Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Functional management does away with all verbal orders. Everything is in writing. The workman receives his instruction in writing. If it is an operation different than usual, he receives instructions telling him just how to do it. As a result there is nothing for him but to go ahead. And naturally, being spurred on by the incentive of the bonus or premium, he is anxious to turn out as much as possible. When he finishes his work, his name or number, time and other data is written on the tag or card which accompanies the work, and then passed on. When special work is to be done, as in this instance, if any special tools are required, they come along with the workthat is part of the planning department's job.

There is no connection between the functional foremen and the workers except in cases where instruction or help is needed. The worker never leaves his place. Instructions are distributed by messengers at stated intervals. Jobs

are given out in the same way. The foremen have nothing to do with the bringing of instructions. Special men, ordinarily cheap labor, are used as "move men" (as they are called). Their duty is to bring the material and tools to the worker. They receive their instructions direct from the planning department.

Foreman Gets the Plan From the Office Under this system it is easily seen that the foremen. instead of having to plan the work and then see that it is carried out, simply confer with their particular companion in the planning office. One plans-the other carries out the work. This opens up a new thought; if a man in the office did all the theoretical planning, there are many cases where his plans would not conform with shop conditions. In other words, his designs or the way in which the work was to be done, would be expensive. On the other hand, the way in which the foreman in the shop would do the work might be in conformity with shop conditions and costs and yet would not fill the specifications. The two working together, however, form the ideal combination.

L. A. Larsen says, "After the work of introducing this system has been undertaken, everything depends upon the tact, good judgment, patience and intimate knowledge of the details on the part of those delegated to carry on the work. The functional foremen, time study men, demonstrators, specialists of various kinds; must each be not only in accordance and full sympathy with the undertaking, but must possess in the greatest measure the qualities that make for successful leadership. Some have beer disappointed with the reults of actual trials; others shy at what has proved unprofitable to their neighbors. All, however, are engaged in undertakings from which they are striving to secure the best returns. If their methods are wasteful, the greater is the need for competent leadership."

A SOLUTION OF THE COST PROBLEM A Discussion of the Weak Points in Mr. Upholt's Scheduling Plan---Piece Work the Only Fair Basis of Pay for the Employes and the Employer

I

By C. M.

N CONSIDERING the question of cost accounting or "scheduling," or any of the efficiency schemes that are from time to time advocated, it is important that we do not lose sight of the primary object of any or all of the systems. It is also necessary to keep the primary object in view when inaugurating a system if we would insure success.

Mr. Upholt, in his article in the March number of THE FURNITURE MANUFACTURER AND ARTISAN, says: "The purport of the cost system is to determine the cost of yesterday. The purport of the schedule system is to determine the performance of today." Very good. But this does not reveal the primary object, and in order to discuss any plan or system intelligently we must first know the primary object for which the system is designed. There is something behind the desire to ascertain the "cost of yesterday," or "determine the performance of tomorrow," and in order to arrive at correct conclusions we must know the motive which prompts the desire and view the system from this standpoint.

The object of a cost accounting system is to ascertain the cost of production. The object of this information is to enable one to intelligently fix the selling price of the article produced, because the difference between the cost, including everything pertaining to the making and marketing of the finished article, and the selling price

MacKAY

must determine the maker's profit. Hence, in the final analysis we see that the whole thing resolves itself into a question of profit. It is for this profit that we go into business. Any system that will give the desired profit on a certain turnover to insure a certain return on capital invested, and do it with the least amount of worry and friction between the men and the management and bring the greatest amount of contentment and happiness to all parties concerned, that system, it seems to the writer, ought to be the one most favored.

I take for granted that every man who goes into business feels that he ought to make a certain salary for himself, and a certain percentage on the money he invests. Suppose he values his services at $5,000 per year and his investment at 15 per cent. After several years he finds that the business, as at present managed, will not pay more than 5 per cent. on the capital invested. A cost system is inaugurated and the cost of each article is ascertained. An effort is made to reduce the cost by giving the men a bonus, but the men do not take kindly to it because they have to produce all the increase and receive only about half of it. And then they are afraid that if they exceed a certain wage the bonus will be reduced.

