REALES DRAGONES
Primavera 2020
Mi hija es una doctora. Es una doctora para dragones. Lo sé porque me lo dice cada día, todo el día, desde hace un mes cuando cerraron las guarderías. Su convicción sólo flaquea a ratos, cuando pregunta: Mamá, ¿dónde puedo encontrar un real dragón? Mi hija es ligeramente pocha. Como tiene tres años y yo no tengo ninguna ambición pedagógica, mi única misión de cuarentena es corregirle su español. La única misión de su padre es sacarla al sol una vez al día. (Lo del sol, aquí en Escocia, es relativo. Digamos: al fresco). La corrijo, pues: Un real dragón es inglés, en español decimos un dragón real.
No, insiste enojándose, este es otro tipo de real dragón, este es un real dragón real. Ah, OK, le digo. Y realmente me doy por bien servida.
Me prometí a mí misma que no usaría la primera persona del plural para hablarle a mi hija. Es una promesa que rompo todos los días, por lo general a primera hora. Se mete en nuestra cama muy temprano y a los pocos minutos yo ya estoy: ¡No pateamos! ¡No arañamos! ¡No, no, no nos echamos pedos en la cara de los demás, carajo!
No sabemos si se volvió doctora pensando que así la dejaríamos salir de casa. Por si las dudas, ya sólo oímos noticias con los audífonos. Mientras le doy el desayuno, escucho en una oreja el podcast de la BBC sobre el coronavirus. Me prometí que ésta sería mi única fuente de información pandémica y lo devoro temprano para más o menos a las
nueve estar ya en post depresión global y poder hacer mis labores maternas o, si me toca ese día a mí, encerrarme a trabajar. Es otra promesa que rompo todos los días.
En el Reino Unido nos permiten salir una vez al día a hacer ejercicio. Cuando salgo sola, corro. (Es relativo. Digamos: troto). Cuando salgo con hija la voy pastoreando para mantenerla a dos metros de distancia de quien sea. Quiero hacerlo de manera amena (de igual modo que, cuando suenan las ambulancias, cantamos niiino niiino y bailamos), pero no me sale. A las dos cuadras ya estoy: ¡No, no nos acercamos a la gente!
En el Museo de la Cirugía de Edimburgo, que antes pasaba a diario pero que ahora me parece un lugar remoto porque no está en mi barrio, un día escuché algo que me cambió la idea del pasado, como cuando algún primo manda a imprimir las diapositivas y uno se entera de que en 1950 la abuela ya se pintaba las uñas de un anaranjado ochentero. Lo que oí fue: antes de la invención de la anestesia, los hospitales eran los lugares más ruidosos del mundo.
Amigos de grandes ciudades me escriben: El silencio, ¡es increíble! Amigos de otras grandes ciudades me dicen: El ruido de las ambulancias, ¡es insoportable! A veces me dicen estas dos cosas amigos que viven en distintas partes de la misma gran ciudad. Su percepción, supongo, está simple y directamente relacionada a qué tan cerca de un hospital viven. En una ciudad acallada, los hospitales y sus tentáculos vuelven a ser el epicentro del ruido.
He notado que, cuando salgo a trotar, si alguien no respeta los dos metros y yo no tengo para dónde hacerme, dejo de respirar. Esto tiene un fundamento científico igual a cero, pero no lo puedo evitar. Y sospecho que no estoy sola. Debemos de haber millones de personas en el mundo haciéndolo. Es un nuevo síndrome. Apnea Involuntaria Por Cercanía Humana.
En la primera persona del plural nunca habíamos cabido tantos. No porque el virus unifique, por supuesto, ni mucho menos equipare, al contrario. Pero nunca habíamos estado tantos viviendo una situación tan similar al mismo tiempo en tantos lados. ¿Cómo vas?, le escribo a una amiga brasileña después de una década sin noticias. ¿Cómo lo llevas?, le escribo a un amigo en la India que no he visto en quince años. Todos contestan, todos saben a qué me refiero. Nunca habían sobrado tanto los preámbulos.
Me asomo desde la sala para entender un sonido. Es mi hija que va con un objeto no identificado de plástico rosa. No sé de dónde salió, seguramente del charity donde a veces nos compro juguetes por cincuenta centavos. Lo identifico: sirve para hacer masajes. Pero ella lo empuña con las dos manos y, estirando los brazos, lo hace zigzaguear por todo el pasillo. ¡Lejos!, le ordena: ¡Lejos del coronavirus!
También, nunca antes cupimos tantos en el departamento. Somos tres personas reales, pero muchas más reales personas reales. A la mayoría los conocemos desde antes de la pandemia. Cara, por ejemplo, vive con nosotros desde hace más de un año. Al principio me incomodó su omnipresencia.
Le pregunté a la maestra de la guardería si le parecía normal que una niña de dos años tuviera amigas imaginarias tan concretas. Me dijo que nunca lo había visto en veinte años de trabajo, pero que anormal no era. Me di por bien servida. Pero a la tercera semana de cuarentena me vuelvo a incomodar cuando empiezan a brotar versiones invisibles de los amigos de verdad. Le escribo a los papás. Organizamos desastrosas videollamadas infantiles.
Un día estoy desayunando de pie, por la simple razón de poder pegar las nalgas a la calefacción, y de pronto noto que mi hija me mira con curiosidad por encima de su yogurt con plátano.
¿Qué haces?, me pregunta. Chin, me cachó hablando sola.
Improviso: Estoy platicando con la mamá de Cara. Mi hija se queda muy satisfecha con mi respuesta.
De niña me daban envidia los niños con amigos imaginarios, así que me inventé que tenía unos cuantos. Ahora sé que lo mío era trampa. Los amigos imaginarios de mi hija son reales, los míos eran ficcionales. Siguen siendo. No sé a qué edad empecé a convivir con real gente real todo el día. Pero sí sé a qué hora del día, en la vida normal no pandémica, paso de las noticias a la novela, de mi hija a mis personajes. Es un tránsito que empieza en cuanto su papá se la lleva a la guardería. Pero ahora: ¿cómo voy a transitar correctamente con todos metidos en la misma pinche casa?
Me divierte notar que entre mi gran horror (por los muertos y los enfermos, por las muchas crisis que se vienen) y mis pequeños horrores (el de engordar por encierro, el de que se
nos acabe el vino o el papel de baño) hay un horror intermedio. No de que mi familia se meta con mi novela, sino de que se meta en mi novela. Todavía ni sucede y yo ya estoy:
¡No, no, no escribimos autoficción, carajo!
