Human factors in industry; a study of group organization

Front matter

^HMj^** T

Cornell University Library HD 2353.T5

Human factors in industry; a study of gro

Preface

To consider all the elements which are involved in a complete, study of the labor problem would be impossible in any single volume. Study of the subconscious necessities of human development — ^which operate in connection with industry as they do in connection with all other social progress — would lead into the realm of philosophy if it were to be pursued to fundamentals. Merely to obtain an immediate and practical understanding of the conditions would require an examination of social and political progress in the various industrial countries, in order to explain the relation between labor troubles and political outlook; while educational methods and conditions have so important a bearing upon the development in industrial relations that a proper consideration of the question would require a very careful analysis of these conditions.

The extent and value of present medical knowledge, the effect of universal suffrage, and the effect of racial and traditional religions would form a part of any complete analysis of the matter.

This volume intends to deal only with the relation of the question to the practical development of industry in the more or less immediate future. For that reason it will be confined to those industrial methods, in the present and the comparatively recent past, which are necessary to the analysis of this part of the subject. Wherever it is important to deal with the social, educational, or other general aspects of the matter, in order to show the way in which they have affected industry, these matters will be stated as concisely and clearly as possible. No attempt iv PREFACE

will be made to discuss the evidence or make any detailed examination, beyond that necessary for the purpose of explaining the present industrial condition.

For the most part, this work deals with the mental factors of industrial relationships, with organization conditions, and with experiments in changing or modifying organizations. Due consideration is given to the ideas of labor unions and their definition of their objects, as well as to the developments brought about by various industrial groups or units, and through the pressure of public opinion. The work is the result of a great many years of intimate observation of industrial conditions in actual work with labor and in the supervision of all kinds of labor. It is hoped that it will present to the business man and the student of industrial affairs, a sufficiently complete and concise analysis of the difficulties which must be met and the outlook in meeting them.

Harry Tipper

New York City, March 20, 1922.

Contents

Chapter Page

I The Growth and Development of Labor

Unions 3

Chapter I The Growth And Development Of Trade Unions

Early Industrial Difficulties

In some quarters arguments have been advanced to show that the modern trade union is a logical outcome of the guild system of the Middle Ages. Efforts have been made to develop the agreement between these ideas of business organization among workers, but an examination of the structure of the guild system and its operations indicates that it was quite different, and rose out of different industrial and social necessities.

In fact, the whole character of social existence prior to the introduction of the steam engine into the factory in the year 1785 was so different, that it can be used only to indicate the traditions out of which have come the general political, social, and industrial ideas governing our development. It is true that industrial questions were sufficiently important to influence political action at earlier periods. There are a number of records in the laws of Great Britain in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, indicating the extent of industrial difficulties. In 1 541, Parliament was concerned with the drift of farm labor to the cities. The question was discussed at great length in the Houses of Parliament, and resulted in a law conscripting every tenth man for farm work on his coming of age. The wage of these farm laborers was fixed and the conditions of their employment specified to some extent.

The common law of Great Britain at this time and until long after the beginning of the factory era, expressly forbade the combination of workers, one with the other, for the purpose of raising wages or otherwise altering the conditions of their employment. Of course, the same laws forbade combinations of employers for the restraint of trade, but the actual enforcement of the laws was more strictly observed in the case of the workers.

Simplicity of Early Conditions

Up to the beginning of the factory era, production had changed very little in the thousands of years since the Egyptian civilization. The political, legal, and social structure had been built upon this economic organization. The worker learned his trade at the bench, the loom, or the forge, and was required to employ all the instruments of his trade and to do all the work involved in his trade, from the selection of the raw material to the sale of the finished product. There were few standards, and therefore no means of comparison. There was little competition. The skill of the individual worker determined the value of his goods. Towns of fifty miles apart were further away economically than opposite sides of the world are today. The groups of workers under the same roof were small. It is calculated that in the year 1800 in Great Britain, there were not more than fifty establishments housing more than ten workers each. The instruments of his industry were owned by the worker, and the employer supplied only the place to work and the material for the work. Between 1750 and 1800 the use of water power for manufacturing purposes developed to a slight degree the ownership of the machinery by the owner of the factory, particularly in textile work of weaving and spinning. Even in this industry, however, most of the workers

GROWTH OF LABOR UNIONS S

owned their own looms, spinning wheels, or carding machines.

