HOW TO INCREASE PRODUCTION

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 197, 15 May 1919, Page 6

HOW TO INCREASE PRODUCTION

INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY LECTURE BY MR. B. E. MURPHY "How Best to Increase Industrial Production" was the subject of a lecture given by Mr, B. B. Murphy last night, under tlio auspices of the Central Chamber of Commerce. Mr. A. Leigh Hunt, chair, and there was a large attendance of members of the chamber and visitors. Mr. Murphy said that he did not propresident of tho chamber, was in the posa to go down to bedrock. Ho was assuming the maintenance ot the p.esent industrial structure, with such rtforihs as would come from within. He was assuming also that increased production meant greater welfare for the community. Production was a function oi Labour and Capital acting together. The factors in increased production were three in number, namely, increased efficiency of Capital, increased efficiency of Labour, and improved co-operation of- Capital and Labour. A failure at one of these points would 'nullify successful effort in other directions. In order to secure capital or employing efficiency, there must be efficient plant, avoidance of waste, a properly co-ordinated system of subsidiary industries, proper costing methods, and adequate co-operation between science ;*nd industry. Plants must be large enough for cheap > production without heing un-' lyioldy. ; The provision for depreciation must be adequate iii order that obsolete plant might not be used after its replacement had becoma desirable. 'The cooperation of science and industry waß most important,'' and a point to be remembered was that science could not cooperate unless industry was organised on a large 6cale. The German syndicates had been able to make full use of'scientific research, because they were big enough to maintain /technical staffs for experimental work.' Most modern businesses were increasingly dependent on scientific research on the improvement of methods and processes. The small individual business could not undertake this research. In fact, theXsnuH business, lacking a fertilising stream of new thought, was unequal to the conditions of twentieth-century production. If Britain stuck to the old system of relatively small competing firms within each industry, while America and Germany organised whole industries, Britain would lag behind. British manufacturers were trying to reduce their handicap by co-operating in scientific research. They were going further, since they were realising that large-scale production was essential. The trust was not going to be destroyed. It was the' modern and most efficient form of organisation. Individual businesses could not compete successfully against trust businesses. A trust could use specialised plants producing on a large-scale, and these plants would always beat the old-fashioned plants engaged in producing a multiplicity of nonstandardised lines. The trend of thought m Britain now was in tho' direction of the specialisation of plants • and the creation of big selling organisations covering whole industries. Mr. Murphy emphasised the importance of effective costing systems and the study of industrial statistic*. • ' . ' •

Turning to the efficiency of labour, Mr. Murphy said that an efficient working class could, not be expected unless the wages wero large enough to buy good rood and clothing and unless the homes were wholesome and comfortable. Then education.reacted directly on efficiency. Ihe higher the level of goneral education tlie better would be the worker. The demand in industry to-day was for tho intelligent worker. The nation with the nest educated people was going to win the'industrial race. He did not mean to say that the worker.was the man particularly m need-of education; in fact, if ho wanted intelligent conversation he would ™£, g<> W e T as dß m] tban to ft" Wellesley Club. The average employer nTJ man ,?' lrtic "l"rly in need of economic education Dealing with tho quesTnil, ' W™ 110 '' between Capital and „f tu r '« Mr, i 3 -S rph v'.- 6nid tmit th ° folly. of the go-slow" po icy was clear. But on the other hand it was not unnatural that the worker, who received no share of profit,at al, should say heswould merely, earn his wage,, without making any profit for tho employer. The worker was not a, .hand," he was an individual, pith a desire to assert his individuality to take a real share.of industry. The ?<rm ad . S° ne v]len aa employer could say: Ihis is my business and lam goiV ™«^- 0t , ll: I s i, lilM -" That meant disaster to tho industry. The fact emerging from the industrial difficulties of to-day was that there must be' a revaluation of industry. The human element must bo recognised. The workers must be allowed a voice in the control oi. industry, the management of labour and the distnubtion of profits. In con. elusion the lecturer said the war had .upset many old ideas, and had made easier as well as more necessary the realisation of new ideals. Business must be regarded as service, and antagonism replaced by corporation. . "What is the basis of the antagonism between Capital and Labour?" asked a member of the audience. "Human selfishness," replied Mr. Murphy. "The worker gets his wage and the employer gets the rest. Tho worker does not think that is fair, and fights ii ? 01 ,*' Tho em Pl°yer' fights to retain all he has. There is the prvluct without any natural system of division; Tho par. ties that have produced it fight for it. lho strongest gets it." In answer to , another ■ question, Mr. Murphy said the advocates of the "goslow" policy did not look far enough. They reduced production in order to cut profits. But their action reacted upon them through the cost of living and in other ways. Deduced profits meant reduced capital, and therefore a reduced demand for labour. The meeting accorded Mr. Murphy a hearty vote of thanks for his lecture.