It is of the greatest importance that the man who has charge of
assigning tasks should be perfectly straightforward in all of his
dealings with the men. Neither in this nor in any other branch of the
management should a man make any pretense of having more knowledge than
he really possesses. He should impress the workmen with the fact that he
is dead in earnest, and that he fully intends to know all about it some
day; but he should make no claim to omniscience, and should always be
ready to acknowledge and correct an error if he makes one. This
combination of determination and frankness establishes a sound and
healthy relation between the management and men.
There is no class of work which cannot be profitably submitted to time
study, by dividing it into its time elements, except such operations as
take place in the head of the worker; and the writer has even seen a
time study made of the speed of an average and first-class boy in
solving problems in mathematics.
Clerk work can well be submitted to time study, and a daily task
assigned in work of this class which at first appears to be very
miscellaneous in its character.
One of the needs of modern management is that of literature on the
subject of time study. The writer quotes as follows from his paper on "A
Piece Rate System," written in 1895:
"Practically the greatest need felt in an establishment wishing to start
a rate-fixing department is the lack of data as to the proper rate of
speed at which work should be done. There are hundreds of operations
which are common to most large establishments, yet each concern studies
the speed problem for itself, and days of labor are wasted in what
should be settled once for all, and recorded in a form which is
available to all manufacturers.
"What is needed is a hand-book on the speed with which work can be done,
similar to the elementary engineering handbooks. And the writer ventures
to predict that such a book will before long be forthcoming. Such a book
should describe the best method of making, recording, tabulating, and
indexing time observations, since much time and effort are wasted by the
adoption of inferior methods."
Unfortunately this prediction has not yet been realized. The writer's
chief object in inducing Mr. Thompson to undertake a scientific time
study of the various building trades and to join him in a publication of
this work was to demonstrate on a large scale not only the desirability
of accurate time study, but the efficiency and superiority of the method
of studying elementary units as outlined above. He trusts that his
object may be realized and that the publication of this book may be
followed by similar works on other trades and more particularly on the
details of machine shop practice, in which he is especially interested.
As a machine shop has been chosen to illustrate the application of such
details of scientific management as time study, the planning department,
functional foremanship, instruction cards, etc., the description would
be far from complete without at least a brief reference to the methods
employed in solving the time problem for machine tools.
The study of this subject involved the solution of four important
problems:
First. The power required to cut different kinds of metals with tools of
various shapes when using different depths of cut and coarseness of
feed, and also the power required to feed the tool under varying
conditions.
Second. An investigation of the laws governing the cutting of metals
with tools, chiefly with the object of determining the effect upon the
best cutting speed of each of the following variables:
(a) The quality of tool steel and treatment of tools (i.e., in heating,
forging, and tempering them).
(b) The shape of tool (i.e., the curve or line of the cutting edge, the
lip angle, and clearance angle)
(c) The duration of cut or the length of time the tool is required to
last before being re-ground.
(d) The quality or hardness of the metal being cut (as to its effect on
cutting speed).
(e) The depth of the cut.
(f) The thickness of the feed or shaving
(g) The effect on cutting speed of using water or other cooling medium
on the tool.
Third. The best methods of analyzing the driving and feeding power of
machine tools and, after considering their limitations as to speeds and
feeds, of deciding upon the proper counter-shaft or other general
driving speeds.
Fourth. After the study of the first, second, and third problems had
resulted in the discovery of certain clearly defined laws, which were
expressed by mathematical formulae, the last and most difficult task of
all lay in finding a means for solving the entire problem which should
be so practical and simple as to enable an ordinary mechanic to answer
quickly and accurately for each machine in the shop the question, "What
driving speed, feed, and depth of cut will in each particular case do
the work in the quickest time?"
In 1881, in the machine shop of the Midvale Steel Company, the writer
began a systematic study of the laws involved in the first and second
problems above referred to by devoting the entire time of a large
vertical boring mill to this work, with special arrangements for varying
the drive so as to obtain any desired speed. The needed uniformity of
the metal was obtained by using large locomotive tires of known chemical
composition, physical properties and hardness, weighing from 1,500 to
2,000 pounds.
For the greater part of the succeeding 22 years these experiments were
carried on, first at Midvale and later in several other shops, under the
general direction of the writer, by his friends and assistants, six
machines having been at various times especially fitted up for this
purpose.
