Full text of Trade Agreement in the Silk-Ribbon Industry of New York City : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 341

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

R IB B O N L O O M .

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

JAMES J. DAVIS, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
ETHELBERT STEWART, Commissioner
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES )
BUREAU OF LAB O R S T A T IS T IC S f

CONCILIATION

AND

• • • •

ARBITRATION

No. 341
SERIES

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE
SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY OF
NEW YORK CITY




By M ARGARET GADSBY

OCTOBER, 1923
)
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1923




ADDITIONAL COPIES
OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PROCURED FROM
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C.
AT

15 CENTS PER COPY

PURCHASER AGREES NOT TO RESELL OR DISTRIBUTE THIS
COPY FOR PROFIT.— PUB. RES. 57, APPROVED MAY 11, 1922

CONTENTS.

Page.
Introduction..................................................................................................................
1
The agreement.............................................................................................................. 1-8
Formation of the agreement................................................................................ 1-3
The machinery..........................
4-8
The shop committee.....................................................................................
4
Price committees........................................................................................... 5,6
Trade council................................................................................................. 6, 7
Impartial chairman....................................................................................... 7,8
Expenses of operation...........................................................................................
8
The process and the job............................................................................................... 9-14
The loom............................................................................................................... 9-12
The weaver’s job................................................................................................... 12-14
Wage payment plan.................................................................................................... 14-25
Development of the plan..................................................................................... 14-18
Principal features of the wage plan adopted................................................... 18-23
Minimum hourly rates.................................................................................. 19
How piece rates were set.............................................................................. 19-22
Earnings.......................................................................................................... 23
Production standards........... .............................................................................. 23-25
Operation of the impartial machinery...................................................................... 25-49
Wage decisions under the agreement................................................................. 25-33
Decisions on piece rates................................................................................ 32, 33
Classification of weavers. - - - - -............................................................................ 33-37
Hiring, discharge, and discipline...................................................................... 37-39
Division of work................................................................................................... 39-41
Discrimination....................................................................................................... 41
Plural-loom system................................................................................................. 41-48
Apprenticeship.........................................................................................................48,49
Twisters’ supplementary agreement.......................................................................... 49, '50
Abrogation of the agreement..................................................................................... 50-55
Causes of the abrogation of the agreement....................................................... 51-55
Some results of the agreement.................................................................................... 55-60
Elimination of strikes........................................................................................... 55, 56
Increase of production......................................................................................... 56, 57
Greater tolerance................................................................................................... 57,58
Stabilization of wages........................................................................................... 58, 59
Elimination of waste............................................................................................. 59
Wage payment plan.............................................................. ............................. 59, 60
Cooperation of employers and workers for betterment of industry............... 60
Conclusions................................................................................................................... 60, 61
Appendix I.—Text of the agreement...................................................................... 62-65
Appendix II.—Twisters’ supplementary agreement.............................................. 66, 67
Appendix III.—Apprenticeship plan...................................................................... 67-69
Appendix IV.—Decisions of the impartial chairman..............................................69-95




hi




BULLETIN OF THE

U. S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.
no. 3 4 1

WASHINGTON

Oc t o b e r , 1 9

2 3

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY
OF NEW YORK CITY.

INTRODUCTION.
The collective agreement herein described was effective in the New
York silk-ribbon industry from April, 1920, until June, 1923. It
was concluded between a small group of so-called “ conservative”
employers and a union which is called one of the most radical. The
agreement was an experiment and so far as we know the only collec­
tive experiment providing formal machinery for collective bargaining
which has been attempted in the textile industry. The arbitration
plan, the result of a strike, operated with apparent success through
a critical period of more than three years and maintained peace in
an industry in which strikes in other centers were not uncommon.
Some of the provisions of the contract were unusual, notably those
relative to production and the restriction of output. The method
of wage payment operating under it was noteworthy in its embodi­
ment of the advantages of both timework and piecework methods of
wage payment. Its abrogation, by the union at a time when strikes
by similar organizations to force recognition and to establish collective
bargaining relations were of frequent occurrence, was exceptional.
It is the aim of this study to describe somewhat in detail the modus
operandi of the agreement; to explain the merits of the plan and the
reasons for its final abrogation.
THE AGREEMENT.
FORMATION OF THE AGREEMENT.

The agreement entered into in the silk-ribbon industry on April 10,
1920, provided, for the first time in the history of the textile industry,
machinery to facilitate collective bargaining between workers and
employers. This machinery was set up for the purpose of providing
“ a method of adjusting all differences which might arise in regard
to wages and working conditions of the weavers working on ribbon
looms in Greater New York in the employ of the manufacturers
signing the agreement.”
This contract terminated a four weeks’ strike of ribbon weavers,
the main objects of which were to gain the abolition of piecework and
the standardization of wages. In scope the agreement was not of
great importance. When the agreement was signed it affected
approximately 500 silk-ribbon weavers and four of the largest ribbon
manufacturing shops in Greater New York. As an experiment in
industrial relations in this complex industry, in which industrial
relations have ever been somewhat chaotic, it was of considerable




1

2

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

significance. Perhaps the most striking features of the agreement
were those relative to production and the restriction of output
contained in the paragraph below, which appeared in the preamble.

Public interest requires increasing production as a prime factor in reducing com­
modity prices. Wages, hours, and working conditions should be regulated by this
requirement. Weavers should not intentionally restrict individual output to create
an artificial scarcity of labor as a means of increasing wages or of equalizing the
productivity and wages of weavers having different degrees of skill and ability;
employers should not intentionally restrict production to create an artificial scarcity
of the product in order to increase prices, nor should employers invoke methods that
prove hurtful to the health, future productivity, or welfare of the weavers. Any
action by a weaver or a union official directed against the prestige and welfare of an
employer, and any action by an employer directed toward undermining the union
shall be a distinct violation of this agreement.

It was highly significant and argued well for the possibilities of har­
mony in this industry that a group of employers and weavers should
agree to the above provision and to the following one, practically
without dissent:

No ruling relating to the basis of compensation of weavers shall be ordered by the
impartial chairman which permits decreased production or fails to guarantee fair
production, and any ruling which results in decreased production shall be immedi­
ately revoked and rectified.

The manufacturers, parties to the agreement, were four of the lead­
ing silk-ribbon manufacturers of Greater New York, the capacity of
whose shops was about 400 looms. The products of these shops ranged
from the highest grade ribbons to the lowest; one shop made
novelties only. In their concept of industrial relations the manage­
ments of these shops ranged from the conservative to the liberal, and
represented various stages of economic thought. The results of the
experiment are the more significant because of this variety in economic
opinion and attitude toward industrial relations.
The weavers represented in the agreement were members of three
local unions of the Amalgamated Textile Workers of America, a
healthy, active industrial union organized in 1919. Among them
there were radicals, liberals, and conservatives, the liberal element
predominating.
Silk weavers have been organized since the early seventies, though
somewhat sporadically, the growth and strength of their organization
varying with the demand for their labor. At times their organi­
zation has existed only in individual shops and again it has been
affiliated with international organizations. The weavers have always
been the active element among the workers in the silk industry, and
their union has had a checkered history. It has been involved in
some of the bitterest industrial conflicts. Many of the members of
the organization were connected with the Industrial Workers of the
World when that organization was in its prime in 1910-1913, and had
been imbued with the doctrines of the class struggle, of no agreements,
and of suspicion of all employers. Later, the locals affected by the
agreement were affiliated with the United TextileWorkers, the Ameri­
can Federation of Labor organization, from which thev were expelled
in 1919, when they struck for the 44-hour week without the sanc­
tion of that union. They later won their strike, and in the fall of
1919 joined the Amalgamated Textile Workers.
This affiliation was viewed with some disfavor by employers because
of the reputation of the Amalgamated for radicalism. The avowed
purpose of the organization is the “ establishment of collective bar-




THE AGREEMENT.

8

gaining and the winning of justice for labor through industrial
unionism.” The Amalgamated declares itself radical and “ does not
apologize for being a radical industrial union. It is radical in that
it stands squarely for the interests of the workers, who produce the
wealth of the country, and does not pretend to be serving the inter­
ests of both the workers and the employers at the same time. * * *
What the workers want is not salve but some measure of justice—
a decent livelihood, some assurance that they are not at any moment
going to be thrown upon the streets to starve or given the alternative
of working ungodly hours for ungodly wages.” 2
The silk-ribbon weavers did not escape the wave of industrial
unrest which spread throughout the country during the spring of
1920, and a strike was called on March 8, affecting all union shops in
Greater New York. From the union point of view it was an oppor­
tune time to strike, in that the demand for ribbons was urgent, and
maximum production was needed if the manufacturers were not to
meet with great financial loss.
The suggestion for conciliation which ended in the signing of the
agreement seems to have come from the workers. The union voted
to allow the secretary of the Amalgamated to enter into conference
with the representatives of the employers and attempt to arrive at
an agreement. The weavers' principal demands were the abolition
of piecework and the standardization of wages of weavers in two
classes, at $40 and $45 a week.
The democratic organization of the Amalgamated did not permit
officers of the union to negotiate agreements without the consent of
the workers involved. The draft of the agreement finally agreed
upon in conference between the Amalgamated representative and the
employers was therefore brought before a meeting of the full mem­
bership of the three local unions involved. A thorough discussion
of the question resulted in the appointment of a committee of workers
to meet with the representatives of the management for the purpose
of revising certain details of the proposed contract. When tne final
vote was taken by secret ballot, after the habit of the Amalgamated,
only 27 of the entire membership of the locals voted against the
adoption of the revised agreement, 292 voting for it.
It was thus arrived at by conference and with the consent of
practically every individual directly concerned, to which fact is attrib­
uted in large measure the successful operation of the contract. It
was entered into, however, not without some trepidation on the part
of the employers and some skepticism on the part of the weavers.
The agreement was modeled in many respects after the Hart,
Schaffner & Marx agreement, but a study was made of all such con­
tracts for the purpose of embodying and adapting the most work­
able clauses in all to the needs of this industry. It provided in the
first place for the return to work of all weavers in the shops affected,
under the same conditions as existed when the strike was called,
except for an increase in wages. The wage increase was a temporary
adjustment effective until a thorough investigation and study could
be made of the scientific basis upon which to regulate compensation,
and a ruling thereon be promulgated by the impartial chairman.
2Amalgamated Textile Workers of America. A few words on the aims and purposes of the Amalga­
mated Textile Workers of America. (Mimeographed.)




4

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.
THE MACHINERY.

The machinery for collective bargaining in this industry, as pro­
vided for in the contract consisted of the impartial chairman, the
trade council, the price committees, and shop committees, and appren­
ticeship committees.
THE SHOP COMMITTEE.

The agreement provided that all complaints, grievances or dis­
putes arising in the shop of any employer which could not be adjusted
within the shop should be referred to the impartial chairman. It
was the policy of the chairman to provide every means for the
settlement of disputes in the shop by the parties concerned before
appealing to him for decision. As a result of this policy a form of
procedure grew up for handling grievances locally.
In cases of complaints, grievances, or disputes arising in the indi­
vidual shops, the workers were represented by shop committees elected
by and from their number. Rules for the formation of these commit­
tees, which were not specifically provided for in the agreement, were
suggested by the impartial chairman. The committee usually con­
sisted of a chairman and four members, whose elections rotated so that
the committee was never composed entirely of new members. It was
provided that the chairman he a weaver who had been employed
m the mill for a period of not less than six months previous to the date
of his election.
Any individual or group of weavers might lay complaints of any
nature, except those dealing with piece rates which were provided for
elsewhere, before the shop chairman, who was empowered at his
discretion to call together the shop committee for discussion of the
matter before taking it up with the management. If matters coujd
not be settled in the shop, or by the shop committee and the manage­
ment, the business manager of the joint board of the local union
affiliated in the agreement was called in. Matters which could not be
settled in this manner were referred to the impartial chairman. If the
matter was of importance to the other shops, it might be considered bv
the trade council, but if it concerned only the individual shop in which
the trouble arose, it was acted upon by the impartial chairman without
reference to the council.
Not all disputes which came before the impartial chairman were
treated as formal cases. Many minor disputes were settled by
the chairman without the formality of a written decision. In such
cases the chairman either persuaded the parties to agree among them­
selves or advised a course of action.
The shop committees absorbed the duties of the other committees
existing in the shops. With the exception of the price committees
and the apprenticeship committees ° whose functions were quite dis­
tinct, the snop committees were the only committees representing
the weavers for purposes of collective bargaining within the individual
shop.

a The functions of the apprenticeship committees are discussed in the section on apprenticeship,
pp. 48 and 49




THE AGREEMENT.

5

PRICE COMMITTEES.

Under decisions made by the impartial chairman, it was the inten­
tion that the weavers should have had a voice in the determination
of piece rates. To facilitate the handling of questions arising in con­
nection with the determination of such rates, the impartial chairman
ordered the establishment of price committees in each mill working
under the agreement.
Each committee consisted of an equal number of representatives of
weavers and of employers, two being the minimum number of
representatives on either side. The weaver members of the com­
mittee were chosen by majority vote of the weavers. It was provided
that they must have the same qualifications as the members of the
trade council, i. e., they must be able to speak English, and must
have been employed in the shop for a period of at least one year.
The period-of-service requirement was subject to reduction, but
in no case to less than six months, by the impartial chairman.
Employer representatives were chosen from the management of the
mill. Election to membership on this committee was subject to
confirmation by the impartial chairman. Before their confirmation
by the chairman names of weaver members were submitted to the
joint board of the ocal unions.6
The committee worked under general rules laid down by the chair­
man. Its principal functions were (1) the setting of piece rates for
all new jobs of a type not previously made, and (2) the making of *
adjustments on all rates on which there was dispute. Matters on
which the committee could not agree were referred to the impartial
chairman for decision.
The management representatives on the committee worked out the
piece rates on each new job in full detail. These rates, together
with complete data as to the method of their determination, were
given to the weaver members of the committee and sufficient time
given for the consideration of them. If the figures were approved,
their indorsement definitely settled the rate. Any question either
about the rate or the method of its determination was fully discussed
by the full committee, and an agreement reached if possible. Failure
to agree was reported to the impartial chairman as noted above.
In case there was delay in arriving at the rate for the new job the
tentative rate set by the management held until the final rate was
decided. Any change in this tentative rate was retroactive to the time
the new job started. If similar delay obtained in cases in which
individual weavers asked readjustment of rates previously set, changes
in the rate were retroactive to the time notice was given requesting
readjustment. In all cases, it was provided that a notice showing the
rate for the particular job should be placed on the loom prior to the
beginning oi operations.
Complaints of individual weavers who felt that their rates should
be readjusted were brought to the weaver members of the committee,
who took up the matter with the full committee. If possible, such
complaints were adjusted within the mill without being submitted to
the impartial chairman.
Data of all calculations of piece rates were submitted to the impar­
tial chairman on forms provided by him for that purpose, and combFor regulations relative to price committees see decision No. 27, pp. 79 and 80.




6

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

plete records of all piece rates paid, as well as the method of their
determination, were kept in the chairman's office. If any consider­
able time was spent on the negotiation of these rates, the employer was
permitted to deduct time from the pay of the union representative,
who was reimbursed by the union.
TRADE COUNCIL.

As finally constituted, the trade council consisted of eight members,
each with an alternate empowered to vote in case of absence of the
regular member. Each employer party to the agreement had one
representative. One representative was chosen for the weavers in
each of the shops. Additional representatives of the employers and
officials of the union might participate in the deliberations of the
council but had no power to vote. In the event that the employers
had an attorney at law present, a like privilege was granted the
union.
Weaver members of the council were chosen by the union, but their
appointment was confirmed and approved by the weavers in the
shops they represented. Qualifications for a weaver member of the
council were set down in the agreement and were the same as those
mentioned above as designated by the chairman for members of price
committees, i. e., a weaver member must be able to speak English
and must have been employed in the shop for a period of at least six
months.
The trade council selected the impartial chairman, approved the
budgets, and had full auditing power over all funds. It was presided
over by the impartial chairman, who had power to vote only in
case there was no unanimous agreement. Matters upon which the
council agreed unanimously were reduced to writing without reference
to the impartial chairman. Disputes affecting individual shops were
not brought before this body but directly to the impartial chairman,
unless a principle was involved which was likely to affect relations in
other mills.
No action of the council was valid unless all the members were
present and voting. Matters upon which the council failed to agree
were referred to the impartial chairman who had full power to act.
Notice of questions to come before the council were given in writing
to the chairman long enough before the date of meetings to enable
him to notify all members of the council of the subjects to be con­
sidered. If a member objected, no decision could be made by the
trade council on a question of which previous notice had not been
given.
One of the most constructive features of the agreement was the
provision that the trade council might discuss all matters of general
trade policy. It acted not only as a board of conciliation and arbi­
tration but also as a legislative body which could initiate and work out
constructive plans for the betterment of the industry. The council
considered not only questions under dispute, such as holidays to be
observed, the time limit during which request for wage readjustments
could be made, etc., but also issues over which there had been no
controversy but which were of vital interest to the trade. The
working out of an apprenticeship plan, discussed in another section
of this report, is the best example of legislative action of the latter
sort by the council.




Th e a g r e e m e n t .

7

The matters settled by the trade council were new issues for the
most part, interpretations of the agreement in practically every case
being referred to the impartial chairman.
IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

The individual upon whom more than any other rested the respon­
sibility for the successful operation of this agreement was the impartial
chairman. He was given wide powers and his responsibility was tre­
mendous. He was called upon to exercise the knowledge of a tech­
nician, the wisdom of a judge, and the tact of a diplomat. He was
arbitrator, judge, supreme court, and administrator of the law as set
down in the agreement. To him all disputes arising between the
management and the weavers, interpretations of the contract, and
new issues which could not be settled locally were appealed. His
decision was final, the agreement providing that “ full performance of
all rules, regulations, and orders laid down by the impartial chairman
shall be obligatory on all parties to the agreement/7
To facilitate the enforcement of his rules, regulations, or decisions,
he was empowered to impose fines for willful disregard of them. Min­
imum and maximum fines were set. Fines so imposed were paid into
the general fund and credited to the account of the aggrieved party.3
In arriving at his conclusions, the chairman had to give due consid­
eration to all conditions of employment existing in the industry,
either at the time of the execution of the agreement or subsequent
thereto, but no practices or customs were binding upon him. In no
case could decision be made until “ ample opportunity has been given
for the introduction and rebuttal of evidence by all parties affected/7
All testimony was properly recorded and open to both sides.
The contract provided that rulings of the impartial chairman with
respect to compensation should be based upon the production records
of the employers and such social and other conditions and facts as the
impartial chairman might consider elements in the situation. Specific
stipulations and restrictions on such rulings were provided for in the
agreement. “ Any such rulings of the impartial chairman in regard
to compensation of weavers must provide for deductions of pay for
any failure to accomplish fair production on the part of the individual
weaver.77 No ruling relating to the basis of compensation of weavers
could be ordered by the impartial chairman which permitted decreased
production or failed to guarantee fair production, and “ any ruling
which results in decreased production shall be immediately revoked
and rectified.77 It was provided furthermore that every wage scale
should be accompanied by a scale of production and should not be
increased or decreased during the manufacturing season of the indi­
vidual employers, it being understood that the latter provision did
not apply to new articles which were introduced during a manufac­
turing season. The chairman was instructed upon his appointment
immediately to consider and issue rulings on the standardization and
uniformity of the number and bases of ratings, taking into considera­
tion the quality and kinds of goods produced in the individual shop,
and any other factors which might bear on the question.
3 In only one case did the impartial chairman find it necessary to impose a fine for willful disregard of
his ruling. See decision in case No. 22, p. 76.




8

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

The chairman was empowered to lay down rules and regulations as
to the manner and method in which complaints, disputes, and griev­
ances should be brought before him. It was provided that he should
call in the trade council in all matters involving questions of trade
policy, but the trade council might waive this provision. He had
also the custody and disbursement of all funds necessary for the
operation of the agreement.
The chairman, as noted above, was selected by the trade council
and paid by the joint fund. When the agreement was signed,
Mr. Charles B. Barnes was chosen chairman for a period of one year.
At the end of that time it was decided not to enter into a definite
arrangement as to time, but to make the contract for an indefinite
period, with a proviso that a notice of three months be given before
a severance of the contract. Mr. Barnes served throughout the
operation of the agreement.
The chairman took every precaution to give both parties to
the agreement full opportunity to state their views on all matters
before a decision was rendered. In rendering his decision, in cases
considered important enough to justify such procedure, a draft of
the decision was prepared and a copy submitted to the general
secretary of the union, to the business manager of the locals, and
to the president of the silk association. Opportunity was given both
sides to discuss the decision prior to its final draft. If either side
desired a hearing before the full trade council, such hearing was
granted. In cases of minor decisions, affecting one shop only, a draft
of the decision was sometimes submitted to the business manager of
the union and to the management of the firm affected.
The chairman ruled that after a final decision had been rendered
a case might be reheard if new evidence should be discovered which
would have a vital effect in the case, or if an error should be found
which seriously affected fundamental principles in the industry.
EXPENSES OF OPERATION.

The total expense of this machinery was divided equally between
the union and the employers, it being understood that each party
should apportion the share of the expense among its members as it
saw fit. The custody and disbursement of all funds, as noted above,
was intrusted to the impartial chairman, who was also empowered to
assess and collect them in accordance with budgets submitted by him
to the trade council and approved by that body. The trade council
had full auditing power over all funds.
It was estimated that the total expense would approximate $15,000
a year, but the actual expense fell much below this figure. The
expense to individual weavers averaged from $9 to $10 per year.
Even at the maximum figure ($10) the total expense for the union
would reach only $4,000. This sum, together with an equal amount
provided by the employers, would make the maximum expense $8,000
a year or approximately half the sum originally estimated. This
amount is small indeed, in contrast with the cost of strikes. One strike
which recently occurred in a shop outside the agreement cost the
union $51,000 in money paid out. In this case there was an injunction
and the case went to court. The cost of this strike to the employer
is not known.



THE PROCESS AND THE JOB.

\

9

n. THE PROCESS AND THE JOB.4
THE LOOM.

L o o m p a .—The essential feature of the ribbon loom is the
r ts
simultaneous weaving on one loom of from 6 to about 126 ribbons,
the number varying with the width of the product. The loom
usually consists of the following principal parts: The frame; the
batten; the reeds; the shuttles; the harness; the dobby, cam, or
Jacquard machine; warp or beam racks; and the take-up mechanism.
The frame supports the working parts. The batten is a swinging
beam to which the reed and shuttles are attached. It is the swing
of the batten carrying the reed which packs close together the cross­
wise threads, or weft, of the fabric. The shuttle is the sheath or
case in which is inclosed a slender revolving quill wound with weft
or filling. The harness consists of a number of strings, called leash
strings, usually secured on the shaft loom, both above and below, upon
wooden laths, called “shafts,” running at right angles to the warp.
Each string is knotted near the middle to make a small eye. These
strings are distributed along the shafts according to the nature of the
pattern to be woven and the warp threads are drawn through the eyes
in a predetermined order. Each harness consists of several shafts, but
the number of strings they carry must collectively equal the number
of threads in the warp. The reed consists of strips of flattened wire
between two strips of wood or metal. The spaces between these
wires through which the warp is drawn are known as dents. There
are sometimes two reeds, known as the back reed and the front reed.
The purpose of the back reed is the more adequate separation of the
warp threads. The front reed is set into the swinging beam, known
as the batten. Its purpose, as noted above, is the forcing of the filling
thread tightly against the fabric which has been woven by means of
a sharp mow of the batten. Each ribbon has its separate reed.
W a r p a n d w.—Every ribbon is formed with two sets of threads—
e ft
warp threads which run lengthwise of the fabric and filling or weft
threads which cross the former at right angles.
M o u n t i .—From the warp beams around which they are wound,
ng
the warp threads on the simpler type of loom pass alternately over and
under two lease rods, then separately through the eyes of the harness,
between the dents of the reed, over the breast beam, and are finally
attached to the take-up rollers in front of the frame. The mounting
process differs according to the type of loom and the pattern to be
woven. The following diagram showing two warp threads mounted
on the simpler type of loom illustrates the fundamental process.
The primary purpose of the lease rods is the proper spreading of
the warp threads. If not properly spread the warp threads chafe and
are thus weakened. In tne better quality of ribbon other devices
have taken the place of the lease rods. This is the purpose of the
back reed mentioned above and of a number of glass bars, usually
five or six, attached to the silk beam under which the warp threads
are run after being separated into groups. When the glass rods are
used, the warp threads, after leaving the warp beam, are passed in
Ut is the intent of this section to call attention to such essentials in the process of silk-ribbon weav­
ing as are necessary to an appreciation of the weaver’s job and of the problems involved in setting the
piece rate.




o
SECTION OF PLAIN WARP IN PROCESS O F WEAVING ON THE LOOM .




TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

A. The warp beam.
D. The reed in position for picking and also for beating up.
B. The lease rods by which the warp is divided.
E. Woven fabric.
C. Shafts, showing leash strings and eyes through which warp threads are drawn.
F. The cloth beam.
N ote.—That the mechanism of the modem ribbon loom is much more complicated than this simple illustration indicates may be seen by comparing the
loom pictured in the frontispiece to this bulletin.

THE PROCESS AND THE JOB.

11

groups under the glass bars, and through the back reed before they
are put through the eye of the harness.
On a Jacquard loom the mounting process is somewhat more com­
plex. The warp threads are wound on spools which are fastened to
a rack at the back of the loom, called the “back rack.” From this point
they rim up over the “ top castle” or pulley bars, then down to the
silk beams, where the threads are partially separated by running
under glass bars and are further separated by running through the
back reed, before they are twisted m through the harness.
The weft thread is wound on a bobbin known as a quill and in­
serted in the shuttle. Each ribbon has its shuttle, which is shot
from side to side between the warp threads leaving the cross threads.
Each cross thread is known as a pick.
L o o m m o v e m .—The three principal loom movements directly
e n ts
operating in the making of cloth are picking, swinging (sometimes
called wefting, or “ beating up the shot”), and shedding. By picking
is meant the movement of the shuttle across the warp. Wefting is the
process of placing the warp threads in their proper position by the
action of the reed. In the best cloth this action takes place just at
the moment when the warp threads are held at their tightest. In
the shedding movement the warp threads are drawn up and down,
leaving an opening known as a shed through which the shuttles con­
taining the weft tnreads are shot from side to side.
On the shaft loom this is accomplished by the action of the har­
nesses in raising part of the shafts and lowering the others. After
the shuttle passes through, the shafts are reversed to form the shed
for the next pick, i.e., all or part of the threads which formed the
upper part of the shed on the first pick are lowered for the second.
They gradually close over the weft threads while the reed is pushing
the weft forward to its place in the fabric, the warp threads thus
crossing over the weft and holding it in place before the reed leaves
it. The “ take-up” motion comes into action immediately to pull
forward the fabric, which is wound around the “ take-up” roller at
the front of the frame. The action of the harness is controlled by
the dobby, the cam, or the Jacquard machine.
The cam operates only a small number of shafts and is therefore
used alone only for the simplest patterns. The dobby, a small ma­
chine resembling the Jacquard in construction and design, controls a
greater number of shafts and is therefore used either alone or in con­
nection with the cams for patterns somewhat more intricate.
On the Jacquard machine the same method is used to lift single
threads, i.e., instead of raising and depressing the warp threads in
groups by raising or lowering the shafts, the shafts are eliminated
and each string of the harness through which the warp thread is
drawn is controlled separately. Any particular thread or threads
can therefore be raised and kept up as long as may be necessary. It
is this machine, therefore, which is used for the most intricate pat­
terns, and there is practically no limit to the patterns which can be
made by use of the Jacquard machine.
T y p e s o f l o .—Tremendous changes in the design and construc­
om s
tion of ribbon looms have been made within the last century. The
productive capacity of the loom has been increased more than 300
per cent (from 500 to 2,200 lignes5). The comparatively high wages*
* 1 ligne equals approximately one-eleventh of an inch.




12

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

)aid
I intoAmerican mills have given impetus to the development of the
oom its maximum efficiency.

With this growth in the development of the loom it is natural that
the types now in use should be somewhat varied. Replacements or
looms added from time to time in periods of expansion have been
from the newer types. The two principal kinds now most commonly
in use are (1) the shaft loom, and (2) the Jacquard loom. The prin­
cipal difference between the two lies in the method by which the
shedding movement, described above, is accomplished.
The imported German loom is usuallv used for the best grade rib­
bons. One particular advantage of this loom is the fact that it is
interchangeable. It may be used either as a shaft or a Jacquard loom.
The so-called high-speed looms are of the shaft type, usually used in
manufacturing staple goods of a cheaper quality.
H o w t h e p a t t e r n s a r e.—Ita is e by the order and succession in
m d
which the warp threads are raised and depressed to be interwoven with
the weft threads, in conjunction with the order in which the threads
are drawn through the harness, that the different patterns are pro­
duced.
W e a v e.—The method of interlacing the warp and filling threads
s
is known as the weave. The two basic systems of weaves from which
>atterns most
are the
? a plainaretaffeta commonly derivedand wefttaffeta and satin weaves,
n
ribbon tne warp
threads are interwoven
alternately. This is the closest and at the same time the simplest inter­
lacing of warp and weft or filling. On every pick half the number
of warp ends are raised, the other half lowered. The shuttles pass
between the upper and lower sheds. On the next pick the positions
of the threads are reversed. Four harnesses might be used for this
pattern, harnesses 1 and 3 being raised on one pick, harnesses 2 and 4
on the second pick, and so on.
The object of the satin weave is to produce a smooth, lustrous sur­
face of the fabric. The points of interlacing of the warp and filling
are so arranged that they will be covered by the joining warp or fill­
ing floating threads, and are so distributed over the repeat of the
pattern that no two points join. The point of interlacing misses,
therefore, on every successive pick a certam number of warp threads.
The smallest number of harnesses for which satin weaves can be
designed is five.
THE WEAVER’S JOB.
The work of mounting or preparing the loom for weaving is some­
times done by the weavers themselves and sometimes by “ prepara­
tory workers” who do mounting only. The preparatory worker,
about equal in skill to the weaver, sets the parts of the machine, the
shuttle movements, the tension on the warp, etc. The time taken
for the loom to run down varies, of course, with the length of the
warps; it may be anywhere from 6 weeks to 6 months.
The work of twisting the new warp threads onto the old and draw­
ing them through the harness is done by the “ twister,” a job some­
times considered more skilled than that of the weaver and some­
what better paid. There is usually about 1 twister to 12 weavers.
Both preparatory workers and twisters must be thoroughly ac­
quainted with the weaver’s job, and in a sense these jobs furnish the
weavers opportunity for advancement. Nevertheless, the weavers
usually prefer weaving to either twisting or preparatory work. Nec­



THE PROCESS AND THE JOB.

13

essary adjustments of the loom or of difficulties with the pattern after
the loom is mounted are usually made by the “ loom fixer/’ if not by
the weaver himself. The job of loom fixer also furnishes an oppor­
tunity for advancement for the weaver. The number is limited,
however, usually about 1 to 20 weavers, the number varying in the
different shops.
The weaver’s job, although technically apparently simple, demands
a considerable degree of skill and intelligence, and the quality of
the output depends largely upon the skill of the individual. The
mechanical work of the weaver consists largely of picking up broken
ends of the warp threads and drawing them into their places through
the harness and reed; filling shuttles with new quills and placing them
in the loom as required; and in watching the warp and filling for
defects, such as knots on the quill or in the warp.
On the Jacquard loom weaving pattern designs, if it is necessary
to pick back (take out the weft threads), the weaver must stop the
single shuttle and continue to weave with other shuttles until the
repeat of the pattern returns. He must know how to pick back and
the number of cards to move back.
Constant attention on the part of the weaver is required to watch
the thousands of warp threads, because defects in the warp must be
caught before they get into the harness and reed. From 6 to 126
quills, the number depending upon the width of the ribbon, must be
constantly watched for imperfections in the filling. The woven fabrics
must be carefully watched for defects, and the weaver must under­
stand the weave in order to know when a mistake occurs.
The tension on the warps must be watched, harness adjusted, and
the mechanism kept in operation. On the Jacquard loom the tension
on the warp threads often becomes unequal, because some of the ends
weave in oftener and thus become tighter. The regulation of the
weight on the warp threads in such cases becomes difficult. Part of
the skill of the weaver lies in his ability to judge the job and set his
loom accordingly. It is the skilled weaver’s manipulations, watch­
fulness, and knowledge which determine the quality of the product.
The fact that there is a great difference in the output of individual
weavers on identical patterns woven under similar conditions testifies
to the fact that the individual weaver’s skill is a large factor in deter­
mining the output.
In one of the mills under the agreement it was found by informal
experiment that changing the weavers on apparently identical jobs
made their output differ considerably, indicating that the ability of
the weaver to adjust himself to the loom mechanism is a factor
determining his skill.
A recent investigation by the British Medical Research Council
throws light on the relative importance of the human and the ma­
chine factors in the broad-silk industry. In its “ analysis of individ­
ual differences in the output of silk weavers,” the council reports the
results of a study which indicates how greatly production in powerloom silk weaving is dependent upon the human factor. Here the vari­
ations in the rates of production of individual warps ranged from an
efficiency of 43 per cent to 90 per cent, i. e., while it took 318 hours
to weave one warp it took only 146 to weave a second identical one, the
second loom earning over twice as much profit as the first. In silk44122*—23—Bull. 341-----2




14

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

ribbon weaving, which is far more intricate, it is probable that the
human factor would affect the output to a much larger extent, i. e.,
output would depend to an even greater degree upon the skill of the
individual.
Formerly, when only German and English looms were used, weav­
ing was a highly skilled job, and only men were employed because of
the strain involved and the work of operating the loom. Since the
introduction of the automatic high-speed loom, women have become
quite generally employed, especially on the lighter weight ribbons,
where speed and deftness are the main requisites. Men are still usu­
ally employed on the heavier grades, in the making of which there is
a greater nerve strain and a more thorough understanding of the
mechanism demanded.
Although much is said about the modern types of looms making
the work of weaving much simpler, it was the testimony of the older
weavers that this applied only to the cheaper, lighter weight ribbons,
and that the work < P
1*
1 1
1
’
1 t ribbons had not.
demand for the
materially lessened
cheaper grade ribboi , _
,
0 .
hich requires less
skill, has greatly increased, thus increasing the number of weavers of
the less skilled type, so that the old type of weaver craftsman is
becoming scarcer. In general, however, the silk-ribbon weaver is a
skilled worker.

THE WAGE PAYMENT PLAN,
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN.

The determination of the method of wage payment is particularly
perplexing in the silk-ribbon industry, because of the difficulty in
establishing a just and stable basis upon which to measure compen­
sation. Payment by results is difficult because of the variations from
year to year and season to season, not only in pattern, but also in
materials used in weaving the pattern, making necessary a revision
of rates when new patterns are started or changes made in the ma­
terials used. There are various physical elements, such as condition
of the harness or quality of the filling, which affect the output.
Some of these factors— for instance, atmospheric conditions to which
silk is particularly susceptible— are outside of the control of the man­
agement or the weavers. To establish a basis for piece rates, which
would take cognizance of all these factors and be uniform for the
individual mill as well as for all the mills under the agreement, was
a tremendously difficult undertaking.
Silk-ribbon weavers, like most of the textile workers, feel that the
week-work system is the more just method of compensation.
This question came up each time there was a wage adjustment
under the agreement, but employers were unfavorable to the weekwork system without a guaranty of fair production.

To assist the impartial chairman in making just rulings in the
matter of compensation, the agreement provided for an investigation
and study by the impartial chairman, immediately upon his appoint­
ment, of the basis and amount of compensation to be paid to weavers.
A preliminary report of this study was to be made within a month.
Rulings of the chairman as a result of this study were restricted by
the agreement, as noted above, in that they must provide for de­



THE WAGE-PAYMENT PLAN.

