It is this theme, coöperation in industry, that I desire to develop.
We must ask ourselves at the outset certain fundamental questions:
First, what is the purpose of industry? Shall we cling to the conception of industry as an institution, primarily of private interest, which enables certain individuals to accumulate wealth, too often irrespective of the well-being, the health, and the happiness of those engaged in its production? Or shall we adopt the modern viewpoint and regard industry as being a form of social service, quite as much as a revenue-producing process?
Is it not true that any industry, to be permanently successful, must insure to labor adequately remunerative employment under proper working and living conditions, to capital a fair return upon the money invested, and to the community a useful service?
The soundest industrial policy is that which has constantly in mind the welfare of the employees as well as the making of profits, and which, when human considerations demand it, subordinates profits to welfare. Industrial relations are essentially human relations. It is therefore the duty of everyone entrusted with industrial leadership to do all in his power to improve the conditions under which men work and live. The day has passed when the conception of industry as chiefly a revenue-producing process can be maintained. To cling to such a conception is only to arouse antagonisms and to court trouble. In the light of the present every thoughtful man must concede that the purpose of industry is quite as much the advancement of social well-being as the production of wealth. It remains none the less true, however, that to be successful, industry must not only serve the community and the workers adequately, but must also realize a just return on capital invested.
Next we must ask ourselves, who are the parties to industry: The parties to industry are four in number: capital, management, labor, and the community.
I am, of course, well aware of the social theories and experiments that seek to merge capital and labor, either through ownership of capital by the state or by the workers themselves. But the difficulties that confront the realization of these plans are vast and the objection to many of them fundamental.
Under our present system, capital is represented by the stockholders, and is usually regarded as embracing management. Management is, however, an entirely separate and distinct party to industry; its function is essentially administrative. It comprises the executive officers who bring to industry technical skill and managerial experience. Labor consists of the employees. Labor, like capital, is an investor in industry, but labor’s contribution, unlike that of capital, is not detachable from the one who makes it, since it is in the nature of physical effort and is a part of the worker’s strength and life. Here the list usually ends.
The fourth party, namely, the community, whose interest is vital and in the last analysis controlling, is too often ignored. The community’s right to representation in the control of industry and in the shaping of industrial policies is similar to that of the other parties. Were it not for the community’s contribution, in maintaining law and order, in providing agencies of transportation and communication, in furnishing systems of money and credit and in rendering other services, all involving continuous outlays, the operation of capital, management, and labor would be enormously hampered, if not rendered wellnigh impossible. The community, furthermore, is the consumer of the product of industry, and the money which it pays for the product reimburses capital for its advances and ultimately provides the wages, salaries, and profits that are distributed among the other parties.