nti

rformed by any large group of wage earners as a reason.-Section 4. Differences in the cost of living at different points within the area of standardization as a reason.-Section 5. The grounds for "nominal variations" in standard wage rates. The policy to be pursued in regard to payment for irregular employment.-Section 6. The possibility of maintaining standard wage rates

be included within any area of standardization was substantially alike. That assumption must now be given up. A further question must be faced. That is whether the principle of standardization, as put forward up to this point, should be limited or varied in any way because it

The first that may be taken up has arisen almost every time that wage standardization has been introduced into a craft or industry. It is the contention that, due to differences in natural or acquire

would be reason for considering the extent to which the standardization should be carried out, and also what variations should be introduced into its application. That such cases are not infrequent is borne out by the Australasian experience of which Mr. Collier writes, "In regard to the practicability of the common rule, opinion differs. In some staple industries such as co

When weighing the facts for or against the limitation or variation for the reason under discussion, several distinctions should be made. Firstly, in regard to the nature of the difference in ad

For the possibility that an abrupt suspension of certain enterprises be caused without compensating extension of other enterprises, is the more genuine. Such a situation was recognized, for example, in the case of the living wage legislation for agriculture in England; and thus instead of applying one standard wage throughout all districts, standardization was carried out by districts.[87] Even in this case, however, the various district advisory boards are under a strong and constant

coming conditions that have been declared a definite competitive disadvantage. Probably no extension of wage standardization in industry has ever taken place without injuring some individuals. It is the net balance of gain or loss that is significant. In most past instances when standardization has been enf

rated areas, such as might exist between two ports, for example, than when the differences are between different units in the same industrial area

t likely to support an unmodified application of the principle of standardization, unless they believe the consequent industrial changes will be beneficial, or at least not harmful, to themselves. The advice, if not the concurrence, of all interested parties is of the greatest value in arriving at a satisfactory determination. A good example of such an arrangement is to be found in the agricultural

directors of the American railways, as summarized by Mr. Stockett: "... The railways oppose district standardization on the ground that rates cannot be disassociated from conditions and since conditions vary widely on different roads in such extensive territories as the railway districts they maintai

nor differences must also be weighed. These have been vigorously stated, for the case of railway labor, by Mr. Stockett. "... The employees maintain that the varying physical and traffic conditions in the different roads should not constitute a basis for the payment of various rates. It may be true, they hold, that physical conditions and traffic peculiarities differ as between different roads, but it would be impossible to determine a separate rate of pay for each special condition. In the course of development of the railways conditio

asses of wage earners. Such cases are probably rare. In circumstances where the constant differences between the character of the work performed by workers is relatively great, it will usually be

e standardization were to be introduced into those industries, it would be found necessary to standardize occupations

xample, by a collective agreement in accordance with which the wage scale at different points was varied in accordance with the relative cost of living at these points. Up to the present there has been a tendency to disregard differences in the cost of living when wage

h the calculated cost of food and rent in these towns-weighing food three times as heavily as rent. The results are presented by single cities, by geographical groups, and by population groups-i.e., cities grouped in accordance with size of population. Real wages tended to be more equal as between population groups than between geographical groups. The range of the index number between geographical group

the face of the competition of the larger centers, in which the cost of living is usually higher. Secondly, it may be argued, that variations in the cost of living at different places are indications of the fact that at some places the economic essentials can be pro

ucture of the nation would be less, to-day, if our industrial population were more widely distributed; and our problems of civic and economic life would be simpler. That I believe to be true, although it is probable that the

h, to compete with the others, denote a compensating advantage in another stage of production? The answer depends on two conditions. Are the enterprises in genuine competition with each other? And secondly, do wages at the several places differ in correspondence with the differences in the cost of living? To the extent that these conditions hold true, any shift of indust

standardization, there will be some tendency for the abler and more energetic workmen to drift to the points where

ble period. Small changes and shifts in the relative scale occur constantly, and even large changes may take place within a short time. Experience has shown that wage differences which rest upon a fluctuating basis are apt to give rise to misunderst

in the cost of living at the different centers in which the industry is carried on, such differences should be maintained. As has been remarked, only the relatively large and permanent differences could be taken int

ut the underlying idea of standardization-equal remuneration for the same type of work despite minor differences in conditions under which it is performed-it is necessary to introduce variations in

ndustries it is usually found that the principle of standardization can only be carried out satisfactorily under a system of time payment. For under a piece-work system a uniform scale of rates yields widely different earnings for labor of approximately the same type and quality. It may be, however, that a time-work system is ill suited to the trades or industries in question. In which case, the only alternative is to draw up different

left to voluntary bargaining rather than enforced as a matter of policy. The conduct of almost any occupation involves differences in the conditions under which it is performed. Nobody entrusted with the duty of enforcing a policy of wage settlement would find it easy to define the conditions which warranted an addition to the standard rate. It would run the risk of being involved in a process of refined definition which would probably be futile. Justice Higgins stated this view aptly in a claim for "dirt" money. "My view," he writes, "is that the

n payments in kind should be considered as part of the wage. An example of this would be the provision of meals. Such

al work should be paid at higher rates than regular work. The justice of this claim seems apparent. Irregularity of work is undoubtedly a great handicap to the workman who seeks to maintain a well ordered life. Extra payment for irregularity of employment is a burden which can fairly be put upon an industry, or section of an industry-even if the irregularity is unavoidable. Yet the consequences of such a policy of "nominal variation" may be undesirable.

