Cost of living in German towns

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 866449027

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-93831

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Cost of living in German towns

Place of publication:: London

Publisher:: Stat. Off.

Year of publication:: 1908

Scope:: 1 Online-Ressource (LXI, 548 Seiten)

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

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

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Cost of living in German towns

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation