Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:39:58.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Company Union Movement, 1900–1937: A Reexamination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Daniel Nelson
Daniel Nelson
Affiliation:
Professor of History, The University of Akron
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fostering of worker confidence in the organization has been a major goal of big business for a century. Professor Nelson, a well-known authority on the history of human resource management, here provides a new look at company unions. His view shows that the characterization of these organizations by liberal and labor critics was not always accurate. Some company unions represented noteworthy contributions to the development of a professional approach to labor relations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1982 , pp. 335 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “The Company ‘Union’ Meets,” United Rubber Workers Council, ca. 1934.

2 For early histories, see, for example, Mitchell, Broadus, Depression Decade (New York, 1947), 273–274Google Scholar; Bernstein, Irving, The Lean Years (Boston, 1960), 170–173Google Scholar, and Saposs, David, “Organizational and Procedural Changes in Employee Representation Plans,” Journal of Political Economy, 44 (December 1936), 803–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For more recent accounts, see, Brandes, Stuart, American Welfare Capitalism, 1880–1940 (Chicago, 1976), 119–134Google Scholar; Brody, David, “The Rise and Decline of Welfare Capitalism,” in Workers in Industrial America (New York, 1980), 55–56Google Scholar; a Jso see the brief but illuminating revisionist essay by Gullett, C. Ray and Gray, Edmund R., “The Impact of Employee Representation Plans Upon the Development of Manager-Worker Relationships in the United States,” Marquette Business Review, 20 (Fall, 1976), 95–101.Google Scholar On the modern era of industrial relations, see, Bernstein, Lean Years, 172; Dunn, Rubert W., The Americanization of Labor (New York, 1952), 139–142.Google Scholar

3 National Industrial Conference Board, Growth of Works Councils in the United States (New York, 1925), 7, 10Google Scholar; Fitch, John A., “The War Labor Board,” The Survey, 42 (May 3, 1919), 192–195Google Scholar; Cuff, Robert D., “The Politics of Labor Administration During World War I,” Labor History, 21 (Fall, 1980), 551–552, 560–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 For the Bridgeport plans, see Aborn, Willard G. and Shafter, William L., “Representative Shop Committees,” Industrial Management, 58 (July, 1919), 29–32Google Scholar; also Montgomery, David, Workers' Control in America (New York, 1979), 127–134.Google Scholar For the Loyal Legion, see Tyler, Robert L., Rebels of the Woods (Eugene, 1967), 102–115.Google Scholar Some of the exceptions became notable company unions in the 1920s. These included the union-inspired plans of Swift, Armour and other meat packers and the Pullman company union for sleeping car porters. See Brody, David, The Butcher Workman (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), 99–102, 155, 171–173Google Scholar; Harris, William L., Keeping the Faith (Urbana, 1977), 70.Google Scholar For the Swift plan, one of the most effective and successful, see Calder, John, Modern Industrial Relations (New York, 1924), 165–173; 295–307.Google Scholar Also Carver, Arthur H., Personnel and Labor Problems in the Packing Industry (Chicago, 1928), 149–151.Google Scholar

5 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Characteristics of Company Unions, 1935,” Bulletin No. 634, June 1937 (Washington, 1938). Also Wilcock, Richard C., “Industrial Management Policies Toward Unionism” in Derber, Milton and Young, Edwin, editors, Labor and the New Deal (Madison, 1957), 288–289.Google Scholar

6 National Industrial Conference Board, Experience with Works Councils in the United States, Research Report No. 50, May 1922 (New York, 1922), 26, 56, 26–28.Google Scholar

7 Ibid., 28. This problem did not always lead to the demise of the company union. See Feis, Herbert, Labor Relations (New York, 1928), 68–95.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., 28, 171.

9 “A Thumbnail Sketch of the Filene Cooperative Association,” (Boston, ca. 1915), 8. LaDame, Mary, The Filene Store (New York, 1930), 119.Google Scholar In the 1920s the Filenes encouraged union organization with little success, Ibid., 134–138.

10 “A Thumbnail Sketch,” 24–25.

