o f O ntario o n ly,
when the rates were first established a very carefu l survey was m ade
o f the actual cost o f liv in g fo r girls, and the w age rate which should
have been established was about $2.50 higher than th at w hich was
actually established after m a k in g the survey. G o in g into the ques­
tion very ca refu lly , the board m et the representatives o f the em p lo y ­
ers and o f the em ployees, and it was agreed th at a lower rate was
desirable, so th at the m in im u m set varied fr o m $8 to $12.50. W h e n
the cost o f liv in g w ent dow n the rate was m aintained. W h e n the
cost o f liv in g began to go up again in 1928 and 1929, it was still
m aintained, but at th at tim e, to fo llo w the index o f the cost o f liv in g ,
it should have been about $16.
A t present, the cost o f liv in g is dow n again, and i f we were to f o l­
low the index we w ould be reducing the rate in the Province o f O n ­
tario, but the em ployers have been persuaded th at it is better to
m ain tain existin g rates fo r the sake o f stability. W h ile the basis
o f rates is cost o f liv in g , in actual practice there is a m ore or less
stable rate which w ill be am ended only at fa ir ly lo n g intervals.
M r . M agntjsson (W a sh in g to n , D .C .) . Y o u have no slidin g scale
cost o f liv in g fo r w ages?
C h airm an C r aw fo r d . N o . I f there are no other questions we w ill
have our first paper. D r . E . S . S m ith , the chairm an o f the com m it­
tee on m in im u m w ages and com m issioner o f the D ep artm en t o f
L ab o r and In du stries o f M assachusetts, is unable to be here, but he
has asked th at a m em ber o f the com m ittee present his report. M rs.
K in n e y fro m C a lifo rn ia , who has had considerable experience in
this typ e o f legislation , has k in d ly consented to present M r . S m ith ’s

19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.



E d w in


S m it h ,


(R e a d by M rs. M abel K in n e y )

The committee on minimum-wage laws asks that it be continued for another
year and that its final report be made to the 1934 convention of the Associa­
tion of Governmental Labor Officials. The reasons for this request are given
briefly below.
Since last year’s convention authorizing the appointment of a committee to
draft a model minimum wage law to be submitted first to this present conven­
tion and later to the States, there have been a number of unexpected and im­
portant developments in the field of minimum-wage legislation.
The National Industrial Recovery Act has for the period of its duration made
it incumbent upon industries engaged in interstate business to establish mini­
mum wages both for male and female employees. In practice it begins to ap­
pear likely that almost every form of industry, including those usually thought
of as intrastate, will come under the N.I.R.A. provisions. By this legislation
the principle of minimum wages nationally applied has suddenly been trans­
formed from a pious, although seemingly futile, wish to an undoubted reality.
The inclusion of men within the provisions of a national minimum-wage
law is a definite assertion of the police authority of government over the
wages paid to the members of the sex hitherto commonly regarded as not
requiring and not entitled to such protection. Of the greatest significance to
the future of activity on behalf of minimum wage is the fact that this national
legislation apparently derives less from the principle of society’s duty to pro­
tect oppressed workers than it does from economic considerations; namely,
the desire to equalize competitive conditions between units of the same industry
located in different States and recognition of the fact that raising the level of
wages increases purchasing power and so may be expected to contribute im­
portantly to industrial recovery.
State legislation on minimum wage has also taken a marked forward spurt
in the last year. After a decade of timidity about minimum wage, bred of
the 1922 Supreme Court decision, a number of States have decided to risk a
constitutional veto by establishing minimum wages within their borders. New
York was the first State to adopt the standard bill advocated by the National
Consumers’ League, a bill which had been designed to overcome the expressed
constitutional objections to the ill-fated District of Columbia law. Substan­
tially the same bill was passed by New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut,
Ohio, and Illinois, while Utah passed a statute modeled on that of California.
None of these laws has as yet been challenged on constitutional grounds,
nor has experience under them been sufficient to judge fairly of their results
or to discover possible weak points. Certainly until there has been such
experience it would seem unwise to propose still another model law or even
to suggest modifications in the New York statute and those patterned on it.
The results of the national legislation on minimum wage should be care­
fully studied and your committee, when it makes its final report, should be
prepared to face frankly two important questions:
1. Is it desirable to include men within the scope of minimum-wage
2. Should future efforts be directed toward spreading minimum wage by
State law, by interstate action, or by the effort to perpetuate some form of
Federal control?



M rs. K i n n e y (C a lifo r n ia ). I f I can answer any questions I shall
be very h ap p y to do so.
D r . P a t t o n . I should like to ask M rs. K in n e y — m aybe this is not
quite fa ir— whether or n ot she feels that the latest m odel m inim um w age law is on the whole more desirable or less desirable than the
C a liforn ia type o f law .
M rs. K i n n e y . D r . P a tto n , I feel th at there are m any phases o f
the new law that are fa r ahead o f the C a lifo rn ia law . W e hope at
the next session o f our legislature, i f we find the conditions are such
that we dare to, to rem odel our own law . W e hoped to do it th is
tim e, but because o f the m ovem ent fo r abolishm ent o f the departm ent
we fe lt we had better leave w ell enough alone and figh t to keep w hat
we had. W e have fou n d , however, that a great m any things about
our law are out o f the qu estion ; they are passe.
I also think there are some th in gs in this new law that probably
we all agree are not the best, but it is certainly an im provem ent.
D r . P a t t o n . I s the C a lifo rn ia law based solely on cost o f liv in g ?
M rs. K

in n e y .

Solely fo r self-su p p ortin g independent women.

D r . P a t t o n . W h a t is your present feelin g as to the new phrase—
I cannot quote it exactly— “ fa ir and reasonable return fo r services
rendered ” ?
M rs. K i n n e y . W e think it has a good m any difficulties and is quite
com plicated.
O ur attorney general thinks it could be challenged.
H e w ould not w ant us to use th a t ; what he w ould advise we do n ot
D r . P a t t o n . I do not know w hat that phrase m eans. H o w w ould
one go about a determ ination o f a “ fa ir and reasonable return fo r
services rendered ” ?
M rs. K i n n e y . O ur attorney general has said it is subject to a great
deal o f criticism all the w ay through. I t would be one opinion
against another.
M r . M a g n u s s o n . Is that any m ore com plicated than to determine
what is a “ fa ir and reasonable m onopoly ” , as the Suprem e Court
has said?
M iss S w e t t . W h a t did you m ean by a “ self-su p p o rtin g inde­
pendent w om an ? ”
M rs. K i n n e y . W e m ean b y th at a w om an who is absolutely alone
in the w orld, w ith no one to help her, and who does not need to help
anyone else. W e had to take some standard, and th at is w hat we
M iss S w e t t . D oes you r law cover home w ork?
M rs. K

in n e y .

W e have no home work w ithout a special perm it.

M iss S w e t t . Suppose the people who wanted to give out home
w ork claim ed th at the wom en were doing th at ju st as p artial
support ?
M rs. K i n n e y . W e do not have home w ork to deal w it h ; we h av§
abolished it.
M iss S w e t t . T h en you are not bothered by it ?


M rs. K

in n e y .

W e were, th ou gh.

M iss S w e t t . Y o u w ould be, under th at phrasin g, I th in k.
M rs. K

in n e y .

W e certainly w ould.

T h a t was a difficult problem .

M iss S w e t t . T h a t was the kin d o f a claim th ey m ade in our State
when we insisted th at the hom e-w ork rate should be sufficient to yield
to the average w orker the rate set up in the order fo r the experienced
worker in a factory. T h a t was one o f the claim s th ey set u p , but
we d id n ot listen to it.
M rs. K

in n e y .

W e have heard th at a good m a n y tim es before.

M iss J o h n s o n . W isco n sin is really a pioneer in this fa ir-w a g e le g ­
islation. I w onder i f the secretary w ould tell us som ething about
W isc o n sin ’s experience. H a v e n ’t you been at it since 1925?
M iss S w e t t . Y e s , but perhaps we have dodged the issue on w hat
is a “ fa ir and reasonable com pensation fo r services rendered.”
D r . P a t t o n . I s th at in your la w ?
M iss S w e t t . T he m in im u m -w age la w , w hich was based on the cost
o f liv in g , applied to both wom en and m inors. W e am ended the law
so fa r as it applied to adu lt w om en, because one firm h ad secured
an in ju nction to prevent us fro m en forcin g m in im u m w ages for
adult wom en in its p lan t. T o prevent th a t g o in g fu rth er, and to
prevent attacks on the constitutionality o f the law , we rew orded it
and elim inated adu lt wom en fro m the c o st-o f-liv in g provision o f the
law , m a k in g th at provision ap p ly to m inors only. So we really have
2 law s, 1 fo r m inors based on the cost o f liv in g and 1 for
adult w om en, which says th ey shall be p aid a “ reasonable and ade­
quate return fo r the services rendered ” and also takes into account
the financial ability o f the em ployer to p a y this w age. I f an em ­
p lo y er’s in ability to p a y the required w age comes fro m his ow n ineffi­
cient m anagem ent, then he cannot claim exem ption on account o f
such financial in ability.
T h a t looks like an im possible set-up to get anyw here w ith , but
we have said th at at least one o f the elements in the reasonableness
and adequacy o f the rate w ould be th at it yield a cost o f liv in g .
So we have said to the e m p lo y e r : “ I f you w ill p a y the rates that
are prescribed under the liv in g -ra te order, then we w ill n ot raise
the issue as to whether you r rates are reasonable and adequate.
I f you do not, we w ill have to .”
Y o u m a y th in k we could n ot tell about the efficiency o f an em ­
p loyer, but it is su rprisin g the num ber o f things th a t an inspection
w ill reveal.
F o r instance, 2 years ago one o f the em ployers o f
wom en to pick chickens insisted th at he could not p ay the required
rate o f 25 cents an hour and com pete w ith other establishm ents
in the S tate which em ployed wom en to pick chickens. W e checked
on all the p lants where wom en were pick in g chickens, and we fou nd
that there were a num ber o f th in gs th is em ployer w as not doin g in
the m ost efficient w ay. W e fo u n d th at he did stab the chickens in
the eyes so th a t the p m feathers w ould be loosened easily, but th at he
scalded them by a very o ld -fash ion ed m ethod, and also th a t he had
each w om an pickin g chickens go to the inspector and w ait to have her
chicken inspected, instead o f p u ttin g it on a conveyor. W e fou n d
th at each w om an was losin g about an hour a day. W h e n you are
w ork in g on a piece rate, an hour a d ay d oing n oth in g m akes a lo t o f



difference. W e suggested some th in gs th at he m ig h t do, which did
im prove his rates, but he insisted th at he was entitled to a hearing.
W e gave h im a h earin g, and it came out in the h earin g th at the
m an who was u rg in g h im to say he could not p a y the w om en 25
cents an hour was his lan dlord. W e also fo u n d th at his lan dlord
was asking h im a m uch higher rent than anybody else in the n eigh ­
borhood was p ay in g . W e s a id : “ Y o u r rem edy is not cu ttin g the
wages o f the wom en, but g ettin g a low er ren tal.” W e did not allow
h im to p ay a low er rate. W e said th at he was not d oing his w ork in
a sufficiently efficient w ay to have us take cognizance o f the fa ct
that he could n ot p ay 25 cents.
T h en we had th at question come up in the cloth in g in dustry—
overalls and other kinds o f clothing.
T h e em ployers sa id : “ O u r
books are o p e n ; we w ill show you how m uch we lose.” T h e books,
how ever, showed th at the president o f the concern was gettin g $200
fo r serving as president, but g iv in g no service. T h e em ployer said
$10 a week was enough fo r any w om an, and th at he w ould be h ap p y
i f he g ot $10 ou trigh t, but the books show ed th a t he was g ettin g
$300 a m onth. T h is in form ation was included in the report, and
when the com m ission said, “ Y o u are entitled to a hearing, b u t you
m ay w ant to give attention to the statem ents in the report, to be
ready to answer questions as to w h y the president was gettin g $200
a m onth and g iv in g no service, and w h y you are gettin g $300 ” ,
he did not ask fo r a hearing.
W e really have, I suppose, dodged the issue in th at— we have not
yet stated w hat is reasonable and adequate fo r different industries.
T h a t is w h y I said the other d ay, in the conference on m in im u m
w ages, th at we m a y have to revise our m ethod and not have a w age
th at applies to all industries alike, except fo r a variation fo r size
o f loca lity , as we d o, but m a y have to issue orders on the in dustry
M rs. K i n n e y . I should like to inquire h ow m an y States feel
that they w ould prefer m ore th an one w age in the S tate, or ju st the
one w age fo r all industries?
M r . S m ith has tried his best to get
an answer to th at question. I th in k M iss A n d erson is qualified to
answer t h a t ; I wonder i f she w ould like to ?
M iss A nderson (W a sh in g to n , D .C .) . I do not believe I
answer t h a t ; I th in k the States should answer that.


M rs. K i n n e y . W e w ould like to know how the different States
feel about that. T h en , too, do you feel that h av in g a different w age
fo r the same in dustry in different localities is a good idea, or should
we have a certain rate fo r , say, restaurants in all tow ns o f any size
in the State. H o w do you feel about th at ? I s that d iscrim in atin g ?
O u r attorney general tells us th at in C a lifo rn ia we can get into
a lot o f trouble on the line o f discrim ination. W e had one firm
we were g o in g to take in to court, and had a lot o f trouble keeping
th at issue out o f court. D o you feel th at is dangerous or w hat do
you feel is dangerous?
M iss S w e t t . I suppose th at is som ew hat dangerous unless you
base it on the cost o f li v i n g ; you m a y have to do that. O n the other
han d, the canning in dustry in our State is located alm ost entirely
in the sm aller tow ns— tow ns o f under 5 ,0 0 0 ; the rate is 2 y 2 cents
less in such tow ns than in towns o f over 5,000. I n good tim es you


19 3 3



A .G .O .I .

do not hear any com plaints fro m the other canners, but these last
2 or 3 years we have had com plaints fro m the canners in the towns
where they h ad to p ay the higher rate. I n good tim es, they said,
they did n ot m in d , but now 2 y2 cents an hour makes a b ig difference.
I suppose when the g oin g rate gets above the m in im u m you do
not hear about it, but when the g oin g rate gets dow n to the m in im u m
then you do, and it m ig h t cause trouble.
M r . M a g n u ss o n . I wonder i f it w ould be h elp fu l to observe th at
when the G overnm ent establishes the m in im u m w age, it has the
social p oint o f view ? I f you b rin g in these other considerations—
good g oin g rate, com petition— you are entering into the field o f
private business and the cost o f production. B u t fr o m the point
o f view o f the w hole, w hich brings in the social or ethical aspect,
you r safest basis, it seems to m e, is the cost o f liv in g . I f you want
to make adjustm ents fro m tim e to tim e, you r m ethod is th at o f the
slidin g scale, in w hich you m ake a change, up or dow n, whenever
the cost o f liv in g changes one w ay or the other— 5 percent, 10 per­
cent, or w hatever percent seems to you m ost reasonable. In asm u ch
as you know you r figures are not very accurate, probably a 10
percent change— certainly n ot less than a 5 percent change— w ould
ju s tify a change in the scale one w ay or the other. B y the costo f-liv in g m ethod you avoid m ost o f the argum ents w ith producers
about the cost o f production, com petitors, etc., and say th at you
are operating on the basis o f hum an needs and necessities.
M iss A n derson . M a y I say, in regard to the question o f m in im u m
wages based on localities or the num ber o f people in localities, th at
is a very dangerous th in g. O f course, when you take cost o f liv in g
into consideration you really have to th in k o f th at, but I know in
one national code— the cannery code, not the final code but the
tentative code— one m an called m e up and s a id : “ W h a t do you
th in k o f th is, we are setting a w age o f [ I th in k it was 25 cents]
in tow ns over 250,000, and in towns less than 250,000 we are setting
w^ages at 20 cents an h o u r ?” A n d I said, “ W e ll, th at exem pts all
the canneries. Y o u w on ’t find the canneries in tow ns o f 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 .”
H e said, “ W e ll, th at is so, isn’t it? ” A n d I said, “ Y o u probably
w ill find them in tow ns o f less than 2 ,0 0 0 ; in fa ct, some o f them
you w ill find where there are no towns at a ll.”
I t is that sort o f th in g that is very dangerous, I th in k, because
sometimes you elim inate the whole industry by ta lk in g about local­
ities. Besides th at, I th in k it is a question o f whether or not there
should be any differentiation between the N o rth and the South.
T h e cost o f liv in g in the cities o f the South is ju st as h ig h as in the
cities o f the N orth . W h e n people talk about the Sou th , they are
th in k in g , o f course, o f the little villages. W e have A tla n ta , N ew
O rlean s, and all kinds o f b ig cities in the South, and this differentia­
tion o f $1 a week or $2 a week less fo r the South, it seems to m e,
should not enter into a m in im u m w age or in to a code at all. I f the
question is that this shall give purchasing pow er to the people, so that
stability in in dustry m ay prevail or shall return, then it seems to me
there is no reason at all fo r any differentiation o f th at kind. Besides,
it is very u n fa ir, because com petition again creeps in so fa r as
wages and hours are concerned, and o f course this u n fa ir com peti­
tion has been the b ig issue in the whole question in the last 3 years.

M I N I M U M -W A G E


L A W S ----- D IS C U S S IO N

T h e m inute we begin to talk about differentiations as to localities
and differentiations in wages as between men and wom en— any d i f ­
ferentiation along th at line in a national code— it seems to me that
we are on very dangerous groun d, because we are n ot doing the
th in g we set out to do, which is to elim inate cut-th roat com petition.
Besides th at, the m inute we pu t into a nation al code these differ­
entiations it is alm ost im possible to enforce them .
M r . M a g n u s s o n . H a v e you noticed the m ethods which the N .R .A .
is now adopting on th at? I t has introduced a tim e element to avoid
the issue o f d iscrim in atin g between N o rth and Sou th , saying the
wage shall be so and so, provided it was less or greater than the
w age o f 1 9 2 9 ; thus it accepts the economic structure o f the prosperity
days and works fro m th at basis, and is not called upon to d iscrim i­
nate between N o rth , S ou th , E a st, and W e s t, sm all or large com m un i­
ties, as the case m ay be.
T h e second point I w anted to make on the previous discussion
is th at the whole question o f boards and m achinery is the m ost im ­
portan t th in g, even more im portant than the principle upon which
you base your wages. I think the trade-union m ovem ent is a good
illustration o f th at fa c t ; it is the m achinery they have built up th at
is g iv in g v ita lity to the codes in those industries where there are
w ell-k n it unions. T h e first step, I should say, to any consideration o f
the m in im u m w age is the creation o f boards, here, there, in different
industries and localities, all along the line. O f course it w ill be com ­
plicated. W e cannot avoid com plicated m a ch in ery ; very little sim ­
plification is possible. O ne cannot overstate the difficulty in th at
respect. T h a t is the first step.
M iss S w e t t . M iss A n d erson , do you think th at i f your definition
o f “ em ployer ” is inclusive enough to take in any emplo}^er, you
w ould run into th at danger o f com plete exem ption in the sm aller
com m unities ?
M iss A

n d e r so n .

O h , yes.

M iss S w e t t . W e ll, you see that is w hat we have.
takes in dom estic service.
M rs. K

in n e y .



O u r definition

m any States do take in dom estic service ?

M iss S w e t t . I guess ours is the only one.
M iss A n d e r so n . Y ou have done it because you included all em ­
ployers, but n ot because the law specifically states a dom estic
service ? ”
M iss S w e t t . T h e law says “ any em ployer ” , so where the relation
o f em ployer and em ployee enters in , the m in im u m -w age law applies
and th at includes dom estic service as w ell as an yth in g else.
M iss J o h n s o n . T h e m in im u m fa ir-w a g e law s adopted this year
include in their scope, in every case, I th in k, any occupation, trade,
or business, w ith the exception o f dom estic service in the home o f
the em ployer and fa r m labor.
I was very much interested in what M r. M agn u sson said a little
earlier in the session w ith regard to cost o f liv in g being an im portant
fou ndation in the m in im u m wage. O f course, the m in im u m fa ir w age law s which have recently been enacted represent a specific at­
tem pt to meet the objection raised by M r . Justice Sutherland in the



D istrict o f C olum bia case as to the unconstitutionality o f m andatory
m in im u m -w age legislation based on the cost o f livin g . I t is inter­
esting, I th in k, th at w hile this law’ was d rafted w ith the specific
attem pt to get around th at and to avoid h avin g the m in im u m w age
based on the cost o f liv in g , it does include cost o f liv in g in the defini­
tion o f the u n fa ir, oppressive w age. I t could n ot elim inate th a t in
defining w h at is an oppressive wage, as the law states th a t it is less
than a fa ir and ju st return, and less than the m in im u m cost o f liv in g
necessary. S o the cost o f liv in g w ould presum ably be a factor in the
decision o f the adm inistrative body as to whether a substantial n u m ­
ber o f w om en and m inors in an occupation were receiving an u n fa ir,
oppressive w age, and whether a wage law should be established.
A g a in , in recent determ inations the w age board is authorized to
take into consideration various factors— w h at are fa ir wages being
paid by other em ployers in the lo ca lity , and also w h at factors a
ju d ge w ould take into consideration in a dispute as to w h at were fa ir
w ages, in cases where fa ir w ages were n ot p aid. P resu m ably, where
there is a dispute as to w ages, the cost o f liv in g is a fa cto r th a t is
considered, so th at in directly, even in case o f w age boards, there is
the p ossibility o f th at being considered, am ong other factors, in
connection w ith determ ining w hat is an u n fa ir and oppressive w age
or w hat is a m in im u m fa ir w age.
A g a in , too, i f , in the statute which authorizes the board i f it sees
fit to provide separate rates fo r different locations, such differentiation
were m ade, it w ould have to be on the basis o f differences in the
cost o f liv in g in different localities. So although this measure is a
specific attem pt to avoid reference to the cost o f liv in g , it is included,
both directly and in directly.
M r . M agntjsson . I s not consultation w ith the people a fa cto r in the
reasonableness o f the w age in the eyes o f the Suprem e C ou rt?
M iss J o h n s o n . I should presum e so.
M r . R a u sh e n b t js h (W is c o n s in ). I should like to have com m ents
both b y M r . M agn u sson and M iss A n d erson on the differences in
localities. T h e idea I have in m ind is t h is : there m a y be genuine
differences in the cost o f liv in g , and i f a u n iform w age rate is fixed
fo r large and Tor sm all localities you do n ot in fa c t have a correct
representation o f social cost o f liv in g in those different localities,
and are encouraging, rather than discouragin g, the centralization o f
I should like to know how both those fo lk s w ould com m ent on th at
p oint, realizin g the dangers and differences in the S ou th , and so on.
I s n ’t there some case fo r differentiation in rates between localities?
M iss A n d er so n . I f you are g oin g to take the definition in the
law passed b y C ongress, it is to elim inate the com petition, and cer­
ta in ly we have h ad no m ore severe com petition than th at between
the N o rth and the South. A great m any firms have located in the
Sou th because o f the cheap labor and because no ta x is to be paid
fo r 5 years. A f t e r th at they usually control the ta x situation so
that they p ay very little at any tim e, and the cheap labor and the
lon g hours they th ou gh t very h elp fu l to them . T h a t centralization
o f industries h ad gone on lo n g before the N a tio n a l R ecovery A c t.
F ir m s had gone into the so-called m ore or less rural com m unities



in order to escape the trade unions and the h ig h wages and shorter
hours. Som etim es they claim ed th at they h ad le ft a S tate because
th at S tate had passed laws that w ould proh ibit them fro m operating
in the State in com petition w ith their com petitors.
T h e N ation al Recovery A c t was established to rectify th at, am ong
m an y other th in gs, and it seems to me th at i f we begin in the codes
to discrim inate, to recognize these differences th at the em ployers
have claim ed, and to set wages a little low er in southern localities
and a little higher in other localities, we are perpetuating that cut­
throat com petition we have h ad, instead o f rem edying it. I t w ould
probably not be as severe as it h ad been, but still it w ould be there,
and when the R ecovery A c t is out o f existence we w ould have this
hangover. T h e N a tio n al G overnm ent has recognized these differ­
ences, and it seems to m e th at it is a dangerous precedent th at is
being established.
There m ay be some differences in the cost o f liv in g there, though
there certainly is not much difference in the larger cities eithei
N o rth or S ou th , but it seems to me that we are also recognizing th at
there is a lower standard o f liv in g in the m ill villages o f the Sou th ,
w hich are entirely dependent upon the com pany stores. T h ey con­
trol the cost o f liv in g o f the workers o f the S ou th , because they
carry only the th in gs th at the w orker’s envelop can buy.
I t is
usually this cheaper fo o d that causes pellagra and such th in gs dow n
there. W e m ay say th at they live cheaper in the m ill villages—
o f course they do— but there again we are sayin g th at we believe in
that system . Besides th at, we certainly ough t to help the m ill v il­
lages to come up to a better standard o f liv in g than th ey have today.
A f t e r a ll, the m in im u m does not go much over $15 or $16 a week,
and it is usually $12, $13, or $14. I t seems to m e th at nobody— at
least no skilled labor— ought to be paid less than th at m in im u m w age.
I t is set th at low so th at any em ployer in com petition w ith another
can p ay th at w age. S o it seems to me th at there is really no reason
fo r these differentials, either as to locality or any other.
M r . M a g n u sso n . I do n ot know w h y M r . Raushenbush wanted to
raise these m etaphysical questions. I was try in g to dodge them all.
M r . R a u s h e n b u s h . T h e y are practical questions.
M r. M ag n u sso n . T h e n , m a k in g them practical, I have to sim p lify
them . I should say th at the principle you ough t to operate on in any
locality or in any in dustry is th at o f im provem en t o f the standard
o f liv in g o f the given class o f workers w ith w hom you are dealing.
Y o u are g oin g to im prove their status— m ake th at your criterion
point. N o w , i f you can argue w ith the em ployer or the com m unity
by rationalization o f th at issue, all righ t. C ost o f production, com ­
petition w ith other trades, cost o f liv in g , com petition w ith another
com m unity— use all o f those practical m easurements as a m eans o f
d oing it. B u t w h at you w ant to p u t across is to m ain tain or im prove
the standard o f liv in g o f the workers. N o b od y w ill deny you that
p rin c ip le ; it is a fu n d am en tal ethical concept I th in k everyone w ill
concede. Because o f th at general principle it w ould seem to me th at
the m achinery was the m ost im portan t th in g to get g o in g , fo r the
trade, fo r the locality. B r in g in your consultation o f workers and
em ployers. I n short, it seems to m e th at the great inadequacy at the
7 3 597°— 34------- 8

19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.


present tim e in m a k in g headw ay tow ard the realization o f the m in i­
m u m w age is the lack o f m achinery.
I f 50 or 60 percent o f our workers were organized, as in some o f the
E u ropean countries, instead o f 10 percent, it w ould be a different
problem , and m uch ea sier; but you have to build up these organ iza­
tions o f the wmrkers, and your com m un ity m ust have an interest in
that. A lw a y s proceed on the general assum ption th at you are g oin g
to m aintain and advance standards o f liv in g , whatever they are at a
given tim e or place. T h erefore I should say the N .R .A . is m o vin g
in the rig h t direction when it introduces the elem ent o f tim e as the
starting point. W h y not set the period o f the greatest p rosperity ?
T h a t is you r standard— m aintain th at and change on th at b a sis; then
you allow this p la y o f com petition, w hich m ay be h ig h ly desirable,
but you w ant to add to it, in all your dealings w ith it, the w ord “ un ­
fa ir .” C om petition per se you probably w ant to m ain tain, but you
w ant to strike out “ u n fa ir ” com petition.
M r. C r a w f o r d . I t seems to me there were tw o direct questions in
M r . S m ith ’s report.
M rs. K i n n e y . Y e s ; should w e,include m en as w ell as w om en and
m in ors?
I was g oin g to ask i f someone w ou ld k in d ly express an
opinion on that.
M r. M a g n u s s o n . I believe in m ain tain in g the standards o f both.
W h y n ot?
C h airm an C r a w f o r d . I assume the reference there is to S tate le g ­
islation only.
M rs. K i n n e y . Y e s ; and fo r a m odel national m in im u m -w age law
i f such were d rafted. T h a t is w hat we were instructed to do, d r a ft
C h airm an C r a w f o r d . M a y we have an expression o f opinion as
to whether we should include m ale and fem ale em ployees or restrict
the law to fem ales ?
M rs. K

in n e y .

