Mr. NOTHNAGEL. It was in reference to not being able to get men on the inaugural ball at the last inauguration. He makes a statement, "They had worked for other people in the daytime and wanted to work for us at night. That is on page 38. That was on the Pension Office building.

Mr. PAYSON. Do you deny that?

Mr. GOMPERS. Let him make his own statement in his own way. Mr. NOTHNAGEL. I know that at that time they did not use all of the men that were employed by them. There were men working for them at that time, and there were men that had worked for them before that who were on the street doing nothing. That is about all I have to say. Of course this is simply a contradiction of his state

ment.

Mr. VREELAND. Have you investigated it yourself so that you know?

Mr. NOTHNAGEL. I was at that time the acting business agent of the electrical workers.

Mr. EMERY. Do your men decline now to work overtime for overtime pay, as a rule?

Mr. NOTHNAGEL. It would almost jeopardize a man's job to refuse to work overtime. We simply put these stringent rules in our bylaws to avoid working overtime. That is all we can do in the matter. Mr. TRACY. Those clauses are often put in the agreements to save the other parts of the agreement and to save conflicts between employees and employers.

Mr. NOTHNAGEL. Sometimes they are, but in this case I think it was simply put in to avoid working more than eight hours.

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN F. RABBIT.

Mr. RABBIT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I did not come here to refute Mr. Graham's statement, because I do not know anything of that, but only to testify in a general way about how the plasterers work as to their overtime. Our organization does not countenance overtime except in cases of absolute emergency. We receive, in emergency cases, double time for such work, and we will not work overtime except in those cases, cases of absolute emergency.

Mr. EMERY. Do you mean to say that in an emergency case, where you are paid overtime pay for overtime work, you will refuse it? Mr. RABBIT. We will refuse it unless it is in a case of an emergency. Mr. VREELAND. And you decide whether it is an emergency or

not?

Mr. RABBIT. Yes.

Mr. PAYSON. Who decides whether there is an emergency?

Mr. RABBIT. Clearly, anybody can decide whether it is an emergency or not, if it is clearly an emergency.

Mr. PAYSON. What do you call an emergency?

Mr. RABBIT. I would call it an emergency if it was a stoppage to a man's business to have the men employed on his work in the daytime, and they would have to be employed in the evening after his store closed. That would be an emergency.

Mr. PAYSON. Suppose a man had a contract suppose your employer had a contract-that he was to finish a building by the 1st of April, and by reason of storms and delay in material he was not able

to get that through unless there was some overtime work on the plastering?

Mr. RABBIT. That is a business emergency.

Mr. PAYSON. That is a business emergency?

Mr. RABBIT. And it would be so treated.
Mr. VREELAND. The men would work?

Mr. RABBIT. The men would work. They would not work any hardship on any contractor.

Mr. PAYSON. In case of a business emergency the employer would be the judge as to whether it would justify overtime work?

Mr. RABBIT. If it would be justified in the eyes of the association. Mr. PAYSON. You mean that the men would have to apply to the association for permission to work overtime?

Mr. RABBIT. Yes.

Mr. PAYSON. Then, as a matter of fact, overtime work in your association is the exception in Washington? Mr. RABBIT. It is an exception with us. I will make an exception to that, that the plastering season is a short season with us, and when we worked a ten-hour day we had about eight months' work out of the twelve, and since we have been working an eight-hour day we have about ten months' work out of twelve. You see what a benefit it has been to us.

Mr. PAYSON. Has there been any objection on the part of employers?

Mr. RABBIT. Not a bit in the world. We have not had a bit of objection from employers.

Mr. EMERY. There are a great many of the employees engaged in building operations who are not in your association, are there not?

Mr. RABBIT. Not a large number. The most of our work in the District of Columbia is done through subcontract. There are some of the larger firms who employ men directly.

Mr. PAYSON. I would like to get an understanding of that. Is the amount of labor you control in the District of Columbia-that your union controls-substantially constant, about the same amount year after year?

