A comparison of the effect of the depression of 1893-1897 on the Typographical Union and on the Brotherhood of Carpenters makes the point still clearer.  In 1893 when the depression set in the per capita expenditure of the Typographical Union for beneficiary features was $1.50, while that of the Carpenters was $1.40.  The death benefit in the Carpenters’ union was graded in such a way as to offer an additional incentive to retain membership.  The two unions were, as far as the development of benefits is concerned, on about the same plane.  As has been noted above, the Printers lost almost none of their members.  The Carpenters lost from 1893 to 1895 over half of their membership.  The following table shows the membership of the Carpenters by years from 1890 to 1900: 

1890....53,769      1894....33,917       1898....31,508
1891....56,937      1895....25,152       1899\
1892....51,313      1896....29,691            ...68,463
1893....54,121      1897....28,209       1900/

It is obvious that beneficiary features are only one of several factors in retaining membership.

How far benefits attract members into the unions it is difficult to estimate.  In the Cigar Makers’ Union, the membership in 1880 was 4440, while in 1881 it was 14,604, an increase of 228 per cent.  The increase in 1880 over 1879 had, however, been very large.  How far the rapid increase in 1881 was due to the development of the beneficiary system and how far to the natural growth consequent upon a period of industrial activity can only be conjectured.  In much the same way the rapid increase in the membership of the Iron Molders, from 20,920 on January 1, 1896, to 41,189 on January 1, 1900, was certainly not due primarily to the introduction of the sick benefit into that union.[7] The Boot and Shoe Workers introduced a system of sick benefits on January 1, 1900.  At that time the union had a membership of 2910; at the close of the year the members numbered 10,618, and on January i, 1904, the number had increased to 69,290.[8] This phenomenal increase was not due chiefly to the desire of the boot and shoe workers to insure themselves against illness, but to the policy of the union in unionizing shoe plants by a liberal granting of the use of the label.

[Footnote 7:  Iron Molders’ Journal, Vol. 33, p. 73; Vol. 36, p. 78.]

[Footnote 8:  Proceedings of the Fifth Convention, Detroit, 1902; Shoe Workers’ Journal, Vol. 5, February, 1904, pp. 19, 25.]

The causes of an increase in membership are usually so intertwined that nothing can be proved statistically as to the effect of the introduction of beneficiary systems.  The executive officers of the unions with beneficiary features are, however, a unit in declaring that the desire to secure the advantage of the benefits does attract members.[9]

[Footnote 9:  Barbers’ Journal, Vol. 10, p. 10; Shoe Workers’ Journal, Vol. 2, April, 1901, p. 6.]