Labour policy—false and true : $b A study in economic history and industrial economicsMacassey, Lynden Livingston
History
Labour policy—false and true : $b A study in economic history and industrial economics
Macassey, Lynden Livingston
Industrial policy -- Great Britain; Labor economics -- Great Britain; Labour Party (Great Britain)
An idea is commonly encountered among the rank and file that to keep
up the labour costs of every operation or job is the best way to
maintain the general value of the labour of the operatives concerned. An
illustration may be taken from the engineering industry. In engineering,
as is well known, England was the pioneer. The practice in the early
days was for a skilled turner or millwright, or other craftsman, to
undertake a job, perform all the necessary machine and bench operations,
and carry it through to completion. Later, as work increased in volume,
and still later in diversity, there gradually evolved a differentiation
between the turner and the fitter, and in more recent times, between
turners and fitters and other kinds of engineering craftsmen. But the
essence of the business was that every person concerned in the work
should be a tradesman, or skilled man. In recent times, the employers
succeeded in establishing “their right”—which is now being questioned—to
promote unskilled men, perhaps shop labourers, to work certain classes
of machines, capstan and turret lathes, etc. These men were graded as
machinists, and when the trade became organized generally received
about three-fourths of the skilled turner’s rate. They were designated
“semi-skilled” men. The point to be observed is that any operation
among the many thousands that constitute skilled work is deemed to be a
“skilled operation,” performable only by a skilled man, and if in special
circumstances it is undertaken by any other person, supposing such an
improbable case, it carries the full skilled rate of pay. Very similar,
but somewhat less rigid, conventions exist in regard to semi-skilled
work. The inflexible way in which the engineering Unions enforce these
trade practices has certainly reserved exclusively for skilled men a
large sphere of work, but it keeps up production costs, and retards
development of the industry. Whenever a new and improved machine has been
introduced, a machine, say, of a type where the skill was mainly in the
machine, and no longer to anything like the same degree required of the
worker, there has been a constant struggle between the Unions and the
employers as to whether the machine should or should not be operated by
a skilled man. Sometimes the employers have won, sometimes the Unions—it
is a pure question of relative strength. But the obvious waste of skill
in employing one skilled man on one of these machines when he could
manage two or more, and the payment of the skilled rate, all added to the
prevailing limitation of production, have discouraged English employers
from installing up-to-date appliances and so cheapening production.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account