Читать книгу The Settlement of Wage Disputes - Herbert Feis - Страница 7

Table of Contents

Section 1. The chief aims of any policy of wage settlement for industrial peace defined—the chief tests to be passed. A knowledge of present industrial facts essential to the formulation of sound policy.—Section 2. The present economic position of the wage earners.—Section 3. Their relations to the other groups in industry. The acceptance of the practice of collective bargaining essential to any policy of wage settlement in the United States to-day. Trade unionism must prove itself fit for this responsibility, however.—Section 4. The economic position of capital in the present industrial order. Its service to production. The problems to which the accumulation of capital has given rise.—Section 5. The economic position of the directors of industry. Industrial control an attribute of ownership. Two important suppositions used in this book, concerning: a. The forms of industrial income; b. The possible spread of public ownership, and its consequences for a policy of wage settlement.

1.—The problem of wage settlement may be regarded as the task of elucidation or invention of methods and principles in accordance with which the product of industry might be shared among the wage earners and the other participants in the product with relative peace and satisfaction. It is necessary and permissible, as has been remarked, to separate this problem from other closely related problems. However, any policy of wage settlement that might be adopted would be also an important influence in other industrial issues outside of those it settles directly. It would affect in numberless ways the relations between the groups concerned in production. It follows that no policy of wage settlement will work successfully unless it accomplishes two ends. First, it must represent convincingly the effort to divide the product of industry so as to satisfy the most widely held conceptions of justice in the industrial system. Second, it must contribute, wherever it is a factor, to such an adjustment of industrial relations as will command the voluntary support of all groups whose coöperation is necessary for the maintenance of industrial peace.

For the accomplishment of these two objects, any policy must be based upon a knowledge of the present economic position of the various groups engaged in industry, and of the present state of industrial relations between them. It is obviously impossible to review these matters adequately in this book. The most that can be attempted is a brief survey of those aspects of these questions with which the problem of wage settlement must definitely concern itself. Such a survey will occupy this chapter. If it serves no other purpose, it will serve the important one of making clear the source of certain general presuppositions with which the problem of formulating a policy of wage settlement for industrial peace is approached.

2.—It is convenient to deal with the general field under survey by considering in the order stated, the present economic position, firstly, of the wage earners; secondly, of those who own invested capital; and thirdly, of those who direct industrial activity. Questions of industrial relationship between these groups can then be presented at the point at which they arise most pertinently. Such a loose order as this is dictated by the desire to avoid all questions except those which inevitably arise when studying the problem of wage settlement.

To begin with the wage earners. The task of giving exact scope to the term "wage earners" may be shirked. The term may be taken to include, at least, all those grades of workers whose incomes would be governed directly by any scheme of wage settlement. When using the term in the course of theoretical discussion, as in the ordinary analysis of distribution, it may be taken to include also other grades of workers, whose incomes probably would not be so governed, as for example, assistant or department managers of large businesses.

The recent past has witnessed important changes both in the economic position of the wage earners, and in the relations between them and the other groups engaged in industry. A close connection may be traced between the two lines of change. Up to the beginning of the present century, at any rate, it may be asserted that the wage earners of the country were not separated from the rest of the industrial community, either socially or economically; although at all times throughout the last century, there was to be found a section of recent immigrant labor which had not yet found its way into the main channels of economic society. The farms, the shops and private businesses of the small and semi-rural towns; these were the common origins and discipline of our industrial leaders and of the more skilled groups of wage earners. There was no great difference either of educational or of industrial opportunity between the mass of men. The few great financial centers of the East may have been the home of an established and separate economic class, but this class was not one of the most important industrial forces. The standard of life as well as the economic prospects of all wage earners who had been thoroughly absorbed into the community encouraged a feeling of equality and independence. The tradition of our period of industrial expansion was that most men should seek to operate their own farm or business (and be their own master). This tradition could flourish as long as a great variety of industrial opportunity existed for the ordinary individual. The first stages in the development of our natural resources, the course of mechanical invention and improvement, the rapid growth of our population—all these changes stimulated independent enterprise, and offered great hopes of success in enterprise to men possessed of common sense, energy, and character. No family felt itself placed in a fixed position in the industrial scale except by reason of its own inferior powers of utilizing opportunity. The wage earners were those workers who worked for some one else, but they did not form a separate class different in experience and outlook from their employers. The possession of wealth, under such circumstances indicated individual capacity, temperament, and ambition.

