# The Labor Laws of Soviet Russia/Introduction

THE LABOR LAWS OF SOVIET RUSSIA
INTRODUCTION
(A Criticism and an Answer)
Criticism by President William C. Redfield, of the American Russian Chamber of Commerce
"In the issue of SOVIET RUSSIA for February 21st, the Soviet Bureau publishes in full the new code of Labor Laws of Soviet Russia. Ostensibly it is propaganda to impress American workmen with its advanced ideas as to the right to work, the eight-hour day, the protection of women and children in industry, and unemployment and disability insurance. As a matter of fact, however, it shows a state of affairs with reference to labor which is anything but enlightened. By it labor is put back into a state of serfdom and oppression the like of which has not been known for a century. If every American workman could read this labor code carefully he would be thoroughly disillusioned as to the claim that the Soviet Government of Russia is a working-man's government or that it has interested itself in the welfare of labor. It has, on the contrary, imposed a tyranny which has deprived labor of all the rights and privileges hitherto attained.
"In the first place, all citizens of Soviet Russia between sixteen and fifty who are not incapacitated by injury or illness are subject to compulsory labor. All laborers are divided into categories by the ​authorities and are subject to wage scales and labor conditions laid down by them. Every laborer must carry a labor booklet, which is like a passport. In it must be entered every payment he receives, the hours he works or is absent, the group and category to which he has been assigned by the Valuation Commission, and every other detail of his life and activity. A wage earner must present his booklet upon the request of any of the authorities or institutions.
"A wage earner is not permitted to change from one job to another except by the permission duly certified by the labor authorities, under whom he becomes virtually an industrial serf bound to his job. If a man wishes to quit work, he must secure a certificate from the bureau of medical experts proving his disability, and whether it is temporary or permanent. Leaves of absence may be granted by agreement between the management of enterprises and workmen's committees,but a wage earner shall not be allowed to work for remuneration during his leave of absence.
"No American workman should (would?) submit for a moment to such a tyrannical and oppressive system and a reading of this code shows clearly how far the autocracy at Moscow has gone in the direction of reaction and destruction of the liberty and right of the individual.”
OUR ANSWER TO MR. REDFIELD
MR. REDFIELD is of opinion that under Soviet law "labor is put back into a state of serfdom and oppression the like of which has not been known for a century." The Soviet government has "imposed a tyranny which has deprived labor of all the rights and privileges hitherto attained." The laborer has become "virtually a serf bound to his job."
"A reading of this code shows clearly," exclaims Mr. Redfield, "how far the autocracy at Moscow has gone in the direction of reaction and destruction of the liberty and right of the individual." Mr. Redfield's indictment of the Soviet tyranny is set forth in five counts.
1. All able-bodied citizens of Soviet Russia between 16 and 50 are subject to compulsory labor.
2. All workers are classified by the authorities and are subject to wage scales and labor conditions laid down by the authorities.
3. A wage earner is not permitted to change from one job to another except by special permission of the labor authorities.
4. A wage earner is not allowed to work for pay during his leave of absence.
5. Every laborer must carry a labor booklet which is like a passport.
​Let us examine each of these charges seriatim.
1. Mr. Redfield believes that "no American workman should (meaning: would) submit … to such a tyrannical and oppressive system." He seems to be unaware of the existence of vagrancy laws in most of the States of the Union, to say nothing of the laws enacted in many States during the late war, which require every able-bodied male to work a certain number of hours per week. The only difference between the American and the Soviet legislation on the subject is that under the laws of Soviet Russia the duty to work has its correlative in the right to work, whereas in the United States a worker who can find no employment may be sent to prison for vagrancy.
Has Mr. Redfield never heard of the chain gangs in the Southern States, where unemployed negroes are sentenced to prison terms for vagrancy and hired out by the authorities to private contractors to work on public roads? In Soviet Russia, under Section 10 of the Code of Labor Laws, "all citizens able to work have the right to employment at their vocations." This is not a mere theoretical right. Under Article III of the Code the right to work is enforced through the machinery of the Soviet Government. Every unemployed wage earner is furnished work by the Department of Labor Distribution. In case no work can be found for him he is entitled to an unemployed benefit which must be equal to his regular wages, fixed by the wage scale committee of his labor union. (Section 61 and Appendix to Section 79: Rules Concerning Unemployed and Payment of Subsidies, Sections 5 and 6.)
