The word "featherbedding" has been part of the English language for more

than half a century. Broadly speaking, it refers to practices or work rules which

set unreasonable limits to the amount of work employees may perform in a given period of

time. It also includes payment for unneeded workers, unnecessary tasks, work not
performed or jobs duplicating those already done. More specifically and appro-
priately it means resistance by labor to the introduction of better techniques of
production and more efficient types of machinery. The word, therefore, connotes
contemptible behavior because it is associated with economic waste of resources
and an unacceptable norm of conduct.

A concise listing which includes most of the current practices shows six
varieties of makework or featherbedding. These involve: limiting the work load
an employee may handle or the number of machines he may operate; requiring
unnecessary work or that work be done more than once; prohibiting certain labor-
saving tools or machinery from being used; restricting the duties of workers or
enforcing less efficient working methods and standards; requiring unnecessary standby
workers or crews or an excessive number of workers; and compelling employers to
grant excessive relief time. Some types of featherbedding, but not all, involve

restriction of output.

5

Unions in the building trades have continued to resist technological advance vigorously and, on the whole, successfully to the present day. Opposition has been directed at changes affecting employment opportunities adversely or reducing the need for acquired skills.

Several factors make it possible for building trades unions to resist effectively. In the first place, though the effect of a restriction on a particular work operation may be great, the total cost of a building ordinarily increases only slightly. Consequently, employers are not willing to undergo great expense or fight hard to bar the

restriction. Secondly, union resistance to technology affects only a small part of the work of each of the skilled craftsmen, and employers need these men to perform other duties and functions. Thirdly, open shop competition rarely exists at least in building construction because unions have been ordinarily able to organize all employ. ers involved within geographically competitive areas. Alternative labor sources are

not, therefore, available to such employers. A fourth consideration is that the different unions involved have supported each other and have reduced the ability of employers to counteract demands. Fifthly, construction is often subject to time 6 commitments, and builders avoid delay whenever possible because it is costly.

In general, featherbedding and make-work rules are economically unsound for a number of reasons. They hold down productivity, add to costs, impede the mobility of labor, create a barrier to new capital investment, and involve an unecon

omic use of resources.

In construction, restrictive practices impede changing technology in the use of machines, methods, and materials. Specifically, such as in prefabricated components, the principal constraints to the growth of prefabrication between now and 1975 will be building codes, zoning regulations, architects, unions, transportation, capital requirements, tradition, and the basic structure of the construction industry.7 Many of the aforementioned constraints directly involve restrictive work practices of the building trades.

Featherbedding has invaded most industries in the United States. Most notorious of the make work claims is the railroad fireman serving on the diesel engine. Also facing restrictive practice problems are rubber manufacturers, the auto industry, glass and steel producers, newspapers, and most certainly the 8 construction industry.

In many industries costs for restrictive practices are excessive. Railroad

executives estimate that ten percent of their payroll can be charged off to featherbedding costs.

This amounts to a waste of $500 million annually.

9

In 1958, an Interstate Commerce Commission investigation team calculated that rail crews worked only 57% of the hours for which they were paid. In the construction industry, execessive costs are reported to range from 5 to 15% of current labor costs. No accurate estimates are available because of the fragmented

nature of the industry.

In general, productivity usually is measured by relating the number of manhours paid for or worked, to total output. The resulting figure is described as output per manhour. Any action which increases the number of hours required to obtain a designated output must yield a lower output per manhour. The objective of featherbedding and make-work rules is to require the employment of more manhours than are required to perform the work. To the extent that this objective is achieved, output per manhour must be lowered.

The infectious evil of featherbedding is that in the interest of self-protection for a specific group of workers, policies are adopted which hold down or lowe r output per manhour. Our rise in living standards reflects the continual substitution of inanimate for human energy.

To those who advocate make-work rules of feather

bedding, human energy is regarded as if it were the factor whose use should be maximized rather than replaced wherever possible so that man's talents can be otherwise employed. By blocking the free flow of labor into those areas in which its use could be maximized, featherbedding impairs and restrains the long-term rise of

productivity upon which economic growth depends.

Further increases in the rate of output per manhour would mean a higher

rate of economic growth. This, in turn, would mean increases in the total volume of goods and services produced, greater rises in levels of living, and an increase

80-741 O 72 - 22

in our national strength. Alternatively, it would make possible the production of the same or a larger quantity of goods and services with fewer hours of work and hence set the stage for more leisure time. The elimination of featherbedding, therefore, would mean further progress in line with national goals. One price we pay for featherbedding is slower economic growth.

In construction, while estimates of labor productivity are highly imperfect, they nevertheless suggest that the annual increase in output per manhour is below the economy-wide range, and substantially below the annual increase in employee

Serious questions relating to the inadequacy of construction deflators in productivity analysis have clouded productivity indexes used by the Council of Economic Advisors and other prominent economists. A most recent productivity index has been devised by Alan Greenspan, a noted New York economist.

11