Слике страница
PDF
ePub

LITERACY OF GAINFULLY EMPLOYED POPULATION.

Of the 20,931,221 persons gainfully employed in France, 20,613,038 have made a declaration in the schedules of the occupational census of 1911 as to their literacy. The compilation of the results in this respect has shown that 2,274,643, or 11 per cent, of these persons can neither read nor write. In 1906 the corresponding percentage was 13, and in 1901, 15. Illiteracy among gainfully employed male persons has decreased from 14 per cent in 1901 and 11.7 per cent in 1906 to 9.7 per cent in 1911. For gainfully employed female persons it has decreased from 17.8 and 15.9 per cent in the two preceding censuses to 13.2 per cent in 1911.

Considered by occupational groups illiteracy is highest in agriculture, 15.4 per cent of the men and 20.7 per cent of the women employed in it being illiterate. In industry the respective percentages are 7.8 and 8.4, and in commerce, 2.7 and 7.2.

NATIONALITY AND PLACE OF BIRTH OF GAINFULLY EMPLOYED PERSONS.

Of the total gainfully employed population of France in 1911 (20,931,221), 20,103,067 were native citizens, 147,904 were naturalized, and 680,250 were aliens living habitually in France and exercising their occupation there. Aliens, therefore, formed 3.25 per cent of the total gainfully employed population. Of the male aliens 68 per cent are employed in industry, 13 per cent in agriculture, and a like percentage in commerce. The female aliens are distributed as follows: Forty per cent in industry, 28 per cent in domestic service, 16 per cent in commerce, and less than 10 per cent in agriculture.

Of the total number of gainfully engaged French citizens 75.3 per cent were born in the Department in which they were enumerated, 24.4 per cent were born in some other Department, and .3 per cent were born outside of France. In 1906 the corresponding percentages were 76.5, 23.2, and .3.

PRESIDENT'S POSITION ON STATE LABOR LEGISLATION.'

MY DEAR GOV. BRUMBAUGH:

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1917.

I take pleasure in replying to your letter of June 1.

I think it would be most unfortunate for any of the States to relax the laws by which safeguards have been thrown about labor. I feel that there is no necessity for such action, and that it would lead to a slackening of the energy of the Nation rather than to an increase of it, besides being very unfair to the laboring people themselves.

Sincerely yours,

WOODROW WILSON.

1 Letter to Governor of Pennsylvania. as published in Official Bulletin. June 6. 1917.

SUSPENSION OF FEDERAL EIGHT-HOUR LAWS.

EXECUTIVE order.

Under authority contained in the Naval Appropriation Act approved March 4, 1917 (Public No. 391, 64th Congress), whereby it is provided

That in case of national emergency the President is authorized to suspend provisions of law prohibiting more than eight hours labor in any one day of persons engaged upon work covered by contracts with the United States: Provided further, That the wages of persons employed upon such contracts shall be computed on a basic day rate of eight hours work with overtime rates to be paid for at not less than time and one-half for all hours work in excess of eight hours;

it is hereby ordered that the provisions of the act approved June 19. 1912, limiting the hours of daily service of mechanics and laborers on work under contracts to which the United States is a party are suspended with respect to all contracts for ordnance and ordnance stores and other military supplies and material, contracts for buildings under construction or to be constructed at the arsenals, and contracts for fortification work during the pending emergency and until further orders. This order shall take effect from and after this date. WOODROW WILSON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, 24th March, 1917.

EXECUTIVE ORDER.

Under authority contained in the Naval Appropriation Act approved March 4, 1917 (Public, No. 391, 64th Cong.), it is hereby ordered that the provisions of the Eight-hour Act of June 19, 1912, are suspended with respect to persons engaged upon work covered by contracts with the United States, made under the War Department, for the construction of any military building or for any public work which, in the judgment of the Secretary of War, is important for purposes of national defense in addition to the classes of contracts enumerated in Executive order of March 24, 1917.

It is further declared that the current status of war constitutes an "extraordinary emergency" within the meaning of that term as used in the Eight-hour Act of March 3, 1913 (37 Stat., 726), and that laborers and mechanics employed on work of the character set forth above, whether employed by Government contractors or by agents of the Government, may, when regarded by the Secretary of War as necessary for purposes of national defense, be required to work in excess of eight hours per day, and wages to be computed in accordance with the proviso in the said act of March 4, 1917.

This order shall take effect from and after this date and shall be operative during the pending emergency or until further orders. WOODROW WILSON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, 28th April, 1917.

INJUNCTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW.