The schedule plan is adopted, but the men object to it because they declare it to be an aggravated form of the

piece work system. Under piece work a man receives a dollar when he performs a certain amount of work. Under the schedule system the man is guaranteed the dollar then forced to do the work, and if he can't do it, he will have to get out, according to Mr. Upholt's plan. The schedule plan is worse for both parties to the bargain than the piece work system. In the first place, it antagonizes the men by forcing them to do a certain amount of work within a given time, or cuts them out if they cannot do it. The man who cannot keep up is thus out and down. The man who can exceed the minimum is not likely to go much beyond it for two reasons: First, under a majority of bonus systems a man receives less for the work he does while working for the bonus than he does while working for his day's pay. To illustrate: Suppose a rubber in a finishing-room is receiving $2.25 per day, and three dressers of a certain style constitute a day's work. That allows the man 75 cents for each dresser. But suppose this particular man can rub four of these dressers in the time allowed for rubbing three; will the man get the whole of that 75 cents or will the employer want to take part and give the man part? Here is where so many bonus systems fail. The man receives a smaller percentage of what he produces when working for the bonus than when working for his day's pay. This ought not to be. If the employer made a fair profit on the first three at 75 cents, why should he not be satisfied with the same profit on the fourth one? Especially why, since he receives the profit on the fourth one without the investment of any additional capital.

Fear the Result of Scheduling

The second reason why the man is not likely to exceed the minimum limit is because down in every man's heart is a fear that he will not be allowed to exceed a certain sum. If he goes beyond a certain figure there will be a readjustment of prices that will not be to his advantage. This feeling, perhaps, is not always justified, but it exists and we must recognize it.

The schedule system is worse for the employer than the piece work system, because under the latter it is the duty of the workman to show that he has done a certain amount of work before he is entitled to receive pay for it. Under the schedule system the onus of proof is on the employer. It is now the employer who must see that the employe does a certain amount of work. I know there are plenty of men who will say that this is a very easy thing to do. But the man who is the most positive about that is most likely to be the easiest deceived.

I am writing about things now as I know them to exist. Under the schedule system the lines are usually drawn pretty tight. There is not much room for the men to play. That is the purpose of the system. When the lines are drawn pretty tight around the men they will come to the conclusion that they are not being treated fairly. If a man is honest and conscientious, and withal sensitive, he will seek more congenial quarters when he gets the idea that he is being unfairly treated. The result is that such a factory is soon filled with men who are not troubled with fine conscientious scruples. These men soon learn that it is easier to fool the boss than it is to satisfy him and, like everything else, they follow the course of least resistance. I know a shop where the schedule system is in operation and the results are what I have just described. I have talked with men who have worked under the schedule system in other shops and the conditions there were the same.

[blocks in formation]

hearty cooperation. In the final analysis they were all shown to have but one object-that of creating profits for us. We therefore try another plan; one which we are sure will spur the workmen to greater interest and activity. Our plan is this: At the end of the year if the profits warrant it, we will give to each man a bonus of 5 per cent. on the wages paid him during the year. How the Men Received the Plan

We have arrived at this decision after very careful consideration, and when we announce it to the men we cannot understand why it is that they do not throw up their hats and cheer and then return to their work and double their output. So we take a walk around among the men at noon while they are discussing the proposition among themselves to hear what they have to say. "Why, this is no better than a raise of 5 per cent. in wages, and that is coming to us anyway."

"But it has this difference: We don't know whether we are going to get it or not."

"No, we have no assurance that we will get it even if we earn it."

"Nor any assurance that we will get the 5 per cent. even if we increase 10 or 15 per cent."

"And no assurance that we will get more than 5 per cent. if we increase the output 50 per cent." "The thing is too one-sided for me." "And too vague and indefinite for me."

