HP95»9 
 U5G-Z 
 
 -^ 
 
 11 
 
 II 
 
 ill 
 
it 
 
 Wtw Ifurk 
 
 ^>tate (ftollegp of Agriculture 
 
 At Qjurnell HniUErsihj 
 3triaca, ST. $. 
 
 IGibrarn 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 
 HD9519.U5G2 
 
 Principles and policies of the United St 
 
 3 1924 013 928 035 
 
Principles and Policies 
 
 of the Ah 
 
 United <tates Steel Corporation 
 
 Statement by 
 
 ELBERT H. GARY, Chairman 
 
 At Annual Meeting of Stockholders 
 April i 8, 1 92 1 
 
The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013928035 
 
STATEMENT OF ELBERT H. GARY, CHAIRMAN, 
 
 CONCERNING PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 
 
 OF THE UNITED STATES STEEL 
 
 CORPORATION 
 
 TWENTY YEARS AGO the first day of the present 
 month, the United States Steel Corporation, as a completed 
 organization, established offices and opened books of account 
 and other records. The regular reports, which have been 
 made and published annually and quarterly by the officers 
 from the beginning, have in great detail informed the stock- 
 holders and the general public of the growth and volume of 
 business, the extensions and physical condition of proper- 
 ties, and the financial resources and balances of the Corpora- 
 tion. 
 
 But it is deemed appropriate at this time that the man- 
 agement, as such, make special report to the stockholders 
 concerning certain principles and policies which have domi- 
 nated their course. 
 
 In the management are intended to be included the offi- 
 cers of the Corporation, and the Finance Committee, whose 
 regular meetings have been held weekly, and the Board of 
 Directors, whose regular meetings have been held monthly. 
 The officers have been in immediate charge of affairs, sub- 
 ject to the approval of the Finance Committee, and the de- 
 cisions and actions of the Committee have been submitted 
 
for final approval, rejection or modification, to the Board of 
 Directors. Therefore, the adopted principles and policies 
 of the Corporation have been approved by the Board. It 
 is believed that in no large industrial organization has there 
 ever been more patient, careful, intelligent, fairminded con- 
 sideration given to principles, policies and general activities 
 than by the Finance Committee of the Steel Corporation 
 from the beginning to the present time. Besides, during his 
 life, the late J. Pierpont Morgan, the Financial Giant who 
 made the creation of the Corporation possible, individually 
 gave his cordial, whole-souled and untiring efforts in advising 
 and aiding the Corporation and its managers. 
 
 You have sometimes heard or read that some certain 
 individual has been, or a few have been, absolutely dominant 
 in the control or management of our affairs. The statement 
 is wholly opposed to fact or reason. Our plans and policies 
 have always been carefully considered and harmoniously 
 approved by our Finance Committee and the Board of Direc- 
 tors, although naturally there were, in the earlier years, 
 some differences of opinion. 
 
 The United States Steel Corporation has been character- 
 ized as "A Corporation with a Soul." Whether or not the 
 statement is literally true might depend upon your definition, 
 or mine, of the word "soul." We might not agree. I volunteer 
 one that you may be willing to accept, at least for the pur- 
 poses of these remarks: A soul is a controlling influence, 
 possessed by individuals, corporations or states, which recog- 
 nizes as of equal importance the rights, interests and welfare 
 of themselves with all others. It involves the practice of the 
 rule promulgated . by Confucius five hundred years before 
 Christ. 
 
 Under this definition the United States Steel Corporation 
 has striven to secure from all who are interested in its con- 
 
duct the belief that it is possessed of a soul; to say it has 
 often failed is to assert only that its managers are human. 
 But when and in what respect it has failed in performance 
 can be accurately and fairly determined only by those who 
 are familiar with all the facts and motives applicable. 
 
 The management of a corporation fundamentally stands 
 in a position of balance between three general groups or 
 factors: 
 
 First, the security holders who own the properties and 
 business and appoint as their servants the Board of Directors. 
 