Until the introduction of the steam engine, the worker operated as an individual, and his skill at his trade represented his value. The instruments of industry were very crude and simple, and the difference in the product was the difference in the skill of the worker. Production was an individual, personal, and intimate matter. The object of the job and the skill of the worker were reflected immediately in the character and value of his finished product.

Communication was difficult; reading and writing a rare accomplishment. The workers' interests were confined, for the most part, to his own community — ^those things which he could see from his own door-step. He could continue to exercise and enlarge his skill for a lifetime in the pursuit of his own work, without reaching the measurable perfection of his ideals. His political and social outlook was concerned only with his immediate surroundings. Every community of workers was the center of a little district which was practically independent of any other district, and had no important problems without the confines of its territory.

The Steam Engine and Loss of Craftsmanship

When the steam engine was introduced into industry and provided the factory owner with a source of constant power, it became possible for the owner of the building to put in the machinery, hire the worker at the usual wage, and produce much more rapidly at a much lower cost. This extension of the ownership from the factory itself to the ownership of the equipment, added to the capital possibilities and to the owner's power over production conditions.

In order to get the greatest benefit out of this investment in the equipment, it was necessary to bring the worker to the mill and to bring larger and larger groups of workers together. Because the machine was of value in production only as the same operation could be repeated, it became necessary to standardize the work. In the first twenty years after the introduction of steam into the mill, the worker, who had been accustomed to pursuing his old trade, found himself the operator of a machine, which repeated its previous performances without change and without any difference in quality. The old weaver, instead of choosing the yarn and the colors, making the design and the cards, and deciding upon the character of the weave, found the yarn was chosen for him, the design standardized to permit of machine operation, and the character of the weave determined. The first trade unions were formed during this period.

British Trade Union Laws

The growing industrial difificulties and the impossibility of enforcing the law against combinations of workers led to the legalizing of these combinations in 1824. Immediately upon this enactment, the increase of workers' combinations and the rapid growth in industrial troubles alarmed the country, so that in 1825 Parliament repealed the Act of 1824, and reinstated the old law.

The manufacturer first introduced the standardized wage at this time. Because of the similarity in the operation of one machine to another, some of the manufacturers decided that it was unnecessary to pay the different wages to which the hand workers had been accustomed, and, for similar operations, they began to standardize the pay.

Trade unions were not entirely legalized in Great Britain until after 1865, and it was not until after 1875 that unions were relieved from suit for damages to industry on account of their combinations. The question was finally disposed of when the decision rendered in the Taft-Vale case had gone to the final appeal about 1900.

British Unions a Necessary Growth

The industrial conditions of Great Britain during the earlier period were sufficiently appalling. There were no child labor laws, and children from five to seven years old worked with older people in factories in which there were no standardized hours in the day. There was no efficient system of lighting. In the short winter day the work had to be continued with the aid of the feeble tallow candle. No knowledge of sanitary requirements existed, and factories were built with little regard to window space, air, and other necessary health provisions. They were crowded with workers to the limit of possibility. There were no laws against fines and penalties upon the workers, and in some lines of business the conditions grew so intolerable as to excite the attention of public reformers in various parts of the country. The evils of boarding, of the fine and penalty system, of long hours in unsanitary buildings, and of child labor, had been going on for two generations in Great Britain before the end of the Civil War.

During this period the trade union development received its greatest justification and attained its greatest definition of object. The development of the factory system in that country between the years 1785 and 1875 had been so unjust, and had resulted in a servitude so appalling, that the development of the trade union was a matter of life and death to the individual worker. The objects and the ideals of the union were defined when the bitterness of the fight for justice colored the policies and the definition. Not only that, but the workers were unable to voice their protest through political action. There was no universal suffrage and the methods employed in the elections made it impossible for the workers to bring their grievances to the law-making body. The strikes which occurred were necessary as a means of calling public attention to the injustices suffered by the workers. The riots accompanying these strikes were themselves the outcome of the suffering and the failure of industry to conduct its own reformation. Out of this industrial warfare came the desire for political expression on the part of the labor unions. This resulted in the policy of putting up candidates for Parliament, which policy came into actual practice about 1890.