Necessary to Make Change

With these eye-openers we return to the office to think over the situation. It is true that we had our eye on a 15 per cent. dividend when we made the proposition, and that the difference between the 5 per cent. we were now paying and the 15 per cent. was to be a first charge on any extra production. Any surplus up to 5 per cent. on the wages paid would go to the workmen. But our plan had failed at the beginning and we decide to send out a feeler regarding piece work to see how a proposition of that kind would be received. In a short time the men were discussing a rumor that the firm was going to run the shop on the piece work system. "Modern slavery," said one.

"Hear! Hear!" shouted a chorus.

"A tightening of the screws," said another, and in this way it went around, every man expressing some form of disapproval. But there was one man who stood apart from the rest, reading a paper, and who had taken no part in the discussion.

"Come over here, Jack, and tell us what you think about the proposition to put all on piece work," said one of the men.

Jack, thus appealed to, put down his paper and going to the men, said: "What is the proposition?" "Why, to put us on piece work," said one of the men. "But what are the details of the proposition?" asked Jack.

"We don't know anything about the details. It is just piece work. Is that not enough?"

Piece Work Plan Sound in Principle "If you want to know what I think about piece work I can very easily give it to you. I think that the piece work plan of paying is sound in principle and is the only fair and equitable way of payment. It is the only way by which value for value can be assured. I take it for granted that none of you men want to receive pay for anything you do not do, and I also take for granted that none of you men want to do work and have some one else get the pay for it. An employer can afford to pay only a certain sum for a certain amount of work. If he pays more than that, he must take it out of the profits which rightly belong to himself, or worse still pay

it out of capital, and that means that the business would soon eat itself up.

"We all know that all men are not worth the same wage, and if you have the per diem system of payment, and a uniform rate of wage, some men get more than they are worth, and this has to be made up by the good man who gets less than he is worth. Thus the good man is doing the work and the other fellow gets the pay. This system holds out very little inducement for a man to climb high. Of course, the man with a vision who can look into the distant future and see the possibilities in store for the man who makes the very best use of all his time and opportunities, may be able to see the advantages of struggling on and performing faithful service at all times and under all circumstances. But the average man will become discouraged when he sees the shirker drawing the pay of the worker.

Fair to Employer and Employed

"The piece work system is fair for both men and master. It is necessary that employers know what it costs to produce the various articles in order to fix the selling price. This cannot be accurately done except under piece work. The best of men are not the same every day. Men may be in fine working shape one day, but much less fit the next. Consequently, the cost of production under the per diem system varies with the fitness of the man. Under the piece work system it is different.

The man gets paid for what he produces whether it be great or small. Under this system there is every inducement for men to keep themselves in prime condition for work, because the more they produce the more they receive."

"Is that the way it works out?" asked a voice.

"No, that is not the way it always works out, but that is the way it should work out in order to produce best results for both the employer and employe. I believe the productive powers of working men are only about half developed because of a fear on the part of piece workers that increased production will mean a decrease in price, and on the part of day workers the thought that there is no advantage in doing any more.

"Now, this is not only bad for the men, but it is also bad for the employer. If a man with $100,000 invested in plant and equipment could double his output without any additional expenditure on capital account, that would be a good thing for him. This could be done if the present staff were 100 per cent. efficient.

But so many

men seem to fear that there is a limit set on the amount they will be allowed to earn, but that there is no limit to the amount the employer may make."

"Is that not true?" asked a voice.

If Capital Could Be Content

"It may be in some cases," said Jack, "but it ought not to be so. The limit should be on the amount that invested capital may make, and labor should be limited only by its productive capacity. I believe if this were done the earning power of both capital and labor would be increased. If capital knew where to be content and would say that all over and above a certain sum shall go to the men who produce, and have that embodied in the agreement with the men, capital would, in many instances, be making larger dividends and labor would be receiving better wages.

"There is only one class of men who need to fear the piece work system, if rightly administered, and that is the shirker-the man who receives pay for work the other man does."

We had listened unobserved to this man and what he said interested us. We made it a point to bring him into the office and talk the situation over with him.

"So you believe in piece work is to be found the solution of the great industrial problem as we have it today?" we ask.

"Not exactly, but I believe that piece work is one of the roads leading to a solution. Without piece work the problem never can be solved because it furnishes the only means for an equitable distribution of labor's product among the producers themselves.

