Even that part of the bonus which seems to be directed to stimulate the ambition and energy of the individual worker, and to break up the habitual slackness of the group and its regulation stroke, would seem to stand on a precarious footing, when the new method of work was once well established and itself became a habit.Only that part, if any, of the bonus, or higher wage, which was necessary to replace the greater muscular or nervous wear and tear of the speeded-up and more automatic work, would necessarily survive.
It would stand as a necessary cost of production.If, however, as Mr.Taylor and Professor Münsterberg appear to hold, the scientific management need entail no such additional wear and tear, there seems no ground for holding that, after the method became general, any bonus to the workers would be necessary.And if it were unnecessary, it would not, indeed under competitive terms could not, be paid.On this hypothesis, the additional wealth created by the improved efficiency of the system might go entirely to capital.Indeed, so far as the determination were left to individual bargaining, this result would appear almost inevitable.For the greater average efficiency of labour would be equivalent to a larger supply of labour (though it might also mean a better quality), and since no immediate or corresponding increase of demand for labour need accrue, the price per unit of labour would fall.This would mean that the labourer would get no higher payment for his higher productivity.Even if the increasing rate and amount of profits brought increased saving and larger masses of competing capital, it would still seem doubtful whether the aggregate demand for labour would be found to keep pace with the growth of the supply which scientific management plus psychological selection would yield.
Though, therefore, the aggregate product increased, it remains doubtful whether any considerable share of the increase must or would go to labour.
But suppose that organisation of labour or social intervention were able to secure some considerable rise of real wages from the enlarged product, so that as consumers the workers were better off, the human value of the process is not yet established.Two related questions still remain for settlement.First, that already tentatively raised, the question whether the workers may not suffer more from increased human costs of production under the new scientific régime than they gain in human utilities of consumption.Some of the 'science' in its application would indeed appear to be wholly beneficial.The improved methods of selecting and of training labour, so as to get the best man for each job, and to enable him to do his work in the best way, is pure gain, provided that best way does not unduly strain his energy or dull his mind.Other elements of applied psychology are more doubtful in their net effect.The practices of scientific advertising and of suggestive selling have very little proved utility and are nearly as likely to be applied to force the wrong articles on the wrong purchasers as to distribute wealth along the lines of its maximum utility for consumption.
The persons engaged for a livelihood in palming off goods on a public irrespective of any intrinsic merits they contain, pay a heavy toll in character for the work they are called upon to do.
§8.But, turning to the main problem, there remains the issue of the increased mechanisation, or standardisation, of the worker under Scientific Management.Admitting that a certain amount of subdivision of labour, and of diminishing variety, interest and initiative, accruing therefrom, is justified in a human sense by the benefits of enhanced production, is there any limit to this economy, and if there be, is that limit transgressed under Scientific Management? The question does not admit perhaps of any general or certain answer.Suppose it be admitted, as I think it must, that every application of this Scientific Management does squeeze out of the labour-day some human interest, some call upon initiative, reason, judgment, responsibility, surviving under previous conditions even in the most routine and subdivided toil, must we necessarily regard this loss as a heavy increased human cost of labour? Surely it depends upon the particular labour in question.In some, perhaps most, branches of heavy routine toil, the shreds of human interest, the calls on personality, are usually so trifling that it seems absurd to take them into much account.The work of carrying pig-iron, or of shovelling continually the same material, contains so little scope for the play of initiative, responsibility, etc., that any such regimentation as is described can hardly be said to damage the quality of the work or the character of the worker as affected by his work.
If a higher efficiency and a larger output can enable a smaller number of workmen to be kept on labour of so low a grade, there ought to be a net social gain.But there is another compensation possible for any loss of liberty, or increase of monotony, involved in Scientific Management.