I s there any objection to h av in g both ?

M r. M a g n u s s o n . I s not that the question after a ll, th at we believe
in m ain taining the standards o f liv in g o f both, th at we are strivin g
fo r the best standard th at the constitutional m achinery o f the
country w ill give us in practice. I do not know th at I can answTer
the question. I should not want to answer the question in the usual
academic w ay, and say, “ th a t depends.”
M rs. K i n n e y . S h o u ld fu tu re efforts be directed tow ard spreading
the m in im u m -w age idea by State law , by interstate action, or b y an
effort to perpetuate some fo rm o f F ederal control?
T h a t is the
th in g that is before us rig h t now.
M iss A n d e r so n . I doubt very m uch w hether th at question could
be answered ju st now . W h eth e r or not th at can be put into effect
depends a great deal upon the n ext 2 years’ program . I th in k the
first question depends upon that too, because, h av in g included men
under a national m in im u m -w age p rogram , as we now have, that
m ay be the basis o f w hat we m ay do in the States later on. I do not
believe either question can be answered at this tim e. I f this p r o ­
gram goes through and is successful, I doubt very much that it can
be given up 2 years hence, unless the States have advanced very



m aterially in the m eantim e, to h old w hat we have gained. I t seems
to m e th at those questions h inge upon w hat w ill h appen in the next
2 years.
M iss W ood (C o n n ecticu t). I f I understand m y correspondence
w ith M r . S m ith correctly ( I am on this co m m itte e ), I th in k there
is a tendency to do n oth in g about in trodu cin g new m in im u m -w age
bills u ntil we see how this N .I t .A . p rogram w orks out. I feel very
stron gly th at i f any o f the legislatures are m eeting we ought to em ­
phasize the fa ct th at State law s should be introduced. M aybe I am
w rong on that, but I do feel th at ju st because the com m ittee decided
not to brin g in another m odel b ill at this tim e, we should not ju st
leave it the w ay it is and w ait. W e ough t to present legislation in
all the States u ntil this question can be answered. I have a feelin g
th at th at is n ot the feelin g o f the co m m ittee; perhaps I am w rong.
M rs. K i n n e y . S o fa r as I am concerned, I am fo r everyth in g th at
the States can do at this tim e. W e w ill not have another o p p o r­
tu n ity in C a lifo rn ia to do anyth in g this year. O u r legislature
meets fa r hence. H o w ev er, i f we had an opp ortu n ity we w ould try
to better our law , and I th in k every State should do the same. W e
are g o in g to ask our sister States i f they w on ’t cooperate and do
the same th in g. I can, o f course, speak only fo r m y own State.
W e are very anxious to help the others.
A t this tim e I want to express our appreciation in C a lifo rn ia fo r
the w on derfu l w ork M iss A n d erson is doing in h avin g these special
m eetings. I believe we have had tw o now. I was not p rivileged to
attend the first, but the one we had W e d n e sd a y , over which she
presided, was not on ly to help the States that have ju st established
this new la w , but to h elp the rest o f us who have h ad this law fo r
m an y years, and need so m uch assistance. W e are m ost g ra tefu l to
her fo r this w on derfu l w ork, and I th in k m uch w ill come fro m the
future m eetings w ith M iss A n derson . I th in k her office is g oin g to
be a clearing house, so to speak, fo r all the rest o f us, and to help
each one o f us.
M r . S h a r k e y (W a sh in g to n , D .C .) . I s it not true th at there is a
tim e lim itation in the Illin o is m in im u m -w age law ? I wonder
whether the ph ilosop h y o f th at is th at it was enacted in the guise
o f an em ergency measure ?
M iss D i e c k m a n (I llin o is ). A s a m ember o f the com m ittee which
sponsored that legislation , perhaps I can answer that. I t was an
accident. N o b od y knows how th at particular clause got into the
b ill. T h e legislative d ra ftin g bureau said it copied the N ew Y o r k
law exactly. W h e n it was pointed out th at it was not in the N ew
Y o r k law the bureau had no com e-back. I t was a govern or’s m eas­
ure, and he did n ot know how it g ot there. So there was no p h il­
osophy about it.
M iss W il so n (I llin o is ). I talked to the person in the house w ho
sponsored the b ill. H e said he fe lt it was the only w ay o f g ettin g
it th r o u g h ; th at i f th ey p u t it th rough fo r 2 years they w ou ld be
able to reenact it, w hich we all very m uch doubted.
M iss J o h n s o n . I should like to endorse the position stated by
M iss W o o d . I t seems to m e this is, above all, the im p ortan t tim e to
w ork fo r the enactm ent o f State m in im u m w age and other protec-


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

tive labor law s. T h a t has a tw o fo ld b e a r in g : ( 1 ) T o enable the
States to assist effectively in the enforcem ent o f the n ational codes
d uring the period the codes are in effect, and (2 ) to b u ild up
perm anent S tate legislation .
O f course, we do not know w h at is g oin g to come out o f the
codes. A s M iss A n d erson suggested, there is a possibility th at they
m ay be p erm an en t; there is also th e possibility th at th ey m ay be
tem porary. T h e E m erg en cy A c t w as passed fo r a 2-y ea r period,
or fo r a shorter tim e i f the P resident or Congress should term inate
it. T h a t is a definite p ossibility, and unless the States enact leg isla ­
tion to insure the benefits th a t are tem p o rarily being established
under the codes being m ade perm anent, there is the possibility
th at there m a y be a return to the u nregulated conditions th at existed
before the N .R .A .
D u rin g the period o f the w ar, when th e W a r L ab o r B o a rd was
in operation, regulations were established settin g up im proved labor
conditions, but a fter the W a r L a b o r B o a rd ceased to fu n ction
those protections were w ithdraw n .
So it w ould seem th at th is,
above all, is an im p ortan t tim e fo r the States to w ork fo r perm anent
labor legislation.
D r . P a t t o n . I w ou ld suggest th at the resolutions com m ittee take
into consideration the presentation o f a resolution that the States
take this m atter into consideration.
C h airm an C r aw fo r d . I should like to introduce to you the
H o n . M r . A r c a n d , M in ister o f L ab o r fo r the P rovin ce o f Quebec,
who has been listen in g very attentively to the discussion. I wonder
i f he w ill be kin d enough to say a w ord or tw o to the delegates
before we proceed.
H o n . M r . A r c a n d (Q u ebec.) I have listened to this debate very
attentively, and have been g reatly interested in th is discussion on a
subject which is h igh in interest and a very delicate question at
this tim e— the m in im u m w age.
I have heard a definite expression and also a definite exposition o f
the w ay that it is applied in different parts o f the U n ited States. I n
Quebec the m in im u m w age is based solely upon the cost o f liv in g .
T h is cost o f liv in g n atu ra lly causes some differential in the scale o f
w age rates because the cost o f liv in g is different in some localities
th an in others.
T here is also taken into consideration, to a certain extent, the
service rendered, b y reason o f the fa ct th at we have different scales
fo r apprenticeship and fo r skilled h a n d s; th at is, apprenticeship
is lim ited to 6 m onths, and then the em ployee is entitled to the
h igh er scale set b y the com m ission.
I feel th at this is a very delicate question at this tim e. I f I
m ay express to this b od y the feelin g th at exists in our governm ent, it
is th at w hile this very uncertain tim e which we are g o in g through
seems to necessitate some action on the p art o f those w ho have the
responsibility o f g overn in g our people, it should n ot be considered to
be perm anent.
T h is m in im u m -w age question is a very delicate question. W h eth e r
this m in im u m should be applied to m en is also a very ticklish
question, I should say. A s a union m an fo r the last 37 years, as a
m em ber o f the B roth erh ood o f R a ilroa d T rain m en o f N o rth A m erica,

M I N I M U M -W A G E



I might explain my hesitation in taking action to apply a minimum
wage to men. I feel that when the State takes it upon itself to fix
a minimum wage for men, the result will be the end of labor organ­
izations, and I should regret seeing that day. I wonder sometimes
if we are not coming to a time when compulsory collective contracts
will have to be applied in our country by force or enactment of law.
Other questions regarding labor conditions are the cause of much
study at the present time. The position of first minister of labor in
our Province, which I have the honor to occupy, has brought a lot
of work. Definite legislation in our Province which had been enacted
to meet the conditions of the times, had been in existence for a
number of years, but this legislation did not meet, perhaps, the needs
caused by the evolution of the last 15 or 20 years, so we had to amend
quite a number of them to meet present conditions. I may say in
passing, without claiming any applause, that Quebec was the first
government in the world to abolish the paid employment bureau.
The government is now doing all the employment placing in the
Province free, and although our employment bureau has been in
operation less than a year, it has placed over 21,000 men and women.
So we are rendering a service in doing away with this shameful
exploitation of all classes of working people by paid employment
We have also passed a law—it may be the first, I am not sure, but
I am quite sure it is one of the first—recognizing the principle of the
limitation of working hours. Our law is so flexible as to apply to
industries which are not affected by outside competition; we have it
in effect now in the construction industries, and it is bringing results.
We have fixed a 40-hour week and a double shift on all construc­
tion where public money is being expended. A ll this has increased
our employment to quite an extent. We are proceeding with the
execution of this law. We are bringing employers and employees
together and discussing with them just how many men we can absorb
in applying this law, and through these conferences, I am pleased to
say, this law is going into force with the consent and satisfaction of
all concerned.
Coming back to the minimum-wage question, it might become
necessary to extend this law, referring to men to the extent that
when women or girls are replaced by men, those men should not get
less than the women they replace. We cannot bear this in a civilized
country, and I think it will become absolutely necessary that we have
some kind of legislation to avoid this.
A question was brought up here as to small towns or sections out­
side of towns, and the conditions existing there. I might say in
passing that in our Province we have encouraged for a number of
years what we commonly call home industry, but selfish employers
'have found a way to establish their industries in these small centers,
to the abuse of the people there. These employers take advantage
of the fact that these people have perhaps never enjoyed a very high
salary; they are abusing these people and creating a very unfair
competition with the same class of industries in the big centers.
This question is now being studied by our commission, which is trying
to overcome this new condition.
Permit me to say that I have spent a few days in Chicago; I have
attended the various conferences of the congress pertaining to labor


19 3 3



A . G .O .I .

questions such as compensation acts and accident laws, and I was in­
terested to note that the labor question, the welfare of the laboring
masses, is growing to a great extent in the preoccupation of our
Chairman C r a w f o r d . Dr. Andrews, who was to appear on the
program tomorrow, will speak now before we proceed with the
second half of the program, as he will not be here tomorrow.

Administrative Regulations in American Labor Law


B . A n d r e w s, S e c r e tW 'y

A m e r ica n

A s s o c ia tio n

fo r

L abor

L e g is la tio n

When your program maker sent out her blanket invitation to
people to make suggestions for the program this year, I said that I
hoped that at your convention there would be some discussion of the
development of the administrative organizations having the enforce­
ment of labor laws. I meant a discussion of the procedure under
which the various State departments of labor are developing their
administrative orders. I consider it of such great importance, and
I am so intensely interested in this very valuable device which we
have developed in this country, particularly in the last 22 years, that
I am fearful of anything which endangers its future success.
When we take legislation to a State capitol, for the legislature,
there is a certain definite procedure by which the people interested
have an opportunity to discuss the matter. I f a bill is introduced,
it is a matter of record. In most States the bill is printed and is
available as a document for study and discussion. The bill comes
up in each house, usually after some committee hearing with oppor­
tunity for discussion, and even after each house has acted upon it,
following committee consideration, you have an opportunity to
appear before the executive at the hearing, if you request it, usually
before the bill is signed and becomes law.
Twenty-two years ago, in the matter of labor legislation, we
thought it was going to be very important to get greater elasticity
into our labor law, and to provide that the State departments of
labor might have this power to legislate. We do not call it delegated
legislation as they do in England, although that is what it is.
In delegating legislation we ought to be particularly careful in
this country, because of certain constitutional limitations. Partly
for that reason, it is presupposed that in the development of labor
legislation through an industrial commission a certain procedure
will be followed. It is supposed that there will be representation of
interests; that there will be investigation; that there will be com­
mittee meetings; that when the legislation is formulated in a draft,
it will be considered by the groups affected or interested, and that
there will be public hearings; that there will be due public notice
of those hearings; and that a certain definite time will elapse, which
is advertised, before it goes into effect as law. That is important.
I f the courts are to look upon certain of these regulations as reason­
able, it is important that these things be considered, and that there
be an adequate record, step by step, of this entire procedure, so that,
in case these matters are called into question in court, the record
will be available.




I want to point out that the Interstate Commerce Commission is
one of the best commissions in this country. The Interstate Com­
merce Commission is usually pretty careful, but it has had the fol­
lowing experience. One of its regulations, which was prepared
through careful investigation, and where every step in the procedure
of public hearing and interested representation was carefully ob­
served, when called in question by the court, was thrown out because
the Commission in this one instance had failed to make a careful
record of the procedure throughout.
This delegated labor legislation, which has now become of such
large bulk in the country that merely the titles of these codes fill 25
typewritten pages, is something that we must not endanger.
I assume that in all of your departments you are observing the
procedure carefully; I believe you are. In some States, however,
they have not adequately observed the procedure—they have not
made an adequate record— and there is considerable danger that
your work will fail because of the carelessness of someone in these
other States, if the courts take the matter up and establish a
precedent which will apply to your State as well as to those other
Each year in your conventions recently you have had reports upon
the general statistics of these codes. Mr. Baldwin presented a splen­
did brief report yesterday. I have not had an opportunity to read all
of the statistical matter that he filed, but just glancing through
it this caught my attention: That in one of the important industrial
States more than 20 of these very important industrial codes have
been adopted, and the comment in a little note is that in some
instances the interested groups have been consulted in reference to
these codes. You are making a record in the printing of these
things, whereas in the preparation, the development, of this dele­
gated labor legislation an ample record is not being made to show
that the proper procedure is followed.
In one or two of the States, because of the discovery that even
where they had been doing this most carefully it is difficult to know
what the labor law is in the State, they are having bills introduced
by their Senators calling for the abolition of this authority to de­
velop codes through the labor departments. We want to avoid that,
and so I am making at this time an earnest appeal to you, as re­
sponsible Government officials who have been given this very great
authority— a delicate tool—to consider carefully for your next an­
nual convention, let us say, a thorough discussion of the desirable
necessary procedure in the development of your administrative
orders or codes having the effect of law.
Without waiting for a blanket letter invitation next year from
your program committee, I make this earnest recommendation now
for your program next year, that there be a report from July 1 of
this year to July 1 of next year upon the work actually done within
your State departments in administrative labor legislation, whether
in the preparation of new codes or in the revision of old ones, and an
interesting discussion of the procedure by which that was done and
of the record which has been made for very important possible
future use.




This is a very important thing in our labor law o f America. We
are under restrictions which Great Britain is not under in her great
volume of delegated labor legislation, and we cannot afford to
endanger this branch of our labor legislation.
Chairman C raw ford . Does anyone care to make any comments or
ask any questions of Dr. Andrews?
Miss J o h n s o n . I should like to ask Dr. Andrews if he feels that
there is need for more educational work to interest the public, that
is in general concerned about labor and social-welfare legislation, in
the importance of the code work. I think that in many instances
there is very little general knowledge, even among those special
groups whose concern it is to work for labor and social-welfare
legislation, in regard to this special field of legislation, this dele­
gated legislation of which Dr. Andrews has spoken, so that although
the States as a rule are very jealous of their authority, even members
o f legislatures often do not realize that their State labor departments
have this broad power, this extensive grant of power which enables
them to enact legislation without any of the protection for the public
interest which is included in the enactment of a legislative bill.
There is not only the question of procedure, which is of vital im­
portance, but I think there is also the matter of uniformity in the
different States—the fact that some States have this broad grant of
power and other States lack it, and that some States have it and
do not use it. There should be interest on the part of the public to
see that those States that have the authority and are not using it do
use it, and also to see that the proper use is made thereof—the proper
procedure, as Dr. Andrews pointed out— and that so far as possible
there is uniformity in the procedure and in the development of the
codes among various States.
Dr. A n d rew s . I agree with Miss Johnson, and that is one of the
purposes behind my recommendation.
Dr. P a t t o n . May I inquire whether any of the Canadian Prov­
inces have what we call the code-making power in the States ? That
is, do the labor departments in the respective Provinces have the
power, after due hearing and proper procedure, to promulgate
regulations more minute and more detailed than are in your statutory
law, which when so promulgated have the same force and effect as
your statutory labor law? Do you have that power in Canada?
Chairman C raw ford . Yes, we do in several types of legislation.
I may not correctly understand the question, but this will explain the
situation: The minimum-wage orders of the board become in effect
.legislation. The minimum-wage law itself authorizes the board or
commission to make orders, but provides a very definite procedure.
The board is required to call a conference of the employers and
employees concerned to consult carefully, and after such consulta­
tion it may make orders. These orders are passed by council and
become law ; they may be amended or changed from time to time.
The same is true of regulations affecting factory inspection, safety
code, etc. Is that what you meant?




Dr. P a t t o n . What I mean is this: You have certain statutory laws
regarding safety. In many of our States the State labor depart­
ment has the power to draw up other safety regulations. They are
different from those in the labor law ; they are more specific, more
detailed, telling precisely how to attain safety—minute detailed
regulations. When one of our code-making committees has, after
public hearing, reached a determination on a given matter, the
regulations so established have the same effect as though our legis­
lature had established a law to that effect. I was wondering whether
you have that in Canada.
Chairman C raw ford . That is true in Canada. We go even farther
than that. For example, in the Province of Ontario the law pro­
vides that the chief inspector of boilers may, on his own authority,
without consulting any higher authority, make certain orders,
which become law; he issues an order and it has the full effect of
Dr. P a t t o n . Applicable to all boilers in the State ?
Chairman C raw ford . Yes. All our commissions and boards have
that power, but of course there is a very definite procedure which
they must follow, as was pointed out by Dr. Andrews, and if they
do not follow that procedure and proceed to take unto themselves
authority which has not been given them by statute, then the order
has no effect whatever.
Mr. Douglas will not be with us this morning, and I will call on
Mr. Paul Raushenbush, consultant on unemployment compensation
of the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, for his paper on the
Wisconsin Reserve Plan.

Unemployment Insurance—Wisconsin Reserve Plan


R aushenbush,

C o n su lta n t


tr ia l C o m m issio n

U n e m p lo y m e n t

C o m p en sa tio n

In d u s­

W is c o n s in

I regret very much that Professor Douglas was unable to be
here. Personally, I wanted very much to have a qualified repre­
sentative of a somewhat opposing view as to the particular type
of unemployment reserve plan or unemployment insurance plan
which ought to be adopted by our several American States. How­
ever, I may, before I get through, try to state the Ohio position
which Professor Douglas was to cover.
There is no need with this group, I take it, of urging the desir­
ability of some form of systematic unemployment compensation by
law, so I am not going to spend time on that. I think we are all
agreed that our present makeshift system of public relief ought
to be supplemented by systematic unemployment compensation
provided by statute.
Before turning attention to the Wisconsin situation (about which,
of course, I know more than I do about that in the rest of the
country), I might sketch, very briefly, the changes that have taken
place in the movement for unemployment compensation laws with­
in the last couple of years in the United States. For more detailed
and up-to-date reports the meeting will rely on the individual
giembers present, so you are going to have your chance to say what





A . G .O .I .

the situation is in your State and to discuss fully the most important
issues involved in this type of legislation. I think it is heartening
to realize that in the last 2 years real progress has been made in the
United States toward legislation of this type, and I know it is under
consideration in Canada as well.
Two years ago there was no American State which had ever passed
any such bill through either house of its legislature; since that time
there has been the enactment in the State of Wisconsin, in January
1932, of the first, and I am sorry to say the only, American law on
this subject.
Following in rapid succession we have had a number of other de­
velopments. The Interstate Commission on Unemployment Insur­
ance, representing half a dozen of the eastern industrial States,
which was organized under Governor Roosevelt’s initiative when he
was Governor of New York, rendered a unanimous report in favor
of legislation along these lines. Governor Roosevelt promptly
recommended legislation in New York. The type of legislation
recommended is very similar to that which just a few weeks before
had been enacted in Wisconsin.
Subsequently there was a rapid succession of endorsements, not
only by State commissions in half a dozen or more States, but by
United States Senate committees, the League of Women Voters
(which does not always rush in where angels fear to tread), and
the American Federation of Labor. The American Federation of
Labor had hesitated for a long while as to whether to endorse unem­
ployment insurance or compensation legislation for this country,
although as a number of State federations and national unions had
already done so, it was a foregone conclusion that the federated
national body would eventually take the same position and actively
support legislation. There was also endorsement by the National
Democratic Party Platform of unemployment insurance by State
laws. As I said, there was active support in various States by offi­
cial commissions, and during last spring, the legislative year of 1933,
a great variety of bills were introduced on this subject in about 29
of our industrial States, and in some 8 States bills passed in one
There are a number of reasons why, under conditions as they
prevailed this spring, in what appeared to be the lowest depths of
the depression, with banks closing and a great many other distract­
ing influences, it seemed doubtful whether long-run legislation of
that type should be enacted then, but at any rate the subject has had
increased public attention, which in some States has been pretty
well organized. Proposals have been formulated and had careful
consideration, and there has been much more success in the legislative
field than anyone would have dreamed of 3 or 4 years ago.
It seems to me, therefore, that during the next few years, perhaps
in 1935 when most of the State legislatures are in session, we should
not only look forward to, but also get behind a movement for, this
type of legislation.
I want to turn now from that brief summary of what has hap­
pened in the last few years, which indicates that progress is possible,
and in fact is being and can be made, to the Wisconsin situation.
I do not want to go into all the details either of the statute or of




its enactment. To some of you those details are more or less fa­
miliar. I might say that one reason why Wisconsin was able, in
January 1932, to break through the legislative inertia or indifference
that had generally prevailed in this country on the subject, was that
we had been talking and writing about and discussing proposals
along this general line for some 10 years. It was not a bolt from
the blue to have an unemployment-insurance bill introduced in the
Wisconsin Legislature. Considerable discussion and considerable
public education had preceded the final enactment of the legislation.
I want to say that, as far as the support of organized groups is
concerned, that bill would never have been enacted into law unless
the State federation of labor had been actively behind the bill, as
it had been for some 10 years previously. It pushed the bill very hard
and was the main single influence in securing its enactment. It may
interest you to know that in the fall of 1931 the organized farmers
of the State also got behind the legislation, not only as property
taxpayers whose unemployment relief burdens might be lightened
somewhat, though probably not completely done away with, by this
type of legislation, but also because the purchasing power of the
city workers might be stabilized somewhat for farm products. So
that there was a variety of organized groups with considerable
political force who were pushing the legislation, and it went through
by a rather close vote in January 1932.
Just a word or two about some of the more conspicuous features
of the legislation. One or two points I want to come back to. I
am not going very much into detail on the Wisconsin law. Ob­
viously, the contributions which could be required by the first State
passing legislation and, correspondingly, the benefit schedule which
could be financed through those contributions had to be held to a
modest level. Nobody is arguing that the benefit scale of the W is­
consin act is ideal or that the contribution is adequate to meet the
problem, so let us recognize that the contribution rate and the benefit
scale are about the best we could get under the circumstances.
Probably when other States come along we will do better.
However, in Wisconsin we were interested— and I say u we ” not
only because I had a finger in getting the act both drafted and
passed, but also in behalf of the State federation of labor—in get­
ting a law which we felt would be sound in principal. We were not
so much interested in the immediate cash as in the long-run credit
(if I may paraphrase Omar Khayyam). We were interested in
getting some legislation even though it did not go quite as far as
we wanted it to; we were concerned that it go in the proper direc­
tion. So the main emphasis of the Wisconsin law was placed on
compensation as a right for those unemployed through no fault
of their own, and supplementary emphasis was laid on the maximum
possible inducement to regularization of employment.
Perhaps the two main points about the Wisconsin act are, first,
that it places the contributions solely upon employers, on industry,
on business units, as a legitimate industry cost, and second, that it
requires those contributions from each individual business unit. It
says to the business unit: You shall have your own unemployment
reserve, and be responsible for your own unemployment, and the
reserve will therefore be set up by individual company reserve





A .G .0 .1 .

