Industrial Peacemaker George W Taylor

s Contributions to Collective
Bargaining Edward B. Shils
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/industrial-peacemaker-george-w-taylor-s-contributions
-to-collective-bargaining-edward-b-shils/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Guides for Labor Arbitration George W. Taylor (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/guides-for-labor-arbitration-
george-w-taylor-editor/

An Introduction to U S Collective Bargaining and Labor

Relations Fifth Edition Harry C. Katz

https://ebookmeta.com/product/an-introduction-to-u-s-collective-
bargaining-and-labor-relations-fifth-edition-harry-c-katz/

The New Deal Collective Bargaining Policy Irving

Bernstein

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-new-deal-collective-bargaining-
policy-irving-bernstein/

From Collective Bargaining to Collective Begging : How

Public Employees Win and Lose the Right to Bargain 1st
Edition Dominic D. Wells

https://ebookmeta.com/product/from-collective-bargaining-to-
collective-begging-how-public-employees-win-and-lose-the-right-
to-bargain-1st-edition-dominic-d-wells/
Teachers and Unions The Applicability of Collective
Bargaining to Public Education Michael H. Moskow

https://ebookmeta.com/product/teachers-and-unions-the-
applicability-of-collective-bargaining-to-public-education-
michael-h-moskow/

Industry Wide Collective Bargaining An Annotated

Bibliography Selma P. Kessler

https://ebookmeta.com/product/industry-wide-collective-
bargaining-an-annotated-bibliography-selma-p-kessler/

The Full Fashioned Hosiery Worker His Changing Economic

Status George W. Taylor

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-full-fashioned-hosiery-worker-
his-changing-economic-status-george-w-taylor/

When Lincoln Came to Egypt 1st Edition George W Smith

Daniel W Stowell

https://ebookmeta.com/product/when-lincoln-came-to-egypt-1st-
edition-george-w-smith-daniel-w-stowell/

No Equal Justice The Legacy of Civil Rights Icon George

W Crockett Jr 1st Edition Edward J. Littlejohn

https://ebookmeta.com/product/no-equal-justice-the-legacy-of-
civil-rights-icon-george-w-crockett-jr-1st-edition-edward-j-
littlejohn/
I N D U S T R I A L P E A C E M A K E R
George W. Taylor, 1901-1972
INDUSTRIAL
PEACEMAKER
George W Taylors Cmtribution
to Collective Bargaining

EDWARD B. SHILS · WALTER J. GERSHENFELD

BERNARD INGSTER · WILLIAM M. WEINBERG

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · 1979

Copyright © 1979 by Edward Β. Shäs, Walter ]. Gershenfeld,
Bernard Ingster, and William M. Weinberg
All rights reserved
Printed m the United States of America
Designed by Adrianne Onderdonk Dudden
This work is dedicated to Edith Taylor, George's beloved wife
and Ufetine companion, who not only inspired him to become
the humor, being that he was, but also inspired this writing team
in many tmys.
Contents

Foreword ix
Introduction 1
Ε D WAR D Β . SΗIL S

1. George W. Taylor: Teacher—Counselor—Friend 9

WILLIAM E. SIMKIN

2. Early Years: Grievance Arbitration 29

WALTER J. GERSHENFELD

3. Early Years: Development of the Collective Bargaining

Theory 49
WILLIAM M. WEINBERG

4. Accommodation and Mediation 75

WILLIAM M. WEINBERG

5. Regulation and Public Policy: Government Encouragement

of Collective Bargaining 89
EDWARD B. SHILS

6. Regulation and Public Policy: Government Regulation of

Wages 131
E D W A RD B. SHILS

7. George Taylor's Continuing Concern for the Public

Interest 161
BERNARD INGSTER
viii Contents

8. Taylor's New Private Sector Solutions: The Kaiser Steel

Plan 175
EDWARD B. SHILS

9. Taylor's New Public Sector Solutions: The Taylor Law 189

BERNARD INGSTER

10. The Elusiveness of Finality: Resolution of Conflict and the

Democratic Process 213
WALTER J. GERSHENFELD

Postscript: George W. Taylor 231

ROSE DEWOLF

Appendix 235
Index 239
Contributors 243
Foreword

George W. Taylor was bom in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 10 July

1901. He was, from the day of his birth until his death at the age of 71
on 15 December 1972, always a Philadelphian and Pennsylvania!!.
Taylor was the nation's foremost arbitrator, mediator, industrial-
relations educator, and labor statesman for more than thirty years, from
the 1930s until the end of the sixties. He operated in the public eye in
the national arena under five presidents, but never neglected his obli-
gations as a member of the Philadelphia community and the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania.
Although he might shuttle off to Washington to settle a steel, copper,
or airline strike after a desperate midnight call from a president, he
could be expected to return perhaps the next day to meet his classroom
at his beloved University of Pennsylvania or to counsel with a mayor
of Philadelphia or a governor of Pennsylvania, each of whom might
have pressing labor problems.
He was called upon to serve in such situations as a strike of the
Philadelphia Orchestra members, as a chairman of a special commis-
sion to determine whether collective bargaining might work for school
teachers in New York City, as a surveyor for New York's Governor
Rockefeller in what became the Taylor Law, or in answering a frantic
call from President Kennedy to avert a strike of electricians at Cape
Canaveral when America sought to overcome the Russian lead follow-
ing the development of Sputnik.
χ Foreword

Despite his eminence in the national field of industrial relations, his

heady relationships with presidents, and his frequent stays at the
White House, Taylor could always be reached by Philadelphia dress
and clothing manufacturers who depended on his leadership as impar-
tial chairman for more than thirty years. It was this local group which
in 1972 raised funds for a Taylor Hall in the University of Pennsyl-
vania's Wharton School in his memory.
The authors of this work knew Dr. Taylor from several vantage
points. The undersigned worked with him for many years as his col-
league and associate chairman when Taylor served as chairman of
Wharton's Department of Industry. Professor Walter Gershenfeld was
a graduate student who also was with him on the U.S. Wage Stabili-
zation Board during the Korean War. Dr. Bernard Ingster was involved
with him in the solution of many public-sector labor problems. Pro-
fessor William Weinberg was another graduate student and became
engaged with him in arbitration and professional activities of the
National Academy of Arbitrators.
Each of us wanted to do a definitive work on George Taylor, but in
different aspects, such as his roles in developing grievance arbitration,
his unique teaching theories, his work in wage and price control and
the encouragement of collective bargaining, his monumental Taylor
Law in New York State, his career as a public mediator, his leadership
in developing a professional elite of distinguished practitioners of
industrial relations, and his theories in resolving conflict in the labor
area—theories that throw light on many problems in today's frag-
mented society.
William E. Simkin joined the authors' group well after the original
plan of the book was developed. The authors turned to him for an
integrative view of George W. Taylor. Despite Mr. Simian's eminence
as an arbitrator and as a former director of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service, he was also able to look at George Taylor as his
teacher, counselor, and friend.
One of Philadelphia's leading controversial columnists is Rose
DeWolf, who is the wife of one of the authors, Dr. Bernard Ingster.
She had the privilege of long chats with George Taylor on a variety
of local and national issues over a period of years. The authors were
fortunate indeed to have her volunteer to do as a Postscript an admir-
ing and loving treatment of Dr. Taylor.
We have attempted to integrate our efforts in this book, and we have
tried to eliminate overlap and redundancy; but we must admit that it
has been most difficult to see each major area of Taylor's interest and
activities as exclusive of the others.
 Foreword xi

If one approaches Taylor's life and his giant contributions from dif-
ferent perspectives, it is easy to perceive that Taylor transferred the
same liberal strains from one area to another. His speeches and his
papers, as well as his conduct in high governmental office, reflect not
only a love for his fellowman, but also a dedication to make America
a better place for all citizens.
We have chosen the University of Pennsylvania Press for this book,
for George W. Taylor was a true son of Pennsylvania. He pursued both
his undergraduate and graduate studies at the Wharton School and
taught there for more than forty years. Although he may have settled
more than two thousand labor disputes in his long career, teaching
and the classroom were his first loves, and he never could stay away
from the university very long.
Taylor has often been described as a "superman" by those who
admired him. Yet, those who knew him as we did saw him always as
one who was humble and who underplayed his role in national events.
More often he was one to say "no" to a presidential request than to
volunteer for some "glamorous" service. He hated to leave his dear
wife, Edith, or to miss several days of important classroom activity.
We hope this work will help to clarify his legacy to students of
economics and labor relations and will help others find better ways to
give each citizen a "fair shake" in the battle for economic survival.
Our deepest appreciation to Richard C. Henderson, who not only
copy-edited the original text but who also was responsible for moti-
vating the undersigned into writing the Introduction and who worked
closely with him in preparing the actual text of this chapter. Kathy
Coleman also assisted the undersigned in research on the Kaiser Steel
Long-Range Sharing Plan.
Our thanks also to Walter Duglin and David Edman for help with
basic research sources and to Mrs. Shirley Johnston, Mrs. Dalia
Vilgosas, and Miss Kathleen Roming for splendid work on the manu-
script.
Edward B. Shils
Philadelphia, Pa.
Introduction
EDWARD Β . SHILS

