The Ford Five Dollar Day
I.
Background:
Welfare Capitalism
The term “welfare capitalism” refers to a benevolent
employer setting up programs and organizations (e.g. sports teams, recreational
facilities, musical groups, insurance program, profit-sharing plan) for his
workers. The main reason is to try and keep them happy and loyal to the company
so that they won’t join unions. In the
wake of reform sentiment during the Progressive Era, many employers realized
that they had to make an effort to make things better for their workers, and
welfare capitalism became pretty widespread among companies in the 1910s and
1920s.
II.
Three Components of Ford’s New Program:
Ford had
tried many of the programs listed above, but many of his workers were still
dissatisfied, and Ford had to deal with costly problems of high turnover and
absenteeism. Dissatisfied workers were
less efficient, so in his quest for efficiency, Ford tried something new and,
among fellow businessmen, controversial.
A. Eight hour work day
He lowered the work day to 8 hours.
B. $5 day
he offered his workers $5 a day (which was an exorbitant
amount at the time) but they could only get the full $5 if they met certain
conditions
1. regular wage
(earned for working) - $2.34 was earned for working
2. profit sharing amount - and $2.66 more could
be earned if Ford determined that the worker was living “right.” It was a conditional gift.
C. Set up Savings
& Loans for Workers – (a S&L is basically a bank) He set
up a special Ford bank to encourage the workers to save the extra $ they’re
earning.
III.
Ford’s Assumptions
Ford assumed that a
sound home environment produced an efficient worker. If the worker were living in an “unsound”
home environment, he would bring bad habits and attitudes to work. So Ford used the extra $ as a (strong)
incentive for altering the habits and behaviors of his workers.
But there were other important reasons for paying his
workers a higher wage. It would allow
workers to also be consumers -- and if they saved their money correctly,
hopefully they could buy a Ford automobile! Moreover, it hopefully would make
workers less inclined to organize and join a union.
IV.
The “Right” Way to Live
How did Ford determine if a
worker was living right and should get the full $5? He set up the “sociological department” which
sent investigators into all of the workers’ homes to observe how they were
living and ask a lot of questions, particularly about alcohol use, marital
relations, and spending habits.
The investigators were
looking for evidence of the following: “thrift, cleanliness, sobriety, family
values, and good morals in general.” The head of the sociological department,
S.S. Marquis, said: “Nothing tends to lower a man’s efficiency more than wrong
family relations.” Henry Ford thought thrift was a very important quality
because it indicated that a person had self-control, self-respect,
responsibility, and would work steadily and diligently. Good morals and proper family relations held
a particularly middle class (or “bourgeois”) definition. This definition was often forced upon
working-class and immigrant workers.
Ford’s Five
Dollar Day program was set up in late 1914. In 1915 it cost Ford $18,000 to
operate the sociological department, and he distributed nearly $8 million in
profits to about 19,000 workers at
What if a
worker didn’t cooperate with the sociological department or didn’t meet the
standards? He would only receive the
regular wage ($2.34), and he was given six months to comply with the
department’s standards for living. If he
did not meet the standards after six months, then he was fired.
V.
Success?
The rate of turnover fell
from 370% to 16% in 1915. (It went back up to 51% by 1918.) Absenteeism decreased
dramatically too. Meanwhile,
productivity went up, as did the number of Ford workers who had insurance,
owned a home, had a savings account, and were married. Also, from what we can
measure, drinking decreased.
Sounds pretty good. Should every company adopt this approach?
VI.
Workers’ Responses
Most workers permitted the
intrusions in their lives so they could get the extra $. Some would say that they traded their pride
and privacy for money, but we must understand the economic insecurity of
working class life. One historian argues
that many workers resisted (in his words, “grumbled and griped”) - that they altered
their behavior for Ford but didn’t truly internalize the values – that they
didn’t let Ford truly capture their hearts and minds. Also, the $5 day program didn’t change the
fact that the work, well, sucked. One
worker reacted, “There is a limit to human endurance. Any man who is keyed up
to the last notch [referring to the speed up] will eventually break down, it
matters not whether they get $1 or $10 a day.”
Some
criticized Ford as being a paternalist; in other words, that Ford was not just
an employer but was also trying to be a father figure to his workers (rewarding
and punishing his children.) They
criticized him for trying to “own” his workers outside of the factory too and
found the whole program humiliating.
But Ida Tarbell, a Progressive journalist, commented: “I don’t care what
you call it – philanthropy, paternalism, autocracy – the results which are
being obtained are worth all you can set against them.”
VII.
Legacy
The $5 day ended
after just a few years because it cost Ford too much. It was an expensive program, and it became
more expensive as the Ford workforce grew.
Also, a decline in the labor supply in
He found a new way to control his labor force that was
cheaper and more sinister. He began to
rely on espionage (factory spies and informants) to report on workers who were
doing objectionable things, and Ford was especially worried about workers
trying to start a union. He hired thugs
who would enforce order and loyalty.
Question: how committed was Henry Ford to his principles
(helping his workers obtain thrift, sobriety, and so on) if he dropped the
program when it got too expensive? Did
he really care about the workers?
VIII.
Relation to Progressivism
The Five Dollar Day
captures Progressivism’s contradictory attitude toward unskilled workers (most
of them immigrants), for it attempted to elevate them to a better life, yet it
tried to manipulate or coerce them to match a preconceived ideal of that better
life. Many lives were no doubt improved,
but there wasn’t much room for diversity or acceptance of difference. Was it worth it?