Mr. RABBIT. No, sir. As the needs of Washington have increased, we have always had more men.

Mr. PAYSON. I want to understand this. How is it that you say before the union took control of affairs and put in this exorbitant overtime work you only got about eight months' work in the year, and now, by the application of the rule, you get ten months' work? I can not understand that. May be I am dull about it.

Mr. RABBIT. When we worked ten hours, we did more work than we could in eight.

Mr. PAYSON. That is not possible, is it? As a union man, do you say that you could do more work in ten hours than in eight hours? Mr. RABBIT. Why, yes, sir; I do not see how he could help doing

more.

Mr. EMERY. What is the membership in your union?

Mr. RABBIT. My membership now in Washington is about 350. It fluctuates. In the busy season we have possibly 100 more.

Mr. EMERY. Do you know what proportion of the plasterers employed in the city is represented in your union?

Mr. RABBIT. I do not quite understand.

Mr. EMERY. You say you have 350 members?

Mr. RABBIT. Yes.

Mr. EMERY. What proportion is that of the number of plasterers employed in the city as a rule?

Mr. RABBIT. In this city?

Mr. EMERY. Yes.

Mr. RABBIT. About seven-eighths.
Mr. EMERY. About seven-eighths?
Mr. RABBIT. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. You would think you could do more work in ten hours than in eight?

Mr. RABBIT. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. Could you keep it up longer? Do you think you would live longer?

Mr. RABBIT. Do more work in ten hours than in eight hours?
Mr. RAINEY. Yes.

Mr. RABBIT. Why, yes; of course we could.

Mr. RAINEY. Do you think you would live just about as long if you worked ten hours a day as if you worked eight hours?

Mr. RABBIT. No, I should not; but I could do more work in ten hours than in eight hours.

Mr. RAINEY. Then, in the period of your natural life, during the period you are engaged in productive industry, working eight hours a day, you would probably live longer and put in more hours if you worked eight hours a day than if you worked ten hours?

Mr. RABBIT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You are going pretty deep into that. I do not know what we ought to put in the record about that, unless we are going into the question. The truth is that economic authorities are in flat contradiction on that proposition, one class of people contending that the eight-hour day is a benefit to mankind by making work for 20 per cent more men and the other class contending that the effect is to improve the product, but not increase the output. Now, if we are to settle that controversy, we want to open a new investigation.

Mr. RAINEY. I do not want to settle it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EMERY. What is the difference, if any, between the pay you received for ten hours' work and the pay you now receive for eight hours' work?

Mr. RABBIT. It has been a good many years since we worked ten hours, and the pay has about doubled on what we worked ten hours for. I remember when we worked ten hours for $3 a day, and now we work eight hours for $5 a day.

Mr. EMERY. How long has that double time been in existence? Mr. RABBIT. That has been in existence in my organization for about three years.

Mr. EMERY. Three years?

Mr. RABBIT. Yes.

Mr. EMERY. Is that general, or is it confined to Washington?
Mr. RABBIT. It is very general in the whole industry.

Mr. VREELAND. The whole truth is, I suppose, Mr. Rabbit, that the plasterers fall into the atmosphere of a place, like everyone else, where there are short hours and good pay and easy work?

Mr. RABBIT. On the work here it is short hours, but the work is hard. If you are acquainted at all with the plastering business you know that it is one of the hardest and most laborious of the building trades.

Mr. VREELAND. Yes.

Mr. GOMPERS. You say that the conditions which you have here in the trade are pretty general throughout the United States? Mr. RABBIT. Yes.

Mr. EMERY. That is, double time for overtime?

Mr. RABBIT. Double time for overtime prevails in nearly all of the large cities.

Mr. EMERY. Is it also true that in most of the large cities permission must be obtained from the union to work overtime, and not from the individual?

Mr. RABBIT. I can not say about that.

Mr. EMERY. That is confined to Washington, is it?

Mr. RABBIT. That is confined to Washington, so far as I know. Mr. GOMPERS. You spoke in one of your answers about the employer getting permission. Is it not that there is an agreement or understanding rather than that the employer asks permission and the union is placed in the position of consenting?

