34 



NATURE 



[September 13, 191 7 



portant that has yet emerged is that output is not 

 necessarily proportional to the hours worked. The 

 recognition of this fact alone has led to the emancipa- 

 tion of countless victims of long hours, to their lasting 

 benefit, and to the benefit of the factories for whicn 

 they work. Prof. Spooner points out that conclusions 

 as to overtime and Sunday work, based on accurate 

 scientific investigations, agree with those that 

 managers of industrial works have long known to be 

 more or less true. It is a lamentable result of our 

 inability to take advantage of knowledge lying close 

 to hand that lines of conduct indicated by such con- 

 clusions should have been followed by so few. It is 

 nevertheless a distinct gain that the study of industrial 

 fatigue must always in future be recognised as an 

 essential factor in a right determination of the con- 

 ditions of labour, and that never again will the for- 

 tunes of tens of thousands of workers hang entirely 

 upon the will of uninstructed and often unsympathetic 

 employers. Moreover, by placing industry on a 

 scientific basis it will be demonstrated that the inter- 

 ests of master and man are identical, and many of the 

 differences between capital and labour will ' cease to 

 ^xist. 



There is only space in a short notice to refer to 

 unnecessary fatigue, dilution and subdivision of 

 labour, restriction of output, scientific management, 

 motion-study and time-studies, welfare work, labour 

 turnover, and after-the-war problems, but on all 

 these points Prof. Spooner has something of interest 

 to say. Scientific management, as its name implies, 

 is an application of scientific principles to factory 

 management. Where properly applied there can be 

 no question of its legitimacy, or of its advantages to 

 capitalist and worker, since these are its conditions of 

 success. Unfortunately, it has been sadly misunder- 

 stood in this country. Only recently the workers in 

 a large factory, being convinced that it meant more 

 work and less pay, stated emphatically to the writer : 

 "We will not have Taylorism here," whilst in the 

 pamphlet before us we find the writer of a foreword 

 describing it as "tending to make the workman into 

 a machine." 



The facts of the case are as follows : Some years 

 ago the late Dr. Taylor, struck by the enormous 

 waste of effort involved in industry, took up the 

 study of the subject, and, as a result, introduced his 

 system of scientific management. He recognised that 

 the ordinary comparison of the human body to a 

 steam-engine, whilst possessing elements of truth, 

 was likely to lead to erroneous conclusions, since the 

 conditions of action in the two cases are profoundly 

 different. He showed that in the case of the human 

 body the percentage of the working day for which the 

 muscles could remain under load without undue 

 fatigue was strictly limited, and that this proportion 

 was greatly influenced both by the severity of the 

 labour and by the distribution of the work and rest 

 periods. In such a simple task as the handling of 

 pig iron he showed that a remarkable gain in efficiency 

 could be reached and maintained for long periods by 

 the introduction of appropriate intervals for rest, so 

 that the day's wages could be increased, or, alterna- 

 tively, the same wages as before could be earned and 

 time saved. 



By his lamented death industry was deprived of a 

 great benefactor, but his work remains, and, by great 

 good fortune, his mantle has fallen upon worthv 

 successors. Frank Gilbreth and his co-workers still 

 continue the work, and by the ingenious application 

 of photography to recoiding movements involved in 

 industrial processes have introduced in "motion- 

 study" a method of investigation of which the effects 

 are only now beginning to be felt. The method aims 

 at recording the movements werformed in a given 

 NO. 2498, VOL. 100] 



j process by learner and by expert. These movements 

 I are found to differ chiefly in the direction of a 

 simplification of the movements of the expert, and. 

 of a discarding of a number of unnecessary movements 

 [ observed in the learner. But even in the expert certain 

 1 unnecessary movements will probably be found, and 

 by the discarding of these also his expertness will be 

 j increased, whilst in the case of the learner it becomes 

 ! possible to arrange a definite course of instruction 

 i in the performance of the necessary movements only, 

 which leads at once to great simplification and to the 

 I learning of precise series of motions, in place of the 

 old system whereby the learner tried blindly to 

 imitate his teacher. That economy of effort must 

 follow the adoption of such a system is evident, but 

 I its results are surprising. Efficiency is very largely* 

 I increased, and tasks can be performed in far less time 

 j than before. The increased efficiency may be used in 

 different ways. It may be used to increase output, 

 j but if this be done, labour should share in the in- 

 creased profit. The increased output may be produced 

 actually more cheaply than the original output, since 

 standing charges should be less in proportion, and 

 j therefore the extra output should be profitable to the 

 ! owners when paid for at old rates. On the other 

 j hand, the worker is enabled to turn out more output 

 with the same expenditure of energy and the same 

 I amount of fatigue. 



Thus the unusual situation arises of the owner 



' being in a position to pay higher wages, whilst the 



workers do not necessarily demand that payment, 



I since their fatigue and labour are not increased. And 



yet it is just upon this very point that the ship has 



' split. In some cases, as a result of increased output, 



rates for piece-work have been "cut"; the workers 



have resented this, and have adopted the " ca' canny" 



attitude. The movement has spread, and in many 



j factories the miserable situation has developed of the 



I owners being unable to increase wages because the 



men will not work honestly, whilst the men will not 



j work honestly because they fear that rates will be 



"cut." 

 I The other alternative, which in normal times would 

 probably be adopted, largely provides for the mainten- 

 ance of output at the old level. Since, however, efficiency 

 has increased, this output is now produced in a shorter 

 working day. There remains the time saved, and 

 much of this may legitimately be devoted to bringing 

 into the life of the worker those things which up to 

 now he has lacked. In many industries want of 

 leisure has led to want of health, waning interest, 

 and the impossibility of living a rational life. With . 

 leisure, these unfortunate conditions may be changed. 

 A mere reduction of fatigue, if used to increase out- 

 put, would lead to discontent. But used to increase 

 j leisure it may achieve much. For besides the bene- 

 i fits which leisure itself would bring must be con- 

 sidered its effect upon the relations between capital 

 and labour. Capital has no direct interest in the 

 leisure of the worker, though the fact that it is pre- 

 pared to adopt measures to increase that leisure 

 is itself an indication of a changing attitude. But 

 increased leisure should lead to better education of 

 the worker, and better education will facilitate an 

 appreciation of industrial conditions. Ultimately, it 

 mav be hoped, a real understanding between capital 

 and labour may be possible. 



It is a calamity that the system which appears to 

 offer the best chance of such an agreement should 

 be so far misunderstood as to be described as an 

 attempt to drive the worker. 



Prof. Spooner mav be congratulated upon having 

 done something to clear away this misunderstanding. 

 His pamphlet is a valuable contribution to the ques- 

 tion of industrial fatigue. A. F. Stanley Kent. 



