THE OVERTIME LAW.

At the International convention of 1907 a law was passed compelling a member of a union, after accumulating overtime equivalent to a day's pay, to give to the first eligible substitute the day or days so accumulated. Like many other edicts emanating from the International conventions, this was not deemed of sufficient importance to entitle it to a referendum vote. In New York five and onehalf hours' accumulated overtime is equivalent to a day's wages, so that practically a five-day law exists. No doubt the committee on laws which concocted or framed and presented this law was actu ated and prompted by the best motives in the world, looking toward either the abolition of all overtime or providing work for our unemployed.

In New York are many members who consider this law unjust and unfair, not a few having doubts as to its constitutionality. Even substitutes are not lacking who have expressed the opinion that the rule is too stringent and severe. When a member works overtime at a rate so much more per hour than for the eight hours constituting a day's work, in the end receiving only the amount the scale allows for eight regular hours, he is not receiving scale wages. In short, he gets only the minimum weekly scale for working overtime, deriving no remuneration for the same, since he must, according to law, give it out the following week.

An injustice which most members feel is the inability to wipe out the accumulated overtime when it suits himself, financially, socially or otherwise. For instance, a man may have arranged to go off for one or two days next week, but finds he has already come under the ruling in having accumulated five and a half hours' overtime and, willy nilly, is forced off. The following week he must either deny himself his anticipated pleasure, break an engagement, or else go off again and suffer the consequent financial loss, which in these days of exorbitant rents and high living expenses he can ill afford to do. Nor is a man later allowed to work the equivalent number of hours to recompense him for the time he has lost, for should he work a full week and accumulate five and a half hours' overtime he must again go off.

Let us look at the case of a regular who has been ill for seven or eight weeks and unable to work, and on returning after a siege with doctor's bills and other expenses, which have depleted his meager treasury, he is unable to put in more than one straight week because he has been fortunate enough and glad to get five and a half or six hours' overtime. Similarly the man who is well and strong and who desires to take a few weeks' or a months' vacation-generally in the dull season when subbing is not at its best-when he returns to his job he must perforce work only one straight week, or at the most two, and this despite

the fact that when he gets back he is accompanied by a large and deep "hole." Likewise the sub, who for a month or more has averaged but two or three days a week, when he is fortunate enough to get a full week with overtime he must also give out a day's work. It may be contended that these cases are too rare to have any weight, but many other reasons could be given, and the ones mentioned are sufficient to show the injustice of the law.

Before the new scale came into effect in New York nearly all operators and makeups on morning newspapers received from $3 to $5 above the scale, which, with the accumulation of eight hours' overtime, admitted of at least two full weeks in the month. Now, while the scale has been actually advanced $4, regulars and many subs are making less money than before the advent of the new scale. Even at $27 per week conditions were more satisfactory, as then a man could get two full weeks in the month at $34, while now he gets but one full week in five or six at a maximum of $35.50, including overtime.

The trend of legislation lately, and rightly, too, has been to devise means to provide work for our unemployed, but so far no plan has been devised to curtail their ranks. Are we not losing sight of the fact that such legislation has resulted in the same trouble-a surplus of subs? Substitutes themselves must admit that there are already too many in New York, and the end is not yet. Could the influx be checked it would be only a matter of a reasonable time until more than half would have situations. We all know that when a manufacturer, a trust or large producer desires to advance the price of his commodity he frequently shuts down his factory, mine or mill until demand exceeds supply, when he can command almost any price he wants, provided, of course, he has a monopoly. Now, while we can not-nor must not-freeze out Our unemployed union brother, why not shut the doors of our union for a term? We believe in a closed shop. Why not a tightly shut union? For years we have been holding our arms open to any and all who have sought the protection of our union. Why not protect ourselves for a while? Let us create a monopoly, so that we can ask for a fair compensation for our labor and demand work for our unemployed. Restrict apprenticeship, empty the whitewash pail, insist on a rigid examination for such candidates as must be admitted, exacting an initiation fee in keeping with the advantages to be derived on becoming a union man (the Theatrical Mechanics Association's fee for admission is $100), making our organization a trust as iron bound and as merciless as Standard Oil, Steel Trust or Sugar, when we will be in a position not to hold a club over the heads of our employers and make exorbitant demands, but to ask for a fair and just recompense for our talent and energy.

This may have nothing to do with the overtime law, but if we add, "Let us go back to the eighthour or even a twelve-hour penalty," it would be only a short time when every morning newspaper sub in New York would be at work four and five days a week and many holding situations.

