fference in net advantage, and possibly the most
important, is that represented by differences in the regularity of
employment in different sections of a trade or industry. This type of
difference is exemplified in the work of longshoremen and lumbermen;
some men being engaged on one type of work are employed regularly,
while men engaged on other jobs are employed irregularly or casually. It
is frequently claimed that irregular or casual work should be paid at
higher rates than regular work. The justice of this claim seems
apparent. Irregularity of work is undoubtedly a great handicap to the
workman who seeks to maintain a well ordered life. Extra payment for
irregularity of employment is a burden which can fairly be put upon an
industry, or section of an industry--even if the irregularity is
unavoidable. Yet the consequences of such a policy of "nominal
variation" may be undesirable. It has been revealed by experience that
there are some workmen who prefer irregular or casual work to regular
work. And if higher wage rates are paid for irregular work this
preference--an undesirable one, from the point of view of the
community--is apt to be strengthened. On the other hand, it is usually
true that only a small percentage of workmen prefer casual work to
regular work. Most men engage in casual work because they cannot secure
regular work.

As was well established in the Court of Enquiry on the work and wages of
transport workers (Great Britain) held early in 1920, the only real
solution of the difficulty is the reorganization of the occupation so
that the irregular and casual work is reduced to a minimum. Until that
is accomplished, it is probable that the most advisable policy is to
grant "nominal variations" for casual and irregular employment. These
variations should not be so great as to influence the run of workmen to
prefer casual work. The total earnings from regular work should be
higher. Another policy that may be practicable, in many cases, is to
define a minimum period of employment for all workmen engaged.[98] Such
a policy puts strong pressure upon the industry to cut down irregularity
of employment. Against such a policy stand the practical difficulties
involved in determining the basis of any scheme of "nominal variations."

The whole question is well surveyed in a decision of the Commonwealth
Court of Australia which reads in part as follows: "The casual hand, I
propose to define as an employee who is not