 Second, the general public, in which are included inves- 
 tors, employes, employers, consumers or customers, com- 
 petitors, and all others who may be interested in, or affec- 
 ted by, the action or attitude of the managers, except per- 
 haps (for the purposes of this discussion) the managers 
 themselves. 
 
 Third, the masses of the working forces whose services 
 are absolutely essential to successful enterprise. 
 
 THE SECURITY HOLDERS 
 
 These must be recognized as rightfully in control. Their 
 capital permits the existence, the activities and the success of 
 the corporation. They properly may and ultimately will 
 dictate the personnel, the governing rules, the policies, sales 
 and purchases, extensions and improvements, rates of com- 
 pensation to employes, including special compensation or 
 bonus appropriations for merit, terms and conditions of em- 
 ployment, and all other matters pertaining to the properties 
 and business and management of the corporation. After the 
 honest fulfillment of all obligations to others, they are en- 
 titled, not only to a fair and reasonable return on their in- 
 vestments, but to all the net proceeds of the business; other- 
 wise they could not be expected to leave their capital in the 
 
enterprise in question. It would not long continue active, 
 or even in existence, if a majority of the stockholders re- 
 mained dissatisfied. They are the initiative, the sustenance 
 and the life of the corporation. In a discussion of cor- 
 porate questions, the rights of stockholders are sometimes 
 overlooked or ignored by the public speaker or writer, 
 especially if by reason of inexperience or otherwise he is in- 
 competent, prejudiced or unjust. 
 
 All these considerations the managers of our Corporation 
 constantly have borne in mind and their importance has not 
 been minimized nor neglected. In this connection, however, 
 it should be remembered by the stockholders that, though it 
 might sometimes appear to some that the Board has been 
 unduly liberal in expenditures to the prejudice of the stock- 
 holders, it nevertheless has been the deliberate and consci- 
 entious judgment of the managers that what has been done 
 was not only reasonable, but was also calculated to result 
 in the greatest good and largest benefit to all who were con- 
 cerned. 
 
 The managers themselves, generally speaking, are stock- 
 holders and many, if not most of them, have been and are 
 quite large holders considering their pecuniary resources; 
 and at present about one third in number of the stockholders 
 are employes. 
 
 THE GENERAL PUBLIC 
 
 It will cheerfully be admitted that the interests of the 
 general public, so-called, are first to be considered. When 
 they clash with private interests, the latter must be subordi- 
 nated. On this principle our Government is founded. It is 
 essential to the protection and happiness of all the people. 
 If an individual suffers wrongfully, it is the duty of the public, 
 by lawful provisions, to furnish appropriate relief or remedy. 
 
The obligations between the public and the individual are 
 reciprocal. But for the protection of all and each the public 
 must and does have the power to determine and enforce 
 the rules for individual or collective action. 
 
 Nevertheless while the public, through its legally con- 
 stituted agencies, has power which might seem to be extraor- 
 dinary, if not extravagant, it has a corresponding respon- 
 sibility which involves expenditures in proportion. Any 
 wrongful injury to individual property or business or person 
 involves loss which must ultimately be assumed by the gen- 
 eral public. Therefore the management of a corporation, for 
 its own good and for the benefit of its stockholders, must 
 have constantly and uppermost in mind the rights and in- 
 terests of the general public, not only as determined by the 
 law of the land, but as ascertainable from public sentiment 
 when the same is clear, well defined and settled. Even though 
 adverse criticism or expression of opinion, published or spoken , 
 may be undeserved, it should not nor will be ignored by a 
 wise management; it need not be accepted as proper, unless 
 upon careful consideration it is found to have been justified. 
 
 UNSKILLED WORKMEN 
 
 It is impossible to clearly and accurately classify or desig- 
 nate the employes who together constitute the masses of 
 workmen. They are called "labor," "ordinary labor," "man- 
 ual laborers," "workmen," or other name or names that may 
 suit the speaker or writer for the occasion or moment. Strict- 
 ly speaking, many of those who work longest hours, whose 
 efforts are most arduous, and who receive largest compensa- 
 tion are workmen and entitled to be classified as such. No 
 one can certainly and definitely draw a line between a 
 skilled and unskilled workman, or establish an exclusive 
 sphere for either. 
 
