G. J. Palmer and M. E. Foster, and Typographical Union No. 87 by A. R. McBeth and B. G. Brady. After hearing statements from both sides, the board adjourned at 6 P. M. to meet at 8 P. M. At that hour the case was again considered until I I P. M., when adjournment was taken to 9:30 A. M., Wednesday morning.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2.

The board met at 9:30 A. M. and resumed consideration of the Houston case. At 12 o'clock, the board, having failed to reach an agreement, it was decided to take up the scale contention between the Hamilton (Ont.) Spectator and Typographical Union No. 129. The Spectator was represented by W. J. Southam and Hamilton Union by H. Hawkins and W. J. Tinsley. At 1:30 P. M. the board adjourned to meet again at 3 P. M. On reconvening the representatives of both sides to the controversy continued their arguments and finished at 6:30 P. M. The board then took a recess to 8:30 P. M. On resuming consideration of the case, and no decision having been reached at II P. M., the board adjourned to meet at 9:30 A. M., Thursday.

up

THURSDAY, JUNE 3.

The board met at 9:30 A. M. and proceeded to take further consideration of the Hamilton case. Mr. Haldeman, of the publishers, here objected to the consideration of the Hamilton case until after a settlement had been reached in the Houston case, contending that it was unfair to Houston to pass up that case and give full consideration to the Hamilton case at this time. After an extended discussion on both cases the board adjourned at 12:30, to meet again at 2:30 P. M.

After some discussion of the Houston and Hamilton cases it was decided to take up the case of Butte (Mont.) Union, regarding the alleged discharge of a 'proofreader from the office of the Butte Miner, and a decision was rendered to the effect that "inasmuch as the case has been referred to the national board by both local parties at interest, the board decides that, under International Typographical Union law, Mr. Hogan [the proofreader] was not given a valid reason for discharge, and is, therefore, entitled to reinstatement, with pay as specified in the agreement of December 16, 1908, and signed by J. K. Heslet, president of the Butte Miner Company."

A communication was then read from one of the Winnipeg publishers, regarding a case which was to have been brought up from that city, but, as the papers in this case were incomplete, action thereon was postponed.

A difference having arisen between Minneapolis Union No. 42 and the Tribune of that city, as to the construction of a certain section of the agreement between the two parties, it was decided that "substitutes employed by regulars are entitled to be paid at the weekly rate of $26 for night work and $23 for day work." It was also decided "that men employed by the day should receive the scale specified, namely, 472 cents per hour for day work and 52 cents per hour for night work, but when put on for more than one day should be

paid at the weekly scale of $26 for night work and $23 for day work."

At 6 P. M. the board adjourned to meet at 8 o'clock, at which time consideration of the Houston case was again taken up. After some discussion on this case it was laid over and consideration of the Hamilton case was taken up and a scale of wages decided on, which is the one adopted by the union and has been in effect in the offices of the newspapers of Hamilton which are not members of the American Newspaper Publishers' Association. Part of the agreement reads as follows:

Compositors, admen, makeups, bankmen, headingmen and proofreaders on evening newspapers shall receive not less than: January 1, 1909, $16; January 1, 1910, $16.50; January 1, 1911, $17 per week. Overtime, price and one-half.

Linotype operators on evening newspapers shall receive not less than $16 per week for 194,000 ems of brevier; 197,000 ems of minion and 217,000 ems of nonpareil. Overplus to be paid for at the rate of 9 cents per 1,000 ems of brevier, 8 cents per 1,000 ems of minion and 7 cents per 1,000 ems of nonpareil. The measurement to be the same as at present.

The difference between the Star-Chronicle Publishing Company, of St. Louis, Mo., and Typographical Union No. 8 was given consideration, and a decision was rendered to the effect that under provision in section 36 of the local contract of the newspaper involved, all ready print must be paid for at the rate of 10 cents per thousand ems, and where such all ready print is used it must be the product of union men.

Owing to several contentions that had come up regarding the manner of submitting cases to the national board, it was deemed that a further amendment should be made to the code of procedure. The following was adopted and submitted for ratification to the full board membership, this section 18 to be inserted in the code and following sections renumbered to agree therewith:

Section 18. When differences arise as to the application of the arbitration agreement, the code of procedure, or any clause or clauses in contracts, or the interpretation to be placed upon any part, or parts, of any agreements, there shall be an agreed statement of facts signed by both parties forwarded to the commissioner of the American Newspaper Publishers' Association and the presi dent of the International Typographical Union, together with the arguments and briefs of both parties, accompanied by a joint letter stating that each party is familiar with the contents of all documents. In case these two officials can not reach a decision upon the issues involved, their differences shall be submitted to the National Board of Arbitration.

