View original document

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

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

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
ETHELBERT STEWART, Commissioner

BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES )
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS \ # *
P R O D U C T I V I T Y

OF

LABOR

• No. 441
SERIES

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR
IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY




/v \
\

“

/

JULY, 1927

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON
1927

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This bulletin was prepared by Boris Stern, of the United States
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
ii




A D D ITIO N A L COPIES
OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
U .S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C.
AT

40 CENTS PER COPY

CONTENTS
Introduction and summary:
Page
Industrial revolution in the glass industry____________________ ____ 1-14
Early history of glass making_______________________________
1-3
Regenerative furnace and continuous tank___________________
3, 4
Development of machinery in the industry___________________
4-7
4, 5
Bottles and jars_______________________________________
Pressed ware__________________________________________
5
5, 6
Blown ware___________________________________________
Window glass__________________________________________
6
Plate glass____________________________________________
6, 7
Effects of machinery on labor productivity and labor cost_____
7-14
Bottles and jars________________________________________
7, 8
Pressed ware__________________________________________
9, 10
Blown ware___________________________________________ 10-12
Window glass__________________________________________
13
Plate glass_____________________________________________ 13, 14
Effects of the industrial revolution on the industry________________ 14-25
Establishments and wage earners____________________________ 15, 16
Output of establishments___________________________________ 16-18
Stabilization of the industry_________________________ _______
18
Value of output____________________________________________ 18-20
Output of wage earners_____________________________________ 20, 21
Wage workers' earnings_____________________________________21, 22
Child labor________________________________________________ 22-25
Chapter I.— Bottles and jars:
Annealing bottles_______________________________________________26, 27
Assorting bottles_______________________________________________ 27, 28
Blowing bottles by hand________________________________________ 28-31
Blowing bottles by machine______________________ ^_____________
32
Semiautomatic machinery___________________________________32-35
One-man machine____________________ ________ _________ 34, 35
35
“ Feed and flow ” devices_______________________________
Automatic machinery______________________________________ 36-45
Owens machine________________________________________ 36-38
Conveyors____________________________________________ 38, 39
Feeders_______________________________________________ 39-41
Machines used with feeders___________________________ 41-45
Labor productivity and labor cost_____________________________ _ 45-54
Man-hour output---------- -------------------- --------------------------------- 46-50
Blowing labor cost_________________________________________ 50-54
Present situation in the bottle branch of the industry______________
55
Statistics of production and labor cost___________________________ 55-87
T able A .— Production and labor cost in making bottles by hand
and by machine__________________________________________59-87
Chapter II.— Pressed and blown ware:
Pressed ware________________________________ - ______ ___________
88
Making pressed ware by hand---------- ------------------------------------ 89-91
Semiautomatic machinery___________________________________91, 92
Automatic machinery______________________________________ 92-94
Labor productivity and labor cost___________________________ 95-99
Man-hour output______________________ _______________ 95-97
Direct labor cost_______________________________________ 97-99
Effects of the introduction of machinery____________________ 99, 100
Statistics of production and labor cost_____________________ 100-109
T able B .— Production and labor cost in making pressed
ware by hand and by machine_____________ - ________ 101-109




in

IV

CONTENTS

C hapter II.—Pressed and blown ware—Continued.
Blown ware:
Page
Lamp chimneys__________________________________________ 110-116
Offhand process______________________________________ 110, 111
Paste-mold process_____________________________________
111
Semiautomatic process_______________________________ 111, 112
Man-hour output and labor cost______________________ 112-114
Statistics of production and labor cost_________________ 114-116
T able C .— Production and labor cost in making lamp
chimneys by hand and by machine________________
116
Electric light bulbs_______________________________________ 117-131
Making bulbs by hand_________________________________ % 117
Semiautomatic process_______________________________ 117-119
Automatic machinery________________________________ 119-125
Man-hour output and labor cost______________________ 125-127
Statistics of production and labor cost_________________ 127-131
T able I ) .— Production and labor cost in making elec­
tric light bulbs by hand and by machine_________ 128-131
Punch tumblers__________________________________________ 132-136
Making tumblers by hand____________________________ 132-134
Automatic process___________________________________ 134, 135
Man-hour output and labor cost________________________
135
Statistics of production and labor cost_________________ 135, 136
T able E .— Production and labor cost in making punch
tumblers by hand and by machine_______ _________
136
Glass tubing. _____________________________________________ 137-144
Making glass tubing by hand___________________________
137
Making glass tubing by machine______________________ 137-142
Man-hour output and labor cost______________________ 142, 143
Statistics of production and labor cost_________________ 143, 144
T able F .— Production and labor cost in making glass
tubing by hand and by machine__________________
144
C hapter III.— Window glass:
Making window glass by hand_________________________________ 145-148
Cylinder-machine process_____________________________________ 148-154
Hand and cylinder-machine processes compared___________________
154
Flat glass____________________________________________________ 154HL58
Colburn process__________________________________________ 154, 155
Fourcault machine_______________________________________ 155-158
Man-hour output and labor cost_______________________________ 159, 160
Present situation in the window glass branch of the industry___ 161, 162
Statistics of production and labor cost_____________________ ____ 162-169
T able G .— Production and labor cost in making window glass
by hand and by machine________________________________ 164-169
C hapter IV.— Plate glass:
Discontinuous process________________________________________ 171-181
Melting the glass___________________________________________
171
Casting the rough plate___________________________________ 171-174
Annealing the rough plate_________________________________ 174-177
Grinding and polishing plate glass------------------------------ --------177-180
Laying out a table__________________________________ - 177, 178
Grinding machine______________________________________
178
Middle yard___________________________________________
178
Polishing machine__________________________ _________ 178-180
Relaying or turnover gang_-------------------------------------------180
Stripping and washing the glass----------------------------------—
180
Examining and cutting department---------------------------------------180
Continuous process___________________________________________ 182-187
Casting department______________________________________ 182-184
Finishing department_____________________________________ 184—
187
Cutting department_____________________ __________________
187
Discontinuous and continuous processes compared---------------------- 187-189
Man-hour output and labor cost_______________________________ 189-196
Present situation in the plate-glass branch of the industry--------------197
Statistics of production and labor cost_________________________ 197-204
T able H .— Production and labor cost of making plate glass by
hand and by machine__________________________________ 199-204




BULLETIN OF THE

U. S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
WASHINGTON

n o . 441

j u l y , 1927

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS
INDUSTRY
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY
EARLY HISTORY OF GLASS MAKING

Very little is known of the early history of glass making and abso­
lutely nothing of the manner and date of its discovery. It is reason­
ably certain, however, that the art of blowing glass into bottles,
making it into vases, coloring it to imitate precious stones, melting
it into enormous masses to make pillars, and rolling and polishing it
into mirrors was well known and practiced even in the most remote
ages.
The earliest evidences of the existence of the art of glass making
are found in Egypt. Champollion discovered on the walls of the
tomb of Beni-Hassan-el-Gadim drawings of workmen engaged in
glass blowing, and the reproduction of these drawings shows that
until recently glass has been blown in exactly the same way as
it was during the eighteenth dynasty, about 15 centuries before the
Christian era. A recent translation of the texts of a number of
Assyrian tablets shows that during the reign of Assur-bani-pal (669626 B. C.) the Assyrians were not only adept in making glass but
actually possessed numerous formulas for the making of various
kinds and colors of glass, and on the basis of this discovery it is main­
tained that the Assyrians were far ahead of the Egyptians in the art
of glass making. Samples of glass have been found in Syria, in the
region of the Euphrates, which can be definitely dated as of 2500 B. C.
In following up the history of glass making among the various
nations, ancient and modern, one is impressed with the fact that the
art of glass making becomes most pronounced when a nation reaches
a high degree of civilization, and declines with the downward trend
of the nation. In Greece the fourth century and in Rome the age of
the emperors were the periods of the highest development of glass
making. With the decline and fall of Rome, Byzantium, the capital
of Constantine the Great; became the center of attraction for the
glassmakers of the world. Then came the Dark Ages, and very
little glass making was done from the fifth to the close of the eleventh
century. But with the coming of the Renaissance the art received
a new stimulus and was revived in the city of Venice. This revival
proved permanent and soon Venetian glass and Venetian glassmakers
spread all over Europe, the glassmakers carrying their art with them.
In France glass making was reintroduced in the sixteenth century by
the finance minister Colbert, and in England during the reign of
Queen Elizabeth.




X

2

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

Before the process became mechanical the making of glass was one
of the most beautiful of arts and was so considered. To prove this
one need but refer to the beautiful beads, vases, and mosaics made
during the above-mentioned periods and to the social status enjoyed
by glassmakers in all the countries. In the list of occupations which
were proscribed in the Middle Ages as dishonorable for the nobility
glass making was not mentioned. Early in the fourteenth centurv
the French Government decreed not only that no derogation from
nobility should follow the practice of glass making, but also that
none save gentlemen or the sons of gentlemen should engage in any
of its branches even as working artisans. .This was also true of
Altare, a city near Venice, while in Venice and Murano each glassmaker, no matter of what origin, was entitled to be called “ gentle­
man glassmaker,” thus becoming a nobleman by virtue of his trade
alone.
During the Venetian period another important characteristic of
the art of glass making became particularly noticeable. This is the
mystery and secrecy of the trade which persisted throughout the
ages and which clings to the glass industry to the present day. Upon
the Assyrian tablets mentioned were found the following instructions
as to the preparation of the glass furnace: 1
When thou settest out the ground plan of a furnace for “ minerals” thou shalt
seek out a favorable day in a fortunate month. While they are making the
furnace, thou shalt watch them and work thyself, in the house of the furnace;
thou shalt bring in embryos [deities]— another, a stranger, shall not enter, nor
shall one that is unclean tread before them; the day when thou puttest down
the “ mineral” into the furnace, thou shalt make a sacrifice before the embryos.
Thou shalt kindle a fire underneath the furnace and shalt put down the
“ mineral” into the furnace. The men whom thou shalt bring to be over the
furnace shall cleanse themselves and then thou shalt set them to be over the
furnace.

The Venetian glassmakers used every effort to keep secret the
process of their art. Article 26 of the statutes passed by the In­
quisition of State in 1454 decreed that if any glass workman should
transport his craft to a foreign country and refuse to return an emis­
sary should be commissioned to slay him. In Murano the follow­
ing law was passed in 1459:2
If any glass workman carries his art to a foreign country he will have first an
order to return; if he obeys not, all his nearest relatives will be put in prison; if
in spite of this he obstinately remains abroad, some emissary will be charged to
slay him.

It is recorded that two workmen whom the German Emperor
Leopold (1658-1708) had induced to enter his States were so dealt
with.
Referring to the introduction of glass making into the United
States, the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1861 carries the following
paragraph:
The mystery attached to the art of glass making followed it into America.
The glass blower was considered a magician. His ability to transmute earthy
and opaque matter into a transparent brilliancy was regarded as not less miracu­
lous than the imputed skill of the alchemist to transmute base metals into gold.
1 The Glass Industry, November, 1926, pp. 264, 265.
2 Wallace-Dunlop, M. A.: Glass in the Old World.




New York [1882], p. 144.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

3

In the introduction to his book, American Glass Practice, published
in 1920, Mr. Bastow, a practical glassman with more than 20 years
of experience in the glass industry, says: 3
The lack of real knowledge of the forces at work in the process of making glass
is still aggravated by the age-old custom of secrecy. Observation will bear out
the fact that the most narrow-minded and bigoted demonstration of secrecy is
encountered where there is the least of real knowledge. Oftentimes this con­
dition condemns a manufacturing plant to the wasteful use of an uneconomical
formula, simply because that formula was acquired under conditions that tended
to throw a sacredness over it. *

The status of glass making as one of the fine arts and the mystery
and secrecy with which it has been surrounded throughout its entire
history are largely responsible for the fact that, in spite of its nearly
prehistoric origin, until very recently, both in this country and in
Europe, it has lagged behind all other-industries in its development,
especially as regards the introduction of machinery and labor-saving
devices. The industrial revolution in the glass industry is not yet
a generation old, and some of its branches are only now passing
through the phases characteristic of this tremendous change.
REGENERATIVE FURNACE AND CONTINUOUS TANK

The first really revolutionary change in the glass industry was
the introduction of the Siemens regenerative furnace, invented in
1861. Prior to that the “ direct-fire ” furnaces had been used, with
the fuel—wood or coal— charged directly into the firepot or hearth
of the furnace. In the regenerative furnace, which is now almost
universally used in this country, the heat is supplied by the combus­
tion of air and gas. The latter may be natural or supplied by a pro­
ducer, located at the plant. The gas and air employed are first
heated separately by the waste heat from the flames by means of
what are called “ regenerators,” placed either beneath or at the side
of the furnace. These are four chambers filled with fire brick stacked
loosely in checker work. Two of the chambers are used for the
admission of the gas and air into the furnace, and the other two for
the passage of the waste flames from the furnace to the smoke
stack. In passing through the chambers the intensely hot flames
leave a large proportion of their heat with the bricks in the chambers.
After a short period of time, usually 20 to 30 minutes, the draft is
reversed. The cool air and gas are now admitted into the furnace
via the two regenerators which had been previously used for the waste
flames, the latter now being released through the other pair of
regenerators. In passing over the heated bricks, the cold air and the
gas absorb the heat and upon reaching the common entrance to the
furnace combustion takes place, supplying the necessary heat for
the melting of the glass. The regenerative furnace is not only
more economical, effecting a saving of nearly 50 per cent in fuel,
but the heat produced by it is more intense and uniform, both of
which conditions are absolutely necessary for the proper melting
of the glass.
More important, however, as regards the later development of
machinery in the industry, was the introduction of the continuous
melting tank to take the place of open or closed pots. The continu­
ous tank was invented in 1872, but was not adopted in this country
a Bastow, Harry: American Glass Practice.




Pittsburgh, 1920. p. 5.

4

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

until about 1888. One decade later, in the census year of 1900,
48.8 per cent of the total active melting capacity of this country was
reported in tank furnaces. In 1925 open-pot furnaces were found
only in the plate-glass branch of the industry. Closed pots are still
used in the pressed and blown ware branch for the production of the
better kind of glassware and also for colored glass. A few day tanks
are used here and there, especially for the making of lamp chimneys
by the offhand process. In all other branches of the industry the
use of the continuous tank has become universal.
The principal advantage of the continuous tank lies in the oppor­
tunity it offers for uninterrupted working of the glass. With the
pot furnaces nearly half the time is consumed in filling the pot with
the batch, melting it, and bringing the molten material to the stage
necessary for the making of glassware. With the continuous tank
the batch is supplied at regular intervals to the melting end of the
tank while the molten glass is being continuously withdrawn from the
other end of the tank. The supply of the batch and the process of
melting and withdrawing the glass are so timed that the working
end of the furnace always remains at about the same temperature
and the same working level. The improved furnace and the con­
tinuous tank made the industry ripe for the introduction of machin­
ery, and it was not very long afterwards that the successful operation
of the first semiautomatic machine for the production of wide-mouth
jars was reported.
DEVELOPMENT OF MACHINERY IN THE INDUSTRY

The glass industry is composed of a number of branches whose
only common characteristic is the molten glass from which the
respective commodities are made. The nature of the ware made
and the methods of production, whether by hand or by machine,
are entirely different in the separate branches. The development of
machinery also has not been uniform and simultaneous in all the
branches. To all intent and purposes, therefore, the separate
branches may be considered as independent industries and treated
accordingly. In the present investigation the following four branches
are studied: (1) Bottles and jars; (2) pressed and blown ware; (3)
window glass; and (4) plate glass.
BOTTLES AND JARS

In his book on Machinery and Labor, Prof. G. E. Barnett of Johns
Hopkins University distinguishes three periods in the development of
machinery for the purpose of making jars and bottles:4 (1) 18981905—semiautomatic machinery for the making of wide-mouth ware
exclusively; (2) 1905-1917—the Owens automatic machine for the
making of all kinds of bottles, wide and narrow mouth, and semi­
automatic machinery for the narrow-mouth ware; (3) 1917 to date—
semiautomatic machinery made automatic by the “ feed and flow
devices.”
The first more or less successful semiautomatic machine was
invented in 1882 by Philip Arbogast, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and 11 years
later this machine was successfully applied to the making of vaseline
jars. In 1896 a similar machine was invented for the purpose of
making Mason jars. The growth of the semiautomatic machine
< Barnett, G. E.: Machinery and Labor.




Cambridge, 1926. p. 67.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

5

from 1897 to 1905, as shown by the number of machines in use in each
of those years, is given by Professor Barnett as follows:5 1897, 20;
1898, 50; 1899, 60; 1900, 80; 1901, 90; 1902, 100; 1903, 150; 1904, 200;
1905, 250.
The first really revolutionary change, however, took place in 1904,
with the successful introduction of the Owens automatic machine. It
was invented by M. J. Owens, a glassworker, who later became the
genius of the industry. The machine was automatic from the very start
and where used, it at once displaced all the skilled blowers and most of
their helpers in the shops. The output of the new machine was so
much greater and the cost of production so much less than by the hand
and semiautomatic processes that had it not been for the restrictive
policies of the owners of the Owens machine these less economical
processes would at once have been displaced by the automatic machine.
As it happened, however, the period of the Owens automatic
machine was also the period of the development of semiautomatic
machinery. In 1917 there were 200 Owens machines in operation
in this country, but there were also 428 wide and narrow mouth
semiautomatic machines. At about this time the “ gob” feeder,
which had been experimented with for some time, became a com­
mercial success. This appeared to have certain advantages over
both the Owens automatic and the semiautomatic machines. In
the course of the next eight years the majority of the semiauto­
matic machines were reconstructed and equipped with automatic
feeders so as to become completely automatic. The Owens ma­
chine has also undergone a series of important changes, especially as
regards the number of arms and the number of molds on each arm.
The most modern type of Owens machine has 15 arms, each equipped
with two molds, and each mold contains cavities for two or three
bottles, depending on the size of the bottle. At present these
automatic processes completely dominate the bottle-making indus­
try. The semiautomatic process has disappeared entirely, but a
small number of plants are still using the hand process for the kind
of bottles which can not be made more economically on the machine.
PRESSED WARE

Although the introduction of the side-lever press dates back to
1827, the general introduction of machinery in the pressed ware
branch of the industry took place much later and is less significant
than that in the bottle branch of the industry. The side-lever press is
still used in a large number of plants. During the first part of this
century the semiautomatic rotary press was introduced, but the real
revolutionary change came with the introduction of the feeding
devices. Modern machines equipped with these devices are made
after the pattern of the bottle-blowing machines, but are less com­
plicated. They are used primarily for making pressed tumblers of
all sizes, nappies, and sherbets. The largest proportion of pressed
ware, especially the so-called “ novelties,” is still made on either the
old-fashioned side-lever press or the rotary press.
BLOWN WARE

In the field of blown ware the development of machinery has been
much more pronounced than in the case of pressed ware. The
* Barnett, G. E.: Machinery and Labor;




Cambridge, 1926, p. 69.

6

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

machines used are also more complicated and specialize in the pro­
duction of some particular article, such as lamp chimneys, electric
lamp bulbs, punch tumblers, and glass tubing.
The lamp-chimney semiautomatic machine dates back to 1894.
Since then it has undergone a number of changes, but on the whole
very little progress has been made in this branch of the glass indus­
try. Hand production, especially the offhand method, is still an
important factor, but the industry as a whole is diminishing in im­
portance, as electricity is rapidly displacing the use of oil-burning
lamps even in the most outlying and inaccessible districts.
On the other hand, the most amazing progress has been recorded
in the making of electric-light bulbs. Since 1917 hand production
has been almost entirely displaced—first by the semiautomatic Em­
pire E machine and more recently by the completely automatic
Westlake machine and the Empire F machine operated with an au­
tomatic feeder. At present more than 95 per cent of all the electric
bulbs are made by the two automatic processes. The semiautomatic
machine has been almost completely abandoned, while a few hand
shops have been retained for experimental purposes or for the pur­
pose of making oddly shaped and colored electric bulbs.
The Westlake machine, which revolutionized the bulb-making in­
dustry, has also recently invaded the field of punch tumblers. These
are now made either on the Westlake machine or as a by-product on
the lamp-chimney semiautomatic machine. Only the most expensive
tumblers, those decorated with special designs, are still made by the
hand shops.
The year 1917, which brought with it so many revolutionary inno­
vations in the bottle and the pressed and blown ware branches of the
industry, witnessed also the introduction of the Danner machine for
the making of glass tubing. The new method was so superior that in
the comparatively short period of less than eight years it displaced
the old hand process, and not a single shop can now be found making
glass tubing by hand.
WINDOW GLASS

The introduction of the Lubber cylinder machine in 1905 was the
first successful attempt to replace the hand process of making window
glass with machinery. The cylinder process may be called semiauto­
matic, as considerable handling of the glass is required in the various
stages on its journey from the tank to the cutter's table. In 1917
the Colburn process of automatically drawing a continuous sheet of
glass from the tank became a commercial success, while in 1921 the
Fourcault automatic process, which was invented in Belgium, was
successfully introduced into this country. As a result very little
window glass is now being made by the hand process in this country.
The cylinder machine is still the dominating factor in the industry,
but the improved Colburn process and more recently the Four­
cault machine have been rapidly gaining on the cylinder process
and are becoming very important factors in the industry.
PLATE GLASS

The story of plate glass is essentially different from that of any
other branch in the glass industry. It has been from the very
beginning a nonskill industry, and the many simple operations
involved in the process of handling the large and heavy plates soon
suggested the use of labor-saving devices. When the industrial



INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

7

revolution finally reached the other branches of the glass industry
plate-glass making had already become a progressive, well-integrated
industry. Recently, however, the introduction of the continuous tank,
the automatic process of casting rough plate, and the conveyor
method of grinding and polishing the plates have tended to bring
about changes in this branch almost as revolutionary as those in
the other branches of the industry. The continuous process has
not yet reached the stage of unquestioned superiority over the older
so-called discontinuous process, and some time will probably elapse
before the industry universally adopts the new process.
EFFECTS OF MACHINERY ON LABOR PRODUCTIVITY AND LABOR COST

The effects of the introduction of machinery on labor productivity
and labor cost in the several branches of the glass industry are given in
Table 1, where productivity and cost in hand production are compared
with those in production by present-day machinery in terms of index
numbers. The increase in man-hour output varies from 42.3 per cent
(for lamp chimneys) to 4,009.8 per cent (for 4-ounce prescription oval
bottles). The decrease in labor cost varies from 25.1 per cent (for
rough plate glass) to 97.3 per cent (for 4-ounce prescription oval
bottles).
T a b l e 1. — Index numbers of labor productivity and labor cost in the glass industry,

by article and process
Labor productivity
Article

Labor cost

Per cent Hand
of in­
crease process

Percent
of de­
crease

Hand
process

Bottles:
2-ounce prescription ovals...................................
4-ounce prescription ovals...................................
2-ounce extract panels_____________ ______ ___
i^-pint sodas________________________ _______
l-pint whisky dandies_______________________
1-quart millr bottles_________________________
5-gallon water carboys_______________________
Pressed ware:
8-9-ounce table tumblers.... ......... ............ - ........
10-ounce table tumblers_____________________
4J^-6-inch nappies__________ _____ __________
6-7-inch nappies__________ __________________
3%-o\mce sherbets............................................ .
4H~5 ounce sherbets...........................................
Blown ware:
Lamp chimneys............. .......................... ...........
25-watt electric bulbs............. .............................
40-watt electric bulbs...........................................
9-10-ounce punch tumblers.................................
Glass tubing, sizes 19-21.....................................
Glass tubing, sizes 32-34..................... .............. .
Window glass:
Single strength...................................................
Double strength____________________________
Plate glass:
Rough plate....................................................
Polished plate______________________________

Ma­
chine

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

3906.4
4109.8
2511.6
1642.0
742.1
1449.3
994.0

3806.4
4009.8
2411.6
1542.0
642.1
1349.3
894.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

2.74
2.70
4.20
6.70
10.30
5.10
17.10

97.26
97.30
95.80
93.30
89.70
94.90
82.90

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

1228.1
1240.0
759.6
491.0
817.0
630.5

1128.1
1140.0
659.6
391.0
717.0
530.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

6.70
6.65
8.62
13.26
8.97
12.62

93.30
93.35
91.38
86.74
91.03
87.38

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

142.3
3126.2
3142.6
1419.1
591.9
746.7

42.3
3026.2
3042. 6
1319.1
491.9
646.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

62.50
3.39
3.39
7.00
18.55
14.70

37.50
96.61
96.61
93.00
81.45
85.30

100.0
100.0

261.1
228.4

161.1
128.4

100.0
100.0

31.30
32.80

68.70
67.20

100.0
145.0
100.0 - 160.5

45.0
60.5

100.0
100.0

74.90
66.70

25.10
33.30

Ma­
chine

BOTTLES AND JARS

A comparison of man-hour output on seven of the most commonly
used bottles made by the three processes—hand, semiautomatic ma­
chine, and automatic machine—is shown in Table 2. The average out­
put per man-hour by the hand process ranges from 0.286 gross (quart
milk bottles) to 0.643 gross (2-ounce prescription oval bottles);
on the semiautomatic machines, it ranges from 0.711 gross (2-ounce
extract panel bottles) to 1.043 gross (2-ounce prescription oval



8

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

bottles); and on the automatic machines it ranges from 2.649 gross
(1-pint whisky dandies) to 25.118 gross (2-ounce prescription oval
bottles). For the purpose of comparison, the data are also expressed
in terms of index numbers. Taking the average man-hour output
in hand production as the base, or 100, the semiautomatic machine
shows indexes ranging from 142.2 (for 2-ounce extract panel
bottles) to 270.9 (for quart milk bottles); and the automatic machine
shows indexes ranging from 742.1 (for pint whisky flasks) to 4,109.8
(for 4-ounce prescription oval bottles). It would take more than 41
workers to produce in one hour by hand as many 4-ounce prescription
oval bottles as the most up-to-date automatic machine produces in
the same period of time.
The table also shows a comparison of the labor cost of blowing
the seven kinds of bottles by the three processes. This comparison
is based on the rates of wages prevalent in the industry in 1925.
The average labor cost of blowing a gross of bottles by hand ranges
from $1,006 (for 2-ounce prescription oval bottles) to $25,308 (for
5-gallon water bottles); on the semiautomatic machine it ranges
from 58.3 cents (for 2-ounce prescription oval bottles) to $1,027 (for
2-ounce extract panel bottles); and on the automatic machine it
ranges from 2.8 cents (for 2-ounce prescription oval bottles) to
$1,881 (for 5-gallon water carboys).
Taking the average labor cost in the hand process as the base, or
100, the semiautomatic machine shows indexes varying from 30.4
(for quart milk bottles) to 74.6 (for 2-ounce extract panel bottles),
the average saving in labor cost thus ranging from 69.6 to 25.4 per
cent. The automatic machine shows indexes varying from 2.7 (for
4-ounce prescription oval bottles) to 10.3 (for pint whisky dandies),
the saving in labor cost thus ranging from 97.3 to 82.9 per cent.
For every dollar spent on producing 4-ounce prescription oval bot­
tles by hand it cost only 2.7 cents to make them on the most up-todate automatic machine.
T a b l e 2 .— Comparison of average output and labor cost of bottles made by hand

and by machine

Output (per man-hour)
Average output per man-hour of bottles made by—
Hand

Kind of bottle

Semiautomatic
machine

Automatic
machine

Index
Index
Index
Amount number Amount number Amount number
2-ounce prescription ovals.......... ..............................
4-ounce prescription ovals.............................. ..........
2-ounce extract panels................................................
H-pint sodas...............................................................
1-pint whisky dandies................................................
1-quart milk bottles....................................................
6-gallon water carboys................................................

Gross
0.643
.536
.500
.393
.357
.286
.026

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Gross
1.043
.797
.711
.778
.774
.775

162.2
148.7
142.2
198.0
216.8
270.9

Gross
25.118
22.028
12.568
6.453
2.649*
4.145
.260

3906.4
4109.8
2511.6
1642.0
742.1
1449.3
1000.0

$0,583
.72%
1.027
.888
.860
.907

58.0
61.2
74.6
54.7
48.0
30.4

$0,028
.032
.057
.108
.185
.152
1.880

2.74
2.70
4.2
6.7
10.3
5.1
7.43

labor cost (per gross)
2-ounce prescription ovals............................._...........
4-ounce prescription ovals........._...............................
2-ounce extract panels........................ .......................
^-pint sodas........ .......................................... .........
1-pint whisky dandies...................................... .........
1-quart milk bottles....................................................
6-gallon water carboys____ ___ ___ _
. ..............




$1,006
1.177
1.377
1.622
1.790
2.980
25.308

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

9

PRESSED WARE

A comparison of man-hour output of the most commonly used
tumblers, nappies, and sherbets made by the hand side-lever press,
by the semiautomatic rotary press, and by the automatic machines
is presented in Table 3. The average man-hour output on 10 and
8-9 ounce tumblers of a hand shop is 28.86 and 31 pieces, respect­
ively; on the semiautomatic rotary press on 8-9 ounce tumblers it is
64.93 pieces; and on the automatic machine on 10 and 8-9 ounce
tumblers it is 357.86 and 380.71 pieces, respectively. On 6-7 and
43^-5 inch nappies the average man-hour output is 27.37 and 39.61
pieces, respectively, by the hand process; 45.69 and 58.71 pieces,
respectively, on the semiautomatic machine; and 134.39 and 300.87
pieces, respectively, on the automatic machine. On 43^-5 and
ounce sherbets, the average man-hour output is 30.45 and 33.55
pieces, respectively, by the hand process; 48.79 and 58.21 pieces,
respectively, on the semiautomatic rotary press; and 192 and 274.1
pieces, respectively, on the automatic machine.
Expressed in terms of index numbers, taking the man-hour output
by the hand process as the base, or 100, the semiautomatic press
shows a maximum index of 209.5 (for common 8-9 ounce tumblers)
and a minimum of 148.2 (for 4 ^ -5 inch nappies), and the auto­
matic machine shows a maximum of 1,240 (for 10-ounce tumblers),
and a minimum of 491 (for 6-7 inch nappies).
A comparison of the labor cost of production in pressing glass­
ware by the three processes is also shown in Table 3. The average
labor cost of making one hundred 8-9 and 10 ounce tumblers by the
hand side-lever press is $1.95 and $2,075, respectively; of making
one hundred 8-9 ounce tumblers on the semiautomatic rotary press,
$1,073; and of making one hundred 8-9 and 10 ounce tumblers on
the automatic machine, 13 and 13.8 cents, respectively. In making
one hundred 43^-5 and 6-7 inch nappies the average labor cost is
$1,718 and $2,549 respectively, by the hand process; $1,053 and
$1,418, respectively, on the semiautomatic rotary press; and 14.8
and 33.8 cents, respectively, on the automatic machine. In making
one hundred 43^-5 and 3
ounce sherbets the labor cost by the
hand process is $1,806 and $1,917, respectively; on the semiauto­
matic machine, $1,147 and $1,295, respectively; and on the auto­
matic machine, 16.2 and 24.2 cents, respectively.
Expressed in terms of index numbers, taking the labor cost in the
hand process as the base, or 100, the index numbers for the semi­
automatic machine show a maximum of 67.55 (for 43^-5 ounce
sherbets) and a minimum of 55 (for 8-9 ounce common table tum­
blers). The decrease in the labor cost of production thus effected
by the semiautomatic machine from that of the hand process ranges
from 32.45 to 45 per cent. On the same basis the automatic machine
shows a maximum index of 13.26 (for 6-7 inch nappies) and a mini­
mum index of 6.65 (for 10-ounce tumblers). For every dollar spent
on making pressed glassware by hand the automatic machine effects
a saving ranging from 86.74 to 93.35 cents.




10

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN TH E GLASS INDUSTRY

T a b l e 3*— Comparison of average output and labor cost of tumblers, nappiesf and

sherbets made by hand and by machine

Output (per man-hour)
Average output per man-hour of specified article
made by—
Hand

Article

Semiautomatic
machine

Automatic
machine

Index
Index
Index
Amount number Amount number Amount number
8-9 ounce common tumblers......................................
10-ounce tumblers___ ____ _____________________
43^-5 inch nappies.-------- -------------------- ------ ------6-7 inch nappies_____ _____ _____________________
3M-ounce sherbets........ ..............................................
4>|-5 ounce sherbets________ _______ _____ _______ j

31.00
28.86
39.61
27.37
33.55
30.45

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

64.93

209.5

58.71
45.69
58.21
48.79

148.2
166.9
173.5
160.2

$1,073

55.00

1.053
1.418
1.147
1.295

61.29
55.63
63.51
67.55

380.71
357.86
300.87
134.39
274.10
192.00

1228.1
1240.0
759.6
491.0
817.0
630.5

$0.130
.138
.148
.338
.162
.242

6.70
6.65
8.62
13.26
8.97
12.62

labor cost (per 100)
8-9 ounce common tumblers...................................... $1.951
2.075
10-ounce tumblers.......................................................
1.718
4H-5 inch nappies.......................................................
2.549
6-7-inch nappies......................................... ...............
33^-ounce sherbets....................................................... ! 1.806
1.917
4^-5 ounce sherbets................................................... i

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

BLOWN WARE

Lamp chimneys.—A comparison of man-hour output in making
No. 2 sun-crimped lamp chimneys by the offhand process, by the
paste-mold process, and by the semiautomatic machine is set forth
in Table 4. The average man-hour output by the offhand process
is 26.27 chimneys, by the paste-mold process 36.45, and by the semi­
automatic machine 37.39. Taking the output by the offhand process
as the base, or 100, the paste-mold process shows an index of 138.8,
or an increase of 38.8 per cent, and the semiautomatic machine an
index of 142.3, or an increase of 42.3 per cent.
The labor cost of production by the three processes is also shown
in the table. It cost $2,710 to make 100 No. 2 sun-crimped lamp
chimneys by the offhand process, $2,128 by the paste-mold process,
and $1,712 on the semiautomatic machine. The decrease in labor
cost from that of the offhand process is 21.5 per cent for the pastemold process and 37.5 per cent for the semiautomatic machine.
T a b l e 4 . — Comparison

of average output and labor cost o f No. 2 sun-crimped
lamp chimneys made by hand and by machine
Average output
per man-hour

Average labor cost
per 100 pieces

Method of production
Index
Quantity number
Hand:
Offhand process........................................................................
Paste-mold process............................................. ..................
Semiautomatic machine.................................................................

1

Pieces
26.265
36.450
i 37.387

100.0
138.8
142.3

Amount

$2.710
2.128
21.712

Index
number

100.0
78.5
62.5

1In addition there was approximately an equal number of tumblers produced as a by-product requiring
only grinding and glazing to finish them.
2 Less the value of the tumblers produced as a by-produet.




INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

11

Eleetric-light bulbs.—A comparison of man-hour output in making 25
and 40 watt electric-light bulbs by hand, on the semiautomatic ma­
chine, and on the automatic machine is shown in Table 5. The average
man-hour output of 25 and 40 watt bulbs of a hand shop is 54.36 and
54.21 bulbs, respectively; on the semiautomatic machine, 116.06 and
116.55 bulbs, respectively; and on the automatic machine, 1,699.22
and 1,703.59 bulbs, respectively. Expressed in index numbers,
taking the man-hour output of the hand process as the base, or 100,
the semiautomatic machine shows indexes for 25 and 40 watt bulbs
of 213.52 and 215.00, respectively, and the automatic machine,
3,126.17 and 3,142.57, respectively. The semiautomatic machine
doubled the man-hour output of the hand shop, while the man-hour
output of the automatic machine is more than thirty-one times that
of the hand process.
The labor cost of producing 25 and 40 watt electric bulbs by the
three processes is also shown in the table. Ijb costs $13,897 and
$13,882, respectively, to make one thousand 25 and 40 watt bulbs
by hand; $4,197 and $4,180, respectively, on the semiautomatic
machine; and 47.1 and 47.0 cents, respectively, on the automatic
machine. Taking the labor cost of the hand process as the base,
or 100, the semiautomatic machine shows indexes for 25 and 40 watt
bulbs of 30.20 and 30.11, respectively, or a decrease in labor cost of
nearly 70 per cent. For the automatic machine the index is 3.39
for both kinds of bulbs. For every dollar spent on making electric
lamp bulbs by hand it cost only 3.39 cents to make them on the
automatic machine, a saving of 96.41 cents per dollar.
T a b l e 5 . — Comparison of average output and labor cost of electric light bulbs made

by hand and by machine
Average output
per man-hour

Average labor cost
per 1,000 pieces

Kind of bulbs and method of production
Index
Quantity number
Pieces
25-watt bulbs made b y 54.36
Hand_________________________________________________
Semiautomatic machine..................... ...... ...........................
116.06
Automatic machine................................................................ 1,699.22
40-watt bulbs made by—
54.21
Hand__________________________ ____ ______________ ___
116.55
Semiautomatic machine.......................... ..............................
Automatic machine................... ........... ................................. 1,703.59

Amount

Index
number

100.00
213.52
3,126.17

$13,897
4.197
,471

100.00
30.20
3.39

100.00
215.00
3,142.57

13.882
4.180
.470

100.00
30.11
3.39

Punch tumblers.—In Table 6 is shown a comparison of man-hour
output of 9-10 ounce punch tumblers made by hand and on the
automatic machine. In the hand process the average output is
25.69 tumblers per man-hour, while on the automatic machine it
is 364.57 tumblers per man-hour. Taking the output of the hand
process as the base, or 100, the automatic machine shows an index
of 1,419.1, or more than fourteen times the man-hour output by the
hand process.
The labor cost of making a 9-10 ounce punch tumbler by the two
processes is also shown in the table. The average labor cost of making
100 tumblers by hand is $1.90; on the automatic machine it is 13.3 cents




12

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

per hundred. Taking the labor cost of the hand process as the base,
or 100, the automatic machine shows an index of 7.0; that is, for every
dollar spent on making punch tumblers by hand it costs only 7
cents to make them by the automatic machine, a saving of 93 cents
per dollar.
T a b l e 6.— Comparison of man-hour output and labor cost of 9 -1 0 ounce punch

tumblers blown by hand and by machine
Man-hour output
Process

Index
Quantity number
Pieces
25.69
364.57

Hand production_____________________________ ____________
Automatic machine........................... ............................................

100.0
1,419.1

Labor cost
Amount
per 100

$1,900
.133

Index
number

100.0
7.0

Glass tvMng.—A comparison of man-hour output of glass tubing
made by hand and by the Danner tubing machine is made in Table
7. The average output per man-hour of glass tubing made by the
hand process is 9.957 pounds for sizes 19 to 21 and 10.067 pounds
for sizes 32 to 34. On the Danner tubing machine the average
man-hour output is 58.932 pounds of sizes 19 to 21 and 75.169
pounds of sizes 32 to 34. Expressed in terms of index numbers,
with the man-hour output of the hand process taken as the base, or
100, the Danner machine shows an index of 591.9 for the smaller
sizes and 746.7 for the larger sizes. It would take nearly eight
workers to produce the same quantity of tubing as the Danner
machine produces in an equal period of time.
A comparison of the labor cost of making glass tubing by the two
processes is also given in the table. It cost $6,905 and $6,830,
respectively, to draw 100 pounds of glass tubing of sizes 19 to 21 and
32 to 34. The labor cost of making the same sizes of glass tubing on
the Danner tubing machine is $1,281 and $1,004, respectively, per
100 pounds. Expressed in terms of index numbers, taking the labor
cost of the hand process as the base, or 100, the Danner machine
shows indexes of 18.55 and 14.70, respectively, or a decrease in labor,
cost of 81.45 and 85.30 per cent of the labor cost of making glass
tubing by hand.
T a b l e 7 . — Comparison o f average output and labor cost of glass tubing made by

hand and by machine
Average output
per man-hour

Average labor cost
per 100 pounds

Size of glass tubing and method of production
Index
Quantity number
Sizes 19 to 21 glass tubing made b y Hand........................................................................................
Machine....... .............. ............................................................
Sizes 32 to 34 glass tubing made b y Hand........................................................................................
Machine...................................................................................




Amount

Index
number

Pounds
9.957
58.932

100.0
591.9

$6,905
1.281

100.0
18.55

10.067
75.169

100.0
746.7

6.830
1.004

100.0
14.70

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

13

WINDOW GLASS

Table 8 contains a comparison of man-hour output of single and
double-strength window glass made by the hand shop,‘on the cylinder
machine, and by the Fourcault automatic process.
On single-strength window glass the average output of the hand
process is 0.709 boxes (50 square feet each) per man-hour; on the cylin­
der machine, 1.654 boxes per man-hour; and on the Fourcault machine,
1.851 boxes per man-hour. On double-strength window glass the aver­
age man-hour output is 0.561 boxes by the hand process, 0.972 boxes
on the cylinder machine, and 1.280 boxes by the Fourcault automatic
process. Expressed in terms of index numbers, with the man-hour
output of the hand process taken as the base, or 100, the cylinder
machine shows an index of 233.3 for single-strength and 173.4 for
double-strength window glass. The Fourcault process shows an
index of 261.1 for single-strength and 228.4 for double-strength glass,
or an increase in man-hour output of 161.1 and 128.4 per cent,
respectively, over the hand process.
The labor cost of making window glass by the three processes is
also given in the table. In the hand process the labor cost of making
a 50-square-foot box of window glass is 95.5 cents and $1.32, respec­
tively, for single and double-strength glass; on the cylinder machine
the corresponding costs are 40.7 and 69.9 cents per box; and on the
Fourcault machine, 29.9 and 43.3 cents per box. Taking the labor
cost of the hand process as the base, or 100, the cylinder machine
shows an index of 42.6 for single-strength and 53.0 for double-strength
glass, and the Fourcault process, 31.3 for single-strength and 32.8 for
double-strength window glass. The savings in labor cost thus
effected by the automatic is 68.7 and 67.2 cents on every dollar spent
in making window glass by the hand process.
T a b l e 8 .— Comparison of average output and labor cost of making window glass

by hand and by machine
Average output
per man-hour

Average labor
cost per box

Kind of window glass and method of production
Index
Quantity number
Single-strength window glass made b y Hand............... ............................ ............... .........................
Cylinder machine___________________ ____ _____________
Fourcault automatic machine____ ________________ ______
Double-strength window glass made b y Hand...................................................................................
Cylinder machine........ ........... ...............................................
Fourcault automatic machine.......... .... ......... ......................

Amount

Index
number

Boxes i
0.709
1.664
1.851

100.0
233.3
261.1

$0,955
.407
.299

100.0
42.6
31.3

.561
.972
1.280

100.0
173.4
228.4

1.320
.699
.433

100.0
53.0
32.8

i 50 square feet.
PLATE GLASS

A comparison of man-hour output of rough and polished plate
glass made by the discontinuous and by the continuous processes is
given in Table 9. When cast by the discontinuous process the average
output of rough plate glass is 43.887 square feet per man-hour; by the
continuous automatic process it is 63.630 square feet per man-hour.
40780°—27------ 2




14

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

Taking the man-hour output of the discontinuous process as the base,
or 100, the automatic process shows an index of 145, or an increase
in man-hour output of 45 per cent over the discontinuous process.
In the case of polished plate glass the average output by the dis­
continuous process is 7.664 square feet per man-hour, as compared
with 12.300 square feet per man-hour by the continuous process.
The man-hour output of polished plate glass made by the continuous
process is 60.5 per cent larger than the man-hour output by the dis­
continuous process.
A comparison of the labor cost of making rough and polished plate
glass by the two processes is also given in the table. It cost $1,812 to
cast 100 square feet of rough plate glass by the pot process and
$1,357 per 100 square feet by the automatic process. Taking the
labor cost of the pot process as the base, or 100, the automatic process
shows an index of 74.9, or a decrease in labor cost of 25.1 per cent.
In the case of polished glass the labor cost of making it by the dis­
continuous process is $10,397 per 100 square feet, while by the con­
tinuous process it is $6,939. The decrease in labor cost effected by
the continuous process is 33.3 per cent.
9.— Comparison of average output and labor cost of casting rough plate
glass and o f making polished plate glass by the discontinuous and the continuous
processes

T a b le

Average output per
man-hour

Average labor cost
per 100 square feet

Index
Quantity number

Amount

Kind of plate glass and method of production

Rough plate glass cast by—
Discontinuous process.............................................................
Continuous process.................................................................
Polished plate glass made by—
Discontinuous process.................. ............ .............................
Continuous process......... ........................................ ..............

Index
number

Sq. feet
43.887
63.630

100.0
145.0

$1.812
1.357

100.0
74.9

7.664
12.300

100.0
160.5

10.397
6.939

100.0
66.7

EFFECTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION ON THE INDUSTRY

In view of the tremendous changes in man-hour output and labor
cost due to automatic machinery, it may be worth while to examine
more or less in detail the effects of the introduction of machinery
on the industry as a whole. Table 10, compiled from Census Bureau
reports, presents statistics which represent the growth of the industry
from 1899 to 1925, the period during which the change from hand
production to semiautomatic and automatic machinery took place.
The data given are the number of establishments, the wage earners
employed, the total wages paid, and the quantity and value of out­
put for the industry as a whole, and also, when available, for the
four principal branches thereof, which combined constitute more
than 90 per cent of the industry.




INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

15

T a b l e 10.— Statistics o f the glass industry, 1899 to 1986, by specified years
[Data from United States Bureau of the Census]
Item

1899

1904

1909

1914

1919

1921

1923

1925

355
147
84
100
16

399
158
103
103
17

363
166
114
0)
0)

348
150
107
64
19

371
145
130
79
17

329
0)
0)
(*)
0)

333
117
127
65
17

310
120
123
42
19

Wage earners.............................. 52,818
Bottles and jars...................... 28,370
Pressed and blown ware........ 12,546
Window glass......................... 8,682
Plate glass............................... 3,220

63,969

74,502
0)
0)
0)
0)

77,520
0)
0)
0)
(0

54,748

8
8

68,911
0)
0)
0
0)

<>
*

73,335
24,010
27,196
8,826
9 961

69,371
21,704
21,507
8,346
11,124

12,005

12,316

19,290

22,295

(9

28,393

26,044

428

532

701

1,080

C)
1

0)

4,852
27,293

6,922
47,370

8,020
60,384

7,380
56,823

5,201
56,239

10,204
94,470

Establishm ents..........................
Bottles and jars......................
Pressed and blown ware........
Window glass.........................
Plate glass...............................

O u tp u t:
Bottles and jars................. .
................. thousand gross.. 7,780
Pressed and blown ware_____
................... million pieces..
360
Window glass.........................
.................thousand boxes.. 4,341
Plate glass..thousand sq. ft.. 16,884
Value o f o u tp u t (000 om itted).
Bottles and jars......................
Pressed and blown ware........
Window glass.........................
Plate glass...............................

(0
Q
0)

1,963
11,343
117,369

$56,540 $79,608 $92,095 $123,085 $261,884 $213,471 $309,353 $295,959
21,677 33,631 36,018
51,959
94,670
0) 107,231 100,301
17,076 21,956 27,398
77,279
72,085
30,279
70,749
0)
10,879 11,611 11,743
42,623
17,495
41,101
24,026
37,525
5,159
7,978 12,205
14,774
66,163
57,207
33,348
37,261

Wages (000 om itted).................. 27,084

37,388

39,300

48,656

87,527

68,224

89,898

86,736

1 Not reported.

ESTABLISHMENTS AND WAGE EARNERS

In 1899 the glass industry comprised 355 establishments, employing
52,818 wage earners, an average of 149 wage earners per establish­
ment; in 1925 there were only 310 establishments, employing 69,371
wage earners, an average of 224 wage earners per establishment.
In the course of the 25 years the number of establishments decreased
12.7 per cent, while the number of wage earners increased 31.3 per
cent, and the average number of wage earners per establishment
increased 50.3 per cent.
The figures for the industry as a whole, however, do not tell the
story of what happened in the separate branches. In 1899 there
were 147 establishments making bottles and jars and employing
28,370 wage earners, an average of 193 wage earners per establish­
ment; in 1925 there were 120 establishments, employing 21,704
wage earners—an average of 181 wage earners per establishment.
The number of establishments in the bottle and jar branch therefore
decreased 18.3 per cent, the number of wage earners 23.5 per cent,
and the average number of wage earners per establishment 5.8 per
cent.
For pressed and blown ware there were, in 1899, 84 establishments,
employing 12,546 wage earners— an average of 149 wage earners per
establishment; in 1925 there were 123 establishments employing
21,507 wage earners— an average of 175 wage earners per establish­
ment. The number of establishments thus increased 46.4 per cent,
the number of wage earners 71.4 per cent, and the average number of
Wage earners per establishment 17.5 per cent.
In the window-glass branch in 1899 there were 100 establishments,
employing 8,682 wage earners— an average of 87 wage earners per




16

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

establishment; in 1925 there were only 42 establishments, employing
8,346 wage earners—an average of 199 wage earners per establish­
ment. The number of establishments decreased 58 per cent and
the number of wage earners 3.9 per cent, but the average number of
wage earners per establishment increased 128.7 per cent.
In the plate-glass branch in 1899 there were 16 establishments,
employing 3,220 wage earners— an average of 201 wage earners per
establishment; in 1925 there were 19 establishments, employing
11,124 wage earners— an average of 585 wage earners per establish­
ment. The number of establishments increased 18.8 per cent, the
number of wage earners, 245.3 per cent, and the average number of
wage earners per establishment 191.0 per cent.
The effects of the introduction of machinery in the glass industry
have thus been considerably different in its four principal branches,
at least so far as total number of establishments and wage earners
and average number of wage earners per establishment is concerned.
In the bottle and jar branch the general adoption of the automatic
machines resulted not only in a diminution of the number of plants
and wage earners in the industry but also in a decrease of the average
number of wage earners per establishment. Fewer workers are seen
in a large up-to-date machine bottle plant than in a small hand plant.
In the pressed and blown ware branch the automatic machines have
so far invaded only a small part of the industry, and the growth in
this branch has therefore resulted in an increase in the number of
plants and wage earners as well as in the average number of workers
per establishment. In the window-glass branch the predominance
of the cylinder-machine process cut the number of establishments
over half, somewhat diminished the total number of wage earners,
and increased the average number of wage earners per plant nearly
one and one-third times. As to plate glass, which until very recently
witnessed no revolutionary changes, the growth in this branch more
than tripled the number of wage earners and nearly tripled the aver­
age number of workers per establishment.
OUTPUT OF ESTABLISHMENTS

The number of workers employed and the average number per
establishment can not, however, be used as an indication of the
change in the size of the establishment, for the reason that the
primary object of the introduction of machinery has been to decrease
the number of wage earners employed. This is especially true of
the bottle and jar branch. A better means of measuring the size
of an establishment may be found either in the quantity or the
value of output. For a period of years the quantity output is more
effective, as it remains more or less untouched by a change in prices,
which exerts a disturbing influence on the value of the output.
In 1899 the average output per establishment in the four branches
was: Bottles and jars, 52,925 gross; pressed and blown ware, about
4.286.000 pieces; window glass, 43,410 boxes; and plate glass,
1,055,200 square feet. In 1925 it was: Bottles and jars, about
217.000 gross; pressed and blown ware, 15,959,000 pieces; window,
glass, 270,100 boxes; and plate glass, 6,177,000 square feet. Thus
in 1925 the average output per establishment was four and onetenth times as much as in 1899 in the case of bottles and jars; three




INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

17

and seven-tenths times as much in the case of pressed and blown
ware; six and two-tenths times as much in window glass; and five
and nine-tenths times as much in plate glass.
The distribution of total number of establishments and the value
of their output on the basis of the value of output in each estab­
lishment is even more significant of the changes in the size of estabments than the actual output per establishment. Table 11 shows
the total number of establishments in 19046 and 1925 with a yearly
output of under $100,000, with an output of $100,000 and under
$1,000,000, and with an output of $1,000,000 and over.
T a b l e 11.— Number of establishments in the glass industry and total value o f their

'productj 1904 and 1925, classified by value of product per establishment
Number and total value
Number of estab­
lishments

Total value of product

Value of product per establishment
1904

1925

1904

1925

Under $100,000........................................................................
$100,000 and under $1,000,000...................................................
$1,000,000 and over......................................................... .........

164
230
5

49
178
83

$8,341,000
62,274,000
8,993,000

$2,652,000
78,754,000
214,553,000

Total...............................................................................

399

310

79,608,000

295,959,000

Under $100,000..........................................................................
$100,000 and under $1,000,000..................................................
$1,000,000 and over............................. ........... ..........................

41.1
57.6
1.3

15.8
57.4
26.8

10.5
78.2
11.3

0.9
26.6
72.5

Total..............................................................................

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Per cent

In 1904, out of a total of 399 establishments in the industry, 164
establishments, or 41.1 per cent, were in the lowest group; 230, or
57.6 per cent, in the middle group; and only 5 establishments, or 1.3
per cent, in the highest group. In 1925, out of a total of 310 estab­
lishments in the industry, 49 establishments, or 15.8 per cent, were
in the lowest group; 178, or 57.4 per cent, in the middle group; and
83, or 26.8 per cent, in the highest group.
Even more striking than the number of establishments is the dis­
tribution of the total value of output in these groups. In 1904 the
164 establishments in the lowest group reported a combined output
of $8,341,000, or 10.5 per cent of the $79,608,000 which was the
value of the output for the entire industry. The value of the output
of the middle group was $62,274,000, or 78.2 per cent of the total,
and that of the 5 establishments in the upper group was $8,993,000,
or 11.3 per cent of the total. In 1925 the 49 establishments of the
lowest group reported an output of $2,652,000, or less than 1 per cent
of the $295,959,000, the value of the output of the entire industry.
The value of the output of the middle group was $78,754,000, or 26.6
per cent of the total, while that of the 83 establishments in the upper
6The distribution for 1899 is not available.




18

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

group was $214,553,000, or 72.5 per cent of the total. Although the
variation in prices from 1904 to 1925 no doubt had some effect on
the value of output in those two years, the differences in the distri­
bution of the three groups are so enormous as hardly to be affected
by any such variation in prices.
STABILIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY

Prior to the introduction of machinery the glass industry was pre­
dominantly a small-unit industry. The amount of capital needed for
a plant was comparatively negligible, and the principal item of expen­
diture, outside of labor, was fuel. A cheaper rate on coal or natural
gas was enough of an inducement for the removal of a glass plant
from one locality to another and from State to State. The history
of the discoveries of natural gas in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Vir­
ginia, and Oklahoma also tells the story of the migrations of the glass
industry to and from these States.
But with the advent of machinery the situation changed completely.
Fuel is still a big item in the cost of production of glass and is still
considered as the factor determining the site of a new glass estab­
lishment. But once the plant is built, the capital outlays on the
building, the furnaces, and the machines prevent the moving of the
establishment irrespective of the cost of fuel. Thus, as migration
was eliminated, the advantages of large-scale production were brought
into play, with the result that in the short span of 25 years the glass
industry has been converted from a small and loosely connected
into a large and well-integrated industry.
VALUE OF OUTPUT

In 1899 the 7,780,000 gross of bottles and jars produced were
valued at $21,677,000, an average of $2.79 per gross; in 1925 the
value of the 26,044,000 gross produced was $100,301,000, an average
of $3.86 per gross, an increase of 38.4 per cent over the average
value in 1899.
In the pressed and blown ware branch of the industry the
360,000,000 pieces produced in 1899 were valued at $17,076,000, an
average of $4.74 per hundred pieces; in 1925 the 1,963,000,000
pieces produced were worth $72,085,000, an average of $3.67 per
hundred pieces, or 22.6 per cent lower than in 1899.
In the window-glass branch the 4,341,000 boxes produced in 1899
were valued at $10,879,000, an average of $2.50 per box; in 1925 the
11,343,000 boxes were worth $37,525,000, an average of $3.31 per
box, or 32.4 per cent higher than in 1899.
In the plate-glass branch the 16,884,000 square feet of polished
glass produced in 1899 were worth $5,159,000, making the average
$30.56 per hundred square feet; in 1925 the 117,369,000 square feet
produced were worth $57,207,000, an average of $48.74 per hundred
square feet, which is 59.5 per cent higher than the average for 1899.
Table 12 and Chart 1 show a comparison of the trend of these aver­
age values in the four branches and of wholesale prices of manufac­
turing commodities from 1899 to 1925.




INTRODUOTI ON AND SUMMARY

19

T a b l e 12* — Average unit values o f bottles and jars, pressed and blown ware, window

glass, and plate glass, and index numbers thereof and of wholesale prices of manu­
factured commodities in specified years, 1899 to 1925
Index numbers

Year

1899..........................
1904.........................
1909.................... .
1914_................... .
1919..........................
1921..........................
1923______________
1925______________

Bottles
and
jars
(per
gross)

Pressed
and
blown
ware
(per 100
pieces)

$2.79
2.80
2.93
2.70
4.25
(2
)
3.78
3.86

$4.74
5.13
5.15
4.33
6.54
(2
)
(2
)
3.67

Win­
dow
glass
(per
box)

$2.50
2.40
1.70
2.18
5.57
4.61
4.18
3.31

Plate
glass
(per 100 Bottles
square
and
feet)
jars

Pressed
and
blown
ware

100.0
100.0
105.0
96.8
152.3

100.0
108.2
108.6
91.4
138.0

135.5
138.4

77.4

$30.56
29.23
25.78
24.47
58.68
66.25
69.96
48.74

Win­
dow
glass

100.0
96.0
68.0
87.2
222.8
184.4
167.2
132.4

Plate
glass

100.0
95.6
84.4
80.1
192.0
216.8
228.9
159.5

Whole­
sale
prices
of
manu­
factured
com­
modi­
ties i
100.0
109.8
124.6
128.7
273.4
188.2
188.7
203.3

1 Recomputed from indexes given in U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Bui. No. 415, p. 31: Wholesale
prices, 1890 to 1925.
2 Not reported.
C h a r t 1.— T r e n d o f A v e r a g e U n i t V a l u e s o f B o t t l e s a n d J a r s , P r e s s e d a n d B l o w n
W a r e , W i n d o w G l a s s , a n d P l a t e G l a s s a s C o m p a r e d w i t h T r e n d o f W h o l e s a l e P r ic e s
o f M a n u f a c t u r e d C o m m o d i t i e s , 1899 t o 1925




300
280
160
240
220

200
ISO

160
140
<20

100
80
60

40

♦
3

20

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

In average unit values each branch of the industry seems to have
a trend entirely different from any other branch, due to conditions
inherent in that branch. For instance, window glass and plate glass
as building materials are largely affected by the general conditions
in the building industry. This accounts for the slump in their
values in 1909 and the steep rise in 1919 as compared with the value
of bottles and jars or of pressed and blown ware. Again, for a num­
ber of years plate glass has been in great demand for the automobile
industry, and in 1921, in spite of the slump in the other branches
of the glass industry and in the wholesale price index of manufac­
tured commodities, the value of plate glass continued to rise through
1923, when the introduction of the continuous process began to exert
its influence and values began to drop.
On the whole, however, the general trend of the four branches of
the industry is unmistakably downward and, with the exception
of plate glass, none of the indexes of average unit values rose during
the period above the wholesale price index of manufactured com­
modities. In 1925 the index for bottles and jars was 64.9 points
below the wholesale price index of manufactured commodities;
for pressed and blown ware it was 125.9 points lower, and actually
22.6 per cent lower than it was in 1899. The index for window glass
was 70.9 points lower and for plate glass 43.8 points lower than the
index for wholesale prices of manufactured commodities.
OUTPUT OF WAGE EARNERS

From the labor standpoint the most important change directly
connected with the introduction of machinery in the glass industry
is the increase in output per wage earner employed. Table 13 shows
a comparison of output per man in the four principal branches of the
industry in 1899 and 1925.
T a b le

13.— Yearly output per man in specified branches of the glass industry,
1899 and 1925
1925
Branch of industry

1899
Quantity

Bottles and jars................ ........... . ......................... .......... ........gross..
Pressed and blown ware................. .................... . _________ pieces..
Window glass......................... ............................... ................boxes..
Plate glass............... ^ .......................................... - .........square feet_„

274
28,694
500
5,240

1,200
91,272
1,359
10,551

Index
numbers
(1899=100)
438.0
318.1
271.8
201.3

In 1899 the 28,370 wage earners engaged in making bottles and
jars produced by hand alone, 7,780,000 gross, an average of 274 gross
per man; in 1925 the 21,704 wage earners produced, partly by hand
and partly on the semiautomatic machine, but chiefly on the auto­
matic machines, 26,044,000 gross, an average of 1,200 gross per man,
or four and four-tenths times as much as in 1899.
In the pressed and blown ware branch of the industry the 12,546
wage earners employed in 1899 produced by hand 360,000,000 pieces
of ware, an average of 28,694 pieces per man; in 1925 the 21,507
wage earners employed produced, partly by hand and partly by




INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

21

machine, 1,963,000,000 pieces, an average of 91,972 pieces per man,
or three and two-tenths times as much as in 1899.
In the window-glass branch the 8,682 workers engaged in 1899 pro­
duced by the cylinder hand process 4,341,000 boxes of 50 square
feet each, an average of 500 boxes per man; in 1925 the 8,346 wage
earners produced, partly by hand and partly by the Colburn and
Fourcault automatic processes, but chiefly by the cylinder machine
process, 11,343,000 boxes, an average of 1,359 boxes per man, or
two and seven-tenths times as much as in 1899.
In the plate-glass branch the 3,220 wage earners employed in
1899 produced 16,884,000 square feet of polished plate glass, an
average of 5,243 square feet per man; in 1925 the 11,124 wage earners
engaged in making plate glass by the improved discontinuous and
continuous processes produced 117,369,000 square feet of polished
plate glass, an average of 10,551 square feet per man, or a little more
than twice as much as in 1899.
In the figures for the separate branches of the industry there exists
a slight error due to the fact that the hours worked per day in 1899
and 1925 are not strictly comparable. For instance, in the bottle
industry the regular hours of work were eight and one-half in 1899
and only eight in 1925. On the other hand, in 1899 nearly all the
plants, following a long-established custom, suspended production
for a period of two months, while in 1925 only a few plants stopped
producing for a month or more because of repairs or the usual recon­
struction of tanks, which must be done every 12 to 18 months.
Similar or somewhat different discrepancies in the hours worked
also exist in the other branches of the industry, but their general
effect on the output was so slight as to exert very little, if any, influence
on the validity of the figures of productivity given.
WAGE WORKERS’ EARNINGS

A comparison of rates of wages in the glass industry in 1899 and
1925 is of no significance, for the reason that the nature of the work
done and the kind of labor used in 1925 were entirely different from
the work done and the labor used in 1899. Twenty-five years ago
the majority of workers employed in the industry consisted of highly
skilled blowers, pressers, finishers, gatherers, flatteners, and cutters,
and unskilled mold boys, snapping-up boys, warming-in boys, carry-in
boys, carry-over boys, and the like. In 1925 only a small percent­
age of such labor had been retained, even in the hand plants. The
new class of glassworkers is made up of tank men, machinists, machine
foremen, machine operators, and helpers, with little if any prelim­
inary training in handling machines. Again, in 1899 all skilled
workers were paid on a piecework basis, while in 1925 the over­
whelming majority of workers were paid on a time basis—by the
hour, by the week, or by the month.
It is possible, however, to compare the yearly earnings of the wage
earners in 1899 and in 1925. In 1899 the 52,818 wage earners in the
industry received a total wage of $27,084,000, an average of $512.78
per wage earner per year. In 1925 the 69,371 wage earners received
a total wage of $86,736,000, an average of $1,250.32 per wage earner
per year, or nearly two and one-half times as much as in 1899.




22

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

But in making these comparisons of the wage workers’ earnings of
1899 and 1925 it must be remembered that the group of wage earners
in 1899 contained a large percentage of minors under 16 years of
age, with extremely low wages, whereas in 1925 the number of minors
under 16 years was practically nil. This difference would tend con­
siderably to depress the average earnings per man in 1899 as com­
pared with 1925. On the other hand, many of the skilled workers
in 1899 working on a piece-rate basis were earning exceptionally
high wages. Fifty to seventy-five dollars a week was not an excep­
tionally high wage for a skilled bottle or window-glass blower in
those days. In 1925 this extreme had also been eliminated. How
far the high earnings of the skilled workers in 1899 were neutralized
by the very low earnings of the minors can only be guessed, but the
existence of the two extremes can not be overlooked when comparing
the average earnings of the two periods.
More important, however, than the money wages are the real
earnings of the workers. Table 14 contains a comparison of the
average yearly earnings of the wage earners in the industry from
1899 to 1925, with the cost of living during the same period.
T a b l e 14.— Average yearly earnings of wage earners in the glass industry compared

with cost of living, 1899 to 1925, by specified years
[1914=100]

Average yearly
earnings
Year
Amount

l._................. ..................................
1
........... .............. ...............................
1
......... ..............................................

$512.78
582.91
570.30
653.08
1,129.09
1,246.15
1,225.85
1,250.32

Index
number

78.5
89.3
87.3
100.0
172.9
190.8
187.7
191.4

Index
number of
cost of
living

65.7
73.8
86.1
100.0
182.8
172.1
166.0
168.4

Purchasing power of earn­
ings (measured by cost of
living)

Index
number

119.5
121.0
101.4
100.0
94.6
110.9
113.1
113.7

Per cent of
change com­
pared with
1914
+19.5
+21.0
+1.4
0.0
—5.4
+10.9
+13.1
+13.7

The trend of real earnings, as expressed in the purchasing power of
the money earnings (measured by the cost of living), has been down­
ward from 1904, when real earnings were at their peak, 21 per cent
above that of 1914, to 1919 when they were at their lowest, 5.4 per
cent below that of 1914. Since then the trend has been steadily
upward, the 1925 index being 13.7 per cent above that of 1914, but
not so high as that of 1904 or 1899.
CHILD LABOR

Prior to the introduction of machinery the glass industry was one
of the greatest exploiters of child labor. This was particularly true
of the bottle and the pressed and blown ware branches, for very
few children had been employed in the making of window glass and
none in plate glass. In 1899, of the total of 40,916 wage earners em­
ployed in making bottles and pressed and blown ware, 7,035, or 17.2




INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

23

per cent, were children under the age of 16 years. These were em­
ployed chiefly as mold boys, cleaning-off boys, and snapping-up boys
in the furnace room, and partly as burning-off girls, glazing girls, and
selectors in the finishing department. The general nature of their
work is explained in the sections describing hand production in the
separate branches of the industry.
The conditions under which the children were employed are fully
discussed in the Commissioner of Labor's Report on Condition of
Woman and Child Wage Earners in the Glass Industry in the United
States made at the request of the United States Senate, which was
published in 1910.
The following quotations are from this report. Referring to the
work of the mold boy, it says:7
The mold rests upon or very close to the floor. As a result the mold boy
must either squat upon the ground in an awkward, cramped position * * *
or, standing, must stoop constantly to his work. When the mold boy must
thus sit with his legs doubled under him, or sitting on a crude chair or box,
stoop over almost to the floor to operate the molds, the occupation becomes
one which, continued for any great length of time, undoubtedly tends to dwarf
and deform the child. * * *
He must necessarily be close to the mold, and for speed of working the mold
is placed near the furnace, directly in front of the working hole and some 3 feet
below the level of the hole. As the mold tender works he faces the furnace,
and his face and shoulders at least are in direct line with the radiated heat from
the working hole. In addition to the furnace there are other sources of heat
adding to the boy’s discomfort. The blower in lowering the hot lump of glass
into the mold necessarily swings it close to the boy’s face; the mold itself after
a short using becomes very hot and gives off considerable heat; in some factories
the “ glory holes,” at which the finishing work is done, are crowded close to the
furnace, and little space left between them and the mold boys.

