Vol. CXVIII — 3059
The ARCHITECT & BUILDING NEWS
August 5, 1927
Proprietors: Gilbert Wood & Co., Ltd.Managing Director: William L. Wood
Editorial, Publishing and Advertisement Offices:
Bolls House, 2 Breams Buildings, London, E. C. 4. Tel.: Holborn 5708 Registered Office: Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus, London, E. C. 4
Principal Contents
The Psychology of a Building Industry............. Page 217, 218 The Central London Bridges................................................... 218 Architects’ Begistration Bill.................................................... 218 Essays By the Way — V., Suburban Architecture............. 219, 220 The Bolingbroke Hospital (Illustrations)........................... 221-223 Professional Societies.............................................................. 224
Competition News................................................................... 224 The Price of Bricks.................................................................. 224 The Geneva Competition — III. (Illustrations).......... 225-233, 235
Memoranda — V., Cellulose Finishes.................................234 The Possibilities of Functional Design (Illustrations)...... 236-239 New Ways and Means (Illustrations).................................... 240
London Building Notes......................................................242 The Week’s Building News.................................................. 244 Building Contracts Open...................................................... 246
Building Tenders............................................................. 246, 250 Current Market Prices................................................... 248, 250
Building Wage Grades.....................................................252 Current Measured Bates................................................. 254, 256
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF A BUILDING INDUSTRY
“In 1921 an arbitrator declared that the building industry of Chicago had come to be looked upon as a ‘ thing diseased ’—as a line of activity which ‘ the wise dollar avoided. ’ ” With these words, the Industrial Relations Instructor of Chicago University begins a remarkable study * of conditions in the building industry of the second city of the United States; and his investigations, pursued through some 320 closely-packed pages, has its moral for the building industry of this country. For it will be apparent, as we follow the diagnosis, that some of the factors which led to the situation described above are to be found here also, and may, unless guarded against, contribute to an equally lamentable result.
Briefly, in the opinion of the arbitrator in question, Judge Landis, the Chicago building industry had become definitely anti-social in working and outlook; it had lost any sense of public service and pursued a selfish course without regard to the third “and great unrepresented party” — the public, whose close concern in building-trades disputes he considered it his duty to affirm In this condemnation both masters and men were included, but if we read Mr. Montgomery’s early historical survey aright, the position which called for such strictures was largely the result of a policy of drift, in which both parties allowed themselves to be swept along by forces they could neither estimate nor comprehend. In fact, without any special scheming or conscious villainy on either side, a point was reached when building in Chicago became so expensive that it was definitely uneconomic and boycotted by the public. Following that came a strike, consequent on a demand by the employers for a reduction in pay and its resistance by the workmen. Negotiations resulted in an agreement to refer the matter to the arbitration of Judge Landis; but it is noteworthy that the Judge refused to arbitrate on the question of pay until all the working rules had been placed before him. Though it seems probable that in this matter he exceeded his jurisdiction, it is unquestionable that his insistence on going into and revising these rules revealed the existence of many malpractices that had gradually grown up, and led the Chicago public to believe that it had a case against the construction industry. ” Judge Landis regarded these undesirable conditions as outgrowths of the system of collective bargaining that had obtained, with variations now and then, since the
beginning of the present century, ” when both employers and employed became organised, and have since become even more strongly organised. It is probable, however, that without the rapid growth of Chicago, with the consequent immense expansion in its building industry, events would not have shaped so malevolently. From a city of 1, 700, 000 people in 1900, it became one of 3, 000, 000 inhabitants in 1927. Its expenditure, on new buildings alone, of $48, 250, 000 in 1902 had risen to $534, 672, 000 in 1923. The building industry never expanded in like ratio, and the situation in labour, of limited supply and almost limitless demand, gave opportunities to “craft conscious, pragmatic business unionism” that was “opportunistic” in outlook. One need not follow
closely all the ramifications of the past two decades — “the frequent narrow-mindedness and short-sighted
ness, the lack of a sense of social responsibility on the part of those responsible for the character of employer-worker relations, the bickerings and squabbles, the petty internal politics on each side, the graft, the jurisdictional disputes, the restrictive regulations, the monopolistic combinations and the economic wastes. ” Mr. Montgomery goes into these with detail — “bosses” on both sides, dressed in a little brief authority; the “open shop” quarrels
between unions (there are 35 of them in the Chicago building trade), about the demarcation of work, restriction of output, limitation of apprentices, building material rings, quarrels over wet time — all these have a familiar ring.
The crux of the Chicago trouble, however, lay in “the fact that buildings are a non-transportable commodity”; the public there have to pay the manufacturing costs regardless of what they may be elsewhere. Neither employers nor workmen are specially concerned, therefore, as long as the cost of their mutual concessions can be passed on to the consumer. Thus both parties disregarded or broke the by-laws of their local and national organisations as they found it advantageous to do so with the pressure of work confronting them. Employers went behind standing agreements to bid higher pay to secure men; union “bosses” were out to sell their men to the highest
bidder; rings of material merchants allocated supplies on special quotations. And as speed in erection is a vital economic factor of building in the United States, these accommodations became common. They even led to the appearance of the ‘‘business agent,
a sort of go-between who insured “ immunity from strikes and delay” for the employers, a satisfactory
* “Industrial Relations in the Chicago Building Trades”. By Royal E. Montgomery. Published by the Chicago University Press. London. The Cambridge University Press. 15s. net.
