Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

THE EVILS OF 'PIECE WORK.

In this age of progress and march of science, a ruthless stampede of some obscure and extremely selfish forces is making sad havoc with many good old guiding faiths, and obliterating many time-honoured duties once considered incumbent upon Christians, or members of a society calling itself humane.

Some scientific men, like Dr. Büchner, under a new inspiration of the spirit-the vivisection of the flesh-have proved, apparently to their own satisfaction, that there is, just now at least, no such thing as a soul in man; and many are quite ready to believe them. Hence it is, perhaps, that in the present day we find all appeals to the soul of man, his superior judgment, his divine sense of right and wrong, discarded by practical men, the leaders, guides, and protectors of ever-patient and ever-plodding labour, in favour of an appeal to the stomach; leading to a further development of scepticism-viz., a doubt whether mankind any longer possesses any bowels of compassion.

That man is possessed of a stomach we have, happily and unhappily, too many proofs. It is a part of our being that is ever making claims upon our attention which cannot be ignored, and demanding, like the faithful and willing servant it ever is, more work to do in our behalf; in some cases getting so much work to do, that it sinks dyspeptically under the wicked and soul-benumbing infliction: in other cases, alas! with so little to do, that its possessor may well wonder why an infinite and kind Heavenly Father provided such an organ at all, to be a source of anxiety chiefly, by continually making demands which can seldom be sufficiently or properly supplied; and he may think that it would be an improvement, were it practicable, to give up the possession of the stomach to obtain repossession of the soul.

Be all this as it may, there is no gainsaying the fact that the employers of labour are almost universally appealing to the stomachs of their labourers for the settlement of all disputes; and they should ask themselves if there is no nobler or better way, and if their present mode of procedure is one that common sense, not to invoke higher standards, can much longer tolerate. The degenerate son of a wise

king once menaced his subjects thus: My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions;' and in this age of progress and universal spread of so-called Christianity, have we to see the analogue of the whip of scorpions, the lock-out system, become the order of the day, without any protest from Press, Pulpit, or Parliament?-to see (because a few men, rightly or wrongly, refuse to work, unless certain alleged unsatisfactory conditions are improved) a body of employers, who should know better, determine to reduce thousands of people to want and destitution, who have done them no wrong, and who are perfectly innocent of any act bearing upon the subject in dispute?

Now what is the root of the whole matter, and the cause, for example, of the recent complaint of the cotton-spinners? They alleged that with a list of prices, arranged when cotton with fair staple was in general consumption, they could not make the same wages when cotton with inferior staple was substituted, or when machinery got worn and was not in good working order; and, instead of meeting this apparently reasonable complaint with an appeal to the soul, and a Come now, and let us reason together,' the employers drove right at the stomachs of their labourers, and decided to lock them all out till starvation, invoked thus as the employers' grim ally, should settle the dispute for them, irrespective of the right or wrong, justice or injustice, that might lie at the bottom of the appeal.

[ocr errors]

And is this the only way in which questions vital to the interests of the nation can be settled in England at the present time? All sensible men would think the preliminary inquiries should be, Why are these labourers dissatisfied? Is there any just ground for their complaint? Are they correct when they say their wages have fallen through their having to work an inferior cotton at the price fixed for one of superior staple? It is beside the mark to say that they are earning more wages in the aggregate, because longer mules, involving closer application, will account for this, and the increased cost of living is constantly necessitating higher remuneration for labour. But the simple question is this, Are they who have proposed to strike working an inferior cotton for the wages arranged for a superior? In other words, Are they required to make bricks without straw? to spin yarn from cotton with less staple in it? This is the question which demanded a faithfully correct answer.

We all know how a people long ago was subjected, among other hardships, to what it considered the injustice of making bricks without straw, and how it struck against the alleged injustice, and how the dispute finally terminated. Of course we can make bricks nowa-days without straw, and with little or no clay; but whether this is an improvement or the contrary, ask the owners and occupiers of the houses that Jerry built, and consider further how long these houses will last, and how soon they will cease to be national wealth and become national

rubbish-heaps merely. We do know, however, how these ancient brickmakers grumbled at the withdrawal of the straw, and how they got the then recognised principles of political economy scourged into them, but all to no purpose. Their complaints, reasonable or unreasonable, raised up demagogues also, who espoused their cause, and who forced themselves into the presence of the ruler of the land, to plead the cause of their dissatisfied brethren, these unreasonable brickmakers; and we know how it all ended with this blind ruler and his people.

Were the spinners in Lancashire just now requested to fulfil their daily tasks as when there was a good stapled cotton, when there was but an inferior one, or to go with a smaller remuneration? This is a point which only faithful investigation could clear up, and which a lock-out could only bury in deeper obscurity.

Then how very unequal and unfair is the arbitrement of a lockout! In what we call the dark ages, in the time when a duel was regarded as an honourable mode of settling a dispute, the challenger would, in a fair and honourable way, give his opponent the length of his rapier, or one of the same brace of pistols, to secure perfectly equal conditions, and to prevent the one from having any advantage over the other. But in a lock-out, the capitalists, with a full larder, and a balance at their bankers', actually force their labourers to an arbitrement, which practically consists of the test as to which party will the sooner be brought to starvation. What would a Bayard of the dark ages say of the equality and fairness of such a chivalry as this, which permits men who have supplies of food to serve them for years, to insist upon a trial of their power of endurance against that of others whose store, they know, will be exhausted in as many days? Can they do this without feeling shame or consciousness of inequality; or can they regard it as a test that is perfectly fair, and, consequently, defensible? And can any question of the right or wrong, justice or injustice, of any great subject, be ascertained by any hunger test of this description?

