There are two ways of rewarding labour — either by paying for the time spent at work (time wages) or by paying for the amount of work performed (piece-work). Traditionally, as argued in Chapter 2, the work of the moulder was rewarded by time wages, the amount of work to be performed being set by custom. With the exception of South African Railways (where piece-work had been introduced before the First World War) and Durban Falkirk, the IMS had successfully resisted management’s attempts to introduce piece-work among moulders. As the chairman stated at the 1947 biennial conference, ‘We as a society have always been opposed to piece-work, our contention being “a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay” and with the piece-work system this was not a practical issue.’

The way to avoid the piece-work trap discussed in Chapter 2 was simply, the society argued, to avoid piece-work altogether. However, the demand for increased production during the Second World War led the state to intervene directly in production, creating the Controller of Manpower in 1941. In terms of War Measure No.6 of 1941 engineering, because of the crucial importance of munitions production, fell under the Controller of Manpower, who was empowered to determine wages, conditions of work, resignations, dismissals and transfers.

The regional nature of employer organization prevented the employers from developing a national strategy to combat worker unrest in the wake of the Controller of Manpower’s attempt to freeze wages, restrict the movement of skilled engineers and extend the working day.