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 reach, and he transforms his factory into a veritable garden; he sees her standing 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 phenomenal 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 temptation 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 whatever to do with the broad ethical movement we are considering. Its contribution 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 performing 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