15

duction in pay for any failure on the part of the individual weaver
to accomplish a fair production, and in that any ruling which failed
to guarantee fair production, or resulted in decreased production was
“ to be immediately revoked and rectified.” The chairman, for pur­
poses of this study as well as in other matters coming before him,
was permitted full and free access to the production records of the
employers and the records of the unions.
Because of the limited time, the preliminary study was of necessity
largely restricted to a general survey and examination of the wage sys­
tem in use, its merits and disadvantages, and the reasons for dissatis­
faction with it. Its purpose was the discovery, if possible, of a system
which would be satisfactory to both parties. The report of this sur­
vey of the industry was based on the statistical data available in the
several shops under the agreement and on a study of wage systems
in use in those outside, with a view to the application oi such sys­
tems to the silk-ribbon industry. In addition, suggestions and
criticisms from both employers and weavers were solicited in inter­
views and conferences. Definite objections to the system were deter­
mined as well as the phases of it which were considered satisfactory.
The investigation brought out the fact that until two years prior
to the signing of the agreement this industry had been on a strictly
iecework
In 1918 union was successful in obtaining an
E rate.basis. wage planthe effect in 1920, when the investigation
ourly
The
in
was made, was a combination of hourly and piece rates, the plan in
the four shops being practically the same. Its essential features
were a guaranty of a minimum rate for the time spent in the mill,
and a piece-rate compensation in proportion to output, the weaver
being paid either the minimum rate for his class or the amount he
earned by the piece rate, if this amount exceeded his minimum
guaranty.
The investigation showed that prior to the agreement three of the
mills classified their weavers into three classes according to skill, with
a minimum hourly rate for each class, the rates being 90 cents, 85
cents, and 80 cents for the first, second, and third classes, respec­
tively. The fourth mill had but one class of weavers, all of whom
received a minimum hourly rate.
Less criticism of this system of wage payment came from the
employers than from the weavers. The principal objections of the
latter were based on (1) the fluctuations in the amount received, and
the consequent uncertainty as to earnings; (2) the inequality of the
workers due to wage differences; (3) the spirit of jealousy provoked
by the classification of weavers; (4) the favoritism sometimes created
by discrimination against certain weavers when jobs were assigned;
(5) the opportunity offered the management for cutting piece prices
when the weaver by special effort is producing more than the aver­
age; (6) the absence of an accepted basis of computation of piece
rates by which the weavers could judge as to the adequacy of the
rates; (7) the fact that weavers were not consulted in the determi­
nation of the piece rates.
The first objection embodied the grievance of the weavers against
any form of piece rate and the desire for the straight week-work
system. The investigation showed, with respect to the second objec­
tion, a wide range in average earnings, not only within each mill, out
also among the same classes in the four mills. It appeared that the



16

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

average earnings of all weavers in each of the mills differed about 14
per cent, the hourly earnings ranging from 89i cents in one mill to
$1.02 in another. The greatest difference in earnings occurred
between two mills in which more nearly the same quality of product
was produced. The average earnings of first-class weavers varied
from 96 cents to $1.10; those of second-class weavers, from 89 cents
to $1.04/ This difference in earnings was ascribed mainly to the
difference in piece rates, due to the absence of a uniform price list. This
inequality oi earnings caused considerable dissatisfaction on the part
of the workers receiving the lower rate, and, in so far as it applied
to similar products, was disadvantageous to the management in
that it resulted in differences in costs of production, putting the em­
ployer paying the higher rate at a disadvantage in selling his goods.
The division into the three classes fostered jealousy and a feeling of
injustice among the weavers. One reason for this attitude, as brought
out in the preliminary study, was that although only about 30 per
cent of the weavers were in the first class, nearly 60 per cent, or
about twi6e as many, were earning 90 cents an hour, the first-class
minimum rate.
The objections with respect to discrimination in assignment of jobs
and the opportunity given the management for cutting piece rates
when the weaver is producing more than the average, were the usual
objections against the piecework system, the opportunity for such
injustices being greater in this industry than in some others because
of the nature of the work and because of the fact that the workers
had nothing to say about the setting of the rates or the selection of
the weaver for the job.

The weavers objected not only to the lack of a common basis for
determination of rates in the several shops, but to the lack of standard­
ization in this matter within the individual shop. They called atten­
tion to injustices due to the failure to consider and allow for certain
details of condition of the equipment and the quality and condition of
the material, which were not defined in setting the rate. A price per
cut which was fair when the looms and material were in first-class condition? might be unfair if the looms were in poor condition and the
materials of an inferior grade. The weavers felt that a definite plan
for allowances for such contingencies was only just.
One of the most frequent complaints of the workers brought out
by this investigation was against the setting of piece rates by the
management only. The part of the report dealing with this attitude
on the part of the workers and a method of dealing with it is here
reproduced:

Joint price committees: As stated previously, one of the most frequent complaints
made by the weavers is against the present system of setting piece rates by the
employers only, without the workers having a say in the matter, without the workers’
participation in a matter which concerns them more than any other. There is a
feeling among the workers that the fixing of piece prices is not dqne “ in the open.”
This feeling is a source of constant dissatisfaction. The weaver is dissatisfied with
the piece rate even before it is set. When the price is set, he begins to work the
loom with a feeling of uncertainty as to what his earnings will be, and when the
earnings are below his expectations he is dissatisfied,
No matter what system of wage payment obtains in the plant, it can not be suc­
cessful if there is no confidence between employee and employer. A plan of wage
payment, no matter how fair it is, defeats its purpose if it does not provide the
machinery for removing unnecessary dissatisfaction and distrust. The application of
the plan is, in many instances, more important than the plan itself.




TH E WAGE-PAYMENT PLAN.

17

In all industries where piecework is in vogue and where collective bargaining is
in practice, the setting of piece rates is done jointly by the management and repre­
sentatives of the employees of the shops. A small price committee representing the
employees of the shop negotiates with the management the piece rates for the com­
ing jobs and the piece rates of jobs in operation, if readjustments are to be made.
This committee in conjunction with representatives from the management selected
by the firm constitutes a joint price committee. The price committee sets the piece
rates of all new jobs as well as the piece rates of all jobs requiring readjustment.
Where the price committee fails to reach an agreement as to the piece rate, the matter
is referred to the impartial chairman for decision. Pending a decision, if the dispute
is over a new job, the said job goes on at the lower rate suggested. If it is a job on
which a readjustment is asked, the rate already in existence continues until a
decision is rendered.
The setting up of joint price committees for the setting of piece rates removes un­
necessary dissatisfaction of the workers with the firm, for the workers are then partly
responsible for the piece rates. It is an instrument of harmony and mutual confi­
dence, without which friendly industrial relations are impossible and which are abso­
lutely necessary for the efficiency of the shop. And last, but not least, it serves as a
foundation to the edifice of collective bargaining, for collective bargaining defeats
itself if it allows individual bargaining at the bottom of its structure.
This report was submitted in its final form to the trade council on
September 16, 1920, when discussion of a proper compensation and
method of wage payment commenced. The weavers requested that
the basis be week work, with two classes of weavers, one to be paid
$40 and the other $45 per week. This demand for week work had been
one of the reasons for the strike the previous spring. The union pre­
sented a brief seeking to show that the institution of time payment
would add to the comfort and well-being of the weavers without any
sacrifice of production and quite possibly might serve to insure
increased production.
The employers asked for retention of the prevailing method of
wage payment, with three classes of weavers at the minimum rates
then prevailing, namely 80 cents, 85 cents, and 90 cents an hour.
They stated that the minimum-guaranty plan then in operation gave
to the weavers the same guaranty of a fixed income as would week
work, and argued that the change from piecework to week work would
materially reduce production and increase their labor costs. Their
position was that the introduction of piecework without production
standards would make their labor cost uncertain, with a resultant
difficulty in the pricing of their product, putting them in a disadvan­
tageous position in a market in which practically all of their com­
petitors wore operating on the piecework system.
A comparison of production records under the daywork and the
piecework systems of payment made by industrial engineers in the
shop of one of the firms under the agreement had indicated a decrease
in the total production when the firm changed from piecework to
daywork. This investigation covered a period of three months just
prior to the introduction of daywork ana three months following the
change. A comparison of the production of 37 weavers making 18
different patterns, by patterns, showed an average increase of 21 \ per
cent in the time spent in making a cut of ribbon under the daywork
system over the time spent under the piecework plan.6
•Conditions were not entirely normal, however, when this study was made, the daywork plan having
been instituted after a week’s strike on this issue. In the opinion of the iniustrial engineers making
the study, however, it is usual to expect in textile mills a loss of production of from 10 to 25 per cent
when workers are changed from a piecework to a daywork basis, unless there is greater supervision or
detailed operation records are kept and used intelligently.




18

TRADE AGREEMENT IN T H E SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

The trade council was unable to agree on the method of wage pay­
ment and the decision was left to the impartial chairman, who ruled
against the establishment of week work at that time. Among the
considerations influencing the chairman, were the facts that (1) the
minimum guaranty gives the same assurance of a fixed income as
does week work, and (2) “ the institution of week work would mean
a radical change from present practice and would mean the establish­
ment of this method oi payment for a small group of manufacturers
in this market.” But of the greatest influence was the consideration
that production standards had not been established in the various
mills, and under the agreement it would not be possible to establish
week work without at the same time establishing standards of
production. (The agreement specifically provided that “ every wage
scale shall be accompanied by a scale of production.” ) In the
opinion of the chairman it would be possible m time to set up such
standards in each mill, but such a procedure would necessitate a more
thorough investigation than had been made. Since the wage issue
had already been delayed for months, the chairman did not believe
it wise further to delay the ruling by waiting until such an investiga­
tion could be made.
Both the union request for the division of weavers into two classes
at a weekly wage of $40 and $45 per week and the employers’ request
for the retention of the prevailing rate for the three classes of 80
cents, 85 cents, and 90 cents an hour were denied. The chairman
decided that the classification into three classes should be continued
and that wages of the first and second class weavers should be
so increased that the first-class weavers would receive a minimum
guaranty of not less than 95 cents an hour, and the second class a min­
imum guaranty of not less than 87 £ cents an hour, the minimum of
the third class remaining at 80 cents an hour. This decision became
effective November 1, 1920. It provided also for the establishment
in each shop of the price committees described above.
PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF THE WAGE PLAN ADOPTED.

The system of wage payment was not revolutionized as a result
of the agreement. As a matter of fact most of the features of
the old system were retained, but an attempt was made to remove
many of the causes of dissatisfaction and to open a way for the
removal of others. In order to eliminate one of the most serious
causes of dissatisfaction and suspicion, namely, that the weavers
had nothing to say about the wage rates, price committees for the
joint determination of all piece rates were set up. A regular
channel for the adjustment of grievances due to this and other
causes was provided and the weavers were given opportunity to
show cause why other changes they felt to be necessary should be
made.
The plan in operation during the life of the contract provided for
the payment of a minimum wage, uniform for all the shops under the
agreement, and for the payment of a piece-rate compensation in pro­
portion to output. Employees were tnus assured a fixed income with
an opportunity to earn more. Under this system if a weaver’s earn­
ings at the piece rate exceeded the minimum wage, he was paid by the
piece; if his minimum exceeded his piece-rate earnings, he received
the minimum. For example, a weaver whose minimum wage was 90




TH E WAGE-PAYMENT PLA N .

19

cents per hour would receive $39.60 at the end of the 44-hour week.
If, however, working by the piece he produced 12 cuts of ribbon at a
rate of $3.96 per cut, his earnings would be $47.52 and he would
receive the larger sum. If, however, he had produced only 9 cuts,
his piece-rate earnings would be $35.64, or less than the minimum, in
which case he would receive $39.60, the minimum wage.
MINIMUM HOURLY RATES.

The minimum wage differed for each of the three classes of workers,
but was uniform for each class in the shops under the agreement.
It was determined by agreement of the trade council, if possible, with
the impartial chairman as arbitrator in case of disagreement. Two
manufacturing seasons were agreed upon for the year, one begin­
ning April 1 and the other October 1. Requests by either party
for changes in the minimum rate were made 30 days before the
season opened, and rates then determined fixed for the season.
Disputes arising relative to the minimum wage were referred to the
trade council and the impartial chairman for settlement. All ques­
tions relative to piece rates, however, were determined by the price
committees, with recourse to the impartial chairman.
HOW PIECE RATES WERE SET.

In setting piece rates certain technical factors were considered, such
as type of loom, width, total ligneage, picks per inch, amount and
grades of silk in warp and filling, etc.,7 all o f which determine the
skill required and affect the possible output. The prevailing rate of
pay and the total amount a weaver should earn were also considered.
As early as 1884, when a schedule of basic piece prices existed in
New York and Paterson, there were evidences of difficulty in deter­
mining a method of setting rates which would give due weight to all
the factors involved. The United Ribbon Weavers of America, one
of the sporadic forerunners of the present unions in the silk-ribbon
industry, and the silk-ribbon manufacturers worked out a price for
eight standard patterns. These schedules were based on 540 lignes
er loom, this number being the greatest width looms of that
ay accommodated. These schedules and interpretations of them,
known as the bosses’ schedule and the weavers’ schedule, made
allowances for deviations from the standard and provided for the
first time for the payment of a rate for preparatory work, to obtain
until a holdfast (the first few yards of ribbon) was woven. Up to
this time weavers had not been paid for this work, often spending
days in the preparation of their looms, with no compensation what­
ever. The united Ribbon Weavers of America, like most organiza­
tions in the earlier period in the textile industry, was short lived, but
some sort of price hst persisted. Another price list, a revision of the
first, was printed in 1894.
The pnce list in use in some of the shops in 1920 when the
agreement was signed, known as the Paterson Blue Book, is a revision
of the old schedules, based also upon such production records as were
available in 1915, when it was made, and upon the experience of its
authors. This revision, made for the use of an individual shop was
adopted with some modification by the United Textile Workers in

§

7 definitions of these terms see pp. 9 to 12 and p. 20.
For




20

TRADE AGREEMENT IN TH E SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

1918 as its official price list, and served as a basis upon which uniform
increases in wages could be asked.
The Paterson Blue Book fixed the rate per cut of 10 yards for four
standard weaves, namely, taffeta, satin taffeta, double-faced satin,
and grosgrain double-shot weaves. The rates are fixed for a German
loom 8 containing 1,000 lignes9with 100 picks1 per inch. The sched­
0
ules provide for a variety of reeding.1 Table 1 gives the schedule
1
for satin taffeta weaves.

Table 1.—PRICE

SCHEDULE FOR SATIN TAFFETA WEAVES WHEN WOVEN ON A
GERMAN LOOM (BASIS 1,000 LIGNES, 100 PICKS) FOR SPECIFIED REEDING (EX­
PRESSED IN DENTS PER LIGNE OR PER INCH AND ENDS PER DENT).
Price per cut for specified number of ends per dent.
Number of dents.

5 to 511 jer ligne or 56 to 59per inch................
Over 5]e 51 per ligne or over 59to 62per inch.
to
Over 51t to 5£per ligne or over 62to 65per inch.
Over 53 to 6per ligne or over 65to 68per inch.
■
Over 6 to 61 per ligne or over 68to 70per inch.
Over 61:to 61 per ligne or over 70to 73per inch.
to
Over e 6f per ligne or over 73to 76per inch.
Over 6f•to 7 per ligne or over 76 to 79per inch.
2
Over 71to 71 per ligne or over 79to 8 per inch.
Over 71 to 71 per ligne or over 8 to 8 per inch.
2 4
Over 71rto 7$per ligne or over 8 to 87per inch.
4
Over 7j:to 8per ligne or over 87 to 90per inch.

10

12

4,
5,
,
,
ft
ft
ft ft
sin­ sin­ sin­ sin­ sin­ sin­ sin­ sin­ sin­
gle. gle. gle. gle. gle. gle. gle. gle. gle.

Cts. Cts. Cts. Cts. a s .
458
469
40
8
493
50
3
517
533
550
566
583
599
616

514
528
541
555
569
58
8
60
6
626
645
664
68
3
703

572
588
60
5
620
637
659
681
703
724
746
768
790

628
648
667
705
729
753
779
83
0
827
851
877

686

686
70
8

729
751
773
81
0
827
855
82
8
910
936
964

Cts. Cts.

745
769
793
817
80
4
871
90
1
931
960
991
1,050

1,021

801
827
855
82
8
910
943
975
1,008
1,039
1,072
1,105
1,138

a857.
s

888
917

Cts.

915
947
98
0
947 1,013
977 1,045
1,013 1,083
1,047
1,083 1,159
1,119 1,198
1,154 1,236
1,189 1,274
1,225 1,302

1,122

The above schedule fixes the basic price per cut for a satin taffeta
ribbon made on a German loom, the warps on which have been set up
to weave ribbons whose combined width is 1,000 lignes. The number
of ribbons to be made on this loom would vary according to their
width; for example, there might be 20 ribbons, each 50 lignes in
width. One hundred picks per inch are taken as the base; that is,
the shuttle moves across the warp 100 times making 100 cross threads
to an inch of warp length. The reeding also varies according to the
width and quality of ribbon to be woven. The schedule allows for
a variety o f reeding. Reeding with 68 dents per inch (or 6 dents
per ligne) and 6 single ends per dent, for example (which would be
expressed 68/6/1),would call for 68 dents or splits in the reed per inch
in width of ribbon and 6 single threads of warp to be drawn through
each dent. The price per cut for a satin taffeta weave on the basis
of 1,000 lignes and 100 picks, with 68/6/1 reeding, is fixed in the
schedule at $6.20 per cut.
Allowances and deductions are made for deviations from this
standard. If the ribbons are wider than the standard, definite per-*
*German loom: Oldest type of shaft loom, usually operated with drop weights. During the war
they were called “ Yankee ” looms.
»Ligne: A French unit of measure, which is one-twelfth of a French inch, and approximately oneeleventh of an English inch. It is the world’s standard for measuring the width of nbbon or narrow
fabrics. It may refer to the width of the individual ribbon or to the combined width of all the ribbons
on the loom. In this case 1,000lignes has the latter connotation.
iepick: A single strand of weft reaching once across the fabric. The term is also used to express
the action of throwing or “ picking ” a shuttle from side to side.
Reeding: The attachment of the loom lathe, made of fine flat wires or reed, between which the
warp threads are carried and kept uniformly separated, is called “ the reed. ” The spaces between the
wires through which the warp threads are drawn are called “ dents. ” The warp threads drawn through
the dents are called “ ends”. (This term is also applied to the weft threads.) Single ends are threads
composed of a single strand of silk. The term “ reeding ” as here used refers to the number of dents in
the reed, the number of ends per dent, and the kind of ends, i. e., single or double.




THE W AGE-PAYM ENT PLAN.

21

centage allowances are added. If the number of picks exceeds 100,
1 per cent is added for each pick; if the number is less than 100,
deductions of 1 per cent for eacn pick from 100 to 90 are made, the
percentage deduction diminishing as the number of picks decreases.
Prices for patterns which deviate slightly from the standard are
figured as follows: For example, a loom may be set up with the same
reeding and the same number of spaces or ribbons as the example
noted above but a different number of lignes and picks, such as a
satin taffeta weave, with 20 spaces (number of separate ribbons on
loom), 58 lignes (width of each ribbon 58 lignes), 68/6/1 reeding
(68 dents per inch and 6 single threads per dent), and 92 picks per
inch.
The total lignes on loom (20 spaces by 58 lignes per space) multi­
plied by schedule rate per 1,000 lignes ($6.20) gives the standard price.
1,160 X $6.20 = $7.19.
The standard price minus the schedule deduction for picks (1 per
cent for each pick less than 100 [100 —92 = 8], or 58 cents) gives
standard price adjusted to number of picks.
$7.19 —$0.58 = 16.61.
The adjusted standard price plus schedule allowance for wide
ribbons from 55 to 58 lignes (6 per cent, or 40 cents) gives the price
per cut of 10 yards.
$6.61+ $0.40 = $7.01.
The schedule also provides for percentage allowances for looms less
than 800 lignes, for Jacquard looms, for bank battens, etc., for loop
edges, for heavy filling, printed filling, double and triple silk, for raw
goods, and other factors which make the process more difficult or
otherwise affect output.
The schedules in the Paterson Blue Book were compiled when the
hourly rate was 50 cents per hour and the hours 50 per week. They
set the price per cut at which the weaver should make the prevailing
day’s wage and represent a sort of weighted adjustment of the
various factors involved in the weaving process. They were useful as
a base in determining the rate for staples not subject to change, but
unfortunately the relative importance of the factors may vary to
some extent as new patterns are designed and the styles in ribbons
change. The hours of work were decreased to 44 after this book was
made, and the minimum hourly rate for first-class weavers was
increased. The basic rate determined from the Blue Book therefore
became entirely inadequate. One of the shops has discarded it and
has worked out its own system. It did, however, furnish a common
starting point for the shops using it and did harmonize to some
extent the rates in the different mills. To make this rate more nearly
meet immediate conditions, a flat percentage rate was added to the
Blue-Book rate, this percentage representing the difference between
the Blue-Book rate and the amount the weaver ought to earn at the
prevailing rate, with due regard to the skill required for the particular
job and his probable output and earnings as determined from pro­
duction records and records of earnings on similar patterns. This
percentage rate, which was added to the basic rate determined from
the Blue Book, differed therefore according to the pattern to be
woven and the classification of the weaver who did the work. The



22

TRADE AGREEMENT IN TH E SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

inadequacy of the Paterson Blue Book as a basis may be judged
from the fact that in some of the shops the rate added varied from
20 to 290 per cent for the different patterns.
For some time before the abrogation of the agreement there was
a growing discontent on the part of the weavers over the method of
setting piece rates. They complained of the inadequacy of the Blue
Book as a basis of adjustment; that the rates were worked out by
the management, and that the weaver who doubted the correctness
of his rate had no sound basis for working it out; that in some of
the shops the weaver members of the price committee were not shown
the calculation through which the rate was arrived at; that frequently
these rates were set so low that the weaver could not earn his
guaranteed minimum. The weavers objected to the “ excess ” checked
on their pay envelopes under such circumstances, alleging that it
smacked of charity.
Employers, on the other hand, were dissatisfied with the minimum
guaranty and wanted straight piece work. They said that the guaran­
teed minimum put an undue burden upon the manufacturer under
the agreement, by increasing the cost of production and preventing
accurate determination of his labor costs.
In his decision denying both straight week work and straight piece
work®, the chairman says: “ It is admitted that the piece rates in
this market are not computed from any basis worked out collectively
by the weavers and their employers; that present rates are set partly
on the basis of former rates established in another market and partly
from the experience of the management of the mill.”
He suggested that the trade council immediately devise some
method of collecting information necessary to the joint establishment
of wage and production scales. The trade council was at work on
this problem when the agreement was abrogated. Their plan was
first to work out a principle upon which piece rates might be based,
and then to establish base rates for the various shops.6
Records of the price calculation on each new pattern were furnished
the impartial chairman and a file of these records kept in his office.
The following is the form used for these records:

PRICE CALCULATION FORM.
Date...............................
Name of firm.............
Spaces................ Total lignes.
No. of loom..............
('Warp................ Size ..
Price per cut............
Grade Raw................ Dyed..
Pattern No................
of <
Description of weave
silk Filling.............. Size ,
Raw................ Dyed.
Reed................... Picks.......
Type of batten........................
Ends per space........... Edges
Harness—Cotton......... Steel.
No. and lignes..........................
Shafts................... Jacquard.
Kind of loom............................
Speed—Picks per minute.......
Calculation—
Class of weaver........................................ Readjustment Date
Hours of work........................................
Amount of production............................
«Decision No. 44, pp. 93-95.
b It was reported in Women’s Wear, for May 24,1923, that the council hoped to compile a uniform
basic scale of rates for the entire industry.




23

THE W AGE-PAYM ENT PLAN,

EARNINGS.

Table 2 shows the average weekly and annual earnings of weavers
who worked full time (every day the mill was in operation) during
the calendar year 1921 in three shops under the agreement. It
will be noted that the average weekly earnings of weavers in each
of the three classes were practically uniform.
T able 2 . - AVERAGE WEEKLY AND ANNUAL EARNINGS OF WEAVERS WHO WORKED
FULL TIME (EVERY DAY MILL WAS IN OPERATION) IN THREE SHOPS UNDER
THE AGREEMENT, 1921.
Mill and class of weavers.
Min No. 1:

Class I ...................................................................................
Class II.................................................................................
Class III................................................................................
All classes.....................................................................
Mill No. 2:
Class I ....................................................................................
Class II.................................................................................
Class III................................................................................
All classes.....................................................................
Mill No. 3:
Class I ...................................................................................
Class TI.................................................................................
Class III................................................................................
All classes.....................................................................
All mills:
Class I ...................................................................................
Class II ................................................................................
Class III................................................................................
All classes......................................................................

Number
of
weavers.

Average
number
of weeks
worked.

Average
weeklyearnings
for weeks
actuallyworked.

6
18
29
53

51.0
46.3
41.3
41.4

$41.43
37.77
34.57
37.86

$2,113.00
1,749.16
1,431.75
1,616.67

16
34
15
65

44.5
44.2
39.3
43.3

41.23
37.70
34.60
37.81

1,835.05
1,666.43
1,360.07
1,637.27

31
34
24
89

42.4
41.2
40.5
41.8

41.28
37.75
34.58
37.80

1,750.48
1,551.82
1,400.50
1,580.21

53
86

44.0
43.5
40.5
42.6

41.29
37.66
34.69
37.73

1,817.05
1,638.46
1.404.91
1,607.46

68

207

Average
annual

earnings.

PRODUCTION STANDARDS.
One object of this inquiry into industrial relations in the silk-ribbon
industry was to study the effect upon production of the installation
of production standards, which the bureau was informed had been
set up under the New York agreement. The agreement provided
that every wage scale should be accompanied by a scale of production.
It was found, however, that formal standards of production— as a
result of time studies to determine the average production of the
average worker— had not been set up, although in effect a standard
of production on each pattern in each mill had been set through the
agreement on the piece rates by a price committee of the shop, com­
posed of representatives of the management and the workers.
Because of the difference in both the product and the methods of
manufacture in the different mills, the setting of piece rates was done
in the individual shops, and because of the variety in the product of the
individual shops, the rates were usually set on each job. As noted
before, these piece rates were set by adding to the standard rate fixed
in the Paterson Blue Book a flat percentage rate representing
the difference between the rate set forth therein and the amount




24

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

a weaver ought to earn under prevailing conditions. The factor,
which largely determined the amount he should earn, was his prob­
able output. The determination of the probable output or the
number of cuts a weaver should be able to weave within a given time
was of course equivalent to fixing the time per cut and constituted
a sort of rough standard of production corresponding to the basic
standard time for an operation as determined by time study. Instead
of being determined by time study, however, the probable output was
estimated from records of production on similar patterns, when such
records were obtainable, from calculations of weavers and the manage­
ment, and from experience with similar patterns and knowledge of
the probable difficulties involved in weaving the new pattern. Allow­
ances for deviations from known patterns were made, and an estimate
representing the probable production of the new pattern was obtained.
In industries operating under production standards the piece
rate is usually determined by multiplying the base rate established
for each operation by the standard time consumed. In the plan in
operation under the agreement the base rate established for standard
patterns was fixed in the Paterson Blue Book, and the time consumed
by the operation was estimated instead of being determined by time
study.
This method of reckoning the rates was haphazard, and lacked some
of the very definite advantages of the time study method, but it
also avoided some of the drawbacks of that plan and as applied to
this particular industry had its advantages. It saved the expense of
time studies, and it eliminated the two chief objections of the
workers to time studies; i. e., the alleged purpose of speeding up
the worker and the feeling on his part that rates so set are unjust
because of the likelihood of abnormal output of the worker under
observation.
The weavers felt that the setting up of production standards
would be inadvisable in that it placed upon the employee the burden
of a definite output. Poor warps or a faulty harness might materially
impede output, and, even with unusual effort on the part of the
weaver, might make it impossible for him to reach the standard.
This might or might not be the fault of the management. Careless
or faulty shop methods in the supplying of materials might also
hinder the production of the weaver. The minimum wage plan
stimulated the management to greater responsibility for an even sup­
ply of materials and for that condition of machinery which would
make possible maximum production.
Employers stated it to be their belief that the difficulties involved
would make the installation of formal standards of production
inadvisable, if not impossible. This opinion was based on the lack of
standardization of the product and the variations in equipment and
methods of manufacture, the quality of product required and other
factors which affect output in silk ribbon weaving, and the time and
expense involved in setting up such standards.
The lack of standardization of product was evident not only between
mills but within individual mills. There was no one pattern identical
in all features made in the four factories under the agreement. There
were few standard patterns in any individual mill. One of the mills
made no standard patterns, manufacturing novelties only. The
quality of ribbon made in these mills varied from the lightest weight



OPERATION OF THE IMPARTIAL MACHINERY.

25

ribbons, used for tying candy boxes, to the finest quality of wide
ribbons.12 This lack oi standardization of product obviously inten­
sified the lack of uniformity in methods of production, and any
attempt at setting up standards of production would have necessi­
tated a separate computation for each pattern.
The looms were complex and of various types, each adapted to
certain kinds of work ana with its own peculiar problems of operation.
Replacements and alterations of these looms, which the setting up of
standards might entail, would have been difficult and expensive.
The degree of skill required in operation varied, of course, with the
kind of loom. With the newer and more automatic types the actual
physical exertion demanded of the individual was lessened, but the
nervous strain was often increased because there were more shuttles
to fill, more warps to tie, and more ribbons to watch for defects.
The material used, particularly the dyed silk, was subject to
atmospheric conditions and difficult to handle. The quality usually
demanded in the product required a high degree of skill on the part
of the weaver.
Undoubtedly these difficulties cited by both employers and
weavers would have greatly complicated introduction of formal pro­
duction standards. Complications quite as great have been overcome,
however, in other industries in which both employers and workers
felt quite as strongly about the difficulties involved in the introduc­
tion of such standards. That the chairman thought these difficulties
were not insurmountable is evident from his decision of April 12,1923,
in which he suggested that the trade council at once devise some
method whereby information necessary to establish scales of rates and
scales of production could be collected.
The introduction of such standards, however, probably would not
have materially lessened the discontent over the rates unless they had
been jointly and frankly worked out, or had been worked out by an
impartial person in whom both sides had absolute confidence, if such
a person could have been found. The employers might have been
suspected of attempting to set the standard too high; the workers
of using their influence to get low standards set. Experience with
the setting of piece rates under the agreement has shown that where
there is room for suspicion, as there is when the method of setting
the piece rates is not perfectly clear to the workers, there will be
discontent, a fact which the chairman recognized when he emphasized
collectively worked out scales of rates and of production.
OPERATION OF THE IMPARTIAL MACHINERY.
WAGE DECISIONS UNDER THE AGREEMENT.

Three requests for the revision of the wage scale were made during
the life of the agreement after the basis and amount of compensation
were first determined by the impartial chairman. Two of these
requests, which were made in 1921 by the employers' association,
were for downward revisions of the scale. In the spring of 1923 the
The possibility of standardization of the product is remote. The whims of fashion constantly dictate
the creation of new designs. Competition demands it. The fact that the uses to which ribbons are put
vary from time to time makes standardization more difficult. The use of children’s hair ribbons is a case
in point. A short time ago there was a great demand for ribbon for this purpose, but hair ribbons are no
longer in evidence and the demand for this type of ribbon has almost entirely dropped off.




26

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

workers reiterated their demand for week work, and the employers'
association demanded straight piecework. In the first instance13
file demand, made at the beginning of the spring manufacturing
season, was as follows:
1. That the third-class hourly minimum guaranty of 80 cents be reduced to 70
cents, a I2£ per cent reduction.
2. That the second-class hourly minimum guaranty of 87J cents be reduced to 80
cents, about a 9 per cent reduction.
3. That the first-class hourly minimum guaranty of 95 cents be reduced to 87i
cents, or about 8 per cent reduction.
4. A general reduction of 10 per cent on all piece rates.

This reduction was requested by the employers' association on the
following grounds:

(а ) It is the tendency of the times, by which is meant the demand on the part
of the buyers and consumers, for lower prices. The only way that lower costs
can be attained is by wage reductions.
(б ) Such reductions have and are being made in nearly all manufacturing lines,
even in those in which the Amalgamated is prominent.
(c) Reductions have admittedly been made and accepted in the silk-ribbon branch
of the industry.
(d) More favorable terms have been granted by the union to a New York
manufacturer than have been granted to manufacturers in the agreement.
(e) The guaranteed rate to minor weavers in Glass III is far beyond their earning
power, in many cases causing considerable excess14 payments and consequent losses
to manufacturers.
(/) In many cases the guaranteed wages and the piece rates on certain grades of
goods are far in excess of what is paid in nearby cities for similar work. This large
difference is driving these classes of work out of the metropolitan district
where they have been made for many years. This means idle looms, loss of orders
and business for the manufacturers, and unemployment for such weavers as are
fitted for the work.
(g) Lowered cost of living.
(h) Although the reduction in wages requested would lower the cost of production
by a small percentage, yet this small percentage in the total would be an
important factor since it would be the margin which would enable employers to take
orders which they were compelled to refuse under the existing rate.

The union argued, first, that notice of the proposed change in the
scale was not made until one week prior to April 1. The first hearings
were held April 14. Since the manufacturing season begins April 1,
the manufacturers must have already set their prices for their goods for
the six-month season beginning April 1, and such prices must have been
based on the prevailing wage scale. To reduce this wage scale therefore
would only provide excess profits for the manufacturers.
With respect to the general tendency to reduce wages, the union
called attention to the fact that where wages were being reduced
they were much higher than those received by the silk-ribbon weavers,
and examples of wage rates in various industries were cited in support
of this contention. Wages of shoe workers, mine workers, and
railroad workers had not been reduced, the union asserted. In the
cases of certain woolen and worsted mills in New England and a
number of silk mills in Hudson County, N. J., there had been increases
which wiped out the former reductions. The union argued further
that even though there was a tendency to reduce wages in some
industries, that did not establish that it was a proper time to reduce
wages in the silk-ribbon industry; that ribbons being a luxury, it
“ See case No. 34, pp. 82-34.
14The amount by which the guaranteed minimum exceeds the amount earned at a piecework rate
is known as the “ exoess."




OPERATION OF THE IMPARTIAL, MACHINERY.

