Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:37:18.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction: Workers' Choices, Company Policies, and Loyalties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

David Montgomery
Affiliation:
Yale University

Extract

The history of industrial paternalism is full of paradoxes. Although depictions of the entrepreneur as provider and guiding spirit for numerous families gathered under his wing are readily associated with the cultural legacy of preindustrial life, companies have frequently introduced employee benefits in conjunction with innovations in technology and work relations. Imagery and practices featuring the personal solicitude of a familiar boss have been articulated by huge enterprises with elaborate managerial hierarchies. While trade unionists have routinely denounced company welfare plans as “A pocket full of tricks/To soothe the weary worker/When he groans and kicks,” more than one employer has echoed the lament: “Everything we give them for nothing makes them a bit lazier, and a little harder to deal with, and more prone to find fault.”

Type
Patronage, Paternalism, and Company Welfare
Copyright
Copyright © International Labor and Working-Class History, Inc. 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Both quotations are from Zahavi, Gerald, Workers, Managers, and Welfare Capitalism: The Shoeworkers and Tanners of Endicott Johnson, 1890–1950 (Urbana, 1988), 100, 107.Google Scholar

2. Le Play, M. Frédéric, La réforme sociale en France [4 vols.], Vol. 2 (Tours, 1878), 187; my translation.Google Scholar

3. Quoted in Stromquist, Shelton, A Generation of Boomers: The Pattern of Railroad Labor Conflict in Nineteenth-Century America (Urbana, 1987), 236.Google Scholar

4. Play, Le, Réforme sociale, Vol. 2, 301.Google Scholar