The Settlement of Wage Disputes Part 14

1.--We can now enter upon the further question of whether the principles so far formulated, if used in wage settlement, would produce such distributive results as would justify them to the wage earners and the community in general. It need hardly be said that the criterion of justice which will be applied by public opinion to any policy of wage settlement will not be a simple and clearly defined rule, but will be, rather, one joint in a loosely articulated social philosophy.

The distributive justice of any set of wage principles will be judged by the shares of the product of industry which take the form of wages and profits, respectively. It is true that general satisfaction with them will be largely governed by the course of real wages after they have been in force a while. If real wages tended to increase in the period following their adoption, they would receive far greater approval and much st.u.r.dier defense than if real wages fall during that period. Most witnesses of the Australian experiments in wage settlement make that point clear.[147] But in either case, if the organizations of the wage earners in the United States become as powerful as they are in England to-day, and if the cla.s.s-consciousness of the wage earners becomes as acute, any policy of wage settlement will be severely scrutinized in regard to the profits return prevailing throughout industry also. If, with the principles in force, the general level of profits throughout the field of industry consistently and considerably exceeded what was deemed to approximate a fair return, it will be held that they give the wage earners too small a share in the product of the industry. If the general level of profits throughout the field of industry tended to approximate a return thought to be fair, the principles will recommend themselves to the wage earners and to the community in general, as just.

It may be added that the opinion held in regard to the justice of the principles of wage settlement may also be influenced, in some degree, by the distribution of the profits return in industry. If a comparatively few great industrial corporations earn very great profits, it is likely to arouse greater dissatisfaction than if the same amount of profits are earned by a larger number of enterprises. It is beyond the scope of any policy of wage settlement, however, to control the distribution of profits among the enterprises engaged in an industry.

There are some groups who would argue that no division of the product of industry is fair unless it gives to the wage earners the whole of the product. Such a view, of course, amounts to a desire to revise the whole of the present economic system fundamentally. No policy of wage settlement akin to that put forward in this book could win favor in their eyes. And if their opinion should become dominant, industrial peace would have to be sought by arrangements far different from those under discussion. For those arrangements rest on the supposition that the country will continue to desire to depend, in the main, upon private acc.u.mulation for capital, and individual ambition for business leaders.h.i.+p.

2.--It is possible by bringing into balance a numerous set of factors, to give a reasonably definite meaning to the idea of a fair profits return. That is to say, by weighing all relevant considerations, it is possible to define a general level of profits for industry as a whole, which would represent a just and sound division of the product of industry between wages and profits. The relevant considerations are those which will be likely to hold an important place in the better informed sections of public opinion during the period for which these proposals are intended; and which are admissible as sound and pertinent, on the supposition that the industrial system is to continue to depend mainly upon private initiative and private acc.u.mulation.

The most important of these considerations are, in my opinion, as follows: First: that the ethical ideas of reward according to need, or reward according to sacrifice, would call for the elimination of the greatest present inequalities of reward; and that these ethical ideas must be given rank among the factors which deserve real consideration when arrangements affecting the distribution of the product are being made. Secondly: the service of capital in effective production, the sacrifice involved in much acc.u.mulation, and the risk involved in much investment; the great need of a.s.suring continued capital acc.u.mulation and investment. Likewise, the importance to industry of active and enterprising leaders.h.i.+p. Thirdly: the social and economic evil effects of great inequality of wealth. Fourthly: the fact that the health, energy, spirit, and intelligence of the wage earners are factors of high importance in the creation of a stable and effective industrial regime, and that the development and display of these qualities by individuals are affected by their economic conditions and surroundings, here and now. Likewise, the importance of giving the best possible opportunity to all to develop their natural ability.

The general level of profits that would be settled upon by comparing and weighing these considerations could be defended as just and sound. The figure (which would be expressed in the form of a percentage, e.g. 12 per cent.) derived from the balance of these factors could be put forward as the mark of just distribution. The distributive goal for the policy of wage settlement would be to achieve a division of the product between wages and profits, such that the general level of profits throughout the field of industry (the basis of calculation of which will be considered at a later point) would approximate the figure defined as just.

