#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??

[girderednerve]

i have once more Read a Book !

the book was jim morris' cancer factory: industrial chemicals, corporate deception, & the hidden deaths of american workers. this book! is very good! it is primarily about the bladder cancer outbreak associated with the goodyear plant in niagara falls, new york, & which was caused by a chemical called orthotoluedine. goodyear itself is shielded by new york's workers' comp law from any real liability for these exposures & occupational illnesses; instead, a lot of the information that morris relies on comes from suits against dupont, which manufactured the orthotoluedine that goodyear used, & despite clear internal awareness of its carcinogenicity, did not inform its clients, who then failed to protect their workers. fuck dupont! morris also points out that goodyear manufactured polyvinyl chloride (PVC) at that plant, and, along with other PVC manufacturers, colluded to hide the cancer-causing effects of vinyl chloride, a primary ingredient in PVC & the chemical spilled in east palestine, ohio in 2023. the book also discusses other chemical threats to american workers, including, and this was exciting for me personally, silica; it mentions the hawks nest tunnel disaster (widely forgotten now despite being influential in the 30s, and, by some measures, the deadliest industrial disaster in US history) & spends some time on the outbreak of severe silicosis among southern california countertop fabricators, associated with high-silica 'engineered stone' or 'quartz' countertops. i shrieked about that, the coverage is really good although the treatment of hawks nest was very brief & neglected the racial dynamic at play (the workers exposed to silica at hawks nest were primarily migrant black workers from the deep south).

cancer factory spends a lot of time on the regulatory apparatus in place to respond to chemical threats in the workplace, & thoroughly lays out how inadequate they are. OSHA is responsible for setting exposure standards for workplace chemicals, but they have standards for only a tiny fraction—less than one percent!—of chemicals used in american industry, and issue standards extremely slowly. the two major issues it faces, outside of its pathetically tiny budget, are 1) the standard for demonstrating harm for workers is higher than it is for the general public, a problem substantially worsened during the reagan administration but not created by it, and 2) OSHA is obliged to regulate each individual chemical separately, rather than by functional groups, which, if you know anything at all about organic chemistry, is nonsensical on its face. morris spends a good amount of time on the tenure of eula bingham as the head of OSHA during the carter administration; she was the first woman to head the organization & made a lot of reasonable reforms (a cotton dust standard for textile workers!), but could not get a general chemical standard, allowing OSHA to regulate chemicals in blocks instead of individually, through, & then of course much of her good work was undone by reagan appointees.

the part of the book that made me most uncomfortable was morris' attempt to include birth defects in his analysis. i don't especially love the term 'birth defect'—it feels cruel & seems to me to openly devalue disabled people's lives, no?—but i did appreciate attention to women's experiences in the workplace, and i think workplace chemical exposure is an underdiscussed part of reproductive justice. cancer factory mentions women lead workers who were forced to undergo tubal ligations to retain their employment, supposedly because lead is a teratogen. morris points at workers in silicon valley's electronics industry; workers, most of them women, who made those early transistors were exposed to horrifying amounts of lead, benzene, and dangerous solvents, often with disabling effects for their children.

morris points out again & again that we only know that there was an outbreak of bladder cancer & that it should be associated with o-toluedine because the goodyear plant workers were organized with the oil, chemical, & atomic workers (OCAW; now part of united steelworkers), and the union pursued NIOSH investigation and advocated for improved safety and monitoring for employees, present & former. even so, 78 workers got bladder cancer, 3 died of angiosarcoma, and goodyear workers' families experienced bladder cancer and miscarriage as a result of secondary exposure. i kept thinking about unorganized workers in the deep south, cancer alley in louisiana, miners & refinery workers; we don't have meaningful safety enforcement or monitoring for many of these workers. we simply do not know how many of them have been sickened & killed by their employers. there is no political will among people with power to count & prevent these deaths. labor protections for workers are better under the biden administration than the trump administration, but biden's last proposed budget leaves OSHA with a functional budget cut after inflation, and there is no federal heat safety standard for indoor workers. the best we get is marginal improvement, & workers die. i know you know! but it's too big to hold all the same.

anyway it's a good book, it's wide-ranging & interested in a lot of experiences of work in america, & morris presents an intimate (sometimes painfully so!) portrait of workers who were harmed by goodyear & dupont. would recommend