Note: A reprint of a reprint. This piece from 1897 was reprinted in NEWS #010, April 1993 and NEWS #011, June 1993..
Joshua Rose was a Victorian authority on engineering practice. His texts were standard reference for the metal machinist. The extract-below is the. first of a series of reprints of Rose’s writings in the magazine English Mechanic. It was published in the letters section of issue No.663 dated Dec 7 1897 on page 315
Scarcity of Good Workmen
I have read with some interest the remarks made in the English Mechanic upon the "Scarcity of Good Workmen", "Piece Work", "the Trades' Union", etc. These are to me matters of intense interest, and the opinions I hold upon them are the results of personal experience. First, then, the "scarcity of Good workmen". There can be little question upon this point, because the introduction of special machinery has obviated, in a great measure the necessity for them. Special machinery will perform a large quantity of reasonably or say, very accurate work, but I have not seen any special machine work of any size that could not be exceeded in quality by the use of the file. I believe that there are to be found today workmen who are as expert as any to be found in times past, but they are getting scarcer, and this is in a great measure due to the fact that such good work is not exacted by employers. Is it not a fact that as good samples of work, both in metal and wood are to be found among the productions of bygone ages as-are to be found among our present productions? And yet their tools were crude. At the Philadelphia Exhibition, the Japanese bronzes, far eclipsed any other samples of metal work, and so, likewise, their carpenters came with saws with the teeth sloping, what we should call backwards, and produced work of splendid quality. Their pulling the saw enabled them to use thinner blades; the duty strain was in a direction to keep the blade straight, and not to buckle it' They distance all for quality, and were not so very far behind in quantity, and the sandpaper could, in many cases, follow the saw. I found no difficulty in using their saws and a sense of delicacy in the cut that at once proclaimed their method of cutting the teeth right for the production of fine work; but circular saws and gang saws will work havoc with the quality of Japanese workmen, just as fast as the latter catch the spirit of the age, which teaches to get all the quantity possible, and as much quality as you can in such a quantity and time. As for piecework, it is beyond question the correct method to work by, and could be easily carried out in almost all workshops, if both sides would be reasonable; but each blames the other when both are in the wrong, and, as a rule, the employer the most.
The records of the South-Eastern Railway Company's workshops, at Ashford, in Kent, England, will show that in 1866 and 1867 I was doing piece-work there, not only at a greatly reduced cost over the daywork, but far below the prices of other piece-work men. Example: Engine No.199 was a new engine; she got smashed at the well-remembered Staplehurst accident. when repaired I did the new axle-boxes, brasses, etc. in the ordinary course of my piecework. Now, for that job I got about 30 per cent less than the man who was working within 50ft of me on precisely the same work! And yet I was asked to reduce my prices, while he was not. Why? Because I earned too much money and he didn’t. The rule was a piecework guy may earn half as much again as his day wages, and if he earns more his price must be cut, no matter how cheap his work is,-and I know that if I could have made locomotives for 6d. each they would have grumbled if I earned more than the "time and half”. I have not quoted an isolated case. I did by piecework about 1,000 axle boxes, sets of link motion connecting-rods, coupling-rods, and, among other things, about 1,000 motion-bars; and it is a fact easily verified from the books that during the whole of the time that I did those bars others were paid some 30 per cent, more for bars done by piecework than I was, and it was a constant war with me because I earned so much money, while others remained unmolested. After I left the shop nobody would touch the bars at my price (17s. 6d. per 8 bars and 4 motion blocks). I used to average about, I think, 9s. per day on them, and yet the apprentices, who had served six years, and were paid 16s. a week could not do the bars at my price! A labourer was, when last I heard, trying to do them at my price, but I am satisfied he failed. I was in trouble for earning too much, the day workmen were in trouble because their work would cost twice or three times what mine did. The foremen were in trouble because the superintendent could not understand how there could be so much difference in the time taken on the job, which looked worse than the difference in the wages earned; and the superintendent was in trouble to have the books show that during about twenty years the job had taken an average of nine days' work, whereas my time was less than two. Now the work passed from my hands into those of the charge-men, who were scarcely likely to favour me much. For example, one of them refused to accept a set of bars because, though dead true to surface-plate when held in the vice, they showed hollow in their lengths when rested faces upwards, and upon two small blocks of wood, one placed under each end - the deflection of the bar from its own weight making the difference, though it was a heavy steel bar. If the backs of the bars were polished after the faces were trued it would alter the truth enough to have the bars returned to me. I have taken half a set of castings, another man the other half set, cast at the same time, of the same metal, and from the same patterns. I have taken the job for, say, 20 per cent less money, done the job in 20 per cent less time, and then had trouble because I earned too much. Did the superintendent at any time during the whole two or three years once come and ask me how I did it? Not he; it took him all his time to consider how to reduce my prices, and push the foremen to have others' work make a more respectable comparison with mine. Did the foremen ever come and ask that question? By no means. One of them was a boiler-maker or blacksmith's striker, I forget which, promoted for-for-for-well, I don't know what for, except that he sought economy in reducing wages, instead of by getting the work out in the best and quickest manner.