​Inasmuch as the Soviet Government undertakes to provide every unemployed with a job and to pay him an unemployment benefit if no employment can be found for him, the government requires every worker to accept employment at his own trade, provided the wages and terms of employment conform to union standards (Section 24). In case, however, no employment can be found for the worker at his own trade and work of a lower grade is offered to him, he is paid out of the unemployment fund the difference between the regular scale of his trade and the wages received by him at his temporary employment.
We strongly suspect that many an American union man might be inclined to submit to this form of "tyranny."
2. The workers are classified by the authorities and the wage scale is provided by the authorities for every class of work, objects Mr. Redfield. He seems to be ignorant of the fact that practically all "factories" (as defined by the United States Census Bureau) have been nationalized in Soviet Russia. In practice, then, this rule means that the government of Soviet Russia classifies its civil servants and fixes their compensation. Is the former Secretary of Commerce unaware of the fact that the employees of the Government Printing Office and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, at Washington, D. C., are classified by Congress, and that their salaries and wages are likewise fixed by Congress? Has he forgotten the existence of the War Labor Board, whose duty it was to adjust wages in private factories which were working on government contracts? Were not the wage earners in these ​establishments also classified with the approval of the War Labor Board? Are not the employees of the United States Steel Corporation classified by the administration of the corporation? It was reported in the public press that Mr. Gary took exception to the workers' claim of a voice in the fixing of their wages.
Let us see, next, how wage scales are fixed in Soviet Russia. Under Sections 8 and 9 of the Code of Labor Laws the rules governing wages and conditions of employment in all establishments, whether public or private, are framed by the trade unions and approved by the People's Commissariat of Labor, which is the Russian equivalent of the American Department of Labor. "In cases where it is impossible to arrive at an understanding with the directors or owners of establishments" the wage scales are drawn up by the trade unions and submitted for approval to the People's Commissariat of Labor. It is a matter of public knowledge that the spokesmen for the American employing class have only too frequently refused to confer with representatives of labor unions as to terms of employment. In Soviet Russia if the directors or owners of industrial establishments fail to come to terms with the union of their employees the controversy is decided by the Department of Labor of the Soviet government, which is chosen by the workers and the farmers.
3. Mr. Redfield claims that under the Soviet code of laws the wage earner may change from one job to another only by the express permission of the labor authorities. The wage earner is not permitted to quit work until his resignation is ​accepted. If he desires to quit his job the reasons for his resignation must be passed upon by the shop committee of the workers. If the shop committee, upon investigation, finds the resignation unjustified the wage earner must remain at work, but he may appeal from the decision of the shop committee to his trade union. The penalty provided for disobedience of this rule is forfeiture of unemployed benefits for one week. (Sections 51, 52, and 53.)
There is nothing in the rules to prevent him after that from registering with the Bureau of Labor Distribution which must provide him with another job.
It is needless to deny that as an abstract proposition these rules imply a curtailment of "the liberty and the right of the individual," as Mr. Redfield puts it. To be sure, in capitalistic countries the wage earner is at liberty to quit work at pleasure. He does it, however, at the peril of being forced to starve, to beg, or to steal. On the contrary, in Soviet Russia every worker who is out of a job is entitled to draw from the public treasury his regular wages until the government supplies him with another job. Is it not reasonable for the government, under such circumstances, to have a say as to whether the worker should quit his employment? The government exercises this power of supervision by delegating it to the shop-mates of the worker. Could Mr. Redfield suggest any arrangement that would be more favorable to the worker?
Suppose on the other hand every worker were at liberty to quit his job at pleasure and draw ​upon the public treasury while he is out of a job? Would that not be a temptation for many a man to loaf at public expense?
It must be borne in mind, moreover, that this theoretical curtailment of the worker's right to quit his job at pleasure is compensated by the abolition of the employer's right to "fire" the worker at pleasure. Under Section 46 a worker may be discharged (1) in case of complete or partial liquidation of the enterprise, or of cancellation of certain orders, (2) in case of suspension of work for more than a month, (3) in case of evident unfitness of the worker for work. In all these cases, the worker must be given two weeks' notice. (Section 47.)
