Read CHAPTER VIII - THE STANDARD WAGE (Continued) of The Settlement of Wage Disputes , free online book, by Herbert Feis, on

Section 1. What variations or limitations should be introduced into the principle of standardization in view of the great area and economic diversity of the United States? Section 2. Differences in natural or acquired advantage between different enterprises as a reason for modification and limitation of the principle. Section 3. Differences in the character of the work performed by any large group of wage earners as a reason. Section 4. Differences in the cost of living at different points within the area of standardization as a reason. Section 5. The grounds for “nominal variations” in standard wage rates. The policy to be pursued in regard to payment for irregular employment. Section 6. The possibility of maintaining standard wage rates over a large and diversified area considered. Section 7. Up to the present, the progress of standardization has not proceeded in accordance with reasoned conclusions as to the results produced. Section 8. Where should level of standardization be set? The doctrine of “standardization upward.” Section 9. The importance of the principle of standardization in wage settlement.

1. We have now completed our analysis of the general effects to be expected from the enforcement of wage standardization throughout industry. That analysis was carried out on the underlying assumption that the general economic position of the industrial enterprises which would be included within any area of standardization was substantially alike. That assumption must now be given up. A further question must be faced. That is whether the principle of standardization, as put forward up to this point, should be limited or varied in any way because it would have to apply, as a matter of fact, to an area so great and so diversified in economic character as the United States, and to an industrial situation which is the product of a great number of separate impulses, and which is made up of a vast number of separate interests.

2. We will consider in order the grounds upon which limitation or variation of the principle of standardization has been argued for in the past limiting ourselves, as we must, to the most important. The first that may be taken up has arisen almost every time that wage standardization has been introduced into a craft or industry. It is the contention that, due to differences in natural or acquired advantage possessed by different enterprises in the same industry, certain going enterprises will be forced to cease production, if all are compelled to pay the same wage rates for the same work.

The weight of this contention must be decided in each case by the facts which support it. In some instances it may be clear that the vigorous and summary application of wage standardization would cause men to be thrown out of work, who could not easily find work elsewhere, and would make a considerable amount of fixed capital valueless or almost so. In those instances there would be reason for considering the extent to which the standardization should be carried out, and also what variations should be introduced into its application. That such cases are not infrequent is borne out by the Australasian experience of which Mr. Collier writes, “In regard to the practicability of the common rule, opinion differs. In some staple industries such as coal mining, it has been said to operate fairly. But its application to small industries and retail stores, where conditions vary more widely, is fraught with considerable risk and is proceeded with slowly.... While the power to enforce industrial conditions throughout a state or given territory is of unquestionable value, experience shows it must be exercised with caution."

The test to be applied in each instance should be the balance of interest involved, including a strong public interest in standardization as one of the elements in a policy of wage settlement. When weighing the facts for or against the limitation or variation for the reason under discussion, several distinctions should be made. Firstly, in regard to the nature of the difference in advantage possessed by the various units of the industry in question. Secondly, in regard to the way in which the differences in advantage are distributed among the various units of the industry.

The case for limitation or variation is apt to be stronger when the difference in advantage is a natural difference than when it is an acquired difference. In either case, the decision must rest upon the balance of good and harm to be anticipated from a straightforward and unmodified application of the principle. But when the difference in advantage is a natural difference, such as exists between different mining areas, there is greater reason for deliberate procedure than otherwise. For the possibility that an abrupt suspension of certain enterprises be caused without compensating extension of other enterprises, is the more genuine. Such a situation was recognized, for example, in the case of the living wage legislation for agriculture in England; and thus instead of applying one standard wage throughout all districts, standardization was carried out by districts. Even in this case, however, the various district advisory boards are under a strong and constant pressure (under the terms of the act) to bring the rates in the various districts to the same level. Such, also, to take another example was the situation recognized in the course of the attempt during the war to standardize the wages of the stevedores and longshoremen employed in the South Atlantic ports. Here straightforward and unmodified standardization would have caused, it was judged, the diversion of certain freight carrying steamship lines from ports in which they now operate.

If the differences in advantage are in the nature of acquired differences, only convincing evidence of the permanent harm likely to result from general standardization would justify limitation or variation. For in this case, the necessity of paying standard wage rates is itself a powerful force towards overcoming conditions that have been declared a definite competitive disadvantage. Probably no extension of wage standardization in industry has ever taken place without injuring some individuals. It is the net balance of gain or loss that is significant. In most past instances when standardization has been enforced in an industry, marked by an unequal distribution of acquired advantages, the consequences have not verified the predictions of those who believed it would cause great disturbance and unemployment. On the contrary, it has frequently resulted in the development of better organization within the industry.

