Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T04:40:08.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Industrial Recreation, the Second World War, and the Revival of Welfare Capitalism, 1934–1960

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Elizabeth Fones-Wolf
Elizabeth Fones-Wolf
Affiliation:
Elizabeth Fones-Wolf is a doctoral candidate in American history at theUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Welfare capitalism has been perceived by many historians as succumbing to the stresses of the Depression. The work of recent scholars has contributed to an understanding of welfarism's continued existence through the 1930s and beyond, but little attention has been given to the process by which employers revitalized welfare work after the 1920s. In this article, Ms. Fones-Wolf explores the key role the Second World War played in helping to expand and legitimize corporate-sponsored welfarism, particularly in the area of recreational activity. With union resistance to welfare plans diminished, employers were able to extend their experimentation with this managerial device, thereby helping to defuse a postwar resurgence of militant unionism.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , Summer 1986 , pp. 232 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1986

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

1 Abraham Epstein, “Employes' Welfare: An Autopsy,” American Mercury, March 1932, 335–42; on the destruction of welfarism see Brandes, Stuart D., American Welfare Capitalism, 1880–1940 (Chicago, 1976)Google Scholar and Brody, David, “The Rise and Decline of Welfare Capitalism,” in Brody, David, Workers in Industrial America: Essays on the Twentieth Century Struggle (New York, 1980), 48–81Google Scholar.

2 Jacoby's, Sanford M.Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transformation of Work in American Industry, 1900–1945 (New York, 1985)Google Scholar discusses the persistence of welfarism in the 1930s, Berkowitz, Edward and McQuaid's, KimCreating the Welfare State: The Political Economy of Twentieth-Century Reform (New York, 1980)Google Scholar and Harris's, Howell JohnThe Right to Manage; Industrial Relations Policies of American Business in the 1940s (Madison, Wis., 1982)Google Scholar note its postwar revival.

3 See the work of Nelson, Daniel, Managers and Workers: Origins of the New Factory System in the United States, 1880–1920 (Madison, Wis., 1975)Google Scholar; Edwards, Richard C., Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1979)Google Scholar; Montgomery, David, Workers' Control in America: Studies in the History of Work, Technology, and Labor Struggles (New York, 1979)Google Scholar.

4 de Grazia, Victoria, The Culture of Consent: Mass Organization of Leisure in Fascist Italy (New York, 1981), 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 The most extensive analysis of welfarism is Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism; shorter studies include Brody, “The Rise and Decline of Welfare Capitalism,” 48–81, Bernstein, Irving, The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920–1933 (Boston, 1960)Google Scholar; and Nelson, Managers and Workers, 101–21.

6 Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism, 75–82.

7 Ibid., 30–37.

8 Ibid., 30–37, 135–48; Bernstein, The Lean Years, 186–88; Brody, “Rise and Decline of Welfare Capitalism,” 60–78.

9 Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism, 32.

10 Zahavi, Gerald, “Negotiated Loyalty: Welfare Capitalism and the Shoe Workers of Endicott Johnson, 1920–1940,” Journal of American History 70 (Dec. 1983): 602–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 “Industrial Relations Policies in the United States,” Monthly Labor Review 43 (July 1936): 90Google Scholar; Duggins, G. Herbert and Eastwood, Floyd R., Planning Industrial Recreation (Lafayette, Ind., 1941), 8–10Google Scholar; Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism, 144–45; Anderson, Jackson M., Industrial Recreation: A Guide to Its Organization and Administration (New York, 1955), 62Google Scholar.

12 Green, James R., The World of the Worker: Labor in Twentieth-Century America (New York, 1980), 140–63Google Scholar; Friedlander, Peter, The Emergence of a UAW Local: A Study in Class and Culture (Pittsburgh, 1975)Google Scholar and Zieger, Robert H., Madison's Battery Workers, 1934–1952: A History of Federal Labor Union 19587 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1977)Google Scholar question CIO militancy and the level of rank-and-file activism in the 1930s. Yet Brody notes that “The CIO's willingness to engage actively in partisan politics, its interest in broad social and economic issues, its responsiveness to the rank-and-file, all bespeak a departure from the narrow and conventional trade-union perspective.” Brody, “Rise and Decline of Welfare Capitalism,” 127.

13 Philadelphia Millinery Workers Review (monthly bulletin of the United Hat, Cap, and Millinery Workers International Union, Local 15), c. 1936.