It is not at all surprising that George William Taylor should achieve

eminence in a career of mediation and arbitration. He was born 10
July 1901 and reared in the northeast Philadelphia Kensington section,
where an uncle owned a textile mill in which his father, Harry Taylor,
was superintendent. So when George Taylor graduated from Frankford
High School in 1919, he was expected to enter the family business.
But his school principal, George Alvin Snook, encouraged him to go to
college, and after earning a Mayor's Scholarship, he entered the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Finance and Commerce.
Choosing college was perhaps a sacrifice; while young Taylor was go-
ing to school, his friends in the hosiery mills were making as much as
$13,000 a year, which, he later commented, was a lot of money then.
As a center of the textile and hosiery industry, Philadelphia was the
right place; the 1920s, marked by labor violence, was the right time;
and George Taylor seems to have chosen the right birth sign. While
he was little more than a lad, a classmate, Howard Thomas, in 1920,
wrote in his book Signs of My Friends (National Publishing Co., 1920):

You were bom with an innate desire to get ahead, while displaying
a rather sensitive and retiring disposition. You are, however, basi-
cally very positive. You possess a keen intuitive sense, which, cou-
pled with a remarkable memory and a naturally industrious nature,
should enable you to gain your objective. By nature you are senti-
mental and a great lover of home.
2 EDWARD Β. SHILS

In the textile and hosiery industry, Taylor had seen much violence—
street fighting, trolleys overturned, even killings—and mutual distrust
among and between labor and management, and his studious, sensitive
nature must have led him, even as a youth, to know that there should
be better ways to settle differences.
After he had earned his Bachelor of Science degree in economics
and had served in 1923 as instructor in the Geography and Industry
Department at the Wharton School, his teaching career continued the
following year at Albright College (then Schuylkill College) in Read-
ing, Pennsylvania, another hosiery industry center. There he became
chairman of the Department of Business Administration and—thanks
to having played tackle on the Frankford team and even being squad
captain one year—graduate manager of athletics.
In 1924 he married Edith S. Ayling, a fellow Frankford High School
graduate. He earned his Ph.D. from the Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania in 1929 and that year
returned to the university as a research associate in the Industrial
Research Department.
It was another right place and right time. The Wharton School,
which has as its symbol the anvil, was founded at Penn in 1881 by
Joseph Wharton, member of a family of ironmongers who founded
Bethlehem Steel. As the first university school of business in the coun-
try, Wharton had established its Industrial Research Department to
carry on scientific investigations of industrial organization, manage-
ment, labor, and other economic factors in several important industries,
much in the same way that scientific research had been associated—
almost exclusively—with the medical and physical sciences. Studies of
the hosiery industry had begun in Reading in 1927 following a revision
of the university's plan of economic research. Rather than focus on
one economic factor separately as it operated in various industries, the
department felt that concentrated study of the interplay of all the
factors in a single industry or group of related industries would be
more valuable for research.
Studying for his doctorate at the time, Taylor chose for his thesis a
subject then of concern in Philadelphia and Reading and one in which,
given his background, he was especially interested—the overdevelop-
ment of the hosiery industry and the virtually certain deflation which
even then was foreseen by manufacturers and union leaders alike.
Following publication of his thesis, the university asked Dr. Taylor to
undertake a study of the interplay of economic factors in the hosiery
industry with particular emphasis on the Reading situation. Results of
 Introduction 3

the study were so valuable that it was extended to national scope in

the hosiery industry, and similar studies were instituted in other indus-
tries. Having served in eastern Pennsylvania as umpire for the hosiery
industry, after taking his doctorate, Taylor went into men's clothing
and women's dress and hosiery as a scholar and later as industry arbi-
trator. His services as a consultant became widely sought, and, as
chairman of the Hosiery Industry Committee, he helped establish
industry minimum wages to which labor and management agreed on
a national basis. He attracted national fame when he helped work out
a settlement of the bloody Aberle Hosiery Mill strike in Philadelphia,
the first of more than two thousand labor disputes he helped settle.
This work was also directly responsible for a later call from General
Motors.
His activities expanded on the national scene in 1931 with appoint-
ment as impartial chairman under a National Labor Agreement for the
Full-Fashioned Hosiery Manufacturers of America, Inc., and the Amer-
ican Federation of Hosiery Workers, a position he held until 1941.
Then in 1933 came two assignments: chairman for the Philadelphia
District of the National Labor Board under the National Recovery Act
(NRA), and Ν RA assistant deputy administrator in Washington. These
lasted until 1935, when he became impartial chairman for the Men's
Clothing Manufacturers' Association and the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers in Philadelphia, a chairmanship he held until 1961, except for
leave during World War II and the Korean War. A special appeal from
Philadelphia Mayor S. Davis Wilson involved him in the Apex Mills
union-nonunion strife. The thirties also saw him as advisor for the
National Fair Labor Standards Administration, 1937-38.
By 1940 Taylor had settled fourteen hundred labor controversies
without a strike; his leadership was acknowledged throughout the
United States, and he had been appointed impartial chairman of con-
tracts in hosiery, clothing, dresses, and textiles between three hundred
employers and tens of thousands of workers covered by industry labor-
management contracts. Under these agreements, strikes and lockouts
during the period of the contract were virtually eliminated, since the
parties agreed to submit their differences to Taylor for arbitration.
Despite the fact that "wildcat" strikes or unauthorized walkouts had
occurred with frequency, he helped formulate a new "common law"
in the field of voluntary arbitration in the years 1929-40. Without resort
to costly court action, disputes could be settled on a basis of both
reason and informality. Industrial justice became quickly expedited,
and labor-management leaders began to study the consistency of these
4 E D W A R D Β. SHI LS

decisions. A year before his passing, these historic decisions were

given to the University of Pennsylvania Law School for annotation and
study.
His much mentioned service under five presidents began in the
1940s with President Roosevelt, who named him in 1942 as vice-chair-
man of the National War Labor Board (NWLB) during World War
II, after he had been appointed impartial umpire for General Motors
Corporation and the United Automobile Workers, 1941-42. As part of
his service to the NWLB, of which he became chairman in 1945, Taylor
wrote in July 1942 the famous "Little Steel Formula," so named be-
cause it gave the "little" steel companies a fighting chance against the
major companies. To combat inflation in war time, this formula curbed
general increases in wages, but permitted modest increases and devel-
oped criteria for such adjustments as cost of living, increased produc-
tivity, wage adjustments consonant with the market, and so on. Taylor
considered this one of his most significant policy contributions. It was
also one of the most far-reaching: the concepts embodied in the "Little
Steel Formula" became the bargaining criteria for the future and the
textbook materials for the new courses in labor relations.
An important part of this phase of Taylor's public career was the
training of today's most renowned figures in government, academics,
and labor relations. Such leaders as Shultz, Dunlop, and Wirtz, as well
as others mentioned throughout this book, always acknowledged and
appreciated the training and inspiration received from Professor
Taylor. They in turn developed younger specialists in the labor-man-
agement profession. All of them have inherited something of the
George W. Taylor wisdom and philosophy. It is difficult in other pro-
fessions to find an equal influence on the part of only one man.
He served as secretary of the President's National Labor-Manage-
ment Conference under Truman, who at the end of World War II
named Dr. Taylor chairman of the Advisory Board of the Office of
War Mobilization and Reconversion, 1946-47. Also in 1947 he became
impartial chairman for the Women's Apparel Industry in Philadelphia,
a position he held until 1961, with time out during the Korean War,
1950-51. He was consultant to former President Hoover on his Com-
mission on Reorganization of the Executive Branch of the Government,
1948-49. In 1949 he became third president of the Industrial Research
Association, which he had helped form in 1946. Since many persons
from industry and unions turned to him for informal advice, he set up
his own consulting firm in Philadelphia with G. Allan Dash, a colleague
from the Industrial Research Department of the Wharton School, and
 Introduction 5

William Simkin, later head of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation

Service. This office continued until 1955. Taylor's membership in the
National Academy of Arbitrators began in 1947.
Some of his most impressive work on the national scene began in
1951, when Truman called him to Washington to become chairman of
the Korean War's National Wage Stabilization Board, an eighteen-
member group of experts representing industry, labor, and the public.
He was arbitrator in 1952 of internal CIO jurisdictional disputes, his
fairness being recognized by unions even in their vying to organize
certain lands of companies so they could, as unions, increase member-
ship and work. If not settled internally, these disputes would have gone
before the NLRB; it is significant that the unions abided by Taylor's
decisions. He was also arbitrator, 1953-59, for the General Building
Contractors Association and the Building and Construction Trades
Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity.
His work as chairman of the Presidential Board of Inquiry for the
steel strike under President Eisenhower came in 1959, and in that year
he became chairman of the Long Range Committee for Kaiser Steel
Corporation and the United Steelworkers of America. The Kaiser Plan
worked out then, reviewed in detail in this book, is certainly a major
achievement; the committees on human relations in various companies
are largely based, whether knowingly or not, on spadework done by
George Taylor.
He was a faculty member of the Seminar for American Studies in
Salzburg, Austria, in I960 and that same year began an eight-year term
as member of the President's Advisory Committee on Labor-Manage*
ment Policy. Under President Kennedy he was chairman of the Presi-
dent's Board of Inquiry in the Aerospace Industry in 1962 concerning
nonunion shop arrangements that had been dragging since World War
II. He was presidential mediator under Johnson in the 1964 National
Railroad Dispute and in the Railroad-Shopcraft Unions dispute in
1967. The following year he was chairman of the presidential panel in
the copper dispute, which saw one of the longest national strikes in
history.
Preserving his name is the famed T a y l o r Law," developed during
his work as chairman under New York's Governor Rockefeller of an
Advisory Committee on Public Employment Relations. In 1966 Taylor
accepted an invitation from Rockefeller to head a five-member panel
to study the state's Condon-Wadlin law which then, in a limited way,
governed labor relations for state and local employees. This legislation,
christened the 'Taylor Law" by Governor Rockefeller when he signed
6 E D WA B D B. S H I L S

