ArticlePDF Available

Union-Management Cooperation in the United States: Lessons from the 1920S

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of several experiments in union-management cooperation that took place during the 1920s. The author examines the economic and social factors that influenced the formation, operation, and decline of these experiments. Although observers at that time hoped that union-management cooperation would be widely adopted, it extended only to industries suffering from declining markets for union-made products and failed to survive the Great Depression. When the author compares these early experiments to current cooperative endeavors, he concludes that unions and employers will voluntarily work together to improve productivity only within an intermediate range of economic stress. (Abstract courtesy JSTOR.)
A preview of the PDF is not available
... Organization Studies 35 (8) expanded workers' contact with science, broadened their interconnectedness, and in a great many cases enhanced their wellbeing. This perspective is both consistent with and supported by a line of research which argues that, until the late 1940s, Taylor's inner circle supported a programme of progressive reform within and beyond the workplace (see, for example, Bruce, 2000;Fraser, 1993;Jacoby, 1983Jacoby, , 1985McCartin, 1997;Nyland, 1989;Nyland & Bruce, 2012;Schachter, 1989;Storrs, 2000). ...
... The popularity of the notion that the Taylorists were anti-democratic exemplifies this practice. This is because, although a great many scholars have shown that the TS collaborated with and supported the union movement (Alchon, 1991;Cayet, 2010;Fraser, 1993;Jacoby, 1983;Layton, 1971;McCartin, 1997;McKelvey, 1952;Nadworny, 1955;Nyland, 1989Nyland, , 1998Nyland & Bruce, 2012), this evidence has been assiduously overlooked by those who adhere to the orthodoxy. ...
... The wider application of scientific management frequently had dysfunctional side effects, particularly in the form of high turnover and low worker morale (e.g., Lewin, 1920;Gillespie, 1991) and vociferous (although not unanimous) union opposition (see Aitkin, 1960;Jacoby, 1983). Many of Taylor's disciples argued that scientific management was not hostile to workers or unions (Nyland, 1998), but it was often implemented in ways workers resented and resisted (Bendix, 1956: 274-287;Aitkin, 1960). ...
... Taylor's successors worked with union leaders to negotiate a new concept of labor-management cooperation built around worker (and particularly union) participation. The linking of industrial efficiency and labor participation ushered a brief period of "cooperation fever" between industrial engineering and organized labor [48,38,40,10,32]. The garment industry was a pivotal site for experiments in these early forms of labor management cooperation. ...
Conference Paper
To gain historical perspective on the role of technical expertise in the labor movement, we explore the data-driven practices of mid-century American labor unionists who appropriated techniques from scientific management to advocate for workers. Analyzing the data artifacts and academic writings of the Management Engineering department of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, we describe the rhetorical use of data within a mutual-gains model of participation. We draw insights from the challenges faced by the department, assess the feasibility of implementing these approaches in the present, and identify opportunities for the participatory design of workplace advocacy systems moving forward.
... Within academic circles, there is a long tradition of industrial relations research focusing on cooperation and related concepts. In the USA, John Commons (1919) wrote about 'industrial goodwill', while Kaufman (2008: 329) argues more broadly that 'cooperation' was the 'single most used word' in American debates about industrial relations in the 1920s (see also Jacoby 1983). During the 1940s and 1950s, the National Planning Association published a series of studies on 'industrial peace' in the context of collective bargaining (e.g. ...
