more than the strong delusion of the you cannot extend his sentence. А Don. We are making mills into ogres; man captured by brigands might, in the real old nursery ogres that grind comparison, have quite a pleasant time: men's bones to make their bread. We certainly I would much rather live in are seeing windmills awhirl with our a cave with Rob Roy than in a reforown madness and alive with our own matory with lot of police doctors and sins. The only difference is a some- detectives. There is only one objection what important one. Don Quixote at- to being in the cave with Rob Roy; tacked the windmills; but we run away and that is that he keeps you there as from them.

long as he likes. But, above all, the return of Quix- There is the same objection to the otry would be the return of sanity for modern prison. If Don Quixote this reason: that the knight-errant is stormed a modern gaol with shield and suited to a lawless age; and this is a spear, he would find a number of citilawless age. Take another of the mis- zens kept there exactly as his own roadventures of the misguided Spaniard. mantic robbers would keep themIf I remember right he attempted to under Indeterminate Sentence, or acfree a gang of convicts under the im- cording to their own taste and fancy. pression that they were captive youths Quixote's attempt to avenge personally and maidens led away by bandits. a purely personal apprehension would Now what is the real implication of not be inappropriate now.

By the this rationalist satire. What was the Roman law of old Spain and Europe, difference between the convicts in a he made a mistake. In modern Enggang and the captives in a bandits' land he would be making no mistake. castle? Cervantes knew too much of Lastly, our lawless condition, which life not to know that there are good makes all law a mere mass of experimen among prisoners and bad men ment and human vivisection, really among warders; and that bandits do raises the question of whether any not confine themselves to capturing methods are practical except Quixotic virtuous persons.

Convicts are not methods. It is vain to bring wrongs mere captives, because convicts are before ('ourts that admit no rights. It convicts. That is, convicted of some- is vain to lighten a sentence when thing and sentenced to something. The gaolers can lengthen a sentence. It is point of the incident is the folly of vain to ask your persecutors to prove casual justice compared with the pos- you wrong, when your country does sibilities of a systematic public justice not ask them to prove anything. By that can really clear up quarrels and far the most practical politician now fix public penalties. A man sent to would be a knight-errant. The crazy the hulks may serve a long or cruel spear of Quixote would be stronger sentence. But a legal sentence is like now than all the paper swords of the a grammatical sentence; it must have lawyers.

For we

are back in the a full stop. Even if you hang a man, forest. The Eye-Witness.

G. K. Chesterton.



'... seen any pretty and dull plays My last Sunday was a varied and a lately?" I interrupted. “You know, busy one.

when I go to a theatre, I like to see Have you seen Milestones ?" said people getting in and out of complex Miss Goram, as we met in the Park. situations, don't you? Now, if one con“Isn't it rather delightful?”

siders Milestones. ..." "Ye-es," I answered, “though I This, as I well knew, she was doing should prefer to call it ‘pleasant.' all the time. Every detail of the production is excel- "Jim and I," she declared, “were lent and the idea of epoch is novel and there last night, and simply loved it. sound. But somehow, don't you tnink, I thought the dresses and the converit lacks'the stirring element?”

sation about the iron ships were exThis, to be candid, was not my own cruciatingly funny." opinion, but my cousin John's; it Always willing to oblige, "The fun. seemed however to be the very one niest play in London ?" I queried. calculated to agree with and yet ex- "Quite," she said, but turned to talk plain hers. Her "rather," however, to someone else who agreed with her had misled me.

more genuinely. "Oh, do you think so ?” said she. “I thought it frightfully pathetic."

IV. “Pathetic? Is that the general feel- Undefeated, I dined with the O'Maling, then ?"

leys, and faced the inevitable. Indeed, She was emphatic. “The most pa- I rather led the daughter of the house thetic play in London."

"How do you like Milestones !" I “Pathetic," said I. “I must remem

asked right away. ber that."

“Enormously,” she said. “Do you?" II.

I am a man of peace, in thought, "Have you seen Milestones ?" said word and deed, and deserve, I think, my next-door neighbor, at lunch, giv- more encouragement than I get. Even ing me no hint that she held any opin- now, when I was shown the agreeable ion but the proper one.

line and took it, I found that there was “Isn't it delightful?" I remarked. “So no pleasing people. frightfully pathetic!"

