PIECEWORK?

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 100, 30 April 1927, Page 17

PIECEWORK?

AMERICAN WAYS

AUSTRALIA'S TENDENCY

METHODS CAN BE JUST AND

UNJUST

Which plan pays the worker better—to limit his output, or to cooperate with the employer in production? And'if the better policy as to give the best possible output, does payment-for-results (piecework) then become acceptable? It is feared that there is industrial trouble looming in Australia over piecework and premium /systems. Some years ago the introduction' of the premium bonus system in the New South Wales Government railway workshops was made the occasion of a. big and bitter strike, but the system has remained, and is pronounced on good authority to be. satisfactory to the individual operator, though the opposition of tho unions continues. But the field is, of course, much wider than the Mate-owned railways workshops. Ausn?it "^"J*"*"^ industries, fan?»L y a Protective (and in some cases prohibitive) tariff, have blazed as^rfr* Bets l*.'»koe-the war, and aspire to operate.more or less on American manufacturing; lines. ' Tho Austh«^*? niTl U™Ta Bay that, a3 in the United States, they pay hieh Tif Siv thah-^ gh T ges «o 5«»tS5 only by -high .output; that United States manufacturers, can'assure them "£«. of hM output per mau by adopting piecework or results-payment S B'^' the. employees hi tho United States accept theso methods, and^aro; satisfied with them; wherefore Australia should do; likewise PREJUDGED PACT-FINDERS. The purpose behind sending tho ,Aus trahan Industrial Mission to the United States was to confirm the abovo facts— it they are facts,, as other investigators have declared—and thus build up the groundwork for the results-payment campaign in Australia. The cabled Press reports of the Mission's inquiries havo tended to confirm the existence of a co-operative spirit between the American employer; and employee, express ing itself in. high output ana the acceptance by employees of payment-for-results. As this is heresy to some members of the Labour movement in Australia,; they, have, 'as might bo'expoctoa, attempted to discredit this re-sults-payment propaganda and to stop its flow by excluding the Press as being biased. One. symptom-'of-the. fight is the tendency of certain Labour mem bers of the Australian Industrial Mis sion to pursue an independent course of inquiry. When a fact-finding body fails to function smoothly, it may be takon for granted that one or more of its members are pre-judged concerning tho colour, of^th'e facts they want; and such prejudice is not unusual in a mission built up of rival and partisan in terests. But. the disputes of the Aus tralian Industrial Mission in America however unsatisfactory to a cold seoker after truth, give some idea of the disputation' that may • occur, both as to fact and theory,' Whon the ground ofinvestigation,is.'.shifted. 'to Australia. A HARD PLUM TO PICK.' A Wellington business man who ro-' cently toured Australia, looking into commercial and industrial methods there, incidentally coinmonted, to a Post" reporter, on tho ndvanco of piecework methods and thq problem of how employees will react to thorn. Ho pointed out that piecework mothods could bo cither good or bad. lie could not cito offhand any typical examples, but ho had hoard of a big drapery firm that had its own notion of payment-for-results. It paid its managors low salaries, but hold out the possibility of a substantial bonus every six months if tho' manager's department (I).showed'a turnover at tho rate of three times' a year, (2) oxcocded in volume of businoss tho corresponding six months of tho preceding year, and (3) showed a not profit of 2J por cout. _It was related of ono manager that, in his first period, ho secured Nos. 1 ana 3, butfailod on.No. 2; in his sccona period, ho secured Nos. 1 and 2, but failed on No. 3; in his third period ho had scored all throo points four days before the six months ended, but at_ tho eleventh hour an unusually big shipment of goods arrived, and, being treated by the employers as stock to turnovor, pulled down his rate of turn, over to a fraction under tho requiremont of No. 1. So again ho lost his bonus, and, on protesting, his job. This was rogardod as tho unfair Biclo of premium or'tymus'payments. On the other hand, thero were plonty of successful systems in operation, more than tho public realised, becauso whon an arrangomont was fair and was acceptable to both sides, no row arose, and little was heard of it. A PIECEWORK FACTORY. Anothor example of tho bonus system was in a big manufacturing business, whero a manager lost his bonus if, during a given period in tho department under his control, tho amount of work dono by other than ■ piecework mothods exceeded 10 per cent. But this was in a business in which piecework was the accepted and established custom. ■ In tho circumstances, tho condition accompanying tho manager's

bonus was not necessarily arbitrary or unfair. The spirit of payment-for-ro-sults obtained throughout this particular business and resulted in a notable saviiig in tho cost of supervision, as tho firm could do without tho services of many men of the small foreman type who were required under tho daywago system. And the spirit of pay-meut-for-rcsults was evidenced not only in tho weekly pay-out. Workmen received cash bonuses for machinery improvemouts or for any suggestion helpful in the industry. Cases had occurred where a workman had suggested an improvement increasing the output of his machiuol In that case ho received a cash payment for the .improvement; .after which his operation was retimed and hia piece-rato was readjusted in accordance with tho improved machine capacity for which he had received the cash bonus.