those workers employed at the points which are supposed to
possess the smaller advantages, natural or acquired, are not likely to
support an unmodified application of the principle of standardization,
unless they believe the consequent industrial changes will be
beneficial, or at least not harmful, to themselves. The advice, if not
the concurrence, of all interested parties is of the greatest value in
arriving at a satisfactory determination. A good example of such an
arrangement is to be found in the agricultural living wage legislation
in Great Britain. It is provided therein that "When a district committee
has been established for any area, it shall be the duty of the Committee
to recommend to the Agricultural Wages Board, minimum rates of wages
fixed under this act, and no variation or cancellation of such a rate
shall have effect within that area unless ... recommended by the
district wages committee."[88]

3.--Another possible ground for limitation or variation of the principle
of standardization is set forth often in the contention that the
character of the work performed by any large group of wage earners is
not the same throughout the field of its employment. Such, for example,
was the argument of the directors of the American railways, as
summarized by Mr. Stockett: "... The railways oppose district
standardization on the ground that rates cannot be disassociated from
conditions and since conditions vary widely on different roads in such
extensive territories as the railway districts they maintain that rates
cannot be made uniformly applicable on all the roads. The amount of
compensation, the roads hold, is governed by the labor performed, the
skill and efficiency required, the responsibility and hazard involved,
the discipline necessary, the rapidity of promotion, and the cost of
living."[89]

It is plain that the point of view which inspires the above argument is
at variance with the beliefs that are behind the movement for wage
standardization. The argument accords no validity to the belief that
group unity and group aims deserve recognition in the settlement of
wages. The doctrine of standardization on the contrary represents this
belief, and sets groups standards above the existence of minor
difference in the work performed by the group. The practical
consequences of any wage policy which gave full recognition to these
minor differences must also be weighed. These have been vigorously
stated, for the