The general conditions in the furnace room are thus described: 8
In some factories at times the air is so full of floating glass from the “ blowover” 9that the hair is whitened by merely passing through the room. It sticks to
the perspiration on the face and arms of the boys and men and becomes a source of
considerable irritation. Getting into the eyes, it becomes especially troublesome.
In other factories visited it was found that when the wind blew from the gas
producers toward the furnace room the air of the whole room became filled with
gas and smoke almost to the point of suffocation.

The heat conditions in the furnace room are set forth as follows:1
0
The generally accepted figures of the heat within a furnace during the “ fusing”
is 2,507° F. between the pots and 2,390° F. in the metal itself. These tem­
peratures are reduced when the holes are opened for working to a standard of
1,913° F., although glass is commonly worked at a temperature of a hundred
degrees less than these figures. * * *
Factory No. 2 was examined June 18, at 12.25 p. m. with the outside tem­
perature at 90°. The temperature taken at a point 2 feet from but directly
in front of a working hole showed 142°; two others taken the same distance
from but slightly to the side of the holes showed 135° and 137°. Temperature
near cleaning-off boy, 105°; near the mold boy, 113°; in front of the “ glory
hole,” 116°; at finisher’s bench, 104°; where snap-up boy stands to rub excess
glass off neck of bottle, 103°; where carry-in boy picks up ware, 98°; in front
of leer, where carry-in boy stands to deposit ware, 125°. * * *
In warmer weather the ill effects of the heat show themselves directly in the
form of prostration or affections directly due to the high temperature. * * *
In the winter the immediate danger to health arises from sudden changes in
? U. S. Bureau of Labor. Report on Condition of Woman and Child Wage Earners in the United
States. Vol. Ill, Glass industry. Washington, 1910, p. 48.
8 Idem, pp. 66-92.
8 For explanation of “ blow-over,” see p. 29.
* U. S. Bureau of Labor. Report on Condition of Woman and Child Wage Earners in the United
0
States. Vol. Ill, Glass industry. Washington, 1910, pp. 69-80.




24

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

temperature. The boys, as a rule, have little or no extra clothing to protect
them from the outside weather and rarely take the trouble to wait in the factory
until their bodies are sufficiently cooled to bear the change. The danger is
particularly acute when night work is being done.

On accidents and causes of death and diseases it is said:
Conditions in nearly all furnace rooms are favorable to minor accidental
injury. * * * 1
1
Many of the boys bear the scars of severe burns. In the crowded factories
where so many of them are constantly moving to and fro carrying the hot bottles,
occasional collisions are inevitable, and some of the boys show the marks of
these terrible burnings in the form of scars which they will bear all through
their lives. * * * It is indeed a hard and trying life they lead, these boys
of 9, 10, 11 years and upward, for many such are in the factories. * * * 1
2

With the introduction of machinery the child-labor situation
changed. The mold boys, the cleaning-off boys, and the snapping-up
boys were at once dispensed with, even in the case of the cruder
semiautomatic machines. The job of the carry-in boys was retained
for some time, but the introduction of the Owens automatic machine,
with its automatic conveyor, eliminated all the work formerly done
by child labor. Even where no conveyors have been installed and
the job of the carry-in boys has been retained, the output of the
machines has proved to be too large to be handled by minors, and
the job, though retaining the name of “ carry-in boy,” is actually
performed by an adult unskilled man or woman.
Table 15 gives the total number of wage earners and of children
under 16 years employed in the industry from 1880 to 1919, the last
year for which figures are available from the census reports.
T a b l e 15*— Number of wage earners and of minors under 16 years employed in

the glass industry, 1880 to 1919, by specified years
[Data from the U. S. Census Bureau]
Minors under 16
years
Year

1880 ........................
1890................. ........
1899.........................
1904.........................

Number
of wage
earners

24,177
44,892
52,818
63,969

Number

Per cent
of total
wage
earners

15,658
i 6,943
7,116
6,435

23.4
15.5
13.5
10.1

Minors under 16
years
Year

1909.........................
1914.........................
1919.........................

Number
of wage
earners

68,911
74,502
77,520

Number

3,561
1,992
1,413

Per cent
of total
wage
earners
5.2
2.7
1.8

1 Males under 16 years and females under 15 years.

^ From 1880 to 1899 the number of minors under 16 years increased
from 5,658 to 7,116, but this increase was not as large as that of the
total number of wage earners in the industry. The percentage that
minors formed of the total number of wage earners decreased, there­
fore, from 23.4 to 13.5, though the actual number increased 25.7 per
cent. Beginning with 1904, both the actual numbers and the per­
centages minors formed of the total decreased, while the total num­
ber of wage earners continued to rise rapidly. In 1899, with prac­
1 U. S. Bureau of Labor. Report on Condition of Woman and Child j Wage Earners in the United
1
States. Vol. Ill, Glass industry, Washington, 1910.
12 Idem, p. 254.




INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

25

tically no machinery used in the industry, the 7,116 minor boys and
girls under 16 years constituted 13.5 per cent of the total number of
52,818 wage earners in the industry. In 1919, the last year for which
official figures are available, there were 1,413 minors—only 1.8 per
cent of the 77,520 wage earners in the industry. In 1926 a repre­
sentative of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who visited about 60
plants engaged in the manufacture of bottles, pressed and blown
ware, window glass, and plate glass, reported that he found few minors
under the age of 15. Child labor in the glass industry has now
become almost a thing of the past, and credit for this is due in no small
measure to Michael J. Owens, the inventor of the Owens machine.
In 1869, as a boy of 10 years, he joined the ranks of the thousands of
children employed in the glass factories. He died in 1923, the genius
of the glass industry, whose inventions contributed more than all
other factors combined to the complete elimination of child labor
from the industry.




CHAPTER I.—BOTTLES AND JARS

The process of making bottles, whether by hand or by machine,
may be divided into three distinct operations: (1) Blowing, (2)
annealing, and (3) assorting and classifying.
Blowing is by far the most important of the three operations.
It is in the field of bottle blowing that the most striking changes from
the hand process to semiautomatic machinery, and finally to auto­
matic machinery have taken place in the last quarter of a century.
These are the changes which have completely revolutionized the
bottle industry. In general, therefore, whatever is characteristic
of the operation of bottle blowing may well be considered as repre­
sentative of the bottle industry as a whole.
Physically the bottle is actually completed at the end of the first
operation. Due, however, to the special effects which the contact
of the hot bottle with the iron mold has on the glass, all bottles, and
for that matter all glassware made in molds, must undergo a process
of annealing before they can be applied to the purposes for which
they are to be used. In describing the various methods used in
the operation of blowing bottles numerous references have been
made to the methods of annealing and assorting bottles, and it is
deemed worth while, before entering into a detailed analysis of
blowing, to explain briefly the other two operations of bottle making—
annealing and assorting.
ANNEALING BOTTLES

The process of annealing consists in reheating the bottles to a
temperature just below the melting point of glass, in order to retain
the shape of the bottles, and then gradually cooling them off to the
normal temperature. This is accomplished in specially built ovens,
formerly termed “ kilns,” and now more generally known as “ leers.”
During the last 20 or 25 years a number of very important changes
have taken place in the methods of constructing leers and in the
process of annealing glassware. The old kilns have become rare.
Their place was first taken by the open-fire hand-pan leers, in which
the pans were pulled through the leer by hand and then returned
over an iron railing to the front of the leer. Next, the automatic
muffled leer was invented, with the pans moving automatically on
an endless chain, and the fire muffled and not in direct contact
with the ware. More recently the fireless leer was put in operation
and still more recently an electric leer.
All these changes were chiefly concerned with the problem of more
perfectly controlling and regulating the process of annealing. An­
other factor was the saving in the amount of fuel needed in the process.
Although some labor saving has been accomplished, especially in the
change from the hand leer to the automatic and then to the fireless
leer, this was not an important factor in the development of the anneal­
ing process. The man-hour output in the operation of annealing
26



CHAPTER I.— BOTTLES AND JARS

27

bottles can not be determined either separately or in connection with
the operation of blowing, for the following reasons:
(a) There is no distinct labor occupation which may be ascribed
to the process of annealing as separate from either blowing or assort­
ing bottles. At the hot end of the leer the carrv-in boys who bring the
ware to the leer are usually included either with the “ shop” if the
bottle is blown by hand or with the machine unit if blown by machine.
At the cold end of the leer the laborers who take the ware off the
leer also as a rule classify, inspect, and very often pack the ware
in boxes or cartons, and these men are therefore included under the
operation of assorting rather than that of annealing the bottles.
The only labor which can be attributed to annealing proper is that of
tending and controlling the fire in the leer, but this kind of labor
is necessary for all leers alike and has no direct relationship to the
quantity or kind of ware in the leer. Its output can not, therefore,
be measured in terms of bottles annealed.
(b) The operations of blowing and annealing are separate processes,
entirely independent of each other. With the exception, perhaps, of
the Owens leers, which are used exclusively with the Owens machines,
any kind of leer may be used with any method of blowing bottles, by
hand or machine. Besides, any leer may at the same time be anneal­
ing various bottles made on more than one machine or made on a
machine and by the hand process. Finally, there is no definite
relationship between the machine or shop hours spent in blowing
bottles and the leer hours needed for annealing purposes. It is
therefore impossible to gauge quantitatively the effects of the various
leers on the man-hour output of the blowing unit. It is, however,
generally admitted in the industry that these effects are comparatively
slight and may be classified with such other indeterminate factors as
the condition of the molten glass in the tank, the weather, etc.
ASSORTING BOTTLES

No significant changes have taken place in the methods of assorting
and classifying, which is the third operation in the process of making
bottles. The job is purely a hand process, consisting in examining
the bottles while taking them off the cold end of the leer and throwing
out such of the bottles as do not come up to the required standard.
The process is not very complicated, and any laborer may learn to
assort bottles after a week or two of training. Nowadays this opera­
tion is performed almost exclusively by women.
There is no distinct relationship between the operation of assorting
bottles and the method used in the process of blowing. The condi­
tion of the bottles produced by the blowers has, indeed, a definite
effect on the output of the selectors, for the better the run of the
bottles blown the smaller is the quantity of ware discarded and the
higher the output of the assorters. It can not be proved, however,
that any one process of blowing or any one machine continuously
produces a larger percentage of good ware than any other process or
any other machine. Although it is admitted that the introduction of
machinery has somewhat increased the output of the bottle assorters,
this slight increase can easily be offset by such other factors as the
skill of the assorters, the process of annealing, and the variations in
the methods of assorting bottles used in the separate plants,




28

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

Thus, neither the operation of annealing nor that of assorting
bottles lends itself to a quantitative analysis of changes in man-hour
output. It was therefore necessary to limit this study to the process of
blowing, and in the following pages wherever bottle making is men­
tioned it refers to this operation only.
BLOWING BOTTLES BY HAND

Since time immemorial the operation of blowing bottles by hand
has been performed by a group of workers, constituting a unit termed
the “ shop.” The composition of a shop has varied from time to time,
depending entirely upon the nature and the size of the bottles blown.
For an average size bottle, ranging in contents from less than an
ounce to a quart, a normal shop in this country has since 1870 con­
sisted of three skilled workers and four helpers. Of the three skilled
workers, two blowers usually gather the molten glass and blow the
bottles independently of each other, while the third worker finishes
the necks of the bottles made by the two blowers. In most cases
the three workers are equally skilled in all three operations of gather­
ing, blowing, and finishing, and when working in this order inter­
change occupations every 20 minutes.
The helpers to the blowers derive their names from the nature of
their work, being termed mold boy, cleaning-off boy, snapping-up
boy, and carry-in boy. The mold boy sits on a low stool at the
foot of the blower’s bench and opens and closes the molds as required
by the two blowers. The cleaning-off or knocking-off boy stands
near by and receives the pipe after it is disconnected from the bottle
in the mold, and with a small iron tool resembling a file cleans the
pipe of the bit of glass which solidifies around the blowing end. The
snapping-up boy puts the bottle which has just been taken from the
mold into “ the snap” and places it into the “ glory hole.” 1 The
carry-in boy carries the bottles from the finisher to the leer to be
annealed.
The process of blowing bottles by hand may be briefly described as
follows: Standing in front of the working hole of the furnace, the
blower dips his pipe into the white mass of molten glass and by
skillful movements of his hand gathers on the end of the pipe the
exact quantity of glass necessary for the size of the bottle to be made.
This he quickly removes from the furnace and rolls and smooths it
on a flat piece of iron called the “ marver.V While thus marvering
the glass the blower also gently blows into the free end of his pipe
and by introducing a few puffs of air into the solid mass of glass
forms the initial cavity in the prospective bottle. When the glass
is marvered sufficiently the worker, while continuing to blow into the
pipe, swings it forward and backward a few times. As a result of
these operations the bit of glass suspended at the end of the pipe
assumes a pear-shaped form, with a small central air cavity inside.
The mold boy now opens one of his two iron molds, the blower
lowers the partially formed portion of glass into it, and the mold boy
then closes the two halves of the mold. Continuing to blow into
the pipe, the blower blows with sufficient force to distend the glass
to the exact shape patterned in the mold, after which the pressure
of the blowing on the small amount of glass remaining above the
mold causes it to distend to a mere film, which breaks readily and
1 For explanation of these terms see p. 31.




CHAPTER I .— BOTTLES AND JARS

29

thus disconnects the pipe from the bottle in the mold. The film
of glass above the mold, which is so thin and light that it actually
floats in the air, is known as the “ blow-over. ”

F ig . 1 — BLOWING BOTTLES BY HAND

While the bottle remains a short time in the mold until it solidifies
sufficiently to be handled, the mold tender prepares the other mold
for the second blower. Then he opens the first mold, takes out the
40780°— 27------ 3




PRODUCTIVITY
O
F
LABOR
I
N
THE
GLASS
INDUSTRY




F ig . 2.— VIEW OF A HAND BOTTLE AND BLOWN-WARE PLANT

CHAPTER I .— BOTTLES AND JARS

31

bottle with a pair of pincers, and places it on a stand at his side.
Frequently he also weighs the bottle on a small scale standing near by.
At this stage of the process the bottle still needs to have its neck
finished and the “ lip” on the top formed. The snapping-up boy
picks it up with a pair of pincers and puts it in a heavy can-like
receptacle with a long handle, known as the “ snap.” He then
places the snap with the bottle in the reheating furnace, termed the
yglory hole,” in order to reheat the neck of the bottle and thus make
it ready for the finisher. The latter usually sits on a bench near the
“ glory hole,” so that he may easily reach the snap and place it back
in the fire when the bottle is finished. The work of the finisher
consists of shaping the lip on the neck of the bottle, which he does
very skillfully with a special wooden tool usually improvised by
himself.
Next the snapping-up boy releases the finished bottle from the
snap and places it on a stand for the carry-in boy, who picks up
two or more bottles with a special iron fork and places them in the
leer to be annealed.
While the normal shop is thus made up of seven workers, there are
variations, in which the number of skilled workers as a rule remains
the same while the number of helpers varies, depending upon the
kind and size of bottles made. Quite often the eleaning-up boy is
dispensed with. When an automatic mold is used which, operated
by means of a treadle at the blower’s foot, shuts and opens up by
itself, the mold boy, too, is eliminated and the snapping-up boy adds
to his duties the work of a take-out boy. Again, sometimes only
one or two carry-in boys are used for as many as 10 shops or more.
In such cases the snapping-up boys place the finished bottle in a
large pan kept in a small iron oven termed the “ peanut-roaster.”
The carry-in boy takes a full pan of bottles to the leer at one time
and is thus enabled to serve all his shops in rotation.
The average daily productivity of the hand shop varies consider­
ably with the size of the bottle, the condition of the glass, the skill of
the workers, and the weather. In the case of small ware, ranging
in contents up to 3 or 4 ounces, 30 to 35 gross constitutes a fair
output for a shop of seven men during an eight-hour shift. As the
weight of the bottle increases the output becomes smaller and smaller,
so that in the case of quart jars 15 to 16 gross represents a very good
output for an eight-hour day.
In the production of very large ware of a gallon and over, such as
packer jugs, water bottles, carboys, etc., the total number of workers
constituting a shop is considerably increased, although the number
of skilled workers generally remains the same. Thus in the case of
5-gallon water bottles, which are still being made in large quantities
by the hand process, a shop is made up of 13 workers, namely, 3
skilled blowers, 2 gatherers (who are as a rule apprentices to the
blowers and are paid at a rate higher than the other helpers), 1 mold
boy, 1 cleaning-off boy, 3 snapping-up boys, and 3 carry-in boys.
The daily production of 5-gallon bottles by such a shop ranges from
250 to 350 bottles, depending on the skill of the blowers, the condi­
tion of the molten glass in the tank, and the weather.




32

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

BLOWING BOTTLES BY MACHINE

The successful introduction of the Owens automatic machine in
1904 was the first and most important revolutionary change in the
production of bottles. The machine was automatic from the very
start. It at once displaced the three skilled blowers and two of their
helpers, the knocking-off boy, and the snapping-up boy. The mold
boy (who became a take-out boy) and the carry-in boys also soon
gave way to the automatic conveyors. One semiskilled machine
operator, whose duty it is to supervise the machine and see that
everything runs smoothly, has now taken the place of the seven
workers in the hand shop. In addition to the very large saving of
human labor accomplished by the machine its output was so much
larger than that of a hand shop and the cost of production so much
less that the manufacturing of bottles by hand was doomed.
The manufacturers were at once confronted with the dilemma of
either acquiring the new machine or seeking such changes in the
old process of manufacturing as would lessen their disadvantages in
competition with the automatic machine. But not all the bottle
manufacturers could install the automatic machine, as the owners
of the patent refused to sell the machine on the open market. Instead
they granted licenses to a number of manufacturers 'to use their
machines on a royalty basis, and part of the agreement was that
the licensees specialize in particular lines of ware, the owner of the
machine guaranteeing that no other manufacturer would be granted
the right to produce this same kind of ware on the automatic. What
such a policy really meant was a monopoly not only in the owner­
ship of the machine but also in the kinds of ware produced on the
automatic. This policy, together with the great expense involved
in the installation of an Owens machine, is chiefly responsible for
the comparatively slow and very gradual spread of this machine in
the industry. At the same time this policy was the chief stimulus
to the introduction of semiautomatic machines, which soon devel­
oped into an automatic process entirely different from the Owens,
but almost as successful.
SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINERY

Shortly after the introduction and installation of the first Owens
machine in 1904 there appeared on the market a hand machine
which became known as the United, or English, or “ Johnny Bull”
machine. This machine was built on the pattern of the Ashley, a
hand machine invented in England as early as 1887. This was soon
followed by another semiautomatic, more widely used and generally
known as the “ Jersey Devil” machine. In its crudest form the
machine was made up of two round tables, each equipped with
spaces for from two to four molds. The first table, the one nearest
the furnace, was equipped with blank molds and was surmounted
by a plunger operated by compressed air. The second table was
equipped with an equal number of form molds and was surmounted
by the blowing valve, also operated by compressed air.
The first two hand operations eliminated by the introduction of the
semiautomatic machine were the blowing and the finishing of the
bottle. It is interesting to note here that the process of making the
neck of the bottle, which is usually the last operation in hand blow­




CHAPTER I .— BOTTLES AND JARS

33

ing, became the first operation of the machine after the glass was fed
to it by the gatherer. This is also true of the Owens automatic
machine. The three skilled workers were retained, but the demands
on their skill were considerably reduced. The gatherer no longer

F ig . 3 — JERSEY DEVIL OR TWO-MAN SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE

collected the glass on the end of a pipe, but used a plain solid iron
rod, called a “ punty.” He was no longer required to be exact as to
the quantity of glass he gathered each time. The quantity of glass
needed was now determined by the presser, who sheared it off the




34

PBODTJCTIVITY OF IiABOR IN TH E GLASS INDUSTRY

punty as the gatherer held it over the opening of the blank mold,
thus allowing the bit of glass to drop into the mold of its own weight.
The presser would then turn the table one notch by operating his
foot treadle and cause the plunger to penetrate the molten mass of
glass in the mold, shaping the lip of the bottle and at the same time
introducing the initial small cavity into the solid glass. After the
next turn of the table the partly formed bottle would be transferred
from the blank mold into a form mold by the man operating the sec­
ond table. He would turn his table one notch and thus bring the
mold under the blowing valve. The compressed air, released by the
operator of the second table, would blow into the already formed
cavity of the “ parison” or partly formed bottle and distend it into
the exact shape of the pattern in the mold. The bottle was then
complete. At the next turn of the table a take-out boy opened the
mold, and after examining and frequently weighing the bottle, he
placed it either on a little stand for the carry-in boys to take to the
leer, or into a paddle in the “ peanut roaster,” where the bottles were
collected and heated until enough of them were accumulated to be
taken to the leer.
The total number of workers needed on a three-man semiautomatic
machine was five, three skilled blowers and two helpers—a take-out
and a carry-in boy. This represented a reduction of two helpers, as
compared with the hand process. The principal difference, however,
between the hand machine and hand blowing was not so much the
reduction of the number of helpers needed as the elimination of the
greater part of the skill required from the skilled blowers in the hand
process. This was especially true in the case of the presser and the
transfer man. It was riot, therefore, very long before the machine
was so changed as to eliminate first one and then the other of these
workers, completely dispensing with both or replacing them by one
unskilled laborer. The machine thus became first a two-man and
then a one-man machine in the sense that at first two skilled workers
were needed for its operation, and finally only one skilled worker—a
gatherer.
The above technical changes were made either by the manu­
facturers of the machines or by the glass manufacturers, who them­
selves introduced improvements. Some of these improvements went
so far as to change completely the old machine into a new machine;
hence the various types and names of the semiautomatic machines
used in the industry, such as the “ Johnny Bull,” “ Jersey Devil,”
Teeple-Johnson, the South Millville machine, the Turner machine, etc.
On the whole, however, these machines were very much alike and may
be classified in one group, that of two-man machines. The average
attendants on such a machine consisted of one gatherer and one
presser (both skilled workers), one transfer boy, one take-out boy,
and one carry-in boy. If a “ peanut roaster” was used one carry-in
boy usually took care of two machines, making the total average
attendants on one machine four and one-half workers.
ONE-MAN MACHINE

Through further improvements of the machine more and more
labor was dispensed with. With the use of electric power the two
tables of the machine were made to rotate automatically, synchroniz­




CHAPTER I .— BOTTLES AND JARS

35

ing with the other operations of the machine. At the same time a
cutting-off device was added, which completely eliminated the presser
and turned the two-man machine into a one-man machine.
The transfer boy soon gave way to an automatic transfer and the
take-out boy to an automatic take-out device, both operated in unison
with other movements of the machine. The last change actually
turned the semiautomatic into an automatic machine, at least so far
as the blowing of the bottle was concerned. In this group belong the
O’Neill machines, the Miller, and the Lynch (which was put on the
market as the “ No-boy” machine). In all cases the difference
between these machines and the Owens automatic was in the use of
a gatherer to feed the glass to the machines. As in the case of the
Owens, the carry-in boys were retained in some plants, while in other
plants they were replaced by automatic conveyors to the leer. The
usual attendants on a one-man machine would therefore consist of
one gatherer2 and one or more carry-in boys, depending on the size
of the bottles. To these old workers, survivors of the “ shop,” was
added one machine operator, whose duty it was to watch the operation
of the machine, regulate its speed, change the.molds, etc., and a machine
foreman or “ upkeep ” man usually in charge of three or more machines
in the plant.
“ FEED AND FLOW” DEVICES

Simultaneously with the other changes in the development of the
semiautomatic machine attempts have been made to devise means
by which the gatherer could be replaced and the machine fed auto­
matically, by a process different from the suction method patented
by the Owens machine. As early as 1903 a device was invented
which enabled the molten glass to flow in a continuous stream from
the furnace into the mold, and this device is still being used in a
number of plants for the manufacture of cheap pressed ware. Since
then various experiments have been made in utilizing feeding devices
in the manufacture of bottles and jars, and by 1917 this new method
of getting the molten glass into the machine became a marked success.
Rapid success in the application of these feeding devices may be
shown by referring to the rapidly diminishing numbers of semi­
automatic machines in use without the feeder. Prof. George E.
Barnett, in an article on “ Machinery and labor,” published in the
Quarterly Journal of Economics for August, 1925, gives the number
of semiautomatic machines used in the bottle and jar sections of the
glass industry, 1916 to 1924, as follows:
1916_______________ ______________ 459
1917_______________ ______________ 428
1918_____ ___________________ _
417
1919_______________ ; _____________ 417
1920_______________ ______________ 315

1921_______________
1922_______________
1923_______________
1924_______________

______________ 288
______________ 164
______________ 130
______________
72

In 1926, out of 25 bottle plants inspected only one plant was found
using the semiautomatic to a large extent. In another plant the
semiautomatic was found standing by the furnace but dismantled
and ready to be displaced by an automatic. In still another plant a
semiautomatic machine had recently been consigned to the scrap heap.
2 Later on three gatherers were used for two machines, as it became impossible for one man alone to
keep up with the speed of the machines.




36

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

AUTOMATIC MACHINERY

The difference between the two automatics, the Owens and the
“ feeder,” lies chiefly in the method of delivering the molten glass to
the machine. The Owens machine uses the suction method, whereby
the arms of the machine pass over the open part of a revolving pot
and come in contact with the glass for a period long enough to suck
the necessary quantity of glass into the blank mold located at the
end of the arm. This process is the principal characteristic of the
Owens machine and is peculiar to this machine.
In the feeder process the glass, regulated by a special device, is
delivered automatically into the blank molds of the machine. The
feeding thus regulated completely synchronizes with the other move­
ments of the machine. The same device also regulates the size of
the “ gob” ; that is, the quantity of glass necessary for the production
of the given size of bottle. The feeding devices are entirely independ­
ent of the machines, and may therefore be used with any standard
bottle-making machine on the market.
OWENS MACHINE

The Owens machine consists of a number of working units, each
one complete in itself, mounted on a circular and continuously rotat­
ing framework. Each unit completes a bottle during each revolu­
tion. Each unit or arm carries a vertical mold called a “ blank
mold” placed directly under and accurately fitted to another mold
called a “ neck mold.” These two molds are bored to.hold the exact
amount of glass required to make the desired bottle. The neck
mold is exactly the shape of the neck of the bottle, while the blank
mold is nearly cylindrical in shape and is designed to hold all the
glass which makes up the part of the bottle below the neck.
As the machine rotates each unit carries its neck mold and the
attached blank mold over a revolving pot of molten glass. The
revolving pot is built into a combustion chamber adjacent to the
refining tank, with which it is connected by means of a trough, the
glass constantly flowing from the tank into the revolving pot.
Although part of the glass in the revolving pot is exposed, the rota­
tion of the pot and the special heating devices make it possible to
keep the temperature of the glass in the revolving pot at the precise
degree needed for the weight and the size of the bottle.
As the arms of the machine pass over the revolving pot they are
lowered for an instant, so that the bottom of the blank mold is
slightly immersed in the molten glass. At this moment a vacuum
valve is opened and all air is exhausted from the bored opening in
the neck and blank molds, resulting in immediately filling the molds
with hot glass— the lower part cylindrical and solid, the upper part
a perfect neck of a bottle. As the molds rise from contact with the
surface of the molten glass in the revolving pot, a chisel-shaped
knife sweeps across under the bottom of the blank mold and cuts off
the string of glass that clings to the mold.
Next, air is admitted into the top of the neck mold for the purpose
of solidifying somewhat the imprisoned glass and enlarging the
opening in the top of the neck of the partly formed bottle. Soon
the two halves of the blank mold open and the glass “ parison” (or
partly formed bottle), now partly solidified, is seen hanging sus­
pended by the neck portion inclosed in the neck mold.



CHAPTER I .---- BOTTLES AND JARS

37

From below now arises the finishing mold. It remains wide
open until it has taken its proper position, when it closes around the
suspended parison. Another valve opens and compressed air is

5
E
h
o
i—i
P

O
>
w
«
C
G
H
E
h
O
ft
E
h

P

A
O
ft
w
H

w

g

3
u

<
1

o
<
1
§
o
E
h
P

£
£
O
I

forced through the opening in the neck mold and distends the blank
glass until it fills completely the pattern in the finishing mold. The
bottle is then completed, and as the mold opeijs it falls out either



38

PR0DTTCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY*

on a rotating table near by, if no conveyor is used, or into the
receptacle of the Owens conveyor.
The bottle as it leaves the machine is still red hot in parts, but is
sufficiently solidified to keep its shape while being carried or con­
veyed to the leer to be annealed.
The Owens machines were first made with but six arms; that is,
six complete sets of molds each. Later 10 arms were used, and still
later 15 arms. Originally each arm carried only one complete set
of molds, but now some of the 10-arm machines carry two sets of
molds; and each mold contained a cavity for but one bottle,
while now the molds are made with two cavities each for large
ware (4 to 13 ounces) and three cavities each for small ware (less
than 4 ounces). One of these machines blows 6 bottles at one time
and thus throws out 60 bottles with each revolution. At the rate
of four revolutions per minute, this machine throws out 240 bottles
per minute, or almost as many bottles as a hand shop of 7 workmen
could make in 20 minutes.
The attendants on the Owens machines vary with the plant—
whether a conveyor or carry-in boys are used— and with the number
of arms on the machine. The average Owens machine requires one
operator, whose duty it is to watch the operations of the machine
and to see that everything runs smoothly. Either a machinist or
a foreman is needed to adjust the speed of the machine, to change
molds, and otherwise to take care of the machine; if a machinist, he
usually takes care of at least two machines. This is the total direct
labor needed in attending an Owens machine. In addition one or
more carry-in boys are needed if no conveyor is used.
CONVEYORS

By means of a conveyor the last member of the hand shop, the
carry-in boy, is eliminated from the field of bottle making. The
process thus becomes truly automatic in the sense that from the tank
through the machine and through the leer no worker needs to handle
the bottle.
There are numerous devices used in tjie industry to transfer the
red-hot bottles from the machine to the leer. In this study, however,
only two kinds need be mentioned— the Owens conveyor, used in
connection with the Owens machine and the Owens leers only, and
the regular belt conveyor, used in one form or another for all other
machines.
The Owens conveyor consists of a series of narrow steel pans, with
suspended cups placed at regular intervals. The pans constantly
move over an elevated path fitted with iron rails, and are so arranged
that there is a continuous circuit from the machine through the leer
and back again to the machine over a similar path constructed out­
side the leer. The machine, the conveyor, and the leer are exactly
timed and run as a unit.
As each pan passes longitudinally under the receptacle into which
the bottles are thrown from the machine, each one of the cups of the
>an is filled by a bottle. At the same time the pan is entering the
eer through a side opening and by the time the last cup of the pan is
filled the pan will have completely entered the leer and have joined
the other pans to make up the floor of the leer. Propelled by a special
device, properly timed, it now begins its journey through the leer.

!




CHAPTER I .— BOTTLES AND JARS

39

The latter has no floor other than the one made by the pans, and the
bottles pass through it completely suspended in mid-air, thus being
thoroughly annealed from all sides.
At the cold end of the leer the bottles are taken out of the cups by
the selectors, and each pan, when emptied, is sent along the external
path on its journey back to the machine.
FEEDERS

Since 1917 a large number of various kinds of feeders have been
introduced in the industry. The differences among the various
patents are very minute and are of a technical nature only. For the
purpose of this study, therefore, it will be necessary to distinguish
but two kinds of feeders: (1) The multiple feeder, used for more
than one machine; and (2) the single feeder, used for only one machine.
Multiple feeder.—The multiple feeder, or the P. N. (paddle needle),
as it is known in the industry, may be described as follows:
The device consists of a small chamber built in front of the furnace,
usually called the forehearth or the boot. The extension is made
out of clay blocks and is connected with the tank by a trough or a
channel about 2 feet wide through which the glass flows from the
refining chamber of the tank into the forehearth. The portion of the
forehearth above the surface of the glass forms two combustion
chambers, one next to the furnace and the other adjoining the nose
of the chamber, where the glass passes down through the orifice to the
machine. Oil or gas burners in these two chambers can be so regu­
lated as to supply the glass to the machine in the particular tempera­
ture required for any special kind of bottle, irrespective of fluctuations
in the temperature of the tank proper.
In the very nose of the forehearth there is a small bowl with a round
opening at the bottom. Into this opening is fitted a clay ring of
such size as to give the glass flowing through it the diameter which
will allow it to fit well into the blank mold of the machine. A clay
paddle working in the channel with a motion exactly the reverse to
that of a canoe paddle—down, forward, up, and back—keeps the
bowl supplied with glass. By gravity it runs down through the orifice
ring, assisted by the downward thrust of a clay plunger, which works
directly over the orifice. Each time the plunger pulls up sharply
it holds the glass sufficiently long to allow the shears which close in
from each side below the ring to make a clean cut. The stream of
glass thus cut off is known as the “ gob” and the process is often
referred to as the “ gob” feeder. The operations of the paddle, the
plunger, and the shears are so timed as to make the “ gob ” of precisely
the length needed for the bottle desired. The “ gob” then slides
down an iron trough on a fine film of water into the mold of the
machine.
When two or three or four machines are fed from one feeder two or
three or four troughs are used. These move forward and backward
and come alternately under the orifice of the feeder to receive the
“ gob.” The movement of the troughs are synchronized with the
operations of the machines, so that the upper end of the trough
comes under the orifice of the feeder at the precise moment when the
lower end gets in contact with a blank mold ready to receive the
“ gob.” When one machine is not working the trough for that ma­
chine is stopped. Adjustments can then be made to feed the remain­



40

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

ing machines. When a machine is stopped temporarily only the
feeder keeps on working at the previous rate, dropping the unused
“ g ob ” down to the floor, where a receptacle is usually placed to
receive the superfluous glass which is to be returned to the tank as
cullet.

Fig. 5 —HARTFORD-EMPIRE PADDLE NEEDLE FEEDER (FRONT)

Single feeder.— The single feeder does not require a paddle, as the
orifice is a few inches below the surface of the glass which flows out
by force of gravity through a somewhat different type of bowl or
spout. A hollow clay tube somewhat larger than the orifice hangs
above the orifice and the plunger operates inside this tube. The



CHAPTER I .---- BOTTLES AND JARS

41

latter can be raised and lowered to regulate the supply of glass for
the orifice. This adjustment, together with the plunger and the
shears below the ring, enables the operator to control the size and
the weight of the glass desired. The tube revolves continuously
and thus assists in keeping the glass about the orifice at a uniform
temperature.
Although the multiple feeder implies a considerable saving in labor
and equipment, there are a number of technical and economic

Fig. 6 —HARTFORD-EMPIRE PADDLE NEEDLE FEEDER (BACK)

reasons which make the use of the single feeder more advantageous.
The result is that a number of plants which have been using the
P. N. feeder for two or three machines are gradually going over to
the single-feeder system.
MACHINES USED WITH FEEDERS

As already stated, the feeder is an entirely independent unit and
can be used with any machine in the plant. Even the old “ Johnny



PRODUCTIVITY
O
F
LABOR
I
N
THE
GLASS
INDUSTRY




fcO

F ig . 7.—O’NEILL AUTOMATIC BOTTLE-MAKING MACHINE

CHAPTER
I .— BOTTLES
AD
N
JARS




44

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

Bull” hand machines could be used with a feeder. Nevertheless,
the expensive installation outlays and the possible maximum speed
of the feeders resulted in improving and almost standardizing the
machines used with the feeder. The latest models of the O’Neill
machines, the Miller, the Lynch, and the Hartford-Empire, have been
built to fit the speed of the feeders. Most of these machines now
carry eight blank and eight blow molds and are capable of producing
daily a definite quantity of bottles, depending entirely upon the size
and weight of the bottle. There is usually only one operator on any

Fig. 9.—HARTFORD-EMPIRE MILK BOTTLE DOUBLE MACHINE

one of these machines, whose duty it is to see that the machine runs
smoothly. The work of changing molds and the initial adjustment
of the machine and the feeder to the particular kind of bottle desired,
as well as the small repair work, is done either by a machine foreman
or a machinist, who is as a rule in charge of more than one machine.
As in the case of the Owens machine, a carry-in boy is used in a
number of plants to take the bottles from the machine to the leers.
In other plants, however, the belt conveyor is used for this purpose,
in which case the bottles are transferred from the machine to the




CHAPTER I .— BOTTLES AND JARS

45

conveyor either by an automatic device or with the help of a take-out
boy. Some of the belts are provided with special cups, in which
the bottles stand up while journeying to the leer. The conveyor
enters the leer through a side opening and the bottles are pushed
into the leer by means of a pushing device. The floor of the leer
is made up of a series of pans moving on an endless chain. The
floor moves just fast enough to make room for the incoming bottles,
which fill up every pan at successive regular intervals.
Thus, as in the case of the Owens machines, the feeder process of
blowing bottles has become completely automatic from the tank
until the bottle reaches the cold end of the leer.
LABOR PRODUCTIVITY AND LABOR COST

Before analyzing the statistics of labor productivity and blowing
labor cost in the production of bottles the following points must be
made clear:
1. The data representing output of a hand unit of three skilled
workers and four helpers, which has been used as the basis for com­
paring the output of all other units, do not represent actual presentday production, for the simple reason that with the exception of a
small quantity of prescription ware and the 5-gallon carboys none
of the bottles included in this study are made nowadays by the hand
process. The small quantity of prescription ware still made by hand
is produced under conditions which do warrant its use as a fair
representation of the hand process. The mere fact that, because of
the very small orders usually given to hand plants, the workers of
a “ shop” are compelled to change molds several times in the course
of one day is sufficient to curtail seriously the average output of
the shop.
The figures used represent the concerted opinions of experienced
bottle blowers, foremen, and employers of a number of bottle
plants. In the case of prescription ware they are considerably higher
than the actual figures of output secured in one plant. They are
even somewhat larger than the corresponding figures of output given
in the Eleventh Special Report of the Commissioner of Labor Sta­
tistics, published in 1904 (pp. 630, 631). The figures given are termed
“ ideal,” because they really show what a “ shop” of three experi­
enced blowers and four helpers could produce when working on any
one kind of bottles for a complete eight-hour day without changing
molds and under conditions at least as favorable as those under
which the machines are working to-day. In the case of the 5-gallon
water bottle the actual output of a shop of 13 workers has been used
as the basis of comparison with the machine output.
2. The 15 kinds of bottles covered in this investigation represent
but a very small fraction of the thousands of varieties of bottles
which are made. The principal factors, however, affecting the aver­
age output of any one unit of production are the weight and the
contents of the bottles made. Since the 15 kinds of bottles studied
cover a range of from half an ounce to 5 gallons in contents and from
less than 1 ounce to 12 pounds in weight, they may therefore be con­
sidered as a representative cross section of the bottle branch of the
glass industry.
40780°—27------ £




46

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

MAN-HOUR OUTPUT

The most outstanding factor in the recent development of bottle
blowing is the tremendous increase in man-hour output effected by
the automatic machines.
Table 16 shows the man-hour output on 15 kinds of bottles made
by hand and by the various semiautomatic and automatic machines.
The bottles shown are: One-half ounce and 2-ounce prescription
ovals; 4 and 8 ounce prescription ovals; three-fourths and 2 ounce
extract panels; 8 and 16 ounce whisky dandies; 8-ounce sodas and
16-ounce beers; pint and quart milk bottles; one-half gallon and 1gallon packer jugs; and 5-gallon water carboys. The table gives the
man-hour output in terms of gross of bottles actually produced and
also in terms of index numbers based on the man-hour output by
the hand process.
T able

16.— Average output per man-hour of specified kinds of bottles made by hand
and by machine
Prescription ovals
^-ounce
Method of production and kind of machine

Hand production:
Ideal..........................................................................................
Actual.............. ........................................................................
Semiautomatic machine:
2-man machine.........................................................................
1-man machine_____________ _________
__. ____ _
1-man machine and feeder................................................... ...
Automatic machine:
O’Neill single and feeder............ ............................................
O’Neill triple and P. N. feeder.
..............................
Lynch and feeder...................................._...............................
Owens A. N. double.............. ................... .............................
Owens A. N. double, with conveyor.
________ _
Owens A. V. single, with conveyor.........................................
Owens A. V. double, with conveyor..................................... .
Owens C. A. double triplex, with conveyor_______________

2-ounce

Index
Index
Quantity number Quantity number
Gross
0.714
.498

2.582
5.463
8.870
15.238
9.959
20.022
25.120

361.6
763.7
1242.3
2134.2
1394.5
2804.2
3518.2

4-ounce

Gross
0.643
.408

100.0
63.5

.850
1.043
1.824

100.0
69.7

132.2
162.2
283.7

2.476

385.1

4.799
7.970

746.3
1239.5

9.645
18.341
25.118

1500.1
2852.4
3906.4

8-ounce

Index
Index
Quantity number Quantity number
Hand production:
.............................
..................................
Ideal
Actual. ______________________________________________
Semiautomatic machine:
2-man machine_________________________________ _______
1-man machine________________________________________
Automatic machine:
O’Neill and feeder. _______________ ____ ___ ______ _____
Lynch and feeder.....................................................................
Owens A. E _
_
_ ____ _
________ _________ i
O w a t i s A N sinorlA
___
Owens A N. double
. . .
. _______________________i
Owens A. N. single, with conveyor
__________________
Owens A. V. single, with conveyor.......................................Owens A. R. double___ _________________ _____ _________
Owens A. R. double, with conveyor...... .................. ...........
Owens A. Q. single, with conveyor _____________________
Owens A. Q. double, with conveyor................................... .
Owens A. V. double, with conveyor_____________________
Owens C. A. double duplex, with conveyor..................... .....
Owens C A double triplex, with conveyor. _ _______ _ .




Gross
0.536
.285

100.0
53.2

Gross
0.446
.227

100.0
50.1

.797

148.7

.644
.714

144.4
160.1

2.464
3.782

459.7
705.6

1.796
3.290
2.178
3.024

402.7
737.7
488.3
678.0

6.254
7.135
9.908

1166.8
1331.2
1848.5

1087.9
2243.5
2019.3
2640.8

16.212

4.852
10.006
9.006
11.778

3024.7

12.117

2716.8

22.028

4109.8

CHAPTER I .— BOTTLES AND JARS

47

T a b l e 1 6 . — Average output per man-hour of specified kinds o f bottles made by hand

and by machine— Continued

Extract panels
6-dram

2-ounce

Method of production and kind of machine
Index
Index
Quantity number Quantity number
Gross
0.571

100.0

6.222
10.679
6.783
10.480
8.817
16.430

1089.7
1870.2
1187.9
1835.4
1544.1
2877.4

16.292

Gross
0.500

100.0

.711
1.500

Hand production........... .................................... .......... ............ .
Semiautomatic machine:
.
Jersev Dftvil __ _ ___ _
O’Neill with feeder___
_ _ _ _ _ _ ___
!
Automatic machine:
O’Neill single and feeder. ............... ........................... ..........
O’Neill triple and feeder............................. ...........................
Owens A. N. single____________________________________
Owens A. N. double__ ________ _____________ ________. . .
Owens A. N. double, with conveyor........ ................... .........
Owens A. R. single, with conveyor............... ........................
Owens A. R. double, with conveyor___. _________________
Owens A. V. single, with conveyor.........................................
Owens A. V. double, with conveyor................................... .
Owens C. A. double duplex, with conveyor. ........................
Owens 0, A, double triplex, with conveyor..........................

142.2
300.0

2.854
2.872
3.452
4.402

570.8
574.4
690.4
880.4

5.779"
8.067
9.048
12.558
12.072

1155.8
1613.4
1809.6
2511.6
2414.4

2853.3

Sodas and beers
H-pint sodas
Method of production and kind of machine

1-pint beers

Index
Quantity number

Index
Quantity number

Gross
0.393

100.0

.505
.778
1.141
1. 351

128.5
198.0
290.3
343.8

2.814
1.815
4.842
6.453
6.188

Hand production............................................................................
Semiautomatic machine:
Jersey Devil. ...........................................................................
Teeple-Johnson, with gatherer..............................................
O’Neill, with gatherer............. ............................................. :
Lynch, with gatherer. ............................................................
Automatic machine:
O’Neill and feeder...................................................................
Hartford-Empire triple unit and P. N. feeder.......................
Owens A. E. single, with conveyor........................... ............
Owens A. R. single, with conveyor..... .......................... ........
Owens A. Q. single, with conveyor........................................

716.0
461.8
1232.0
1642.0
1574.5

Gross
0.393

100.0

.464
.776

118.1
197.5

1.675
4.931
7.342
7.661

426.2
1254.7
1868.2
1949.3

Whisky dandies
K-pint
Method of production and kind of machine

Hand production............................................................................
Semiautomatic machine:
Jersey Devil............................. ...............................................
Teeple-Johnson, with gatherer.... ............................ ............
O’Neill, with gatherer_________________ ______ __________
Lynch, with gatherer_______________________ __________
O’Neill, with feeder................................................................
Automatic machine:
O’Neill and feeder...................................................................
Lynch and feeder______________________________________
Owens A. E. single..................................................................
Owens A. R. single............................................. ...................




1-pint

Index
Index
Quantity number Quantity number
Gross
0.446

100.0

.658

147.5

1.428

320.2

2.725
3.444

611.0
772.2

2.321

520.4

Gross
0.357

100.0

.508
.774
.904
1.549

142.3
216.8
253.2
433.9

2.368
2.649
1.819
1.940

663.3
742.1
509.5
54a 4

48

PRODUCTIVITY OP LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T a b l e 16 . — Average output per man-hour of specified kinds o f bottles made by hand

and by machine— Continued

Milk bottles
1-pint
Method of production and kind of machine

Hand production
_______________________________ _____
Semiautomatic machine:
Teeple-Johnson with gatherer....... .............................. .........
Miller with gatherers....................... ................................ ......
Automatic machine:
Miller with single feeder and with conveyor.........................
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder____________________
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder and with conveyor.
Owens A. E _____________ __________ _____ ___________
Owens A. R ...... ................................................. ....................

1-quart

Index
Index
Quantity number Quantity number
Gross
0.357

100.0

Gross
0.286

100.0

.924
.976

258.8
273.4

.775
.856

270.9
299.3

1.876
1.487
5.265
1.156
1.139

525.5
416.5
1474.8
323.8
319.0

1.457
1.242
4.145
1.064
.961

509.4
434.3
1449.3
372.0
336.0

Packer jugs
^-gallon

1-gallon

Method of production and kind of machine
Index
Index
Quantity number Quantity number

Hand production...... .....................................................................
Semiautomatic machine: Jersey Devil........................................
Automatic machine:
O’ Neill and feeder_____________________________________
Owens A. L. single_____________________________________
Owens A. R. single____________________________________
Owens A. Q. single____________i________________________

Gross
0.179
.263

100.0
146.9

Gross
0.143
.202

100.0
141.3

1.192
.606
.614
1.477

665.9
338.5
343.0
825.1

.620

433.6

1.165

814.7

5-gallon water carboys
Method of production

Hand production
__________________________ _____________ ____________ _____
Automatic machine___________________________________________________________

Index
Quantity number
Gross
0.026
.260

100.0
1000.0

The following analysis of man-hour output of the 2-ounce pre­
scription ovals, the 8-ounce soda, and the quart milk bottle is given
to illustrate the contents of Table 16. In the case of the 2-ounce pre­
scription ovals the “ ideal” output of a hand shop is 0.643 gross per
man-hour. The actual output of the single plant for which data
could be secured is much less, namely, 0.408 gross per man-hour,
for reasons previously explained (see p. 45). On the semiautomatic
machine the output ranges from a minimum of 0.850 gross per manhour on the “ Jersey Devil,” or two-man machine, to a maximum of
1.824 gross per man-hour on a semiautomatic O’Neill machine
operated with the help of a feeder. On the automatic machines the
output of 2-ounce prescription ovals varies from 2.476 gross per
man-hour on an automatic machine operated with a single feeder to
25.118 gross per man-hour on the Owens 10-arm double triplex




CHAPTER I .— BOTTLES AND JABS

49

machine (each arm has 2 blow heads and each head has 3 cavities,
thus blowing 6 bottles per arm or 60 bottles per revolution). In the
case of the half-pint soda bottle the average output of a hand shop
is 0.393 gross per man-hour. By the semiautomatic process the
average output varies from 0.505 gross per man-hour on the Jersey
Devil machine to 1.351 gross per man-hour on the Lynch machine
operated with the help of gatherers. The automatic machine aver­
age output of the half-pint sodas varies from 1.815 to 6.453 gross
per man-hour. In the case of the quart milk bottle the average
output of an ideal hand shop is 0.286 gross per man-hour. On the
semiautomatic machine the output varies from 0.775 to 0.856 gross
per man-hour, while on the automatic machines it varies from 0.961
gross per man-hour on an Owens 10-arm single machine to 4.145
gross per man-hour on the Hartford-Empire milk-bottle machine
operated with the help of a Hartford-Empire P. N. double feeder.
Expressed in terms of index numbers, taking the man-hour output
of the ideal hand shop as the base, or 100, the semiautomatic process
shows indexes varying from 132.2 to 283.7 for the 2-ounce prescrip­
tion oval, from 128.5 to 343.8 for the half-pint soda, and from 270.9
to 299.3 for the quart milk bottle. On the same basis, the automatic
process shows indexes varying from 385.1 to 3,906.4 for the 2-ounce
prescription oval, from 461.8 to 1,642 for the half-pint soda, and
from 336 to 1,449.3 for the quart milk bottle.
Table 17 shows the percentage increases in man-hour output on 15
kinds of bottles made by the most efficient semiautomatic and auto­
matic machines as compared with the hand process.
T a b l e 17.— Per cent of increase in man-hour output on specified kinds of bottles

made by the most efficient semiautomatic and automatic machines as compared
with hand production

Kind of bottles

Auto­
Semi­
automatic matic
machines machines

Prescription ovals:
§-ounce. . _ w ............... .
2-ounce__ ______________ '
4-ounce...... ...................... !
8-ounce.
.
.
.. __
Extract panels:
6-dram__________ ____
2-ounce.
_ .
1
Sodas and beers:
fcpint beers— .................

183.7
48.7
60.1

3,418.2
3,806.4
4,009 8
2,616.8

200.0

2,777.4
2,411.6

243.8
97.5

1,542.0
1,849.3

Kind of bottles

Whisky dandies:
%-pint—....................... ..
1-pint.................................
Milk bottles:
l-pint................................
1-quart......... .....................
Packer jugs:
^-gallon............ .....
1-gallon__________ ______
Water carboys: 5-gallon..........

Auto­
Semi­
automatic matic
machines machines

220.2
333.9

672.2
642.1

173.4
199.3

1,374 8
1,349.3

46.9
41.3

725.1
714.7
900.0

The maximum increase in man-hour output took place in prescrip­
tion ware—3,806.4 per cent in the 2-ounce oval and 4,009.8 per cent
in the 4-ounce oval. These are the most commonly used stock
bottles and show clearly the effects of mass production of standard­
ized commodities on productivity in the industry.
Translated in terms of labor, the percentage of increase of manhour output on the machine really signifies the percentage of labor
displaced by the machine. The number of workers displaced by the
most up-to-date automatic machine ranges from a minimum of 6.4
in the case of the pint whisky dandy to a maximum of 40 in the case
of the 4-ounce prescription oval. In the latter case it would require



50

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

41 workers to produce by the hand process as many bottles as the
machine operated by a single worker could produce in an equal
period of time.
The great variations in the man-hour output by the automatic
process are due chiefly to the fact that different machines are used
for the various bottles shown and that not all machines are capable
of producing the satae quantity of bottles per hour. Another impor­
tant factor causing considerable variation in man-hour output is the
presence or absence of an automatic conveyer between the machine
and the leer to take the place of the carry-in boys. In the machines
covered in Table 17 conveyors were used for all bottles except the
whisky dandies, the packer jugs, and the 5-gallon water carboys,
and it is in these bottles that the increase in man-hour output on the
automatic machine is the lowest.
The effects of the automatic conveyor on man-hour output is
further illustrated by Table 18 presenting a comparison of man-hour
output of the same kind of bottle made on the same machine, but in
one case with carry-in boys and in the other with a conveyor.3
T a b le

1 8 .— M an-hou r output o f machines without and with autom atic conveyors

Machine A

Kind of bottle

With 2Yz carry-in
boys

Machine B

With conveyor

With 6 carry-in
boys

With conveyor

Index
Index
Index
Index
Quantity number Quantity number Quantity number Quantity number
Gross
bou n ce prescription ovals___
8.870
8-ounce prescription ovals___
4 852
6-dram extract panels............
6.222
2-ounce extract panels........... •
4.402
l-pint milk bottles
_ ___ i
1-quart milk bottles________ j_________

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Gross
15.238
10.006
10.679
8.067

171.8
207.3
171.6
183.3

Gross

Gross

1.487
1.242

100.0
100.0

5.265
4.145

354.1
341.5

The increase in man-hour output caused by the automatic con­
veyor ranges from 71.6 to 107.3 per cent when replacing two and onethird carry-in boys and from 241.5 to 254.1 per cent when replacing
six carry-in boys. It is self-evident that the more carry-in boys a
conveyor replaces the higher will be the increase in man-hour output,
and this is fully shown by the above figures.
BLOWING LABOR COST

The tremendous decrease in blowing labor cost effected by the
automatic machines is no less striking than the increase in man-hour
output caused by the same machine. Table 19 shows a comparison
of labor cost of blowing the 15 kinds of bottles by the hand process
and by semiautomatic and automatic machinery. The table gives
the actual labor cost expressed in dollars per gross, and also in terms
of index numbers, based on the blowing labor cost of the hand process.
3 Unfortunately, not in same plant, and therefore affected by such additional factors as variation in
management and number of workers on the machine.




CHAPTEK I .— BOTTLES AND JARS
T a b le

.

19 — A verage

51

blowing labor cost per gross o f specified kinds o f bottles made
by hand and by machine

Prescription ovals
%-ounce
Method of production and kind of machine

2-ounce

Amount

Hand production:
Ideal......................................................................
.......
Actual...,________ ______ ____,
Semiautomatic machine:
2-man machine.......... ... . ....... ..............
1-man machine________ _
O’Neill, with feeder............................ . . . . . .
Automatic machine:
i_
O’Neill and single feeder
O’Neill and triple feed nr
Lynch and single feeder.......................................................
Owens A. N. double...............................................................
Owens A. N. double, with conveyor___________________
Owens A. V. single, with conveyor..-................................... .
Owens A. V. double, with conveyor____________________ _
Owens 0 . A. double triplex,with conveyor............................

Index
number

Amount

$0,940
.851

100.0
90.53

Index
number

$1,006
.974

100.0
96.82
86.9
58.0
30.9

.874
.583
.311
_

_

_

_

_

_

18.7
9.5
6.2
5.3
8.1
4.1
2.9

. 176
.090
.058
.050
.077
.038
.028
4-ounce

_

_

_
.195

_

_

19.4

.102
.064

10.1
6.4

.079
.042
.028

7.8
4.1
2.7

8-ounce

Amount
Hand production:
Ideal..........................................................................................
Actual____________________________________ _______ ____
Semiautomatic machine:
2-man machine............ ...... ................... .................................
1-man machine............................................................. ..........
Automatic machine:
0 ’Neill and feeder_______________ ____ ____________ ____
Lynch and feeder.....................................................................
Owens A. E. machine......................... ..................................
Owens A. N. single__ _____________ ___________ ________
Owens A. N. single, with conveyor........... ......................... .
Owens A. N. double___________________________________
Owens A. V. single, with conveyor______________________
Owens A. R. double___________________________________
Owens A. R. double, with conveyor_____________________
Owens A. Q. single, with conveyor______________________
Owens A. Q. double, with conveyor_____________________
Owens A. V. double, with conveyor_____________________
Owens C. A. double duplex, with conveyor
___________
Owens C. A. double triplex, with conveyor______________

Index
number

Amount

$1.177
1.212

100.0
103.0

$1.472
1.528

100.0
103.8

.720

61.2

1.052
.774

71.5
52.6

.196
.129

16.7
11.0

. 107
.082
.077

9.1
7.0
6.5

.269
.149
.218
.169

18.3
10.1
14.8
11.5

.047

. 105
.075
.085
.065

7.1
5.0
5.8
4.4

4.0

.032

2.7

.057

3.9

Index
number

Extract panels
6-dram
Method of production and kind of machine

2-ounce

Amount

Hand production............................... .............. .............................
Semiautomatic machine:
Jersey Devil________________________ _______ _______ ___
O’Neill, with feeder._________________ ____ _____ ________
Automatic machine:
O’Neill single and feeder____ ; ____ _____________________
O’Neil triple and feeder________________________________
Owens A. N. Single ____________________________________
Owens A. N. double..... .................................................. ........
Owens A. N. double, with conveyor___________________ _
Owens A. R. single, with conveyor................... ..................
Owens A. R. double, with conveyor.......... .................... .....
Owens A. V. single, with conveyor______________________
Owens A. V. double, with conveyor___________ __________
Owens C. A. double duplex, with conveyor
_________
Owens O. A. double triplex, with conveyor
_______




Index
number

Amount

$1.170

100.0

$1.377

100.0

1.027
.384

74.6
27.9

.167
.155
.135
.115

12.1
11.3
9.8
8.4

.135
.096
.084
.061
.057

9.8
7.0
6.1
4.4
4.2

.082
.071
.108
.074
.086
.046

7.0
6.1
9.2
6.3
7.4
3.9

.043

3.7

Index
number

52

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T a b l e 1 9 . — Average

blowing labor coat per grow of specified kinds of bottles made
by hand and by machine— Continued

Sodas and beers
H-pint sodas
Method of production and kind of machine

1-pint beers
Index
number

A mount

Hand production................ ..........................................................
Semiautomatic machine:
Two-man machine......... .......................................................
Teeple-Johnson, with gatherer...............................................
O’Neill, with gatherer.........................................................
Lynch, with gatherer.............................................................
Automatic machine:
O’Neill and single feeder........................................................
Hartford-Empire and triple feeder.........................................
Owens A. E. single, with convevor.......................................
Owens A. R. single, with convevor........ ..................... ........
Owens A. Q. single, with conveyor........................................

Index
number

Amount

$1.622

100.0

$1. 622

100.0

1.299
.888
.841
.607

80.1
54.7
51.8
37.4

1.354
.889

83.5
54.8

.229
.272
.144
.108
.123

14.1
16.8
8.9
6.7
7.6

.294
.141
.095
.102

18.1
8.7
5.9
6.3

Whisky dandies
J^-pint
Method of production and kind of machine

1-pint

Amount
Hand production.............. .................... ....................................
Semiautomatic machine:
Jersey Devil...........................................................................
Teeple-Johnson_______ ___________ _______ ________ _____
O’Neill, with gatherer.......................... .................................
Lynch, with gatherer................ ................. ............................
O’Neill, with feeder.................................................................
Automatic machine:
O’ Neill and feeder........... ............ ..........................................
Lynch and feeder............ ............ ..........................................
Owens A. E. single.............................................. ..................
Owens A. R. single............................. ......................... .........

Index
number

Amount

$1.382

100.0

$1,790

100.0

1.042

75.5

.403

29.2

1.295
.860
.717
.552

72.3
48.0
40.1
30.8

.231
.142

16.8
10.3

.194

14.0

.266
.185
.278
.252

14.9
10.3
15.5
14.1

Index
number

Milk bottles
1-pint,

1-quart

Method of production and kind of machine
Index
number

Amount
Hand production............................................................................
Semiautomatic machine:
Teeple-Johnson, with gatherer...............................................
Miller, with gatherers..............................................................
Automatic machine:
Miller, with single feeder and with conveyor.......................
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder....................................
Hartford-Empire, double feeder, with conveyor__________
Owens A. E. single. ...............................................................
Owens A. R. single. ...............................................................




Index
number

Amount

$2,390

100.0

$2.980

100.0

.796
.647

33.3
27.0

1.096
.907

36.8
30.4

.269
.354
.120
.382
.455

11.3
14.8
5.0
16.0
19.0

.346
.424
.152
.415
.539

11.7
14.2
5.1
13.9
18.1

53

CHAPTER I .---- BOTTLES AND JARS

T a b le 19.— Average blowing labor cost per grow of specified kinds of bottles made
by hand and by machine— Continued
Packer jugs
H-gallon
Method of production and kind of machine

1-gallon

Amount

Hand production._______ ______________ ______________ _____
Semiautomatic machine: Jersey Devil____________ _________
Automatic machine:
O’Neill and feeder.
.
Owens A. L. single.................. .............. ...............................
Owens A. R. single_____________________________ ___
Owens A. Q. single______ ______________ _______________

Index
number

Amount

$3.710
2.018

100.0
54.4

$5,150
2.784

100.0
54.0

. 501
.816
.805
.340

22.1
21.6
9.2

.769

14.6

.431

8.3

Index
number

5-gallon water carboys
Method of production

Amount

Hand production______________________ ______________________________________
Automatic machine___________________________________________________________

$25.308
1.880

Index
number
100.0
7.43

An analysis of the blowing labor cost of the 2-ounce prescription
oval, the half-pint soda, and the quart milk bottle is given as an
illustration of the contents of Table 19. The “ ideal” labor cost
of blowing by hand one gross of 2-ounce prescription ovals is $1,006;
the actual labor cost in the one plant where prescription ware is
still being made by hand is 97.4 cents per gross. On the semiautomatic
machines the blowing labor cost of the 2-ounce prescription ovals
varies from a minimum of 31.1 cents to a maximum of 87.4 cents
per gross, while on the automatic machines it varies from a minimum
of 2.8 cents to a maximum of 19.5 cents per gross.
The blowing labor cost of making a gross of half-pint soda bottles
by hand is $1,622. On the semiautomatic machines the cost varies
from 60.7 cents to $1,299 per gross, while on the automatic machines
it ranges from 10.8 to 27.2 cents per gross.
The blowing labor cost of making quart milk bottles by the hand
process is $2,980 per gross. By the semiautomatic process the blow­
ing labor cost varies from 90.7 cents to $1,096 per gross, while by the
automatic process it ranges from 15.2 to 53.9 cents per gross.
Expressed in terms of index numbers, taking the blowing labor
cost of the hand process as the base, or 100, the semiautomatic
process shows the following indexes: 30.9 to 86.9 for 2-ounce pre­
scription ovals; 37.4 to 80.1 for half-pint soda bottles; and 30.4 to
36.8 for quart milk bottles. On the same base, the automatic ma­
chines show the following minimum and maximum indexes: 2.7
and 19.4 for 2-ounce prescription ovals; 6.7 and 16.8 for hall-pint
sodas; and 5.1 and 18.1 for quart milk bottles.
Table 20 shows the per cent of decrease in the labor cost of the 15
bottles made by the most efficient semiautomatic and automatic
machines as compared with the cost of hand production.




54

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN TH E GLASS INDUSTRY

T a b l e 2 0 .— P er cent o f decrease i n labor cost o f m aking specified kinds o f bottles

on the most efficient sem iautom atic and autom atic m achines as com pared with
hand production

Kind of bottles

Prescription ovals:
J2-ounce _______________
/
2-ounce_ _ _ ____________
4-ounce ............ .............. .
_____________
8-ounce.
Extract panels:
6-dram........ .............. ........
2-ounce_________________
Sodas and beers:
34-pint sodas____________
1-pint beers_____________

Semi­
Auto­
automatic matic
machines machines

69.1
38.8
47.4

97.1
97.3
97.3
96.1

72.1

96.3
95.8

62.6
45.2

93.3
94.1

Semi­
Auto­
automatic matic
machines machines

Band of bottles

Whisky dandies:
3^-pint_________________
1-pint_______ ____ ______
Milk bottles:
1-pint.................................
1-quart...............................
Packer jugs:
^gallon.............................
1-gallon_________________
Water carboys: 5-gallon_____

70.8
69.2

89.7
89.7

73.0
69.6

95.0
94.9

45.6
46.0

90.8
91.7
92.57

For every dollar spent on blowing bottles by hand the maximum
cost of bottles blown by the most efficient automatic machine was
10.3 cents (for pint whisky dandies and the minimum 2.7 cents
(for 4-ounce prescription ovals). The saving in labor cost effected
by the automatic-machine process over the hand process thus ranges
from 89.7 to 97.3 cents on every dollar.
As in the case of the man-hour output, the maximum amount of
saving was accomplished in prescription bottles, a standardized
commodity subject to mass production. The smallest amount of
saving was registered in whisky flasks, which were made without
the help of a conveyor.
The effects of an automatic conveyor on the blowing labor cost of
bottles may best be illustrated by Table 21, presenting the cost
of the same kind of bottles made on similar machines, but in one
case with the help of carry-in boys and in the other with the help
of an automatic conveyor.4
T a b l e 2 1 . — Blow ing labor cost o f bottles made on same m achine with and without

an autom atic conveyor
Machine A

Kind of bottle

With 2M carryin boys

Machine B

With
conveyor

With 6 carryin boys

With
conveyor

Index
Index
Index
Index
Amount num­ Amount num­ Amount num­ Amount num­
ber
ber
ber
ber
H-ounce prescription ovals_________
8-ounce prescription ovals__________
6-dram panel extracts______________
2-ounce panel extracts______________
1-pint milk- bottles ________________
1-quart milt; bottles________________

$0,058
.105
.082
.115

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

$0,050
.075
.071
.096

86.2
71.4
86.6
83.5
$0,269
.346

100.0
100.0

$0,120
.152

44.6
43.9

The saving in blowing labor cost which may be attributed to
the automatic conveyor thus varies from 13.4 to 28.6 per cent when
replacing two and one-third carry-in boys and from 55.4 to 56.1
per cent when replacing six carry-in boys.
4 Unfortunately, not in the same plant, and therefore affected by such additional factors as variations
in management, in the number of workers on the machine, and in their wages.




