MIND AND WORK.

Hokitika Guardian, 21 February 1921, Page 1

MIND AND WORK.

in the introduction to “Mjiid and Work’’- Dr C. S. Myers remarks that, “«i the lour main determinants of industrial and commercial efficiency—the mechan.cal, the physiological, the psycliilogical, and the social and economic— the psychological is by far the most important and fundamental, intelligence in foreseeing demands and in improving industrial conditions and a sympathetic understanding of the viewpoint of others are much more ‘productive’ than mere capital or mechanical labour. . . . The psychological factor must, therefore, be the main consideration of industry and commerce in the future,” and his purpose in this book i to show its bearing on various aspects of industry. He begins by a discussion of movement study, which in America has been reduced to an exact s- cnee, and quotes some extraordinary examples to show how it promotes industrial efficiency. Thus in an American plant where braiding machines were ina mi fact tired it was estimated that 7o per cent of the worker’s time was spent in handling the tools, Id per cent in handling tlu- machine, and only 11 per cent on the actual job. An expert was called in who systematically studied the best position for the tools and tile parts to be assembled. The result of bis improvements was that, without increased fatigue and with increased earnings, a man could assemble h i braiders a, day instead of IS, hi' output under the previous conditions. Again, during the war, in an Eng-

isli munitions factory, K. W. Taylor (o!

the card system fame) put the employees through a course of irainii g which eliminated superfluous movements. As soon as they began l-beii

c urse their wage was increased by 2-' pel- cent, and their hours reduced from dl to -18 a week. When their training showed its effect in production at a cor lain standard rate they were paid by a special arrangement in which piecerate and a bonus system wee combined. In this case the estimated output. of .‘IOOO units per week became eventually an actual output of ‘20,01)!). Dr Myers does not suggest that motion study was responsible for the whole of this resuli. The original estimate of the Ministry for Munitions may have been too low, much of the improvement may have been due to shorter hours, or higher wages acting as an incentive, o* t.i bettoi food arising out of higher wages. But even if allowance ho made for these factors, motion study can claim a substantial share of the credit. It is also difficult to lay down any hard and fast law with regard to fatigue, and the effect of shorter hours. It is clear that if the hours are unduly long a reduction will produce increased efficiency. But many of Dr Myers’ illus-

trations are taken from industries in which a fit),or (i(i hour week was worked ; in no ease does he quote any experiment covering a week of less than l-< hours. Obviously a line must be drawn somewhere, and because a man can do more in 50 than in (50 hours it ■lees not follow that he will do more in 10 or 14 than in 43 hours. Moreover, Dr Myers’ chapter on fatigue study ends with the reminder: “An hour’s earlier release from a factory or business may wastefuliy result in an hour’s more exacting worrying or harmful oei upatiou elsewhere.”

The methods of the motion expert are highly ingenious. Suppose, for instance, he wishes to analyse the perfect golf drive, a champion is induced to pose, a small lamp is fixed to the end of the club, and a double photograph b taken of the swing which appears on the print as a continuous line somewhat resembling a very crude drawing of a crouching rabbit. As the .photograph is double, the use of a stereoscope will show the movements in relief, and all that the expert has to do is to build up a wire model of the movements to scale, which can he studied at leisure by aspirant golf champions. If motion study accomplishes such marvels, why is not more general advantage taken of it? One reason is the conservatism both of employer and employee. Eaeli is suspicious of now tangled notions, and is apt to prefer tlie methods of their forefathers. Brick-laying is a notable example of needless waste of energy. In the case of the munitions factory already referred to, some of the hands wore very reluctant to adopt the now system, even though they saw that it was bringing their comrades shorter hours and better wages. Again, the worker is prone to see in it a device to exploit him. The employer who would introduce it must take Ids employees into his confidence and have their full co-

operation. That is where F. W. Taylor, according to W. Myers, made a mistake. ” His ideas were admirable, and would benefit the employees themselves in tile long run. But his methods were injudicious. He would go about a factory with a stop-watch concealed in a sham notebook, a piece of tactlessness which naturally aroused the bitterest resentment. Again, the worker may argue that even supposing that a different system will increase his output, what good will that do him? Why should he go to the trouble of learning new methods simply to enrich his employer? Therefore the worker must share in the benefits accruing from the new system, and this

brings Dr Myers to a consideration of piece-work. The workers’ objections to this are not so unreasonable and selfish as is sometimes thought. They urge that it lowers the quality of the article produced, that it places them too much at the mercy of trade fluctuations, that it offers an ever present temptation to a greedy employer to cut the piece rates, and that it. boais heavily on the slower and weaker hand. Dr Myers admits that past experience shows’ that these objections are not groundless, and he believes that piecework will never be accepted by labour unless accompanied by certain guarantees, which include a fixed minimum wage and the protection of the old and less efficient against' unemployment. Altogether nn interesting and suggestive hook.