After considerable discussion, the following decision was rendered in the Houston case:

Machine composition: Morning papers, 11/2 cents per thousand ems, nonpareil; 12 cents per thousand ems, minion. Evening papers, 11/2 cents per thousand ems, nonpareil; 121⁄2 cents per thousand ems, minion. Time work: Morning papers, 572 cents per hour; evening papers, 55 cents per hour. Overtime, price and one-half.

With the exception of the substitution for section 5, general clauses, of section 155, general laws, International Typographical Union, all other scale conditions to remain as at present.

At 12 o'clock, midnight, the board adjourned, having concluded all the business that was before it. J. W. HAYS, Secretary.

by adults. This condition takes away from the apprentice the opportunity of gaining certain necessary knowledge that need not be detailed here. "Second-The serious inroads made by the many non-printer artist designers. This condition is forcing the job compositors to be mere layout followers instead of creators of style in display work. "Third-The 'daily time ticket,' which records. the compositor's time or work for every minute in the day. This condition makes it utterly impossible for a compositor to pause in his work-no matter how willing he might be-to instruct the apprentice.

"Fourth-In every printing establishment there are on file many applications for the foremanship. This condition keeps the man who happens to be the incumbent 'on the jump.' He is busy 'making good' to hold his job. Therefore, he has little time or no time to instruct apprentices.

"Fifth-The specialization of work which has been going on for some years has caused many of our members to forget much of their 'picked up' craft skill, so that when the average printer is out of employment he is forced to wait for an opening in his specialty instead of being able to take hold of anything 'on the hook.'

"Other bad conditions that stand in the way of progress might be enumerated, but the foregoing suffices to make out a case.

"It is with this bad state of things that the International Typographical Union is now dealing. It offers a means of acquiring craft knowledge in a scientific way-a way that eliminates all guessing and makes of a workman one who can be made use of in all-around work according as occasion may arise; for the workman, having mastered the method, proceeds according to rule-just as one may use his multiplication table when necessity demands.

"Furthermore, and no doubt most important of all, is the fact that a scientifically educated body of craftsmen is more likely to feel an 'esprit de corps' that makes for that solidarity so necessary for the maintenance of proper working conditions and proper compensation for work performed. A 'laissez-faire' attitude invites serious trouble if not disaster.

"Once enrolled as a student, one can at any time and without extra charge call on the I. T. U. Commission instructors for advice in the solution of problems arising in the execution of difficult or peculiar work. In other words-the I. T. U. Commission is at your service as long as you are in the business."

The union ordered that the report, of which the foregoing are extracts, be printed in full in the Official Bulletin, of which about 8,000 are printed.

FULFILLING RUSKIN'S PROPHESY.

No man of his class had more interest in the welfare of the workers than John Ruskin. Years ago his keen insight foresaw the need of doing what the International Typographical Union is endeavoring to accomplish with its course. The history of trade or technical education elsewhere has

shown it to have achieved its greatest successmeasuring success by the number of students, etc. -where organized labor has been consulted and been made part of the machinery. Ruskin, however, held that the workers must needs conduct educational ventures themselves in order that they may be cultural successes. To the suggestion that "we go down among the workers and educate them," Ruskin replied:

"All specific art-teaching must be given in schools established by each trade for itself; and when our operatives are a little more enlightened on these matters there will be found absolute necessity for the establishment of guilds of trade in an active and practical form, for the purposes of ascertaining the principles of art proper to their business and instructing their apprentices in them, as well as making experiments on materials and on newly invented methods of procedure."

HOW THE COURSE IS MAKING MEN.

The president of one of the largest unions in the jurisdiction, weary of complaints about men who were not efficient, said he didn't care how many students took the course if it would only have the effect of making men realize there is a living in printing and take some interest in their work. One of that president's constituents comes to the front and bears testimony to the subtle impelling power there is in the course. Circumstances prevented his giving a great amount of time to the lessons, but he writes:

"I seem to have struck luck since taking your course, because just when I started taking it I got a job and have been in the same place sincethree months; four or five weeks was the limit in offices before. I won't say I have improved so much so fast, but I want to point out to you that the course brought luck with it, and it makes me interested in my work and consequently better work is the result."

This writer has no disposition to preach about there being no such thing as luck. It may be that this member's experience is pure luck, but the fact that he has realized he is working at the printing business instead of drifting along has helped him some and will help him more.

He is awake with both eyes open and so better work is, as he says, the result. Scores of students bear similar testimony, and the effect of the course in this respect has exceeded the expectations of the commission.