Encuentro a mi hija pegándole curitas al objeto rosa. Es mi dragón, me informa: Se hizo ouchie. Mi entusiasmo es genuino. ¡El real dragón real ahora es real-real! Le salió cuerpo. Fin del embrollo ontológico. Quizá los cincuenta centavos de libra mejor gastados de mi vida.
Hasta donde alcanzo a entender el embrollo actual es epidemiológico, pero también sistémico, epistémico, estadístico, geopolítico y económico. A ratos ético. A diario épico. Pero ontológico no. El virus es. Y frente a esa claridad se nos empaña, por orden cronológico sino de prioridades: lo que debió ser, lo que no es, lo que será.
La Ministra Principal de Escocia recién dio una rueda de prensa donde, a diferencia del gobierno inglés, abogó por la transparencia. Así, con total transparencia y tratándonos —en sus propias palabras— como adultos, nos informó que lo más seguro es que quién sabe.
El próximo agosto —tal vez, quién sabe— mi hija empezará la escuela. Irá a la pública de enfrente, que no es en inglés sino en gaélico escocés, una lengua celta que, al menos en mi cabeza, suena a élfico de Tolkien. Yo en gaélico escocés sólo sé decir gracias. Pero a la cuarta semana de encierro me digo que ya estuvo bueno de corregir español y empiezo a buscar
lecciones. Mi hija también debe estar lidiando con sus propios hartazgos porque al terminar una videollamada con mi mamá, grita furiosa: ¡Quiero ver gente REAL!
Mi primer gran amor empezó por chat. Cuando digo “investigar” generalmente me refiero a googlear algo. Siento a los amigos con los que me escribo mails más cercanos que los que tengo cerca. Pero igual me apanica imaginar que mi hija vaya a la escuela en línea. Este desdén por el internet me hace sentir real, pero de una manera ligeramente moralina.
Mientras que mi adicción al internet también me hace sentir real, pero de una manera más precaria, más primaria. ¿Más humana?
También he notado, en mis caminatas, que la gente que va platicando con gente real-real levanta sospechas. ¿Se dieron cita pese a las reglas de no verse con amigos? Porque, si viven juntos, ¿qué pueden tener para decirse a estas alturas de la cuarentena? Es un viejo síndrome. Desprestigio Por Envidia.
¿A qué juegan?, pregunta mi marido asomándose a la cocina. Estamos repitiendo sonidos imposibles frente a un video de YouTube.
We’re counting in garlic!, dice mi hija.
Gaelic, la corrijo, sin la erre.
¿Cómo se dice siete?, pregunta el papá.
Tap-la, digo yo, y él se da por bien servido.
(Pero tap-la significa gracias y no tengo ni idea de cómo se escribe).
Se me ocurre que dedicarse a escribir ficción requiere un equilibrio constante entre la fascinación y el repele por la gente real-real.
Si lo hubiera dicho mi hija, yo le diría: No decimos el repele. No le podría decir “es verbo, no sustantivo” porque eso ya lo dijo Arjona y se me activa el cursímetro. Pero mi hija no dice el repele. A mi hija no le sale la erre. O, como no se cansan de señalar los amigos que ahora se aferran al Zoom como antes al bar: Habla como gringa.
La balanza de su bilingüismo se inclina según con qué abuela hizo el más reciente Skype. Si la oímos exclamar: Oh, dear! es que habló con mi suegra. Si después de soltarnos algún cuento aclara: No es cierto, nomás andaba vacilando, es que habló con mi mamá. Su sentido de la identidad también varía. De soy una vaciladora pasa a I’m so silly! Es imposible saber qué dirá de ella misma cuando aprenda gaélico. Me da nostalgia que no le voy a entender.
No me interesa hornear pan de pandemia. Me deja indiferente el ímpetu repentino por plantar tomates. No siento más que extrañeza, con un toque de envidia, por los que limpian febrilmente. Pero no estar registrando por escrito me da culpa. Como siempre. Cuando estaba embarazada me sentía mal de no describir las variaciones corporales. Desde que parí vivo con culpa de no anotar lo que mi hija dice y de no llenar
cuadernillos con mis elucubraciones sobre la maternidad. Me da pena que en realidad no pienso nada sobre la maternidad. (Es verbo, no sustantivo.) Ahora me da culpa no llevar un diario de la cuarentena. O quizá nomás me da nostalgia que no me voy a entender.
Esto es lo que sé, gracias al diario atisbo permitido, sobre la primavera 2020: al principio del encierro no había flores. Salieron las flores. Se están empezando a caer las flores.
El cursímetro se me apaga los jueves, a las ocho de la noche en punto. Es el momento en que en el Reino Unido abrimos las ventanas —yo envuelta en cobijas— y aplaudimos y coreamos por el Sistema Nacional de Salud hasta desgañitarnos. A mí que ni el futbol me activa el nacionalismo mexicano, a mí que ni el discurso de la reina me trastocó la vena antiimperialista, todos los jueves sin falta me quiebra el aplauso al NHS.
Quiero pensar que esta emoción no es patriotismo, sino algo más como humanismo o universalismo. Que le estamos aplaudiendo a todos los doctores y enfermeras del mundo. Que estamos adueñándonos del ruido, aligerándoles por un nanosegundo la carga a los hospitales. Pero quién sabe: ya hemos visto que en los sistemas de salud se dibujan las inequidades y las fronteras. Y para hacerme dudar más, están las gaitas.
En la calle una vecina, en riguroso kilt tartán, toca la suya a todo volumen (no hay otra manera de tocar la gaita) como por diez minutos y eso ayuda, estoy segura, a que aguantemos el aplauso más tiempo, a la par que exacerba la emoción que el ritual nos provoca. Me pregunto entonces si el nacionalismo
escocés no se me estará metiendo como por ósmosis, o como se mete un virus: en un descuido. Y me pregunto también si uno no es, también un poco, de donde sus hijos crecen. Si uno no es o no será, en parte, de donde pasó esta cuarentena. Es un embrollo identitario, pero no —al menos no por ahora ni por las siguientes tres semanas, tal vez meses— logístico. Somos de donde estamos. Somos donde estamos. Y buena suerte explicándole a sus hijos pochos que en épocas normales esos son dos verbos, no uno.
Cuando en el futuro mi hija me pregunte cómo pasamos la época del coronavirus, le entregaré este texto. Es un real diario real, le diré. Y ella se dará por bien servida.
P’TIT COCHON
Verano 2020
Mi hija ahora es una princesa. Aunque el libro que la obsesiona es aún el mismo, el foco de su pasión ha cambiado. Ya no le interesa tanto el maletín de la princesa doctora de dragones, ahora le interesan la realeza y la ropa. Los zapatos. El peinado. No sé qué me vuelve más loca, si mis pelos pandémicos o su pasión sartorial, que sólo flaquea a ratos, cuando se mira en el espejo y pregunta:
Mamá, ¿tú crees que este es un silly frilly dress?