CHAPTER I .— BOTTLES AND JARS

55

PRESENT SITUATION IN THE BOTTLE BRANCH OF THE INDUSTRY

The successful introduction of the various kinds of feeders was
almost entirely in the field of semiautomatic machinery. The hand
process, relegated to a place where the utilization of machinery proved
uneconomical, was but little affected by the new method. Nor was
the Owens machine seriously affected by this process. As a result
bottle making as at present organized can be divided into three parts:
(a) Hand process, limited to very small orders and oddly shaped
bottles; (6) the Owens automatic machines, used for mass pro­
duction of stock bottles and principally for very large orders; (c)
the “ feed and flow” automatics, also used for mass production of
stock bottles, but at the same time capable of producing compara­
tively smaller orders than the Owens, and therefore in position to
compete with the Owens automatic.
The statistics of man-hour output and blowing labor cost of
bottles presented above make it absolutely clear why production of
bottles by hand has become almost a thing of the past. The few
plants in the country where bottles are being made by hand are
making the kinds of bottles which can not be made economically on
the machine. The principal advantage of the machine lies in mass
production. The high cost of making the necessary number of molds
and the time required in adjusting the machine and changing molds
make it uneconomical for the large machines to work on orders less
than 1,000 gross of bottles. Even for the smaller six-arm machines
the order has to be at least 250 gross to make the production econom­
ical. Hence the smaller orders, especially those below 100 gross,
necessarily go to the hand plants. Among bottles of this kind the
principal place is occupied by perfumery and toilet ware, individu­
ally shaped bottles being used as a means of identifying and adver­
tising their contents.
As a competitive factor in the bottle branch of the glass industry
hand production is absolutely nonexistent. At best it fills the gaps
left by the machine and must therefore be considered as supplemen­
tary to the machine rather than competitive.
The semiautomatic machine is in about the same situation as
hand blowing as regards competition with automatic machinery.
It will be remembered that the principal difference between the
semiautomatic and the automatic process is in the way in which
the glass is delivered to the machine. In the semiautomatic process
the molten glass is delivered to the machine by hand; in the auto­
matic process the glass is delivered automatically. At least five or
six molds are needed for any semiautomatic machine, and once the
order is large enough to justify the making of so many molds it
is much more advantageous to produce the bottles on a smaller
automatic machine than on the semiautomatic. There are, there­
fore, no opportunities left for the semiautomatic process similar to
those in the case of hand production.
STATISTICS OF PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST

Table A contains data on the production of 15 representative
bottles ranging from half-ounce prescription ovals to 5-gallon water
carboys, made by hand and by the various semiautomatic and
automatic machines. In securing these statistics an attempt was




56

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

made to choose one or two representative plants and then follow
up the changes of output and labor cost of making bottles as the
plants passed from hand production to the semiautomatic and
finally to the automatic process. Such analysis would give to the
study a historical perspective and at the same time eliminate the
effects of management on production and cost, management sup­
posedly remaining more or less constant throughout the history of
the plant. This plan, however, had to be abandoned for the fol­
lowing reasons:
1. No single bottle plant in the country is known to have gone
through all stages of bottle making from the hand process to the
most up-to-date machinery. Some plants have gone directly from
the hand process to the Owens automatic machines or to the smaller
machines made automatic by the “ feed-and-flow” devices; other
plants have been using simultaneously semiautomatic and automatic
machinery for the purpose of producing the same kind of ware;
still others, especially the most modern plants—those using the
most up-to-date machines—have experienced no transition stages
whatever, having been equipped from the very start with the ma­
chines now in use.
2. The number of types of bottle-making machines, especially in
the automatic field, is so large and the kind and size of bottles made
on the separate machines so variable that it is well-nigh impossible
to choose any one machine as better fitted for the production of
any one kind of bottle than any other machine. Some machines—
such as the Owens machine especially designed for the purpose of
making 5-gallon carboys and the Hartford-Empire and Miller ma­
chines for the purpose of making milk bottles—have, indeed, been
built for making one kind of bottles; but on the whole most of the
machines are used to make a large variety of bottles and must be
taken into consideration in a study dealing with the effects of ma­
chinery on output.
3. There is probably not a bottle plant in the country where the
data of output prior to 1917 for the separate kinds of bottles and
the time spent on their production, either by hand or machine, can
be found. Most of the data available go back to 1920 and are only
for the more up-to-date plants, which are using automatic machines
exclusively. In the smaller plants either no statistics whatever are
kept or the data available are not sufficiently in detail to enable
one to separate the statistics needed.
Instead of a historical study of the development of any one or
two representative bottle plants, the problem resolved itself into a
study of the various types of machines, semiautomatic and auto­
matic, which have been used in this country to replace the hand
process. Fortunately, the change from hand production to the
machine and especially from the semiautomatic process to the
automatic has been so recent that occasional plants can be found
in the country which are still using the older methods of production
or which are just now passing through the transition stage. But
these plants are very scarce and are disappearing so rapidly that
it became necessary to visit more than 25 separate establishments
before the data secured could be considered as representative, if not
of all at least of the majority, of the types of machines, semiau­
tomatic and automatic, in use in this country since 1900.




CHAPTER I .---- BOTTLES AND JARS

57

Wherever a machine is still in operation the data given are for
the year 1925. If the machine has been completely abandoned or
is no longer used for the production of any one of the 15 kinds of
bottles covered in this study the statistics of output given are for
the last period obtainable and in the form available. The labor
cost of production, however, is based in all cases on the actual rates
of wages which prevailed in the separate plants during 1925, the
object being to eliminate the effects of the changing wage rates in
a comparison involving different time periods.
Each section of the table covers a single kind of bottle made by a
single labor unit—hand or machine— and is divided into two parts:
Labor unit, and output and labor cost. The number and the kind
of workers constituting the particular labor unit and their rates
of wages, whether by the piece or by the hour, are shown in the first
part of each section. When fractions are shown for the number of
workers, it merely implies that the particular kind of worker is in
charge of more than one machine and that only that part of his labor
is shown which can be attributed to any one unit. The unit consists
of the total number of workers shown, irrespective of their skill or
occupation. The total labor cost per hour is that of the entire unit,
exclusive of those workers who are paid on a piecework basis, whose
rates are shown in a separate column.
The second part of each section presents statistics of the output of
the unit. The period for which the data are given is usually by the
month or by the year when monthly figures are not available. The
data shown for output are the actual number of gross of good bottles
produced by the one or the several exactly similar shops or machines
in operation. The actual number of unit hours, shop or machine,
spent in the production of the quantity of bottles given is also shown.
If only one unit was in operation the hours given are the actual hours
which the unit put in during the month or the year in making the
particular kind of bottle. If there were several similar shops or
machines used simultaneously for the production of any one kind of
bottle the hours worked by the several units have been added. In
that case the unit-hours given represent the total number of hours the
average machine would have to be in operation to produce the quan­
tity of bottles produced by all the machines in a correspondingly
shorter period of time. This precludes the possible errors inherent in
choosing any one shop or any one machine as representative of similar
shops or similar machines. For, in spite of the similarity in the com­
position of the labor unit, no two shops or two machines are actually
working alike. For one reason or another some shops or some
machines will always produce more or less than others working under
exactly similar conditions. But by combining the good, the bad,
and the indifferent units one can reasonably expect that their effects
on output will neutralize each other, and for this reason the aggre­
gate output and the aggregate hours of all the similar units in the
plant have been taken rather than any one unit as representative of
similar units.
The average output per unit-hour is derived by dividing the output
by the unit-hours. By dividing the output per unit-hour by the total
number of workers constituting the unit one gets the man-hour out>put of the unit. The labor cost per gross of bottles which is shown is




58

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

the result of dividing the unit labor cost per hour by the number
representing the output per unit-hour. If some of the workers con­
stituting the unit are paid on a piecework basis their total wages per
gross must be added to the labor cost per gross of the time workers,
and the sum will be the total labor cost of blowing a gross of the
particular kind of bottle by the particular process.
In examining the month-by-month statistics of output of any one
machine one is at once confronted with the big variations in output
shown by the machine-hour figures given. This is true of the
simplest Jersey Devil semiautomatic machine as well as of the largest
Owens 10-arm double triplex automatic machine. In making 2-ounce
prescription ovals by the Jersey Devil semiautomatic machine the
output varies from a minimum of 4.015 to a maximum of 5.638 gross
per hour, the minimum being 28.8 per cent less than the maximum.
In making the same kind of bottle by the Owens 10-arm double
triplex automatic machine (10 arms X 2 heads X 3 molds = 60 bottles
per revolution), the output varies from 74.849 to 86.556 gross per
hour, with the minimum 13.5 per cent less than the maximum. But
in making the one-half ounce prescription ovals on the same machine
the output varies from 70.659 to 88.717 gross per hour, the minimum
being 20.4 per cent less than the maximum.
It is universally accepted in bottle making that these variations
in output are due to causes which are more or less outside of the
control of the workers in charge of the machine. The principal
cause mentioned is the condition of the molten glass in the con­
tinuous tank. In spite of all the precautions taken to have the glass
melted in accordance with the chemical formulas and the other
requirements of the process, the results do not always prove satis­
factory. The run of glass may be good for a long time and then
suddenly, for no apparent cause, turn bad and keep on running bad,
notwithstanding all attempts to improve it. Whether or not means
can be found by which the condition of the glass in the tank will be
completely controlled to fit the requirements of the machines in
operation, the variations in output due to the lack of control of the
glass must at present be accepted as inherent in the industry. In
the same class must be considered the variations due to larger or
smaller orders and to the weather. It is estimated, however, that
during the period of a year the favorable and adverse factors will
more or less neutralize their respective effects on output, and that the
average for the year will come pretty close to representing the true
average for the machine. The yearly averages have therefore been
taken as the basis of comparison for the various machines and pro­
cesses in use. The monthly averages are also given to show the degree
of variation in output from month to month, while the maximum
and minimum are italicized to emphasize the extreme limits of these
variations. What is true of the machine-hour output applies also
to the man-hour output and to the blowing labor cost.




CHAPTEB I .— BOTTLES AND JABS

59

T a b l e A . — PRO DUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES

B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E
ONE-HALF OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—HAND (IDEAL)
lln this table all wage rates are for 1925 and labor cost is based on 1925 wage rates regardless of year of output
data. Italicized figures represent minimum and maximum]
Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers
2
1
1
1
1
1
7

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

Blowers.....................
}$0.62
Finishm*
J
Mold b o y ................
Cleaning-off boy____
Snapping-up boy
Carry-in boy.............
Total...............

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

.62

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

Quantity
or
amount

Item

Average output per 8 hours........... gross
A rA
T roorD Aiitniit n o r nnit.hniir
H
a
Average man-hour output.............. do___
Average blowing labor cost....... per gross _

40
K
O
.714
$0.94

1.60

ONE-HALF OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS-HAND (ACTUAL)
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
gross hour hour

Total
output

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
Apr.......
June___
July----Aug.......
Sept___
Oct____
Dec.......

Oross
154*3
239.5
105.7
104.3
27.7
18.2
51.1
191.3
182.6
93.8

45.75
61.50
26.75
28.00
12.00
6.50
16.00
59.75
57.25
22.00

Total.

1,168.5

335.50

2
1
1
1
1
1

Blowers. ................... l$n» Ol
p
Finisher.................... f< U
Mold boy__..............
Cleaning-off boy____
Snapping-up boy
Carry-in boy.... ........

7

Total................

$0.21
.21
.21
.21

$0.21
.21
.21
.21

.84

.61

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross Oross
3.373 0.482
3.894
.556
.565
3.952
3.725
.532
2. 808
.880
2.800
.400
3.194
.456
3.202
.458
3.189
.456
4.26 4 .609
3.483

.498

$0,859
.826
.823
.836
.992
.910
.873
.872
.873
.807
.851

ONE-HALF OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL AND TRIPLE FEEDER
%
1
1
4
1
m

Machine foreman___
Feeder operator____
Machine operator
Peanut roaster boys.
Carry-in boy_______
Total...............

$0.31
.70
.70
1.20
.45

1925
Mar___
Apr____
Sept___

367.0
2.219.0
2.695.0

23.40 15.685
117.50 18.885
135.50 19.889

2.120
2.552
2.688

$0.214
.178
.169

3.36

$0.78
.70
.70
.30
.45

Total.

5,281.0

276.40 19.107

2.582

.176

ONE-HALF OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: LTNCH AND SINGLE FEEDER
X Chief operator..........
1
Machine operator
1
Carry-in boy.............

m

Total...............




$0.90 $0,150
.600
.60
.31
.310

1.06

1925
Sept___
Oct.......
N ov----Dec.......

1.009.0
1.487.0
1.351.0
335.0

90.00
116.00
116.00
32.00

11.211
12,819
11.647
10.469

5.174
5.916
5.375
4.882

$0,095
.088
.091
.101

Total. _

4,182.0

354.00 11.814

5.453

.090

60

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T able

A .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

ONE-HALF OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE:
DOUBLE
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Wage
rates
per
gross

Output and labor cost

rates
per
hour

Machine foreman...

1 Machine operator. _
> Hot-ware inspector.
/•
2 Carry-in boys_____
M

.60
.55
.43

Labor
cost 1 Year and
month
per
hour

$0.267
.600
.061
1.003

1925
J a n ___
Feb.......
Mar___
Apr-----May___
Aug.......
Oct........
N ov___
Dec

Total
output

Unithours

Gross
5,145.0
1.400.0
5,305. 0
1,830.0
2. 912.8
7,029. 0
648. 6
7,490. 0
2, 256. 0

T otal. 34,016.4

Total.

2
H

$1.20
.90
. 55

$0.20

.90
.55

1. 65

Total.

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­
put Labor
cost
per
per
manhour gross

Gross
31. 937
26. 316
34. 719
33.152
34. 068
32. 892
29. 752
36.483
33. 925

Gross
8. 454
6.966
9.190
8.775
9.018
8.707
7.875
9.657
8.980

$0.061
.074
.056
.059
.057
.059
.065
.054
.058

1,015.10 33, 510

8.870

.058

161.10
53.20
152.80
55.20
85. 50
213. 70
21.80
205.30
66.50

ONE-HALF OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE:
DOUBLE, WITH CONVEYOR

% Chief foreman____
1 Machine foreman..
1 Machine operator..

OWENS A. N. (10 ARMS)

OWENS A. N. (10 ARMS)

1925
J a n ___
Sept.___
Oct____
N ov___
Dec.......

1,480.0
645.0
3,941.0
2,308.0
1, 602.0

43.50
21. 00
118. 20
72.00
47. 50

15. 70S
14.176
15.389
14.795
15. 566

$0,048
.064
.050
.051
.049

Total

9, 976.0

302.20 33.011 15.238

.050

34. 023
30. 714
33.342
32.056
33. 726

ONE-HALF OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. V. (15 ARMS) SINGLE,
WITH CONVEYOR
Chief foreman.......
Machine foreman..
Machine operator.
Total.

$0.20
.90
.55

1918....... 8,720.0
38.844.0
1919.
22.225.0
1920

1. 65

$1.20
.90
. 55

T otal. 69,789. 0

430.40 20.260 9.351
1,906.60 20.373 9.403
897.40 24. 766 10.969
3,234.40 21. 577

9.959

$0,081
.081
.067
.077

ONE-HALF OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. V. (15 ARMS)
DOUBLE, WITH CONVEYOR
Chief foreman.......
Machine foreman..
Machine operator.

2H

$1.20
.90
.55

$0.20
.90
.55

1. 65

Total..

1925
Feb
M ay___
June___
July
Aug------

3,071.00
3,560.00
1,870.00
4,624.00
3,053.00

T otal. 16,178. 00

18.056
22.820
20.071
18.853
21.253

$0,0 42
.033
.038
.040
.036

373.00 43. 373 20.022

.038

78.50
72.00
43.00
113.20
66.30

39.121
49.444
43.488
40.848
46.048

ONE-HALF OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS C. A. (10 ARMS)
DOUBLE TRIPLEX, WITH CONVEYOR
H Chief foreman______
1
Machine foreman___
2
Machine operators

BH

Total...............




$1.20
.90
.55

$0.20
.90
1.10

2.20

1925
Feb____
M ay___
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct.......
N ov......
Dec

8,490.0
9,970.0
2,675.0
4,270. 0
7,800.0
5,480. 0
6,361.0

T otal. 45,046.0

101.90
141.10
34.90
58.40
95.10
63.20
71.70

83. 316
70.659
76.648
73.116
82.019
86. 709
88.717

26.310 $0.0265
.0312
22.313
.0288
24.205
23. 089 .0301
25. 901
.0269
.0254
27. 382
28.016
.0248

5,663.00 79.545 25.120

.0276

CHAPTER I .---- BOTTLES AND JARS

61

T a b l e A . — PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES

B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
2-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—HAND (IDEAL)
Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers
2
1
1
1
1
1
7

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

Blowers.... ................
Finisher.................... }$0.65
Mold boy__..............
Cleaning-off boy___
Snapping-up boy----Carry-in boy.............

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

.65

Total...............

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

Quantity
or
amount

Item

Average output per 8 hours........ . .gross..
Average output per unit-hour_____do___
Average man-hour output________do___
Average blowing labor cost-----per gross..

36
4.5
.643
$1,006

1.60

2-OTJNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS AND ROUNDS—HAND (ACTUAL)
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers
2
1
1
1
1
1

7

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
gross hour hour

Total
output

1925
Jan.
Feb
Mar
Apr . May___
June___
July
Aug----Sept___
Oct-----Nov
Dec------

Gross
139.8
101.3
162.9
1G8.0
50.4
71.7
9.1
7.3
113.4
24.6
48.7
119.6

Total.

1,026.2

Blowers........... ......... l^A. D
$U £Q
o
Finisher _________ >
Mold boy__________
$0.21
.21
Cleaning-off boy____
Snapping-up boy
.21
Carry-in boy.... ........
.21

Total...............

.68 ---------

$0.21
.21
.21
.21

.84

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

47.75
42.25
55.25
55.75
18.25
25.00
6.00
3.00
46.50
7.75
18.50
33.25

Gross
2.928
2.398
2.948
3.013
2. 762
2.844
1.517
2.433
2,439
3.175
2.632
8.594

Gross
0.418
.343
.421
.430
.395
.406
. 219
.348
.348
.454
.376
.518

$0.977
1.030
.965
.959
.984
.975
1.284
1.025
1.024
.945
.999
.914

359. 25

2.856

.408

.974

Unithours

2-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—SEMIAUTOMATIC TWO-MAN MACHINE (JERSEY DEVIL)
X
1
1
1
1
X
1

Machine foreman
Gatherer _________
Presser. --------------- j$0.50
Transfer b o y ..........
Take-out boy______
Carry-in boy_______
Peanut-roaster b o y ..

5H

T ota l..............

$1.00

$0.17

.50
.50
.50
.38

611.4
219.5
465.1
255.0
652.4
461.8
397.0
408.0

120.00
45.00
82.50
60.00
162.50
87.50
90.00
72.50

5.095
4.878
5.688
4.250
4.015
5.278
4.411
5.628

0.899
.861
.995
.750
.708
.931
.778
.993

$0,853
.869
.819
.923
.948
.841
.908
.832

1.80

.50

.50
.50
.25
.38

1923
J a n ----Feb
Mar
Apr-----May___
June___
July
Aug-----Total..

3,470.2

720.00

4.820

.850

.874

2-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS-SEMIAUTOMATIC ONE-MAN MACHINE
1
1
1
1
X

Gatherer. ________ $0.30
Transfer boy ______
Take-out boy............
Peanut-roaster boy
Carry-in b o y ...........

4X

Total....... ........

40780°— 27------- 5




.30

$0.38
.38
.38
.38

$0.38
.38
.38
.19
1.33

3.819.0
3, 570.0
6.632.0
6.893.0
6.038.0

884.00
736.00
1.248.00
1.578.00
1.296.00

4.820
4.851
5.814
4.368
4. 659

0.960
1.078
1.181
.971
1.035

$0.608
.574
.550
.604
.586

Total.. 26,952.0

5,742.00

4.694

1.043

.583

1923 .
1922.......
1921
1920
1919

62

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T a b l e A . — PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES

B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
2-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION 0 VAIS-SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL, WITH FEEDER
Labor unit

Occupation

M achinist..............
Machine operator...
Transfer boy. _.......
Carry-in boy___
Peanut-roaster bcy.

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
per
per
month
hour hour

$1,000 $0,170
.700
.475
.500
.475

TotaL.

3H

.700
.475
.250
.475

2.070

Total
output

1925
Jan____
Feb.......
Mar___
Apr____
May___
June___
July......
Aug----Sept___
Oct-----Nov......

Gross
577.0
637.0
344.0
582.0
269.0
177.0
290.0
176.0
224.0
129.0
441.0

T otal-

3, 746.0

Unithours

88.00
84.00
50.00

66.00

47.00
26.00
38.00
33.00
35.00
21.00

72.00

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross
6.557
7.584
6.880
8. *19
5. 724
6.810
7. 632
5.884
6,400
6.143
6.125

Gross
1.788
2.068
1.876

1.824

560.00

1.561
1.857
2.081
1.4H
1.745
1.675
1.670

$0,317
.274
.302
.285
.363
.305
.272
.890
.325
.338
.339
.311

20
.4 5

2-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL AND SINGLE FEEDER

1 Machine operator__
1H Peanut-roaster boys _
H Carry-in boys___

$0,104
.700
.400
.150

1925
M ay_
_
Sept___
Nov___
Dec___

60.0
535.0
234.0
720.0

9.30
79.00
29.30
105.80

6.773
7.987
6.806

2.804
2.419
2.858
2.431

$0,209

Total.

1.354

Total.

1,549.0

223.40

6.934

2.476

.195

Machine foreman.

2H

.200

.170
.199

2-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: LYNCH AND SINGLE FEEDER

1
1

H Chief operator..........
Machine operator
Carry-in boy............

$0.90 $0.15
.60
.60
.31
.31

1925
July
Aug____
Sept___
Oct____
Nov.......
Dec.......

239.0
456.0
1.442.0
1.348.0
1.378.0
2.519.0

26.00 9.198
48.00 9.500
144.00 10.014
144.00 9.361
144.00 9.569
241.00 10.452

4.248
4.385
4.622
4.320
4.416
4.824

$0.115
.112
.106
.113
.111
.101

1.06

Total.

7,382.0

710.00 10.397

4.799

.102

Total________

2H

2-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. N. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE
Machine foreman...
Machine operator...
Hot-ware inspector .
Carry-in boys.........

3/
79

$0.80 $0,267
.60
.600
.55
.061
1.003

1925
Jan.......
7,113.0
Feb
9,308.9
Mar
9,075.6
Apr....... 7,095.9
M ay___ 2,204.5
June___ 7,207.0
July
4, 865. 3
Aug....... 2,088. 7
Sept___ 7,183.9
Oct....... 4, 832.1
Nov...... 2,934. 6
Dec....... 10,137. 5
T otal. 74,047.0

Total.

28.682
29.006
31.027
30.286
28. 705
28.010
29.523
29. 670
30.428
82.214
31. 555
32.172

7.592
7.678
8.213
8.017
7.598
7.4U
7.815
7.854
8.054
8.527
8.353
8.516

$0,067
.067
.062
.064
.067
.069
.035
.065
.064
.060
.061
.060

2,459. 20 30.110

7.970

.064

248.00
320.90
292.50
234.30
76.80
257.30
164.80
70.40
236.10
150.00
93.00
315.10

2-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. V. (15 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH
CONVEYOR

1
1

Chief foreman____
Machine foreman..
Machine operator..




Total............

$1.20

.90
.55

$0.20
.90
.55
1.65

1918..

13,680.0

654.50 20.901

9.645

$0,079

CHAPTER I .---- BOTTLES AND JARS
T able

63

A . — PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

2-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. T. (15 ASMS) DOUBLE, WITH
CONVEYOR
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
hour hour

Occupation

Chief foreman____
Machine foreman..
Machine operator..

2
H

$1.20

.90
.55

Total..

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
manhour

Unithours

Qross
3.715.0
4.870.0
1.115.0
5.835.0
725.0
910.0
3.300.0
345.0
560.0
3.140.0
1.246.0
3.042.0

Gross Gross
96.00 38.698 17.861
120.00 40.583 18.731
47.60 2 .m 10.811
3
144.00 40.521 18.702
22.20 32.658 15.073
24.00 37.917 17.500
81.20 40.640 18.757
5.90 58.475 26.988
13.80 40.580 18.729
71.00 44.225 20.412
30.80 40.455 18.672
68.30 44.540 20.557

$0,043
.041
.070
.041
.051
.044
.041
.028
.041
.037
.041
.037

Total.. 28,803.0

$0.20

Total
output

724.80 39.739 18.341

.042

1925
Jan........
Feb____
Mar____
Apr____
M ay___
June___
July___
Aug___
Sept___
Oct____
Nov___
Dec.......

.90
.55

1.65

2-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS C. A. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE
TRIPLEX, WITH CONVEYOR
H Chief foreman______
l
Machine foreman
Machine operators
2

3H

$1.20
.90
.55

Total................ ........... ---------

1925
$0.20
.90 1 Mar......
1.10 ; Apr____
May___
June___
July
Aug___
1 Sept___
Oct
Nov
Dec
2.20

11,520.0
10,885.0
7,235.0
1,784.0
1,867.0
8,719.0
10,666.0
6,232.0
2,836.0
12,108.0

Total.. 73,852.0

144.00
139.30
88.90
23.40
24.00
116.10
142.50
72.00
34.40
143.90

80.000
78.141
81.384
76.239
77. 792
75.099
74.849
86. 556
82.442
84.142

25.263
24.676
25.700
24.075
24.566
23.715
23.637
27.SSS
26.034
26.571

$0,028
.028
.027
.029
.028
.029
.029
.025
.027
.026

928.50 79. 539 25.118

.028

i

4-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—HAND (IDEAL)
Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers
2
1
1
1
1
1
7

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

Blowers...................
Finisher..................... j$0.75
Mold boy........... ......
Cleaning-off boy
Snapping-up boy
Carrv-in boy......... __
Total...............




.75

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

$0.40
.40
.40
.40
1.60

Item

Quantity
or
amount

Average output per 8 hours............gross..
30
Average output per unit-hour.........do___
3.75
Average man-hour output.............. do___
.536
Average blowing labor cost___ per gross.. $1.177

64

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T a b l e A . — PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES

B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
4-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—HAND (ACTUAL)
....................... ...... "
■
•

Num­
ber
of
work­
ers
2
1
1
1
1
1

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
per
per
month
gross hour hour

Blowers..................... lj|A 7Q
Finisher..,.........
Mold b o y ................
$0.21
Cleaning-off boy____
.21
Snapping-up boy
.21
Carry-in boy_______
.21

7

Total................

.

...-

Output and labor cost

Labor unit

.78 ...........

$0.21
.21
.21
.21

.84

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
Apr____
M ay___
June___
July___
Aug-----Sept___
O c t......
N ov......
Dec.......
T otal.

Total
output

G
ross

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

G
ross Gross

531.4
136.0
254.4
271.0
97.5
47.2
22.8
99.3
139.2
124.4
178.5
277.3

290.50
67.50
133.75
134.00
38.25
17.75
9.00
52.75
68.00
64.50
92.50
122.50

1.829
2.015
1.902
2.022
2.549

2.533
1.882
2.047
1.929
1.930
2.264

0.261
.288
.272
.289
.364
.380
.362
.269
.292
.276
.276
.323

$1,239
1.197
1.222
1.195
1.110
1.096
1.112
1.226
1.190
1.216
1.215
1.151

2,179.0

1,091.00

1.997

.285

1.212

2.659

4-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—SEMIAUTOMATIC ONE-MAN MACHINE
Gatherer.................... $0.33
Transfer boy.............
Take-out boy............
Peanut-roaster boy
Carry-in boy.............
Total................

$0.38
.38
.38
.38

.33 ...........

$0.38
.38
.38
.19
1.33

1919.
1920.
1921
1922
192 3

3.196 0.710 $0,746

5.993.0
6.095.0
7.395.0
3.679.0
4.630.0

1.876.00
1.628.00
2,068.00
892.00
1,284.00

3,744
3.576

.832
.795

3.606

.801

.699

Total. 27,792.0

7,748.00

3.587

.797

.720

4.124

.916

.685
.702

.663

4-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL AND FEEDER
T Machine foreman
T
Machine operator.
1H Peanut-roaster boy
Carry-in boy.............

$0.78 $0,104
.70
.700
.400
.30
.45
.150

1925
Jan........
June___
Oct........

95.0
218.0
370.0

14.30
29.70
55.00

6.644
7.340
6.727

2.372
2.621
2.402

$0,204
.185
.201

Total................

1.354

Total. _

683.0

99.00

6.899

2.464

.196

2X

4-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: LYNCH AND FEEDER
H Chief operator...........
Machine operator .,
1
1
Carry-in boy.............

$0.90
.60
.31

1.06

Total...............

2H

$0.15
.60
.31

1925
Aug-----Sept___
Oct........
N ov., .
Dec

783.0
488.0
1.123.0
1.028.0
2,666.0

96.00
68.00
144.00
120.00
315.00

Total. _

6,088.0

743.00

8.156

3.764

$0,130

7.799

3.600

.136

8.463

3.906

.125

a 194

3.782

.129

7.176 3.312
8.567 3.954

.148

.124

4-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. N. (10 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH
CONVEYOR

1

Chief foreman...........
Machine foreman
Machine operator ..

2H




Total................

$1.20
.90
.55

$0.20
.90
.55
1.65

1917
1918

7.918.0
3.408.0

506.70 15.627
225.70 15.100

7.212
6.969

$0,106
.109

T ota l.. 11,326.0

732.40 15.460

7.135

.107

CHAPTER I.— BOTTLES AND JARS

65

T a b l e A . — P R O DU CTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES

B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
4-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. N. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
month
per
per
gross hour hour

Total
output

Machine foreman_
_
$0.80 $0,267
Machine operator
.600
.60
Hot-ware inspector.
.55
.061
Carry-in boys______ ...........
.43 1.003

37®

1925
Gross
Jan........ 4.223.8
Feb
9.224.3
Mar___ 10,350.1
Apr ___ 3.860.5
M ay___ 8.408.9
June___ 3.321.9
July...... 6.248.5
3.172.4
Sept___ 5,445.8
Oct........ 7.487.2
5.219.3
Dec....... 2,012. 5

1.931

T otal. 68,975.2

Total................

Unithours

185.50
382.40
421.10
164.20
368.00
154.50
270.90
141.70
233.30
293.20
199.20
104.80

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross Gross
22.770 6.027
24.122 6.385
24.579 6.506
23. 511 6.223
22.850 6.048
21.500 5.691
23.065 6.105
22.390 5.927
23.340 6.178
25.536 6.759
26. m
6.936
19.206 6.084

2,918.30 23.627

6.254

$0,085
.080
.079
.082
.085
.090
.084
.086
.086
.076
.074
.106
.082

4-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. V. (15 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH
CONVEYOR
Chief foreman...........
H Machine foreman. ..

1
1

2
H

Machine operator .

$1.20
.90
.55

Total................

$0.20
.90
.55
1.65

191 8
1919
1920

29.996.0
22.716.0
65.214.0

T otal. 117,926.0

1,411.20 21.256 9.810
1,197.30 18.973 8.757
2,885.00 22.605 10.433
5,493.50 21.467

9.908

$0,078
.087
.073
.077

4-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. V. (15 ARMS) DOUBLE, WITH
CONVEYOR

1*

1

Chief foreman...........
Machine foreman ..
Machine operator..

$1.20
.90
.55

$0.20
.90
.55

1.65

Total................

1925
Jan........
Feb
Mar
M ay___
June___
Aug.......
Sept___
Nov.......
Dec.......

2,061.0
2.996.0
252.0
3.738.0
1.740.0
845.0
1.724.0
1.134.0
326.0

Total. 14,816.0

16.543
16.422
16.615
16.431
16. 731
14. 662
18.084
13.773
13.084

$0,046
.046
.046
.046
.046
.052

421.80 35.126 16.212

.047

57.50
84.20
7.00
105.00
48.00
26.60
44.00
38.00
11.50

35.843
35.582
36.000
35.600
36.250
31. 767
39.182
29.842
28.348

.042

.055
.068

4-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS C. A. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE
TRIPLEX, WITH CONVEYOR

H Chief foreman...........
l Machine foreman.

2

3H

Machine operators...

Total................




$1.20
.90
.55

$0.20
.90
1.10

2.20

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar
Apr.......
M ay___
Aug... .
Oct

8,108.0
10.014.0
7.950.0
10.314.0
5.943.0
10.442.0
11.383.0
11.494.0

Total.. 75,648.0

144.00
142.70
142.30
144.00
82.00
142.50
144.00
143.00

17.782
22.161
17.643
22.618
22.887
23.140
24.963
26.378

$0,039
.031
.039
.031
.030
.030
.028
.027

1,084.50 69.754 22.028

.032

56.306
70.175
66.868
71.625
72.476
73.277
79.049
80.378

66

PRODUCTIVITY OP LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T a b l e A . — PRODU CTION A N D LABOR COST IN

M A K IN G BOTTLES
B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
8-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS HAND (IDEAL)
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers
2
1
1
1
1
1
7

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

Occupation

Blowers.................... j$0.96
Finisher.....................
$0.40
Mold boy__________
.40
Cleaning-off boy____
.40
Snapping-up boy___ --------Carry-in boy__
.40
T o t a l-............

.96

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

Quantity
or
amount

Item

Average output per 8 hours......... gross..
Average output per unit-hour.........do___
Average man-hour output.............. do___
Average blowing labor cost___ per gross..

25
3.125
.446
$1,472

1.60

8-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—HAND (ACTUAL)
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
gross hour hour

2
1
1
]
1
1

Blowers___________ }$1.00
Finisher___________
Mold boy__________
Cleaning-off boy____
Snapping-up boy
Carry-in boy_______

7

T ota l........... —

$0.21
.21
.21
.21

1.00 ...........

$0.21
.21
.21
.21

.84

1925
Jan........
Feb
Mar
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct........
Nov.
Dec____
T o ta l-

Unithours

Total
output

Gross
78.3
93.8
31.2
66.3
a4
9.0
13.3
36.2
63.3
40.6
109.5 |
25.0 :

34.75
56.50
19.50
39.00
5.00
6.75
7.00
23.25
41.25
37.50
80.00
10.75

574.9 S 361.25
|
i

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
manhour gross

Gross Gross
2.253 0.322
1.660
.237
1.600
.229
1.700
.243
1.680
.240
1.333
.190
1.900 ‘ .271
1.557
.222
1.535
.219
1.088
.155
1.369
.196
2.826
.882
1.591

.227

$1.373
1.506
1.525
1.494
1.500
1.630
1.442
1.540
1.547
1.776
1.614
1.861
1.528

8-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—SEMIAUTOMATIC TWO-MAN MACHINE (JERSEY DEVIL)

$1.00 $0.17

Machinist.

iH Gatherer. .
1
1 Transfer boy...........
1 Take-out boy..........
1 Peanut-roaster boy.
H Carry-in boy...........
Total—.
5
H

1.56
.50
.50
.50
.56

.50
.50
.38
.25
1.80

1923
J a n ...
Feb.__
Sept..
O c t...
Nov__
D e c...
T otal.

249.8
250.7
37.2
127.0
95.5

69.50
75.00
30.00
10.50
30.00
26.00

3.594
8.84$
4.000
3.543
4.288
3.673

0.634
.590
.706
.625
.747
.648

$1,061
1.098
1.010
1.068
.985
1.050

880.2

241.00

3.652

.644

1.052

120.0

8-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS-SEMIAUTOMATIC ONE-MAN MACHINE

1
1
1
1
X
Vi

Gatherer..................
Transfer boy...........
Take-out boy..........
Peanut-roaster boy_
Carry-in boy...........
Total—




$0.36

$0.38

$0

1.33

1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923.......

2,096.0
1,168.0
2,643.0
2,030.0
2,217.0
2,981.0

652.00
440.00
864.00
716.00
600.00
812.00

3.214
2.654
3.059
2.835
8.695
3.671

0.714
.590
.680
.630
.821
.815

$0,774
.861
.795
.829
.720
.722

T otal. 13,135.0

4,084.00

3.216

.714

.774

CHAPTER I.---- BOTTLES AND JARS
T able

67

A . — PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN M AKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued
8-OTJNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL AND FEEDER
Labor unit

Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

If

Occupation

Machine foreman.
Machine operator.
Peanut-roaster boys _
Carry-in boy........

per
gross

Output and labor cost
Wage Labor
rates cost Year and
per
month
per
hour hour

Total
output

0.104
.700
.40
.15

1925
July..
O ct...
Nov-----

Oross
818.0
586.0
609.0

1.354

T otal.

2,013.0

$0.78
.70
.30
.45

Total..

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

145.80
124.60
129.80

Oross
5.611
4.703
4.692

Oross
2.004
1.680
1.676

$0,241
.288
.289

400.20

5.030

1.796

.269

Unithours

8-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: LYNCH AND FEEDER
Chief operator____
Machine operator..
Carry-in boy.........

2
H

Total.

$0.90
.60
.31

!0.15
.60

1925
Jan---F eb....

.3
1

1.06

Total _

293.0
377.0

42.00
52.00

6. 976
7.250

3.220
3.346

$0,152
.146

670.0

94.00

7.128

3.290

.149

8-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. E. (6 ARMS) SINGLE
Machine foreman___

l Machine operator__
V Hot-ware inspector __
»
1 Carry-in boys______
H
Total...............
2»
V

1925
Sept___
Oct
N ov___

$0.80 $0,267
.60
.600
.55
.061
.43
. 573
1.501

Total _

97.1
84.3
138.1

17.80
13.50
21.50

5.455
6.244
6.423

1.964
2.248
2.312

$0,242
.216
.206

319.5

52.80

6.051

2.178

.218

8-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. N. (10 ARMS) SINGLE
H
1
V
#
2M

Machine foreman
Machine operator
Hot-ware inspector
Carry-in boys______

$0.80 $0,267
.60
.600
.55
.061
.43 1.003

3V«

Total...............

1.931

1925
J a n ___
Feb
Mar......
Apr____
M a y ...
June-.-..
July----Aug----Sept----Oct
Nov.......
Dec

1,001.2
952.6
1,150.2
2,102. 8
2,011.7
3,324. 7
2, 790. 7
1,550. 8
2,355.0
3,002.8
3,380.6
1,600.0

Total . 25,223.1

91.40
84.50
98.70
183.80
180.80
302.50
248.70
133.30
205.60
276.50
271. 30
131.10

10.954
11.273
11.654
11.441
11.127
10. 991
11. 221
11.634
11.454
10.860
12.461
12.204

2.899
2.984
3.085
3.029
2.946
2.910
2.970
3.080
3.032
2.875
S. 299
3.231

$0.176
.171
.166
.169
.173
.176
.172
.166
.168
.178
.156
.158

2,208. 20 11.424

3.024

.169

8-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. R. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE
i
H
1
v»
m

Machine foreman
Machine operator
Hot-ware inspector
Carry-in boys______

$0.80 $0,267
.60
.600
.55
.061
.43 1.003

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar......
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
Oct
Nov
Dec

3V«

Total................




1.931

T ota l..
i

747.1
472.4
1.060.0
326.4
1,020.4
691.2
154.6
460.0
437.5
914.2
6,283.8

41.70
25.20
54.80
17.00
60.80
38.00
7.70
26.20
24.70
46.70

17.916
18.746
19.343
19.200
16.788
18.189
20.078
17.557
17.713
19.572

4.743
4.962
5.120
5.082
4-44S
4.815
5.815
4.647
4.689
5.181

$0,108
.103
.100
.101
.115
.106
.096
.110
.109
.099

342. 80 18.331

4.852

.105

68

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T a b l e A . — PRODU CTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES

B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
8-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. R. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE, WITH
CONVEYOR
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

X Chief foreman...........
Machine foreman..
1
Machine operator_
_
1

2X

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
gross hour hour
$1.20
.90
.55

Total................

$0.20
.90
.55

1.65

1925
Apr.......
July
Sept___
Oct........
Nov___
Dec.

Total
output

Gross
1.375.0
790.0
613.0
3.297.0
2.651.0
1.767.0

Total. . 10,493.0

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross Gross
19.097 8.814
20.256 9.349
18.186 8.870
23.104 10.663
23.092 10.658
u . 817 u . m

$0,086
.082
.091
.071
.072
.067

473.50 22.161 10.006

.075

72.00
39.00
33.80
142.70
114.80
71.20

8-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. Q. (15 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH
CONVEYOR
X Chief foreman...........
Machine foreman...
1
Machine operator_
_
1

2X

$1.20
.90
.55

$0.20
.90
.55

1.65

Total................

1925
Feb
Sept___
Oct .....
Nov___
Dec. .

1.426.0
861.0
619.0
404.0
1.431.0
1.386.0

T ota l..

6,227.0

19,806
20. m
i7. m
18.281
19,004
19.521

9.141
9.806
7.986
8.437
8.771
9.010

$0,083
.081
.096
.090
.087
.085

319.10 19.514

9.006

.085

72.00
42.70
36.00
22.10
75.30
71.00

8-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVAIS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. Q. (15 ARMS) DOUBLE, WITH
CONVEYOR

X Chief foreman...........
Machine foreman..
1
Machine operator___
1

2X

$1.20
.90
.55

$0.20
.90
.55

ll 65

Total................

1925
Jan____
Feb.......
M ay___
Sept___
Oct........
Dec.......

1.005.0
3.755.0
4.206.0
284.0
643.0
4.193.0

Total __ 14,086.0

9.663
12.513
18.528
9.868
11.547
10.615

$0,079
.061
.056
.081
.066
.072

552.00 25.518 11.778

.065

48.00
138.50
143.50
14.00
25.70
182.30

20.937
27.112
29.810
20.286
25.019
23.000

8-OUNCE PRESCRIPTION OVALS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS C. A. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE
DUPLEX, WITH CONVEYOR
X Chief foreman..........
Machine foreman___
1
Machine operators__
2

3X

Total...............




$1.20
.90
.55

$0.20
.90
1.10

2.20

1925
Feb
Mar___
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
J u ly ....
Aug.......
O ct___
N ov___
Dec.
.

5.569.0
4.808.0
4.220.0
5.740.0
2.518.0
3.544.0
5.916.0
6.056.0
6.229.0
4.544.0

Total— 49,144.0

144.00
133.00
108.60
134.60
91.70
106.20
144.00
143.50
142.00
117.90

38.674
36.150
38.858
42.645
m. m
33.371
41.083
42.202
A8.866
38.541

12.213
11.416
12.271
13.467
8.671
10.538
12.974
13.327
18.862
12.171

$0,057
.061
.057
.052
.080
.066
.054
.052
.050
.057

1,265.50 38,337 12.117

.057

CHAPTER I .— BOTTLES AND JARS

69

T a b l e A . — PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES

B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
6-DRAM EXTRACT PANELS—HAND
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers
2
1
1
1
1
1
7

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

Blowers___________ |$0.77
Finisher___________
Mold boy__________
Cleaning-off boy____
Snapping-up boy
Carry-in boy.............
Total.......... .

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

Quantity
or
amount

Item

Average output per 8 hours______ gross..
Average output per unit-hour.____ do___
Average output per man-hour____ do___
Average blowing labor cost___ per gross..

32
4
.571
$1.170

#1.60

.77

8-DRAM EXTRACT PANELS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. N. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
month
per
per
gross hour hour

Total
output

H
1
Vo
m

Machine foreman __
Machine operator
Hot-ware inspector
Carry-in boys...........

$0.80 $0,267
.60
.600
.55
.061
.43 1.003

1925
Oross
Jan........ 5.081.5
Feb
2.259.0
Mar
4.807.1
Apr.. ..
543.0
M ay___ 11,853.0
June___
543.8
July___ 2.244.0
Aug....... 2.121.5
Sept___ 3.582.0
Oct........ 2.735.0
Nov,
840.0
Dec....... 2.496.0

37o

Total................

1.931

Total.. 39,105.9

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Oross
23.203
20.170
22.729
21.984
23.645
22.658
23.182
23. 313
24.910
24. 376
25. 846
26. S29

Oross
6.142
5.839
6.017
5.819
6.259
5.998
6.136
6.171
6.594
6.452
6.842
6.969

$0,083
.095
.085
.088
.082
.085
.083
.083
.078
.079
.075
.078

1,663.60 23.507

6.222

.082

219.00
112.00
211.50
24.70
501.30
24.00
96.80
91.00
143.80
112.20
32.50
94.80

6-DRAM EXTRACT PANELS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. N. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE, WITH
CONVEYOR

1
2H

Chief foreman...........
Machine foreman_
_
Machine operator. _.

$1.20
.90
.55

$0.20
.90
.55
1.65

Total...............

1924
1925
Total..

1,164.0
606.0

45.30 25.695 11.859
31.20 19.423 8.964

$0,064
.085

1,770.0

76.50 23.138 10.679

.071

6-DRAM EXTRACT PANELS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. R. (10 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH
CONVEYOR
M Chief foreman...........
1
Machine foreman ..
1
Machine operator..
M

Total...............




$1.20
.90
.55

$0.30
.90
.55
1.75

1917
1918
1919
1920

16.190.0
4.917.0
12.044.0
8.718.0

Total.. 41,869.0

14.555
14.556
15.059
17.666

6.469
6.469
6.693
7.852

$0,120
.120
.116
.099

2,743.50 15.261

6.783

.108

1,112.40
337.80
799.80
493.50

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

70
T able

A . — PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

6-DRAM EXTRACT PANELS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. R. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE, WITH
CONVEYOR
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work-

1
1

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
per
per
month
gross hour hour

$1.20

Chief foreman.......
Machine foreman..
Machine operator.

Total
output

Unithours

Total..

$0.30
.90
.55

Gross
1920....... 25.653.0
192 2
22.816.0
192 3
21,476.0
192 4
6,264.0

1.75

.90
.55

Total- 76,209.0

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross Gross
25.538 11.350
22.908 10.181
22.095 9.820
24.167 10.741

$0,067
.076
.079
.072

3,231.70 23.582 10.480

.074

1,004.50
996.00
972.00
259.20

6-DRAM EXTRACT PANELS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. V. ^15 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH
CONVEYOR

$1.20 $0.20

Chief foreman.......

i* Machine foreman..
1 Machine operator.
Total............
2
H

.90
.55

.90
.55

1919.
1920.
1921.

62,174.0
6,264.0
6,108.0

Total— 74,546.0

3,400.70 18.283 8.438
263.70 23.754 10.963
237.60 25.707 11.865
3,902.00 19.104

8.817

$0,090
.069
.064
.086

6-DRAM EXTRACT PANELS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. V. (15 ARMS) DOUBLE, WITH
CONVEYOR

H Chief foreman.......
Machine foreman..

$1.20 $0.20
.90
.55

Machine operator..

2
X

.90
.55

1.65

Total..

1925
Jan-----Mar .
Apr .
M a y ....
June___
Aug.......
Sept___

6,915.0
7,041.0
747.0
3,054.0
2, 277.0
4,575.0
8,517.0
2,811.0

Total.. 35,937.0

15.847
15.829
15.323
18.669
15.009
15.202
17.471
18.299

$0,048
.048
.050
Ml
.051
.050
.044
.042

1,009.50 35.599 16.430

.046

201.40
205.30
22.50
75.50
70.00
138.90
225.00
70.90

34.335
34.296
33.200
40.450
3% 529
.
32.937
37.853
39.647

6-DRAM EXTRACT PANELS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS C. A. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE TRIPLEX,
WITH CONVEYOR
X Chief foreman______
1
Machine foreman
2
Machine operators
3H j

$1.20
.90
. 55

Total...............

$0.20
.90
1.10
2.20

1925
Mar......
Apr
Aug.......

9.039.0
5.360.0
6.186.0

144.00 62. 771 19.822
111.00 48.289 15.249
144.00 42.958 13.566

$0,035
.046
.051

Total-. 20,585.0

399.00 51.592 16.292

.043

2-OUNCE EXTRACT PANELS—HAND
Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

2
1
1
1
1
1

Blowers.....................
Finisher..................... }$0.92
Mold boy................
Cleaning-off boy.......
Snapping-up boy
Carry-in boy.............

7

Total...............




.92

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

$0.40
.40
.40
.40
1.60

Item

Average output per 8 hours......... gross..
Average output per unit-hour....... do___
Average output per man-hour____ do___
Average blowing labor cost___ per gross..

Quantity
and
amount

28
3.50
.50
$1.377

CHAPTER I.— BOTTLES AND JARS
T able A .

71

PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

2-OUNCE EXTRACT PANELS—SEMIAUTOMATIC TWO-MAN MACHINE (JERSEY DEVIL)
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

1
1
1
1
1

A
l

Occupation

Wage
rates
per

Output and labor cost
Wage Labor
rates cost Year and
month
per
per
hour hour

$1.00 $0.17

Total
output

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

$0.58
.60
.50
.38
.50

.50
.50
.25

5H

1923
Jan____
June___
July___
Sept___
Oct
N ov___
Dec.......

Gross
438.0
78.6
267.3
80.6
126.4
350.5
511.0

120.00
20.00
72.50
22.50
30.00
75.00
120.00

Gross
3.650
3.930
3.687
3.663
4.213
4.673
4.258

Gross
0.644
.694
.651
.629
.743
.825
.751

$1,073
1.038
1.068
1.085
1.007
.965
1.003

T otal-

Machinist................
Gatherer..................
Presser.....................
Transfer boy...........
Take-out boy..........
Peanut-roaster boy.
Carry-in boy...........

1,852.4

460.00

4.030

.711

1.027

2-OUNCE EXTRACT PANELS—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL, WITH FEEDER
Machinist...............
Operator..................
Transfer boy______
Peanut-roaster boy.
Carry-in boy...........

1
1
1
3H

$1.00 $0.17
.70
.50
.50
.25

1925
Jan...
June___
Sept___
Oct

175.0
53.0
209.0
135.0

30.00
9.00
39.00
26.00

5. 833
5. 888
5. 360
5. 231

1.591
1.606
1.462
1.427

$0,362
.358
.394
.403

2.12

Total.

572.0

104.00

5. 500

1.500

.384

.70
.50
.50
.50

Total..

2-OUNCE EXTRACT PANELS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: O'NEILL AND SINGLE FEEDER
2/l5

Chief operator.........

1 Operator..................
IX Turn-out boys.........
2/l5 Peanut-roaster boy.
H Carry-in boy...........

2
H

$0.78 $0,104
.70
.700
.30
.400
.040
.30
.45
.090

Total..

1.334

1925
Jan___
Feb.—
Mar___
Apr___
M ay__
S e p t....
O ct..
N ov..
Dec.Total .

i
356.0
1.190.0
206.0
634.0

$0,187
155
236
150

8.078
7.051
7.051
8.400

2.543
3.080
2.016
S. 167
3.098
2.885
2.518
2.518
3.000

7.992

2.854

.167

7.120
8.623
5.644
8.867

1.156.0
416.0
502.0
1.176.0

412.0

50.00
138.00
36.50
71.50
47.50
143.10
59.00
71.20
140.00

6,048.0

756.80

8.674

154

165
189
189
159

2-OUNCE EXTRACT PANELS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: O'NEILL TRIPLE, WITH P. N. FEEDER

H Chief operator..........

1
1
4

Machine operator
Feeder operator...... .
Turn-out boys_____
H Peanut-roaster boy
% Carry-in boy............

~7H

Total...............

$0.31 ! 1925
. 70 Feb
.70 Mar___
1.20 Apr____
. 12 M ay___
.27 June___
July----Aug.......
Sept___
Oct.......
N ov......
Dec

$0.78
. 70
.70
.30
.30
.45

i

3,122.0
3,042.0
1,052.0
2,044.0
3,110.0
2,740.0
3,186.0
2,440.0
2,540.0
2,690.0
1,422.0

3.30 ■ Total. 27,388.0

21.771
21.377
22.147
21.403
21.703
20,711
22.280
20.678
21.255
19.721
21.129

2.942
2.889
2.993
2.892
2.933
2.799
3.011
2.794
2.872
2.665
2.855

$0.152
. 154
. 149
. 154
.152
.159
.148
.160
.155
.167
.156

1,288.50 21.256

2.872

.155

143.40
142.30
47.50
95.50
143.30
132.30
143.00
118.00
119.50
136.40
67.30

2-OUNCE EXTRACT PANELS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. N. (10 ARMS)~SINGLE

H Machine foreman...
l Machine operator. _
lh Hot-ware inspector.
2 Carry-in boys.........
%
VI

Total..




I.75 i$0.150
. 55 ! . 550
. 52 j . 074
. 40
. 933
1.708

1925
O ct..
N ov„
D ec..
T otal.

1,021.1 :
1.207.8
4.758.9

79.30 12.876
98.00 12.324
373.30 12.748

3.503
3.352

$0,133
.139
.134

6,987.8

550.60 12.691

3.452

.135

72

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T able

A . — PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

2-OtTHCE EXTRACT PANELS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OVENS A. N. (10 ASMS) DOUBLE
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Machine foreman.._
Machine operator..
X Hot-ware inspector.
2X Carry-in boys_____

lX

3*i

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
hour hour

$0.80 $0,267
.600
.60
.112
.56
.42
1.959

Total.

Total
output

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

1925
Jan...
June___
July..

774.8

1 1 .8
,2 0

Gross
9.00 13.511
42.80 18 103
72.00 16.817

Gross
3.494
4.682
4.349

L145
.108
.116

Total

2,107.2

123.80 17.021

4.402

.115

Gross
121.6

2-OUNCE EXTRACT PANELS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. R. (10 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH
CONVEYOR
X Chief foreman____

1 Machine foreman..
1 Machine operator..
Total............
2
H

$1.20 $0.30
.90
.55

.90
.55

1.75

1917..
1918..
Total

3,733.0
466.0

287.00 13.007
35.90 12.981

5.780
5.769

$0,135
.135

4,199.0

322.90 13.004

5.779

.135

2-OUNCE EXTRACT PANELS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. R. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE, WITH
CONVEYOR
X Chief foreman____
Machine foreman..

1
1

2X

M a ch in e o p e r a to r .

$1.20 $0.30
.90
.55

1922..

15,227.0
14,758.0

828.00 18.390
824.00 17.910

8.173
7.960

$0,095
.098

Total _ 29,985.0

1,652.00 18.151

8.067

.096

.90
.55

1. 75

T o t a l . ..............

2-OUNCE EXTRACT PANELS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. V. (15 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH
CONVEYOR
Chief foreman.......
Machine foreman..
Machine operator _
2X

$ .2 |$ .2
10 00
.90
.55

Total............

.90
.55

-j

!

1.65

1919..
1920..
1921..

13,460.0
24,468.0
21,414.0

760.00 17.711
1,257.30 19.461
1,009.70 21.208

8. 174
8. 982
9. 788

$0,093
.085
.078

Total. 59,342.0

3,027.00 19.604

9. 048

.084

2-OUNCE EXTRACT PANELS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. V. (15 ARMS) DOUBLE, WITH
CONVEYOR
Chief foreman.......
Machine foreman..
Machine operator .

2
X

$1.20

.90
.55

Total..

$0.20
.90
.55

1.65

1925
Jan___
F eb ....
Mar___
Apr.
M ay___

202.0
1,072.0
2,890.0
4,286.0
4,384.0

Total. 12,834.0

10. 00
57. 50
122. 20
144. 00
144 00

20.200 9.828
20.816 9.607
23.650 10.915
29.764 13.787
80.444 U. 051

$0,082
.079
.070
.055
.054

471. 70 27.208 12.558

.061

2-OUNCE EXTRACT PANELS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS C. A. (10 ARMS) DOUBLE DUPLEX.
WITH CONVEYOR

X Chief foreman_____

Machine foreman.
Machine operators..

3X

Total..




$1.20
.90
.55

$0.20
.90

10
.1
2.20

1925
Apr.......
M ay___
Sept___
Oct........

4.502.0
1.386.0
3.474.0
5.169.0

T otal.. 14,531.0

111.40
40.00
90.50
138.20

12.762
10.942
12.122
11.811

$0,054
.063
.057
.059

380.10 38.229 12.072

.057

40.413
34.650
38.387
37.402

CHAPTER I .---- BOTTLES AND JARS
T able A .—

73

PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued
ONE-HALF PINT SODAS—HAND
Labor unit

Num­
ber of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

Blowers................
Finisher................
Mold boy.............
Cleaning-off b o y ..
Snapping-up boy_
Carry-in boy........

►
$1.04

Total.

1.04

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

Quantity
or
amount

Item

Average output per 8 hours----_
Average output per unit-hour .........do_
Average output per man-hour..........do__
Average blowing labor cost___ per gross.

22

2.75
.393
$1,622

1€
.

ONE-HALF PINT SODAS—SEMIAUTOMATIC TWO-MAN MACHINE (JERSEY DEVIL)
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work-

X

Occupation

Machinist................
Gatherer..................
Presser.....................
Transfer boy...........
Take-out boy..........
Peanut roaster boy.
Carry-in boy______

Total..

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
month
per
per
hour hour

$1.00

0.167

.50
.50

.500
.500

.50

.250

1.67

.67

1.797

Total
output

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
manhour

1923
Jan____
Feb.......
Mar___
Apr.......
M ay----June----July___
Aug.......

Oross
200.0
317.1
426.3
567.4
694.8
411.4
609.3
408.5

60.00
120.00
162.00
225.00
245.50
142.50
180.00
135.00

Oross
3.333
2.643
2.631
2.522
2.830
2.887
8.385
3.026

Gross
0.588
.466
.464

Total __

3,634.8

1,270.00

2.861

.505

.499
.509
.697
.534

$1.210
1.351
1.354
1.881
1.306
1.290

1.202

1.265

1
.2

ONE-HALF PINT SODAS—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: TEEPLE-JOHNSON, WITH GATHERER

H
1
1
1
1

4K

Machine foreman.
$0.95 $0,080
Machinist_________
1.15
.287
Gatherer. ................. $0.44
Transfer boy_______
” .38’ ”.380’
Take-out boy_______
.38
.380
Carry-in boy_______
.38
.380

Total................

.44 ........... 1.507

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
Apr____
M ay----June___
Aug-----Sept___
Oct____
Dec....... .

1.272.0
1.112.0
1.696.0
1.069.0
1.191.0
895.0
1,705.0
216.0
273.0
819.0

343.00
327.00
468.00
301.00
370.00
271.00
566.00
72.00
77.00
245.00

8.709
3.401
3.624
3.552
3.219
3.303
3.011
8.000
3.546
3.343

0.860
.785
.836
.820
.743
.762
.695
.692
.818
.771

$0,847
.884
.857
.865
.909
.894
.941
.948
.866
.892

T otal. 10,248.0

3,040.00

3.371

.778

.888

ONE-HALF PINT SODAS-SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL, WITH GATHERER
H
1
1
A
l
lH

Machine foreman
Gatherer................... 1
Transfer man____
>$0.67
Swing man________
Carry-in boys______

3ty
e

Total................




.67

$1.00 $0,167

.50

.583

.750

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
Apr____
M ay----June___
Ju ly.—
Aug.......

3.213.0
2.957.0
2.170.0
3.641.0
5.991.0
3.759.0
3.468.0
622.0

752.00
728.00
512.00
904.00
1,272.00
872.00
736.00
128.00

4.273
4.062
4.238
4.028
4.710
4,311
4.712
4.859

1.115
1.060
1.106
1.051
1.229
1.125
1.229
1.268

$0,845
.855
.847
.856
.829
.844
.829
.824

Total. 25,821.0

5,904.00

4.373

1.141

.841

74

PRODUCTIVITY OP LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T a b l e A . — P R O D U C TIO N A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES

B Y H A N D A N D B Y M AC H IN E— Continued
ONE-HALF PINT SODAS—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: LYNCH, WITH GATHERER
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Machine foreman..
Machinist.............
Gatherers............ .
Carry-in boy.........
3H

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates
cost Year and
per
per
per
month
hour hour

$0.44

$0.95 $0,080
1.15
.287
.38

.380

Total...................... 44 ................ 747

Total
output

Unithours

1925
Jan........
Feb.......
Mar----Apr.......

Gross
413.0
667.0
1,329.0
531.0

93.00
157.00
292.00

Total.

2,940.0

653.00

11 0
1 .0

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
manhour

Gross
4.409

1784

Gross
1.323 $0,610
i.m .616
1.365
.605
1.486
.697

4.503

1.351

4. *49
4.551

.607

ONE-HALF PINT SODAS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL AND FEEDER
Machine foreman..
lH Machine operator..
iH Carry-in boys........

2
H

Total..

$1.00 $0,167
.75
.50

.750
.582

1.499

1925
Feb.......
Mar.......
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July.......
Aug.......
Nov.......
Dec.......

1.902.0
840.0
4.291.0
7.721.0
5.364.0
6.173.0
4.353.0
2.927.0
6.741.0

288.00
134.00
726.00
[, 143.50
809.00
959.00
662.00
427.00
992.00

T otal. 40,312.0

6,140.50

6.604
6.269
6.910
6.752
6.630
6.437
6.576

50.227
.239
.*64

6.795

2.830
2.687
2.5SS
2.894
2.841
2.759
2.818
2.988
2.912

6.565

2.814

.229

66
.8 6

.222

.226
.233
.228
. 219
.221

ONE-HALF PINT SODAS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE TRIPLE UNIT AND P. N.
FEEDER

A Machine foreman
l

3

$0.80 $0,400
.60 1.800
.56
.336
Carry-in boys...........
.42 "2.520
Swing (extra) man__ ...........
.42
.420

Machine operators...

H Hot-ware inspector.. ______

6
1

11*

Total................

5.476

1925
Jan____ 5,303.7
Feb
5,710.9
Mar___
8,911.6
Apr....... 10,283.7
M ay___ 8,484.6
June___ 10,765.1
July . .. . 8,125.1
Aug....... 1,511.5
Sept___
819.2
Oct........ 6,889.2
Dec....... 5,098.0
Total. 71,902.6

ONE-HALF PINT SODAS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS
CONVEYOR
Machine foreman..
Machinist..............
Machine operator..
Helper....................

i«/«

Total..

$0.90 $0,075
.75
.375
.70
.700
.50
.125
1.275

287.20
326.80
421.40
516.60
402.60
524.50
383.70
72.10
39.70
338.40
255.90

18.467
17.475
21.148
19.907
21.075
20.524
21.176
20.964
21.168
20.358
19.922

1.664
1.674
1.905
1.793
1.899
1.849
1.908
1.889
1.907
1.834
1.795

$0,296
.818
.259
.275
.260
.267
.259
.261
.259
.269
.275

3,568.90 20.147

1.815

.272

A. R. (10 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH

24,269.0
43,597.0
253.0

2,074.00 11.702
3,663.00 11.902
21.00 12.048

6.382
6.492
6.572

$0,109
.107
.106

Total. _ 68,119.0

5,758.00 11.830

6.453

.108

1923.
1924.
1925.

ONE-HALF PINT SODAS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. E. (6 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH
CONVEYOR

Ji
IVe

Machine foreman..
Machinist..... ........
Machine operator..
Helper...................

$0,075
.375
.700
.125

Total.

1.275




1923
1924
1925.

198.730.0 21.685.00 9.164
115.358.0 13.481.00 8.557
167.738.0 19.015.00 ! 8.821

Total.. 481,726.0 54,181.00

& 878

4.999
4.667
4.811

$0,136
.149
.145

4.842

.144

CHAPTER X.---- BOTTLES AND JARS

75

T a b l e A . — PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES

B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
ONE-HALF PINT SODAS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. Q. (15 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH
CONVEYOR
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
gross hour hour

$0.90 $0,113
.80 1.600
.125
.50
.063
.50

Machine foreman—
Machine operators .
Helper................. . . .
Hot-ware inspector.,

y»
2
H
A
L
2>2

1.900

Total...............

Total
output

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross
41,150.0
9.965.0
1.062.0

Gross
2,724.00 15.106
580.00 17.181
69.00 15.391

Gross
6.042
6.872
6.156

$0,126
.111
.124

Total __ 52,177.0

3,373.00 15.469

6.188

.123

1923
1924
1925

1-PINT BEERS—HAND
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers
2
1
1
1
1
1

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

....... ..... }$1.04
Blowers
Finisher
___
Mold boy__________
$0.40 $0.40
1 Cleaning-off boy____
.40
.40
Snapping-up boy___ ...........
.40 i .40
Carry-in boy......... .
, 4 « ; .40

7

1.04

Total________

i

Quantity
or
amount

Item

Average output per 8 hours______ gross..
Average output per unit-hour........ do___
Average output per man-hour____ do___
Average blowing labor cost___per gross..

22
2.75
.393
$1.622

1.60

1-PINT BEERS-SEMIAUTOMATIC TWO-MAN MACHINE (JERSEY DEVIL)
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
gross hour hour

H Machinist_________

1
1
1
1
1

V
*

Gatherer................
Presser...................... |$0.67
Transfer b o y ...........
Take-out boy............
Peanut-roaster boy .
Carry-in boy ............
Total...............

5%

.67

$1.00 $0,167
.50
.50
.38
.50

.500
.500
.380
.250
1.797

Total
output

Unithours

1923
M ay___
June___
Nov
Dec.......

Gross
148.4
43.5
49.0
95.0

60.00
15.00
16.50
35.00

Total..

332.9

126.50

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­
put Labor
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross Gross
2.428 0.428
2.900
.512
2.970
.524
2.714
.479

2.632

.464

$1.418
1.291
1.276
1.333

1.354

1-PINT BEERS-SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: TEEPLE-JOHNSON, WITH GATHERER
$0,080
Machine foreman...
$0.95 1
1.15 i .287
Machinist..... ...........
1
Gatherer................... $6.44~
.38
Transfer boy.............
.380
.38
.380
Take-out boy............
.38
.380
Carry-in boy ............

a
i
i
i
i
4^

!

1925
Sept___
Oct____
Nov
Dec.......

319.0
* 338.0
527.0
208.0

96.00
98.00
153.00
67.00

3.323
8.449
3.445
8.105

0.767
.796
.795
.717

$0,876
.878
.878
.926

.44 ...........| 1.507

Total. .

1,392.0

414.00

3.362

.776

'.889

Total...............




PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN TH E GLASS INDUSTRY

76
T able

A .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

1-PINT BEERS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE TRIPLE UNIT, WITH P. N. FEEDER

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
month
per
per
hour hour

Machine foreman.._
Machine operators..
Hot-ware inspector.
Carry-in b o y s_____
Swing (extra) man..

llrs

$0,400
1.800
.66
.336
.42 2.520
.42
.420

1925
Mar___
Apr___
M a y ...
June —
July..
Aug..
Sept___
Oct_.
Nov—
D ec..

Total
output

Unithours

Gross
802.5
3.143.0
889.1
734.5
1,775.3
2.227.0
784.4
559.3
953.3
1,847.9

T otal. 13,716.3

Total..

48.80
170.30
49.20
44.50
95.40
118.10
39.90
30.30
46.80
94.30

Out­
put
per
unithour
Gross
16. U5
18.456
18.071
16.506
18. 610
18.857
19.659
18.460

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
mangross
hour
Gross

1.482

19. 596

1.663
1.628
1.487
1.677
1.699
1.771
1.663
1.835
1.765

$0.333
.296
.303
.332
.294
.290
.278
.297
.269
.279

737.60 18.595

1.675

.294

16
34

1-PINT BEERS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. E. (6 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH CONVEYOR
Machine foreman..
Machinist....... .......
Machine operator..
Helper....................
X
lJ
/e

$0.90 $0,075
.75
.375
.70
.700
.50
.125

Total..

1.275

212,283.0 22,377. 00
96,961.0 11,330. 00
270,055.0 30,377. 00

9.487
8.558
8.890

5.175
4.668
4.849

$0,134
.149
.143

Total. 579,299.0 64,084. 00

9.040

4.931

.141

1923.
1924.
1925.

1-PINT BEERS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. R. (10 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH CONVEYOR

X
i«/«

Machine foreman. _
Machinist_______
Machine operator..
Helper....................

$0.90 $0,075
.75
.375
.70
.700
.50
.125

Total..

1.275

1923
1924
1925

31,171.0 2,466.00 12.640
60,343.0 4,471.00 13.497
155,894.0 11,437.00 13.631

6.895
7.362
7.435

$0,101
.095
.094

T otal. 247,308.0 18,374.00 13.460

7.342

.095

1-PINT BEERS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. Q. (15 ARMS) SINGLE, WITH CONVEYOR

X Machine foreman...

$0.90 $0,113 I 1923..
.80 1.600 ! 1924..
.50
.125 ! 1925.
.50
.063 |

Machine operators..
X Helper......................
X Hot-ware inspector.

2

2X

Total..............

1.900

109,820.0 6,652.00 16.509
250,557. 0 13,508.00 18.549
381,301.0 19,613.00 19.441

6.604
7.420
7.776

$0,115
.102
.098

Total. 741,678.0 39,763.00 18.652

7.661

.102

ONE-HALF PINT WHISKY DANDIES—HAND
Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers
2
1
1
1
1
1
7

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates
cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

Blowers.................... |$0.87
Finisher. _____ J____
Mold boy .................
Cleaning-off boy.......
Snapping-up boy
Carry-in boy__.........
Total...............




.87

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

$0.40
.40
.40
.40
1.60

Item

Average
Average
Average
Average

output per 8 hours.......... gross._
output per unit-hour....... do___
output per man-hour....... do___
blowing labor cost—per gross..

Quantity
or
amount

25
3.125
.446
$1,382

CHAPTER I.— BOTTLES AND JARS

77

T a b l e A . — P R O D U C TIO N A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES

B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
ONE-HALF PINT WHISKY DANDIES—SEMIAUTOMATIC TWO-MAN MACHINE (JERSEY DEVIL;
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage
rates
per

}$0. 56
.60
.60

.500
.500

.50

.250

.56

Total............

