Page images
PDF
EPUB

the most competent British and foreign observers. It was referred to in the report, "Regulation and Restriction of Labor," published by the United States Department of Commerce and Labor in 1904.

A PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION

The late Mr. Frederick W. Taylor, the eminent American efficiency engineer, wrote to me in 1913:

Years ago I arrived at the conclusion that under-production was the most serious problem which England had to face, and in my lectures in this country I have almost invariably spoken of this, pointing out the fact that the English people -including their political leaders and the leaders of the trade unions-were, as we put it, "barking up the wrong tree" in their effort to ameliorate the condition of the working men.

No amount of readjustment of the joint rewards of labor and capital can make the English working man materially better off. Their only hope lies in an increase in individual output throughout the country.

I know case after case in England where they use exactly the same machines as in this country, but at far less horse-power and at far less speed than they should be run, and in a manner so as to turn out nothing like half the work that is being turned out in this country; and this is due, not to the lack of proper machinery, but to the almost unalterable determination of every workman in England to turn out as little work as possible each day in return for the money which he receives. This with the English workmen is almost a religion.

In 1882, when I was a foreman in the machine shop of the Midvale Steel Company. I first became thoroughly convinced of this fact. At that time the steel business in this country was comparatively in its infancy, and it was impossible for us to get skilled American workmen to carry on the steel business. There was at that time quite a large English immigration of skilled steel workers to this country, and we had to depend for some time upon these men to do our work. At that time there were no trade unions in the steel business to speak of in this country (at least, they were not powerful). In spite of this fact, however, I soon found that every English workman was doing everything in his power, first, to restrict his own output, and, second, to induce every other workman around him to restrict output to the maximum possible extent. After one or two years of unremitting, kindly effort, I found that it was ab

solutely impossible to persuade the English workmen that it was to their interest to turn out a proper day's work, or even to stop them in their campaign of persuading and bulldozing American workmen into adopting their theories as to the necessity for restricting output. As a result of this we were compelled, in our steel works, to absolutely make it a rule never to employ English workmen. From this time forward, even with unskilled American stock, we were able to make extremely rapid progress. Our workmen had not yet been inoculated with this terribly pernicious fallacy that restriction of output was a necessity for the prosperity of the workman.

To illustrate the restriction of output, we had in our works a locomotive and car wheel tire rolling machine, which was bought from Tangye Brothers in England, and all the apparatus connected with this machine came from England. We had a splendid set of English workmen-that is, they were fine fellows, and were very skilled workers and personally not lazy or shiftless-to run this machine. And yet, after working at it for three or four years, they refused to turn out more than fifteen tires a day. We called their attention over and over again to the fact that at this rate of production we were making no profit whatever; that it was absolutely necessary to increase the production of this machine. All our persuasion and all our talk were of no avail whatever, and we were finally obliged to discharge the whole lot of them, to get every man outside of the works and ourselves to train in an entirely new and green set of American workmen, who had never seen a machine of this sort. Within three months after training them in we had increased the output from fifteen to twenty-five tires a day, and this output went on, right on the same machine, increasing, until, three or four years later, we had an output of 150 tires a day.

The great obstacle which you have to overcome in England is not the unwillingness of the manufacturers to use modern machinery, but the unwillingness of your workmen to properly use modern machinery after it is installed.

[blocks in formation]

Between 1890 and 1913 English iron production increased by 20%, while German iron production increased by more than 300%. In 1890 England produced almost twice as much iron as Germany, while in 1913 Germany produced almost twice as much iron as the United Kingdom. In steel the position had changed no less strikingly to England's disadvantage. Commenting upon the rapid expansion of the formerly insignificant German iron and steel industry and upon the utter stagnation of the English iron and steel trade, which used to dominate the world, an authoritative German technical handbook," Gemeinfassliche Darstellung des Eisenhüttenwesens," Düsseldorf, 1912, stated:

No land on earth is as favorably situated for iron production as is England. Extensive deposits of coal and iron, easy and cheap purchase of foreign raw materials, a favorable geographical position for selling its manufactures, reinforced by the great economic power of the State, made at one time the island kingdom industrially omnipotent throughout the world. Now complaints about constantly increasing foreign competition become from day to day more urgent. These are particularly loud with regard to the growing power of the German iron industry. * 串本

The German trade unions, with their Socialist ideas, are opposed to progress. If their aspirations should succeed, the German iron industry would be ruined. An attempt on the part of the German trade unions to increase the earnings of the skilled workers by limiting the number of apprentices, the imitation of the policy which has been followed by the British trade unions, would produce a scarcity of skilled workers in .Germany as it has in England. The British iron industry should be to us Germans a warning example. The English trade unions with their shortsighted championship of labor, with their "ca' notorious policy of canny" (the limitation of output), and with their hostility to technical improvements, have seriously shaken the powerful position of the British iron trade.

