of large caliber who can be attracted only by a position of high rank.

2. A labor administrator of high rank can be better relied upon to preserve and express his independent point of view, without which his value to the enterprise is largely lost. Subordinates have a tendency to cater to superiors by expressing views (regardless of their own views) which they believe agree with those of their superiors. Especially strong is this temptation likely to be in questions of labor policy concerning which liberal views are still regarded by many executives with distrust. Set down amid executives whose points of view on labor questions have been colored by traditions and prejudices created under the drive system and who imperfectly appreciate the desirability of a liberal labor policy, a labor administrator of secondary rank often may be expected to be timid in standing for labor policies of a distinctly liberal character.

3. To a large degree the labor policy of an enterprise must be determined not solely by the labor administrator but by the labor administrator and the production manager, factory manager, general manager, or president, subject often to the approval of the directors. Such matters as the wage scale, systems of wage payment, hours, overtime, regularization of production, selection of foremen, and alterations in physical conditions in the plant to promote the comfort of the workers, all involve joint decisions by the labor administrator and other high officials. To exert an important influence upon the labor policies of the enterprise, the labor administrator must be able substantially to influence the high officials in co-operation with whom he formulates the policies. To do this he must possess the ability and force obtainable only in highly paid men and the prestige and importance which attach to an official of first rank.

The need for the labor administrator's being an official of high rank in order to exercise a due influence in the formulation of policies is heightened by the fact that he has a peculiarly difficult point of view to present under peculiarly difficult circumstances. To executives interested chiefly in quick results and thinking in definite and easily visualized terms of output and costs, the labor administrator must present convincingly a long-run point of

view, expressed largely in terms of the intangible and indefinite good will of the force, impossible to translate into terms of direct, definite, and immediate influence on output and costs. A subordinate official has little chance of presenting such a point of view with success.

4. A labor administrator of high rank can better win the good will of the workmen toward the enterprise. Although the solicitude of a labor administrator of secondary rank for the interests of the men may dispose them kindly toward him personally, their good will will fail to accrue to the enterprise as such because they will regard the labor administrator as a mere subordinate whose point of view does not represent the real policy of the management. To win the good will of the men for the enterprise, the labor administrator must not only stand for a liberal labor policy but must be of such importance and influence in the management that the men regard his attitude not merely as his personal attitude but as an expression of the real labor policy of the enterprise itself.

5. The co-operation, confidence, and respect of the foremen and other minor executives can be obtained more successfully by an executive of high rank, great prestige, and corresponding ability.

IV

Two principal dangers threaten the possible usefulness of the labor administrator. One is that in standing for the recognition of the independent interest of the enterprise in good industrial relations, even to the extent of sacrificing output within limits or incurring avoidable costs, and in standing for a liberal labor policy in order to achieve good industrial relations, the labor administrator will be regarded by the management as an impractical "uplifter," as representing no real interest of the enterprise and hence as serving no practical purpose. The result, of course, will be to prevent the labor administrator from exerting a substantial influence upon managerial policy. Even where policies advocated by him are in the interest of the enterprise as tested by the narrow and inadequate test of effect on output and costs, the association of the labor administrator with visionary and impractical ideas is likely to prejudice other operating officials against his policies, especially

if the results promised by the policies are not direct and immediate but indirect and more or less remote. Thus deprived of a substantial influence in formulating fundamental labor policies, the labor administrator degenerates into a mere supervisor of their routine execution.

The second danger is that the labor administrator himself will be so dominated by the narrow point of view that he will fail adequately to appreciate either the significance of the good industrial relations from the standpoint of their effect upon efficiency or the independent importance to the enterprise of good industrial relations aside from their effect upon output or costs. The result will be that the labor administrator will become too intent upon getting more out of the men and too little interested in industrial relations. By this neglect of industrial relations not only will he partially defeat his purpose of getting more out of the men, but in failing to develop the good will of the workers he will fail to make one of the most important contributions to the welfare of the enterprise within his power to make.

Against these two dangers to which the labor administrator is exposed, of becoming on the one hand a nonentity, a supervisor of routine and of welfare work, and on the other hand merely another "efficiency engineer" specializing in "human engineering," there are several protections. One is the protection advocated above of making the position of labor administrator an office of first rank, carrying large authority and high salary with corresponding influence and prestige, and able to attract men of unusual ability, independence, and vision. A second protection is the increasing independence and self-assertiveness of labor. The taste of power and independence which labor as a whole obtained for the first time during the war has in large measure broken the habit of docility which rendered workers relatively easy to handle. Labor's changed attitude causes managers more easily to appreciate the desirability of a liberal labor policy, independently of its effect upon output and costs, and protects labor administrators in advocating such a policy from being regarded as mere "uplifters." Closely related to this second influence is the steadily growing power and influence of organized labor, which is causing managers to

perceive more and more clearly the necessity of a substantially liberal labor policy in order to avoid the organization of their plants.

In conclusion, an answer should be attempted to a question which has undoubtedly arisen in the reader's mind, "To how small an enterprise is the suggested specialization of labor administration applicable ?"

Specialization of labor administration is probably applicable to much smaller enterprises than would at first be suspected. In large enterprises the labor administrator is completely occupied by the general supervision of the various phases of the handling of men. In small enterprises, however, he is not completely occupied by general supervision of the various phases of labor administration and hence can assume the direct responsibility for certain branches of the work. Thus in a small enterprise the labor administrator can take immediate charge of the employment department, rendering an employment manager unnecessary. The additional cost of a labor administrator to the firm is simply the difference between his salary and the salary of an employment manager a matter of not more than several thousand dollars per year— plus probably the cost of additional secretarial assistance. The more satisfactory handling of labor problems obtainable by a specialist of first-rate ability renders the additional cost within reach of small enterprises. SUMNER H. SLICHTER

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

THE MARINE WORKERS' AFFILIATION OF THE PORT

OF NEW YORK

AN EXPERIMENT IN INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM

American labor history affords numerous examples of experiments in industrial unionism. The marine workers of the port of New York, however, have formed an affiliation which not only includes all employees engaged in the industry of harbor-marine transportation but also a large number of the foreman or masterworkman class some of whom are actual owners of harbor craft and employers of men with whom they are affiliated. Moreover, four of the harbor unions thus affiliated are locals of the International Longshoremen's Association thus serving for practical purposes to unite both dock and harbor labor in support of demands made by either, and two of the unions include in their membership licensed officers of coastwise and overseas vessels.

For the sake of orientation it may be said briefly that the insular location of the cities comprising Greater New York has brought about a large amount of so-called water "trucking," in addition to the transfer of persons by ferries, between points in the harbor. Thus most of the rail lines reaching the port of New York have their terminals on the Jersey shore. Most of the steamship piers are on the Manhattan side. As a consequence, freight must be transferred between rail ends and the other side of the harbor. Moreover, the absence of belt-line facilities together with congested street traffic makes it imperative that "lightering" or "trucking" be done by means of harbor craft.

In 1916, according to figures compiled by the Bureau of Census, United States Department of Commerce, there were 6,117 harbor craft engaged in carrying on the commerce of the port of New York. These were roughly divided into 684 self-propelled and 5,433 non-self-propelled. The self-propelled may be further divided into tugs or other towing vessels, steam lighters, ferry-boats,