T H E J O U R N A L OF I N D U S T R I A L A N D E N G I N E E R I N G C H E M I S T R Y
384
IV-The last objection deals with the standardization of the chemist’s worth by the employer; worth according to Mr. Moore being expressed in earning capacity, i. e., in dollars and cents. This infers that the judgment of the business operator is a correct one, since the remuneration for the employee’s service is controlled directly by him. But, and here is the crux of the whole discussion, the employer i s directly interested zn getting a maximum of advantage for a minimum outlay of capital. I s it not barely possible that selfish motives may be active in his estimation of a chemist’s worth? Is it to be expected that a business man or employer will be inclined to allow either generosity or even justice to influence his balance sheet? The hackneyed phrase, “that a man will get what he is worth,” and used by my opponent, is entirely evasive and expresses nothing, unless clearly defined. It is a generality and is truly academic, and certainly artificial. Could the worth of the Panama Canal builder be expressed in money? Is the President worth his hire? Can coin or currency measure the worth of these men? And yet my critic maintains that salaries are in proportion to worth! Are or were these men’s responsibilities to their country comparable to those of corporation heads? And how do the salaries compare? The President of this great nation is paid a yearly salary of $75,000, while the head of the steel trust gets more than this amount. Assuming that the President, whose responsibilities are infinitely greater, receives in salary full value for his worth, then, obviously, the steel trust magnate is paid far more than his worth It necessarily follows that all attempts of the employer to fairly estimate the chemist’s worth by a money standard must fail, if for no other reasons than those of expediency or those of economic pressure. The former and the latter to a certain extent are the tools of the business man, with which he regulates his employee’s wages. But economic pressure may also be a weapon in the hand of the employee, and if properly used can mould the expediency of the employer. Hence the need and value of a Chemists’ Protective Association which would not only check avaricious employers, but would in addition protect its members, by upholding them in their demands for a higher and a more just emolument My critic considers lowgrade routine work as deserving of only slight remuneration and not worthy of the attention of the chemist, meaning, apparently, that it is of little value. But this routine work is of vital necessity to the manufacturer, otherwise, it would not be required; and this vital necessity is left too often in the care of the laboratory boy. Therefore, the manufacturer is getting a maximum of value for a minimum of outlay. But is it not reasonable to expect that the value of this work could be greatly enhanced by placing it in the hands of trained men? And could not chemists be found willing, if the salary were commensurate with the training? Why not try i t out? Summing up, then, the arguments presented by my critic are inconclusive, since by the use of ambiguous words and phrases he attempts to evade the real issues. He shows an entirely selfish attitude in objecting to the use of a method tending to give the chemist a voice in the settlement of wages, a method, moreover, which even employers permit with respect to the trades unions. Does my critic assume that the interests of the chemists will be most satisfactorily promoted by making them always subservient to the arbitrary and selfish ruling of the employer? TULANE UNIVERSITY ROLLING. MYERS XEW
ORLEAXS,
January 1 7 , 1916
‘
AMERICAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES MUST BE BUILT UP BY AMERICAN METHODS Edztor of the Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemzstry: The wide-spread interest which is now being taken in the establishment of the coal-tar dye industry is certainly most
Vol. 8, No. 4
gratifying. It proves that we have a t last awakened to the realization that we shall be badly handicapped in industrial development, and in the race for our just position in our home market, as well as in the world’s trade, without a fully adequate chemical industry. I have read with absorbing interest Dr. Pratt’s masterly address on the subject published in the Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry of December 15th last. His views certainly deserve the most serious consideration. The name of coal-tar dye industry is unfortunately a misnomer. It implies too much, but signifies too little. It really is no more nor less than the applied chemistry of synthetic organic compounds. As such, it is the crowning effort of a systematically developed chemical industry. Economically, as well as technically, it is utterly impossible without the foundation of a general chemical industry in all its branches. Any competent chemist can produce aniline dyes, if the materials for its production are furnished to him. But none, even the highest skilled one, can do so on an economical basis, if his raw materials, viz., inorganic and organic chemicals, are not a t his command in quality and a t cost permitting him to produce the dyes a t a figure a t which they can find a profitable market. Any attempt a t the manufacture of dyes must invariably lead to economical disaster if it is not preceded by the coal-tar refinery, the manufacture of intermediates, and a full line of inorganic chemicals. The importation of highly skilled experts from Europe should be preceded by calling to our aid experts in refining coal tar and in the manufacture of intermediates. And even then it is doubtful whether the immediate results would be satisfactory. These men acquired their high efficiency under different conditions from those prevailing here. Our raw materials are often of a different nature. Labor conditions are radically different. Engineering methods are different on account of the widely different conditions prevailing here. Before these experts have mastered the situation fully, it is bound to undergo a radical change again, after the deplorable European war permits us to return to normal conditions. The marvelous success of the German chemical industry has not been achieved by the employment of “experts” trained by somebody else. The Germans long ago came to the conclusion that in the chemical industry the competent chemist is the paramount factor. They did not want their colleges t o train the students to be manufacturers of soda-ash, cyanide, phenol or methyl violet. They insisted upon the graduates of their colleges being “chemists.” Such men find their place as readily in acid works a- in a sugar factory; in a soap factory as in dye works. They do not work according t o recipes nor according to standard methods, They produce the desired article by applying the best possible methods to the given conditions. Many of our American chemists are fully equal to the occasion, if given the opportunity. We certainly would not expect a civil engineer, no matter how “expert” he may be, to tell us off-hand what kind of a bridge should be constructed over a river and what its cost would be, without giving him an opportunity to make his surveys and soundings and finish his plans. The chemist called upon to erect a chemical plant must have the same opportunity to study the local conditions before he can tell whether the problem is feasible, and before he is expected to proceed with the manufacture No foreign dye industry bodily transplanted into the United States will serve our purposes. This has long been proven by the steel, sugar and cement industries. If we wish to achieve a lasting success in the manufacture of coal-tar dyes, the industry must be an American one, developed under American conditions and by American chemists. Our chemists are second t o none; they will certainly rise to the occasion, if given the opportunity and sustained by judicious help from a few who already have had practical experience.