it 25 April 1967, became effective 1 September of that year. Subject

of chapter 9 of this book, the law is considered a model by labor
experts.
Throughout his career Taylor emphasized his belief in American
capitalistic democracy. As early as 1938, addressing a round table con-
ference of the Wharton Institute, he said, "Collective bargaining . . .
can only work within the framework of a capitalistic economy. Our
governmental policy is obviously to raise collective bargaining to the
status of a social institution, in accordance with the belief that this
process provides the best democratic procedure for eliminating the
basis of employee grievances as distinct from treating mere surface
symptoms." And shortly after being named NWLB vice-chairman, be-
fore the annual convention of the Pennsylvania Federation of Labor
on 5 May 1942: "To those doomed dictators who talk of the selfishness
and softness of democracy, the procedures leading up to the creation
of the National War Labor Board give a portentous answer. The
Hitlers can never understand the strength of free peoples."
Perhaps it was the fact that he was a man with a message that led
him always to think of himself primarily as a teacher, even in his
public-service role. For instance, while involved in NWLB work, writ-
ing on 10 July 1944 to Dr. C. Canby Balderston, dean of the Wharton
School, after being appointed to full professorship, he wrote,

I shall ever be appreciative of the constant cooperation of the Uni-

versity in permitting me the opportunity to do so much work in the
field of my interest. . . . It is my sincere hope that, after complet-
ing my present assignment here in Washington, I will be able to
carry a full program of teaching and research. That is a life to
which I look forward with great anticipation. I also have hopes
that out of the experiences of the past ten years there will develop
a significant contribution to industrial relations and to economic
theory as well. There is no place I would rather undertake this
work than at the University of Pennsylvania.

Just as he had labored at the local, state, and national levels, so he

was honored at these levels with top awards. On 4 July 1963, President
Kennedy named him to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom,
the highest civilian honor the president can confer for service in peace-
time and given only twenty-four times before. It was presented in
White House ceremonies by President Johnson on 3 December.
Earlier that year, on 8 April, Taylor had been honored by his fellow
Philadelphians as recipient of the 40th Philadelphia Award, a gold
medal and $10,000 stipend established in 1921 by the noted editor,
 Introduction 7

author, and philanthropist Edward Bok to honor each year's outstand-

ing Philadelphian. At the ceremony bestowing the award, U.S. Labor
Secretary Willard Wirtz stated, "Had it not been for George W. Taylor,
collective bargaining in its present form might not have developed. . . .
He was the center of a group of men who made collective bargaining
develop and thrive." Describing Taylor as a personal friend, Wirtz
brought congratulations from President Kennedy, who thanked Dr.
Taylor "for all you have done and will do" for better Iabor-manage-
ment relations.
In 1967 he was among the eight internationally known Pennsyl-
vanians from more than seven hundred nominations selected by the
Governor's Committee of 100,000 Pennsylvanians to receive the First
Annual Pennsylvania Awards for Excellence, being honored in the
category of Human Relations and Community Service. Governor Wil-
liam Scranton was speaker at the formal dinner on 6 January attended
by some fifteen hundred civic, business, governmental, and cultural
leaders.
Interestingly, among the three other recipients of the Presidential
Medal of Freedom and the seven others given the Pennsylvania Awards
for Excellence were Marian Anderson and Andrew Wyeth, world fam-
ous in the arts. In a sense it could be said that Taylor raised arbitration
and mediation to the level of art. Not coincidentally, he was an avid
art collector, and the many friends fortunate enough to visit the Ritten-
house Square apartment of George and Edith Taylor admired their
taste.
Taylor had long wished to live on Rittenhouse Square, not so much
for its prestige value as for its beauty and serenity. H e could always
relax at home with Edith, who understood the pressures put on him by
national crises, but provided for him—whether in their apartment, at
the Poconos, or in Europe, where they went "every couple of years"—
the necessary diastole for the systole of his work pressure. But he
seemed to relish the pressure! Even after retirement in 1971 as Gaylord
P. and Mary Louise Harnwell Professor of Industry, to which the uni-
versity had named him in 1964, he returned, as professor emeritus, sev-
eral times to lecture in multi-section classes and to speak to student
groups.
This introductory account of George W. Taylor's life does not touch
upon one of his most admirable qualities—a quiet, sometimes self-
deprecating sense of humor—although the note is there in the recount-
ing of many anecdotes. Dr. Joseph H. Willits, a former dean of the
Wharton School who was a prime mover in the Taylor career, having
8 E D W A R D Β. S H I L S

offered him a research job during his student days, was called on to
make a memorial address to the American Philosophical Society on
1 April 1973. Taylor had been an honored member of the Society.
In his closing remarks at the memorial, Willits said,

He liked people, enjoyed them and quickly understood their prob-

lems. . . . And because he understood people and had a sense of
humor, he spoke interestingly and persuasively. His energy was
unlimited; he spent it generously. Perhaps his early death (at 71)
was in part the consequence of the free spending of himself. Be-
neath ail his work, there lay a strong, long-run moral purpose,
borne of his complete honesty. He used to advise students: "Never
let failure go to your head." Likewise, Dr. Taylor never let success
go to his head, either.
 1
George W. Taylor:
Teacher- Counselor-Friend
WILLIAM E. SIMKIN

One of George Taylor's friends and admirers made the meaningful

comment: "Taylor was a teacher every day of his life."1 The best attri-
butes of a teacher pervaded his contacts with people in a variety of
roles. This chapter will consider his teaching in the classroom, in public
speeches, and with the press; his counsel and guidance to others in-
volved in various labor-relations capacities; his abilities in working
with those of us who were in an arbitration apprenticeship or the
equivalent, and his remarkable qualities as a friend in all these circum-
stances. I had the great good fortune to know him as teacher, counselor,
and friend; which accounts for the necessarily personal tone of this
chapter. However, I have sought and obtained, in person or in writing,
the valuable advice and assistance of other labor-relations practitioners
who have had the benefit of one or more of these roles.2

1. This quotation and others that appear subsequently in this chapter were
made by the individuals named in footnote 2. No effort was made, nor was it
the author's intention, to specifically identify the author of each quoted statement
which appears in chapter 1.
2. Benjamin Aaron, S. Stanley Alderfer, Joseph Brandschain, Frederick H.
Bullen, G. Allan Dash, Jr., William Dinsmore, Nathan P. Feinsinger, Β. W. Flem-
ing, Sylvester Garrett, Walter J. Gershenfeld, Lewis M. Gill, William Gomberg,
Morrison Handsaker, Ronald W. Haughton, Thomas Kennedy, Charles C. Killings-
worth, Berthold W. Levy, William N. Loucks, Charles A. Myers, Eli Rock, Samuel
H. Sackman, Ralph T. Seward, John W. Seybold, Edward B. Shils, Howard M.
Teaf, Jr., S. Herbert Unterberger, Rolf Valtin, and Paul Yager. I am extremely
grateful to Edith Taylor, who examined a rough draft and made important
comments.
10 WILLIAM Ε. S I ΜΚ I Ν

Taylor in the Classroom and in Related Roles

Folowing five years (1924-29) as chairman of the Department of Busi-

ness Administration at Albright College in Reading, Pennsylvania,
Taylor moved to the University of Pennsylvania, where he served con-
tinuously and actively in various teaching and research capacities for
forty-two years. Successively or simultaneously, he was research asso-
ciate in the Industrial Research Department, associate professor and
professor of labor relations at the Wharton School, and Gaylord P. and
Mary Louise Harnwell Professor of Industry. On his retirement in
1971, he became the emeritus professor of the Harnwell Chair.
It is a special tribute to his devotion to classroom teaching that, ex-
cept for relatively brief periods, he continued much of this activity
even when holding more than full-time responsibilities with the Na-
tional War Labor Board and in various other public-service capacities.
He did so although such teaching often involved the rigors of week-
end trips back to Philadelphia to continue his Saturday classes.
Taylor's teaching was a remarkable combination of philosophy, his-
tory, vivid illustration, and insight. To him, labor history was only in-
cidentally a matter of dates and events. It was an unfolding of the
motivations, aspirations, frustrations, sufferings, and occasional tri-
umphs of workers as they sought to form unions to improve their lot.
Major emphasis was not on the pecuniary gain to be derived from
organization, although that aspect was not neglected; the primary
thrust was on workers as human beings and their efforts to attain dig-
nity and adequate recognition for their contributions to industrial
processes.
Union leadership was discussed within the contexts of the time pe-
riod in which persons lived and worked, the influences of family and
friends, the positive and negative attributes of the environment, as well
as the more widely known instances of success or failure. When a per-
sonality such as John L. Lewis was under discussion, an attempt was
made to answer the question: "What made him tick?"
Adequate recognition was also giveq to key personalities on the
management side, people who had a keen sense of the importance of
good labor-management relations as an aspect of success in business.
Nor was there any neglect of those company personalities who had
fought labor organization most vigorously. Discussion of both labor
and management leaders was substantially enhanced by Taylor's per-
sonal acquaintance with many of them through his extensive public
service activities and disputes-settlement work.
Throughout his life, Taylor was an avid reader in various labor
 George W. Taylor: Teacher—Counselor—Friend 11

fields. But his reading interests outside labor were even more extensive.
For example, Greek history and philosophy and a wide range of biog-
raphies were of special interest to him. When he was engrossed in
some critical labor dispute or problem in a public-service assignment,
he would often turn in the evening to some familiar or new philosophic
or biographic source as a release from pressure and in a search for
guidance. Although he made limited spoken references to such reading
in his teaching, he could, on occasion, quote accurately and with perti-
nence when a reading source provided special insight. It was evident
that his reading contributed much to a central theme, the development
of collective bargaining as an important institution in a democracy.
A commentator has accurately said:

Because Taylor prized American democracy so greatly, it was to

him an institution to be conserved at all costs. He admired the
Constitution of the United States. He thought one of its greatest
strengths was that it left so much unspecified. It has worked be-
cause the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, understood that
democracy's only assurance was to trust future generations to have
the wisdom to achieve solutions to problems that could not be
foreseen when the Constitution was written.