"But before this problem can be solved there must be established perfect confidence between the men and the management. But that confidence cannot exist unless the men know what proportion of the product of their toil they are receiving. Men are becoming educated and enlightened and they are beginning to realize that they are the actual producers of the wealth of the world, and they are asking what proportion they receive of the product of their toil? Many of them believe that as the actual producers of wealth they have a right to know this and until they do know this, perfect confidence will not be established.

"If employers engage in business for the purpose of making a fair return on their investment, there does not appear to be any good reason why a knowledge of the proportion of the product of its toil labor receives should be withheld from it. To be kept in ignorance of this leads the average working man to believe that the employer is in business to exploit the worker. This belief destroys confidence and creates friction. Under such conditions neither schedules, cost accounting or piece work systems can solve the problem and produce the results that every employer longs for."

Deciding What Capital Should Earn

"How would you bring about the condition longed for?" "I would first decide what I wanted my capital to earn. Ten, 15 or 20 per cent. or whatever I thought it ought to receive. I do not think the working men are so much concerned about the amount capital earns as they are to know what that amount is and whether capital will be satisfied with a certain amount. After I had decided the question of what capital ought to earn, I would call in the heads of the various departments and fix a schedule of prices for the various lines of work. The only difficulty here would be to see that the prices would be so arranged that each man would receive an equal amount for an equal expenditure of time and energy. These prices decided on, I would take the men into my confidence. I would tell them what I expected out of the business, and that they could have all they could make out of it after that. When men have a definite object to work for they will work with both hands and head. By putting the men on piece work, if the prices are a little low, there is no room for complaint because what they don't get in the form of wages will come as a bonus at the end of the year after the dividend has been paid. "This can be done without humiliating the men. Selfrespecting men don't like to receive a 'present' at the end of the year. This bonus is theirs. It is theirs by agreement. They worked for it and earned it. Cost systems and schedules are not required. Each man is a check on himself and on everybody else, because each and every man is interested in that surplus at the end of the year."

Here was the plan we had been searching for. We wanted that 15 per cent. and we could not get it until we got the men interested. Then they became as much interested as we were because all over and above that belonged to them. Did this plan meet our expectations? Surely. To pay 15 per cent. on capital and the same per cent. on the wages paid to the men was as much as could be expected the first year.

The Retailer's Troubles are Multiplied and a Check is Placed on the Sale of Chamber Sets With Wood Beds Because of the Variations in Width and Length By GEO. D. CRAIN, Jr.

[blocks in formation]

The rejuvenation of the wood bed, however, has emphasized a condition which has been in evidence for some time, but which until recently had not been considered serious. It is now becoming a real problem with the retailer, and consequently of the manufacturer. The proposition referred to is the lack of uniformity in the dimensions of wood beds. So various and varying are the sizes of

bed, and must be narrower than the width over all, means that an allowance for this difference would have to be made in order to adapt the mattress stock to both kinds. But the chief trouble is not along this line, but that in the wood bed field exclusively there are so many variations.

[graphic]

GEO. D. CRAIN, JR.

beds that the retail merchants are at their wits' ends to supply the needs of their bed department, and keep their mattress stocks lined up and assorted.

"The wood bed manufacturers are handicapping the development of their business," declared a well known member of the retail trade, "by failing or refusing to get down on a basis of standard dimensions, as the metal bed people did a number of years ago. The merchant who finds that he must assume a load of inconvenience and worry because of the failure of the bed manufacturers to supply standard sizes is not likely to be enthusiastic about pushing beds of this kind. In fact, the reverse of this is true."

The Dealer the Sufferer

It may be said, of course, that the dealer has no choice, and that he must continue to handle a full line of wood beds in order to meet the demands of his trade. To a considerable extent this is true; but on the other hand the merchants can control the development of the demand to a large extent. At any rate, there is no use assuming an unnecessary burden in the distribution of this class of goods, simply because lack of coöoperation has allowed an unnecessary condition to grow up.

