SHORTENING HOURS OF LABOR.

On June 25, 1904, the following communication was mailed to employers throughout the State:

For statistical purposes in connection with the work of this Bureau, I would like to have information regarding the lessening of hours of labor per diem during the last several years of persons employed in the various vocations in this State, and hence ask if you have, within the time named, either on your own initiative, or as the result of agreement with your employés, lessened hours of labor in the way named? And if so, (1) Did you, in shortening the said hours, act voluntarily or as the result of agreement with employés?

(2) The date on which the change in hours of labor was made?

(3) The number of hours per diem required prior to the change?

(4) The number of hours per diem required after the change was made?

(5) What, if any, reduction in pay per diem in connection with the change?

(6) What is your view as to the benefit to yourself as employer resulting from the change?

(7) Having in view the producing capacity of labor, has the change increased or decreased the cost of your labor?

(8) If there has been increase, what is the percentage of increase? If there has been decrease, what has been the percentage of decrease?

As usual in such cases, a very small proportion of those addressed made any reply. Answers were received from Eureka, Sacramento, San Francisco, Fresno, Los Angeles, and San Diego. The information contained, though not sufficient to furnish conclusive evidence, nevertheless is valuable as showing the general tendency. Of the entire number of establishments from which replies were received, 68.7 per cent show a decrease in the number of hours per day, and in no case was there a decrease in pay; while 37.5 per cent, or more than one half the establishments showing any change, record an increase in pay as well as a decrease in the number of hours worked. Of the entire number, 31.3 per cent show no change whatever.

In San Francisco, every reply showed a decrease in the number of hours and 25 per cent showed an increase in pay as well.

In Sacramento, 75 per cent showed a decrease in the number of hours, 25 per cent showed no change either in hours or pay, and 25 per cent showed both a decrease in hours and an increase in pay.

In Eureka, 50 per cent showed a shortening of hours with no increase

in pay, and the remainder showed no change.

In Fresno, 75 per cent showed a decrease in the number of hours, 25 per cent showed no change either in hours or wages, while 50 per cent showed a decrease in hours and an increase in pay."

In Los Angeles, 35 per cent showed a decrease in number of hours with no increase in pay, while the remainder showed no change what

soever.

In San Diego, 50 per cent showed a decrease in number of hours with an advance in pay, while the remainder showed no change.

Fifty-five per cent of the changes in the length of the working day show a cut from nine to eight hours, while in the remainder, with one exception, the reduction is from ten to nine hours. This one exception shows no change except on Saturday, when seven hours are worked instead of the usual eight.

In 60 per cent of the changes recorded the reduction was brought about by agreement with the employés or on union demand. In 8 per cent change was made after a strike, and 10 per cent voluntarily. In the remainder no explanation for the change was attempted.

Only three employers admitted that the change benefited them. One stated that the men worked more willingly and took more interest in their work, and a benefit to all concerned resulted. Another, after maintaining that he was damaged and humiliated by giving his men shorter hours, makes the following statement: "If the employers would hold together as firmly as the employés and not compete so keenly, the answer to that question (No. 6) would be 'beneficial.""

It is readily seen from the results here laid down that the general tendency throughout the State is toward a shorter day. Fewer hours of labor seem to be more desired by those who work than is more pay. One of two explanations must account for this: Either it is easier to persuade an employer to cut an hour from the day's work than to get a corresponding increase in pay; or a man values a little more leisure for rest and recreation more highly than he does more money for his day's work. It is quite likely that both factors enter into the result.

CHILDREN OF THE WAGE-EARNER, AND HIGHER EDUCATION.

Under this caption an article occurred in the last report of this Bureau. It was felt that this inquiry should be prosecuted further, and this investigation continues and supplements the one begun there.