Perhaps Taylor's greatest attribute as a teacher was his ability to

illustrate a point by one or more actual events or occurrences. An inci-
dent in a different context can be illustrative. At a hearing of a labor
dispute, a lawyer said, "Let's not get bogged down with details."
Taylor replied, O n the contrary, let's not get bogged down with gen-
eralities."
Although he talked a good deal during a class, Taylor was not a con-
ventional lecturer. Student participation was welcome and almost man-
datory; interruptions at almost any point were encouraged. The primary
qualification was that Taylor could be tough about off-the-point or
long-winded contributions, and he effectively restrained himself ac-
cording to those same requirements. A former student summarized his
teaching methods by the single but descriptive sentence: "He made us
think, and we were very much the beneficiaries thereby."
In this vein, George Taylor was simultaneously a teacher and a stu-
dent; he welcomed the opportunity to sharpen his own ideas by inter-
action with other minds.
The combination of all these features of performance made for great
student interest. His own enthusiasm was contagious. His graduate
classes at the University of Pennsylvania included an interesting mix of
people: graduate students taking the course for credit, a few under-
12 WILLIAM Ε. SIΜΚIΝ

graduates, various persons from labor and industry or other labor-

relations capacities who came only to that course, and an occasional
retiree or other type of observer. Even though recording attendance
was the typical practice in most university classes at that time, attend-
ance records were not really needed. People wanted to come and
usually did so, sometimes at great inconvenience and from consider-
able distances.
Taylor was known as a tough grader. He did not expect perfection,
but he had little or no tolerance for laziness or mediocrity. For most of
his classes he required a term paper of some consequence. Moreover,
he read and criticized those papers carefully and with numerous mar-
ginal notes. I well recall that a conference with him about one of my
term papers consumed at least two hours. Fortunately, he generally
approved of the paper. But that did not preclude thorough and critical
analysis and comment. At the beginning of each term, a long and wide-
ranging reading list was handed to us. Some items were listed as re-
quired; others were optional. We were warned that there would be
questions on the final examination about the mandatory reading, even
if some included subject matter was not discussed in class. A few stu-
dents, lulled by the enthusiasm engendered by classroom discussions,
did not complete the outside reading. To their dismay this neglect
often resulted in a very low grade or even a flunk. Quite aside from the
outside reading, final examinations were difficult and challenging. One
former student recalls a time when almost the entire class failed an
examination. In that instance, Taylor advised the students almost im-
mediately that there must have been some defect in his teaching. He
held a long and comprehensive special evening review session and sub-
sequently gave a second examination. That one was not easy, but the
students appreciated Taylor's consideration and did much more work,
most of them improving their grades.
This appraisal of Taylor's teaching reads almost too good to be true.
Were there no defects? Depending on one's point of view, I suppose
there were some features that could be called defects. For each course
Taylor had carefully prepared an outline. It would seldom be followed
with any precision. Enthusiasm about one subject matter would result
in more time expended than had been planned. Some important cur-
rent labor-relations event would often be injected, even though out of
context with the outline. A result was that some significant subject
matters might be neglected almost entirely, simply because time ran
out. To some pedagogs, these were defects; to others, these features
were a small price to pay for the advantage of flexibility.
It might also be said that in some "publish-or-perish" institutions,
 George W. Taylor: Teacher—Counselor—Friend 13

Taylor might not have flourished. Fortunately for him and for us, the
University of Pennsylvania had a wider perspective. Taylor's class-
room abilities and his public-service achievements made it possible
for the university to accept the fact that his intense public activities
had to limit the number of important publications. However, the uni-
versity did accord him an honorary doctorate and honors such as the
Hamwell chair.
In the 1930s, Taylor did produce a number of writings, principally
about the hosiery and textile industries. Later he promoted and edited
two monograph series: Industry-Wide Collective Bargaining (1948)
and Labor Arbitration (1952), both published by the University of
Pennsylvania Press. He also coauthored with Frank Pierson New Con-
cepts in Wage Determination, published in 1957 by McGraw-Hill. A
book of major consequence, however, was his Government Regulation
of Industrial Relations, published by Prentice-Hall in 1948.
Recognizing that there is so much that Taylor could have written,
how is the relatively limited amount of publication explained? I would
suggest that there were two basic reasons. For prolonged periods, cer-
tainly until about the mid-1950s and probably even later, the combina-
tion of teaching and other activity left little time to write. The other is
that he found it difficult to write a book. He was a good writer of
arbitration opinions, of speeches, and of relatively short articles. But a
book was different. One friend has suggested: "He lacked the desire to
set forth a grand design and to explore it thoroughly in a book. His
mind was too restless; he was, I think, constitutionally unable to let
everything else go by and concentrate on one thing for the consider-
able time required to write a good book." One of Taylor's own state-
ments, clearly recalled by several of us, was made after the publication
of Government Regulation of Industrial Relations: Τ have discovered
that you don't write a book; you revise it. And you don't finish a book;
you abandon it." Whatever the reason or reasons, labor practitioners
have lost something in the absence of a comprehensive statement of his
concepts of labor relations and, more particularly, of the roles of medi-
ation and arbitration in the settlement of disputes. This book is an at-
tempt to fill in some of the gaps and to bring under one cover much
that is now scattered.
The dominant result of Taylor's many contributions as a classroom
teacher has been the very significant numbers of people who either
have entered the labor relations field or have continued such work
actively, primarily because of interest and enthusiasm generated in a
Taylor class. If a list were made of all members of his University of
Pennsylvania classes and the names then traced to persons active in
14 W I L L I A M Ε. S I M K I N

labor relations capacities, its length would be astonishing. The names

of a very large number of arbitrators, mediators, labor relations
teachers, labor lawyers, and company and union practitioners would be
found. Taylor must have had great inward satisfaction in observing the
outreach of his teaching efforts.
In the closely related areas of public speaking, Taylor was in great
demand throughout his life. Several speeches at annual meetings of the
National Academy of Arbitrators, referred to in the next chapter, are
properly considered highlights of academy meetings. At Industrial Re-
lations Research Association (IRRA) and other labor relations meet-
ings, he made similar contributions. He helped found the IRRA in
1946 and was its third president. He appeared often at seminars ar-
ranged by many educational institutions other than the University of
Pennsylvania. He spoke frequently at a wide variety of meetings at-
tended by the general public.
Some of his talks were "off the cuff." Much more often, they were
preceded by a very considerable amount of careful thought and appre-
ciable time spent in writing. A completed text, not just an outline, was
prepared for virtually every important speech. His remarks were al-
ways pithy, cogent, and fully understandable, given without the usual
dreariness of a reading. He would spend so much time with a text that
he did not really read it; he would follow it closely but not precisely.
And when a question-and-answer period followed a speech, as he pre-
ferred, he was "back at the old stand," where the qualities of his class-
room performance would reappear. What these speech opportunities
accomplished was expansion of the limits of his classroom teaching.
Persons who had not had the privilege of taking a full course could get
at least a good glimpse of his mind and his objectives. Moreover, these
speeches afforded him a chance to rethink his previously held notions.
Another significant expansion of Taylor's teaching developed from
his press conferences. He had an ability to educate press personnel in
the ramifications of collective bargaining. His methods of presentation
helped them to moderate or deemphasize the sensational, to stress the
constructive aspects of labor dispute settlement, and to report accu-
rately on the status of a dispute. Taylor personally handled many of
the press conferences in War Labor Board days. He did not seek to
glorify the board or himself when a major dispute had been settled; he
did not present alibis when a dispute was not going well. These press
conferences almost amounted to classroom sessions in collective bar-
gaining with a quite consistent group of the hard-boiled Washington
press corps as students. Taylor enjoyed the give-and-take of such a con-
 George W. Taylor: Teacher—Counselor—Friend 15

ference where the press had few inhibitions about asking nasty ques-
tions. He could take it and also dish it out.
As co-secretary with Judge Walter P. Stacy of President Trunran's
1945 Labor-Management Conference, Taylor would stand after an ex-
hausting day at the end of a large conference room facing a very siz-
able group of press representatives. His task was enormous. Things
were not going well at the conference in terms of specific agreements.
Among other problems, John L. Lewis and Phil Murray were feuding.
Taylor did not wish to talk down to his press friends from the former
War Labor Board group, but he needed to educate the persons who
were new. It was important not to alarm the country about the state of
labor relations in that postwar period. Perhaps most of all, he could
not afford to say anything that might impede possible progress between
labor and management representatives in the conference days ahead.
He accomplished much in these and other press conferences. Several
members of the Washington press corps who are among the best in the
United States on labor matters would be the first to give some of the
credit to Taylor.
Many teachers of labor relations and collective bargaining have
written more; some have had exposure to as many students; some may
have made roughly comparable overall teaching contributions; few, if
any, have exceeded the scope and versatility of Taylors teaching
influence.

