Apr., 1916
T H E J O U R N A L O F I N D U S T R I A L A N D ENGIJVEERING C H E M I S T R Y
383
I-It is very questionable whether the American Chemical Society increases the practical efficiency of chemists. The writer’s experience and that of others whom he has talked with, strongly indicates that practical efficiency is the effect (a) of a systematic and careful training in the didactic and laboratory side of chemistry; ( b ) of hard practical work in laboratories; and ( c ) of love of one’s work. In addition to this the writer can cite the example of more than one chemist who was not a member of the American Chemical Society, and whose increase in practical efficiency was proven by an increase of wages. Abbe Ennineerinz Comoanv Manhattan Rubber Co P. Blakision’s Son & Co. McGraw-Hill Book Co. What is more to the point is that the American Chemical Celluloid Zapon Co. McIntosh Stereopticon Co. Central Scientific Co. Metallurgical and Chemical Engineering Society has been in existence since 1876 and that wages have Dearborn Chemical Co. Mojonnier Rros. Co. changed but little and in some cases have actually decreased, Duriron Castings Co. National Carbon Co. Eimer and Amend National Lead Co. which indicates that its influence on practical efficiency has Elyria Enameled Products Co. Norton Company Fairview Fluorsnar Co. Pfaudler Comoanv been greatly exaggerated and a t times wholly absent. On the General Electric‘ Co. Schaeffer & BLdekberg Mfg. Co. basis of Mr. Moore’s own argument, then, it may be concluded Schutte-Koerting Co. Henry Holt & Co. International Instrument Co. Scientific Materials Co. that the American Chemical Society is not “intensely” practical Jeffrey Dewitt Co. Sowers Mfg. Co. Kimble-Durand Glass Co. E. R. Squibb & Sons and will not fatten materially the pay envelope. Indeed, the Laboratory Supply Co. Standard Calorimeter Co. writer conceives the American Chemical Society to be a scienLeeds and Northrup Sweetland Filter Press Co Lenz and Naumann Thermal Syndicate tific organization and not directly interested in purely practical Libbey Glass Co. Thwing Instrument Co. Toch BIOS. Lonnmans. Green & Co. considerations. Emii E. Lungwitz U. S. Bottlers Machinery Co. 11-To the writer’s view the second objection is nonsense. Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. John Wiley & Sons INDUSTRIAL EXCURSIONS-on Friday, April 2 ISt, special Why attempt to defiae anything? Are the chemists such a cars over the Illinois Traction System will take the visitors to degraded lot of individuals, that any attempt to define what Danville t o visit the industrial plants in that vicinity. The they are becomes abortive and is to be criticized? Is it not Carbon Hill mine of the Two Rivers Coal Company will show highly probable that this very tendency to deprecate any atthe surface mining of coal by the stripping method. The soil tempt t o define what the chemist is, acts as a cause in lowering the dignity as well as the earning power of the chemical prois stripped with a steam shovel having an eight-yard bucket, exposing the vein of coal, which is then broken down and loaded fession? Is it not strange that Mr. Moore should use the word chemist a t all? Why would not laborer be preferable? Has into cars. There are four mines of this type in the vicinity of Danville, and the Carbon Hill mine is one of the two largest. my critic supported his objection? He has not! Suppose some The Western Brick Company, one of the largest plants in chemists are unsuccessful, and suppose it is granted that some the United States, manufactures wire-cut shale brick and build- laboratory boys do make efficient workers, what has this to do ing blocks. The shale and coal are both obtained from the with the attempt to define? Dejinition i s at the basis of a21 exact language and classification. strip mine of the company a t the plant. 111-Three interpretations of this objection appear to be Hegeler Brothers operate one of the largest and best equipped zinc smelters in the country. The ore comes from the Missouri possible : (I)-If it is assumed to be “artificial, academic and imdistrict chiefly and is roasted in Hegeler roasters and then smelted. Sulfuric acid is manufactured in lead chambers from the gases practical’’ for assistant chemists to receive less than their chiefs, then the contrary proposition would appear to hold from the roasting. While in Danville the party will be the guests of the Danville true, viz., assistant chemists should receive an equal or greater Chamber of Commerce, and will be entertained a t luncheon by salary than their chiefs. Manifestly this last proposition is false, since it does not agree with experience. Neither is the them. The General Committee on Arrangements wishes to emphasize k s t proposition true, since i t i s natural for assistant chemists the fact that excellent accommodations will be provided for all to receive less than their chiefs; i t is unacademic, in that it is visitors at the meeting. It is desirable, however, that reserva- realizable in experience; and it i s practical, in that it has stood the t e s t of time. tions be made as early as possible. (2)-If it is asserted that the proposed salary scale is “artificial, academic and impractical” in respect to the minimum wage, A CRITICISM OF THE OBJECTIONS RAlSED BY W. then my critic has betrayed himself into error again. Firstly, MOORE TO THE FORMATION OF A CHEMISTS’ because within certain limits, employers themselves have set a PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION minimum wage for chemists; secondly, because the United Editor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: States Government expressly states in its civil service bulletins The objections recently raised by W. C. Moore [THIS JOURNAL, what it will pay Junior or Assistant and Chief Chemists, thus 7 ( r g ~ g ) , 10001 to the formation of a Chemists’ Protective establishing a minimum wage for chemists in its employ; and Association may be placed under four headings : thirdly, because in general the trades unions define what the I-That the American Chemical Society “is intensely prac- minimum wage is for their members and in addition have tical” and will ultimately raise the salaries of “its members as actually increased this wage from 25-50 per cent in a number of chemists.” instances. 11-That the attempt to define a chemist as a person (&--In respect to the maximum wage, this would not appeal * * * (see the writer’s original article in Sept., 1915 issue of so much to chemists or any other workers. The writer placed THISJOURNAL)“is doomed to sure and certain failure.” an upper limit to wages for two principal reasons: one to make his 111-That the proposed salary scale “is artificial, academic arguments more definite, and the other to invite criticism and and impractical.” arouse discussion. Personally, he does not believe in fixing an IV-That the effect of raising wages should be left to the upfier limit for wages. Even in this case, however, a maximum employer, he being the one to decide the worth of the chemist. scale is not artificial and impractical. I n fact, the statements The writer has made a critical study of these objections. made in respect to the minimum wage scale would appear The criticisms to follow are an answer to them: to be true for the maximum wage scale also. ical Manufacturers, and it seems particularly fitting that such an exhibition should accompany the dedication of this building devoted to the teaching of chemistry. The exhibition will be held in the large first floor laboratories, and will be of easy To date, March ~ ~ t forty-two h , firms access to all visitors. (listed below) have signified their acceptance of the invitation to take part. Among others, the Research Laboratory of the General Electric Company is sending intact its exhibit from the Panama-Pacific Exposition a t San Francisco. I
