FARMER-NONFARMER CONTACTS Within the cooperative movement have been increasing in recent years. Farmers' purchasing cooperatives, in growing numbers, have been admitting nonfarm people to membership, although to do so means forfeiting eventually their farmers' exemptions under the Federal income tax. In numerous places farm and village or city people have joined in the formation of new cooperatives, and in the operations of existing ones. A recent survey by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed numerous ways in which farmers and industrial workers are cooperating.

Cooperation Within Cooperatives

The membership composition of the reporting associations indicates in itself collaboration of farm and nonfarm consumers within the same association, to supply their families with commodities and services. Although there have been numerous scattered instances previously, such joint effort has become common only in comparatively recent years.

Mixed farm and nonfarm membership seems to be more common among the distributive associations (stores, gasoline stations, etc.) than among the service associations. However, in Nebraska a cooperative cold-storage association was organized by farmers and townspeople acting together, and now serves both. A new cooperative hospital association in Texas, the membership of which consists mostly of farmers, reports that a number of carpenters "have expressed a desire to become members, and want to earn their membership by doing construction work on our buildings." Some of the new hospital associations in the Pacific Northwest, also, are sponsored by both farm organizations and labor unions and have individuals of both groups as members.

Among the distributive associations in which industrial workers and farmers are cooperating are those in Crescent City and Fort Bragg, Calif., Bristol, Ind., Ogden, Utah, Pasco, Wash., and Burlington, Tomah, and Wausau, Wis.1

Cooperation Between Cooperatives

The recent attacks upon the cooperative movement (particularly the farmers' cooperatives) by private business groups have had the effect of drawing the two branches of the movement closer together in some cases. Thus, in a number of places in the Midwest, as well as in at least one New England State, cooperative councils have been formed in which both urban and rural cooperatives of all kinds participate. The purpose of these councils is not only defense, but also the exchange of experience and ideas and the further promotion of the cooperative movement.

On the national level, of the 17 regional wholesales in the United States 2 which are members of National Cooperatives, all but 3 are primarily of farmer membership. The Cooperative League of the United States of America, which is the national educational organ of the cooperative movement, was until the early 1930's almost entirely composed of urban associations. It recently reported that 80 percent of its membership is rural and only 20 percent urban.

1 The methods of associations mentioned in this article will be described in greater detail in a forthcoming bulletin. It also has seven affiliates in Canada.

Direct Trading with Farmers' Cooperatives. In the United States, practically all of the regional wholesales which handle groceries and produce make it a practice to obtain their supplies from farmers' marketing and processing associations. These products include canned and fresh fruits and vegetables, butter, etc. Because of the large quantities involved, it is usually more feasible for such transactions to be carried on by the wholesales rather than the retail cooperatives. Nevertheless, nearly 27 percent of the 370 associations reporting in the Bureau's study used farmers' cooperatives as a source of supply, obtaining from them such things as milk, butter, eggs, and produce, and even meat products. The greater the proportion of farmers in the membership, the more common was the practice of direct trading. Even among the strictly nonfarm associations, over 21 percent reported such a policy; many others explained either that there were no farmers' cooperatives near enough to make it practicable or that their farm products were obtained through the regional wholesale.

An outstanding example of direct trading and cooperation with other cooperatives is the United Cooperative Society, in Maynard, Mass.

A single association reported having discontinued the practice of direct trading because of unfavorable experiences. Numerous reports from other associations indicated that such relationships were both practicable and satisfactory, when both parties to the transaction were reasonable in their expectations and demands.

Combined Trading and Membership

Certain cooperatives have worked out techniques combining membership and business relationships with farmers and the latters' cooperatives, and have devised ingenious methods for sharing the economic savings) resulting from the elimination of the middleman (between the producer-suppliers and member-consumers. Notable among these are Cooperative Trading, Inc., Waukegan, Ill. (the largest nonfarm consumers' cooperative in the United States) and ConsumerFarmer Milk Cooperative, Long Island City, N. Y. Consumer-Sponsored Farmers' Markets. A very recent development is the sponsoring of farmers' markets by urban consumers' cooperatives. The

advantages claimed for these markets are fresher produce at lower-than-current prices for the purchaser and, for the farmer, a channel for disposing of his products at more than would be realized through the usual channels of distribution. All of those which have come to the attention of the Bureau are in California-in San Jose, Santa Monica, Oakland, and Los Angeles.

In some places in the United States (notably in Ohio, Indiana, and New York) farmers' marketing associations have opened retail outlets for their products; in such cases the patron may benefit under a profit-sharing arrangement but has no vote on policies and never becomes a member. Such enterprises were not included in the present study.

Construction Cost of

One-Family Houses Started, 1946–471

AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION COST of 1-family homes started during the period October 1946 to September 1947 was more than $7,250 in 14 of 32 areas surveyed in the Area Housing Program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.2 Twelve of these higher-cost areas were located in the North, 1 in the South, and 1 in the West. The highest average cost was $9,300 (in Cleveland, Ohio, and Washington, D. C.). Of the 18 areas in which the average construction cost was less than $7,250, 7 were located in the North, 7 in the South and 4 in the West. The lowest average cost was $3,400 (in Mobile, Ala.).

Construction cost, which must not be confused with selling price, includes the cost of labor, materials, all subcontracted work, and that part of the contractor's overhead and profit chargeable directly to the project. It excludes land and development cost, sales profit, selling costs, and such nonconstruction expenses as architectural and engineering fees.

The average construction cost figures presented in the accompanying table are based on estimates of construction cost of 1-family houses started during the entire year. Percentage distributions by cost classes are based on a study of units started during 4 survey months of the year.