For the present I refer to a group, a large majority of 
 whom perform manual labor, so-called, who for the time 
 being may not be possessed of special qualifications acquired 
 by experience and learning to fill higher positions, and usually 
 are placed on the payrolls as receiving the lowest rates of 
 compensation. 
 
 Up to the highest point of propriety and practicability 
 the employers should always provide for the workmen safe 
 and healthful working and living conditions, and wage rates 
 commensurate with the work done and the results achieved. 
 This cardinal doctrine is right and will, as a rule, be of ad- 
 vantage to employers. From the beginning the management 
 of this Corporation, in considering employment questions, 
 has been governed by these fundamental ideas. If you 
 should read or hear anything to the contrary you would 
 be justified in treating the same as unreliable and based on 
 misinformation, lack of knowledge, or as willful misrepre- 
 sentation. 
 
 In this connection it may be observed that individual 
 shareholders have occasionally questioned what was termed 
 by them undue liberality towards the workmen; but we be- 
 lieve it has been because of a lack of full information or un- 
 derstanding concerning the situation. 
 
 It is true wage rates have been advanced many times, 
 especially during the war period, and that they are large 
 compared with pre-war rates, and also that very large sums 
 have been expended for welfare purposes, as shown by the 
 annual reports and bulletins on the subject, issued from time 
 to time, and otherwise. 
 
 But when one is familiar with all the facts applicable, 
 including the pecuniary results of loyal, efficient service, 
 particularly during and since the war and also the amounts 
 saved by the prevention of accidents and ill health, one is 
 
convinced that no considerable expenditures concerning labor 
 have been thoughtlessly or unwisely made. 
 
 Adverse, even harsh, criticisms have sometimes been 
 made with reference to the treatment of employes; but in 
 this connection it is noticeable that these criticisms have 
 generally originated with, or been supported by, ill-advised 
 or vicious-minded outsiders and not by the workmen them- 
 selves. We do not ignore criticism. If it is justified, we 
 seek for and apply a proper remedy. 
 
 During the twenty years of our existence there has not 
 been material hostility shown or serious complaint made to 
 the management by our workmen themselves, either in- 
 dividually or in committees or groups formed by them (as 
 permitted by our practice), whicS has not been cheerfully 
 considered by the management and promptly disposed of 
 to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. 
 
 Obviously it is for the pecuniary interests of both employer 
 and employe to avoid controversy and to maintain peaceful 
 and satisfactory relations. No outsider could or would be as 
 solicitous for the welfare of the employe as the employer, nor 
 for' the employer as the employe. Success for both depends 
 upon friendly relations; failure for both results from hostility. 
 Both realize this and, in the present age, act accordingly, un- 
 less unduly influenced by outsiders who, from personal and un- 
 worthy motives or from a desire to attract public attention 
 or from misguided zeal or lack of experience and information, 
 are misled into a position which is harmful and unjustified. 
 
 As a result of these conditions, misrepresentationc are 
 made; some with good intentions, but more frequently from 
 improper motives. 
 
 The management of the Steel Corporation has steadfastly 
 striven to cultivate a feeling of amity with the workmen and 
 has been very successful. 
 
And we insist with emphasis that the employes of the 
 Corporation, on the average, have received as high, if not the 
 highest, compensation, and as generous, if not the most 
 generous, treatment accorded by any basic industry at any 
 period in this or any other country. 
 
 At the same time we claim that the rates which have been 
 paid have not been higher, or the treatment given any more 
 liberal, than the workmen have deserved or than was wise 
 and proper from the standpoint of the shareholders' interest. 
 
 LABOR UNIONS 
 
 Connected with the consideration of the treatment of 
 labor is the question of "Labor Unions." 
 
 As stated and repeated publicly, we do not combat, 
 though we do not contract or deal with, labor unions as such. 
 Personally, I believe they may have been justified in the 
 long past, for I think the workmen were not always treated 
 justly; that because of their lack of experience or otherwise 
 they were unable to protect themselves; and therefore needed 
 the assistance of outsiders in order to secure their rights. 
 
