over, have consciously adopted the policy of encouraging inventions and the use of machinery. Unionists realize that, by insisting upon a standard rate of pay, a maximum working day, and a certain minimum of safety and comfort for the workman, factories which are not equipped with modern machinery must eventually be forced out of business. The theory of trade I unions is that the manufacturer must either equip his factory with modern labor-saving devices or else suffer by competition, but that he may not pay lower wages because of his unwillingness to secure the best machinery. Where trade unions do not exist, employers with the worst and oldest machinery and the most antiquated methods manage to eke out a precarious existence by underpaying and starving their workmen, but where trade unionism is able to enforce a definite minimum wage, these less skilful and less adequately equipped manufacturers must either introduce the modern appliances or go to the wall. As a consequence, the countries, the industries, and even the individual establishments where trade unionism is strongest are those in which machinery is applied earliest and to the largest extent.

CHAPTER XXIX

THE RESTRICTION OF THE OUTPUT

The London "Times" on Restriction. Importance of the Question. Unions Opposed to Restriction. Efficiency vs. Restriction. The Attitude of Employers. The Amount of Restriction Exaggerated. Restriction by Unorganized Men. The Demand for Shorter Hours. Rushing and Rate Cutting. Speed and Health. Piece and Premium Systems. The Theory of a Work Fund. Attitude of Unionists on Restriction.

ABOUT two years ago there appeared in the London Times a series of

articles attacking British trade unions for alleged restriction of the output of industry. The contributor to the Times asserted that many of the trade unions of Great Britain were consciously and deliberately conspiring to do as little work per man as possible, and that to this cause the comparative decline of British trade and commerce was to be attributed. It has since been shown that these claims were grossly exaggerated, and that there was but little fire in all this vast cloud of smoke; but the articles in question have evoked a timely discussion as to the manner and extent to which trade unions in the United States and Great Britain limit the output. of labor.

No problem could be of greater importance to the workingman and to the country at large than this question of restriction. Upon this question there should be no room for difference of opinion or divergence in policy. The output of labor is the source of the reward of labor, the basis of national I prosperity. While labor must defend itself against aggressive action upon the part of capital and while a seeming restriction of output may occasionally be necessary to avoid evils worse than actual restriction, the unions of this country should singly and unitedly take a firm stand against the policy of limiting the output except in so far as the output may be restricted by limiting the hours of labor. The slogan of trade unionists should be, and is, a 'fair day's work for a fair day's wage and sufficient pay for efficient work.

The whole question of restriction of output, however, throws a curious light upon some of the favorite contentions of anti-union employers. The employer has always taken a stand against what he terms the intermeddling of dreamers and sentimentalists. "Business," he has maintained, "is business. If the workman is not satisfied with the wages he receives and the hours of labor which I exact from him then he may go elsewhere at his own will and pleasure. I shall pay him as little as I must and get from him as much as I can; but if he can do better elsewhere, I have no objection to his trying." The moral aspect of the labor contract, however, suddenly emerges for the first time when the workingman has the advantage and seeks to profit by it. When the employers inveigh against the immorality of restriction of output, workmen might reply, with perfect logic, "We will give you as little work and extort as much wages as possible, and if you do not like it you may lock us out or close your factory." The workingmen would not be right in adopting such an attitude, but the indignation of the employers is a recognition of the fact that, after all, there is a moral aspect to the labor contract, and the workingmen in sweated trades have just as much right to appeal to the conscience of the nation as the employers would have if a deliberate policy of unjustifiable restriction of output were enforced against them.

The actual amount of such restriction of output has been magnified and exaggerated. It exists to a far less extent in England than has been claimed, and it is admitted by American employers that its extent in the United States is very much smaller than in England. In the vast majority of trades there is no restriction whatsoever, and the number and membership of trade unions which encourage restriction is small and unimportant. But such restriction as exists is not an invention of labor unions, since even unorganized workingmen do not desire, as a rule, to over-exert themselves unless they receive a compensating increase in wages. As a matter of fact, trade unions, by making wages higher and conditions of employment more favorable, tend to stimulate and increase the activity of the workmen rather than restrict it.

It frequently occurs, however, that when a union asks for a justifiable reduction in the length of the working day, the charge is erroneously made that the union is seeking to restrict the output. Again, it occasionally happens that a trade union is obliged to urge its men to go slow in order to prevent a definite, impending injury which may be threatened by the employer. In the machinery and many other trades it has been a common practice on the part of employers to resort to rushing and price cutting. This process. is simple and, with unorganized men, effectual. Men engaged in a certain establishment who are earning three dollars a day and, we will assume, are finishing three pieces of work a day, are urged by the adoption of the piece system to greater activity, with the result that after a while they finish four pieces and secure four dollars a day. Immediately thereafter the piece price is cut to seventy-five cents, with the result that the men still earn three dollars a day. Again the workmen seek to increase their output, and by means of extra exertion a number of them manage to complete five pieces, whereupon, after a short time, the piece price is cut to sixty cents and the more efficient workers still earn only three dollars. By a final effort, and by the most intense exertion, by the partial sacrifice of the dinner hour, by overrushing and the performance of poor work, the most able, skilled and indefatigable employees manage to complete six or seven pieces, with the result that after a short lapse of time the rate is cut again. The effect of all this is experienced in a constant tendency toward reductions in piece prices, which permit a few men to earn more than the standard rate while throwing the majority below it; and which results further in the breaking down of any stationary or reasonable rate of payment, in the deterioration of the quality of the work, in the ill health and often serious sickness of the workingman, and, finally, in the ceaseless, continual falling of piece price to a level where the work is inadequately paid. This example is not an isolated experience, but one which has repeatedly injured men in many trades. The alternate over-rush and under-cutting tend gradually or quickly to undermine the fair wage scale of the employee. Still another device of somewhat the same nature is the employment of men of exceptional skill and endurance as pace

setters. There are always differences in the ability of men to perform work, and both employers and unions are willing to recognize these differences. Employers, however, where pace setters are employed, assume that the wages of the mass of the workers should be determined by the relation of their output to the output of the pace setter; whereas the unions insist that the remuneration of the great mass of workers shall be fixed at a fair minimum wage and that the man of exceptional ability or exceptional endurance may receive a bonus above the regular scale.

Where men are paid by the piece and are constantly urged by pace setters and employers to compete with one another for a job by working at a constantly increasing rate of speed, it is absolutely essential that the union should interfere to counteract this evil. If a man performs, through extra 1 exertion, thirty per cent. more work for three dollars than his neighbor does, he will be preferred in the selection of employees, and the men will be constantly over stimulated to produce a given result. Where there is an undue and unusual exertion, the extreme tension of work injures a man physically and mentally, with the result that men break down and at an early age become totally incapacitated.

The pace setter has been frequently used as a club to depress the wages 1 of men who are not thoroughly organized, and an attempt is constantly made to speed up the men beyond a point compatible with health and permanent good work. If a man is to be employed one day he may work at a tremendous rate of speed; if he is to be employed for a month without interruption and without illness, his rate of speed must be somewhat slackened, and if he is to be permanently employed and is not to be thrown upon the rubbish pile as soon as he attains the age of forty or forty-five, his speed and intensity of work must be regulated at a reasonable rate. As the president of a great railroad said to me, "We employers are responsible for the antagonism to piece work and are to blame for any restriction of output. We have made our employees do work running that it was difficult to do walking." In fact, many fair minded employers of the present day recognize that by ceaseless cutting of the price of work they have simply forced men