The exact determination of these laws and their reduction to formulae
have proved a slow but most interesting problem; but by far the most
difficult undertaking has been the development of the methods and
finally the appliances (i.e., slide rules) for making practical use of
these laws after they were discovered.
In 1884 the writer succeeded in making a slow solution of this problem
with the help of his friend, Mr. Geo. M. Sinclair, by indicating the
values of these variables through curves and laying down one set of
curves over another. Later my friend, Mr. H. L. Gantt, after devoting
about 1 1/2 years exclusively to this work, obtained a much more rapid
and simple solution. It was not, however, until 1900, in the works of
the Bethlehem Steel Company, that Mr. Carl G. Barth, with the assistance
of Mr. Gantt and a small amount of help from the writer, succeeded in
developing a slide rule by means of which the entire problem can be
accurately and quickly solved by any mechanic.
The difficulty from a mathematical standpoint of obtaining a rapid and
accurate solution of this problem will be appreciated when it is
remembered that twelve independent variables enter into each problem,
and that a change in any of these will affect the answer. The
instruction card can be put to wide and varied use. It is to the art of
management what the drawing is to engineering, and, like the latter,
should vary in size and form according to the amount and variety of the
information which it is to convey. In some cases it should consist of a
pencil memorandum on a small piece of paper which will be sent directly
to the man requiring the instructions, while in others it will be in the
form of several pages of typewritten matter, properly varnished and
mounted, and issued under the check or other record system, so that it
can be used time after time. A description of an instruction card of
this kind may be useful.
After the writer had become convinced of the economy of standard methods
and appliances, and the desirability of relieving the men as far as
possible from the necessity of doing the planning, while master mechanic
at Midvale, he tried to get his assistant to write a complete
instruction card for overhauling and cleaning the boilers at regular
periods, to be sure that the inspection was complete, and that while the
work was thoroughly done, the boilers should be out of use as short a
time as possible, and also to have the various elements of this work
done on piece work instead of by the day. His assistant, not having
undertaken work of this kind before, failed at it, and the writer was
forced to do it himself. He did all of the work of chipping, cleaning,
and overhauling a set of boilers and at the same time made a careful
time study of each of the elements of the work. This time study showed
that a great part of the time was lost owing to the constrained position
of the workman. Thick pads were made to fasten to the elbows, knees, and
hips; special tools and appliances were made for the various details of
the work; a complete list of the tools and implements was entered on the
instruction card, each tool being stamped with its own number for
identification, and all were issued from the tool room in a tool box so
as to keep them together and save time. A separate piece work price was
fixed for each of the elements of the job and a thorough inspection of
each part of the work secured as it was completed.
The instruction card for this work filled several typewritten pages, and
described in detail the order in which the operations should be done and
the exact details of each man's work, with the number of each tool
required, piece work prices, etc.
The whole scheme was much laughed at when it first went into use, but
the trouble taken was fully justified, for the work was better done than
ever before, and it cost only eleven dollars to completely overhaul a
set of 300 H.P. boilers by this method, while the average cost of doing
the same work on day work without an instruction card was sixty-two
dollars.
Regarding the personal relations which should be maintained between
employers and their men, the writer quotes the following paragraphs from
a paper written in 1895. Additional experience has only served to
confirm and strengthen these views; and although the greater part of
this time, in his work of shop organization, has been devoted to the
difficult and delicate task of inducing workmen to change their ways of
doing things he has never been opposed by a strike.
"There has never been a strike by men working under this system,
although it has been applied at the Midvale Steel Works for the past
ten years; and the steel business has proved during this period the
most fruitful field for labor organizations and strikes. And this
notwithstanding the fact that the Midvale Company has never prevented
its men from joining any labor organization. All of the best men in the
company saw clearly that the success of a labor organization meant the
lowering of their wages in order that the inferior men might earn more,
and, of course, could not be persuaded to join.
"I attribute a great part of this success in avoiding strikes to the
high wages which the best men were able to earn with the differential
rates, and to the pleasant feeling fostered by this system; but this is
by no means the whole cause. It has for years been the policy of that
company to stimulate the personal ambition of every man in their employ
by promoting them either in wages or position whenever they deserved it
and the opportunity came.