27

did not necessarily follow that reduction of wages in industries
manufacturing necessaries should be followed by a reduction for the
silk-ribbon weavers; neither did it follow that if there should be a
necessity for wage reductions the following October, such reductions
should be made four months before that date. For a period of six
months or more during 1920, when living costs were steadily rising,
the union had waited for a decision on the wage-payment question
and at the end of that time a decision was announced which gave no
increase in pay whatever to the third-class weavers and only a slight
increase to other classes.
The union denied the statement of the manufacturers that more
favorable terms had been granted to other shops in the market under
the control of the union, and asserted that there had been no general
downward revision of wages in the Paterson silk-ribbon market, the
principal competitive market for silk ribbons; that such reductions
as had been made were slight and only on the cheaper grades of
goods; that the competition of this market had existed for years, and
that during that time the shops in the New York market had not had
to operate at a loss.
The union pointed out that something had to be done to increase or
at least to keep up the supply of trained weavers in this market.
Capable young men could not be induced to enter such apprenticeship
under the plan then being worked out by the trade council unless
the wages approximated in some degree those paid in other skilled
industries.
The workers’ brief stated that the minimum guaranty of $35.20
was not too much to pay any qualified weaver; that considering the
number of weeks’ work obtained in this market, the guaranteed earn­
ings of a third-class weaver would average about $30.80 per week.
The fact that a great many of the third-class weavers were not earn­
ing their minimum the weavers ascribed, in part at least, to the fact
that the piece rates on their work had not been properly set.
The union answered the employers’ argument with respect to the
effect of a reduction of labor costs upon operating expense by pointing
out that, since the union had no way of knowing the amount of profit
the manufacturers were making, they could not argue the question as
to whether or not it was possible to make a profit on the class of
goods the employers had m mind. But, it contended, the wages of
the weaver constituted less than one-fifth of the manufacturing cost
and a reduction of 12J per cent on this cost would not appreciably
help the manufacturers m meeting competition.
The chairman, in making this first decision on the wage question
after the initial settlement of the problem, called attention to the great
opportunity which the collective bargaining agreement afforded for the
more flexible handling of all matters in dispute. Under the old
methods, “ whenever a settlement of a question was made, the points
of that settlement, regardless of the varying conditions which fol­
lowed, held good until some extraordinary pressure, a strike or a
lockout, brought about a change. Under the new machinery of col­
lective bargaining emergencies may be met by a decision which need
be kept in effect no longer than the emergency requires.” He also
called attention to the fact that during the first year of the agreement
manufacturing costs to the firms coming under the agreement had
been lower than they otherwise would have been had the usual strikes



28

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY,

and stoppages occurred, and that the yearly earnings of the weavers
had not decreased.
In his decision the chairman was influenced by the fact that, owing
to the tardiness of the notice for revision of the wage scale and the
time consumed in the hearings, the season was already advanced and
the time before the beginning of the new season when the whole ques­
tion of wages might be reopened was considerably shortened. The
fact that both parties agreed that the factor of competition, nearly
eliminated during the period of high prices, was again asserting itself,
especially in the market for the cheaper grades of ribbons, also
received his consideration.
After consideration of all the factors involved, and after personal
investigation, the chairman decided that there was no justification at
that time for a general decrease in the guaranteed minimum wage
rates, but that certain readjustments were necessary to meet the im­
mediate requirements of the situation. The employers showed to the
satisfaction of the chairman that they were not manufacturing, and
could not manufacture, certain grades of ribbon while paying the rate
of wages called for under the agreement, and compete with other firms
and markets where wages on this class of goods were considerably
lower. To enable manufacturers to make this grade of goods, the
chairman ordered two readjustments:

First. During this emergency and to meet the present close competition, it is
ordered that for the time being hard or raw silk ribbon may (under certain condi­
tions) be made on two looms. No two looms shall exceed a total of 1,354 lignes and
no ribbon so made shall be wider than 21 lignes and shall have all raw silk filling.
No rate lower than 87J cents an hour shall be paid on any two looms mounted under
this decision. This means that a third-class weaver while working on two looms shall
receive 87J cents an hour but will revert to his regular minimum when he goes back
on one loom.
Second. Investigation shows that a considerable percentage of the cheaper grade
of ribbons is made in this market on so-called automatic high-speed looms. There­
fore, for the present, work done on automatic high-speed looms may be paid for at a
rate of 12£ per cent below $ie minimum guaranty of the worker. This does not mean
that there is to be any change in the class of the weaver. A worker, if employed on
an automatic high-speed loom, may receive, while working on such loom, 12£ per cent
below his minimum guaranty, but when he is transferred to any other kind of loom
he immediately reverts to his usual minimum. In other words, the percentage of
reduction is for such work as is done on automatic high-speed looms and does not
affect the worker when working on any other kind of loom. Also, this reduced rate
shall not apply to any ribbon made on two looms. Further, it is the sense of this
decision that this reduction on automatic high-speed looms obtains only where the
lighter draft ribbons are made. Where the heavier draft ribbons are made on auto­
matics the usual rate shall be paid. To decide the dividing line between “ heavy ”
and “ light” draft ribbons is purely a technical question. Therefore, the chairman
leaves to the trade council the setting of this dividing line.

The looms here referred to as “ automatic” the chairman inter­
preted as being the automatic high-speed looms made by certain firms.
In case of disagreement between the price committee and the manage­
ment as to the kind of loom falling under the designation u automatic/’
such disagreements were to be referred to the impartial chairman for
settlement. This decision became effective June 1, 1921.
The question arose later, in the application of this decision, as to
whether the 12^ per cent reduction referred to the minimum only, or
whether it referred also to piece rates. The chairman interpreted the
decision to mean that the reduction referred to the minimum only,
and limited his jurisdiction to the guaranteed minimum by his state­
ment that the chairman had nothing to do with individual piece rates




OPERATION OE THE IMPARTIAL MACHINERY.

29

in individual shops until such matter was brought before him through
the failure of the price committee to reach an agreement.
The next request for a revision of wages15 also came from the
employers, who asked that the following decreases take effect at
the beginning of the next manufacturing season (October 1, 1921):
Weavers receiving the minimum guaranty of 95 cents to receive 81
cents; those receiving the minimum guaranty of 87\ cents to receive
75 cents; and those receiving the minimum guaranty of 80 cents to
receive 68 cents. In addition to this wage reduction, extension of the
plural-loom system was requested. The weavers restated their former
demand for week work and two classes of weavers, one to be paid $40
and the other $45 per week.
Hearings on these requests were held by the trade council, and
briefs and verbal arguments presented. The employers urged the
necessity for wage reductions on the ground that (1) reductions were
being made in practically all other industries, and (2) that compe­
tition with other firms in New York and other markets necessitated
a lowering of labor costs. To substantiate their first contention they
cited specific instances of wage reductions in the silk and other tex­
tile industries and in other trades. With respect to their second
contention, the employers stated that they were handicapped not
only by the guaranteed minimum wages but also by the fact that
they were competing with centers where straight piecework and lower
rates prevailed; that other ribbon manufacturers had the advantage
not only of the lower rates but also of longer hours and the plural-loom
system on certain classes of work; that the small group of manufac­
turers working under the agreement did not feel that they could stand
alone in maintaining high wages as against practically all of their
competitors in New York and other markets.
The union urged again the demands they had made since the agree­
ment was signed, namely, the institution of week work with two
classes of weavers, to be paid $40 and $45 a week, presenting the
same arguments as in previous wage cases. In answer to the employ­
ers’ arguments for general wage reductions the union cited numerous
instances in which wages had not been reduced, and stated that in
many cases where reductions had been made wages were yet higher
than those of the ribbon weavers. They further insisted that spe­
cific reasons should be given by the manufacturers requesting wage
reductions, rather than the mere fact that other manufacturers were
cuttingwages. While admitting that some reductions had been made
in the Paterson ribbon mills, they insisted that such reductions were
on the cheaper grades of ribbon only. With respect to the competi­
tion of the Pennsylvania market the union pointed out that such
competition had always existed and that the New York market had
the advantage of better production. To the employers’ claim of no
profits or very low profits the union answered that the employers had
submitted no figures in relation to this matter, and as to the employ­
ers’ assertion of being handicapped by competing with other centers
where piecework prevailed, it contended that the workers in this mar­
ket have just as great an incentive to production, for the reason that
piece rates accompany the minimum guaranties and that most of the
weavers earned more at the piece rates than their minimum.
» See case No. 36, p. 85-87.

44122°—23—Bull. 341-----3




30

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

The employers contended that the market was very depressed and
that prospects for the coming season were very poor. To the union
argument that reports in the trade journals indicated an upward tend­
ency in the market, the employers insisted that in their plants no
such tendency was indicated.
The union directed attention to the fact that the decline in the
cost of living had been arrested and noted the tendency toward in­
creased prices. It was pointed out that rents in New York were ab­
normally high, with no hope of decrease, but rather an actual prospect
of increase.
With respect to the request for extension of the plural-loom system
the union called attention to the fact that the plural-loom system was
in very bad repute with organized workers everywhere, and reminded
the trade council that previous awards of the impartial chairman on
this question had been emergency measures.
The vote of the trade council on the wage question at this time
resulted in a tie, and decision was left to the impartial chairman. In
view of the confusing and conflicting evidence presented at this time
the chairman made a personal investigation m the principial com­
peting markets. In Paterson, N. J., he found that although there
tad been no formal reductions of wages made in the mills making
the better grades of ribbons, there had been a process of “ nibbling,”
whereby the rates on new jobs during the preceding months had been
lowered. Reductions averaging about 10 per cent had taken place
in some of the mills making medium and cheap grade ribbons. In
Allentown, Pa., where the weavers worked 54 hours per week and
rates were normally lower than in New York, there had been a general
reduction of 20 per cent in the piece rates on all grades of ribbon.
In Stroudsburg, Pa., there had been reductions since the preceding
January of 30 per cent. Union organization had made very little
headway in these markets. Some of the mills in Paterson were organ­
ized ana a few of the mills in Allentown had some organization, while
Stroudsburg was unorganized. The plural-loom system was found
to exist in all these markets.
In his decision the chairman decided against the institution of the
week work system at this time, stating it to be his belief that it would
not be wise to make the change during the prevailing depression.
If after proper discussion, such change was decided upon, it should be instituted
under more favorable conditions than now obtaining. Moreover, the instituting of a
new wage payment plan means the changing of a very fundamental thing, and should
only be done after the fullest and most careful consideration. A change in the method
of payment should be considered on its own merits and those merits should not be
clouded or mixed up with the question of an increase or decrease of wages.

In view of the state of the market and the fact that the improve­
ment hoped for, when requests for reductions the previous season
had been denied, had not materialized, the chairman ordered the fol­
lowing readjustments in the minimum guaranties for the three classes
of weavers: For first-class weavers from 95 cents to 90 cents; for
second-class weavers from 87\ cents to 80 cents; for third-class
weavers from 80 cents to 74 cents.
Adjustment of piece rates to meet the changes in the minimum
guaranties was left to the price committees in the different mills, so
that individual adjustments rather than a uniform percentage reduc­
tion could be made on the piece rates. Such reduction, however,



OPERATION OP THE IMPARTIAL MACHINERY.

31

was in no case to be greater than the average reduction granted on
the minimum guaranty, namely 7 per cent. In view of the reduction
of the minimum guaranties in this decision the reduction of 12J per
cent granted on work done on automatic looms in the previous wage
decision was changed to 8 per cent, with the qualification, however,
that under no conditions was any minimum guaranty to go below
70 cents.
With respect to the extension of the plural-loom system the chairman
denied the limit requested (1,600 lignes) but increased slightly the
ligneage permitted in his previous decision (case No. 34), making the
limit which could be made on two looms 1,440 instead of 1,354 lignes.
He removed the restrictions as to combinations of widths on two
looms, but limited the plural-loom system to light-weight ribbons of
certain specifications, as to filling, reeding, picks, etc.16
In this decision the impartial chairman called the attention of the
trade council to the inadvisability of requesting in one decision rulings
on wages, methods of work, and the method of payment. “ When
they are drawn together in one decision any one of the subjects is
likely to be unduly affected by the ruling necessary to be made in the
others.” This decision became effective on October 3, 1921. No
wage revision was requested in 1922.
In the spring of 1923, however, the workers again presented their
demand for straight week work with two classes of weavers. They
pointed out that there was a growing discontent over the method of
setting the piece rates because of the lack of a sound basis for the
determination of such rates and because of the fact that the weaver
members of the price committee were not always shown the calcu­
lations through which the rate was arrived at. They contended that
the rates were frequently set so low that the weaver could not earn
his guaranteed minimum and that by the practice of some of the
mills in writing “ excess ” across their pay envelopes the weavers
were made, to feel that the excess was a “ charity,” when, if the rate
had been properly set, there would have been no “ excess.” They
argued that the proposed rates were not too high because of the
improved condition of the industry and the necessity of attracting
young men to the trade.
Employers asked for straight piecework on the ground that the
guaranteed minimum put an undue burden upon the manufacturers
under the agreement by increasing the cost of production and by the
uncertainty of labor costs. They claimed that their experience and
the experience of others bears out their conclusion that the cost of
production becomes higher as soon as any form of guaranteed wages
is established. They pointed out that the minimum guarantee does
not obtain in other New York mills and that the weavers in other
mills exercised little or no control over piece rates, and that they
therefore had to compete with manufacturers paying straight piece
rates, set in most cases directly by the employers, often in shops
working a 50-hour week or longer.
The employers quoted from union publications to show that “ it
was admitted that the wages in Allentown were 40 per cent below
the wages obtaining in this market.” They also gave quotations from
the newspaper reports of a speech delivered in Allentown by a union
speaker from this district, in which it was declared that “ in the New
1#The entire question of the plural-loom system is treated in greater detail on pages 41 to 48.




32

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

York silk-ribbon market the textile workers have established condi­
tions that are the best in America.”
In reply to the union request for week work they quoted the sec­
tion of the agreement providing that “ every wage scale shall be
accompanied by a scale of production.”
In reply to the employers’ request for straight piecework the union
cited the impossibility of setting proper rates under the prevailing
system of calculation and argued that such a system would cause
even more argument and dissension than was created by the existing
system.
The chairman denied both requests on much the same grounds.
“ If the weavers are not to have week work because there is as yet
no established scale of production, the same reasoning must hold
good against a request for straight piecework.” * * * “ In order
that the weavers may be protected from badly set piece rates and
from rates which have not been set collectively, the minimum guar­
antee must be retained.” He suggested immediate action by the
trade council looking toward the design of some method of establish­
ing the wage and production scales.®
When the twisters came under the agreement in February, 1923,
the request for wage revision was handled by the trade council with­
out reference to the impartial chairman. The council unanimously
voted an increase to the twisters of 7J per cent, restoring a wage cut
of October, 1921. This was the only wage case upon which the
trade council reached a unanimous decision. Such unanimous agree­
ment upon a wage issue is also somewhat unique in collective
bargaining.
DECISIONS ON PIECE RATES.

Four cases relative to changes in piece rates were appealed to
the impartial chairman. Of these four cases two came up for
decision after the ruling of the chairman setting up price committees
to deal with this matter. In one of these later cases the chairman
found that the difficulty was due to the fact that the procedure
determined upon relative to fixing piece rates had not been followed.
In the first case, decided June 4, 1920,17 a weaver complained that
the rate on the fancy pattern he was weaving was too low, basing
his contention largely upon the fact that he had not been able to
earn a bonus although he had been on this work for several weeks,
and on other work he had usually earned a bonus. The chairman
found that the setting of the rate had been done very largely by
comparing the pattern with other similar patterns on which rates
had already been set. Discussion resulted in the decision of the
chairman and the agreement of the firm that a new and higher rate
should be set for this pattern. This case and a similar one decided
October 8, 1920,18 in which the rates set for three jobs were in
question, convinced the chairman of the necessity of the appointment
of committees having special knowledge of piece rates and represent­
ing the firm and the union. “ Many of the disputes over piece rates
are occasioned through clerical errors or misunderstanding of the
methods of calculating the rates. To bring all such cases before the
impartial chairman will cause considerable delay. The proper func«Decision No. 44, p. 93.




OPERATION OF THE IMPARTIAL M ACH INERY.

33

tioning of a price committee will mean the disposal of these minor
disputes at once and the settling of any necessary readjustments
promptly/ ’ Therefore in the decision of the latter case the chairman
provided for the appointment of a price committee and laid down
rules for its procedure, similar rules being laid down for all shops
under the agreement by a decision which was rendered about three
weeks later.
In the third case19 the chairman, after going over the calculations
and listening to the arguments, confirmed the rates set by the firm.
The decision in the last case on piece rates was made on May 24,
1922. The union contended that the price set was too low.
Investigation showed that the rate had been calculated from the
Paterson Blue Book, with 50 per cent added to the base rate and 4
per cent deducted for picks. The deduction of 4 per cent for picks
the chairman found to oe an error and due to the fact that the ruling
relative to procedure in setting piece rates had not been followed.
If the method suggested, that the firm should figure out the price
on a new job and turn over the detailed figuring to the weaver
members so that they could determine how the price was obtained,
had been followed, “ it is very probable that the weaver members
would have discovered that it was an error to deduct the 4 per cent
for picks.”
CLASSIFICATION OF WEAVERS.

When the agreement went into effect the weavers in three of the
mills concerned were classified into three classes, with a minimum
wage established for each class. In the fourth mill no such division
obtained, all of the weavers receiving a minimum wage equal to that
of the third-class weavers in the other shops. The minimum rates at
this time were 90, 85, and 80 cents for the first, second, and third
classes, respectively. There was no clearly drawn distinction between
the classes, however. A first-class weaver in one factory might be
classed as a second or third class weaver in another, the difference
depending upon the quality of goods produced and the standards of
the mills. Nor had it been possible to define the classes in a single
shop. A first-class weaver might have a high record of production
on one loom, but if placed on another his production might run low
although he worked equally hard, individual reactions as well as
physical circumstances over which the individual had no control *
often affecting the output to a considerable degree. The inequalities
in the classification of the weavers were clearly brought out in the
preliminary study on the basis and amount of compensation of
weavers provided for in the agreement and presented to the chair­
man in 1920. Information obtained at this time for 229 weavers
employed in the three mills where such classification obtained showed
that while of this number only 29.7 per cent were in the first class, 58.5
per cent, or nearly twice as many, were earning the first-class mini­
mum or more. Table 3 indicates the number and percentage of
weavers in each of the three classes and the number and percentage
earning the first-class minimum.
»»See case No. 28, p. 80.




34

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

Table 3 .—NUMBER AND PER CENT OF WEAVERS IN EACH CLASS IN SPECIFIED
MILLS AND OF THOSE EARNING THE MINIMUM OF THE FIRST CLASS.
Mill A.
Classification of weavers.
Weavers in Class I ............................................................
Weavers in Class II............................................................
Weavers in Class H I ........................................................
Total..........................................................................
Weavers earning minimum of Class I (90 cents an
hour or over)...................................................................

Mill B.

Mill C.

Total.

Num­ Per Num­ Per Num­ Per Num­ Per
ber. cent. ber. cent. ber. cent. ber. cent.
21
33
28
82

25.6
40.3
34.1
100.0

66 80.5

10
7
13
30

33.3
23.3
43.4
100.0

15 50.0

37
43
37
117

31.6 68 29.7
36.8 83 36.2
31.6 78 34.1
100.0 229 100.0

53 45.3

134

58.5

This division of weavers into three classes, says the preliminary
report of the study conducted by the chairman under the provisions
of the agreement, a is more responsible for jealousy among them than
any other factor, for, in the absence of any clear-cut definition of the
three classes of weavers, the classification is, and must be, in many
instances arbitrary, and the nequality among the weavers, affected
by the classification, is of more serious consequence than the inequal­
ity due to difference in skill. The placing of a weaver in the third
class automatically places him into a lower-class human being, whose
minimum requirement is lower than that of a first or second class
weaver. After all, the classification is only a basis for determining
the minimum wage necessary for the weaver, and whether one is a
poor weaver or an expert weaver the minimum necessities are the
same for both.”
This question of classification was thoroughly discussed by the trade
council, but neither party was able to define a first, a second, or a
third class weaver. It was evident that until a study of the differences
in productivity among the weavers, as well as the factors which affect
output, could be made and a standard of production set, definite
lines of demarcation between the three classes could not be deter­
mined.2® Such a thorough study would obviously consume months
and necessitate considerable expenditure, which would have to be
borne by the four firms and the three local unions in the agreement.
One of the firms worked out a tentative plan of tests for the first,
second, and third class weavers which was used in that shop as a
guide in the classification of its weavers. This plan is as follows:
TESTS OF FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD CLASS WEAVERS.
A first-class weaver should have the following qualifications:
(a) Knowledge of the trade .—He should understand the technique of weaving so
well that he is able to start any loom on any job within reasonable time, both Jacquard
and shaft. As one weaver said, ‘‘ He must be able to make the loom run and produce.’’
He must be able to go ahead without assistance, other than such as is not strictly
within the work of a weaver (such as loom fixing, and twisting-in). He should know
how to twist-in (without necessarily having the speed or skill of an experienced
twister). If anything goes wrong on the loom, he should be able to find out what is
the matter and remedy it. A first-class weaver also keeps such close and careful
watch on his work and his loom so that he avoids smashes, etc., as far as possible.
The difficulties of the trade council in determining definite lines of demarcation are evident in the
recent investigation of the English Medical Research Council (Report No. 17 of the Industrial Fatigue
Research Board: An analysis of the individual differences in the output of silk weavers), which concludes
from its analysis of individual differences of silk weavers that there is no definite line of demarcation

between good and bad weavers, “ the two classes merging into one another by insensible degrees."




OPERATION OF THE IMPARTIAL MACHINERY.

35

(b) Q uality of ‘ roduction .—He must turn out clean work with no imperfections (no
p
seconds) that could have been remedied by the weaver.
(c) Quantity of production .—He must have good production on easy jobs and fair
production on difficult jobs. In measuring the amount of production in terms of piece
rates, due consideration must be given to conditions other than the weaver’s ability,
which may materially affect the yardage, such as (1) condition of the silk (dye, age,
stickiness, etc.); (2) preparatory work, such as warps, filling and twisting-in; (3) con­
dition of harness; (4) condition of loom. All these factors, as well as the weaver’s
ability, affect the speed at which the loom can be set, as well as the frequency of
stoppage.
(d) A ttitude toward work .—He should be punctual, regular in attendance, steady,
able to work harmoniously with others, and interested in his work. (These attributes
do not make better weavers but do aid in the discipline and organization of the
workroom.)
The third class would include the following:
1. Weavers who can not start up a loom without assistance, and who constantly
need help in the running of their looms.
2. Weavers who can be put only on easy jobs, even though their production on
such easy jobs is good.
3. Weavers who turn out seconds and imperfect or dirty work.
4. Weavers who are not punctual, irregular in attendance, and not steady.
A second-class weaver does not meet all the qualifications of a first-class weaver,
but is better than a third-class weaver. He must understand the technique of weav­
ing so that he can start a loom alone, or with very slight assistance. He may not
necessarily be able to work on all jobs, but his production is good on those that he
can handle.

The chairman ruled that the three-class system be installed in all
the shops under the agreement, and provided that all questions con­
cerning reclassification be first submitted to the price committees.
Although the decision of the impartial chairman retained the threegroup classification of weavers, certain inequalities were done away
with and objections to this classification eliminated. The basis upon
which the rates were determined was made more definite and more
uniform in the four shops. Machinery for reclassification and a means
of adjusting complaints were provided. It was agreed that new
employees should be put in the third class. After a trial period they
were at liberty to ask for reclassification, and it was one of the duties
of the price committees to hear such petitions and to make such
adjustments as might be possible. The plan for submission of re­
classification questions to price committees, however, did not work
out well and was later abandoned, and such cases went through the
regular process of adjustment.
It was arranged that weavers might pass from a lower class to a
higher one and vice versa, according to the amount of their production
and the quality of their work. To first-class weavers were assigned
the more intricate patterns; to the second class, the less difficult ones;
and to the third class the relatively simple patterns, each class receiving
the piece rate appropriate to the pattern on whicn he worked. If the
weaver continually failed to earn his minimum on the pattern assigned
the matter was investigated. If the reason for his failure was a machine
factor, i.e., a faulty narness, poor warps, etc., it was remedied if
possible. If the fault could not be remedied after the loom was set
up, record was made of the difficulty and it did not count against the
weaver’s record. Allowances were sometimes made to weavers who
ordinarily produced above the minimum and who through no fault of
their own were unable to make their full production.21 If the fault
was with the piece rate—it sometimes happened that the rate was too
* See case No. 1 , p. 7 .
9
2




36

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

low— an appeal for readjustment was made to the committee. Upon
continuous failure to earn the minimum on one loom, a weaver was
sometimes given another loom on which he might prove to be quite
efficient. Continued low production sometimes resulted in the reclas­
sification of the weaver in a lower grade.

Fifteen requests for reclassification were decided by the impar­
tial chairman. Since there was no definition of first, second, or
third class weavers the chairman found it necessary in each case to
consider in detail the evidence as to the qualifications of the par­
ticular weaver. In five instances22 the request of the weaver for re­
classification in a higher grade was granted. In four cases23 it was
denied. In doubtful cases it was the policy of the chairman to recom­
mend that the weaver be allowed further time to justify his claim, that
a closer record of the weaver's work be kept, and to provide for a
reopening of the case at some future date in case of disagreement.
Six of the 15 cases24 were disposed of in this way.
A later reclassification case® is of interest. A second-class weaver
who had been with the firm for about 14 years asked for reclassifi­
cation on the ground that his output as well as the quality of his work
merited it. Investigation showed that there was no complaint about
the quality of his work, that the weaver was careful and took con­
siderable pride in his work. The management's objection to his re­
classification was based on the ground of quantity of production,
because he was unable to overcome loom difficulties. It was con­
tended that a first-class weaver should be able to overcome these
difficulties and keep up production.
An examination of production records showed that the weaver,
together with six first-class weavers, had previously worked on the
same pattern for a period of about 20 weeks. During this period the
average production of the weaver had been slightly above the total
average of the six first-class weavers and only slightly below the total
average of the two weavers considered the best in the mill.
The request of the weaver for reclassification was granted.

Allied to reclassification cases have been those relating to requests
of employees for back pay for time lost pending redassification.
Three cases of this sort were decided by the impartial chairman.
The first decision25 concerned the request of a weaver who when
hired had been put in the third class. Three weeks later he was
transfered to the first class. He requested first-class pay from the
time he was first hired. A few days after this weaver was hired an
agreement was entered into between the firms and the weavers to
the effect that when a weaver was employed he should be placed in
the third class and the firm should give him a try-out of two weeks
before deciding whether any change of classification should be
made. The chairman decided that m view of this agreement the
man should have been given his classification at the end of two weeks
and that his first-class pay should begin at that time.

In the second case2 the chairman denied the request of a weaver
6
for back p&y. In this case the weaver asked for reclassification some*

**See cases Nos. 1,2, 3,17, and 45, pp. 69, 72, and 95.
“ See cases Nos. 6,7,13, and 16, pp. 69, 70, and 71.
“ See cases Nos. 4, 5,14,15,18, and.43, pp. 69, 71, and 92.




OPERATION OF THE IMPARTIAL MACHINERY.

37

time in February, prior to the time the collective bargaining agree­
ment was concluded, and was told at that time to await the settle­
ment of a discussion then going on between the firm and the weavers.
This discussion led to a strike and the weaver did not return to work
until April 12. He did not again ask for reclassification until May
6, at which time he was rerated and placed in Class I. The chair­
man found no justification for his request for back pay from April
12, when he returned to work, and it was therefore denied.
The third case27 involved the confirmation by the impartial
chairman of an agreement regarding back pay, entered into prior to
the signing of the agreement.
These three cases were all decided on the same day, May 20. They
evidently helped to establish shop practice in this respect and later
cases were decided within the shop. At any rate no further requests
of this nature came before the impartial chairman.
HIRING, DISCHARGE, AND DISCIPLINE.

Some of the most frequent causes of ill feeling between workers
and management in all industries arise from problems of hiring and
discharge. The employer is often impatient of interference with the
disciplinary power he exercises over the workers by his authority to
hire and fire, and the workers are often oversuspicious of discrimi­
nation against their organization. The silk-ribbon industry is no
exception, but the parties to this agreement attempted to avoid
possibilities of ill feeling from this source by laying down in the con­
tract definite regulations governing these relations.
The principle of the preferential shop prevailed, preference being
given in hiring and discharge, and in the distribution of work to the
members of the Amalgamated Textile Workers. The maintenance
of this principle was safeguarded, and discrimination against the union,
as well as misuse by the union of its advantage, was prohibited by the
limitation of the power of each of the parties and the disciplinary
power granted the impartial chairman.

Employers in need of weavers notified the union of the number
and kind of weavers desired and the union was given 48 hours in
which to furnish them. If for any reason it was unable to furnish
the weavers required to the satisfaction of the employer, the employer
was at liberty to secure them elsewhere. The time limit could be
extended by the chairman, but in no case beyond one week. Favor­
itism in the apportionment of weavers among employers, in case the
request for weavers exceeded the number the union could supply, was
prohibited. The obligation of the union to furnish responsible wea­
vers was made more certain by the fact that the employer had the
power of discharge within the trial period and by the provision in the
contract which made the union responsible for absences. The latter
provision reads as follows:

In the event that a weaver stops work or fails to appear for work for reasons which
the impartial chairman finds insufficient, such weaver may be ordered deprived by
the impartial chairman of his membership in the union and such weaver and the A.
T. W. of A. or the local union shall be subject to such penalties as may be imposed
by the impartial chairman.
» See case No. 10, p. 70.




38

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

Absolute authority of the management in hiring; was further limited
by the provision that no weaver who was previously a member of
the union and subject to discipline under its rules could be employed
until he had been reinstated in good standing.
The restriction of its membership by the union through the impo­
sition of excessive assessments or initiation fees, sometimes charged
by employers as a union method of restricting labor supply, was pro­
hibited by the provision that the impartial chairman should have full
power to order variations of the amounts and the dates of payment
of initiation fees, assessments, and penalties.
The absolute right of the employer to discharge was limited by the
provision that a weaver who felt himself unjustly dismissed might
appeal for a trial to the impartial chairman, who could reinstate mm
with full pay for time lost unless the employer could show just cause
for such dismissal. The impartial chairman was empowered to con­
sider and make rulings as to the justification for discharges.
The agreement gave the employer full power to discharge a weaver
without recourse within a period of two weeks after he was hired
unless discrimination against the union could be proven.
An interesting case of alleged discrimination in the discharge of
a weaver after two weeks’ employment arose under the agree­
ment.28 This was the case of a weaver who, the firm alleged, failed
to earn his minimum and whose production, compared with that of
other weavers on similar patterns, was so low that the firm felt it
was not justified in retaining him. The union charged discrimination.
The investigation showed that the weaver had not done any weaving
for about a year and a half prior to his employment. The records
showed that he had been handicapped by trouble with his eyes, by
the effect of the humidity upon the silk, and by loom trouble.
The records of weavers hired within the five months previous
to this dismissal and the production records of weavers retained and
dismissed as well as their union affiliation, were examined. The
chairman found that on the ground of production alone the firm was
justified in discharging the weaver, but stated it to be his belief that
m view of the circumstances under which this weaver took up the
work, the two weeks’ period had not been a fair trial.

As, however, the agreement allows a firm to discharge a man without recourse
within a period of two weeks (unless discrimination is proved), the firm in this case
was withm its rights. The chairman, however, believes that this case very clearly
proves that two weeks is too short a time in which to give a weaver a fair trial. It
is therefore suggested that an amendment to the agreement be made by the trade
council giving a weaver a longer period of time for trial.
The decision in a later case of alleged discrimination is indicative
of the part shop management methods may play in controversies of
this sort, as well as the r6le of the impartial chairman under the
agreement. In this case two weavers who had been employed by
the firm in question for little more than six years were given looms
mounted with a pattern not usually made in the mill. One of the
weavers averaged 4.24 yards per day and the other 4.67 yards per
day. The firm was not satisfied with this production and laid the
men off. The looms were then tried out by members of the manage­
ment, one of whom made 8 yards per day, and the other 4 yards in
3£ hours. In this case the chairman felt that the firm was justified

•Bee case No. 24, p. 17.



OPERATION OF THE IMPARTIAL MACHINERY.

39

in taking the weavers off of these looms, but objected to the lack of
tact displayed by the management in handling the case. “The
weavers were not shown in full detail their production for the past
two or three weeks so that the matter would have been clear to
them. Nor were the weavers told that it was expected that they
would shortly be given other looms mounted with the standard sort
of ribbon on which they had worked before. Naturally, these
weavers, not knowing when they would be taken back and not
having a full explanation of why they were laid off, felt that they
were discriminated against.” The weavers involved in this case were
greatly dissatisfied with the decision on the grounds of the difficulties
involved in weaving this pattern, and the fact that important changes
were made in the pattern before the test was made by the manage­
ment. Discussion of this case furthered the agitation which finally
ended in the abrogation of the agreement. The decisions of the im­
partial chairman on this case (cases Nos. 40 and 40a) appear on
pages 89 and 90 of this report.
Case No. 42, which appears on pages 91 and 92, also involved alleged
discrimination, and is illustrative of the confused detail and conflicting
testimony upon which the impartial chairman was sometimes called
to decide a case.
DIVISION OF WORK.

Preference during slack periods when reduction of force became
necessary was given union weavers by the provision in the agreement
that the first ones to be dismissed should be those who were not mem­
bers of the union in good and regular standing. These workers
were not to be dismissed, however, until their looms had rim down.

One case of violation of this part of the contract29 which was
appealed to the impartial chairman concerned a loom fixer, not a
member of the union, who was given a weaving job while union
weavers were unemployed. In this case the loom was prepared by
a loom fixer and a weaver. It was the intention of the firm to have
the loom fixer run it. He became ill, however, and meanwhile
the weaver operated the loom. When the loom fixer returned the
firm put him on the job. The union contended that under the
agreement the weaver should have had it. The chairman ruled that
under the terms of the agreement one of the regular weavers then
unemployed should be given the job, but did not specify the particular
weaver whom the union felt should have it. “ It is the intention of
this decision not to restrain the firm in any manner regarding the
weaver placed on this loom, except that he must be a weaver or
weaver apprentice coming under the agreement and in other respects
entitled to the job.”

The contract further allowed the impartial chairman to discipline
the employer who distributed work during slack periods with the
intention of discriminating against union weavers, but did not specify
what constituted intentional discrimination.
It was the custom in the mills to take back in the proper rotation
weavers who had been laid off, subject, however, to the judgment of
the management as to whether or not the weaver whose name
appeared next in the list was capable of handling the job which was
ready. This practice, the union contended, gave opportunity for
•See case No. 8 , p. 8 .
7
8




40

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

discrimination against competent weavers who were members of the
union. In the absence of a definite agreement by the trade council
as to rotation, the chairman suggested that individual cases of
alleged discrimination should be brought before him, in such cases
the chairman to consider that the basic rule of taking back weavers
in the order in which they were laid off should prevail, variations
from the rule being ordered upon the facts in the particular case. A
case of this sort arose in October, 1920,30when a second-class weaver
who had been laid off complained that others had been taken back out
of their turn and in preference to him. Examination of the production
record of this weaver showed him to be a slow worker. The foreman
alleged that in taking on weavers for new jobs he had taken from
the list in his proper rotation the next weaver who in his judgment
was best fitted for doing the job. Evidence showed that after the
complaining weaver’s name had been reached seven weavers whose
names appeared later on the list had been given jobs. Of the seven
all save one were either first-class weavers or hat-band weavers, and
in the case of the one exception, investigation showed that this
third-class weaver was better ntted for the job than the complainant.
“ It is therefore decided that up to this date no discrimination
against [the weaver] had been shown. It was disclosed, however,
by [the firm’s] records, that they are about to start a loom for which
it is possible that [this weaver] is fitted. It is therefore ordered that
[he] be given notice to return to work.”

Definite plans for the distribution of work during slack periods
which would obviate difficulties of this sort were discussed by the
trade council. A promising scheme was being tried out at the time
in one of the mills working under the agreement. This plan provided
for the replacement, wherever possible, of weavers who had been
working for four consecutive weeks by those who had been laid off
two weeks or more, and for consultation with the weavers concerning
such replacements.

Weavers who have not yet been laid off and who are on looms which have more
than four weeks to run are to be replaced for a period of two weeks by weavers who
have already had a lay off of as much as two weeks or more. The selection of weavers
to be laid off will begin with loom No. 1, omitting looms which have only a short
period to run and also passing over looms which are run by weavers who have already
had a lay off of two weeks or longer. In every case a weaver must be substituted
who is fully capable of running the loom. It is the intention of the management to
discuss the details of all replacements with a committee from the weavers.
An official of the firm in which this plan was being tried out stated
that while it might mean considerable inconvenience and some loss
of production he felt that a more equitable distribution of the work
would lead to a better feeling among the workers. In selecting the
weavers for replacement, the management found that a committee
from the weavers was more careful in selecting men for the operation
of certain looms than the management would have been. Some time
later this same official stated that instead of production falling off
during this experiment, as had been expected, there was a slight gain.
Discussion among the employers showed a variance of opinion as to
the practicability oi this scheme. It was decided, however, that with
some modification the plan could be worked out in the other shops.
The chairman suggested that any arbitrary waiting list might have
“ See case No. 26, p. 78.




