THE ITN - PRODUCTIVENESS OF BRITISH LABOUR.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] have always admired your earnest endeavours to be fair and to look at both sides of every question, but your article in the Spectator of December 29th on " The Unproductiveness of British Labour " is an illustration of how difficult it is for an outsider to understand the whole of any case. I cordially agree with your reprobation of the want of conscience on the part of some workmen, and have often felt that I should like to kick them, especially some of the Vestry employ4s. But this lack of conscience is equally characteristic of some in every class of the community. The gist of your accusation, however, is that Trade-Unions foster this vice. If this is true it might easily be proved by reference to the roles—which are not difficult to obtain—of the Trade-Unions, and until this is done I shall continue to disbelieve the assertion. I have been a Trade-Union secretary for upwards of twenty-five years, and was for some years a delegate on the London Trades Council, yet never heard so much as a hint of any limitations as to the amount of work a man should do. I can speak posi- tively for a large section of Trade-Unions, with which I am intimately connected, that no such rules or regulations exist, or have even been imputed by employers in the con- ferences held with them from time to time. Moreover, there is a tendency on the part of some employers to sub- stitute time for piece work, a fact which tells aeainst the assertion that time-workers are habitually dishonest. That there is malingering, or, as we term it, "miking," is certain; but it is the fault of individuals and not of Trade- Unions, which resolutely condemn it. Such " miking " is usually due to the laxness or incompetence of the overseer or employer. I have known cases of overseers deliberately keeping back work in order that overtime might be made. In all cases where loitering exists the employer must bear at least a portion of the blame for his own negligence or igno- rance, for he surely ought to know whether a department is paying or working to its full capacity. A portion of the odium which attaches to Trade-Unions arises from the prac- tice of some men seeking to shelter themselves under cover of the Union for acts which would be repudiated if known to the trade society. Considering that some employers contrive to exact the full amount possible for the men to produce, and then try to squeeze more, it is not surprising that men some- times cry out for a limitation of the amount exacted; but I do not know of an instance in which the trade society has yielded to such a demand. The dislike shown by some trade societies, though not by all, to piece-work arises from the fact that it causes more disputes and greater friction than time-work, and is constantly taken advantage of by the employer in ways which it would take too long to enumerate here, though I should like very much to describe the advantages and disadvantages of piece-work. Your statement of the inferior productiveness of British labour, compared with that of the United States and other nationalities, reminds me of the old axiom that nothing is so fallacious as facts,—except figures. To institute a just com- parison regard should be had to the differing conditions. In the United States, for instance, labour is paid at about twice our rate, and labour-saving machines and the subdivision of labour are consequently carried to a much greater extent than here, while machinery is driven at a far higher speed. All this tends to greater productiveness, but it is production of things of a uniform pattern, so that this country is still, I believe, pre-eminent in those industries in which there is a demand for objects—furniture, for example—of a special design. People here are not yet educated to a liking for having every article exactly like their neighbours', nor are all Americans, or they would not deal . with us to the extent they do. Instances of the extraordinary subdivision of labour and the greater use of machinery, with their conse- quent greater productiveness, in America are given in the Labour Gazette of December last, wherein it is stated, among other examples, that "in the case of hogs the felling, skinning, cutting up, and hanging in the cooling room are completed in thirty-two minutes, during which the hog is handled by one hundred and twenty-five men, each man having one operation to perform." To compare such systems of working with ours is futile and fallacious. If the methods would be advantageous here let them be adopted by employers, but do not blame workpeople for working in accordance with the systems laid down for them by employers, who complain of the want of technical education in the workman and yet hr.7e far more need of it themselves.—I am, Sir, &c., W. 0. PEACOCK.
[We publish Mr. Peacock's able and interesting letter with great pleasure. If all the trade societies showed the moderation and temper he displays in controversy we should
hear far less of labour disputes. We cannot admit, however, that his personal experience is in any sense conclusive on the question at issee.—ED. Spectator.)
Previous page