By many this measure would be condemned as drastic and extreme, but if the end sought would be attained, why not test the remedy? Of course we would hear the old argument that regulars would "hog" it. The "hog" is now a rare species in our union, and if a man choose to work himself to either the grave or the funny house, then let him. None of us will begrudge a contribution toward flowers for his casket, should he peter out, but in either case the chances are that his job will be filled by a man, while the example will prove a salutary lesson.

Now, Mr. Delegate of 1909, will you give the foregoing a look over? Will you father some feasible plan whereby we may reduce the ranks of our unemployed? Will you advocate the repeal of the overtime law, which has not only failed of its purpose, but promises worse conditions? Will you oppose a five-day law, the enactment of which will result in such a deluge of unemployed which even a four-day law would fail to avert? Will you, Mr. Delegate, endeavor to have it sent to the referendum, that we may have a voice; or will you favor a local option law, when unions, being the better judge of existing conditions locally, can legislate such matters for themselves?

But one man, it is said, opposed the present overtime law in committee. The others, not knowing, couldn't see it.

For a year or more we were assessed 10 per cent on our earnings toward the establishment of the eight-hour law, and we all "put up" without

a murmur.

Take a look at the last annual statement and see what came from New York. We also had an increase of $4 to the scale, only to have a convention pass a law with a "hurrah” that gives us less than when the scale was but $27, and much less than we are entitled to at present. Now about the abolition of overtime. Ask the subs in a large office if they want overtime done away with. How many situations would be given out to meet the increased work? If you abolish the overtime, the five-and-a-half-hour penalty is at once annulled. The foreman must get the work done within stated hours. This will lead to a demand from him or the employer to have men on hand at such hours as would best suit the office. In several newspaper offices in New York there are more subs than can be taken care of. Abolish the overtime law and create, say, twelve to fifteen situations in each office-a liberal estimate-and the holders of situations will have to work so hard that the funny house will be a constant spectre and the big stick forever in evidence. Then would come a system of bonuses, or other lawful compensation for the swift, that would make the average man a tortoise and breed dissension and dis content.

The present overtime law is unjust and unfair. If a man must work overtime, burning his eyes

ORATORY SUPERABUNDANT.

A correspondent of THE JOURNAL says there are union men and members of the union; that a "union man" is one who attends the meetings, and a "member of the union" is one who limits his activity to the paying of dues. He advises all to become union men. Probably many more would do so were it not for the presence of the "windjammers." It is an irksome task to sit through four or five hours of unseemly contention. The "would-be statesmen" are the great drawback to full attendance. They are always out in forcein fact, never miss a meeting. Though rarely putting forward a proposition, they can always be depended upon to befog and obstruct. The more trivial the matter under consideration the more vociferous they become. Upon routine matters of little moment, reports of officers and committees, etc., which an assembly of business men would pass by with silent assent, they spend hours of interminable wrangling. They are happy only in pandemonium. Three or four of them will be on the floor at the same moment, extending their index fingers and shouting for recognition at the top of their voices. The presiding officer is sorely tried, but he manages to maintain his serenity. Poor fellow! He has our sympathy. But he has his compensation also. He is undergoing firstclass training in the mastery of impatience. "He that ruleth his spirit is better than he that taketh a city."

These embryo statesmen are generally on the wrong side, and nearly always, when a final vote is reached, are sat down upon more or less forcibly; but this does not disturb their equanimity or lessen their self-assertiveness in the slightest degree. They will bob up smilingly at the very next motion as though nothing had happened. It is doubtful if anything short of being buried by the fall of a skyscraper would cause them to "take a tumble to themselves." They are always rising to a "question of privilege," to "ask for information," to a "point of order," etc. One of their chief enjoyments is to question the rulings of the chair, to call for a division and to appeal from decisions. They are vehement sticklers for their "rights"--don't propose to have them infringed upon or curtailed-not on your life! Their most prized "right" seems to be to make themselves a nuisance, to stir up strife and to prolong meetings.

Most of these prodigies have voices like bay steers or the roaring bulls of Bashan. The less they have to say the louder they roar. When three or four of them are bellowing in unison the

asking to have matters explained, also haunted me. I could see on his face the great mental struggle he was undergoing to find out whether Bob Smith was going to be allowed a pension or was to be tried for working overtime. The look of despair and despondency that settled over his features when he at length obeyed, after much pounding with the gavel, the peremptory order to "Take your seat," was one to strike deep into the heart of the observer. Like Lord Dundreary, he had run up against "one of those things which no fellow can find out."