It is plain that if the suggested method is used to define a just level of profits, differences of opinion will manifest themselves in the process. The facts and circ.u.mstances that would have to be studied cannot be subjected to exact measurement. For example, the possible bad social and economic effects which may be produced by various degrees of inequality of distribution can only be guessed at in a general way. Or, to take another example, the motives and conditions which govern the bulk of private acc.u.mulation and the sacrifices involved therein are questions about which controversy continues to range. The profits return that one man may judge ample to a.s.sure an adequate flow of acc.u.mulation and investment will not appear to be so, in another man's judgment.

Indeed, even differences in the general philosophy with which all men parade through life will lead to differences of opinion. For example, one man may believe a community to be better off if every man's income is increased somewhat, though the inequality of wealth within the community be thereby increased; while another man may believe that the poorer community, with the lesser inequality of wealth is likely to be more happy, and perhaps, in the end more prosperous.

In spite, however, of the existence of such extensive ground for differences of opinion, it seems to me that an agreement may be expected which will be fair and sound enough to be accepted as a serviceable criterion of the distributive consequences of the policy of wage settlement.

3.--What grounds, if any, are there for the belief that the principles of wage settlement so far proposed would bring about a division of the product between wages and profits that would meet the test of just and sound distribution suggested above?

The principles, so far proposed, leave the determination of the profits return predominantly to the action of industrial compet.i.tion, reenforced by the action of public opinion in the direction of preventing the return from mounting to an obviously excessive point. They offer no safeguard against the reduction of the profit return below that point set as the mark of just and sound distribution, save the public will to continue the present system and a general knowledge of the motives and conditions upon which it rests. Nor could they very well.

It is true that the enactment of the principles suggested up to this point would mean the imposition of certain genuine restrictions upon the actions of those who direct industry, as for example, in connection with the living wage program. It would give all wage earners the benefits of organization. It would make for rapid and certain compensation for price movements. It would prevent wage reductions merely because of the poverty of any group. Nevertheless, if the a.n.a.lysis of distribution made earlier in the book is substantially correct, the answer to the question at the head of this section must be that there would be no very compelling tendency for distribution to result justly, under the enforcement of the wage principles so far proposed. The distributive result would still depend largely upon the reality and intensity of industrial compet.i.tion, upon the strength, activity, and foresightedness of the wage earners' organizations, upon the will and spirit of the directors of industry, and upon the quality and liveness of public opinion. That admission can be made, even though it is believed that under the suggested principles the outcome of distribution would be nearer the desired outcome than it is at present; and that there would be a clearer perception of the public interest in the outcome of distribution than at present.

4.--If a measure could be devised which would help to bring about the desired distributive outcome, without greatly weakening in some other direction the policy as already conceived, such a measure would be a most worth-while addition to the policy. It is possible to discern clearly what the scope and form of such a measure must be.

Firstly: Such a measure should not single out the profits of particular enterprises for division or transfer to the wage earners, if the profits of these particular enterprises are in excess of what is conceived to be a just profit level for industry as a whole. For, in the first place, if the principle of standardization is enforced throughout industry, the excess profits of particular enterprises may frequently be the result of superior business ability, and to take them away would be to discourage the development and use of that ability. And, in the second place, even if it is acknowledged that this is not the true explanation of the great profits of very many enterprises, but that these are accounted for rather by the possession of special privileges or the weakness of compet.i.tion, nevertheless, to adopt a policy under which these profits are transferred to the wage earners would lead to wastefulness and extravagance in business operation. And lastly, there is the fact that to make wages in any enterprise contingent upon the profit returns of that enterprise is contrary to the ordinary trade union policy.

Nothing in this conclusion is meant to imply that the wage earners should not be free to enter into wage agreements calling for more than the standard wage. Or that profit sharing arrangements should not be permitted--on the contrary, such arrangements should be encouraged, provided the standard wage and the right of the wage earners'

organization to be fully represented in such arrangements are not brought into question.