Now if there really be a doubt that a lock-out in any case is justifiable, should not the employers be invited to reconsider the whole subject? If the spinners could prove that they were working cotton of inferior quality to what was contemplated when the list was arranged, would it be anything more than fair, honourable, and gentlemanly, to meet them and say, 'We shall make you some compensation for the inferior cotton, for the absence of the equivalent of the straw in the bricks.'

Might not a price-list be arranged which would solve the difficulty, if Middling Orleans cotton were considered the standard staple, to which list a variable percentage might be added, increasing as the staple diminished, for all cotton under Middling Orleans, and diminishing, by another variable percentage, as the staple was superior to

Middling Orleans? This would only be just and fair, and it would test the honesty of the spinners, in ascertaining if they were ready-as in justice they ought to be-to spin yarn of the same numbers out of cotton superior to Middling Orleans at lower prices, if they were paid extra for all the classifications under it.

[ocr errors]

But they made some claim for a fixed weekly wage; and this is perhaps the greatest difficulty in the whole affair. What!' says the employer, shall I be expected to give up the only fair and perfectly just method of remuneration that ever was discovered— "payment by results"?' And as he thoroughly believes this, he naturally considers his position to be firmly established, if not impregnable.

But this question of 'piece-work' requires further experience and investigation. It is a noteworthy fact that labourers of all classes are, as a rule, opposed to it; and if so-why? Do they condemn it because they wish to be paid for work they do not, or do they really know better than their employers, that piece-work-or payment by results-is the high-road to bad quality in everything it touches, and leads, through loss of quality, to the loss of character, and eventually to the loss of demand altogether? At first glance, this piece-work system has an attractive look, and the superficial or casual observer is led to believe that it solves a great problem, by enabling the employer of labour to receive a full and constant return for the wages paid; and, on the other hand, the industrious and dexterous workman to receive full value for his labour, encouraging him to devote all his time and attention to his work. But has this primary faith been realised? Let results be carefully scrutinised, and it will be found that what has been gained in quantity has been more than lost in quality, and that piece-work is, in reality, what may be denominated 'premium payments for scamping work.'

On its introduction generally, labourers trained to do good work, and conscious of the vital importance of quality, would labour on under the new system, custom, as a second nature, keeping them in the right way;--and only as these were replaced by piece-work trained successors, could the evil effects of the system be expected to be fully developed. The employer, paying only for quantity 'results,' and seeing quantity coming in, thinks all is going well; but the piece-worker, too, finds that the greater the quantity he turns off, the greater is his remuneration; and here is the root of the whole mischief. However much the employer may desire to obtain quality, or strive for the highest perfection in his productions, he will find in the end that he has created a system of payment ever antagonistic, in its influence, to quality; and though he appeal to his workpeople for quality, as the one great essential, he appeals in vain to pieceworkers, who make quantity and wages their chief object. Many, to their honour be it said, do strive faithfully for quality, and these are

the hope of England; but even they complain when they see the scampers' paid the same rates for their inferior work, and receiving higher weekly earnings; and some, alas! under a sense of unfairness at this inequality, are tempted to imitate this bad example, and go and 'scamp' likewise. For labour fevers, like bodily fevers, obey analogous laws, and assume appalling dimensions through infection or contagion.

There is hope, however, that ere long the piece-work system will be found to be the main cause of the depreciation of the quality of British productions, which so many are lamenting, and of the loss of trade, which is now producing so much anxiety and distress; and were these facts once generally realised, the necessary steps would be taken to supersede it with a better system. That piece-work is incompatible with quality, it is not difficult to prove; and any one experienced in what is going on in our workshops may find plenty of facts corroborative of this statement. It will be plain to every reader, that if a certain amount of work is to be paid for by a fixed and constant price, and a certain quantity of this work can be done in a week by constant application on the part of a given labourer, this quantity multiplied by this fixed price makes up the amount of the labourer's. weekly earnings. These earnings, too, would be exactly the same every week, were he to labour exactly the same time each week, with the same assiduity, and-what is the chief consideration-were his production to be kept up to one uniform standard of excellence.

Now the weak place is this: 'quality' being left out of the bargain, it has to look out for itself, and is speedily sent to the wall, instead of being incorporated-as, to be mathematically correct, it ought to be—in the shape of a third factor. Price and quantity multiplied together make all square, the employer thinks; but this is only the surface of the problem, or a 'superficial solution;' and if he wishes to have quality mathematically incorporated, he must add another multiplier for quality, and thus, by raising his figures to the third power, come a step nearer to universal laws, and the requirements of absolute justice. And the difficulty is, that it is very doubtful if piece-work, payment by results, or a fixed price per lump, can ever be arranged, that will comprise equitably and justly these three elements, two of which are invariably and mutually antagonistic.

The labourer soon discovers that quantity rules his pay, and makes this his only aim, and increase of wages the only end of his labour; and thus it is that the piece-work system, by yielding him wages in proportion to quantity, gradually leads him to aim at quantity only, and ignore quality; and in some cases already he may be found consciously and intentionally lowering quality, in order to obtain more money on pay-day. Piece-work, in fact, will be found, the more it is studied, and the longer it is tried, to be, if not altogether absurd in principle, yet dangerous in practice, and as incompatible with excellence as it would be in the fine arts. What effect, for in

« ZurückWeiter »