SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT AND LABOR.

BY JOHN P. FREY.

A few years ago a few industrial establishments introduced a system of management which, its advocates announced, was revolutionary in its results. The system was called Scientific Management. It was applied in government arsenals, and a strike of molders against some of its features resulted. Congress appointed a committee, consisting of William B. Wilson, William C. Redfield and John Q. Tilson to investigate the system as applied at the Watertown arsenal. This committee sustained labor's contention that (1) the system forced abnormally high speed upon the workmen, (2) that its disciplinary features were arbitrary and harsh, and (3) that the use of a stop-watch and the payment of a bonus were injurious to the worker's manhood and welfare.

The Federal Commission on Industrial Relations ordered a further investigation of "Scientific Management." Robert E. Hoxie, Robert G. Valentine and. John P. Frey were chosen to undertake this work. This committee investigated thirty-five establishments and interviewed many individuals including Frederick W. Taylor, Harrington Emerson, and H. L. Gantt, the leading exponents of "Scientific Management," organized and unorganized workers.

Difficulty was experienced in getting a satisfactory definition of "Scientific Management." The committee finally decided that it meant "any of the systems of shop management which claim to secure greater productive efficiency through the systematic standardization of the elements of production." There were many charlatans in the field, and the bona-fide systems suffered from the defects of the fraudulent systems. But the committee investigated only the authenticated systems. It is claimed by the advocates of "Scientific Management":

I. That when applied to industry it would eliminate waste by systematizing and standardizing the elements of production;

II. That it would make the workers more efficient through the special instructions and training it provided for; III. That it would safeguard them from injustice and the arbitrariness of employers and managers;

IV. That it would protect them from over-exertion;
V. That it would provide for higher wages;
VI. That it would eliminate industrial strife.

The Case Against.

Against these claims stand the following conclusions:

I. That inequalities, variations and contradictions are found in establishments applying "Scientific Management." II. That "Scientific Management" makes the workers over-exert themselves.

III. That it creates shop jealousies.

IV. That it enables foremen to play favorites.

V. That it makes workers shirk work, leaving the task more difficult for those next in line for the handling of material.

VI. That it often forces high grade workmen to bear a large part of the burden of experiments, and to work out new material without any adequate remuneration.

VII. That time-study is largely a matter of the timestudy man's personal judgment.

VIII. That, in the great majority of cases there is no system of training intended to develop competent craftsmen. "Scientific Management" leads to overspecialization. IX. That manual skill is not being developed.

X. That workers are made dependent upon the functional foremen and the planning room for craft and mechanical knowledge.

XI. That collective bargaining and negotiations relative to terms of employment and conditions of labor between employer and workers is eliminated, as the employers arbitrarily determine:

(a) All shop rules.

(b) Rate of wage.

(c) Method of payment (bonus, premium, differential piece systems).

(d) Hours of labor.

(e) Industrial training.

(f) Methods of dealing with complaints.

(g) Hiring and discharging.

(h) Facilities for performing work.

From the report of the investigating committee for the Federal Commission on Industrial Relations we quote the following:

"Scientific Management' at its best and adequately applied. exemplifies one of the advanced stages of the industrial revolution which began with the invention and introduction of machinery. Because of its youth and the neces

sary application of its principles to a competitive state of industry, it is in many respects crude, many of its devices are contradictory of its announced principles, and it is inadequately scientific. Nevertheless, it is to date the latest word in the sheer mechanics of production and inherently in line with the march of events.

"Our industries should adopt all methods which replace inaccuracy with accurate knowledge and which systematically operate to eliminate economic waste. 'Scientific Management' at its best has succeeded in creating an organic whole of the several departments of an institution establishing a co-ordination of their functions which had previously been impossible, and, in this respect, it has conferred great benefits on industry. The Social Problem created by 'Scientific Management' does not lie in this field. It is in its direct and indirect effects upon labor that controversy has arisen, and it was in this field that the investigation was principally made. For the present, the introducers and appliers of 'Scientific Management' have no influences to direct them, except where labor is thoroughly organized, other than their ideals, personal views, humanitarianism or sordid desire for immediate profit with slight regard for labor's welfare.

"Neither organized or unorganized labor finds in 'Scientific Management' any adequate protection, to their standards of living, any progressive means for industrial education, or any opportunity for industrial democracy by which labor may create for itself a progressively efficient share in efficient management. And therefore, as unorganized labor is totally unequipped to work for these human rights it becomes doubly the duty of organized labor to work unceasingly and unswervingly for them, and if necessary, to combat an industrial development, which not only does not contain conditions favorable to their growth, but in many respects is hostile soil."

