CONTENTS - ouroboros ponderosa

If, ; ' / , \YI(H\ I.',I\I ;\ NI I I INII Jr'I J',1\1
III 1;t·1. vdl hdi.uc Ihl· Waf Ihl' ide;1 hq'.;l1 1 .... IHcadillg Ihal IIl1ioniza -
.
11011, wll h lis sl;IIHtlrd "l1lallagcmelll's rights " clause contrt.lcts, was (he
h('sl ".1 'I" """.', I(H' fi tting the Taylorist yoke on th" workers. The efficacy
,If IIHs "trojall horse" tactic of union mediation led Thompson to
IH" "'nhc lIldustrial unionism over the AFL's craft unionism as the best
wav I he secur the Taylor system in industry. Describing "one plant
wh('l"c . sCIentific management was fully developed and in complete
' I '('I""tlon, the management has itself authorized and aided the organiza­
I II HI 01 Its employees," Thompson went so far as to urge recognition of
I iI,' IlIdus n 1 Workers of the World, to secure "the necessary unanimity
" I "dlllll
,
m hnkmg all the workers, not only the skilled ones , to
'I';lylorism.17
The ostensibly radical IWW might seem an unlikely candidate for the
,Ph ()f Taylorizing workers, but several Wobbly spokesmen actually saw
III sCIentIfic management much of value toward stabilizing and rationalizillg
production "after the Revolution." And from the rest of the
I\merican Lcft, many other sympathetic voices could be heard. Enthusi­
"SIl for the system seemed to cut across ideological lines. Lenin's support
01 r ayloflsm IS well-known, and John Spargo, an influential American
Socialist, denounced everything about the Bolshevik Revolution save
J ,cnin's adoption of scientific management. 18
While the official union and radical spokesmen for the workers were
finding no fault with scientific management, the workers were acting
agamst It on their own. An attempt to introduce Taylorism at the hugc
Rock Island government arsenal in 1908 was defeated by the intensc
OpposItIon It aroused. It is interesting that these "unorganized" workmen
did not appeal to a union for help, but confronted the setting of piece
rates and the division of tasks by themselves-and immediatcly demand­
."," that the method be discontinued. Likewise, the beginnings of
I ayloflsm at the Frankford arsenal were defeated by the hostility of the
(" unorganized") employees there in 1910 and 1911. In October, 1914, the
3,000 garment workers of Sonnenborn and Company in Baltimore walked
out spontaneously upon hearing that Taylorism was to be installed. '.
. The case of Taylorism at the U.S. arsenal at Watertown, Massachusetts
111 191 1 clearly demonstrates the need for not confusing unions with
workers, . "organized" or not. If this is as close as unions came in practice
to Opposmg the new system, it is safe to say that they did not oppose it
at aU. When the idea of Taylorizing Watertown first arose in 1908
Taylor warned that the government managers must have the complet
system. "Anything short of this leaves such a large part of the game in
the hands of the workmen that it becomes largely a matter of whim or
1;1 1 MI 'NI\ tl\' 1{1'1 1 1":\1
capricc Oil their pari as 10 whether Ihey will allow you Il) have any real
results or not. ".'1)
I t is ciL:ar that Taylor himself mistook the quiescence of the AFL
unions, which represented various arsenal workers, for passivity on the
part of the employees. He counseled a Watertown manager in 1910 "not
to bother too much about what the AFL write (sic) concerning our
system," and in March, 191 1, just before the strike, he tried again to allay
any management fears of worker resistance by pooh-poohmg any AFL
correspondence which might be received in the future.21 He knew the
unions would not seriously interfere; his elitism prevented a clear
appraisal of worker attitudes.
When the time-study man, Merrick, openly timed foundry workers WIth
a stop-watch, action was fo rthcoming immediately. Although union
members, they did not call the union, but instead drew up a petItion
demanding the cessation of any further Taylorist intrusions. Bemg
rebuffed, they walked out. Joseph Cooney, a molder in the fo undry,
testitled early in 1912 to the Congressional committee examining Taylor's
system that there had been no contact between the workers and any
,
union official and that the strike had been completely spontaneous.
Though an overwhelming majority of Watertown employees questioned
by a consultant (hired by a group of workers) felt that the unions had no
interest in agitating against scientific management, " the International
Association of Machinists publicly proclaimed union oppOSition to the
system shortly after the 1911 strike. Because this public opposition by the
lAM in 191 1 is practically the solc evidence supporting the thesis of pre­
War union hostility in Taylorism," it deserves a closer look.
In 1909, as McKelvey notes, the initial features of scientific manage­
mentwere installed at Watertown, without the slightest protest from the
unions, including the IAM. 25 At about this time, the National League of
Government Employees began to make inroads on the lAM, due to the
dissatisfaction of the latter group's members. The rival organization had
drawn away many members by the time of the 1911 strike, " and the . IAM
was thus forced to make a show of opposition if it wished to retam Its
hold among the workers. In similar fashion, the International Moldr's
Union had to give grudging support to a strike of Boston molders WhICh
had occurred without so much as informing the local union. The union
leaders involved frequently made statements showing their actual support
of Taylorism, and a careful reading of the 1911 AFL Convention record,
also cited as evidence of anti-Taylorism by the unions, shows that Samuel
Gompers avoided attacking directly the new work system in any
substantial way.
.
n