The conclusion just reached is meant to apply also in the opposite case--that is, in the case of the profits of particular enterprises falling below the level defined as just and sound industry as a whole.

The wages of the workers engaged in these enterprises should not, for that reason, be reduced. This conclusion, it is believed, is amply explained by what has been written in various other connections.

Secondly: Even if almost all or all of the enterprises engaged in a particular industry should be in receipt of profits considerably in excess of what is conceived to be a fair profit return for industry as a whole, no attempt should be made to transfer the extra profits to the wage earners engaged in it by increasing their wages. Or to state the matter so as to include both this case and its opposite, the wages in any particular industry should not be adjusted by reference to the profits in that industry. It is clear that here we are upon difficult and very hotly disputed ground.

At present, wages in different industries or occupations are not settled in accordance with any principle which includes them all and which is the basis of an ordered scheme of wage relations.h.i.+p. The existence of a very high profits return throughout a particular industry is an almost prima facie justification for a wage demand on the part of the wage earners employed in it. So too in the opposite case. And as long as wages are settled, as at present, it must be so; for the wage earners in each industry or occupation are dependent upon their own activity to make good their claims as against the other partic.i.p.ants in distribution.

It is this very state of affairs, however, that it is sought to supersede. In an earlier chapter it was argued that in order to maintain industrial peace, wages in different industries and occupations will have to be brought into relation with each other, which relation should rest upon defined principle. It is plain that, if any other principle were also to be adopted, under which wages in particular industries were adjusted by reference to the profits return in these industries, that scheme of relations.h.i.+p would be constantly disturbed. If wages in particular industries were adjusted with reference to the profits return in those industries, the result would be a series of uncoordinated wage movements in different parts of the industrial field, and the re-creation of a state of affairs not much different from the present.

Then, too, if wages were to be adjusted with reference to the profits return in particular industries, the method that has been advocated of settling upon a criterion of just profits would not be suitable. A separate mark of fair profits would have to be set up for each industry; for different industries involve different degrees of risk and have different initial periods of little or no profits. What might correctly be considered an excessive profit for one industry might be but a fair profit for another. The task of setting up different criteria for the different industries would be extremely delicate, if it were possible at all.

The same conclusion holds true in the opposite case wherein the profits in most all or all of the enterprises engaged in a particular industry are considerably below what is conceived as a fair profits return for industry as a whole. Cases will arise in which it may be to the interest of the wage earners in particular industries to accept wage reductions, because the industry is doing poorly. In such cases, however, the wage earners may be expected to agree--perhaps, only after a while--to wage reduction, in the course of wage bargaining. If, however, the wage earners will not agree that their interests are served by reduction, it will probably be sound policy to back them up.

It must be admitted that this conclusion as to the inadvisability of adjusting wages by reference to the profits return of particular industries is not set down without hesitation. It is plain that if that idea is to be rejected, the policy of wage settlement as a whole must give some other guarantee of distributive justice to the wage earners.

And, indeed, if after a certain period of operation and education it was found that very large profits were accruing steadily in certain industries, and if it did not seem likely that these profits would be reduced to what is conceived to be a fair level either by the forces of compet.i.tion or public opinion, it might be found wiser to pursue the opposite course--that is, grant wage increases in those industries even at the risk of breaking down the scheme of wage relations.h.i.+p. Much will depend upon the way in which the employers respond to the purposes embodied in the policy of wage settlement. And upon the success of the wage earners and employers in reaching, by collective bargaining, agreements satisfactory to both.