1 Prepared by Frances J. Montgomery of the Bureau's Branch of Construction Statistics.

See Housing Statistics 1946 and 1947: Sampling Methods and Survey Techniques, in Monthly Labor Review, August 1948 (p. 161).

Details covering specifications of houses studied were not sufficient to make comparisons between areas or between regions of the cost of building identical houses. Data do reveal, however, that a greater proportion of the houses built in northern areas fell in the upper-cost brackets than of the houses built in the South and West.

In all but 5 of the 19 northern areas, the majority of the houses cost more than $7,250 to build, and in several areas, more than threefourths of the houses were in this class. In all the southern areas, on the other hand, a majority of the houses built were in cost classes under $7,250. The western areas were split between predomi

1

nance of the more expensive dwellings in San Francisco and Los Angeles, and a majority of lower-cost houses in the other 3 areas.

Differences in costs between sections of the country may be due to higher wage levels and higher material prices in certain sections as well as to differences in characteristics of the homes built, such as type of material used for exterior walls, and presence or absence of central heating, basements, and wall insulation.3

See Characteristics of One-Family Houses Started, 1947, p. 46 of this issue. Data on characteristics, which are based on surveys covering only 1 month in the first quarter of 1947, cannot be related to the cost data which cover the entire year October 1946-September 1947.

1 Based on reports from individual construction contractors who provided cost figures for a large and representative sample of projects at or near completion. Construction costs exclude sales profit, selling costs, the cost of land and site improvements and all such nonconstruction expenses as architectural and engineering fees. They cover only cost of labor, materials, and subcontracted work, and that part of the builder's overhead and profit chargeable directly to the construction project.

2 These data were compiled by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in con

nection with the Area Housing Program. See Housing Statistics 1946 and 1947: Sampling Methods and Survey Techniques, Monthly Labor Review, August 1948, (p. 161).

An area is composed of a county or group of counties surrounding the principal city or cities.

Surveys were conducted in 4 specified months of the year according to the cycle designations-I, October, January, April, and July; II, November, February, May, and August; III, December, March, June, and September.

year, the findings cannot be related to the cost data shown in the table on page 45, which is based on estimates of construction costs of 1-family houses started during the entire year October 1946-September 1947.

The Labor Boss System in Japan'

THE CONTRACT LABOR SYSTEM in Japan, which covered about 3 million unskilled workers at the lowest rung of the industrial scale, employed under terms and living conditions controlled by labor "bosses" (labor contractors 2) at the beginning of the Occupation in September 1945, has been dealt with in a series of recent enactments designed ultimately to eliminate this practice.

In the pattern for democracy established by the new Japanese Constitution of May 3, 1947, article 22 asserts the right of every citizen to choose and change employment at will.

In contrast, whenever workers are supplied by labor bosses they are deprived of their liberties. They are not free to quit their jobs nor to seek new employment by their own efforts. In addition they are unorganized, and therefore without the means for bargaining for higher wages or better working conditions. The bosses have realized as high as 30 percent of the total earnings of their charges, by withholding part of their wages, and have thereby achieved great personal wealth and political power. In some instances, workers actually have been enslaved and confined after working hours in prison-like barracks and murdered if they attempted to escape.

At the beginning of the Occupation, over a fifth of the 14 million industrial workers of Japan were under the control of labor bosses. Twothirds were in construction, where about 90 percent of the total work force was boss-controlled. The remainder were mostly in manufacturing industries, where labor suppliers contracted with plants to furnish the unskilled laborers for work

1 By Chester W. Hepler, Chief of Labor Division, Economic and Scientific Section, Supreme Command of the Allied Powers, Tokyo, Japan.

A labor boss in Japan is a contractor who in essence supplies nothing more than a work force, which remains completely under his control. The nearest parallel in United States history was the padrone.

not performed by the regular workers. In many establishments they constituted as high as 25 percent of total employment.

An investigation, made by military government officers in the coal fields in Hokkaido a year after the Occupation had begun, disclosed the continued practice of slave labor on a large scale. Some 3,000 laborers, many of whom had been shanghaied after being plied with liquor,3 were confined in prison barracks at night and driven to work in the coal mines during the day. (These workers were ultimately released and their jailers prosecuted and imprisoned.)

Even when this extreme condition does not exist, the treatment of boss-controlled workers is far below the standards of the poorest class of free worker in Japan. In December 1947, representatives of the Supreme Command of the Allied Powers visited the dormitories occupied by contract workers employed in coal mines in Hokkaido and were made physically ill by conditions which they found at that late date. They reported that the workers were crowded together into hovels with less consideration than would be accorded animals. The Japanese guides accompanying the representatives wore gauze masks inside the dormitories because of revolting unsanitary conditions.

In November 1947, the Japanese Diet further implemented the general constitutional provision which asserted the right of every citizen to choose and change employment at will. Two significant articles were inserted in the Employment Security Law and made fully effective on March 1, 1948. These provided for the establishment of a free and democratic public employment exchange system based on the standards of the ILO:

Article 44: No person, organization or agency, governmental or private, shall be allowed to conduct a labor supply project or to use labor supplied by such a project, except as provided in article 45.

Article 45: A bona fide labor union as determined by the statutory agencies of the national government may conduct a labor supply project limited for which no compensation shall be made by [an] employer to its own members, provided it obtains permission from the Labor Minister.

Immediately upon passage of the law, powerful groups with a vested interest in perpetuating the labor-boss system began to bring pressure upon

3 Data from various official military government reports.

Italicized words added by an amendment to strengthen the law which became effective June 30, 1948.