5%

Labor
cost Year and
month
per
hour

$1.00 $0,167

Machine foreman. __

i* Gatherer.................
1 Presser....... ............
1 Transfer b o y .........
1 Take-out boy..........
1 Peanut-roaster boy.
v Carry-in boy...........
*

rates
per
hour

1.797

Total
output

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
manhour
Gross
0.541

1923
Jan____
Feb___
Mar___
M ay_
_
July....
Aug----Oct____
Nov___
Dec___

Gross
46.0
141.8
266.3
198.0
133.5
151.5
266.0
197.7
293.1

15.00
40.00
67.50
55.00
37.50
45.00
67.50
52.00
75.00

Gross
3.067
3.545
3.950
3.600
3.660
3.367
3.960
3.790
3.908

Total..

1,693.9

454.00

3.731

$1.147
1.068
1.016
1.060
1.066
1.095
1.016
1.035
1.021
1.042

ONE-HALF PINT WHISKY DANDIES—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL, WITH FEEDER

i*
1
1
X
A

$1.00

.70
.50
.50
.50

Total..

3%

0.167
.700
.500
.500
.250

1925
Jan____
Feb
July___
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct
N ov___
Dec.......

728.0
52.0
224.0
638.0
729.0
276.0
1,242.0
1,227.0

131.00
11.00
53.00
118.00
142.00
58.00
229.00
235.00

5.558
4.727
4.227
5.407
5.134
4.759
5.424
5.221

1.516
1.289
1.153
1.475
1.401
1.298
1.479
1.424

$0,380
.446
.500
.390
.411
.443
.389
.404

2.117

Machinist.................
Machine operator_
_
Transfer boy_______
Peanut-roaster b o y ..
Carry-in b oy.............

T otal.

5,116.0

977.00

5.237

1.428

.403

ONE-HALF PINT WHISKY DANDIES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL AND FEEDER
Machine foreman..
Machine operator..
Carry-in boy.........

2
H

I

$1.00 $0,167

1925
Jan____
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct____
Nov___
Dec.......

357.0
382.0
99.0
2,164.0
1,334.0
1,890.0

69.00
64.50
20.00
360.00
224.00
317.00

5.174
5.922
4.950
6.011
5.955
5.962

2.388
2.733
2.285
2.774
2.748
2.752

$0,264
.231
.276
.227
.229
.229

1.367

T ota l-

6,226.0

1,054.50

5.904

2.725

.231

.70
.50

Total.

.700
.500

ONE-HALF PINT WHISKY DANDIES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: LYNCH AND FEEDER
Chief operator.......
Machine operator..
Carry-in boy.........

2
H

Total-

$0.15
.60
.31

1925
M ay___
June___
July......
Aug.......
Sept__„
Oct........
N ov......
Dec.......

718.0
1,124.0
200.0
443.0
413.0
356.0
543.0
956.0

96.00
144.00
26.00
57.00
58.00
48.00
76.00
132.00

7.479
7.806
7.692
7.772
7.121
7.417
7.145
7.243

3.452
3.603
3.550
3.587
3.287
3.423
3.298
3.343

$0,142
.136
.138
.136
.149
.143
.148
.146

1.06

$0.90
.60
.31

T ota l-

4.753.0

637.00

7.462

3.444

.142

ONE-HALF PINT WHISKY DANDIES^—
AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. R. (10 ARMS), SINGLE
Machine foreman...

1* Machine operator...
inspector.
H Hot-wareboys_____
Carry-in
4H

Total..

40780°— 27------- 6




$0.80 $0,267
.60
.600
.112
.56
.42 1.400
2.379

1925
Sept----Oct.......
Nov___
Dec.......

531.4
336.4
953.8
674.4

41.10 12.929
27.70 12.144
73.90 12.907

T otal-

2,496.0

1.1 4
08

11.184

2.657
2.495
2.652
2.298

203.00 12.296

2.321

.194

.196
.184
.213

78

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T able

A .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued
l-PINT WHISKY DANDIES—HAND
Labor unit

Num­
ber of
work­
ers

Occupation

|

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

2
1
1
1
1
1

Blowers....................
Finisher_____•
........... }$1.15
Mold boy..................
Cleaning-off boy____
Snapping-up boy
Carry-in boy.............

7

Total................

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

1.15

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

Quantity
or
amount

Item

Average output per 8 hours______ gross..
Average output per unit-hour____ do___
Average output per man-hour........do___
Average blowing labor cost___per gross. _

20
2.50
.357
$1.790

1.60

1-PINT WHISKY DANDIES—SEMIAUTOMATIC TWO-MAN MACHINE (JERSEY DEVIL)
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
gross hour hour
$1.00

$0.167

.50
.50
.38
.50

.500
.500
.380
.250

1923
July----Aug.......
Sept___
Oct
Nov
Dec

.67 ..........

1.797

Total.

i*
1
1
1
1
H

Machine foreman..
Gatherer.................. j$0 . 67
Presser......................
Transfer boy.............
Take-out boy______
Peanut-roaster boy ..
Carry-in boy__.........

5H

Total................

Total
output

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross
121.1
178.4
322.3
337.4
289.4
131.0

48.00
65.50
115.00
116.00
90.00
45.00

Gross
2.528
2.724
2.803
2.909
8. 216
2.911

Gross
0.JU5
.481
.495
.513
.568
.514

$1,888
1.331
1.312
1.289
1.280
1.283

1,379.6

479.50

2.878'

.508

1.295

1-PINT WHISKY DANDIES—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: TEEPLE-JOHNSON, WITH GATHERER
*
H
1
1
1
1

4H

Machine foreman
M ach in ist

_

______

Gatherer _________ $0.41
Transfer boy_ ...........
Take-out boy............ ______
Carry-in boy_______

Total................

$0.95 $0,080
1.15
.287
.38
.38
.38

.380
.380
.380

.41 ........... 1.507

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
Apr.......
M ay___
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct........
N ov___
Dec.......

1,006.0
588.0
422.0
731.0
646.0
163.0
871.0
700.0
19.0
664.0

279.00
160.00
122.00
218.00
194.00
56.00
298.00
199.00
5.00
202.00

3.606
3.675
3.459
3.353
3.330
2.911
2.923
3.518
8.800
3.287

0.832
.848
.798
.774
.768
.672
.676
.766
.877
.759

$0,829
.821
.847
.860
.863
.929
.927
.839
.807
.869

Total.

5,810.0

1,733.00

3.353

.774

.860

1-PINT WHISKY DANDIES—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL, WITH GATHERER

A
*
1
1

Machine foreman..
Machinist.............
Gatherer...............
Transfer boy.........
Carry-in boys.......

3*

TotaL.




$0.75 $0,068 ! 1917-.
.75
.136 | 1918..
$0.39
.

.40
.35

11,531.0
722.0

3,783.00
241.00

3.048
2.996

0.906
.891

$0,716
.722

T o ta l.. 12,253.0

4,024.00

3.042

.904

.717

.400
.382
.986 !

CHAPTER I.---- BOTTLES AND JARS

79

T a b l e A . — PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES

B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
l-PINT WHISKY DANDIES—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: LYNCH, WITH GATHERER
Labor unit

Total...............

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
mangross
hour

2.485.00
1.012.00

Gross
3.713
3.536

Gross
1.571
1.496

$0,550
.558

Total.! 12,806.0
1

3,497.00

3.662

1.549

.552

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
gross hour hour

.39 ...........

.586

Total
output

Gross
1919
1920

m

$0.75 $0,068
ft Machine foreman
* Machinist...............
.75
.136
1
Gatherer. ................. $0.39
Carry-in boys...........
" ’ .'35' ” . 382’
’
2tt

Unithours

00

Occupation

wo

Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Output and labor cost

1-PINT WHISKY DANDIES-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL AND FEEDER
X Machine foreman
1 Machine operator
1 Carry-in boy_______

$1.00 $0,167
.70
.700
.50
.500

1925
Jan____
Feb
Apr
M ay___
June___
July___
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct
.
N ov......
Dec.......

1,250.0
117.0
340.0
297.0
205.0
404.0
594.0
931.0
1,020.0
1,237.0
254.0

244.00
25.00
69.00
67.00
42.00
86.00
122.00
181.00
185.00
227.00
48.00

5.123
4.680
4.920
1488
4.881
4.698
4.869
5.144
6.514
5.449
5.292

2.364
2.160
2.274
2.046
2.253
2.168
2.247
2.374
2.545
2.515
2.442

$0,267
.292
.277
.808
.280
.291
.281
.266
.248
.251
.258

Total...............

1.367

Total -

6,649.0

1,296.00

5.130

2.368

.266

2X

1-PINT WHISKY DANDIES-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: LYNCH AND FEEDER

X Chief operator...........

1
1

2X

Machine operator
Carry-in boy.............

Total...............

$0.15
.60
.31

1925
Aug.......
Sept----Oct........
Nov----D e c___

381.0
232.0
684.0
750.0
817.0

72.00
49.00
112.00
122.00
144.00

5.292
4.785
6.108
6.148
5. 674

2.442
2.186
2. 819
2.888
2.619

$0,200
.224
.174
.172
.187

1.06

$0.90
.60
.31

Total.

2,864.0

499.00

5.740

2.649

.185

1-PINT WHISKY DANDIES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. E. (6 ARMS) SINGLE

X Machine foreman ...

$0.80 $0,267
.60
.600
.112
.56
.42
.980

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
June___

247.2
464.4
499.8
990.0

32.30
65.80
71.00
143.80

7.658
7.058
7.039
6.885

1.979
1.825
1.820
1.781

$0,256
.277
.278
.284

Total...............

1.959

Total.

2,201.4

312.90

7.035

1.819

.278

Machine operator,... ...........
X Hot-ware inspector.
2X Carry-in boys...........
1

m

l-PINT WHISKY DANDIES-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. R. (10 ARMS) SINGLE

X Machine foreman ..

Machine operator_
_
X Hot-ware inspector
SX Carry-in boys...........

$0.80 $0,267
.60
.600
.112
.56
.42 1.400

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
Apr.......
M ay___
July----Sept----Dec____

1

4*3

Total...............




2.379

1,442.3
1,010.2
483.3
248.0
585.5
413.3
773.2
771. 5
1,110.2

143.20 10.080
106.20 9.603
52.70 9.171
30.50 8.131
63.50 9.221
53.70 7.690
82.20 9.406
79.00 9.760
113.20 9.807

2.071
1.973
1.884
1.671
1.895
1.580
1.933
2.005
2.015

$0,286
.248
.259
.293
.258
.809
.253
.244
.242

Total.

6,837.5

724.20 j 9.441

1.940

.252

80

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN TH E GLASS INDUSTRY

T a b l e A . — PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES

B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
l-PINT MILK BOTTLES—HAND
Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

Blower____________ )
Gatherer.................... f$l. 75
Finisher....... ............
Mold boy.................
Knocking-off boy
Snapping-up boy
Carry-in b oy_______
Total________

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

1.75

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

Quantity
or
amount

Item

Average output per 8 hours ...
gross
Average output per unit-hour.........do___
Average output per man-hour........do___
Average blowing labor cost per gross____

20
2.5
.357
$2,390

1.60

1-PINT MILK BOTTLES—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: TEEPLE-JOHNSON, WITH GATHERER
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
per
per
month
gross hour hour

$0.95 $0,080
Machine foreman—
1.15
.287
t\ Machinist.................
Gatherer................... $0.43
1
Turn-out boy............
1
'"'."38" "’ . 380’
’
1

3H

Carry-in boy.............

Total................

.38

.43

.380

1.127

Total
output

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross
1.597.0
2.328.0
1.648.0
1, 750.0
1.860.0
1.252.0
1.713.0
1, 511.0
1.726.0
2.479.0
1.205.0

506.00
764.00
529.00
543.00
648.00
404.00
625.00
500.00
544.00
752.00
379.00

Gross
3.156
3.047
3.115
3.223
2.870
3.099
2.741
3.022
3.173
3.297
3.179

Gross
0.947
.914
.935
.967
.861
.930
.822
.907
.952
.989
.954

$0,787
.800
.792
.780
.823
.794
.841
.803
.785
.772
.784

Total. 19,069.0

6,194.00

3.079

.924

.796

1925
Jan........
Feb
Mar.......
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
Aug.......
Sept
Oct........
N ov......
Dec.......

1-PINT MILK BOTTLES—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: MILLER, WITH GATHERER
Machine foreman..
H Machinist.................
3
Gatherers.................. $0.43
1
Transfer boy (ma­
chine tender).........
Carry-in boy.............
1

5H

Total................




$0.95 $0,080
1.15
.287
.38
.38

.380
.380

.43 ........... 1.127

1925
Jan........
Feb
M ar..,,
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
Aug.......
Sept......
Oct........
N ov......
Dec.......

599.0
1.176.0
1.192.0
1.678.0
1.226.0
1,142. 0
136.0
929.0
1.056.0
2.134.0
963.0

125.00
224.00
237.00
340.00
266.00
247.00
24.00
166.00
178.00
375.00
176.00

Total. 12,271.0

2,358.00

4.792 $0,899
.984
5.250
.943
5.030
4.935
.925
4.759
.892
4.623
.867
5.667 1.063
5.596 1.049
5.933 1.112
5.691 1.067
5.472 1.026
5.204

.976

$0,665
.645
.654
.658
.667
.674
.629
.631
.620
.628
.636
.647

CHAPTER I .— BOTTLES AND JARS
T able

81

A . — PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

1-PINT MILK BOTTLES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: MILLER, WITH SINGLE FEEDER AND CONVEYOR
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work-

X
1
1

Occupation

Machine foreman..
Machine operator..
Take-out boy.........

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
hour hour

$0.70

.65

.28

.65
.28

Total..,

Total
output

Gross
1925
Jan........ 3,202.0
2,251.0
Feb
Mar....... 3,526.0
Apr....... 3,249.0
M ay___ 4,073.0
June___ 2.641.0
4.481.0
July
Aug....... 4,335.0
Sept___ 4,437.0
Oct........ 3,465.0
Nov...... 3,605.0
Dec....... 3,351.0
T otal. 42,616. 0

Unithours

735.00
612.00
723.00
783.00
856.00
712.00
1,071.00
1,015.00
912.00
688.00
712.00
648.00
9,467.00

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross Gross
4.356 1.815
3.678 1.533
4.877 2.032
4.149 1.729
4.758 1.983
3.709 1.545
4184 1.743
4.271 1.780
4.865 2.027
5.036 2.098
5.063 2.110
5.171 2.155
4.502 1.876

$0,278
.329
.248
.292
.254
.326
.289
.283
.249
.240
.239
.234
.269

1-PINT MILK BOTTLES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE, WITH DOUBLE FEEDER
Machine foreman...
Machine operators.
Carry-in boys_____

$0.90
.66

.42

Total..

$0.90
1.32
2.52

4.74

1925
Jan___
F e b ....
Mar___
Apr___
M ay—
June_
_
July— .
Aug----Sept___
O ct.—
N ov___
Dec___
Total

3.981.0
554.0
2.558.0
3.215.0
1.703.0
8.277.0

2 8 .0
.6 8

5.530.0
4.447.0
4.494.0
3.877.0
4.176.0
45,500.0

314.00
42.00
184.50
239.00
123.00
603.50
199.00
415.00
331.00
340.00
300.00
309.00
3,400.00

12.678
13.190
IS. 864
13.452
13.846
13.715
13.508
13.325
13.435
13. 218
12.923
13. 515
13.382

1.409
1.466
1.540
1.495
1.538
1.524
1.501
1.481
1.493
1.469
1.436
1.502
1.487

$0,374

.359
. 32
4
.352
.342
.346
.351
.356
.353
.359
.367
.351
.354

1-PINT MILK BOTTLES-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE, WITH DOUBLE FEEDER
AND CONVEYOR

V Machine foreman
k

1
1

Machine operator
Helper____________

TotaL..............

$1.00
.70
.50

$0.17
.70
.50

1.37

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July___

1,481.0
868.0
565.0
1,975.0
1,692.0
2,270.0
3,417.0
2,092.0
Sept___
2,201.0
1,777.0
Nov ..
1,400.0
Dec....... 1,388.0
Total. 21,126.0

141.50
90.00
61.00
176.00
147.00
196.00
289.50
179.00
188.00
152.00
117.00
115.00
1,852.00

10.466
9.644
9.262
11.222
11. 510
11. 582
11.803
11.687
11.707
11.691
11.966
12.070
11.407

4.830
4.451
4.275
5.179
5.312
5.346
5.448
5.394
5.403
5.396
5.523
5.571
5.265

$0,131
. 142
.148
.122
.119
.118
.116
.117
.117
.117
.114
.113
.120

1-PINT MILK BOTTLES-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. E. (6 ARMS) SINGLE
M Machine foreman
Machine operator_
_
Y2 Helper.......................
Carry-in boys...........
3

$0.75 $0,188
.50
.500
.42
.210
.40 1.200

Total................

2.098

l




1925
1,666.0
Jan____
1,494.0
Feb
1.040.0
Mar___
Apr....... 1.840.0
M ay___ 2,557.0
June___ 2,470.0
July
. 1,960.0
852.0
Aug.......
Sept___ 1,423.0
Oct____ 5,121.0
N ov___
1,676.0
875.0
Dec.......
T ota l.. 22,983.0

273.50
254.00
180.00
316.00
414.00
411.00
351.00
161.00
250.00
1,118.00
311.00
146.00
4,185.50

6.091
5.882
5.778
5.823
6.176
6.032
5.584
5.292
5.692
4.581
5.389
5.993
5.491

1.282
1.238
1.216
1.226
1.300
1.270
1.176
1.114
1.198
.964
1.135
1.262
1.156

$0,344
.357
.363
.360
.340
.348
.376
.396
.369
.458
.389
.350
.382

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

82
T able

A . — PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE—Continued

1-PINT M UK BOTTLES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. R. (10 ARMS) SINGLE

Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work-

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
hour hour

X Machine foreman .
Machine operator.
Helper....................
Carry-in boys........

$0.70
.60
.48
.48

Total.

$0.35
.60
.24
1.92

3.11

Unithours

Total
output

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross
2. 795.0
3,345.0
5.518.0
4,011.0
4,427.0
3,968.0
4,667.0
4,063.0
4,065.0

432.00
576.00
740.00
600.00
648.00
576.00
648.00
600.00
576.00

Gross
6.470
5.807
7.^57
6.685
6.832
6.889
7.202
6.772
7.057

Gross
1.078
.968
1 . 24$
1.114
1.139
1.148
1,200
1.129
1.176

$0,481
.686
.417
.465
.455
.451
.432
.459
.441

T otal. 36,859.0

5,396.00

6.831

1.139

.455

1923
Mar___
Apr-----June___
July......
Aug . . . .
Sept___
Oct........
N o v ___
Dec

1-QUART MILK BOTTLES—HAND
Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers
1

l
1
1
1
1
1
7

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

B low er___________ 1
Finisher................... . >$2.18
Gatherer. _ ..............
Mold boy..................
Knocking-off boy
Snapping-up boy___
Carry-in boy.............

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

2.18

Total___

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

Quantity
or
amount

Item

Average output per 8 hours ____gross..
Average output per unit-hour........do___
Average output per man-hour____ do___
Average blowing labor cost— per gross..

16
2
.286
$2.980

1.60

1-QUART MILK BOTTLES—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: TEEPLE-JOHNSON, AND GATHERER
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Machine foreman..
Machinist.............
Gatherer- ............ .
Turn-out boy........
Carry-in boy.........

3X

Total...............




Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
per
per
month
hour hour

$0.66

.66

$0.95 $0,080
.287
1.15
.38
.38

.380
.380

1925
Jan____
Feb.......
Mar___
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct
N ov___
Dec.......

Total
output

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
mangross
hour

Gross
1,302.0
1,368.0
1,434.0
1,470.0
1,247.0
766.0
1,188.0
1,248.0
1,446.0
1,389.0
754.0

506.00
519.00
529.00
543.00
497.00
298.00
500.00
471.00
572.00
542.00
294.00

Gross
2.573
2.636
2.711
2.707
2.509
2.570
2.376
2,650
2.528
2.563
2.565

Gross
0.772
.791
.818
.812
.753
.771
.713
.795
.758
.769
.770

$1.098
1.087
1.076
1.076
1.109
1.098
1.134
1.085
1.106
1.100
1.099

T otal. 13,612.0

5,271.00

2.582

.775

1.096

83

CHAPTER I .— BOTTLES AND JARS
T able

A .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN M AK ING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

l-QUART MILK BOTTLES—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: MILLER, WITH GATHERER

Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Machine foreman..
Machinst............... .
Gatherers. .............
Machine tender___
Carry-in boy......... .

Total___

5H

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
month
per
per
per
gross hour hour

$0.66

$0.95 $0,080
.288
L 15
.380
.380

........... 1.128

Total
output

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
manhour

Gross
4.423
4.368
4.352
4.163

Gross
0.829
.819
.816
.781
.824
.789
.762
.903
.963
.842

Gross
1.849.0
1.092.0
1.275.0
841.0
1.027.0
1.170.0
£91.0
1.676.0
1.926.0
422.0
1.835.0

418.00
250.00
293.00
202.00
245.00
278.00
247.00
348.00
375.00
94.00
351.00

4.816
5.136
4.489
5.228

T otal. 14,154.0

3,101.00

4.564

1925
Jan__
Feb...
Mar___
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
Aug.......
Sept----O c t...
N ov._
Dec—

4.209

4.012

.856

$0,915
.918
.919
.931
.916
.928
.941
.894
.879
.911
.876
.907

1-QUART MILK BOTTLES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: MILLER, WITH FEEDER AND WITH CONVEYOR
Machine foreman..
Machine operator.
Take-out boy.........

2
%

. $0.70
.65
. .28

1925

7,136.0
4,429.0
7,099.0
5,983.0
M ay___ 6,235.0
June___ 4,408.0
9,258.0
July___
Aug....... 8,778.0
Sept----- 8,810.0
Oct........ 10,038.0
N ov___
7,478.0
Dec....... 8,313.0

Total..

1,985.00
1,532.00
1,983.00
2,008.00
1,816.00
1,679. 00
2,927.00
2,432.00
2,144.00
2,376.00
2,088.00
2,184.00

3.595
2.891
3.580
2.980
3.433
2.625
3.163
3.609
4.109
4.225
3.581
3.806

1.498
1.205
1.492
1.242
1.430
1.094
1.318
1.504
1.712
1.760
1.492
1.586

$0,337
.418
.338
.406
.352
.461
.382
.335
.294
.286
.338
.318

T otal. 87,965.0 25,154.00

$0.28
.65
.28

3.497

1.457

.346

Feb .
Mar___

1-QUART MILK BOTTLES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE, WITH DOUBLE FEEDER
1
2
6

Machine foreman
Machine operators
Carry-in boys______

9

Total...............

1-QUART

MILK

1925
Jan____ 6,409.0
Feb
640.0
Mar...... 8,481.0
Apr....... 11,453.0
M ay----- 11,830.0
June----- 6,760.0
July___ 10,703.0
Aug....... 7,974.0
Sept----- 8,671.0
Oct
9,028.0
Nov . .. 8,688.0
D e c ...
3,501.0
Total. 94,138.0

583.00
56.00
809.00
987.00
1,032.50
612.00
980.50
736.00
775.00
767.50
771.00
315.00

10.993
11.429
10.483
11.604
11.458
11.046
10.916
10.834
11.188
11.763
11.268
11.114

1.222
1.270
1.165
1.289
1.273
1.227
1.213
1.204
1.243
1.307
1.252
1.235

$0,431
.415
.462
.408
.414
.429
.434
.437
.424
.403
.421
.426

8,424.50 11.174

1.242

.424

BOTTLES-AUTOMATTC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE,
FEEDER AND WITH CONVEYOR

lH Machine operator..
l Helper....................
Machine foreman..

2
%

$0.90
1.32
2.52

4.74

$0.90
.66
.42

$1.00 $0.17
.70
.50

Total........................................




.70
.50

1.37

WITH

DOUBLE

1925
Jan____
Feb___
Mar___
Apr___
M ay— .
June—
July.....
Aug----Sept—
Oct___
Nov___
Dec___

3.374.0
1.881.0
73.0
2.699.0
2.548.0
3.309.0
2.352.0
2.873.0
3.307.0
3.578.0
3.712.0
3.918.0

383.50
229.00
13.00
332.00
287.00
368.50
259.00
317.00
365.00
388.00
388.00
414.00

8.798
8.214
5.615
8.130
8.878
8.980
9.081
9.063
9.060
9.222
9.567
9.464

4.061
3.791
2.592
3.752
4.098
4.145
4.191
4.183
4.182
4.256
4.368

.168
.154
.152
.151
.151
.151
.148
.143
.144

Total

33,624.0

3,744.00

8.981

4.145

.152

1416

$0,155
.166

.2 8
4

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

84
T able

A . — PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

1-QUART MILK BOTTLES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. R. (10 ARMS) SINGLE

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Total
output

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross
7,107.0
5,345.0
3,454.0
1,584.0
3,124.0
3,490.0
3,196.0
3,841.0
3,624.0
3,290.0

1,152.00
864.00
648.00
288.00
600.00
648.00
576.00
648.00
600.00
576.00

Gross
6.169
6.186
5.330
5.500
6. mo
5.386
5.549
5.927
6.040
5.712

Gross
1.028 $0,504
1.0S1
.60S
.583
.888
.917
.565
.697
.868
.898
.577
.925
.560
.525
.988
1.007
.515
.952
.544

Total . 38,055.0

6,600.00

5.766

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
per
per
month
hour hour
$0.70
.60
.48
.48

Machine foreman..
Machine operator..
Helper....................
Carry-in boys........

$0.35
.60
.24
1.92

3.11

Total..

1923
Jan........
Feb
M a r .....
June___
July
Aug.......
Sept----Oct.......
Nov......
Dec.......

.961

.539

1-QUART MILK BOTTLES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. E. (6 ARMS) SINGLE
$0.75 $0,188
.50
.50
.2
1
.42
.40 1.20

Machine foreman..
Machine operator..
H e lp e r.................
Carry-in boys.........

2.098

Total..

1925
Jan____
Feb___
Mar___
Apr___
M ay___
June..
July...
A ug...
Sept___
Oct___
N o v ...
Dec___

3,649.0
3,861.0
3,318.0
3,214.0
1,700.0
941.0
3,954.0
2,959.0
2,900.0
822.0
2,544.0
3,270.0

638.00
708.00
617.00
617.00
329.00
190.00
836.00
609.00
589.00
175.00
626.00
615.00

6.719
5.453
5.378
5.209
5.167
4.953
4.730
4.859
4.924
4.697
4.064
5.317

1.204
1.148
1.132
1.097
1.088
1.043
.996
1.023
1.037
.989
.866
1.119

$0. S67
.385
.390
.403
.406
.423
.443
.432
.426
.447
.616
.394

T ota l.. 35,790.0

7,082.00

5.054

1.064

.415

ONE-HALF GALLON PACKER JUGS—HAND
Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers

Occupation

Blowers.--...........
Finisher................
Mold boy__.........
Cleaning-off b o y ..
Snapping-up boy..
Carry-in boy........
Total..




Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates
cost
per
per
per
hour hour

►
$2.43
$0.40
.40
.40
.40

$0.40
.40
.40
.40
1.60

Item

Average output in 8 hours.............. gross.
Average output per unit-hour____ d o ...
Average output per man-hour____ d o ...
Average blowing labor cost per gross___

Quantity
or
amount

10

1.25
.179
$3,710

CHAPTER I . — BOTTLES AND JARS
T able

85

A . — PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

ONE-HALF GALLON PACKER JUGS—SEMIAUTOMATIC TWO-MAN MACHINE (JERSEY DEVIL)
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

1
1
1
1
m

Machinist.......
Gatherer_____
Presser............
Transfer boy. _
Take-out boy..
Carry-in boys..

Total................

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
per
month
per
hour hour

$1.00
$1.29
.50
.50
.50

1.29 ..........

$0.17
.50
.50
.75

1.92

1923
Apr___
June...
July___
Aug___
Sept___
Oct____
N ov___
Total.

Total
output

Gross
70.4
71.6
140.8
171.3
117.0

50.00
50.00
94.50

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
manhour

Gross

Unithours

Gross
0.249 $2.059
.253
2.046
2.017
.263
1.986
.275
.258
2.031
2.037
.256
.271
1.995

1.408

87.6

80.00
47.50
57.00

1.432
1.490
1.557
1.462
1.449
1.536

727.5

489.00

1.488

68.8

110.00

. 263

2.018

ONE-HALF GALLON PACKER JUGS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: O’NEILL AND FEEDER

X Machinist..............

Machine operator..
Carry-in boys........

$1.00 $0.17
.70
.50

Total.

.70

10
.0

1.87

1925
June___
July......
Aug-----Sept.......
Oct........
Nov___

55.0
95.0
37.0
60.0
85.0
185.0

18.00
21.00
10.00
19.00
22.00
47.00

S. 056
4.524
3.700
3.158
3.864
3.936

0.965 $0.618
1.429
418
511
1.168
.997

Total.

517.0

137.00

3.774

1.192

1.220

1.243
.501

ONE-HALF GALLON PACKER JUGS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. L. (6 ARMS) SINGLE
Chief foreman.......
Machine foreman..
Machine operator..
Carry-in boys........

6H

$1.20 $0.20
.90
.55
.35

Total..

.90
.55
1.40

3.05

1919..
1920-

Total.

640.0
96.0

172.70
24.30

3.706
3.951

0.601
.640

$0,823
.772

736.0

197.00

3.736

.606

.816

ONE-HALF GALLON PACKER JUGS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. R. (10 ARMS) SINGLE

X Chief foreman........

Machine foreman. _
Machine operator..
Carry-in boys........

$1.20 $0.20
.90
.55
.35

Total..

.90
.55
1.40

3.05

1921.
1922.
1923.

Total.

973.0
1.787.0
2.003.0

239.40
484.80
532.80

4.064
3.686
3.759

0.659
.598
.610

$0,750
.828
.811

4,763.0

1,257.00

3.789

.614

.805

ONE-HALF GALLON PACKER JUGS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. Q. (15 ARMS) SINGLE

X Chief foreman.........
1 Machine foreman...
2 Machine operators..
4

7X

Carry-in boys____ _

Total. .




$1.20
.90
.55
.35

$0.20
.90

10
.1
1.40

3.60

1925
Jan___
F e b ....
Mar___
Aug.—
Sept___
Oct___
Nov___
Dec___

790.0
180.0
1.400.0
487.0
488.0
462.0
855.0
408.0

71.70
18.70
116.30
46.80
50.50
42.70
91.70
40.60

10.406
9.663
10.820
9.824
10.049

1.537
1.343
1.680
1.452
1.348
1.510
1.301
1.402

Total.

5.070.0

479.00 10.585

1.477

11.018
9.626

1 .0 8
2S

327
374
299
346
373
333
886

358
.340

86

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T able A . —

PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING BOTTLES
BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued
1-GALLON PACKER JUGS—HAND
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
gross hour hour

Blowers..................... |$3.55
Finisher.................
Mold boy..................
Cleaning-off boy
Snapping-up boy .
Carry-in boy.............

2
1
1
1
1
1

Total...............

7

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

$0.40
.40
.40
.40

3.55

Quantity
or
amount

Item

Average output in 8 hours.............. gross..
A verage output per unit-hour........ do___
Average output per man-hour........do___
Average blowing labor cost.
per gross..

8
1
.143
$5.150

1.60

1-GALLON PACKER JUGS-SEMIAUTOMATIC TWO-MAN MACHINE (JERSEY DEVIL)
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
month
per
per
gross hour hour

.50
.50
.75

Gross
207.7
112.7
141.8
107.8
60.1
247.9
266.9
163.8

180.00
105.00
124.00
98.00
54.00
215.00
231.00
133.50

1.92

T otal.

1,308.7

1,140.50

$0.17

.50
.50
.50

1.84 ..........

Machinist.................
Gatherer....................
Presser..................... }$1.84
Transfer boy.............
Take-out boy............
Carry-in boys...........

5H

Total...............

Unithours

1923
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July
Aug----Sept
Oct.......
N o v .....

$1.00

%i
1
1
1
1
1H

Total
output

1 Out'! put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour

Gross
1.154
1.073
1.053
1.100
1.113
1.153
1.156

Gross
0.204
.189
.186
.194
.196
.204
.204
1 .2 2 7 .217
1.147

.202

$2.779
2.849
2.868
2.825
2.813
2.879
2.877
2.721
2.784

1-GALLON PACKER JUGS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. L. (6 ARMS) SINGLE
H Machine foreman
1
Machine operator
H Hot-ware inspector
Carry-in boys______

$0.80 $0,267
.60
.600
.56
.112
.42 1.820

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
Apr.......
M ay___
J u n e ...
July
Aug.......
! Oct____
|Dec

2.799 | Total

Total...............

5IS

2,400.2
623.0
515.3
1,337.4
1,276.7
963.5
1,599.4
1,064.6
1,811.9
229.8
1,947.7

651.70
157.90
143.50
367.20
430.50
311.90
511.30
256.60
442.10
52.00
459.50

13,769.5

3,784.20

3.683 1 0.628
i
3.946
.673
3.591
.612
3.642
.621
2.966
.606
3.089
.527
.533
3.128
4.149
.707
4.098
.699
.758
4.419
4.239
.723
3.639

.620

$0,760
.709
.779
.769
.944
.906
.895
.675
.682
.688
.660
.769

1

i

1-GALLON PACKER JUGS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. Q. (15 ARMS) SINGLE
%
1
2
4

Chief foreman...........
Machine foreman
Machine operators
Carry-in boys______

7H

Total...............




$1.20
.90
.55
.35

$0.20
.90
1.10
1.40

3.60

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar.......
Apr.......
M ay___
July
Aug-----Sept___
Oct
Nov
Dec.......

1,676.0
657.0
4,414.0
493.0
3,744.0
2,313.0
3,113.0
2,960.0
2,981.0
3,834.0
1,849.0

T otal.. 28,034.0

210.80 7.951
86.20 7.622
512.60 8.611
54.30 9.079
447.50 8.366
282.00 8.202
357.40 8.710
344.60 18.590
364.00 8.190
484.70 7.910
213.70 8.652

1.109
1.068
1.201
1.267
1.167
1.144
1.215
1.199
1.143
1.104
1.207

$0,423
.472
.418
.897
.430
.439
.413
.419
.440
.455
.416

8.349

1.165

.431

3,357.80

87

CHAPTER I.— BOTTLES AND JARS

T a b le A . — PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G BOTTLES
B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
5-GALLON WATER CARBOYS-HAND
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
hour hour

Blowers.................
Gatherers..............
Mold-boy_............
Cleaning-off boy—.
Snapping-up boys.
Carry-in boys........

$9.72

Total............

9.72

Year
and
month

1925
$0.65
.50
.50
.50
.50

$1.30
.50
.50
1.50
1.50

5.30

Total
output

Unithours

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- gross
hour
Gross
0.080 $23.138
.028 24.321
.029 23.594
.029 23.558
.022 27.933
.023 27.565
.027 24.692
.020 29. 645
.025 25.928
.025 26.129
.028 24.442
.027 24.692

Feb
Mar----Apr.......
M ay---June----July___
Aug-----Sept----Oct___
N ov___
Dec.......

Gross
159.1
110.3
125.4
184.0
81.3
121.9
129.4
120.9
208.6
210.4
128.0
242.8

403.00
30100
328.00
480.00
279.00
410.00
366.00
454.00
638.00
652.00
356.00
685.00

Gross
0.897
.363
.382
.383
.291
.297
.354
.266
.327
.323
.360
.354

Total.

1,822.1

5,355.00

.340

.026

25.308

5-GALLON WATER CARBOYS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: OWENS A. T. (6 ARMS) SINGLE
Machine foreman—

1 Machine operator - H Hot-warebinspector.
Carry-in oy s........

3H

Total..




$0.80 50.267
.600
.60
. 112
.56
.42 1*400

1925
June___
July___
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct.......
N ov___

786.9
760.2
957.9
648.7
535.9
102.9

605.80
593.80
617.00
532.30
506.80
141.10

1.299
1.280
1.553
1.219
1.057
.729

0.270
.266
.323
.253
.220
.151

$1.831
1.859
1.532
1.952
2.251
8.263

2.379

Total -

3,792.5

2,996.80

1.265

.263

1.880

CHAPTER II.— PRESSED AND BLOWN WARE
PRESSED WARE

It was purely through accident that the pressed and blown ware
branches of the glass industry grew up and developed under the
same roof. With the exception of the common raw materials which
are used in all branches of the glass industry, there is nothing, either
in the methods of production or in the nature of the product, to
justify the classification of the pressed and blown ware in the same
group. Some products, such as tumblers or sherbets for instance,
are produced by both methods, but the similarity of the products
goes only as far as the name. In fact, there is much more in common
between the blown ware and the bottle industry than between the
pressed and the blown ware. A blown tumbler or any other blown
product when taken from the leer looks more like a bottle than like
the object it is intended to be, while in the case of pressed ware the
object is usually complete when it is taken out of the leer. As this
study concerns itself primarily with methods of production and out­
put, both of which are decidedly different in pressed and in blown
ware, it is necessary to treat the two branches separately.
The development of machinery for the making of pressed glass­
ware has been much slower and less striking than that for making
bottles. One of the reasons for this rather slow development of
machinery is the multiplicity of products classified in this branch of
the glass industry. There are literally tens of thousands of indi­
vidually shaped articles which are pressed in molds either by hand
or by machine. With the exception of tumblers, which are produced
in very large quantities, pressed glassware is made in comparatively
limited quantities, not justifying the use of expensive machinery for
its production.
Besides, the use of machinery was not as compelling as it was in
the case of bottles. When any pressed article began to be made by
machine the manufacturers were not forced either to install the
machine or to withdraw entirely from business, as had been the case
with the bottle manufacturers, because they had a third alternative,
which was merely to stop producing the article in question and to
divert their attention and labor force to some other product not yet
affected by the machine. The field for such new products proved
to be almost limitless, as shown by the countless items of pressed
ware on the market under the general classification of “ novelties.”
At present there seems to be no indication of the machine invading
the novelty business. The modem machine is devised primarily
for mass output of a uniform product, while novelties are generally
made in very small quantities to appeal to individual whims and
tastes. Nearly all staple products, of which the tumbler in its various
forms and sizes is by far the leading item, are made on the automatic
machine. Some few plants are still using the semiautomatic rotary
press. The hand plants which refused to install the semiautomatic
or automatic machinery have also survived, but instead of competing
88




CHAPTER II.---- PRESSED WARE

89

with the machines in producing staple articles they have taken up
the making of novelties and developed an entirely new branch of the
industry.
The machine plants and the hand plants do not compete with each
other; their relationship must therefore be considered as of a com­
plementary rather than a competitive nature. The situation is some­
what similar to the case of plants making toilet and perfume .bottles,
but with this difference, that the toilet and perfume bottles represent
but a very small fraction of the bottles made, while the novelties
represent a very considerable part, if not fully a half, of the entire
pressed-ware production.
In spite of the ever-growing importance of novelties as a factor in
pressed-ware production, the processes used in making these products
will not be discussed in this study for the following reasons:
(1) No two plants in the country specialize in the same kind of
novelty. Many of the items are patented and are produced in a
single plant only, thus offering no basis whatever of measuring the
comparative productivity of the workers engaged in making the
patented articles.
(2) As implied m the name, novelties are extremely short lived and
often disappear from the market before the shop engaged in their
production has a chance to develop sufficient skill to stabilize its
productivity, and this precludes the possibility of comparing present
efficiency with that of previous years.
(3) Very few, if any, of the novelties are made on the machine,
and there is therefore no way of gauging the effects of machinery on
man-hour output in this field, which is the principal aim of this study.
In the following pages only such pressed ware will be discussed
as can be and is being made both by hand and by machine processes,
so that the effects of machinery on man-hour output can be meas­
ured in quantitative terms. Specifically, the study will deal with
tumblers, nappies, and sherbets, as the three items constitute by far
the major portion of the staple articles in the field of pressed ware.
MAKING PRESSED GLASSWARE BY HAND

The art of making pressed glassware by hand is neither so difficult
nor so complicated as blowing bottles by hand. As in the case of
bottles, the work is usually performed by a group of workers, consti­
tuting a unit called the “ shop.” A normal Shop usually consists of
three skilled workers, the gatherer, the presser, and the finisher, and
two or more helpers. In making very simple articles, such as packer
tumblers, nappies, etc., a finisher is not needed. In more complicated
products like pitchers and stemware two finishers are sometimes
required. The helpers are termed “ carry-in boys,” “ carry-over boys,”
“ bit boys,” and “ warming-in boys,” the designation depending en­
tirely on the nature of their services. Their number varies from
two for the simplest articles to as many as seven for the more com­
plicated products.
The work of making pressed glassware by hand proceeds as follows:
The gatherer inserts his iron rod, the punty, into the opening of the
pot,1and by skillful manipulation accumulates at the end of the punty
the necessary quantity of molten glass. He then withdraws this glass
i Most hand-pressed articles are still being made from covered pots.




90

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IX THE GLASS INDUSTRY

from the pot and holds the punty over the mold in such a position
as to allow the glass to flow into the mold, which is usually placed
on a table in front of the presser. At the proper moment, determined
by the weight of the article, the presser cuts off the flow with a pair
of shears, and then pushes the mold toward the center of the table
right under the plunger mounted over the table. By operating a
hand lever, usually located at the side of the table (thus giving to the
apparatus the name “ side lever press” )? with the necessary pressure,
the presser causes the plunger to drop into the mold and to impart
to the soft glass the shape of the mold on the outside and that of
the plunger on the inside.
The working of the lever is the most skillful part of the operation,
as upon the pressure of the plunger depends the smooth and uniform

F ig . 10.— SIDE LEVER PRESS FOR MAKING PRESSED GLASSWARE

distribution of the glass in the article. The presser is therefore
considered the most important member and the leader of the shop.
His position corresponds to that of the blower in making bottles.
His wage, whether on a time basis or by the piece, determines the
wages of the other skilled workers of the shop, the gatherer’s wage
being 80 per cent and that of the finisher 90 per cent of the presser’s
earnings.
When taken out of the mold by the presser the article is physically
completed, at least so far as its shape is concerned. If of the cheaper
ware, it is then taken by the carry-in boy to the leer to be annealed.
The majority of the pressed glassware, however, must undergo a
finishing process, due to the dullness of the glass as a result of the
contact with the iron mold and to the ragged edge usually left by the
plunger. In such case the carry-over boys take the articles, one at
a time, from the side lever press to the “ warming-in” or “ snapping


CHAPTER II.---- PRESSED WARE

91

up ” boy. He places each article in a snap somewhat different from
the type used in making bottles, and inserts the snap with the article
in the glory hole to reheat and fire-polish the glass.
The glory hole is a more complicated affair than that used for bottles,
and it requires a good deal of experience and skill on the part of the
warming-in boy so to manipulate the snap as to give the article in it
a thorough polish without completely remelting it. It is also the
duty of the warming-in boys to flatten the nappies into plates while
fire polishing them in the glory hole. Their work is therefore con­
sidered of a higher skill than that of the carry-in or carry-over boys
and their rate of wages is also considerably higher.
From the glory hole the article is delivered to the finisher, who
smooths and bevels the edges and adds whatever additional touches
may be necessary for the completion of the ware. The carry-in boy
then takes it to the leer to be annealed.
SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINERY

The transition from hand production to the semiautomatic stage in
making pressed ware did not constitute such a radical change as the
corresponding transition in bottle making. In the case of bottles,
the semiautomatic machine completely displaced the finisher and
gradually replaced the blower by a semiskilled machine operator. No
such changes took place in the making of pressed glassware. In fact,
the transition was so gradual and the effects on the industry so small
that were it not for the comparative increase in man-hour output
effected by the semiautomatic rotary press, one could hardly draw a
line of distinction between the two stages. The principal differences
in the two processes were the number of molds and the kind of power
used to operate the plunger. But even these two changes were not
brought about simultaneously. Many a side lever press had already
been worked with two and more molds when the rotary press was
introduced.
The rotary press consists merely of a rotating table equipped with
four to six molds and surmounted by a plunger operated by com­
pressed air or by electric power. There were no direct perceptible
changes brought about by the rotary press either in the composition
of the shop or in the method of production. The work of the presser
was lightened and the output of the shop considerably increased.
The indirect result, however, of the introduction of the rotary press
and the increased output was the gradual replacement of the warmingin boys and the hand finisher by a glazing machine.
There are several types of glazing machines used in the glass indus­
try. Some are longitudinal, in the form of a belt conveyor, but the
majority are of the circular type. The latter consists of a revolving
table, rimmed with a series of spindles or cups. The average machine
has about 24 such spindles, but some larger machines have as many as
60 or more. Each spindle is equipped with a receptacle to receive
and hold the article to be glazed. The receptacles can be made smaller
or larger to fit the article glazed. Part of the circular path of the
machine is hooded and contains a series of gas jets, which throw their
flame upon the ware in the spindles as they pass the hooded area.
While moving around the common axis of the machine, each spindle
also rotates very rapidly on its own axis, thus uniformly exposing to
the flame every part of the article. The heat of the gas is sufficiently



92

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN TH E GLASS INDUSTRY

strong to melt and polish the edge exposed to it, but is not sufficient
to affect the entire article. It takes but one revolution of the
machine to complete the process, and the glazing is done so rapidly
that the machine requires the constant attendance of two boys, a
“ sticking-up” boy to place the article in the receptacle of the spindle
to be glazed and another boy to take out the glazed articles from the
machine. The work of the carry-over boy, the warming-in boy, and

Fig. 11—SEMIAUTOMATIC ROTARY PRESS FOR MAKING
PRESSED GLASSWARE

the finisher has thus been replaced by that of two unskilled glazing
boys, who are now in a position to finish all the ware pressed on a
semiautomatic or even an automatic machine.
AUTOMATIC MACHINERY

The really revolutionary change in the making of pressed glassware
came with the successful introduction of the “ feed and flow ” devices
in 1917. As in bottle making, the gatherer was completely eliminated.
The work of the presser became so simplified as to amount merely to
tending the machine, and accordingly the presser gave place to a semi­



CHAPTER II .— PRESSED WARE

93

skilled machine operator. As the speed of the machine was increased,
and with it the output per hour, the work of taking out the pressed ware
from the molds was relegated to a special boy, termed the “ take-out”
boy. In the case of unfinished ware, the take-out boy merely
transfers the ware from the machine to a tray, for the carry-in boy
to take it to the leer to be annealed; in the case of finished ware, he
places the ware on a small stand between the pressing machine and
the glazing machine, which is sufficiently near both machines to allow
the take-out boy and the glazing boy to reach it without moving. In
some plants the glazing machine is located so close to the pressing
machine that the take-out boy can transfer the article directly from
the mold to a receptacle of the glazing machine, in which case the
“ sticking-up” boy is eliminated.
After the ware is glazed it is removed by the other glazing boy to
the tray of the carry-in boy. In some plants the carry-in boy is
replaced by an automatic conveyor, and in other plants the leers,
especially the modem fireless leers, are located so close to the machines
that the glazing boy can transfer the ware directly from the glazing
machine to the leer, thus dispensing with the carry-in boy.
Machines used.—There are several types of automatic machines
used for making pressed glassware, none of which, however, is as
large or as complicated as the automatic machines used in bottle
making. Neither do they differ among themselves sufficiently to
warrant separate descriptions of the types used. Whatever differ­
ences exist are purely of a mechanical nature and do not affect to any
great extent the methods of production or the output.
An automatic press consists of a round table, equipped with from
six to eight molds, and surmounted by a plunger operated by electric
power. The table rotates intermittently, and its motion is syn­
chronized with that of the feeder on the one hand and the plunger on
the other. As a result, the feeder is ready to discharge the “ gob”
of molten glass into the mold just at the moment the mold takes its
position under the feeder. As the table moves a notch, the plunger
descends into the mold, and the article is pressed, while another mold
assumes its position under the feeder to receive its “ gob.”
The feeding and pressing are thus entirely automatic, but in the
majority of the machines now in use a take-out boy is needed to take
the pressed article out of the mold. There are, however, a few
machines where the taking-out process is performed by an automatic
take-out device, and then the machine becomes completely automatic.
Feeders.—The feeders used in pressing glassware are, as a rule, of the
same type used in bottle making. It may perhaps be emphasized
here that the first flow devices used were for the purpose of pressing
glassware rather than blowing bottles. There is therefore a larger
variety of feeders and more antiquated types used in pressing glass­
ware than in making bottles. In some plants the paddle needle
feeders are used to feed two machines at the same time, but normally
one feeder is used for each machine.
Principal products.—The principal articles produced on the auto­
matic machines are tumblers of all kinds, shapes, and sizes. Large
quantities of nappies, bowls, trays, and a considerable number of
small stemware, such as sherbets and sundaes, are also produced by
the automatic machines.
40780°—27----- 7



PRODUCTIVITY
O
F
LABOR
I
N
THE
GLASS
INDUSTRY




CO

F i g . 12—HARTFORD-EMPIRE TWIN PRESS WITH AUTOMATIC CONVEYOR

CHAPTER IT.----PRESSED WARE

95

LABOR PRODUCTIVITY AND LABOR COST
MAN-HOUR OUTPUT

As in the case of bottles, the most striking result of the introduction
of machinery for the making of pressed glassware is the very large
increase in man-hour output effected by the automatic machines.
Table 22 presents a comparison of man-hour output of 8-9 and 10
ounce tumblers, 3 ^ and 4j^-5 ounce sherbets, and 4 ^ -5 and 6-7
inch nappies made by hand and by the semiautomatic and various
automatic machines.
T a b l e 2 2 . — Average

output per man-hour of tumblers, sherbets, and nappies made
by hand and by machine
Common tumblers
8-9 ounce

10 ounce

Method of production and kind of machine
Index
Quantity number

Hand production: Side lever press_____________ _________
Semiautomatic machine: Rotary press__________________
Automatic machine:
i
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder____________________
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder and automatic take out.
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder and automatic take out
and conveyor_______ ______ ________________ __________;
Ed. Miller, with single feeder______ ________________ ____ i
W. .T Miller, with single feeder and conveyor........................i
.
Special machine, with Single feeder.............. ........................I

Pieces
31.00
64.93

209.5

209.03
316.60

1 2 .3
01

268.65

930.9

380.71
226.15
249.30
324.42

1228.1
729.5
804.2
1046.5

357.86
189.22
232.35
320.85

1240.0
655. 7
805.1
1111.7

Pieces
100.0

675.2

100.0

Sherbets
!
Method of production and kind of machine

Hand production: Side lever press
....... ..................................
Semiautomatic machine: Rotary press—
Hand finish__________________________ _______________ i
Machine finish.____________________ ____ ____ __________
Automatic machine:
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder . _ _______ ________
Ed. Miller, with single feeder....... ......................... ...............
W. J. Miller, with single feeder........................... ...................

3H ounce

i

Index
: Quantity number
j
Pieces
33. 55

4J4-5 ounce
Index
Quantity number

100*0

Pieces
30.45

100.0

58.21

173.5

41.66
48.79

136.8
160.2

274.10
146.39

817.0
436.3

192.00
183.61
132.56

630.5
603.0
435.3

Nappies
4^-5 inch
Method of production and kind of machine

Hand production: Side lever press...............................................
Semiautomatic machine: Rotary press__________ _______ ----Automatic machine:
..............
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder.............
Ed. Miller, with single feeder................................................
W. J. Miller, with single feeder.............................................
Special machine, with single feeder.......................................




6-7 inch

Index
Quantity number

Quantityj numter

Pieces
39.61
58. 71

100.0
148.2

186.95
300.87
205.24

472.0
759.6
518.2

Pieces j
27.37 !
45.69 =
77.18
108.45
134.39

100.0
166.9
282.0
396.3
491.0

96

PRODUCTIVTTY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

As will be seen from the foregoing table the average output of a hand
shop is 31 eight to nine ounce tumblers and 28.86 ten-ounce tumblers
per man-hour. On the semiautomatic rotary press the output is
64.93 eight to nine ounce tumblers per man-liour, while on the
automatic machines the man-hour output varies from 209.03 eight
to nine ounce tumblers made on a machine, which still requires the
services of take-out and carry-in boys, to 380.71 tumblers made on
the same kind of machine but equipped with an automatic take-out
device and an automatic conveyor. Taking the man-hour output
of the hand shop as the base, or 100, the semiautomatic machine
shows an increase of 109.5 per cent, while the various automatic
machines register increases which range from 575.2 to 1,128.1 per
cent for the 8-9 ounce tumbler, and from 555.7 to 1,140 per cent for
the 10-ounce tumbler.
In the case of 33^-ounce sherbets, the average man-hour output of
a hand shop operating with the help of a side lever press is 33.55 pieces;
on the semiautomatic rotary press, 58.21 pieces; and on the automatic
machines, from 146.39 pieces to 274.10 pieces. On 4 ^ -5 ounce
sherbets the average man-hour output of a hand shop is 30.45 pieces;
of the semiautomatic rotary press, 48.79 pieces; and of the automatic
machine, from 132.56 to 192 pieces. Taking the average man-hour
productivity of a hand shop as the base, or 100, the semiautomatic
rotary press registers an increase of 36.8 per cent when the 4j^-5
ounce sherbet is finished by hand and 60.2 per cent when the finishing
is done on a glazing machine. The automatic machines show
increases varying from 336.3 to 717 per cent on 3j^-ounce sherbets
and from 335.3 to 530.5 per cent on 4j^-5 ounce sherbets.
In the case of 4j^-5 inch nappies the average output of a hand
shop is 39.61 pieces per man-hour; on the semiautomatic rotary
press it is 58.71 pieces; and on the automatic presses it ranges from
186.95 to 300.87 pieces. On 6-7 inch nappies the average output
of a hand shop is 27.37 pieces per man-hour; of the semiautomatic
rotary press, 45.69 pieces per man-hour; and on the automatic
machines, from 77.18 to 134.39 pieces per man-hour. Taking the
man-hour output of a hand shop operating with a side lever press as
the base, or 100, the semiautomatic rotary press indicates an increase
of 48.2 per cent for 6-7 inch nappies; and the various automatic
machines show increases varying from 372 to 659.6 per cent for 43^-5
inch nappies, and from 182 to 391 per cent for 6-7 inch nappies.
The particularly large increase in man-hour output in tumblers is
due to the fact that tumblers are the principal item produced on
automatic machinery, and also to the fact that they are made in
exceedingly large quantities at a time. Another factor is the use of
automatic take-out devices and an automatic conveyor, as yet used
only in the making of tumblers.
The effects of these two automatic devices on the man-hour out­
put can best be illustrated by Table 23, presenting man-hour output
of the same kind of tumbler made on the same machine and in the
same plant, but in one case with take-out and carry-in boys; in
another case with an automatic take-out device and carry-in boys;
and in the third case with an automatic take-out device and an
automatic conveyor.




CHAPTER II .---- PRESSED WARE

97

Comparison of man-hour output of tumblers made on the automatic
machine with and without automatic take-out device and automatic conveyor

T a b l e 2 3 .—

Man-hour output
Kind of machine

Machine with 3 take-out boys and 2 carry-in boys.......................................
Machine with automatic take out and 2 carry-in boys.................................
Machine with automatic take out and automatic conveyor........................

Index
Index
Quantity number A number B
Pieces
209.03
316.60
380.71

100.0
151.5
182.1

100
120.3

The application of the automatic take-out device resulted in an
increase of 51.5 per cent in the man-hour output, when compared
with the output on the same machine but using three take-out boys;
the application of the automatic conveyer resulted in an additional
increase of 30.6 per cent. The direct increase, however, attributable
to the automatic conveyor is only 20.3 per cent, when compared with
the output on the same machine but without a conveyor. This
comparatively small increase in man-hour output effected by a
conveyor, and the necessity to subject the tumblers, after their leaving
the press, to glazing and sometimes also cupping, is probably the
reason why so few plants have actually installed automatic conveyors.
DIRECT LABOR COST

Side by side with the increase in man-hour output due to the
transition from hand production to machinery, there has also been
registered a remarkable decrease in the direct labor cost of making
glassware. Here, however, it must be emphasized that the figures
of direct labor cost hereafter given do not represent the total labor
cost of manufacturing the articles concerned. Such labor, for
instance, as is needed in mixing the batch, tending the furnace, and
examining and packing the ware, as well as the general supervision,
is not included in the labor cost figures, partly because there is no
way of even approximately measuring the output of these workers
in terms of ware produced, but chiefly because this labor is of no
direct value in this study. To gauge accurately the effects of ma­
chinery on man-hour output and labor cost, only such labor must be
included as has been directly or indirectly affected by a change from
one process to another. In the hand plants it was the shop and the
shop alone which was affected by the introduction of semiautomatic
and automatic machinery. The shop has therefore been selected
as the basic unit with which to measure productivity in hand plants,
and in the machine processes, both semiautomatic and automatic,
care has been taken to include only the direct labor which super­
seded the “ shop,” as hand production gave way first to the semi­
automatic rotary press and later to the automatic machines.
The sum total of direct labor omitted in this analysis constitutes
but a small percentage of the total labor used—probably less than
10 per cent. While the statistics admittedly do not represent the
total labor needed in a plant to carry on its productive activities, the
figures given here are sufficient to show the general trend of the in­
dustry as affected by the change from hand to machine production.
Table 24 shows a comparison of the direct labor cost of making
tumblers, sherbets, and nappies by the side lever press, by the semi­



98

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

automatic rotary press, and by automatic machinery. By the hand
process, it costs $1,951 to make one hundred 8-9 ounce common
tumblers. One hundred 10-ounce common tumblers when made
by the same process cost $2,075. On the rotary press, the one
hundred 8-9 ounce common tumblers cost only $1,073, representing a
decrease in direct labor cost of 45 per cent. On the automatic ma­
chines, the labor cost of making 8-9 ounce common tumblers varies
from 13 to 21.9 cents per hundred, showing decreases varying from
88.87 to 93.30 per cent. In the case of the 10-ounce tumblers, the
corresponding costs are 13.8 to 25.6 cents per hundred, and the
decreases vary from 87.66 to 93.35 per cent. In other words, for
every dollar spent on direct labor in pressing 8-9 ounce common
tumblers by hand, it cost 55 cents on the semiautomatic rotary press,
and less than 7 cents on the most efficient automatic machine. By
the same method it can be shown that for every dollar spent on direct
labor in pressing 33^-ounce sherbets by hand, it cost 63.51 cents on
the rotary press and only 8.97 cents on the most efficient automatic
machine, and for every dollar spent on pressing 4 ^ -5 inch nappies
by hand, it cost 61.29 cents on the semiautomatic rotary press and
only 8.62 cents on the most efficient automatic machine.
The largest saving in direct cost of pressing glassware was thus
in tumblers, for the same reasons that the largest increase in manhour output was in this article— the very large quantity of tumblers
produced as compared with other kinds of pressed glassware, and the
automatic take-out devices and automatic conveyor used almost
exclusively in the production of tumblers.
T a b l e 2 4 . — Average

labor cost of pressing 100 pieces of specified kinds of pressed
ware by hand and by machine
Common tumblers
8-9 ounce

Method of production and kind of machine
Amount
Hand production: Side lever press...............................................
Semiautomatic machine: Rotary press ................. ......................
Automatic machine:
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder...................................
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder and automatic takeout.
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder and automatic take
out and conveyor_________________________
Ed. Miller, with single feeder............ ...... .............................
W. J. Miller, with single feeder and conveyor............... ......
Special machine, with single feeder_____________ _________

$1.951
1.073

Index
number
100.0
55.0

10 ounce
Amount

Index
number

$2.075

100.0

.219
.149

11.23
7.64

.176

8.48

.130
. 215
.217
.140

6.70
11.02
11.13
7.18

.138
.256
.233
.142

6.65
12.34
11.23
6.84

Sherbets
3H ounce
Method of production and kind of machine
Amount

Hand production: Side lever press...............................................
Semiautomatic machine: Rotary press—
Hand finish..................................... ........................................
Machine finish. _.....................................................................
•
Automatic machine:
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder....................................
Ed. Miller, with single feeder................................................
W . J. Miller, with single feeder........................................




$1.806

Index
number
100.0

4Mr5 ounce
Amount

Index
number

$1.917

100.0

1.147

63.51

1.721
1.295

.162
.335

8.97
18.55

.246
.242
.370

89.78
67.55
12.81
12.62
19.30

CHAPTER II.---- PRESSED WARE

99

T a b l e 24. — Average labor cost o f pressing 100 pieces o f specified kinds o f pressed

ware by hand and by machine— Continuea
Nappies
4^-5 inch
Method of production and kind of machine

6-7 inch
Index
number

Amount
Hand production: Side lever press..............................................
Semiautomatic machine: Rotary press.... ....................................
Automatic machine:
Hartford-Empire, with double feeder____________________
Ed. Miller, with single feeder............................................... ..
W. J. Miller, with single feeder....... .................................. .
Special machine, with single feeder. ...................................

Index
number

Amount

$1.718
1.063

100.0
61.29

$2,649
1.418

100.0
66.63

.263
.148
.219

14.73
8.62
12.76

.629
.414
.338

24.68
16.24
13.26

The effects of the automatic take-out device and the automatic
conveyor on the labor cost can best be illustrated by Table 25 which
gives a comparison of labor cost of the same kind of tumbler made
on the same machine, but in one case with the help of three take-out
boys and two carry-in boys; in another case with an automatic
take-out device and two carry-in boys; and in the third case with an
automatic take-out device and an automatic conveyor.
T a b l e 25. — Comparison of direct labor cost o f pressing 100 tumblers on the auto­

matic machine with and without automatic take-out device and automatic conveyor
Labor cost
Kind of machine
Amount

Index
number
A

Machine with 3 take-out boys and 2 carry-in boys.......................... ..........
$0,219
100.0
Machine with automatic take out and 2 carry-in boys__________________
.149
68.0
_________ ____
Machine with automatic take out and automatic conveyor
59.4
.130

Index
number
B

100.0
87.3

The saving in labor cost thus attributable to the automatic take-out
device is 32 per cent of the labor cost of pressing without the device.
Similarly a saving in labor cost amounting to 12.7 per cent is to be
attributed to the automatic conveyor as compared with the same
machine without a conveyor.
EFFECTS OF THE INTRODUCTION OF MACHINERY

The outstanding effect of the introduction of machinery in the
pressed-glassware branch of the glass industry is the sharp division
brought about in the making of staple products and the so-called
“ novelties.” In the first group the automatic machine is supreme,
“ Uniformity in kind, mass output in quantity,” being the slogan.
The hand plants and even the semiautomatic machines can not com­
pete with the automatic machine in this field. In order to survive,
the hand plants have turned their attention to a different field, with
a slogan directly opposite to that for the automatic machine. “ Qual­
ity and variety” has become the new motto, giving stimulus to the
making of novelties. This branch not only has survived the intro­
duction of the machine, but bids well to become in the future as
important a factor as the staple commodities produced by machine.




100

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN TH E GLASS INDUSTRY

As explained elsewhere, the two must not be considered as on a
competitive basis, but rather as two separate and independent
branches of a large industry.
Another important effect of the introduction of machinery in this
field is the elimination of the “ limited move” in the union hand
plants. A “ move” represents the number of articles a shop is sup­
posed to make in a “ turn”— an uninterrupted period of work which
was formerly
but since the war has been 4 x i hours. Two complete
/
turns constitute a day’s work. Until a few years ago the “ move”
was really the maximum number of articles the shop was permitted
to make in a turn. If for reasons which could be attributed to the
fault of the employers the shop did not produce the exact number of
pieces in the move, the workers were to receive their pay for the
entire move.
With the rapid encroachment of the automatic machine on the hand
plants, the union was compelled to abandon the “ limited move.”
The move has been retained and is still the basis on which the piece
rates of the skilled workers are determined, but the shop is no longer
required to adhere to it as a maximum. The workers are paid pro
rata for all the pieces made during the turn. In cases where the out­
put is less than the move and it can be attributed directly to the fault
of the employer, the workers are paid a minimum wage per turn,
decided upon in the yearly conferences between the employers1
association and the American Flint Glass Workers’ Union. The
unlimited output ranges from 15 to 20 per cent above the move— an
indirect but nevertheless a very important effect of the introduction
of machinery in the glass industry.
STATISTICS OF PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST

Table B contains data on the production of tumblers, sherbets,
and nappies made on the side-lever hand press, on the semiautomatic
rotary press, and on the various automatic machines. The statistics
were secured from a number of plants, as no single establishment
could be found to have gone through all the stages of development or
to use all the machines in the industry. The side lever press and the
rotary press are more or less uniform in all the plants, but the auto­
matic machines in use are considerably different. No one of these
machines can be selected as representing the automatic process better
than any other machine, and hence the necessity to show the output,
if not of all the types of machines used, at least of the majority
in use for the production of the articles chosen as representative of
pressed ware.
Each section of the table covers a single kind of tumbler, sherbet,
or nappy made by a single process—hand, semiautomatic machine,
or automatic machine, and is divided into two parts: Labor unit,
and output and labor cost.
The number and kind of workers engaged in the process, their
rates of wages, whether by the piece or the hour, and the total labor
cost per hour of operating the entire unit, are shown in the first
part of each section. If any one worker is performing services for
more than one unit simultaneously, only that part of his labor is
shown which is attributed to a single unit. This is the explanation
of the fractions appearing in the column headed “ Number of
workers.”



CHAPTER n . ---- PRESSED WARE

101

In the second part of each section are given statistics of the output
of the unit. The period to which the data refer is a specified month
of the year 1925, that being the latest year for which complete data
could be secured. The actual number of good tumblers, sherbets,
and nappies produced during the period, and the actual number of
hours spent in producing the articles, are shown. If two or more
similar units have been engaged in the process simultaneously, the
aggregate number of hours put in by all the units is given. The
output of a single shop or a single machine per hour, and the output
per hour of a single worker in the unit, irrespective of his occupation
or skill, are also shown, and in addition the total labor cost of pressing
by the particular process 100 articles of the particular kind.
As in the case of bottles, the figures of output of any unit show con­
siderable variation from month to month. This is true of all articles
and all methods of production, and is due to the same causes as in
the case of bottles (see p. 58). During the course of a whole year,
however, the favorable and adverse effects more or less neutralize
each other, and the average of the year may therefore be taken as
more or less representative of the process. The monthly figures are
given to show the various degrees of variation, while the maximum
and minimum are italicized to emphasize the extreme limits of these
variations during any one year.
T a b l e B .— PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G PRESSED

GLASSWARE B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E
8-9 OUNCE COMMON TUMBLERS—HAND: SIDE-LEVER PRESS
[Italicized figures represent minimum and maximum]
Labor unit

Num­
ber of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

|

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
100 hour hour

1
1
1
3
2
1

Presser____________ $0.45
Finisher__________
.41
Gatherer__________
.36
Warming-in boys
Carry-over boys____
Carry-in boy_______

9

T o ta l.............. 1.22

$0.38
.30
.30

$1.14.
.60
.30

2.04

Year
and
month

Output

1925
Feb
Mar____
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July .
Aug___
Sept___
Oct.......
Nov......
Dec.....

Pieces
4,751
10,135
11,331
14,933
10,841
15,148
6,171
8,279
10,830
8,052
10,025

17.00
34.00
36.25
47.00
38.25
56.95
22.00
34.00
40.40
32.00
38.25

Total.