OPERATION OF THE IMPARTIAL MACHINERY.

41

to yield to such exigencies as length of service, adaptability to the
particular job, proximity of the worker to the mill, number of
dependents, etc.
The plan was considered from the point of view not only of justice
to the workers but also of advantage to the employer as a method of
keeping his work force intact, as one of the serious effects of an
industrial depression is the difficulty in reassembling, in an active
labor market, an adequate labor force, especially for work which
requires skill.
The plan for division of work during slack periods was not in
operation long enough to determine its effect upon the stability of
the labor force, but one employer expressed the opinion that he did
not anticipate that the difficulty of reassembling the work force in
the weaving department, where division of work had helped to keep
the force pretty well together, would be as great as in other depart­
ments where no such plan had operated.
DISCRIMINATION.

Discrimination against any individual or party affected by this
agreement was prohibited and discipline of the offending party pro­
vided for. Employers were prohibited from discrimination against
union members in hiring, firing, division of work, and provision made
for appeal from their decisions. The union was forbidden to show
favoritism in furnishing weavers or to restrict the available supply
of workers, and was made responsible for the kind of workmen pro­
vided. Unfair dealing between union and nonunion workers was pro­
hibited by the disciplinary power granted the impartial chairman to
discharge an employee not a member of the union who endeavored to
undermine the employment of a union member and to discipline a
member of the* union who endeavored to undermine the employment
of a nonunion employee.
THE PLURAL-LOOM SYSTEM.

One of the most critical problems which arose under the agreement
was the controversy over the simultaneous operation of two looms
by one weaver. The weavers had fought against the plural-loom
system for years and had succeeded in eliminating it in union shops,
except on very narrow widths. The maximum ligneage made on two
looms when the agreement was signed was 1,212 lignes and the
ribbons made on these looms were less than 1 inch wide (usually
combinations of 7 lignes and 10 lignes). The weavers based their
objections to the system largely on the excessive physical exertion
demanded, and the attendant nervous strain on the weaver who
must watch two looms at the same time.
Soon after the agreement was signed one of the firms requested
that one weaver be allowed to work two looms on a certain quality
of lightweight raw silk ribbon, the total ligneage or width of the rib­
bon on the two looms not to exceed 1,600 lignes.31
The employer argued that he was unable to compete with other
firms making the same quality of ribbon and working under the pluralloom system, and unless a greater ligneage could be allowed, he would
“ See case No 21, p 72




42

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

have to discontinue making this kind of ribbon in the union district.
Since the ribbon was to be made from hard or raw silk, which is
much easier to weave, the employer felt that 1,600 lignes was not
excessive.
The union stated its objection to the plural-loom system on prin­
ciple, and while it admitted that a total ligneage of a little less than
1,300 was at that time being run on two looms without objection, it
objected to a greater ligneage on the ground of injury to the health of
the worker. While the ribbon in question was easy to weave, the
union felt that there would be a tendency to put a heavier load on a
weaver working on two looms and therefore it was necessary to limit
the amount.
This question was submitted to the trade council, which passed a
resolution authorizing the impartial chairman to appoint a committee
of five, two from each side and a consulting member from outside, to
investigate and collect data on plural-loom practice in other markets
and on the wages paid for such work. Four centers were investigated,
New York, Allentown, Stroudsburg, and Paterson. Subcommittees
were sent to various shops in these markets, the employer members
interviewing employers and the employee members of the committee
the employees. It was found that the mills visited in New York and
Allentown were not producing on two looms ribbons of the quality
under dispute, but that in Allentown ribbons heavier than that in
question were being made up to about 2,000 lignes. Ligneage in the
New York district on the heavier ribbons ranged from 1,000 to 1,450
lignes. In Stroudsburg ribbons similar to those under discussion
were being made on two looms and the ligneage ranged from 1,000 to
1,738. Nonunion conditions prevailed here, however, the weavers
working 50 hours a week on piecework. In Paterson, mills making
the same quality of ribbons were not running two looms on this
work; on the single looms, however (double deckers with three har­
nesses), the ligneage ranged from 1,440 to 2,200. Weavers in this
city were working 44 hours at 90 cents per hour during the day
shift and 95 cents per hour on the night shift.
In January, 1920, prior to the signing of the agreement, the union
had passed a resolution to the effect that no member of the organi­
zation would work on “ two No. 5's or over,” the purpose of the
resolution being to restrict the amount of work done on two looms
to that which was being done on a No. 3 (7 lignes) and a No. 5 (10
lignes). When it was passed the union had had under consideration
a higher grade of ribbon. The resolution did not take cognizance of
the fact that a much heavier ligneage could be worked on a No. 3
and a No. 5 loom than was being worked at that time, nor did it
specify any particular quality of ribbon. The union members of the
trade council felt bound by this rather vague resolution.
Discussion in the trade council meetings of the report of the inves­
tigating committee brought out the lack of definiteness of the union
position and led to the passage of a resolution to refer back to the
union the request of the employer that one weaver be allowed to
work on two looms, with a ligneage not exceeding 1,600, on the ground
that the original resolution took into consideration a higher grade of
ribbon and not the quality of ribbon as to which the eniployer’s
request was made. This was done with the hope that there might
be a compromise between the prevailing practice of 1,212 lignes and



OPERATION OF THE IMPARTIAL MACHINERY.

43

the request of the employer for 1,600 lignes. As a matter of fact,
however, it complicated the matter still Further.
The union vote on this question showed quite clearly the position
of the weavers on the plural-loom question. A resolution was passed
fixing the ligneage on the quality of ribbon named by the employer
at 1,184 lignes, to be made on looms not larger than a No. 3 and a
No. 5, the No. 3 loom to contain not more than 72 spaces and the
No. 5 loom not more than 68 spaces. In both cases no higher than
a 4-thread silk filling could be used. One hundred and sixty-two
members of the union voted for this resolution, while 85 weavers
opposed the working of two looms by one weaver under any circum­
stances. Employers and weavers were thus farther than ever from
a settlement and the question was referred back to the impartial
chairman.
The agreement provided that the impartial chairman must give
due consideration to all of the conditions of employment existing in
the industry at the time of the execution of the agreement, but that
no practice or custom was to be binding on him.
In his decision the chairman preserved the status quo in so far as
the maximum ligneage was concerned, retaining the 1,212 lignes
maximum but permitting combinations of looms other than the No.
3 and No. 5 to be worked by one weaver. The actual amount of
work possible on such combinations was restricted, however, to what
could be done on a No. 3 and a No. 5. The new combination of
looms permitted the weaving by one weaver of ribbons of a certain
quality up to a width of 25 lignes, providing no two exceeded the
maximum of 1,212 lignes.
The decision gave a number of combinations, running from as
low as a 2-ligne ribbon up to a 25-ligne ribbon but always keeping
within the total maximum of lignes. The quality of the ribbon was
defined as 56 reed, 4 single in a dent, coarse size raw silk, not below
double extra B grade; silk filling to be 76 picks per inch but not
heavier than 4-thread tram.
The decision was limited to the particular mill and to the particu­
lar kinds of ribbon specified. “Any variations from any one of the
points mentioned covering the quality and kind of ribbon will inval­
idate that part of the decision enumerating combinations of spaces
and lignes.”
This decision did not affect wages. It was ordered, however, that
the rate to be set on ribbon to be made under this ruling must be
announced to the weaver before he went on the job.

The plan announced .by this decision, was evidently considered by
the chairman to be somewhat in the nature of an experiment. He
says: “ Under the agreement the weavers do not have to submit to
any unreasonable demands, and where reasonable doubt arises they
can have the matter adjusted through the impartial machinery. For
this reason it is possible to try an experiment which would not be
possible under* ordinary conditions. And so if at any time it can be
shown to the chairman that any of these jobs is too heavy or covers
more actual work than should be done by one man, then this deci­
sion will be opened for change.”
This decision was rendered on August 28. On September 15 a
rehearing was requested by the union32 on the ground that not
»See case No. 21a, p. 75.




44

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

enough consideration had been given the existing shop practice.
The union emphasized again the seriousness of the effect upon it of
any lowering of standards gained through years of organized effort
since that meant retrogression for the union.
The fundamental element in the situation from the union point of
view “ is the struggle in which organized labor in the textile industry
has long been engaged, looking toward the complete elimination of
the plural-loom system in ribbons. The process by which this goal has
been approached, has been that of the elimination, one after another,
of the various combinations of looms. Of course, the underlying
reason for this whole attempt on the part of the unions has been to
prevent too much work being done by the weaver or, in other words,
to establish a standard of a fair day’s work. Now, it is true that in
certain instances the work on certain combinations permitted may
have been almost, if not quite, as hard as on certain combinations of
looms not permitted. Such cases are, of course, bound to happen
wherever a gradual transition takes place instead of a violent and
radical change. In view of all this, when any new combination
of looms is ruled out, this means progress for the union, although in
any specific instance the amount of work done by a weaver may be
diminished only by very little. Contrariwise, whenever a combina­
tion of looms that has been eliminated is reintroduced, this means
retrogression for the union, even though, again, in any specific
instance, the amount of work done by a weaver may be increased by
very little if at all.”

In answer to this argument the employers contended that the solu­
tion of the whole problem had not been approached from the right
angle, “ for it will be admitted that a weaver may work too hard on
a single loom when, for instance, the ligneage reaches about 2,000
on certain classes of goods, while he may have a comparatively easy
job on two looms, when, for instance, he works on two looms (e. g.,
a No. 5 and a No. 3) with a total ligneage of 1,212, this fact being
admitted even by the union. The measure of work does, therefore,
not lie in the number of looms he runs, but in the number of lignes
in his job. We therefore maintain that if the object of the union is
the standardization of work it will accomplish its aim by determining
the maximum number of lignes a weaver can weave on a given quality
of goods and not by prescribing that he must work on one loom only
ana# not on two looms. If it is claimed that a greater effort is re­
quired to weave the same number of lignes on two looms than on one
loom, then a certain allowance may be made for that by a proper
reduction of the number of lignes.”

Certain of the combinations of looms permitted by the decision
necessitated the cutting out of a number of spaces on each loom for
the purpose of making the ligneage come within a certain total figure.
This the union maintained would reduce the productive capacity of
the mill, to which the employer replied that the decrease in produc­
tion from this cause would be but slight in comparison with the
decrease which would result from a weaver running a single loom
instead of two looms.
The employers showed from production figures that no weaver
could earn his minimum guaranty on the quality of ribbon under
discussion if made on a single loom, and argued that to pay a piece
rate on a single loom which would enable him to earn his minimum




OPERATION OF THE IMPARTIAL MACHINERY.

45

would make the cost of this ribbon so high that the firm could not
afford to handle it.
The decision in question, the union said, if finally accepted, would
place the Amalgamated Textile Workers in an absolutely impossible
position with regard to other unions, a number of which exist in the
textile industry. “ We could not defend the action of such a decision
in the New York silk-ribbon market and still maintain our position
as a labor organization. * * * In this connection, it is to be
carefully noted that in the whole course of the discussion in this
matter no single bit of evidence was introduced to show that such
combinations as are permitted in this decision on two looms are
being operated in ribbon shops anywhere, the workers of which are
controlled by any reputable labor organization.”
Furthermore it “ compels members of the union in the agreement
shops to work on combinations of looms which they are not permitted
to work on in other shops in this market, which are organized in the
same union. It is not necessary to argue at length the serious diffi­
culty which this condition imposes upon the union. The fact that
there may be no other union snop in the market at the present time
working exactly the same quality of ribbon does not after the case,
since the prohibition against certain combinations of looms in other
organized shops would still hold if exactly the same quality of ribbon
were to be introduced in them.”
The firm contended that to hold to the shop practice prevailing at
the time of the agreement would mean stagnation; that prevailing
conditions of the market called for a change in a practice which ob­
tained under conditions materially different from those then existing.
The union argued that it had not been demonstrated that this
particular quality of ribbon could not be manufactured at a profit
without the combinations of looms permitted by the former decision
in the case, but even if it were, it would be, to say the least, a
doubtful and dangerous procedure to undermine the standards of
unionism and the union itself for the sake of permitting the manu­
facture of a comparatively few yards of a single quality of ribbon.
The firm, on the other hand, asserted that the collective bargaining
agreement and the growth of the employers7 association would re­
ceive a serious setback if the decision should be repealed.
The chairman was confronted therefore with a veiled threat on the
part of the union to strike and an equally obvious intention of the
employer either to withdraw from the agreement entirely or to re­
move a part, if not all, of the work of his shop from the New York
market. Obviously, for the permanent success of the experiment the
lesser of the two evils was that which would have the least vital
effect upon the collective bargaining agreement.
A rehearing was granted on a point of error in the previous decision
and the decision modified, on the ground that at the first hearing not
enough weight had been given to the existing shop practice or to the
vital effect which a change in such shop practice would have on the
industry and on the collective bargaining agreement.
It was brought out at these hearings that for over a year the only
combination of looms worked in the factory of the firm involved in
this dispute was that of a No. 3 and a No. 5, although it was shown
that when the agreement was signed the firm contemplated the

44122°—23—Bull. 341-----4




46

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

working of two looms on wider widths; also that no other firm under
the agreement was working two looms on any widths when the agree­
ment was concluded, although other mills in New York dealing with
the union were making a heavier ribbon on this combination of
looms.
On October 20,1920, the chairman rendered asupplementai decision.
This ruling did not abolish the plural-loom system nor did it grant
the ligneage requested by the employers; instead, it reestablished
the combination of looms which the firm was operating when the
agreement went into effect (i. e., a No. 3 and a No. 5), but permitted
the firm to make on this combination other grades of ribbon than
the lightweight quality first requested.
The chairman was criticized for modifying his original decision
in this matter, but it is quite probable that this action of the
chairman saved for the time being the collective bargaining agree­
ment. Discussion again and again of this subject in trade council
meetings accustomed each side to the point of view of the other, and
although each side felt as strongly as ever the justice of its point of
view it was a little more willing to admit that there might be another
side to the question. The fact that in emergencies this decision was
modified to a considerable degree without apparent discord would
indicate that the union was willing to compromise on this question
until it could be definitely determined by scientific investigation
what limit should be set to safeguard the worker. This decision, as
modified, undoubtedly worked hardship to the firm involved and
resulted in the transfer of the grade of work in question from the
New York union mill of the firm to the Pennsylvania nonunion
district. The firm later withdrew from the association and from
the agreement.
This decision of the chairman was modified both as to the total
ligneage and as to combination of looms by six later rulings (cases
Nos. 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, and 36) .3
3
The decision in case No. 29 permitted a total of 1,178 lignes on
two looms other than a No. 3 and a No. 5, the one accommodating
58 spaces and the other 66 spaces of 9J lignes each. This was limited
to 48 picks and the price per cut was specified. This decision was
granted purely as an emergency measure, in view of the demand for
this kind of ribbon in an otherwise generally depressed market. It
was understood that when these warps ran down they should not
be remounted.
In the decision in case No. 30 the chairman permitted a total
ligneage of 1,292 on a combination of a No. 1 and a No. 2. This
also was understood to be an emergency decision. While there was no
restriction on the length of the warps, the chairman reserved the
right to reopen this case at any time for further consideration.
When the question of wage adjustment came up in May, 1921,
instead of reducing wages the chairman allowed the manufacturers
somewhat more leeway in manufacture on two looms during the
emergency of a depressed market and the close competition on certain
raw silk ribbons, which the employers showed could not be manufac­
tured under the conditions then obtaining under the agreement in
competition with firms outside. Under this decision (case No. 34)*

*sSeepp.80to87.




OPERATION OF THE IMPARTIAL MACHINERY.

47

a total ligneage of 1,354 lignes was allowed. The ribbons were
restricted to 21 lignes and the filling to raw silk. The rate per hour
on two looms was fixed so that no weaver, regardless of his class,
could be paid less than 87^ cents an hour.
In the wage adjustment for the fall season of 1921 the employers
again requested a maximum ligneage of 1,600 on two looms. The
union called attention to its previous statements on this subject and
to the fact that decisions of the impartial chairman lowering the
standard prevailing when the agreement was concluded were stated
to be emergency measures. The chairman again refused the request
for a maximum of 1,600 lignes but increased the maximum fixed by
his previous decision to 1,440 lignes and removed the restrictions as
to combinations of widths. This number of lignes was allowed, how­
ever, only on a ribbon of raw silk warp 20/22 denier, filling 3-thread
tram, reed 56/4/1, picks 76.
It is obvious that the question of the plural-loom system was
an unusually perplexing one. Under the agreement the impartial
chairman must give consideration to all of the conditions of employ­
ment existing in the industry at the time of the agreement, although
he was not bound by such practice or custom. Throughout it was
his position that standards reached by agreement should not be
lowered, and any lowering of the standards so set was specifically
stated to be temporary and made necessary by the exigencies of the
situation.
The chairman recognized that it was one of the principles of the
union to restrict work on two looms and stated it to be his belief
that there should be such restriction, but just where the line should
be drawn was a difficult matter to determine. The union's claim
that the plural-loom system is detrimental to the health of the
workers undoubtedly is not without foundation, but whether the
nervous strain involved in weaving a ligneage of 1,200 on two looms
is more detrimental to the health of the workers than a ligneage of
2,000 on a single loom is still a matter for conjecture. There have
been no experiments to determine the effect on the health of the
weaver of the plural-loom system, and medical opinions on the subject
obtained by the impartial chairman differ. There is a wide variance
of opinion even among weavers who have had actual experience
with two looms.
If the entire ribbon industry had been under the jurisdiction of the
impartial chairman, it would have been an easy matter to put all
shops on an equal competitive .basis, but only a few shops were work­
ing under the agreement and these shops had to compete with those
employing unorganized workers and having no agreed-upon stand­
ards of work.
The employer was undoubtedly convinced that the union was
arbitrary in stressing the question of the plural-loom system as a system
rather than considering the actual work demanded of the weaver.
The union was convinced that the employer was trying to take
advantage of the collective bargaining agreement to lower standards,
and it must be remembered many of the silk workers had yet to be
educated as to the benefits of collective bargaining.
The employer saw the problem from the point of view of the
necessity of meeting the competition, in a depressed market, of
employers not bound by the restrictions of the collective bargaining



48

TRADE AGREEMENT IN TH E SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

agreement. The weavers had fought for years to eliminate the pluralloom system, and these years of struggle had inured the organization
to the idea of the viciousness of the system as a system.

APPRENTICESHIP.
One of the most worth while accomplishments of this experiment
in industrial relations in the silk-ribbon industry was the joint
working out of the apprenticeship plan. Prior to the outbreak of
the European War, the industry had depended largely upon Europe
for its supply of skilled weavers. For some time, however, the
supply had been gradually diminishing and the war practically cut
it on. The question of apprenticeship was not a pressing one so far
as immediate harmony o f industrial relations was concerned— it was
a problem which involved the future of the industry. It is not a
usual thing for employers and workmen to work out together
problems which affect the future of an industry, but this group of
manufacturers and weavers in New York City proved that such coop­
eration is entirely practicable. They realized that the responsibility
for training of new workers in the weaving trade “ lies equally with
employers and employees.”
The conclusion of this plan illustrates the useful purposes to which
the legislative function of the trade council can be put. The plan
was worked out step by step in the meetings of the trade council. Each
controversial point was thoroughly discussed from the trade and the
union angles and a compromise agreement concluded embodying
details of a plan whereby the industry could depend upon a supply of
home-trained weavers.
The administration of the apprenticeship plan was placed in the
hands of a joint committee, consisting of two representatives of the
management and two of the weavers in each shop.
Under the plan one apprentice could be employed for every ten
weavers or major fraction thereof, this number to be based on the
average number of weavers employed in the particular shop during
the previous six months’ manufacturing period. This proportion was
to hold good for two years unless an emergency arose which in the
opinion of the impartial chairman justified a reconsideration of the
matter. At the end of the two years either party might bring the
matter up for discussion in the trade council.
During periods of slack work in which weavers were being laid off
no apprentice could be taken on.
To become a weaving apprentice, a. person must have had at least
six months’ experience in the preparatory or weaving departments,
for which time he might receive some credit on his apprenticeship
period if the joint board so decided. The period of training was three
years, with a probationary period of from three to six months, during
which time the management determined the fitness of the apprentice
for the trade. Such apprentices did not become members of the
union until the end of the probationary period, at which time they
might or might not become apprentice weaver members of the union.
The apprentices were given an opportunity to work on different
looms ana on different patterns and were afforded an opportunity to
get as wide an experience as the mill afforded. Records of the work
of each apprentice were kept by the management. These records
showed the progress of the apprentice, interest displayed, punctuality,




49

TWISTERS 9 SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT.

quality of the work, speed, etc. The apprentice was to be shown his
production records at frequent intervals so as to acquaint him with
his progress.
At the completion of his period of apprenticeship the apprentice was
to be given an examination by the joint committee, for entrance into
the third class of weavers. The elements entering into this exami­
nation and the weight given each, together with the percentage
necessary to reach the passing mark, were provided for in the plan
agreed upon as follows:
Total credit, Passing mark,
Starting up loom.......................................................
Twisting.......................................................................
Skill............................................................................
Quality of goods turned out....................................
Speed..........................................................................

per cent.

10
10
40
25
15
100

per cent.

5
5
30
20
10
70

If an apprentice failed to pass such an examination the joint board
had authority to extend the apprenticeship for a period not exceeding
six months. The apprentice who successfully passed the examination
was given a certificate to that effect, signed by the members of the
joint committee.
The wage of apprentices was fixed at 40 per cent of the minimum
paid the third-class weavers. Every six months the wage was
automatically increased 10 per cent, on the basis of the third-class
weaver's wages, unless, because of poor production, irregular
attendance, etc., it was not considered justified. In case the apprentice
failed to receive such increase, he had the right to appeal to the joint
committee and to the impartial chairman.
After the adoption of the plan a difference of opinion arose over
the method of paying apprentices. Some of the manufacturers
interpreted the plan to mean that the 10 per cent increases should
be based on the actual amount of the wage then paid, and that the
wage of the apprentice should therefore be increased each six months
by 10 per cent of his actual wage rather than by 10 per cent of the
wage paid the third-class weaver. The chairman's interpretation of
the agreement in this case34 was that the 10 per cent should be based
on the wage paid third-class weavers. In actual practice this
would mean paying at the successive six months' periods 40 per cent,
50 per cent, 60 per cent, and so on, until at the end of the three
years' apprenticeship the apprentice would be receiving the third-class
weaver's wage.
TWISTERS’ SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT.
In October, 1922, the management of the three mills then operating
under the agreement and the workers affected voted to extend the
provisions of the agreement to include the twisters. The work of the
twisters is closely allied to that of the weavers and they were
members of the same local unions. There were about 20 twisters
employed in the three shops. The twister's job, a highly skilled one,
consists in joining the ends of the new warp to the warp ends which
have been threaded into the harness and the reed, or to the ends
of the old warp if that has not been woven off and consists of the*
* See case No. 39, p. 89.
*




50

TRADE AGREEMENT IN TH E SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

same number of threads. The operation of twisting consists in join­
ing the warp threads together by deftly rolling them between the
finger tips.

The supplementary agreement signed in February, 1923, applied
the weavers’ contract in to to to the twisters, with only such changes
and additions as were necessary specifically to cover this class of
workers. It called for study and report by the impartial chairman
on the compensation of twisters, ana for an investigation and report
on the matter of twister apprentices, to include period of training,
examination, wages, and number of learners to be employed. It
permitted the employer to use, under certain circumstances, twisters
on weaver’s work, and vice versa. The terms of this supplementary
agreement appear on pages 66 and 67.
The first twister’s case decided by the impartial chairman on
February 23, 1923, is indicative of the close relationship between
the two jobs, and the desirability of joint operation under the agree­
ment. The text of the decision of the impartial chairman (case
No. 41) appears on pages 90 and 91.
ABROGATION OF THE AGREEMENT.
The agreement was abrogated by the union. The contract pro­
vided in detail for its ratification by a two-thirds majority vote, by
secret ballot, of each of the three locals, and by similar vote of each
of the three shops subscribing to it. When it was concluded, the
agreement was viewed as a constitution for future conduct of the
industry, and like a political constitution it contained no limit as to
duration and no provision for its dissolution. The question of the
continuation of the system of collective bargaining was considered
only indirectly each year when the problem of financing the plan
came up. For three years the per capita tax to support the machinery
was voted, although not without some objection, particularly from
members of the organization not working in the shops under the
agreement. Agitation for a direct vote on the continuation of the
plan resulted in the calling of a general membership meeting for
June 14, 1923, to discuss the continuation of the collective bargain­
ing system. Notice of the meeting was sent to each member of the
three locals. In spite of the urgent notice stating the purpose of the
meeting,35 only 156 of the approximately 400 members attended the
meeting and voted, abrogating the agreement by a vote of 60 for and
96 against its continuation (27 weavers had voted against the rati­
fication of the agreement three years before, while 292 voted for it).
Of the 156 voting when the agreement was abrogated, only 80 out of
36Following is a copy of the notice sent to each of the members of the three locals:

N ew Y ork , June 7 , 192S.
D ear Comrade : There will be a special general membership meeting of all branches of the Greater

New York Silk Workers on Thursday, June 14, 8 p.m., at Peper’s Hall, 201 East sixty-seventh Street,
corner Third Avenue, third floor.
The sole order of business at this meeting will be to discuss whether the present system of collective
bargaining, with the trade council and the impartial chairman, shall be continued.
The vote will bo taken by ballot.
This is a very important question, and every member should be present, those who wish to continue
the present system and those who are opposed to it. All should come, so that the decision may be truly
representative of the desire of the membership. Those who do not attend must be content to abide by
the outcome of the meeting, without complaint.
The settling of this question will give us the internal unity and strength necessary in any labor or­
ganization before progress can be made.
The meeting will start promptly at 8 o’clock.
Fraternally yours,




The E xecutive B oard.

ABROGATION OF THE AGREEMENT.

51

a possible 210 weavers working in the shops under the agreement
voted. Obviously the vote was not conclusive evidence of the major­
ity opinion. Failure to attend the meeting at which the vote was
taken was attributed, in part at least, to apathy on the part of the
more conservative weavers, who felt either too sure that the result
would be favorable to the collective bargaining plan or who were
indifferent as to the outcome. There was obvious surprise on the
part of some of them, and it was charged that a militant minority
opposed to collective bargaining railroaded the vote through. An
attempt in one of the shops to revive the issue was unsuccessful,
however, apparently because of lack of interest or lack of leadership.
In this instance it was unfortunate that the agreement did not
make as specific arrangements with reference to its possible abroga­
tion as were provided for its ratification. It seems quite probable
that had the agreement required a'two-thirds majority vote to effect
its nullification, it would not have been abrogated at this time. There
would seem to be no reason why it could not have been made of the
“ continuing ” type, but with such an added provision.
CAUSES OF THE ABROGATION OF THE AGREEMENT.

Two fundamental causes of the active opposition and the lack of
interest which resulted in the abrogation of the agreement lay in
circumstances beyond the control oi the parties to the agreement,
namely, that the group covered was such a small one, and that the
operated was one of serious
treater part of the period during which it one-half of the silk-ribbon
usiness depression. Only a little over
weavers employed in the New York market were working under the
terms of the agreement, a fact which handicapped its operation in a
number of ways. Weavers not working in the agreement shops,
some of whom were opposed to the collective bargaining plan for
other reasons, objected to paying the per capita tax ($7 to $8 per
3^ear) for a system in which they had no part and from which they
received no practical benefit. This fact was of vital import to the
union in that it lost the organization members. Had the expense
been borne alone by those working under the agreement, the per
capita tax of probably $14 per year or more would undoubtedly have
seemed too burdensome, particularly to those among the weavers
who were not wholly convinced of the advantages of the plan.
Another way in which the size of the group handicapped the
effective working of the agreement lay in the fact that the chairman's
decisions had to be based largely on market conditions. Employers
in the group working under the agreement had to compete with
outside employers not bound by agreements, many of whose shops
were on piecework, where wages were fixed by the employer alone
and changed when it was deemed desirable. This situation compli­
cated the consideration by the impartial chairman of such questions
as week-work and wage increases for that part of the market under
the agreement. The severe business depression made competition
the more keen. As a result there was sometimes dissatisfaction with
decisions upon demands which the chairman felt to be just but
which he could not grant because of the exigencies of the situation.
This position of the chairman the workers very naturally did not
always appreciate.




52

TRADE AGREEMENT IN TH E SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

Employers were criticized for not enlarging the group working
under the agreement by persuading other manufacturers to join.
The business depression operated to prevent such action, however.
The depression struck the industry the year following the conclusion
of the agreement and it was not until the spring of 1923 that
business in this industry improved appreciably. Obviously, em­
ployers who were opposed to the plan would be hard to persuade of
its advantages at a time when labor was plentiful and there was
nothing to gain. Because of the depression also it was an in­
opportune time for the union to call strikes in the shops outside the
agreement to force the manufacturers to come in.
As a result of the business depression also the machinery of the
agreement was utilized less than it would have been in a period of
active business. As a result of lack of use the need of the machinery,
which might have been compelling during an active period, was not
realized. The apprenticeship plan—one of the most constructive
accomplishments of the trade council—was not appreciated because
it was little utilized during the period of depression when there was
so little demand for apprentices.
Active opposition to the agreement came from a small militant
group in the union whose economic philosophy was opposed to all
compromises with employers, who objected to being bound by the
agreement, and who wished to be free to act when the time was
propitious. Some of this group were working under the agreement.
This group objected to the arrangement for semiyearly wage read­
justments on the ground that this arrangement often limited their
freedom to bargain at the most opportune time. Members of this
group outside the agreement held that the agreement itself hampered
joint action in the market. To this group the fact that some of the
employers in the agreement were apparently satisfied with its
operation was added cause for suspicion of it. To them, as well as
to the type of employer accustomed to make his own decisions and
to “ run his business himself/' the fact that final decisions in all
disputes were made by an outside authority, a “ czar" whose decision
was final, was objectionable. Some of the weavers objected to the
“ no strike" clause in the agreement, and argued that friction which
continually arose in one shop, due to the antagonism of a part of
the management to the agreement, could have been obviated quickly
and effectively if the workers in this shop had not been bound by
this clause. To the argument that the difficulty might have been
brought before the impartial chairman, it was stated that the friction
was of the indefinite, aggravating sort and none of the workers were
willing to present a case.
*
To this group, any shortcomings of the agreement were of course
accentuated by their antagonism to it. In spite of their antipathy,
however, they faithfully carried out the terms of the agreement
while they urged its abrogation.
Indifference to the continuation of the agreement was due in part
to the lack of contact of the majority of the workers with the
machinery and the resultant lack of understanding of its operation.
For the greater part of its history there were only three worker
members on the trade council. These representatives were changed
once each year. In the case of one shop, however, the same
representative acted throughout the three years. Although the



53

ABROGATION OF TH E AGREEMENT.

meetings of the council were open to others, they seldom came.
Sporadic attempts were made to encourage their coming, but no
consistent effort to this end was made bv employers or by the trade
council. This was partly due to the fact that the meeting place of
the trade council was in such small quarters that a large number
could not be accommodated. It might have been worth while, how­
ever, if, as one employer suggested, open meetings had been held
from time to time in larger quarters provided for the purpose.
The lack of contact due to the business depression is noted above.
There were, particularly during the last two years of operation
of the agreement, scarcely enough cases to keep the workers in touch
with the machinery. There were in the 3 years, 47 cases brought
before the impartial chairman, 34 of which were brought in the 4 shops
during the first year of operation of the machinery. Thirteen of the
34 were from the shop which dropped out of the agreement.®
In one shop there were no cases brought before the chairman
during the last two years, except for the general cases affecting all
the shops; in another there were two cases, or an average of one a
year affecting the individual shop; in the third there were six cases
in the two-year period. Following is the distribution of the cases:
FORMAL CASES IN EACH SHOP BROUGHT BEFORE THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN, BY
YEARS.
Number of cases.
Year.
First vear;..........................................................
Seenrxi year
. _ ..
.....................
Third year..........................................................
Total, three years..................................

Shop A. Shop B. Shop C. Shop D. General
cases.
13
13 i1

13
13

5
2
7

1
1

5

7

2
3
2
7

Total.
34
4
9
47

It is, of course, impossible to attribute the lack of use of the
machinery to any one cause; there were a number of causes, other
than the business depression. A number of disputes were settled
within the individual shops. The creation of shop machinery and
the insistence of the impartial chairman upon local settlement when­
ever possible, together with the fact that the use of the machinery
taught employers and workers how to settle their disputes, made the
need of the impartial machinery seem less obvious—and so the
fact that the plan worked so well operated to its ultimate disad­
vantage.
Apathy and suspicion on the part of some of the workers played a
part. Suspicion of the machinery was due in part to the fact that it
was not understood. It was not understood because when it was
utilized the workers who were directly affected did not become
acquainted with the details of its operation. In one shop there were
apparently a number of unsettled disputes which were not carried to
the impartial chairman, not so much because of dissatisfaction with
the machinery as because of dissatisfaction with the spirit in which
decisions were sometimes put into practice in the shop.
The objections to the collective bargaining plan as a system were,
for the most part, the usual objections to plans which provide for the
a There were in addition a number of disputes brought to the chairman and action advised witnout
making formal cases.




54

TRADE AGREEMENT IN TH E SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

reference of disputes to a third and outside party. It was argued
that conditions in the industry could not be justly determined by an
outsider without experience or technical knowledge of the industry
either from the management end or from the workers' point of view,
and a chairman who possessed such knowledge would be the advo­
cate of one side or the other and therefore not impartial.
Dissatisfaction was expressed with some of the decisions of the
chairman, especially on the score of week work. The weavers had
been for years committed to the week-work principle. Week work
obtained in some of the other mills in the market. For the three
years during which the collective bargaining machinery had operated,
the workers had consistently requested week work, usually in prefer­
ence to wage increases. The denial of week work again in the
spring of 1923 and the failure to grant wage increases,36 together with
the fact that it was the workers' belief that higher wages were being
paid in shops outside the agreement, added to the discontent.
Decisions 40 and 40a rendered early in 1923 were perhaps, justly
or unjustly, more productive of dissatisfaction than any others. It
was objected in this case that the chairmans decision was a reflection
on the productive ability of weavers who were considered by other
workers to be among the best. The alleged injustice of this decision
was ascribed to the lack of technical knowledge on the part of the
chairman. Whether or not the decision was unjust, it furnished
excellent material for agitation against the machinery.
The attitude toward the agreement and the experience under its
operation differed interestingly in the four shops. Shop A was vir­
tually out of the agreement about a year after its conclusion. Because
of the grade of goods manufactured, the business depression hit this
shop particularly hard, and production practically ceased. The firm
alleged that it could not compete with employers not bound by the
agreement, and certain grades of work were removed from the New
York shop to the Pennsylvania nonunion district. This move was
probably due in part to dissatisfaction of the firm with the decisions
of the impartial machinery on the plural-loom system. It was stated,
however, that the move out of town was contemplated before the
agreement was signed.
The other three shops remained under the agreement until it was
abrogated. In one of the shops the workers who were present at the
meeting and who voted on the continuation of the agreement voted
about equally for and against the perpetuation of the collective
bargaining plan. Dissatisfaction in this shop apparently was due in
part to the economic attitude of the workers toward employer and
employee relations, and to suspicion aroused by an alleged attitude
of paternalism on the part of the management. It is impossible to
determine what the majority vote of the workers in this shop would
have been had they all voted. It was, of course, workers who were
opposed to the agreement and actively interested in its abrogation
who attended the meeting. The rest were either apathetic or so sure
that the agreement would be continued that they did not trouble to
attend. An attempt to revive the issue and vote again was unsuc­
cessful, however. This was the shop in which there were no cases
36In this case it is probable that increases would have been granted had the workers requested them.
Fearing to prejudice their case they asked only for week work and the chairman was therefore limited to
action on this issue.