DOUBLE DANGER TO ENGLAND

The war had disclosed the fact that under-production had endangered not only the economic position of England but the political and military position of the country as well. Germany's extraordinary power of resistance was very

largely due to the fact that she produced far more iron and steel than all the other European countries combined. Awakened to the danger, the British Government appointed committees to inquire into the position of various important trades. Some of them stated that England's inferiority in production and the stagnation of her industries, if compared with those of Germany and of the United States, were largely due to the restrictive policy pursued by organized labor. For instance, the Government report on the engineering trades stated:

Nearly every employer who appeared before us had the same story to tell. Whilst alleging that the British mechanic stands second to none of the mechanics of the world-that his skill, initiative and adaptability enable him readily to cope with all engineering manufacturing difficulties each employer in turn complained of two things. The first complaint was that the workman deliberately restricts his output below that which represents a reasonable day's work, and that this deliberate restriction does ultimately have a serious effect on his character and makes him physically incapable of producing a reasonable days' work through habit which this restriction engenders.

The second complaint was that the restrictions imposed by trade union rules class as skilled work (a definition which can be determined by the rate of pay) that which is in fact unskilled work. These two points seem to include the main difficulties with which employers have to contend, and which present a most grave aspect if they are to continue after the war, in face of the great national problems which will then demand solution. We are satisfied that both these allegations are founded on fact.

The trade unions have in the past been very reluctant to admit piece rates. Indeed, even now, some of the unions forbid their members to accept piece rates where these have not previously been in force, and where piecework has been started the members are asked to discourage it as much as possible. It has also been evidenced to us that cases have occurred wherein, should the men earn more than time and a third, they have been fined by their unions.

Another Government report on "The Position of the Iron and Steel Trades After the War" stated under the heading "Iron Castings":

The trade suffers considerably from restriction of output by employes, and it is well known that although foundry work

ers earn higher wages in the United States, the wages cost of certain standard articles produced in both countries is considerably lower in the United States (because of larger output per worker).

With regard to wire and wire nails the same report informs us:

The manufacture of wire and wire nails is hampered in this country by the rules of the Workmen's Society of Wire-Drawers that no man should take charge of more than two wire-drawing blocks, whereas in Germany and America no limit is placed upon the number of blocks an individual workman may attend.

If the British iron and steel industries as a whole are to regain their place in the trade of the world, restriction of output must be definitely abandoned. Whether it be used as a policy to be pursued or as an economic weapon, restriction of output is economically unsound and is utterly harmful, not only to the present prosperity, but also to the future progress of British industries.

LOSS OF SUPREMACY

England's economic supremacy was based on her extraordinary superiority in production and trade. Toward the middle of the last century the United Kingdom was the manufacturer, trader, shipper, engineer, banker and financier of the world. England produced twothirds of the world's coal and two-thirds of the world's iron and steel. She worked up two-thirds of the world's cotton and possessed two-thirds of the world's shipping. Largely owing to the policy of restriction practiced by British labor, England's superiority has declined, and the effect of introducing the best laborsaving machinery has been completely nullified. Coal is the basis of the British manufacturing industries. Coal production per worker per day has shrunk as follows:

1880.... 1.33 tons. 1910.
1890.
1900.

..1.08 ..1.10

1.00 tons.

1913.......0.93 1918. .....0.80

"

[ocr errors]

Since 1880 production per man has shrunk 39.85 per cent. The English miner's week consists of five shifts. As the American miner produces on an average nearly four tons of coal per day, the American miner produces practically as much coal in a single day as a highly skilled English miner does in an entire week. Even in the American anthracite

[ocr errors]

mines, where coal cutting machinery is not used, production per man is practically three times as great as in England.

The English workers, in their determination to keep output low, discourage the introduction of modern machinery. Very frequently the workers refuse to produce any more with the best new machinery than they did with the most inefficient old machines. Employers are thus discouraged to modernize their plants. In many cases the workers refuse to use new labor-saving machinery. Largely for this reason the introduction of the automatic loom and of many other labor-saving machines has been impossible. The English workers are almost as hostile to improved machinery as they were during the machine-smashing period, when hand-loom weavers went about the country destroying the new power looms.

INJURY TO ALL CLASSES

During the war vast quantities of automatic machinery were introduced into English establishments. It was recognized that the damage caused by the war could be made good only by vastly increased production. However, during the war the power of organized labor had very greatly increased. The English trade unions, instead of increasing output, demanded higher and ever higher wages for a constantly decreasing prɔduction. Output per man is at present far lower than it was in 1913. Probably production has shrunk on an average by from 20 to 30 per cent. In some trades limitation of output has been particularly striking. The English bricklayer has reduced his production to a few hundred bricks per day. If one watches men at their work it becomes obvious that they find it exceedingly difficult to keep their output as low as has been arranged for by the unions.

Naturally the limitation of output creates universal scarcity and dearness. The price of clothes, boots, furniture, houses, &c., has increased fabulously; and as British exports, measured by weight, are considerably smaller than they were in 1913, England finds it difficult to buy abroad the indispensable food

and raw materials. These are unduly dear, and their price is still further enhanced by the unfavorable English exchange, which would easily be raised to the normal point if the workers would consent to do an honest day's work for the trebled wages which they receive. Naturally the professional mischief makers, the advocates of revolt and revolution, the Socialists, the Communists and the anarchists, voiciferously proclaim that the scarcity and dearness of all goods are due not to general slacking on the part of the workers, but to the wickedness of the capitalists, of the profiteers.

