Denver labor bulletin., 1917-08-04

of December has been supplemented
by a detailed statement of its work
ing and it's results. 1t is hardly pos
sible to praise the clarity and scien-
tific temper of this report too highly.
On its showing it is scarcely too much
to say that the McElwain experiment,
in scientific precision and complete
ness, deserves to take rank among the
classic experiments" of industry;
with the famous experiment in shorter
hours of Ernst Able at the Zeiss OPP
tical Works or that of NJ. Fremont at
the Engis Chemical Works in Bel
gium.
The flaw IN most of the experiments
made in shorter hours is the absence
of exact records or some change in
conditions for which it is impossible
to make accurate allowance. New
methods or new machinery are intro
duced to recoup the expected loss in
production, more men perhaps are
taken on, time-keeping becomes more
rigid, or in some other way the con-
ditions change after the change of
hours. But the McElwain company's
statement gives US an example of the
controlled experiment almost as per-
feet as any in a scientific laboratory.
Thus in December, 1916, when the new
time scheme was introduced, produc-
I llOIl was at lIS ana naO
deed reached a point higher than in
any previous period; the maximum
number of machines was installed; 95
per cent of the productive payroll was
on standardized piece rates; the rout-
/ ing system was running so smoothly
that delays for lack of work were
practically zero; and the standard
production load" was such that full
time was always worked, with occa-
sional overtime in some few depart
ments. At the time of the change
there was no alteration in the char
acter of the product and no new ma
chimes or new processes tending to in
crease per capita output were being
installed. Such few changes indeed
as were in process would tend" says
the firms statement, ''to increase
the product"
When under such conditions the
fifty-two hour week was introduced
in the seven shoe factories with their
subsidiary supply plants that consti-
tute the big McElwain system, it was
decided TO keep the previous standard
production rate, and, after trial, to
fix any reduction that might prove
necessary. There has been no reduc-
ton whatever. Four months expert
ence has proved the fear of lowered
production groundless. Actual pro-
duction has never declined. No de-
partment and no factory has dropped
below the standard rate. Indeed, the
planning manager tells US that. in
spite of unusual outside difficulties
such as shortage of material and de-
lays in transportation, in the ten
years of his work with the company
he has at no time had so little trouble
with production as in the winter of
1916-1917.
The case for the shorter work day
would seem by this experience to be
proved once more in so far as the
question is one of reinsurance against
business loss. But the writer of the
report goes further, and follows his
figures on the maintenance of stand
ard rates with an even more striking
table. Taking his data from the ac-
tual records of the firm for the last
six months he finds that the daily pro-
duction unit per employe not only did
not decline between October, 1916, and
March, 1917: it actually increased.
Against the common experience that
leads US to expect after a reduction of
hours temporary drop in production
followed by recovery and slight ulti
mate rise, the two months Immediately
following the change showed no drop
at all, but the marked increase of .09
in the production unit per employe,
and the next two months 90 more.
Whereas, according to the old mathe-
matical economies, the loss of one
half hours daily work should have
pulled down the production unit per
man by 50, it raised it, as matter
of recorded fact, by IL. And this
record was made, it should be stated,
in spite of the fact that several bad
epidemics of colds and grippe" tended
to decrease production during the win
ter months thru absence.
October and November, 1916 (work-
ing SO hours), total number of en-
ployes, $3.50; prouctlion unit per en-
ploye per day based on pairs shipped,
S.9l. December, 1916, and January,
1917 (working 80 hours), total num-
ber' of employees, +,lo5; production unit
shipped, 900. February and March,
1917 (working 50 hours, total num-
ber of employees, 4,1T0; production
unit per employe per day based on
pairs shipped, 9.02.
Long working hours are not only
an economic loss to the community as
a whole" the report sums up.
Even inside factory walls there is no
net profit in running on a schedule of
much over eight and one-half hours
per day. The old theory of pro-
portional production per hour is abso-
lutely untenable."
The truth of machines cannot be
the truth of living men. The paradox
that seemed so preposterous to the
early economists, that shorter hours
may mean larger output and that long
hours defeat their own end. has be-
come in our hundred years war for
human progress the commonplace of
the scientific manager. We can dis