There is another feature I ought to mention about the Wisconsin
act as it was passed. Over a period of some 10 years the employers
of the State had finally been maneuvered into a position where
they admitted that the principle of unemployment reserves and
unemployment compensation was sound. They admitted that some
more adequate and more systematic provision should be made by
industry than had been true in the past. That was quite a conces­
sion, but of course they were not willing to go the whole w ay; they
were not willing to come out in advocacy of legislation. I could
count on fewer than the fingers of one hand the number of employ­
ers we got to speak for the bill, although labor was fully represented,
but the employers had admitted that unemployment reserves were
desirable. The only qualification, a mere trifle as you, being a body
of labor legislation administrators, will realize, was whether this
should be done by volunteer action rather than by compulsory legis­
lation. The employers claimed that they were going to do it. They
saw it was imminent and were afraid that legislation would be
enacted, so they had a big meeting of the Wisconsin Manufacturers
Association and said they were going to do it by volunteer action.
The governor picked them up on that and said, “ Oh, are you?
That is fine; we will pass a compulsory law and say that it will not
take effect if you do what you say you are going to do.” So the
Wisconsin law as enacted has a provision that if enough satisfactory
volunteer plans are enacted the compulsory provision will not take
effect. That is not the ideal way. It means that if half the employ­
ees are covered, the other half will not be, but I will miss my guess
if the employers who establish voluntary plans are not going to be
among those rooting for compulsory legislation as applied to the
others. That situation may be worth watching during the coming
6 months when it may be determined.
To come back to what happened after the passage of the Wisconsin
law. It may be of some interest to you to know that the first thing
the Wisconsin Industrial Commission, our labor department, did,
was to call in representatives of organized labor and representatives
of the organized manufacturers of the State, and have them sit
down together. It also called in some of the people who had been
most prominent in getting the legislation passed, and some of the
people who had been most prominent in opposing its passage, in­
cluding several attorneys who made effective appearances against
the bill, and said, “ Where do we go from here? You tell us.” They
finally organized an advisory committee consisting of 3 repre­
sentatives chosen by the Wisconsin State Federation of Labor and
3 chosen by the Wisconsin Manufacturers’ Association. Those three
men from each side, as an advisory committee on the law, served
without pay other than expenses, and put in a great deal of time,
especially during the spring of 1932, shortly after the law was passed.
The commission did another thing; it brought in the two attorneys
who had chiefly opposed the law and who had helped to put in a
few minor amendments, and it made me come in because I had been
somewhat conspicuous in urging the law. It had us all sit down
together and said, “ Now you agree on what the law means, and how
we are to proceed under it.”
The advisory committee had many sessions, and had a good chance
to thresh out the complications of the legislation. In that way the



educational process of which Dr. Andrews spoke was carried
forward in connection with this new type of legislation; that is,
new to this country at any rate.
That process, of course, has great advantages; and there was a
real advantage in the fact that we had, according to the law as it
was originally passed, a year and a half before contributions would
begin. That gave an opportunity for lots of education and consulta­
tion, and for employers to realize that the law was actually on the
statute books, and that they might have to do something about it.
Well, they did not like to admit it too much, but some of them were
beginning to see that they had to reckon with the law. Then, of
course, as the depression continued through 1932 and on into the
spring of 1933, they began to get quite agitated about the possibility
that they would have to start contributions to unemployment re­
serves in the midst of the depression. The newly elected governor,
just by sheer chance, had been a member of the volunteer committee
which had urged this legislation, so in his first message to the legis­
lature he came out as unalterably opposed to repeal, but said that
he did feel that contributions ought to be postponed somewhat. No­
body could tell what kind of a postponement we would get—there
were bills for a 4-year postponement and a 2-year postponement, and
even a repeal bill was put in by one of our senators. Here again
the advisory committee, labor and employer representatives, came to
bat. Mr. Altmeyer, secretary of the commission, was presiding offi­
cer of that advisory committee (and I can say in his absence that
he has a fine Italian hand in getting along with these groups and
in getting them to work together), and the members sat down to­
gether and said: “ Now, there is going to be postponement. What
kind of a postponement shall it be?” After a number of days’ ses­
sions over several weeks they finally worked out a bill which both
sides could agree to. It involved a minimum postponement of 1
year—until July of 1934—with an alternative possibility of further
postponement, depending on index numbers of employment and pay
rolls. The index numbers have risen rapidly, so that for practical
purposes the contribution date is apt to be July 1, 1934.
You cannot fully appreciate, perhaps, just what that agreement
on postponement means unless you have had the background of the
whole Wisconsin situation. I think it was a real achievement for
both groups to agree on how the postponing should be done. Labor
was not anxious to have postponement. Industry was anxious. But
the measure, the degree, of postponement was the point in question.
That the employers were expecting the law to take effect was evi­
denced immediately thereafter by the advisory committee working
out a bill of agreed amendments, clarifying amendments primarily,
which they then recommended to the legislature and which passed
both houses of the legislature unanimously at a time when manjf
other types of labor legislation were under pretty severs attack.
That has been in general the procedure that has be^n followed.
The current situation is that this opportunity for volunteer plans to
be adopted to keep the compulsory law from becoming effective is to
be extended until an official publication by the industrial commission
of a given index number. That probably will occur this coming
spring, and perhaps Wisconsin will demonstrate to the rest of the
country that volunteer action, even with a law already on the statute


19 3 3



A .G .O .I .

books more or less as a sword of Damocles, is not going to achieve
the compulsory coverage which is necessary.
Turning from that sketch of developments under the Wisconsin
law, I will touch briefly again on the two main principles embodied
in the Wisconsin act. As I said before the most distinctive features,
perhaps, in the Wisconsin type of plan (which incidentally, as I
said, is very close also to the type recommended by the Interstate
Commission on Unemployment Insurance in February 1932 and to the
bill recommended by the Massachusetts Special Commission on the
Stabilization of Employment, and also quite similar to the bill which
has been advocated in a number of States by the American Associa­
tion for Labor Legislation) were, first, contributions from employ­
ers only— from business units—rather than from employees or from
Government units, or the like, and, second, that the reserve funds
are set up as individual company funds.
There are a variety of reasons for those two features, both positive
and negative, and perhaps I ought not to present them too fully
in order to allow more opportunity for discussion. I want to say
briefly that perhaps there are two main reasons for those features.
The first I might mention is that there ought to be a proper alloca­
tion of cost. Good social cost accounting ought to be used in con­
nection with this type of legislation as with other types of labor
legislation. In other words, the cost, the contribution burden,
ought to be assessed on those who are properly responsible for it,
in the sense that unemployment, through no fault of the worker,
when he is ready and willing and able to wrork, is not a personal
hazard—it is an industrial hazard; it is a question of the way our
business units are run, the regularity of their operation. I f a com­
pany has a large reserve army of labor in a given locality which
it needs only part of the year, and which the community is asked
to carry meanwhile, obviously that industry is being parasitical and
letting the rest of the community carry its workers, at least during
part of the time. The conception behind almost any of the un­
employment insurance or compensation proposals is, I think, that
industry is not bearing its fair share of the costs of unemployment
at the present time. In Wisconsin we felt that that cost could
properly be assigned to each business unit; that it was not a cost
that should be shouldered onto the worker by forced contributions
He was not responsible for it; he could not afford to carry it, and
the business unit should. It was an industrial cost rather than a
personal hazard.
Aside from that element of cost and good cost accounting, which
I could elaborate upon at some length but will not, we felt that
there was a second reason why the employer should bear the burden,
and why it should be borne by individual companies with separate
company reserve funds, and that was perhaps the major reason
that motivated those who drafted and advocated the Wisconsin
Unemployment Reserve and Compensation Act. That was the very
strong feeling, that regularization of employment must be promoted,
rather than hindered, by this legislation. It would be possible to
achieve one worthy object by unemployment-insurance laws while
negating or defeating another worthy object. The legislation should
be drawn so as to promote regularization of employment as far as




O f course, I do not need to tell you that none of us thought that
this would, in some magic fashion or automatically, solve the whole
problem of unemployment, or that it was the only measure that
would work toward that end, but we did feel that it was a very
important part of the program toward more regular employment.
Therefore, the burden was put on the employer because he is the
agency of hiring and firing, of accepting rush orders or refusing
them, of planning the operations of the business. He is the only one
who can, as compared to the worker or State, exercise a direct in­
fluence on his own business operations, and therefore he was made
responsible for his own unemployment, was made to pay for it, and
was told : “ I f you operate more regularly, your contribution burden
may decrease, may go down, and meanwhile you will have the
assurance that you are paying your own costs of irregular employ­
ment, of unemployment, and nobody eise’s. You are not paying for
the other fellow ; you are paying for yourself and for your own sins
of omission or commission, or neglect.” I f it is not a matter of sins
of omission, if it is just a matter that cannot be avoided, then, of
course, the question comes back to who shall bear the cost.
In other words, it is an emphasis upon more regular employment
by the individual employer who has some control over that problem—
how much we do not knowT, but he has some, certainly, and probably
more than he has yet used. On the other hand, where unemployment
is unavoidable—cannot be prevented—the cost should be borne by
the business unit to which it is attributable.
We had that combination of reasons. We did not feel that the
worker should contribute, as he had no control over his unemploy­
ment. This was involuntary unemployment we were dealing with,
and we did not feel that the State should contribute to this particu­
lar set-up. We wanted to put the emphasis directly upon the respon­
sibility of industry for steady operation, without, as I say, any
idea that by some magic that is going to be done. That is a long-run
process; that is a process that I think—I speak with hesitation—the
N.R.A. has not really tackled. Its job is primarily the emergency
Job of getting people back to work. Unemployment reserve legisla­
tion designed to promote more regular employment is a long-run job
of steadying employment, with a view to preventing, at least in some
measure, the occurrence of the type of catastrophe we have had
during the last 3 or 4 years.
Please do not misunderstand me as saying that if this is done
we are going to eliminate depressions at one fell swoop. I think
it will make a great difference if all over the country the emphasis
is put on employment the year round, year after year; there will be
less fluctuation in purchasing power and operation to the extent that
that can be achieved. It does not seem to me that there is any easy
answer to that problem. It has to be a long-run effort, and it
seems to me that the enactment of unemployment reserve legislation,
soundly designed, will promote that long-run effort, will furnish
the basis of the information which is necessary working with a more
adequate system of public employment offices, by saying to an em­
ployer : “ Here is a 2 percent or a 3 percent item, or whatever it may
be, that you can eliminate if you manage to operate steadily, and
that is going to mean money.” Of course, overhead costs are im­
portant still; this 2 percent item that the employer might be able


193 3



A .G .O .I .

to cut out by steady operation is going to figure, I believe. So that
the Wisconsin act puts its emphasis on unemployment compensation
as a matter of right for those unemployed through no fault of their
own, and upon the maximum effort toward steadier employment as
a long-run proposition.
Without further development of those points, I am going to say
frankly that while I do not believe in the Ohio plan, that I much
prefer the Wisconsin plan, and that I knew all about the Ohio plan
idea before we prepared the Wisconsin plan, yet I am going to give
the arguments for the Ohio plan and the major respects in which it
differs from the Wisconsin plan.
The Ohio plan, proposed by the Ohio Commission on Unemploy­
ment Insurance in a very able first volume report, supplemented by
documentary material in the second volume, has attracted a great
deal of attention. Its proposal, in brief, is to require contributions
both from the employers and the workers. Contributions are re­
quired by law from both of those parties, 2 percent (for the first
few years) from employers, and 1 percent from employees.* You
see it differs from the Wisconsin plan on the question of who bears
the burden. Then it differs also on how the funds are handled. The
Ohio plan sets up all the funds in one big State insurance pool;
that is, all contributions are pooled in a single fund. They are
not split up by separate companies, or by separate industries, or the
like. They are initially pooled in one big State fund in order to
give pooled insurance protection.
The Ohio advocates say that the only way you can get real pro­
tection and security is by averaging these contributions and giving
average security, instead of making the worker’s fate dependent
upon the fortunes of the particular company by which he is em­
ployed. In other words, they propose deliberately that everybody
contribute to a fund from which anyone may receive benefits, re­
gardless of his particular affiliations. O f course, the amount of
benefit you can receive depends upon your employment by all em­
ployers combined.
They have, therefore, with the combination of 2 percent from the
employers and 1 percent from workers, a proposed total 3 percent
contribution, which is a little misleading. You have to compare the
base on which that 2 or 3 percent is figured. But let us leave it at
3 percent, as if it were the same as one and one-half times the
Wisconsin law, which it is not. They purpose, with that larger con­
tribution and with a pooled insurance fund, to finance larger and
longer benefits than those of the Wisconsin act. They raise the
maximum benefit per week 50 percent, to $15, as against $10 in the
Wisconsin act, and increase the number of weeks from 10 to 16 in
a given year; so that they deliberately set out to provide more
adequate relief. I think the candid advocates of the Ohio plan are
inclined to say that the thing they are mainly interested in is ade­
quate relief, adequate benefits, to the unemployed worker. They
have a longer waiting period—that also helps them to pay benefits
longer when they do pay them— and they have various other restric­
tions on seasonal and casual workers which I have not the time to go
into fully. So the comparison is not quite as clear-cut as I am
perhaps suggesting. However, their main interest is adequate relief,




They do not really care much about prevention, and they do not
believe much in the talk of the Wisconsin advocates that regulariza­
tion may be possible and that the main emphasis should be put on
that and worked toward as a long-run proposition. In other words,
the Ohio people want to take the cash, and let the credit g o ; they
do not think there is much credit.
On the other hand, since the Wisconsin law was on the statute
books and being fairly generally talked about, they did put in a
provision which practically said: “ Oh, we can do that prevention
stunt too.” You see, you are not getting a fair presentation of
the Ohio plan. I warned you of that to begin with. They said:
“ We can do that stunt too.” I am not entirely misquoting. Three
days ago I read an article by one of the main drafters and pro­
ponents of the Ohio plan, in which he pretty candidly admits this.
He says: “ The Wisconsin plan has made such a dent in public think­
ing that we are going for regularization too. How will we do it?
After the first 3 years of contributions at the uniform 2 percent rate
from employers and 1 percent from employees we will vary the
contribution rates in accordance with the actual experience of
different industries and perhaps even of different individual business
units. We will grade or scale the contributions of employers between
1 percent, which will always be the contribution of even the most
stable or steady employer, and a maximum of S y 2 percent.”
By a system of experience rating which is still to be worked out,
based on the experience of the first 3 years of contributions and the
like, they propose to offer this same sort of an inducement. So they
offer, first, the same argument that the Wisconsin plan uses as to
regularization, taking the point out of it perhaps a little by requiring
forced worker contributions, and then the proposition of more ade­
quate relief. The chief way in which they justify employee or
worker contributions is to say it provides a larger fund than you
can get otherwise. I am not sure that that is true. Several States
passed bills with 3 percent employer contributions only through one
house of their legislatures. Ohio did no better with the combined
3 percent—2 percent from employers and 1 percent from employ­
ees—but, the advocates of the plan say, they can get larger amounts
of money and pay more adequate unemployment relief and compen­
sation. They also say that if the worker contributes, he will be more
interested in the benefits he is paid and more apt to receive represen­
tation on advisory committees, etc.
Personally, I think that argument is fallacious; I do not think it
is valid. It seems to me legislation is not going to be passed in any
State unless labor is solidly behind it. Labor is not going to receive
protection or satisfactory standards of working conditions unless
that is definitely specified in the law. It was specified in the W is­
consin law, and organized labor is participating actively in the
administration of that law. Ohio cannot do better—no other State
can do better—in respect to labor representation and the like.
There is only one other point that I want to raise before I turn
the discussion over to you. It has been suggested in some quarters—
I noticed it was raised in connection with the minimum-wage dis­
cussion this morning—that the N.R.A. is going to take care of this
and that and so we ought not to look to State legislation. I have
7 3 5 9 7 °— 34-------9


19 33



A .G .O .I .

a couple of observations to make on that. In the first place, none
of the N.R.A. codes have yet provided (unless as a sort of pious
statement that they might think about it) unemployment reserves
of any kind. It does not look as if the N.R.A. codes are going to
provide for the long-run protection against unemployment which we
must develop along these lines. That is one answer.
The second answer, I think, might be that the Democratic Party
National Platform on which the Democrats were elected said “ unem­
ployment insurance by State laws ”—very specifically, “ by State
laws ”— so that it does not seem to me that we can sit back and wait
for Federal action in this field. I do not think we are going to
get it.
I am going a step farther than that and say I doubt whether we
want it. That is terrible heresy or “ reactionaryism ” , or whatnot,
but I do not need to call your attention to the difficulties of admin­
istration and enforcement that the N.R.A. is having, though it has
one of the ablest groups that could possibly be assembled to admin­
ister that law, and the most general, whole-hearted public support
of a program that we have probably ever seen in peace time, and
those men in Washington and many other parts of the country are
working almost night and day. Even with all that, national legis­
lation in this field of labor is awfully hard to administer. You do
not need to be told that. We are having current demonstrations of
the difficulties. I do not know how that is going to work out; it is
a long-run proposition, but I would not be surprised much to see
some swing back to reliance on the various States for a good many
of our labor laws.
There are certain difficulties of administration that are involved
in national labor legislation. I think there is some question whether
Congress could readily be persuaded to enact unemployment reserves
or insurance legislation or any type. But leaving those questions
hanging fire—first, could you get it passed, and, second, would it be
desirable administratively and enforceable if you did get it passed—
I want to turn to a third point.
Several professors—I say that deliberately—of law schools, who
have made some study of constitutional law, have a very definite,
clear-cut, emphatic opinion that Federal legislation in this field
would not be held constitutional by the courts. W hy not? Because
it exceeds police power? No, not on that ground, but because of the
question of Federal and State jurisdiction. Our Constitution is
fairly clear-cut on the subject of division of State and national
powers. Some of you may have forgotten that in the last year
or two but perhaps the courts have not fully forgotten it. The
emergency may justify the Federal Government—I am speaking
from a legal point of view, remember, not as a lawyer, but laymen
do occasionally express opinions in this field and I am more or less
quoting people who do know—in extending its powers far beyond
the ordinary lines of its authority into the States as it is doing
under the N.R.A. Direct Federal legislation with a long-run pro­
gram, however, such as the accumulation of unemployment reserve
funds, the long-run regularization of employment, or unemployment
insurance (you may say you are interested only in benefits and are
not interested in stabilization—although I do not believe that is


IN S U R A N C E —



possible—still it is a long-run program, not an emergency measure),
from all I have been able to gather from law-school professors and
some others, is probably unconstitutional. That does not, however,
mean that the Federal Government can do nothing in this field.
It has already taken one step of some importance and it should take
a further step. The first step it has already taken, as you all know,
is the stimulation of public employment offices. That, after all, is
administratively a backbone element of any unemployment reserve
or insurance system, and insofar as Federal funds are helping to
finance and set up more adequate public improvement offices, that is
a real help. In Wisconsin, with the law on the statute books, we are
appreciating that. The other thing the Federal Government can do
is to give special allowances and deductions, credits, and information
under the Federal income tax, where an employer contributes under
a compulsory State law. Senator Wagner of New York has a bill
in Congress to that effect, and I think intends to push it in the next
session. That would make a substantial difference. That is the sort
of thing the Federal Government can do; it can, through a device
of that sort, by giving special preference in calculation of income
taxes, actually stimulate the passage of State laws by States which
would otherwise sit back and say: “Let the other fellow do it.”
That is the best thing I can see to meet the argument of interstate
competition and the like which we always meet in connection with
any State labor legislation. The hopeful aspect is that those States
which have advanced labor laws are gaining somewhat by the rais­
ing of standards nationally; even though it be temporary, it will
have an educational advantage in the long run, I am sure.
Chairman C r a w f o r d . We have had a very complete presentation
of the Wisconsin plan, and, under the circumstances, a very fair,
presentation o f the view of Ohio. It is evident to me that the speaker
favors setting up reserves rather than unemployment insurance. In
Canada the whole talk is about insurance, and insurance, of course,
has nothing whatever to do with the Wisconsin plan, but it is not
my purpose to mention anything about unemployment insurance or
unemployment reserves in the Provinces of Canada.
Miss J o h n s o n . I should like to ask the speaker if the Wisconsin
plan provides for voluntary pooling of the reserves of employers in
the same industry ?
Mr. K a u s h e n b u s h . Yes; it does permit voluntary pooling.
Miss J o h n s o n . That would provide for greater opportunity to reg­
ularize employment in industries where the individual employer could
not himself bring about regularization.
Mr. R a u s h e n b u s i i . That raises a further question. We feel that if
you give each employer a clear-cut inducement to cut down his
irregularity, and then provide public employment offices and more
adequate information by districts and for the State at large, and
organize advisory committees which will be considering this prob­
lem, based on more adequate information than we have now, you
will have an inducement for the different plants in the same industry
to work together toward stabilization. O f course, industries cut


19 33



A .G .O .I .

State lines to such an extent that that may not be quite as produc­
tive as concentrating on the individual business unit which keeps its
books, hires its workers, etc., and on the territory in which each
firm is located. It may be possible to do more territorially in a given
State than can be done industrially, but of course anything that is
done on a national scale to get industries to adopt policies which will
stabilize employment will supplement and assist the efforts we are
trying to make.
Mr. W h i t a k e r . May I ask who has control of the reserve funds
in a given industry? The employer sets it up in prosperous times,
as I understand it. What guaranty has the potentially unemployed
man that this fund will be actually available for distribution, or
what protection has he from the unscrupulous employer who might
see that a business depression is coming and automatically discharge
these employees and keep the funds himself ?
Mr. R atjsh e n bu sh . The general scheme of the compulsory law is
that each employer deposit the contributions with the State treasurer,
who acts as custodian of the fund. The fund is invested as a unit,
although it is kept separate by individual companies. That is the
general scheme.
As to voluntary plans, which the law does permit to be set up a
little differently and some of their provisions to vary, the general
rule is that if an employer sets up his own fund outside of this
deposit with the State treasurer, he may deposit it with a trust
company under a definite trust agreement. The trust company or
trustee must be approved by the commission. The trust agreement
must be approved, must meet certain standards as to the type of
securities in which it shall be invested, which are much more rigid
than ordinary trust or life insurance investments or the like. Under
that system you have complete control. That is a trust. In case
of bankruptcy or insolvency, you cannot use it for any other pur­
pose. That is covered by the law. The employer has to be out of
business for a half year or so before he can touch the money.
Meanwhile, if he is closed down, it may be paid out to the workers.
There is one further possibility which may cause trouble, namely
the possibility of a bookkeeping reserve being set up which will be
similar to self-insurance under the workmen’s compensation law.
O f course, most of you can see that whereas in the field of accident
compensation only a very large employer might be allowed to be a
self-insurer, because if a small company had a fatal accident it might
be ruined, as it might not have adequate funds, and the worker
might not receive his compensation benefits. That does not apply
equally in this field. Smaller companies are, by and large, some­
what more stable in their employment than large-scale, mass pro­
duction companies. To come back to the question of bookkeeping
reserve, we are going to be pretty strict on who can set up that
kind of a reserve. The commission at any time may increase the
requirements as to the security supporting such reserve, may require
surety bonds or specific deposit of certain securities. Under the
law the commission, in this exceptional case of bookkeeping reserve,
has full power to turn down any applicant therefor, and to make
sure that there is security in that "field. As to the normal procedure,
I have already sketched that.