SOME RESULTS OF TH E AGREEMENT.

55

brought before the impartial chairman during the last two years of
the operation of the agreement, all of the cases being settled within
the shop. The need for the machinery was therefore not apparent.
In one shop, in which relations when the agreement was signed
were probably more unsatisfactory than in the other shops, and in
which suspicion on the part of both workers and management was
general, the decisions of the impartial chairman were apparently
carried out in spirit as well as in letter, with the result that the
management, in the beginning much opposed to the idea of collec­
tive bargaining, was converted to its benefits, and the workers who
voted, some of whom had been equally opposed to it, voted 100 per
cent for the continuation of the plan.
In the other shop the majority of the workers voting were said
to have voted for the abrogation of the agreement. Because of the
spirit in which it was carried out the agreement apparently operated
to aggravate the situation in this shop. There was active opposition
to the collective bargaining agreement on the part of some of the
management personnel and the decisions were not always carried
out. Price committees, for example, were not always consulted
about the piece rates. There was dissatisfaction on the part of the
management with the minimum guaranty plan, and when the weav­
er’s earnings at the piece rate fell below the minimum guaranty
11 Excess” in red letters was written across his pay envelope. This
the workers resented. Because of the friction in this shop the work­
ers wanted freedom to take matters into their own hands.
SOME RESULTS OF THE AGREEMENT.
Collective bargaining in this industry brought about definite ad­
vantages to both management and weavers. Some of these advan­
tages, such as the prevention of stoppages of work and the resultant
increased production, are, of course, common to collective bargaining
plans.
ELIMINATION OF STRIKES.

The silk industry has been notoriously prolific of interruptions due
to strikes and lockouts. The agreement was the result of a six
weeks’ strike. The New York branch of the industry, because of its
proximity to Paterson, has been affected by the situation there, and
strikes which start in Paterson usually spread to New York. Prior
to the conclusion of the agreement the regular means of settling the
frequent differences of opinion was to fight them out by the strike
and lockout method. The result was armistice with its consequent
suspicion, uncertainty, and unrest.
Obviously an industry operating under these conditions was not
operating efficiently. Production was low, not only because of time
actually lost through strikes, but because of retarded production
before and after strikes and the instability of the labor force.
During the period of its operation, a number of strikes occurred
in shops not working under the agreement. In agreement shops,
however, strikes and lockouts were prohibited, and differences which
could not be threshed out between the weavers and the management
were settled by arbitration. For the period of the agreement the
employer did not suffer losses nor did workers suffer unemployment
due to these causes.



56

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

Prior to the conclusion of the agreement a strike occurred in one
of the shops under the following circumstances: A union official
approached the management with the announcement that part of
the pay of one of the weavers had been unjustly withheld and that
if proper settlement were not forthcoming within five minutes the
whole shop would go out. The management was unable to have the
records looked up in that length of time, and the strike was called.
The workers were out several days in a busy season. As a matter of
fact, there had been an error in the bookkeeping which resulted in
an underpayment of one of the weavers ana the matter was cor­
rected. This instance illustrates the lack of confidence of the workers
in the management and in the method of settling disputes where
there is no collective bargaining agreement.
To the worker the agreement meant freedom from the former strike
periods with their accompanying uncertainty, with the gradual con­
sumption of the funds accumulated during the previous weeks of
saving, and with their privation for his family. To the employer it
meant the elimination of sudden stoppages and consequent financial
losses, and he was able to concentrate his energies on more construc­
tive problems.

INCREASE OF PRODUCTION.

It was impossible to secure conclusive data as to the effect of
the agreement upon production, or to follow the record of a sufficient
number of identical weavers on identical patterns for a period of
sufficient duration to show significant results. An attempt was made
to secure such data for a period of six months both before and after
the agreement was signed, but in one mill, making novelties only, it
was impossible to find identical patterns which could be followed over
a period, and in a second mill records for the preagreement period,
were insufficient. In a third mill it was possible to follow about 35
looms over such periods. In this mill production increased slightly
after the conclusion of the agreement, but there were so many other
changes made, in the matter of supervision, overhauling of equip­
ment, etc., that it was impossible to attribute the increase to any
particular cause. In another mill it was possible to secure data for
a small group of weavers for a few weeks both prior and subsequent
to the agreement. Although the data are too scanty to give con­
clusive proof, it is of interest to note that on the three patterns which
could be followed, production increased in two cases, the average
time cost per yard on one pattern in the period prior to the agree­
ment being 47.4 minutes and in the later period, 42.9 minutes; on
another the time cost decreased 1.4 minutes; and on the third pattern
time costs increased by 2.1 minutes. In the first case the average
output per hour on a satin taffeta ribbon was 1.25 yards in the earlier
period and 1.4 in the period after the agreement was signed; in the
second case production increased from 1.023 yards to 1.043 yards
per hour in the two periods; and in the third case it decreased
from 1.137 to 1.095 yards per hour.
The following table shows the average output per hour, the time
cost per yard, and the weaving cost per yard in tnis mill for Febru­
ary and April, 1920. The tame refers to weaving only.




57

SOME RESULTS OF THE AGREEMENT.

Table 4.—HOURLY OUTPUT, TIME COST, AND WEAVING COST IN MILL A, FEBRUARY
AND APRIL, 1920
Width
(inches).

Kind of weave.

Average out­
put per hour
(yards).

Time cost
per yard
(minutes).

Feb
Satin taffeta.......................................................
Satin...................................................................
Taffeta...............................................................

7
51

Apr.

Feb.

1.25
1.023
1.137

1.4
1.043
1.095

47.4
58.8
52.6

Apr.

Weaving cost
per yard.
Feb.

Apr.

42.9 $0.64 $0,688
57.4 .936 1.008
54.7 .78
.839

In only one mill was dissatisfaction with the agreement on the
score of production expressed. This was in the mill in which the
decision of the impartial chairman limited the ligneage which could
be made on two looms. In the other three satisfaction was expressed
with the production of the weavers. The management in one mill
stated it to be his belief that production had increased 10 per cent
since the agreement went into effect. The following statement from
one of the mills expresses this attitude:

Because of the lack of conclusive data on the subject it is not possible to make a
definite statement as to increase in production which can be attributed to the agree­
ment. The management feels, however, that there is no question at all that the
collective bargaining agreement has produced a much better spirit in the weaving
department and has promoted a spirit of cooperation which must inevitably have
some effect upon production.

Another advantage closely related to that of increased production
was the stabilization of production. Production was more continuous
under the agreement, and manufacturers were assured of their ability
to carry out their contracts and deliver their goods on a specified
time.
GREATER TOLERANCE.

Another important advantage which the agreement in this industry
brought about was the education of some of the parties in the
other’s point of view through frank discussion of the points at issue.
Employers and workers in this industry have been Very far apart.
There has always existed a great deal of distrust, suspicion, and
prejudice. The employers in the textile trade, partly because of the
mistakes of the unions, have been among the most difficult to
convince of the value of collective bargaining and have offered the
strongest resistance to union encroachment. The workers, because of
this attitude on the part of employers and because of the unsatis­
factory conditions under which they were sometimes forced to work,
have been among the more radical.
In the meetings of the trade council and at the hearings before
the impartial chairman employers and workers met; the employer
could not by mandate determine the wage the worker was to receive;
the union could not by threat of strike force the employer to meet its
demands. Each side had to argue its case upon its merits, with the
knowledge that force alone no longer decided the issue and that
reason would guide the impartial chairman in his decision. Each
side heard and weighed the arguments of the other and answered those
arguments with counter arguments, and, although each might be
convinced of the justice of its cause and the preponderance of the
weight of its argument, there came to be a realization that there



58

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBBON INDUSTRY.

was another side, with arguments and reasons quite as important from
another point of view. As each gained confidence in the other, there
was, in many cases, greater frankness on the part of both.
Thus, there was a growing confidence between the parties and less
suspicion of injustice on the part of each. A sense of justice is a
common heritage, and, although two persons may have different
opinions of what justice in a particular case may be, it is still
possible for them to understand each other and for each to believe
that the other wishes to deal fairly. The suspicion of injustice plays
a large part in the psychology of the worker. Men will go to the
furthest extremes to get what they consider a square deal, and they
will forego many things when they believe that there is a desire
on the part of the management to give them a square deal. It is
psychologically impossible for the worker to believe he has had fair
play unless he has had an opportunity to explain his position without
tear of discharge. The trade council furnished this channel for
explanations on the part of both workers and employers. Both the
trade council meetings and the hearings of cases, therefore, acted as a
sort of safety valve where both sides could air their complaints and
relieve their minds. Of course, this does not mean that all suspicion
was removed; on the contrary, there were still many evidences of it.
Its removal was particularly evident in one of the shops; but, it is
perhaps too much to expect that this should have been the effect
upon all of them. The prejudices of years will have to be eliminated
gradually.
Both parties were educated to some degree not only in each other’s
point of view, but also to a certain extent in the merits of law and
order in industry. Collective bargaining implies a questioning of the
absolute authority of the management. The fact that the four leading
manufacturers in this industry in Greater New York, employing 60
per cent of the ribbon weavers, were willing to enter into an agree­
ment recognizing the fact that the workers should have something
to say about the regulations governing the conditions under which
they work, was a significant beginning. The fact that the three
larger ones helcl to that agreement for more than three years during
a severe industrial depression, with its deflation of the labor force
and its surplus labor supply, and which has resulted in the abrogation
of agreements of long standing, would indicate that they were not
entirely dissatisfied with its results. Moreover, the manufacturers
voted to extend the provisions of the agreement to include another
class of workers, the twisters.
STABILIZATION OF WAGES.

An important gain to the employer in the agreement was the fact
that wages were constant for the season. The manufacturer, in cal­
culating his costs, did not have to add a percentage to cover wage
increases that might be demanded of him at the height of the manufac­
turing season.® The workers were assured of a definite wage for the
period, barring unemployment, with the assurance that there would be
no reductions for the six months’ season. Objections to the inability
to change the wage were raised by both employers and workers.
aTo what extent this advantage compensated for the disadvantage cited by the employers, due to the
fact that the minimum guarantee prevented the accurate determination of labor costs, it was impossible,
of course, to determine.




SOME RESULTS OF THE AGREEMENT.

59

Management complained that it was deterred by the agreement from
lowering wages when other employers outside the agreement were
doing so. The weavers complained that wages were kept at the
same level, and that, if business boomed on April 1, they could not
request an increase until October 1, when the occasion might be gone.
Thus the employer’s advantage was the worker’s disadvantage, and
vice versa.
During the recent business depression the workers found the
stabilization of their wages decidedly to their advantage. Several
firms outside the agreement reduced wages by 20 per cent and
more, while in other instances wages were maintained only by
means of costly strikes. The weavers working under the agreement,
on the other hand, were reduced only 7 \ per cent from the peak
wages and were assured of their share of employment when work was
available.
ELIMINATION OF WASTE.

Perhaps the most obvious way the agreement eliminated waste
was through the prevention of stoppages due to strikes and lockouts.
A more subtle but no less important effect of the agreement in this
respect was the fact that production records were more carefully kept.
This was due to the wage system under the agreement. The payment
of a minimum wage whatever the production led to the keeping
of* a record of the causes of low production. If a weaver failed to
make his minimum wage the management ascertained the reason.
Obviously it would be poor economy on the part of the employer to
pay weavers wages they do not earn if he does not have to ; and the
causes of low production were therefore determined and eliminated,
and conditions conducive to maximum production encouraged.
An illustration of the way in which an agreement may operate to
prevent waste was brought out in a decision of the impartial chair­
man on May 24, 1922.37 In this case the price committee failed to
function properly, but the following statement of the chairman illus­
trates the service an active price committee can render not only in
the preventing of disputes but also in securing maximum production:

There is another matter in this case to which the chairman desires to call attention.
It was shown that this loom was started on April 28. Up until May 23, 137£ hours
had been made on the loom and the production at that time was 107 yards. This
gives an average production of 6.2 yards per 8-hour day. A calculation of the full
running time of this loom, without allowing anything for stoppage, would give 12.5
yards per 8-hour day. The present production of 6.2 yards per day is a little less
than 50 per cent of the running time of the loom. Investigation by the chairman
shows that where a weaver is getting less than 65 per cent production out of a loom
there is indication of something wrong. If the percentage runs below this, there is
something the matter with the weaver^ the silk, or the loom. It is suggested in this
case that the price committee inquire mto this matter.

WAGE PAYMENT PLAN.

The system of wage payment operating under this agreement
assured the worker a fixed minimum income, with opportunity and
incentive to earn more. It stimulated management to its responsi­
bility for an even supply of materials and efficient condition of equip­
ment. In this respect the plan was somewhat akin to that which is m
effect in the glass-bottle industry, where day rates replace piece
rates in case the working materials are not in good condition.
wSee case No. 38, p. 88.



60

TRADE AGREEMENT IN THE SILK-RIBB3N INDUSTRY.

The wage payment plan was criticised by both workers and
employers. The employers preferred straight piecework. The work­
ers had consistently demanded week work. The dissatisfaction of
both was due, however, for the most part, not so much to the plan
itself as to its application. One employer did object to the payment
of the minimum wage when it exceeded the piece rate. Dissatisfac­
tion of the others however, seems to have been due to the handicap
under which they felt they were working, because the plan operated
only in the shops under the agreement and not in the shops of other
competitors. The dissatisfaction of the workers with the plan was
due to the fact that they did not know how the piece rates were
arrived at, because of the lack of an adequate basis and because the
decisions of the chairman relative to the collective working out of
the piece rates by price committees were not always complied with.

COOPERATION OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES FOR BETTERMENT
OF INDUSTRY.

A result of the agreement which was far from negligible was that,
through the provision in this agreement for a trade council, employers
and workers were enabled to work together for constructive pur­
poses and by their combined experience to work out plans for the
betterment of the entire industry. An example of this was the appren­
ticeship plan, which provided for an adequate supply of trained
weavers to replace those leaving and to keep pace with the expansion
of the industry. This plan was worked out, not as the result of a
controversy nor under the urge of immediate circumstance, but as
a constructive scheme necessary for the well-being of the industry.
The weavers did not oppose the training of new workers; on the
contrary, they realized the necessity of it if the silk-ribbon indus­
try in this country was to survive. In this country methods of
training have been haphazard and the workers did not compare favor­
ably in skill with those from abroad. The supply from abroad, how­
ever, which has been the main source, has dwindled. The employers
and weaver members of the trade council, without resort to arbi­
tration, worked out, through their combined knowledge of the
industry, a plan which insured a well-trained supply of workers and
at the same time protected the interests of the weavers.
This plan appears in full on pages 67 to 69.
CONCLUSIONS.
This collective bargaining plan provided that employers and work”
men in this industry should deal directly with each other in joint
conference in all matters pertaining to terms and conditions of em­
ployment, without the separation of functional jurisdiction and with
appeal tQ judicial decision distinctly as a matter of last resort. The
impartial chairman, whenever possible, confined his field to the
judicial interpretation of the constitutional law in this industry as
set down in the trade agreement. Every effort w^as made to settle
new problems not covered by the agreement through conference of
the interested parties, either in the shop or in the trade council.
When it became necessary to determine matters not covered by
the contract, the impartial chairman decided not merely upon the
evidence presented by the parties, but made personal investigation,
upon his own initiative, of matters at issue and decided them upon



CONCLUSIONS.

61

the basis of facts thus disclosed as well as upon the arguments pre­
sented. The “ impartiality ” of his decisions was evidenced by the
fact that they usually displeased both parties.
The chairman found it impossible to develop immutable principles
upon which continuously to base his decisions, nor did he establish
precedents upon which future decisions could be based. Undoubt­
edly, the necessity for compromise influenced his decisions to some
extent and the relative bargaining power of the parties tempered prin­
ciples of abstract justice. The decisions on the plural-loom system
furnish the most obvious examples of this necessity. Testimony of
arbitrators seems to indicate that this is the case in all arbitrations,
if collective bargaining relations are to be maintained, when the
bargaining power of the parties is neither stable nor evenly balanced.
This was a step, however, in advance of the old system of absolute
dictatorship of workers during the busy season and of employers
during the dull season.
Although the machinery of the agreement was devised to promote
the handling of labor relations at their source and by the parties of
first interest, and every effort was made by the chairman to keep all
matters of adjustment regarding wages and the like under the juris­
diction of the persons actively interested, with appeal to his decision
only in case of inability to agree, many trivial matters were referred
to the impartial chairman for decision. This fact was due, not only
to the smallness of the group interested and to other conditions
peculiar to this situation, but also to the fact that both parties had
more confidence in the impartial chairman than in each other. The
trade council was an active agent in that it served as a joint conference
committee where the parties, with equal bargaining power, met to
discuss the matters at issue and sometimes effected a partial com­
promise, with the judicial function largely assumed by the impartial
chairman. This condition represented a constructive phase of the
development of industrial relations between employers and workers
and was a positive agency for industrial peace and cooperation.
In general it seems fair to say that both parties lived up to the
provisions of the agreement. In two of the shops the decisions were
carried out in spirit as well as in letter. For three years the collec­
tive bargaining plan operating under the agreement was undoubtedly
a success. It had the essence of permanent success in that the
organized workers had direct contact with the management and not
only opportunity for expression but a real voice in the determination
of conditions under which they worked.
The agreement was abrogated by a vote of less than 25 per cent
of the total membership, because of a constitutional defect in the
agreement, i. e., failure to make rigid and specific arrangements with
reference to its abrogation. The causes of the dissatisfaction which
impelled the 96 to abrogate it were in large part due to circumstances
beyond the control of either party, as well as to the economic
attitude of those workers who were opposed to all collective bar­
gaining plans, and to the lack of adequate leadership.
The application of the plan can be said to have been successful in
two of the four shops. No conclusions can be drawn from its
operation in the shop which withdrew from the agreement because
oi the abnormal conditions under which the plan operated. In the
fourth shop it seemed to be a failure. There, too, the fault was not
with the plan but with the spirit in which it was carried out.
44122°—23—Bull. 341---- 5




APPENDIXES,
APPENDIX I.—TEXT OF THE AGREEMENT.
P ream ble.

This collective bargaining agreement is entered into with the intention of provid­
ing a method for adjusting all differences that may arise in regard to wage and work­
ing conditions of the weavers working on ribbon looms in Greater New York in the
employ of the manufacturers signing this agreement.
On the part of the employers, it is the expectation that this compact of peace will
result in the establishment and maintenance of a high order of efficiency and disci­
pline by the willing cooperation of the weavers.
On the part of the union, it is the expectation that this compact will insure that
the organization of the weavers will be strong enough to discipline its own members
in accordance with the terms of this agreement.
The parties to this pact realize that the interests sought to be reconciled herein
ordinarily tend to pull apart, but they enter into this agreement in the faith that by
the exercise of a cooperative and constructive spirit it will be possible to bring and
keep them together. This will involve as an indispensable prerequisite the suppres­
sion of the militant spirit by both parties and the development of reason instead of
force as the rule of action. It will require also mutual consideration and concession
and a willingness on the part of each party to regard and serve the interests of the
other for the common good. With this attitude assured it is believed no differences
can arise which this machinery can not mediate and resolve in the interest of cooper­
ation and harmony.
Public interest requires increasing production as a prime factor in reducing com­
modity prices. Wages, hours, and working conditions should be regulated by this
requirement. Weavers should not intentionally restrict individual output to create
an artificial scarcity of labor as a means of increasing wages or of equalizing the
productivity and wages of weavers having different degrees of skill and ability;
employers should not intentionally restrict production to create an artificial scarcity
of the product in order to increase prices, nor should employers invoke methods that
prove hurtful to the health, future productivity, or welfare of the weavers. Any
action by a weaver or a union official directed against the prestige and welfare of an
employer, and any action by an employer directed toward undermining the union
shall be a distinct violation of this agreement.
S ec tio n 1. Parties to the agreement.—This agreement is entered into between the
manufacturing concerns whose names are subscribed hereto, known as the employers,
and Amalgamated Textile Workers of America, known as the union. This agreement
shall be considered ratified and in existence only upon the execution of same in the
following manner: Each and every employer, through a duly authorized member of
the firm or officer of the corporation, must sign this agreement; on the part of the
union, the official or accredited representative of the New York, Brooklyn, and
Queens silk ribbon local unions of the Amalgamated Textile Workers of America and
of the national organization of the Amalgamated Textile Workers of America, shall
sign this agreement upon an authority received from a two-thirds vote of the members
of each of the local unions, which vote shall be by secret ballot and a certified copy
of Buch votes shall be submitted to the employers. In addition thereto, the weavers
in the particular shops of each of the employers signing this agreement shall similarly
denote their acceptance of this agreement by authorizing three representative
weavers from each shop to sign this agreement on behalf of the weavers they repre­
sent. This agreement shall be effective as to the wages and conditions of employ­
ment of weavers employed by the employers immediately upon their return to
work.
S ec. 2. Return to work .—The weavers in all shops agree to return to work immedi­
ately after the signing of this agreement on the same conditions as existed on March
8, 1920, with the exceptions that there shall be an advance of seven and one-half per
cent (7£%) on the piecework rates, and the minimum ratings in individual shops
in existence on March 8, 1920, of 70 cents per hour and 75 cents per hour are to be
62




TEXT OF THE AGREEMENT.

63

80 cents per hour; the minimum rating of 80 cents per hour is to be 85 cents per hour,
and the minimum rating of 85 cents per hour is to be 90 cents per hour.
S ec. 3. A dditional parties .—After this agreement has been signed as herein provided,
additional employers and weavers may come under the terms of this agreement,
provided such employers and the local union affected and the weavers of such employ­
ers similarly designate their intention in writing to accept the provisions of this agree­
ment. No additional employer shall become a party hereto until approved by the
employers then parties to this agreement, and the employers shall have full power
of expulsion of any employer. Such additional employers shall be subject to
assessments and dues as provided by the employers who have signed theretofore, and
in event that such proposed assessments or dues are a true deterrent operating
against the signing of this agreement by such additional employers, the impartial
chairman shall have full powers to vary such assessments or dues.
Sec. 4. Expenses .—All expenses in connection with the operation of the machinery
of adjustment herein established shall be divided equally between the union and the
employers, it being understood that the employers may apportion their share of the
expense between the individual employers on such a basis as they may see fit, and
that the union may likewise apportion its half of the expense among its members as
it sees fit. The impartial chairman shall be empowered to assess and collect the
necessary funds in accordance with the proposed budgets previously submitted by
him and approved by the trade council. The custody and disbursements of all funds
necessary for the operation of this agreement shall reside with the impartial chairman.
Immediately upon the taking of office of the impartial chairman there shall be paid into
the general fund the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500) by the employers,
and twenty-five hundred ($2,500) by the Amalgamated Textile Workers of America,
it being further understood that the total expenses of conducting this machinery
may approximate the sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) per annum.
S ec. 5. Im partial chairman .—There shall be selected by the signers to this agree­
ment as soon after the signing of the agreement as possible, a person agreed upon to
serve as impartial chairman, who shall devote his full time and attention to the
duties of this office. All complaints, disputes, or grievances arising between the
parties hereto in relation to wages and working conditions of weavers shall be sub­
mitted to the impartial chairman either on appeal as hereinafter provided or for
determination in the first instance. The impartial chairman may lay down rules
and regulations as to the manner and method in which matters may be brought
before him and in such rules may provide that all complaints, disputes, and griev­
ances shall be submitted in writing, but in no event shall the impartial chairman
make a ruling in relation to any matter before him until ample opportunity has been
given for the introduction and rebuttal of evidence by all parties affected. All testi­
mony taken before the impartial chairman shall be open to both sides and shall be
properly recorded. In ca&e of death, resignation, or inability to act on the part of
the impartial chairman, the trade council as hereinafter created, shall fill the vacancy.
All pending matters shall be held in abeyance until the vacancy is filled. Full
performance of all rules, regulations, and orders laid down by the impartial chair­
man shall be obligatory on all parties to the agreement. The impartial chairman, in
order to enforce fulfillment of the rules, regulations, and orders laid down by him, is
hereby empowered to impose fines for willful disregard or disobedience to any of his
rules, regulations, or orders. Any fine so imposed on the union or weavers shall be
paid into the general fund, but shall be credited on the account of the amounts to be
paid to the general fund by the employers, and likewise any fines imposed and col­
lected from one or more employers shall be paid into the general fund and credited to
the amount to be collected from the union or the weavers. In the event that a
weaver fails to pay the fine so imposed upon him, the local unioa and the national
organization shall be liable for the payment of such fines, but no such fine imposed
upon a weaver shall be less than $2 or more than $10 for each offense; in the case of a
fine on the union or a union official as such the fine shall not be less than $10 or more
than $50 for each offense; and in no event shall any fine imposed upon any employer
be less than $10 or more than $250 for each offense. In the event that an employer
fails to pay any fine imposed upon him the other employers parties to this agreement
agree to pay such fine. All rules, regulations, and orders issued by the impartial
chairman shall be in writing and shall be on file in his office and shall be accessible to
all of the parties hereto, and notice of all such rules, regulations, orders, and fines
shall be mailed to each of the employers and each local union. In arriving at any
conclusion in regard to wages or working conditions, the impartial chairman must
give due consideration to all of the conditions of employment existing in the
industry at the time of the execution of this agreement or subsequent thereto, but
no practice or custom in existence in the industry shall be considered binding upon
the impartial chairman.



64

APPENDIX I,

S e c . 6. Trade council .—A trade council shall be created composed in the following
manner: Each employer a party to this agreement shall have one representative on
such trade council until such time as more than six employers are parties hereto, in
which event the number of employers on the trade council shall not be increased
beyond six and the method of selecting such six representatives shall be vested in
the employers then parties hereto, but in no event shall there be more than one rep­
resentative for any one concern. Additional representatives of the employers may
sit in with the trade council and take part in all of its considerations, but having no
vote in any matters that may come before the trade council. The Amalgamated
Textile Workers of America, through the New York, Brooklyn and Queens silk ribbon
locals shall designate a number of representatives equal to the number appointed to
represent the employers as above provided, but in no event shall less than four of such
appointees representing the union be persons actually employed as weavers in the
plants of the employers parties to this agreement and no two of such appointees shall
be weavers employed by the same employer. Additional representatives, officials of
the Amalgamated Textile Workers of America, may sit in, but have no vote, but in
the event that the employers have present at the trade council an attorney at law,
the like privilege is granted to the union. The weavers’ representatives designated
by the Amalgamated Textile Workers of America as above provided shall be con­
firmed and approved by the weavers in the shops of the employers who are signers
to this agreement. Each weaver designated as member of the trade council must be
able to speak English and must have been employed in the shop he represents for
a period of not less than one year. But in the event that no suitable representative
can be selected who has been so employed for one year or more, the impartial chair­
man may reduce the period of qualification, but in no event to be less than a period
of six (6) months. This council shall consider and discuss all matters of general trade
policy and shall be presided over by the impartial chairman who shall have no vote.
In the event that any matter brought before the trade council shall result in a unan­
imous agreement being reached between the representatives of the employers and
the representatives of the weavers, the matter under consideration shall be reduced
to writing and shall not be referred to the impartial chairman for further considera­
tion and determination. In the event that no unanimous agreement is reached, all
matters brought to the attention of the trade council shall be referred to the impartial
chairman, who shall have full power to act in the premises. The trade council by
unanimous vote shall select and employ the impartial chairman, shall approve the
budgets, and have full auditing power over all the funds. No action taken by the
trade council shall be valid unless all of the representatives are present and voting.
The impartial chairman shall call in the trade council in order to assist him in all
matters involving questions of trade policy, but the trade council may waive this
provision.
S e c . 7. Compensation o f weavers .—The impartial chainfian after a thorough inves­
tigation and study shall make a full and complete report and issue rulings if found
advisable, as to the basis and amount of compensation to be paid to weavers. Any
such rulings of the impartial chairman in regard to compensation of weavers must
provide for deductions of pay for any failure to accomplish fair production on the
part of the individual weaver. Any such ruling or regulation shall be based upon
the production records of the employers and such social and other conditions and
facts as the impartial chairman may consider elements in the situation. No ruling
relating to the basis of compensation of weavers shall be ordered by the impartial
chairman which permits decreased production, or fails to guarantee fair production,
and any ruling which results in decreased production shall be immediately revoked
and rectified.
Within one month of the time when the impartial chairman will take office, he
shall issue a preliminary report in connection with this matter and shall set forth
such facts as he may find desirable.
The final report when issued shall set the date when change, if any, in the basis
or amount of compensation shall become effective. It is understood that any such
ruling shall be made effective as speedily as possible, but must allow ample time for
necessary changes in system, if any, which the rulings of the impartial chairman may
make necessary. The impartial chairman, for the purposes of this inquiry and in any
other matters that may come before him, shall have full and free access to the pro­
duction records of the employers and the records of the unions and may, subject to
limitations which might be imposed by the trade council, retain additional persons
to assist him. Every wage scale shall be accompanied by a scale of production and
shall not be increased or decreased during the manufacturing season of the individ­
ual employers, it being understood that this, provision shall not apply to new articles
which shall be introduced during a manufacturing season. The impartial chairman
is to immediately consider and issue rulings on the standardization and uniformity of




TEXT OF THE AGREEMENT.

65

the number and bases of ratings, taking into consideration the quality and kinds
of goods produced in the individual shop and any other factors which may bear on
the question.
S e c . 8. Shop adjustments. —All complaints, grievances, or disputes arising in the
shop of any employer which can not be adjusted within the shop shall be*referred to
the impartial chairman.
S ec . 9. Strikes and lockouts.—It is agreed that there shall be no lockouts on the
part of the employers or strike or stoppage on the part of the weavers for any reason
whatsoever during the existence of this agreement.
S e c . 10. H iring and discharging.—The full power of hiring and discharge rests in
the employers, but any weaver feeling aggrieved by his discharge may bring the
matter before the impartial chairman providing he has been employed for more than
two weeks, but the union does not hereby waive the right to appeal because of dis­
charge based upon discrimination against the union. The impartial chairman shall
have power to consider and make rulings as to the justification for the discharge of
a weaver by the employer and the stopping of work by a weaver. In the event that
a weaver stops work or fails to appear for work for reasons which the impartial chair­
man finds insufficient, such weaver may be ordered deprived by the impartial chair­
man of his membership in the union and such weaver and the Amalgamated Textile
Workers of America or the local union shall be subject to such penalties as may be
imposed by the impartial chairman. In the event that a weaver has been discharged
by the employer for reasons which the impartial chairman shall find insufficient, the
employer must abide by the ruling of the impartial chairman and shall be subject to
such penalties as the impartial chairman may impose, and the impartial chairman may
allow in a case of an immediate appeal by a weaver, if such appeal is found justified,
the pay necessarily lost by the weaver in the diligent prosecution of such appeal.
S e c . 11. Variations in compensation. —Compensation of all weavers, whether mem­
bers of the Amalgamated Textile Workers of America or not, as ordered by rulings
of the impartial chairman, shall not be increased or decreased in any way by the
employers, and no presents, bonuses, or gratuities in any form whatsoever may be
given to any weaver by any employer without the consent of the impartial chairman.
S ec . 12. Preferential shop.—It is agreed that the principle of the preferential
shop shall prevail, and that preference shall be given to weavers of the Amalgamated
Textile Workers of America, in hiring, discharge, and distribution of work. When­
ever an employer needs additional weavers he shall first make application to the
union, specifying the number and kind of weavers needed. The union shall be
given 48 hours to supply the specified help and if it is unable or for any reason fails
to furnish the required weavers to the satisfaction of the employer the employer shall
be at liberty to secure them elsewhere. The impartial chairman may issue rulings
extending this period of time, but in no event beyond one week. If the requests
for weavers exceeds the number which the union can supply, there shall be no par­
tiality or favoritism exercised in the apportionment of such weavers among the
employers. The principles of preference shall be similarly applied in the case of
discharge. Should it at any time 'become necessary to reduce the force, the first
ones to be dismissed shall be those who are not members of the union of good and
regular standing, but not previous to the running down of their warps. It is under­
stood that the impartial chairman shall have power to discipline an employer who
distributes work with the intention of discriminating against union weavers, and to
order the discharge of an employee not a member of the union who endeavors
to undermine the union, and to discipline a member of the union who endeavors to
undermine the employment of a nonunion employee. No weaver, however, shall be
employed who was previously a member of Amalgamated Textile Workers of America
and subject to discipline under its rules until he has been reinstated in good standing.
If the initiation fees, assessments, or penalties imposed by the union deter weavers
from joining the union, the impartial chairman shall have full power to order the
variation of the amounts and the Hates of payment of such initiation fees, assessments,
or penalties.
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have signed and executed this agreement,
as provided under section 1 hereof, this 10th day of April, in the year 1920.
[Signatures of employers, union officials, and weavers.]
C e r tific a t e

of

V ote.

It is hereby stated, that in a mass meeting of the combined locals of New York,
Brooklyn, and Queens of the Amalgamated Textile Workers of America, held on
April 9, 1920, a secret vote has been taken on the new proposition and the collective
bargaining agreement of the manufactures concerned to the effect that the agree­
ment has been favorably accepted with a vote of 292 for and 27 against it.



66

APPENDIX II.

APPENDIX n —TWISTERS’ SUPPLEMENTARY AGRgEM^NT.

SUPPLEMENT TO AGREEMENT OF APRIL 10, 1920.

Whereas, it being the desire of the silk ribbon manufacturers whose names are
signed hereto and the twisters belonging to the New York Sjlk Ribbon locals of
Greater New York of the Amalgamated Textile Workers of Am- ri?a to enter into a
collective bargaining agreement; and,
Whereas, the weavers belonging to said locals having already entered into a col­
lective bargaining agreement with the aforementioned manufacturers, dated April
10, 1920; and,
Whereas, said weavers and twisters belong to the same local labor organizations:
Now therefore, said aforementioned manufacturers and twisters do at their meeting
on October 23,1922, adopt said agreement dated April 10, 1920, as their agreement.
And it is understood that wherever the word “ weaver” occurs in the aforementioned
agreement, it shall also be taken to mean “ twister.’’
It is necessary, however, to make some changes and additions to the agreement of
April 10, 1920, so as to more specifically cover the twisters. These changes and
additions are embraced in this supplement which shall be considered as a supple­
mentary agreement to the agreement of April 10,1920, and shall become effective as
soon as signed by the respective manufacturers, the representatives of the aforemen­
tioned twisters, and the representatives of the Greater New York Silk Ribbon locals
of the Amalgamated Textile Workers of America, and the national organization of the
Amalgamated Textile Workers of America.
The representatives of the twisters empowered to sign this supplementary agree­
ment shall be selected by the union as it sees fit, except that it is stipulated that at
least one twister representative shall be selected from each shop.
There are certain clauses in sections 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the agreement of April 10,
1920, which have already been complied with and are now no longer applicable. It
is understood that these clauses are not now effective as to the twisters.
In lieu of section 7 of the agreement of April 10,1920, the following is substituted:
S ec tio n 7. Compensation of twisters .—The impartial chairman, after he has made
a thorough investigation and study, shall make a full and complete report and issue
rulings, n found advisable, as to the basis and amount of compensation to be paid to
twisters and twister apprentices. Any such rulings of the impartial chairman in
regard to compensation of twisters must provide for fair production on the part of the
individual twister. Any such ruling or regulation shall be based upon the production
records of the employers and the methods of work and pay heretofore obtained and
such social and other conditions and facts as the impartial chairman may consider
elements in the situation, taking into consideration the quality and kind of goods
produced in the individual shop and any other facts which may bear on the question.
No ruling relating to the basis of compensation of twisters shall be ordered by the
impartial chairman which permits decreased production or fails to guarantee fair pro­
duction, and any ruling which results in decreased production shall be immediately
revoked and rectified.
The final report when issued shall set the date when change, if any, in the basis or
amount of compensation shall become effective, ample time being given, however, for
any necessary changes. The impartial chairman for the purposes of this inquiry and
in any other matters that may come before him shall have full and free access to the
production records of the employers and the records of the union. If it becomes
necessary to set a scale for time work, such scale shall be accompanied by a scale of
production and any wages set shall not be increased or decreased during the manu­
facturing season, it being understood that this provision shall not apply to new articles
which shall be introduced during a manufacturing season.
In addition to studying the subject of the compensation of twisters, the impartial
chairman is also to investigate the matter of twistei*apprentices or learners. Within
a reasonable time the impartial chairman is to report to the trade council for their
action his findings on the subject of twister learners, regarding the period of training,
examination, wages, and number of apprentices.
In lieu of section 12 of the agreement of April 10,1920, the following is substituted:
S ec tio n 12. Preferential shop .—It is agreed that the principle of the preferential
shop shall prevail, and that preference shall be given to twisters of the Amalgamated
Textile Workers of America in hiring, discharge, and distribution of work. Whenever
an employer needs additional twisters he shall first make application to the union,
specifying the number and kind of twisters needed. The union shall be given 48
hours to supply the specified help and if it is unable or for any reason fails to furnish
the required twisters to the satisfaction of the employer, the employer shall be at



PLAN FOR THE TRAINING OF APPRENTICES.