I do not think any of the "wise ones" were using the union as a training school in which to air their vocabulary and from which to graduate onto the hustings. But at least two members have assured me they did this, and that it served their purpose. One of them said he wrote out his remarks and read them at first. Afterward he used notes and pretended to read from the paper. Later he merely held a sheet of paper before him while he talked. Finally he got so he could speak well extemporaneously. I do not know how long it took him to accomplish this, but as the union was "not onto his racket," no harm was done. (He was a good man, thoughtful and considerate, and never played the clown nor acted the part of an obstructionist.) But it seems to me that there are less objectionable ways in which to become a public speaker. We read that Demosthenes stood by the seashore and rehearsed with pebbles in his mouth to overcome an impediment in his speech and to pitch his voice as to be heard above the soughing of the waves. It was charged that one of the most finished orators in the United States senate used to recite his speeches before a looking glass so as to acquire proper and graceful gestures. I have heard of students mounting a stump and declaiming with trees and cattle for audience. Some of these methods are open to every one, and surely are preferable to using the union as "the dog to try out the play on."

SO

Every reader will recognize the exaggeration in the foregoing. It is not intended to portray an actual meeting, but a sort of "composite meeting," somewhat like the picture of a "composite man," made by photographing the features of several persons over each other. Its aim is to draw attention to a state of affairs all too prevalent. Great strides have been made in the methods of doing business by workingmen's assemblies during the forty years since I joined the union. But there is still room for improvement. Nowadays, when nearly all business is first acted upon by committees, there would seem to be little need of oratory. The union is a business proposition throughout. It has to do with wage scales and working conditions, and with dealing collectively with employers under the existing industrial system. The moment it attempts to become a school for the propaganda of economic or political theories it loses its power for usefulness-it ceases to be a trade union. instruction along these lines is desired (none will dispute that it is needed), it would be well to set apart a half hour for this purpose after the regu lar business was transacted. Members who felt

If

they had a message to deliver could then be heard attentively by those seeking light.

Seriously, now, should not some steps be taken to make our meetings more decorous and less prolonged? Were all things done decently and in order, as St. Paul enjoins, the business could be transacted in half the time that is now too often required. This would give opportunity for extending acquaintance, and keep us from being late at supper. Above all, it would insure larger attendance and more active interest. There would be more "union men" in accordance with the definition given in the beginning of this article. Chicago, Ill.

CHARLES H. KOHLMAN.

CAN I. T. U. INSURANCE BE HAD CHEAPLY? In considering the question of International Typographical Union life insurance I shall confine myself mainly to the question of the "compulsory" insurance of all members. Many points might be brought forward in favor of "optional" insurance rather than compulsory, but I shall not discuss them here for the following reasons: I find, upon studying the letters that have already appeared in THE JOURNAL, that the two chief reasons urged for the adoption of an insurance system are these: First, that our members could obtain insurance much more cheaply through the International Typographical Union than through any other organization. Second, that the insurance benefit would make the tie between the member and the union stronger, and thus insure his loyalty in times of stress.

It seems evident that neither of these objects would be accomplished by optional insurance. Under optional insurance, those members who took out insurance would have to be organized as a branch association which would be practically selfgoverning and self-supporting. Members who had no insurance could not be permitted to interfere with the assessment rates or regulations of those who did insure, neither could insured members expect the non-insured to pay assessments for the support or management of the insurance organization. So that the insurance branch would practically be a fraternal auxiliary open to members of the International Union only. The rate of mortality would not be any lower in such an auxiliary than the rate of other similar organizations. Its cost of operation might be less than the cost of operation of "old line" companies, but could not be less than the cost of operation of fraternal insurance societies managed on practically the same lines. Voluntary or optional insurance in the International Union could not, therefore, be obtained any cheaper than through outside fraternal organizations, though it might possibly be cheaper than "old line" company insurance.

As to the second reason: That International insurance would bind a member to the union in times of stress-it seems clear that optional insurance would have no such effect. It is evident the uninsured member would have no stronger tie than at present, while it is very

doubtful whether the courts would allow the union to confiscate a member's rights in the insurance auxiliary because such member refused to observe a shop rule or to quit his job at the mandate of the union.