Mr. W hitaker . A s I understand it, if an employer should go into
bankruptcy, say next year, could he seek to discharge his employees
right along up to the 6 months, and could he get the fund back?
Mr. R aushenbush . Discharge under the Wisconsin act is permis­
sible only for misconduct by the employee.
Mr. W hitaker . W ho is the judge?
Mr. R aushenbush . The judge is an impartial agency. The pro­
cedure has not been fully worked out, but the idea is that the com­
mission may send in an examiner, an individual, to find out the
facts. There may be an appeal to a local tribunal constituted of
one employer, one of the employees, and one representative of the
public, perhaps a permanent employee of the commission who will
be familiar with the cases through traveling around the State. Then
there is an appeal to the industrial commission, which is a 3-man
body, and an appeal from that to the courts, but you have public
authority coming in to see fair play on that question.
Mr. W hitaker . One more question in connection with the Ohio
law. As I understand it, the fund goes into the State depository all
the time. Does it always remain in the Ohio fund, or can the
employer at some future date get that fund back ?
Mr. R aushenbush . I do not believe the employer can get any of
that back. I may be mistaken about that.
Mr. W hitaker . Then there is the distinction that this 3 percent,
chargeable 2 percent to the employer and 1 percent to the employee
in Ohio, is gone forever?
Mr. R aushenbush . Yes, that is gone.
Mr. W hitaker . And the cost of the Wisconsin act is chargeable
to the employer altogether, but the money contributed remains his
fund, eventually.
Mr. R a u s h e n b u s h . Yes.
Mr. S weeney (Pennsylvania). Mr. Raushenbush, you have
stressed the importance of cooperation between the employers and
the representatives of employees in working out the details of this
plau in Wisconsin. Would you stress the importance of coopera­
tion or of a getting together of those representing the employers’
interest and the employees’ interest in promoting a plan in States
wjiich had no such plan, or in studying the possibilities of a plan, or
would you feel that it is more or less essential, in the appointment
of committees or in agitating for this work, to propagandize it
through the State? Do I make myself clear on that?
Mr. R aushenbush . I think so. I f you have an official commis­
sion which is studying or investigating the problem on behalf of the
State legislature, or the governor, I think it is clearly desirable to
have representation of all the interested groups, I do not think you
should expect to get a unanimous report out of that kind of a
group, but I think it is desirable to get all the points of view there,
and to see what that comes to. When it comes to the work of rolling
up your sleeves and trying to get legislation, however, I think it is
desirable for those who believe in such legislation and can support
given principles involved in the legislation, to get together, to work


19 3 3 MEETING 0 E A.G.O.I.

together, and not to take on those who are clearly irreconcilably
Speaking again from Wisconsin experience, we had an interim
commission consisting of a labor representative, a prominent em­
ployer representative, and several legislators. The final report of
the commission was 5 to 2— 2 employers against the rest. One
of these employers, I think, has rather freely admitted since that
he did not think the Wisconsin plan was as bad as some others
he had seen. An interesting phase of the whole situation was as
regards this chance for volunteer action by employers in Wisconsin.
W hat the industrial commission did was to hire the most prominent
employer in the State who had been in favor of volunteer action
and against compulsory action. He was told to go out and promote
volunteer plans and see what he could do. The advocates of a volun­
teer plan cannot claim they have not had a fair chance, and if they
fail to get the necessary quota of volunteer plans they have no
come-back. In pushing for legislation, we had a small working
group which was agreed on one essential principal to begin wuth,
which was contributions from employers only; the State federation
of labor was represented on that group. That was its cardinal prin­
ciple. It wanted regularization as well as benefits, and wanted the
employer to bear this burden and to be responsible. It was more
interested in having that principle written into the law than in
the amount of the benefits in the beginning. So those who could
agree on that principle went to work and as the interim commission
made its report by a 5 to 2 vote, we took the bill it recommended,
which was based on that principle.
Mr. S weenet . You would say then, that generally, we cannot
count very much on so-called liberal-minded employers to push any
such plan, or that we cannot educate them into really getting behind
it with force?
Mr. R atjshenbush. I should have made myself clearer. I think

one of the reasons why we have had such unusually good coopera­
tion between labor and the employers in Wisconsin is because the
Wisconsin bill incorporates the two features which employers and
labor care most about. Labor got the thing it cared most about,
the emphasis on regularization and on contributions from employers
only; and the employers, though they did not know it at the time
and did not support the bill, got the thing they cared most about;
namely, the assurance that they would not be paying for the other
fellow’s unemployment; that they would be made responsible only
for their own business, over which they had some measure of con­
trol, and in Wisconsin they are certainly very strong for that. They
opposed, you see, labor on the other provision; they wanted em­
ployee contributions also, making it a joint responsibility. It was
not a mere matter of expedience that dictated our choice of a bill;
I think I can say that frankly and correctly, because I was in on
the procedure. We were interested in a principle, and we wrote
that principle into the bill, but it worked out rather fortunately
that we did not have as strenuous employer opposition to the bill
as we would have had, perhaps, to an Ohio plan bill. Ohio’s experi­
ence, I think, tells the story as to that. Employers are vigorously
opposed to that plan. My answer would be this: In every State



you ought to hope to get a few liberal employers who would con­
sider that industry had some responsibility in this field; that indus­
try ought to assume some burden; that there must be legislation—
compulsory legislation— and that this is a desirable type. I do not
think you will get many employers to support the Ohio bill, be­
cause most of them object to pooling. They believe that their own
costs should be assessed to them, but not the other fellow’s. There
is some foreign experience, I think, where there is a pooled fund
and one industry carrying the burdens of another industry. That
does not seem to me to be good social cost accounting, and good longrun social policy.
Mr. S weeney . I have another question on the question of selfinsurance. Is there a definite feature of the law that allows for selfinsurance of this hazard ? It seems to me you have quite a different
hazard from that in workmen’s compensation, except in the case of
a catastrophe, in workmen’s compensation the more employees, rel­
atively, the smaller the hazard, because it is spread, whereas in this
the more employees the greater the concentration of hazard, and the
greater the difficulty, if any, that any individual employer might
have. Do I make that clear?
Mr. R aushenbush . N o, frankly, I do not follow you. I f I under­
stood you correctly, I was trying to say just the opposite, but I may
not have understood you.
M y point was this: In the field of accidents, when you have one
fatal accident it costs a tremendous amount of money; if you allow
a single fund for each company that may bankrupt the small com­
pany, whereas the big company may be able to carry that tremen­
dous single expense. Consequently, in the field of accident compen­
sation it does not seem to me that an individual company could set
up on a self-insurance basis, or that that is as practicable as applied
to small companies as it is in the field of unemployment compensa­
tion, because in the field of unemployment compensation the amount
of your payroll and the number of your employees more nearly re­
flect the employment hazard. Your smaller units are relatively
more stable in movement, at least on the average. Your figures show
that irregularity increases as the size of the unit increases. It may
be bad management or other features.
Mr. S weeney . But not surplus; the reserve hazard does not in­
crease as the size of the unit increases, does it ?
Mr. R aushenbush . N o.
Mr. S weeney . W e have large corporations with large surpluses
and small corporations where a short period of unemployment, if
they were self-insurers, would probably wipe out what surplus they
Mr. R aushenbush . The point I was making is that unemployment
may occur relatively equally in the large and the small company,
but it is pretty much proportional to the number of employees and
the size of the pay roll; that is, the numbers that are involved and
the contributions that are involved on the basis of percentage of pay
roll much more nearly reflect the unemployment hazard of the dif­
ferent companies than their different size. In other words, the fac­
tor of a sudden catastrophe hazard, such as a permanent total dis-



ability or a death in the field of industrial accidents is not going to
throw your whole picture off in the field of unemployment compen­
sation. It is much more possible to set up individual company re­
serves in the field of unemployment compensation on a self-insur­
ance basis than it is in the field of accident compensation.
Mr. S weeney . I should think you would want to go carefully
into the self-insurance experience in compensation of some of the
States before you would go very far in that. I understand that in
Indiana or Illinois, for instance, they are having trouble; some of
the trust agreements they have set up with these self-insurers are
getting into a bad condition.
Mr. E aushenbush . O f course, the difficulty is that where you
have a permanent total disability or a permanent partial disability
that carries a liability for a period of years, in some States there
may be no requirement that the full amount shall be immediately
deposited in a special reserve or a trust fund. In other words, you
may be hoping that the company will be able to keep on from year
to year and meet that liability as it comes due, and if the company
does not the employee is out of luck. Here, however, you have a
different set-up— your requirement of 2 percent of the pay roll to
be paid in and actually put in a separate fund, or if it is still in
the funds of the company you have a surety bond against it or a
special deposit of securities.
Mr. S weeney . Which usually, in times of stress, is not worth
the paper it is written on.
Mr. E aushenbush . I think we will be able to see that what we
O.K. will be worth the paper it is written on or we will not O.K. it.
In Wisconsin, we have three or more self-insurers, and by a careful
scrutiny of their financial condition through fairly detailed reports
we have been able to get along without, I think, in most cases, re­
quiring additional specific security, but then we have been rigid
about whom we admit to the status of self-insurance under acci­
dent compensation. I do not think the problem is as difficult a one
in the field of unemployment compensation as it is in that of acci­
I f you build up a given reserve through definite contributions and
you know where the definite funds are and have them safe, you have
that reserve at any rate, earmarked for this purpose, and can meet
claims, though perhaps not on an insurance basis. W e do not know
whether this is an actuarial proposition, whether we are going to
be able to work it out or not, or whether Ohio is going to work it
out. I am afraid we are not tearing our hair about it. W e say
that if you set up some money you will have more money than if
you set up none.
Chairman C rawford. It seems to me the question is whether we
should have unemployment insurance or unemployment reserve
funds. Wisconsin’s plan, as I understand it, is the setting up of a
fund for certain definite purposes, which I believe is not sufficient.
The idea of insurance presupposes the elimination of self-insur­
ance and all individual plant funds. It is much broader, and you
will immediately attempt to operate on an actuarial basis, and—



Mr. R aushenbush (interrupting). W ill you let me say one thing
more on that? You say insurance is directly counter to separate
company reserve funds. That is true on the face of it, but if under
an insurance set-up you work out a careful system of experience
rating so that you can classify your risks and assess the premium to
be paid on the particular risk in accordance with what it really costs,
and if you refine that system sufficiently so as to distinguish be­
tween the different individual enterprises and assess their costs ac­
curately, you will, by a complicated process of classification and rate
making, have done what the Wisconsin act does directly. It says:
“ W e are going to have an automatically up-to-date system of ex­
perience rating; we are going to set up separate company reserve
funds, and you are to pay a higher or a lower contribution rate
in accordance with the actual experience you have with unemploy­
Chairman C rawford. Which is contrary to insurance policy.
Mr. R aushenbush . A ll right; but if insurance is coupled with in­
surance rating and classification of risks, and if you refine it suffi­
ciently, you will get where the Wisconsin plan starts, only we do it
directly and simply. I f, on the other hand, you do not believe in
the experience rating system, do not talk about how you are going to
proportion your rates to different risks and how you are going to
encourage regularization by differential rates. You cannot eat your
cake and have it too. You might as well admit that one industry
in going to pay for the costs of another industry in the field of un­
employment. I f you want to do that, if you are interested in relief
and do not care about correct social cost accounting, why not
taxation ?
Mr. S weeney . Y ou have insurance if you have enough spread
within the unit. Insurance is merely setting up reserve; if you have
enough distribution of risk you have insurance.
Mr. R aushenbush . Suppose you have a company with 100 em­
ployees; not all the 100 employees are going to be unemployed at a
given time, if you have 100 employees and you have $75 reserve per
employee you have $7,500. Suppose 10 percent are unemployed at one
time, that would draw $1,000 out of the $7,500. Suppose 30 percent
are unemployed at one time, that would take $3,000 out of the
$7,500, but you keep on paying into the reserve. That Wisconsin
law and other bills of that type of set-up really provide a cushion,
a surplus over and above normal benefit withdrawals, because it is
a $75 reserve per employee after meeting all current benefit costs.
M ember. W hat happens when the reserve is exhausted or brought
to a certain minimum, and who pays the cost of administration?
Mr. R aushenbush . The first question is answered by saying that
the benefits have to be reduced. This is not insurance, this is re­
serves. W e do not know how large the contribution rate would have
to be to finance certain stated benefits, so we have deliberately said
in the Wisconsin law that the benefits will have to be scaled down if
the reserve is inadequate. In the back of our mind is the thought
that the rate will also have to be scaled up as we find that out. The
natural thing to do would be to say that those who cannot meet their



benefit payments in full, who have a reserve which is too low, will
have to pay a higher rate than others. So you carry the germ of a
classification system of rates a little further, while still keeping your
company reserve fund.
The other question you raised was as to cost of administration.
W e require a contribution from employers in addition to the 2 per­
cent amounting to not more than two-tenths of 1 percent on pay roll,
to be paid to the industrial commission for administration, with the
provision that the commission may classify different industries and
employers, and fix slightly differing rates for cost of administration,
depending upon factors to be determined by the commission.
Miss J ohnson . Does the State contribute anything to the cost of
administration— the service of the commission ?
Mr. K a t j s h e n b t t s h . Only insofar as the commission’s general serv­
ices are contributed, but not the specific services, including that
part of the cost of public employment offices which is not borne by
the Federal Government. In other words, the employers are to
take over the cost of financing public employment offices, since they
will be largely used in this scheme.
Dr. P atton . Would you consider it improper to refer to the W is­
consin plan as unemployment insurance?
Mr. K - a u s h e n b u s h . I think it would be much clearer not to. The
statute is entitled unemployment reserves and compensation, and we
deliberately wanted to point the analogy to accident compensation,
saying: Here is an industry cost just like that of industrial acci­
dents, and the employer is required to foot the bill just as he does in
accident compensation. That was one analogy we wanted to point
by the title “ unemployment compensation ” , to indicate that it was a
payment as of right, that it was an industrial hazard, the burden of
which the employer should bear.
As to the unemployment reserves, we deliberately abandoned the
term “ insurance ” because we felt that we could not properly call
it insurance. W e could say we are requiring reserves to be built
up on the analogy of depreciation reserves, or of corporate surpluses,
or anything of that sort, and that is much more accurate as descrip­
tive of the Wisconsin act than the term “ insurance.” W e do not
pretend this is actuarially sound; we say, “ Here are the normal
benefits that we will be able to pay; if the reserve is inadequate
those benefits will have to be scaled down.”
Dr. P atton. I have not definitely made a decision as to whether I
prefer the Ohio or the Wisconsin plan. I hear the general observa­
tions ; that is why I asked this question. It is the first time I have
heard a distinct statement made that the Wisconsin plan is definitely
not insurance. Until that statement was made, I had always re­
garded the difference between the terms “ unemployment reserves ”
and “ unemployment insurance ” as almost entirely a verbal quibble.
I agree with what Mr. Sweeney said a while ago that in essentials
the Wisconsin plan necessarily has to be what I would call insurance.
M y first general observation about which I am perfectly clear is
that I am in favor of such social insurance applicable to any field
to which the insurance principle may properly apply. I think that
insurance principle is one of the greatest social inventions that man­
kind has ever devised.



The Ohio committee’s report— I speak of that particularly, al­
though it has been established elsewhere as well— has to my mind
definitely proven the applicability of the insurance principle to the
field of unemployment. Taking that as a starting point, I am in­
clined to say that, by whatever name we call it, whatever system we
set up is an insurance plan.
When you come to the matter of pooling (as provided by Ohio)
or individual plants (as provided in Wisconsin), I cannot help but
recall the workmen’s compensation situation. For the most part—
I think altogether in the United States— our plans for workmen’s
compensation definitely fix the responsibility on the individual firm,
and I know that for a long time there have been grave doubts and
misgivings in the minds of many people in the United States as to
whether or not that was wise.
I f I understand correctly, in Germany, where workmen’s com­
pensation insurance began, and I think practically in Ontario today,
the principle of pooling is applied in workmen’s compensation. In
Ontario, for example, all furniture manufacturers are perforce asso­
ciated in one group. In the United States we say that every tub
should stand upon its own bottom, every employer should pay his
own liability, and in order to acomplish that object and at the same
time preserve the insurance principle, we force these employers to
take out a policy in some definitely organized, properly regulated in­
surance company, except in those cases where the concern is large
enough to apply the principle of self-insurance to that particular
The Wisconsin plan of definite allocation of responsibility to
individual employers is more nearly analogous to our present plan
of workmen’s plan of compensation than is the Ohio plan, but as I
say, in my own mind and in the minds of a great many people in this
country there are misgivings as to whether or not that principle is the
sound one. A second observation, about which I am not quite so
clear, is that I am inclined to favor contribution to some extent by the
individual worker, as embodied in the Ohio plan and not in the
Wisconsin plan. There again the Wisconsin plan is more nearly
analogous to our present workmen’s compensation than is the Ohio
plan. I think Oregon is the only State in the Union which requires
contributions from employees for compensation. One cent a day,
I think it is, is required from each worker to help build up the com­
pensation insurance fund. Personally, I do not see that it makes
much difference in the long run, whether the employer pays it all or
the employee pays part; whether paid entirely by the employer or
only partly, it is going to come out of the wage bill, is it not ?
Mr. S w e e n e y : I do not think so.
Dr. P atton. Y ou do not think so? W ell, it has to come from
somewhere, and I know that the New York State constitution, in
authorizing the enactment of the compensation law, says that it
shall be considered a part of the cost of production and passed on
to the consumers.
I think workmen’s compensation premiums are, like rent, taxes,
fire insurance, or anything else, part of the cost of production. In
the same way I believe that the Wisconsin unemployment reserve
payments will be a part of the employers’ cost of production and


19 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

somehow or other will have to be incorporated or find their way
into the selling price. However, as I say, this is not my particular
field; this is merely the result of such consideration as 1 have been
able to give it.
Chairman Crawford. In Canada this question has been given very
serious consideration. There is a general feeling that unemployment
insurance— it is called insurance over there— should be a Federal
matter. It is very difficult to work it out, but at the present time
those who have studied the question most are the ones who doubt
most the possibility of insuring unemployment, using the word
“ insurance ” in its real sense. Then, of course, there is the ques­
tion of contributions. W e have reserves for the payment of divi­
dends, we have reserves for other purposes, and all that is being
required is that the industry shall set up certain reserves for this
other contingency, called unemployment. I do not think any of us
would call a surplus fund for dividends an insurance scheme, and I
can see no more reason for calling the Wisconsin plan insurance.
I t is true that anyone who undertook to insure unemployment at
the present time would have an impossible task, because we do not
know enough about it. W e are unable to work out actuarially the
necessary calculations; we have neither the data nor the experience.
I f I may sum up the situation, I would say there is little prospect
of immediate action because of that uncertainty.
Mr. S w eeney . Insurance is like almost any other word. It has all
gradations of meaning. W e cannot measure the hazard in marine
insurance. W e allow companies to set themselves up as title insur­
ance companies; there is no measure of the risk in surety bonding;
there is no measure of the risk— we have seen that in this country
particularly— in bank bonding. So we go through all those grada­
tions of meaning. Just how adequately do we measure the hazard
even in life insurance and compensation insurance? I do not think
the Ohio plan is any more insurance than the Wisconsin plan; pos­
sibly there is a little wider spreading of the risk. I f we use that as
the determining factor of whether the plan is insurance or not, then
we have another question, but as to this question of measuring the
hazard, I do not think that is the true test of insurance.
Chairman C rawford. I do not pretend to be competent to dis­
cuss it— I am not an actuary, I am not an insurance man— but I
have heard it discussed completely and fully— the nature of the
contract; the provision for payment; whether it is contributory or
not; and the rights. Compensation is not insurance. Insurance is
something for which you pay and for which you receive certain
benefits in proportion to payment. That is the principle of insur­
ance as I understand it. This other thing is something different
from that. However, it is well to bear in mind, as Dr. Patton said,
whether it is a matter of quibbling with words or not, that the prin­
ciple I think we are agreed upon is that the man who is out of
employment is entitled to some sort of benefit as a right. Then
there is the social aspect. I f we wish to maintain purchasing power
and all the rest, we must do it by contributing to the unemployed
so that they may not become wholly dependent upon charity or State



Mr. R aushenbush . May I say further on the point of calling it
insurance, that I think the point has been well brought out that
the Ohio plan does involve a .greater pooling and therefore a wider
spreading of risk. That gives it more nearly an insurance char­
acter, but I think it is worth noting that even in the Ohio plan the bill
of the Ohio commission provides that, if necessary, the benefits may
be scaled down or the fund may borrow. The Ohio commission
admits in its bill that it cannot be absolutely sure of wdiat are pre­
sented as the best acturial figures available in this country, I think
they undoubtedly are the best estimates that have been made, but
even so the Ohio commission recognized that they may not be fool­
proof, that you cannot foretell conditions sufficiently, so it permits
benefits to be scaled down if necessary or for the fund to borrow.
I think probably it is really a matter of degree in terms of spread­
ing the risk. I f a company with a thousand employees sets up a
fund for the employees, so far as the thousand employees are con­
cerned the risk is spread. Any particular man who happens to
be employed or any 20 or 30 or 100 or 200 of them are protected by
the pooled fund of that company, which was built up by it but is
available for any one or more who may actually need it.
Then of course, as I tried to suggest, the other reason why we
deliberately did not want insurance is because of the danger that
insurance would discourage the stabilization efforts of individual
employers by practically saying: “ The funds that you build up
will be used to help subsidize the companies which have not made
similar efforts, and which continue to operate irregularly.” There
is a possibility that insurance under some circumstances may really
work to discourage long-run constructive effort. You do not need
to be quite so thoughtful and quite so active in regularization if that
particular hazard is insured, and the other fellow is pretty largely
carrying your costs. I think we ought to recognize that we have
different types of social problems and industries and personal haz­
ards, and that it is proper to devise specific remedies for each. I
know there is a great temptation to say: “ Let’s have one general
scheme which will be uniform all over the country and which will
include all the different hazards
but if my guess from my slight
experience is correct, it is that that is not the way you make con­
structive progress, but rather by specific remedies for specific
Mr. M agnusson-. I know Mr. Raushenbush leans in the direction
of the Wisconsin plan; naturally he would. But would he feel that
the Ohio plan is so seriously defective that it ought to be opposed
if tried in any State ?
Mr. R aushenbush . I might turn that question on you, but I will
answer it.
Mr. M agnusson. I favor both of them.
Mr. R aushenbush . I would not choose to devote my efforts and
energies to the Ohio plan because I think the other one is better.
On the other hand, I carefully refrained from in any way gumming
up the Ohio situation during the past spring; I kept my hands,
fingers, nose, and so forth, carefully out of the picture. An able
group had decided that they wanted to advocate that plan for
Ohio and I wished them luck; but I was not going to help them,



if that answers your question. I f I were asked, as I have been
asked in some other States, “ W hat kind of legislation should we
have ? ” I would naturally advocate the type of legislation which
I believe to be better in the long run.
Mr. M agntjsson. I would go the other way around; I would go
into Wisconsin and help them put through the Wisconsin law,
although I think the Ohio law in principle is far superior.
Mr. R atjshenbush. Y ou have more energy than I have. I devote
it where I believe the social interest is clearest.
Mr. M agnusson. I would help you in Wisconsin if I were there.
Mr. R attshenbush. W e appreciate that.
Dr. P atton . One of Mr. Raushenbush’s arguments appeals to me
exactly in reverse. Going back again to workmen’s compensation,
the situation we now have, where each employer stands on his own
merits, it seems to me, clearly and inevitably leads him to take no
interest whatsoever in the prevention of accidents except in his
own plant. I f two furniture manufacturers or two shoe manufac­
turers in the same city are under our compensation plan, one of
them who devotes his efforts to safety work and accident preven­
tion gets a rebate in his compensation premium and does not give
one continental about the accident rate in his rival’s plant. In other
words, there is no incentive for him to try to reduce accidents in
the group of industries to which he belongs. I f compensation
premiums were pooled in that industry, the first man I spoke of
would have to pay a given compensation rate, and he would get only
such rebate as the experience of his entire group indicated. Then
he would have a direct pocket-book incentive to form a mutual acci­
dent prevention association, and to say to his competitor, “ You
are making me pay a bigger compensation rate than I otherwise
would pay. You must get busy and bring down the accident rate
in your plant.” That is the principle on which the Ontario accident
compensation works. In this matter of unemployment insurance,
I think individual employers can perhaps do something to regularize
employment— certainly the larger ones can— but I doubt very much
the extent to which the average employer, particularly the small
employer, can regularize employment.
I f you have this pooling system, where the interests of the whole
manufacturing or employing group are directly interested and the
premium— the unemployment reserve premium or whatever you want
to call it— which an employer pays is affected not only by what he
does, but by what his fellow competitor does, it seems to me you are
adopting a principle for the prevention of unemployment that you
are ignoring when you put each fellow on his own footing.
Mr. R aushenbttsh. It seems to me Mr. Patton’s remarks were
directed primarily to the question of new technical devices for acci­
dent prevention, new guards on machinery, or other devices of that
type. That is a field that I know very little about. Mr. Patton
knows a great deal about it. As I heard him talk, I was trying to
divide the accident-prevention methods into two general classes—
those which involved specific devices or inventions or the like, and
those which involved simple everyday care— day-to-day safety habits
on the part of the employees and foremen, and the like.



It seems to me that there can be, through safety conferences and
through Government safety inspectors and the like, quite as effective
an exchange of new information about safety methods and devices
as you can get through a loose industrial organization. After all,
you are not going to bring that new information to any individual
automatically; somebody has got to take it to him. A s to the other
factor, as to constantly taking pains to think safely and act safely,
that after all is something you cannot bring in from the outside.
Each concern has to do that, and it seems to me that our Wisconsin
experience— I hesitate to say this because I certainly cannot speak
with authority on it— is that our self-insurers are the ones who have
made the best safety records in many instances, and that comes, not
primarily perhaps from greater safety inventions and devices, but
from more persistent safety campaigns.
As to the question whether you are going to induce an exchange of
methods by pooling the funds, I am very dubious about that in the
field of unemployment and irregularity of employment. I suspect
that there is too much difference between individual business units,
between operating units for it to be possible to have a carry-over of
information within the different units of the same industry. I meant
that business problems are somewhat different, and each concern is
striving not to be the same as another, but to get something distinc­
tive about its products, its market, or whatnot. I suspect that there
is less possibility, perhaps, in the field of unemployment and regular
employment for an outsider to come into a given business unit and
tell the management what it can do to regularize it. I think that is
a problem of business management, which runs from the details of
day-to-day work to long-range plans of business policy.
M y guess is that if you pool the funds, regularization will become
everybody’s business and therefore nobody’s business; but if you
segregate the funds and give each employer a clear-cut incentive he
may take thought. I do not mean that you should not have all
possible cooperative effort and exchange of information, but it seems
to me that that is quite possible by advisory committee set-up by
locality and, to the extent that you have an industry in a single
State, by industry. For instance, I can see that it is much more in
point in your New York situation than it is in some other places to con­
template cooperation on an industry basis. In some cases you have
almost the whole industry— I mean within the nation— located and
centralized in New York. That is a rather different picture than
that in many of the other States. I think there should be an oppor­
tunity for industry cooperation there, if the industry wants it. I
doubt whether it would be wise to try to compel industry to do i t ; I
do not think you get cooperation effectively that way in things that
involve constant attention to detail and planning of individual
[Meeting adjourned.]

Chairman, Edward F. Seiller, third vice president A.G.O.I.

C hairman S eiller. W e will continue with the reports of the vari­
ous committees. Our first committee this afternoon is that on women
in industry; we will hear the report by Miss Mary Anderson, chair­
man, who is the Director of the Women’s Bureau of the United States
Department of Labor.
Miss A nderson. This is a report and recommendations of the
committee on hours of work, and I will first take up the legislation
that was passed last winter, when 43 State legislatures met in session.
You will see that the results of their meeting, so far as the shorten­
ing of hours of labor is concerned, are very meager.