Taylor as Counselor

The second major Taylor contribution as a teacher, in the larger use

of the word, was in a variety of counseling activities that developed
primarily out of his public-service activities and his arbitration and
mediation work. (These activities are chronicled in Chapters 2 and 4.)
In all of these endeavors, Taylor held his own or, more frequently,
was in command in relationships with his peers. No definition of peers
can be precise; but on numerous boards, commissions, committees, and
disputes panels, under appointment by five presidents—Roosevelt,
Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson—and several governors
Taylor was one of several experienced labor-relations practitioners, all
working together on common problems. The truly educational aspects
of such experiences are immense. Each encounter or series of encoun-
ters adds something to the accumulated knowledge and perception of
each participant. It can appropriately be said that Taylor was "more
16 W I L L I A M Ε. S I M K I N

than equal among equals." He was either chairman of the group by

appointment or was appraised as a major contributor by other par-
ticipants.
Whenever Taylor was in a position to do so, he participated actively
in the selection, training, and counseling of persons in an organization
below the peer level. He was always aware of the importance of care-
ful selection of previously inexperienced persons with potential prom-
ise. Frequently, these were people younger in years and from a variety
of backgrounds. I will never forget discussions with him about selec-
tion of personnel. He said, in effect, "I always take a very quick look
at experience background and at letters of recommendation. If a letter
is from someone I know and respect, I give it careful consideration.
But, in the final analysis, I insist on a reasonably extensive interview
and I then trust my instinct." That instinct was not entirely infallible.
In a few instances, he probably continued to support a selectee longer
than was advisable. But, on the whole, knowledgeable observers would
agree that his instinct was remarkably accurate.
Another Taylor practice was to trust inexperienced people with jobs
of substantial responsibility and with tasks that others might think
were beyond their capacity. He had faith in the ability of human beings
to rise above normal levels in an emergency. For example, particularly
in the early days of the National War Labor Board (NWLB), of which
he became chairman in 1945 after having been vice-chairman since
1942; many of us were green, but we were sent out on our own on
quite difficult assignments. He recognized the very real possibility of
error; what he did not countenance silently was the same mistake
made twice or a worker who gave up too easily.
The combination of personnel selection by instinct and early assign-
ments to oversized tasks meant that many of us went to Taylor for
guidance and counseling. Usually, we would do so before the task was
completed. When this was not possible, we went for review counseling.
Heavily burdened as he was with a multitude of responsibilities, he
gave generously of his time to such interviews. Thus, we had the op-
portunity to obtain knowledge and guidance in an even more intense
way than in a classroom. Vivid experiences were shared with Taylor
while they were still fresh in our minds.
In peer relationships and in personal interviews with persons below
the peer level, Taylor frequently expressed axioms or concepts in ways
that many of us remember. For instance, a Taylor precept for medi-
ation was: "Don't take steps one, two, and three before you have
thought about steps four, five, and six." He emphasized the importance
of obtaining the best possible grasp of a problem in its entirety before
 George W. Taylor: Teacher—Counselor—Friend 17

initiating moves towards a resolution of that problem. He knew very

well that it would frequently be necessary to change any formulated
plan in midstream because of intervening developments. However,The
results of such changes would likely be constructive, in contrast to
those of a hit-or-miss approach without general objectives.
He likened the development of a labor agreement to a story about a
sculptor who had just finished an imposing elephant and was asked
how he did it. "The sculptor said: Oh, it's quite simple. You start with
a big block of stone and chip away everything that doesn't look like an
elephant. Finally, what is left is the elephant.'"
He had little or no respect for the notion that a labor dispute is an
occasion to win a battle. To him, the purpose of negotiation was to
solve problems. Moreover, the objective was to solve those problems in
ways that might achieve the maximum of acceptability. To him, "ac-
ceptability" was a key word and a major concept. He had limited faith
in compulsion, whether of government, of a powerful company, or of a
powerful union. His belief in and promotion of tripartite procedures
was an application of the acceptability concept.
He recognized the psychological importance of proposals emanating
from the parties. Those of us who have seen him at work know that he
had a special ability in this connection. In separate meetings with one
or more company or union representatives, Taylor would plant an idea,
often by quite indirect methods. Later, that idea would emerge from
the lips or pen of a negotiator, sometimes with a conviction that it was
an entirely original proposal. That proposal would be an important
piece of a jigsaw puzzle. As other pieces were inserted, the total solu-
tion would begin to be visible. When the circumstances required,
Taylor was not reticent about making his own proposals. Sometimes
those proposals, made separately to a company and a union, were gen-
erally acceptable to both, but for strategic reasons the parties would
indicate that he should make the proposal at a joint meeting. But when
a proposal could come from a disputing party, he usually considered
that source preferable.
It was generally recognized that Taylor was the principal author of
the War Labor Board's "Little Steel Formula," of the "Substandards
Formulae," and of numerous General Orders. When such important
policy decisions were being developed, it can be said that he was in
charge, though not a solo operator. The general process can be de-
scribed: A conference would be held, the group including board mem-
bers and several persons below that peer level. Taylor would frequently
"paint with a wide brush." However, many contributions would be
made by others without any appreciable regard to position in the hier-
18 WILLIAM Ε. SIΜ Κ IΝ

archy. After the initial conference, one or more persons below the
board level would prepare a draft. Several conferences and drafts
might be required, the final draft generally one that was acceptable to
all participants. Conferences were supplemented by personal inter-
views. One former staff member recalls vividly an evening when Taylor
brought him in to his office and asked him to propose ideas for a stabi-
lization formula. As the Little Steel Formula had not yet emerged,
Taylor did not want the staff member as a sounding board; he wanted
ideas from all available sources.
Several persons have commented about Taylor's fertile mind, whether
in development of a War Labor Board policy document or in resolution
of a specific dispute.
One friend has noted how the words of Roosevelt's Executive Order
"to correct maladjustments or inequalities, to eliminate substandards of
living, to correct gross inequalities, or to aid in the effective prosecu-
tion of the war" were given life and meaning by N W L B policy state-
ments. The Little Steel Formula, treated at length in chapter 6, was a
rigid basic stabilization formula that could have persisted only in war-
time. Even then, the pressures against wage stabilization were so great
that some relief was necessary to continue basic stabilization; the re-
lated policy decisions provided a commonsense approach to such re-
lief. Most important and in contrast to the sometimes gibberish of
governmental regulations, the board's policy statements were so effec-
tively and simply worded and applied that they provided the basis for
constructive collective bargaining. Long-needed rationalizations of
wage structures and related inequity adjustments, not destructive of
stabilization, were bargained or provided by board decisions. The basic
steel industry Cooperative Wage Study program is a good example.
Taylor deserves major credit, both for the substance of what was done
and for the philosophy and methods utilized. Those who worked with
him will not forget the demonstration of effective leadership.
Three more general comments about Taylor's ingenuity are illustra-
tive of widespread opinion:

Every time one put a seemingly intractable problem to him, he

would respond almost immediately with not just one, but many
ideas of how to deal with it. When he was in high gear, his
thoughts fairly exploded in such marvelous profusion and bril-
liance that one felt completely overwhelmed.
He had a very original mind. One could discuss a current dispute
or a national problem with him and suddenly discover that he had
a whole new way of looking at it that put the problem in a differ-
ent perspective.
 George W. Taylor: Teacher—Counselor—Friend 19

George was always an experimenter. When one solution was found

to be inadequate, he calmly turned to alternatives until a satisfac-
tory solution was found.

