WHERE AMERICAN INDUSTRY SCORES

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25305, 3 October 1947, Page 6

WHERE AMERICAN INDUSTRY SCORES

PRODUCTIVITY

At a time when British industry is being urged on to desperate efforts to increase output, a comparison between its organisation and methods and those of the United States has special interest Mr HAROLD SILMAN, who recently toured America to inform himself broadcast the following account of his conclusions in the B.B.C’s North American Service.

Comparisons are reputedly odious, but it was precisely for the purpose of making comparisons that I visited the United States. My interests are chiefly in the field of materials and processes employed in the manufacture of automobiles, and this, if you think about' it, means practically every material which exists. The presentday automobile employs an enormous range of materials in its construction, from a, great variety of different metals and alloys to paints, paper, and the newest kinds of plastics. In the course of my tour, which covered most of the industrial states of the east and middle-west, I had an opportunity of visiting a considerable number of factories in a wide range of industries, and talking to a great many executives. The most important advantage which American industry has over its British counterpart, as it seems to me, is that there are many more materials available to the engineer from which he can make his choice. , This is not always due to any inferiority of British inventive but rather to a lack of natural resources. For example, many plastics are derived from petroleum derivatives, whilst others can only be manufactured economically if abundant, cheap powet is available—and that means waterpower. Engineering Resources America has tremendous waterpower resources, and a whole host of electro-chemical industries has grown up round Niagara Falls, for example? While there is some water-power available in the Scottish Highlands, which has harnessed to industry, these resources are relatively limited in Britain, and most British chemical industries are largely dependent on coal. In view of the difficulties of coal production in the British Isles to-day, it is hardly surprising that synthetic products based on chemicals are both scarce and expensive. The American engineer is* very fortunate in the range of newly developed materials he has at his disposal, and for these he is, to a considerable extent, indebted to a flourishing chemical industry which provides them. People do not always realise to what degree industrial production of every kind is geared to the availability of essential chemicals, such as chlorine, sulphuric acid, organic solvents, and many others.

Factory Buildings Another important difference between Britain and America to-day is the relative modernity of most American factories. In a recent book on the United States, a British author said that, to an American, anything that has lasted more than 50 years is old, if more than 100 years it is antique, while if it is older than 150 years it is ancient Factories dating back to the middle of the last century are not uncommon in England. For instance, much of the Lancashire cotton industry is still carried on in mills dating back to the nineteenth century, and having very few amenities to attract workers during the present labour shortage. It is not surprising, therefore,, that many of the women cotton-operatives now prefer employment in the ultra-mod-ern, steel-ana-glass premises of less important industries. It is obvious, too, that the greatest efficiency cannot be obtained by working in out-of-date buildings, and neither can full advantage be taken of modern ideas on process planning, plant lay-out, and production organisation under such oldfashioned conditions.

Many industrial premises in England are actually converted dwelling houses. This applies especially to areas such as the jewellery quarter of Birmingham, for example, where much fine work is still turned out at competitive prices in the world markets. Plans are now well advanced for the rebuilding of the whole of this section on modern lines, but it will be some years before this work can ibe started. On the other hand, it is only fair to say that there are very many British factories which are as efficient in layout and construction as any in the world. This applies more to the newer, light industries— as the electrical industry—which have enjoyed a measure of prosperity between the two wars, and whose, factories dot the suburbs of London and the Midlands. Safety Regulations In- spite of the general excellence of American factories, and the stringent safety requirements of the Building Administration Departments with respect to* construction, fire hazards, and so on; I was struck by the fact that relatively littl# attention is given to the safety of the machine operator. British legislation requires that presses, pulley-belts, and moving machinery generally must be efficiently guarded at all times, to prevent personnel coming into contact with them. Regular factory inspection ensures .compliance with these laws. It is quite common to see unguarded machines in use in many American states. When I commented on this on one occasion, I was told that th© trade unions object in many instances to the effective guarding of machinery because this often slows down production, and therefore reduces operators’ earnings; how true this is I do not know, but it cannot apply to the considerable proportion of American factories where there is no payment by piecework. Perhaps, when it does apply, it accounts for the very high industrial casualty rate in the United States which, in the last quarterly period for which statistics are available, reached 128,000. including 400 fatalities. Incidentally, it came as a considerable surprise to me to find that there is no incentive payment to workers in some of the largest motor firms in the U.S.A, to-day. 1 Considering that the most elaborate systems of payment by results have originated in America,