A las diez semanas de confinamiento, el Reino Unido dejó de aplaudirle cada jueves al NHS y con la pérdida de ese ritual algo se nos fue desconectando. Siento como si por un momento hubiéramos avistado, desde nuestro submarino, al Otro con mayúscula, y ahora que pasamos de la novedad a la normal nuevidad, no podemos más que mirarnos el ombligo.
Lo otro que me vuelve loca es el calendario que tenemos pegado con masking tape en la pared de la cocina y que dicta en dos colores nuestra carrera de relevos. Cuando mi marido tiene a la princesa, yo trabajo, y viceversa. Ad infinitum. Yo misma dibujo el calendario cada domingo, haciendo malabares alrededor de los Zooms de ambos y con buenas intenciones de terminar mi novela, pero una vez en la pared los rectángulos bicolor cobran un aura autoritaria que sólo me produce ganas de rebelarme.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
purposes of the board have become more clearly understood, a greater number of differences have been settled without reaching the stage of formal complaints. The members use their influence with the contestants to effect a compromise, avoiding the delay occasioned by a formal investigation.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: United States: A. D. 1909 (May-June). The Georgia Railroad Strike.
See (in this Volume) Race Problems: United States: A. D). 1909.
LABOR ORGANIZATION: United States: A. D. 1909-1910. Strike of Girls in the Shirtwaist Trade at New York. Its Social Significance.
One of the most important of recent labor strikes, in its social aspect, was undertaken in November, 1909, by the shirtwaist-makers of New York City, mostly girls. At the outset, the strikers numbered between 25,000 and 30,000; but half of them, by the middle of December, had made terms with their employers and resumed work. Ten or fifteen thousand were still in heroic contention with obstinate masters of the trade, and having public opinion and sympathy very strongly on their side. "The strike began," says the New York Evening Post, "in a multiplicity of causes. Wages, sanitary conditions in the shops, humane treatment by foremen and forewomen, and recognition of the Waistmakers’ Union all played a part. The contest has now [December 15] settled down to the single question of the union shop. The employers profess themselves ready to arbitrate every other point in dispute. The strikers maintain that recognition of their union is their only guarantee against the recurrence of conditions such as precipitated the conflict. … It would be easy to exaggerate the significance of the eager way in which the Suffragist leaders have thrown themselves into the conflict. It is even easy to exaggerate the significance of the way in
which women of wealth and social prominence have come out in support of the strike. More significant to us is the zeal with which women of no very great social prominence, but still not of the working class, have from the beginning given their services in organizing and managing the strike, and particularly in doing picket duty on the streets and defending the rights of the girl employés before the police magistrates and in the courts. Here evidently is a sex-sentiment which cuts across the boundaries of class and bids fair to give a new aspect to labor conflicts of the future in which women are involved. The present strike has a social significance quite beyond the questions immediately at issue. It is our first great woman’s strike, and as such it signalizes in a dramatic fashion woman’s invasion into the field of industry."
----------LABOR ORGANIZATION: End--------
----------LABOR PROTECTION: Start--------
EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE
HOURS OF LABOR, etc.
LABOR PROTECTION: Safety Guards. Employers’ Liability. Insurance, etc. The Needed Law.
"In order to protect workingmen against injury by disease or negligent arrangements of machinery and ways, we need a state code of regulations which will prescribe protective devices, provide faithful inspectors and punish those guilty of violating the law. The roundabout method of making employers liable for damages in case of negligence has little effect, because employers can buy legal protection and wage-earners
have no money for law suits. Employers’ liability laws may be made more severe and drastic; by statutes the obnoxious ‘fellow servant’ factor may be eliminated; various other provisions may be enacted by Congress and by state legislatures to extend somewhat the definition of negligence; but no law of this kind ever was made or ever can be made which will protect workmen from the loss of wages not clearly due to negligence of employers. An employer cannot be made ‘liable’ for defects for which he or his agent is not responsible. It is sheer waste of time to labor for improvement of a law whose fundamental principle covers only cases of employers’ fault, because a vast number of injuries are due to causes which the utmost care cannot prevent.
{396}
"In order to secure income in periods of incapacity for labor several legal ways are open. The British method has much to commend it and finds favor with many Americans, the method based on the principle of ‘compensation.’ In Great Britain the old liability law is left to stand, like a rotting trunk, by the side of the new and living tree of the ‘compensation’ law. By the terms of this new law, enacted in 1897 and extended 1907 to certain trade diseases, the employer is required to pay indemnity to any employé who is injured in health or limb by accident or any cause due to the trade, and in case of death his dependent family is paid a certain sum for support. The employer resting under this obligation is permitted to meet it any way he can find. Usually he will bargain with an insurance company to carry his legal risk for a premium. It is said the insurance companies are putting up the rates, but Britishers will discover a way to cover the risk in the cheapest form. Already our federal government has embodied this ‘compensation’ principle in a law which gives a meagre sum to its own employés of certain classes when injured in its service; and the example of the central government will probably soon be imitated in several states. Bills are now
being drawn for this purpose.
"The ‘social insurance’ principle is entirely different from that of either ‘liability’ or ‘compensation.’ The word ‘compensation’ carries a little of the flavor of the ancient damage suit, while ‘insurance’ is simply an amicable business arrangement to provide in advance for the inevitable average risk of the trade, which may be extended beyond the perils of the shop and mill to all places and conditions of the workman's life.
"Historically the unquestioned tendency is from the liability principle to the direct insurance principle, with a wayside inn, perhaps, in some law like that of Great Britain, the law of France being almost squarely on the social insurance ground so far as it goes.
"The Illinois Industrial Insurance Commission proposed a law based on the insurance principle, though its friends were compelled to stop at a compromise with existing laws and constitutions. The bill offered by that commission was based on permission and persuasion; it offered to the employers who would provide an adequate system of insurance against trade accidents, freedom from the sword of the existing liability law; and it offered to the workmen, if they were willing to accept these terms, an assured income in case of injury and to their dependents relief in case of death due to occupation. A law passed by the Legislature of Massachusetts, in May, 1908, has actually embodied this idea and set it to work in the field of experiment. It remains to be seen whether the motives mentioned will induce employers and employés to agree on the plan. Without agreement the law will be a dead letter, for it is merely permissive, and agreements will not be made unless the economic motive is adequate. Up to this writing (December 7) not a single employer has organized a scheme under this law.