110,496

396.10

Unithours

Output
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
man- per
hour 100

Pieces Pieces
279.47 31.05 $1,950
298.09 33.12 1.904
312.58 34.73 1.873
817.72 85.80 1.862
283.42 31.68 1.940
265. 99 28.44 1.987
280.50 31.17 1.947
248.50 27.06 2.058
268.07 29.79 1.981
251.63 27.96 2.031
262.09 29.12 1.998
278.96

31.00

1.951

8-9 OUNCE COMMON TUMBLERS—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: 4-MOLD ROTARY PRESS

Gatherer.........
Take-out boy..
Glazing-boy...
Carry-in b o y ..

Total..




$0. 41
.33

.74

$0.39
.39
.30

$0.39
.39
.30

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
Apr
M ay___
June___
J u ly ....
Sept----Oct.......
N ov___
Dec.......

8,872
13,689
14,104
10,180
6,437
4,335
6,521
10,597
11,100
8,022
12,389

25.50
42.50
42.50
29.75
21.25
17.00
21.25
34.00
29.75
25.50
38.25

347. 92
322. 09
331. 86
342. 18
302. 92
258. 00
306. 87
311. 68
878. 11
314. 59
323. 90

69.58 $1,050
64.42 1.075
66.37 1.065
68.44 1.056
60.58 1.096
51.00 . 1.168
61.37 1.092
60.34 1.086
74-62 1.029
62.92 1.083
64.78 1.073

Total.

106,246

327.25

324. 66

64.93

1.073

102

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T able

B .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING PRESSED
GLASSWARE BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

8-9 OUNCE COMMON TUMBLERS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE,
WITH DOUBLE FEEDER
Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers

g
1
3
3
2

m

Occupation

Machine foreman .. .
Feeder operator.........
Machine operator
Glazing boys.............
Take-out boys...........
Carry-in boys............

Total................

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
100 hour hour
$1.00 $0,333
.70
.233
.65
.650
.40 1.200
.40 1.200
.40
.800

4.417

Year
and
month

Output

1925
Feb
Mar.
Apr____
M ay----June----July___
Aug.......
Sept
Oct

Pieces
214,244
305,160
188,868
160,224
135,384
309,816
83,880
98,004
168,408

Total. 1,663,988

Unithours

108.00
140.25
86.08
78.90
65.16
156.42
46.00
55.08
87.60

Output
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
man- per
hour 100

Pieces
1,983.74
2,175.83
2 , 194.10
2,030.70
2,077.72
1,980.67
1,823.48
1,779.96
1,922.47

Pieces
205.21 $0,223
225.09
.203
.20 1
m . 98
210.07
.217
214.94
.212
204.90
.223
188.64
.242

18 4 .18

.2 4 8

823.49 2,020.66 209.03

.219

198.86

.230

8-9 OUNCE COMMON TUMBLERS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE, WITH DOUBLE
FEEDER AND AUTOMATIC TAKE OUT

ft

1
3
2

6H

Machine foreman
Feeder operator_____
Machine operator
Glazing boys_______
Carry-in boys_._.......

$1.00 $0,250
.70
.175
.65
.650
.40 1.200
.40
.800

Total...............

3.075

1925
J a n ......
Feb
Mar
A p r _ __
M ay---July
Aug-----Sept
Oct.......
Nov
Dee____

168,228
308,292
285,312
328,428
315,336
306,432
232,200
474,600
306,228
278,856
253,248

84.08
146.30
143.06
162. 59
149.99
138.25
114.00
235.08
146.33
136.32
116. 75

Total _ 3,257,160

1,582.75

2,000.8
2,107.3
1, 994. 4
2,020.0
2,102.4
2,216.5
2,036.8
2,018.9
2,092.7
2,045.6
2,169.2

307.82 $0,154
324.20
.146
.154
806.88
310.77
.152
323.45
.146
8 41.00 .189
313.35
.151
310.60
.152
321. 95
.147
314.71
.150
333.72
.142

2,057.9 316.60

.149

8-9 OUNCE COMMON TUMBLERS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE, WITH DOUBLE
FEEDER AND AUTOMATIC TAKE OUT AND CONVEYOR
X Machine foreman
X Feeder operator........
Machine operator_
_
Glazing boys......... .
3
Conveyor tender.......
y*

$1.00 1
$0,250
.175
.70
.65
.650
.40 1.200
.200
.40

Total................

2.475

1

5

1925
Jan........
Feb
Mar.......
M ay----July
Aug.---Sept..
Oct........
Nov
Dec.......

226,128
471,444
522,312
736,068
257,364
476,184
365,028
360,984
541,512
539.388
373,596

Total- 4,870,008

128.08
243.41
266.59
403.18
137.50
265.76
193.75
183.24
267.50
269.65
199.73

1,765.52
1,936.83
1,959.23
1,825.66
1,871.74
1,791.78
1,884.02
1,970.01
2,024.85
2,000.33
1,870.51

858.10 $0 .14 0
387.37
.128
391.85
.126
365.13
.136
374.35
.132
358.36
.138
376.80
.131
394.00
.126
404.87
.1 2 2
400.07
.124
374.10
.132

2,558.39 1,903.54 380.71

.130

8-9 OUNCE COMMON TUMBLERS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: ED. MILLER, WITH SINGLE FEEDER

y Machine foreman
%
A Machine operator
l

1 X Take-out boys______

IX Glazing boys.............
IX Carry-in boys...........

4H

Total................




$0.85 $0,106
.65
.325
.52
.693
.42
.560
.42
.560

2.244

1925
Jan........
Feb
Mar___
Apr____
M ay___
June___
July
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct........
N o v .... .
Dec

154,720
27,940
365,716
90,112
305,920
251,872
271,516
599,332
384,752
291,394
84,798
297,264

Total J13,125,336

148.00
28.00
344.00
84.00
288.00
256.00
264.00
544.00
384.00
280.00
80.00
288.00

1,045.21
997.86
1,063.13
1,072.76
1,062.22
988.87
1,028.47
U 101.71
1,001.96
1,040.69
1,059.97
1,032.16

226.03 $0,215
215.75
.225
229.87
.211
231.95
.209
229.67
.211
212.78
.228
222.37
.218
288.21
.204
216.64
.224
225.01
.216
229.18
.212
223.17
.217

2,988.00 1,045.96 226.15

.215

CHAPTER II.---- PRESSED WARE

103

T able B .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING PRESSED

GLASSWARE BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued
8-9 OUNCE COMMON TUMBLERS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: W. J. MILLER, WITH SINGLE FEEDER
AND CONVEYOR
Labor unit

Num­
ber of
work-

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates coat
per
per
per
100 hour hour

Machine foreman.
H Machine operator.._

$0.75 $0,187
.75
.750
.40
.400
.42
.420

Take-out boy.........
Glazing boy...........

3H

Total..

1.757

Year
and
month

Output

Unithours

Output
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
man- per
hour 100

1925
Jan........
Feb
Mar.......
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct ..
Nov ...
Dec____

Pieces
114,716
59,901
90,787
127,517
102,666
25,416
141,665
38,239
102,987
73,875
131,795
46,531

135.70
81.50
106.20
157.70
110.50
35.70
185.40
53.00
130.40
97.70
148.40
61.20

Pieces
845.37
734.99
854.87
808.60
929.10
711.94
764.10
721.49
789.78
756.14
888.11
760.31

Pieces
260.11 $0,208
226.15
.239
263.03
.206
.217
248.80
285.87
.189
219.06
.247
235.11
.230
222.00
.240
.222
243.01
.232
232.66
273.26
.198
233.94
.231

Total . 1,056,095

1,303.40

810.26 249.30

.217

8-9 OUNCE COMMON TUMBLERS—SPECIAL AUTOMATIC MACHINE, WITH FEEDER

$1.00 $0,167

Machine foreman..
Machine operator..
Take-out boy........
Glazing boy...........
Carry-in boy.........

H

.60
.40
.40

Total..

3

.300
.400
.400
.400

1.667

1925
Jan___
Feb—
Mar___
Apr___
M ay__
June___
July.......
Aug-----Sept___
Oct____
Nov.......
Dec____

268,500
210,372
499,164
551,892
445,860
519,696
426,564
782,736
547,428
433,932
474,384
898,344

Total. 6,058,872

182.00
132.00
416.00
444.00
394.00
430.00
369.00
702.00
475.00
381.00
419.00
749.00

1,475.27
1,59S.7S
1,199.91
1,243.00
1,131.62
1,208.60
1,156.00
1,116.01
1,152.48
1,138.93
1,132.19
1,199.39

402.35 $0,113
484*61
.105
327.22
.139
338.97
.134
308.60
.147
329.59
.138
315.24
.144
804.07
.149
314.28
.145
310.59
.146
308.75
.147
327.08
.139

5,093.00 1,189.65 324.42

.140

10-0UNCE COMMON TUMBLERS—HAND: SIDE-LEVER PRESS

Finisher............... .
Gatherer.............. .
Warming-in boys..
Carry-over boys...
Carry-in boy....... .
Total..

$0.38 $1.14
.30
.60
.30. .30
1.29

2.04

1925
Feb
Mar......
Apr.......
June___
Aug.......
S e p t....

3,372
4,323
4,556
6,477
4,045
5,926

12.75
17.00
17.00
25.50
17.00
21.25

264.47
254.29
268.00
254.00
287.94
278.87

29.36 $2,061
28.25 2.092
29.78 2.051
28.22 2.093
26.44 2.147
30.99 2.021

Total.

28,699

110.50

259.72

28.86

2.075

lO-OUNCE COMMON TUMBLERS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE, WITH DOUBLE
FEEDER AND AUTOMATIC TAKE OUT
Machine foreman..
Feeder operator—
Machine operator..
Glazing boys. _—
Carry-in boys___ _

Total..




$1.00 50.250
.70
.175
.65
.650
.40 1.200
.40
.800

1925
F e b .:...
Apr.......
July___
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct.......

81,660
115,056
125,568
97,236
223,392
167,064

50.25
66.67
70.67
59.60
125.16
91.50

3.075

! Total.

809,976

463.85 1,746.20 268.65

1,625.08
1,725.75
1,776.83
1,631.48
1,784,85
1,825.84

250.01 $0.189
265.50
.178
273.36
.173
.188
251.00
.172
274.59
280.90
.168
.176

104

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN TH E GLASS INDUSTRY

T able

B .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING PRESSED
GLASSWARE BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

10-0UNCE COMMON TUMBLERS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE, WITH DOUBLE
FEEDER AND AUTOMATIC TAKE OUT AND CONVEYOR

Output and labor cost

Labor unit

Num­
ber of
work­
ers

Occupation

X Machine foreman
X Feeder operator........
1 Machine operator

3

Glazing boys............

5

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
100 hour hour

Output

$1.00 $0,250
.70
. 175
.65
.650
.40 1.200
.40
.200

1925
Mar.......
A p r .__
M ay___
June___
Sept___
Oct.......

2.475

T o ta l...

644,852

tJnithours

Pieces
107,664
88,536
71,100
115,675
95,387
166,490

Total...............

X Conveyor tender___

Year
and
month

59.75
48.67
39.16
63.82
54.67
94.32

Output
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
man- per
hour 100

Pieces
1,801.81
1,819.11
1,815.63
1,812.52
1,744.78
1,765.17

Pieces
360.36 $0,137
868.82
.186
363.13
.136
362.50
.137
848.96
.142
353.13
.140

360.39 1,789.32 357.86

.138

lO-OUNCE COMMON TUMBLERS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: ED. MILLER, WITH SINGLE FEEDER
Machine foreman..
Machine operator..

IV Take-out boys____
s Glazing boys.........
ix Carry-in boys.......

.65
.52
.42
.42

$0,106
.325
.560
.560

Total................................ I ... 2.244

1925
Jan...
Feb...
Mar..
Apr...
M ay..
June.
July..
Aug..
Sept..
O ct..
N ov..
T otal.

42,080
97,596
48,354
48,146
59,894
66,637
93,399
193,904
63,140
58,680
104,200
876,030

876.67 189.66
48.00
920.72 199.07
106.00
66.00
863.47 186.70
891.69 192.77
54.00
56.00 1,069.64 m.t6
952,34 205.91
70.00
100.00 933.99 201.94
825.12 178.40
235.00
809.49 176.02
78.00
838.29 181.25
70.00
814.07 176.01
128.00

,

1 001.00

875.16 189.22

0.256
.244
.260
.252

.216

.236
.240
.272
.271
.268
.276
.256

lO-OUNCE COMMON TUMBLERS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: W. J. MILLER, WITH SINGLE FEEDER
AND CONVEYOR

X Machine foreman

1
1
1

m

Machine operator
Take-out boy............
Glazing boy_______

$0.75 $0,187
.75
.750
.40
.400
.42
.420

1925
Jan........
Feb
Mar___
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July......
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct........
Nov. ...
Dec.......

25,249
19,311
6,609
14,884
15,871
23,727
22.428
24,829
20,673
25,357
44,205
17,761

32.50
23.70
9.20
18.60
22.40
36.20
31.20
40.40
30.60
33.90
46.30
20.70

Total...............

1.757

T otal.

260,904

345.50

776.89
814.81
718.37
804.5^
708.53
655.44
718.85
614.58
677.80
747.99
964.76
858.02

239.04 $0,226
250.71
.216
1221.04
.244
1247.55
.218
>218.01
.248
|201.67
.268
1221.18
.245
m u 60
.286
1208.55
.259
1230.15
.235
\298.77
.184
1264.01
.205

755.15 232.35

.233

lO-OUNCE COMMON TUMBLERS—SPECIAL AUTOMATIC MACHINE, WITH SINGLE FEEDER

X Machine foreman..

X
l
l
l

3X

Machine operator..
Take-out boy........
Glazing boy...........
Carry-in boy.........

Total..




$1.00 $0,167
.60
.300
.40
.4 0
0
.40
.400
.40
.400

1.667

1925
Jan...
F eb..
Mar..
A pr..
M ay___
June..
July—
Aug—
Sept___
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.

229,956
212,196
462.708
301,672
447,358
250,698
647,320
474,375
356,248
678*540
243,700
365,749

186.00
152.00
384.00
252.00
402.00
207.00
675.00
425.00
305.00
568.00
198.00
316.00

1,236.32
1,896.08
1,204.97
1,197.11
1, 112.88
1,211.10
1,125.77
1,116.17
1,168.03
1,194.61
1,230.81
1,157.43

337.18 $0,135
880.74
.119
328.63
.138
326.48
.139
S S 60
O.
.160
330.30
.138
307.03
.148
304.41
.149
318.55
.143
325.80
.139
335.68
.135
315.66
.144

Total— 4,670,520 3,970.00 1,176.45 320.86

.142

CHAPTER II.— PRESSED WARE

105

T a b l e B .— PROD UCTIO N A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G PRESSED

G LASSW ARE B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
8K-OUNCE SHERBETS—HAND: SIDE-LEVBR PRESS
Labor unit

Num­
ber of
work­
ers
1
1
1
2
1

Occupation

Output and labor cost

iwage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
100 hour hour

Presser. _____ ______ $0.47
Finisher.................... .42 ........... . . . . . . .
Gatherer___________ .38
$0.38 $0.76
Snappers..................
.32
.32
Carry-in boy_______

Total................ 1.27

6

1.08

Year
and
month

Output

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
Apr____
M ay___
June___
Aug.......
Sept___

Pieces
2,589
1,936
3,747
2,002
2,950
1,758
7,013
9,975

12.75
8.50
17.00
8.50
12.75
8.50
34.00
56.75

Total .

31,970

158.75

Unithours

Output
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
man- per
hour 100

Pieces Pieces
203.06 33.84 $1,802
227.76 37.96 1.744
220.41 36.74 1.760
285.58 89.26 1.728
231.37 38.56 1.737
206.82 34.47 1.792
206.26 34.38 1.794
175.77 29.80 1.884
201.30

33.55

1.806

3H-OUNCE SHERBETS—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: 4-MOLD ROTARY PRESS
1
1
2
1
1

Presser____________ $0.41
Gatherer______ ____ .33
Glazing boys
. .
Carry-over boy.........
Carry-in boy_______

$5.40 $0.80
.31
.31
.31
.31

6

Total...............

.74

1.42

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
Apr____
May___
June___
A u g ___
Sept----Oct........
Nov___
Dec.......

10,743
8,471
8,943
8,928
9,231
7,227
5,462
4,329
3,996
8,829
8,453

29.75
21.25
25.50
25.50
25.50
21.25
17.00
12.75
12.75
25.50
25.50

361.11
898.64
350.71
350.12
362.00
340.09
321.29
339.53
818.41
346.24
331.49

60.19 $1.133
66.44 1.096
58.45 1.145
58.35 1.146
60.33 1.132
56.68 1.157
53.55 1.182
56.59 1.158
52.24 1.198
57.71 1.150
55.25 1.168

Total.

84,612

242.25

349.28

58.21

1.147

3M-OUNCE SHERBETS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: ED. MILLER, WITH SINGLE FEEDER
H
1
1
1

Machine foreman.,.
Machine operator___
Glazing boy..............
Carry-in boy.............

$0.70 $0,233
.55
.550
.30
.300
.40
.400

3H

Total................

1.483

1925
Feb
Mar.......
Apr . ,
M ay___
July
.
Sept___
Oct

228,489
105,366
157,453
123,403
130,050
387,360
391,692
77.712
70,470

Total . 1,671,995

224.00 1,020.05 306.01 $0,145
774.75 282.48
136.00
.191
.186
144.00 U 098.48 828.08
136.00
907.38 272.21
.163
956.25 286.88 .155
136.00
480.00
807.00 242.10
.184
960.03 288.01
.155
408.00
903.63 271.09
.164
86.00
80.00
880.88 264.26
.168
1,830.00

913.66 274.10

.162

3H-OUNCE SHERBETS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: W. J. MILLER, WITH SINGLE FEEDER
Machine foreman.. .
Machine operator_
_
Take-out boy............
Glazing boys.............
Carry-in boy.............

$0.75
.75 $0,187
.750
.40
.400
.42
.840
.40
.400

1925
Jan........

Sept----Dec.......

1
1
2
1

5M

Total...............




2.577

34,620
13,336
40,567
17,515
44,372
12,634
28,600
23,396

50.20
14.20
53.20
23.50
58.50
15.20
34.40
30.60

Total.

215,040

279.80

M ay___
June___
July.......

689.64
989.15
762.53
745.32
758.50
831.18
831.40
764.58

181.86 $0,874
178.89
.275
145.24
.338
141.97
.346
144.48
.340
158.32
.310
.310
158.36
145.63
.337

768.55 146.39

.335

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

106
T able

B .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING PRESSED
GLASSWARE BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued
4^-5 OUNCE SHERBETS—HAND: SIDE LEVER PRESS
Labor unit

Num­
ber of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost i Year
and
per
per
per
month
100 hour hour

1
1
1
2
1
1

Presser....................... $0.47
Finisher..................... .42
Gatherer............ ...... .38
Snappers...................
Carry-over boy.........
Carry-in boy.............

7

Total...............

1.27

Unithours

Output
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- 100
hour

1925
Jan........
Feb
Mar......
Apr__ _
Oct___
Nov
Dec

$0.37 $0.74
.32
.32
.32
.32

1.38

Output

j

Pieces
26,249
14,502
8,015
10,511
6,893
8,909
5,544

127.50
59.50
38.25
51.00
34.00
42.50
25.50

Pieces Pieces
205.87 29.41 $1,940
243.78 84.82 1.886
209.54 29.93 1,929
206.10 29.44 1.940
202.74 28.96 1.951
209.62 29.95 1.928
217.41 31.06 1.905

Total. _

80,623

378.25

213.15

30.45

1.917

4M-5 OUNCE SHERBETS—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: ROTARY PRESS (HAND FINISH)
1
1
1
3
1

Presser...................... $0.45
j 1925
Finisher.................... .41 ........... .......... June___
Gatherer............... .
.36
Sept......
Warming-in boys
$0.38 $1.14
Oct .
Carry-in boy.............
.32
.32
N ov___
Total...............

7

1.22 ........... 1.46

T ota l..

1.218
3,674
4,948
7,510

4.25
12.75
17.00
25.50

286.59
288.16
291.06
294.51

40.94 $1. 729
41.17 1.727
41.58 1.722
42.07 1.716

17,350

59.50

291.60

41.66

1.721

4M-5 OUNCE SHERBETS—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: ROTARY PRESS (MACHINE FINISH)
1
1
2
1
1

Presser...................... $0.45
Gatherer___________ .36
Glazing boys.........
Carry-over boy.........
Carry-in boy.............

$0.40 $0.80
.31
.31
.31
.31

1925
Jan........
Apr____
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct.......
Nov

3,592
5,274
8,585
4,958
3,674
7,510

12.75
17.00
29.75
17.00
12.75
25.50

281.78
810.24
288.57
291.65
288.16
294. 51

46.96 $t. 314
61.71 1.268
48.10 1.302
48.61 1.297
48.03 1.303
49.09 1.292

6

Total................

.81

1.42

Total .

33,593

114. 75

292.75

48.79

1.295

4H-5 OUNCE SHERBETS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE, WITH DOUBLE FEEDER

X Machine foreman..

X
1

Feeder operator....
Machine operator..
Glazing boys_____
Carry-in boys........

6X

Total.

3
2

$1.00 $0,250
.175
.70
.65
.650
.40 1.200
.40
.800

.1........... 3.075
j

1925
F e b .....
Mar___
Apr___
M ay_
_
June___
Sept___
N ov___

66,996
120,048
303,000
109,428
86,736
233,172
151,164

T otal. 1,070,544

59. 25
81. 66
267. 73
83. 41
63. 21
176. 89
125. 67

1,180.74
1,470.10
1,131. 74
1,311.93
1,372.19
1,318.18
1,202.87

178.96 $0,272
226.17
.209
174.11
.272
201.84
.234
211.11
.224
202.80
.233
.256
185.06

857. 82 1,247.99 192.00

.246

4M-OUNCE SHERBETS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: ED. MILLER, WITH SINOLE FEEDER
K!
1
1 !
1 i

m

i

Machine foreman
Operator...................
Glazing boy ............
Carry-in boy............

$0.70 $0,233
.55
.550
.30
.300
.40
.400

1925
Feb
M ay___
June___
Sept___
N ov___

55,798
6,918
47,560
31,098
54,475

84.00
16.00
80.00
44.00
96.00

Total...............

1.483

T ota l..

195,849

320.00




664.27
482.38
594.50
706.77
567.45

199.28 $0,223
129.71
.843
.250
178.35
.210
212.08
170.24
.261

612.03 183.61

.242

CHAPTER II.— PRESSED WARE

107

.— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING PRESSED
GLASSWARE BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

T able B

4^-OUNCE SHERBETS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: W. J. MILLER, WITH SINGLE FEEDER

Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
100 hour hour

Occupation

H Machine foreman..
Machine operator.

$0.75 $0,187
.750
.75
.40
.400
.42
.840
.40
.400

Take-out boy........
Glazing boys..........
Carry-in boy.........

5
H

Total..

2.577

Year
and
month

Output

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar___
Apr_.__.
M ay ___
June___
July----Aug.......
Sept-----

Pieces
45,246
57,537
71,393
56,446
113,299
54,614
41,788
63,401
44,707

Total

548,431

Output
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost.
per
man- per
hour 100

69.10
90.90
115.40
89.20
139.65
72.60
55.10
99.20
56.90

Pieces
654.79
632.97
618.66
632.80
811. SI
752.26
758.40
639.12
785.71

Pieces
124.72 $0,394
120.57
.407
117.8 4
.417
120.53
.407
151H
.818
.343
143.29
.340
144.46
121.74
.403
149.47
.328

788.05

695.93 132.56

Unithours

.370

41/2-5 OUNCE NAPPIES—HAND: SIDE-LEVER PRESS
1
1
1
2
1
1

Presser......... ............. $0.45
Finisher___________
.41
Gatherer_____ _____ .36
Snappers__________
Carry-over boy_____
Carry-in boy.............

7

Total...............
41/ 2-5

$0.38 $0.76
.31
.31
.31
.31

1.22 ..........

1.38

1925
Jan........
Feb
Mar___
Apr.......
July___
Sept___

2,456
4,766
2,299
3,597
3,585
4,507

8.50
17.00
8.50
12.75
12.75
17.00

288.94
280.41
270.47
282.12
281.18
265.12

41.28 $1. 698
40.59 1.712
38.64 1.730
40.30 1.709
40.17 1.711
37.87 1.740

T otal.

21,210

76.50

277.25

39.61

1.718

INCH NAPPIES—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: 4-MOLD ROTARY PRESS

1
1
2
1
1

Presser...................... $0.36
Gatherer.................... .29
Snappers__________
Carry-over boy_____
Carry-in boy_______

6

Total...............

$0.40 $0.80
.31
.31
.3i
.31

.65 ........... 1.42

1925
3,308
Feb
4,283
M ay___
4,629
June___
Sept___ - 5,765
10,461
Oct____
13,297
Nov......
9,159
Dec.......
T otal.

50,902

8.50
12.75
12.75
17.00
29.75
38.25
25.50

889.18
885.92
363.06
339.12
351.63
347.63
359.18

64.86 $1,015
55.99 1.078
60.51 1.041
56.52 1.069
58.61 1.054
57.94 1.059
59.86 1.045

144.50

352.26

58.71

1.053

4K-5 INCH NAPPIES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: HARTFORD-EMPIRE, WITH DOUBLE FEEDER
Machine foreman..
Feeder foreman___
Machine operator..
Glazing boys_____
Carry-in boys........

6
H

Total..

$1.00 $0,250
.70
.175
.65
.650
.40 1.200
.40
.800

3.075

1925
Mar......
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July ....
Aug.......
Dec.......
Total _

17,484
55,860
39,780
75,300
342,504
85,944
162,275

13.25
47.18
36.50
73.25
270.65
64.75
135.60

1,319. 55
1,184.00
1,089.87
1,028.00
1,265.50
1,827.82
1,196.72

779,147

641.18 1,215.18 186.95

203.01 $0,233
182.15
.260
167.67
.282
158.15
.299
194.69
.243
204.20 .282
184.11
.257
.253

4H-5 INCH NAPPIES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: ED. MILLER, WITH SINGLE FEEDER
H
1
1
1

Machinist.................
Machine operator
Glazing boy..............
Carry-in b oy_______

$0.70 $0,233
' .55
.550
.30
.300
.40
.400

H

Total...............

1.483

1925
Feb
Apr____
M ay___
June----A u g ..-..
Sept----Dec.......




99,983
72,370
151,320
83,290
132,311
141,202
203,918
591,872

T otal. 1,476,266

104.00
80.00
168.00
80.00
136.00
136.00
184.00
584.00

959.91
904.63
900.72
1,041.13
972.88
1,038.25
1,108.25
1,013.48

287.97 $0,154
271.39
.164
270.22
.165
312.34
.143
291.86
.153
311.48
.143
882.4 8
.I 84
304.04
.146

1,472.00 1,002.90 300.87

.148

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

108
T able

B .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING PRESSED
GLASSWARE BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

4M-5 INCH NAPPIES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: W. J. MILLER, WITH SINGLE FEEDER

Labor unit

Num­
ber of
work-

1
1
2
1

BX

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
100 hour hour

Occupation

$0.65 $0,217
.50
.500
.42
.420
.42
.840
.42
.420

Machine foreman..
Machine operator..
Take-out boy.........
Glazing boys.........
Carry-in boy.........

2.397

Total..

Year
and
month

Output

1925
Jan___
F e b ....
Mar___
Apr___
June...
Aug___
Sept___
Oct___
Nov___
Dec___

Pieces
72,612
67.549
24,743
47,084
27,993
26,439
17,479
24,892
53,179
69,311

Total..

431,281

TJnithours

72.00
54.50
22.50
46.00
28.50
24.00
16.00
26.50
47.75
56.25

Output
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
man- per
hour 100

Pieces
1,008.50
1.239.43
1.099.69
1,023.57
982.21
1,101.63
1.092.44
939.32
1.113.70
1,232.20

Pieces
189.09 $0,238
232.39
.193
206.19
.218
.234
191.92
184.16
.244
206.56
.218
204.82
.219
170. IB .255
.215
208.82
.195
231.04

394.00 1,094.62 205.24

.219

ft-7 INCH NAPPIES—HAND: SIDE-LEVER PRESS

1
1
1
2
m

Finisher...........
Gatherer.........
Snappers.........
Carry-in boys.
Total..

$0.61
.55
.49

1.65

21,968
24,837
15,267
8,826
7,836

114.75
162.00
85.00
42.50
38.25

191.44
153.31
179.61
207.67
204.86

29.45 $2,486
23.59 2.694
27.63 2.541
31.95 2.421
31.52 2.431

Total.

$0.50 $1.00
.60
.40

1925
Jan.......
F e b .....
Mar......
Nov___
Dec___

78,734

442.50

177.93

27.37

2.549

6-7 INCH NAPPIES—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: 4-MOLD ROTART PRESS

Gatherer............
Snappers............
Carry-over boy..
Carry-in boy___

$0.50
.40

$0.40 $0.80
.31
.31
.31
.31

Total.................... 90 ............ 1.42

1925
Jan___
F e b ....
Mar___
Apr___
M a y ...
June...
July___
Aug___
S ep t...
O c t ....
N ov___
Dec___

14,740
11,205
14,324
5,932
7,209
6,789
5,337
7,570
4,682
11,234
17,783
15,532

51.00
38.25
46.75
21.25
29.75
29.75
21.25
25.50
21.25
42.50

Total

122,337

51.00

289.02
292.94
306.40
279.15
242.32
228.13
251.15
296.86
220.33
264.33
261.51
304.55

48.17 $1.391
48.66 1.385
61.07 1.363
46.53 1.409
40.39 1.486
38.02 1.522
41.86 1.465
48.48 1.378
36.72 1.544
44.06 1.437
43.54 1.443
50.76 1.366

446.25

274.14

45.69

1.418

6-7 INCH NAPPIES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: ED. MILLER, WITH SINGLE~FEEDER
Machine foreman..
Machine operator..
Take-out boys.......
Glazing boys.........
Carry-m boys........

m

Total..




$0.85 $0,106
.325
.65
.52
.693
.42
.560
.42
.560

1925
Feb.......
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July___
O ct..

16, 752
22,528
11,288
36,946
30,965
67,496

48.00
64.00
32.00
104.00
88.00
185.00

349.00
352.00
352.75
355.25
351.88
364.85

75.46 $0.643
76.11
.638
76.27
.636
76.81
.632
76.08
.638
78.89
.615

2.244

T o ta l-

185,975

521.00

356.96

77.18

CHAPTER II.— PRESSED WARE

109

T a b l e B ___ P R O D U C TIO N A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G PRESSED

G LA SSW A R E B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
9-7 INCH NAPPIES—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: V . J. MILLER, WITH SINGLE FEEDER
Labor unit

Num­
ber of
work­
ers

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
hour hour
100

H Machine foreman..
Operator................
Take-out boy........
Glazing boys.........
Carry-in boy.........

6
X

Output and labor cost

Total..

Year
and
month

Output

$0.65 $0,217
.50
.500
.42
.420
.42
.840
.42
.420

1925
Jan____
Feb___
Mar----Apr----M ay ....
June_
_
Oct___

Pieces
12,862
13,986
7,007
16,666
17,725
18,213
15,630

21.00
21.75
13.25
30.75
33.00
32.75
24.00

2.397

Total

102,089

176.50

Unithours

Output
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
man- per
hour 100

Pieces
612.48
643.03
528.88
541.98
537.12
556.12
651.25

Pieces
114.84 $0,391
120.57
373
99.16
468
101.62
442
100.71
446
104.27
431
122.11
868

578.41 108.45

.414

6-7 INCH NAPPIES—SPECIAL AUTOMATIC MACHINE, WITH SINGLE FEEDER

8
1
l
1

Machine foreman..
Machine operator..
Take-out boy.........
Glazing boy...........
Carry-in boy.........

Total..

40780°— 27------8




$1.00 $0.167 1 1925
.60
.300 1 Jan........
.400 Feb
.40
.
.400 Mar___
.40
.40
.400 Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July.......
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct.......
Nov.......
Dec.......

81,300
95,376
72,264
46.140
58,404
68,712
48,648
123,744
70,980
80,916
150,096
90,408

151.00
182.00
160.00
90.00
138.00
148.00
132.00
306.00
123.00
143.00
274.00
156.00

Total.

986,988

2,003.00

1.667

538.41
524.04
451.65
512.44
423.22
464.27
868.55
404.39
577.07
565.85
547.80
579.64

146.84 $0,310
142.92
.318
123.18
.369
139.76
.325
115.42
.394
126.62
.359
100.51
.462
110.29
.412
157.38
.289
154.32
.294
149.40
.304
.288
158.06

492.75 134.39

.338

BLOWN WARE

The development of machinery in the field of blown ware has
been more pronounced than in the case of pressed ware. The
machines used in this branch of the glass industry are larger in size
and more intricate than the automatic presses. They are also more
limited as to the kind of ware they can produce. In fact some of
the machines were devised for the purpose of producing one article
exclusively, such as the electric-light bulb or glass tubing.
To gauge the effects of these various machines on labor produc­
tivity and labor cost of manufacturing, it becomes necessary to
study separately the individual articles in which the machines are
specializing, the most important of which are lamp chimneys, electriclight bulbs, punch tumblers, and glass tubing.
LAMP CHIMNEYS

There are three methods still in use in this country in making lamp
chimneys: (1) The offhand method of blowing lamp chimneys by
hand without a mold; (2) the paste-mold method of blowing lamp
chimneys by hand with the help of a paste mold; and (3) the semi­
automatic machine process.
OFFHAND PROCESS

In the offhand process the group constituting a shop is made up
of 3 workers— the gatherer, the blower, and the crimper. The first
two are skilled workers, and the third is an unskilled or semiskilled
helper.
The process of making a crimped lamp chimney is as follows:
The gatherer collects a bit of molten glass on the end of his pipe,
marvers it, and by gently blowing through the free end of the pipe
produces the first air cavity in the glass, which at this stage looks
like an elongated pear, partly hollowed inside. The blower then
takes the pipe and by carefully blowing and skillfully swinging it to
and fro distends the glass until the walls acquire the necessary thin­
ness, while the glass assumes the general shape of a lamp chimney,
but closed on both ends. This operation the blower performs entirely
without the aid of tools.
The next step is to make the heel of the chimney. While the glass
is still hot enough to be ductile, the blower pinches the lower end of
the chimney into a small knob known as the “ horn.” The cold air
which rushes in through the small aperture rapidly cools the glass,
and the horn is easily broken off by a quick blow with a wooden tool,
leaving an irregular opening at the bottom of the chimney. The
blower then places the chimney, still on the pipe, in the glory hole
to be reheated. He afterwards shapes the lower end of the chimney
with the help of his forceps and a gauge to determine the exact
height and diameter of the heel. This is the portion of the chimney
which fits into the lamp holder.
When the heel is formed, the blower easily cracks off the chimney
from the blowing pipe and turns it over to the crimper. The latter
inserts it in a special chimney snap and again places it in the glory
110



CHAPTER H .---- BLOWN WARE: LAMP CHIMNEYS

111

hole to be reheated. When the top of the chimney has been suffi­
ciently softened by the fire the crimper withdraws it from the glory
hole and presses it against a rotating crimping machine, which leaves
its impression on the top of the chimney. The crimping device is
simply a circular crimped mold with a revolving cone inside which
smooths out the top of the chimney and at the same time guides it
toward the mold which crimps the glass at the top.
The chimney is now complete, ready to be used. As at no time
during the operation does the glass come in contact with iron, the
chimneys made by the off-hand process do not need to be annealed
and are, therefore, transferred directly from the furnace to the
packing room, where they are assorted and packed ready to be
shipped.
PASTE-MOLD PROCESS

In making lamp chimneys by the paste-mold process the shop is
made up of 3 skilled workers, the blower, the blocker, and the ball
gatherer, and 1 unskilled helper, the carry-in boy. The initial stages
of gathering and marvering or blocking the glass are similar to those
used in the offhand process. In the offhand process, however, the
shop can make only one chimney at a time, while in the paste-mold
process, two, three, and nowadays even four chimneys are blown at
once. This implies the gathering of larger quantities of glass and
also more marvering and blocking; hence two workers are needed
for the separate operations of gathering and marvering, both of
which are performed by the gatherer alone in the offhand process.
When the glass has been sufficiently blocked and marvered, the
blower takes the pipe and by swinging it to and fro gives to the glass
a pear-shape form. He then lowers the glass into the dummy mold,
which he operates with a foot treadle, and by continuous blowing, at
the same time rapidly rotating the pipe, distends the glass to the
shape of the mold. The paste mold and the rapid rotation are neces­
sary to save the glass from seams or other impressions which a dry
mold might leave upon the glass. The carry-in boy then opens the
mold and takes the long block of blown glass, consisting of four
chimneys, to the leer to be annealed, while the mold falls of its own
accord into a pool of water to be bathed for the next block of chimneys.
From the cold end of the leer the blocks of chimneys are transferred
to the cutting department, where the chimneys are separated. From
the cutting machine they pass over to a glazing machine in the form
of a conveyor, which remelts and glazes first the heel and then the
top of the chimney. Finally the chimney passes under a crimping
machine, after which operation it is complete and is taken to the
packing room to be assorted. *
SEMIAUTOMATIC PROCESS

The lamp chimney semiautomatic machine was first put into
operation in 1898, but since then it has undergone a number of
important changes. At present the machine consists of a rotary
table equipped with five paste molds, which open and close auto­
matically. The initial stages of gathering and blocking the glass
are performed by hand and do not differ from the paste-mold process
described above. When the glass is ready to be blown, the blower,
now called the feeder (due to the change in the nature of his work)




112

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

swings the pipe forward and backward, allowing the glass to run
down until it assumes the shape of a sausage. He then places the
pipe in a socket of the machine. While the lower end of the pipe
just reaches the paste mold, which automatically rises from the
water and closes around the glass, the upper end of the pipe is con­
nected with a valve through which compressed air enters the pipe
and distends the glass into the shape of the mold. During this
process of blowing the pipe is also rapidly being rotated around its
own axis, thus imparting to the chimney a perfectly smooth and
seamless surface. At a definite point on its journey around the
table the mold opens automatically and releases the pipe with the
chimney. The cracking-off boy easily separates the chimney from
the pipe and places it on a near-by stand for the carry-in boy to take
to the leer to be annealed.
As in the case of the paste-mold hand process, two or more chimneys
can be blown at once on the semiautomatic machine. However,
since the lower end of the chimney comes out of the mold completely
closed, it has been found more practical to blow but one chimney at a
time, but with its lower end lengthened and so shaped as to make
from it a good salable tumbler when cut off from the chimney and
properly finished.
After having been annealed, the chimney is really only a “ blank”
chimney, not a finished product. Its lower end, whether ending in a
tumbler or not, is still closed, while the upper end has a very ragged
and irregular opening made by the cracking-off boy in separating the
chimney from the blowing pipe. Both ends must be cut and then
glazed, and the top crimped before the chimney is completed.
Cutting the tumbler from the lower end of the chimney and the
cullet from the upper end is done on a special cracking-off machine.
The chimneys are then placed in the bottomless cups of a conveyor,
below and above which are located the glazing burners. While
rotating rapidly in the cups on their axes, the chimneys move forward
on the conveyor and pass first over a set of burning fires which glaze
the heel and then under a stronger set of fires which glaze and partly
remelt the tops of the chimney. As the chimney emerges from under
these glazers, an operator causes a crimping device to descend upon
the top of the chimney, which stamps it while the glass is still hot
and plastic. The chimney is then transferred to the inspection and
packing room.
While the chimney completes its course through the cutting
machine, the glazing machine, and the crimper, the tumbler which
was separated from the chimney by the cutting machine proceeds on a
somewhat similar path, but in the opposite direction. It passes first
to the grinding machine, where the sharp edges left by the cutting
machine are beveled and smoothed. The tumbler is then washed ana
wiped to eliminate any residue left by the grinding machine, after
which it is glazed, the glazing machine being of the same type used
for pressed tumblers. (See pp. 91 and 92.) After glazing, the tumblers
are removed to the inspection room to be assorted and packed.
MAN-HOUR OUTPUT AND LABOR COST

The increase in man-hour output caused by the lamp-chimney
machine is rather small when compared with the effects of machinery
in the other branches of the glass industry. Table 26 presents a




CHAPTER I I .-----BLOWN WARE: LAMP CHIMNEYS

113

comparison of man-hour output of No. 2 sun-crimped lamp chimneys
made by the three processes—offhand, paste mold, and semiautomatic
machine. By the offhand process the average man-hour output of a
union plant is 27.434 lamp chimneys and of a nonunion plant 25.095
lamp chimneys, making the average output of the two plants 26.265
lamp chimneys per man-hour. By the paste-mold process, the aver­
age man-hour output is 36.450 lamp chimneys, while on the semi­
automatic machine it is 37.387 lamp chimneys.
For the purpose of comparison index numbers are also given.
Taking the average man-hour output of a union and nonunion shop
as the base, or 100, the increase in man-hour output by the pastemold process is 38.8 per cent. This increase is due wholly to the
fact that in the paste-mold process more than one chimney (four
chimneys in the plant concerned) is blown at a time. The man-hour
output shown would have been considerably larger but a large num­
ber of chimneys are broken on their journey from the leer through
the cutting off, glazing, and crimping machines. The man-hour
output of the lamp-chimney machine is not much higher than that
of the paste-mold process—only 2.5 per cent— and only 42.3 per cent
higher than the man-hour output of the average for the offhand
process.
T a b le 26.— Comparison of man-hour output o f N o. 2 sun-crimped lamp chimneys
made by hand and by machine
Man-hour output
Process

Offhand process:
Union shop__________________ _____________ ____ ____ ___________ __________
Nonunion shop______________________________________________ _____ _______
Average, union and nonunion shop_______________ ;_________________________
Paste-mold process, h a n d _____________________________________________________
Semiautomatic ma/>hrnft_______________________________________________________

Index
Quantity number
Pieces
27.434
25.095
26.265
36.450
137.387

104.4
95.5
100.0
138.8
142.3

i In addition there was approximately an equal number of tumblers produced as a by-product, requiring
only grinding and glazing to finish them.

Table 27 gives a comparison of labor cost in making lamp chimneys
by the three processes. The labor cost of making 100 No. 2 suncrimped lamp chimneys by the offhand method is $2,740 in a union
plant and $2,680 in a nonunion plant, the average cost in the two
plants being $2,710. By the paste-mold process the corresponding
cost per 100 lamp chimneys is $2,128 or 21.5 per cent less than the
average cost by the offhand process. The same kind of lamp chimneys
made on the semiautomatic machine cost only $1,712 per hundred
pieces or 37.5 per cent less than those made by the offhand process.
It must again be emphasized, however, that for every good lamp
chimney turned out by the machine process there is at least one good
tumbler turned out as a by-product. The additional labor and cost
of handling the tumbler after it has been separated from the chimney
by the cutting-off machine is comparatively negligible. Were it
possible to translate these tumblers into terms of lamp chimneys, the
man-hour output of the machine would have been considerably
increased, probably doubled, and the labor cost decreased accordingly.




114

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T a b l e 2 7 .— Comparison o f labor cost of 100 No. 2 sun-crimped lamp chimneys

made by hand and by machine
Process

Offhand process:
................................................ ........................................
Union shop
......
Nonunion shop
.................................................. ....................................
Average, union and nonunion shop _____________________ __________________
Paste-mold process, hand
_ .
_______________ _____ ___________
Semiautomatic machine .................................................................... ..................... ......

Amount

$2,740
2.680
2.710
2.128
11.712

Index
number

101.1
98.9
100.0
78.5
62.5

1 Less the value of approximately an equal number of tumblers made as a by-product, which require
but a slight additional expense for grinding and glazing.

Considering the early introduction of the lamp-chimney machine,
it being one of the first machines used in the glass industry, the influ­
ence of machinery on the making of lamp chimneys has not been
very great. The principal cause of this peculiar situation is the
declining tendency of the lamp-chimney market as a whole. In
spite of the large quantities of lamp chimneys still produced in this
country, the total output decreases steadily from year to year. The
extensive use of electric power, which has penetrated even the most
remote and inaccessible sections of the United States and of Canada,
is the chief factor in this decline. The manufacturers of lamp chim­
neys, whether by hand or by machine, are fully aware of the situation,
and refuse to make the large outlay necessary in the introduction of
new machinery.
As a result, the making of lamp chimneys is probably the only field
in the glass industry where hand manufacturing not only has sur­
vived the introduction of machinery, but actually manages to subsist
side by side with the machine. It is variously estimated that 40 to
50 per cent of all the lamp chimneys made in this country are still
made by the offhand process.
There is another reason why the hand manufacturers can compete
with the machine in spite of lower man-hour output and higher direct
labor cost. This is the claim of the hand manufacturers and their
workers alike that the offhand made lamp chimney is a better chim­
ney and lasts longer than either the paste-mold or the machine-made
chimney. One of the characteristics of a good chimney is the varia­
tion in the thickness of glass at the top, the heel, and the bulge of the
chimney. The hand manufacturers claim that this variation can not
be attained by blowing into a mold, whether by hand or machine; that
only an expert offhand blower can make such a chimney, and there­
fore that the offhand product is the best of the three ana the demand
for it is larger.
Apparently the lamp chimney is doomed. It is only a matter of a
short time until the oil-burning lamp will have flickered its last before
the onslaught of the electric bulb. But the manufacturers are of the
opinion that so long as there is any demand for lamp chimneys, just
so long will the offhand process persist side by side with the machine.
STATISTICS OF PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST

The data on production here given cover four plants: Two plants
where chimneys are made by the offhand process, one plant for. the
paste-mold process, and one for the semiautomatic machine; The




CHAPTER II.---- BLOWN WARE: LAMP CHIMNEYS

115

average of the first two plants, one union operated and the other
nonunion, is taken as the standard by which the man-hour output and
the labor cost in all plants have been measured.
In the offhand process the chimneys are made complete by the
blowing shop, and this shop has been taken as the labor unit of
production. But in the paste-mold plants, as well as in those using
the semiautomatic machine, the lamp chimneys, upon leaving the
blowing shop or the machine, must be annealed, cut off, glazed, and
crimped before they are completed. For the purpose of comparison
with the offhand labor unit, such additional labor as is needed to
finish the articles made by the blowing shop or the machine must be
added to the blowing units in the paste-mold and machine processes.
For example, it is estimated that two cutting boys can handle in
nine hours all the lamp chimneys made by seven paste-mold shops
in one turn of four hours. It would require, therefore, nine-fourteenths of the time of one cutting boy to handle in one hour the ware
made by the blowing shop in one hour, and the equivalent of ninefourteenths of the labor of a cutting boy must therefore be added to
the blowing shop. For similar reasons the equivalent of nine-fourteenths of the labor of a glazing girl and nine-fourteenths of the labor
of a crimping girl are also added to the shop.
In the plants using the automatic machine, the labor needed in
tending a single machine has been taken as the labor unit of produc­
tion. If any worker tended more than one machine, only that part
of his labor has been taken which is allotted to one machine. To
this blowing unit must also be added that portion of the finishing
labor which is needed to anneal, cut off, glaze, and crimp all the ware
produced by a single machine in an equal period of time. These
proportions have been determined on a basis similar to that used
in the paste-mold process.
Each section of Table C is divided into two parts—labor unit,
and output and labor cost. In the first part are given the number
and kind of workers engaged in the process of production, their
rates of wages, and the total hourly labor cost of a single labor unit.
The second part gives the total number of salable lamp chimneys
made, the shop or machine hours spent on their production, the
output per shop or machine hour, the output per man-hour, and the
labor cost of 100 No. 2 sun-crimped lamp chimneys made by the
three processes.




116

PRODUCTIVITY OP LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

C .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING NO. 2 SUNCRIMPED LAMP CHIMNEYS BY HAND AND BY MACHINE

T able

OFFHAND PROCESS (UNION SHOP)
[In this table all wage rates are for 1925 and labor cost is based on 1925 wage rates regardless of year of
output. Italicized figures represent minimum and maximuml
Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost Year and
per
per
per
month
hour hour
100

Total
output

1
1
1

Blower...... ................ $1,240
Gatherer___________ 1.000
Crimper___________ .500

1925
Aug __
Sept___
Oct
Nov
Dec

Pieces
34,636
32,151
30,738
35,259
52,788

3

Total................ 2.740

Total __

185,572

Out­
put
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man100
hour

Pieces
82.467
82.018
82.629
80.870
83.000

Pieces
27.489 $2.740
27.339
2.740
27.543
2.740
26.957
2.740
27.667
2.740

TJnithours

420.0
392.0
372.0
436.0
636.0

2,256.0 82.301 27.434

2.740

OFFHAND PROCESS (NONUNION SHOP)
Blower..
Gatherer.
Crimper.

$1,250
.990
.440

1925
M ay___
June___
July ....
Aug-----Sept___
Oct........
Nov
Dec.......
T ota l..

Total..

23,664
26,769
29,374
33,243
29,750
41,280
39,988
49,060
273,128

293.0
376.0
459.0
459.0
378.0
522.0
520.0
621.0

80.769 26.922
71.194 23.731

24.142
26.233
26.360
25.633
26.334

$2.680
2.680
2.680
2.680
2.680
2.680
2.680
2.680

3,628.0 75.284 25.095

2.680

64.OOO 21. 333

72.425
78.700
79.080
76.900
79.002

PASTE-MOLD PROCESS—HAND BLOWN
Blowing:
Blower__________ $0,659
Blocker__________ .549
~ fl.il gatherer_____ .475
R
Carry-in boy_____
Finishing:
Cutting girl______
-ft
»
Glazing girl______
Crimping girl____

$0.32 $0,320

1.683

.963

1
1
1
1

5H

Total—...........

.50
.25
.25

.321
.161
.161

1925
Apr____
May___
June___
July
Aug.......
Sept___
Nov___

18,981
17,925
13,050
8,434
14,905
16,935
13,508

T otal--

103,738

88.0
80.0
60.0
44.0
64.0
84.0
60.0

215.700
224.060
217.500
191. 690
232.890
201.610
225.130

36.380
37.790
36. 690
32.330
39.280
34.010
37.970

$2,129
2.112
2.125
2.185
2.096
2.160
2.110

480.0 216.120 36.450

2.128

SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE
Blowing:
Machine foreman
Feeder ________ $0,370
Gatherers________ .810
Cracking-off boy
Carry-in b oy_____
Leer tender______
•
/•
Finishing:
Cutting-off girls
Glazing g irl_____
2p
Crimping girl____
Transfer girl______
%
1
3
1
1

10

T o ta l.............. 1.180

$0.70 $0,117
."47" "’ ."470
.47
.470
.241
.29
.23
.23
.23
.23

19261
1st week.
2d week.
3d week.
4th week
5th week
6th week

11,747
11,826
15,841
16,390
18,040
13,641

T otal-_

37,485

34.5
30.0
41.0
45.0
49.0
34.5

340.500
394.200
386.370
364.220
368.160
395.390

34.050
39.420
38.640
36.420
36.820
39.540

$1.764
1.684
1.695
1.726
1.720
1.683

234.0 373.870 37.387

1.712

.276
.138
.138
.138
1.988

* The actual dates of the weekly periods for which data are given are not available.




BLOWN W ARE: ELECTRIC-LIGHT BULBS
MAKING BULBS BY HAND

In the process of making electric-light bulbs by hand the shop
consists of two skilled workers, the gatherer and the blower, and two
unskilled helpers, a section boy and a cutting-off operator, both
usually working for from six to eight shops simultaneously. The
process of blowing electric-light bulbs may be described as follows:
The gatherer inserts his iron pipe in the pot of molten glass and by
skillful manipulation accumulates on the end of the pipe the necessary
quantity of glass for the size of bulb desired. He then withdraws
the pipe and by marvering the glass and slightly blowing into the
pipe gives to the bit of glass a pear-shaped form, with a small cavity
in the center. The pipe is then turned over to the blower, who by
swinging it a few times to and fro and letting the glass run down
elongates it into the shape of a sausage. With the help of a foot
treadle he then raises the “ dummy” or automatic mold from its
water bath and causes it to close around the glass. By continued
blowing and at the same time constantly rotating the pipe with his
hand the blower distends the glass to fill out the mold. A paste
mold is used to prevent the glass from sticking to the iron and to
keep the bulb free from any of the seams which are usually left by
a dry iron mold. When the blowing is finished the blower releases
the mold, which falls back into the water, and turns over the pipe
with the bulb on it to the section boy. The latter rapidly disengages
the formed article from the pipe, which he places within convenient
reach of the gatherer. At this point of the process the bulb carries
with it an extra quantity of glass, a “ moile,” which needs to be cut
off before the bulb is finished. This operation is usually performed
by a girl on a special cutting-off machine, and it is estimated that one
cutting-off operator can take care of all the bulbs made by eight shops.
It is therefore necessary to add the equivalent of one-eighth of the
labor of a cutting-off operator to each shop engaged in the process
of making electric-light bulbs by hand.
SEMIAUTOMATIC PROCESS

The semiautomatic machine consists of a long base filled with
water, over which rise four or five operating units, all driven by
a common shaft but with individual clutches, so that each unit
functions independently. Each unit is equipped with an arm to
hold and operate the blowing pipe, a paste mold, and a piston through
which compressed air is introduced through the blowing pipe to the
glass.
In the process of blowing electric-light bulbs by the semiautomatic
machine the gatherer, or the chief operator, as he is often termed,
withdraws an iron blowing pipe from the “ blow-iron trap” and pro­
ceeds to gather the necessary quantity of glass exactly as in the case
of the hand shop. Upon withdrawing the glass from the pot he




117

118

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

does not stop to marver it, as in the case of hand production, but
places it at once in an arm of the machine, which is at rest in a position
slightly above the horizontal. He then pulls a lever which locks the

F ig. 13—SEMIAUTOMATIC EMPIRE E MACHINE FOR MAKING ELECTRICLIGHT BULBS

blowing pipe into the “ blowhead” of the arm, and at the same time
trips the clutch and sets the unit in operation. ,
As the blowing pipe rotates rapidly on its axis, the arm rises slowly
and brings the glass on the end of the pipe into contact with a metallic



CHAPTER XI.---- BLOWN WARE: ELECTRIC-LIGHT BULBS

119

marver. The latter also revolves, but much more slowly, and is so
adjusted that the marvering is completed at a single revolution of the
marver. A small quantity of air is then admitted into the blowing
pipe by means of a cylinder located at the blowhead, and the first
air cavity is formed in the matvered glass. Immediately afterwards
the arm starts swinging downward, admitting more air into the glass,
which finally assumes a pear-shaped form, hollowed in the center.
The downward swing continues until the blowing pipe reaches a
vertical position, at which point the arm is automatically disengaged
from the clutch, which stops the operation of the entire unit.
Until the beginning of the downward, swing of the arm the paste
mold has been hanging downward in an open position immersed in
the base of the machine. As the arm swings down, the mold, still
open, swings upward out of the water until it reaches a vertical
position slightly ahead of the blowpipe. The unit remains unoper­
ated for a certain length of time, during which the glass continues to
elongate of its own weight until it assumes a position between the
two halves of the mold. When the glass reaches the desired length
the take-out boy or the “ spiffer” pushes a lever, which again starts
the unit in operation. The mold immediately closes around the
glass, and sufficient air is admitted to the pipe to distend the glass
to fill out the mold. When this is completed the mold opens auto­
matically, the arm begins to swing upward, and upon reaching a
definite position releases the blowpipe into the hands of the take-out
boy, who turns it over to the cracking-off boy. The latter cracks
off the glass article from the pipe and returns the pipe to the “ blowiron trap.” This is simply a rack designed to hold several blowpipes,
keeping them in their order as used and in a convenient position for
the gatherer to grasp as he returns from the machine to the pot.
When cut off by the spiffer the electric bulbs are completely finished
and are removed by the section boy to the inspection room to be
examined and packed.
The use of the semiautomatic machine thus dispenses with the
services of a blower. The work of the gatherer is also considerably
reduced and simplified, being limited to the mere operation of gather­
ing the glass, while the initial blowing and marvering are performed
by the machine. In addition to the gatherer, the machine requires
the services of a take-out boy, a cracking-off boy, and a section boy.
The total number of workers needed to tend the semiautomatic
machine is thus somewhat larger than the number of workers in a
hand shop. But the average output of the machine is more than
three times that of a hand shop, and the man-hour output of the
machine is also appreciably larger than in hand production.
AUTOMATIC MACHINERY

Empire F machine.— The Empire F machine, when operated in
connection with an automatic feeding device, constitutes a complete
automatic unit. This machine, though capable of producing any
paste-mold ware of limited size, is used almost exclusively for the
purpose of making electric-light bulbs.
The machine consists of two intermittently rotating tables, each
supplied with six blowing units. Each unit is made up of a blankforming press, a blowing spindle, and a blow mold. Gobs of glass




120

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

are fed alternately to each blank-forming press down an inclined
trough, which oscillates between the two tables, loading them alter­
nately. The blank is pressed in the spindle, reheated, inverted into
the blow mold, and blown to shape. When finished it is ejected
automatically from the machine. All movements are entirely me­
chanical and completely synchronized. The driving force is supplied
by an electric motor, which operates the feeding device and the
machine simultaneously.
All the blowing units of the machine operate exactly alike, so
that a description of the process of a single unit will be representa­
tive of the whole machine.
Just before the operation begins the spindle swings into an upward
vertical position, ready to receive the gob of glass from the feeder
down the chute, which has also swung into the proper position. The
receiving end of the spindle is in the form of a cup of a size just
sufficient to contain the quantity of glass needed for the bulb blown.
It is made up of two lock jaws, which automatically close around the
glass and force the superfluous glass to run down into a sleeve in the
spindle specially provided for this purpose. The excess glass in the
sleeve cools rapidly and serves to hold the gob in place on the spindle.
This glass is called the “ collar.” The jaws then open up, and the
collar forms the only contact of the glass with the machine. The
spindle automatically starts rotating, at the same time passing under
a hot flame which serves to reheat and soften the glass chilled by
exposure to the air. A small quantity of air is then admitted into
the blank to form the initial air bubble, and the spindle, without
ceasing to rotate, swings down# 180°, so that the glass is sus­
pended downward from the spindle, which then stops rotating.
While in this position, and because of its weight, the glass changes
from an egg shape into a pear shape, rapidly becoming longer and
longer. In the meantime the paste mold, which has all the time
been traveling immersed in a basin of water at the foot of the machine,
swings upward, and while still open assumes its position around the
glass, which can be seen suspended between the two halves of the mold.
When the glass has reached its proper length the mold closes, the
spindle again starts revolving, and air is blown into the glass, dis­
tending it into the shape of the mold. At the end of this operation
the mold opens, the spindle swings upward about 30°, automatically
releasing the collar of the bulb, and the completed article slides down
a chute out of the machine. The mold swings downward into the
water pan, while the empty spindle swings up 150° farther to its
zero position ready for another operation.
The blown bulb, sliding down a chute, is picked up by an auto*matic conveyor and is carried to the burning-off machine. This
machine consists of a series of receptacles or chucks rotating around
a common axis. The chucks are equipped with narrow gas fires,
which first cut off the superfluous collar or the “ moile” of the bulb
and then fire-polish the rough edges. The bulbs are then auto­
matically released from the burning-off machine and are forwarded
to the packing room.
WestlaTce machine.—The Westlake machine consists essentially of
a large rotating drum from which are suspended 12 bulb-blowing
units. Each of these units carries two spindles or blowing pipes, a
ram with two pipes for the purpose of gathering the glass, a mech-




CHAPTER

IT.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




122

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

anism for admitting air into the blowpipes, two paste molds, and a
series of cams and wheels to synchronize the operations of the various
parts mentioned. When the machine is rotating, normally about
two revolutions per minute, the rams, operating on a slide on top of
the machine, are automatically projected into the furnace opening
to gather the glass. There are two arms or gathering pipes to each
ram, and two “ gathers” of glass are made at one time. By a vacuum

Fig. 15—AUTOMATIC EMPIRE F MACHINE

process the “ gathers” are sucked up into copper or cast-iron blank
molds of the size and shape required for the particular bulb wanted.
As the ram is automatically withdrawn from the tank a knife sweeps
under the arms and automatically cuts off the string of glass from
the “ gathers” just made. When the arms are out of the tank the
suction in the molds is released and the two “ gathers” of glass drop
into the jaws of the two spindles, which at this moment assume a
vertical position just under the arms of the gathering ram. The
transfer of the glass from one mold to another comparatively cooler




CHAPTER I I .-----BLOWN WAKE: ELECTRIC-LIGHT BULBS




123

124

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

mold chills the outer surface of the “ gather,” which is equivalent to
marvering the glass.
After the jaws of the spindle close on the “ gather” a plunger
automatically makes a small indentation in the center of the gather
and immediately afterwards compressed air is admitted in short
puffs into the spindle by means of a valve system. The spindle then

starts rotating on its axis, at the same time swinging around first to a
horizontal and then to a vertical position, with the glass hanging
downward. Simultaneously with the downward swing of the spindles
the open molds emerge from the water pool and begin to swing up­
ward, reaching the vertical position just ahead of the spindles, so
that the glass is suspended between the two halves of the mold. The
weight of the glass and the puffs of air which it receives intermittently
elongate the “ gather,” and just when it reaches the proper length




CHAPTER TI.— BLOWN WARE: ELECTRIC-LIGHT BULBS

125

and shape, usually in the form of a sausage, the molds close around it
and a steady pressure of air is introduced which fills out the molds.
The latter then open up and the spindles, after releasing the fully
blown and rigid bulb, swing upward into their original position while
the molds swing downward and sink into the water tank.
When thrown out of the machine the bulb is complete, except for
the superficial glass shoulder which connected it to the blowing
spindle. This extra glass, or “ moile” as it is called, must be cut
off, and this operation is also done automatically. As the bulb falls
out from the machine it is picked up by an automatic conveyor
which takes it via an automatic loading device to the burning-off
machine. The latter consists of a rotating drum with 24 receptacles
or chucks in which the bulbs are rotated. The receptacles are
equipped with a set of sharp flat gas fires, which first cut off the moile
and then fire polish the edges of the bulb. At a certain point of the
operation, after the moile is off and the fire polishing finished, the
gas is automatically shut off from the particular burner and the bulb
is allowed to cool before it is pushed out automatically from the
machine upon another conveyor. This conveyor carries the bulb
automatically through a short leer, and from there another automatic
conveyor carries it to the inspection station, where it is examined
and packed or stood up in a rack, to be sent to the spraying room to
be frosted. This is the first time in the whole process that the bulb
is handled. The only labor needed is a machine operator to see that
all the separate parts of the machine are running smoothly. Some­
times an additional attendant is needed on the burning-off machine.
Both workers need no preparatory skill and learn their work in a
comparatively short time.
The latest type of the Westlake machine marks a considerable
improvement upon the type described above. Instead of having a
ram with two arms for each operating unit this type carries but one
stationary ram with two arms to feed the 12 pairs of spindles of the
machine. This change appreciably reduces the weight and bulk of
the machine. The older type Westlake machine weighed on the
average 45 to 50 tons. The 12 rams, weighing about 15 tons, have
now been replaced by a single ram weighing about a ton, thus
reducing the entire weight of the machine nearly one-third. The
direct results of this change have been an improvement in the quality
of the product, especially so far as uniformity is concerned, and an
increase in output due to higher speed in the rotation of the simplified
and less bulky machine.
MAN-HOUR OUTPUT AND LABOR COST

The most outstanding characteristic in the production of electriclight bulbs has been the phenomenal increase in man-hour output
caused by the automatic machines. Table 28 contains a comparison
of man-hour output of 25 and 40 watt electric-light bulbs made by
the three processes—hand, semiautomatic machinery, and automatic
machinery. In hand production the average man-hour output on
25-watt bulbs ranges from 52.52 pieces in Plant A to 56.19 pieces in
Plant B, making the average output of the two plants 54.355 bulbs
per man-hour. The average man-hour output on 40-watt bulbs is
54.21 pieces. On the semiautomatic Empire E machine the average
40780°—27----- 9



126

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

man-hour output is 116.06 twenty-five-watt bulbs and 116.55 fortywatt bulbs. On the automatic machines the average man-hour
output on 25-watt bulbs is 801.82 pieces on the Empire F machine
operated with a feeder, 1,283.63 pieces on the older type Westlake
machine, and 1,699.22 pieces per man-hour on the newer type. The
corresponding figures for a 40-watt electric bulb are 787.50 pieces for
the Empire F machine, 1,319.15 pieces for the older type Westlake
machine, and 1,703.59 pieces per man-hour for the newer type
Westlake machine.
Taking the average man-hour output of the two hand plants as
the base, or 100, the semiautomatic machine shows an index of 213.52
for a 25-watt bulb and 215 for a 40-watt bulb, an increase of more
than 100 per cent over the average man-hour output in hand produc­
tion. On the same basis, the indexes of man-hour output of a 25watt bulb made by the automatic process are 1476.16 for the Empire
F machine, 2361.60 for the older type Westlake machine, and 3126.17
for the newer type Westlake machines. The corresponding indexes
for a 40-watt electric bulb are 1452.70 for the Empire F, 2433.41
for the older type Westlake machine, and 3142.57 for the newer type
Westlake machine. The man-hour output on the most up-to-date
automatic process is thus more than thirty-one times the man-hour
output of the same kind of bulbs made by hand. This increase is
exceeded only by tnat caused by the Owens double triplex machine in
the production of 2 and 4 ounce prescription bottles. (See pp. 49.)
Not less remarkable is the reduction in the direct labor cost by
the automatic process. The average labor cost of 1,000 electriclight bulbs made by hand is $13,882 for 40-watt bulbs and $13,897
for 25-watt bulbs. When made on the semiautomatic machine the
labor cost is $4,180 and $4,197 for 40 and 25 watt bulbs, respectively.
When made by the newer type Westlake machine the labor cost of
1,000 bulbs is reduced to 47.0 and 47.1 cents for 40 and 25 watt bulbs,
respectively. In other words, for every dollar spent on the labor of
making 40 and 25 watt electric-light bulbs by hand it cost only 30.11
and 30.22 cents, respectively, to make them on the semiautomatic
machine and only 3.39 cents on the automatic. The saving in labor
cost thus brought about by the automatic machine is 96.61 cents for
every dollar spent on hand production. (See Table 28.)
The effects of such changes in output and costs on the electric-light
bulb industry are obvious. They are best expressed in the following
statement of conditions in the plants by one of the most important
electric-light bulb producers in the country:
Per cent of bulbs produced by—
H a n d .._____ ______________________________
Semiautomatic machine___________________
Automatic machine________________________
Total............................... ..............................-

1920

3 9.2
60. 7
.1
100.0

1926 (6 mos.)