That phase of American industry is certainly not entirely past, although it has not persisted to the extent that some of the industrial leaders whose rise was contemporaneous with the earlier stages of industrial expansion, are wont to argue. At the present time able and determined individuals, who in youth are manual workers frequently succeed in discovering openings to the higher industrial positions. The need for business ability is still too great to be supplied by any one level of society; all are drawn upon. The thought that each man can attain to the possession of a business of his own, or to a position of importance in some big business, is even now a common conviction and inspiration among the more skilled groups of wage earners. Yet the economic position of the wage earners in industry has undergone genuine change.

The chief characteristics of the present situation are familiar knowledge. First of all, the percentage of employers to wage earners in industry has decreased.[3] Again most new undertakings in the important branches of productive industry require a large amount of capital, a specialized and rather rare capacity for organization and a considerable knowledge of a wide sphere of industry. Indeed, the undertaking of new business enterprises has itself become to no small extent the function of organizations rather than of individuals. Further the personal coöperation between employer and the best men among his wage earners which was in the past the ordinary method of business education is not often practised now. Industry is not a good education for the skilled and able wage earners. Industrial management has usually taken the view that there is no need or profit in educating the wage earners beyond the requirements of their specialized task. The gap between ordinary wage work and managerial work and ownership is in most industries great—the path upward hard to discover.

The jobs which carry the easiest opportunities for advancement in many important industries are now the subordinate positions in the various executive, administrative or sales branches. These jobs tend to be given to young men from that section of society which has affiliations, direct or indirect, with the management of industry. The growth in importance of these branches has led to the development of a specialized form of education for industrial leadership which the wage earner does not receive. Indeed, with the ever increasing complexity of the problems of business enterprise, prolonged education, itself, has become of more importance in determining individual chances of success. All these developments have greatly lessened the chances of the ordinary wage earner for any position of ownership or control. They have tended to separate the wage earners from the groups controlling industry; they have taken away in a large measure the inspiration which work receives from hopes of steady advancement. When that hope is gone only the hope for high wages is left, and that is not a sufficiently potent common aim to insure the coöperation required for so complex an activity as modern industry.

Simultaneously with the revolution in industrial structure and interacting with it in many ways, there has occurred a great change in the composition and character of the wage-earning body. The change that occurred between 1870 and 1910 in the sources of the immigration which has furnished the United States with the bulk of its supply of unskilled and semi-skilled labor, is a commonplace of American industrial history. The effects of this change have been largely governed by other industrial events, chief among which may be put the increased concentration of industry in and around a relatively small number of cities or regions. For as Mr. Chapin in his study of the sources of urban increase has stated: "Immigration has been the chief source of urban increase in the United States during the past quarter of a century."[4]

There has assembled in each of our great cities a mass of workers, many of whom are of recent alien origin, quickly habituated to the routine of existence in crowded city streets and busy factories. The interchange of opinion and of sympathy between these lowest grades of industrial workers and the rest of the community is very imperfect. Their industrial position and outlook tends to be that of a separate class. As a rule, they are unorganized. It is of these grades of labor that Prof. Marshall has written "Some of these indeed rise; for instance, particular departments of some steel works are so fully manned by Slavs, that they are beginning efficiently to take the place of Irish and others who have hitherto acted as foremen: while large numbers of them are to be found in relatively light, but monotonous work in large cities. They may lack the resolute will which put many British, German and Scandinavian immigrants on terms of equality with native Americans. But they are quick withal, versatile; and as a rule, easily molded; they take readily to the use of machinery; and they have no tradition that could prevent them from doing their best in using semi-automatic machines, which are simple of handling, while doing complex work. Thus America has obtained a plentiful supply of people who are able and willing to do the routine work of a factory for relatively low wages, and whose aptitudes supplement those of the stronger races that constitute the great bulk of the white population."[5] They have sought chiefly such improvement in their position as might come from increased wages. They have remained in the regions of the will and of thought subject to those who controlled industry; for they themselves have been in a strange environment, and so have not been able to display, to any considerable extent, the qualities requisite to industrial leadership.

