#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

[hoofpeet]

-might get kicked out for unrelated reasons (HOA) But small look at the landlord situation. Landlord emailed us some legal documents earlier- which included an admission that he's been getting the rent checks (which he was previously claiming we weren't paying and citing as his grounds for eviction) - as well as documentation of two other instances of attempted extortion.... I've lost the plot completely at this point

[gent-illmatic]

Reminder:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted. Then used against you by the people who have the wrong perspective of you.

You can't control what people say, but they can't control what you choose NOT to say!

[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.

[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

[high-quality-tiktoks]

Nobody Wants to Work!

[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

[nando161mando]

I can relate

[compacflt]

officially switched my minor today from creative writing to politics (international relations). simultaneous “it’s so over/we’re so back” feeling

[ladywaterfall]

give me your best tips for how to have an interesting answer for "tell me about yourself", cause I have a job interview tomorrow

[tellnotalespod]

The lovely Ann Yu (Harriet in S1 E14) is infamous for once being told “don’t die!” by a manager and responding with “I do what I want outside of working hours.”

For our last Secret Santa, I made her a t-shirt. This seems like something the target audience for Wasting Company Time Productions might enjoy.

[cowboyhorsegirl]

don't get me wrong, i'm SO glad that ppl are boycotting eurovision this year, but i'm also a little irked because BDS has been telling ppl to boycott eurovision for YEARS so where has this energy been all that time??

[queenerdloser]

in a fit of job-related frustration i briefly went job hunting and while the prospects were bleak enough that i abandoned the exercise pretty quickly, i actually found two library jobs that were so suspiciously perfect for what i want in a job i was kind of like ??? what the fuck. i yearned for a library job back when i was first seriously job hunting in the us in 2020 but i couldnt find anything full time or with decent enough pay. and now TWO (2) jobs that a) are higher level but DON'T require a master's degree, which is shocking enough in itself b) both exceed my current pay rate (????) and c) actually are in my wheelhouse and are jobs i could do well, show up on my radar in the exact week i'm looking at jobs? suspicious!

i applied to both of them mostly just for kicks. i kind of forgot about it last week due to my grad school haze but i just remembered to double check the apps and for the one that closed to applications last weekend i've been moved up to reviewing training/experience... which seems like a good sign???? genuinely don't know what i'd do if i actually get asked to interview but that'd be so funny omfg