67

liberty to secure them elsewhere. The impartial chairman may issue rulings extend­
ing this period of time, but in no event beyond one week. If the requests for twisters
exceeds the number which the union can supply, there shall be no partiality or
favoritism exercised in the apportionment of such twisters among the employers.
The principles of preference shall be similarly applied in case of discharge. Should
it at any time become necessary to reduce the force, the first ones to be dismissed
shall be those who are not members of the union of good and regular standing, but not
previous to the completion of the work of twisting at the loom upon which they are
engaged. It is understood that the impartial chairman shall have power to discipline
an employer who distributes work with the intention of discriminating against union
twisters, and to order the discharge of an employee not a member of the union who
endeavors to undermine the union, and to discipline a member of the union who
endeavors to undermine the employment of a nonunion employee. No twister, how­
ever, shall be employed who was previously a member of the Amalgamated Textile
Workers of America and subject to discipline under its rules until he has been rein­
stated in good standing. If the initiation fees, assessments, or penalties imposed by
the union deter twisters from joining the union, the impartial chairman shall have full
power to order the variation of the amounts and the dates of payment of such initi­
ation fees, assessments, or penalties. When no twister can be obtained either from
the union or from outside sources within 48 hours, or when there is a temporary job
to be twisted in when all the twisters in the shop are working, the employer may in
his judgment, and under the supervision of the shop committee, place a weaver or
other employee, who is competent to twist, upon the job. Under similar conditions,
a twister may be permitted to weave temporarily, i. e., when all weavers are working
and there is no twisting to be done.
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have signed and executed this supplementary
agreement this--------day of February, in the year 1923.
[Signatures of employers, union officials, and twisters.]
APPENDIX III.—PLAN FOR THE TRAINING OF APPRENTICES IN THE
SILK RIBBON WEAVING TRADE.

Compiled and adopted by the trade council of the silk ribbon industry t>f Greater
New York, July 9, 1921.
P ream ble.

The parties to the collective bargaining agreement in the silk ribbon industry of
Greater New York realize that the responsibility for the training of new workers in
the weaving trade lies equally with the employers and the employees. In order to
maintain the continuous welfare of the industry, workers must be trained to replace
those who normally leave the industry as well as to provide for its growth. This is
especially true in a skilled trade like the manufacture of silk ribbons which requires
well trained workers.
The training of textile workers generally, and especially of silk ribbon weavers,
has been carried to a higher degree of efficiency in Europe than in this country.
Methods of training with us .have been rather indefinite and as a rule not enough
attention has been given to the young worker who desired to learn the trade. The
consequence has been that our silk ribbon industry has very largely relied for the
better quality of work upon the weavers with European training.
For some time prior to the outbreak of the World War, the supply of European
weavers coming to this country was dwindling and the war practically cut it off.
This means that the industry must depend at present and in the future upon hometrained weavers. It means that the silk ribbon industry in this country must
develop methods of training equal to those of Europe. In order that the American
silk ribbon industry may hold its own in all markets, workers must be trained who
will be able to turn out the most highly skilled workmanship. Workers must be
trained so that they will be capable of weaving not only the highest class of goods
but also skilled in the efficient production of all the medium and lower grades.
Therefore, the parties to this agreement, in order to discharge in the best possible
way their responsibility for the training of weavers, have jointly agreed through their
trade council upon the following plan for the training of apprentices in the silk ribbon
weaving trade.
P lan .

1. Requirements f o r apprentices.—Age: The minimum age shall be 16
Education: Every apprentice shall know enough English to understand directions
and be able to figure sufficiently to keep necessary records. This requirement will
S ec tio n

years.




68

APPENDIX

in .

not be taken to bar an apprentice who at the time of entering is deficient in English,
providing he is at the time studying the language.
Physical: The eyesight of every apprentice shall, if possible, be tested at the
expense of the firm, such examination to include test for color-blindness. Attention
shall be given also to the general physical condition.
S ec. 2. Period of training. —The period of training shall be three years. But the
joint committee shall have the authority to grant an examination to a specially
qualified apprentice after the completion of two years’ training if such apprentice
shall have shown exceptional ability, provided the apprentice submits a written
application to the joint committee requesting such examination.
^Apprentices taken in any mill shall serve out their apprenticeship period in that
mill, and are not to be taken in as employees in the weaving departments of any
other silk ribbon mill coming under the agreement, or under union control, except
as apprentices, and upon the consent of the impartial chairman.
S ec. 3. Probationary period .—There shall be a probationary period for apprentices
of not less than three months nor more than six months. During this period the
management shall determine the fitness of the apprentice for the trade, and during
this period the apprentice may be discharged without review. At the expiration of
the probationary period the apprentice may be admitted to the union as an apprentice
weaver member.
S ec. 4. Prelim inary training. —Before entering as a weaving apprentice the appren­
tice must have at least six months’ experience in the preparatory or weaving
departments. Six months after entering as an apprentice weaver the joint committee
must decide the amount of credit for such preparatory experience, but the credit
shall not be for less than six months.
Where a broad-silk weaver desires to take up ribbon weaving, he must show that
he has had at least three years’ experience as a broad-silk weaver. In that case he
can be taken in as an apprentice ana shall serve for at least three months, receiving the
pay of an apprentice m the last six months’ period. At the end of his training
period the weaver shall receive an examination by the joint committee before he
may be classed as a third-class weaver. In cases where a broad-silk weaver has not
worked for three years at such occupation, the joint committee shall, after three
months’ probationary period, decide the amount of time credit he shall receive for
whatever period he may have worked on broad silk.
S ec. 5. Wages.—The initial wages for apprentices shall be 40 per cent of the
minimum wage paid the third-class weavers. Every six months the wages shall be
increased 10 per cent on the basis of the third-class weavers’ wages. These increases
shall be made automatically every six months unless on account of poor production,
irregular attendance, lack of interest, etc., it is not considered justified. In such
cases the apprentice shall have the right to have the matter considered by the joint
committee, with the further right of appeal to the impartial chairman.
If changes occur in the weavers’ guaranty minimum or in the hours of work, the
compensation of apprentices will vary accordingly.
S ec. 6. Number of apprentices. --In all the mills coming under the agreement, one
apprentice may be employed for every 10 weavers or major fraction thereof. This
number will be based at any one time on the average number of weavers employed
during the previous six months’ manufacturing period. It is understood that during
a period in which weavers are being laid off for lack of work, no new apprentices
may be taken on. The proportion of 1 apprentice to 10 weavers is to hold good for
a period of two years from the date of this apprenticeship plan unless some emergency
arises which in the opinion of the impartial chairman justifies the opening of the
matter. At the end of the two-year period either party to the agreement can at any
time bring before the trade council the necessity of a change.
S ec. 7. Training.—-All apprentices shall have the opportunity to work on the
different looms in the mills, on the wide and narrow ribbons and on different weaves,
and in all ways shall be afforded an opportunity to get as wide and as all-round an
experience as the mills in which they are working afford.
S ec. 8. Progress records.—Records shall be kept by the management of the progress
of each apprentice with the experience on the loom, twisting, interest shown, punc­
tuality, etc. The progress records shall also include all reports of seconds turned
out by the apprentice so that the management may use this both for criticism and
commendation. The average daily production shall be calculated at frequent
intervals, preferably every month, to show both the management and the apprentice
how much progress has been made. These records at the proper time shall be
open to the joint committee, the apprentice, and others who are lawfully interested
in the matter. In the training of apprentices the initial emphasis must be on
method and quality of work rather than on yardage. Future all-round efficiency
must not be sacrificed to present production. Not until the apprentice has thor


69

DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

oughly grasped the nature of the work and the accurate way of doing it should
quantity be sought. But at the same time the apprentice must learn how to combine
quantity and quality in production so as to become a first-class weaver.
S ec. 9. Exam ination .—After the period of training has been completed, the
apprentice shall be given an examination by the joint committee for entrance into the
third class of weavers. This committee shall determine the details of the examina­
tion, and such examination shall cover the following points, rated as follows:
Total Passing
credit. mark.
Starting up loom....................................................................................................
Twisting..................................................................................................................
Skill...........................................................................................................................
Quality of goods turned out................................................................................
Speed........................................................................................................................

Per cent. Per cent.

10
10
40
25
15
100

5
5
30
20
10
70

The standard must be based upon the work of an experienced weaver, and the
apprentice must have at least 70 per cent as a total before he can pass.
If the apprentice fails to meet the requirements, the joint committee shall have
the authority to extend the period of apprenticeship, but for not longer than a
period of six months after the examination. At any time within this six months the
joint committee shall have the authority to hold an examination finally to determine
the apprentice’s standing. After satisfactory completion of the term of apprenticeship
and examination, the apprentice shall be given a certificate to that effect, signed by
the members of the joint committee. In order to facilitate better cooperation between
the union and the management and to insure apprentices receiving their full period
of training, the apprentice may receive an apprentice card from the union after the
probationary period is ended. When an apprentice has received his certificate, this
card may then be exchanged for the regular union card designating him as a fullfledged weaver.
S e c . 10. A ppointm ent o f join t committee .—A joint committee representing the
management and the workers in the shop shall be appointed for the purpose of carry­
ing out the details of this apprenticeship plan, holding examinations, etc. Said
joint committee shall consist of two members from each side, to be selected or
appointed as the different parties may decide.
APPENDIX IV.—DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

No. 1.—R e q u e s t fo r R e c l a ssific a t io n .
Hearing, May 17, 1920; decision, May 20, 1920.
Mr.----- requests reclassification with a higher rating.
Neither party to the agreement was able to lay down a clear definition of what
constitutes a first, second, and third class weaver. The chairman therefore decides
this case on the best evidence presented as to the qualifications of this particular
weaver.
Mr.----- is now in the second class. It is decided that he shall be placed in the
first class, the same to date from May 7, 1920.
C a s e s N o s . 2-7.—R e q u e s t s fo r R e c l a ssific a t io n .
[Cases Nos. 2 to 7 are similar to case No. 1. Cases Nos. 2 and 3 provide for the
transfer of second-class weavers to the first class. In cases Nos. 4 and 5 the chairman
decided that the evidence did not justify placing the second-class weaver in the
first class, and ordered that after further trial, during which a record of the weaver’s
work should be kept, the weaver should be at liberty to ask again for reclassification.
In cases Nos. 6 and 7 the weavers’ requests for transfer to a higher class were denied.)
Ca s e

C a s e N o . 8 .— R e q u e s t

fo r

B ack P a y .

Hearing, May 17, 1920; decision, May 20, 1920.
It appears that Mr.------was hired as a weaver on April 19,1920, and following the
usual custom of the factory, he was placed in the third class. He was reclassified on



70

APPENDIX IV.

May 6 and placed in the first class. He now requests that he be given back pay
from the time he was first hired.
On April 26 an agreement was entered into between the weavers of the factory
and the firm to the effect that when a w< aver is taken on the firm is privileged to
give such weaver a try-out of two weeks before deciding on.whether any change of
classification will be made. The chairman believes that as this method is agreeable
to both parties it will be well to consider it as one of the shop methods.
It is therefore decided that Mr.-----should have been given his reclassification at
least by the end of the two weeks, which would be on May 3. It is therefore further
decided that his pay as a first-class weaver shall date from May 3, 1920.
Ca s e N o . 9.— R e q u e s t

fo r

B ack P a y .

Hearing, May 17, 1920; decision, May 20, 1920.
It appears that some time in February Mr.----- asked the foreman for a reclassifi­
cation, and he was told to wait until after the settlement of some discussion which
was then going on between the firm and the weavers. This discussion led to a strike,
and Mr.----- did not return to work until April 12, 1920. He did not again ask for
reclassification through the shop committee until May 6, at which time he was rerated
and put in the first class. He now asks that he be given back pay from April 12,
the date of his return to work.
The chairman does not find any justification in this claim and it is therefore denied.
Ca s e N o. 10.—R e q u e s t
B ack P a y .
Hearing, May 18, 1920; decision, May 20, 1920.
In this case the chairman is asked to confirm an agreement entered into between the
firm and Mr. D-----regarding back pay for some work done prior to March 8, 1920.
After listening to the facts presented by Mr. K-----and by Mr. D------the chairman
believes that Mr. D----- is justly entitled to the sum of $25 to recompense him for
a bonus which he lost through no fault of his.
C a s e N o . 11.—A ll o w a n c e of E x t r a P a y .
Hearing, June 1, 1920; decision, June 1, 1920.
It appears for several reasons Mr.-----’s loom was delayed during a period of four
weeks. One of the principal reasons for these stoppages was that the dyer had
delivered two unsatisfactory lots of silk and the loom had to be stopped until another
lot was dyed.
From the statements it seems that the weaver lost at least $10 in time as a result
of these stoppages.
For this reason and taking into consideration the statements of the superintendent
and the weaver, the chairman decides that the firm should pay Mr.----- $10 for
such lost time.
for

C a s e N o . 12.— A d ju s t m e n t

of

P ie c e R a t e .

Hearing, June 3, 1920; decision, June 4,1920.
Mr.----- is now working on a fancy pattern, the piece price of which is $14.25 per
cut. He alleges that this is too low a rate and bases his contention largely on the
fact that he has not been able to earn a bonus, although he has been working on it for
several weeks, and on other work he usually earns a bonus.
The chairman endeavored to ascertain whether this rate of $14.25 per cut was
arrived at through a definite process of figuring. It appears the setting of this rate
had been done very largely by comparing this pattern with other fancy patterns on
which rates had already been set.
After some discussion, it was decided (and the firm agreed) that a new classification
was to be made on this pattern with a view of increasing the rate.
C a s e N o . 13.—R e q u e s t fo r R e c l a ssific a t io n .
Hearing, June 3, 1920; decision, June 4, 1920.
Mr.----- is now in the third class and requests that he be put in the second class.
The firm showed by its books that Mr.-----had never earned a bonus, although he
had been with them at different times for a total of over a year. The books showed




DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

71

that from January 7 to April 12 he had fallen behind 17J cents an hour and that from
April 12 to May 26 he had fallen behind on an average of nearly 12 cents an hour.
The chairman after talking with several people who are acquainted with Mr.----- ’s
record,
feneraldoes notand taking into consideration his production as shown by the firm’s
looks,
believe that Mr.----- has evidence sufficient to justify putting him
in the second class, and his request is therefore denied.
C a s e N o . 14.—R e q u e s t fo b R e c l a ssific a t io n .
Hearing, June 3, 1920; decision, June 4, 1920.
Mr.----- is now in the second class and requests that he be put in the first class.
It appears from the evidence that Mr.----- has been working for this firm for 16
months. He is considered a good weaver, but while working on a fancy pattern and
on neckties had fallen considerably behind, and has earned only one bonus.
Mr.-----alleged on his part that taking into consideration the looms and the kind of
jobs on which he worked that it was impossible to have done any better. It was
admitted by the firm that Mr.----- had had a bad harness on one of the jobs on
which he had fallen behind.
As Mr.----- has now commenced to earn a bonus, and as the evidence in the case
does not seem to the chairman to fully justify a decision for or against his contention,
it is recommended that Mr.----- be allowed further time to justify his claim that he
is a first-class weaver.
It is therefore ordered that after a period of six weeks from the date of this
decision, Mr.----- is at liberty to again ask for reclassification.
C a s e No. 15.—R e q u e s t f o b R ec l a ssific a t io n .
Hearing, June 3, 1920; decision, June 4, 1920.
Mr.-----has been working for this firm since February, 1920. He is now in the
third class and desires to be put in the second class. The firm’s books showed that
this man had been running behind, during most of the period of his employment, on
an average of between 13 and 15 cents an hour. He had, however, at the last pay
earned a bonus, and made the claim that a bad harness had been part of the cause
of his falling behind.
After listening to all the evidence and arguments, the chairman believes that
there is some justification in the man’s claim for reclassification, although it is not
clearly proven. It is recommended that Mr.----- be given another opportunity, and
it is agreed that if he continues to earn a bonus that the firm will reclassify him.
It is therefore ordered that Mr.----- is at liberty to again ask for reclassification at
the end of a period of six weeks from the date of this decision.
C a s e N o . 16.—R e q u e s t f o b R e c l a ssific a t io n .
Hearing, June 11,1920; decision, June 12,1920.
Miss-----is now working for this firm as a first-class learner after having previously
worked for the firm as a full-fledged weaver in the third class. The shop committee
of the firm complains, and requests that M iss----- be put back as a full-fledged
weaver of the third class.
It appears from the evidence that about nine or ten years ago Miss-----worked
for the firm o f------ Bros, intermittently over a period of about two years. That she
then quit the weaving trade and for the next eight or nine years did not do any work
in the textile industry. That she worked for th e----- Co. for a period of about three
weeks, but had to quit there because she was too stout to work between the looms.
That she commenced work for th e----- Co. on April 11,1919, and worked until Sep­
tember 17, 1919, when she was laid off because the firm found that she was not
capable of earning the minimum rate of a third-class weaver. At her request, how­
ever, they again took her on October 7, 1919, and she worked until the time of the
strike. After the strike, when she again returned to work on May 1, 1920, the firm
put her on as a first-class learner at the rate of 64.65 cents per hour, or $28 per week.
The chairman made an examination of the firm’s books and found that Miss----was put on a quality on May 1,1920, of 24 spaces, 54 lignes, 88 picks, at the rate of
$7.50 per cut. The total of her earnings from May 1 to date showed that she had
made an average of 49.92 cents per hour, or an average of 14.74 cents per hour behind
her $28 per week rate.
When this case was first brought to the attention of the chairman the statement
was made that Miss----- had been a weaver for a number of years. It was evidently



72

APPENDIX IV.

this error that led the shop committee to object to her being kept in the learner's
class. A more careful investigation of the case now reveals that Miss----- is still in
the learner’s class.
The chairman therefore decides that the firm is at liberty to keep Miss----- as a
first-class learner at her present rate. There is an agreement between the firm and
the chairman that she is to be given another loom on which it is hoped she will
make higher earnings.
Ca s e N o. 17.—R e q u e s t fo r R e c l a ssific a t io n .
[Similar to case No. 1. The chairman decided on information presented, since no
definition had been agreed upon, that the third-class weaver be transferred to the
second class.]
Ca s e N o . 18.—R e q u e s t fo r R e c l a ssific a t io n .
Hearing, June 25,1920; decision, June 26,1920.
Mr. R----- requests reclassification with a higher rating, on the basis of his past
record.
Mr. R----- has been a weaver for over 20 years. Prior to coming to this country he
worked at the trade for about 11 years. He has worked at the trade in this country
for over 10 years, most of the time with----- Co., having been away from this firm for
two periods of some length. He returned to work for----- Co. about six months ago.
He was first put in the third class and after about two weeks was reclassified and put
in the second class.
Mr. B-----has been foreman of this firm only since April 10, and for this reason he
is not able to tell much about the ability of Mr. R-----, except that he is doing fairly
well on his present job. The former foreman has noted on Mr. R-----’s card that this
weaver is “ slow.” The firm through Mr. K-----claims that Mr. R------ has occasion­
ally produced goods which did not quite come up to the standard.
As has been noted in other reclassification cases, no definition has yet been made
as to what constitutes a first, second, and third class weaver. The chairman, there­
fore, decides this case on all the information presented as to the qualifications of this
particular weaver.
Mr. R-----is now in the second class. It is decided that his request for reclassifi­
cation be denied for the present. The chairman desires that foreman B-----should
become better acquainted with Mr. R-----’s ability before a final decision is made.
With this end in view, it is further decided that this case may be reopened after three
months from the date of this decision.
C a s e N o. 19.—R e q u e s t of F irm fo r A llo w ance of E x t r a P a y .
Hearing, July 10,1920; decision, July 10,1920.
It appears that owing to faulty printing, which was later admitted by the printer,
Mr. D-----was prevented from making his full production. The matter was taken up
with Mr. D-----by Mr. B------, manager, and Superintendent R----- .
It was agreed that $1 per cut above the regular weaving price would compensate
tiie weaver for the loss of time due to the faulty printing.
On the statements of all parties, the chairman confirms this additional pay per cut.
Ca s e N o . 20.—R e q u e s t of F irm fo r A ll o w a n c e o f E x t r a P a y to W e a v e r .
[Similar to case No. 19. It was decided that the weaver should receive $10 to
compensate him for the loss of earnings due to time lost in getting the loom in shape.]
C a s e N o . 21.—R e q u e s t fo r P r iv il e g e o f R u n n in g u p to 1,600 L ig n e s o n T wo
L oom s

o n -------Q u a l it y of

R ib b o n .

Hearing, several dates; decision, August 28, 1920.
On June 15th, th e----- Co. requested to be allowed to work two looms on th e-----quality of ribbon, 56 reed, 4 single in a dent, 76 picks per inch, where the total
ligneage on the two looms did not exceed 1,600.
At a meeting of the trade council, held in the office of the chairman on July 8, the
subject was discussed. A resolution was passed to the effect that the impartial
chairman appoint a committee of five, representing both sides, to collect such data
on the subject as was thought necessary to a decision.
Members of this committee visited the silk ribbon mills in Allentown and
Stroudsburg, Pa., and also in Paterson, N. J. This committee made its report at the



DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

73

next meeting of the trade council on July 22. The report of this committee showed
that in Allentown ribbons heavier than th e-----quality were worked on two looms
up to 2,000 lignes and in New York up to 1,414. In Stroudsburg the ligneage on
two looms reached 1,722. , In Paterson no ligneage for two looms was ascertained,
but it was reported that on single looms ribbon of-----quality was run up to 2,200
lignes. The majority of the mills from which information was obtained were not
under the control of the union.
In the trade council's discussion of this report it was brought out that the trade
council members representing the Amalgamated Textile Workers of America felt
that they were bound by the resolution passed by the New York local in January,
that no member of the organization was to work on two 5’s or over.
The resolution of the union had been passed for the purpose of not allowing any
more work to be done on two looms than could be done on a 3 and a 5. The actual
practice in one of the shops coming under the agreement at the time it was entered
into, was the working of a 3 and a 5 with 1,212 lignes—76 spaces by 7 lignes=532;
68 spaces by 10 lignes—680. Total, 1,212 lignes.
It was shown in the discussion in the trade council that this term (a 3 and a 5) was
a very vague standard, because it is possible in a practical way to arrange a pair of
looms of a 3 and a 5 so as to carry a much higher ligneage than was then being worked
on a 3 and a 5. The weavers in attempting to protect themselves from too heavy a
load have, by the vagueness of the terms in their resolutions of last January,
practically defeated their purpose.
The chairman must give “ due consideration” to the standard obtaining at the
time the agreement came into existence, namely, a 3 and a 5 on which 1,212 lignes
were being worked; but cognizance would have to be taken of the fact that on a 3
and a 5 a much heavier ligneage could be worked than 1,212.
It was suggested to the trade council that a different terminology be used in setting
a standard. This led to a request from the trade council members representing the
Amalgamated, that the chairman permit the question temporarily to be taken out of
his hands, so that the union by a vote could give direct consideration to the request
of the----- Co. to be allowed to use a pair of looms with a ligneage not to exceed
! , 60 ° .
The chairman, with some reluctance, agreed that the matter might temporarily be
taken out of his hands, and only did so in the hope that after hearing the data
presented by the committee there might result an agreement between the union and
the firm whereby there would be a coming together at a point somewhere between
the request of the firm (1,600 lignes) and the standard of practice (a 3 and a 5, with
1,212 lignes) obtaining at the time of the agreement.
During the three weeks following this last meeting of the trade council, the
various locals coming under the agreement voted on the following resolutions:
“ Resolved , That under the circumstances we allow on the quality of ribbon named in
th e----- Co.’s request, 1,184 lignes be worked on two looms not larger than 3 and 5.
The No. 3 (7 lignes) is to contain no more than 72 spaces; the No. 5 (10 lignes) no
more than 68 spaces. In both cases, no higher than a 4-thread silk filling is to be used. ’’
The total vote on this resolution was 162 for and 85 against. The vote against the
resolution was given by those who desired to record their opposition to the working,
under any conditions, of two looms by one weaver.
The vote of the union shows that no agreement can be reached between the parties.
This then leaves the case in the hands of the chairman at the point where it
originally stood, and the question now for him to decide is at what point between
the request of the firm (1,600 lignes) and the reply of the union (1,184) he should
set a standard.
The chairman finds three basic facts on which a decision must be made:
1. An actual working in one of the shops at the time of the agreement of a 3 and a
5, carrying at that time 1,212 lignes, with a possibility of being arranged to carry a
larger ligneage.
2. A request of the ----- Co. that it be allowed to work any two looms with a
ligneage not to exceed 1,600.
3. A reply to this request, through a vote of the three locals of the union, that
they do not desire to agree to a larger ligneage than 1,184 on a 3 and a 5.
The agreement provides that “ the impartial chairman must give due consideration
to all of the conditions of employment existing in the industry at the time of the
execution of this agreement, ” but no practice or custom is considered binding on
the impartial chairman.
The chairman feels very strongly that no standards of actual amount of work
permitted done should be lowered, where such standards have been obtained through
shop practice. What is sought here is the setting of a standard of actual work which




74

APPENDIX IY.

will not exceed the amount which could be worked on a 3 and a 5, but stated in
specific terms for this particular lightweight raw-silk ribbon.
In the combinations given in this decision it has been attempted to restrict the
actual amount of work done on any pair of looms to no more work than could be
done on a 3 and a 5.
Whether the looms are rigged as two 2’s, a 2 and a 3, a 2 and a 5, two 5’s, etc., is not
so important as to see that the actual amount of work on any two looms is not too
heavy, and that such combinations do not put any more work on a weaver than the
amount of labor being done or could be done on a 3 and a 5 at the time when the
agreement was entered into.
The opinion of several prominent medical men were obtained by the chairman on
the subject of the effect of this amount of work on the normal or a verage man. Also,
the opinion and judgment of workers both inside and outside the agreement were
sought.
It is decided that th e----- Co. is permitted to make a ribbon of the quality given
below on the following combinations of pairs of looms:
56 reed, 4 single in a dent, coarse size raw silk, not below double extra 5 grade,
silk filling to be 76 picks per inch, but not heavier than 4-thread tram.
Number.

lignes.

Spaces.

12
1J

21
3

42
92

9
2

17
5

46
84

7
3

13
7

54
72

7
2

13
5

60
84

5
3

10
7

68
76

16
1

25
2

34
92

Total lignes.

850
184
1,034
882
276
1,158
782
420
1,202
702
_504
1, 206
780
420
1,200
680
532
1,212

No wider widths than 25 lignes can be worked on any pair of looms. Other com­
binations of looms will be permitted when found necessary, provided the width does
not exceed 25 lignes and the total ligneage in no case exceeds 1,212 lignes. Any
looms now running which violate this decision are to be discontinued as soon as run
down.
The decision here given is for this particular mill and for this particular ribbon,
and is not made to cover any other than the grade and quality of ribbon specified
above. Any variations from any one of the points mentioned covering the quality
and kind of ribbon will invalidate that part of the decision enumerating combinations
of spaces and lignes.
The chairman has listened to many arguments pro and con as to the effect on the
worker of the running of two looms and as to the amount of work which it is reason­
able to put on two looms. He finds a wide variance of opinion even among those
who have had actual experience on two looms. The object of the specifications in
this decision is to protect the worker from having imposed upon him too heavy a job.
Under the agreement the weavers do not have to submit to any unreasonable demands,
and where reasonable doubt arises they can have the matter adjusted through the
impartial machinery. For this reason it is possible to try an experiment which
would not be possible under ordinary conditions. And so, if at any time it can be
shown to the chairman that any of these jobs is too heavy or covers more actual work
than should be done by one man, then this decision will be opened for change.
This decision in no way affects the rate of wages to be paid on the ribbons made
on these looms. That is a matter to be settled through another channel. It is
ordered, however, that the rate to be set on the ribbon about to be made must be
announced to the weaver before he goes on the job.



DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

75

No. 21A.—R e q u e s t fo r M o d ific a tio n o f D e c isio n No. 21.
Hearing, October 7, 1920; decision, October 16, 1920.
On September 15, Mr.-----, in his capacity as general secretary of the Amalga­
mated Textile Workers of America, requested that a rehearing of decision No. 21 be
had, setting forth various reasons to sustain this request. At a meeting of the trade
council held on October 7, Mr.-----set out fully his reasons for believing that this
decision should be changed.
These reasons in brief are as follows: That the weavers’ organization for years has
fought against the two-loom system, and through their power as an organization have
generally eliminated the working of two looms except on the very narrow widths.
The organization, in stating its objections to the system, has at times been rather
vague, but always there has been an effort to eliminate two looms or else bring them
down to narrow widths. That on the principle of opposition to two looms, the union
has felt and still feels more strongly than even on the question of higher or lower
wages. That this decision compelling the weavers in the three locals coming under
this agreement to once more take up weaving of wider widths on two looms means
setting this small group apart from their fellow workers, and in this matter of a vital
principle asking them to do that which no other branch of organized labor in the
textile industry will permit. This means retrogression, and all this will tend to
undermine the union, lessen the control of its leaders, and make for bad discipline.
This is not a supposition. Already since the issuance of the decision, it has proven
to be a fact. Both directly and indirectly this tends to weaken the collective
bargaining machinery and retard the extension of this machinery throughout the silk
ribbon industry.
Through the struggle to eliminate the two-loom system or at least the working of
two looms on any but narrow widths, the organization had succeeded in the shops
coming under this agreement to limit the working of any two looms to those of narrow
widths. This practice of making only the narrow widths on two looms had been
carried on for a long enough period prior to the signing of the agreement to constitute
a shop practice. As this shop practice touches on such a vital principle, we would
ask the impartial chairman to give more than the ordinary “due consideration”
called for in the agreement, when an alteration of such shop practice is demanded.
Some reason out of the ordinary should be given for altering this particular shop
practice.
Reports from other mills in New Jersey and New York indicate that in the majority
of cases where the union has control two looms are worked only on the narrow ribbons.
The first three combinations of looms in this decision call for the cutting out of
a number of spaces on each loom for the purpose of making the ligneage come within
a certain total figure. To thus reduce the productive capacity of any loom means a
general reducing of the production of the mill. This is a violation of the agreement,
which in the preamble says, “ Public interest requires increasing production as a
prime factor in reducing commodity prices.” Further, there is a clause in section
7 of the agreement which says “ Any ruling which results in decreased production
shall be immediately revoked and rectified.” The employers themselves have
declared that this cutting out of spaces on the looms is uneconomic and funda­
mentally wrong. On these grounds alone, that part of the decision should be changed.
In answer to the arguments presented by Mr.-----, the-----Co. shows from their
production figures: That no weaver can earn the minimum guaranty on the----quality of ribbon if made on a single loom. That this applies particularly to the widths
from No. 16 down. That to pay a rate on a single loom high enough to enable a
weaver to earn his minimum would make the cost of this ribbon reach beyond a fig­
ure at which the firm could handle it.
In regard to the union’s contention that this decision fundamentally injures its
rowth, strength, and discipline, the firm answers that they believe the organization
as not approached the subject from the right angle. That the measure of a man’s
work should be the number of lignes he has to handle and not the number of looms.
That the total lignes allowed by this decision on two looms does not equal the amount
of lignes ran on one loom, both on this quality as well as on heavier grades.
It is further contended that to attempt to hold to what was the shop practice at
the time of the agreement would mean stagnation. That present conditions of the
market call for a change in a practice which obtained under conditions materially
different from those now existing.
Regarding the limiting of production by cutting out spaces on certain looms the
firm contends that the impartial chairman should allow in such cases the looms to
ran to their full capacity, as the few extra spaces would not work any hardship on
Ca se

g




76

APPENDIX IV.

the weaver; moreover, the production will be reduced to a much larger degree if a
weaver is allowed to run a single loom only from No. 7 up.
The firm further asserts that the collective bargaining agreement and the growth
of the association will receive a serious setback if the decision is repealed.
The chairman has carefully considered the arguments of both sides, of which the
above is a brief summary, as well as the new evidence offered. The only new evi­
dence presented to the chairman was that given on the point of existing shop practice
1 "v ! l ', i r ' ^
from the cost standpoint to manufacture the
x
. .,J f A ;e, it was shown that for over a year the only
combination of looms worked m the mill of the-----Co. was that of a No. 5 and a
No. 3, although it was further shown that the firm had in contemplation (at the time
of the signing of the agreement) the working of two looms on wider widths. It was
also asserted that at the time of the signing of the agreement no two looms were
being worked on wider widths in the shops now coming under the agreement.
There were, however, other mills in Greater New York dealing with the union in
which combinations of a No. 5 and a No. 3 were being worked on a ribbon of heavier
quality than the-----. On the point of the cost to the-----Co., evidence was produced
by the firm to show the very low production made about two years ago on a single
loom of the-----quality.
In a case where error is made in the rendering of a decision, it has been ruled that
a rehearing may be granted and if found necessary a modification or change of the
decision be made. In this case, the chairman believes that not enough weight was
given in decision No. 21 to the point of existing shop practice, nor to the vital effect
the change of such shop practice at this time would have on the industry and on the
collective bargaining agreement.
The clause in the agreement governing existing shop practices reads as follows: ‘‘ In
arriving at any conclusion in regard to wages or working conditions, the impartial
chairman must give due consideration to all of the conditions of employment existing
in the industry at the time of the execution of this agreement or subsequent thereto,
but no practice or custom in existence in the industry shall be considered binding
upon the impartial chairman.’’
Taking into consideration what had been the actual shop practice for the period
of over a year; further considering what would be the effect upon the industry as a
whole of changing such shop practice at this time, and after weighing the evidence
about the low production on a single loom of the-----quality, the chairman decides
that on and after the date of this amended decision, the-----Co. is to return to what
was the practice of the shop at the time the agreement was signed, namely, a No. 5
and a No. 3, and that they are further at liberty to make other kinds of ribbon than
the — on a No. 5 and a No. 3 or lower. Any looms now running which violate this
amended decision are to be discontinued as soon as run down.
C a s e No. 22.—F in e fo r D is o b e y in g R u l in g .
Hearing, August 24, 1920; decision, August 25, 1920.
On August 14, Mr. D.-----had an argument with the management of the firm over a
reduction in rate on the ribbons on which he was working. He was told that the
matter could not be straightened out until the return of Mr. G.-----, who was then
away on a vacation. Whereupon he said that he preferred not to work further until
Mr. G.-----returned. Following this argument at the office of the firm, he went to
see Mr. W.-----, which resulted in Mr. W.-----and Mr. D.------coming to the office of
the chairman.
After a thorough discussion of the matter, the chairman instructed Mr. D.-----that
he must return to work on Monday, August 16, and that any complaint about his pay
would be taken up in the regular order. Mr. D.-----promised to follow the ruling of
the chairman and to return to work on Monday.
Mr. D.-----, however, did not follow out this ruling and failed to return to work
on Monday, August 16. He did not go back to the plant until Saturday, August 21,
which visit was for the purpose of collecting money due him.
The chairman was again called into the matter, and again instructed Mr. D.——
to return to work on Thursday, August 26, the beginning of the firm’s working
week. This time, owing to illness of Mr. D.-----he could not return to work on the
date specified, but he returned to work on the following Monday morning, August 30.
For disobeying the ruling of the chairman to return to work on Monday, August 16,
and for breaking his promise, the chairman herewith imposes a fine of five ($5) dol­
lars, which Mr. D.-----is to pay into the chairmanship fund on the receipt of this
decision.



DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN,

77

23.—A llo w ance op E x t r a P a y .
Hearing, September 7, 1920; decision, September 7, 1920.
The statements made show that Mr.----- ’s loom had run down and that it was a
period of about two weeks before there Was another loom ready for him. During this
time Mr.----- helped get other looms ready and also worked on samples. When Mr.
----- is working regularly on his own loom he always makes above the minimum.
The firm desires to recompense him for the opportunity he lost of earning above the
minimum during the two weeks he had to wait between looms.
After hearing a full statement of the case, it is believed that Mr.-----should receive
ten ($10) dollars to compensate him for the extra money he could have earned.
In consideration of all that has been shown in the case, the chairman confirms this
additional pay of ten ($10) dollars.
Ca s e No. 24.—R e q u e s t fo r R e in s t a t e m e n t .
Hearing, September 8, 1920; decision, September 27, 1920.
Mr.----- was hired as a weaver by this firm and went to work on Thursday, July
29. He worked until Wednesday, August 11, when he was discharged. The Amal>
gamated asserts that this was an unjust discharge, and asks that the case be heard.
It appears from the evidence that Mr.-----took a loom which had been run by a
Mrs.-----, who had started this loom on Tuesday, June 1. During the week from
June 10 to the 16th she made 50^ yards, the next week 51J yards, the next full week
52 yards, and the next full week 54J yards, after which time Mr.-----took the job,
Mrs.-----going away on her vacation.
Mr.-----, during the first full week, which ended on Wednesday, August 4, made,
according to the records of the firm, 43J yards. One of Mr.-----’s eyes had been trou­
bling him, and on Thursday morning he was not able to come to work, and continued
to be unable, to work during the rest of that week. Of the following week he worked
Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, making 23J yards. The firm felt that he was not
making sufficient production to justify them in retaining him, and he was accord­
ingly given notice of discharge. The loom on which Mr.----- was working ran down
in the next few days, thus making it impossible to compare Mr.-----’s work with that
done by his successor.
It was shown that Mrs.-----was a fair weaver but she was not considered an excep­
tional one. It was furthur shown that Mr. — —was $1.13 below the minimum on the
week ending August 4, and $1.38 below the minimum on the week ending August 11.
It was brought out that Mr.-----had not been doing any work as a weaver for
about a year and a half. Also, that the weather during the two weeks while he was
at work was exceptionally hot and muggy, making the running of a loom more diffi­
cult than under ordinary conditions.
It was shown by the records that on two of the days Mr.----- worked he had
crosses.
Mr.-----in his evidence stated that he had made request to be allowed to take
weight off the loom, but that for reasons which the ribbon inspector deemed good
(it was a moire ribbon) he was not allowed to do so. Mr.-----claims that this re­
fusal to allow him to take weight off the loom was to a certain extent a handicap.
It was stated by the superintendent and the foreman that Mr.----- was let go be­
cause of his low production, and they point to the difference between his production
and the production of Mrs.----- on the same loom for several weeks prior.
It was charged that Mr. -----was discriminated against. The chairman investi­
gated this charge and found that from April 15 to August 2, 23 people had applied
for wT at this mill at different times, a number of them being sent by the business
ork
manager of the locals. The management of the mill decided, after interviewing the
applicants, that 11 of them were not suitable for the work in the mill. In the case
of four of them no loom was available. In the case of four others, the weavers were
started to work but discharged because of low production, and Mr.-----was one of
these four. Two of these were hired on April 28 and 29 and the other two were hired
about May 10. The two last weavers were both placed on pattern No. 4431, which
was the same pattern that Mr.-----worked on and was the same job in all respects.
Both of these last-mentioned weavers made a better record in the first two weeks
than did Mr.----- .
It can be seen that, simply taking the figures of production, the firm was justified
in discharging Mr.-----. But the chairman feels that considering all the circumCa s e N o .

44122°—23—Bull. 341----- 6




78

APPENDIX IV.

stances under which Mr.-----took up the work, that two weeks was not a fair trial.
As, however, the agreement allows a firm to discharge a man without recourse within
a period of two weeks (unless discrimination is proved), the firm in this case was
within its rights. The*chairman, however, believes that this case very clearly
proves that two weeks is too short a time in which to give a weave/ a fair trial. It
is therefore suggested that an amendment to the agreement be made by the trade
council giving a weaver a longer period of time for trial.
Ca s e N o . 25.—R e a d ju s t m e n t o p P ie c e R a t e s .
Hearing, October 8, 1920; decision, October 8, 1920.
The----- Co. had announced rates on three new jobs to the weavers named.
There were objections made that some of these rates were not proper, and readjust­
ment was asked.
On the hearing of the case the-----Co. admitted that error had been made, and
called attention to the fact that they had already readjusted the rates. The calcu­
lations of the adjusted rates and discussion of the same was then had before the chair­
man, and the following rates as readjusted were formally confirmed:
Miss. — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Former rate. Adjusted rate.
. $5.95
$6.90
Mr.-----: Loom No. 3...................................................... 2.45
2.45
Loom No. 7...................................................... 3.50
4.15
5.95
6.60
Mr.-----: Loom No. 2
2.80
2.80
Loom No. 5
2.85
3.45
5.65
6.25
The hearing of this case convinces the impartial chairman that a temporary price
committee should be appointed, composed of an equal number of representatives
from the union and from the management of the-----Co. Many of the disputes over
piece rates are occasioned through clerical errors or misunderstanding of the methods
of calculating the rate. To bring all such cases before the impartial chairman will
cause considerable delay. The proper functioning of a price committee will mean
the disposal of these minor disputes at once, and the settling of any necessary read­
justments promptly.
It is therefore ordered that the union through the joint board of the Greater New
York silk ribbon locals appoint two members of this committee, and the management
of the-----Co. appoint the same number, sending in the names to the impartial
chairman. This price committee will work under the general direction of the im­
partial chairman, and in cases where they do not come to an agreement the matter
will be referred to the chairman. Where the work of this committee takes up any
considerable amount of time, the employer will deduct such time from the pay of
the union representative, and for the time so lost the representatives shall be reim­
bursed by the Amalgamated.
It is suggested as a practical detail in carrying out the work of this committee that
the firm should, when preparing a new job, work out what they believe to be a proper
rate. This rate, together with the method of its working out, should be given to the
Amalgamated members of the price committee. If it meets with their sanction, this
will confirm the price set. If it does not meet with their approval, then a meetingof the full price committee should be called and full discussion had on the contem­
plated rate.
C a s e No. 26.— C o m pl a in t o p D is c r im in a t io n .
Hearing, October 26, 1920; decision, October 26, 1920.
Mr.-----is a weaver in the second class, and was laid off from work on September
21. He complained that others have been taken back to work since he was laid off
out of their turn.
Prior to his entering the Army he worked for this firm for about two years. At
the present time he has been working for the firm for about nine months. About
the beginning of August he was put on loom No. 100, and ran this loom until Septem­
ber 15. Owing to the fact that his production on the loom was constantly low, he was
transferred on this last date to loom No. 96 which ran down in a little less than a
week, when he was laid off. In his evidence, Mr.-----claimed that his low pro­




DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

79

duction was due to “ bad edges,” but the man who was put on loom No. 100, shortly
after Mr.-----was transferred, remedied whatever was the fault, and after that made
an average of about two yards a day higher than had Mr.-----.
The evidence shows that the foreman kept a list of the weavers as they were laid
off, and that in taking on weavers for new jobs he took from this list in their proper
rotation the next weaver who, in his judgment, was fitted for doing the job. It was
shown from the records that after Mr.-----’s name had been reached that seven weavers
had been given work, but that all these weavers save one were either hatband weavers
or weavers of the first class. An investigation of the one exception shows that this
third-class weaver was better fitted by former experience to handle the particular job
on which she was put than Mr.-----.
It is therefore decided that up to this date no discrimination against Mr. -----has
been shown. It was disclosed, however, by Foreman-----’s records that he is about
to start a loom for which he thinks it possible that Mr.-----is fitted. It is therefore
ordered that Mr.-----be given notice to return to work.
C a s e No. 27.—R e q u e s t fo r a r u l in g o n t h e b a sis ^ a n d a m o u n t o f co m pen ­
sa t io n

TO BE PAID TO WEAVERS.

Hearings, from September 9 to date of decision; decision, October 29, 1920.
Mr.-----was appointed July 8 under section 7 of the agreement to assist the chair­
man in making an investigation and study for the purpose of issuing rulings as to
*‘the basis and amount of compensation to be paid to weavers. ’’ The report prepared
by Mr.-----was first brought before the trade council at its meeting of September 9,
at which time it was directed that the report be rewritten and copies of it furnished
to each member of the trade council. This was done, and at the next meeting of the
trade council, on September 16, the reading and discussion of the report was com­
menced, and was continued at the meetings of September 23, October 7, and
October 21.
At this last mentioned meeting discussion was held on the request of the Amalga­
mated that the basis and rate of payment be week work with two classes, at $40 and
$45 per week. The chairman, after reading to the trade council all the arguments
submitted by both sides on the question of week work, and after listening to further
arguments of the members of the council, ruled that at the present time it is not
practical to establish week work, and requested the members of the trade council
representing the Amalgamated to state what modification of the present system of
wage payment they would desire. After conference, these representatives stated
that as the ruling was against week work, they would stand by that part of their
request which called for two classes with a minimum guaranty of $40 and $45 a week,
or the hourly equivalent. The trade council representatives of the employers on
their part requested that the present method of payment, both as to basis and amount,
be allowed to stand, with the present three classes and at the present rates of 80,
85, and 90 cents an hour.
The chairman in ruling against the establishment of week work is actuated by
several considerations, the principal ones being: First, that the minimum guaranty
gives the same assurance of fixed income as does week work; second, instituting
week work would mean a very radical change from the present practice, and would
mean the establishing of this method of payment for a small group of the manu­
facturers in this market; third, and by far the largest consideration, is that at
the present time there has not been established any standards of production in the
various mills. Under the agreement, it would not be possible to establish week work
without at the same time establishing standards of production. The chairman believes
that in time it will be possible to set up such standards in each mill, but this will
take considerable time and call for a longer, different, and much more thorough investi­
gation and study than has yet been made, and the chairman does not believe it would
be well to further delay a ruling which will settle for the present the basis and amount
of compensation.
The impartial chairman, in deciding on the basis and amount of compensation to
be paid to weavers, has taken into consideration that some agency must be set up in
each mill for the purpose of eliminating any possible friction in the setting of piece
rates, and for the purpose of making known to the individual weavers in the mill
how and why such piece rates are set. He has further considered that he is at this
time making a ruling as to rates and method of payment which were in dispute over
six months ago, and which ruling has been held in abeyance until now. Considera­
tion has also been given to the arguments relative to a family budget, the present
cost of living, the present condition of the silk market, the amount of actual earnings




80

APPENDIX IV.

of the weavers in the mills coming under the agreement, and other relative matters.
With all these things in mind, the chairman decides:
1. There shall be established in each mill coming under this agreement a com­
mittee to be known as the price committee. This price committee shall consist of
an equal number of representatives of the weavers working in the mill and of repre­
sentatives of the management of the mill. In no case shall there be less than two
members of the committee on each side. The qualifications for a member of the
price committee shall be the same as those for a member of the trade council, as
given in section 6 of the agreement. The representatives of the employers shall be
selected from the management of the mill. The representatives of the weavers shall
be selected by the workers in the mill. After all members of the price committee
have been selected, the names shall be sent to the impartial chairman for confirma­
tion, and this price committee shall work under general rules laid down by the chair­
man. The price committee shall hear all requests for reclassifications of weavers.
It shall be the main function of this committee to set the piece rates for all new jobs
of a type not previously made, and to make adjustments of all rates on which there
is dispute. Where the price committee can not agree on rates, reclassifications, or
any other subject referred to them, the matter will then be referred to the impartial
chairman for decision. These price committees are to submit all data of their calcula­
tions as to piece rates to the impartial chairman, not only in those cases in which they
can not come to an agreement, but also in cases where they have come to an agree­
ment. If the work of these committees takes up any considerable amount of time,
the employer will deduct such time from the pay of the union representative, and
for the time so lost the representatives shall be reimbursed by the Amalgamated.
2. The weavers shall be divided into three classes in all the mills coming under
the agreement.
The first class shall receive a minimun guaranty of not less than 95 cents an hour.
The second class shall receive a minimum guaranty of not less than 87J cents an
hour.
The third class shall receive a minimum guaranty of not less than 80 cents an
hour. ^
This decision is to become effective on the first pay starting on or after November 1.
C a s e N o. 28.—P ric e C om m ittee H e a r in g — P ie c e R a t e s .
Hearing, November 9, 1920; decision, November 9, 1920.
A question arose over the piece rate of pattern 500 (neckties) on loom No. 36, and
the impartial chairman was called in to sit with the committee. This was a job of
28 spaces of 39 lignes with band (15-inch) 28 lignes, tapering down to 39 lignes,
with a total ligneage of 1,103; reed (average), 36/7/1 single; picks, 76 in the body of the
tie and 56 in the band; filling, two and 150 denier wood silk; weave, tubular,
cotton warp; speed of loom, 90 picks per minute. The calculation of this job was
based on the Paterson Blue Book with an addition of 65 per cent to the rate given
in the book, making the rate of this job $7.75 per cut.
After gomg over the calculations and listening to the arguments, the chairman
confirms this rate.
Another rate in question was an-----pattern, on loom No. 43; lignes, 23; spaces, 28;
reed, 60/6/1 single, raw; picks, 56; 25/2 cotton filling; weave, satin; speed of loom, 90
picks per minute. The calculation of this job was based on the Paterson Blue Book
with an addition of 65 per cent to the rate given in the book, making the rate of
this job $5 per cut.
After going over the calculations and listening to the arguments, the chairman
confirms this rate.
Ca s e

No. 29.— R e q u e s t

to

R un

T wo L oom s
Weaver.

op

9J L ig n e s E a c h ,

w ith

One

Hearing, December 14, 1920; decision, December 20, 1920.
The----- Co. makes formal request that they be allowed to run two looms with one
weaver—one of 58 spaces and one of 66 spaces of 9J lignes each.
The chairman has investigated this request and finds the job to consist of a 1,000yard warp which will run about 14 weeks. One loom (No. 17) is 58 spaces and the
other (No. 72) is 66 spaces of 9£ lignes each, making a total on the two looms of 1,178
lignes; raw silk; warp, 20/22; filling, 60/2 cotton; reed, 56/4/1; picks, 48; rate, 66
spaces, $3.20; 58 spaces, $2.80; total, $6.00.




81

DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

In view of the fact that there is a considerable demand for this kind of satin
ribbon at the present time at a low price, and in view of the present depressed
condition of the silk ribbon industry and the consequent lack of work, the chairman
believes that it will be wise to grant (temporarily) this request purely as an
emergency matter.
Therefore, the request of the firm is granted, with the understanding that this
decision only applies to the present warps above mentioned, and that when these
warps run down they are not to be remounted because of this emergency decision.
Ca s e

N o. 30.— R e q u e s t

to

R u n T w o L oom s
W eaver.

of

9^ L ig n e s E a c h ,

w ith

On e

[Similar to case No 29, except that the chairman did not restrict the length of the
warps, but reserved the right to open the decision at any time for further consideration
of the subject.]
C a s e N o . 31.—R e q u e s t to O b s e r v e M a y 1 a s a H o l id a y .
Decision, January 25, 1921.
At the twelfth meeting of the trade council held on October 22,1920, said council
came to an agreement that the following holidays are to be observed under the
agreement: New Year’s Day, Lincoln’s Birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Decoration
Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Election Day, Thanksgiving Day,
and Christmas.
A request was made by the union that May 1 be included in this list of holidays.
As it was found that there could be no agreement of the trade council on this subject,
the matter was left to the impartial chairman for decision.
After a thorough investigation of the observance of May 1 as a holiday by other
labor organizations, the chairman rules as follows: May 1 is not to be considered
as a holiday in the sense that the days above mentioned are considered, namely,
that the workers are at full liberty on their own volition to observe such days as
holidays, and that if they consent to work on such days they are to receive time and
a half. But the chairman does rule that on said 1st day of May any worker desiring
to observe said day as a holiday will be at liberty on his own volition to so observe
it, and for such act shall not be discriminated against by his employer. Those
working on that day shall, however, receive only straight time.
C a se

N o. 32.— R e q u e s t

to R u n T wo L o o m s , O n e of 13
of 6 L ig n e s , w it h O n e W e a v e r .

L ig n e s

and the

O th e r

Hearing, February 28, 1921; decision, March 4, 1921.
The-----Co. makes formal request that they be allowed to run two looms with one
weaver—one (No. 35) of 60 spaces of 13 lignes and the other (No. 34) of 72 spaces of 6
lignes, making a total of 1,212 lignes;----- quality; raw silk; warp, 20/22; filling, 3thread tram; reed, 56/4/1; picks, 76; rate, 60 spaces, $4.40; 72 spaces, $2.45; total, $6.85.
These two looms are at present operating with one weaver, having been mounted
in September under decision No. 21 and prior to the issuance of decision No. 21A.
The specific request in this instance is to remount the loom of 13 lignes, the warp in
the loom of 6 lignes having six to eight weeks yet to run.
In view of the facts already enumerated in decisions No. 29 and No. 30, the
chairman believes it would be wise to grant this request under th§ present emergency.
Therefore, the request of the firm is granted, with the understanding that this
decision only applies to the present looms above mentioned, and that when the
warp of 13 lignes, which is about to be mounted, has run down, that this particular
loom is not to be remounted unless with a warp of less than 13 lignes.
Ca s e

N o. 33.— R e q u e s t

to

R u n T w o L oom s
Weaver.

of

9J L ig n e s E ach W it h One

Hearing, April 11, 1921; decision, April 12, 1921.
The----- Co. makes formal request that they be allowed to run loom No. 69, 60
spaces of 9J lignes, and loom No. 72, 66 spaces of 9J lignes with one weaver. The
last-named loom is nearly run down and has about two weeks to go. These two looms
do not stand facing one another but face the same way, with the aisle between them.
The circumstances under which this request is made are as follows:



82

APPENDIX IV.

Looms Nos. 72 and 71, facing one another, have been run by one weaver. Loom
No. 71 has now run down. Facing loom No. 69 is loom No. 70, which has been
warped in with No. 3 grosgrain. Before starting up loom No. 70, which is to be run
in conjunction with loom No. 69, by one weaver, it is desired to run down loom
No. 72. The ribbon on looms Nos. 69 and 72 is of-----quality.
The chairman, after viewing the situation and considering the fact that loom
No. 72 has such a short time to run, decides that it is permissible to run loom No. 72
in conjunction with loom No. 69.
Case N o. 34.— R e q u e s t

fo r

D o w n w a r d R e v is io n

of

W age Sca le.

Hearing, April 14, 28, and May 11, 1921; decision, May 20, 1921.
This case was heard by the trade council at the various meetings up until and
including the meeting of May 11,1921, at which time a vote was taken which resulted
in a tie, and the case was then left to the impartial chairman.
The testimony consisted largely of the verbal evidence presented by the different
representatives, together with letters, briefs, and other documents turned over to the impartial chairman.
On March 24, 1921, the president of the Associated Ribbon Manufacturers of
Greater New York addressed a communication to the impartial chairman, as chairman
of the trade council, asking that hearing be held on the request of the manufacturers
for a downward revision of the wage scale. As a result of this request a meeting of
the trade council was called for April 14. When the subject was brought up for
discussion Mr.-----objected to the fact that this notice for a change in the wage
scale was given only one week prior to April 1, which date had been set as the
beginning of the manufacturing season. His contention was that one week was not
sufficient time in which to discuss and decide such an important question. That we
were now past the time set for the beginning of a manufacturing season and should
not discuss the changing of wages during this season. The manufacturers on their
part pointed out that no time had been set for the giving of such notice and that, as
their request had been presented to the trade council through its chairman prior to
the beginning of the manufacturing season, they were within their rights.
The impartial chairman reserved decision on this question and on April 22 decided
that the question of wage revision could properly come before the trade council, due
to the fact that notice for such revision had been given prior to April 1. A meeting
of the trade council was then called for April 28.
At this meeting the matter was given considerable discussion and the employers
presented the following concrete demands. That there be a reduction made in the
hourly minimum guaranty as follows: The 80 cent minimum reduced to 70 cents, or
a 12| per cent reduction; the 87^ cent minimum reduced to 80 cents or about 9 per
cent reduction; the 95 cent minimum reduced to 87^ cents or about 8 per cent
reduction; a general reduction of 10 per cent on all piece rates.
The grounds for this downward revision were given as follows:
1. It is the tendency of the times, by which is meant the demand on the part of
the buyers and consumers for lower prices. The only way that lower costs can be
attained is by wage reductions.
2. Such reductions have and are being made in nearly all manufacturing lines,
even those in which the Amalgamated is prominent.
3. Reductions have admittedly been made and accepted in our own branch of
business.
4. More favorable terms have been granted by the union to a New York manufac­
turer than have been*granted to manufacturers in the agreement.
5. The guaranteed rate to minor weavers in Class III is far beyond their earning
power, in many cases causing considerable excess payments and consequent losses to
manufacturers.
♦ 6. In many cases the guaranteed wages and the piece rates on certain grades of
goods are far in excess of what is paid in nearby cities for similar work. This large
difference is driving these classes of work out of the Metropolitan District where they
have been made for many years. This means idle looms, loss of orders, and business
for the manufacturers, and unemployment for such weavers as are fitted for the work.
7. Mention is made of the lowered cost of living which has been an influencing
factor in wage reductions.
*
The manufacturers also called attention to the fact that while the reduction in
wages they are requesting will lower the cost of production but a small percentage,
yet that this small percentage in the total is an important factor, as it is the margin
which will enable them to take orders which they are now compelled to refuse.



DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

83

At the meeting on May 11, Mr.-----presented a brief for the union in answer to
the employers’ reasons and demands for a reduction.
The first point made in this brief is that as the beginning of the manufacturing
season is April 1 the manufacturers must have already set their prices for their goods
for the six months’ season beginning April 1. That such prices must have been based
on the present wage scale. To reduce this wage scale for this season would only
provide excess profits for the manufacturers. If it is argued that April 1 is not the
beginning of the season, and that there really are no seasons, then the union would
be justified in asking that wages be changed at any time during the year.
The next point considered by the brief is the so-called general tendency to reduce
wages. Attention is called to the fact that where wages are being reduced they are
much higher than those now received by the silk ribbon weavers. Examples of wage
rates in various industries in Rochester are cited to prove this contention. As against
the statement of a general tendency to reduce wages it is asserted that the wages of shoe
workers, mine workers, and railroad workers have not been reduced, and; further,
that in the case of some of the woolen and worsted mills in New England and in a num­
ber of silk mills in Hudson County, N. J., there had been increases lately granted which
wiped out former reductions; that even if there is a tendency to reduce wages in some
industries, that does not establish a basis that this is the proper time to reduce wages
in the silk ribbon industry,] that as ribbons are a luxury it does not necessarily follow
that reduction of wages in industries manufacturing the necessaries of life should be
followed by reduction of the silk ribbon wages. Neither does it follow that if there
is a possibility of the necessity for wage reductions the first of next October that such
reductions should be made now, over four months before that date. In this connection
attention is called to the fact that for a period of six months or more during 1920,
when living costs were steadily rising, the union waited for a decision on the wage
payment question and that at the end of that time a decision was announced which
gave no increase in pay whatever to the third-class weaver and only very low increases
to the other two classes.
The union denies the statement of the manufacturers that more favorable terms
have been granted to other shops in this market under the control of the union and
asks that this denial be recorded as a positive fact. Further, the union asserts that
there has been no general downward revision of wages in the Paterson silk ribbon
market. That such reductions as have been made in that market are very slight and
made only on the cheaper grades of goods. That the competition of this market
with the Greater New York market has existed for years, and that during this time
the shops in this market have not had to operate at a loss.
In connection*with the demand for a general downward revision the union shows
that something must be done to increase or at least keep up the supply of trained
weavers in this market. Under the agreement an apprenticeship plan is being worked
out to help do this. Capable young men can not be induced to enter such apprentice­
ship unless the wages approximate to some degrees those of other skilled industries.
In answer to the fifth and sixth contentions of the employers the union points out
that the minimum guaranty of $35.20 is not too much to pay anyone who is qualified
to be a weaver. That considering the number of weeks’ work obtained in this market
the guaranteed earnings of a third-class weaver would be about $30.80 per week.
That the third-class weavers were granted no increase whatever under the last wage
payment decision. The fact that a great many of this class of weavers are not earning
their minimum may be, in part at least, attributed to the fact that the piece rates on
their work have not been properly set.
The brief of the union points out that as they do not know the amount of profit the
manufacturers are making they can not argue the question as to whether or not it is
possible to make at a profit the class of goods mentioned in the sixth point of the
employers. But, they do contend that as the wages of the weaver constitute less
than one-fifth of the manufacturing cost that a reduction of 12J per cent on this cost
will not appreciably help the manufacturers in meeting competition.
The chairman has given careful consideration to the claims and demands of the
manufacturers and to the various points advanced in the brief of the union. In
making this decision the chairman has also considered the following other points:
1. The great opportunity for the more flexible handling of all matters m dispute
arising under a collective bargaining agreement. Under the old method whenever a
settlement of a question was made, the points of that settlement, regardless of the
varying conditions which followed, held good until some extraordinary pressure, a
strike or a lockout, brought about a change. Under the new machinery of collective
bargaining emergencies may be met by a decision which need be kept in effect no
longer than the emergency requires.
2. That, during the past year, manufacturing costs to the firms coming under the
agreement have been lower than they otherwise would have been had the usual strikes



84

APPENDIX IV.

and stoppages occurred. On the other hand, the yearly earnings of the weavers have
not decreased.
3. That owing to the tardiness of the notice for revision of the wage scale, as well
as unavoidable delays since such notice, the season is already somewhat advanced
and the time before which a reconsideration of any decision may be had is considerably
shortened.
4. That both parties agree that the factor of competition which was nearly elimi­
nated during the period of high prices and Sample profits is again asserting itself.
This must be reckoned with in the present and future setting of wages. In this
market this competition at present is most apparently felt in the cheaper grades of
ribbons.
The chairman, after considering all the factors presented by both sides and
brought out by personal investigation, does not believe at this time that there is
justification for a general decrease in the guaranteed minimum wage rates. Therefore,
the request of the manufacturers for a general revision downward is denied.
But, while the chairman feels that there should be (no general reduction, it is
just as strongly apparent that there are certain adjustments necessary to meet the
present and immediate requirements of the situation. The employers have clearly
shown that they are not manufacturing and can not manufacture certain grades of
ribbon while paying the rate of wages called for under the agreement, in competition
with other firms and markets where wages on this class of goods are considerably
lower. The chairman thinks it most inadvisable at this time of close competition
and industrial depression to bar from this market this class of goods.
To enable the manufacturers to make at this time this grade of goods in this
market, the chairman rules that the following two readjustments shall be made:
1. During this emergency and to meet the present close competition, it is ordered
that for the time being hard or raw silk ribbon may (under certain conditions) be
made on two looms. No two looms shall exceed a total of 1,354 lignes and no ribbon
so made shall be wider than 21 lignes and shall have all raw silk filling. No rate
lower than 87\ cents an hour shall be paid on any two looms mounted under this
decision. This means that a third-class weaver while working on two looms shall
receive 87J cents an hour but will revert to his regular minimum when he goes back
on one loom.
2. Investigation shows that a considerable percentage of the cheaper grade of
ribbons is made in this market on so-called automatic high-speed looms. Therefore,
for the present, work done on automatic high-speed looms may be paid for at a rate
of 12£ per cent below the minimum guaranty of the worker. This does not mean
that there is to be any change in the class of the weaver. A workerJf employed on
an automatic high-speed loom, may receive, while working on such loom, 12£ per
cent below his minimum guaranty, but when he is transferred to any other kind of
loom he immediately reverts to his usual minimum. In other words, the percentage
of reduction is for such work as is done on automatic high-speed looms and does not
affect the worker when working on any other kind of loom. Also this reduced rate
shall not apply to any ribbon made on two looms. Further, it is the sense of this
decision that this reauction on automatic high-speed looms obtains only where the
lighter draft ribbons are made. Where the heavier draft ribbons are made on auto­
matics the usual rate shall be paid. To decide the dividing line between “ heavy ’*
and “ light ” draft ribbons is purely a technical question. Therefore, the chairman
leaves to the trade council the setting of this dividing line.
The looms here referred to as “ automatic ” are the manufactured automatic high­
speed looms made by such firms as-----and------. In case there is any disagreement
between the price committee and the management as to the kind of loom falling
under the designation “ automatic ” such disagreement shall be referred to the
impartial chairman for settlement.
This decision becomes effective June 1, 1921.
C a s e No. 35.—S et tin g D iv id in g L in e B e t w e e n H e a v y a n d L ig h t W e ig h t
R ib b o n s .

Hearing, June 16,1921; decision, June 21,1921.
In decision No. 34, rendered on May 20, among other things it was decided that
where lightweight ribbons were made on automatic high-speed looms, there would
be a 12J per cent reduction on the minimum guaranty of the weaver working on such
looms. The decision read further: “ To decide the dividing line between *heavy*
and ‘light ’ draft ribbons is purely a technical question. Therefore the chairman
leaves to the trade council the setting of this dividing line.”



DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL, CHAIRMAN.

85

At the meeting of the trade council on June 9 the matter was brought before the
council, and after some discussion it was decided to appoint a committee to set the
dividing line between the light and heavy quality ribbons to be made on automatic
high-speed looms. This committee consisted of Messrs.-----.
This committee reported at the next meeting of the trade council on June 16 that
they had agreed on the following qualities as constituting the dividing line:
Satin and taffeta: 60 reed English—4 single in a dent.
Taffeta: 66 reed English—3 single in a dent.
Single shop grosgrain: 76 reed English—3 single in a dent, picks not above 60.
The trade council, after considering the report, accepted that part of it regarding
satin and taffeta ribbon but could not agree on the taffeta and single shop grosgrain,
which were finally left for the decision of the impartial chairman.
The chairman, after investigation and consideration, believes that the report of
the committee should be accepted with a very slight modification given below.
Therefore the decision is as follows:
Satin and taffeta: 60 reed English—4 single in a dent.
Taffeta: 66 reed English—3 single in a dent.
Single shop grosgrain: 72 reed English—3 single in a dent, not above 60 picks.
Single shop grosgrain: Above 72 reed up to 76 (inclusive) reed English—3 single
in a dent, not above 56 picks.
The qualities named m this decision are the maximum of the lightweight ribbons.
Anything above the qualities here set down is to be considered as heavy weight.
C a s e No. 36.— R e q u e s t fo r D o w n w a r d R e v is io n of W a g e s .
•
Hearings, September 8 and 27, 1921; decision, October 3, 1921.
On August 23, Mr.----- , president of the Associated Ribbon Manufacturers of
Greater New York, made a request to the chairman of the trade council that a meet­
ing of said council be held for the purpose of considering a downward revision of the
present wage scale. Such meeting was called on September 8, prior to which meet­
ing the Greater New York silk ribbon locals of the Amalgamated Textile Workers of
America presented their demand for the establishment of the week-work system of
wage payment in this market with two classes of workers to be paid, respectively,
$40 to $45 per week.
At the meeting held on September 8, the Associated Ribbon Manufacturers pre­
sented their formal demand calling for the following reductions in the minimum
guaranties: All weavers now receiving 95 cents to receive 81 cents; all weavers now
receiving 87J cents to receive 75 cents; all weavers now receiving 80 cents to receive
68 cents; all weavers now receiving 70 cents to receive 60 cents.
In addition to this demand there was also a request that the two-loom system be
extended up to 1,600 lignes on th e-----brand of ribbon, irrespective of combination
of widths. Also on single looms of raw silk, with silk or cotton filling, that the guar­
anty be the lowest minimum rate.
These requests from both sides were heard by the trade council at two meetings,
one on September 8, and the other on September 27. At the last meeting a vote was
taken on the employers’ request, which resulted in a tie and the matter was thus left
to the impartial chairman.
The evidence presented to the chairman and to the trade council consisted of
briefs from both sides and the verbal arguments which were heard at the different
meetings of the trade council.
The employers’ arguments were: That wage reductions were being made in prac­
tically every industry in the country, citing particularly the textile workers of New
England, the railroad workers of the country and the building workers of Chicago.
To further substantiate this contention, a number of other specific instances were
quoted. The United States Monthly Labor Review for May, 1921, was quoted to the
effect that there was a downward revision of the rate of wages of silk workers in the
United States from July 1, 1920, to March 31, 1921. That out of 47 mills reported,
there were decreases in 43 and increases in four.
The Associated further claimed that a reduction in wages in this market was
absolutely necessary on account of the competition with other manufacturing centers
and with other mills in this city. That the manufacturers in this market were handi­
capped not only by the guaranteed minimum wT but also by competing with cen­
ages
ters where straight piecework and lower rates prevailed. That in order to compete
with other ribbon manufacturers, labor costs must be lowered. That other manu­
facturers had the advantages not only of the lower rates but also of longer hours and
the two-loom system on certain classes of work. That the small group of manufac­
turers making up the Associated Ribbon Manufacturers of Greater New York did not



86

APPENDIX IV.

feel that they could stand alone in maintaining high wages as against all or practically
all of their competitors in this and every other market.
The union in their reply insisted on their demand for week work with two classes
at $40 and $45 per week, and requested the impartial chairman to consider the
arguments which had been presented by the union at the time of their original
request for this system of 'vage payment.
In answer to the citation of numerous wage cuts in industries the union pointed
out that in the report of the State industrial commission it was shown that in 200
factories in New York State, employing 75,000 workers, there had been no reduction
of wages, and called attention to the fact that the ladies’ tailors had just defeated
an attempt of their employers to cut wages. Further, the union strongly insisted
that where any wage reduction was asked for, specific reasons should be given for
such request and not the mere fact that other manufacturers were cutting wages.
While admitting that some reductions had been made in the Paterson ribbon mills,
it was insisted that these reductions were made only on the cheap grades of light
ribbon.
In regard to competition with Pennsylvania the union pointed out that this com­
petition had always existed and that New York had the advantage of better produc­
tion. In answer to the employers’ claim of no profits, or of very low profits, the union
contended that the employers had submitted no figures in relation to this matter.
In respect to the request for an increase of the ligneage on two looms to 1,600
lignes, the union pointed out that the two-loom system was in very bad repute with
organized workers everywhere, and reminded the trade council that previous awards
of the impartial chairman on this question were clearly stated to be emergency
measures.
Reference was made to the cost of living and attention particularly directed to thd
fact that the decline of prices had been arrested and that there was a present ten­
dency of prices to rise again. That in this city rents are abnormally high with no
hope of decrease and with an actual prospect of increase.
In regard to the reduction of wages of railroad workers and in the building trades,
attention was called to the fact that both these classes of workers still have a higher
wage rate than weavers.
In answer to the employers’ assertion that they were handicapped by competing
with other centers where straight piecework prevailed, the union contended that the
workers in this market have just as great an incentive to production, for the reason
that piece rates accompany the minimum guaranties, and that most of the weavers
earn more by the piece rates than their minimum.
The final argument of the union was that a reduction of the present wage scale
would result in very few desirable workers being willing to take apprenticeship in
the trade.
Among the subjects discussed before the trade council was that of the state of the
market. The employers contended that not only was the market in very bad con­
dition at this time, but that prospects for the coming season were very poor. The
union, on the other hand, argued that some of the reports in the trade journals indi­
cated that there was an upward tendency. The employers in reply insisted that in
their particular plants no such tendency was indicated.
In addition to the arguments and briefs presented by both parties, the chairman
himself made a personal investigation in some of the other silk centers. In Paterson
it was found that there had been no formal reductions made in the fancy ribbon mills
but that through a process of “nibbling” the rates on new jobs mounted diiring the
last few months had been lowered. It was also found that reductions had taken
place in some of the other mills making medium and cheap ribbons, of from 7^ to 15
per cent, most of the reductions being 10 per cent.
In Allentown, where the rates are lower than in New York, there had been a general
reduction in that market last January of 20 per cent, this reduction covering all the
different makes. In this market there is a 50-hour week.
In Stroudsburg there was a reduction in the ribbon mills last January of 20 per
cent and a further reduction in April and May of 10 per cent.
In all these different markets there exists the two-loom system. Ligneage on two
looms in Allentown and Stroudsburg ranges from 900 to above 1,900.
Some few of the ribbon mills in Paterson are organized, a few of the mills in Allen­
town have some organization, while Stroudsburg is unorganized.
This in very briefest outline is the evidence and arguments which were laid before
the trade council and the impartial chairman. The briefs and arguments in full are
filed in connection with this decision but not made part of it.
The chairman, after the matter was placed in his hands, first considered the de­
mand of the union for the week-work system of payment. He again read over the




