28 



I should not have any very great difficulty in accepting it. But the 

 allegation of fraud is misleading. The point of view which I wish to bring 

 forward is, broadly, that there is no fundamental difference between 

 straight piece work and the various systems of bonus ; the difference 

 between them is more a matter of convenience than of principle. 



Beginning with time work, Mr. Cole states that " the hourly rate 

 has reference to a more or less defined output .... while the piece 

 rate invariably has reference to a more or less defined standard of 

 living." Now the standard of living obviously depends on the wages 

 actually earned per week, and it is well known that piece work rates 

 are in fact regulated with the object of yielding a certain agreed increase 

 on the time rate. In both cases, therefore, a more or less defined 

 amount of work is expected for a certain payment. The difference is 

 chiefly an accepted difference in intensity of work. Day work speed is 

 admittedly not the best of which the workman is capable, while piece 

 work speed is supposed to be so, and the price per piece is calculated 

 to yield, at the supposed maximum intensity of effort, a definite pro- 

 portion above the time rate, say 25 per cent, or 33 per cent. Now, 

 all bonus systems start from the same point of view, namely, the fixing 

 of a standard output at the supposed maximum intensity of work 

 and the pay of something more than the day work rate for it. In 

 essence all three are task systems. Mr. Cole applies as the test to all 

 the bonus systems the piece price per article at various efficiencies of 

 production, and shows that in general the price per piece falls with 

 increased production. This test it seems to me is not vital the vital 

 question being the task set and the payment offered for it. The 

 variation of the payment above and below the task is rather a matter 

 of convenience than of principle. 



As there may still be some points raised by Mr. Cole with which I have 

 not dealt, I propose to run through his summary and to make any 

 further comments still needed. His first point is : " Fancy methods 

 of payment are unnecessary for the application of scientific principles 

 to industry." His objections to them are the falling piece rate, whicli 

 has already been dealt with, and their lack of scientific basis. To 

 support this he contends : 



" Science cannot determine the absolute amount of payment, but 

 only the relative amount as between one worker and another. 



" Science cannot show which worker to take as standard. 



" The effect on earnings depends on arbitrary fixing of standards 

 by the management. 



" They (bonus systems) are unjust in their application to individual 

 work as against repetition work." 



But all these objections apply with equal force to straight piece 

 work, and should not be brought forward, therefore, as objections to 

 Scientific Management. 



Secondly, Scientific Management is objected to because the con- 

 ditions of employment are imposed by the employer on the worker. 

 This objection applies to the whole industrial system, and is not special 