 But whatever may have been the conditions of employ- 
 ment in the long past, and whatever may have been the re- 
 sults of unionism, concerning which there is at least much 
 uncertainty, there is at present, in the opinion of the large 
 majority of both employers and employes, no necessity for 
 labor unions; and that no benefit or advantage through them 
 will accrue to anyone except the union labor leaders. 
 
 In discussing the question of labor unions it should be 
 always borne in mind what is commonly unknown or over- 
 looked or, at least, minimized, that — 
 
 In the United States not more than ten to fifteen percent 
 of labor is, or was at its highest point during the war, actually 
 included in the membership of the unions. Also that the 
 
 10 
 
workmen do not voluntarily join the unions, do not seek the 
 opportunity, do not search for leaders to form and maintain 
 organizations; and on the contrary, that self-appointed lead- 
 ers, who expect to receive pecuniary profit, have been and 
 are constantly and persistently soliciting the workmen to 
 become members. These leaders create and maintain the 
 organizations at the expense of those who are actually work- 
 men and join through intimidation, over-persuasion, false 
 promises, misrepresentation or because of the use of other 
 vicious or unworthy methods. 
 
 Recent published statements aver that there has been 
 established an enormous fund to carry on the work of the 
 labor union leaders, and that it is proposed to enter upon a 
 vigorous and costly campaign for enlarging labor unions. 
 What work shall be done, what amounts shall be collected 
 or. expended, what salaries shall be paid to leaders, will sup- 
 posedly be determined by the union leaders. I have never 
 heard of books being kept or accounts rendered to the rank 
 and file. It is'the common belief that the workmen, as a rule, 
 know nothing and have little to say in management of the 
 affairs of the unions. 
 
 Therefore, it is plain that the public speaker or writer 
 who assumes that the union labor leaders represent "Labor" 
 as a class is mistaken — first, because a comparatively small 
 percentage of labor is connected with the unions, and, second- 
 ly, because a relatively small number of the members of the 
 unions actually participate in any action taken. Of course, 
 under some circumstances, as the result of coercion, threats, 
 insults or wild promises, members of the unions, not previ- 
 ously consulted, may and do temporarily join a movement 
 precipitated by the leaders and thus for a time nominally 
 increase the membership. 
 
 If a workman desires to join a labor union he is, of course, 
 
 11 
 
at liberty to do so, and in that case he should not be dis- 
 criminated against by an "open shop" so long as he respects 
 the rights of his employer and his co-employes and in every 
 way conforms to the laws of the land. The "open shop," 
 as heretofore publicly defined is what we believe in and 
 stand for. 
 
 But still, our opinion is that the existence and conduct of 
 labor unions, in this country at least, are inimical to the best 
 interests of the employes, the employers and the general 
 public. It has been claimed that a large number of the 
 leaders, including the most influential, are foreign born. 
 
 Union leaders perhaps may, for it is common, dispute 
 some of the claims we make, but if so any one can, for himself 
 or herself, inquire of both employers and employes, and will 
 I believe ascertain that conditions applying to union labor 
 are even much worse than now described. 
 
 If a workman desires to engage work and remain in an 
 establishment which is operating under contracts with union 
 labor, that is through the leaders, he must first join the union 
 and pay whatever dues are demanded. Sometimes they are 
 rather high. If he should be employed without being previ- 
 ously questioned he would soon be approached by a "walking 
 delegate" and ordered to join the union or quit work. If he 
 refused and the employer declined to discharge him he would, 
 in usual cases, be assaulted publicly, or more probably under 
 cover of darkness; and perhaps the members of his family 
 would be insulted or threatened, or both. If still the employer 
 refused to interfere, he also would be subject to similar treat- 
 ment, perhaps including damage to person or property. 
 Finally, a strike would likely be called by the leaders re- 
 gardless of the demand for the products in question or the 
 necessities for wages on the part of the workmen. Should the 
 employer fill the shops with other men then, to the extent, 
 
 12 
 
the lack of police protection existed, force would be resorted 
 to by the unions. These conditions might not apply in all 
 cases, but they are at least common. 
 