"A careful record has been kept of each man's good points as well as his
shortcomings, and one of the principal duties of each foreman was to
make this careful study of his men so that substantial justice could be
done to each. When men throughout an establishment are paid varying
rates of day-work wages according to their individual worth, some being
above and some below the average, it cannot be for the interest of those
receiving high pay to join a union with the cheap men.
"No system of management, however good, should be applied in a wooden
way. The proper personal relations should always be maintained between
the employers and men; and even the prejudices of the workmen should be
considered in dealing with them.
"The employer who goes through his works with kid gloves on, and is
never known to dirty his hands or clothes, and who either talks to his
men in a condescending or patronizing way, or else not at all, has no
chance whatever of ascertaining their real thoughts or feelings.
"Above all is it desirable that men should be talked to on their own
level by those who are over them. Each man should be encouraged to
discuss any trouble which he may have, either in the works or outside,
with those over him. Men would far rather even be blamed by their
bosses, especially if the 'tearing out' has a touch of human nature and
feeling in it, than to be passed by day after day without a word, and
with no more notice than if they were part of the machinery.
"The opportunity which each man should have of airing his mind freely,
and having it out with his employers, is a safety-valve; and if the
superintendents are reasonable men, and listen to and treat with respect
what their men have to say, there is absolutely no reason for labor
unions and strikes.
"It is not the large charities (however generous they may be) that are
needed or appreciated by workmen so much as small acts of personal
kindness and sympathy, which establish a bond of friendly feeling
between them and their employers.
"The moral effect of this system on the men is marked. The feeling that
substantial justice is being done them renders them on the whole much
more manly, straightforward, and truthful. They work more cheerfully,
and are more obliging to one another and their employers. They are not
soured, as under the old system, by brooding over the injustice done
them; and their spare minutes are not spent to the same extent in
criticizing their employers."
The writer has a profound respect for the working men of this country.
He is proud to say that he has as many firm friends among them as among
his other friends who were born in a different class, and he believes
that quite as many men of fine character and ability are to be found
among the former as in the latter. Being himself a college educated man,
and having filled the various positions of foreman, master mechanic,
chief draftsman, chief engineer, general superintendent, general
manager, auditor, and head of the sales department, on the one hand, and
on the other hand having been for several years a workman, as
apprentice, laborer, machinist, and gang boss, his sympathies are
equally divided between the two classes.
He is firmly convinced that the best interests of workmen and their
employers are the same; so that in his criticism of labor unions he
feels that he is advocating the interests of both sides. The following
paragraphs on this subject are quoted from the paper written in 1895 and
above referred to:
"The author is far from taking the view held by many manufacturers that
labor unions are an almost unmitigated detriment to those who join them,
as well as to employers and the general public.
"The labor unions--particularly the trades unions of England--have
rendered a great service, not only to their members, but to the world,
in shortening the hours of labor and in modifying the hardships and
improving the conditions of wage workers.
"In the writer's judgment the system of treating with labor unions would
seem to occupy a middle position among the various methods of adjusting
the relations between employers and men.
"When employers herd their men together in classes, pay all of each
class the same wages, and offer none of them any inducements to work
harder or do better than the average, the only remedy for the men lies
in combination; and frequently the only possible answer to encroachments
on the part of their employers is a strike.
"This state of affairs is far from satisfactory to either employers or
men, and the writer believes the system of regulating the wages and
conditions of employment of whole classes of men by conference and
agreement between the leaders of unions and manufacturers to be vastly
inferior, both in its moral effect on the men and on the material
interests of both parties, to the plan of stimulating each workman's
ambition by paying him according to his individual worth, and without
limiting him to the rate of work or pay of the average of his class."
The amount of work which a man should do in a day, what constitutes
proper pay for this work, and the maximum number of hours per day which
a man should work, together form the most important elements which are
discussed between workmen and their employers. The writer has attempted
to show that these matters can be much better determined by the expert
time student than by either the union or a board of directors, and he
firmly believes that in the future scientific time study will establish
standards which will be accepted as fair by both sides.
There is no reason why labor unions should not be so constituted as to
be a great help both to employers and men. Unfortunately, as they now
exist they are in many, if not most, cases a hindrance to the prosperity
of both.
The chief reasons for this would seem to be a failure on the part of the
workmen to understand the broad principles which affect their best
interests as well as those of their employers. It is undoubtedly true,
however, that employers as a whole are not much better informed nor more
interested in this matter than their workmen.