"The Wisconsin Board of Labor has made what seems a wise proposition to the effect that employers be compelled to insure their employés up to the ordinary amount already known to be spent for litigation, casualty insurance premiums and other expenses; and they also properly suggest state organization for the collection and administration of the premiums.
"The recent International Congress on Workingmen’s Insurance, after many years of debate, reached conclusions of vast import, happily without dissent. One conclusion was that all attempts to insure the workmen who most need it, whose pay is small and uncertain, and who are not organized, must prove failures. Delegates from France and England who have always stood for ‘liberty’ have come to admit this truth. Not even subsidies to voluntary insurance associations have been effective. Only when insurance is made compulsory on all does it reach the multitude of the wage-earners. But compulsion to insure may include liberty of method, if the plan adopted is approved by legal authority and by actuaries. Either private companies, mutual associations, or state departments of insurance may be trusted to conduct the plans once they are obligatory on all.
"Another interesting conclusion at the Rome congress was that compulsory insurance can cover only a minimum guarantee of income to the sick, wounded or invalid workman; while above this minimum, with advancing wages, workmen and their employers can well unite in providing more generously for loss of income by voluntary payments of higher premiums. Trade unions, fraternal societies and other organizations, as well as casualty companies, have before them an indefinite field for expanding their activities in this direction."
Charities and the Commons, March 13, 1909.
LABOR PROTECTION: Accident and Sickness Insurance: Proposed Amendments to the German Compulsory Insurance Laws.
A Bill to amend the compulsory insurance laws of Germany which was laid by the Imperial Government before the Federal Council in April, 1909, to be acted on in the course of the ensuing year, is described in part elsewhere.
See, in Volume IV. of this work, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1883-1889.
See in Volume VI. GERMANY: A. D. 1897-1900.
See in this Volume, POVERTY, PROBLEMS OF: PENSIONS.
Of the contemplated amendments that relate to accident and sickness insurance it was announced, that "the proposed amendments of the law of accident insurance are mainly formal, but the scheme of insurance against illness is to be largely extended, and will include practically all classes of workers for whom insurance against invalidity and old age is or is to be compulsory. On the one hand, the system will in future include agricultural labourers, workers engaged for less than one week, and assistants and apprentices, whose insurance is not at present compulsory. On the other hand, it will include such categories of workers as stage and orchestra employés, and teachers who are not in the service of the State, if their salaries do not exceed £100 a year. The crews of seagoing ships, as well as of vessels plying on inland waterways, are now brought into the general sick insurance system." {397}
LABOR PROTECTION:
Accidents to Workmen in the United States.
The Death Roll.
Appalling Statistics.
"Mr. Frederick L. Hoffman, of the Bureau of Labor, Department of Commerce and Labor, has compiled some striking statistics concerning the subject of accidents to workingmen. The importance of this subject is apparent when it is considered that between 30,000 and 35,000 workmen lose their lives in accidents in the course of their employment in this country during a year. Statistics have been secured from official sources and from insurance experience which show that the accident liability to which American workmen are subject is indeed high. Census reports covering the years 1900 to 1906 show that out of over 1,000,000 deaths of males more than nine per cent. were due to accident. The liability of workmen to accidental injury or death is brought under five general classifications, including factories and workshops, electrical industries, mines and quarries, transportation by rail and transportation by water. Of those employed in factories and workshops, probably the most exposed class is the workers in iron and steel. Of 8,456 accidents during the years 1901 to 1905, 4.1 per cent, of the accidents to men employed in rolling mills resulted fatally. According to industrial insurance experience, the fatal-accident rate of electricians and of electric linemen is excessive. Of 645 deaths of electricians, 14.7 per cent., and of 240 deaths of linemen, 46.7 per cent., were due to accidents. In the anthracite mines of Pennsylvania state inspectors have found that during ten years there have averaged annually 3.18 fatal accidents for every 1,000 men employed, and the rate is even higher than this for certain specific occupations in the mines. That this rate is excessive is shown by comparison with the death rate from accident of 1.29 per 1,000 in the British coal mines. Reports of the Interstate Commerce Commission show that during ten years 16,363 railway trainmen lost their lives in accidents. This is equivalent to 7.46 deaths per 1,000
employés."
Electrical Review, January 2, 1909.
LABOR PROTECTION: Child Labor.
See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS WORKERS.
LABOR PROTECTION: Employers’ Liability in Great Britain. The Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1906.
The Workmen’s Compensation Act which passed the British Parliament in December, 1906, has the core of its purpose in the first of two appended schedules, which fixes the "Scale and Conditions of Compensation," in the following terms:
"(1) The amount of compensation under this Act shall be
"(a) where death results from the injury
"(i) if the workman leaves any dependants wholly dependent upon his earnings, a sum equal to his earnings in the employment of the same employer during the three years next preceding the injury, or the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, whichever of those sums is the larger, but not exceeding in any case three hundred pounds, provided that the amount of any weekly payments made under this Act, and any lump sum paid in redemption thereof, shall be deducted from such sum, and, if the period of the workman’s employment by the said employer has been less than the said three years, then the amount of his earnings during the said three years shall be deemed to be one hundred and fifty-six times his average weekly earnings during the period of his actual employment under the said employer;
"(ii) if the workman does not leave any such dependants, but leaves any dependants in part dependent upon his earnings, such sum, not exceeding in any case the amount payable under the foregoing provisions, as may be agreed upon, or, in default of agreement, may be determined, on arbitration under this Act, to be reasonable and proportionate in the injury to the said dependants; and
"(iii) if he leaves no dependants, the reasonable expenses of his medical attendance and burial, not exceeding ten pounds;
"(b) where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury, a weekly payment during the incapacity not exceeding fifty per cent. of his average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, if he has been so long employed, but if not then for any less period during which he has been in the employment of the same employer, such weekly payment not to exceed one pound:
"Provided that
"(a) if the incapacity lasts less than two weeks no compensation shall be payable in respect of the first week; and
"(b) as respects the weekly payments during total incapacity of a workman who is under twenty-one years of age at the date of the injury, and whose average weekly earnings are less than twenty shillings, one hundred per cent, shall be substituted for fifty per cent. of his average weekly earnings, but the weekly payment shall in no case exceed ten shillings.
