Inside contracting was a well-known system occurring in United States’ industries in the early decades of the 19th century. It is described as the practise of hiring contractors who worked inside the proprietor’s factory – „The system emerged from a compromise between the firms owner and the craftsmen, each needing the other to succeed.” Inside contracting replaced the putting out system, where contractors worked in their own facilities: „While it is always dangerous to speculate about origins, one might guess that the contract system was a „natural” development from the putting-out system as it existed in Great Britain and on the Continent.” I am of the opinion that the system which my essay question is concerned with was beneficial and fair to workers and I am going to explain my view in this work. I will mostly base on articles that my seminar professor put emphasis on and focus on advantages of inside contracting. Obviously I am aware that some disadvantages of this system also exist. To begin with it is necessary to answer the question „Who were the workers?” since the essay is strictly about these people. As for me, workers were not only the employees hired by contractors (craftsmen), because contractors were also the workers who were hired by the company’s owner, even though they had a surprising degree of independence and „this situation led to the system of inside contracting which offered advantages to both parties.”
Mentioned advantages to both parties are definitely the first argument why inside contracting was fair to workers (in this case contractors). Owners, who had “neither the training nor the ability to organise the production of such articles..nor the ability to supervise the expanding workforce” needed specialists that could take care of it. Thereby specialists (contractors) were provided with machinery, raw materials and working capital, when for example they could not afford it but they still could work as independent contractors and implement their knowledge. Moreover factories were bigger and had better equipment then specialists’ workshops, so their workers could create better pieces of work, which meant satisfying earnings for all parties. A very interesting fact is that „The largest contractor received an average income second only to the president of Winchester and above of the average official”, so it means that contractors were not treated unfair in comparison to owners and all depended on contractors’ ideas, supervising skills, willingness to train and expand workforce. It also shows that contractors were given huge opportunities to develop themselves and their craft, which probably could not be possible if they worked on their own. „From the master craftsman perspective, inside contracting represented a way to maintain his independence in a changing business environment. Although he would no longer produce product for a market, he would still yield his craft skills, hire and supervise an employee force.” Due to the fact that owners lacked technical knowledge, contractors could decide about changes and methods alone, so they maintained independent. That is why a very common phenomenon of social anomalies in inside contracting occurred when owners and workers (contractors) were on the same level in terms of authority and wage, so in my mind such a work can not be called „unfair”. In a result working as a contractor was really beneficial, sometimes it allowed for laying money aside and investing in own business after all.
As stated in previous paragraph inside contracting system improved general organisation of work and development of workforce technology due to the fact that industry had various people who took care about different things. The truth is, without contractors’ employees industry could not develop, so in other words they were one of the most important part of each company. At the beginning as big factories and industries started to arise in United States and people were used to domestic jobs, entrepreneurs were looking for docile workers which turned into unfree labour. Ex criminals and wanted were employed due to lack of free labour. People were not aware how work in big industry looks like and were scared of it. But after a while „In the 1830s, when the second generation of factory workers had grown up and parents were only too eager for their children to be accepted into the mills”. So as stated in the citation, working class understood how beneficial employment in industries is, so all they wanted for their children was to work in such places and it is obvious that parents wanted the best for own offspring. First generation, to be exact – people who used to work in big factories at the beginning, comprehended the fact that this job gives them satisfying income comparing to domestic jobs which were unsure. Except the earnings, employees gained valuable skills such as instruction and supervision from contractors – their role models. Young boys got tutored and they got skilled, the better they worked the more money they got. „At Winchester, the system “provided an opportunity for inexperienced boys to acquire a technical education under the tutelage of a master craftsman”. So employees and youngsters could learn new things everyday and get better after while, what gave them possibility to become a contractor in someone’s industry one day. When workers and people around noticed positive aspects of working for contractors in big companies, then more and more people wanted to get such job, so the working labor was not unfree anymore. Nevertheless „inside contractors wanted to keep those workers who had demonstrated an ability to perform and in return the workers were reasonable sure of steady employment in the factory” that is why inside contract was fair to them, so they did their best to keep the job in the factory without a must. I have reasons to believe that if work is chosen by someone without enforcement measures, working conditions are good, people are being well paid so can afford convenient life and can develop themselves in different terms, then there is no basis we could called such work „unfair”. The proof for an equal and fair treatment of employees was also shown by the contractors who „absorbed a part of the cuts themselves or were able to introduce methods that increases productivity of the workers”, so their salaries were not cut.
Third, very important argument showing that inside contracting was fair to workers was partly mentioned at the end of previous paragraph. As stated by Buttrick, J. in inside contract system owners did not know about profits and techniques used and contractors did not know at what price goods were sold. As we can see in inside contracting industries everyone had particular job to do and did not influence on each other. Owners wanted to accumulate wealth and gain the best contractors; contractors cared about the best skills of employees and their productivity and employees improved their ability to perform to keep the job. Everyone earned money and obtained new skills, thereby improved organisational system of the industry, which also influenced development of cities and citizens’ life.
Obviously I am aware of the fact that not all companies worked in terms of the same inside contracting rules. Some workers in industries might have met discriminational issues or unfair treatment but it all depended on owners and contractors. For instance people in Foxcomm city in China blamed inside contracting system for suicides and lack of freedom, I recon that cruel entrepreneurs were responsible for those tragedies and not the system alone. Even nowadays, without inside contracting, labor in big factories in China and other countries face discrimination or unfair treatment, that is why inside contracting should not be blamed for such a horrific occurrences that happened in the past.
To conclude my essay I truly claim that inside contract was fair to workers. I have presented the most important pro arguments, which showed that system was actually beneficial to all working parts. Contractors, who gained a chance to develop their craft in huge factory were treated equally with owners – sometimes even in terms of authority and salaries. I think that all depended on contractors’ ambitions to work and earn, because no one wanted to cease them and all people in the industry worked for the same thing – to make craft and company better. Employees also gained an opportunity to develop and learn from the best ones as they have been supervised and observed by finest craftsmen. What is more workers could have been sure of steady employment and earnings which made them eager to work. After my research and writing the essay I am convinced that inside contract system was introduced to make everyone’s life better, fair and sufficient. The system allowed for greater organisation of work and expansion of industry. I also believe that the subject of inside contracting is largely important for United States’ industrial and manufacture past and historians should have paid more attention to it.