El interaccionismo, la razón y las pasiones

Information drawn from both historical research and contemporary texts indicate that the foreman played the key role in labour management decisions, in particular recruitment, promotion, discipline and dismissal, though there was evidence of an erosion of the foreman's absolute rights during the period, with an increasing requirement to defer to the authority of the works manager in these matters. Remuneration was increasingly determined by collective bargaining against a background of significant trade union growth, whilst at workshop level engineers and works managers during the period from 1890 to 1914 had extensively introduced piecework schemes in order to control the effort-reward bargain. All the contemporary texts emphasised the importance of works managers in developing labour management practices in the period up to the First World War, with a trend towards removing some of the powers formerly enjoyed by foremen. Welfare work itself was not seen as of sufficient importance to receive a mention. 239 Elbourne (1914), op cit, p85. 240 ibid, p86. 241 ibid, p85.

Both Stannard,242 in the first instance, and Elbourne243 confirmed the existence of specialist employment functions before 1914, but both also suggest that their existence was not widespread. Where they existed, their role was limited to initial screening at the stage of selection, with final decisions remaining with line management.

Evidence suggests that it was the growing power of the trade unions that brought about limitations in the role of the foreman, rather than any application of the idea of functional management, including specialist employment functions, as proposed by Taylor's scheme of scientific management. Whilst Taylor's scheme had been discussed in the specialist engineering press in Britain from 1895 and even wider coverage had been given to systems of piecework,244 the period immediately before the First World War saw a burgeoning of discussion of it in the wake of the publication of Taylor's book The Principles of Scientific Management in 1911. This debate about scientific management extended beyond the ranks of engineers to encompass a number of leading employer spokesmen. Both Edward Cadbury and CG Renold of Hans Renold Ltd were supportive of Taylor's emphasis on careful selection and appropriate training and also supported careful costing, time study and standardisation.245 As Urwick and Brech have noted, the debate was interrupted by the outbreak of war in August 1914, but "the progress of the war itself and the accompanying demand for production put the substance of scientific management on the map of British industry", not least by providing the stimulus for the foundation of modern personnel management.246 242 Stannard (1911), op cit. 243 Elbourne (1914), op cit. 244

See, for example, FW Taylor, A piece rate system: a step toward the partial solution of the labour problem, Cassiers' Magazine, October 1895, 8, 6, 585-600; FW Taylor, A piece rate system, The Engineer, 17 April 1896, 392-392, 24 April 1896, 481, 1 May 1896, 442; FW Taylor, A partial solution of the labour problem, Cassiers' Magazine, xii, February 1898, 369-1 to 369-12; HL Gantt, A new system of rewarding machine shop labour, Cassiers' Magazine, xxiii, 1, November 1902, 118-126; HL Gantt, The premium system in the British engineering trades, Cassiers' Magazine, xxiii, 3, January, 1903, 426-433; P Ballard, Scientific management and science, Cassiers' Magazine, xli, 5, May 1912, 425-430.

245

Cadbury, E (1914), Some principles of industrial organisation: the case for and against scientific management, Sociological Review, VII, 2, April, 99-117.

246

The impact of war and its aftermath on the ideas and practice of labour management: 1914-1920

When war of unprecedented proportions broke out in 1914, it did so against a background of four years of industrial unrest and considerable social division. Yet 1914 was to prove a watershed which saw the passing of the Victorian and post- Victorian world and the emergence of a different society in its aftermath. Most significant was the change in the traditional role of the state. The pre-war years of New Liberalism had seen some growth in the role of the state as regards the provision of old age pensions and state sickness and unemployment insurance, but these provisions were targeted at those less able to help themselves.247 When war arrived, the watchwords were 'business as usual', used by Lloyd George on the day war broke out, reflecting a view that government should continue to adhere to a strategy of minimum intervention and rely mainly on market forces to produce the goods and the manpower to wage war.248 By mid 1915, it had become apparent that 'business as usual' was delivering neither sufficient armaments nor the manpower to win the war. Mainly on the initiative of Lloyd George, who established the Ministry of Munitions in July 1915, the government effectively took control of the engineering industry and embarked on state intervention on an unprecedented scale. In many respects, the Ministry of Munitions became a massive experiment in industrial re-organisation, mechanisation, rationalisation and more efficient cost accounting practices.249 According to the Ministry's official historians, it provided "a demonstration of the application of scientific methods of labour control250 and put into practice two emerging themes of management thinking in the period immediately prior to the war - scientific management and welfarism - summed up by Burk as a combination of "paternalistic altruism and tough efficiency".251

247

Taylor, AJP (1970), English History 1914-1945, Harmondsworth, Penguin, p26.

