BRITISH V AMERICAN BOOTS

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 11670, 1 February 1902, Page 4

BRITISH V AMERICAN BOOTS

The correspondent of "The Times" who is writing articles under the heading of •-The Crisis in British Industry," with a view to showing the operation of trades unionism, has the following to say about the boot and shoe trades. There are very few trade unions connected with boot and shoe manufacture in which any attempt is made to specify the amount of work $ man shall do in a given period, whether hour, or day, or week. At the same time there is a clear understanding that a man shall not do more than a certain quantity, and if he should do more his life will be made intolerable. That this expression is not too strong is shown by a remarkable case which occurred at Leicester some time lastyear. It was found that a certain sober, steady, frugal sort of man was moving from one factory to another, although at each of them h*e had earned, the respect of his employer as a person who seemed to really take an interest in his work. But- he had become unpopular with the other men because they thought he was doing too much At last he got to a factory where his shopmates not only grumbled at the amount of energy he was showing, but lodged a formal complaint against him with the officials of their society. The officials took the matter up. and" sent a summons to the man to attend at the union office and give an explanation. Thereupon he went just outside the town ana" committed suicide by cutting his throat. He left a pathetic note behind, stating that his life had been made a burden to him, and that the fact of his having had a summons to appear before the officials ■of the union had caused him to commit the act. In the opinion of one large employer of labour to whom this story rekted, if the records of the coroners' courts could be searched many another

such case would be found in them. Tn the shoe trade, as in various others, the idea at the back of the check put on individual energy is that the less work each man does the greater will be the number, employed. There is, it is argued, only a certain amount of work to be done, and if every one tries to do as much as he can there will not be enough to go round. So they "go easy," more or less, and there is no doubt that the output of the English worker is a good deal less than that of the American. It may be that this fact fa not fcntirely due to the former. The American factories are better organised, and the work is "got ready" in such I a way that it can be taken in hand withj out lejs of time. Fault is therefore found I with the English manufacturers for not ' adopting a similar course. It is feared, however, that even if the English workers had precisely the same conditions as their American rivals they wpuld not be likely to turn out the same quantity of work unless they greatly changed their presentideas and disposition. In any ease we have the remarkable fact that while the American manufacturers have to pay their' men £3 a week, against the 28s, 30s, and 35s per week paid here, they can send i certain classes of boots from Chicago to London and beat the English makers on their own markets. It might of course be suggested that if the English workers were paid £3 a week they would produce more ; but in present conditions it is hardly likely that any English manufacturer would care ! to make the experiment, while it is believed that even if he did the men's unions would take care that nothing like the same amount of work was done for the money as is the case in America.

The whole question of the limitation of output is regarded by the. employers as one of grave concern to the welfare of the trade, especially when coupled witli the theory of the minimum wage—a theory which they consider altogether unsound in principle—and the frequent demands for increased wages. The result, they declare, has been to brfng about a lame increase in the cost of productian, adding to the difficulties which manufacturers experience in obtaining remunerative prices for their goods, and in meeting foreign competition. Dealing with these subjects in their annual report for 1900, the executive of the Incorporated Federated Associations of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland say : —"There is naturally a general desire on the part of the workmen to obtain higher wages, but the advance of wages nee"3 not necessarily involve an increase in the cost of production, and might be accompanied by a considerable decrease in such cost if the workmen were to apply their ability and capacity to a reasonable and proper extent. The contention of manufacturers that the majority of workmen could easily ( do more work is supported by very strong evidence. Complaints of the limitation of production and output aie very general in the trade, and come from manufacturers in all centres. It is apparently the policy of the union to get the minimum late of wages fixed as high as possible and to stifle production.""

The restriction of output is a very serious matter, and the art of measuring up to a nicety the quantity of work to be done is univer-ally practised by the operatives in all departments of the factories, and is a grave menace to the future progress of the trade. The adoption of this shortsighted and retrogressive policy by the union and the consequent check" to the development of industry in the trade were the chief causes of the lock-out in 1895, and it was anticipated that- the provisions

of the terms of settlement, which place this question bevond the scope of arbitraton and declare' that it shall not be made a, matter of dispute by the union, would be sufficient to ensure the discontinuance of the practice, but the hope has not been realised.

Referring to the introduction (in accordance with these terms of settlement) of the "piecework statement," by means of which, it was hoped, an improved condition of working would be brought about, the executive committee further say "The statement has been used by the union for the purpose of regulating and limiting the amount of work to be done by workmen on weekly wages, and to supply a pretext for interference by the union officials in the management generally of lasting departments. Such action on the part of the union is not a fair and proper use of the piecework statement, and it was never intended that the statement should apply to day workers. Under such a system of limitation and interference the workmen are not encouraged to work to the best of their ability, and the employers derive none of the advantages of piecework, but are subjected to all its disadvantages, with the result that the cost of production is materially increased. If the present policy of the union in regard to these matters is continued, it will become necessary for the federation to find some spee'dy and effective remedy.'" In the course of their report for the present year, just issued, the executive committee, in referring to the objection of the manufacturers to a minimum wage, say that objection is not based upon any desire to keep down wages which the workmen are capable of earning, and they add :—"ln effect the minimum wage system encourages slowness, the standard of effiencv being regulated by the capacity of the" slower and less competent men. Since the present minimums were fixed, the union, through its officials, has persistently influenced the workmen to do less work, and brought continual pressure to bear upon them to check any disposition upon their part to work quickly, with the result that the product of labour at the present time of all classes of operatives, whether employed at or above the minimums, is considerably less than formerly." The manufacturers contend that if a workman wishes to increase his wage he must increase the value of the service he renders. In view of the existence of such conditions as these, it is not surprising to find that the present position of the English boot and shoe trade is far from satisfactory. and has given rise to much anxiety and trouble.