MR. PITZER: I will now call on Mr. Dougherty who will, perhaps, speak more fully about some of the more technical points embraced in our report. I take great pleasure in introducing Mr. N. F. Dougherty of The Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

MR. N. F. DOUGHERTY: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have been a member of the Committee on Employment Plans since it was organized, I have gone along with the members of the committee in recommending an employment department as well as analyzing the labor turnover, but the railroads in general, not only the Pennsylvania, feel that an employment department is not practicable on account of the diversified service-we have everything from a doctor and a lawyer to a laborer-and also on account of the territory covered. The Pennsylvania Railroad, for instance, with 160,000 employes, touches every hamlet from New York to Pittsburgh, and Washington to Buffalo. It reaches Buffalo, so you can all return by that road when you go home. We feel that an employment department on a railroad cannot be handled the same as a plant where you have all of the executives and employes together under one roof.

We have, however, studied a few phases of the question bearing on turnover. In one study of the problem we found that over fifty per cent of the men who were injured had been in the service less than six months. Now, that is something which we should seriously consider, if the same figures hold true in other industries.

Another problem which we studied was the cost of training the lowly trackman. The track labor is supposed to be the real common laborer in railway service. We took as a basis of 100 per cent efficiency an old track gang and on that basis tried out the new men. We have Mexicans, colored, Italians and Americans. The efficiency of the new men runs from 58 to 66 per cent, based on 100 per cent for the old experienced gang. It takes six months to train a track laborer. That means that we lose on the average from 40 per cent inefficient up to efficient, an average of 20 per cent of the men's wages for six months, which is approximately $60. In other words, for every experienced trackman lost it means a money loss of $60. If you add that to the accidents, it is a question which is worthy of very serious study.

CHAIRMAN ROWE: There are assignments of two and one

half minutes for the further discussion of this problem. Are there any others who desire to discuss the report of this very important committee?

MR. C. R. DOOLEY: I think we would like to hear from Mr. Pitzer briefly, giving an outline of his proposed method of dealing with turnover, not to go into the detail of his report, but tell us how he will calculate it.

MR. PITZER: We discussed that in committee. We wanted to get some very simple form, and we have presented this method which is shown in the report. Mr. Shaw can tell you how they do it in the Dennison Manufacturing Company. Their method struck me as being a simple one, and I think we can all follow it. I would like Mr. Shaw to explain that to us.

MR. C. E. SHAW: While I am not connected with the employment department and may not be able to answer all of the questions in detail, I think I can outline briefly our methods.

In reducing our turnover, the most important features we use are two; first of all is an analysis of the reasons why our employes are leaving, and that is, to our mind, the best basis that we have for checking up the efficiency of the employment department. If we are having a great many losses in one individual occupation in our plant, the employment manager must give that considerable thought and study, because it is apparent that he is employing the wrong type of men for that position. If, on the other hand, a great many men are leaving of their own accord there, we must analyze the conditions and find out whether the withdrawals are due to the working conditions, or to the foreman.

The second feature which we have developed this past year to help us reduce the turnover is the development of a committee to consider what we call "personnel problems"; we consider it absolutely from the employe's standpoint however. We study the reasons for leaving, study the working conditions, study the foreman, and study the men.

Every employe in our plant has the right to appeal to this committee for a transfer or change of work, or in respect to anything which appertains to his own interest.

With these methods, that is, the analysis of the reasons for leaving, plus the intensive studies which the members of the committee, made up of certain of our executives, make, we feel that we are making great strides towards the reduction of our turnover

by considering the interests and the welfare of the individual employes.

MR. PITZER: Turnover should not be figured gross in any organization. In our company we hope to compare the Auditor's Department with the Actuary's Department, for instance. Comparisons of this kind we find very useful. I think that ought to work out well in an industry. Different classes of men and different kinds of work should be figured separately.

MR. DOOLEY: That is what I had in mind, as to how you would compare turnover in different grades of labor. Where you find the maximum turnover, is it advisable to split it up into classification of labor or years of employment? Is the maximum turnover the first six months, or in what period of time does it take place?

MR. PITZER: You can readily see its usefulness. I used to take our total payroll and against it put those clerks who were dismissed on account of inefficient selection. I was looking at it from the employment manager's standpoint. I felt that the company should not hold me responsible for loss of employes by marriage, death or anything else over which I had no control. Where it was due to inefficiency in work, however, that, it seemed to me, was properly chargeable to failure in selection. My turnover figure consequently showed up extremely well as against that of other companies who put all of those leaving for any cause whatsoever against the total payroll. I recite the foregoing merely to show the necessity of all of the companies figuring turnover on uniform basis and using the same chart there for.

I hope, therefore, that we will all keep during the next twelve months our turnover chart. Even if your company refuses to do so officially, I hope that you will be able to use your influence in getting whoever is responsible for looking after the turnover to chart his results. If this is done, it will help any research work which might be carried on by my committee for the benefit of our association.

MR. H. T. WALLER: Has not the committee some definite recommendation to make to us to-day as to how to stop labor turnover? I have heard the old preachment of getting control of the actions of the foreman, etc. I do not happen to be a foreman, although I wish I was big enough to be one. I have not heard what you are going to do with your foreman. I have

not heard any recommendation as to how he is to help stop the turnover. We have no suggestions as to what we can do, and I think everybody in industry recognizes that the cost of our labor turnover is the most costly single item in industry. Labor turnover runs from 1 to 800 per cent every year. What we would like to know is: Has any one tried anything successfully to overcome this turnover? What can we do to stop it? If it is up to the foreman, how have you worked with the foreman to have him stop the turnover in his department?

MR. PITZER: The first thing you have got to do, in order to bring about a successful result, is to get an employment manager, and put him in charge with the executives behind him. That is all essential, and then you can get your foremen together and inform them of the employment manager's job. Foremen as a rule are very willing to coöperate and if they know that the men selected by the employment manager are the right men, there will be no interruption of harmony by the clashing of personalities. Educate the foremen to the fact that besides production the matter of turnover plays a part in the cash book. The fear seems to prevail in most institutions that it is a dangerous thing to hold one man responsible for the hiring and firing of help. I want to state that upon investigation it has been found that the companies with centralized employment bureaus have a lower turnover than the companies where the foremen have the privilege of employing and dismissing workers. The time of the foremen is too valuable to have them go out to the back door for the purpose of selecting their own help from the crowd assembled. One man should do the employing and he should keep his job or be dismissed according to whether the turnover is appreciably low or dangerously high.

MR. H. T. WALLER: We have all that. It is all centralized, yet the problem is still there.

MR. F. P. PITZER: Does your foreman select your help?

MR. H. T. WALLER: The foreman, not at all.

MR. F. P. PITZER: I do not see where the trouble is. Perhaps it is in the case of the block data, you do not look at it properly. I would like to discuss that at the round table this afternoon. I would like to have you there.

ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION_
EMPLOYMENT PLANS

TUESDAY AFTERNOON-JUNE 5, 1917

CHAIRMAN PITZER: We have not this Round Table very well organized, but I think we can get something out of it if some one will start something, and it occurred to me that perhaps this afternoon we can look a bit into the future. While the biggest part of our talk will be primarily devoted to turnover, I think all of us in the coming twelve months are going to run up against very vital problems, which will have to do with the war, etc., and one of these problems,—and I think we can talk about it a bit, is what part women will play in employment. I think we are coming to it, that we have got to use more women than ever before, and I just wonder how far in your organizations a woman has a chance to go. I know that in the Equitable Life Assurance Society we have put our women on the same basis as the men. Young women can go just as far as the young men. They do not seem to accomplish that end, however. I do not know why it is, but a woman seems to be more diffident in her progress. She is more easily satisfied, a group of women, taking them as a whole, are more easily satisfied than a group of men. If they get a fairly good wage they stand by the job, and do not look for anything much higher. We have some women holding responsible positions paying from $1,500 to $1,800 a year. They have opportunities to go further, but they do not seem to make use of them.

Another thing I think we could talk about is, what are we going to do with regard to paying salaries during terms of military service. I think there will be a big variation as to what the individual concerns will do in that respect. If we could take home some uniform methods of meeting these two problems, it would be a matter of great value to us. I wish we could look a little ahead and talk about these problems which we are sure to run up against. The employment managers will have to meet