Again, the case for the limitation or variation is apt to be the stronger, when the difference in advantage is between concentrated but widely separated areas, such as might exist between two ports, for example, than when the differences are between different units in the same industrial area or field. For in the second case, the possibility of causing lasting unemployment would be less. The distinction, however, is entirely one of degree.

Whatever limitations or variations are admitted should not be settled arbitrarily; they should correspond to the facts which make them advisable. The union attitude in respect to the extension of wage standardization is sometimes as cautious as that of the employers. That is because those workers employed at the points which are supposed to possess the smaller advantages, natural or acquired, are not likely to support an unmodified application of the principle of standardization, unless they believe the consequent industrial changes will be beneficial, or at least not harmful, to themselves. The advice, if not the concurrence, of all interested parties is of the greatest value in arriving at a satisfactory determination. A good example of such an arrangement is to be found in the agricultural living wage legislation in Great Britain. It is provided therein that “When a district committee has been established for any area, it shall be the duty of the Committee to recommend to the Agricultural Wages Board, minimum rates of wages fixed under this act, and no variation or cancellation of such a rate shall have effect within that area unless ... recommended by the district wages committee."

3. Another possible ground for limitation or variation of the principle of standardization is set forth often in the contention that the character of the work performed by any large group of wage earners is not the same throughout the field of its employment. Such, for example, was the argument of the directors of the American railways, as summarized by Mr. Stockett: “... The railways oppose district standardization on the ground that rates cannot be disassociated from conditions and since conditions vary widely on different roads in such extensive territories as the railway districts they maintain that rates cannot be made uniformly applicable on all the roads. The amount of compensation, the roads hold, is governed by the labor performed, the skill and efficiency required, the responsibility and hazard involved, the discipline necessary, the rapidity of promotion, and the cost of living."

It is plain that the point of view which inspires the above argument is at variance with the beliefs that are behind the movement for wage standardization. The argument accords no validity to the belief that group unity and group aims deserve recognition in the settlement of wages. The doctrine of standardization on the contrary represents this belief, and sets groups standards above the existence of minor difference in the work performed by the group. The practical consequences of any wage policy which gave full recognition to these minor differences must also be weighed. These have been vigorously stated, for the case of railway labor, by Mr. Stockett. “... The employees maintain that the varying physical and traffic conditions in the different roads should not constitute a basis for the payment of various rates. It may be true, they hold, that physical conditions and traffic peculiarities differ as between different roads, but it would be impossible to determine a separate rate of pay for each special condition. In the course of development of the railways conditions are always changing. Grades may be leveled, additional tracks laid, curves straightened, passenger and freight densities may differ from year to year and from day to day. The attempt to determine the proper rates for each different condition and to change them as conditions change, the employees assert, is obviously absurd. The plan of fixing a standard rate governing an entire district may be illogical and its basis arbitrary, but it is deemed the best devised and does substantial justice in a broader sense than any other system."

Cases may arise, indeed, where the difference in the character of the work performed really means that the same name covers two relatively distinct occupations, and two or more quite different classes of wage earners. Such cases are probably rare. In circumstances where the constant differences between the character of the work performed by workers is relatively great, it will usually be found that they are distinguished into different groups. It is a question of degree, of course. And if the existing distinctions do not fit the facts, those distinctions should be changed.

In unorganized industries, it will sometimes be found that the classification of occupations is very defective. If wage standardization were to be introduced into those industries, it would be found necessary to standardize occupations first. Such was the task undertaken, for example, by the War Labor Board in the Worthington Pump and Machinery case.

4. A third possible ground for limitation or variation of the principle of standardization is the existence of differences in the cost of living in the various main centers or regions to which a standard rate might be applied. Such variation would be represented, for example, by a collective agreement in accordance with which the wage scale at different points was varied in accordance with the relative cost of living at these points. Up to the present there has been a tendency to disregard differences in the cost of living when wage standardization has been extended. No constant tendency, for example, can be found in the agreements made by different local branches of the same national trade union to build up a wage scale in accordance with differences in the cost of living at different points.