All of the foregoing comments are made by individuals who were

below the peer level when working with Taylor, but who have since
attained high stature in labor-relations capacities. It is quite obvious
that they benefited materially by counsel on specific problems and by
observation of Taylor's problem-solving approach.
Especially important was our lack of any feeling of inferiority, even
though we considered Taylor a superior in ability and performance. He
had evident keen interest in every problem we shared with him and in
our own ideas. H e encouraged and supported us when support was
justified, but he could be devastating in shooting down some idea that
had little merit. Even in such circumstances, however, he did it in a
way that helped us straighten out our own thinking and stimulated us
to come back for more counseling. When a group endeavor was finally
completed, every participant had a sense of personal contribution and
an added store of knowledge of substance, procedure, and philosophy.
Because of his many labor-relations activities, Taylor's personal con-
tacts with and knowledge of decision-making persons in the labor-
management world were ever expanding and not confined to particular
industry or geographic groupings. Moreover, the persons with whom
he served and associated had great confidence in his judgment. The
result was heavy demand on him for counseling and advice.
One significant advisory role was connected with selection of per-
sonnel. Unions and companies seeking an arbitrator or mediator, public
officials seeking a person for a public-service post, and companies and
unions looking for someone for an important position within their own
organizations came to Taylor in large numbers, in person and by tele-
phone, asking for his advice. He gave of himself generously in such
situations. He was a one-man, unpaid placement service who opened
doors for many of us. Two instances in my own professional life will
suggest the Taylor role.
Earlier mention was made of a conference with Taylor in June 1939
about my term paper following attendance in his class. At the conclu-
sion of that conference, I said, "By the way, Dr. Taylor, I've become
quite interested in arbitration during your course. Would it be pos-
sible for me to sit in and observe at a couple of hearings sometime this
summer?" He smiled and said, "That's interesting, Bill. I'm prepared
to offer you a job." On 1 July of that year, I became associate impartial
chairman in the Full Fashioned Hosiery Industry, a title insisted on by
W I L L I A M Ε. S I M K I N

Taylor from the beginning, even though at the time I was actually only
his apprentice.
The second event was in January 1961. Taylor, G. Allan Dash, Jr.,
and I were sharing offices in Philadelphia. Taylor went out to Denver
for a meeting of the Kaiser Long Range Committee, of which he was
chairman.3 David L. Cole and John T. Dunlop were the other public
members. Arthur J. Goldberg, long active for the steelworkers on that
committee, was attending his last meeting, as he had just been nomi-
nated as Secretary of Labor by President Kennedy. Upon Taylor's
return, he said me, "Bill, I'd better warn you. You may be getting a
call from Washington soon about being director of the Federal Media-
tion and Conciliation Service [FMCS]." He did not elaborate. Later I
learned that Taylor, Cole, Dunlop, and Goldberg had had dinner one
night in Denver after Goldberg had been commissioned by President
Kennedy to find a new director. At that dinner, it appears that the four
of them hatched my prospective nomination. I had not been politically
active; moreover, I had not even dreamed of the FMCS job prior to
Taylor's warning statement, and my initial reaction to the possibility
was quite cool. Within a couple of weeks, however, the job had been
offered and accepted. It was a decision I have never regretted.
When Taylor opened a door for someone, he was not patronizing
about it. He expected no tribute of any kind. In many instances, the
person placed may not have known about Taylor's part in the process,
unless advised by someone else. This was a function he wanted to per-
form freely and unselfishly because of his devotion to labor-manage-
ment processes and because he was in a position to help find the right
person for the right place. Moreover, all of us have observed that
Taylor never put any pressure on us to accept an offer. He considered
that acceptance or rejection was a personal decision and that his role
should not go beyond the function of opening the door.
Taylor's counseling with labor and industry personalities was not
confined to advice about personnel. A sizable number of substantial
companies sought his services as a paid consultant. He did accept a
very limited number of such positions, but only under very stringent
self-imposed conditions. He refused to serve as an advocate in negotia-
tions or in any public capacity before a governmental agency or in
any labor dispute. He limited such consultation work to an in-house,
impartial approach to that company's labor-management problems.
A much more significant counseling role, unpaid and informal, was
with both labor and industry. His many friends in each camp would

3. The Kaiser Plan is covered in detail in chapter 8.

 George W. Taylor: Teacher—Counselor—Friend 21

often seek his advice on a variety of problems. Sometimes this would

occur at lunch, at dinner, or during a recess when Taylor was in an
arbitration or mediation session and the problem had nothing to do
with the case at hand. More often, it would be a direct approach, in
person or by telephone. He gave freely and helpfully in these situations.
Another type of counseling was more formal. For several years,
Taylor sponsored and headed a Labor Relations Council at the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania, consisting of management and labor persons
and a few university professors who met for dinner and for discussion
of a variety of labor-management subjects. An outside discussion leader
would sometimes be invited; at other times the group managed its own
meetings. In a sense, this was an extension of Taylor's university teach-
ing, but it also included counseling functions.
A federal mediator, stationed in Philadelphia for some years but
with extensive experience elsewhere, has commented that Taylor's in-
formal counseling with management and labor in the Philadelphia area
and his role in the Labor Relations Council undoubtedly had a bene-
ficial effect on the labor-relations climate in that area. He states that
in no other part of the country has he observed the equivalent extent
of a problem-solving approach to labor problems. Labor and manage-
ment representatives with whom the mediator has worked have freely
acknowledged the Taylor contribution.
In all of the relationships discussed in this section, Taylor's counsel-
ing and assistance was not accompanied by a know-it-all attitude. The
mood was cooperative exploration of a subject matter seeking answers,
or, if no immediate answers were available, trying to find ways and
means by which possible answers might be obtained. His attitude was
that of a concerned friend, not a superior. Thus, he was a prolific,
unselfish, and extraordinary counselor.

Taylor as a Trainer of Apprentices

This section will consider continuing relationships, primarily in con-

nection with arbitration, that can accurately be described as appren-
ticeships or the equivalent.
From 1 July 1939 to mid-1941, when Taylor resigned as impartial
chairman in the Full-Fashioned Hosiery industry to become umpire
under the General Motors-United Automobile Workers agreement, I
served as associate impartial chairman. From early 1941 until 1952,
Taylor and I held the same respective titles in the Men's Clothing
Industry—Philadelphia Market, and from early 1947 until 1952, we
W I L L I A M Ε. S I M K I N

served similarly in the Dress Industry—Philadelphia Market. Thus, it

can be said that I was an apprentice to Taylor continuously for some
thirteen years.
While Taylor was at the University of Pennsylvania, G. Allan Dash,
Jr. was associated with him in the Industrial Research Department.
Beginning in 1937, Dash worked with Taylor in a number of ad hoc
arbitration cases and in a few continuing arbitration relationships.
Although his apprenticeship was less formally recognized than mine,
in a sense Dash was a Taylor apprentice over a period of about seven
years. Also, the three of us shared offices in Philadelphia for some years
Elfter an apprentice relationship had ceased.
What was it like to be an apprentice to George Taylor? I will write
first about the hosiery relationship, beginning with background. Taylor
had been impartial chairman since 1931. The agreement between the
Full Fashioned Hosiery Manufacturers of America, Inc., and the Amer-
ican Federation of Hosiery Workers was a national agreement cover-
ing all member firms. Plants were located primarily in Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, and
Massachusetts. It was a skeletal agreement in many respects and, by
1939, many of the interstices had been filled in by Taylor decisions,
memos, and S.W.D.'s (cases settled without decision). The national
agreement had a number of unusual provisions, two of which will be
noted here. One was uniform application of all agreement provisions
at all member plants except for a very few stated exceptions. This
applied even to piece rates on described types of equipment. The other
was that an impartial chairman's decision was agreed to be applicable
at all plants, unless otherwise specifically noted, in the same manner
as a negotiated agreement provision. In 1938 negotiations, supplemen-
tal agreements had been negotiated at each plant. The basic provision
of these supplements was for nonuniform wage reductions associated
with individual company commitments to purchase and install specific
numbers of new machines. This was a bargained effort to make the
unionized industry more competitive with rapidly emerging southern
nonunion plants. Thus, I entered this apprenticeship at a time of
change and significant economic repercussions beyond the effects of
the Great Depression.
The most important single value of an apprenticeship with Taylor
was the opportunity to observe him in operation at a hearing. Hearings
were always informal, and most were relatively brief. Each person
had at least potential opportunity to participate. By summing up posi-
tions taken by the parties, by asking pertinent questions at the right
time, and by numerous other procedural practices, Taylor had an
 George W. Taylor: Teacher—Counselor—Friend

exceptional ability to conduct a hearing so that the essential issues

were adequately explored in a minimum amount of time. Most impor-
tant, his methods of conducting a hearing resulted in a clear under-
standing of the issues and of their ramifications. Frequently, as a result
of mediation assistance, a solution was found at the hearing. About
one-third of the hosiery grievances heard were recorded as "S.W.D.'s"
These were write-ups by the impartial chairman of a mutual agreement.
These opportunities to observe were especially significant to me as
an apprentice because many aspects of hearing procedure could not
adequately be taught in writing or even in a classroom, without the
specific circumstances of a case. The timing and nuances of a "move"
(sum up, question, and so on) by the impartial chairman needed to
be appraised within the context of the hearing in order to be fully
understood.
The second apprentice task was to write up a draft decision. On the
way back from a hearing, we would usually discuss cases briefly, and
it was then my job to prepare a draft. Unless it was a complicated
piecework dispute or an occasional extremely difficult contract inter-
pretation issue, Taylor did not delay deciding on the key elements or
to insist that I develop a proposed decision independently. In a fairly
sizable number of cases, the responsible representatives of the parties
and I would know the essence of Taylor's thinking, through indirec-
tion, by the time the hearing closed. However, he emphasized the
importance of a decision text as an aspect of selling it to the parties.
He insisted on simple language, readily understandable by anybody
who might read it, and also on relative brevity. This was especially
important in an industry where most decisions were potentially appli-
cable at all plants and therefore needed to be understood by many
who were not at a hearing.
When my draft had been completed, the two of us would discuss it.
Sometimes, he would accept the draft with no change; more often, a
number of language changes would be made. Occasionally, several
drafts would be required, and the final would be substantially different
from the first. Taylor personally signed all decisions alone when he had
conducted the hearing and took full responsibility for the final decision.
The third important part of the process in hosiery was the discussion
with top representatives of the parties before the decision was issued.
Normally, that did not occur until after we had prepared and dis-
cussed at least one draft. At these informal meetings, no decision draft
appeared until after extensive discussion, which he considered very
important in selling the decision, especially to the losing party. More-
over, this was one aspect of his more general "no surprise" concept.
W I L L I A M Ε. S I M K I N

