Though he has made innumerable speeches on labor problems, he is not a prolific writer, either of books or of articles. In that he is unlike Mr. Gompers, who is a writer as well as a speaker. Morrison is more the administrator, Gompers the publicist. His opinions on legislation are more the opinions of a legal mind, and for that reason his advice is frequently sought both inside and outside of his own organization and affiliated unions. His services to the nation during the War were of great benefit to the cause. He was a valuable assistant to Mr. Gompers in his successful efforts to mobilize a labor sentiment strong in the prosecution of the War, and, with Mr. Gompers, he was constantly at work maintaining the morale of the workers in industry and preventing the intrusion of an everactive foreign propaganda which sought to undermine the effectiveness of American efforts to supply the fighting forces with war materials. NOT A POLITICIAN SIXTEEN years ago, when the Fed IXTEEN years ago, when the Fed Partisan Political Campaign Committee, Mr. Morrison was made Chairman, and he is still Chairman. The purpose of this organization was the inauguration by the Federation of "a more vigorous nonpartisan political policy" and a campaign for legislation desired by organized labor. As chairman of this committee Mr. Morrison studied all the legislative proposals of organized labor, at the same time conducting the detailed duties of his work as Secretary of the Federation. Several measures sponsored or supported by this committee ultimately became law, among them the Clayton Amendment to the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, the La Follette Seamen's Act, the proposal for the creation of a separate department and Cabinet officer to deal with the problems of labor, and the various proposals for the restriction of immigration. Though he did not aspire to be a politician and had no desire to hold any political office, Mr. Morrison because of his interest in legislation did become in terested in the ways of politics and politicians. He was one of the early admirers of Theodore Roosevelt and was and still is a staunch supporter of Senator La Follette. In fact, Mr. Morrison's view had great influence on the decision of the American Federation of Labor to throw its official support to La Follette in the last Presidential campaign. LABOR HIS CHIEF INTEREST LABOR, not politics, is his chief interest. Twenty-seven years ago the Chicago Eight-Hour Herald said of him: Mr. Morrison is well up in trades union affairs, but does not trouble himself much about such politico-economic questions as socialism, anarchy, single tax, or the like. He believes in the union. He is a well-read man, has studied law, and is above all things dead in earnest in whatever work he is engaged in. That is also true of Mr. Morrison now. It is his purpose to advance the cause of labor, to work for legislation beneficial to labor, and at the age of sixty-five he is still "dead in earnest in whatever work he is engaged in." Like Mr. Gompers, he is a strong advocate of the eight-hour day and of the principle that labor should give an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Though he is an ardent worker in the cause of labor, his fairness of mind has frequently been attested to by employers, and in 1919 he was selected as an arbiter in the wage dispute between the newspaper publishers of New York City and International Typographical Union No. 6. For more than thirty-eight years Mr. Morrison has been a member of Typographical Union No. 16 in Chicago, and it was his intense interest in union affairs in Illinois which developed his eligibility for the post as Secretary of the Federation. Like Mr. Gompers, Mr. Morrison represents a high type of labor leader, at type which recognizes that an officer of any organization like the Federation, no matter what its size or what section of the population its membership comprises, occupies a post of semi-public functions, duties, and responsibilities. An organization so intimately touching every phase of the economic and political life of the nation must consider the effect of its own special policies upon the public welfare; both Mr. Gompers and Mr. Morrison recognize this obligation in considering their problems. The officers of all labor organizations have not yet put this view into practice; even some of the integral units of the Federation give the impression that their chief function is to get what they can out of industry, regardless of the effect on business, on the public, or, in the long run, on themselves. That is an archaic view. C. E. Eveleth, Industrial Philosopher 'N THE effort to eliminate waste of human energy, it is recognized that more must be accomplished in the same time, or the same accomplished in less time," said the Hoover report on wastes in industry. The great problem is how to eliminate this waste. Labor has not always done its utmost to increase production, not only because incentive was frequently lacking, but also because of a false and sometimes unnecessary hostility or want of confidence and sympathy between management and labor, which led directly to a limitation of output and to holding both efficient and inefficient men to the same level of production. To remove the hostility or suspicion, and supply the incentive was the problem for those who wished to realize the ideal of the report. Henry Ford in his shop and on his railroad has given industry one example of increased efficiency, which results in higher pay for employees and a cheaper product for the public, and other great industries are following suit in their own methods. The land is full of labor philosophers, both practical and academic, who are philosophizing without end on an era of better industrial relations. It is remarkable that one of the most successful of these experiments in carrying out a new labor philosophy should be conducted by a research engineer, C. E. Eveleth, who had no theories or philosophy on the handling of labor or labor problems when he was suddenly and unexpectedly informed that he was to be the manager of the Schenectady works of the General Electric Company, with its 20,000 men and manifold manufacturing activities. He was a captain of army engineers, as it were, suddenly sent to command a corps in action, without ever having seen an army corps. And his corps was uneasy. Wages were advancing in some other industries. The United States Steel Corporation had just increased pay. What would the General Electric do at its big works? THE MR. EVELETH'S SOLUTION HE solution finally evolved by Mr. Eveleth is important, not only to his company but also to general industry, because he has proved that under sympathetic management every man, even in large groups of labor, can be treated as an individual, and that as an individual the workman is willing to give an increased output for increased pay. His aim was to increase earnings and to bring individualism back into large labor groups by encouraging every man to do as much work as his desires or energies permitted. There is nothing especially new in the piece