The most complete body of material on the subject is contained in the report of the Investigating Commission of the Board of Trade (Great Britain) on Working Class Rents, etc., in the United States (1911). This commission studied the wage schedules of skilled men in the building, engineering and printing trades in twenty-eight of the large cities of the United States and compared these wage schedules with the calculated cost of food and rent in these towns weighing food three times as heavily as rent. The results are presented by single cities, by geographical groups, and by population groups i.e., cities grouped in accordance with size of population. Real wages tended to be more equal as between population groups than between geographical groups. The range of the index number between geographical groups is from 85 to 104 (New York is taken as 100); between population groups from 89 to 100 (New York, 100). They reveal a tendency for money wages and living costs to be high in the largest cities, and for both money wages and living costs to decline in the cities making up the smaller population groups. No correlation can be found between living costs and money wages as between individual cities, however.

The argument for variation or limitation because of differences in the cost of living is a two-fold one. Firstly, it may be argued that such a policy is calculated to maintain industrial activity in the smaller centers, where the cost of living is usually lower, in the face of the competition of the larger centers, in which the cost of living is usually higher. Secondly, it may be argued, that variations in the cost of living at different places are indications of the fact that at some places the economic essentials can be procured with a smaller expenditure of human labor and capital than at other places (since labor and capital can move between them) and, therefore, it is to the general interest to encourage industrial development at the points where the cost of living is relatively low.

As to the first argument, it seems to me that there is considerable wisdom in the wish to encourage a diffusion of industrial development, rather than concentration at a few points. The strain on the social and political structure of the nation would be less, to-day, if our industrial population were more widely distributed; and our problems of civic and economic life would be simpler. That I believe to be true, although it is probable that the wage earners in New York City are better governed, have more freedom, and enjoy a healthier and more stimulating environment than the wage earners in the smaller industrial towns of Massachusetts or Pennsylvania, for example.

As to the second argument, it is true that differences in the cost of living do indicate that the essentials of economic life can be procured with a smaller expenditure of human labor and capital at some places than at others. There is a further question, however. Does not the ability of the enterprises established at the places where the cost of living is relatively high, to compete with the others, denote a compensating advantage in another stage of production? The answer depends on two conditions. Are the enterprises in genuine competition with each other? And secondly, do wages at the several places differ in correspondence with the differences in the cost of living? To the extent that these conditions hold true, any shift of industry away from the points where the cost of living is low, as a result of wage standardization, would not be uneconomical in the sense of this argument. For then, the ability of the enterprises established at the points where the cost of living was relatively high to compete with the others would indicate that they benefited by some compensating advantage in their location.

Still another matter to be noted is that if differences in the cost of living are recognized in the enforcement of standardization, there will be some tendency for the abler and more energetic workmen to drift to the points where money wages are higher. This movement is likely to occur even though real wages are the same at the different places.

In addition to these theoretical considerations, one practical matter should be called to mind. The relative scale of the cost of living at the different points to which a standard wage might be applied does not usually remain fixed over a considerable period. Small changes and shifts in the relative scale occur constantly, and even large changes may take place within a short time. Experience has shown that wage differences which rest upon a fluctuating basis are apt to give rise to misunderstanding, and to be provocative of unrest. At best, only the relatively permanent and great differences in the cost of living between different points could be taken into consideration. Even then a great deal of arbitrary calculation might be involved.

In view of the variety of considerations that bear upon the problem, only a tentative conclusion will be ventured. Namely, that when in any industry the wage scales prior to standardization do reflect the differences in the cost of living at the different centers in which the industry is carried on, such differences should be maintained. As has been remarked, only the relatively large and permanent differences could be taken into account. When, however, no such differences in wage scales is found prior to standardization, it will probably be inadvisable to introduce them, in order to encourage a wider geographical diffusion of industry.

5. There is yet another ground for limitation or variation of the principle of standardization. It is of a somewhat different character than those already considered. It is that in order to carry out the underlying idea of standardization equal remuneration for the same type of work despite minor differences in conditions under which it is performed it is necessary to introduce variations into the hourly or daily time rates (or equivalent piece-work schedules) paid in various sections of the industry. Such variations have been designated as “nominal variations” in the Australian courts.