Later Developments of British Trade Unions

In the last twenty-five years the labor organizations in Great Britain have secured a firm hold upon the workers of that country. A majority of the workers, in most lines of industries, are members of trade unions. In many occupations the majority is from 85 to 95 per cent of the total working population in that field. The long development of these organizations and the definition of their objects and aims have solidified their strength. They are necessarily a part of the permanent machinery of industrial control in that country, and their attitude must be taken into account in any examination of the conditions and outlook in Great Britain. Their Parliamentary representation has grown greatly. The Labor Party has secured the balance of power on some question before the British Parliament on more than one occasion. Despite radical movements and the direct-action talk among trade unionists in Great Britain, trade unions as organizations are committed to political action, and in their platforms have expressed their adherence to certain well-defined objects of political action.

The Shop Stewards

The long practice of dealing with labor questions through the trade union machinery resulted in the gradual development of a great many rules and regulations, arising out of the different discussions between the industrial groups and the labor representatives in the locality or in the industry. The question of wages was hardly ever raised without having additional questions relating to hours, conditions of work, and methods of production, so that the settlement of each case included the settlement of some of these other questions temporarily. Rules were established to provide for the application of these new agreements in the shop. In the course of years, with this method of settling grievances, the rules and regulations became quite numerous, and called for special machinery for enforcement. The unions each appointed a shop steward, paying him out of their own funds and charging him with the duty of seeing that the rules were lived up to by the company. He was also charged with the duty of representing the union men in conferences with the company, whenever the various rules and regulations were not being enforced, or the conduct of the business was unsatisfactory to the unions.

The practice had grown to be quite general about ten years before the war broke out. The power of the labor organization had increased greatly not only in the discipline of their own members through this systematic control of the operations, but also in their actual power over the methods of industrial development and the observances of the trade union rules within the factory.

This gradual change in operating contact and interprelo HUMAN FACTORS IN INDUSTRY

tation made the trade union organization an integral part of the industrial life of Great Britain. During these years the shop stewards acquired great power in the councils of the local unions. The shop steward in his capacity was capable of showing the value of his services to the union and his ability to settle questions, to preserve the union privileges and maintain the union rules within the shop. This made his iniluence in other trade union matters very great. Just before the outbreak of the war, the shop stewards in various localities had begun to find out the advantages of consulting together upon matters affecting rules and regulations. They formed themselves into local bodies which eventuated as the allied district tradescouncils. In their various localities these bodies sometimes wielded more power than the officers of the separate unions involved.

Co-operative Societies in Great Britain

No examination of the growth of union power in Great Britain would be complete without a consideration of the growth of co-operative societies. Although these were not fathered by trade unions as organizations, they were originated by the workers and continued by the workers, and have been operated without the necessity of outside capital or organization.

The history of these co-operative societies has been sufficiently interesting to call for a number of books upon the subject, but briefly, they started among the textile workers in Yorkshire — a group of whom, irritated by what they regarded as the excessive profits of the retailer, decided to start their own retail store and back it with their own money. They accomplished this and installed the most likely one of their number as the manager of the store, paying him the same wages he would have earned

GROWTH OP LABOR UNIONS n

at the mill. The stock was owned equally by the memhers and dividends were paid part upon the stock and part upon the purchase of goods. In the fifty or sixty years since the inception of this first co-operative effort, the societies had grown marvelously. The combined co-operative societies in Great Britain did a business of approximately $600,000,000 in the year before the war. They owned extensive tea plantations in Ceylon, cattle ranches in Argentina, fleets of ships, factories of almost every kind in Great Britain, miles of warehouses at the important ports, and thousands of stores. These co-operative societies showed, perhaps, more than any other single activity of the workers, the power of a homogeneous people of long mechanical training and similar ideals, to put their co-operative ideas into practical use for themselves.

Union Leaders in Parliament

Another element in the growth of trade union power in Great Britain was the intense interest evinced by the individual unionist in all union questions, and consequently the keen selection of leaders from the standpoint of their capacity. In the hundred years of growth in the trade union organization of Great Britain^ the constant training in organization development and the manifold activities of organization brought to the surface more and more aspirants for place and a keener competition ; so that the leaders were selected with more regard to their capacity for leadership.

When the trade unions in the textile districts in the North of England decided to put up a candidate for Parliament from their own ranks, and pay him a salary from their own funds, they had in mind the accomplishment of some very definite objects.

