In a recently published new statistical pamphlet by Mr. Kozminyкh-Lanin, an extraordinarily acute question for Russian workers is examined—that of overtime work.

It must be noted that the statistical data cited by Kozminyкh-Lanin refer to the single year 1908 and concern exclusively the workers of Moscow Province. Moreover, the figures of 1908 must now appear quite outdated, especially if one bears in mind that 1908 was a year of industrial stagnation, and that after it the development of Russian industry was characterized by industrial expansion, and consequently by intensified demand for labor. This, in turn, must have contributed to the widespread application of overtime work in a whole series of industrial branches.

Kozminyкh-Lanin's data (a factory inspector of Moscow Province) undoubtedly bear a semi-official character—collected through questioning of factory owners—and therefore must be approached with a certain degree of caution; nevertheless, one cannot fail to accord them the most serious attention. First of all, the literature on this question is so impoverished in Russia that every work must be utilized here; and besides, even this semi-official statistics provides us with a great deal of interesting material.

Mr. Kozminyкh-Lanin surveyed in total 112,380 workers at 152 predominantly large enterprises of Moscow Province; textile industry occupied the predominant place in the investigation.

From the figures presented in the pamphlet it follows that overtime work in the textile industry of the Moscow district does not have wide distribution. Thus, of 59,000 surveyed workers engaged in cotton processing, only 767 workers were occupied with holiday overtime work. A considerably larger number was occupied with overtime work on weekdays (1,717 persons), but even here the percentage fluctuates within 1–2% of the total number. This is understandable, since textile industry technically requires at any given moment a more or less predetermined quantity of labor; and besides, 1908 was a year far from favorable for textile industry. Entrepreneurs were often more interested in reducing production than in increasing the productivity of enterprises through the application of overtime work.

A different picture is presented by another major branch of industry—metalworking. Here overtime work is practiced widely, sometimes encompassing up to 20% of the total number of workers.

As regards the duration of overtime work, according to Kozminyкh-Lanin's data, it generally fluctuates for both metalworkers and textile workers from 25 to 35 hours per worker engaged in overtime (counting both weekday and holiday work). A very large figure. These 30 hours of free time on average, taken away by overtime earnings, go, of course, entirely to the detriment of the worker's cultural and intellectual development.

Let us see what workers receive for the intellectual squandering of their labor, muscles, nerves… Mr. Kozminyкh-Lanin calculates in great detail the hourly compensation of workers for overtime work across various branches. And here we see that this work among textile workers is paid on average at merely 15–16 kopecks per hour—rarely higher. Increasing somewhat by April and September, prices then fall again in December–February to 13 kopecks. Particularly paltry are the earnings at woolen weaving factories; thus, for the month of March the average payment per hour amounted here to only 6.75 kopecks for Sunday and holiday work. What then must the ordinary wage be at such rates!

Not much better than textile workers is compensated, as is evident from the tables, the labor of metalworkers; his average earnings fluctuate from 13 to 20 kopecks per overtime hour. In general, the movement and magnitude of the overtime rates of Moscow metalworkers clearly shows how unfavorable are the conditions of labor here compared even to Petersburg.

As a result of all overtime work, Moscow workers receive mere kopecks.

Thus, the average monthly earnings from overtime equaled:

[Table omitted in source text]

In conclusion, it must be emphasized that Mr. Kozminyкh-Lanin's investigation almost entirely failed to touch upon the chief focus of overtime work—small-scale industry (only 1.45% of the surveyed workers were occupied in establishments encompassing fewer than 100 persons). Meanwhile, an examination of labor conditions in small-scale industry would undoubtedly have yielded striking results.

"Prosveshchenie" No. 5, May 1914. Signed: I. V.

Printed according to the text of the journal "Prosveshchenie"