Distinctions may be drawn between different types of these so-called “nominal variations” according to the cause by which they are occasioned. The first type is that which rests on the fact that in certain trades or industries, it is extremely difficult or impossible to make the conditions of work even approximately uniform throughout the trade or industry. Agricultural work and coal mining may be cited as examples. In such trades or industries it is usually found that the principle of standardization can only be carried out satisfactorily under a system of time payment. For under a piece-work system a uniform scale of rates yields widely different earnings for labor of approximately the same type and quality. It may be, however, that a time-work system is ill suited to the trades or industries in question. In which case, the only alternative is to draw up different piece-work scales for different conditions of work. Different scales of this sort are to be found in the American coal mines for example. Such “nominal variations” between piece-work scales would appear to be justified when the differences of conditions upon which they rest are judged to be not subject to standardization. To be really practicable the differences of conditions should also be relatively great, fixed and measureable.

The second type is that which rests upon some difference in the “net advantages” of the same work carried on in different sections of the industry or occupation. For the purpose in hand, three sorts of difference in net advantage may be noted. The first sort would be represented by a claim for a higher rate than that stipulated in the general scale, because the work in question was carried on under conditions involving an unusual degree of disagreeableness or risk. In my opinion, “nominal variations” based on such differences as these can safely be left to voluntary bargaining rather than enforced as a matter of policy. The conduct of almost any occupation involves differences in the conditions under which it is performed. Nobody entrusted with the duty of enforcing a policy of wage settlement would find it easy to define the conditions which warranted an addition to the standard rate. It would run the risk of being involved in a process of refined definition which would probably be futile. Justice Higgins stated this view aptly in a claim for “dirt” money. “My view,” he writes, “is that the minimum rate of wages is not to be made to depend upon the degree of dirtiness of the work. A man must accept the conditions of the work to which he has devoted himself; and the court cannot be expected to define degrees of dirt or to express them in terms of money wages. If the employer puts the employee to work which is unnecessarily dirty, the remedy is in prohibition or in regulation not in increase of wages. My decision in no way prevents the employer and employee from making a voluntary stipulation for dirt money in any particular case."

A second sort of difference in net advantage would be represented by a request on the part of an employer that certain payments in kind should be considered as part of the wage. An example of this would be the provision of meals. Such variations would seem to be permissible when the acceptance of the payment in kind is left optional with the workmen.

A third sort of difference in net advantage, and possibly the most important, is that represented by differences in the regularity of employment in different sections of a trade or industry. This type of difference is exemplified in the work of longshoremen and lumbermen; some men being engaged on one type of work are employed regularly, while men engaged on other jobs are employed irregularly or casually. It is frequently claimed that irregular or casual work should be paid at higher rates than regular work. The justice of this claim seems apparent. Irregularity of work is undoubtedly a great handicap to the workman who seeks to maintain a well ordered life. Extra payment for irregularity of employment is a burden which can fairly be put upon an industry, or section of an industry even if the irregularity is unavoidable. Yet the consequences of such a policy of “nominal variation” may be undesirable. It has been revealed by experience that there are some workmen who prefer irregular or casual work to regular work. And if higher wage rates are paid for irregular work this preference an undesirable one, from the point of view of the community is apt to be strengthened. On the other hand, it is usually true that only a small percentage of workmen prefer casual work to regular work. Most men engage in casual work because they cannot secure regular work.

As was well established in the Court of Enquiry on the work and wages of transport workers (Great Britain) held early in 1920, the only real solution of the difficulty is the reorganization of the occupation so that the irregular and casual work is reduced to a minimum. Until that is accomplished, it is probable that the most advisable policy is to grant “nominal variations” for casual and irregular employment. These variations should not be so great as to influence the run of workmen to prefer casual work. The total earnings from regular work should be higher. Another policy that may be practicable, in many cases, is to define a minimum period of employment for all workmen engaged. Such a policy puts strong pressure upon the industry to cut down irregularity of employment. Against such a policy stand the practical difficulties involved in determining the basis of any scheme of “nominal variations.”

The whole question is well surveyed in a decision of the Commonwealth Court of Australia which reads in part as follows: “The casual hand, I propose to define as an employee who is not employed for a fortnight continuously and who is not entitled to a week’s notice before his employment is determined. A new light was thrown by the evidence in this case on the growing tendency of some men to depend on the high rates for casual work only, to enable them to work when they thought fit, and idle when they felt inclined.... The yearly return of so many seasonal hands for the wool and grain season, year after year, who look for casual work elsewhere in the meantime in shearing sheds on the wharfs in other industries and even in the Government temporary service and prefer casual work is not an encouraging sign. The higher rates paid for casual work do, and will, encourage many men to rely on that class of labor. I do not think that is good for the community or for the employee. I have been asked not to encourage the tendency to prefer casual labor by granting high rates for casual labor.