14 For a fuller description of the origins and development of industrial union programs in Philadelphia, see Fones-Wolf, Elizabeth, “Industrial Unionism and Labor Movement Culture in Depression-Era Philadelphia,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 109 (Jan. 1985): 3–26Google Scholar.

15 Zieger, Madison's Battery Workers, 12–4, 48–49; Cumbler, John T., Working-Class Community in Industrial America: Work, Leisure and Struggle in Two Industrial Cities, 1880–1930 (Westport, Conn., 1979), 65–70Google Scholar; Brewer, C. E., “Industrial Recreation,” Recreation (journal of the National Recreation Association) 37 (March 1944): 679–83Google Scholar.

16 Shop Delegates Council minutes, 14 Sept. 1934 and Scrapbook, c. 1934–36 in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America Local 125 (New Haven) Records, Archives and Manuscripts, University of Massachusetts Amherst [hereafter, ACWA Shop Delegates Council Local 125 minutes].

17 Fur Worker, August 1937; “Workers At Play,” Personnel Journal 18 (Dec. 1939): 230–31Google Scholar; “Employee Recreation,” Management Review 28 (Nov. 1939): 406Google Scholar.

18 Zahavi, “Negotiated Loyalty,” 614–20; Harris, Right to Manage, 25–37; Jacoby, Employing Bureaucracy, 233–35; “Workers At Play,” 228; Emmet, Boris and Jeuck, John K., Catalogues and Counters: A History of Sears, Roebuck and Company (Chicago, 1950), 280–92, 576–77, 679–86Google Scholar; Marcosson, Isaac F., Wherever Men Trade: The Romance of the Cash Register (New York, 1945), 222–42, 255Google Scholar. Despite its welfare program, Goodyear lost its battle against unionization in 1936. Nelson, Daniel, “The Company Union Movement, 1900–1937,” Business History Review 56 (Autumn, 1982): 354–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O'Reilly, Maurice, The Goodyear Story (Elmsford, N.Y., 1983), 70–76Google Scholar; Moore, Charles W., Timing a Century: History of the Waltham Watch Company (Cambridge, Mass., 1945), 218–20, 240CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 “Does It Pay to Help Employees May?” American Business, May 1936, 18–21.

20 Diehl, Leonard J. and Eastwood, Floyd R., Industrial Recreation: Its Development and Present Status (Lafayette, Ind., 1940), 20–26Google Scholar; Edmund, Willis H., “Industrial Recreation—1936 Trends,” Recreation 30 (Sept. 1936): 313–14Google Scholar. “Recreational Activities for Workers Fosters Better Employee Relations,” Iron Age 143 (22 June 1939): 68–69Google Scholar; “Business Recreation,” Business Week, 24 June 1939, 30.

21 Storey, Robert, “Unionization versus Corporate Welfare: The ‘Dofasco Way,’” Labour/Le Travailleur 12 (1983): 7–42Google Scholar; Schatz, Ronald W., The Electrical Workers: A History of Labor at General Electric and Westinghouse, 1923–60 (Urbana. Ill., 1983), 204–7Google Scholar; Jones, John A., “The Employer Magazine in Successful Industrial Relations,” Personnel Journal 29 (June 1950): 48–54, describes the history of the Weirton programGoogle Scholar.

22 Eugene Whitmore, “Employees and Management Pull Togelher,” American Business, Mareh 1941, 34–38, Edmund, “Industrial Recreation– 1936 Trends,” 312–14; Workers at Play,” 227–32.

23 “Recreation in a Personnel Program,” Management Review 37 (July 1938): 236–37Google Scholar.

24 “Here is An Employee Club that Builds Morale,” American Business, Sept. 1940, 39–40; “Workers at Play,” 227–32; Edmund, “Industrial Recreation—1936 Trends,” 312–14.

25 “Does It Pay to Help Employees Play?” 18–19.

26 Anderson, Industrial Recreation, 65–66.

27 Clive, Alan, State of War: Michigan in World War II (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1979), 90–127Google Scholar; Polenberg, Richard, War and Society: The United States, 1941–1945 (Philadelphia, 1972), 133–34Google Scholar; Lingeman, Richard R., Don't You Know There's a War On? (New York, 1970), 66–85Google Scholar; “Community Recreation Activities and the National Defense Program,” Recreation 35 (July 1941): 231Google Scholar.

28 Clive, State of War, 36–40, 66–67.

29 Clive, State of War, 73–74; Lichtenstein, Nelson, Labor's War at Home: The CIO in World War II (New York, 1982), 123–24Google Scholar; Union Labor Record (Philadelphia), 4 Sept. 1942Google Scholar.

