The Miller press. [volume] (Miller, S.D.) 190?-current, 1920-09-02
Shall Chaos or Reconstruction
in Europe Follow the Great
World War;
DAWN OF THE NEW ORDER"
Relations Between Employer and En-
ployee, Based on Sound Human
Ethics, Replacing Doctrine Of
Force, Is the Only Hope.
Article XXXIII.
BY FRANK ~coMERFoRD.

N N'~
world must prepare for it. The peo-
pie demand it. Those who oppose any
change must surrender to the ma
1ority. America should be the first
country to recognize the need of a
change" The building of the New
Order" should be done with the heads
and by the hands of all classes.
Collective bargaining and profit
sharing will be part of the New Or
der" If the business men of America
do not cooperate to bring about col
lective bargaining and profit sharing,
the people will resort to force.
Charles M. Schwab. chairman of the
board of directors of the Bethlehem
Steel corporation, is a captain of in
dustry with vision. He is a forward
looking American. He believes that
the basis of big business must be
gounded on sound human ethics. The
other day he hit the nail on the head
when he said:
what the working men want is
recognition, appreciation and fellow
ship. 1t is the duty of every business
man in the United States to see to ii
that the largest possible opportunity
for employment is given the greatest
number of men.
Through personal relationships
and the tone Of the business estab-
lished on these principles, the rank
and file of men will come to know the
spirit of the management and there
Will be no question of the loyalty of
the men TO the management.
"The kind of collective bargaining
that l believe in is the one that recOg-
nizes the right of the men themselves
TO choose their own fellow workmen
as representatives to speak with the
company and which believes in the
obligation of the companw to treat
these representatives individually and
collectively with the confidence and
respect to which they are justly en-
titled"
The working men must not be made
h slaves of business, they must be
made part of it.. Political freedom,
liberty under the law, are robbed of
their meaning if men are enslaved by
their work. 1t is not enough to make
a man free before the law, he must
be safe and free in his work. There
is a difference between political free
dom and industrial freedom. Men are
entitled TO both forms of freedom.
One thought is uppermost and almost
universal in tho minds IF tba unrk-
ing men of the world, and that is that
they have not had a square deal. 1
agree with them. The evidence sup
porting their thought is overwhelm-
ing. Men who give their lives to work
have a positive right to a voice in the
management of the business. This
right must be recognized. Working
men know that until they are given
a voice their interests will be without
a spokesman and as a consequence
will be neglected. 1t isn't a question
only of wages or hours of employ
ment; the matter goes deeper. Men
want the pleasure and satisfaction Of
being part of the business. They have
been only part Of the business in the
sense that they sweat for 1t and give
their lives to it.
Partnership Is the Solution.
Labor and Capital should be a part
nership. The two are like the blades
Of a scissors separate and apart they
are meaningless and valueless. Joined
together, functioning harmonionsly,
fhnu ara Ircafpl md nnnaccar, 70 tho
world. This partnership idea must be
put into practice. The product of the
partnership must be more fairly d.
vided. There Is no g~ainsaying the
fact that distribution has been en-
tirely in the hands of the employers,
and they have been selfish, and the
workers have suffered. AS President
Masayrik put 1t to me one day: Here
we have a pile of gold and a few
people in possession of 1t, wasting 1t
to their own injury and to the detri-
ment of the world, while over here we
have the many living in Indebtedness
and fear" Everywhere in Europe /
found progressive public men and for
ward-looking men Of big business adj
hitting that the working man has not
had a square deal.
There was a day in the world when
usury was not considered a social or
legal crime. Money-ienders insisted
they had a right to loan their money
at any rate of interest the borrower
was willing to pay. They justified
taking advantage Of the borrowers
necessity by arguing it was part of the
right OF private contract. When
some saner minds urged that the state
had an interest, that the public well
fare was affected by the lender exact-
ing the last pound Of flesh, a great
cry went up that the sacred right of
private contract was being invaded I;
that the liberty Of mans relation with
man was being violated. Yet the
laws againsS usury came, and they
have remained. These laws Insist
that . lender shall BE- limited In the