For the foregoing reasons I am of opinion that the only form of International Union insurance which would stand a chance of fulfilling the conditions of giving our members cheap insurance and binding them more closely to the union would be the compulsory insurance and assessment of each member. I will now endeavor to make some inquiry as to whether even compulsory insurance would fulfil these conditions, and if so whether it would do so without detriment to our activities and objects as a trade union.

First as to the question: "Can International Typographical Union insurance be had cheaply under a compulsory system?" The statement of former Secretary Bramwood, that an assessment of $12 per year per member would enable us to pay an insurance of $1,000 at death, has been quoted with approval by Mr. Pilcher and others. But is this statement correct? A very slight examination of Mr. Bramwood's report will show that $1,000 of insurance can not possibly be sold at that low rate. That report states that the "average" rate of mortality since the establishment of the death benefit fund sixteen years ago has been thirteen per thousand. It is evident that sound judgment must base its calculations upon the average death rate and not upon a lucky year, such as last year was.

Now for a little sum in arithmetic. Forty thousand members at $12 each per annum would produce an income of $480,000. But a death rate of thirteen per 1,000 on 40,000 membership would mean 520 deaths per annum, or $520,000 to be paid out in insurance benefit. What I want to know is: How are you going to do it? How can you pay $520,000 benefits out of a $480,000 income? It is self evident to anybody that we should be $40,000 to the bad every year, and this without considering the cost of operation, which would add considerably to the foregoing deficit.

Mr. Gookin very pertinently remarks in his January article that fraternal organizations with very low insurance rates have all done one of three things: Either they have increased their rates, or frozen their old members out, or gone out of business. And it should be remembered that fraternal organizations are not stock companies organized to pay dividends to stockholders, but in their organization and the salaries paid their officers are very similar to our own union.

As to the regular insurance companies, much has been said of the expense to them of securing new business through agents and the large commissions paid. But the fact is entirely lost sight of, that these companies have a large amount of "velvet" to offset the expense in the shape of "lapsed" policies. It is well known that the laws of many states make a "surrender" value a part of every policy, and policy holders who allow their insurance to lapse are entitled to this surrender value. But many holders of what is known as "indus

trial" insurance, that is, policies for small amounts of $100 or so, placed among working people, either do not know this, or do not take advantage of it. They allow their policies to lapse through want of employment or sickness, and have no means to enforce payment of the surrender value. A friend, who is a bookkeeper in one of the standard old line companies, informs me that these amounts, though small individually, are so numerous as to make a very large total amount, which is one of the chief sources of the profit his company makes every year. This source of "velvet" would not be open to the International Typographical Union, inasmuch as we do not calculate on "lapses," but, on the contrary, endeavor to keep every member a member till death; and our locals generally remit or pay all dues and assessments of members who meet with sickness or misfortune. It would seem to the ordinary man that there are only two possible ways in which the union could give cheaper insurance than other insurance organizations. The first way is by reduced cost of operation. As I have endeavored to show in the foregoing, our operative expenses would probably be not much less than in fraternal insurance societies, and though less than operative expenses of old line companies we would not have the sources of "velvet" that they have to offset this in the shape of forfeitures and interest on invested surplus funds. The second way to get cheaper insurance is by taking better risks. But this would be impossible for us. The insurance companies have a rigid medical examination and bar all bad risks. But our union could not do that. We are first and foremost and above all other things a "trade union," and we must so remain at all costs. We can on no account whatever allow our trade union principles to suffer in order that we may become an insurance society. We must accept every competent printer who applies for admission to our union, regardless of whether he has weak lungs, or heart disease, or apoplexy. We cannot say to a man that we refuse to work with him because he does not belong to our union, and at the same time refuse to admit him to the union because he has a weak heart. To do so is to condemn the unfortunate man to starvation and death, or to force him to become a rat and a strikebreaker; and the rat with unsound. lungs is just as much a menace to the union man as the healthy rat. By reason of our being a trade union, therefore, we are bound to accept insurance risks that no insurance company would take at any price. As regards our risks, therefore, it is utterly impossible for our union to sell insurance at a cheaper rate than the companies.

As to what would be the lowest cost for which the International Typographical Union could give insurance, I am not able to say. That is a matter for serious consideration, and no offhand statement made by any member of the union as to what he "thinks" it could be done for should be accepted as an established fact. It would seem that the proper way to arrive at a fair and reasonable rate, which should also be safe, would be for the union to appoint a competent actuary to ex