The labor standard., 1922-02-15
DIR. ELIOT ADVOCATES
 PARTNERSHIP OF
 CAPITAL AND LABOR
President Emeritus of Harvard University Says That Ameri- can ProsperitS Can Only be Attained by Applying Democ- racy to Industry
(From The New York Times)

Fdcy IO lnQuSCTy
 (From The New York Times)
 The current prescriptions for the restoration of prosperity in the United
 States and in the world are curiously varied. They include high tariffs, low
 tariffs, the extension of credit to bank rupt nations and to commercial enter prises old or even dead and new but
 improved, the canceling of the debts of
 other nations to the United States, the lending of money by Government to
 numerous individuals who can give no
 adequate security, and the support by Government of distressed, diseased, disabled, self -indulgent, shiftless and
 lazy persons in both urban and rural communities at the expense of the
 competent, industrious and frugal. A few clear voices can be heard saying that the only way to restore prosper
 ity is to release the stranglehold of labor unienism on production and on
 transportation of freight and passen- Zgers by land and sea. But this re- lease obviously involves large reduc- tions of wages in all production and transportation services and a resolu- tion on the part of the great majority of the American people that the strike in trades which concern the necessar- ies of life in the temperate zones, like fuels, foods. building and transporta- tion, is no longer tolerable in civilized society. During the past stages of ln- dpstrial warfare the strike has been ah indispensable weapon in the strug- gle for more pay and shorter hours; and in all the chief manufacturing na- tiohs it has done much good toward kLo of fn7~ the laboring millions. Now it may be no longer necessary, especially under democratic < governments; but how many people are prepared to say so?
 To bring about the disuse of the strike by legislation backed by physi- cal force would be difficult and pain full process full of disasters and losses for both labor and capital and for the public at large. It therefore becomes an interesting inquiry whether there be any signs of change in the states of mind of the owning and managing class on the one hand, and of the laboring class on the other, which promise peaceful solutions of indus trial problems.
 Before we can deal with the pros poets of change we must recall the long established states of mind on both sides of the conflict. All labor unions have believed in and taught the limited output, the closed shop, the uniform wage and "going slow" These beliefs and practices are found ed on the fundamental conception that there is not enough work in the world to go round, and that any man who does as little as he can on his job and keeps it is benefting other workers who have no job, or are liable at any moment to have none. One terrible fear has prevailed generally among the laboring classes for generations, the fear of having no job, especially when the individuals productive ca- pacity declines, whether from prema- ture disability or old age. The inse- curity of employment has been ter TOT to the working classes in all manu- featuring nations that have used tse factory system and power-driven ma chinery, particularly in those indus trial communities in which the status of the family of every miner, me- ,ehanic, transport worker or operative depends on his retaining the job he has made his own. 1t should be re- membered that in the laboring class social distinctions are quite as highly valued as in any other class and are even naore3rigid. Hence, the loss of its social status by the family of the jobless man is a terrible loss.
 Workers as Automatons
 The demand for shorter hours, en- forced by the strike and other vio- fences, is based in part upon another snevitable development of the factory system, namely, the extreme division of labor with the resulting intense monotony of work for the individual 1%o,, hn workman to the condition of an auto maton, makes it impossible for him to be interested in his daily work, and makes him eager to reduce to lowest terms the time and strength he must give to the earning of his livelihood.
 The extreme division of labor is not solely responsible for the evil of mo- notonous and uninteresting occupation for the individual workman; for it has been a common practice among em- ployers to keep each employe as long as possible making the same bit of an elaborate machine, or performing the same small function in a factory pro- cess which has many co-ordinated functions. This monotony in daily work has penetrated even the original handicrafts, like that of the carpen- ter, mason or blacksmith, for example. Most carpenter builders or contract ors now divide their carpenters into framers, roofers, floor layers, door and window hangers, and so forth, thus introducing an injurious monot- ony into the work of an old trade which for centuries has offered to a skillful man large variety in his daily occupation. Some wise contractors, however, purposely avoid infiicting this injury on one of the most ancient and excellent of trades. The labor union rule that no workman must go outside of the prescribed work of his trade, even for moment, promotes nonotony of work in every trade. Thus, if an electrician engaged in wiring a house, whose walls are of brick, ventures to cut hole in one brick to receive the small metal box which he uses to change the direction of his wires at some angle Tn the house, all the union masons employed on the job must quit their work. The electrician must on no account do any work on brick. This rule not only in- fficts unnecessary costs on contractors or owners, but increases great evil