11 See American Rolling Mills Co., The First Twenty Years, (Middletown, 1922), 207–252, 287–288Google Scholar; Porter, H. F. J., “Industrial Betterment,” Cassier's Magazine, 38 (August 1910), 303–314Google Scholar; Porter, , “Shop Management,” Engineering News, 60 (September 10, 1908), 288–289Google Scholar; and footnote 25. Nelson, Daniel, Frederick W. Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management (Madison, 1980), 185.Google ScholarPorter, H. F. J., “The Higher Law in the Industrial World,” Engineering Magazine, 29 (August, 1905), 547Google Scholar; Porter, “Discussion,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers Transactions, 41 (1919), 193; Porter, , “Obtaining the Cooperation of the Men,” American Machinist 33 (October 13, 1910), 670.Google Scholar Porter first devised the “congressional” style company union that John Leitch later publicized. See Leitch, John, Man-to-Man: The Story of Industrial Democracy (New York, 1919)Google Scholar; Nelson, Taylor, 185.

12 See Selekman, Ben M., Employe's Representation in Steel Works (New York, 1924)Google Scholar; Selekman, Ben M. and Kleeck, Mary Van, Employe's Representation in Coal Mines (New York, 1924)Google Scholar; Bernstein, Lean Years, 157–164; Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism, 123–125; McGovern, George S. and Guttridge, Leonard F., The Great Coalfield War (Boston, 1972).Google ScholarLewis, Lawrence, “How One Corporation Helped Its Employees,” Engineering and Mining Journal 83 (June 29, 1907), 1233–1238Google Scholar; Tolman, William, Social Engineering (New York, 1909), 34, 39, 54–55, 96, 246–247, 258–259, 266–267, 290–291Google Scholar; Meakin, Budget, Model Factories and Villages (London, 1905), 266–269.Google Scholar

13 Selekman, Employe's Representation in Steel Works, 26.

14 Ibid., 67–68, 155–157; Selekman and Van Kleeck, Employe's Representation in Coal Mines, 32–33, 99–104, 150–152, 237–265.

15 Selekman and Van Kleeck, Employe's Representation in Coal Mines, 106, 144, 194–195.

16 Nelson, Taylor, 12. The most notable exception to machinery firms' inexperience with welfare was National Cash Register, which introduced welfare work for its women employees. Also see Smith, Robert Sidney, Mill on the Dan (Durham, 1950), 262–263.Google Scholar

17 Ozanne, Robert, A Century of Labor Management Relations at McCormick and International Harvester (Madison, 1967), 31.Google Scholar See Wakstein, Allen M., “The Origins of the Open-Shop Movement, 1919–1920,” Journal of American History, 51 (December, 1964), 460–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zieger, Robert H., Republicans and Labor, 1919–1929 (Lexington, 1969), 72–73.Google Scholar

18 See Selekman and Van Kleeck, Employe's Representation in Coal Mines, 84–85. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., had sufficient influence to impose a company union, much like the Filenes and Morris E. Leeds. Brody, “The Rise and Decline of Welfare Capitalism;” Bernstein, Lean Years, 166–168; Nelson, Daniel, Managers and Workers (Madison, 1975), 148–156.Google ScholarBrody, David, Steelworkers in America (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), 209, 226–228Google Scholar; Brody, David, Labor in Crisis (Philadelphia, 1965), 54–58, 81–83Google Scholar; Gulick, Charles A., Labor Policy of the United States Steel Corporation (New York, 1924), 138–184.Google Scholar Also see Eggert, Gerald G., Steelmasters and Labor Reform, 1886–1923 (Pittsburgh, 1981), 103–125.Google Scholar For the 1930s see Bernstein, Irving, Turbulent Years (Boston, 1970), 455–457, 459–465.Google Scholar Many U.S. Steel company unions affiliated with the Steel Workers Organizing Committee in 1936–37. Urofsky, Melvin I., Big Steel and the Wilson Administration (Columbus, 1969), 266–269, 282–283Google Scholar; Bethlehem Steel Company, Fourteenth Annual Report, 1918, 17; Guilett and Gray, “Impact of Employee Representation Plans,” 98, 101; Bodnar, John, Immigration and Industrialization (Pittsburgh, 1977), 140–141.Google Scholar

