It means, of course, that under the sharp analysis of necessity much engineering work, generally reckoned as “skilled” work, and reserved to “skilled” workmen, by a number of union regulations, is seen to be capable of solution into various processes, some of which can be sorted out from the others as within the capacity of the unskilled or semiskilled worker.  By so dividing them up, and using the superior labour with economy, only where it is really necessary, it can be made to go infinitely further; and the inferior or untrained labour can then be brought into work where nobody supposed it could be used, where, in fact, it never has been used.

Obvious enough, perhaps.  But the idea had to be applied in haste to living people—­employers, many of whom shrank from reorganising their workshops and changing all their methods at a moment’s notice; and workmen looking forward with consternation to being outnumbered, by ten to one, in their own workshops, by women.  When I was in the Midlands and the North, at the end of January and in early February, Dilution was still an unsettled question in some of the most important districts.  One of the greatest employers in the country writes to me to-day (March 24):  “Since January, we have passed through several critical moments, but, eventually, the principle was accepted, and Dilution is being introduced as fast as convenient.  For this we have largely to thank an admirable Commission (Sir Croydon Marks, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Shackleton) which was sent down to interview employers and employed.  Their tact and acumen were remarkable.  Speaking personally, I cannot help believing that there is a better understanding between masters and men now than has existed in my memory.”

A great achievement that!—­for both employers and employed—­for the Minister also who appointed the Commission and thus set the huge stone rolling yet another leap upon its way.

It will be readily seen how much depends also on the tact of the individual employer.  That employer has constantly done best who has called his men into council with him, and thrown himself on their patriotism and good sense.  I take the following passage from an interesting report by a very shrewd observer,[A] printed in one of the northern newspapers.  It describes an employer as saying: 

I was told by the Ministry that I should have to double my output.  Labour was scarce and I consulted a deputation of the men about it.  I told them the problem and said I should be glad of suggestions.  I told them that we should either have to get men or women, and I asked them for their co-operation, as there would be a great deal of teaching to be done.  “Probably,” I said, “you would like to find the men?” They agreed to try.  I gave them a week, and at the end of a week they came to me and said they would rather have women.  I said to them:  “Then you must all pull together.”  They gave me their word.  Right from the beginning they have done their level best to help, and things have gone on perfectly.  On one occasion, a woman complained that the man directing her was “working against her.”  I called the men’s committee together, said the employer.  I told them the facts, and they have dealt with the offender themselves.

[A] Yorkshire Observer, February 1, 1916.