DECISIONS OE THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

87

arguments made for and against this system, which arguments were presented at the
time of the former demand for this system. The chairman believes that however
valid these arguments for and against and whatever might be the decision under
other circumstances, that it would not be wise to consider this change while crossing
the stream of the present depression. If, after proper discussion, such a change was
decided upon, it should be instituted under more favorable conditions than now
obtain. Moreover, the instituting of a new wage-payment plan means the changing
of a very fundamental thing, and should only be done after the fullest discussion and
the most careful consideration. Also, a change in the method of payment should be
considered on its own merits and those merits should not be clouded or mixed up
with the question of an increase or decrease of wages.
The chairman next considered the demand of the Associated for a 15 per cent
reduction in the minimum guaranties, and the various reasons therefor advanced
by the employers and the answers given by the union.
It is to be noted that on March 24, 1921, the Associated made a demand for a
downward revision of the wage scale. This request was denied for various reasons,
although there were some reductions provided for on the cheaper and lighter weight
ribbons. Among other things which led the chairman to refuse the request made at
that time was that there then existed the hope of an improvement in the silk ribbon
market and in the business of the country generally. Now six months later we find
that there has not been the improvement hoped for in the silk ribbon market nor in
business generally, and the state of the market for the next six months is very un­
certain.
Considering all the angles of this subject, the chairman orders that the following
adjustments be made in the minimum guaranties: All first-class weavers now receiv­
ing 95 cents are to receive 90 cents; all second-class weavers now receiving 87J cents
are to receive 80 cents; all third-class weavers now receiving 80 cents are to receive
74 cents.
The adjustment of the piece rates to meet the changes of the minimum guaranties
is left to the price committees in different mills. This matter is left in the hands of
these committees so that individual adjustments can be made rather than a uniform
percentage reduction on all piece rates. In no case, however, shall the reduction on
any one piece rate be greater than the average reduction just granted on the mini­
mum guaranties, namely, 7 per cent.
In decision No. 34, rendered May 20, it was decided that work done on automatic
looms should be paid 12| per cent below the minimum guaranties. In consideration
of the present wage reduction this former reduction is now changed to 8 per cent,
with this qualification, that no minimum guaranty, under any conditions, is to go
below 70 cents. The other stipulations and details of decisions Nos. 34 and 35 in
regard to automatic looms still obtain. The only change in the decision is modifica­
tion of the percentage.
In regard to the request for an extension of the present two-loom system to 1,600
lignes, the chairman believes that the request for this amount should be denied. In
consideration, however, among other things, of the very light weight of the ribbon to
be made, the chairman decides that the amount of 86 lignes can be added to the
amount of ligneage (1,354) already granted in decision No. 34, and that the restric­
tions of that decision as to combinations of widths are removed. This amount on two
looms is only allowed in a ribbon of raw silk, warp 20/22 denier, filling 3-thread tram,
reed 56/4/1, picks 76. On one-loom jobs of all raw silk the same reduction will be
allowed in the minimum guaranties as is now given on automatic looms, under the
same stipulations and restrictions as are shown in this decision and in decisions Nos.
34 and 35.
The chairman recognizes that it is a principle of the union to restrict the amount
of work done on two looms, and the chairman believes that there should be restriction.
But the amount of such restriction as to width of spaces, weight of ribbon, and the
total ligneage, is still a matter open to discussion. The amount of ligneage, etc.,
granted in this decision at this time is granted only on the ground of the prevailing
state of the market. At the end of the season, or any other time when the trade
council may decide, this matter is subject to further discussion and consideration,
with the same rights as to change as are granted by the agreement to the subject oi
the wage scale.
In this connection the impartial chairman wishes to call to the attention of the
trade council that it is inadvisable to request in any one decision that rulings be
made on wages, the methods of the work, and the method of payment. These are
three separate subjects and each should^ be considered separately and on its own
merits. Where they are drawn together in one decision, any one of the subjects is
likely to be unduly affected by the ruling necessary to be made in the others.
This decision is to take effect on the date of its issue.



88
Ca s e

APPENDIX IV.

No. 37.— D is t r ib u t io n

of

W o r k .— V io l a tio n
m ent.

of

S ec tio n

12 of th e A g r e e ­

Hearing, January 24, 1922; decision, January 26, 1922.
The union complains that section 12 of the agreement has been violated in that a
loom has been given to a worker not coming under the agreement.
Something over a week prior to the date of this hearing, loom No. 72 (Jacquard)
in this mill was mounted with a short length job of about 16 cuts. The loom was 40
spaces, but it was twisted in with 21 spaces, 20 lignes wide. The job was double
satin, 8 double ends per dent, 4J reed, 80 picks to the inch, with plain edges. The
warp was two thread Jap. xx organ and the filling 3 end, 3 thread. The loom was
double deck straight, drop weight, and run at 72 picks per minute. The lower deck
was cut out and the spaces run on the upper deck.
A loom-fixer and a weaver got this job ready, and it was the intention of the firm
to have the loom-fixer run it. The loom-fixer, however, took sick and was away for
three or four days and meanwhile the weaver ran the loom. When the loom-fixer
returned, the loom was given to him. The union then made complaint that as the
loom-fixer is not a member of the union and does not come under the agreement he
is not entitled to the loom. The firm, in reply, says that there is little or no other
work at the present time for the loom-fixer and that the management does not consider
this a full-sized job for a weaver.
The chairman upon investigation finds that in the shops coming under the agree­
ment it has not been the custom since the time of the signing of the agreement to put
loom-fixers to weaving when work was slack, although it was the custom in some shops
to do this in the years previous. Section 12 of the agreement says that “ preference
shall be given to weavers of the Amalgamated Textile Workers of America in hiring,
discharge, and distribution of work.5’ The loom-fixer is not a member of the Amal­
gamated; therefore, he would not be entitled to work on anything which could be
considered a weaver’s work. In regard to the firm’s contention that this is not a full
weaver’s job, the chairman finds upon investigation that, taking all the elements of
this job into consideration, it may be regarded as a light one, but just as heavy as a
number of other jobs on which weavers are working in the different shops coming
under the agreement.
In consideration of all the above, it is decided that one of the regular workers of
the mill not now employed shall be given the job, unless the firm desires to shift
a weaver now employed jp the mill from his present job to this loom. It is the inten­
tion of this decision not to restrain the firm in any manner regarding the weaver
placed on this loom, except that he must be a weaver or weaver apprentice coming
under the agreement and m other respects entitled to the job.
C a s e N o. 38.—P ie c e P r ic e s .
Hearings, May 19 and 23, 1922; decision, May 24, 1922.
The union states that the price of $8.30 is now being paid on pattern No. 7664,
which is mounted on loom No. 14. It is contended that this price is too low.
It was shown that this was a satin taffeta ribbon and the total ligneage on the loom
1,020. The firm based its calculation for this rate on the Paterson Blue Book, add­
ing 50 per cent to the base rate as given in this book and deducting 4 per cent for
picks. In addition to the evidence given at the hearing, the chairman made some
investigations outside.
The chairman finds that multiplying 1,020 lignes by $5.72, the Paterson Blue Book
rate for a ribbon of this description, the result is $5.83. Adding 50 per cent (the
amount allowed by the firm) to this rate gives $8.74 per cut, which is therefore
decided to be the correct rate. The former calculation was in error in that it de­
ducted 4 per cent for picks. The picks in this case are 100 and therefore nothing
should have been deducted.
There is another matter in this case to which the chairman desires to call atten­
tion. It was shown that this loom was started on April 28. Up until May 23, 137}
hours had been made on the loom, and the production at that time was 107 yards.
This gives an average production of 6.2 yards per eight-hour day. A calculation of
the full running time of this loom, without allowing anything for stoppage, would
give 12.5 yards per eight-hour day. The present production of 6.2 yards per day is
a little less than 50 per cent of the running time of the loom. Investigation by the
chairman shows that where a weaver is getting less than 65 per cent production out
of a loom, there is indication of something wrong. If the percentage runs below this,
there is something the matter with the weaver, the silk, or the loom. It is suggested *
in this case that the price committee inquire into this matter.



DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

89

This case very clearly shows that the method of procedure laid down by the chair­
man for price committees should be followed out m detail. The method suggested
was that the firm should figure out the price on a new job and turn over the detailed
figuring to the weaver members of the price committee, so that they might go over
such details and learn how the result was obtained. If this method had been fol­
lowed in this case, it is very probable that the weaver members would have discov­
ered that it was an error to deduct the 4 per cent for picks. The chairman now
suggests that hereafter the method of giving full details of the calculations to the
weaver members of the price committee be followed.
Ca s e No. 39.—W a g e s of A p p r e n t ic e s .
Hearing, May 19, 1922; decision, May 20, 1922.
A difference of opinion has arisen regarding the proper method of paying appren­
tices, and the matter has been brought to the chairman. This question was raised
because it had been contended by some of the representatives of the manufacturers
that section 5 of the plan for training of apprentices meant that apprentices were to
be paid 40 per cent of the minimum wage paid third-class weavers for the first six
months and that every six months thereafter a 10 per cent increase should be granted
on the actual amount of the wage then paid. The union representatives contended
that the 10 per cent increase should be calculated on the basis of the third-class
weaver’s wage and not on the basis of what was being paid to the apprentice.
The chairman has carefully read section 5 and has also investigated the method
of paying apprentices as carried on in some of the shops coming under the agreement.
On the basis of this study and information, the chairman decides that apprentices
shall be paid for the first six months 40 per cent of the minimum wage paid thirdclass weavers and that every six months thereafter 10 per cent of the wage paid
third-class weavers shall be added to the pay of such apprentices, subject to all the
stipulations of said section 5. In actual practice this would mean paying 40 per
cent, 50 per cent, 60 per cent, and so on up to the full wage.
C a s e No . 40.—D is c r im in a t io n .
Hearing, November 14, 1922; decision, November 15, 1922.
Mr. L----- and Mr. K------, two first-class weavers, were laid off on November 4.
The union claims that in laying them off the firm discriminated against them.
It appears that these two weavers had both been working for this firm a little over
six years. In this instance they were employed on looms Nos. 16 and 23, on the
same pattern, which was a taffeta ruchette, satin edge, with three whalebones on
each side. The loom was mounted with 52 spaces of 7 lignes, or a total of 364 lignes.
There were 80 picks to the inch, and the loom was run at 80 picks per minute. One
of these weavers had worked on this pattern 115 hours, with a total production of 61
yards, or an average of 4.24 yards per day. The price per cut had been set at $8.
The actual earnings during this period at the rate set was $52.40, while the amount
paid was $103.50.
The other weaver had worked a period of 68§ hours, with a production of 40 yards,
or an average of 4.67 yards per day. At the rate of $8 per cut the earnings in this
case were $35.60, whiie the amount paid was $61.65.
In defense of this production both weavers show that there had been considerable
trouble with the looms in various ways. One of the weavers testified that in the
beginning he lost about six hours in getting the loom properly started, and both
weavers testified that they had trouble with their looms nearly every day up until
the last few days before they were laid off. The firm’s daily record of work done
showed some improvment on the part of both weavers, so that on the last full day
worked one of them made nearly 7 yards, while the other made 6J yards. At least
8 yards per day was expected by the firm, but the production generally had been so
poor that the management concluded that these weavers could not make good on
this class of ribbon and so laid them off. The superintendent testified that one of
the weavers had said to him, “ If you do not like my production on this loom, put on
some other man.” One of the weavers testified that he had never worked on this
kind of ribbon before, while the other had not worked on this style of ribbon since
coming to this country over 20 years ago.
The firm, after laying these weavers off, had tried out the looms with two members
of the management. One of them had made 8 yards in the first day’s work and
another 4 yards in 3J hours’ work.




90

APPENDIX IV.

The chairman feels that the firm had justification in changing the weavers on
these two looms, which had been mounted with a pattern not usually made in this
factory. But the superintendent did not handle the matter in either a tactful or
practical way. The weavers were not shown in full detail their production for
the past two or three weeks so that the matter would have been clear to them. Nor
were the weavers told that it was expected that they would shortly be given other
looms mounted with the standard sort of ribbon on which they had worked before.
Naturally, these weavers, not knowing when they would be taken back and not
having a full explanation of why they were laid off, felt that they were discriminated
against.
Two looms are now being mounted, and it is decided that one of these weavers is
to return to work Thursday morning, November 16, and the other Friday morning,
November 17. Further, so that these two weavers may be informed as to the future
production on these two looms, it is ordered that the chairman of the shop committee
be allowed to be present at each measurement of the production of these two looms
while they are on this pattern. In this connection it was shown that since these two
weavers were laid off the firm has made some changes in the picks and filling of
these jobs, and it is agreed by the management that such change would permit of
about 10 per cent more production per day than could have been heretofore obtained.
Ca s e N o . 40A (S u p p l e m e n t a r y D e c is io n ) .— D is c r im in a t io n .
Hearing, November 14, 1922; decision, November 15, 1922; supplementary decision,
March 1, 1923.
On November 15, 1922, a decision was made in case No. 40, a copy of which is
attached to this supplementary decision.
In the decision of November 14, 1922, it was ruled that the firm was justified in
changing the weavers on the two looms on which there was not a satisfactory produc­
tion. Two other weavers were put on these looms and now that we have their pro­
duction figures, a final ruling in the case is asked for.
Under the first decision, Mr. L----- and Mr. K------were given other looms with
warps of a kind on which they had had experience and other weavers placed on looms
Nos. 16 and 23. On January 30, 1923, the final results on these two looms were fur­
nished by the firm to the chairman. The comparative figures are as follows:
In the beginning, Mr. K -----worked on loom No. 16, 110.5 hours, producing 50
yards, or an average (8-hour day) of 3.62 yards. The weaver who followed Mr. K----on loom No. 16 worked 397 hours and produced 414 yards, or an average (8-hour day)
of 8.36 yards.
Mr. L----- worked on loom No. 23 from the beginning and in 115 hours produced
61 yards, or an average (8-hour day) of 4.24 yards. The weaver who followed him on
loom No. 23 worked 397 hours, producing 408 yards, or an average (8-hour day)^of
8.22 yards.
In comparing the production of these different weavers, account should be taken
of the fact that both Mr. K----- and Mr. L------ started up these looms and their aver­
age production during the first two or three weeks would naturally be somewhat lower
than what could have been expected as an average production in the weeks that fol­
lowed. For this reason the two weavers who followed had a certain advantage over
Mr. K----- and Mr. L------. In spite of this handicap, however, the much larger pro­
duction of the two last weavers shows that the firm was justified in changing
Mr. K----- and Mr. L------ to other looms.
While it is granted that the last two weavers had an advantage over Mr. K----and Mr. L----- , it was not such an advantage as would account for the wide difference
in the average production. Therefore, the chairman rules that the decision given on
November 15, 1922, is confirmed by the figures now given, and that the final results
show that the firm was right in making the change they did.
Ca s e N o . 41 ( t w is t e r ).— D is c r im in a t io n .
Hearing, February 23, 1923; decision, February 23, 1923.
Mr. Y----- was requested by the firm to cease his work as twister and go on a cer­
tain loom as weaver. Dispute arose as to whether this was proper, and the case was
finally referred to the chairman.
On February 21 the superintendent of the mill directed Mr. Y----- to go on a
certain loom as weaver. At the time he was employed as a twister. The two twist­
ers longest in the service of the firm directed Mr. Y----- not to leave his job as
twister, claiming that he had been employed for several months as twister while the



DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

91

other twisters had just lately been taken on, and that if any one of the twisters should
quit his job, or change to other work, it should be one of the two last taken on. The
matter caused considerable discussion between the superintendent and the two older
twisters, during which argument Mr. Y-----left the mill and reported the disagree­
ment to the business manager of the union, who brought the case to the chairman.
It was shown at the hearing that Mr. Y-----has been working for this firm as a
twister since October 10, 1922. That about two weeks ago two other twisters were
taken on, namely, Messrs. D-----and It——. The firm testified that Mr. R------had
only come on to nelp out temporarily in the twisting and that his services had ended
the day before the hearing. As to the other twister the firm claimed that it would have
been willing to put him on the loom but he was not as skilled a weaver as Mr. Y----and for this reason Mr. Y-----was selected. The firm had not made application to
the union for a weaver for this loom because within the next week or 10 days 14
looms will run down and the firm wished to place weavers already inside the mill on
any new warps twisted in. In view of the fact that the twisting would be very
slack within about a week the firm thought it advisable to ask Mr. Y-----to go on
this new warp until the twisting should get better. The firm asserted that when
Mr. Y-----had formerly worked as a weaver that he was in the third class but that
on this job now tendered him he was to be paid the wages of the first class.
It was apparent from the statements of those representing the union that there
was not so much objection to Mr. Y-----temporarily taking up the duties of a weaver
as it was to the possibility that he was losing his precedence as third twister. It has
been the custom in most of the mills (other things being equal) to give precedence
to a worker according to the length of time he has worked in the shop.
The firm made complaint that this case should have been referred to the shop
committee and claimed that it was not within the province of the two head twisters
to take up this matter with the firm. It was shown that the matter had been called
to the attention of the shop chairman but that in all the discussions the two twisters
had represented the worker’s side.
It is apparent to the chairman that the proper procedure was not followed in this
case. The matter in dispute should have been referred to the shop committee for
their decision, and the shop committee or the shop chairman should have taken up
the matter with the firm. If no agreement could have been reached, it should then
have been referred to the business manager of the union. In the meantime
Mr. Y-----should have followed the instructions of the superintendent of the mill
and have gone to work on the loom. If it had later been found that the superintend­
ent was in error about the matter, the impartial chairman would have so ruled, and
thus Mr. Y-----would have lost no time and there would have been no stoppage.
The impartial chairman overlooks the wrong procedure in this instance, because this
was the first case coming up under this head and the evidence showed that the vari­
ous parties were much in doubt as to just what method of procedure should be fol­
lowed. It was claimed at the hearing that the last clause in section 12 of the supple­
mentary (twisters’) agreement should govern in this case. The impartial chairman,
however, ruled that this clause clearly did not in any way affect or have to do with
the matter here in dispute.
After full consideration of all phases of this case, the impartial chairman decides
that Mr. Y-----is to accept the job of weaving designated by the superintendent, but
that by so doing he is not in any way to lose his precedence (through length of
service) as third twister in the mill, and further that while he is engaged as a weaver
he is to receive 90 cents an hour. It is also decided that this is to be considered as a
temporary job for Mr. Y-----and that as other looms run down and weavers now em­
ployed in the mill become available for new warps, that some one having the proper
skill is to take the place of Mr. Y-----on this loom (no other warp being available)
and that Mr. Y-----is then to be allowed to return to his position as twister. In case
work gets slack for both twisters and weavers, the matter of laying off a twister must
be taken up with the shop committee.
C a s e No. 42.—R e q u e s t fo r R e in s t a t e m e n t .
Hearings, March 21 and 27, 1923; decision, March 28, 1923.
This case was heard in the office of the firm on the representations of the
representatives and on the testimony of Mr. R-----, Mr. B-----, Mrs. C-----and
Mr. F-----.
The union complains that the firm has wrongfully discharged Mr. R-----and his
reinstatement is asked.
From the testimony it appears that Mr. R-----had been working for this firm for
several weeks as a weaver in the third class. That prior to his employment with




92

APPENDIX IV.

this firm he had been out of the weaving trade for several years. That on the
morning of March 12 a disagreement arose between him and the superintendent.
According to the testimony of the superintendent this disagreement led to Mr. It’s
quitting the job. According to the testimony of Mr. R----- , the disagreement led
to his discharge by the superintendent. On this particular point there is direct
contradiction in the testimony of the two persons concerned and neither party has
any supporting witness.
The cause of the disagreement was the alleged lack of production on the part of
Mr. R----- on loom 36. The superintendent says that Mr. R------had been warned
about his production on a former job and that on this day he again went to him to
warn him about his production on loom 36 on which Mr. R----- had been working 71
hours, which number of hours is inclusive of 6 hours’ preparatory work.
After Mr. R----- had gone off loom 36, another weaver in the third class was put
on the loom and at the time of the hearing had, according to the testimony, been
working for 53 hours. It was testified that this last worker was a fair third-class
weaver. The chairman endeavored to ascertain the production of this weaver and
here a dispute arose as to the amount of yardage made by the second weaver. The
first report was that the second weaver had made 46J yards. Later this was corrected
and the claim made that she had made 53 yards. If this 53 yards was correct, it
would reduce Mr. R’s yardage from 63i to 57 yards, and there was much conflict in
the evidence as to which weaver the 6J yards should belong. This point was not
cleared up by the testimony of the cutter off who claimed that he did not find any
mark on the ribbon. The importance of the point was that if the disputed yards
were added to the production of the second weaver, it would mean that ner average
production was considerably more than that of Mr. R’s, while if the yardage belonged
to Mr.----- , it would mean that his average for the first 71 hours on this remount
would be higher than that of the second weaver’s average production in the next 53
hours’ work on the loom.
There is so much conflict on the two disputed points, as to whether Mr. R----quit or was discharged and as to the average production of himself and the weaver
who followed him, that it leaves the chairman in much doubt. In consideration of
all this conflicting evidence, it is believed that the proper course is to give Mr. R----an opportunity to prove his ability on loom 36.
It is therefore decided that Mr. R----- is to be returned to loom 36 on Thursday,
March 29, or at the very earliest practical moment after that date. It is the sense of
this decision, however, that if Mr. R’s production falls below what is considered a fair
average production for the loom, that the matter of his retention can be taken up
with the shop committee for further consideration.
C a s e N o. 43.—R e q u e s t fo r R ec l a ssific a t io n .
Hearing, April 4, 1923; decision, April 6, 1923.
This case was heard in the office of the firm on the representations of the repre­
sentatives and on the testimony of Mr. S----- .
Mr. S----- , who is now classified as a second-class weaver, requests that he be raised
to the first classification.
It was shown at the hearing that Mr. S----- has been a weaver for 25 years and
had been working for this firm at different periods for about 10 years. That he has
been with this firm during the past four years except for one period of about 6
months.
Mr. S----- bases his request for a change on the contention that he is able to do
any class of work done by this firm, and further that the amount and quality of his
production is good.
The management has denied Mr. S’s request because they do not believe that his
production and the quality of his work justify a change in his classification. They
particularly at this time say that the quality of ribbon Mr. S----- is turning out on his
present job does not justify a change. Evidence was produced to show that much
of this ribbon was of poor quality with broken ends and floats and that some of it
had to be sold as “ seconds.” It was admitted that this ribbon showed poor work­
manship. But Mr. S----- claimed that it was not his fault. He asserts that in pro­
ducing this ribbon he is laboring under several handicaps. First, the loom is so
placed that the light is comparatively bad; second, that the harness is poor; third,
that the quality of the silk is such that prior to using on it a certain solution, the
ends broke very easily; fourth, in some of the spaces the combinations of shades on
the loom are so twisted in that the light shade is on top and the dark on bottom. On
account of poor light, this makes it more difficult to see and catch imperfections.
In answer to this the management admitted that the light at this loom is not as good
as most of the other looms and that it is necessary to use a number of electric lights.



93

DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

As to the second contention, the management testified that Mr. S-----had not previ­
ously called attention to the harness being poor. In respect to the third contention, it
was shown that Mr. S’s silk was the same as that used on the other looms about
which no complaint has been made. As to the fourth contention regarding the way
the dark and light shades are twisted in the loom, the management says that it is the
rule to have the shade corresponding to the filling, on top.
The chairman made a personal investigation and discovered that the location of
this loom was such that the light was poorer than that received by the neighboring
looms. Also that the harness was not in the best condition.
After listening to the arguments and viewing the loom, the chairman found it very
difficult to decide how far these handicaps justified the quality of the ribbon Mr.
S----- is turning out. Considering, however, the number of years that Mr. S-----has worked as a weaver, and that heretofore no complaint has been made against him,
the chairman does not believe that it is fair to him to decide his request at the
present time when he is undoubtedly laboring under some handicaps, the extent of
which it is not humanly possible to estimate definitely.
Therefore it is decided that for the present Mr. S’s request for reclassification is
denied, but without any prejudice whatever as to his status as a weaver. It is the
sense of this decision and it is understood that Mr. S----- is at liberty to again bring
up his request in the near future, and it will be heard at a time arranged for jointly
by the management of the mill, the impartial chairman, and the business manager
of the union.
Case N o . 44.— R e q u e s t

fo r

S tr a ig h t W e e k W o r k .— R e q u e s t
P ie c e w o r k .

fo r

S tr aig h t

Hearings, March 29 and April 5, 1923; decision, April 12, 1923.
The union made formal request that the Trade Council rule that the present wage
payment plan be changed to a straight week work system with two classes of weavers,
the basic weekly rate to be $40 and $45. The employers made a formal request that
the present system be changed to that of a straight piecework plan.
Briefs were submitted to the Trade Council by both parties upholding their respec­
tive contentions. Full discussion of these briefs was had at the meetings. In addi­
tion, the representatives of both sides presented oral evidence on the subject.
At the meeting of the Trade Council on March 29, after the matter had been fully
discussed, the representatives of the union made and seconded a motion “ That the
Trade Council order the adoption of the week-work system of wage payment with
two classes of weavers, to be paid at the rate of $45 and $40 a week, provided satisfac­
tory standards of production can be established to accompany the new system of wage
payment; these standards to be worked out not later than April 15. The manufac­
turers having raised the question of standards of production, shall propose a basis for
them to the council.” The vote on this motion was a tie.
At the meeting on April 5, after full discussion, the employers made and seconded
the following motion: “ That the straight piecework system be adopted in the shops
coming under the agreement.” The vote on this motion was a tie.
The vote of the Trade Council on these two. motions having been a tie, the decision
on the demands of the two parties devolved upon the impartial chairman.
The brief of the union and the oral arguments of its representatives pointed out to
the Trade Council that at present there is great discontent over the piece rates set,
and that such discontent, which has been growing for months, is on the increase.
That even honest mistakes on the part of the employers have begun to be looked
upon by many of the workers as attempts to take advantage of them. There is no
real basis upon which to figure the piece rates. The so-called Paterson Blue Book is
supposed to be used with a percentage added, but the determination of the amount
of this percentage above the Blue Book is left to the employer, with the right of the
price committee in each shop to seek readjustment. Where a weaver doubts the
correctness of his piece rate, ne has no sound basis for figuring it out, and the argu­
ments for adjustment in the shop are rarely scientific and too often emotional. To
show the unsoundness of this basis, it was proved that it is necessary to add different
percentages to the old Paterson rates, these percentages ranging anywhere from 10 to
200 per cent. Further, it was said that in some of the shops the weaver members of
the price committee were not shown the calculation through which the rate was ar­
rived at. That frequently these rates were set so low that the weaver could not earn
his guaranteed minimum, and that the weavers were disgusted where the “ excess ”
was checked on their pay envelopes. That they were made to feel as if this “excess”
was a “ charity.” The result of all this is that the weavers believe that no piece441220—23—Bull. 341-----7



94

APPENDIX IV.

rate system can be made to work and they make the demand for week work because
they wish to bring about a better feeling between themselves and their employers.
The union firmly desires the continuance of the agreement and deplores the devel­
oping of the friction which has caused the present threatening condition. They
earnestly wish to have the fundamental cause of the present unsatisfactory condition
removed.
The union cites the fact that in many cases of dispute over the piece rates the
employers reply: “ Well, why do you complain, anyway? You get your guaranteed
minimum, don’t you?” This leads the union to believe that the employers are not
so much opposed to a straight week-work system of payment, but that they object
to the requested week-work rates.
In support of the request for two classes with a rate of $40 and $45 the union
calls attention to the fact that the ribbon industry has greatly improved over what
it was when the wages were reduced in October, 1921; that the cost of living is
on the upward trend, and that such upward tendency is likely to continue; also
that wages are rising in many other trades.
The union points out that the larger part of the ribbon weavers are over 40 years
of age and that very few young men are seeking to enter the trade. They believe
that the piece-rate system will not attract apprentices, but that if the present system
was changed to straight week work a much larger number of young people would
be attracted to the weaving trade.
In answer to the employers’ claim of severe competition the union points out
that the employers make certain statements about this competition, but that the
union has no figures given them to show what are the actual profits in the industry.
In reply to the employers’ request for a straight piece-rate plan the union cites
the impossibility of setting proper rates under the present system of calculation;
that, with the present haphazard method of computing piece rates, it would be
impossible to work under a straight piece-work system. Such a system would cause
even more argument and more bad feeling than is created by the present system.
The employers, in support of their demand for a straight piece-work plan, say
that the present system of a guaranteed minimum is putting an undue burden upon
the manufacturers under the agreement by increasing the cost of production; that
under this plan there is much uncertainty as to what the actual labor costs on rib­
bons are going to be. They claim that their experience and the experience of others
bears out therr conclusions that the cost of production becomes higher as soon as any
form of guaranteed weekly wages is established; that under week work a worker has
no incentive to develop his ability. They quote from the reports of many investiga­
tions and from studies made, which show that production has fallen off where there
has been a change from piecework to week work.
They point out the fact that only this small group of employers coming under the
agreement have granted a minimum guaranty; that the minimum guaranty does not
obtain in the other New York mills or anywhere else. They claim that they were
given to understand at the time the agreement was entered into that the minimum
guaranty system would be extended to the Paterson shops, so as to put them on a bet­
ter competitive basis. But the system has not been extended. In other markets the
employers not only do not allow the minimum guaranty, but even in mills where the
union has some control the weavers exercise little, if any, influence in the setting of
individual piece rates; that practically all their competitors have their ribbons manu­
factured under these straight piece rates, or which are in most cases set directly by the
employers; that, in addition to all else, many of their competitors have the 50-hour
week or longer. The result is that the manufacturers have been working at a disad­
vantage during the entire period of depression, when competition was even more
keen than at normal times, and that they still continue at a disadvantage.
The employers quoted from union publications to show that it was admitted
that the wages in Allentown were 40 per cent below the wages obtaining in this
market. They also gave quotations from the newspaper reports of a speech delivered
in Allentown by a union speaker from this district, in which it was declared that
in the New York silk-ribbon market the textile workers have established conditions
that are the best in America.
In reply to the union’s request for week work the employers point out that under
the agreement it is impossible to grant week work without at the same time setting
standards of production. They quote the clause from section 7 of the agreement,
which says: “ Every wage scale shall be accompanied by a scale of production.”
The employers contend that the working out of scales of production will require the
expenditure of much money and involve a considerable period of time. For these
reasons they argue that it is not possible for the Trade Council at this time to give
consideration to a request for a straight week-work system.




DECISIONS OF THE IMPARTIAL CHAIRMAN.

Request for Week Work Denied.

95

After giving due consideration to all the arguments produced by both parties, the
chairman comes to the decision that the request for a change to straight week work
must be denied. The chairman desires to point out that whatever may be the merits
of and arguments for a week-work system, it is not possible to consider the estab­
lishment of such a system until after a scale of production has been agreed upon be­
tween the two parties. The agreement plainly states, in section 7 already quoted,
that every wage scale must be accompanied by a scale of production, meaning that
both scales must be established at the same time.
The request of the employers for a straight piece-work plan must also be denied
on much the same grounds. If the weavers are not to have week work because there
is as yet no established scale of production, the same reasoning must hold good against
a request for straight piecework. It is admitted that the piece rates in this market
are not computed from any basis worked out collectively by the weavers and their
employers; that the present rates are set partly on the basis of former rates estab­
lished in another market and partly from the experience of the management in the
mill. But in no mill has there been set down a scale of rates collectively worked
out by both parties. In order that the weavers may be protected from badly set
piece rates, or from rates which have not been set collectively, the minimum guar­
anty must be retained.
The decision of the chairman on both these matters has had to be given not so
much on the merits of either demand, but because the parties coming under the
agreement are not prepared to present to the Trade Council either a collectively
worked-out scale of rates or a collectively worked-out scale of production. As yet
nothing “ hard and fast ” has been set down. It is contended that it will take some
time to work out collectively one or both of these scales. That being the case, the
chairman suggests to the Trade Council that the council at once devise some method
whereby the information necessary to establish both such scales can be collected.
These scales must be worked out sooner or later. To lessen the haggling and dis­
content, this should be done now.
C a s e No. 45—R e q u e s t fo r R e c l a ssific a t io n .
Hearing, April 25, 1923; decision, May 4, 1923.
This case was heard in the office of the mill on the representations of the repre­
sentatives and on the testimony of Messrs. B----- , H----- , I----- , and S----- .
Mr. B----- , a weaver now in the second class, requests to be raised to the first class.
It was shown at the hearing that Mr. B-----has been a weaver for about 23 years
and has been with this firm for 15 years, exclusive of two periods of about nine
months each.
It was admitted that there was no complaint about the quality of his production,
and also that Mr. B----- is a very careful weaver and takes considerable pride in his
work. It was further admitted that he is competent to run most any job in the shop.
In regard to the amount of Mr. B-----’s production, the management felt that it would
not be fair to take into consideration his present output or compare this production
with that of others on the same pattern, owing to the fact that these jobs are now
being worked under rather unusual conditions.
There are at present six first-class weavers working in this mill, and at one time
during the past two years these six first-class weavers, together with Mr. B----- ,
worked on the same pattern for a period of about 20 weeks. An examination of the
production records covering this period shows that the average production of Mr.
B----- was slightly above the total average of the other six and that his average was
only a slight fraction below the total average of two weavers generally considered
the best in the mill. His earnings during this period were considerably above the
minimum guaranty of a first-class weaver.
The firm’s objection to Mr. B----- ’s reclassification was based on the ground that
while Mr. B----- is a careful weaver and his production generally good he falls off
in output whenever difficulties on the loom are encountered. It is contended that
a weaver in the first class should be able to overcome these difficulties and keep up
production. Mr. B----- ’s claim in this connection is that he is a careful weaver ana
that his desire to weave only perfect ribbon sometimes temporarily causes his produc­
tion to decrease when he encounters difficulties.
After carefully considering all the testimony and data offered, as well as Mr.
B-----’s character as a weaver, the chairman is of the opinion that he is entitled to
be put in the first class, and it is so decided. This decision is to take effect com­
mencing with the pay week falling in the week of May 6.




o