The difficulties confronting the wage-earner who wishes to send his son or daughter to college are brought out very clearly in the former report. Whether or not these difficulties are insurmountable it is only possible to learn by a first-hand study of the complexion of the student body at our California institutions. If we find that the sons and daughters of wage-earners represent as large a proportion of the entire body of students as their fathers represent of the entire population of the State, we must conclude that means have been found to overcome the difficulties declared to exist.

In 1900, the Recorder at the University of California required each student filing an application for admission to give the occupation of his father. The total number entering with regular and limited status was 570. Of these same students, 226 graduated with their class in May, 1904. To be sure, a larger number than 226 graduated in 1904, but we must bear in mind that many students drop back one class and some two or even three classes. But the figures given here represent the actual number of the Freshmen (exclusive of special students) entering in 1900 who received their degrees four years later.

One great difficulty was encountered because of the lack of exactness in the answers. Many of the students gave such indefinite terms as merchant, mechanic, retired, etc., but exact information was acquired in many cases at first hand, and in the others the general character was easily inferred. As nearly as possible the answers actually put down are adopted. For example, fourteen students gave their fathers' occupation as "carpenter," while twenty-seven gave "mechanic." These, of course, could have been all put under mechanic, but we have preferred to give the original classification, as conveying the maximum information.

Of the total number who entered, 39.6 per cent graduated. The smallest percentage graduated among the students whose fathers were engineers. The number here, however, is too small to make the result

Table showing the Parentage of the Students of the Class of 1904 at the University of California.

The first column shows the number entering in 1900, the next the number of these same students graduating in 1904.

of much value. The wage-earners rank first, and as such a large number is represented the figures are very significant. Of the 119 who entered, 60, or 50.4 per cent, graduated. Of the different occupations embraced under this general class, those who gave their fathers' occupation as mechanic rank first with 66.6 per cent. Among professional men, teachers rank high with 47 per cent and lawyers with 46.1 per cent. Newspapermen, druggists, dentists, and artists each have 50 per cent, but the number here, also, is too small to be very significant. In mercantile pursuits, grocers with 62.5 per cent and merchants with 46.6 per cent head the list; among the latter, 90 entered and 42 graduated. The number here is large enough to give conclusive evidence. The sons

of bankers and capitalists enjoy the distinction of making the poorest showing of any. Of the 32 who entered, but 6, or 18.7 per cent, graduated. This is just 31.7 per cent less than the proportion graduating from all the wage-earners taken as a class, and 12.5 per cent less than the craft ranking last.

Of the 99 students who came from the farm, 32, or 32.3 per cent, graduated. The fact that the farmer must maintain his son or daughter away from home, while the son of the mechanic or merchant, in many cases, resides under his father's roof in San Francisco, Oakland, or Berkeley, will in all likelihood account for the smaller percentage; but this in nowise changes the result or affects the significance of the comparison instituted above.

Desiring to learn whether or not the extra work that is likely to fall upon the student of small means affected his scholarship, an investigation of the honor students was made, with the following result: Of the 34 students receiving honorable mention for exceptionally good scholarship, 7 came from the homes of merchants, bankers, etc., 4 from the farm, 3 from the professions, 11 from the wage-earners, 1 from government and municipal employ, the father of one was dead, and the occupation of the parents of 7 could not be ascertained. Of the 570 who entered in 1900, 119, or 20.8 per cent, came from the home of the workman; while of the 226 who graduated, 60, or 26.5 per cent, were of this same class; and 11 of this 60 graduated with honors. Starting with 20.8 per cent of the class, wage-earners graduated 26.5 per cent, and among the honor men had 11 out of 34, or 32.3 per cent.

According to the census of 1900 there were in this State 1,222,111 men, women, and children over 10 years of age. Of these, 134,253, or 10.9 per cent, were engaged in manufacturing and mechanical pursuits proper. To get upon the same basis of classification we will eliminate from our class of wage-earners the clerks, bookkeepers, and commercial travelers, and add engineers, manufacturers, and contractors, thus mak