"(2) For the purposes of the provisions of this schedule relating to ‘earnings’ and ‘average weekly earnings’ of a
workman, the following rules shall be observed:
"(a) average weekly earnings shall be computed in such manner as is best calculated to give the rate per week at which the workman was being remunerated. Provided that where by reason of the shortness of the time during which the workman has been in the employment of his employer, or the casual nature of the employment, or the terms of the employment, it is impracticable at the date of the accident to compute the rate of remuneration, regard may be had to the average weekly amount which, during the twelve months previous to the accident, was being earned by a person in the same grade, employed at the same work by the same employer, or, if there is no person so employed, by a person in the same grade employed in the same class of employment and in the same district;
"(b) where the workman had entered into concurrent contracts of service with two or more employers under which he worked at one time for one such employer and at another time for another such employer, his average weekly earnings shall be computed as if his earnings under all such contracts were earnings in the employment of the employer for whom he was working at the time of the accident;
"(c) employment by the same employer shall be taken to mean employment by the same employer in the grade in which the workman was employed at the time of the accident, uninterrupted by absence from work due to illness or any other unavoidable cause;
"(d) Where the employer has been accustomed to pay to the workman a sum to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment, the sum so paid shall not be reckoned as part of the earnings.
{398}
"(3) In fixing the amount of the weekly payment, regard shall be had to any payment, allowance, or benefit which the workman may receive from the employer during the period of his incapacity, and in the case of partial incapacity the weekly payment shall in no case exceed the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the average weekly amount which he is earning or is able to earn in some suitable employment or business after the accident, but shall bear such relation to the amount of that difference as under the circumstances of the case may appear proper.
"(4) Where a workman has given notice of an accident, he shall, if so required by the employer, submit himself for examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner provided and paid by the employer, and, if he refuses to submit himself to such examination, or in any way obstructs the same, his right to compensation, and to take or prosecute any proceeding under this Act in relation to compensation, shall be suspended until such examination has taken place."
Further clauses of this schedule, and of the second schedule, which relates to the arbitration of disputed matters, are prescriptive in detail of procedure for carrying out the orders stated above. The liability of the employer and its limitations are set forth in the body of the Act, as follows:
"I.
(1) If in any employment personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act.
(2) Provided that
"(a) The employer shall not be liable under this Act in respect of any injury which does not disable the workman for a period of at least one week from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed:
"(b) When the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of the employer, but in that case the workman may, at his option, either claim compensation under this Act or take proceedings independently of this Act; but the employer shall not be liable to pay compensation for injury to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment both independently of and also under this Act, and shall not be liable to any proceedings independently of this Act, except in case of such personal negligence or wilful act as aforesaid:
"(c) If it is proved that the injury to a workman is attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of that workman, any compensation claimed in respect of that injury shall, unless the injury results in death or serious and permanent disablement, be disallowed.
"(3) If any question arises in any proceedings under this Act as to the liability to pay compensation under this Act (including any question as to whether the person injured is a workman to whom this Act applies), or as to the amount or duration of compensation under this Act, the question, if not settled by agreement, shall, subject to the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the Second Schedule to this Act."
LABOR PROTECTION: In New Zealand: Compensation for "Miners’ Disease."
In the later part of 1908 a singular labor strike was caused
in New Zealand by legislation making "miners’ disease" a ground of compensation from employers. The men refused to be examined for the disease, and the masters refused to engage them without examination; while the Government, which apparently expected masters to take the risk of engaging men already diseased, itself refused to admit the miners to the benefits of State insurance without examination.
A despatch from Wellington, January 9, 1909, announced: "The Waihi miners have unanimously refused to submit to medical examination, and 1,700 men will cease work on Monday unless the owners concede the point. The outlook is serious and the township is depressed. The Auckland coal miners remain idle, and consequently part of the coast fleet is laid up and a number of hands have been discharged." But a later despatch of the same date added: "The Government have now resolved to accept the risk of insuring the miners without examination, pending an amendment of the Act next session.
LABOR PROTECTION: In the United States: On Interstate Railways.
In his message to Congress, December, 1908, the President referred to this enactment, which he had approved in the previous April:
"Among the excellent laws which the Congress passed at the last session was an employers’ liability law. It was a marked step in advance to get the recognition of employers’ liability on the statute books; but the law did not go far enough. In spite of all precautions exercised by employers there are unavoidable accidents and even deaths involved in nearly every line of business connected with the mechanic arts. This inevitable sacrifice of life may be reduced to a minimum, but it can not be completely eliminated. It is a great social injustice to compel the employee, or rather the family of the killed or disabled victim, to bear the entire burden of such
an inevitable sacrifice. In other words, society shirks its duty by laying the whole cost on the victim, whereas the injury comes from what may be called the legitimate risks of the trade. Compensation for accidents or deaths due in any line of industry to the actual conditions under which that industry is carried on should be paid by that portion of the community for the benefit of which the industry is carried on that is, by those who profit by the industry. If the entire trade risk is placed upon the employer he will promptly and properly add it to the legitimate cost of production and assess it proportionately upon the consumers of his commodity. It is therefore clear to my mind that the law should place this entire ‘risk of a trade’ upon the employer. Neither the Federal law, nor, as far as I am informed, the State laws dealing with the question of employers’ liability are sufficiently thorogoing. The Federal law should of course include employees in navy-yards, arsenals, and the like."
{399}
The following is the text of the Act:
"Section 1.
That every common carrier by railroad while engaging in commerce between any of the several States or Territories, or between any of the States and Territories, or between the District of Columbia and any of the States or Territories, or between the District of Columbia or any of the States or Territories and any foreign nation or nations, shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce, or, in case of the death of such employee, to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee; and, if none, then of such employee’s parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents or employees of
such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, boats, wharves, or other equipment.
"Section 2.
That every common carrier by railroad in the Territories, the District of Columbia, the Panama Canal Zone, or other possessions of the United States shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in any of said jurisdictions, or, in case of the death of such employee, to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee; and, if none, then of such employee’s parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, boats, wharves, or other equipment.
"Section 3.
That in all actions hereinafter brought against any such common carrier by railroad under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this Act to recover damages for personal injuries to an employee, or where such injuries have resulted in his death, the fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employee: Provided, That no such employee who may be injured or killed shall be held to have been guilty of contributory negligence in any case where the violation by such common carrier of any statute enacted for the safety of employees contributed to the injury or death of such employee.
"Section 4.
That in any action brought against any common carrier under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this Act to recover damages for injuries to, or death of, any of its employees, such employee shall not be held to have assumed the risks of his employment in any case where the violation by such common carrier of any statute enacted for the safety of employees contributed to the injury or death of such employee.
"Section 5.
That any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose or intent of which shall be to enable any common carrier to exempt itself from any liability created by this Act, shall to that extent be void: Provided, That in any action brought against any such common carrier under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this Act, such common carrier may set off therein any sum it has contributed or paid to any insurance, relief benefit, or indemnity that may have been paid to the injured employee or the person entitled thereto on account of the injury or death for which said action was brought.