Justice W. Jethro Brown of the Industrial Court of South Australia has stated the problem with great clearness. He writes, "With respect to such an issue, one is on the horns of a dilemma. (1) If unusually high profits are being made in an industry, ought not the employees to have a right to share therein? (2) If one does award high rates of wages, is not one inviting discontent amongst other cla.s.ses of workers in allied industries or industries generally? Employees are so apt to judge themselves well or ill treated by a comparison of nominal wages without any reference to conditions of industry. In various judgments I have held that it would be quite permissible, if not appropriate, for the Court to take into consideration the fact that an industry is prosperous. On the other hand, as a matter of practice I have tried to work towards an ordered scheme of wages throughout the industry of the community as a whole."[148]

If the above conclusions are accepted, it must be agreed that the scope of any measure designed to help in the attainment of the desired distributive outcome must be the whole field of industrial enterprise to which the policy of wage settlement applies. The question that remains is, whether it is possible to devise a principle of wage settlement by which wages as a whole can be adjusted by reference to the profit situation in industry as a whole. That is to say, whether any measure can be elaborated by which all wages could be adjusted, according as profits in industry as a whole exceeded, approximated, or fell below the profits level that is taken to mark just and sound distribution of the product of industry.

5.--It is plain that if the measure is of such a character that no great harm can result from the possible error involved in the process of calculation, it can be adopted with less hesitation than if the opposite were the case. That is one of the considerations prompting the following proposals.

Let us presume, in order that the proposals may be put in definite form, that the profits return for industry as a whole which is agreed upon as just is a 12 per cent. return. The next step would be the invention of some method by which the profits return of industry as a whole at any given time can be measured. This would be a matter of considerable difficulty; yet it is, in my opinion, not beyond the range of practical attainment.[149] The following method, for example, might not be too unsatisfactory. Let a certain number of enterprises be selected in each industry which comes within the field of wage regulation. The selections should be representative of the industry. If there is a variety of types of enterprises within the industry viewed from the standpoint of productive efficiency, the selected enterprises should tend to represent the more efficient sections of the industry. Then a valuation of these enterprises should be made. A standardized method should then be devised for keeping account of the profits of these selected enterprises. That might necessitate the inauguration of standard methods of accounting throughout all industry--which is a result to be favored. The profits return from the selected enterprises in all industries should be combined into an index number of profits. Possibly, in making up the index number, the figures for each industry should be weighted according to the number of wage earners employed in the industry. The resulting weighted average would be a reliable record of the profits return throughout industry at the particular time. The statistical method just described, however, is meant rather in the nature of a suggestion than as a declaration that it is the best method.

Suppose the index number of profits so calculated for a given period of time proves to be, for example, 18 per cent.--6 per cent. higher than the approved level of profits. On the basis of this profit showing, the wages of all cla.s.ses of wage earners could be increased for the subsequent period, with some hope of effecting a transfer to the wage earners of at least part of the product of industry represented by the 6 per cent. extra profit. That is to say, that whenever the index of profits showed a profits return in excess of this conceived just return, wages throughout industry should be increased to such an extent as is calculated to bring the profits return down to the approved level.

Whenever the index of profits showed a profits return approximately equal to or less than the approved level, no wage change should be undertaken. For if the profits return was approximately equal to the approved level, it can be concluded that the distributive result is approximately that which is desired. And if the profits return is under the approved level, it would probably be both impracticable and inadvisable to reduce wages throughout the industry. For since no direct control is exercised over profits, the falling of the profits return to a point below the appointed mark of just and sound distribution, would be but the outcome of industrial compet.i.tion. While it is conceivable, in particular cases, that the community would be better off if the profits return was greater than the return thereby produced, the contrary presumption is more likely to be correct under present conditions. For it is both desirable and likely that the figure that would be set as the mark of just and sound distribution will err on the side of being higher than the profits return required to a.s.sure adequate acc.u.mulation and investment.

6.--So much for the basis of the proposed measure. It is desirable to examine briefly its chief advantages and disadvantages. But first note must be taken of another problem that would arise in the attempt to enforce it. If the wages of all cla.s.ses or groups of wage earners are to be increased when the profits return in industry as a whole is above the approved level, the question arises as to the best way to calculate the wage increases, and the most satisfactory basis for distributing them among the different groups of wage earners. If both of these calculations can be kept simple, it will be a distinct advantage.

