The Industrial Revolution was characterized by the adoption and maintenance of harsh factory rules by the industrial capitalist (Spielvogel 2014, 147). Accordingly, this paper is predicated on the thesis to the effect that there exists a direct causative correlation between the rigorous factory discipline adopted by the industrial capitalists during the industrial revolution and the success of the industries in question. Based on the efficacy or lack thereof of the Factory Rules of the Foundry and Engineering Works of the Royal Oversees Trading Company in Berlin, this paper seeks to evaluate the veracity of the thesis.
It has been argued that it was imperative for the industrial capitalists to adopt strict and thorough factory rules to get the pre-industrial labor force accustomed to the new era. There is scholarly consensus to the effect that the pre-industrial labor force was characterized by disorganization among the laborers who had just migrated from their native communities to cosmopolitan industrialized towns. As a result, there was a need for the industrial capitalists to put in places rigorous factory rules that would culture the laborers into a new way of living and a routine that would further the objectives of the factories. Therefore rigorous factory rules were indispensable instruments that ensured the success of industries during the era of the industrial revolution (Spielvogel 2014, 147).
Accordingly, the Foundry and Engineering Works of the Royal Oversees Trading Company adopted the aforementioned factory rules in 1844. The rationale for the establishment of the rules was the need to cultivate a culture of obedience and honesty among the workers. Moreover, they were geared at the establishment of good order and harmony among the said workers. Therefore, the rules revolved around the emphasis on proper conduct in all aspects of lives of the workers and the factory work life as well (Spielvogel 2014, 147).
Interestingly, the rules enshrined provisions that mandated the workers to immediately leave their working stations as soon as the bell indicating the end of the working day was rung. They were not allowed to make departure preparations until the said bell rung. Additionally, no worker would be allowed to leave their working stations before the end of a working day without permission from their overseer. Breach of the said provisions led to an imposition of a fine of five pennies (Spielvogel 2014, 148).
Additionally, the rules provided for a dispute mechanism upon which disputes as to the correctness of time were to be addressed. Accordingly, the clock mounted above the gatekeeper’s lodge was to be the final arbiter in all matters concerning time disputes. Grounds for dismissal ranged from repeated irregular arrival to disobeying orders by overseers (Spielvogel 2014, 148).
Moreover, there were conducts that were discouraged by the company through prohibition by the Factory Rules. For instance, entry into or exit from the factory property other than through the designated passages coupled with conversations between workers during work hours was prohibited. Sanctions followed the course for any worker who was found t have deviated from the rules in question. Besides, smoking in the work place was prohibited, and violation thereof led to the imposition of a fine of five pennies. The company discouraged embezzlement and dishonesty among the workers as well. Accordingly, all workers were obliged to report cases of embezzlement and dishonesty to their superiors. As an incentive, the workers who reported cases which led to successful conviction were rewarded with an equivalent of two dollars (Spielvogel 2014, 149).
The Factory Rules applied to both time and piece workers. They were in force for all seasons as well. More so, acceptance of the copy of the Factory Rules by a worker was deemed as a manifestation of the intention to be bound by the rules. Consequently, no worker was to plead ignorance of the rules as a defense (Spielvogel 2014, 148).
This paper is inclined to the view that it was necessary at the time for industrialists to adopt and maintain such harsh rules at the workplace. It is attributable to the fact that the workforce during the Industrial Revolution consisted of workers who had just moved from the English Pre-industrialized villages and communities. As such they were accustomed to the slow paced social pattern synonymous with the pre-industrial era. Therefore, stringent rules were necessary to bring their social pattern into conformity with the culture demanded by the work place in industrialized setting (Perry 2014, 144).
On the contrary, a view to the effect that adoption of harsh rules by the industrial capitalist was not a matter of necessity but just a reflection of the general society during the Industrial Revolution is plausible. Friedrich Engels describes the society in question as characterized by social conflict fight in the open where “men regard their fellows not as human beings, but as pawns in the struggle for existence.” As a result, in inference to the effect that adoption of such harsh rules by the industrial capitalists was not a matter of necessity but a mere manifestation of societal ills at the time (Perry 2014, 146).
In conclusion, the rules adopted by the industrial capitalists during the Industrial Revolution were severely harsh to the workers as demonstrated by the analysis of the Factory Rules of the Foundry and Engineering Works of the Royal Oversees Trading Company in Berlin. The harshness in the said rules was both a matter of necessity and a mere manifestation of the social ills that bedeviled the Industrial Revolution. Either way, they played a crucial role in ensuring the success of the Industrial Revolution. Accordingly, the thesis is confirmed.
References
Perry, Marvin. Sources of the Western Tradition, Volume 2. Boston, MA: Wadswoorth Cengage Learning, 2014.
Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2014.