The great trade unions control many industries, not only because they have closed the vast majority of trades to free labor, but also because Parliament was shortsighted and weak enough to give to the trade unions a privileged position. For instance, as the law now stands, nobody is allowed to work in a coal mine unless he has worked in it under skilled supervision during two years. Hence, miners who have abandoned their work cannot be replaced by outsiders. A striking miner is perfectly certain that he cannot lose his job, that no other man will take his place in the mine.

SEEKING A SOLUTION

As organized labor has been given a preponderant position in many of the leading industries, many Englishmen, counting upon the innate conservativeness and good sense of the workers, would like to place industry under the joint control of capital and labor. That is the ideal toward which many politicians, economists, employers and publicists are striving. It remains to be seen whether the ideal of a copartnership between capital and labor is attainable or not.

Whether such a reorganization of industry will succeed or fail depends, of course, very largely upon the attitude of labor; it depends upon the question whether the workers will rather be guided by statesmen and honest men of enterprise or by cranks and professional mischief makers who are out not for reform, but for revolution. Unfortunately, so far it seems that the organized work

ers are more likely to be guided by the allurements of the advocates of disorder. For instance, in a "Memorandum on the Causes and Remedies for Labor Unrest," signed on behalf of labor by the Right Hon. Arthur Henderson and G. D. H. Cole and presented to the National Industrial Conference-the text is given in The London Times of March 27, 1919 -we read:

The fundamental causes of labor unrest are to be found rather in the growing determination of labor to challenge the whole existing structure of capitalist industry than in any of the more special and smaller grievances which come to the surface at any particular time. These root causes are twofold-the breakdown of the existing capitalist system of industrial organization, in the sense that the mass of the working class is now firmly convinced that production for private profit is not an equitable basis on which to build and that a vast extension of public ownership and democratic control of industry is urgently

necessary.

The second primary cause is closely linked with the first. It is that the workcrs can see no indication that either the Government or the employers have realized the necessity for any fundamental change, or that they are prepared even to make a beginning of industrial reorganization on more democratic principles. *

It is essential to question the whole basis on which our industry has been conducted in the past and to endeavor to find, in substitution for the motive of private gain, some other motive which will serve better as the foundation of a democratic system. This motive can be no other than the motive of public service. * This cannot be done SO long as industry continues to be conducted for private profit, and the widest possible extension of public ownership and democratic control of industry is therefore the first necessary condition of the removal of industrial unrest.

DRIFT TOWARD SOVIETISM A series of general suggestions for removing these causes of discontent is given in the memorandum. Among them are the following:

A substantial beginning of the institution of public ownership of the vital industries and services. Mines, railways, docks, shipping, &c., should be at once nationalized. Key industries and services should be at once publicly owned. There should be a great extension of municipal

ownership and co-operative control of local service. *

A graduated levy on capital, with an exemption for property up to £1,000.

This authoritative declaration of faith is thoroughly representative of the policy pursued by the continentalized section of English labor.

There is an unceasing struggle going on within the ranks of the trade unionists between the advocates of a sober and sensible policy and the extremists. Unfortunately, the extremist minority is only too frequently able to carry the moderate majority off its feet. One of the most eminent labor leaders, the Rt. Hon. J. H. Thomas, complained at Southport on May 30, 1920:

Half the difficulties we are experiencing are due to the fact that trade unionists always allow the minority to do their business.

Largely owing to promptings from Russian Bolsheviki, many labor leaders have been coquetting with the idea of using the power of organized labor for seizing the reins of Government, of replacing the elected government, based on the will of the majority of the people, by a government of trade union secretaries, more or less on Russian lines. Labor leaders have begun to interfere with the Government more and more frequently in purely political matters. They have tried to dictate the foreign policy of the country and have threatened to lame all the industries and to starve the nation into surrender unless the Government nationalizes the mines, abandons Poland to Russia, &c. The

creation of the Council of Action was an attempt to set up an alternative government, a kind of Central Soviet. The Rt. Hon. J. H. Thomas, a former Cabinet Minister, who tries at the same time to please the moderate and the extremist sections, frankly confessed that the creation of the Council of Action "meant a challenge to the whole constitution of the country, meant a fight against the Constitution."

While many eminent labor leaders try to conciliate the two sections of labor, desiring to place themselves at the head of that section which eventually may carry the day, others frankly confess that they would lead England toward revolution. Tom Mann, Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, expressed approval of all Lenin had done and proclaimed on Nov. 10, 1919, at the Kingsway Hall, London: "I will do my best to imitate Russia." George Lansbury, the editor of The Daily Herald, who was given £75,000 by the Russian Bolsheviki, wrote on July 7, 1920, in that paper: "Freedom is a bourgcois notion," and advocated the introduction of the dictatorship of the proletariat as in Russia, in innumerable articles and speeches. The Daily Herald is the principal labor paper in England. It is the only labor daily, and is published in several hundred thousand copies.

The forces of moderation and of revolution are contending for the control of the workers in England. Meanwhile the nation is declining and the workers are suffering want.

« PreviousContinue »