Whenever scientific management is criticised, there seems to be a tendency to avoid a comparison between the conditions of work under scientific management and other _existing_ conditions. The comparison generally drawn is between scientific management and some non-existent, more or less ideal, condition imagined by the critic.
But we have to deal with immediate practical problems; with prevailing conditions; with a non-producing investing society which is constantly seeking profits; with masters who are in open or veiled antagonism to the workers; with workers who have no chance of obtaining a real education, and whose minds are so confused by the contradictory statements made in the Press--their only means of becoming acquainted with the broader aspects of citizenship--that they can rarely exercise a balanced judgment on any subject. Any scheme of work and wages must take into account these things as well as the present-day desires and ambitions of the average worker, if it is to be of any real use or if it is to assist the worker, consciously or unconsciously, towards the attainment of what are considered better things.
The worker cares more for money than for anything else. In this he is singularly like most other people. The æsthetic nature of his surroundings when at work make little appeal to him, and no appeal at all if two or three shillings a week are in the balance against it. He does not know how his health improves and his efficiency increases when he is in pleasant surroundings, and he will have no hesitation in leaving a pleasant factory for a dismal one if he receives a slight increase in wages by doing so.
Certain employers--Rowntree, Cadbury, Lever, for instance--after becoming wealthy, try to improve the condition of their workers. Increased efficiency is not their aim so much as making the lives of their workers pleasant and happy. But it is impossible for all firms to be wealthy, and there are few even among the wealthy who care how their workers live; hence the multitude of repellent workshops up and down the land.
Scientific management, however, starts in at the beginning with pleasant conditions because it pays to have them. It is frankly utilitarian, and if slavery in a dark house resulted in greater efficiency, then that method would be adopted. But since it _does_ mean healthier and happier conditions, and more wages and greater opportunities for a fuller life, why cling to worse conditions while dreaming of some vague future state which is utterly outside present practical possibilities?