in improved service and in economy of operation, it was held to be the duty of the State commission, under the Oklahoma law, to authorize the removal unless thereby the health of the employees of the railway or of their families was imperiled.28

It is interesting to note that in 1920 a resolution was passed by the Senate requesting the Interstate Commerce Commission to investigate and report upon the living conditions of trainmen who are compelled to wait over between trips at terminals of railroads, and also to investigate the feasibility on the part of the railroad companies of furnishing suitable accommodations at the terminals.30 Under this resolution the Interstate Commerce Commission addressed queries to a large number of railroads, and the replies were compiled into a report which is known in the files of the Interstate Commerce Commission as Docket No. 11191. The report indicated that many railroads had furnished club-room facilities and excellent sleeping accommodations in some places. Apparently they did this as a personnel matter. The States have in some instances acted on this subject,31 but no action has been taken by the Federal Government.

Summary

THE ABOVE analysis distinguishes between the powers of the Federal and State governments. Briefly summarizing: The power of the Federal Government over interstate commerce is supreme. A State statute imposing a direct burden upon such commerce is void. A State statute may place an indirect burden upon such commerce in the absence of Federal legislation, but once the Federal Government acts upon a subject the State legislation ceases to exist.

The above analysis points out the fields of legislation upon which Congress has acted and in which therefore the State power has ceased to exist. The State laws which are within the constitutional power of the State to enact and which relate to employees in general employments, may include railroad employees in the absence of Federal laws. The field of legislation is as wide as to employees engaged in intrastate commerce as to other employees within the States. This field of legislation left open to the States is therefore the following: The law regulating the employment contract is the law of the State except as provided in the railway labor act of 1926 for the prevention and settlement of labor disputes. The State can not regulate the hours of labor of persons covered by the Federal acts, but may, within constitutional limitations, regulate the hours of other railroad employees. As to wages, the general wage legislation of the several States is effective except for the provisions of the Adamson law fixing eight hours as the basis for computing the wage. Congress has withdrawn the subject of employers' liability for injuries to interstate employees from State control by the enactment of the Federal employers' liability act. Labor disputes are also now fully provided for by the railway labor act of 1926. Beyond the specific requirements of

28 Lawrence . St. Louis-San Francisco Ry., 274 U. S. 388, idem, again before the Supreme Court on Jan. 2, 1929, 49 Sup. Ct. 106.

Congressional Record, vol. 59, p. 1613, Senate Res. 267.

In re Railroad Equipment, decided by the Arizona Corporation Commission July 18, 1927, Public Utility Reports, annotated volume, 1927, E. p. 224, order on p. 239.

the safety appliance acts and the general control over the engine and tender given to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the power given to the United States Public Health Service, the States are free to enact legislation for the protection of the safety and health of railroad employees. Housing also is a matter of State legislation at the present time.

Legislation passed by the States applying generally to employees within the States as well as legislation applicable solely to railroad employees is summarized, digested, or reprinted in Bulletin No. 370 of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Labor laws of the United States with decisions of courts relating thereto," and its supplements (Bul. No. 403 for 1925, Bul. No. 434 for 1926, and Bul. No. 470 for 1927 32). Some States have given power to industrial commissions or to State public utility commissions to make regulations concerning employees and enforce them. The statutes granting this power are included in the bulletins above mentioned.

See also Monthly Labor Review, September, 1928, p. 78; Oklahoma Laws, 1917, ch. 225; Virginia Acts, 1920, ch. 281.

LABOR TURNOVER

THE

Labor Turnover in American Factories

HE following report on labor turnover in American factories, covering the year 1928 and the first two months of 1929, was compiled by the Policyholders' Service Bureau of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.:

Manufacturing operations, as indicated by labor turnover, have continued more active so far during 1929 than in the first two months of 1928. This is shown by accession and quit rates which are almost double those of the corresponding months of the previous year; also by the fact that lay-offs were 4.2 per cent of the average number on pay roll in January, 1929, or less than one-half of the January, 1928, figure. The preliminary lay-off rate for February, 1929, was 4.9 per cent, or only a little more than one-half of the previous February rate. Since the middle of last year both accession and quit rates have been higher, month by month, than those of the preceding year. Meanwhile lay-off rates have declined continuously from 8.3 per cent in May, 1928, to 4.2 per cent in January, 1929. It is rather a striking fact that since January, 1928, accession rates have almost continuously increased and lay-off rates have declined, the chief exception being in November and December when manufacturing operations fell off for seasonal reasons. Judging from these turnover records, manufacturing activity during the early part of 1929 more nearly resembled the situation existing in 1925 rather than that of more recent years.

AVERAGE TURNOVER RATES DURING 1928 AND 1929 IN SELECTED AMERICAN FACTORIES 1

1 Now numbering over 300. The form of average used is the unweighted median of company rates, except for the total separation rate, which is the sum of the median rates for voluntary quits, lay-offs, and discharges.