By M a r y A n d e r s o n ,

C h a ir m a n

R eport and R ecommendations on H ours of W ork, I ncluding L egis­
lation A ffecting H ours of W omen , E nacted in the L ast
S essions of S tate L egislatures
Legislation in regard to maximum hours of work permitted for women
was proposed in a number of States in the last session. Connecticut amended
its statutes by reducing, from 58 a week to 52 a week and 9 a day, the hours
of women employed in mercantile establishments, public restaurants, cafes,
dining rooms (except in hotels), barber shops, hair-dressing or manicuring
establishments, or photograph
Minnesota’s hour law for women has been revised to provide a State-wide
54-hour week, with no daily limitation of hours. This replaces the old laws
of 1909 and 1913 and their amendments, which allowed different hourly and
weekly limits according to locality and kind of employment, permitting in
some cases 10 hours a day and 58 hours a week. The new law is expected to
simplify enforcement problems. Unlike the old law, the new one fails to make
specific provision for meal periods.
A new hour law in New Mexico became effective June 15. For women
employed in any industrial or mercantile establishment, hotel, restaurant, cafe,
eating house, laundry, place of amusement, public utility, or in any office as
stenographer, clerk, bookkeeper, or in any other clerical position the maximum
hours permitted are 8 a day and 48 in any week of 6 days. The working day
must not be divided into more than three shifts. Two hours of overtime are
allowed weekly in emergencies if time and a half is paid. Domestic employ­
ment, hospitals, sanitariums, registered or practical nurses, and midwives are
exempted. This act provides a change in some cases from 56 hours a w.eek
(although the old law allowed only 8 hours a day) and a reduction in other
industries from maximum hours of 9 a day and 56 a week. Hours in telephone



and telegraph offices, except where live or fewer operators are employed,
are regulated also. For a 7-day week the hours of work between 7 a.m. and
10 p.m. must not exceed 8 a day and 48 a week; between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.,
8 a day and 54 a week. Overtime, however, is permitted in case of extreme
emergency. Not less than one-half hour for mealtime must be allowed.
The act does not apply to persons engaged in interstate commerce, where the
hours of labor are governed by an act of Congress.
Maximum hours of 10 a day and 55 a week became effective June 1 in
North Carolina for clerks or saleswomen and waitresses and other employees
of public eating places. Not more than 6 hours of continuous work are allowed
unless the extent of the day’s work is not more than 6 ^ hours. Exemption is
made for full-time bookkeepers, cashiers, or office assistants, for establishments
employing fewer than 3 persons, and for towns of less than 5,000 inhabitants.
In Texas the law permitting not more than 9 hours a day, 54 hours a week,
has been amended to bring beauty shops and roadside drink or food vending
establishments under its provisions, and to place cleaning and pressing estab­
lishments on the same footing as laundries; that is, a maximum week of 54
hours and a maximum day of 11 hours.
In Wyoming the hour law was amended by reducing hours from 81/£> a day
and 56 a week to 8 a day and 48 a week for women employed in any manufac­
turing, mechanical, or mercantile establishment, laundry, hotel, public lodging
house, apartment house, place of amusement, or restaurant. As in the previous
law, overtime in an emergency is permitted if time and a half is paid. Unlike
the old law, however, telephone or telegraph establishments or offices or ex­
press or transportation companies are not covered.
Indiana amended its night-work law prohibiting the employment of women
in manufacturing establishments between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. to permit factories
operating two shifts of not more than 8 hours each and not more than 5 days
a week to employ women in any capacity for the purpose of manufacturing
until 12 o’clock at night.
Massachusetts, whose law for many years has prohibited the employment of
women in textile manufacturing between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. and in other manu­
facturing between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., this year passed an amendment pro­
hibiting wTork in leather manufacturing also between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.1
The committee would suggest to the association that vigorous educational
work be done by the association on the necessity for shortening hours of work
in the States. The importance of shortening hours of work by legislation has
been brought home forcibly during the depression. Standards of employment
receded all along the line and no standards could be wholly maintained. Even
trade-union standards had to be modified in many cases. In this emergency
the greatest help in upholding standards has been the support existing in the
State labor laws. That is a very significant fact that should be taken into con­
sideration in all future legislation by the States.
The necessity for quick action in behalf of such legislation by the States is
very evident today. The emergency legislation by the Federal Government
runs for only 2 years, and unless the States have in the meantime laid a solid
foundation for maintaining the shorter workday, we are likely to return to
competition for quick and cheap production—a mad competition that will result
in lengthening the hours of work so that we may find ourselves back again with
1 S in c e J u ly 1, 1 9 3 3 , th e M a s s a c h u se tts L e g is la tu r e h a s em p o w e re d th e c o m m issio n e r
o f la b o r to su sp e n d th e 6 o ’clock la w d u r in g th e life o f th e cod es e ffe c tiv e u n d e r a u th o r ity
o f th e N a tio n a l I n d u s tr ia l R e c o v e r y A c t.
7 3 5 9 7 ° — 3 4 -------1 0



the 10- to 12-hour day. Such hours in industry have not been uncommon during
the depression in States where there has been inadequate labor legislation or no
labor legislation at all. Women employees have been the most exploited in this
respect, because they have been wholly unable to cope with the situation. In
order to live, in order to keep the job at all, they did not dare question the
requirements as to hours of work. In fact, the National Industrial Recovery
Act was passed because of the terrific exploitation of the workers and the tre­
mendous competition among employers that got beyond control. The Govern­
ment had to step in and take control for the time being, but the responsibility
will rest upon the States again just as soon as the Government emergency
program is over.
The committee feels that this association knows so well these facts and the
problems confronting the employers and the workers, that the necessity for
labor laws and their effective enforcement should engage its immediate atten­
tion, so that with the help of the citizens of the State laws may be formulated
to protect adequately the workingman and the workingwoman. The N.I.R.A.
program, with its basic 40-hour week, points the way for the States to follow.
Employers themselves should be the first to help in the inauguration of such
State programs. During the depression employers have realized that they as
well as the workers suffer from the lack of uniformity in the control of hours
of work. The committee would like to emphasize the necessity for a uniform
program for hour legislation so that there will be no possibility of employers
with good standards being put out of business by those with poor standards, or
made to suffer by factories taking advantage of States where they may work
practically unlimited hours. This unfair competition among employers should
cease, and it can be outlawed by uniformity in State labor legislation.
We hope this association will go forward as a unit representing the various
States in formulating a real program for legislation on hours of work, and will
then enlist the help of employers and of the citizens who finally translate such
movements into law. There is no time to be lost, and we urge that such
a program be formulated at this conference so that action may be had
[Miss Anderson moved that this report be referred to the resolu­
tions committee, if accepted, and that a resolution be formulated
along the line suggested in the report. A motion was made, sec­
onded, and carried that the report be accepted and a resolution
drafted in accordance therewith.]
Chairman S eiller . I am sure some of you would like to make some

remarks on the report of Miss Anderson. We are now open for
Miss S wett (Wisconsin). Miss Anderson, do you know anything
about what the attitude is going to be toward night work where two
40-hour shifts are permitted, for instance, in the N.R. A . codes ?
Miss A nderson . The two-shift system, permitted in the cottontextile code, 40 hours for each shift, of course, permits what we might
call, not night work, but evening work. Mr. Stanley, are not those
two shifts probably worked between 6 o’clock in the morning and
11 or 12 at night?
Mr. S t a n l e y (Georgia). Will you repeat the question again?



Miss A nderson. I was speaking about the cotton code which per­
mits two shifts, the machinery working 80 hours per week, and the
workers working 40 hours per week.
Mr. S tanley . I presume that is so, but I have no information as
to that, Miss Anderson. I think that would inevitably be true.
Miss S wett. Is there anything in the codes themselves that says
how late that work shall be ? Is there no limitation on when it shall
Miss A nderson. N o ; there is no limitation in the code, but natu­
rally employers would not manufacture after 11 or 12 o’clock at
night. W e all know that output is very much less during the early
morning hours than at any other time, so they will take the most
productive hours of the 24 to run the mill. I think that would be
true in other industries where two shifts are permitted. Nothing
has been said about night work in the codes.
Miss J ohnson (New Hampshire). There is another problem in
connection with the two-shift system which has been inaugurated
under the codes, and that is definite provision for a lunch period.
In some States where the State law has no specific requirement for
a definite lunch period, factories are operated on a two-shift basis,
8 hours on each shift, with no time allowed for lunch; that is, no
specific time when the workers are released. They bring their
luncheons and eat at the machines as they gel a chance. There are
factories that are operated on a straight 8-hour shift, without time
for lunch. It would seem that there should be some provision for
that, either in the codes or in the recommendations which are to be
made by the resolutions committee. I will ask for Miss Anderson’s
suggestions on that point.
Miss A nderson. Miss Johnson and I have had some correspond­
ence on the subject. M y contention has been in that correspondence
that a national code covering an industry cannot go into very many
details, and that if we put too many details into a national code it will
be almost impossible to have it enforced. I feel strongly, and I do
not know that I voice anyone’s opinion but my own, that that is a
question for the States to deal with. There should be, of course,
luncheon periods— that is essential. I realize that New Hampshire
has no law requiring any time for lunch, and I feel that per­
haps the labor department might make such a ruling, until the leg­
islature meets and enacts it into law. It seems to me that that
might be permissible as affecting the health and well-being of the
employees. I feel strongly that the code cannot cover these details
and, after all, the States really ought to have their hand in these
Dr. P atton (New Y ork). Yesterday at the joint session of the
I.A .I.A .B .C . and the A .G .O .I. a resolution was adopted, to be sub­
mitted by the respective secretaries of the two organizations to Gen­
eral Johnson, stating that it was the opinion of both organizations
that in all N .R .A. codes the specific safety and health provisions
now existing in any State be incorporated in such codes, and that
where there are no State laws or regulations, the safety standards
approved by the American Standards Association be made a part
of such codes. That joint resolution, over the signature of the secre-


19 3 3 MEETING OE A.G.O.I.

tary of each body, has been forwarded to General Johnson. In a
way it covers that question. O f course, a State which does not now
have any lunch-hour provision would, in adopting the N .R .A . code,
fail to include any lunch-hour provision, but I think that joint reso­
lution will go very far toward doing what those two bodies may do
in the situation.
Miss W ood (Connecticut). Also, as far as that particular cottontextile code is concerned, since the 40 hours do not have to be worked
in any specific number of days, a lunch period can be provided each
day without making even a second shift work late into the night,
because the 40 hours can be stretched over 6 days.
Miss S wett. Yes, but will they be?
Miss A nderson. I think the intent there is to establish a 5-day
Miss S wett. I know the intent is that, but I am wondering if the
provision as to two 40-hour shifts is not going to make the States feel
that they do not have to pay much attention to night work, and that
then they are going to have to have night work.
Miss A nderson. Y ou could get them in about 11 o’clock at night.
Miss S wett . O f course. But you see we have not had night work
after 6 p.m., and it means that in a State that does prohibit it
after 6 p.m. you are going to have quite a lot of pressure to remove
the restriction of no work after 6 p.m.
Miss A nderson. The pressure was so heavy in Massachusetts that
that was actually done.
Miss J ohnson . The pressure will be continued in Massachusetts,
and in other States where there is that limitation, to have the 10hour limitation removed, because the period between 6 and 10 does
not permit two 8-hour shifts with the lunch period that is required
under the Massachusetts law, so that there will be pressure to have
the 10-hour limit removed. In fact, a prominent cotton-textile manu­
facturer with whom I talked not long ago suggested that the limi­
tation should be removed— that the second shift should extend until
Miss S wett. Indiana has done that too, has it not?
Miss A nderson. Y e s ; Indiana has done that.
Mrs. K in n e y (California). May I say, for California, that we
have a regulation that does provide for a lunch period with working
hours from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Chairman S eiller. There are quite a few States that have a
lunch-hour provision, but in our State, as Miss Anderson well knows,
we have no provision for the lunch hour at all, and we find that in
many instances where we are very strict about the enforcement of our
10-hour law, the employer resorts to the tactics of reducing the lunch
hour— that he will make the workers work on through, taking their
lunch whenever they can get it.
I am wondering whether we could, with propriety, ask the N .R .A .
to draft an order as to lunch-hour allowances— sort of a blanket
provision, something like the President’s Reemployment Agreement
now in the N .R .A . codes. The limitation of work hours is there,
but nothing as to the starting or stopping time of the work. W e find



in our State, and no doubt it is the practice in other States, that
an employee will start at 7 o’clock in the morning, work up to 10,
then maybe be off 2 or 3 hours, and come back in the afternoon—
work three or four scattered shifts throughout the day. That is
being done in restaurants, hotels, and trade establishments. There
are many little problems of that kind that are going to creep in.
They are not little either, but the employers will inject them, to try
to get around a code and to keep from reemploying additional help.
This whole scheme may be explained in this w ay: Operators of a
transfer company which was operating a fleet of trucks out of Louis­
ville came to me with this proposition, saying: “ Now, take it for
granted we have a $5,000 a month pay roll, and we want to get our
“ Blue Eagle ” , and at the same time reduce our hours and increase
the number of employees. We have so many drivers for these trucks.
They are working 70 hours a week, and their pay now is around
$27 per week. We want to cut them to 48 hours a week and pay
them the limit of the N.R.A. code, but that will actually mean
cutting the wage to $21, something like $6 a week.” They were
cutting the hours from 70 to 48, and by so doing they could increase
the number on the pay roll, but not actually the pay roll.
So we will have many problems under the code that may have
to be straightened out at a later date.
Our next committee report is on child labor. We will hear from
Mrs. Clara M. Beyer, the chairman, who is director of the industrial
division of the Children’s Bureau of the United States Department of
Mrs. B e y e r . Y ou have seen in the press almost every day f o r
the past few months that child labor is a thing of the past; that the
curtain was rung down on this ancient evil when the President
signed the cotton-textile code.
Let us examine the facts and see what the real situation is with
reference to child labor. You all know that the blanket agreement,
so-called, provides that no minor under 16 shall be employed at any
time in manufacturing or mechanical industries, nor shall any minor
between the ages of 14 and 16 be employed in other industries more
than 8 hours a day, outside of school hours. That is the temporary
code. The permanent codes have different provisions, naturally, and
the 17 permanent codes that have been set up to date all provide that
no children under 16 shall be employed at any time in that industry.
However, a number of codes are pending, and the big child-employ­
ing industries have different provisions.
The retail code that was supposed to have been announced some­
time this week had a provision, following the President’s blanket
agreement, that children could be employed in stores for 3 hours
a day outside of school hours. Furthermore it set a special rate for
junior workers of $2 less per week than the minimum for the par­
ticular area for the first year, and $1 less per week for the second
year. That would apply to workers up to the age of 18, and it was
up to 21 in one of the previous drafts of the code.
We have protested vigorously that that provision of lower wages
for minor workers will mean that in the 5-and-10-cent stores, and in


1 9 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

other stores where much the same labor policy is followed these
children will take the place of adults. The $2 differential is a suffi­
ciently strong inducement to get these employers to use boys and
girls of 16 and IT in preference to adult workers. We do not know in
what shape the code will come out, but a very definite protest has
been made by the national organizations as well as by some of the
labor departments of the country.
The code for the telegraph and messenger service provides for
a minimum rate and weekly hours for the employees as a whole, but
it exempts messengers. Now messengers are the big labor force of
the telegraph industry, and these children can be paid any wage
and work any hours, according to this code that has been submitted
by the telegraph companies. They made a plea before the Labor
Advisory Committee that they could not pay this rate, that they
were already operating in the red, and that if they had to pay their
messengers a living wage they would go under. I should like to
know what industry is not operating in the red at the present time.
The N.R.A. was supposed to take the companies out of the red and it
does not seem to me that this would be the way to accomplish it.
The newspapers have also slipped in an exemption for the news­
boys and the news carriers. They can be employed at any time, at
any age, at any wage— it is all right under the code that has been
submitted by the publishers. That hearing is to be held next week.
There again considerable protest has been made to the Administra­
tion that those who preach should also practice, and that it is time
the newspapers, which have been talking so loudly about the abolish­
ing of child labor, abolished one of the worst forms of child labor.
We hope that you people here will add your protest to those already
lodged in Washington.
So we have to be constantly watching these codes. Child labor
is not abolished so far as the codes themselves are concerned.
According to the census of 1930 there were over 650,000 children
employed in the industries of the United States. The codes cover
the so-called regulated industries—manufacturing, mechanics, stores,
etc.—the industries in which our child-labor laws usually apply but
the great bulk of the child workers, according to the census, were
in the so-called unregulated industries, the industries which we
have not been able to touch successfully with legislation. Fortyfive thousand children were in domestic service . (children under
16 I am talking about now), and the exploitation of these young
workers during the depression period is one of the scandals of
the age. The New York people can tell you of the difficulties they
have been having with the requests coming into their junior em­
ployment service for young workers to work in private homes, as
to the wages offered, and the conditions under which they work.
Miss Lewis has said that she is unable to place these children be­
cause the conditions are so bad. Undoubtedly the 45,000 has been
greatly increased during the depression period. These children prob­
ably will not be covered by any code.
In the street trades we have, according to the census, 23,000 boys.
I think that is a mild estimate. I have seen that in some of the big
cities there were about 25 newsboys. We know that that is utterly
ridiculous; I should estimate at least twice that many and probably



more. I f the children are pushed out o f these industries covered
by the codes they will go into the street trades, and unless they are
regulated we will have more street sellers than in the past.
In agriculture 450,000 children were found in 1930; some of these
were on the home farm, but a great many were in industrial agricul­
ture. We must remember, of course, that that census was taken in the
month of April, when most of the agricultural work that children
are engaged in was not being carried on, and that if the census had
been taken in July or August or even in June, a great many more
children would have been found in agriculture. None of the codes
adopted to date apply to this big group of children.
In the regulated industries there has been a decrease of at least 50
percent in the employment of children in the past 3 years, according
to the reports of certificating officials which we receive in our office—
at least 50 percent, but more nearly 60 percent. Probably it is in
these industries, which the codes cover where there has been a de­
crease, but the industries in which there has been an increase are not
going to be touched, in all probability, by the codes. So, roughly,
probably 50,000 children will be put into the schools by the N.R.A.
codes, and 500,000 at least will be left in industry of one form or
another. So I do not think that we can agree that child labor is a
thing of the past.
Furthermore, the N.R.A. codes are temporary. A 2-year period
has been set for this legislation and no one knows how things will
move in the meantime, but at any rate we know now that they are
supposed to be temporary. We know that unless the States do this
job, probably it will fall by the boards. I think it is more impera­
tive than ever that State standards be brought up so that the States
can make this child-labor provision of the N.R.A. codes really effec­
tive. It must be supplemented and complemented by State laws in
order to get us anywhere.
Let us turn for a moment to see what has happened in our State
legislation during the depression period—what the States have done
to improve the child-labor situation. You will probably recall that
last December the Children’s Bureau held a conference in Wash­
ington, of all the national organizations interested in child-welfare
problems, to try to get together on a common program on the childlabor problem. At that conference it was agreed to press in State
legislation for a 16-year minimum, an 18-year minimum in the
hazardous occupations, and a 44-hour week for minors. These or­
ganizations, working through their State locals, tried to bring up
the State standard, and 44 State legislatures were meeting. What
was the result? With all the adults who were unemployed, with no
need for child labor of any sort, with little opposition from the
manufacturers’ associations because they were busy with other
things, nevertheless only two States raised their minimum age for
employment during school hours to 16, and those States were
Wisconsin and Utah.
Three States passed double-compensation laws for minors illegally
employed—New Hampshire, Indiana, and Utah. Such laws were
introduced in other States, but were not passed. Connecticut re­
duced its hours of work in retail stores from 54 to 52 a week, with
$ 9-hour day. Seven States, as you know, passed minimum-wage
laws which applied to minors as well as to women.


1 9 3 3 MEETING OE A.G.O.I.

One of the most amazing things that happened was the ratifica­
tion of the child-labor amendment by 9 States without any pushing.
I say without any—there was some. The American Federation of
Labor continued to push constantly for the Federal amendment, but
other organizations were not doing anything on a national basis in
the way they were pushing for the 16-year minimum State legislation.
Yet 9 States ratified. Only 6 States had ratified in the 9 years the
amendment had been pending, yet 9 States ratified in this 1 year.
It is an expression, it seems to me, of recognition that child labor
cannot be reached by State laws, at least as far as a minimum stand­
ard is concerned; that we need a uniform standard upon which we
can build in our State laws, and that unless some buttress is put
under that it is difficult for the States to act. In the 48 States there
are 7,800 legislators, more or less, who have to be converted to this.
We have a large enough group in Congress to convert, but the States
have a greater problem, and it seems to me that we might do some­
thing at this meeting to encourage the passage of the Federal amend­
ment at this time.
This organization has always been interested in some sort of a
uniform standard. At its first meeting, back in 1887, a resolution
was passed endorsing the idea of a uniform standard. We have had
a uniform standard as you know, for a brief period—I think less
than 3 years in all—through our two Federal child-labor laws, both
of which were declared unconstitutional, but during the last years
we have tried to patch up the State laws with very little success.
We can say there is hardly a common policy in child labor today
in this country. The map looks like a patchwork quilt; every time we
get up a map, we go over and over it to see how we can put all these
different standards and ramifications on the map and give anything
like a true picture of the situation.
It seems to me there never has been a greater opportunity than
the present to build up our State laws and really get the enforcing
authority. I f the Federal standard is ever adopted, it will have to
work through the States, and the State departments of labor will
be the ones that will enforce it as they did under the first Federal
child-labor law. A t that time, you know, the machinery was set up
in a very few States by the Federal Government; in the other States
it worked through the State departments of labor. It seems to me
this is the opportunity for the States to build up their laws and get
the same type of standards, if possible, as those that are generally
accepted as standards for the employment of children. We all ap­
preciate the need for proper administrative machinery. Take the
N.R.A. codes that are being applied to industry at the present tim e;
how do the employers under them know that the children are 16
years of age and over ? Under most of our certificating laws no cer­
tificates are issued after the age of 16, and all of you who have had
experience in certificating children know that there is a great deal ol
falsifying as to the ages of those children. They say they are 16
and 17 when they are really 13 or 14. The employers take them in
good faith if they say they are 16, and find later on, when some­
body checks up on them, that they are violating the law. It seems to
me that we ought at once to try to amend our laws if it is necessary.
Some of you do not need to amend your laws. Begin to certificate



the children between 16 and 17, so that employers can be given an
age certificate showing that the child has really passed his sixteenth
birthday. I think some of the States have already started to do
that without legislation.
Our committee has gotten together some suggested standards for
child-labor legislation. These standards are along the lines of the
best laws in the States. They provide for the 16-year minimum, the
18-year minimum for hazardous occupations, no night work, certifica­
tion up to the age of 18, and other administrative provisions. We
appreciate, in submitting this suggested draft of legislation to you,
that it is merelv a guide and should not be accepted blindly as the
draft of a law for you to enact in your legislature. It is merely the
suggested language which has stood the test of the courts, which has
been worked over by administrative officials to see that there are no
loopholes, and to see that the various parts of it agree, so that one
section will not offset another section, and vice versa. We hope very
much that this draft and the suggested standards on child labor, on
street trades, and on double compensation for the illegally employed
minor will be of real aid in building up State standards during this
difficult period.
These standards were worked over, I may say, by Miss Swett, Mr.
Tone, Miss Miller, Miss Macintosh, of Canada, and Miss Ella
Ketchin, of Alabama. Mr. Magnusson has also worked over this
particular draft.
We have given the arguments for this particular draft, pointing
out the different standards in different States and the generally ac­
cepted language on each of these points, so that it reads not like a
bill but more as one section after the other.
Let me take the age for instance; the suggested language on
minimum age is as follow s:
M inimum age .— No minor under 16 years of age shall be employed, permitted,
or suffered to work in, about, or in connection with any gainful occupation,
except housework or agricultural work performed outside of school hours
in connection with the minor’s own home and directly for his parent, guardian
or custodian.

That means no employment of children under 16 except around
their own home.
Provided , That boys 14 years of age and over may be employed outside of
school hours in the sale or distribution of newspapers, magazines or periodicals
subject to the provisions of chapter and of law sections relating to street
trades; A nd provided , That minors between 14 and 16 years of age may work
outside school hours or during vacation in [insert here occupations to be
perm itted]; Provided , That no minor under 16 shall at any time be employed,
permitted, or suffered to work on or in connection with power-driven machinery
of any kind or in close proximity to such machinery.