The difference of viewpoint and even of economic interest between the groups of skilled craftsmen in industry and the unskilled grades is being gradually reduced. Industrial developments have tended to emphasize the measure of common interest between all grades of wage earners. The steady trend to standardization in production and to simplification of the machine processes has lessened somewhat the difference between the character of the work of the upper and lower grades of labor. Modern industrial developments have led to an increased emphasis upon "general ability" and a lessened emphasis upon "special ability." To quote Marshall again, "Manual skill that is so specialized that it is quite incapable of being transferred from one occupation to another is becoming steadily a less and less important factor in production. Putting aside for the present the faculties of artistic perception and artistic creation, we may say that what makes one occupation higher than another, what makes the workers of one town or country more efficient than those of another, is chiefly a superiority in general sagacity and energy which are not specialized to any one occupation."[6] As labor organization tends to become recognized as a regular part of the framework of industry, as the duties put upon trade union leadership are broadened in order that industry may give the wage earners collective representation, it is to be expected that stronger bonds will arise between the skilled and unskilled grades of wage earners than those which unite them at present.[7]

The position of the female industrial workers remains to be noted since the employment of women in industry seems likely to increase. Women are employed, on the whole, on the lighter and more routine stages of the process of production. They have shown capacity, endurance and steadiness upon monotonous and nerve straining work both upon machine and hand tasks. It seems likely that they will continue to displace men in many of the simpler mechanical jobs. Many individual women wage earners have risen to tasks of responsibility and direction. This number will be greatly added to by improvement in the education of women for industry and by their continued self-assertion. Nevertheless, it is likely that the great bulk of women wage earners will continue to be employed as at present upon relatively simple, light and unskilled work.

Such, in briefest outline, is the economic position of the wage earners in American industry to-day. There is a diversity of outlook and of animating spirit among the various groups or classes. There is no very settled opinion among them as to the place of the wage earner in the industrial system. There is besides a diversity of racial and sex faculty and adaptability.

3.—Change and diversity also mark the relationships between the wage earners and the other industrial groups. Up to the very recent past, the connection of the wage earners with the enterprise in which they served was limited practically to the fulfillment of the individual wage contracts which were made. The obligation of the wage earners to the enterprise which employed them has been considered at an end with the performance of the work they were employed to do. Similarly, the obligation of the enterprise to the wage earners has been considered fulfilled by the payment of wages earned. The wage earners have been called upon to give their whole-hearted efforts to their work by reason of the belief that such effort was to their own interest, and by reason of their own hopes and desires for advancement. The American wage earners have usually tackled their jobs with energy, good will, and sincerity.

It is impossible to attempt to sketch here the development of the practice of collective bargaining, and the various concepts of industrial relationship to which the rise of trade unionism has given impulse. We are now in the midst of a struggle brought about by the efforts of the wage earners to add to their traditional rights of freedom of contract and of enterprise certain other rights. These may be collectively described as the right to organize and to use their organized strength collectively in all ways which may be reconciled with the public interest. Some of the greatest industrial conflicts of recent years have been consequences of the efforts of the wage earners to establish these additional rights both in fact and in law (as for example the strike in the steel and iron industry in 1919). Much headway has been made in the establishment of the rule of collective bargaining in industry. The scope of the matters usually settled by that method varies greatly between individual, establishments and industries.

Organized labor has frequently received official recognition by the fact of its representation on bodies concerned with the investigation or control of the conditions of labor, or with general questions arising out of, or closely connected with, industrial activity—especially during the war. The President's Second Industrial Conference, which was appointed to make recommendations concerning the most urgent problems of industrial relationship that had been accentuated by the war, emphasized the need for the "deliberate organization" of the relationship between employer and employees in large industries, but contributed little to the matters in dispute. Their view was expressed as follows: "To-day we have a complex interweaving of vital interests. But we have as yet failed to adjust our human relations to the facts of an economic interdependence. The process toward adjustment, though slow, nevertheless goes on. Right relations between employer and employee, in large industries, can be promoted only by deliberate organization of that relationship. Not only must the theory that labor is a commodity be abandoned, but the concept of leadership must be substituted for that of mastership." The attitude of the community has been to take no step in advance of what resulted from the trial of argument and force by the directly interested parties. But it is probable that in the future public opinion will be more positive and will grant to labor organizations fuller recognition and greater participation in the control of industrial activity than heretofore.