From Pittsfield, Mass., comes this: "Every day I see the need of the lessons. I think they are necessary to every apprentice or printer who wants to be up to date and do good work."

Far off Saskatchewan contributes this encouraging sentence: "I wish to say, and not simply to be in the swim, that one of my greatest regrets is that I could not have had this course about twelve years ago, when I first started at the business."

WHO has deceived thee so oft as thyself?Franklin.

UNION LIFE INSURANCE.

With the approaching fifty-fifth convention of the International Typographical Union, the thought that has been hovering about the "larger insurance" question will crystalize and develop some tangible line of action, doubtless, during the sojourn of the union printers in St. Joseph. Just what that action will be, it is not my purpose to prophesy, but I do desire to be heard once more on the question before the time for some action will be at hand.

In last November's issue of THE JOURNAL I was privileged with some space on the subject, and since then I have carefully read and weighed the correspondence of other members relative to this question, and supplemented their views and my own with personal correspondence touching thereon, with individual members in different parts of the International jurisdiction.

So far as we may judge by the tone of THE JOURNAL Correspondence, the pros and cons on the subject of our International Union entering upon a more elaborate plan of insurance are about evenly proportioned. The weight of the affirmative position seems to be in the desire for this increased protection and the claim that the labor union offers a peculiarly reliable and economical basis for obtaining it, while the negative argument rests its case mainly on the supposition that the union could not maintain any considerable insurance scheme any cheaper than is provided already by old line companies or fraternal societies, or that such a scheme would prove disastrous to our organization. To this they add the weight of per. sonal objection to an arbitrary enforcement of support of any such proposition upon all members, and other minor considerations of more or less

moment.

How far these various reflections of individual opinion represent the rank and file of their unions is only a matter of conjecture, and can only be definitely determined when the proposition, in some form, is presented to the referendum. The fact that the whole matter will rest eventually with the referendum is the best guarantee that the sponsors (for whatever form the St. Joseph convention may deem wise to dress the proposition in) will use every effort to make it as acceptable to as large a possible number as they may have reason to imagine will favor it.

Without greatly modifying my opinion as expressed last November in these columns as to the availability of the labor union as an insurance medium for almost any reasonable amount of protection that might be desired, I would repeat my caution for making no undue haste in enlarging greatly, at this time, our present burial benefit, even if we feel like committing ourselves to an ultimate protection as large as $1,000. However, I have failed to find any good evidence that the cost, at whatever amount, would vary much in excess of what our experience in the past eighteen

over

30

years has demonstrated to be about 3 cents per week for each $100 of protection carried, whether local or International, and that would mean that $1,000 would cost each member not cents per week, or $15.60 per annum. This would be more than the young man of less than 35 years of age would have to pay in the fraternals for the same insurance, but as cheap as the man of 35 could get anywhere, while the middle aged or old men would be in clover. A level cost of $1.30 per month to all, old and young alike, for $1,000 insurance would not be burdensome to those who wanted the insurance, especially if they were regularly employed. In the case of those who were unfortunate, aged or infirm, or for any other good reason unable to work, the proverbial generosity of the printers' union would be their protection.

So far as the arguments go that the same fate would meet the union in its insurance schemes as have met the fraternal societies, there is nothing to it, for the two organizations are not parallel at all. As pointed out above, the cost for $1,000 insurance would, without doubt, be more for the comparatively young man than what he could get it for outside of the union, but that would not prevent him from taking up the trade just the same, or joining the union, if it was to his interests in any way to do so. I am using the $1,000 amount as a comparative sum that is as easily applicable to smaller proportionate protection, and for the reason that that amount seems to be the maximum figure proposed by any one.

But laying aside the question of desirability, availability or possibilities of a real insurance feature for our organization, I believe there are many reasons for making haste slowly in that direction. In the first place, there is much that we can do, and even have begun to do, for our living mem bers, and for that reason our attention should not be too strongly diverted in another direction. Our pension scheme is something so progressive, and so pregnant with possibilities for the living members, and that is yet in the experimental stages, that we should not endanger its successful evolution by overloading ourselves with less necessary benefits, even though of possible importance to our welfare.

Primarily, the first mortuary concern of the union for its members is that they shall all be assured of a decent, Christian burial. The present benefit of $75 is not that assurance. As a rule, all the larger local unions have supplemented that sum with an equal or larger amount. Then why not let the International assume all of this duty? As a first step to a larger insurance, if you will, make the burial benefit $200. Locals can then, if they choose, do away with the local contribution for that purpose. The result would be that our larger unions would be assured the same burial benefits for their members at a no greater cost than they now pay, while the smaller unions would

receive a larger burial benefit than they can now afford to provide for, and at a minimum cost. The whole proposition would require very simple legislation, and no appreciable change in the pres ent machinery for its execution, or cost of administration.

