build "company houses" for his workmen which they must occupy, and the rent is then deducted from wages. Frequently these houses are better than those which the employees would provide, but they have counteracting disadvantages in contractual ties of dependence. In New York, where factory operatives are given living quarters, these may be regulated by the industrial commission, which has power to enter and inspect. Labor camps for certain kinds of work have received attention in California, New York, and Hawaii. In the case of California the state board of health is ordered to condemn any camps which are dangerous to public health.

3

in

c. Company Stores. The "truck" system, or "truck" English usage, is the term which denotes payment in kind, or otherwise than in cash.5 In the United States this is generally treated under such terms as "store orders," "payment in scrip," or "company stores." Payment in alcoholic drinks would scarcely be tolerated in the United States. This is not because of laws directly forbidding it, for there are none, but American industries are united in keeping liquor from their employees and many of them refuse to hire workmen who use liquor. However, payment in such a manner is indirectly prevented by statutes which call for payment in cash and payment on the premises. Laws regulating or prohibiting company stores, and disallowing coercion as to employees' trading, have the same effect.

Legislation respecting the truck system falls into three classes: (1) laws that would eliminate it altogether, at least in business establishments where it is a real evil, such as mining, manufacturing, and railroad corporations; (2) laws which permit the system, but which regulate the prices charged and the quality offered; (3) laws which allow the institution to exist, but which endeavor to eliminate coercion of employees to make use of the system.

Among the first class would come the laws of Colorado,

1 New York, Laws 1913, C. 195. 2 California, Laws 1913, C. 182. 3 New York, Laws 1913, C. 195. Hawaii, Laws 1911, No. 123.

"Great Britain, Departmental Committee on the Truck Acts, Report, 1908, p. 4.

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and France of the European countries-the latter having, perhaps, the most complete law aiming at the abolition of the entire system.1

The second class includes Connecticut, Indiana, and Virginia. Here prices must not be unreasonable, or higher to the employees than to others who are not employees. Of course, if the town should be owned by the corporation, the law could not have much effect, and, for that matter, no antitruck legislation can accomplish much for the laborer in a town where the land and buildings are all owned by the employing corporation.

In the third class would fall the laws of Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, the Philippines, Porto Rico, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and the laws of practically all the foreign countries, omitting Holland and Italy, which have no such general laws.

The last two groups have this in common, that both regulate prices. Although penalties provided seem to be ample, yet in the United States the administrative features are weak, as typified by the case of Colorado, where, if the attorneygeneral should fail, neglect, or refuse to act after a demand by a responsible party, any citizen has a right to institute proceedings upon giving bonds for cost of suit. Obviously, the workman is in no position to give bonds or to bring suit, for he can neither afford the expense nor the loss of the job which such a procedure would entail.3

(5) Deductions

The problem of deductions from wages involves (1) deductions in respect to fines, (2) deductions as payment for

1 Bulletin of the International Labor Office, Vol. V, 1910, p. 377; Act suppressing truck shops and prohibiting employers from selling, directly or indirectly, to their workmen and employees supplies and goods of any kind, March 25, 1910.

Colorado, Revised Statutes, 1908, Sec. 6995.

Respecting the variety of decisions on the constitutionality of this class of legislation, see Freund, Police Power, 1904, pp. 305-308; Clark, Law of the Employment of Labor, pp. 65-72; Stimson, Handbook to the Labor Laws of the United States, 1896, pp. 104-110.

damages, (3) deductions for use of material and tools, (4) deductions for benefits.

Fines are imposed, presumably, for disciplinary reasons, and vary in application and amount in different establishments and with the caprice of the individual employer. They may not always be a real deterrent, but may on the other hand lead to carelessness, suggesting to the worker that he has paid for what he has done. They may be unfairly imposed, creating a sense of injustice and irritating the workers, and they may even prove to be a source of petty profits to the unscrupulous employer. At all events, they decrease the income of the wage-earner.

Deductions as payment for damages may be for bad or negligent work, injury to materials and to other property of the employer. Abuses are very general, for the employer determines the amount of damage done and puts the price on materials spoiled. It is humanly impossible to do perfect work, and no matter how good a worker may be at his trade, faults will occur at times. Such faults are part of the manufacturers' risk and should be dealt with as such. The employer is himself often to blame for setting an inexperienced hand to do work for which he is not competent.

