No other agency stands so little for efficient service as the employment bureau. Scorned by the scientific because of its unscientific methods; condemned by the honest and conscientious because of its unjust earnings and unscrupulous policies; despised by the employer because of its failure intelligently to meet his needs; ignored by the seeker for work because of its deceptive guarantees, the employment bureau is far from commanding the respect of the industrial world. Consequently, employer and employe usually dispense with its services, and the woman who is busy molding for herself a new industrial career gives little thought to so ineffective a method for determining the direction of that career.

There is, however, in this very tantalizing condition of the employment agency that which stimulates as well as irritates. For the existence of an agency which might be a real power, rather than a mere semblance of one, creates a desire to convert the useless into the useful. The awakening of such a desire has been demonstrated by the establishment within the last few years of a number of bureaus[41] which are attempting to render the real service of which an employment bureau is capable. Moreover, several excellent studies on the subject have been published,[42] setting forth the inadequacy of present agencies and looking toward the development of some plan by which such agencies could be helpful in solving the problem of the unemployed.

In one of these studies Mr. Devine states that the lack of employment is due to one of three causes:

1. Unemployableness because of inefficiency.

2. Lack of work.

3. Maladjustment—“The inability of people who want work to get quickly into contact with opportunities.”

He further states that the employment bureau can offer no remedy for the first condition, for in that case only education and training will be effective; neither can it remedy the difficulty due to excess of supply over demand for labor. It can, however, if properly managed, help correct the maladjustment.

All the studies above mentioned agree with the opinion of a number of writers[43] dealing in detail with the question of unemployment, that the existing agencies have not met this question of maladjustment. Many commercial agencies resort to “dishonorable practices and fraudulent methods.” The hunter for a job “becomes, because of his ignorance and necessities, a great temptation to an honest agent and a great opportunity to an unscrupulous one.” Only a small proportion of these agencies have been found efficient, honorable, or even systematic. The work of charitable employment bureaus—those conducted under the auspices or management of philanthropic organizations—has been found extremely “fragmentary, uncoördinated and meagre,” while their connection with charitable institutions has been of doubtful advantage. Trade unions also have been unable to deal effectively with their unemployed, or to attempt the formation of a systematic bureau.

Seemingly one of the simplest methods for employer and employe to find each other is the want column in the daily newspaper. But this method has proved too simple to be of more than nominal service. In the first place, careful investigation has conclusively shown that a large number of advertisements are either “fakes” or misrepresentations. The effect upon a girl of looking up several advertisements is marked. Her wearisome efforts and wanderings are usually rewarded either by finding the place taken or misrepresented, or by meeting with inexcusable carelessness and indifference on the part of the advertiser. Hence she is convinced that there are no real or serious wants for “Help—Female.” A condition of which much complaint is made is the insertion of an advertisement and then a failure to give instructions to those with whom applicants will first come into contact. Consequently, when a girl appears to inquire for the work she is often told by an uninterested stenographer that no help is wanted. It such a case recently it was only by accidentally meeting the employer on the elevator that the writer discovered that there was an open position. Another employer had advertised in the morning paper, but had left his office before nine o’clock. His secretary could give no idea of the time of his return, or of the work desired. A number of applicants, she said, had already been there, but would have to come again. This waste of time, energy and carfare could be easily prevented by a bit of foresight and consideration. The employer may reply that the irresponsible girl fails him just as often. But surely the method of unfairness on both sides will never straighten out the tangle, and the employer by nature of his position and superior breadth of view, is the one to set the example of fairness.

The free state employment bureaus which have been established in several states are described, in the inquiries above referred to, as involved in politics and hence rendering a service perfunctory and inefficient. Miss Abbott calls attention to the fact that in these bureaus “no man is working on the general problem of unemployment and bringing the entire prestige of the state and its financial expenditures to bear on its solution.” Also she notes that the combination of inspection of private bureaus with the duties of the superintendent of the state employment office prevents both good inspection and good administration.