and have thence been introduced into British industrial practice, it is remarkable that H should now be foiAd possible to dispense with them altogether. From what I observed, there seemed to be little indication that the change has resulted in any slowing down of the tempo in the factories, even where there is no con-veyor-belt to maintain output. There is no corresponding tendency, , at the moment, in Britain, and payments are still very largely on a piecework basis in the engineering industries. The advantages of a fixed rate of payment are considerable; thus the elimination of piecework enables the overhead costs of the factory to be reduced by cutting out non-productive labour engaged in the timing and checking of operatives and recording outputs of individual workers, ,or groups of workers, for the purpose’of calculating tiie piecework wages earned. On the other hand, for Its successful operation, the fixed rate system depends on the willingness of the worker to give a fair day's work- in return for a fair day’s pay. Output Rates On the question of mechanisation of processes, I did not find that American factories, on the average, make any greater use of modern aids to production than we do. There are no miraculous machines which gather in iron ore at one end and deliver refrigerators at the other on either side of the Atlantic! Nevertheless, it is true to say that, on the whole, American factories {irobably produce metre with a given abour force and factory area, even when the plants are similarly tooled and equipped. The reasons for this are complex. I have spoken to many observers who have noted the same thing, but there seems to be no general agreement amongst them as to the reasons. In fact, there are almost as many individual opinions as there are observers! One argument is that, on the whole, the pace of work in the United States is faster than it is in Britain, due to the difference in the tempo of living in the industrial -belt of the United States which often makes the American worker a faster operator by temperament. Nutritional and climatic differences undoubtedly also have their effects. . A further aspect of the matter is that process planning and the lay-out of manufacturing operations are given particularly close attention in the United States. There is, also very close co-operation between the production departments and the men responsible planning. This is made easier, to a large degree, bythe fact that production is carried out m relatively modern factories whereas British planning engineers often have their ideas cramped by attempting to introduce new lay-outs into buildings unsuited for them

Transport In my opinion, transport plays a big part in accentuating these differences. The American worker, more often than not, is an automobile owner, so that he is not dependent on public transport to get him to his job. This means that the employer can purchase land relatively cheaply, and put down a new and spacious building suited to his purpose, with the assurance that he will not be short of labour due to the fact that his employees cannot easily get to his works. In Detroit, for example, the public transport facilities could not possibly cope with a fraction of the large numbers of automobile workers travelling to and from outlying districts. In Europe, on the other hand, where comparatively few employees are carowners, the factory must generally be located close to the ‘Workers’ homes, and near underground railway, bus, and tram-car routes. In fact, a recent investigation by one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the British isles showed that well over threequarters of the workers were dependent on public transport to get them to th uir jobs. Land in such localities, is expensive, and is usually built up. so that the manufacturer cannot find a site for a new factory which • will be accessible to his employees. Neither can he afford t<s suspend operations whilst he demolishes his works and rebuilds them. The result is that he has to continue working in old and unsuitable premises, which do not enable him to make the best use of modem production ideas. Quite often, he will spend more money on modifications to liis premises, which only effect a partial improvement, than it would cost him to put. up a completely new building. Location of Industry During the war, it became necessary to build large factories in Britain away from centres of population, and special transport facilities were introduced. These factories were well laid cut, and ultimately proved highly efficient. Now, with the end of the war and the withdrawal of the special subsidised transport, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get workers to man these factories. There is, therefore, again an increasing tendency to put production units clqse to the centres of population in order to attract labour. Td say the least, this is not a ■ satisfactory basis on which to determine the location of industry. To sum up, the differences between the British and American industrial set-ups is to quite an extent due to the earlier development of the former. In the harum-scarum of the industrial revolution which started in Britain, much was done that was regrettable, and from the legacy of which we are now suffering. Perhaps we should have swept away the “dark Satanic mills" and back-to-back slums of our industrial towns years ago, but America’s later start has enabled her to take advantage of our errors so as not to repeat them. It is to the credit of her industrial leaders that they have done so. and have always been prepared to look a long way ahead in their approach to new ideas and developments.