19 Gibb, George Sweet and Knowlton, Evelyn, The Resurgent Years, 1911–1927 (New York, 1956), 571–577Google Scholar; Wall, Bennett H. and Gibb, George S., Teagle of Standard Oil (New Orleans, 1974), 131–132Google Scholar; Hicks, Clarence H., My Life in Industrial Relations (New York, 1941), 52–59.Google Scholar For Rockefeller's and Hicks's impact on other oil companies, see Larson, Henrietta M. and Porter, Kenneth Wiggins, History of Humble Oil & Refining Co. (New York, 1959), 95–96, 209Google Scholar; Giddens, Paul H., Standard Oil Company (Indiana): Oil Pioneer of the Middle West (New York, 1955), 333–348.Google Scholar Also see Gullett and Gray, “Impact of Employee Representation Plans,” 98.

20 “Report of the Special Conference Committee,” July 15, 1920, 5; Hicks, My Life, 136–137.

21 National Industrial Conference Board, Experience with Works Councils, 5.

22 Ibid., 55, 66–67, 70.

23 Ibid., 104, 74, 71.

24 Schacht, John N., “Toward Industrial Unionism: Bell Telephone Workers and Company Unions, 1919–1937,” Labor History, 16 (1975), 12–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barbash, Jack, Unions and Telephones (New York, 1951), 12–15Google Scholar; Coon, Horace, American Tel & Tel (New York, 1939), 169–170Google Scholar; MacDonald, Forrest, Insull (Chicago, 1962), 194–197.Google Scholar

25 The Leeds & Northrup Company Papers at the Eleutherian Mills Historical Library include the minutes and other records of the Leeds & Northrup Cooperative Assocation. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Archives has a complete set of the Wingfoot Clan, which reported the activities of the Industrial Assembly. Minutes of Industrial Assembly meetings between 1933 and 1937 are available in National Labor Relations Board Papers, Case VIII-C-33, Record Group 25, National Archives.

26 Litchfield, Paul W., Industrial Voyage (Garden City, 1954), 120, 128–131.Google Scholar

27 Allen, Hugh, The House of Goodyear (Akron, 1949), 166–175.Google Scholar

28 Wingfoot Clan 11 (November 23, 1922), 3.

29 Wingfoot Clan 8 (May 3, 1919), 1; (June 7, 1919), 1; (July 17, 1919), 1; Litchfield, Paul W., The Industrial Republic (Akron, 1919), 40–57Google Scholar; Allen, House of Goodyear, 183–184.

30 Nelson, Daniel, “‘A Newly Appreciated Art:’ The Development of Personnel Work at Leeds & Northrup,” Business History Review, 44 (1970), 521–522Google Scholar; Morris E. Leeds, “Plan for a Conference on Cooperation,” May 27, 1918, Leeds & Northrup Co. Papers.

31 Wingfoot Clan 8 (October 11, 1919), 1. Litchfield recalled that he had been warned that “young men, radicals and men of foreign influences” would dominate the Industrial Assembly. Paul W. Litchfield to F. A. Seiberling and G. M. Stadelman, May 3, 1921, Goodyear Archives. See Wingfoot Clan 10 (January 4, 1921, 1; (January 11, 1921), 1; (March 15, 1921), 2; (March 30, 1921), 2; (April 12, 1921), 1.

32 Executive Committee to Council, October 7, 1920, Leeds & Northrup Co., Papers.

33 NICB, Experience with Works Councils, 164. Cooperative Association Minutes, November 22, 1920, Leeds & Northrup Co. Papers.

34 Cooperative Association Minutes, January 17, 1922, Leeds & Northrup Co. Papers. Executive Commit tee Minutes, October 17, 1922, Leeds & Northrup Co. Papers. The Plan appears in Stewart, Bryce M., Unemployment Benefits in the United States (New York, 1930), 529–531.Google Scholar

35 Wingfoot Clan 18 (November 6, 1929), 4.

36 Managers' exact roles in company unions seem to have been a function of the size of the companies. Leeds & Northrup executives were involved in the day-to-day operation of the Cooperative Association. Goodyear personnel officials handled these duties; but top executives, including the marketing and financial vice presidents, presided at innumerable picnics, banquets, and social outings. For a similar pattern, see Giddens, Standard Oil Company, 343–344.