probable that the most advisable policy is to grant "nominal variations" for casual and irregular employment. These variations should not be so great as to influence the run of workmen to prefer casual work. The total earnings from regular work should be higher. Another policy that may be practicable, in

wing tendency of some men to depend on the high rates for casual work only, to enable them to work when they thought fit, and idle when they felt inclined.... The yearly return of so many seasonal hands for the wool and grain season, year after year, who look for casual work elsewhere in the meantime in shearing sheds-on the wharfs-in other industries and even in

allowed, where as in this industry, men, however anxious they may be to get permanent work, are not employed for the whole season withou

nature than those already dealt with. That argument is that it will prove impossible to maintain uniform standard wage rates throughout an industry in which the various enterprises ar

it must be remembered that the standard wage is intended only as a minimum. If differentials over the standard wage did arise in enterprises where the conditions of labor were worse than the average, or in regions where the cost of living was higher than the average, such differentials would not be incompatible with the ends sought, when standardization is enforced. Secondly, it may be commented that the experience of the past does not, in general, support the contention. In many industries the same standard wage scale applies over an area in which there are real differences of the

of standardization which does not make explicit allowances for such differences as are in question. It is said that the organization of

oundations of his argument was that in fixing wages they must have regard to the class of work. Having regard to the very great diversity of conditions and of methods in the di

e principle of wage standardization without qualifications, they must be loyal to that desire, and they must not be swayed by small temporary advantages or by sectional interests. And, on the other hand, if they desire that the principle of standardization be applied with qualifications, they must not attempt to disguise demands for general wage increases as standardization movements. Such a policy is calculated to perpetuate industrial conflict. Such is the bearing of the pledge given by the representatives of the transport workers (Great Britain) incidental to their claim for a 16 shilling national minimum daily wage. "I am conscious tha

d by a careful study of the results produced. At the present time the manner in which the principle is applied is governed in the first instance, by the economic characteristics of

ce has been sometimes decisive of the degree of centralized authority in the various trade unions. It has also tended to govern the attitude of particular trade unions towards the application of the principle of standardization without variation or modification.[103] The history of trade unionism is full of instances of

ilroads there are at present nation-wide wage scales. In Great Britain, to-day this is one of the most vexed of questions. Indeed Great Britain just has gone through a great coal strike in which it was one of the two great issues. The miners asked that "a levy be made upon each colliery company o

wage rates for substantially the same tasks exist gives rise to one other difficult p

rcement of standardization will be something of an independent and prior process-prior, that is, to the application of any other principles intended to keep the wage levels in different industries or occupations in relation to each other. Standardization will be, so to speak, an initial stage of policy to be gone through before any other stages are entered upon. In this initial stage, the principal data that should be taken into consideration when fixing the level of standardization for any occupation is the actually e

n for an occupation in which wages have been hitherto unstandardized. That doctrine, crudely stated, is that the standard wage f

ine is reasonably interpreted. That is to say, if it is taken to mean the higher range of wages, rather than the highest single wage. That presumption arises from the fact that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the higher range of unstandardized wages indicates what wages may be enforced throughout the occupation without causing great disturbance and unemployment.

on, it would usually be sound to provide that these higher-wage rates should not be reduced at once. This ruling was adopted in the deci

atever limitations or variations are admitted to the principle) is often essential to the operation of any other principles of wage settlement. The establishment of standard wage rates makes possible a clear knowledge of the economic position of the various classes of wage earners. Likewise, it makes possible the accurate measurement of wage change; and

TNO

per cent. was the suggestion) of work people and employers in the industry or craft in question were represented in the council. "51-Attention has been drawn to the fact that, in the establishment of a scheme for dealing with proposals for extension of agreements, it would be necessary to provide

the government in 1919 in return for certain concessions from the trade unions, but

h Report New York State Factory Inves

s of the opinion "that the sticky nature of the ground in Essex induced a slow habit of moving, and he thought the Essex workmen did as much as could be expected in view of the labor involved in walking on wet land, during a large part of the year." Page 73. There is also much interesting materi

oard Act, 1909, Restated in t

"Arbitral Determination

The Arbitral Determination

Standard Rate in American

state Commission regarding classification of railroad

nd Machinery Corp., Docket No. 163, National War Lab

ee an article by Ogburn and Kelley in the Journal of

" (see The Case of the Federated Storemen and Packers' Union, page 150, Vol. X, Commonwealth Arbitration R

a review of trade union policy in this matter,

ated Engine Drivers' and Foremen's Association of Australi

ge whether the mill is running or not, Docket 3803, Opinion regarding "continuity of production in the flour-milling industry," 1920. In another case, however, t

e 651, Vol. X, Commonwealth Arbitration Reports. For an example of difficulties to be expected, see the attempt made to s

n Times, Fe

ur, etc., as reported in the Monthly Labor Rev

he Standard Rate in Americ

he Standard Rate in Americ

e Standard Rate in America

recent experiment in wage settlement in the United

d States, see Chapter III, especially page 120, etc., "The Standard Rate in American Trade Union

, Secretary of the Miners' Federation,

Chapters

r rate for a particular class of labor, would you apply that rate to the other three railways? A: It may be that the five should be lower than the three, and in that case, I certainly would not apply the lower to the others. I would apply the higher rate as being the uniform rate; but think that would be got over by the suggestion that I have made whereby the rate would be determined for Manchester, for example, by one authority. Q 13903-I will assume for the moment that the th

, Chapter VII, also p

on the ground that if the unions desire standardization and uniformity, they "must take the rough with the s

Jr., "Arbitral Determination o