The Personal Relation in Industry

by Jr. John D. Rockefeller

Finally we must inquire: what are the relations between the parties to industry? It is frequently maintained that the parties to industry must necessarily be hostile and antagonistic; that each must arm itself to wrest from the others its share of the product of their common toil. This is unthinkable; it is not true; the parties to industry are in reality not enemies, but partners; they have a common interest; no one can get on without the others. Labor must look to capital to supply the tools, machinery, and working capital, without which it cannot make its vital contribution to industry; and capital is equally powerless to turn a wheel in industry without labor. Management is essential to supply the directing force, while without the community as the consumer, the services of the other three parties would have no outlet. Just what the relative importance of the contribution made to the success of industry by the several factors is, and what their relative rewards should be, are debatable questions.

But, however views may differ on these questions, it is clear that the common interest cannot be advanced by the effort of any one party to dominate the others, arbitrarily to dictate the terms on which alone it will coöperate, or to threaten to withdraw if any attempt is made to thwart the enforcement of its will. Success is dependent upon the coöperation of all four. Partnership, not enmity, is the watchword.

II

If coöperation between the parties to industry is sound business and good social economics, why then is antagonism so often found in its stead? The answer is revealed in a survey of the development of industry. In the early days of industry, as we know, the functions of capital and management were not infrequently combined in the one individual, who was the employer. He in turn was in constant touch with his employees. Together they formed a vital part of the community. Personal relations were frequent and mutual confidence existed. When differences arose they were quickly adjusted. As industry developed, aggregations of capital larger than a single individual could provide were required. In answer to this demand, the corporation with its many stockholders was evolved. Countless workers took the place of the handful of employees of earlier days. Plants under a single management scattered all over the country superseded the single plant in a given community. Obviously, this development rendered impossible the personal relations which had existed in industry, and lessened the spirit of common interest and understanding. Thus the door was opened to suspicion and distrust; enmity crept in; antagonisms developed. Capital not infrequently used its power to enforce long hours and low wages; labor likewise retaliated with such strength as it had, and gradually the parties to industry came to view each other as enemies instead of as friends and to think of their interests as antagonistic rather than common.

Where men are strangers and have no contact, misunderstanding is apt to arise. On the other hand, where men meet frequently about a table, rub elbows, exchange views, and discuss matters of common interest, almost invariably it happens that the vast majority of their differences quickly disappear and friendly relations are established.

Several years ago I was one of a number of men who were asked two questions by a Commission appointed by the President of the United States to deal with certain labor difficulties.

The first was: “What do you regard as the underlying cause of industrial unrest?” The second: “What remedy do you suggest?”

I stated that in my judgment the chief cause of industrial unrest is that capital does not strive to look at questions at issue from labor’s point of view, and labor does not seek to get capital’s angle of vision. My answer to the second question was that when employers put themselves in the employee’s place and the employees put themselves in the employer’s place, the remedy for industrial unrest will have been found. In other words, when the principle adopted by both parties in interest is: “Do as you would be done by,” there will be no industrial unrest, no industrial problem.

It is to be regretted that there are capitalists who regard labor as their legitimate prey, from whom they are justified in getting all they can for as little as may be. It is equally to be deplored that on the part of labor there is often a feeling that it is justified in wresting everything possible from capital. Where such attitudes have been assumed, a gulf has been opened between capital and labor which has continually widened. Thus the two forces have come to work against each other, each seeking solely to promote its own selfish ends. As a consequence have come all too frequently the strike, the lockout, and other incidents of industrial warfare.

A man, who recently devoted some months to studying the industrial problem and who came into contact with thousands in various industries throughout the United States, has said that it was obvious to him from the outset that the working men were seeking for something, which at first he thought to be higher wages. As his touch with them extended, he came to the conclusion, however, that not higher wages, but recognition as men, was what they really sought. What joy can there be in life, what interest can a man take in his work, what enthusiasm can he be expected to develop on behalf of his employer, when he is regarded as a number on a pay-roll, a cog in a wheel, a mere “hand”? Who would not earnestly seek to gain recognition of his manhood and the right to be heard and treated as a human being, not as a machine?