Mr. RABBIT. Well, maybe there is.

Mr. GOMPERS. Is not that true?

Mr. PAYSON. That is a pretty leading question, Mr. Gompers. Mr. RABBIT. It is generally, I think, in the judgment of the business agent of the association.

Mr. EMERY. He will pass on that?

Mr. RABBIT. He will bring it before the association.

Mr. EMERY. You mean in each case where it is proposed to work overtime the case is brought before the association?

Mr. RABBIT. Yes, sir.

Mr. EMERY. But that is confined to Washington?

Mr. RABBIT. Yes, sir; so far as I know.

Mr. RAINEY. Then, as a matter of fact, it is a matter of contract as between your representatives and the representatives of the employer?

Mr. RABBIT. Yes.

Mr. VREELAND. You brought around this condition which you describe here through your own efforts as workingmen and your own organization as workingmen? You have not had it done for you by law?

Mr. RABBIT. No, sir; we have not had it done by law.

Mr. VREELAND. Is it true throughout the country, so far as you know?

Mr. RABBIT. So far as I know.

At 1.40 o'clockp.m. the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The committee met at 2 o'clock p. m., Hon. John J. Gardner (chairman) in the chair.

Mr. GOMPERS. I have been asked to read this letter to the committee, and, with the accompanying document, leave it with the committee:

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
Washington, D. C., March 10, 1908.

COMMITTEE ON LABOR, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: It is reported to me that Mr. MacGregor, president of the Union Iron Works, San Francisco, Cal., in a statement made before your committee on Friday, March 6, said that in the adjustment of the general strike in the iron trade of San Francisco it had been agreed that the hours of labor should be gradually reduced until the eight-hour day was reached June 1, 1910, and that eight hours should constitute a day's work thereafter. Further, that the nine-hour rate of wages being paid when the settlement of the strike was reached would not be paid for the eight-hour day.

I herewith attach a copy of the agreement as reached with the employers in San Francisco, which provides that the minimum wage rate per day prevailing at the time of the settlement was to continue during the life of the agreement. I make this statement because I believe that Mr. MacGregor was not fully informed as to the full particulars of the agreement.

Respectfully,

JAS. O'CONNELL,
International President-

PROPOSED AGREEMENT OF EMPLOYERS.

That considering the conditions of San Francisco at the present time and the injury that would result to the city's interests from a continuation of the dispute in the iron trades, we mutually agree:

First. That all shops shall be opened and men return to work during the week ending June 8, 1907, on the hours and pay prevailing April 30, 1907, the minimum wage rate per day of this date to prevail during the life of this agreement.

Second. That nine hours shall constitute a day's work until December, 1, 1908. From December 1, 1908, until June 1, 1909, 83 hours shall constitute a day's work. From June 1, 1909, until December 1, 1909, 84 hours shall constitute a day's work. From December 1, 1909, until June 1, 1910, 84 hours shall constitute a day's work. After June 1, 1910, 8 hours shall constitute a day's work.

Third. That there shall be no discrimination made by either side against any employees on account of their connection with the present dispute.

Fourth. That a conference to discuss any other matters not provided for in this agreement may be called by either employers or employees in any craft to provide for some method of adjusting questions at issue. Pending decision there shall be no lockout on the part of the employers or strike on the part of the employees. Approved May 30, 1907.

I want to submit this letter with this rough draft of the agreement. Although not signed, it is the agreement reached between the employers and the employees. It shows that the wages were to remain as they prevailed prior to the gradual reduction of hours of labor until the eight-hour day shall be inaugurated.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection to putting it in the record, but I think that was the understanding of the committee as to what Mr. McGregor meant to say, that the question of wages was open after June, 1910.

Mr. HAYDEN. I think Mr. McGregor is misquoted in the communication that has been presented by Mr. Gompers.

The CHAIRMAN. It goes in the record with what he said, and it is all right.

Mr. HAYDEN. Yes.