one hundred employees employed in the department or section. If in any department or section there shall be employees in excess of any even hundred, then an additional committeeman may be elected provided the additional employees beyond the even hundred shall be fifty or more; if less than fifty, no additional representation shall be allowed. As an example: In a department or section employing 330 men, three committeemen will be eleced; in a department employing 375 men, four committeemen will be elected. It is also suggested by the War Labor Board, and this suggestion is of the greatest practical value, that "the committees shall not only be of manageable size, but shall give definite proportional representation to as many occupational or other natural groups, including women, as may be possible. While it is manifestly impossible for every minor occupation or minor department to be represented upon shop committees, it is possible to do justice in every case, provided the local situation is understood, and only when it is understood." Primary Considerations and Principles From this rough analysis certain primary considerations stand out. One, of course, is that the actual choosing of representatives of the employees to deal with employees is a matter solely to be done by the employees. This principle is common to all the varieties of shop committee systems. Another consideration is that provision must be made for the interchange of ideas between the men and the management. This principle is likewise basic and common to all types, but in the different types described it is evident that different methods and degrees of joint counsel are obtained. A frequent criticism of the Rockefeller scheme as illustrated in the Bayonne plan is that the employees are not sufficiently represented; that is to say, they do not have enough representatives, and the representatives are chosen from blocks of employees, so to speak, rather than from the trades or crafts. It is probable that such a scheme is desirable in a relatively new system and in plants where the men are not well educated. A criticism of the type of plan such as we see in the Demuth factory is that instead of a two-chamber system of government, a single chamber, or a single set, of joint committees is preferable. The analogy with the United States Government is, furthermore, open to criticism. In the United States Government both the Senate and the House represent the people, whereas in the shop committee system based on the Federal Government the Senate represents the employer, and the house the employee or people. The War Labor Board plan, lastly, is so much more flexible than either of these types that it is not subject to the same criticism. In fact, the War Labor Board plan seems to the writer to be the best of all, because it is based on the democratic principle of self-determination; that is to say, of adapting the system of government to the environment. In addition, this plan recognizes a fundamental fact when it declares that due consideration must be given to craft groupings. Plants Having Shop Committees When all is said and done, it must be remembered that the shop committee is an institution of recent growth in the United States and that it is in process of finding itself. For the information of those who are interested in looking into the many and interesting problems which arise in this movement, I have prepared the following list of plants having some kind of shop committee system, more or less fully developed. The War Labor Board systems were installed in 1918. Wherever possible, I have given the approximate date of installation of the other plans: Plans installed by the National War Labor Board Bethlehem Steel Co., South Bethlehem, Pa. Corn Products Refining Co., four plants, Granite City, Ill., Argo, Ill., Pekin, Ill., and Edgewater, N. J. General Electric Co., two plants, Pittsfield, Mass., and Lynn, Mass. Maryland Pressed Steel Co., Hagerstown, Md. Mason Machine Works, Taunton, Mass. Munition Establishments at Bridgeport, Conn., sixty-five in number. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Smith & Wesson Co., Springfield, Mass. Standard Wheel Co., Terre Haute, Ind. Willys-Overland Plant, Elyria, Ohio. In addition, the War Labor Board ordered shop committee systems in the Virginia Bridge and Iron Co., Roanoke, Va.; the Southern California Iron and Steel Co., Los Angeles, Calif.; the Worthington Pump and Machinery Corporation and the Power and Mining Works, Cudahy, Wis.; the New York Cen tral Iron Works, Inc., Hagerstown, Md.; the Savage Arms Corporation, Utica, N. Y., and others. The plans first listed are apparently the most elaborate. Other Plans Colorado Fuel and Iron Co., Colorado, 1915. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, Bayonne, N. J., 1918. International Harvester Co., Chicago, Ill., several plants, 1919. Demuth Manufacturing Co., New York City, 1917. Packard Piano Co., Fort Wayne, Ind. 1913. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Sparrow's Point, Md., 1918. Printz-Biederman Co., Cleveland, Ohio, 1913. Morris Herman & Co., Newark, N. J. Irving-Pitt Manufacturing Co., Kansas City, Mo., 1917. Acme Wire Co., New Haven, Conn., 1918. Dennison Manufacturing Co., Framingham, Mass., 1918. Hydraulic Pressed Steel Co., Cleveland, Ohio, 1918. Leeds Northrup Co., Philadelphia, Pa., 1918. Procter and Gamble Co., Ivorydale, Ohio, 1917. Garner Print Works, Wappinger Falls, N. Y., 1918. Sprague Electric Works, Bloomfield, N. J., 1918. Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co., and subsidiaries, Johnstown, Pa., 1918. Shipyards wherever covered by Government awards, 1918. Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen, Portland, Ore. (headquarters), 1918. With the spreading of this movement toward representation in industry it is imperative that some central body, possibly a government agency, should act as a bureau of information so that students of the shop committee may be able to secure information without duplication of effort and unnecessary research. Relations of Unions to Shop Committees So far I have not spoken of the union in relation to the shop committee. This opens up a large field of discussion which it is unnecessary to enter at this time. It should be said, however, that in union shops where the men and the management deal with each other through union representatives, the shop committee system is already operating, in spirit and to a degree in fact. But it is the belief of many advocates of the shop committee idea that union recognition does not always do away with the necessity for a shop committee system. Such has been found to be the case in Great Britain where, owing to the stress of the war, the union mechanism was proved to be unadaptable to the problems of intensive management brought about by the war. War-worn England, facing internal revolution while in the midst of the greatest struggle of all time against autocratic domination of the world, turned to the basic principles of the shop committee and the joint industrial council as the only possible road toward industrial peace and prosperity. Fortunately we in this country have not faced the peril which England had to face. But that is no reason why we should not study with the profoundest interest both the English theory and practice of effecting co-operation between labor and capital as well as the theory and practice which America is developing in her own way. (b) WORKSHOP COUNCILS WORKSHOP COMMITTEES1 Preface to English Edition Some time ago I was asked to prepare a memorandum on the subject of Workshop Committees, for presentation to the British Association, as a part of the report of a special subcommittee studying industrial unrest. The following pages con 1 By C. G. Renold. Survey. 41: Sec. 1. October 5, 1918. tain the gist of that memorandum, and are now issued in this form for the benefit of some of those interested in the problem who may not see the original report. I have approached the subject with the conviction that the worker's desire for more scope in his working life can best be satisfied by giving him some share in the directing of it; if not of the work itself, at least of the conditions under which it is carried out. I have tried, therefore, to work out in some detail the part which organisations of workers might play in works administration. And believing as I do, that the existing industrial system, with all its faults and injustices, must still form the basis of any future system, I am concerned to show that a considerable development of joint action between management and workers is possible, even under present conditions. Many of the ideas put forward are already incorporated to a greater or lesser degree in the institutions of these works, but these notes are not intended, primarily, as an account of our experiments, still less as a forecast of the future plans of this firm. Our own experience and hopes do however, form the basis of much here written, and have inevitably influenced the general line of thought followed. Burnage Works. C. G. RENOLD, Hans Renold Limited, Manchester. Introduction Throughout the following notes it is assumed that the need is realised for a new orientation of ideas with regard to industrial management. It is further assumed that the trend of such ideas must be in the direction of a devolution of some of the functions and responsibilities of management on to the workers themselves. These notes, therefore, are concerned mainly with considering how far this devolution can be carried under present conditions, and the necessary machinery for enabling it to operate. Before passing, however, to detailed schemes, it is worth considering briefly what the aims of this devolution are. It must be admitted that the conditions of industrial life fail to satisfy the deeper needs of the workers, and that it is this failure, even more than low wages, which is responsible for much of their general unrest. Now the satisfaction to be |