Only rarely was any change made in the basic decision already written.
In the later stages of these discussions, the party representatives would
read the proposed decision in its entirety. Sometimes changes of lan-
guage would be made subsequently, to avoid possible repercussions
on other matters.
Taylor was adamant about avoidance of delay. Roughly half of the
decisions were issued within ten days after the hearing, despite what
might appear to be complicated procedures. More time was required
for the substantial volume of difficult piece rate cases that developed
out of installation of new knitting machines and other new equipment.
Also, to minimize travel expense, a sizable number of cases would be
heard on a typical four- to five-day trip to midwestern plants. The
resulting peaking of cases made it difficult to adhere consistently to the
ten-day objective. On an overall basis, the average days required per
case (hearing to issuance of final decision) during the period of my
apprenticeship were: 1939—22.0 days, 1940—27.5 days, and 1941—
23.6 days.4
Taylor's problem-solving concepts and his procedural methods in
grievance arbitration have sometimes been misunderstood or misin-
terpreted. If a grievance could be answered clearly by reference to
contractual provisions, he was insistent on application and enforcement
of the contract; he was a strict constructionist when the facts sup-
ported that type of answer. His more inventive and nonconformist
methods and procedures were utilized in that frequent type of case
where some strict constructionists have no answers or where contract
provisions have sometimes been misapplied.
An important feature of Taylor's concept of apprenticeship was that
there be no delay in breaking in the associate impartial chairman to
full responsibility status. He did not want the parties to get the notion
that I was only an assistant. Accordingly, I heard my first case inde-
pendently only about one month after starting the job, and the fre-
quency of cases so heard increased rapidly as time went on. For such
cases, the two of us would discuss the case thoroughly, and Taylor
would give careful appraisal to the written decision, often with valu-
able suggestions. However, he did not sign or countersign any decision
when he had not conducted the hearing. Consequently, by the time he
resigned in 1941, the parties had become well adjusted to an orderly
transition.
In men's clothing and in the dress industry, the impartial-chairman-
associate-impartial-chairman relationship was essentially the same as in
4. Thomas Kennedy, Effective Labor Arbitration (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1 9 4 8 ) , Appendix A, Table 15.
 George W. Taylor: Teacher—Counselor—Friend 25

hosiery. However, there were some differences, principally because I

started in men's clothing later than in hosiery and we did not begin the
dress industry work until 1947, and then jointly. In these relationships,
I heard the majority of cases, but, when available, Taylor conducted
the hearings of the most important disputes.
From early 1942 until mid-1943, I was working part-time with the
War Labor Board and Taylor was unavailable for men's clothing cases
because of his board work. I started full-time work with the board in
mid-1943, and in anticipation had lunch one day with the top repre-
sentatives in men's clothing to suggest to them that they would need
a new associate impartial chairman. Their interesting reply was essen-
tially as follows: "Don't worry about us, Bill. There's a war on. You
and George have more important work to do. W e l l just setde all our
cases." They did just that for about two years. However, when the War
Labor Board terminated, both Taylor and I were back in Philadelphia.
We had lunch with the parties in men's clothing soon after our return.
They then said, "We've gotten along all right so far. But we had better
have a few arbitration cases soon. You are our insurance policy. The
people in the shops are beginning to forget about arbitration and there
is a little restlessness, here and there. A few people have even talked,
a bit vaguely, about striking over a couple of grievances. We had
better get the machinery oiled up again." Almost immediately, we did
hold a few hearings.
Another Taylor activity, though not apprenticeship of the same type,
was his role in working with Philadelphia arbitrators as a group. For
many years, beginning at least as far back as 1948, and probably
earlier, all arbitrators in the Philadelphia area (both members and
nonmembers of the National Academy of Arbitrators) met monthly,
summer months excepted, for discussion of arbitration principles, pro-
cedures, and problems. Taylor played the leading role in establishing
this activity. Proceedings were quite informal; a dinner together was
followed by a discussion of one-and-one-half to two hours' duration.
In a very real sense, Taylor was the intellectual and spiritual leader of
the group. The most ambitious formal group project was a paper,
"Guides for Labor Arbitration," completed in February 1953. This was
the result of a series of organized discussions that had occurred over
a period of more than three years, concentrated on both ethical and
practical aspects of arbitration. The guide was a consensus document,
not dominated by but clearly influenced heavily by Taylor's principles
and philosophy.
Many Philadelphia arbitrators in this group also benefited by an
informal apprenticeship relationship. Especially when starting arbitra-
W I L L I A M Ε S I Μ Κ I Ν

tion and after hearing a difficult case, several would say to themselves,
"I need to have lunch with George." When the invitation came, Taylor
would surmise what was ahead but he usually accepted. On those
occasions, he was careful to avoid deciding the case. He did not be-
lieve that anyone could fully understand a case unless he had person-
ally heard it and observed the people at the hearing. Moreover, he did
not want any individual in the Philadelphia group to become too
dependent on him. However, he was quite pointed in indicating dis-
approval when he was reasonably certain that someone was on the
wrong track. He also would attempt to stimulate more thinking by
asking pertinent questions. In short, he used much the same tactics that
he frequently employed with parties at a hearing or with students in
his classes.
There is no stereotype of a "Philadelphia arbitrator." Fortunately for
us and for the parties we serve, we are individuals with our own minus
or plus characteristics. However, it is fair to say that most of us would
be proud if we could believe that we had really earned the sometimes-
voiced application of "a Taylor-made arbitrator."

Taylor as a Friend

In the relationships considered up to this point, it was evident that

Taylor considered us his friends, over and above any labor-relations or
professional aspects of a relationship.
When a student wanted to talk privately to him about something
related to subject matter of the class, or something quite personal, he
was most generous of his time, created an atmosphere of keen interest
and understanding, and was helpful. Several students recall that a
practice developed after some of his Saturday morning classes of re-
pairing to a nearby restaurant with several of the students. Wide-
ranging discussion occurred on those occasions. Sometimes there would
be a continuation of the class subject matter. Not infrequently, per-
sonal life plans and objectives of the students would be explored.
Former labor-relations associates living some distance from Phila-
delphia would often get in touch with Taylor when they happened to
be in the Philadelphia area. One former War Labor Board associate
comments as follows:

On my infrequent trips to Philadelphia, I would usually arrange to

spend the evening with George. We would talk endlessly about a
wide variety of subjects, sometimes until two or three in the morn-
ing. Despite the disparity in our ages and our prior relationship of
 George W. Taylor: Teacher—Counselor—Friend

master and pupil, we dealt with each other as equals, sometimes

disagreeing without the slightest embarrassment on my part. Those
wonderful evenings invariably left me in an almost exalted state;
I felt wanned by George's friendship and, so it seemed to me, his
affection, and enormously stimulated by the wide-ranging discus-
sion we had had.

This recital could be duplicated many times, by Taylor's peers and by

those who had been below the peer level when the friendship had
been established.
An important aspect of Taylor's philosophy was that he cherished
close friendship with many labor and management personalities with
whom he had business dealings. Some persons in impartial capacities
are afraid that they will somehow become contaminated or lose their
impartiality because of friendship. Taylor had no such thoughts; nor
did his labor or management friends have any notions about special
treatment. Everybody who knew Taylor well knew that his integrity,
his intellect, and his impartiality were so impeccable that any business
dealings or decision making would not be influenced by personal
friendship.
George and Edith Taylor, who had grown up in an area in North
Philadelphia occupied primarily by workers in various branches of the
textile and hosiery industries, did not confine their friends to labor-
relations personalities. They did not forget their long-time friends
when Taylor became a nationally known person. Both also had close
friends without labor-relations connections within the faculty at the
University of Pennsylvania, in various civic organizations in Philadel-
phia, and among neighbors in the Rittenhouse Square area where they
lived for many years. "An evening at the Taylors'" was a frequent and
joyous occasion, usually with a mix of friends from various back-
grounds. Without permitting too-serious an atmosphere, George and
Edith had special abilities as host and hostess in encouraging mean-
ingful dialog.
It is fitting to add a special tribute to Edith Taylor. Her unfailing
good humor, her astute understanding of people, and her fierce loyalty
to George provided him with constant and loving support in all his
endeavors. In labor matters, he necessarily played center stage but
always with total confidence in her understanding.
Friendship is both a cement and a lubricant. It binds people together
in their pursuit of common goals; it eliminates or eases potential fric-
tions when strong intellects seek accommodation of possible differ-
ing opinions as to how those goals are to be achieved. Those of us
who knew George Taylor well will always be grateful for his friendship.
W I L L I A M Ε. S I M K I N

Conclusion

When all the many and varied aspects of George Taylor's role as a
teacher, counselor, and friend are combined, it is no exaggeration to
conclude that, over the long span of his working years, he had more
constructive influence as an impartial activist in labor relations than
any other individual in the United States.
 2
Early Years: Grievance Arbitration
WALTER J. GERSHENFELD

