CHAP. 5.—BRITISH TRADE BOARDS 37

fected, in order to increase the productivity of the workers and to
make higher piece rates possible. There was much testimony that
industrial relations had been bettered.” The employers and workers
were on better terms. For instance, W. H. Stoker, former attorney
general and chairman of some of the boards, and Foster G. Robinson,
employers’ representative on the paper-bag trade board, stated that
celations between employers and employees had been bettered through
their meeting on the boards. The boards created a mutual and helpful
spirit.'* After the board was formed there were no more disputes of
any consequence in that industry.
The cooperation of all classes of Great Britain in the development
of minimum wage legislation again manifested itself at the conference
called by the League of Nations Union, which took place in London,
February, 1927, to stimulate the interest of British public opinion
As to the treatment of the minimum wage problem at the International
 Labor Conference of June, 1927.12
At the international conference in Geneva the representatives of
the British employers voted for the motion to put the question of
an international convention on minimum wage fixing machinery on
the agenda of the conference of 1928.20
Evidence before the Cave Committee was to the effect that the
minima do not tend eventually to become maximum wages. John
Carr, director of Peek, Frean & Co. (Ltd.), biscuit makers, stated
that ‘when trade boards increased the rates, the rates of all better
Paid workers were automatically increased.?*
Several representatives of employers, however, complained to the
committee of inquiry that high minimum rates and sometimes also
lack of differentiation to meet local conditions have disturbed some
trades, forcing the employers to close their shops or to reduce their
staffs, and so added to the prevailing unemployment.
This important question of the relation between unemployment
And minimum wage was referred to also by Prof. L. T. ae
who admitted the danger of replacing underpayment by unemployment,
 but claimed for the board system the advantage of flexibility in
handling the matter.” It was treated also by Humbert Wolfe, assist-Ant
 secretary at the Ministry of Labor in charge of trade boards, who
Stated on the witness stand before the Cave Committee on October 12,
1921, that the general industrial unemployment on September 16,
1921, was 12.4 per cent; unemployment in industries under trade
oards, 10.2 per cent; and unemployment in industries without boards,
[3.3 per cent. Mr. Wolfe deduced, not that boards decrease unem.
ployment, but that nothing tended to show that they increase it.2
He admitted, however, that rural employers in the dressmaking trade

“TExactly the same phenomenon has been found in the industry of the Canadian Provnce
 of Ontario {see % 66). i .
® Great Britain. inistry of Labor. Minutes of evidence taken before the committee
or inguiry into the working and effects of the trade boards acts. London, 1922, pp.
, 803,
ȴ League of Nations Union. Toward Industrial Peace (report of the Conference of the
League of Nations Union, London, February, 1927). London, 1927, conclusions analyzed
to South Africa, Department of Labor, Social and Industrial Review, October, 1927,
“They did not vote at that conference of 1928 for adopting the convention, Differ-*nces
 of opinion as to the scope of the convention seem to have influenced this vote, like
‘hat of the employers’ delegates from other countries. (See ch. 9, p. 118.)
# Great Britain. Ministry of Labor. Minutes of evidence taken before the committee
> fnquiry into a working and effects of tbe trade boards acts. London. 1922, p. 118.
em, p, 690.
5 Idem, D. 48.