76 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 
Mr. Dovucras. I say it would be better to concentrate the employ- 
ment on the 700 men, even though it squeezed 300 out of jobs, and 
then marshal your machinery to get jobs for the other 300 who were 
squeezed out. 
But then, I am primarily interested in this: Won’t there be in- 
creased employment for those squeezed out of work by the fact that 
the others have more purchasing power, more money to spend? 
Mr. SumnNERs: I admit in times of great economical depression 
and believe that it would be better for 1,000 men to have shorter 
hours, shorter hours for the larger group, than for a portion of them 
to have full time and the others no working time. 
Mr. Doucras. Normally it would be best to squeeze out the water, 
and release the other men for other industries, confident that the 
increased purchasing power of those employed full time will sooner 
or later emerge and show itself in the need for increased industrial 
production to meet the increased expenditures of those fully employed. 
This illustration I have given for the docks presents in a mangified 
form the tendency ‘which exists throughout industry when you have 
centralized employment agencies. The business fluctuates and the 
men will try to build up the business by several passing out of employ- 
ment, so that when work does come, they know where to get these 
men and put them on who are only dangling. 
Lack of knowledge on the part of the worker operates in the same 
way. We have all over the country excess reserves at factory gates, 
who have pooled and they are thrown together and in that way, they 
can diminish the consequent employment increase. That is the first 
great argument for any such bill as this. And the central system of 
employment exchanges will be a gain as it will keep labor from tramp- 
ing from one factory gate to another seeking work. When employers 
have to keep this individual reserve, that means they generally have 
some regular and steady workers; men who can depend on jobs day 
after day and month after month; and they have workers knowing 
that their work may be temporary, and that they may almost at any 
time be in need of other employment. } 
Now, a central system of employment which would enable employers 
to know that they can get workers from this central place would be 
an advantage. It would concentrate employment; steady their work; 
and increase the efficiency of them, and take off the cost of recruiting. 
Mr. Symxers. With an organization such as you have indicated, 
labor would lose, from the point of view of knowing whether or not to 
employ or contract, and to know where they were going. It is much 
the same as sending out goods on prior orders or prior sale, as con- 
trasted with sending a shipload of goods out to some point and trying 
to get sales for them after they arrive. 
Mr. Doucras. Men differ from commodities in this, that they can 
refuse the job and commodities can not refuse the purchaser. The 
employment exchange forwards men to an employer to be considered 
by the exployer, and the employer may then reject them or accept 
them, although in the case of sending them from one city to another, 
such as from Albany to Rochester or Buffalo, there will have to be 
some arrangement made to cover the cost of transportation. 
Mr. CerLEr. How about the families of these working men? Do 
they migrate with them?