It will be impossible to develop any policy of wage settlement while certain of these questions of industrial relationship remain unsettled—particularly the question of the acceptance of the method of collective bargaining. Any proposals of wage policy must put that matter, at least, on firm ground. It is probable that in order to administer any policy of wage settlement some means of representation for the wage earners will be indispensable. And it is likely that satisfactory representation can only be obtained by the organization of the wage earners. Furthermore, this organization will have to be on a wider scale than shop organization, although shop organization may also be useful. Thus it may be said that it will be found necessary in any attempt to secure industrial peace in the United States by the enforcement of a policy of wage settlement, not only to recognize labor unions where they already exist, but also to give encouragement to some form of organization where none exists.[8]

If in the trying times immediately ahead the trade unions give proof that they are more than servants of craft interests; if they stand up as democratic institutions capable of exercising power in industry and not abusing it; if their leaders show they can be humble, when made powerful, then that opposition to the growth of trade union power which is based on a genuine concern for the public welfare will be disarmed. If the trade unions show none of these qualities, the common sense of the community will resist them in the name of traditional equality and democracy. Popular movements such as trade unionism must make mistakes constantly, but because of the spirit behind them, they have great powers of recovery. The trade union movement, as a whole in the United States, has not yet shown a thorough comprehension of the economic system of which it is a part; it has, therefore, often erred in its efforts to end an evil or injustice. Particular unions and leaders have often pursued mean, short-sighted and self-seeking policies—which have reflected upon the whole movement. Much like other economic groups, when their own interest has not coincided with the general interest, they have frequently put their own interest first.

It is the test of all great popular movements, however, that they show they possess the ability to pursue a just and generous policy even while they are hard pressed, provoked by injustice, and maligned. That is the trial which trade unionism faces in the United States to-day; it is the example trade unionism must set before it can expect willing acceptance as a fundamental industrial institution. Unless the union movement proves itself intelligent, disciplined, and aware of ethical considerations, a continuance of industrial conflict will be inevitable; for any practicable policy of wage settlement for industrial peace will require union participation.

4.—Let us pass now to the economic position of "capital" (the owners of capital) in the industrial order which uses it (of which they are a part). In a society where labor works upon the gifts of nature almost unaided by instruments invented by man and fashioned by previous human labor, the society must content itself with small numbers or little product or both. Modern industry has been shaped, perhaps predominantly, by the effort to support large numbers at a high standard of economic existence. Production has become greatly subdivided among specialized groups. In industry to-day, the wage earners of various kinds perform their tasks with the assistance of such equipment, machinery, and general organization as will serve to make their labor result in a large product. The means which make possible this effective employment of labor in industry are what we mean by the term "capital."[9] The section of the community which owns and directs the investment of the bulk of these means has received the name of capitalists.

Almost all the capital accumulated within the United States is privately owned. Since the beginning of our industrial history the opportunities for accumulation have been left to individuals and the capital which industry has used has been provided by private owners. We have depended upon the personal motives of individuals to persuade them to refrain from the immediate consumption of some part of the product of industry which has come into their possession, and to lead them to put their savings at the further command of industry.

The circumstances which have governed the course and direction of this accumulation, and the question of the amount of economic cost that it involved have been the subjects of much capable exposition and of very violent differences. Much accumulation has resulted from the fact that industrial or rent incomes have been at certain times distinct surpluses over the possible consumption of the individuals in receipt of them. Much has been prompted and maintained by the efforts of men to move ahead to success and power—that is by ambition and rivalry; much by the idea that pecuniary success is itself an achievement, a mark of ability and leadership. The ordinary hopes of the multitude of men, such as the desire for a secure existence for themselves and their family, and the wish to figure among their friends as an equal, have been the steadiest motives of all. Saving is not one of the most deeply implanted habits. It is a habit that is closely bound up with the qualities of personal ambition, calculation and the desire for responsibility. That is the reason why rich men are so seldom very likable. It is the reason also why those who are the most needy are at times least disposed to save when they have a chance. And if in the immediate future, the responsibility for accumulation is to be more widely diffused than at present, there will have to be a general cultivation of these qualities—qualities, indeed, most requisite for a complex, mechanical civilization like our own.

