CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

What have the experiences of the last few years taught the United States concerning the important problem of industrial relations and labor administration? The consensus of opinion is that much has been learned which will enable us to approach more scientifically and to deal more successfully with these problems in the future. There have been significant changes in the thought of the world regarding the multiplicity of industrial problems involving labor and their solution. The postulate of August Comte that ideas rule the world or throw it into chaos was never more clearly demonstrated than during the recent crisis. Especially is this true in regard to the relations between labor and capital, and the numerous elements in the productive process as these relate themselves to the human factor in production. In analyzing the labor problem of war-time we were forced to readjust our perspective and that readjustment possesses a fair degree of permanence. Before considering the most important lessons that have been learned about industrial relations and labor administration during the war it is necessary to summarize the tendencies outlined in the foregoing pages.

Summarizing our study it may be said that: (1) In its program of economic readjustment for the exigencies of war the United States, like other belligerent nations, found it necessary and expedient to abandon its customary policy of laissez-faire and to adopt in its stead a policy and program of extensive governmental interference and regulation. This new policy was characterized by concentration of control and coördination of administration. (2) Concentration of control and correlation of administrative activities were not extended to include the ways and means of dealing with the multiplicity of labor problems that grew in magnitude, until we had been in the struggle for almost a year. During the first year of our participation in the war our labor policy, in so far as we possessed one, was decen

tralized and heterogeneous in respect to methods of control and administration. (3) Industrial unrest during the war was due to two sets of causes, the one set general in character and found in American industry as a whole, while the other group, more specifically tho not exclusively, was operative in particular industrial establishments. These two groups of conditions, it will be recalled, included the high cost of living, absentee ownership of industry and autocratic government of industrial plants, inequality in wage standards, faulty distribution of labor and the absence of governmental machinery to effect desired redistribution, inadequate machinery for the adjustment of industrial grievances, prevalence of profiteering, the spread of radical philosophies, the movement for a shorter workday, insufficient housing and transportation facilities, discrimination against union workers and opposition to all forms of collective bargaining, unfavorable conditions of employment, the demand for a minimum wage scale and increasing wages, as well as some minor causes. (4) American labor, generally speaking, was loyal to the government and contributed greatly to the successful prosecution of the war. Labor's policy was not always unselfish. In fact there were many evidences of a selfish attitude, but most of the seemingly disloyal conduct on the part of workers was traceable to enemy propaganda or to bad industrial conditions, chiefly the latter, for enemy agents merely took advantage of an existing industrial situation to spread disloyalty. (5) With the development of a centralized and coördinated labor administration founded upon the broad principles of social and economic justice, the problem of labor unrest and other acute industrial difficulties were solved with unprecedented success. To this success the broadmindedness and patriotism of the representatives of management, employees, and the government contributed greatly.

1. SOME RESULTS OF THE WAR THAT AFFECT INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS

With the above summary in mind we may return to a consideration of the lessons which the United States has learned in dealing with the various elements in the labor problem during the great emergency. If the war has resulted in any constructive effect upon industrial society it has certainly demonstrated

the possibility and practicability of harmonious relations and earnest coöperation between the parties to industry-capital, management, labor, and the government. For the first time in the annals of American industry, management and labor throughout the entire country accepted certain fundamental standards of work and convened in joint conferences for the purpose of considering their grievances and adjusting their difficulties on the basis of these principles and standards. These joint conferences were common in particular establishments before the war, but the history of conciliation and mediation during the recent war shows that they were never so numerous nor characterized with so much rationality and amicability as in this critical period. This intimate association of the representatives of management and capital with the representatives of labor has done much to modify the harsh opinion each group of interests has held concerning the other, and should contribute materially to the elimination of the antagonism that has characterized modern industrial relations and disrupted industrial peace. Workers have learned that employers are men of like passions as themselves, actuated by the same motives not only for economic gain but for fair dealing and social and cultural progress, not blind to the rights of labor nor indifferent to justice for the proletariat. On the other hand, employers have discovered that workers possess a keen sense of justice and fair play, a large measure of rationality, a profound respect for the rights and deserts of that superior managerial ability without which the production of wealth could never have attained nor continue its present efficiency, and that they respond readily and generously to a proper appeal.