“Enormously,” I said; and, since I Do you really feel like that about knew the lady for one of those who, it?" said she, raising her eyebrows. "It tiresomely enough, insist on downright left me cold. I consider it the prettiest honesty, I added, “'Funny' isn't the and dullest play in London. When I word. It is the most excruciating play go to a theatre, I like to see people in London." getting in and out of complex situa- "Our ideas of what is funny are diftions and not merely growing old.” ferent,” she answered coldly. "For my

I got her to repeat that last bit, while part, I wept."
I made a mental note of it.


Even as next morning I came out of “I took tea with Mrs. Hansard. the Theatre Ticket Office in Bond "Have you ..." she began, almost at Street I met Miss Goram, her of Seconce.

tion I., again.



“How very lucky that I should meet Apparently she too had had a busy you," I cried, just when my opinion Sunday and it had tired her. happens to be in entire agreement with “I am sick to death of Milestones," your own." I did not indicate the she declared. topic, because my experience over the "Don't tell me that it is the correct week-end had led me to suppose that thing to be sick of,” said I, crestfallen, there was only one.

"at a moment when I have at last “What about?" she asked.

booked myself to go and make its ac“Why, Milestones, of course," said I; quaintance first-hand.” "the most pathetic play in London."



About thirty years ago a man who was employed as a machinist in running lathes in the Midvale Steel Company in America was promoted to "gang-boss." Having been a workman himself, he knew that the workmen were not getting one-third of a good day's work out of the machines. Feeling that he was now on the side of the management, he engaged for three years in an incessant and bitter war with the workmen in order to get a fair day's work out of the lathes. That was ended in a victory for the gang. boss.

But Mr. Taylor, the gang-boss who subsequently became a chief engineer and President of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, had during that war become profoundly impressed by the evils of the ordinary system of industry and management. He has spent the last thirty years in devising a remedy for those evils, the inefficiency of production and the perpetual discord between employer and employed. The remedy which has lately attracted so much attention in America claims to be a new science, and is called by its inventor "Scientific Management."

The science of management in industry, if there is such a science, is really only a part of the larger science of efficiency. To do any operation with the minimum expenditure of

strength or material, and in the shortest time possible, is to do it efficiently; the greater the expenditure and the longer the time, the less efficiently is it performed. The difficulty is to strike the mean between the expenditure and time. Mr. Taylor tells us that there is a science of doing anything, a science of cleaning one's teeth, of handling pig-iron, of shovelling dirt.

If we know the laws of those sciences we can regulate our actions in order to attain the mean which is efficiency. Ordinarily in life and in industries nobody troubles about the science of doing things; we learn to walk and clean our teeth by walking and cleaning our teeth, or by watching other people do it; and the workman learns to handle pig-iron by handling pig-iron, or by watching other workmen handle pig-iron. Now, in factories everything is done according to these rule-ofthumb or traditional methods; and nothing is done efficiently, because the workman has not the time or the intelligence to acquire the science of doing it.

Many people may doubt the truth of this, when stated generally. Mr. Tay. lor gives instances which show that it is true. “I daresay," were his words to a conference, "that you think that there is no science in shovelling dirt, that anyone can shovel dirt. “Why,' you


say, 'to shovel dirt you just shovel, made so that whatever a man that is all there is in it.'” And even if shovelling, from rice-coal to heavy ore, there were more in it than that, one he could use a shovel which would give would certainly suppose that as people him an average shovel-load of twentymust have been shovelling dirt ever one pounds. since Adam delved, someone would This example shows only the first have hit upon the best way to shovel principle of scientific management, it. But no one ever did, before Mr. namely, the development of a science Taylor "started to think on the sub- for each element of a man's work. In ject of shovelling." And it took some every case it begins with an elaborate days thinking even to find "the most study of men, machinery, and material. important element in the science of The question to be settled is: "What shovelling.” The most important ele- is the best way of doing this, and if a ment is: At what shovel-load will a man does it in that way, what ought man do his biggest day's work?