2 Arithmetic sum of quit, lay-off, and discharge rates. Preliminary; subject to revision.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND LABOR CONDITIONS

Collection of Wage Claims by New Jersey Department of Labor

IN

'N THE fiscal year ending June 30, 1928, the Bureau of Employment of the New Jersey Department of Labor received 1,392 wage claims involving $82,125.74.1 This was an increase of 50 per cent in the number of claims received as compared with the preceding year, and an increase of over 100 per cent as compared with the number in the fiscal year 1925-26.

As a result of the bureau's efforts 59 per cent of all proper claims, including bankruptcies, were collected in the fiscal year 1927-28, the payments aggregating $21,464.71. In this year the average claim amounted to $59 as compared with $50.87 in the previous year.

In the four years in which the bureau of employment has been collecting claims its officials have found that this work has not only been of value to laborers whom they have aided in recovering wages but it has cleared up many cases of supposed injustice and brought about better feeling on both sides. Many individuals make claims for wages "with the fixed idea that their employer has unjustly refused to pay such claims." In a substantial number of cases the bureau has "succeeded in convincing the worker of the impropriety of that attitude." The bare statistics on the collection of wage claims do not disclose the many adjournments of court hearings, the numerous informal hearings held at the bureau to ascertain the real facts in the case, or the amount of correspondence and the number of field visits required to bring about the reported results.

During the year it has been necessary to resort to the courts on 17 claims against 10 employers after all our efforts had failed to result in the settlement called for by the facts. Of these claims, seven were paid in the amount of $301.75 after court hearing and thereupon the charges were discontinued. Two cases were discontinued, involving $529, when it was demonstrated the defendant was not responsible. One case, involving $53.75, was lost when the court held that the employment had not been in the employer's business. One case resulted in a penalty of $25 on a claim for wages of $34. However, the court suspended the payment of the fine and later the conviction was reversed on a technicality of failure to provide written notice to the employer. Six cases remain untried, involving $993.05, as the employers have disappeared.

Quite a number of the defects of the act of 1899 in forcing wage payments were eliminated in 1928 (Public Laws, 1928, ch. 150) by the enactment of a provision "which requires in the main that wages must be paid every two weeks, in lawful money of the United States, in full, as earned up to within 12 days of such payment." The fine for the first violation is $50 and for other violations $100. Final jurisdiction in such cases is given to district courts and police courts,

1 New Jersey. Department of Labor. The Industrial Bulletin, September, 1928, pp. 54-55.

which makes it no longer necessary to secure a grand jury indictment. "Failure to pay any fine or judgment is to be followed by sentence in the county jail up to 100 days, or by execution on goods or chattels.” An exception is made in the case of "agricultural workers, water men and persons, firms, or corporations who can prove a paid-up cash capital of $200,000." There is no longer a time limit for prosecutions. According to the report of the Bureau of Employment, these various new provisions should make for a more rapid action in cases against "fly-by-night" employers and, to some extent at least, for a more effective enforcement of legitimate wage claims than has previously been possible against "dead beats" and other employers of labor who have up to the present been able to evade the force of the civil measures which it has been possible to provide for the relief of the workers in these matters.

The experience in 1927-28 in the face of some development of the small claims divisions of district courts seems to indicate that "these courts are not meeting this problem."

TH

Thirty-Five Years' Service with the Same Company

HE 1929 yearbook published by Swift & Co. (Chicago, Ill.) states that there are now 279 employees who have service records of 35 years or more with that company. The 1926 yearbook listed 164 such employees; in 1927, 29 names were added; in 1928, 45; and in 1929, 41.

English Employers' Reply to Industrial Conference Proposals

AN

N ARTICLE in the Labor Review for March, 1928 (p. 32), described the formation of a body to confer on industrial matters, composed on one side of a group of large employers, and on the other of representatives of the executive council of the Trade Unions Congress. The September, 1928, issue of the Review carried a summary (p. 53) of the preliminary report made public by this conference, of which the most important feature was an invitation to the organized employers and organized employees of the country to unite in forming a national industrial council, which should meet quarterly to consult on wide questions concerning industry and industrial progress, should set up joint conciliation boards for action in case of industrial disagreements, and should establish and direct machinery for continuous investigation into industrial problems. In addition there were recommendations concerning trade-union recognition, victimization, and the rationalization of industry. The report was signed as a whole, neither side making reservations nor presenting minority reports.

These recommendations were issued early in July. The tradeunions at once began to vote upon them, and at the annual meeting of the Trade Unions Congress, held in September, the report was formally accepted and the recommendations indorsed by a large majority. The employers' organizations took longer in reaching a decision, and meanwhile the informal conference continued its sessions. On February 13, 1929, at a joint meeting of the two organizations of