"Section 6.
That no action shall be maintained under this Act unless commenced within two years from the day the cause of action accrued.
"Section 7.
That the term ‘common carrier’ as used in this Act shall include the receiver or receivers or other persons or corporations charged with the duty of the management and operation of the business of a common carrier.
"Section 8.
That nothing in this Act shall be held to limit the duty or liability of common carriers or to impair the rights of their employees under any other Act or Acts of Congress, or to
affect the prosecution of any pending proceeding or right of action under the Act of Congress entitled ‘An Act relating to liability of common carriers in the District of Columbia and Territories, and to common carriers engaged in commerce between the States and between the States and foreign nations to their employees,’ approved June eleventh, nineteen hundred and six."
Statutes of the United States of America passed 1st at Session of the 60th Congress, 1907-1908, part 1, chapter 149.
LABOR PROTECTION: HOURS OF LABOR:
Judicial Limitation of Police Power to regulate them in the United States.
By a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, in April, 1905, an Act of the Legislature of New York, limiting the hours of labor to be exacted from workmen in bakeries, was pronounced unconstitutional. The law in question provided that "no employee shall be required or permitted to work in a biscuit, bread or cake bakery or confectionery establishment more than sixty hours in any one week, or more than ten hours in any one day, unless for the purpose of making a shorter work day on the last day of the week; nor more hours in any one week than will make an average of ten hours per day for the number of days during such week in which such employee shall work." The New York Court of Appeals had passed on this enactment and declared it constitutional, as a measure for the protection of public health. A majority of the Supreme Court five to four rejected this view, saying, in the opinion written by Justice Peckham: "We think the limit of the police power has been reached and passed in this case. There is, in our judgment, no reasonable foundation for holding this to be necessary or appropriate as a health law to safeguard the public health or the health of the individuals who are following the trade of a baker." In the dissenting opinion of
Justice Harlan, Justices White and Day concurring, it was said: "The rule is universal that a legislative enactment, Federal or State, is never to be disregarded or held invalid unless it be, beyond question, plainly and palpably in excess of legislative power. If there be doubt as to the validity of the statute, that doubt must therefore be resolved in favor of its validity, and the courts must keep their hands off, leaving the Legislature to meet the responsibility for unwise legislation."
LABOR PROTECTION: LIMITATION OF WORKING HOURS FOR TRAINMEN.
See (in this Volume) RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1907. {400}
LABOR PROTECTION: THE "ENGLISH COAL MINES (EIGHT HOUR) ACT."
The Act so called, passed in 1908, came into force on the 1st of July, 1909, except as respects mines in the counties of Northumberland and Durham, where its operation was deferred until the 1st of January, 1910. The Act provides that "a workman shall not be below ground in a mine for the purpose of his work, or of going to and from his work, for more than eight hours during any consecutive twenty-four hours"; but this is qualified by the condition that "no contravention of the foregoing provisions shall be deemed to take place in the case of a workman working in a shift if the period between the times at which the last workman in the shift leaves the surface and the first workman in the shift returns to the surface does not exceed eight hours." This rule, it is said, makes the nominal working day of eight hours "one that will vary, according to local conditions, from eight and a half to nine hours." On the other hand, the Coal Owners’Association
of South Wales and Monmouthshire, in a manifesto issued shortly before the Act became operative, declared: "The Act does not permit eight hours’ work underground, but a considerable portion of this time is taken up in travelling to and from the actual place of work, and in many of the older collieries not more than 6½ hours’ effective work will be performed. The owners are strongly of opinion that it will be found impossible to work such collieries and maintain them in repair with all the pumping of water, boilers, engines, horses, officials, and attendants necessary for 24 hours per day on 6½ hours’ productive work, especially in view of the fact that in South Wales a much larger proportion of the collier’s time is occupied in other work than in producing coal than is the case in most other coalfields."
The conditions are described as being different in the Welsh mines from those in other British coal fields, and it seems to have been there only that trouble arose when the Act came into effect.
LABOR PROTECTION:
Germany’s Latest Code.
"The coal miners of Prussia have secured a legal eight-hours day for underground work, but in industry generally the number of hours worked is ten daily, or sixty weekly, and these hours generally fall between six and six or seven and seven. In some industries, and especially the textile industries, from sixty-three to sixty-six hours per week are commonly worked by both sexes. … Just as there was once a time when the textile industry of the Rhineland worked to a large extent seventeen hours a day in order to facilitate competition with England’s more highly developed factories and more skilled workers, so now a day of ten and eleven hours is maintained in the same industry purely out of fear of the foreigner. … The only limitation of hours introduced by the amendment to the Industrial Code which was passed in 1908 applied to female
workers, and it merely fixed the rule of sixty hours, subject to many exceptions. An investigation made in 1902 by the Government into the hours worked by females employed in factories and workshops showed that of 813,560 such workpeople, employed in 38,706 works, 86,191 (in 6,768 works), or 10.6 per cent., worked nine hours or less, while 347,814 (in 18,267 works), or 42.8 per cent., worked from nine to ten hours (inclusive), so that over half already enjoy the protection which the new law is to afford. The Socialists at present demand a ten-hours day for both sexes, for the whole country and for all industries, but they regard this no longer as their final objective, but as a stage on the way towards the goal of an eight-hours day, via a halfway house of nine hours."
William H. Dawson, The Involution of Modern Germany, pages 129-131 (Unwin, London; Scribners, New York, 1909).
"On December 28 last [1908] an industrial amendment Act was passed by the German Reichstag and became law. It introduces a number of new and more stringent regulations for the protection of women and children, which will have the effect of securing a large reduction of the hours of labour in many manufacturing industries. In its application it goes beyond the existing factory law, which applies to Fabriken, and it includes all Betriebe (industrial establishments) in which ten or more persons are employed. It reduces the maximum number of hours for women from 11 to 10 on ordinary week days and from 10 to 8 on Saturday. That is to say, it reduces the statutory maximum week from 65 to 58 hours. It extends the period during which night-work is prohibited by an hour, and fixes it from 8 p. m. to 6 a. m., instead of from 8.30 p. m. to 5.30 a. m. as heretofore. It further provides that after each day’s work an unbroken interval of 11 hours’ rest must elapse; and this also applies
to workers of both sexes under 16. The latter, who already enjoy the daily and weekly maximum now granted to women, will also have the statutory times of beginning and leaving off work altered from 5.30 A. M. to 6 A. M. for beginning and from 8.30 A. M. to 8 P. M. for leaving off."
LONDON TIMES, MARCH 15, 1909.
LABOR PROTECTION:
Japanese Legislation in Prospect.
