Page images
PDF
EPUB

Q. And are you also opposed to a separate bureau of inspection apart from your department? A. Yes, sir.

your

Q. Now, will you give your reasons in your own way for decision on this matter; I think I ought to ask you Commissioner whether you have studied these propositions very carefully since you have been in the department and before? A. Yes, I have given them considerable attention. The first question is, should there be a separate department for New York city, separate Labor Department, and to that I am opposed. In my letter to you I said the Department of Labor for the State of New York is at present working in harmony, and the plans I have under way, if perfected, will, I believe, give a reasonable degree of satisfaction to the people of the State. To divide the jurisdiction of the department and establish a department in New York city, having control, in the greater city, would, in my estimation, be detrimental to the interest of the wage earners of the State. It would result in confusion and dissatisfaction and the weakening of the principle upon which the department is founded. I might add to that in my opinion there would be just as much reason for the establishment of a department of labor for the city of Buffalo, and another department of labor for the city of Rochester, having three separate departments of labor for the three first class cities, and a department of labor for the rest of the State. I do not think that the problems in the Greater City are any different from the problems that we meet throughout the entire State. We have had, since I have been Commissioner, several meetings in New York city of the supervising inspectors, the supervising inspectors who are located here and the supervising inspectors located in Albany, Utica, Rochester and Buffalo, and I have found that their problems are the same and that by conference they have been able to reach an understanding as to the proper method of handling these matters, and from my six months' experience in this Department, and from my general experience as an official of a trades union, I am satisfied that to divide this department would weaken it, would result in one policy in New York City and another policy throughout the State; would engender dissatisfaction on the part of the wage earners in New York and the wage earners throughout the State and also the employers.

Q. Mr. Lynch, with reference to a bureau, the sole purpose of which would be to make inspections for different departments of the city and the State, you say you are opposed to that? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you give your reasons for that? A. Labor Department inspectors make sympathetic inspections. That is their business. To understand the Labor Law and to understand the conditions as they exist in factories and mercantile establishments over which they have jurisdiction, they are trained for that work and they bring to it, as I say, a sympathetic consideration and because of that condition of their minds we get the best results. I do not think we would have that through a common bureau of inspection. It seems to me it would be a case of what would be everybody's business would be nobody's business—a common bureau of inspection.

Q. In your letter, Commissioner, you say that you would be in favor of a Permanent Conference Board of those at the head of the city and State Departments the object of which would be to reduce. under a working agreement the multiplicity of inspections so far as that is possible and desirable and to prevent the issuance of conflicting orders against the same premises? A. I can see no objection to that. I think that would probably be a good thing if the plan was outlined and it was made a legal proposition, a law proposition, with the proper machinery to carry into effect the object for which it was constituted, but I think the plans should be drawn up very carefully, and there should be, if possible, agreement between the State and city departments as to how it should be conducted. I would oppose any plan of any kind that would in any way weaken the power and the authority and the influence of the State Labor Department, because, in my opinion, the only way that the workers will get any protection or have protection is through the State Labor Department. It is because in my estimation, also, I may add here, that they are getting that in some degree of proper measure at this time, that so much opposition has sprung up against the Labor Law.

Q. Now is there anything further, Commissioner, you would like to say upon these subjects? A. I don't know as there is anything I can add.

Q. In your letter you say to me you are working in harmony with the city departments? A. I say the Labor Department is working in harmony, that is the up-State supervising districts and the New York City supervising districts are now working in complete harmony. The supervising inspectors, as I explained before, meet here every month and go over the problems they are confronted with in different sections of the State and find out the best way from the experience of the inspectors how to handle those problems. We of course, want to work in harmony with the city department.

Q. You believe a plan of conference of this kind would do away with any friction or multiplicity of inspections or unnecessary inspections that are now made? A. If is is constituted along the lines that I explained in answer to your previous question, always keeping in mind the importance of the State Labor Department and the reason why that department is in existence — for the protection of the wage earners.