One of the unfortunate features of labor unions as they now exist is
that the members look upon the dues which they pay to the union, and the
time that they devote to it, as an investment which should bring them an
annual return, and they feel that unless they succeed in getting either
an increase in wages or shorter hours every year or so, the money which
they pay into the union is wasted. The leaders of the unions realize
this and, particularly if they are paid for their services, are apt to
spend considerable of their time scaring up grievances whether they
exist or not This naturally fosters antagonism instead of friendship
between the two sides. There are, of course, marked exceptions to this
rule; that of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers being perhaps the
most prominent.
The most serious of the delusions and fallacies under which workmen, and
particularly those in many of the unions, are suffering is that it is
for their interest to limit the amount of work which a man should do in
a day.
There is no question that the greater the daily output of the average
individual in a trade the greater will be the average wages earned in
the trade, and that in the long run turning out a large amount of work
each day will give them higher wages, steadier and more work, instead of
throwing them out of work. The worst thing that a labor union can do for
its members in the long run is to limit the amount of work which they
allow each workman to do in a day. If their employers are in a
competitive business, sooner or later those competitors whose workmen do
not limit the output will take the trade away from them, and they will
be thrown out of work. And in the meantime the small day's work which
they have accustomed themselves to do demoralizes them, and instead of
developing as men do when they use their strength and faculties to the
utmost, and as men should do from year to year, they grow lazy, spend
much of their time pitying themselves, and are less able to compete with
other men. Forbidding their members to do more than a given amount of
work in a day has been the greatest mistake made by the English trades
unions. The whole of that country is suffering more or less from this
error now. Their workmen are for this reason receiving lower wages than
they might get, and in many cases the men, under the influence of this
idea, have grown so slow that they would find it difficult to do a good
day's work even if public opinion encouraged them in it.
In forcing their members to work slowly they use certain cant phrases
which sound most plausible until their real meaning is analyzed. They
continually use the expression, "Workmen should not be asked to do more
than a fair day's work," which sounds right and just until we come to
see how it is applied. The absurdity of its usual application would be
apparent if we were to apply it to animals. Suppose a contractor had in
his stable a miscellaneous collection of draft animals, including small
donkeys, ponies, light horses, carriage horses and fine dray horses, and
a law were to be made that no animal in the stable should be allowed to
do more than "a fair day's work" for a donkey. The injustice of such a
law would be apparent to every one. The trades unions, almost without an
exception, admit all of those in the trade to membership--providing they
pay their dues. And the difference between the first-class men and the
poor ones is quite as great as that between fine dray horses and
donkeys. In the case of horses this difference is well known to every
one; with men, however, it is not at all generally recognized. When a
labor union, under the cloak of the expression "a fair day's work,"
refuses to allow a first-class man to do any more work than a slow or
inferior workman can do, its action is quite as absurd as limiting the
work of a fine dray horse to that of a donkey would be.
Promotion, high wages, and, in some cases, shorter hours of work are the
legitimate ambitions of a workman, but any scheme which curtails the
output should be recognized as a device for lowering wages in the long
run.
Any limit to the maximum wages which men are allowed to earn in a trade
is equally injurious to their best interests. The "minimum wage" is the
least harmful of the rules which are generally adopted by trades unions,
though it frequently works an injustice to the better workmen. For
example, the writer has been used to having his machinists earn all the
way from $1.50 to seven and eight dollars per day, according to the
individual worth of the men. Supposing a rule were made that no
machinist should be paid less than $2.50 per day. It is evident that if
an employer were forced to pay $2.50 per day to men who were only worth
$1.50 or $1.75, in order to compete he would be obliged to lower the
wages of those who in the past were getting more than $2.50, thus
pulling down the better workers in order to raise up the poorer men. Men
are not born equal, and any attempt to make them so is contrary to
nature's laws and will fail.
Some of the labor unions have succeeded in persuading the people in
parts of this country that there is something sacred in the cause of
union labor and that, in the interest of this cause, the union should
receive moral support whether it is right in any particular case or not.
Union labor is sacred just so long as its acts are fair and good, and it
is damnable just as soon as its acts are bad. Its rights are precisely
those of nonunion labor, neither greater nor less. The boycott, the use
of force or intimidation, and the oppression of non-union workmen by
labor unions are damnable; these acts of tyranny are thoroughly
un-American and will not be tolerated by the American people.
One of the most interesting and difficult problems connected with the
art of management is how to persuade union men to do a full day's work
if the union does not wish them to do it. I am glad of the opportunity
of saying what I think on the matter, and of explaining somewhat in
detail just how I should expect, in fact, how I have time after time
induced union men to do a large day's work, quite as large as other men
do.
In dealing with union men certain general principles should never be
lost sight of. These principles are the proper ones to apply to all men,
but in dealing with union men their application becomes all the more
imperative.
First. One should be sure, beyond the smallest doubt, that what is
demanded of the men is entirely just and can surely be accomplished.
This certainty can only be reached by a minute and thorough time study.
Second. Exact and detailed directions should be given to the workman
telling him, not in a general way but specifying in every small
particular, just what he is to do and how he is to do it.
Third. It is of the utmost importance in starting to make a change that
the energies of the management should be centered upon one single
workman, and that no further attempt at improvement should be made until
entire success has been secured in this case. Judgment should be used in
selecting for a start work of such a character that the most clear cut
and definite directions can be given regarding it, so that failure to
carry out these directions will constitute direct disobedience of a
single, straightforward order.
Fourth. In case the workman fails to carry out the order the management
should be prepared to demonstrate that the work called for can be done
by having some one connected with the management actually do it in the
time called for.
The mistake which is usually made in dealing with union men, lies in
giving an order which affects a number of workmen at the same time and
in laying stress upon the increase in the output which is demanded
instead of emphasizing one by one the details which the workman is to
carry out in order to attain the desired result. In the first case a
clear issue is raised: say that the man must turn out fifty per cent
more pieces than he has in the past, and therefore it will be assumed by
most people that he must work fifty per cent harder. In this issue the
union is more than likely to have the sympathy of the general public,
and they can logically take it up and fight upon it. If, however, the
workman is given a series of plain, simple, and reasonable orders, and
is offered a premium for carrying them out, the union will have a much
more difficult task in defending the man who disobeys them. To
illustrate: If we take the case of a complicated piece of machine work
which is being done on a lathe or other machine tool, and the workman is
called upon (under the old type of management) to increase his output by
twenty-five or fifty per cent there is opened a field of argument in
which the assertion of the man, backed by the union, that the task is
impossible or too hard, will have quite as much weight as that of the
management. If, however, the management begins by analyzing in detail
just how each section of the work should be done and then writes out
complete instructions specifying the tools to be used in succession, the
cone step on which the driving belt is to run, the depth of cut and the
feed to be used, the exact manner in which the work is to be set in the
machine, etc., and if before starting to make any change they have
trained in as functional foremen several men who are particularly expert
and well informed in their specialties, as, for instance, a speed boss,
gang boss, and inspector; if you then place for example a speed boss
alongside of that workman, with an instruction card clearly written out,
stating what both the speed boss and the man whom he is instructing are
to do, and that card says you are to use such and such a tool, put your
driving belt on this cone, and use this feed on your machine, and if you
do so you will get out the work in such and such a time, I can hardly
conceive of a case in which a union could prevent the boss from ordering
the man to put his driving belt just where he said and using just the
feed that he said, and in doing that the workman can hardly fail to get
the work out on time. No union would dare to say to the management of a
works, you shall not run the machine with the belt on this or that cone
step. They do not come down specifically in that way; they say, "You
shall not work so fast," but they do not say, "You shall not use such
and such a tool, or run with such a feed or at such a speed." However
much they might like to do it, they do not dare to interfere
specifically in this way. Now, when your single man under the
supervision of a speed boss, gang boss, etc., runs day after day at the
given speed and feed, and gets work out in the time that the instruction
card calls for, and when a premium is kept for him in the office for
having done the work in the required time, you begin to have a moral
suasion on that workman which is very powerful. At first he won't take
the premium if it is contrary to the laws of his union, but as time goes
on and it piles up and amounts to a big item, he will be apt to step
into the office and ask for his premium, and before long your man will
be a thorough convert to the new system. Now, after one man has been
persuaded, by means of the four functional foremen, etc., that he will
earn more money under the new system than under the laws of the union,
you can then take the next man, and so convert one after another right
through your shop, and as time goes on public opinion will swing around
more and more rapidly your way.