There is a break in that for you to insert the occupations to be
permitted. That is a case where the State will have a different idea
of what occupations in that community need regulating outside of
school hours, but there should be no exemption during school hours.
Then the hours of labor—it is a lengthy paragraph. [Reads
from “ Suggested language ” of recommendations on child-labor
We feel that that is very important and in alinement with the
recommendations of the advisory committee on hazardous occupa­
tions to minors, but the State board has the power, in addition to any

1 9 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.


specified prohibitions in the law, to prohibit the employment of
minors in the occupations that they find hazardous in that partic­
ular State.
Then employment certificating set-up—the main provisions that
are necessary for the State supervision of employment certificate
issuance—we feel that it is very important that there should be a
State body and that each issuing officer should not be a law unto
himself. We know that wherever that is allowed there are as many
interpretations of the law as there are issuing officers, and that is
true in many of our States.
The enforcement provision in the draft is much the same as that
in most of your laws. It is a very simple draft, but we feel that it
meets all the points that it is necessary to meet in a child-labor law.
We have not tried to specify what the machinery should be for the
enforcement of this law. It will vary with the State. In some of
your States enforcement is by the State department of labor entirely;
in others it is by the school authorities, and in still others by a
combination o f the two. We feel that State supervision should be
in the hands of the enforcing authorities. I f the State department
of labor is enforcing the law, it should have supervision of the
certificating, even if that is being done by the schools, so that there
will be uniformity.
As to street trades we have recommended a 12-year minimum for
carriers and a 14-year minimum for street selling. In England,
you will be interested to know, there has recently been passed a 16year minimum for street trades for the whole of England, so that
a 14-year minimum certainly seems mild enough for anybody.
Then there are the provisions for general enforcement and the
provision for double compensation for minors illegally employed. A
number of the States here represented already have that in their
compensation law, but a great many others have not, and it is one
of the most important provisions in the enforcement of the statute.
I f an employer realizes that he must pay double compensation and
that he cannot shift the burden to the insurance company, he is apt
to be more careful as to the age of the child he is employing.
We also have a draft of another amendment to the compensation
law on the basis for computing compensation to minors. It is the
custom now to base compensation upon the actual wages the child
was earning at the time he was injured, when he may have been
earning only $2 a week, so it has been thought wise in a number of
States to amend the compensation law to provide that compensation
of the minor shall be based on his probable future earnings. I do
not believe there is any question as to the wisdom of such an

B y C l a r a M. B e y e ir , chadrman
C h i l d -L a b o r L a w — R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

a s to



L anguage

The basic standard of a child-labor law is the minimum age. It is gen­
erally agreed that this age should be 1G at least for work during school hours,




and that the scape of the law should be broad enough to include all kinds of
employment, since it is the unregulated occupations in which employment of
children is increasing.
The use of general language such a s : “ No child under 16 years of age
shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work, in, about, or in connection
with any gainful occupation ” , similar to that found in the laws of many States
having a 14- or 15-year minimum (e.g., Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Maine,
Pennsylvania, and W isconsin), with such exemptions as are considered neces­
sary, is to be preferred to a long list of occupations (as in Ohio and Mary­
land), since it is almost impossible to make such a list complete.
To avoid the objection often brought forward that this general language
prevents children from working for their parents at chores about the house
or the home farm, it may be well to make an exemption which will cover
such work but will not open the door to employment in all domestic service
and farm work. This exception might be worded: “ Except housework or
agricultural work performed outside of school hours in connection with the
minor’s own home and directly for his parent, guardian, or custodian.”
Agricultural pursuits are usually exempted from child-labor provisions, but
exploitation of children in commercialized agriculture has interfered with their
attendance at school and subjects them to undue physical strain. Several
States have attempted regulation. The Industrial Commission of Wisconsin
lias been given power to regulate certain types of commercialized agriculture,
and under this provision has prohibited the employment of minors under 14 in
the cultivation of sugar beets more than 8 hours a day or during school hours.
The Ohio law applies to farm work as to other occupations; children under
16 must not be employed during school hours, but outside school hours they
may work not more than 4 hours a day and only in occupations not harmful
to health.
Domestic service also is commonly unregulated, but recent information from
State and city officials indicates that domestic service must be regulated be­
cause of the growing exploitation of young girls for long hours and low wages
in housework. There has been successful regulation of this service, in the
same way as other occupations are regulated, in New York, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin, for example.
Many State laws do not regulate street work, and a minimum age for boys
in this work lower than in industrial occupations is common where such regu­
lations exist. But the unwholesome surroundings of this work indicate that
it should not be exempt. Since for such laws special administrative procedure,
differing from that applying primarily to children under the direct supervision
of an employer, is needed, separate recommendations are made for the sale
and distribution of newspapers, etc.
States such as Ohio, Maine, and Michigan, in which the general age minimum
for employment is 15 or 16, permit employment outside school hours and dur­
ing vacations at 14. This after-school employment should be carefully limited

and should exclude tvork on or in connection with pow er machinery.
Suggested language

M inimum age. — No minor under 16 years of age shall be employed, permitted,
or suffered to work in, about, or in connection with any gainful occupation
except housework or agricultural work performed outside of school hours in
connection with the minor’s own home and directly for his parent, guardian,
or custodian: Provided., That boys 14 years of age and over may be employed
outside of school hours in the sale or distribution of newspapers, magazines, or
periodicals subject to the provisions of chapter and of law sections relating to
street trades; And provided, That minors between 14 and 16 years of age may
work outside school hours or during vacation in [insert here occupations to


1 9 3 3 M E E T IN G OF A .G .O .I.

be permitted] ; Provided, That no minor under 16 shall at any time be employed,
permitted, or suffered to work on or in connection with power-driven machinery
of any kind or in close proximity to such machinery.


It is generally recognized that the hours for minors should be less than those
allowed for adults. However, the 8-hour day and the 44-hour week has been
the lowest standard actually set up by State laws. Four States (Mississippi,
New York, New Mexico, and Virginia) fix an 8-hour day (the usual limit in
State laws) but a 44-hour week for minors under 16, and Utah extends the
8-hour day and 44-hour week to minors up to 18. Shorter hours— the 40- and
even the 85-hour week— are now being put into effect under the N.R.A. codes,
which will be temporary in duration. Should this tendency toward a shorter
workday and work week become permanent the hours for minors should, of
course, be correspondingly lowered. Certain provisions as to records of hours
to be kept by employers are needed for adequate enforcement.
Suggested language

H ours of labor .— No minor under 18 years of age shall be employed, per­
mitted, or suffered to work in, about, or in connection with any gainful occupa­
tion, except housework or agricultural work performed outside of school hours
in connection with the minor’s own home and directly for his parent, guardian,
or custodian, more than 6 consecutive days in any 1 week, or more than 44
hours in any 1 week, or more than 8 hours in any 1 day, nor shall any girl
under 18 years of age or boy under 16 years of age be so employed, permitted,
or suffered to work before the hour of 7 o’clock in the morning or after the
hour of 6 o’clock in the evening of any day, nor shall any boy between 16 and
18 years of age be so employed, permitted, or suffered to work before the hour
of 6 o’clock in the morning or after the hour of 10 o’clock in the evening of any
day: Provided, That boys between 14 and 16 may be employed in the sale or
distribution of newspapers, magazines, or periodicals, outside school hours and
between 6 a.m. and 7 p .m .; and Provided, That minors between 16 and 18 may
be employed in a concert or theatrical performance up to 11 p.m. The com­
bined hours of work and hours in school of children under 16 employed outside
school hours shall not exceed a total of 8 per day.
Posting of hours .— Every employer shall post and keep conspicuously posted
in the establishment in or about which any minor is employed, permitted, or
suffered to work, a printed abstract of the legal regulations governing the
employment and hours of work of minors and occupations prohibited to
minors in such establishments, to be furnished by the [insert here name of
official or department authorized to enforce child labor laws], and a schedule of
hours of labor which shall contain the name of the minor employed or permitted
to work, the maximum number of hours such minor shall be required or per­
mitted to work on each day of the week, with the total for the week, the hours
of commencing and stopping work, and the hours when the time allowed for
meals shall begin and end for each day of the week. An employer may permit
such minor to begin work after the time for beginning, and stop before the
time for ending work, stated in such schedule; but he shall not otherwise em­
ploy or permit him to work except as stated in such schedule. This schedule
shall be on a form provided by the [State official of enforcing department] and
shall remain the property of that [department]. Every employer shall keep a
time record in a form approved by the [State official or department enforcing
child-labor law] showing for each minor employee the time of beginning and
ending work each day, the time for meal periods, and the total hours worked
per day and per week.





It is highly important that the employment of minors under 18 in especially
hazardous kinds of work be prohibited. Present State laws on this subject are
admittedly most inadequate though the need for such regulation is recognized
in many States by limited protection for the group between 16 and 18. The
advisory committee on the employment of minors in hazardous occupations has
set up recommendations as to occupations and establishments from which
young persons under 18 should be excluded. In the opinion of the committee
legislation of this kind should include both the prohibition of work in specified
employments, such as mining and construction, in which the hazards are not
likely to be eliminated by improved methods, and the granting of power to
a State board to determine what other occupations are hazardous and to make
rulings excluding minors from these employments or making regulations in
regard to them. The committee stated that so far as is practicable, rules re­
lating to occupations involving employment on specific machines or special
conditions of employment in which the hazards involved are subject to frequent
change should be promulgated by such a State board. These boards should
have power to revise from time to time the rulings that they have laid down,
and they should carry on continuous study to keep prohibitions abreast of
new industrial hazards.
It is suggested that the specific occupations listed as hazardous by the com­
mittee be studied in the light of industrial conditions in the State and in the
light of the possibility of obtaining active cooperation with the State labor
law enforcing body. Careful consideration should be given to the question of
what occupations should be included and what should be left to rulings.
The recommendations of the committee do not cover morally hazardous
occupations and at least some of these should be prohibited by statute.
The suggested specific provisions which follow include only certain occupa­
tions where the hazard is very general, and certain occupations involving moral
Suggested language

Pow er of State Board to prohibit employment of m inors in hazardous occupa­
tions.— No minor under 18 shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work in
any place of employment, or at any employment, dangerous or prejudicial to
the life, health, safety, or welfare of such minor. It shall be the duty of
[State official or department authorized to enforce the child-labor law] and
the said [official or department] shall have power, jurisdiction, and authority,
after hearings duly held, to issue general or special orders, which shall have
the force of law, prohibiting the employment of such minors in any place of
employment or at any employment dangerous or prejudicial to the life, health,
safety, or welfare of such minors.
Hazardous employments prohibited. — No minor under 18 years of age shall
be employed, permitted, or suffered to work in, about, or in connection with :
Construction work of all kinds; shipbuilding; mines or quarries; stone cutting
or polishing; the manufacture, transportation, or use of explosives, or explosive
or highly inflammable substances; lumbering or logging operations; saw or
planing m ills; operating or assisting in operating punch presser or stamping
machines if the clearance between the ram and the die or the stripper exceeds
one-fourth inch; cutting machines having a guillotine action; power-driven
woodworking machinery; machinery having a heavy rolling or crushing action;
or in the care, custody, operation, or repair of elevators, or other hoisting
No girl under the age of 18 years shall be employed, permitted, or suffered
to work in any hotel or restaurant; or as an usher, attendant, or ticket seller,
or in a candy or cigarette booth, in any theater or place of amusement; or as
a messenger in the distribution or delivery of goods or messages for any person,




OF A .G .O .I.

firm, or corporation engaged in the business of transmitting or delivering
No boy under 18 years of age shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work
as messenger for any telegraph, telephone, or messenger company between the
hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
[Continue with other prohibitions determined upon as pointed out above.]


For effective enforcement an employment-certificate system is essential to
keep children from going to work without meeting the requirements of the
law and to aid the inspection department in enforcement. The decision as
to what official should issue certificates may depend upon the present set-up
in the State and upon what group of officials may be relied upon to do the
work effectively. Usually it has been found most practicable to give this
power to local school officials. Where there is a strong State department of
labor, it may be thought desirable to give this department power to appoint
the issuing officers. This has been done successfully in W isconsin; in that
State school officials are often designated, but other persons, such as the
county judge, or a representative of the department, may also be appointed
as issuing officers.
It has been found effective to give the State official authorized to supervise
the issuance of employment certificates power to make rulings in regard to
evidence of age to be accepted and the procedure for making physical examina­
tions. These details are therefore omitted from the text of the followingproposals. They may be inserted if desired.
Suggested language

Em ploym ent certificates required. — No minor under 18 years of age shall
be employed, permitted, or suffered to work in, about, or in connection with
any gainful occupation, unless his employer has procured before the employ­
ment of said minor an employment certificate issued as hereinafter pre­
scribed. This section shall not apply to a minor engaging in housework or
agricultural work performed outside school hours in connection with the minor’s
own home and directly for his parent, guardian, or custodian, or to the em­
ployment of a minor outside school hours in casual work usual to the home
of the employer: P rovided , That such casual employment shall not be in con­
nection with nor form a part of the business, trade, profession, or occupation
of the employer.
Issuing officer.— The employment certificate required by this act shall be
issued only by [insert name of official authorized to issue] in such form and
under such conditions as may be prescribed by the [insert name of official or
department authorized to supervise the issuance of certificates].
Refusal and revocation of employment certificate. — The person designated to
issue employment certificates may refuse to grant such certificate if, in his
judgment, the best interests of the minor would be served by such refusal.
R equirem ents fo r issuing employment certificates. — The officer authorized to
issue employment certificates shall issue such certificates only upon the applica­
tion in person of the minor desiring employment, and after having approved
and filed the following papers:
(a ) A promise of employment signed by the prospective employer or by
someone duly authorized by him, setting forth the specific nature of the occu­
pation in which he intends to employ such minor, and the number of hours per
day and days per week which said minor shall be employed.
(b) Evidence of age showing that the minor is of the age required by this
act, which evidence shall be as prescribed by the [State official or department
authorized to supervise issuance of employment certificates].
(c) A statement of physical fitness, signed by a public health, public school,
or other physician assigned to this duty by the issuing officer with the approval
of the [State official or department authorized to supervise issuance of certif­
icates] setting forth that such minor has been thoroughly examined by such



physician, and that he is either physically fit to be employed in any legal
occupation, or that he is physically fit to be employed under certain limitations,
specified in the statement. I f the statement of physical fitness is limited the
employment certificate issued thereon shall state clearly the limitations upon
its use, and shall be valid only when used under the limitations so stated.
The minor shall not be charged a fee for such examinations or statement of
physical fitness. The method of making such examinations shall be prescribed
by the State official or department authorized to supervise the issuance of
A school record filled out and signed by the principal of the school
which the minor has last attended or by someone duly authorized by him,
giving the full name, date of birth, grade last completed, and residence of the
Said employment certificate duly issued shall be conclusive evidence of the
age of the minor for whom issued in any proceeding involving the employ­
ment of the minor under the child labor or workmen’s compensation law or
any other labor law of the State, as to any act occurring subsequent to its
K inds of employment certificates. — Employment certificates shall be of two
kinds, regular certificates permitting employment during school hours, and
outside-school-hours certificates, permitting employment during the school vaca­
tion and during the school term at such time as the public schools are not
in session.
D uties of employers in rega rd to employment certificates. — Every employer
receiving an employment certificate shall, upon the commencement of the em­
ployment of such minor, so notify the issuing officer in writing, and immediately
after termination of the employment shall return said certificate to the
issuing officer. Failure to comply with these provisions may be cause for the
refusal of certificates to such employer. A new certificate shall not be issued
to any minor except upon presentation of a new promise of employment and a
new certificate of physical fitness.
Said employer shall, during the period of the child’s employment, keep such
certificate accessible to any certificate-issuing officer, attendance officer, in­
spector, or other person authorized to enforce this act. The failure of any
employer to produce for inspection such employment certificate, or the presence
of any minor under 18 in his place of work at any time other than that specified
in the posted schedule of hours required in section 3 of this act, shall be
prima facie evidence of the unlawful employment of the minor. The pres­
ence of any minor in any place of employment shall be prima facie evidence
of the employment of such minor.
Certificate of age.— Upon request, it shall be the duty of the issuing officer
to issue to any young person between the ages of 18 and 21 (i.e., a minor above
the age for which employment certificates are required) desiring to enter
employment a certificate of age upon presentation of the same proof of age
as is required for the issuance of employment certificates under this act, and
such certificate duly issued shall be conclusive evidence of the age of the minor
for whom issued in any proceeding involving the employment of a minor under
the child labor or workmen’s compensation law or any other labor law of the
State, as to any act occurring subsequent to its issuance.


Issuance of certificates should be under the supervision of some State author­
ity, which should prescribe the forms to be used and the records to be kept by
local issuing officers, make regulations for the issuance of certificates, and check
up on the methods in use through examination of the duplicates of certificates re­
ceived from local officers, through requiring such other reports as may be neces­
sary from these officers, and through) personal inspection of their work. W h o­
ever the issuing officers may be, the function of supervising their work in most
States can probably be carried on most efficiently and economically by the
State agency, whether an education or a labor department, which has the
power of inspection for violations and also the general power of enforcement
of the child-labor laws.


193 3


OF A .G .O .I,

Suggested language

State supervision of the issuance of employment certificates .— The [insert
name of official or department authorized to supervise the issuance of employ­
ment certificates] shall prescribe such rules and regulations for the issuance
of employment certificates and age certificates as will promote uniformity and
efficiency in the administration of this act, including regulations as to the
evidence of age to be accepted and the method of making physical examinations.
It also shall supply to local issuing officers all blank forms to be used in con­
nection with the issuance of such certificates. Duplicates of each employment
or age certificate shall be mailed by the issuing officer to this [insert name of
official or department] within 5 days after issuance. The [insert name of
official or department] may revoke any such certificate if in its judgment it was
improperly issued or if the minor is illegally employed. If the certificate be
revoked, the issuing officer and the employer shall be notified of such action
in writing and such minor shall not thereafter be employed or permitted to
work until a new certificate has been legally obtained.

Inspection for the enforcement of all child-labor laws, including those regu­
lating the employment of children in mines or quarries, should be under the
same department, which should be empowered and required to inspect all places
of employment. Except in the absence of a State labor department, or in
States in which historical precedent makes it particularly desirable that the
enforcement of child-labor legislation be placed in the hands of a State child
welfare or education department or a special child-labor board, inspections for
child-labor laws should be made by the State department which enforces the
other labor laws of the State.
Suggested language

Inspection and prosecutions .— It shall be the duty of the [enter name of offi­
cial or department authorized to enforce the child-labor law] and of the in­
spectors and agents of said [official or department authorized to enforce the
child-labor law] to enforce the provisions of this act, to make complaints
against persons violating its provisions, and to prosecute violations of the same.
The director of the said [official or department], its inspectors, and agents
shall have authority to enter and inspect at any time any place or establish­
ment covered by this act, and to have access to employment certificates kept
on file by the employer and such other records as may aid in the enforce­
ment of this act. All persons authorized to issue certificates of physical fitness
and all attendance officers and probation officers are likewise empowered to visit
and inspect at all reasonable hours all places where minors may be employed.
Any person authorized to enforce this act may make demand on the employer
of a minor for whom an employment certificate is not on file that such em­
ployer shall either furnish him within 10 days the evidence required for an
employment certificate showing that the minor is at least 18 years of age, or
shall refuse to employ or permit or suffer such minor to work. Proof of the
making of such demand and of failure to deliver such proof of age shall be
prima facie evidence, in any prosecution brought for violation of this act,
that such minor is under 18 years of age and is unlawfully employed.
P enalties .— Whoever employs or permits or suffers any minor to be employed
or to work in violation of this act, or of any order or ruling issued under the
provisions of this act, or obstructs the said department enforcing the childlabor law, its officers or agents, or any other person authorized to inspect places
of employment under this act, and whoever, having under his control or custody
any minor, permits or suffers him to be employed or to work in violation of
this act, shall for a first offense be punished by [insert suitable penalty, which
should provide for the imposition of imprisonment, as well as fine, or both].
Each day during which any violation of this act continues shall constitute a
separate and distinct offense. The penalties specified in this act may be re­
covered by the State in an action for debt brought before any court of com­
petent jurisdiction, or through criminal proceedings, as may be deemed proper.






Because of the possibility that a court decision declaring one provision of the
act unconstitutional may invalidate the whole act, a saving clause has been
found desirable.
Suggested language

Constitutionality of act .— I f any part of this act is decided to be unconstitu­
tional and void, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
parts of this act unless the part held void is indispensable to the operation of
the remaining parts.


To avoid confusion as to what previous provisions of the law are in effect,
those sections of former laws which it is the intent of the new act to replace
should be specifically repealed, as well as all provisions inconsistent with the
new act. This section requires careful consideration of the existing law.
Suggested language

R epeal .— Sections ----------------------- of chapter ------------ of the Laws o f -----------Tor other reference], and all laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act,
are hereby repealed.

S t r e e t T r a d e s L a w — R e c o m m e n d a t io n s
m in im u m



S tandards


L anguage



The White House Conference recommends:
Newspaper selling has such undesirable features as an occupation for chil­
dren that a minimum age of 16 should be considered. This is the minimum
advocated for full-time employment in other kinds of work and if adopted
would mean the prohibition of street selling for boys below the age at which
they might leave school for work.
I f public opinion does not favor such
a program of prohibition, the regulation should set a minimum age of at
least 14 years.
The latest child-labor law for Great Britain fixes a minimum age of 16 for
street selling.
The language in existing State laws is followed in the paragraphs suggested
below, as it is recognized that it may be difficult to obtain a higher minimum
than 14.
Suggested language

M inim um age .— No boy under 14 years of age and no girl under 18 years of
age shall distribute, sell, expose, or offer for sale newspapers, magazines, or
periodicals, in any street or public place, or exercise the trade of bootblack,
in any street or public place: Provided , That boys 12 years of age and over
may engage in the distribution of newspapers, magazines, or periodicals on
fixed routes in residential districts.
N o t e .— It is intended that minors selling goods from house to house or on
the streets on commission should be covered by the general child-labor law.


Employment of young boys on the stre,et at night is obviously demoralizing
and should be prohibited.
Suggested language

H ours of labor .— No boy under 16 years of age shall work or shall be em­
ployed or permitted or suffered to work at any of the trades or occupations
7 3 5 9 7 °— 34------ 11




mentioned in section 1 of this act, in any street or public place after the hour
of 7 p.m. or before the hour 6 a.m., or, unless he has an employment certificate
issued in accordance with the child-labor law, during the hours when the
public schools are in session.


In any child-labor regulation, some sort of work-permit system has been
found necessary to keep children from going to work without fulfilling the
age and other requirements of the law, and to make possible supervision of the
child while at work. In street-trades regulation a badge is usually substituted
for the permit or is used in addition to it.
Suggested language

B ad ge req uired. — No boy under 16 years of age shall work at any time, or
be employed or permitted or suffered to work at any time, in any of the
trades or occupations mentioned in section 1 of this act, except in the distri­
bution of newspapers, magazines, or periodicals on fixed routes in residential
districts, unless he shall have procured a badge issued by the official authorized
by law to issue employment certificates.
Issuance of l)adge.— Said official shall issue a street-trades badge only upon
application of the minor desiring it, accompanied by his parent, guardian or
custodian, and after having received such evidence of the minor’s age, physical
fitness, and school attendance, as is required for the issuance of employment cer­
tificates to minors under 18. The issuing officer may refuse to grant such badge
if, in his judgment, the best interests of the minor would be served by such
refusal. Such badge shall bear a number, and shall be renewed annually.
N o t e .— It is assumed in this draft that the State child-labor law already
sets up the standards for evidence of age and physical examinations proposed in
the draft for a general child-labor law [see p. 146]. I f the State child-labor
law does not have these standards they should be specifically outlined here.
Use of badge. — No minor to whom such badge is issued shall transfer it to
any other person, or be engaged in any of the trades or occupations mentioned
in this section without wearing conspicuously such badge, and he shall exhibit
the same upon demand to any police or attendance officer, or to any person
charged with the duty of enforcing this act.
State supervision of the issuance of street-trades badges. — The State [insert
name of official or department authorized to supervise the issuance of employ­
ment certificates] shall prescribe such rules and regulations for the issuance of
street-trades badges as will promote uniformity and efficiency in the enforce­
ment of this act. The form of all badges and other papers used in connection
with the issuance of street-trades badges or required by this act shall be pre­
scribed or approved by said [official or department]. The officer issuing streettrades badges shall make such reports to this [official or department] as the said
[official or department] may prescribe.
enforcem ent


In case of a street-trades law, it is just as essential that there be some en­
forcing central authority as in case of a general child-labor law. Division of
responsibility results in no enforcement at all.
Success in overcoming the peculiar difficulties incident to this kind of work
seems to be met with most often when the enforcement of the law is in the
hands of the officials who also administer the child-labor laws, usually the
school officials, even when the child-labor-law administration is rather imperfect.
Suggested language

Inspection and prosecutions. — It shall be the duty of the State [official or
department authorized to enforce the general child-labor law] to enforce the
provisions of this act, to inspect all places wherein minors subject to such



provisions are or may be at work, to make complaint against persons violating
its provisions, and prosecute violations of this act. In places where the said
[official or department] deems it desirable for the better enforcement of
these provisions, it may delegate these duties to the attendance officer or other
person authorized to enforce the compulsory school attendance law.
Revocation of badge. — The official charged with the enforcement of this
act shall have authority to investigate each case where he believes that the
child holding a badge is not entitled to its possession, and if he is satisfied
from the evidence obtained that the badge was secured through misrepresen­
tation or fraud, shall have authority to revoke the badge and return it to
the official who issued it. A badge may be revoked or suspended in case the
child violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this act, or in
case the child’s school record is not satisfactory to the principal of the school
which he attends, by either the officer authorized to issue such badges or by
any official charged with the enforcement of this act.
D uties of person furnishing articles to minor. — Any person who, either for
himself or as agent of any other person, or of any firm, corporation, or com­
pany, furnishes or sells or offers for sale to any minor under 16 any news­
paper, magazine, or periodical to be used for the purpose of sale in any public
place, shall first ascertain that said minor wears his own badge in plain sight
and if the minor has no badge, no article shall be furnished or sold to him.
Every newspaper publisher or other person so furnishing or selling or offering
for sale to any minor under 16 newspapers, magazines, or periodicals to be
used for the purpose of sale in any public place, or employing either directly
or indirectly through one or more contractors or third persons any minor
under 16 to sell such newspapers, magazines, or periodicals in any public
place, shall keep posted in his circulation room or sales office, on a form to be
prescribed by the officials authorized to issue street-trades badges, a record of
such minors, giving the name, address, and date of birth of the minor; the
badge number and date issued; together with such other information as may
be required by the said official.
Duties of new spaper publisher , etc.— No newspaper publisher, circulation
agent, or other person having for sale newspapers, magazines, or periodicals
shall permit any boy under the age of 16 years required to attend school
to loiter or remain around any salesroom, assembly room, circulation room,
or office for the sale of newspapers or periodicals, between the hours of the
opening of school in the forenoon and the close of school in the afternoon,
on days when school is in session, or between the hours of 7 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Penalties. — Any person, firm, corporation, agent, or officer of a firm or cor­
poration, who either directly or indirectly through one or more third persons,
employs, permits, or suffers any minor to be employed or to work in violation
of any of the provisions of this act, or who violates any other provision of
this act, or whoever having under his control or custody any minor permits
or suffers him to be employed or to work in violation of the provisions of
this act, shall for a first offense be punished by [insert suitable penalty,
which should provide for the imposition of imprisonment, as well as fine, or
Each day during which any violation of this act continues shall
constitute a separate and distinct offense. The penalties specified in this act
may be recovered by the State in an action for debt brought before any court
of competent jurisdiction, or through criminal proceedings', as may be deemed
Any minor who shall engage in any of the trades or occupations mentioned
in section 1 of this act in violation of any of the provisions of this act shall
for a first offense be warned by the official authorized to enforce this act,
and the parent, guardian, or custodian of such minor shall be notified. In
case of a subsequent offense, such minor may be deemed delinquent and
brought before the juvenile court or any other court having jurisdiction
over juvenile offenders, and dealt with according to law.


Because of the possibility that a court decision declaring one provision of
the act unconstitutional may invalidate the whole act, a saving clause has
been found desirable.


19 3 3 MEETING OE A.G.O.I.

Suggested language

Constitutionality of act .— I f any part of this act is decided to be unconstitu­
tional and void, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
parts of this act unless the part held void is indispensable to the operation
of the remaining parts.