 The fact is that usually union labor leaders persuade, 
 if possible, but if they fail in this they resort to force. That 
 there are exceptional men of different attitude may be ad- 
 mitted. I do not deal in personalities. It is for you and all 
 others interested to ascertain, if not already advised, what 
 is the rule, and what are the facts in individual cases. Look, 
 listen and read if you are not already informed concerning 
 these matters. 
 
 If the workman referred to accedes to the demand to join 
 the union then what happens ? He pays the dues required and 
 the assessments made from time to time by the leaders. He 
 works where and when the employer decides, provided only, 
 the union consents. He must live up to the rules, instructions 
 and conditions of the leader. The hours must not exceed 
 the number consented to by the leader and the output of the 
 workman must not exceed the limit fixed by him. In trans- 
 portation the distance traveled is also limited. However skill- 
 ful the workman may be or become he cannot be promoted to 
 a better job or position except for seniority in time of employ- 
 ment. That is the general rule. He may labor for months 
 or years in a low wage or salary position, though entitled by 
 skill to earn a much larger amount. He cannot advance on 
 merit. He is an instrument, a tool, of the union. If, for some 
 trivial cause, or even an immoral one, such as the discharge 
 of a law-breaking fellow employe, a strike is called, this par- 
 ticular workman must quit even though his family is in need 
 of the compensation he would receive if working. 
 
 The workman, if he belongs to a labor union, becomes the 
 industrial slave of the union. He has no power of initiative 
 or opportunity to apply his natural mental and physical 
 
 13 
 
capacity. If our own shops should become thoroughly union- 
 ized and all others likewise should recognize the unions, and 
 the steel industry should become entirely organized, as the 
 leaders have openly attempted, then the management would 
 be in the hands of the unions. Some of you have, no doubt, 
 personally seen or read of the results of complete organiza- 
 tion by the unions in certain lines. 
 
 The natural and certain effects of labor unionism are ex- 
 pressed by three words: Inefficiency, high costs. And be it 
 remembered that in the end the general public, which is more 
 interested in the selling prices of all products, must pay for 
 extortionate, unnecessary and unreasonable costs of pro- 
 duction. It is primarily, fundamentally and finally interested 
 in the existence and conduct of labor unions. 
 
 I am not discussing what is the fair proportion or division 
 of the proceeds of business, between capital, labor and con- 
 sumer. I am referring to the subject of waste, of unreasonable, 
 unconscionable, unjustified conditions and terms which re- 
 strict and hamper natural, orderly, legitimate and sensible 
 management and progress. 
 
 The end sought by labor union leaders that, at least 
 to which their efforts tend, means disaster and destruction. 
 
 It is noticeable that oftentimes they seek to control 
 politics, and openly, as a body, advocate the election or 
 defeat of even the President of the United States. They op- 
 pose or favor legislation of divers kinds. They would regulate 
 police departments. They would, if possible, fill all official 
 positions and control the existence, repeal or change of 
 laws. Worse than everything else, they would dominate the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, our citadel of defense 
 to person and property — to civilization itself. Many of 
 them criticize and defy the final decisions of the courts. 
 Very little has been written or spoken concerning this atti- 
 
 14 
 
tude, although it strikes at the very foundation of our great 
 Republic. 
 
 I would not intentionally do an injustice to any union 
 labor leader, nor to a labor union. But I firmly believe 
 complete unionization of the industry of this country, as 
 attempted, would be the beginning of industrial decay. 
 