I have a profound respect for the workmen of the United States; they are
in the main sensible men--not all of them, of course, but they are just
as sensible as are those on the side of the management There are some
fools among them; so there are among the men who manage industrial
plants. They are in many respects misguided men, and they require a
great deal of information that they have not got. So do most managers.
All that most workmen need to make them do what is right is a series of
proper object lessons. When they are convinced that a system is offered
them which will yield them larger returns than the union provides for,
they will promptly acquiesce. The necessary object lessons can best be
given by centering the efforts of the management upon one spot. The
mistake that ninety-nine men out of a hundred make is that they have
attempted to influence a large body of men at once instead of taking one
man at a time.
Another important factor is the question of time. If any one expects
large results in six months or a year in a very large works he is
looking for the impossible. If any one expects to convert union men to a
higher rate of production, coupled with high wages, in six months or a
year, he is expecting next to an impossibility. But if he is patient
enough to wait for two or three years, he can go among almost any set of
workmen in the country and get results.
Some method of disciplining the men is unfortunately a necessary element
of all systems of management. It is important that a consistent,
carefully considered plan should be adopted for this as for all other
details of the art. No system of discipline is at all complete which is
not sufficiently broad to cover the great variety in the character and
disposition of the various men to be found in a shop.
There is a large class of men who require really no discipline in the
ordinary acceptance of the term; men who are so sensitive, conscientious
and desirous of doing just what is right that a suggestion, a few words
of explanation, or at most a brotherly admonition is all that they
require. In all cases, therefore, one should begin with every new man by
talking to him in the most friendly way, and this should be repeated
several times over until it is evident that mild treatment does not
produce the desired effect.
Certain men are both thick-skinned and coarse-grained, and these
individuals are apt to mistake a mild manner and a kindly way of saying
things for timidity or weakness. With such men the severity both of
words and manner should be gradually increased until either the desired
result has been attained or the possibilities of the English language
have been exhausted.
Up to this point all systems of discipline should be alike. There will
be found in all shops, however, a certain number of men with whom talk,
either mild or severe, will have little or no effect, unless it produces
the conviction that something more tangible and disagreeable will come
next. The question is what this something shall be.
Discharging the men is, of course, effective as far as that individual
is concerned, and this is in all cases the last step; but it is
desirable to have several remedies between talking and discharging more
severe than the one and less drastic than the other.
Usually one or more of the following expedients are adopted for this
purpose:
First. Lowering the man's wages.
Second. Laying him off for a longer or shorter period of time.
Third. Fining him.
Fourth. Giving him a series of "bad marks," and when these sum up to
more than a given number per week or month, applying one or the other of
the first three remedies.
The general objections to the first and second expedients is that for a
large number of offenses they are too severe, so that the disciplinarian
hesitates to apply them. The men find this out, and some of them will
take advantage of this and keep much of the time close to the limit. In
laying a man off, also, the employer is apt to suffer as much in many
cases as the man, through having machinery lying idle or work delayed.
The fourth remedy is also objectionable because some men will
deliberately take close to their maximum of "bad marks."
In the writer's experience, the fining system, if justly and properly
applied, is more effective and much to be preferred to either of the
others. He has applied this system of discipline in various works with
uniform success over a long period of years, and so far as he knows,
none of those who have tried it under his directions have abandoned it.
The success of the fining system depends upon two elements:
First. The impartiality, good judgment and justice with which it is
applied.
Second. Every cent of the fines imposed should in some form be returned
to the workmen. If any part of the fines is retained by the company, it
is next to impossible to keep the workmen from believing that at least a
part of the motive in fining them is to make money out of them; and this
thought works so much harm as to more than overbalance the good effects
of the system. If, however, all of the fines are in some way promptly
returned to the men, they recognize it as purely a system of discipline,
and it is so direct, effective and uniformly just that the best men soon
appreciate its value and approve of it quite as much as the company.
In many cases the writer has first formed a mutual beneficial
association among the employees, to which all of the men as well as the
company contribute. An accident insurance association is much safer and
less liable to be abused than a general sickness or life insurance
association; so that, when practicable, an association of this sort
should be formed and managed by the men. All of the fines can then be
turned over each week to this association and so find their way directly
back to the men. Like all other elements, the fining system should not
be plunged into head first. It should be worked up to gradually and with
judgment, choosing at first only the most flagrant cases for fining and
those offenses which affect the welfare of some of the other workmen. It
will not be properly and most effectively applied until small offenses
as well as great receive their appropriate fine. The writer has fined
men from one cent to as high as sixty dollars per fine. It is most
important that the fines should be applied absolutely impartially to all
employees, high and low. The writer has invariably fined himself just as
he would the men under him for all offenses committed.
