54 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



then, comes to be a bestowing by him who has upon those who have not. 



The wealthy employer is touched perhaps by the weary face of one 

 of his women workers, and he immediately opens a rest room; he sees 

 her drinking cold coffee from a can, and he makes plans for serving a 

 hot lunch ; he sees her look longingly at a few flowers beyond her Teach, 

 and he transforms his factory into a veritable garden ; he sees her stand- 

 ing at her work with weary limbs, and he straightway orders high- 

 backed stools. Any employer who allowed his heart to accompany him 

 on a trip through his factory or store would see a score of things he 

 could do for the comfort and happiness of his employees, and if he went 

 forth and did them would be himself a better citizen thereafter. But 

 what of the people whom he has helped ? What ideal has he given them ? 

 They are recipients of favors. They may have better health on account 

 of his gifts; they may even be happier. But there is something in the 

 average American working man or woman that resents even health and 

 happiness if mixed with patronage; and unless an employer has phe- 

 nomenal tact his efforts are likely to be regarded as paternalistic. 

 Working women as a rule accept favors more readily than men, with 

 the result that they are more prone to betray some of the characteristics 

 of spoiled children. On the employer's side there is always the tempta- 

 tion to turn to business profit the improved conditions his generosity has 

 made possible. His welfare work may thus become simply advertising, 

 and his employees may be exploited to their humiliation. The employer 

 undoubtedly is entitled to whatever commendation a humanitarian policy 

 may merit, but when that policy is adopted solely for the financial 

 benefits that may accrue from popular approval, it becomes questionable, 

 possibly meretricious, from the ethical standpoint, and certainly should 

 not be accorded a place in the field of ameliorative undertakings. Such 

 work belongs simply to the realm of advertising, and has nothing what- 

 ever to do with the broad ethical movement we are considering. Its con- 

 tribution to the solution of industrial difficulties is a negligible quantity. 



The employer who installs shower baths, and then with a blare of 

 trumpets — possibly accompanied by moving pictures of employees per- 

 forming their free ablutions — calls his goodness to the attention of the 

 passer-by, belongs to the same class as a circus manager who exploits 

 the tricks of his animals, not because he poses as the savior of the animal 

 creation, but because he hopes it will induce money to flow into his 

 coffers. We must, then, make a clear line of demarcation between the 

 schemes of an enterprising publicity agent and genuine purposeful 

 betterment work. The value of welfare work must ever depend on the 

 employer who undertakes it. So far as employees are concerned, they 

 are actuated by no strong purpose. They have greater comforts without 

 the spiritual stimulus of working to get them. Such undertakings do 

 not present a definite ideal to strengthen and enrich character, to 



