Paternalism, Industrial Democracy, and Unionization in the Cleveland Garment Industry: 1900–1935: The Case of the Printz-Biederman and Joseph and Feiss Companies

Two models used to avoid unionization efforts associated with the bilateral monopoly collective bargaining model in the Cleveland garment industry during the latter Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century were Frederick Taylor's "Scientific management," employed by the Joseph and Feiss Company and John Leitch's "Industrial Democracy," utilized by the Printz-Biederman Company.At the Printz-Biederman Company, a maker of upscale women's garments, Industrial Democracy provided a collaborative decision-making body for the workers and featured a Cabinet of officers of the company, a Senate of managerial level employees, and a House of Representatives elected directly by fellow workers.At the Joseph and Feiss Company, a manufacturer of men's wear, Scientific management, with its focus on time-and-motion studies and paternalism, became the model for establishment of wages, shorter work weeks, increased production, provision of health care, and the granting of equal opportunity for advancement to women.Ultimately, however, neither the Scientific management nor Industrial Democracy were sufficiently robust to resist the pressures of aggressive labor unions during the Depression of the early 1930s.