Q. Now is there anything further that you wish to say, Commissioner? A. I think not.

Mr. ELKUS: Mr. Chairman, do you wish to ask any questions? By Commissioner PHILLIPS:

Q. Have any complaints been made to your department? A. No specific complaint that I can remember at this time. We have heard assertions and rumors that conflicting orders are issued but when we trace down the assertion or rumor we generally find it is because some owner does not want to make the change or because some interested party is objecting to the order which has been issued. It is not a question of conflicting orders in my opinion, that causes the trouble; it is the proposition that the owners and employers do not want to comply with the order that causes the trouble.

By the CHAIRMAN (Lt.-Gov. WAGNER):

Q. Commissioner, have you had many instances in your experience where there was and this question I base upon rumor too where there has been an order issued by the Labor Department for a fire escape in a certain factory to be constructed in a certain way and then that the State Fire Marshal would order an

entirely different kind of fire escape A. I do not know of a single instance of that kind since I have been the Commissioner of Labor where there has been any conflict between the State Labor Commissioner's office and the State Fire Marshal's office. That would be up the State if at all.

Q. I appreciate that? A. I do not know of a single conflict. between the two offices.

Q. If there was this conflict it would certainly come to your attention? A. Yes, sir, I think it would.

By Commissioner GOMPERS:

Q. Mr. Commissioner, we have read in the newspapers and we have heard it elsewhere from other sources, that in consequence of the constructive and protective labor legislation within the past few years in the State of New York that manufacturers have moved out of the State of New York into some other state where the laws are not so exacting, alleged to be exacting, and have moved because of endeavoring to get from under the provisions of the laws of the State of New York; do you know of any such factories that have moved out of the State? A. No, sir, I do not

not for the reason that you assign in your question. I have heard rumors that factories have moved out of the State for the reasons that you assign, but I do not know of any instance where a factory has moved out because of the operation of the factory law. In my experience this has always been true, that the larger employers of labor are perfectly willing and anxious to co-operate with the department in putting into effect the orders that we issue, where we point out that the machinery is not guarded, sanitary conditions are not just as they should be, and that there is not a sufficient amount of protection from fire.

They are perfectly willing and anxious to do the things that should be done in order to make every factory safe, and it would seem to me that if the State was losing any manufacturers it would be manufacturers who employ a considerable number of work people whom it would pay to move out of the State in order to escape the operation of the law.

Q. Do you know of any factories which have moved out of the State at all, assigning the reasons which I have mentioned. A. I do not.

By Mr. ELKUS:

[ocr errors]

Q. Commissioner Lynch, I want to ask you this question while you are here: A great many of the amendments to the Labor Law with reference to improving the sanitary conditions in building in which manufacturing is carried on - have you heard from the employers throughout the State complaints with reference to those laws or are they now practically satisfied with them; do they find them of real benefit? A. As you perhaps know, the sanitary code is now in process of making by the Industrial Board. The Industrial Board has given hearings here and in Albany and in Buffalo, attended by large numbers of manufacturers who have criticised the proposed sanitary regulations, and have also offered suggestions, and where in the opinion of the Industrial Board those suggestions are well founded they will be worked into the law. Now prior to these hearings we have had very little complaint, and in fact no complaint at all against the sanitary orders that we issue. We do have some objections from the smaller manufacturer at times, but when we trace it down it is usually an objection from the owner to making these changes, but they are generally made, and that is the last we hear of it.

Q. And these laws that have been enacted, are they going to be for the benefit of the manufacturer and employee alike? A. I think that if the recodification of the Labor Law is adopted, and it is made as clear as it is made in that recodification it is going to give general satisfaction to the employers and employees throughout the State.

Mr. ELKUS: Are there any further questions; does anyone desire to ask Mr. Lynch any questions.

Mr. LYNCH: Owing to the added duties of field inspectors as embodied in the laws of 1913, and made effective by the reorganized Department of Labor, it is almost impossible to make comparisons by figures with the work of the 85 inspectors, as in May, 1914, there were 160 inspectors in the Department.

During March and April, 1913, there were 19,905 inspections made, and 13,497 compliance visits. During March and April, 1914, there were 18,358 inspections and 35,201 compliance visits, a total number of visits for these two months in 1913 of 33,403 as

« PreviousContinue »