SOURCES OF MODERN INDUSTRIAL CONFLICTS i
possibly to someone ‘higher up.” But in some shops his boldness
is likely to single him out for special attention as an incipient “trouble
maker,” and his eventual discharge may result. The constant pres-
sure of those financially interested makes low cost of production the
primary aim of hired management. Ruthless competition, when
unchecked by penal legislation, a “short” labor supply, or—what is
potentially the same thing—a strong labor organization, forces even
humanitarian employers sometimes to descend to the same plane
as that occupied by the most unscrupulous, unless by exceptional
ingenuity they can cut costs by improvements in methods. The late
Prof. H. C. Adams stated succinctly the principle here involved when
he said:
. . . . in the commercial world as at present organized, where the producer
and the consumer seldom come into personal contact, the moral ‘arrangements
followed in the process of production are not permitted a moment’s thought.
All that is considered by the purchaser is the quality and the price of the goods.
Those that are cheap he will buy, those that are dear he will reject, and in this
manner he encourages those methods of production that lead to cheapness.
. . . Fach man in the business must adopt those rules of management which
lead to low prices, or he will be compelled to quit the business. And if this cheap-
ness, the essential requisite of business success, be the result of harsh and inhuman
measures, or if it lead to misrepresentation and dishonesty on the part of salesmen
or manufacturers, the inevitable result must be that harshness and inhumanity
will become the essential condition of success, and business men will be obliged to
live a dual existence.
. . . . anisolated man is powerless to stem the tide of prevalent custom, and
. . . .in many lines of business those men whose moral sensibilities are the most
blunted, exercise an influence in determining prevalent custom altogether out of
proportion to their importance as industrial agents. . . . . If now the state
stand as an unconcerned spectator, nine men who appreciate keenly, for in-
stance, the evils of child labor will be forced to conform to the methods adopted
by the one who is insensible to these evils. Their goods come into competition
with his goods, and we who purchase do not inquire under what conditions they
were manufactured. In this manner it is that men of the lowest character have
it in their power to give the moral tone to the entire business community.’
Large scale production and almost complete mechanization of
processes, moreover, has meant that the worker, except in a few
§ Adams, H. C., “The Relation of the State to Industrial Action,” pp. 39-42-
(American Economic Association, Publications, V. 1, No. 6.)
40