By contrast, there are a great variety of devices that use pay as a positive motivator. The most common method of payment is according to the duration of time worked—by hour, week, month, or year. But additional merit payments may be added on at the discretion of management as rewards for good performance. The hazard here is that, if employees feel the criteria on which these are based are inconsistent, the effect may be negative.

Salary structures are more formal devices that offer a range of pay levels for different job grades. The employee’s position within the range may depend upon managerial discretion, or it may be formalized into automatic annual increments. Promotion between job grades depends upon criteria over which managerial discretion has stronger incentive effects.

Payment by results most commonly relates money payment to physical output for a part of the wage. This may be done for an individual as piecework or for a group of workers. In order that the incentive effect be seen as fair for employees engaged on different tasks, it is necessary to develop common standards to provide the same rewards to comparable increases in effort. The work study techniques devised for this use a combination of accurate timing and the observer’s judgment of the effort being applied over many repetitions of the job to arrive at a standard time, which is then directly comparable with the standard times for other jobs. This provides a basis for incentive payment, with the same bonus being earned by workers who complete their different tasks in the same percentage briefer than their standard time. In practice, there is ample opportunity for dispute and for the emergence of contentious anomalies, particularly as a result of minor changes in production technology. The incentive effect usually fades with time, and most payment-by-results systems have a limited life.

Payment related to corporate performance has become increasingly popular since the 1970s. Rather than linking employees’ bonuses to their own performance, it is tied to profits or some other indicator of the state of the company. The main advantage of this is didactic; it is believed to increase loyalty and to educate the work force about the commercial circumstances within which the company operates. For similar reasons many governments have encouraged employee share ownership schemes.

In the United States, Japan, Great Britain, and a growing number of other countries, the scope of pay bargaining is often no greater than a single employer or even a single plant. This has the advantage that the wage structure and incentive system can be closely tailored to a broader package that includes training, motivation, and career development. It requires the employer to sever links with the multiemployer industrywide agreements that have often prevailed previously. It also implies that the trade union unit of organization is focused on the single firm as well—as a “local” in the United States, as an “enterprise union” in Japan, or as a “joint shop stewards’ committee” in Britain. Such organizations enjoy considerable or complete autonomy from the wider union movement, making them in some respects weaker and more pliable.

Single-employer bargaining is a strategy that offers a firm greater freedom to manipulate the productivity of its work force by isolating its trade union (if any) and developing organization-oriented attitudes and company-specific training and job descriptions. It does not, however, provide the employer with any influence over the generally prevailing level of pay settlements. This is offered by the alternative multiemployer strategy, which also permits a more market-oriented approach to labour with industrywide wage and training agreements. Multiemployer strategies do not imply complete uniformity of payment across all firms: in practice they tend to have discretion to vary the agreement somewhat at plant level. In some countries this is a fairly disciplined two-tier arrangement; in others, local bargaining pressures cause the plant-level element to dominate in what becomes known as wage drift.

Governments have intervened in three ways to enforce minimum rates for workers who lacked both the protection of trade unions and competition between employers for their services and whose wages in consequence were regarded as needlessly low. One way has been to provide by law that “recognized terms and conditions of employment,” such as those reached by collective bargaining for workers of a particular description, shall be applied to all others engaged in the same kind of work. A second way, followed by the United Kingdom since 1909 and by a number of state legislatures in the United States, has been to set up boards of representatives of the workers concerned and their employers, together with independent members, charged with determining rates of pay and hours of work that are legally binding as minimal on all employers within the scope of the board. The board discusses and negotiates wage claims in much the same way as in collective bargaining, albeit if the parties cannot reach agreement, the independent members have a deciding vote.

These two forms of intervention are calculated to raise the pay of particular groups of unorganized workers only to the extent that it would be raised by the extension of collective bargaining to cover them. A third way, followed notably by the United States in its Fair Labor Standards Act since 1938, has been to specify by statute the actual minimum wage applicable to wide categories of employment—the amount set being such that only a relatively small number of workers, namely the lowest paid, are immediately affected. When such measures were first proposed, critics argued that they would only result in the workers they were intended to protect losing their jobs. In some cases this has happened, as when the United States minimum wage was applied to the needleworkers of Puerto Rico. More often, however, the workers concerned were receiving lower pay than a competitive market would have afforded them—that is, if they had had more access to alternative employers. Minimum-wage measures tend to discourage labour-intensive methods of production, so that while they may cost jobs in the short term, they tend to force employers into more advanced production technologies, which create greater long-term growth and employment potential.

Another way of regulating rates of pay is a by-product of arbitration systems set up originally as a means of avoiding strikes and lockouts. In Australia it has become the practice, accepted by both employers and trade unions, to have the main proportions of the wage structure and the movements of the general level of wages determined by the awards of arbitrators to whom these issues are submitted in the form of disputes. In setting rates for particular occupations or industries relatively to others, arbitrators must in practice have regard to what is acceptable to the parties; for even where arbitration is compulsory, its awards would cease to be observed if either party had cause to believe that the terms of the awards were persistently less favourable than it could obtain by its own bargaining power. In regulating the movement of the general level of pay, the arbitrators have more discretion; but the government, and the employers insofar as they meet international competition at home and abroad, will make them aware of the effects of the awards on the level of domestic costs and prices and on the balance of payments.

Under full employment the rise in effective rates of pay has generally been inflationary in that it has exceeded the rise of productivity. The consequent rise in costs and prices has at times been disturbing domestically and has been particularly embarrassing to governments that face difficulties in balancing their external payments. Governments in general have been unwilling to check the rise of inflation by applying fiscal and monetary restraints to the degree that unemployment would be substantially raised. In the belief that at least part of the rise is due not to excess purchasing power but to the pushing up of costs and prices, governments have appealed to those who make decisions affecting labour costs and product prices to moderate the rise in pay and profits. Some governments have formulated norms that would, in theory, keep the general level of prices constant and would keep the general level of pay rising only at the rate of the expected rise in productivity—allowing, of course, for specific exceptions. Agencies have been set up to apply these principles, but usually only by way of investigation, assessment, and advice. Governments have preferred to rely on the acceptance of the policy in principle by employers and trade unions, and on their efforts to secure its observance by their affiliates. Even where statutory powers of control exist, they have usually been kept in reserve. During times of recession, governments have generally suspended their efforts to enforce a national incomes policy.