PROSPERITY AND CHANGE

1953-60

The country was growing in wealth and population in the fifties. By 1956 registrations in colleges and universities had passed the 3 million level. Television had made its mark, surpassing movies and radio in public attention.

Labor unions had increased in power and resources. In 1952 George Meany, a former leader of the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Union, became president of the American Federation of Labor, following the death of William Green. Walter Reuther of the Auto Workers took Philip Murray's place as head of the CIO. Plans for the merger of the two organizations moved along, and in 1955 they became one, with a total enrollment of approximately 15 million members.

In October 1953 President Eisenhower named James P. Mitchell, a former personnel adviser to private business and to the Defense Department, as Labor Secretary, succeeding Martin Durkin.

Secretary Mitchell was accepted by both management and labor as a capable administrator. His approach to his new tasks is expressed in his report to Congress of 1959:

"It has become increasingly evident during recent years that our survival as a nation is going to depend far more on the skills of our work force than on our wealth of natural resources.

"For over 100 years the United States has been able to produce goods more efficiently than any other nation in history. Our preeminence in this connection, however, is about to be seriously threatened by a dictatorship over a nation of considerably larger population. We are under increasing pressure to develop in as many workers as possible the highest skills of which they are capable, especially those skills that strengthen our ability to survive.

"Accepting the fact that in the long run proportionately fewer American workers are now producing proportionately more goods and services, it becomes also necessary to consider a substantial increase in employment, in improvement of the quality of our labor force, and in the more effective utilization of existing skills. We need more workers; we need more trained workers; we need more highly trained workers. We must plan our manpower future.

"In the past we have too often taken the easy way. We have traded the long-term value of intelligent manpower planning for wasteful expediency.

Not only have we limited the opportunities of the minority worker, the older workers, the woman worker, but we have also neglected the proper training of workers whose skills are necessary to the continuing day-to-day efficiency of industry.

"No longer can we afford the high cost of prejudice. There is neither excuse nor justification for discrimination in employment. It is clear that as a nation we are injured both domestically and internationally by intolerance. Whoever is best fitted for a given job should be given employment in that job, regardless of race, religion, physical handicap, age, or sex.

"At the same time we must train for versatility. These are revolutionary times; we experience a revolution every day. Discoveries, inventions, and the intensive application of organized knowledge to the solution of problems together have accelerated tremendously the tempo of our living and have increased the power of forces making for change. The essential requirement for survival in today's world is adaptability. Whole industries disappear, yielding place to new. Occupations become obsolete, and new ones take their place. To keep up with the times, our workers must be able not only to move to other jobs, but also to acquire new skills. The world is currently in a ferment, and no phase of quiet and relaxation is yet in sight. To argue that such a prospect is unpleasing and even unworthy is to tilt at windmills. It exists, and for the while must be accepted as an inevitable stage in the development of mankind.

"Planning the skills of the work force, we must determine more precisely our requirements. We must concentrate on the education and guidance of our young people. We must develop and use more efficient ways of selecting and training our workers and their supervisors. We must provide the retraining necessary for adaptation to change. And we must explore and apply more adequately the skills of potential workers currently excluded from the work force because of prejudice. The end result of these measures should be that every worker will be able to realize his or her greatest potential.

"This full intelligent exercise of the skills of our work force will insure in large measure the economic growth and stability of the Nation. It will help to improve our standard of living." (1959:5-6)

On wages and income maintenance, Secretary Mitchell said:

"By itself and without qualification, a drive for full development and use of the Nation's work force would be blind-a bleak objective without purpose. In the midst of technological change, our toughest problem is to insure the self-expression, the self-satisfaction, the dignity, and motivation of the individual.

"There is grave danger that these individual values, which are the foundation upon which human beings build their lives, may be seriously weakened by the sheer weight of our industrial structure and our insistence on industrial production. Two aspects of this qualification on our major objective, therefore, should be given consideration. On the one hand, adequate provision must be made to insure the protection of the individual during employ

ment and when, by force of circumstances, he or she is unemployed. On the other, care must be taken to see that in our inevitably increasing mass organization the identity of the individual is not lost. The first of these is a problem of income and of income maintenance.

