PIECEWORK?

Evening Star, Issue 19552, 10 May 1927, Page 3

PIECEWORK?

, AMERICAN WAYS AUSTRALIA'S TENDENCY Which plan pays the worker better—to limit his output or to co-operate with the employer m production? And if the better policy is 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 Waleo 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 1 opposition of the unions continues (says the Wellington ‘Post’). But the field is, of course, much wider than than the State-owned Railway Workshops. Australian manufacturing industries, fanned by a highly protective (and in some cases prohibitive) tariff, have blazed into great activity since the war, and aspire to operate more or less on American manufacturing lines. The Australian manufacturers say that, as in the United States, they pay high wages; that high wages are justified only by high output; that United States manufacturers can assure themselves of high output pec man by adopting piecework or results payment methods; that the employees in the United States accept these methods) and are satisfied with them; wherefore Australia should do likewise. PREJUDGED FACT-FINDERS. The purpose behind sending the Australian Industrial Mission to the United States was to confirm the above facts—if 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 have tended to confirm the existence of a co-operative spirit between the American employer and employee, expressing itself in high output and the acceptance by employees of payment for results. As this is heresy to some members of the Labor movement in Australia, they have, as might be expected, attempted to discredit this results payment propaganda and to stop its flow by excluding the Press as being biased. One symptom of the fight is the tendency of certain Labor members of the Australian Industrial Mission to pursue an independent course of inquiry. When a fact-finding body fails to function smoothly it may bo taken for granted that one or more of its members are prejudged concerning the color of the facts they want; and such prejudice is not unusual in a mission built up of rival and partisan interests. But the disputes of the Australian Industrial Mission in America, however unsatisfactory to a cold seeker after truth, give some idea of the disputation that may occur, both as to fact _ and theory, when the ground of investigation it shifted to Australia. A.HARD PLUM TO PICK. A Wellington business man who recently toured Australia, looking into commercial and industrial methods there, incidenlly commented to a ‘ Post ’ reporter on the advance of piecework methods and the problem of how employees will react to them Ho pointed out that piecework methods could be either good or bad. Ho could not cite offhand any typical examples, but bo had heard of a big drapery firm that had its own notion of payment for results. It paid its managers low salaries, _ but held out the possibility of a substantial bonus every sis months if the manager’s department (1) showed a turnover at the rate of three times a year, (2) exceeded in volume of business the corresponding six months of. the preceding year, and (3) showed a net profit of 2J per cent. It was related of ono manager that, in his first period, he secured Noe. 1 and 3, but failed on No. 2: in his second period he secured Nos. 1 and 2, but failed on No, 3; in his third, period he had scored all three points tour days before the six months ended, but at the eleventh hour _an unusually big shipment of goods arrived, and, being treated by the employers as stock to turnover, pulled down his rato of- turnover to. a fraction under the requirement of No. 1. So, again, he lost his bonus, and, on protesting, bis job. This was regarded as the unfair side of premium or bonus payments. On the other hand, there were plenty of successful systems in operation, more than the public realised, because when an arrangement was fair and was acceptable to both sides no Vpw arose, and little was heard of it. A. PIECEWORK FACTORY. Another example of the bonus .system was in a big manufacturing business, where a manager lost his bonus if, during a given period in the department under his control, tho amount of work done by other than piecework methods exceeded 10 per cent. But this was in a business in which piecework was the accepted and established custom. In the circumstances, the condition accompanying the manager’s bonus was not necessarily arbitrary or unfair. The spirit of payment for results obtained throughout this particular business, and resulted in a hotablo saving in the cost of supervision, as the firm could do without the services of many men of the small foreman type who were required under the day wage system. And the spirit of payment for results was evidenced not only in the weekly pay-out. Workmen received cash bonuses for machinery improvements or for any suggestion helpful in the industry. Cases had occurred where a workman had suggested an improvement increasing the output of his machine. In that case he received a cash payment for the improvement; after which his operation was retimed and his piece rate was readjusted in accordance with the improved machine capacity for which he had received the cash bonus.