The act of Congress of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat., 209), forbidding contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, popularly known as the Sherman Act, in its fourth section authorizes injunctions to prevent and restrain violations of the act. Certain lumber companies undertook to obtain an injunction against the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and other labor organizations and their officials on account of alleged conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in the products of the complainants' woodworking mills, the method used being mutual agreements and boycotts. The United States District Court, Southern District of New York, found that the defendant organizations were engaged in a combination directly restraining competition between manufacturers and operating to restrain interstate commerce in violation of both Federal and State acts. This court dismissed the bill for an injunction, however, on the ground that such relief under the Federal antitrust law could be procured only at the instance of the United States acting through its officers. The law of the State of New York was also relied upon (General Business Law, sec. 580, subd. 6). The court held that only the State of New York could act, so that the complainants were without power to obtain relief personally in this suit. (Paine Lumber Co. (Ltd.) v. Neal et al. (1913), 212 Fed. 259.)

The United States circuit court of appeals took the same view as the court below as to the nature of the combination between the labor organizations and affirmed a decree dismissing the complaint. This court took the ground that the acts of the organizations were not malicious and not directed against the individual complainants personally, so that relief by injunction could not be granted, irrespective of whether or not the particular combination in question was obnoxious either to the common law or to the statutes (same case (1914), 214 Fed., 82; 130 C. C. A., 522).

The case then came to the Supreme Court on appeal, the majority of the court holding (June 11, 1917) that violations of the Federal antitrust act were not to be remedied by an injunction on the suit of a private person, citing as authority their prior opinion in Minnesota. Northern Securities Co. (1904), 194 U. S., 48. This was held to be true even though the court should go behind the apparent conclusion of both courts below as to the absence of special damage shown, and reverse their conclusion of fact. This question was not discussed at length, however, Mr. Justice Holmes, who delivered the opinion of the court, saying, "Personally, I lay those

chapter 323, section 16, 38 Statutes, 730 [the Clayton Act], establishes the right of private parties to an injunction in proper cases, in my opinion it also establishes a policy inconsistent with the granting of one here. I do not go into the reasoning which satisfies me, because on this point I am in a minority."

Mr. Justice McReynolds dissented without opinion. A dissenting opinion was written by Mr. Justice Pitney, with whom Mr. Justice McKenna and Mr. Justice Van Devanter concurred. These justices did not regard the case of Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co. as an authority for the position taken by the majority of the court. The diversity of position of the lower courts is commented upon, and the basic decision on which the refusal to allow private persons the right of injunction under the Sherman (antitrust) Act rested was spoken of as resting on grounds that had been misunderstood, while few of the cases following this opinion contained any reasoning upon the question, and that of a meager and unsatisfactory nature. It was pointed out that the Clayton Act safeguards labor "organizations while pursuing their legitimate objects by lawful means, and prevents them from being considered, merely because organized, to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade. The section, fairly construed, has no other or further intention or meaning."

OVERTIME WORK AND WAGES FOR WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA

CANNERIES.1

In February, 1916, the California Industrial Welfare Commission issued orders fixing minimum wages, hours of labor, and sanitary conditions for women and minors in fruit and vegetable canneries. These earlier regulations have now been superseded by a set of revised regulations, becoming effective June 16, 1917.

The most striking change made by the new orders is the removal of the former limitation upon overtime work. The normal working hours are reduced from 10 per day and 60 per week to 9 per day for 6 days per week. But, on the other hand, unlimited overtime for women is now permitted upon payment of not less than 14 time for all excess up to 12 hours per day and at not less than double time for all excess over 12 hours. Under the original orders there was an absolute prohibition of overtime lengthening the hours of employment to more than 72 hours per week.

The minimum wage rates as earlier fixed are but very slightly changed in the new orders. The old and new rates are shown in the table following:

1 California Industrial Welfare Commission, orders Nos. 3 and 4, issued Apr. 16, 1917. in effect June 16, 1917.

[blocks in formation]

Thus, 16 cents an hour is made the minimum rate for experienced time workers and is also the minimum hourly sum which, it was estimated, the piece rates agreed upon would produce under ordinary conditions. Provided the normal hours of 54 hours per week are worked, this rate is equivalent to $8.64 per week. This may be compared with the minimum wage rates for women cannery workers as established in the two other Pacific States-Washington, minimum rate, $8.90 per week, with no absolute limit upon working hours; Oregon, $8.64 per week in Portland and $8.25 in the rest of the State, for a 54-hour week.

As regards sanitary conditions, the new orders slightly extend the requirements of the early order and make some of the requirements more precise. The original regulations have been published in a recent bulletin of this bureau. They are of interest as representing some of the most advanced standards of sanitation for canneries so far put into effect in any of the States.

RECENT COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS IN VARIOUS EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

WAGE AGREEMENT OF THE DUTCH FURNITURE TRADE.

The organ of the General Dutch Furniture Makers' Federation reports that a wage agreement was signed in February, 1917. between the Furniture Manufacturers' Association and the Furniture Makers' Federation. The agreement includes all furniture makers, chair makers, wood carvers, turners, polishers, upholsterers, and

1 Bulletin 211 of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor laws and their administration in the Pacific States, p. 90.

2 Bulletin der Internationalen Union Der Holzarbeiter, No. 214, March, 1917. Berlin,

« ПретходнаНастави »