11.3
5. 4
83. 3
100.0

Within the short span of five years production by the automatic
process has increased from one-tenth of 1 per cent to 83.3 per cent of
the total output. At the same time hand production has declined
from 39.2 per cent to 11.3 per cent, while production on the semi­
automatic has declined from 60.7 per cent to 5.4 per cent. Another
important concern reports more than 98 per cent of its total produc­




CHAPTER II.— BLOWN W ARE: ELECTRIC-LIGHT BULBS

127

tion of bulbs made on the automatic machine and less than 2 per
cent by hand, there being no production on the semiautomatic
machine.
The semiautomatic process of making electric-light bulbs has thus
suffered the most from the introduction of the automatic machine.
The situation is exactly parallel to that in the case of bottles. Hand
production has been retained to make such of the large sizes and oddly
shaped and colored bulbs as can not be economically produced on
the machine, partly because the molds are too expensive, but chiefly
because such bulbs are produced in very small quantities. For this
purpose and for the purpose of experimentation, which can be better
controlled when the bulbs are made by hand, hand production, even
if only a small fraction of the whole industry, will survive no matter
what strides are made by the automatic machines. The semiauto­
matic process, however, is doomed to disappear and it is only a matter
of a few years before the last semiautomatic will be consigned to the
scrap heap and replaced by the automatic.
T a b le

28.— Comparison of man-hour output and labor cost of electric-light bulbs
made by hand and by machine

Man-hour output
26-watt bulb
Process and machine

40-watt bulb

Quantity Index Quantity Index
or amount number or amount number

Pieces
Hand production:
52.52
Plant A .....................................................................................
56.19
Plant B ....................................................................................
54.355
Average___________________________ ____ __ ____ _______
Semiautomatic machine: Empire E_________________________ 116.06
Automatic machine:
801.82
Empire F, with feeder -__
- ______________
Westlake, old ty p e ................................................................ 1,283.63
Westlake, new type____________________________________ 1,699.22

96.62
103.38
100.00
213.52

Pieces
52.64
55.78
54.21
116.55

97.10
102.90
100.00
215.00

1476.16
2361.60
3126.17

787.50
1,319.15
1,703.59

1452.70
2433.41
3142.57

$14,750
13.044
13.897
4.197

106.13
93.86
100.00
30.20

$14.716
13.048
13.882
4.180

106.01
93.99
100.00
30.11

.570
.584
.471

4.10
4.22
3.39

.580
.568
.470

4.17
4.09
3.39

Labor cost (per 1,000)
Hand production:
Plant A .....................................................................................
Plant B _____________ ! ________________________________
_
Average_______________________________________________
Semiautomatic machine: Empire E _________________________
Automatic machine:
Empire F, with feeder_________________________________
Westlake, old type_____________________________________
Westlake, new type_________ __________________________

STATISTICS OF PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST

The data given in Table D are actual figures of output of 25 and
40 watt electric-light bulbs made by hand, by the semiautomatic
Empire E machine, by the automatic Empire F machine operated
with an automatic feeder, and by the older and newer types of the
Westlake machine. Hand production is represented by two plants,
Plant A and Plant B. The average of these two plants has been
taken as the standard by which to measure the output and labor cost
in the other plants.




128

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

The statistics of hand production refer to periods different from
the period for the machine plants, for the reason that no standard
25 or 40 watt bulbs were made by hand in 1925, so completely did
the machine displace the hand process in the production of these
two staple articles. The rates of wages used are in all cases those
which prevailed in the respective plants during 1925.
There is a separate section in the table for each of the processes
for the two kinds of bulbs studied. Each section is divided into
two parts—labor unit, and output and labor cost. The first part
gives the number and the kind of workers composing a single shop
or attending a single machine; the rates of wages paid, per 100 bulbs
or per hour, and the total labor cost of an hour’s operation either by
a single shop or a single machine. The second part gives the actual
number of bulbs made, by months; the number of shop or machine
hours in operation; the output per shop-hour in hand plants and per
machine-hour in machine plants; the output per man-hour and the
labor cost per 1,000 bulbs in all plants.
T a b l e D . — PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G E LEC TRIC-

L IG H T BULBS B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E
25-WATT BULBS—HAND: PLANT A
[In this table all wage rates are for 1925 and labor cost is based on 1925 wage rates regardless of year of out­
put. Italicized figures represent minimum amd maximum]

Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers
1
1
y%
H

Occupation

Wage
rates
per
100

Wage
rates
per
hour

Labor
cost
per
hour

Year and
month

Output

Unithours

Output Output Labor
per
per
cost
unitmanper
hour
hour
1,000

1916
Pieces
Pieces Pieces
$0,882 $0,882
.741 .741 Jan.-June.
737,906 6,238.40 118.28
52.57 $14.736
960,500 8,092.20 118.69
52.75 14.685
.450 .056 July-Dee..500 .063
1917
Jan.-June. 1,015,035 8,559. 50 118.59
52.71 14.698
51.84 14.945
July-Dee— 1,385,937 11,883.00 116.63

Blower __________
Gatherer..................
Carry-in boy______
Cutting-off boy.......

1918
Jan.-June. 1,718,849 14,551.60
July-Dee..
923,939 7,749.90

1.742

Total..............

52.50 14.756
52.99 14.744

1919
Jan.-June.
July-Dee. .
2H

118.12
119.22

6,023.90
847.90

118.65
117.43

52.73 14.690
52.19 14.843

Total.— 7,556,500 63,946.40

118.17

52.52 14.750

714,761
99,573

25-WATT BULBS—HAND: PLANT B

1
1
k

2H

1923
Jan......
0.28 $0,035 Feb— .
_
.035 Mar_
.27
Apr___
Aug—
Nov___
Dec___

Blower..............
Gatherer...........
Section boy.......
Cutting-off girl.

Total..




1.25

.070

Total_
_

4,942
6,576
6,589
11,530
9,902
53,140
106,262

38.00
49.50
50.50
88.50
75.00
424.00
848.00

130.05
132.85
130.48
130.28
132.03
125.33
125.31

57.80 $13,029
59M 13.018
57.99 13.027
57.90 13.028
58.68 13.021
55.70 13.049
55.69 13.049

198,941

1,573.50

126.43

56.19 13.044

CHAPTER II.---- BLOWN WARE: ELECTRIC-LIGHT BULBS

129

T a b l e D . — PRO DUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G E L E C T R IC -

L IG H T BULBS B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
25-WATT BULBS—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: EMPIRE E
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers

Occupation

Gatherer.-............ .
Take-out boy..........
Spiffer (crack - off
boy)------- ---------Section boy.............
Total..

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
100 hour hour

Year and
month

Output

Unithours

1925
$0.65 $0,650
.44 .440 Jan........
Feb.......
.44 .440 Sept___
.35 .175 Dec.......

Pieces
130,267
103,576
26,691
109,958

320.00
254.00
64.00
274.00

Total.

370,492

912.00

1.705

Output Output Labor
per
per
cost
manunitper
hour
hour
1,000
Pieces Pieces
407.08 116.31 $4,188
407.78 116.51 4.181
417.05 119.16 4.088
9
401. SI 114.6 6 4.U
406.24

116.06

4.197

25-WATT BULBS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: EMPIRE F, WITH FEEDER
Machine foreman—
Feeder operator......
Machine operator__
Crack-off machine
operator...............

2
H

Total..

$1.00 0.167
1925
.60 .100 Jan___
.40 .400 Mar___
July....
.40 .400 Aug---Sept___
Oct___
Nov,....
1.067

973,830
289,438
235,348
481,062
344,589
358,817
867.343

495.20 1,966.54
151.90 1,905.45
140.10 1,679.86
275.30 1,747.10
209.30 1,646.89
205.40 1, 746.92
,0 2
420.50 2 6 . “

T otal.... 3,550,427

1,897. 70 1,870.91

842. 80 $0,542
816.
.560
719.
.635
748,
.611
706.
.648
748.
.611
.617
801.82

.570

25-WATT BULBS-AUTOMATIC MACHINE: 24-SPINDLE WESTLAKE, OLD TYPE
Machine foreman..
Mechanic............. IK Machine operators.

g

m

Total-

1925
$1.25 1.208
.85 .283 Jan.......... 1,030,609
.65 .758 Feb_____ 1,042,652
Mar...... . 1,243,121
Apr______
861,775
M ay_____ 1,118,365
June......... 1,310,885
July .
1,327,935
Aug........ . 1,268,730
Sept_____ 1,184,130
Oct______ 1,406,472
N ov ..____ 1,286,920
Dec.......... 1,432,908
Total. _. 14,514, 503

467. 75 2, 203.33 1,322.00 $0,567
493. 75 2, 111. 70 1,267.02
.592
552. 33 2, 250.69 1,850.41
.565
404. 25 2, 131.79 1,279.07
.586
582. 66 1,919.41 1,151.66
.650
609. 75 2, 149.87 1,289.92
.581
614. 50 2, 161.00 1,296. 60
.578
579. 90 2, 187.84 1,312.70
.571
588. 10 2, 013.49 1,208.09
.620
642. 55 2, 188.89 1,313.33
.570
592. 45 2, 172.20 1,303. 32
.575
656. 55 2, 182.48 1,309.49
.572
6,784. 44 2, 139.38 1,283.63

.584

25-WATT BULBS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: 24-SPINDLE WESTLAKE, NEW TYPE
Machine foreman..

M echanic-...........
H Machine operator..




1925
$1.00 $0,125
.90 .225 Jan.......... 1,334,016
425,088
.75 .750 Feb..........
Mar..........
86,650
Apr..........
614,016
M ay.........
380,712
June.
329,972
July..........
844,416
Aug..........
796,086
Sept..........
345,024
Oct...........
664,128
245,376
Dec..........
Total—

6,066,484

565.62 2,358. 50 1,715.27 $0,466
165.84 2,568. 24 1,864.17
.4*9
38.68 2,240. 18 1,629.22
.491
268.65 2,285. 56 1,662.23
.481
177.61 2,143. 53 1,558.93
.513
144.50 2,283. 51 1,660.73
.482
357.60 2,361. 34 1,717.34
.466
332.46 2,394. 53 1,741.48
.459
138.55 2,490. 25 1,811.09
.442
286.00 2,322. 13 1,688.82
.474
120.97 2,028. 40 1,475.20
.54*
2,596.48 2,336.43 1,699.22

.471

130

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

T a b l e D . — PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G E LE C TR IC -

L IG H T BULBS B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued.
40-WATT BULBS—HAND: PLANT A
Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers
1
1

B

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage
rates
per
100

Blower.....................
Gatherer__________
Carry-in boy______
Cutting-off boy.......

Wage Labor
rates cost
per per
hour hour

Year
and
month

Unithours

Output

1916
Pieces
$0,882 $0,882
.741 .741 Jan.-June. 1,768,793
.450 .056 July-Dec - 4,722,574
.500 .063
1917
Jan.-June. 4,164,385
July-Dec _ 3,683,929

14.914.10
39.686.10

Output Output Labor
per
per
cost
unitmanper
hour 1,000
hour
Pieces Pieces
118.60
52.71 $14,696
119.00
52.89 14 .6 4 7

Total..............

1.742

115.87
118.67

61.28 15*108
52.74 14.688

1918
Jan.-June_ 6,931,770 58,873.80
July-Dee - 3,089,901 26,073.50
2X

35,096.10
31,042.40

117.74
118.51

52.33 14.804
52.67 14.708

Total. _. 24,361,352 205,686.00

118.44

52.64 14.716

40-WATT BULBS—HAND: PLANT B

1
1
X

2X

Blower..............
Gatherer...........
Section boy___
Cutting-off girl.

1923
Jan___
$0.28 $0,035 Feb___
.27
Apr___
M a y ...
Nov___
Dec-----

11,814
8,184
22,332
34,431
105,024
127,358

91.50
64.50
179.00
273.00
823.00
1,032.00

129.11
126.88
124.76
126.12
127.61
128.41

57.88 $18,082
56.39 13.042
55.44 13.051
56.05 13.045
56.72 13.039
54.85 18.057

1.25

Total.

0.71
.54

.070

Total

309,143

2,463.00

125.51

55.78 13.048

40-WATT BULBS—SEMIAUTOMATIC MACHINE: EMPIRE E

1
1
1

Gatherer.........
Take-out boy..
Spiffer.............
X Section boy.—

*X

). 65 $0,650
1925
.44
.440 Jan...........
.44
.440 Feb...........
.35
.175 Mar........
June.........
Aug..........
Nov..........

Total..

1.705

20,169
321,463
520,160
14,405
106,562
341,735

48.00
753.00
1,295.00
39.00
312.00
800.00

420.19
426.91
401.67
369. 36
841.55
427.17

120.05 $4,058
121.97 3.994
114. 76 4.245
105. 53 4.616
97.68 4.992
122.06 8.991

T otal___ 1,324,494

3,247.00

407.91

116.55

4.180

40-WATT BULBS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: EMPIRE F, WITH FEEDER
Machine foreman_
Feeder operator___
Machine operator..
Crack-off machine
operator.

2X

$1.00 $0,167
.60
.40
.40

1925

.100 Jan____
.400 Feb___
.400 Mar___
Aug----Oct___
Nov___

Total................................... 1.067

Total___

1,139,317
1,756,933
1,304,281
438,305
533,099
358,744

620.001,837.61
969.70 1,811.88
703.30 1,854.52
241.90 1,811.93
282.60 1,886.41
192.40 1,864.58

5,530,679

3,009.901,837.50

787.55 $0,580
776.50
.589
794.79
.575
776.54
.589
808.4 6
.565
799.11
.572
787.50

40-WATT BULBS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: 24-SPINDLE WESTLAKE, OLD TYPE
X Machine foreman
X Mechanic_________
I X Machine operators

m

Total..............




$1.25 $0,208
1925
.85
.283 Jan____ _
.65
.758 Feb...........
Mar..........
Apr...........
M ay.........
June.........
July..........
Aug..........
Sept.........
Oct...........
N o v ____
Dec..........
1.249

1,091,082
643,840
1,956,362
1,448,148
1,679,208
2,163,784
1,959,355
1,873,860
2,047 874
1,661,736
1,293,515
2,096,286

Total___ 19,915,140

476.10 2,291. 71 1,375.03 $0,545
278.25 2,313.85 1,388.31
.540
900.66 2,172.14 1,303.28
.575
617.16 2,846.47 1,407.88
.582
754.75 2,224.85 1,334.91
.561
1,019.90 2,121. 56 1,272.94
.588
954.25 2,058.29 1,281.97
.608
.551
826.90 2,266.13 1,359.68
896.16 2,285.17 1,371.10
.547
716.60 2,318.92 1,391.35
.539
620.90 2,083.29 1,249.97
.601
996.50 2,103.65 1,262.19
.593
9,058.13 2,148.59 1,319.15

.568

C H A P T E R I I .— BLOWN WAKE: ELECTBIC-LIGHT BULBS

131

T a b l e D .— PR O D U C TIO N A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G E LE C TR IC -

L IG H T BULBS B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
40-WATT BULBS—AUTOMATIC MACHINE: 24-SPINDLE WESTLAKE, NEV TYPE
Labor unit
Num­
ber of
work­
ers

l

Occupation

Vs Machine foreman
Mechanic.................
Operator..................

Wage
rates
per
100

Output and labor cost
Wage Labor
rates cost
per per
hour hour

Year and
month

1925
$1.00 $0,125
.90 .225 Jan...........
.75 .750 Feb..........
Mar..........
M ay.........
July..........
Aug..........
Sept..........
Oct...........
Nov..........

m

Total..............




1.100

Output

Pieces
986,460
855,640
178,596
1,104,540
1,193,100
1 091,264
1,242,300
824,100
1,613,268
1,485,112
119,064
1,590,516

T ota l--. 12,283,960

Unithours

Output Output Labor
per
per
cost
manunitper
hour
hour
1,000

Pieces Pieces
407.40 2,421.35 1,760.98 $0,454
357.29 2,394.81 1.741.68
.459
79.96 2,233. 57 1,624.41
.493
505.33 2,185. 78 1,589.66
.503
545.69 2,186.41 1,590.12
.503
450.81 2,420.67 1.760.48
.454
.506
571.58 2,178.15 1.580.69
330.86 2,490-78 1.811.48
•442
682.63 2.363.31 1,718.77
.465
600.38 2,473.62 1,799.00
.445
47.88 2,486.72 1,808.52
.442
664.29 2.394.31 1,741.32
.459
5,244.10 2,342.44 1,703.59

.470

BLOWN W ARE: PUNCH TUMBLERS
MAKING TUMBLERS BY HAND

In the process of blowing tumblers by hand the shop is commonly
made up of two skilled workers, the blower and the gatherer, and two
helpers, the cracking-off boy and the carry-in boy. The process of
blowing is much the same as in the case of electric-light bulbs. The
gatherer picks up a bit of molten glass on the end of his pipe and by
blowing and marvering it prepares it for the blower. The latter
then lowers it into the automatic or dummy paste mold, which he
operates by the help of a foot treadle, and while constantly rotating
the pipe with his hands blows into it with sufficient force to distend
the glass to the shape of the mold. The cracking-off boy then
separates the blown article from the pipe and the carry-in boy takes
it to the leer to be annealed.
As the tumbler emerges at the cold end of the leer, it looks more
like a bottle with a broken neck than a tumbler. The blank tumbler,
as it is called, must therefore undergo a series of operations before it
finally assumes the shape of a tumbler.
The first operation is to remove the neck or shoulder left by the
mold. This is usually done on a cutting-off machine by the flameexpansion method. The operator first marks the blank tumbler
at the point where the shoulder is to be removed. The marking, a
slight scratch on the surface of the glass, is done by a diamond point,
which can be so adjusted as to mark exactly the size of the tumbler
wanted. The marked blank is then transferred to the cutting-off
machine. The latter consists of a revolving holder in which the glass
article is clasped, with an adjustable narrow gas flame above it. The
gas flame is so fixed as to strike the blank at the line scratched by
the diamond point. As the tumbler rapidly rotates on its axis, a
fracture is formed in the glass along the line of the scratch by the
expansion caused by the flame.
The work of cutting off is performed almost exclusively by women.
One operator usually marks the blank tumbler and takes care of one
machine with two spindles or burners. The output of such a machine
varies widely, according to the experience of the operator and the size
and shape of the tumbler cut. It is estimated, however, that an
average operator in charge of a two-spindle cutting-off machine
could cut all the ware produced by five blowing shops. The equiva­
lent of one-fifth the labor of a cutting operator must therefore be added
to each shop engaged in the process of blowing tumblers by hand.
The next operation is to smooth and even off the rough edges left
by the cutting-off machine. This is usually done by grinding the
tumbler either by hand or by machine,, nowadays predominantly
the latter. There are several types of grinding machines used in this
branch of the glass industry, but the principle of grinding is the same
in all machines. The tumbler is inserted in a chuck at the end of a
revolving spindle operated either by a system of counterweights and a
132




CHAPTER

I I .----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




134

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

foot treadle or by electric power. The rapidly rotating tumbler is
pressed against a grinding stone which smooths and evens off the edges
of the tumbler.
Some grinding machines carry only 3 to 4 chucks, but there are
machines with 20 or more. The work of the operator consists in
inserting the tumbler in the chuck and then taking it out of the
machine when the edge has been smoothed. This is also done almost
exclusively by women. It is estimated that an average operator
could grind all of the ware blown by four shops, and the equivalent
of one-fourth of the labor of a grinding operator must therefore be
added to each shop.
The next step is to clean from the tumblers the glass particles and
the sand left by the grinding machine. The wiping off is done by
hand, either with dry rags or some cleansing powder. It is esti­
mated that one girl is able to take care of two grinding machines, and
the equivalent of one-eighth of the labor of a wiping-off girl must
therefore also be added to each shop blowing tumblers by hand.
The final operation is to fire polish the edges of the tumblers. This
work is done by a glazing machine similar to those used and described
in the case of pressed tumblers (see p. 91). The machine is tended
by two girls, one of whom places the tumblers in the revolving spindles
of the machine, while the other takes them out of the machine when the
glazing is finished. The two operators, working together, can thus
take care of approximately four grinding machines, and the equiva­
lent of one-eighth of the labor of a glazing operator must be added to
each shop.
The total finishing labor thus to be added to each shop consists of
the equivalent of one-fifth of a cutting-off operator, one-fourth of a
grinding operator, one-eighth of a wiping-off girl, and one-eighth of a
glazing operator. After the tumblers are finished, they are ready to
be assorted and packed.
AUTOMATIC PROCESS

The Westlake machine, devised chiefly for the purpose of making
electric-light bulbs, is also used to a large extent in making punch
tumblers. With the exception of the difference in molds, the process
of blowing is exactly the same as in the case of electric-light bulbs (see
pp. 121-125).
The tumbler blown by the automatic process looks very much the
same as the blank tumbler blown by hand. This blank must also
undergo a finishing process before the tumbler is complete, but the
finishing method used with the Westlake machine 1 is decidedly
different from the process described above. From the blowing
machine the blank tumblers are delivered by an automatic conveyor
to the so-called burning machine. By this device 2 the process of
cutting off, grinding, wiping off, and glazing are combined into one
operation and the tumbler emerges from the machine completely
finished but for the annealing process. One of the operators in charge
of this device feeds it and the other takes the finished tumblers out
of the machine and transfers them to the small leer located within
reach. The amount of annealing required in this process is con­
1 It may also be used with any other blown article, whether by hand or machine.
2 Unfortunately the company refused to permit its description here, on account of pending patent.




C H A P T E R I I . — BLOWN WARE: PUNCH TUMBLEKS

135

siderably less than that in the hand-blown tumbler. It takes but 16
minutes to transform the bit of molten glass automatically gathered
by the machine into a completely finished tumbler, ready to be
assorted and packed. It takes more than two hours to accomplish the
same thing in the case of a hand-blown tumbler.
MAN-HOUR OUTPUT AND LABOR COST

Table 29 contains a comparison of man-hour output of a 9-10
ounce punch tumbler made by hand and by the Westlake automatic
machine. The average output of a hand shop is 25.69 tumblers per
man-hour, as compared witji the machine output of 364.57 tumblers.
Expressed in terms of index numbers, taking the man-hour output
of a hand plant as the base, or 100, the index for the Westlake
automatic machine is 1419.1, or more than 14 times that for the
hand process.
The table also shows a comparison of the direct labor cost of making
a 9-10 ounce punch tumbler by the two processes. While the direct
labor cost of blowing one hundred 9-10 ounce tumblers by hand
amounts to SI.90, the corresponding cost on the Westlake machine
is only 13.3 cents. For every dollar spent on production of punch
tumblers by hand, it cost only 7 cents to make them by machine,
a saving in labor cost of 93 cents on every dollar.
There are very few common punch tumblers still made by the hand
process, those that are so made being chiefly of odd shapes and sizes.
Most of the common punch tumblers are being made either on the
Westlake automatic machine, or on the lamp chimney semiautomatic
machine as a by-product of lamp chimneys. Not being able to com­
pete with the machine in terms of quantity, the hand plants are
specializing on a better quality tumbler, with particular emphasis
on etchings and decorations to appeal to individual tastes. The
situation here is similar to the novelty field in the pressed-ware branch
of the glass industry.
T a b l e 29.— Comparison of man-hour output and labor cost o f 9 -1 0 ounce punch

tumblers blown by hand and by machine
Man-hour output
Process

Hand production............................................................................
Westlake machine...... ............................................... ...................

Index
Quantity number
Pieces
25.69
364.57

Labor cost
Amount
per 100

100.0
1419.1

$1,900
.133

Index
number

100.0
7.0

STATISTICS OP PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST

The data given in Table E cover two plants, one where the punch
tumblers are produced by hand, and the other where the older type
of Westlake machine is used. In the case of hand production the
labor unit chosen consists of the blowing shop, to which is added such
labor of the finishing department as is needed to cut off, grind, polish,
and glaze the tumblers before they are complete. The proportions
of this labor have.been determined by estimating the number of
finishing workers needed to take care of all ware produced by all the




136

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

blowing shops. The number of the different kinds of workers, such
as cutters, glazers, grinders, etc., varies from plant to plant, depending
largely on the sizes of the ware produced and the skill of the individual
employees, but the total percentage of finishing labor needed in
addition to each blowing shop, is comparatively small and varies
but little from plant to plant. The figures given in the table may
therefore be taken as more or less representative of all hand plants.
In the case of the automatic machine, the workers on a single
machine have been taken as the production unit. Where a worker
tended more than one machine, only that part of his labor has been
taken which was allotted to a single machine. As each machine is
provided with a single finishing device, there was no need of esti­
mating the proportions of finishing labor needed for each blowing unit.
Each section of the table is divided into two parts—labor unit,
and output and labor cost. The first part gives the number and
kind of workers engaged in the process, their rates of wages per 100
pieces and per hour, and the total labor cost of operating one unit
per hour. The second part gives the total number of tumblers made,
the shop or machine hours used in the production of the quantity of
tumblers given, the output per shop or machine hour, the man-hour
output, and the labor cost of making one hundred 9-10 ounce punch
tumblers.
T a b le

E .— PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G PUNCH
TUM BLERS B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E
9-10 OUNCE PUNCH TUMBLERS-HAND
[Italicized figures represent minimum and maximum]
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
hour hour
100

Blowing:

1
Blower. .
$0,660
Gatherer
1
1
Cracking-off boy.
1
Carry-in boy
Finishing:
H
H
H
V
s
Total..

$0,326 $0,325
.325
.325
.300
.300
.300
.300

1.188

.060
.075
.038
.038
.860

Year and Output
month

Out­
put Labor
Unit- Output
cost
per
hours per unit- manper
hour
100
hour

1926
Jan........
Feb
Mar
Apr.......
M ay___
Aug......
Sept___
Oct........
Nov
Dec

Pieces
22,004 176.00
3,876 30.00
11,964 97.63
7,552 68.50
5,705 49.75
2,020 19.25
1,468 12.25
11,568 98.25
8,946 76.25
13,905 109.25

Total _

88,998 737.13

Pieces Pieces
125.02 26.60 $1.876
129.20 27.49
1.854
122.44 26.05
1.891
110.25 23.46
1.968
114.67 24.40
1.938
105.00 22.34
2.007
119.84 25.50
1.906
117.74 25.05
1.918
117.32 24.96
1.921
127.28 27.08
1.864
120.73

26.69

1.900

*-10 OUNCE PUNCH TUMBLERS-AUTOMATIC WESTLAKE MACHINE
H
1
1
1

Chief operator...........
Machine operator
Burn-off operator
Leer man...................

~W L

Total................




$0.80 1$0.20
.56 1 .56
.45 1 .45
.37
.37
..........

1.57

1925
Sept___
Oct.
N ov___
Dec

86,064 78.17
296,238 254.50
154,728 128.13
149,648 118.75

1,100.99
1,164.00
1,207.59
1,260.20

Total-

686,678 579. 55

1,184.85 364.57

338.76 $0. 14 s
358.15
.135
371.56
.130
887.75 ! .125
.133

BLOWN WARE: GLASS TUBING
MAKING GLASS TUBING BY HAND

In the process of making glass tubing by hand the work is done by
a unit o f workers, the shop, consisting of eight men—four skilled
workers and four unskilled or semiskilled helpers. The skilled
workers, arranged in the order of their importance, are: The gaffer
(blower), the marverer, the ball maker, and the gatherer. The four
helpers are the carry-over boy, the punty boy, the drawing boy, and
the cutting boy.
The process of drawing glass tubing by hand may briefly be de­
scribed as follows: Standing in front of the pot of molten glass, the
gatherer inserts his long and heavy pipe into the molten mass, and
by skillful manipulation accumulates at the end of the pipe the first
bit of glass. He then withdraws the pipe and shapes the glass into a
round ball by first marvering it on a flat and smooth surface and
then blocking it in a wooden receptacle filled with water to cool the
outer surface of the ball. He then returns it to the pot and makes a
second gathering of glass over the formed ball, again marvers and
blocks it, and then turns it over to the ball maker. The latter makes
a third and final gathering of glass, at which time the ball on the end
of the pipe weighs on the average from 30 to 40 pounds. After
swinging the pipe several times forward and backward, at the same
time blowing lightly into the pipe, the ball maker hands it over to
the marverer, who, by repeated blowing, marvering, and blocking
the glass, puts it into shape to be drawn.
In the meantime the punty boy has heated his punty, consisting
of a large iron disk attached to an iron rod. The gaffer, to whom the
carry-over boy has brought the pipe with the ball of glass ready to
be drawn, lifts it over the punty, allowing the outer surface of the
glass ball to become attached to the disk of the punty. The drawing
boy then lifts the punty from the floor and begins to move away
from the gaffer, pulling with him the glass, which has become firmly
fastened to the p u n t y . The gaffer, while continuously blowing into
his pipe to keep the inside of the tube hollow, walks slowly in the
opposite direction from the drawing boy, thus drawing out the glass
to the required thinness. When the drawing is finished, the cutting
boy, with the help of a file, cuts the usable part of the tubing into
required sizes and throws the waste into a cullet receptacle. It is
estimated that only 25 to 30 per cent of the tubing thus drawn by
hand is good tubing, the rest going back into the melting pot as
cullet.
MAKING GLASS TUBING BY MACHINE

The Danner apparatus for the making of glass tubing may best
be described as a process rather than as a single piece of machinery.
As in the case of hand-made tubing the raw materials are first melted
in regular furnace pots, except that the molten glass is heated to a




137

PRODUCTIVITY
O
F
LABOR
I
N
THE
GLASS
INDUSTRY




F ig .

19—DRAWING GLASS TUBING BY HAND

CHAPTER I I .---- BLOWN WARES GLASS TtJBlKG

139

higher temperature than that needed for hand production. When
the glass has been sufficiently heated it is transferred by means of a
large ladle from the. melting pot to the drawing furnace. The
lame, which is about 13 feet long, holds from 40 to 45 pounds of molten
glass. It takes a special man, a ladler, and a helper to ladle the glass
From the pot into the furnace.
The drawing furnace constitutes the principal element of the
Danner tube-drawing machine. It consists of two separate chambers
so arranged that the glass flows from the first chamber into the
second by gravity. A system of gas burners keeps the glass in the
two chambers at the required temperature. Within the second
chamber is located a mandrel, or iron blow pipe, one end being con­
nected by means of valves with an air tank outside the furnace, and
the other end protruding from the front opening of the furnace where
the glass is drawn. The portion of the mandrel within the chamber is
protected by a shell of fire clay or other suitable heat-resisting
material. The clay shell is usually of a conical form, tapering
gradually toward the drawing opening of the furnace. The mandrel,
which inclines forward in a fixed position, is kept in constant rotation
by an intricate system of cams and wheels.
As the glass flows into the second chamber from the first, some of it
is caught up by the rotation of the mandrel and winds itself around the
mandrel, at the same time slowly moving of its own weight down
toward the tapering end of the mandrel. This double motion of the
glass causes it to acquire a cylindrical form by the time it reaches the
drawing opening of the furnace. By this time also it has cooled
sufficiently and become sufficiently ductile to make it possible to
draw it from the mandrel without breaking. The continuous and
regular passing of air from the air tank through the pipe into the
soft glass perforates the interior of the cylinder of glass drawn and
gives it a tubular shape. The size of the tubing thus drawn depends
on the amount of air passing through the mandrel, on the temperature
of the glass at the point at which it leaves the mandrel, and on the
speed of drawing.
The drawing apparatus is usually located some distance away from
the furnace, this distance varying from 100 to 150 feet. On its route
from the drawing furnace to the drawing machine, the glass tubing is
supported by a trough containing a series of pulleys (see Fig. 20).
The drawing machine consists of two endless chains one above and
one below the tube, running on sprocket wheels. The chains are
equipped with gripping pads and rollers, which serve to hold the
tubing and to exert the pulling force. The space between the two
chains can be easily adjusted to the diameter of the tubing to be
drawn.
Upon leaving the drawing machine the tubing passes over a short
table, the end of which is pressed upward by a spring. This pressure
serves to hold the glass tubing against a cutting wheel, which descends
periodically and cuts the glass. The movements of the wheel are
synchronized with the forward movement of the glass tubing, so
that the pieces cut by the wheel are uniform in length. From the
cutting machine the pieces slide off automatically to a platform
attached to the table, from which they are easily removed by an
attendant or by the drawing operator (see Fig. 21).




140

PRODUCTIVITY OP LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

Fid. 20—DA N N E R D R A W IN G M ACH IN E: DRAW ING FURNACE




CHAPTER IT.---- BLOWN W ARE: GLASS TUBING




141

142

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

With the exception of the ladling of the glass from the pot to the
drawing furnace, this process of drawing tubing by machine requires
absolutely no skill or physical labor of any kind. The actual work
of drawing and cutting the tubes is entirely automatic, the only labor
required being in the nature of supervision—to see that the machine
is working properly and that the drawing is resumed when a breakage
occurs in the glass.
The tubing produced by the machine is far superior to and more
uniform than any produced by the hand process. In spite of the in­
creased uniformity, however, the pieces must still be gauged as to their
exact sizes. This is done by a special gauging machine, which auto­
matically grades the tubing into from six to eight sizes. The machine
contains a special compartment for each size, the entrance to which
is barred by two levers which are extremely sensitive as to weight.
As the piece of tubing rolls along the platform on the surface of the
machine it strikes the levers of the first compartment. If the piece
is of the proper weight the levers give way and it enters the compart­
ment; if it is of a different weight it is automatically propelled from
compartment to compartment until it reaches its correct destination.
The gauging operator periodically removes the graded tubes from
their compartments to the warehouse, where they are either packed
ready for shipment or subjected to any additional handling that may
be needed for the special use for which they are destined.
MAN-HOUR OUTPUT AND LABOR COST

Table 30 shows a comparison of man-hour output of glass tubing
made by hand and by machine. The average man-hour output of
glass tubing drawn by hand is 9.967 pounds of sizes 19 to 21, ranging
from 0.1371 to 0.1688 inch in diameter and 10.067 pounds of sizes
32 to 34, ranging from 0.3368 to 0.4156 inch in diameter. The
man-hour output of the Danner machine is 58.932 pounds for sizes
19 to 21 and 75.169 pounds for sizes 32 to 34. Taking hand produc­
tion as the base, or 100, the increase in man-hour output caused by
the Danner machine ranges from 491.9 per cent in tubing of sizes
19 to 21 to 646.7 per cent in sizes 32 to 34. The big difference in
increase of output in the two types of tubing is due to the fact that
within definite limits the larger the diameter of the tubing, the larger
the quantity of glass drawn by the machine per hour.
The table also contains a comparison of the direct labor costs of
making the two types of tubing by hand and by machine. On the
smaller sizes, 19 to 21, the direct labor cost of blowing tubing by
hand amounts to $6,905 per 100 pounds, while by the machine process
it is only $1,281 per 100 pounds. Similarly, on sizes 32 to 34, the
direct labor cost of blowing the tubing by hand amounts to $6,830
per 100 pounds, as contrasted with the machine cost of $1,004 per
100 pounds. In other words, for every dollar spent on production
of tubing by hand it costs only 18.55 cents on sizes 19 to 21 and 14.70
cents on sizes 32 to 34. The saving in direct labor cost thus effected
by the Danner machine ranges from 81.45 to 85.30 cents for every
dollar spent on blowing glass tubing by hand.
The Danner machine described above is still in a semiautomatic
stage in the sense that the glass needs to be ladled by hand from the
melting pot to the drawing furnace. Nevertheless, the large increase
in man-hour output, coupled with a correspondingly large decrease




CHAPTER II.— BLOWN WAKE: GLASS TUBING

143

in direct labor cost of production on the one hand, and the very
great improvement in the quality of tubing effected by the machine
on the other hand, have resulted in the almost complete elimination
of hand production in favor of the machine. It is probably the
only branch in the glass industry where, in addition to larger output
and lower labor cost, the machine product is so much superior to that
made by hand that no reason whatever remained for the continued
existence of hand production. The Danner apparatus was patented
in 1917. In 1926 production of glass tubing by hand was a thing
of the past, a mere memory to the surviving tube blowers, who had
been compelled either to abandon their trade or to adjust themselves
to the new process.
T a b l e 30. — Comparison of man-hour output and labor cost in glass tubing made

by hand and by machine
Man-hour output
Sizes 19 to 21
Process

Hand production__________________________________________
Machine production_______________________________________

Sizes 32 to 34

Quantity Index
or
amount number

Quantity Index
or
amount number

Pounds
9.957
58.932

100.0
591.9

Pounds
10.067
75.169

100.0
746.7

100.00
18.55

$6,830
1.004

100.00
14.70

Labor cost (per 100 pounds)
Hand production__ ________________ _____ _________________
Machine production________________ ____ __________________

$6,905
1.281

STATISTICS OF PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST

Two groups of glass tubing have been used to compare the pro­
ductivity of labor in making tubing by hand and by machine. The
first group contains the commercial sizes 19 to 21, which are extremely
thin, ranging in diameter from 0.1371 to 0.1688 inch, and averaging
from 1,100 to 890 inches per pound of glass drawn. The second group
contains the commercial sizes 32 to 34, which range from 0.3368 to
0.4156 inch in diameter and average from 270 to 216 inches per
pound of glass drawn. Table F shows data for each group of tubing
separately.
The data on machine production are given by months for the year
1925. As by that time the machine had completely displaced hand
production in making glass tubing, the statistics of hand production
refer to earlier periods. In all cases, however, the rates of wages
shown are those prevailing in the plants during 1925.
Each section of the table is divided into two parts—labor unit,
and output and labor cost. The first part contains the number and
kind of workers constituting a production unit, such as a shop or a
machine, the rates of wages paid, and the labor cost per hour of
operating a shop or a machine. The second part gives the actual
quantities of tubing made, the number of shop or machine hours
worked, the output per shop or machine hour, the output per manhour, and the labor cost per 100 pounds of glass tubing produced.



PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN TH E GLASS INDUSTRY

144
T able

F -

-PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING GLASS
TUBING BY HAND AND BY MACHINE
SIZES 19 TO 21 (1,100 TO 890 INCHES PER POUND)—HAND

[In this table all wage rates are for 1925 and labor cost is based on 1925 wage rates regardless of year of out­
put data. Italicized figures represent minimum and maximum]
Output and labor cost

Labor unit

Num­
ber of
work­
ers

Gaffer (blower).
Marverer__.......
Ball maker.........
Gatherer............
Carry-over b oy..
Punty boy.........
Drawing boy___
Cutting-up boy.
Total-

Year and
month

Output

Unithours

Output Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
unit- man- per
100
hour
hour lbs.

$1.00 $1.00
.90
.90
.85
.85
.75
.75
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50

1917
Jan.-June.
July-Dee -

Lbs.
240,176
326,536

2,977.55
4,112.30

Lbs.
U s.
80.662 10.083 $6.819
79.404 9.926 6.927

1918
Jan.-June.
July-Dee.

137,506
116,958

1,744.52
1,474.33

78.822
79.330

9.653
9.916

6.978

5.50

Occupation

T ota l...

821,176 10,308.70

79.658

9.957

6.905

Wage Labor
rates cost
per
per
hour hour

SIZES 19 TO 21 (1,100 TO 890 INCHES PER POUND)—DANNER MACHINE
Machine foreman.
Ladler...................
Assistant ladler.,.
Furnace operator.
Drawing operator.
Gauging operator.

Total.

$1.25 $0.50
.70
.70
.70
.14
.70
.56
.70
.70
.70
.42

3.02

1925
Jan_........
Feb.........
Mar........
Apr.........
M ay.......
Aug.........
Sept____
Oct.........
N ov____
T otal-_

72,670
93,160
130, 470
228,190
151,280
19,875

8 ,2 0
80
76,300
82,823

942,968

314.75
456.50
579.00
1,036.50
711.25
73.50
302.25
262.00
264.50

230.880
204.074
225.337
220.154
212.696
270,409
291.820
291.230
318.131

57.720 $1,308
61.018 1.A71
56.334 1.340
55.038 1.372
53.074 1.420
67.602 1.117
72.955 1.035
72.807 1.037
78.283
.965

4,000.25 235.727 58.932

1.281

SIZES 32 TO 34 (270 TO 216 INCHES PER POUND)—HAND

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Gaffer (blower)___________ $1.00 $1.00
Marverer__ ____ __________ .90
.90
Ball maker.......................... . .85
.85
Gatherer................................ .75
.75
Carry-over boy____________ .50
.50
Punty boy.................... ........ .50
.50
Drawing boy........................ .50
.50
Cutting-up boy___________
.50
.50

8

Total...........................

5.50

1917
Jan.-June.
July-D ec.

364,064
443,565

4,558.13
5,574. 30

79.871
79.573

1918
Jan.-June.
July-Dee.
1919
Jan.-June.

409,981
212,580

4,938.92
2,559.99

83.010 10.376
83.089 10.880

91,962

1,268.84

T otal. . . 1,522,152 18,900.18

72.480

9.984 $6,886
9.947 6.912
6.626
6.624

9.060

7.588

80.536 10.067

QO U
« O

SIZES 32 TO 34 (270 TO 216 INCHES PER POUND)—DANNER MACHINE
Machine foreman.
Ladler................. .
Assistant ladler...
Furnace operator.
Drawing operator
Gauging operator.




Total.

$1.25 $0.50
.70
.70
.70
.14
.70
.56
.70
.70
.70
.42

3.02

1925
Jan____
F e b .....
Mar___
Apr___
M a y ...
June_
_
July___
Aug----S ep t...
Oct___
Nov___
Dec___

155,290
240,988
163,020
161,450
208,745
152,175
151,369
127,280
72,865
179,840
147,239
218,020

602.25
784.75
520.75
538.50
741.75
471.00
512. 50
405. 25
217.00
548.25
457. 50
779. 50

1,978,281

6
,579.00

257.850
307.089
313,050
299.805
281.422
323.089
295.355
314.080
885.784
328.026
321.834
279.692

64.462 $1.171
76.772
.983
78.262
.965
74.951 1 0
.0 1
70.355 1.073
80.772
.935
73.839 1.023
78.520
.962
88.946
.894
82.006
.921
80.458
.938
69,923 1.080

300.696 75.169

1.004

CHAPTER HI.— WINDOW GLASS

The advent of the twentieth century found the window-glass branch
of the glass industry in the United States and elsewhere still in the
most primitive stage of hand production. True, the old method of
making “ crown glass,” by first blowing the glass into a large hollow
sphere and then flattening it into a disk from which the window panes
were cut, had been completely abandoned, and the cylinder process
had been introduced, which made it possible to produce considerably
larger panes of window glass than could be accomplished by the
“ crown-glass” method. But this change was simply a change in the
technique of blowing glass, the process itself remaining, as it had been
for centuries, essentially a hand process.
M AKING W IN D O W GLASS BY HAND

The process of making window glass by hand consists of three
distinct operations: (1) Blowing the cylinder, (2) flattening it into
sheet glass, and (3) cutting the sheet into the proper window-glass
sizes. The group of workers, or the shop, engaged m the first opera­
tion of blowing the cylinder is made up of two skilled workers, the
blower and the gatherer, and one unskilled or semiskilled helper,
termed the “ snapper.” The actual process of blowing the cylinder
may be described as follows: The gatherer first puts his pipe into a
small furnace and heats the nose of the pipe to the temperature neces­
sary for the molten glass to stick to it. The pipe is a heavy iron tube
about 5 feet long, with a wooden sleeve and a mouthpiece at one end,
while the other end is shaped like a cone with a round end and is
called the nose of the pipe. Standing in front of the opening of the
tank or the pot, the gatherer inserts the nose of the pipe in the molten
glass and makes the first gathering, usually termed the “ punny.”
This he carries to an iron tub with running water which stands near
by, and, for the purpose of cooling the pipe, places it in the notches
provided. After the pipe is sufficiently cooled he gathers another
batch of glass and proceeds again to cool the pipe in the same manner
as before. The second batch of glass is called the “ first glass.” Two
or three more gatherings are necessary before the exact quantity of
glass, or the “ lump,” is accumulated on the nose of the pipe. During
these alternate gatherings of the glass and cooling of the pipe the
gatherer continuously blows into the pipe while constantly rotating it
with his hands, thus giving to the adhering mass of glass a shape as
nearly spherical as possible. The quantity of glass gathered depends
upon the strength of the window glass and the size of the cylinder
wanted, and its weight varies from 25 to 40 pounds. When to this
weight is added that of the iron pipe, 10 to 15 pounds, the strenuous
nature of the work of making window glass by hand becomes evident.
When the lump is sufficiently cooled the gatherer takes it to the
“ blow block,” a rounded wooden or iron block about 14 inches in
diameter, hollowed to a depth of about 6 inches. The block is set in




145

146

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

water and is lined with charcoal to prevent the surface of the glass
ball from becoming marred by direct contact with the iron. Here,
without ceasing to rotate the ball in the block, the gatherer turns
the pipe over to the blower. The latter continues to rotate the pipe
and at the same time blows enough air into the glass to distend it to
the size required for the cylinder to be blown. When this is done the
blower turns the pipe with the ball of glass over to the snapper, who
carries it to the “ blow furnace.”
The blow furnace is a small furnace heated to a very high tempera­
ture. It is provided with a wide opening or door to permit the
entrance of the enlarged ball of glass, while the pipe rests on a short
iron bar extended from a swing door in front of the furnace. The
blower again takes charge of the ball, and, keeping it in constant
rotation, exposes it uniformly to the high temperature in the furnace.
He then withdraws it from the furnace and lowers it into the pit, or
“ swing hole,” which is about 2 feet wide, 8 feet long, and 6 to 8 feet
deep. Continuing to rotate the pipe and at the same time blowing
air into the glass, the blower permits the softened mass to run down
from the end of the pipe so that it gradually assumes an elongated
shape like a pear. When the glass is cooled to the proper tempera­
ture the blower swings the pipe several times back and forth in the
swing hole, allowing the glass to stretch until it is thoroughly chilled.
After that he swings the cylinder out of the hole, and, resting the
pipe on the crane of the swing door in front of the furnace, puts the
glass back into the blow furnace to be reheated. He then again
stretches the glass, swinging it back and forth in the swing hole
until it is too cool to stretch, and repeats the operations of reheating
and stretching the glass until it finally assumes the proper dimen­
sions for the cylinder wanted.
The cylinder is again turned over to the snapper, who returns it to
the blow furnace in such a position as to expose the center of the
closed end of the cylinder to the most violent heat. After blowing a
few puffs of air into the glass he swings the entire cylinder into the
furnace and puts his finger over the “ beebe,” or mouthpiece of the
pipe so as to allow no air to escape. The air confined in the cylinder
expands and finally bursts the cylinder at the point where the glass is
most exposed to the heat—the center of the closed end of the cylinder.
Then, for the last time, the blower takes charge of the pipe. When the
glass cylinder in the furnace is sufficiently reheated he withdraws
it from the furnace and by swinging it forward and backward in the
swing hole and at the same time dexterously manipulating the pipe
he widens the small hole caused by the escaped air to the exact size
of the cylinder proper. This marks the end of the extremely skillful
and at the same time very strenuous operation of blowing a cylinder
of glass by hand. The work is performed absolutely without the
aid of tools or gauging devices, and it is remarkable how u n i f o r m the
circumference of the cylinder and the thickness of the glass are when
the work is completed.
The snapper then lifts the cylinder from the swing hole and places
it in a horizontal position upon wooden supports, termed the “ horse.”
He touches the neck of the cylinder, or that portion of it next to the
nose of the pipe, with a wet iron, which starts a crack in the glass,
and by gently tapping the pipe he breaks it loose from the cylinder.
With a small rod the snapper then gathers a bit of glass, draws it out




CHAPTER
III.— WINDOW
GLASS




F ig .

22—H AN D PROCESS: R EH EATIN G B L O W N C Y L IN D E R A N D SW IN G IN G IT OVER PIT

148

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

with a pair of pincers into a thin, long thread and wraps it around
the blowing end of the cylinder where the cylinder proper begins.
The hot thread of gl&ss creates a narrow zone of a temperature con­
siderably hotter than the rest of the cylinder. By applying a cold
iron to this zone the snapper easily separates the main body of the
cylinder from the superfluous glass, known as the “ cap.” This
operation is termed “ capping off,” and the worker performing it is
sometimes called the “ capper.” The next operation, also performed
by the snapper, is to split the cylinder open. He sprinkles some saw­
dust into the inside of the cylinder, and by passing a heated iron rod
up and down through the sawdust he breaks the cylinder open along
the course of the hot iron. This operation is called splitting, and
the worker is termed the splitter.
The cylinder is now ready to be flattened, and the roller boy
takes it to the flattening house and places it in a position accessible
to the flattening crew.
The group of workers engaged in the operation of flattening a
cylinder into a sheet of glass is made up of one skilled worker, the
flattener, and two unskilled helpers, the shove-in boy and the leer
tender. Briefly, the operation is performed as follows: The shove-in
boy places the split cylinder on an elevated rail track and shoves it
into the flattening oven, which is usually heated to a degree just
sufficient to soften the glass but not to melt it. Standing in front
of the opening of the oven, the flattener lifts the glass upon the
heated flattening stone in the oven, and by means of a long iron rod
first flattens the cylinder of soft glass into a sheet and then rubs it
smooth with a “ flattening block,” which is a wooden block attached
to a long bar. From the flattening oven the sheet is transferred to
the annealing oven, which is merely a continuation of the flattening
furnace. As the sheet emerges from the cold end of the leer the
leer tender gives it an acid bath to clean it from the adhering alkali
and then transfers it to the cutting room. There it is examined and
cut into the required sizes, and then packed into wooden boxes ready
for shipment.
CYLINDER-MACHINE PROCESS

Attempts to replace by a machine process the strenuous work of
blowing glass cylinders by hand date back as far as 1885, but it was
not until the Lubbers machine was patented in 1905 that the process
became a marked success. Since then, in spite of the big inroads
made by the more recent introduction of completely automatic
processes of drawing flat glass directly from the tank, the cylinder
machine has been the dominating factor in the window-glass branch
of the glass industry of this country.
The process of making window glass by the cylinder machine can
be divided into several distinct operations: (1) Ladling the molten
glass from the tank into the pots; (2) blowing the cylinder; (3) cap­
ping and splitting the cylinders; (4) flattening the cylinder into
sheet glass; and (5) cutting the sheets into window-glass sizes. The
number of operations and of workers in the machine process is con­
siderably larger than in the hand process. The principal advantages
of this machine lie in the fact that it dispenses entirely with the
highly skilled services of the gatherer and the blower and is capable




CHAPTER

AN D C Y L IN D E R M A CH IN E PROCESS: F L A T T E N IN G TH E C Y L IN D E R INTO SHEET GLASS

III.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




F i g . 2 3 —H A N D

^

150

PKODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN TH E GLASS INDUSTRY

of producing cylinders more than twice as large in diameter and
nearly five times as long as the cylinders made by the handworkers.
The process may briefly be described as follows:
Ladling out the glass.—The ladling crew, which cares for from four
to six machines, consists of three workers— the “ ladler,” the “ skim­
mer,” and the “ back ladler,” a “ pot scraper” being sometimes
added to this crew. Their work is to transfer the molten glass from
the refining chamber of the tank to the pot from which the glass is
drawn. This is accomplished with the help of a large iron ladle,
which holds from 700 to 800 pounds of molten glass. The handle of
the ladle is suspended from a pulley running on a monorail, thus
making it easier to handle the large quantity of glass. The ladler,
with the assistance of the skimmer and the back ladler, inserts the
ladle in the working opening of the furnace, dips it into the molten
glass, and rapidly withdraws it from the tank. As the ladle emerges
from the furnace it has strings and sheets of glass clinging to the
edges and the outside of the bowl. These cool very rapidly and
must be removed by the “ skimmer” before the glass is delivered to
the pot. After the strings have been removed with the help of a
sharp tool, the glass is dumped into the drawing pot. A certain per­
centage of the glass adheres to the inside of the ladle, and this is
transferred to a smaller ladle and delivered back to the melting end
of the furnace by the “ back ladler.” In the meantime the other
two men plunge the hot ladle into a large water container to cool and
wash it off and thus prepare for another operation.
The drawing pot into which the glass is dumped is made of clay or
other heat-resisting material. The pot is really a double pot, made
in the form of two washbasins with their bottoms placed together.
It rests over an insulated kiln and is supported on two axles, so that
it can easily be reversed when the blowing is completed. The kiln
is provided with a set of blast fires which keep the pot at approxi­
mately the same temperature as the glass in the tank. When the
cylinder has been blown and removed from the pot, a certain amount
of glass adheres to the bottom of the pot. The latter is then turned
over, and the fires in the kiln which heat the pot also drain this
residue of glass through a hole at the bottom of the kiln to the cellar,
from which it is removed back to the melting end of the furnace by
a worker known as the “ cellarman.” The fires in the kiln thus
serve the double purpose of keeping the glass in the drawing pot at
the temperature required for blowing, and at the same time of
cleansing and reheating the other side of the pot for another ladleful
of glass.
Blowing the cylinder.—The “ bait” used in the blowing operation
consists of a hollowed cast-iron cylindrical head about 12 inches in
diameter and equipped with an inner annular ring or flange which,
when the operation begins, fills up with glass and forms the support
of the cylinder blown. The hollow head of the bait is screwed onto
a hollow pipe supported in a vertical position by means of a fork
resting on a cage or elevator. This elevator is raised and lowered
by means of a cable fastened to a taper drum driven by an electric
motor. The speed of the motor is controlled by an operator called
the blower, who is the only worker directly engaged in the process
of blowing the cylinder. The blowing pipe is connected to a long
flexible hose, the upper end of which is in turn connected to a small




CHAPTER III.— WINDOW CLASS

151

fan driven by a motor also controlled by the blower. The speed of
the two motors determines the diameter of the cylinder and the rate
of its rising out of the drawing pot.
The actual process of blowing the cylinder is as follows: The pot
having been filled with glass, the cage with the blowpipe and the bait
is lowered until the cylindrical head of the bait is partially immersed
in the glass. The molten material at once fills up the inner ring of
the bait, and the cage is raised until the bottom of the bait is about
1 inch or so above the surface of the glass in the pot. The cage re­
mains in this position for a few seconds, sufficient to cool off the glass
inside the bait, which forms the support of the cylinder to be drawn.
Upon the resumption of the upward movement of the cage the
blower starts the fan, and air is blown through the flexible hose,
through the pipe, and through the head of the bait into the soft
mass of glass. Under the increasing pressure of air the cylinder,
while slowly rising out of the pot, is gradually distended until it
reaches the diameter desired. The blower then decreases the air
pressure to a degree just sufficient to maintain that diameter. At
this moment the speed of the cage, which has continued its upward
movement, is accelerated gradually until the blowing is complete.
This acceleration is effected automatically by the taper drum over
which the cable of the cage travels, and is necessitated by the gradual
cooling of the glass in the pot.
When the cylinder has reached the length required, the speed of
the machine is suddenly increased in order to thin out the walls of
the lower end of the cylinder, just above the level of the glass in the
pot. Then the draw is stopped and the blowing operation is finished.
A worker known as the snapper or the hooker approaches the sus­
pended cylinder, and with a cold light iron hook touches its thinned
portion. The contact of the cold iron with the hot glass produces a
crack in the glass, and an upward movement of the cage easily lifts
the cylinder above the crack, thus severing it from the glass remain­
ing in the pot. The pot is then turned over on its axles, and the other
side of it is ready for another operation.
Capping and splitting.—With the help of a hoop, which is fastened
to a cable and passed over the lower end of the suspended cylinder,
and an intricate system of pulleys, the cylinder, which averages from
35 to 40 feet in length, is brought down to a horizontal position and
laid on a wooden “ horse,” similar to the one used in the hand process
but correspondingly longer. The capper then proceeds, by means
of an electrically heated wire, to cap off the narrower portion of the
cylinder close to the bait, which is thus released from the cylinder
and returned to the cage. In the same way he proceeds to cut the
cylinder into several smaller cylinders, which are then transferred
to the splitting room. These smaller cylinders are split into seg­
ments or “ shawls,” usually three to a cylinder. The process of
splitting varies in different plants, but on the whole it is not much
different from that employed in the hand process.
Flattening and cutting.—The shawls are removed to the flattening
house, and from then on the procedure is exactly the same as em­
ployed in the hand-made cylinders. The shove-in boys place the
shawl in the flattening oven to soften the glass. The flattener then
flattens it out on a hot flat stone and pushes it over to the annealing
oven, or leer. At the cold end of the leer the leer tender lifts the




152

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

F ig. 24-C Y L IN D E R MACHINE PROCESS: ROW OF DRAWING MACHINES IN
OPERATION




CHAPTER
III.— WINDOW
GLASS




F ig .

25—C Y L IN D E R M AC H IN E PROCESS: CAPPING A LARGE C Y L IN D E R INTO SM A LLER SECTIONS

Or
CO

154

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN TH E GLASS INDUSTRY

flat sheet, gives it the usual acid bath, and delivers it to the cutting
department. There the sheet is examined for defects, cut into
window-glass sizes, and packed in wooden boxes ready for shipment.
HAND AND CYLINDER MACHINE PROCESSES COMPARED

The essential difference between the hand and the cylinder machine
processes is confined almost exclusively to the operation of blowing.
The machine does away completely with the highly skilled serv­
ices of the gatherer and the blower. The work of the gatherer is
taken over by the ladle crew, while the blower, though the name
is retained, is in reality merely a machine operator whose work and
training have absolutely nothing in common with those of the
hand blower. The cylinder produced by the machine is at least
twice as large in diameter and more than five times as long as the
hand-produced cylinder. To handle such a large cylinder requires
a greater number of unskilled or semiskilled workers than is needed
in hand production. For this reason the total number of workers
on the cylinder machine is considerably larger than that needed in
a hand shop. Where, in the hand plants, a single snapper does all
the work preparatory to sending the cylinder to the flattening
house, such as placing it on the “ horse,” capping, and splitting, in
the cylinder-machine process separate workers are used for the vari­
ous operations. Hence the presence of hookers, pipe hangers and
cappers, splitters, and helpers in a cylinder-machine plant. How­
ever, the machines are usually arranged four or six in a row and the
same group of- workers has charge of all the machines, constituting
a unit. The effect of the cylinder machines has thus been not only
to dispense with the skill of the gatherer and the blower but also to
integrate and even to a certain extent to specialize the other work
involved in the process.
FLAT GLASS

Although a considerable advance over the hand process, the cylinder
machine repeats essentially the same operations which are used in
hand production. In both cases the glass has to be gathered and then a
cylinder drawn, which must be split, flattened, and cut, before the
glass can be applied to its proper uses. The process of first making a
cylinder and then flattening it has always appeared roundabout, and
experiments of drawing flat sheet glass directly from the furnace date
back as far as 1857. It is only recently, however, that two processes
have been successfully developed to make flat window glass by auto­
matically drawing it from the tank. These two processes are the
Colburn process, by which the flat glass is drawn continuously in a
horizontal direction from the tank and through the leer, and the
Fourcault process, by which a continuous sheet of glass is drawn in
a vertically upward direction.
COLBURN PROCESS

The Colburn machine was invented in 1905, but it was not until
1917 that it became a commercial success in the production of window
glass. The glass is drawn automatically from a continuous tank,
which is divided into three parts— the melting tank proper, the cool­
ing-off chamber, and the forehearth or drawing chamber. By a




CHAPTER H I.---- WINDOW GliASS

155

system of water-cooled channels the glass in the forehearth is kept
at the constant temperature needed to draw the glass. A bait is
lowered into the forehearth and the viscous glass adhering to it is
first raised some distance in a vertically upward position, then bent
at a right angle over a pair of water-cooled rollers, and pulled in the
form of a continuous horizontal sheet between two endless belts into
and through a long annealing leer. Just above the surface of the
glass in the forehearth are located two sets of knurled water-cooled
rollers, which engage the edges of the sheet of glass as soon as it
emerges from the forehearth. The object of the rollers is to prevent
the sheet from tapering to a point, as is characteristic of any viscous
mass subject to a pulling force. During its upward movement the
glass is sufficiently cooled and solidified not to be seriously affected
by the subsequent bending over the rollers. The drawing force is
supplied by the two endless belts, one above the other, which move in
the same direction with the sheet of glass. The upper belt is pro­
vided with caterpillar feet to engage the glass surface and thus supply
the tractive force. At the cool end of the leer the continuous sheet is
cut into the required lengths, which are then subjected to the usual
treatment of acid bathing, examining, and cutting into sizes.
Since 1917 an increasingly large quantity of window glass has been
produced by this process. Unfortunately, however, the present
owners of this patent declined to supply the Bureau of Labor Statististics with the data on number of workers and the output of the
machine which were needed to gauge the labor productivity of this
process in comparison either with hand production or the cylinder
machine. In the subsequent analysis, therefore, this process has not
been taken into consideration, and the Fourcault machine alone has
been used to represent the automatic process of making flat glass.
FOURCAULT MACHINE

The process of automatically drawing upward a continuous wide
sheet of window glass directly from the tank was invented by a
Belgian engineer, Emile Fourcault. The simplicity of this process
is so striking that it is surprising that it is such a recent invention.
The machine consists of two parts, the clay drawing block—the
“ debiteuse,” as it is called in Belgium— and the drawing apparatus.
The drawing block, or “ floater,” is made of refractory material of
lesser density than the glass. It is shaped like a flat-bottomed boat,
with a slit in the bottom extending its entire length, the edges of the
slit being turned up to a height somewhat lower than the outer walls
of the drawing block. When this floater is placed in position and
sufficient pressure from above applied to it, so that it is immersed in
the glass until the edges of the slit lie below the surface of the glass,
the pressure on the block causes some of the glass to flow upward
through the slit. If left alone the glass would merely fill up the two
troughs of the block to a level with the glass in the tank, but this is pre­
vented by seizing the glass as it emerges from the slit by means of a
bait and drawing it off in sheet form. The block under its pressure
is constantly forcing a sheet of molten glass through the slit, which
retains the uniform size of the aperture of the block through which
it is drawn. Two water-cooled tubes placed against the sides of the
slit serve to cool the glass and to give it the resistance necessary in
the upward pull,




156

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY

F ig. 2 6 — FOURCAULT AUTOMATIC MACHINE FOR MAKING WINDOW GLASS




CH APTEK I I I .— W IN D O W GLASS

157

The drawing apparatus of the Fourcault machine consists of a
vertical series of asbestos-covered steel rollers placed in pairs, a certain
distance apart, over the tank and directly above the drawing block,
the sheet of glass drawn from the tank passing between each pair of
rollers in turn. Each pair of rollers is geared together. The rollers on
one side of the glass revolve
in fixed bearings, but the
rollers on the other side are
provided with special adjust­
ments to take care of the
different thicknesses of the
glass. Each of the rollers has
a counterweight exerting just
enough pressure on the glass
to prevent it from slipping
and to keep it moving up­
ward without interruption.
The rollers are kept in motion
by a system of gears driven
by a motor. The control of
the speed is the most impor­
tant factor in the process, as
upon the latter and the tem­
perature of the glass in the
draw in g b lo c k depend the
thickness and the uniform
d is tr ib u tio n of the glass
drawn.
Most of the rollers are in­
cased in a chimneylike box
made of. steel plates with an
asbestos lining. The shaft is
divided into sections by par­
titions of sheet iron arranged
in a slanting position. Each
section is built to retain a
constant heat temperature,
which is gradually lowered as
the sections rise higher and
higher above the tank. As
the sheet of glass in its con­
tact with the rollers passes
from one compartment into
another it is thus subjected
to a complete annealing proc­
us ra
ess. In the event of a break­ F i g . 2 7 — D ia g r a m I l lroctesst in g t h e F o u r c a u lt
P
age in the glass the slanting
position of the iron partitions, or deflectors as they are termed, serves
to keep the pieces of glass from falling back into the drawing block.
The process of operating the Fourcault machine is as follows: First,
the drawing block is placed in position under the drawing apparatus
40780°— 27-------U




158

PR O D U CTIVITY OF LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

with the slit in parallel alignment with the rollers. The block is kept
in position, or lowered and raised when needed, by four heavy steel
bars pressing on the four corners of the block and controlled by means
of a handwheel outside the machine. With the floater in position, the
machine is first started in the reverse direction, and a bait, consisting
of a thin steel framework, is gradually lowered through the rollers into
the sht. By exerting the necessary pressure upon the drawing block
the molten glass in the tank is forced to rise in the slit to meet the bait.
The portion of the glass in direct contact with the cold bait cools
rapidly and forms the principal support for the first drawn sheet.
The machine is then set to operate in the right direction and the bait
followed by a perfectly smooth sheet of glass begins to rise gradually
from the slit of the drawing block. Immediately upon rising from
the tank the glass passes between the water-cooled tubes located at
the sides of the slit and is sufficiently solidified not to be affected by
the contact and pressure of the rollers.
At the top of the machine the bait is broken off and from then on,
barring unforeseen accidents, the sheet of glass continues to rise
uninterruptedly until the machine is stopped. As stated elsewhere,
the chambers within which the rollers are incased are heated to
various temperatures, and by the time the sheet has passed through
the whole shaft, which is about 15 feet high, it is also perfectly
annealed. On the top of the machine is a wooden platform provided
with a slit for the rising sheet of glass. When it reaches the desired
height it is cut off by the cutters and breakers and is forwarded
directly to the dipping department for the necessary acid treatment.
It is then taken to the cutting department, where it is examined for
defects and cut into the regular window-glass sizes.
The process described above is entirely automatic. The only
indispensable labor in this process is that of cutting the sheet of glass
as it rises over the elevated platform on top of the machine. This
is the job of the cutters and breakers. In addition there are needed
special watchers or peepers, as they are called, to see that the machine
works in order. Their job is merely to look through special openings
in the steel case provided for that purpose to see that the glass is not
misshapen by the presence of stones or blisters and that the continu­
ous upward rise is not interrupted by breakage of glass. There are,
of course, also machine operators and skilled mechanics, but their
work is limited entirely to starting the machine and putting it in
order when a breakage or any other interference occurs.
As the glass emerges from the machine perfectly flat the services
of the flattener, the last skilled worker of the hand shop, are completely
dispensed with in this process. An analysis of the three processes
described above, the hand process, the cylinder machine, and the
Fourcault machine, reveals clearly the effects of the development of
machinery on the labor in the window-glass branch of the glass
industry. While the cylinder process replaces the work of the highly
skilled gatherer and blower by the semiskilled ladle crew and a
machine operator, retaining intact the work of the flattener, the
Fourcault machine does away with all the skilled and even semi­
skilled glass workers, using instead unskilled laborers, supervised by
one skilled mechanic or machinist.




159

CH APTER I H .— W IN D O W GLASS

MAN-HOUR OUTPUT AND LABOR COST

Table 31 presents a comparison of man-hour output and labor
cost of making single and double strength window glass by the hand
process and by the cylinder and the Fourcault machines. But before
any conclusions are drawn from this comparison it must be empha­
sized that the labor unit used with the figures of production does not
represent all the labor engaged in all the stages of making window
glass. Since the object of this study is primarily to measure labor
productivity as affected by the introduction of machinery and by
changes in methods of production, only such labor has been included
as was directly or indirectly affected by these changes. In the case
of window glass this would exclude the workers engaged in mixing
and melting the raw materials, whose output can not be measured
in terms of cases of window glass produced. It excludes also the
work of the cutters and packers, which has but a very slight, if any,
relationship to the process used in making the glass.1
The sum total of the labor excluded is, however, very small, being in
no case higher than 10 per cent of the total labor used. For this
reason 4he figures given in the table, while accurately gauging the
effects of machinery on the labor directly affected by the change,
may also be used as fairly representative of the industry as a whole.
T a b le

31*— Man-hour output and labor cost of window glass, single and double
strength, made by hand and by machine
Man-hour output
Single strength
Process and unit of production

Quan­
tity or
amount

Hand production:
Plant A _________________________________________ _____
Plant B_______________________________________________
Average
_ _
__ ____________________________
Cylinder machine:
6-machine unit__ _______ ___ _____ ____________________
8-machine unit__________ ________ _ _ ___________ _____
12-machine unit__ _____________________________________
Average__________________________ ___________________
Fourcault process:
4-machine unit____________________________________ ____
6-machine unit_______________ _____ ____________________
8-machine unit________________________________________
Average__________ ________________ ____ ____ _________

Boxes °
0.705
.713
.709
1.330
1.743
1.889
1.654
1.8^0
1.939
1.793
1.851

Double strength

Index
number

Quan­
tity or
amount

100.0

Boxes a
0.554
.567
.561

100.0

233.3

.771
.926
1.220
.972

173.4

261.1

1.249
1.462
1.129
1.280

228.4

100.0

$1.278
1.362
1.320

100.0

42.6

.819
.696
.583
.699

53.0

31.3

.434
.380
.485
.433

32.8

Index
number

Labor cost (per box)
Hand production:
Plant A .....................................................................................
Plant B.....................................................................................
Average,........ ................. , ...................................................
Cylinder machine:
6-machine unit_______________ _____ _______ ______ ____
8-machine unit__________________________ ____________ _
12-machine unit________________________________ _____ _
Average_____ _______________ _____ _____________ ____
Fourcault process:
4-machine unit....... ............................................. ...... ......... .
6-machine unit........................... ........... ..................................
8-machine unit......... ........................................ .......................
Average______________________________ ________ ______

$0,935
.975
.955
.475
.370
.377
.407
.298
.287
.306
.299

•60 square feet.
1 The packers are not at all affected by a change from one process to another, while the cutters disagree
among themselves as to the effects of such a change on their output.