The accumulation of capital, as has been said, enables industry to utilize such methods of production as result in a high volume of product for a given expenditure of effort. Much of the hopefulness and energy which has characterized our industrial life arose out of the belief that the continuous course of capital accumulation, since it made possible the utilization of new inventions and improved methods of production, was preparing the way for a future that would be marked by even a wider distribution of comfort than men saw around them. Thus it has been urged that by devotion to industry and by consuming less than was produced, the time would come when the world would be so well equipped that none of its workers would have to be in want of the economic essentials of a satisfactory life. In Mr. Keynes words, "Society was working not for the small pleasures of to-day, but for the future security and improvement of the race—in fact for 'progress.' If only the cake were not cut, but was allowed to grow in the geometrical proportion predicted by Malthus of population, but not less true of compound interest, perhaps a day might come when there would be at last the enjoyment of our labors. In that day, overwork, overcrowding and underfeeding would come to an end and men secure of the comforts and necessities of the body could proceed to the nobler exercise of their faculties."[10]

Under the guiding force of this conviction, and in the United States, with the extra stimulus of the belief that individual effort was throwing open vast new resources to the world, the course of accumulation has been viewed with approval and in the spirit of emulation.

We, however, have recently been assailed by growing doubts in regard to the idea of economic progress based upon capital accumulation. We have witnessed the growth of severe tensions between those who receive the greatest share of the income from accumulated wealth and the other groups engaged in production. It is pertinent to inquire into the reasons for this change of feeling; for, within the sphere of its operation, any policy of wage settlement must aim to lessen or eliminate this cause of discontent.

First of all it must be observed that the bulk of the accumulation has been accomplished by a relatively small number of individuals. If this concentration of wealth were peculiar to the United States it might be attributed to the fact that this country has undergone exceptionally rapid expansion, during which the opportunities for accumulation were both unusual and irregularly distributed. But the explanation seems to lie deeper, for the same condition is to be found in all advanced industrial nations. The opinion may be ventured that it is characteristic of such industrial arrangements as have prevailed in the United States, that the tendency towards diffusion of the results of advances in production (obscured, besides, by the growth of population) should lag seriously behind the tendency towards concentration.[11]

The condition of inequality of wealth, heretofore a condition of the process of capital accumulation, is one of the chief causes of the embitterment of industrial relations. Firstly, it is one of the factors which tend to the creation of separate group interests. A high degree of inequality of accumulated wealth leads to a concentration of the control of the larger industrial enterprises within the hands of a small section of the community. The interest in high returns from accumulated wealth appears to be a group interest. And, indeed, if the lag of diffusion behind concentration passes a certain point it is in reality a group interest—in the sense of being opposed to the general interest. Secondly, great inequality of wealth leads to the growth of institutions incompatible with the purposes of a democracy. These are a cause of economic antagonism, which has its reflection in industrial relations. Thirdly, it has evil psychological effects. In a country bred upon the general ideas of democracy, not even political equality and a wide distribution of economic necessities and comforts will suffice to produce general contentment, if a top stratum of the community is possessed of the social advantages of vast wealth. Few are satisfied with their lot as long as they see others, often through no qualities of their own, more satisfactorily endowed with worldly goods. Lastly, although great inequality of wealth makes possible a high level of production, it also makes great waste possible.

Thus, grave dissatisfaction surrounds that very process of capital accumulation which has been regarded as the high road of economic progress. Grave doubts have arisen as to the ultimate attainment of the vision at its end. The task is presented of directing and safeguarding the course of capital accumulation. It is evident that no policy of wage settlement can, of itself, do a great deal in this regard. Something it can do. That, it is ventured, should be along the following lines: it must aim to effect a distribution of the product of industry in which the return to the owners of accumulated capital does not exceed a point determined by weighing the following considerations:

First, the service of capital in production, the sacrifice involved in much accumulation, and the need of assuring capital accumulation, as discussed above.

Secondly, the evil effects of inequality of wealth as discussed above.

Thirdly, the fact that the health, energy, and intelligence of those that carry out the work of production are no less important factors in effective production than capital itself. And that the possession and use of these qualities by individuals is to a considerable measure dependent upon their economic position here and now.

These various considerations, it need hardly be said, cannot be weighed mechanically, but only by the use of the informed judgment.