37 Allen, House of Goodyear, 185; “Fourth Assembly, 1922–23.” Goodyear Archives. See Wingfoot Clan 13 (February 27, 1924), 1.

38 Wingfoot Clan 15 (January 20, 1926), 3. “Seventh Assembly, 1925–26,” Goodyear Archives. Wingfoot Clan 15 (February 17, 1926), 3; (March 10, 1926), 1. The Goodyear employees' satisfaction with the Industrial Assembly is acknowledged by men who later became active in the CIO union, presumably a hostile group. See, for example the statements of two men who served as vice presidents of United Rubber Workers Local 2. Interviews with Ralph Turner, May 10, 1976 and Charles L. Skinner, April 23, 1976. American History Research Center, University of Akron.

39 Cooperative Association Minutes, September 13, 1927, December 18, 1928, April 18, 1930, December 16, 1930, Leeds & Northrup Co. Papers. Sarah Kirk to Council, April 22, 1930, Leeds & Northrup Executive Committee Report 54; General Wage Committee to Council, July 15, 1930, Leeds & Northrup Co. Papers. Apparently this was as close as the company came to the appointment of a personnel manager. After 1922 the Cooperative Association committees performed most of the duties of contemporary personnel departments.

40 Executive Committee to Council, April 29, 1931; Cooperative Association Minutes, May 20, 1931; May 25, 1932; June 23, 1932; August 4, 1932. Wingfoot Clan 19 (July 23, 1930), 1; (October 15, 1930), 3. See Brody, “Rise and Decline of Welfare Capitalism,” 76. The early history of the United Rubber Workers is traced in Roberts, Harold S., The Rubber Workers (New York, 1944).Google Scholar

41 D. H. Schultz to Leeds, White, Johnson, June 15, 1932, Leeds & Northrup Executive Committee Report 59, Leeds & Northrup Co. Papers.

42 Wingfoot Clan 22 (July 5, 1933), 3–4; (August 2, 1933), Supplement; Bernstein, Lean Years, 280, 491. Both men served on NRA advisory committees. Litchfield made the NRA administrator rather than the Goodyear directors the final arbitrator of disputes between the Assembly and the management. Cooperative Association Minutes, March 26, 1934, Leeds & Northrup Co. Papers. Report of Executive Officers and Research Director to the First Convention, United Rubber Workers of America, September 14, 1936 (Akron, 1936), 4; Paul W. Litchfield to Ralph A. Lind, January 17, 1935, Goodyear Archives; Wingfoot Clan 23 (November 7, 1934), Supplement; (November 21, 1934), 1; 24 (March 27, 1935), 1; Roberts, Rubber Workers 201–203.

43 Cooperative Association Minutes, March 13, 1934; “Statement of Representatives of the Cooperative Association of Employees of the Leeds & Northrup Company, March 27, 1934”; U. S. Senate, Committee on Education and Labor, Hearings, 73 Cong. 2 Sess. (Washington, 1934), 449–456, 551; Cooperative Association Minutes, April 5, 1934; Special Committee on Labor Legislation to C. S. Redding, April 10, 1935; Leeds to J. E. Whisler, April 12, 1935; Cooperative Association Minutes, Juty 8, 1935, August 15, 1935, Leeds & Northrup Co. Papers; Wingfoot Clan 23 (March 28, 1934), Supplement; 24 (April 3, 1935), 1. Cooperative Association Minutes, May 20, 1937; C. S. Redding to Executive Committee, November 26, 1937, Leeds & Northrup Co. Papers.

44 Roberts, Rubber Workers, 212–217; Wingfoot Clan 24 (October 24, 1935), 1, 3; (October 30, 1935), 5. “Disestablishment of Goodyear Industrial Representation Plan,” National Labor Relations Board Papers, Case VIII-C-33, Record Group 25, National Archives. Akron Beacon Journal, August 25, 1937.

45 Gullett and Gray, “The Impact of Employee Representation Plans,” 98.