 I have been informed of many facts concerning the in- 
 tentions and efforts of union labor leaders in seeking, and, in 
 some cases, securing, control of vital departments of indus- 
 try, where possession of a small unit would mean obstruc- 
 tion to many other larger ones; of various devices to prevent 
 the usual course of trade movements without apparently 
 trying to interfere with the larger and better known agencies. 
 Some of you know of these things. You have seen them even 
 in small repairs or restorations in your own business places 
 or homes. Many believe the labor union leaders, or some of 
 them, would control even the public press by unionizing the 
 typographical departments and thus bringing about censor- 
 ship of publications. Such as these would, if possible, con- 
 trol the speech of clergymen or public teachers. They would 
 undoubtedly expend money to employ individuals to obtain 
 and publish misinformation that might improperly influence 
 the public, including teachers of high standing and repute. 
 It has been alleged that just at present there is a secret, 
 persistent movement, more dangerous, possibly more effec- 
 tive, to secure control of various agencies of information 
 in the direction of extending unionism. 
 
 If any individual is without information in regard to any 
 of these matters, he or she should ascertain the facts so that 
 no mistake will be made nor injustice done. Inquire as to the 
 result of labor unions abroad. 
 
 It seems to me that the natural, if not the necessary, re- 
 sult of the contemplated progress of labor unions, if success- 
 
 15 
 
ful, would be to secure the control of shops, then of the gen- 
 eral management of business, then of capital, and finally 
 of government. 
 
 POSSIBLE SOLUTION 
 
 Possibly there is a solution of or antidote to the labor 
 union problem. 
 
 I do not believe in socialism; in Governmental manage- 
 ment or operation; but I do advocate publicity, regulation 
 and reasonable control through Government agencies. Mem- 
 bers of commissions or departments should be non-parti- 
 san, non-sectarian, based on qualification and moral char- 
 acter. Their decisions should be subject to review by the 
 highest courts. 
 
 Laws — clear, well defined, practicable and easy of com- 
 prehension — covering these matters, might be passed, and 
 if so they should apply to all economic organizations, groups 
 or bodies exceeding certain specified numbers or amounts. 
 Both organized capital and organized labor should be placed 
 under these laws. Each should be entitled to the same pro- 
 tection and be subject to the same restrictions and provi- 
 sions. Will labor unions consent to this? They have hereto- 
 fore objected. Here would be a test. Labor union leaders have 
 before now asked and received discriminatory exemptions. 
 This is wrong and it would be just as bad if the situation 
 were reversed. Employers generally desire only the same 
 treatment that is accorded to labor unions. The large ma- 
 jority of workmen also would be satisfied with this standard. 
 
 DAYS AND HOURS OF WORK 
 
 The Corporation inherited the twelve-hour day and the 
 seven-day week system for necessary continuous operations. 
 They had been and still are in vogue in many lines of indus- 
 
 16 
 
try in various countries. Perhaps they will never be entirely 
 abolished. Possibly the workmen themselves, the employers 
 or the general public will never, as a whole, consent to the 
 entire elimination of either proposition. From an economic 
 viewpoint, there is much to be said in favor of the existence 
 of both, particularly the twelve-hour day. Many depart- 
 ments of industry, from a practicable consideration, require 
 continuous operation. However, you are entitled to know 
 the attitude of the corporate managers concerning these 
 matters. 
 
 At the annual stockholders meeting of the Corporation 
 held April 17, 1911, you will remember it was voted (your 
 Chairman, holding a proxy from a large majority of the stock- 
 holders, voting in the affirmative) : 
 
 RESOLVED, That the Chairman shall forthwith ap- 
 point a Committee of not more than five persons from 
 the officers, or stockholders, of this Corporation, to inves- 
 tigate and report to the Finance Committee, as soon as 
 may be, but not later than October 1st, 191 1, as to the 
 truth of the statements contained in a certain article ap- 
 pearing in the March number of the American Magazine, 
 under the title "Old Age at Forty," and that such report, 
 together with such comment as said Finance Committee 
 may desire to add thereto, shall thereupon be printed and 
 mailed to the stockholders of this Corporation. 
 