The metal bed people have been making standard sizes for a long while, and the dealer knows that, no matter from whom he buys, he will get beds that are 3 feet, 3 feet 6 inches, 4 feet or 4 feet 6 inches wide. He knows, too, that the standard length is 6 feet 4 inches. This simplifies his work considerably. He orders his mattresses in accordance with these requirements, and there is no trouble whatever about making a fit. But when he stacks up against the wood bed proposition, he finds that he is in hot water from the start.

A prominent furniture merchant recently went over a number of beds which were on his floor with a rule for the purpose of getting the inside measurements and arriving at the sizes of mattresses which would be required to fit them. Three handsome mahogany beds stood near each other. At a casual glance there seemed to be little or no difference in the width. They were all from the same factory. Yet examination showed that they were, respectively, 53, 54 and 56 inches wide, inside.

"What are you going to do with a case like that?" demanded the merchant, losing patience. "Where is the rhyme or reason in getting out beds with arbitrary dimensions, which we are called upon to fit with our mattresses, when the factory could just as well have made them the same size? There might be some excuse for failure of the trade as a whole to standardize its product, but when a single factory is turning out beds haphazard as to size, it looks as if it is time to call a halt."

High Grade Goods Draw the Criticism

This merchant, who has an unusually high-grade stock, and who sells the best people in his town beds carrying retail prices of $80 to $100, points out that slight variations which might be overlooked in a cheap bed are immediately made a point of in a case of this kind.

"Some time ago," he said, "we sent out a high-priced bed to a customer's home. We had been selling beds of this kind, made up by the same manufacturer, for some time, and assumed that the dimensions were the same. When the bed was set up at the home of the customer it was found that the mattress which we had been selling all along with this line was too large for the bed. That meant trouble. We had to send in a special order to a tactory, and the delay that ensued was not good for anybody concerned. The factory had simply changed dimensions in turning out this particular number, and we were the victims. We should have measured the bed, of course, and made sure that it corresponded with the sizes of the others. The result of this trouble is that we now set up every wood bed and place the mattress upon it before we deliver it, a process which is expensive in time, but economical of complaints."

The same complaint which applies to double beds of the dimensions given is also true of single and twin beds. There is no certainty that a mattress which is regarded as standard for that class of beds will fit the frames put out by any particular maker It is all a matter of experiment. The merchant must measure them and see what the dimensions are before he can be sure that his mattress stock is sufficiently comprehensive to take care of the bed sizes. And, carrying out the proposition to its logi

It is not considered that the wood bed concerns should use the same dimensions which are in vogue among the metal bed manufacturers, though there is no reason to believe that this would not be a good plan. The fact that the mattress used on a metal bed is the full width of the bed, while in the case of a wooden piece it rests inside the

cal conclusion, there are big variations in length, the range within which the length inside varies being several inches. And as a variation of an inch, at most, is all that a mattress can take care of without being a misfit, the development of greater differences than this is the cause of a lot of trouble and confusion.

It Hits the Mattress Workers

The effect on the mattress manufacturers is also considerable, and is probably more important than the members of this branch of the trade appear to believe. While it is true that most of the mattress concerns make up goods to order, carrying comparatively small stocks, so that it is as easy for them to turn out one size as another, there is bound to be confusion growing out of the wide variations in sizes, causing trouble in adjustments and leading to errors in filling orders. The mattress man who gets an order assumes that the width is to be 54 inches unless otherwise stated; but this assumption, while logical from the standpoint of the mattress house, is not safe from that of the dealer.

If the dealer finds that his stock of mattresses cannot be relied on, and that with the great number of special bed sizes to fit he must turn in a special order for mattresses about every time he has a customer for a bed, he is going to quit carrying much of a stock, and go back to the oldfashioned plan of making his own mattresses. This would not be a favorable development from the standpoint of the bedding trade, for the factories have built up a good business based on the very proposition that the convenience and economy involved in having a stock constantly on hand outweighs all other considerations. But if the lack of uniformity in bed sizes eliminates the greater part of this convenience, making it necessary to put in a special order, and thus suffer the delay which naturally ensues, the argument in favor of stocking up freely with mattresses loses much of its force.

