S

anything be more ridiculous? If I might be permitted to express an opinion, based upon experience of every conceivable system of wage-earning, it would be that I prefer piecework. Nothing is more soul-destroying than the awful monotony of making countless numbers of the same thing day after day. If payment is by the hour the tendency is to 'lag' because the pay is sure regardless of output, and one cannot help 'lagging' at times. On the other hand, when a man is paid only for what he does he has an added interest in the job, which somewhat tends to relieve the monotony and produce better results.

Where payment by results operates the unions insist upon limitation of earnings, and the man who overbooks is severely dealt with. What is this but a form of 'ca' canny'? In fairness to the unions it should be stated that they have some reason for this action. Many employers reduce prices immediately a man earns more than usual, thus penalising the whole shop. In those shops where time-work prevails, the shop steward has a record of the time taken on each job, and the newcomer is informed that he must keep strictly to those times. Some workers are naturally quick and cannot work slowly. Such a man will be called all sorts of uncomplimentary names, and in order to conform to discipline, he idles his time away. I have known of cases where quick workers have had their tools broken or stolen in order to retard them. At one shop I worked in some years ago I was able to do my day's work in two hours, the rest of the day was spent in killing time.'

These things do not happen where co-partnership, or any other profit-sharing scheme, operates. The worker is then a shareholder, consequently he not only works conscientiously, but he makes it his business to prevent his shopmates 'slacking.' Production is accelerated and workmanship improves. Unlike the old craftsman of thirty years ago, the modern mechanic takes little pride in his work. That's good enough. It's not my job anyway,' is too often the usual workshop comment. Prejudiced opposition to improved machinery on the part of the workers is another source of hindrance to progress. When the first Gisholts, Jones and Lamson's, and Herbert Lathes were put into service the employers

had the greatest difficulty in the world to find operators. Craft-prejudiced mechanics refused to have anything to do with them. They are only 'boy's' machines I have heard many say. As a result the employers were compelled to train unskilled men for the purpose, and now union men are screaming because they experience difficulty in claiming these machines for full-rated men.

There has been no little trouble recently at a certain South London institution. It appears that the members of two separate unions were employed in installing the hot and cold water service, and the members of one union objected to members of the other fixing hot-water pipes. Unable to arrive at an amicable arrangement a strike ensued and work stopped. This little affair cost the authorities some 15,000l. In the Dock area demarcation of work is an ever-recurring source of friction and stoppage. The boilermakers claim work which is also claimed by engineers. Engineers and plumbers are continually at one another's throats over the question of pipe fitting. Shipwrights and carpenters fight as to who should fix 'grounds' and 'cants.' Joiners and upholsterers cannot solve the knotty problem of laying linoleum. In America a man is permitted to do any work he is capable of; whereas in England it is a common thing for boilermakers, after completing their 'legitimate' work to boiler doors, to have to wait about until the fitter comes along and does his bit. Although the boilermaker is capable of doing the work, union rules say that none but fitters shall do it. Change of material and improved methods are largely responsible for demarcation disputes, but surely in the interests of British industry, the application of a little common sense should settle these problems once and for all. A drastic revision of union rules and practices is essential.

As I have been frank about the shortcomings of the unions, so will I be equally frank in discussing managerial faults. Any one with the years of workshop experience that I have had must have noticed that however comfortable' a shop may be, a feeling of bitter hostility exists between workmen and the management. Prominent trade-union leaders have joined well-known captains of industry in appealing for a better feeling, more harmony, and less distrust between workers and

employers. Highly placed politicians and industrial psychologists have discoursed learnedly and feelingly about the irritating effects of toil, fatigue, and monotony, urging that by the application of psychological methods work would be made more palatable. It would appear that all these estimable gentlemen argue from the standpoint that human beings have a natural aversion to work of any kind, although it is encouraging to note from his speech, at the dinner of the National Institute of Industrial Psychology, that Mr Stanley Baldwin does not share this view.