The case of charges for materials and tools used by employees involves the same principle as in the previous case. This system is intended to secure economy in the use of material by making the worker responsible. However, from the point of view of the worker the system is objectionable because of the possibility of overcharge, which no regulation, however strict, can altogether prevent.

Deductions for benefits received, such as medical attention, hospital care, and sickness insurance, are allowed by all states and countries, but some provide (as, for instance, New South Wales and Western Australia) that the deduction must not exceed the value of the thing supplied, and, when not stated, this is generally implied by all countries. Usually, also, these deductions from wages are in pursuance of a previous contract. Of the United States, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Nevada, and Ohio specifically legislate against forced contributions for certain enumerated benefits as a condition of employment. With the

possible exception of Ohio, the administration of these laws is left to the courts.

A corporation may furnish insurance, lessening many hardships of life for the workingman and his family; but this insurance is enjoyed only as a result of continuous employment, which in turn often involves oppressive dependence. Especially is this true when after a number of years the workingman has acquired rights which may be lost by change of employment. Thus the burden may become great with increasing years, as new employment with insurance becomes more and more difficult to secure.1

Provisions are found in some laws, in connection with employers' liability, and sometimes confined to railroads, which regulate or prevent the payment of benefits to injured employees as a means of escaping from such liability. About half the states, the Philippine Islands, and the federal government have enacted that no contract of insurance or relief benefit shall constitute a bar to action by an employee for damages in case of injury or death.2 Florida directly says that the existence of a relief department, by which the employer pays benefits to the workers, shall not relieve such employer from responsibility in case of death. It is sometimes added, however, that the employer may set off against such a claim any sums he has contributed as benefit. In Georgia the payment of wages up to $100 on the death of an employee is a sufficient release on the employer's part.5

In the act of 18966 the first attempt was made in England to protect the worker from harsh and unreasonable fines. This act provided that there must be formal agreement for the fines; that the fine must be for something which causes, or is likely to cause, damage or loss to the employer or inter

1 Ely, Property and Contract, 1914, Vol. II, p. 714.

2 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Philippine Islands, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, United States.

Florida, Laws 1914, C. 6520.

Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, United States. Georgia, Code 1910, Secs. 3134-3136.

6

59 and 60 Vict., C. 44.

ruption or hindrance to his business; that it must be fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case; that written particulars must be given to the worker each time a fine is exacted; and, finally, that there shall be a register of fines open to inspection.1

In the United States there is little legislation dealing with deductions as fines-a dozen states in all. Michigan prohibits fines altogether, while Massachusetts says fines shall not be levied except for imperfect work,3 and Louisiana prohibits them except when employees wilfully or negligently damage goods or property of the employer. Arkansas and Connecticut regulate discount of wages because of early payment. The rest of the states permit no deductions unless in accordance with certain procedure and with full consent of workers. The Australasian countries have no legislation on fines. In Austria, Belgium, Germany, and Holland fines are regulated in pursuance of a previous contract or published rules. In France fines cannot exceed one-fourth, and in parts of Switzerland not more than one-half, of the daily wage.5 In both these cases as well as in Holland the fines must go toward a workers' benefit fund.

4

A clause dealing with deductions, not levied for inferior work or for destruction of property, appears in Massachusetts, where no deductions are to be made from the wages of women and minors when there is a stoppage of work owing

6

1 Great Britain, Departmental Committee on the Truck Acts, Report, 1908, Vol. I, p. 6.

Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas.

'Massachusetts, Laws 1909, C. 514, Sec. 114. Under the terms of this act fines for imperfect weaving may be levied only after the imperfections have been pointed out and the amount agreed upon by both parties. Apparently these provisions did not sufficiently protect the weavers, for in 1911 another act was passed stating that "No employer shall impose a fine upon an employee engaged at weaving for imperfections that may arise during the process of weaving" (Laws 1911, C. 584). The court, however, rendered the new law nugatory by its limited interpretation of the word "fine." (Commonwealth v. Lancaster Mills, 212 Mass. 315, 98 N. E. 364 [1912].)

'Great Britain, Departmental Committee on the Truck Acts, Report, 1908, Vol. I, p. 95.

Bulletin of the International Labor Office, Vol. III, 1908, p. 125. • Massachusetts, Laws 1909, C. 514, Sec. 119.