his output to be? Every movement of And then it took many more days workman and machine is timed, and experimenting to discover the answer the time required for such movement to that question. Two men were kept is known to the smallest fraction of shovelling dirt for two or three months, a second. while another man stood over them The object of the other three princiwith a stop-watch, timing them, count- ples of scientific management is to get ing the shovel loads, telling them what the work done in accordance with the to do. They began with an ordinary knowledge obtained under the first shovel and a full shovel-load, which principle. The first is to select averaged thirty-eight pounds. In this instruments and men and to train way it

was found how much they and teach the men; the second to could do in a day when they were co-operate with the men so that the shovelling at thirty-eight pounds to the work is done in accordance with the shovel. Then the same thing was done principles of the science; the third to with shorter shovels and smaller redistribute the responsibility between shovel-loads, averaging thirty-four, the management and the men. In thirty, twenty-eight, down to fourteen practice this entails a complete reorgan. pounds. And as the shovel-load was ization of industry. The management reduced from thirty-eight to twenty- takes over entirely the responsibility one pounds, the total tonnage shovelled for arranging how the work is to be by each man in a day increased; after done. The daily task of each man in twenty-one pounds it began to de- the factory is planned for him one day crease again; the answer to the ques- before in a central office. He receives tion had been discovered. At twenty- written instructions as to what he has one pounds to the shovel-load, a man to do, where he has to do it. A "funcwill do his biggest day's work.

tional foreman" stands over him to But that is only the beginning of the show him exactly how he has to do matter. In an ordinary factory the the work, every movement in accordworkers use the same shovel to shovel ance with the knowledge, in the hands everything, from "rice-coal, three and of the management, of the best way of a-half pounds to a shovel load,” to doing it. The workman is on a "task "heavy wet ore, about thirty-eight wage”; that is, he knows that, if he pounds to the shovel-load.” Mr. Tay. completes the task set him, he will get lor built a shovel room, in which were the ordinary wage plus a bonus of from eight or ten different kinds of shovels, thirty to one hundred per cent.; if he fails, he will get only the ordinary Mr. Taylor argues that increase of the wage.

output of the workman must benefit Such, in outline, is Mr. Taylor's sys- not only the whole world in general, tem. It has been adopted in many and but the workmen themselves. He is various large industrial companies in at great pains to show that such an America. The results are spoken of increase does not produce unemploywith enthusiasm by its inventor and by ment, and as a proof he quotes the inmany of the capitalists and manufac- troduction of machinery. But no arturers who have adopted it. They gument can ever prove that, if the claim that it revolutionizes industry efficiency of labor in any industry is and business, it reconciles labor and improved, so that only one man is emcapital, it enormously reduces cost of ployed where two were employed beproduction, and increases wages. The fore, the demand for the product will be system has been in operation long increased sufficiently to provide employenough to make it possible to verify ment for all. In some cases, such consome of these claims by a consideration ditions will be fulfilled, in others they of actual results.

certainly will not. The whole question In the first place, it seems to be true is one of considerable intricacy, and that the system does make a most as- depends largely in each particular case tonishing difference in efficiency. The upon the relation of the cost of labor systematic study of the simplest oper

to the total cost of production. ation shows that in almost every case One has only to examine actual cases the traditional method of doing it is in which the new system was intromost inefficient. Here are some ex- duced, to see that the results were not amples of increased efficiency obtained all pure gain to the workers. When under scientific management:

the scientific system of shovelling was (1) Bricklaying: 120 bricks per man

introduced into the Bethlehem Steel per hour increased to 350 bricks Company, the number of yard la borers per man per hour;

was reduced from about 500 to 110. (t (2) Cotton goods manufacture: In- is true that the 140 men earned $1.88 crease of output 100 per cent.

per day instead of $1.15, but it is none (3) Handling pig-iron: 1212 tons per

the less true that about 360 men were man per day increased to 47 tons

thrown out of work. Again, take the per man per day. (4) Machine factory work: Increase

case of the handling of pig-iron. The of production from 400 to 1,800

scientific investigation of the work per cent.

showed that a man ought to handle 47 (5) Shovelling: 16 tons per man per tons a day instead of the previous 1212 day increased to 59.

tons. The task set for each man in the It is also true that this increase of Bethlehem Steel ('ompany was accordefficiency has in most cases, been ac- ingly 47 tons. But we learn that, with companied by a great decrease in cost the “very best intentions," seven out of production and increase in wages. of eight men in a gang, employed on Thus, in the case of the shovelling this work, were physically unable to quoted above, while the average daily complete the task." And so seven out wage per man rose from $1.15 to $1.88, of eight men had to find other employthe cost to the company of handling a ment. ton fell from $0.072 to $0.033.

The last example shows clearly The claims of scientific management where an abuse of the system may to solve the larger problems of indus- very easily creep in. It is the managetrial society are far more doubtful. ment which fixes the standard of

« ElőzőTovább »