29 



to Scientific Management. I agree that Labour should take a greater 

 part in the work of management, and I have tried to show that the 

 detail study of work, which is the outstanding feature of Scientific 

 Management, renders joint action of Labour and Management more 

 possible. 



Thirdly, the methods of payment advocated by the exponents of 

 Scientific Management are " a crude appeal to individualism and set 

 each man's hand against the others." If this is the case, it applies 

 with still more force to straight piece work, since the variation of 

 payment above and below the accomplishment of the standard task is 

 greater than on any of the premium systems. If this is felt to be a very 

 grave objection, I do not think that the paying of bonus to individual 

 men for their individual production is essential. Either the men could 

 pool their excess earnings and divide them evenly of their own accord, 

 or bonus could be paid on the total output of a group of workers. 



Fourthly, an impassable gulf is said to be fixed between Labour 

 and Management as the result of Scientific Management. Our ex- 

 perience is directly contrary to this. 



Fifthly, it is recommended that Scientific Management should be 

 applied to inanimate objects, and not human beings. I agree that 

 by far the greatest savings can be made by re-arranging the material 

 factors in production. But it should be noted that this fact somewhat 

 weakens the claim of Labour to share in the increase. Mr. Cole considers 

 it waste of time to try to induce Labour to accept any of the unscientific 

 systems of payment by result to which he has raised so much objection. 

 I must again emphasise that there is no essential difference between 

 piece work and bonus work. Both depend on the fixing of a standard 

 time for a given job and the payment of a fixed sum, which can be the 

 same in both cases, for its accomplishment. The method of setting 

 the standard time followed under Scientific Management is unquestion- 

 ably more scientific than the usual rough and ready basis for piece 

 prices. 



Sixthly, with regard to unemployment, I am not convinced that 

 Scientific Management affects this, one way or the other, but I quite 

 agree that the cost of unemployment whether produced by Scientific 

 Management, or by the present conditions of industry, should fall on 

 the employer. 



In conclusion I wish to say that I hold no brief for any particular 

 system of Scientific Management. My firm has applied many of its 

 ideas for a number of years past, but I make no extreme claims for it. 

 I do not expect it to bring the industrial millennium. That depends 

 on the qualities of statesmanship shown by the leaders of Labour 

 on the one side, and of the Employers on the other. 



Scientific Management is only concerned with the details, not the 

 fundamentals, of the problem. Its primary aim is to increase the 

 productivity of industry. This, apart from any other consideration, 

 is a matter of national importance. The distribution of the products 

 of industry is quite a separate question. 