Background and Experience

EARLY INFLUENCES

George Taylor and grievance arbitration, the man and the institution,
are deeply intertwined. George Taylor is remembered as an architect,
leading practitioner, and thoughtful analyst of grievance arbitration.
Taylor came to the labor-management field when the modern form
was coming of age. His first exposure was as a student and professor
in the 1920s. He was aware of early arbitration efforts including T h e
Protocol" between the International Ladies Garment Workers Union
and the clothing industry and other arbitration activity, principally in a
number of small industries in New York City. He often mentioned the
millinery industry as a pioneer in arbitration.
Undoubtedly, however, the strongest early influence on Taylor's
ideas on arbitration came from a series of local-market agreements
establishing impartial chairmanships in the men's clothing industry.
Here, he considered the agreement between the Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers and Hart, Schaffner & Marx a breakthrough. Taylor fre-
quently acknowledged the intellectual leadership provided by leading
men's clothing industry arbitrators, notably Harry Millis and William
Leiserson. He also benefited from the early studies on arbitration by
Edwin Witte.
WALTER J GERSHENFELD

Taylor was impressed by the needle trades' commitment to ration-

ality and the contribution of arbitration to that process. He frequently
cited the illustration of the garment industry where justice had de-
pended on seasonality. A case warranting discharge would likely be
overturned if it occurred during the busy season. The threat of a strike
at that time might cause an employer to see the light when there was
no light to be seen. Conversely, a worthy case occurring during the
slow season might result in an employer encouraging a useless strike
in order to reduce inventory.
Taylor noted that the change in employer thinking came when man-
agement realized the union was here to stay. The company might not
have loved the union, but it was willing to establish a joint mechanism
to eliminate guerilla warfare over employee grievances with their
consequential costs to employees, unions, and companies. Taylor saw
the agreement to arbitrate as the quid pro quo for the no-strike clause.
He hailed arbitration because it terminated the impropriety of pro-
viding equity, under an agreement, to an individual employee by rela-
tive economic power.

HOSIERY

It was against this background that Taylor was appointed the second
impartial chairman by the Full Fashioned Hosiery Manufacturers of
America, Inc. and the American Federation of Hosiery Workers. The
impartial chairmanship of the hosiery industry was the first national
arbitration arrangement among union manufacturers in the United
States. A heavy concentration of these manufacturers was located in
Philadelphia and environs, a large number of companies operated in
the midwest, and New England was represented by a few companies.
The parties had named Dr. Paul Abelson as their first impartial
chairman for the years 1929-31. When Abelson stepped down, George
Taylor was an easy choice as his successor. Taylor had lived and
worked in Philadelphia and Reading, both hosiery centers. He had
published research studies of the hosiery industry and was known as
an expert in the labor relations field. Taylor was appointed impartial
chairman by the parties in 1931 and continued in that office until 1941.
Three characteristics of the agreement under which Taylor worked
are worth noting. It included lengthy lists of virtually universal piece
rates, substantive clauses were frequently skeletal, and the impartial
chairman was given broad jurisdiction and authority to handle almost
any grievance. He was also expected to sit in on contract negotiations,
where his principal role was to learn firsthand what the agreement of
 Early Years: Grievance Arbitration 31

the parties encompassed. When appropriate, he assisted them by

mediating.
During the early years of his chairmanship there was considerable
emphasis on the rights of the parties. Management sought affirmation
of its right to determine methods of operation, use of property, and to
take administrative initiative. The union wanted to protect its right to
protest and appeal what it considered improper adverse decisions by
management and achieve retroactivity when warranted. Principles
were established to guide the parties in the important matters of pro-
motion, layoff, and discharge. Some observers believe that Taylor
established the well-known grievance-arbitration principle of "do it
and grieve" during his early years as hosiery chairman.
The earliest case illustrating the "do it and grieve" principle and the
primacy of the no-strike clause was a 1932 situation involving the
Gotham Silk Hosiery Company, one of the largest in the industry. In
one company department, there had been disruptive behavior on a
night shift. No supervisor had been assigned. The company singled out
two knitters as leaders of the affair, and they were discharged. At
this juncture, the other thirty-seven knitters stopped their machines in
protest. The union shop committee urged the knitters to resume work.
They refused, and the company discharged them.
The union filed a grievance seeking the reinstatement of all em-
ployees. The impartial chairman reinstated the two employees, noting
the company shared rseponsibility for the rowdyism which had oc-
curred because of its failure to assign supervision. The discharge of the
knitters was sustained, since they had opted for self-help and violated
the no-strike provision of the agreement The discharge of the knitters
had to be upheld to underline the significance of the no-strike clause.
Taylor privately asked the company to consider voluntary rehiring of
those knitters who might seek reemployment, and many of the knitters
were so reemployed. Both Taylor and the union also sought to find
positions for the other knitters elsewhere in the industry.
All parties recognized that stabilization of the industry was impos-
sible if wildcat strikes were permissible. The notion became established
that, unless health or safety was involved, it was necessary to "do it
and grieve." The union in later years boasted of its acceptance of
the decision as a measure of union responsibility in living up to an
agreement.
Part of Taylor's success lay in his modus operandi. He tried to make
certain that the parties were satisfied that he understood the case
before he left the hearing room. This helped him to mediate when that
was possible and to sell the decision when that eventuality was neces-
W A L T E R J G E R S H E N F E L D

sary. In important cases, he would send draft decisions to the parties

and informally convene a tripartite meeting to discuss the tentative
decision. Although decisions were rarely modified, the process enabled
Taylor to explain the decision to the loser.
Taylor kept careful records and established a reference system which
was useful to the parties. He initiated the notion of labeling those
cases that did not have industry-wide ramifications as "memos." The
decisions applying to all mills were labeled with letters. These latter
decisions had a continuing life. During the 1930s the parties adopted
contractual language binding them to all prior decisions of the impar-
tial chairman. Toward the end of his impartial chairmanship, some of
the decisions were written by William E. Simian, author of chapter 1
of this book, who became associate impartial chairman in 1939 and
succeeded him when Taylor left to become impartial umpire under
the General Motors-United Automobile Workers agreement. Simkin
had been a student of Taylor and became one of a large group of
arbitrators he tutored. Simkin, in tum, left to join the War Labor
Board ( W L B ) , where Taylor was already serving. It is noteworthy
that the parties did not replace their chairman, but simply determined
to settle cases without a chairman during the war period.
The 1930s were, of course, a period of depression and turmoil. The
unionized hosiery industry suffered from the Depression and addition-
ally was faced with intense competition from nonunion firms. It is
against this background that Taylor's feat of assisting the parties to
operate without strikes, during the period of his impartial chairman-
ship, acquires additional luster. The problems were, at times, unique.
In 1938 the employers sought a wage cut to remain competitive. The
union agreed and was willing to take a larger wage cut, provided the
employers installed new equipment. Plant-by-plant agreements were
made calling for new equipment, lower wages, and more work.
This success was not ignored. General Motors had reached the point
in its relationship with the UAW where it became interested in a
grievance-arbitration system. During the final years of Dr. Taylor's
chairmanship in the hosiery industry, General Motors had sent a com-
pany official to sit in on hosiery arbitrations and to study the applica-
tion of arbitration to the G M - U A W relationship.
But not all of Taylor's efforts were successful. In 1933 some twenty-
eight hosiery mills in the Reading area agreed to a contract with the
hosiery workers which designated Taylor as impartial chairman. One
of his early decisions involved the ressponsibility of knitters for broken
needles. Taylor determined that the knitters should pay fifty percent
of the cost of needles in excess of one pack of needles per week. The
 Early Years: Grievance Arbitration

companies found the decision unacceptable and refused to implement

it, and Taylor resigned from the impartial chairmanship. He later
pointed out that the designation of an arbitrator required the parties
to accept decisions, even those they believed to be incorrect. Their
proper recourse was to work out their own solution, but, failing that,
to accept the decision. They were, of course, free to fire an impartial
chairman or simply not to use an ad-hoc arbitrator again. Refusal to
accept a decision by either party meant the end of a constructive
grievance-resolution procedure. It is noteworthy that the Reading em-
ployers were much stronger than the union and succeeded in winning
the day on this and other positions, but Taylor considered the deteri-
oration of labor relations in Reading a factor in the ultimate move of
the industry away from that city.

MEN'S CLOTHING

In 1934 Taylor was selected as impartial chairman by the Philadelphia

Men's Clothing Manufacturers Association and the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers. Although the parties here did not require the pres-
ence of the chairman during negotiations, as in hosiery, there was
considerable informal discussion with the impartial chairman during
snags in negotiations.
The agreement also differed from the hosiery agreement in that
there were many plant-by-plant piece rates. Despite the wide variety of
piece rates, relatively few piece-rate cases were taken to arbitration.
One principal exception was differences of opinion on appropriate
piece rates for cutters, but most of the problems that went to the
impartial chairman involved discipline, with a heavy incidence of dis-
charge cases. As in hosiery, the parties made it clear that they sought
and welcomed the mediatory assistance of the impartial chairman, and
in both hosiery and men's clothing, Taylor frequently paid tribute to
the far-sightedness of the parties in making the arbitration experiment
workable.

OTHER ARBITRATION ACTIVITY

During the 1930s Taylor was named to a number of single-company-

single-union impartial chairmanships; he was particularly pleased that
some of his appointments as impartial chairman never resulted in cases
that had to be decided. He was convinced that the institution of the
chairmanship with its escape-valve potential had succeeded in encour-
aging the parties to resolve grievances on their own.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.