The fine is best applied in the form of a request to contribute a
certain amount to the mutual beneficial association, with the
understanding that unless this request is complied with the man will be
discharged.
In certain cases the fining system may not produce the desired result,
so that coupled with it as an additional means of disciplining the men
should be the first and second expedients of "lowering wages" and
"laying the men off for a longer or shorter time"
The writer does not at all depreciate the value of the many
semi-philanthropic and paternal aids and improvements, such as
comfortable lavatories, eating rooms, lecture halls, and free lectures,
night schools, kindergartens, baseball and athletic grounds, village
improvement societies, and mutual beneficial associations, unless done
for advertising purposes. This kind of so-called welfare work all tends
to improve and elevate the workmen and make life better worth living.
Viewed from the managers' standpoint they are valuable aids in making
more intelligent and better workmen, and in promoting a kindly feeling
among the men for their employers. They are, however, of distinctly
secondary importance, and should never be allowed to engross the
attention of the superintendent to the detriment of the more important
and fundamental elements of management. They should come in all
establishments, but they should come only after the great problem of
work and wages has been permanently settled to the satisfaction of both
parties. The solution of this problem will take more than the entire
time of the management in the average case for several years.
Mr. Patterson, of the National Cash Register Company, of Dayton, Ohio,
has presented to the world a grand object lesson of the combination of
many philanthropic schemes with, in many respects, a practical and
efficient management. He stands out a pioneer in this work and an
example of a kindhearted and truly successful man. Yet I feel that the
recent strike in his works demonstrates all the more forcibly my
contention that the establishment of the semi-philanthropic schemes
should follow instead of preceding the solution of the wages question;
unless, as is very rarely the case, there are brains, energy and money
enough available in a company to establish both elements at the same
time.
Unfortunately there is no school of management. There is no single
establishment where a relatively large part of the details of management
can be seen, which represent the best of their kinds. The finest
developments are for the most part isolated, and in many cases almost
buried with the mass of rubbish which surrounds them.
Among the many improvements for which the originators will probably
never receive the credit which they deserve the following may be
mentioned.
The remarkable system for analyzing all of the work upon new machines as
the drawings arrived from the drafting-room and of directing the
movement and grouping of the various parts as they progressed through
the shop, which was developed and used for several years by Mr. Wm. II.
Thorne, of Wm. Sellers & Co., of Philadelphia, while the company was
under the general management of Mr. J. Sellers Bancroft. Unfortunately
the full benefit of this method was never realized owing to the lack of
the other functional elements which should have accompanied it.
And then the employment bureau which forms such an important element of
the Western Electric Company in Chicago; the complete and effective
system for managing the messenger boys introduced by Mr. Almon Emrie
while superintendent of the Ingersoll Sargent Drill Company, of Easton,
Pa.; the mnemonic system of order numbers invented by Mr. Oberlin Smith
and amplified by Mr. Henry R. Towne, of The Yale & Towne Company, of
Stamford, Conn.; and the system of inspection introduced by Mr. Chas. D.
Rogers in the works of the American Screw Company, at Providence, R. I.
and the many good points in the apprentice system developed by Mr.
Vauclain, of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, of Philadelphia.
The card system of shop returns invented and introduced as a complete
system by Captain Henry Metcalfe, U. S. A., in the government shops of
the Frankford Arsenal represents another such distinct advance in the
art of management. The writer appreciates the difficulty of this
undertaking as he was at the same time engaged in the slow evolution of
a similar system in the Midvale Steel Works, which, however, was the
result of a gradual development instead of a complete, well thought out
invention as was that of Captain Metcalfe.
The writer is indebted to most of these gentlemen and to many others,
but most of all to the Midvale Steel Company, for elements of the system
which he has described. The rapid and successful application of the
general principles involved in any system will depend largely upon the
adoption of those details which have been found in actual service to be
most useful. There are many such elements which the writer feels should
be described in minute detail. It would, however, be improper to burden
this record with matters of such comparatively small importance.