30 TWUA Local 33 minutes, 15 June, 20 July, 16 Aug. 1944, 21 Jan., 18 Feb., 18 March 1945, Textile Workers Union of America Philadelphia Joint Board Records, Urban Archives, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa.; ACWA Shop Delegate Council Local 125 minutes, 10 Oct., 19 Nov. 1943, 21 July 1944.

31 Brewer, C. E., “Industrial Recreation,” Recreation 37 (March 1944): 679–80Google Scholar; ACWA Local 125 Executive Board minutes, 16 Aug., 12 Oct. 1943, 15 Aug. 1944; UE Local 105 General Membership meeting minutes, 18 Nov. 1943, 16 March 1944, United Electrical and Radio Workers of America Local 105 Records, Urban Archives, Temple University.

32 Union Labor Record, 4 Dec. 1942; Lichtenstein, Labor's War at Home, 95–96, 178–202; Clive, State of War, 60–89; Barkin, Sol, “Union Policies in Wartime,” Personnel Journal 21 (June 1942): 54–69Google Scholar. For efforts of Philadelphia union leadership in promoting labor-management cooperation see Pennsylvania Labor Record, 4 June, 13 Aug., 19 Nov. 1943, 8 Sept. 1944; similarly, the Madison (Wisconsin) CIO Council called for the “fullest cooperation of the unions and management to outproduce Hitler,” and endorsed a program eliminating strikes, work stoppages, and jurisdictional struggles. CIO News (Milwaukee), 5 Jan., 2, 11 Nov. 1942.

33 Harris, Right to Manage, 71–72; Clive, State of War, 69–70; Pennsylvania Labor Record, 19 Nov. 1943; American Federation of Labor, American Federation of Labor History, Encyclopedia and Reference Book, (Washington, D.C., 1960), 3: 2640–45Google Scholar.

34 UE Local 105 minutes, 23 Jan. 1942, 15 April 1943, 18 Nov. 1943, 19 July 1945.

35 “Aid to Production,” Modern Industry, Jan. 1944, 53–55; United States Federal Security Agency, Office of Community War Services, Division of Recreation, Spare Time: A War Asset for War Workers (pamphlet) (Washington, D.C., 1943), 1–5Google Scholar; Floyd R. Eastwood, “Industrial Recreation in Wartime,” American Business, July 1943, 20–21.

36 FSA administrator Paul McNutt noted in 1942 that “The American people need recreation—they need it now as part of national defense. People who play together will work better together and fight more wholeheartedly.” United States Federal Security Agency, Office of Community War Services, Division of Recreation, “Recreation Bulletin,” 24 Aug. 1942 [hereafter, FSA Recreation Bulletin]; “The Defense Recreation Program” Recreation 35 (Dec. 1941): 557, 581–82Google Scholar; Reed, Charles E., “National Trends in Defense Recreation,” Recreation 35 (Feb. 1942): 656–58Google Scholar;Weekley, Harold J.“What About Our Army in Overalls,” American City, July 1943, 39–40Google Scholar.

37 FSA Recreation Bulletin, 6 April, 30 Nov. 1942; “Wartime Recreation Explored at Conference,” National Municipal Review 31 (Nov. 1942): 567Google Scholar; McCloskey, Mark, “Recreation in Defense Communities,” Recreation 35 (July 1941): 323–41Google Scholar.

38 FSA Recreation Bulletin, 30 Nov. 1942.

38 Ibid.

40 FSA Recreation Bulletin, 13 April, 30 Nov. 1942; “Community Recreation in 1944,” Monthly Labor Review 61 (Sept. 1945): 511–13Google Scholar; Funigiello, Phillip J., The Challenge to Urban Liberalism: Federal-City Relations during World War II (Knoxville, Tenn., 1978), 151–57Google Scholar; Philadelphia Council of Defense, War Recreation Committee, Minutes of Meeting, 12, 19 April, 10 May, 14 June 1943, box 44, YWCA Southwest Belmont Branch Papers [hereafter, Philadelphia War Recreation Committee minutes].

41 Philadelphia War Recreation Committee minutes, 12 April, 10 May, 13 Sept. 1943, 10 Jan. 1944; Reed, “National Trends in Defense Recreation,” 656–58; “The Defense Recreation Program,” Recreation 35 (Dec. 1941): 581–82Google Scholar.