work system, to be sure, but there is something new in the creation and successful operation of a system which makes every one of 20,000 men an individual whose pay is rated upon individual efficiency, ability, and versatility. Under the new system three classes were created, A, B, and C, and increases of pay, some as high as 30 per cent. were granted after consideration of class ratings. Others of lower efficiency in Class C received no increases, and are first to be 154 An Important Example to Industry considered for temporary retirement dur- sidered as it comes up. The door of this ing depressions. The result of this new system was an immediate and marked increase in the operating efficiency of the entire works and in the efficiency of the individual worker. Earnings of men leaped as they received their increases, and piled upon that the results of their increased efficiency. They had an incentive to increase their efficiency. The Schenectady works, incidentally, is an open shop. Dollars and cents tell in much better fashion the story of increased efficiency, dollars and cents not only for the worker but for the employer as well. If the If the cost of direct labor is 80 cts. an hour, materials $1, and overhead and other expenses $1.20, the manufacturing cost of one man for one hour is $3. With a 50 per cent. increase in the efficiency and, consequently, the pay of labor, the manufacturing cost is only $2.60 an hour. Overhead remains the same; labor receives $1.20 an hour; the cost of material is increased 50 per cent., but the output of goods also is increased 50 per cent. The worker has benefited by increased pay; the manufacturer is benefited by lower costs and greater production, a benefit which he is able in part to pass on to the public. HOW THE PHILOSOPHY WORKS ОТ NOT went into effect, a group of workmen asked Mr. Eveleth for an increase of 7 per cent. in pay. He replied that he would be glad to give the increase, provided the efficiency of the group was increased 7 per cent. long after the new system "That increase in efficiency with your increase in pay will actually increase your earnings 15 per cent.," he pointed out. The men thought an increase in efficiency was impossible, but took the increase in pay and agreed to experiment. The result was a marked increase in efficiency, and some of the workers actually increased their production and, consequently, their pay, by 50 per cent. "I have no set rules to follow," says Mr. Eveleth. "Every problem is con office is always open to any man who wants to talk about work or pay. He is an individual and he deals with me as an individual, if he wishes." Mr. Eveleth had the sympathetic support of the officers of his company, of course, but neither they nor he could have initiated any system without the confidence of the men, which he won immediately, not only by his rugged appearance and manner, but also by his rugged yet frank method of dealing with problems. Immediately he showed the men that he trusted them and relied upon them, and they trusted him. Mr. Eveleth wanted to organize a Works Council, or a sort of forum where chosen representatives of the men might discuss problems with the manager of the works. When the first council met, Mr. Eveleth suggested that a committee of five decide in advance what problems should be discussed during the limited time. "Who will choose this committee?" was the question of the men, who apparently thought this was the catch in the proposal. "You name the committee, all the members," was the reply. That answer won the confidence of the men. Important as Mr. Eveleth's achievement may be to himself and the General Electric Company, it is far more important as an example to industry. He has shown that Henry Ford's success is no freak of luck, and that the ideal of the Engineers' survey can be attained. "The wastes revealed," says the survey-sometimes called the Hoover report, "are the result of methods, tactics, practices and relationships of long standing in industry." Mr. Eveleth has found the wastes; he can illustrate the survey for industry because he himself had the qualities and character to put into effect the ideals expressed academically and generally in the report. He has proved that the individual can and will become more efficient if he has the incentive. The Next Step in Washington Responsible Leadership that Must Follow the Federal Budget-A Revolutionary Change for Increased Efficiency Within the Constitution S BY CHESTER H. ROWELL WEARING at Congress has become a favorite American sport. Considering what to do about it is naturally not so common; but that has not been neglected, either, and there is a fair consensus of informed opinion as to what is needed. Unfortunately, knowing what to do is not doing it. If it were, we should not, for instance, have had the thirty years' lag between the demonstration that we needed the budget and the first step towards getting it. Meetings of experts in Washington, even in 1890, pointed out as well as it could be done to-day the absurdity and extravagance of our haphazard system of of coördination of estimates, revenues, and expenditures, so the chief source of the legislative evil is lack of public, responsible contact between the executive and legislative branches of the Government. The remedy proposed is nothing original. It is already in successful operation in all private business and in prac Mr. Chester H. Rowell, editor, re- raising and spending money by a dozen unrelated bills from as many separate committees, without unified estimates, and outlined the necessary steps towards coördination, such as private business and all other governments had already taken. Thirty years later, Congress authorized the first of these steps! The end of the similar lag in the general problem of Congress must be nearly overdue, and an attempt to arouse some active interest in its solution may therefore not be untimely. The purpose of these articles is to be a part of an effort to that end. The case is just as clear and nearly as belated as the budget was. As the source of the fiscal evil was lack tically all other governments, and is approved for America by nearly all of those whom scholarly attainments or practical experience have qualified to be regarded as our most eminent experts. It is, briefly, that we bridge the aloofness of executive and legislative responsibility by bringing Cabinet members and legislators face to face, on the floor of Congress, for the transaction of their joint business. The magnitude of the benefits, both to legislation and to administration, as well as to the standing of Congress and the personal opportunities for service and reputation of Congressmen, to be expected from so simple a step, will appear in the course of the discussion. To begin with, this is no proposal to "tamper with our constitutional form of government." Yet it would be nothing very startling if it were. very startling if it were. That has been happening throughout our history. The "constitutional form of government" of 1924 is not that of 1790, nor of 1830, 1860, 1880, or even of 1900, and it will certainly |