The Opunake Times TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1920. INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY.

Opunake Times, Volume LVIX, Issue 2450, 3 February 1920, Page 2

The Opunake Times TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1920. INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY.

In a recant lecture at Wellington on "How best to increase industrial production," Mr B E Murphy, the noted economist, in commencing said he did not propose to go down to bedrock on the subject. He was assuming the maintenance of the present industrial structure, with such reforms as would come from within. He was assuming also that increased production meant greater welfare for the community. Production was a function of 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 cooperation of Capital and L abour. 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 j of waste, a properly co-ordinated | system of subsidiary industries, proper costing methods, and adequate ! co-operation between science and industry. Plants must be large enough for cheap production without being unwieldy. The provision for depreciation must be adequate in order that obsolete plant might not be used after its replacement had become desirable. The co-operation of science and industry was most important,, and a point to be remembered was that science could aiot co operate unless industry was organised on a large scale. The German syndicates had been able to : make full use of scientific research, because they were big enough to maintain technical staffs for experimental woi % 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, the small business, lacking a fertilising stream of new thought, was unequal to the conditions ot twenti--eth-century production, If Britain stuck to the old system of relatively small competing firms within aacn industry, while America and Ger* many organised whole Industries, Britain would lag behind. British manufacturers were trying to reduce their handicap by co operating in &Gientific research. They were going further, since they were realis •ing 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 •af > non fc standardised lines. Ths trend -of thought in now was in the 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 statistics. Turning to the efficiency of labour, Mr Murphy said that an efficient working class could not be expected unless the wages were large enough to buy good food and clothing and unless the homes were wholesome and comfortable. Then education reacted directly on efficiency. The higher the level of general education the better would be the worker. The demand in industry to-day was for the intelligent worker. The nation with the best educated people was going to win the industrial race. He did not mean to say that the worker was the man particularly in need of education; in fact, if he wanted intelligent conversation he would rather gc to the Trades Hall than ,to the Wellesley Club. The average employer was a man particularly in need of economic education. Dealing with the question of cooperation between Capital and Labour, Mr Murphy said that the folly of the "go-slow" policy was clear. But on the other hand it was not unnatural that the worker, who received no share of profit at all, should say he would merely earn his without making any profit for the employer. The worker was not a "hand," he was an individual, with a desire to assert his individuality to take a real share of industry. Tile lime had gone when an employer could say : "This is my busi ness and lam going to conduct it as I Hke." That attitude meant disaster to the industry. The fact emerging from the industrial difficulties of to-day was that there must be a .revaluation of industry. The human element must be recognised. The workers must be allowed a voice in the control of industry, the management of labour, and the distribution of profits.. In conclusion the lecturer, saidltie 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 co-operation.