"One of the objectives of a democratic society is that all workers should have opportunity and the means to enjoy a reasonable level of income. This is effected in part by establishing a minimum level of wages, and in part by establishing insurance against work injury and unemployment. Although by no means adequate as an avenue to the objective, these steps nevertheless contribute to its attainment.

"Organized groups of workers have developed their own ways of attaining wage levels conducive to better living. The unorganized are more liable to exploitation and low wages. Through their Federal and State governments, the people of the United States have set up laws governing minimum wages, the hours of work, and the conditions of employment to protect low-wage workers against oppressive exploitation. That many of these laws are inadequate is evident. Large numbers of workers are still excluded from their protection. Because of the inadequacies of these laws and their irrational differences between jurisdictions, many workers in the United States are deprived of economic protection despite their acceptance as citizens in the commonwealth. This patent injustice should be corrected. It not only places the individual worker at a disadvantage relative to his more fortunate companions; it also gives to employers who are exempt from reasonable minimum wages standards an unfair advantage over their competitors.

"As regards work injuries and unemployment, considerable legislation, both State and Federal, is currently in operation. Old-age and survivors insurance, unemployment insurance, temporary disability insurance, workmen's compensation, and public assistance are all to some degree in effect under one or other of the several jurisdictions in the United States. But here again deficiencies in coverage, qualifications, and standardization among the jurisdictions militate against the full enjoyment of benefits by all workers, and manifest the seeds of injustice.

"Substantial improvements are needed to shield all workers against economic reversals. Not only as a matter of providing greater dignity and decency to the wage earner, but also to maintain him as a consumer and buyer in the Nation's markets, improvement in these income-maintenance and economic-security laws are necessary. The payment of insurance benefits to workers in time of need helps to prevent economic downturns from becoming widespread and serious, and contributes to the more orderly operation of the labor market." (1959: 10-11)

Discussing labor-management relations, the Secretary pointed out:

"Although not measurable in dollars and cents, the possible effects of mass organization on the identity of the individual worker are nevertheless important. In our desire to produce, whether for survival or for the enjoyment of higher economic standards, we tend to emphasize bigness and centraliza

tion. As a result, the channels of communication between the individual and the sources of executive power in the social groups to which he belongs tend to become increasingly tenuous. So far as the worker is concerned, this incipient danger is equally invidious whether in regard to labor organizations, employing corporations, or government.

"It is therefore desirable that safeguards be established to refer whatever action needs to be taken-whether in arriving at a decision, giving it the force of action, or reviewing and regulating the appropriate executive body— to the smallest unit capable of transacting it. At the same time, so that the autonomy of local units may not be abused, it is necessary that the central authority should remain vigilant, ever responsible for the welfare of the individual as a member of the larger group.

"For a large proportion of our workers in the United States, labor unions are the only effective form of organization through which they can express their wishes as workers in their relationships with their employers. The point of actual contact with the employer or his representative is through the local union. It is at this point, therefore, that the most promising work may be done to retain and strengthen the individuality of the worker. In a dynamic democratic social and economic system, such as we have in the United States, the local labor-management relationship has the significance of a nerve center in the human body. No opportunity to develop and improve its functions should be overlooked.

"A strong, free, responsible labor movement is good for America. To encourage collective bargaining between employees and their employers is sound policy. But that movement and that policy must rest on the existence of local unions free to function in their members' interests, responsive to their interests, and responsible also to the community as a whole of which they are a part. Their freedom of expression and action is contingent on freedom from the tyranny of corrupt officials, whether they be in public office, union office, or the office of the employer.

"Because local decisions are so important as a reflection of the wishes of the individuals concerned, it is desirable that the role of government with respect to labor-management relations should involve as little interference as is compatible with the public welfare. Good industrial relations cannot be created by laws. At best, government can only provide the framework in which management and labor operate. Government's sole interest should be that of protecting the public and the individual participant in the dispute, and not of acting as the advocate of either workers or employers. If government remains impartial, either party to the dispute or to contemplated agreement is the more likely to approach the other in a spirit of equality and cooperation, without the suspicion that the other party may be able to enlist government support of its position and thus gain unfair advantage. "Although the maintenance of industrial peace is not a direct operating responsibility of the Department of Labor, it is nevertheless implied in al