The discharge of a workman for "evident unfitness" requires the approval of his trade union, and he may appeal from the order for his discharge to the local Bureau of Labor. Should the final decision be unfavorable to the worker he is entered on the lists of unemployed by the Department of Labor Distribution, which must furnish him with another job or pay him the regular unemployed benefit, (Section 47)) which, as will be remembered, is equal to his wages.
The President of the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce is joined in his abhorrence of compulsory labor in Soviet Russia by the venerable President of the American Federation of Labor. We have it, however, on the authority of Mr. Lincoln Eyre, special correspondent of the New York World, in its issue of March 13, that the laws governing compulsory labor "originated with the unions" which according to his testimony, have been "empowered to regulate in concert with the Labor ​Commissariat, all wage scales, working hours, and other matters relating to employment."
Final decision in all these matters, says Mr. Eyre, is vested in the government. "In practice, however, it is highly improbable that the Soviet administration would deny any of the powerful unions' demands unless they were fantastically exorbitant."
4. Mr. Redfield is grieved over the fact that in Soviet Russia a wage earner is not allowed to work for pay during his leave of absence, (Sections 106 and 107.) The Soviet laws assure to every wage earner one month's vacation in every year, provided that all time which he was unemployed and drawing his regular wage in the form of unemployed benefits is charged to his annual leave. If he were permitted to engage in work for pay during his vacation he would, in effect, be drawing double pay. A former Secretary of Commerce might be expected to know that under the departmental rules obtaining in Washington, D. C., no government employee is permitted to hold two positions and draw two salaries at the same time, even though he may do the work of one during the time of his annual leave. Thus the Soviet government has merely introduced in its institutions the rule which has been enforced in the United States government so long "that memory runneth not to the contrary."
There are very good reasons for this rule in Soviet Russia. In case of illness the government pays to the worker a sick benefit which is equal to his regular wages. (Appendix to Section 5, rules concerning payment of sick benefits subsidies to wage earners during illness, Sections 1, 2 ​and 3). In order that the worker may preserve his vitality the Soviet government grants him a month's leave so that he may rest during that time. It is quite proper for the government to expect that the worker shall avail himself of that rest. Moreover, inasmuch as the government must provide every able-bodied person with work or pay him an unemployed benefit, it would be unbusinessnike to permit one worker to draw double pay while others may have to be put on the list of the unemployed and draw unemployed benefits.
5. Last but not least is that labor booklet "which is like a passport," in which must be entered "every detail of his (the worker's) life and activity."
Reference to the rules concerning labor booklets. (Appendix to Section 80), shows that the entries in the booklet are confined to the following items:
1. Name and age of the worker.
2. Name and address of his trade union.
3. The occupational group to which he has been assigned by the wage scale committee of his union.
4. The work performed by him,—whether paid by the time or by the piece, as well as over-time, and all payments received by him as wages, or unemployed or sick benefits.
5. The time taken by him on account of his annual leave, as well as his sick leave.
6. All fines imposed upon him.
These are all the "details of his life and activity" that may be entered in his labor booklet. The President of the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce will probably be surprised to learn that the above rules concerning labor booklets are merely a reenactment, with improvements, of the ​Imperial law on the subject. The Industrial Code which is a portion of Vol. II, Part 2, of the Compiled Statutes of the Russian Empire, contain provisions relating to labor booklets in Sections 92, 136, 137 and following. Section 137 reads as follows:
"In the booklet of account must be entered, (1) the name, patronymic, and surname of the worker; (2) the term of employment and the term of his passport; (3) the amount of wages, specifying the methods of their computation and terms of payment; (4) the amount of rent for use by the worker of the dwellings, bath, etc., provided by the factory or mill; (5) other terms of employment which the contracting parties may deem necessary to enter in a booklet; (6) entries of the amounts earned, with a statement of the amount of fines imposed upon the worker, and the cause thereof; (7) an extract from the laws and rules of internal administration, defining the rights, duties, and responsibilities of the workers."
The plain object of the labor booklet is to furnish the worker, in case of dispute, with evidence of the work performed and pay received by him. Every one familiar with the labor situation in the United States knows that the calendars of the inferior courts in all industrial centers are crowded with wage cases. Quite frequently the worker is unable to prove his claim "by preponderance of evidence." In the court the employer's word is as good as the wage earner's word. The Russian law has made provision for it, so as to avoid endless litigation.