Article
Full-text available
Cooperation in the employment relationship continues to be a widely-lauded goal, but academics, practitioners and policymakers rarely define the concept or analyse systematically its variants. This is problematic because a lack of clarity is a significant barrier to academic discourse and practical implementation in many organizations and countries. This paper therefore carefully develops a framework that results in six key perspectives on cooperation rooted in five assumptions. In addition to fostering a deeper understanding of cooperation, these six perspectives can be used to theorise alternative employment relations paradigms when cooperation rather than conflict is viewed as the central construct. Moreover, a dynamic analysis of these six perspectives adds new insights to understanding the challenges of achieving and sustaining truly cooperative regimes, while also highlighting the need to go beyond structures and practices by incorporating the role of ideas in analyses of the success or failure of cooperative efforts. 1
... The decline of industrial democracy in the US in the 1940s and 1950s led to the removal of the theme from the business school literature. A continued matter of interest in Europe and the UK throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the only American academic contributions to the democratising debate during this period seem to have been dismissals of industrial democracy on (unclear) economic grounds (Sturmthal, 1964;Jensen and Meckling, 1979;Jacoby, 1985aJacoby, , 1985bDickman, 1987;Frege, 2006). An American League for Industrial Democracy has existed since 1905, but even Nader, whose advocates styled his reform proposals 'corporate democracy', criticised industrialdemocracy initiatives as unworkable in the US (Nader et al., 1976;Johnpoll and Yerburgh, 1980). ...
... The decline of industrial democracy in the US in the 1940s and 1950s led to the removal of the theme from the business school literature. A continued matter of interest in Europe and the UK throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the only American academic contributions to the democratising debate during this period seem to have been dismissals of industrial democracy on (unclear) economic grounds (Sturmthal, 1964;Jensen and Meckling, 1979;Jacoby, 1985aJacoby, , 1985bDickman, 1987;Frege, 2006). An American League for Industrial Democracy has existed since 1905, but even Nader, whose advocates styled his reform proposals 'corporate democracy', criticised industrialdemocracy initiatives as unworkable in the US (Nader et al., 1976;Johnpoll and Yerburgh, 1980). ...
... Organizations representing railway workers, mechanical engineers, and others began to mount advocacy in defense of workers [75,122]. Pieceworkers' relationships with their employers eventually developed a pattern of using laborer advocacy groups [96,8,105,74]. Following the template of the match-girls, collective action grew to become a central component of negotiating with managers [60,115]. ...
Conference Paper
The internet is empowering the rise of crowd work, gig work, and other forms of on-demand labor. A large and growing body of scholarship has attempted to predict the socio-technical outcomes of this shift, especially addressing three questions: 1) What are the complexity limits of on-demand work?, 2) How far can work be decomposed into smaller microtasks?, and 3) What will work and the place of work look like for workers? In this paper, we look to the historical scholarship on piecework — a similar trend of work decomposition, distribution, and payment that was popular at the turn of the 20th century — to understand how these questions might play out with modern on-demand work. We identify the mechanisms that enabled and limited piecework historically, and identify whether on-demand work faces the same pitfalls or might differentiate itself. This approach introduces theoretical grounding that can help address some of the most persistent questions in crowd work, and suggests design interventions that learn from history rather than repeat it.
... The wider application of Scientific Management frequently had dysfunctional sideeffects, particularly in the form of high turnover and low morale of workers (e.g., Lewin, 1920;Gillespie, 1991) and vociferous (although not unanimous) union opposition (see Aitkin, 1960;Jacoby, 1983a). Many of Taylor's disciples argued that Scientific Management was not hostile to workers or unions (Nyland, 1998); but it was often implemented in ways workers resented and resisted (Bendix, 1956: 274-287;Aitkin, 1960). ...
Article
Full-text available
Over the last century and half, US industry has seen the emergence of several different management models, but we still understand little about the factors that drove their evolution. We propose a theory of this evolution based on three nested and interacting processes. First, we identify several successive waves of technological revolution, each of which prompted a corresponding wave of change in the dominant organizational paradigm. Second, nested within these waves, each of these organizational paradigms emerged through two successive cycles—a primary cycle which generated a new management model that obsoleted the prior organizational paradigm, and a secondary cycle which generated another model that mitigated the dysfunctions of the primary cycle's model. Third, nested within each of these cycles, we identify a problem-solving process in which the development of each model passed through four main phases during which various related management concepts competed for dominance.