 Pursuant to this resolution a committee was appointed 
 consisting of Stuyvesant Fish, Thomas De Witt Cuyler, Da- 
 rius Miller, Charles A. Painter and Charles L. Taylor. -After 
 diligent examination and inquiry the committee reported 
 that notwithstanding the Finance Committee had previously 
 adopted a resolution in favor of the abandonment of the 
 seven-day week and although the Chairman had subse- 
 
 17 
 
quently emphasized the necessity for its enforcement, this 
 practice was still in vogue and the committee recommended 
 that the spirit of the resolution should be strictly observed. 
 The committee suggested "that conscientious effort should be 
 made by all to reduce to a positive minimum any undue 
 length in work hours that emergencies and unforeseen con- 
 ditions may sometimes demand." The committee further re- 
 ported that they were "not unmindful of the fact that the 
 twelve-hour day has, by its general acceptance and prac- 
 tice over a considerable period of years, become firmly en- 
 trenched and that any sudden and arbitrary change would 
 involve a revolution in mill operations. Nor are we at all sure 
 that it would be possible for any one employer, or any num- 
 ber of employers, to inaugurate a shorter hour system, unless 
 a similar policy should be adopted by all employers engaged 
 in the same industry." 
 
 At the stockholders meeting of April 15th, 1912, the re- 
 port was submitted and unanimously adopted. 
 
 Following this action diligent effort was made to elimi- 
 nate the seven-day week for the employes, and at the time 
 of the precipitation of the World War our companies had 
 made successful progress, and had practically abandoned 
 the seven-day practice. When war was declared and the 
 demand for steel to supply military necessities increased, 
 representatives of the Government insisted that the mills be 
 operated to full capacity. Consequently they were pushed 
 to the utmost, night and day, seven days per week. Very 
 soon after the armistice was signed our companies again took 
 up for active consideration the matters relating to days and 
 hours of work. Since then there have been many meetings 
 of the presidents of our subsidiary companies and the offi- 
 cials of the Corporation, at which we have spent hour after 
 hour discussing the practicability of entirely eliminating the 
 
 18 
 
seven-day week and twelve-hour day for employes. Special 
 committees appointed from the presidents have compiled 
 much valuable data applicable. 
 
 As a result, the seven-day week has been discontinued 
 by each and all of the subsidiary companies, and the work- 
 men are all entitled to at least one day per week for rest. 
 Indeed, they are not permitted to work more than six days 
 per week, notwithstanding many are desirous of doing so. 
 
 Although the officials of the Steel Corporation and of the 
 subsidiary companies have devoted much time to the twelve- 
 hour-day question, we have not as yet been able to reach a 
 conclusion. Our principal difficulty arises from the fact that 
 the workmen themselves are unwilling to have the hours of 
 labor decreased for the reason that they desire the larger 
 weekly compensation resulting from the longer hours. We 
 are not ignorant of the fact that there is more or less public 
 sentiment against the twelve-hour day; and if it were prac- 
 ticable we would be glad to lessen the hours throughout our 
 entire organization. We do not, however, endorse the claim 
 sometimes made by public speakers that we should ignore 
 the wishes of our employes in this respect; nor do we feel cer- 
 tain that twelve hours per day in all cases is necessarily in- 
 jurious or objectionable. The officers of our respective sub- 
 sidiary companies who are most in favor of permitting 
 work of twelve hours per day where the work is necessarily 
 continuous are those who have heretofore personally been 
 employed twelve hours per day or more, either in the 
 shops or on the farms, and have reached their present 
 higher positions by reason of their demonstrated ability and 
 success. 
 
 The officers of the Corporation, the presidents of sub- 
 sidiary companies and a majority of others in positions of 
 responsibility are in favor of abolishing the twelve-hour day, 
 
 19 
 
and for this reason and because of the public sentiment re- 
 ferred to, it is our endeavor and expectation to decrease the 
 working hours — we hope in the comparatively near future. 
 We have been disappointed by our inability heretofore to 
 accomplish our purpose in this regard. 
 
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 
 
 You have read or heard these words. Whatever may be 
 the general conception of the term, we have given the subject, 
 as we understand it, much consideration. 
 
 So far as I am informed, our employes have not requested 
 the adoption of a plan for collective action different from the 
 practice in vogue throughout our companies. Outsiders have 
 occasionally offered suggestions. They have been made by 
 three different groups. 
 