The writer remembers attending a meeting of trade unionists in Lancastershire, who were assembled to listen to the candidate they had selected for Parliamentary office and hear his views upon public questions. This was one of the earlier efforts to get a labor union man into Parliament. There were about 5,000 men in the hall and the keenness of their interest and the character of their questions to the candidate, left a vivid impression of the power of such a well-defined political movement. The man who was candidate at that time was one of the men who held a cabinet seat in the Coalition government during the war.

This entry into politics demanded the selection of leaders who could be expected to hold their own in Parliament, who could be expected to state the trade union case with power and obtain the respect of their fellow Parliamentarians. The political experience itself also had its effects upon the trade union councils and the character and direction of their activities; so that on all sides the constant experience with political matters acted to consolidate the power of the organization and the effectiveness of its work, in the attainment of the objects before it.

The British Labor Party

Under these conditions, it was not surprising that the government found it necessary to have labor leaders in the cabinet when the war broke out. The trade union organizations were used for the purpose of getting proper production, and the government came to depend upon the co-operative societies for the machinery of manufacturing and distributing goods required by the war or controlled because of the war. The trade union leaders took advantage of the situation to extract from the government definite promises as to the return of their privileges after the war was over, the consideration of their political objects, and the development of machinery for the settlement of industrial disputes. The way in which the Coalition government failed to meet these promises and redeem them in its schedule of reconstruction legislation is likely to have a very great bearing upon the future political development of Great Britain in the next few years. The system for the adjustment of industrial disputes approved by the British government and set in motion recognizes fully the trade union machinery, and makes no provision for any other machinery to represent the workers. The program for reconstruction and some of the work which has been carried out contains a good many clauses directly taken from the reconstruction platform of the Labor Party.

It is not unlikely that the Labor Party for some years will have the balance of power in politics in Great Britain. At any rate the trade unions by their practical development have put themselves in the forefront of every progressive move, so that they are, even in respect of ideas which were promulgated by the old Liberal Party, more important in the eyes of the public. They have consolidated their position in industry so that the character of industrial development in Great Britain will depend to a considerable extent upon the outlook and actions of the trade union organizations.

Union Development in the United States

The development of trade union organization in the United States has progressed only to a small degree in comparison with its growth in Great Britain, and it does not at present occupy the same important position, nor can it be considered, as yet, an integral part of the machinery of industrial organization in this country. Many circum-

Stances have contributed to the difference in development. While a few attempts were made to operate trade unions in this country previous to that time, the union idea began to develop only about thirty years ago, and its growth originated from the workers who were acquainted with the trade union development of Great Britain and its later consideration in Germany.

During the years in which the American Federation of Labor has been operating, there has been an enormous influx of population, coming from countries where there had been no trade union development, nor even the suggestion of a trade union idea, and comprising so many nationalities with so many influences and racial backgrounds that progress in organization was actually very slow. A large portion of this immigration came from countries where there was little industrial development and where individualistic ideas of labor still prevailed, and most of them came to the United States because of the possibility of individual improvement.

In addition to this, the economic status of even the poorly paid laborer was so much better than anything to which these people had been accustomed, they were not aware of the grievances which always form the incentive for initial trade union organization. Nevertheless, the American Federation of Labor progressed to the point where it had about two and one-half million members in 191 3, and in some lines of business the organizations were strong enough to control the situation. The earlier organizations and those which were the strongest were to be found almost invariably among the trades, manned largely by immigrants from Great Britain, Ireland, the Scandinavian countries, and Germany.

The growth of the American Federation of Labor began to accelerate three or four years before the war, and

GROWTH OP LABOR UNIONS IS

its acceleration was intensified by the war conditions and by the advantage taken to strengthen the position of the Federation.

"Industrial Workers of the World"

During the ten years before the war and particularly among the foreign population, the more revolutionary; workers' organizations classified under the general terni "Industrial Workers of the World" began to secure a foothold. In the two or three years immediately preceding the war, the membership in these organizations was very largely accelerated. This occurred primarily in the great cities where the industrial growth had been very rapid. In these places the workers of the different nationalities had remained herded together, without being assimilated in the life of the country, and remained steeped in the racial ideas, sentiments, and animosities in which they had been brought up. In the last fifteen years, therefore, there had grown up in this country many organizations differing in the character of their objects and in the method of their development, none of which were sufficiently powerful to exercise the dominant influence. All of them were powerful enough to cause a great deal of interruption to industry and create a succession of demands — ^without any well-defined object and without any well-defined method of arriving at it.