42 FSA Recreation Bulletin, 26 Jan., 4 April, 4 Nov. 1942, 1 July 1943; Anderson, Industrial Recreation, 67; “The SERA Center,” Recreation 38 (July 1944): 179–80Google Scholar.

43 “Providing Worker Recreation,” Factory Management and Maintenance 101 (Jan. 1943): 98–99Google Scholar; Marcosson, Wherever Men Trade, 254–55.

44 “Providing Worker Recreation,” 98–99.

45 FSA Recreation Bulletin, 6 April, 4 Nov. 1942, 15 Sept. 1944.

46 FSA Recreation Bulletin, 6 April, 4 Nov. 1942; “Employee Play,” Business Week, 5 June 1943, 83.

47 Brewer, “Industrial Recreation,” 679–83.

48 Clive, State of War, 72–83; Lichtenstein, Labor's War at Home, 178–202; “Aid to Production,” Modern Industry, Jan. 1944, 53–55; “Recreation and National Defense,” American Federationist, Aug. 1941, 20–21.

49 “Factory Follies,” Saturday Evening Post, 9 Jan. 1943, 21–25; FSA Recreation Bulletin, 21 July 1942.

50 “Aid to Production,” 53–55; “Providing Worker Recreation,” 98–100; Husted, Orval C., “Promoting Employee Recreation,” Recreation 38 (Aug. 1944): 248–49Google Scholar; Eastwood, “Industrial Recreation in Wartime,” 20.

51 Lingeman, Don't You Know There's a War On? 140–43; “Employee Comfort For Better Work,” American Business, Feb. 1944, 18–20.

52 “Recreation in Industry,” Personnel Journal 26 (April 1948): 369–71Google Scholar; Weinstein, George, “Athletes in Overalls,” Coronet 29 (April 1951): 56–57Google Scholar. David Brody, “The Uses of Power I: Industrial Battleground,” in his Workers in Industrial America, 172–211; Harris, Right to Manage; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, 162–66; Gordon, David M., Edwards, Richard, and Reich, Michael, Segmented Work, Divided Workers: The Historical Transformation of Labor in the United States (New York, 1982), 185–90Google Scholar.

53 Brody, “Uses of Power,” 182–88; Harris, Right to Manage, 105–204.

54 Neer, Don L., “Industry,” in Recreation in the Age of Automation, ed. Douglass, Paul F., The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 313 (1957): 81Google Scholar; “The Big Boom in Employee Recreation,” The Management Review 46 (May 1957): 27–29Google Scholar; “Your Workers Through Organized Sports,” Business Week, 2 July 1949, 23; Time, 13 Sept. 1954; New York Times, 12 Nov. 1956; Butler, George D., “Recreation in Industry is Growing,” Recreation 48 (Feb. 1955): 80Google Scholar; A Mill and Factory survey of 287 companies found that 68 percent had organized activities. “Does Industry Encourage Employee Activities?” Mill and Factory 61 (Aug. 1957): 67–70Google Scholar.

55 “Industrial Recreation,” Recreation 44 (Dec. 1950): 355Google Scholar; “Recreation in Industry,” Personnel Journal 26 (April 1948): 369–73Google Scholar; Eastwood, Floyd R., “More Play—Better Work,” National Safety News 55 (Feb. 1947): 22–23Google Scholar; Albert, August J., “Recreation—A Management Tool,” Advanced Management 24 (May 1959): 23–25Google Scholar; “Activities Reduce Employee Turnover,” Mill and Factory 54 (Jan. 1954): 133Google Scholar; “Recreational Activities in Industry,” Paper Industry and Paper World 28 (June 1946): 382–85Google Scholar; “Picnics, Parties, Plays,” Steel 135 (2 Aug. 1954): 58Google Scholar; “Recreation: Industry Hits a Home Run,” Iron Age 171 (28 May 1953): 66Google Scholar; Norris, Wells, “Employer Relations Plan Reduces Turnover,” American Business 19 (Nov. 1949): 10–11, 32Google Scholar.

56 “A Recreation Program With Something for Everybody,” Factory Management and Maintenance 105 (May 1947): 77–79Google Scholar; “Recreation in Industry,” Recreation 43 (Feb. 1950), 530–32Google Scholar.

57 “A Country Club With Your Job,” Recreation 46 (Sept. 1952): 202–4Google Scholar; “Recreation in Industry,” Recreation 43 (Feb. 1950): 530–32Google Scholar; “You Say Recreation Won't Pay Off,” Factory Management and Maintenance 115 (June 1957): 140–43Google Scholar.