“Although the rates for casual labor ought not be so high as to induce men to become casual laborers, a higher rate must in fairness be allowed, where as in this industry, men, however anxious they may be to get permanent work, are not employed for the whole season without a break, and many of them are only employed a short broken part of the season, and some are employed for a day or a few days only."

6. In the examination of the reasons for and against limitation or variation of the principle of standardization, note must be taken of still one other argument of a somewhat different nature than those already dealt with. That argument is that it will prove impossible to maintain uniform standard wage rates throughout an industry in which the various enterprises are distributed over a wide area; in the several parts of which area the cost of living, the general conditions of labor, and the demand and supply situation for labor differ considerably.

This contention is supported by two different lines of reasoning. The first is that, because of these differences, there will tend to be a flow of labor away from the less favorable points of employment within the area of standardization towards the more favorable. This flow, it is said, will cause a reappearance of the differentials which existed before standardization. The first comment to be made on this line of reasoning is explanatory, rather than contradictory. It is true that there may be some tendency for labor to flow from the less favorable points to the more favorable. But it must be remembered that the standard wage is intended only as a minimum. If differentials over the standard wage did arise in enterprises where the conditions of labor were worse than the average, or in regions where the cost of living was higher than the average, such differentials would not be incompatible with the ends sought, when standardization is enforced. Secondly, it may be commented that the experience of the past does not, in general, support the contention. In many industries the same standard wage scale applies over an area in which there are real differences of the kind set forth above, and no differentials as between the different points within the area have arisen as, for example, on the railroads. This is to be accounted for, firstly, by the influence of the idea of standardization over trade union activity and policy; secondly, by the fact that relative money wages tend to govern, in a great measure, the calculations and movements of the wage earners; thirdly, by the fact that the application of the principle of standardization is in itself a strong force toward bringing about a leveling in the conditions of employment throughout an industry.

The second line of reasoning with which this contention is supported is that the trade unions themselves will not long support any policy of standardization which does not make explicit allowances for such differences as are in question. It is said that the organization of the workers at the points where the cost of living was relatively high would insist upon a differential over other places for that reason.

Such, for example, was the argument of the employers’ counsel before the Court of Inquiry on the wages of transport workers (Great Britain), “... He submitted that one of the foundations of his argument was that in fixing wages they must have regard to the class of work. Having regard to the very great diversity of conditions and of methods in the different ports, and to the class of work done, he submitted that they could not standardize. They must do in the case of the ports as they did in the case of the coal mines."

There is but one pertinent comment to be made upon this opinion. If the wage earners’ organizations, themselves, demand that variation be introduced into the policy of standardization, that demand should be granted. But it must be observed that these organizations must not give lip service to the application of the principle of standardization without variation, and once having secured it, make such a course impossible by demands for differentials over the uniform standard wage. In the face of such tactics, it will be impossible to maintain any definite policy of wage standardization. If the labor organizations desire the application of the principle of wage standardization without qualifications, they must be loyal to that desire, and they must not be swayed by small temporary advantages or by sectional interests. And, on the other hand, if they desire that the principle of standardization be applied with qualifications, they must not attempt to disguise demands for general wage increases as standardization movements. Such a policy is calculated to perpetuate industrial conflict. Such is the bearing of the pledge given by the representatives of the transport workers (Great Britain) incidental to their claim for a 16 shilling national minimum daily wage. “I am conscious that whatever your decision may be, if the principle of the minimum be established, some people in some ports are going to get more on the first settlement than others. We have faced that, and we have discussed it with the whole of our men. It was assumed by the chairman of the employers at the previous meeting, to take a striking illustration, that if Liverpool received 12 shillings per day and Glasgow 14 shillings, if you decided on 16 shilling a day, Glasgow would say 18 shilling, ‘because I was above Liverpool before.’ That is not so, my Lord. That is clearly understood by every member of the federation in every port in the country."

7. It may be hardly necessary to say, that up to the present, the various questions involved in the application of the principle of standardization in industry have not been settled by a careful study of the results produced. At the present time the manner in which the principle is applied is governed in the first instance, by the economic characteristics of the industry in question, and in the second instance by the area of influence of the various labor organizations, and by the degree of centralized control within each of them.