To avoid confusion as to what previous provisions of law are in effect,
those sections of former laws which it is the intent of the new act to replace
should be specifically repealed, as well as all provisions inconsistent with the
new act. This section requires careful consideration of the existing law.
Suggested language

R epeal .— Sections ------- of chapters ------- of the Laws o f ------- [or other ref­
erence], and all laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act, are hereby

D o u b l e C o m p e n s a t io n P r o v is io n — R e c o m m e n d a t io n s
L anguage

a s to



(Amendment to compensation law providing additional compensation in case of
minors injured while illegally employed)

Provision in the compensation laws requiring the payment of additional
compensation in the case of minors injured or killed while illegally employed
has proved of great assistance in the enforcement of child-labor laws. The
employer who must bear the additional burden himself is eager to learn
the requirements of the child-labor law and to employ minors only in keeping
with them. Additional compensation gives to the minor an amount somewhat
comparable to that which he would be entitled to recover in a suit at law
from his employer if excluded from the compensation act.
A t the present time 10 States (Alabama, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Mis­
souri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Utah) have
followed the lead of Wisconsin in providing extra compensation in the case
of minors whose injuries are sustained while they are illegally employed.
Suggested language

Compensation or death benefits as provided in this act shall be double the
amount otherwise payable if the employee at the time of the injury is under
18 years of age and is employed, permitted or suffered to work in violation of
any provision of the laws of this State prohibiting or regulating the employment
of minors of such age, or in violation of any ruling having the force of law
prohibiting or regulating such employment.
The amount by which such
compensation or death benefits shall exceed that otherwise payable may be
referred to as “ additional compensation.”
In case of liability for the additional compensation, the liability of the
employer shall be primary and the liability of the insurance carrier shall be
secondary. In case proceedings are had before the commission for the recovery
of such additional compensation the commission shall set forth in its award the
amount and order of liability as herein provided. Execution shall not be
issued against the insurance carrier to satisfy any judgment covering such
additional compensation until execution has first been issued against the
employer and has been returned unsatisfied as to any part thereof.
provision in any insurance policy undertaking to guarantee primary liability
or to avoid secondary liability for such additional compensation shall be void.
In any proceeding arising under this section an employment-certificate or
age certificate issued in accordance with the provisions of the law relating to
the employment of minors shall be conclusive evidence of the age of the minor
for whom issued as to any act occurring subsequent to its issuance. An em­
ployment or age certificate unlawfully issued by an official authorized to issue



such a certificate, or unlawfully altered after issuance, shall in the absence of
fraud on the part of the employer be deemed a certificate within the meaning
of this section.

N ote 1.— I f the compensation act to b e amended does not specifically define
the term “ employee ” to include illegally employed minors, this definition should
also be amended to apply to “ minors whether lawfully or unlawfully employed.”
N ote 2.— Treble compensation might be substituted for double compensation
for injuries occurring to minors employed in prohibited occupations and so
likely to be subject to more serious hazards. This has been done in Wisconsin.
N ote 3.— Attention should be called to the need for safeguarding compensation
funds so that they may be administered in the interests of the child’s education
and welfare. Such a provision would differ in different States according to
the method of enforcement of the workmen’s compensation law and according
to whether the State board enforcing the compensation law would in fact be
willing to undertake the supervision necessary for such safeguarding of the
This has been done in Wisconsin by the industrial commission.
B a s is


C o m p u t in g C o m p e n s a t io n to M in o r s — R e c o m m e n d a t io n s
S tandards a n d L anguage



The amount of compensation payable under the workmen’s compensation
laws is in nearly all States based upon average earnings, the employee usually
receiving a certain percentage of this average, subject to a fixed maximum
payment. A s the wages of minors are usually low, this method of compen­
sation obviously results in correspondingly small compensation to minor em­
ployees, a situation especially unfair in the case of young workers permanently
injured. A number of States have made special provisions operating to in­
crease the compensation by taking into consideration the minor’s future earn­
ing capacity. In cases of disability which is only temporary, there is no
permanent impairment of earning power, and the reason for basing the com­
pensation on possible future earnings is not so strong; a number of the
States limit the provision to cases of permanent disability. However, if the
minor’s earnings would probably have increased during a period of temporary
disability, it would seem that consideration should be given to any such
expected increases, and under some of the laws this may be done. The
first of the two suggested drafts below would apply in cases of both tem­
porary and permanent disability.

Suggested language
(For provision requiring normal increase in earnings to be taken into con­
sideration in arriving at average weekly wage on which to base compensation.)
Basis of compensation .— Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the
average weekly wages of the injured employee at the time of the injury shall be
taken as the basis upon which to compute compensation or death benefits, and
shall be determined as follow s:







5. I f it be established that the injured employee was a minor when injured,
and that under normal conditions his wages would be expected to increase,
the fact may be considered in arriving at his average weekly wages. In
determining such probable earnings due consideration shall be given to the
employee’s aptitude, education, and experience fitting him for any employment
not only in the trade or business in which he was engaged at the time of the
injury but in any other trade or business. Unless otherwise established, his
earnings shall be taken as equivalent to the amount upon which maximum
weekly indemnity is payable. [This is based chiefly on New York provision
with addition of last sentence from Wisconsin provision.]
(For provision requiring that in case of injury to a minor resulting in per­
manent disability compensation be based upon the probable future earnings
of the minor.)
Basis of compensation .— I f the injured employee was, at the time of the
injury, a minor, and is permanently disabled, his average weekly wage for


i 9 33 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

the purpose of determining the indemnity payable under this act shall be
determined on the basis of the earnings that such minor if not disabled prob­
ably would earn within a reasonable time after reaching the age of 21 (W is­
consin has 27) years. In determining such probable earnings due considera­
tion shall be given to the employee’s aptitude, education, and experience fitting
him for any employment, not only in the trade or business in which he was
engaged at the time of the injury, but in any other trade or business. Unless
otherwise established, his earnings shall be taken as equivalent to the amount
upon which maximum weekly indemnity is payable.

Chairman S e il l e r . Mrs. Beyer has given us a clear-cut report. We
are open for discussion or any questions.
Miss W ood. In the street trades is there a higher minimum age for
girls ?
Mrs. B e y e k . Yes; it is 18 for girls.
[A t the suggestion of Dr. Patton the report and recommenda­
tions were referred to the committee on resolutions.]
Miss M il l e r (New Y ork). May I ask Mrs. Beyer what informa­
tion she has about the hazards in types of occupations which are
exempted from N.K.A. codes? Have you anything that would be
useful to us in discussing such situations ?
Mrs. B e y e r . We have just completed a study of accidents to minors
in the messenger service, which reveals a very high rate of accident
for those messengers, particularly boys riding bicycles for the West­
ern Union and for the Postal— 11 out of every 100 boys were injured
in the course o f a year and many of the injuries were serious.
O f the foot messengers, only 2 out of 100 were injured during the
course of a year, and of those riding motorcycles 44 out of 100 were
injured during the course of a year. Since this is not considered a
hazardous occupation by our child-labor laws, those boys get only
the same as if they were in ordinary occupations. It is time we
were considering the hazardous state of our streets so far as these
messengers are concerned. You will be interested to note that we
have secured an 18-year minimum in the lumber and timber code—
no child under 18 shall be employed in the actual processes of lum­
bering and in and around sawmills and places of that sort. I think
it was a real accomplishment to get that into the code.
Chairman S e i l l e r . Mrs. Beyer, what about the coal code—what
is being recommended for that?
Mrs. B e y e r . Eighteen is being recommended for that. A repre­
sentative of the Department of Labor of Pennsylvania made a strik­
ing statement at the code hearing, asking for an 18-year minimum.
Miss Carr said that their study of accidents to minors in that indus­
try has shown that 1 out of 7 of the boys employed in coal
mines were injured during the course of the year, which is a higher
rate than for messengers; it is one of the highest accident rates in
any industry. The occupation is so hazardous that the insurance
companies no longer wish to carry insurance for coal miners. It was
also found that the accident rate in Pennsylvania was higher for
these boys of 16 and 17 than it was for adults, so we had a basis for
trying to rule them out of the industry.



The code as it was announced the other day, and as you probably
saw it in the press, however, had the provision that no minor under
16 shall be employed inside any coal mine, nor shall any minor under
16 be employed outside any coal mine in hazardous occupations,
meaning that they could work as breaker boys, or anything else, at
any age. So we went to General Johnson with that and told him
it must have been a typographical error. Protests have come in
from all over the country. I think that may be changed. I am
waiting with great interest for the coal code to come out.
Chairman Seiller. Kentucky is the fourth coal-producing State
in the Union and our operators use a great many young persons—boys, between 16 and 18. In fact, a fourth of all of our industrial
accidents in Kentucky are of those under the age of 22. We col­
lected figures from the compensation board upon a 10-year basis
and found it true for the 10-year period.
Another point brought up by Mrs. Beyer, which I have endeavored
in our first-class city—Louisville—to bring about is city regulation
to prohibit the use of bicycles on the streets of the city as a whole.
I believe that a majority of the accidents on our streets are from
people who ride bicycles—men and boys— and I am glad that this
question was brought out. Is there any other discussion?
Mr. T one (Connecticut). In regard to the certification of children,
would it be possible to get the employers—they have everything
else on their application blanks for employment—to include the age
and the birthplace of a youngster? It is a most difficult thing for
our inspectors, when going through the various shops, to check on
youngsters. You can select 4 or 5 whom you believe are under age
and it is very difficult to find out where they were born. I f that
information was on an application you could immediately check it
with the town clerk and find out whether or not the child was being
illegally employed.
There is another very important thing regarding children, par­
ticularly in the needle-trade shops of Connecticut, and that is that
there is no time system, and, where there has been piecework, up to
now it has been most difficult to check there. I figure that if the
laws would compel them to have time clocks you would at least have
an opportunity— although we have found places where the employer
would ring the clock out at 4 or 6 or whatever it might be, and the
employee worked until 10 or 11—to check their employees after 8
hours or whatever it happened to be.
I think those are two very important things in regard to the
certification of children: (1) To have on an application blank for
employment the date and where the children were born so that if
there is a conflict you could find out the truth very easily through
the town clerk; and (2) to regulate their time through a time clock,
so as to know whether they have completed the 8 hours or whether
the employer continued working them 10, 12, or 14 hours a day, pay­
ing them for, and leading the public or the inspectors to believe
that they had worked, only an 8-hour day.
Mrs. B eyer. We have definite provisions in this bill on the posting
of hours, and I think the people who had had experience worked
that over carefully to see that it did safeguard the hours provision.



Piecework is always a way of getting out from under, and it is so
being used extensively under the N.R.A. codes.
I told the Minnesota Wage Conference the other day of a method
they were using in the canneries— averaging the rates of all the
pieceworkers in the plant, the fast against the slow, so that they did
not have to raise the piecework rates. I think you will find that in
other industries besides the garment industry they have been trying
that plan. Whereas the timeworkers in these plants got an appreci­
able increase in rates under the N.R.A. the pieceworkers earned
practically the same. We will have to guard against both practices
very definitely because they are means o f violation.
Mr. T one. Another thing in regard to certification in our State:
Where we have secured a conviction of any shop for employing
minors, or any other infraction of labor laws, our board of educa­
tion will not grant it any certification of minors between 14 and 16
years of age unless we acquiesce.
Mrs. B eyer. We have a provision in the draft for that; it is the
only way to reach the employers.
Miss J ohnson. D o the standards submitted differ materially from
the standards approved at the Harrisburg conference?
Mrs. B eyer. N o ; they are the same standards.
Chairm an S eiller. I s a representative o f the C h ild L ab o r C o m ­
m ittee here?

Dr. P atton. N o, it expected to have one here but could not because
of code work at Washington. Mr. Dinwiddie told me he had sent
a letter to Mrs. Beyer agreeing in general with this recommenda­
tion of Mrs. Beyer, but raising the point—which has been brought
out by Mrs. Beyer—that we do not necessarily recommend to all the
States that they adopt this precise language, even to the semicolons,
but, as Mrs. Beyer labeled it, this is the suggested language of the
statute. The spirit and general language, as I understand it, are
agreed upon by the National.Child Labor Committee, as well as by
the Children’s Bureau.
Miss M iller. Was this reported as a recommendation of the
Children’s Bureau or the committee of this organization?
Mrs. B eyer. I am not reporting for the Children’s Bureau. Miss
Abbott has gone over the draft and approved it, but it is not a
Children’s Bureau draft.
Dr. P atton. May I say here that we had expected to have another
speaker. I wrote 2 months ago, and also more recently, to Secre­
tary Perkins, asking that some official directly connected with the
N.R.A. be here to speak to us, to throw what light could at the pres­
ent time be thrown on the relationship between N.R.A. codes and
State labor laws, and in general the degree of cooperation which
might be possible between State departments of labor and N.R.A.
officials. The Secretary could not come, and I received a letter of
declination from Mr. Kichberg, counsel for the N.R.A. Dr. Lubin,
United States Commissioner of Labor Statistics, thought it possible
that he might be here, but as matters are in Washington it is appar­
ently impossible that either of those three, or any similar officials,
could be with us.



I think we all feel the need of further clarification of the exist­
ing situation. What is the relationship between the State labor
laws and the N.R.A. codes? To what extent should State labor
departments attempt to enforce N.R.A. codes, or to what extent
should Federal officials enforce the State laws? I had hoped very
much we could have such an address here.
Miss Swett. Mrs. Beyer, do you have the wording of that pro­
vision in the newspaper code that lets those youngsters out from
Mrs. B eyer. Yes, I have it. This is in the newspaper code: “After
the effective date of this code publishers shall not employ any per­
sons under the age of 16, except those who are able without impair­
ment of health to deliver or sell newspapers during the now estab­
lished hours of such work where such work does not interfere with
hours of day school ”—there are not very many established hours to
follow, so that it practically means complete freedom—“ and those
between 14 and 16 years o f age who may be employed, but not in
manufacturing or mechanical departments, for not to exceed 3 hours
a day, and those hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., in such work as
will not interfere with hours of day school ” ; that is, the messengers
and boys in the newspaper building can be employed 3 hours a day
if between the ages of 14 and 16, but for the newsboys and carriers
there is no age limit and no hour limit.
Miss S wett. That is very ambiguous.
Mrs. B eyer. It was worded ambiguously purposely. I have talked
to the publishers and newspaper men, and I know what they intended
and what they think it means, so I do not think there is much question
about it.
Mr. A ndrews (New Y ork). Has the Children’s Bureau done any­
thing in the way of attempting to prevent boys in school circulating
weekly magazines? My boy was given a lot of magazines to sell.
We did not know anything about it until 2 weeks afterward when
we were asked for 50 cents he was supposed to have collected. I
wondered if there is a campaign to relieve the parents from the
embarrassment which such procedure sometimes causes.
Mrs. B e y e r . The magazine publishers’ code reads e x a c tly as the
newspaper code.
The advertisers’ code has a 12-year minimum for distributing but
we are trying to get a 14-year minimum through both for the circu­
lation of magazines and the delivery and sale of newspapers, so that
both will be covered, if there is any way we can get the idea across
that that is not desirable work for children.
Dr. P atton. I wonder whether it would be worth while for this
body to request the Department of Labor at its earliest opportunity
either to issue some sort of a statement or to have a conference with a
view of clarifying the relationship between the N.R.A. codes and the
State departments of labor. There is a great deal of confusion exist­
ing. Whether such a request is advisable I am not at all sure.
Are there States here represented who are in doubt ? Suppose for
instance a State minimum-wage standard should be set at %0 cents
an hour and the N.R.A. code should establish a minimum of 21 cents



an hour in that occupation would the State inspectors attempt to
enforce the N.R.A. 21 cents?
Miss S wett. I do not think so.
Dr. P atton. I mention that as one illustration out of many that
comes to my mind.
Mrs. B eyer. Dr. Patton, counsel for N.R.A. has made clear, where
there is any question between the State law and the N.R.A. code, that
the one that is the highest takes precedence. I f your standard is
higher than the N.R.A., it has precedence; if the N.R.A. is higher,
it takes precedence.
Dr. P atton. Would a Wisconsin inspector, for example, have
sufficient authority to enforce the N.R.A. rate if it is higher than the
rate in Wisconsin?
Mrs. B eyer. Not unless he is deputized by the N.R.A. to enforce the
N.R.A. code.
Dr. P atton. Y ou see at once what that means?
Mrs. B eyer. A plan is being worked on now for the enforcement
of the N.R.A. codes which I think is going to take the State depart­
ments of labor into consideration. Personally I hope very much that
the State departments will be given the job of enforcing those N.R.A.
codes insofar as they are able to assume the responsibility. I think
that they should certainly be the nucleus for enforcement. The
Secretary is working on a plan and she is taking it up with General
Johnson. We have hopes that in the very near future some plan of
enforcement may be worked out.
Mr. A ndrews. D o you know whether the Federal Government has
any plans to give the State financial aid to do this or not ?
Mrs. B eyer. I do not know; that would have to be worked out in
connection with the enforcement program.
Miss S wett. D o you think there would be any danger in having
a department, which is enforcing a provision that is compulsory,
asked to enforce one that is more or less voluntary ? Do you think
that would have a bad effect on the department’s other work?
Mrs. B eyer. I think this whole N.R.A. program has made it very
difficult for the State departments of labor. Having been connected
with a State department of labor, I am constantly telling the offi­
cials at the N.R.A., when I have a chance, that they must remember
the State departments of labor in this whole set-up.
Miss A nderson. A s Mrs. Beyer was saying, the Secretary told me
if the question came up, as she thought it would, to say that they
were actively working on a program now and hoped to have some
pronouncement at a very early date on the question of enforcement
of the codes in conjunction with the State departments of labor.
I do think that, if this body would pass a resolution urging such
a procedure, that would strengthen the hands of those in Washing­
ton who are for that kind of procedure, and also show those who
are undecided on it that that would help materially.
Chairman Seieler. I should like to tell you what we have been
doing-in our State relative to the N.R.A. codes. When the Presi­
dent’s Reemployment Agreement was announced—the voluntary
agreement to take effect by the first of August—hundreds and thou-



sands of employers rushed to the post office to sign the agreement.
I found that many of them signed this agreement, which is a gentle­
man’s contract, without even reading it in order to get the Blue
Eagle and the benefit of the advertisement. There being no agency
of the Federal Government in our State to which the worker might
appeal, it was decided by the manager of the district office in Louis­
ville of the United States Department of Commerce that he would
take on the work of interpreting the agreement as applied to the
several industries and stores and places of employment, if I would
take over the matter of taking the complaints and holding them until
such time as they might be adjusted, and work on those with the
greater number of employees, hoping to make an adjustment.
We did that for the month of August. Literally thousands of
workers have besieged our office, making complaints and asking ques­
tions, and we have found no hesitancy on the part of the workers
about signing their names and giving their addresses in witness of
the complaint. We also question them as to other conditions in the
A number of these written complaints, as samples, have been for­
warded to Secretary Perkins, and she in turn has advised me that
they have been turned over to Mr. Wolman. We have been urging
right along that the departments of labor be given a part in the
N.R.A. program.
After years of experience and inspecting the plants throughout
our State—knowing the employer by his first name, and knowing
thousands of the workers in the plant, and their problems, we feel
we are the best fitted to carry out the work of enforcement. In other
words, “ it is right down our alley ” , and carrying out Miss Ander­
son’s suggestion, I have submitted a resolution along the lines she
has suggested. It has been turned over to the resolutions committee,
and no doubt we will have a report on it at the business session in
the morning.
Just a word or two more on our State program. I have accepted
the chairmanship of the mediation board for the State and also
locally, because I find, where the Federal Government is depending
on chambers of commerce and like bodies to enforce this measure,
that they are not really sold on this idea, and are going to be pretty
lukewarm about enforcing the codes’ voluntary work and taking
the time of business people. So I feel that we are in a better posi­
tion to do the work than these volunteer agencies, and for that reason
we have asked the State N.B.A. board and the local board to direct
their complaints to our department.
The Consumers’ League of Kentucky has been helpful in furnish­
ing us with legal service and voluntary help. Some help has been
secured from organized labor, where the question directly affects
Miss W ood . Aside from the enforcement of codes, I am wondering
if it is going to be necessary for States to do something like New
York has done in a special session; that is, clarify the State labor
laws, or allow the codes to have the force of law in the State dur­
ing the time they are being tried out.
For instance, in our State we have any number of requests—I
suppose you also do in States where you have a 10-hour closing—
that with two shifts of 8 hours we have no law which requires a



lunch period for girls. We are finding they are working two straight
8-hour shifts without lunch, without a stop of any kind. It seems
that we must have some statement on whether or not the State laws
are to be enforced as well as the codes or just what the connection
is between them. What did they do in New York? I think it
would be interesting to hear.
Chairman Seiller. Perhaps Commissioner Andrews will tell us.
Mr. A ndrews. New York passed rather a blanket law, saying that
wherever the labor laws conflict with N.R.A. there should be no such
conflict, and also passed an interesting law that a State official can
also be a Federal official. That was rather humorous, so far as I
was concerned, but I assume it will work for the national labor law.
Mr. M agntjsson (Washington, D .C.). Does that mean that in New
York or Connecticut the codes prevail over the State law, if they
differ ?
Mr. A ndrews. A s I understand it, it is permissive. For instance,
as to the minimum wage in the laundry industry, which in the Fed­
eral code is less than the wage we pay, we may decide upon our State
law to supersede the minimum wage of the Government. I think
that is only natural. I do not think anyone will question that, par­
ticularly in an industry which accepts our minimum at the public
hearing; it has no kick coming anyhow, as it has agreed to the State
rate rather than the Federal rate.
Chairman Setleer. Miss Wood brought up the point about the
lunch hour. O f course, that is not in a national code, but if such
should be the case that could be enforced in your State by your
Mr. T one. What she means is that where we have a 10 o’clock law,
in order to get these two shifts in the time may run until 11 o’clock
provided there is a lunch hour.
Mr. A ndrews. We had that in the textile code. We have abso­
lutely refused to post the hour, because it would not be permissible.
Our law permits work only from 6 to 10 at night, and there is a 30minute lunch period. So far we have not been taken into court on
that. We have tried to argue with the employer, saying: “ New
York State is a pretty progressive State. It makes only half an
hour a day difference to you anyhow. Either work on Saturday,
or else do less than 40 hours a week.” So far as women and minors
are concerned, we enforce the minimum-wage law so as to be sure
that whatever the hours worked they will get a fair return for their
Miss Swett. Where the State standard is higher than the N.R.A.
standard you should do everything you can quickly to get it across
to the employer that your State standards are the ones that pre­
vail in that case. I should hate very much to take any other stand­
ard and to have all the educational work we have done all these
years simply wiped out.
Mr. M agntjsson. Where they are lower?
Miss Swett. Then I would emphasize just as hard that employers
have to adhere to the other standard, but that is going to help us.
However, I would not want them to get the notion that the N.R.A.
codes are supreme if they are less rigid than our own standards. We



have that situation to meet in the food dealers’ code. The 10-hour
day on Saturday is permitted, which we do not permit and which
some of the other States do not permit.
Miss W ood. Y ou have a 10 o’clock law, do you not?
Miss S wett. We have a 6 o’clock law in manufacturing, but 10
o’clock is permitted by special order. We have recently modified
that 6 o’clock closing to some extent to permit two 6-hour shifts, and
to give the employees a rest period.
Miss W ood. I think it resolves itself into a question whether we
would rather girls worked 8 hours without a lunch period or until
11 o’clock at night. I do not think we can convince them that they
can work 7% hours and be satisfied.
Miss Swett. That is because you do not have the lunch-period
Mr. T one. We can overcome that by letting them go to work at
6 o’clock in the morning, and we do not want to do that.
Mi ss S wett. Y ou could not get in two 8-hour shifts between 6 and
10 and give a lunch period; that is only 16 hours.
Mr. M agnusson. I f the State law prevails, it nullifies the whole
effort of the National Administration for social economic recovery,
and if the National Government prevails the States will have to
yield something.
I should like to take the position Miss Swett takes, because then
I would be saying to industry: Heads I win and tails you lose. The
Administration is saying on the other hand: Heads I win and tails
3^ou lose. There is a clear conflict that has to be ironed out and
that has not been faced by the N.R.A.
I have been talking with the people in the Administration, and
when it comes to the question of enforcement, they are 100 percent
naive. You people know that we have to have conferences on en­
forcing the laws and that you cannot rely upon the worker to make
complaints and to testify, but that is the answer they give you :
“ Why the workers can report those complaints; that is the way we
will enforce them.” O r: “ We will leave it to the manufacturers’
association to enforce them.” I submit that is 100 percent naive.
Miss A nderson. In regard to which shall take precedence over the
other, Mr. Richberg, at our first minimum-wage conference, made
that very clear. He said that where the State law required higher
conditions than the N.R.A. code the State law prevails, and if the
codes are higher they prevail. He said to start from there. That
was very clear at the time. Even in regard to that, Mrs. Kinney can
tell you that in California the attorney general rendered a very clear
decision which was absolutely in line with what Mr. Richberg had
said. I think they have done the same thing in Wisconsin, so on
that point I think it is fairly clear. I will agree that there are
many other mix-ups and that there are a great many difficulties
Chairman S e i l l e r . I believe that if it came to a point of opinion
from our attorney general’s department, we would receive such an
opinion. I have been told of an act passed by the Ohio Legislature
a short time ago, quoting practically verbatim the National Recovery
Act, and that may be a wise course to take in legislatures that meet



within the next few months. We may be able, through such an act
at our next session of the legislature, to fortify, to build up, our
State labor laws to cover many points that we are behind on. Is
there any other discussion?
Dr. P atton. Miss Anderson made a suggestion that it would help
the people in Washington if we were to ask them for a statement on
the subject. It is evident from the discussion here this afternoon
that there is a great deal of confusion. I do not know whether the
committee has any such resolution; probably it has not. Did you
say you had one ?
Chairman Seiller. It would be proper at this time to read the
resolution; it can be thought over.
Mr. Crawford. The resolution has been turned over to the com­
mittee and I will read it:
Whereas the primary purposes of the National Industrial Recovery Adminis­
tration are to increase employment and purchasing power of the people; and
Whereas new codes for various industries are being approved by the Presi­
dent toward that en d: Therefore be it
Resolved, First, that this Association of Government Officials in Industry
strongly urges that the N.R.A. specifically authorize the United States Depart­
ment of LaJ)or to deputize such State departments of labor as are equipped to
do so to undertake in close cooperation with the N.R.A. of the United States
Department of Labor enforcement of labor provisions in codes; and
Second, that in so deputizing the State labor departments careful and exact
definition be made of the extent to which such authority is delegated; and
Third, that the enforcing definition of authority include the development of
standards by means of industrial committees cooperating through the State
labor departments with the United States Department of Labor and with
the National Recovery Administration.