58 Harris, Right to Manage, 170; “Playing at the Plant,” Business Week, 20 Feb. 1954, 74–80; Robert Shechan, “The Kodak Picture: Sunshine and Shadow,” Fortune, May 1965, 127–29; “Employee Policies and Practices in American Organizations, Eastman Kodak,” Journal of Chemical Engineering 27 (April 1950): 200–201Google Scholar; Argus Cameras, Inc., of Ann Arbor, Mich., was another company that gave credit to employee recreational activities for preventing unionization and for “virtually eliminating any major labor difficulties.” Baird, Dwight G., “Employee Club Prevents Labor Trouble,” American Business 24 (Jan. 1954): 18, 42Google Scholar.

59 “Royalties for Unions,” Factory Management and Maintenance 103 (Sept. 1945), 92Google Scholar; Allen, Donna, Fringe Benefits: Wages or Social Obligation? An Analysis with Historical Perspectives from Paid Vacations (Ithaca, N.Y., 1964), 25–27Google Scholar; Wistert, Francis M., Fringe Benefits (New York, 1959), 36–49Google Scholar; Brody, “Uses of Power,” 184–86, 192–94.

60 Connor, R. H., “Playtime at Goodyear,” Recreation 39 (March 1946): 647–48Google Scholar; Neer, “Industry,” 82; Duchaine, William T., “A Recreation Development,” Recreation 50 (March 1957): 90Google Scholar; ““Recreation in Industry,” Recreation 48 (May 1955): 242–43Google Scholar; Weinstein, “Athletes in Overalls,” 568; O'Reilly, The Goodyear Story, 134–35, 153.

61 “The Big Boom in Employee Recreation,” 27–29; “The Good Things in Life,” Recreation 40 (Oct. 1946): 386–87Google Scholar, transcript of intermission talk on Ford Festival of American Music broadcast, 7 July 1946.

62 Business Week, 2 July 1949, 223; “The Big Boom in Employee Recreation,” 27–29.

63 Smith, Frank E., “Recreation in Industry,” Education 71 (Oct. 1950): 132Google Scholar, Schatz, Electrical Workers, 204–17; Business Week, 18 June 1949, 39.

64 Harris, Right to Manage, 177–99, on the search for public favor; Weinstein, “Athletes in Overalls,” 58; Sharp, Guy L., “Tying Employee Recreation into the Community,” Factory Management and Maintenance 104 (June 1946): 149–51Google Scholar.

65 Berkowitz and McQuaid, Creating the Welfare State, 135–37; Time, 13 Sept. 1954, 96; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Employee Benefits, 1981; Hodge, R. H., “Fringe (Plus-Wage) Benefits,” Personnel Journal 35 (Oct. 1956): 176–77Google Scholar; “Big Business Has a Heart,” America 94 (1 Oct. 1955): 5Google Scholar; Gitlow, A. L., “‘Fringe Benefits’: A Review,” Personnel Journal 34 (Sept. 1955): 126–30Google Scholar; Allen, Fringe Benefits, 25–43. On employer efforts in one area during the 1950s see, for example, “Nursery Can Solve Manpower Problems,” Textile World 101 (Feb. 1951): 161Google Scholar; “Absenteeism Reduced When Industry Takes Up Babysitting,” Mill and Factory 52 (June 1953): 103Google Scholar; “Make Your Plant a Safe, Pleasant Place to Work,” Factory Management and Maintenance 107 (Nov. 1949): 93Google Scholar. There is a large literature concerning fringe benefits, including works such as Deric, Arthur J., ed., The Total Approach to Employee Benefits (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; McCaffery, Robert, Managing the Employee Benefits Program (New York, 1983)Google Scholar; Griffes, Ernest J. E., Employee Benefits Programs: Management, Planning, and Control (Homewood, Ill., 1983)Google Scholar. For the continuing importance of industrial recreation in the 1970s and 1980s see, for example, “The Joy of Work,” Newsweek, 12 Jan. 1976, 61; “One Firms' Family” [IBM[], Newsweek, 21 Nov. 1977; Debats, Karen, “Industrial Recreation Programs: A New Look at an Old Benefit,” Personnel Journal 60 (Aug. 1981): 620–25Google Scholar.

66 Maier, Charles, “The Politics of Productivity,” International Organization 31: 4 (1977): 23–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gordon, Edwards, and Reich, Segmented Work, Divided Workers, 185–90; Brody, “Uses of Power,” 185–96.