Page images
PDF
EPUB

INDUSTRIAL PARTNERSHIPS.

147

The system "consists in assigning to the employed, over and above their wages paid at the ordinary market rate, a part of the net profits realized by the concern for which they work," and the material successes achieved are stated to have been little short of marvellous.

The economic basis upon which the principle rests is best stated in the words of Mr. Taylor himself. Their eco- fund on which the participation draws is the nomic basis. surplus profits realised in consequence of the enhanced efficiency of the work done under its stimulating influence. Such extra profit is, therefore, obtainable whenever workmen have it in their power to increase the quantity, improve the quality, or diminish the cost price of their staple of production by more effective exertion, by increased economy in the use of tools and materials, or by a reduction in the costs of superintendence. In other words, the surplus profit realisable will depend on the influence which manual labour is capable of exerting upon production. Evidently, therefore, this influence will be greatest in branches of industry where the skill of the labourer plays the leading part, where the outlay on tools and materials bears a small ratio to the cost of production, and where individual superintendence is difficult and expensive. It will, on the contrary, be least effective in industries where mechanism is the principal agency, where interest on capital fixed in machinery is the chief element of cost price, and where the workmen assembled in large factories can be easily and effectively superintended." *

"Profit Sharing." Sedley Taylor, M.A. Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., London.

The methods by which the share belonging to the employés under a system of industrial partnership is determined vary with different trades, but in the Blue Book on the subject they are fully described. The three main divisions are—1, Where the workmen's share of profits is distributed in the form of an annual cash bonus; 2, where that share is invested for the benefit of the employés; 3, where part is annually distributed among the workpeople and part invested for their benefit.

Obstacle

extension.

It is the absence of mutual confidence between employers and employed which is the greatest obstacle to the success of industrial partnerships, and so to their far is this the case in this country that a working man, speaking at the Industrial Remuneration Conference, described profit-sharing “as nothing less than a delusive bait on the part of capitalists to goad the workers on to greater intensity of toil." That this accentuated feeling is not general to any extent is proved by the public utterances on the subject of Views of re- representative working men, and by the representative marks of other speakers at that conference. The most widely-spread objection on the part of the employés is, that they have no certainty as to an employer's profit, no means of ascertaining its extent without an investigation of the accounts, and even in many cases when information has been required for boards of conciliation and arbitration, and where the result would have been communicated by the investigator to an umpire only, such an investigation has been refused.

working

men.

But this difficulty could of course be overcome by an inspection of the books being confidentially made by a

BEARING OF ACCOUNTS ON THE LABOUR QUESTION. 149

Influence of proper method of accounts.

sworn accountant, provided always that, as pointed out in a previous chapter, the groundwork of the system of accounts is such that each employé feels he is contributing to the attainment of accurate records of cost, and has general confidence in the manner in which the accounts are kept.

The other objections to the adoption of the principle of industrial partnerships, sometimes advanced by heads of firms and founded upon a "dread of the extra trouble of management and account-keeping thereby entailed," afford further exemplification of the need of systematic and accurate methods of dealing with Factory Accounts; and of the fact that their principles are so little comprehended as to be considered inapplicable under any new set of conditions. Our contention is that these principles have a scientific basis, rendering them applicable to any condition of industrial organization; that to demonstrate their economic results is peculiarly the province of the accountant, and to the attainment of that end a clear and complete system of Factory Accounts is essential.

* "Reports of Her Majesty's Representatives Abroad on the System of Cooperation in Foreign Countries." Blue Book, Commercial, No. 20. 1886. Hansard.

APPENDIX A.

NOMENCLATURE OF MACHINE DETAILS.

BY OBERLIN SMITH, PRESIDENT OF THE FERRACUTE MACHINE COMPANY, BRIDGETON, N.J.

A Paper read before the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and reprinted by the kind permission of the Author.

THAT the nomenclature of machinery, and of the tools and apparatus with which it is constructed is, in this country, in a state of considerable confusion scarcely needs demonstrating. If we look from an international point of view, and include the other English-speaking countries,-Great Britain and her colonies -the confusion becomes worse confounded. A reform is destined, in due time, to come, doubtless to be promoted in great degree by such societies as ours. This reform movement cannot be begun too soon, and should aim at giving brief and suggestive names to all objects dealt with,—each object to have but one name, and each name to belong to but one object. A simple method of beginning such a reform would be a common agreement among all our engineering schools to use each technical word in but one sense, and with no synonyms. A lesser field of reform, and one which lies more particularly within the jurisdiction of individual manufacturers, is the comparative designation of a number of sizes or kinds of the same machine. There is now no common understanding whether a series of sizes shall be numbered or lettered from the largest down, or from the smallest up. The latter is undoubtedly the most natural and suggestive method, but usually becomes confused by want of careful forethought (when starting a series) in providing "gaps" for the insertion of future sizes. If a numerical series has been already started, and become commercially established, the only systematic way to insert new sizes

THE REQUISITES OF A SYMBOLIC NOMENCLATURE.

151

(either at the beginning or through the middle of the series) is to use fractional numbers. This, though awkward in sound and appearance, seems to be the only means of suggesting the comparative size of the article by its name. The use of arbitrary higher numbers between the others is, of course, worse than no numbers at all. The use of a series of letters does not supply this fractional loophole of escape, the euphony of A-and-a-half, K-andthree-quarters, &c., being somewhat doubtful. Another method in much favour is the use of "fancy" names, such as "Diminutive Giant," "Eureka," "Firefly," &c. These are far preferable to confused numbers, as they are not intended to convey any ideas between manufacturer and customer, and admirably succeed in their purpose. All this is a very difficult subject to deal with, and one in regard to which we can scarcely hope for any exact system. We can but point out to manufacturers two general principles to be followed: Ist, of leaving abundant gaps-that is, let a regular series run 10, 20, 30, 40, &c., instead of 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. ; and 2nd, of using the smaller numbers for the smaller objects. The second is similar in idea to the well-known Philadelphia house-numbering system, which has worked so admirably in practice, and which has been copied by numerous other cities.

The two foregoing paragraphs are intended respectively as but casual allusions to the technical and commercial nomenclature of machinery in general. The subject is too elaborate to be treated at length in this paper, the main purpose of which is to set forth the results of the writer's experience in establishing a system of names and symbols for all the component parts, commonly called "details" of machines, or, in fact, of any manufactured articles.

That some such system is necessary, no engineer who has attempted to manufacture machinery by the modern system of duplicate (or approximately duplicate) parts, will, for a moment, question. The necessity for a specific name for each piece, which name is not, never has been, and never will be, used for any different piece of the same or any other machine, is evident, simply for purposes of identification. This identification is required mechanically at almost every stage of production. The name, or a symbol representing it, should be marked upon the drawings, the patterns, and the special tools pertaining to each piece, and, when convenient, upon the piece itself. Commercially, it is required on time cards and in indexes and pattern lists and cost books as pertaining to production. Pertaining to sales these names or symbols must appear in illustrated price lists, and in orders by and charges

« EelmineJätka »