#Employment Relations

[operationalinsights]

The Middle Period of HRM: From the Great Depression to the New Deal (1930–1965)

The period between 1930 and 1965 marked a transformative era for Human Resource Management (HRM), as economic upheavals such as the Great Depression and the subsequent rise of government intervention fundamentally reshaped the landscape of labor relations. What had been a burgeoning field of progressive welfare capitalism in the United States during the 1920s was suddenly met with the harsh realities of economic downturn, leading to a rollback of many personnel management advancements. Companies that had invested heavily in worker welfare programs and HRM were forced to scale back or eliminate these initiatives as they faced declining profits and competitive pressures. This essay explores the effects of the Great Depression on HRM, the role of government intervention through the New Deal, and the broader implications for labor relations during this period.

The Impact of the Great Depression on HRM

In the early 20th century, HRM had begun to make significant strides, particularly in the United States, where welfare capitalist companies pioneered employee-focused initiatives such as better wages, working conditions, and benefit programs. By the late 1920s, progressive HRM practices were viewed favorably by academics and labor economists, with figures like William Leiserson (1929) noting the positive contributions personnel management had made to improving labor relations and productivity.

However, the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 rapidly changed the trajectory of HRM development. As companies faced dwindling profits, they had no choice but to cut costs. Smaller and less profitable companies were the first to abandon their personnel programs, reduce wages, and lay off workers. Over time, even the more progressive companies were forced to follow suit, despite having previously invested in fostering employee goodwill through their HRM practices. As historian Lizabeth Cohen (1990) explains, this liquidation of labor became an unavoidable outcome as firms struggled to survive amidst economic collapse.

The loss of personnel programs during the Depression had profound consequences. HR departments, once dedicated to improving employee welfare, were reduced or dismantled. The mass unemployment that accompanied the Depression provided a seemingly "effective" alternative to HRM for ensuring worker compliance and productivity—there was no longer a need to invest in employee engagement or loyalty when the labor market was flooded with desperate job seekers willing to work under any conditions.

William Leiserson, in a 1933 reflection on the situation, observed that the Depression had effectively "undone fifteen years or so of good personnel work." The advancements in employee relations and welfare programs that had characterized the previous decade were suddenly erased. Leiserson also presciently noted that in the face of such economic devastation, workers would increasingly turn to government intervention, rather than HRM, as a solution to unemployment and labor rights issues. This shift marked a turning point in the relationship between labor, management, and the state.

The Roosevelt Administration and the New Deal

In response to the economic collapse, the Roosevelt administration launched the New Deal in 1933, signaling a dramatic shift in public policy towards greater government involvement in labor relations. The New Deal was designed to stimulate the economy by increasing household purchasing power and raising wages through a combination of social insurance programs, public works projects, and labor protections. This marked a new era of government intervention in employment relations, fundamentally altering the role of HRM in the process.

A key component of the New Deal was the introduction of minimum wage laws, which aimed to raise the income of workers and stimulate consumer spending. By establishing a wage floor, the government ensured that workers were paid a living wage, a function that had previously been left to the discretion of individual companies' HR departments. This shift represented a direct challenge to the traditional role of HRM, as many of the responsibilities for ensuring fair wages and working conditions were now being codified into law.

Another important aspect of the New Deal was the creation of social insurance programs, including unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, which provided workers with a safety net in times of economic hardship. These programs reduced the dependency of workers on their employers for long-term security, thereby diminishing the influence of HRM on employees' lives. Mass unionization, encouraged by government policies, further empowered workers to negotiate for better wages and working conditions collectively, rather than relying on the goodwill of HR departments.

Public works programs, such as those created by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA), provided millions of jobs for unemployed workers, thereby alleviating some of the economic pressure on the private sector to maintain large payrolls. While these programs were not directly related to HRM, they nonetheless reshaped the labor market by offering alternative employment opportunities and reducing the bargaining power of companies over desperate workers.

The Rise of Unionism and Decline of Welfare Capitalism

One of the most significant outcomes of the New Deal era was the rise of labor unions. The Wagner Act of 1935, also known as the National Labor Relations Act, granted workers the right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining. This legislation fundamentally altered the balance of power between employers and employees, as unions became a powerful force in negotiating wages, benefits, and working conditions. The rise of unions diminished the role of HRM in some ways, as many of the functions traditionally handled by personnel departments—such as wage negotiations and worker grievances—were now managed through union contracts.