Standardization Prevents Waste of Material Standardization is one of the big movements of the day. Waste of material and waste of effort are going on because of the lack of it. Efficiency takes no more practical and effective form than when it consists of eliminating casual differences, for which there is no good reason, and putting things on a standard, dependable basis. Efforts to standardize dimensions in case goods, tables and chairs have been recorded, and doubtless will ultimately succeed in their object; for the logic of the situation is in favor of this being done. Certainly, however, no greater need exists in the furniture field than to standardize bed dimensions, for the reason that lack of standardization places a burden on the retail distributor which he should not in reason be asked to carry.

One of the largest and most famous furniture factories in the country, which puts out a magnificent line of wood beds, which are the pride of the retail handlers, is guilty of a failure to make its bed sizes uniform, and not only to disregard the dimensions which have become nearly standard, through general use, but even to vary the sizes which its own plant turns out. Merchants who are great admirers of this concern point to its failure in this respect with regret, apparently having lost much of their belief that this house is error-proof and that its goods are at all times all that they should be.

Loss of Prestige May Result

Lack of good sense in matters of this kind may easily lead to loss of prestige, and undoubtedly there is no evidence of good sense in the plan of making bed frames in as many different sizes as happens to occur to the designer. If originality in the design of a bed must be found by varying the dimensions, then the designer must be barren

of real ideas. Standard dimensions do not interfere with originality, but rather encourage it, and no design which affects the utility of an article adversely can be considered good.

If wood bed makers want their business to grow, with the hearty support and coöperation of the retail furniture men, it is up to them to get together with the dealers and the mattress concerns to the end that standardization may be accomplished, so as to eliminate the errors, the delays and the losses growing out of the present system. The subject has been agitated fruitlessly heretofore, but the need for reform was never so great as now. The house which takes the lead in this matter will win the plaudits of the entire trade.

How to Prevent Brass From Tarnishing

T

HERE is a large variety of cheap brass goods manufactured which will not warrant anything but the cheapest material being used on them. They are made of solid brass and of brass-plated steel. When completed and assembled they are dipped, if of solid brass, or if brass plated, left in the bright brass as they come from the plating tank. In either case, the brass must be protected from the air, otherwise it would discolor in a short time and finally turn black.

Now the goods are so cheap that the use of regular lacquer on them would be out of the question, and as no finish is required and only a protection is necessary, the cheapest material for the purpose must be employed. It is customary in the metal trades which make these classes of goods to use a very weak shellac varnish for the purpose and it has been in use for many years. The following proportions are used:

Denatured alcohol

Flake shellac

.1 gal.

.1 oz.

Dissolve the shellac in the alcohol and then strain it through cloth to remove the sticks and dirt in it and it will be ready for use.

The brass goods after dipping and drying are immersed in the shellac and then dried. The goods should be warm when used. The heat of the drying over will, of course, expel the excess of alcohol and leave a film of shellac on the surface for the protection of the brass.

The drip on the goods will not bother one, as the shellac is so weak that it will dry right off, although a slight spot will be left. The goods are so cheap, however, that a perfect surface is not expected and protection against tarnishing is all that is required.

By dissolving a greater or less amount of shellac in the alcohol, a stronger or weaker material may be obtained, but it should be used weak in order to dry rapidly and give an invisible film on the surface of the brass. -The Brass World.

[ocr errors]

T

The Cartier-Holland Lumber Co.

HE Cartier-Holland Lumber Co., of Ludington, Mich., has moved its sales office to Grand Rapids, where an office has been established at 731 Michigan Trust Building. E. M. Holland will be in charge of the office. C. E. Cartier will remain at Ludington as long as the mill is operated at that point, but it is his intention to remove to Grand Rapids upon the completion of the cut at Ludington, even though the plant be removed elsewhere. It is believed that this change will be found a convenience for the customers of the company, among whom are many of the furniture manufacturers of Grand Rapids and the immediate vicinity.

The C. M. Bott Furniture Co., Buffalo, N. Y., will erect a three-story brick factory building to cost $18,000.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »