ARTICLE RE: GEORGE LIVESEY
PUBLISHED IN Business
History
In a digest of recent articles with a business history
interest Philip Ollerenshaw, 'British
Business History: A Review of Recent Periodical Literature', ”Business History•
Vol 32 (1990) p76., attention has been given to an article on profit sharing in the gas industry by Derek
Matthews, ('Profit-sharing in the gas industry, 1889-1949'. ”Business History•
Vol 30 (1988) p.306). This outlines the
progress and effectiveness of the profit sharing scheme set up at the South
Metropolitan Gas Company in 1889. It is a valuable contribution to the
under-researched field of workplace management in the last century; it attempts
to analyse the success or failure of the scheme through a detailed examination
of its progress from its inception in 1889 until its termination at
nationalisation, and puts into a framework of current debate, research which
has appeared in unpublished theses
(Derek Matthews. 'The London Gasworks: A Technical, Commercial and Labour History to 1914'
(unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Hull 1983) Ch.6. Mary Mills. 'Profit
Sharing in the South Metropolitan Gas Company' (unpublished M.Phil. Thesis.
Thames Polytechnic, 1983). However the
two paragraph summary by Philip Ollerenshaw has highlighted some points which,
while accurately carrying forward Derek Matthew's main argument, may also have
distorted some details. One of these is on the nature of paternalism, the other
concerns George Livesey the originator of the scheme at South Met. The review
has highlighted the phrase 'the scheme was an example of unvarnished
paternalism'. In this is implicit the central point which Derek Matthews is
making: 'attempts to control the
workforce'. It is a phrase which he has
used on several occasions and a question should be asked about what is meant by
'paternalism'. The concept of 'Paternalism' as a concept was something which
had been considered by George Livesey.
Matthews quotes an extract from Livesey's paper following an attack on
the South Metropolitan scheme by W.H.Lever in the course of correspondence on
the subject in ”Economic Review• ( W.H.Lever, 'A Criticism of Profit Sharing in
Relation to Workplace Management'. ”Economic Review • Jan 1901 & June 1901
G.T.Livesey, 'Profit-Sharing a Vindication', ”Economic Review• Oct.1901 p410
[which also included propagandists for the Labour Co-partnership
Association and other interested parties]. These papers need to be read against
the background of a considerable body of
contemporaneous literature which discusses the merits and otherwise of,
for example; 'profit-sharing',
'co-partnership', 'prosperity sharing' and attempts to analyse the reasoning
for and results of various schemes. The paper by Livesey, quoted by Derek
Matthews, is primarily a discussion about the difference between his scheme and
Lever's, which he describes following a more generalised attack on 'profit
sharing' by Lever. He cites
N.P.Gilman's ( '”A Dividend to Labour. A
study of employers welfare institutions'. Houghton, Mifflin & Co. Boston
& New York. 1899) distinction of
French and German 'patronal' institutions, as corresponding with Lever's
'prosperity sharing'. He thus distinguishes very sharply between this and his
own scheme at South Met. which,he says, was designed to enable the workforce to
'take a higher position in life and therefore
become better citizens' corresponding to the French definition of
'participation'. Although he did not use
the actual word 'paternalism' here Livesey can be seen as being acutely aware that a variety of
meanings and motivations can be
encompassed within idea. As
currently used it may not cover the sharp gradations of meaning of which those
who were supposed to have practiced it were aware. This is not the place to
refer these ideas to current discussions on
'paternalism' ( see for instance: Albert Weale. 'Paternalism and
Social Policy' ”Journal of Social Policy Vol.7, Bo.1.(1978) , but it should be said
that the concept is more complicated than it appears. Simply stated, it could be
taken to mean that the effect is to inhibit freedom of action. It must therefore be noted that, whatever the
actual result, that Livesey's stated intention was the opposite 'Our working population have no share in its
vast accumulated property ... the right to own property is the foundation of liberty' (G.T.Livesey ”Industrial Partnership and the
Relief of Distress. in C.Loch (ed) ”Methods
of Social Advance. ” p.107. ” He
described the Lever schemes as 'libraries, recreation rooms' and said 'it may be questioned whether it is
really to the advantage of employees to have so much done for them. In short,
does it tend to make men of them?'(Livesey, 'Industrial partnership'
p.107) It can of course be argued that
attempts to 'make men of them' are themselves paternalistic and that Livesey's
definition of 'liberty' amounted to, 'a delusive snare', to quote John
Burns.(”Labour Co-partnership• February 1899 p.5. The point nevertheless needs to be made that 'paternalism' as a concept can have
many variations and ought to be used more exactly. If Livesey recognised their complexity then
we should at least acknowledge that too and continue the discussion in the
light of his comments; albeit critically.
It should also follow that a useful look might be taken at the
background to some of Livesey's ideas. He spoke at some length about the
influence of Mazzini on him and some others, for example Maurice. Mazzini had a
considerable following in England and some influential support; it is possible
that some of this circle were also involved in employee welfare work. (cf
E.F.Richards '”Mazzini's Letters to an English Family'• London 1898.) A serious discussion of the background to
any such scheme as that set up in South Met. must include an investigation of
these influences.
My second point concerns the brief description of
Livesey himself. Philip Ollerenshaw has gone on to describe Livesey as 'an
activist in the Free Labour Movement'. There is a body of evidence for this:
much of it gained from William Collinson's chapter on Livesey ( William
Collinson '”The Apostle of Free Labour• ”The Life Story of William Collinson.
Told by Himself'• Hurst and Blackett. 1913)
There is also evidence from a number of pamphlet sources For example: Labour Protection Association.
'”The Law relating to picketing as laid down by recent judgments' (London 1899) and ”Free Labour Gazette•
shows some employee participation. (for example. Biographical article on
C.Z.Burrows ”Free Labour Gazette• June
1895 ”p.4•). However, it must also be
said that evidence of Livesey's involvement can be found in a whole range of
organisations. For instance the Labour Co-partnership Association, which
described him in 1906 as 'the one man who could not be left out' (Editorial ”Labour Co-partnership• Nov.1906
p.5). Even more evidence can be produced for his life-long involvement with the
Band of Hope and with numerous church bodies and professional organisations -
like the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Livesey was involved in a lot of different organisations many with
conflicting interests and ideologies.
This is one of the things that makes him so interesting and a bare
comment on his association with free labour organisations does him a grave
disservice and makes his involvement in profit sharing one-dimensional.
Livesey's years as a working engineer and manager in a
initially relatively insignificant gas company should be remembered together
with his contribution to the industry as a whole. Gas industry historians would
never describe Livesey in such a dismissive way and have given recognition to this clever, busy, difficult and
unconventional man 'the acknowledged leader of the gas industry .. founded on
his technical grasp ... commercial
vision ... tactical ability ( Matthews,
Thesis p.93)' This gas industry
background should always be remembered in
discussions on the profit sharing scheme because so much of it is rooted
in ideas about gas company financing and ownership put forward during the last
century. Again it is crucial to look at this background in order to put the
profit sharing scheme into context. If Livesey had only been a gas engineer his
ideas on technology would have made him notable; if he only been a gas company
manager his ideas on adminstration and the political organisation of the
industry would have made him even more outstanding. The fact that he also formulated a series of
very original ideas about workplace management and the way society itself
should be organised make him worthy of very serious notice indeed. He wrote and spoke very largely about these
ideas - it is a pity that most of what has been published recently has listed
bare achievements without understanding them or the intellectual force and
energy behind them.
”Mary Mills, BA, M.Phil (CNAA). Open University (Dept.
History of Science and
Technology•)
No comments:
Post a Comment