The following report from Japan came to the American Press in a telegram dated December 15, 1909, at Victoria, British Columbia: Factory owners of Japan, who employ 642,000 hands, of whom 392,000 are women and a big percentage children, are excited over factory laws to be advocated at this session of the Diet, according to news brought here yesterday. The law will provide against employment of children less than twelve years old, but those above ten now employed will be permitted to continue. Workers under sixteen and females may not be worked more than twelve hours a day, and must be given two days rest each month. In days of ten hours, an hour’s rest must be given.
LABOR PROTECTION:
Report of the United States Industrial Commission in 1902. Recommendations for State Legislation.
Child Labor and Woman’s Labor.
The Utah Law on Labor in Mines.
"Perhaps the subject of greatest public interest to-day is that of the regulation of the hours of labor permitted in industrial occupations, and especially in factories. Most of the Northern and Eastern States prohibit the employment of persons under the full age in factories or other mechanical establishments for more than a prescribed time per diem,
usually ten hours, and not exceeding sixty hours per week. Obviously, Congress has no power without a constitutional amendment to legislate directly on this subject. The Commission are of the opinion that a uniform law upon this subject may wisely be recommended for adoption by all the States.
{401}
We believe that such legislation can not, under the Federal and State constitutions be recommended as to persons, male or female, above the age of 21, except, of course, in some special industries where employment for too many hours becomes positively a menace to the health, safety or well-being of the community; but minors not yet clothed with all the rights of citizens are peculiarly the subject of State protection, and still more so young children. The commission are of opinion, therefore, that a simple statute ought to be enacted by all the States to regulate the length of the working day for young persons in factories (meaning by 'young persons’ those between the age of majority and 14); and in view of the entire absence of protection now accorded by the laws of many States to children of tender years we think that the employment of children in factories in any capacity, or for any time, under the age of 14, should be prohibited. The question of shops and mercantile establishments generally appears even more subject to local conditions than that of factories; therefore the Commission see no need for even recommending to the States any uniform legislation upon this subject. But child labor should be universally protected by educational restrictions, providing in substance that no child may be employed in either factories, shops, or in stores in large cities, who cannot read and write, and, except during vacation, unless he has attended school for at least twelve weeks in each year. Further regulation, especially in the line of bringing States which now have no factory acts up to a higher standard, is earnestly recommended.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the
constitutionality of the Utah law limiting the length of the day’s labor in mines or under-ground workings, even in the case of male citizens of full age. The Commission would therefore recommend that the provisions of the Utah constitution and statutes be followed in all the States, by which the period of employment of workmen in all under-ground mines or workings shall be eight hours a day, except in cases of emergency, when life or property is in imminent danger, and also that the employment of children under the age of 14 and of all women and girls in mines or under-ground quarries and workings shall be forbidden."
Final Report (1902) of Industrial Commission, pages 946-948.
LABOR PROTECTION:
Hours of Labor for Women.
Right of the State to put other Limitations than on Men. U. S. Supreme Court Decision.
The constitutional right of a State to put other limitations on the hours of labor for women than it puts on the hours of labor for men was questioned by the proprietor of a laundry in Oregon, and the question was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision of that tribunal was rendered early in 1908, affirming the right of a State to make such distinction in labor limitations between the two sexes, and the ground of the decision introduces a principle of enormous importance into law. A legal limitation of the hours of labor touches the contractual rights of the individual, and the Court conceded that in those rights women stand on the same plane as men; but the State, it declares, has the constitutional right, for the public good, to limit the contractual right of the individual, and its reasoning on the matter before it turns therefore on the question whether the protection of women by this special limitation of contractual rights is or is not for the public good? On this question the
counsel for the State of Oregon, Mr. Louis D. Brandeis, had submitted a remarkable mass of testimony, social and physiological, which the Court accepted as conclusive, and founded its decision thereon. This testimony the Court declared to be "significant of a widespread belief that women’s physical structure, and the functions she performs in consequence thereof, justify special legislation restricting or qualifying the conditions under which she should be permitted to toil." Though "constitutional questions … are not settled by even a consensus of present public opinion," yet the Court held that "when a question of fact is debated and debatable, and the extent to which a special constitutional limitation goes is affected by the truth in respect to that fact, a widespread and long-continued belief concerning it is worthy of consideration." Applying that principle in this case, the Court affirmed that "as healthy mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest and care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race." On account of her physical constitution, "she is not an equal competitor with her brother." In spite of the removal of legal and other disabilities, "she will still be where some legislation to protect her seems necessary to secure a real equality of right." Such legislation to defend woman, to use the Court’s phrase, "from the greed as well as the passion of man," is not merely for her benefit, but for the well-being of the race.
"The two sexes," said Justice Brewer, who delivered the decision of the Court, "differ in structure of body, in the functions to be performed by each, in the amount of physical strength, in the capacity for long-continued labor, particularly when done standing, the influence of vigorous health upon the future well-being of the race, the self-reliance which enables one to assert full rights, and in the capacity to maintain the struggle for subsistence. This difference justifies a difference in legislation and upholds that which is designed to compensate for some of the burdens
which rest upon her."
LABOR PROTECTION: ORIENTAL COMPETITION: The Force of the Objection to it in Countries under the Protective Tariff System.
See (in this Volume)
RACE PROBLEMS; UNITED STATES.
LABOR PROTECTION: A. D. 1900-1909. Study and Treatment of Industrial Problems in the United States by the National Civic Federation.
See (in this Volume)
SOCIAL BETTERMENT: UNITED STATES.
----------LABOR PROTECTION: End-------{402}
----------LABOR REMUNERATION: Start--------
LABOR REMUNERATION. Cooperative Organization. Pensions. Profit-sharing. Wages Regulation, etc.)
LABOR REMUNERATION: The Bonus System. Its Working in the Shops of the Bethlehem Steel Company.
"Awarding extra compensation for extra work has long been the practice of successful manufacturing; but the particular method of awarding a bonus above referred to is of recent origin, and fills an important need in modern systems of management. It may be briefly described as follows:
Alternative ways of doing a piece of work are carefully investigated by the most competent expert available and the results recorded. The best method is determined and taught to an ordinary workman, who is awarded extra compensation in addition to his day’s pay for doing the work in the time and manner specified. This method of compensation was the outcome of an attempt to introduce in complicated work equitable piece rates determined as nearly as possible by scientific methods."