160

P R O D U C T IV ITY O F LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U S T R Y

The preceding table contains a comparison of man-hour ouput of
single and double strength window glass made by the three processes—
hand, cylinder machine, and Fourcault. Two plants are shown to
represent hand production. The average man-hour output of these
plants is 0.709 box of 50 square feet of single and 0.561 box of double
strength glass. To represent the cylinder-machine process, data for
three plants are shown, because the variation in man-hour output by
this process is larger than that in hand production. The principal
cause of this variation is the number of machines used in the plant
to constitute a unit, some plants using 6, others 8, and still others
12 machines in each unit. The average man-hour output of the
three plants is 1.654 boxes of single and 0.972 box of double strength
glass. In the Fourcault process the average man-hour output of the
three plants is 1.851 boxes of single and 1.280 boxes of double strength
glass. For comparative purposes the average man-hour output by
the three processes is expressed in terms of index numbers. Taking
hand production as the base, or 100, the cylinder machine shows an
index of 233.3 for single strength, or an average man-hour output two
and one-third times as large as that by hand production; and the
Fourcault machine shows an index of 261.1, or a man-hour output
more than two and one-half times as large as that by the hand
process. For double-strength window glass the index of the cylinder
machine is 173.4 or nearly one and three-fourths times that of the
hand process, and that oi the Fourcault machine is 228.4, or more
than two and one-fourth times that of hand production.
The effects of the introduction of machinery on man-hour output of
window glass, though very great, are not as phenomenal as in some
of the other branches of the glass industry. However, the figures are
more favorable to the machines when labor cost is considered. In
single-strength window glass the direct labor cost of making a box
of 50 square feet of window glass is 95.5 cents. On the cylinder
machine the corresponding labor cost is only 40.7 cents, representing
a reduction of 57.4 per cent, while on the Fourcault machine it is
29.9 cents, representing a reduction of 68.7 per cent. In the case
of double-strength glass the direct labor cost per box of 50 square
feet is $1.32 when made by the hand process. On the cylinder
machine the corresponding labor cost is 69.9 cents, representing a
reduction of 47 per cent, while on the Fourcault machine it is only
43.3 cents, representing a reduction of 67.2 per cent.
There is thus a decided discrepancy noticeable between the increase
in man-hour output effected by the machine processes and the
decrease in the direct labor cost due to the same processes. This
may be explained by the fact that the introduction of machinery in
this branch of the glass industry resulted not so much in decreasing
the number of workers involved as in displacing highly paid skilled
workers by unskilled laborers. The cylinder-machine process actually
requires a larger crew per unit than is needed in hand production.
(See p. 154.) Even the Fourcault machine requires almost as many
attendants as the number of workers in a hand shop. On the other
hand, the cylinder machine eliminates the services of the skilled
gatherer and blower, while the Fourcault machine, in addition, dis­
penses with the skilled flattener. It is this situation which causes
the discrepancy between the increase in man-hour output and the
decrease in labor costs effected by the introduction of machinery.




161

CH APTER I I I .---- W IN D O W GLASS

PRESENT SITUATION IN WINDOW-GLASS BRANCH OF THE
INDUSTRY

The figures of man-hour output and labor cost of making window
glass by hand and by machine are sufficient to tell the story of what
has been happening in this branch of the glass industry in recent
years. Hand production, which less than 25 years ago constituted
100 per cent of the window glass made in this country, had by 1925
been reduced to a nominal quantity of less than 1 per cent of the glass
produced. And signs are not missing which point to the complete
elimination of hand production within the short period of two or
three years. As a factor in the window-glass branch of the glass
industry hand production is now entirely a thing of the past.
With the disappearance of the hand plants there disappears also a
class of workers, gatherers and blowers by trade, who for centuries
had been known as the most highly skilled and highly paid artisans.
Not hampered by any progress in the industry and conscious of their
skill and power, the window-glass workers had successfully developed
the policy of confining their trade to a small group of workers and
their families. No one but the nearest kin of a blower or gatherer
could ever become an apprentice to either, and the number of appren­
tices in the trade had been strictly limited. With this policy also
went the rigid policy of strict limitation of output on the part of
workers. It was this situation, as much as the natural trend of
progress, which probably hastened the advance of machinery in this
branch of the industry, resulting in the almost complete elimination
of hand production.
As among the several machine processes which have taken the
place of hand production, the problem of survival is more difficult.
Technically the Fourcault machine represents a considerable step in
advance over the cylinder machine. Not only does it dispense with
all the skilled labor needed in hand production but it actually reduces
to a minimum the total number of workers around the machine. It
is essentially an automatic process. This can not be said of the
cylinder machine. In addition to retaining the services of a skilled
flattener and actually increasing the number of operations needed as
compared with hand production, the process itself is rather round­
about and requires much handling of the glass before the sheet finally
reaches the cutting department. The statistics of man-hour output
and direct labor cost, shown in Table 32, also point to an advantage
in the Fourcault process over the cylinder machine.
T a b le

32.— Comparison of direct man-hour output and direct labor cost of making
window glass by the cylinder and the Fourcault machines
Man-hour output

Process

Single
strength

Direct labor cost

Double
strength

Single
strength

Double
strength

Index
Index Cents Index Cents Index
Boxes number Boxes number per box number per box number
Cylinder machine process...................
Fourcault process................................




1.654
1.851

100.0
111.9

0.972
1.280

100.0
131.7

40.7
29.9

100.0
73.5

69.9
43.3

100.0
61.9

162

PR O D U CTIVITY OF LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

Taking the man-hour output and the direct labor cost of the
cylinder process as the base, or 100, the indexes for the Fourcault
process are: 111.9 for man-hour output of single-strength glass, and
131.7 for double-strength glass; 73.5 for direct labor cost of single­
strength glass and 61.9 for direct labor cost for double-strength glass.
Nevertheless, the largest quantity of glass in this country, especially
of the better grades, is still being produced by the cylinder process.
One of the reasons is, of course, the comparatively recent introduc­
tion of the Fourcault machine in the United States. The first ma­
chine was installed in this country in 1920, and the American manu­
facturers using this process openly admit that they do not as yet
know how to work the machine to the best advantage. As a result
the glass produced by this process, though absolutely flat and
beautifully fire polished on both sides, is, on the average, of a some­
what lower grade than the glass produced by the cylinder machine.
Its principal defects are faint lines appearing in the flat-drawn glass.
Thus both processes, the cylinder and the Fourcault, and for that
matter also the Colburn machine, have their advantages and dis­
advantages, with no clear indication as to which of the three machines
will finally prevail in the industry. One thing, however, is certain,
the industry is keenly aware of this situation and expresses it in
sharp competition as to both price and quality. At present more
stress is laid on the quality of the glass, but the tendency is also to
lower the cost of production as well as constantly to improve the
quality of the product.
STATISTICS OF PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST

Table G shows statistics of production of single and double strength
window glass made in separate plants by the hand process and by the
cylinder and the Fourcault machines. Each section of the table is
divided into two distinct parts—labor unit, and output and labor
cost. The first part contains the operations involved, the number
and occupations of the workers engaged in the process, and the rates
of wages paid. The total number of workers constituting a labor
unit is shown and also the total wages paid per hour to all the workers
in the unit.
Plant A and Plant B are hand plants. The labor unit given con­
sists of the blowing unit, the shop, which is made up of one blower,
one gatherer, and one snapper, and that portion of the time of a flatten­
ing crew which is needed to flatten all the glass made by a single
shop in a given period of time. A normal flattening crew consists
of one flattener, one shove-in boy, and one leer tender. But it has
long been the practice in all hand plants to work the flatteners and
the shove-in boys on the basis of three 8-hour shifts a day, while
the leer tenders are required to work two 12-hour shifts. On this
basis there are only two leer tenders for every three flattening crews.
The number of flattening crews needed in a plant bears a definite
relationship to the number of blowing shops operating in the plant.
But this relationship is somewhat different in the separate plants.
In Plant A there are three flattening crews used for every 11 blow­
ing shops, while in Plant B two flattening crews are used for every
7 shops. On the whole, however, the total labor constituting a
production unit is not much different in the two plants, and this is
generally true of all hand plants.




CH APTER H I .— W IN D O W GLASS

163

The wage policy of the hand plants is to pay the blower, the
gatherer, the snapper, and the flattener on a piece rate and the other
workers on a time basis. The blower is usually considered the
leader of the shop. His wage is, therefore, taken as the basis upon
which the rates of the gatherer and snapper are determined, the
gatherer usually getting 80 per cent and the snapper 60 per cent of
the blower’s rate. The rate of the flattener is fixed separately, but
it, too, has a definite relationship to the blower’s wage.
In the statistics of output, shown in the second part of each section,
the data given are:
(1) Total quantity of salable window glass produced month by
month either for a whole year or for a period of not less than six
months, classified as to strength and expressed in the unit prevailing
on the market—namely, boxes of 50 square feet of glass. This
classification does not take into consideration the variation in brackets
or sizes used to make up a single box.
(2) Total number of hours actually put in by all the labor units to
produce the quantity of glass given. It is clear that these hours do
not mean the total number of hours the plant was in operation, but
the number of hours an average labor unit would have to work to
produce the same quantity of glass produced by the whole plant in a
correspondingly shorter time. The aggregate output and the aggre­
gate time put in by all the shops in the plant—good, bad, and indif­
ferent—enables one to escape the difficulties and the errors which are
inextricably bound up with the choosing of any one shop as an average.
(3) The average hourly output of a single unit. This figure is the
result of dividing the total production by the total number of unithours.
(4) The man-hour output, derived by dividing the unit-hour
production by the total number of workers constituting the unit.
This man-hour output of the plant is the standard of measurement
used to compare the labor productivity in the separate plants using
the various processes, hand or machine.
(5) The labor cost per unit of output—in this case, per box of 50
square feet of window glass—derived by dividing the total labor cost
per hour by the hourly output of the labor unit. These figures are
used to compare the labor cost of window glass made by the three
processes—hand, cylinder, and Fourcault machines.
Three plants are shown using the cylinder-machine process. In
these plants the labor unit is made up of three groups of workers
performing the operations of ladling, blowing, and flattening the glass.
Since these workers normally tend more than one machine, the entire
unit is shown, the total workers, however, being shown per machine
as well. The number of machines operated in each of the three plants
given is different, and the average number of attendants per machine
is also different. Hence, there is a larger discrepancy in the number
of workers per machine in the cylinder-machine plants than per shop
in the hand plants; in the hand plants the number per shop varies
from 3 ^ to 3-^-fJ-, a difference of a little over 0.04 of the labor of one
man, while the variations in the cylinder machine process range from
5 to
per machine, a difference of the entire labor of a single worker.
Three plants are given using the Fourcault machine. Here, too, the
labor unit is that of a group of machines. Since the glass produced
by this process is drawn flat directly from the tank, there is no sub-




164

PRO D U CTIVITY O F LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

division of the workers, such as in hand production and on the cylinder
machine. On the other hand, the workers in these plants are also
required to tend more than one machine, and so the labor unit for the
group of machines is given in the table, the total per machine also
being shown. Here, too, as in the cylinder-machine plants, the vari­
ation in the total number of workers constituting the machine unit
is larger than that in the shop in the hand process.
The wages paid in plants using either the cylinder or Fourcault
machines are predominantly on a time basis, the sole exception being
the flatteners in the cylinder-machine plants, who are paid on a piecerate basis. There is no uniformity in the rates of wages paid in the
different plants using the same machine process. The majority of
workers are unskilled and the wages are determined by the general
conditions prevailing in the local labor markets.
The statistics of output in the plants using the machine process are
computed on the same principles as those for the hand plants. The
table shows the total quantity of salable window glass produced;
the total machine-hours taken by all machines in operation to produce
this quantity of glass; the machine-hour output— that is, the quan­
tity of glass produced by the average machine in an hour; the average
man-hour output of the plant; and the labor cost per box of 50 square
feet of window glass.
T a b le

G .— PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G W IN D O W
GLASS B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E
SINGLE-STRENGTH GLASS—HAND: PLANT A

[In this table all wage rates are for 1925 and labor cost is based on 1925 wage rates regardless of year of out­
put data. Italicized figures represent minimum and maximum]
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
boxi hour hour

Blowing:
Blower............ . $0,320
Gatherer_______ .256
Snapper_______
.192
Flattening:
Flattener............ .087
A
Roller boy_____
s
Shove-in boy
£
Leer tender_____

Total________

.855

Output Shophours

1925

1
1
1

3t t
t

Year and
month

.215

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- box*
hour

Boxes i Boxes J
2.610 0.684 $0,938
2.875
.753
.930
2.650
.694
.937
2.501
.655
.941
2.784
.729
.933
2.940
.770
.928

Boxes 1
6,264
7,360
8,490
6,804
M a y ........... 7,572
June............ 4,234

2,400
2,560
3,200
3,720
2,720
1,440

1926
F e b ............
Mar.............
A p r.............
M ay............
June............

8,302
8,564
8,120
7,452
1,284

3,040
3,200
3,040
2,880
440

2.731
2.673
2.671
2. 588
2.918

.715
.700
.700
.678
.764

.934
.936
.936
.938
.929

74,446

27,640

2.693

.705

.935

Feb..............
Mar.............

$0.45 $0,041
.38
.104
.38
.070

Out­
put
per
shophour

Total

SINGLE-STRENGTH GLASS—HAND: PLANT B

1
1
1
*

Blowing:
Blower...
Gatherer.
Snapper.
Flattening:
Flattener.......
Roller boy___
Shove-in boy.
Leer boy ........
Total..

1 50 square feet.




1925
Nov___
Dec___

L325
.260
.195
.087
1.060
.143
.095
.867

9,884
10,818

3,560
3,880

2.776
2.788

0.719
.722

$0,974
.974

1926
Jan____
Feb___
Mar___
Apr___
M ay_
_

11,420
7,550
14,504
10,498
6,230

4,160
2,840
5,280
3,760
2,280

2.745
2.658
2.747
2.792
2.732

.711
.688
.711
.728
.707

.976
.979
.976
.974
.976

70,904 j 25,760

2.752

.713

.975

Total.

CHAPTER I I I .---- W IN D O W GLASS
T able

165

G . — PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN M AKING WINDOW
GLASS BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued
SINGLE-STRENGTH GLASS—CYLINDER MACHINE: 6-MACHINE UNIT

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Ladling:
Machine foreman.
Ladler...................
Skimmer...............
Pot turner.............
Pot scraper............
Back ladler ...........
Cellarman__.........
Blowing:
Blowers.................
Snappers...............
Cappers.
Splitters_____
~plitt
Helpers...........
Inspector_____
Roller boys___
Flattening:
Flatteners____
Shove-in boys.,
Leer tenders.
Total per unit____
Total per machine.

Output and labor cost
Wage Labor
rates cost
per
per
hour hour

$0.85 $0.85
.80
.80
.65
.65
.60
.60
.60
.60
.50
.50
.50
.50
.80
.60
.63
.50
.50
.50
.50

1.60
3.00
1.89

.95
.45
.50

Year and
month

Out­ Out­
put
Ma­
put Labor
per
cost
Output chine
per
ma­
per
hours chine- man- box
hour hour

1925
Aug-----Sept___
Oct____
Nov___
Dec____

Boxes
22,502
21,368
21,635
22,258
25,472

2,808
2,546
2,530
2,712
3,076

Boxes Boxes
8 1 1.265
.0 4
8.393 1.325
8.551 1.350
8.207 1.296
8.281 1.308

$0,499
.476
.468
.487
.483

1926
Jan____
Feb____
Mar......
Apr____
M ay___
June___
July.......

27,312
20,514
32,222
27,868
25,471
25,038
22,657

3,256
2,336
3,800
3,211
3.040
3.040
2,584

8.388
8.782
8.479
8.679
8.379
8.237
8.768

1.324
1.S87
1.339
1.370
1.323
1.301
1.384

.477
.456
.472
.461
.477
.485
.456

Total-

294,317

34,939

8.424

1.330

.475

5.70
1.80

1.00

1.00
.50

1.00

2.00

23.99

SINGLE-STRENGTH GLASS—CYLINDER MACHINE: 8-MACHINE UNIT
Ladling:
Shift foreman_______
Machinist..................
Ladlers _ .....................
Skimmers................... .
Back ladlers..... ..............
Cellarman................
Blowing:
Blowers......................
Snappers....... .........
Cappers.................. __
Splitters_______ ____
H elpers................. .
Roller boys _ ..............
Flattening:
Flatteners..................
Shove-in bo y s.._____
Leer tenders ..............
Total per unit........
43H
Total per machine.

.94
.50
.40
.40

.600
1.880
1.000

.800
.400

.94
.50
.70
.45
.40
.45

1.880
3.000
2.800
.900
.800
.900

1.20
.40
.40

8.400
1.867
1.867
27.974
3.496

1925
Sept......... .
O ct.......... .
N ov.......... .
Dec______

17,899
27,323
25,145
25,971

2,040
3,000
2,760
2,760

1.620
1.681
1.682
1.737

$0,898
.384
.383
.371

1926
Jan______
Feb______
Mar_____
Apr______
M ay..........
June_____
July______
Aug...........

31,015
25,982
34,783
37,175
30,362
26,336
23,205
27,728

3,200 9.692 1.789
2,560 10 .1 4 9 1.874
3,456 10.065 1.858
4,160 8.936 1.650
3,168 9.584 1.769
2,760 9.542 1.762
2,520 9.208 1.700
2,880 9.628 1.777

.360
^44
.347
.391
.364
.366
.379
.363

Total___

332,924

35,264

8.774
9.108
9.111
9.410

9.441

1.743

.370

3,822 10.370
3,864 9.767
3,976 9.498
3,808 9.637

1.944
1.831
1.781
1.816

$0,366
.388
.399
.392

3,992
3,408
3,916
4,544
4,368
4,368
4,544

9.285
10.332
9.690
10.078
9.753
11.076
11.161

1.782
1.937
1.817
1.890
1.829
2.077
2.098

.411
.367
.392
.376
.389
.343
.840

44,610 10.077

1.889

.377

SINGLE-STRENGTH GLASS—CYLINDER MACHINE: 12-MACHINE UNIT
1925
Ladling:
Shift foreman................. $0,900 $0,900 Sept............ 39,635
Machinist........ .............. .700
.700 Oct.............. 37,741
Ladlers.............. .......... .975 1.950 •Nov............. 37,763
Skimmers....... ............... .580 1.160 Dec.............. 36,889
Pot turners........... .......... .580 1.160
1926
Cellarman...................... .500
.500
Feb.............. 36,867
Blowing:
Blowers..... ................... . .920 3.680 M ai___- ___ 35,210
4
Hookers..........................
.580 2.320 Apr_______ 37,946
4
Pipe hangers.................. .580 1.160 M a y ........... 45,796
2
Cappers...... ................
.840 5.040 June............ 42,599
6
Splitters......................... .670 2.680 July............. 48,380
4
Roller boys..................... .500 3.000 Aug.............. 50,714
6
Flattening:
Flatteners............. ....... 1.150 13.800
12
Shove-in boys................. .440 3.520
8
Leer tenders................... .440 3.520
8
Trucker........................... .440
.440
1
Total........ 449,540
64
Total per unit_______
45.530
3.794
Total per machine___
5H
1
1
2
2
2
1




166

PR O D U C T IV ITY O F LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U S T R Y

T able

G .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING WINDOW
GLASS BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued

SIKOIiE-STRENOTH GLASS—FOURCAULT AUTOMATIC MACHINE: 4-MACHINE UNIT

Labor unit

Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Output and labor cost

Occupation

Chief foreman....... .
Shift foreman_____
Assistant foreman-.
Mechanic.............. .
Platform men....... .
Peepers...................
Cutters...................
Breakers.................
Checker.................
Truckers.................
17

4
M

Wage Labor
rates cost
per
per
hour hour

$1.45 $0,483
1.15 1.150
.50
.500
.85
.570
.47
.940
.45 1.350
.47
.940
.47 1.880
.50
.500
.45
.900

1926
Jan____
Feb___
Mar___
Apr___
M ay....
June...
J u ly ...
Aug___
Sept___

Boxes
3,685
11,346
7,915
10,845
8,671
11,241
5, 659
8,451
6,813

9.213
2.304

Total

74,626

Total per unit____
Total per machine.

Year and
month

Ma­
Output chine
hours

Out­ Out­
Labor
put
put
cost
per
per
per
ma­ m a n chine- hour- DOX
hour

Boxes Boxes
7,312 1.720
7.419 1.746
1,000 7.915 1.862
1,336 8.118 1.910
1,112 7.798 1.835
1,384 8. m
1.911
712 7.948 1.870
1,112 7.600 1.788
7.097 1.670
504
1,528

9,648

7.735

$0,315
.311
.291
.284
.296

.28A

.290
.303
•.325
.298

1.820

SINGLE-STRENGTH GLASS—FOURCAULT AUTOMATIC MACHINE: 6-MACHINE UNIT
Chief foreman.........
Chief mechanic___
Shift foreman.........
Shift machinist___
Machine operators.
Machine tenders. . .
Watchers. ..............
Utility men............
Relief man..............
C u t t e r s ..........................

H
26H

4V
t

Boss breaker...........
Breakers.................
Dipmen..................
Inspector- ..............
Total per unit____
Total per machine .

$1.40 $0,467
1.05
.700
.85
.850
.630
1.180
.55 1.650
.50 1.500
.47
.940
.50
.500
.50 1.500
.560
.56
.50 3.000
.44
.85

1926
Aug___
Sept___
Oct____
N ov___

10,090
14,870
12,630
15,745

1,231
1,724
1,506
1,807

8.197
8.625
8.378
8.712

14.640
2.440

Total.

53,335

6,268

8.509

1.868

1.965
1.909
1.985

$0.298
.283
.291

.m

.287

SINGLE-STRENGTH GLASS-FOURCAULT AUTOMATIC MACHINE: 8-MACHINE UNIT
Chief foreman.........

% Mechanic................
l Shift foreman.........
l Shift machinist.......

2

3
4
2

1
4
1

8
2

H
3M
0
3 f!

Machine operators.
Machine tenders. . .
Watchers................
Utility men............
Relief man..............
Cutters...................
Boss breaker...........
Breakers.................
Dipmen..................
Inspector................
Total per unit........
Total per machine.




$1.40 50.467
.700
1.05
.850
.85
.630
1.180
.55 1.650
.0 0
.50 2 0
.47
.940
.500
.50
.0 0
.50 2 0
.56
.560
.50 4.000
.44
.880
.85
.283
16.640
2.080

1926
Jan........
Feb.......
Mar.......
Apr....... .
M ay___

Total.

. 24,800
10,865
24,080
18,742
. 18,560

3,813
1,655
3,622
2,637
2,545

6.504
6.565
6.648
7.107
7.293

1.715
1.731
1.753
1.874
1.923

$0,320
.317
.313
.293
.285

97,047

14,272

6.800

1.793

.306

167

CH APTER I I I .— W IN D O W GLASS
T a b l e G . — PRODUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN

M A K IN G W IN D O W
GLASS B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E R Y — Continued
DOUBLE-STRENGTH GLASS—HAND: PLANT A
Labor unit

Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Output and labor cost

Wage Wage Labor
rates rates cost
per
per
per
hour hour
box

Occupation

Blowing:
Blower________ $0,440
Gatherer_______ .352
.264
Snapper_______
Flattening:
TT
»
Flattener_______ .120
•jSjRoller boy ____
Shove-in boy___
■
rr
Leer tender_____
A

$0.45 $0,041
.104
.38
.38
.070

1.176

.215

1
1
1

3t t

Total...............

Year and
month

Output Shophours

Out­
put
per
shophour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- box
hour

1925
Jan________
Feb..............
Mar.............
Apr_______
M ay............
June_______

Boxes
2,434
3,208
3,734
4,496
3,758
1,052

1,440
1,640
2, 200.
1,760
480

Boxes Boxes
2.173 0.569
2.228
.584
2.277
.596
2.044
.535
2.135
.559
.584
2.192

1926
Feb..............
Mar_______
Apr....... ......
M ay_______
June_______

1,824
1,960
2,008
3,570
822

960
960
960
1,760
360

1.900
2.042
2.092
2.028
2.288

.498
.535
.558
.531
.598

1.290
1.282
1.279
1.283
1.271

T otal. 28,866

13,640

2.116

.554

1.278

1,120

$1.275
1.273
1.271
1.282
1.277
1.275

DOUBLE-STRENGTH GLASS-HAND: PLANT B
1925
N ov_______
Dec.......

Blowing:
Blower

1
1
1
2
/7

A

V
i
T
X
3tti

_______ $0,460
.368
Snapper _______ .276
Flattening:
Flattener_______ .123
Roller boy ___
Shove-in boy___
Leer tender ___

$0.60 $0,060
.143
.50
.095
.50

Total _______ 1.227

.298

2,640
3,044

1,280
1,400

2.06S
2.174

0.534
.563

$1,370
1.363

1926
Jan..............
Feb..............
Mar_______
Apr_______
M ay......... .

2,362
2,326
3,810
3,452
2,170

1,080
1,080
1,720
1,560
920

2.187
2.154
2.215
2.213
2.S59

.566
.558
.574
.573
.611

1.362
1.364
1.361
1.361
1.352

19,804

9,040

2.191

.567

1.362

Total.

DOUBLE-STRENGTH GLASS—CYLINDER MACHINE: 6-MACHINE UNIT
Output and labor cost

Labor unit

Num­
ber of
work­
ers

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
3

2
2
1
2
6
4
4
38

Occupation

Wage Labor
rates cost
per
per
hour hour

Ladling:
Machine foreman
$0.85
T
^adlftr
.80
Skimmer_____________
.65
Pot turner__________ _
.60
Pot scraper.....................
.60
Back ladler....................
.50
Cellarman.......... ...........
.50
Blowing:
Blowers______________
.80
Snappers.........................
.60
.63
Cappers ......................
Splitters.... .....................
.50
Helpers.... ................... .
.50
Inspector ____________
.50
Roller boys____________
.50
Flattening:
Flatteners.......................
.95
Shove-in boys_________
.45
Leer tenders _
____
.50
Total Derunit
Total dot machine




$0.85
.80
.65
.60
.60
.50
.50
1.60
3.00
1.89
1.00
1.00
.50
1.00

Year and
month

Output

Ma­
chine
hours

Out­ Out­
put
put Labor
per
cost
per
ma­ man- per
chine- hour
box
hour

1925
Aug.............
Sept_______
Oct________
Nov.............
Dec..............

Boxes
3,477
5,476
5,836
4,197
1,639

760
1,102
1,140
836
362

Boxes Boxes
4.575 0.722 $0,874
4.960
.783
.806
5.119
.808
.781
5.020
.793
.797
4.528
.725
.883

1926
Jan ...........
Feb ...........
Mar
____
Apr
____
May .........
June__.........
July.............

935
1,977
3,692
2,102
2,832
4,539
4,867

190
399
760
418
608
874
1,064

4.921
4.955
4.858
5.029
4.658
5.19S
4.574

.777
.782
.767
.794
.735
.820
.722

.813
.807
.823
.795
.859
.770
.874

Total____ 41,569

8,513

4.883

.771

.819

5.70
1.80
2.00
23.99
3.999

PR O D U CTIVITY O F LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

168
T able

G .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING WINDOW
GLASS BY HAND AND BY MACHINE— Continued
DOUBLE-STRENGTH GLASS—CYLINDER MACHINE: 8-MACHINE UNIT

Labor unit

Occupation

Ladling:
Shift foreman..
Machinist........
Ladlers______
Skimmers....... .
Back ladlers....
Cellar man___
Blowing:
Blowers.......... .
Snappers..........
Cappers.......... .
Splitters......... .
Helpers............
Roller boys___
Flattening:
Flatteners........
Shove-in boys..
Leer tenders...

Output and labor cost

Wage Labor
rates
per
per
hour hour

$0.88
.60
.94
.50
.40
.40

10
.0 0

.94
.50
.70
.45
.40
.45

1.880
3.000
2.800
.900
.800
.900

1.20

1925
Sept___
Oct.......
Nov......
Dec.......

Output

Boxes
5,833
7,874

Out­ Out­
put
Ma­
put
per
chine
per
ma­ manhours chinehour
hour

1,700
1,656
1,608

Boxes Boxes
4.861 0.897
4.632
.855
.947
5.132
5.155
.952

1,200

8.400
1.867
1.867

.40
.40

.600
1.880

Year and
month

.800
.400

27.974
3.496

Total per unit.........
Total per machine..

8,290

1926
Jan____
Feb___
Mar___
Apr___
M ay___
June___
July___
Aug___

10,168
7,547
5,658
5,163
6,147
7,560
6,942

1,920
1,536
1,080
960
1,152
1,608
1,464
1,728

5.296
4.913
5.239
5.897
5.336
4.701
4.742
5.032

985

Total.

88,376

17,612

5.018

.926

DOUBLE-STRENGTH GLASS—CYLINDER MACHINE: 12-MACHINE UNIT

1
1
2
2
2
1
4
4
2
6
4
6
12
8
8
1
64
5H

Ladling:
Shift foreman.................. $0.90
Machinist........................ .70
Ladlers............................ .975
Skimmers........................ .58
Pot turners..................... .58
Cellar man....................... .50
Blowing:
Blowers........................... .92
Hookers........................... .58
Pipe hangers................... .58
Cappers........................... .84
Splitters.......................... .67
Roller boys..................... .50
Flattening:
Flatteners........................ 1.15
Shove-in boys................. .44
Leer tenders.................... .44
Trucker........................... .44
Total per unit..............
Total per machine___

$0.90
.70
1.95
1.16
1.16
.50
3.68
2.32
1.16
5.04
2.68
3.00

1925
Sept____
Oct____
Nov........
Dec.......

16,911
17,934
17,552
17,000

2,730
2,760
2,840
2,720

6.195
6.498
6.180
6.250

1.162
1.218
1.159
1.172

$0,612
.584
.614
.607

1926
Feb.......
Mar.......
Apr____
M ay----June___
July.......
Aug.......

17,294
22,509
18,671
15,188
14,456
15,489
16,318

2,824
3,408
2,900
2,272
2,184
2,184
2,272

6.124
6.605
6.438
6.685
6.619
7.092
7 .m

1.148
1.238
1.207
1.253
1.241
1,330
1.847

.620
.574
.589
.568
.573
.535
.528

Total .

189,322

29,094

6.507

1.220

.583

13.80
3.52
3.52
.44
45.53
3.794

DOUBLE-STRENGTH GLASS—FOURCAULT AUTOMATIC MACHINE: 4-MACHINE UNIT
Chief foreman....... .
Shift foreman.........
Assistant foreman..
Mechanic...............
Platform men........
Peepers................. .
Cutters...................
Breakers.................
Checker..................
Truckers.................
Total per unit.........
Total per machine.




$1.45 $0,483
1.15 1.150
.50
.500
.570
.85
.47
.940
.45 1.350
.47
.940
.47 1.880
.50
.500
.45
.900

1926
Jan...... .
Feb___
Mar___
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July___
Aug......
Sept-----

519
1,826
3,205
3,910
5,355
5,388
3,426
4,909
4,440

9.213
2.304

Total.

32,978

96 5.406
344 5.308
608 5.271
672 5.818
1,000 5.355
1,016 5.303
640 5.353
936 5.245
900 4.988

1.272
1.249
1.240
1.869
1.260
1.248
1.260
1.234
1.161

$0,426
.434
.437
896
.430
.435
.431
.439
.467

6,212

L249

.434

5.309

169

CH APTER H I .— W IN D O W GLASS

T a b l e G . — PR O DUCTION A N D LABOR COST IN M A K IN G W IN D O W

GLASS B Y H A N D A N D B Y M A C H IN E — Continued
DOUBLE-STRENGTH GLASS—FOUBCAULT AUTOMATIC MACHINE: 8-MACHINE UNIT
Labor unit

Num­
ber of
work-

Output and labor cost
Out­ Out­
put
put Labor
per
cost
per
per
ma­ manchine- hour
hour

Occupation

Wage Labor
rates cost
per
per
hour hour

Chief foreman.......
Chief mechanic___
Shift foreman........
1 Shift machinist.......
2 Machine operators.
Machine tenders.
3
Watchers................
Utility men............
Relief man..............
Cutters...................
1 Boss breaker..........
Breakers.................
6
2 Dipmen..................
X Inspector.................

$1.40 $0,467
1.05
.700
.85
.850
.63
.630
.59 1.180
.55 1.650
.50 1.500
.47
.940
.50
.500
.50 1.500
.56
.560
.50 3.000
.44
.880
.85
.283

1926
Aug----Sept___
Oct____
N tv___

Boxes
4,420
10,720
13,670
9,850

726
1,653
2,137
1,509

Boxes Boxes
6.088 1.S87
6.485 1.478
6.397 1.458
6.526 1.487

14. 640
2.440

Total-

38,660

6,025

6.417

8
1

2M
6
4*

Total per unit........
Total per machine-

Year and
month

Ma­
Output chine
hours

$ .4 1
00
.376
.381

.3 4
7

1.462

DOUBLE-STRENGTH GLASS—FOURCAULT AUTOMATIC MACHINE: 8-MACHINE UNIT

8

1
1

2

3
4
2

1
4
1
8
2
X
3M
0
3H

Chief foreman.........
Chief mechanic___
Shift foreman.........
Shift machinist___
Machine operators.
Machine tenders.. .
W atchers..............
Utility men............
Relief man..............
Cutters...................
Boss breaker...........
Breakers.................
Dipmen..................
Inspector...............
Total per unit........
Total per machine.




$1.40 $0,467
1.05
.700
.85
.850
.630
.63
.59 1.180
.55 1.650
.50
.940
.47
.50
.500
.50 2.000
.56
.560
.50 4.000
.44
.880
.85
.283

1926
Jan____
Feb.......
Mar___
Apr.......
May___

3,400
1,620
5,116
8,720
3,735

759
390
1,273
2,034

4.480
4.154
4.019
4.287
4.555

181
095
060
131
201

16.640
2.080

Total-

22,591

5,276

4.282

1.129

2.000

$0,464
.500
.517
.485
.456

.48

CHAPTER IV.—PLATE GLASS
The development of the plate-glass branch of the glass industry
has followed a path decidedly different from any other branch, due
chiefly to the nature of the work involved in producing plate glass.
Plate glass is made by first casting the rough or rolled plate and
then grinding and polishing it on both sides. The number of inde­
pendent operations and of workers engaged in the process of making
plate glass is considerably larger than that for any other glass prod­
uct. In no case, however, does the skill of the plate-glass workers
even approximate the skill of other glassworkers, such as bottle or
window glass blowers, for instance.
The plate-glass branch was, therefore, from the very beginning
essentially a nonskill industry. The simple and repetitive nature of
the work, on the one hand, and the heavy and large sizes of the indi­
vidual plates handled, on the other, early suggested the development
of machinery and other labor-saving devices. In Europe a grinding
machine, though very crude, was invented in 1768. During the
nineteenth century this machine was perfected, and smoothing and
polishing machines were also invented and perfected. In the early
nineties in this country the plate-glass industry had already univer­
sally adopted the grinding and polishing machines. Somewhat
later, with the development of electric power, overhead cranes were
installed to transfer the pot of molten glass from the furnace to the
casting table, as well as tc lift and handle the large heavy plates.
Thus, at a time when bottles and blown ware in general were still
being made by the old hand process, harking back to the Middle
Ages and even earlier, plate glass had reached a degree of develop­
ment unique in the glass industry.
The steps by which this development of machinery in the making
of plate glass had been accomplished were very slow and gradual.
This, too, marks the difference between plate glass and other glass
products. Recently, however—in fact since 1921— a change has
taken place in the process of making plate glass which in its revolu­
tionary effects can well be compared with the remarkable changes
in the other branches of the glass industry.
The old process, which is still prevalent in the majority of plateglass plants, may be described as a “ discontinuous” process. The
various operations which constitute this process are independent of
one another and the departments or branches embracing these op­
erations are scattered over the plant. Much handling and rehan­
dling of the glass is necessary before the completed plate reaches the
warehouse where it is packed and stored ready for shipment. The
new process represents an attempt to combine the various inde­
pendent departments into one continuous unit, thus eliminating all
the intermediate steps between the departments. In contrast
with the old, the new process is termed the “ continuous” process.
The differences between the two processes may best be explained by
describing in detail the operations involved in each.
170




CH APTER IV .— PLATE GLASS

171

DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS
MELTING THE GLASS

The glass used in the production of plate glass is melted in open
round pots. Each pot contains just enough of the molten glass
to cast one plate table, the average weight of the glass in the pot
being about 2,000 pounds. The pots are set 8 or 10 in a row on each
side of a rectangular regenerative furnace, the furnace unit consisting,
therefore, of 16 or 20 pots. These are made of refractive material,
to withstand not only the high temperature in the furnace but also
the rapid changes in temperature caused by the withdrawal of the
pot from the furnace for the purpose of casting. Besides being
composed of the best materials available and being built as solidly
as possible, the pot is carefully annealed in a special arch kiln before
it is placed in the furnace. In the kiln the temperature is gradually
raised to a degree not much lower than that in the furnace, so that
the pot will not suffer from a too rapid exposure to a very high
temperature. In spite of these precautions the life of a pot is very
short—only three to four weeks—and the cost of the pots constitutes
quite a considerable item in the production cost of plate glass by
the “ discontinuous” process.
The batch is delivered to the pot after it has been placed in the
furnace, either by hand with the help of a large iron ladle or by a
special traveling batch car, equipped with an arm which is projected
into the furnace in order to “ charge” the pots. The latter must be
charged three times during the 24-hour period needed, on the average,
completely to melt the glass ready to be cast.
The workers performing all the necessary operations in the melting
or furnace room are termed fillers, melters, metal tenders, and
finishers, the names corresponding to the nature of the work per­
formed. When a pot is withdrawn from the furnace it leaves a
residue of molten material, the overflow of the boiling glass. This
slag must be removed from the furnace before the emptied pot is
returned to its position, and this is usually done by hand with the
help of long hooks or bars. To protect their faces from the excessive
heat emanating from the open furnace the cleaners, as these workers
are termed, are furnished with leather masks. The total number
of workers engaged in the furnace room varies from plant to plant,
depending on the number of pots in a single furnace and the number
of furnaces operated.
CASTING THE ROUGH PLATE

When a pot is ready to be cast a wagoner, or hookman as he is
sometimes called, guides his heavy iron fork, suspended from an
overhead traveling crane, to the furnace in which the pot is located,
the overhead crane being operated by a crane motorman. The
clay projection which serves as a door to the furnace is first removed.
Then the iron fork i§ guided into the furnace in a position which
permits its two movable jaws to clasp the pot just below the outer
projection on the pot, this projection being provided to keep the
prong from slipping off when the pot is first lifted and then with­
drawn from the furnace.
The pot with the molten glass is then carried to the casting table.
There it is set on a platform and the surface of the glass carefully



PRODUCTIVITY
O
P
LABOR
I
N
THE
GLASS
INDUSTRY




F ig . 28— DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: T A K IN G POT OUT OF FU RN AC E

40780°— 27
CHAPTER
IV.— PLATE
GLASS




P ig .

29—DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: SK IM M IN G TH E POT

co

174

PRO D U CTIVITY OF LABOR IN TH E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

skimmed to eliminate the impure and chilled glass. The pot is
then lifted by another heavy hook and the bottom carefully scraped
to prevent any pieces of stone or foreign matter from falling into the
glass during the process of casting. Finally the pot is tilted over the
table and the glass rapidly poured out of the pot onto the table in
one continuous stream. Simultaneously the roller on the table is
set in motion, pushing the mass of glass ahead of it and at the same
time pressing the glass under it into a flat sheet. It takes but a few
seconds for the roller to reach the other end of the table, when the
casting operation is complete. The empty pot is returned to the
furnace.
The rolling or casting table is made of heavy cast-iron bars closely
bolted together to form a flat surface. The tables in use vary from
12 to 14 feet in width and from 20 to 28 feet in length. Before each
operation the table is carefully cleaned and cooled with com­
pressed air. Sand is then scattered over the surface of the table to
prevent the glass from sticking to the hot iron surface. The roller,
also made of cast iron, is about 18 inches in diameter. It extends
over the entire width and rolls the entire length of the table. The
adjustable strips or iron tracks, on both sides of the table, on which
the roller travels determine the thickness of the glass and keep it
uniform the whole length of the table. The motion of the roller is
controlled by chains driven by an electric motor. When it reaches
the other end of the table the roller strikes a lever which raises the
roller up on an inclined surface and automatically stops it. There is
just enough space between the inclined surface and the table to
permit the rolled plate to pass between them when pushed from the
casting table into the leer.
The workers engaged in the operation of casting constitute a gang,
normally consisting of 11 workers: One wagoner and one overhead
crane operator to transfer the pot from the furnace to the casting
table and back; one teemer who is usually in charge of the table, and
one teeming crane operator to pour the glass on the table and to run
the roller; one skimmer, one skim cutter, and one skim catcher to
clean the pot, when it is taken out of the furnace, of the impure glass
on the surface and also to clean it of the chilled glass and other
foreign materials just before the glass is poured on the table; three
table men, or gunners as they are called, to do all the additional
chores around the table, such as the cooling and cleaning of the
table after each operation, and to be of general help to the other
workers; and one leer controller to shove the rolled plate from the
table into the several leer compartments before it reaches the leer
proper. The output of such a casting gang of 11 workers averages
from 60 to 70 pots per shift of 8 hours.
ANNEALING THE ROUGH PLATE

When the casting or rolling is completed the red-hot plate is left on
the table until it is sufficiently cooled and solidified to be moved into
the leer. This is accomplished with the aid of the “ stowing tool,”
composed of special iron rods electrically controlled, which without
lifting the plate pushes it from the casting table into the first com­
partment of the leer. There the sheet remains until another plate is
ready to go into the leer. It is then pushed into the second compart-




CHAPTER
IV ,— PLATE
GLASS




F ig .

30—DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: CASTIN G ROUGH PLATE GLASS

Oi

176

PR O D U CTIVITY OF LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

ment of the leer, where the temperature is somewhat lower than in
the first. There are four or five such annealing compartments through
which the plate must pass before it reaches the leer proper.
The principle of annealing plate glass is exactly the same as that
used in the other branches of the glass industry. As the glass passes
through the leer the temperature is gradually lowered untfl, when the
cold end of the leer is reached, the temperature is not much higher
than normal. The construction of a leer for plate glass, however, is
different from that of any other leer used. First, it is four or five
times as long as the average leer used for any other glass product,
its average length being about 300 feet. Second, the floor of the leer
is not continuous and does not move automatically, but is made
up of separate sections, each somewhat larger than the largest sheet
rolled. Each section consists of a series of rails and rollers, which
together constitute a flat surface supporting the sheet when at rest.
Each time a new sheet is pushed into the first annealing compart­
ment the leer controller sounds a gong or uses some other device to
notify the leer man operating at the cold end of the leer. He then
starts an electric motor, which lifts all the rollers in the leer above the
floor and sets them in motion, gradually sliding the sheets of plate
from one section of the leer to another. The motor is timed to stop
automatically when the transfer has been completed, the rollers being
then lowered to their rest position. The plate thus travels intermit­
tently from one section of the leer to another until it reaches the cold
end of the leer.
From the last section of the leer the sheet is transferred by a similar
process, but independently of the leer, to a large table with a surface
similar to that of a leer section. The glass is first carefully examined
and chalk marked for the more obvious defects, such as stones or
large blisters. From the leer the table is moved on a rail track
to the rough-cutting department. There the uneven and super­
fluous glass on the ends of the plate is cut off, and the sheet is cut into
smaller sizes, the latter being necessary because of the defects in the
glass marked by the examiner. The rough cutters cut out all the de­
fects and at the same time endeavor to get as many large-size plates
as possible. When cut the plates are removed, either by hand or
with the help of an overhead crane, to the storage section, where they
are placed in racks according to their sizes. The table is then returned
to the leer for another sheet.
The number of workers engaged in annealing and cutting the rough
plate varies from plant to plant. There are also variations in the exact
nature of the work performed by each member of the gang, as well
as in the terms used to designate the individual workers. In an aver­
age plant there are usually two workers directly in charge of the leer—
the leer man and the leer motorman. There is one inspector to
examine and mark the glass as it comes out of the leer. There are
two more or less skilled cutters to cut the plate into smaller sizes,
and two square men, each assisted by a helper or two, to cut off the
superfluous glass at the ends of the plate. In addition there are about
four helpers who remove the discarded glass into special cullet re­
ceivers and then join the gang in carrying the smaller plates from the
table to the proper racks. In the majority of plants overhead cranes
are used to lift and carry the larger plates. To this gang should also
be added the “ rackman,” who marks the sizes of the sheets before




CH APTER IV .---- PLATE GLASS

177

they are taken to the racks, and a “ booker,” who keeps record of the
number of plates produced and their sizes.
Melting, casting, annealing, and rough cutting represent the
sum total of operations involved in the process of making rough plate
glass. These operations are dependent upon one another and have
a sufficiently close connection to form a single unit known as the
casting department. On the other hand, the subsequent operations
of grinding and polishing the plate glass have but very little in com­
mon with the casting department and are therefore combined to
form a separate “ finishing” department.
GRINDING AND POLISHING PLATE GLASS

The finishing department is composed of two groups of machines—
one for grinding down the rough surface of the plate glass and the
other for giving it the polish which renders the glass transparent.
Both operations are performed with the glass laid out on a special
round table fitting the size of the machines used. The table, averag­
ing in size from 24 to 36 feet in diameter, is made of cast iron and has
an even and polished surface. It is mounted on car wheels running
on a depressed wide track, usually extending the entire length of the
finishing department. From the main track the tables are easily
switched over to any machine or anywhere in the department where
tables have to be used.
LAYING OUT A TABLE

There are several distinct operations which rough plate glass must
undergo on its way from the racks, where the rough plates are stored,
through the grinding and polishing processes to the warehouse,
where the polished plate glass is cut into sizes and stored ready for
shipment. The first operation is to lay out the grinding table, which
is a rather tedious and extremely messy performance. To insure the
minimum amount of breakage during the grinding or polishing, the
glass has to be firmly cemented to the table, and for this purpose
plaster of Paris is spread thickly over the clean fiat surface of the
table. When a plate is laid on the table half a dozen workers step on
it and proceed to walk or rather dance on it in unison until a maximum
contact of the plate with the surface of the table is secured, and the
glass adheres firmly to the table. Plate after plate is thus laid on the
table, the larger sizes in the center, then smaller sizes around the
larger, and then still smaller and smaller sizes until the maximum
area of the table is laid out with rough plate glass.1 The spaces
between the plates and the notches in the rim of the table are filled in
with scraps of glass or cullet. With the glass firmly fastened to its
surface and all the crevices between plates filled in with plaster to
prevent the slightest lateral movement of the plates, the table is
conveyed by a small motor car to the grinding machine.
There are no set regulations determining the number of workers
in a laying-out gang. The size of a single gang and the number of
such gangs operating in the plant during one shift are determined by
the size of the tables used, the number of grinding and polishing
machines in operation, and the particular practices followed in each
plant. A minimum laying-out gang, however, consists of one boss
t Each plant has a definite rotation of sizes, which enables the laying-out gang to proceed with the work
without losing any time on measuring and calculations.




178

PR O D U CTIVITY OF LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

layer, one first layer, one second layer, one third layer, one fourth
layer, one cullet layer, two plaster mixers, and one cleaner. To these
must be added one “ matcher,” and in most plants also a craneman,
both of whom perform services for two or more gangs. An average
laying-out gang can lay out from 8 to 10 tables per shift of eight
hours.
GRINDING MACHINE

The grinding machine consists of a large circular frame capable of
rotating in a horizontal plane. The table, switched from the main
track into the grinding machine, is caught into this frame and has
imparted to it the same rotary motion as that of the machine. Over
the table/are suspended two grinding “ rubbers,” large circular disks
shod with many small iron blocks. The “ rubbers” also revolve and
are set so as to sweep over the whole surface of the glass on the revolv­
ing table. The running bars are kept rigidly in position but are
capable of being lowered as the grinding proceeds. By this method
the more uneven parts of the glass are rubbed off before the general
grinding begins. A uniform speed of the machine is absolutely
necessary for a uniform distribution of the grinding process over the
entire surface of the glass on the table.
The glass is ground with sand, at first of a very coarse grade, but
as the process goes on finer and still finer grades of sand are used.
The sand and water are fed to the machine automatically. Auto­
matic devices are also used to regrade the sand which leaves the
table and to send back to the table only the required grade. The
sand is finally replaced with emery, which is less abrasive. It takes
about 90 minutes for the machine to grind the glass on the table to
an acceptable degree of smoothness.
The direct labor involved in the process of grinding consists of an
operator and a helper on a single machine. One sandman and one
emery man per shift must also be included in the grinding crew, but
these are capable of tending all the grinding machines in the plant.
MIDDLE YARD

When the grinding is finished the table is released from the grinding
frame and switched over to the so-called “ middle yard” before send­
ing it to the polishing machine. There the g;lass is examined, and if
any breakage has occurred during the grinding process the broken
glass is either completely replaced or so patched up with plaster as to
prevent any further breakage by the polishing machine. The work
in the middle yard is essentially of the same nature as that performed
by the laying-out gang. The workers operating in the middle yard
are therefore also termed examiners, layers, matchers, plaster mixers,
and cleaners. The total number of workers constituting a middleyard gang varies from plant to plant, depending on the size of tables
used and the total number of tables in operation. In an average
plant 13 to 14 workers are sufficient, while in the larger plants as many
as 20 workers are used.
POLISHING MACHINE

From the middle yard the table is moved over to the polishing
machine. This machine consists of a circular frame similar to that
in the grinding machine, and the table is locked into it exactly as is
done in the grinding process. The polishing apparatus, however,




CHAPTER
IV.— PLATE
GLASS

F ig .




3 1 —D ISC O NTIN UOU S PROCESS: LAYIN G OUT TABLE P R E P AR AT O R Y TO SW IT CH IN G IT TO G R IN D IN G M ACH IN E

O

180

P R O D U CTIVITY OP LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

consists of four revolving frames, each equipped with a number of
disks or rubbers which rotate freely over the entire surface of the glass
as the rotating frames sweep over the revolving table. The disks are
padded with a thick layer of felt, which with the help of the “ rouge”
and water used, smooths the surface of the glass of all scratches and
imparts to it the required luster. It takes about 75 minutes for the
polishing machine to complete this operation.
The direct labor engaged in polishing plate glass consists of one
operator or “ bench boy ” in charge of each machine. In addition one
machinist, one or two finishing inspectors, and one or two block felters
per shift are needed to tend 8 to 10 polishing machines in operation.
RELAYING OB TURNOVER GANG

After the glass has been ground and polished on one side it must be
turned over or relaid for similar treatment on the other side. The
work of relaying the glass is sometimes performed by a special
“ turnover” gang, but in the majority of plants this work is also per­
formed by the laying-out gangs. The two operations are essentially
alike, except that in the turning-over process the glass is first taken
off the table and the table stripped of the hardened plaster and
cleaned before the glass is laid on the other side. The table then
proceeds again on its journey through the grinding machine, the
“ middle yard,” and the polishing machine, exactly as for the first
side of the glass.
STRIPPING AND WASHING THE GLASS

After both sides of the plates have been ground and polished the
table is switched over to the stripping department, where the plates
are removed from the table by the stripping gang. This work also
is sometimes performed by the laying-out gang. Immediately upon
removal from the table the sheets are washed with a diluted acid
solution and when dried are marked as to sizes and placed in the racks
leading to the cutting room, also known as the warehouse department.
EXAMINING AND CUTTING DEPARTMENT

Before cutting the plate glass into sizes it is again thoroughly
cleaned and carefully examined, not only for the purpose of discover­
ing and eliminating defects but also for the purpose of grading the
quality of the glass. The uses of plate glass and the grades and sizes
required are so numerous that it is well-nigh impossible to gauge the
output of the workers in the cutting department in terms of square
feet of plate glass cut. Moreover, a comparison of the work in the
cutting departments of the separate plants would be entirely mis­
leading unless the plants happen to specialize in the same sizes and
grades of plate glass—such as is used in automobiles, for instance.
Finally the number of workers and the hours worked in the cutting
department are in no way dependent upon or related to those in the
casting or finishing departments. For this reason, in the statistics of
production given hereafter the cutting department is treated as an
independent unit. This separation of the cutting department was
also made necessary by the fact that the change from a discontinuous
to a continuous process did not in any way affect the examining, cut­
ting, or packing of the glass.




CHAPTER

32—DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: POLISHING M A C H IN E IN OPERATION

IV.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




F ig .

00

182

PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U STR Y
CONTINUOUS PROCESS

The new process of making plate glass, like the discontinuous proc­
ess, may also be divided into three distinctly separate departments—
casting, finishing, and cutting. This division is the more expedient
since the physical continuity in the new process is actually interrupted
as the glass is transferred from one department to another. Strictly,
the continuity of the process applies only to the various operations
constituting the casting and finishing. Literally, therefore, the new
process of making plate glass may best be described as consisting
of the separate but continuous processes of casting and finishing the
glass, while the cutting department is in no way different from that
in plants using the discontinuous process.
CASTING DEPARTMENT

In the continuous process the glass is melted in large continuous
tanks similar to those used in the bottle industry. The tank is
divided into three parts— the “ dog house,” an extension where the
raw materials, or the “ batch,” are delivered to the furnace either on
wheelbarrows or through a batch bin hanging directly over the
“ dog house” ; the melting chamber proper, where the glass ingredients
are diffused to form a uniform mass of molten glass; and the refining
or working chamber from which the glass is drawn for the necessary
operations. The refining chamber is usually separated from the
melting section by a wall, with an opening near the bottom of the
tank to permit only the heavier and therefore the better quality
glass to flow from the melting section into the working chamber.
In front of the refining chamber, somewhat lower than the level
of the glass in the tank, is located the discharge spout, an opening
through which the glass is permitted to flow out of the tank in a
continuous stream. The spout is equipped with a special refractory
gate, intended to regulate the flow of the glass. From the spout
the molten metal passes downward along an inclined plane to a
moving table and under a roller, from whence it emerges in the form
of a flat continuous sheet of the required width and thickness. It then
enters a very long annealing leer, at the other end of which it is cut
into plates of the required length, which are then transferred to
the finishing department.
The table upon which the molten glass falls as it leaves the dis­
charge spout is made up of several connected sections traveling on an
endless chain. The motion of the table is so timed that the portion
of it passing between the spout and the leer, a distance of 6 feet,
presents to the glass which travels over it a continuous smooth sur­
face. The roller is suspended over the table, at a distance of about
15 inches from the spout. It is made of cast iron, is about 13 inches
in diameter, and is constantly revolving on its axis at a speed syn­
chronized with the forward motion of the table. The elevation of
the roller above the surface of the table forms a pass and determines
the thickness of the sheet emerging on the other side of the roller.
The discharge spout is situated midway of the length of the roller
and the width of the table. The ribbon of glass, which is only about
8 inches wide as it leaves the spout, spreads over the table and widens
on both sides symmetrically while being carried to the pass. The
speed of the table and the roller can be controlled so that the glass may



CHAPTEK




IV.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F ig. 33—CON TIN UOU S PROCESS: GLASS A U T O M A T IC A L L Y FLOWS FRO M T A N K U N D E R R O LLE R A N D IN T O LEER

184

PK O DU CTIVITY OF LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

acquire the right width just before it reaches the pass between the
roller and the table. The same control serves to keep the edges of
the sheet from becoming thinner than the elevation of the pass.
Both the table and the roller are kept constantly cool by an intricate
system of water sprinklers. This serves to keep the glass from stick­
ing to the metal and also to cool it sufficiently to enable the emerging
sheet to retain its shape on its subsequent journey from the pass over
the table and through the leer.
Within the leer the continuous sheet of rolled plate glass is sup­
ported on a series of rollers. These have a uniform speed and are
so spaced throughout the length of the leer as to preclude the piling
up or stretching of the glass in the sheet. The leer is 450 feet long,
and it takes nearly two and a half hours for the glass to flow from
the discharge spout of the tank to the exit of the leer. There the
glass is carefully examined and the sheet is cut into plates of the
required lengths. These are then transferred to the finishing depart­
ment to be ground and polished.
The entire operation, from the back end of the melting tank where
the batch is automatically fed into the “ dog house” to the cold end
of the leer where the endless sheet emerges to be cut into plates, is
absolutely continuous and automatic. The labor engaged in a
casting unit consists, of two batch mixers, to prepare and weigh the
batch and deliver it to the automatic mixing apparatus; one furnace
man for each furnace and one glass skimmer for two furnaces, to
supervise the proper melting of the glass in the continuous tank;
one roller operator to control the speed of the casting table and the
roller; and one oiler to keep all the machinery involved in proper
working trim. At the end of the leer there is a cutter who examines
the glass for defects and cuts the continuous sheet into sizes of
required length. Two transfer men then deliver the separate plates
to the finishing department. The total number of workers thus
involved in the continuous process of casting plate glass is somewhat
less than 10, including the portion of the labor of the chief foreman
and his assistants which is allotted to the casting unit, as compared
with the fifty-odd workers constituting a casting shift in the dis­
continuous process. Although the total output of a shift in the
discontinuous process is considerably larger than that of a casting
unit in the continuous process, the productivity of the workers,
expressed in terms of man-hour output, is much higher in the
continuous process.
FINISHING DEPARTMENT

The principles and the actual operations of grinding and polishing
plate glass by the continuous process are exactly the same as in the
discontinuous process. But while in the discontinuous process the
plates are laid out on individual round tables, which are then moved
around from one section of the finishing department to another, in
the continuous process the tables on which the plates are laid travel
continuously on a very long and narrow conveyor, and the various
operations involved are performed with the glass “ on the go.”
The laying-out operation is very much simpler than in the discon­
tinuous process. The tables used are rectangular and comparatively
small, so that only one plate is laid out on each table. As in the
discontinuous process, plaster of Paris *is used to fasten the glass




CH APTER I V .— PLATE GLASS

185

firmly to the surface of the table. The latter is then locked into
the conveyor and started on its journey toward the grinding section
or zone. The actual grinding is performed by a series of separate
“ rubbers” or grinding disks made exactly like the grinders in the
discontinuous process. Each disk revolves independently of the
others, is operated by a separate motor, and is supported by a separate
iron frame built over the conveyor. The diameter of the disk is
equal to the width of the glass on the conveyor, so that the grinding
iron bars of the rotating disk cover the entire surface of the plate
as it slowly passes under the rubber. There are 43 such rubbers
under which the rough plate has to pass before the grinding opera­
tion is complete. The rubbers are divided into several groups in
accordance with the grade of sand used for the grinding. Rough
sand is used first, then finer and still finer grades. Each time a new
grade of sand is used the previous grade is automatically washed
off, automatically regraded, and the finer grade automatically
delivered to the table.
After the glass emerges from under the last grinder it has to pass
a short distance before it enters into the polishing zone. During this
interval the glass is automatically cleansed of any sand or other par­
ticles left over from the grinding process. Also, if any breakage has
occurred during the last operation, the plate is either completely
replaced or the glass patched up with plaster to avoid further breakage
in the polishing zone. This short interval corresponds to the “ middle
yard” of the discontinuous process.
The polishing zone is built exactly like the grinding zone, each
polishing machine constituting an independent unit and rotating
about its central axis with an independent speed controlled by a
separate motor. Each machine is equipped with four revolving
smaller disks covered with a thick layer of felt. The iron rust or
rouge and the water used for polishing are supplied automatically as
the glass passes from under one polishing unit to another. Thirty-six
of these polishing machines are used to give to the plate glass the
required smoothness and transparency. After emerging from under
the last polishing machine thie table travels but a short distance
before the end of the long conveyor is reached, during which time it is
stripped of the plate which has been ground and polished on one side
and then switched over a semicircular track pivot to another con­
veyor similar to and as long as the first conveyor. The table is
washed and the plate is reversed on it and proceeds on a similar
journey to be ground and polished on its other side. At the end of the
second conveyor the plate, now ground and polished on both sides, is
stripped from the table, washed in a dilute acid solution, and trans­
ferred to the cutting department. By means of another semicircular
track pivot the table is moved to the beginning of the first conveyor
where another plate is waiting to repeat the journey. The two con­
veyors and the two pivotal tracks form a circuit which every rough
and opaque plate must travel to be converted into polished trans­
parent plate glass.
The total number of workers in a grinding and polishing unit con­
sists of 9 layers and relayers, 2 sandmen, 2 pump and tank men, 1
garnet man,2 2 polishers, 4 strippers, 1 block felter, and 1 utility and
repair man. In the washing room 2 carriers, 1 brush man, 1
2 Garnet instead of emery is used as the last abrasive in the grinding process.




PRODUCTIVITY
O
F
LABOR
I
N
THE
GLASS
INDUSTRY




F ig . 3 4 —

CONTIN UOU S PROCESS: END VIE W OF G R IN D IN G AN D POLISHING C O N V E Y O R

C H A PT E R IV .— PLATE GLASS

187

washing-machine man, and 2 stackers take care of all the glass pro­
duced by 4 units. To these must be added 1 grinding and 1
polishing foreman and 2 assistant foremen in charge of 4 units. It
takes, therefore, an average of 24 workers to man a single complete
finishing unit.
CUTTING DEPARTMENT

As already mentioned, the cutting department has not been
directly affected by the change from the discontinuous to the con­
tinuous process of making plate glass. As in the discontinuous
process, the glass on reaching the cutting department is first exam­
ined for defects and then cut into standard smaller sizes. But
because the plates made by the continuous process are absolutely
uniform in size the labor efficiency of the cutting department is
higher than that in plants using the discontinuous process. Another
cause of the increased efficiency in the cutting department of the
plant used to represent the continuous process is the fact that this
plant specializes in automobile glass, and the rough plates are cut
into smaller sizes in such a way as to require the minimum amount
of labor and a minimum quantity of waste in the cutting depart­
ment.
DISCONTINUOUS AND CONTINUOUS PROCESSES COMPARED

The most striking difference between the continuous and the dis­
continuous processes of making plate glass is the great reduction in
the number of workers and of operations effected by the continuous
process. This reduction occurs in both the casting and the finishing
departments. Before proceeding with an analysis of this change in
quantity and kind of labor used it must be clearly understood that
a reduction in the number of workers engaged in the process does
not per se mean an actual saving in labor used. The latter can be
determined only by the figures representing man-hour output, and
this will be discussed later. (See p. 189.)
There is nothing in the discontinuous process to correspond to
what is known as a “ production unit” in the continuous process.
This unit is made up of a single furnace, a continuous tank, and a
continuous leer in the casting department and a double line of long
conveyors in the finishing department. A plant may consist of only
one unit. It may have two or more units, but the inherent structure
of any one unit is not at all affected by the number of units in the
plant. To all intents and purposes, therefore, a number of units in
one plant merely represents so many smaller plants built side by side,
parallel to one another, and confined in one large structure. The
unit remains the same and is more or less constant, except for such
inherent differences as the size of the tank or the width of the glass
drawn.
With the discontinuous process the situation is entirely different.
There the whole plant, no matter how large or small, represents a
single production unit in the sense given above. The individual
operations are more emphasized and the division is vertical rather
than horizontal—the melting room, the laying-out section, the grind­
ing machines, the polishing machines, etc. No matter how large the
plant, all the pots are located in the one melting room, which is large




188

PR O D U CTIVITY OF LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

or small according to the size of the plant. The same holds true with
the other sections. A large plant merely means a combination of
large sections or departments, a small plant a combination of small
sections or departments. In neither plant is there any definite con­
nection between any one section of one department and another
section in another department. No one set of pots melt the glass to
be used on any one grinding machine or any one polishing machine.
Even the two sides of a plate laid on a table are not necessarily ground
or polished on the same machines.
There is, therefore, no way of gauging the output of the plant
except by taking the whole plant as a production unit, and even then
care must be taken to correlate the number of shifts and hours of
work prevailing in the different departments.3 Besides, the size of
such a unit varies directly with the size Qf the plant, and it can not
be compared with the uniform size of a production unit in the con­
tinuous process.
For a strict comparison of the two processes a plant must be found
which in a given time produces by the discontinuous process exactly
the same quantity of plate glass produced by a unit of the con­
tinuous process in the same time. The same end can be accomplished
by determining how many productive units of the continuous process
it would take to equal the output of a given plant using the discon­
tinuous process. Such a comparison really amounts to a comparison
of output which is exactly what has been done in the statistics of
production given hereafter. (See pp. 189 to 204.) What is intended
here is merely to show the number and kind of workers that have been
entirely eliminated or replaced by other workers through the change
from the discontinuous to the continuous process.
In the melting of the glass in the discontinuous process the pots in
which the glass is melted must first be gradually annealed in the pot
arch kiln before they can be placed in the furnace. This work is done
by the pot leer tenders. Then the batch has to be delivered to the
pot by the fillers. The melters, the metal tenders, the finishers, and
the helpers are needed to watch the pot during the 24 hours it takes
the glass to reach the casting stage. After the pot has been removed
to the casting table the cleaners clear the furnace of the slag left by
the pot. All these operations and with them the workers performing
them are eliminated in the continuous tanks. The batch is auto­
matically delivered to the “ dog house” ; it is melted in the tank,
flows in a continuous stream into the refining chamber, and from there
through the discharge spout onto the casting table. The place of the
pot leer tenders, the fillers, the melters, the metal tenders, the finish­
ers, and the cleaners is taken by one furnace man, assisted by a skim­
mer, whose duty it is to watch the temperature and the melting of
the glass in the tank, and also to regulate the flow of the glass through
and out of the tank.
In casting plate glass by the discontinuous process the pot must
be transferred from the furnace to the casting table. This work is
done by the wagoner, assisted by a craneman. At the table the
skimmer, the skim cutter, and the skim catcher skim the surface of
the pot of the impure and chilled glass; the teemer and the teem crane
3 In one plant, for instance, the melting department works two 10-hour shifts; the casting department,
two or three 8-hour shifts; the finishing department, two 12-hour shifts; and the cutting department, one
10-hour shift.