Possibly the most simple and satisfactory way is to determine the absolute amount of the extra profits, and of the total wages bill for the representative enterprises--putting one in terms of a percentage of the other. For example, if it be calculated that the profits of these enterprises in excess of the approved level be one hundred million dollars, and the total wages bill of the same enterprises two billion dollars, the amount of wage increase to be awarded should be stated as 5 per cent. That is, the wage increase to be awarded should total 5 per cent. of the total wages bill.

And here the second problem arises. How should this wage increase be distributed among the various groups or cla.s.ses of labor? It is probable that the most satisfactory method would be to raise the wages of all groups or cla.s.ses of labor, including those groups whose wages were determined under the living wage policy, by the same absolute amount.

This method does not meet all the demands of our previous reasoning regarding wage differentials. It would, however, be the only way to avoid too much complication in the determination of wages for different groups or cla.s.ses of labor.

7.--What would be the chief difficulties and disadvantages attendant upon the application of the measure just sketched out? And what are the chief advantages which it gives promise of? These are the questions which now present themselves. First of all, certain difficulties of a practical nature must be faced. For example, there would be difficulty of settling upon a satisfactory method of calculating the profits return of industry. The most satisfactory method of calculation would probably be in the form of a percentage earned upon capital. If that basis of calculation is chosen, however, some method must be decided upon for the measurement of the capital value of all those enterprises, the profits return of which is combined to form the index number of profits.

Probably the best way of meeting the difficulties would be to have such a capital valuation of these enterprises as has just been completed for the United States railways. And thereafter standard methods of recording new capital investment should be enforced.

Such an evaluation would appear to be an unwelcome but inevitable preliminary to any attempt to measure and record business earnings.

Experience has shown the vast labor and large margin of error involved in formal evaluations. Under the proposals made in this chapter, however, errors made in the evaluation of particular enterprises would be of no great consequence to these enterprises. Only the combined or general profits figure would be used in the course of wage adjustment.

Second among the difficulties of a practical nature is that which comes from the necessity of defining clearly what is to be considered profits.[150] Clearly the earnings put back into the depreciation account should not be counted as profits. Loss or gain from the change in the value of the stock held should not be taken into account. Nor should taxes paid before the distribution of dividends be so counted.

Bonus stock dividends, representing reinvestment out of current earnings should be counted as profits, as well as being recorded as additions to invested capital. Capital borrowed from banks should not be considered as capital--and the interest paid on such borrowings should be considered as a business expense. The question of the treatment to be accorded salaries of direction could be settled by reference to arbitrary rules drawn up upon the subject--some allowance being made in the case of partners.h.i.+ps or of businesses operating under private direction to compensate for the salaries of direction that are paid in large incorporated enterprises.

Thirdly, provision would have to be made for the reconsideration, at stated intervals, of the profits return that is set as the mark of just and sound distribution. Thus heed could be taken of any significant changes in the price level, in the conditions of supply and demand for capital, or in any of the other relevant considerations. Likewise, provision would have to be made for the periodical revision of the list of enterprises and industries used in the computation of the profits return for industry as a whole. These matters, though vital, must be left without detailed consideration.

Nevertheless, it is idle to overlook the amount of labor that would be involved in any attempt to keep a record of the profits return in industry. It would be dreary, and of a type demanding specialized knowledge and disinterestedness. Furthermore, any such plan would probably have to be put through in the face of the resentment of most business men. That resentment, however, is likely to flash out against any proposals that look forward to securing industrial peace by giving the wage earners a more a.s.sured position in industry, and ready access to the facts of business operation. The standpat temper of those business men who argue that their business is entirely their own private concern would make impossible any policy of wage settlement that did not throw the balance of industrial power in their hands.

Unless they visualize their position in different terms than these, little hope can be entertained that any proposals calling for a record of profits will be supported by them. But then it is the normal role of the peace-maker to seek concessions that contestants are not ready to make; to plead general necessity where contestants see only their own; to represent each side to the other in its best light.