Present Conditions in Great Britain

The present conditions of Great Britain show :

1. Complete machinery of trade unionism with its local, district, and national councils and its machinery for collective bargaining with groups of employers.

2. A political labor party, grown out of the desire for political expression by the workers, and developed l6 HUMAN FACTORS IN INDUSTRY

until it includes a great many of the small shopkeepers, the professional classes, and other brain workers. This is a political party with very definite political aims of an economic character and with a powerful influence upon the whole character of politics in Great Britain. There are indications that its power, exhibited in the war, has not decreased since the war has ended, and that it will exercise a more important influence upon politics than it has done in the past.

3. The introduction of government-approved machinery for the investigation and settlements of labor disputes, which includes the local, district, and national trade imion organizations as the representatives of the workers, and the employers' associations as representatives of capital. This system has, as its fundamental principle, the use of local and national bodies to include representatives of trade unions, employers' associations, and the unaffiliated public or government.

4. A general tendency on the part of all sections of the population to admit the necessity for public or political action upon economic matters, and a general approval of the government encouragement to consider such matters from a political standpoint.

These developments indicate that the present conditions in Great Britain, in respect of labor problems, are entirely different from those obtaining in the United States. The methods which are being employed in that country to meet these problems are not applicable to conditions in the United States. The workers are so completely organized in Great Britain that the unions represent a large majority of the workers in any industry. The rules and regulations of the union govern the operations of the different factories to such an extent that all workers are accustomed to these and to working under union conditions. The employers' groups have been accustomed to recognize these unions in their dealings with the workers, and there would be no object in attempting to set up new machinery or break down the present machinery, so completely integrated with the industrial system.

Present Conditions in the United States

In the United States the conditions are entirely diiferent. We find ourselves facing matters with organization that is not nearly so well defined nor so complete. This gives us the opportunity for experimentation along a number of lines and may well allow us to lay a better foundation for the solution of these questions, provided we approach the matter intelligently.

The conditions are briefly:

I. The majority of the workers do not belong to any one organization. The American Federation of Labor, with four million members, claims to be the largest, and it undoubtedly is the best organized, best disciplined, and the most conservative labor organization in the country. It adheres strictly to the original trade union idea which was brought over from Great Britain. The next important, the I. W. W.— the Industrial Workers of the Worldis not a consolidated organization, but consists of a small group of leaders with highly centralized authority and a number of loosely organized bodies held together without any great solidity and displaying very little strength m comparison to the membership claimed. In addition to these, there are unaffiliated unions, some of which are very powerful, and some of which are little more than local societies. The four brotherhoods among the railroad men are examples of strong unaffiliated union bodies. The local orders of street railway workers of New York are examples of local societies. In addition to these organized bodies, there is an enormous number of unorganized workers, who may go together temporarily for some purpose, but who are not gathered into permanent organizations and are susceptible to affiliation with a number of new movements.

2. The existence of a government during the war, friendly to trade unionism, gave a large amount of additional power to the American Federation of Labor. Since the war ended, that organization has been concerned with the development or maintenance of that power. There is no great existing political influence from the labor side, and the public does not favor the consideration of industrial matters by government. None of the labor organizations have been able to put forward well-rounded programs for political action, and the conditions upon this point are altogether different from those obtaining in any industrial European country.

3. The workers in this country comprise many different races with many variations of political and racial background, and until some time has elapsed, it is unlikely that these different races can be amalgamated into welldisciplined labor organizations.

4. The practice of dealing through the trade union machinery for the settlement of disputes is not widespread and is customary only in a few instances. During the war this practice was enlarged, but it did not become sufficiently general to make it important in its influence upon industrial organization.

5. Experiments with other forms of organization to settle labor disputes have increased very rapidly. A number of these have been started. They show the possibility of several different methods of importance in dealing with the subject.

6. A distinct tendency on the part of public opinion to reject what are termed "radical" ideas in economic affairs, and an absence of public interest in the discussion of industrial matters.