CH APTER IV .---- PLATE GLASS

189

operator tilt the pot over the table and cast the glass, while the helpers
or the “ gunners” do the other chores directly connected with the
casting table. Finally, the leer controller moves the cast sheet of
glass from the table into the first leer compartment and then from one
compartment into another until the sheet enters the leer proper.
In the continuous process the whole casting crew is eliminated.
The glass flows automatically from the tank onto the moving table,
passes automatically under the revolving roller, and then in the form
of a continuous sheet into and through the continuous leer. It takes
but one roller operator to watch and time the synchronous movements
of the glass, the table, and the roller, and one oiler to see that the
mechanism of the machinery involved is in good working order.
In the discontinuous process the separate sheets of rough plate
glass emerging at the cold end of the leer are first inspected by an
examiner and then transferred to the rough cutting department by
the leer motorman. It takes cutters, square men, cullet men,
carriers, an overhead crane operator, a matcher, and a booker to
cut the large single sheets of rough plate glass into smaller sizes and
to deliver them to the rough plate storage racks. In the continuous
process there is need only for a single cutter to examine and cut the
continuous sheet of plate glass emerging from the leer. Two transfer
men deliver the plates to the finishing department. These three men
take the place of the 13 to 15 people doing the corresponding work
in the discontinuous process.
In the finishing department the story is the same, but the changes
are not so extreme as in the departments just outlined. The layingout gang, the car men, the grinders, the middle-yard men, the
polishers, the relaying gang, and the stripping and washing gang of
the discontinuous process— the total ranging from 84 workers in the
smaller to 126 and more in the larger plants—are all replaced in the
continuous process by a single finishing gang of about 25 workers,
scattered along the line of the two long conveyors on which the
opaque rough plates travel while being converted into transparent
polished plate glass.
M AN-HOUR OUTPUT AND LABOR COST

Before proceeding with an analysis of the statistics of production
of plate glass a number of points must first be made clear which
throw additional light on the nature of the data in general as
well as on the method used in handling the statistics. The con­
tinuous process of making plate glass is of very recent date, being
only a few years old, and at present there are but three plants, all
operated by one company, which are successfully exploiting this
process. Another very large plate-glass concern has been for some
time experimenting with the continuous process, gradually increasing
the capacity of the plant in which this process is in operation, but
there is no authentic information available which would prove the
success or failure of this experiment. It therefore became necessary
to limit this study of the continuous process to the first company
mentioned. This company, however, specializes in the production
of automobile glass, and for this reason it is often argued that the
continuous process is not capable of producing plate glass for any
other use. It is further argued that the discontinuous and the con407800— 27-------13




190

PRO D U CTIVITY OF LABOR IN TH E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

tinuous processes can not be compared, as their products are not
homogeneous. It is not intended in this report to prove or to dis­
prove the validity of such arguments. In all fairness it must be
admitted that not until the continuous process is successfully applied
to the production of all kinds and all sizes of plate glass will the
force of such arguments be completely dispelled.
On the other hand, the largest single demand by far for plate glass
in this country is for the kind produced by the continuous process.
The demand for automobile glass is so large that many of the plants
using the discontinuous process also specialize in this kind of glass
and are frequently compelled to cut larger sizes of plate glass to
supply this need. In fact, automobile glass constitutes the major
product of two of the three plants here taken to represent the dis­
continuous process. A large percentage of the output of the third
plant is also used for the same purpose. The objection of incom­
parability of the two processes may therefore be set aside, as a large
enough proportion of plate glass used for the same purpose is pro­
duced by both the discontinuous and the continuous processes to
constitute a fair basis of comparison for the two processes.
Of the plants here taken to represent the discontinuous process
Plant A is of average size, Plant B is somewhat smaller than Plant
A, and Plant C is a comparatively large plant. Besides varying in
size, the three plants differ widely not only in their methods of
coordinating the work of the several departments constituting the
plant but also in their wage policies. In one plant all of the depart­
ments work on an 8-hour-shift basis. In another plant one depart­
ment works on a basis of two 10-hour shifts, a second department
three 8-hour shifts, and a third twro 12-hour shifts. Again, in one
plant the average rate of wages is exceedingly high—nearly twice as
high as in another plant. There are still other differences which,
together with those mentioned above, are sufficient to make an aver­
age of the data for the three plants anything but representative of
any one of the plants used. Such an average can not, therefore, be
used for a comparison with data for the continuous process, where the
principal object is to determine the changes in human productivity
effected by the transition from one process to the other. There are
too many unknown factors entering into the average to make it a
satisfactory standard of measurement.
Fortunately, however, Plant A, using the discontinuous process,
and the plant taken to represent the continuous process are operated
by the same company. Both are used primarily for the making of
automobile glass. The same efficiency policy and the same system
of wage rates prevails in both plants. Fundamentally, the only
difference between the two plants is that one uses the discontinuous
and the other the continuous process of making plate glass. There­
fore, nothing could better serve the purpose of this study in human
productivity as affected by a change from one process to another
than a comparison of these two plants. This is the reason why in
the following statistics Plant A, using the discontinuous process,
rather than the average of the three plants, has been selected as the
basis of comparison with the continuous process. The other two
plants, as well as the average of the three plants, are also given to
show the variations in labor output and labor cost due to factors
other than a change in the process of production.




191

CH APTER IV .---- PLATE GLASS

Table 33 shows a comparison of man-hour output and labor cost
of casting rough plate glass by the discontinuous and the continuous
processes. Taking the man-hour output in Plant A as the base, or
100, the index of man-hour output by the continuous process is 145,
representing an increase of 45 per cent over the discontinuous process.
This increase would have been still larger if the continuous process
had been compared with the other two plants, especially with Plant
B, where man-hour output is 14.4 per cent less than in Plant A.
This lower output is due primarily to a lower productivity in the
casting department, as witnessed by the fact that the average hourly
output of the casting unit is only 1,972,456 square feet as compared
with 2,156,346 square feet in Plant C and 2,347,964 square feet in
Plant A.
As to labor cost of casting rough plate glass, the continuous process
shows a decrease of 25.1 per cent from that of the discontinuous
process in Plant A. But this decrease would have been much smaller
if the comparison had been made with the other two plants, and
especially with Plant B, where the labor cost of casting rough plate
glass is 12.3 per cent lower than in Plant A. Plant B, indeed, pre­
sents the anomalous condition of lower labor productivity coupled
with lower labor cost. Normally, the reverse is true, i. e., lower
labor productivity is expected to be coupled with higher labor costs
and higher productivity with lower cost. A glance at the rates of
wages in Plants A and B (see pp. 199 to 204) will at once reveal the
cause of the abnormal situation in the two plants. In Plant A wages
are very high, probably higher than in any other plate-glass plant.
On the other hand, wages in Plant B are extremely low, on the aver­
age less than two-thirds of the wages in Plant A. This very large
variation in the rates of wages is sufficient to overbalance the com­
paratively small difference in the labor productivity of the two plants,
resulting in the abnormal situation explained above. It will be
noticed that the same conditions prevail in all other departments of
the two plants and are therefore also present when the plants as a
whole are considered.
T able 33.— Man-hour output and labor cost of casting by the discontinuous and
the continuous processes— rough plate glass

Man-hour output

Labor cost per 100
square feet

Process and plant
Square
feet
Discontinuous process:
Plant A .......................................... ......... .................................
Plant B_______ _________________________________ _____
Plant C__....................... ........................... ......... ..................
Average________________ ____________________________
Continuous process__________ ________ ____________________

Index
number

Amount

43.887
37.571
39.206
40.221
63.630

100.0
85.6
89.3
91.6
145.0

$1.812
1.589
1.714
1.705
1.357

Index
number

100.0
87.7
94.6
94.1
74.9

In the grinding and polishing and the cutting a considerable per­
centage of the rough plate glass is broken, and therefore the total
polished plate glass produced is always smaller than the quantity of
rough plate used in its production. This diminution in the quantity
of glass is known in the industry as the “ shrinkage.” The loss of




192

PR O D U CTIVITY O F LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

glass through shrinkage varies from plant to plant, depending on the
size and variety of the plates made and the general conditions within
the plant. Due to this loss, the man-hour output and labor cost of
casting polished plate glass is considerably different from those for
rough plate glass. The figures of Table 33 must be corrected for
this difference. The correction factor is determined separately for
each plant by dividing the total quantity of polished glass produced
by the quantity of rough plate used in its production. This is
shown in Table 34. The percentage of shrinkage in the continuous
process is smaller than in any of the plants using the discontinuous
process. There are several reasons for this difference: (1) In the
continuous process the plates are generally smaller and more uniform
than in the discontinuous process; (2) the rough plates are cut of
such a length as to insure the minimum loss of glass in the cutting
department; and (3), due to the continuous conveyors, there is a
minimum amount of handling and rehandling of the glass.
T a b l e 34. — Quantity of rough plate glass used and of polished plate glass produced

therefrom, by the discontinuous and the continuous processes, 1925, and per cent
polished glass was of rough glass
Polished glass produced
Process and plant

Discontinuous process:
Plant A .....................................................................................
Plant B _______________________________________________
Plant C_......... .........................................................................
Average_____________________________________________
Continuous process............................................................... ........

Rough glass
used (square
feet)

Square feet

Per cent of
rough glass
used

10,330,122
8,685,155
18,611,455
12,542,244
10,581,723

7,769,348
6,994,015
13,636,532
9,466,632
9,549,216

75.21
80.53
73.27
75.48
90.24

To determine the man-hour output of casting in terms of polished
plate glass it is necessary to multiply the man-hour output of rough
plate by the per cent representing the relationship between the
polished plate produced and the rough plate used in its produc­
tion. Similarly, to determine the corresponding labor costs, it is
necessary to divide the cost of casting rough plate by the same factor.
The results are shown in Table 35, which presents a comparison of
man-hour output and labor cost of casting polished plate glass by
the two processes. The continuous process shows an increase in
man-hour output of 74 per cent over that of the discontinuous
process as represented by riant A. In labor cost of casting the con­
tinuous process marks a decrease of 37.6 per cent from the corre­
sponding cost by the discontinuous process. The larger increase in
man-hour output and larger decrease in labor cost shown in Table
35 as compared with those shown in Table 33 are due solely to the
smaller percentage of shrinkage in the continuous process.




193

CHAPTER IV .---- PLATE GLASS

T a b l e 35*— M an-hou r output and labor cost o f casting by the discontinuous and

the continuous processes— polished plate glass

Man-hour output

Labor cost per 100
square feet

Process and plant
Square
feet
Discontinuous process:
Plant A................................. .................... .............................
Plant B „ ______________________________ ____ __________
Plant CL._____________________________________________
Average__________________ ______ ____________________
Continuous process____________________________________

Index
number

Amount

33.007
30.260
28.726
30.664
57.420

100.0
91.7
87.0
92.9
174.0

Index
number

$2.409
1.973
2.340
2.241
1.504

100.0
81.9
97.1
93.0
62.4

Table 36 presents a comparison of man-hour output and labor
cost of grinding and polishing, or what is known as finishing, the plate
glass. Taking the man-hour output of Plant A as the base, or 100,
the man-hour output by the continuous process shows an index of
153.5, or an increase of 53.5 per cent over that of the discontinuous
process. Again, Plant B shows a lower productivity than Plant A,
but Plant C shows a larger productivity than either, due chiefly to
the larger size of tables used in the plant.4
T a b l e 36 .— M an-hou r output and labor cost o f grinding and polishing plate glass

by the discontinuous and the continuous processes

Man hour
output

Labor cost per 100
square feet

Process and plant
Square
feet
Discontinuous process:
Plant A ......... ...... ...................................................................
Plant B_____________________________ ____ ____________
Plant C_______ ____ — ............................ ...........................
Average_________________________ ____ _______________
Continuous process___________________ ______ ______________

Index
number

Amount

12.873
12.080
14.361
13.105
19.757

100.0
93.8
111.6
101.8
153.5

$6.178
4.207
4.315
4.900
4.297

Index
number

100.0
68.1
69.8
79.3
69.6
i

In the case of labor cost, the continuous process register^ a de­
crease of 30.4 per cent as compared with the discontinuous process
in Plant A. The lower cost in Plant B, in spite of the lower pro­
ductivity, is due to very low wage rates combined with a 12-hourshift policy, while in Plant C the cost is lower partly because of the
larger size of tables used but mainly because of the rates of wages,
which, though higher than in Plant B, are still considerably lower
than in Plant A.
As explained elsewhere (p. 187) the casting and the finishing
departments are the only departments which have been directly
affected by the change from a discontinuous to a continuous process.
To determine the direct effects of this change on labor productivity
and on labor cost in making plate glass, it is necessary merely to com­
bine the data for these two departments, excluding altogether for
the time being the cutting department. This is done in Table 37.
< The diameter of the tables used in Plant C is 36 feet as compared with a diameter of 28 feet in the
other two plants.




194

PR OD U CTIVITY OF LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

The method used to measure the man-hour output and labor cost
of the two departments combined must first be explained. The
term “ man-hour,” used in this study to measure labor productivity
in general, is a purely theoretical unit, representing as it does the
work of one man, irrespective of skill or occupation, performed
during the period of one hour. So defined, this unit has the merit of
being uniform not only for all branches of any one industry, but
also for all industries. .Because of its uniformity, the term “ manhour” offers a means of concretely measuring the combined output
of two or more departments, provided the unit of output remains the
same. This is exactly the situation as regards plate glass. Tables
35 and 36 show the man-hour output of casting and of finishing
polished plate glass. Both are expressed in terms of square feet of
polished plate glass per man-hour. The man-hour output of the
two departments combined is merely the reciprocal of the manhours needed to cast and finish 1 square foot of polished glass.5 The
labor cost of the two departments combined is the sum of the labor
costs in each.
With the data for the casting and the finishing departments thus
combined, the increase in man-hour output due directly to the
change from the discontinuous to the continuous process is 58.7
per cent, if the man-hour output of Plant A is taken as the base,
or 100. The corresponding decrease in labor cost for the two de­
partments combined is 32.4 per cent of the cost in Plant A. For
Plant B the index number for the casting and the finishing depart­
ments combined is 93.2 for man-hour output and 72 for labor cost,
which was to be expected because of the peculiar conditions in that
plant.
T a b l e 37. — Man-hour output and labor cost of

casting, grinding, and polishing
plate glass by the discontinuous and the continuous processes
Man-hour per square
foot of polished glass
Process and plant

Discontinuous process:
Plant A ....................................................
Plant B ....................................... ..................
Plant C___......................... ............... .........
Average....... ....................................... ......
Continuous process..................................... .

Man-hour out­ Labor cost per
put
100 square feet

Casting
Index
Index
Casting Finish­ and fin­ Square num­ Amount num­
ing
feet
ishing
ber
ber

0.03030 0.07768 0.10798
.03305 .08278 .11583
. 03481 .06963 .10444
. 01742

. 05061

.06803

9.261
8.633
9.575
9.156
14.699

100.0
93.2
103.4
98.9
158.7

$8.587
6.180
6.655
7.141
5.801

100.0
72.0
77.5
83.2
67.6

While the transition from the discontinuous to the continuous
process of casting and finishing plate glass has not directly affected
the cutting department, in the sense that the method of cutting the
polished plate glass into sizes remains essentially the same, the indi­
6 This method is illustrated by an example taken from Plant A.

The man-hour output in the casting

department in this plant was 33.007 square feet of polished glass. It takes, therefore, —
or 0.03030
man-hour to cast 1 square foot of polished glass. In the same plant the man-hour output of the finishing
department was 12.873 square feet of polished glass, and it takes, therefore,
or 0.07768 man-hour to
grind and polish 1 square foot of polished glass. For similar reasons it takes 0.03030+0.07768 =0.10798 manhour to cast and finish 1 square foot of polished glass, and the reciprocal thereof will represent the man-bour
output of the casting and the finishing departments combined.




195

CH APTER IV .---- PLATE GLASS

rect effects of the change on the output of the cutting department have
been very great. This is shown in Table 38, where a comparison is
given of the man-hour output and the labor cost of cutting plate glass.
The continuous process shows an increase of 69.8 per cent in man-hour
output and a decrease of 37.1 per cent in labor cost, as compared
with those of the discontinuous process in Plant A. This difference is
due primarily to the fact that the plates reaching the cutting department
in the continuous process are uniform in size and of such dimensions
as to require the minimum amount of labor to cut them into the
required standard sizes. In the discontinuous process all sizes and
all grades of plate glass reach the cutting department, and it requires
a good deal of judgment on the part of the examiners and cutters to
get the maximum percentage of larger sizes and better grades of
plate glass. Hence the resulting low output as compared with the
continuous process.
T a b l e 38 . — Man-hour output and labor cost of cutting plate glass in plants with

the discontinuous and the continuous processes

Man-hour output

Labor cost per 100
square feet

Process and plant
Square
feet
Discontinuous process:
Plant A _______________________________________________
Plant B _
_______________ ____________________
Plant C _
____ _ _______________________________
Average
____ _______________________ :__________
Continuous process________________________________________

Index
number

Amount

44.438
44. 541
48. 919
45.966
75.438

100.0
100.2
110.1
103.4
169.8

$1.810
1.028
1.216
1.351
1.138

Index
number

100.0
56.8
67.2
74.6
62.9

To measure the man-hour output and the labor cost of the industry
as a whole one need but add the figures for the cutting department to
those of the other two departments. The results are shown in Table
39, the method used to combine the three departments being the same
as that used in Table 37.
T a b l e 3 9 . — Man-hour output and labor cost of making polished plate glass by the

discontinuous and the continuous processes
Man-hour per square foot of
polished plate glass
Process and plant
Cast­
ing

Discontinuous process:
Plant A_
_________________
Plant B ________ ______ _________
Plant C __
_________________
Average______________________
Continuous process.______
_____

Finish­
ing

Cut­
ting

Total

0.03030 0.07768 0.02250 0.13048
.03305 . 08278 .02245 .13828
.03481 .06963 .02044 .12488
. 01742

.05061

. 01327

.08130

Man-hour
output

Labor cost per
100 square feet

Index
Square num­ Amount Index
num­
feet
ber
ber

7.6&
4
7.232
8.008
7.635
12.300

100.0
94.4
104.5
99.6
160.5

$10.397
7.208
7.871
8.492
6.939

100.0
69.3
75.7
81.7
66.7

Taking the man-hour output of Plant A as the base, or 100, the
man-hour output in the continuous process shows an index of 160.5,
or an increase of 60.5 per cent over the discontinous process. In the
case of labor cost the continuous process registers a decrease of 33.3
per cent from the corresponding cost in the discontinuous process of




196

PRO D U CTIVITY OF LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

Plant A. Of the other two plants, Plant B shows a smaller labor
productivity throughout the plant, due probably to the 12-hour-shift
system practiced in the major portion of the plant. Directly con­
nected with this policy are the extremely low wage rates, with the
resulting abnormal combination of a low labor productivity with a
very low labor cost. In Plant C the man-hour output for the plant
is somewhat larger than in Plant A, due to a large extent to the size
of tables used in the finishing department. The labor cost of pro­
duction in this plant is also considerably lower than in Plant A,
partly because the labor productivity is higher but mainly because
the rates of wages in this plant, though higher than in Plant B, are
still much lower than in Plant A.
It is clear from the above that the variations in output and in labor
cost, as shown by Plants B and C, are due to factors other than
changes in the method of production. But these variations are so
large as at times completely to overshadow the variations due to
such a change. This is especially true with labor cost, which is more
affected by the rate of wages than by the labor output. It is there­
fore absolutely imperative in comparing the two processes to select
plants which differ as little as possible in all other respects than the
method of production. This is the reason why Plant A, which has the
same management and the same wage rates as the plant representing
the continuous process, has been selected as a basis of comparison with
that process. Such a comparison, with the other plants eliminated,
is shown in Table 40, which contains a comparison of man-hour
output of the two processes in (a) the casting department; (b) the
finishing department; (c) the casting and finishing departments com­
bined; (d) the cutting department; and (e) all departments com­
bined. The increase in man-hour output effected by the continuous
process varies from 53.5 per cent in the finishing department to 74
per cent in the casting department, with an increase of 60.5 per
cent for all departments combined. The table also shows a compari­
son of the labor cost in the same departments. The decrease in
labor cost effected by the continuous process varies from 30.4 per
cent in the finishing department to 37.6 in the casting department,
with a decrease of 33.3 per cent in all departments combined.
T a b l e 40. — Co?nparison of man-hour output and labor cost in making plate glass

by the discontinuous and the continuous processes, by departments
Man-hour output

Labor cost per 100
square feet

Square
feet

Index
number

Amount

33.007
57.420

100.0
174.0

$2.409
1.504

12.873
19.757

100.0
153.5

6.178 :
I
4.297 |

100.0
69.6

9.261
14.699

100.0
158.7

8.587
5.801 j

100.0
67.6

44.438
75.438

100.0
1.810
169.8 | 1.138
1
100.0
10.397
• 6.939
160.5

Department and process

Casting:
Discontinuous process—....................................................... .
Continuous process. ...............................................................
Grinding and polishing:
Discontinuous process........................................................ .
Continuous process..............................................................
Casting, grinding, and polishing:
Discontinuous process.......................................... ......... ........
Continuous process................................................................
Cutting:
Discontinuous process............................................................
Continuous process.................................................................
All departments:
Discontinuous process..... .......................................................
Continuous process.................................................................




7.664
12. 300

Index
number

100.0
62.4

i
|

100.0
62.9

!
;

100.0
66.7

CH APTER IV .---- PLATE GLASS

197

PRESENT SITUATION IN THE PLATE-GLASS BRANCH OF THE
INDUSTRY

In view of the statistics of man-hour output and of labor cost here­
tofore shown it can hardly be denied that, at least so far as labor
productivity and labor cost are concerned, the continuous process
marks a decided step forward in plate-glass making. It is also a
more integrated and at the same time a simpler process than the
discontinuous process. Nevertheless, while *admitting that the
continuous process is still very young—only four to five years—it
must also be admitted that it has not made the progress which might
be expected from the figures of man-hour output and of labor cost.
There are other factors which must be taken into consideration in
order to give a complete picture of the present situation in the plateglass branch of the industry. They are as follows:
1. The continuous process so far has been successfully used in the
production of automobile glass only, and it is still an open question
whether the same process can be applied to the manufacture of all
grades and all sizes of plate glass.
2. The glass produced in the continuous tanks is admittedly of
a lower grade than pot glass. Besides, a large tank of 400 or more
tons of molten material is harder to control than a single pot with
less than a ton of glass, and the danger of loss is more serious when
the glass in a whole tank “ goes wrong.”
3. There is the problem of plant reconstruction, which is inex­
tricably bound up with the introduction of the continuous process.
In spite of the similarity of the actual operations performed, there is
such a difference in the kind of plants needed for the two processes
that a change from the discontinuous to the continuous process would
mean a complete abandoning of the old plant and the construction
of a new one. It is even a question if the building housing the old
process could be retained for the new one.
The situation is such, therefore, that it would require much con­
sideration on the part of manufacturers before they would decide
to abandon the discontinuous in favor of the continuous process.
Even if it were possible to produce all grades and all sizes of plate
glass by the new process, and even if the glass produced by the tank
were as good as pot glass, the question would still remain whether
the increase in labor productivity and the decrease in labor cost are
sufficient to compensate for the expenses entailed in a change from
the old to the new process. The continuous process has certainly
come to stay, and has become an important factor as to at least one
kind of plate glass— automobile glass—but the discontinuous process
has more than held its ground during the same period, and the indica­
tions are that as long as tne demand for plate glass keeps growing
as fast as it has in the last decade, and as long as there is no serious
shortage of labor, the two processes will continue to exist side by side.
STATISTICS OF PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST

The statistics of production of plate glass are somewhat more
complicated than those in any other branch of the glass industry.
This is especially true of the discontinuous process as represented in
Plants A, B, and C. First, the data for each plant has to be divided
into that for three separate departments, the labor and the output of




198

PRO D U CTIVITY OF LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

which are very little, if at all, related to one another. The casting
department produces rough plate glass; the finishing department
grinds and polishes the rough plate; and the cutting department cuts
the polished plates into sizes. Each department is an independent
unit, not only because of the differences in the nature of the work
performed but also because there are separate wage and hour con­
ditions in each. Hence separate data are given for each department.
In the casting department the casting gang was selected as the
nucleus of the labor ’unit. The selection was prompted partly by
the fact that this group of workers actually performs the operation
of casting the rough plate, but chieffy because it is more or less uniform
in size and composition in all plate-glass plants using the discontinuous
process. To these workers was added the equivalent of that portion
of the labor of the other groups in the casting department which
could be allotted to a single casting gang. For instance, in one
plant the casting gang is normally operating on a three 8-hour-shift
basis, while the batch room of the same plant is operating on a two
10-hour-shift basis. For this reason the equivalent of five-sixths of
the labor in the batch room was added to the casting gang, as this
constitutes the fraction of the batch-room labor needed to keep one
casting gang in operation. The same method was used to determine
the relations between the casting gang and the other groups in the
casting department, the resulting total representing a complete casting
unit with its constituent parts proportionally related to one another.
That such a unit is significant can be seen from the fact that in spite
of considerable differences in the size and regulations in the three
plants given the variation in the number of workers constituting
a casting unit is very small. Plant A shows 5 3 ^ workers per unit,
Plant B 523^ workers, and Plant C 55 workers.
This method of selecting a single group of workers around which
the other workers could be so arranged as to form a complete pro­
duction unit can not be applied either to the finishing or the cutting
department. There is no way to. determine the proportions of the
separate operations needed in connection with the process of grinding
and polishing plate glass or in cutting the polished plates into sizes.
For this reason all the workers employed in each of these departments
during one shift were taken as constituting the unit in that depart­
ment. No comparison can therefore be made between these units in
one plant and the corresponding units in any other plant. A larger
unit merely signifies a larger plant and a smaller unit a smaller plant.
In the continuous process, as represented in the plant chosen, the
problem of determining the labor attendance in the separate depart­
ments is comparatively simple. There the three departments con­
stitute a single definite production unit, or a “ line,” as it is officially
termed. The workers engaged in the batch room and those in charge
of the casting operations, including the workers whose duty it is to
transfer the rough plates from the leer to the finishing conveyor,
constitute the casting department. On the same basis, all the work­
ers in charge of the two grinding and polishing conveyors, including
the workers who deliver the polished plates to the cutters, constitute
the finishing department. The other workers of the “ line” belong
to the cutting department.
There is no definite wage policy which can be described as char­
acteristic of plate-glass plants. Nor is there any uniformity in the




CH APTER IV .---- PLATE GLASS

199

number of shifts in operation in each plant or the hours of work
prevailing in the plant. The labor is essentially nonskilled, and the
rates of wages are largely determined either by conditions prevailing
in the community or by the policy pursued in the individual plants.
The 8-hour shift predominates in most plants, especially in the
casting departments, but in Plant B its finishing department operates
on two 12-hour shifts and its cutting department on one 10-hour
shift. Similar or other variations can be found in other plants.
The statistics of output as shown in the second part of each section
of Table H are prepared on the same principle as those for other
branches of the glass industry. They give the quantity produced in
square feet, the unit of the market; the total number of hours the
plant, if reduced to a single labor unit or a single machine, would
have to operate to produce such output; the output of a labor unit
per hour; the man-hour output; and the labor cost per hour.
T a b l e H . — PROD UCTIO N

GLASS B Y
PROCESSES

TH E

AND LABOR COST IN M A K IN G PLATE
DISCONTINUOUS A N D TH E
CONTINUO US

ROUGH PLATE GLASS—DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: PLANT A
[In this table all wage rates are for 1925 and labor cost is based on 1925 wage rates regardless of year of out­
put data. Italicized figures represent minimum and maximum]
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Batch room:
Batch
mixers..........................
Pot leer: Pot-leer tender.
Furnace room:
Foreman..... .............
1
Boss finisher............
1
Finishers____ _____
4
Melters......... ...........
4
Metal tender............
1
Blocker....................
1
Hoist-ups.................
2
Cleaners..................
6
Casting room:
Shift foreman...........
V
2
Teemer.....................
1
Skimmer..................
1
Skim cutter............
1
Pot craneman...........
1
Wagon man..... ........
1
Teeming craneman..
1
Skim catcher............
1
Table m en......... .
3
Leer controller.........
1
Annealing leer:
Leer men..................
m
Leer motormen........
m
Rough cutting room:
Examiner................
1
Booker......................
1
Cutters.....................
2
Square-up men.........
2
Carriers.....................
4
Helpers...................
3
Rackman.................
1
Craneman................
1
3

1

m/2

Total.....................




Wage
rates
per
hour

Labor
cost
per
hour

$0.75
.75

$2.25
.75

1.05
.90
.85
.80
.85
.75
.75
.75

1.05
.90
3.40
3.20
.85
.75
1.50
4.50

1.20
.90
.85
.85
.80
.85
.80
.80
.75
.80

.60
.90
.85
.85
.80
.85
.80
.80
2.25
.80

.80
.80
.80
.75
.80
.75
.75
.75
.80
.80

Output
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- 100
hour sq. ft.

Sq. ft.
,532.664
2,499.478
2,355.971
2,458.493
2,405.979
2,193.043
2,335.779
2,302.912
2,296. 694
2,295. 660
2,276.823
2,253. 298

Sq.ft.
47.340 $1.680
46. 719 1.702
44.037 1.806
45.953 1.731
44.972 1.769
40.991 1.940
43. 659 1.822
43.045 1.848
42.929 1.853
42.910 1.853
42. 557 1.869
42.118 1 8
.8 8

1.20
1.20
.80
.75
1.60
1.50
3.00
2.25
.80
.80
42.55

Year
and
month

Output

1925
Jan___
F e b ....
M a r ...
Apr___
May.__
June_
_
July—
Aug----Sept___
Oct___
N ov___
Dec-----

Sq.ft.
972,543
909,810
980,084
1,022,733
938,332
912.306
995,042
1,040,916
923,271
991,725
874,300
892.306

Total. 11,453,368

Unithours

384.0
364.0
416.0
416.0
390.0
416.0
426.0
452.0
402.0
432.0
384.0
396.0

4,878.0 2,347.964 43.887

1.812;

PRO D U CTIVITY OF LABOR I X

2 0 0

TH E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

H .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING PLATE
GLASS BY THE DISCONTINUOUS AND THE CONTINUOUS
PROCESS— Continued

T able

ROUGH PLATE GLASS—DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: PLANT B

Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

X
1

lX
IX

1
3K
3X
1

4

1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
IX
IX

l
l

4

6

1
1
52X

Occupation

Wage
rates
per
hour

Labor
cost
per
hour

Year
and
month

1925
Batch room:
Boss mixer. .............. $0. 6750 !0.3375 J a n ...
. 6125 Feb....
Mixer.............. ........
0125
5700
.8550 M ar...
Helpers....... ......... .
4000
.6000 Apr_
Pot leer: Leer tenders.._
_
Furnace room:
M ay...
Foreman__________
.7500
. 7500 June..
Fillers....................... . 6125 2.4500 July...
Finishers__________ .5700 1.9950 Aug...
.4850 1. 6975 Sept--.
Melters__________..
. 5250
Metal tender______
.5250 O c t...
Cleaners....... ........... .5250 3.6750 N ov_Casting room:
Dec—
Shift foreman........... .0000 1 0 0
.0 0
Teemer------ ------ .8500
.8500
Skimmer. ...............
.7500
. 7500
Skim cutter------------ .7000
.7000
.7000
Pot craneman.......... .7000
Wagon man............. .7000
.7000
Table men------------- .6700 2.0100
Teeming craneman.. .8750
. 8750
.7000
Leer controller.
.7000
Annealing leer:
.5000
Leer men.............
.7500
.5000
.7500
Leer motormen. _
Rough cutting room:
Examiner---------.5375
.5375
Booker_________
.3500
.3500
.7000 2.8000
Cutters................
.5375 3.2250
Helpers-..........
.4550
Hackman---------.4550
.7000
.7000
Craneman______
Total..................- _______ 31.3500

Total.

Output

Sq.ft.
215,344
716,136
779,146
796,862
829,551
803,246
811,371
805,730
856,276
816,436
316,978
699,985

8,947,061

Unithours

112.0
384.0
416.0
416.0
416.0
416.0
392.0
416.0
432.0
416.0
400.0
320.0

Output
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- 100
hour sq. ft.

S q.ft
1,922. 714
1,864.987
1,872.947
1,915.534
1,994.113
1,930.880
2,069.824
1,936.851
1,982.120
1,962. 587
2,042.445
2, 187.458

36.623 $1.631
85.528 1.681
35.675 1.674
36.486 1.637
37.983 1.572
36. 779 1.624
39.425 1.515
36.892 1. 619
37. 755 1. 582
37.383 1.597
38.904 1.535
41.666 1.483

4,536.0 1,972.456 37.571

ROUGH PLATE GLASS—DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: PLANT C
Batch room:

Boss mixer...............
X
Mixers____________
2 Pot leer: Pot-leer tend­
3

10

ers.
Furnace room:
Foreman............... .
Finishers.................
Melters...................
Fillers................ .
Cleaners...... ............
Craneman------------Fill-hopper operator.
Mud-ups..................
Casting room:
Teemer....... ..........
Skimmer__________
Skim cutter..... .......
Skim catcher______
Pot tongs man------Pot craneman..........
Teeming craneman..
Gunners...................
Leer motorman____
Annealing leer:
Leer m a n .............. .
Leer motorman____
Rough cutting room:
Cutters----------------Examiner............... .
Booker___________
Rackman.................
Helpers and carriers.

55

T o ta l--............... .

X
4
5
6

3




$0.80
.55
. 55

$0.20

1.00
.73

.75
2.92
3.30
3.60
1.80
.47
.47
1.05

.6
6

1.65

10
.1

1925
Jan___
F eb.—
Mar___
Apr___
M ay—
June...
July....
Aug---S e p t...
Oct___
Nov.......
D ec-

534,841
716,227
786,064
776,477
808,817
667,500
635,717
808,870
444,242
407,173
344,439
718,256

648.0
768.0
832.0
800.0
832.0
832.0
832.0
864.0
664.0
648.0
600.0
792.0

2,868.582
2,234.671
2,146. 712
2,220.596
2,174.060
2,004.207
1,966.006
2,093.600
2,172.320
2,171.563
2,240.761
2,169.515

1065 $1,660
>.630 1.654
39.031 1.722
40.374 1.664
39. 528 1.700
36.440 1.845
85.746 1.881
38.065 1.766
1.497 1.702
39.501 1.702
40.741 1.649
39.446 1.704

.92
.76
.76
.70
.76
.72
.76
2.10
.72
.73
.65
1.64
.65
.66
.60
6.50
36.95

T ota l- 19,648,623

9, U2.0 2,156.346 39.206

1.714

201

CH APTER IV .---- PLATE GLASS

H .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING PLATE
GLASS BY THE DISCONTINUOUS AND THE CONTINUOUS
PROCESSES—Continued.

T a b le

ROUGH PLATE GLASS—CONTINUOUS PROCESS
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers
2
X
A
l
i
y2
l
l
l
2

m

Occupation

Wage
rates
per
hour

Labor
cost
per
hour

Batch room: Mixers----- $0,800 $1.6000
Furnace room:
.3125
Chief foreman.......... 1.250
.5500
Assistant foreman . . 1.100
.8500
.850
Furnace man
___
.4500
.900
Skimmer _________
.9250
.925
Roller........................
.850
.8500
Oiler..........................
.850
.8500
Stripper or cutter.. _
.800 1.6000
Transfer men______

7.9875

Total.....................

XJnithours

Output
per
unithout

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- 100
hour sq. ft.

1925
Sq. ft.
Aug------ 1,050,262
Sept___ 1,235,227
Oct........ 1,016,491
901,160
N ov.......
Dec....... ! 905,241

1,704.0
1,944.0
1,584.0
1,440.0
1,560.0

Sq. jt.
616.351
630.261
641.724
625.806
580.283

Sq. ft.
66.633 $1.296
68.136 1.267
69.876 1.245
67.655 1,276
62. 733 1.377

1926
Jan.......
986,269
Feb
984,305
717,964
Mar
Apr
* 762,638
M ay___ 1,054,434
June___ 1,053,895
July
593,225

1,800.0
1,848.0
1,200.0
1,377.6
1,826.4
1,800.0
1,048.0

547. S27
582.688
598.303
553.599
577.329
585.497
565.623

59.235
57.582
64, 681
59.849
62. 414
63.297
61.148

1.458
1.500
1.335
1.443
1.384
1.364
1.412

588.576 63.630

1.357

Year
and
month

Output

Total __ 11,261,111 19,132.8

GRINDING AND POLISHING PLATE GLASS—DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: PLANT A

x
84

Laying-out and turnover
gangs:
Shift foreman--------Matchers------------- .
Boss la y e r ........... .
First layers-----------Second layers--------Third layers. ...........
Fourth layers........—
Fifth layers-----------Cullet m en._...........
Plaster mixers-------Cleaners ........... ........
Table transfer gangs:
Carmen_____________
Grinding machines:
Machinist_________
Operators-------------Helpers----------------Sandman................Emory m an ............
Middle-yard gangs:
Foreman__________
Examiner-------------Matchers--------------First layer------------Second layer............
Third layer-----------Plaster mixer______
Helpers......... ...........
Cleaner......... ..........
Polishing machines:
M achinist-,............
Block felters_______
Operators.............. .
Stripping! and washing
gangs:
Bookers.................. .
Cranemen____ ____
Washers___________
Cleaners........... ........
Total _

$1.20

$1.20

.90
.90
.90
.80
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75

1.80
.90
3.60
3.20
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00

.75

.27
1.50
1.50
1.50
66.80

1 Stripping is done by laying-out gangs.




12.998 | 6
> .118
18. 720 5.796
13.488 5.896
12.572
12.559
11.999 6.628
13.379 5.944
13.586 5.853
13.603 5.846
12.033 6.609
12. 775 6.225
11.752 6.767

.85
1.33
3.20

.75
.75
.75

1,091.817
1, 152.466
1,132.997
1,056.056
1,054.973
1,007.932
1,123.843
1,141.245
1,142. 633
1,010.783
1,073.079
987.205

1.20
.95
1.80
.90
.80
.75
.75
3.75
.75

.80
.80

568.0
564.0
624.0
624.0
600.0
600.0
624.0
624.0
600.0
600.0
557.0
600.0

.85
6.40
3.00
.75
.80

1.20
.95
.90
.90
.80
.75
.75
.75
.75

620,152
649,991
706,990
658,979
632,984
604,759
701,278
712,137
685,580
606,470
597,705
592,323

4.50

.85
.80
.75
.75
.80

1925
Jan____
Feb____
Mar___
Apr____
M ay----June___
July----Aug-----Sept___
Oct.......
N ov___
Dec____

Total

7,769,348

7,185.0 1,081.329 12.873

6.178

202

PRO D U CTIVITY OF LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U ST R Y

H . — PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN M AKING PLATE
GLASS BY THE DISCONTINUOUS AND THE CONTINUOUS
PROCESSES— Continued.

T able

GRINDING AND POLISHING PLATE GLASS—DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: PLANT B

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Occupation

Output and labor cost

Wage
rates
per
hour

Labor
cost
per
hour

1.900
.675
.650
.575
.560
.540
.560
.375
.420
.650

$0,900
.675
1.300
3.450
1.680
5.940
1.680
1.125
.840
.650

.520
.475

.520
.950

.520
.485
.370
.370
.400

2

6
3

1
1
3
3

2

1
1

2

1

8
4

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
2

4

m

8K
4

Shift foreman--------Boss layer_________
First layers-----------Second layers.. .......
Third layers---------Fourth layers..........
Plaster mixers.........
Cleaners.................
Cranemen................
Matcher--------- -----Table transfer gangs:
Carman______ ____
Rope pullers...........
Grinding machines:
Machinist................
Operators-------------Helpers....................
Sandman...... ..........
Emery man.............
Middle-yard gangs:
Examiner.................
First layer................
Second layer...........
Third layer.............
Fourth layer.......... .
Helpers. ..................
Plaster mixer...........
Cleaner______ _____
Polishing machines:
Foreman.................
Finishers.................
Operators (bench
boys)...... ..............
Block felters..........
Stripping and washing
gangs:
Booker.......... ..........
First stripper......... .
Second strippers___
Third strippers.......
Craneman...............
Washers..................
Cleaners..................

.665
.650
.575
.560
.540
.520
.570
.375

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- 100
hour sq. ft.

Sq.ft.
1,048.898
HO. 168
967.623
1,004.875
1,000.526
1,028.425
1,054.910
1,058.933
1,071.289
1,014.702
1,008.677
1,072.169

Sq.ft.
12.401 $4,098
11.126 4.567
11.451 4.437
11.892 4.273
11.841 4.292
12.171 4.175
12.484 4.070
12.532 4.055
12.678 4.008
12.008 4.232
11.937 4.257
12.688 4.005

.650
.575
.560
.540
3.120
.570
.375

.900
.520

Output
per
unithour

.520
3.880
1.480
.370
.400

.900
1.040

Laying-out and turnover

1
1

Year
and
month

1925
Jan...
F eb..
Mar..
Apr...
M ay.
June.
July__
Aug..
Sept..
Oct._
Nov._
D ec-

Output

S qjt.
226,346
541,534
603,797
627,042
624,328
604,714
658,264
660,774
694,195
633,174
605.206
514,641

Unithours

216.0
576.0
624.0
624.0
624.0
588.0
624.0
624.0
648.0
624.0
600.0
480.0

.370
.455
.370
.600
.520
.490
.420
.380
.380

Total.

.370
.600
1.040
1.470
.420
.760
.760
42.938

Total

6,994,015

6,852.0 1,020.726 12.080

4.207

GRINDING AND POLISHING PLATE GLASS-DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: PLANT C
Laying-out and turn­
over gangs:
Boss layer................ $0,785
Turnover boss layer.
.785
Matchers.................
.645
.775
First layers............
Second layers-........
.680
Third layers........... .
.610
Fourth layers......... .
.595
Oullet matchers___
.610
.595
Plaster mixers........ .
.545
Cleaners...................
Table transfer gangs:
.620
Boss carman........... .
Carmen....................
.610
Grinding machines:
.785
Machinist............... .
Operators.................
.665
.555
Helpers.................. .
Sandman................
.500
Emery m an............
.500




$0,785
.785
1.935
3.875
6.800
3.050
2.975
3.050
5.950
2.725
.620
3.660
.785
5.985
4.995
.500
.500

1925
Jan........
Feb
Mar
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct........
Nov
Dec____

1,103,689
1,098,261
1,182,954
1,189,622
1,176,084
1,136,876
1,136,068
1,193,899
1,172,246
1,149,338
1,053,278
1,044,217

664.0
592.0
648.0
648.0
640.0
640.0
600.0
640.0
640.0
640.0
592.0
592.0

1,662.182
1,855.171
1,825.546
1,835.836
1,837.631
1,776.369
1,898.447
1,865.467
1,831.634
1,795.841
1,779.186
1,763.880

13.192 $4*69*
14.724 4.209
14.488 4.277
14.570 4.253
14.584 4.249
14.098 4.396
15.027 4.124
14.805 4.186
14.537 4.283
14.253 4.348
14.121 4.389
13.999 4.427

CH APTER IV .---- PLATE GLASS

203

T a b l e H . — -PRODUCTION

AND LABOR COST IN M AKING PLATE
GLASS BY THE DISCONTINUOUS AND THE CONTINUOUS
PROCESSES— Continued

GRINDING AND POLISHING PLATE GLASS—DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: PLANT <
3—Continued
Output and labor cost

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

1
1
2
2
2
1
2
7
2
1
2
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
126

Occupation

Wage
rates
per
hour

Middle yard:
Middle yard boss. - . $0,775
.725
Examiner_________
.635
Matchers _________
.595
First layers________
.595
Second layers______
.560
Third la y e r .______
Plaster mixers_____
.560
.555
Helpers___________
.545
Cleaners__________
Polishing machines:
.785
Machinist............... _
Finishing inspectors.
.710
Machine operators. _ .630
Block felter________
.560
.500
Helper____________
Stripping yard and wash­
ing gangs:
.775
Boss stripper______
Second stripper____
.680
Third stripper_____
.610
.595
Fourth stripper-----Fifth strippers..........
.580
.560
Helpers___________
Washers___________
.560
.560
Cleaners__________

Labor
cost
per
hour

$0,775
.725
1.270
1.190
1.190
.560
1.120
3.885
1.090

Output

1925

Sq.ft.

Unithours

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- 100
hour sq. ft.

Output
per
unithour

Sq.ft.

S q.jl

.785
1.420
6.300 [
.560
.500
.775
.680
.610
.595
1.160
1.680
1.120
1.120
78.085

Total___ ________

Year
and
month

Total. 13,636,532

7,536.0 1,809.519 14.361 $4.315

GRINDING AND POLISHING PLATE GLASS-CONTINUOUS PROCESS
K
M
A
X
9
2
2
1
2
4
1
1
A
U
M
M

Grinding foreman______
Polishing foreman ____
Assistant foreman______
Layers________________
Sandmen______________
Pump and tank men___
Garnet man----------------Polishers_______ ____ —
Strippers______________
Repair m a n __________
Block felter.... ........... .
Carrier_______________
Brushman....................
Washing-machine man_.
Stacker............................

24M

$1.20
1.20
1.00
.85
.85
.85
.80
.90
.80
.85
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80

T o ta l...................

$0.300
.300
.500
7.650
1.700
1.700
.800
1.800
3.200
.850
.800
.400
.200
.200
.400
20.800

1925
949,892
Aug____
Sept___
897,860
Oct.......
906,928
Nov.......
596,286
Dec....... 1,069, 738

1,896.0
1,584.0
1,464.0
1.248.0
2.256.0

500.998
566.830
619.486
477. 793
474.175

20.449 $4.152
23.136 3.670
25.285 8.858
19.502 4.353
19.354 4.387

1926
Jan____
Feb
Mar
Apr____
M ay___
June___
July___

1.968.0
1, 992.0
1.476.0
1,521. 6
1, 680.0
1,358.4
1,284.0

486.996
406.108
438.405
415. 929
471. 497
472. 635
503.924

19.877
16.576
17.894
16.977
19.245
19.291
20.568

4.271
5.122
4.744
5.001
4.411
4.401
4.128

484.044 19. 757

4.297

958,408
808,958
647,086
632,878
792,115
642,028
647,039

Total. 9,549,216 19,728.0

CUTTING POLISHED PLATE GLASS-DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: PLANT A
1
2
28
24
16
1
1

Chief foreman................
Assistant foremen______
Cutters_______________
Helpers and cleaners----_______
Examiners
Booker...................... .
Craneman..................... .

73

Total.....................




$1.25
.95
.80
.75
.85
.75
.80

$1.25
1.90
22.40
18.00
13.60
.75
.80

58.70

1925
Jan........
Feb
Mar
Apr.......
May___
June___
July
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct........
Nov
Dec.......

620,152
649,991
706,990
658,979
632,984
604,759
701,278
712,137
685,580
606,470
597,705
592,323

Total. 7,769,348

189.0
188.0
208.0
208.0
200.0
200.0
208.0
208.0
200.0
200.0
186.0
200.0

3, 281.228
3, 457.898
3,398.990
3,168.168
3,164.920
3,023. 795
3,371.529
3,423. 736
3,427.900
3,032. 350
3, 213.468
961. 615

44. 948 $1. 789
47.862 1.698
46. 562 1.727
43.400 1.853
43.355 1.855
41.422 1.941
46.185 1.741
46.900 1.715
46. 958 1.712
41. 539 1.936
44.020 1.827
40. 570 1.982

2,395.0 3,243.987 44. 438

1.810

204

P R O D U C T IV ITY OF LABOR IN T H E GLASS IN D U STRY

H .— PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST IN MAKING PLATE
GLASS BY THE DISCONTINUOUS AND THE CONTINUOUS
PROCESSES— Continued

T able

CUTTING POLISHED PLATE GLASS-DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: PLANT B

Labor unit
Num­
ber
of
work­
ers

Output and labor cost

Occupation

Wage
rates
per
hour

Labor
cost
per
hour

Year
and
month

Shift foreman.................
Assistant foreman_____
Cutters.............. .......... .
Table men and helpers..
Bookers....... ............ .
Cleaners and examiners
Craneman..................... .

$1.50
.80
. 55
.40
.39
.37
.44

$1.50
.80
8.25

1925
Jan____
Feb
Mar
Apr
M ay___
June___
July
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct____
Nov ...
Dec.......

6.00

1.17
7.03
.44

Output

Sq. ft.
226,346
541,534
603,797
627,042
624,328
604,714
658,264
660,774
694,195
633,174
605,206
514,641

T otal. 6,994,015

Total.

Unithours

Output
per
unithour

Out­ Labor
put
cost
per
per
man- 100
hour sq. ft.

90.0
240.0
260.0
260.0
260.0
245.0
260.0
260.0
270.0
260.0
250.0
200.0

Sq.ft.
2,514.956
2,256.892
2,322. 296
2,411.700
2,401.262
2,468.220
2,531. 785
2,541.438
2,571.093
2,435.285
2,420.824
2,573.205

Sq.ft.
45.726 $1,002
4L025 1.116
42.224 1.085
43.849 1.044
43.659 1.049
44.877 1.021
46. 032
.995
46.208
.991
46.747
.980
44. 278 1.034
44.015 1.041
4 .786 .979
6

2,855.0 2,449.743 44. 541

1.028

CUTTING POLISHED PLATE GLASS-DISCONTINUOUS PROCESS: PLANT C
Foreman__________
Assistant foremen...
Cutters____ _______
Helpers and carriers.
Examiners...............
Cleaners...................
Bookers......... ...........

115

Total.

$1.25

$1.25

.65
.55
.65
.50
.55

16. 25
25.30
10.40
7.50
5.50

10
.1

2.20

68.40

1925
Jan........
Feb.......
Mar.......
Apr.......
M ay___
June___
July.......
Aug.......
Sept___
Oct........
Nov.......
Dec.......

1,103,689
1,098,261
1,182,954
1,189,622
1,176,084
1,136,876
1,136,068
1,193,899
1,172,246
1,149,338
1,053,278
1,044,217

T otal. 13,636,532

216.0
192.0
208.0
208.0
208.0
200.0
192.0
208.0
208.0
208.0
192.0
184.0

5,109.671
5,720.109
5,687.279
5,719.337
5,654.250
5,684.380
5,917.021
5, 739.899
5,635.798
5,525. 663
5,485.823
5,675.092

44-4$2 $1.889
49.740 1.196
49.455 1.203
49.733 1.196
49.167 1. 210
49.429 1.203
51.452 1.156
49.912 1.192
49.007 1. 214
48.049 1.238
47.703 1.247
49.349 1.205

2,424.0 5,625.632 48.919

1. 216

CUTTING POLISHED PLATE GLASS—CONTINUOUS PROCESS
Foreman..
Carriers...
Examiner.
Cutters...
Inspectors.

$1.10 i $0,275
.80
1.600
.85
.850
.85 10.200
.90
3.600

1
12
4

19K

Total -




$16.525

1925
Aug----Sept___
Oct____
N ov___
Dec___

949,892
897,860
906,928
596,286
1,069,738

632.0
528.0
488.0
416.0
752.0

1,502.994
1,700.492
1,858.459
1,433.380
1,422.524

78.078 $1,099
88.337
.972
96.543
.889
74.461 1.153
73.897 1.162

1926
Jan____
F e b ....
Mar___
Apr___
M a y ...
June...
July....

X

2

958,408
808,958
647,086
632,878
792,115
642,028
647,039

656.0
664.0
492.0
507.0
560.0
452.8
428.0

1,460.988
1,218,310
1,315.215
1,248.280
1,414.491
1,417.906
1,511.773

75.895
68.289
68.323
64.846
73.480
73.657
78.534

1.131
1.856
1.256
1.324
1.168
1.165
1.093

6,575.8 1,452.176 75.438

1.138

Total

9,549,216

LIST OF BULLETINS OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
The following is a list of all bulletins of the Bureau o f 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 o f print .
Wholesale Prices.
No. 284. Index numbers of wholesale prices in the United States and foreign countries.
No. 440. Wholesale prices, 1890 to 1926.

[1921.]

Retail Prices and Cost o f Living.
*No. 121. Sugar prices, from refiner to consumer. [1913.]
*No. 130. Wheat and flour prices, from farmer to consumer. [1913.]
♦No. 161. Butter prices, from producer to consumer. [1914.]
No. 170. Foreign food prices as affected by the war. [1915.]
No. 357. Cost of living in the United States. [1924.]
No. 369. The use of cost-of-living figures in wage adjustments. [1925.
No. 418. Retail prices, 1890 to 1925.
Wages and Hours o f Labor.
♦No. 146. Wages and regularity of employment and standardization of piece rates in the dress and
waist industry of New York City. [1914.]
♦No. 147. Wages and regularity of employment in the cloak, suit, and skirt industry. [1914.]
No. 161. Wages and hours of labor in the clothing and cigar industries, 1911 to 1913.
No. 163. Wages and hours of labor in the building and repairing of steam railroad cars, 1907 to 1913.
*No. 190. Wages and hours of labor in the cotton, woolen, and silk industries, 1907 to 1914.
No. 204. Street railway employment in the United States. [1917.]
No. 225. Wages and hours of labor in the lumber, miliwork, and furniture industries, 1915.
No. 2C Industrial survey in selected industries in the United States, 1919.
5.
No. 297. Wages and hours of labor in the petroleum industry, 1920.
No. 356. Productivity costs in the common-brick industry. [1924.]
No. 358. Wages and hours of labor in the automobile-tire industry, 1923.
No. 360. Time and labor costs in manufacturing 3G pairs of shoes. [1924.]
O
No. 365. Wages and hours of labor in the paper and pulp industry, 1923.
No. 371. Wages and hours of labor in cot ton-goods manufacturing, 1924.
No. 374. Wages and hours of labor in the boot and shoe in d u stry , 3907 to 1924.
N o. 37f>. Wages and hours of labor in the hosiery and underwear industry, 1907 to 1924,

No. 377.
No. 381.
No. 394.
No. 407.
No. 412.
No. 413.
No. 416.
No. 421.
No. 422.
No. 431.
No. 434.
No. 438.

Wages and hours of labor in woolen and worsted goods manufacturing, 1924.
Wages and houis of labor in the iron and steel industry, 1907 to 3924.
Wages and hours of labor in metalliferous mines, 1924.
Labor cost of production and wages and hours in the paper box-board industry, 1925.
Wages, houis, and productivity in the pottery industry, 1925.
Wages and hours of labor in the lumber industry in the United States, 1925.
Hours and earnings in anthracite and bituminous coal mining, 1922 and 3924.
Wages and hours of labor in the slaughtering and meat-packing industry, 1925.
Wages and hours of labor in foundries and machine shops, 1925.
Union scale of wages and hours of labor, May 15, 1923.
Wages and hours of labor in the men’s clothing industry, 1911 to 192;i.
Wages and hours of labor in the motor-vehiele industry, 1925.

Employment and Unemployment.
♦No. 109. Statistics of unemployment and the work of employment ollices in the U nitcd States. fl913.]
No. 172. Unemployment in New York City, N. Y. [lUio.]
♦No. 183. Regularity of employment in the women's ready-to-wear garment industries. [1915.]
♦No. 195. Unemployment in the United States. [3916.]
No. 196. Proceedings of the Employment Managers’ Conference held at Minneapolis, Minn., Jan­
uary, 1916.
♦No. 202. Proceedings of the conference of Employment Managers’ Association, Boston, Mass., held
May 10, 1916.
No. 206. The British system of labor exchanges. [ 1916.]
♦No. 227. Proceedings of the Employment Managers’ Conference, Philadelphia, Pa., April 2 and 3,
3917.
No. 235. Employment system of the Lake Carriers’ Association. [1918.]
♦No. 241. Public employment offices in the United States. [1918.]

40780°— 27-------14




(i)

Employment
No. 247.
No. 310.
No. 409.

and Unemployment—Continued.
Proceedings of Employment Managers’ Conference, Rochester, N. Y., May 9-11, 1918.
Industrial unemployment* A statistical study of its extent and causes. [1922.]
Unemployment in Columbus, Ohio, 1921 to 1925

Proceedings o f Annual Meetings o f International Association o f Public Employment Services.
No. 192. First, Chicago, December 19 and2Q, 1913; Second, Indianapolis, September 24 and 25,1914;
Third, Detroit, July 1 and 2,1915.
No. 220. Fourth, Buffalo, N. Y ., July 20 and 21,1916.
No. 311. Ninth, Buffalo, N. Y., September 7-9,1921.
No. 337. Tenth, Washington, D. C., September 11-13,1922.
No. 355. Eleventh, Toronto, Canada, September 4-7, 1923.
No. 400. Twelfth, Chicago, 111., May 19-23, 1924.
No. 414. Thirteenth, Rochester, N. Y., September 15-17, 1925.
Women and Children in Industry.
No. 116. Hours, earnings, and duration of employment of wage-earning womeni n selected industries
in the District of CQlumbia. [1913.]
♦No. 117. Prohibition of night work of young persons. [1913.]
♦No. 118. Ten-hour maximum working-da.v for women and young persons. [1913.]
♦No. 119. Working hours of women in the pea canneries of Wisconsin. [1913.]
♦No. 122. Employment of women in power laundries in Milwaukee. [1913.]
No. 160. Hours, earnings, and conditions of labor of women in Indiana mercantile establishments and
garment factories. [1914.]
*No. 167. Minimum wage legislation in the United States and foreign countries. [1915.]
♦No. 175. Summary of the report on conditions of woman and child wage earners in the United States.
[1915.]
♦No. 176. Effect of minimum-wage determinations in Oregon. [1915.]
*No. 180. The boot and shoe industry in Massachusetts as a vocation for women. [1915.]
♦No. 182. Unemployment among women in department and other retail stores of Boston, Mass. [1916.]
No. 193. Dressmaking as a trade for women in Massachusetts. [1916.]
No. 215. Industrial experience of trade-school girls in Massachusetts. [1917.]
*No. 217. Effect of workmen’s compensation laws in diminishing the necessity of industrial employ­
ment of women and children. [1918.]
No. 223. Employment of women and juveniles in Great Britain during the war. [1917.]
No. 253. Women in lead industries. [1919.]
Workmen’s Insurance and Compensation (including laws relating thereto).
♦No. 101. Care of tuberculous wage earners in Germany. [1912.]
♦No. 102. British national insurance act. [1911.]
♦No. 103. Sickness and accident insurance law of Switzerland. [1912.]
No. 107. Law relating to insurance of salaried employees in Germany. [1913.]
♦No. 155. Compensation for accidents to employees of the United States. [1914.]
No. 212. Proceedings of the conference on social insurance called by the International Association of
Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, Washington, D. C., December 5-9, 1916.
No. 243. Workmen’s compensation legislation in the United States and foreign countries, 1917 and
1918.
No. 301. Comparison of workmen’s compensation insurance and administration. [1922.]
No. 312. National health insurance in Great Britain, 1911 to 1920.
No. 379. Comparison of workmen’s compensation laws of the United States as of January 1, 1925.
No. 423. Workmen’s compensation legislat ion of the United States and Canada as of July 1,1926.
Proceedings o f Annual Meetings o f the International Association o f Industrial Accident Boards and
Commissions.
♦No. 210. Third, Columbus, Ohio, April 25-28,1916.
No. 248. Fourth, Boston, Mass., August 21-25,1917.
No. 264. Fifth, Madison, Wis., September 24-27, 191S.
♦No. 273. Sixth, Toronto, Canada, September 23-26, 1919.
No. 281. Seventh, San Francisco, Calif., September 20-24, 1920.
No. 304. Eighth, Chicago, 111., September 19-23,1921.
No. 333. Ninth, Baltimore, Md., October 9-13,1922.
No. 359. Tenth, St. Paul, Minn., September 24-26, 1923.
No. 385. Eleventh, Halifax, Nova Scotia, August 26-28, 1924.
No. 395. Index to proceedings, 1914-1924.
No. 406. Twelfth, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 17-20,1925.
No. 432. Thirteenth, Hartford, Conn., September 14-17, 1926.
Industrial Accidents and Hygiene.
♦No. 104. Lead poisoning in potteries, tile works, and porcelain enameled sanitary ware factories.
[1912.]
No. 120. Hygiene in the painters’ trade. [1913.]
♦No. 127. Dangers to workers from dust and fumes, and methods of protection. [1913.]
♦No. 141. Lead poisoning in the smelting and refining of lead. [1914.]




(II)

Industrial Accidents and Hygiene—Continued.
♦No. 157. Industrial accident statistics. [1915.]
♦No. 165. Lead poisoning in the manufacture of storage batteries. [1914.]
♦No. 179. Industrial poisons used in the rubber industry. [1915.]
No. 188. Report of British departmental committee on the danger in the use of lead in the painting
of buildings. [1916.]
♦No. 201. Report of committee on statistics and compensation-insurance cost of the International
Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions. [1916.]
♦No. 207. Causes of death by occupation. [1917.]
♦No. 209. Hygiene of the printing trades. [1917.]
No. 219. Industrial poisons used or produced in the manufacture of explosives. [1917.]
No. 221. Hours, fatigue, and health in British munitions factories. [1917.]
No. 230. Industrial efficiency and fatigue in British munitions factories. [1917.]
♦No. 231. Mortality from respiratory diseases in dusty trades (inorganic dusts). [1918 ]
No. 234. Safety movement in the iron and steel industry, 1907 to 1917.
♦No. 236. Effect of the air hammer on the hands of stonecutters. [1918.]
No. 249. Industrial health and efficiency. Final report of British Health of Munition Workers Com­
mittee. [1919.]
♦No. 251. Preventable death in the cotton-manufacturing industry. [1919.]
No. 256. Accidents and accident prevention in machine building. [1919.]
No. 267. Anthrax as an occupational disease. [1920.]
No. 276. Standardization of industrial accident statistics. [1920.]
No. 280. Industrial poisoning in the making of coal-tar dyes and dye intermediates. [1921.]
No. 291. Carbon monoxide poisoning. [1921.]
No. 293. The problem of dust phthisis in the granite-stone industry. [1922.]
No. 298. Causes and prevention of accidents in the iron and steel industry, 1916 to 1919.
No. 306. Occupational hazards and diagnostic signs: A guide to impairments to be looked for in
hazardous occupations. [1922.]
No. 339. Statistics of industrial accidents in the United States. [1923.]
No. 392. Survey of hygienic conditions in the printing trades. [1925.]
No. 405. Phosphorus necrosis in the manufacture of fireworks and the preparation of phosphorus.
[1926.]
No. 425. Record of industrial accidents in the United States to 1925.
No. 426. Deaths from lead poisoning. [1926.]
No. 427. Health survey in the printing trades, 1922 to 1925.
No. 428. Proceedings ^f the Industrial Accident Prevention Conference, held at Washington, D. C.f
July 14-16, 1926.
Conciliation and Arbitration (including strikes and lockouts).
♦No. 124. Conciliation and arbitration in the building trades of Greater New York. [1913.1
♦No. 133. Report of the industrial council of the British Board of Trade in its inquiry into industrial
agreements. [1913.1
♦No. 139. Michigan copper district strike. [1914.1
No. 144. Industrial court of the cloak, suit, and skirt industry of New York City. [1914.]
No. 145. Conciliation, arbitration, and sanitation in the dress and waist industry of New York City.
[1914.]
♦No. 191. Collective bargaining in the anthracite coal industry. [1916.]
♦No. 198. Collective agreements in the men’s clothing industry. [1916.]
No. 233. Operation of the industrial disputes investigation act of Canada. [1918.]
No. 255. Joint industrial councils in Great Britain. [1919.]
No. 283. History of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board, 1917 to 1919.
No. 287. National War Labor Board: History of its formation, activities, etc. [1921.]
No. 303. Use of Federal power in settlement of railway labor disputes. [1922.]
No. 341. Trade agreement in the silk-ribbon industry of New York City. [1923.]
No. 402. Collective bargaining by actors. [1926.]
No. 419. Trade agreements, 1925.
Labor Laws o f the United States (including decisions o f courts relating to labor).
No. 211. Labor laws and their administration in the Pacific States. [1917.]
No. 229. Wage-payment legislation in the United States. [1917.1
No. 285. Minimum-wage legislation in the United States. [1921.]
No. 321. Labor laws that have been declared unconstitutional. [1922.]
No. 322. Kansas Court of Industrial Relations. [1923.]
No. 343. Laws providing for bureaus of labor statistics, etc. [1923.1
No. 370. Labor laws of the United States, with decisions of courts relating thereto. [1925.]
No. 408. Laws relating to payment of wages. [1926.]
No. 417. Decisions of courts and opinions affecting labor, 1925.
No. 434. Labor legislation of 1926.
Foreign Labor Laws.
♦No. 142. Administration of labor laws and factory inspection in certain European countries




(m)

[1914.]

Vocational and Workers’ Education.
•No. 159. Short-unit courses for wage earners, and a factory school experiment. [1915.]
*No. 162. Vocational education survey of Richmond, Va. [1915.]
No. 199. Vocational education survey of Minneapolis, Minn. [1916.]
No. 271. Adult working-class education in Great Britain and the United States. [1920.]
Safety Codes.
No. 331. Code of lighting factories, mills, and other work places.
No. 336. Safety code for the protection of industrial workers in foundries.
No. 350. Specifications of laboratory tests for approval of ebctric headlighting devices for motor
vehicles.
No. 351. Safety code for the construction, care, and use of ladders.
No. 364. Safety code for the mechanical power-transmission apparatus.
No. 375. Safety code for laundry machinery and operation.
No. 378. Safety code for woodworking plants.
No. 382. Code of lighting school buildings.
No. 410. Safety code for paper and pulp mills.
No. 430. Safety code for power presses and foot and hand presses.
No. 433. Safety codes for prevention of dust explosions.
No. 436. Safety code for the use, care, and protection of abrasive wheels.
Industrial Relations and Labor Conditions.
No. 237. Industrial unrest in Great Britain. [1917.]
No. 340. Chinese migrations, with special reference to labor conditions. [1923.]
No. 349. Industrial relations in the West Coast lumber industry. [1923.]
No. 361. Labor relations in the Fairmont (W. Va.) bituminous coal field. [1924.]
No. 380. Postwar labor conditions in Germany. [1925.]
No. 383. Works council movement in Germany. [1925.]
No. 384. Labor conditions in the shoe industry in Massachusetts, 1920 to 1924.
No. 399. Labor relations in the lace and lace-curtain industries in the United States. [1925.
Welfare Work.
*No. 123. Employers’ welfare work. [1913.]
Nc. 222. Welfare work in British munitions factories. [1917.]
*No. 250. Welfare work for employees in industrial establishments in the United States. [1919.]
Cooperation.
No. 313. Consumers’ cooperative societies in the United States in 1920.
No. 314. Cooperative credit societies in America and in foreign countries. [1922.]
No. 437. Cooperative movement in the United States in 1925 (other than agricultural).
Housing.
*No. 158. Government aid to home owning and housing of working people in foreign countries. [1914.]
No. 263. Housing by employers in the United States. [1920.]
No. 295. Building operations in representative cities in 1020.
No. 424. Building permits in the principal cities of the United States, 1925.
Proceedings o f Annual Conventions o f Association o f Governmental Labor Officials o f the United
States and Canada.
No. 266. Seventh, Seattle, Wash., July 12-15,1920.
No. 307. Eighth, New Orleans, La., May 2-6,1921.
*No. 323. Ninth, Harrisburg, Pa., M ay 22-26,1922.
No. 352. Tenth? Richmond, Va., M ay 1-4,1923.
No. 389. Eleventh, Chicago, 111., M ay 19-23,1924.
No. 411. Twelfth, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 13-15, 1925.
No. 429. Thirteenth, Columbus, Ohio, June 7-10,1928.
Miscellaneous Series.
*No. 174. Subject index of the publications of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics up to May
1,1915.
No. 208. Profit sharing in the United States. [1916.]
No. 242. Food situation in central Europe, 1917.
No. 254.’ International labor legislation and the society of nations. [1919.]
No. 268. Historical survey of international action affecting labor. [1920.]
No. 282. Mutual relief associations among Government employees in Washington, D. C. [1921.]
No. 299. Personnel research agencies. A guide to organized research in employment, management,
industrial relations, training, and working conditions. [1921.]
No. 319. The Bureau of Labor Statistics: Its history, activities, and organization.
No. 326. Methods of procuring and computing statistical informationof the Bureau of Labor Statistics
[1923.]
No. 342. International Seamen’s Union of America: A study of its history and problems. [1923.]
No. 346. Humanity in government. [1923.]
No. 372. Convict labor in 1923.
No. 386. The cost of American almshouses. [1925.1
No. 398. Growth of legal-aid work in the United States. [1926.]
No. 401. Family allowances in foreign countries. [1926.]
No. 420. Handbook of American trade-unions. [1926.]
No. 439. Handbook of labor statistics, 1924-1926.




[iv
]