Dr. P atton. That is not the resolution that you had in mind is
it, Miss Anderson?
Miss A nderson. Yes, it is.
Dr. P atton. It is not what I had in mind. It seems to me that
we do not know at the present moment the relationship between State
labor laws and N.R.A. codes—who is to enforce and what they are
to enforce— and that it would be well if the Federal Department of
Labor or the N.R.A., or both together, either issue a statement or
call a conference for the purpose of determining what is to be the
relationship of a State labor law to the N.R.A. code and what policy
is to be followed by State labor inspectors when it comes to
Take Mr. Richberg’s statement, which Mrs. Beyer quoted. Sup­
pose the N.R.A. code doubles the amount of work which the State
labor department inspectors are to do. The States do not have a
double number of inspectors to do it. I f additional inspection and
enforcement work is to be put on State labor departments, where is
the money coming from to enable them to do it? In other words,
what I have in mind is to try to straighten out what is the relative
position between the State labor law and the N.R.A. code as it
applies to any State.
I am not directly concerned with the administration of these laws
myself, and I would rather someone who is would introduce or draft
such a resolution if he feels it necessary. I f I were in the position
many of you people are, I know I would be ding-donging day and
night till I got it.



Chairman Seiller. That is what we are doing now. We have
been ding-donging; we want to ring out a loud peal here.
Mr. Crawford. This is the suggested amendment or addition to
the resolution:
Resolved fu rth er , That the United States Department of Labor be urged to
call a special conference of State labor officials for discussion and consultation
regarding the best method of securing such joint administration and supervision
of enforcement of the provisions of the various codes of fair competition.

Miss W ood. I wonder if it should not be amended further with
the word “ immediately ” , or some definite time.
Mr. A ltmeyer. (Wisconsin). I think we would make more prog­
ress, things being so chaotic, if we passed a resolution authorizing the
appointment of a small committee to draft some sort of a plan,
rather than to call a general conference and just have a pow-wow
and go back home. Let that committee draft a plan and submit it
to the States and get their reactions, and then perhaps call a con­
ference, but do some spade work first.
Miss W ood. That would take too long.
Miss Swett. No, it would not.
Chairman Seiller. Mr. Altmeyer, I am inclined to believe that
in sending out this call, we will presume by the Secretary of Labor,
Miss Perkins, the following question would be inserted in the call:
Are the States willing to cooperate, to take on their share of the work,
when and if they be given that authority ?
Mr. A ltmeyer. I do not think I should call a conference to work
out a plan. I think a committee could work out a plan in coopera­
tion with the Secretary of Labor. When that plan is drafted, then
take it up with the States, to see whether they will fit in with that
plan. I do not think you would get much more at a general con­
ference than you are getting at the meetings you are having right
now. You ought to have a committee working on a plan, and wdien
it gets a plan worked out then refer it back to the States, not for
approval, but asking them to fit in with the plan.
Miss M iller. I agree with Mr. Altmeyer that the formulation of
a plan in a large meeting is a source of difficulties rather than of
clarification. I wonder, however, whether there are not two things
necessary here. Can a body of State labor officials who have not yet
been asked to participate, officially at least, in the administration of
these codes work out and present to the Administration a plan that
will get very far in the way of agreement with the N.R.A. group
in Washington? Would it not perhaps help us to come there with
clarified notions of our own and a program on which we might work
with the Administration, to have a committee appointed by this
body now for such purpose, while at the same time we ask the A d­
ministration to call a conference? Possibly the N.R.A. will have
some plan also to submit to such a conference, and we would retain
the advantage, which it seems to me it is obviously necessary to get
somehow, of having in Washington, at the time the plans are con­
solidated or all thrown out and something else substituted, represen­
tatives from as many State departments as possible to ask questions
and to go home with first-hand information ?


193 3 MEETING OF A.G.0.1.

Certainly confusion is rampant, and it would benefit the people
of all States to get a clear notion, and to put to somebody who can
answer them, questions that now are unanswerable.
I would make that as an amendment.
Miss P idgeon (Washington, D.C.). I have been very much inter­
ested in Dr. Patton’s idea. It seems to me that it is an idea distinct
from the idea in the resolution, and that it might form the basis of
another resolution which would request the N.R.A. authorities to
issue some statement in regard to the legal relationship. A code in
a rather small industry has been approved—the fishing tackle code—
which has a provision stating that if the State provision is higher
the State provision shall prevail. That is, I believe, in connection
with minors, but it is immaterial which section of the code it is in
connection with. That provision was proposed for some of the other
codes, and it was stated by some of the authorities in the legal branch
of the N.R.A. that it was their understanding that the reason why
it was not put into other codes was that it was definitely the case that
if the State provisions were higher they should prevail. The N.R.A.
people are making statements along various lines every day; they
could very well make some statement along the lines Miss Anderson
said Mr. Richberg made at the first minimum-wage meeting that was
held. This conference might well, it seems to me, have Dr. Patton
draft a short resolution that would either ask the N.R.A. officials to
make such a statement in regard to the legal relationship, or ask
the Secretary of Labor to ask for such a statement. That would
be entirely aside from this other matter of a conference which would
come later and be informed more definitely.
Chairman Seileer. What is your opinion, Dr. Patton?
Miss Swett. Miss Pidgeon’s suggestion does not take account of
what we want to know—how we are going to enforce.
Miss P idgeon. No, but the other would.
Miss Swett. N o, this one does not, does it?
Mr. Crawford. Y es; it does.
Miss P idgeon. In the meantime you would have another principle
to work on until this could be worked out.
Mr. Crawford. A s I see it, there are three steps. First of all is
the statement of some kind to come from the N.R.A. as to the rela­
tionship between the State and Federal authorities; then there is the
question of the appointment of a committee from this organization
to prepare in advance some suggested program or some suggested
basis of cooperation in enforcing the N.R.A. codes; then there is
the general conference to be held in Washington, presumably to
clarify the whole situation and to have it adopted. Those three
things all seem to be involved; I think they could be covered in one
Chairman Seiller. The conference idea was to develop the system.
[It was moved, seconded, and carried that the whole question
be referred to the resolutions committee to work out a resolution
along those lines.]
[A motion was made, seconded, and carried that the convention
meet in evening session instead of a morning session on Saturday.]
JLMeetins adjourned.]

Chairman, E. B. Patton, president A.'G.O.I.



[The report of the committee on constitution and bylaws was
given by Hal M. Stanley, who commented briefly on some of the
proposed changes in the constitution of the association. After some
discussion and the adoption, by affirmative vote, of each of the pro­
posed amendments, it was moved, seconded, and carried that the
report be adopted as a whole. The constitution as amended is given
on page III.]
[E. F. Seiller, chairman of the committee on officers’ reports, re­
ported that the committee had examined the report of the secretarytreasurer and found it correct. The report of the committee was,
on motion duly made and seconded, accepted.]
[The report of the committee on resolutions was submitted by
A. W. Crawford, chairman of the committee.
The resolutions
adopted, after considerable discussion and a few changes, were as
follow s:]






(A S


1. Whereas the labor regulations in the various N.R.A. codes and their
effective enforcement are of the utmost importance; and
Whereas there are and have been State labor laws with appropriate State
enforcement agencies antedating the N.R.A. labor regulations; and
Whereas the existence of both N.R.A. labor regulations and State labor laws
creates problems of their respective application and enforcement: Be it
Resolved, That a committee of this association be appointed by the president
to cooperate with the United States Department of Labor and the N.R.A. in
the clarification of the application of the N.R.A. labor regulations and the
State labor laws, as well as in the development of a plan of enforcement which
will be mutually helpful; and, be it further
R esolved , That the National Recovery Administrator and the Secretary of
Labor be urged to call a conference of N.R.A. officials and representatives of
the Federal and State departments of labor not later than November 1, 1933,
for the purpose of considering and taking appropriate action on the plan or
plans of cooperative enforcement drafted by the committee.
2. Whereas there is at the present time some overlapping in the work of
the Association of Governmental Officials in Industry, the International A s­
sociation of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, and the Interna­
tional Association of Public Employment Offices; and
Whereas in some instances the same officials are expected to attend the con­
ventions of each of these associations; and
Whereas there are many matters of interest to the members of all three
associations in the programs of each: Be it
7 3 5 9 7 °— 34-------12




Resolved , That it is the sense of this association that in the interest of better
cooperation as well as in the interest of economy and efficiency it would be
desirable for these three associations to hold general conferences at the same
place and date at which provision would be made for separate sectional meet­
ings for the consideration of the problems of labor law administration, work­
men’s compensation, and the employment office service.
It is therefore recommended that the incoming executive board of this
association confer with the executives of the other two associations wdth
regard to the possibility of such general conferences in the future.
3. Whereas adequate industrial standards are essential to protect employees
from industrial health and accident hazards;
It is recommended that State labor departments take action for develop­
ment of industrial safety codes;
That where the States do not have this authority, legislation be introduced
to secure i t ;
That where States possess such authority but do not use it, that it should be
That in preparing such codes the standards approved by the American
Standards Association should be employed as the basis and should be fol­
lowed as far as practicable;
That the assistance of the American Standards Association and of other
experts, both individuals and organizations, should be secured in formulating
the codes;
That more attention should be given to the problems of industrial health
in code work, and that in the preparation of industrial health codes the
assistance of public and private industrial health agencies should be secured.
4. Whereas the past year has seen a widespread revival of interest in the
legal setting of minimum standards of pay for women and minors: Be it
R esolved , That the Association of Governmental Officials in Industry rec­
ommends to the labor departments of States where no minimum wage legis­
lation exists, that they take advantage of the present state of interest and
make every effort to secure the passage of minimum-wage legislation at their
next legislative session.
5. Whereas the United States Government sent a delegation of official ob­
servers to the seventeenth session of the International Labor Conference
meeting at Geneva, June 1933: Be it
R esolved, That this association urge the United States Department of Labor to
continue and expand its cooperation with the International Labor Organization.
6. Resolved, That the Association of Governmental Officials in Industry
hereby accepts and endorses the report of its child-labor committee on laws
relating to child labor (including general child labor, street trades, and com­
pensation provisions directly affecting m inors), and recognizing that minimum
standards, below which no State or industry may fall, are becoming increas­
ingly more imperative, recommends the standards proposed by the committee
as a basis for objectives to be sought after in State legislation on these
R esolved, also , That the child-labor committee of this association be con­
tinued for another year and be authorized to act as representing this associa­
tion in the furthering of improved standards for State child-labor legislation
along the lines proposed in its report.
Resolved, also, That in order to facilitate the establishment of protective
measures for minors in the safety codes as they are formulated by State
departments and by the safety code committee of the American Standards



Association, the Association of Governmental Officials in Industry instructs
its child-labor committee to cooperate with the proper State officials in
obtaining information as to codes under consideration, and urges State Labor
departments to cooperate with this committee to that end.
7. Whereas comprehensive and reliable information on the subject of in­
dustrial accidents to minors is essential as a basis for bringing about adequate
legal protection through State legislation and rulings; and
Whereas continuous study of these hazards is to be made by the Advisory
Committee on the Employment of Minors in Hazardous Occupations, appointed
by the United States Children’s Bureau at the suggestion of the W hite House
Conference; Be it
Resolved, That the Association of Governmental Officials in Industry urges
all State bureaus of labor and like agencies receiving reports of accidents to
furnish annually to the Children’s Bureau such statistical information as is
possible for the use of this committee,
8. Whereas the present crisis emphasizes the urgent need for Federal regu­
lation establishing a minimum standard for child labor; and
Whereas action under the National Recovery Administration covers only the
emergency period, and it is necessary to guard against a possible return of
child employment when industry improves: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Association of Governmental Officials in Industry re­
affirms its stand in favor of the ratification by the States of the pending
child-labor amendment and urges the enactment of such Federal legislation
as will give the necessary protection to child workers.
9. The delegates assembled at this the nineteenth annual convention of the
Association of Governmental Officials in Industry desire to express their
appreciation of, and sincerest thanks for, the whole-hearted and effective service
rendered by Dr. E. B. Patton as president of the association during the past
W e also wish to express our gratitude to Miss Maud Swett for the able
manner in which she has fulfilled her duties as secretary-treasurer, especially
in connection with the present conference which has been so successfully
organized and conducted under very trying conditions.
10. Whereas the code submitted by the telegraph companies allows the em­
ployment of minors under the age of 16 in the hazardous occupation of deliv­
ering messages, and at the same time exempts them from the benefits of its
minimum wage and hours provisions; and
Whereas the code submitted by the newspapers and magazines industries
allows the employment of minors of any age at any hour and at any wage
in the sale and delivery of newspapers and magazines in contradiction to the
avowed purpose of the codes of giving work to adults: Therefore be it
Resolved, That this organization go on record in opposition to such nega­
tion of N.R.A. purposes and policies in these or any other codes to be submitted;
and further be it
Resolved , That copies of these resolutions be sent to the Secretary of Labor
and to General Johnson.

[President Patton later appointed the following members to the
committee authorized by resolution 1:]
Committee on clarification of application of N.R.A. labor regulations and
State labor laws.— Elmer F. Andrews, of New Y o rk ; T. E. Whitaker, of
Georgia; Joseph M. Tone, of Connecticut; Charlotte Carr, of Pennsylvania;
and A. J, Altmeyer, of Wisconsin.


1 9 3 3 MEETING OF A.G.O.I.

[Two other resolutions proposed by the committee were not
adopted. One, which proposed that the subject of the development
of adequate administrative regulations as an important function
of State labor departments be considered at the next convention
of the association, was considered unnecessary, the president hav­
ing control of the program. The other resolution proposed the
establishment of a code correlating committee to work with the
State labor departments toward uniform standard codes for in­
dustrial health and safety and to cooperate with the code commit­
tee o f the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards
and Commissions. It was agreed that a copy of the proposed
resolution be referred to P. G. Agnew; secretary of the Ameri­
can Standards Association for his opinion as to its passage next
year, and in the meantime that additional members from the
A.G.O.I. be suggested to serve on the code correlating committee of
the I.A.I.A.B.C.]
[The committee on membership which was appointed at the pre­
ceding meeting of the association was discontinued.]
[Mr. Magnusson and Mr. Crawford reported for the committee
on conference with Federal Departments of Labor of United States
and Canada as follow s:]

L e if u r

M ag n u sso n

The whole matter is in a state of progress. I have written to and dis­
cussed it with the Secretary of Labor, but there has been no decision in
the matter. W hat I am in hopes of is that if you elect the Commissioner
of Labor Statistics as secretary-treasurer, that will pave the way to getting
the Secretary of Labor and the Minister of Labor of the United States and
Canada, respectively, to be sort of honorary presidents or sponsors of the
association, to give it official prestige and dignity. It is a thing that needs
to be worked out next year, or another year.
By A. W .

Craw ford

My report is one of failure, in that the department in Ottawa, owing to
the death of Mr. Plant, and to other conditions, is not very keen about lending
official support to an organization which really is excluded from official or
active participation of members of the Dominion department.
I think the Ministry there feels that it would be willing to follow any
lead given by the department in Washington, but the minister is new and
he could not commit himself. I did try hard to get some representation
from the Dominion department, to replace Mr. Plant. I had hoped Miss
McIntosh or Mr. Brown would be h ere; as a matter of fact, I wrote to every
Province, trying to get a larger representation, but conditions are such that
it did not go.

[The committee was continued, with thanks for what they had
[The following officers were elected for the ensuing year:]
P resident. — T. E. Whitaker, industrial commissioner, Augusta, Ga.
F ir s t vice president .— A . W . Crawford, deputy minister department of labor.
Toronto. Ontario.



Second vice president.— Edward F. Seiller, chief labor inspector, department
of agriculture, labor, and statistics, Louisville, Ky.
Third vice president.— Gerard Tremblay, deputy minister, department of
labor, Quebec.
Fourth vice president.— Joseph M. Tone, commissioner of labor, Hartford,
Fifth vice president.— Mrs. Mabel Kinney, member industrial welfare com­
mission, San Francisco, Calif.
Secretary-treasurer.— Isador Lubin, United States Commissioner of Labor,
Washington, D.C.
[P resid en t P atto n read the fo llo w in g telegram fr o m M r. L u b in :]
Sincerely regret that the pressure of events in Washington makes it impos­
sible for me to be at your meeting in Chicago. There are several matters which
I am very anxious to take up with your membership regarding cooperation in
the collection of employment and retail price statistics in the various States.
It is my hope that we can secure the cooperation of the various States’ labor
officials equipped to do the work in the expanding of the collection of informa­
tion which is so vital to the efficient functioning of N.R.A. Shall be deeply
grateful if you would raise the question of the necessity of such cooperation
and announce that Department of Labor will shortly get in touch with indi­
vidual State officials seeking aid.
I sador L u b in .

President P a t t o n . T h is association has already gone on record in
previous years as being in fa v or o f and u rg in g all States to cooperate
in the em ploym en t and collection o f labor statistics. I take it the
C om m issioner has in m in d to try to expan d th at to the inclusion o f
retail price statistics; th at is som ething w hich is new. So fa r as I
know , no S tate is now doing th at on a State basis. P erson ally I
th in k it is an unwise step fo r a State to engage in such collection. I f
there is any job which is p rim a rily and distin ctly a n ational job it
seems to m e it is the collection o f retail prices and figures.
[T h e place and tim e o f the n ext convention were le ft to the exec­
utive com m ittee. B o sto n , Septem ber 2 7 -2 9 , 1934, was later selected.]
[T h e in com ing president, T . E . W h ita k e r , expressed his appre­
ciation o f the honor bestowed upon h im and his determ ination to
serve the association to the best o f his a b ility .]
[C on ven tion adjourn ed.]

George P. H ambrecht , Wisconsin.
F ran k E. W ood, Louisiana.
L in n a B resette, Illinois.
Dr. C. B. C onnelley . Pennsylvania.
J ohn H . H akl, Jr., Virginia.
H erman W itter, Ohio.
John S. B. D avie , New Hampshire.
R. H. L ansburgh , Pennsylvania.
A lice M cF arland , Kansas.
H. M. Stanley , Georgia.

American Representative, International Labor Office.
A. L. U lriok , Iowa.

Dr. A ndrew F. M cB ride, New Jersey.
L ouise E. S ohutz , Minnesota.

A p p e n d ix — L is t o f P e r s o n s W h o A t te n d e d th e E ig h te e n th
A n n u a l C o n v e n tio n o f the A s s o c ia t io n o f G o v e r n m e n t a l
O fficia ls in In d u str y


Kinney, Mrs. Mabel E., chief division of industrial welfare, department of in­
dustrial relations, San Francisco.
Kinney, Mr., San Francisco.

Tone, Joseph M., commissioner of labor, Hartford.
Wood, Helen, industrial investigator department of labor and factory inspection,

Dickey, C. W., E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington.
District of Columbia

Anderson, Mary, director United States Women’s Bureau, Washington.
Baldwin, Charles E., assistant commissioner, United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Washington.
Beyer, Mrs. Clara M., director industrial division, United States Children’s
Bureau, Washington.
Kjaer, Swen, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington.
Lloyd, M. G., chief section of safety standards, United States Bureau of Stand­
ards, Washington.
Magnusson, Leifur, American representative, International Labor Office,
Pidgeon, Miss M. E., director of research, United States Women’s Bureau,
Sharkey, Charles F., United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington.
Stewart, Ethelbert, secretary-treasurer emeritus, I.A.I.A.B.C., Washington.
Stewart, Miss Estelle, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington.

Jones, Sharpe, secretary-treasurer department of industrial relations, Atlanta.
Peteet, M. S., department of industrial relations, Atlanta.
Stanley, Hal M., chairman department of industrial relations, Atlanta.
Thrasher, Robert, department of industrial relations, Atlanta.
Whitaker, T. E., director department of industrial relations, Atlanta.
Whitaker, Marcia, Atlanta.

Dieckmann, Annette, joint committee on industrial legislation, Chicago.
Durkin, Martin P., director of labor, Springfield.
Keefer, W. Dean, National Safety Council, Chicago.
Lyon, Will F., M.D., International Harvester Co., Chicago.
Myers, Howard B., chief division of statistics, Chicago.
Nestor, Agnes, minimum wage advisory board, Chicago.
Wilson, Gertrude, joint committee on industrial legislation, Chicago..

Seiller, Edward F., chief labor inspector, Louisville.
Williams, Mrs. Hallie B., deputy labor inspector, Louisville.

Harrison, Rowena O., director of claims State industrial accident commission,




Tousant, Mrs. Emma S., commissioner department of industrial accidents,

Sweitzer, J. M., Employers’ Mutual Liability Insurance Co., St. Paul.
New Hampshire

Doe, Jessie, minimum wage advisory board, Concord.
.Johnson, Ethel M., director of minimum wage, Concord.
New York

Andrews, Elmer F., industrial commissioner department of labor, New York.
Andrews, John B., secretary American Association for Labor Legislation, New
Miller, Frieda S., director division of women in industry, department of labor,
New York.
Patton, E. B., director division of statistics and information, department of
labor, New York.
Patton, Mrs. E. B., Bronxville.

Kearns, Thomas P., superintendent division of safety and hygiene, department
of industrial relations, Columbus.
McGowan, Mrs. Josephine, superintendent division of minimum wage, depart­
ment of industrial relations, Columbus.

Sweeney, Stephen B., director bureau of workmen’s compensation, department
of labor and industry, Harrisburg.
Puerto Rico

Martinez, Prudencio Rivera, commissioner of labor, San Juan.

Altmeyer, A. J., secretary industrial commission, Madison.
Baker, Adelia D., field deputy industrial commission, Milwaukee.
Conlee, Ruth, field deputy industrial commission, Milwaukee.
Hendrickson, Rosetta, deputy woman and child labor department, industrial
commission, Milwaukee.
Johnson, Margaret R., field deputy industrial commission, Milwaukee.
Hoskins, Clara M., deputy industrial commission, Madison.
McLogan, Harry R., commissioner industrial commission, Madison.
Napiecinski, Peter A., commissioner industrial commission, Madison.
Raushenbush, Paul, adviser unemployment compensation department industrial
commission, Madison.
Swett, Maud, field director woman and child labor department, industrial
commission, Milwaukee.
Thommen, Margaret, field deputy industrial commission, Milwaukee.
Wrabetz, Yoyta, chairman industrial commission, Madison.


Crawford, A. W., deputy minister of labor, Toronto.
Q uebec

Arcand, Hon. C. J., minister of labor, Montreal.
Tremblay, Gerard, deputy minister of labor, Quebec.

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.
Collective agreements
♦No. 191. Collective bargaining in the anthracite coal industry. [1916.]
*No. 198. Collective agreements in the men’s clothing industry. [1916.]
N o. 341. Trade agreement in the silk-ribbon industry of New York City.
N o. 402. Collective bargaining b y actors. [1926.]
N o. 468. Trade agreements, 1927.


Conciliation and arbitration (including strikes and lockouts)
♦No. 124. Conciliation and arbitration in the building trades of Greater N ew 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 N ew York City. [1914.]
♦No. 145. Conciliation, arbitration, and sanitation in the dress and waist industry of New York City.
No. 233. Operation of the industrial disputes investigation act of Canada. [1918.]
N o. 255. Joint industrial councils in Great Britain. [1919.]
No. 283. History of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board, 1917 to 1919.
N o. 287. National W ar Labor Board: History of its formation, activities, etc. [1921.]
♦No. 303. Use of Federal power in settlement of railway labor disputes. [1922.]
N o. 481. Joint industrial control in the book and job printing industry. [1928.]
N o. 313.
♦No. 314.
N o. 437.
N o. 531.
N o. 598.

Consumers’ cooperative societies in the United States in 1920.
Cooperative credit societies (credit unions) in America and in foreign countries. [1922.]
Cooperative movement in the United States in 1925 (other than agricultural).
Consumers’ , credit, and productive cooperative societies, 1929.
Organization and management of consumers’ cooperative associations and clubs. 1934.

E m ploym ent an d unem ploym ent



♦No. 202.
N o.
N o.


♦No. 553.
N o. 555.
♦No. 158.
N o. 263.
N o. 295.
N o. 545.

Statistics of unemployment and the work of employment offices [in the United States]. [1913.]
Unemployment in New York City, N .Y . [1915.]
Regularity of employment in the women’s ready-to-wear garment industries. [1915.]
Unemployment in the United States. [1916.]
Proceedings of Employment Managers’ Conference, held at Minneapolis, M inn., January
19 and 20, 1916.
Proceedings of the conference of Employment Managers’ Association of Boston, M ass.,
held M a y 10, 1916.
The British system of labor exchanges. [1916.]
Proceedings of Employment Managers’ Conference, Philadelphia, Pa., April 2 and 3, 1917.
Employment system of the Lake Carriers’ Association. [1918.]
Public employment offices in the United States. [1918.]
Proceedings of Employment Managers’ Conference, Rochester, N .Y ., M a y 9-11,1918.
Industrial unemployment: A statistical study of its extent and causes. [1922.]
Unemployment in Columbus, Ohio, 1921 to 1925.
Report of the Advisory Committee on Employment Statistics. [1931.]
Unemployment-benefit plans in the United States and unemployment insurance in foreign
countries. [1931.]
Fluctuation in employment in Ohio, 1914 to 1929.
Social and economic character of unemployment in Philadelphia, April 1930.
Government aid in 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 principal cities of the United States, [1921 to] 1930.


Industrial accidents and hygiene (including occupational diseases and poisons)
♦No. 104. Lead poisoning in potteries, tile works, and porcelain-enameled sanitary-ware factories.
N o. 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.]
N o. 188. Report of British departmental committee on the danger in the use of lead in the painting of
buildings. [1916.]
♦No. 201. Report of the committee on statistics and compensation insurance costs of the International
Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions. [1916.]
N o. 209. Hygiene of the printing trades. [1917.]
♦No. 219. Industrial poisons used or produced in the manufacture of explosives. [1917.]