17 



One of the most frequent complaints by workmen against ' scientific ' 

 systems is that, by increasing the output per worker, they create 

 unemployment. It is the opinion of many investigators of the system 

 that the effects in this respect differ in degree in specialised and general 

 shops. In the general shop, a system of strong inducements to a big 

 hourly or daily output does produce unemployment, because it prevents 

 the " nursing of work " and causes men to crowd the greatest possible 

 output into one day or week, even if they have to stand off the next. 

 These conditions exist also in the specialised shop, but not in the same 

 degree, because it is possible for a shop that is making for stock to 

 preserve a more regular level of output. 



It is not, I think, generally realised what an enormous proportion 

 of the unemployment in many industries really consists in ' standing 

 off ' for a few days or weeks. This temporary unemployment is the 

 worker's curse ; for it means that he bears the burden out of his wages 

 of maintaining himself during slackness of work as part of the employer's 

 reserve of labour. The adoption of ' scientific ' systems of payment, 

 which give the worker an* inducement to ' go all out ' irrespective of 

 the volume of work available, undoubtedly tends to increase the amount 

 of temporary unemployment, and this is one of the most serious 

 criticisms that can be levelled against it a criticism which could only 

 be surmounted by placing the whole burden of such unemployment 

 upon the industry itself. 



Economists and employers are very apt to scout the idea that there 

 is any truth in the workmen's claim that ' scientific ' systems of induce- 

 ment to output produces unemployment ; but I think the above para- 

 graphs show clearly one point wherein the workmen's contention is 

 true. 



Out of this long survey I can now proceed to draw together the 

 threads of a conclusion. 



In the first place, there is no essential or necessary connection between 

 the application of scientific principles to industry and the adoption of 

 fancy systems of payment which are unintelligible to the ordinary 

 workman. These systems are uniformly false to their own premises, 

 in that they do not provide for remuneration according to output or 

 effort. They are not ' scientific,' both because science cannot determine 

 the amount of payment that ought to be made, because science cannot 

 show whether the standard should be based on the exceptional, the 

 average, or the ordinary worker, and because their effect in respect of 

 earnings depends upon the arbitrary fixing of a standard by the manage- 

 ment, or by bargaining between the management and the workers. 

 They are perhaps less unjust in their application to repetition than to 

 individual jobs ; but they are also less necessary, because the more 

 automatic the machine the less control, generally speaking, has the 

 worker over his or her output. They are fundamentally unjust in 

 their application to individual work, because on much work of such 

 a class it is impossible to set an absolute and invariable standard, and 

 also because the conditions under which such work has to be performed 