Labor and capital have finally appeared to each other in a truer light than formerly. Labor is gradually being looked upon as something more than a marketable commodity to be bought and sold in obedience to the operation of blind economic laws or the higgling and manipulation of powerful bargainers. It is seen that labor is inseparable from the laborer who possesses the qualities, rights, and dignity of a human being in a civilized community. To buy labor cheaply is to obey the powerful economic motive of self-interest, but many employers have learned that this is but to sacrifice human welfare and to disregard the

human factor in industry, and that in the long run cheap labor may prove to be expensive labor, not only for society but for the employer himself.

Likewise, capital has appeared in a truer light. Altho different from labor in that it is divorceable from its owner, capital, nevertheless, is but a collective designation for the capitalists a group of human beings having all the attributes of humanity and not necessarily selfish. The capitalist like the laborer is, in the last analysis, a complex of human interests, and a fuller understanding of the motives and impulses that actuate his fellows may be relied upon to guarantee a fuller measure of industrial fair play and justice. Class hatred and the so called class struggle have been softened under the war-time practice of bringing capital and labor closer together and a fuller understanding of each other has narrowed the breach that for years has been widening.1

Is this changed point of view a temporary phenomenon, an impulse growing out of loyalty to the nation in a great emergency, or does it presage a permanent change in the perspective and psychosis of the parties to industry? There is disagreement concerning the answer to this query, some holding that the new attitude is a permanent by-product of the war while others believe it will pass away with the return to peace and the post-war struggle for markets and profits. This much can be said: [The prevailing sentiment of the press, the platform, the pulpit, and the representatives of the commercial and conservative labor interests of the country, as well as of students of the labor problem, is that the time was never more opportune for the reconciliation of labor and capital and these parties to industry seemed never more desirous and willing to understand each other and to establish conditions of permanent peace. This changed attitude is

1 The writer is cognizant of the fact that radical forces in the United States, as in Europe, have not surrendered the doctrine of class war and that expropriation of the property owning class is widely advocated, but there is abundant evidence of more conciliatory spirit in industrial relations and of a desire to establish democratic government of industry, both on the part of capital and of labor.

2 The widespread industrial unrest that has appeared in the United States subsequent to the war may seem to deny the validity of this conclusion, but it is still true that all parties to the labor controversy are striving to discover a permanent basis for harmony.

not universal, but there are many indications of its prevalence. A second result of the war pertaining to industrial relations is that it has made very clear the magnitude of the community's interest in the industrial system, particularly in the personal relation in industry and the conditions of employment. The absolute dependence of national security and progress upon both hand-workers and brain-workers has been clearly demonstrated during the recent international cataclysm, and this fact has stimulated the interest of the community in the conditions of work and service. Society is directly or indirectly a party to every industrial compact, for the production, exchange, and distribution of wealth are in a large measure determined by existing economic and political institutions which have their basis and sanction in law. Whatever one may think of the present economic and political systems, he cannot gainsay that they have legal sanction, and in a democracy like ours it is commonly assumed that law is the expression of the will of the majority. Admittedly, legal institutions and the statutes upon which they rest may be out of joint with the thought and philosophy of the present, but the machinery of democratic government affords an opportunity for orderly readjustment when the will of the majority so demands. Just as it is the duty of a democratic government to register and obey the will of the majority, so also is it obliged to protect existing personal and property rights and other institutions until such time as these institutions and rights, in the process of social evolution which is the barometer of the collective will, shall be modified or abandoned. This does not mean that it is the duty of the government to countenance the abuse of personal and property rights; rather should it prevent such abuse. It is one of the peculiar functions of government to maintain law and order in industry and in fulfilling this obligation the state becomes an active participant in the industrial process.

Industrial organization is not independent of and divorceable from the general societal organization. The industrial process is but one phase of the larger social process which, viewed in its totality, constitutes what is commonly known as the life of society. For this reason maladjustment in wealth-producing and wealth-distributing machinery has serious effects upon the entire