One of the circumstances which has played a part in determining the area of standardization in any industry is that success in the enforcement of collective agreements has depended largely upon whether all or most of the enterprises in competition with each other have been included in the same agreement. This circumstance has been sometimes decisive of the degree of centralized authority in the various trade unions. It has also tended to govern the attitude of particular trade unions towards the application of the principle of standardization without variation or modification. The history of trade unionism is full of instances of organizations which have striven in vain to maintain uniform standardized wage rates throughout imperfectly organized areas. Even when wage disputes have been settled by public agency, the usual procedure in the past has been to make the area covered by the agreement entirely dependent upon the area of dispute.

For all of that there has been in recent years a steady drift towards an extension of the area of standardization. In various industries careful thought has been given to the possibility of standardization on a national scale, though at present very few unions enforce such a scale. On the railroads there are at present nation-wide wage scales. In Great Britain, to-day this is one of the most vexed of questions. Indeed Great Britain just has gone through a great coal strike in which it was one of the two great issues. The miners asked that “a levy be made upon each colliery company on every ton of coal raised to the surface to be used for ensuring the payment of wages agreed upon in a national wages settlement.” The miners argue, and correctly, that district settlements would give unequal reward to men doing precisely the same work, and called upon for the same service.

8. The introduction of standardization into crafts or industries in which a variety of wage rates for substantially the same tasks exist gives rise to one other difficult problem. That is the determination of the level of standardization for each occupation.

It will be argued, at a later point, that under any economic system in which labor organization is an accepted part of the economic structure, the wage levels established in different industries or occupations will have to be brought into relation with each other. If that is so, the level of standardization of any industry or occupation would be determined in accordance with these principles, after they had been in operation for some time. As a matter of fact, however, under any policy of wage settlement, the enforcement of standardization will be something of an independent and prior process prior, that is, to the application of any other principles intended to keep the wage levels in different industries or occupations in relation to each other. Standardization will be, so to speak, an initial stage of policy to be gone through before any other stages are entered upon. In this initial stage, the principal data that should be taken into consideration when fixing the level of standardization for any occupation is the actually existing variety of wage rates for that occupation. Where in the scale of actually existing rates the level of standardization is set must be a matter of judgment and compromise. That level of standardization should be chosen, which it is believed will produce more good and less harm than any other level that might be chosen. Or in other words, the level of standardization should be determined by a balance of the interests involved that point being chosen at which, it is judged, the most favorable balance is established.

There is current, indeed, one doctrine of standardization which holds that there is but one satisfactory level of standardization for an occupation in which wages have been hitherto unstandardized. That doctrine, crudely stated, is that the standard wage for the work in question should be the highest of the unstandardized wages. That doctrine is called “standardization upward.”

If the suggested test is sound, it cannot be admitted that the doctrine of standardization upward is always valid. For there is no reason to believe that the level of the highest of the hitherto unstandardized rates is, of necessity, the one at which the most favorable balance of interests is established. In many cases there may be a presumption to that effect if the doctrine is reasonably interpreted. That is to say, if it is taken to mean the higher range of wages, rather than the highest single wage. That presumption arises from the fact that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the higher range of unstandardized wages indicates what wages may be enforced throughout the occupation without causing great disturbance and unemployment. The circumstances which would govern the correctness of this presumption are many and have already been discussed. The actual range of difference between the various wage rates being paid for the same occupation in different enterprises should be given importance in the judgment as to whether standardization should take place at the level of the higher range of wages.

Furthermore, in many cases where wages are standardized at a level lower than some of the wage rates already paid for the work in question, it would usually be sound to provide that these higher-wage rates should not be reduced at once. This ruling was adopted in the decisions of the War Labor Board and it has also been embodied in the so-called “saving clauses” in the American railway wage decisions.

9. The principle of standardization may be considered basic in any wage policy for industrial peace. This is not because the existence of various wage rates for the same work is the greatest source of industrial conflict. But because the establishment of clearly known wage rates for each type of labor, extending over the field of its employment (with whatever limitations or variations are admitted to the principle) is often essential to the operation of any other principles of wage settlement. The establishment of standard wage rates makes possible a clear knowledge of the economic position of the various classes of wage earners. Likewise, it makes possible the accurate measurement of wage change; and also makes for simplicity and uniformity in the application of changes. Lastly, it tends to produce a careful classification of the different kinds of work, in which the minor and local differences in the nature of the work are gradually eliminated. These are the reasons for the “strong public interest in standardization” which was spoken of above.

A bill embodying a clause providing for such a scheme for extension was proposed by the government in 1919 in return for certain concessions from the trade unions, but was withdrawn when the parliamentary labor leaders would not agree to the concessions.