A SURVEY OF RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
by The Advisory Committee onIndustrial Relations, Herman Feldman, Investigator: Social Science Research Council, New York City, 1928.
The committee referred to in the title of this report consists of twelve persons each of whom is entitled to rank as an expert in regard to one or more aspects of the problem of labor relations. Among these names appear Henry S. Dennison, Dr. W. V. Bingham, Professors John R. Commons and Ernest Freund and Dr. Harlow S. Person. It is perhaps impossible in the circumstances to apportion credit for the resulting report with very much accuracy or assurance, but it seems probable that the admirable spirit of scientific impartiality which is conspicuous throughout, owes much to the fairness and to the broad grasp of social and economic questions which Professor Feldman brought to his task as Investigator.
The report in a word is a research into the work of the researchers in the field of labor relations. Who is trying to find out what, and by what means? And particularly, in the multiplicity of efforts now being put forth to understand the human relationships involved in industry, what problems or conditions have been overlooked and are in need of investigation at the present time?
As a preliminary to such a study, an illuminating map of the field has been worked out which makes clear the bearing of each of the physical and social sciences upon the problems of the worker. These problems themselves are also classified under four heads: The Worker in Relation to his Work; The Worker in Relation to his Fellow-worker; The Worker in Relation to his Employer; The Worker in Relation to the Public.
In regard to the worker himself Professor Feldman finds that "there are very slight differences in the fundamental qualities of the races, independent of cultural background, training, etc. The significant thing is the very wide range of variability in members of the same race." He is here speaking of subdivisions of the white race primarily, and his conclusion, while at variance with commonly held views of many employers, would be endorsed by most students of race.
Other problems concern the work rather than the worker; one of the most interesting deals with tool analysis. A brief quotation from a letter embodied in the report, from Walter N. Polakov, will illustrate one application of such analysis: "Perhaps—you have observed that no typist in the world has fingers of equal length, and yet the keyboard of a typewriter is arranged in straight rows and on a flat surface, instead of two arched slopes in curves which would be natural, simple to construct, and greatly reduce useless fatigue."
Other topics dealt with, each of which is deserving of more extended notice, concern mental hygiene in industrial establishments, individual and group attitudes, unemployment, the older worker in industry, the "optimum labor turnover," housing and transportation. Enough has been said to indicate the broad range of subject-matter which falls within the field of labor relations research. Equally notable is the attitude in this report of scientific objectivity, which everywhere pervades a field which has so often been turned over to emotional controversy. This can best be shown by a couple of citations bearing upon labor organization. Professor Henry R. Seager, of Columbia University, writes:
"The current developments as regards industrial relations which most impress me as meriting serious study are the relative advantages and disadvantages of trade versus company unions.
"As was brought out by a recent address by William Leiserson at a meeting of the Academy of Political Science on April 11th, employers seem unduly sanguine as to the pos- sibilities of establishing thoroughly satisfactory relations with their employees through company unions. At the same time labor leaders, from Green down, seem unduly to under-rate and belittle the contribution which shop committees can make to the improvement of such relations. I believe that a series of impartial studies of the actual results of trade unions organization, company union organization, and the combination of the two in the few instances where this is found, would be enlightening and helpful to a better understanding."
And finally, this open-minded comment by Mr. E. D. Smith, of the Dennison Manufacturing Company, who writes:
"Certainly, the trade unions are not going to pass quickly from the industrial scene. Equally certainly, employee representation is not a passing fad. Clearly, if both are to live, it is important to work out a relationship under which they will live peacefully together, and will discover and employ every possible path of mutual contribution. But how, is a question of great difficulty and, so far as I know, one that has not been thoroughly investigated." EKVILLE B. WOODS.
The committee of Survey recently appointed by Governor Tobey to study the problem of teacher training in the state of New Hampshire, and the facilities provided by the Normal Schools at Keene and Plymouth and at the University of New Hampshire, has just published its report to the Governor, a report of 16 pages. The committee consists of Alfred E. Stearns, Lewis Perry and Dean E. Gordon Bill.
