CHAP. 15.~—INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION 117

Practically all Governments were of the opinion that the convention
should not indicate any specific form of machinery.® The International
 Labor Office concluded in favor of freedom for the Governments
 to “determine the nature and form of the minimum wagefixing
 machinery and the methods to be followed in its operation,
provided that the rate of wages fixed shall be binding on the employers
 and workers concerned, so as not to be subject to a lowering
by them by individual agreement, nor by collective agreement, except
at the authorization of the competent authority under the mathinery.”
 ©
Practically all Governments favored preliminary consultation with
the trade and with specially qualified persons. Practically all Governments
 favored also representation of employers and workers, on
equal terms, on the boards to be established.’ Most of the Governments
 favored giving to the employers and workers concerned some
voice in the selection of their representatives.’ Most Governments
also favored supervision of the law by the factory inspectors.
The International Labor Office has elaborated, on the basis of the
replies, ropositions for a convention and for a recommendation as
3 basis &amp; the deliberations of the conference of 1928.
Dr. Karl Pribram, until recently chief of the statistical section of
the International Labor Office analyzed in his study “ The regulation
of minimum wages as an international problem,” the problems to
be solved by the International Labor Conference of 1928. He
showed that one of the main reasons for the reluctance of the central
European countries to accept minimum wage-fixing machinery for
trades other than home work is the general prevalence therein of
the method of collective agreements. They do not wish any interference
 by State authorities with voluntary arrangements. Even
workers’ representatives fear the weakening of trade-union influence
if the trade-union monoply in the fixation of wages should be broken
by interference by the authorities, a point of view similar, of course,
to that of the American Federation of Labor.
Other countries, where collective agreements are less prevalent,
and where minimum wage-fixing machinery already exists for factory
trades, wish to protect these industries against competition by countries
 without minimum wage-fixing machinery for these trades. The
fear was expressed that a convention restricting the machinery expressly
 to home work might hamper social progress in the advanced
countries, Doctor Pribram, and with him the International Labor
Office, favored as a way out such a form of convention that all States
can assume its obligations, whatever may be the special tendencies
of their legislation. The Governments should be left free to decide
what groups of trades satisfy the general criteria specified.
The general conference of the International Labor Organization
which met in Geneva on May 30, 1928, for its eleventh session decided,
on June 1, to accept the outline of the International Labor Office
as a basis of its discussions. A commission of 48 members was

ol aational Labor Office. Report on Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery, Geneva,
; ,_ Dp. 109.
9 Idem, p. 112.
Idem, p. 115.
“ Idem, p. 118.
2 Idem, pp. 68-76.
'® International Labor Office. International Labor Review, Geneva, March, 1928, p. 317.