Of the other two and under foremen, one was an erector of many years' standing, the other a fitter and erector who was not long out of his time: so I leave you to guess what chance there was for skilful management of the turners, planers etc. Nor need it be explained how it took some three days to bore a cylinder that Wm. Sellers and Co., of Philadelphia, bore in 3½ to 4 hours. The workmen did ask, and some few I told. I verily believe that, of the three, the workmen were the best disposed towards me - not that they looked with favour upon one who was a perpetual gauge, to their detriment, the trade union did not show me any favour - it was not reasonable to expect it, and I did not look to them for it. I found myself receiving the lowest wages in the shop when measured by the quantity of work I did; and there was no fear of the quality when every job had to be examined and passed by the day-work charge-man. I found that there was no recognition to be had of any skill that led to making more money than time and a half. I found that any exhibition of skill that led beyond that was, as a means of advancement, worse than useless - I must work as a worse workman than I was, or idle away some of my time, in order to keep out of trouble with my employers; and, as a workman, I have always found it so.
Mine is not an isolated case. The present manager of the North London Ironworks was a turner in the same shop, and the records of that shop will show a similar state of affairs with relation to his work as compared to others. He, too, had not the good will of the management, because he did so much work that he was a reproof to one of those bad systems of which S. Mayer speaks.
I had some Utopian notions in those days: I thought that if I put my life into my work my advancement would come of itself; that as long as my work was as well done as others or fully up to the required standard, and my price less than that of others, it would not matter how much I earned. But my prices were cut down time after time, until at last I tried the plan of commencing with so low a price that no workman would give a price against me. Thus the motion bars mentioned were let (to the lowest bidder) for £1.18s., I think, but he made too much, and was reduced to £1.14s. When he went away (for I never cut another man's job down) I took them for 17s.6d., and at last I made up my mind to leave the country where such things could be. I find the same faults in a lesser degree to exist here. There is no such things as wages recognition of any above a certain standard of ability, which is gauged by a certain rate of pay. I said to an employer who asked "What wages do you want?" "I will work a week. We shall not quarrel about wages, I think; all I shall expect is to get a little less than others in proportion to the quantity and quality of the work I do." "Certainly, certainly," said he, "that is fair enough." At the end of the week I was paid £3.15s. My job was done in a week, and it had previously cost nearly four times that amount. I went to my employer. He said he was pleased with the quality of my work and had paid me as much as the oldest and best paid man in the shop, and that he usually paid about £3 to start. "I have my labour to sell", said I, "surely I am worthy of as much consideration as a horse, and you wouldn't object to pay the worth of a horse because you had never bought him before." He laughed, and said, "Oh! You know there is a regular rule in these things - so much to start and raise afterwards." "Yes, said I, "there is always a rule not to recognise any value or worth beyond that represented by so many shillings a week." It was Utopian to expect labour to be paid for by quality and quantity, the same as a pound of butter.
Now for the other side of the question. What is an employer to do if he paid men according to their skill? Many would be very dissatisfied- and the shop would be in a continual turmoil, because it is a hard thing to get men to draw a proper estimation of their own skill, and not many men know exactly how good or how bad workmen they are. Then the foreman ought certainly to get more wages than the best workman in the shop, whereas, taking the average quality of workmen and the average relative pay of foreman to workman, occasions would arise where a workman, from unusual skill, would, if paid in proportion to his work measured by that of others, get more money than the foreman. I have been paid as a workman day wages equal to that of the foreman, but it had to be kept a secret.
Then a new man's wages are set from a week's work. He may get a job he is skilful at, and work very hard, and afterwards show far less skill, and work much easier on other work; hence there is some reason (and a good deal, too) in starting day workmen at a given rate. The fact is, that there is no very clear way out of these difficulties (as the employer I soon found that out) except by piecework, and measuring the pay by the work, no matter what the pay came to. When I paid a piecework man at a lathe £7.4s. a week, and other workmen came to me for a raise of wages, I said take his work at his prices, and if you can get as much work out of the lathe, or very nearly as much, as he does, you shall have his job, and I'll find him another. When as a foreman, my employer said, "One of the men is earning £7 to £7.10s. a week." I said, “Yes, and when the other men can earn that much in the same way your pumps will cost you £4 instead of £5 each." The man finally left, and the cost of his-work rose at once 25 per cent, by piecework, and 30 per cent by daywork. I have come to this conclusion: Piecework should start at least 20%, less than its cost daywork, and where practical the price should be set for a certain length of time, and then be subject to readjustment. Thus he will keep his wits alive to find more skilful methods of manipulation. it will pay him, in his own time, to make tools and appliances for his work, and it will give him a chance to save enough in 20 or 30 years of hard work to keep him the rest of his days. As a rule, two years of piecework will reduce the cost of work to at least one half, and the necessities of workmen will always destroy any combination to keep up prices, providing all the men have a fair field; besides, men will not consent to withhold their skill if they can see a way to reap the benefit of it. If the work a man does is what he is paid for, and employers abandon the idea of a maximum rate of pay - if "time and a half is abolished, and so much money for so much work is substituted, trade-unions will be compelled to repeal any rules they may (or may not) have as to a minimum rate of pay; but while employers stick to a maximum, regardless of skill, gauging that maximum from an average that does not exist, it is childish to complain that men try to establish a minimum. There is no possible equality in men's capabilities. There are no best men, though may be a there best man, and when a system is instituted that sifts out the best man, each for his work, and pays him accordingly, the worst ones will soon find out that they have mistaken their occupations, while the system that pays according to results will reduce the quantity of worst men by giving them an incentive to learn, instead of merely spending so many hours a week in a shop.