 First, by the labor union leaders who mean by the term, 
 and openly seek to bring about, collective bargaining directly 
 through the labor unions or in such a manner as to secure 
 control of the workmen through the unions, and thus force~ 
 all the workmen into membership. This, in all their efforts, 
 is the one principal thing sought to be achieved. They oppose 
 openly every kind of collective bargaining that is contrary 
 in form or practice to this idea. 
 
 Second, persons who are really acting in the interest of 
 the labor unions, are or have been members, or at least, be- 
 lieve in them and advocate their existence. Many of them, I 
 think, are disingenuous, to say the least, and purposely con- 
 ceal their real wishes and intentions. 
 
 Third, a number of public speakers or writers who are 
 able, honest and sincere, believing that workmen, in some 
 cases at least, would be benefited by collective action con- 
 cerning terms and conditions of employment. 
 
 From our inquiry and study we do not believe any plan 
 
 20 
 
for collective bargaining has been put in practice which is 
 better than our own, or has been of real benefit to the employe 
 or employer; On the contrary, it seems to us that experi- 
 ence, up to date, shows that both have been disadvantaged; 
 that there has been less efficiency and higher cost, and that 
 therefore the great consuming public has been injured. 
 
 As a matter of fact, according to our information, all the 
 modern collective bargaining plans were adopted under con- 
 ditions or in times of emergency and on the real, if not dis- 
 closed, ground that they were "the lesser of two evils"; that 
 they would perhaps prevent the unionization of the plants in 
 question. Indeed, the labor unions themselves openly ob- 
 jected to and argued against these plans for these reasons. If, 
 or to the extent this objection has been withdrawn or 
 modified, it is obviously because it is believed by the union 
 labor leaders that the collective bargaining plans in force 
 have not been hostile to, but rather an aid to the labor 
 unions. 
 
 However, it is proper to say that if a plan, better than 
 ours, is developed and proven to be of real benefit to the 
 employes and, at, the same time reasonable, practicable and 
 fair to them, we will not be slow to adopt it. 
 
 We do not endorse experimentation, especially concerning 
 workmen, unless it seems practical and reasonable. I venture 
 the individual opinion that any plan which seeks to deprive 
 the investor of the control of his property and business is 
 inimical to the fundamental ideas of our country and to the 
 public welfare. Any step in this direction is to be deplored. 
 Any nation which adopts it will fail to maintain a leading 
 position in industrial proficiency and progress. A man, or 
 group of men, contending for a different attitude, is opposing 
 self-protection and interest. 
 
 It is a fair and wise conclusion that anyone claiming the 
 
 21 
 
right to a voice in the management of the property of a 
 corporation should do so through a stockholding interest, 
 and thus share responsibility and liability and profits with all 
 other stockholders. 
 
 Nevertheless, we believe that the employe should not only 
 be treated fairly and justly up to the full measure of prac- 
 ticability, but that he should have the chance to consult as 
 to all terms of employment, either as an individual or in 
 groups of workmen in any department. This has been and is 
 our plan and it has proved to be beneficial and satisfactory 
 to both employer and employe. 
 
 Thus our employes in groups, or as individuals, at all 
 times, have access to the office of the foreman or to any other 
 superior officer, even to the highest. 
 
 We do not look with favor upon the request for an inter- 
 view concerning our employes by a volunteer outsider, rep- 
 resenting only himself or his own selfish interests, and who is 
 known to be actually hostile to both the employer and em- 
 ploye, or to the country. 
 
 It is the unqualified, undeviating policy of our Corpora- 
 tion to be polite to everyone. Our instructions to this effect 
 to our whole organization are positive and binding. We are 
 not defiant, combative or inconsiderate. 
 
 In closing, I emphasize the fact that the presidents and 
 other officers and managers of our subsidiary companies are 
 able, conscientious, altogether worthy, and in harmony with 
 the policies I have stated. They ar£ entitled to much credit 
 for the great value of our properties and the success of our 
 enterprise. 
 
 22 
 

 DATE DUE 
 
 
 )EC i 7 '80 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DEMCO 36-297