The original working out of this method into a system is ascribed by the writer of the above to Mr. Fred W. Taylor, in the early eighties, he being then in the employ of the Midvale Steel Company. After setting forth the principles involved in the system, this writer concludes his article by stating:
"The principles above outlined were applied during the spring and summer of 1901 to the ordnance and armor-plate machine shops of the Bethlehem Steel Company, and resulted in a short time in more than doubling the output of those shops. The system is still in use substantially as introduced, and the superintendent, Mr. Archibald Johnston, in his testimony before the House Committee on Labor, February 13, 1902, makes the following statement regarding it:
"This arrangement has worked very satisfactorily, both to the men and the company, for it has enabled us to get work out more quickly, and to add to the producing capacity of our invested capital; while for the men it has been a great benefit, as we have many instances of employees who have bought homes for themselves principally from their extra earnings on the bonus system, and from overtime work. The system has been a stronger incentive to industry than any other we have been able to put into effect in our plant."
H. L. Gantt, The Bonus System of Rewarding Labor (American Review of Reviews).
LABOR
REMUNERATION: COÖPERATIVE ORGANIZATION: France, Italy, etc. Cooperative Production.
A book published in 1905, entitled "Labor Problems," by T. S. Adams and Helen L. Sumner, gives an interesting account of coöperative associations for contract labor in France, of which there were 296 on the 1st of January, 1901, seemingly having considerable success, 106 of the number being in the building trades. Similar organizations were reported in Italy and New Zealand. In France, the law provides for dividing public contracts, and for making payments on them in such ways as to bring them within the means of these associations of workmen. In Germany and Holland there is said to have been a less degree of success in organizing this mode of productive coöperation.
LABOR REMUNERATION: GREAT BRITAIN:
The Coöperative Union and Coöperative Congress. Recent Statistics of Membership, Organizations, and Operations. Rapidly increasing Coöperation in Agriculture.
As reported at the annual Coöperative Congress of 1905, the Coöperative Union of Great Britain had then a membership of 2,200,000, conducting coöperative undertakings with a total capital of £36,500,000 and a trade of £92,000,000. At that meeting a proposition to act with the Labor Representation Committee, for increasing the representation of labor interests in Parliament, was defeated by 801 votes against 135.
Four years later, at the Congress held in May, 1909, the reported membership of the Coöperative Union had increased to 2,516,194, in 1560 affiliated societies. Among other statistics reported for the previous year were the following:
"The two large wholesale societies one in England and the other in Scotland had a membership of 1414 in 1908, or a decrease of three as compared with the total for 1907; the shares held amounted to £1,984,676, a rise of £190,131; the loans were £5,114,201, an increase of £382,990; the sales for the year amounted to £32,433,968, an increase of £43,940, and the interest on capital was £96,350, an increase of £5,498. The year’s trading, however, resulted in a decrease of profits amounting to £137,197, the total profits being £731,124. There were 1428 distributive societies, a decrease of 15, but the membership rose to 2,404,595, or 81,217 more; the shares held went up to £30,037,352, an increase of £998,703; the loans amounted to £4,558,021, a rise of £212,377; the sales increased by £1,635,749, the total being £60,783,278; but the profits dropped to £10,773,005, or a decrease of £126,327.
"Coöperative production forms a large and important branch of the movement. Some facts relating to it are given from the last annual report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies in order to supplement the figures of the central board. According to the Chief Registrar’s report, 1251 societies, including distributive, wholesale, and productive societies, made returns showing that, they carried on production to the extent of £16,989,764 in the year, calculated on wholesale prices. The workpeople employed in production numbered 44,188 men, 25,809; women, 12,212; boys, 6167 and the wages paid to these (exclusive of bonus) amounted to £2,324,674. The board’s annual summary of the operations carried on by the productive societies and the productive departments of the two wholesale societies shows a total production in 1908 of £11,112,220. To this is added an estimated production of £7,750,000 by the distributive societies, making the total production of the coöperative movement for the year about £18,862,000. The number of productive societies to which the Board’s returns relate is 122, a decrease of five as compared with the total for the previous year. The number of people employed by these
societies during the year was 28,575, an increase of 1637; the capital invested was £4,610,072, an increase of £259,137; the trade, as stated above, was £11,112,220, an increase of £450,802; the profits amounted to £352,398, a decrease of £15,317; and the losses amounted to £68,650, as against £8336.
{403}
"Among the industries engaged in coöperative production, corn milling had a trade last year amounting to £4,564,706, which was considerably higher than the total for the previous year. Increases were also recorded in the cotton, linen, silk, and wool industries, and by societies engaged in woodwork, building, and quarrying, printing and bookbinding, baking, and laundry-work. But the societies producing boots, shoes, and leather, metal and hardware, and various other goods had a reduced trade."
In an article on "The Coming of Coöperation," in Agriculture, the London Times of May 3, 1909, made the following statements: "The coöperative movement, on which more than anything else the success of all small farmers and many big farmers depends, is advancing with a rapidity very little realized even by farmers themselves.
"The position at present is this. In Ireland, in Scotland, and in England exist three organization societies which decided in July of last year to amalgamate for certain purposes. Under the lead of Sir Horace Plunkett the three societies decided that joint action would be effective in all the three branches of cooperative trade
‘(1) The acquisition of farmers’ supplies of the best quality at the lowest price;
(2) the marketing of produce in the most economical manner; and
(3) the interchange of certain products.’
"Into this third attribute of cooperation it is worth while inquiring closely. The idea, which may mean an immense advance in the production of the farm, small or great, has not become familiar even to some of the best local coöperative societies we have. A few examples will illustrate the possibilities. No one will doubt the value of geographical knowledge to the farmer. One of the biggest successes made on the Fen farms in recent years resulted from the accident that a Fen farmer went to shoot snipe in Ireland, and there came upon a potato which proved to be exceptionally suited to the Fen soil. Many small fortunes have been made in potato farming by the use of Scotch seed. To-day, of course, every one is aware of its excellence, due partly to the red soil, partly to the wise custom of the Scotch farmer in digging his potatoes before they are mature. But this knowledge penetrated very slowly. …
"An admirable instance, illustrating the same point, may be found in the unpublished history of the French wheats recently introduced into England. The whole tale is full of suggestions for English farmers and for the organization societies. French farmers, as we all know, are very closely federated; and every sort of work in buying, in marketing, and in advancing money is carried on by the local and federated syndicates. Some years ago the leaders of these syndicates came to the conclusion that their wheats greatly improved by a year or two in English soil. They preferred their own varieties, but found them more prolific when the seed was imported from England. Several difficulties met them. They had first to persuade English growers to grow these varieties, and secondly they had to compel them to keep the stock pure. The second difficulty might have been insuperable without joint action, but it was soon overcome by the syndicates.
"At present Ireland is a long way ahead of England, and England of Scotland, in co-operative organization; but