As we have before intimated, a maximum insurance protection of $1,000 would approximately cost the member 30 cents per week. Allowing that this weekly payment would not be considered bur densome as an additional provision for benefits, let us, for a moment, consider what other benefits this amount would purchase, if devoted to several purposes rather than life insurance alone.

We will allow that we need $200 for burial ben. efits; that will take six of the 30 cents per week. We are already maintaining a pension system and providing a revenue that is said to average about 35 cents per month from each member. This is about 8 cents more per week. The Cigarmakers' International Union has been paying sick benefits of $5 per week for the last twenty-eight years at a weekly cost per member of not far from 8 cents, and out-of-work benefits of $3 per week, under certain limitations, that have cost as high as about 12 cents per week during two of the last nineteen years-1894 and 1896-to as low as 4 of a cent per week in 1903 and 1907, and an average of about 4 cents per week for the entire nineteen years.

The cigarmakers also have a combination death and disability benefit in which they pay a death benefit of $550 to those who have been members for fifteen or more consecutive years; $350 to those who have been members ten or more years, $200 if a member for five or more years, and a burial benefit of $50 if a member for two or more years. These benefits have been in force since 1880. Since 1902 a total disability benefit of the same amounts and for the same consecutive years of membership, less the $50 burial benefit, is paid to a member totally disabled, and also $40 on the death of the wife or widowed mother of a member. All of these have cost each member, for the last few years, about 9 cents per week. Just what proportion of this 9 cents would represent the total disability claims is not shown in the figures I have at my command, but probably not more than half, if it is that.

Here, then, we would have a series of benefits that would mean much for every living member, and not cost any more per week than $1,000 of insurance. The cigarmakers, in fact, have been paying 30 cents per week international dues since 1897, and it pays from this sum all the above enumerated benefits, and strike benefits as well, besides loans to traveling members, and their cash balance has increased since that date from about $200,000 to over $700,000 at this time. For the same sum our International could pay $200 burial benefits, $4 per week pensions, $5 per week sick benefits for seven weeks in any one year, an outof-work benefit of $3 per week, under certain limitations, and a considerable total disability benefit to any one totally disabled of whatever age. question, then, would be: Would not such a prop. osition (if a proposition involving as much as that

The

sum per week was to be presented to the referendum at all) meet with greater favor than one providing for more life insurance alone?

I believe I can safely answer this question in the affirmative; that I can safely say that while an insurance of $1,000 for all of our members would be a desirable feature, and practicable notwithstanding certain objections on that line, yet I am fully convinced that we could devote the same revenue needed for its maintenance to greater profit to our membership, and give a greater value in return to the contributing member. So many of our members already have more or less life insurance, while so few have protection of any kind for sickness, out of work, total disability or old age, except such as their savings guarantee (and we all know how few that number is) that anything along those lines would naturally prove more attractive than additional life insurance.

Perhaps in the discussion of this question of insurance it would be well to differentiate the term "life insurance." It seems to be divided into two different meanings by different writers on the subject, and it is the qualification placed upon the scope of the same proposition that is embarrassing the real issue. Life insurance, in the general, broad acceptance of the phrase, is a financial investment, hedged around and guarded by all the safeguards that have come to be accorded by our state laws to all large financial interests. That is the form of insurance that I believe we are not looking for as an organization. What the members of the International Typographical Union want is simply mutual protection along a common basis; something that is accorded the same to every member alike; something that will assure him the same dignity in the closing scene of his life as another can have, so far as it may relate to a respectable burial; the amount that this protection may be placed at is simply a matter of detail. It may be $50, or it may be $200, or $500, or $1,000. The degree of the benefit is of second importance. The matter of first importance is to have that protection in some form.

ness.

Some of our writers talk about the International Typographical Union going into the insurance busiThat is all to no purpose, for the International Typographical Union is already in the insurance business and has been for the last eighteen years, if the payment of a specified sum on the death of a member constitutes "life insurance business." If the payment of one sum is doing an insurance business and another is not, then perhaps, technically, they may be right, but where will you draw the line between the two distinctions? If the payment of $50, $100, or $200 on the death of a member is not life insurance, what is? Is the payment of $1,000 any different, except in degree? If it is, what about those who get insurance of $10,000 or $100,000 on their lives?

My dear brothers of the International Typographical Union, all we want is a protection that is as good for one member as another, and something that we can give to all at a cost that will not be burdensome to any member; if that should ultimately result in giving $1,000 to the beneficiary of each member on his death, well and good; if