Chapter
Technology today is often presented as our best hope of solving the world's social and sustainability problems. And that's nothing new: engineers have always sought to meet the big challenges of their times-even as those challenges have shaped their technology. This book offers a historical look at those interactions between engineering and social challenges, showing how engineers developed solutions to past problems, and looking at the ways that those solutions often bring with them unintended consequences that themselves require solving.
Book
Full-text available
This book pioneers the historiography of engineering & societal challenges ca. 1815-2015. It unpacks such ‘grand challenges’ from the perspectives of diverse user, societal, enterprise, and professional groups, and discusses how these groups mobilized technology to solve challenges; how some technological solutions unexpectedly created new problems; and how they sought to solve problems while avoiding new ones (e.g. through technocratic and participatory innovation).
Article
In the decade following World War I the relationship between employees and employers ran a gamut from complete employer domination to collective ownership by the workers. Between these extremes were found "welfare capitalism," employee representation, union negotiation, union domination, and combinations of these. While unionism and the more radical employee-orientated programs failed to expand (and even declined in influence), employer-inspired ideas continued, in a nineteenth century tradition, to dominate. Of these many concepts one gained the widest acceptance and broadest support-that of the open shop. Like every other equivocal term which has a variety of connotations, the meaning of "open shop" is dependent upon the time and circumstance of its use.
On clothing, seeMen's Clothing Twentieth Century Fund, 1945), pp. 431-42; and Daniel Nelson, Unemployment Insurance: The American Experience On hosiery, see Gustave GeigesWaste Elimination in the Full-Fashioned Hosiery Industry On the railroadsThe Technique of Cooperation
  • D C Washington
  • J Robert
  • Joseph W Myers
  • S Otto
  • Jr Beyer
Cooperation: Experience in the Clothing Industry (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1947). On clothing, see Robert J. Myers and Joseph W. Bloch, "Men's Clothing," in Harry A. Millis, ed., How Collective Bargaining Works (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1945), pp. 431-42; and Daniel Nelson, Unemployment Insurance: The American Experience, 1915-1935 (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), pp. 79-103. On hosiery, see Gustave Geiges, "Waste Elimination in the Full-Fashioned Hosiery Industry," Bulletin of the Taylor Society, Vol. 12, No. 2 (April 1927), pp. 410-15; and Gladys Palmer, Union Tactics and Economic Change (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1933). On the railroads, see Otto S. Beyer, Jr., "The Technique of Cooperation," Bulletin of the Taylor Society, Vol. 11, No. 1 (February 1926), pp. 7-20;
Union-Management Cooperation on the Railroads
  • Louis A Wood
Louis A. Wood, Union-Management Cooperation on the Railroads (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1931);
Waste Elimination in the Full-Fashioned Hosiery Industry
  • J Robert
  • Joseph W Myers
  • Bloch
  • S Otto
  • Jr Beyer
Cooperation: Experience in the Clothing Industry (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1947). On clothing, see Robert J. Myers and Joseph W. Bloch, "Men's Clothing," in Harry A. Millis, ed., How Collective Bargaining Works (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1945), pp. 431 -42; and Daniel Nelson, Unemployment Insurance: The American Experience, 1915-1935 (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), pp. 79 -103. On hosiery, see Gustave Geiges, "Waste Elimination in the Full-Fashioned Hosiery Industry," Bulletin of the Taylor Society, Vol. 12, No. 2 (April 1927), pp. 410 -15; and Gladys Palmer, Union Tactics and Economic Change (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1933). On the railroads, see Otto S. Beyer, Jr., "The Technique of Cooperation," Bulletin of the Taylor Society, Vol. 11, No. 1 (February 1926), pp. 7-20;
Experiences With Cooperation Between Labor and Management in the Railway Industry
  • Otto S Beyer
Otto S. Beyer, Jr., "Experiences With Cooperation Between Labor and Management in the Railway Industry," Wertheim Lectures on Industrial Relations-1928 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929). On Naumkeag, see "Naumkeag's