248

Burk, K (1982), ed, War and the State: The Transformation of British Government 1914- 1919, London, Allen and Unwin, p7.

249

ibid, pp47-49.

250

HMG (1918-1922), History of the Ministry of Munitions, London, HMSO, V, V, p175.

251

A number of wartime influences served to focus attention on the management of labour in a way that had not occurred previously and these influences proved to have a lasting effect. The factors influencing the development of techniques of, and approaches to, the management of labour during the Great War may be summarised as follows. First, legal regulation of employment went beyond anything known hitherto. Secondly, the Ministry of Munitions established a bureaucratic Labour Department for enforcing its regulations. Thirdly, it applied for the first time the science of psychology to efficiency and working conditions through the research of the Health of Munition Workers Committee. Fourthly, the latter also established welfare supervisors on a widespread basis across the controlled sectors, giving a boost to welfare work. Fifthly, the war provided an opportunity for further growth in trade union membership and influence, especially at workplace level. This was associated with demands for greater industrial democracy and fundamental changes in the attitudes of employers to labour which would remain permanent features of the post-war world. It is to these influences that we now turn.

The Ministry of Munitions and the legal regulation of labour

A number of potentially conflicting problems confronted the government at the commencement of the war. Apart from the scale of mobilisation, the government had to balance the demands for manpower into the armed forces with the requirements to produce armaments, as well as essential raw materials and food on the home front.

The Ministry of Munitions was established in June 1915 and the Munitions of War Act was passed in July. The Act was essentially concerned with labour regulation. It outlawed strikes and lockouts and made arbitration compulsory. It created a category of 'controlled establishment' and the workplaces covered were subject to the regulations of the Munitions of War Act. It suspended all traditional working practices for the duration of the war and gave the Ministry powers to define work methods, manning levels and the allocation of operatives and promoted 'dilution' which required employers to take initiatives to replace the skilled with the semi- skilled. A major effect of dilution was to bring about a significant increase in the

number of women in the labour force. Female employment increased by 50 per cent from 3.28 million to 4.95 million during the period of the war.252 The greatest increase was in the engineering workshops where 800,000 were recruited mostly in the year after July 1915 and was all the more marked since relatively few females had worked in this sector prior to the war. Wage rates also became subject to the control of the Ministry. In order to prevent 'poaching' of scarce labour by uncontrolled establishments, which had hitherto been a problem, it introduced 'leaving certificates'. These prevented employees leaving controlled establishments without the employer's consent and without a certificate, an employee could not be engaged by a non-controlled establishment for a period of six weeks. It also introduced the concept of 'war badges' for which employers could apply in order to protect key workers from call-up. The Act was enforced by Munitions Tribunals which had powers to fine and imprison.253

Given that the Munitions of War Act was concerned with manpower regulation, a Labour Department was established at the Ministry of Munitions and it occupied a strategic position in the implementation of its provisions. It was organised into five sections dealing with the enrolment of Munitions workers, the issuing of war service badges to employee exempt from military service, control of profits and law enforcement, the operations of Munitions Tribunals and welfare.254 Outside the Headquarters organisation, the Ministry was sub-divided into ten geographic administrative areas. Each area was administered by a local board of management composed of employers acting in a voluntary capacity, supported by an Area Organisation Department. In the first few months of the war, a Labour Officer was appointed in each area office to implement central policy. As the workload increased, these duties were sub-divided into three specialist roles from November 1915. Dilution Officers, who were generally trained engineers, were appointed to promote the use of unskilled labour. Investigation Officers were appointed to deal with questions of timekeeping, wages and disputes. Finally, welfare officers dealt with workshop conditions, canteens and transport facilities

252

Pollard (1983), op cit, p42.

253

HMG (1918-1922), op cit, v1.1, p22, I IV, pp1-49; Burgess (1980), op cit, pp162-163.

254

for munitions workers. In addition, they were assisted by extra-mural welfare officers who dealt with the well-being of female munitions workers, inspected accommodation and promoted recreational and educational schemes.255 As Burgess has concluded: "The Munitions of War Act represented the maximum degree of control the state could exercise over the labour market, short of outright industrial conscription".256 By the end of the war, the Ministry of Munitions employed an administrative staff of 65,000, controlled the employment of 3.4 million workers, directly managed 250 government factories, quarries and mines and supervised operations in 20,000 'controlled' establishments.257