The assumption that workers take a delight in avoiding work is a fallacy; at least such is my experience. 'I like to be busy. The time passes more quickly and pleasantly,' is a common workshop observation, especially amongst the artisan class, and this truth is not surprising when one remembers that any normally active individual would much rather be usefully employed than engaged in the tiresome task of killing time. But what can one expect when men are in daily fear of the sack,' when they receive no appreciation for extra effort, and when they see wasteful administration and obsolete methods. Employers and politicians, trade-union leaders and psychologists, alike seem to miss the salient factor in industry, the desire for continuity of livelihood. It is the fear of the sack that determines the action of the workers. A man does not 'ca' canny' because he likes it; on the contrary, he hates it-it is against his better nature. That some men have an innate hatred of work of any kind under any conditions cannot be disputed; but the great majority of workers will, given reasonable security, do their work conscientiously. The average mechanic, when given a new job, will study the drawing and cudgel his brains in order to devise ways and means of getting through the job as expeditiously as possible. The theory of the class struggle, antagonism of interests, has no meaning for him. He has no politics. All that he is concerned about is to prove himself the master of the material that he is called upon to mould.

The inevitable corollary of this characteristic is an intense hatred of wasteful administration, and such is the order of the day in British industry. Not so very

long ago I was working in a big mass production factory. In my shop there were twenty mechanics, yet the administrative side carried a foreman and assistant foreman, two bonus clerks, and six examiners. In addition, there were departmental managers, foremen, underforemen, ratefixers, bonus clerks, and examiners, plus the big office staff. It is calculated that every producer in this works carries at least one non-producer. Trade Union regulations do not interfere with the administrative side of a business, which is entirely regulated by the employer. What has happened is that, during the war, office staffs were enormously increased in order to cope with the extra work entailed by the demand for munitions; and when the slump came, in 1920, managerial staffs were not reduced in the same proportion as the reduction in the number of workmen. It appears to be a peculiarity of British industry that the position of clerk is usually regarded as a permanency, whilst that of the mechanic is dependent on the state of the trade. It is a noticeable fact that when work falls slack it is not usually the non-producers whose services are dispensed with. Whilst at this shop I saw two men sacked at the usual hour's notice at 10.30 one Monday morning. Slackness was the reason. When this sort of thing happens, is it to be wondered at that the worker, although trying out quick methods of production, prolongs the actual operation? Why,' says he, 'should I use my brains and work hard whilst these chaps are walking about doing nothing? As soon as work falls off I shall get the sack.'

Another great fault in management is that most work examiners are precision mad. To ensure interchangeability of parts accuracy is, of course, essential; but, to use a workshop colloquialism, there's a difference between scratching one's head and tearing it to pieces. Accuracy is demanded where it is absolutely unnecessary. I have had threads returned to me because they were five thousandths under size. When one knows that the nuts are screwed down tightly and then pinned to prevent them working loose, such fussiness is absurd and tends to irritate. Moreover, if the viewer has a complex against a man he will reject work for the flimsiest of faults, and nothing is more calculated to make a skilled

man cross than to have to go over his work again in order to satisfy the fussiness of the viewer. I can say from bitter experience that much friction arises from these pinpricks, and production necessarily suffers.

The reiterated complaint of the employers is that business does not pay. Has not Sir Allan Smith said this times out of number? Unfortunately for the employers, employees are now able to get hold of balance sheets, and sometimes catalogues, wherefrom they learn that the margin of profit is by no means moderate and that big engineering firms are still able to pay fair dividends. It is a well-known fact that engineering capital was very well watered during the war. I have before me the spare part catalogue of a British firm of manufacturers whose shop I am familiar with. An article costing at the outside-including material-27. 10s. to make, is listed at 187. A spindle costing three shillings to produce is priced at 11. 5s. Making all allowances for overhead charges the margin of profit is, to say the least, excessive. The system of management in British works needs revision equally with union rules.

After reading the opinions of various captains of industry as to what is required to resuscitate British engineering, one fears to enter the lists. Being a worker I should probably be accused of bias towards the workers. Perhaps I can best explain my views by describing the line of action I would adopt were I ever fortunate or unfortunate enough-according to the point of view-to become an employer. I would commence by abolishing all irritating restrictions. Should a man be late to work he should not be sent home for the day or be required to hang about for an hour. A reasonable time after schedule would be allowed, after which the minutes late would be recorded against the delinquent, the total being deducted at the week end. Payment by results, no restriction of earnings, and no unnecessary cutting of prices, would be the shop practice. Every man would be encouraged to improve methods and develop initiative. When new ideas proved successful the man would be suitably recompensed and in every way appreciated. A few apprentices would be articled and given a thorough training. Men would be permitted to smoke all through the day if they wished to, and no