However, the rise of unions also forced HRM to evolve. In unionized industries, HR departments took on new roles as intermediaries between management and labor. Personnel managers were tasked with ensuring compliance with collective bargaining agreements and maintaining peaceful labor relations. In this sense, HRM adapted to the new reality of a more unionized workforce by becoming a more formalized and regulatory function within companies.

The rise of unions and the increasing involvement of government in labor relations also signaled the decline of welfare capitalism, which had characterized much of the early HRM efforts in the 1920s. Welfare capitalism relied on the idea that companies could foster worker loyalty and productivity through paternalistic programs that provided for workers' welfare. However, as government and unions took over many of these functions, the need for such programs diminished. Companies were no longer the primary providers of social security or wage protection, as these responsibilities had shifted to the state and labor organizations.

Conclusion

The period from 1930 to 1965 was a transformative time for HRM, as the Great Depression and the subsequent rise of government intervention fundamentally reshaped labor relations. The economic collapse of the 1930s led to the dismantling of many progressive HRM programs, as companies struggled to survive in a competitive and resource-scarce environment. In response, workers turned to the government for solutions, resulting in the Roosevelt administration's New Deal, which introduced minimum wage laws, social insurance programs, and mass unionization.

While the rise of government intervention and unionism diminished some of the traditional roles of HRM, it also forced the field to evolve. HR departments adapted by taking on new responsibilities, particularly in managing labor relations in unionized environments. The decline of welfare capitalism marked the end of an era in which companies were the primary providers of worker welfare, but it also set the stage for the development of a more regulatory and strategic approach to HRM that would continue to evolve in the post-war period.

[yourvinayshukla]

Industrial Dispute vs. Individual Dispute as per the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA), 1947

Industrial Dispute Definition: Section 2(k) of the IDA defines an industrial dispute as “any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person.” Industrial Dispute Characteristics: Collective…

[somsonsomsoff]

headcanons for the employers have somehow turned into a crossover with de skills

[tuesday-teyz]

hi teyz! br ask: anything you can share about a possible connection between purpled and punz? They are often fanon-ized as brothers or mentor/apprentice, so with tommy’s eye hallucination last chapter I was wondering if there is a connection in this story as well. Thank you!

There is a connection, and someone in the discord server already figured out it (although only partially)! The hints in the text are pretty vague, so let's just say that Purpled is not being entirely honest about his origin...

[callizinc]

Feels like the whole world is against ena, the boss isn't even born yet, but she's still late, because the world would not allow her to be early because being an early bird is a good thing in the context of employment and ena can never win or be a good employee no matter how hard she tries

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dave Jamieson at HuffPost:

President Donald Trump’s attempt to abolish the U.S. Agency for International Development has stunned its employees and drawn outrage among Democrats on Capitol Hill. But it’s one of many brazen attacks on independent federal agencies as he seeks to expand executive power during his first days in office. On Jan. 27, the new president ousted a sitting Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as two Democratic commissioners at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He eliminated a quorum at both bipartisan bodies, making them unable to carry out their normal duties. Then, on Thursday, Trump tried to boot the Democratic chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, who said she had received a letter from the president ”purporting to remove me.” “There’s a legal way to replace FEC commissioners,” said the chairwoman, Ellen L. Weintraub. “This isn’t it.” With Senate approval, any president is free to fill out his Cabinet as he sees fit. But Trump is taking an axe to walls that have long stood between the White House and independent executive agencies that are supposed to operate free from presidential meddling. The NLRB and EEOC officials were in the middle of their congressionally mandated terms when Trump fired them without cause. The removals flew in the face of the statute as well as U.S. Supreme Court precedent and should dash any notion that Trump might act with a degree of restraint in his second term.

