Omaha daily bee., 1921-08-06
Democracy In Production
Some Ethical as Well as Practical
Considerations Involved in Problem.
(From the Boston Transcript.

SIMPLY Dy democratiZing the relationS between
labor and capital will, of course. miss his bet.
Many other relations enter into the proposition,
such as the relations between the consumer and
both labor and capital. between different kinds
of industry, and between industrial organza-
ton and the state Yet so far as it goes, a
mutually satisfactory system OF relations be-
tween employer and employee is an objective
not to be despised in these days of discord
organized capital and organized labor, and
every sincere experiment in that direction is
| worthy of the most earnest attention of the pub
lie. Right coordination of functions between
these two partners in production, and a cor
respondingly hearty cooperation in tulhllment
of their common mission, would spell genu-
inc and long step in the progress toward in
dustrial democracy.
Hence the public doubtless will welcome the
cooperative plan of industrial management just
adopted by Swift & Co, packers of Chicago,
whereby it is hoped that such problems as
wages, safety and sanitation within the plant
may be dealt with in way satisfactory to both
employer and employe. In is way the Swift
project is pretty broadly conceived, according
to reports thus far received. For example, the
system will not tolerate any favor or prejudice,
either on the part OF the company or OF its EN-
ployes, on account of race, religion, political
belief, or membership or nonmembership in any
labor other organization, in dealing with an
employe The whole proposition is simply one
between the two collective industrial parties,
represented by appointees of the management
on the one hand. and by selected representatives
of the employees on the other cooperating with
and eye single to their mutual relations.
And the machinery of the system appears to
be at once simple and broadly promising The
plan provides for an assembly composed of
equal numbers Of the employees representatives
and of the employers appointees, with COM
mittees for action in details. The assembly is
both deliberative and, in a provisional way,
legislative in functions, for its two-thirds vote
on any measure is to bind both parties unless
within two weeks after its decision shall have
been communicated to the management either
the company's board of directors or the EN-
ployes' representatives shall request the assem-
bly, to reopen the matter If, after such recon-
sideration, no collective agreement be
achieved, both the management and the EN-
ployes shall be at liberty to take such action as
they please outside the plan; but that privilege
will not annul the plan itself nor, theoretically
at least impair its potency with respect to other
measures than that disagreed upon.
The Swift company's system is but one more
of variety of experiments in the employe
demonstrating direction, and some of them,
like that of the International Harvester COM
pany, with its joint monthly council to discuss
factory conditions, seems to be proving sue
cessful. The idea of employe representation,
considered in itself, has probably come to stay
But how far that idea can be carried in the
councils of industrial production. and how far
the collective empoyee can be granted or invest.
ed with functions hitherto performed by capital
and regarded as naturally belonging to the pro-
vince of capital, remains to be seen.
For in this connection, even if We waive the
question of the consumers equities and continue
to consider industrial democracy solely from the
viewpoint of the mutual relations between capi.
tai and labor, what would constitute true in
dustrial equality and equity as between the lat
ter? If, for example. in some form of equally
representative council or legislature, the joint
vote on measures should be made absolutely
binding each collective party so that labor's
part in the matter would connote true and real
power. is the collective empoye to be held
equally responsible with his employers for the
effects of the measured? And again, if so. what
should be the scope Of measures thus jointly
deter,nnable? If labor is really to add to its
present functions of performing certain directed
work share in the cares of directing that work
and of management generally, if his co-opera-
ton is to be developed so far as ultimately to
render him joint operator of industries, two
things would seem equitably to follow. First,
the collective labor in question would be en-
titled to an added compensation. supplementing
wages for labor performed with wages of super
intendence; and second it should, in fairness to
capital, share in the 1atter's financial resposi-
bilities for the standing Of the industry, and
share to the same extent as 1t should have
acquired the right and power to mold the
career of the business. The glory of the work.
x, a
great concern is another; but if we add share
of the latter to the former, do we not also pre-
sume share in the burdens as well as in the
profits of capital as naturally devolving upon
1abor's new state?
Nor. is the ethical the only side of the prop
ositon. For from the purely industrial point
of view would not such a form of democracy
in production presume that equal competency,
as we'll as equal responsibility, must accompany
equal sharing at any hitherto capitalistc func-
ton by the employe? The query thus natural
1y arises Why, if collective labor is competent
to perform certain functions of operation, in
addition to those of the workman, has the de-
velopment of modern industry so persistently
differentiated the one class of functions from
the other class and the respective agents or
agencies which perform each kind of industrial
function? Man for man, the employe may equal
his employer in natural capacity for business;
but can the same body that is organized spe-
officially for the ends of labor fuse those func-
tions successfully with those of operation This
is question. of kind rather than one of equality.
analogous to the phenomenon of division OF
labor, and even more emphatic. And the idea
suggests itself that possibly after all, the be-
hests of true democracy as to the relations be-
tween employers and employees point rather to
coordination of existing collective functions
and agencies on the existing basis of due separa-
tion than to sheer or partial merger sor fusion
of the two respective kinds of industrial func-
tions and agencies. If we do not keep each duly
distinct, how we preserve the industrial
mission of each or its social or industrial dig
nifty as a special factor in the great common
mission of industry? Collective agreements?
Yes Collective representation? Yes. Due
and hearty collective cooperation? Yes. But
to what extent collective fusion or transposition
of distinct industrial functions? Does not col
lective equality involve collective individuality?
How far, in short. is this an open question?
Nations Prize Stacker.