The ARCHITECT & BUILDING NEWS
August 5, 1927
Proprietors: Gilbert Wood & Co., Ltd.Managing Director: William L. Wood
Editorial, Publishing and Advertisement Offices:
Bolls House, 2 Breams Buildings, London, E. C. 4. Tel.: Holborn 5708 Registered Office: Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus, London, E. C. 4
Principal Contents
The Psychology of a Building Industry............. Page 217, 218 The Central London Bridges................................................... 218 Architects’ Begistration Bill.................................................... 218 Essays By the Way — V., Suburban Architecture............. 219, 220 The Bolingbroke Hospital (Illustrations)........................... 221-223 Professional Societies.............................................................. 224
Competition News................................................................... 224 The Price of Bricks.................................................................. 224 The Geneva Competition — III. (Illustrations).......... 225-233, 235
Memoranda — V., Cellulose Finishes.................................234 The Possibilities of Functional Design (Illustrations)...... 236-239 New Ways and Means (Illustrations).................................... 240
London Building Notes......................................................242 The Week’s Building News.................................................. 244 Building Contracts Open...................................................... 246
Building Tenders............................................................. 246, 250 Current Market Prices................................................... 248, 250
Building Wage Grades.....................................................252 Current Measured Bates................................................. 254, 256
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF A BUILDING INDUSTRY
“In 1921 an arbitrator declared that the building industry of Chicago had come to be looked upon as a ‘ thing diseased ’—as a line of activity which ‘ the wise dollar avoided. ’ ” With these words, the Industrial Relations Instructor of Chicago University begins a remarkable study * of conditions in the building industry of the second city of the United States; and his investigations, pursued through some 320 closely-packed pages, has its moral for the building industry of this country. For it will be apparent, as we follow the diagnosis, that some of the factors which led to the situation described above are to be found here also, and may, unless guarded against, contribute to an equally lamentable result.
Briefly, in the opinion of the arbitrator in question, Judge Landis, the Chicago building industry had become definitely anti-social in working and outlook; it had lost any sense of public service and pursued a selfish course without regard to the third “and great unrepresented party” — the public, whose close concern in building-trades disputes he considered it his duty to affirm In this condemnation both masters and men were included, but if we read Mr. Montgomery’s early historical survey aright, the position which called for such strictures was largely the result of a policy of drift, in which both parties allowed themselves to be swept along by forces they could neither estimate nor comprehend. In fact, without any special scheming or conscious villainy on either side, a point was reached when building in Chicago became so expensive that it was definitely uneconomic and boycotted by the public. Following that came a strike, consequent on a demand by the employers for a reduction in pay and its resistance by the workmen. Negotiations resulted in an agreement to refer the matter to the arbitration of Judge Landis; but it is noteworthy that the Judge refused to arbitrate on the question of pay until all the working rules had been placed before him. Though it seems probable that in this matter he exceeded his jurisdiction, it is unquestionable that his insistence on going into and revising these rules revealed the existence of many malpractices that had gradually grown up, and led the Chicago public to believe that it had a case against the construction industry. ” Judge Landis regarded these undesirable conditions as outgrowths of the system of collective bargaining that had obtained, with variations now and then, since the
beginning of the present century, ” when both employers and employed became organised, and have since become even more strongly organised. It is probable, however, that without the rapid growth of Chicago, with the consequent immense expansion in its building industry, events would not have shaped so malevolently. From a city of 1, 700, 000 people in 1900, it became one of 3, 000, 000 inhabitants in 1927. Its expenditure, on new buildings alone, of $48, 250, 000 in 1902 had risen to $534, 672, 000 in 1923. The building industry never expanded in like ratio, and the situation in labour, of limited supply and almost limitless demand, gave opportunities to “craft conscious, pragmatic business unionism” that was “opportunistic” in outlook. One need not follow
closely all the ramifications of the past two decades — “the frequent narrow-mindedness and short-sighted
ness, the lack of a sense of social responsibility on the part of those responsible for the character of employer-worker relations, the bickerings and squabbles, the petty internal politics on each side, the graft, the jurisdictional disputes, the restrictive regulations, the monopolistic combinations and the economic wastes. ” Mr. Montgomery goes into these with detail — “bosses” on both sides, dressed in a little brief authority; the “open shop” quarrels
between unions (there are 35 of them in the Chicago building trade), about the demarcation of work, restriction of output, limitation of apprentices, building material rings, quarrels over wet time — all these have a familiar ring.
The crux of the Chicago trouble, however, lay in “the fact that buildings are a non-transportable commodity”; the public there have to pay the manufacturing costs regardless of what they may be elsewhere. Neither employers nor workmen are specially concerned, therefore, as long as the cost of their mutual concessions can be passed on to the consumer. Thus both parties disregarded or broke the by-laws of their local and national organisations as they found it advantageous to do so with the pressure of work confronting them. Employers went behind standing agreements to bid higher pay to secure men; union “bosses” were out to sell their men to the highest
bidder; rings of material merchants allocated supplies on special quotations. And as speed in erection is a vital economic factor of building in the United States, these accommodations became common. They even led to the appearance of the ‘‘business agent,
a sort of go-between who insured “ immunity from strikes and delay” for the employers, a satisfactory
* “Industrial Relations in the Chicago Building Trades”. By Royal E. Montgomery. Published by the Chicago University Press. London. The Cambridge University Press. 15s. net.