Õ23 
In view of the above considerations and of the interest attaching to the earlier figures, 
attention may be called to the principal sources of past incompleteness in the German 
returns, other than those to which attention has already been directed. 
A complete record of unemployed should contain the following five classes of 
persons :— 
(a) Those actually receiving unemployed benefit. 
(b) Those who have n^jt yet been out of work sufficiently long to claim benefit. 
(c) Those who have exhausted their claim to benefit, having received all that the 
rules permit, for the time being. 
(d) Those who have not yet become entitled to benefit as members of the union, 
haying joined it too recently. 
(e) Those on travelling benefit. 
All those who are unemployed, in whichever of these five classes they fill, should be 
included in a complete return. As regards the German figures, it appears that, up to quite 
recently, (a), (b) and a part of (e) constituted the bulk of those returned. All of (a) are of 
course included, but, in view of the fact that in the German unions benefit lasts, as a rule, 
only for ten weeks or less (90 per cent, of unions), while in British unions the period of 
benefit is very much greater (only .11 per cent, of unions having so short a period as 
10 weeks), a much larger proportion of the total unemployed is included in (a) in the 
British unions than in the German. For example the great Metal Workers Union in 
Germany pays unemployed benefit for ten weeks only, compared with 52 weeks or even 
more for all full members in the case of the Amalgamated Society ÕF Engineers ; the 
Woodworkers’ Union pays for six weeks only, compared with 24 in the case of the 
Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners. Since (a) represents the only absolutely 
complete and certain element in both the sets of statistics, it is evident that this difference 
of practice gravely affects their comparability. A further consideration tending to the 
same result is that, whereas benefits begin after from two to six days of unemployment in 
the British unions, they are deferred till from seven to fifteen days of unemployment have 
been passed in the German unions. 
Of class (b) there appears to have been some leakage in the German figures, owing to the 
difference between the British and German methods of securing the daily report of 
unemployed persons. Some informants of the Board of Trade have stated that a not incon 
siderable number do not report at the office of their union daily, and thus the return, which 
generally, if not always, covers the unemployed reported on the day to which it refers, 
may fail to be exhaustive in regard to class (b). It is further asserted that the benefit is 
so small in some of the unions that members do not always consider it worth while 
reporting their unemployment continuously, especially when the union’s office is distant 
from, their residence, or a chance to secure work calls them elsewhere. 
Of class (e), which is very much more important in proportion to the total out of 
employment in Germany than in England, many escape record on the day of the return, 
as it is often not required that they report at branch-offices more frequently than at 10-day 
intervals. Only those reporting on the day of the return can be definitely known by the 
branch offices to be on travel, and thus a complete return is not secured. Conditions in 
regard to this group of unemployed differ widely in Germany from those prevailing in 
this country. 
In regard to class (c), they were, until quite recently, very imperfectly represented in 
the German returns, and though, as above stated, improvement in this respect has been 
effected since the issue of the new instructions in the autumn of 1906, it is doubtful if the 
present returns include substantially the wffiole of the members of this class. For the 
reasons mentioned when discussing class (a), this class is relatively very large in Germany, 
and it is easy to appreciate that its members would, in many cases, possess little interest 
in keeping up a notification that they were out of work. Though the union registries are 
doing an increasingly important work in assisting members to find employment, it is still 
the fact that the municipal and employers’ registries are of the greater importance. 
Of class (d) it is difficult to judge how far they are likely to contribute to the records 
of unemployed. It must be borne in mind that the period of membership which qualifies 
for benefit is much longer in Germany than in this country. Here it averages under ten 
months, there it is nearly fifteen months on the average. Moreover, German trade unions 
have grown very rapidly in membership—much more rapidly than the British unions in 
the last few years. This rapid growth is illustrated by the following table :— 
Increase of Membership in certain German Trade Unions during the 
Years 1904-1907. 
Unions. 
Metal Workers ... 
W ood Workers ... 
Transport Workers 
Brewery Workers 
Number of Members at the end of the Year. 
1904. 
181,328 
103,034 
40,314 
19,371 
1905. 
1906. 
1907. 
260,305 
131,257 
51,061 
23,227 
331,822 
153,981 
80,580 
28,573 
366,189 
148,869 
88,502 
33,028 
Increase 
per cent., 
1904-1907. 
102 
44 
120 
71 
(The information is obtained from the Tables in the Reichs-Arbeitsblutt for January 
°f the next following year in each case.) 
29088 
3 U 2