8.--Besides these difficulties of a precise and practical kind, certain weaknesses of a more theoretical nature may be urged against the measure. First, it may be argued that since the policy exerts no direct control over profits, there is little reason to believe that profits will be kept down to an approved level. This criticism would or would not be justified by the event, according as industrial compet.i.tion were effective; according as employers acted up to the purposes and spirit of the policy of wage settlement, and gave the general interest a place alongside of their particular interests; according as government regulation of industry was competently carried out; and lastly, according to the measure in which public opinion made itself felt on the subject. Any such plan as the proposed, by clarifying ideas on the subject, would do much in the way of making public opinion more decisive than at present. It would serve to inform the community that wages can be increased without equivalent price increase, whenever the possibility exists. It would provide employers with a code of honor in industrial relations. And lastly, it must be remembered that the alternative to some such policy of wage increase is a system of direct profits control (leaving out of consideration the possibility of more general and fundamental change).

It is conceivable that a policy of direct profits control for all industry can be worked out, which would not penalize and discourage productive capacity. But it would be an extraordinarily hard job and would necessitate a detailed study of the facts of each particular industry. No doubt a policy of direct profits control is to be strongly advised in particular cases. As, for example, on the American railways at present, where the rate-making power is in the hands of a public body; or in the case of the English coal mines, where the question of control is comparatively simple, and the occasion for control plain. But as a policy for all industries it would involve, in my opinion, an entirely impracticable amount of regulation, and it would be likely to lessen the effectiveness of production and to lead to the wasteful conduct of industry. Therefore, it must be concluded that some such attempt to control profits indirectly as has been proposed--depending upon the forces of compet.i.tion, trade union activity, public opinion and government regulation--is to be preferred.

There is another possible criticism of a theoretical sort. It may be pointed out that it is proposed to increase wages on the basis of data derived from the whole field of industry. And it may be argued, therefore, that the increases undertaken by the reason of the showing of that data may be considerably greater than particular industries could stand, without an increase in the price of their products. On the other hand, they may be considerably less than the increase required in other industries to reduce the profits return to approximately the approved level.

As to the first possibility, it is entirely conceivable. A wage movement based upon the profits return from all industries and applied equally to all groups of wage earners might cause price increases in particular industries and possibly temporary dislocation and even some unemployment. Such price changes and dislocations, however, are constantly occurring in industry in the absence of any policy of wage settlement, due to the effect of wage increases in one industry on wage movements in other industries. There is little reason to believe that the measure advocated will add considerably to the frequency of their occurrence. It might in one respect serve to lessen the extent of such disturbances. It might make less frequent the recurrence of wage demands, originating in particular industries because of high profits in these industries, and spreading over a large part of the field of industry. For, as has been emphasized, organized groups of wage earners will not accept pa.s.sively a change for the worse in their position in the economic scale. Finally, there is a safeguard in the fact that no wage increase need occur in any industry except upon the demand of the wage earners in that industry. Joint discussion might make it clear that wage increases could not be well afforded in particular industries, and joint agreement reached upon that fact. The self-interest of the wage earners, here as elsewhere, would prove to be some sort of a check upon unwise wage increases.

As to the second possibility--that wage increases undertaken on the showing of data derived from all industries may be considerably less than the increases required in particular industries to bring down the profits return in those industries to the approved level--that, too, is entirely conceivable. But against this disadvantage must be weighed those which would be attendant upon any measure by which wages in particular industries are adjusted by reference to the profits return in those industries, which subject has already been considered. The fact must be accepted. In any plan such as the one proposed, faith would have to be put in the power of indirect influences to keep the profits return in particular industries from greatly and consistently exceeding the approved level.

By way of conclusion, it may be made clear that any such plan as the proposed would call for the a.s.sent of the wage earners to the doctrine that, when the profits return in particular industries is greatly in excess of the approved level for industry as a whole, the community in general have the leading claim to those profits. It is plain that union a.s.sent to that doctrine would be forthcoming only if the community made effective its claims. The attainment of a just distributive outcome--one based upon considerations of the general interest--will be essential to the success of any policy of wage settlement for industrial peace.