THE ADVANTAGES OF PIECEWORK.
THERE is one feature of the coal crisis which deserves special examination. Although the coal miners have made no proposal for the general abolition of piecework, it is clear that the demand for the establishment of a, minimum wage and the manner in. which it is pressed cuts at the root of the piecework system. The essence of that system is that a man should be paid in pro- portion to his output. If, in addition, he is to be guaranteed a minimum wage one of two things must happen. Either the minimum must be put far below the average man's ordinary earnings, or the risk must be incurred of a great many men not doing a fair day's work in return for the guaranteed wage. The former alternative is ruled out by the men themselves. They obviously con- ceive of a minimum wage as a substitute, or, at any rate, a partial substitute for their ordinary earnings. This is proved by the fact that the minima suggested vary in different coalfields from as much as 7s. 6d. down to 4s. lid. These figures imply that the men claim as the basis of the minimum wage approximately what they can earn under normal conditions. Parenthetically, it may be remarked that the fact that men who are only earning 4s. lid. a day should go on strike in order that other men may be guaranteed 7s. 6d. a day is one of the paradoxes of the present crisis. But it is clear from the whole trend of the agitation that unless the colliers anticipated that a minimum wage would be a fair equivalent for their ordinary earnings they would not now be demanding it Therefore the employers would be put in this position, that, while they will still have to pay high wages to tilt.. men who are doing good work, they will also be compelled to pay an average wage to the men who are doing very little work. In other words, the masters will have the disadvantages of both systems ; the men will have the advantages of both: It may perhaps be argued that combinations of a minimum wage with piecework rates exist in other occupations. For example, it is not uncommon for commercial travellers to be guaranteed a fixed salary plus commission on the business they bring. But in all these cases it will probably be found that the fixed salary bears a very small proportion to the total earnings which the employee hopes to realize.
We must therefore treat the present agitation as being to a large extent an attack upon the piecework system of payment. That trade unions as corporate institutions are generally opposed to piecework rates has long been. notorious. They have, of course, had to accept such rates in many industries, of which the mining industry is one of the most important. But no one who is at all familiar with the trade-union movement will deny the fact that trade unions in the main prefer day work to piecework. The -ultimate reason is that day work puts all the workpeople on the same level, whereas piecework gives an advantage to the energetic and skilful man, and thus to a certain extent makes him unwilling to join a trade union. For the man who finds that he can on his own merits alone .command high earnings has no personal temptation to Join in a combination with men inferior to himself. It is because the trade unions are conscious of this fact that they set their faces not only against piece- work rates, but also against the payment of exceptionally high day rates. Every employer knows that he would rather pay a pound a day to some men than five shillings a.
day to others. But if ho were to start paying a higher rate to his better men, at once there would be grumbling among the average men. And from the point of view of the average man the grumbling is intelligible, for if the trade unions were to lose their best workers their collective power would be gone. That this would be a disaster to the working classes every thoughtful man will admit, and the real problem of trade unionism which the country now has to face is how to secure the advantages which collective action undoubtedly brings, while getting rid of the economic evils which result from the principles upon which trade unionists so frequently act. In particular trade unionism must be reconciled not only with the piecework system, but with the concession of opportunities to the better men to earn better wages. Unless this is done the tyranny of trade unionism will sooner or later become unendurable, for skilled men will not permanently submit to the limitation of their capacity, nor will the country as a whole endure the resulting reduction in the national output of wealth.
This issue is so clearly raised by the question of piece- work versus day work that it is well to examine a little more in detail the relative merits of the two systems. Holding as we do that the human interest comes first, we put the first advantage of piecework in the greater liberty it confers upon the individual work- man. When a man is working for day wages he is necessarily subject to the constant supervision of some foreman or superintendent. If he slackens for a moment he is conscious that he may receive a reprimand, to be possibly followed by dismissal on repetition of the offence. If, on i the other hand, he is working on piecework, he is not subject to the same close supervision because the employer knows that be has a sufficient motive of his own to work at as high a speed as his strength reasonably permits. Roughly speaking, the employer's supervision in the case of piecework is transferred from the workman to the work. The employer has to take care that the quality of the work is up to standard, and this consideration is the one which practically determines the division between piecework and day work. Wherever the quality of the work turned out by each individual man can be easily tested, the piecework system tends to prevail. Where, on the other hand, the nature of the work is such that its quality cannot be easily tested, day wages prevail, and as a result the workman himself is subject to a closer supervision. From the purely economic point of view the enormous advantage of piecework is that by adding to each workman's output it enables him to earn higher wages while reducing the cost of production, and through- out the industrial world it will generally be found that the best wages are earned on the piecework system. In some industries the contrast is enormous. Take, for example, the case of agriculture. The normal wages of the agricultural labourer are extremely low, but wherever an opportunity arises for giving an agricultural labourer a piecework job he is at once able to earn a fairly high wage, and the labourers look forward to the different piecework jobs as glorious opportunities for adding to their usually meagre wages. In the case of colliery work it is notorious that the coal getters, who are paid by the piece, normally earn very much more than the various men employed about the mines, who from the nature of the case must receive day wages.
So great, indeed, are the economic advantages of the piece- work system of payment that in cases where it is not directly applicable much ingenuity has been exerted in the devising of substitutes for it. One of these substitutes is known by the name of the " premium bonus " system. It is applied to cases where the work has to be paid for at a time rate. The foreman in consultation with the men fixes the time which a particular job ought to take. It is then agreed that each man shall receive the full trade union rate for the time he spends on the job. If, however, he succeeds in doing the work in less than the calculated time, he will in addition receive a substantial payment for every hour saved. He is thus encouraged to make the best use of the expensive machinery entrusted to his care, and as a result the output is increased and the cost of the fixed charges reduced. This system, which has been adopted in many private engineering firms, was a few years ago tentatively introduced into some of the Government dockyards, but from the moment of its introduction the trade unionists set their faces against it, realizing, as with piecework, that it tended to alienate the best workmen from the trade unions. A few days ago Mr. Churchill, in reply to a Socialist deputation, announced that the premium bonus system would be abandoned. No explanation was given by him of the reason for this course, and it is diffi- cult to avoid the conclusion that the abandonment is due not to the breakdown of the system but to the persistent opposition of the trade unions. If any other explanation exists it is unfortunate that Mr. Churchill has not yet made it public. We are inclined to believe that the solution of these problems which we have here vaguely indicated must ultimately be found in moral rather than economic considerations. The real trouble with trade unionism is that the trade unions have hitherto failed to realize the importance of giving good work in return for good wages. They are still obsessed with the old absurd delusion that they can improve their position not only by exacting good wages, which they have every right to do, but also by diminishing their output of work. Until the unions abandon this policy of ca' canny, and make it a rule of conduct for their members that every man must do his best in return for the wages he receives, their influence is bound to be injurious to the economic interests of the country, and also in the long run to the interests of their own trade and organization.
Previous page