Bibliography.

F. W. Taylor, "Principles of Scientific Management"; R. F. Hoxie, "Scientific Management and Labor."

A strike always succeeds in proportion as it arouses thought, particularly on the part of those who are disposed to condemn it thoughtlessly.

The "innocent third party" has its rights in the case of a strike, of course. But it has no right to compel the resumption of work by the strikers in order simply that it may be spared inconvenience.

CO-OPERATION IN THE UNITED STATES.
BY CHEVES WEST PERKY.

It is strange how many persons know nothing of the co-operative movement, that economic dynamite so close to us; that force almost great enough to blow up the existing order, and which, working with organized labor and the socialist movement, will, doubtless, sooner or later reconstruct society.

If few are familiar with co-operation in its technical sense, still fewer distinguish between the industrial, the agricultural and the consumers' forms of the movement, or guess at the superior value of the latter. Even government officials, engaged in fostering agricultural co-operation, not only do not make these distinctions, but do not distinguish between a democratically managed co-operative store, based on open membership and equal voting to all, and a joint stock company, voting by shares, but calling itself Co-operative Building and Loan Associations. It is true, credit associations, fire and life insurance associations are known commonly, but unsuspected of any revolutionary taint.

Twenty years ago, however, the concept of co-operation was much discussed by economists and sociologists, though it is now relegated to the dust of the last century by these students. Radicals, when interested, cling obstinately to industrial-productive co-operation, a sort of colorless syndicalism, sanctioned in theory but practically discarded by all. If Labor also shakes its head with a sigh, it is not to be thought that Labor has given the subject no attention. On the contrary, in no country has Labor given more persistent effort to strengthen itself by this means. Moreover, immigrants bring from Europe an understanding of the movement. Since 1830 Labor has tried repeatedly to arm itself with this weapon; and even now there are indications that it has begun again to brood over the idea of co-operation.

The Inter-collegiate Socialist Society has received letters from numbers of Labor officials expressing deep interest in the subject and from several Labor organizations which have appointed committees to investigate its possibilities. There is no more moving bit of Industrial history than the expressions of joy and renewed courage recorded by labor organizations as they again and again endorse the idea of co-operation: "We hail with delight the organization of co-operative stores and workshops and would urge their formation in every section of the country and in every branch of business"; and yet the student knows well that all this enthusiasm and self-sacrifice had to end as it did, in loss, failure and discouragement.

Many Failures.

While the history of the movement in this country is both interesting and accessible, the present status of the movement is obscure, and few facts and statistics can be stated with any degree of accuracy. In general it can be said that there is no unified workingmen's co-operation in America, though there are a number of sporadic co-operative organizations, and groups of these. There is, of course, a large agrarian movement in co-operation, estimated by the Agricultural Department at 7,000 co-operatives; or, including credit, life and fire-insurance, telephone, and building-andloan associations, at 85,000 co-operatives. There are practically no industrial-productives in co-operation; a few bakeries, mills and laundries; and a very few factories which are probably not strictly co-operative. There may be 500 stores. Kansas, the old seat of an active consumers co-operative movement, is reported through a letter to have 200 stores. J. H. Walker, president of the Illinois Federation of Labor, estimates 100 stores in that state. There were several fairly authentic estimates made in different states in 1913 and 1914, not to be relied upon now.. For 1914 and 1915 were fatal years for store co-operatives. The very lively New Jersey movement lost most of its stores about this time. The Pennsylvania state movement, vigorous in 1909, was disrupted and many of its stores lost by 1915. One hundred and forty stores listed a few years ago by the Right Relationship League of Minnesota, have apparently been failing, and before 1916 they had lost their organ, their wholesale, and their newly instituted chain-store venture. So also, many of the ninety stores in Wisconsin, estimated by Prof. Weld, have returned to the Co-operative League of America unopened letters marked "out of business" and "unclaimed."

From the fifty-eight stores mentioned in Prof. Ford's book in 1913, twenty-two have returned letters unopened and mostly marked "out of business." Even the most highly organized of all, the California movement, recently abandoned its wholesale department but decline had already set in by 1905 and its figures had fallen from about one hundred to forty stores in 1911, as reported by Ira B. Cross.

The latter day failure of co-operative stores has not yet been accounted for. Indeed the whole subject cries for investigation. The thing has been attempted from time to time; by Albert Shaw and others in 1888 (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Political and Social Science); by Bemis in 1896 (Bulletin No. 6, U. S. Dept. of Labor); by Cross in 1905 (Wisconsin Bureau of Labor Statistics); by Sinclair (Wisconsin State Board of Public Affairs) and a recent most