The policy of wage settlement must, in addition, give indirect encouragement to the growth of such industrial beliefs and institutions as will enable the wage earners to participate in the control over the conditions of production. Only then will the effect of industrial methods on the welfare of the wage earner receive constant attention, and the desire of the wage earners for self-improvement be given encouragement. In these directions, then, the policy of wage settlement can and should safeguard and direct the course of capital accumulation.

5.—The preceding discussion bears directly upon the next question to be considered, namely, the present economic position of those who perform the work of direction in industry. Only one or two aspects of this subject require attention in this investigation.

It may be remarked, to begin with, that those who own the capital invested in industrial enterprises thereby possess the most general powers of control and direction over them. These powers they may exercise personally or through their agents—but in either case, the fact of ownership is the decisive influence in the settlement of these questions in which the wage earners are most interested. The fact that some of the capital invested in particular enterprises may not carry with it any rights of control or direction—as for example, the capital invested in railway bonds, or the temporary borrowings from the banks contracted by most industrial concerns—does not affect this truth. It is entirely conceivable that enterprises might be carried on wholly with the use of such capital as gave no title to control over the conduct of the enterprise; but at present, the opposite, generally speaking, is the fact. And as is to be expected the work of direction is dominated normally by the necessity of earning profit for the owners of the enterprise—though many other sentiments and motives may and do mingle with the motive of profit-making. These facts form the basis of two suppositions, by the aid of which the argument of this book is carried out.

The first one is to this effect: that if rent incomes (in the sense of Ricardian rent) are left out of consideration, since they will not be directly affected by the policy of wage settlement, the product of industry is distributed in two major forms. These are to wit: that which is received by workmen in direct return for their labor, which is called wages; and that which goes to those who own, and therefore govern, directly or indirectly, the operation of industrial enterprises, which is called profits. It is hardly necessary to remark that the same individual may be in receipt of both forms of income. The second form of income "profits" is a mixed form of income which may be analyzed in different instances, into very different quantities of the elements which make it up. This mixed form of income, which goes to the owners of industry by virtue of their dual connection with industrial enterprise—the connection of ownership and direction—contains in some forms of enterprise a large element of what has been called "the wages of management"; in other forms this element may be almost entirely absent. So too with the element of "interest" and with the other elements which may enter into it. Throughout this inquiry the term "profits" will be used to indicate this mixed form of income.

The second supposition supplies an answer to a question that must be faced in any attempt to formulate a policy of wage settlement for industrial peace in the United States. That question is whether it shall be taken for granted that the desire for private profit will continue to govern the performance of the tasks of industrial direction. The wage policy that is developed in the course of this book is based on the assumption that the large majority, if not all, of the industries which would be included in it, were it adopted, will remain privately owned and operated. At the same time, it is by no means outside of current possibilities that certain of our greatest industries may change over into some form of public ownership; and that this ownership would be accompanied either by direct public operation, or very considerable public regulation of their operation. Therefore, we are led to ask whether a wage policy conceived on the assumption of private ownership and control would be applicable to industries under public ownership.

The answer will be different according to circumstances. If the régime of public ownership should become general, as is contemplated in the orthodox socialist theory, it is likely that, then, an attempt would be made to rest wage policy on principles fundamentally different than any that would be practicable under a régime of private enterprise. On the other hand, if public ownership should be extended only to a very few though important industries such as the railroads and coal mines, it is almost certain that the principles underlying the settlement of wages in the publicly owned industries would have to be the same as those applied in the privately owned. The general policy of operation might differ, however, in other respects. Thus, a policy of wage settlement formulated on the assumption of private ownership would not become unsuitable in the event that some industries became publicly owned.

The relations between those who carry out the actual work of direction in industry and the wage earners have been touched upon already from the point of view of the wage earners. It has been stated that the policy of wage settlement should give encouragement to such arrangements as will enable the wage earners to participate in the control over the conditions of production. Alongside of this general aim may now be put one other, which cannot in any way be embodied in the terms of wage policy, but which should be given a leading place in the calculations of those who execute the wage policy and therefore possess educative influence. That purpose is to try, by the educative power of their position to give vitality to the idea that those who direct industry have a duty to weigh the public interest in their operations, and to emphasize the necessity of seeking a basis of coöperation with the wage earners which will give them all possible chance to find their work healthy and interesting.