[...] The labor board usually has five members, with three from one party and two from the other. Their staggered five-year terms mean a Democratic majority can run into a Republican presidency, and vice versa, until one of the seats opens up and the president can install a new member. Due to two vacancies, the board held a 2-1 Democratic majority when Trump was inaugurated. It still had a quorum, by one member, to make rulings. Close observers did not expect Trump to try to fire one of the Democrats since he could achieve a GOP majority simply by nominating two Republicans and getting them through a Republican-controlled Senate. [...] With just two members and no quorum, the NLRB cannot adjudicate cases where an employer or union has filed an appeal. The board won’t be operating until either a judge reinstates Wilcox — she has filed a lawsuit arguing her firing was illegal — or Trump and Senate Republicans install new members, which they may be in no rush to do. Trump has left the EEOC in a similar dysfunctional state. The agency, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, has stressed that it’s still fielding complaints and that its judges are hearing cases involving workers who believe their civil rights have been violated. However, it only has two commissioners —one Republican and one Democrat — who would be unable to issue new rules or policies until Trump installs new members. [...] The independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has also found itself in the White House’s crosshairs. On Saturday, Trump’s acting CFPB director ordered employees to halt their work and closed down the building, derailing an agency that protects consumers from predatory financial practices. Musk had previously said he wanted to “delete” the bureau. Sen. Chris Van Hollen said Trump and Musk aren’t trying to make the government more “efficient”— they’re simply going after regulatory agencies they dislike. “We are in dangerous territory because we see this sort of serial lawbreaking by Donald Trump and Elon Musk,” Van Hollen told HuffPost Monday. “It has nothing to do with efficiency... This is all about installing their cronies in key positions in government and shutting down agencies that help protect the American people.” Trump’s firings at independent agencies may be headed to the Supreme Court in a battle over the so-called unitary executive theory, which holds that the president has sole authority over executive branch agencies. The court’s conservative supermajority has generally taken a broad view of presidential power and could bless Trump’s takeover of bodies like the NLRB.

The Trump-Musk-Vance axis of evil are running roughshod over the independence of federal agencies to cement a far-right power grab.

See Also:

The Status Kuo (Jay Kuo): Blunting Their Attacks

[gridgamesgalore]

everytime I draw quinn I kick my feet and giggle cause she got a job ♡♡ shes empl*yed now ♥︎♥︎♥︎

tw shocking change as in empl*ymrnt

[wogot3]

i dont remember if i ever shared that polaroid/compliant is conductor but yea here you go

spoilery concept stuff but i dont careeeeeeeeeee

[uncanny-tranny]

Something I always wonder with the whole: "The lazy populous doesn't want to work!" is if it's only being said to keep minimum wage at the very, very lowest end of 'survivability.'

The "lazy worker" isn't truly a problem. The employers are.

[bitter-sweetener]

The unique horror of being far too smart for your job but far too unstable for the inane rigors of other types of employment

[i-am-a-secret-ssshhh]

GUYS

I applied to a job on a whim because they were hiring even though i didn't think i was qualified because it's working with food and I've never done that before

And I got asked to do a video interview

AND I GOT THE JOB

HOW DID I DO THAT

[naomiknight-17]

I had a nightmare that Elon Musk called me on my phone directly to offer me a job I was physically incapable of that would have required me to move to Jamaica

Then suddenly I was in Game of Thrones being attacked by dragons

Can my brain please chill

[mattsmemes]

[hellnokittyxo]

Walgreens called me to schedule an interview but I am terrified. I need to stop being such a pussy and learn how to talk to people!! My anxiety has overtaken my life and it needs to come to an end. Anxiety don’t control me, I control me.

At least that’s what I tell myself until it comes down to it…

[gravitasmalfunction]

my controversial opinion is that the risk of discovery and consequences for a business that edits timesheet data should be greater than the consequences for the business for just admitting the scheduling error and paying the overtime that results.

[moonssugar]

not to air out my first world problems but when did it become acceptable for whatever company you work for to try and dominate your entire life outside of it. like people can't even have off days for getting sick without getting threatened with termination now something as novel as having a birthday off isn't allowed either. missing out on important life events doesn't matter as long as they can use you to sell a product, you're not meant to have a life outside of them or indicate that you do, the company comes first no matter what and no amount of work or effort will earn you respect. and they can fire you for any reason at any time. they want you believe they own you